1

The Rebuilding of Connecticut’s Higher Education Infrastructure

Mary K. JohnsonDepartment of Higher EducationAugust 16, 2006

(or Some Lessons on How Not to Handle Too Much with Too Little)

2

Presentation Summary

What we have How we got it What’s gone wrong How we’re fixing it

3

Capital Spending in Connecticut

System in the midst of a capital “renaissance”

Investment of over $2 billion since 1996

Another $1.7 billion expected through 2015

General Obligation, UConn 2000 & 21st Century Bond Authorizations

$0.0

$50.0

$100.0

$150.0

$200.0

$250.0

$300.0

$350.0

$400.0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Gov.2007

mill

ions

GO Bonds UConn 2000 21st Century

4

Capital Spending in Connecticut (Con’t.) System has added another 10 million square feet or 38% more space since the

mid-1990s Funds have been used for new construction, renovation, code compliance and

deferred maintenance, land acquisitions and equipment (including library books)

Facilities by Decade

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Pre-1900

1900-29

30's-40's

50's 60's 70's 80's 90's 2000+

mill

ion

gsf

5

Major New Facilities/Renovations Include: University of Connecticut (UConn):

Avery Point Marine Science Research Center ($40.7 million) Chemistry Building ($56.9 million) Northwest Residential Facility renovation ($32.1 million) School of Business ($27.8 million) School of Pharmacy ($94.6 million) South Campus Complex ($46.8 million) Stamford Downtown Campus ($72.4 million) Technology Quadrant ($70.6 million) Information Technology and Engineering Building ($34.1 million)

Connecticut State University (CSU): Academic Center (CCSU - $27.7 million) Child and Family Development Center (ECSU - $12 million) Classroom/Administration Building (SCSU - $52.5 million) Library (ECSU - $27.6 million) Student Center (SCSU - $33 million) Science Building (WCSU - $48 million)

Community Colleges (CTC): New Capital Community College (CCC - $60.5 million) Center for Arts and Sciences (MCC - $27.1 million) Learning Resource Center (MCC - $33.9 million) Information Technology Center (NCC - $15.5 million)

6

Lump Sum and Equipment Funds UConn:

Deferred Maintenance/Code Compliance/Renovations - $360 million ($172 million expended)

Equipment, Library Collections and Telecommunications - $443 million ($165 million expended)

CSU: Deferred Maintenance/Code Compliance/Renovations - $86 million

($76 million expended) Equipment, Library Collections and Telecommunications - $104

million ($84 million expended) CTC:

Deferred Maintenance/Code Compliance/Renovations - $58 million ($35 million expended)

Equipment, Library Collections and Telecommunications - $109 million ($78 million expended)

7

How We Got It UConn 2000 enacted in 1995 Goals of program:

Transform UConn into one of the top public universities

Attract better students Help stem brain drain Compete more effectively for research

8

UConn 2000 – “Ground-Breaking” Legislation

Authorized the initial $1 billion for 47 specific projects Allowed UConn to borrow money and issue securities known

as “Husky Bonds” Provided state debt service commitment (now $90 million per

year) Gave UConn unprecedented authority and flexibility to plan,

design, acquire and lease real assets, manage all its capital projects, including contracting for professional services and selecting design and construction firms

Required only the submission of semi-annual reports UConn 21st Century (2002) provided another $1.3 billion

9

UConn 2000 – “A Political Masterpiece” UConn had key staff who understood Connecticut

and how to sell idea So bold an idea, hard to say no Love of bricks and mortar List of projects included something for everyone Capitalized on success of basketball teams Showcased “poster facilities” in major disrepair Impeccable timing – college-age boomlet right

around corner

10

UConn 2000 – A Plan in the Making? About 75% of projects already were part of Board

of Governors five-year facilities plan Succeeded despite a lack of:

Updated academic plan A comprehensive facilities master plan Facility utilization study Full facilities condition assessment

11

Jumping on the Bandwagon: Funds for the Rest of the System

Governor Rowland made initial commitment of $720 million for CSU and $655 for CTC systems in 1997

Commitment was extended in 2001 for a total commitment of $866 million for CSU and $725 million for the CTC

No statutory commitment; no authority to manage major projects

CSU also gets $5 million a year in recognition of student financing of auxiliary facilities

Actual allocations, however, are slowing to a snail’s pace CSU is seeking another $1 billion commitment

12

Project “At Risk” August 2004 –

First revelations about fire and building code violations in student dormitories hit the press

November 2004 – State inspectors find numerous code violations. The three major dormitory complexes

were never inspected by state because they were below threshold December 2004 –

Executive Director of Architectural Services resigns February 2005 –

State auditors issue a report highly critical of how university awards contracts and of its budget and record keeping systems

March 2005 – New inspection office set up by UConn finds more than 100 other building and safety

violations UConn board commits $15 million to fix problems Lt. Governor Kevin Sullivan calls for legislative investigation stating that “flexibility is

no excuse for mismanagement, fraud and waste” (The Hartford Courant. March 29, 2005)

13

Project “At Risk” (Con’t.) April 2005 –

Reports of major cost overruns on student union and pharmacy buildings Governor Rell forms Governor’s Commission on UConn Review and Accountability

charged with investigating contracting and construction procedures

June 2005 – Two audit reports uncover a litany of serious deficiencies in oversight and budgeting First public mention of 1999 PinnacleOne audit which found similar issues and problems

- this audit was never made public to either the BOT or legislature Numerous press reports and questions about who knew what and when ensued

July 2005 – UConn official tells Governor’s Commission about how UConn buried a floor of a dorm

to avoid state inspection…….

14Cartoon by Bob Englehart of The Hartford Courant

“Honey, I Shrunk the Building”Editorial, The Harford Courant, July 31, 2005

15Cartoon by Bob Englehart of The Hartford Courant

16

Project “At Risk” (Con’t.) August 2005 –

Governor Rell publicly criticizes the University for the first time BOT Audit committee determines that President Austin and other UConn officials

were briefed on PinnacleOne audit in January 1999 September 2005 –

Governor’s review commission issues its report recommending, among other things, a hands-on construction committee

UConn Code Compliance Officer and VP for Administration and Operations Services put on administrative leave

Student newspaper calls on President Austin to resign Fire watch ordered at one of the dormitory complexes

January 2006 – Chief State’s Attorney takes over criminal investigation

May 2006 – Legislature enacts new oversight legislation

17

The Aftermath

A combination of factors lead to the breach:

Inexperience Insufficiency Ignorance Indifference Insincerity

18

The Aftermath (Con’t.)

Numerous code violations found in every building inspected to date

Total cost of required dormitory renovations - $23 million Criminal investigation continues Overall good of the program, and stunning new and

rejuvenated campus facilities far outweighed consequences: UConn has implemented major changes and internal controls, hired

more experienced staff, etc. Only three employees held accountable to date Top executives still employed 21st Century funds still in place

New oversight legislation enacted

19

Public Act 06-143: New Oversight Requirements Requires BOT to appoint independent auditors to annually audit all

projects Establishes a 7-member Construction Management Oversight Committee Requires public bidding for any project over $500,000 Requires prequalification of contractors by Department of Administrative

Services Permits UConn to use “construction manager at risk” Temporarily assigns public safety staff to Department of Public Safety Requires all deferred maintenance funds to be spent for that purpose Requires a review of all deferred maintenance needs and annual report to

CMOC Requires inspection of all university structures and inventory of deferred

maintenance needs

20

Stay Tuned….