Facilities Management

Maintenance Planning
FY 10-FY14

John Kiefer, Director James Gibbs, Director

Facilities Management Facilities Services Maintenance Management
Agenda

Maintenance Strategies

Projects, Benchmarks, and Funding

Emerging Issues
50+ professionals serving institutions in over 30 states

Established in 2001

ME
Over 250 Campuses WA
VT
MT ND
MN NH
Evenly Split between Public and Private OR NY MA
ID WI
SD RI
MI
CT
7 State Systems WY
IA
PA NJ

NE OH DE
NV IL IN
Database of over 750M GSF UT
WV
VA
MD
CO KS
CA MO KY DC
NC
TN
OK SC
AZ AR
NM
GA
MS AL

LA
Developed a tool based on TX
FL

Common vocabulary AK

Consistent analytical methodology

HI

Credibility through benchmarking

0 1-5 6-11 12-27 18-23 24+

3
Technical complexity and relative building size compared to peers

Peer Institutions

Boston College

Brown University

Carnegie Mellon University

Dartmouth College

Duke University

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Northwestern University

Princeton University

The Johns Hopkins University

The Pennsylvania State University

University of Michigan

University of Notre Dame

University of Pennsylvania

4
Increased density increases wear and tear and operational demands

Density Factor
Sightlines Distribution

Liberal Arts Comprehensive Urban / City

Institution University Institution Community

Peers User/100,000GSF Cornell User/100,000GSF

5
Sightlines 2010
Composite perspective of Cornell University grounds

Campus Grounds Score

Cornell University 3.9
Peers 4.1

6
Sightlines 2010
Endowed campus cleaner than Contract Colleges

Campus Cleanliness Score

Endowed Composite 4.5
Contract Colleges 4.2
Peers 4.3

7
Sightlines 2010
 Shops being sized to support maintenance activities
400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

8
Sightlines 2010
Endowed considerably younger than Contract Colleges

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

0 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 50+
Endowed Contract Colleges

9
Sightlines 2010
MAINTENANCE:
The activity to offset facilities deterioration
caused by the elements and by wear and
tear.

MAINTENANCE is NOT:
- Installation of systems or building
elements that do not already exist
(for example adding air conditioning).

- Modifications for change of space use

(program changes).
The maintenance allocation is divided between three distinct types

Scheduled activity to extend life and increase

PREVENTIVE reliability.
Inspections, lubrications, filters, etc

Scheduled projects which arrest deterioration or

PLANNED restore facilities.
Roof replacements, equipment renewal, etc

Unscheduled day-to-day repairs to restore item

into operable condition.
CORRECTIVE Can be used as a barometer of the efficacy of
Preventive & Planned programs.
 Planned Maintenance

Scheduled projects to restore or

renew building systems

Deferred projects are those that are

delayed beyond cost/benefit balance

Does not address programmatic

upgrades or addition of new systems
Maintenance Management Tools
Building cost report
Expenditures are captured by maintenance type, facility,
and system type

Maximo
Preventive maintenance scheduling and tracking
Job plans and schedule review underway
Corrective maintenance work requests and tracking
Implementation of KPIs underway- response time, uniform
application of labor etc.

Facilities assessment process and database (FPNMS)

Conversion from legacy Filemaker system complete
Consider functionality in addition to condition
New database allows easier tracking and forecasting
Planned Maintenance needs identification

Deficiencies are added to the list based on:

Building assessments,

Corrective maintenance requests,

Facilities users and support staff discussions,

Life safety system inspections,

Unit-driven planning efforts.

Maintenance needs prioritization

Individual projects are assigned a likelihood score

and an impact score.

Likelihood scores range from 1 to 5 with 5 being

almost certain.

Impact scores also range from 1 to 5 with 5 being

catastrophic.

These two scores are multiplied to arrive at a risk

score.
Impact of loss or failure

Level Definition Score

Catastrophic Imminent or certain life safety risk; large area may require shutdown; 5
long recovery time; severe financial consequences; compromise
institutions image.

