Virginia State University 
Wagner College 
Washburn University 
Wellesley College 
Wesleyan University 
West Chester Unive...
About Sightlines
Who Does Sightlines Provide Value To? 
400 + College and 
University 
campuses, in 44 
states rely on 
Sightlines to 
impr...
Finance Database 
$17B in annual 
operating and capital 
Facilities Database 
45,000 buildings 
1.2 Billion square feet 
5...
The Sightlines process 
• Sightlines collects and assembles data on 
campus to quantify, verify, and qualify facility 
per...
Changing the Conversation Operations Success 
ROPA Radar Chart 
Annual 
Stewardship 
Reinvestment 
Asset 
Operating 
Effec...
An integration of formerly unrelated parts 
Tracking change over time to identify strengths & opportunities 
1. Stewardshi...
Corey Ruff 
Executive Director, Facilities 
& Campus Management 
(325) 674-2665 
corey.ruff@acu.edu
Campus profile 
> Type: Private, comprehensive university 
> Founded: 1906 
> Located in: Abilene, TX 
> Enrollment: 4,600...
Challenges 
> Change in Leadership 
> New President – 2010 
> New Senior Leadership Team 
> More data driven 
> Historical...
Determining Peers 
Tech rating impacts: 
• Energy Consumption 
• Maintenance Staffing 
• Replacement Values 
• Stewardship...
Campus age profile – Impacts investment profile 
63% of space is considered in high risk for life cycle failures 
18% 16% ...
How much should we spend? 
ACU spending well under target 
$13.4 
FY12 Stewardship Targets 
$5.2 
$3.9 
$1.1 
$5.8 
$2.9 
...
Gap Widening = Backlog is increasing 
$12.0 
$10.0 
$8.0 
$6.0 
$4.0 
$2.0 
$0.0 
Total 5 year 
deferral = $21.2M 
2008 20...
Capital Spending vs. Peers 
$3.38 
Peers 
5Y avg. 
$1.25 
ACU 
5Y avg. 
Both ACU & peers 
are spending less 
on total proj...
Capital Spending by Package = Adding credibility 
ACU Spending FY12 
34% 
22% 
4% 
27% 13% 
FY12 $/GSF Investment 
$0.82 
...
Facilities Operating Budget = Comparing Resources 
Daily service lags, planned maintenance is on par with peers
Off the Chart Maintenance Coverage 
Facilities staff delivers superior results with fewer resources 
Peer: 
105,072 
DB: 
...
Intuition to Fact 
Data helped support our intuitions 
> Having a 3rd party collect, quantify, verify, and qualify data 
v...
Lee McQueen 
Director of Facilities 
Management & Planning 
(308) 865-1700 
mcqueenlv@unk.edu
Campus profile 
> Type: Public, Residential, Comprehensive 
University 
> Founded: 1905 
> Located in: Kearney, NE 
> Enro...
Yesterday….. 
Questions being asked 
Issues 
• Lots of data, limited information. 
• Non-validated data 
• How do we use i...
Physical Profile
Age profile for UNK 
UNK’s age profile is well distributed; Revenue Bond space is younger on average 
16% 
27% 26% 
31% 
1...
Age profile for UNK 
UNK’s age profile is well distributed; Revenue Bond space is younger on average 
Buildings over 50 
L...
8% 
7% 
6% 
5% 
4% 
3% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
$60 
$55 
$50 
$45 
$40 
$35 
$30 
$25 
$20 
$15 
$10 
$5 
$0 
$/GSF 
Amortization 
<1...
Capital Investments
Total capital spending 
Total FY12 spending was $1.9M 
$35.0 
$30.0 
$25.0 
$20.0 
$15.0 
$10.0 
$5.0 
$0.0 
Avg: $11.7M 
...
Annual stewardship investment vs. target 
State Aided performance vs. Revenue Bond 
$10.0 
$9.0 
$8.0 
$7.0 
$6.0 
$5.0 
$...
Total project spending by funding source 
State Aided performance vs. Revenue Bond 
$10.0 
$9.0 
$8.0 
$7.0 
$6.0 
$5.0 
$...
