Statewide Capital Master Plan“Conducting an Infrastructure Audit”

October 10, 2006

Facilities & Infrastructure Assessment

W O O L P E R T Woolpert, Inc.

• Full Service Planning, Engineering, Architecture and Technology Related Services Firm

• Focused in 4 Markets– Higher Education– State/Local Government– Federal Government– Private

• 750 Employees Nationally– 300+ in Ohio (Cincinnati, Columbus & Dayton)

• Experience On Over 100 University/College Campuses– 80%+ are State Supported– Over 25 Two & Four Year Campuses in Ohio– Reputation in Campus Planning

W O O L P E R T Woolpert University ExperienceWoolpert University Experience • Ambassador Baptist College • Auburn University • Ball State University • Bennedict College • Bennett College • Berea College • Bowling Green State University • Butler University • Central State University • College of William and Mary • Cornell University • Davidson College • Denison University • Depauw University • Duke University • Earlham College • Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University • Faulkner State Community College • Gaston College • Georgetown University • Illinois State University • Indiana State University • Indiana University • Johnson C. Smith University • Kent State University-Ashtabula • Kent State University-Geauga • Kent State University-Salem • Lander University • Lenoir-Rhyne College • Longwood College • Loyola College • Marian College • Marietta College • Marshall University • Massachusetts Institute of Technology • Medical College of Ohio • Miami University-Hamilton • Miami University-Oxford • Michigan State University • Norfolk State University • North Carolina Central University • North Carolina State University • Northern Kentucky University • Oberlin College • Ohio Dominican College

• Ohio State University-Columbus • Ohio State University-Mansfield • Ohio State University-Marion • Ohio State University-Newark • Ohio University-Athens • Ohio University-Chillicothe • Old Dominion University • Penn State University • Presbyterian College • Purdue University • Queens University • Shawnee State College • Shippensburg University • Sinclair Community College • South Carolina State University • Southern Illinois University • Southwestern Illinois College • Spring Hill College • St. Louis University • University of Alabama • University of Cincinnati • University of Dayton • University of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign • University of Iowa • University of Kentucky • University of Louisville • University of Maryland • University of Missouri-Columbia • University of Missouri-Rolla • University of Montevallo • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill • University of North Carolina at Charlotte • University of Northern Iowa • University of Pittsburgh • University of Rochester • University of South Alabama • University of Texas at Dallas • University of Virginia • Vincennes University • Virginia Institute of Marine Science • Wabash College • Washington University • West Virginia University • Western Carolina University • Winston-Salem State University • Winthrop College

Wright State University

W O O L P E R T Infrastructure Experience

• Experience Through Hundreds of Infrastructure Planning & Design Projects

• National Experience Based in Ohio– Energy Utilities Planning– Water Utilities Planning– Comprehensive Land Use Planning– Geospatial Planning

Utility Master Planning and Design

Ener

gy A

udits

and

Surv

eys

Hydr

aulic

Ana

lysis

– Dist

ribut

ion

Syst

ems

Ther

mal

Analy

sis –

Heat

ing/

Cool

ing

Heat

ing/

Cool

ing

Load

Ana

lysis

Ener

gy S

imul

atio

n

Powe

r Sys

tem

Doc

umen

tatio

n

Shor

t Circ

uit A

nalys

is

Econ

omic

Analy

sis –

Life

Cyc

le Co

stin

g

Chille

d W

ater

Mas

ter P

lans

Heat

ing

Mast

er P

lans

Elec

tric P

ower

Mas

ter P

lans

Co-G

ener

atio

n Ma

ster

Plan

s

Stor

m W

ater

Mas

ter P

lans

Pota

ble W

ater

Mas

ter P

lans

Dist

ribut

ion

Pipi

ng D

esig

n –

Dire

ct B

urial

/Tun

nelin

g

Build

ing

Inte

rface

Des

ign

Pum

ping

Sys

tem

Des

ign

Utilit

y Sys

tem

s Con

trol D

esig

n

Cons

truct

ion

Adm

inist

ratio

n

Auburn University – Alabama

Ball State University – Indiana

University of Cincinnati – Ohio

Clemson University – South Carolina

Cornell University – New York

Denison University – Ohio

Duke University – North Carolina

Earlham College – Ohio

Indiana State University – Indiana

Indiana University – Indiana

University of Iowa – Iowa

University of Kentucky – Kentucky

University of Montevallo – Alabama

Ohio State University – Ohio

University of Pittsburgh – Pennsylvania

Purdue University – Indiana

University of Rochester – New York

Texas Tech University – Texas

Wabash College – Indiana

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Chilled Water Systems Specialized Experience

