This session provides both a system and campus level perspective as well as a finance and facilities outlook on the problems of deferred maintenance and the strategies to make the case for funding. We will also provide the latest national and regional data on the growing problem of deferred maintenance and the operational implications of not addressing the problem.

1. Making the Case for Funding
Deferred Maintenance Before it’s
Too Late
Jim Kadamus – Vice President
Sightlines
Cuba Plain – Assistant Vice President for Budget Planning and Development
University of Missouri System
Walt Branson – Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration
Missouri University of Science and Technology
Bob Simmons – Associate Vice Chancellor for Administration
University of Missouri Kansas City

2. Changing the Conversation
Space
Understand how age
profile drives capital
and operational
demands
Capital
Multiyear plans that
align to mission &
risk
Operations
Improve
effectiveness &
lower facilities
overhead impact

3. Sightlines’ National and
Regional Trends
Speaker:
Jim Kadamus, Vice President
Company:
Sightlines, LLC
Date:
October 6, 2014

4. CACUBO Region
Included CACUBO States:
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Dakota
49 Total Campuses
29 Public campuses
20 Private campuses
342,947,907 Total GSF
725,057 Students educated
Purple states: Sightlines & CACUBO members
Grey States: CACUBO but not Sightlines members

5. Campus Space and Enrollment
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Percent Change of Enrollment & Space
Growing Campus Enrollment
CACUBO Average within Sightlines Database
Regional Space Growth Regional Enrollment Growth

6. Campus Space and Enrollment
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
‐2%
Comprehensive Institution Research Institution Small Institution
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Percent Change of Enrollment and Space
Growing Campus Enrollment
CACUBO Region By Constituent Group
Space Growth Enrollment Growth

7. Database Construction Trends
Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Total Database GSF Constructed (Millions)
Constructed Space Since 1880
Sightlines Database CACUBO (%)

8. The Aging Campus
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Public Average Private Average
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
% of Space
Square Footage by Age Category
CACUBO Region Renovation Age
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

9. Capital Spending Public vs Private
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
Public Average Private Average
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
$/GSF
Capital Investment into Existing Space
CACUBO Region
Annual Capital One‐Time Capital Average

10. Facilities Backlogs Continue to Rise
Public Average Private Average
$77 $80 $83 $86 $90 $94 $98
$82 $83 $84 $87 $93 $96 $101
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
$120.00
$100.00
$80.00
$60.00
$40.00
$20.00
$0.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
$/GSF
Backlog $/GSF
CACUBO Region
Backlog/GSF Percentage Change of Backlog

11. Facilities Operating Budgets Flat
$0.24
$0.24 $0.26 $0.27 $0.27 $0.29 $0.30
$3.43 $3.61 $3.59 $3.52 $3.49 $3.56 $3.52
$4.50
$4.00
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
$/GSF
CACUBO Operating Budget Average
Daily Service Planned Maintenance

12. Operating Budgets 14%+ Short of Inflation
CACUBO Operating Budgets – Public vs. Private
Public Average Private Average
$4.39 $4.35
$3.44 $3.53 $3.63 $3.54 $3.50 $3.57 $3.57 $3.41
$3.70 $3.56 $3.51 $3.47 $3.53 $3.47
$0.23 $0.24
$0.26 $0.28 $0.29 $0.33 $0.34
$0.24
$0.24
$0.27 $0.26 $0.25 $0.24 $0.26
$4.50
$4.00
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
$/GSF
Daily Service Planned Maintenance

13. Conclusions
In the CACUBO region, campus enrollment is growing faster than campus
space, increasing campus density
Aging facilities are competing with faculty needs and financial aid for funding
Capital funding has only just returned to historic levels following the recession,
private universities in the region have surprisingly seen less growth
Backlogs are growing and at public campuses reaching unsustainable levels
Funding for facilities operations have not kept pace with inflation, meaning cuts
in staffing and contracts

14. University of Missouri System
Speaker:
Cuba Plain, Assistant Vice President for Budget
Planning and Development
Institution:
University of Missouri System
Date:
October 6, 2014

