Sightlines LLC
FY10 Presentation
Harper College
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
Background
The Return on Physical Assets – ROPASM
Developed a tool based on:
• Common vocabulary
• Consistent analytical methodology
• Credibility through benchmarking
The annual
investment needed
to ensure buildings
will properly
perform and reach
their useful life
“Keep-Up Costs”
Annual
Stewardship
The accumulated
backlog of repair
and modernization
needs and the
definition of
resource capacity to
correct them.
“Catch-Up Costs”
Asset
Reinvestment
Asset Value Change
The effectiveness of
the facilities
operating budget,
staffing,
supervision, and
energy
management.
Operating
Effectiveness
The measure of
service process, the
maintenance quality
of space and
systems, and the
customers opinion
of service delivery.
Service
Operations Success
2
Comparison Institutions
Gaining knowledge through peer context
Institution
Location
Bristol Community College
Fall River, MA
Bunker Hill Community College
Charlestown, MA
Cincinnati State Technical and Community College Cincinnati, OH
Columbus State Community College
Columbus, OH
Cuyahoga Community College - 3 Campuses
Cuyahoga County, OH
Holyoke Community College
Holyoke, MA
Lakeland Community College
Kirtland, OH
Lorain County Community College
Elyria, OH
Owens State Community College
Toledo, OH
Quinsigamond Community College
Worcester, MA
Sinclair Community College
Dayton, OH
Comparative Considerations
Size, Technical complexity, Density factor.
3
Key ROPA Analysis Findings
Key areas of focus for Harper College
Demanding Campus Profile:
Campus age profile combined with high
campus density and technical complexity
create elevated demands for operational and
capital resources.
Strong Future Investment Plans:
Current and future capital investments will
renovate aging space, replace outdated
building systems, and increase the value of the
physical assets.
Sufficient Resources Aid in Effective
Operations:
Overall, facilities services and work
management process yield exceptional results
and satisfied customers.
4
Key Physical Profile Attributes & Operational Review
5
5
Campus Profile
24 Buildings – 1.3M GSF – 3.57 technical complexity
Campus Age Profile
60%
55%
% of Total Space
50%
40%
30%
30%
29%
29%
29%
20%
16%
10%
13%
0%
Less than 10
10 to 25
Campus Age FY10
Peer
Renovation
Age
19%
19%
* Campus age profile accounts for all major renovations to buildings.
25 to 50
50 to 100
Campus Age FY20
53%
9%
6
Density Factor
Highly elevated total intensifies demand for Harper
*
750 - 1500
500 - 750
250 - 500
250 or less
Community Colleges
Urban Institutions
Comprehensive Public
Universities
Typical Private Liberal
Arts Institutions
Density Factor Affects:
• Wear & tear on buildings
• Daily cleaning demands within building
• Life cycles of building components
*Density factor calculation does not include uses of space for community and auxiliary purposes.
7
Campus Technical Complexity
Half of Harper’s space has a technical rating of 4 or 5
70%
Technical Complexity by % of Space
Low
High
60%
% of Total Space
50%
40%
30%
38%
20%
10%
11%
0%
1
2
Harper College
3
4
5
Peer Institutions
8
Energy Consumption vs. Peers
Elevated consumption is partially mitigated by complexity and density
Regional peers
Peers consume
70K BTUs/GSF less than
Harper.
