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.
Out with the Old - Creating a New Paradigm Around the Fate of Your BuildingsEric Nolan
Does your campus maintain too many small or outdated buildings? Have a growing backlog due to limited resources? Deal with a strained operations budget? You might also be struggling to make key decisions about when to renovate, replace, or knock down buildings on your campus. Thankfully, you're not alone, and there are solutions.
Rutgers University has been there too. Yet, with proper planning and data support, they were able to make major policy changes that have improved their situation.
In this webinar, Jim Kadamus of Sightlines and Tony Calcado of Rutgers University discuss:
- Why facilities must secure a seat at the table to engage campus leadership in a new, more focused conversation about space allocation
- What data made the case that a paradigm shift was needed and how it affected institutional policies
- How strategic divestment decisions can have a broad impact on campus and what it means for the future.
In the past year, affordability for homebuyers has fallen in 89 of the 100 largest housing markets thanks to rising home prices and stagnant income growth in many metros. The cost of commuting and utilities can also play a big role depending on where you live. California continues to be a tough housing market for middle-class homebuyers. Seven of the 10 least affordable housing markets are located in the golden state, with Miami, Fairfield County, and Honolulu being the only non-California metros to make the list. In these least affordable markets, middle-class households would need to spend at least 42% of their monthly income to buy the median priced home. But in pricey San Francisco, that number jumps to an incredible 77% of income. San Jose, Miami, Orange County, San Diego, and Los Angeles follow with middle-class homebuyers needing to fork over at least 50% of their monthly income on housing.
Out with the Old - Creating a New Paradigm Around the Fate of Your BuildingsEric Nolan
Does your campus maintain too many small or outdated buildings? Have a growing backlog due to limited resources? Deal with a strained operations budget? You might also be struggling to make key decisions about when to renovate, replace, or knock down buildings on your campus. Thankfully, you're not alone, and there are solutions.
Rutgers University has been there too. Yet, with proper planning and data support, they were able to make major policy changes that have improved their situation.
In this webinar, Jim Kadamus of Sightlines and Tony Calcado of Rutgers University discuss:
- Why facilities must secure a seat at the table to engage campus leadership in a new, more focused conversation about space allocation
- What data made the case that a paradigm shift was needed and how it affected institutional policies
- How strategic divestment decisions can have a broad impact on campus and what it means for the future.
In the past year, affordability for homebuyers has fallen in 89 of the 100 largest housing markets thanks to rising home prices and stagnant income growth in many metros. The cost of commuting and utilities can also play a big role depending on where you live. California continues to be a tough housing market for middle-class homebuyers. Seven of the 10 least affordable housing markets are located in the golden state, with Miami, Fairfield County, and Honolulu being the only non-California metros to make the list. In these least affordable markets, middle-class households would need to spend at least 42% of their monthly income to buy the median priced home. But in pricey San Francisco, that number jumps to an incredible 77% of income. San Jose, Miami, Orange County, San Diego, and Los Angeles follow with middle-class homebuyers needing to fork over at least 50% of their monthly income on housing.
Great challenges accompany social progress
and change. It seems like it was only yesterday that managers were struggling with how to attract and retain members of Generation X. Today, managers need to concern themselves with the challenges of the “Post-80’s” group:Generation-Y (Gen-Y).
Is Your Facilities Data Fact, Fiction, or Crap? - Creating Facilities Intelli...Sightlines
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.
Diverse Perspectives on Managing Facilities DemandsSightlines
Aging campus buildings; growing deferred maintenance; less capital funding; more debt – this is what campus leaders are predicting. While all campuses face challenges, the diversity in facilities needs and investment capacity vary from institution to institution. There is no single solution, but campuses that use performance metrics to diagnose their needs are developing strategies to meet their capital needs and improve operating effectiveness. A panel of senior Business Officers from three highly diverse campuses will demonstrate how they use data, analysis, and modeling to meet facility and financial challenges now and in the future.
