University of Massachusetts Medical School
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 West Virginia Health Science Center West Virginia Institute of Technology West Virginia School ofOsteopathic Medicine University of Massachusetts Medical School West Virginia State University West Virginia University Presenters: Daniel Willman & Cody Lorentson Western Connecticut State University December 2016 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 is proud to Sightlines advises state announce that: systems in: • 450 colleges and • Alaska universities are Sightlines clients • California including over 325 • Florida ROPA members. • Hawaii • Consistently over 90% • Maine member retention rate • Massachusetts • Minnesota • We have clients in over 40 states, the • Mississippi Serving the Nation’s Leading Institutions: District of Columbia • Missouri and four Canadian • 70% of the Top 20 Colleges* • Nebraska provinces • New Hampshire • 75% of the Top 20 Universities* • More than 125 new • New Jersey • 34 Flagship State Universities institutions became • Pennsylvania • 14 of the 14 Big 10 Institutions Sightlines members • Texas • 9 of the 12 Ivy Plus Institutions since 2013 * U.S. News 2016 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 Facilities Peer Institutions ROPA+ Analysis includes all space besides parking garages totaling 4.6M GSF Institution Location Tech Rating Northwestern University Chicago, Illinois 5 Philadelphia, Thomas Jefferson University Pennsylvania 4 The University of Mississippi Medical Jackson, Mississippi Center New Brunswick, New Rutgers Biomedical Health Sciences 3 Jersey Penn State - Hershey Hershey, Pennsylvania 2 University of Florida - HSC Gainesville, Florida 1 University of Kentucky - Medical Center Lexington, Kentucky University of Rochester - Medical Campus Rochester, New York 0 University of Toledo - Health Science Toledo, Ohio Campus Comparative Considerations The University of Arizona - AHSC Tucson, AZ, Arizona Size, technical complexity, region, geographic location, and setting are all factors included in Boston University Medical Campus Boston, Massachusetts the selection of peer institutions 4 Core Observations > University of Massachusetts Medical School’s buildings are larger, younger, and more complex than peers’. This necessitates a robust Planned Maintenance program to ensure building systems meet and exceed their stated life cycles. > Planned Maintenance and recurring capital funding increased in FY2016, but investments fell short of the Sightlines target of $56.6M. Backlog is now approaching $130/GSF and nearing the peer average. > The composition of 10-year need identified through the BPS is more heavily weighted toward reliability needs than the database. Reliability needs are those that if not addressed, threaten critical failure and operational disruption. > 81% of survey respondents thought Facilities met or exceeded expectations 5 UMM Has Larger Buildings Than Peers Lower building intensity presents opportunity for greater economies of scale Building Intensity Over Time Building Intensity 8.0 25 7.0 6.0 5.0 20 4.0 3.0 2.0 15 Buildings per 1M GSFper 1M Buildings 1.0 0.0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 10 Higher Intensity Lower Intensity GSFper 1M Buildings • More envelopes, • Less envelopes, boilers, roofs to boilers, roofs to 5 repair/replace repair/replace • Lost time • Operational traveling between efficiencies in buildings cleaning and 0 maintaining larger spaces 6 Putting Your Campus Building Age in Context Post-War & Modern vintages comprise 60% of UMM’s space 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 40% Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex 35% 30% 25% 20% % GSF% of 15% 10% 5% 0% Sightlines Database- Construction Age Sightlines Database- Renovation Age UMass Medical 7 Campus Age Profile – Identifying Risky Space Campus Age by Category Buildings over 50 100% 2% 1% Life cycles of major building components are past due. 90% 16% Failures are possible. Core modernization cycles are missed. 80% Highest risk 54% High 70% 60% High Risk Buildings 25 to 50 High 33% 60% Risk 75% Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come High Risk due. Functional obsolescence prevalent. 50% Risk Higher Risk % GSF% of 40% 22% Buildings 10 to 25 30% 26% Short life-cycle needs; primarily space 22% renewal. 20% Medium Risk 10% 25% 23% 18% 15% Buildings Under 10 1% 0% Little work. “Honeymoon” period. UMM-School UMM-Offsite UMM Peer Average Low Risk Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50 8 Distribution of Space by Age Category Projection shows high-risk space will grow in the next 5 years Campus Renovation Age by Category 100% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 90% 80% 43% 47% 53% 54% 70% 57% 62% 62% 60% 60% 60% 62% 62% 60% 50% 40% 29% 30% 30% 28% 28% % of Total Campus GSF Campus Total % of 24% 21% 21% 22% 22% 22% 20% 27% 20% 27% 10% 21% 16% 16% 17% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 11% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Renovation Age: Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50 25.5 24.0 24.9 25.8 23.5 24.6 25.6 26.6 27.6 28.6 29.6 30.6 9 Capital Projects 10 Total Capital Investment Historical investment focus has been on new space Total Capital Investment $200 2% $180 18% $160 $140 80% $120 $100 $80 $ in Millions in $ $60 $40 $20 $0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Existing Space Investment New Space Investment Non-Facilities 11 Total Project Spending by Package Infrastructure has not received significant investment Capital Investment Mix by Year Total Investment Mix $30 9% 8% $25 $20 $15 37% 41% $ in Millions in $ $10 $5 5% $0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Envelope Building Systems Infrastructure Space Renewal Safety/Code 12 Defining an Annual Investment Target Annual Funding Target: $56.6M FY2016 Annual Investment Target Replacement Value: $3.1B $100.0 $90.0 Operational strategies discount the $80.0 annual investment target $70.0 $55.2 $60.0 $50.0 $93.4 $27.6 $ in Millions in $ $40.0 $30.0 $20.0 $38.6 $29.0 $10.0 $0.0 3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need Annual Investment Target Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program 13 Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target Shortfall to target has resulted in estimated accrual of backlog Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target $120 Increasing Net Asset Value $100 $80 Lowering Risk Profile $60 $ in Millions in $ Increasing Backlog & Risk $40 $20 $0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need Note: Data shown does not include Infrastructure spending 14 Peer Institutions Outspending UMass Medical Stewardship funds growing toward peer average Medical School Total Project Offsite Total Project Spending: $/GSF Spending: $/GSF $16.00 $16.00 Medical School Peers Offsite Peers $14.00 $14.00 $12.00 $6.8M/Year needed to reach peer $12.00 average; Equates to nearly $50M difference in investment over the $10.00 $10.00 last 8 years $8.00 $8.00 $/GSF $/GSF $6.00 $6.00 $4.00 $4.00 $2.00 $2.00 $0.00 $0.00 15 FY2016 Total Asset Reinvestment Need vs. Peers 10-Year estimated investment need approaching $130/GSF Total Asset Reinvestment Need vs Peers $325 $300 $275 $250 $225 Peer Average = $142/GSF $200 $175 $150 $/GSF $125 $100 $75 $50 $25 $0 A B C D E F G H I J K UMM Using only needs and GSF quantified in BPS. Buildings include: Medical Schools, Lazare, ASC, Biotech 2, 1st Road Garage, Power 16 Plant, Shaw Building, South Rd. Garage, Anderson House, BNRI Building Portfolio Solutions Update 17 Total Identified Needs $378.8M in total identified need Total Identified Needs $900