Facilities & Infrastructure Report 2007 Vice President for Finance & Operations

Facilities & Infrastructure Report 2007  Vice President for Finance & Operations
Facilities & Infrastructure
Report 2007
Vice President for Finance & Operations
January 19, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
3
Planning & Infrastructure
Chapter 1
Just-in-Time
5
Chapter 2
Construction
19
Chapter 3
Power & Water
27
Chapter 4
Instructional Space
39
Chapter 5
Accessibility
45
Transportation & Safety
Chapter 6
Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA) Ridership
49
Chapter 7
Traffic Safety
53
Chapter 8
Parking
61
Chapter 9
Safety & Security
69
Land Management
Chapter 10
South Campus Farms Nutrient Management
73
Chapter 11
Environmental Compliance – South Campus Farms
79
Environmental Compliance – Health & Safety
83
Compliance
Chapter 12
Appendices
Appendix A
Just-in-Time
Appendix B
2007 Construction Management Report
Appendix C
Construction
Appendix D
Power & Water
Appendix E
Accessibility
Executive Summary
Michigan State University is a public institution located in East Lansing, Michigan. The main
campus is 5,200 acres which includes 566 buildings (85 with instructional space) and 18 miles
of roads. The University supports over 45,000 students and 10,500 employees.
The Office of the Vice President for Finance and Operations and its units are charged with
constructing, maintaining and securing facilities and infrastructure to support the teaching,
research, and outreach missions of the University. The succeeding report details the current
status of the facilities and infrastructure, as well as some of the challenges facing MSU in the
future.
This report on MSU facilities and infrastructure is the first in a series of annual reports to the
Board of Trustees. In the preparation of the report, administrative units were asked to be self
critical in analyzing problems, performance, and emerging issues in their respective areas. No
attempt was made to prioritize issues across the reports. This task is left to the University
administration.
Over the last 10 years, MSU has made substantial progress toward improving the operations
and infrastructure of the University. New approaches to planning have helped improve the
coordination of construction and maintenance projects. The Just-in-Time approach where
industry life cycles, practical MSU experience and access to bonded debt are used to address
maintenance needs have helped the University eliminate over $250 million dollars of
maintenance backlog and better predict future needs. Additionally, in the MSU tradition of
partnership and collaboration, engineers, planners, faculty and graduate students have changed
MSU construction standards and practices to be more efficient and minimize costly planning,
scheduling and implementation changes.
Furthermore, the University has focused on incorporating environmental sustainability in its
everyday practice. Construction standards have been changed to be consistent with Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. In addition, alternative energy sources
are being tested to address the growing demand for energy as new buildings are constructed
and technology needs increase.
MSU is not without its challenges in these areas. On-time construction completion is still an
issue. Steps are being taken to improve construction planning and communication so that MSU
architects and engineers, suppliers and MSU units can work together more efficiently. The
implementation of FAMIS (Facilities Asset Management Information System) software has also
helped the University target potential areas for improvement.
With over 55,000 students and employees on campus, transportation and safety are always
important considerations. For the scope of this report, transportation includes the Capital Area
Transportation Authority (CATA) bus system that services Michigan State University, parking,
and general roadway safety. Additional campus safety considerations include building security
and facility safety devices.
Since Michigan State University changed from servicing its own bus routes to outsourcing
campus routes to CATA in 1999, ridership has increased from 829,420 to 3,196,161. Students
and employees have benefited from the connection of on and off campus routes.
Parking at MSU as with most university campuses has been a challenge. Although certain
campus districts have ample parking, others have a parking deficit. Additional parking
structures, improvements to existing structures and the improvement of transportation from
perimeter parking areas to campus have helped alleviate parking issues north of Red Cedar
River. Parking within the Central Academic district is still insufficient to meet the demand.
3
Over the last 20 years traffic and pedestrian congestion increased dramatically. As a
consequence the number of major and minor accidents also increased significantly. The
University implemented a number of changes pedestrian and traffic safety, including the
redesign of problematic intersections, increased law enforcement, and a public relations
campaign targeted at pedestrian safety. As a result, campus accidents have been reduced by
62% and injuries have been reduced by 83% since 1995.
Safety issues have also been addressed within buildings to protect people and research. The
University shifted from a key-based security system to a card access system. At present the
exterior doors on 58 buildings have been fitted with security card access. Interior security for
sensitive areas has also been improved by fitting doors with card access. The University has
also increased the number of full sprinkler systems buildings to 26 and full smoke detection to
37. In addition all of the electronic fire alarm systems in buildings across campus now report to a
single location.
MSU has also been aggressive in attaining regulatory compliance on many health and human
safety issues. The University has maintained detailed asbestos surveys and has been quick to
address air quality complaints. Of the 58 air quality complaints in 2006 only 3 required
immediate action.
Over the last 10 years the acreage available for the disposal (spreading) of animal waste has
decreased significantly. This has created a nutrient management problem on the remaining
acreage which must be addressed. If left unattended environmental problems with soil nutrients
will develop or livestock-based research must be limited. Several options are being evaluated to
address the issue such as increased export of nutrients, nutrient separation technologies, the
development of an integrated manure treatment system (anaerobic digester), acquiring
additional land, reducing animal numbers, and transferring plant research acreage to general
production to increase acreage for manure disposal.
Undoubtedly one can identify any number of specific programmatic shortcomings regarding
MSU facilities and infrastructure. Because of the size and complexity of the university this will
probably always be the case. MSU, has, however, invested significant time, intellect, and
resources in updating and adapting its infrastructure to meet the changing needs of its teaching,
research, and outreach programs. Substantial thought has been given to the security of its
faculty, staff, and students resulting in significant improvements health and human safety.
F.L. Poston
Vice President
Finance and Operations
4
Chapter 1
Just-in-Time
Summary
Prior to 2002, the Physical Plant addressed infrastructure maintenance in the way most
common for universities. A list of needed projects was prepared for maintenance or
replacement of infrastructure components based on industry standard life cycles. Available
funding was applied to the most urgent items, and whatever was not funded was placed on a
list of “deferred maintenance” projects. Because funding was never adequate to address all
projects, this led to an ever-growing list. Although the list of deferred projects was precise,
one drawback of using industry life cycles rather than actual field conditions to determine
repair schedules was that it was not possible to accurately predict, over a decade, what
portions of the infrastructure would truly fail.
Recognizing that the very large number of buildings built during the 1950’s and 1960’s were
approaching 40 to 50 years of age, it was obvious MSU would have serious difficulty keeping
up with the repair and replacement of major infrastructure components such as roofs,
elevators, heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, roads, etc. across the
campus if it did not modify its approach. In response to this concern, an assessment of the
actual campus infrastructure condition was made. It was determined that there was a backlog
of approximately $260 million in necessary maintenance projects. A new approach was
needed to address the problem or the figure would continue to rise and eventually building
system failures would occur. A plan was developed and initiated in fiscal year 2002.
The new approach, an evaluation process known as Just-In-Time (JIT), requires a
comprehensive review of all building components to determine their condition and estimated
failure date. The industry-predicted life cycle of building components is used as the early
determination point for potential replacement. Then MSU’s actual experiences with
component life cycles, plus field observations, are used to adjust the industry life cycle. For
example, if the system life expectancy is 25 years, but MSU has normally been able to
extract 30 years, the life cycle is adjusted accordingly. Field observations during preventive
maintenance and testing of component condition are also used to make life-cycle predictions
more precise. The information is collected in a database and used to predict annual
maintenance and replacement costs for the forthcoming decade. MSU has a history of
obtaining longer life from building components than almost any other institution.
The accuracy of our data and the ability to predict when critical infrastructure needs must be
addressed enabled us to plan for the annual revenue necessary to cover the cost of the
identified projects. An additional benefit of the accuracy of our predictive capabilities is that
we have been able to coordinate repair and maintenance projects so that the campus is not
disrupted at the same location for multiple successive years. We have also been able to
better coordinate our access to bonded debt.
As a result of the new approach, Michigan State University is a leader among other large
universities in addressing and maintaining its infrastructure. The $260 million backlog of
maintenance projects has been reduced to $6 million in 5 years and maintenance issues are
being addressed in a systematic and timely manner.
5
Analysis
Progress Analysis
As a result of the JIT initiative, significant progress has occurred since fiscal year 2002.
Substantially more infrastructure maintenance projects are able to be addressed today than
when the process started. Five years ago, funding was received to address only 43 projects
in the JIT category. In fiscal year 2007, 170 projects have been funded and are underway.
In addition, nearly every building on MSU’s campus has been impacted by Just-In-Time,
resulting in a more reliable infrastructure system to support the operation of the university.
Figure 1 shows the amount of funding spent on JIT over the past five fiscal years (FY02FY06) separated into two sections: General Fund supported buildings and Housing and Food
Services (HFS) facilities.
JIT Funding
General Fund & HFS
FY02 - FY06
General Fund
80000000
HFS
70000000
60000000
Amount
50000000
40000000
30000000
20000000
10000000
0
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
Fiscal Year
Figure 1. JIT Funding for General Fund and Housing and Food Service
General Fund
There are four categories that comprise the JIT needs for the general fund. They include
buildings, utility distribution, power and water, and roads. Each category contains its own set
of sub-components. An explanation of these components can be found in Table 1.
6
Table 1. JIT General Fund Categories
Since fiscal year 2002, a total of $182,042,481 has been funded for general fund JIT
projects. The breakdown of funding by category and funding by category as a percentage of
the total amount funded can be found in Table 2 and Table 3.
7
Table 2. General Fund Just-in-Time Funding Analysis by Category
Table 3. General Fund JIT Funding Categories by Percentage
8
As with buildings and utilities, the condition of the campus road system has been evaluated
and maintenance needs have been prioritized. A pavement rating system developed by
Pavement Management Systems, Inc. (PMSI) was used to develop the JIT priorities for
roads. Examples of roads with PMSI ratings are available in Appendix A. Figure 2 shows
road segments that have had JIT work done to date and which road segments still have JIT
needs.
Figure 2. Road Conditions Map Based on PMSI ratings.
The original campus roads were constructed inexpensively for light duty traffic. As the
campus grew, and traffic volumes significantly increased, the pavement design was no
longer adequate for the demands being placed upon it. This has led to deterioration and, in
some cases, failure of the roads. Where road improvements are being implemented, the
new design provides for an appropriate granular base supporting the road pavement. By
properly designing the base for the traffic loads, future maintenance costs (see Table 4) will
be greatly reduced because only the surface asphalt layer will need to be milled off and
replaced in order to recondition the road. The more expensive base should remain in place
without deterioration.
Table 4. Projected Road Reconstruction and Mill and Cap Cost for the Next 10 Years
9
Over the next ten fiscal years, a total of $289 million in JIT needs has been projected for
General Fund facilities. Figure 3 shows how much funding is needed for each of the four
categories.
General Fund JIT Needs
FY07 - FY16
Buildings
Utility Distribution
Power & Water
Roads
50,000,000
45,000,000
40,000,000
35,000,000
Amount
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
0
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
Fiscal Year
Figure 3. General Fund JIT Needs from Fiscal Year 2007 through Fiscal Year 2016 Includes JIT needs for
Buildings, Utility Distribution, Power & Water and Roads
JIT Parking
The next step is using the JIT approach to analyze the maintenance needs of campus
parking lots and ramps. Parking lots and parking ramps maintenance is funded through the
fees collected through the parking system. Table 5 shows the initial examination of JIT for
parking lots and ramps for the next ten fiscal years. A detailed parking lot analysis is being
developed.
Table 5. Just-in-Time Funding Needs for Parking Lots and Ramps
10
Housing and Food Services (HFS)
Most of the university’s housing facilities were constructed in 1950’s and 60’s. The buildings
are now near the 50 year old mark, which is when major building systems need replacement
and renovation is required. HFS recently completed a Ten Year Strategic Plan which
delineates the scope and sequencing of infrastructure improvements for housing facilities
and food service operations. Projected renovations and expenditures are based on this plan.
Table 6 shows the seven categories that make up the JIT needs for HFS. Figure 4 shows a
map of all HFS funded buildings on campus.
Table 6. JIT HFS Funding Categories
11
Figure 4. HFS funded JIT buildings on MSU Campus
Since fiscal year 2002, HFS has spent over $85 million in repairs and renovation, including
over $10,000,000 in furniture replacement. Another $17,500,000 has been targeted for future
furniture replacement over the next ten years. The breakdown of funding by category and
funding as a percentage of the overall HFS JIT total can be found on Table 7. Table 8 and
Table 9 show the HFS renovation schedule and refurnishing schedule, respectively.
12
Table 7. HFS JIT Funding Analysis by Category
13
Table 8. Residence Hall Refurnishing Schedule 2007-2016
14
Table 9. HFS Facility Major Renovation and New Construction Schedule 2007-2016
15
Over the next ten fiscal years, there is an estimated $281.8 million in JIT needs for HFS.
Figure 5 provides a chart that shows the funding need for each of the seven categories.
HFS JIT Needs
(FY07 - FY16)
Architectural
Electrical
FF&E
Mechanical
Renovation
Site
45000000
40000000
35000000
Amount
30000000
25000000
20000000
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
Fiscal Year
Figure 5. HFS JIT Needs By Category Includes Architectural, Electrical, FF&E, Mechanical, Renovation
and Site needs
Future Directions
Figure 6 shows the projected JIT needs for general fund buildings and roads, HFS and
parking for the next twenty years. Needs for the first five years are determined by a
refined analysis from field inspections; the need for the following 5 years are determined
by experience-adjusted industry life cycles for infrastructure systems and equipment;
and the remaining ten year forecast is determined by the industry life-cycle alone. As a
consequence, the prediction for the first 10 year period is more accurate than for the
second 10 years. This pattern of examining the actual life of an infrastructure
component will continue to become more precise as each fiscal year passes and the
quality of the database and field inspections increases.
The chart illustrates that the amount of needed annual expenditures is trending
downward. Some of this can be attributed to less precise data for the outlying life cycle
years. A more significant factor, however, is that much of the backlogged work is now
being addressed. Over the next 5 years, many of the deferred major infrastructure
system repair and replacement projects will be completed. For example, most of the
campus roads will have been reconstructed, the replacement of direct buried steam
lines will have been accomplished, and the campus electrical delivery system
conversion from 4,160 volts to 13,200 volts will be complete. These items should not
need major attention again for 40 to 50 years.
16
Total JIT Needs for Next 20 Years
Includes General Fund, HFS, and Parking
Refined Analysis
Adjusted Analysis
Life Cycle
100000000
90000000
80000000
70000000
Amount
60000000
50000000
40000000
30000000
20000000
10000000
0
FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26
Fiscal Year
Figure 6. Total JIT Needs for the Next 20 Years Data includes general fund buildings and roads, HFS
buildings and Parking
A more detailed look at the JIT needs for the next ten years is provided in Table 10.
General fund costs total $289 million and are trending downward for the reasons stated
above. The annual HFS expenditures will vary based on the implementation schedule
of the strategic plan and the total for the 10 year period is approximately $282 million.
Parking ramps and parking lots are now included, as this area will utilize the JIT
assessment process in determining future maintenance needs and the estimated cost is
nearly $50 million.
17
Table 10. Just-in-Time Projections for the Next 10 Years
Much of HFS JIT needs are based on marketability as well as infrastructure needs.
HFS will continue an aggressive renovation schedule. Renovation includes major
upgrades to building systems, life safety improvements and accessibility. Scheduled
renovation projects include Mayo, Brody, Emmons, Bailey, Armstrong and Bryan Halls.
The HFS projected JIT need also includes funding to renovate sixty apartment buildings
in Spartan Village. The plans are flexible so that revisions will be easily assimilated as
situations dictate.
The HFS renovation projects form the core of the comprehensive facilities plan as
outlined in the 2006 HFS Strategic Plan and will keep the facilities at the level that the
customer base expects and demands. Achieving this vision will require targeted
emphasis in several primary areas. Revenue increases, along with expenditure control
within the various sources of funds, and redirection of existing resources will be used to
leverage opportunities and accomplish identified goals.
18
Chapter 2
Construction
Summary
The University has had a significant increase in design and construction in the past
three years. The University uses the Facilities Asset Management Information System
(FAMIS) software to track design, construction projects, and improve performance. We
continue to try to improve the performance on change orders, particularly those related
to design and timely completion of projects. We have responded with several actions,
including dedicating staff to design review, establishing new scheduling requirements,
performance feedback to designers and contractors, and continued collaboration and
evaluation with the School of Planning Design and Construction.
