fall 2011: facilities & services customer satisfaction...

Fall 2011: Facilities & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey Results

Institutional Analysis Page i

Fall 2011

New Mexico State University

Facilities and Services

Las Cruces Campus

Customer Satisfaction Survey Results


Institutional Analysis Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents About This Survey ......................................................................................................................................... 1

General Response Rates and Results ............................................................................................................ 2

General Results by Survey Section: ........................................................................................................... 3

Custodial: .............................................................................................................................................. 3

Building Environment and Utilities: ...................................................................................................... 3

Grounds: ................................................................................................................................................ 3

Project Development and Engineering: ................................................................................................ 3

Administrative Services: ........................................................................................................................ 4

Environmental Health and Safety Services: .......................................................................................... 4

Write In Question Summary: ................................................................................................................ 4

Question by Question Detailed Analysis: .................................................................................................... 11

Section 1: General Satisfaction Scale ..................................................................................................... 11

Table 1: General Satisfaction with Facilities and Services, Respondent Percentages ....................... 11

Section 2: Primary Building .................................................................................................................... 12

Section 3: Custodial Care ........................................................................................................................ 14

Table 2: Satisfaction with FS Custodial Services, Respondent Percentages ....................................... 14

Section 4: Building and Environment ...................................................................................................... 15

Table 3: Satisfaction with FS Building Environmental and Utilities Services, Respondent Percentages

............................................................................................................................................................ 15

Section 5: Grounds Services .................................................................................................................... 16

Table 4: Satisfaction with FS Grounds Services, Respondent Percentages ........................................ 16

Section 6: Project Development and Engineering .................................................................................. 17

Table 5: Satisfaction with FS Special Projects and Engineering Services, Respondent Percentages .. 17

Section 7: FS Administrative Services .................................................................................................... 18

Table 6: Satisfaction with FS Administrative Service Areas, Respondent Percentages ...................... 18

Section 8: Environmental Health and Safety ......................................................................................... 19

Table 7: Satisfaction with Environmental Health and Safety, Respondent Percentages ................... 19

Final Question: Write-In ......................................................................................................................... 20

Comment Summary by Building: ................................................................................................................ 20


Institutional Analysis Page iii

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 32

Appendix A: Survey Form ........................................................................................................................ 27

Appendix B: Buildings indicating some dissatisfaction broken out by survey question ......................... 38

B.1 Custodial ....................................................................................................................................... 57

B.2: Building and Environment ........................................................................................................... 64

B.3: Grounds ....................................................................................................................................... 69


Institutional Analysis Page 1

About This Survey:

In mid October, 2011, New Mexico State University’s (NMSU) Facilities and Services Office (FS)

and the Office of Institutional Analysis (OIA) worked together to update the 2010 FS customer

satisfaction survey. FS then sent survey invitations to all faculty and staff on the Las Cruces

campus as a follow up to the prior two years’ surveys. The survey was designed according to

specifications of a Facilities and Services audit and standards set by APPA, the facilities

professional organization to which NMSU belongs. The 2011 survey focused on the same

questions and functional areas as in prior years, but was expanded to include questions

regarding sustainability efforts on the NMSU Las Cruces campus. A copy of the full survey can

be found in Appendix A.

The survey was hosted on the IRPOA website, and FS director Glen Haubold sent out two email

invitations over the course of two weeks asking the university community to take the FS survey.

The email distribution list was set up and determined by his office in conjunction with the

University Communications Department at NMSU. The survey was made available to

participants between October 10 and October 21, 2011. This was both fewer invitation and

reminder emails and a shorter survey period than in the 2010 administration.

The survey itself dealt with six specific areas of university life that FS is responsible for:

custodial care, the environment inside of campus buildings, university grounds and landscaping

services, project development and engineering services, Facilities and Services administration,

and environmental health and safety services. Additionally, respondents were given the

opportunity to write in specific comments they may have about FS services on the last survey

page. All respondents were asked for their opinions on custodial care, building and

environment, and grounds and landscaping, but for the areas of project development and

engineering, administrative services, and environmental health and safety services, respondents

were given the option to opt out of that portion of the survey if they had not used the services in

the prior 12 month period.



General Response Rates and Results:

There was not a lot of publicity or build up prior to the start of the survey, and after some

complaints following the 2010 administration regarding the number of email reminders sent

out, both the survey availability period and the number of email invitations sent were cut in half

this year. As a result, the number of responses was only about a third of that in the prior year,

which was a similar number to the 2009 survey administration. 286 NMSU faculty and staff

members responded to the survey and 44.1% (126) of these individuals took the time to write in

specific comments that specified areas they either felt needed extra FS attention or were areas in

which respondents felt that FS was excelling. This included five individuals who wrote in

comments for FS instead of identifying which building they worked in at the beginning of the

survey. Because a significant portion of respondents felt there were issues important enough to

comment on, it is important to look at the comments as well as the raw numbers and

percentages of respondents, to gain deeper understanding of the issues that FS may wish to

address in the future.

Overall, the results of the survey were favorable, and the majority of respondents had a good

opinion of FS, particularly of FS staff. When there were issues cited with FS services, the nature

of many of them tended to be specific instances that had caused issues and not larger systematic

issues. There were however, a lot of comments that specifically had to do with recent scheduling

and staffing changes which many respondents seemed to feel left FS with too few staff to

complete their jobs, and was resulting in some issues in terms of cleanliness and grounds

appearance on the NMSU campus. The freeze over the winter of 2010-2011 was cited as having

caused some grounds issues that have not yet been resolved. A new theme this year in the

written in comments was one exploring potential issues with handicap accessibility and with the

maintenance of handicap facilities around campus. It is also important to note that many of the

people who wrote in responses at the end of the survey took time to commend FS staff for a job

well done.

Overall respondents had positive attitudes about the courtesy, knowledge, and skills possessed

by FS staff in all areas of the survey. Within the survey, the areas that more closely related

recent cutbacks and schedule changes of custodial and maintenance work tended to have the

highest rates of dissatisfaction. There were also specific issues cited with the new FS work order

submittal form and with pricing and contracting of FS services.



General Results by Survey Section:

Custodial:

Respondents indicated that overall, they were satisfied with FS custodial services, and over 50%

of respondents were very or extremely satisfied with the job FS custodial staff do. Respondents

were more likely to indicate dissatisfaction with the frequency of cleaning services and with the

cleanliness of bathrooms, offices, and classrooms than they were with FS staff themselves.

These sentiments were echoed in the written in comments at the end of the survey, where

respondents said that FS staff were doing an excellent job, but that budget and staff cutbacks

have left FS custodial employees overextended without enough time or materials to keep their

assigned areas as clean as they should be.

Building Environment and Utilities:

Overall, respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the building environment and

utilities provided by FS in their primary building. However, they were not as likely to have

strong positive feelings about this area as they were to have strong feelings about custodial

services. As in the prior year’s survey administration, when respondents indicated they were

dissatisfied with this area, they tended to be the most critical of the temperature and energy

conservation measures in their building. Written in comments that tended to relate to this area

of the survey echoed this finding, as many respondents indicated dissatisfaction and issues with

the regulation of temperature and with the heating and cooling system in their primary building.

Respondents this year were also more likely to indicate seeing issues with handicap access than

in the past. Comments suggest some of these issues may relate to the maintenance of outside

handicap services such as inaccessible and dirty parking spaces, overgrown ramps, and faulty

doors.

Grounds:

Again, the majority of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the services that the

FS grounds department was providing on campus. However, in all areas except maintenance of

the recycling program, respondents were much more likely to indicate dissatisfaction in this

area than they were in the prior year. More comments were written about grounds service

issues than any other area FS addresses. Comments centered on issues with NMSU’s sprinkler

system and watering schedule, with the desire for better landscaping, and with maintenance

needed to address issues from the February 2011 freeze. Several respondents specifically

mentioned that they felt that the grounds keeping department was understaffed which they

believed was resulting in many areas of the campus being neglected.

Project Development and Engineering:

Overall respondents indicated they were satisfied with the services provided by FS Project

Development and Engineering Staff, but were more likely to indicate dissatisfaction with these

services than they were in earlier survey administrations. In both the multiple choice and

written in portions of the survey, respondents tended to indicate dissatisfaction with the time to



receive estimates and with the time taken to complete jobs. Specific instances of poor follow up

or feedback and with delays due to changes in the work order system were cited.

Administrative Services:

Again, the majority of respondents indicated satisfaction with the administrative services

provided by FS. Respondents were less likely to indicate dissatisfaction with this area than they

were in the prior year, but for the second year in a row were less likely than in the prior year to

indicate they were extremely satisfied with staff courtesy in this area. Written in responses

relating to this area tended to center on poor communication and follow up by FS staff,

problems with timely follow up to work order requests and inquiries, with pricing that was

considered to be high and non-competitive, and with the new work order system. Multiple

comments indicated a feeling that lower level employees do a better job of relating to the

customers than do management.

Environmental Health and Safety Services:

Respondents who answered the survey questions relating to Environmental Health and Safety

Services were likely to indicate they were satisfied with the services being provided. More than

50% of all responses in this area indicated respondents were “Very Satisfied” or “Extremely

Satisfied” with Environmental Health and Safety services. Respondents were more likely to

indicate high levels of satisfaction than in prior survey administrations. Issues raised tended to

center around communication and timely follow up issues.

