university of alaska system...

Sightlines, LLC University of Alaska System Presentation FY2012 Date: April 3, 2013 Presented by: Colin Sanders, Laura Vassilowitch & Sheena Salsberry

American University Amherst College

Babson College Bentley University

Berkshire Community College Bethel University

Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania Boston College

Bowdoin College Bowling Green State University

Brandeis University Bristol Community College (MA)

Brown University Bryant University

Bryn Mawr College Bucknell University

Bunker Hill Community College (MA) California University of Pennsylvania

Cape Cod Community College (MA) Carleton College

Carnegie Mellon University Central State University

Champlain College Chapman University

Cheyney University of Pennsylvania Cincinnati State Technical and Community College

Claremont McKenna College Clarion University of Pennsylvania

Clemson University Cleveland State University

Colgate University College of the Holy Cross

The College of Wooster Columbus State Community College

Connecticut College Cornell University

Cuyahoga Community College Dartmouth College

Davidson College Drew University

Drexel University Duke University

Duquesne University East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania

Eastern Oregon University Edinboro University of Pennsylvania

Elms College Emma Willard School

Fairfield University Fitchburg State College

Florida Institute of Technology Florida State University

Franklin & Marshall College Franklin University

Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering Gallaudet University

George Mason University Georgetown University

Georgia Institute of Technology Gettysburg College Gonzaga University

Greenfield Community College (MA) Grinnell College

Gustavus Adolphus College Hamilton College

Hamline University Hampshire College

Harper College Holyoke Community College

Illinois Institute of Technology Indiana University

Indiana University of Pennsylvania Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis

Iowa State University Ithaca College

Kansas State University Keene State College

Kent State University Kutztown University of Pennsylvania

Lakeland Community College Le Moyne College

Lebanon Valley College Lewis & Clark College

Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania Long Island University Brooklyn Campus

Long Island University C.W. Post Lorain County Community College

Loyola College in Maryland Loyola Marymount University

Macalester College Manchester College

Mansfield University of Pennsylvania Massachusetts Bay Community College (MA)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Massasoit Community College (MA)

Medical University of Ohio Miami University

Michigan State University Middlebury College

Middlesex Community College (MA) Millersville University of Pennsylvania

Missouri University of Science and Technology Mount Holyoke College

Mount Wachusett Community College New Mexico State University

The New School New York University

North Shore Community College (MA) Northeastern Ohio Universities Colleges of Medicine

Northeastern University Northern Essex Community College (MA)

Northwestern University Nova Southeastern University

Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center

Ohio University - Athens Oregon Institute of Technology

Oregon State University Owens State Community College

Pace University Pacific Lutheran University Plymouth State University

Polytechnic Institute of NYU Pomona College

Portland State University Princeton University

Purdue University Quinsigamond Community College (MA)

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rider University

Roger Williams University Rowan University

Roxbury Community College Rutgers University

Saint Louis University Saint Mary’s College (IN)

Saint Mary’s College of California Seattle Pacific University

Seattle University Shawnee Sate University

Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania Siena College

Sinclair Community College Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania

Smith College Southern Methodist University

Southern Oregon University St. Lawrence University

SUNY – Purchase College Swarthmore College Syracuse University

Temple University Texas A&M University

The Catholic University of America The College of Saint Rose

The Johns Hopkins University The Ohio State University

The Pennsylvania State University The Sage Colleges

The University of Alabama The University of Alabama at Birmingham

The University of Alabama in Huntsville The University of Dayton

The University of Mississippi The University of Oklahoma Thomas Jefferson University

Trinity College Tufts University

University of California San Francisco Medical Center University of Akron

University of Alaska Fairbanks University of Arkansas

The University of Central Arkansas University of Cincinnati

University of Colorado at Boulder University of Denver

University of Hartford University of Illinois at Chicago

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) Whitworth University

Widener University Wilkes University Williams College

Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester State College Wright State University

Xavier University Yeshiva University

Youngstown State University

Reference 52

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”

Ass

et V

alu

e C

han

ge

Operational Effectiveness

The effectiveness of the facilities operating budget, staffing, supervision, and energy management

Service

The measure of service process, the maintenance quality of space and systems, and the customers opinion of service delivery

Op

erat

ion

s Su

cces

s

System Peers

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

*New system peer

Reference 52

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”

Ass

et V

alu

e C

han

ge

Operational Effectiveness

The effectiveness of the facilities operating budget, staffing, supervision, and energy management

Service

The measure of service process, the maintenance quality of space and systems, and the customers opinion of service delivery

Op

erat

ion

s Su

cces

s

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 operating budget •Staffing levels •Energy cost and consumption

•Campus Inspection •Service Process •Customer Satisfaction Survey

*New system peer

Reference 52

4

MA

Us

Cam

pu

ses • 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

Bld

g.

