REVISED
2/18/11
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS
MEETING OF THE
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 25, 2011
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS COMMITTEE
Friday, February 25, 2011
10:55 a.m.– 12:15 p.m.
Board Room, The Rotunda
Committee Members:
The Hon. Lewis F. Payne, Chair
Stewart H. Ackerly
Hunter E. Craig
The Hon. Alan A. Diamonstein
Susan Y. Dorsey
Helen E. Dragas
W. Heywood Fralin
Robert D. Hardie
Mark J. Kington
John O. Wynne, Ex-officio
Bradley H. Gunter, Consulting Member
AGENDA
PAGE
I.
II.
CONSENT AGENDA (Ms. Sheehy)
A.
Easement, Request for City of Charlottesville to
Grant Easement, 11th Street-Underground Duct Bank
B.
Architect/Engineer Selection, North Grounds
Recreation Center Addition/Renovation
1
2
ACTION ITEMS (Ms. Sheehy)
A.
Concept, Site, and Design Guidelines (Ms. Sheehy to 3
introduce Mr. David J. Neuman; Mr. Neuman to report)
1.
North Grounds Recreation Center Addition/
Renovation
2.
Hospital Helipad Relocation
B.
Schematic Design Approval, College at Wise,
17
Accessible Cross-Campus Walkway
C.
Naming of the Band Building
20
III. REVIEW ITEM
•
Schematic Design Review, Blandy Experimental
Farm Research Laboratory (Mr. Neuman)
23
IV.
28
REPORT BY THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
(Ms. Sheehy)
•
Vice President’s Remarks
1.
Architect/Engineer Selection Process
2.
Deferred Maintenance (Written Report)
PAGE
V.
REPORT BY THE ARCHITECT FOR THE UNIVERSITY
(Mr. Neuman)
•
Architect for the University’s Remarks
Reports:
1.
Historic Preservation Colloquium
2.
Precinct Planning
3.
Olympic Sports Entry and Track & Field
Area Plan
VI.
MISCELLANEOUS BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS REPORTS
(Written Reports)
A.
Major Projects Status Report, Future Design
Actions and Planning Studies
B.
Architect/Engineer Selection Report for Projects
Less Than $5 Million
C.
Professional Services Contracts
D.
Pavilion Occupancy Status
VII. APPENDICES
A.
Deferred Maintenance Report
B.
Historic Preservation Colloquium Description
29
30
35
36
37
BOARD OF VISITORS CONSENT AGENDA
A.
EASEMENT, REQUEST FOR CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE TO GRANT
EASEMENT, 11TH STREET-UNDERGROUND DUCT BANK: Approves a
permanent easement for the University of Virginia from the City
of Charlottesville
The University wishes to acquire a permanent easement from
the City of Charlottesville across 11th Street, south of West
Main Street and north of the Railroad tracks, for an underground
duct bank. The duct bank will house certain electrical and data
connections eventually terminating at the Cavalier Sub-station.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
Committee and by the Board of Visitors
APPROVAL OF ACQUISITION OF A PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR THE
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FROM THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
RESOLVED, the acquisition of a permanent easement across
11th Street, south of West Main Street and north of the railroad
tracks, and in the approximate location shown on that certain
plat entitled “Plat Showing A Variable Width Utility Easement
Over 11th Street” dated November 22, 2010, and prepared by
Timmons Group, to facilitate the installation of a duct bank, is
approved; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, the Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer is authorized, on behalf of the University, to
approve and execute a deed of easement and related documents, to
approve revisions to the Plat (including, without limitation,
revisions to change the location of the permanent easement), to
incur reasonable and customary expenses, and to take such other
actions as deemed necessary and appropriate to acquire such
permanent easement; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, all prior acts performed by the Executive
Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, and other officers
and agents of the University, in connection with the acquisition
of such permanent easement, are in all respects approved,
ratified, and confirmed.
1
B.
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION, NORTH GROUNDS RECREATION
CENTER ADDITION/RENOVATION: Approval of architect/engineer
selection
This $15.2 to $17.2 million project was presented for
approval as an addition to the Major Capital Projects Program at
the November 2010 Board of Visitors meeting. Recreation
programs and facilities create vibrancy and vitality on the
University Grounds. The existing North Grounds facility is a
popular fitness and recreation destination for students, faculty
and staff. The proposed project will renovate key areas in the
existing facility and construct an addition that expands
available amenities and improves access and circulation. The
addition will contain cardio/strength training areas, racquet
sport courts, multipurpose spaces, a lap pool, customer service
and support spaces.
We recommend the selection of Cannon Design, of Arlington,
Virginia for the contract. The firm has extensive experience
with aquatic and recreational facilities and has previously
completed a comprehensive study of all UVA recreation
facilities.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
APPROVAL OF ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION, NORTH GROUNDS
RECREATION CENTER ADDITION/RENOVATION
RESOLVED, Cannon Design, of Arlington, Virginia is approved
for performance of architectural and engineering services for
the North Grounds Recreation Center Addition/Renovation.
2
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
February 25, 2011
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.A.1. Concept, Site, and Design Guidelines,
North Grounds Recreation
Center Addition/Renovation
$15.2 - $17.2 Million
BACKGROUND: The University of Virginia has one of the leading
collegiate recreational sports programs in the country, serving
undergraduate students and significant numbers of graduate
students, faculty, staff, and their families. The recreation
program is distributed among five facilities: Aquatic and
Fitness Center, Memorial Gymnasium, and the Slaughter, North
Grounds, and Outdoor Recreation Centers.
Each of these facilities has a distinct character and
serves specific user groups. Accessibly located throughout the
Grounds, the facilities have been very successful. The demand
is expected to accelerate as enrollment, program participation
and fitness, health and wellness options increase.
Anticipating these changes, the University conducted a
Project Formulation Study in 2009. University leadership,
faculty, staff, and students were surveyed; existing facilities
evaluated; peer institutions benchmarked; and construction and
operating costs were modeled on several long-term scenarios.
The resulting phased development plan distributes programs
across Grounds, addresses the most pressing unmet needs, and
anticipates enrollment projections. The first phase will be to
renovate and to construct an addition to the existing North
Grounds Recreation Center.
CONCEPT: The North Grounds has a suburban character, lacking a
strong link to the central Grounds. Targeted as a growth area
in the 2008 Grounds Plan, the North Grounds will have an
increased density and a broader array of amenities to reinforce
the connection with the University and to complement its
existing housing, athletic, and graduate academic programs.
3
The North Grounds Recreation Center (NGRC) provides a
popular gathering place for faculty, staff, and students in the
precinct and beyond. The 2009 Project Formulation Study
identified a new aquatic facility as the highest campus
priority. The proposed NGRC addition will house an eight lane
pool, designed for lap swimming, a wet classroom, a sauna,
locker rooms, and other pool support. The renovations will
improve access and internal circulation, and will create a
seamless connection between the new facility and the existing
NGRC. An open, central area will welcome visitors and serve as
an informal social venue. New multi-purpose spaces will be
flexible, designed to accommodate mind/body wellness, martial
arts, and other activities. Other renovations will upgrade and
expand the number of regulation racquetball and squash courts.
Two new outdoor tennis courts will round out the NGRC recreation
program.
The project goals are centered on providing a lively,
inviting facility that promotes social interaction, physical
fitness, and wellness in the University community.
DISCUSSION: The Office of the Architect has prepared the
concept, site, and design guidelines. Mr. Neuman will review
the site and guidelines with the Committee.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
APPROVAL OF CONCEPT, SITE, AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR NORTH
GROUNDS RECREATION CENTER ADDITION/RENOVATION
RESOLVED, the concept, site, and design guidelines, dated
February 25, 2011, prepared by the Architect for the University
for an addition and renovations to the North Grounds Recreation
Center, are approved; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, the project will be presented for further
review at the schematic design level of development.
4
North Grounds Recreation Center
Concept, Site and Design Guidelines
A) Siting Criteria
The University of Virginia general siting criteria for all new facilities include the following
components. Those highlighted are the most pertinent in determining the siting recommendation
for the new North Grounds Recreation Center.
• Conforms with overall land use plan and district/area plans.
• Reinforces functional relationships with adjacent and future facilities, and is compatible
with other neighboring uses.
• Satisfies access requirements- vehicular and service.
• Maximizes infill opportunities to utilize land resources and existing infrastructure.
• Minimizes site development costs, including extension of utilities, access, loss of parking,
mass grading, etc.
• Minimizes opportunity cost; (i.e.,) value of this use and size versus other alternatives.
