llc fy2012 mb&a middlesex community · manchester community college naugatuck valley community...
Post on 22-Jul-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
Sightlines LLCFY2012 Facilities MB&A PresentationMiddlesex Community College
Date: January 22, 2012Presented by: Brendon Martin and Josh Vidro
2
Sightlines profile: 41 states, DC, Nova Scotia
Common facilities vocabulary
Consistent analytical methodology
Context through benchmarking
3
Asset Reinvestment
The measure of service process, the maintenance quality of space and systems, and the customers opinion of service delivery
The effectiveness of the facilities operating budget, staffing, supervision, and energy management
The accumulated backlog of repair and modernization needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them “Catch‐Up Costs”
The annual investment needed to ensure buildings will properly perform and reach their useful life “Keep‐Up Costs”
A vocabulary for measurementThe Return on Physical Assets – ROPASM
Annual Stewardship
Operational Effectiveness Service
Asset Value Change Operations Success
4
Comparison Institutions
Mass CC Peers
Berkshire Community College
Bristol Community College
Bunker Hill Community College
Cape Cod Community College
Greenfield Community College
Holyoke Community College
Massasoit Community College
MassBay Community College
Mt. Wachusett Community College
North Shore Community College
Northern Essex Community College
Quinsigamond Community College
Roxbury Community College
Springfield Technical Community College
CT Peers
Capital Community College
Gateway Community College
Housatonic Community College
Manchester Community College
Naugatuck Valley Community College
Norwalk Community College
Three Rivers Community College CT Peers AveragePeer Average
5
Core issues
• In five years, Middlesex will experience a major shift in their age profile. • Middlesex is one of the most technical campus amongst the MACC system, creating capital and operational challenges.
Physical Profile
• Total project spending has been increasing the past three years, but remains below the target.
• Annual Stewardship has increased the past three years.• Total campus backlog is below the MACC average.
Asset Value Change
• Middlesex is operating with more resources than MACC peers.• Middlesex has consistently consumed less energy than MACC peers over the last eight years.
• The overall look of campus at Middlesex has improved since FY07.
Operational Effectiveness
6
Physical Profile
7
7% 12% 14%
40%62%
25%11%
27%10%
39% 66%
26% 28% 25%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
MCCComposite
BedfordCampus
LowellCampus
Peers
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 50 and Above
Age of campusMCC GSF‐ 553K, with a younger campus compared to the MACC system
65%
% of Space by Age Category
Buildings Under 10Little work .“Honeymoon” period.
Low Risk
Buildings 10 to 25Lower cost space renewal updates and
initial signs of program pressures Medium Risk
Buildings 25 to 50Life cycles are coming due in envelope and mechanical
systems. Functional obsolescence prevalent.Higher Risk
Buildings over 50Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures
are possible. Core modernization cycles are missed.Highest riskHigh
Risk High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
8
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
$55
$60
$/GSF
Under 10 Years
How age impacts campus investment strategy53% of campus is above the age of 25
* Life cycle costs based on the average tech 3 academic space.
10 – 25 Years Over 25 Years
7% 40% 53%
Average Life Cycle Costs by Age of Space (Renovation Age)
PlumbingElectrical ServiceMechanical Systems
BoilersTile WorkMetal Roofs
9
Future age profileMCC will experience a major shift in age of campus
7%
40%
8% 14%
27%
62%
62%
61%
26% 30%38%
25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
MCC FY12 MCC FY17 Bedford FY17 Lowell FY17
% of Space by Age Category
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 50 and Above
Building Shifting to “High‐Risk” in FY17:Academic Resource, Campus Center, Cataldo, Derby, Enrollment
Center, Facilities Management, Henderson Hall, Talbot
10
Asset Value Change
11
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
MCC’s Total Capital Investment
Facilities Non‐Facilities/New Space
MCC has invested, on average, $1.3 million into existing spaceTotal capital spending
$2.0Million
12
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
MCC’s Total Capital Investment
Facilities Non‐Facilities/New Space
MCC has invested, on average, $1.3 million into existing spaceTotal capital spending
$1.3Million
13
Total project spendingProject spending has been increasing since FY10
CT Peers AveragePeer Average
14
Total project spendingProject spending has been increasing since FY10
CT Peers AveragePeer Average
15
Mix of spending compared to peersMCC has spent over 60% on envelope and system work
37.1%
18.4%
27.2%
39.7%
12.0%15.2%
19.2%20.9%
5% 6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% of Total Spe
nding
Building Envelope Building Systems Infrastructure Space Renewal Safety/Code
6 Year Mix of Spending
MCC Mass CC Peers
16
$6.6
$2.7$2.0
$3.2
$1.1
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need(Equilibrium)
Functional Obsolescence(Target)
$ in M
illions
Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program
Defining stewardship investment targetsWhat is the right level of investment for MCC?
