1 
New Strategies for Attacking Deferred Maintenance 
Presenters: 
Jim Kadamus, Vice President, Sightlines 
Juanita Holler...
2 
A Few Housekeeping Items 
Enter questions here at any 
point during the webinar 
Please call us at (215) 983‐7125 with ...
3 
Today’s Agenda 
Trends in Higher Education and What They Mean for 
You – Jim Kadamus 
Five Easy Steps to Reduce Facil...
4 
Trends in Higher Education Facilities and What They 
Mean for You
5 
Sightlines National Database 
345 campuses in 42 States – evenly split public and private 
• Annually tracking $5.9 bil...
6 
#1 Campuses are getting older 
More high risk space on campus 
(%) Square Footage over 25 years old 
(Renovation Age) 
...
7 
#2 Capital investment moves up and down in cycles over time 
Recurring capital remains steady; 2012 totals are equal to...
8 
#3 Capital investment mix changed modestly since 2005 
Proportionately less investment in space as overall capital fund...
9 
#4 “Backlog of needs” are increasing 
Backlogs up about $11/GSF over last six years 
Total Backlog $/GSF 
$100 
$90 
$8...
10 
#5 Facilities operating budgets flat since 2008 
Operating budgets are flat; 2012 budgets are equivalent to 2007 level...
11 
Conclusions 
• More buildings are crossing over into higher risk age profile and will increase 
campus backlog unless ...
12 
Five Easy Steps CFOs Can Take to Reduce Facilities 
Risk Exposure
13 
Five steps to reduce facilities risk exposure 
1. Understand your campus age profile. 
2. Understand the cost of keepi...
14 
#1 Understand Age Profile of Campus – Past, Present and Future 
Younger buildings have moved into older age categories...
15 
Old age results in higher risk 
Campus has more space that falls into the higher risk categories than peers 
Buildings...
16 
#2 Defining Stewardship Investment Targets 
Setting a yearly goal to arrest the rate of facility depreciation 
$31.1 
...
17 
Understand Rates of Deferrals 
$18.0 
$16.0 
$14.0 
$12.0 
$10.0 
$8.0 
$6.0 
$4.0 
$2.0 
$0.0 
$9.5 Million 
FY01 FY0...
18 
% of Total Replacement Value Annual Stewardship Compared to Depreciation 
Annual Stewardship not keeping up with rate ...
19 
#3 Making Sure Capital Project Mix is Diverse 
Project mix adjusts over time to meet campus needs 
My Campus
20 
#4 Utilizing work order data to identify hot spots 
$‐ 
$50,000.00 
$100,000.00 
$150,000.00 
$200,000.00 
$250,000.00...
21 
Opportunity to release operational FTEs 
Buildings between 25‐50 yrs. old take longer to service 
Age Category 
Averag...
22 
#5 Monitor Energy Cost and Consumption 
45 
40 
35 
30 
25 
20 
15 
10 
5 
0 
FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 ...
23 
UMass Amherst’s Experience
24 
University of Mass. ‐ Amherst Background Information 
• Flagship public institution 
• 10.4 M GSF 
• Located in Amhers...
25 
Campus Overview ‐ 2005 
Campus was aging Energy Consumption was Increasing
26 
Campus Overview 2005 
FY00‐FY05 Investment 
12% 
17% 
41% 
13% 
17% 
Bldg. Envelope 
Bldg. Systems 
Space 
Code 
Infra...
27 
Steps towards a solution 
The Integrated Facilities Plan process 
Identify 
the needs 
Segment 
the needs 
Develop a 
...
28 
Findings of Initial Report 
Over $2 billion in needs Over 60% of the needs 
$2,500 
$2,000 
$1,500 
$1,000 
$500 
$0 
...
29 
Findings of Initial Report – continued 
$600 
$500 
$400 
$300 
$200 
$100 
$0 
Identified Needs by System and Timefra...
30 
Segmenting the campus with the Building Portfolio Approach 
Campus is too complex to be managed with a single strategy...
31 
Reassessing our Building Portfolio Designations 
FY11 Building Investments by Portfolio 
20% 
17% 
34% 
0.21% 2% 
25% ...
32 
Using the inventory to make 
strategic decisions
33 
Using the Net Asset Value (NAV) to identify opportunities 
100% 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0% 
NAV ...