• Provides a size that is adequate, but not excessive, for initial program, future expansion, and
ancillary uses.
• Allows for incorporating sustainability principles in terms of solar orientation, reuse of
historic structures, storm water management, etc.
• Avoids unnecessary environmental impacts, including significant tree removal or filling of
existing stream valleys.
• Allows site visibility and aesthetic character as appropriate for the intended use and for the
neighborhood.
• Minimizes time for implementation of project.
5
Proposed Site Plan with Expansion Area Indicated
The proposed site has been carefully selected in coordination
with recent precinct planning efforts to ensure maximum
flexibility for future developments. This site does not impact
potential future expansion of the Darden School of Business, and
has been reviewed with the Dean’s Office.
6
Site Photo from Leonard Sandridge Road with Existing NGRC and Expansion Area
7
B) Design Guidelines
Site Planning
- Building and tennis court setbacks will be a minimum of 30’ from all adjacent roadways.
- Develop an entrance from the parking area on the north side of the site.
- Building footprint should be compact, maximizing current site development and preserving
future building sites.
Stormwater
- Adhere to Meadow Creek Stormwater Master Plan.
- Address stormwater quality and quantity requirements onsite to the extent possible.
Circulation and Parking
- Maintain the number of existing surface parking spaces.
- Configure sidewalks to connect appropriately to the surrounding pedestrian system and
adjacent streets.
- Maintain existing pedestrian circulation routes.
- Service to the building to be provided from the north side of the site.
- Appropriate additional bicycle parking to be provided.
Architecture
- Minimize building mass by using sloping topography to conceal building volume.
- Develop massing, fenestration and architectural details to establish a compatible relationship to
existing NGRC and nearby buildings.
- Develop roof form that is functional, complementary and contextual with existing NGRC, as
well as nearby structures.
- Utilize materials and colors consistent with the University palette.
- Integrate basic tenets of sustainable design, and attain LEED certification with Silver level
target.
- Explore geo-thermal and solar-thermal options for heating either (or both) swimming pool and
main structure.
- Overall building design should integrate “sound planning, strong landscape, and memorable
architecture”.
- Consider views of new facility from nearby facilities and surrounding community.
Landscape
- Entry to be designed to provide a safe and attractive pedestrian experience.
- Existing memorial trees in the area shall be protected and preserved.
- Provide appropriate and safe levels of pedestrian lighting in accordance with University
standards.
- Screen all trash/recycling areas, above-grade utilities, equipment and loading docks.
- All site furnishings selections will comply with the University Facilities Design Guidelines;
signage will comply with University sign standards.
- Minimize loss of existing tree canopy. Replace all significant trees (6” dbh) removed for
construction on site or in the vicinity.
8
Review and Compliance
The Office of the Architect for the University is responsible for the review and approval of
project compliance with these design guidelines.
Photo of Existing Entry from Massie Road to North Grounds Recreation Center
9
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
February 25, 2011
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.A.2. Concept, Site, and Design Guidelines,
Hospital Helipad Relocation
$5.0 - $6.7 million
BACKGROUND: Two planning efforts completed in 2010, the East
Chiller Plant study and the Emergency Department Expansion
study, identified the need to relocate the existing Hospital
Helipad. Short term, the East Chiller Plant Project, currently
in schematic design, will necessitate the relocation of the
helipad from its ground level location adjacent to Lee Street.
Longer term, the relocation of the helipad will allow for a
phased expansion of the Emergency Department.
Several site options have been evaluated for a new helipad
facility, giving consideration to time of travel, safety of the
aircraft both during take-off and landing, critical adjacencies
to emergency care, and various FAA regulations. The study’s
recommendation to locate the helipad on the roof of the existing
hospital proved to be the most advantageous option in addressing
the critical functions and requirements of this facility. The
proposed rooftop location eliminates any potential flight path
conflicts with existing or planned facilities, and provides a
site for a future Emergency Department expansion.
CONCEPT: The proposed rooftop helipad project would construct a
new helipad on one of the three University Hospital towers. The
proposed landing pad is approximately 46 x 46 feet square and
would require internal structural modifications to support the
helipad and exterior connecters to the existing elevator tower.
Additionally, the existing enclosed elevator and stairs will be
extended significantly above roof level; elevator equipment
upgraded; and FAA-required lighting and fire suppression systems
will be added.
DISCUSSION: The Office of the Architect has prepared the
concept, site and design guidelines. Mr. Neuman will review the
site and design guidelines with the Committee.
10
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
APPROVAL OF CONCEPT, SITE, AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HOSPITAL
HELIPAD RELOCATION
RESOLVED, the concept, site, and design guidelines, dated
February 25, 2011, prepared by the Architect for the University
for the Hospital Helipad Relocation, are approved; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, the project will be presented for further
review at the schematic design level of development.
11
Proposed
Existing
Aerial of the Health System with the proposed and existing
Helipad sites indicated
Proposed
Rooftop Helipad
Locations
Existing
Helipad
Site Context
12
Hospital Helipad Relocation
Concept, Site and Design Guidelines
A) Siting Criteria
The University of Virginia general siting criteria for all new facilities includes the following
components. Those highlighted are the most pertinent in determining the siting recommendation
for the new Helipad Facility.
•
Conforms with the 2008 Grounds Plan and precinct/area plans, including the 2010
Health System Area Plan.
•
Reinforces functional relationships with other components of the same department or
program, and is compatible with other neighboring uses.
•
Satisfies access requirements - vehicular and service.
•
Maximizes infill opportunities to utilize land resources and existing infrastructure.
•
Minimizes site development costs, including extension of utilities, access, loss of
parking, mass grading, etc.
•
Minimizes opportunity cost (i.e., value of this use and size versus other alternatives).
•
Provides a size that is adequate, but not excessive, for initial program, future
expansion, and ancillary uses.
•
Allows for incorporating sustainability principles in terms of solar orientation, reuse of
historic structures, storm water management, etc.
•
Avoids unnecessary environmental impacts, including significant tree removal or
filling of existing stream valleys.
•
Allows site visibility and aesthetic character, as appropriate for the intended use and for
the neighborhood.
•
Minimizes time for implementation of project.
13
Example of Similar Elevated Rooftop Helipad Facility (Annapolis, MD)
14
View of University Hospital (2010)
Medical Center Perspective with Site Indicated
15
B) Design Guidelines
Site Planning
- Project will comply with 2010 Health System Area Plan in overall design intent.
- Fire safety code considerations will comply with FAA regulations for helipad facilities.
- Helipad location must accommodate the operation of adjacent uses including impacts to
critical hospital units in the floors below, as well as access to mechanical penthouse and roof
maintenance.
- Fume entrainments into the Hospital air intake systems must be mitigated.
Architecture
- Facility will be erected at one level above the Hospital mechanical penthouse enclosure, with
the related extensions of existing stair and elevator towers.
- Final massing and architectural details will provide a strong visual relationship to the existing
Hospital’s architecture, especially the new Hospital Bed Expansion project.
- Materials and colors must be consistent with palette of the existing Hospital and the new Bed
Expansion Project.
- Architectural screening will be utilized as necessary to minimize the scale and to mitigate the
visual impact of the Helipad structures.
Review and Compliance
The Office of the Architect for the University is responsible for the review and approval of
project compliance with these design guidelines.
16
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
February 25, 2011
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.B. Schematic Design Approval, College at
Wise, Accessible Cross-Campus Walkway
$915,000 Project Cost
BACKGROUND: The General Assembly has provided funding
($600,000) to improve handicapped accessibility on The
University of Virginia’s College at Wise campus. The College’s
priority for use of these funds is to improve connectivity
between the main academic campus and the athletics precinct,
where the new Multi-Purpose Center is currently being
constructed. The funds for handicapped accessibility will be
combined with $315,000 from the Multi-Purpose Center to create
a 1,415 linear foot walkway graded at 5% to meet ADA standards.
The walk will be cut through the hill that separates the two
areas of the campus and connect the upper campus with the MultiPurpose Center. The cut area will be developed as a series of
flat terraces planted with trees and shrubs. Although this is
not a capital project, the project will make a significant
alteration to the campus environment and, therefore, has been
brought for Committee review and approval. The Executive
Committee of the Wise Board approved the schematic design on
December 3, 2010.
