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

Sightlines LLCFY10 F iliti MB&A P t ti

University of Minnesota University of Missouri

University of Missouri ‐ Kansas CityUniversity of Missouri ‐ St. Louis

University of New HampshireUniversity of New HavenUniversity of Notre DameFY10 Facilities MB&A Presentation

Wesleyan UniversityUniversity of Oregon

University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of PortlandUniversity of Redlands

The University of Rhode Island, Narragansett BayThe University of Rhode Island, Feinstein Providence

Th U i it f Rh d I l d Ki tDate : April 13, 2011Presented by:  Peter Reeves

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 ToledoyUniversity of VermontUpper Iowa University

Utica CollegeVassar College

Virginia Commonwealth UniversityVirginia Department of General Services

ll

1

Wagner CollegeWellesley College

Wesleyan UniversityWest Chester University of Pennsylvania

West Virginia University Western Oregon University

Wheaton College (MA)

Sightlines Profile

Common Vocabulary Consistent Methodology Credibility Through Benchmarking

MEME

Common Vocabulary, Consistent Methodology, Credibility Through Benchmarking 

0

ID

NV

MIWI

INOH

NY

NDMT

SDWY

NE

MN

IA NJ

RIMANHVT

CT

DE

ID

NV

MIWI

INOH

NY

NDMT

SDWY

NE

MN

IA NJ

RIMANHVT

CT

DE

1‐5

6‐11

12‐17

8 23

CA

NV

CO

OKTN

IL IN

NC

WV

SC

KY

GANMAZ

UTMOKS

AR

DC

MD

CA

NV

CO

OKTN

IL IN

NC

WV

SC

KY

GANMAZ

UTMOKS

AR

DC

MD

18‐23

24‐aboveTX

AK

FLLATX

AK

FLLA

HIHIRepresents State System

Represents Flagship Institutions

2

10 year old company based in Guilford, CT 95% Annual retention rate Tracking $5.9 billion in operations budgets and $4.2 billion in capital projects Database of 23,500 buildings and 825 million GSF

BackgroundThe Return on Physical Assets – ROPASM

Developed a tool based on:Developed a tool based on:• Common vocabulary• Consistent analytical methodology• Credibility through benchmarking

The annual investment needed to ensure b ld ll

The accumulated backlog of repair and modernization 

d d h

The effectiveness of the facilities operating budget, 

ff

The measure of service process, the maintenance 

l fbuildings will properly perform and reach their useful life. “Keep‐Up Costs”

needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them. “Catch‐Up Costs”

staffing, supervision, and energy management.

quality of space and systems, and the customers opinion of service delivery.

Annual Stewardship

p

Asset Reinvestment

p

Operational Effectiveness Service

y

Asset Value Change Operations Success

3

Wesleyan  core observations

• Wesleyan has more square footage per student than peers

Space Profile

• Wesleyan has more square footage per student than peers• Wesleyan has many more smaller facilities than peers• Wesleyan’s campus is older than peers

• Wesleyan’s total Stewardship investments are still above peers

Cuts experienced in multiple areas

• Wesleyan s total Stewardship investments are still above peers• Supplemental reinvestment funds decreased in FY10• Daily operational budget shows decreasing trend since FY08

• Campus appearance surpasses peers aided by historical capital investments

Operations Performance

4

• Campus appearance surpasses peers, aided by historical capital investments• While campus appearance improves, customer satisfaction does not

Campus portfolio facts

Student Life,  139,342 

Support,  85,444 

Distribution of Square Footage by Function

Campus Portfolio Stats:Building Count:                            313GS 2 8 2 0

Athletic,  243,925 

GSF:                                    2,852,470Total Acreage:                              316 Maintained Acreage:                  219

Residential,  1,230,484 

Academic / Administrative ,  1,146,275 

5

Comparison Institutions

Peer Institutions

Amherst CollegeAmherst College

Brown University

Dartmouth College

Middlebury College

Tufts University – Medford

Vassar College

Williams College

6

Understanding the impact of unique space

Space / Student

1,200 

1,400 

Space / Student

1,000 

,

t

Wesleyan has approx. 60 GSF/Student more than peers

600 

800 

GSF/ Stud

ent

200

400 

‐

200 

A B Wesleyan D E F G H

7

Understanding the space v. wealth relationship

Less Resources More Resources

L

Database Distribution – Wealth v. Space

1,000

1,200

Less Stu

den

800

Stud

ent

nts

400

600

GSF/ S

More S

0

200

Stu

den

ts

8

0$0.0 $200,000.0 $400,000.0 $600,000.0 $800,000.0 $1,000,000.0 $1,200,000.0 $1,400,000.0 $1,600,000.0

