PLANT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
This chapter examines Austin Community College's (ACC's) plant operation and maintenance functions in the following sections:
- A. Facilities Planning, Condition and Utilization
- B. Facilities Organization and Management
- C. Custodial Management
- D. Construction Program Management
- E. Energy Conservation and Management
- F. Safety and Security
- G. Transportation Services
A. FACILITIES PLANNING, CONDITION AND UTILIZATION
Facility planning is a decision-making process that provides an orderly way to improve facilities and satisfy requirements for additional space. Effective facility planning, coupled with space management, is essential if available resources are to be maximized.
ACC facility planning is mandated by several board policies. Board Policy A-1, Mission of the College, states "the College shall create a good place to work, to learn...," while Board Policy E-1, Master Planning, further states that the "College Master Plan of a multi-range nature (long, medium, short) encompasses the needs of the entire institution with specific attention given to educational, financial and physical development planning." Board Policy E-2, Provision of College Facilities, requires a multi-year facilities plan to be updated and submitted for board approval biennially as part of the integrated college master plan. The funding source for facilities maintenance and improvements is established by Board Policy G-4, Facilities Improvement and Maintenance, and authorizes a building fee charged per credit hour. For 2001-02, this fee was $12 per credit hour.
The facilities task force, appointed by the executive vice president of Academic, Student and Campus Affairs, is responsible for developing, updating and monitoring the facilities master plan. In accordance with Board Policy E-2, the ACC facilities master plan is prepared for a period of three years. The associate vice president of Facilities and Operations chairs the task force and has the final responsibility for the plan. The facilities task force is the college's representative body that helps Facilities and Operations provide effective and efficient service. The task force members include the provost and executive deans, campus managers, buildings and grounds manager, facilities project managers and coordinators, the associate vice president of Academic Programs, the associate vice president of Workforce Programs, the director of Business Operations and one representative each from the Faculty Senate, Classified Employees and Professional and Technical Employee groups.
With the exception of major new construction projects, the facility planning process at ACC is integrated with the college's annual budget process as documented in the annual operating budget manual. The budget process links the comprehensive master plan and annual board directives to the college's operational units. The process includes short and long-range facility needs.
Between 1998 and 2002, ACC's primary building space increased by 16.4 percent from 815,012 GSF to 948,623 GSF. The increase was due largely to the construction of the Eastview campus and the Service Center. Facilities space will grow to 1,037,623 GSF in the fall 2003 with the completion of phase one of the new Health Services building at Eastview. Another 60,971 GSF will be added when the Albertson's building is renovated in 2004-05. Exhibit 10-1 shows the growth of ACC facilities since 1998.
Exhibit 10-1 Source: ACC Building Inventory, August 20, 2002.
Growth of Primary Building Space in Gross Square Feet
1998-2002
Campus Ownership 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Highland Business Center ACC 113,424 113,424 113,424 113,424 113,424 Cypress Creek ACC 41,964 41,964 41,964 41,964 41,964 Pinnacle ACC 108,150 108,150 108,150 108,150 108,150 Riverside ACC 213,526 213,526 213,526 213,526 213,526 Service Center ACC 0 0 0 55,007 55,007 Eastview ACC 0 78,604 78,604 78,604 78,604 Northridge ACC 154,817 154,817 154,817 154,817 154,817 Rio Grande AISD 183,131 183,131 183,131 183,131 183,131 Total 815,012 893,616 893,616 948,623 948,623 The leased space at the Rio Grande campus includes the Main building, Annex building, Attache building and the Peach Street building. AISD occupies approximately 17 percent of the Annex building. ACC has long-term leases with AISD for the Main and Annex buildings at nominal costs and leases the Attache and Peach Street buildings from property owners at market rates.
Other facilities in Austin and Taylor are leased at market rates. In 1990, ACC paid $5 million for the 1990-2020 lease period on the Main Building; therefore, there are no annual lease payments on this building. ACC has paid AISD more than $6.6 million in long-term leases and will continue with an annual lease payment of $25,514 until 2020 for the Annex building. In addition, ACC has made more than $7.2 million in major repairs, renovations and improvements to the facilities. The Attache and Peach Street buildings essentially are used for faculty offices, conference and work space. ACC leased these two buildings to provide office space so it could free up more revenue-generating classroom space in the Main building and group faculty office space by common disciplines. The Rio Grande campus is located in an area of Austin that provides no space for new construction; therefore, any expansions have relied on leasing space.
Exhibit 10-2 shows examples of leased space, lease terms and costs. ACC generates $90,444 annually by leasing space in the Highland Business Center and at the Eastview campus to WorkSource (previously the Capital Area Workforce Development Board), Capital Area Training Foundation and the Capital Area Tech-Prep Consortium.
Exhibit 10-2 Source: ACC Facilities & Operations Staff, July 2000; Tenant Leases, August 20, 2002 and ACC Building Inventory, August 20, 2002.