Using Metrics for Facilities Resource Advocacy at the University of North Tex...Sightlines
All higher education facilities management professionals have a story to tell campus leadership. This story focuses on facility needs in both physical asset management and facilities operational management, and it can be crucial to an institution’s future. How can facilities managers tell their story to have the most influence on key decision makers and gain their support?
This presentation, entitled "Using Metrics for Facilities Resource Advocacy," featured the University of North Texas (UNT) and highlighted how they have effectively used metrics to tell their facilities story. Armed with third-party verified data and associated metrics, facilities leaders were able to help senior decision makers better understand the campus’ facilities. Specifically, UNT was able to accurately inform their leadership of their space profile and financial challenges making the case for additional funds to reduce their backlog. They were also able to gain support from the UNT Board of Regents for a system-wide application of the data gathering and management model. Going forward, UNT is considering ways metrics can be used to help improve their current space utilization on campus.
Higher education is constantly in a state of flux, and campus buildings are no exception. Advances in technology and the changing demands of campus constituents are placing tremendous pressures on buildings and facilities leaders alike. There are an abundance of post-war buildings across the country that are now at life-cycle tipping points which necessitate significant reinvestment. Complicating this already daunting challenge are all the facilities constructed within the last ten years that are still on their “honeymoon”, but require unique strategies to maintain their freshness in order to meet campus expectations. This is why campus age matters. This webinar will explore these issues and discuss the impact campus age will have on facilities leaders and the financial resources of an institution.
Brian Yolitz, MnSCU Associate Vice Chancellor of Facilities
This presentation will focus on and answer questions about the MnSCU system’s legislative capital bonding request.
Making the Case for Future Facilities Funding_CAPPA 2015Sightlines
This session explores how The University of Arkansas was able to create a 15-year Facility Renewal & Stewardship Plan to address their keep-up and catch-up costs while planning for the future despite previously struggling to develop a cohesive strategy to address their alarming growth of deferred maintenance, which totaled approximately $245 million. With a sound project selection process in place and an innovative, yet modest, student facilities fee, The University of Arkansas has prevented the accumulation of additional deferral, while also reducing the backlog by over $75 million.
This session features Mike Johnson, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities at The University of Arkansas, and Matt Bausher, Senior Director of Member Services at Sightlines.
Taming Deferred Maintenance Before the Roof Caves In (2016 Sightlines NACUBO ...Sightlines
The growing need for capital renewal on both U.S. and Canadian campuses threatens to overwhelm many institutions. Business officers and facility managers have figured out strategies to break down deferred maintenance (DM) into smaller portfolios of work to manage over time, thereby mitigating the risk of building failures and buying time to acquire resources to address campus deficiencies. Hear how several campuses have set priorities, applied limited funding, evaluated whether to demolish or renovate buildings with high levels of DM, and won the confidence of stakeholders and funders to successfully address deferred maintenance.
Speakers:
Mike Gower, CFO, Rutgers University
Harold Hewitt, CFO, Chapman University
Mark Schiff, President, Sightlines
Hugh Warren, AVP, Operations & Maintenance, University of Alberta
Leveraging New Analytics to Change the Conversation around Facilities on Campus Sightlines
Presenters:
Bruce Meyer, Assistant VP Campus Operations, Bowling Green State University
Brendon Martin, Account Manager, Sightlines
Learn how Bowling Green State University has used comparative data and predictive analytics to make courageous decisions about the future of their campus. They are able to empirically analyze the effect of demolition and renovation of certain buildings and project the impact of future capital requirements and deferred maintenance. In addition, you will see how peer benchmarking and best practice analysis helped to make the case for centralizing multiple facilities organizations on campus and creating large savings over a five year period.
Great challenges accompany social progress
and change. It seems like it was only yesterday that managers were struggling with how to attract and retain members of Generation X. Today, managers need to concern themselves with the challenges of the “Post-80’s” group:Generation-Y (Gen-Y).
