1 the rebuilding of connecticut’s higher education infrastructure mary k. johnson department of...
TRANSCRIPT
1
The Rebuilding of Connecticut’s Higher Education Infrastructure
Mary K. JohnsonDepartment of Higher EducationAugust 16, 2006
(or Some Lessons on How Not to Handle Too Much with Too Little)
2
Presentation Summary
What we have How we got it What’s gone wrong How we’re fixing it
3
Capital Spending in Connecticut
System in the midst of a capital “renaissance”
Investment of over $2 billion since 1996
Another $1.7 billion expected through 2015
General Obligation, UConn 2000 & 21st Century Bond Authorizations
$0.0
$50.0
$100.0
$150.0
$200.0
$250.0
$300.0
$350.0
$400.0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Gov.2007
mill
ions
GO Bonds UConn 2000 21st Century
4
Capital Spending in Connecticut (Con’t.) System has added another 10 million square feet or 38% more space since the
mid-1990s Funds have been used for new construction, renovation, code compliance and
deferred maintenance, land acquisitions and equipment (including library books)
Facilities by Decade
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Pre-1900
1900-29
30's-40's
50's 60's 70's 80's 90's 2000+
mill
ion
gsf
5
Major New Facilities/Renovations Include: University of Connecticut (UConn):
Avery Point Marine Science Research Center ($40.7 million) Chemistry Building ($56.9 million) Northwest Residential Facility renovation ($32.1 million) School of Business ($27.8 million) School of Pharmacy ($94.6 million) South Campus Complex ($46.8 million) Stamford Downtown Campus ($72.4 million) Technology Quadrant ($70.6 million) Information Technology and Engineering Building ($34.1 million)
Connecticut State University (CSU): Academic Center (CCSU - $27.7 million) Child and Family Development Center (ECSU - $12 million) Classroom/Administration Building (SCSU - $52.5 million) Library (ECSU - $27.6 million) Student Center (SCSU - $33 million) Science Building (WCSU - $48 million)
Community Colleges (CTC): New Capital Community College (CCC - $60.5 million) Center for Arts and Sciences (MCC - $27.1 million) Learning Resource Center (MCC - $33.9 million) Information Technology Center (NCC - $15.5 million)
6
Lump Sum and Equipment Funds UConn:
Deferred Maintenance/Code Compliance/Renovations - $360 million ($172 million expended)
Equipment, Library Collections and Telecommunications - $443 million ($165 million expended)
CSU: Deferred Maintenance/Code Compliance/Renovations - $86 million
($76 million expended) Equipment, Library Collections and Telecommunications - $104
million ($84 million expended) CTC:
Deferred Maintenance/Code Compliance/Renovations - $58 million ($35 million expended)
Equipment, Library Collections and Telecommunications - $109 million ($78 million expended)
7
How We Got It UConn 2000 enacted in 1995 Goals of program:
Transform UConn into one of the top public universities
Attract better students Help stem brain drain Compete more effectively for research
8
UConn 2000 – “Ground-Breaking” Legislation
Authorized the initial $1 billion for 47 specific projects Allowed UConn to borrow money and issue securities known
as “Husky Bonds” Provided state debt service commitment (now $90 million per
year) Gave UConn unprecedented authority and flexibility to plan,
design, acquire and lease real assets, manage all its capital projects, including contracting for professional services and selecting design and construction firms
Required only the submission of semi-annual reports UConn 21st Century (2002) provided another $1.3 billion
9
UConn 2000 – “A Political Masterpiece” UConn had key staff who understood Connecticut
and how to sell idea So bold an idea, hard to say no Love of bricks and mortar List of projects included something for everyone Capitalized on success of basketball teams Showcased “poster facilities” in major disrepair Impeccable timing – college-age boomlet right
around corner
10
UConn 2000 – A Plan in the Making? About 75% of projects already were part of Board
of Governors five-year facilities plan Succeeded despite a lack of:
Updated academic plan A comprehensive facilities master plan Facility utilization study Full facilities condition assessment
11
Jumping on the Bandwagon: Funds for the Rest of the System
Governor Rowland made initial commitment of $720 million for CSU and $655 for CTC systems in 1997
Commitment was extended in 2001 for a total commitment of $866 million for CSU and $725 million for the CTC
No statutory commitment; no authority to manage major projects
CSU also gets $5 million a year in recognition of student financing of auxiliary facilities
Actual allocations, however, are slowing to a snail’s pace CSU is seeking another $1 billion commitment
12
Project “At Risk” August 2004 –
First revelations about fire and building code violations in student dormitories hit the press
November 2004 – State inspectors find numerous code violations. The three major dormitory complexes
were never inspected by state because they were below threshold December 2004 –
Executive Director of Architectural Services resigns February 2005 –
State auditors issue a report highly critical of how university awards contracts and of its budget and record keeping systems
March 2005 – New inspection office set up by UConn finds more than 100 other building and safety
violations UConn board commits $15 million to fix problems Lt. Governor Kevin Sullivan calls for legislative investigation stating that “flexibility is
no excuse for mismanagement, fraud and waste” (The Hartford Courant. March 29, 2005)
13
Project “At Risk” (Con’t.) April 2005 –
Reports of major cost overruns on student union and pharmacy buildings Governor Rell forms Governor’s Commission on UConn Review and Accountability
charged with investigating contracting and construction procedures
June 2005 – Two audit reports uncover a litany of serious deficiencies in oversight and budgeting First public mention of 1999 PinnacleOne audit which found similar issues and problems
- this audit was never made public to either the BOT or legislature Numerous press reports and questions about who knew what and when ensued
July 2005 – UConn official tells Governor’s Commission about how UConn buried a floor of a dorm
to avoid state inspection…….
14Cartoon by Bob Englehart of The Hartford Courant
“Honey, I Shrunk the Building”Editorial, The Harford Courant, July 31, 2005
15Cartoon by Bob Englehart of The Hartford Courant
16
Project “At Risk” (Con’t.) August 2005 –
Governor Rell publicly criticizes the University for the first time BOT Audit committee determines that President Austin and other UConn officials
were briefed on PinnacleOne audit in January 1999 September 2005 –
Governor’s review commission issues its report recommending, among other things, a hands-on construction committee
UConn Code Compliance Officer and VP for Administration and Operations Services put on administrative leave
Student newspaper calls on President Austin to resign Fire watch ordered at one of the dormitory complexes
January 2006 – Chief State’s Attorney takes over criminal investigation
May 2006 – Legislature enacts new oversight legislation
17
The Aftermath
A combination of factors lead to the breach:
Inexperience Insufficiency Ignorance Indifference Insincerity
18
The Aftermath (Con’t.)
Numerous code violations found in every building inspected to date
Total cost of required dormitory renovations - $23 million Criminal investigation continues Overall good of the program, and stunning new and
rejuvenated campus facilities far outweighed consequences: UConn has implemented major changes and internal controls, hired
more experienced staff, etc. Only three employees held accountable to date Top executives still employed 21st Century funds still in place
New oversight legislation enacted
19
Public Act 06-143: New Oversight Requirements Requires BOT to appoint independent auditors to annually audit all
projects Establishes a 7-member Construction Management Oversight Committee Requires public bidding for any project over $500,000 Requires prequalification of contractors by Department of Administrative
Services Permits UConn to use “construction manager at risk” Temporarily assigns public safety staff to Department of Public Safety Requires all deferred maintenance funds to be spent for that purpose Requires a review of all deferred maintenance needs and annual report to
CMOC Requires inspection of all university structures and inventory of deferred
maintenance needs
20
Stay Tuned….