june 5, 2014 memorandum to: the buildings and grounds ... · for improvements. the plan includes a...

June 5, 2014

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Buildings and Grounds Committee:

Timothy B. Robertson, Chair

Hunter E. Craig

Helen E. Dragas

Kevin J. Fay

Frank E. Genovese

William H. Goodwin Jr.

John A. Griffin

John L. Nau III

George Keith Martin, Ex Officio

Timothy Beatley, Faculty Consulting Member

and

The Remaining Members of the Board and Senior Advisor:

Frank B. Atkinson Bobbie G. Kilberg

Allison Cryor DiNardo Stephen P. Long, M.D.

Marvin W. Gilliam Jr. Edward D. Miller, M.D.

Margaret N. Gould Linwood H. Rose

Victoria D. Harker Leonard W. Sandridge Jr.

FROM: Susan G. Harris

SUBJECT: Minutes of the Meeting of the Buildings and Grounds

Committee on June 5, 2014

The Buildings and Grounds Committee of the Board of Visitors of

the University of Virginia met, in Open Session, at 3:05 p.m., on

Thursday, June 5, 2014, in the Auditorium of the Albert & Shirley

Small Special Collections Library of the Harrison Instute; Timothy B.

Robertson, chair, presided.

Hunter E. Craig, Kevin J. Fay, William H. Goodwin Jr., John A.

Griffin, John L. Nau III, and Leonard W. Sandridge Jr. were present.

Also present was Timothy Beatley, Faculty Consulting Member.

Buildings and Grounds Committee June 5, 2014 2.

Present as well were Teresa A. Sullivan, Susan G. Harris, Patrick

D. Hogan, Penny Q. Cabaniss, R. Edward Howell, Patricia M. Lampkin,

Megan K. Lowe, David W. Martel, McGregor McCance, David J. Neuman,

William C. Palmer, Nancy A. Rivers, Pamela H. Sellers, Richard P.

Shannon, M.D., Colette Sheehy, Donald E. Sundgren, Robert D. Sweeney,

and Debra D. Rinker.

Mr. Robertson opened the meeting by asking Mr. Neuman to give his

report.

Report by the Architect for the University

Mr. Neuman presented the landscape plan for the Rotunda. Laurie

Olin, 2013 Thomas Jefferson medalist in architecture, has been engaged

to create the landscape design. The east courtyard will be named the

Colgate Darden courtyard and will have a new fountain and enhanced

landscaping. The west courtyard will be designed to be more active.

A fountain may be added, or the space may be used for events without a

fountain in the center. Trees will not grow above the balustrade.

The north terrace will be enhanced so that it is much more useful

to students, faculty, and staff on a daily basis. Plantings will

complement and enhance the view of the Rotunda.

Mr. Neuman’s second item was the University/Emmet/Ivy District

Planning Study. He described current conditions and recommendations

for improvements. The plan includes a suitability analysis which

indicates the characteristics of the land and designates suitable

areas for redevelopment. The Grounds Plan indicates redevelopment

zones in the area. A circulation study will be conducted by an

engineering firm to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and transit

accommodations without degrading vehicular traffic. There are five

zones in the area with different characteristics and possibilities for

improvement.

The landscape plan for this district involves looking at

different typologies at other universities. Some university campuses

are organic and others are planned; some are urban and others are set

in the country. Princeton University is an example of an organic

development in a country setting, as is the University of Virginia.

The defining characteristics of entries to the University include

water and bridges, and they will be used in the landscape plan.

- - - - - - - - -

EXECUTIVE SESSION

After adopting the following motion, the committee met in

executive session at 3:40 p.m.:

That the Buildings and Grounds Committee go into closed session

to discuss a fundraising strategy and potential gifts from individual


donors for a potential building project, as provided for by Virginia

Code §2.2-3711 A(8).

At 3:50 p.m., the committee left closed session and, on motion,

adopted the following resolution certifying that the deliberations in

closed session had been conducted in accordance with the exemptions

permitted by the Virginia Freedom of Information Act:

That we vote on and record our certification that, to the best of

each Member’s knowledge, only public business matters lawfully

exempted from open meeting requirements and which were identified in

the motion authorizing the closed session, were heard, discussed or

considered in closed session.

