Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Facilities Management Emerging Recommendations from the Administrative Review Team 1.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Facilities Management Emerging Recommendations from the Administrative Review Team 1."— Presentation transcript:

1 Facilities Management Emerging Recommendations from the Administrative Review Team 1

2 Campus Visit Goals  Background and Timeline  Emerging Themes  Emerging Recommendations  Community Dialog, Feedback, and Input Think Mission Excellence 2

3 Background and Timeline  The Administrative Review of Facilities is responsible for successfully completing the Facilities Management component of the broader UMS Administrative Review project.  The team is comprised of two sub-groups and reports through the UMS Vice Chancellor and Chancellor to the Administrative Review Steering Committee, the Presidents’ Council, and to the Board of Trustees and its committees.  The two sub-teams were sanctioned by the Chancellor to begin their respective work in September of 2013 and made an interim report in January of 2014 outlining how this review was to be carried out.  To date, each team has met more than 50 times to discuss the Facilities Administrative Review effort.  The team expects to make its final report at the beginning of calendar year

4 Facilities Management Administrative Review Team Members and Outreach Functional Team Electronic Feedback System-wide Data Collection Individual Campus Engagement State of Maine Affiliates Newly Established ART Sub- committees Planning Team Campus Visit Outreach Functional Team Stake – holder Support Third-party Working Groups Community Dialog and Open Forums Standing UMS Working Groups 4

5 Emerging Themes: Planning  The amount and cost of space at UMS is out of sync with the size of its operation.  The quality of UMS space is declining and aging.  UMS must successfully reverse the ongoing space/quality decline that is contributing to the deterioration of the space it currently has.  Space needs are threatening to overwhelm the resources of the System. 5

6 Emerging Themes: Planning  The challenges and complexities of the Facilities Management Administrative Review are immense.  True fiscal opportunity is in improved capital planning and budgeting, increased investment, and in achieving an affordable space portfolio.  Identified short-term fiscal opportunities should be pursued, but are greatly overwhelmed by current outstanding needs. 6

7 Emerging Themes: Functional  Some functional and operational changes are being recommended for consideration in specific areas, including and keeping with Strategic Integration Target #2. Key Areas of Recommended Change:  Capital Budgeting  Capital Project Planning and Administration  Safety and Environmental Management  Surplus Property  Streamlined Procedures for Disposition of Real Property 7

8 8  Background and Timeline  Emerging Themes  Emerging Recommendations  Community Dialog, Feedback, and Input

9 A. UMS should right-size the facility portfolio to reduce costs and improve the quality of facilities: 1. Establish a long-term Net Asset Value (NAV) goal, with an interim goal of steadily improving the NAV annually starting in Conduct a review of the University of Maine System’s assets for identification or prioritization where functions could be consolidated or somehow disposed of. 3. Work to right-size the overall UMS facility portfolio using the density factor metric. 4. Continue to require that any project which will independently increase the facility footprint of the University or increase operating costs be reviewed for approval by the Board of Trustees. 5. Permanently adopt the proposed updates to the delegation of authority matrix, and make the necessary changes to policy, Administrative Practice Letter (APL), and the delegation matrix to make clear the current existing authorities. 9

10 Work to right-size the overall UMS portfolio using the density factor metric. Probability of Density Factor Across Distribution of Sightlines Dataset 10 * These figures will be kept current as new data becomes available. The Administrative Review team understands that each university is different, and the respective density factors may vary.

11 Establish a long-term Net Asset Value (NAV) goal, with an interim goal of steadily improving NAV annually starting in Net Asset Value represents the condition of an institution’s facilities necessary to carry out its academic mission. The NAV of the University of Maine System has been declining since In order to retain a reasonable amount of control over its projects, an organization must retain a NAV of at least 70%. * These figures will be kept current as new data becomes available.

12 B. Identify and fund the long-term capital needs of the System: 1. See that each University adopts a campus master plan that is dynamic in nature but adheres to specific parameters outlined by the Administrative Review Team. 2. Implement the Total Cost of Ownership principle throughout the University of Maine System, with mandatory reporting and eventual goal setting. 3. Annually update the System-wide and campus specific five-year capital plans as part of UMS’s multi-year financial analysis and the annual budget process. 4. Continue to pursue the University of Maine System’s currently established goal of 100% Funded Depreciation with any adjustments as pursuant to the Board of Trustees. 12

