Aging campus buildings; growing deferred maintenance; less capital funding; more debt – this is what campus leaders are predicting. While all campuses face challenges, the diversity in facilities needs and investment capacity vary from institution to institution. There is no single solution, but campuses that use performance metrics to diagnose their needs are developing strategies to meet their capital needs and improve operating effectiveness. A panel of senior Business Officers from three highly diverse campuses will demonstrate how they use data, analysis, and modeling to meet facility and financial challenges now and in the future.

1. Diverse Perspectives on
Managing Facilities Demands
• National and Regional Facilities Trends and
Challenges – Jim Kadamus
• Case Study – Iowa State, Pam Elliott Cain
• Case Study –Washburn U, Rick Anderson
• Case Study – College of St. Benedict, Sue Palmer
Date: September 29th, 2013

2. National and Regional Facilities
Trends and Challenges
Speaker: Jim Kadamus, Vice President
Institution: Sightlines
Date: September 29, 2013

3. Introducing the Comparative
Institutions
Sightlines Facts:
• Over 1.2 Billion GSF in
database
• Over 90% Retention Rate
• 380+ campuses included
into database
• 22 Private institutions &
38 Public Institutions in
the CACUBO Region
• CACUBO represents over
200 million GSF & over
600,000 student FTEs

4. National Campus Age
 Despite new space dollars, 57% of space is over 25 years of age
18% 18% 18% 19% 20% 21%
41% 40% 39% 39% 38% 36%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
% of Space
(%) Square Footage over 25 years old
(Renovation Age)
25 to 50 Years of Age Over 50 Years of Age

5. CACUBO Campus Age
 Campuses continue to see space cross into the over 50 year age bracket
Public Private
18% 18% 19% 21% 23% 27%
19% 18% 19% 19% 20% 25%
43% 43% 42% 40% 40% 40% 39% 38% 38% 36% 34% 30%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
% of Space
(%) Square Footage over 25 years old
(Renovation Age)
25 to 50 Years of Age Over 50 Years of Age

6. National Campus Investment
 Campuses still have not seen a full recovery from the recession
$3.1
$3.9 $4.1
$3.2
$3.4 $3.4
$1.2 $1.4 $1.4 $1.3 $1.5 $1.7
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Capital Investment into Existing Space
Annual Capital One‐Time Capital

7. CACUBO Campus Investment
 Both private and public campuses have seen increase since 2010
Public Private
$1.9
$2.1
$2.5
$2.2
$2.8 $2.6 $2.2
$2.9
$3.0
$2.1
$2.9 $3.0
$1.0 $1.1 $1.4 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $1.5 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Capital Investment into Existing Space
Annual Capital One‐Time Capital

8. National Backlog
 Continued growth in backlog
$78 $79 $80 $82 $85 $89
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
$100
$90
$80
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$‐
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Backlog $/GSF
Backlog/GSF Percentage Change of Backlog

9. CACUBO Backlog
 Capital investment is not enough to stem backlog growth
$76 $78 $80 $84 $89 $93
$70 $71 $73 $76 $79 $86
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$‐
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Backlog $/GSF
Public Private

10. National Operating Costs
 Modest increase in operating budgets since 2009
$0.27 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.30 $0.32
$4.13 $4.31 $4.41 $4.33 $4.42 $4.47
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$‐
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Average Facilities Operating Costs
Daily Service Planned Maintenance

11. CACUBO Operating Costs
 Operating budgets flat since 2009
Public Private
$0.25 $0.26 $0.27 $0.28 $0.28
$0.32
$0.21
$0.21 $0.24 $0.23 $0.30 $0.34
$3.42 $3.53 $3.60 $3.51 $3.41 $3.56 $3.32 $3.48 $3.54 $3.44 $3.40 $3.31
$4.50
$4.00
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$‐
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Average Facilities Operating Costs
Daily Service Planned Maintenance

12. National Utility Costs
 Fuel switching and efficiency projects has helped decrease utility costs
$2.30 $2.47 $2.50
$2.27 $2.32 $2.22
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$‐
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Average Facilities Operating Costs

13. CACUBO Utility Costs
 Public and private campuses utility costs below national average
$2.08 $2.20 $2.28
$1.98 $1.97 $1.90
$1.63
$1.95 $2.01 $1.87 $1.99 $1.89
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$‐
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Average Utility Costs
Public Private

