Focus Area C: Developing and Implementing a Facilities Master Plan

In 2000 the CIHE found UMass Dartmouth to be in non-compliance with Standard 8.3 on Physical Resources:

The institution undertakes physical resource planning which is linked to academic and student services and financial planning. It determines the adequacy of existing physical resources and identifies and plans the specified resolution of deferred maintenance needs. Space planning occurs on a regular basis as part of physical resource evaluation and planning, and is consistent with the mission and purposes of the institution. (Report of findings, October 19, 2000)

Specifically, for the 2003 focused visit, the Commission charged us to report on our progress in developing and implementing a facilities master plan:

We understand that the University is currently considering consultants who would oversee the creation of a new facilities master plan and look forward to being apprised in the 2003 report of its success in developing and implementing such a plan.

The campus has embraced this requirement enthusiastically. As a public institution in the Commonwealth, UMass Dartmouth must use outside experts to develop a formal master plan. Extra-mural funding in the amount of $400,000 has been provided from a state fund to hire the planning firm of Chan Krieger Associates to guide us through the process of developing a comprehensive master plan for the university. This firm began their work in December 2002 and is to submit its finished plan in September 2003.

The decision to initiate this project was made in the light of our ten-year NEASC accreditation findings from 2000. It is also undertaken within the context of current institutional planning. The University Planning Council (UPC) has an active Focus Group on Facilities that presented many recommendations for assessment in their report, including a recommendation that the campus develop a Facilities Master Plan. As a follow-up from the general planning effort, in Fall 2001 an implementation group was formed, called the Facilities Improvement Committee, charged with implementing improvements in process and establishing the master planning initiative.

In the words of Chancellor MacCormack, "Facilities Master Planning is a significant step in establishing a path to sound planning for our future. It will tell us what our existing conditions are, where we need to invest in repairs and renovations, and where we need to consider new construction. This will be an intensive, inclusive process, which will require extensive campus input."

5.1 Criteria for master planning

Consulting the Commonwealth's Division of Capital Asset Management, the University Planning Committee's Focus Group on Facilities developed requests for proposals to outline the scope of the master planning work effort. Proposals were received from over twenty planning firms (including the most respected planning firms in the Commonwealth), and the Commonwealth's Designer Selection Board, with input from campus representatives, chose Chan Krieger to be the winning firm. Chan Krieger is an architectural and design firm with extensive experience in higher education.

The evaluation criteria for this effort were:

• · The master plan will include a complete inventory and assessment of all buildings and grounds of the campus with an evaluation of their existing conditions, including a site survey, a complete assessment of each building on campus, a hazardous materials survey if needed, and a description and condition of building systems (mechanical, electrical, HVAC, telephone systems, fire alarm, emergency generator, etc.). This assessment will include inspection deficiencies and projected repair or replacement costs and will be provided in a relational database consistent with systems in use on the campus.
• · The master plan will provide an evaluation of the space planning needs of the campus, assessing needs for long-range projected enrollments and program development, including Continuing Education. There will be a clear understanding of where growth will occur and the projected impact of that growth. The analysis requires a thorough understanding of academic programs that addresses instructional, research, and laboratory needs and computer hardware and software usage. The consultant will identify and evaluate campus space management policies in comparison to peer institutions. Off-campus facilities will be factored into this evaluation: the New Bedford Star Store arts facility, the Marine Science and Technology buildings, the Neighborhood College in New Bedford, the Advanced Technology Manufacturing Center, and the Center for Professional and Continuing Education in Fall River.
• · The consultant firm will document the existing conditions of the landscape design and determine new or revised standards that will reinforce the intent of the original landscape design.
• · The master plan will provide a development strategy for deferred maintenance to ensure the maximum longevity for building systems. The campus is interested in incorporating use of renewable resources in maintaining its buildings. Sustainability will be incorporated in standards and strategies as applicable.
• · An ADA compliance survey will be completed that identifies each area of a building that does not meet current ADA compliance standards. Programmatic and physical alterations to address ADA issues will be costed and recommended in the final master plan.
• · Traffic and parking problems are significant on the main campus. For example, there are continuous conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular traffic flows. The master plan will coordinate parking studies, traffic studies, and growth plans to develop a comprehensive traffic and parking plan.
• · Campus security and safety is compromised in some cases because of aesthetic design elements. The Master Plan will identify these areas and find solutions that maintain design intent while ensuring strong security.
• · The master plan will recommend a comprehensive signage/wayfinding approach to external and internal signage. Current standards must be revised to meet current needs and growth challenges.
• · The master plan will recommend architectural design guidelines to establish a programmatic basis for future buildings and alterations. Future development sites will be recommended and a palette of acceptable design elements will be delineated.

In December 2002 the Chancellor formed a steering committee, co-chaired by the Provost and the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Fiscal Affairs, to oversee the master planning process. Chancellor MacCormack asked each of the unions, the Faculty Senate, the Student Senate, the University Planning Committee's Facilities Focus Group, and administrative leaders to make nominations of people who should serve on this committee. The Chancellor appointed 32 individuals (8 administrators, 9 faculty, 1 librarian, 9 staff members, 4 students, and 1 alumna) to this committee, with the Director of Facilities and the Resident Engineer serving as staff to the committee. Part of the charge to this Steering Committee will be to ensure that the planning process is open and inclusive and to communicate progress to the larger campus community. Chan Krieger will submit the finished plan in September 2003.

