After reviewing Auburn University’s submission for Standard 13.7, Physical Resources, the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee had five questions or comments that required additional information and documentation. This response addresses each of those issues in turn, including (1) updates to the Comprehensive Campus Master Plan, (2) an approved Capital Budget, (3) the Facilities Condition Assessment, (4) external audits of facilities and stakeholder satisfaction, and (5) general management, oversight, and control of non-capital assets.

Updates to the Comprehensive Campus Master Plan

The last Comprehensive Campus Master Plan (the Campus Master Plan) was completed and approved in 2013. University policy is to update the Campus Master Plan periodically, which we have interpreted to mean roughly every five years. However, the 2018 Campus Master Plan Update was delayed due to university leadership changes.  

Foundational Campus Planning Document Development

Since 2013, our campus planning efforts have been strong and proactive. Numerous important campus planning documents have been developed over the last eight years to serve as key foundational elements for the university and as key components of our upcoming 2023 Campus Master Plan Update.

These include the following: 

• Historic Preservation Element (2014): In response to the 2013 Campus Master Plan, the university recognizes that historical, archaeological, cultural, and architectural resources must be considered in the planning for land and facility use and development. The university embraces its role and responsibilities regarding the preservation of these historic resources within the Auburn University main campus, as well as other property owned or under the control of the university in Lee County and across the State of Alabama. As part of this role, the 2013 Campus Master Plan identified historic assets on the main campus listed or eligible for the Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage or the National Register of Historic Places. An addendum to the original 12 elements of the 2013 Campus Master Plan, the Historic Preservation Element expanded the narrative and study of resources to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects on these historic assets, and in addition, worked to foster public appreciation of these historic resources on the Auburn main campus. This element is a result of a request by the Board of Trustees to bolster awareness and preservation efforts for historic assets.

The guidance outlined in the Historic Preservation Element continues to play a role in our Capital Planning Process, as Auburn University values the impact of its historic buildings’ architecture and of its historic sites on the image and character of the campus. The university also strives to be inclusive by fostering a welcoming environment for all students, faculty, staff, and visitors. Historical recognition celebrates those people, facilities, and events that align with the university’s current values, while honestly and accurately reflecting upon historical events and persons. Historic Preservation guidance may be updated in future master planning efforts to assist the university in fulfilling its mission and meeting its goals.

The Board of Trustees adopted the Historic Preservation Element on February 7, 2014.

• Landscape Master Plan (2016): Although Auburn University has produced multiple Campus Master Plans over the years, the Landscape Master Plan represents the university’s first in-depth effort to shape a cohesive, long-term vision for its landscape. The preparation and adoption of this plan establishes a specific vision and policy platform that elevates the campus landscape to a higher institutional priority level at the university.

The Campus Landscape Element of the 2013 Campus Master Plan established a framework for the Landscape Master Plan by prescribing the overall organizational pattern of landscape types for the main campus. The more expansive, robust Landscape Master Plan is a 234-page document that includes detailed information on all aspects of landscape planning for the Auburn main campus, including the following:

• • A description of campus landscape elements and a vision for landscape development in the future
  • An establishment of campus landscape standards to be applied to all future development and maintenance
  • The creation of post-construction stormwater management standards to be implemented as part of all new development and renovation projects
  • Design recommendations for all sections of the Auburn main campus

The Landscape Master Plan reinforced the goals established in the 2013 Campus Master Plan, defined a Twenty-First Century Vision for the campus landscape, and established a set of tools to help guide the implementation of the vision. Provided as documentation is the Executive Summary of the robust, 234-page Landscape Master Plan document.

The Board of Trustees adopted the Landscape Master Plan on February 5, 2016.

• Facility Development Plan (2016): A goal of the Campus Master Plan is to recommend physical improvements to the campus physical environment that advance the instructional, research, and outreach mission of the university. The Facility Development Planning Element outlined strategies for achieving this goal through a Comprehensive Capital Projects Program. This program coordinates new building and renovation investment in response to specific programmatic requirements outlined in the 2013 Campus Master Plan. The attached update memo is provided as evidence of the capital projects program resulting from the Facility Development Plan.

