Skip to content
Quick Start for:
Chapter 10
PLANT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

This chapter reviews the plant operations and maintenance functions of Houston Community College System (HCCS) in the following sections:

A. Organization and Management
B. Facilities Condition and Planning
C. Construction Program Management
D. Custodial and Maintenance Operations
E. Energy and Conservation Management
F. Safety and Security

B. FACILITIES CONDITION AND PLANNING

Effective long- and short-range planning is essential to managing an organization's portfolio of space. Effective planning depends on the system's knowledge of the facility inventory, including area and space usage, the condition of that space, enrollment projections relative to a particular college, existing utilization rates for instructional space and the timing for additional space needs.

Facility planning is a specialty service within the architectural and engineering (A/E) industry. A number of software tools assist facilities departments with space management, including facility assessment software, enterprise-wide financial management applications, construction management scheduling and tracking, computerized maintenance management work orders and facility management programs capable of monitoring space inventory levels and other aspects of the space inventory for leased or owned facilities. With a sound data foundation, a comprehensive long-range master plan can be produced and updated annually.

With the exception of the Central College, HCCS facilities are predominately new or newly renovated. Parking appears adequate at most locations with only few reports of shortages. For the most part, facilities are well maintained and clean. Since the average age of HCCS space is less than six years old, excluding the central campus, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) provisions were met as part of the building permit process.

The system architect and other outside consultants prepared a 10-year facilities master plan in 1999 and updated it in 2001. This updated master plan addressed seven facilities issues:

  • unification of system facilities within a central identity methodology;
  • elimination of inappropriate facilities through sale or disposition;
  • placement and size of proposed facilities;
  • determination of short and long term parking requirements;
  • interior circulation;
  • coordination of mass transit; and
  • relationship of college facilities to surrounding neighborhoods.

The master plan document provides enrollment projections (Exhibit 10-3), linking to the 1999 master plan recommendations, space requirements and construction guidelines and campus-by-campus recommendations for facilities development. This master plan does not include master plan cost estimates for design and construction. On October 19, 2002, a Special Briefing on Annexation Issues was presented to the board by a team of consultants and HCCS staff. The briefing used the Master Plan 2001 Update to provide information about facilities needs and long-range planning requirements based upon several potential annexation scenarios. This plan includes a comprehensive analysis of revenues, enrollment projections, space requirements and the construction funding necessary to meet projected enrollment. As of November 2002, the board had not acted on the master plan which, according to the special briefing documentation, will require $1.125 billion in additional bond funding through the year 2015. The first major funding requirement will be for approximately $344,520,000, as a first phase general obligation bond to be issued in 2003-04 pending voter approval.

Exhibit 10-6 shows projected enrollment, square footage area and funding requirements from the Special Briefing on Annexation Issues report. These figures include the projected full-time equivalent enrollment projections through 2016, which forecast an increase of more than 263 percent from 2003-04 and 270 percent from 2002-03. The associated square footage required to house these students, based on the 2001 master plan update, is also shown with the corresponding square feet for each full-time student equivalent. The facilities funding requirement serves as a cost estimate for the volume of construction, which totals more than $1.125 billion between 2003 and 2016, necessary to house the projected full-time student equivalent enrollment.

Exhibit 10-6
HCCS Annexation Funding Requirement Projections
  2002-03 2003-04 2007-08 2011-12 2015-16
Full-time Student Equivalent 30,411 31,713 37,307 43,887 51,628
Total HCCS Square Footage* 2,532,251 3,488,478 4,103,770 4,827,586 5,679,068
Square Footage for each
Full-time Student Equivalent		 83 110 110 110 110
Facilities Funding Requirement $0 $342,792,667 $421,701,333 $361,455,086 $0
Source: HCCS, vice chancellor for Finance and Administration, Special Briefing on Annexation report, October 19, 2002; HCCS, Fifteen Year Strategic Plan Targets, Office of Institutional Research, February 10, 2003.
* Total HCCS Square Footage excludes 488,660 square feet associated with the parking garage at 3100 Main.

FINDING

HCCS uses a process and analysis model to project long-range space and funding requirements. A joint effort between the Office of Institutional Research and the Facilities Department involves consolidating enrollment projections, existing space inventory and THECB space parameters into a long-range space forecast. The process involves calculation of student capacity at each building on every campus at HCCS. The existing gross square footage (GSF) at each of these locations is divided by the student capacity to obtain the existing GSF/full time student equivalent factor.