Michigan State University has also been improving construction standards to move
toward more environmentally-friendly approaches for construction and renovation
projects. Engineering and Architectural Services (EAS) partnered with the Construction
Management program to evaluate the existing MSU Construction Standards with regard
to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and the United States
Green Building Council (USBC) rating system. The team evaluated the new
construction and major renovation credits as to their applicability to Michigan State
University and made recommendations for changes to the MSU Construction Standards
to reach LEED Silver Level Although many other universities are integrating LEED into
their standards, MSU’s inclusive and comprehensive approach involving students,
faculty, and operations staff is unique and demonstrates our commitment to
environmental stewardship and a collaborative approach.
Analysis
FAMIS
Since September 2003, the University has used the Facilities Asset Management
Information System (FAMIS) to track design and construction projects. The FAMIS
Capital Projects module was implemented to provide timely and accurate project
information, report on our project performance in the aggregate, analyze our strengths
and weaknesses, and improve processes. Since implementation, MSU has steadily
improved the timeliness of projects, providing the ability to make more informed and
better decisions. Project managers and customers can now access real time budget
information updated daily. It is also considerably easier to compile project information
at completion.
The FAMIS annual report to the Board of Trustees on completed projects is published
annually in January (See Appendix B for 2007 Annual Report). Quarterly reports for
active projects will be reported to the Board of Trustees in January, April, July and
September.
Figure 1 provides a budget summary of the closed projects for fiscal year 2006.
19
Budget Summary of Closed Projects for FY 2006
Budget
Authorized Budget:
Final Cost:
Returned:
Change Orders
Contract:
Scope:
Document:
Field:
Total:
$9,536,000
$8,696,811
$839,189
Budgeted Contingency:
% of Contract
$6,972,678
$7,857
$102,891
$287,745
$398,493
$1,443,238
% Contingency
0.1%
1.5%
4.1%
5.7%
0.5%
7.1%
19.9%
27.6%
Figure 1. Budget Summary of Board Approved Closed Capital Projects for FY 2006. The above figure
shows the value of 26 projects closed in fiscal year 2006. Since FAMIS Capital Projects module was
recently implemented for MSU, projects closed in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006 are smaller in size
and complexity.
Construction and Design Volume
In the past four years, payments for design and construction have increased
significantly (See Figure 2 and Figure 3). Design increases lead construction by
approximately one year. This increase is driven by both programmatic requirements and
investment in the Just-In-Time infrastructure requirements.
Design Payments by Fiscal Year
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
Total Payments
5,000,000
4,000,000
Design Payments
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Fiscal Year
Figure 2. Design Payments by Fiscal Year. The above figure shows the payments made to professional
consultants for design work by fiscal year. 2005 includes $500,000 in fees for cancelled Brody project.
2006 does not include $400,000 in design fees for University Village, which is a Design-Build project.
20
Construction Payments by Fiscal Year
100,000,000
90,000,000
80,000,000
70,000,000
Total Payments
60,000,000
Construction Payments
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Fiscal Year
Figure 3. Construction Payments by Fiscal Year. The above figure shows the payments made for
construction work by fiscal year.
Construction Change Orders
Campus Planning & Administration (CPA) and Engineering & Architectural Services
(EAS) use aggregate data to review processes and make improvements. One of the
earliest focus areas was construction change orders. Change orders are a reality in the
construction process for a number of reasons including differing field conditions (e.g.
bad soils, concealed asbestos); document discrepancies where the work specified
either can not be built or does not meet the intent of the project; and scope changes for
additional work which was originally planned.
Though sometimes necessary, changes can lead to delays in construction and disputes
with contractors. Often these disputes are not from a single change, but numerous
small changes. This can lead to a contractor claiming that the volume of minor changes
delayed the project or impacted their productivity, in turn leading to a demand for
substantial additional compensation. These concerns prompted MSU to track change
order rates measured by change orders divided by construction payments. See Figure
4.
21
Change Requests Construction Payments For FY2004 - FY2006
for Major Capital Projects
10.0%
9.1%
7.7%
Percent
8.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.5%
4.0%
2.9%
2.0%
1.7%
0.0%
2004
4.1%
3.1%
2.6%
2.6%
1.4%
2.0%
2005
Fiscal Year
Change Request
Change Request
Change Request
Change Request
2006
Rate - All
Rate - Scope
Rate - Document
Rate - Field
Figure 4. Change Requests as a Percentage of Construction Payments. The change request rate is
calculated by the value of change requests created in a year divided by the amount of construction
payments made in that year.
Scope change, which is the most easily controlled source, is discouraged. Initial efforts
to work with units on project planning has led to overall changes dropping significantly in
2005, and scope changes decreasing in 2006. The document change rate has steadily
climbed over the last two years to 4.1%; however they remain within a reasonable level
based on an analysis of change order practice by the School of Planning, Design and
Construction. It may be the result of squeezing the balloon, substituting document errors
for scope changes. However, it may also be a result of increased project work and
limited resources. The increase in design changes trails the increase in design
payments. Physical Plant Engineering and Architectural Services staff did not increase
the number of design professionals or construction representatives as the number of
projects increased. Thus, EAS professionals had to manage more projects with fewer
resources. This may have led to an increase in document changes.
In response to these and other challenges, EAS has added three designers. They have
also added two additional construction representatives. While Physical Plant Building
Services had provided design review in the past, this was in addition to their primary
operations and maintenance responsibilities and with the number of projects increasing
could no longer keep up with the reviews. Perhaps most importantly, Physical Plant has
reassigned five skilled tradespeople to EAS, with responsibility for technical inspection
in the field and design review before projects are bid. The early results are promising.
The initial design reviews have lead to requests for more than 40 changes to MSU
construction standards. See Figure 5.
22
Number of Changes to MSU Construction Standards by Year
60
Number of Changes
50
40
Number of Changes
30
20
10
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
Figure 5. Number of Changes to MSU Construction Standards by Year. The above figure shows the
changes to MSU construction standards requested by skilled trades and planned reviewers since
assignment to EAS. This figure does not include recommended changes from the analysis of LEED
standards
Timely Project Completion
There is also evidence to suggest MSU can improve performance on meeting
substantial completion and closing projects. A project is substantially complete when
usable for its intended purpose (e.g., an intersection is open, classes or research can
be conducted in a laboratory, or an elevator is permitted to carry passengers). Of the
projects closed in Fiscal Year 2005-06, approximately 50% of projects met substantial
completion deadlines. See Figure 6.
23
Figure 6. MSU Projects Meeting Substantial Completion. The number and value of projects meeting
substantial completion
Final Completion requires all activities for a project be finished, including the
contractor’s list of corrective items, work by MSU for tasks such as landscaping, and all
expenses completed, including returning unused funds. See Figure 7. Only 19% of the
projects in FY2005-06 met final completion on schedule.
24
Figure 7. MSU Projects Meeting Final Close Out. The number and value of projects meeting final close
out.
It should be noted that none of these late completions impacted MSU’s programmatic
functions (e.g., roads were open before student fall semester move-in, some elevators
were functioning throughout the project, and other laboratories were available for
instruction or research).
There are a number of factors that contributed to less than 1/5 of the projects meeting
final completion dates. Some University-caused delays, such as late delivery of
equipment, were not factored into the schedules. These delays should have increased
the contractor’s time to complete the project. Also, MSU performs a number of project
functions, and some schedules did not have realistic timelines for these activities.
In response to this issue, the University is putting more effort into setting and
maintaining schedule information. EAS is implementing new scheduling specifications
that will allow their project managers to better monitor contractor progress, and give
more enforcement options when a project starts to slip. Schedules are built with MSU
activities in mind. CPA & EAS have partnered with the School of Planning, Design and
Construction to evaluate the project closeout process. This will include an analysis of
the work MSU Physical Plant continues to perform and the type of activities that are
included in the contractor’s scope of work. Faster project close out frees university
resources for other needs, returns continuity to units, allows resources to move to the
next project, and lets MSU programs to conduct normal operations. The project will
benchmark MSU’s performance against industry standards, and identify process
improvements.
25
LEED
Engineering and Architectural Services (EAS) partnered with the School of Planning,
Design and Construction to evaluate MSU construction standards regarding their
consistency with LEED and USBC requirements.
Through the use of focus groups, researchers, and EAS designers determined which
LEED credits were appropriate for incorporation into the construction standards with
minimal cost impact to construction projects. Recommendations were made and the
changes were incorporated into the construction standards. EAS also provided
informational sessions for in-house construction teams on the changes to the
construction standards with regard to LEED.
Forty-two construction standards have been changed and LEED principles are being
incorporated in to the 2020 Campus Master Plan Update Planning Principles. As an
example, 95% of the construction demolition for the Chemistry Building addition was
recycled. The project achieved LEED Silver Level status and is registered with the
USGBC.
Future Directions
Quality Control
The School of Planning, Design and Construction will assist in developing a Supplier
Feedback assessment tool. The tool is intended to evaluate contractor and designer
project performance.
During the current evaluation period, Campus Planning and Administration has joined
with Engineering and Architecture Services to create a performance document for
evaluating general contractors and designers. The evaluation for general contractors
focuses on five areas: quality, schedule, cost, project management, and project close
out. The data is collected on each score card by the construction representative for
each project, stored in a database, and analyzed at the project and supplier level.
Examples of contractor evaluation tools are available in Appendix C.
Although the results of the performance reviews require further evaluation to determine
if the correct items are being measured and weighted properly, this feedback provides
an excellent opportunity to identify superior that can be used as part of the vendor
selection process.
LEED
EAS is committed to looking forward to improve the sustainability of construction and
renovation practices and will continue to explore new technology and materials for
construction and update Construction Standards as they become available.
26
Chapter 3
Power & Water
Summary
Over the last several years, Michigan State University’s campus utility systems have
proven to be reliable, efficient and secure. Distribution upgrades and plant additions
have increased reliability and efficiency of the overall electrical system while improving
the plant environmental profile. Well additions and well house upgrades have improved
capacity and security of the campus domestic water supply. Collaboration with other
units including the Office of Environmental and Occupational Safety (OEOS) to develop
an Environmental Management System¹ (EMS) for the Power Plant will provide
opportunities to continue to improve the overall campus environmental footprint. MSU
has consistently used the least amount of electricity per square foot of building space
within the Big Ten (Figure 1), demonstrating our commitment to environmental
stewardship. MSU continues to be a leader in this area of global concern with the
recent membership in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) to monitor and regulate
CO2 emissions.
Big Ten and Friends Utlities Benchmarking
FY 2004-05
30
Electric Annual Consumption (kwhr/GSF)
25
23.26
20
16.67
15
14.34
16.74
17.14
18.5
17.73
19.041
19.46
24.1
20.63
20.28
15.08
12.61
10
5
M
ic
h
hi
o
St
a
te
nn
at
i
O
in
ci
ga
n
C
hi
M
ic
Io
w
a
of
ity
ar
ol
in
a
rs
C
ni
ve
a
co
ns
in
es
ot
W
is
M
in
n
In
di
an
a
Pu
rd
ue
Pe
nn
St
at
e
N
ot
re
D
am
e
N
or
th
U
ig
an
St
at
e
U
ni
M
ve
is
rs
so
i ty
ur
i -C
Io
o
w
lu
a
m
St
bi
at
a
e
U
ni
ve
rs
i ty
0
Figure 1. Big Ten and Friends Utilities Benchmarking Comparison of electrical consumption per square
foot among Big Ten and similar size universities
¹The T.B. Simon Power Plant is currently in the initial stages of developing an Environmental
Management System (EMS) which supports Michigan State University’s initiative toward integrated
environmental stewardship. The EMS will be integrated into current operations and become an integral
part in planning, setting goals, cost analysis, and environmental compliance. The EMS will also allow the
power plant to petition for the MDEQ and EPA voluntary environmental certification programs.
27
Analysis
Electric and Steam
For over 100 years, MSU’s power plant has been a co-generating facility, generating
electricity from the steam as it flows out to heat the campus. Fortunately, this concept
has been continued in all phases of the T. B. Simon Power Plant whose first two phases
were built in 1965. The cogeneration system operates at approximately 60% efficiency,
as compared to a conventional electric plant operating at 30% efficiency. The decision
for the University to own and operate its own power plant has proven to be a driving
force of efficient operation of all utilities on campus as it continues to grow. The
“Hannah Years”, from 1941 to 1969, was a period of great growth on campus, not only
in enrollment but also in the construction of new facilities. Energy consumption rose
dramatically and a power plant addition was required in 1973. Figure 2 illustrates the
rise in annual utility consumption from the mid 1950s to present.
Figure 2. Annual Utility Consumption.
After the 1970’s “energy crisis” when there was a push to conserve energy, there was a
period of relatively flat growth in energy consumption. During these years centralized
computer control was installed in buildings for the main heating and cooling equipment
28
and vigorous control of energy use was mandated, i.e., locking thermostats at a
maximum of 68° F for winter. The steady increase in electrical consumption in the
1980’s was due in large part to the growth of technology and the associated air
conditioning requirements to cool this equipment. The campus community also pressed
for easing of the mandated energy conservation measures. The increased demand
required an addition to the power plant in 1993 and another in 2006. Figure 3 shows the
historical steam and electric demands as well as the anticipated demand for campus.
The increase in electrical consumption has exceeded the increase in steam
consumption for the past 25 years, which has converted the plant from being driven by
steam heating needs to being driven by electrical needs. This increase in annual
consumption impacts annual fuel and operating costs. Without a change in campus
operations and behaviors, the next plant expansion will be required in 2023. Current
plant firm electrical capacity is 90 Mega-watts; firm steam capacity is 950,000 pounds
per hour. Firm capacity is defined as the largest unit out of service.
Figure 3. Annual Steam and Electric Demand
The most recent Power Plant addition added reliability and increased capacity. The
Northeast Blackout of 2003 affected 50 million people across Canada and the United
States. Michigan State University’s main campus was not impacted by this event
because of owning and operating our own plant. However, it did bring forth the need to
have “black start” capability at the Power Plant in the event the entire plant was taken
down and grid power was not available to restart the plant. This “black start” capability
29
was included in the design and construction of the recent addition with a highly efficient
natural gas combined cycle generator which greatly enhances reliability by allowing the
Plant to recover from catastrophic failure (all generation off) to generating power within
20 minutes.
Electric Distribution
The 1995 (Figure 4) and current 2006 (Figure 5) electrical distribution system maps are
shown below. The electrical distribution system has been modified over the past 11
years to upgrade from 4,160 to 13,200 volts. As the new power plant (now known as T.
B. Simon Power Plant) was being planned in 1963 for the expanding campus, it was
realized that the longer cable distances justified a higher voltage (13,200 V) and
campus reliability would be enhanced with parallel feeds to each building with automatic
transfer. As the old 4,160 V system was being replaced, the buildings received the
enhanced feature of parallel feeds with automatic transfer. There is only small
percentage of campus highlighted in blue that remains to be upgraded. (Figure 5)
30
Figure 4. Electrical Distribution System Map 1995
31
Figure 5. Electrical Distribution System Map 2006
32
Water
Reliable water supply to the campus requires the reserve of three major wells to
accommodate unexpected outages and scheduled overhauls. One new well will be
installed in 2007. With this added well there will be a total of 15. The next well will be
required in 2010 at current projections. The water distribution chart shown in Figure 5,
indicates the maximum water demand for campus and the farm area.
Figure 6. Projected Water Demand. Well 15 will be installed during 2007. The next projected additional
well will be required in 2010 to meet increasing demand.
During the Northeast Blackout of 2003, campus wells, powered by Consumers Energy,
were non-functional and led to a near crisis for water. As a result, six large portable
generators were purchased as an emergency backup should the grid fail again.
Regulatory Compliance
The T. B. Simon Power Plant is in compliance with all State and Federal environmental
rules and regulations. In order to monitor and develop compliance plans for changing
environmental regulations, the Power and Water Department has participated in State
and Federal rule making work groups. In 2004 MSU completed the installation of new
environmental controls to reduce nitrous oxides (NOx), a contributor of atmospheric
ozone. In 2006 MSU submitted a compliance plan for the Industrial Boiler Maximum
33
Achievable Control Technology (MACT), a new regulation which takes effect in 2007 to
control mercury, chlorine and particulates in coal fired boilers. The baghouse filters
installed by MSU for particulate control are also effective in capturing mercury. The
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) for Michigan was submitted for administrative approval
in November 2006. This rule will place additional sulphur oxides (SOx) and NOx
controls on Utility and Industrial Boilers to reduce small condensable gas particles to
improve public health. MSU complies with this rule due to the 2004 installation of NOx
controls at the plant. Continued compliance will involve participation in the Federal NOx
cap and trade program. MSU has achieved total revenue from NOx credit sales in this
program for 2004-2006 of $680,000. Currently the Power Plant is working with the
Office of Environmental and Occupational Safety (OEOS) to develop an EMS for the
T.B. Simon Plant. Following Cyclotron’s lead this will be the second campus EMS.
