Sightlines LLC FY10F Iliti MB&AP T Ti FY10 Facilities MB&A Presentation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 Sightlines LLC University of New Haven University of Notre Dame University of Oregon FY10 Fac ilities MB&A PttiPresentation University of Pennsylvania University of Portland Wesleyan University University of Redlands The University of Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay The University of Rhode Island, Feinstein Providence The UiUnivers ity of Rho de IlIslan d, Kings ton Date : April 13, 2011 University of Rochester Presented by: Peter Reeves 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 University1 Wheaton College (MA) Sightlines Profile Common Vocabulary, Consistent Methodology, Credibility Through Benchmarking ME VT MT ND MN NH NY MA WI ID SD MI RI WY CT NJ IA NE OH DE 0 NV IL IN WV MD UT CO 1‐5 CA KS MO KY DC NC TN 6‐11 OK AR SC AZ NM 12‐17 GA 18‐23 LA TX FL 24‐above AK Represents State System HI Represents Flagship Institutions 10 year old company based in Guilford, CT 95% Annual retention rate Tracking $5.9 billion in operations budgets and $4.2 billion in capital projects Database of 23,500 buildings and 825 million GSF 2 Background The Return on Physical Assets –ROPASM Developed a tool based on: • Common vocabulary • Consistent analytical methodology • Credibility through benchmarking The annual The accumulated The effectiveness The measure of investment backlog of repair of the facilities service process, needed to ensure and modernization operating budget, the maintenance bldbuildings will needs and the staffing, quality of space properly perform definition of supervision, and and systems, and and reach their resource capacity energy the customers useful life. “Keep‐ to correct them. management. opinion of service Up Costs” “Catch‐Up Costs” delivery. Annual Asset Operational Service Stewardship Reinvestment Effectiveness Asset Value Change Operations Success 3 Wesleyan core observations Space Profile • Wesleyan has more square footage per student than peers •Wesleyan has many more smaller facilities than peers • Wesleyan’s campus is older than peers Cuts experienced in multiple areas • Wesleyan’s total Stewardship investments are still above peers • Supplemental reinvestment funds decreased in FY10 • Daily operational budget shows decreasing trend since FY08 Operations Performance • Campus appearance surpasses peers, aided by historical capital investments • While campus appearance improves, customer satisfaction does not 4 Campus portfolio facts Distribution of Square Footage by Function Support, Student Life, Campus Portfolio Stats: 85,444 139,342 Building Count: 313 GSF: 282,852 ,470 Total Acreage: 316 Athletic, Maintained Acreage: 219 243,925 Residential, 1,230,484 Academic / Administrative , 1,146,275 5 Comparison Institutions Peer Institutions Amherst College Brown University Dartmouth College Middlebury College Tufts University –Medford Vassar College Williams College 6 Understanding the impact of unique space Space / Student 1,400 1,200 1,000 Wesleyan has approx. 60 GSF/Student more than peers tt 800 Studen 600 GSF/ 400 200 ‐ ABWesleyanDEFGH 7 Understanding the space v. wealth relationship Database Distribution – Wealth v. Space Less Resources More Resources L 1,200 ess Stude 1,000 n ts 800 tudent SS 600 GSF/ More 400 S tudents 200 0 $0.0 $200,000.0 $400,000.0 $600,000.0 $800,000.0 $1,000,000.0 $1,200,000.0 $1,400,000.0 $1,600,000.0 Wesleyan University Wealth per Student Peers 8 Campus square footage stable over time Reductions in small houses over time Campus GthGrowth 3.5 450 2.80 M 2.85 M 400 3.0 350 2.5 300 s s s n n 2.0 250 Millio Building in 200 1.5 of SF # GG 150 1.0 100 050.5 50 0.0 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 GSF # of Buildings 9 Numerous small buildings reflected in building intensity Number of Buildings by Age Category 350 300 13 43 250 gs Removing 150 buildings would nn 200 bring Wesleyan to peer average. Buildi # 150 256 100 50 0 Building count 10 Older age profile % of Campus by Age Categgyory Historically 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% Space 25% of 20% % 15% 10% 5% 0% Less than 10 Years 10 ‐ 25 Years 25‐50 Years Over 50 Years FY 2010 Peers FY 2010 Younger more technically complex space, more “keep up” Older space that is reaching need. or has reached major life cycles, more “catch up” funding needed. 