Goal 7 Committee Report

Committee Members:
Chair: William Blumhardt - Director: Facilities Management
Co-Chair: David Talford - Research Engineer/Scientist II and Academic Adviser: Metallurgical and Materials Engineering
Mary Anne Beckwith - Assistant Professor: Fine Arts
Theodore Bornhorst - Professor: Geological Engineering and Sciences
Lisa Dietlin - Senior Advancement Director: Sciences and Arts
David Leddy - Associate Professor: Chemistry
John Rovano - Director of Residential Services: Residential Services
Stacy Scheunke - Student Representative

This committee was charged to evaluate the University’s performance relative to the five North Central Association (NCA) criteria and Goal 7 of the University’s strategic plan: Develop the campus and continuously maintain the Physical Plant. MTU Facilities’ challenge is to provide the organization, personnel, and financial resources to continuously

• maintain stewardship and accountability for the facilities provided by the State, students, and University benefactors;
• provide a safer, more secure and at the same time more accessible campus;
• minimize or eliminate wherever possible occupational and environmental hazards;
• respond to and maintain adherence to new laws, regulations, and codes;
• upgrade existing campus facilities, classrooms, laboratories and offices;
• maintain all existing facilities;
• facilitate increased utilization of existing spaces, (nights and weekends); and
• add highly specialized space.

The committee will evaluate how well the University is meeting the projected targets outlined in the University’s Strategic Plan. It will also specifically address the five NCA criteria. See Attachment 1 for a more detailed explanation of this committee’s charge and responsibilities.

The University mission and vision statement clearly state MTU’s technological focus in engineering and science while also emphasizing leadership, communication, social, economic, and cultural value development of our students. These fundamental purposes have been consistent throughout the University’s existence and were re-affirmed in the State of Michigan’s Constitution in 1964. The campus physical development has always been designed in support of a technological institution.

While Physical Plant purposes and goals are not stated in the University mission and vision, they are implied by the definition of facility. Webster’s definition is:

Something that promotes the ease of action, operation, or course of conduct; something that is built, installed, or established to serve a particular purpose.

Webster’s definition is in agreement with Goal 7 of the University’s strategic plan: To develop and maintain the physical plant.

The 1988 NCA Team stated in their summary report that Michigan Tech has "an excellent physical plant that is very well maintained and well suited to the nature of the institution, particularly in view of its focused technological mission." In addition to this, MTU has also become very efficient in its operations. In the years leading up to 1988, the University put in place what was necessary to support efficient operations. This began with a well conceived campus plan, developed with particular emphasis on future maintenance and operating cost. The campus is compact with well built major structures all in accordance with the plan. In 1988 the University had just completed a resource re-alignment process which included downsizing operating units, much as corporate America had done. MTU is now recognized around the State as having the most efficient plant operation with the lowest or near lowest cost in all categories. State and national comparisons verify these low costs [4.6A]. This self-study starts from the last accreditation team’s summary statement and addresses what we have done to ease the action and course of conduct of University activity.

Promoting the ease of action, course of conduct of a University can be separated into two principle elements, capital improvements and operations.

Capital

The Campus Master Plan [2.2A] guides capital improvements, that are built to serve the particular purpose of the University. The Strategic Plan [2.1D2], Capital Planning Committee, University Officers, Board of Control, State of Michigan Department of Management and Budget, and the Legislature’s Joint Capital Outlay Subcommittee are all involved in prioritization and funding of facilities.

What is "built" on campus is directed specifically for MTU by the Campus Master Plan’s guiding principles:

1. Combine both research and instructional facilities within the academic core and within a 10-minute walk.
2. Link functionally related buildings with enclosed connections to provide protection from the severe winter climate.
3. Enhance the University’s relationship with the community, relocating non-academic functions off campus and in the downtown area.
4. Upgrade the open space character, landscape quality and spatial definition of the pedestrian core between building groupings.
5. Maintain a strong sense of orientation to the Portage Lake Valley by protecting valley views from key viewing areas.
6. Maintain a strong sense of architectural continuity while minimizing long term maintenance costs.
7. Utilize topography to accommodate large buildings.
8. Establish a clear entry image and sense of arrival at the western and eastern extremities of the campus.

