erappa webinar on facilities trends and challenges - co-hosted by sightlines
DESCRIPTION
National and Regional Trends for Facilities: What They Mean for Your Campus - learn about key national and northeast college and university data trends with regard to age profile, backlog of deferred maintenance, operating costs, and energy costs. And, with the partnership of Sightlines, how these campuses are responding to the trends and challenges from both a public and private campus perspective.TRANSCRIPT
1
ERAPPA Webinar:National and Regional Trends and Challenges for Facilities What They Mean for Your Campus
Date: May 15, 2013Moderated by: Christine Matheson, Vice President of ERAPPA Panelists: James Kadamus, Sightlines LLC
Jeffrey Lamb, Dalhousie University Mark Frost, Siena College
2
Introducing the comparison campusesUsing the Sightlines database to determine national and regional trends
Common facilities vocabulary
Consistent analytical methodology
Context through benchmarking
International Database: Over 380 Campuses
ERAPPA - Public vs. Private: Over 85 Private CampusesOver 70 Public Campuses
3
#1 More space in over 50 years of age Older space profile increases risk for facilities
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
41% 40% 39% 39% 38% 36%
18% 18% 18% 19% 20% 21%
(%) Square Footage over 25 years old(Renovation Age)
25 to 50 Years of Age Over 50 Years of Age
Overall Database
4
#1 Publics have more space in 25-50; Privates more in over 50Both groups have increasing percentage of over 50 year old space
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
50% 49% 48% 48% 46% 44%
33% 32% 31% 30% 30% 27%
11% 11% 12% 13% 14% 14%27% 26% 27% 28% 29% 30%
(%) Square Footage over 25 years old(Renovation Age)
25 to 50 Years of Age Over 50 Years of Age
Public Private
(CT, D.C., MA, MD, ME, NH, NY, NJ, PA, RI, VT, Canada)
5
#2 Cyclical capital investments – FY 2012 less than 2008Annual capital funding is increasing and is the highest in FY 2012
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 $-
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0
$1.2 $1.3 $1.4 $1.3 $1.5 $1.6
$3.1
$4.0 $4.0 $3.2
$3.4 $3.3
Capital Investment into Existing Space
Annual Capital One-Time Capital
$/G
SF
Overall Database
6
#2 Private campuses recovered from recession faster than publicsBoth private and public campuses commit more annual funding
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 $-
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0
$7.0
$0.9 $1.0 $1.2 $1.0 $1.4 $1.6 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.6 $2.0 $2.3
$2.9
$4.7 $4.4
$3.6
$4.0 $3.3
$3.8 $4.2 $4.3
$3.2
$3.6 $3.6
Capital Investment into Existing Space
Annual Capital One-Time Capital
$/G
SF
Public Private
(CT, D.C., MA, MD, ME, NH, NY, NJ, PA, RI, VT, Canada)
7
13%
24%
14%
41%
8%
FY2002
Building Envelope Building Systems Infrastructure
Space Renewal Safety/Code
#3 Expenditure mix less focused on space in 2012More investment into core building components in 2012
14%
25%
15%
36%
10%
2007
18%
28%
17%
31%
7%
2012
Total Project Spending
Overall Database
8
#3 Public institutions have major increase in mechanical systemsPrivate institutions have had a significant increase in building envelope
17%
26%
16%
25%
15%
2007 Public
14%
25%
15%
39%
8%
2007 Private
Total Project Spending
13%
24%
14%
41%
8%
FY2002
Building Envelope Building Systems Infrastructure
Space Renewal Safety/Code
17%
34%15%
27%
6%
2012 Public
20%
25%
13%
35%
7%
2012 Private
(CT, D.C., MA, MD, ME, NH, NY, NJ, PA, RI, VT, Canada)
9
#4 Steady increase in backlogBacklog is up almost 15% since 2007; accelerating from 2009-2012
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 $-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
$77 $78 $79 $82 $85 $88
Backlog $/GSF
Backlog/GSF Percentage Change of Backlog
$/G
SF
Overall Database
10
#4 Public institutions have high backlog, but stablePrivate institutions backlog is less, but growing at a faster rate
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 $-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
$91 $92 $92 $97 $100 $99
$73 $73 $76 $79 $82 $86
Backlog $/GSF
$/G
SF
Public Private
(CT, D.C., MA, MD, ME, NH, NY, NJ, PA, RI, VT, Canada)
11
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 $-
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0
$4.6 $4.8 $4.8 $4.8 $5.0 $4.9 $4.7 $4.8 $4.9 $4.9 $4.8 $4.9
Daily Service
$/G
SF
#5 Northeast institutions have flat daily service spending
Public Private
(CT, D.C., MA, MD, ME, NH, NY, NJ, PA, RI, VT, Canada)
12
#6 Maintenance workers covering more spacePublics cover more space (have less staff) than Privates
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 -
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
Maintenance Coverage
GSF
/FTE
Public Private
(CT, D.C., MA, MD, ME, NH, NY, NJ, PA, RI, VT, Canada)
13
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 -
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
Custodial Coverage
GSF
/FTE
#7 Both public and privates increasing custodial coverage
Public Private
(CT, D.C., MA, MD, ME, NH, NY, NJ, PA, RI, VT, Canada)
14
#8 Increasing energy efficiency, especially in fossil usage
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 -
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
-14%
-12%
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
Normalized Energy Consumption
Fossil Consumption Electric ConsumptionPercent Change of Total Consumption
BTU
/GSF
Overall Database
15
#8 Greater gains in efficiency seen in public institutionsBoth public and private campuses are reducing consumption
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 -
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
-16%
-14%
-12%
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
Normalized Energy Consumption
Fossil Consumption Electric ConsumptionPercentage Change in Total Consumption
BTU
/GSF
Public Private
(CT, D.C., MA, MD, ME, NH, NY, NJ, PA, RI, VT, Canada)
16
• Age profiles of ERAPPA campuses indicate that both public and private institutions face growing deferred maintenance needs and overdue life cycles
Age Profile of Campus
• Declines in capital funding since 2009 puts campuses further at risk of having building systems that will fail in the near future
• Flat operating budgets mean coverage rates for maintenance and custodial are increasing
Capital and Operating Expenditures
• Backlogs are growing and already reaching high risk levels at public institutions• Private institutions have lower backlogs ; but backlogs are growing faster as buildings age
Backlog Growth
• Positive steps include: More focus on durable investments, building systems; Annual stewardship investment increasing despite economic downturn; Reductions in energy consumption and costs.
