State University System of Florida ROPA+ Presentation October 2017 Presenters: Kevan Will & Mike Sabol University of Southern University of Southern Maine University of St. Thomas University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Texas - Austin University of Texas at Dallas University of Texas Health University of Texas Rio Grande Valley University of the Sciences in Philadelphia University of Toledo University of Vermont University of Washington University of West Florida University of Wisconsin - Madison Vanderbilt University Virginia Commonwealth University Wake Forest University Washburn University Washington State University Washington State University - Tri-Cities Campus Washington State University - Vancouver Washington University in St. Louis Wayne State University Wellesley College Wesleyan University West Chester University West Virginia Health Science Center West Virginia University Western Oregon University Westfield State University Widener University Williams College Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester State University Xavier University
Sightlines by the Numbers Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums and state systems Sightlines advises state systems in: Alaska California Florida Hawaii Maine Massachusetts Minnesota Mississippi 170 New members since 2013 4 Canadian provinces Missouri New Hampshire Nebraska Pennsylvania Texas 42 States+DC 52k buildings 90% Member retention rate 335+ ROPA Members 450 Colleges & Universities 2
Creating a Common Vocabulary Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Operational Effectiveness Service The annual investment needed to ensure buildings will properly perform and reach their useful life Keep-Up Costs. The accumulation 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. Asset Value Change Operations Success 3
Segmenting the SUS of FL¹ by Carnegie Class Institution Florida International University Florida State University University of Central Florida University of Florida University of South Florida Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Florida Atlantic University University of West Florida Florida Gulf Coast University University of North Florida 2015 Carnegie Basic Classification² Doctoral Universities: Highest Research Activity Doctoral Universities: Highest Research Activity Doctoral Universities: Highest Research Activity Doctoral Universities: Highest Research Activity Doctoral Universities: Highest Research Activity Doctoral Universities: Higher Research Activity Doctoral Universities: Higher Research Activity Doctoral Universities: Moderate Research Activity Master s Colleges & Universities: Larger Programs Master s Colleges & Universities: Larger Programs SUS of FL: R1 SUS of FL: R2+ ¹New College of Florida has recently joined Sightlines. Though data is not currently available, it is expected before end of 2017. ²Information from 2015 Update: http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/ 4
Segmenting Regional Peers by Carnegie Classification SUS of FL: R1 Peers Clemson University Georgia Institute of Technology Louisiana State University The University of Alabama at Birmingham The University of Mississippi The University of Tennessee University of Arkansas University of Georgia University of Missouri University of North Texas University of Texas at Austin University of Texas at Dallas Location Clemson, SC Atlanta, GA Baton Rouge, LA Birmingham, AL Oxford, MS Knoxville, TN Fayetteville, AR Athens, GA Columbia, MO Denton, TX Austin, TX Richardson, TX R1 Peers Carnegie Classification(s) Doctoral Universities Highest Research Activity SUS of FL: R2+ Peers Auburn University Delta State University Jackson State University Mississippi State University Missouri University of Science and Technology Tennessee Technological University Texas A&M University Corpus Christi The University of Alabama University of Missouri Kansas City University of Missouri St. Louis University of Southern Mississippi University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Location Auburn, AL Cleveland, MS Jackson, MS Starkville, MS Rolla, MO Cookeville, TN Corpus Christi, TX Tuscaloosa, AL Kansas City, MO St. Louis, MO Haittesburg, MS Brownsville, TX R2+ Peers Carnegie Classification(s) Doctoral Universities Higher Research Activity Doctoral Universities Moderate Research Activity Master s Colleges & Universities Larger Programs Primary Considerations for Selection Public/Private Carnegie Classification Region 5
