Document 2459981

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
University of New Haven
University of Notre Dame
University of Oregon
University of Pennsylvania
University of Portland
University of Redlands
The University of Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay
The University of Rhode Island, Feinstein Providence
The University of Rhode Island, Kingston
University of Rochester
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 University
Reference 52
Sightlines, LLC
University of Alaska System Presentation
FY2012
Date: April 3, 2013
Presented by: Colin Sanders, Laura Vassilowitch & Sheena Salsberry
Sightlines Profile
Reference 52
Operations Success
Asset Value Change
Common vocabulary, consistent methodology, credibility through benchmarking
The annual
investment needed
to ensure buildings
will properly
perform and reach
their useful life
“Keep-Up Costs”
The accumulated
backlog of repair
and modernization
needs and the
definition of
resource capacity to
correct them.
“Catch-Up Costs”
Annual
Stewardship
Asset
Reinvestment
The effectiveness
of the facilities
operating budget,
staffing,
supervision, and
energy
management
The measure of
service process, the
maintenance
quality of space and
systems, and the
customers opinion
of service delivery
Operational
Effectiveness
Service
System Peers
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Connecticut*
Maine
Missouri
Mississippi
New Hampshire
Oregon
Pennsylvania
*New system peer
2
Sightlines Profile
Reference 52
Operations Success
Asset Value Change
Common vocabulary, consistent methodology, credibility through benchmarking
The
annual funds:
Operating
investment
needed
• State General
toFunds
ensure buildings
will
properly
• Student
tuitions
perform
& Feesand reach
their
life
• F&Auseful
Recovery
“Keep-Up
• Other Costs”
Capital
funds:
The
accumulated
• Bondsof repair
backlog
• State
General
and
modernization
Funds
needs
and the
• Federal Grants
definition
of
• Foundations
resource
capacity to
Grantsthem.
correct
“Catch-Up Costs”
Annual
Stewardship
Asset
Reinvestment
The
effectiveness
•Facilities
ofoperating
the facilities
budget
operating
budget,
•Staffing levels
staffing,
•Energy cost and
supervision,
and
consumption
energy
management
The
measure of
•Campus
service
process, the
Inspection
maintenance
•Service Process
quality
of space and
•Customer
systems,
and the
Satisfaction
customers
Survey opinion
of service delivery
Operational
Effectiveness
Service
System Peers
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Connecticut*
Maine
Missouri
Mississippi
New Hampshire
Oregon
Pennsylvania
*New system peer
3
Scope of work
Reference 52
Bldg.
GSF
#
Campuses
MAUs
Total GSF: 6.6M GSF; 346 buildings
• Anchorage
• Kenai Peninsula
• Kodiak College
• Matanuska- Susitna College
• Prince William Sound
Community College
• Fairbanks
• Community and Technical
College
• College of Rural & Community
Development
• Juneau
• Ketchikan
• Sitka
2.6M GSF
3.3M GSF
569K GSF
95 Buildings
212 Buildings
39 Buildings
4
Best Practices Nationally Suggests to Us…
Reference 52
When Stewardship falls…
1. Failures increase
2. Operational effectiveness falls
3. Customer satisfaction decreases
4. Capital investment is driven by
customers. Space wins over
systems.
5. The backlog of needs increases
Focused project selection…
1. Decreases operating costs
2. Savings Increase stewardship
3. Planned maintenance grows
4. Customer satisfaction improves
5. Greater flexibility of project
selection repeats the cycle.
