Virginia State University Wagner College Wake Forest University Washburn University Washington University in St. Louis Wellesley College Wesleyan University West Chester University West Liberty University 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 Whitworth University Widener University Williams College Williston Northampton School Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester State University Xavier University Yale University Yeshiva University FY2014 ROPA+ University of Alaska System Presented by: Sheena Salsberry, Madison Ford, & Peter Reeves
Who Partners with Sightlines? Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortia, and state systems Serving the Nation’s Leading Institutions: Sightlines advises state Sightlines is proud to systems in: • 19 of the Top 25 Colleges* announce that: • 17 of the Top 25 Universities* • Alaska • 450 colleges, • Flagship Public Universities in 32 States • California universities, and K-12 • Connecticut • 8 of the 12 Ivy Plus Institutions institutions are • Hawaii Sightlines clients, • 12 of the 14 Big 10 Institutions • Maine including over 300 ROPA members. • Massachusetts • Minnesota • 93% of ROPA members • Mississippi renewed in 2013 • Missouri • New Hampshire • We have clients in 44 • New Jersey states, the District of Columbia, and Canada • New York • Oregon • 57 institutions became • Pennsylvania Sightlines members in • Texas 2013 * U.S. News 2014 Rankings 2
A vocabulary for measurement The Return on Physical Assets – ROPA SM Asset Value Change Operations Success 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 Peer Systems: Connecticut, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania 3
Overview Each school very different across many metrics Increasing planned maintenance important moving forward Strategic capital plan needed to address overdue and upcoming need 4
UA System analysis at a glance UA System FY14 fast facts Total # of # of Students School Campus GSF Buildings (FTE) UAA Anchorage 69 2,361,100 9,022 UAA KPC 11 177,132 395 KoC 5 UAA 44,981 103 GSF: 2,766,706 # of Buildings: 99 UAA MatSu 117,334 8 823 Students FTE: 10,378 UAA PWSCC 66,159 6 35 UAF CRCD 32 151,856 390 GSF: 3,530,341 UAF CTC 3 # of Buildings: 225 110,920 1,127 Students FTE: 6,361 Fairbanks 190 UAF 3,267,565 4,844 UAS Juneau 420,304 33 947 GSF: 420,304 # of Buildings: 38 UAS Ketchikan 47,850 4 53 Students FTE: 1,096 UAS Sitka 1 79,378 96 UA System 362 6,844,579 17,835 Exclusions: Chatanika, Palmer, Seward, & State Wide Buildings 5
Basic benchmarks help tell the story Density factor shows the busyness of campus Density Factor Density Factor By Campus UA System vs Peer Systems 1,400 800 700 1,200 600 1,000 Users/ 100K GSF Users/ 100K GSF 500 800 400 600 300 400 200 200 100 0 0 UA System Peer Avg 6
Basic benchmarks help tell the story Tech rating can affect energy consumption, cost, and trades mix on campus Tech Rating Tech Rating UA System vs Peer Systems By Campus 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Scale (1-5) 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 UA System Peer Avg 7
Basic benchmarks help tell the story As building intensity increases the more, smaller buildings there are to maintain Building Intensity Building Intensity UA System vs Peer Systems By Campus 250.0 100.0 90.0 200.0 80.0 70.0 Bldg/1M GSF 150.0 60.0 50.0 100.0 40.0 30.0 50.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 UA System Peer Avg 8
Basic benchmarks help tell the story As building intensity increases the more, smaller buildings there are to maintain % Small Buildings Building Intensity By Composite Campus UA System vs Peer Systems 100% 100.0 90% 90.0 80% 80.0 156 % of campus under 10k GSF Buildings 70% 70.0 22 Buildings 60% 60.0 43 50% 50.0 Buildings 40% 40.0 70% 30% 58% 30.0 43% 20% 20.0 10% 10.0 0% 0.0 UAA UAF UAS UA System Peer Avg 9
Basic benchmarks help tell the story Age is a defining factor in UA System’s story Renovation Age Renovation Age UA System vs Peer Systems By Campus 60 60 50 50 40 40 Age in Years 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 UA System Peer Avg 10
Basic benchmarks help tell the story Age is a defining factor in UA System’s story Renovation Age Renovation Age By Campus By Composite Campus 60 35 30 50 25 40 Age in Years Age in Years 20 30 15 20 10 Aged Aged -6.0 +3.6 Years +2.3 10 Years Years Younger 5 0 0 UAA UAF UAS UA System 11
Diverse age mix across all schools and campuses Different age profiles constitute different operational strategies 100% Age Type Younger Mix of Space Older 90% 80% 70% 60% Balance PM Operational Focus on PM and Reactive React as Needed Strategy 50% Maint. 40% 30% 20% 10% Keep-up Some Keep-up Capital Primarily Catch-up Focused Some Catch-up Strategy 0% CTC Ketchikan Juneau KPC Anchorage PWSCC CRCD MatSu Fairbanks KoC Sitka Buildings over 50 Buildings 10 to 25 Buildings 25 to 50 Buildings Under 10 Life cycles of major building Short life-cycle needs; primarily Major envelope and mechanical components are past due. No capital investment needed. 12 space renewal. life cycles come due. Failures are possible.
Operations Profile Update 13
UA System Budget Spending UA System spending $10/GSF Budget by UA System Budget by Campus $18 $16 $14 $12 $/GSF $10 $8 $6 $4 $2 $- UA Juneau Anchorage Fairbanks CTC Ketchikan KPC PWSCC CRCD MatSu KoC Sitka System Daily Service Planned Maintenance Utilities 14
Total utility spending increasing across system UA System utility cost increased 14% since FY10 UA System Utility Budget by Campus $6 $5 $4 $/GSF $3 $2 $1 $- UA Juneau Anchorage Fairbanks CTC Ketchikan KPC PWSCC CRCD MatSu KoC Sitka % change System of total utility cost -19% +9% +9% -6% -9% +34% +14% +17% +1% +15% +19% +26% FY10-FY14 15
Total Energy Consumption Some campuses able to have large reductions in consumption since FY10 FY14 Consumption by Campus 300,000 250,000 200,000 BTU/GSF 150,000 100,000 50,000 - Juneau Anchorage Fairbanks CTC Ketchikan KPC PWSCC CRCD MatSu KoC Sitka % change of total -5% +2% +5% -37% +7% -46% -19% +27% -1% -9% +7% consumption FY10-FY14 Fossil Consumption BTU/GSF/HDD Electric Consumption BTU/GSF 16
Total campus spending trends UAF Actuals UAS Actuals UAA Actuals $12 $12 $12 $10 $10 $10 $8 $8 $8 $/GSF $/GSF $/GSF $6 $6 $6 $4 $4 $4 $2 $2 $2 $- $- $- 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 % change -1% 9% 19% 3% 10% -1% -5% 5% 19% of cost FY10-FY14 17
UAA ROPA+ Performance in 2014 UAF 2014 Areas of Focus: Budget Performance UAS Each UA campus spending PM investment on edge of top 25 Increasing PM spending under budget should lower DS over time PM Spending has significant Closer to 0% difference equates impact on the daily service costs None of the UA Campuses’ to higher score daily service costs have PM spending has largest impact on changed much over time. total score The top 25 institutions represent “Best in Class” institutions which are determined by analyzing results and resources. The institutions with the most resources will not necessarily fall within the Top 25. As resources increase so must the results. Therefore, institutions with less resources but strong results can reach the “Best in Class” distinction. 18
Budget Sightlines ROPA+ Performance in 2014 Overall Performance Score B UAA Current Score 2014 Areas of Focus: Budget Performance UAF Current Score B UAS Current Score A- A+ Best in Class Score To get to an A+ Increasing PM levels up to $1.00/GSF (10% of total Budget) Inspection Index Inspection Index *Also under the assumption that DS will decrease Budget Index Budget Index The top 25 institutions represent “Best in Class” institutions which are determined by analyzing results and resources. The institutions with the most resources will not necessarily fall within the Top 25. As resources increase so must the results. Therefore, institutions with less resources but strong results can reach the “Best in Class” distinction. 19
Recommend
More recommend
