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 North Texas University of Northern Iowa University of Pennsylvania University of Redlands University of Rhode Island University of of San Diego University of San Francisco University of Southern Maine University of Southern Mississippi University of St. Thomas Health Science Center University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Texas at Dallas University of the Sciences in Philadelphia University of Vermont Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Department of General Services Wagner College Wake Forest University Washburn University Washington University in St. Louis West Chester University West Liberty University West Virginia Health Science Center West Virginia Institute of Technology West Virginia School ofOsteopathic Medicine University of 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 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 - Medical Center Lexington, Kentucky

University of Rochester - Medical Campus Rochester, 0

University of Toledo - Health Science Toledo, Ohio Campus Comparative Considerations The - AHSC Tucson, AZ, Arizona Size, technical complexity, region, geographic location, and setting are all factors included in 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 GSFper1M Buildings 1.0 0.0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 10

Higher Intensity Lower Intensity GSFper1M 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

$800

$700 $373.5 $600

$500 $852.3 $96.7 $3.4 $400

$300 $478.8

$200 $382.2 $382.2 $378.8 Total Need, $ in millions $ in Need, Total $100

$0 Grand Total Identify New Identify 2015 Identified 2016 2016 Identified Identified Construction Timeframe X Needs Investment Needs Projects Identified Need New Construction Timeframe X Need Identified Needs by Structure Categorizing the $472.3M in total campus needs – excluding X timeframe

Total Needs by Structure Total Needs by Structure and Timeframe $ in millions $350 $315.3M 20% $300

$250 3% $200 10% $150 67% $93.5M

$100 Total Need, $ in millions $ in Need, Total $48.3M $50 $15.3M Building Needs Infrastructure $0 Grounds Needs New Construction Building Infrastructure Grounds Construction

A (1-3 years) B (4-7 years) C (8-10 years)

19 Identified Needs by Investment Criteria Systems in critical condition comprise one fourth of identified need BPS Identified Needs 2016

Recent BPS Experience Reliability 27% 25% 11% Safety/Code 28% 10%

Asset 2% 6% Preservation 3% Economic Opportunity 48% Program 40% Improvement

Reliability – Issues of imminent failure of compromise to the system that may result in interruption to program or use of space. Safety/Code – Code compliance issues and institutional safety priorities or items that are not in conformance with current codes, even though the system is “grandfathered” and exempt from current code. Asset Preservation – Projects that preserve or enhance the integrity of buildings systems or building structure, or campus infrastructure. Economic Opportunity – Projects that result in a reduction of annual operating costs or capital savings. Program Improvement – Projects that improve the functionality of space, primarily driven by academic, student life, and athletic programs or departments. These projects are also issues of campus image and impact. Operations Facilities Operating Expenditures vs. Peers Planned Maintenance spending increased from 2015 to 2016 Facilities Operating Actuals $12 University of Massachusetts Medical School Peers

$10

$8

$6 $/GSF

$4

$2

$0

Daily Service PM Utilities Avg.

22 FY2016 Facilities Operating Expenditures vs. Peers

UMM has fewer operating resources than peers despite having the highest tech rating

FY2016 Facilities Operating Actuals $18

$16

$14

$12

$10

$/GSF $8

$6

$4

$2

$0 A B C D E F G H I J K UMM Daily Service PM Utilities Average * Institutions arranged by Tech Rating

23 UMM PM Outperformed Peers in 2016 As planned maintenance dollars increase, daily service decreases

Planned Maintenance vs Peers Planned Maintenance % of Budget $1.40 16%

$1.20 14%

12% $1.00 10% $0.80 8%

$/GSF $0.60

% Budget of % 6% $0.40 4%

$0.20 2%

$0.00 0%

Peer Average UMM PM Outperformed Peers in 2016 Best practice in Sightlines database is above 10% of total operating budget

Planned Maintenance vs Peers Planned Maintenance % of Budget $1.40 16%

$1.20 14% Sightlines Best Practice Zone – 12% 10%+ $1.00 10% $0.80 8%

$/GSF $0.60

% Budget of % 6% $0.40 4%

$0.20 2%

$0.00 0%

Peer Average Energy Consumption vs. Peers High tech rating contributes to higher energy consumption compared to peers

Total Utility Consumption By Fuel Type 600,000 University of Massachusetts Medical School Peers UMM Tech Rating: 20% higher than peer average 500,000 UMM Energy Consumption: 36% higher than peer average 400,000