5
UA System’s ROPA Radar Charts
Reference 52
UA System FY12
Operating
Effectiveness
Asset Reinvestment
Annual
Stewardship
Service
6
Reference 52
Sightlines Database
Western Region Trends
(AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA)
7
#1 Dichotomy of campus age profiles
Reference 52
Campuses are growing older
(%) Square Footage over 25 years old
(Renovation Age)
70%
60%
50%
18%
19%
19%
19%
19%
20%
38%
38%
38%
39%
39%
38%
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
25 to 50 Years of Age
Western Region (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA)
Over 50 Years of Age
8
#2 Cyclical capital investments
Reference 52
Investments decreasing to national database average
Capital Investment into Existing Space
National Database
Western Region Database
$8.0
$7.0
$6.0
Average
$/GSF
$5.0
Average
$4.6
$4.0
$3.0
$5.2
$4.2
$3.4
$2.9
$3.5
$4.0
$4.0
$3.2
$3.1
$3.4
$3.3
$2.0
$1.0
$1.5
$1.8
$1.8
$1.7
$1.6
$1.4
$1.2
$1.3
$1.4
$1.3
$1.5
$1.6
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
$-
Annual Capital
Western Region (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA)
One-Time Capital
9
#3 Less investment into space projects in 2012
Reference 52
Shifting investments towards building envelope, system, and infrastructure needs
Western Region
Total Project Spending
FY2002
2007
13%
2012
7%
10%
8%
13%
13%
29%
24%
24%
25%
41%
14%
40%
13%
26%
Building Envelope
Building Systems
Space Renewal
Safety/Code
Western Region (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA)
Infrastructure
10
#4 Steady increase in backlog
Reference 52
The western region saw an 11% increase in backlog since FY07
Backlog $/GSF
$90
$80
$70
$/GSF
$60
$50
$40
$75
$77
$78
$78
$81
$84
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
$30
$20
$10
$-
Western Region (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA)
11
Reference 52
UA System profile
Major factors that influence campus
operations and decisions
12
Alaska in Context: Campus renovation age vs. peers
Reference 52
57% of Alaska System space is over 25 years old
% of space over 25 years old
Renovation Age Categories
Peer system comparison
System peer comparison
100%
80%
7%
90%
23%
70%
80%
70%
High Risk
50%
High Risk
50%
33%
60%
60%
50%
40%
68%
40%
19%
30%
30%
19%
20%
47%
48%
50%
B
C
D
53%
69%
69%
G
H
57%
20%
23%
10%
10%
25%
0%
0%
UA System
Under 10
10 to 25
Peer System Average
25 to 50
Over 50
A
E
UA
System
Systems Ordered by Tech Rating
Peer System Average
13
Age profile informs capital strategy
Reference 52
Renovation Age Categories
100%
System peer comparison
7%
90%
Buildings over 50
Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures
are possible. Core modernization cycles are missed.
Highest risk
23%
80%
70%
High Risk
50%
High Risk
Buildings 25 to 50
33%
60%
Life cycles are coming due in envelope and mechanical
systems. Functional obsolescence prevalent.
Higher Risk
50%
40%
Buildings 10 to 25
Lower cost space renewal updates and
initial signs of program pressures
Medium Risk
19%
19%
23%
25%
UA System
Peer System Average
30%
20%
10%
Buildings Under 10
Little work, “honeymoon” period.
