University of Nebraska Medical Center University of Nebraska Omaha University of New Brunswick University of New Hampshire University of New Haven University of New Mexico University of North Texas University of Northern Iowa University of Notre Dame University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania University of Redlands University of Rhode Island University of Rochester University of San Diego University of San Francisco University of Southern Maine University of Southern Mississippi 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 Vermont Vanderbilt University Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Department of General Services Wagner College 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 Wheaton College Widener University Williams College
Rhode Island School of Design West Virginia Health Science Center - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Rhode Island School of Design West Virginia Health Science Center - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
University of Nebraska Medical Center University of Nebraska Omaha University of New Brunswick University of New Hampshire University of New Haven University of New Mexico University of North Texas University of Northern Iowa University of
Who Partners with Sightlines?
Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums and state systems
2
* U.S. News Rankings Sightlines is proud to announce that:
- 450 colleges and
universities are Sightlines clients including over 325 ROPA members.
- 93% of ROPA
members renewed in 2014
- We have clients in 42
states, the District of Columbia and four Canadian provinces
- More than 100 new
institutions became Sightlines members since 2013 Sightlines advises state systems in:
- Alaska
- California
- Connecticut
- Hawaii
- Maine
- Massachusetts
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Nebraska
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- Pennsylvania
- Texas
- West Virginia
Serving the Nation’s Leading Institutions:
- 70% of the Top 20 Colleges*
- 75% of the Top 20 Universities*
- 34 Flagship State Universities
- 13 of the 14 Big 10 Institutions
- 9 of the 12 Ivy Plus Institutions
- 8 of 13 Selective Liberal Arts Colleges
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 accumulation
- f repair and
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 opinion
- f service delivery
Service
Operations Success
3
Institution
Art Center College of Design Bentley University Berklee College of Music Bowdoin College Brown University California Institute of the Arts Connecticut College Ithaca College Massachusetts College of Art and Design Mount Holyoke College
Comparative Considerations Size, technical complexity, region, geographic location, and setting are all factors included in the selection of peer institutions
Core Comments
> Campus was built earlier than the Sightlines database
> Sturdy bones but in need of modernization > Smaller, historic buildings place stress on operations
> Campus needs are split between “Keep Up” and “Catch Up”
> RISD’s current capital strategy puts pressure on “Keep Up” funds > Limited one-time funding creates high overall backlog of need
> RISD has more program space / student than peers
> Studio space driving need?
> New emissions data shows downward trends
4
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
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% %GSF
Sightlines Database- Construction Age RISD
Putting Your Campus Building Age in Context
5
Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex
Percent of Total Space DB 36% RISD 7%
The campus age drives the overall risk profile
Percent of Total Space DB 15% RISD 3% Percent of Total Space DB 30% RISD 3% Percent of Total Space DB 20% RISD 87%
20 40 60 80 100 120 A B C RISD D E F G H I J Years of Age
Construction Age v. Renovation Age
Weighted Construction Age Weighted Renovation Age Peer Reno Average Peer Construction
Resetting the Clock Through Renovations
RISD has older facilities on average, but has made more impact with renovations
6
- 27
- 9
- 52
- 8
- 7
- 49
- 13
- 11
- 6
- 60
- 40
- 20
Age Reduction Peer Avg Age Reduction = 12 years Peers ordered by increasing tech rating
15% 9% 15% 23% 19% 36% 32% 28% 26% 37% 16% 21% 27% 48% 29% 39% 32% 22% 26%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Peers (42.6) RISD (51.2) RISD FY2021 RISD FY2026 RISD FY2035 % GSF
Campus Age by Category Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
A Shifting Campus Age Profile
High Risk
7
Understanding the Impact of Age on Capital Demands
High Risk
New construction: ~100K GSF 250 South Water Street, ~ 100K Housing and Student Life at Angell Street Renovations: College, Metcalf, Homer, Nickerson, Barstow, Larned, Thompson & Alumni, B.E.B.(Bayard Ewing Building)
1 2 3 4 5
A B C RISD D E F G H I J
Technical Complexity
Tech Rating
Physical Drivers of Campus
Similar physical attributes to peer institutions
8
Wear & Tear of Space Life Cycles of Building Components Operational Demands
Density Factor Impacts:
Repair & Replacement Costs Energy Consumption Levels Operational Demands
Tech Rating Impacts:
Less Complex More Complex
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
A B C RISD D E F G H I J
Users / 100K GSF
Density Factor
Database Peer Group
9
Density across the Sightlines Database
Density: Users per 100,000/GSF
Density Factor Across the Sightlines Database