Engi

neer

ing

Stud

ies

Chille

d W

ater

Gen

erat

ion

Hydr

aulic

Ana

lysis

– Dist

ribut

ion

Syst

ems

Dire

ct B

urial

Pip

ing

Abov

egro

und

Pipi

ng

Build

ing

Pipi

ng

Prim

ary/S

econ

dary

Pum

ping

Sy

stem

s

Build

ing

Inte

rface

Mod

ifica

tions

Build

ing

HVAC

Mod

ifica

tions

Chille

d W

ater

Sys

tem

– Ce

ntra

l Co

ntro

l

Build

ing

(HVA

C) C

ontro

l

Auburn University – Alabama

Ball State University – Indiana

University of Cincinnati – Ohio

Clemson University – South Carolina

Denison University – Ohio

Duke University – North Carolina

Indiana University – Indiana

University of Iowa – Iowa

Ohio State University – Ohio

Ohio University – Ohio

University of Pittsburgh - Pennsylvania

Purdue University – Indiana

University of Rochester – New York

Texas Tech University – Texas

Wabash College – Indiana

IBM – New York, Vermont

Kennedy Space Center – Florida

Lexmark International

Naval Research Lab

Rolls Royce

Central Heating Systems Master Planning

Evalu

atio

n of

Exis

ting

Cond

ition

s

Ener

gy A

udit/

Surv

ey

Heat

ing

Load

Ana

lysis

Ther

mal

Analy

sis o

f Dist

ribut

ion

Syst

em

Stre

ss A

nalys

is of

Dist

ribut

ion

Syst

em

Hydr

aulic

Ana

lysis

of D

istrib

utio

n Sy

stem

Ener

gy S

imul

atio

n (M

odeli

ng)

Alte

rnat

ives A

nalys

is

Cent

ral v

s. De

cent

ral A

nalys

is

Econ

omic

Analy

sis w

ith L

ife

Cycle

Cos

ting

Mast

er P

lan R

epor

t (25

-Yea

r)

Deve

lopm

ent o

f Sys

tem

Map

s

Auburn University – Alabama

Ball State University – Indiana

Berea College – Kentucky

Clemson University – South Carolina

Duke University – North Carolina

Indiana State University – Indiana

Indiana University – Indiana

University of Iowa – Iowa

University of Montevallo – Alabama

Ohio State University – Ohio

University of Pittsburgh – Pennsylvania

Wabash College – Indiana

Alcoa – Indiana

Anacostia Naval Station – Washington, DC

DCSC – Ohio

GE – Ohio

Great Lakes NTC – Illinois

IBM – New York, Vermont, Virginia

Kennedy Space Center – Florida

Portsmouth GDP – Ohio

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base – Ohio

W O O L P E R T The Ohio State University

• 4 Step Infrastructure Master Planning Process– Data Gathering, Capacity Analysis, Capital

Improvement Master Plan and GIS Integration

• Scope of Infrastructure Assessment & Planning– Storm & Sanitary Sewers– Domestic Hot & Cold Water– Chilled Water– Steam, Condensate Return & Hot Water– Natural Gas– Electric Power– Campus Data & Communication – Utility Tunnels & Roadways– Exterior Lighting & Emergency Phones– Campus Green Space

W O O L P E R T Challenges of Infrastructure Planning

• Historically, Infrastructure Has Been Secondary• Infrastructure Assessments Are Different• Broad Spectrum of Campus Types• Wide Ranges of Complexity, Condition &

Documentation • Who Owns the Infrastructure?• Equitable Process for All

W O O L P E R T What Are Your Expectations?

• Funding Level to Sustain Current Level of Service? – Minimum Funding Level

• Funding Level to Sustain Growth?– 5 years? 10 years? 25 years?

• Consider Energy Options?– Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Coal Gas, etc.

W O O L P E R TApproaches for Minimum Funding Level

• Mathematical

• Full Physical Inspection

• Statistical

W O O L P E R T Mathematical

• Pro’s– Least Expensive– Least Impact to the Institution– Quickest Process

• Con’s– Least Accurate– Least Defensible– Uses Age as the Only Indicator of Condition

W O O L P E R T Full Physical Inspection

• Pro’s– Most Accurate– Most Defensible

• Con’s– Most Expensive, Not Cost Effective– Most Disruptive– Longest Duration

W O O L P E R T Statistical Approach

• Pro’s– Statistically Accurate– More Defensible than Mathematical– Not Highly Disruptive– Modest Schedule– Best Value

• Con’s– Less Defensible than Physical– Some Level of Disruption– Modest Schedule

W O O L P E R T

Open Discussion

W O O L P E R T Statistical Input

W O O L P E R TMaintenance/Replacement – Single Asset

W O O L P E R TMaintenance/Replacement Multiple Assets

W O O L P E R T Most Rudimentary

• Requires a utilities asset inventory• Basic data needed:

– Extent of the asset (eg. 1,200 lineal feet of 7 ft. dia. steam tunnel)

– Date put into service– Anticipated useful life

• An economic model will provide:– Replacement cost– Current value– Annual maintenance budget for asset