Low Risk
0%
Under 10
10 to 25
25 to 50
Over 50
14
Alaska in Context: Tech rating
Reference 52
Alaska System Tech Ranges from 2.5 to 3.3
Tech Rating (1-5 Scale)
5.0
Tech Rating by MAU
Tech Rating
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
UAA
UAF
UAS
Peer system comparison
5.0
A
B
UA System Tech Rating
SL Public University FY2012 Average: 2.93
C
D
E
UA
System
G
H
Peer System Average
Peer Range
15
Alaska in Context: Density Factor
Reference 52
UA System Density Factor range: 280-640
FTE Users/100,000 GSF
800
Density Factor
Density Factor by MAU
Peer system comparison
800
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
UAA
UAF
UAS
A
B
UA System Density Factor
*Users Include Faculty, Staff, Student FTEs
SL Public University FY2012 Average: 616
C
D
E
UA
System
G
H
Peer System Average
Peer Range
16
Alaska in Context: Building Intensity
Reference 52
UA System Building Intensity Average : 56 Buildings/ 1M GSF
Buildings/1M GSF
100
Building Intensity by MAU
Building Intensity System Averages
Peer system comparison
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
UAA
UAF
UAS
A
B
UA System Average
SL Public University FY2012 Average: 39
C
D
E
F
UA
System
H
Peer System Average
Peer Range
17
Reference 52
Capital, Budget, and Operations
Asset value change and
performance value
18
UA System terminology to Sightlines
DM
R&R
Fund 5
One-time
Capital
Onetime
Capital
Fund 1
Recurring
Capital
Capital Projects
Reference 52
Grounds &
Custodial
M&R
Projects Daily Maintenance
Recurring Maint. &
Capital Operating
Budget
Daily Operations
Maintenance
& Operations
Budget
Maintenance &
Operations
Budget
*Stewardship and Reinvestment classifications are based on funding source rather than type of work
19
Total capital spending
Reference 52
Total FY12 investment was $130M
Total UA System
Project split-out
FY06-FY12
Capital Spending
$140.048%
52%
$120.0
Millions
$100.0
$80.0
Avg: $83M
$60.0
$40.0
$20.0
$0.0
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
Existing Facilities
$32.2M
$28.4M
$99.9M
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Non-Facilities/New Space
$90.2M
$78.7M
$98.6M
$130M
20
Total capital spending in facilities
Reference 52
Total facilities related investments in FY12 was $54M
Total UA System
Capital Spending
$140.0
$120.0
Millions
$100.0
$80.0
$60.0
$40.0
Avg: $42.5M
$20.0
$0.0
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
$60.0M
$43.8M
$53.9M
Existing Facilities
$22.2M
$27.0M
$42.7M
$48.2M
21
Sightlines’ stewardship “Best Practice” target
Creating a target for recurring funding sources from operating budget funds
$120
Reference 52
UA System – FY2012 Stewardship Targets
$ in Millions
$100
$80
$60
$107.4
$40
$65.6
$20
$0
Life Cycle Need
(Equilibrium)
Functional Obsolescence
(Target)
Annual Stewardship
Recurring capital : M&R and R&R projects*
Planned Maintenance: Service contracts and PM work order labor and materials
*Stewardship and Reinvestment classifications are based on funding source rather than type of work
22
Total capital investment vs. target need
Reference 52
Funding 19% of stewardship target on average
UA System – Annual Stewardship
$140.0
$120.0
$ in Millions
$100.0
$80.0
$60.0
$40.0
$20.0
$0.0
2006
2007
2008
Annual Stewardship
*Capital investments includes renovation of vacated space
2009
2010
2011
2012
Equilibrium
Need
Target Range
23
Total capital investment vs. target need
Reference 52
Deferral rate since FY06 totals up to $303M
UA System – Annual Stewardship
$140.0
$120.0
$ in Millions
$100.0
$80.0
$60.0
$40.0
$20.0
$0.0
2006
2007
Annual Stewardship
2008
2009
Asset Reinvestment
*Capital investments includes renovation of vacated space
2010
2011
2012
Equilibrium
Target
RangeNeed
24
Capital investment vs. target comparison
Reference 52
Increasing AS by $8.2M each year will help UA System reach Sightlines’ target range
% of Target – 7 year average
By MAU
140%