Is Your Facilities Data Fact, Fiction, or Crap? - Creating Facilities Intelli...Sightlines
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.
Diverse Perspectives on Managing Facilities DemandsSightlines
Aging campus buildings; growing deferred maintenance; less capital funding; more debt – this is what campus leaders are predicting. While all campuses face challenges, the diversity in facilities needs and investment capacity vary from institution to institution. There is no single solution, but campuses that use performance metrics to diagnose their needs are developing strategies to meet their capital needs and improve operating effectiveness. A panel of senior Business Officers from three highly diverse campuses will demonstrate how they use data, analysis, and modeling to meet facility and financial challenges now and in the future.
Using Metrics for Facilities Resource Advocacy at the University of North Tex...Sightlines
All higher education facilities management professionals have a story to tell campus leadership. This story focuses on facility needs in both physical asset management and facilities operational management, and it can be crucial to an institution’s future. How can facilities managers tell their story to have the most influence on key decision makers and gain their support?
This presentation, entitled "Using Metrics for Facilities Resource Advocacy," featured the University of North Texas (UNT) and highlighted how they have effectively used metrics to tell their facilities story. Armed with third-party verified data and associated metrics, facilities leaders were able to help senior decision makers better understand the campus’ facilities. Specifically, UNT was able to accurately inform their leadership of their space profile and financial challenges making the case for additional funds to reduce their backlog. They were also able to gain support from the UNT Board of Regents for a system-wide application of the data gathering and management model. Going forward, UNT is considering ways metrics can be used to help improve their current space utilization on campus.
Higher education is constantly in a state of flux, and campus buildings are no exception. Advances in technology and the changing demands of campus constituents are placing tremendous pressures on buildings and facilities leaders alike. There are an abundance of post-war buildings across the country that are now at life-cycle tipping points which necessitate significant reinvestment. Complicating this already daunting challenge are all the facilities constructed within the last ten years that are still on their “honeymoon”, but require unique strategies to maintain their freshness in order to meet campus expectations. This is why campus age matters. This webinar will explore these issues and discuss the impact campus age will have on facilities leaders and the financial resources of an institution.
Brian Yolitz, MnSCU Associate Vice Chancellor of Facilities
This presentation will focus on and answer questions about the MnSCU system’s legislative capital bonding request.
Making the Case for Future Facilities Funding_CAPPA 2015Sightlines
This session explores how The University of Arkansas was able to create a 15-year Facility Renewal & Stewardship Plan to address their keep-up and catch-up costs while planning for the future despite previously struggling to develop a cohesive strategy to address their alarming growth of deferred maintenance, which totaled approximately $245 million. With a sound project selection process in place and an innovative, yet modest, student facilities fee, The University of Arkansas has prevented the accumulation of additional deferral, while also reducing the backlog by over $75 million.
This session features Mike Johnson, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities at The University of Arkansas, and Matt Bausher, Senior Director of Member Services at Sightlines.
Taming Deferred Maintenance Before the Roof Caves In (2016 Sightlines NACUBO ...Sightlines
The growing need for capital renewal on both U.S. and Canadian campuses threatens to overwhelm many institutions. Business officers and facility managers have figured out strategies to break down deferred maintenance (DM) into smaller portfolios of work to manage over time, thereby mitigating the risk of building failures and buying time to acquire resources to address campus deficiencies. Hear how several campuses have set priorities, applied limited funding, evaluated whether to demolish or renovate buildings with high levels of DM, and won the confidence of stakeholders and funders to successfully address deferred maintenance.