• Facility Development Planning Element (2016): The 2013 Campus Master Plan contained the Academic Buildings Element, which contained the plan for future demolitions, major renovations, and new construction. A review of this element after the plan’s approval determined that this element didn’t adequately cover all the university’s capital project needs for the near future. Renamed the Facility Development Planning Element, the 2016 update identified (a) the key capital project development strategies for the next decade (2016-2025); (b) additional capital projects for implementing these strategies; and (c) appropriate facility sites and recommended facility capacities for new buildings on or near the campus. Capital project selection was based upon the outcomes of the 2013-2018 Strategic Plan and the analysis conducted for the 2023 Campus Master Plan Update. Facility capacities were derived from the space needs of colleges and schools, as outlined in the 2023 Campus Master Plan Update, and through planning studies undertaken by university administration and Facilities Management.

Specific project sites identified in this update were based upon recommendations outlined in the Implementation section of the original 2013 Campus Master Plan Update.

The Board of Trustees adopted the Facility Development Update on February 5, 2016. 

• College of Agriculture Master Plan (2017): The College of Agriculture sought to construct a new building in the near term as a replacement for Funchess Hall, a primary lab and instructional space for the college. Funchess Hall, completed in 1961, has served the College of Agriculture and the College of Sciences and Mathematics as a prime laboratory building for faculty research and student instruction. Long outdated in functionality due to advancements in laboratory and building design, Funchess has been marked for replacement since the 2013 Campus Master Plan. Before siting a Funchess Hall replacement building, the college wisely paused to consider its long-term future. The task of this College of Agriculture Master Plan was to investigate potential future locations for College of Agriculture buildings, both in near- and long-term time frames. The plan represented collaboration between the college’s steering committee, Facilities Management, and college leadership, and it analyzed space utilization, student course enrollments, and physical asset distribution, among other influencing factors. It evaluated several planning scenarios, while considering site capacity, adjacency to existing facilities, and aspects of project phasing. The plan also evaluated the college’s overall land uses, including those in the North Auburn research area, and recommended future land acquisition and management strategies. The plan was completed in 2017 and has served to influence development decisions since completion.

The College of Agriculture Master Plan did not require Board of Trustees approval.

• Parking and Transportation Study (2019): The Auburn University Parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Master Plan has served as a guide for planning, management, and policy for the university’s transportation infrastructure and system over the next five years, based on the plan’s horizon year of 2023. At the time of the study and the plan’s creation, the high demand for parking in the campus core and a parking zone system encouraged users to search for the best available parking spot. In turn, that contributed to circulation inefficiencies and increased vehicle traffic. The study examined all components of circulation, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian movement, and the resulting plan sought to develop the best comprehensive transportation management system and recommend actions to support it. The Existing Conditions Phase identified the university’s current state and established potential needs due to its upcoming development and growth. Stakeholder meetings were held to gain insight from the community to better understand the university’s challenges and opportunities, and these meetings included both an open house for the campus constituents and University Traffic and Parking Committee sessions. This information helped establish the Forecasting and Needs Assessment for parking, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation. Policy recommendations and the plan document were completed in 2019. An update to this study is underway, and its aim is to understand and address post-COVID parking needs.

The Parking and Transportation Study did not require Board of Trustees approval.

• Image and Character Update (2021): The Image and Character of Auburn University, originally published in 2001, was developed as a means of establishing the physical characteristics of the university’s campus as a brand and explaining how planning and architectural design has helped create that brand. The 2001 document focused on how the campus developed over its 150-plus-year history, describing the general nature of the physical campus, identifying focus areas for future planning efforts, and categorizing each of the campus’ buildings and the architectural design elements they feature. The publication led to the development of a Comprehensive Campus Master Plan and a Landscape Master Plan and remains an important history of the codification of the Auburn University Image and Character, also known as Auburn University’s brand.

This second edition, adopted in 2021, focuses on the architectural Image and Character guidelines set out in chapter four of the first edition by providing direction on how future facility design can both connect to the university’s historic fabric and meet the needs of a growing and forward-looking university. It also provides guidance on how design is influenced by a project’s location on campus. It defines campus “sectors” by their functional purpose and how each sector impacts university development. The campus sectors developed as part of this plan will be a used in the 2023 Campus Master Plan Update analysis. Image and Character of Auburn University, Second Edition, makes these guidelines accessible to the various audiences, including the general public and design professionals. It ensures that all new projects undertaken by the university adhere to those qualities that make the university “Auburn” and maintains the role of the Planning, Design, & Construction team to establish and enforce procedures, guidelines, and standards for good design.

