university of nebraska medical center university of …...quick-flash construction low-quality...

University of Nebraska at Lincoln

University of Nebraska Medical Center

University of Nebraska Omaha

University of New Brunswick

University of New Hampshire

University of New Haven

University of New Mexico

University of North Texas

University of Northern Iowa

University of Notre Dame

University of Oregon

University of Pennsylvania

University of Redlands

University of Rhode Island

University of Rochester

University of San Diego

University of San Francisco

University of Southern Maine

University of Southern Mississippi

University of St. Thomas

University of Tennessee Health Science Center

University of Tennessee, Knoxville

University of Texas at Dallas

University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

University of Vermont

Vanderbilt University

Virginia Commonwealth University

Virginia Department of General Services

Wagner College

Wake Forest University

Washburn University

Washington University in St. Louis

Wellesley College

Wesleyan University

West Chester University

West Liberty University

West Virginia Health Science Center

West Virginia Institute of Technology

West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine

West Virginia State University

West Virginia University

Western Connecticut State University

Western Oregon University

Westfield State University

Wheaton College

Widener University

Williams College

Middlesex Community CollegePresenter: Emily Morris & Adam St. Denis

February 2016

Who Partners with Sightlines?

Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums and state systems

2

* U.S. News Rankings

Sightlines is proud to

announce that:

• 450 colleges and

universities are

Sightlines clients

including over 325

ROPA members.

• 93% of ROPA

members renewed in

2014

• We have clients in 42

states, the District of

Columbia and four

Canadian provinces

• More than 100 new

institutions became

Sightlines members

since 2013

Sightlines advises state

systems in:

• Alaska

• California

• Connecticut

• Hawaii

• Maine

• Massachusetts

• Minnesota

• Mississippi

• Missouri

• Nebraska

• New Hampshire

• New Jersey

• Pennsylvania

• Texas

• West Virginia

Serving the Nation’s Leading Institutions:

• 70% of the Top 20 Colleges*

• 75% of the Top 20 Universities*

• 34 Flagship State Universities

• 13 of the 14 Big 10 Institutions

• 9 of the 12 Ivy Plus Institutions

• 8 of 13 Selective Liberal Arts Colleges

A Vocabulary for Measurement

The Return on Physical Assets – ROPASM

3

Asset Value Change

The annual

investment needed to ensure buildings will properly

perform and reach their useful life

“Keep-Up Costs”

Annual

Stewardship

The accumulation

of repair and modernization needs and the

definition of resource capacity

to correct them “Catch-Up Costs”

Asset

Reinvestment

The effectiveness

of the facilities operating budget, staffing,

supervision, and energy

management

Operational

Effectiveness

The measure of

service process, the maintenance quality of space

and systems, and the customers

opinion of service delivery

Service

Operations Success

Changing The Conversation On Campus

4

OPERATIONSImprove effectiveness

and lower facilities

overhead impact

CAPITAL $Multiyear plans that align

to mission and risk

SPACERelease the hidden value

in balance sheets

Peer Comparison Institutions

5

Comparative Considerations:

Size, technical complexity, region, geographic location, and setting are all factors included in

the selection of peer institutions.

Massachusetts Community Colleges

Berkshire Community College

Bunker Hill Community College

Bristol Community College

Cape Cod Community College

Greenfield Community College

Holyoke Community College

Massasoit Community College

Mass Bay Community College

Mt. Wachusett Community College

North Shore Community College

Northern Essex Community College

Quinsigamond Community College

Roxbury Community College

Springfield Technical Community College

Technical Complexity

Tech rating in line with peers

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

Tech Rating

MACC Peers = 2.91

Campus Density Factor

Density in line with peers

7

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Us

ers

/10

0,0

00

sq

. ft.

Middlesex Density Factor

MACC Peers = 998

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Density Factor

MACC Peers = 992.36

Campus Density Factor Compared to Peers

Campuses busy across MACC system

8

Maintenance Operations Operating Costs

Replacement Value Energy Consumption

Impacts

Campus Quick Facts

9

Density

1,106 users per 100K GSF

Building Count

Main Campus: 21

Acreage

185

67YEARS

Weighted

Construction

Age

44YEARS

Weighted

Renovation

Age

1 2 3 4 5

Tech

Rating

3.32

Replacement Value

$229M 0r $413/GSF$

Putting Your Campus Building Age in Context

The campus age drives the overall risk profile

10

Pre

-Wa

r

Built before 1951

Durable construction

Older but typically lasts longer P

os

t-W

ar

Built from 1951 to 1975

Lower-quality construction

Already needing more repairs and renovations

Mo

de

rn Built from 1976 to 1990

Quick-flash construction

Low-quality building components Co

mp

lex Built in 1991 and newer

Technically complex spaces

Higher-quality, more expensive to maintain & repair

Pre-War Post-War Modern ComplexPercent of Total

Space 40%Percent of Total

Space 27%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

% o

f G

SF

Sightlines Database- Construction Age My Campus

8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7%

67% 67% 67%

43%40% 40% 40%

47% 47%

4% 4% 4%

28%27% 27% 27% 27% 23%

21% 21% 21% 21%26% 26% 26% 26% 30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Space Distribution by Construction Age

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

Campus Age Profile Over Time

11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Middlesex CC Peer Average

Bu

ild

ing

Ag

e

Campus Age by Category

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

Campus Age Profile

Understanding the Impact of Age on Capital & Operations

12

High Risk

High Risk

Buildings Under 10

Little work. “Honeymoon” period.