Write In Question Summary:

There were a total of 127 written in comments either at the end of the survey or in the building

selection box, written by a total of 126 individuals. The most common themes in the write in

questions follow. Responses are counted in multiple categories if they dealt with multiple

issues. Full text of the responses is found in Appendix C.

33.9% of comments centered on issues with FS Grounds and Landscaping services.

o The most common complaints about the FS Grounds department centered on

landscaping issues (32.6%).

42.9% of respondents who complained about landscaping services felt

that weeds, leaves and dead trees are not properly being taken care of.

And one third of these cited goat heads as being a problem on campus.

28.6% wanted to see more xeriscaping done on campus.

28.6% felt that issues from the February freeze had not been adequately

addressed.

Other complaints about landscaping included:

Complaints that handicapped areas are overgrown

The desire to have dead trees replaced

Complaints that trees are not trimmed, especially near parking

lots

A desire to see Salt Cedars removed from campus



Feelings that oleanders and other toxic plants should not be near

livestock

A desire to see more stumps removed

Concerns that drip hoses are exposed and are not aesthetically

pleasing

Frustration that sand in new plant beds washes away when

watered

A feeling that the grass is over fertilized and over mowed

o 23.2% of respondents citing issues with FS Grounds services complained about

the way that NMSU uses water on campus.

50% of comments in this area suggested that watering should not occur

during the hottest part of the day.

40% felt that NMSU overwaters their plants and grass.

30% complained that poor placement and maintenance of sprinklers

results in areas of campus flooding. The intersection of Stewart and

Espina streets was given as a specific example.

There were also concerns that in some cases, empty beds are still being

watered.

o 20.9% of respondents commenting on FS Grounds services felt that litter control

is a problem.

One third of these commented that parking lots are not picked up, and

one comment suggestion that handicapped spaces are not maintained.

Other concerns included:

Trash bins outside not regularly being emptied, causing a littering

problem

A desire to see FS Grounds removing old and unauthorized ads

from outside displays

Concerns that ashtrays are not emptied frequently enough

o 11.6% of respondents with comments about Grounds services indicated they did

not like the use of leaf blowers. One of these respondents felt that blowers should

not be used on paved areas.

o 9.3% of responses in this area suggested that the Grounds crews needed to do a

better job of cleaning bird droppings up around campus.

o 7% of respondents commenting about Grounds services felt that the roads and

parking lots were not being adequately maintained.

o 7% also complained that ponds on campus are dirty and not regularly

maintained.

o 7% indicated that there are issues with handicapped accessibility on campus.

Concerns included:

Trees overhanging ramps

Inaccessible ramps

ADA routes not being adequately marked

o 4.7% indicated that dumpsters in some areas do not close.



o 4.7% of responses regarding Grounds services felt that outside lighting is poor on

campus.

o Other responses in this area included the following themes:

Grounds services needs to do more to address the skunk problem on

campus

Buildings have been billed for work their offices did because grounds staff

could not get there in a timely manner

Feelings that some areas of campus are ignored

Feelings that Grounds services are poor in student housing

Feelings that the quality of grounds maintenance is poor the farther away

from the building a person goes

A desire for more bike racks on campus

A desire for benches and tables in the horseshoe

19.7% of comments addressed issues with custodial services.

o The most common concern (48% of comments in this area) was that restrooms

are not being cleaned as they should be. Comments suggest that:

Supplies are not being replenished as frequently as they should

Broken items are not fixed or replaced

Restrooms are not regularly cleaned

Restrooms need more frequent cleaning and are bad by the afternoon

There is a desire to have restrooms cleaned prior to the start of the

working day

o 40% of responses in this section dealt with concerns regarding floor cleaning.

30% of comments regarding floor cleaning said that the carpets are filthy

20% felt that halls are dirty

20% felt that floors are not regularly cleaned

20% complained about the cleanliness of the stairs

One respondent did not like that vacuuming occurred during the lunch

hour.

o 16% of comments regarding custodial services suggested that more frequent trash

pick-up is needed.

o 8% of comments regarding custodial services indicated that the activity center is

not properly cleaned. The bathrooms and the men’s locker room were cited as

particularly dirty areas.

o 8% of concerns in this area dealt with perceptions that custodial staff spends

more time taking breaks and visiting than they do working.

o Other concerns regarding custodial services included:

Custodial staff forgetting to turn off the lights when they leave a room or

building

Feelings that offices are not regularly cleaned

Feelings that spills and stains are ignored for weeks at a time

Feelings that custodial staff are inefficient

Concerns that custodial staff are not properly supervised

A desire for custodial staff to clean chalkboards during the day



18.9% of written in comments suggested there are perceived issues with campus facilities

and maintenance services.

o The most common concern in this area (50% of comments about facilities and

maintenance) indicated that HVAC systems are not in good working order.

One respondent indicated they had repeatedly contacted FS and the

problem was not resolved. This individual provided contact information

and expressed a desire that someone would call.

One respondent complained that the vents in their area spew black stuff

out of them.

o 12.5% of comments about facilities and maintenance were complaints regarding

broken fixtures. These complaints centered around:

Broken bathroom fixtures

Windows that no longer open

Desks and chairs that are broken and not replaced or fixed.

o 12.5% of comments in this section indicated that campus lighting is not adequate.

One respondent felt that interior lighting was too bright

One respondent indicated that there is not enough light outside buildings.

o 12.5% of respondents with concerns about facilities and maintenance noted they

felt buildings are in a general state of disrepair.

Specific comments dealt with problems in bathrooms and with the ceiling

in the engineering complex.

o Other concerns regarding maintenance and facilities included:

Problems with mold are not addressed to the root of the problem

Entire areas of campus are ignored for years at a time

Need better and more efficient toilets

Tile should be used instead of carpets – especially when carpets are not

regularly cleaned

16.5% of all comments addressed concerns about Facilities and Services Staff.

o The most common concern in this area (47.6% of respondents) was that many

areas of FS are understaffed.

The most commonly cited area was custodial services (50% of these

responses)

Other areas cited as being understaffed included:

Trades

Grounds

Secretarial

Electric

HVAC

One respondent felt that FS is not replacing people like they should when

people leave or retire



And one indicated that being understaffed is resulting in delays to get

work done

42.9% of responses in this area related to complaints about staff and

customer service

Of these, 44.4% felt that FS staff was not doing a good job of

communicating with clients, and several indicated that even after

contacting FS offices multiple times, no response was received.

22.2% of respondents with complaints about staff and customer

service indicated that they felt lower level staff was doing a good

job, but that management was not. Comments suggest that some

individuals may perceive management as being defensive and

unwilling to listen.

Other complaints about staff and customer service included:

FS staff is not locking buildings on a consistent schedule.

Fill ins for custodial services are not closing and locking doors

Feelings that it takes multiple calls and trips by FS to get a job

done.

Concerns that FS staff is not properly trained to operate university

vehicles.

o 9.5% of respondents with concerns about FS staff indicated they feel FS staff does

not have the resources they need to do their jobs. In particular, they felt that

custodial staff is not given the proper tools to keep buildings, and especially

floors clean; and that moving trucks need to be equipped with proper ventilation

and heating/air-conditioning to keep staff safe.

o There was also a concern that FS staff is underpaid.

14.2% of written in comments dealt with issues surrounding special projects and

Engineering Services.

o 55.6% of these indicated that it takes too long for jobs to be completed.

The restroom remodel at PSL was specifically cited as a case where this

happened.

One respondent felt that all projects take twice as long as quoted.

One respondent complained that work had stopped on a project even

though there was ample money to finish the project.

o 38.9% of comments regarding special projects and engineering indicated feelings

that projects are too expensive and are not competitively priced.

One respondent t went on to add that FS projects usually come in over

budget

o 11.1% of responses in this category indicated frustrations that “routine

maintenance” had to be considered a special project.

In particular, respondents did not feel that floor cleaning and waxing, or

repair of fixtures should have to be a special project, but instead that these

were services that FS custodians should provide.



o 11.1% of responses with concerns about special projects and engineering services

complained that the chilled water pipe replacement project was not handled

properly. In particular, one respondent felt that communication about the

project had been lacking and one felt that road and sidewalk repairs are not

happening like they should be in the wake of piper replacement.

o 11.1% of responses indicated there were feelings that FS did not properly plan for

projects. Instances where the wrong type of staff (a carpenter instead of a

plumber) had been sent to fill a work order.

o 11.1% of responses in this section indicated some members of the university

community would prefer to have the option to hire independent contractors

instead of FS.

o There was also a concern that FS staff is overworked.

o One respondent complained that FS does not have enough spare parts in

inventory which causes project delays.

13.4% of written in responses indicated issues with sustainability measures and/or

recycling programs at NMSU.

o 35.3% of these responses indicated issues with the current recycling program

including:

50% who wanted NMSU to recycle more materials, and one respondent

who indicated they would like to see the university recycling everything

the city recycles.

33.3% wanted to see recycling picked up more frequently.

Other respondents were concerned that recycling was not properly sorted,

that recycling was being stored in unsafe places such as stairwells, and

that more staff than were needed came to pick up recycling.

o 23.5% of responses regarding sustainability and recycling suggested that more

recycling bins are needed around campus, and that these bins should be found at

more locations.

o 17.6% of responses regarding sustainability and recycling issues indicated a

perception that more energy conservation measures are needed on campus.

o 17.6% also wanted to see more motion sensor lights used on campus.

o 11.8% wanted to see NMSU use more renewable energy, and solar energy was

cited as a preferred source.

o Respondents also indicated they would like to see better temperature set-point

regulations and that they would like an energy audit to be completed.