Michigan Tech assures that the facilities built will serve the University’s particular purposes by following the plans guiding principles and through the input of facility programming committees and building occupants. The eventual occupants are on the committee and are involved in a project from concept to move in.

Operations

University facility operations is the second element that serves to ease the action of University activity. The operations are separated into responsibility centers designed to help the institution accomplish its objectives more effectively. The centers couple program responsibility with meaningful authority over resources. This has been a model followed by the business community and here at MTU for a number of years.

Ron Strauss from the University of Southern California developed a concept in the early 1980s specifically for higher education in his work on Responsibility Center Budgeting. His efforts applied this principle throughout all University activities as described in Edward L Whalen’s book, "Responsibility Center Budgeting."

The result of coupling program responsibility with resources was recognized by the 1988 NCA Review Team. They observed "on-campus housing as being comfortable and well maintained, a condition which is due in part to the fact that housing maintains its own facilities."

These responsibility centers or units are fully empowered to accomplish their programmatic and operational missions with central support for Instructional Resources, Telecommunications, Public Safety, Occupational Safety and Health, Energy Management, Facility Planning, Engineering, Construction and specialized trade assistance [2.6H7, 2.6H10, 2.6H5, 4.6A].

Easing the activities and course of conduct of academic areas has been accomplished with capital and operational improvements.

Academic Facilities Operations

Learning centers, student advising space, small group meetings, conference rooms, laboratories and associated support facilities are the responsibility of academic departments. In contrast, lecture halls and general classrooms are University-wide resources.

A new administrative policy on student laboratory fees greatly improved management of financial resources for teaching laboratories. Laboratory fees paid by students are now credited to departments teaching the laboratory courses rather than going to a central fund. Departments are allowed to adjust fees subject to administrative approval. This approach allows academic departments to make multi-year plans for replacement or upgrading of teaching equipment.

Basic technology in support of classroom instruction is provided centrally by the Instructional Resources Services office, a component of the Information Technology division. Overhead, slide, video tape, and opaque projectors are available on request for every classroom. Because software and hardware requirements differ considerably from one discipline to another, computer projection equipment has been made the responsibility of the departments. Nearly all classrooms have network connections. A few lecture halls on campus have been equipped with multimedia capabilities funded jointly by departments and other offices on campus. The University departmental assessments indicated a need for multi-media classroom facilities. Instructional Resources has recently taken on the leadership role for these classroom technology improvements.

The department assessments also indicated a need for more classroom space, however, this is not substantiated by classroom utilization figures. Classroom utilization is only 47% of capacity with laboratories operating at 65%. We believe the desire for additional classrooms is based primarily on location and prime time requests.

TABLE 1. Space-Related Comments in 1997 Academic Departmental Self-Studies

Unit	Comment
College of Engineering
Chemical Engineering	Excellent computing facilities. Lack of sufficient research space, however, the Dow Building completion will provide space.
Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering	Adequate facilities will be improved when the Dow Building is completed.
Electrical Engineering	Graduate students office space needs. High-tech classrooms with multi-media capability needed.
Geological Engineering and Sciences	Facilities are OK and Dow completion will improve space.
Mechanical Engineering/Engineering Mechanics	Excellent class/lab and computing space
Metallurgical and Materials Engineering	Excellent facilities
Mining Engineering	Excellent facilities
College of Sciences and Arts
Biological Sciences	Need to renovate undergraduate teaching labs. Dow Building will alleviate space problems.
Chemistry	Space requested for small classes.
Computer Science	No problems noted.
Humanities	Excellent computer-aided learning centers.
Mathematical Sciences	Graduate-student office space needed.
Physical Education	No problems.
Social Sciences	One goal is to increase the use of classroom technologies and multimedia in teaching.
School of Business and Economics	Space needed for classes, research, offices.
School of Forestry and WoodProducts	Classroom space is a critical concern. Lack of modern equipment for undergraduate laboratories.
School of Technology	Good computing facilities Needs classrooms with a high degree of technological capacity. Needs networking in most classrooms.