11 Annual Stewardship Planning for the Future 12 Similar investment historically; recent reductions 13 Defining stewardship investment target FY2010 Stewardship Targets Replacement Value = $1.0B $35.00 $30.00 Life cycle is discounted for the $25.00 coordination of modernization and renovation ions $20.00 ll Mil $11.4 in $15.00 $30.2 $ $10.00 $4.0 $11.6 $5.00 $8.7 $0. 00 $30.2M $23M $12.7M 3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need Functional Obsolescence (Equilibrium) (Target) Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program Industry Standard Sightlines Recommendation 14 Reductions in stewardship have increased Recurring Capital Investment vs. Target Need $14 $12 $10 $3.7M $4.6M $5.4M $3.1M $2.7 M $2.7M $8.2M $2.6M $2.5M lions ll $8 Mi in $ $6 $4 $2 $‐ 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program Target Need Approximately $36 Million has been deferred over the last 9 years 15 Peers also experiencing reductions in funds Wesleyan is still spending above peer levels despite reductions 16 Adding to the backlog in FY2010 Strong investments historically $30.0 $25.0 DDiecreasing Backlog $20.0 ns oo $15.0 Milli in $ $10.0 $5.0 Increasing Backlog $0.0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment 17 Funding changes reflected in backlog Maintaining service levels will be challenged with an increasing backlog of needs 18 Reductions in daily operating costs similar to peers In FY10 Peers spend on average 0.57 / GSF more than Wesleyan or $1.6 Million Peer Average Wesleyan University $8.00 $8.00 $7.00 $7.00 $6.00 $6.00 $5.00 $5.00 $4.00 $4.00 $3.00 $3.00 $2.00 $2.00 $1.00 $1.00 $‐ $‐ 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Wesleyan ‘10 4.23 3.42 Peer Average ‘10 4.80 2.60 19 Decreasing consumption and cost Cogeneration results in decreased consumption and costs Energy Peer Institutions Bryn Mawr College Colgate University Hamilton College Mount Holyoke College Northeastern University Vassar College Wellesley College Williams College 20 Maintenance Staff performs at peer level with fewer resources Maintenance Materials $20,000 $15,000 E TT F / $ $10,000 $5,000 $‐ Wesleyan Peer Average General Repair Inspection Wesleyan Peer Average 3.8 3.7 21 Custodial cleanliness below peers despite comparable staffing levels Custodial Materials $4,000 $3,000 E TT F / $ $2,000 $1,000 $‐ Wesleyan Peer Average Cleanliness Inspection Wesleyan Peer Average 3.7 3.9 22 Grounds performance improved by capital investments Grounds Materials $12,000 $10,000 E TT F $8, 000 / $ $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $‐ Wesleyan Peer Average Grounds Inspection Wesleyan Peer Average 4.2 3.9 23 Customer Satisfaction results over time Customer Satisfaction: FY2005, FY2007, & FY2010 5.0 4.30 4.40 4.3 4.0 4.2 4.25 4.2 4.2 3.84 3.9 3.7 Index 3.5 n 3.4 333.43 3.5 o o 3.0 3.19 Satisfacti 2.0 er Custom 1.0 0.0 Knowledge/Understanding Schedules and service Work meets expectations Feedback General satisfaction in Process levels FY2005 FY2007 FY2010 24 Significant improvements in campus appearance Overall satisfaction levels beginning to turn up Historical Campus Inspection (1‐5) 5 4.5 4 Score 3.5 on ii 3 CitCommunicate 2.5 challenges to 2 campus Inspect community 1.5 1 ampus CC 050.5 0 Adjust Cleanliness General Mechanical Exterior Grounds operations as necessary Repair/Impression Spaces 2005 2007 2010 Customer Satisfaction Index Manage customer 100% expectations dex n n I 80% Peer Average 60% Satisfaction 40% r ee 20% Custom 0% 2005 2007 2010 25 Sightlines LLC FY10 Go Green MB&A PfilProfile 26 A vocabulary for measurement Go‐Green Measurement, Benchmarking and Analysis © Sightlines 2010 Go Green Service Membership Map Go‐Green Peer Institutions Babson College Bryn Mawr CllCollege Hamilton College Hampshire College Mount Holyoke College Union College Vassar College Comparative Considerations Size Complexity Location Number of Members Program Go‐Green Measurement and Analysis Service Sightlines has approximately 50 Members Approximately two‐thirds are private Approximately one‐third are public Approximately two‐thirds have signed the ACUPCC Approximately forty percent are Charter Signatories of the ACUPCC 27 Simplifying the types of GHG emissions All expressed as Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCDE) © Sightlines 2010 Scope 2: Emissions from utility Scope 1: Emissions from the Scope 3: Indirect emissions production not at the institution direct activities of the campus including transpp,ortation, waste disposal, etc.