9
Operations Overview
23.4
15.0
22,628
10,218
4.1
3.7
Custodial
HC FY10
Peers
Staffing (GSF/FTE):
19,916
29,377
Supervision (FTE/Super):
18.7
15.8
Materials ($/FTE):
3,758
4,637
Cleanliness (1-5):
4.5
4.0
HC FY10
Peers
Staffing (Acres/FTE):
15.4
29.7
Supervision (FTE/Super):
24.4
12.9
17,070
10,091
4.5
3.7
Supervision (FTE/Super):
Materials ($/FTE):
General Repair (1-5):
Grounds
Grounds
Materials ($/FTE):
Grounds (1-5):
Underperforming
79,536
In line
Underperforming
62,195
Staffing (GSF/FTE):
In line
In line
Underperforming
Peers
Outperforming
HC FY10
Outperforming
Custodial
Maintenance
Outperforming
Maintenance
Sufficient resources aid in effective operations
10
Excellent Service Process Results in Customer Satisfaction
94% of customers’ expectations are met
94%
11
Capital Investment Summary
12
12
Total Project Spending vs. Peers
Historically, peers spend more than Harper; investment ramps up in 2010
Funding difference equivalent to:
$1.8 Million per year
13
Forecasting Future Investment- Master Plan Timeline
Significant capital investment planned over next 10 years
Harper Master Plan Timeline
D Addition
Hospitality
Library Renovation
G&H Renovation
D Renovation
Safety / Integrity
2010
Student Center
M Renovation
Maintenance Projects
2015
2020
Annual Maintenance Funding
(Annual Stewardship Funding )
Renovation Schedules through Master Plan
Pending Renovation Funding
(Asset Reinvestment Funding)
New Space / Additions
14
10-Year Capital Investment Plan
Significant campus investment expected during the next 10 years
$45.0
Historical
Projected
$40.0
$35.0
$ in Millions
$30.0
$25.0
$20.0
$15.0
$10.0
$5.0
$0.0
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020
AS
Total Dollars: $ 1.45M
Total Dollars: $ 58.21M
AR
Total Dollars: $ 20.56M
Total Dollars: $ 96.64M
Total Projected Spending:
$ 154.85M
* Does not include $54M in pending state funding.
*Does not include master planning projects in the "Other Priority Work” category.
*Does not include investments into new space and building additions.
15
Future Investment Goals
16
16
Defining the Stewardship Investment Target
Setting goals to arrest the rate of facility depreciation
FY 2010 Annual
Stewardship Target
Industry Standard
$16
Annual Stewardship Target
Projections
$14
Target = 75%
Envelope/Mechanical +
35% Space/Programming
$ in Millions
$12
$8.7
$10
$8
$5.0
$4.5
$15.1
$3.0
$6
$4
$7.6
$6.2
$5.9
$4.6
$2
$-
$14.9M
3% Replacement Value
Lifecycle
% of Replacement
$7.6M
Life Cycle Need
$10.4M
Annual Stewardship
Target
33.3 Years
34.5 Years
66.6 Years
3%
2.9%
1.5%
FY 2015 Target
$12.6M
FY 2020 Target
17
10-Year Capital Investment Plan
$ in Millions
Strong five year investment plan; backlog is expected to grow in “out years”
Total investment plan: $ 154.85
$44.0
$42.0
$40.0
$38.0
$36.0
$34.0
$32.0
$30.0
$28.0
$26.0
$24.0
$22.0
$20.0
$18.0
$16.0
$14.0
$12.0
$10.0
$8.0
$6.0
$4.0
$2.0
$0.0
Increasing Asset
Value
Stabilizing Asset
Value
Declining Asset
Value
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020
Annual Stewardship
Asset Reinvestment
(Annual Maintenance)
(Master planning renovation schedules)
* Does not include $54M in pending state funding.
*Does not include master planning projects in the "Other Priority Work” category.
*Does not include investments into new space and building additions.
18
10-Year Capital Investment Plan w/ State Support
$ in Millions
Plan consistently funds in or above target zone; long-term backlog stabilized
Total investment plan: $ 208.79
$44.0
$42.0
$40.0
$38.0
$36.0
$34.0
$32.0
$30.0
$28.0
$26.0
$24.0
$22.0
$20.0
$18.0
$16.0
$14.0
$12.0
$10.0
$8.0
$6.0
$4.0
$2.0
$0.0
Increasing Asset
Value
Stabilizing Asset
Value
Declining Asset
Value
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020
Annual Stewardship
Asset Reinvestment
(Annual Maintenance)
(Master planning renovation schedules)
* Includes approx. $54M in pending state funding.
*Does not include master planning projects in the "Other Priority Work” category.
*Does not include investments into new space and building additions.
State Support
19
Campus Asset Value Compared to Peers
Harper’s NAV is expected in increase: well above peers
Net Asset Value Index
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
2006
2007
2008
Harper NAV
2009
2010
2011
Peer Average NAV
Net Asset Value =
2012
2013
2014
2015
NAV projection without
State Funding
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
NAV projection with
State Funding
Replacement Value – Deferred Maintenance
Replacement Value
20
Concluding remarks
A very appropriate capital plan is in place. Now, the coordination and integration of strategy
becomes the logical and necessary next step.