6.3% of comments dealt with issues surrounding the survey.

o Two respondents indicated confusion as to what the special projects being

referred to were.

o One wanted a n/a option as a choice

o One wanted a “dissatisfied” instead of a “very dissatisfied” option.

o One respondent felt that the questions were too constrained to get a full picture

of opinions about Facilities and Services.



o One respondent was upset that Firefox did not support the survey.

o One respondent indicated they liked the survey

o One respondent wanted to see the results of the survey shared with the campus

community.

3.9% of comments identified other issues with Facilities and Services. Of these:

o Two were complaints about the new AiM system.

One respondent felt that it made things hard to track and that it

complicated the procedure to access needed reports.

One felt that the new system takes too long to get work orders closed.

o One respondent complained of transportation services and indicated they did not

like the license renewal process.

o One respondent indicated the new gas pump system is not user friendly.

o One felt that motor pool is too slow.

o And one respondent cited having bad experiences serving on committees with FS

staff.

33.9% of all written in comments centered on the good job that FS does.

o 30.2% of these comments indicated custodial services are doing a good job.

One respondent cited the extra time that staff takes to clean the handicap

ramp as being a good thing.

o 16.3% of these responses indicated feelings that the Grounds department is doing

a good job.

o 7.0% felt that improvements had been made to the recycling program and were

appreciative of this effort.

o 4.7% indicated they appreciated FS communications to the university

community, especially regarding construction projects.

o Other responses included:

Low level staff are great

FS is prompt

Like the new signage around campus

Electrical is good

Like the new xeriscaping around campus

FS is responsive

o There were also multiple responses that singled out specific FS staff as doing a

good job. Glen Haubold and Bud Green were cited most frequently as doing an

excellent job. Mr. Green’s staff were also singled out as staff that are appreciated.

Other staff singled out included:

Eric in HVAC

Ramon Alvarez

Esther in Mechanics

Custodial

o Dolores

o Michelle



o Magenta

o Rosa

o Roger

o Mike

Michael Paul

Three respondents also wrote in to indicate they did not have any comments at this time.

Question by Question Detailed Analysis:

The following provides a more detailed analysis of the survey questions. Each section specifies

the question asked and lists the overall percentages and response rates. For those questions

about maintenance service, custodial service, and grounds service, a list of buildings that

indicated any measure of dissatisfaction with the particular area of FS service can be found in

Appendix B.

Section 1: General Satisfaction Scale

This question read, “How would you rate your overall satisfaction level with the work you have

seen completed facilities and services in the last twelve (12) months?”

Table 1 lists the overall percentage of responses for this question. Overall, respondents

indicated they were satisfied with FS services, and about 51% of respondents indicated they

were either “Very Satisfied” or “Extremely satisfied” with the service they had received from FS

over the course of the prior year and fewer than 13% of respondents indicated any measure of

dissatisfaction with the services provided by FS. Respondents were slightly more likely to

indicate they were dissatisfied with Facilities and Services overall than they were in the prior

survey administration.

Table 1: General Satisfaction with Facilities and Services, Respondent Percentages

Extremely Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Satisfied Very Satisfied

Extremely Satisfied

Total Respondents

Overall Satisfaction with FS in last year

2.5% 9.6% 37.1% 35.7% 15.0% 280



Section 2: Primary Building Question two asked respondents to respond to the following: “In order to better meet your

facilities service needs, it is important that we be able to evaluate responses to see which areas of

campus may need special attention. With this in mind, please choose your primary building on

NMSU from the following drop down list. If your building is not listed, please type the name of

your building into the write-in box.”

Written in responses were categorized to the correct building if they were already represented in

the given choices. The buildings written that were not included in the drop-down menu that

were written in included: Central Utility Plant, Wind Tunnel, Facilities and Services Paint Shop,

Anderson Hall/ PSL, The property office and Warehouse, Stan Fulton Athletic Center, Monagle

Hall, Vista del Monte, Corbett Center Student Union, Auxiliary Services/ the Bookstore,

Facilities and Services Grounds Department, and the Pan Am Annex.

There were also responses indicating people were confused regarding the name of Engineering

Complex Two, and that people considered themselves to have multiple primary buildings. The

following is a listing of the number of responses by each building, and has been updated to

include the written in responses. In the event of multiple written in selections, respondents are

only counted in the primary building they selected.

Building Number of Respondents

Hadley Hall 20

Educational Services Center 18

Gerald Thomas Hall 18

Milton Hall 11

Anderson Hall/ PSL 10

Academic Research Center A, B, C 10

Breland Hall 9

Health and Social Services Building 9

No Building Selected 8

Business Complex 8

Knox Hall 8

Regents Row 8

Chemistry Building 7

Computer Center 7

Guthrie Hall 7

O’Donnell Hall 7

Ed and Harold Foramen Engineering Complex 6

Jett Hall 6

Branson Library 5

Foster Hall 5

Garcia Annex 5

Facilities and Services Office 5

Science Hall 5



J.B. Delamater Activity Center 4

New Mexico Department of Agriculture 4

Skeen Hall 4

Zuhl Library 4

Astronomy Building 4

Campus Police / Ag. Institute 3

Engineering Complex I 3

Equine Education Center 3

Gardiner Hall 3

Jacobs Hall 3

Stan Fulton Athletic Center 3

Corbett Center Student Union 3

Cervantes Village, Building A 2

Herschell Zohn Theatre 2

John Whitlock Hernandez Hall 2

Natatorium 2

Facilities and Services Construction Office 2

Facilities and Services Lock Shop 2

Facilities and Services Motor Pool 2

PGEL Headhouse and Lab 2

Speech Building 2

W.B. Conroy Honors College 2

Property Office and Warehouse 2

Facilities and Services Grounds Department 2

Central Utility Plant 1

Wind Tunnel 1

Facilities and Services Paint Shop 1

Community Colleges 1

DW Williams Hall 1

Dove Hall 1

Genesis Center, Building C 1

Genesis Center Offices 1

Goddard Hall 1

Music Building 1

Neale Hall 1

O’Laughlin House 1

Rentfrow Gymnasium 1

Alumni and Visitors Center 1

Wells Hall 1

Auxiliary Services and Bookstore 1

Monagle Hall 1

Vista del Monte 1

Pan Am Annex 1



Section 3: Custodial Care The first large set of questions in the survey asked respondents about custodial services

provided by FS in their primary building. The lead-in to this section read:

“Facilities and Services provides basic cleaning, recycling, and routine pest control services for

Instruction and General Buildings on the Las Cruces Campus. This is done according to a

published schedule on the FS website.

Please rate your level of satisfaction with the following custodial care areas as they pertain to the

building you identified as your primary building.”

Table 2 lists the areas that respondents were asked about as well as the percentages of responses

for each question. In all cases, more than 50% of respondents indicated they were “Very” or

“Extremely” satisfied with FS custodial services. Over 50% also indicated that they were very

satisfied with custodial staff. When respondents indicated dissatisfaction with custodial

services, they were most likely to be dissatisfied with the frequency of custodial services and

with the cleanliness of restrooms, offices, and classrooms.

Table 2: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Custodial Services, Respondent Percentages


Very Dissatisfied


Extremely Satisfied

Number of Responses

Cleanliness of Public areas (entryways, lobbies, lounges etc.)

2.5% 7.4% 32.2% 29.8% 28.1% 285

Cleanliness of Restrooms

4.6% 8.5% 34.2% 27.2% 25.4% 283

Cleanliness of offices/classrooms

1.4% 11.1% 36.1% 28.2% 23.2% 280

Courtesy of Custodial Staff

0.7% 2.5% 20.1% 24.0% 52.7% 283

Frequency of Custodial Services

4.6% 8.9% 31.2% 24.1% 31.2% 282

Overall Quality of Custodial Services

3.2% 8.1% 29.4% 27.3% 31.9% 282

Sustainability Please rate the effectiveness of the recycling program

1.1% 9.0% 36.6% 32.5% 20.9% 268

Because custodial services are specific to each building on campus, it is also important to look at

those buildings where respondents indicated some measure of dissatisfaction with custodial

services at NMSU. Please see Appendix B.1 for this breakdown.



Section 4: Building and Environment The next large survey section asked respondents questions about the building environment and

utilities services in their primary campus building. The beginning of this survey section told

respondents:

“Facilities and Services strives to maintain a comfortable and functional environment for all

members of the NMSU community.

Please rate your level of satisfaction with the following building and environmental utilities

areas of the building you identified as your primary building.”


for each question. In all cases, more than 80% of respondents indicated they were at least

satisfied with the building and environmental utilities provided by OFS, though respondents

were much less likely to indicate high levels of satisfaction with these areas than they were to

indicate similarly high satisfaction levels with custodial services. When respondents indicated

dissatisfaction with this area, it was most likely that this was related to temperature or energy

conservation. Respondents were less likely this year than in the prior year to indicate they were

very or extremely satisfied with handicap access. Comments also suggest that this was a

potential issue on the NMSU campus.