Total funding vs. target compared to peers 
Peers have funded consistently more than UNK over the last six years 
160 
140...
Project spending by type 
Revenue bond has invested a lot into safety, while state aided is more balanced 
$2.00 
$1.80 
$...
Asset Reinvestment Backlog 
Failing to reach target spending recently has caused backlog to grow rapidly 
120.00 
100.00 
...
Operations Overview
Facilities operating budget compared to peers
Energy consumption remains above peer average 
Lower unit costs than peers avoided over $550,000 in energy costs in FY12 
...
Maintenance operations 
Space is harder to maintain at a high level due to low capital investment 
Peer: 78,864 DB: 86,312...
Custodial operations 
Custodians have less personnel but more materials resources to keep campus clean 
Peer: 34,088 DB: 3...
Grounds operations 
Grounds department is utilizing less resources than peers 
DB: 21.2 Peer: 25.5 DB: 7.8 Peer: 12.3 
DB:...
UNK Actions Taken and Future Strategy 
• Reassigned custodial staff to bridge supervision gap 
• Determined maintenance st...
Glen Haubold 
Assistant Vice President, Facilities 
(575) 646-2101 
ghaubold@nmsu.edu
New Mexico State University 
> Type: Public, Land Grant, Extensive 
Doctoral/Research University 
> Founded: 1888 
> Locat...
Good Old Days?
Physical Profile
Campus Age Profile 
Composite campus: 4.6M GSF 
8% 
14% 
44% 
34% 
14% 
34% 
40% 
12% 
50% 
45% 
40% 
35% 
30% 
25% 
20% 
...
Lifecycle Cost by Age of Space 
9% approaching period of increased maintenance need, 4% nearing end of lifecycle 
$70.00 
...
Building Intensity 
Composite Campus Building Intensity is 147 
Sutherland Village: 200 buildings 
Tom Fort Village: 100 b...
Capital Investments
Annual Stewardship - Composite 
Deferring an average of $7.9M/year to the backlog 
$35.0 
$30.0 
$25.0 
$20.0 
$15.0 
$10....
Millions Total Capital Investment 
One-time spending has helped to sustain NAV in I&G space 
$35.0 
$30.0 
$25.0 
$20.0 
$...
Capital Spending vs. Peers 
Project spending by GSF is less than peers 
$4.28 
Peers 
8Y avg. 
$2.92 
NMSU 
8Y avg. 
NMSU ...
Project Mix vs. Peers 
NMSU focused on space, less on envelope & mechanical needs 
I&G Project Mix 
FY08-12 
8% 
24% 
30% ...
Operations Overview
Facilities Operating Budget 
5Y Daily Service average is $1.87/gsf, below FY12 peer average 
$12.00 
$10.00 
$8.00 
$6.00 ...
Regionally Adjusted 
Regionally adjusted, NMSU spends closer to peers 
$12.00 
$10.00 
$8.00 
$6.00 
$4.00 
$2.00 
$0.00 
...
Daily Service – Regionally Adjusted 
Resources available to NMSU F&S are still scarce vs. peers 
$3.37 
Peers FY12 
$1.92 ...
Maintenance Staffing 
Staffing levels in line with peer average, higher materials per GSF used in FY12 
0 1 2 3 4 5 
Insti...
Custodial Staffing 
Lower supervision level, overall lower cleanliness score 
Inspection Scores: 
0 1 2 3 4 5 
Institution...
Grounds Staffing 
Significantly fewer materials available to staff, lower inspection scores 
Inspection Scores: 
0 1 2 3 4...
Energy Consumption 
Reduction in energy use saves NMSU $646k vs. FY11 
Saving $646k by consuming less fuel in FY12 vs. FY1...
Future…
Closing Remarks
ROI = The Multiplier Effect of Reinvested Savings 
Measuring the impact of proactive costs vs. reactive 
$1 per GSF Invest...
If you remember, remember this… 
• Independent Third Party Verification 
• Consistent & Credible Collection Methodology 
•...
