University of Tennessee

15 May 2013
University of Tennessee
Knoxville’s Drive to the Top 25
Virginia State University
Wagner College
Washburn University
Wellesley College
Wesleyan University
West Chester University of
Pennsylvania
West Virginia Health Sciences Center
West Virginia University
Western Connecticut State University
Western Oregon University
Westfield State University
Wheaton College (MA)
Whitworth University
Widener University
Williams College
Williston Northampton School
Worcester State College
Xavier University
Yeshiva University
Youngstown State University
“UT Can’t Reach our Top 25 and Masterplan Goals without our FACILITIES GROUP being Top 25.”
Chancellor Jimmy Cheek
“The Plan”
FACILITIES SERVICES PRIORITIES
 Embrace And Advance UT Visions And Goals
 Lead The Drive To Top 25
 Position Our Team For Success
Commitments to UT Facilities
Project Investment & Construction
Chancellor’s Commitments to Facilities





$12.5M Crisis Maintenance
Projects in 2013
$11M/Yr. Continuing Funding for
Deferred Maintenance
$8.0M Research Renovations
Record >$650M in Capital Projects
Currently including:








$167M Student Union
$60M Residence Hall
$115M Strong Hall
$95M Research Lab
$110M Classroom Building
$100M Engineering Building
$250M Housing Redevelopment
$100M Housing/Parking
$600,000 For New Facilities
IT/Communications System
 $2M Additional One Time Funding
 $7M+ increase/Yr. Facilities Dept.
Funding including:
 $800,000/Yr. To In-Source All Custodial
Services
 Includes 100+ new In house custodial
positions
 $50,000/Yr. for Facilities IT Support
 $307,000/Yr. Salary Increases (above
overall University increases)


52 additional new Positions
5% Budget Increase for Training plus
 3 Full Time Training Positions
Commitments to UT Facilities
Project Investment & Construction
Chancellor’s Commitments to Facilities





$12.5M Crisis Maintenance
Projects in 2013
$11M/Yr. Continuing Funding for
Deferred Maintenance
$8.0M Research Renovations
Record >$650M in Capital Projects
Currently including:








$167M Student Union
$60M Residence Hall
$115M Strong Hall
$95M Research Lab
$110M Classroom Building
$100M Engineering Building
$250M Housing Redevelopment
$100M Housing/Parking
$600,000 For New Facilities
IT/Communications System
 $2M Additional One Time Funding
 $7M+ increase/Yr. Facilities Dept.
Funding including:
 $800,000/Yr. To In-Source All Custodial
Services
 Includes 100+ new In house custodial
positions
 $50,000/Yr. for Facilities IT Support
 $307,000/Yr. Salary Increases (above
overall University increases)