Participation in the Chicago Climate Exchange will assure monitoring of campus CO2
emissions. These activities will promote MSU’s environmental stewardship and
compliance.
Future Directions
Compliance
Future pending compliance regulations such as Clear Skies and Regional Haze are
being developed to improve visibility in national parks and wilderness areas by
implementing additional control of fine particulates created by condensable gases. The
State modeling for the rule is currently underway. The T. B. Simon Power Plant may
very well become a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) site and if so, additional
SOx controls will be needed by 2010.
Coal Handling
Conventional rail coal delivery has become unreliable for the Power Plant. Railroads are
reluctant to deliver less than a unit train of 75 cars. In winter 2005, on site inventories
were less than 30 days whereas our target fuel inventory is 60 days to assure reliability.
A possible solution to this dilemma is to install a fast coal unloading system (coal car
tipper) as well as coal silos. Coal silos will solve the continuing nagging problem of wet
coal and fugitive dust. A business plan is being developed regarding these system
modifications.
Supplemental Alternative Fuels
The T.B. Simon Plant is experimenting with the use of supplemental alternative fuels by
performing test burns. During October 2006, a quantity of foam cell waste from biodegradable corn starch was fed into one of our boilers thereby reducing the quantity of
coal burned without negatively impacting emissions. See Figure 7. A review is
underway to determine the annual available quantity of this material and what
necessary modifications to the fuel system are needed. In January a test burn will be
performed with a pelletized mixture of coal ash, dried animal waste and sewage sludge
in conjunction with coal. Operational impacts will be studied at the conclusion of that
burn. This is expected to reduce emissions.
34
Figure 7. Alternative Fuel Testing Power Plant Alternative Fuel Testing – Loading Corn Starch Waste
Byproduct
Future Energy Issues
Planning new buildings to address research needs; renovation of existing space with
high technology equipment; and the trend to air condition previously unconditioned
space on campus all point to increased energy use in the future. There are large areas
of existing space that are not air conditioned and the campus push for small, electrically
driven cooling systems due to low capital costs versus large central, steam absorption
cooling plants causes higher electrical demand and an imbalance at the power plant.
This trend requires a study of various campus sites for regional steam absorption
cooling plants to meet the campus demand for energy at the lowest possible life cycle
cost.
Meeting campus energy demand while at the same time responding to the immense
concern of global warming will be another challenge. MSU has responded to this
challenge by joining the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) to reduce green house gas
emissions. MSU’s commitment through the CCX is to reduce our emissions by 6%
below our baseline over the next three years. This is equal to “turning off” around 2 ½
million square feet of space to reduce energy consumption. Literally turning off that
amount of space is not an option for the campus and will consequently lead to
innovative ways to reduce consumption while still meeting the challenge.
Change is in the wind. During the next 5 to 20 years, the challenge for the campus
community will be to continue to support the growth of programs including new
35
buildings, additions and renovation while minimizing the growth of energy consumption.
The opportunities that come with this challenge include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
encouraging behavioral changes with regard to energy use
continuing to explore burning alternative fuels at the Power Plant
developing a campus plan to install regional cooling plants
reviewing current purchasing policies including energy star compliant equipment
reviewing building scheduling and classroom scheduling policies
exploring alternative fuel vehicles for the MSU fleet
evaluating new energy saving technologies
keeping up-to-date with green energy options
On-going Analysis
Energy analysis is currently underway to determine what areas to target for reduction
on campus.
Figure 8 shows the top 30 electrical consumers for fiscal year 2005-2006 on a building
per square foot basis. Figure 9 indicates the top 15 electrical consumers for fiscal year
2005-2006 for residence halls. While this data is interesting, the anomalies require
further investigation to determine the cause. Other options to help reduce consumption
while maintaining current growth may be energy performance contracting and or
energy audits of selected buildings. A detailed list of current and future energy
initiatives is available in Appendix D.
The challenges and opportunities will be ever-changing as we maintain MSU’s
commitment to environmental stewardship, while continuing to grow as a world class
University.
36
Figure 8. Top 30 Electrical Consumers FY05-06
37
Figure 9. Top 15 Housing & Food Service Electrical Consumers for FY05-06
38
Chapter 4
Instructional Space
Summary
A primary component of the teaching and learning environment is the University’s
instructional space. The University maintains over 800 instructional spaces, which
represents over 900,000 net square feet of space. These spaces range from the
traditional classroom that can be utilized by any discipline and are categorized as
“university classrooms” to the more specialized spaces that are assigned to a specific
department and categorized as “teaching laboratories”. This report focuses on the
utilization and quality of university classrooms and teaching laboratories.
Understanding the utilization informs our planning for the appropriate number of rooms
and seats, course scheduling, and best use of a limited physical resource. The quality
of the rooms is essential to the teaching and learning process and requires proper
lighting, seating, acoustical treatment, sound and video support, proper and functioning
laboratory benches, fume hoods and other related utilities as well as computing
technologies, dependent on room function.
Analysis
Utilization
For utilization purposes, university classrooms and teaching laboratories are typically
grouped by capacity range (e.g. 30-39 seats). Fall semester data is used for the
purpose of utilization reviews as this is typically the highest use semester. Hours of
utilization are calculated based on a 50 hour week, which represents 10 course start
times per day beginning at 8:00 a.m. with the last start time at 7:00 p.m., MondayFriday. The seat utilization is based on the room capacity compared with actual course
enrollment.
University Classrooms
The University maintains approximately 330 centrally scheduled classrooms and
lecture halls. As part of the University’s main campus facilities, the centrally
scheduled classrooms account for approximately 394,000 net square feet of space.
Dependent upon capacity and configuration of the room, utilization of these
classrooms by scheduled instructional periods (not including a significant number of
one-time events such as special seminars, help sessions, department and student
organization meetings, etc.) ranges as high as 75 percent of the available hours and
averages 61 percent across all rooms. One-time events typically account for an
additional 8% in utilization. The seat utilization (percent capacity) ranges as high as
69 percent of the available capacity and averages 59 percent across all rooms. By
comparison peer institution utilization ranges from 62-83% of the total hours
available. Seat utilization ranges from 30– 69% of the total seats available. (Table 1)
39
Table 1. University Classrooms Utilization by Capacity Group – Fall 2006
Total Rooms
Hours based
on 50 hour
week
Hours
Percent
Utilization
Percent
Occupied
0 - 29
40
2000
891
45%
69%
30 -39
57
2850
1649
58%
69%
40 - 49
81
4050
2706
67%
56%
50 - 59
29
1450
979
68%
53%
60 - 69
34
1700
960
56%
51%
70 - 79
20
1000
613
61%
48%
80 - 89
15
750
404
54%
51%
90 - 99
2
100
67
67%
62%
100 - 149
13
650
424
65%
54%
150 - 199
11
550
350
64%
59%
200 - 249
11
550
346
63%
62%
250 - 299
6
300
217
72%
61%
300 - 399
6
300
203
68%
59%
400 - 499
3
150
113
75%
68%
500 +
5
250
152
61%
66%
Capacity
Group
333
16650
10074
61%
59%
Hour utilization is based on a 50 hour scheduled week. Seat utilization is based on a 50 hour
scheduled week. This table does not include the scheduled “events” activity which typically
represents an additional 8% in room utilization, for a total utilization of 69%.
Teaching Laboratories
The University maintains approximately 500 departmentally assigned instructional
spaces. These space types of specialized instructional facilities serve various
disciplines ranging from Biology to Landscape Architecture and Zoology, as
examples. The rooms account for approximately 510,000 net square feet of space.
The room types range from traditional scheduled class laboratories to open class
laboratories (available for class project work on an unscheduled basis) and tutorial
rooms. For those rooms that are regularly scheduled for courses, the level of
utilization is indicative of the highly specialized nature of these room types. The
utilization ranges as high as 57 percent of the available hours and averages 32
percent across all rooms. The seat utilization ranges as high as 77 percent of the
available capacity and averages 33 percent across all rooms. (Table 2)
40
Table 2. Teaching Laboratories Utilization by Capacity Group – Fall 2006
Total Rooms
Hours based
on 50 hour
week
Hours
Percent
Utilization
Percent
Occupied
0 - 29
133
6650
2057
31%
77%
30 -39
53
2650
996
38%
71%
40 - 49
35
1750
513
29%
51%
50 - 59
11
550
115
21%
50%
60 - 69
3
150
44
29%
29%
70 - 79
4
200
63
32%
36%
80 - 89
2
100
46
46%
37%
Capacity
Group
90 - 99
2
100
26
26%
47%
100 - 149
7
350
74
21%
42%
150 - 199
1
50
15
30%
47%
200 - 249
0
0
0
0%
0%
250 - 299
2
100
57
57%
10%
300 - 399
0
0
0
0%
0%
400 - 499
0
0
0
0%
0%
500 +
0
0
0
0%
0%
253
12650
4006
32%
33%
The table shows scheduled course utilization and seat occupancy by room capacity group. Hour
utilization is based on a 50 hour scheduled week. Seat utilization is based on a 50 hour scheduled
week.
Quality
The quality of these rooms is essential to the teaching and learning process and
requires proper lighting, seating, acoustical treatment, sound and video support, proper
and functioning laboratory benches, fume hoods and other related utilities as well as
computing technologies that facilitate specialized teaching methods and instruction in
specific disciplines.
A multi year improvement plan, informed by onsite assessment of the room condition
utilization levels, last improvement date, as well as input from departmental faculty and
staff, and an advisory group consisting of faculty and university staff guides the
maintenance improvements, equipment replacement and program enhancement of
these spaces. The onsite assessment ranks a number of factors within each room to
arrive at an overall room condition rank. See Table 3. During the period FY95-FY06
approximately $29.3M has been invested to upgrade instructional facilities. This
included alterations and improvements, technology equipment installations, and a
technology equipment replacement program that began in FY03. Of the $29.3M in total
upgrades this represents approximately $21.0M in alterations and improvements and
$8.3M in technology installations and upgrades. Funding for these improvements is
from general and auxiliary fund sources, and in limited cases from private fundraising.
41
Table 3. Room Condition Assessment Tool
Room Attributes
Condition Rank
1
2
3
Air Conditioning
Accessibility
Clock
Lectern - Tabletop, Floor
Seating - fixed or movable
Seating - Tablet Arm, Strip Table, Seatdesk, Table and
Chair
Seating - Upholstered or Not Upholstered
Seating - area or seating for students with disabilities
Seating with Power & Data Connections
Ceiling - Plaster, Tiles, Other
Chalkboard - Fixed or Movable
Floors - Level, Risers, Sloped
Floor Covering - Carpeted, Vinyl, Wood
Lighting - Fluorescent, Parabolic, Multi level switching,
Combination of Florescent and Dim.
Movable Walls (Accordion Folding)
Window Coverings - Shades, Drapes, Blinds, Blackout
Ceiling Fans
Last Renovation Date
A condition rank of 1 - No Attention Required; 2 - Requires Attention; 3 - Requires Immediate Response
is assigned each field as applicable to the room. The rankings for each room are then evaluated and the
rooms are then placed on the Multi-Year Improvement Plan as a 1 - Good to Excellent Requiring Minimal
to No Alterations and Improvements; 2 - Moderate to Selected Improvements Needed; 3 Comprehensive Upgrades Needed
Of the approximately 330 university classrooms approximately 65 percent of the rooms
are in good to excellent condition requiring minimal to no alterations or improvements.
Another 28 percent of the classrooms require moderate and selected improvements
such as new seating, lighting, or painting. The remaining 7 percent of these rooms will
require a comprehensive upgrade. New technology installations for the university
classrooms are planned at a minimum of 20 rooms per year. Of the 330 rooms 213 or
65% are currently technology equipped and include video, audio, and a networked
computer connected to a permanently installed, high-quality projection system via a
technology cart or laptop podium. These installations are located throughout campus.
(Figure 1)
42
Multi-Year Improvement Needs
7%
28%
65%
Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3
Figure 1. Classroom Multi-Year Improvement Needs by Rank The chart shows the status of the multiyear improvement plan for university classrooms. Rank 1 = good to excellent, Rank 2 = Moderate to
Selected Improvements, Rank 3 = Comprehensive Upgrade.
Of the approximately 500 teaching laboratories approximately 44 percent of the rooms
are in good to excellent condition requiring minimal to no alterations or improvements.
Another 46 percent of the departmental rooms require moderate and selected
improvements such as new lighting, bench replacement or painting. The remaining 10
percent of these rooms will require a comprehensive upgrade. (Figure 2)
Multi-Year Improvement Needs
10%
44%
46%
Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3
Figure 2. Teaching Laboratory Multi-Year Improvement Needs by Rank. Rank 1 = good to excellent,
Rank 2 = Moderate to Selected Improvements, Rank 3 = Comprehensive Upgrade.
Technology equipment installations, which may range from computers and video
projectors - growth chambers – microscopes, are typically planned on a room-by-room
basis for these specialized facilities. Recently completed or in process upgrades
include 37 teaching laboratories that support instruction for Chemistry (as part of the
Addition project), Integrative Studies General Science, Lyman Briggs, Plant Biology,
Science and Math Education, and Zoology.
43
Future Directions
Space is a limited and highly valued resource. Because instructional spaces are utilized
on a regular basis by students and faculty for the purpose of teaching and learning it is
important that the University continue to monitor, evaluate, and invest in this campus
resource.
Annual reviews of the utilization, both hours and seat capacity, of instructional space will
continue along with ad hoc analysis based on requests for changes in capacity or room
use, as examples. The intent is to ensure that the University has the right number and
kind of instructional spaces to meet the demands of scheduled courses, help sessions,
student group meetings, individual project and study needs, and pedagogy.
A developing area is the creation of informal learning spaces in areas near or adjacent
to classrooms or paths of travel to foster interactions among students and between
faculty and students outside of the classrooms. Opportunities for development of these
types of spaces are a part of the overall classroom planning effort.
The quality of these spaces is critical to the teaching and learning. On-site inspection
of these facilities will continue in order to focus efforts on those rooms of the highest
need relative to maintenance and upgrade of the built infrastructure. One area that
continues to evolve is the type of seating. The movement is toward movable tables and
chairs for greatest flexibility. Use of this type of seating often presents challenges
relative to the room capacity and requires analysis of seating options and seat
utilization. Technology plans continue to target a minimum of 20 newly equipped rooms
per year. The selection of new technology rooms is informed by department requests,
Instructional Media Center requests for delivery of portable technology equipment,
classroom scheduling requests for equipment and coordination opportunities as it
relates to other maintenance and upgrades planned for the room(s).
44
Chapter 5
Accessibility
Summary
Michigan State University is committed to providing equal opportunity for full
participation in all programs, services and activities. As part of this commitment, MSU
has included the evolving set of state, national and local accessibility/barrier free
standards throughout the past 30 plus years to provide an increasingly accessible
learning and work environment.
Beyond integration of the evolving accessibility codes in each new construction project,
MSU has served as a lead innovator in technologies that often extend beyond state and
national guidelines for accessible design. During the 1980s MSU was a pioneer of new
concepts in automatic snow melt systems at building entrances, adoption of accessible
elevator control panels, and innovations in slip resistant entrance ramps. And while
program accessibility is the primary driver behind building accessibility, MSU has
chosen to make a majority of its facilities accessible that existed prior to the passage of
the 1973 Federal Rehabilitation Act, Section 504 and subsequently the 1990 Americans
with Disabilities Act. Today, all but four of the university’s academic facilities are
accessible and all of the athletic facilities can be accessed by persons with disabilities.
Most residence halls are accessible at grade and selected buildings include specially
designed barrier free rooms. All of the instructional classroom spaces within the
residence halls are accessible.
MSU strives to employ concepts of universal design to more fully integrate accessibility
features in new and existing structures. Each year the university sets aside funds for
new projects that further the goal of maximizing access to all campus facilities. The
Office of Planning and Budgets/Facility Planning and Space Management, Athletic
Facility planners, Campus Planning and Administration, the Council for Students With
Disabilities, the Department of Housing and Food Services, the Physical Plant Division,
and the Resource Center for Persons with Disabilities routinely solicit and incorporate
feedback from the MSU community and in particular, people with disabilities, toward
enhanced campus accessibility.
