University of Nebraska at Lincoln University of Nebraska Medical Center University of Nebraska Omaha University of New Brunswick University of New Hampshire University of New Haven University of New Mexico University of North Texas University of Northern Iowa University of Notre Dame University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania University of Redlands University of Rhode Island University of Rochester University of San Diego University of San Francisco University of Southern Maine University of Southern Mississippi University of St. Thomas University of Tennessee Health Science Center University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Texas at Dallas University of the Sciences in Philadelphia University of Vermont Vanderbilt University Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Department of General Services Wagner College Wake Forest University Washburn University Washington University in St. Louis Wellesley College Wesleyan University West Chester University West Liberty University The University of Tennessee - Knoxville E&G West Virginia Health Science Center West Virginia Institute of Technology Presenters: Peter Reeves & Ditee Hossain West Virginia School ofOsteopathic Medicine nd West Virginia State University June 2 , 2016 West Virginia University Western Connecticut State University Western Oregon University Westfield State University Wheaton College Widener University Williams College Who Partners with Sightlines? Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums and state systems
Sightlines advises state Sightlines is proud to systems in: announce that:
• 450 colleges and • Alaska universities are • California Sightlines clients • Connecticut including over 325 ROPA members. • Hawaii • Maine • 93% of ROPA • Massachusetts members renewed in • Minnesota 2014 • Mississippi • We have clients in 42 • Missouri Serving the Nation’s Leading Institutions: states, the District of • Nebraska Columbia and four • 70% of the Top 20 Colleges* Canadian provinces • New Hampshire • 75% of the Top 20 Universities* • New Jersey • More than 100 new • Pennsylvania • 34 Flagship State Universities institutions became • 13 of the 14 Big 10 Institutions Sightlines members • Texas since 2013 • West Virginia • 9 of the 12 Ivy Plus Institutions • 8 of 13 Selective Liberal Arts Colleges * U.S. News Rankings
2 A Vocabulary for Measurement The Return on Physical Assets – ROPASM
The annual The accumulation The effectiveness The measure of investment needed of repair and of the facilities service process, to ensure buildings modernization operating budget, the maintenance will properly needs and the staffing, quality of space perform and reach definition of supervision, and and systems, and their useful life resource capacity energy the customers “Keep-Up Costs” to correct them management opinion of service “Catch-Up Costs” delivery
Annual Asset Operational Service Stewardship Reinvestment Effectiveness
Asset Value Change Operations Success
3 Peer Institutions
Institution Location
Auburn University Auburn, AL
Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, LA The University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL (Tuscaloosa) The University of Mississippi Oxford, MS
University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR
University of Florida Gainesville, FL
University of Georgia Athens, GA
University of Kentucky Lexington, KY
University of Missouri Columbia, MO
Comparative Considerations Size, technical complexity, region, geographic location, and setting are all factors included in the selection of peer institutions
4 Putting Your Campus Building Age in Context The campus age drives the overall risk profile
Built in 1991 and newer Built from 1951 to 1975 Built before 1951 Built from 1976 to 1990
War Technically complex War - Lower-quality - Durable construction Quick-flash construction spaces construction
Older but typically lasts Low-quality building Higher-quality, more Modern