Depreciation Model Sightlines Recommendation
Replacement Value: $221 million
Total $ in Millions $6.6 $5.9 $3.1
17
Annual stewardship vs. target
$‐
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
Total Annual Stewardship
Envelope/Mechanical Space/Programming Target
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
6 Year Target Total Actual 6 Year Investment
$ in M
illions
Envelope/MechanicalTarget vs. Actuals
0
2
4
6
8
10
5 Year Target TotalActual 5 Year Investment
$ in M
illions
Space/ProgrammingTarget vs. Actuals
7.5 Million
4.6 Million
MCC has deferred over $10 million the past 6 years
66%
34%
18
Annual stewardshipStewardship levels increased in FY12
CT Peers AveragePeer Average
19
Annual stewardshipStewardship levels increased in FY12
CT Peers AveragePeer Average
20
Total project spending vs. annual investment needMCC’s backlog has been increasing since FY07
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012
$/GSF
Millions
Total Capital Investment vs. Target
Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Target Need Life Cycle Need
Increasing Backlog
Stabilizing Backlog
Decreasing Backlog
Life Cycle Need
21
What to expect for the FY2013 RenewalSightlines is Redefining Critical Investment Targets
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$ in M
illions
"Cash Flow" Target 3 Year Moving Avg
22
$112
$142
$62
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
MCC MA Community Colleges CT Community Colleges
$/GSF
AR Backlog
Asset reinvestment backlog of needBacklog remains elevated compared to the CT Systems
23
Net asset value of campusMCC’s NAV is higher than MACC peers
Investment Strategy
100%‐85%
85%‐70%
70%‐50%
Below 50%
Capital Upkeep Stage: Primarily new or recently renovated buildings with sporadic building repair & life cycle needs; “You pick the projects”
Repair and Maintain Stage: Buildings are beginning to show their age and may require more significant investment on a case‐by‐case basis
Systemic Renovation Stage: Buildings may require more significant repairs; large capital infusions; “The projects pick you”
Transitional/Gut Renovation/Demo Stage: Major buildings components are in jeopardy of failure. Reliability issues are widespread throughout the building.
NAV of Index
NAV Index =(Replacement Value‐Building Needs)
Replacement ValueX 100
24
Operational Effectiveness
25
Operating budget actualsMCC is operating above the MACC average
Utilities Daily ServicePlanned MaintenanceCT Peers AveragePeer Average
26
Operating budget actualsMCC is operating above the MACC average
Utilities Daily ServicePlanned MaintenanceCT Peers AveragePeer Average
27
Daily service actualsMCC has historically had more daily service dollars
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$8.00
$9.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Daily Service
MACC MCCCT
Daily ServiceAverage
28
Historical PMMCC’s PM has historically been below both the MACC and CT systems
$0.00
$0.05
$0.10
$0.15
$0.20
$0.25
$0.30
$0.35
$0.40
$0.45
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
PM
MACC MCCCT
PMAverage
29
Historical energy consumptionConsistently consumed below peer average
Fossil Electric
30
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/MMBT
U
MCC Fossil Peer FossilMCC Electric Peer Electric
Fuel Cost Trends vs. Peers
Total energy costMCC has a higher unit cost compared to the MACC system
*Excludes MWCC
31
Maintenance metricsMCC continues to utilize part‐time workers
3.7
3.5
4.0
1 2 3 4 5
MCC FY07‐FY11
Peers
MCC FY12
General Repair
CT Peers AveragePeer Average
32
Custodial metricsMCC’s custodial workers cover less ground than both MACC and CT peers
3.9
3.8
4.2
1 2 3 4 5
MCC FY07‐FY11
Peers
MCC FY12
Cleanliness
CT Peers AveragePeer Average
33
Grounds metrics MCC has significantly improved ground scores
3.3
3.2
3.9
1 2 3 4 5
MCC FY07‐FY11
Peers
MCC FY12
Grounds
CT Peers AveragePeer Average
34
Campus inspectionMCC’s look of campus is outperforming peers
3.3
3.2
3.9
3.5
3.8
3.9
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.4
1 2 3 4 5
Grounds
Exterior
Cleanliness
General Repair/Impression
Mechanical Spaces
Campus Inspection Scores
MCC Peers
35
Service processUtilizing current work order system will enhance service process scores in future
0 1 2 3 4 5
PerformanceMeasurement
Work Request System
Organization
Scheduling Process
Centralization
Service Process FY12
36
Concluding Comments
37
Concluding comments
There will be a major shift in campus age to the “high‐risk” age category, creating future capital and operational demands.
38
Concluding comments
There will be a major shift in campus age to the “high‐risk” age category, creating future capital and operational demands.
Continue to place a priority on increasing the annual stewardship investment in order to maintain the Net Asset Value of campus.
39
Concluding comments
There will be a major shift in campus age to the “high‐risk” age category, creating future capital and operational demands.
Continue to place a priority on increasing the annual stewardship investment in order to maintain the Net Asset Value of campus.
Continue to monitor campus backlog, which has been increasing the past six years.
40
Concluding comments
There will be a major shift in campus age to the “high‐risk” age category, creating future capital and operational demands.
Continue to place a priority on increasing the annual stewardship investment in order to maintain the Net Asset Value of campus.
Continue to monitor campus backlog, which has been increasing the past six years.
Middlesex has consistently improved the look of campus the past three years.
top related