TITLE education

Part I. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

Chapter 17. Campus Planning

Subchapter B. Application for Approval of New Construction and Major Repair and Rehabilitation

19 TAC §17.46

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board adopts amendments to Chapter 17, Subchapter B, §17.46, concerning Application for Approval of New Construction and Major Repair and Rehabilitation (Special Approval Procedures) with changes to the proposed text as published in the March 12, 1999, issue of the Texas Register (24 TexReg 1722). The proposed amendments provide special approval procedures for four types of Campus Planning projects. The proposed amendments would extend these special approval procedures to one additional type of project - projects funded with tuition revenue bonds. The proposed amendments specify criteria that governing boards will certify prior to consideration of approval by the Commissioner.

Comments regarding the proposed amendments were received from the following institutions: Texas A&M University System, Texas A&M University, The University of Texas System, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, The University of Texas at Brownsville, Texas Tech University, and The University of Texas at Austin. Comments were received on the criteria to be certified in order for facilities projects to qualify for Commissioner review under §17.46 (e). Comments were made regarding the following specific criteria: Comments regarding Construction cost. Although not included in the rules, the Board standard for construction cost is the maximum cost for the project, as specified by the R.S. Means Company, Inc. Square Foot Costs. Institutional representatives stated this publication does not adequately represent facilities costs for Texas public higher education institutions, especially if used as an absolute indicator for cost. A suggestion was made to expand the criteria to allow certification that variances have been reviewed and are considered reasonable due to factors specific to the project. Agency's response: In lieu of a better suggestion, the R.S. Means Company, Inc. Square Foot Costs will be used as the current standard. Staff will include analyses of specific features that increase the costs of projects. Comments regarding Gift funds: Institutional representatives suggested that this criterion be relevant to private gift and grant funds only, not for gifts and grants from established foundations or trusts. Agency's response: The wording has been changed to apply to private gift and grants only. Comments regarding Student fees: Comments stated that there is ambiguity in the definition of student fees. The legislature requires student approval to be obtained on certain types of student fees. Comments suggested the criteria apply only to these types of student fees. Agency's response: The language has been changed to apply to only student fees for which student approval is required prior to an increase is made. Comments regarding Privatization: Institutional representatives suggested that the external review of the feasibility of privatization should not be required. External reviews are time consuming and costly, and the work can be done internally. Agency's response: The language has been changed to require that privatization be considered but eliminating a requirement for an external review. Comments regarding Flood plain: Comments suggested expanding the criteria to allowing certification that if facilities are in the 100-year flood plain, they meet requirements established by local building authorities and the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). Agency's response: The language has been changed to require that projects in the 100-year flood plain meet requirements established by the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission and the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Administration). Comments regarding Master Plan: Institutional representatives stated that the acquisition of land should not be telegraphed far in advance, and this criterion doesn't allow them to take advantage of opportunities that arise. Agency's response: Wording was changed to clarify this refers to long range campus master plans, in which institutions delineate the campus boundary and general areas in which land will be purchased and the campus expanded. Comments regarding Project Ranking: Comments suggested that ranking on campus master plans is unworkable and that the criteria be expanded to allow institution to explain the reason for submitting out-of-sequence project. Agency's response: The wording was changed to eliminate project ranking and to state that a project not on the Master Plan may be considered if it is an emergency that careful planning could not have foreseen. Comments regarding Certification by Board of Regents: Allow Board of Regents to delegate authority to Chancellor. Agency's response: (No change.)s were needed. Changes were made accordingly as a result of the comments listed above.

The amendments to the rules are adopted under Texas Education Code, Section 61.058 which provides the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board with the authority to adopt rules concerning Application for Approval of New Construction and Major Repair and Rehabilitation (Special Approval Procedures).

§17.46.Special Approval Procedure.

(a)

The Coordinating Board authorizes the Campus Planning Committee to review and approve the following types of projects:

(1)-(2)

(No change.)

(3)

Major repair and rehabilitation of existing education and general buildings that will not add educational and general space with a total projected project cost of $5 million or more; and

(4)

(No change.)

(b)

(No change.)

(c)

The Coordinating Board authorizes the Commissioner to review and approve the following types of projects on certification by the proposing institution's governing board that Coordinating Board-approved criteria are met:

(1)

(No change.)

(2)

major repair and rehabilitation of existing education and general buildings that will not add educational and general space with a total projected project cost of less than $5 million; and

(3)

gifts, purchase or acquisition of real property having a value of less than $300,000; and

(4)

construction of new educational and general space having a value of less than $1 million; and

(5)

projects funded more than 50 percent with tuition revenue bond proceeds.

(d)

(No change.)

(e)

The Commissioner shall consider projects for approval after certification by the Governing Board that the following criteria are met, where applicable. If the governing board cannot make the appropriate certification, projects shall be referred to the Campus Planning Committee for its consideration.

(1)

Board standards regarding space need are met.

(2)

Board standards regarding construction cost and efficiency are met.

(3)

Board standards regarding deferred maintenance are met, or the project will reduce campus deferred maintenance by an amount equal to no less than 50% of project costs.

(4)

If the project financing involves private gift and grant funds, these funds are either in-hand or the governing board has committed an alternative source of funds, should the primary source of funds not be forthcoming, or has agreed to forego the project.

(5)

If the project will cause an increase in student fees, such increases have been executed in accordance with the applicable laws concerning approval by the student body.

(6)

If the project involves construction of a dormitory, bookstore, food service facility, or other facility for which privatization may be a viable alternative, the governing board has considered the feasibility of privatization of both construction and operation of the facility.

(7)

The project will comply with the minimum flood plain management standards established by the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA).

(8)

If the project includes the acquisition of real property, appropriate consideration has been given to the effect of the acquisition on residential neighborhoods.

(9)

If the project includes the acquisition of real property, the acquisition is included in the institution's long-range campus master plan.

(10)

The project is included in the institution's most recently submitted Campus Master Plan (MP1) or is an opportunity or emergency that could not have been foreseen at the time the MP1 was submitted.

This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on May 25, 1999.

TRD-9903095

James McWhorter

Assistant Commissioner for Administration

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

Effective date: June 14, 1999

Proposal publication date: March 12, 1999

For further information, please call: (512) 483-6162