14. CACUBO Final Comments
Physical and Institutional Profile
•Age profiles of institutions indicate that both public and private institutions face growing
deferred maintenance needs and overdue life cycles
•Public institutions have a higher portion of space over 25 years of age, which will require
additional capital investment and can begin to have an impact on daily operations
Capital Budget Profile
•Both public and private campuses have seen increased capital funding since the decline in 2009
•The amount of capital invested into facilities has not been enough to keep campuses from
hitting the life cycles associated with buildings over 25 years of age
•As a result, backlog at CACUBO campuses has risen substantially to over 20% within the past 6
years
Operating Budget Profile
•More demand placed upon maintenance staff means level of attention to older buildings may
falter
•Stable operating costs paired with increasing backlog makes it difficult for facilities to keep pace
with facilities’ demands.
•Significant reduction in energy consumption and unit cost have led to gains in utility operations

15. Iowa State University
Speaker: Pam Elliott Cain
Institution: Iowa State University
Date: September 29, 2013

16. Iowa State Campus Profile
Iowa State University is a large,
public land‐grant and space‐grant
institution
Fast Facts:
• Founded: 1858
• Located: Ames, IA
• 174 buildings*
• 6.6 Million Gross Square Feet*
• 32,000 FTE students
• Created nations first Public Veterinary
Medicine school in 1879
• Leader in agriculture and engineering
• High demand campus
• Large, technically complex campus that
houses many students and programs
*Included in Sightlines’ analysis
Someone’s always got a problem

17. More space on campus is high risk
 47% of buildings are 25‐50 years old ‐ creates unbalanced age profile
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
24%
47%
18%
36%
31%
19%
11% 14%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ISU Peer Average
% of Total Campus GSF
Campus Age by Category
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

18. Breakout of space 25‐50 years old
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Average Building Size
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
Buildings built between 25 and 50 years ago
are, on average, much bigger than those
built in other time periods.
• Aging building systems (E.g. HVAC)
• Harder to maintain
• Bigger, more complicated systems
• Need more specialized staff
31%
3% 7%
59%
Acad/admin
Science research
Student life
Support
GSF
Function of 25‐50 year old buildings
Majority of buildings built between 25 and 50
years ago are science research buildings.
• Technically complex systems
• Require specially‐trained maintenance
staff
• Expensive equipment
• High replacement and modernization
costs

19. Annual Stewardship (cost of keeping up)
 Determining the “right” level of annual funding
FY12 Stewardship Need
$31.6
ISU FY12 Replacement Value = $2.7 Billion
Life cycle is discounted for the
coordination of modernization and
renovation.
$23.7
$42.5
$14.9
$81.4
$90
$80
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
3% Replacement Value Total Need Target Need
$ in Millions
Envelope/Mech Space/Program
Depreciation
Model
$74.1 M
Life Cycle
Model
$38.6 M
Functional
Obsolescence
Industry Standard Sightlines Recommendations
Note: Chart is for state‐supported, Ames campus space only

20. Total project spending
 One‐time funding kept facilities investment closer to target until FY10
$100.0
$90.0
$80.0
$70.0
$60.0
$50.0
$40.0
$30.0
$20.0
$10.0
$0.0
Decreasing Backlog
Fiscal Year Project Name Actual Spent
2012 Util‐Vet Med Steam Supply Improvements $ 4,031,107
2012 Vet Med, Col Of‐Lar Hvac Stabilizing Backlog
Improvements $ 3,587,498
2008 Util‐College Of Vet Med Chilled Water Plant $ 2,622,564
2010 Replace heating system $ 1,808,384
2009 Vmri Building #40‐Renovate Hvac System $ 1,413,947
2010 Refrigeration system Increasing replacement Backlog
$ 1,375,846
2012 Util‐Applied Science Center Chiller Improvements $ 1,034,466
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
$ in Millions
Capital Spending vs. Target Need
Budgeted Capital Dollars One‐Time Capital Dollars
(State capital, Bonding, Grants,
Gifts, College Funding)
5 year project spending on
existing buildings
13%
28%
12%
42%
5%
Envelope Building Systems
Infrastructure Space Renewal
Safety/Code

21. Total asset reinvestment backlog
 Historic investment has managed the backlog
$120.00
$100.00
$80.00
$60.00
$40.00
$20.00
$‐
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
AR Backlog $/GSF
Total Asset Reinvestment Backlog vs. Peers
ISU’s backlog increased by 17%
between 2008‐2012, but is
significantly lower than peers
Peers’ backlog increased by 18%
between 2008‐2012

