Page 27 - College Planning & Management, May 2018

Facilities CAMPUS SPACES
Dealing With the Deferred Maintenance Challenge
How do you make inroads into a seemingly insurmountable deferred maintenance backlog?
BY MARK ROWH
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE has become a growing problem in the higher ed community, and it doesn’t take a presidential commission to determine why. During economic
downturns, funds that might otherwise be used for this purpose offer
a ready option for redirecting resources. Even when times are better, internal competition for dollars can be fierce, with building maintenance often taking a back seat to more pressing, or simply more visible, needs.
While some institutions have avoided this problem, it’s no secret that the backlog of deferred maintenance represents one of many threats to campuses everywhere, according to Bill Hoare, associate vice president for business at Carthage College in Kenosha, WI.
“For more than a generation, college and university adminis- trations have been subsidizing their annual operating budget by neglecting their physical plants,” he says. “Aging physical plants and their associated risks represent a clear threat to campus operations all over the country.”
And yet on campuses large and small, aging buildings are a common reality.
“Almost every higher education institution in the United States is faced with the dilemma of aging facilities,” says Tammy Fulop, vice president, Schneider Electric. She notes that many build-
ings were built between 1950 and 1965, an era when construction quality was often sacrificed for speed. “These buildings are either nearing or already have reached critical life-cycle thresholds and are in need of renewal or replacement.”
For higher ed leaders, the current question isn’t so much why deferred maintenance backlogs have occurred, but how best to address them.
At Carthage, the commitment to maintain the physical plant has included utilizing the building subsystem life-cycle model in recording and monitoring “known issues” or deferred mainte- nance. Facility planners have also embraced national standards such as the ASHRE Life Cycle Chart and the GSA Facility Stan- dards for Public Buildings to support life-cycle calculations. This information has been coupled with a four-step priority position statement for evaluating capital investments.
MAY 2018 / COLLEGE PLANNING & MANAGEMENT 27
PHOTO © RADOVAN1