DISCUSSION: The design architect, Thompson & Litton Architects
and Engineers from Wise, in association with Hill Studio
Landscape Architects from Roanoke, in conjunction with the
Architect for the University and representatives from the
College at Wise and Facilities Management, have developed a
schematic design which Mr. Neuman will review with the
Committee.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
17
SCHEMATIC DESIGN APPROVAL, COLLEGE AT WISE, ACCESSIBLE CROSSCAMPUS WALKWAY
RESOLVED, the schematic design for the College at Wise
Accessible Cross-Campus Walkway dated November 12, 2010, and
prepared by Thompson & Litton in association with Hill Studio,
in conjunction with the Architect for the University and others,
is approved for further development and construction.
18
Rendering of Proposed Walk Toward Stadium Area
Site Plan
19
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
February 25, 2011
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.C.
Band Building Naming
BACKGROUND: The current band program at the University was
initiated in 2003 through a generous gift from Carl W. and
Hunter J. Smith for the purpose of developing a marching band
to perform at football games and other events. The Cavalier
Marching Band gave its first public performance on September
11, 2004, in Scott Stadium at the Carl Smith Center, to great
acclaim. It has grown in size and prominence since that
first performance. The Director, William Pease, has
developed other bands as well, including a basketball and
Olympic sports band, a concert band, and a wind ensemble.
Since its inception, the marching band has not had a
permanent indoor practice facility and weather conditions
have affected practice schedules. In 2010, Hunter Smith
provided funds to build a permanent facility in the Betsy and
John Casteen Arts Grounds, which will be completed by August,
2011.
DISCUSSION: Mrs. Smith’s passionate interest in the band
program and her willingness to fund a permanent home for the
program made this project possible. Mrs. Smith and her late
husband, Carl W. Smith, are among the University’s most
dedicated and generous benefactors of both the University in
Charlottesville and The University of Virginia’s College at
Wise. Carl and Hunter Smith provided major support for the
expansion and renovation of Scott Stadium, the Carl Smith
Stadium at Wise, and numerous other projects touching many
areas of the University and the College at Wise. Among other
projects, Hunter Smith supported the expansion and renovation
of the Chancellor’s residence, the Lila Vicars Smith House,
and the Smith Dining Commons at the College at Wise.
Carl Smith served as a member of the Board of Visitors
from 1980 to 1988, and as a two-term trustee of the Darden
Graduate School of Business Administration Foundation.
Hunter Smith serves as the co-chair of the College at Wise’s
capital campaign, which reached its $50 million goal in the
fall of 2010.
20
The band building is a two story structure set into the
hillside north of Ruffin Hall between Culbreth Road and the
CSX railroad tracks. It contains a large rehearsal hall for
the Cavalier Marching Band rehearsals and other events, as
well as an instrument sectional rehearsal room, practice
rooms, offices, and instrument, uniform, and equipment
storage areas. The building’s massing, roof form,
fenestration and architectural detailing establish a
contextual relationship with the adjacent academic buildings,
which include Ruffin Hall, Campbell Hall, the Fiske Kimball
Fine Arts Library, and the Drama Education Building and its
Thrust Theatre Addition. The exterior materials palette is
brick and glass with a copper clad standing-seam roof. The
large rehearsal hall will have an extensive glass window area
facing the Arts Commons, which will flood the room with
natural light and allow visibility from the Commons.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
Committee and by the Board of Visitors
NAMING OF THE BAND BUILDING
WHEREAS, in 2003 Carl W. and Hunter J. Smith provided
the initial funds to launch a marching band at the
University, which was subsequently named the Cavalier
Marching Band; and
WHEREAS, the Cavalier Marching Band made its debut on
September 11, 2004, at Scott Stadium in the Carl Smith
Center, and has become an integral part of the football game
day experience at the University, energizing the crowd and
entertaining with exceptional pre-game and half-time shows;
and
WHEREAS, the band program now includes a basketball and
Olympic sports band, a concert band, and a wind ensemble; and
WHEREAS, the band program needed a dedicated indoor
practice venue in order to be able to rehearse in all seasons
and conditions; and
WHEREAS, Hunter Smith provided the means to build a
first class rehearsal and practice venue in the Betsy and
John Casteen Arts Grounds, which will be completed by August,
2011; and
21
WHEREAS, the band building will contain a large
rehearsal hall for the Cavalier Marching Band rehearsals and
other events, as well as an instrument sectional rehearsal
room, practice rooms, offices, and instrument, uniform, and
equipment storage areas; and
WHEREAS, through this generous gift, Hunter Smith is
continuing the legacy of thoughtful philanthropy that
reflects the passions and interests of her late husband Carl
Smith and herself, and also addresses the institutional needs
of the University;
RESOLVED, the Board of Visitors names the band building
the Hunter Smith Band Building, and thanks Hunter Smith for
her many and varied contributions to the University,
particularly her stewardship of the band program, which is
thriving in large measure due to her active involvement.
22
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
February 25, 2011
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
III. Schematic Design Review,
Blandy Experimental Farm Research Laboratory
$1,450,000
ACTION REQUIRED:
None
BACKGROUND: Blandy Experimental Farm Research Laboratory has
been operated as a biological and environmental sciences field
station since 1927.
Its mission is to increase understanding
of the natural world through research and education. Its 700
acres of fields, forest, and wetlands in rural Clarke County
support the research of undergraduates, graduate students, and
faculty from the University of Virginia and other institutions.
Blandy also hosts the State Arboretum of Virginia, a 170-acre
collection of nearly 8000 trees and shrubs that serves as the
flagship of a robust environmental education outreach program.
Since its inception, the State Arboretum and Blandy
Experimental Farm have shared grounds, facilities, and other
resources. The two institutions share a common goal of
educating and furthering appreciation of natural resources. In
order to enhance this relationship, an overall analysis was
commissioned in 2000 to produce a campus plan for the University
to guide the development of Blandy’s expansion. This plan
focused on bringing the Field Lab’s scientific research to the
forefront of the Arboretum visitor’s experience. Based on this
earlier plan, the 2010 updated plan was developed to identify
specific sites for the expansion of Blandy Farm’s research
mission. The proposed field laboratory building will mark the
beginning of a phased improvement of Blandy Farm’s research
facilities.
The new laboratory building will provide approximately
3,900 gross square feet of modern laboratory and laboratory
support space to accommodate up to six student/faculty research
teams and enhance Blandy Farm’s research capabilities. The new
flexible laboratory facility will create a conducive environment
23
to attract the highest caliber faculty and students to
maintaining Blandy Farm’s prominence as a research station.
DISCUSSION:
The design architect, Train and Partners from
Charlottesville, in association with the Architect for the
University and representatives from the Office of the Executive
Vice President and Provost, the College of Arts and Sciences,
and Facilities Management, have developed a schematic design
which Mr. Neuman will review with the Committee.
24
Site
Main
Entry
Historic Quarters Building
Aerial of Blandy Farm with the Proposed Laboratory Site Highlighted
Historic Quarters Building
25
Site
Master Site Plan Showing Location of Laboratory Building Site
Site
View of the Proposed Site from Classrooms (looking north)
26
Photo of Existing Faculty Apartments
View of Conference Room and Passage
27
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
February 25, 2011
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
IV. Report by the Vice President for
Management and Budget
ACTION REQUIRED:
None
DISCUSSION: The Vice President for Management and Budget and
the Architect for the University will facilitate a discussion of
the architect and engineer consultant selection process used by
the University.
A report is provided annually to the Board of Visitors on
the deferred maintenance backlog and progress made in reducing
that backlog and improving the Facilities Condition Index. The
written report is included as Appendix A.
28
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
February 25, 2011
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
V. Report by the Architect for the
University
DISCUSSION: Mr. Neuman will provide an update on the planning
for the April 2011 Historic Preservation Colloquium related to
the continued repair and restoration of The Academical Village.
(See Appendix B)
He will also provide reports on recent precinct planning
for the Central, North, and West Grounds, and the area plan
being developed in association with planning for the track and
field improvements in the North Grounds Athletics complex.