22. Facilities operating budget
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$‐
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Operating Budget $/GSF
Facilities Operating Budget vs. Peers
Daily Service Planned Maintenance Utilities
ISU
 Operating with fewer resources than peers; using resource management model
Peers

23. Custodial coverage
 Custodial is operating efficiently and providing high value across campus
Cleanliness Inspection Scores:
ISU
Peers
DB
3.9
4.2
4.2

24. Total energy consumption
 Consuming 40k fewer BTU/GSF than peers in FY12
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
‐
Peers ISU
Consuming less energy than
peers. Campus users paying for
utilities has made a difference.
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
BTU/GSF
Energy Consumption vs. Peers
Fossil Electric
Future projects include transition from coal
to natural gas for four primary boilers

25. What’s the plan for the future?
• Resource Management Model
• Working with colleges
• Long term master planning
• 20‐year outlook
• Exploring alternative capital financing
sources
• Creating flexible space
• Example: Troxel Hall
• Eliminating high backlog buildings

26. Washburn University
Speaker: Rick Anderson, Vice President
Institution: Washburn University
Date: September 29, 2013

27. Washburn Campus Profile
Washburn University is a mid‐sized
comprehensive urban public university
in Topeka, Kansas
Fast Facts:
• Founded: 1865
• Located: Topeka, KS
• 44 buildings
• 1.35 Million Gross Square Feet*
• 7,300 student headcount ‐> 5,500 student FTE
• Consistently ranked among top Midwestern
universities as an independent public institution
• Top rated school of law
• High demand campus
• Large, technically complex campus that
houses a high number of students
*Included in Sightlines’ analysis

28. More space on campus is high risk
 66% of space is over 25 years old – campus is older than peers
24% 23%
42%
14%
33%
21%
21% 23%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Washburn Peer Average
% of Total Campus GSF
Campus Age by Category
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

29. Breakout of space over 25 years old
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Average Building Size
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
GSF
Buildings built more than 25 years ago are,
on average, much bigger than those built in
other time periods.
• Lower quality construction
• Harder to maintain
• Bigger, more complicated systems
• Need more specialized staff
The majority of high tech space (tech rating
4‐5) is over 25 years old (57%).
• More complex systems within aging
structures
• Energy intensive
• Costly to maintain
• Demanding of staff
Distribution of High Tech Buildings
39%
4%
16%
41%
Under 10
10 to 25
25 to 50
Over 50

30. Density factor presents challenges for WU
 Washburn is much busier than similar comprehensive universities
Database Distribution
Peers
Liberal Arts Comprehensive University Urban/City School Community College
Database
avg = 348
Roughly 1,500 more people on
campus than at peer institutions
Users/100K GSF
Washburn
Density Factor
Database Distribution
Users/100K GSF

31. Annual Stewardship (cost of keeping up)
$13.2
$5.3
$4.0
$6.1
$2.1
$14
$12
$10
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need
(Equilibrium)
Functional Obsolescence
(Target)
$ in Millions
FY2012 Stewardship Targets
Washburn U Replacement Value = $440M
Industry Standard Sightlines Recommendations

32. Total project spending
 One‐time funding kept facilities investment closer to target until FY10
$12.0
$10.0
$8.0
$6.0
$4.0
$2.0
$0.0
Capital Spending vs. Target Need
Decreasing Backlog
Stabilizing Backlog
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Annual Capital One‐Time Capital
$ in Millions
Increasing Backlog
(Keep up funding) (One‐time catch up funding)

33. Total asset reinvestment backlog
 Lack of historical investment has led to an increasing backlog
$100.00
$90.00
$80.00
$70.00
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$‐
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
AR Backlog $/GSF
Total Asset Reinvestment Backlog vs. Peers
Peers’ backlog grew 19% between
2008‐2012
WU’s backlog grew 29% between
2008‐2012

34. Lean facilities operating budget
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$‐
Peers WU
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Operating Budget $/GSF
Facilities Operating Budget vs. Peers
Daily Service Planned Maintenance Utilities

35. Total energy consumption
 Consuming considerably less energy than peers
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
‐
Peers WU
Complete HVAC upgrade to Morgan Hall (admin)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
BTU/GSF
Energy Consumption vs. Peers
Fossil Electric
‐$750,000 in 2012
Campus‐wide HVAC system upgrade
‐$1.4 mil in 2010

