Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 10:49:51 EDT To: advise@MIT.EDU From: Jen Frank Subject: capital section Capital Expenditures Section Document Control ================ Jake Parrott: Submitted on September 18, 1999 John Hollywood: Edited on September 28, 1999 Additions specified by [] signs. Countless faculty, staff and students have expressed the sentiment that MIT has underfunded its residence system. While community strength has helped keep student satisfaction rates high, the combination of aging facilities and increasing demand on the system by both undergraduate (due to freshmen on campus) and graduate (due to the tight rental market) students presents serious capital demands on the system. MIT's five-year capital plan details only a few of these necessities, in particular, the undergraduate dorm [to house freshmen on campus] and the life-safety system renovations that the Committee on Resource and Space Planning approved in July 1999. Approximately $275 million of capital projects are necessary to address three strategic needs: reducing MIT's dependence on the FSILG system to house undergraduates, maintaining up-to-date facilities and housing fifty percent of graduate students on campus. Three phases comprise the short-term (ten-year) capital plan for the residence system. MIT must complete (or explicitly commit funding, time and manpower) the projects in the first phase by the first fall in which all freshmen will live on campus. MIT should target completion of the second-phase jobs by the summer of 2004 and the third-phase work by the summer of 2009. Because the capital plan accounts for all of MIT's debt capacity through 2004, MIT will have to provide for completion of the first two phases through "off-budget means" or by using Capital Campaign proceeds. MIT can finance the third phase through the usual means, should their debt capacity so allow. Phase I-Through summer of 2001 Renovation to dormitories to re-open dining halls and create program space ($15 million) [These expenditures will allow MIT to carry out large portions of the Institute Dining Review and Principle B3 of the Clay Committee, "Build Supportive Communities". The Institute Dining Review described in detail the critical value of residential dining as the result of research which included discussion with hundreds of students and many faculty and staff, including housemasters. The Clay Committee also called for an improved residential dining program, and also pointed out the importance of common space to build community. The importance of common space is dining is widely recognized; see also Simha (he's really into this -- need to get citation from him) and recent reports of the Committee for the Undergraduate Program and Committee on Student Affairs (1996)] [Following paragraph generally edited] We emphasize the need to implement the residential dining recommendations of the Institute Dining Review. With the exceptions of the hiring of a Dining Director, improvements to the card system, and pilot projects that use dining spaces as-is, MIT has delayed implementation of the Institute Dining Review for various organizational and monetary reasons. This allocation will allow proper use of residential dining halls, which is an integral the residence system. Code considerations and general neglect mean that renovation of the McCormick kitchen will approach $5 million alone (according to studies done by request of the Dining Implementation Team), and renovations of Burton-Conner's and MacGregor's dining spaces (as enhanced program space or as dining) also carry significant price tags. Funds to buy or rent FSILG space from houses that would otherwise close ($25 million) The new rush system has caused great concern for the IFC, whose contingency plans provide for the closing of about ten houses, due to revenue problems associated with unsuccessful Rushes. Closing houses lower the number of beds in the system at a time when every bed is crucial. Therefore, MIT should commit funds to maintaining closed FSILG space in the system, either for graduate or undergraduate students. The $25 million figure comes from the ten-house assumption (at $2 million per house), plus contingency. Obviously, MIT could only commit the funds by summer 2001. Funds to renovate FSILGS ($11 million) Many FSILG facilities also have deteriorated over the years. Because the FSILG system is central to ensuring housing for undergraduates, MIT must do its part to maintain the spaces. A recent Alumni IFC (AIFC) study estimated (on average) $300K of renovations for each house, for a total (based on 36 houses) of $11 million. Total for Phase I: $51 million Phase II-Through summer of 2004 New graduate dormitory ($50 million) MIT has promised a new residence hall for its graduate student community since before the end of rent control. The end of rent control made graduate student life much more difficult, as rents [in some apartments -- including some owned by MIT -- have quadrupled. Beyond rent control, Boston's recent economic boom has led to rental shortages and much higher rents in general, as has been much reported in all major Boston publications. The upshot of the rental shortage is that, unless significant measures to house graduate students are taken, MIT may not be able to fulfill its obligation to ensure that graduate students can find safe, clean, and affordable housing.] A new graduate hall (with 500 beds, at $100,000 per bed) will alleviate both graduate students' concerns about finding affordable housing and the pressure graduate students exert on the Cambridge housing market, an important issue to the Cambridge City Council. The extra capacity will increase the percentage of graduate students housed on-campus from 29% to 38%, in partial fulfillment of the 50% target. Second new undergraduate or "flex" dormitory ($40 million) MIT's dependence on the FSILGs for housing its students is at a level that necessitates both dormitory overcrowding and an annual uncertainty about the ability to house all students, as MIT promises to all applicants. A second undergraduate dormitory (with 400 beds, at $100,000 per bed) will relieve both of these pressures by decreasing MIT's system-innate demand on the FSILGs by 10% of the undergraduate population. Should the FSILGs continue to enjoy successful Rushes, graduate students or junior faculty or staff could fill any beds leftover from eliminating crowding. Incorporating graduate students and junior faculty and staff will help enhance the community of scholars within the residence system, enhancing the informal interactions that enhance the MIT experience for the entire community. Renovations to East Campus Houses ($27 million) The East Campus dormitory presents pressing renovation demands. While the structure is essentially sound, the internal works of the building are in a poor state. Drastic increases in the amount of power comsumed by students over the years are putting a tremendous strain on the antiquated wiring. The building is not properly grounded, placing the students and their coursework at risk. The wiring dates back to the buildingUs construction and is not properly grounded. The plumbing does not meet the current needs of students. The basement is in a particularly poor state. It is not properly ventilated and frequently floods, preventing students from utilizing the space effectively. A [1998 Physical Plant Renewal Plan] priced the renovations at $27 million. Total for Phase II: $117 million Phase III-Through Summer of 2009 Second new graduate residence hall ($50 million) A second new graduate dorm would bring on-campus graduate student housing to 47%. Incorporating other MIT-owned properties, including 1010 Massachusetts Avenue, the percentage would be over 50%. Remainder of deferred maintenance schedule ($58 million) The $58 million amount arises from the original estimate ($130 million), minus $45 million in life-safety systems (approved by CRSP) and the $27 million of EC renovations in Phase II. Renovations to Walker Memorial The only way to implement a competitive dining system (as the Institute Dining Review specified) is to renovate Walker Memorial into a space that can serve as a flagship for the center of campus. In addition, a new Walker Memorial would provide badly-needed program and activity office space. The $25 million estimate comes from the recent Walker Memorial renovation committee work. Conclusion The quality of student life is heavily dependent upon the quality of the living and learning environment. It is important that MIT maintain the physical structures of its buildings in a manner that is supportive of the changing needs of students. Technology and larger class sizes are placing increased strain on the facilities. MIT should set and meet the goal of an equilibrium state in the facilities renewal process, preventing such renewal backlogs from occurring in the future.