Wealth per Student Wesleyan UniversityPeers

Campus square footage stable over timeReductions in small houses over time

C G th

400

450

3.0

3.5Campus Growth

2.80 M 2.85 M

300

3502.5

sns

200

250

1.5

2.0

# of Buildings

GSF  in Million

100

150

0 5

1.0

G

0

50

0.0

0.5

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

9

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

GSF # of Buildings

Numerous small buildings reflected in building intensity 

350

Number of  Buildings by Age Category

Removing 150 buildings would

43

13

250

300

ngs

Removing 150 buildings would bring Wesleyan to peer average.

256150

200

# Bu

ildin

0

50

100

0

Building count

10

Older age profile

% of Campus by Age Category Historically

35%40%45%50%

p y g g y y

15%20%25%30%

% of S

pace

0%5%10%

Less than 10 Years 10 ‐ 25 Years 25‐50 Years Over 50 YearsLess than 10 Years 10  25 Years 25 50 Years Over 50 Years

FY 2010 Peers FY 2010

Younger more technically complex 

space, more “keep up” need.

Younger more technically complex 

space, more “keep up” need.

Older space that is reaching or has reached major life cycles, more “catch up” 

Older space that is reaching or has reached major life cycles, more “catch up” 

11

funding needed.funding needed.

Annual Stewardship

Planning for the Future

12

Similar investment historically; recent reductions

13

FY2010 Stewardship Targets

Defining stewardship investment target

$30.00 

$35.00 

FY2010 Stewardship TargetsReplacement Value = $1.0B

$20.00 

$25.00 

lions

Life cycle is discounted for the coordination of modernization 

and renovation

$30.2$11.4

$4.0$10 00

$15.00 $ in M

ill

$11.6$8.7

$0 00

$5.00 

$10.00 

$0.00 

3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need(Equilibrium)

Functional Obsolescence(Target)

Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program

$30.2M                                                          $23M     $12.7M

14

Industry Standard Sightlines Recommendation

14

Reductions in stewardship have increased

Recurring Capital Investment vs. Target Need

$12 

$14 g p g

$8 

$10 

llion

s

$2.5M $2.6M  $2.7M  $3.1M  $2.7 M 

$3.7M  $4.6M  $5.4M 

$8.2M 

$6 

$

$ in M

il

$2 

$4 

$‐

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program Target Need

15

Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program Target Need

Approximately $36 Million has been deferred over the last 9 years 

Peers also experiencing reductions in fundsWesleyan is still spending above peer levels despite reductions

16

Adding to the backlog in FY2010Strong investments historically

$25.0

$30.0

D i

$20.0

ons

Decreasing Backlog 

$10 0

$15.0

$ in M

illio

$5.0

$10.0

Increasing Backlog

$0.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

g

17

Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment

Funding changes reflected in backlogMaintaining service levels will be challenged with an increasing backlog of needs

18

Reductions in daily operating costs similar to peersIn FY10 Peers spend on average 0.57 / GSF more than Wesleyan or $1.6 Million

$8.00 $8.00 

Peer Average Wesleyan University

$6.00 

$7.00 

$6.00 

$7.00 

$4.00 

$5.00 

$4.00 

$5.00 

$2.00 

$3.00 

$2.00 

$3.00 

$‐

$1.00 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

$‐

$1.00 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

19

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20102002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Wesleyan ‘10 4.23 3.42

Peer Average ‘10 4.80 2.60

Decreasing consumption and costCogeneration results in decreased consumption and costs

