The State of Facilities in Higher Education: An In-Depth Look at the 2015 Trends and Best Practices
45
Center University of Missouri – Columbia University of Missouri – Kansas City University of Missouri – St. Louis University of Nebraska at Kearney University of Nebraska at Lincoln University of Nebraska Medical Center University of Nebraska Omaha University of New Brunswick University of New Hampshire University of New Haven University of New Mexico University of North Texas University of Northern Iowa University of Notre Dame University of Oregon University of Ottawa University of Pennsylvania University of Redlands University of Rhode Island University of Rochester University of San Diego University of San Francisco University of Southern Maine University of Southern Mississippi University of St. Thomas University of Tennessee Health Science Center University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Texas at Dallas University of the Sciences in Philadelphia University of Toledo University of Vermont University of Washington Vanderbilt University Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Department of General Services Wagner College Wake Forest University Washburn University Washington University in St. Louis Wellesley College Wesleyan University West Chester University State of Facilities in Higher Education: An In-Depth Look at the 2015 Trends & Best Practices Sightlines Webinar; Presented by Jim Kadamus December 10, 2015
-
Upload
sightlines -
Category
Education
-
view
433 -
download
1
Transcript of The State of Facilities in Higher Education: An In-Depth Look at the 2015 Trends and Best Practices
University of Mississippi Medical
Center
University of Missouri – Columbia
University of Missouri – Kansas City
University of Missouri – St. Louis
University of Nebraska at Kearney
University of Nebraska at Lincoln
University of Nebraska Medical Center
University of Nebraska Omaha
University of New Brunswick
University of New Hampshire
University of New Haven
University of New Mexico
University of North Texas
University of Northern Iowa
University of Notre Dame
University of Oregon
University of Ottawa
University of Pennsylvania
University of Redlands
University of Rhode Island
University of Rochester
University of San Diego
University of San Francisco
University of Southern Maine
University of Southern Mississippi
University of St. Thomas
University of Tennessee Health
Science Center
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
University of Texas at Dallas
University of the Sciences in
Philadelphia
University of Toledo
University of Vermont
University of Washington
Vanderbilt University
Virginia Commonwealth University
Virginia Department of General
Services
Wagner College
Wake Forest University
Washburn University
Washington University in St. Louis
Wellesley College
Wesleyan University
West Chester University
State of Facilities in Higher Education: An In-Depth Look at the 2015 Trends & Best Practices
Sightlines Webinar; Presented by Jim Kadamus
December 10, 2015
Agenda
Introduction to Sightlines and our database
Review of 2015 State of Facilities trends – Space, Capital, &
Operations
Preview of trends in our upcoming “State of Sustainability”
report
Explore the reasons for “why the roof has not caved in” despite
the “bad news” trends and dire predictions
Recommendations and conclusions
3
Feel Free to “Ask Sightlines”
Enter questions in the box at any time
4
Enter questions
here at any
point during the
webinar
Presentation slides
and webinar
recording will be
sent to each
attendee following
today’s session
Introduction
Where Does Our Data Originate?
Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums, & state systems
6
The 2015 State of Facilities in Higher
Education draws from the largest
verified database of college and
university facilities metrics in the
country.
• The database features 345 institutions
with over 400 campuses in 44 U.S.
states and four Canadian provinces
with over 1.5 billion gross square feet
of space.
• All data is collected and verified by
Sightlines professionals
• The database includes 60% public and
40% private institutions with a mix of
comprehensive/doctoral, research,
and small institutions serving over 2.5
million students
• The database is supplemented by our
2014 analysis of 51 Canadian
universities with over 200 million gross
square feet of space.
Distribution of Sightlines membership
across North America
Comprehensive Facilities Intelligence Solutions
The foundation of a database
7
The Sightlines Paradigm
8
2015 Trends - Space
Space and Enrollment Growth
Space growing faster than enrollment in 2013 and 2014
10
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Space and Enrollment Growth(National Average)
Space Growth Enrollment Growth
Space and Enrollment Growth
By constituent group
11
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
24%
Space Growth Enrollment Growth
Comprehensive/Doctoral Research Institutions Community College Small Institutions
Space per Student
Slight increase as enrollment levels off
12
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
GS
F/S
tud
en
t
Space per Student(Public/Private)
Public Private National Average
Constructed Space Over Time
Campuses construct equal amounts of academic and non-academic space
13
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Constructed Space Historically
Academic Non-Academic Linear (Academic) Linear (Non-Academic)
Putting Campus Building Age in Context
The campus age drives the overall risk profile
14
Pre
-Wa
r
Built before 1951
Durable construction
Older but typically lasts longer P
os
t-W
ar Built between 1951 and
1975
Lower-quality construction
Already needing more repairs and renovations
Mo
de
rn Built between 1975 and 1990
Quick-flash construction
Low-quality building components
Co
mp
lex
Built in 1991 and newer
Technically complex spaces
Higher-quality, more expensive to maintain & repair
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
% o
f C
on
str
uc
ted
Sp
ac
e
Pre-War Post-War Modern ComplexPercent of Total
Space 35%Percent of Total
Space 31%
Square Footage by Age Category
Progress in resetting the clock on buildings over 50 years old
15
14%20%
17%
25%
32%
31%
37%24%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Construction Age Renovation Age
% o
f S
pa
ce
Construction Age vs. Renovation Age
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
Buildings over 50
Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures are possible.