Measurable next steps:
manage investment mix
develop building portfolios
balance “keep up” and “catch up” spending
Superior operations performance should be enhanced if capital investment is targeted
appropriately.
Measurable next steps:
decrease energy consumption
increase planned maintenance investment
ensure that trades mix matches building types
Realize that the goals for the next ten years will be to coordinate the balance between “keep
up” and “catch up” investment. Once this master planning initiative is completed, there will
be need for additional “keep up” funding to protect the significant advancements.
21
Questions & Discussion
22
Total Project Spending
Strong spending profile; recent emphasis on building systems
Harper 5 Year Composite
Spending
11%
29%
25%
24%
11%
Peer Avg. 5 Year Composite
Spending
12%
17%
34%
29%
8%
23
Trades Mix & Work Order Production vs. Peers
24
Maintenance Department vs. Peers
25
Energy Consumption vs. Peers
Regional peer comparison
26
Additional FMB&A Data Exhibits
Asset Value Change
27
Current Campus Asset Value
Deferred maintenance impacts campus value
$550
Replacement Value Range:
$ 500M – 525M
$500
$ in Millions
Delta represents
Parsons backlog
$450
NAV Range:
$375M - $400M
$400
$350
$300
$250
Current Replacement Value
Net Asset Value
NAV = Current Replacement Value – Deferred Maintenance
28
Asset Reinvestment Project Backlog
Parsons Study Findings: Range between $120M - $130M
AR Project Backlog- FY10
$140
Sightlines Project Backlog Cross-Check
Annual Project Deferral Model
$120
-40%
-20%
$ in Millions
$100
0%
20%
40%
Acceptable Range
$80
Integrated Facilities Planning Database Model
$60
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
Acceptable Range
$40
$20
$-
Parsons Study Total
NOTE: Total assumes a campus FCI of 7%
29
AR Project Backlog Compared to Peers
Harper’s backlog comparable to peers; below CC database average
Total Backlog $/GSF
Community
College Average
$ 119
Database Average
$ 75
30
Total Capital Investment Over Time
Harper College’s investment level has significantly increased
Total Facilities Project Spending
$12.0
$10.0
$ in Millions
$8.0
$6.0
Avg. $4.4M
$4.0
$2.0
$0.0
2006
2007
Exising Space Investment
2008
Non Facilities
2009
New Space
2010
Examples of Major Projects
Year
Description
Cost
2010
Building L Chiller Work
$ 2.6M
2009
Building L and K roof repairs
$ 740K
2007
Building D Remodeling
$ 840K
31
Annual Stewardship Investment- % Target vs. Peers
32
Total Capital Investment- % Target vs. Peers
33
Project Backlog vs. Peers
34
Master Plan- Project Overview
AS
AR
NS
Total Dollars: $ 56,657,150
Buildings
Time Frame
GSF
Total Dollars
G & H Buildings
FY11-FY13
82,157 GSF
$37,285,943
D Building
FY13-FY15
115,903 GSF
$27,949,080
Library (F Building)
FY12-FY13
107,970 GSF
$21,229,601
Student Center
FY15-17
53,037
$10,719,152
Buildings
Time Frame
GSF
Total Dollars
Hospitality
FY12-FY14
10,080 GSF
$5,106,462
D1 Addition
FY12-FY13
29,612 GSF
$12,559,506
J1 Addition
FY12-13
5,500 GSF
$2,607,248
Total Dollars in Model: $ 175,668,142
* Does not include $54M in pending state funding.
*Does not include master planning projects in the
Other Priority work category.
35
Additional FMB&A Data Exhibits
Operations Success
36
Facilities Operating Budget
Above average operating budget driven by daily service needs
37
Facilities Operating Actuals vs. Peers
38
Planned Maintenance Investment vs. Peers
39
Custodial Department vs. Peers
40
Grounds Department vs. Peers
41
Campus Inspection Indices vs. Peers
42
Energy Cost vs. Peers
Facilities peer comparison
43
Energy Cost vs. Peers
Regional peer comparison
44