Navigating the Facilities Woods- Peer Insights on Creating a Knowledge Base Map of Strategic Facilities Information

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Navigating the Facilities Woods- Peer Insights on Creating a Knowledge Base Map of Strategic Facilities Information"

Iris Phyllis Craig
5 years ago
Views:

Navigating the Facilities Woods- Peer Insights on Creating a Knowledge Base Map of Strategic Facilities Information Illinois

Account Executive University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign The University of Maine University of Maine at Augusta University of

of Maryland University of Massachusetts Amherst University of Massachusetts Boston University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

Kansas City University of Missouri - St.

University of Portland University of Redlands The University of Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay The University of Rhode Island,

1 Navigating the Facilities Woods- Peer Insights on Creating a Knowledge Base Map of Strategic Facilities Information Illinois Community College Chief Financial Officers Fall 2011 Conference Date: August 18, 2011 Presented by: Thomas Huberty, Regional Account Executive 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

2 Sightlines Profile Over 60 professionals in 6 offices serving institutions nationwide Descriptive text goes here Represents State System Represents Flagship Institutions* 10 year old company based in Guilford, CT Common vocabulary and consistent methodology 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 * Per U.S. Dept. of Education 2

3 William Rainey Harper College Campus Profile Established: 1965 Opened: 1967 Location: Palatine, Illinois Named for Dr. William Rainey Harper, pioneer in the junior college movement and the first president of the University of Chicago. Enrollment: For Credit 26,441; Non-Credit 7,554 Campus employees: 1,260+ Campus facilities: 1.31M GSF; 24 buildings Acreage: 188 3

4 more bad news today

5 The facts of (facilities) life today Institutional operating budget are being cut Capital budgets have greater funding limitations Fewer gifts Challenged endowments Cuts to State funding Limited bonding capacity Mandates deeply challenge our decision making The big picture is globally true, but may be locally inaccurate

6 It s so tiring

7 Start with the data CFO s need to know Age profile of my buildings what s coming due, when? Factors that drive need past capital investment, program goals, space utilization Keep up need, annual stewardship investment Catch-up need, asset reinvestment/capital renewal How to use data to set targets to improve processes that result in effective campus facility operations and satisfied campus customers Using best practices to identify opportunities for savings, e.g. energy

8 Data is not enough you need policies and a plan Protecting physical assets involves setting policy for capital renewal. Strategic investment of capital will reduce backlog and make operations more proactive. Understand your capital financing options using portfolios of projects You will never get enough money to fix everything but all buildings do not need equal investment

Sightlines core objectives Identify ways to

Descriptive text goes here Separate fact from

Educate campus to understand the implications

9 Sightlines core objectives Identify ways to use capital more strategically and identify opportunities to improve operational effectiveness. Descriptive text goes here Separate fact from fiction on key issues operational performance, annual funding needs, and project backlogs. Educate campus to understand the implications and impacts of today s decisions on tomorrow s results. Documents trends, provide consistent measurement, and comparable benchmarking.

10 Protect the REAL prize The average endowment The average building replacement value

11 ROPA sm - A Strategic Planning Tool Return On Physical Assets Model Management Information for Impact Policy and Planning Value Creation Facilities Data Campus Profile Operational Data Operating Resources Capital Resources Service Profile Interrelationship between Capital and Operations Trends & Benchmarking Understanding: Risk Investment Balance Diversifying Resources Tying Output Expectations to Effectiveness Share Best Practices Opportunities for Resource Reallocation Performance Validation Planning & Modeling Make the Business Case for Resources Track Impact of Decisions and Changes

12 12

William Rainey Harper College History and Current Situation Lots of data, limited information and knowledge Historically minimal capital funding Current and future capital investments

13 William Rainey Harper College History and Current Situation Lots of data, limited information and knowledge Historically minimal capital funding Current and future capital investments intended to renovate aging space and replacement of building systems Developed capital plan to manage assets through Achieved high customer satisfaction scores through operational efforts. 13

Comparison Institutions Institution Descriptive text goes here Bristol Community College Bunker Hill Community College Cincinnati State Technical and Community

College Owens State Community College Quinsigamond Community College Sinclair Community College Location Fall River, MA Charlestown, MA Cincinnati, OH Columbus,