Major Potentially major safety risk; significant failure requiring a building 4

or system shutdown with a long recovery period; major financial
consequences; financial hardship for the institution.
Moderate A significant failure requiring non-routine activity; closing a floor or 3
section of a building; moderate financial consequences such as budget
reallocations or increased borrowing.
Minor Can be managed under routine activity; requires closing of a small 2
area; handled within existing budgets.
Insignificant A failure not requiring a shutdown or closure; minor occupant 1
discomfort; poor appearance; failure would have little financial
consequences.
 Likelihood/Frequency of loss or failure

Level Definition Score

Almost certain Extremely likely to occur (at least once a year). Failure or dealing 5
with the situation a daily consideration.

Likely Likely to occur, has occurred previously and could reasonably occur 4
again. Failure or dealing with the situation a monthly consideration.
Periodic Periodically has occurred in the past. Failure or dealing with the 3
situation a consideration in 1-2 years.
Unlikely Has happened in the past. Failure or dealing with the situation a 2
consideration in 3-5 years.
Rare Extremely rare or has not occurred in the past. Requires attention in 1
5-10 years.
Planned Maintenance funding benchmarks

Suggested funding levels*

Whitestone Research 1.2% - 2.6%
Stanford Predictive Model 1.5% - 2.6%
Ohio State Life-cycle Model 2.2% - 3.8%
Building Research Board 2% - 4%
Sightlines 1.5% - 3%
APPAs Buildings The Gifts 1.1% - 1.8%
That Keep on Taking
* percent of current
replacement value

20
 The current replacement value of the Ithaca
Campus is approximately $5 Billion.

If we are to maintain functional facilities in perpetuity, we

must reinvest at the rate of 1.5% -3% per year.
 Total spending compared to equilibrium and target need

Annual Investment Equilibrium, Target, and Actual Expenditures

$80.0
Composite - Cornell University

Equilibrium Need

$70.0

$60.0

$50.0
$ in Millions

Functional
Obsolescence Need
$40.0
$47.6 $46.1 $66.9
$30.0 $42.5 $40.9

$20.0

$10.0
$14.8 $14.1 $14.6 $12.9
$9.1
$0.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Departmental and Capital Funds Planned and Preventative Maintenance

22
Sightlines 2010
 Total spending compared to equilibrium and target need

Annual Investment Equilibrium, Target, and Actual Expenditures

$45.0

$40.0

$35.0
Contract Colleges

$30.0 Equilibrium Need

$ in Millions

$25.0
Functional
$20.0 Obsolescence Need

$37.9
$15.0
$27.8 $26.5
$28.1 $32.3
$10.0

$5.0
$2.8 $2.4 $2.9 $2.1 $2.1
$0.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Departmental and Capital Funds Planned and Preventative Maintenance

23
Sightlines 2010
 Total spending compared to equilibrium and target need

Annual Investment Equilibrium, Target, and Actual Expenditures

$45.0 Equilibrium Need

$40.0

$35.0
Endowed Campus

Functional
$30.0 Obsolescence Need
$ in Millions

$25.0

$20.0 $19.6
$19.8
$14.3 $29.0 $17.4
$15.0 $8.6

$10.0

$5.0 $12.1 $11.7 $11.7 $10.8

$7.0 $7.1
$0.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Departmental and Capital Funds Planned and Preventative Maintenance

24
Sightlines 2010
Percent of target funded is quickly losing pace with peers

Nearly 50% decrease in FY09

25
Sightlines 2010
 FY04-FY09 actual spending declines by 47%

Annual Investment Equilibrium, Target, and Actual Expenditures

$30.0

Target Need
$25.0

$11.7
$20.0
$ in Millions
Endowed Campus

$15.0
$0.4
$0.8 $0.7 $1.0
$0.9
$10.0
$15.1 $0.4 $0.4
$12.7
$5.0 $11.3 $11.0 $10.8 $10.3
$6.6 $6.6

$0.0
FY 09 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Functional
Obsol. Need Space/Program Envelope/Mech

Total $ $26.8 M $13.1M $12.1M $11.7M $11.8M $11.2M $7.0M $7.0M Average

% of target N/A 64% 58% 55% 52% 48% 25% 25% 50%

Sightlines 2010
Endowed Planned Maintenance Projects
funded and underway:
A.D. White House: EPDM
roof ripping off.