This figure is then compared to the THECB standard for classroom utilization to identify the current space shortfall. Using the Office of Institutional Research annual enrollment projections through 2015, the model then projects total student enrollment and calculates the total instructional, administrative and common space required to accommodate the projected enrollment for each year. The model was used as supporting analysis for the special briefing presented to the board in October 2002. The facility needs model allows the system to compare facility needs, revenue sources and enrollment to provide a reasonable assumption for space needs and the associated funding requirement.

COMMENDATION

HCCS uses a process for projecting enrollment and modeling projected space requirements that is comprehensive and provides a reasonable forecast for use in long-range master planning.

FINDING

The board has not adopted a strategy to annex additional service areas or the associated master plan, limiting the system's ability to increase revenues and plan for securing additional revenue sources to fund facilities construction and expansion.

Section 255.003 of the Texas Election Code prohibits the system from using public funds for political campaigns for annexation. However, the system can provide information and materials about annexation and the educational benefits HCCS provides. Section 255.003 of the Election Code states:

An officer or employee of a political subdivision may not spend or authorize the spending of public funds for political advertising. This section does not apply to a communication that factually describes the purposes of a measure if the communication does not advocate passage or defeat of the measure.

Annexation is a process, defined in the Texas Education Code (TEC) Section 130 whereby communities within HCCS's service area may become a part of its taxing jurisdiction. An important distinction must be made between a community college's service area and its taxing district. The Legislature has assigned each community college within the state a defined service area. The service areas are composed of and defined by the geographical boundaries of specific school districts within the service area. These school districts are either in-district or out-of-district. They are considered in-district if they have been annexed and the college taxes residents within the school district. If the college does not assess taxes, the school district is considered out-of-district even though it is still in the service area.

Another important point is that school districts cannot be forced to annex. Yet, the challenges of helping communities understand the value of a community college in terms of access to higher education, highly skilled workforce and sustained economic development is immense. The process, which is by nature complicated and politically sensitive, involves building relationships over long periods of time with community residents and civic and business leaders. These stakeholders must be convinced that the college's value to the community outweighs the burden of taxation.

In 1995, the Texas Education Code §130.182 established HCCS' service area as including the Katy, Spring Branch, North Forest and Alief ISDs and the Stafford Municipal School District, even though these districts do not pay taxes to HCCS. State law governing the annexation of a service area varies depending upon the type of territory. The procedure generally includes either a board action item by the school district calling for election or a petition by the territory, followed by a vote of the taxpayers within the territory.

The board is considering whether facility development should be "need-based," placing instructional services where there is the greatest need in the community, or "demand-based," placing the instructional offering where there is the greatest demand in the community. This issue is relevant since a community may need increased access to higher education instruction. However, those communities may not necessarily take advantage of course offerings. Placing facilities in higher demand areas may achieve increased system revenue from annexation of high tax base properties, but may not satisfy areas where the need for higher education access is greatest.

The master plan cannot be finalized without direction from the board regarding future annexation areas. Annexation areas will impact course offerings and will dictate the type and amount of additional square footage required to accommodate projected enrollments. Annexation strategy will also impact when new facilities must be available.

Some community colleges have benefited from the formation of citizens groups comprised of civic and business leaders who spearhead efforts to educate the public about various issues. Private interests often form political action committees to support a particular candidate or issue. Although HCCS is prohibited from using public funds for this purpose, private citizens are not. Such groups commonly form to promote school district bond elections. The success of Austin Independent School District's 1996 $369 million bond election was due, at least in part, to the efforts of such a group. Most community colleges in Ohio must have their taxing authority approved by voters every five years. These colleges must raise private money for advertisements, handouts, mailings and other promotional material. Private groups in Cleveland Ohio have been successful in raising money to get out the vote on reauthorized taxing authority for Cuyahoga County Community College.

Recommendation 95:

Encourage out-of-district business and community leaders to educate their communities about the benefits of joining HCCS.