Table 3: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Building Environmental and Utilities

Services, Respondent Percentages


Very Dissatisfied


Extremely Satisfied

Number of Responses

Temperature 5.3% 14.2% 46.8% 20.2% 13.5% 282 Lighting (is it adequate for the task)

1.1% 6.8% 40.2% 34.2% 17.8% 281

Handicap Access 2.2% 4.7% 54.2% 22.9% 16.0% 275 Reliability of utilities (electrical power, heating, cooling meet our needs and have minimal interruptions)

1.4% 7.6% 45.8% 27.1% 18.1% 277

Sustainability Please rate the effectiveness of energy conservation measures

1.8% 13.5% 56.7% 17.1% 10.9% 275

Because environmental and utilities services are specific to each building on campus, it is also

important to look at those buildings where respondents indicated some measure of

dissatisfaction with these services at NMSU. Please see Appendix B.2 for this breakdown.



Section 5: Grounds Services The third large survey section asked respondents questions about FS provided grounds service

at NMSU. The beginning of this survey section told respondents:

“Facilities and Services provides landscape and grounds maintenance, exterior trash receptacle

management and concrete and asphalt maintenance. In addition Facilities and Services

maintains the walkways and roadways around campus and is responsible for the care of lawns,

trees, and shrubs. Facilities and Services is also funded to maintain campus drainage systems.

Please rate your level of satisfaction with the following areas as they relate to Facilities and

Services grounds maintenance in your area of the university.”


for each question. In all cases, more than 75% of respondents indicated they were at least

“satisfied” with these areas. In all areas except management of the recycling program,

respondents were more likely to indicate dissatisfaction with this area than in prior years.

Comments suggest that much of this dissatisfaction may relate to damage from the February

2011 freeze which has not yet been addressed.

Table 4: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Grounds Services, Respondent Percentages


Very Dissatisfied


Extremely Satisfied

Number of Responses

Maintenance of grounds (mowing, weeding, trimming, edging, etc.)

3.9% 10.6% 37.3% 28.2% 20.1% 284

Quality of landscape design and maintenance (trees, flowerbeds, etc.)

3.9% 10.9% 38.9% 27.7% 18.6% 285

Litter management 4.7% 10.1% 41.3% 30.1% 13.8% 276 Management of recycling and recycling receptacles

1.8% 8.2% 41.9% 28.7% 19.4% 279

Quality of pest control (indoors and outdoors)

2.5% 10.8% 41.6% 29.3% 15.8% 279

Overall quality of grounds services

2.5% 10.8% 41.6% 29.3% 15.8% 279

Courtesy of Grounds staff 2.5% 7.7% 42.6% 30.6% 16.5% 284 Sustainability Please rate the effectiveness of the water efficient landscaping and our other water conservation measures

4.9% 13.8% 47.8% 19.8% 13.8% 268

Because grounds service is specific to varied areas of campus, it is also important to look at

those buildings where respondents indicated some measure of dissatisfaction with the services

provided by the FS grounds crew. Please see Appendix B.3 for this breakdown.



Section 6: Project Development and Engineering The fourth large section of the survey asked respondents questions dealing with special projects

and engineering services that may have been provided by FS offices over the course of the prior

year. This section was introduced to respondents with the following text:

“Facilities modifications and enhancements are provided on a reimbursable basis when

requested by the user. Please evaluate Project Development and Engineering if you have used

their services. In the last twelve (12) months, have you/ your office utilized any of these types of

projects and engineering services?”

282 respondents answered this question. Of those, 69.9% indicated they had not used FS

special projects or engineering services in the prior year, and were directed to the next survey

section. The remaining respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction level with the listed FS

Project Development and Engineering areas. Respondents were asked first to rate their

satisfaction level with Project Development and Engineering, and were then asked to rate the

project with respect to the criteria of “on time” and “within budget”.

Over 60% of all respondents indicated that they were at least satisfied with Project Development

and Engineering Services, though respondents were less likely to indicate higher levels of

satisfaction with these processes than with Custodial services. Overall respondents were more

likely to indicate they were dissatisfied with these services than last year’s respondents were.

Over 27% of respondents indicated they were dissatisfied with how “on time” and “on budget".

Table 5 shows a breakdown of responses for this section.

Table 5: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Special Projects and Engineering Services,

Respondent Percentages


Very Dissatisfied


Extremely Satisfied

Number of Responses

Initial Response time for estimating cost

9.4% 20.0% 36.5% 25.9% 8.2% 85

Preparedness of project workers

8.2% 9.4% 43.6% 27.1% 11.8% 85

Knowledge and Skill of Project staff

1.2% 14.1% 40.0% 32.9% 11.8% 85

Please rate the project with respect to the criteria of “on time” and “within budget” Did the finished product meet your expectations?

4.9% 13.4% 47.6% 24.4% 9.7% 82

Was the project “on time” and “on budget”?

15.9% 17.0% 40.2% 19.5% 7.3% 82

How well were you kept informed throughout the project?

11.1% 17.3% 38.3% 19.9% 13.6% 81

How important is sustainability to your project (extremely satisfied = you would be willing to pay extra)?

9.9% 9.9% 50.6% 22.2% 7.4% 81



Section 7: Facilities and Services Administrative Services The fifth large section of the survey asked respondents questions regarding their experiences

with the project administration side of FS. The section lead-in read:

“In the last twelve (12) months, have you had contact with FS business office staff regarding the

administrative side of any maintenance project or Special Projects or Engineering Work (i.e.

scheduling, purchase orders, cost and/or payments)?”

279 respondents answered this question. Of those, 74.9% indicated they had not used FS special

projects or engineering services in the prior year, and were directed to the final write in option

on the survey. The remaining were asked to rate their satisfaction level with the listed FS

Administrative areas. At least 45% of respondents to this question indicated they were “Very

Satisfied” or “Extremely Satisfied” with FS Administrative services. Respondents were the most

likely to indicate dissatisfaction with the timeliness of inquiries to work status and billing. Table

6 shows a breakdown of responses for this section. In general, respondents had higher levels of

satisfaction with respect to the customer services provided by FS administration than in the

prior year.

Table 6: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Administrative Service Areas, Respondent

Percentages


Very Dissatisfied


Extremely Satisfied

Number of Responses

Timeliness of responses to inquiries about work status

5.4% 9.5% 29.7% 28.4% 27.0% 74

Timeliness of responses to inquiries about billing

2.7% 9.6% 41.1% 20.5% 26.0% 73

Courtesy of Facilities and Services staff towards customer

1.3% 2.7% 28.0% 25.3% 42.7% 75

Accuracy of information provided by Facilities and Services employees

1.3% 12.0% 28.0% 28.0% 33.3% 75

Professional Attitude of Facilities and Services employees

0.0% 5.3% 29.3% 29.3% 36.0% 75

Knowledge / Skill of Facilities and Services staff

1.3% 7.9% 30.3% 27.6% 32.9% 76



Section 8: Environmental Health and Safety The final large section of the survey dealt with issues relating to Environmental Health and

Safety services. The introduction to this section read:

“Environmental Health & Safety is responsible for facilitating University safety by

implementing programs that will serve the students, employees and clients within the state. The

objectives of NMSU’s safety policy are to prevent personal injury or death, to reduce costs

caused by inadequate safety procedures and to reduce environmental pollution. Environmental

Health & Safety fulfills its mission to make NMSU a safe environment by implementing

programs and services in eight major areas: Education, Training and Protective Equipment,

hazardous Waste and materials Management, Health and Safety Inspection/ Faculty Audits/

Activity and Work Reviews, Regulatory Compliance, Accident and Exposure Investigations,

Exposure Prevention/Indoor Air Quality, Radiation Licensing & Permitting, and Safety

Standard & Procedures.”

Because there was the potential that not all respondents would have utilized these services in the

last year, respondents were first asked the following: “In the last twelve (12) months, have you/

your office utilized Environmental Health & Safety Services?”

283 respondents answered this question. Of those, 66.1% indicated they had not used FS

Environmental Health and Safety services in the prior year, and were directed to the next survey

section. The remaining respondents were asked, “Please rate your satisfaction level with

Environmental Health & Safety Services.”

In all cases, more than 55% of respondents indicated they had high levels of satisfaction with

these areas. Overall respondents were less likely to be dissatisfied with Environmental Health

and Safety Services than they were in the prior year’s survey. Table 7 lists the areas that

respondents were asked about as well as the percentages of responses for each question.

Table 7: Satisfaction with Environmental Health and Safety, Respondent Percentages


Very Dissatisfied


Extremely Satisfied

Number of Responses

Initial Response time of Environmental Health & Safety staff

0.0% 2.1% 40.2% 27.8% 29.9% 97

Preparedness of Environmental Health & Safety staff

2.1% 1.0% 36.1% 29.9% 30.9% 97

Knowledge/skill of Environmental Health & Safety staff

2.1% 1.0% 32.0% 30.9% 34.0% 97

Timely completion of work 3.1% 2.1% 41.2% 26.8% 26.8% 97 Follow-up communications by Environmental Health & Safety Staff

2.1% 1.0% 39.6% 29.2% 28.1% 96

Courtesy of Environmental Health & Safety staff toward the customer

1.0% 1.0% 35.1% 29.9% 33.0% 97



Final Question: Write-In The final question on the survey awarded respondents the opportunity to write in any

comments, questions, or suggestions they had about FS services. The text for this question read:

“If you have any further concerns or comments regarding the work provided by Facilities and

Services, or recommendations for services you feel Facilities and Services should explore

providing in the future, please feel free to share them here.” Respondents were limited to 5,000

characters in their responses.