34 
Bartlett Hall Operating Costs 
FY08, FY09, FY10 
Descriptive text goes here 
$379 
$118 
$24 
$173 
$415 $414 $371 $40...
35 
Descriptive text goes here 
$5.04 
$1.32 
$6 
$5 
$4 
$3 
$2 
$1 
$0 
FY08‐FY10 Average 
$/GSF 
Bartlett Hall & Alfond...
36 
Renovate Existing or Demolish and Build New? 
Determine 10‐Year total needs for the existing building vs. New Construc...
37 
Progress towards reduction of needs 
Lowest existing needs since 12/2006 
$1,479 $1,548 
$1,974 $1,895 $1,831 $1,887 $...
38 
Progress with project selection 
Space‐heavy project spending 
FY00‐FY05 Investment 
12% 
17% 
17% 
41% 
13% 
Bldg. En...
39 
The keys to success 
• Understanding key metrics and how UMA compared 
with peers 
• A comprehensive list of identifie...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

New strategies for attacking deferred maintenance december 2012

612

Published on

Learn how national data trends show campus buildings are aging and campus backlogs are growing. And, that these trends will accelerate over the next ten years as building constructed in the 1960's turn 50 years old and capital funding from all sources continue to be limited.

Furthermore, learn how the partnership between Sightlines, LLC and University of Massachusetts - Amherst that began in 2005 resulted in more refined documented building conditions, creation of portfolios of projects, and engaged campus leadership in a priority setting process to reach consensus on a multi-year capital plan through the Integrated Facilities Planning process.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
612
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
31
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Facilities MB&A
  • And all of this while our underinvestment into buildings is driving up our backlog of needs.
  • Included in FY11-FY16 building inventory: FY14 – Stetson Hall Section of New Sawyer Building Online and New Library; Sawyer Library demolishedIncluded in FY11 IFP Update but not in building inventory: A Timeframe - Construction of New Offsite Storage, Rebuild Class of ‘37 (formerly Children’s Center); Weston Field & Plansky Track ComplexB Timeframe – Relocation of complex including service building, B&G North, and Agway area; Construction of SE Quadrant Chiller Plant
  • Campus was aging: without large-scale capital infusions to target building renovations, the campus renovation age was increasing steadily. Many buildings were in a period of major life cycle needs, and others were already beyond that period and has “missed” life cycles, straining the maintenance staff with on going emergency repair needs.Energy Consumption increasing: with older, inefficient building systems in many campus facilities, energy consumption was increasing. There had been little to no efforts made to modernize and reduce energy consumption.
  • The investments that had been made were very space-heavy. This was a particularly dangerous profile for two reasons:With the average age of campus facilities at 45 years old, many buildings had significant needs within building mechanical systems, yet investment was being focused on space renewal work, such as painting, flooring, and furniture. This strategy not only results in potential exposures (missed life cycles on the building systems and components).It is indicative of the campus users driving the project selection; without a methodology behind project selection, the campus administration is unable to justify deferring one project over another.
  • None of the previous three trends are good trends to have. In order to fundamentally change the trends and the campus mentality about capital investment strategies, the university needed a more comprehensive view.Working with Sightlines, UMA identified the needs on campus on a project-by-project level. Segmenting the needs into manageable portfolios based on investment strategy allowed for multiple buildings and project types to be manage simultaneously, rather than by a single plan. Strategies were developed to address the needs on campus, and the progress towards the strategy is reviewed every 6 months. Each year the plan, allocations, and strategies are reviewed by facilities and finance administrators.
  • These are the findings from the initial 2006 report:Over $2.0 billion in needs, of which $1.6 billing were within the existing campus (i.e. NOT new construction)Of those existing needs, over 60% of them were “A timeframe”, or near-term needs. This is reflective of the historic spending levels and selection, as well as the age of campus.
  • In order to break this “elephant in the room” into logical (and less intimidating) pieces, Building Portfolios (see red outlined boxes) were created to allow for groups of buildings to be managed under a single investment strategy.Transitional Facilities: buildings that would not be part of the UMA campus in the upcoming years, due either to demolition or saleBuilding Renovation: buildings that would require a full renovation in the upcoming yearsRepurpose: buildings that would be repurposed within the upcoming yearsMaintain: campus facilities that would not receive major capital infusions for gut renovations- regular stewardship and operational needs would be met
  • Each year, as part of the monitoring process, we review how the past year’s expenditures were split among the portfolios. Spending into the “Transitional” Portfolio (shown in purple) are closely reviewed to understand if the plan for these facilities had changed (i.e. the building would no longer be demolished and should be moved to another Portfolio) or if there was a programmatic request that was approved that did not meet the investment strategy.