Pre Already needing more Complex longer Post components expensive to maintain & repairs and renovations repair Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex 12% Percent of Total Percent of Total Percent of Total Percent of Total Space 26% Space 37% Space 10% Space 26%
10%
8%
6% % GSF of % 4%
2%
0%
Sightlines Database- Construction Age My Campus
5 Younger Campus Through Renovations
Square Footage by Construction Age Square Footage by Renovation Age
23 26 27 26 28 28 26 27 25
43 42 42 43 44 47 44 46 46
29 30 33 33 32 30 28 34 31
31 32 32 32 32 28 29 35 33 28 25 25 27 27 25 26 24 28
14 14 18 16 20 18 17 11 14 20 20 14 15 18 16 17 16 14 10 13 12 5 6 8 8 7 7
Space over 50 Space 25-50 Space over 50 Space 25-50 Space 10-25 Space Under 10 Space 10-25 Space Under 10
6 Construction VS. Renovation Age Space is younger today than it was 8 years ago Construction Vs. Renovation Age Construction Vs. Renovation Age 50 UTK 50 Peer 45 47.03 45.81 45 45.44 40 40 42.34
35 35.57 35 34.02 30 30 32.76 30.79
25 25
20 20 Weighted age of a GSF a ofage Weighted Weighted age of a GSF a ofage Weighted 15 15
10 10 - 10 - 13 - 12 - 13 5 Years Years 5 Years Years
0 0 2007 2015 2007 2015 Construction Age Renovation Age Construction Age Renovation Age
7 Total Capital Investment Increased commitment to existing space in recent years
Total Capital Investment $120 6%
$100 39% 55%
$80
$60
$ in Millions in $ $40
$20
$0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Existing Space Investment New Space Investment Non-Facilities Average
8 Total Project Spending vs. Peers Higher investment levels, despite lower stewardship funding
Total AS & AR without Infrastructure $8.0 UTK Peers
$7.0
$6.0
$5.0
$4.0 $/GSF $3.0
$2.0
$1.0
$0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total AS/GSF Total AR/GSF Avg
9 Defining an Annual Investment Target Annual Funding Target: $29.8 M
FY15 Annual Investment Target Replacement Value: $2.1B $70.0
$60.0
$50.0 Functional obsolescence drives investment prior to life cycles & discounts the annual investment target $40.0 $32.1
$30.0 $62.8 $ in Millions in $ $11.2 $20.0
$24.8 $10.0 $18.6
$0.0 3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need Annual Investment Target Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program
10 Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target
Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target $60.0 Increasing Net Asset Value
$50.0
Lowering Risk Profile $40.0
$30.0
Increasing Backlog & Risk $ in Millions in $ $20.0
$10.0
$0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Annual Stewardship Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need
11 Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target Meeting Target For Past 5 Years With One-Time Dollars Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target $60.0 Increasing Net Asset Value
$50.0
Lowering Risk Profile $40.0
$30.0
Increasing Backlog & Risk $ in Millions in $ $20.0
$10.0
$0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need Does Not Include Infrastructure Spending
12 UTK Has Reduced It’s Backlog Through Investment
Backlog remains above peer levels
Asset Reinvestment Need Asset Reinvestment Need $120 $120 UTK Peers
$100 $100
$80 $80
$60 $60
$/GSF $/GSF $40 $40
$20 $20
$0 $0
UTK’s Backlog is Decreasing Peers Have Lower Overall AR Need
13 Total Project Spending by Package Switch Focus of investments in the future?
Capital Investment Mix by Year Total Investment Mix $70.0
$60.0 4% 16%
$50.0
31% $40.0
23%
$30.0 Millions
$20.0
$10.0 26%
$0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Envelope Building Systems Infrastructure Space Renewal Safety/Code
14 ROPA+ Prediction: Predictive Investment Model
Asset Reinvestment Need $700 Mod. & Infra. Need • Infrastructure & modernization $600 • Sightlines estimate Renewal Need $500 • What building needs will come $229 due in the next 10 years? $400 • Building Exteriors • Electrical • HVAC $300 $577 • Interiors $240 • Plumbing $200 Total Dollars (Millions) Total • Roofing Current Need $100 • What on campus is currently $108 broken, operating at a $0 significantly higher cost, or Discovery Asset Prediction Asset Reinvestment Need Reinvestment Need requires significantly more time to maintain?
