Sightlines LLC FY2012 Facilities MB&A Presentation Middlesex Community College. Date: January 22, 2012 Presented by: Brendon Martin and Josh Vidro

Transcription

1 Sightlines LLC FY2012 Facilities MB&A Presentation Middlesex Community College Date: January 22, 2012 Presented by: Brendon Martin and Josh Vidro 1

2 Sightlines profile: 41 states, DC, Nova Scotia Common facilities vocabulary Consistent analytical methodology Context through benchmarking 2

3 A vocabulary for measurement The Return on Physical Assets ROPA SM The annual investment needed to ensure buildings will properly perform and reach their useful life Keep Up Costs The accumulated backlog of repair and modernization needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them Catch Up Costs The effectiveness of the facilities operating budget, staffing, supervision, and energy management The measure of service process, the maintenance quality of space and systems, and the customers opinion of service delivery Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Operational Effectiveness Service Asset Value Change Operations Success 3

4 Comparison Institutions Mass CC Peers Berkshire Community College Bristol Community College Bunker Hill Community College Cape Cod Community College Greenfield Community College Holyoke Community College Massasoit Community College MassBay Community College Mt. Wachusett Community College North Shore Community College Northern Essex Community College Quinsigamond Community College Roxbury Community College Springfield Technical Community College CT Peers Capital Community College Gateway Community College Housatonic Community College Manchester Community College Naugatuck Valley Community College Norwalk Community College Three Rivers Community College CT Peers Average Peer Average 4

5 Core issues Physical Profile In five years, Middlesex will experience a major shift in their age profile. Middlesex is one of the most technical campus amongst the MACC system, creating capital and operational challenges. Asset Value Change Total project spending has been increasing the past three years, but remains below the target. Annual Stewardship has increased the past three years. Total campus backlog is below the MACC average. Operational Effectiveness Middlesex is operating with more resources than MACC peers. Middlesex has consistently consumed less energy than MACC peers over the last eight years. The overall look of campus at Middlesex has improved since FY07. 5

6 Physical Profile 6

7 Age of campus MCC GSF 553K, with a younger campus compared to the MACC system 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 26% 28% 25% High Risk 27% % of Space by Age Category High Risk 10% High Risk 10% High Risk 39% 66% 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 65% prevalent. Higher Risk 40% 30% 20% 40% 62% 25% 11% Buildings 10 to 25 Lower cost space renewal updates and initial signs of program pressures Medium Risk 10% 0% 7% MCC Composite Bedford Campus 12% 14% Lowell Campus Peers Under to to and Above Buildings Under 10 Little work. Honeymoon period. Low Risk 7

8 How age impacts campus investment strategy 53% of campus is above the age of 25 $60 $55 $50 Average Life Cycle Costs by Age of Space (Renovation Age) Plumbing Electrical Service Mechanical Systems Boilers Tile Work Metal Roofs 100% 90% 80% $45 $40 70% $35 60% $/GSF $30 50% $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 40% 30% 20% 10% $0 Under 10 Years Years Over 25 Years 7% 40% 53% 0% * Life cycle costs based on the average tech 3 academic space. 8

9 Future age profile MCC will experience a major shift in age of campus 100% % of Space by Age Category 90% 80% 26% 30% 38% 25% 70% 60% 27% 50% 40% 62% 61% 30% 40% 62% 20% 10% 0% 7% 8% 14% MCC FY12 MCC FY17 Bedford FY17 Lowell FY17 Under to to and Above Building Shifting to High Risk in FY17: Academic Resource, Campus Center, Cataldo, Derby, Enrollment Center, Facilities Management, Henderson Hall, Talbot 9

10 Asset Value Change 10

11 Total capital spending MCC has invested, on average, $1.3 million into existing space $3,500,000 MCC s Total Capital Investment $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2.0Million $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Facilities Non Facilities/New Space 11

12 Total capital spending MCC has invested, on average, $1.3 million into existing space $3,500,000 MCC s Total Capital Investment $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1.3Million $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Facilities Non Facilities/New Space 12

13 Total project spending Project spending has been increasing since FY10 CT Peers Average Peer Average 13

14 Total project spending Project spending has been increasing since FY10 CT Peers Average Peer Average 14

15 Mix of spending compared to peers MCC has spent over 60% on envelope and system work 6 Year Mix of Spending 100% 5% 6% 90% 80% 19.2% 20.9% 70% 12.0% 15.2% % of Total Spending 60% 50% 40% 27.2% 39.7% 30% 20% 37.1% 10% 18.4% 0% MCC Mass CC Peers Building Envelope Building Systems Infrastructure Space Renewal Safety/Code 15

16 Defining stewardship investment targets What is the right level of investment for MCC? $7.00 Replacement Value: $221 million $6.00 $5.00 $ in Millions $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $6.6 $3.2 $1.1 $1.00 $2.7 $2.0 $0.00 3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need (Equilibrium) Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program Functional Obsolescence (Target) Total $ in Millions $6.6 $5.9 $3.1 Depreciation Model Sightlines Recommendation 16