External political action committees, composed of representatives from the communities targeted for annexation, would raise money to encourage and fund local elections, enhance awareness of HCCS in the community and assist in developing community-based strategies to promote annexation. Although HCCS has developed a number of strategies to encourage communities to annex, both funding and state law limits what the college can do. Suggesting that business, student and community leaders spearhead independent efforts through political action committees or similar privately funded citizens groups would not only provide additional support for annexation efforts but would also allow for a broader grassroots campaign. A political action committee would allow HCCS's administration to remain in the background while the community-based group promotes the college's benefits to communities the college hopes to annex.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The Board of Trustees, president and key administration employees identify business and community leaders who might be interested in forming a political action committee to spearhead annexation education efforts. July 2003
2. The Board of Trustees, president and key administration employees provide information to out-of-district community leaders about the benefits of political action committees and how they can be formed and operated. July 2003 through September 2003
3. Private citizens in out-of-district communities form political action committees and begin activities that promote annexation. October 2003

FISCAL IMPACT

This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.

FINDING

The Master Plan 2001 Update addressed the need for renovation and modernization at the Central College campus with recommendations for additional land acquisition and limited property disposition. However, implementation is on hold pending a study to determine its historical significance and first phase renovation activities. As of January 2003, HCCS had not acted on the recommendations for building and land parcel disposition.

The 2001 student revenue bond included $30 million in funding for this project. However, in 2001, the Assessment Report identified $49,273,910 for required repair costs and an additional $5.5 million for life cycle costs which equals $55 million.

The Central College campus renovation project has been approved since the student revenue bonds were issued in 2001. Since then, the projects have not been implemented and additional studies are underway to continue to define the renovation program, address potential historic building considerations and reassess the master plan alternatives.

Based on interviews with the Central campus COO, the director of Construction Projects Management, and onsite visual assessment by the TSPR review team, major renovations are necessary for the buildings and the supporting infrastructure, which includes heating and air conditioning systems, electrical power supply, and plumbing. The Central campus classroom and administrative buildings were originally built in the early 1900s, the theatres in the 1920s, other additions in the 1970s and a fine arts building in the 1980s. The rest of the HCCS campuses have been newly constructed or renovated before occupancy by HCCS personnel. However, HCCS acquired the Central campus from HISD to serve as its first campus and it has not undergone necessary renovations. Four of the Central campus buildings, which were built prior to 1925, are historic buildings that could be candidates for the National Register of Historic Places.

Exhibit 10-7 shows the average age of building square footage for each of the five colleges. The average age accounts for building space built at different times and provides an indicator of overall condition of facilities at the campus location. Since the typical life cycle for educational buildings is 30 to 40 years, weighted average ages over 35 years that have not undergone significant modernization indicate a severe need for renovation. Adjustments have been made for renovations and recent occupancy by HCCS in more recently constructed facilities. The figures do not include leased facilities.

Exhibit 10-7
Average Age of HCCS Facilities
Central Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest
1959 1994 2000 1997 1998
44 Years Old 9 Years Old 3 Years Old 6 Years Old 5 Years Old
Source: HCCS acting executive director of Facilities, Analysis Matrix, Building List, November 2002; Houston Community College Assessment Report, August 16, 2001.

The Central College facilities, particularly the San Jacinto Memorial building at 1300 Holman, need immediate repair. The campus infrastructure has exceeded its useful life and has required the use of temporary backup utilities and air conditioning chillers. A consultant has been retained to study renovations at the San Jacinto Memorial building, but recommendations have not yet been released.

The physical fitness gym at the rear of the San Jacinto Memorial building requires renovation and possibly complete replacement. With the exception of the roof structure, the building dates to the early 1900s. The roof structure for the gymnasium was replaced in the mid 1980s and, while a roof assessment has not been made, stains at the ceiling indicate a leak. The wood floor is worn and the outside corners are severely damaged from floods and termites. Safety concerns include the concrete seating structure and exterior walls, which are only a few feet from the edge of the court. One corner of the building structure is settling and the wall is beginning to show horizontal cracks. The review team also observed that air diffusers, devices made of slats at different angles used for deflecting air from an outlet in various directions, have been retrofitted with chains that are potentially unsafe. One of the air diffusers fell from the ceiling in the gymnasium several years ago.

The Council for Educational Facility Planners International (CEFPI) uses a Facility Condition Index (FCI) to indicate a building's condition. The FCI is calculated by dividing a building's total repair costs by the total cost to replace the building. The THECB standard for FCI is 5 percent or less. The total repair cost should include the identified deficiencies and the life-cycle capital renewal costs for systems that are projected to reach the end of their useful life in the next three years. The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers (APPA) suggests that an FCI of less than 6 percent indicates good condition, an FCI between 5 and 11 percent indicates fair condition and an FCI above 10 percent indicates a building in poor condition. The overall FCI for the Central campus is 45.3 percent, indicating a very poor building condition. Exhibit 10-8 shows the FCI for all Central College buildings.

