why campus age matters
DESCRIPTION
Higher education is constantly in a state of flux, and campus buildings are no exception. Advances in technology and the changing demands of campus constituents are placing tremendous pressures on buildings and facilities leaders alike. There are an abundance of post-war buildings across the country that are now at life-cycle tipping points which necessitate significant reinvestment. Complicating this already daunting challenge are all the facilities constructed within the last ten years that are still on their “honeymoon”, but require unique strategies to maintain their freshness in order to meet campus expectations. This is why campus age matters. This webinar will explore these issues and discuss the impact campus age will have on facilities leaders and the financial resources of an institution.TRANSCRIPT
1
Why Age Matters
Date: August 23, 2012Presented by: Jonathan King & Emily Morris
University of HartfordUniversity of Idaho
University of Illinois at ChicagoUniversity of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign
The University of MaineUniversity of Maine at Augusta
University of Maine at FarmingtonUniversity of Maine at Machias
University of Maine at Presque IsleUniversity of Maine at Fort Kent
University of MarylandUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst
University of Massachusetts DartmouthUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell
University of MichiganUniversity of Minnesota
University of Mississippi Medical CenterUniversity of Missouri
University of Missouri ‐ Kansas CityUniversity of Missouri ‐ St. Louis
University of New HampshireUniversity of New HavenUniversity of North TexasUniversity of Notre Dame
University of OregonUniversity of Pennsylvania
University of PortlandUniversity of Redlands
The University of Rhode Island, Narragansett BayThe University of Rhode Island, Feinstein Providence
The University of Rhode Island, KingstonUniversity of RochesterUniversity of San Diego
University of San FranciscoUniversity of St. Thomas (TX)University of Southern Maine
University of Southern MississippiUniversity of the Pacific
University of the Sciences in PhiladelphiaUniversity of VermontUpper Iowa University
Utica CollegeVirginia Commonwealth University
Virginia Department of General ServicesWashburn University
2
Who we are
Jon KingAssociate Director
Over 7 years of Sightlines Experience
Emily MorrisRegional Account Manager
Over 5 years of Sightlines experience
3
HI
NVUT
WY
ND
SD
OK
WI
LA
Sightlines ProfileCommon vocabulary, consistent methodology, credibility through benchmarking
• Company based in Guilford, CT• Common vocabulary and consistent methodology
• Tracking $4.3 billion in operations budgets • Database of over 20,000 buildings and 1.1 billion GSF
4
Why Age Matters: Agenda
1. Building lifecycles & construction vintage
2. Campus age and its influence on operational effectiveness
3. Campus age and the impact on capital investment and deferred maintenance
4. Campus age and how it plays into customer satisfaction
5
Building lifecycles & construction vintage
6
The strength of the Sightlines database
0‐25 Years Old
26‐39 Years Old
40+ Years Old
Campus Renovation Age of…
We grouped our Database into 3 main age buckets.
7
Sightlines Database age over time
41
42 43
32
35 34
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
2002 2008 2011
Age of Campus – Construction Age vs. Renovation Age
Average of Weighted Construction Age GSF
Average of Weighted Renovation Age GSF
65%
Buildings Under 10Little work .“Honeymoon” period.
Low Risk
Buildings 10 to 25Lower cost space renewal updates and
initial signs of program pressures Medium Risk
Buildings 25 to 50Life Cycles are coming due in envelope and mechanical
systems. Functional obsolescence prevalent.Higher Risk
Buildings over 50Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures are
possible. Core modernization cycles are missed.Highest risk
What is the age of your campus and how does it impact campus leadership?
Physical Asset Risk Level
8
Life‐cycle cost by age of space
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
$70.00
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
$/GSF
GSF
Case Study University has majority of space in “high risk” area
As buildings and their components age, different lifecycles come due and require varying levels of institutional resources
9
The strength of the Sightlines database
Not all building construction vintages are created equal!
You can’t forget building construction vintage…..
For Example….
10
Building Vintage‐ Example of “Gracefully Aging” Architecture
Sturdy structure Simple “guts” Double Hung Corridors
11
Building Vintage‐ Example of “Mid‐life Crisis” Architecture
Flat Roofs Casement Windows Cement and Title Interiors
12
Building Vintage‐ Example of “Modern Marvel” Architecture
Sharp Angles Window Walls Advanced Systems
13
Campus age and its influence on operational effectiveness
14
Daily Service Cost of Campus
$3.80
$3.90
$4.00
$4.10
$4.20
$4.30
$4.40
0‐25 26‐39 40+
$/GSF
Average of Budget Total Daily Service/GSF
Average of Budget Total Daily Service/GSF
New spaces cost more to operate on a daily basis
$0.35$0.30
15
Energy Consumption
‐
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Total BTU/GSF
Average of Total BTU/GSF
‐
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Total BTU/GSF
Average of Fossil BTU/GSF
Average of Electric BTU/GSF
Older buildings are less energy efficient by approximately 15%
Older buildings consume 30% more
fossil fuel
The technical nature of new buildings increase electricity consumption
by approx. 20%
16
Energy Cost $/MMBTU
$14.50
$15.00
$15.50
$16.00
$16.50
$17.00
$17.50
$18.00
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Average of Total Utility Unit Cost
Average of Total Utility Unit Cost
The increase in electricity
consumption in buildings 0‐25 increase the
average unit cost for energy
10%8%
$/MMBT
U
17
Custodial Coverage & Campus Density
458
379
313
30
80
130
180
230
280
330
380
430
480
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Average of Density Factor
Average of Density Factor
28,000
29,000
30,000
31,000
32,000
33,000
34,000
35,000
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Average of Custodial Coverage
Average of Custodial Coverage
New buildings are approx. 32% more dense than older
buildings.