National Trends
66
#1 Space Getting Older 
Both groups have increasing percentage of over 50 year old space 
(%) Square Footage over 25 years...
#2 Privates recovered from recession faster than publics 
Both private and public campuses commit more annual funding 
Pub...
#3 Where Capital Dollars are Spent 
Both Public and Private Investing More Into Core Building Systems and Components 
2007...
#4 Publics have high backlog, but slower growth 
Private institutions backlog is less, but growing at a faster rate 
$84 $...
#4b Deferred Maintenance Backlog and Inspection Scores 
Correlation between Building Age, Backlog and Campus Appearance 
4...
#5 Public and Private Institutions Have Flat Growth 
$4.15 $4.35 $4.45 $4.22 $4.33 $4.41 $4.24 $4.41 $4.44 $4.44 $4.50 $4....
#5 Increasing Maintenance Coverage 
95,000 
90,000 
85,000 
80,000 
75,000 
70,000 
65,000 
60,000 
55,000 
50,000 
2007 2...
#5 Increasing Custodial Coverage 
40,000 
38,000 
36,000 
34,000 
32,000 
30,000 
28,000 
26,000 
24,000 
22,000 
20,000 
...
76
Questions & Comments 
Thomas Huberty 
(203)682-4981 
thuberty@sightlines.com 
Glen Haubold 
(575) 646-2101 
ghaubold@nmsu....
Is Your Facilities Data Fact, Fiction, or Crap? - Creating Facilities Intelligence for Data Driven Decision Making on Campus
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Is Your Facilities Data Fact, Fiction, or Crap? - Creating Facilities Intelligence for Data Driven Decision Making on Campus

425 views

Published on

In this session, Abilene Christian University, University of Nebraska at Kearney, and New Mexico State University will share with you the steps they have taken to harness vast amounts of facilities and financial data to create facilities intelligence. Additionally, they will share how they have used this knowledge to provide strategic decision making support not only within their respective facilities organizations but also with senior administration and across the broader campus community. In a time of limited resources and competing demands, the value of validated data has never been greater.
Through a process of independent third party validation, benchmarking, and analysis they have been able to position their organizations for success. The creation of a common vocabulary allows information to be communicated effectively from the boiler room to the board room, thus helping their institutions understand both the impact of historic decisions and what the impact of future decisions may be on campus facilities. Much like institutions analyze the ROI of their endowments, this data-driven, fact-based analysis allows campuses to understand the interrelation of annual stewardship, asset reinvestment, operating effectiveness, and customer service; and how decisions in one of these areas can either positively or negatively impact other areas.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Is Your Facilities Data Fact, Fiction, or Crap? - Creating Facilities Intelligence for Data Driven Decision Making on Campus

  1. 1. Virginia State University Wagner College Washburn University Wellesley College Wesleyan University West Chester University of Pennsylvania West Virginia Health Sciences Center West Virginia University Western Connecticut State University Western Oregon University Westfield State University Wheaton College (MA) Whitworth University Widener University Williams College Williston Northampton School Worcester State University Xavier University Yeshiva University Youngstown State University Fact, Fiction, or Crap How is Your Facilities Data?
