Sightlines, LLC University of Alaska System Presentation FY2012

Transcription

1 Sightlines, LLC University of Alaska System Presentation FY2012 Date: April 3, 2013 Presented by: Colin Sanders, Laura Vassilowitch & Sheena Salsberry University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign The University of Maine University of Maine at Augusta Reference University of Maine 52 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

2 Sightlines Profile Common vocabulary, consistent methodology, credibility through benchmarking 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 and modernization needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them. Catch-Up Costs Asset Reinvestment Operations Success The effectiveness of the facilities operating budget, staffing, supervision, and energy management Operational Effectiveness The measure of service process, the maintenance quality of space and systems, and the customers opinion of service delivery Service System Peers Connecticut* Maine Missouri Mississippi New Hampshire Oregon Pennsylvania *New system peer 2

3 Sightlines Profile Common vocabulary, consistent methodology, credibility through benchmarking Asset Value Change The Operating annual funds: investment State General needed to Funds ensure buildings will Student properly tuitions perform & Fees and reach their F&A useful Recovery life Keep-Up Other Costs Annual Stewardship The Capital accumulated funds: backlog Bonds of repair and State modernization General needs Funds and the definition Federal Grants of resource Foundations capacity to correct Grants them. Catch-Up Costs Asset Reinvestment Operations Success The Facilities effectiveness of operating the facilities budget operating Staffing levels budget, staffing, Energy cost and supervision, consumption and energy management Operational Effectiveness The Campus measure of service Inspection process, the maintenance Service Process quality Customer of space and systems, Satisfaction and the customers Survey opinion of service delivery Service System Peers Connecticut* Maine Missouri Mississippi New Hampshire Oregon Pennsylvania *New system peer 3

4 Scope of work Total GSF: 6.6M GSF; 346 buildings 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 Bldg. # 2.6M GSF 3.3M GSF 569K GSF 95 Buildings 212 Buildings 39 Buildings 4

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. 5

6 UA System s ROPA Radar Charts UA System FY12 Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Operating Effectiveness Service 6

7 Sightlines Database Western Region Trends (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA) 7

8 #1 Dichotomy of campus age profiles Campuses are growing older 70% (%) Square Footage over 25 years old (Renovation Age) 60% 50% 40% 18% 19% 19% 19% 19% 20% 30% 20% 38% 38% 38% 39% 39% 38% 10% 0% to 50 Years of Age Over 50 Years of Age Western Region (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA) 8

9 #2 Cyclical capital investments Investments decreasing to national database average Capital Investment into Existing Space $8.0 Western Region Database National Database $7.0 $6.0 Average $5.0 Average $/GSF $4.0 $3.0 $2.9 $4.6 $5.2 $4.2 $3.4 $3.5 $3.1 $4.0 $4.0 $3.2 $3.4 $3.3 $2.0 $1.0 $- $1.5 $1.8 $1.8 $1.7 $1.6 $ Annual Capital $1.2 $1.3 $1.4 $1.3 $1.5 $ One-Time Capital Western Region (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA) 9

10 #3 Less investment into space projects in 2012 Shifting investments towards building envelope, system, and infrastructure needs 2007 Western Region Total Project Spending FY % 10% 8% 13% 7% 13% 24% 41% 29% 24% 25% 40% 14% 13% 26% Building Envelope Building Systems Infrastructure Space Renewal Safety/Code Western Region (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA) 10

11 #4 Steady increase in backlog The western region saw an 11% increase in backlog since FY07 $90 Backlog $/GSF $80 $70 $60 $/GSF $50 $40 $30 $75 $77 $78 $78 $81 $84 $20 $10 $ Western Region (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA) 11

12 UA System profile Major factors that influence campus operations and decisions 12

13 Alaska in Context: Campus renovation age vs. peers 57% of Alaska System space is over 25 years old 100% 90% Renovation Age Categories System peer comparison 7% 23% 80% 70% % of space over 25 years old Peer system comparison 80% 70% 60% High Risk 50% High Risk 33% 60% 50% 50% 40% 30% 20% 19% 19% 40% 30% 20% 68% 47% 48% 50% 53% 57% 69% 69% 10% 23% 25% 10% 0% UA System Peer System Average Under to to 50 Over 50 0% A B C D E UA System Systems Ordered by Tech Rating Peer System Average G H 13

