What Can Your Next Campus Budget Make Possible?

By Sreejesh Unnikrishnan, Associate Partner

If you’re getting ready for next year’s budget, I’d put energy and infrastructure projects on the table early. A side-by-side look at renewal cost, upgrade premium and what the institution can afford is much easier to build now than after the design is locked in.

When a university asks us to look at an upgrade, the system is usually aging, unreliable or hard to operate. A boiler needs replacing. Chillers are close to the end of their service life.

That’s also a good moment to ask whether the replacement could improve energy performance or cut emissions, while there’s still room to shape the scope.

Start with what the university needs

I start with one question: what’s driving the project? It could be failing equipment, operating costs, a carbon goal, reliability or planned growth. The answer tells me which options deserve a closer look. Sometimes an equivalent replacement is the right call. When it is, I compare its cost with the added cost of a more efficient or lower-carbon option. That shows what the university has to spend and what it would pay for the upgrade.

The equipment price won’t show you the full budget. A new plant may need electrical upgrades, piping and distribution changes, controls, structural work, temporary systems and shutdown planning. On a campus with a central plant, a chiller or boiler is only one piece of a larger system. Pumps, campus piping, building equipment, controls and electrical capacity all shape how the upgrade will perform. I want the study to cover those connections before we compare prices.

Facilities teams know what needs attention. Senior leaders and boards want to see what each option buys, how the savings were estimated and what risks remain. A good estimate gives both groups the same picture, so the conversation about priorities starts from shared numbers.

Make the choices visible early

That’s why we try to bring the decision forward. If the first complete price arrives at the end of design, sticker shock can stall even urgent work. So, we ask early: What would an equivalent replacement cost? What does the proposed upgrade add? If the campus expects growth or other projects, how could that change system size and timing? An early comparison doesn’t lock anyone in. It gives the university a range to work within.

Before sizing a new plant, I’d want to know how the existing system performs and what the campus actually uses. That tests whether the proposed capacity fits current demand and planned changes.

Savings deserve the same care. They depend on the baseline, utility rates, operating schedules and system performance, so I’d state those assumptions up front and plan to check the results after the work is done. Payback alone won’t capture renewal, reliability or emissions goals.

Then there’s construction itself. A chiller replacement may need temporary cooling, phased connections or short shutdown windows. A working campus still needs heat and cooling while the work goes on, so these items affect cost and schedule. They belong in the comparison from day one.

Phase the work around real campus needs

When funds are tight, I’d phase the work around three things: the condition of the equipment, the risk to campus operations and what depends on what. Controls upgrades are often ready to go now. A failing plant may need to come first, since the risk of waiting is higher. Larger conversions usually have to wait for electrical or distribution upgrades to be in place.

Each phase should have a purpose and fit the longer-term plan. It helps to show where interim work could become redundant and how enabling upgrades support later phases. Planning ahead can cut repeat costs for access, shutdowns and temporary service. It also gives the board something concrete to approve each year, instead of one large number.

Comparing the options in practice

On one infrastructure project, we looked at replacing aging chillers while the institution stayed open. We prepared one cost analysis for an equivalent replacement and another for the more efficient system the engineers proposed. The client made the call. Our job was to make the options clear, and we treated continued operations as part of the brief from the start. The plan had to show how the university would function during the work.

At G&T, our technical services and MEP cost teams define requirements and compare options before design commitment. That gives clients room to adjust scope, test assumptions and understand the budget.

For your next budget, I’d show the essential replacement cost, the added investment for an upgrade and the assumptions behind expected savings. Then decision makers can weigh immediate needs against longer-term plans.

What infrastructure decisions are coming up in your next budget discussions? I’d welcome a conversation about how you’re balancing the need to keep campus systems running with the chance to invest in their future.

Sreejesh Unnikrishnan is a Director at Gardiner & Theobald, an independent project and cost management consultancy with fourteen offices across the United States.