14 Comparison Institutions Institution Descriptive text goes here Bristol Community College Bunker Hill Community College Cincinnati State Technical and Community College Columbus State Community College Cuyahoga Community College - 3 Campuses Holyoke Community College Lakeland Community College Lorain County Community College Owens State Community College Quinsigamond Community College Sinclair Community College Location Fall River, MA Charlestown, MA Cincinnati, OH Columbus, OH Cuyahoga County, OH Holyoke, MA Kirtland, OH Elyria, OH Toledo, OH Worcester, MA Dayton, OH Comparative Considerations Size, Technical complexity, Density factor. 14

A vocabulary for measurement We Use Terms That Engage People Asset Value Change Operations Success The annual investment needed to ensure buildings will properly perform and reach their

Keep-Up Costs Annual Stewardship The effectiveness of the facilities operating budget, staffing, supervision, and energy management The accumulated backlog of repair and modernization

15 A vocabulary for measurement We Use Terms That Engage People Asset Value Change Operations Success The annual investment needed to ensure buildings will properly perform and reach their useful life. Keep-Up Costs Annual Stewardship The effectiveness of the facilities operating budget, staffing, supervision, and energy management The accumulated backlog of repair and modernization needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them. Catch-Up Costs Asset Reinvestment The measure of service process, the maintenance quality of space and systems, and the customers opinion of service delivery Asset Reinvestment ROPA Radar Chart Annual Stewardship Service p Optimal Target Actual Operating Effectiveness Operations Effectiveness Service

16 KEY PHYSICAL PROFILE ATTRIBUTES 16

17 Campus Profile 24 Buildings 1.3M GSF 3.57 technical complexity Construction vs. Renovation Age 70% Descriptive text goes here 60% 63% % of Total Space 50% 55% 53% 40% 30% 30% 30% 29% 29% 29% 20% 19% 19% 10% 16% 13% 8% 9% 0% Less than to to 50 Over 50 Construction Age Renovation Age Peer Average Renovation Age Harper's Campus Age FY20 Stewardship Reinvestment 17

Density Factor Highly elevated totals create extreme demands on campus * Descriptive text goes here 750-1500 Community

Institutions Density Factor Affects: Wear & tear on buildings Daily cleaning demands within building Life cycles of

18 Density Factor Highly elevated totals create extreme demands on campus * Descriptive text goes here Community Colleges Urban Institutions Comprehensive Public Universities 250 or less 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. 18

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Low Technical Complexity by % of

19 Campus Technical Complexity Half of Harper s space has a technical rating of 4 or 5 % of Total Space 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Low Technical Complexity by % of Space Harper College Peer Institutions 38% 11% High

20 OPERATIONAL REVIEW 20

21 Facilities Operating Budget Above average operating budget driven by daily service needs The total day-to-day cost of running facilities The preventative work to protect facilities Summary: Slightly higher daily service costs vs. peers Utility costs are decreasing Opportunity to increase planned maintenance

22 Operations Overview Sufficient resources aid in effective operations Maintenance Maintenance HC FY10 Peers Staffing (GSF/FTE): 62,195 79,536 Supervision (FTE/Super): Materials ($/FTE): 22,628 10,218 General Repair (1-5): Underperforming In line Outperforming Custodial HC FY10 Peers In line Custodial Staffing (GSF/FTE): 19,916 29,377 Supervision (FTE/Super): Materials ($/FTE): 3,758 4,637 Cleanliness (1-5): Underperforming Outperforming Grounds HC FY10 Peers In line Grounds Staffing (Acres/FTE): Supervision (FTE/Super): Materials ($/FTE): 17,070 10,091 Grounds (1-5): Underperforming Outperforming

23 Excellent Service Process Results in Customer Satisfaction 94% of customers expectations are met My General Satisfaction With Physical Plant 6% 17% 42% 94% 35% Far Exceeds Expectations Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Is Below Expectations

24 CAPITAL INVESTMENT SUMMARY 24

25 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

26 Total Project Spending Strong spending profile; recent emphasis on building systems Harper 5 Year Composite Spending Descriptive text goes here 11% 29% 25% 11% 24% Peer Avg. 5 Year Composite Spending 12% 17% 34% 29% 8% 26

27 AR Project Backlog Compared to Peers Harper s backlog comparable to peers; below CC database average Descriptive text goes here Community College Average Total Backlog $/GSF $ 119 Database Average $ 75 27

28 FUTURE INVESTMENT GOALS 28

in Millions $10 $8 $15.1 $8.7 $4.5 $5.0 $6 $3.0 $4 $6.2 $5.9 $2 $4.6 $7.6 $- $14.