Speakers:
Mike Gower, CFO, Rutgers University
Harold Hewitt, CFO, Chapman University
Mark Schiff, President, Sightlines
Hugh Warren, AVP, Operations & Maintenance, University of Alberta
Leveraging New Analytics to Change the Conversation around Facilities on Campus Sightlines
Presenters:
Bruce Meyer, Assistant VP Campus Operations, Bowling Green State University
Brendon Martin, Account Manager, Sightlines
Learn how Bowling Green State University has used comparative data and predictive analytics to make courageous decisions about the future of their campus. They are able to empirically analyze the effect of demolition and renovation of certain buildings and project the impact of future capital requirements and deferred maintenance. In addition, you will see how peer benchmarking and best practice analysis helped to make the case for centralizing multiple facilities organizations on campus and creating large savings over a five year period.
ERAPPA Webinar on Facilities Trends and Challenges - Co-hosted by SightlinesSightlines
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.
Why the Roof Hasn't Caved In [Sightlines_CAUBO Webinar]Eric Nolan
The May 2014 report Deferred Maintenance at Canadian Universities: An Update, produced by CAUBO in collaboration with Sightlines, states that “it appears that the majority of Canadian universities are still not able to put sufficient resources into capital renewal and that, as a whole, the maintenance backlog in system is increasing.” In fact, the data shows that since 2000 the magnitude of the problem appears to have doubled. If left unchecked, this problem can have far-ranging negative impacts upon the university’s mission and can lead to major system failures.
However, while the report highlights a number of areas for concern, we are not seeing systems degrade to the point of program interruption or crumbling facilities; this is a consistent observation across all of higher education. For the most part, catastrophic failures have not come to pass despite decades of dire predictions, and while there will never be enough funding to eliminate the entire backlog of need on campuses, strategies to manage the problem have emerged across the higher education landscape.
This session explores those strategies, in addition to discussing more about:
• The broad trends affecting facilities across the higher education landscape in North America and the root causes of the compounding facilities issues,
• The four key factors determining why the roof hasn’t caved in despite dire predictions,
• How savvy facilities leaders are preventing major breakdowns, and
• Strategies for driving action on campus by making facilities challenges more manageable
Why the Roof Hasn't Caved In [Sightlines_CAUBO Webinar]Sightlines
The May 2014 report Deferred Maintenance at Canadian Universities: An Update, produced by CAUBO in collaboration with Sightlines, states that “it appears that the majority of Canadian universities are still not able to put sufficient resources into capital renewal and that, as a whole, the maintenance backlog in system is increasing.” In fact, the data shows that since 2000 the magnitude of the problem appears to have doubled. If left unchecked, this problem can have far-ranging negative impacts upon the university’s mission and can lead to major system failures.
However, while the report highlights a number of areas for concern, we are not seeing systems degrade to the point of program interruption or crumbling facilities; this is a consistent observation across all of higher education. For the most part, catastrophic failures have not come to pass despite decades of dire predictions, and while there will never be enough funding to eliminate the entire backlog of need on campuses, strategies to manage the problem have emerged across the higher education landscape.
This session explores those strategies, in addition to discussing more about:
• The broad trends affecting facilities across the higher education landscape in North America and the root causes of the compounding facilities issues,
• The four key factors determining why the roof hasn’t caved in despite dire predictions,
• How savvy facilities leaders are preventing major breakdowns, and
• Strategies for driving action on campus by making facilities challenges more manageable
In 1980, Rick Biedenweg and Robert Hutson's article Before the Roof Caves In shouted a warning that more effective planning approaches were needed to address higher education's looming facilities challenges. Many industry leaders used their research to make predictions of imminent system failures in order to compel action.
However, the reality is that over these last 35 years, funding has remained well below estimated needs but the widespread failures that have been publicized have not occurred. This leads us to the question "why?" Why hasn't the roof caved in?
There are several contributing factors; some are systemic, and others are the result of resourceful facilities operators. This presentations outlines the root causes of compounding capital needs, the reasons we do not see crumbling facilities, and some simple strategies that are used to avoid program interruption on higher education campuses.
