University of Alaska System Presentation University of Oregon - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

university of alaska system presentation
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

University of Alaska System Presentation University of Oregon - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Saint Marys College (IN) Saint Marys College of California University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign The University of Maine University of Maine at Augusta Reference 52 University of Maine at Farmington University of Maine at


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Sightlines, LLC University of Alaska System Presentation FY2012

Date: April 3, 2013 Presented by: Colin Sanders, Laura Vassilowitch & Sheena Salsberry

Saint Mary’s College (IN) Saint Mary’s College of California – University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign The University of Maine University of Maine at Augusta University of Maine at Farmington University of Maine at Machias University of Maine at Presque Isle University of Maine at Fort Kent University of Maryland University of Massachusetts Amherst University of Massachusetts Boston University of Massachusetts Dartmouth University of Massachusetts Lowell University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Missouri University of Missouri - Kansas City University of Missouri - St. Louis University of New Hampshire University of New Haven University of Notre Dame University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania University of Portland University of Redlands The University of Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay The University of Rhode Island, Feinstein Providence The University of Rhode Island, Kingston University of Rochester University of San Diego University of San Francisco University of St. Thomas (TX) University of Southern Maine University of Toledo University of Vermont Upper Iowa University Utica College Vassar College Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Department of General Services Wagner College Wellesley College Wesleyan University West Chester University of Pennsylvania West Virginia University Western Oregon University Wheaton College (MA)

Reference 52

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Sightlines Profile

Common vocabulary, consistent methodology, credibility through benchmarking

Annual Stewardship The annual investment needed to ensure buildings will properly perform and reach their useful life “Keep-Up Costs” Asset Reinvestment The accumulated backlog of repair and modernization needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them. “Catch-Up Costs”

Asset Value Change

Operational Effectiveness The effectiveness

  • f the facilities
  • perating budget,

staffing, supervision, and energy management Service The measure of service process, the maintenance quality of space and systems, and the customers opinion

  • f service delivery

Operations Success

System Peers

  • Connecticut*
  • Maine
  • Missouri
  • Mississippi
  • New Hampshire
  • Oregon
  • Pennsylvania

*New system peer

Reference 52

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

Sightlines Profile

Common vocabulary, consistent methodology, credibility through benchmarking

Annual Stewardship The annual investment needed to ensure buildings will properly perform and reach their useful life “Keep-Up Costs” Asset Reinvestment The accumulated backlog of repair and modernization needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them. “Catch-Up Costs”

Asset Value Change

Operational Effectiveness The effectiveness

  • f the facilities
  • perating budget,

staffing, supervision, and energy management Service The measure of service process, the maintenance quality of space and systems, and the customers opinion

  • f service delivery

Operations Success

System Peers

  • Connecticut*
  • Maine
  • Missouri
  • Mississippi
  • New Hampshire
  • Oregon
  • Pennsylvania

Operating funds:

  • State General

Funds

  • Student tuitions

& Fees

  • F&A Recovery
  • Other

Capital funds:

  • Bonds
  • State General

Funds

  • Federal Grants
  • Foundations

Grants

  • Facilities
  • perating budget
  • Staffing levels
  • Energy cost and

consumption

  • Campus

Inspection

  • Service Process
  • Customer

Satisfaction Survey

*New system peer

Reference 52

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

MAUs Campuses

  • Anchorage
  • Kenai Peninsula
  • Kodiak College
  • Matanuska- Susitna College
  • Prince William Sound

Community College

  • Fairbanks
  • Community and Technical

College

  • College of Rural & Community

Development

  • Juneau
  • Ketchikan
  • Sitka

GSF 2.6M GSF 3.3M GSF 569K GSF Bldg. # 95 Buildings 212 Buildings 39 Buildings

Scope of work

Total GSF: 6.6M GSF; 346 buildings Reference 52

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Best Practices Nationally Suggests to Us…

When Stewardship falls… 1. Failures increase 2. Operational effectiveness falls 3. Customer satisfaction decreases 4. Capital investment is driven by

  • customers. Space wins over

systems. 5. The backlog of needs increases Focused project selection… 1. Decreases operating costs 2. Savings Increase stewardship 3. Planned maintenance grows 4. Customer satisfaction improves 5. Greater flexibility of project selection repeats the cycle. Reference 52

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

UA System’s ROPA Radar Charts

Annual Stewardship Service Asset Reinvestment Operating Effectiveness

UA System FY12

Reference 52

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Western Region Trends

(AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA)

Sightlines Database

Reference 52

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

#1 Dichotomy of campus age profiles

Campuses are growing older

38% 38% 38% 39% 39% 38% 18% 19% 19% 19% 19% 20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

(%) Square Footage over 25 years old (Renovation Age)