5.2 Relationship of master planning to other planning and management processes on campus

Having been designed by the University Planning Committee's Focus Group on Facilities, the facilities master planning process is linked to university planning. The Steering Committee that will oversee the development of the master plan with Chan Krieger Associates includes members from this Focus Group who will provide on-going liaison with the UPC and the campus community.

All master plan elements will be cost-estimated. The expenses associated with new buildings, alterations, regulatory upgrades, technology upgrades, landscape modifications, accessibility and traffic flow infrastructure improvements, correction of deferred maintenance deficiencies, security initiatives, and signage/wayfinding improvements will be fed into the operational and capital budget planning process to schedule the needed expenditures in our prioritized financial plan.

At the completion of the Master Planning effort, the campus will be provided with a space utilization plan and a comprehensive database that describes in detail all pertinent characteristics of all space on campus. This documentation will provide us with the information needed to initiate a strong central space planning process. At the same time, each division of the university will have input for space planning through the space committee process and will provide up-dated information about division priorities that influence space and facilities considerations.

Space improvements, physical resource allocations, and future capital requests will be based on the master plan. Once the master plan is complete, on-going, comprehensive space planning will be the responsibility of the Facilities Department and appropriate liaisons in each division. The Master Plan will be reviewed for currency on a regular basis, and a revision process will occur if certain guidelines or directions become unworkable or new directions seem advisable.

5.3 Other progress

A broad-based committee, the Physical Facilities Leadership Team, advises on issues such as merging housing and campus maintenance groups, improving traffic crossings, continuing to provide handicapped access, and suggesting priorities for renovations and remodeling. The Physical Facilities Leadership Team also advises on needs and priorities in the Facilities and Physical Plant area and improving services and the quality of work done on campus. Co-chaired by administrators from two different divisions, the team will continue to provide advice on a broad range of topics concerning UMass Dartmouth physical plant and facilities operations. In the absence of a Master Plan, this group has assisted the Director of Facilities to form consensual recommendations, a role that will phase down as the master plan comes into being.

The NEASC 2000 review team found that "UMass Dartmouth's physical resources and their maintenance adequately meet Standard Eight, Physical Resources" (Report of the Evaluation team, June 19, 2000, page 21). Still, the team mentioned a number of areas of concern in facilities compliance, oversight, and maintenance, and we have made progress in addressing them:

• Positions filled. Three key positions within Facilities have been filled: Director of Facilities, Head of the Planning and Design Department, and Operations Manager. A fourth position, that of Environmental Health and Safety Officer, has been approved and hiring is expected within the current fiscal year.
• ADA-compliance improvements. Accessibility has been improved in various ways over the past two years, including creation of new parking spaces for wheelchair users, remodeling of three toilet rooms, addition of about a dozen new mechanically operated doors at building entrances, installation of hold-open devices on about a dozen fire doors, upgrading of four elevators in the main academic buildings, and installation of a new handicapped lift in the Campus Center; in addition, plans to make each classroom comfortable for wheelchair users have been drawn up, and some have been implemented.
• Fire safety sprinklers for the residence halls. The NEASC 2000 visitors' report advised, "The campus should consider adding sprinkling systems to the fire safety program in the residence halls." While the cost of pursuing this suggestion has been prohibitive (estimated cost for providing the four older East Campus Residence Halls with sprinklers is about $8M and the estimated cost for providing the West Campus Residence Halls with sprinklers is about $4M), the campus has aggressively compartmentalized the fire egressways throughout the four older East Campus Residence Halls to inhibit fire spread in the buildings. The new Oak Glenn and Pine Dale Residence Halls on the East Campus are fully sprinklered. A strong fire safety residence hall program includes a positive working relationship with our local fire officials, training of residents and resident directors, fire drills, fire-resistive construction on the East Campus, and active enforcement of fire safety regulations.
• Merging Residential Life and Physical Plant maintenance operations. The NEASC 2000 visitors' report advised, "The campus administration may want to review the relationship between Residential Life maintenance and the Physical Plant maintenance staff to determine if cross training would be useful or if economies of scale could be achieved without lowering quality of service." An ad-hoc committee, formed about a year ago to consider the relationship between the two Facilities groups on campus, has solicited input from affected workers, management, unions, and administrators and recommended approaches leading to a merger. The Chancellor has taken the report under advisement awaiting a fiscal and service analysis from the Division of Administration and Finance.

5.4 Summary appraisal and next steps

Although the NEASC review found UMass Dartmouth compliant with the standards for physical resources and their maintenance, many campus constituents perceive problems with the campus physical environment : inadequate or poorly allocated space for necessary functions; visible problems in upkeep of buildings, furnishings, and systems; inadequate cleanliness and maintenance of grounds and buildings; and persistent problems with parking and traffic. When the master plan is complete, the following will be addressed:

• Providing space and facilities needed to support institutional strategies for enrollment, instruction, research, and community service.
• Prioritizing and funding plant and facilities maintenance on a stable cycle.
• Maintaining the infrastructure for maximum life.
• Meeting all regulatory and safety requirements.
• Linking both maintenance and future modifications to institutional plans.

UMass Dartmouth was found to be out of compliance with Standard 8.3, concerning space and facilities planning. Full compliance will be accomplished when Chan Kreiger delivers the master plan at the conclusion of the contract and it has been implemented in institutional practice. The master plan complies with the standard by being "linked to academic and student services and financial planning" and "consistent with the mission and purposes of the institution." With the master plan, tools will be in place to address both longer- and shorter-range needs systematically, in priority order, and based on accurate, accessible data.

UMass Dartmouth was found to be in compliance with Standards 8.1 and 8.2 at the Spring 2000 visit.