Academic Facility Capital Improvements

The most recent comprehensive space needs assessment was conducted in 1990 by Paulien and Associates of Denver, Colorado [2.2D1]. Using guidelines set by the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education (WICHE), the analysis indicated that space for all colleges and schools at MTU was below the guideline values.

TABLE 2. Recommendations Drawn from the Space Needs Assessment Report (Paulien and Associates-1990).

Unit	Recommendations
College of Engineering	127,500 ASF additional space needed (61%) 12,925 ASF of additional class laboratory space needed.
College of Sciences and Arts	46,650 ASF additional space needed (16% increase). 3,200 ASF of class laboratory space needed. 16,800 ASF of research space needed (146% increase).
School of Business and Economics*	Total ASF needed was 10,177 (45% increase). 2,950 ASF of research space (currently 0) needed. 6,400 ASF of classroom space (currently 0) needed.
School of Forestry and Wood Products	11,700 ASF of additional research space needed (56% increase). Classroom and teaching laboratory space were deemed adequate and underutilized.
School of Technology	Needed an additional 21,321 assignable square feet (ASF) or an increase of 14% over current space. Class laboratory space was adequate. The largest need was in the area of engineering consulting laboratory facilities.

^* These figures were based on a projected enrollment of 600 undergraduate students. Fall, 1996 undergraduate enrollment was 248.

The Academic Facility Improvements since 1988 include:

TABLE 3. Expansion

Project	State Funding	University Funding	Total
Metallurgical and Materials Engineering Building (175,000 GSF)	$27,000,000	$10,000,000	$37,000,000
Dow Environmental Science and Engineering Building (165,000 GSF)	$30,000,000	$14,000,000	$44,000,000
Total	$57,000,000	$24,000,000	$81,000,000

TABLE 4. Renovation

Project	State Funding	University Funding	Total
Benedict Laboratory	$5,000,000	-	$5,000,000

TABLE 5. Major Maintenance and Renewal

Project	State Funding	University Funding	Total
Maintenance and Renewal	$2,200,000	$3,100,000	$5,300,000

These new facilities and the renewed areas have served to ease the activity of the University by dramatically increasing the quality and the quantity of academic space. The two major new buildings add 37% to the campus academic space inventory raising it from 950,000 gross square feet (GSF) to 1,300,000 GSF.

The recognized need for additional space in the Paulien and Associates Reports totaled 217,000 ASF and we have added 200,000 ASF. The College of Engineering recorded space need totaled 127,500 ASF and we added 140,000 ASF. The College of Sciences and Arts need was 46,650 ASF with 31,000 ASF having been added. Another 29,000 ASF was added for University wide instruction and special research areas. Michigan Tech has truly benefited by a high level of support from the State of Michigan. A Senate Fiscal Agency analysis indicated MTU received the fourth largest capital outlay appropriations in the 1980s even though we have the second lowest enrollment of the 15 State Universities. This funding level has continued with the State’s support of the Dow Environmental Sciences and Engineering Building in 1993.

Major Maintenance and Renewal

MTU’s major maintenance and renewal funding has served to ease the activities of the University by upgrading many areas and has also worked to minimize the University’s deferred maintenance [4.6C2].

University physical plants depreciate at a rate of 2% of replacement cost per year.

The useful programmatic life of most facilities is 25 years which is also the useful life of mechanical, electrical, and architectural components of buildings. These elements represent 50% of the building costs [2.6H7, 4.6A].

The depreciation rate for MTU is:

Michigan Tech’s maintenance and renewal funding has been below the depreciation rate of the facilities. MTU has invested $24,600,000 in maintenance and renewal over the last 10 years while depreciation totaled $60,000,000. Even with this disparity we still have a minimal, barely identifiable, backlog of deferred maintenance. Magic? Mirrors? What is happening? Well, the present administration has been the recipient of a completely rebuilt campus from the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. MTU’s campus has just reached the threshold age of programmatic obsolescence and the age when major maintenance costs begin to escalate. This change occurs when institutional buildings are 25 to 30 years old. MTU’s facilities now have a sq. ft. weighted average age of 30 years. The facilities are in good condition as a result of their age and our present level of investment. However, the future will demand a new higher level of funding.

Campus Life

Easing the activities of campus life has been accomplished and improved through capital investments and operations.