The State of Facilities in Higher Education: An In-Depth Look at the 2015 Tre...Sightlines
In Sightlines’ State of Facilities in Higher Education report, in both 2013 and 2014, we cited warning signs of new challenges for colleges and universities. These trends have accelerated in 2015 and suggest that for many institutions the recovery, if it ever really occurred, was a temporary situation. Our 2015 report shows that enrollment and financial pressures require finance and facilities leaders to yet again find new ways to address the latest challenges.
In this webinar, we delve deeper into the trends that informed our analysis and provide insight into aligning space, capital, and operations. We also offered an opportunity for attendees to "Ask Sightlines" about the key facilities challenges they face and learn about innovative solutions at campuses across the country designed to address them.
Out with the Old - Creating a New Paradigm Around the Fate of Your BuildingsSightlines
Does your campus maintain too many small or outdated buildings? Have a growing backlog due to limited resources? Deal with a strained operations budget? You might also be struggling to make key decisions about when to renovate, replace, or knock down buildings on your campus. Thankfully, you're not alone, and there are solutions.
Rutgers University has been there too. Yet, with proper planning and data support, they were able to make major policy changes that have improved their situation.
In this webinar, Jim Kadamus of Sightlines and Tony Calcado of Rutgers University discuss:
- Why facilities must secure a seat at the table to engage campus leadership in a new, more focused conversation about space allocation
- What data made the case that a paradigm shift was needed and how it affected institutional policies
- How strategic divestment decisions can have a broad impact on campus and what it means for the future.
7 Essential Questions Highly Effective Facilities Leaders Must Answer_SRAPPA ...Sightlines
This session focuses on how Louisiana State University was able to answer the most essential questions surrounding Facilities Services on their campus. Attendees learned how a campus space profile can drive both capital needs and daily operations, in addition to exploring the tool LSU is using to predict their building needs for the next 10 years, the future indicators they’ll be choosing from to track operational performance, and how to engage financial leadership in the discussion.
Backlog, Deferred Maintenance and its use in PlanningSightlines
Gina Matsoukas presents on putting a process in place that will help you turn granular details of your backlog of needs into a strategic action plan for your campus.
Don't Leave Your Facilities Needs to Chance - APPA 2015Sightlines
On Wednesday, August 5, Sightlines was joined by a few of our outstanding member institutions to present “Don’t Leave Your Facilities Needs to Chance – From Game Plan to Master Planning: Using Data to Load the Dice” during the APPA 2015 Annual Meeting & Exposition. This session offered attendees insight into how two facilities manager have tied deferred maintenance studies to program needs by incorporating that data into space utilization and master planning initiatives.
This presentation demonstrates how to:
Maximize the value of a deferred maintenance assessment
Integrate DM data with space utilization and master planning
Optimize institutional resources to mitigate risk
Be a partner in program success rather than a follower
Change the Conversation to Address Deferred Maintenance - NACUBO 2015Sightlines
Sightlines latest conference presentation, Change the Conversation to Address Deferred Maintenance, offers four perspectives (the national view, a university system, a campus CFO, and campus facility operations) on how to employ data, analysis, and focused communications to strategically plan for success.
This presentation demonstrates how to:
- Use data to document and package deferred maintenance projects and set priorities to fund projects that support the institutional mission and strategic focus.
- Review actual facility metrics, data, and presentations used with leadership, boards, and external constituents to prioritize projects that remove deferred maintenance.
- Communicate the payoffs of deferred maintenance projects (reduced energy consumption, lowered operating costs, improved programs, etc.) versus the additional costs of waiting to fund projects.
Exploring the State of Facilities - Your Chance to "Ask Sightlines"Sightlines
How does a campus turn back the clock on their facilities? How do we address growing backlog needs with limited or shrinking funds? What energy projects can reduce consumption and boost our bottom-line?
These are a few of the questions answered by Sightlines experts in this informative and engaging webinar as we offer an in-depth discussion of the benchmarks, trends, and best practices introduced in our 2014 report The State of Facilities in Higher Education.