  • Using both operating costs and identified capital needs from the Integrated Facilities Plan, we were able to determine the 10-year costs for existing buildings. Our first focus was Bartlett Hall, a 114,000 GSF Academic Building built in 1960 that had not received any major capital renovations since it’s construction. This chart displays the annual operating costs (and the 3-year average of those costs) for Barlett Hall – this information was collected from the UMA work order system, which tracks contract, labor, material, and utility costs by building. On average, UMA was spending $573,000 annually to operate this facility. The equates to just over $5/GSF.
  • Using both operating costs and identified capital needs from the Integrated Facilities Plan, we were able to determine the 10-year costs for existing buildings. Our first focus was Bartlett Hall, a 114,000 GSF Academic Building built in 1960 that had not received any major capital renovations since it’s construction. This chart displays the annual operating costs (and the 3-year average of those costs) for Barlett Hall – this information was collected from the UMA work order system, which tracks contract, labor, material, and utility costs by building. On average, UMA was spending $573,000 annually to operate this facility. The equates to just over $5/GSF.
  • Using this information, we could compare the capital and operational costs over the next 10 years of renovating the existing building vs. demolishing it and building a new facility of the same size. This analysis showed that it was less expensive to do the latter.
  • UMA has been using the IFP for 6 years to date, monitoring progress every 6 months. After the initial findings were shared, UMA received a major capital infusion to improve campus conditions and address the deferred maintenance. In that time, we have seen the building needs decrease by 18%. Many buildings have been renovated, or demolished and replaced with new facilities.
  • Spending profile from FY06-FY11 has lowered space investment, improved investment into Building Systems and InfrastructureShould also note that spending as a whole increased thanks to state funding made available after the initial findings were shared.
  • New strategies for attacking deferred maintenance december 2012

    1. 1. 1 New Strategies for Attacking Deferred Maintenance Presenters: Jim Kadamus, Vice President, Sightlines Juanita Holler, Associate Vice Chancellor of Facilities & Campus Services, University of Massachusetts ‐ Amherst December 5, 2012
    2. 2. 2 A Few Housekeeping Items Enter questions here at any point during the webinar Please call us at (215) 983‐7125 with technical questions – audio, video, etc.
    3. 3. 3 Today’s Agenda Trends in Higher Education and What They Mean for You – Jim Kadamus Five Easy Steps to Reduce Facilities Risk – Jim Kadamus UMass Amherst Experience – Juanita Holler
    4. 4. 4 Trends in Higher Education Facilities and What They Mean for You
    5. 5. 5 Sightlines National Database 345 campuses in 42 States – evenly split public and private • Annually tracking $5.9 billion in operations budgets and $9.0 billion in capital projects • Database of 345 campuses, 25,000 buildings and 1 billion GSF
    6. 6. 6 #1 Campuses are getting older More high risk space on campus (%) Square Footage over 25 years old (Renovation Age) 19% 19% 20% 21% 22% 23% 41% 40% 39% 39% 38% 36% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 % of Space 25 to 50 % of Space Over 50 Overall Database
    7. 7. 7 #2 Capital investment moves up and down in cycles over time Recurring capital remains steady; 2012 totals are equal to 2007 levels $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $0 Capital Investment in Existing Space ‐ $/GSF 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Capital One‐time Capital Overall Database
    8. 8. 8 #3 Capital investment mix changed modestly since 2005 Proportionately less investment in space as overall capital funding grows Overall Database 14% Total Project Spending Mix 28% FY2005 14% 35% 9% 17% 29% FY2012 17% 30% 7% Building Envelope Building Systems Infrastructure Space Renewal Safety/Code
    9. 9. 9 #4 “Backlog of needs” are increasing Backlogs up about $11/GSF over last six years Total Backlog $/GSF $100 $90 $80 $70 $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Overall Database
    10. 10. 10 #5 Facilities operating budgets flat since 2008 Operating budgets are flat; 2012 budgets are equivalent to 2007 levels Overall Database Daily Service Budget
    11. 11. 11 Conclusions • More buildings are crossing over into higher risk age profile and will increase campus backlog unless addressed • Shrinking capital and operating budgets and increasing debt will make setting clear priorities for capital renewal critical • Renovate or demolish decisions will become more common in next decade, especially for the +50 buildings • Cuts in operating budgets will force campuses to find new ways to deploy staff without reducing levels of service and quality of campus appearance • Campuses need data‐driven strategies for documenting backlog of need, creating portfolios for investments and identifying highest priority projects
    12. 12. 12 Five Easy Steps CFOs Can Take to Reduce Facilities Risk Exposure
    13. 13. 13 Five steps to reduce facilities risk exposure 1. Understand your campus age profile. 2. Understand the cost of keeping‐up (Annual Stewardship) and how much cost you are deferring into the future. 3. Understand your capital project mix – is it diverse and hitting all aspects of campus need? 4. Understand work order hot spots – this information can tell you where the greatest risks are on campus. 5. Understand energy consumption and costs to identify opportunities for savings.