29
MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS
Buildings and Grounds Committee
University of Virginia
February 25, 2011
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES
JANUARY 13, 2011
Authorized April 3, 2009
Last updated: Jan-11
Project
Total
Project
Working Budget Approval
Scope
Concept/ Architect/
Site/Design Engineer
Guidelines Selection
Architect/
Address
Schematic
Design
Future budget, scope, and design approval actions by the Board of Visitors are highlighted in blue
Contractor/
Address/
Contract Date
Construction
Start
Complete
Comments/Update on
Progress
(TBD until contract awarded)
University of Virginia, 207 - Academic Division
Authorized Academic Division Projects Under Construction
Alderman Rd Res Halls-Phase II, Bldg 1 + Bldg 2 + $
Commons Bldg
Alderman Road - Phase III, Utilities
69,431,000 $
45,577,340
8,500,000
Arts and Sciences Research Building
88,900,000
Chemistry Exhaust Upgrade/ Teaching Labs
Renovation
3,100,000
Apr-09 241 bed, 70k gsf
Oct-08
residence hall; 221
bed, 65k gsf
residence
hall;
8k
Apr-09 10,000lf
new
water
n/a, ren.
pipes; 1,000lf new with no ext.
electrical lines
impact
Oct-07 100,000 gsf
Dec-07
Oct-08
Apr-09 Replace exhaust
fans
Jul-08
Jul-08
Oct-10
Feb-08
14,000,000
12,239,208
Feb-08 25,200 gsf ren
Apr-08
Jun-08
ITC Data Center Building
14,800,000
13,426,400
Feb-07 12,500 gsf
Oct-07
Jun-08
Jordan Hall HVAC
33,000,000
n/a, ren.
with no ext.
impact
Oct-07
McLeod Hall Ren.
14,810,000
Feb-07 50,000 gsf
Jul-08
Newcomb Hall Repair and Renovation
15,200,000
Apr-09 55,420 gsf ren
n/a, ren.
with no ext.
impact
n/a, ren.
with no ext.
impact
Rehearsal Hall
12,700,000
Apr-09 17,898 gsf
Rice Hall/Information Technology Engineering
Building
2,250,000
74,050,000
76,300,000
10,631,000
30
Garrett Hall Renovation
Univ. Bookstore
Subtotal Authorized Projects Under Construction
$
361,372,000
yes
replace HVAC
system
70,800,000 Feb-07; 100,000 gsf
Revised
Oct-07
Jan-07 17,000 gsf new
Sep-09
Ayers Saint
review: DecWM Jordan;
Gross; Baltimore,
08
Richmond;
MD
approval:
7/15/09
Clarke
Nexsen&(of n/a,Feb-09
Dewberry
ren. with
Daniel & Co.;
Davis; Glen Allen,
no ext.
Richmond
VA
impact
Bohlin Cywinski
Oct-08
WM Jordan;
Jackson;
Richmond;
Pittsburgh
4/24/08
Affiliated
Aug-08
Nielsen Builders,
Engineerss
Charlottesville,
Raleigh, NC
4/2/10
Jun-09
May-10
Aug-11 Bldg 1 is 82% complete; Bldg
2 is 74% complete. Commons
is 32% complete.
Dec-10 Construction is 98%
complete.
Nov-08
Aug-11 Construction is 79%
complete.
May-10
Mar-11
Construction is 60%
complete.
Oct-09
Jul-11
Construction is 40%
complete.
review:
Holder
Feb-10
Jun-09
Construction;
approval: Herndon; 1/22/10
Jun-09
RMF Engineering, n/a, ren. with
DPR
Aug-10
Inc.;
no ext.
Construction;
Charlottesville
impact
Falls Church;
3/27/08
Bowie Gridley n/a, ren. with
UVa Special
Aug-09
Architects;
no ext.
Projects; 10/23/08
Washington, DC
impact
Cole & Denny; n/a, ren. with RE Lee & Sons; May-10
Alexandria
no ext.
Charlottesville;
impact
12/2/2009
Jun-11
Construction is 99%
complete.
Jun-13
Construction is 27%
complete.
Apr-12
Construction is 60%
complete.
Architectural n/a, ren. with
Christman
Resources Group,
no ext.
Company;
Inc; San
impact
Alexandria; June
Francisco
2009
Hypertect, Inc;
Roseville,
Minnesota
Feb-09
Feb-09
William Rawn
Associates;
Boston
Dec-07
Feb-08
Feb-09
Feb-09
Bohlin Cywinski
Jackson;
Pittsburgh
Bowie Gridley
Architects;
Washington, DC
review:
Jun-09
approval:
Sep-09
Oct-08
review:
Sep-09
approval:
Nov-09
Nov-12
Phase 1 construction is 60%
complete; Phase 2
construction start Nov 23,
2010; Phase 3 site and
utilities package pricing.
Aug-11 Construction is 42%
complete.
DRP, Inc; Falls
Church; 3/27/09
Dec-09
WM Jordan;
Richmond;
4/24/08
WM Jordan;
Richmond;
9/23/09
Nov-08
Aug-11 Construction is 67%
complete.
May-10
Oct-11
Construction is 58%
complete.
MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES
JANUARY 13, 2011 (CONTINUED)
Authorized April 3, 2009
Last updated: Jan-11
Project
Total
Project
Working Budget Approval
Scope
Concept/ Architect/
Site/Design Engineer
Guidelines Selection
Architect/
Address
Schematic
Design
Future budget, scope, and design approval actions by the Board of Visitors are highlighted in blue
Contractor/
Address/
Contract Date
Construction
Start
Complete
Comments/Update on
Progress
(TBD until contract awarded)
Authorized Academic Division Projects in Planning
2010-12 Maintenance Reserve
$
4,831,197
Alderman Road - Phase III, Bldgs 3 & 4
(less utilities)
61,000,000
Alderman Road - Phase IV, Bldg 5
36,525,000
Blandy Farm Research Building
1,450,000
Apr-09
46,500,000
Apr-09 2 residence halls,
378 beds
Oct-08
Jun-09
Apr-09 Bldg 5 only
Nov-09
Nov-09
Ayers Saint
Gross; Baltimore
Feb-10
Nov-10 3,900 gsf new
Nov-10
n/a, < $5M
Train &
Partners,
Charlottesville,
VA
William Rawn
Associates;
Boston
Affiliated
Engineers
Chapel Hill
TBD
Drama Building Additions: New Thrust
Theater Addition
13,500,000
Apr-09 25,200 gsf
Apr-10
Apr-10
East Chiller Plant
29,000,000
Jun-10
Nov-10
Nov-10
11-Feb
11-Feb
5,000,000
Ivy Stacks I Retrofit
4,882,000
Upgrade Track Facilities, Phase 1
7,000,000
31
Indoor Practice Air Supported Structure
New Cabell Hall Renovation
n/a, maintenance reserve
Ayers Saint
review:
Gross; Baltimore
Jun-09
12,000 ton plant,
w/ 6,000 tons
Apr-09
Apr-09 replace high bay
shelving,
infrastructure
upgrades, fire
pump
Nov-10 track and field
improvements
WM Jordan
Richmond
8/18/10
TBD
May-11
rev: Feb-11
app: Apr11
TBD
TBD
TBD
Design completion July 2011.
10-Nov
TBD
TBD
TBD
Design completion spring
2011.
rev: Feb-11
app: Jun-11
TBD
TBD
TBD
rev: 11-Apr
app: 11-Jun
n/a, ren.
with no ext.
impact
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Jan-11
Jun-11
Fund source amended in
2010-11 Budget Summary.
VMDO,
Charlottesville
VA
Goody Clancy;
Boston
rev: Feb-11
app: Apr11
Oct-08
TBD
TBD
TBD
Design completion April
2011.
TBD
TBD
TBD
review:
RE Lee & Son;
Jun-10
Charlottesville,
approval:
VA 5/28/2010
Sep-10
rev: Apr-11
TBD
app: Jun-11
Jan-11
Nov-12
Design complete.
Construction is on hold
pending state debt issuance.
Design completion by March
2011.
TBD
TBD
n/a, ren. n/a, < $5M Hurd &
with no ext.
Obenchain,
impact
Richmond &
Roanoke
Feb-11
Nov-10
Reflects FY11 state
authorization.
Aug-13 Design completion February
2011.
Design completion May 2011
Feb-07 159,000 gsf ren,
incl. replacing the
south entrance
Feb-10 16,000 gsf new
32,000 gsf ren
Jun-08
Jul-08
Newcomb Hall Dining Expansion
7,600,000
72,400,000
80,000,000
18,000,000
Feb-10
Feb-10
Cole & Denny;
Alexandria
North Grounds Rec Ctr Exp/Ren
17,210,000
Nov-10 30,000 gsf new
Feb-11
Feb-11
TBD
86,455 gsf ren
n/a, ren.
with no ext.
impact
Sep-09
McKinney &
Co; Ashland,
VA
n/a, ren.
with no ext.
impact
TBD
TBD
TBD
20,000 gsf new
Jun-10
<$5M
TBD
rev: Sep-10
app: Sep-10
TBD
TBD
TBD
Phase I: 4k tons
of capacity
Phase II: 2k add'l
tons
Nov-05
Nov-05
Affiliated
Engineers;
Chapel Hill
Jul-06
TBD
Ruffner Hall Renovation
250,000 $23,717,000 -to be Feb-07
approved by BOV
19,798,000
next meeting
20,048,000
SEAS Student Projects Facility/Fac Mgt
4,200,000
Feb-07
Shop Building
revised
Jun-10
South Chiller Plant Addition
35,200,000
Phase I:
Yes
Phase II:
Apr-10
$
337,846,197
Subtotal Authorized Projects in Planning
Phase I: Phase I:
Feb-07
Nov-08
Phase II: Phase II:
TBD
TBD
Schematic design complete.