Examples of ACC Leased Building Space
2001-02
Building/
LandlordPurpose Lease
TermSpace
(GSF)Annual
CostCost/
GSFRio Grande Annex/AISD College August 31, 2020 23,416 $25,514 $1.09 Rio Grande Main/AISD College August 31, 2020 135,484 *$0 N/A Peach Street/ Littlefield Rio Grande College August 31, 2001 3,300 $70,560 $21.38 Attache/ Waterloo Rio Grande College August 31, 2002 6,276 $123,780 $19.72 Erwin Teggerman ACC Fire Academy (Taylor) August 31, 2003 None (Vacant Lots) $9,000 N/A Theodore Timmerman ACC Fire Academy (Taylor) August 31, 2003 8,639 $29,520 $3.42 Highland Resources Downtown Education Center March 31, 2003 9,046 $150,000 $16.58 Metric Place/ Metric Inc. Northridge Photography Lab August 31, 2004 2,000 $42,000 $21.00 Eastview College/ACC WorkSource August 31, 2009 2,774 $33,288 (Income) ($12.00) Highland Business Center/ACC Capital Area Training Foundation August 31, 2002 2,039 $24,468 (Income) ($12.00) Highland Business Center/ACC Small Business Development Center August 31, 2002 1,369 $16,428 (Income) ($12.00) Highland Business Center/ACC ACT Center August 31, 2002 610 $7,320 (Income) ($12.00) Highland Business Center/ACC Capital Area Tech/Prep Consortium August 31, 2002 474 $5,688 (Income) ($12.00) Highland Business Center/ACC Hospitality Council August 31, 2002 271 $3,252 (Income) ($12.00)
*Five million dollars were paid to AISD for the 1990 - 2020 lease term; therefore, no annual payments are made.FINDING
ACC does not have officially adopted and approved space planning standards and procedures. This means that the associate vice president of Facilities and Operations and the facilities task force do not have the essential data they need to determine the type and amount of space required to examine, evaluate and analyze the needs of a department or a unit requesting additional space. ACC has completed a collegewide space inventory that has been distributed to campus and academic administrators, but it has no formal process for space allocation, nor does it have established space standards or practices to guide the task force in making planning decisions. ACC's facility planning process is primarily a matter of finding lower priority space and making it available to satisfy the space requirements of new or upgraded programs as the need arises.
In 1999, ACC hired an outside consultant to develop benchmarks for key indicators of college effectiveness. The study showed that ACC provides 11 assignable square feet (ASF) of classroom space per full-time student equivalent (FTSE), less than the 14-22 square feet that the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers recommends.
Other space utilization benchmarks are expressed in percentage of available class hours. For example, the Council of Educational Facilities Planners, International suggests a utilization rate of 60 percent of available class hours. ACC's utilization rates at all six campuses are higher than this standard. The ACC fall 2001 classroom utilization rates for Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. are shown in Exhibit 10-3.
Exhibit 10-3 Source: ACC Comprehensive Master Plan Draft, March 2002.
ACC's Classroom Utilization Rates
2001-02
Campus Utilization
Rate
PercentageCypress 84% Eastview 69% Pinnacle 85% Rio Grande 77% Riverside 74% Northridge 92% In fall 2001, ACC's Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE) performed a space utilization study at all six campuses to identify the maximum number of students in a given classroom by hour. OIE developed three comparative data indices: average enrollment by time block, percentage of room utilization and the capacity used during the time block. Data are reported for each campus building with a grand total for the entire campus. Utilization and capacity rates were not calculated for each building and campus, as study parameters were different for individual room types, meaning that room utilization data are not comparable to THECB standards. The OIE report is a beneficial document for assigning and controlling class space, but has limited use for short- and long-range facility planning.
Without the development and implementation of space standards for facility planning, it is difficult to meet all the standards recommended by the THECB. It is important to note that THECB standards were developed for universities, however, and community colleges generally have smaller classrooms. Comparing ACC to THECB standards for lower division academic facilities and vocational institutes reveals:
- ACC's facilities utilization practices are similar to "adapted THECB standards" for both laboratory and lecture space, with ACC providing about one-tenth less lecture space than suggested but nearly identical lab space;
- ACC's assignment of approximately 72 square feet per full-time equivalent (FTE) faculty would be in the range of the THECB standard, if the standard did not include office space for adjunct faculty; and
- ACC's learning resource space is substantially less than what the THECB recommends for libraries that exclude the media, audio/visual, television and distance-learning infrastructure.
Without space planning standards, it is nearly impossible for institutions to establish and adhere to benchmarks when they purchase, lease, build and/or renovate facilities to accommodate program, student, staff and operational needs.
In June 2002, a community college consultant submitted the results of a space utilization study to ACC. The report proposes an up-to-date set of facility planning standards that address the college's specific needs. To date, however, the college has not adopted these standards.
Recommendation 91:
Develop and implement space standards and a space planning process, including written policies and procedures.