15. 29.5M
GSF
1,500+
Buildings
24,000 Employees
75,272 Student Headcount
58,163 Student FTE
Total
Operating
Budget:
$3B
$8.5B
Facilities
Replacement
Value
Land grant institution with four campuses,
hospital & clinics, system administration,
experiment station and farms
System Profile

16. Changes and Challenges
 34% growth in headcount and 42% growth in FTE
students since FY2001
 Legislative limits on tuition increases equal to CPI
 State operating appropriations down almost $30 million
since FY2001 in nominal terms
 Flat nominal state operating appropriations since 2010
which resulted in a cumulative real loss of $300 million
 No new state capital appropriations since FY2008,
minimal investment between FY2001 and FY2008

17. State Appropriations Over Time
$550
$500
$450
$400
$350
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
$ in Millions
Actual Appropriation Received CPI Adjusted Appropriation Cumulative Difference

18. $80.00
$70.00
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$0.00
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
$ in Millions
UM Annual M&R Spending
by Sightlines
Institutional Recurring Capital One‐time capital Sources
Sightlines Recommended Annual M&R Target
Backlog
Stabilized
Backlog
Increases
Funding Levels Fall Short

19. Backlog of Need Increased by 57%
$1,400.00
$1,200.00
$1,000.00
$800.00
$600.00
$400.00
$200.00
$0.00
$838 M
$1,317 M
FY09 FY13
$ in Millions
Facilities Needs Backlog by Priority
Critical ‐ Now Urgent < 1Yr Necessary 2‐5 Yr Recommended 6‐10 Yr

20. Facilities Condition by Campus
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
UM System FCNI Rating of E&G Buildings
Poor Condition Below Average Condition Fair Condition Good Excellent Condition
43% 38% 39%
MU UMKC S&T UMSL
80%

21. Shaping Campus Policies

22. Predicting Future Condition
 Best Practice ≤ 0.30 FCNI
28%
FCNI
41% 41%
36%
26% 27%
39%
56%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
MU UMKC S&T UMSL
FY 2014 FCNI INDEX FY 2023 PROJECTED FCNI INDEX

23. Potential Funding Sources
 State Bond Issue
$200 million plan
15 Year financing
$17.7 million annual debt service
 50/50 Match – Private gifts and State Funding
 Dedicated Recurring State Appropriation
 Student Facilities Fee
• $300 to $350 annual fee per student FTE

24. Projected Impact of $200M
Assuming consistent investment from FY13 and $200M spent over 5 years
Discuss potential spending timeframe for $200M investment
$120.00
$100.00
$80.00
$60.00
$40.00
$20.00
$0.00
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
$ in Millions
UM Annual M&R Spending
by Sightlines
Annual M&R Renovation and Other Capital $200M Funding Impact Sightlines Recommended Annual M&R Target

25. Missouri University of Science &
Technology
Speaker:
Walter Branson, Vice Chancellor for Finance and
Administration
Institution:
Missouri University of Science and Technology
Date:
October 6, 2014

26. Sightlines member
since 2007
Leader in green:
Founded
1870
First US university to receive ISO 14001
certification for environmental management
Environmental village
2.7M GSF
165
Maintained
Acres
8,100
Students
Campus Profile

27. Smaller Buildings Than Peers
Operating Costs by Building Size
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
A B C D M S&T F G H I
GSF
Average Building Size
$1.00/GSF
$3.00/GSF
*Ozanne analytics
STEM focus drive campus profile

28. Space Profile
Renovations and new construction are managing campus age
41% 42% 43% 29%
21%
10% 13% 17%
19%
28% 24%
25%
20% 20% 19%
29%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Missouri S&T FY03 Missouri S&T FY08 Missouri S&T FY13 Peer Average
% of Total Campus GSF
Campus Age by Renovation Age Category
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

29. Capital Profile
Capital investments falling short of target
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Dollars in Millions
Institutional Recurring Capital One‐Time Capital Sources Target Need

30. Capital Profile
Significant infrastructure spending for geothermal energy
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Dollars in Millions
Institutional Recurring Capital One‐Time Capital Sources Infrastructure

