The University of Tennessee - Knoxville E&G. Presenters: Peter Reeves & Ditee Hossain June 2 nd, 2016

Transcription

1 The University of Tennessee - Knoxville E&G Presenters: Peter Reeves & Ditee Hossain June 2 nd, 2016 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 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 Vermont 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 West Liberty University West Virginia Health Science Center West Virginia Institute of Technology West Virginia School ofosteopathic Medicine West Virginia State University West Virginia University Western Connecticut State University Western Oregon University Westfield State University Wheaton College Widener University

2 Who Partners with Sightlines? Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums and state systems Serving the Nation s Leading Institutions: 70% of the Top 20 Colleges* 75% of the Top 20 Universities* 34 Flagship State Universities 13 of the 14 Big 10 Institutions 9 of the 12 Ivy Plus Institutions 8 of 13 Selective Liberal Arts Colleges * U.S. News Rankings Sightlines is proud to announce that: 450 colleges and universities are Sightlines clients including over 325 ROPA members. 93% of ROPA members renewed in 2014 We have clients in 42 states, the District of Columbia and four Canadian provinces More than 100 new institutions became Sightlines members since 2013 Sightlines advises state systems in: Alaska California Connecticut Hawaii Maine Massachusetts Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey Pennsylvania Texas West Virginia 2

3 A Vocabulary for Measurement The Return on Physical Assets ROPA SM The annual investment needed to ensure buildings will properly perform and reach their useful life Keep-Up Costs The accumulation of repair and modernization needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them Catch-Up Costs The effectiveness of the facilities operating budget, staffing, supervision, and energy management The measure of service process, the maintenance quality of space and systems, and the customers opinion of service delivery Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Operational Effectiveness Service Asset Value Change Operations Success 3

4 Peer Institutions Institution Location Auburn University Louisiana State University The University of Alabama (Tuscaloosa) The University of Mississippi University of Arkansas University of Florida University of Georgia University of Kentucky University of Missouri Auburn, AL Baton Rouge, LA Tuscaloosa, AL Oxford, MS Fayetteville, AR Gainesville, FL Athens, GA Lexington, KY Columbia, MO Comparative Considerations Size, technical complexity, region, geographic location, and setting are all factors included in the selection of peer institutions 4

5 Putting Your Campus Building Age in Context % of GSF Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex The campus age drives the overall risk profile Built before 1951 Durable construction Older but typically lasts longer Built from 1951 to 1975 Lower-quality construction Already needing more repairs and renovations Built from 1976 to 1990 Quick-flash construction Low-quality building components Built in 1991 and newer Technically complex spaces Higher-quality, more expensive to maintain & repair 12% Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex Percent of Total Space 26% Percent of Total Space 37% Percent of Total Space 10% Percent of Total Space 26% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Sightlines Database- Construction Age My Campus 5

6 Younger Campus Through Renovations Square Footage by Construction Age Square Footage by Renovation Age Space over 50 Space Space Space Under 10 Space over 50 Space Space Space Under 10 6

7 Weighted age of a GSF Construction VS. Renovation Age Weighted age of a GSF Space is younger today than it was 8 years ago 50 Construction Vs. Renovation Age UTK Construction Vs. Renovation Age Peer Years - 13 Years Years - 13 Years Construction Age Renovation Age Construction Age Renovation Age 7

8 $ in Millions Total Capital Investment Increased commitment to existing space in recent years $120 6% Total Capital Investment $100 $80 39% 55% $60 $40 $20 $ Existing Space Investment New Space Investment Non-Facilities Average 8

9 $/GSF Total Project Spending vs. Peers Higher investment levels, despite lower stewardship funding $8.0 UTK Total AS & AR without Infrastructure Peers $7.0 $6.0 $5.0 $4.0 $3.0 $2.0 $1.0 $ Total AS/GSF Total AR/GSF Avg 9

10 $ in Millions Defining an Annual Investment Target Annual Funding Target: $29.8 M $70.0 FY15 Annual Investment Target Replacement Value: $2.1B $60.0 $50.0 $40.0 $32.1 Functional obsolescence drives investment prior to life cycles & discounts the annual investment target $30.0 $62.8 $20.0 $10.0 $24.8 $11.2 $18.6 $0.0 3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need Annual Investment Target Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program 10

11 $ in Millions Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target $60.0 Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target Increasing Net Asset Value $50.0 $40.0 Lowering Risk Profile $30.0 Increasing Backlog & Risk $20.0 $10.0 $ Annual Stewardship Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need 11