The Board of Trustees adopted the Image and Character of Auburn University, Second Edition 2021 on November 12, 2021. 

Campus Master Plan Update (2021-Present)

Facilities Management initiated an update to the Campus Master Plan in early 2021, shortly after employees returned to campus following a COVID-mandated hiatus. This plan will represent a full revision of the Campus Master Plan, different in format than previous plans but fulfilling the same objectives to provide both a broad overview of the physical campus and a plan for updating the campus to meet the university’s strategic goals for the next 10 to 15 years.

Preliminary work by our campus planning team resulted in the mapping of and data collection for existing conditions on campus. To assist in advancing the plan, the university engaged SmithGroup as a consultant to leverage their technical expertise and experience planning campuses across the nation. Working as a team with the Facilities Management campus planners, SmithGroup visited campus twice during the fall of 2021 to gain a better understanding of campus and meet with the newly formed Master Plan Update Committee, which contained university-wide representation, and the senior leadership of large landowning units within the organization. University planners continued these meetings with the senior leadership of the remaining colleges during the winter and spring of 2022. Following these meetings, the university’s campus planners held nearly a dozen virtual co-creation workshops with their colleagues from SmithGroup. Over the summer of 2022, SmithGroup prepared an initial draft framework plan. Campus Planning and Space Management has recently completed its detailed review of the draft and provided comments to SmithGroup for action. A second draft is expected to be ready for review in the first quarter of 2023. 

Whereas previous planning efforts employed traditional comprehensive master planning procedures, this effort uses a framework approach to maximize flexibility and keep pace with changing circumstances in the campus environment and pedagogical innovations. The framework approach views the campus through an interwoven set of components—land-use, circulation, and open space, among others—and seeks to organize the subsystems to meet overall development and design goals and objectives. By focusing on these components, the university avoids investing resources in detailed forecasting during the master planning phase. Instead, planning becomes an ongoing process, occurring continuously as new challenges are introduced to the university environment and decisions are made to address them. A framework plan maintains flexibility while providing meaningful guidance to future development decisions. The highest goal of the framework plan is to determine which areas of the campus must be preserved due to of their value to the campus environment, and which areas can be developed or improved to meet the future needs of the university. The following sections are currently under development and available as draft documents:

• Campus-Wide Framework: This section analyzes the frameworks that impact the campus in its entirety and identifies major needs and opportunities for improvement that have campus-wide significance.
  • Preservation Areas: The preservation area section outlines the framework for preserving natural areas on campus. In order to effectively protect and manage these valuable resources, it is important to have a clear framework for preserving natural areas on campus. Areas to be preserved include natural areas, designated opens space, and field laboratories.
  • Campus Circulation: Consistent with policy developed in previous campus plans, the campus has continued to transition from an automobile-focused circulation system to a more balanced system that includes walking, biking, and transit. The continued success of the campus circulation system will depend on successfully integrating related systems: pedestrian mobility, bicycle accommodation, transit access, vehicular parking, and emergency/service access.  This section is a framework for identifying improvements to circulation systems that will strengthen the circulation effectiveness and efficiency.
  • Land Use Plan: A key component of land management and planning is an understanding of how campus land is utilized and allocated. Analyzed at the campus-wide level through mapping and the documenting of land assignments, land use should align with the university’s land-grant mission, wherein large tracts of land are required for research purposes and provide for land uses common to most large universities, including academic, administration, and recreation uses, as well as uses for student housing, athletics, and campus services.

• Sector-Level Framework: The Image and Character of Auburn University, Second Edition, identifies the various sectors that comprise the Auburn University main campus. This section of the Campus Master Plan Update uses these sectors as a basis for identifying opportunity sites while recognizing the campus-wide framework preservation areas. The result will be a recommendation of development sites and their maximum capacities that recognizes that open spaces and circulation routes are just as essential to the campus fabric as the buildings that frame them.

• Site-Level Framework: Site-level analysis is the most detailed of the four levels. It includes developing three-dimensional site plans that show building massing, proposed footprints, open spaces, and some landscaping. Three sites were selected for the most detailed planning and design treatment. Important sites on the university campus requiring this in-depth analysis include “Ag Hill,” the “Hill Residential” site, and the current location of Beard-Eaves-Memorial Coliseum.