Analysis
Michigan State University's efforts to remove physical barriers to program accessibility
date from the late 1960's. Among the earliest projects was the installation of curb cuts
for persons with mobility impairments to facilitate their ability to move around the
campus. One of the earliest written documents that affirmed the University’s
commitment to including individuals with disabilities was an affirmative action plan for
persons with disabilities adopted on November 15, 1974. The Michigan State University
Affirmative Action Plan for Handicappers (as it was titled at that time) was designed to
provide equal opportunity for persons with disabilities among the University's academic
and non-academic personnel as well as to make the University's programs more
attractive and accessible to students with disabilities. Since that time, the university has
made significant progress in removing barriers to building access. Today, very few
buildings are completely inaccessible although, all of the university’s programs are
accessible as determined through a self study conducted in 1995 in response to the
passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A small set of academic
45
buildings, some residence halls and apartments, and a limited number of support
buildings are not yet accessible as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Buildings Without an Accessible Entrance
The university continues to work towards making all of its facilities accessible and
moreover, to enhance the access and usability of its facilities. In addition to funds that
are separately budgeted each year to improve accessibility on the campus, other
sources include the Housing and Food Services Division, the Athletics Department, and
private donor support especially for those projects that are renovations and additions.
A three year summary (see Appendix E) shows ten projects have been completed that
improved accessibility of campus facilities. These projects represent expenditures that
are in excess of $3.5 million with funding sources representing a combination of internal
university funds and external sources. The scope of these projects ranged from:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
A minor improvement such as the installation of magnetic hold open devices
on the hallway doors of a classroom building to,
Improving interior building access as part of a program renovations and
additions project such as the IM West Fitness Center to,
Creating accessibility through a comprehensive renovation program such as
in Marshall-Adams Hall and the Geography Buildings as well as,
Enhancing current barrier free parking and adding additional spaces to meet
current needs and code requirements.
Three additional projects are funded currently and in process. Two of the projects are
major renovation and additions with an important part of the work scope involving
46
accessibility: the Renovation/Addition project at Snyder-Philips Hall and the Erickson
Hall Addition. As a part of the addition to Erickson Hall, the main east front entrance to
the building will be enhanced with a snowmelt system and new power assisted doors.
The third project is solely focused on accessibility and involves the installation of
automated door opening-closing devices at the Computer Center. The automated
doors will partner with the newly graded entrances which included tactile strips for
persons with visual impairments and will facilitate access particularly at the East and
South entrances.
Future Directions and Developing Issues
To assist with identifying future barrier-removal needs and developing the scope of
projects, a university team reviews barrier-removal issues on an annual basis.
However, this does not limit the ability to respond to a more immediate need that may
be identified throughout the course of a year and would be handled as a reasonable
accommodation. The annual planning team is convened by the Facilities Planning
Office. The team includes Athletic Facility planners, Campus Planning and
Administration, the Council for Students with Disabilities, the Department of Housing
and Food Services, the Physical Plant Division, and the Resource Center for Persons
with Disabilities. As a result of their efforts eight projects have been identified and are
currently under review. Descriptions of the projects are available in Appendix E.
The scope of the projects ranges from improving exterior access such as the ramp
project at the Demonstration Hall building to enhancing interior building circulation such
as the Auditorium elevator project to creating exterior access for a facility that is
currently inaccessible such as Old Botany, Chittenden Hall, Cook Hall, and the UPLA
buildings. With regard to the older buildings (Old Botany, Chittenden, and Cook Hall),
accessibility will be achieved as part of a comprehensive building renovation plan and
will occur following the identification of donor funding. One of the more significant
issues then, for all of the noted projects, is the identification of sufficient funding such
that the projects can be accomplished in a reasonable timeframe.
Discussion has also occurred in the planning group on other issues that are less costly
but would enhance accessibility on the campus. One of these items is to increase the
number of facilities with power assisted doors. While many buildings across the
campus have had at least one entrance modified with a power assisted door, there are
others that will be examined and considered for this feature. See Figure 2.
47
Figure 2. Facilities with Power Assistance at Any One Door
In summary, plans for dealing with the inherent characteristics of the built environment
and the diverse needs of persons with disabilities present a constant challenge in
balancing priorities between a totally accommodating and user-friendly environment,
and a plan which may be more modest, but acceptable under the requirements. At any
given point in time, the University's approach is to deal first with barriers that limit or
hinder program access; then with modifications that more fully accommodate the
population of persons with disabilities; and last with the many possible refinements of
design and state-of-the-art technology that can render a facility more user-friendly. It is
noteworthy that in most cases, the University typically goes beyond code requirements,
to the extent possible, in the scope and design of individual barrier-removal projects.
More information about the Michigan State University’s commitment to barrier free
access can be found at: http://opbweb.msu.edu/Accessibility/index.htm
48
Chapter 6
CATA Ridership Information
Summary
The Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA) has been providing transit services to
Michigan State University since the fall of 1999. Transit ridership has grown
significantly since then, due to improvements to routes, increased frequency of service
and enhanced user-friendliness.
Analysis
When CATA took over the campus transit service in 1999, approximately 829,000 rides
per year were being provided by the MSU-operated system. During the first year of the
contract, the existing campus routes were kept in place while a Comprehensive
Operational Analysis (COA) was performed in order to evaluate the quality and
efficiency of existing service and to identify possible improvements to both routing and
frequency. The existing routes were judged based on industry standards. Several
campus focus groups were assembled so that a clear understanding of transit rider
needs and desires could be obtained. The information was used to create a plan for a
major redesign of all of the on-campus bus routes. When the plan was implemented in
FY 2001, ridership nearly doubled, jumping from 912,000 to 1.76 million. Refinements
to the routes and student recognition of transit as a viable alternative for campus
circulation have produced continuous growth in ridership numbers. Nearly 3.2 million
rides were provided on campus in FY 2006. See Figure 1.
Figure 1. MSU Annual Transit Ridership from FY 1999 – FY 2006
49
Off-campus student apartment opportunities have increased greatly with the
development of several new complexes in the area. There has been a particular
concentration of these developments in the Chandler Road corridor of the northern part
of the City of East Lansing. CATA has implemented new routes to accommodate
student travel to campus from the new developments. They have also continued to
refine the other routes connecting to campus so that optimum service could be provided
within budget limitations. As result, continued steady growth has taken place in the
number of riders. There were 450,000 riders in FY 2000. That number increased to
more than one million in FY 2006. See Figure 2.
Figure 2. Off-Campus Routes to MSU – Annual Transit Ridership FY 1999 – FY 2006
While ridership on campus and connecting to campus grew over the last seven years,
CATA’s non-MSU routes have remained fairly steady in number in the 5 million rides
per year range. In total, CATA has had steady growth in system-wide ridership, moving
from 6.2 million rides in FY2000 to more than 10 million in FY2006. See Figure 3.
50
Figure 3. CATA Total System Ridership from FY 2000 – FY 2006
As expected from the increased ridership numbers, student bus pass sales have also
grown significantly, moving from 2,728 in 2000 to 17,279 in 2006. See Figure 4.
Figure 4. CATA Pass Sales to MSU Students
51
Future Directions
This past summer, MSU renewed its contract to retain CATA as the university transit
service provider. The new agreement extends through FY 2011.
CATA will be conducting a new COA during FY 2007 and it is anticipated that new
opportunities for service improvement will be recommended as result and will also
incorporate recommendations for route changes once the Farm Lane Underpass project
is complete. Cost containment is a key issue for the university, and these opportunities
will be evaluated based on their impact not only to service, but also to overall university
expense for the future.
52
Chapter 7
Traffic Safety 1996 - 2006
Summary
Michigan State University’s 5200 acre main campus includes 566 buildings, over 25,000
parking spaces and approximately 18 miles of streets. The MSU community consists of
45,000 students, 4,500 faculty and professional staff and 6,000 staff employees. The
MSU community and its visitors generate within the limits of the campus approximately
110,000 vehicle trips per day. Unlike most communities with two peak hours of traffic
per day, MSU has a “peak hour” of traffic for every 20 minute class change from 8 am
until 10 pm.
In the early 1990’s, three separate fatal accidents involving trains within the environs of
the campus, precipitated an examination of traffic safety issues and in 1995 the MSU
Department of Police & Public Safety reactivated the Office of the Traffic Engineer with
the specific goal of reducing traffic accidents. Emphasis was placed on reducing
personal injuries. Traffic safety was subsequently made a core part of the University’s
2020 Master Plan, and thus institutionalized at the executive level.
In 1995, there were 507 crashes and 139 injuries, equating to approximately 28 crashes
and 7.7 injuries per mile of campus road per year. The State of Michigan experienced
3.5 crashes and 1.2 injuries per mile of public road per year during the same period.
After addressing traffic safety on a number of fronts, campus accidents have been
reduced by 62% and injuries have been reduced by 83%.
Analysis
MSU’s streets are not part of the Michigan Accident Location Index (MALI) system and
there was no convenient means for locating and analyzing traffic accident reports. It
took three years to develop a referencing system and a computer file for locating all
traffic crashes. Every crash was also processed into an automated collision diagram.
There are hundreds of traffic control signs on campus. Field reviews of all traffic control
devices were conducted. Numerous signs were no longer in compliance with the current
Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) and were replaced;
many others were relocated to improve their visibility. Most of the yield signs were
replaced with stop signs. More than 1,000 work orders have been issued in the
upgrading of traffic control devices.
Traffic volume counts and vehicular speed studies were taken on all of the streets and
added to the data base. Engineering analyses of the traffic volume counts revealed that
many of the intersections met the criteria for stop-and-go traffic signals. Many of these
intersections were experiencing a profound pattern of right-angle crashes. Over a
period of several years many traffic safety improvements have been made:
ƒ
ƒ
Farm Lane and East Circle Drive - existing traffic signal was removed and the
intersection eliminated
Farm Lane at Auditorium Road - traffic signals and geometric reconfigurations
were provided
53
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Farm Lane at Wilson Road - traffic signals and geometric reconfigurations were
provided
Farm Lane at Trowbridge - traffic signals and geometric reconfigurations were
provided
Shaw Lane at Red Cedar Road - traffic signals and geometric reconfigurations
were provided
Shaw Lane at Chestnut Road - traffic signals and geometric reconfigurations were
provided
Wilson Road and Bogue Street - traffic circle reconstructed into a traditional
intersection with traffic signals
Shaw and Bogue - geometry of the existing traffic circle reconfigured, converting
the circle to a functioning roundabout
Trowbridge Road extended eastward into the campus from its intersection with
Harrison Road in order to reduce the traffic volumes on North campus.
Figure 1 reflects the intersections that were reconfigured and the change in the number
of accidents.
Figure 1. Intersection Accidents on MSU’s campus Demonstrates the successful reduction of roadway
accidents (property damage and personal injury) at reconstructed intersections. The statistics prove the
value of the capital investment in reconstructing high-accident areas on campus and should be continued.
Star indicates lane and pavement marking changes in August 2003
The enforcement of traffic laws has increased to much higher levels, from a low of 770
citations in 1999 to 4,184 citations in 2005, an increase of 440%. Traffic enforcement
efforts were targeted at high accident locations, locations with high vehicular-pedestrian
conflicts, and locations where speed was an accident factor. Additional radar and laser
equipment were put into service. A motorcycle unit became operational, facilitating
enforcement in congested areas. Please refer to Table 1 and Figure 2.
54
Table 1. Traffic Citations By Category from 1996-2006
TRAFFIC CITATIONS 1996-2006
TRAFFIC TICKETS WRITTEN
1996
RECKLESS DRIVING
SPEED VIOLATIONS
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
RIGHT OF WAY
TURNING MOVEMENTS
PASSING & LANE USAGE
ONE WAY VIOLATIONS
OTHER MOVING VIOLATIONS
LICENSE & REGISTRATION VIOLATIONS
DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT
LEAVING THE SCENE - FATAL ACCIDENT
LEAVING THE SCENE - PERSONAL
INJURY
LEAVING SCENE/FAIL TO REPORT PROPERTY DAMAGE
PEDESTRIAN VIOLATION
BICYCLE VIOLATION
SEATBELT VIOLATION
OTHER NON-MOVING VIOLATIONS
TICKET TOTALS
4,500
Total
4,000
Speed
3,500
1997
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
(to date)
24
641
327
44
91
10
18
45
697
164
0
7
493
279
46
88
18
18
72
737
112
0
2
629
292
39
72
12
14
36
839
92
0
5
736
304
34
61
17
7
49
793
84
0
2
727
212
106
39
8
0
48
478
61
0
1
900
101
143
35
19
0
95
669
96
0
0
903
106
165
43
17
0
112
846
72
0
0
1,021
250
280
59
29
0
180
1,068
92
0
0
1,336
213
190
74
28
0
132
958
87
0
4
1,626
148
265
60
36
0
33
1,154
169
0
0
1,326
91
160
67
25
2
17
812
133
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
9
3
0
0
12
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
12
0
1
94
11
3
0
242
6
0
0
149
6
1
0
533
14
2
0
852
8
5
0
630
6
1
0
661
20
4,184
1
0
0
608
12
3,254
373
517
853
504
88
4
21
18
31
2,446
2,399
2,897
2,703
2,025
2,218
2,825
3,865
3,692
Traffic Citations 1996-2006
Right of Way
x + 16 58.4
y = 186.86
3,000
Number
1998
2,500
2,000
1,500
y = 98.4 x +
1,000
3 49.42
500
y = 22.364x - 0.3636
0
2006(to date)
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
Year
Figure 2. Increase in Traffic Citations from 1996-2006
In the face of a major shortage in parking spaces, considerable on-street parking was
removed at locations with an adverse crash history. Additional parking was provided at
the periphery of the academic core, resulting in a significant reduction in traffic volumes
by generating shorter trips. When a large parking lot was reconstructed its geometric
design was changed to improve safety (early results are very encouraging). CATA bus
services were expanded to enhance the use of perimeter parking and reduce the
number of vehicle trips. The cumulative effect of managing the parking on campus has
greatly reduced and redistributed traffic volumes.
The intersection of Kalamazoo Street, Chestnut Road and Red Cedar Road, had the
“Sparty” statue located in the center of traffic and the resulting geometry was so
confusing that no satisfactory traffic control was found. The intersection was
55
reconstructed to have only three legs and an all-way stop sign control. Pedestrian and
bicycle traffic circulation was accommodated successfully in the new design.
A standard design for bus stops was developed with help from CATA. The primary goal
was to eliminate sight restrictions for pedestrians created by a stopped bus. Every bus
stop was field reviewed and many were changed and/or relocated.
A standard was developed for pedestrian crosswalks. Over 150 crosswalks were field
reviewed. Most of the crosswalks were modified to fit the standard. Others were
eliminated. Often chaining or landscaping was installed along the street margin to
reduce the frequency of pedestrians crossing outside of a marked crosswalk.
Cameras and communication hardware were provided for the traffic signals, and a
signal coordination plan was developed and installed. Traffic exiting campus is presently
progressed at the expense of traffic entering campus, thus reducing vehicular backups
in the presence of pedestrians.
Of major concern was the paucity in the number of motorists yielding to pedestrians in
crosswalks. A special “yield to peds” sign was developed for MSU. These signs are
placed daily in the middle of the road in proximity to the crosswalks. The sign folds up if
struck by a vehicle. There has been a noticeable improvement in motorists yielding to
pedestrians and a very similar sign has since been added to the Michigan Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
The cumulative impact of all of the traffic safety initiatives has been significant. Table 2
shows the reductions in the number of accidents over the life of this program.
Figure 3 illustrates the impacts with the regression lines indicating that there has been a
decrease of 20 accidents and a decrease of 8 injuries per each year of the program.
The projected 2006 crash data indicates a 62% reduction in the number of accidents
and an 83% reduction in the number of injuries since 1995. This degree of accident
reduction in a community or university setting is unprecedented, as far as can be
determined. Using data provided by the National Safety Council on the societal costs of
traffic crashes, approximately $10 million in savings will be realized in 2006 (compared
to 1995) alone.
56
Table 2. Number of Accidents per Year Analysis
Year
Number of accidents
Number of Injuries
1995
507
139
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006 (Jan-Sept)
Projected 2006
458
494
403
397
438
356
430
360
358
337
147
195
89
97
82
83
63
75
42
48
47
46
18
24
600
The total number of accidents and the total number of injuries
Michigan State University Campus streets
Accidents
y = -1
9.829
x+
500
Injuries
523.3
Number
400
300
200
y = -7.9
825x +
121.47
100
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
0
Year
Figure 3. Total Number of Accidents and Injuries on MSU Campus Streets
Changes to the vehicular transportation system have also had positive effects on traffic
volumes in high pedestrian areas. Figures 4 & 5 illustrate the changes in average daily
vehicular trips (ADT) from 1997 to 2005. In most academic areas, the number of
vehicle trips has gone down. This is a positive benefit to pedestrians because conflicts
with vehicular traffic have been reduced. The reduction of vehicle trips in the academic
core was one of the planning goals of the 2020 Campus Master Plan and the data
indicate that good progress has been made.
