Sightlines LLC FY10 Facilities MB&A Presentation Wesleyan University

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Sightlines LLC FY10 Facilities MB&A Presentation Wesleyan University"

Dorthy Marshall
5 years ago
Views:

Sightlines LLC FY10 Facilities MB&A Presentation ti Wesleyan University Date : April 13, 2011 Presented by: Peter Reeves University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign The University of Maine University

1 Sightlines LLC FY10 Facilities MB&A Presentation ti Wesleyan University Date : April 13, 2011 Presented by: Peter Reeves 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 it of Rhode Il Island, dkingston 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 WheatonCollege (MA)

2 Sightlines Profile Common Vocabulary, Consistent Methodology, Credibility Through Benchmarking ME CA NV ID UT AZ MT WY CO NM ND MN SD WI NE IA IL KS MO OK AR LA TX NY MI OH IN WV KY NC TN SC GA FL VT NH MA RI CT NJ DE MD DC above AK HI Represents State System Represents Flagship Institutions 10 year old company based in Guilford, CT 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 2

3 Background The Return on Physical Assets ROPA SM 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 The accumulated backlog of repair and modernization needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them. Catch Up Costs 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. Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Operational Effectiveness Service Asset Value Change Operations Success 3

above peers Supplemental reinvestment funds decreased in FY10 Daily operational budget shows decreasing trend since FY08 Operations

4 Wesleyan core observations Space Profile Wesleyan has more square footage per student than peers Wesleyan has many more smaller facilities than peers Wesleyan s campus is older than peers Cuts experienced in multiple areas Wesleyan s s total Stewardship investments are still above peers Supplemental reinvestment funds decreased in FY10 Daily operational budget shows decreasing trend since FY08 Operations Performance Campus appearance surpasses peers, aided by historical capital investments While campus appearance improves, customer satisfaction does not 4

5 Campus portfolio facts Distribution of Square Footage by Function Student Life, 139,342 Athletic, 243,925 Support, 85,444 Campus Portfolio Stats: Building Count: 313 GSF: 2,852, Total Acreage: 316 Maintained Acreage: 219 Residential, 1,230,484 Academic / Administrative, 1,146,275 5

6 Comparison Institutions Peer Institutions Amherst College Brown University Dartmouth College Middlebury College Tufts University Medford Vassar College Williams College 6

7 Understanding the impact of unique space 1,400 Space / Student 1,200 1,000 Wesleyan has approx. 60 GSF/Student more than peers GSF/ Student t A B Wesleyan D E F G H 7

8 Understanding the space v. wealth relationship Database Distribution Wealth v. Space Less Resources More Resources 1,200 1,000 Less Studen nts GSF/ Student More Students 0 $0.0 $200,000.0 $400,000.0 $600,000.0 $800,000.0 $1,000,000.0 $1,200,000.0 $1,400,000.0 $1,600,000.0 Wesleyan University Wealth per Student Peers 8

9 Campus square footage stable over time Reductions in small houses over time Campus Growth 2.80 M 2.85 M GSF in Million ns # of Buildings GSF # of Buildings 9

10 Numerous small buildings reflected in building intensity 350 Number of Buildings by Age Category Removing 150 buildings would bring Wesleyan to peer average. # Buildin ngs Building count 10

11 Older age profile % of Space 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% % of Campus by Age Category Historically Less than 10 Years Years Years Over 50 Years FY 2010 Peers FY 2010 Younger more technically complex space, more keep up need. Older space that is reaching or has reached major life cycles, more catch up funding needed. 11

12 Annual Stewardship Planning for the Future 12

13 Similar investment historically; recent reductions 13

14 Defining stewardship investment target $35.00 FY2010 Stewardship Targets Replacement Value = $1.0B $30.00 $25.00 Life cycle is discounted for the coordination of modernization and renovation lions $20.00 $ in Mill $15.00 $30.2 $11.4 $ $5.00 $ $11.6 $30.2M $23M 3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need (Equilibrium) Industry Standard Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program $4.0 $8.7 $12.7M Functional Obsolescence (Target) Sightlines Recommendation 14

15 Reductions in stewardship have increased $14 Recurring Capital Investment vs. Target Need $12 $ in Mil llions $10 $8 $6 $2.5M $2.6M $2.7M $3.1M $2.7 M $3.7M $4.6M $5.4M $8.2M $4 $2 $ Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program Target Need Approximately $36 Million has been deferred over the last 9 years 15

16 Peers also experiencing reductions in funds Wesleyan is still spending above peer levels despite reductions 16

17 Adding to the backlog in FY2010 Strong investments historically $30.0 $25.0 $20.0 Decreasing Backlog $ in Millio ons $15.0 $10.00 $5.0 $0.0 Increasing Backlog Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment 17

18 Funding changes reflected in backlog Maintaining service levels will be challenged with an increasing backlog of needs 18