• Capacity Analysis: The capacity analysis is a component of the plan at both the sector and site levels. It examines opportunity areas identified through the spatial planning process and, using reasonable assumptions, generates development capacity for each opportunity area in terms of square feet, parking, and open space. In addition, this element assesses how complex the development or redevelopment of an opportunity might be, depending on existing structures, relocation of occupants, and availability of necessary utilities.

Capital Budget

Capital Project Budgeting Overview 

Auburn University does not have a specific budget line in its annual operating budget for capital projects. This line-item omission is largely due to the nature of how the university obtains funds for capital projects, as detailed in Section 2-B below. The capital project funding approval process is controlled by the Board of Trustees. All capital project budgets must be approved by the Board of Trustees. Once a decision has been made to fund a project, and it is approved by the Board of Trustees, the project execution process begins, and project expenditures are closely tracked and managed against the approved project budget. 

To respond to the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee’s question regarding capital budgeting, the following topics are detailed below: the policy that guides approval of capital projects, the sources of funding for capital projects, the management of that funding, and historic funding of capital projects.

Auburn University Board of Trustees (BOT) Capital Projects Approval Policy: Auburn University Policy D-3, “Capital Projects Approval Policy," provides important direction regarding the approval of capital projects. 

• BOT1: Approval of project initiation
• BOT2: Approval of the selections of the project architect and construction manager, as required, on the project under consideration.
• BOT3: Final project approval to include the following: project program, site, budget, funding plan, and image and character. Provided as documentation is an example of the documents presented to the Board of Trustees to obtain this approval.

These three requests for approval are formally presented to the Board of Trustees at one of their five annual meetings. Typically, these requests for project approval are made sequentially, over a period of months or years, although occasionally, BOT1 and BOT2 project approvals are requested simultaneously. In this manner, the university project budgets and funding are overseen and approved.

Sources of Funds for AU Capital Projects: The university does not typically receive funding from the State of Alabama for the construction of capital projects. However, the university has the authority to sell bonds to obtain funds for capital projects. The annual debt service on these bonds is paid by university revenues as part of the annual budget. Typically, the university will obtain bonds to fund numerous projects over several years. For example, the university obtained $256 million in bond funding in 2018 and $299.9 million in 2020.  

University Capital Projects are often funded with other types of funds or multiple types of funding. Other sources of funds for capital projects include the following:

• Public School and College Authority (PSCA) funds: These funds are bond funds that the State of Alabama raises to fund K-12 and higher education projects. These funds are then distributed to school districts and educational institutions across the state.
• University general funds.
• College or unit funds.
• Federal or industry funding
• Gifts

The diagram below details the relative percentages of the various types of funding sources for the current capital projects program.

Chart 13.7-1: Capital Projects Funding by Sources Type

See, for example, the funding plan for three upcoming capital projects for each using the various funds sources listed above.

Executive Facilities Committee Management of AU Capital Project Funding: The Executive Facilities Committee was established in 2020. The Executive Facilities Committee provides oversight over capital project funding and makes decisions regarding what projects should be recommended to the Board of Trustees for BOT1, BOT2, and BOT3 approvals. The Executive Facilities Committee tracks the following:

• Capital Project Bond Funding Status: Since bond funds account for the vast majority of capital funds used to finance construction projects, the committee tracks the status of previously acquired bond funds.
• Capital Project Funding Status: The committee also oversees the funding status of all capital projects, across all funding sources, as listed in section B above. Provided as documentation is an example of the report that details how the funding profile and status of all capital bond funding is tracked.
• Capital Project Schedule: Additionally, the committee oversees the current and proposed execution schedules of all capital projects to understand when project funds will be utilized and when facilities will be brought on-line.  Included is an example of the report that details the project schedules for both ongoing and planned future capital projects.
• Historic Capital Project Funding: The historical context regarding capital project investments at the university is illustrated in charts that detail the number and the funded amount of capital projects approved by the Board of Trustees each year from 2010 to 2022.

Facilities Condition Assessment and Annual Repair and Renovation Budget

Facilities Condition Assessment Program Overview

The Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) Program accurately portrays the age of assets, helping develop plans for maintenance and repair, as well as identifying potential large-scale renovation or replacement projects. The objective of the program is to develop a Facility Condition Index (FCI) and a Current Replacement Value (CRV) for buildings and infrastructure, and to identify a total number of repair activities that are past due in each of the following categories: structure, roof, exterior, interior finishes, Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC), electrical systems, plumbing systems, conveyance systems, site, and infrastructure. The 2022 FCAP Annual Report includes a detailed description of the program; it is still being produced and is not scheduled for publication until February 2023. A detailed description of the program can be found in the 2021 FCAP Annual Report.