14 Age profile informs capital strategy 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Renovation Age Categories System peer comparison 7% High Risk 50% 23% 33% 19% 19% 23% 25% UA System High Risk Peer System Average Buildings over 50 Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures are possible. Core modernization cycles are missed. Highest risk Buildings 25 to 50 Life cycles are coming due in envelope and mechanical systems. Functional obsolescence prevalent. Higher Risk Buildings 10 to 25 Lower cost space renewal updates and initial signs of program pressures Medium Risk Buildings Under 10 Little work, honeymoon period. Low Risk Under to to 50 Over 50 14

15 Alaska in Context: Tech rating Alaska System Tech Ranges from 2.5 to Tech Rating by MAU 5.0 Tech Rating Peer system comparison Tech Rating (1-5 Scale) UAA UAF UAS 0.0 A B C D E UA System G H UA System Tech Rating Peer System Average Peer Range SL Public University FY2012 Average:

16 Alaska in Context: Density Factor UA System Density Factor range: Density Factor by MAU 800 Density Factor Peer system comparison FTE Users/100,000 GSF UAA UAF UAS UA System Density Factor 0 A B C D E UA System Peer System Average Peer Range G H *Users Include Faculty, Staff, Student FTEs SL Public University FY2012 Average:

17 Alaska in Context: Building Intensity UA System Building Intensity Average : 56 Buildings/ 1M GSF Building Intensity by MAU Building Intensity System Averages Peer system comparison Buildings/1M GSF UAA UAF UAS UA System Average 0 A B C D E F UA System Peer System Average Peer Range H SL Public University FY2012 Average: 39 17

18 Capital, Budget, and Operations Asset value change and performance value 18

19 UA System terminology to Sightlines DM R&R M&R Grounds & Custodial Fund 5 Fund 1 Projects Daily Maintenance Daily Operations One-time Capital Onetime Capital Recurring Capital Recurring Capital Maint. & Operating Budget Maintenance & Operations Budget Capital Projects Maintenance & Operations Budget *Stewardship and Reinvestment classifications are based on funding source rather than type of work 19

20 Total capital spending Total FY12 investment was $130M $140.0 Project split-out FY06-FY12 48% Total UA System Capital Spending $ % Millions $100.0 $80.0 $60.0 Avg: $83M $40.0 $20.0 $0.0 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 Existing Facilities Non-Facilities/New Space $32.2M $28.4M $99.9M $90.2M $78.7M $98.6M $130M 20

21 Total capital spending in facilities Total facilities related investments in FY12 was $54M $140.0 Total UA System Capital Spending $120.0 $100.0 Millions $80.0 $60.0 $40.0 Avg: $42.5M $20.0 $0.0 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 Existing Facilities $22.2M $27.0M $42.7M $48.2M $60.0M $43.8M $53.9M 21

22 Sightlines stewardship Best Practice target Creating a target for recurring funding sources from operating budget funds $120 UA System FY2012 Stewardship Targets $100 $ in Millions $80 $60 $40 $107.4 $65.6 $20 $0 Life Cycle Need (Equilibrium) Functional Obsolescence (Target) 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 22

23 Total capital investment vs. target need Funding 19% of stewardship target on average $140.0 UA System Annual Stewardship $120.0 $100.0 $ in Millions $80.0 $60.0 $40.0 $20.0 $ Annual Stewardship Equilibrium Target Range Need *Capital investments includes renovation of vacated space 23

24 Total capital investment vs. target need Deferral rate since FY06 totals up to $303M $140.0 UA System Annual Stewardship $120.0 $100.0 $ in Millions $80.0 $60.0 $40.0 $20.0 $ Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Target Equilibrium Range Need *Capital investments includes renovation of vacated space 24

25 Capital investment vs. target comparison Increasing AS by $8.2M each year will help UA System reach Sightlines target range 140% % of Target 7 year average By MAU 140% % of Target 7 year average Peer system comparison 120% Target Range Sustaining 120% or Increasing Net Asset Value 100% 100% % of Target 80% 60% 80% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% UAA UAF UAS UA System Average 0% A B C D E UA System Annual Stewardship Peer System Average G H Asset Reinvestment Systems Ordered by Tech Rating 25

26 Capital investment mix profile for UA UA spending mix follows with regional trend- shifting away from space projects UA System FY07 Mix of Spending UA System FY12 Mix of Spending 11% 7% 7% 16% 21% Bldg. Envelope 18% Bldg. Systems Infrastructure 51% 10% Space Code 26% 33% 26

27 Capital investment mix profile comparison FY12 UA system and system peers mix of spending similar to regional database UA System FY12 System Peers FY12 Regional Database FY12 7% 16% 7% 14% 7% 13% 18% 26% 33% 27% 21% 31% 29% 26% 25% Bldg. Envelope Bldg. Systems Infrastructure Space Code 27