  2. 2. About Sightlines
  3. 3. Who Does Sightlines Provide Value To? 400 + College and University campuses, in 44 states rely on Sightlines to improve their facilities management. Context through benchmarking Common facilities vocabulary Consistent analytical methodology
  4. 4. Finance Database $17B in annual operating and capital Facilities Database 45,000 buildings 1.2 Billion square feet 50,000+ workers 177M MMBTUs of energy Capital Renewal Database Lifecycle data on 5000 buildings 250M GSF Carbon Database Access to 600+ campus carbon programs Based on Industry-Leading Databases Changing the way higher education looks at facilities
  5. 5. The Sightlines process • Sightlines collects and assembles data on campus to quantify, verify, and qualify facility performance. Measure • Through the benchmarking process, institutions have the capability to create custom comparisons that help them understand context and performance. Benchmark • Sightlines synthesizes an institution's verified Analyze data to develop strategic directions for change. • Sightlines continues to support each campus through the member website, educational webinars, and ongoing consultation with staff. Membership
  6. 6. Changing the Conversation Operations Success ROPA Radar Chart Annual Stewardship Reinvestment Asset Operating Effectiveness Service Target Actual Optimal The annual investment needed to ensure buildings will properly perform and reach their useful life “Keep-Up Costs” Annual Stewardship The accumulated backlog of repair / modernization needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them “Catch-Up Costs” Asset Reinvestment The effectiveness of the facilities operating budget, staffing, supervision, and energy management Operational Effectiveness The measure of service process, the maintenance quality of space and systems, and the customers opinion of service delivery Service Asset value change
  7. 7. An integration of formerly unrelated parts Tracking change over time to identify strengths & opportunities 1. Stewardship falls 2. Failures increase 3. Customer satisfaction decreases 4. Increases operational demand 5. Capital investment driven by customers. Space wins over systems. 6. Backlog increases 1. Increase Stewardship 2. Limit failures 3. Increased customer satisfaction 4. Decrease operational demand 5. Increased PM 6. Reduce backlog
  8. 8. Corey Ruff Executive Director, Facilities & Campus Management (325) 674-2665 corey.ruff@acu.edu
  9. 9. Campus profile > Type: Private, comprehensive university > Founded: 1906 > Located in: Abilene, TX > Enrollment: 4,600 undergrad/800 grad > Size: 1,966,315 GSF > Mission: To educate students for Christian service and leadership throughout the world > 21st-Century Vision: To become the premier university for the education of Christ-centered, global leaders
  10. 10. Challenges > Change in Leadership > New President – 2010 > New Senior Leadership Team > More data driven > Historical Data Spotty > Master Planning Process > Deferred Maintenance/Backlog/Capital Renewal/ Broken Stuff/Honey Do List > New Facilities Leadership
  11. 11. Determining Peers Tech rating impacts: • Energy Consumption • Maintenance Staffing • Replacement Values • Stewardship Targets • Operational Demand Density Factor Impacts: • Churn on Campus • Drives Custodial • Maintenance Demand Private, small town or near mid size city, 1-2.5M GSF
  12. 12. Campus age profile – Impacts investment profile 63% of space is considered in high risk for life cycle failures 18% 16% 45% 45% 25% 26% 12% 13% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ACU FY12 Peers % of Total Campus GSF Campus Age by Category Under 10 10-25 25-50 Over 50 Buildings over 50 Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures are possible. Highest risk Buildings 25 to 50 Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come due. Higher Risk Buildings 10 to 25 Short life-cycle needs; primarily space renewal. Medium Risk Buildings Under 10 Little work. “Honeymoon” period. Low Risk High Risk High Risk
  13. 13. How much should we spend? ACU spending well under target $13.4 FY12 Stewardship Targets $5.2 $3.9 $1.1 $5.8 $2.9 $0.1 $15 $14 $13 $12 $11 $10 $9 $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $0 3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need (Equilibrium) Functional Obsolescence (Target) FY12 Actual Spending $ in Millions Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program Replacement Value = $448M Life Cycle need is discounted to account for programmatic shifts and the churn of space Industry Standard Sightlines Recommendations ACU Actual Spent