Energy Peer InstitutionsBryn Mawr CollegeColgate UniversityHamilton College

Mount Holyoke CollegeNortheastern University

Vassar College

20

gWellesley CollegeWilliams College

Maintenance Staff performs at peer level with fewer resources

Maintenance Materials

$15,000 

$20,000 

Maintenance Materials

TE

$5,000 

$10,000 $ / FT

$‐

Wesleyan Peer Average

WesleyanWesleyan Peer AveragePeer AverageGeneral Repair Inspection

3.8 3.7

21

Custodial cleanliness below peers despite comparable staffing levels

$3,000 

$4,000 

Custodial Materials

TE

$1,000 

$2,000 $ / FT

$‐

Wesleyan Peer Average

WesleyanWesleyan Peer AveragePeer AverageCleanliness Inspection

3.7 3.9

22

Grounds performance improved by capital investments

$8 000

$10,000 

$12,000 

Grounds Materials

TE

$2,000 

$4,000 

$6,000 

$8,000 

$ / FT

$‐

Wesleyan Peer Average

WesleyanWesleyan Peer AveragePeer AverageGrounds Inspection

4.2 3.9

23

Customer Satisfaction results over time

5.0Customer Satisfaction:  FY2005, FY2007, & FY2010

4.2 4.30

3.73.4

4.34.25

3.84

4.40

3.43

4.23.9

4.2

3.5 3.5

4.0

on In

dex

3.43.19

3 3

2.0

3.0

er  Satisfactio

1.0Custom

0.0Knowledge/Understanding 

in ProcessSchedules and service 

levelsWork meets expectations Feedback General satisfaction

24

FY2005 FY2007 FY2010

Significant improvements in campus appearanceOverall satisfaction levels beginning to turn up

5Historical Campus Inspection (1‐5)

C i tC i t3

3.54

4.55

ion Score

Communicate challenges to 

campus community

Communicate challenges to 

campus community

0 51

1.52

2.5

Campu

s Inspe

cti

Adjust operations as necessary

Adjust operations as necessary

00.5

Cleanliness General Repair/Impression

Mechanical Spaces

Exterior Grounds

2005 2007 2010

C

Manage customer expectations

Manage customer expectations100% Customer Satisfaction Index

ndex

40%

60%

80%

er  Satisfactio

n In

Peer Average

25

0%

20%

2005 2007 2010

Custom

e

Sightlines LLCFY10 G G MB&A P filFY10 Go Green MB&A Profile

26

© Sightlines 2010

A vocabulary for measurementGo‐Green Measurement, Benchmarking and Analysis

Go Green Service  Membership Map

Go‐Green Peer InstitutionsBabson College

B M C ll

p p

Bryn Mawr College

Hamilton College

Hampshire College

Mount Holyoke College

llUnion College

Vassar College

Comparative ConsiderationsSize

ComplexityLocation

Number of Members

Go‐Green Measurement and Analysis Service

Sightlines has approximately 50 Members

ProgramNumber of Members

27

Approximately two‐thirds are private Approximately one‐third are public Approximately two‐thirds have signed the ACUPCC Approximately forty percent are Charter Signatories of 

the ACUPCC

© Sightlines 2010

Simplifying the types of GHG emissionsAll expressed as Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCDE)

Scope 3: Indirect emissions including transportation, waste 

Scope 1: Emissions from the direct activities of the campus

Scope 2: Emissions from utility production not at the institution

28This slide courtesy of CA‐CP

g p ,disposal, etc.

pp

© Sightlines 2010

Gross carbon emissions ‐ 31,627 MTCDE Less purchased electricity and increased stationary fuels indicative of cogeneration

Carbon Emissions by Type

20,000

Carbon Emissions by Scope

C t

Air14%

14,000

16,000

18,000

Electricity

Commute5%

8,000

10,000

12,000

MTCDE

On‐Campus Stationary

63%

Electricity17%

2,000

4,000

6,000

Vehicle Fleet1%

Scope 1 Emissions

Scope 2 Emissions

Scope 3 Emissions

0

,

FY2009 FY2010

29

* Scope 1 increase and Scope 2 decrease due to cogeneration

© Sightlines 2010

Producing fewer GHGs with steady GSFDownward trend in emissions since start of cogeneration program

40,000

45,000Historical Emissions by Scope

30,000

35,000

DE

15,000

20,000

25,000

MTCD

5,000

10,000

FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010

Scope 3 6,299  6,293  6,647  7,095  8,284  8,581  8,463  8,354  7,554 Scope 2 12,526  12,943  13,088  12,687  13,206  11,696  11,920  9,680  4,974 Scope 1 15 062 17 635 17 547 18 368 18 464 16 330 14 653 15 782 18 740

0

Scope 1 15,062  17,635  17,547  18,368  18,464  16,330  14,653  15,782  18,740 

30

© Sightlines 2010

Lower campus density impacts emissions profileEmissions profile trends are the result of shrinking scope 2 emissions

31

Discussion/ Questions

32