On hold pending state debt
issuance.
Design Build Contractor
procurement on-going.
MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES
JANUARY 13, 2011 (CONTINUED)
Authorized April 3, 2009
Last updated: Jan-11
Project
Total
Project
Working Budget Approval
Scope
Concept/ Architect/
Site/Design Engineer
Guidelines Selection
Architect/
Address
Schematic
Design
Future budget, scope, and design approval actions by the Board of Visitors are highlighted in blue
Contractor/
Address/
Contract Date
Construction
Start
Complete
Comments/Update on
Progress
(TBD until contract awarded)
University of Virginia, 209 - Medical Center
Authorized Medical Center Projects Under Construction
Emily Couric Clinical Cancer Center
$
74,000,000
Yes
150,000 gsf new
Oct-04
Oct-04
Zimmer-GunsalFrasca;
Washington DC
Hosp 1st Flr Radiology
21,212,000
yes
Hosp 2nd Flr Heart Ctr
15,583,000
Yes
Hosp 2nd Flr ORs/MRI
14,294,000
Jul-06
improve and
upgrade dept
n/a, ren.
with no ext.
impact
Jul-08
Perkins Eastman; n/a, ren. with
Charlotte
no ext.
impact
20,500 gsf ren
n/a, ren.
with no ext.
impact
Jul-08
HKS; Richmond n/a, ren. with
no ext.
impact
Feb-08 2 Ors w/ interoperative MRI +
equipment
n/a, ren.
with no ext.
impact
Jul-08
HKS; Richmond n/a, ren. with
no ext.
impact
38
32
Hosp 2nd Flr Surgical Path Lab
6,581,250
Feb-08 8,800 gsf ren
n/a, ren.
with no ext.
impact
Jul-08
HKS; Richmond n/a, ren. with
no ext.
impact
Hosp Elevators
7,594,000
Feb-08 bank of 2
elevators
n/a, ren.
with no ext.
impact
Jun-08
SmithGroup
n/a, ren. with
MidAtlantic;
no ext.
Washington DC
impact
Hosp HVAC Upgrade-Phase I
4,406,600
Apr-09
Hospital Bed Expansion
80,200,000
Yes
n/a, ren. n/a, < $5M AKF Engineers n/a, ren. with
with no ext.
no ext.
impact
impact
Sep-05
Dec-05
SmithGroup
May-07
MidAtlantic;
Washington DC
Hospital Bed Remodeling, inc. PCC Annex
25,730,000
Lee Street Entry and Connective Elements
Subtotal Authorized Projects Under Construction
$
29,216,500
$
278,817,350
40,000 gsf new
60,000 gsf ren
PCCanne multiple projects
PCCannex
x Apr-09
Apr-09
Other:Fe
Remainder is
b-08
int. ren.
Jan-06 Hospital plaza and
May-07
colonnade
n/a,
multiple
under
$5M
May-07
multiple
Gilbane w/ HJ
Russell;
Richmond;
12/22/05
DPR
Apr-08
Apr-11
Project is 96% complete.
Oct-09
Construction;
Falls Church;
3/9/09
DPR
Oct-09
Construction;
Falls Church;
3/2/09
DPR
Apr-10
Construction;
Falls Church;
3/2/09
DPR
Feb-10
Construction;
Falls Church;
6/5/09
Gilbane w/ HJ
Apr-10
Russell;
Richmond;
2/14/08
DPR Construction Oct-09
Mar-13
Project is 38% complete.
Mar-12
Project is 76% complete.
Mar-12
Project is 85% complete.
Mar-12
Project is 55% complete.
Jan-12
Project is 63% complete.
11-Mar
Project is 94% complete.
Dec-11
Project is 76% complete.
Jan-12
Project is 99% complete.
Gilbane w/ HJ
Russell;
Richmond;
12/6/06
multiple
Jan-09
PCCannex
Jul-07
Jun-09
Remainder is
int. ren.
Zimmer-GunsalJun-08
Gilbane w/ HJ
May-10
Frasca;
Russell;
Washington DC
Richmond; 3/9/09
May-12 Project is 18% complete.
Authorized Medical Center Projects in Planning
Battle Building (Children's MOB)
UVA Foundation Project
$
141,620,000
Apr-09 200,000 gsf new
n/a, UVa Foundation
Helicopter Pad Relocation
6,700,000
Nov-10
Nov-10
Nov-10
Lee Street Re-alignment
2,700,000
Nov-10
Nov-10
Nov-10
3,007,000
154,027,000
Apr-09
Moser Radiation Therapy Addition
Subtotal Authorized Projects in Planning
$
Odell/Stanley
n/a, UVa
Kjellstrom & Lee;
Beaman Sears;
Foundation
Richmond;
Richmond
12/22/05
SmithGroupd
April or June
TBD
Washington DC
2011
Affiliated
Rev: Feb-11
Engineers; Chapel App: Apr or
Hill
Jun-11
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Construction documents are
complete 50% complete.
Underground utility work
project deferred
MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES
JANUARY 13, 2011 (CONTINUED)
Authorized April 3, 2009
Last updated: Jan-11
Project
Total
Project
Working Budget Approval
Scope
Concept/ Architect/
Site/Design Engineer
Guidelines Selection
Architect/
Address
Schematic
Design
Future budget, scope, and design approval actions by the Board of Visitors are highlighted in blue
Contractor/
Address/
Contract Date
Construction
Start
Complete
Comments/Update on
Progress
(TBD until contract awarded)
University of Virginia, 246 - College at Wise
Authorized College at Wise Projects Under Construction
Multi-purpose Center
$
Smiddy Hall Renovation
Subtotal Authorized Projects Under Construction
30,000,000
13,546,000
$
29,805,818
Feb-08 79,000 gsf
Yes
21,524 gsf ren.
2,187 gsf add
6,000 gsf new
Jun-08
Oct-08
Jan-07
Apr-07
Sep-09
TBD
TBD
VMDO
Architects;
Charlottesville
Train & Partners;
Charlottesville
Feb-09
Feb-08
Quesenberry's;
Big Stone Gap,
VA
Rentenbach
Contractors;
Knoxville, TN
Jun-09
Sep-11
Construction is 66%
complete.
Nov-08
May-11 Construction is 75%
complete.
43,546,000
Authorized College At Wise Projects in Planning
2010-12 Maintenance Reserve
Accessibility Projects
New Library
33
Stormwater/Access Rd
Subtotal Authorized Projects in Planning
$
$
255,605
600,000
250,000
3,250,000
46,500,000
50,000,000
2,000,000
52,855,605
Apr-09
Apr-09
Apr-09 79,000 new gsf
Apr-09
TBD
n/a, maintenance reserve
n/a, < $5M
Feb-11
TBD
TBD
n/a, < $5M
TBD
Reflects FY11 state
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Design on hold, pending
issuance of state debt.