Capital Improvements

Campus life capital improvements, included continual renewal of residence hall, retail and recreational spaces totalling $6,800,000. The most significant investment was a $7,500,000 renewal and addition to the Memorial Union. We also added a 12,000 sq. ft. facility in 1997 for the Career Center, Alumni Association, and Michigan Tech Student Foundation.

Sufficient parking has been provided for the present campus needs. Complaints are directed at location, not availability of parking. At present, parking is free to faculty, staff, and resident students with commuters paying $27 per year. Future campus expansion will require a significant financial commitment to construct parking decks or support busing as an alternative [5.6D].

Operations

Much of the campus life physical capacity was in place during the last NCA Review. Easing the activity of campus life through operations has been the focus in these areas through renewal and efficiency improvement.

Recreation

Recreational activities are an integral part of Michigan Technological University’s educational system. The Student Development Complex (SDC) is capable of serving a student body of 8,500. The SDC, Gates Tennis Center, cross country ski trails, and surrounding outdoor athletic fields are in excellent condition. The Mont Ripley Ski Area and Portage Lake Golf Course (18 holes) are also well maintained [2.6H5].

Accessibility

Accessibility on our campus has been addressed in accordance with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1991. Today, all of MTU’s programs are accessible because of adherence to the new building standards, the inclusion of accessibility improvements in all remodeling efforts, and in response to our annual snowfall. Building design in response to Northern Michigan’s winter snowfall has all but eliminated exterior steps from our campus. The self-evaluation process prescribed by the Acts have been very helpful in directing the improvements. Snow continues to be the most significant barrier on campus and in our community.

Residential Services

Residential Services is near capacity and is meeting the demands for those seeking University sponsored housing. A near recent re-organization from three responsibility centers to one has improved efficiency thereby controlling cost while improving departmental personnel involvement, opportunities for advancement, and allowed for the efficiencies associated with specialization.

Safety

Improvements in Public Safety and Occupational Safety have been directed at a relatively safe community. We evaluated the role of our Public Safety Department and guided its development from a security operation to a Police Department. They have a new office, updated equipment, a second officer on the most active shifts and are pro-active in crime prevention, community service and education. We have provided emergency phones and updated all campus exterior lighting since 1985. National campus crime statistics indicate MTU has the lowest incidence of crime of Michigan Universities.

We have renewed our Occupational Safety and Health efforts through the active participation of the Presidential Safety Committee and the recent assignment of the Occupational Safety and Health Director to the President. The Board of Control initiated an environmental audit which has resulted in addressing several problems including a campus wide clean-up of stored hazardous materials. We also eliminated air-born contaminate problems in the Chemical Sciences and Engineering Building through a major renovation of the ventilation system. National statistics demonstrate that MTU is a relatively safe place to work. The total recordable injury rate at MTU was 1.8 cases per 100 workers in 1995 and 1.9 in 1996. The nation-wide average for Universities reported by the Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics for 1995 was 3.9 cases.

Michigan Tech’s activities and conduction of business have been eased through what has been "built" and through the efficient operations and the operational improvements put in place since the last NCA Review.

Capital

The immediate future includes some impressive program growth requiring that we facilitate or ease University action through what is built and operated. The space needs recognized by the last space analysis will be met by the facilities constructed through 1998 and with the completion of the Forestry Building addition and the Performing Arts Center. Both of these projects have private and State funding commitments and will be complete by the year 2000. Library and science facility expansions are slated as the next priority for State funding (Attachment 5). Future program growth and capital needs beyond this must be addressed and prioritized in the strategic plan update which the University will be undertaking following this self-evaluation and NCA Review.

The University can rely upon the State of Michigan’s capital outlay system which has been generous and basically provides a couple major facilities every ten years [4.5C]. The system’s strong point is funding and its weakness is the uncertainty brought on by its political nature. University Advancement has been organized and staffed to provide funding for capital projects in addition to their traditional role of providing equipment funding. It appears that the combination of State support and private support developed by University Advancement can provide the required facilities.

Operations

The challenge following the building of facilities is to support the operation of the new programs.