    14. 14. 14 #1 Understand Age Profile of Campus – Past, Present and Future Younger buildings have moved into older age categories since FY01 Shift in Campus Renovated Age Profile 47% 40% 29% 14% 22% 40% 53% 56% 15% 12% 10% 19% 16% 8% 8% 11% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% FY01 FY06 FY11 FY16 Under 10 Years 10 to 25 Years 25 to 50 Years Over 50 Years
    15. 15. 15 Old age results in higher risk Campus has more space that falls into the higher risk categories than peers Buildings over 50 Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures are possible. Highest risk Buildings 25 to 50 Life Cycles are coming due in envelope and mechanical systems. Higher Risk Buildings 10 to 25 Lower cost space renewal updates. Medium Risk Buildings Under 10 Little work .“Honeymoon” period. Low Risk Highest Risk Highest Risk Highest Risk Higher Risk Higher Risk Higher Risk Medium Risk Medium Risk Medium Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk My Campus
    16. 16. 16 #2 Defining Stewardship Investment Targets Setting a yearly goal to arrest the rate of facility depreciation $31.1 FY2011 Stewardship Targets $15.2 Replacement Value: $1.04 B $7.6 $11.6 $8.7 $35.00 $30.00 $25.00 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need (Equilibrium) Functional Obsolescence (Target) $ in Millions Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program Straight Line Deprecation Sightlines Recommendation Total $ in Millions $31.1 $26.8 $16.3 % of Replacement 3% 2.59% 1.57%
    17. 17. 17 Understand Rates of Deferrals $18.0 $16.0 $14.0 $12.0 $10.0 $8.0 $6.0 $4.0 $2.0 $0.0 $9.5 Million FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 $ in Millions Stewardship Spending Mix Envelope/Mechanical Space/Programming $80.0 $70.0 $60.0 $50.0 $40.0 $30.0 $20.0 $10.0 $‐ $21.7 Million 11 Year Target Total Actual 11 Year Investment $ in Millions Envelope/Mechanical Target vs. Actuals $80.0 $70.0 $60.0 $50.0 $40.0 $30.0 $20.0 $10.0 $‐ 11 Year Target Total Actual 11 Year Investment $ in Millions Space/Programming Target vs. Actuals $24.8 Million $8.5 Million $7.7 Million $5.8 Million
    18. 18. 18 % of Total Replacement Value Annual Stewardship Compared to Depreciation Annual Stewardship not keeping up with rate of depreciation expense 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% Annual Stewardship Spending vs. Depreciation Expense FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FMB&A: Equilibrium Need FS: Depreciation Expense FMB&A: Stewardship Actual Investement
    19. 19. 19 #3 Making Sure Capital Project Mix is Diverse Project mix adjusts over time to meet campus needs My Campus
    20. 20. 20 #4 Utilizing work order data to identify hot spots $‐ $50,000.00 $100,000.00 $150,000.00 $200,000.00 $250,000.00 $300,000.00 $350,000.00 $400,000.00 $450,000.00 $500,000.00 KENNETH C ROWE MANA HOWE‐FOUNTAIN HOUSE CHAPTER HOUSE ROBIE ST 1322 LSRI‐SOUTH TOWER ELECTRICAL MOBILE 2 GOLDBERG COMPUTER SCIENCE BUILDING CENTRAL SRV‐PARKADE IND ENG&CONT ED I MACNAB‐A BLD ADDI RALPH MEDJUCK‐ADDIT TUPPER BLDG KILLAM LIBRARY STUD. UNION BLDG FORREST MEMORIAL ARENA LSC‐COMMON AREA CHEMISTRY PODIUM SEXTON MEMORIAL GYM BERNARD CAIN‐Q BLDG A.E. CAMERON‐P BLDG SHIRREFF HALL BURBIDGE RALPH M MEDJUCK BLD B BUILDING UNIVERSITY CLUB MACDONALD BLDG UNIVERSITY AVE 6214 STAIRS HOUSE COBURG ROAD 6414 UNIVERSITY AVE 6220 LYALL HOUSE R1‐BUILDING LEMARCHANT ST 1390 COBURG ROAD 6420 SEXTON HOUSE‐E BLDG 10 25 50 100 Total FY11 Daily Service Work Order Cost by Building & Age Category Tupper Building 1380 Work Orders $436,000 953 Work Orders Dentistry $380,000 Central Services 519 Work Orders $372,000 652 Work Orders Library $260,000 Strategically “resetting” high cost buildings can reduce “corrective” ops. costs