Because there exists the potential for different buildings to have different needs, a summary of

responses by building can be found below. Respondents who wrote answers to this question in

the initial building write in box are counted here as well. Numbers in parenthesis indicate the

numbers of written in responses falling into this category, no number means just one person

answered this way. Responses are counted in all categories they fall into. A more general

summary may be found earlier in the document, and the full text of the write in comments can

be found in Appendix C.

Comment Summary by Building: Academic Research A, B, C (3)

Facilities and Services does a good job (2)

Grounds Issues (1)

o Few of the trees that died as a result of February’s freeze have been removed

o Weeds and goat-heads are a problem and have not been removed

o There is lots of trash that is not picked up

Anderson Hall / PSL (3)

Issues with special projects and engineering services (3)

o Work on the restrooms took too long (2)

o Projects take twice as long as they should and come in over budget due to poor planning

(1)

Custodial Issues (1)

o More frequent trash pick-up is needed (1)

o Restrooms are poorly cleaned (1)

o Do not like vacuuming being done over the lunch hour (1)

HVAC system is poor and the air is too dry (1)

Issues with grounds and landscaping (1)

o Lawns are over watered, over fertilized, over mowed (1)

o Empty beds are still being watered (1)

o Do not like blowers (1)

o Poor litter control (1)

Would like to have a N/A option on the survey (1)



Astronomy (3)

Issues surrounding sustainability and recycling (2)

o Need more recycling bins (2)

o Want to see more solar panels being used (1)


o We waste too much water (2)

o Should not water in hot parts of day (1)

o Should not use leaf blowers (1)

o Want more xeriscaping (1)

Custodians are too busy and overtaxed to do beyond the minimal job (1)

Like improvements to recycling program (1)

Special projects are too expensive. It should not cost $500 to hang a door or $132 to replace a

hinge (1)

The wrong staff come for work orders (e.g. Carpenter for a plumbing issue) (1)

Branson Library (1)

Issues with special projects and engineering (1)

o Upset with chilled water pipe replacement – feel there has been poor communication

and the timing was poor

Other Issues (1)

o Have been serving on a FS committee which has been disorganized (1)

Upset that Firefox didn’t work for the survey (1)

Breland Hall (7)

FS is doing a good job (3)

o Custodial services is great (1)

o Staff is professional and takes time to listen (1)

o Grounds does a good job (1)

o Like that there is more xeriscaping happening(1)

o Leadership is good (2)


o Custodians not doing a good job (2)

o Bathrooms should be cleaned before the start of the workday (1)

Grounds Issues (2)

o Do not like blowers, they are messy, noisy, and create pollution (1)

o Want more xeriscaping (1)

o Sprinklers flood areas of campus (1)


o Routine maintenance should not have to be a special project, plus it is difficult to get

done and is too expensive (1)



o Baseboards as part of a remodel project have still not been attached more than a year

later (1)

Grounds is understaffed (1)

Want to see survey results shared with campus community (1)

Issues with buildings and maintenance (1)

o HVAC system has problems (1)

Recycling builds up and gets in students’ way

Business Complex Building (4)

FS does a good job (3)

o Employees are courteous and helpful (1)

o Custodial crew is great (1)

o Like the recycling program

Issues with Recycling and sustainability (3)

o Issues with recycling program (2)

Need more bins (1)

Recycling is not well sorted (1)

Recycling collects under the stairwell and poses a safety issue (1)

Recycling needs to be picked up more frequently (1)

o Need better electricity conservation (1)

Use motion sensing lights (1)

o Want to see an energy audit done (1)

Issues with Grounds services (1)

o Landscaping and concrete is poorly maintained, breaking up, and poses a safety issue (1)

o Watering should not be done during the hottest part of the day (1)

Campus Police / Ag. Institute (1)

Grounds have not been properly cleaned in the wake of February’s freeze (1)

Cervantes Village, Building A (1)

FS does a good job and is very responsive (1)

Chemistry Building (3)


o Would like chalkboards cleaned during the day 91)

o Bathrooms are not cleaned (1)

o Halls and stairs are dirty and have dust bunnies in them (1)

o Custodial services are poor all year (1)


o Specialty shops are great (1)



o Supervisors care (1)

Issues with Buildings/ Maintenance (1)

o Broken desks and missing seats are not taken care of (1)

Sustainability is not important to FS (1)

o Having custodians in at night time is evidence of this 91)


o It takes too long to get a response for a special project (1)

Community Colleges (1)

There are lots of pigeon droppings near Light Hall on the Carlsbad campus that are not taken

care of

Computer Center (3)


o It takes too long to get estimates or work done (2)

o Prices are too expensive and not competitive (1)

o Staff are overworked (1)

o FS does not keep enough parts in inventory for them to do a timely job

Issues with custodial services (2)

o Carpets are not cleaned frequently enough (2)

o The activity center is filthy and has lots of graffiti and rust on windows (1)

o Restrooms are not cleaned (1)

Carpets should be replaced with tile because they are filthy and old (1)

The intersection at Espina and Stewart is flooded most mornings (1)

Staff are not replaced when they leave so FS is understaffed (1)

Corbett Center Student Union (2)

Not sure what projects the survey is referring to (2)

There are issues with the HVAC system (1)

Would like more recycling bins all over campus (1)

Ed and Harold Foramen Engineering Complex (6)

Staff is Good (4)

o Custodial staff are goon (3)

o Trades staff are good (1)

o HVAC staff are good (1)

o Mechanics are good (1)

Facilities Issues (2)

o HVAC system is not properly controlled (2)

o Ceiling in the atrium is falling down (1)



Issues with OFS staff (1)

o Supervisors do not communicate well (1)

o Emails are ignored (1)

Customer was billed for grounds work customer’s staff, not FS ended up doing (1)

Survey is too constrained to give a clear picture of the issues (1)

Frustration with the state of the Grounds at NMSU (1)

Educational Services Center (5)

Grounds Issues (5)

o Trash and debris by entrances are not cleaned up (1)

o Weeds are not taken care of (1)

o Services are especially poor in housing (1)

o Grounds look bad as you start to move away from the building (1)

o The pond is dirty (1)

o Drip hoses should be hidden from view (1)

o More needs to be done to control skinks in the area (1)

Would like to have a “dissatisfied” choice on the survey

The lights are too bright (1)


o The custodial staff is great (1)

Engineering Complex I (1)

Grounds Issues (1)

o Sand in the new landscaping is washed away by sprinklers (1)

When custodians fill-in, doors are not shut and locked (1)


o Especially custodial workers (1)

Equine Education Center (2)

Grounds issues (1)

o Grounds staff do not regularly come to this area of campus (1)

It is hard to get a callback or a timely response from FS (1)

Facilities and Services Grounds Department (2)

FS trades departments are understaffed (1)

FS staff should be paid higher (1)

Facilities and Services Office (1)

We need more secretarial support, we are short handed (1)



Facilities and Services Paint Shop (1)

N/A

Foster Hall (2)

Issues with FS staff (1)

o Complaint that there has been a poor response to work orders, and that jobs are not

done the first time so multiple work orders are needed (1)

o FS has poor communication with clients (1)

There are not enough external lights (1)

Garcia Annex/Hall (2)

Trash is not picked up, especially in lot 45 (1)

FS does a good job, the campus looks great (1)

HVAC does not work well, especially in the summer (1)

Gardiner Hall (1)

Construction in the area is not complete, and goes ignored even though the funding is there for

it to be completed (1)

There has been no response from FS staff regarding the need to move items to recycling or the

property warehouse (1)

Genesis Center C (1)


Gerald Thomas Hall (9)

Issues with Grounds services (5)

o The pond outside is filthy (2)

o The parking lot between Gerald Thomas and Wooten is in bad shape (1)

o The road between the parking lot and the sheep facility is in bad shape (1)

o Do not like leaf blowers (1)

o Outdoor lighting is poor (1)

o The watering schedule is wasteful (1)

o Landscaping is not being taken care of (1)


o HVAC systems have issues (4)

There is a poor balance between rooms (1)

Vents spew black stuff out (1)

Toilets are wasteful (1)




o Stains and spills go uncleaned for weeks at a time (1)

o Stairs are dirty (1)

o Floors are not regularly vacuumed (1)

o Trash is not regularly picked up (1)

There are not enough recycling locations (1)

FS does a good job and staff are friendly and helpful (1)

Goddard Hall (1)

FS does a good job, grounds and maintenance staff are especially good (1)

Guthrie Hall (5)


o Especially custodial staff (3)


o The 4th floor is too dark (1)

o The building is in bad shape (1)

o The bathrooms need remodeling (1)

Leaf blowers should not be used on the paved surfaces (1)

Hadley Hall (7)


o Grounds did a good job taking care of the skunk problem (1)

o Lower level staff is great (1)

o Like that FS sends out emails, especially regarding projects that will impact traffic (1)

o FS is prompt (1)

o Like the new signage FS has put up around campus (1)


o There are dead tree stumps that need removal (1)

o Better signage, especially regarding ADA routes are is needed (1)

o Sprinklers need repair (1)

o Signage is dirty from pigeons and needs to be washed (1)

o The road between Espina and Breland by Frenger is in bad shape (1)

o Benches and picnic tables are needed on horseshoe (1)

Issues with Buildings and Maintenance (3)

o There are issues with the HVAC system (2)

o Need better checks and maintenance on ADA routes (1)