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
Square Footage by Renovation Age Category
Public vs. Private – both groups face significant challenges with over 25 year old space
16
20% 21% 22% 22% 21% 21% 20% 21%
18% 19% 20% 20% 21% 21% 22% 23%
42% 41% 39% 38% 38% 37% 35% 34%
19% 20% 19% 20% 21% 21% 22% 22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
22% 23% 23% 23% 22% 21% 20% 19%
19% 20% 21% 23% 24% 25% 26% 27%
33% 32% 31% 29% 29% 28% 27% 26%
26% 25% 25% 25% 25% 26% 26% 27%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Public Average Private Average
% o
f S
pace
2015 Trends - Capital
18
Annual Capital Investment
2014 levels finally reach pre-recession, but with a different funding mix
$1.19 $1.18 $1.27 $1.24 $1.36 $1.50 $1.71 $1.77
$3.18$3.63
$3.86
$3.22
$3.58 $3.44$3.45
$3.60
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$/G
SF
Capital Investment into Existing Space
Annual Capital One-Time Capital Average
19
Capital Investment into Existing Space
By Constituent Group
0.88 1.01 1.12 1.09 0.981.21
1.421.73
2.87
3.33
3.763.51 3.56
3.713.60
3.22
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Comprehensive/Doctoral Research Institutions Community College Small Institutions
$/G
SF
1.35 1.28 1.36 1.361.57 1.68
1.91 1.82
3.323.72
3.85
3.08
3.713.29
3.483.98
0.45 0.61 0.79 0.921.39
1.060.82
1.20
1.61
4.60
3.55
3.83
3.55
3.02
1.72
1.55
1.19 1.18 1.15 1.031.23 1.32 1.46 1.62
3.453.76
4.20
2.962.82
3.51 3.11 2.73
20
Annual Capital Investment
Private campuses rely more on annual institutional capital
$0.90 $0.84 $1.03 $0.91 $1.02 $1.10 $1.19 $1.02
$2.57$3.07
$3.14$2.84
$3.34 $3.15$3.31
$3.00
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
$8
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$/G
SF
$1.59 $1.68 $1.63 $1.74 $1.89$2.12
$2.52$2.82
$4.02
$4.44$4.97
$3.81$3.94
$3.91$3.66
$4.44
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Public Average Private Average
21
Annual Capital Investment
Almost 40% of private campus capital comes from annual institutional sources
26%22%
25% 24% 23% 26% 26% 25%
74%78%
75% 76% 77% 74% 74% 75%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Pe
rce
nt
of
To
tal D
oll
ars
Sp
en
t
Public Average Private Average
28% 27% 25%31% 32% 35%
41% 39%
72% 73% 75%69% 68% 65%
59% 61%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
22
Sightlines’ Impact on Capital Spending
2011 new members’ capital spending before vs. after joining Sightlines
$0.72$1.11
$3.29
$3.30
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
$5.00
Before After
$/G
SF
54% Increase
23
How Are Capital Dollars Being Spent?
Higher investment into envelope/mechanical projects
44%41% 38% 39% 39% 38% 36% 36%
43% 42% 41% 44% 44% 41% 43% 45%
37%38% 42% 41% 42% 43% 44% 41%
41% 40% 41%41% 41%
42%42% 40%
19% 21% 20% 20% 19% 19% 20% 23%16% 18% 18% 15% 15% 17% 15% 15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Space Renewal & Safety Code Envelope & Building System Infrastructure
Public Average Private Average
24
Impact of Investing More Into Durable Components
Investment in envelope and building systems lasts longer
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Envelope Systems Space Safety/Code
Years
Average Life Expectancy(Data taken from BPS Life Cycle Estimates)
Hig
h R
OI
Hig
h R
OI
25
Facilities Backlogs Continue to Rise
Capital investment not enough to keep backlogs from growing
Backlog $/GSF
Public Average Private Average
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$/G
SF
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2015 Trends - Operations
27
Facilities Operating Budgets
Small increases in campus operating budgets from 2008-2014
Public Average
3.65 3.91 3.92 3.85 3.92 3.88 4.04 4.13
0.250.25 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.29
0.30 0.30
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$/G
SF
4.44 4.61 4.62 4.62 4.70 4.78 4.83 4.98
0.320.34 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.39
0.42
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Private Average
Operating Budget $/GSF
28
Importance of a Growing PM Program
Opportunity for Savings:
Invest $1.00 in PM now
OR
Spend $2.73 in reactive
maintenance later*
$1.00
$2.73
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
Planned Maintenance Reactive Maintenance
Inc
rem
en
ts o
f O
pe
rati
on
al S
pe
nd
ing
*Data from Ozanne Analytics – research of Sightlines database of work orders comparing costs of corrective and
emergency work orders to planned and preventative work orders
29
Custodial Coverage
Custodial coverage rates going up slowly- cleanliness scores declining slowly
3.80
3.85
3.90
3.95
4.00
4.05
4.10
4.15
4.20
4.25
4.30
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
To
tal G
SF
/FT
E
Coverage Cleanliness Scoring
Custodial CoverageGSF per FTE
National Average Public Average Private Average
30
Maintenance Coverage
Maintenance coverage rates steadily increasing
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
To
tal G
SF
/FT
E
Maintenance CoverageGSF per FTE
National Average Private AveragePublic Average
2015 Trends – Energy &
Emissions
Source: “State of Sustainability in Higher Education”, a joint University of
New Hampshire and Sightlines report – Coming soon!