How Does the SUS of FL Compare? Specific Areas of Comparison and Focus Space Per Student Construction Vintage of Buildings Campus Renovation Age & Risk Implication Existing Space Capital Investment Deferred Maintenance Backlog Immediate & Future Renewal Needs 6
Percentage Change from FY2011 Comparing Space Growth vs. Enrollment Growth 11% 9% Space vs Enrollment SUS of FL: R1 vs R1: Peers 11% 9% Space vs Enrollment SUS of FL: R2+ vs R2+: Peers SUSF of FL: R1 R1 Peers SUSF of FL: R2+ R2+ Peers 7% 7% 5% 5% 3% 3% 1% 1% -1% -1% -3% -3% 7
Program Space (GSF) / Student FTE Program Space (GSF) / Student FTE Examining Program Space Per Student Impact of Research Demonstrated 250 Program Space/Student: SUS of FL: R1 vs R1 Peers 250 Program Space/Student: SUS of FL: R2+ vs R2+ Peers SUSF of FL: R1 R1 Peers SUSF of FL: R2+ R2+ Peers 200 189 189 191 197 197 195 211 211 210 210 207 207 200 186 184 183 185 182 186 150 150 150 149 150 154 155 151 100 100 50 50 0 - Program Space functions include: Academic, Administrative and Science Research 8
% of GSF Putting Your Campus Building Age in Context 20% Pre-War Built before 1951 More durable construction Older, but typically lasts longer Needs programmatic/modernization updates Post-War/Modern Built from 1951-1990 Quick-flash construction Lower quality building components Already needing more repairs and renovations Complex Built in 1991 and newer Technically complex spaces More expensive to maintain & repair 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Sightlines Database- Construction Age SUS of FL: R1 SUS of FL: R2+ 9
Campus Renovation Age Profile: SUS of FL vs. Peers 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Renovation Age by Category 8% 8% 21% 19% 16% 34% 36% 37% 52% 40% 26% 28% 18% 18% 24% 16% SUS of FL: R1 R1 Peers SUS of FL: R2+ R2+ Peers Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50 Buildings Over 50 Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures are possible. Core modernization cycles are missed. Highest risk Buildings 25 to 50 Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come due. Functional obsolescence prevalent. Higher Risk Buildings 10 to 25 Short life-cycle needs; primarily space renewal. Medium Risk Buildings Under 10 Little work. Honeymoon period. Low Risk 10
Deep Dive: Renovation Age Category Comparisons 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Renovation Age - SUS of FL: R1 vs. R1 Peer Institutions 8% 8% 10% 15% 19% 13% 19% 26% 25% 29% 34% 30% 25% 47% 40% 27% 21% 54% 50% 53% 23% 29% 40% 35% 48% 25% 18% 33% 31% 15% 20% 27% 9% 21% 22% 22% 12% 16% 7% 11% 14% 17% 18% 24% 14% 8% 3% 27% 25% 45% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Renovation Age - SUS of FL: R2+ vs. R2+ Peer Institutions 14% 9% 3% 2% 3% 8% 17% 32% 31% 27% 35% 31% 30% 24% 16% 38% 39% 46% 45% 28% 36% 38% 33% 42% 33% 52% 51% 41% 26% 40% 21% 34% 34% 5% 24% 20% 28% 26% 31% 12% 7% 5% 12% 9% 16% 21% 25% 11% 13% 24% Institutions ordered in increasing percentage of space under 25 years old 11
% of Campus GSF % of Campus GSF Comparison of Young Space (Under 25 Years Old) % of Space Under 25 Years Old: SUS of FL: R1 vs. R1 Peer Institutions % of Space Under 25 Years Old: SUS of FL: R2+ vs. R2+ Peer Institutions 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 21% 28% 31% 31% 35% 41% 45% 47% 50% 58% 59% 62% 70% 40% 30% 20% 10% 17% 31% 31% 32% 37% 37% 45% 47% 53% 66% 67% 73% 76% 0% 0% 12
$/GSF Comparison of Existing Space Capital Investment $7.00 $6.00 Total Capital Investment into Existing Space SUS of FL: R1 vs R1 Peers $7.00 $6.00 Total Capital Investment into Existing Space SUS of FL: R2+ vs R2+ Peers SUSF of FL: R1 R1 Peers SUSF of FL: R2+ R2+ Peers $5.00 $5.00 $4.00 $4.00 $3.00 $3.00 $2.00 $2.00 $1.00 $1.00 $0.00 $0.00 Investment amounts shown do not include Grounds + Utility Infrastructure 13
Millions How Much Should the SUS of FL Spend on Existing Capital Investment? $300 $250 Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target SUS of FL: R1 Ideal Investment to Increase Campus Value $300 $250 Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target SUS of FL: R2+ $200 $200 $150 Minimum Investment to Prevent Backlog Growth $150 $100 $100 Ideal Investment to Increase Campus Value $50 $50 Minimum Investment to Prevent Backlog Growth $0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Investment amounts shown do not include Grounds + Utility Infrastructure 14
