Alcorn State University Xavier University Yale University - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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 Toledo University of Vermont University of Washington University of West Florida University of Wisconsin - Madison Vanderbilt University Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Department of General Services 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 Widener University Williams College Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester State University Alcorn State University Xavier University Yale University Presenters: Peter Reeves, Shelly Giannini & Jayne Dabrah December 20, 2016

Who Partners with Sightlines? Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums and state systems Sightlines advises state Sightlines is proud to announce that: systems in: • 450 colleges and • Alaska universities are • California Sightlines clients • including over 325 Florida ROPA members. • Hawaii • Maine • Consistently over 90% • Massachusetts member retention rate • Minnesota • We have clients in • Mississippi over 40 states, the Serving the Nation’s Leading Institutions: • Missouri District of Columbia • and four Canadian Nebraska • 70% of the Top 20 Colleges* provinces • New Hampshire • 75% of the Top 20 Universities* • New Jersey • More than 125 new • 34 Flagship State Universities • institutions became Pennsylvania • 14 of the 14 Big 10 Institutions Sightlines members • Texas since 2013 • 9 of the 12 Ivy Plus Institutions * U.S. News 2016 Rankings 2

A Vocabulary for Measurement The Return on Physical Assets – ROPA SM The annual The accumulated The effectiveness The measure of investment needed backlog of repair / of the facilities service process, to ensure buildings modernization operating budget, the maintenance will properly needs and the staffing, quality of space perform and reach definition of supervision, and and systems, and their useful life resource capacity energy the customers “Keep - Up Costs” to correct them management opinion of service “Catch - Up Costs” delivery Annual Asset Operational Service Stewardship Reinvestment Effectiveness Asset Value Change Operations Success 3

Sightlines Drives a New Conversation Facilities intelligence toolkit that connects the dots between space, capital and operating policies 4

Alcorn State University Peer Group School Location Bloomsbury University Bloomsburg, PA Cheyney University of PA Cheyney, PA Edinboro University of PA Edinboro, PA Jackson State University Jackson, MS Lock Haven University of PA Lock Haven, PA Mississippi Valley State Itta Bena, MS Comparative Considerations University Size, technical complexity, region, Shippensburg University of PA Shippensburg, PA geographic location, and setting are all factors included in the selection of peer Washburn University Topeka, KS institutions 5

Core Observations Campus Profile:  Renovations and New Construction have lowered the Campus Age Profile. However, 53% of the total space remains over 25 years old and considered “High Risk.”  Alcorn State has a much greater number of smaller buildings than the peer group and database average. This creates Operational challenges when combined with limited staffing resources.  Alcorn State has more space per FTE compared to peers and this space is predominantly “High Risk”. Capital Investment Profile:  Capital funding in existing space is inconsistent.  Asset Reinvestment backlog is above peer average and is comprised of $39.3M of current need. Operations  Facilities operating budget is below peer average, with a limited amount dedicated to Planned Maintenance resulting in a reactive vs proactive maintenance agenda.  The staff at Alcorn State is covering more space with less supervision and fewer resources than their peer group. 6

Campus Profile

Key Campus Indicators Density Factor Tech Rating 500 5 Technical Complexity (1-5) 450 Users/100,000 GSF 400 4 350 3.07 290 300 3 250 200 2 150 2.91 231 100 1 50 0 0 A B ASU C D E F G H A B ASU C D E F G H E&G E&G Building Intensity Grounds Intensity 80 0.6 Buildings/1,000,000 GSF Buildings/Developed Acre Less space 70 Smaller 60 50 0.4 40 40 73 30 0.22 20 0.2 More space 10 Larger 0.21 0 A B C D E F G H ASU 0 E&G A B C D E ASU F G H Peer Average E&G 8