- - - - - - - - -

Action Items

On motion, the committee approved the following resolution:

NAMING OF THE PARK AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE BATTLE BUILDING AT THE

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL

WHEREAS, the Medical Center has obtained significant support from

alumni, faculty, friends, and grateful parents for the new Battle

Building, an outpatient facility for comprehensive children’s health;

and

WHEREAS, Nancy E. Artis graduated from the Curry School of

Education in 1968 and received her doctorate from the Curry School in

1980. She is a certified Child Life Specialist who became affiliated

with the Children’s Hospital in 1972; and

WHEREAS, Ms. Artis, in addition to serving on the board of the

UVA Health Foundation and on the Children’s Hospital Committee, serves

as the Educational Director for the Hospital Education Program, a

state operated program that provides a broad range of school and

extracurricular services to help normalize hospital stays; and

WHEREAS, Ms. Artis and her husband, Mr. Douglas Caton, have been

major benefactors of the Children’s Hospital;

RESOLVED, the Board of Visitors names the park at the entrance to

the Battle Building at the University of Virginia Children’s Hospital

the Nancy Artis & Douglas Caton Family Park.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Revision to the Major Capital Projects Program – McCormick Road

Residence Hall Renovation

Discussion ensued about whether the McCormick Road residence

halls should be renovated or torn down and rebuilt with more rooms.


Ms. Lampkin spoke to the advantage for the first year experience of

smaller dorms that create a residential community. She said the

McCormick Road dorms anchor the first year experience.

An alternative proposed was to add another floor to the current

buildings. Mr. Kovatch said structurally they are not able to carry

another floor without extensive strengthening. He said the cost to

tear down and rebuild is significantly more — about twice the cost of

renovating.

The President said a report would be provided to the committee in

September that analyzes the alternatives.

The following resolution was approved:

REVISION TO THE MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS PROGRAM – MCCORMICK ROAD

RESIDENCE HALL RENOVATION

WHEREAS, the University proposes the addition of the McCormick

Road Residence Hall Renovation to the Major Capital Projects Program;

RESOLVED, the Board of Visitors approves the addition of the

McCormick Road Residence Hall Renovation, at an estimated cost between

$85.8 million and $104.7 million, to the University’s Major Capital

Projects Program.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Architect/Engineer Selection

The committee approved the following architect/engineer

selection:

ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION, GILMER HALL AND CHEMISTRY BUILDING

RENOVATION PROJECT

RESOLVED, Perkins + Will of Washington, D.C. is approved for

performance of architectural and engineering services for the Gilmer

Hall and Chemistry Building Renovation project.

ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION, MCCORMICK ROAD RESIDENCE HALL RENOVATION

PROJECT

RESOLVED, Clark Nexsen of Norfolk, Virginia is approved for

performance of architectural and engineering services for the

McCormick Road Residence Hall Renovation Project.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Concept, Site and Design Guidelines

Mr. Neuman presented the concept, site, and design guideline

items. He explained the importance of renovating Gilmer Hall and the

Chemistry building to improve their utility. The curtain wall on


Gilmer Hall will not be replaced, and so the design of the façade will

come back to the committee for consideration, as will a balcony on the

Chemistry building. Other changes will be interior and will not come

to the committee for consideration.

The following resolution was approved:

CONCEPT AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR GILMER HALL AND CHEMISTRY BUILDING

RENOVATION

RESOLVED, the concept and design guidelines, dated June 5, 2014,

prepared by the Architect for the University for the renovation of

Gilmer Hall and the Chemistry Building, are approved; and

RESOLVED FURTHER, the project will be presented for further

review at the schematic design level of development.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The following resolution was approved subject to the report,

requested by the committee, on alternatives to renovating the existing

residence halls:

CONCEPT AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR MCCORMICK ROAD RESIDENCE HALL

RENOVATION PROJECT

RESOLVED, the concept and design guidelines, dated June 5, 2014,

prepared by the Architect for the University for the renovation of the

McCormick Road Residence Halls, are approved.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Mr. Howell explained the need to renovate the Emergency

Department. He said the bed expansion part of the project is under

consideration, but if they conclude they will move forward with this,

it will come back to the committee for consideration.

On motion, the following resolution was approved:

CONCEPT, SITE, AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT/

OPERATING ROOM/PATIENT BED EXPANSION

RESOLVED, the concept, site, and design guidelines, dated June 5,

2014, prepared by the Architect for the University for the Emergency

Department/Operating Room/Patient Bed Expansion project, are approved;

and



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Mr. Neuman showed slides of the planned site for the

Contemplative Sciences Center next to the Dell off of Emmet Street.


