University of Nebraska Medical Center University of Nebraska Omaha University of New Brunswick University of New Hampshire University of New Haven University of New Mexico University of North Texas University of Northern Iowa University of Notre Dame University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania University of Redlands University of Rhode Island University of Rochester University of San Diego University of San Francisco University of Southern Maine University of Southern Mississippi 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 Vermont Vanderbilt University Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Department of General Services Wagner College Wake Forest University Washburn University Washington University in St. Louis Wellesley College Wesleyan University West Chester University West Liberty University Shippensburg University of PA West Virginia Health Science Center West Virginia Institute of Technology Presenters: Erica Barbuto and Emily Medina West Virginia School ofOsteopathic Medicine West Virginia State University January 2017 West Virginia University Western Connecticut State University Western Oregon University Westfield State University Wheaton College Widener University Williams College
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 accumulation The effectiveness The measure of investment needed of repair and 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
Key Concepts Space: As space ages, expensive systems need to be replaced. Capital: Risk profile can be used to identify buildings for renovation. Operations: Customers are satisfied with campus overall, though E&G spaces need more attention. 4
Space Profile
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 construction Older but typically lasts Low-quality building Higher-quality, more Already needing more longer components expensive to maintain & repairs and renovations repair Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex 40% Percent of Total Percent of Total Space 34% Space 49% 35% 30% 25% % of GSF 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Sightlines Database- Construction Age Shippensburg 6
Gut Renovations Make Campus Younger Peers have reduced their campus age by an average of 14 years Construction Age vs. Renovation Age 60 50 15 Year Decrease 40 Weighted Age 30 20 10 0 A B C SH D E F G H I J K L M SH Construction Age Renovation Age 7
Campus Age Profile The E&G campus is older, driving the capital investment need Campus Age by Category Buildings over 50 100% High 8% Life cycles of major building components are past due. 15% 16% High Failures are possible. Core modernization cycles are 90% 20% Risk missed. Risk 15% 4% High Highest risk 80% High Risk Risk 30% 70% 19% Buildings 25 to 50 33% Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come 60% % of GSF due. Functional obsolescence prevalent. Higher Risk 50% 81% 40% Buildings 10 to 25 43% 27% 30% 58% Short life-cycle needs; primarily space renewal. 20% Medium Risk 20% 10% 13% Buildings Under 10 0% Little work. “Honeymoon” period. Ship E&G E&G Peers Ship Aux Aux Peers Low Risk Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50 8
Capital Implications of Existing Space The first boom needs major renovations; the complex second boom needs expensive upkeep Total Database Need 1950-2050 3-Year Moving Average Using ROPA+ Prediction $7 $6 $5 $ in Billions $4 $3 $2 $1 $0 9
Capital Investment
Majority of Capital Spending Goes to Existing Space Spending almost entirely into existing space in FY15 and FY16 Total Capital Investment $40 New Space Spending: $35 Performing Arts Center 36% Student Rec Center $30 Ceddia Union Building Expansion 64% Chiller Plant Building $25 $ in Millions $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Existing Space Investment New Space Investment Average 11
Ship Investing at PASSHE Average Total Capital Investment Over Time Compared to Peers $16 Peers Ship $14 $12 $10 $/GSF $8 $6 $4 $2 $0 Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Average 12
Defining an Annual Investment Target Annual Funding Target: $8 million FY16 Annual Investment Target Replacement Value: $573 M $20.0 $18.0 $16.0 $14.0 Functional obsolescence drives $ in Millions investment prior to life cycles & $12.0 discounts the annual investment target $8.9 $10.0 $17.2 $8.0 $3.1 $6.0 $4.0 $6.7 $5.0 $2.0 $0.0 3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need Annual Investment Target Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program 13
Spending Meets Capital Target in FY16 Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target $30.0 Increasing Net Asset Value $25.0 $20.0 $ in Millions $15.0 Lowering Risk Profile $10.0 Increasing Backlog & Risk $5.0 $0.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Infrastructure Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need 14
Backlog Now Accounts for Demolitions Asset Reinvestment Need vs. Peers Total Asset Reinvestment Need $150 Demolitions $200 reduce backlog $125 $150 $100 $ in Millions $/GSF $75 $100 $50 $50 $25 $0 $0 A B C D E F G H I J K L SH M Institutions arrayed by tech rating *Benchmarked backlog does NOT include elevators or fire safety needs as identified in capital renewal needs 15
Projected Investment vs. 10 Year Needs Asset Reinvestment 10 Year Capital Forecast Need $200 $30 • Current funding will NOT address all $180 the needs over the next 10 years. • Prioritizing buildings needs is critical $25 $39 $160 $140 Dollars in Millions $20 Dollars in Millions $120 $60 $100 $15 $80 $10 $60 $82 $40 $5 $49 $20 $0 $0 Asset Projected Reinvestment Investment Need Current Need Renewal Need Modernization & Infrastructure Projected Investment *Projected investment is a 5 year average of existing space spending without infrastructure 16
Projected Investment vs. 10 Year Needs Asset Reinvestment 10 Year Capital Forecast Need $200 $30 • Current funding will NOT address all $180 the needs over the next 10 years. • Prioritizing buildings needs is critical $25 $160 $140 Dollars in Millions $20 Dollars in Millions $120 $60 $100 $15 $80 $10 $60 $82 $40 $5 $49 $20 $0 $0 Asset Projected Reinvestment Investment Need Current Need Renewal Need Projected Investment *Projected investment is a 5 year average of existing space spending without infrastructure 17
Over Half of Current Need is High Risk Need to start addressing high risk backlog Current Need by Risk 10 Year Renewal Need by Risk Level Level $16 $90 High = HVAC, Electrical, Plumbing Medium = Exteriors, Roofing $80 $14 Low = Interiors, Equipment/Specialties 32% $70 $12 65% Total $ in Millions 3% Total $ in Millions $60 $10 $57 $50 $8 $40 $6 $30 $4 $20 $13 $2 $10 $13 $0 $0 Current Need Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk 18
Continuing to Spend Above Targets will Reduce Backlog Space/Prog Spending Envelope/Mech Spending $10 $10 Buildings with Env/Mech Upgrades $9 $9 Reisner Dining Hall Dauphin Humanities $8 $8 Huber Art Center $7 $7 $6 $6 Millions Millions $5 $5 $4 $4 $3 $3 $2 $2 $1 $1 $0 $0 AR Space/Prog AS Env/Mech AS Space/Prog AR Env/Mech Space/Prog Target Need Env/Mech Target Need Space/Prog Equilibrium Need Env/Mech Equilibrium Need 19
Recommend
More recommend