Repair and Renovation Budget Overview

Rather than using the term "deferred maintenance," the university now conceives of this process as “repair and renovation" (R&R). Each year, the university includes funding for R&R in the budget process. These funds are used to cover large non-routine-cost repairs and required maintenance. Facilities Management meets quarterly to identify and rank projects that impact the university’s mission. The ranked projects that fall within the budget threshold are considered viable and worthy of execution within the fiscal year. Projects that fall outside the budget threshold are deferred until the importance increases, funding is made available, or a higher-ranked project is removed or deferred from the list.

To respond to the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee question regarding the correlation between the FCA and the established R&R budget of $11 million, the following topics are detailed below: R&R’s percentage of the budget, unit and department funding of projects, and the overall assessment of the budget.

R&R as a Percentage of the Overall Facilities Budget: The annual Repair and Renovation (R&R) budget of $11 million represents 14.04% of the annual Facilities Management budget, and its intended purpose is to address system-level backlog and deferred maintenance issues in educational and general buildings across campus. Facilities Management’s FY22 budget, including the referenced repair and renovation allocation in the amount of $11 million, was $78.3 million, representing a budget valued at 3.2% of the replacement value of $2.47 billion. This contrasts with the 0.5% interpreted and cited by the Off-Site Committee. Clarification of this allocation can be seen in a detailed breakdown of the budget categories that make this $78.3 million (in Facilities Budget by Major Category).

Campus Client Funding of Projects: Campus units and departments have the ability to provide funding for upgrade, remodel, and renovation projects in spaces that are assigned to them. 

In 2022, campus clients initiated 109 projects that were funded in part or in total by client-funded sources, totaling $3.14 million in funding, representing 37% of those project budgets. See Client Funded Projects 2022 for details.

In the past five years, campus clients initiated 563 projects that were funded in part or in total by client funded sources, totaling $114.3 million in funding, representing 30% of those project budgets. Client Funded Projects 2022 clarifies this five-year history as well.

Overall Assessment: Although additional funding for facilities maintenance and repair would always be helpful, the $78.3 million investment in maintaining and operating the university’s buildings, grounds, and infrastructure has been adequate to keep the quality of university facilities high.

Audit Reviews of Facilities

Internal and External Audit Review Overview

Auburn University Facilities Management utilizes several methods to audit and benchmark process, procedures, funding, staffing, productivity, and outcomes. 

To respond to the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee question regarding internal and external audit reviews, the following topics are detailed below: benchmark establishment; surveys of campus units; audits of space utilization, aging work orders, and custodial quality control; and collection and analysis of stakeholder feedback.

Gordian Benchmarking Consultant (External): Each year, Facilities Management works with the Gordian (formerly Sightlines) to complete a detailed campus space evaluation and benchmarking exercise. Gordian has a database of information from 450+ colleges and universities that uses for comparative benchmarking. This effort produces an annual report that provides quantitative data on capital investments and operational performance. It also provides long-term recommendations for future capital investment strategies and funding requirements based on current system conditions. The most recent reports from Gordian were received in July 2022. Provided as documentation are the Gordian Auburn FY21 Executive Summary and the FY21 Auburn E&G Facility Benchmarking Analysis Presentation.

Campus Planning and Space Management Space Survey (Internal): Each year, the Campus Planning and Space Management Office within Facilities Management works with representatives of each college and administrative unit to confirm the assignment (college/department/organization), location (building), status (occupied/not occupied), room type (FICM), general space use, and specific user allocation for all spaces controlled by the university. In addition, the Space Management team visits approximately 33% of campus spaces each year to verify the accuracy of its floorplans. The process yields a full review of every square foot of campus buildings every 3 years. (Engineering, the largest college space-occupier on campus, is fully covered over six years.)  