Exhibit 10-8
Average Facility Condition Index for Central College Buildings
Building Replacement
Value		 Facility
Cost
Summary		 Life Cycle
Cost
2002-2004		 Total
Repair
Cost		 GSF
Facility
Cost		 FCI
Business Careers Center II $5,569,124 $301,500 $174,333 $475,833 $8.22 8.5%
Child Development Center $490,592 $246,510 $0 $246,510 $82.17 50.2%
East Wing $9,715,090 $3,951,520 $122,694 $4,074,214 $65.31 41.9%
Fine Arts Center $13,691,132 $377,700 $2,739,810 $3,117,510 $5.01 22.8%
Heinen Theatre $4,522,174 $260,000 $739,036 $999,036 $14.44 22.1%
J.B. Whiteley $19,709,460 $4,926,708 $0 $4,926,708 $48.30 25.0%
J.D. Boney Building $5,314,050 $301,500 $179,922 $481,422 $8.61 9.1%
Refugee Program $496,363 $208,646 $27,648 $236,294 $68.59 47.6%
San Jacinto Memorial $41,792,560 $31,756,680 $0 $31,756,680 $184.63 76.0%
Staff Instructional Services $3,521,504 $1,132,907 $431,595 $1,564,502 $51.97 44.4%
Theatre One $6,154,338 $1,197,526 $899,160 $2,096,686 $54.68 34.1%
Upward Bound $262,573 $161,193 $90,262 $251,455 $89.55 95.8%
West Wing $9,715,090 $4,451,520 $122,694 $4,574,214 $73.58 47.1%
Subtotal $120,954,050 $49,273,910 $5,527,154 $54,801,064 $80.56 45.3%
Source: Houston Community College Assessment Report, August 16, 2001.

Colleges and universities follow a program and design process for major construction projects that includes definition of requirements to identify all of the space needs and an outline specification of building requirements. Based upon the program of requirements, colleges establish a construction budget to include all associated design, engineering, testing and project contingencies, which are called "soft costs." The college board approves the budget and hires an architectural firm to develop a design. For projects where the design involves renovation and structures with historical significance, the firm that is retained typically either has or subcontracts with a design firm with historical structures expertise. An assessment of historical features is created as part of the design scope of work.

Once a design is complete, the college issues the project, awarding a construction contract to the most qualified firm. Either a construction manager or the architectural design firm monitors construction for progress and quality review until the construction is complete and the project is handed over to the owner following final inspection. The process typically takes approximately nine months for design and between 12 and 14 months for construction, depending upon the size of the project. Development of the architectural program of requirements, which typically costs 15 cents for each square feet of space to be constructed, is called out as an additional service in the American Institute of Architects (AIA) standard contract for architectural design services. The architectural and engineering fee guidelines established by the AIA for design and construction administration services range between six and eight percent of total construction costs, depending upon the complexity of the renovation project.

Recommendation 96:

Move forward with authorized and voter-approved renovation projects.

The board and administration must immediately move forward to approve the master plan, annual enrollment projections, student capacities and the courses to be taught. Once the project is defined in a written and concise architectural program that includes a balanced budget, the architect can be qualified, a design fee can be negotiated and the selected architect can be retained so that design and construction can begin. This process will reduce the time to construction and reduce the cost associated with developing the scope of work to be completed for new construction and renovation projects. The first project to benefit from this process should be the San Jacinto Building at Central College.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The executive director of Facilities, with the assistance of the director of Construction Projects Management, develops a priority listing of projects with estimated costs and time schedules for each recommended project. July 2003
2. The executive director of Facilities submits the priority listing of projects to the chancellor and then to the board for approval. August 2003
3. The executive director of Facilities provides the director of Purchasing with specifications for requests for proposals for design professional services. September 2003
4. The director of Purchasing advertises the request for proposals and assists in the evaluations of proposals received. October 2003
5. The executive director of Facilities recommends design professional firms that receive the highest scores to the chancellor and board for approval. December 2003
6. The director of Construction Projects Management works with selected design professional in the preparation of construction specifications and oversees the award of construction contracts. January 2004
7. The executive director of Facilities presents monthly construction projects status reports to the chancellor and board. January 2004 and Ongoing

FISCAL IMPACT

This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.