13 See that each University adopts a campus master plan that is dynamic in nature but adheres to specific parameters outlined by the Administrative Review Team. Proposed Parameters for Campus Master Planning:  The Master Plan must have evidence of external engagement.  The Master Plan must incorporate community dialog and reflect the shared and understood vision for the future of the campus.  The Master Plan must be updated at least once every decade, preferably two or more years prior to the campus due date for the New England Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on Institutions of Higher Education (NEASC) self- study.  The Master Plan must be tied to the future mission of the institution, with attention to the unique qualities of each campus and their contribution to the University of Maine System as a whole. 13

14 C. Review Current prioritized processes for best practices or improvements: 1. Direct the transition to electronic lease administration across the University of Maine System. 2. Formally implement the current Safety and Environmental Management pilot project as official UMS policy. 3. Establish a single online database to support the surplus property function throughout the University of Maine System. Increase collaboration System-wide and provide surplus opportunities to each campus. 4. Promote the System-wide sharing of best practices in the functional areas of custodial, grounds, and maintenance services. Monitor newly established Key Performance Indicators for outcomes. 14

15 Direct the proposed transition to electronic lease administration across the University of Maine System.  The current method for processing a new UMS lease agreement involves up to 33 independent steps and can take over six months to complete.  The transition from paper to electronic lease administration would eliminate unnecessary delays and enable straightforward tracking of contract progress. 15

16 D. Benchmark UMS operations and institutionalize selected benchmarks: 1. Implement the suggested twelve selected starting Key Performance Metrics across the University of Maine System. Report not less than annually to stakeholders, including FFTC and Board of Trustees. 2. Thoroughly reexamine the idea of a consolidated UMS Work Control Center function following one year of complete Integrated Workplace Management System protocol adoption. 3. Update and formalize the procedural matrix for UMS capital projects, incorporating financial transaction requirements and an informational list of vendors who have an established working relationship with one or more of the seven campuses. 4. Continue the established energy management team for the University of Maine System. 16

17 Implement the suggested twelve selected starting Key Performance Metrics System-wide. 1. Density: Number or users  Current UMS measure: 297  Interim Goal: 332  Peer/Industry standard: 415  Long-term System goal: NAV: Net Asset Value  Current UMS measure: 59%  Interim Goal: 63.5%  Peer/Industry standard: 75%  Long-term System goal: 70% 3. Capital Expenditures on Existing Space; %CRV  Current UMS measure:  Peer/Industry standard:  Periodic reporting recommended. 4. Annual Facilities Operating Expenses; Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds, & Paid Utilities % CRV  Current UMS measure:  Peer/Industry standard:  Periodic reporting recommended. 5. Annual Facilities Operating Expenses; Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds, & Paid Utilities % GIR  Current UMS measure:  At this time, there are no commonly accepted standards in this area. UMS will continue to track, report, & internally benchmark their progress. 6. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO);  UMS should formally consider lifetime cost of a facility and other KPIs in planning and decision making, not only one-time construction costs. * Data sources include Sightlines, APPA, and the Barkley Advisory Group 17

18 Implement the suggested twelve selected starting Key Performance Metrics System-wide. 7. Energy Cost; per GSF  Peer/Industry standard: $1.98  Periodic reporting recommended.  Current UMS performance in evaluation. 8. Annual Facilities Operating Expenses; Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds, & Paid Utilities per GSF  Current UMS measure: $6.70  Peer/Industry standard: $6.13  Establishment of specific goals to be revisited in FY Preventive Maintenance/ Demand Maintenance; % Annual Expenditures  Current UMS measure:  Peer/Industry standard:  Establishment of specific goals to be revisited in FY Coverage: FTE (Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds); per GSF  Continue to monitor GSF/FTE ratios.  Strive to meet or exceed APPA/Sightlines benchmarks, i.e.: Custodial target zone: 29,213 – 37,000 GSF/FTE. 11. Energy Cost; per Million BTUs  Current UMS measure: $17.73  Peer/Industry standard: $19.00  Periodic reporting recommended. 12. Energy BTUs; per GSF  Current UMS measure: 97,015  Peer/Industry standard: 121,131  Continue to meet/exceed peer/industry standards, strive to improve existing UMS performance, & establish specific goal for FY16. * Data sources include Sightlines, APPA, and the Barkley Advisory Group 18

19  KPI #10. Coverage: FTE (Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds); per GSF Continue to monitor GSF/FTE ratios. Strive to meet or exceed staffing benchmark zones. 19 Benchmark Zone

20 Campus Visit Goals  Background and Timeline  Emerging Themes  Emerging Recommendations  Community Dialog, Feedback, and Input 20

21 Your Feedback is Greatly Appreciated 21


Download ppt "Facilities Management Emerging Recommendations from the Administrative Review Team 1."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google