25 to 50 Years of Age Over 50 Years of Age

Western Region (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA) Reference 52

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

Investments decreasing to national database average

#2 Cyclical capital investments

$1.5 $1.8 $1.8 $1.7 $1.6 $1.4 $2.9 $4.6 $5.2 $4.2 $3.4 $3.5 $- $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 $6.0 $7.0 $8.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

$/GSF

Annual Capital One-Time Capital $1.2 $1.3 $1.4 $1.3 $1.5 $1.6 $3.1 $4.0 $4.0 $3.2 $3.4 $3.3 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Western Region Database National Database

Capital Investment into Existing Space

Western Region (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA)

Average Average

Reference 52

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

#3 Less investment into space projects in 2012

10% 24% 13% 40% 13%

2007

13% 25% 26% 29% 7%

2012 Western Region Total Project Spending

Building Envelope Building Systems Infrastructure Space Renewal Safety/Code

Shifting investments towards building envelope, system, and infrastructure needs

Western Region (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA) Reference 52

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

$75 $77 $78 $78 $81 $84

$- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

$/GSF

Backlog $/GSF

#4 Steady increase in backlog

The western region saw an 11% increase in backlog since FY07

Western Region (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA) Reference 52

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

Major factors that influence campus

  • perations and decisions

UA System profile

Reference 52

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

23% 25% 19% 19% 50% 33% 7% 23%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% UA System Peer System Average

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

Alaska in Context: Campus renovation age vs. peers

57% of Alaska System space is over 25 years old

High Risk High Risk

68% 47% 48% 50% 53% 57% 69% 69%

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

A B C D E UA System G H

% of space over 25 years old

Peer system comparison

Renovation Age Categories

System peer comparison

Systems Ordered by Tech Rating

Peer System Average

Reference 52

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

23% 25% 19% 19% 50% 33% 7% 23%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% UA System Peer System Average

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

Age profile informs capital strategy

High Risk High Risk

Renovation Age Categories

System peer comparison

Buildings Under 10 Little work, “honeymoon” period. Low Risk

Buildings 10 to 25 Lower cost space renewal updates and initial signs of program pressures Medium Risk Buildings 25 to 50 Life cycles are coming due in envelope and mechanical

  • systems. 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

Reference 52

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

UAA UAF UAS

Alaska in Context: Tech rating

Alaska System Tech Ranges from 2.5 to 3.3

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

A B C D E UA System G H

SL Public University FY2012 Average: 2.93 Tech Rating (1-5 Scale) Peer System Average UA System Tech Rating Peer Range

Tech Rating by MAU Tech Rating

Peer system comparison

Reference 52

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

UAA UAF UAS

Alaska in Context: Density Factor

UA System Density Factor range: 280-640

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 A B C D E UA System G H

SL Public University FY2012 Average: 616 FTE Users/100,000 GSF

*Users Include Faculty, Staff, Student FTEs

Peer System Average Peer Range UA System Density Factor

Density Factor by MAU Density Factor

Peer system comparison

Reference 52

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 A B C D E F UA System H 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

UAA UAF UAS

Alaska in Context: Building Intensity

Peer System Average

UA System Building Intensity Average : 56 Buildings/ 1M GSF

UA System Average Buildings/1M GSF Peer Range SL Public University FY2012 Average: 39

Building Intensity by MAU Building Intensity System Averages

Peer system comparison

Reference 52

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

Asset value change and performance value

Capital, Budget, and Operations

Reference 52

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

Maintenance & Operations Budget

UA System terminology to Sightlines

M&R R&R DM

Grounds & Custodial

One-time Capital

One- time Capital Recurring Capital

Fund 5 Fund 1

*Stewardship and Reinvestment classifications are based on funding source rather than type of work

Daily Maintenance

Recurring Capital

  • Maint. &

Operating Budget

Daily Operations Projects

Capital Projects Maintenance & Operations Budget

Reference 52

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

Total capital spending

Total FY12 investment was $130M

$0.0 $20.0 $40.0 $60.0 $80.0 $100.0 $120.0 $140.0 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 Millions

Total UA System

Capital Spending

Existing Facilities Non-Facilities/New Space

$32.2M $28.4M $99.9M $90.2M $78.7M $98.6M $130M

Avg: $83M 52% 48%

Project split-out

FY06-FY12

Reference 52

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

Total capital spending in facilities

Total facilities related investments in FY12 was $54M

$0.0 $20.0 $40.0 $60.0 $80.0 $100.0 $120.0 $140.0 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 Millions