29 Defining the Stewardship Investment Target Setting goals to arrest the rate of facility depreciation Industry Standard $16 FY 2010 Annual Stewardship Target Annual Stewardship Target Projections $14 $12 Target = 75% Envelope/Mechanical + 35% Space/Programming $ in Millions $10 $8 $15.1 $8.7 $4.5 $5.0 $6 $3.0 $4 $6.2 $5.9 $2 $4.6 $7.6 $- $14.9M 3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need Annual Stewardship Target $7.6M $10.4M $12.6M FY 2015 Target FY 2020 Target Lifecycle 33.3 Years 34.5 Years 66.6 Years % of Replacement 3% 2.9% 1.5%

10-Year Capital Investment Plan Strong five year investment plan; backlog is expected to grow in out years $ in Millions $44.0 $42.0 $40.0 $38.0 $36.0 $34.0 $32.0 $30.0 $28.0 $26.0 $24.

85 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

30 10-Year Capital Investment Plan Strong five year investment plan; backlog is expected to grow in out years $ in Millions $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 Total investment plan: $ 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 (Annual Maintenance) Asset Reinvestment (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.

31 10-Year Capital Investment Plan w/ State Support Plan consistently funds in or above target zone; long-term backlog stabilized $ in Millions $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 Total investment plan: $ 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 (Annual Maintenance) Asset Reinvestment (Master planning renovation schedules) State Support *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.

Where have we been, where are we going? Historical lack of capital investment disabled keep up of needs as they came due. Recognized the increase in demand for space improvements.

32 Where have we been, where are we going? Historical lack of capital investment disabled keep up of needs as they came due. Recognized the increase in demand for space improvements. Formalized backlog study to make project selection and strategic planning more efficient. Promoted a culture of Measure, Manage, Maximize. Maintained a high level of operational performance through increasing daily service costs. 34

33 The facts of (facilities) life today Institutional operating budget are being cut Capital budgets have greater funding limitations Fewer gifts Challenged endowments Cuts to State funding Limited bonding capacity Mandates deeply challenge our decision making The big picture is globally true, but may be locally inaccurate

34 Don t look now

35 #1 Campuses are getting older 40% (%) Square Footage over 50 years old 35% 30% 25% 20%

36 Observations on Community Colleges Campus Age Community Colleges have older campuses than 4 year institutions 38

37 #2 New buildings are more complex Technical Complexity Under to to 50 Over 50 Age Category

38 #3 Staff has not adjusted with campus buildings

39 #4 Campuses are getting busier

40 Observations on Community Colleges Density Factor Community colleges are more than 3 times busier than 4 year institutions 42

41 #5 Backlog of needs are increasing Total Backlog $/GSF

42 Observations on community colleges Deferred Maintenance Backlog Community colleges have more deferred maintenance than 4 year institutions 44

43 #6 Capital investment reduced in FY10 Reduction after 4 years of increases reflects economic downturn Capital Investment in Existing Space - $/GSF

44 What to Do? You can wait until

45 the roof caves in

46 Or you can build a bridge and get over it

47 It s so tiring

Questions & Discussion Thomas Huberty Regional Account Executive thuberty@sightlines.

your budget and how to use them to fight back Proven methods for managing your backlog, including project selection and management strategies

48 Questions & Discussion Thomas Huberty Regional Account Executive (203) Additional Learning and Networking Events Top 4 takeaways from the Campus Champion Tour: Five invisible factors impacting your budget and how to use them to fight back Proven methods for managing your backlog, including project selection and management strategies Best practices for reducing utility budget risk Concrete strategies and tactics for doing more with less Upcoming Event Dates Minneapolis, MN Oct 25 th Chicago, IL Oct 27 th 50

Sightlines LLC FY11 Facilities MB&A Presentation New Mexico State University. Date: May 11, 2012 Presented by: Peter Reeves and Sheena Salsberry

Sightlines LLC FY11 Facilities MB&A Presentation New Mexico State University Date: May 11, 2012 Presented by: Peter Reeves and Sheena Salsberry University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign The University