University of Alaska System
Facilities Measurement, Benchmarking, & Analysis
Sightlines, LLC
FY2011
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 University1
Sightlines Profile
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
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maine
Missouri
Mississippi
New Hampshire
Oregon
Pennsylvania
2
Sightlines Profile
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
opinion
Survey
of service delivery
Operational
Effectiveness
Service
System Peers
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maine
Missouri
Mississippi
New Hampshire
Oregon
Pennsylvania
3
National Trends
4
Liabilities to assets ratio higher in public institutions
Billions
Total Assets and Liabilities
Private
$200
Public
$180
$160
$140
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$Total Assets
Total Liabilities
2007
2008
Total Assets
2009
Total Liabilities
2010
5
“Backlog of needs” are increasing
Backlogs up about $10/GSF over last five years
Total Backlog $/GSF
$100
$90
$80
Overall Database
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
6
Energy consumption on the decline
Overall Database
Energy Consumption
7
Public custodial staffing coverage rising faster
Cuts in custodial staff raise coverage rates
Overall Database - Public
Custodial Staffing
8
Physical Profile
Defining Context for Existing Facilities
9
UA System- Scope of work
UA System: 6.5M GSF; 343 buildings included in the analysis
% of Space in UA System
5 Campuses:
Anchorage,
Kenai Peninsula,
Kodiak College,
Matanuska-Susitna College,
Prince William Sound Community College
39%
Space Profile:
2.6M GSF
92 buildings
52%
7 Campuses:
9%
Fairbanks (including 4 research sites),
Community and Technical College,
CRCD Rural Campuses: Bristol Bay, Chukchi, Interior
Aleutians, Kuskokwim, Northwest
3 Campuses:
Space Profile:
Juneau, Ketchikan, Sitka
3.4M GSF
212 buildings
Space Profile:
*Excluding Seward buildings
569K
39 buildings
UAA
UAF
UAS
10
Driving factors to higher needs on campus
Asset Reinvestment Backlog FY11
UA System vs. System Average
$200
Users on campus-Level of
users varies among campuses
$180
Building systems are more
technically complex
$160
$140
$/GSF
$120
Age of campus creates more
needs
$100
$80
$60
Cost of living is higher,
reduces purchasing power
$40
$20
$0
A
B
C
D
UA
System
F
Peer System Average (FY11)
Systems Ordered by Tech Rating
G
Spending is below System
and Sightlines’ targets
11
Alaska in Context: Density Factor
UA System Density Factor Average : 340
Density Factor by Campus
1200
FY11
1000
Density Factor
UA System vs. Peer Systems Average
1,200
(Users/100,000 GSF)
1,000
800
600
400
200
800
600
400
200
0
0
A
UA System Average
B
UA
System
D
E
F
G
Peer System Average
Density information excludes students who are exclusively e-learners and
includes all campus space (academic, residential, research, and support)
12
Alaska in Context: Tech Rating
UA System Tech Rating Average : 3.07
Technical Complexity by Campus
3.5
Technical Complexity
FY11
3.0
2.5
2.5
Tech Rating (1-5)
3.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
UA System vs. Peer Systems Average
3.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
A
UA System Average
B
D
E
UA
System
F
G
Peer System Average
13
Renovation Age by campus
Renovation Age FY11
By campus
60.0
UAA
UAF
UAS
50.0
40.0
30.0
53.3
20.0
10.0
21.6
23.1
25.7
31.9
35.5
25.3
25.9
31.6
20.6
9.1
0.0
Anchorage
PWSCC
MatSu
KPC
KoC
CRCD
Alaska Average
CTC
Fairbanks
Ketchikan
Juneau
Sitka
14
Alaska Space in Context
Younger space is more technically complex
Renovation Age Distribution
100%
90%
Over 50,
6%
4.0
Over 50,
21%
3.5
60%
25 to 50,
53%
25 to 50,
38%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