Positive Steps
Conclusions
17
Dalhousie UniversityJeffrey Lamb, AVP Facilities Management
18
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Dalhousie University - Campus Profile
Dalhousie University is a large, public research university using a strong operational profile to manage an aging campus and pointed capital strategies to address deferred maintenance.
Fast Facts:• Founded: 1818• 98 buildings• 4.7 Million Gross Square Feet• 18,220 students• Consistently ranked one of
Canada’s top universities• Leader in marine research
19
Dalhousie University Peer Average0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
13%18%
11%
15%
53% 38%
23%29%
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
Campus age older than peersDalhousie has more high risk space than peers
65%
% of Space by Age Category
Buildings Under 10Little work .“Honeymoon” period.
Low Risk
Buildings 10 to 25Lower cost space renewal updates and
initial signs of program pressures.Medium Risk
Buildings 25 to 50Life cycles are coming due in envelope and mechanical
systems. Functional obsolescence prevalent.Higher Risk
Buildings over 50Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures
are possible. Core modernization cycles are missed.Highest Risk
Higher RiskHigher Risk
20
Campus age profile impacts the cost of OperationsWork orders in buildings 25-50 years carry a premium cost
13%
11%
53%
23%
Dalhousie Renovated Age Profile
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350Average Daily Service Work Order Cost
$/W
O
7%6%
62%
25%
Total Daily Service Work Order Costs
DS Work Order Costs over $100/GSF higher in age category 25 to 50
21
Annual stewardship compared to peersDalhousie consistently outperforms peers in Annual Stewardship investment
Only 10% of schools in Sightlines’ database fund 50% of their
annual stewardship target. 50% of schools fund less than
20%.
22
Total capital investment vs. annual funding targetsDalhousie has been spending at least into the target range since 2010
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012$0.0
$10,000,000.0
$20,000,000.0
$30,000,000.0
$40,000,000.0
$50,000,000.0
$60,000,000.0
Total Capital Investment
Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Target Need Life Cycle Need
Decreasing Backlog
Increasing Backlog
*Includes capital investment into existing space only
Stabilizing Backlog
Life Cycle Need
Target Need
23
Dalhousie’s BacklogStrategic capital investment has stabilized campus backlog
FY11 one-time investment had a large impact on the backlog
24
Longitudinal daily service and planned maintenanceProactive planned maintenance have increased more than reactive daily service
183% increase in PM spending
Peer Avg: $0.17
Peer Avg: $3.99
25
Cost saving opportunity realized by switching to Nat GasOver $1M was saved in FY12 due to switching from fuel oil to Natural Gas
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
$14.00Fossil Fuel Consumption and Cost
BTU/GSF $/MMBTU
BTU
/GSF $/M
MBTU
Despite increased consumption, switching to Natural Gas saved Dalhousie $1.2M in FY12
BTU
/GSF $/M
MBTU
If consumption was brought back down to FY11 levels, an additional
$400K could be saved yearly…
$This amounts to a total of
$1.6M in annual savings from switching to natural gas
26
Age CategoryAverage hours/ DS
Work OrderLess than 10 2.75
10-25 2.525-50 5.0
Over 50 3.3
Opportunity to release operational FTEs Buildings between 25-50 yrs. old take longer to service
7,878 work orders/1 hour= 7,878 hours released!
Age CategoryTotal Daily Service
Work OrdersLess than 10 1,538
10-25 1,569 25-50 7,878
Over 50 4,748
7,878 hours/2080 hours (1 FTE)=
3.8 Maintenance FTEs
Reduce average work order time in 25-50 yr. old buildings by 1 hour.