Low Risk

Buildings 10 to 25

Short life-cycle needs; primarily space renewal.

Medium Risk

Buildings 25 to 50

Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come due. Functional obsolescence prevalent.

Higher Risk

Buildings over 50

Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures are possible. Core modernization cycles are

missed.

Highest risk

84%

53%

Asset Value Change

13

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

$6.0

$7.0

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

$ in

Millio

ns

Existing Space vs. New Space

Existing Space Investment New Space Investment

Capital Spending Increasing Steadily

No new space added to campus in recent years

14

Average Investment: $2.1M

*Includes Infrastructure Projects

15

Capital Investment Ramps Up in Recent Years

MXCC surpasses peer investments in FY14 and FY15

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

$/G

SF

Existing Space Spending

MXCC Annual Average = $4.49/GSF MACC Peer Average = $5.43/GSF

MXCC MACC Peers

16

MXCC Continues Period of Renewal

MACC peers have not been investing back into their campuses

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

$/G

SF

Existing Space Spending

MXCC Annual Average = $4.49/GSF MACC Peer Average = $5.43/GSFAverage FY07-09 Average FY10-12Average FY13-15

MXCC MACC Peers

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

$/G

SF

Total Investment Over Time

Envelope/Mechanical spending remains focus and grows in FY14 and FY15

17

Envelope/Mechanical Space/Programming

Average

MXCC MACC Peers

Consistent Project Selection Over Time

MXCC Outspends Peer Group on Envelope/Mechanical Space

18

Envelope/Mechanical

Space/Programming

MXCC

MACC

Peers

69%

31%

FY07-FY11

67%

33%

FY12-FY15

77%

23%

FY12-FY15

81%

19%

FY07-FY11

$6.9

$2.8$2.1

$3.3

$1.2

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

$6.0

$7.0

$8.0

3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need Annual Investment Target

$ in

Millio

ns

FY15 Annual Investment Target

Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program

Defining an Annual Investment Target

Annual Funding Target: $3.3M

19

Functional obsolescence drives investment prior to life cycles &

discounts the annual investment

target

Replacement Value: $229M

$6.1M $3.3M

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

$6.0

$7.0

$8.0

$9.0

$10.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$ in

Millio

ns

Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target

Annual Stewardship Life Cycle Need Annual Investment Target

Chasing the Moving Target

Includes only the investment in existing facilities

Increasing Backlog & Risk

20

Increasing Net Asset Value

Lowering Risk Profile

21

Stewarding Campus At Higher Levels than Peers

Two year average rises to 100% of stewardship target

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

% o

f T

arg

et

Total Annual Stewardship

Annual Average for FY07 to FY15= 46% MACC Peer Average = 30%

Annual Average for FY14 to FY15 = 100%

MXCC MACC Peers

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

$6.0

$7.0

$8.0

$9.0

$10.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$ in

Millio

ns

Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target

Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Life Cycle Need Annual Investment Target

Capital Spending Helps Reach Investment Target

Includes only the investment in existing facilities

22

Increasing Backlog & Risk

Increasing Net Asset Value

Lowering Risk Profile

*Excludes Infrastructure Projects

Backlog Steadily Increases Over Time

24

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200


$/G

SF

Asset Reinvestment Need Over Time

MXCC Backlog Below That of Peers

Total backlog is below peers by $33/GSF for FY15

25

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

BCC QCC NECC STCC BRCC CCCC GCC HCC MBCC RCC MCC BHCC MXCC NSCC MWCC

$/G

SF

FY15 Total Campus Backlog

MXCC Peers = $172/GSF

Increasing Tech Rating

Planning for the Future

26

ROPA+ Prediction Overview

Regionalized Costs Based on Comprehensive Database of Building Systems

27

6 SubsystemsRoof

Envelope

HVAC Systems

Electrical

Plumbing

Interiors

96% of Building Costs

Work Last Completed

Estimated Next

10-Year Prediction

Model

ROPA+ Prediction: Middlesex CC’s Story

28

$64.9

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

Asset Reinvestment Need

Do

lla

rs i

n M

illio

ns

Asset Reinvestment

Need

$9

$46

$9

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

Total 10 YR Need

Do

lla

rs i

n M

illio

ns

Asset Reinvestment

Need

Renewal Need:

The Life Cycle needs coming

due between 2016 – 2025.