7 chimneys need
comprehensive repair or
rebuilding
Morrill & McGraw: entrances are
crumbling. Structural, single-piece
treads delaminated & unsupported have
the potential to collapse in.
Base of Sibley Dome:
114 patches visible in
this one photo alone
McGraw Hall:
Structural degradation from
leaking roof.
 Scenario # 1
Assumptions:
FY10 Planned Maintenance: $4.8M; Preventative Maintenance: $2.3M
FY10 YTD One-Time Capital total: $17.3M (excluding new space investment)
FY11 Planned Maintenance: $6.4M; Capital Funds: $12.7M
$50.0 FY12 Planned Maintenance: $6.1M; Capital Funds: $11.7M
FY13 Planned Maintenance: $5.6M; Capital Funds: $11.5M
FY14 Planned Maintenance: $8.5M; Capital Funds: $12.0M
FY15 Planned Maintenance: $8.3M; Capital Funds: $14.5M
$45.0 Preventative Maintenance inflated at 2% per year from FY10 Levels
Capital Funds amounts exclude new space investment

$40.0

$35.0
Endowed Campus

$30.0

$25.0

$20.0

$15.0

$10.0

$5.0

$0.0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Preventative and Planned Maintenance Departmental and Capital Funds Investment Target Total $

Sightlines 2010
 Under scenario # 1 backlog grows 27% by 2015
Asset Reinvestment Backlog Over Time
$80

$70

$60

$50
Endowed Campus
$/GSF

$40

$30

$20

$10

$0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Maint/Repair Modernization Infrastructure Deterioration Factor

33
Sightlines 2010
 Backlog currently below peer level
Endowed Campus

34
Sightlines 2010
What does it mean for our buildings?

There is a growing backlog of life safety and envelope problems

Deterioration is increasingly visible

Water infiltration increasing damage, especially to timber frame structures

Following are examples of projects we are unable to fund:

 Elevation
CORNE ADJACENT
R PIER WALL PIER McGraw Hall:
1 2
Masonry degradation is allowing many areas
of the structural stone faade to buckle and
shift. Critical roof replacement work had to
be postponed to summer 11 to study the
Enlarged severity of the structural weakness.
Section
Probe Inside Wall of Room 350
Sage House:
Lack of painting the exterior wood elements, and a leaking slate roof at end of its life, have both
contributed to severe, systemic rot.
Sage House:
Exterior Rot
 3 old caulk lines track movement.
West End: inner and
outer wythes of masonry
are delaminating.
Exterior wythe has
shifted out several
inches, and is unstable.
Interior floor framing
relies on this wall for
support.
Mortar used to
close the gap,
but it continues
to open further

Sibley Hall has a multitude of serious structural issues

Rand Hall:
Structural failure throughout exterior
masonry. Open holes allowing water,
and accelerating deterioration.
Sage Chapel:
Masonry
deterioration.
Note bricks
heaved outward
1-2 allowing
water into the
wall assembly.
Jennie McGraw Tower: Roof is leaking. Note water running
down wood roof decking and ponding at base of steel structural support.
Schoellkopf Crescent Rehabilitation:

Currently holding on start of phase 5.

-Clay roof tiles leaking
-Concrete/steel seating deterioration
-Column replacement
-Concrete coating (to protect work)

-Failure to continue places the recent

repairs in jeopardy of deterioration.
Big Red Barn:

In 2007 a temporary
structural
stabilization project
bought us 5 years.

The walls and sill

plates continue to rot.
Olin Library: exterior stone faade has failed, allowing water intrusion.
Malott Hall:
The limestone facade appears to be moving. The amount of play in the
anchor system has resulted in this condition.
Emerging Issues

Electronic obsolescence

Average age of endowed buildings

Integrated facility planning

 Summary
Increasing use of data to optimize
preventive and corrective maintenance

A significant increase in planned

maintenance spending is needed to stabilize
deferred maintenance

Integrated facility planning is an opportunity

to optimize facilities spending
 An open
invitation

Maintenance Management
extends an open offer to tour
any, or all, of these projects
for a first hand look and in-
depth discussion.