ERAPPA Webinar on Facilities Trends and Challenges - Co-hosted by Sightlines

1
ERAPPA Webinar:
National and Regional Trends and Challenges for Facilities
What They Mean for Your Campus
Date: May 15, 2013
Moderated by: Christine Matheson, Vice President of ERAPPA
Panelists: James Kadamus, Sightlines LLC
Jeffrey Lamb, Dalhousie University
Mark Frost, Siena College

2
Introducing the comparison campuses
Using the Sightlines database to determine national and regional trends
Context through
benchmarking
Consistent analytical
methodology
Common facilities
vocabulary
International Database:
Over 380 Campuses
ERAPPA ‐ Public vs. Private:
Over 85 Private Campuses
Over 70 Public Campuses

3
#1 More space in over 50 years of age
Older space profile increases risk for facilities
(%) Square Footage over 25 years old
(Renovation Age)
18% 18% 18% 19% 20% 21%
41% 40% 39% 39% 38% 36%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
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 50
Both groups have increasing percentage of over 50 year old space
(%) Square Footage over 25 years old
(Renovation Age)
Public Private
50% 49% 48% 48% 46% 44%
33% 32% 31% 30% 30% 27%
11% 11% 12% 13% 14% 14%
27% 26% 27% 28% 29% 30%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
25 to 50 Years of Age Over 50 Years of Age
(CT, D.C., MA, MD, ME, NH,
, NY, , NJ, , PA, RI, , VT, , Canada)
)

5
#2 Cyclical capital investments – FY 2012 less than 2008
Annual capital funding is increasing and is the highest in FY 2012
$3.1
$4.0 $4.0
$3.2
$3.4 $3.3
$1.2 $1.3 $1.4 $1.3 $1.5 $1.6
$6.0
$5.0
$4.0
$3.0
$2.0
$1.0
$‐
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Capital Investment into Existing Space
Annual Capital One‐Time Capital
Overall Database

6
#2 Private campuses recovered from recession faster than publics
Both private and public campuses commit more annual funding
Public Private
$2.9
$4.7 $4.4
$3.6
$4.0 $3.3
$3.8
$4.2 $4.3
$3.2
$3.6
$3.6
$0.9 $1.0 $1.2 $1.0 $1.4 $1.6 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.6 $2.0 $2.3
$7.0
$6.0
$5.0
$4.0
$3.0
$2.0
$1.0
$‐
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Capital Investment into Existing Space
Annual Capital One‐Time Capital
)

7
#3 Expenditure mix less focused on space in 2012
More investment into core building components in 2012
14%
25%
15%
Building Envelope Building Systems Infrastructure
Space Renewal Safety/Code
36%
10%
2007
18%
28%
2012
17%
31%
7%
Total Project Spending
Overall Database

8
#3 Public institutions have major increase in mechanical systems
Private institutions have had a significant increase in building envelope
2007 Public
17%
26%
16%
25%
15%
2007 Private
14%
25%
15%
39%
8%
Total Project Spending
2012 Public
17%
34%
6%
NY, NJ, PA, RI, VT, Canada)
Building Envelope Building Systems Infrastructure
Space Renewal Safety/Code
27%
15%
2012 Private
20%
25%
13%
35%
7%
, , , , , )

9
#4 Steady increase in backlog
Backlog is up almost 15% since 2007; accelerating from 2009‐2012
$77 $78 $79 $82 $85 $88
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
$100
$90
$80
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$‐
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Backlog $/GSF
Backlog/GSF Percentage Change of Backlog
Overall Database

10
#4 Public institutions have high backlog, but stable
Private institutions backlog is less, but growing at a faster rate
$91 $92 $92 $97 $100 $99
$73 $73 $76 $79 $82 $86
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$‐
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Backlog $/GSF Public Private
)

11
#5 Northeast institutions have flat daily service spending
$4.6 $4.8 $4.8 $4.8 $5.0 $4.9 $4.7 $4.8 $4.9 $4.9 $4.8 $4.9
$6.0
$5.0
$4.0
$3.0
$2.0
$1.0
$‐
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Daily Service
Public Private
)

12
#6 Maintenance workers covering more space
Publics cover more space (have less staff) than Privates
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
‐
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
GSF/FTE
Maintenance Coverage Public Private
)

13
#7 Both public and privates increasing custodial coverage
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
‐
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
GSF/FTE
Custodial Coverage
Public Private
)

14
#8 Increasing energy efficiency, especially in fossil usage
0%
‐2%
‐4%
‐6%
‐8%
‐10%
‐12%
‐14%
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
‐
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
BTU/GSF
Normalized Energy Consumption
Fossil Consumption Electric Consumption Percent Change of Total Consumption
Overall Database

15
#8 Greater gains in efficiency seen in public institutions
Both public and private campuses are reducing consumption
2%
0%
‐2%
‐4%
‐6%
‐8%
‐10%
‐12%
‐14%
‐16%
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
‐
Public Private
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
BTU/GSF
Normalized Energy Consumption
Fossil Consumption Electric Consumption Percentage Change in Total Consumption
)

16
Conclusions
Age Profile of Campus
•Age profiles of ERAPPA campuses indicate that both public and private institutions face
growing deferred maintenance needs and overdue life cycles
Capital and Operating Expenditures
•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
Backlog Growth
•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
Positive Steps
•Positive steps include: More focus on durable investments, building systems; Annual
stewardship investment increasing despite economic downturn; Reductions in energy
consumption and costs.

