Rhode Island School of Design West Virginia Health Science Center - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

rhode island school of design
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

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


slide-1
SLIDE 1

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

Presenters: Caroline Johnson & Jayne Dabrah

slide-2
SLIDE 2

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
slide-3
SLIDE 3

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

slide-4
SLIDE 4

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

slide-5
SLIDE 5

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%

slide-6
SLIDE 6

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

slide-7
SLIDE 7

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)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

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

slide-9
SLIDE 9

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

slide-10
SLIDE 10

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

slide-11
SLIDE 11

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

slide-12
SLIDE 12

$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%

slide-13
SLIDE 13

$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%

slide-14
SLIDE 14

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

slide-15
SLIDE 15

$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

slide-16
SLIDE 16

$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

slide-17
SLIDE 17

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%

slide-18
SLIDE 18

$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

slide-19
SLIDE 19

$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

slide-20
SLIDE 20

$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

slide-21
SLIDE 21

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

slide-22
SLIDE 22

$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

slide-23
SLIDE 23

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

slide-24
SLIDE 24

$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

slide-25
SLIDE 25

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

slide-26
SLIDE 26

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

slide-27
SLIDE 27

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

slide-28
SLIDE 28

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

slide-29
SLIDE 29

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

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Pictures

From fall 2016 inspection

30

slide-31
SLIDE 31

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

slide-32
SLIDE 32

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

slide-33
SLIDE 33

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

slide-34
SLIDE 34

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

slide-35
SLIDE 35

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

slide-36
SLIDE 36

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

slide-37
SLIDE 37

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