Virginia State UniversityWagner College

Washburn UniversityWellesley College

Wesleyan UniversityWest Chester University of

PennsylvaniaWest Virginia Health Sciences Center

West Virginia University Western Connecticut State University

Western Oregon UniversityWestfield State University

Wheaton College (MA)Whitworth University

Widener UniversityWilliams College

Williston Northampton SchoolWorcester State College

Xavier UniversityYeshiva University

Youngstown State University

University of TennesseeKnoxville’s Drive to the Top 25

15 May 2013

“UT Can’t Reach our Top 25 and     Masterplan Goals without our 

FACILITIES GROUP being Top 25.”Chancellor Jimmy Cheek

“The Plan”

FACILITIES SERVICES PRIORITIES

Embrace And Advance UT Visions And Goals

Lead The Drive To Top 25

Position Our Team For Success

Commitments to UT FacilitiesProject Investment & Construction

$12.5M Crisis Maintenance Projects in 2013

$11M/Yr. Continuing Funding for Deferred Maintenance

$8.0M Research Renovations Record >$650M in Capital Projects

Currently including: $167M Student Union $60M Residence Hall $115M Strong Hall $95M Research Lab $110M Classroom Building $100M Engineering Building $250M Housing Redevelopment $100M Housing/Parking

Chancellor’s Commitments to Facilities

$600,000 For New Facilities IT/Communications System

$2M Additional One Time Funding $7M+ increase/Yr. Facilities Dept.

Funding including: $800,000/Yr. To In-Source All Custodial

Services Includes 100+ new In house custodial

positions $50,000/Yr. for Facilities IT Support $307,000/Yr. Salary Increases (above

overall University increases) 52 additional new Positions 5% Budget Increase for Training plus

3 Full Time Training Positions

Commitments to UT FacilitiesProject Investment & Construction

$12.5M Crisis Maintenance Projects in 2013

$11M/Yr. Continuing Funding for Deferred Maintenance

$8.0M Research Renovations Record >$650M in Capital Projects

Currently including: $167M Student Union $60M Residence Hall $115M Strong Hall $95M Research Lab $110M Classroom Building $100M Engineering Building $250M Housing Redevelopment $100M Housing/Parking

Chancellor’s Commitments to Facilities

$600,000 For New Facilities IT/Communications System

$2M Additional One Time Funding $7M+ increase/Yr. Facilities Dept.

Funding including: $800,000/Yr. To In-Source All Custodial

Services Includes 100+ new In house custodial

positions $50,000/Yr. for Facilities IT Support $307,000/Yr. Salary Increases (above

overall University increases) 52 additional new Positions 5% Budget Increase for Training plus

3 Full Time Training Positions

Sightlines’ involvement

With so much change coming, how could UT 

facilities services manage, track and 

communicate the progress?

Space Profile: The hand that you are dealt

Overall Age Profile Similar to Peers

18% 20%

30% 24%

31% 36%

21% 20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

UTK Peer Average

% o

f Tot

al C

ampu

s G

SF

Campus Age by Category

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

52% 56%

Age Profile Impacts Future Capital Strategy

10

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

GSF

Constructed Space Since 1880

Cumulative GSF

Key Questions: How do you address the

backlog of needs? How do you address the

ongoing renewal needs?

Note: Renewal needs are not exclusive to new buildings. For example, a 20 year old building may have a mechanical system that lasts 40 years, therefore the renewal need would come 20 years from now.

Construction Vintage at UTLooking at the age of campus based on era of construction

11

23%

43%

10%

24%

UT Construction Vintage

Pre War Post War Modern Complex

Pre-War• Built before 1951

Post-War

• Built between 1951 and 1975

Modern

• Built between 1975 and 1990

Complex• Built in 1991 and newer

Low

er Q

ualit

y co

nstr

uctio

nLo

wer

Qua

lity

cons

truc

tion

Construction Vintage at UTLooking at the age of campus based on era of construction

12

23%

43%

10%

24%

UT Construction Vintage

Pre War Post War Modern Complex

Based on Construction Vintage, 53% of UT’s campus was constructed during low-quality construction periods versus 44% for peers, facing life-cycles more rapidly

23%

32%12%

33%

Peers Construction Vintage

Pre War Post War Modern Complex

UT has more space in “low-quality” construction eras

13

23%24%

UT Construction Vintage

Pre War Post War Modern Complex

Based on Construction Vintage, 53% of UT’s campus was constructed during low-quality construction periods versus 44% for peers, facing life-cycles more rapidly

23%33%

Peers Construction Vintage

Pre War Post War Modern Complex

53% 44%

Capital Investment & Backlog:The impact of history

Outspending Peers in Recent YearsRecent increase in capital matches growing needs in Post-war & Modern Buildings

Increased capital commitment starting to show up in FY12 and

FY13.

Increased investment “stabilizing backlog”

$0.0

$10.0

$20.0

$30.0

$40.0

$50.0

$60.0

$70.0

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Mill

ions

Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Target Need Equilibrium Need

Decreasing Backlog

Stabilizing Backlog

Increasing Backlog

Despite the progress more is needed

• Recent increases in capital investments have meant that UT exceeds peer investment levels.

• Despite the increase, UT is just reaching the annual investment target require to “Stabilize” the backlog

• Low historical investment levels have left UT with a greater backlog than peers and a “pent up” capital demand.

A dual approach to addressing DM

$0.0

$10.0

$20.0

$30.0

$40.0

$50.0

$60.0

$70.0

$80.0

$90.0

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Mill

ions

Total Capital Investment by Type

Existing Space Spending New Space Spending

• Existing space investments targeting key systematic deferred maintenance issues

• New space being used to build new buildings to replace older facilities with significant deferred maintenance needs

• Replacing smaller buildings with larger (Operational efficiencies)

• Replace aging programmatic space with modern facilities.

Operational Effectiveness:Positioning the team for success

Some key operational Initiatives

• Separate “maintenance” from “projects”

• Bring Custodial operations back in-house to improve service levels

• Implement a new work order system, improve PM tracking and Service delivery

• Grounds performance – Big issue for the Vice Chancellor

Bringing custodial staffing in-house

4.37UT FY13

4.21UT FY12

Cleanliness Score

Expanding the Grounds comparisonSEC, ACC, and Big 10 institutions

4.0

4.0Peer Average

UT FY12

4.2UT FY13

4.0UT FY12

Less Staff

Less Materials

Less Supervision

Conclusion

With Facilities leading the “drive to 25” and the Institutional commitments to facilities at UT, the need for managing, tracking and communicating facilities progress was of upmost importance.

• Validate the need for change. The campus profile and historical investment had left a substantial “pent up” capital demand, require additional capital investment.

• Shift the culture from reactive to proactive. The chancellors commitment to on-going deferred maintenance funding of approximately $8M / yr. will continue to improve and already improving capital position.

• Targeting operational resources to improve service. Significant commitments have been made to operations, with performance beginning to show improvement.

Presenter Profile15 May 2013

Location: Knoxville, TNFounded: 1794Students: Over 27,000Acreage: 560GSF: Over 14 Million

Location: Guilford, CTFounded: 2000Member Campuses: Over 450

Presenter Profile

Dave IrvinAssociate Vice Chancellor for Facilities ServicesUniversity of Tennessee KnoxvilleEmail: Irvin@utk.edu

Peter ReevesAssociate Director – Member OperationsSightlines LLCEmail: Preeves@sightlines.edu

More info

Questions & Comment