Alcorn State University Xavier University Yale University - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

University of St. Thomas University of Tennessee Health Science Center University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Texas at Dallas University of the Sciences in Philadelphia University of Toledo University of Vermont University of Washington University of West Florida University of Wisconsin - Madison Vanderbilt University Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Department of General Services Wake Forest University Washburn University Washington University in St. Louis Wellesley College Wesleyan University West Chester University West Liberty University West Virginia Health Science Center West Virginia Institute of Technology West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine West Virginia State University West Virginia University Western Connecticut State University Western Oregon University Westfield State University Widener University Williams College Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester State University Xavier University Yale University

Alcorn State University

Presenters: Peter Reeves, Shelly Giannini & Jayne Dabrah December 20, 2016

Who Partners with Sightlines?

Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums and state systems

2

* U.S. News 2016 Rankings Sightlines is proud to announce that:

• 450 colleges and

universities are Sightlines clients including over 325 ROPA members.

• Consistently over 90%

member retention rate

• We have clients in
• ver 40 states, the

District of Columbia and four Canadian provinces

• More than 125 new

institutions became Sightlines members since 2013 Sightlines advises state systems in:

• Alaska
• California
• Florida
• Hawaii
• Maine
• Massachusetts
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Nebraska
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• Pennsylvania
• Texas

Serving the Nation’s Leading Institutions:

• 70% of the Top 20 Colleges*
• 75% of the Top 20 Universities*
• 34 Flagship State Universities
• 14 of the 14 Big 10 Institutions
• 9 of the 12 Ivy Plus Institutions

A Vocabulary for Measurement

The Return on Physical Assets – ROPASM

Asset Value Change The annual investment needed to ensure buildings will properly perform and reach their useful life “Keep-Up Costs”

Annual Stewardship

The accumulated backlog of repair / modernization needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them “Catch-Up Costs”

Asset Reinvestment

The effectiveness

• f the facilities
• perating budget,

staffing, supervision, and energy management

Operational Effectiveness

The measure of service process, the maintenance quality of space and systems, and the customers

• pinion of service

delivery

Service

Operations Success

3

Sightlines Drives a New Conversation

Facilities intelligence toolkit that connects the dots between space, capital and operating policies

4

Alcorn State University Peer Group

5

Comparative Considerations Size, technical complexity, region, geographic location, and setting are all factors included in the selection of peer institutions School Location

Bloomsbury University Bloomsburg, PA Cheyney University of PA Cheyney, PA Edinboro University of PA Edinboro, PA Jackson State University Jackson, MS Lock Haven University of PA Lock Haven, PA Mississippi Valley State University Itta Bena, MS Shippensburg University of PA Shippensburg, PA Washburn University Topeka, KS

Core Observations

Campus Profile:

• Renovations and New Construction have lowered the Campus Age Profile. However, 53% of

the total space remains over 25 years old and considered “High Risk.”

• Alcorn State has a much greater number of smaller buildings than the peer group and

database average. This creates Operational challenges when combined with limited staffing resources.

• Alcorn State has more space per FTE compared to peers and this space is predominantly

“High Risk”. Capital Investment Profile:

• Capital funding in existing space is inconsistent.
• Asset Reinvestment backlog is above peer average and is comprised of $39.3M of current

need. Operations

• Facilities operating budget is below peer average, with a limited amount dedicated to Planned

Maintenance resulting in a reactive vs proactive maintenance agenda.

• The staff at Alcorn State is covering more space with less supervision and fewer resources

than their peer group.

6

Campus Profile

73

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 A B C D E F G H ASU E&G

Buildings/1,000,000 GSF

Building Intensity

Peer Average

Key Campus Indicators

8

40 0.21

0.2 0.4 0.6 A B C D E ASU E&G F G H

Buildings/Developed Acre

Grounds Intensity

0.22 231 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

A B ASU E&G C D E F G H

Users/100,000 GSF

Density Factor

290 2.91 1 2 3 4 5

A B ASU E&G C D E F G H

Technical Complexity (1-5)

Tech Rating

3.07 Smaller Larger

Less space More space

te

Putting Your Campus Building Age In Context

9

Pre-War

Built before 1951 Durable construction Older but typically lasts longer

Post-War

Built from 1951 to 1975 Lower-quality construction Already needing more repairs and renovations