Putting Your Campus Building Age In Context The campus age drives the overall risk profile Post-War Complex Built in 1991 and newer Pre-War Modern Built from 1951 to 1975 Built before 1951 Built from 1976 to 1990 Technically complex Lower-quality Durable construction Quick-flash construction spaces te construction Older but typically lasts Low-quality building Higher-quality, more Already needing more longer components expensive to maintain & repairs and renovations repair 25% Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex Percent of Total Percent of Total Percent of Total Percent of Total Space 46% Space 8% Space 9% Space 37% 20% 15% % of GSF 10% 5% 0% Sightlines Database- Construction Age Sightlines Database- Renovation Age My Campus 9

Alcorn State Age Profile Renovations have shifted the age profile at Alcorn State. Campus Age by Category Buildings over 50 100% 11% Life cycles of major building components are past due. 13% 90% Failures are possible. Core modernization cycles are 25% High missed. 80% High Highest risk Risk 27% High Risk 70% 37% % of Campus GSF Risk Buildings 25 to 50 60% Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come 38% due. Functional obsolescence prevalent. 50% Higher Risk 30% 40% 35% Buildings 10 to 25 30% Short life-cycle needs; primarily space 27% renewal. 20% 32% Medium Risk 10% 15% 10% 0% Buildings Under 10 Construction Renovation Peers Little work. “Honeymoon” period. Age Age Low Risk Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50 10

Enrollment Trends at Alcorn State Peak enrollment in 2012 with another uptick in 2016. Enrollment over Time 4,000 3,500 3137 3,000 2,500 Student FTE 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 11

Program Space Over Time Alcorn State has more Program Space per student than peer group. Program Space over Time FY16 Program Space vs. Peer Group 700 700 600 600 500 500 GSF/FTE 400 GSF/FTE 400 297 300 300 232 200 200 100 100 0 0 Alcorn State Average Peer Average 12

Programmatic Distribution of Campus Space Acad/Admin space accounts for 42% of total campus space Campus Age Distribution by Function Alcorn State’s 100% Functional Distribution 9% 12% 13% 18% 90% 12% 80% 20% % of GSF by Renovation Age 28% 16% 70% 45% 60% 14% 42% 50% 29% 12% 40% 65% 27% 30% 52% 17% 20% 26% 10% 18% 1% Acad/Admin Student Life 0% Acad/Admin Student Life Residential Support Residential Support Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50 13

Capital Investment

Total Capital Investment Over Time Alcorn State has invested an average of $3.4M into Existing Space. Alcorn State Total Capital Investment $25 3% Non-Facilities includes: • IT Projects Total Project Dollars (Millions) • $20 Departmental Projects • Equipment Purchases 41% • Master Plan Projects • 56% Feasibility Studies $15 $10 $5 $3.4 $0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Existing Space New Space Non-Facilities Average Existing Space Investment Existing Space Includes Infrastructure 15

Capital Spending Into Existing Space vs Peers Peers spend $5.8M more on existing space than Alcorn State Peer Existing Space Investment Existing Space Investment $10.00 $10.00 $9.00 $9.00 $8.00 $8.00 $7.00 $7.00 $6.65 $6.00 $6.00 $/GSF $/GSF $5.00 $5.00 $4.00 $4.00 $3.00 $3.00 $2.31 $2.00 $2.00 $1.00 $1.00 $0.00 $0.00 Alcorn State Average Peer Average Existing Space Includes Infrastructure 16

Existing Space Investment By Funding Source Alcorn State is lacking the recurring capital funding that peers are receiving Existing Space Investment Peers Existing Space Investment $10.00 $10.00 $9.00 $9.00 $8.00 $8.00 $7.00 $7.00 $6.00 $6.00 $/GSF $/GSF $5.00 $5.00 $4.00 $4.00 $3.00 $3.00 $2.00 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $1.00 $.04 $0.00 $0.00 Existing Space Includes Infrastructure 17

Defining An Annual Investment Target Annual Funding Target: $5.2M FY16 Annual Investment Target $14.0 Replacement Value: $397M $12.0 $10.0 Functional obsolescence drives $ (Millions) investment prior to life cycles & $8.0 discounts the annual investment target $4.9 $6.0 $11.9 $1.7 $4.0 $4.7 $2.0 $3.5 $0.0 3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need Annual Investment Target Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program 18