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.