He said the scale of the building will not compete with neighboring

buildings.


CONCEPT, SITE, AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE CONTEMPLATIVE SCIENCES

CENTER

RESOLVED, the concept, site and design guidelines, dated June 5,

2014, prepared by the Architect for the University for the

Contemplative Sciences Center, are approved; and



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Ms. Sheehy said the Code of Virginia allows the Board of Visitors

to nominate a representative to the state Art and Architectural Review

Board, and the Governor makes the final selection. She said the

University would like to nominate Helen A. Wilson and Luis Carrazana,

both in the Office of the Architect.


NOMINATION TO THE ART AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

WHEREAS, pursuant to § 2.2-2400 of the Code of Virginia, the

Governor appoints five citizen members to the Art and Architectural

Review Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and

WHEREAS, the Code provides that one member may be appointed from

a list of persons nominated by the governing board of the University

of Virginia;

RESOLVED, the Board of Visitors recommends to the Governor that

Luis A. Carrazana and Helen A. Wilson be considered for appointment as

a citizen member to the Art and Architectural Review Board.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Report by the Vice President for Management and Budget

Ms. Sheehy said the University won a national engineering award

from Engineering News Record for the Medical Center hospital expansion

and helipad project. This is the first award of its kind that the

University has won. At the same time, the UVA Foundation’s

Commonwealth Center for Advanced Manufacturing (CCAM) in Petersburg

won the best manufacturing project.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Mr. Robertson provided some final comments. He said the New

Cabell Hall renovation is quite impressive and those who have not seen


it should visit. The back of Old Cabell Hall, which is an homage to

the Rotunda and quite attractive, is now visible.

Mr. Craig thanked Mr. Robertson for his leadership on the Board

and with the committee. Mr. Robertson said it was a joy and delight

to work with such wonderful professionals, and there was a round of

applause.

On motion, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

SGH

These minutes have been posted to the University of Virginia’s Board of

Visitors website: http://www.virginia.edu/bov/buildingsgroundsminutes.html

http://www.virginia.edu/bov/buildingsgroundsminutes.html

MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS

Buildings and Grounds Committee

University of Virginia

June 5, 2014

MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES APRIL 2014

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTIONS FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS LESS THAN $5 MILLION

PERIOD ENDED May 14, 2014

There are no architect/engineer selections for capital projects $5M or less for the period ending May 14, 2014.

Professional and Construction-Related Non-Professional Services Contracts Quarter Ended March 31, 2014

211

249 256 255

319 324

197

136 135

89 78

61

82

54

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010 - 2011 2011 -2012 2012 - 2013 07/01/13 -03/31/14

(FYTD)

# o

f C

on

tra

cts

FY Period

# Professional Contracts by FY

Total Virginia Contracts

Total Out-of-State Contracts

Professional and Construction-Related Non-Professional Services Contracts Quarter Ended March 31, 2014

$8.3

$10.4 $10.5

$7.2

$10.1

$6.7

$5.2

$18.9

$30.2

$8.2 $7.4

$2.4

$10.2

$7.1

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010 -2011

2011 -2012 2012 -2013

07/01/13 -03/31/14

(FYTD)

Mil

lio

n $

's

FY Period

Professional Contract Fees by FY

Total Virginia Contracts (M)

Total Out-of-State Contracts (M)

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

PAVILION OCCUPANCY STATUS AS OF APRIL 2014

Pavilion Occupants Assigne

d Available Comments

I Robert Pianta Winter 2010

November

2018

Occupied Pavilion III from Spring 2008 until Winter

2010

II Meredith Woo Septemb

er 2009

September

2014

III Harry Harding Spring 2010

January 1, 2015

IV Larry J. Sabato October

2002 Spring 2018

Extended an additional five years in November 2010,

from Spring 2013 to May 11, 2018

V & Annex Patricia Lampkin Spring 2008

August 1, 2018

Occupied Pavilion III from Summer 2005 until Spring

2008

VI Robert D. Sweeney Fall

2012 Fall

2017

VII Colonnade Club

VIII Upper Apartment

John Colley April 2011

April 2016

VIII Terrace Apartment

Gerald Warburg March 2012

March 2017

IX Dorrie Fontaine July

2011 July

2016

X Nancy E. Dunlap, M.D. May 2013

November

2014

Montebello James H. Aylor April 2012

August 2015

Sunnyside Artificial Pancreas Project April 2013

March 2015

Weedon House

Carl P. Zeithaml July

2011 July

2016

Professional and Construction-Related Non-Professional Services Contracts

Quarter Ended March 31, 2014

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA’S COLLEGE AT WISE

POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION Smiddy Hall Renovation and Addition Project

Executive Summary

March 25, 2014

I. Background

As a part of its oversight of the University’s Capital Program, the Executive Review Committee for Capital Development stipulated in April 2004 that Post-Occupancy Evaluations be completed for capital projects approximately one year after occupancy.