12 $ in Millions Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target Meeting Target For Past 5 Years With One-Time Dollars Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target $60.0 Increasing Net Asset Value $50.0 $40.0 Lowering Risk Profile $30.0 Increasing Backlog & Risk $20.0 $10.0 $ Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need Does Not Include Infrastructure Spending 12

13 $/GSF $/GSF UTK Has Reduced It s Backlog Through Investment Backlog remains above peer levels $120 UTK Asset Reinvestment Need $120 Asset Reinvestment Need Peers $100 $100 $80 $80 $60 $60 $40 $40 $20 $20 $0 $0 UTK s Backlog is Decreasing Peers Have Lower Overall AR Need 13

14 Millions Total Project Spending by Package Switch Focus of investments in the future? $70.0 Capital Investment Mix by Year Total Investment Mix $60.0 $50.0 4% 16% $ % $ % $20.0 $ % $ Envelope Building Systems Infrastructure Space Renewal Safety/Code 14

15 Total Dollars (Millions) ROPA+ Prediction: Predictive Investment Model $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 Asset Reinvestment Need $577 Discovery Asset Reinvestment Need $229 $240 $108 Prediction Asset Reinvestment Need Mod. & Infra. Need Infrastructure & modernization Sightlines estimate Renewal Need What building needs will come due in the next 10 years? Building Exteriors Electrical HVAC Interiors Plumbing Roofing Current Need What on campus is currently broken, operating at a significantly higher cost, or requires significantly more time to maintain? 15

16 Total Dollars (Millions) ROPA+ Prediction: Predictive Investment Model $700 $600 Asset Reinvestment Need Current Need Breakdown 3% 2% $500 $229 23% 15% Small Building Renovation Roofing $400 Electrical $300 12% Plumbing Interiors $200 $240 29% 16% HVAC Building Exteriors $100 $108 $0 Asset Reinvestment Need 16

17 Total Dollars (Millions) Total Dollars (Millions) ROPA+ Prediction: Predictive Investment Model $700 Asset Reinvestment Need $80 10 Year Capital Forecast $600 $70 $500 $229 $60 $50 $400 $40 $300 $200 $240 $30 $20 $100 $0 $108 Asset Reinvestment Need $10 $0 Current Need Renewal Need Modernization & Infrastructure 17

18 $/GSF $/GSF Operational Spending is Above Peer Average $10.00 $9.00 Operating Actuals UTK $10.00 $9.00 Operating Actuals Peers $8.00 $8.00 $7.00 $7.00 $6.00 $6.00 $5.00 $5.00 $4.00 $4.00 $3.00 $3.00 $2.00 $2.00 $1.00 $1.00 $ $ Utilities PM Daily Service Utilities PM Daily Service 18

19 Buildings/ 1,000,000 GSF Larger Buildings: Greater Economies of Scale Building Intensity Smaller Buildings 40 Building Intensity Definition Measurement of the number of buildings per million GSF Application Implications on the numbers if systems and travel time/economies of scale Larger Buildings UTK A B C D E F G H I Building Intensity Peer Group Average 19

20 GSF/FTE Maintenance Performance FTE/Supervisor Increasing maintenance coverage(fewer staff) and supervision ratios(fewer supervisors) 120,000 Maintenance Staffing Supervision 8 100, , , ,000 20, Institutions arranged by Tech Rating 20

21 Maintenance Performance GSF/FTE FTE/Super Fewer maintenance staff than peers, with higher supervision 120,000 Maintenance Staffing 20 Maintenance Supervision , ,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 - Peers A B C D UTK E F G H I General Repair / Impression A B C D UTK E F G H I UT- E&G Institutions arranged by Tech Rating 21

22 Density Factor near Peer Average Campus Users / 100,000 GSF Density Factor More Wear And Tear Density Factor Definition - Total Faculty, Staff, & Students FTE per total campus GSF Application Illustrates the campus users impact on the wear and tear of facilities Less Wear And Tear A B UTK C D E F G H I Density Factor Peer Group Average 22

23 GSF/FTE Custodial Performance FY2012 FTE/Super In 2012, Custodial presents room for improvement 70,000 Custodial Staffing 40 Custodial Supervision 60, , , , , , Peers A B C UTK D E F G H I Cleanliness - A B C UTK D E F G H I UT- E&G Institutions arranged by Density Factor 23

24 FTE FTE/Supervisor Custodial Transition Increased custodial efficiency as custodial transition in-house Coverage Supervision In-House GCA Coverage 24

25 GSF/FTE Custodial Performance 2015 FTE/Super Custodial Metrics are in line with peers, producing better results 60,000 Custodial Staffing 45 Custodial Supervision 50, , , , , Peers A B UTK C D E F G H I Cleanliness - A B UTK C D E F G H I UT- E&G Institutions arranged by Density Factor 25

