using metrics for facilities resource advocacy at the university of north texas - 2016 cappa tech...

Using Metrics

for

Facilities Resource Advocacy

at

The University of North Texas

Colin Sanders-Estrada, Regional Service Manager, Sightlines facilities asset advisors

David Reynolds, PE – Associate Vice President for Facilities, University of North Texas

Using Metrics for Facilities Resource Advocacy

- Current Discussions in Higher Ed

- UNT Facilities Situation

- Strategies to Make the Case for Funding

Where Does Our Data Originate?

Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums, & state systems

4

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

2015 Trends

Putting Campus Building Age in Context

The campus age drives the overall risk profile

6

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

7

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

pace

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

Space and Enrollment Growth

Space growing faster than enrollment in 2013 and 2014

8

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 per Student

Slight increase as enrollment levels off

9

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

GS

F/S

tud

en

t

Space per Student(Public/Private)

Public Private National Average

Annual Capital Investment

2014 levels finally reach pre-recession, but with a different funding mix

10

$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

Annual Capital Investment

Private campuses rely more on annual institutional capital

11

$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

How Are Capital Dollars Being Spent?

Higher investment into envelope/mechanical projects

12

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%

of

Sp

en

din

g

Facilities Backlogs Continue to Rise

Capital investment not enough to keep backlogs from growing

13

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

Facilities Operating Budgets

Small increases in campus operating budgets from 2008-2014

14

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

Custodial Coverage

Custodial coverage rates going up slowly- cleanliness scores declining slowly

15

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

To

tal G

SF

/FT

E

Coverage Cleanliness Scoring

Custodial Coverage

National Average Public Average Private Average

Maintenance Coverage

Maintenance coverage rates steadily increasing

16

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

Summary of Trends

17

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

UNT Situation…Is this you?

Large Investment in Facilities -- Replacement Value

Struggles to Overcome Years of Reduced Funding

Historically, Facilities Not at Forefront of Leadership’s Concerns

University of North Texas Campus Profile

37,000 + Students

$2B Replacement Value7.2M GSF

174 Facilities

904 Acres325 Facilities Staff

- Needed Data and Some Positive Actions

- Sightlines had the data from 2007 to Present

- UNT Facilities had Opportunities to Show Results

Strategy to Engage Leadership & Partners

Data Has Some Core Observations

21

Current age profile holds higher risk than peers

Increasing capital closes gap between peers

Decreasing budget has impacted staffing levels

Space

Current age profile holds higher risk than peers. Strategic

renovations would greatly impact the overall age profile of campus.

Fundamental Metrics: Density & Technical Complexity

Busy campus has capital, operational implications; Less complex buildings

23

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

A B C D E F G H I UNT

Us

ers

/10

0,0

0 G

SF

Density

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

A UNT B C D E F G H I

Te

ch

nic

al C

om

ple

xit

y

Technical Complexity

Measure of “How busy campus is”