Space Utilization Audits (Internal):  The university performs regular audits of space utilization across the campus and for various space types to ensure that there is adequate space to meet the needs of university programming as well as to ensure that it is being utilized in an efficient manner.  Examples of these audits are as follows:

• Research Lab Space Assessment
• Auburn University Classroom Utilization Evaluation
• Office Utilization Analysis

Aging Work Order Audits (Internal): The Facilities Operations departments convene a weekly meeting to audit the oldest work orders that are still incomplete. As a rule, any work order that reaches 60 days in age from submission is reviewed and discussed weekly. Discussion includes current status, existing challenges, and future plan of action. Included as documentation is an example of the most recent list of work orders reviewed and discussed.

Custodial Quality Control Audits (Internal): In an effort to be proactive, Facilities Management has developed a robust custodial quality control program, with five inspectors who walk campus buildings on a randomized schedule and create deficiency reports for resolution. Each deficiency identified creates a work order action item for the custodial team to resolve. Each month, the reports are tabulated to give an overall view of how the custodial team is doing as compared to the Association of Physical Plant Administration (APPA) Level 2 expectations.

Stakeholder Satisfaction (Internal): Facilities Management utilizes multiple methods to maintaining an understanding of the level of satisfaction of campus clients.

At the completion of every work order submitted by a campus client, Facilities Management sends an email notification that indicates that the work is completed, and this notification also contains a survey link. The survey response rate, which averages all rates dating back to 2016 when this process was initiated, is 14.63% (13,431 surveys completed). These surveys reveal an overall customer satisfaction rate of 93%. Included as an illustration is a snapshot of the client survey metric dashboard.

In 2019, Facilities Management created the position of Assistant Vice President of Client Relations. This individual is tasked with regularly meeting and interacting with campus clients, particularly at the dean level. Regular meetings are held in which a key discussion point is the overall level of satisfaction with the services provided by Facilities Management, as well as opportunities for improvement. Any identified opportunities for improvement are then brought back for review by the senior leadership of Facilities Management so that ideas can be implemented effectively.

Maintenance of Facilities

Ongoing Preventative and Regular Maintenance Overview

Auburn University Facilities Management has a robust maintenance program with over 30,000 work orders annually. The program is primarily managed by two directorates: Maintenance and Utilities & Energy. Work order requests can be entered in three different ways: via an online portal, over the phone, and through email. A visual representation of the work order process is outlined in the provided documentation, which is an excerpt from the “Guide to Facilities Management” that is published on the Facilities Management website.

To respond to the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee question regarding preventative and regular maintenance, the following topics are detailed below: Maintenance Department corrective work orders and preventative work orders, and Utilities & Energy Department preventative maintenance.

Maintenance Department Corrective Work Orders: When corrective maintenance work orders (meaning work orders for repair of something that has broken or failed) are entered for non-infrastructure campus properties, our Integrated Work Management System (IWMS) automatically assigns them to the Maintenance Department zone or shop that is responsible for the work. The Maintenance Department is organized into four zones that are broken down by client base, meaning that all of the buildings that are primarily occupied by a particular college fall within the same zone. A visual representation of the zone layout is shown in the Maintenance Zone Map.

Work orders for categories like roofing, electrical, heating and air, plumbing, carpentry, painting and many other trades are handled by the Maintenance Department. In the past 12 months, over 30,000 corrective maintenance work orders have been completed, with an average time to complete of 13.39 calendar days. The department’s stated goal is completion in under 14 calendar days.  

Maintenance Department Preventative Work Orders: The Maintenance Department has a dedicated preventative maintenance (PM) staff of 27 HVACR technicians, electricians, and plumbers that work on the second shift and perform scheduled preventative tasks on a variety of campus assets. The PM program covers 7,612 unique assets across campus, including air handling units, exhaust fans, electrical panels, variable air volume (VAV) boxes, building generators, heat exchangers, air compressors, boilers, and many more. In the last 13 months, the PM crew has completed 130,530 of their 141,991 scheduled checkpoints, for a completion percentage of 91.9%. Attachment 5-4 Maintenance PM Completion Since 2011, the PM program has grown significantly, with the percentage of the allocated departmental budget expended rising from 6% in FY 2011 to 28% in FY 2022, which just ended. This growth is significant because it means the increased proactive nature of the Maintenance Department’s activities has prolonged equipment life and reliability, leading to a decrease in the need for corrective repairs.