Custodial issues (2)

o Floors need to be cleaned and vacuumed more frequently (1)

o Custodial services are understaffed and can’t get the work done (1)

Issues regarding sustainability and recycling (2)



o Would like to see campus recycling the same items as the city of Las Cruces (1)

o Too many staff come to pick up recycling (1)

Management is too defensive and does not listen (1)

Roads and sidewalks are not being adequately repaired with chilled water lines(1)

I like the survey (1)

N/A (1)

Health and Social Services Building (4)


o Bathrooms and trash are not being kept up with (2)

o Custodial staff are not adequately supervised (1)

o Staff take too many breaks (1)


o Especially the grounds people (1)

Issues with sustainability (2)

o Need to start using motion sensing lights (2)

o Need better temperature regulation and set points (1)

Debris in parking lots is not picked up (1)

Jacobs Hall (2)

Grounds Issues (2)

o Dumpsters do not stay closed (2)

o Loose trash not picked up (1)

o Ashtrays are not emptied (1)

o Un-authorized ads are not taken down (1)

James B. Delamater Activity Center (2)

FS services are too expensive (1)

Custodial services, especially in men’s locker room are poor (1)

Jett Hall (2)

HVAC issues are not resolved and even after making multiple calls, no one has replied, individual

would like a reply (1)

FS is understaffed which means it takes too long to get things done (1)

John Whitlock Hernandez Hall (1)

Like that FS has started sweeping the handicapped ramp (1)



Knox Hall (2)

Issues with grounds and landscaping services (2)

o Because outside trash cans are not regularly emptied, litter is all over campus (1)

o Want to see more xeriscaping (1)

o Would like to see salt cedars gone (1)

o Should not have toxic plants such as oleander on west end of campus near the livestock

(1)

o The grounds on the west end of campus are not properly maintained

Issues with special projects (1)

o Routine maintenance such as repairs and floor cleaning and waxing should be routine

maintenance and not special requests. Custodians should be able to see these things

and address the issues 91)

Milton Hall (7)

Issues with staff (3)

o Staff, especially custodial are spread too thin (2)

o Staff do not lock buildings on a consistent schedule (1)


o Especially grounds service (2)

Issues with grounds and landscaping services (2)

o Damage due to the freeze has not been addressed (1)

o Should not water in the hottest part of the day (1)

o Bird droppings need to be cleaned up (1)

o Patio lighting is not adequate (1)

Work order completion notification is spotty (1)

The new gas pump system is not user friendly 91)

New Mexico Department of Agriculture (1)

It cost too much and took too long to have a room stripped and waxed (1)

Motor pool is too slow (1)

Work orders take too long to close on the new system (1)

O’Donnell Hall (5)


o Bathrooms are bad by late morning (2)

o Hallways are always dirty (1)

o Floors are not cleaned regularly (1)


o Automatic/ handicap doors do not always work (2)



o HVAC does not work well (2)

o Bathroom fixtures are broken

o Windows do not open

Issues with OFS Staff (2)

o Staff are not given resources needed to do job (2)

Moving van without air conditioning is not good in summer (1)

Not given machines to clean floors (1)

o Custodial services are over extended (1)

Sustainability Issues (2)

o More renewable energy is needed (10

o Energy conservation is not happening like it should be (1)


o Especially custodial (1)

More bike racks are needed around campus (1)

FS Construction (1)

N/A (1)

FS Lock Shop (2)

Grounds are not regularly cleaned of trash – this should be done regularly (1)

FS staff need better training on how to operate university vehicles (1)

FS Motor Pool (1)

The new AiM system is not as good as the old system, makes tracking more difficult, and gives

poor access to reports (1)

O’Laughlin House (1)

FS does a good job, especially clerical, grounds, and maintenance staff (1)

Regents Row (2)

FS does a good job, especially custodial services (2)

Rentfrow Gym (1)

Trees are not being properly trimmed and maintained, especially near parking lots (1)

Science Hall (5)


o Bathroom items are not replenished and broken items are not replaced (2)

o Bathrooms are filthy (1)



o Lights are not turned off after classrooms are cleaned (1)

Grounds Issues (2)

o Landscaping services are poor (1)

Dead rosemary has not been replaced (1)

Weeds, dead trees, dead leaves are not addressed (1)

Sprinklers get more water on sidewalk than on plants (1)

Branch hits people on the handicapped ramp (1)

Lot 52, especially the handicapped spaces are muddy, dirty, and hard to use (1)

Would like to see trees replaced and for campus to be a National Arboretum (1)

Would like to see can and bottle bins for recycling on the second floor (1)

Skeen Hall (1)

Dead and dying trees need to be removed (1)

There needs to be a better renewal process for university drivers licenses (1)

Speech Building (2)


o Inconsistent cleaning in bathrooms (2)

o Carpets are dirty (1)

o Offices are not being cleaned (1)

Stan Fulton Athletic Center (1)

Moldy tiles are replaced, but the root cause of the mold is never addressed (1)

Wells Hall (1)

Feel that FS is complacent (1)

Areas of campus are neglected for years at a time (1)

William B Conroy Honors College (1)


Zuhl Library (1)

FS is doing a good job. Appreciate the advance communications regarding road construction (1)

No building reported (3)

Issues with FS special projects and engineering (3)

o Projects take too long to complete (3)

o Projects are too expensive (2)

o Would like to be able to use independent contractors (2)



There are too few FS staff to get the job done (1)

FS staff have poor customer service skills (1)



Appendices

Appendix A: Survey Document

[FALL 2011: FACILITIES & SERVICES CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS]

IRPOA Page 27

Appendix A: Survey Form

This is the 3rd annual Facilities and Services Customer Service Survey. The Office of

Environmental Health and Safety and the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction were

integrated into a single work division with Facilities and Services on July 1, 2010, and questions

about services provided by all the consolidated division organizations are included.

Customer service is a key component of effective facilities management, and it is important to

Facilities and Services that our customers feel that their needs are heard, understood, and acted

upon. The Facilities and Services commitment to continuous improvement is meaningless

without input from you, and we would like for you to tell us how we are doing.

We are asking that NMSU employees take 5-10 minutes to fill out this survey to help us

determine how we can better meet the needs of the NMSU community. Please complete those

sections applicable to any services that you are familiar with; for example, Community Colleges

and Agricultural Science Centers may have only used project Development and Engineering

and/or Environmental Health & Safety services in this past year.

Please be honest. This survey is used to guide our initiatives, and the results are reported to

APPA, our professional organization. The survey summary and scores will be published, and

two years ago, there were so many positive comments received about Ron Tarazoff that he

received the Strickland Award for excellent customer service in Facilities and Services.

The survey will be available until Friday, October 21, 2011. All responses to this survey are

anonymous. For questions about this survey, please contact Glen Haubold, 646-2101,

[email protected]

For each question, please choose the answer you feel best represents your view. Feel free to

provide additional information or suggestions on how Facilities and Services can improve their

services in the write in box at the end of the survey

We greatly appreciate you taking the time to complete the Facilities and Services Customer

Satisfaction Survey.

mailto:[email protected]



IRPOA Page 28

How would you rate your overall satisfaction level with the work you have seen completed by

Facilities and Services in the last twelve (12) months?

Extremely Satisfied

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Very Dissatisfied




IRPOA Page 29

In order to better meet your facilities service needs, it is important that we be able to evaluate

responses to see which areas of campus may need special attention.

With this in mind, please choose your primary building on NMSU from the following drop down

list. If your building is not listed, please type the name of your building into the write-in box.

Academic Research A,B,C

Agricultural Science Center at Alcalde

Agricultural Science Center at Artesia

Agricultural Science Center at Clovis

Agricultural Science Center at Farmington

Agricultural Science Center at Los Lunas

Agricultural Science Center at Tucumcari

Alumni & Visitors Center

Astronomy Building

Beef Office

Biological Control Insectary

Biology Annex

Branson Library

Breland Hall

Business Complex Building

Campus Police/Ag Institute

Cattle Feed Barn/Animal Science

Cervantes Village, Bldg A (Children's Village)

Cervantes Village, Bldg C (Children's Village)

Chemistry Building

Clara Belle Williams Hall

Community Colleges

Computer Center

Dan W. Williams Hall

Dan W. Williams Hall Annex

Dove Hall

Ed and Harold Foreman Engineering Complex

Educational Services Center

Engineering Complex I

Equine Education Center

Foster Hall

Garcia Annex

Gardiner Hall

Genesis Center B

Genesis Center C



IRPOA Page 30

Genesis Center Office

Gerald Thomas Hall

Goddard Hall

Guthrie Hall

Hadley Hall

Hardman Hall

Health and Social Services Building

Herschel Zohn Theatre

Host Farm Restrooms/Offices/Class

Jacobs Hall

James B. Delamater Activity Center

Jett Hall

John Whitlock Hernandez Hall

Jornada USDA Exp. Range HQ (Wooten Hall)

Jornada USDA Labs

Kent Hall

Knox Hall

Livestock Judging Pavilion

Livestock Office

Milton Hall

Music Building

Nason House

Natatorium

Neale Hall

New Mexico Dept. of Agriculture

O'Donnell Hall

Facilities and Services Construction

Facilities and Services Lock Shop

Facilities and Services Masonry Shop

Facilities and Services Motor Pool

Facilities and Services Office

Facilities and Services Recycling Center

O'Loughlin House

Passive Solar

PGEL Headhouse/Lab

Photovoltaic Labs

Regents Row

Rentfrow Gym

Science Hall

Skeen Hall

Small Animal Research Lab



IRPOA Page 31

Softball Office and Locker Room

Speech Hall

Stucky Hall

Student Health Center

Sugerman Space Grant Building

Tejada Building, Extension Annex

Thomas & Brown Hall

Track Restroom

USDA Cotton Gin (Reimbursable)

Walden Hall

Wells Hall

William B. Conroy Honors Center

Zuhl Library Other: _____________________



IRPOA Page 32

Custodial Care:

Facilities and Services provides basic cleaning, recycling, and routine pest control services for

Instruction and General buildings on the Las Cruces Campus. This is done according to a

published schedule on the Facilities and Services website.