# 95 Buildings 212 Buildings 39 Buildings

Scope of work Total GSF: 6.6M GSF; 346 buildings

Reference 52

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

6

UA System’s ROPA Radar Charts

Annual Stewardship

Service

Ass

et R

ein

vest

men

t

Op

erating

Effectiveness

UA System FY12

Reference 52

7

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

Sightlines Database

Reference 52

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

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

$/G

SF

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


Average

Average

Reference 52

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

13%

24%

14%

41%

8%

FY2002

Building Envelope Building Systems Infrastructure

Space Renewal Safety/Code

Shifting investments towards building envelope, system, and infrastructure needs


Reference 52

11

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

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

$/G

SF

Backlog $/GSF

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


Reference 52

12

Major factors that influence campus operations and decisions

UA System profile

Reference 52

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 UASystem

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

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

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 UASystem

G H

SL Public University FY2012 Average: 2.93

Tech

Rat

ing

(1-5

Sca

le)

Peer System Average UA System Tech Rating

Peer Range

Tech Rating by MAU Tech Rating

Peer system comparison

Reference 52

16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

UAA UAF UAS

Alaska in Context: Density Factor UA System Density Factor range: 280-640

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

A B C D E UASystem

G H

SL Public University FY2012 Average: 616

FTE

Use

rs/1

00

,00

0 G

SF

*Users Include Faculty, Staff, Student FTEs

Peer System Average Peer Range

UA System Density Factor

Density Factor by MAU Density Factor


Reference 52

17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A B C D E F UASystem

H0

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

Bu

ildin

gs/1

M G

SF

Peer Range

SL Public University FY2012 Average: 39

Building Intensity by MAU Building Intensity System Averages


Reference 52

18

Asset value change and performance value

Capital, Budget, and Operations

Reference 52

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

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

Mill

ion

s

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

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

Mill

ion

s

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

22

$107.4

$65.6

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

Life Cycle Need(Equilibrium)

Functional Obsolescence(Target)

$ in

Mill

ion

s

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


Reference 52

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

Mill

ion

s

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

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

Mill

ion

s

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

25

Capital investment vs. target comparison


Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment

Peer System Average

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

Aspirant Comparison Group Average

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

UAA UAF UAS

% o

f Ta

rget

% of Target – 7 year average By MAU

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

A B C D E UASystem

G H

% of Target – 7 year average Peer system comparison

UA System Average

Target Range – Sustaining or Increasing Net Asset Value

Reference 52

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

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

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

% o

f Ta

rget

% of Envelope, Mechanical, & Infrastructure vs. Target

UA System Average

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%


% o

f Ta

rget

% 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

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


$ in

Mill

ion

s

UA System Total DM&R FY06-FY12

Reference 52

30

UA System terminology to Sightlines


R&R DM

One-time Capital

One-time

Capital

Recurring Capital

Fund 5 Fund 1

Capital Projects


Budget

M&R Grounds & Custodial

Daily Maintenance

Recurring Capital

Maint. & Operating

Budget

Daily Operations Projects


Budget

Reference 52

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 UASystem

G H

Operating Budget FY12

$/G

SF

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 UASystem

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

32

Maintenance performance

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

A B C D E UASystem

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


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


UAA UAF UAS

59,200 56,800 58,400

UAA UAF UAS

2.1 3.6 4

Bu

ildin

gs/F

TE

General Repair score (1-5)

UA System avg. Peer System avg.

4.07 3.80

Reference 52

33

Custodial performance

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

A B C D E UASystem

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


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

Bu

ildin

gs/F

TE

Cleanliness Score (1-5)

UA System avg. Peer System avg.

4.00 4.10

Reference 52

34

Bringing it all together

University of Alaska System

Reference 52

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

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

Mill

ion

s

Additional R&R Funds necessary to reach sustainmenet level by FY18Deferred Maintenance Reduction ExpendituresR&R Annual ExpendituresM&R Annual ExpendituresM&R/R&R Annual Investment TargetDeferred Maintenance Backlog with adequate M&R/R&R Funding

Reduction in Backlog from DM Investment

FY14 Sustainment Funding Plan for UA Facilities

Millio

ns

Reference 52

37

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

Reference 52

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

% C

han

ge s

ince

FY

07

Daily service % change Backlog % change

National Database Backlog and Daily Service % Change since FY07

Reference 52

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 ofProcess

Schedule andservice

Work meetsexpectations

Feedback General satisfaction

FY10

FY12

UA System General Satisfaction Score

Reference 52

40

Questions and Discussion

Reference 52

41

Appendix

Reference 52

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

Rat

ing

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. Te

ch R

atin

g C

rite

ria

Tech Rating by Campus

Database Average

Reference 52

43

Campus profile: Density Factor Users: Student, Faculty and Staff FTE

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800UAA UAF UAS

Density Factor by Campus

Use

r /

10

0,0

00

GSF

Database Average

Reference 52

44

Campus profile: Building Intensity # of buildings / 1M GSF

0

50

100

150

200

250UAA UAF UAS

Building Intensity by Campus

Bld

gs/

1M

GSF

Database Average

Reference 52

university of alaska system...

Documents