31. Historic Spending Mix
5‐Year Historical
Investment Mix
17%
48%
32%
3%
Envelope Systems
Space Safety/Code
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Envelope Systems Space Safety/Code
Years
Average Life Cycle
Spending focused on “bang‐for‐buck” projects

32. Total Backlog
Recent investment curbs growth in infrastructure, Repair/Maint continues to grow
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
$ in Millions
Backlog Growth Since FY03
Backlog Maint/ Repair Backlog Modernization Backlog Infrastructure

33. Balancing Institutional Demands

34. University of Missouri – Kansas City
Speaker:
Bob Simmons
Associate Vice Chancellor, Administration
Institution:
University of Missouri – Kansas City
Date:
October 6, 2014

35. University of Missouri – Kansas City
5.1M GSF
149
Maintained
Acres
Sightlines member
since 2007
Founded
1933
11,397
Students
Engaged and Green:
The President’s Higher Education Community Service
Honor Roll with Distinction.
RecycleMania 2012 Grand Champion Winner.

36. Changing Campus Density
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
‐5%
Change in Density Factor
Density Factor Rate of Change
*Density Factor is measured in Users/100kGSF
UMKC Change Peer Change
2010‐2020 Strategy Statement:
By 2020 we will grow enrollment
to 20,000 and increase
graduation rates 10% by ensuring
student success through a small
college experience as Kansas
City’s community engaged urban
research institution, while
leveraging our strengths in the
visual and performing arts, life
and health sciences and
entrepreneurship.

37. Age Shifts over Last 10 Years
23%
10%
18%
21%
45%
46%
14%
24%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
UMKC '03 UMKC '13
% of Total Campus GSF
Campus 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

38. Changing Funding Sources
As state funding decreases, shifting toward creative use of bond funding
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$‐
$ in Millions
UMKC Capital History ‐ Sources
1990 ‐ 2014
State Federal Private Campus Bonds Other (PPP)

39. $20.00
$18.00
$16.00
$14.00
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$‐
Capital Spending and Backlog
Large infusions of capital have significant impact on backlog
$110.00
$100.00
$90.00
$80.00
$70.00
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$0.00
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Capital $/GSF
Backlog $/GSF
Capital Spending vs. AR Backlog
Backlog Maint/ Repair Capital Spending/GSF

40. Leaner Budget Than Peers
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
A B C D UMKC F G H I J
$/GSF
Daily Service Daily Service Over Time

41. Planned Maintenance
Increased PM efforts has improved in‐house PM performance
$1.80
$1.60
$1.40
$1.20
$1.00
$0.80
$0.60
$0.40
$0.20
$0.00
A B C D UMKC F G H I J
$ / GSF
Planned Maintenance
Institutions ordered by tech rating
$0.13
UMKC PM
$0.26 $0.27
$0.12
$0.31 $0.29
2011 2012 2013
In‐House
External

42. Driving Capital Investment Strategy
Program Value
SAMPLE DATA

43. Strategies to Address Deferred
Maintenance
Strategy 1: Change the conversation throughout higher education. Educate policy
makers about the impacts of the space profile, capital plans that are aligned with the
institutional mission and risk, and improving operating effectiveness while lowering
costs.
Strategy 2: Set capital priorities to address the deferred maintenance needs in aging
buildings that are determined to be critical to the mission and programmatic needs of
universities.
Strategy 3: Consider eliminating or replacing aging space with new modern facilities,
especially buildings with certain construction vintages where poor quality construction
was prevalent. Sometimes less is more when it comes to addressing aging buildings
with lots of deferred maintenance.

44. Strategies to Address Deferred
Maintenance
Strategy 4: New construction must support the mission of the university and support
the future program needs of each university.
Strategy 5: Make annual stewardship (keep‐up) investment that addresses building
components as they come due a priority at every campus. The more a campus keeps‐up
with life cycles as they come due, the less deferred maintenance grows.
Strategy 6: Institute facilities operational practices that are proactive at extending
the life cycles of key expensive building components like HVAC, electrical systems and
roofs. Proactive maintenance is not only a good idea when it comes to managing
university facilities, it will save money in the long‐run.