57
Figure 4. 1997 Average Daily Vehicular Trips on MSU Campus
Figure 5. 2005 Average Daily Vehicular Trips on MSU Campus
58
Future Directions
Federal funding was obtained to provide grade separations for Farm Lane with its two
railroad crossings. MDOT has agreed to oversee this complex project and construction
plans are being prepared. The grade separations will provide enhanced safety and
operational benefits for the university and the region. Project completion is anticipated
in 2009.
Traffic count and accident data will continue to be collected in order to document the
effects of past safety improvements and to guide solutions to remaining safety
problems. Lessons learned will be applied to future campus development.
Parking lot safety improvement will be a major area of focus in the future, with emphasis
on reduction of accidents and injuries. With virtually nothing published on this topic,
some experimentation will be required to determine the most effective design standards
for both safety and operational efficiency.
59
60
Chapter 8
Parking
Summary
With the recent opening of the Grand River Parking Ramp, campus-wide parking ratios
meet the identified target established in the 2020 Campus Master Plan (0.90 parking
spaces for every faculty, staff, and graduate assistant); however, some districts have a
surplus while others have a deficit.
Refer to Figure 1. University Zoning District Map for a depiction of specific planning
areas.
Figure 1. University Zoning District Map
Initiatives to expand research activities are anticipated to increase the population of
researchers and graduate students on campus. This population increase will
necessitate additional parking resources to meet projected demand. Greatest new
demands are anticipated within the Central and South Academic Districts.
Analysis
Parking Assessment Parameters
The 2020 Campus Master Plan identified an ideal goal of providing 0.90 parking spaces
per every faculty, staff, and graduate assistant. This ratio was based on current
61
vehicular mobility patterns that include unrestricted access to any properly designated
employee permit lot and ample supply to meet daily demand with some flexibility to
accommodate vehicular movement between districts throughout the work day. It should
be noted that while the 0.90 ratio offers an ideal goal, the campus can and does operate
effectively at a slightly lower ratio. Table 1 reflects the historic, current, and estimated
parking supply/demand ratios.
Table 1. District Summary for Estimated Parking Supply and Demand
This data compares the parking ratios identified in the 2020 Vision Campus Master Plan to current and
projected conditions through the year 2012.
New population data was provided by Human Resources through the campus
Geographic Information System (GIS) based on a zip code plus four digit accounting
with fractional values (e.g., an employee with an address in two districts is counted in
both at ½ value). New parking supply numbers were provided by the Department of
Police and Public Safety (DPPS) with a field count of the North Academic District
conducted in early 2006.
District Comparisons
The greatest parking supply deficit identified in the 2020 Vision Campus Master Plan,
within the North Academic District, has been positively addressed. The parking ratio
has increased over the last five years from 0.74 to 0.85 along with an increase in the
visitor parking supply (approximately 160 spaces in the Grand River Ramp). The North
Academic District had a small growth in population but a notable growth in parking
supply due to the new Grand River Ramp opening in December 2006. With the removal
62
of numerous on-street parking spaces over the next five to six years (200 total spaces
removed, 150 faculty/staff and 50 visitor), the parking ratio will adjust downward but
remain adequate. Full realization of the Campus Master Plan will further reduce the
parking ratio to 0.70; however, if the proposed School of Music building is located in the
Central Academic District and Parking Lot #9 (located east of Giltner Hall, between
Giltner Hall and the Auditorium) remains open, the ratio is estimated at 0.79.
Table 2 shows the anticipated gain and loss of parking spaces through 2012. The
summary of the table is as follows
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
West Circle Drive: removal of 47 on-street employee parking spaces plus an
additional 16 on-street visitor parking spaces across from the Union to improve
safety
Snyder Phillips: loss of 43 spaces due to new building footprint and service
access off the Baker Hall vehicular drive
Grand River Ramp: addition of 553 faculty/staff spaces
East Circle Drive: removal of 102 employee spaces (40 north of Kedzie Hall for
creation of open space and 62 on-street spaces) plus an additional 11 on-street
visitor spaces adjacent to Student Services
An additional 42 employee spaces are projected for removal along the northern
segment of East Circle Drive (from Berkey Hall to Student Services) plus 6 visitor
spaces
Bessey Hall Ramp: displacement of existing parking for ramp rebuild and
expansion
63
Table 2. North Academic District Parking Summary
Based on current inventory and projected construction project timing, this figure illustrates when major
construction projects will impact parking for faculty and staff within the North Academic District. Red
indicates a reduction in supply and blue indicates an increase in supply. The surplus/deficit number
indicates the difference from the ideal goal established in the 2020 Vision Campus Master Plan, which
identifies a parking supply of 0.90 spaces for every faculty and staff residing in the district.
Parking ratios are expected to drop within the Central Academic District with anticipated
future population increases to support expanding research endeavors. With a projected
population increase of approximately 800 people, construction of two parking ramps (at
the stadium and southwest corner of Shaw and Red Cedar Road), and elimination of
the central surface parking lots over the next 20 years, the effective ratio will drop to
approximately 0.64. This will require a reassessment of who has privileges to park
within this district. If the visitor/commuter lot #79 south of Spartan Stadium is
reassigned for faculty and staff and reallocated from the Athletic District to the Central
Academic District where a majority of its users are destined then the long-term effective
ratio will approach 0.76.
The South Academic District has flexibility to balance future facilities and population
growth with future parking resources. Given its remoteness from the other campus
districts, it is not assumed that any surplus here will offset deficits elsewhere.
The Athletic District witnessed a slight growth in population primarily from the stadium
mixed-use project; however it maintains a parking surplus. The visitor/commuter lot
south of the stadium (Lot #79) is not factored into the supply today (616 spaces), but
could be reassigned to meet projected demand increases within the adjacent Central
Academic District. Additional perimeter commuter parking will be required to offset the
64
reassignment of this parking to faculty and staff to meet future projected parking deficits
within the adjacent Central Academic District.
The East Residential District parking ratio dropped from 1.33 to 1.20 primarily based on
the new population estimates. Visual observations of the parking lot utilization rates
indicate a higher demand than what was calculated, warranting a future verification of
the population data and utilization patterns.
The ratio within the West Residential District remained just over 1 parking space for
every faculty, staff and graduate assistant with no measurable projected change in the
future.
The Support District’s parking ratio is projected to remain relatively constant with a
surplus of parking supply within the twenty-year campus planning horizon.
Parking Violations
According to the DPPS, anecdotal evidence from customers in the University Police
Department Parking Office suggests that the current fine cap to parking violations on
college and university campuses in Michigan is too low to act as a deterrent for illegal
parking. Many motorists accumulate hundreds of dollars in fines while at the same time
negatively impacting the parking supply for valid permit holders. Refer to Figure 2.
Parking Violation Trends for a 25-year review of collected data.
PARKING VIOLATION TRENDS
Violations
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
Year
1990
1993
Violations
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
Figure 2. Parking Violation Trends Chart depicts the number of parking tickets issues on an annualized
basis. A violation is a parking citation issued by a department employee for violation of university
ordinances or state law. Year to year variations in citations issued may result from such events as the
introduction of new technology, reconstruction of major parking lots, and the gating of increasing numbers
of parking facilities.
Gated Parking
Numerous parking facilities are gated, restricting access during the work day to valid
permit holders or paying visitors. Refer to Figure 3 Gated Parking Facilities Map for the
location of gated parking facilities on campus. Access to gated parking facilities is
governed by a card-swipe access control system or staffed by an attendant.
65
Approximately 7,560 parking spaces are located within gated facilities, which accounts
for approximately 30% of the overall campus supply.
Figure 3. Gated Parking Facilities Map
Future Directions
Future parking challenges will be greatest within the Central Academic District, due to
anticipated population growth and displacement of existing parking supply per the
Campus Master Plan. Additional parking ramps and reassigning commuter parking to
faculty/staff/visitor parking may be required along with additional perimeter parking in
other districts that is well serviced by mass transit. Additional perimeter parking
locations include the northeast corner of Mount Hope Road and Farm Lane,
repurposing of the State Police facility should this become available, and repurposing of
the Agriculture Exposition site.
Graduated parking rates are required to promote utilization of perimeter parking facilities
by faculty and staff along with enhanced year-round transit service. The Farm Lane
railroad underpasses will enhance efficient connectivity of the campus’ academic core
with the perimeter parking facilities.
Parking fines should be increased to reduce the number of violations and increase the
available parking supply for those with valid permits but are State regulated as to the
amount.
A campus-wide parking utilization study should be completed to improve our
understanding of parking patterns and to prioritize future investments.
66
University-sponsored initiatives that promote alternative modes of transportation should
be investigated.
No assessment was prepared for resident and commuter student parking; however,
visual observations indicate the existing parking supply is heavily used.
67
68
Chapter 9
Safety & Security
Summary
In the last three years, significant steps have been made to enhance the security of
people and infrastructure at Michigan State University. Two committees, the Safety and
Inspection Committee for Property and Casualty (SICPAC) and the Card Access team
have been the primary drivers for significant safety and security enhancements since
2003. As a result of their efforts, the University has been able to systematically
approach four key safety and security issues: Fire alarms, smoke detectors, building
sprinklers and card access/security alarms (interior and exterior).
Analysis
SICPAC
SICPAC was established in 1988 to review inspection reports from the University’s
external insurance consultants and determine priorities for funding or otherwise
establish follow-up issues. In the past few years, the mission was expanded to serve as
a repository for tracking facility-related safety issues, provide collective consultation and
advice on safety matters, and review and prioritize projects based on potential risk
factors.
In 2003, SICPAC funded adding sprinklers and smoke detectors to several buildings to
increase the protection to facilities during a fire. Additionally, funds were allotted to
begin implementation of exterior door card access of high priority buildings. To
determine building priority, several risk categories were considered to come up with a
“risk ranking” for each building.
Today, the number of buildings with full smoke detection has increased from 16 (in
2004) to 37. The number of buildings with exterior door card access has increased from
47 (in 2003) to 58 (Figure 1). Interior card readers have increased from 28 to 480
(Figure 2), and there are over 7,500 users. The card access system has also increased
in size and capacity and an access control unit was developed with the Department of
Police and Public Safety.
69
MSU Buildings with Exterior Card Access
Number of buildings
70
60
50
58
47
40
30
20
10
0
2003
2006
Year
Figure 1. MSU Buildings with Exterior Card Access
Number of card readers
Number of Card Readers
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2003
2006
Year
Figure 2. Number of Card Readers for Interior and Exterior Card Access
Also in 2003, most of the campus fire alarm systems were stand alone and did not
report to a central location. As a result of the access control project, now all of the
building evacuation alarms are centrally monitored through the Department of Police
and Public Safety. Also, a new access/alarm system was added and today the new
system has many addition features and is able to meet the needs of the University for
several years.
The access/alarm system in 2003 was at that time more than seven years old, unable to
expand and operated by two police department staff members, on a part time basis.
Today the new system has many additional features, is able to meet the needs of the
University for several years.
70
Enhanced Security Work Group
The Enhanced Security working group was formed in June 2006 with the goal of
creating enhanced security criteria and an implementation plan for interior spaces,
server rooms, and farm areas. In December 2006, the group completed its charge by
establishing card access and enhanced security criteria checklists and a developed a
plan to implement the new security measures.
The building construction standards were also updated to reflect the need to equip the
exterior doors of all new buildings and major renovations with card access. The
standard also requires a review of all interior rooms, using the developed checklist
criteria, to determine if access control or enhanced security is required.
Moving from Keys to Cards
Moving from keys to access cards offers several advantages and cost saving
opportunities:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Lost cards may be instantly deleted from the system and made inoperable, lost
keys cannot
Cards allow for the restricting of access by area, time, day, etc.
Access control can be used to remotely lock and unlock facilities, eliminating the
current practice of opening buildings by key starting in the early morning hours
and increasing exposure to theft and vandalism
Cards may be used for multiple functions such as identification, building access,
and meal plans
To ensure a simplified and cost effective card access system, the University is
developing a plan to move to a universal card stock, so that one card can provide
access to academic buildings, residence halls, library and technology services, parking
lots, and other campus areas. In the interim, new key policies have been instituted to
enhance security.
Future Directions
Although there have been significant strides to enhance the security on campus, there
are still ways for Michigan State University to improve safety and security.
Instead of operating separate working groups (i.e., SICPAC, Enhanced Security), the
decision was made to create a University Safety and Security committee to address
safety issues related to facilities and infrastructure. The team has a wide range of
membership to capture many different areas of expertise on campus related to safety,
security, and risk.
71
72
Chapter 10
South Campus Farms Nutrient Management
Summary
South Campus Farms are faced with a significant challenge related to manure
phosphorus production and sustainable nutrient management on the South Campus
Farms land base. Shrinking research support acres and increasing soil phosphorus
levels are having a severe impact on the sustainable operation of the livestock facilities,
Pavilion, and Veterinary Medicine. With increasing regulatory requirements over the
years, we have been unable to handle in a sustainable manner, all of the manure and
nutrients being generated without incorporating composting and raw manure export into
the comprehensive nutrient management plan (CNMP). Recent surface water related
regulations have added substantial requirements to the way South Campus Farms are
managed. The collective size of the animal populations on the South Campus Farms
classifies MSU as a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) and requires the
livestock facilities, Pavilion, and Veterinary Medicine to operate under a National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) CAFO permit. A number of initiatives
have already been implemented to promote future sustainability and to meet regulatory
compliance requirements, with additional projects under consideration.
The South Campus Farms are diligently working to:
1. Balance nutrients being produced from the livestock facilities, Pavilion, and
Veterinary Medicine with soil nutrient levels and a shrinking land base;
2. Secure additional funding to complete regulatory required facility enhancements;
3. Provide facilities and land base to maximize researchable and educational
opportunities.
Analysis
Land Base and Soil Nutrient Loading
Over the years, South Campus Farms land base acreage losses have been attributed to
departmental research projects, buildings and facilities, and environmental requirements
and setbacks (Figure 1). Research support acres are plots of land that support
research conducted in departmental projects, buildings and facilities. They include
areas for growing animal feed and land used for manure disposal. Because research
land has increased, the amount of land available for research support has decreased.
Research support acreage totaled 1,325 acres in the early 1970’s and has been
reduced to 978 acres in 2006. Of these 978 acres, 388 acres are currently available for
manure nutrient application (spreadable acres) while the remaining acreage is utilized
as pasture or is marginal land not suitable for manure application. Spreadable acres
generally fluctuate with the cropping plan for corn and wheat as these are the fields that
can and will receive manure applications annually (Figure 2). Significant acreage
losses in 1991 were related to removing fields with high phosphorus soil tests from the
manure spreading plan. Significant acreage losses in 1998 were related to eliminating
73
the majority of pastures and all marginal land from the manure spreading plan.
Significant acreage losses in 2004 were related to eliminating the remaining pastures
(30 Acres used on a limited basis) out of the manure spreading plan.
Cumulative Research Support Acres
1300
1250
Acres
1200
1150
1100
1050
1000
19
70
's
19
80
's
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
950
Figure 1. Cumulative Research Support Acres Impacts to the amount of research support acreage
available (1,325 Acres in early 1970’s to 978 Acres in 2006). Acreage losses are attributed to
departmental research projects, buildings and facilities, and environmental regulations and setbacks
Cumulative Spreadable Acres
1350
1250
1150
Acres
1050
950
850
750
650
550
450
19
70
'
19 s
80
's
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
350
Figure 2. Cumulative Spreadable Acres Impacts to the amount of research support acreage available for
manure application (spreadable acres) (1,325 Acres in early 1970’s to 388 Acres in 2006)
74
While available manure application acreage has continued to decline, phosphorus
loading has been steadily increasing (Figure 3) to a point where the average soil
phosphorus loading across all research support acres is 160+ lbs/Ac. At 150 lbs of soil
test phosphorus, additional application of phosphorus is limited to agronomic rates,
based upon one year of crop removal (52 lbs/Ac). At 300 pounds of soil test
phosphorus, additional application of phosphorus is not considered a Generally
Accepted Agriculture and Management Practice (GAAMP) under Right to Farm. Since
1990, over 100 acres have become unavailable for manure application due to high
phosphorus soil test levels.
Average Soil Phosphorus (P205)
190
180
Phosphorus in Pounds
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Figure 3. Research Support Acreage – Soil P2O5 Loading Average annual soil phosphorus levels as
calculated across research support acreage that receives manure. Individual year soil test variations are
due to not testing every field, every year, as well as soil sampling location variability within a field.