15 ROPA+ Prediction: Predictive Investment Model
Asset Reinvestment Need Current Need Breakdown $700 3% 2% $600
Small Building $500 23% 15% Renovation $229 Roofing Electrical $400 12% Plumbing $300 Interiors
$240 HVAC
$200 29% Total Dollars (Millions) Total 16% Building Exteriors
$100 $108 $0 Asset Reinvestment Need
16 ROPA+ Prediction: Predictive Investment Model
Asset Reinvestment 10 Year Capital Forecast Need $700 $80
$70 $600
$60 $500 $229 $50 $400 $40
$300 $30 $240
$200 Total Dollars (Millions) Dollars Total Total Dollars (Millions) Total $20
$100 $10 $108 $0 $0 Asset Reinvestment Need
Current Need Renewal Need Modernization & Infrastructure
17 Operational Spending is Above Peer Average
Operating Actuals Operating Actuals $10.00 $10.00 UTK Peers $9.00 $9.00
$8.00 $8.00
$7.00 $7.00
$6.00 $6.00
$5.00 $5.00
$/GSF $/GSF
$4.00 $4.00
$3.00 $3.00
$2.00 $2.00
$1.00 $1.00
$0.00 $0.00 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Utilities PM Daily Service Utilities PM Daily Service
18 Larger Buildings: Greater Economies of Scale
Building Intensity 50 Smaller Buildings 45
40
Building Intensity 35
Definition – Measurement of 30 the number of buildings per million GSF 25
Application – Implications on 20 the numbers if systems and
travel time/economies of scale. 15 Buildings/ 1,000,000 GSF 1,000,000 Buildings/ 10
5 Larger Buildings 0 UTK A B C D E F G H I Building Intensity Peer Group Average
19 Maintenance Performance
Increasing maintenance coverage(fewer staff) and supervision ratios(fewer supervisors) Maintenance Staffing Supervision 120,000 8
7 100,000
6
80,000 5
GSF/FTE 60,000 4 FTE/Supervisor 3 40,000
2
20,000 1
0 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Institutions arranged by Tech Rating
20 Maintenance Performance
Fewer maintenance staff than peers, with higher supervision
Maintenance Staffing Maintenance Supervision 120,000 20
18 100,000 16
14 80,000 12
60,000 10 FTE/Super GSF/FTE 8 40,000 6
4 20,000 2
- - A B C D UTK E F G H I A B C D UTK E F G H I General Repair / Impression
Peers
UT- E&G
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Institutions arranged by Tech Rating
21 Density Factor near Peer Average
Density Factor 450 More Wear And Tear 400
350 Density Factor 300 Definition - Total Faculty, Staff, & Students FTE per total 250 campus GSF 200 Application – Illustrates the campus users’ impact on the 150
wear and tear of facilities GSF 100,000 / Users Campus 100
50 Less Wear And Tear 0 A B UTK C D E F G H I Density Factor Peer Group Average
22 Custodial Performance – FY2012
In 2012, Custodial presents room for improvement
Custodial Staffing Custodial Supervision 70,000 40
35 60,000
30 50,000
25 40,000
20
GSF/FTE FTE/Super 30,000 15
20,000 10
10,000 5
- - A B C UTK D E F G H I A B C UTK D E F G H I Cleanliness Peers
UT- E&G
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Institutions arranged by Density Factor
23 Custodial Transition Increased custodial efficiency as custodial transition in-house
Coverage Supervision 250 40000 20 35000 200 30000 15
150 25000
20000 10 FTE
100 15000 FTE/Supervisor 10000 5 50 5000
0 0 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
In-House GCA Coverage
24 Custodial Performance 2015
Custodial Metrics are in line with peers, producing better results
Custodial Staffing Custodial Supervision 60,000 45
40 50,000 35
40,000 30
25
30,000 GSF/FTE
FTE/Super 20
20,000 15
10 10,000 5
- - A B UTK C D E F G H I A B UTK C D E F G H I Cleanliness Peers
UT- E&G
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Institutions arranged by Density Factor
25 Qualifying Metrics - Grounds Intensity-Top 50 Publics
Grounds Intensity 1.8 More Intricate 1.6
1.4 Grounds Intensity 1.2 Definition – Measurement of the number of buildings per 1 Developed Acre
0.8 Application – Indicates the intricacy of the campus grounds 0.6
and the intensity to maintain Buildings/Developed Acre
0.4
0.2
0 More Open Space
26 Grounds Performance
Fewer Grounds workers compared to top public institutions Grounds Staffing Grounds Supervision
50 50
45 45
40 40
35 35
30 30
Acre/FTE 25 25 FTE/Super
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
- - A C E G I K UTK N P R T V X Grounds Inspection Score Peers UT- E&G
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Institutions arranged by Grounds Intensity
