An article in the News & Observer says a $3-billion deferred-maintenance backlog troubles University of North Carolina System officials. “The problem is perpetuating itself,” Hannah Gage, chairwoman of the university system’s Board of Governors, tells the newspaper. “As the economy has slowed, the state’s ability to give us the money we need has declined. We’re in a mess.”
Although the state approved some $2.5-billion in bonds for the system starting in 2000, with the intention of reversing the trend of disrepair at the institutions, the money “addressed less than half of the $7-billion in total needs cited in a 1999 consultant’s report,” the article says.
The News & Observer focuses on a plant-science building at North Carolina State University, where pervasive mold is merely one problem plaguing the structure. N.C. State has a $439-million backlog, the article says, while the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has a $645-million backlog, even after it spent $500-million on 50 projects using bond money.
Follow Buildings & Grounds through your favorite RSS reader:
5 Responses to Deferred Maintenance a ‘Mess’ in U. of North Carolina System
crunchycon - October 4, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Must be a problem across the county. The University of Illinois, in particular its Urbana-Champaign campus, has deferred maintenance on many of its oldest buildings. Lincoln Hall was in the condition that it either had to be updated/mainted immediately or be torn down. Because of its historical significance to the campus, it was decided to update it, removing these funds from use to maintain other buildings.
crunchycon - October 4, 2010 at 4:37 pm
That is, maintained (not mainted)
wmartin46 - October 4, 2010 at 6:45 pm
A few points –1) This is a problem that has infected the public sector across the country. 2) If the finances for these projects are “bonded out”, the the “true costs” for these projects will likely be increased by a factor of 2 (over a likely 30-year bond paydown period). This financing costs are significant, and are generally ignored by the state agencies, and the media. Unfortunately, the costs end up on people’s tax bills .. and they never quite understand where this money is going.3) A educational institutions need to move to a “true-cost” pricing model for tuition. For far too long, most of the government sector (including the education industry) has not been open with students, and the public, about the cost of educating students. Time to correct this flawed account model, and add in all costs–such as new building, and refurbishment costs.4) Time to think about distance learning. A lot less expensive, and just as effective as sitting in brick-n-mortar buildings for most people.
tweidner - October 5, 2010 at 9:44 am
The report has numerous false assumptions which create headlines but little valuable information.The NC System 2009 Facilities Inventory and Utilization Report lists 24.4 million gsf of space (including community colleges). Assume $200/gsf (reasonable construction costs in 1999), 47% inflation (1999 – 2007, virtually flat since 2008), 1.5% decay rate of general construction (Biedenweig, etal, 1997) and soon you begin to realize that the static investment of $2.5 billion is insufficient to control the steady growth of capital renewal (facility) needs. This does not include the cost of technological and programmatic improvement needs resulting from research, instruction, and general student demands. So the system probably needs to invest 2.5 to 3.0% of current replacement value (CRV) if it wants to overcome the backlog in about 20 years – with no growth. Is that reasonable? Should campuses have little or no capital renewal backlog? Can students learn without being on a campus? Does a new classroom really need to be constructed? Can we reuse an existing facility? How cost effective are high-tech studios for distance learning compared to a low-tech classroom? Can students really learn in their pajamas? Do we really need a separate home, dining club, health club, medical center, classrooms, and support infrastructure just to provide post-secondary education?These are some of the questions that must be answered prior to approving a new capital construction project. If not, the University of North Carolina and other institutions (public and private) will continue to spend money in an unsustainable manner.
cwinton - October 5, 2010 at 10:16 am
tweidner (#4) pretty much has it right. There will always be a temptation to spend resources today that will be needed tomorrow regardless of what the actuarial accounting tells us. After all, how many pension plans are in trouble because they aren’t fully funded? Not budgeting for maintenance and upgrade is denying the obvious, and that includes the enormous (and expensive) infrastructure associated with distance learning. The most cost effective way to deliver education is probably the proverbial one-room schoolhouse, but for that we would have to give up a lot of toys.