    21. 21. 21 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 4.10 10‐25 3.70 25‐50 5.25 Over 50 4.31 Age Category Total Daily Service Work Orders Less than 10 1,295.00 10‐25 2,060.00 25‐50 8,774.00 Over 50 4,797.00 Reduce average work order time in 25‐50 yr. old buildings by 1 hour. 8774 work orders/1 hour= 8774 hours released! 8774 hours/2080 hours (1 FTE)= 4.2 Maintenance FTEs
    22. 22. 22 #5 Monitor Energy Cost and Consumption 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 $/MMBTU Energy Unit Cost Trends VS. Peers UVM Fossil Unit Cost UVM Electric Unit Cost Peer Fossil Unit Cost Peer Electric Unit Cost 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 BTU/GSF Energy Consumption Trends VS. Peers UVM Fossil Consumption UVM Electric Consumption Peer Fossil Consumption Peer Electric Consumption Campus Campus Campus Campus
    23. 23. 23 UMass Amherst’s Experience
    24. 24. 24 University of Mass. ‐ Amherst Background Information • Flagship public institution • 10.4 M GSF • Located in Amherst, MA • Sightlines member since 2004
    25. 25. 25 Campus Overview ‐ 2005 Campus was aging Energy Consumption was Increasing
    26. 26. 26 Campus Overview 2005 FY00‐FY05 Investment 12% 17% 41% 13% 17% Bldg. Envelope Bldg. Systems Space Code Infrastructure Space‐heavy project spending
    27. 27. 27 Steps towards a solution The Integrated Facilities Plan process Identify the needs Segment the needs Develop a strategy Track progress towards strategy Reassess plan progress & goals
    28. 28. 28 Findings of Initial Report Over $2 billion in needs Over 60% of the needs $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 Identified Needs Millions Original Needs Identified ‐ 2006 Building Needs Infrastructure New Construction were near‐term Existing Needs 61% 15% 24% A: 1‐3 years B: 4‐6 years C: 7‐10 years
    29. 29. 29 Findings of Initial Report – continued $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 Identified Needs by System and Timeframe A: 1‐3 Years B: 4‐6 Years C: 7‐10 Years
    30. 30. 30 Segmenting the campus with the Building Portfolio Approach Campus is too complex to be managed with a single strategy Total Project Inventory $2,280 M New Space $571 M Building Needs $1,627 M Transitional Facilities $196 M Building Renovation $581 M Repurpose $40 M Maintain $812 M Non‐housing facilities $602 M Housing facilities $208 M Site & Infrastructure Needs $80.4 M Note: data shows current FY11 data
    31. 31. 31 Reassessing our Building Portfolio Designations FY11 Building Investments by Portfolio 20% 17% 34% 0.21% 2% 25% 2% Maintain Maintain (Housing) Building Renovation Transitional Repurpose Infrastructure New Space Building Portfolio FY11 Investment ($/GSF) Maintain $3.58 Maintain ( Housing) $4.30 Building Renovation $14.89 Transitional $1.54 Repurpose $1.29
    32. 32. 32 Using the inventory to make strategic decisions
    33. 33. 33 Using the Net Asset Value (NAV) to identify opportunities 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% NAV – Maintain Portfolio Investment Strategy 0 10 20 30 40 50 “Keep Up” Stage: Primarily new or recently renovated buildings w/ sporadic building repair & life cycle needs Balanced Profile Stage: Buildings are beginning to show their age and may require more significant investment and renovation on a case‐by‐case basis “Catch Up” Stage: Buildings require more significant repairs; major building components are in jeopardy of complete failure; large‐scale capital infusions or renovations are inevitable Replacement Value – Deferred Maintenance Net Asset Value = Replacement Value