ACC can use the standards proposed in its 2002 space utilization study as the basis for developing official ACC space standards that can be incorporated into the space planning process. Additionally, ACC should adhere to the best practice established by the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers for institutional space planning. Developed and refined over several years, the Association's space-planning program requires that these practices be part of a continuous process, not an annual exercise.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The associate vice president of Facilities and Operations and the facilities task force develop a draft of space standards and a space planning process, which includes policies and procedures. January 2003 - March 2003 2. The associate vice president of Facilities and Operations prepares a final draft of the space standards and planning process, and presents it to the task force for review and approval. April 2003 3. The associate vice president of Facilities and Operations forwards the space standards and planning process to the president and board for approval. May 2003 4. The associate vice president of Facilities and Operations implements the space standards and process and monitors them on a continuous basis. June 2003 and Ongoing FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.
FINDING
ACC does not have a facilities condition survey of all facilities. The condition codes shown in Exhibit 10-4 for each primary building provide only the general condition of the entire facility. The codes do not reflect the condition of specific building systems, including structural, roofing, flooring, mechanical, HVAC and electrical, which is essential for establishing a deferred maintenance plan and a preventive maintenance program.
Although historical records of renovations and repairs are limited, the associate vice president of Facilities and Operations estimates that 40 percent of ACC's facilities are in satisfactory condition. To upgrade the remaining 60 percent of unsatisfactory facilities would require both minor and major renovations and the upgrading of sub-standard electrical, mechanical, HVAC, communications and life support systems. Most work would be "minor," costing less than 25 percent of a building's estimated replacement value. Approximately 17 percent is considered to be in the "moderate-major" range of 20-50 percent of estimated replacement value.
The current condition of ACC facilities is due to several factors, including design, construction, age, normal wear and tear and the lack of effective maintenance. The condition of each ACC primary building is shown in Exhibit 10-4. The condition codes are:
- 1=Satisfactory;
- 2=Remodeling A (less than 25 percent replacement cost);
- 3=Remodeling B (25-50 percent replacement cost);
- 4=Remodeling C (greater than 50 percent replacement cost);
- 5=Demolition (for safety reasons); and
- 6=Termination (for other than safety reasons).
Exhibit 10-4 Source: ACC Building Inventory, August 20, 2002.
General Condition of ACC Primary Facilities
Campus Building Year
BuiltLast
RemodelCondition
CodeReplacement
ValueCypress Main 1991 2000 1 $9,288,000 Portable 1 1998 1 $230,850 Portable 2 1998 1 $145,350 Portable 3 2001 1 $345,600 Subtotal $10,009,800 Eastview 1000 1999 2001 1 $3,653,500 2000 1999 1 $8,684,500 3000 1999 1 $4,634,000 5000 1999 1 $1,530,000 7000 1999 1 $477,000 Portable 1 2002 1 $403,200 Subtotal $19,382,200 Highland Business Center Main 1979 2001 2 $28,229,500 Maintenance 2000 1 $75,900 Subtotal $28,305,400 Northridge 1000 1988 2 $7,350,500 2000 1988 2 $8,161,500 3000 1991 2 $7,802,500 4000 1998 2 $14,759,500 Portable 1 1999 1 $233,250 Portable 2 1999 1 $144,900 Subtotal $38,452,150 Pinnacle Main 1984 2001 2 26,546,250 Portable 1 1999 2001 1 $144,000 Pump House 1984 2001 2 $251,250 Subtotal $26,941,500 Rio Grande Main 1915 2000 3 $33,871,000 Annex 1930 2000 3 $5,854,000 Portable 1 2000 1 $145,350 Skills Center 1940 2001 5 $3,489,300 Subtotal $43,359,650 Riverside A 1990 1 $14,304,500 B 1990 1 $4,045,500 C 1990 1 $6,896,500 D 1950 4 $7,686,250 E 1996 2000 2 $1,643,250 F 1950 4 $509,700 G 1994 1 $12,057,250 H - 2 341,250 S 1997 2001 1 3,911,250 Riverside (cont.) Grounds 1950 2001 3 $377,250 A200/300 - 1 $465,300 A400 - 1 $145,200 Subtotal 52,383,200 Service Center 2001 1 $8,251,050 Total $227,084,950 Best practices for space planning and condition assessment throughout higher education indicate that current building condition surveys, space utilization inventories, space standards and formal procedures are essential elements of an efficient and effective facility planning and maintenance management program. Inadequate information can create inefficiencies in building use as well as in costly building maintenance in the future.
Recommendation 92:
Develop a facilities condition survey.
ACC staff can develop the survey, but it will require a team effort of the Facilities and Operations Department and the facilities task force.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The associate vice president of Facilities and Operations prepares a project plan and timeline for developing a building condition survey. March 2003 2. The associate vice president of Facilities and Operations and the facilities task force establish a project team and make assignments required to develop the survey. The maintenance supervisors and building technicians will be the key personnel on the survey team. April 2003 3. The project team performs field inventories of all major building systems and equipment, makes visual and operational checks to determine deficiencies and records results. May 2003 - December 2003 4. The associate vice president of Facilities and Operations and the facilities task force compiles the survey data in a final report by campus, building, building system and equipment item. January 2004 - March 2004 FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.