% of Target
120%
% of Target – 7 year average
Peer system comparison
140%
Target Range – Sustaining120%
or Increasing Net Asset Value
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%
0%
0%
UAA
UAF
UA System Average
UAS
A
B
C
D
Annual Stewardship
E
UA
System
G
H
Asset Reinvestment
Peer System Average
Systems Ordered by Tech Rating
25
Capital investment mix profile for UA
UA spending mix follows with regional trend- shifting away from space projects
Reference 52
UA System FY07
UA System FY12
Mix of Spending
Mix of Spending
11%
7%
7%
21%
16%
18%
Bldg. Envelope
Bldg. Systems
Infrastructure
Space
51%
10%
33%
Code
26%
26
Capital investment mix profile comparison FY12 Reference 52
UA system and system peers mix of spending similar to regional database
UA System FY12
7%
System Peers FY12
7%
16%
Regional Database FY12
7%
14%
13%
18%
27%
29%
25%
26%
31%
33%
21%
Bldg. Envelope
Bldg. Systems
26%
Infrastructure
Space
Code
27
Investment Focus - Envelope & Mechanical Projects
Recent years focusing on envelope and mechanical needs
Reference 52
% of Target by Project Category
140%
UA System Total Consumption
120%
350,000
Target
80%
300,000
60%
40%
250,000
% of Envelope, Mechanical, & Infrastructure
vs. Target
20%
0%
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
140%
120%
% of Target
100%
BTU/GSF
% of Target
100%
200,000
150,000
100,000
Target
80%
50,000
60%
-
40%
20%
0%
FY06
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
% of Space & Programming vs. Target
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
Fossil BTU/GSF
Electric BTU/GSF
FY12
UA System Average
28
DM&R Progression over time
UA System backlog of deferred maintenance and renewal totals $1.1B in FY12
Reference 52
UA System Total DM&R
FY06-FY12
$1,200
$1,033M
$1,000
$875M
$ in Millions
$800
$698M
$888M
$1,082M
$941M
$736M
$600
$400
$200
$0
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
29
UA System terminology to Sightlines
DM
R&R
Fund 5
One-time
Capital
Onetime
Capital
Fund 1
Recurring
Capital
Capital Projects
Reference 52
Grounds &
Custodial
M&R
Projects Daily Maintenance
Recurring Maint. &
Capital Operating
Budget
Daily Operations
Maintenance
& Operations
Budget
Maintenance &
Operations
Budget
*Stewardship and Reinvestment classifications are based on funding source rather than type of work
30
Operating Budget vs. Peer Systems
Reference 52
UA system closer to peers when accounting for the cost of living
Daily Service: Maintenance, Grounds, Custodial, and Facilities Admin budget
Includes all personnel, supplies, materials, and contract costs
$/GSF
Operating Budget FY12
$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
$-
$A
B
C
D
E
UA
System
G
H
Regionally Adjusted Operating
Budget FY12
A
B
C
D
E
UA
System
G
H
Institutions in order of Tech Rating
Adjusted budget reflects a comparison normalized for regional cost-of-living variance
31
Maintenance performance
Reference 52
UA System coverage ratio similar to peers despite having more buildings to cover
Maintenance Staffing Coverage
GSF/FTE
120,000
Maintained Buildings/FTE
7.0
6.0
100,000
5.0
Buildings/FTE
GSF/FTE
Maintenance Staffing Coverage
80,000
4.0
60,000
3.0
40,000
2.0
20,000
1.0
0
0.0
A
B
C
Systems Ordered by Tech Rating
D
E
UA
System
G
H
A
B
C
D
E
F
Systems Ordered by Building Intensity Avg.
UA
System
H
Peer System Average
General Repair score
(1-5)
UA System avg.
Peer System avg.
4.07
3.80
32
Custodial performance
Reference 52
Covering more buildings with comparable inspection scores
Custodial Staffing Coverage
60,000
Custodial Staffing Coverage
GSF/FTE
Cleaned Buildings/FTE
2.0
1.8
1.6
Buildings/FTE
GSF/FTE
50,000
1.4
40,000
1.2
30,000
1.0
0.8
20,000
0.6
0.4
10,000
0.2
0
0.0
A
B
C
D
Systems Ordered by Density Factor
E
UA
System
G
H
A
B
C
D
Systems Ordered by Building Intensity Avg.
E
F
UA
System
H
Peer System Average
Cleanliness Score
(1-5)
UA System avg.
Peer System avg.