Total UA System

Capital Spending

Existing Facilities

$22.2M $27.0M $42.7M $48.2M $60.0M $43.8M $53.9M

Avg: $42.5M

Reference 52

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22

$107.4 $65.6

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

Life Cycle Need (Equilibrium) Functional Obsolescence (Target) $ in Millions

UA System – FY2012 Stewardship Targets

Sightlines’ stewardship “Best Practice” target

Creating a target for recurring funding sources from operating budget funds

Annual Stewardship

Recurring capital : M&R and R&R projects* Planned Maintenance: Service contracts and PM work order labor and materials

*Stewardship and Reinvestment classifications are based on funding source rather than type of work

Reference 52

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

$0.0 $20.0 $40.0 $60.0 $80.0 $100.0 $120.0 $140.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

$ in Millions

Annual Stewardship Equilibrium Need

Total capital investment vs. target need

UA System – Annual Stewardship

Funding 19% of stewardship target on average

Target Range *Capital investments includes renovation of vacated space

Reference 52

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24

$0.0 $20.0 $40.0 $60.0 $80.0 $100.0 $120.0 $140.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

$ in Millions

Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Equilibrium Need

Total capital investment vs. target need

Deferral rate since FY06 totals up to $303M

Target Range

UA System – Annual Stewardship

*Capital investments includes renovation of vacated space

Reference 52

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25

Capital investment vs. target comparison

Systems Ordered by Tech Rating

Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment

Peer System Average

Increasing AS by $8.2M each year will help UA System reach Sightlines’ target range

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% UAA UAF UAS

% of Target

% of Target – 7 year average

By MAU

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% A B C D E UA System G H

% of Target – 7 year average

Peer system comparison

UA System Average

Target Range – Sustaining or Increasing Net Asset Value

Reference 52

slide-26
SLIDE 26

26

Capital investment mix profile for UA

7% 21% 10% 51% 11%

UA System FY07

Mix of Spending

  • Bldg. Envelope
  • Bldg. Systems

Infrastructure Space Code

16% 33% 26% 18% 7%

UA System FY12

Mix of Spending

UA spending mix follows with regional trend- shifting away from space projects

Reference 52

slide-27
SLIDE 27

27

Capital investment mix profile comparison FY12

16% 33% 26% 18% 7%

  • Bldg. Envelope
  • Bldg. Systems

Infrastructure Space Code

14% 31% 21% 27% 7% 13% 25% 26% 29% 7%

UA system and system peers mix of spending similar to regional database

UA System FY12 System Peers FY12 Regional Database FY12

Reference 52

slide-28
SLIDE 28

28 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Investment Focus - Envelope & Mechanical Projects

Recent years focusing on envelope and mechanical needs

% of Target % of Envelope, Mechanical, & Infrastructure

  • vs. Target

UA System Average

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 % of Target

% of Target by Project Category

Target Target

  • 50,000

100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 BTU/GSF Fossil BTU/GSF Electric BTU/GSF

UA System Total Consumption

% of Space & Programming vs. Target

Reference 52

slide-29
SLIDE 29

29

DM&R Progression over time

UA System backlog of deferred maintenance and renewal totals $1.1B in FY12

$698M $736M $875M $888M $941M $1,033M $1,082M

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 $ in Millions

UA System Total DM&R

FY06-FY12

Reference 52

slide-30
SLIDE 30

30

UA System terminology to Sightlines

*Stewardship and Reinvestment classifications are based on funding source rather than type of work

R&R DM

One-time Capital

One- time Capital Recurring Capital

Fund 5 Fund 1

Capital Projects

Maintenance & Operations Budget

M&R

Grounds & Custodial

Daily Maintenance

Recurring Capital

  • Maint. &

Operating Budget

Daily Operations Projects

Maintenance & Operations Budget

Reference 52

slide-31
SLIDE 31

31

Operating Budget vs. Peer Systems

UA system closer to peers when accounting for the cost of living

$- $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 A B C D E UA System G H

Operating Budget FY12

$/GSF

Institutions in order of Tech Rating

$- $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 A B C D E UA System G H

Regionally Adjusted Operating Budget FY12

Daily Service: Maintenance, Grounds, Custodial, and Facilities Admin budget Includes all personnel, supplies, materials, and contract costs

Adjusted budget reflects a comparison normalized for regional cost-of-living variance

Reference 52

slide-32
SLIDE 32

32

Maintenance performance

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 A B C D E UA System G H

GSF/FTE

Maintenance Staffing Coverage

GSF/FTE

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

A B C D E F UA System H

Peer System Average

Systems Ordered by Building Intensity Avg.

Maintenance Staffing Coverage

Maintained Buildings/FTE

UA System coverage ratio similar to peers despite having more buildings to cover

Systems Ordered by Tech Rating

Buildings/FTE General Repair score (1-5) UA System avg. Peer System avg. 4.07 3.80

Reference 52

slide-33
SLIDE 33

33

Custodial performance

10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 A B C D E UA System G H

GSF/FTE

Custodial Staffing Coverage

GSF/FTE

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

A B C D E F UA System H

Peer System Average

Systems Ordered by Building Intensity Avg.