Additionally, this interactive presentation:
- Explores the analysis that serves as the basis for our industry-leading database and the report it informs
- Shows data that goes beyond the broad trends
- Offers strategies for success and case studies showing innovative solutions to common facilities challenges
Similar to New strategies for attacking deferred maintenance december 2012 (20)
State of Sustainability in Higher Education 2017Sightlines
Join Sightlines and the UNH Sustainability Institute as we analyze campus efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, provide an update on higher education's progress with energy efficiency, and introduce new data and discussion surrounding space management and mechanical upgrades.
2017 State of Facilities in Higher EducationSightlines
Join Sightlines as we shine a spotlight on the trends and best practices that dominated 2017 and will continue to influence campus facilities nationwide in 2018.
Put Your Facilities Data to Work: 5 Steps for Strengthening Your Case on CampusSightlines
When it comes to obtaining funding, nothing generates greater impact than clearly visible benefits. The data is at your fingertips…but how do you create the compelling context needed to secure that much-needed funding?
Join Sightlines for a revealing look at the power of benchmarking data and how to harness five key components to accurately convey the value that Facilities brings to your institution and make a stronger case for affecting change on campus.
Developing the Capital Plan is Only Half the Battle [ERAPPA 2017]Sightlines
Discover the latest facilities trends in higher education and how Penn State was able to develop a capital plan utilizing advanced "facilities intelligence."
Doing More with Less: Solutions for Managing Facilities on a Limited BudgetSightlines
Sightlines shares how using verifiable data helped three very different institutions successfully create new spaces, reduce maintenance backlogs, and achieve higher levels of efficiency - all without the need to increase funding.
Making the Case for Campus SustainabilitySightlines
Sightlines looks at the interplay between enrollment trends, financial success metrics, and operational success metrics to help build the business case that sustainability is an integral component to a successful facilities operation.
Planning for the Future: Adapting Facilities to Tomorrow's NeedsSightlines
Facilities plays a key role in managing campus growth in ways that support the institution’s overall mission without over-extending available resources. Being able to prepare for the best while planning for the worst, while no easy feat, is essential in today’s rapidly changing marketplace. In this webinar, Sightlines outlines how using data-driven planning to create and communicate a clear vision of your campus facilities can ensure approval for the maintenance and capital projects required to set your campus ahead.
What you'll learn:
- How to better prioritize projects by using a portfolio framework
- A new approach for performing facility assessments that institution stakeholders can act on with confidence
- How to plan to meet future workforce challenges
- Strategies for creating long-term facility plans that account for market volatility
The State of Facilities: Preventing Your Biggest Asset from Becoming Your Big...Sightlines
In this presentation, Sightlines experts explore the trends facing facilities and finance leaders in higher education across the country, facilities challenges facing Ohio institutions, and strategies for success that help improve physical asset management and mitigate risk.
Exploring the State of Sustainability in Higher Education 2016Sightlines
This presentation explores the latest trends and achievements in higher education sustainability and features a review of the 2016 findings by highlighting each stage of the building life cycle.
2016 State of Facilities in Higher EducationSightlines
Get an exclusive look at the 2016 facilities trends in higher education and explore some key insights into the challenges - and opportunities - that face campus facilities managers and finance leaders.
How UMass is reducing its deferred maintenance backlogSightlines
With enrollment swelling over 70,000 students, facilities and finance leaders at the University of Massachusetts system and its individual campuses knew they must implement a plan to address this growth while properly maintaining their facilities. Using a comprehensive strategy, the University of Massachusetts system is on track to reduce its deferred maintenance backlog by nearly 30% over the next three years. One representative from the UMass system discussed the benefits of a system-wide approach for handling deferred maintenance, and how Sightlines’ data helped provide the necessary tools.
When You Come to a Fork in the Road, Take It: Rutgers & Sightlines ERAPPA 201...Sightlines
In this presentation, Rutgers University discussed their process for establishing best practice policies during the largest merger in Higher Education’s history.