• Capital Implications

• Increased Custodial Needs

Complexity of Building Systems

• Capital Implications

• Advanced Staffing Knowledge

Equates to nearly 4,500 additional

people on UNT’s campus

More small, simple buildings

Understanding increased cost due to number of buildings

24

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000


GS

F

Average Building Size

Public School Average Peer Average

Institutions organized by Technical Complexity

Tech 1 & 2 Buildings

Tech 3 & 4 Buildings

90% of Campus GSF

45 Buildings

Average Size: 66k/186k

Putting Your Campus Building Age in Context

The campus age drives the overall risk profile

25

Pre

-Wa

r

Built before 1951

Durable construction

Older but typically lasts longer P

os

t-W

ar

Built from 1951 to 1975

Lower-quality construction

Already needing more repairs and renovations

Mo

de

rn Built from 1976 to 1990

Quick-flash construction

Low-quality building components C

om

ple

x Built in 1991 and newer

Technically complex spaces

Higher-quality, more expensive to maintain & repair

Pre-War Post-War

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Pe

rce

nt

of

GS

F

Sightlines Database- Construction Age My Campus

Modern Complex

32%14% 32% 22%University of North Texas

Sightlines Database 19% 36% 15% 30%

11% 14%21%

28%12%

17%

19%

23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

UNTConstruction

Age

UNTRenovation

Age

PublicUniversityAverage

PeerAverage

Campus Age by Category

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

Campus Age Profile vs Public Average vs Peers

Understanding the Impact of Age on Capital & Operations

26

High

Risk

High

Risk

Buildings Under 10

Little work. “Honeymoon” period.

Low Risk

Buildings 10 to 25

Short life-cycle needs; primarily space renewal.

Medium Risk

Buildings 25 to 50

Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come due. Functional obsolescence prevalent.

Higher Risk

Buildings over 50

Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures are possible. Core modernization cycles are

missed.

Highest risk

High

RiskHigh

Risk

26%17% 14%17%

51%52%

43%

35%

11% 14%21%

28%12%

17%

19%

23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

UNTConstruction

Age

UNTRenovation

Age

PublicUniversityAverage

PeerAverage

Campus Age by Category

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

Selective Renovations with Largest Impact

Understanding the Impact of Age on Capital & Ops

27

Building Name GSF Renovation Age

Discovery Park 563,296 26

Willis Library 175,521 44

General Academic Building 146,679 36

Chilton Hall 142,117 25

Music Building 140,735 36

TOTAL GSF 1,168,348

Includes 5 of 6 Largest

Buildings totaling 30% of

Campus GSF

High

Risk

High

Risk

High

RiskHigh

Risk

26%17% 14%17%

51%52%

43%

35%

High

Risk

Capital

Increasing capital closes gap between peers; ROPA+ Prediction presents

opportunity for strategic capital planning

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

$ in

Mil

lio

ns

Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target

Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need


Includes only the investment in existing facilities

29

Increasing Backlog & Risk

Increasing Net Asset Value

Lowering Risk Profile

Annual Funding Average

Without Infrastructure Project: $11.4M

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

$6.0

$7.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

$/G

SF


Total AS $/GSF Total AR $/GSF

Capital Investment vs Peers

Includes only the investment in existing facilities

30

UNT Spending Peer Average Spending

$2.96/GSF $3.94/GSF

Does not include infrastructure spending

Infrastructure project skews spending mix

Even mix of space renewal and building systems

31

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

$M

illi

on

s

Capital Investment Mix

Envelope Building Systems Infrastructure Space Renewal Safety/Code

6%

28%

32%

31%

3%

Total Investment Mix

Operational Metrics

Decreasing budget has impacted staffing levels. Peer operational spending has

remained consistent while UNT has seen decreases.

Daily Service costs have declined since 2011

Peers spending $2.98M more on Operational costs than UNT in 2014

33

$-

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

$/G

SF

Facilities Expenditures

Daily Service $/GSF Total PM $/GSF

UNT Peers

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

$-

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

$9.00

$10.00

A B C D E F G H UNT I

Insp

ectio

n S

co

re

$/G

SF

Facilities Expenditures

Daily Service $/GSF Total PM $/GSF Inspection Score

Spending less per square foot, yielding high output

UNT has 3rd lowest Operating Expenditures yet boasts 2nd highest inspection score

34

Custodial Coverage Increases Annually

Custodians covering significantly more space than peers

35

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

GS

F

Custodial Coverage

A B C D E F G H UNT I

Peer Coverage

GSF/FTE Peer Average

UNT Peers

Steady Maintenance Coverage Above Peers

Maintenance workers covering 105k GSF; Peers average 82k GSF

36

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

GS

F

Maintenance Coverage

GSF/FTE


Coverage vs Peers

Average

UNT Peers

Increasing Grounds Coverage

Approaching peer average, maintaining competitive scores

37

-

5

10

15

20

25

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Ac

re/F

TE

Grounds Coverage

Peer Average

3.88 3.96 4.07 3.79

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

CampusCustomer

Survey

SightlinesInspection

PeerAverage

PublicSchool

Average

Inspe

ction S

core

(1

-5)