Please rate your level of satisfaction with the following custodial care areas as they pertain to the

building you identified as your primary building


Very Dissatisfied


Extremely Satisfied

Cleanliness of public areas (entryways, lobbies, lounges etc.)

Cleanliness of restrooms

Cleanliness of offices and classrooms

Courtesy of custodial staff

Frequency of custodial services

Overall quality of custodial services

Sustainability Please rate the effectiveness of the recycling program



IRPOA Page 33

Building and Environment:

Facilities and Services strives to maintain a comfortable and functional environment for all

members of the NMSU community.

Please rate your level of satisfaction with the following building and environmental utilities

areas of the building you identified as your primary building.


Very Dissatisfied


Extremely Satisfied

Temperature Lighting (is it adequate for the task)

Handicap Access Reliability of utilities (electrical power, heating, cooling meet our needs and have minimal interruptions)

Sustainability Please rate the effectiveness of Energy Conservation measures



IRPOA Page 34

Grounds and Landscaping:

Facilities and Services provides landscape and grounds maintenance, exterior trash receptacle

management and concrete and asphalt maintenance. In addition, Facilities and Services

maintains the walkways and roadways around campus and is responsible for the care of lawns,

trees, and shrubs. Facilities and Services is also funded to maintain campus drainage systems.

Please rate your level of satisfaction with the following areas as they relate to FS grounds

maintenance in your area of the university.


Very Dissatisfied


Extremely Satisfied

Maintenance of grounds (mowing, weeding, trimming, edging, etc.)

Quality of landscape design and maintenance (trees, flowerbeds, etc)

Litter management Management of recycling / recycling receptacles

Quality of pest control (indoors and outdoors)

Overall quality of grounds services

Courtesy of Grounds staff Sustainability Please rate the effectiveness of the water efficient landscaping and our other water conservation measures



IRPOA Page 35

Project Development and Engineering:

Facilities modifications and enhancements are provided on a reimbursable basis when

requested by the user.

In the last twelve (12) months, have you/ your office utilized any of these types of projects and

engineering services?

Yes (respondent finishes this question)

No ( respondent continues with next yes/no question)

Please rate your satisfaction level with Project Development and Engineering.


Very Dissatisfied


Extremely Satisfied

Initial Response time for estimating cost

Preparedness of project workers

Knowledge and Skill of Project staff

Please rate the project with respect to the criteria of “on time” and “within budget”. How well did the finished project meet your expectations?

Was the project “on time” and “on budget”?

How well were you kept informed throughout the project?

How important is sustainability to your project (extremely satisfied = you would be willing to pay extra)?



IRPOA Page 36

Administrative Services:

In the last twelve (12) months, have you had contact with Facilities and Services business office

staff regarding the administrative side of any maintenance project or special projects or

engineering Work (i.e. Scheduling, Purchase orders, cost and/or payments)?



Please rate your satisfaction level with the following Facilities and Services Administrative

Services.


Very Dissatisfied


Extremely Satisfied

Timeliness of responses to inquiries about work status

Timeliness of responses to inquiries about billing

Courtesy of Facilities and Services staff towards customer

Accuracy of information provided by Facilities and Services employees

Professional Attitude of Facilities and Services employees

Knowledge / Skill of Facilities and Services staff



IRPOA Page 37

Environmental Health and Safety

Environmental Health and Safety is responsible for facilitating University safety by

implementing programs that will serve the students, employees and clients within the state. The

objectives of NMSU’s safety policy are top prevent personal injury or death, to reduce costs

caused by inadequate safety procedures and to reduce environmental pollution.

Environmental Health and Safety fulfills its mission to make NMSU a safe environment by

implementing programs and services in eight major areas: Education, Training and Protective

Equipment, Hazardous Waste and Materials Management, Health and Safety Inspection/

Faculty Audits/ Activity and Work Reviews, Regulatory Compliance, Accident and Exposure

Investigations, Exposure Prevention/Indoor Air Quality, Radiation Licensing & Permitting, and

Safety Standard & Procedures.

In the last twelve (12) months, have you/ your office utilized Environmental Health and Safety

Services?




Very Dissatisfied


Extremely Satisfied

Number of Responses

Initial Response time of Environmental Health and Safety staff

Preparedness of Environmental Health and Safety staff

Knowledge and skill of Environmental Health and Safety staff

Timely Completion of Work

Follow-up communications by Environmental Health and Safety staff

Courtesy of Environmental Health and Safety Staff toward the customer



IRPOA Page 38

Comments/ Suggestions

If you have any further concerns or comments regarding the work provided by Facilities and

Services or recommendations for services you feel Facilities and Services should explore

providing in the future, please feel free to share them here (limited to 5,000 characters).

Thank you again for taking this opportunity to give us feedback regarding the services Facilities

and Services provides. Your input is invaluable in helping us to improve the scope of our

services. Our ultimate goal is to ensure that the facilities management needs of NMSU are

heard, understood, and acted upon.

If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Glen Haubold, 646-2101,

[email protected].

Appendix B: Dissatisfaction Statistics


IRPOA Page 38

Appendix B: Buildings indicating some dissatisfaction broken out by survey

question

Appendix C: Full text of Write in Comments


IRPOA Page 57

B.1 Custodial

Table B.1.a: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the cleanliness of

public areas

Building Percentage of respondents indicating dissatisfaction with this

area

Did respondents in this building indicated

dissatisfaction last year?

Chemistry Building 57.1% Yes

Community Colleges 100.0%* No

Computer Center 14.3%* Yes

Equine Education Center 33.3%* No

Garcia Annex 20.0%* Yes**

Gardiner Hall 33.3%* Yes

Gerald Thomas Hall 5.6%* Yes**


11.1%* Yes

John B Delamater Activity Center

25.0%* No

Jett Hall 33.3% Yes**

Knox hall 12.5%* No

Natatorium 50.0%* No

O’Donnell Hall 14.3%* Yes**

Facilities and Services Office 20.0%* No

PGEL Headhouse/Labs 50.0%* No

Regents Row 12.5%* No

Science Hall 20.0%* Yes**

Speech Building 100.0% Yes**

Wells Hall 100.0% Yes

Astronomy Building 50.0%* Yes

No building selected 28.6% N/A

* Only One respondent indicated dissatisfaction with this area **Respondents in this area have indicated dissatisfaction three years in a row.



IRPOA Page 58

Table B.1.b: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the cleanliness of

restrooms


area



Business Complex 12.5%* No

Central Utility Plant 100.0%* No


Computer Center 14.3%* Yes**

Educational Services Building 5.6%* Yes**


Foster Hall 20.0%* Yes



Gerald Thomas Hall 16.7% Yes**

Hadley Hall 5.3%* Yes**


22.2% Yes

Herschel Zohn Theatre 50.0%* No

John B. Delamater Activity Center

50.0% No

Jett Hall 16.7%* Yes

Knox Hall 12.5%* No

Milton Hall 9.1%* Yes

Natatorium 50.0%* Yes

O’Donnell Hall 28.6% Yes**


Regents Row 25.0% Yes**

Science Hall 40.0% Yes**

Speech Building 50.0%* Yes

Astronomy Building 25.0%* Yes

Anderson Hall/ PSL 10.0%* Yes

Property Warehouse and Offices 50.0%* No

No building selected 14.3%* N/A

* Only One respondent indicated dissatisfaction with this area



IRPOA Page 59

Table B.1.c: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the cleanliness of offices and/ or classrooms Building Percentage of respondents

indicating dissatisfaction with this area




Chemistry Building 57.1%* Yes**




Hadley Hall 15.8% Yes**

Health and Social Services building

11.1%* Yes


25.0%* No

Jett Hall 33.3% Yes

Knox Hall 12.5%* No

Milton hall 9.1%* Yes**




PGEL Headhouse/Lab 50.0%* No

Regents Row 12.5%* Yes

Science Hall 40.0% Yes


Wells Hall 100.0%* Yes

Anderson Hall/PSL 20.0% Yes**





IRPOA Page 60

Table B.1.d: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the courtesy of

custodial staff


area



Chemistry Building 14.3%* Yes


22.2% Yes



Science Hall 20.0%* Yes

Corbett Center Student Union 33.3%* No





IRPOA Page 61

Table B.1.e: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the frequency of

custodial services


area



Cervantes Village, Building A 50.0%* Yes



Equine Education Canter 33.3%* No

Garcia Annex 20.0%* Yes




22.2% Yes**

Herschel Zohn Theatre 50.0%* No


25.0%* No


Knox Hall 12.5%* No

Milton Hall 9.1%* Yes**

Music Building 100.0%* Yes



Facilities and Services Lock Shop 50.0%* No


PGLE Headhouse/ Lab 50.0%* No


Speech Building 100.0% Yes


Astronomy Building 25.0%* No

Anderson Hall/ PSL 20.0% Yes**

Property warehouse and office 50.0%* No

Facilities and Services Grounds Department

50.0%* No





IRPOA Page 62

Table B.1.f: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the overall quality of