On July 1, 2013, the largest merger in the history of U.S. higher education occurred when Rutgers University and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) created a super-sized Rutgers with 67,000 students, 27 million gross square feet of space and 1,100 additional employees. The merger was only the beginning. In addition to the UMDNJ integration, the facilities departments for housing and satellite campuses were restructured under one facilities umbrella as a unified organization.
As Yogi Berra, a long time New Jersey resident, once said: “When you come to a fork in the road – take it.” Faced with having to manage and deploy over 1,700 people, an annual facilities operating budget of $227 million, and a capital budget of $150 million, consolidation brought Rutgers leadership to that fork in the road.
Since the merger, Rutgers facilities leaders have been navigating in a climate of change and closely examining every aspect of their facilities across multiple campuses, using data-driven, comparative metrics and analysis provided by Sightlines. An expert panel will discuss the process used to engage stakeholders (including administration, faculty, students and staff) and change the philosophy about managing space, operations and capital planning.
Attendees will learn:
How to engage campus leadership and facilities staff about using data and analysis during a time of major change;
How to standardize policies and procedure to maximize quality of services within budgetary constraints;
How to change and manage expectations of the campus community about levels of service for maintenance, custodial and grounds;
How data and analysis can lead to changes in campus philosophy regarding use and interaction of space, capital planning and operations to improve capital investments and facilities operations in significant ways.
From Boiler Room to Board Room: Creating Alignment with Non-Facilities Profes...Sightlines
Learn how Lebanon Valley College and the University of Georgia are creating alignment from the boiler room to the board room using Sightlines' third-party data and analysis.
Prepping for the President: Planning Rutgers' 250th CommencementSightlines
Imagine the President of the United States chooses to make a commencement address at your institution. It’s a big deal, right? What if this ceremony also marked your institution’s 250th anniversary, and you expect more than 50,000 attendees, rain or shine? Then it’s a huge deal. And what if your commencement task force had less than a month to finalize plans? Talk about a perfect storm.
This was situation that Rutgers University faced this spring, when they learned on April 14 that President Obama had decided to make a speech during commencement on May 15.
This presentation explores the historic visit and the massive preparation effort involved in its execution from Tony Calcado, Senior Vice President, Institutional Planning and Operations, who served as chair of the commencement task force. Hear about logistics challenges including transportation, public safety and off-site locations.
Sightlines Membership Update - The Value of Integration with GordianSightlines
This presentation explores recent Sightlines membership updates and the value of our integration with Gordian. As part of a new, larger organization, Sightlines is now able to offer enhancements and added value to those with whom we work. Examples include:
- Improvements to our current Facilities Intelligence Solutions leveraging RSMeans cost estimation data and technical expertise
- Enhanced strategic reviews of capital project management processes
- Integration with Gordian's offerings across the full lifecycle of construction including Job Order Contracting procurement solutions.
Data & Sustainability: How the Right Data Creates SuccessSightlines
Many sustainability officers are stretched thin by their duties, which includes a heavy workload of measuring and reporting data, both internally and externally. Despite this potential drawback, data is not the enemy of sustainability leaders. In fact, data and sustainability can go hand-in-hand as you build your case and outline opportunities for future improvements.
In this presentation, you'll learn:
- How data can help you overcome industry trends and make a difference on campus
- Ways data can build constituency around sustainability goals
- The value of verified data & peer context
- How reporting burdens can be eased
Creating Alignment with Non-Facilities Professionals - APPA 2016Sightlines
How does the facilities manager create alignment with non-facilities professionals and up the reporting ladder? How do you assure yourself a seat at the table where you can communicate past successes and future investment requirements to drive the institution forward and deliver best-in-class service? You can use data, like many facilities leaders nationwide, who are arming themselves with validated longitudinal data, peer comparisons, and predictive analytics. By creating a common vocabulary that can be understood and communicated from the boiler room to the boardroom, you become a better partner to all constituents at your institution.