Modernization &

Infrastructure:

Distributed over 7 years.

Current Need:

Today’s needs that represent

the Highest Risk.

SMALL Building Renovation, 0%

Roofing, 6%

Electrical, 0%

Plumbing, 0%

Interiors, 19%

HVAC, 34%

Building Exteriors, 41%

Total Current Need by System

Current need is inclusive of all items in backlog

Current Need is Highest in Envelope Work

Buildings Under 10K Square Feet are “Small Buildings”

29

$9

$46

$9

$0

$25

$50

$75

Total 10 Year Need

To

tal D

olla

rs in

Millio

ns

Prediction Model

Infrastructure & Modernization NeedRenewal NeedCurrent Need

Distribution of Renewal Needs FY16-FY25

Lifecycle Need Over The Next 10 Years

30

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

To

tal D

oll

ars

in

Millio

ns

Total 10 Year Renewal Need

Mechanical Envelope Space Renewal Average

58%26%

16%

Distribution of Renewal

Need (FY16-FY25)

Distribution of Renewal Needs FY16-FY25

We Can Consider a Rolling 3- Year Average to Level Out Investment Needs

31

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

To

tal D

oll

ars

in

Millio

ns

Total 10 Year Renewal Need

Mechanical Envelope Space Renewal Average

50%

28%

22%

Distribution of Renewal

Need (FY16-FY25)

49%

16%

35%

Distribution of Historical Investment (FY11- FY15)

Mechanical Envelope Space Renewal

58%26%

16%

Distribution of Renewal Need (FY16-FY25)

Comparing the Past and the Future

Space Renewal Need Increases Over Next 10 Years

32

ROPA+ Prediction: Predictive Investment Model

33

$9

$46

$9

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

Asset Reinvestment Need

Do

lla

rs i

n M

illio

ns

Asset Reinvestment

Need

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

Do

lla

rs i

n M

illio

ns

10 Year Capital Forecast

Current Need Renewal Need

Modernization & Infrastructure Average Need

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

Do

lla

rs i

n M

illio

ns

10 Year Capital Forecast

Current Need Renewal Need Modernization & Infrastructure Projected Investment Average Need

• Current funding will NOT address all the needs over the next 10 years.

• Prioritizing buildings needs is critical.

Projected Investment vs. 10 Year Needs

34

$9

$21

$46

$9

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

Asset

Reinvestment

Need

Projected

Investment

Do

lla

rs i

n M

illio

ns

Asset Reinvestment

Need

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

$6.0

$7.0

$8.0

$9.0

$ in

Millio

ns

Total Capital Investment Projections

Average Investment

Asset Reinvestment

Annual Stewardship

Annual Investment Target

Life Cycle Need

Historical Average Would Not Address Needs

Additional capital needed to address current needs

35

Prioritizing Current Needs by Building

36

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%NAV by Building Investment Strategy

100%-85%

85%-

70%

70%-

50%

Below 50%

Capital Upkeep Stage: Primarily new or

recently renovated buildings with sporadic building repair & life cycle needs; “You pick

the projects”

Repair and Maintain Stage: Buildings are

beginning to show their age and may require more significant investment on a

case-by-case basis

Systemic Renovation Stage: Buildings

may require more significant repairs; large capital infusions; “The projects pick you”

Transitional/Gut Renovation/Demo

Stage: Major buildings components are in jeopardy of failure. Reliability issues are

widespread throughout the building.

NAV Index

Replacement Value – Backlog

Replacement ValueNet Asset Value =

Match Needs to Program Value

Not all buildings on campus are created equal

37

High

Low

Poor Excellent

Building Condition

Poor Building Condition, High Program Value

Pro

gra

m V

alu

e

Operating Effectiveness

38

Total Facilities Operating Actuals Above Peers

MXCC funds more than other peers

39

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

$/G

SF

Facilities Operating Actuals

Daily Service PM Utilities MACC Peers = $7.71/GSF


40

Daily Service spending double that of peer average in FY15

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$/G

SF

Daily Service Actuals

MXCC Annual Average = $7.94/GSF MACC Annual Average = $5.06/GSF

MXCC MACC Peers

Increasing Daily Resource Costs

Improving Planned Maintenance Yields Savings

Planned Maintenance remains steady past four years

41

$0.00

$0.05

$0.10

$0.15

$0.20

$0.25

$0.30

$0.35

$0.40

$0.45


$/G

SF

Historical Planned Maintenance

PM Avg.