  14. 14. Gap Widening = Backlog is increasing $12.0 $10.0 $8.0 $6.0 $4.0 $2.0 $0.0 Total 5 year deferral = $21.2M 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Millions Annual Stewardship Investment vs. Target Env/Mech Space/Program $2.3M $3.7M $4.6M $4.9M $5.7M Backlog grew 40% to $147.6M between FY08 and FY13
  15. 15. Capital Spending vs. Peers $3.38 Peers 5Y avg. $1.25 ACU 5Y avg. Both ACU & peers are spending less on total projects -70% -44%
  16. 16. Capital Spending by Package = Adding credibility ACU Spending FY12 34% 22% 4% 27% 13% FY12 $/GSF Investment $0.82 Peers 5Y Spending Average 11% 24% 12% 45% 8% Average $/GSF Investment $3.42 ACU 5Y Spending Average 31% 24% 33% 10% 2% Average $/GSF Investment $1.25 74%
  17. 17. Facilities Operating Budget = Comparing Resources Daily service lags, planned maintenance is on par with peers
  18. 18. Off the Chart Maintenance Coverage Facilities staff delivers superior results with fewer resources Peer: 105,072 DB: 90,040 Peer: $0.18 DB: $0.21 Institutions ordered by technical complexity ACU: 211,158 ACU: $0.19 Peer: 16.5 DB: 11.2 ACU: 20.2 Inspection Score 1-5 ACU: 3.9/5.0 Campus Peers: 3.8/5.0 Distribution of Coverage DB: 90,040 Small private institutions: 90,209 ACU: 211,158
  19. 19. Intuition to Fact Data helped support our intuitions > Having a 3rd party collect, quantify, verify, and qualify data validated the feeling and added credibility to the facilities staff > We learned what data is important to measure & monitor > Data presented to the senior budget staff > Increased credibility in facilities. > And…. $7 Million additional in Capital Renewal and funding for FCA
  20. 20. Lee McQueen Director of Facilities Management & Planning (308) 865-1700 mcqueenlv@unk.edu
  21. 21. Campus profile > Type: Public, Residential, Comprehensive University > Founded: 1905 > Located in: Kearney, NE > Enrollment: 5,442 undergrad/1658 grad > Size: 1,966,315 GSF > Vision: The University of Nebraska at Kearney will achieve national distinction for a high quality, multidimensional learning environment, engagement with community and public interests, and preparation of students to lead responsible and productive lives in a democratic, multicultural society. Key to such improvement will be: clear focus on mission imperatives, fidelity to historic core values, and continuous and rigorous self-appraisal or assessment of outcomes.
  22. 22. Yesterday….. Questions being asked Issues • Lots of data, limited information. • Non-validated data • How do we use it? • Are we on track? • Is our data fact or fiction Desires • Needed clean data • Validation to separate fact from fiction. • Tools to change the discussion on campus.
  23. 23. Physical Profile
  24. 24. Age profile for UNK UNK’s age profile is well distributed; Revenue Bond space is younger on average 16% 27% 26% 31% 19% 23% 32% 26% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 - 10 10-25 25-50 50+ % of GSF Renovation Age of UNK’s Campus UNK - State Aided UNK - Revenue Bond Campus Age Profile vs. Peers 17% 27% 25% 18% 29% 38% 29% 17% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% UNK ‐ Composite Peer Average Under 10 Years 10 to 25 Years 25 to 50 Years Over 50 Years Size: 1.1M GSF 874K GSF Renovation Age: 37.1 years old 34.9 years old
  25. 25. Age profile for UNK UNK’s age profile is well distributed; Revenue Bond space is younger on average 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 Life Cycles are coming due in envelope and mechanical 65% 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 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Campus Age Profile vs. Peers High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk UNK ‐ Composite Peer Average Under 10 Years 10 to 25 Years 25 to 50 Years Over 50 Years
  26. 26. 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% $60 $55 $50 $45 $40 $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 $/GSF Amortization <10 Years 10 – 25 Years 25-50 Years % of Campus GSF Campus’ detailed age distribution Young space on campus will soon be aging into a more demanding age range Average Life Cycle Costs by Age of Space (Renovation Age) 17% 25% 29% * Life cycle costs based on the average tech 3 academic space. State Aided Revenue Bond Over 50 Years 29%