36. What’s the plan for the future?
• Recently completed a comprehensive campus master planning effort
including a classroom capacity study.
• Mid‐way thru implementation of a $12.3 million dollar performance energy
contract with Trane Corp. Will reduce our annual energy consumption by
27%.
• Hail insurance proceeds will allow for 10‐15 roof replacements in the next
two years
• Our main 1950’s classroom and administrative building will be transformed
into a student success center and Iconic campus “front door” by Spring
2015.
• Will build a forensic science lab facility in conjunction with the Kansas Bureau
of Investigation by January 2015.
• Complete a demand study for additional on‐campus housing by December
2013.
• Target capital improvement funds to address the highest priority deferred
maintenance issues on campus.

37. College of Saint Benedict
Speaker: Susan Palmer, Vice President
Institution: College of Saint Benedict
Date: September 29, 2013

38. College of Saint Benedict Campus Profile
A nationally ranked private liberal arts
college in St. Joseph, MN, known as
St. Bens
Fast Facts:
• Founded: 1913
• Located: St. Joseph, MN
• 39 buildings
• 1.23M Gross Square Feet
• 2,059 students
• Highest ranked Catholic college for women in
the country
• Academically integrated with Saint John’s
University
• Relatively young campus, but moving to an
older age profile
• Limited capital investment historically

39. Campus facing higher risk age profile
 Buildings are aging on this still relatively young campus
49% 53% 63%
10% 16%
39%
39%
37%
32%
31%
40% 25%
12% 7% 12%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
St. Ben's 2010 St. Ben's 2012 Peer Average
% of Total Campus GSF
Campus Age by Category
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

40. Investing mainly in new space
 Future investment will focus on existing space
St. Ben’s: FY07‐12 Capital
Investment by Type
28%
7%
65%
St. Ben’s has spent
significantly more into new
construction over the last six
years than into existing space.
New space keeps the average
age down and makes the
campus more competitive;
but existing space becoming
more high risk.
Peers: FY07‐12 Capital
Investment by Type
Existing Space New Space Non‐Facilities
63%
33%
4%

41. Annual Stewardship (cost of keeping up)
 Determining the “right” level of annual funding
FY12 Stewardship Need
$4.7
St. Bens FY12 Replacement Value = $413M
Life cycle is discounted for the
coordination of modernization and
renovation.
$3.5
$5.6
$2.8
$12.4
$14
$12
$10
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
3% Replacement Value Total Need Target Need
$ in Millions
Envelope/Mech Space/Program
Depreciation
Model
$10.3 M
Life Cycle
Model
$6.3 M
Functional
Obsolescence
Industry Standard Sightlines Recommendations

42. Total project spending vs. targets
 Backlog has built up over years; 2012 increase in annual capital is by design
$12
$10
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
Millions of $
Capital Spending vs. Target Need
Decreasing Backlog
Sustaining Backlog
Increasing Backlog
Total deferral to
target over 6 years:
$25.2 M
Annual Capital One‐Time Funds

43. Total project spending
 On average, investing $2.67/GSF less than peers annually
CSB
Total Project Spending by Annual Capital and One‐Time Funds
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$5.00
$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
$/GSF
Peers
Would need to invest an
additional $3.3 M annually to
invest at peer average.
Annual Capital One‐Time Funds

44. Lean facilities operating budget
 Fewer operating resources than peers, but similar inspection scores
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$‐
Campus
Inspection
Custodial Maintenance Grounds
St.
Ben’s
4.4 3.7 3.9
Peers 4.2 3.9 3.9
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Operating Budget $/GSF
Facilities Operating Budget vs. Peers
Daily Service Planned Maintenance Utilities

45. Total energy consumption
 On average, consuming over 40,000 BTU/GSF less than peers annually
140,000
Peers WU
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
BTU/GSF
Energy Consumption
Consuming 49,000 fewer
MMBTUs annually ‐ yields a
savings of more than $550,000.

46. What’s the plan for the future?
Development of a long‐term capital plan to steward our facilities which
includes a multi‐pronged funding approach:
• Capital campaign funding to construct a new academic building and a
significant renovation and expansion of the existing student center
• Strategic use of debt to update infrastructure needs on campus
• Budget plan to increase annual amount allocated for capital
• Year end surpluses allocated to capital reserve accounts