26 Buildings/Developed Acre Qualifying Metrics - Grounds Intensity-Top 50 Publics Grounds Intensity More Intricate Grounds Intensity Definition Measurement of the number of buildings per Developed Acre Application Indicates the intricacy of the campus grounds and the intensity to maintain More Open Space 26

27 Grounds Performance Acre/FTE FTE/Super Fewer Grounds workers compared to top public institutions Grounds Staffing Grounds Supervision A C E G I K UTK N P R T V X Peers Grounds Inspection Score UT- E&G Institutions arranged by Grounds Intensity 27

28 % Campus Inspection Index & Scores Campus Inspection Index Inspection Breakdown Exteriors Mechanical Spaces Grounds Cleanliness General Repair/ Impression 0 A B C D UTK E F G H I

29 $/GSF Comparing Service Levels and Costs Operating Actuals (DS & PM) $/GSF vs. peers and Inspection Scores* 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Inspection Score Index 0 A B C D UT- E&G (Me) Arrayed by Technical Complexity 29 Daily Service Actual $/GSF E F G H I Total PM/GSF (Actual) *Inspection Score Index includes : Repair/Impression, Mechanical, Exterior, Cleanliness, and Grounds Peer Avg. Inspection Score 0%

30 Comparing Service Levels and Costs Increasing Efficiency & Effectiveness $0.07 Operating Actuals $/GSF Per Inspection Percentage Point UTK over time $0.07 Operating Actuals $/GSF Per Inspection Percentage Point Versus Peers $0.06 $0.062 $0.06 $0.05 $0.052 $0.049 $0.05 $0.057 $0.054 $0.049 $0.049 $0.049 $0.048 $0.049 $0.059 $0.057 $0.04 $0.04 $0.044 $0.03 $0.03 $0.02 $0.02 $0.01 $0.01 $ $0.00 A B C D UTK E F G H I 30

31 31 Sustainability Solutions

32 Distribution of Emissions by Level of Control 23% Emissions by Scope 50% 27% Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Less Control - 6,513 Scope 1 Sources - MTCDE5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Co-gen Plant Direct Transportation Fertilizer Scope 1 Direct GHGs Natural Gas, Fuel Oil Vehicle Fleet Refrigerants Scope 2 Sources Other On-Campus Stationary Refrigerants & Chemicals Scope 25,411 Upstream GHGs Purchased Electricity - MTCDE5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Purchased Electricity Scope Scope 3 3 Indirect Sources GHGs Faculty/Staff/ Student Commuting Directly 7,945 Financed 9,749 Travel Study Abroad Travel Solid Waste Wastewater Paper Paper Purchases PurchasingT&D Losses Transmission & Distribution Losses - MTCDE5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Commuting Travel Waste/Wastewater

33 Distribution of Emissions by Level of Control Emissions by Scope 47,549 45,000 46,000 47,000 48,000 49,000 50,000 51,000 52,000 MTCDE Scope 1 Sources 23% 27% Other On-Campus Stationary Direct Transportation Refrigerants & Chemicals Scope 2 Sources 146,564 50% - MTCDE 50, , , ,000 Purchased Electricity Scope 3 Sources 33,493 23,256 - MTCDE 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Commuting Wastewater Scope 2 T&D Losses Travel Paper Purchasing

34 % Change % Change Gross Emissions Increased against 2007 Baseline Normalized Emissions Decreased 10% Change in Emissions vs. Change in Campus Size and Population Indexed to FY2007 8% Change in Space, Population, and Emissions Indexed to FY2007 6% 5% 0% 4% 2% 0% 7% 5% -5% -2% -4% -10% -4% -6% -9% -11% -15% -8% -10% -20% -12% Campus GSF Campus Population Emissions 34

35 Gross Emissions MTCDE 350, , ,000 Total Emissions vs. Space Growth 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000, , , ,000 50,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000, Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 GSF - 35

36 MTCDE GSF REC purchases significantly change net emission profile 350, , ,000 Total Emissions vs. Space Growth Net Emissions 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000, , , ,000 50,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000, Scope 1 Scope 2 RECs Scope 3 GSF - 36

37 MTCDE GSF REC purchases significantly change net emission profile 400, , , ,000 Total Emissions vs. Space Growth Net Emissions 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000, , , ,000 50, Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 GSF 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000-37

38 BTU/GSF Energy Consumption vs. Peers Lower consumption profile versus peer institutions 180,000 UTK 160,000 Total Utility Consumption By Fuel Type Peers 140, , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Electric Fossil 38

39 39 Questions and Comments