Opportunity for Savings:

Invest $1.00 in PM now

OR

Spend $2.73 in reactive

maintenance later*

$1.00

$2.73

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

Planned Maintenance Reactive Maintenance

Inc

rem

en

ts o

f O

pe

rati

on

al

Sp

en

din

g

Planned Maintenance Less than Peers

MXCC falls short of peer average by $0.11/GSF; Additional $61,000 would meet peer average

42

$0.00

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

$/G

SF

Planned Maintenance vs. Peers

MACC Peers = $0.29/GSF


Energy Management at MXCC

Looking into energy consumption

43

0

3

6

9

12


kW

h/G

SF

Electric Consumption

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000


BT

U/G

SF

Fossil Fuel Consumption

Energy Management at MXCC

Fossil consumption trends with degree days, while electricity stays steady

44

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0

3

6

9

12


CD

D

kW

h/G

SF

Electric Consumption

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000


HD

D

BT

U/G

SF

Fossil Fuel Consumption

Consuming less energy than peers

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


BT

U/G

SF

(th

ou

san

ds

)

MXCC Energy Consumption

Fossil Fuel Electric

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

BT

U/G

SF

(th

ou

san

ds

)

MACC Peers Energy Consumption

MACC Peers = 90,315 BTU/GSF

Energy Consumption Over Time


Energy Unit Cost

Spending above peers average on Utilities

46

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

$/M

MB

TU

MXCC Energy Unit Cost

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

$/M

MB

TU

MACC Peers Energy Unit Cost

MACC Peer Average


Age of Campus Strains Maintenance Operations

Maintenance staff cover less space than peers

47

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

GS

F/F

TE

Maintenance Staffing

General Repair/Impression Index

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

BC

C

QC

C

NE

CC

ST

CC

BR

CC

CC

CC

GC

C

HC

C

MB

CC

RC

C

MC

C

BH

CC

MX

CC

NS

CC

MW

CC

FT

E/S

up

erv

iso

r

Maintenance Supervision

$0$5,000

$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000$30,000$35,000$40,000$45,000$50,000

BC

C

QC

C

NE

CC

ST

CC

BR

CC

CC

CC

GC

C

HC

C

MB

CC

RC

C

MC

C

BH

CC

MX

CC

NS

CC

MW

CC

$/F

TE

Maintenance Materials

*Institutions Ordered by Tech Rating

Density of Campus Effects Custodial Operations

Low coverage ratios with less supervision

48

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

GS

F/F

TE

Custodial Staffing

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

ST

CC

BC

C

GC

C

CC

CC

RC

C

MW

CC

NE

CC

HC

C

MB

CC

MC

C

NS

CC

MX

CC

BR

CC

QC

C

BH

CC

FT

E/S

up

erv

iso

r

Custodial Supervision

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

ST

CC

BC

C

GC

C

CC

CC

RC

C

MW

CC

NE

CC

HC

C

MB

CC

MC

C

NS

CC

MX

CC

BR

CC

QC

C

BH

CC

$/F

TE

Custodial Materials

*Institutions Ordered by Density Factor

Cleanliness Inspection Index

Grounds Operations

Limited supervision of workers with low material spending; score remains high

49

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Ac

re/F

TE

Grounds Space Coverage

Grounds Inspection Index

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

GC

C

HC

C

MW

CC

MB

CC

BR

CC

MC

C

BC

C

QC

C

RC

C

BH

CC

NE

CC

NS

CC

ST

CC

MX

CC

CC

CC

FT

E/S

up

erv

iso

r

Grounds Supervision

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

GC

C

HC

C

MW

CC

MB

CC

BR

CC

MC

C

BC

C

QC

C

RC

C

BH

CC

NE

CC

NS

CC

ST

CC

MX

CC

CC

CC

$/F

TE

Grounds Materials

*Institutions Ordered by Grounds Intensity

Concluding Comments

50

OPERATIONSImprove effectiveness

and lower facilities

overhead impact

CAPITAL $Multiyear plans that align

to mission and risk

SPACERelease the hidden value

in balance sheets

Aging Space profile

compared to peers has contributed

towards operational

strain on campus

Lack of capital has

led to deferral of high-risk needs in building systems.

Operational demand evolved due

to capital need throughout campus

Action Items

1. Utilize the Prediction model to target the highest, most immediate need buildings on campus. One–time capital infusions are required to address the $9M current needs at Middlesex. An additional $46M of renewal needs is also coming due over the next 10 years.

2. Continue to prioritize mechanical and envelope needs over space and programming projects. A majority of the renewal needs coming due in the next ten years are mechanical in nature.

3. Grow stewardship of campus through operational planned maintenance.

4. Monitor staffing ratios to make sure Facilities is meeting the current needs of campus. As systems are reset operational strain should be alleviated. Continue to assess staffing levels to make sure the resources available are meeting the demands of the facilities.

51

Questions and Comments

52

university of nebraska medical center university of …...quick-flash construction low-quality...

Documents