can't build without 100% GF
Project
Academic Division / Agency 207
University of Virginia
Current Project Formulation Studies
January 13, 2011
BOV Project
Approval
Bayly (UVa Museum) Addition
Drama Building Addition
Housing Services Building
Indoor Practice Air Supported Structure
Ivy Translational Research Building
JAG School Expansion
Klockner Stadium Expansion, Phase II
Miller Center, Phase III
Scott Stadium Garage Expansion
Intramural and Recreational Sports Centers, Phases II & III
McCormick Road Bridge Replacement
Student Residence: "Sustainability House"
Expansion to Aquatics Facility Center
BOV Concept, Site, and
Design Guidelines
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Medical Center / Agency 209
Emergency Department Expansion
Patient Education Building
Health System Rehab & Recreation Building - 11th Street
X
University of Virginia / College at Wise / Agency 246
College at Wise New Library
College at Wise Proscenium Theatre
X
X
34
X
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS $5 MILLION OR LESS
PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010
Project
AFC HVAC
Renovation
Selection Date
November 9, 2010
A/E Selected
2rw Consultants
Charlottesville, VA
35
Description
RFP 10-02
PROFESSIONAL AND CONSTRUCTION-RELATED NON-PROFESSIONALSERVICES CONTRACTS
Quarter Ended December 31, 2010
CONTRACTS
Virginia Architects
Virginia Engineers
Virginia Non-Professional
Total Virginia Contracts
122
26
56
12
21
7.547%
13.208%
13
7
4
2.516%
136
135
89
37
23.270%
122
347
384
345
159
100%
2005-2006
$3,830,387
$2,938,803
2006-2007
$6,298,801
$1,537,366
2007-2008
$5,380,810
$2,881,163
$5,535,005
$6,769,190
$7,836,167
$8,261,973
2008-2009
$7,229,197
$3,006,222
$156,045
$10,391,464
2009-2010
$5,620,392
$4,487,183
$421,726
$10,529,301
7/1/10
12/31/10
$920,612
$1,553,372
$250,692
$2,724,676
% for each
category
15.416%
26.011%
4.198%
45.625%
$5,256,775
$842,261
$23,898,844
$1,694,436
$7,876,867
$1,132,659
$14,076,542
$4,867,814
$26,452,922
$3,393,392
$4,999,799
$2,778,728
$2,059,032
$1,152,289
34.479%
19.295%
$6,099,036
$25,593,280
$9,009,526
$18,944,356
$382,730
$30,229,044
$373,143
$8,151,670
$35,932
$3,247,253
0.602%
54.375%
$11,634,041
$32,362,470
$16,845,693
$27,206,329
$40,620,508
$18,680,971
$5,971,929
100%
2006-2007
38
40
2007-2008
80
131
211
2008-2009
95
147
7
249
2009-2010
60
178
18
256
78
85
78
Out-of-State Architects
Out-of-State Engineers
Out-of-State NonProfessional
Total Out-of-State
Contracts
11
2
42
14
31
13
93
43
79
43
13
56
44
Total All Firms
91
141
FEES
Virginia Architects
Virginia Engineers
Virginia Non-Professional
Total Virginia Fees
2004-2005
$4,062,035
$1,472,970
Out-of State Architects
Out-of-State Engineers
Out-of-State NonProfessional
Total Out-of-State Fees
36
2005-2006
30
55
Total All Firms
7/1/10
12/31/10
21
83
18
% for each
category
13.208%
52.201%
11.321%
76.730%
2004-2005
35
43
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
PAVILION OCCUPANCY STATUS
AS OF FEBRUARY 2011
Pavilion
Occupants
I
Robert Pianta
II
Meredith Woo
III
Harry Harding
IV
Larry J. Sabato
V & Annex
Patricia Lampkin
VI
Robert D. Sweeney
VII
Colonnade Club
VIII Upper
Apartment
VIII Terrace
Apartment
Assigned Available
Winter
Spring
2010
2013
September September
2009
2014
Spring
Spring
2010
2015
October
2002
Spring
2018
Spring
2008
Fall
2007
Summer
2015
Fall
2012
VACANT
Pamela Pecchio
IX
VACANT
X
Carl P. Zeithaml
Montebello
James H. Aylor
Sunnyside
Dorrie K. Fontaine
Comments
Occupied Pavilion III from Spring
2008 until Winter 2010
Extended an additional five years in
November 2010, from Spring 2013 to
May 11, 2018
Occupied Pavilion III from Summer
2005 until Spring 2008
Available for assignment 2/2011
Summer
2009
Summer
2014
April 2011
March
2001
April
2007
Weedon House VACANT
37
July
2012
April
2012
April
2011
Summer
2010
Off-line for a year to complete utility
upgrade and interior renovations
APPENDICES
Appendix A
University of Virginia
Status Report on the Plan to Address Deferred Maintenance
Executive Summary
The University of Virginia’s facilities portfolio includes 546 buildings and related
infrastructure, encompassing nearly sixteen million gross square feet of building space, with a
conservatively estimated replacement value of $3.4 billion. The facilities portfolio constitutes a
significant portion of the total assets held by the University and should be appropriately
maintained.
In December 2004, after hearing a presentation about the University’s deferred maintenance
backlog, the Board of Visitors embarked on a long-term plan to accomplish two objectives:
(1) Reduce the deferred maintenance backlog to a reasonable level by 2015, with a target
facility condition index (FCI) of 5 percent or less. At the time, the FCI was 10.6 percent.
(2) Establish adequate annual maintenance funding to prevent the further accumulation of
deferred maintenance, by increasing the then current 1.3 percent reinvestment rate to a 2
percent annual reinvestment rate.
Progress has been made in the last five years. We have increased the funding available in the
annual maintenance operating budget and the maintenance reserve appropriation by at least $1.5
million per year which has increased the reinvestment rate to 1.7 percent. We also budget 2
percent of construction costs to maintain each new building we bring on line. Nevertheless,
there are concerns that past and possibly future State budget cuts will negatively impact this
effort. The overall condition of the facilities portfolio is improving. Investments through
maintenance operations, maintenance reserve and major capital renewals have reduced the FCI
to 9.4 percent as of June 30, 2010.
The auxiliaries, Medical Center, and the College at Wise are continuing to address their
respective backlogs. By 2011-12, all the auxiliary enterprises will be in compliance with the 1.5
percent reinvestment rate. The Medical Center, Facilities Planning and Construction, and Health
System Physical Plant have developed a building-by-building and system-by-system evaluation
of the infrastructure of all Medical Center facilities. The Medical Center Operating Board and
the Buildings & Grounds Committee have approved this program of infrastructure
enhancement over a period of 10-15 years based on need and available resources from the
Medical Center’s annual capital expenditure budget. The College at Wise has reduced its facility
condition index to 3.1 percent and has a current maintenance reinvestment rate of 0.8 percent.
Deferred Maintenance Backlog
Overview
Facilities Management determines the maintenance needs of the University’s E&G
buildings by performing facility condition assessments. The goal is to inspect E&G buildings
1
once every four years. The assessments result in a number of immediate repairs. They also
document repairs that are needed but cannot be undertaken at the time of inspection due to
funding constraints, occupancy requirements, or other factors. These deferred maintenance items
become the maintenance backlog for that building.
It is important to distinguish between what a facility may need in terms of maintenance,
and what it may need in terms of adaptation or modernization. The maintenance backlog
represents the amount of money needed to restore deteriorated components to their original
operating condition. In many cases, restoring components to their original operating condition
will fall short of today’s standards for function and/or aesthetics; therefore, the cost to fully
renovate or modernize a building is usually many times greater than the cost of the deferred
maintenance in the building. Similarly, the deferred maintenance backlog does not include
unidentified deficiencies or improvements to safety, accessibility, and code issues.
Quantify – Current Deferred Maintenance Backlog
As of June 30, 2010 the Academic Division E&G deferred maintenance backlog is nearly
$196 million. The graph below shows the backlog trend and the 5 percent FCI goal, which
would be equivalent to a backlog of $105 million in 2009-10.
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
$195.5
$195.8
2009-10
$178.6
2007-08
$180
$178.6
2006-07
$200
2008-09
Academic Division - E&G Facilities
(In Millions)
$165.7
$160
$148.1
$140
$120.7
$128.3
$154.4
$134.3
$80.9
$80.6
1997-98
$100
1996-97
$120
$81.9
$87.4
$80
$60
$40
$20
Actual Backlog
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
2000-01
1999-00
1998-99
$0
Backlog Needed to Achieve 5% FCI
In developing the original deferred maintenance reduction plan, it was recommended that
the University undergo a ten-year strategy to improve its E&G facilities from “poor” condition to
“good” condition by reducing the facility condition index to 5 percent by 2014-15. Given
2
assumptions about the expected replacement value in 2014-15, after inflation and new
construction impacts, the deferred maintenance backlog should be reduced to approximately
$100 million. The incremental cost to improve the condition of E&G buildings and
infrastructure to “good” over the ten-year period was estimated to be $125 million over the then
current level of maintenance funding. The additional cost to address safety, accessibility, and
code issues while correcting identified maintenance deficiencies was calculated to be $31 million
over the same ten-year period, bringing the combined required investment to $156 million. In
addition to funds available in the maintenance operations and maintenance reserve budgets, the
University will rely on the capital budget to address maintenance items in connection with
building renewals such as Rouss Hall, Fayerweather Hall, Monroe Hall, Ruffner Hall, New
Cabell Hall, the Main Heating Plant, and other proposed infrastructure projects.