  27. 27. Capital Investments
  28. 28. Total capital spending Total FY12 spending was $1.9M $35.0 $30.0 $25.0 $20.0 $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 $0.0 Avg: $11.7M FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 Millions Total Capital Spending State Aided Revenue Bond Non‐Facilities/New Space $10,580,036 $17,821,668 $29,899,331 $6,695,813 $3,349,940 $1,913,315
  29. 29. Annual stewardship investment vs. target State Aided performance vs. Revenue Bond $10.0 $9.0 $8.0 $7.0 $6.0 $5.0 $4.0 $3.0 $2.0 $1.0 $0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Millions Sustaining NAV Sustaining NAV Target Need 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Space/Program Equilibrium Need Annual Stewardship Funding vs. Target State Aided Revenue Bond Envelope/Mechanical
  30. 30. Total project spending by funding source State Aided performance vs. Revenue Bond $10.0 $9.0 $8.0 $7.0 $6.0 $5.0 $4.0 $3.0 $2.0 $1.0 $0.0 Total Funding vs. Annual Stewardship Target State Aided Revenue Bond 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Millions Sustaining NAV Equilibrium Need Sustaining NAV Target Need 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment
  31. 31. Total funding vs. target compared to peers Peers have funded consistently more than UNK over the last six years 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 07 08 09 10 11 12 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Sustaining or Increasing Net Asset Value Decreasing Net Asset Value Avg: 53% Recurring capital Planned maintenance One-time capital % of Target Peer Average Avg: 133% UNK – Composite 0 07 08 09 10 11 12
  32. 32. Project spending by type Revenue bond has invested a lot into safety, while state aided is more balanced $2.00 $1.80 $1.60 $1.40 $1.20 $1.00 $0.80 $0.60 $0.40 $0.20 $0.00 Envelope Systems Infrastructure Space Code $/GSF $/GSF by type of project FY07-FY12 Avg. UNK - Composite Peer Average
  33. 33. Asset Reinvestment Backlog Failing to reach target spending recently has caused backlog to grow rapidly 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 - Peers UNK - State Aided UNK - Revenue Bond $/GSF Total Backlog ($/GSF) 07 12 07 12 07 12
  34. 34. Operations Overview
  35. 35. Facilities operating budget compared to peers
  36. 36. Energy consumption remains above peer average Lower unit costs than peers avoided over $550,000 in energy costs in FY12 Electricity Stationary Fuel
  37. 37. Maintenance operations Space is harder to maintain at a high level due to low capital investment Peer: 78,864 DB: 86,312 Peer: 14.2 DB: 11.9 Envelope 3.4 Institutions ordered by technical complexity Peer: $0.16 DB: $0.17 Inspection Scores: 0 1 2 3 4 5 General Repair 3.7 3.9 4.0 UNK Peers
  38. 38. Custodial operations Custodians have less personnel but more materials resources to keep campus clean Peer: 34,088 DB: 36,339 Peer: 20 DB: 22.1 Peer: $0.11 DB: $0.11 Inspection Scores: Cleanliness 3.9 4.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 UNK Peers Institutions ordered by density factor
  39. 39. Grounds operations Grounds department is utilizing less resources than peers DB: 21.2 Peer: 25.5 DB: 7.8 Peer: 12.3 DB: $588 Peer: $311 Inspection Scores: Grounds 3.7 4.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 UNK Peers Institutions ordered by grounds intensity
  40. 40. UNK Actions Taken and Future Strategy • Reassigned custodial staff to bridge supervision gap • Determined maintenance staffing was appropriate, leveraging work order system to drive more effective completion and communication • Defining expectations. • Leveraging our strengths- outsourcing our weaknesses. • Focusing on being really good at less things. • Providing VP with tools to increase administrative engagement and to make the case for additional funding
  41. 41. Glen Haubold Assistant Vice President, Facilities (575) 646-2101 ghaubold@nmsu.edu
  42. 42. New Mexico State University > Type: Public, Land Grant, Extensive Doctoral/Research University > Founded: 1888 > Located in: Las Cruces, NM > Enrollment: 17,651 > Size: 5,619,456 GSF > One of only two universities in the nation to reach the platinum (highest) level of service to NASA’s Space Alliance Technology Outreach Program. 42
  43. 43. Good Old Days?