Modern

Built from 1976 to 1990 Quick-flash construction Low-quality building components

Complex

Built in 1991 and newer Technically complex spaces Higher-quality, more expensive to maintain & repair

Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex

Percent of Total Space 46% Percent of Total Space 37%

The campus age drives the overall risk profile

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% % of GSF

Sightlines Database- Construction Age Sightlines Database- Renovation Age My Campus

Percent of Total Space 9% Percent of Total Space 8%

10% 15% 32% 27% 35% 30% 38% 37% 27% 25% 13% 11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Construction Age Renovation Age Peers

% of Campus GSF

Campus Age by Category Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

Alcorn State Age Profile

Renovations have shifted the age profile at Alcorn State.

10

High Risk

Buildings Under 10 Little work. “Honeymoon” period. Low Risk Buildings 10 to 25 Short life-cycle needs; primarily space renewal. Medium Risk Buildings 25 to 50 Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come

• due. Functional obsolescence prevalent.

Higher Risk Buildings over 50 Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures are possible. Core modernization cycles are missed. Highest risk

High Risk High Risk

11

Enrollment Trends at Alcorn State

Peak enrollment in 2012 with another uptick in 2016.

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 Student FTE

Enrollment over Time

3137

12

Program Space Over Time

Alcorn State has more Program Space per student than peer group.

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 GSF/FTE

Program Space over Time

Alcorn State Average 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 GSF/FTE

FY16 Program Space vs. Peer Group

Peer Average

297 232

Programmatic Distribution of Campus Space

Acad/Admin space accounts for 42% of total campus space

13

42% 17% 29% 12%

Alcorn State’s Functional Distribution

Acad/Admin Student Life Residential Support

18% 26% 52% 1% 27% 12% 14% 65% 45% 28% 16% 20% 9% 12% 18% 13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Acad/Admin Student Life Residential Support

% of GSF by Renovation Age

Campus Age Distribution by Function

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

Capital Investment

15

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Project Dollars (Millions)

Alcorn State Total Capital Investment

Existing Space New Space Non-Facilities Average Existing Space Investment

Total Capital Investment Over Time

Alcorn State has invested an average of $3.4M into Existing Space.

56% 41% 3%

Existing Space Includes Infrastructure

Non-Facilities includes:

• IT Projects
• Departmental Projects
• Equipment Purchases
• Master Plan Projects
• Feasibility Studies

$3.4

16

Capital Spending Into Existing Space vs Peers

Peers spend $5.8M more on existing space than Alcorn State

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $10.00 $/GSF

Existing Space Investment

Alcorn State Average $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $10.00 $/GSF

Peer Existing Space Investment

Peer Average

$2.31 $6.65

Existing Space Includes Infrastructure

17

Existing Space Investment By Funding Source

Alcorn State is lacking the recurring capital funding that peers are receiving

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $10.00 $/GSF

Existing Space Investment

$.04

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $10.00 $/GSF

Peers Existing Space Investment

$1.50

Existing Space Includes Infrastructure

$11.9 $4.7 $3.5 $4.9 $1.7

$0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0 $12.0 $14.0

3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need Annual Investment Target

$ (Millions)

FY16 Annual Investment Target

Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program

Defining An Annual Investment Target

18

Functional obsolescence drives investment prior to life cycles & discounts the annual investment target

Annual Funding Target: $5.2M

Replacement Value: $397M

19

$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $ (Millions)

Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target

Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need

Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target

Includes only the investment in existing facilities Does not include infrastructure Increasing Backlog & Risk Increasing Net Asset Value Lowering Risk Profile

Total investment is consistently below target

20

$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $ (Millions)

Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target

Envelope/Mechanical Space/Programming Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need

Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target

Increasing Backlog & Risk Increasing Net Asset Value Lowering Risk Profile

Total investment is consistently below target

$4.45 $2.80 $1.93 $2.47

Includes only the investment in existing facilities Does not include infrastructure

$1.57 $1.13 $4.68 $4.41

Investments Target Systems And Infrastructure

Alcorn State historically spends much more on envelope than peers do

5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Envelope Systems Space Safety/Code

Years

Average Life Expectancy

(Data taken from BPS Life Cycle Estimates)

High ROI High ROI

22% 15% 23% 32% 8% 17% 19% 26% 28% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ASU - E&G Peer Avg. Historical Investment by Package