Facility Condition Index
Overview
The Facility Condition Index (FCI) is a simple and widely accepted measure used to
indicate the relative condition of a building. It is calculated by dividing the value of the
maintenance backlog in a building by the replacement value of the building and showing the
result as a percentage.
For example, a building with a replacement value of $5 million that contains a $100,000
maintenance backlog has an FCI of 2 percent. By comparison, a building with a replacement
value of $600,000 that also has a $100,000 backlog is in relatively worse condition. The FCI for
that building is 17 percent.
Recognized industry benchmarks assume that a facility with an FCI of less than 5 percent
is in “good” condition; a facility with an FCI between 5 percent and 10 percent is in “fair”
condition; and a facility with an FCI of more than 10 percent is in “poor” condition.
Quantify – Current FCI
At June 30, 2010 the Academic Division E&G deferred maintenance backlog is nearly
$196 million, with a total facility replacement value of nearly $2.1 billion resulting in an FCI of
9.4 percent.
Maintenance Reinvestment Rate
Overview
The ratio of the building maintenance expenditures to the total replacement value is
known as the maintenance reinvestment rate (MRR). Various authorities cite a range of 1.5% to
4% as the reinvestment rate necessary to prevent the growth of a deferred maintenance backlog.
Given the age of many of the University’s buildings and the substantial amount of deferred
3
maintenance already accumulated, a reinvestment rate of at least 2 percent is warranted. To this
end, when newly constructed facilities come online, the University allocates 2 percent of the
building’s construction cost to the annual maintenance operations budget.
Quantify – Current MRR
The total amount invested in building maintenance can be calculated by combining the
amounts available from the operating budget and from Maintenance Reserve. For 2010–11 we
budgeted $35 million for maintenance of E&G facilities or 1.7 percent of the replacement value
of the E&G buildings and infrastructure.
The table below shows the reinvestment rate for the University’s E&G buildings since
the Board of Visitors initiative began. These figures are based on funds available for investment
in a given year rather than actual expenditures which may vary from year to year based on time
required to plan and execute the work.
Maintenance Reinvestment Rate
20052006
1.2%
20062007
1.7%
20082009
1.7%
2007-2008
1.7%
20092010
1.7%
20102011
1.7%
The graph below shows the funding trend and annual shortfall relative to a 2 percent
funding level over the past six years. It is clear to see that the funding shortfall has improved
greatly since 2005-06 as the Board initiative has gained traction.
FUNDING REQUIRED FOR 2 PERCENT E&G
REINVESTMENT RATE
(In Millions)
Operating Budget
State Maintenance Reserve
4
BOV Funding
2010-11
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
2006-07
2005-06
$45
$40
$35
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
Funding Deficiency
Accomplishments
Capital Renewal Projects
Whole building renewals are crucial to successfully reduce the University’s overall
facility condition index. It is the most efficient method of dealing with the maintenance
challenges associated with an older facility. A renewal project corrects maintenance needs while
adapting the building to planned use and current codes.
Currently, an extensive renovation is taking place at Garrett Hall, which is partially
funded using maintenance dollars. Looking forward, if State funding is approved, New Cabell
Hall and Ruffner Hall will soon follow. Below are some pictures of the Garrett Hall project.
Garrett Hall – North Wall Excavation
Garrett Hall – North Wall Repair
Garrett Hall – Plaster Deficiencies
Garrett Hall – Plaster Restoration
5
Deferred Maintenance Projects
Currently, there are over 60 deferred maintenance projects in progress, totaling over $25
million, including the Garrett Hall renovation, Randall Hall renovation, Chemistry fume exhaust
system replacement, and an upgrade to the Jordan Hall HVAC system.
Randall Hall is in the process of receiving a renovation that includes maintenance items
such as returning the flooring to the original hardwood; replacing the fan coil units; replacing the
fire panel; interior trim and plaster repair; and renovating the restrooms. Below are some
pictures of the Randall Hall project:
Randall Hall Renovation – Plaster Re
Randall Hall Renovation – Floor Restoration
Randall Hall Renovation – Interior Trim
Randall Hall Renovation – Structural Repairs
6
The Chemistry fume exhaust system replacement is a $3.1 million project where
individual exhaust fans will be replaced with exhaust air valves connected to an exhaust
manifold on the roof. Currently, the manifold system is being installed and two complete labs
have been renovated. Below are some pictures of the Chemistry fume exhaust system
replacement project:
Chemistry Rooftop – Before Platform
Chemistry Rooftop – After Platform
Chemistry Rooftop – Fan Monitor Exposed During Repair
7
Maintenance is contributing $16.2 million to a $29 million project to upgrade the Old
Jordan Hall HVAC system. Construction started on August 2, 2010 with completion scheduled
for December 31, 2012. Below are some pictures of the new generator as it is being installed:
Jordan HVAC – Generator Pad Being Formed
Jordan HVAC – Generator Set
Jordan HVAC – Crane Used to Set New Roof-top Fans
8
By completing deferred maintenance projects, the backlog is reduced and the overall
condition of the University’s facilities is improved. Since 2005-06, hundreds of deferred
maintenance projects have been completed. In 2009-10, projects such as the Heating Plant roof
replacement, Astronomy roof replacement and the replacement of the roof and railing system
between Pavilion VII and Pavilion IX (partially funded by maintenance) were instrumental in
reducing the overall maintenance backlog. Below are some before and after pictures from each
of the above-mentioned projects.
Heating Plant Roof Replacement – Before
Heating Plant Roof Replacement – After
Astronomy Roof Replacement – Before
Astronomy Roof Replacement – After
Pavilion Roof/Railing Project – Before
Pavilion Roof/Railing Project – After
9
Challenges
Maintenance Budget Reductions
During the last three decades, building maintenance has frequently been one of the first
expenditures to be deferred during budget reduction cycles. The current round of budget
reductions has proved costly to the University’s forward momentum with respect to lowering the
FCI. The first, in the most recent round of maintenance budget reductions, was a $245,000 cut in
2007-08. In 2008-09, the maintenance budget was reduced by an additional $862,000. In 200910, the maintenance budget was reduced by over $1.22 million for a current cumulative annual
base budget reduction of $2.3 million. The effect of this reduction lowers the maintenance
reinvestment rate by one-tenth of one percent, from 1.8 percent to 1.7 percent.
State Maintenance Reserve Funding
Maintenance Reserve has funded nearly $101 million in maintenance projects from the
1982-84 biennium through 2009-10 for E&G facilities. In the 2008-10 biennium, the
Maintenance Reserve budget was set at approximately $14.5 million. Unfortunately, the
University’s 2010-12 biennium allocation has been reduced to an estimated $9.95 million.
Summary
In 2005-06, the Board of Visitors embarked on a long-term plan to reduce the deferred
maintenance backlog of E&G facilities and the corresponding FCI to 5 percent or less. The
Board also took steps to establish adequate annual maintenance funding to prevent the further
accumulation of deferred maintenance. Today the FCI is 9.4 percent, which is in the “fair”
category by industry standards. While the FCI has not substantially decreased since 2004-05,
when the Report on the Condition of University Facilities reported the E&G FCI to be 10.6
percent, it is moving in the right direction. The University has made significant progress in
enhancing its operating maintenance budget toward the targeted two percent reinvestment rate, a
rate that began in 2005-06 as 1.2 percent and is now 1.7 percent. Going forward, there are
concerns that budget cuts will impede advancements made in the first five years of this effort.
10
Appendix B
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COLLOQUIUM
The University of Virginia is embarking on a substantial series of renovations and
restorations which have the potential to significantly affect the appearance and interpretation of
its original buildings and grounds. The University of Virginia was built between 1817 and 1828
following the designs of Thomas Jefferson. He described the place as an “Academical Village,”
where students and faculty could live and work together in close proximity, but at a location
removed from the small town of Charlottesville. These core uses – academic and residential –
have persisted for the entire history of the institution. The buildings in which they take place
have, however, changed. Whether by design or disaster, the complex of buildings today is
Jefferson in design filtered through generations of alterations. The challenge in planning work in
this portion of the campus, which is a part of a World Heritage Site, is compounded by the
significant later 19th and early 20th century buildings which now form its context and are
included in the Virginia Landmarks and a National Register Historic District. Because of this
complex history and the requirement that the original uses be maintained and even expanded,
establishing a period or periods of significance is extremely challenging.