52 additional new Positions
5% Budget Increase for Training plus
 3 Full Time Training Positions
Sightlines’ involvement
With so much change coming, how could UT facilities services manage, track and communicate the progress?
Space Profile:
The hand that you are dealt
Overall Age Profile Similar to Peers
Campus Age by Category
100%
% of Total Campus GSF
90%
21%
20%
52%
56%
31%
36%
30%
24%
18%
20%
UTK
Peer Average
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Under 10
10 to 25
25 to 50
Over 50
Age Profile Impacts Future Capital Strategy
Constructed Space Since 1880
900,000
800,000
700,000
10.0
Key Questions:
 How do you address the
backlog of needs?
 How do you address the
ongoing renewal needs?
8.0
GSF
600,000
6.0
500,000
400,000
4.0
300,000
200,000
2.0
100,000
0.0
-
Cumulative GSF
Note: Renewal needs are not exclusive to new buildings. For example, a 20 year old building may have a mechanical system that lasts 40
years, therefore the renewal need would come 20 years from now.
10
Construction Vintage at UT
Looking at the age of campus based on era of construction
UT Construction Vintage
• Built before 1951
Pre-War
23%
Lower Quality
construction
24%
10%
43%
Pre War
Post War
Modern
Post-War
Modern
• Built between 1951 and
1975
• Built between 1975 and
1990
Complex
• Built in 1991 and newer
Complex
11
Construction Vintage at UT
Looking at the age of campus based on era of construction
UT Construction Vintage
24%
Peers Construction Vintage
23%
23%
33%
10%
Pre War
Post War
Modern
32%
12%
43%
Complex
Pre War
Post War
Modern
Based on Construction Vintage, 53% of UT’s campus was constructed during lowquality construction periods versus 44% for peers, facing life-cycles more rapidly
12
Complex
UT has more space in “low-quality” construction eras
UT Construction Vintage
Peers Construction Vintage
23%
24%
23%
33%
53%
Pre War
Post War
Modern
44%
Complex
Pre War
Post War
Modern
Based on Construction Vintage, 53% of UT’s campus was constructed during lowquality construction periods versus 44% for peers, facing life-cycles more rapidly
13
Complex
Capital Investment & Backlog:
The impact of history
Outspending Peers in Recent Years
Recent increase in capital matches growing needs in Post-war & Modern Buildings
Increased capital commitment
starting to show up in FY12 and
FY13.
Millions
Increased investment “stabilizing backlog”
$70.0
Decreasing Backlog
$60.0
$50.0
Stabilizing Backlog
$40.0
$30.0
Increasing Backlog
$20.0
$10.0
$0.0
2008
Annual Stewardship
2009
2010
Asset Reinvestment
2011
Target Need
2012
2013
Equilibrium Need
Despite the progress more is needed
• Recent increases in capital
investments have meant that
UT exceeds peer investment
levels.
• Despite the increase, UT is just
reaching the annual investment
target require to “Stabilize” the
backlog
• Low historical investment
levels have left UT with a
greater backlog than peers and
a “pent up” capital demand.
A dual approach to addressing DM
Millions
Total Capital Investment by Type
$90.0
• Existing space investments
targeting key systematic
deferred maintenance issues
$80.0
$70.0
• New space being used to
build new buildings to replace
older facilities with significant
deferred maintenance needs
• Replacing smaller
buildings with larger
(Operational efficiencies)
• Replace aging
programmatic space with
modern facilities.
$60.0
$50.0
$40.0
$30.0
$20.0
$10.0
$0.0
2008
2009
2010
Existing Space Spending
2011
2012
2013
New Space Spending
Operational Effectiveness:
Positioning the team for success
Some key operational Initiatives
• Separate “maintenance” from “projects”
• Bring Custodial operations back in-house to improve service
levels
• Implement a new work order system, improve PM tracking
and Service delivery
• Grounds performance – Big issue for the Vice Chancellor
Bringing custodial staffing in-house
Cleanliness Score
UT FY12
UT FY13
4.21
4.37
Expanding the Grounds comparison
SEC, ACC, and Big 10 institutions
Less Staff
Less Supervision
UT
UT FY12
FY12
UT FY13
Less Materials
Peer Average
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.0
Conclusion
With Facilities leading the “drive to 25” and the Institutional commitments to
facilities at UT, the need for managing, tracking and communicating facilities
progress was of upmost importance.
• Validate the need for change. The campus profile and historical
investment had left a substantial “pent up” capital demand, require
additional capital investment.
• Shift the culture from reactive to proactive. The chancellors
commitment to on-going deferred maintenance funding of
approximately $8M / yr. will continue to improve and already improving
capital position.
• Targeting operational resources to improve service. Significant
commitments have been made to operations, with performance
beginning to show improvement.
Presenter Profile
15 May 2013
Location: Guilford, CT
Founded: 2000
Member Campuses: Over 450
Location: Knoxville, TN
Founded: 1794
Students: Over 27,000
Acreage: 560
GSF: Over 14 Million
Presenter Profile
Peter Reeves
Associate Director – Member
Operations
Sightlines LLC
Email: [email protected]
Dave Irvin
Associate Vice Chancellor for
Facilities Services
University of Tennessee Knoxville
Email: [email protected]
More info
Questions & Comment