Presenters:
Ralph Johnson, AVP, Facilities Management Division, University of Georgia
Don Santostefano, Senior Director, Facilities Management, Lebanon Valley College
Kevan Will, Account Manager, Sightlines
Synthetic Fiber Construction in lab .pptxPavel ( NSTU)
Synthetic fiber production is a fascinating and complex field that blends chemistry, engineering, and environmental science. By understanding these aspects, students can gain a comprehensive view of synthetic fiber production, its impact on society and the environment, and the potential for future innovations. Synthetic fibers play a crucial role in modern society, impacting various aspects of daily life, industry, and the environment. ynthetic fibers are integral to modern life, offering a range of benefits from cost-effectiveness and versatility to innovative applications and performance characteristics. While they pose environmental challenges, ongoing research and development aim to create more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives. Understanding the importance of synthetic fibers helps in appreciating their role in the economy, industry, and daily life, while also emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and innovation.
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
This slide is special for master students (MIBS & MIFB) in UUM. Also useful for readers who are interested in the topic of contemporary Islamic banking.
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and InclusionTechSoup
Let’s explore the intersection of technology and equity in the final session of our DEI series. Discover how AI tools, like ChatGPT, can be used to support and enhance your nonprofit's DEI initiatives. Participants will gain insights into practical AI applications and get tips for leveraging technology to advance their DEI goals.
Safalta Digital marketing institute in Noida, provide complete applications that encompass a huge range of virtual advertising and marketing additives, which includes search engine optimization, virtual communication advertising, pay-per-click on marketing, content material advertising, internet analytics, and greater. These university courses are designed for students who possess a comprehensive understanding of virtual marketing strategies and attributes.Safalta Digital Marketing Institute in Noida is a first choice for young individuals or students who are looking to start their careers in the field of digital advertising. The institute gives specialized courses designed and certification.
for beginners, providing thorough training in areas such as SEO, digital communication marketing, and PPC training in Noida. After finishing the program, students receive the certifications recognised by top different universitie, setting a strong foundation for a successful career in digital marketing.
How to Make a Field invisible in Odoo 17Celine George
It is possible to hide or invisible some fields in odoo. Commonly using “invisible” attribute in the field definition to invisible the fields. This slide will show how to make a field invisible in odoo 17.
Acetabularia Information For Class 9 .docxvaibhavrinwa19
Acetabularia acetabulum is a single-celled green alga that in its vegetative state is morphologically differentiated into a basal rhizoid and an axially elongated stalk, which bears whorls of branching hairs. The single diploid nucleus resides in the rhizoid.
Model Attribute Check Company Auto PropertyCeline George
In Odoo, the multi-company feature allows you to manage multiple companies within a single Odoo database instance. Each company can have its own configurations while still sharing common resources such as products, customers, and suppliers.
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp NetworkTechSoup
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
Azure Interview Questions and Answers PDF By ScholarHat
New strategies for attacking deferred maintenance december 2012
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
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
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
Trends in Higher Education Facilities and What They
Mean for You
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
#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
#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
#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
#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
#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
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
Five Easy Steps CFOs Can Take to Reduce Facilities
Risk Exposure
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
#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
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
#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
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
% 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
#3 Making Sure Capital Project Mix is Diverse
Project mix adjusts over time to meet campus needs
My Campus
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
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
#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
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
Campus Overview ‐ 2005
Campus was aging Energy Consumption was Increasing
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
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
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
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
$80.4 M
Note: data shows current FY11 data
31. 31
Reassessing our Building Portfolio Designations
FY11 Building Investments by Portfolio
20%
17%
34%
0.21% 2%
25%
2%
Maintain
Maintain (Housing)
Building Renovation
Transitional
Repurpose
Infrastructure
New Space
Building Portfolio FY11 Investment ($/GSF)
Maintain $3.58
Maintain ( Housing) $4.30
Building Renovation $14.89
Transitional $1.54
Repurpose $1.29
32. 32
Using the inventory to make
strategic decisions
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Editor's Notes
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.