Increased density is one factor that has led to an 11%
decrease in custodial efficiency.
Users/100
K GSF
GSF/FTE
18
Tech Rating and Maintenance Coverage
3.06
2.88 2.86
2.75
2.80
2.85
2.90
2.95
3.00
3.05
3.10
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Average of Tech Rating
Average of Tech Rating
70,000
72,000
74,000
76,000
78,000
80,000
82,000
84,000
86,000
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Average of Maintenance Coverage
Average of Maintenance Coverage
GSF/FTE
(Scale of 1‐5)
New buildings are 7% more technically complex than older
Increasing technical systems impacts the effectiveness of
maintenance staff
19
Maintenance Skill Mix & Work Order Production
73% 68% 67%
27% 32% 33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Trades Staff Mix
Average of Total Struct. Tradesmen
Average of Total Mech. Tradesmen
‐
100
200
300
400
500
600
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Work Production
Average of Maintenance DS WorkOrders/FTE
Average of Maintenance PM WorkOrders/FTE
% of FTEs
Work Orders/FTE
Newer, more technically complex systems require different staff knowledge
Daily service work orders increase with age of building
20
Utilizing work order data to identify high cost buildings
$‐
$50,000.00
$100,000.00
$150,000.00
$200,000.00
$250,000.00
$300,000.00
$350,000.00
$400,000.00
$450,000.00
$500,000.00
KENNETH C RO
WE MAN
A
HOWE‐FO
UNTA
IN HOUSE
CHAP
TER HO
USE
ROBIE ST 1322
LSRI‐SOUTH
TOWER
ELEC
TRICAL
MOBILE 2
GOLD
BERG
COMPU
TER SCIENCE
BUILDING
CENTR
AL SRV
‐PAR
KADE
IND EN
G&CO
NT ED
I MAC
NAB
‐A BLD
ADD
I
RALPH MED
JUCK
‐ADD
IT
TUPP
ER BLD
G
KILLAM
LIBRA
RY
STUD. UNION BLD
G
FORR
EST
MEM
ORIAL
ARE
NA
LSC‐CO
MMON ARE
A
CHEM
ISTR
Y PO
DIUM
SEXTON M
EMORIAL
GYM
BERN
ARD CA
IN‐Q BLD
G
A.E. CAM
ERON‐P BLD
G
SHIRRE
FF HALL
BURB
IDGE
RALPH M M
EDJUCK
BLD
B BU
ILDING
UNIVER
SITY CLU
B
MAC
DONALD BLDG
UNIVER
SITY AVE
6214
STAIRS
HOUSE
COBU
RG ROAD
6414
UNIVER
SITY AVE
6220
LYALL HO
USE
R1‐BUILDING
LEMAR
CHAN
T ST 1390
COBU
RG ROAD
6420
SEXTON HOUSE‐E BLD
G
10 25 50 100
Total FY11 Daily Service Work Order Cost by Building & Age Category
Tupper Building$436,000
1380 Work Orders
Dentistry$380,000
953 Work Orders
Central Services$372,000
519 Work Orders
Killam Library$260,000
652 Work Orders
Strategically “resetting” high cost buildings can reduce “corrective” ops. costs
21
Opportunity to release operational FTEs Buildings between 25‐50 yrs. old take longer to service
Age CategoryAverage hours/ DS
Work OrderLess than 10 4.10
10‐25 3.7025‐50 5.25Over 50 4.31
Age CategoryTotal Daily Service
Work OrdersLess than 10 1,295.00
10‐25 2,060.00 25‐50 8,774.00 Over 50 4,797.00
Reduce average work order time in 25‐50 yr. old buildings by 1 hour.
8774 work orders/1 hour= 8774 hours released!
8774 hours/2080 hours (1 FTE)=
4.2 Maintenance FTEs
22
Campus age and the impact on capital investment and deferred maintenance
23
Total Capital Investment
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Total Project Spending by Investment Type
Envelope/Mechanical Space/Code
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Total Project Spending$ /GSF
Average of Total Project Spending/GSF
$/GSF
$/GSF
Older buildings require additional reinvestment dollars
Regardless of age, envelope/mechanical and
programmatic needs require investment
24
Deferred Maintenance Backlog and Inspection Scores
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Campus Appearance
Average of General RepairImpressionAverage of Exterior
‐
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
0‐25 26‐39 40+
$/GSF
Deferred Maintenance Backlog
Average of Backlog Lump Sum GSFAverage of Backlog Maint/Repair/GSF
(Scale of 1‐5)
Backlog of need is significantly larger in older spaces
General repair and exterior appearance decline as buildings
age and backlog of need increases
25
Backlog Case Study Campus
$33
$93
$‐
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
Building Under 50Years Old
Buildings Over 50Years Old
$/GSF Building Needs by Age
$/GSF
6%
47%
9%
38%
Distribution of Need Type
ReliabilityAsset PreservationSafety/CodeProgram Improvement
Aging physical plant has led to widespread critical maintenance projects
26
Campus age and how it plays into customer satisfaction
27
Sample Rooms
1966 Building 2011 Building
Room Features Lecture Halls, filled‐to‐capacity tabletarm chairs
Student “pods”, reconfiguration space, multiple technology access points
Student / Faculty Opinions
• Dislike of tablet arm chairs (comfort/space)
• Too many chairs
• Sufficient table space for laptop, notebook, text book, etc.
• Breakout areas for group discussion
Changing Programmatic DemandsOlder Buildings often not configured for modern teaching pedagogy
28
Concluding Remarks
29
Concluding Remarks
1. What is the age of your campus and how is it impacting the facilities management team?
2. Is your capital investment strategy properly aligned given the age and vintage of your facilities?
3. How are you measuring your customer satisfaction levels as they relate to the physical assets on campus?
30
Questions and comments