10 to 25,
15%
10 to 25,
19%
Under 10,
26%
Under 10,
22%
0%
UA System 2011 Peer Systems 2011
Tech Rating (1-5)
80%
70%
Tech Rating by Age Category
3.0
2.5
2.0
3.7
1.5
3.5
2.8
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
Less than 10
10 to 25
25 to 50
Over 50
FY11 Weighted Renovation Age of MAU’s:
UAA: 22.5 years
UAF: 30.7 years
UAS: 24.2 years
15
Regional adjuster vs. system peers
Spending doesn’t go as far in Alaska
Regional Adjuster Averages
FY11
$1.60
$1.40
Regional adjuster $
$1.20
$1.00
$0.80
$0.60
$0.40
$0.20
$0.00
A
B
C
D
E
F
UA System
Peer System Average
16
Defining two types of targets
UA System’s Target vs. Sightlines Target
17
Definition and Terminology
How to tie UA’s terminology into Sightlines’ numbers
Annual Stewardship:
Recurring capital : M&R and R&R projects*
Planned Maintenance: Service contracts and PM work order labor and materials
Asset Reinvestment:
One-Time Capital: DM reduction expenditure & R&R*
Targets:
Based on Replacement Value: $3.9B
High Target: Life Cycle Need
Low Target: Functional Obsolescence
Spending: Annual Stewardship
*Stewardship and Reinvestment classifications are based on
funding source rather than type of work
18
UA system’s annual maintenance target
Target set using UA system’s adjusted value
1. UA System’s Annual Maintenance
Adjusted Value:
$1.87B for 6.5M GSF (FY11)
Replacement Value:
$3.9B
Target:
1.5% of adjusted value
Spending:
M&R Spending
Annual Maintenance Target
$35
Target: $28.1M
$30
Target
$ in Millions
$25
$20
$15
$33.8
$10
$5
$0
UA System Spending
127% of total
19
UA system vs. Annual Maintenance Target
Target set using 1.5% of MAU’s adjusted value
UAA
UAF
$ in Millions
Adjusted Value: $702M
Target: $10.5M
UAS
Adjusted Value: $1.025B
Target: $15.4M
Adjusted Value: $146M
Target: $2.2M
$20
$20
$20
$18
$18
$18
$16
$16
$16
$14
$14
$14
$12
$12
$12
$10
$10
$8
$8
$8
$6
$6
$4
$4
$4
$2
$2
$2
$0
$0
$0
$6
$11.4
UAA Spending
$19.5
UAF Spending
$10
$2.8
UAS Spending
Annual Maintenance Spending Includes:
Reported M&R Spending
Actual M&R investment may be lower than figures reported due to broad definition
20
Sightlines’ stewardship “Best Practice” target
Creating a target for recurring funding sources from operating budget funds
2. Sightlines Stewardship Target
Replacement Value:
$3.9B
High Target:
Life Cycle need
Low Target:
Functional Obsolescence
Spending:
M&R, R&R, Operating Budget Planned Maintenance projects
$ in Millions
$120
UA System – FY2011 Stewardship Targets
$100
$80
$60
$40
$103.2
$63.1
$20
$0
Life Cycle Need
(Equilibrium)
Functional Obsolescence
(Target)
21
Sightlines’ stewardship “Best Practice” target
Creating a target for recurring funding sources from operating budget funds
2. Sightlines Stewardship Target
Replacement Value:
$3.9B
High Target:
Life Cycle need
Low Target:
Functional Obsolescence
Spending:
M&R, R&R, Operating Budget Planned Maintenance projects
$120
UA System – FY2011 Stewardship Targets
$ in Millions
$100
$80
$60
$71.2
$31.1
$40
$20
$32.0
$32.0
Life Cycle Need
(Equilibrium)
Functional Obsolescence
(Target)
$0
Current M&R Budget
Additional Funds Needed to Reach Target
22
Sightlines’ stewardship “Best Practice” target
Creating a target for recurring funding sources from operating budget funds
2. Sightlines Stewardship Target
Replacement Value:
$3.9B
High Target:
Life Cycle need
Low Target:
Functional Obsolescence
Spending:
M&R, R&R, Operating Budget Planned Maintenance projects
UA System – FY2011 Stewardship Targets
$45
$40
$ in Millions
$35
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$41.4
$39.3
$22.8
$5
$19.1
$26.1
$3.4
$11.4
$2.2
$0
Under 10
10 to 25
Life Cycle Need
25 to 50
Obsolescence Need
Over 50
23
Renovate Existing or Demolish and Build New?