27 Campus Inspection Index & Scores
Campus Inspection Index Inspection Breakdown
100
90 Exteriors
80
70 Mechanical Spaces
60
Grounds
% 50
40
30 Cleanliness
20 General Repair/ 10 Impression
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 A B C D UTK E F G H I 2012 2015
28 Comparing Service Levels and Costs
Operating Actuals (DS & PM) $/GSF vs. peers and Inspection Scores* 6 100%
90% 5
80% Inspection Score Index 70% 4 60%
3 50% $/GSF 40% 2 30%
20% 1 10%
0 0% A B C D UT- E&G E F G H I (Me) Daily Service Actual $/GSF Total PM/GSF (Actual) Arrayed by Technical Complexity Peer Avg. Inspection Score *Inspection Score Index includes : Repair/Impression, Mechanical, Exterior, 29 Cleanliness, and Grounds Comparing Service Levels and Costs
Operating Actuals $/GSF Per Inspection Operating Actuals $/GSF Per Inspection Percentage Point Percentage Point UTK over time Versus Peers $0.07 $0.07
$0.06 $0.062 $0.06 $0.059 $0.057 $0.057 $0.054 $0.05 $0.052 $0.05 $0.049 $0.049 $0.049 $0.049 $0.049 $0.048 $0.044 $0.04 $0.04
$0.03 $0.03
$0.02 $0.02 Increasing Efficiency & Effectiveness & Efficiency Increasing $0.01 $0.01
$0.00 $0.00 2012 2013 2015 A B C D UTK E F G H I
30 Sustainability Solutions
31 Distribution of Emissions by Level of Control
Scope 1 Sources Emissions - 6,513 Scope 1 – Direct GHGs by Scope • Natural Gas, Fuel Oil -MTCDE• Vehicle 5,000 Fleet 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 •Co-genRefrigerants Plant Other On-Campus Stationary 23% Direct Transportation Refrigerants & Chemicals 27% Fertilizer LessControl Scope 2 Sources
Scope 225,411 – Upstream GHGs • Purchased Electricity -MTCDE 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Purchased Electricity 50% ScopeScope 3 – 3Indirect Sources GHGs • Faculty/Staff/ Student Commuting • Directly7,945 Financed 9,749Travel • Study Abroad Travel -MTCDE• Solid 5,000 Waste 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 •CommutingWastewater Travel Waste/Wastewater Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 •PaperPaper Purchases PurchasingT&D Losses • Transmission & Distribution Losses Distribution of Emissions by Level of Control
Scope 1 Sources
Emissions 47,549 by Scope 45,000 46,000 47,000 48,000 49,000 50,000 51,000 52,000 MTCDE
23% Other On-Campus Stationary Direct Transportation 27% Refrigerants & Chemicals Scope 2 Sources
146,564
-MTCDE 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 Purchased Electricity 50% Scope 3 Sources
33,493 23,256
-MTCDE 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 Commuting Travel Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Wastewater Paper Purchasing Scope 2 T&D Losses Gross Emissions Increased against 2007 Baseline Normalized Emissions Decreased
Change in Emissions vs. Change in Campus Size Change in Space, Population, and Emissions and Population Indexed to FY2007 Indexed to FY2007 10% 8%
6% 5% 4% 7% 2% 5% 0% 0%
-5% -2% -4% % % Change % % Change -4% -9% -10% -11% -6%
-8% -15% -10%
-20% -12%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Campus GSF Campus Population Emissions
34 Gross Emissions
Total Emissions vs. Space Growth 350,000 16,000,000
300,000 14,000,000
12,000,000 250,000 10,000,000 200,000 8,000,000
MTCDE 150,000 6,000,000 100,000 4,000,000
50,000 2,000,000
- - 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 GSF
35 REC purchases significantly change net emission profile
Total Emissions vs. Space Growth 350,000 16,000,000 Net Emissions
300,000 14,000,000
12,000,000 250,000 10,000,000 200,000
8,000,000 GSF
MTCDE 150,000 6,000,000 100,000 4,000,000
50,000 2,000,000
- - 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Scope 1 Scope 2 RECs Scope 3 GSF
36 REC purchases significantly change net emission profile
Total Emissions vs. Space Growth 400,000 16,000,000 Net Emissions 350,000 14,000,000
300,000 12,000,000
250,000 10,000,000
200,000 8,000,000
GSF MTCDE 150,000 6,000,000
100,000 4,000,000
50,000 2,000,000
- - 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 GSF
37 Energy Consumption vs. Peers Lower consumption profile versus peer institutions Total Utility Consumption By Fuel Type 180,000 UTK Peers 160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
BTU/GSF 60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Electric Fossil
38 Questions and Comments
39