17
Dalhousie University
Jeffrey Lamb, AVP Facilities Management

18
Dalhousie University ‐ Campus Profile
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
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
Campus age older than peers
Dalhousie has more high risk space than peers
53% 38%
13%
18%
11%
15%
23%
29%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Dalhousie University Peer Average
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
Buildings over 50
Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures
are possible. Core modernization cycles are missed.
Highest Risk
Buildings 25 to 50
65%
% of Space by Age Category
Life cycles are coming due in envelope and mechanical
systems. Functional obsolescence prevalent.
Higher Risk
Buildings 10 to 25
Lower cost space renewal updates and
initial signs of program pressures.
Medium Risk
Buildings Under 10
Little work .“Honeymoon” period.
Low Risk
Higher Risk
Higher Risk

20
Campus age profile impacts the cost of Operations
Work orders in buildings 25‐50 years carry a premium cost
Dalhousie Renovated Age Profile
13%
11%
53%
23%
$350
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/WO
Average Daily Service Work Order Cost
Total Daily Service Work Order Costs
7%
6%
62%
25%
DS Work Order Costs
over $100/GSF higher in
age category 25 to 50

21
Annual stewardship compared to peers
Dalhousie 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 targets
Dalhousie has been spending at least into the target range since 2010
$60.0
$50.0
$40.0
$30.0
$20.0
$10.0
$0.0
Decreasing Backlog
Increasing Backlog
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$ in Millions
Total Capital Investment
Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Target Need Life Cycle Need
*Includes capital investment into existing space only
Stabilizing Backlog
Life Cycle Need
Target Need

23
Dalhousie’s Backlog
Strategic capital investment has stabilized campus backlog
FY11 one‐time investment had a
large impact on the backlog

24
Longitudinal daily service and planned maintenance
Proactive 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 Gas
Over $1M was saved in FY12 due to switching from fuel oil to Natural Gas
$14.00
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Fossil Fuel Consumption and Cost
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
BTU/GSF $/MMBTU
BTU/GSF
$/MMBTU
Despite increased consumption, switching to
Natural Gas saved Dalhousie $1.2M in FY12 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
Opportunity to release operational FTEs
Buildings between 25‐50 yrs. old take longer to service
Age Category
Average hours/ DS
Work Order
Less than 10 2.75
10‐25 2.5
25‐50 5.0
Over 50 3.3
Age Category
Total Daily Service
Work Orders
Less than 10 1,538
10‐25 1,569
25‐50 7,878
Over 50 4,748
7,878 work orders/1 hour= 7,878
hours released!
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 College
Mark Frost, AVP Facilities Management

29
Siena is a private institution located in upstate NY
Campus profile
Catholic Franciscan Institution in
Loudonville, NY founded in 1937
Institutional Information:
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%

30
Siena has 25% of space over 50 years old
Generally favorable age profile relative to peers; Over 50 year old space is challenge
Higher Risk Highest Risk
13%
19%
39%
17%
23%
46%
25%
18%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Siena College Peer Average
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
Buildings over 50
Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures
are possible. Core modernization cycles are missed.
Buildings 25 to 50
65%
% of Space by Age Category
Life cycles are coming due in envelope and mechanical
systems. Functional obsolescence prevalent.
Higher Risk
Buildings 10 to 25
Lower cost space renewal updates and
initial signs of program pressures.
Medium Risk
Buildings Under 10
Little work .“Honeymoon” period.
Low Risk
Higher Risk

31
Building intensity measures the size of facilities
Smaller buildings on campus than peers challenges facilities operations
*Institutions ordered on the basis of density factor
Peer Average Database Average

32
Dollars per GSF Siena restricts daily service allocations over time
In FY2012 budgets are aligned with peer averages but less resources are available
$5.18 $5.05
Daily Service vs. Peer Averages
$5.54
$6.12 $5.90
$5.28 $4.99
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Siena Daily Service Peer Average Daily Service

33
Siena’s planned maintenance is 3% of operating budget
Below peers but growing over time
$0.34
$0.35
$0.39
$0.36 $0.37
$0.05
$0.11
$0.22
$0.17 $0.18
$0.45
$0.40
$0.35
$0.30
$0.25
$0.20
$0.15
$0.10
$0.05
$0.00
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
$/GSF
Peer Averages: Total Planned Maintenance Siena College:
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 College
Energy 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
$12.0
$10.0
$8.0
$6.0
$4.0
$2.0
$0.0
Decreasing Backlog
Life Cycle Need Stabilizing Backlog
Increasing Backlog
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$ in Millions
Total Capital Investment
Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Target Need Life Cycle Need
*Includes capital investment into existing space only
Target Need

36
Lack of investment yields an increasing backlog
Backlog increased by over $20 M since FY06

37
Identifying highest‐risk space on campus
Internal study identifies areas to target with larger capital infusions
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Net Asset Value
NAV = (Replacement Value – Backlog)
Replacement Value
Under 10 10‐25 25‐50 Over 50

Program Space Per Student Residential Space Per Student Student Life Space Per Student
38
Siena has less program space per student
Fall 2013 will see the opening of Rosetti Hall aligning Siena to peers with academic GSF
112 GSF
141 GSF
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
GSF
199 GSF
173 GSF
250
200
150
100
50
0
GSF
72 GSF 70 GSF
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GSF
Even at peer averages for space distribution, Siena feels
overcrowded and confined with the current space available.

39
Discovering key information from utilization analysis
Utilization 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.

ERAPPA Webinar on Facilities Trends and Challenges - Co-hosted by Sightlines

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ERAPPA Webinar on Facilities Trends and Challenges - Co-hosted by Sightlines

Similar to ERAPPA Webinar on Facilities Trends and Challenges - Co-hosted by Sightlines (20)

More from Sightlines

More from Sightlines (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ERAPPA Webinar on Facilities Trends and Challenges - Co-hosted by Sightlines