17 Annual stewardship vs. target MCC has deferred over $10 million the past 6 years $3,500,000 Total Annual Stewardship 12 Envelope/Mechanical Target vs. Actuals 10 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 34% 66% $ in Millions Million 2 $2,000, Year Target Total Actual 6 Year Investment $1,500, Space/Programming Target vs. Actuals 8 $1,000,000 $500,000 $ in Millions Million $ FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Envelope/Mechanical Space/Programming Target 0 5 Year Target TotalActual 5 Year Investment 17

18 Annual stewardship Stewardship levels increased in FY12 CT Peers Average Peer Average 18

19 Annual stewardship Stewardship levels increased in FY12 CT Peers Average Peer Average 19

20 Total project spending vs. annual investment need MCC s backlog has been increasing since FY07 Total Capital Investment vs. Target $/GSF Millions $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 Life Cycle Need Stabilizing Backlog Decreasing Backlog $2 Increasing Backlog $1 $0 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Target Need Life Cycle Need 20

21 What to expect for the FY2013 Renewal Sightlines is Redefining Critical Investment Targets $ in Millions "Cash Flow" Target 3 Year Moving Avg 21

22 Asset reinvestment backlog of need Backlog remains elevated compared to the CT Systems $160 AR Backlog $140 $120 $/GSF $100 $80 $60 $112 $142 $40 $20 $62 $0 MCC MA Community Colleges CT Community Colleges 22

23 Net asset value of campus MCC s NAV is higher than MACC peers (Replacement Value Building Needs) NAV Index = X 100 Replacement Value NAV of Index 100% 85% 85% 70% Investment Strategy Capital Upkeep Stage: Primarily new or recently renovated buildings with sporadic building repair & life cycle needs; You pick the projects Repair and Maintain Stage: Buildings are beginning to show their age and may require more significant investment on a case by case basis 70% 50% Systemic Renovation Stage: Buildings may require more significant repairs; large capital infusions; The projects pick you Below 50% Transitional/Gut Renovation/Demo Stage: Major buildings components are in jeopardy of failure. Reliability issues are widespread throughout the building. 23

24 Operational Effectiveness 24

25 Operating budget actuals MCC is operating above the MACC average CT Peers Average Peer Average Utilities Planned Maintenance Daily Service 25

26 Operating budget actuals MCC is operating above the MACC average CT Peers Average Peer Average Utilities Planned Maintenance Daily Service 26

27 Daily service actuals MCC has historically had more daily service dollars Daily Service $9.00 $8.00 MACC CT MCC $7.00 $6.00 $/GSF $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $ Average Daily Service 27

28 Historical PM MCC s PM has historically been below both the MACC and CT systems PM $0.45 $0.40 MACC CT MCC $0.35 $0.30 $/GSF $0.25 $0.20 $0.15 $0.10 $0.05 $ Average PM 28

29 Historical energy consumption Consistently consumed below peer average Fossil Electric 29

30 Total energy cost MCC has a higher unit cost compared to the MACC system $60 Fuel Cost Trends vs. Peers $50 $40 $/MMBTU $30 $20 $10 $ MCC Fossil MCC Electric Peer Fossil Peer Electric *Excludes MWCC 30

31 Maintenance metrics MCC continues to utilize part time workers General Repair MCC FY Peers 3.5 CT Peers Average Peer Average MCC FY07 FY

32 Custodial metrics MCC s custodial workers cover less ground than both MACC and CT peers Cleanliness MCC FY Peers 3.8 CT Peers Average Peer Average MCC FY07 FY

33 Grounds metrics MCC has significantly improved ground scores Grounds MCC FY Peers MCC FY07 FY CT Peers Average Peer Average 33

34 Campus inspection MCC s look of campus is outperforming peers Campus Inspection Scores Mechanical Spaces General Repair/Impression Cleanliness Exterior Grounds MCC Peers 34

35 Service process Utilizing current work order system will enhance service process scores in future Centralization Service Process FY12 Scheduling Process Organization Work Request System Performance Measurement

36 Concluding Comments 36

37 Concluding comments There will be a major shift in campus age to the high risk age category, creating future capital and operational demands. 37

38 Concluding comments There will be a major shift in campus age to the high risk age category, creating future capital and operational demands. Continue to place a priority on increasing the annual stewardship investment in order to maintain the Net Asset Value of campus. 38

39 Concluding comments There will be a major shift in campus age to the high risk age category, creating future capital and operational demands. Continue to place a priority on increasing the annual stewardship investment in order to maintain the Net Asset Value of campus. Continue to monitor campus backlog, which has been increasing the past six years. 39

40 Concluding comments There will be a major shift in campus age to the high risk age category, creating future capital and operational demands. Continue to place a priority on increasing the annual stewardship investment in order to maintain the Net Asset Value of campus. Continue to monitor campus backlog, which has been increasing the past six years. Middlesex has consistently improved the look of campus the past three years. 40