Building A
Determine 10-Year total needs for the existing building vs. New Construction
Descriptive
text goes here
GSF
Building A
New Facility*
113,748
GSF
113,748
FY11-FY20 Capital Needs
$52.9 M
Demolition of Existing Building**
$2.7 M
FY11-FY20 Stewardship Needs
$3.5 M
Planning/Relocation costs
Funding to Address Reliability Needs
$5.7 M
New Construction
$51.2 M
FY11-FY20 Operating Cost
$5.7 M
FY13-FY20 Stewardship Needs
$6.5 M
FY13-FY20 Operating Cost
$1.2 M
Total Associated Costs
$58.9M
Swing Space Funding
TBD
Total Associated Costs
$67.7 M
TBD
Total 10-Year Costs
$ in Millions
Capital Requirements
Building A
$53
New Facility
$6 $3 $6
$54
$-
$20
It is less expensive to demolish Building A and construct
Reliability
Needs
a new facility
than to
renovate the existing facility.
$7
$40
Millions
$60
Stewardship Needs
•Non-quantifiable factors:
•CurrentOperating
building configuration
Costs
•Program needs
•Funding options (donors for new space vs.
University/state funding for renovations)
$1
$80
*Opening of new facility assumed for 2013. Operating Costs based on $/GSF costs for a recently opened new building on campus.
**Demolition estimated at $23/GSF (based on recent experience demolition cost).
24
Total capital investment over time
On average, hitting 23% of target
UA System
Best Practice Target Range
$120.0
$100.0
Increasing Net
Asset Value
$ in Millions
$80.0
Sustaining Net
Asset Value
$60.0
Renovating 10% of
campus space would
raise FY11 target by
$2.2M
Decreasing Net
Asset Value
$40.0
$20.0
$0.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Annual Stewardship
Fund 1, Operating Budget 59xxxx, and Planned/Preventative Maintenance
25
Total capital investment over time
Adding in asset reinvestment to show all capital and one-time influx of projects
UA System
Best Practice Target Range
$120.0
$100.0
Increasing Net
Asset Value
$ in Millions
$80.0
Sustaining Net
Asset Value
$60.0
Decreasing Net
Asset Value
$40.0
$20.0
$0.0
2006
2007
2008
Annual Stewardship
2009
2010
2011
Asset Reinvestment
Includes all sources of recurring investments through operating budget and capital projects
26
AR Backlog methodology comparison
UA System backlog $1.1B compared to Sightlines’ estimate at $1.0B
UA System Backlog Vs. Sightlines Methodology
$900
$800
$ in Millions
$700
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
UAA
$/GSF
$115
UAF
$97
$325
UAS
$212
$27
$113
DM&R List
Sightlines AR Backlog
27
System Asset Reinvestment Backlog Comparison
UA System’s range above system peers and rising
Total UA System AR Backlog
AR Backlog FY11
FY06-FY11
$180
$180
$160
$160
$140
$140
$120
$120
$/GSF
$100
$/GSF
UA System vs. System Average
$200
$80
$60
$100
$80
$60
$40
$40
$20
$20
$-
$0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
A
B
C
D
UA
System
F
G
Peer System Average (FY11)
Sightlines Database Average (FY11)
AR Backlog
Systems Ordered by Tech Rating
28
Capital investment vs. target comparison
Increasing AS by $8.2M each year will help UA System reach Sightlines’ target range
6 Year average comparison:
% of Project vs. Target
250%
$140.0
UA System’s Investment Strategy
AS Investment Strategy
$120.0
200%
$ in Millions
% of Target
$100.0
150%
100%
$80.0
$60.0
$40.0
50%
$20.0
0%
A
B
C
Annual Stewardship
D
UA
System
F
G
Asset Reinvestment
Peer System Average
Systems Ordered by Tech Rating
$0.0
2012
2013
M&R ($32M)
2014
2015
Additional AS Needed
2016
Estimated AR
Target estimated with 3% inflation and assuming no changes to
the system’s space inventory.