Utilities & Energy Preventative Maintenance: The Utilities & Energy Department is responsible for caring for and operating the utility infrastructure of the campus. This includes high voltage electrical distribution, domestic water, sanitary sewer, chilled water, and hot water. To deliver highly reliable services, the Utilities & Energy Department has a comprehensive preventative maintenance program that covers 5,158 unique assets across campus, including switchgears, transformers, fire hydrants, water valves, backflow preventers, pumps, variable speed drives, and many more. In the last 13 months, the Utilities & Energy Department has completed 27,410 of their 28,809 scheduled checkpoints, for a completion percentage of 95.1%.

Management, Oversight, & Control of Non-Capital Fixed Assets

Property Services

Property Services and Surplus Property are areas under Associate Vice President for Financial Services/Controller. The university utilizes the Banner Fixed Asset module, along with RFTrack (asset tracking software by inLogic), to perform inventories on all capital equipment over a two-year period (complying with the timing established by federal regulations). When assets are purchased, the next steps are followed by one dedicated auditor in Property Services who handles all such cases. The auditor reviews and analyzes the ePrint report FFPOEXT (Fixed Asset Orig[ination] Tag Extract), to identify equipment purchases greater than $5,000 (the university’s capitalization threshold). Next, the auditor identifies the applicable department contact name and number and then assembles appropriate documentation (purchase order or invoice) and documents the Fund Organization Account Program (FOAP) funding source,. The auditor serves as primary contact with the department to get the location of the asset and schedule a time to go and physically tag the equipment. Then the auditor takes pictures of each asset that is being tagged and verifies federal- and state-owned equipment under a grant by physically putting separate property tags on each asset, identifying it as “Federally Owned” or “Government Owned.”

The auditor then prepares correct and accurate documentation of asset cost for entry into Banner Fixed Asset module. Once documentation has been reviewed by other Property Services Auditors, this auditor scans in Adobe all additions, cost adjustments, and reversals and stores documentation in Xtender, and ensures that pictures are saved to OneDrive.

Similar procedures are followed to identify cost adjustments to equipment previously capitalized. If necessary, the same dedicated auditor prepares correct and accurate documentation of cost adjustments for entry into the Banner Fixed Asset module,. The other two auditors are responsible for performing the inventories. In addition, they review documented write-up of additions and use the Banner Fixed Asset module to make new additions to the system. 

One of the auditors reconciles reports between Banner Finance system and the Fixed Asset system. The same auditor is responsible for the management of the Property Transfer system,,. This is a self-service Banner application that allows departments to indicate where they are moving equipment. The destination could be within their department, somewhere else on campus, or, if the item is no longer needed in an area, Surplus Property. When an asset is transferred to Surplus Property, other departments on campus are given an opportunity to purchase it from Surplus Property. Items are stored in a warehouse outside the core of campus. If departments do not want a given item, Surplus Property personnel inquire to see if any other state entity needs/wants the item. If the items are still available after that inquiry, they are placed up for auction on GovDeals.com,. Proceeds from the sales are split between Surplus Property and the department that originally purchased the item.

Information Technology

Information Technology non-capital, fixed assets are managed and controlled via a variety of process and governance functions noted below. In addition, the Chief Information Officer (CIO) conducts an external Risk Assessment on a five-year basis. The previous assessment was done in 2017 by consulting firm Plante Moran. The CIO is currently negotiating a new Statement of Work (SOW) with a major, external consulting firm. The SOW outlines a comprehensive assessment of IT risk, focused primarily on central IT support but with a small sampling of risk to IT assets in distributed units. The Risk Assessment engagement will be overseen and managed by the CIO with the advice and engagement of the university’s Office of Audit, Compliance & Privacy. The final report, combined with the annual Penetration Test Report, will be provided to the IT Executive Council, the overarching IT governance body defined below. Finally, in accordance with Federal Trade Commission mandate, the CIO and Chief Information Security Officer provided an Auburn Board of Trustees working group a status update on Graham-Leach-Bliley Act cybersecurity compliance on 9 December, with a full written report scheduled for June 2023. 

Control and management of non-capital fixed assets is accomplished via a number of existing processes. Those processes consist of an overall information technology governance process and coordination among the Office of Information Technology, the Biggio Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning, the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and the Central Unit Allocations Committee on investment and maintenance of computing labs, classroom refreshment, research computing, and improvements to student engagement. Management and control of the university’s primary software system, Banner, is overseen by the Banner Oversight Committee.