II. Purpose

The Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) process is a “lessons learned” exercise to improve the design, construction, operation, and user satisfaction of future buildings by providing an assessment of completed projects. It identifies architectural, engineering, interior, and other functional components that work well and those that are problematic. The process supports the University’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program by addressing the LEED credit requiring a survey of occupant satisfaction with thermal comfort.

III. Methodology

Information was gathered through 1) a web-based survey distributed to faculty and staff, and 2) a maintenance assessment. The survey team consisted of the Senior Program Manager from the Office of the Architect for the University, the College’s Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration, and the College’s Director of Capital Operations and Planning. Reviews were provided by the Architect for the University, the University’s Chief Facilities Officer, and the University Building Official.

IV. Project Description

Smiddy Hall is a two story structure originally constructed in 1974 as a general classroom and faculty office building. The building is located at the College’s main entrance. The recent project had three components: 1) renovation of the main core; 2) demolition and reconstruction of the west wing, and 3) the addition of an east wing for the Information and Technology Department. The original GSF was 21,500. The current GSF is 30,000.

The building was reprogrammed and reconfigured to provide spaces that align with the College’s projected needs. Program spaces include large and small classrooms; faculty offices; office suites for the Provost and Academic Dean; and a data center. The project addressed infrastructure, code, life safety, ADA, and energy efficiency issues. Construction began in November 2008 and was completed in July 2011. The project’s LEED Certification



was delayed due to ongoing HVAC commissioning. Those items have been resolved and certification is pending.

V. Survey Response Rate

The survey was distributed to 25 faculty and 21 staff. There were 21 respondents for a 46% response rate. Respondents included 13 faculty and 8 staff.

VI. Overall Project Assessment

95% of the respondents have an overall positive impression of the building. Response rates to the individual questions vary significantly. Positive response rates range from a low of 24% to a high of 95%. Negative response rates range from a low of 0% to a high of 71%.

The majority of the positive responses are below 80%. Only 27% are in the 80% to 100% range. On the other hand, 85% of the negative responses are less than 20%.

Given that 73% of the positive responses are less than 80% one would expect to see a high percentage of questions with negative response rates in excess of 20%. For this survey only 15% of the questions have negative response rates exceeding 20%. This is due to the fact that 46% of the questions have neutral response rates that are above 20%.

The survey focused on 5 program areas: 1) classrooms; 2) the psychology lab; 3) seminar and conference rooms; 4) the IT conference room; and 5) offices/workstations.

The positive responses rates for the functioning of these spaces range from 91% (offices / workstations) to 62% (psychology lab). Except for classrooms, negative response rates range from 0% to 8%. The classroom negative rate is 27%. The classrooms may have received a higher negative rate because of their proportions. Several comments note the difficulty of teaching in spaces that are either long and narrow or excessively wide.

Except for the offices and workstations, sound privacy does not appear to be an issue. The audio/visual system and furniture receive relatively high positive responses and low negative responses.

VII. LEED Certification

The survey includes a question about the importance of a LEED certification. 70% of the respondents indicate that it is important, 15% are neutral, and 15% indicate that it is not important.

VIII. Building Temperatures and Thermal Comfort

The thermal comfort verification credit for the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED certification program stipulates that a corrective action plan is to be developed if more than 20% of the occupants are dissatisfied with the building’s thermal comfort. 53% of the respondents indicate that they are dissatisfied with the temperatures, and 71% indicate that the temperatures negatively impact their work. 19% are dissatisfied with the air quality.



Based on the negative response rate, the College must develop a corrective action plan.

IX. Summary Response Tabulation

A summary table of the survey responses is on the following page. The questions for each of the principal survey areas are listed in order from the highest to lowest positive response rates. Because of rounding, the percentages for some questions may not total 100%.