Manure phosphorus applications have limitations once the soil phosphorus levels exceed 150 lbs/Ac.
Nutrient Management
Over the years there has been an imbalance in the amount of manure phosphorus
produced and the amount of phosphorus that could be removed through crop
production (Figure 4). Total manure phosphorus production from the livestock facilities,
Pavilion, and Veterinary Medicine has averaged nearly 78,000 lbs annually over the last
six years. Phosphorus removed through crop production has averaged nearly 50,000
lbs annually over the last six years. Composting, which began in mid-2003, has
averaged nearly 20,000 lbs of phosphorus removal annually as the final product is sold
to consumers and does not go back on the South Campus Farms land base. This
leaves an annual imbalance of 8,000-10,000 lbs of phosphorus in the nutrient
management system. In Fall 2005, the export of raw manure to non-university land was
initiated. In that first year, approximately 12,000 lbs of phosphorus was exported off
campus, essentially re-establishing the nutrient balance.
75
Phosphorus Balance
P o u n d s o f P h o sp h o ru s
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2000
Total Phosphorus
2001
2002
CropRemovedPhosphorus
2003
2004
2005
Compost, Export, andCropRemovedPhosphorus
Figure 4. Research Support Acreage – Phosphorus Balance Phosphorus balance for research support
acreage on the South Campus Farms. Total phosphorus represents manure phosphorus produced at
South Campus Farms livestock facilities, the Pavilion, and Vet Med. Phosphorus removed represents the
amount of phosphorus removed through crop production across all acreage, removed by processing
manure through the manure composting facility which then leaves the South Campus Farms land base,
and removed through the export of raw manure to non-university land. High crop yields in 2000 & 2004
were a result of plentiful precipitation. Composting began in mid-July 2003. Manure export began in
2005.
Many factors impact the nutrient management plan and changes occur on a regular
basis. These include animal research projects and fluctuations in animal numbers that
impact manure production, plant-type research projects impacting land base utilization,
feed management changes that impact crop production, weather conditions that impact
crop yields and manure application opportunities, and material handling issues that
impact composting rates and raw manure export. Therefore, the nutrient management
plan is a very fluid document requiring extensive coordination between researchers,
managers, facilities, departments, and colleges.
Figure 5 depicts the seven year average for the source and amount of manure
phosphorus being generated by each of the South Campus Farms livestock facilities,
the Pavilion, and Veterinary Medicine. Totaling nearly 80,000 lbs of manure
phosphorus annually, this is the manure requiring hauling and spreading and does not
include that deposited directly to the land in the pasture setting. In general, Dairy,
Swine, BCRC, Pavilion, and Waste Feed make up the majority of manure phosphorus
production.
76
BCRC
7 Year Average Phosphorus Production
Dairy
Poultry
Swine
Poultry, 2,305,
3%
Horse
Dairy, 23,531,
31%
Cow/Calf
Pavilion
Swine, 16,482,
21%
Sheep
Veterinary
Waste Feed
Horse, 1,776, 2%
Cow/Calf, 3,396,
4%
BCRC, 11,277,
14%
Pavilion, 8,858,
11%
Waste Feed,
8,270, 10%
Sheep , 1,763,
2%
Veterinary, 1,866,
2%
Figure 5. Seven Year Average – Manure Phosphorus Production The seven year average for the source
and amount of manure phosphorus being generated by each of the South Campus Farms livestock
facilities, Pavilion and Vet Med. The manure being generated is a by product of research and educational
activities and requires hauling and spreading. This manure does not include that deposited directly to the
land in the pasture setting.
A manure management system plan (MMSP) has been utilized since 1990 to manage
the application of manure nutrients in conformance with Right to Farm GAAMPs. A
CNMP is currently under development to further manage all nutrient sources on the
South Campus Farms, balancing across the entire land base to meet environmental
requirements.
Future Directions
There are many options being considered for current and future management of the
nutrients being generated on the South Campus Farms to ensure long term
sustainability. Notable options include:
1. Manure export: This entails moving, treating, or handling manure/nutrients to
promote utilization in areas other than on the South Campus Farms land base.
This could include additional composting, increasing raw manure export, and
77
utilizing bedding/manure as a fuel source at the Power Plant. All of these require
additional operational and input costs to undertake and sustain. Environmental
benefits can be realized both through sustainability and “Green” initiatives
(Carbon Credit Exchange).
2. Manure nutrient separation technologies could segregate nutrients from the biomass providing opportunities to apply the manure “organics” separately from the
nutrients (N, P2O5, K2O). The technology for nutrient separation is improving,
becoming more economical and efficient. Annual operational costs will still be
significant.
3. Anaerobic Digestion could treat the manure and other bio-mass/food wastes
producing methane that could be used for generating electricity and heat,
producing nutrient separated solids for site specific land application, and
producing nutrient separated liquids for crop irrigation. Additional new and
beneficial nutrient management opportunities would be expected as this is a
highly researchable area. Significant infrastructure costs are required.
4. Acquisition of an additional 500 acres in land base, in the immediate area and
contiguous to South Campus Farms, could potentially provide enough land for
sustainable operation of the livestock facilities, the Pavilion, and Veterinary
Medicine at the current level of manure nutrient production. A significantly high
price tag would be associated with an acquisition of this size, if contiguous land
in proximity to the South Campus Farms could be identified.
5. A reduction in the current level of operation at the livestock facilities, the Pavilion,
and Veterinary Medicine could result in a reduction in manure nutrient
production. This may then allow for sustainable operation on the current South
Campus Farms land base. Major impacts on the ability to conduct research and
education would be expected.
6. Transferring plant-type research land base into general crop production, which
would allow manure nutrient application, could potentially provide enough land
for sustainable operation of the livestock facilities, the Pavilion, and Veterinary
Medicine at the current level of manure nutrient production. However, plant-type
research would then have to be relocated, not necessarily within close proximity
or to high quality land. Major impacts on the ability to conduct research and
education would be expected.
78
Chapter 11
Environmental Compliance – South Campus Farms
Summary
Environmental compliance continues to be a major area of focus on the South Campus
Farms. Figure 1 highlights a number of environmental initiatives that have either been
recently implemented on the South Campus Farms or are in advanced stages of
planning. All are critical to enhancing sustainability and ensuring that the University
meets ever stringent regulatory requirements.
The major environmental initiatives include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Conservation Practices
Environmental Setbacks
Well Head Protection
Environmental Management System Development
Intensive Feed Storage and Pasture Management,
Storm water Management
Department of Environmental Quality Wastewater Discharge Permit
In particular, surface water quality management has become an acutely important issue
to the South Campus Farms over the last 18 months. Following is a discussion of
recent University efforts to maintain compliance with federal, state and local surface
water requirements and standards at the South Campus Farms.
Analysis
In February 2005, MDEQ determined that historic storm water and process water runoff
from the Beef Cattle Research Center (BCRC) contained nutrients and contaminants
that likely contributed to exceeding state surface water quality standards. The Office of
the Ingham County Drain Commissioner concurrently found that the BCRC runoff
constituted a prohibited discharge to its system. Following negotiations with MDEQ and
the Ingham County Drain Commissioner, the University agreed to close and retire open
pen facilities at BCRC, extend roofing of existing pens, and obtain NPDES permit
coverage for the entire South Campus Farms Complex.
Closure of the BCRC pens and construction of the new roofs was completed by
October, 2005, per agreement with MDEQ (See Figure 1 photograph depicts the new
enclosed pens at BCRC).
79
Figure 1. Environmental Initiatives on South Campus Farms NPDES is the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System and CNMP stands for Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan
In July 2005, the University hosted United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) enforcement and compliance inspectors. Although no violations were
identified, EPA provided the University with a number of suggestions and waste
management guidance.
As agreed, the University originally submitted an application for coverage under the
MDEQ General Concentrated Animal Feed Operation (CAFO) permit in late 2005.
However, it was determined that this permit would not allow the University flexibility to
pursue much needed research and demonstration projects in the areas of manure and
nutrient management, and animal waste treatment on the South Campus Farms. These
projects should aid in the development of farm management innovations. The University
therefore sought and obtained an individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit with provisions that will allow it conduct research and
demonstration projects on the South Campus Farms, provided that the University
provides MDEQ with advance notice of such projects.
In November, 2006 Michigan State received its individual National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ). This permit essentially prohibits all surface water discharges from
contaminated sources at the South Campus Farms, including water relating to the land
application of animal wastes, except under very limited circumstance, such as in the
event of a catastrophic flood. This permit requires the South Campus Farms to
implement certain Best Management Practices, conduct periodic monitoring, and
develop additional onsite waste storage capacity. The permit also requires the South
80
Campus Farms to develop and implement a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan
(CNMP), which must be submitted to MDEQ for approval by October, 2007. Additional
capital improvements required by the NPDES permit, including enhances waste
treatment, storage and containment, must be in place by November 2009. The NPDES
permit term expires in October 2010.
Permit Terms
To remain in compliance with its NPDES Permit, the University must, by October 2007
develop and submit its CNMP to MDEQ. The University, with assistance for MSU
Extension and key faculty members, is nearing completion of its CNMP. CNMP
development began in early 2005 and should be ready for MDEQ submittal by the
October deadline.
In addition, the University is required, by 2009 to develop and maintain appropriate
levels of waste and wastewater storage, segregate clean water sources from
contaminated sources (i.e., roofs and parking lots) and construct and maintain
appropriate containment structures.
Note that in lieu of conventional containment and treatment, the University is currently
preparing to partner MDEQ and the USDA to design, construct, operate and monitor a
series of vegetative filter strips to serve BCRC and the University Dairy. If successful,
these strips will be engineered to effectively treat low levels of contaminated process
water and should provide an economically efficient and sustainable alternative to other
wastewater treatment methods. Advance notification to MDEQ of University plans to
install these filter strips (in accordance with its permit condition), is expected to be
submitted by February, 2007.
Projected Expenses
It is anticipated that the University will be required to expend more than $2 million
dollars by 2009 in order to construct necessary water quality infrastructure to maintain
compliance with the terms and conditions of the NPDES permit and to accommodate
current and projected South Campus animal populations and research functions.
Future Directions
As discussed above, compliance with the NPDES permit will necessitate the
implementation of a number of infrastructural and operational improvements on South
Campus farms over the course of the next three years. Over the next few years, the
University also intends to maintain and enhance its current relationships with regulators
and the local environmental community by striving to continue to improve
communication and coordination with these interested parties.
The University has recently conducted as series of meetings with the Ingham County
Drain Commissioner to discuss its water quality obligations and commitments. The
University has scheduled additional meetings with the Commissioner’s office to keep it
apprised of current and future South Campus improvements.
In addition, the University has met with members of the Michigan Farm Bureau and
members of the Michigan Chapter of the Sierra Club to discuss its concerns regarding
81
South Campus Farms management. The University has agreed to maintain a dialogue
with the officers of the Michigan Chapter of the Sierra Club with respect to University
activities on South Campus farms. Also, in early 2007, the University has agreed to
host an MDEQ training workshop for MDEQ Water Quality inspectors and managers.
Finally, in addition to stepped up monitoring and inspections, Animal Science and Land
Management have recently created a new General Manager position to serve all of the
South Campus Farms. Going forward, this position should improve overall
environmental performance on the South Campus Farms by providing additional onsite
environmental leadership and oversight to each individual farm.
82
Chapter 12
Environmental Compliance – Health & Safety
Summary
Older University buildings and structures typically present a number of environmental
health and safety challenges. For example, asbestos containing materials (ACM) are
common in most buildings and structures constructed prior to 1980. However, when
properly managed and maintained, they do not present a health hazard to building
workers or occupants. In accordance with US Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) standards, the University manages
asbestos “in-place” and only removes (abates) ACM when undertaking significant
renovations or when materials begin to display signs of deterioration. To that end, MSU
is required to create and maintain very detailed asbestos surveys for all buildings and
structures build prior to 1980. Such surveys allow University personnel to make all
custodial and maintenance workers aware of potential hazards, as well as alerting
contractors and repair personnel to the location and extent of ACM within the building.
The University, in accordance with federal and state regulations, also requires rigorous
asbestos awareness and asbestos management training for all custodial, maintenance,
trades, and other employees that may work with ACM.
Similarly, the potential hazards presented by water floods/leaks and mold, and other
indoor air quality factors, while not exclusive to older buildings, do in fact manifest more
frequently in older structures. This is largely due to aging infrastructure including, but
not limited to, leak prone roofs, old and damaged pipes and sumps, deteriorating
basements and sub-basements etc. Regardless of the source of water and/or mold, the
University has chosen to deal quickly and aggressively with all indoor building water
leaks, spills and floods in order to minimize the direct damage caused to building
structures by the water sources, as well as to eliminate the potential for coincidental
mold growth and contamination. The University also has been aggressive in
responding to all indoor-air complaints. Using sophisticated monitoring equipment, the
Occupational Safety Group, created in January 2006 within Environmental Health and
Safety (EHS), has begun responding to all non-mold and water-related indoor air quality
complaints.
Analysis
Asbestos
Historically, the University had conducted and maintained limited asbestos inspections
and surveys for its campus buildings constructed prior to 1980. However, new
regulations were adopted by USEPA, OSHA and MIOSHA in the mid 1990’s, requiring a
more comprehensive approach to asbestos documentation and management. These
regulations also required extensive training (and re-training) of custodians and
maintenance personnel working in buildings known or assumed to have ACM.
Following two notable asbestos-related incidents resulting in citations from MIOSHA in
late 2002 and early 2003, the University adopted a new and aggressive asbestos
management plan and transferred asbestos management responsibilities to the Office
of Environmental Health and Safety.
83
Since 2003, the University has conducted new asbestos surveys and asbestos
management inspections in over 100 campus buildings and structures. For example,
asbestos inspections and surveys have been completed for all Housing and Food
Service buildings (as of January 1, 2007). New surveys and inspections have also been
completed in many of the larger and more heavily utilized facilities. Figure 1 shows the
current asbestos inventory status of all of the main campus buildings and structures
through December 2006. Asbestos inventory updated should be completed for all major
campus buildings and structures by the end of calendar year 2008.
84
MSU Asbestos Survey
1992 and newer
Updated surveys
Limited surveys
Unknown
Figure 1. Asbestos Inventory Status
85
In addition to developing new comprehensive asbestos inventories, the University, as
part of its new asbestos management plan, developed and administered several
asbestos awareness training courses and on-line refresher training modules for
University employees. In 2006, over 3,000 full and part time University employees have
taken asbestos awareness training.
Mold & Water Infiltration
Most University building and facility water related damage occurs from heavy rains or
excessive snowfall and melt, or human error including malicious safety shower
activation or employee failure to turn off water sources which leads to flooding. Most
mold damage is directly related to improperly managed or undetected fugitive water
sources; however, mold may also be result from high seasonal humidity levels and a
lack of proper airflow in vacant, unused rooms.
Regardless of the source of water and/or mold, the University has chosen to deal
aggressively with all building water leaks, spills and floods in order to minimize the
direct damage caused to building structures by the water sources, as well as to
eliminate the potential for coincidental mold growth and contamination.
Figure 2 depicts reported water damage and mold incidents from 2004 to 2006. Note
that the University did not commence the formal tracking of mold and water incidents
until 2004; therefore, it is difficult to project any trends associated with these types of
events given the only three years of data. The only notable anomaly suggested by the
graph is 2005, where both water and mold events (22 and 18, respectively) were much
higher than the prior and successive years. This is attributed to the extremely heavy
rains that occurred over the July 4th weekend of that year, which caused several floods
in a number of buildings across campus ultimately leading to subsequent incidents of
mold related to initially undetected water damage.
86
Reported Water and Mold Events at MSU
25
20
15
Water
Mold
10
5
0
2004
2005
2006
Figure 2. Reported Water and Mold Events at MSU
In early 2001 the University formed a water/mold committee to address issues
associated with water and mold damage in aging buildings, from events of nature, fire
suppression etc. The committee adapted and adopted the New York Guidelines for
mold assessment and remediation as it was the most stringent in the country as a result
of clean up events stemming from the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center attack.
For water damage, the committee also adapted and adopted the standards from the
Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification (IICRC), Standard and
Reference Guide for Professional Water Remediation. To date, these standards and
guidelines remain in use on campus. An interdepartmental inspection team was recently
formed including members from Physical Plant and Environmental Health and Safety
(EHS) to address and assess the actual water and mold incidents on campus. Once the
assessment has been completed, remediation is either conducted by MSU Physical
Plant custodians or a pre-selected contractor (depending on the severity of the water or
mold damage and depending on what the guidelines suggest). A certified industrial
hygiene contractor also provides the protocols for cleanup and restoration on larger
projects and provides final clearance sampling when these larger projects are
completed.