Custodial Staffing Coverage

Cleaned Buildings/FTE

Covering more buildings with comparable inspection scores

Systems Ordered by Density Factor

Buildings/FTE Cleanliness Score (1-5) UA System avg. Peer System avg. 4.00 4.10

Reference 52

slide-34
SLIDE 34

34

Bringing it all together

University of Alaska System

Reference 52

slide-35
SLIDE 35

35

FY10/FY11 recommendations revisited

FY10 Recommendations Reduce effects of a high cost structure, campus complexity and regional strain by:

  • Tracking operations and capital data consistently across all MAU’s to ensure accurate comparisons and

analysis

  • Quantifying the backlog consistently across all MAU’s to aid in implementing a long-range capital plan

that includes both keep-up and catch-up funding

  • Monitoring daily operations to maximize efficiencies and track the correlation between change in

backlog and operational metrics, including:

  • Operating budget
  • Energy consumption
  • Staffing levels
  • Campus inspection
  • Monitoring academic space utilization rates to ensure efficient use of facilities

FY11 Recommendations

  • Create a manageable target that is applicable to all the MAUs that will help reduce the backlog and

maintain facilities at a sustainable level

  • Understand impact of wide ranging density factors, tech ratings, and age, and develop differentiated

maintenance, repairs, and stewardship strategies for each MAU

  • Fund projects that will steward the space under 10 (keep your young space young), and address the

life cycles/deferred needs in space over 25 (renovate older, worn out buildings)

  • University Building Fund (In progress)

Reference 52

slide-36
SLIDE 36

36

FY12 recommendation #1

Updated FY14 Sustainment Funding Plan for UA Facilities

Continue to complete the Investment Strategy Building Chart to incorporate plans for future budgets. Putting a strategy in place will help reach the goal to decrease the DM&R

$- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Millions

Additional R&R Funds necessary to reach sustainmenet level by FY18 Deferred Maintenance Reduction Expenditures R&R Annual Expenditures M&R Annual Expenditures M&R/R&R Annual Investment Target Deferred Maintenance Backlog with adequate M&R/R&R Funding Reduction in Backlog from DM Investment

FY14 Sustainment Funding Plan for UA Facilities

Millions

Reference 52

slide-37
SLIDE 37

37

Using the detailed analysis for multi-year investment planning

Investment strategy and project selection based on facts

Reference 52

slide-38
SLIDE 38

38

FY12 recommendation #2

Database shows national trends of increasing backlog and daily service budget

Decreasing the DM&R will help relieve stress on facilities maintenance and operations budget

0% 4% 6% 4% 6% 8% 0% 1% 3% 6% 10% 15% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

% Change since FY07

Daily service % change Backlog % change

National Database

Backlog and Daily Service % Change since FY07 Reference 52

slide-39
SLIDE 39

39

FY12 recommendation #3

Providing feedback can help strengthen customer general satisfaction levels

While adopting new investment strategies, a consistent method of communicating to the campus community is vital for expectation levels. Providing feedback for work requests will help with the scheduling and service levels, also helping to address overall general satisfaction

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Knowledge of Process Schedule and service Work meets expectations Feedback General satisfaction

FY10 FY12

UA System General Satisfaction Score

Reference 52

slide-40
SLIDE 40

40

Questions and Discussion

Reference 52

slide-41
SLIDE 41

41

Appendix

Reference 52

slide-42
SLIDE 42

42

Campus profile: Tech Rating

Tech Rating Scale (1-5)

3.3 3.4 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Tech Rating

UAA

2.5 2.6 2.0 2.0 UAS 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.3

UAF

  • All of 4 and 100% outside air; Bio containment level 2 or 3

5.

  • High pressure steam; Central cooling- VAV system; Chillers; DDC Controls; HVAC system; Fume Hoods

4.

  • Medium pressure steam; Central cooling; pneumatic controls

3.

  • Low pressure steam; local cooling (window unit)

2.

  • Residential grade or no heating; no cooling

1.

Tech Rating Criteria

Tech Rating by Campus

Database Average

Reference 52

slide-43
SLIDE 43

43

Campus profile: Density Factor

Users: Student, Faculty and Staff FTE

200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

UAA UAF

UAS

Density Factor by Campus

User / 100,000 GSF

Database Average

Reference 52

slide-44
SLIDE 44

44

Campus profile: Building Intensity

# of buildings / 1M GSF

50 100 150 200 250

UAA UAF

UAS

Building Intensity by Campus

Bldgs/ 1M GSF

Database Average

Reference 52