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 Faciliti es MB&A PPttiresentation 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 WI NY MA ID SD MI RI WY CT NJ IA NE OH 0 NV IL IN MDDE UT WV CO KS MO DC 1‐5 CA KY NC TN 6‐11 AR AZ OK SC 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: 228,852 ,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 PPfilrofile
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.
This slide courtesy of CA‐CP 28 Gross carbon emissions ‐ 31,627 MTCDE Less purchased electricity and increased stationary fuels indicative of cogeneration © Sightlines 2010
Carbon Emissions by Type Carbon Emissions by Scope
20,000
18,000 Air 14% 16,000
14,000 CCtommute 5% 12,000
10,000 MTCDE Electricity 8,000 17% On‐Campus Stationary 6,000 63% 4,000
2,000
0
Vehicle Fleet Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 1% Emissions Emissions Emissions FY2009 FY2010
* Scope 1 increase and Scope 2 decrease due to cogeneration 29 Producing fewer GHGs with steady GSF Downward trend in emissions since start of cogeneration program © Sightlines 2010
Historical Emissions by Scope 45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000 E
DD 25,000 MTC 20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 Scope 3 6,299 6,293 6,647 7,095 8,284 8,581 8,463 8,354 7,554 Scope 2 12,526 12,943 13,088 12,687 13,206 11,696 11,920 9,680 4,974 Scope 1 15,062 17,635 17,547 18,368 18,464 16,330 14,653 15,782 18,740
30 Lower campus density impacts emissions profile Emissions profile trends are the result of shrinking scope 2 emissions © Sightlines 2010
31 Discussion/ Questions
32