Neutral

Total +3 +2 +1 +1 +2 +3 Total

General Building Questions

Overall Assessment 95% 43% 43% 10% 0% 5% 0% 0% 5%

Adequacy of Lobby Seating 81% 24% 14% 43% 14% 5% 0% 0% 5%

Comfort of Lobby Seating 76% 14% 14% 48% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Safety

Sense of Safety in Areas Around the Building 74% 26% 37% 11% 21% 0% 5% 0% 5%

LEED Certification

Importance of LEED Certification 70% 30% 25% 15% 15% 10% 0% 5% 15%

Thermal Comfort

Satisfaction with Air Quality 76% 10% 57% 10% 5% 14% 5% 0% 19%

Satisfaction with the Building Temperatures 43% 14% 24% 5% 5% 24% 19% 10% 53%

Impact of the Temperatures on Work 24% 10% 10% 5% 5% 33% 29% 10% 71%

Classrooms

Satisfaction with the Acoustics 81% 13% 63% 6% 19% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Adequacy of the Audio/Visual Systems 81% 13% 63% 6% 13% 6% 0% 0% 6%

Satisfaction with the Furniture 71% 12% 35% 24% 18% 6% 0% 6% 12%

Function 67% 7% 40% 20% 7% 20% 7% 0% 27%

Satisfaction with Sound Privacy 63% 6% 50% 6% 25% 13% 0% 0% 13%

Psychology Lab

Function 62% 15% 46% 0% 31% 0% 8% 0% 8%


Seminar and Conference Rooms

Function 81% 13% 50% 19% 13% 0% 6% 0% 6%




IT Conference Room


Function 67% 33% 25% 8% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0%



Offices/Workstations

Function 91% 24% 52% 14% 5% 5% 0% 0% 5%

Satisfaction with the Layout 81% 19% 38% 24% 5% 14% 0% 0% 14%


Note: Because of rounding percentages may not total 100.

Response Tabulation

All Respondents

November 29, 2013

Positive Responses Negative Responses



X. Maintenance Assessment

The number one problem we have encountered has been the boilers. There have been ignition problems since the day of turnover requiring near daily manual restarts. Repeated visits, analysis, and fixes were attempted. A recent alteration made in November, 2013 seems to have alleviated the issue to a great degree. While there have been three alarms since then, there have been no actual boiler failures requiring a manual restart. The boilers are now operating properly.

Several aspects of the HVAC design are commendable, including the inclusion of backup pumps and two boilers. There is an instance of one thermostat serving two offices which has brought about some conflict over room temperatures.

Outside, the metal tactile warning strips at the top of the main entrance stairs have proven to be a maintenance issue, with several being dislodged and causing problems during ice events, with the strips preventing efficient clearing and melting of the ice.

XI. Actions and Recommendations

A. Temperature: 53% of respondents indicate that they are dissatisfied with the temperatures, and 71% indicate that the temperatures negatively impact their work. 19% are dissatisfied with the air quality.

Action (Corrective): To deal with the occupant dissatisfaction with thermal comfort, the College has developed the following corrective action plan:

Background: The underlying cause of many of the temperature complaints is undoubtedly rooted with the problems with the building’s boilers. Since the turnover of the project, the boilers have had trouble with ignition failures, causing daily alarms and necessitating manual restarts.

Corrective Actions Taken to Date: The design engineers as well as the contractors and suppliers have been constantly and diligently analyzing and adjusting the equipment and its systems in an effort to fix the problem. It appears that a recent adjustment in early November 2013 has alleviated the problem, with only three alarms having been reported since then, with none of them being actual failures of the boilers to ignite.

Future Actions: The survey responses noted instances of hot and cold spots in the building. The project’s commissioning agent was on site in January 2014 to complete his analysis; these issues were discussed at that time with the appropriate entities. Going forward, we can run reports to analyze fluctuations that may indicate balance or programming issues. It is anticipated that with fully functioning boilers, a test and balance adjustment, and final commissioning, the building’s occupants will be much more satisfied with room temperatures.

Recommendation (For Future Buildings): Not Applicable.



B. Classroom Configuration: Three faculty comment that long and narrow or extremely wide classrooms have a negative impact on teaching.

Action (Corrective): Corrective action is not feasible.

Recommendation (For Future Buildings): Room proportions

should be carefully considered when designing classrooms

with the understanding that long and narrow or extremely

wide rooms can have a negative impact on teaching.



UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA’S COLLEGE AT WISE POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION

David J. Prior Convocation Center Executive Summary

March 25, 2014 I. Background

As a part of its oversight of the University’s Capital Program, the Executive Review Committee for Capital Development stipulated in April 2004 that Post Occupancy Evaluations be completed for capital projects approximately one year after occupancy.

II. Purpose

The Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) process is a “lessons learned” exercise to improve the design, construction, operation, and user satisfaction of future buildings by providing an assessment of completed projects. It identifies architectural, engineering, interior, and other functional components that work well and those that are problematic. The process supports the University’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program by addressing the LEED credit requiring a survey of occupant satisfaction with thermal comfort.

III. Methodology

Information was gathered through 1) a web-based survey distributed to coaches, facility staff, and student athletes, and 2) a maintenance assessment. The process team consisted of the Senior Program Manager from the Office of the Architect for the University, the College’s Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration, and the College’s Director of Capital Operations and Planning. Reviews were provided by the Architect for the University, the University’s Chief Facilities Officer, and the University Building Official.

IV. Project Description

The David J. Prior Convocation Center is a 78,000 gross square-foot facility that seats 3,000 for sporting events and 3,600 for concerts or conventions. The Center enables the College to host athletic tournaments and regional events. The building’s program includes 1) a main event space, 2) concessions, retail, and ticket sales spaces, 3) a Chancellor’s Lounge, 4) a catering space, 5) locker rooms, 6) a training room, and 7) offices. Construction began in June 2009 and was completed in August 2011. The project received a LEED Silver Certification.

V. Survey Response Rate

The survey was distributed to 58 building occupants. There were 11 respondents for a 19% response rate. Respondents included 3 coaches, 6 facility staff, and 2 student athletes.

VI. Summary Assessment



100% of the respondents have an overall positive impression of the building. Positive response rates to the survey questions range from a low of 50% to a high of 100%. Negative response rates range from a low of 0% to a high of 25% with 19 questions (73%) receiving no negative responses. 19 questions receive neutral responses ranging from a low of 20% to a high of 50%.

The survey addressed seven of the building’s main program areas: 1) a main event space, 2) concessions, retail, and ticket sales spaces, 3) a chancellor’s lounge, 4) catering space, 5) locker rooms, 6) training room, and 7) offices.

Of all of the program areas, the main event space receives the highest positive response rates for functionality. These are for basketball / volleyball games (90%), large assemblies (90%), and concerts / performances (80%). Response rates for lighting are 80% positive and 20% neutral. The rates for the audio system are 70% positive, 10% neutral, and 20% negative.

The concessions, retail, and ticket sales spaces receive positive, neutral and negative responses. Response rates for functionality are 60% positive and 40% neutral. Response rates for the effectiveness of their layouts are 50% positive, 30% neutral, and 20% negative.

The Chancellor’s Lounge receives positive and neutral responses. Response rates for functionality are 70% positive and 30% neutral. Rates for furniture are 50% positive and 50% neutral.

The catering space receives positive and neutral responses. Response rates for functionality and layout are 67% positive and a 33% neutral. One staff member states, “This was a great design.”

The locker rooms receive positive and neutral responses. The rates for functionality are 78% positive and 22% neutral rate. The response rates for layout and lighting are 89% positive and 11% neutral. Respondents note: “We always get compliments on them for being above and beyond what other locker rooms look and feel like.” “Centerpieces of the building.”

The training room receives positive, neutral, and negative responses. The rates for functionality are 67% positive, 22% neutral, and 11% negative. The rates for its layout are 56% positive, 33% neutral, and 11% negative. The rates for lighting are 78% positive and 22% neutral.

The offices receive the lowest positive response rates and some of the higher negative response rates. The rates for functionality are 50% positive, 38% neutral, and 13% negative. The rates for layout are 50% positive, 25% neutral, and 25% negative. The rates for sound privacy are 63% positive and 37% neutral.

Based on negative response rates, respondents are primarily dissatisfied with the layout of the offices, the audio systems in the main event space, and the layout of the concessions, retail, and ticket sales spaces.