AR is estimated at historical average
29
Revamped UA Sustainment Funding Chart
$800
$350
Millions
$300
Reduction in Backlog
from DM Investment
$700
$600
$250
$500
$200
$400
$150
$300
$100
$200
$50
$100
$-
$-
Millions
$400
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
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
30
What types of projects have been funded recently?
Shifting more into envelope/mechanical type projects
2006
2007
2008
Envelope/Mechanical = infrastructure, building systems, and envelope
2009
2010
2011
Space/Program = space renewal and safety/code
Six year project spending mix by funding source:
Envelope/Mechanical
Space/Programming
Annual Stewardship
Asset Reinvestment
31
What types of projects have been funded recently?
Shifting more into envelope/mechanical type projects
2006
2007
2008
Envelope/Mechanical = infrastructure, building systems, and envelope
2009
2010
2011
Space/Program = space renewal and safety/code
Six year project spending mix by funding source:
Envelope/Mechanical
Space/Programming
Annual Stewardship
Asset Reinvestment
32
Using the detailed analysis for multi-year investment planning
Investment strategy and project selection based on facts
Net Asset Value vs. Program Value
By Building
Building Condition (NAV)
100%
90%
80%
Low Program Value, High NAV
⇒Focus on system work, minimal space
High Program Value, High NAV
⇒Maintain & protect
70%
60%
50%
Low Program Value, Low NAV
⇒Emergency work only
High Program Value, Low NAV
⇒Repairs & Space Improvement
40%
4
5
6
7
8
Value of Facility to Program
9
10
1-10 scale, 1= low, 10 = high
33
Operations Success
34
Facilities Operating Budget
Includes maintenance, custodial, grounds, and facilities administration
Maintenance & Operations Budget $/GSF
UA System FY06-11
$7.00
$6.00
$/GSF
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$2006
2007
Daily Service
2008
2009
2010
2011
Planned Maintenance
Alaska 6 year average
35
Facilities Operating Budget vs. peers
Putting the cost of living into consideration
Information shown includes Maintenance and Operations
Operating Budget $/GSF
$7.00
$6.00
$6.00
$5.00
$5.00
$4.00
$4.00
$/GSF
$/GSF
$7.00
$3.00
$3.00
$2.00
$2.00
$1.00
$1.00
$-
$-
A
B
C
D
UA
System
F
Adjusted Operating Budget $/GSF
G
Daily Service
Planned Maintenance
Peer System Average (FY11)
Systems Ordered by Tech Rating
36
Alaska energy consumption vs. system peers
Highest consumption in both fossil and electricity
Average Fossil Consumption
BTU/GSF/HDD
25
70,000
Average Electricity Consumption
BTU/GSF
60,000
20
15
BTU/GSF
BTU/GSF/HDD
50,000
10
40,000
30,000
20,000
5
10,000
0
A
B
C
D
UA
System
F
G
0
A
Peer System Average (FY11)
Systems Ordered by Tech Rating
B
C
D
UA
System
F
G
37
Service: Campus Inspection Index
Alaska high 83%; low 80%
Campus Inspection Index*
System Average
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
A
B
*Campus inspection includes general repair,
cleanliness, building exteriors, grounds, and
mechanical spaces (scores on a scale of 1-5, indexed)
UA System
D
Peer System Average
Range of institution in system
Systems Ordered by Density Factor
E
F
G
38
Service Process Index
Alaska high 90%, low 81%
Service Process Index
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
A
B
UA System
D
Range of institution in system
Peer System Average
Systems Ordered by Density Factor
E
F
G
39
University of Alaska System
Bringing it all together
40
FY10 recommendations revisited
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 less than 10 years old (to keep your young space young), and
that will reset lifecycles/address deferred maintenance in space over 25 years old (to make your old
space younger).
Area of progress since FY2010
41