To assist in the planning process for these projects, the Office of the Architect for the
University will convene a colloquium on the subject of determining periods of significance for
historic sites with complex histories that remain active in their original use. This event is also
endorsed by the Commonwealth of Virginia - Department of Historic Resources, the Thomas
Jefferson Foundation (Monticello), and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Drawing on
the experience of other successful large institutions which have managed restoration and
renovation projects, the University’s proposed approach (attached) to managing the World
Heritage Site and historic district will be reviewed and discussed.
The event will be one-and-a-half days, April 7 and 8, 2011, with an invited audience of
approximately 100-120 people, including preservation professionals, government regulators, and
University of Virginia Board of Visitors, faculty, graduate students and senior administrators.
The opening event will be an address by Richard Longstreth, professor of American
Studies and director of the Graduate Program in Historic Preservation at George Washington
University, on the subject of evolving sites and their periods of significance, as well as the effect
that active, daily use has on the nature of a site and the priorities for its maintenance and
restoration.
This address will set the context for two presentations by experienced professionals
associated with the management of significant historic sites facing similar issues of continuing
active use and multiple periods of significance. Susan Park, Chief of the Architectural History
and Historic Preservation Division at the Smithsonian Institution and John Fidler, Staff
Consultant, Practice Leader: Preservation Technology at Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., and
former Conservation Director at English Heritage, have agreed to be these speakers. Participants
will be asked to address the original design of their facility and how it has evolved, how that
1
evolution has affected the significance of the site, what principles are applied when making
decisions regarding alterations and the use of the site, and how elite or popular taste has affected
the decision-making process.
The colloquium will conclude with presentations of the University of Virginia’s current
research and its proposed preservation approach for the Academical Village and the surrounding
historic district (see attachment) and a discussion by the keynote speaker and two other
presenters of this proposal, followed by open audience engagement. The events will be taped
and be available online, which will also offer the opportunity for comment from all colloquium
participants and any other interested parties for a period of two weeks following the colloquium.
This colloquium and its associated commentary will help the University of Virginia
refine its approach to managing its extraordinary built legacy by drawing on expert opinion and
experiences from other significant sites, and will allow the institution to move forward with its
continuing care and stewardship of these buildings and grounds.
2
Attachment
Guidelines for the Treatment of the Academical Village
A Framework for Planning Work in the Core of the University of Virginia
Thomas Jefferson’s design for the University of Virginia integrated the academic and
personal lives of students and faculty in a setting whose architecture was intended to inspire and
instruct. Its success is reflected in listings on the Virginia and National Registers, and, with
Monticello, as a UNESCO World Heritage site. The Academical Village is routinely cited as the
greatest example of architecture in America. Jefferson’s buildings represent the institution, and
are remarkable for the preservation of not only their original design, but much of their function.
In contrast to many historical sites, Jefferson’s buildings continue to serve as places to work, live
and to teach. Varying degrees of evolution in the buildings reflect the extent of the change of
use and differences in the history of the distinct portions of the Academical Village. The
pavilions, colonnades and dormitory rooms facing the Lawn retain the greatest amount of
material original to the Jefferson period. Half of the hotels along the Ranges have large
additions dating from just before or shortly after the Civil War. These additions show changes in
Jefferson’s original program for the hotels in response to the University’s significant success and
growth by the mid-19th century. The 1895 fire and Stanford White’s subsequent reconstruction
define the Rotunda’s exterior. The 1970s interior renovation evokes the appearance of
Jefferson’s original design. Stanford White’s 1898 buildings at the south and of the Lawn are
the most noticeable additions to the Jefferson design, and are evidence of another significant
moment in the University’s history. The landscape, too, has evolved to reflect changing patterns
of use and activity and, as with the buildings, it has multiple periods of significance. Despite
these changes and additions, the buildings and their settings present a unified whole.
Preservation and enhanced interpretation of the ensemble is fundamental to this proposed
approach to work in the Academical Village.
The buildings on the Lawn best represent Jefferson’s original designs. The pavilion
facades, colonnades and dormitories are largely intact. Habitable additions to the rear of many
pavilions do not change the relationship between the buildings along and across the Lawn.
Missing or altered features and historic finishes have been documented and can be recreated.
Aside from the rear additions, which are essential to the pavilions’ continued use, added
elements are expedient rather than significant pieces of design and can be removed without
diminishing the historic significance or integrity of the buildings. The period of significance for
these buildings is 1825, the year that classes began and the buildings were occupied.
Alterations to the Ranges have been more substantial. Three hotels have large additions
which affect their facades. Hotels E and F were enlarged in the mid-1850s by William Pratt, a
significant figure in the early growth and evolution of the University. These additions covered
the south elevations and eliminated portions of the gardens between the hotels and the pavilions.
The additions to Hotel F also covered part of the north elevation and demolished a dormitory
room. Hotel B was enlarged in the 1880s with an extension to the north which created a new
primary building entrance. These additions, particularly those by Pratt, are deliberate, designed
alterations to the Jefferson plan which reflect the University’s growth and evolution, and their
1
construction establishes a mid-19th century period of significance for these parts of the
Academical Village.
The Historic Structure Report for the Rotunda documents how little of Jefferson’s
building survived the 1895 fire, an event unique to this building that differentiates its history
from that of the rest of the Academical Village. Most of the exterior dates from the Stanford
White renovation and it has accrued significance in its own right as a skillful evocation of
Jefferson’s design. The post-fire work enlarged the building, adding wings and a portico to
create a north elevation that recognized how the University and the Charlottesville grew through
the 19th century. The period of significance for the exterior of the Rotunda is 1898. The HSR
also describes the interior renovation from the 1970s, and identifies its evocation of Jefferson’s
design as significant independent of the exterior.
Stanford White’s Cabell, Cocke and Rouss Halls are contemporary with his work at the
Rotunda, and their facades remain substantially intact from that time. No other addition or
alteration had as great an effect on Jefferson’s design as the construction of these buildings at the
south end of the Lawn, so their 1898 completion is their period of significance.
Just as with the buildings, areas of the landscape have changed in response to evolving
expectations and patterns of use and can be seen to reflect the same periods of significance as the
buildings. The topography and proportional relationships of the Upper Lawn terraces continue to
reflect Jefferson’s original design intent. The 1820’s tree planting on the Lawn, double rows of
black locusts, were in decline by the mid-19th century and were replaced by the mixed species of
ash and maple trees that stand in the area today. The Lower Lawn’s topography, circulation and
plantings are associated with the McKim, Mead and White construction of Cabell, Rouss and
Cocke Halls. Behind the expanded Pavilions, the ten gardens are significant as designed
landscapes representing the Colonial Revival aesthetic resulting from the Garden Club of
Virginia’s mid-twentieth century renovations. The landscape north of the Rotunda still reflects
the park-like character established by the path layouts and mature trees in the mid-19th century,
while the terrace and courtyards immediately adjacent to the Rotunda Annex achieved their
current form in the early 20th century, shortly after the completion of the White Rotunda
restoration.
There are three primary periods of significance for the building exteriors in the
Academical Village, with the interior of the Rotunda and the landscape of the Rotunda and
Pavilion Gardens sharing a fourth, somewhat later period. Within these time frames, the goal of
any work undertaken must be to preserve the appearance of the buildings and their settings as an
evolved ensemble. Especially with the Lawn and Ranges, calling out one building as distinct
from the rest would undermine the principles of the place and detract from the appearance of the
whole. The physical separation of the Ranges and the Lawn, and the generally sympathetic
design of the Stanford White work at the Rotunda and South Lawn make this possible. The
buildings were designed as places to live and to learn; perpetuation of these functions is essential
to the character of the Jefferson design. Planning and programming renovations to preserve and
expand the building’s uses will ensure that they remain integral to the lives of students, faculty
and staff. Detailed analyses and additional studies will continue to be conducted on all buildings
and landscapes that will inform future restoration work. All work conducted on the buildings
will adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
2
This approach is conservative. It retains historic fabric and builds upon decades of
research and thought about the Academical Village and its character. The removals will be
relatively modest, leaving sufficient evidence for our successors to review and use to evaluate
our work. Little that would be done is irreversible, so the work could be refined and, if
necessary, corrected. On the Lawn, this approach would recreate the original appearance of the
pavilions and colonnades while recognizing the singular event of the Rotunda fire and the related
additions to the south. On the Ranges, it would acknowledge the first great period of the
University’s growth. In the landscape, the settings which developed in response to the buildings
will be conserved and enhanced. Ultimately, Jefferson’s vision for both the design and the
functions of the Academical Village would be celebrated and the significant changes would be
preserved and interpreted.
3