While the State is very supportive of capital additions, they do not fund or provide very little funding for new programs and facility operations which places the burden on the Universities in Michigan. Michigan Tech has done well in this regard identifying some new resources and re-aligning others. Michigan Tech’s ability to respond is a direct result of our personnel and autonomy from State government. We have exercised this capacity re-aligning resources to expanded graduate and research activities as well as to strengthen the educational mission beyond that of other institutions. Operations and maintenance of the plant has gone from 15% of the general fund budget to 9% and is just one of many examples of re-alignment [4.6B, 4.6A]. Research revenue has increased dramatically. However, general fund and auxiliary revenue continue to be required to supplement research, and the graduate activities. This will continue until the programs become mature. Maintenance and renewal has been funded internally from auxiliary maintenance reserve and State special maintenance funding. The Auxiliary fund reserve which had been used for general fund facility renewal is now depleted and the State funding is sporadic and unreliable. Operating units, while being well organized, are under staffed when measured against peer institutions [4.6A] which is exacerbated by internal re-alignment of funds to new positions and programs. New resources are needed to sustain future programmatic activities, operations, existing facility renewal and major maintenance, and to implement technology improvements in the classrooms.

The Committee’s survey indicates the University has a high level of credibility with all State funding, enforcement, and regulating agencies as a result of its long term commitment to excellence. Relationships with professionals and contractors are equally strong because of the emphasis on long term results and relationships.

This section summarizes our analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with University facilities.

Strengths

1. Well maintained facilities designed in support of the University’s technological base with excellent recreational, housing, and support facilities.
2. Adherence to campus physical development plan.
3. Plant Expansion.
4. Operational Organization.
5. Re-investment in plant maintenance and renewal, and equipment.

Weaknesses

1. Funding for future operations, plant renewal, and special maintenance.
2. Budget process of re-alignment of funding.

Opportunities

1. Local pool of highly qualified candidates.
2. Local pool of good quality construction contractors.

Threats

1. After 25 years, buildings become programmatically obsolete and mechanical and electrical and architectural systems begin to exceed their design life. Michigan Tech’s square foot average age of facilities is 30 years. We are crossing the threshold from new low maintenance facilities to facilities requiring a significant increase in renewal and maintenance funding.

Action Plan

1. Update and follow the campus physical development plan with continued campus wide input.
2. Prioritize proposed plant expansion, renovation, and renewal, while retaining sufficient flexibility to respond to opportunities.
3. Revise the budget process to account for indirect costs associated with new and expanding programs.
4. Establish a long term budget for special maintenance and facility renewal. The total funding required should equal the depreciation rate of the plant. The depreciation rate is equal to 2% of the plant’s $300,000,000 replacement cost.

1. Facilities Management Department, Self-Study Report, Michigan Technological University, December 12, 1996 [2.6H7].
2. Division of Residential Services Department, Self-Study Report, Michigan Technological University, January, 1997 [2.6H10].
3. Auxiliary Retail Operations Department, Self-Study Report, Michigan Technological University, November 27, 1996 [2.6H5].
4. Facilities Management Budget Review FY96/97, Michigan Technological University, August 30, 1996 [4.6B].
5. Facilities Management Activities Responsibility and Cost Comparisons, Michigan Technological University, August 30, 1996 [4.6A].
6. MTU Campus Master Plan Supplement, Michigan Technological University, 1993 [2.2A].
7. MTU Campus Master Plan, Michigan Technological University, 1966 (Attachment 2).
8. MTU Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Self-Evaluation, Michigan Technological University, May 10, 1993 (Attachment 2).
9. MTU ADA Transition Plan, Michigan Technological University, July 26, 1992(Attachment 2).
10. Space Needs Analysis, Paulien and Associates Reports, 1990, 1991 ([2.2D1]).
11. Classroom Scheduling Process Action Team, Michigan Technological University, February 23, 1995 (Attachment 3).
12. Senate Fiscal Agency Memorandum Capital Outlay Funding For Universities, State of Michigan, December 22, 1992 (Attachment 4).
13. Parking Task Force Recommendation, Michigan Technological University, April 15, 1996 [5.6D].
14. Strategic Plan 1998 and Beyond [2.1D2].
15. State Capital Outlay Budget Request FY97/98, 98/99 (Attachment 5).