27
Operational strategies at Dalhousie University
76% of Dalhousie’s campus is over 25 years old. Space that exceeds 25 years often requires significant capital reinvestment and carries an elevated operational demand due to major building components due for replacement.
Dalhousie’s Annual Stewardship program is stronger than peers, funding 48% of target on average and focusing on core asset reliability and asset protection projects. Increases in Annual Stewardship and influxes of one-time capital have stabilized campus backlog since FY2009.
Utilities cost savings from shifting primary fossil fuels and increases in preventive maintenance have improved overall operational effectiveness.
Utilizing data in the work order system to aid in capital project selection and to discover areas that could release operational resources represents on opportunity to further improve operational effectiveness.
28
Siena CollegeMark Frost, AVP Facilities Management
29
Siena is a private institution located in upstate NYCampus profile
Total Gross Square Feet:1.25 Million GSF
Total Maintained Acres:175 Acres
Number of Buildings:64 Buildings
Student Faculty Ratio:12:1
Total Undergraduate Enrollment:3,214
Percent Out of State:19%
Institutional Information:
Catholic Franciscan Institution in Loudonville, NY founded in 1937
30
Siena has 25% of space over 50 years oldGenerally favorable age profile relative to peers; Over 50 year old space is challenge
Siena College Peer Average0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
13%19%
39%17%
23%46%
25%18%
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
65%
% of Space by Age Category
Buildings Under 10Little work .“Honeymoon” period.
Low Risk
Buildings 10 to 25Lower cost space renewal updates and
initial signs of program pressures.Medium Risk
Buildings 25 to 50Life cycles are coming due in envelope and mechanical
systems. Functional obsolescence prevalent.Higher Risk
Buildings over 50Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures
are possible. Core modernization cycles are missed.Highest RiskHigher Risk
Higher Risk
31
Building intensity measures the size of facilitiesSmaller buildings on campus than peers challenges facilities operations
*Institutions ordered on the basis of density factor
Peer Average Database Average
32
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
$5.18 $5.05$5.54
$6.12 $5.90$5.28 $4.99
Siena Daily Service Peer Average Daily Service
Daily Service vs. Peer Averages
Dol
lars
per
GSF
Siena restricts daily service allocations over timeIn FY2012 budgets are aligned with peer averages but less resources are available
33
Siena’s planned maintenance is 3% of operating budgetBelow peers but growing over time
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12$0.00
$0.05
$0.10
$0.15
$0.20
$0.25
$0.30
$0.35
$0.40
$0.45
$0.34$0.35
$0.39$0.36 $0.37
$0.05
$0.11
$0.22
$0.17 $0.18
Total Planned Maintenance
$/G
SF
Siena College:Peer Averages:
Siena Avg: $.15/GSF
Peer Avg: $.36/GSF
Siena College would need to increase planned maintenance investment by $250K each year to reach peer levels
34
Strong energy management at Siena CollegeEnergy reduction enables Siena to reallocate savings into facilities operations
35
Consistent capital investment is not enough to hit targets Backlog of need increases in spaces each year as investment targets are not met
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012$0.0
$2,000,000.0
$4,000,000.0
$6,000,000.0
$8,000,000.0
$10,000,000.0
$12,000,000.0
Total Capital Investment
Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Target Need Life Cycle Need
Decreasing Backlog
Increasing Backlog
*Includes capital investment into existing space only
Stabilizing BacklogLife Cycle Need
Target Need
36
Lack of investment yields an increasing backlogBacklog increased by over $20 M since FY06
37
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%Net Asset Value
Identifying highest-risk space on campusInternal study identifies areas to target with larger capital infusions
NAV = (Replacement Value – Backlog) Replacement Value
Under 10 10-25 25-50 Over 50
38
Siena has less program space per studentFall 2013 will see the opening of Rosetti Hall aligning Siena to peers with academic GSF
Siena College Peer Average0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
112 GSF
141 GSF
GSF
Siena College Peer Average0
50
100
150
200
250
199 GSF173 GSF
GSF
Siena College Peer Average0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
72 GSF 70 GSF
GSF
Program Space Per Student Residential Space Per Student Student Life Space Per Student
Even at peer averages for space distribution, Siena feels overcrowded and confined with the current space available.
39
Discovering key information from utilization analysisUtilization findings provide Siena insight into programmatic-driven challenges
Room Condition & Technological Inspection
Assessment of Institutional Scheduling Data
Use of Focus Groups to Determine User
Perceptions
End Result – Informed Decision Making
40
Operational strategies at Siena College
Despite many younger buildings on campus compared to peers, 25% of campus is over 50 years old. Those oldest buildings will require significant capital infusions.
Solid Facilities metrics allows for more effective operations through planned maintenance growth and strong energy management at Siena.
Limited capital resources challenge Siena to hit annual investment targets. This is exposing lower quality space on campus and enabling growth in deferred maintenance needs.
Rosetti Hall coming online in Fall 2013 will address some of the immediate academic space needs. Classroom Utilization Analysis will help identify under-utilized space and classrooms that are not appropriately sized for program needs.
41
Questions and Discussion