19 Reductions in daily operating costs similar to peers In FY10 Peers spend on average 0.57 / GSF more than Wesleyan or $1.6 Million Peer Average Wesleyan University $8.00 $8.00 $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 $ $ Wesleyan Peer Average

20 Decreasing consumption and cost Cogeneration results in decreased consumption and costs Energy Peer Institutions Bryn Mawr College Colgate University Hamilton College Mount Holyoke College Northeastern University Vassar College Wellesley College Williams College 20

21 Maintenance Staff performs at peer level with fewer resources $20,000 Maintenance Materials $ / FT TE $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $ Wesleyan Peer Average General Repair Inspection Wesleyan Peer Average

22 Custodial cleanliness below peers despite comparable staffing levels $4,000 Custodial Materials $ / FT TE $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $ Wesleyan Peer Average Cleanliness Inspection Wesleyan Peer Average

23 Grounds performance improved by capital investments $ / FT TE $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $ Grounds Materials Wesleyan Peer Average Grounds Inspection Wesleyan Peer Average

24 Customer Satisfaction results over time 5.0 Customer Satisfaction: FY2005, FY2007, & FY2010 er Satisfactio on Index Custom Knowledge/Understanding in Process Schedules and service levels Work meets expectations Feedback General satisfaction FY2005 FY2007 FY

Significant improvements in campus appearance Overall satisfaction levels

5 0 Cleanliness Historical Campus Inspection (1 5) General Repair/Impression

Adjust operations as necessary 2005 2007 2010 Custome er Satisfaction In ndex 100%

25 Significant improvements in campus appearance Overall satisfaction levels beginning to turn up ion Score Campus Inspecti Cleanliness Historical Campus Inspection (1 5) General Repair/Impression Mechanical Spaces Exterior Grounds Communicate challenges to campus community Adjust operations as necessary Custome er Satisfaction In ndex 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Customer Satisfaction Index Peer Average Manage customer expectations

26 Sightlines LLC FY10 Go Green MB&A Profile 26

A vocabulary for measurement Go Green Measurement,

Membership Map Go Green Peer Institutions Babson College Bryn

College Union College Vassar College Number of Members

Go Green Measurement and Analysis Service Sightlines has

Approximately one third are public Approximately two thirds

27 A vocabulary for measurement Go Green Measurement, Benchmarking and Analysis Sightlines 2010 Go Green Service Membership Map Go Green Peer Institutions Babson College Bryn MawrCollege Hamilton College Hampshire College Mount Holyoke College Union College Vassar College Number of Members Comparative Considerations Size Complexity Location Program Go Green Measurement and Analysis Service Sightlines has approximately 50 Members Approximately two thirds are private Approximately one third are public Approximately two thirds have signed the ACUPCC Approximately forty percent are Charter Signatories of the ACUPCC 27

28 Simplifying the types of GHG emissions All expressed as Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCDE) Sightlines 2010 Scope 2: Emissions from utility production not at the institution Scope 1: Emissions from the direct activities of the campus Scope 3: Indirect emissions including transportation, waste disposal, etc. This slide courtesy of CA CP 28

Gross carbon emissions 31,627 MTCDE Less purchased

cogeneration Sightlines 2010 Carbon Emissions by Type

Commute 5% 14,000 12,000 Electricity 17% On Campus

Vehicle Fleet 1% Scope 1 Emissions Scope 2 Emissions

29 Gross carbon emissions 31,627 MTCDE Less purchased electricity and increased stationary fuels indicative of cogeneration Sightlines 2010 Carbon Emissions by Type Carbon Emissions by Scope 20,000 Air 14% 18,000 16,000 Commute 5% 14,000 12,000 Electricity 17% On Campus Stationary 63% MTCDE 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Vehicle Fleet 1% Scope 1 Emissions Scope 2 Emissions FY2009 FY2010 Scope 3 Emissions * Scope 1 increase and Scope 2 decrease due to cogeneration 29

Producing fewer GHGs with steady GSF Downward trend in emissions since start of

35,000 30,000 MTCD DE 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004

8,581 8,463 8,354 7,554 Scope 2 12,526 12,943 13,088 12,687 13,206 11,696 11,920

30 Producing fewer GHGs with steady GSF Downward trend in emissions since start of cogeneration program Sightlines ,000 Historical Emissions by Scope 40,000 35,000 30,000 MTCD DE 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 Scope 3 6,299 6,293 6,647 7,095 8,284 8,581 8,463 8,354 7,554 Scope 2 12,526 12,943 13,088 12,687 13,206 11,696 11,920 9,680 4,974 Scope 1 15,062 17,635 17,547 18,368 18,464 16,330 14,653 15,782 18,740 30

31 Lower campus density impacts emissions profile Emissions profile trends are the result of shrinking scope 2 emissions Sightlines

32 Discussion/ Questions 32

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