Liberal Arts Comprehensive University Small Institutions & Community College Urban/City Mean
Private Institution Average Public Institution Average
The database average for Density has decreased by 5% over the past 5 years. The average classroom utilization rate is 50%-60%
*Density Factor measures the number of faculty, staff and students FTEs on campus per hundred thousand square feet. RISD
Program Space Per Student
RISD has more program space per student than peer and database average
10
*Arranged by Density Factor
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 GSF/FTE
Peers Program Space Per Student
Peer Group Member Average 292 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 GSF/FTE
RISD Program Space Per Student
Database Average 242
Less Economies of Scale w/ Student Life Space
11
- 10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Acad/Admin Residential Student Life Support
Blds / 1,000,000 GSF
Building Intensity by Function
- 5,000
10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 Acad/Admin Residential Student Life Support
Building Size
Average Building Size by Function
Appendix 1 for more on building intensity
Smaller buildings Larger buildings
$0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0 $12.0 $14.0 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 $ in Millions
Total Capital Investment
Existing Space Investment New Space Investment Average Spending Average Annual Spending: $3.4M
Total Capital Investment Over Time
At RISD, focus has been on existing space
12
61% 39%
$0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0 $12.0 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 $ in Millions
Total Capital Investment
Existing Space Investment Average Spending Average Annual Spending: $4.2M
Total Capital Investment- Existing Space
Investment levels rise in FY14-16 due to the ISB project
13
61% 39%
Peers Out Invest RISD
14
24% 20% 11% 37% 8% RISD FY10-16 Investment Mix 13% 31% 21% 36% 7% Peer Systems FY10-16 Investment Mix Building Envelope Building Systems Infrastructure Space Renewal Safety/Code
$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$/GSF
Total Project Spending into Existing Space
RISD Peer Group Average $4.30 $4.12 $1.08
$19.9 $7.8 $5.8 $10.2 $3.6
$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0
3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need (Equilibrium) Functional Obsolescence (Target)
$ in Millions
Defining Stewardship Investment Targets
Envelope/ Mechanical Space/ Program Depreciation Model Sightlines Recommendation
$18.0M
Understanding RISD’s Investment Target
15
RPV: $662.9M
Target Need: Discounts for campus modernization and replacement of components before life cycles come due
$9.4M
$0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0 $12.0 $14.0 $16.0 $18.0 $20.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $ in Millions
Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target
Annual Stewardship Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need
ISB Project Helps to Bridge the Gap
Includes only the investment into existing facilities
Increasing Backlog & Risk
16
Increasing Net Asset Value Lowering Risk Profile
ISB Drives Investment
17
Peers Sustaining Value of Campus
One-Time funds assist peers in reaching target
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 % of Target Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment
Total Project Spending vs. Target
Peers RISD Average Average Investment With ISB: 55% Average Investment Without ISB: 42%
$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 $ in Millions
Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target
Annual Stewardship Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need
Projected 2025 Target Funding Level
Future target levels continue to rise due to building backlog increase
Increasing Backlog & Risk
18
Increasing Net Asset Value Lowering Risk Profile
2020: Additions 250 South Water Street Housing and Student Life, Angell Street
$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
$ in Millions
Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target
Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Budgeted DM Operating Cash Investment Projected Projects Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need Impact
Projected 2026 Target Funding Level
Increasing Backlog & Risk
19
Lowering Risk Profile Target Need Life Cycle Need
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25
Total Dollars in Millions
Total Need by Building
Total Asset Reinvestment Need by Building
Estimated using Sightlines prediction model
20
See excel sheet, “Need by Building” for more detail
Asset Reinvestment Above Peer Levels
$103/GSF at RISD
21
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
A B C RISD D E F G H I J
$/GSF
Asset Reinvestment Need
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A B C RISD D E F G H I J
%
Net Asset Value
* Institutions arranged by Tech Rating
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25
$’s in Millions
10 Year Capital Forecast
Current Need Renewal Need Modernization & Infrastructure Projected Investment
Projected Investment vs. 10 Year Needs
22
$47 $43 $53 $48 $73 $90
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 $200
FY15 Asset Reinvestment Need FY16 Asset Reinvestment Need
$’s in Millions
Asset Reinvestment Need
AR Need and NAV Today and Future
Despite, strong funding plan backlog grows. However, NAV increases.
