University of Tennessee

Transcription

1 15 May 2013 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 University of Tennessee Knoxville s Drive to the Top 25

2 UT Can t Reach our Top 25 and Masterplan Goals without our FACILITIES GROUP being Top 25. Chancellor Jimmy Cheek

3 The Plan

4 FACILITIES SERVICES PRIORITIES Embrace And Advance UT Visions And Goals Lead The Drive To Top 25 Position Our Team For Success

5 Commitments to UT Facilities Project Investment & Construction $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 Chancellor s Commitments to Facilities $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

6 Commitments to UT Facilities Project Investment & Construction $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 Chancellor s Commitments to Facilities $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

7 Sightlines involvement With so much change coming, how could UT facilities services manage, track and communicate the progress?

8 Space Profile: The hand that you are dealt

9 Overall Age Profile Similar to Peers % of Total Campus GSF 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Campus Age by Category 21% 20% 52% 56% 31% 36% 30% 24% 18% 20% UTK Peer Average Under to to 50 Over 50

10 Age Profile Impacts Future Capital Strategy GSF 900, , , , , , , , ,000 - Key Questions: How do you address the backlog of needs? How do you address the ongoing renewal needs? Constructed Space Since 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

11 Construction Vintage at UT Looking at the age of campus based on era of construction UT Construction Vintage Pre-War Built before % 24% 43% 23% Lower Quality construction Post-War Modern Built between 1951 and 1975 Built between 1975 and 1990 Pre War Post War Modern Complex Complex Built in 1991 and newer 11

12 Construction Vintage at UT Looking at the age of campus based on era of construction UT Construction Vintage Peers Construction Vintage 24% 23% 33% 23% 10% 43% 12% 32% Pre War Post War Modern Complex Pre War Post War Modern Complex 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

13 UT has more space in low-quality construction eras UT Construction Vintage Peers Construction Vintage 24% 23% 33% 23% 53% 44% Pre War Post War Modern Complex Pre War Post War Modern Complex 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

14 Capital Investment & Backlog: The impact of history

15 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.

16 Increased investment stabilizing backlog Millions $70.0 $60.0 Decreasing Backlog $50.0 $40.0 Stabilizing Backlog $30.0 $20.0 Increasing Backlog $10.0 $ Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Target Need Equilibrium Need

17 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.

18 A dual approach to addressing DM Millions Total Capital Investment by Type $90.0 $80.0 $70.0 $60.0 $50.0 $40.0 $30.0 $20.0 $10.0 $ Existing Space Spending New Space Spending Existing space investments targeting key systematic deferred maintenance issues 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.

19 Operational Effectiveness: Positioning the team for success

20 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

21 Bringing custodial staffing in-house Cleanliness Score UT FY12 UT FY

22 Expanding the Grounds comparison SEC, ACC, and Big 10 institutions Less Staff Less Supervision Less Materials UT FY12 UT FY13 Peer Average

23 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.

24 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

25 Presenter Profile Peter Reeves Associate Director Member Operations Sightlines LLC Dave Irvin Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Services University of Tennessee Knoxville

26 More info

27 Questions & Comment