Grounds Inspection

Key Takeaways from Data for

Leadership

Key Takeaways

Key Takeaway #1: Campus currently has a high risk age profile with

almost 70% of space over 25 years old – a critical age for buildings. A

large percentage of this space, however, is in select buildings which

presents an opportunity for strategic renovations. Identifying the needs

and purpose of all buildings on campus can drastically change the age

profile.

39

Key Takeaways

Key Takeaway #2: Since 2007, recurring funding has seen a positive

trend. Although total capital spending has an increasing trend as well, peer

institutions are spending an average of $1/GSF more than UNT. ROPA+

Prediction presents an opportunity for future strategic capital planning for

limited funding.

40

Key Takeaways

Key Takeaway #3: Operational spending has declined in recent years,

increasing the delta between UNT’s spending and peers. This is

correlated to an increasing trend in coverage levels. While campus

inspection scores remain competitive with peers, customer survey results

illustrate that campus constituents are feeling the facilities’ age.

41

- Needed Data and Some Positive Actions

- Sightlines had the data from 2007 to Present

- UNT Facilities had Opportunities to Show Results

Engage Leadership and Campus Partners

- Reinforce Positive Programs…..Like MEP Renovations

- Be Flexible for Cabinet’s Key Needs…..Emerging Requirements

- Pursue Improvements that Leadership values …Aesthetics

- Build Advocacy for New Funding…….Research & Parking

Engage Leadership and Campus Partners

Current HEAF MEP RenovationsProject Budget Status Phase Completion

Date

Music MEP $3.5M Commissioning February 2015

Marquis Hall Interior Renovation($2.5M), MEP ($4.5M)

Construction August 2015

Hickory Hall MEP $3.0M Design February Board

Matthews Hall MEP $4.2M Design February Board

Wooten Hall MEP $4.45M Design May Board

Willis Library MEP $4.75M Design Construction will Start in 2016

Frisco New College

Hurley Administration Building Landscape Project

46

Phase I: • Planter Re-facing/ New

Landscape Plants

Complete

Phase II: Pedestrian Walkway

Phase III: Rock Garden

• Progress pending Phase II completion

• Architect producing construction drawings, then we will proceed with selecting contractor/considering schedule

Marquis Hall Complete Renovation

Tree Trimming

Big Belly

96 total units 18.18 tons of waste last 6 months4.22 tons of recycling13.96 tons of trash

Funded in Partnership with Sustainability Fund

BEFORE AFTER

Campus Aesthetics?

Facilities Maintenance

Call us!

Additional Funds Received

0.00

20,000.00

40,000.00

60,000.00

80,000.00

100,000.00

120,000.00

140,000.00

Research Funds

Funds Received Funds Spent

$89,008.20

0.00

50,000.00

100,000.00

150,000.00

200,000.00

250,000.00

300,000.00

350,000.00

400,000.00

Parking & Transportation Funds

Funds Received FY16 Funds Spent

$150,195.60

FY16 Parking and Transportation Projects

(Planned)Area Budget Est. Schedule

Parking Lot 31 $297,000 Summer 2016



Minor Repairs, Striping, and Signage $130,000 Summer 2016

Grounds Parking Lot Maintenance $122,000 On-Going

PM Fee $15,000

Using Metrics for Facilities Resource Advocacy

- 3rd Party Party Benchmarking Impacts:

oStrengthened Advocacy for Funding

o Improved Planning for Facility Projects/Capital

o Improved Capital Resource Budgeting

oCommon Language for Management

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

University of North Texas

Operations & Maintenance Funds Used

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015