U of C needs $490M for maintenance
Province’s post-secondary buildings are aging and require attention
Ballooning deferred maintenance costs continue to cause consternation at Alberta’s post-secondary institutions.
The province’s largest and oldest university, the University of Alberta, has pegged its bill at more than $800 million and the University of Calgary is nursing a $490 million potential headache.
For the University of Calgary, the biggest challenge is that those buildings were erected when the university was founded 50 years ago. For the U of A, more than half of the bill is associated with science lab facilities and a third is with office and classroom facilities.
It’s likely to get worse before it gets any better, with a slumping economy restricting the ability of the NDP government to dump large amounts of money into the tool boxes of the public sector thanks to a frail oil and gas industry.
In Budget 2016, the NDP government set aside $6.2 billion over five years for capital maintenance and renewal that includes $1.1 billion for schools and $777 million for post-secondary institutions.
That money will allow the public sector to chip away at the most pressing issues but it doesn’t alleviate a bigger, long-term problem: the longer maintenance is deferred, the greater the chance of a catastrophic failure resulting in disruptions to classes and reduction in programs.
Not only does that affect students but also the reputation of institutions in their ability to attract lucrative endowments and renowned national and international faculty members and staff.
It could also force the hands of administrators who, instead of renovating, may simply have to demolish antiquated structures.
Boris Dragicevic, associate vicepresident of facilities and development at U of C, said the good news at their campus is the relatively young age of the buildings. However, he added they’re reaching their limit.
“The bad part is we are 50 years old and a lot of the buildings when we were first established are starting to hit those critical dates and times where there needs to be significant investment in them to carry them over for another 50 years,” Dragicevic said.
Andrew Sharman, University of Alberta’s vice-president of facilities and operations, said it is a challenge for them as well.
“You have to look at whether the life of the building can be truly extended,” he said. “A lot of the older buildings are structurally sound but they are antiquated (and) you get to a point with any building, that you have to make the decision is the investment in upgrades or in replacement.”
A report by the Canadian Association of University Business Officers found in 2014 the total national deferred maintenance amounted to $8.4 billion, a figure that more than doubled from a $3.6 billion backlog in 2000.
The increase is still considered “staggering.” The report said: “There is evidence that historically low levels of investment in the Western provinces have created a pent-up demand and resulted in a significant accumulation of deferred maintenance needs.” Sharman agrees. “There were a number of years in this province in the early 1990s that there was an underinvestment,” he says. That changed when resource royalties flooded the Alberta government coffers in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Sharman is quick to point out that the boom time oil money was “spent on the new at the expense of existing.”
“I think now there has to be a balance,” he said. “Clearly we need to have functionally high quality space for the best learning environment but we have to look at some compromise where we can still achieve an outcome.
“It’s just not sustainable to keep building new buildings.”
The bulk of the University of Alberta’s buildings were constructed between the early-1950s and mid1970s, peaking in 1971, and that is where the real problem lies, says Sharman. Right across North America, that rapid, post-Second World War growth known for its “low-quality construction” is now reaching critical points when it comes to life cycle.
For example, Sharman says, some electronic building management systems like heating and cooling that are obsolete because of advances in technology are being cannibalized for parts “to keep other buildings going because we don’t have the money to necessarily replace all our electronic building management systems.”
“We are constantly monitoring and constantly doing work,” he says.
Like Sharman, Dragicevic welcomes increased funding from the government. He says U of C has seen its infrastructure maintenance program funding increase from $10.9 million to just over $14 million.
“With the funds we are given, we manage and we are keeping the campus going very well with the work we are doing,” he said.
“As you can well see, that money only puts a little dent in a $490 million problem and as time goes by, new problems arise.”
For NAIT’s Associate Vice President John Engleder, the challenge in prioritizing their $67.7 million deferred maintenance bill is not unlike the larger institutions.
“I think the part that everybody is struggling with — and we are in no way unique — is knowing what is a reasonable amount of deferred maintenance,” he said.