300,000 BTU/GSF 200,000

100,000

0

Fossil Electric

26 Energy Unit Cost by Fuel Type $/MMBTU

Energy Unit Cost by Fuel Type $45

$40

$35

$30

$25

$20

$15 $/MMBTU $10

$5

$0 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016

Fossil Unit Cost ($/MMBTU) Electric Unit Cost ($/MMBTU)

27 Customer Satisfaction Survey Results

28 Demographic of Respondents

690 Total Respondents; 243 Respondents answers questions past survey logic

Survey Demographics Number of Years at UMM

4%1%5% 6% 14% 15%

9% 19% 40%

14% 16%

36% 15%

Dean/VP Department Head 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 20+ Manager Administrative Support Staff Faculty Student Other

29 Facilities Department Expectations vs. Satisfaction 81% of participant satisfaction was met or exceeded by the facilities department Expectations of Facilities Satisfaction with Facilities Performance Performance

4% 2% 6% 12% 22% 17%

50% 33%

53%

Very Low Expectations Far Below Expectations Low Expectations Below Expectations Moderate Expectations Meets Expectations High Expectations Exceeds Expectations Very High Expectations Far Exceeds Expectations

30 Maintenance Metrics – Medical School Only

Trades staff cover less space and are less supervised than at peer institutions Maintenance Staffing Maintenance Supervision 120,000 25 100,000 20 80,000 15

GSF/FTE 60,000 FTE/Super 40,000 10

20,000 5 - -

Maintenance Materials $0.90 $0.80 $0.70 $0.60 $0.50 $/GSF Institutions arranged by $0.40 Tech Rating $0.30 $0.20 $0.10 $0.00

31 Customer Response to Trades Department

4.44 Work is performed courteously/professionally 4.56 4.34 Work is performed competently 4.32 4.24 Once work has begun, staff is timely

4.21 Avg Performance

4.21 : 4.3 Work meets my expectations 4.11 3.51 Work order schedule is communicated effectively 3.58 3.46 Schedule is adhered to or I am made aware of changes 3.47 3.87 Work schedule is generally acceptable

3.76 Avg : : 3.5 Communication 3.16 I am asked for or receive feedback 2.91

1 2 3 4 5 Never Sometimes Always Structural Mechanical

32 Custodial Department

Customer Survey Response Custodial Staffing 50,000 45,000 Work is performed 4.30 40,000 courteously/professionally 35,000 30,000 Work is performed competently 25,000 4.04 GSF/FTE 20,000 15,000

Once work has begun, staff is timely 4.12 10,000 Avg

5,000 Performance

: : 4.1 - Work meets my expectations 3.89

Work order schedule is communicated 3.48 effectively Custodial Supervision 40 Schedule is adhered to or I am made 3.32 35 aware of changes 30 25 Work schedule is generally acceptable 3.76

Avg 20 FTE/Super

: : 3.3 15 Communication I am asked for or receive feedback 2.66 10 5 1 2 3 4 5 - Never Sometimes Always

33 Building Condition & Cleanliness of Campus

Building Condition and Cleanliness Scale of 1 - 5

5 Excellent

Condition Avg: 3.9 4 Cleanliness Avg: 3.7

3 Fair 4.2 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.5 2

1 General General repair of General repair of Cleanliness of Cleanliness of Availability of appearance of the the interior building the furnishings of interior spaces restrooms restroom resources exterior of the shell interior space (paper products, building (i.e. wall, floors, soap, etc.) Very Poor Very ceiling)

34 Concluding Comments

> While University of Massachusetts Medical School currently has a young age profile, it is important to consider the buildings constructed in the Post-War era that will continue to age if not addressed through strategic renovations. Continue to increase Planned Maintenance in younger space while focusing Asset Reinvestment funds on alleviating backlog in buildings such as the Medical School.

> Historical funding has averaged $3.30/GSF compared to peers at $5.24/GSF. The difference between peers equates to nearly $50M difference in investment over the past 8 years. Continuing at this investment level will further increase reliability needs on campus and create a scenario where “projects pick you” vs. picking your investments.

> Despite having a higher technical complexity and lower operating resources, 81% of respondents thought facilities met or exceeded expectations. Given the historical investment levels and operating budget, this is great story for the facilities department.

> The Mechanical and Structural departments of facilities received favorable responses from the customer satisfaction survey, where as the custodial feedback scored lower, specifically on the communication side. Consider setting up an educational opportunity for faculty and staff to learn about the schedule and processes to help improve communication.

35 Questions & Comments

36