  44. 44. Physical Profile
  45. 45. Campus Age Profile Composite campus: 4.6M GSF 8% 14% 44% 34% 14% 34% 40% 12% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% < 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50 % of Total GSF NMSU – Composite Construction vs. Renovation Age Construction Age Renovation Age 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 Life Cycles are coming due in envelope and mechanical 65% 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 13 years Taken off NMSU’s age due to major renovations
  46. 46. Lifecycle Cost by Age of Space 9% approaching period of increased maintenance need, 4% nearing end of lifecycle $70.00 $60.00 $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 $0.00 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 4% of space will reach end of lifecycle within 9% of space will five years age into a higher risk category within five years Amortization 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 $/GSF GSF Average Life Cycle Costs by Age of Space (Renovation Age) Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50 14% 34% 40% 12%
  47. 47. Building Intensity Composite Campus Building Intensity is 147 Sutherland Village: 200 buildings Tom Fort Village: 100 buildings Each building = 712 GSF Institutions ordered by density. I&G Housing More small buildings on campus generally means: - More components (e.g. systems, roofs) resulting in additional capital needs - More sites to service increases operational demand
  48. 48. Capital Investments
  49. 49. Annual Stewardship - Composite Deferring an average of $7.9M/year to the backlog $35.0 $30.0 $25.0 $20.0 $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 $0.0 Average deferral: $7.9M/year Deferred since FY05: $63.5M 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Millions Annual Stewardship Investment vs. Target Env/Mech Space/Program
  50. 50. Millions Total Capital Investment One-time spending has helped to sustain NAV in I&G space $35.0 $30.0 $25.0 $20.0 $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 $0.0 Total Capital Investment I&G Housing 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 50 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
  51. 51. Capital Spending vs. Peers Project spending by GSF is less than peers $4.28 Peers 8Y avg. $2.92 NMSU 8Y avg. NMSU spent $1.36/gsf less than peers. Based on composite campus size, this translates into $6.2M less spent than peers.
  52. 52. Project Mix vs. Peers NMSU focused on space, less on envelope & mechanical needs I&G Project Mix FY08-12 8% 24% 30% 31% 7% Housing Project Mix 30% 13% 6% 1% 50% FY08-12 $1.40 $1.20 $1.00 $0.80 $0.60 $0.40 $0.20 $0.00 Envelope Systems Infrastructure Space Code $/GSF $/GSF by Project Type 5-Year Average (FY08-12) NMSU 5Y avg. Peers 5Y avg.
  53. 53. Operations Overview
  54. 54. Facilities Operating Budget 5Y Daily Service average is $1.87/gsf, below FY12 peer average $12.00 $10.00 $8.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 $0.00 Facilities Operating Budget A B C D NMSU Composite F G H I J Daily Service Planned Maintenance Utilities
  55. 55. Regionally Adjusted Regionally adjusted, NMSU spends closer to peers $12.00 $10.00 $8.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 $0.00 Facilities Operating Budget – Regionally Adjusted NMSU original: $3.44 NMSU, regionally adjusted: $3.54 Original peer average: $6.10 Adjusted peer average: $5.46 A B C D NMSU Composite F G H I J Daily Service Planned Maintenance Utilities
  56. 56. Daily Service – Regionally Adjusted Resources available to NMSU F&S are still scarce vs. peers $3.37 Peers FY12 $1.92 NMSU FY12 $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $- Daily Service – Regionally Adjusted Given NMSU’s composite campus of 4.6M GSF, daily service budget is smaller by $6.7 million.
  57. 57. Maintenance Staffing Staffing levels in line with peer average, higher materials per GSF used in FY12 0 1 2 3 4 5 Institutions ordered by ascending tech rating. Envelope General Repair Inspection Scores: NMSU Peers Database
  58. 58. Custodial Staffing Lower supervision level, overall lower cleanliness score Inspection Scores: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Institutions ordered by ascending density. Cleanliness NMSU Peers Database
  59. 59. Grounds Staffing Significantly fewer materials available to staff, lower inspection scores Inspection Scores: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Institutions ordered by ascending grounds intensity. Grounds NMSU Peers Database
  60. 60. Energy Consumption Reduction in energy use saves NMSU $646k vs. FY11 Saving $646k by consuming less fuel in FY12 vs. FY11 Institutions ordered by ascending tech rating. NMSU composite: 6th of 10.