4.00
4.10
33
Reference 52
University of Alaska System
Bringing it all together
34
FY10/FY11 recommendations revisited
Reference 52
FY10 Recommendations
Reduce effects of a high cost structure, campus complexity and regional strain by:
•
Tracking operations and capital data consistently across all MAU’s to ensure accurate comparisons and
analysis
•
Quantifying the backlog consistently across all MAU’s to aid in implementing a long-range capital plan
that includes both keep-up and catch-up funding
•
Monitoring daily operations to maximize efficiencies and track the correlation between change in
backlog and operational metrics, including:




•
Operating budget
Energy consumption
Staffing levels
Campus inspection
Monitoring academic space utilization rates to ensure efficient use of facilities
FY11 Recommendations
•
Create a manageable target that is applicable to all the MAUs that will help reduce the backlog and
maintain facilities at a sustainable level
•
Understand impact of wide ranging density factors, tech ratings, and age, and develop differentiated
maintenance, repairs, and stewardship strategies for each MAU
•
Fund projects that will steward the space under 10 (keep your young space young), and address the
life cycles/deferred needs in space over 25 (renovate older, worn out buildings)

University Building Fund (In progress)
35
FY12 recommendation #1
Reference 52
Updated FY14 Sustainment Funding Plan for UA Facilities
Continue to complete the Investment Strategy Building Chart to
incorporate plans for future budgets. Putting a strategy in place will
help reach the goal to decrease the DM&R
FY14 Sustainment Funding Plan for UA Facilities
$400
$800
$350
$700
Reduction in Backlog
from DM Investment
$600
$250
$500
$200
$400
$150
$300
$100
$200
$50
$100
$-
$-
Millions
Millions
$300
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Additional R&R Funds necessary to reach sustainmenet level by FY18
Deferred Maintenance Reduction Expenditures
R&R Annual Expenditures
M&R Annual Expenditures
M&R/R&R Annual Investment Target
Deferred Maintenance Backlog with adequate M&R/R&R Funding
36
Using the detailed analysis for multi-year investment planning
Reference 52
Investment strategy and project selection based on facts
37
FY12 recommendation #2
Database shows national trends of increasing backlog and daily service budget
Reference 52
Decreasing the DM&R will help relieve stress on facilities maintenance
and operations budget
National Database
Backlog and Daily Service % Change since FY07
% Change since FY07
16%
15%
14%
12%
10%
10%
8%
8%
6%
6%
4%
4%
4%
3%
2%
0%
6%
6%
0%
2007
1%
2008
2009
Daily service % change
2010
2011
2012
Backlog % change
38
FY12 recommendation #3
Providing feedback can help strengthen customer general satisfaction levels
Reference 52
While adopting new investment strategies, a consistent method of
communicating to the campus community is vital for expectation levels.
Providing feedback for work requests will help with the scheduling and
service levels, also helping to address overall general satisfaction
UA System General Satisfaction Score
5.00
4.00
3.00
FY10
FY12
2.00
1.00
Knowledge of
Process
Schedule and
service
Work meets
expectations
Feedback
General satisfaction
39
Reference 52
Questions and Discussion
40
Reference 52
Appendix
41
Campus profile: Tech Rating
Reference 52
Tech Rating Scale (1-5)
Tech Rating by Campus
UAA
5.0
UAF
UAS
4.5
4.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
3.3
3.4
3.0
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.3
1.0
2.5
2.6
2.0
2.0
0.5
0.0
Database Average
Tech Rating
Criteria
Tech Rating
3.5
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
•All of 4 and 100% outside air; Bio containment level 2 or 3
•High pressure steam; Central cooling- VAV system; Chillers; DDC Controls; HVAC system; Fume Hoods
•Medium pressure steam; Central cooling; pneumatic controls
•Low pressure steam; local cooling (window unit)
•Residential grade or no heating; no cooling
42
Campus profile: Density Factor
Reference 52
Users: Student, Faculty and Staff FTE
Density Factor by Campus
1,800
UAA
UAF
UAS
1,600
User / 100,000 GSF
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Database Average
43
Campus profile: Building Intensity
Reference 52
# of buildings / 1M GSF
Building Intensity by Campus
250
UAA
UAF
UAS
Bldgs/ 1M GSF
200
150
100
50
0
Database Average
44