VII. LEED Certification

The survey includes a question about the importance of a LEED certification. 80% of the respondents indicate that it is important; 20% are neutral. VIII. LEED Thermal Comfort Verification

The thermal comfort verification credit for the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED certification program stipulates that a corrective action plan be developed if more than 20% of the occupants are dissatisfied with the building’s thermal comfort. None of the Convocation Center respondents indicate that they are dissatisfied with the building temperatures. 70% are satisfied with the room temperatures; 30% are neutral. 80% indicate that the temperatures have a positive impact on their use of the facility; 20% are neutral. 80% are satisfied with the air quality; 20% are neutral. Based on the response rates, a corrective action plan is not warranted. IX. Summary Response Tabulation

A summary table of the survey responses is on the following page. The questions for each of the main program areas are listed in order from the highest to lowest positive response rates. Because of rounding, the percentages for some questions may not total 100%.



Neutral

Total +3 +2 +1 +1 +2 +3 Total

General Building Questions

Overall Assessment 100% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Adequacy of Parking 80% 30% 20% 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Safety

Sense of Safety in Areas Around the Building 80% 20% 60% 0% 10% 10% 0% 0% 10%

LEED Certification

Importance of LEED Certification 80% 10% 20% 50% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Thermal Comfort

Satisfaction with Air Quality 80% 30% 40% 10% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Impact of Temperature on Use of Building 80% 20% 30% 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Satisfaction with Building Temperature 70% 20% 30% 20% 30% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Event Space

Performance of Space for Basketball / Volleyball 90% 60% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Performance of Space for Large Assemblies 90% 30% 40% 20% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Performance of Space for Concerts / Performances 80% 30% 30% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Satisfaction with Lighting 80% 10% 40% 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Satisfaction with Audio Systems 70% 10% 50% 10% 10% 20% 0% 0% 20%

Concessions/Retail/Ticket Sales

Function 60% 20% 20% 20% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Satisfaction with Layout 50% 20% 20% 10% 30% 0% 20% 0% 20%

Chancellor's Lounge

Function 70% 30% 30% 10% 30% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Satisfaction with Furnishings 50% 30% 20% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Catering Space

Function 67% 44% 11% 11% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0%


Locker Rooms



Function 78% 44% 11% 22% 22% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Training Room


Function 67% 11% 33% 22% 22% 11% 0% 0% 11%


Offices


Function 50% 13% 25% 13% 38% 0% 0% 13% 13%


Note: Because of Rounding, Totals May not Equal 100

Response Tabulation

All Respondents

November 30, 2013

Positive Responses Negative Responses



X. Maintenance Assessment

Considering the tremendous amount of publicity this facility has garnered both on campus and from outside the campus community, the overall design and functionality of this building has proven to be a great success in most every area.

Backup boilers and pumps in the HVAC design are greatly appreciated while the generator backup system has functioned well and is a welcome addition to campus emergency planning.

The lifespan of some light bulbs have proven to be an issue, particularly over the practice court area, which is a challenging area to access. Catwalks in the high ceilings would have been a welcome addition to the design, although it is acknowledged that this was a budgetary decision not to include them.

The wood athletic flooring has had some small, isolated issues with separation and elevation. It is believed that building humidity issues have contributed to this, causing the wood to shrink and crack.

There have also been some isolated instances of water infiltration through the window glazing in the Chancellor’s Lounge although the location (corner of the building, subject to strong winds and precipitation) and large size of the glass likely contributes to this.

In the site design, the fact that sod was used in many areas was a tremendous success and one that should be included in future designs whenever possible. The lack of high quality top soil availability in the area has contributed to some minor problems. Excessive plant beds (considering the landscaping staff size) and the placement of beds on steep slopes, which have caused continuous mulch erosion, are also a maintenance concerns. XI. Actions and Recommendations

A. Main Event Space Audio System: The audio system receives a 20% negative response rate, the second highest negative rate.

Action (Corrective): Upgrade the sound system when funding is available. Recommendation (For Future Buildings): Not Applicable.

B. Main Event Space Lighting: One of the coaches expresses a desire to be able to control the lighting in this space. “I wish there was a way for the coaches to control the lights on the main court and on the practice court……”

Action (Corrective): Explore the feasibility of enhanced lighting controls. Recommendation (For Future Buildings): Not Applicable.

C. Locker Room Lights: While the locker rooms receive only positive and neutral responses, one coach notes that they should be able to control all of the lights when they watch films. “Lighting is tough, because when we go to watch film I can never turn off all the lights...only some, would like the ability to shut the lights off.”

Action (Corrective): Explore the feasibility of enhanced lighting controls. Recommendation (For Future Buildings): Not Applicable.

june 5, 2014 memorandum to: the buildings and grounds ... · for improvements. the plan includes a...

Documents