Other Indoor Air Quality Issues
The University strives to maintain for its employees a healthy, safe and productive
workplace. Beginning in January 2006, EHS created the Occupational Safety Group
staffed by three certified industrial hygienists. This group is charged with investigating
indoor air quality complaints, in addition to managing University compliance with
hundreds of MIOSHA occupational safety standards. In its first year, the Occupational
Safety Group staff conducted 58 indoor air related investigations. Of these
investigations, only three presented a recognizable occupational safety or health
hazard. Over two thirds of the complaints investigated involved strange odors or odors
87
or dust associated with construction and over one fourth of the complaints could not be
substantiated. Figure 3 reflects the types of indoor air incidents.
Indoor Air Quality Complaints 2006
58 Total Complaints
Requires
Immediate
Attention
5% (3)
Odor
Complaints
36% (21)
No problem
found
26% (15)
Renovation and
Maintenance
33% (19)
Figure 3. Indoor Quality Complaints in 2006
Of the 58 total complaints above, the following actions were taken to address the
reported incidents:
15 (26%)
No problem found/not air quality issues
ƒ Non-specific complaints or concerns which are currently discussed
in the media.
ƒ Resolved by education, confirming ventilation is working within
established limits
19 (33%)
Renovation and maintenance
ƒ Problems with dust or odors from construction, overheating
equipment, broken fan belts, etc.
ƒ Change construction activities to off hours, repair equipment
21 (36%)
Odor complaints
ƒ Dry drain traps, odors from garbage, etc.
ƒ Educate occupants in drain maintenance, proper garbage disposal
3 (5%)
Require immediate attention
ƒ Kitchen exhaust in stadium tower, low frequency fan vibration,
carbon monoxide from a heater
ƒ Usually require unbudgeted funds to repair
88
Future Directions
Asbestos
As mentioned above, the University plans to complete its comprehensive update of
asbestos surveys for all campus buildings and structures by the end of 2008. The
projected cost for this remaining work is estimated to require approximately $350,000.
The University is also in the process of rewriting those asbestos specifications
applicable to consultants and contractors. This effort is intended to ensure that
asbestos contractors and consultants remain in compliance with all applicable
regulations and that their respective employees are provided with appropriate safety
training.
Mold & Water Infiltration
At this time, the water and mold events tracked by EHS are from reported incidents and
findings; however, it is assumed that undetected problems will continue to arise as the
normal course of managing aging buildings and structure. MSU Physical Plant and
EHS personnel are currently developing enhanced awareness training, brochures and
information to personnel on campus (especially to building managers, safety officers,
etc.) in an attempt to quickly identify sources (water) and symptoms and alleviate the
damage and hazards caused by water and mold. Recently, Physical Plant, in
conjunction with EHS, created a new joint-reporting construction management position.
This position’s primary responsibility will be to oversee and manage major water
infiltration and mold related remediation projects. The creation of this position should
facilitate and expedite water damage and mold hazard remediation on campus.
Finally, the University has begun to create cross-discipline design teams to share
lessons learned on campus, including those learned in managing water and mold
related problems. New buildings and major renovations are incorporating advanced
designs mold resistant materials, and new ventilation schemes where possible, to
proactively mitigate against future water and mold damage.
Indoor Air Quality
The University will continue to support indoor air monitoring and investigations and is
investigating the purchase of new and advanced air monitoring technologies that will
assist in assessing air quality and improve response performance.
89
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Just in Time
Appendix B: 2007 Construction Management Report
Appendix C: Construction
Appendix D: Power & Water
Appendix E: Accessibility
Appendix A: Just-in-Time
Pavement Management Services, Inc.
(PMSI)
Rating
Definition
0–2
Entire area cracked with structural
Failure and poor drainage
3–5
Entire area cracked with signs of
structural failure. Maintenance repairs
will have minimal impact
6–8
Large area of cracking. Maintenance
repairs will have minimal impact
9 – 10
Large area of unsealed cracks with
structural failure. May be able to repair
with a patch and undercut
11 – 12
Cracks with secondary cracks and soon
structural failure. Can seal cracks or
patch to repair.
13 – 15
Cracking with major secondary cracks.
these must be sealed as soon as
possible. This is also the limit on
sealing for cracks.
16 – 17
Minor cracking with secondary cracks
18 – 20
Minor cracking with NO secondary cracks
1
Appendix B: 2007 Annual Construction Management Report
Construction Management Report
Prepared for the Michigan State University Board of Trustees
January 2007
The annual construction report as requested by the Board of Trustees includes construction projects which have been completed and
project accounts have been “closed.” Major capital projects are those that are $1 million or greater and require Board approval. Also
included in this report are projects which were initiated under the previous construction threshold of $250,000, but closed under the new
construction policy.
Minor capital projects are projects greater than $250,000 and less than $1 million. The Board requested a listing of these projects on an
annual basis. In addition to this annual report, the Board will receive quarterly construction reports reflecting current and on-going
construction projects.
1
Appendix B: 2007 Annual Construction Management Report
Closed Major Capital Projects
2005-06
Summary of Data
This report highlights three areas for major capital projects that were closed during the fiscal year 2005-06. These areas include the
authorized budget, final cost of the project, contingency use, data relative to performance to the construction schedule, and change
order management. The reports are utilized to provide timely and accurate project information, and report on our project performance
in the aggregate, analyzing our strengths and weaknesses, and improving our processes.
Analysis
Sixteen major projects were closed during the 2005-06 fiscal year. The approved budgets for these projects totaled $9,536,000. The
final cost of these projects was $8,696,811, (ca 8%), a difference of $839,189 that was returned to the appropriate unit.
Of the 16 projects, two were utility projects (steam tunnels), nine were elevator and roofing projects, two were alteration projects and
one was a Housing and Food Service data project.
Approximately 50% of the projects met substantial completion dates. Substantial completion is the date the facility is safe for
occupancy. Of the remaining projects 31% were 1-90 days late and 13% were over 90 days late. It should be noted that none of these
late completions impacted MSU’s programmatic functions (e.g., roads were open before student fall semester move-in, at least some
elevators were functioning throughout the project, and other laboratories were available for instruction or research). Only 19% met the
final completion date. There are a number of factors that contributed to the majority of projects not meeting final completion. Some
University delays were not factored into schedules and some schedules did not have realistic timelines for MSU project functions.
For the sixteen closed projects, change orders totaled approximately $390,000 or about 4.1% of the authorized budget. Change orders
were further examined by category type, scope, document and field changes, in the report. Field changes resulted in $300,000 or 77%
of the total change order requests and 3.1% of the authorized budget. Field changes that were not discoverable during the planning
process, i.e. conditions found behind walls, underground, etc. Document changes equaled $82,000, or 21% of the total change order
requests, and less than 1% of the authorized budget. Scope changes resulted in $7,800, or 2% of the total change requests, and less
than 1% of the authorized budget. These figures fall within an acceptable range based on analysis of and comparison to other large
universities and major contractors.
2
Appendix B: 2007 Annual Construction Management Report
Future Focus
Improvement in the construction process is dependent on continuous evaluation and incremental adjustment. During the
coming year, the University will concentrate on reducing the upward trend in document changes and improving results
related to both substantial and final completion dates.
3
Appendix B: 2007 Annual Construction Management Report
CP03227 - CAMPUS - CONVERT LIGHTING FROM T12 TO T8 - PHASE II
Authorized Budget:
1,030,000
Construction
785,917
Professional Services
84,120
Owner Work and Material
Contingency
159,963
% of
Contract
Change Orders
Scope:
Document:
Field:
Total
Final Cost:
Returned:
925,213
104,787
% of
Contingency
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
44,835
44,835
0.0%
5.7%
5.7%
0.0%
28.0%
28.0%
Classification:
Contractor:
A/E:
BUILDING
URG, INC.
EAS
Funds returned to:
51-4343 2005 Bonds - Project Proceeds
Schedule
Substantial
Completion:
Close
Out:
Planned
Actual
Days
(Under)/Over
9/30/2004
7/28/2004
(64)
5/30/2005
5/31/2006
366
CP03361 - WONDERS HALL - ELEVATOR REPLACEMENT
Authorized Budget:
Construction
Professional Services
Owner Work and
Material
Contingency
1,000,000
816,800
71,000
Document:
Field:
Total
902,295
97,705
Classification:
Contractor:
A/E:
BUILDING
MOORE TROSPER CONSTRUCTION
IDS CONSULTANTS
Funds returned to:
41-4337 Coord, Construct & Maint/Spec/Housing Elev
Repair
3,000
109,200
% of
Contract
Change Order
Scope:
Final Cost:
Returned:
% of
Contingency
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
29,892
29,892
0.0%
3.7%
3.7%
0.0%
27.4%
27.4%
Schedule
Substantial
Completion:
Close
Out:
Planned
Actual
Days
(Under)/Over
12/30/2004
4/12/2005
103
6/30/2005
4/4/2006
278
4
Appendix B: 2007 Annual Construction Management Report
CP03384 - KEDZIE HALL SOUTH - ELEVATOR REPLACEMENT
Authorized Budget:
Construction
Professional Services
Owner Work and Material
Contingency
595,000
474,400
38,375
Document:
Field:
Total
523,880
71,120
82,225
% of
Contract
Change Orders
Scope:
Final Cost:
Returned:
% of
Contingency
0
0.0%
0.0%
4,778
1,509
6,287
1.0%
0.3%
1.0%
5.8%
1.8%
7.6%
Classification:
Contractor:
A/E:
BUILDING
KARES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
IDS CONSULTANTS
Funds returned to:
51-4325 FPSM/Reserve-Facilities
Schedule
Substantial
Completion:
Close
Out:
Planned
Actual
Days
(Under)/Over
6/30/2005
6/30/2005
0
8/31/2005
5/31/2006
273
CP03418 - NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING - ROOF REPLACEMENT*
Authorized Budget:
Construction
Professional Services
Owner Work and
Material
Contingency
590,000
468,900
48,500
Document:
Field:
Total
526,617
63,383
0
72,600
% of
Contract
Change Order
Scope:
Final Cost:
Returned:
% of
Contingency
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
6,608
6,608
0.0%
1.4%
1.4%
0.0%
6.1%
6.1%
Classification:
Contractor:
A/E:
BUILDING
BORNOR RESTORATION, INC.
EAS
Funds returned to:
51-4325 FPSM/Reserve-Facilities
Schedule
Substantial
Completion:
Close
Out:
Planned
Actual
Days
(Under)/Over
12/31/2004
12/1/2004
(30)
5/1/2005
11/1/2005
184
5
Appendix B: 2007 Annual Construction Management Report
CP03238 - WELLS HALL - ROOF REPLACEMENT
Authorized Budget:
Construction
Professional Services
Owner Work and Material
Contingency
570,000
477,500
Document:
Field:
Total
538,605
31,395
Classification:
Contractor:
41,400
A/E:
51,100
Funds returned to:
% of
Contract
Change Orders
Scope:
Final Cost:
Returned:
% of
Contingency
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
15,618
15,618
0.0%
3.3%
3.3%
0.0%
30.6%
30.6%
Schedule
Substantial
Completion:
Close
Out:
BUILDING
BORNOR RESTORATION, INC.
ROOFING TECHNOLOGIES
ASSOCIATE
41-4933 Phys Plt Maj Rep/Repl 03 - Maint. Sch.
Days
Planned
Actual
(Under)/Over
9/14/2004
9/14/2004
0
7/30/2005
8/3/2005
4
CP03239 - I.M. SPORTS CIRCLE - ROOF REPLACEMENT*
Authorized Budget:
Construction
Professional Services
Owner Work and
Material
Contingency
538,000
428,386
Document:
Field:
Total
489,769
48,231
Classification:
Contractor:
49,759
A/E:
59,855
Funds returned to:
% of
Contract
Change Order
Scope:
Final Cost:
Returned:
% of
Contingency
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
7,897
7,897
0.0%
1.8%
1.8%
0.0%
7.2%
7.2%
Schedule
Substantial
Completion:
Close
Out:
BUILDING
MID MICHIGAN ROOFING
ROOFING TECHNOLOGIES
ASSOCIATE
41-4933 Maint/Phys Plant Mojor Rep/Repl '03
Days
Planned
Actual
(Under)/Over
8/13/2004
9/21/2004
39
4/30/2006
4/30/2006
0
6
Appendix B: 2007 Annual Construction Management Report
CP03310 - CHEMISTRY BUILDING - ALTERATIONS TO ROOMS 208, 208A, AND 209
Authorized Budget:
Construction
Professional Services
Owner Work and
Material
Contingency
500,000
406,400
56,900
Document:
Field:
Total
483,089
16,911
5,000
31,700
% of
Contract
Change Orders
Scope:
Final Cost:
Returned:
% of
Contingency
0
0.0%
0.0%
594
15,058
15,652
0.1%
3.7%
3.9%
1.9%
47.5%
49.4%
Classification:
Contractor:
A/E:
BUILDING
MOORE TROSPER CONSTRUCTION
FTC&H
Funds returned to:
51-4325 FPSM/Reserve-Facilities
Schedule
Substantial
Completion:
Close
Out:
Planned
Actual
Days
(Under)/Over
9/30/2004
10/15/2004
15
7/30/2005
11/11/2005
104
CP03249 - CHERRY LANE APARTMENTS - DATA ACCESS SERVICE
Authorized Budget:
Construction
Professional Services
Owner Work and
Material
Contingency
480,000
338,232
42,900
Document:
Field:
Total
435,733
44,267
Classification:
Contractor:
A/E:
BUILDING
TOWN & COUNTRY TEL-COM
EAS
9,000
89,868
Funds returned to:
% of
Contract
Change Order
Scope:
Final Cost:
Returned:
% of
Contingency
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
1,096
1,096
0.0%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
1.0%
1.0%
Schedule
Substantial
Completion:
Close
Out:
41-4355 Coord, Constr, & Maint/Spec/Univ Apt Data
Access
Days
Planned
Actual
(Under)/Over
11/1/2004
11/19/2004
18
4/1/2005
4/30/2006
394
7
Appendix B: 2007 Annual Construction Management Report
CP03380 - CHEMISTRY BUILDING - ELEVATOR UPGRADE*
Authorized Budget:
Construction
Professional Services
Owner Work and Material
Contingency
480,000
381,900
40,800
Document:
Field:
Total
436,779
43,221
57,300
% of
Contract
Change Orders
Scope:
Final Cost:
Returned:
% of
Contingency
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
997
997
0.0%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
1.7%
1.7%
Classification:
Contractor:
A/E:
BUILDING
KARES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
EAS
Funds returned to:
51-4325 FPSM/Reserve-Facilities
Schedule
Substantial
Completion:
Close
Out:
Planned
Actual
Days
(Under)/Over
12/15/2004
12/1/2004
(14)
10/31/2005
11/1/2005
1
CP03381 - LIBRARY - ELEVATOR REPLACEMENT
Authorized Budget:
Construction
Professional Services
Owner Work and
Material
Contingency
465,000
369,800
37,800
Document:
Field:
Total
420,135
44,865
57,400
% of
Contract
Change Order
Scope:
Final Cost:
Returned:
% of
Contingency
0
0.0%
0.0%
2,206
4,159
6,364
0.6%
1.1%
1.7%
2.0%
3.8%
5.8%
Classification:
Contractor:
A/E:
BUILDING
IRISH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
EAS
Funds returned to:
51-4325 FPSM/Reserve-Facilities
Schedule
Substantial
Completion:
Close
Out:
Planned
Actual
Days
(Under)/Over
2/15/2005
6/30/2005
135
8/5/2005
5/31/2006
299
8
Appendix B: 2007 Annual Construction Management Report
CP03383 - BAKER HALL - ELEVATOR REPLACEMENT*
Authorized Budget:
Construction
Professional Services
Owner Work and
Material
Contingency
460,000
367,400
63,980
Document:
Field:
Total
435,383
24,617
2,000
26,620
% of
Contract
Change Orders
Scope:
Final Cost:
Returned:
% of
Contingency
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
573
573
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
2.2%
2.2%
Classification:
Contractor:
A/E:
BUILDING
MOORE TROSPER CONSTRUCTION
DOSHI ASSOCIATES
Funds returned to:
51-4325 FPSM/Reserve-Facilities
Schedule
Substantial
Completion:
Close
Out:
Planned
Actual
Days
(Under)/Over
3/25/2005
3/25/2005
0
8/31/2005
5/31/2006
273
CP03204 - CENTER FOR INTEGRATED PLANT SYSTEMS - POLY GREENHOUSE 2004
Authorized Budget:
Construction
Professional Services
Owner Work and
Material
Contingency
443,000
185,013
8,794
Document:
Field:
Total
443,000
0
158,000
91,193
Classification:
Contractor:
A/E:
BUILDING
H&C EARTHWORKS & CONSTRUCTION
EAS
0
Funds returned to:
% of
Contract
Change Order
Scope:
Final Cost:
Returned:
% of
Contingency
0
0.0%
0.0%
15,620
12,464
28,085
22.5%
17.9%
40.4%
14.3%
11.4%
25.7%
Schedule
Substantial
Completion:
Close
Out:
Planned
Actual
Days
(Under)/Over
8/21/2004
8/17/2004
(4)
6/28/2005
4/30/2006
306
9
Appendix B: 2007 Annual Construction Management Report
CP03121 - ENGINEERING BUILDING - CONVERT ROOM 2150 FROM CLASSROOM TO LABS
Authorized Budget:
Construction
Professional Services
Owner Work and
Material
Contingency
400,000
269,800
52,600
Document:
Field:
Total
399,372
628
23,240
54,360
% of
Contract
Change Orders
Scope:
Final Cost:
Returned:
% of
Contingency
8,100
3.0%
14.9%
29,321
0
37,420
10.9%
0.0%
13.9%
53.9%
0.0%
68.8%
Classification:
Contractor:
A/E:
BUILDING
J. PEREZ CONSTRUCTION, INC.
DICLEMENTE SIEGEL DESIGN
Funds returned to:
51-4325 FPSM/Reserve-Facilities
Schedule
Substantial
Completion:
Close
Out:
Planned
Actual
Days
(Under)/Over
6/30/2004
7/30/2004
30
5/31/2006
5/31/2006
0
CP03234 - PRINTING SERVICES BUILDING - ROOF REPLACEMENT
Authorized Budget:
Construction
Professional Services
Owner Work and
Material
Contingency
360,000
267,700
44,200
A/E:
BUILDING
LUTZ ROOFING, INC.