23
$179M $191M
$- $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000
Asset Reinvestment Need
2016 2026
73% 81%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Net Asset Value
2016 2026
$4.39 $4.60 $4.42 $4.36 $4.44 $4.61 $4.80 $4.73 $4.74 $4.87 $4.81 $5.03 $5.01 $4.99 $0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00
$/GSF
Operating Actuals
Daily Service PM Utilities Average Total Actuals
Historical Operating Actuals
On average, RISD has $.49 less to run campus than peers
24
RISD Peers
FY16 Facilities Operating Expenditures Below Peers
25
$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12
A B C RISD D E F G H I J
$/GSF
FY16 Facilities Operating Actuals
Daily Service PM Utilities Peer Average
* Institutions arranged by Tech Rating
New Space: O&M Estimated Costs
Using Sightlines Cost Forecaster
Building Name
- Est. GSF
Daily Service PM Utility Materials Staff FTEs Total Additional Cost Housing and Student Life Angell Street 100,000 $549,887 $44,120 $228,848 $31,308 4.6 $822,855 250 South Water Street 100,000 $518,162 $41,574 $212,646 $31,308 4.4 $806,690 Total 200,000 $1,068,049 $85,694 $441,494 $62,616 9.0 $1,629,545
26
Maintenance Metrics
27
Maintenance Staffing
$0.00 $0.05 $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25 $0.30 $0.35 $0.40 $/GSF
Maintenance Materials
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 FTE/Super
Maintenance Supervision
1 2 3 4 5 RISD Peers
General Repair
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 GSF/FTE
Peers ordered by increasing tech complexity
Custodial Metrics
28
Custodial Staffing
$0.00 $0.05 $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25 $0.30 $0.35 $0.40 $/GSF
Custodial Materials
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 FTE/Super
Custodial Supervision
1 2 3 4 5 RISD Peers
Cleanliness
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 GSF/FTE
Peers ordered by increasing density factor
Grounds Metrics
29
5 10 15 20 25 30 Acres/FTE
Grounds Staffing
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 FTE/Supervisor
Grounds Supervision
1 2 3 4 5 RISD Peers
Grounds Inspection Score
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $/Acre
Grounds Materials
Institutions arranged by Grounds Intensity
Pictures
From fall 2016 inspection
30
Energy Snapshot
Consuming at peer levels
31
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
A B C RISD D E F G H
BTU/GSF
FY16 Energy Consumption
Fossil Electric
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
A B C RISD D E F G H
$/MMBTU
FY16 Energy Cost
Peers ordered by increasing technical complexity
Carbon Management for Energy
32
AVOIDANCE:
Don’t consume energy
ACTIVITY:
Consume less by increasing efficiency
INTENSITY:
Switch high-carbon energy sources for low-carbon ones
OFFSET:
Offset the emissions from consumption
Scope 1 Stationary: Fuel Mix
33
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 MTCDE/ 1,000 MMBTU Carbon Intensity of Commonly Used Fossil Fuels
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
% total fossil MMBTU RISD Longitudinal Fuel Mix
Natural Gas Oil #4 Oil #6 Less Intensity More Intensity
Scope 2 Purchased Electric: Fuel Mix
34
NEWE Grid Fuel Mix (2010) NEWE Grid Fuel Mix (2012) Coal Natural Gas Other Fossil Nuclear Renewable
Less Intensity More Intensity 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
NYUP AKMS NEWE CAMX NWPP NYCW RFCE SRVC SRMV FRCC ERCT SRSO AZNM HIMS NYLI AKGD SRTV RFCW MROW MROE SPSO RFCM HIOA SPNO SRMW RMPA MTCDE/1M kWh Carbon Intensity by Grid Region
Consumption vs. Emissions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 MTCDE / 1,000 GSF BTU / GSF
Purchased Electric Emissions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 MTCDE / 1,000 GSF BTU / GSF
Purchased Fossil Emissions
Scope 1 Stationary and Scope 2 Electric Emissions
35
More Activity Less Activity
Concluding Comments
> Despite a growing investment (ISB), total Asset Reinvestment has not continued to grow.
Additional resources are needed to stabilize this growth and tackle the backlog of need at RISD.
> RISD is operating with less daily resources compared to peers. This shortfall coupled with the
lack of capital, increases RISD’s risk profile. Investing proactively, supervising staff and strong utilization of the work order system will help to minimize the impact of this gap.
> As RISD looks to expand campus and increase the overall footprint, a close look at how the
O&M budget will be impacted is a critical exercise. Will RISD’s budget grow with this additional square footage?
> New emissions data shows positive declines in MTCDEs/GSF
36
Building Intensity- Appendix 1
- 10,000
20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 10 25 50 100
Building Size
Average Building Size by Reno Age Group
- 10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Bld / 1,000,000 GSF
Building Intensity Database Peer Group