Millions How Much Should the SUS of FL Spend Moving Forward? $350 Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target SUS of FL: R1 $350 Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target SUS of FL: R2+ $300 $300 $250 $250 $200 $200 $150 $150 $100 $100 $50 $50 $0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 $0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Investment amounts shown do not include Grounds + Utility Infrastructure 15
Introducing ROPA+ Prediction¹ DISCOVERY PREDICTION PERFORMANCE Sub-Systems Reviewed 1. HVAC 2. Electrical 3. Plumbing 4. Building Exteriors 5. Roofing 6. Building Interiors 7. Small Building Renovations ¹UCF is included, but is currently undergoing a Building Portfolios Solution project with Sightlines. This is a more in depth analysis than ROPA+ Prediction. Once complete, their component of this overall figure is expected to adjust. 16
SUS of FL: Current + Renewal Need¹ $3,300,000,000 $3,000,000,000 $2,700,000,000 $2,400,000,000 $2,100,000,000 $1,800,000,000 $1,500,000,000 $1,200,000,000 $900,000,000 $600,000,000 $300,000,000 $0 $2.09 B $0.99 B Remaining Renewal Need: Life cycle needs coming due between 2017-2026. Current Need: The subsystem has already failed The subsystem is functioning with substantial degradation of efficiency or performing at increased cost Current Need Renewal Need 17-26 ¹UCF is included, but is currently undergoing a Building Portfolios Solution project with Sightlines. This is a more in depth analysis than ROPA+ Prediction. Once complete, their component of this overall figure is expected to adjust. 17 *Excludes infrastructure and Modernization Needs
Total Dollars Total Dollars (Millions) Total 10 Year Needs with Projected Investment¹ $3,500,000,000 10 Year Needs $600 SUS of FL: 10-Year Needs $3,000,000,000 $500 $2,500,000,000 $400 $2,000,000,000 $1,500,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $300 $200 $500,000,000 $100 $- Total Projected spending $- 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Current Need FY17-26 Renewal Need Average Historical Investment: $118M / Year ¹UCF is included, but is currently undergoing a Building Portfolios Solution project with Sightlines. This is a more in depth analysis than ROPA+ Prediction. Once complete, their component of this overall figure is expected to adjust. 18
Breaking Down Total Need by Group¹ Need by Sub-System SUS of FL: R1 Need by Sub-System SUS of FL: R2+ 14% 4% 21% 10% 5% 22% 40% 21% 39% 24% ¹UCF is included, but is currently undergoing a Building Portfolios Solution project with Sightlines. This is a more in depth analysis than ROPA+ Prediction. Once complete, their component of this overall figure is expected to adjust. 19
Executive Takeaways 20
Executive Takeaways Less Program Space Per Student Compared to Carnegie Class Peers R1: R1 peers average 207 GSF/Student FTE, while the SUS of FL: R1 group averages 195 GSF/Student FTE. R2+: The SUS of FL: R2+ group averages 151 GSF/Student FTE, while the R2+ peers average 186 GSF/Student FTE. Both Groups of SUS Campuses are Younger than Carnegie Class Peers R1: 58% of GSF across the SUS of FL: R1 group is less than 25 years of age, compared to a R1 Peer average of 44%. R2+: 76% of GSF across the SUS of FL: R2+ group is less than 25 years of age, compared to a R2+ Peer average of 44%. Existing Space Capital Investments are Below Targets; Comparisons to Peers Split R1: R1 peers have averaged $4.10/GSF over the past six years, while the SUS of FL: R1 group has averaged $2.27/GSF. Since 2011, the SUS of FL: R1 group has not collectively hit the minimum investment required to prevent backlog growth. In 2016, this target was $145M compared to an existing space capital investment of only $100M. R2+: The SUS of FL: R2+ group has averaged $4.82/GSF over the past six years, while the R2+ peers have averaged $3.58/GSF. Despite the higher level of investment, the SUS of FL: R2+ group has not collectively hit the minimum investment required to prevent backlog growth. They came close in 2016, with a target of $45M compared to an existing space capital investment of $41M. Historical Investment Levels are Not Sufficient Moving Forward $3.1B of current and renewal need has been identified across the SUS of FL: R1 group and the SUS of FL: R2+ group. The historical, cumulative, investment average of $118M/year for the 10 campuses projects to $1.2B in total from FY17-FY26 this will only address 38% of the current and renewal need. The majority of need falls in the HVAC sub-system for each group. HVAC makes up 40% of the SUS of FL: R1 group s need and 39% of the SUS of FL: R2+ group s. 19
Questions & Discussion 22