  61. 61. Future…
  62. 62. Closing Remarks
  63. 63. ROI = The Multiplier Effect of Reinvested Savings Measuring the impact of proactive costs vs. reactive $1 per GSF Invested in Planned Maintenance $1 per GSF Invested in Stewardship** …$3 per GSF in Capital Backlog Need Is equal to …$2.73 per GSF in Annual Operating Costs* Is equal to Another investment impact is.... * Analysis developed by Marq Ozanne, Ph.D. of OZANNE Customer Analytics Group ** Analysis developed by analyzing the Sightlines facility database of project costs
  64. 64. If you remember, remember this… • Independent Third Party Verification • Consistent & Credible Collection Methodology • Tie Investments to Outcomes • Track Annual Performance Metrics • Common Vocabulary • Single Platform • Improve Strategic Decision Making …Annual Stewardship Credibility & Perspective to Drive Transformational Reinvestment Asset Operating Effectiveness Change Service
  65. 65. National Trends
  66. 66. 66
  67. 67. #1 Space Getting Older Both groups have increasing percentage of over 50 year old space (%) Square Footage over 25 years old (Renovation Age) Public Private 46% 45% 44% 44% 43% 42% 34% 34% 33% 32% 31% 29% 14% 15% 15% 16% 17% 18% 23% 23% 23% 24% 24% 27% 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
  68. 68. #2 Privates recovered from recession faster than publics Both private and public campuses commit more annual funding Public Private $3.0 $4.0 Capital Investment into Existing Space $4.2 $3.6 $3.7 $3.5 $3.5 $4.0 $4.0 $2.8 $3.0 $3.2 $1.0 $1.2 $1.3 $1.1 $1.3 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $1.8 $2.0 $6.0 $5.0 $4.0 $3.0 $2.0 $1.0 $- 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Capital One-Time Capital
  69. 69. #3 Where Capital Dollars are Spent Both Public and Private Investing More Into Core Building Systems and Components 2007 Public 15% 30% 15% 31% 10% 2007 Private 13% 26% 13% 41% 7% Total Project Spending 2012 Public 16% 32% 16% 28% 8% 2012 Private 16% 25% 16% 37% 7%
  70. 70. #4 Publics have high backlog, but slower growth Private institutions backlog is less, but growing at a faster rate $84 $85 $86 $87 $91 $94 $66 $68 $68 $68 $74 $77 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% $120 $110 $100 $90 $80 $70 $60 $50 $40 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 $/GSF Backlog $/GSF Public Private
  71. 71. #4b Deferred Maintenance Backlog and Inspection Scores Correlation between Building Age, Backlog and Campus Appearance 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0 Campus Appearance 0-25 26-39 40+ Average of General RepairImpression Average of Exterior $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 0-25 26-39 40+ $/GSF Deferred Maintenance Backlog Average of Backlog Lump Sum GSF Average of Backlog Maint/Repair/GSF (Scale of 1-5) Backlog of need grows exponentially in older spaces General repair and exterior appearance decline as buildings age and backlog of need increases
  72. 72. #5 Public and Private Institutions Have Flat Growth $4.15 $4.35 $4.45 $4.22 $4.33 $4.41 $4.24 $4.41 $4.44 $4.44 $4.50 $4.51 $5.00 $4.50 $4.00 $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $- 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 $/GSF Daily Service Public Private Daily Service includes: people, costs and expenses for Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds, & Administration
  73. 73. #5 Increasing Maintenance Coverage 95,000 90,000 85,000 80,000 75,000 70,000 65,000 60,000 55,000 50,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 GSF/FTE Maintenance Coverage Public Private
  74. 74. #5 Increasing Custodial Coverage 40,000 38,000 36,000 34,000 32,000 30,000 28,000 26,000 24,000 22,000 20,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 GSF/FTE Custodial Coverage Public Private
  75. 75. 76
  76. 76. Questions & Comments Thomas Huberty (203)682-4981 thuberty@sightlines.com Glen Haubold (575) 646-2101 ghaubold@nmsu.edu Corey Ruff (325) 674-2665 corey.ruff@acu.edu Lee McQueen (308) 865-1700 mcqueenlv@unk.edu

×