Envelope Systems Infrastructure Space Safety/Code

21

Total Backlog Growth Over Time

22

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $/GSF

FY16 Alcorn vs. Peers

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $/GSF

Total Backlog Increase Over Time

Facilities & Daily Operations

23

Insert institution logo here (slide master)

Alcorn’s Budget into Sightlines Vocabulary

24

ASU Operating Budget Processed ASU Operating Budget People Costs Utility Costs Daily Service Costs Planned Maintenance Costs Utility Costs Expenses

25

Historical Operating Expenditures

Average operating budget is $4.35/GSF

$2.79 $2.21 $2.25 $2.90 $2.18 $1.55 $2.05 $1.90 $1.99 $2.04 $0.08 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.04 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.14 $1.94 $2.03 $1.90 $2.03 $2.27 $2.33 $2.48 $2.32 $1.88 $1.77

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $/ GSF

Total Operating Expenditures

Daily Service Planned Maintenance Utilities Average

$4.35

Operating Budget Compared To Peers with COLI

Alcorn State is operating at $1.51/GSF below the peer average

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 A B ASU - E&G C D E F G H

$/ GSF

FY16 Operating Expenditures vs. Peers

Daily Service PM Utilities Peer Average $5.46

26

*Arranged by Tech Rating

Daily Service Compared To Peers with COLI

Alcorn State’s daily service costs are $1.73 below the peer average

$2.04

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 A B ASU E&G C D E F G H $/GSF

FY16 Daily Service Expenditures

Peer Average $3.77

27

*Arranged by Tech Rating

Planned Maintenance Compared To Peers with COLI

Alcorn State dedicates a lower % of the Operating Budget to PM than peers

1.21%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% A B ASU E&G C D E F G H % of Budget

FY16 Planned Maintenance Expenditures

Peer Average 3.87%

28

*Arranged by Tech Rating

Maintenance Performance vs. Peers

Alcorn State’s maintenance staff covers more space with less supervision

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 A B ASU - E&G C D E F G H GSF / FTE (Thousands)

Maintenance Staffing

*Institutions ordered by Tech Rating 5 10 15 20 25 A B ASU - E&G C D E F G H FTE / Supervisor

Maintenance Supervision

6.81

Peer Average General Repair Inspection Score: 3.70 Peer Average: 3.86

29

103

Custodial Performance vs. Peers

Alcorn State’s custodial staff covers more space with less supervision

55.1

10 20 30 40 50 60 A B ASU- E&G C D E F G H GSF / FTE (Thousands)

Custodial Staffing

38.8

*Institutions ordered by Density Factor

29.0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 A B ASU - E&G C D E F G H FTE / Supervisor

Custodial Supervision

20.8

Peer Average Cleanliness Inspection Score: 3.69 Peer Average: 3.95

30

Grounds Performance vs. Peers

31

10 20 30 40 50 60 A B C D E ASU - E&G F G H Acres / FTE

Grounds Staffing

29.9

*Institutions ordered by Grounds Intensity 5 10 15

20 25 30 35 40 45 A B C D E ASU - E&G F G H FTE / Supervisor

Grounds Supervision

15.8

Peer Average Grounds Inspection Score: 3.56 Peer Average: 3.72

Alcorn State grounds staff covers more space with less supervision

Capital Renewal - Reassessment

32

Questions & Discussion

33

Concluding Comments

Campus Profile:

• Within 10 years, 50% of Space will be Over 50 and in the High Risk category.
• Defining the highest ROI projects that match building need with program value will help

decrease the backlog and will promote good building health. Capital Investment Profile:

• An Annual Funding Target of $5.2M was identified for Alcorn State. Historical investment has

not been sufficient to meet this minimum investment target, resulting in additional deferral to backlog.

• Alcorn State should reduce this target by continuing to remove space from the Building

Inventory that has been identified as not mission critical.

• In addition, Alcorn State should seek a local, recurring funding source to target immediate need

Capital Projects. Operations

• Alcorn State is operating at much higher coverage ratio’s than peer group and maintaining

current service levels is unlikely.

• Align staffing levels to meet current and future campus needs and service expectations.
• Leverage the strength of the Work Order system to track Planned Maintenance by Trade,

number of WO’s, and dollars spent.

34