    34. 34. 34 Bartlett Hall Operating Costs FY08, FY09, FY10 Descriptive text goes here $379 $118 $24 $173 $415 $414 $371 $400 $900 $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $‐ FY08 FY09 FY10 FY08‐FY10 Average Thousands Bartlett Hall Annual Operating Costs $ in Thousands Other Costs Maintenance & Custodial Costs $794 $531 $395 $573 FY08-FY10 Average Included in Analysis Building Maintenance $ 60,888 Contract Administration $ 787 Contract Oversight $ 1 66,880 Custodial $ 3 39,167 Pest Control $ 308 Utilities $ 5,362 Total Included $ 5 73,393 Excluded in Analysis Alterations $ 14,525 Moving Services $ 566 Total Excluded $ 15,091 Grand Total All Expenses $ 5 88,484 Understanding operating costs of old vs. new space…
    35. 35. 35 Descriptive text goes here $5.04 $1.32 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $0 FY08‐FY10 Average $/GSF Bartlett Hall & Alfond Hall FY08‐FY10 Average Annual Operating Costs ‐ $/GSF Bartlett Hall Alfond Hall Bartlett Hall Operating Costs FY08, FY09, FY10 Numbers to Remember Operating Costs Bartlett Hall: $5.04/GSF New Facility: $1.32/GSF Understanding operating costs of old vs. new space…
    36. 36. 36 Renovate Existing or Demolish and Build New? Determine 10‐Year total needs for the existing building vs. New Construction Bartlett Hall Descriptive text goes here GSF 113,748 FY11‐FY20 Capital Needs $52.9 M FY11‐FY20 Stewardship Needs $3.5 M Immediate Funding to Address Reliability Needs $5.7 M FY11‐FY20 Operating Cost $5.7 M Swing Space Funding TBD Total Associated Costs $67.7 M New Facility* GSF 113,748 Demolition of Existing Bartlett Hall** $2.7 M Planning/Relocation costs TBD New Construction $51.2 M FY13‐FY20 Stewardship Needs $6.5 M FY13‐FY20 Operating Cost $1.2 M Total Associated Costs $58.9M Total 10‐Year Costs $ in Millions $53 $6 $54 $7 $3 $6 $1 $‐ $20 $40 $60 $80 Bartlett Hall New Facility Millions *Opening of new facility assumed for 2013. Operating Costs based on $/GSF costs for Alfond Hall. **Demolition estimated at $23/GSF (based on University Apartments demolition cost). Capital Requirements Reliability Needs Stewardship Needs Operating Costs It is less expensive to demolish Bartlett Hall and construct a new facility than to renovate the existing facility. •Non‐quantifiable factors: •Current building configuration •Program needs •Funding options (donors for new space vs. University/state funding for renovations) Bartlett Hall
    37. 37. 37 Progress towards reduction of needs Lowest existing needs since 12/2006 $1,479 $1,548 $1,974 $1,895 $1,831 $1,887 $1,792 $1,704 $1,627 $118 $121 $126 $107 $105 $106 $82 $85 $80 $640 $640 $457 $434 $434 $427 $410 $603 $571 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 Original IFP Dec. 06 Udpate April 09 Update Fall 09 Update FY09 ROPA Analysis January 2010 Update June 2010 Update January 2011 Update June 2011 Update Millions IFP Identified Needs by Update Stage Building Needs Infrastructure New Space
    38. 38. 38 Progress with project selection Space‐heavy project spending FY00‐FY05 Investment 12% 17% 17% 41% 13% Bldg. Envelope Bldg. Systems Space Code Infrastructure Balanced spending mix FY06‐FY11 Investment 11% 26% 22% 29% 12% Bldg. Envelope Bldg. Systems Space Code Infrastructure
    39. 39. 39 The keys to success • Understanding key metrics and how UMA compared with peers • A comprehensive list of identified needs Knowing where we were • Making decisions about the future of specific buildings • Creating investment strategies by building portfolio Creating A Plan • Regular review of successes and failures • Adjust as necessary – flexibility is important Monitoring the Plan
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×