ROOFING TECHNOLOGIES
ASSOCIATE
0
48,100
Funds returned to:
41-1448 EAS PPD '04
% of
Contract
Change Order
Scope:
Document:
Field:
Total
Final Cost:
Returned:
318,796
41,204
% of
Contingency
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
720
720
0.0%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.7%
0.7%
Classification:
Contractor:
Schedule
Substantial
Completion:
Close
Out:
Planned
Actual
Days
(Under)/Over
6/4/2004
6/1/2004
(3)
1/30/2005
1/30/2005
0
10
Appendix B: 2007 Annual Construction Management Report
CP02044 - CAMPUS - STEAM TUNNEL - VAULT 188 TO FARRALL HALL
Authorized Budget:
1,150,000
Construction
767,000
Professional Services
36,096
Owner Work and Material
Contingency
346,904
% of
Contract
Change Orders
Scope:
Document:
Field:
Total
Final Cost:
Returned:
1,088,525
61,475
% of
Contingency
-243
0.0%
-0.1%
55,150
155,010
209,917
7.2%
20.2%
27.4%
15.9%
44.7%
60.5%
Classification:
Contractor:
A/E:
UTILITIES
IRISH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
FTC&H
Funds returned to:
41-1888 Farrall Hall Steam Vault 188
Schedule
Substantial
Completion:
Close
Out:
Planned
Actual
Days
(Under)/Over
8/30/2003
9/10/2003
11
2/21/2005
6/8/2006
472
CP04015 - CAMPUS - STEAM DIST. - VAULT 15 TO BUS. COLLEGE COMPLEX (EPPLEY WING) REPAIR VAULTS 61 & 78*
Authorized Budget:
Construction
Professional Services
Owner Work and
Material
Contingency
475,000
283,000
77,150
Document:
Field:
Total
329,619
145,381
Classification:
Contractor:
A/E:
UTILITIES
SANDBORN CONSTRUCTION, INC.
EAS
Funds returned to:
41-4844 Eng. Services/Condensate Lines & Steam
Vault
10,000
104,850
% of
Contract
Change Order
Scope:
Final Cost:
Returned:
% of
Contingency
0
0.0%
0.0%
-25,490
3,529
-21,961
-9.0%
1.2%
-7.8%
-23.3%
3.2%
-20.1%
Schedule
Substantial
Completion:
Close
Out:
Planned
Actual
Days
(Under)/Over
9/17/2004
8/28/2004
(20)
6/30/2005
11/1/2005
124
11
Appendix B: 2007 Annual Construction Management Report
Closed Minor Capital Projects
2005-06
Minor capital projects are projects greater than $250,000 and less than $1 million. The Board requested a listing of these projects on an annual basis. In addition to
this annual report the Board will receive quarterly construction reports reflecting current and on-going construction projects.
Summary of Data
This report highlights the final cost for minor capital projects that were closed during the fiscal year. A minor capital projects is any
project with an authorized budget less than $1 Million and $250,000 or greater. Since projects are closed, these are final costs.
Analysis
Ten minor projects were closed during the fiscal year 2005-06. Fifteen of these projects were Just in Time projects. The total authorized
budget for these projects was $4.3 million. The final project budget costs for these projects was $3.4 million dollars allowing a return of
over $919,000, or 21% of the authorized budget.
Future Focus
The funds returned were most closely associated with projects that have a higher contingency due to potential unknown or field
conditions. Review and assessment of refining the contingency amount for these projects is underway.
12
Appendix B: 2007 Annual Construction Management Report
CP
CP03377
CP02073
CP03129
CP03308
Description
BERKEY HALL - REPLACE STEAM BOOSTER COILS IN BASEMENT
I.M. SPORTS WEST - REPLACE ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION
CASE HALL - REPLACE ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION
NATURAL SCIENCE - UPGRADE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
CP02046
REGIONAL CHILLED WATER PLANT NO. 1 - NORTH LOOP PUMP ADDITION
CP03408
BERKEY HALL - FOURTH FLOOR UPGRADES
CP03132
SHAW LANE POWER PLANT - REPLACE SUBSTATION
CP03252
CP04444
CP03394
STEAM DISTRIBUTION - CAMPUS STEAM TUNNEL - FLOOD
BULKHEADS
WONDERS HALL - REROOF AREAS 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23
NATURAL RESOURCES - ELEVATOR REPLACEMENT
Projects: 10
Budget
780,000
740,000
650,000
379,000
Final Cost
657,769
560,304
361,979
258,143
330,000
295,928
320,000
272,505
300,000
278,295
Returned
122,231
179,696
288,021
120,857
34,072
47,495
21,705
285,000
270,000
250,000
4,304,000
212,451
256,649
230,548
3,384,571
72,549
13,351
19,452
919,429
13
Appendix C: Construction
Supplier Score Card for General Contractors
Figure 1. Supplier Score Card for General Contractors Data is collected on each score card by the
construction representative for each projects, stored in a database, and analyzed at the project and
supplier level
Appendix C: Construction
Figure 2. Supplier Report Card for Architects and Engineers Data is collected on each score card by the
construction representative for each projects, stored in a database, and analyzed at the project and
supplier level
2
Appendix C: Construction
Figure 3. General Contractor Performance by Project Report – Sample
3
Appendix C: Construction
Figure 4. General Contractor Performance Ranking Report - Sample
4
Appendix D: Power & Water
CURRENT AND FUTURE ENERGY INITIATIVES LIST
Current Pilot Projects
ƒ
Retro-Commissioning – Employ an “Energy Team” to perform retrocommissioning of existing buildings with a focus on energy savings. Pilot project
in Veterinary Oncology Addition is proving to be of value, with 50 deficiencies
identified to date. Commissioning includes balancing of air and water systems
along with the evaluation of existing equipment/building performance by a group
of air/water balance technicians and controls technicians to assure the building
equipment is operating as designed and at peak efficiency.
ƒ
Continuous Commissioning – Central Control collects and trends data
continuously on building operation to identify areas of potential energy savings.
Pilot project in 4 buildings has identified $176,700 annual savings to date.
ƒ
Bio-Mass Fuel – Continue to investigate burning alternative fuels at the Power
Plant.
Future Energy Projects
Owner Commissioning of New Facilities – Provide an in house commissioning group
for new facilities to ensure we meet energy achievements of Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) criteria.
ƒ
Building Utilization – Review equipment schedules, building hours and class
schedules to optimize and consolidate building and equipment use where
possible.
ƒ
Construction Standards – Continue to explore new technologies with a focus
on attaining LEED certification and 20% energy reduction below ASHRAE 90.1.
ƒ
Air Conditioning Study – Provide a forecast for air conditioning on campus,
including residence halls. Feasibility study to convert select buildings on North
Campus to distribution system in lieu of individual electric driven cooling (window
ac units).
ƒ
Computer Lab and Server Rooms – Evaluate current practices with regard to
computer lab and server room operation, including air conditioning of those
spaces and conduct a utilization study.
ƒ
Central Control –Connect Manly Miles and Nisbet Building to Central Control.
ƒ
Lighting Controls – Continue to evaluate and identify areas that occupancy
sensors or photo cell control would apply in existing facilities. Retrofit those
areas that would lend themselves to control.
ƒ
New Technology or Equipment – Evaluate and identify opportunities to install
new technology or equipment that have proven energy savings.
Appendix D: Power & Water
ƒ
Metering – Upgrade existing meters in buildings to include real time data
accessible to campus users to encourage energy conservation and behavioral
changes
ƒ
Anaerobic Digester – Install digester on south campus to provide alternative
energy use, offset Methane project for CCX and decrease the need for more land
to apply existing manure and stay within phosphorus concentration levels
allowed.
ƒ
Transportation - Offer links from MSU Travel page to Terra Pass to allow
concerned employees to offset travel miles. Continue to evaluate alternative fuel
vehicles for campus fleet.
ƒ
Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) Replacement - Join EPA’s Change A Light
Campaign – Swap out incandescent lamps on campus with CFL’s website for
individual lamps that customers on campus may have in their offices.
ƒ
CCX – Chicago Climate Exchange - Manage the program and perform the
necessary reporting to comply.
2
Appendix E: Accessibility
Michigan State University
Barrier Free/Accessibility – Project Status Summary
January 2007
Projects Completed – FY05, FY06, FY07 (projects arranged alphabetically)1
Bessey Hall
•
Install magnetic hold open devices on the hallway doors to the classroom and faculty office
wing on the 2nd floor. Status: Completed: Fall 2006. Cost ~$4,400.
Campus Parking
•
Phase II and III of a three year project to modify existing barrier free parking spaces to meet
updated code requirements and install additional accessible spaces increasing the overall
capacity of the parking system. The number of spaces updated across both years was
approximately 390 and new spaces equated to approximately 380. Completed: Summer
2005 and Summer 2006. Cost ~$1.8 mil.
Computer Center
•
Raise the sidewalk grade at the south and east main entrances to match granite slab. Install
tactile strip between walkway and bike loops at east door. Completed: Summer 2005. Cost:
~$14,000.
Fee Hall - West
•
Install automatic door opening devices on the exterior and interior door set at the barrier free
main entrance of West Fee Hall. Completed: Fall 2006. Cost: ~$18,000.
Geography Building (formerly Psychology Research Building)
•
As part of a plan for alterations to house the department of Geography; modify site to provide
ramped/grade level entry to the building (west entrance), automate entry doors, include snow
melt system, rework barrier free parking, provide toilet room modifications, ADA signage and
fire alarm modifications. Completed Fall 2005, Barrier free improvements Cost ~$515,000.
Human Ecology Building – North Entrance
•
Re-pave walkway and adjacent barrier-free parking spaces; reduce pound pressure on entry
door and install magnetic hold open on interior entry door. Completed: Fall 2005, Cost:
~$3,000.
IM West (Fitness Center)
•
1
As part of the renovations to provide for a new Fitness Center at the IM West, the addition
was constructed to meet barrier free accessibility codes, including elevator access to the
second level, so that persons with disabilities could use the facility. Completed: Summer
2005. ~$80,000
Project funding sources include the Athletic Department, the Housing and Food Services Division, the Parking
System, Private Donor support as well as the centrally budgeted Alterations and Barrier Free Accounts.
Appendix E: Accessibility
Marshall-Adams Hall Renovation
•
As part of the comprehensive renovation plan for the Department of Economics, exterior
building access and interior building circulation was designed to meet ADA codes including:
modification to toilet room facilities, corridor and door width alterations, signage, elevator
installation and fire alarm upgrades. The accessible entrance also includes a snowmelt
system. Completed: Summer 2005, Cost: within the total building renovation cost of $6.0
million.
Owen Graduate Center
•
Renovate 4 bathrooms on the main floor and basement areas to provide for and enhance
accessibility. Completed: Summer 2006, Cost: ~$175,000.
Psychology Building
•
Install hold open devices on corridor entry doors to the center classroom wing to improve
access for persons with mobility impairments. Completed: Fall 2005, Cost: ~$2,000.
Projects Funded & In Process FY07
Computer Center
•
Install power assisted doors at the East and West main entrances. Status: In Process.
Anticipated completion: Spring 2007. Cost ~$35,000
Erickson Hall – Addition Project
•
The project constructed a single story 6,700 gsf addition on the east side of the building.
While conforming to all ADA construction codes, the project will also rework the main
entrance and entrance to the addition. One set of the main entrance doors will continue to
be automated and one set of doors at the SE entry (adjacent to the new addition) will be
automated; a snowmelt system will be installed at the main entrance connecting to the barrier
free parking areas. Anticipated Completion: Addition - December 2006, Main Entry –
Summer 2007 Cost: ~$75,000 (estimated cost within total project of $2.45mil)
Snyder-Phillips Hall – New Residential College
•
As part of the planned renovation to the residence section of the building, work will include
renovating bathrooms to ensure ADA compliance and upgrading signage to meet barrier free
codes. The center section will be completely rebuilt with a new dining commons on the first
floor; the ground level and two upper floors will house space for the New Residential College.
The addition will be barrier free consistent with ADA construction codes, passenger elevators
will be installed and barrier free parking is planned at the new north main entrance. Status:
Completing design, expected construction start is May 2006.
2
Appendix E: Accessibility
Accessibility Projects In Planning / Under Review
Auditorium Building
•
Provide elevator access to the second and third floor west office wing as well as the balcony
seating of the Auditorium. Construct an elevator tower at the SW corner of the building
including necessary walk-way improvements and power assisted entry doors. Interior
modifications to include upgraded toilet rooms on the first floor, power assisted corridor
doors, and ADA signage. Estimated cost: ~$1.5 mil. Status:
Awaiting identification of
funding.
Chittenden Hall Building
•
Modify site to provide ramped/grade level entry to the building, automate entry doors as
necessary, evaluate need for snow melt system, check availability of barrier free parking,
install elevator for access to all levels, provide toilet room modifications, ADA signage and fire
alarm modifications as required. Program: Graduate School. Status: Will be completed as
part of a comprehensive building renovation. Awaiting identification of funding.
Cook Hall Building
•
Modify site to provide ramped/grade level entry to the building, automate entry doors as
necessary, evaluate need for snow melt system, check availability of barrier free parking,
install elevator for access to all levels, provide toilet room modifications, ADA signage and fire
alarm modifications as required. Program: Agricultural Economics. Status: Will be completed
as part of a comprehensive building renovation. Awaiting identification of funding.
Demonstration Hall
•
Reevaluate design of barrier free access to the building. Replace the temporary ramp with a
more permanent design that accomplishes access while integrating the system with the
architecture of the building and the landscape of the surrounding area. Status: Design and
cost study in progress.
John Hannah Administration Building
•
Alter first floor restrooms for barrier free access. Note: Restrooms on the third floor are
barrier free however, due to the amount of public traffic on the first floor, these restrooms are
under review. Estimated Cost: ~$70,000. Status: Under review.
MSU Union
•
Automate doors in various interior locations on the first and fourth floors. Replace wheelchair
lifts on the third floor. Estimated Cost: ~$130,000. Status: Awaiting identification of funding.
Old Botany Building
•
Modify site to provide ramped/grade level entry to the building, automate entry doors as
necessary, evaluate need for snow melt system, check availability of barrier free parking,
install elevator for access to all levels, provide toilet room modifications, ADA signage and fire
alarm modifications as required. Program: Economics Department. Status: Will be completed
as part of a comprehensive building renovation. Awaiting identification of funding.
Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture Building
•
Modify site to provide ramped/grade level entry to the building, automate entry doors as
necessary, evaluate need for snow melt system, check availability of barrier free parking,
provide toilet room modifications, ADA signage and fire alarm modifications as required.
Program: Urban and Regional Planning and Landscape Architecture. Estimated Cost:
~$985,000 - $1.3 mil. Status: Under review.
3
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertising