University of Alaska System Presentation University of Oregon - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Saint Mary’s College (IN) Saint Mary’s College of California – University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign The University of Maine University of Maine at Augusta Reference 52 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 Sightlines, LLC University of New Hampshire University of New Haven University of Notre Dame University of Alaska System Presentation University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania FY2012 University of Portland University of Redlands The University of Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay The University of Rhode Island, Feinstein Providence The University of Rhode Island, Kingston Date: April 3, 2013 University of Rochester Presented by: Colin Sanders, Laura Vassilowitch & Sheena Salsberry 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 University Wheaton College (MA)

Sightlines Profile Reference 52 Common vocabulary, consistent methodology, credibility through benchmarking The annual The accumulated investment needed backlog of repair Asset Value Change to ensure buildings and modernization will properly needs and the perform and reach definition of their useful life resource capacity to “Keep - Up Costs” correct them. “Catch - Up Costs” Annual Asset Stewardship Reinvestment The effectiveness The measure of of the facilities service process, the Operations Success operating budget, maintenance System Peers staffing, quality of space and • Connecticut* supervision, and systems, and the • Maine energy customers opinion • Missouri management of service delivery • Mississippi • New Hampshire Operational • Oregon Service Effectiveness • Pennsylvania 2 *New system peer

Sightlines Profile Reference 52 Common vocabulary, consistent methodology, credibility through benchmarking Capital funds: The annual The accumulated Operating funds: • Bonds • State General investment needed backlog of repair Asset Value Change • State General to ensure buildings and modernization Funds • Student tuitions Funds will properly needs and the • Federal Grants perform and reach definition of & Fees • Foundations • F&A Recovery their useful life resource capacity to • Other Grants “Keep - Up Costs” correct them. “Catch - Up Costs” Annual Asset Stewardship Reinvestment • Facilities • Campus The effectiveness The measure of of the facilities service process, the operating budget Inspection Operations Success • Staffing levels • Service Process operating budget, maintenance System Peers • Energy cost and • Customer staffing, quality of space and • Connecticut* supervision, and systems, and the consumption Satisfaction • Maine energy customers opinion Survey • Missouri management of service delivery • Mississippi • New Hampshire Operational • Oregon Service Effectiveness • Pennsylvania 3 *New system peer

Scope of work Reference 52 Total GSF: 6.6M GSF; 346 buildings MAUs • Anchorage Campuses • Fairbanks • Kenai Peninsula • Community and Technical • Juneau • Kodiak College • Ketchikan College • Matanuska- Susitna College • College of Rural & Community • Sitka • Prince William Sound Development Community College GSF 2.6M GSF 3.3M GSF 569K GSF Bldg. # 95 Buildings 212 Buildings 39 Buildings 4

Best Practices Nationally Suggests to Us… Reference 52 When Stewardship falls… 1. Failures increase 2. Operational effectiveness falls 3. Customer satisfaction decreases 4. Capital investment is driven by customers. Space wins over systems. 5. The backlog of needs increases Focused project selection… 1. Decreases operating costs 2. Savings Increase stewardship 3. Planned maintenance grows 4. Customer satisfaction improves 5. Greater flexibility of project selection repeats the cycle. 5

UA System’s ROPA Radar Charts Reference 52 UA System FY12 Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Effectiveness Operating Service 6

Reference 52 Sightlines Database Western Region Trends ( AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA) 7

#1 Dichotomy of campus age profiles Reference 52 Campuses are growing older (%) Square Footage over 25 years old (Renovation Age) 70% 60% 50% 19% 19% 20% 19% 19% 18% 40% 30% 20% 39% 39% 38% 38% 38% 38% 10% 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 25 to 50 Years of Age Over 50 Years of Age Western Region (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA) 8

#2 Cyclical capital investments Reference 52 Investments decreasing to national database average Capital Investment into Existing Space Western Region Database National Database $8.0 $7.0 $6.0 Average $5.0 Average $/GSF $5.2 $4.6 $4.0 $4.2 $4.0 $4.0 $3.3 $3.4 $3.4 $3.5 $3.0 $3.2 $2.9 $3.1 $2.0 $1.0 $1.8 $1.8 $1.7 $1.6 $1.6 $1.5 $1.5 $1.4 $1.4 $1.3 $1.3 $1.2 $- 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Capital One-Time Capital Western Region (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA) 9

#3 Less investment into space projects in 2012 Reference 52 Shifting investments towards building envelope, system, and infrastructure needs Western Region Total Project Spending 2007 2012 7% 10% 13% 13% 29% 24% 25% 40% 13% 26% Building Envelope Building Systems Infrastructure Space Renewal Safety/Code Western Region (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA) 10

#4 Steady increase in backlog Reference 52 The western region saw an 11% increase in backlog since FY07 Backlog $/GSF $90 $80 $70 $60 $/GSF $50 $84 $81 $40 $77 $78 $78 $75 $30 $20 $10 $- 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Western Region (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, TX, WA) 11

Reference 52 UA System profile Major factors that influence campus operations and decisions 12

Alaska in Context: Campus renovation age vs. peers Reference 52 57% of Alaska System space is over 25 years old % of space over 25 years old Renovation Age Categories Peer system comparison System peer comparison 100% 80% 7% 90% 23% 70% 80% 60% High Risk High Risk 70% 50% 50% 33% 60% 50% 40% 69% 69% 68% 40% 30% 47% 48% 50% 53% 57% 19% 19% 30% 20% 20% 25% 10% 23% 10% 0% 0% A B C D E UA G H UA System Peer System Average System Systems Ordered by Tech Rating Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50 Peer System Average 13

Age profile informs capital strategy Reference 52 Renovation Age Categories System peer comparison 100% 7% Buildings over 50 90% 23% Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures are possible. Core modernization cycles are missed. 80% Highest risk High Risk High Risk 70% 50% Buildings 25 to 50 33% 60% Life cycles are coming due in envelope and mechanical systems. Functional obsolescence prevalent. 50% Higher Risk 40% Buildings 10 to 25 19% 19% Lower cost space renewal updates and 30% initial signs of program pressures Medium Risk 20% Buildings Under 10 25% 23% 10% Little work, “honeymoon” period. Low Risk 0% UA System Peer System Average Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50 14

Alaska in Context: Tech rating Reference 52 Alaska System Tech Ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 Tech Rating Tech Rating by MAU Peer system comparison 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Tech Rating (1-5 Scale) 3.5 3.5 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 A B C D E UA G H UAA UAF UAS System UA System Tech Rating Peer System Average Peer Range SL Public University FY2012 Average: 2.93 15

Alaska in Context: Density Factor Reference 52 UA System Density Factor range: 280-640 Density Factor Density Factor by MAU Peer system comparison 800 800 700 700 600 600 FTE Users/100,000 GSF 500 500 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 UAA UAF UAS A B C D E UA G H System UA System Density Factor Peer System Average Peer Range *Users Include Faculty, Staff, Student FTEs SL Public University FY2012 Average: 616 16

Alaska in Context: Building Intensity Reference 52 UA System Building Intensity Average : 56 Buildings/ 1M GSF Building Intensity System Averages Building Intensity by MAU Peer system comparison 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 Buildings/1M GSF 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 A B C D E F UA H UAA UAF UAS System UA System Average Peer System Average Peer Range SL Public University FY2012 Average: 39 17

Reference 52 Capital, Budget, and Operations Asset value change and performance value 18