28 Investment Focus - Envelope & Mechanical Projects Recent years focusing on envelope and mechanical needs % of Target 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 140% % of Target by Project Category Target % of Envelope, Mechanical, & Infrastructure vs. Target FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 BTU/GSF 350, , , , ,000 UA System Total Consumption % of Target 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Target % of Space & Programming vs. Target FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 UA System Average 100,000 50, Fossil BTU/GSF Electric BTU/GSF 28

29 DM&R Progression over time UA System backlog of deferred maintenance and renewal totals $1.1B in FY12 $1,200 UA System Total DM&R FY06-FY12 $1,000 $875M $888M $941M $1,033M $1,082M $ in Millions $800 $600 $698M $736M $400 $200 $0 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 29

30 UA System terminology to Sightlines DM R&R M&R Grounds & Custodial Fund 5 Fund 1 Projects Daily Maintenance Daily Operations One-time Capital Onetime Capital Recurring Capital Recurring Capital Maint. & Operating Budget Maintenance & Operations Budget Capital Projects Maintenance & Operations Budget *Stewardship and Reinvestment classifications are based on funding source rather than type of work 30

31 Operating Budget vs. Peer Systems UA system closer to peers when accounting for the cost of living Daily Service: Maintenance, Grounds, Custodial, and Facilities Admin budget Includes all personnel, supplies, materials, and contract costs $7.00 Operating Budget FY12 $7.00 Regionally Adjusted Operating Budget FY12 $6.00 $6.00 $5.00 $5.00 $/GSF $4.00 $3.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $2.00 $1.00 $1.00 $- A B C D E UA System G H $- A B C D E UA System G H Institutions in order of Tech Rating Adjusted budget reflects a comparison normalized for regional cost-of-living variance 31

32 Maintenance performance UA System coverage ratio similar to peers despite having more buildings to cover 120,000 Maintenance Staffing Coverage GSF/FTE 7.0 Maintenance Staffing Coverage Maintained Buildings/FTE 100, GSF/FTE 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 Buildings/FTE A B C D E UA Systems Ordered by Tech Rating System G H 0.0 A B C D E F UA Systems Ordered by Building Intensity Avg. System H Peer System Average General Repair score (1-5) UA System avg. Peer System avg

33 Custodial performance Covering more buildings with comparable inspection scores 60,000 Custodial Staffing Coverage GSF/FTE 2.0 Custodial Staffing Coverage Cleaned Buildings/FTE 50, GSF/FTE 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 Buildings/FTE A B C D E UA Systems Ordered by Density Factor System G 0.0 H A B C D E F UA Systems Ordered by Building Intensity Avg. System Peer System Average H Cleanliness Score (1-5) UA System avg. Peer System avg

34 University of Alaska System Bringing it all together 34

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) 35

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 FY14 Sustainment Funding Plan for UA Facilities $400 $800 Millions $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 Reduction in Backlog from DM Investment $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 Millions $100 $200 $50 $100 $ 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 $- 36

37 Using the detailed analysis for multi-year investment planning Investment strategy and project selection based on facts 37

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 % Change since FY07 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 0% National Database Backlog and Daily Service % Change since FY07 4% 1% 6% 3% % 4% 10% 6% 15% 8% Daily service % change Backlog % change 38

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 5.00 UA System General Satisfaction Score FY10 FY Knowledge of Process Schedule and service Work meets expectations Feedback General satisfaction 39

40 Questions and Discussion 40

41 Appendix 41

42 Campus profile: Tech Rating Tech Rating Scale (1-5) Tech Rating by Campus 5.0 UAA UAF UAS Tech Rating Tech Rating Criteria Database Average All of 4 and 100% outside air; Bio containment level 2 or 3 High pressure steam; Central cooling- VAV system; Chillers; DDC Controls; HVAC system; Fume Hoods Medium pressure steam; Central cooling; pneumatic controls Low pressure steam; local cooling (window unit) Residential grade or no heating; no cooling 42

43 Campus profile: Density Factor Users: Student, Faculty and Staff FTE Density Factor by Campus 1,800 UAA UAF UAS 1,600 1,400 User / 100,000 GSF 1,200 1, Database Average 43

44 Campus profile: Building Intensity # of buildings / 1M GSF Building Intensity by Campus 250 UAA UAF UAS 200 Bldgs/ 1M GSF Database Average 44