Information Technology Governance: The CIO and CFO co-chair the executive-level IT governance process. That process was initiated by the CIO in 2018. The primer sent to all council members is included as evidence. The update to the projects controlled and overseen by the council is also included as evidence. IT Executive Level governance is currently in a refreshment cycle. New members have been engaged, and an updated charter is in draft and will be approved in Q1CY23 when the new council meets. The following documents provide further evidence:

• Information Technology Strategic Investment Council Primer 11 June 2018 – Outlines the tasks and initial priorities for the council.
• Auburn University IT Executive Governance Charter V7 05142021
• ITSIC Project Statuses 1 May 2021 V3 
• Revised IT Exec Governance Charter V2 08082022

Computing Labs & Classroom Refreshment: Funding for classrooms and computer labs is controlled and managed on both a capital project and recurring maintenance basis. The 2021 Project Recap document provided contains a list of capital projects approved through the Auburn Budget Process and overseen by the CIO and CFO.

Documentation supporting the management and control of classroom assets is as follows:

• Office of Information Technology (OIT) AV Info FY21-FY22– Note: Fund numbers have been removed as being irrelevant to this query.
• 2021 Project Recap – Lists classroom upgrades, refreshment, and maintenance funded by CFO/Auburn Budget Process. These are expenditures approved via the Budget Process as a mechanism for overseeing asset investment.
• Computer Labs, Units, and Staff Responsible for Management and Control – Lists computer labs, the location or unit responsible for management and control, and responsible technician.
• Classroom Asset Management Process – Created as a clarifying document for the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee to explain how the university manages classrooms and the division of responsibilities between central IT and colleges.

Research Computing: Research computing is overseen jointly by the Office of the Vice President for Research and Economic Development and the CIO. Investment is determined by representatives from colleges and schools through a governance committee (see below), but all faculty who invest are welcome to participate. The OIT Director for Infrastructure provides updates and communication to the University Research Council in support of the University Research Council.  Monthly reports on HPC utilization are used to manage and control the asset allocation, maintenance, and investment. Supporting documents related to non-capital fixed asset management are as follows:

• Research Computing Advisory Committee – Lists college representatives overseeing investment and OIT staff supporting the technology. Technology management and control is vested in the CIO.
• Operation and requirements for the Easley High Performance Cluster
• Sample monthly utilization report

Capital Assets Supporting Student Experience: Non-capital assets include software, file servers, and virtual reality headsets.

• Program: OIT and the Biggio Center partnered to improve student experience by providing faculty with capital assets for classrooms, and these assets are managed jointly by OIT and the Biggio Center. OIT and the CFO funded a pilot project to inject virtual reality into the classroom, giving students an “almost touchable” ability to engage with subject matter. A second pilot program is currently being developed and has been funded.
• Process: OIT/Biggio Center publish a request for faculty proposals. Faculty offer their proposals, which are then evaluated by a group consisting of the Biggio Center, OIT, and faculty members. Projects are selected are funded by the CFO and CIO and are executed by faculty. OIT and the Biggio Center manage the technology, and the Biggio Center provides direct training and software support to faculty. Control and oversight of these assets is provided via the CIO’s budget submission and resulting approval process.

Enterprise Resource Management: The University deployed Ellucian Banner Human Resources, Financials, and Student Information System in support of daily operations. This system represents a substantial investment in non-capital fixed assets when considering the software, hardware, and ancillary systems. Overseeing this investment is the Banner Oversight Committee. Documentation is as follows:

• Banner Oversight Agenda – Provides a sample of an agenda from this governance group.
• Banner Oversight Meeting Minutes 10-3-2022 – Offers a sample of meeting minutes from a governance meeting.

Conclusion

The overall physical facilities of Auburn University are adequate in quality, scope, and condition to support the university’s mission. The university ensures that it has the assets to support the institution’s needs through efficient and effective maintenance, fiscally constrained capital improvements, and near- and long-term planning of the campus’ built environment. The institution regularly evaluates the appropriateness and sufficiency of physical resources, including classrooms, libraries, and laboratories. All facilities are properly and routinely maintained, and Facilities Maintenance provides multiple avenues for all campus constituencies to report issues and request service. Through comprehensive risk management practices, the institution ensures that campus assets are adequately protected and insured. Finally, the institution invests in building, maintaining, and protecting technological infrastructure sufficient for the needs of all students, faculty, and staff.