32
Scope 1 Stationary and Scope 2 Emissions
Gross emissions decreased 5% since 2010, but consumption is higher
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MT
CD
E
Emissions
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric
Percent Change
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MM
BT
U
Consumption
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric
Percent Change
33
Normalized Scope 1 Stationary and Scope 2 Emissions
Normalized emissions decreased 13% since 2007; consumption had small decline
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MT
CD
E/ 1
,00
0 G
SF
Emissions
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric
Percent Change
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
BT
U/G
SF
Consumption
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric
Percent Change
34
Stationary Fuel Mix
Proportion of natural gas increased 13% since 2007
74% 75% 76%80% 82% 85% 87% 87%
17%18% 17%
14% 14%12% 10% 10%
9% 7% 7% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Fuel Mix
Natural Gas Coal Other Fuel
35
Cost Matters
Consumption lowest in regions with highest cost
Degree
Days=6951
Degree
Days= 6426
Degree
Days=7114
Degree
Days=4769
Degree
Days=9922
Degree
Days=15178
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Far West &Southwest
New England Mid-East Plains &Rockies
Southeast Great Lakes
$/M
MB
TU
BT
U/G
SF
Consumption
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric Fossil Unit Cost Electric Unit Cost
36
Summary of Trends
The aging campus is driven by the need to renovate or replace 1960s and 70s
buildings, many of which were poorly constructed
To add to the problem, campuses have added new square footage to address
increasing enrollment that has now leveled off or is even in decline
The demand for both “catch up” on aging buildings and “keep up” of newer buildings
is much higher than the availability of capital funding
Therefore, backlogs continue to grow even though capital funding is finally back to
pre-recession levels
Flat operating budgets have not provided relief to the backlog problem
After some gains, energy consumption has leveled off; emissions have improved due
to fuel switching
In the face of these “bad news” trends, why have we not seen more building
failures and major facility problems on campuses?
Why the Roof Hasn’t Caved In
38
What are Campuses Doing to Manage Risk?
To keep the roof from caving in and building systems from failing
Better data to identify and manage the most critical
repair risks for campus.
Systems tend to outperform their statistical target.
Lower cost repairs to systems rather than full system
replacements have bought extra service time.
Because campuses are a collection of buildings –
the risk is diversified over the portfolio.
The functional obsolescence of space drives
investments that brings outside resources, especially
to space.
39
We Need to Make the Problem Smaller
Not all buildings are created equal, therefore they
should not be treated that way.
Use building portfolios – for operations and capital - to
make the problem smaller
Subdivide capital projects by issues of reliability,
safety/code, program, and asset preservation.
Create “balance” and “diversity” in all facility
investments to lower risks.
40
Time is On Our Side
Yes it is
What we’ve learned over the past 30 years …
fixing components rather than replacing entire systems,
that life cycle estimates are inherently conservative,
coordinating campus needs and projects can lower capital costs, and
functional obsolescence of space can bring capital resources to allocate for repairs
There is no reason to believe that these factors will change in the next 15 to 20 years. Therefore although we will need to act, we have time to manage the investments.
41
Make the Case for Resources
By controlling the things you can control
The old approach of defining needs in a way that makes the DM
problem bigger and then requesting money will not work.
Problem is too big to address in total – must break it down in size
and priority
Opportunities exist to… Lower Demands - Space Management
Make the Problem “Smaller” – Use Building Portfolio
Management
Sustain Impact of Finite Funding - Create Multi Year Plans
Mitigate Risk - Target Capital to Reliability, Safety/Code, and Critical
Asset Preservation Issues
Apply these actions to make the case for additional
funding and use savings to self-fund stewardship
Conclusion
43
Changing the Conversation
Strategies for success
Understand and communicate that not all buildings are created equal
Use building portfolios
Invest over time
Reallocate savings
Questions?
Please remember to complete the survey after the webinar ends.
Thank you!
45
Stay Current with Latest Trends and Best Practices
Let us keep you current, visit our Insights Page
If you haven’t downloaded
our report, The State of
Facilities in Higher
Education: 2015
Benchmarks, Best
Practices & Trends, please
go to sightlines.com to
download your copy today.
Sign up for our monthly
newsletter
Read our blog, explore our
content