custodial services


area








Gardiner Hall 33.3%* Yes**

Gerald Thomas Hall 5.9%* Yes


22.2% No


25.0%* Yes

Jett Hall 33.3% No

Knox Hall 12.5%* Yes









Astronomy Building 25.0%* No

Anderson Hall/PSL 10.0%* Yes**





IRPOA Page 63

Table B.1.g: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the recycling

program


area



Central Utility Plant 100.0%* N/A

Chemistry Building 42.9%

Community Colleges 100.0%*

Ed and Harold Foramen Engineering Complex

16.7%*

Educational Services Building 6.25%*

Garcia Annex 20.0%*

Gerald Thomas Hall 17.6%

Hadley Hall 10.5%


11.1%*

Herschel Zohn Theatre 50.0%*


25.0%*

Jett Hall 16.7%*

Natatorium 50.0%*

O’Donnell Hall 28.6%

Facilities and Services Office 20.0%*

PGEL Headhouse/ Lab 50.0%*

Regents Row 12.5%*

Anderson Hall / PSL 12.5%*

Vista del Monte 100.0%*

No building Selected 28.6%




IRPOA Page 64

B.2: Building and Environment

Table B.2.a: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the temperature


area



Academic Research A, B, C 20.0% Yes**

Branson Library 20.0%* Yes

Cervantes Village, Building A 50.0%* No



50.0% Yes**

Educational Services Building 17.6% Yes**

Engineering Complex I 33.3%* No







22.2% Yes**

Jacobs Hall 67.7% Yes

John B. Delamater Activity center

33.3%* Yes**


Knox Hall 50.0% Yes



New Mexico department of Agriculture

50.% Yes



Science Hall 40.0% Yes


Zuhl Library 50.0% Yes

Astronomy Building 75.0% No

Anderson Hall/ PSL 10.0%* Yes**

Property warehouse and offices 50.0%* No

Stan Fulton Athletic Center 33.3%* Yes

Auxiliary Services/ Bookstore 100.0%* No

Corbett Center Student Union 33.3%* No

Vista del Monte 100.0%* No




IRPOA Page 65

Table B.2.b: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the lighting


area



Branson Library 20.0%* No

Dove Hall 100.0%* No




Foster Hall 40.0% Yes

Gardiner Hall 66.7% Yes

Gerald Thomas Hall 16.7% Yes

Guthrie Hall 14.3%* No

Jacobs Hall 33.3%* Yes



Regents Row 12.5%* Yes**


Wells Hall 100.0%* Yes**

Property Warehouse and Office 100.0% No

Vista del Monte 100.0%* No




IRPOA Page 66

Table B.2.c: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with handicap access


area





Equine Education center 33.3%* No


Guthrie Hall 14.3%* Yes

Herschel Zohn Theatre 50.0%* Yes



O’Donnell Hall 28.5% No


50.0%* No

Regents Row 28.5% Yes

Speech Building 50.0%* No


Monagle Hall 100.0%* No





IRPOA Page 67

Table B.2.d: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the reliability of

utilities (electrical power, heating, cooling meet our needs and have minimal interruptions)


area



Academic Research A, B, C 10.0%* Yes**




33.3% Yes**





Gerald Thomas Hall 5.6%* Yes**


11.1%* Yes



66.7% Yes**

Knox Hall 25.0% No



Facilities and Services office 20.0%* Yes




N/A 14.3%* N/A




IRPOA Page 68

Table B.2.e: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with energy conservation


area




Business Complex 12.5%* Yes**





16.7%* Yes**




Garcia Hall 20.0%* Yes**





33.3% Yes**


33.3%* Yes**




New Mexico Department of Agriculture

25.0%* Yes


Facilities and Services Office 20.0%* Yes



Zuhl Library 25.0%* No

Anderson Hall/ PSL 20.0% Yes

Corbett Center Student Union 33.3%* Yes



50.0%* No





IRPOA Page 69

B.3: Grounds

Table B.3.a: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the maintenance of

grounds (mowing, weeding, trimming, edging, etc.)


area



Academic Research A, B, C 20.0% Yes

Campus Police/ Ag. Institute 33.3%* Yes

Cervantes Village, building A 50.0%* Yes

Wind Tunnel 100.0%* No


16.7%* No

Educational Services building 16.7% Yes**

Engineering Complex I 33.3%* Yes

Equine Education Center 100.0% Yes

Foster Hall 20.0%* No





Jacobs Hall 33.3%* Yes

Jett Hall 16.7%* No

Knox Hall 25.0% No

Milton Hall 18.2% No


NMDA 50.0% No

Facilities and Services Lock Shop 50.0%* Yes

Facilities and Services motor Pool

50.0%* No


PGEL Headhouse/ Lab 50.0%* Yes




William B Conroy Honors Center 50.0%* No

Zuhl Library 25.0%* Yes



50.0%* No





IRPOA Page 70

Table B.3.b: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the quality of

landscape design and maintenance (trees, flowerbeds, etc.)


area





Breland Hall 22.2% Yes





Garcia Annex 20.0%* No



Jacobs Hall 66.7% No

Jett Hall 33.3% No

Knox Hall 50.0% No

Milton Hall 18.2% Yes**



25.0%* No

Facilities and Services Lock Shop 50.0%* Yes


50.0%* No


PGEL Headhouse/ Labs 50.0%* Yes


Skeen Hall 50.0% Yes


William B. Conroy Honors Center

50.0%* No




50.0%* No





IRPOA Page 71

Table B.3.c: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with litter management


area



Academic Research A,B,C 11.1%* Yes**

Business Complex 12.5%* Yes



Computer Center 14.3%* No


20.0%* Yes









22.2% Yes




Milton Hall 12.5%* No

Natatorium 9.1%* No


50.0%* Yes


25.0%* Yes




Zuhl Library 40.0% Yes


Property warehouse and office 22.2% Yes**


Facilities and Services Grounds 100.0%* No

No building selected 100.0% No

28.6% No




IRPOA Page 72

Table B.3.d Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the management of

recycling/ recycling receptacles


area



Branson Library 20.0%* Yes**

Breland Hall 22.2% Yes


Campus Police/ Ag Institute 33.3%* Yes

Central utility Plant 100.0%* No


Educational Services Center 5.6%* Yes**

Equine Education Center 33.3%* Yes




11.1%* Yes



25.0%* No


Hernandez Hall 50.0%* No

Knox Hall 12.5%* No







Property Warehouse and office 50.0%* No






IRPOA Page 73

Table B.3.e: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the quality of pest

control (Indoors and Outdoors)


area



Academic Research A,B,C 11.1%* Yes**


Campus Police/ Ag Institute 33.3%* Yes



Educational Services Center 5.6%* Yes**


Equine Education Center 33.3%* Yes

Garcia Hall 20.0%* Yes




Knox Hall 12.5% No



Neale hall 100.0%* Yes**


50.0% Yes


Facilities and Services lock Shop 50.0%* Yes


PGEL Headhouse/ Lab 50.0%* Yes


Rentfrow Gymnasium 100.0%* Yes


Skeen Hall 25.0%* Yes**

Speech Building 100.0%* Yes**



Property Warehouse and Office 50.0%* No





IRPOA Page 74

Table B.3.f: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the overall quality of

grounds services


area






Foster Hall 20.0%* No

Garcia Annex 20.0%* No

Gerald Thomas Hall 11.1% No


Jett Hall 16.7%* No

Knox Hall 37.5% No

Milton hall 9.1%* No



50.0% No

Facilities and Services lock Shop 50.0%* Yes


50.0%* No




Skeen Hall 25.0%* No

Wells hall 100.0%* Yes

Anderson Hall/ PSL 10.0%* No


50.0%* No





IRPOA Page 75

Table B.3.g: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the courtesy of

grounds staff


area




Hadley Hall 5.0%* No

Jett Hall 16.7%* No

Knox Hall 12.5%* No



25.0%* No


Science Hall 20.0%* No

Anderson Hall/PSL 10.0%* No




IRPOA Page 76

Table B.3.h: Buildings in which respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of

water efficient landscaping and other water conservation measures


area



Branson Library 40.0% N/A

Breland Hall 11.1%*

Business Complex 25.0%

Computer Center 16.7%*


33.3%

Educational Services Building 14.3%

Equine Education Center 33.3%*

Foster Hall 20.0%*

Gerald Thomas Hall 27.8%

Guthrie Hall 16.7%*

Hadley Hall 10.0%


12.5%*


25.0%*

Jett Hall 50.0%

Knox Hall 25.0%

Milton Hall 36.4%

Natatorium 50.0%*


25.0%*

O’Donnell Hall 14.3%*

Facilities and Services lock Shop 50.0%*

Facilities and Services Office 20.0%*

PGEL Headhouse/ lab 50.0%*

Regents Row 42.9%

Science Hall 25.0%*

Skeen Hall 33.3%*

Speech Building 50.0%*

Wells Hall 100.0%*

Zuhl Library 33.3%*

Astronomy Building 50.0%

Anderson Hall/ PSL 10.0%*


50.0%*

No building Selected 16.7%*


fall 2011: facilities & services customer satisfaction...

Documents