Harper FY12 BOT Presentation final (2) · 6/19/2013 · FY12 Facilities MB&A Presentation Harper...
14
1 Sightlines LLC FY12 Facilities MB&A Presentation Harper College June 19, 2013 Presented by: Rick Finnegan University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign The University of Maine University of Maine at Augusta University of Maine at Farmington University of Maine at Machias University of Maine at Presque Isle University of Maine at Fort Kent University of Maryland University of Massachusetts Amherst University of Massachusetts Boston University of Massachusetts Dartmouth University of Massachusetts Lowell University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Missouri University of Missouri ‐ Kansas City University of Missouri ‐ St. Louis University of New Hampshire University of New Haven University of Notre Dame University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania University of Portland University of Redlands The University of Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay The University of Rhode Island, Feinstein Providence The University of Rhode Island, Kingston University of Rochester University of San Diego University of San Francisco University of St. Thomas (TX) University of Southern Maine University of Toledo University of Vermont Upper Iowa University Utica College Vassar College Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Department of General Services Wagner College Wellesley College Wesleyan University West Chester University of Pennsylvania West Virginia University Western Oregon University Wheaton College (MA)
Transcript of Harper FY12 BOT Presentation final (2) · 6/19/2013 · FY12 Facilities MB&A Presentation Harper...
1
Sightlines LLCFY12 Facilities MB&A PresentationHarper College
June 19, 2013Presented by: Rick Finnegan
University of Illinois at Urbana ChampaignThe University of Maine
University of Maine at AugustaUniversity of Maine at Farmington
University of Maine at MachiasUniversity of Maine at Presque Isle
University of Maine at Fort KentUniversity of Maryland
University of Massachusetts AmherstUniversity of Massachusetts Boston
University of Massachusetts DartmouthUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell
University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Missouri
University of Missouri ‐ Kansas CityUniversity of Missouri ‐ St. Louis
University of New HampshireUniversity of New HavenUniversity of Notre Dame
University of OregonUniversity of Pennsylvania
University of PortlandUniversity of Redlands
The University of Rhode Island, Narragansett BayThe University of Rhode Island, Feinstein Providence
The University of Rhode Island, KingstonUniversity of RochesterUniversity of San Diego
University of San FranciscoUniversity of St. Thomas (TX)University of Southern Maine
University of ToledoUniversity of VermontUpper Iowa University
Utica CollegeVassar College
Virginia Commonwealth UniversityVirginia Department of General Services
Wagner CollegeWellesley College
Wesleyan UniversityWest Chester University of Pennsylvania
West Virginia University Western Oregon University
Wheaton College (MA)
2
Sightlines profile: 42 states, DC, Nova Scotia
Common facilities vocabulary
Consistent analytical methodology
Context through benchmarking
Over 380 campuses in the Sightlines database, 7 in Illinois
3
Comparison Institutions
Comparative Considerations
• Location• Size
• Technical complexity• Community Colleges
Institution Location
Bristol Community College Fall River, MA
Bunker Hill Community College Charlestown, MA
Cincinnati State Technical and Community College Cincinnati, OH
Columbus State Community College Columbus, OH
Cuyahoga Community College ‐ 3 Campuses Cuyahoga County, OH
Holyoke Community College Holyoke, MA
Lakeland Community College Kirtland, OH
Lorain County Community College Elyria, OH
Owens State Community College Toledo, OH
Sinclair Community College Dayton, OH
4
Core observations
Challenges
• Annual Stewardship need will increase once renovations are completed in Buildings G, H, D and the Admissions/Student Center in the next three years
• Highest campus density combined with high technical complexity place strain on staffing and investment needs
Strengths
• Reductions in energy consumption and costs yield large savings• Harper exceeds peers in campus inspection• Getting value out of work order system and process with future improvements planned
Opportunities
• Balanced campus age profile will see a shift in the next 5‐7 years into higher risk categories, requiring strategic investments into new and old space with different operational demands
5
Campus is still the most crowded1.3M GSF at Harper College, excluding HPC & including H under renovation
Sightlines Database Average
22% 18%
23%23%
55%55%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Harper ROPA Peers
% of S
pace
Campus Age Profile vs. Peers
Less than 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50 years
Campus space includes 1.31M GSF, excluding HPC.
6
Capital Profile
7
The target continues to grow
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
$18
$20
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Project S
pend
ing (M
illions)
Project Spending to Target
Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Target Zone
Increasing Backlog
Target increases with inflation and with new and renovated space
Target Spending
Equilibrium Spending
Decreasing Backlog
Stabilizing Backlog
8
Project spending meeting peer levels Large increase in one‐time funds has brought Harper above peer levels
$ 2.53
$ 5.55
$ 4.80
Project spending $/GSF is calculated based on 1.31M GSF of campus.
9
Operational Performance
10
Consumption has decreased below peersDecrease in consumption is commendable, given the high technical complexity
0
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
150,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
BTU/G
SF
Historical Energy Consumption
Harper Fossil Fuel Harper ElectricPeer Average FF Peer Electric
19% decrease in fossil from FY11‐FY12
Consumption ratio is calculated based on 1.31M GSF of campus.
11
Operations overviewChanges in staffing levels from FY11 producing similar scores
Mainten
ance
& Utilities
Maintenance & Utilities FY2012 Peers
Staffing (GSF/FTE): 59,052 75,856
Supervision (FTE/Super): 23.1 15.9
Materials ($/FTE): $25,083 $11,251
General Repair (1‐5): 4.4 3.9Und
er‐
Performing
Out‐
Performing
In‐Line
Groun
ds
Und
er‐
Performing
Out‐
Performing
In‐LineGrounds FY2012 Peers
Staffing (Acres/FTE): 16.3 28.8
Supervision (FTE/Super): 46.0 11.4
Materials ($/Acre): $957 $737
Grounds (1‐5): 4.2 4.0
Custod
ial
Und
er‐
Performing
Out‐
Performing
In‐LineCustodial FY2012 Peers
Staffing (GSF/FTE): 22,224 30,385
Supervision (FTE/Super): 22.0 13.6
Materials ($/FTE): $4,311 $5,908
Cleanliness (1‐5): 5.0 4.2
Buildings Included in FY12 Inspection: A,E,F,I,J,P and Z.
Coverage ratio is calculated based on 1.31M GSF of campus.
12
Exceeding peers in all metricsHigh daily service and spending yielding great results
0 1 2 3 4 5
Cleanliness
General Repair/Impression
Mechanical Spaces
Exterior
Grounds
Inspection Scores
Harper Peer Average
13
Funding Funding Sources
•Given the younger age distribution of campus, Annual Stewardship funds are critical to keep up with building needs. A strategic plan should be at the forefront with shifts in campus age expected in upcoming years
•One‐time funding in recent years has brought Harper closer to target levels; continuing this growth pattern will enable Harper to stabilize the net asset value of campus
Energy
•While Harper is commended for the continual decreases in consumption, it will be important to continue this focus with upcoming changes to space across campus
•Continue to work on generating savings through consumption reduction efforts. Any savings realized should be recycled into the ongoing stewardship of campus
Operations•Evaluate priorities on campus to determine the value of costs versus inspection scores
Ongoing opportunities
14
Discussion & Questions
