Does your campus maintain too many small or outdated buildings? Have a growing backlog due to limited resources? Deal with a strained operations budget? You might also be struggling to make key decisions about when to renovate, replace, or knock down buildings on your campus. Thankfully, you're not alone, and there are solutions. Rutgers University has been there too. Yet, with proper planning and data support, they were able to make major policy changes that have improved their situation. In this webinar, Jim Kadamus of Sightlines and Tony Calcado of Rutgers University discuss: - Why facilities must secure a seat at the table to engage campus leadership in a new, more focused conversation about space allocation - What data made the case that a paradigm shift was needed and how it affected institutional policies - How strategic divestment decisions can have a broad impact on campus and what it means for the future.

1. Wheaton College (MA)
Whitworth University
Widener University
Wilkes University
Williams College
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester State College
Wright State University
Xavier University
Yeshiva University
Youngstown State University
Out with the Old
Creating a New Paradigm around the Fate
of Your Buildings
Sightlines Webinar: Interview with Tony Calcado of
Rutgers University
March 23, 2016

2. Today’s Interviewer and Interviewee
Interviewer Interviewee
Jim Kadamus
Senior Advisor
Sightlines
Tony Calcado
Senior Vice President of Institutional
Planning and Operations
Rutgers University
2

3. Introduction to Sightlines and our database
Review of national facilities trends – Space, capital, and
operations
Rutgers’ story – what data made the case that a paradigm
shift was needed?
Q&A with Tony Calcado – What strategies were adopted?
What are the expected outcomes? How is campus engaged in
the conversation?
Summary of strategies and concluding thoughts
Agenda
3

4. Feel Free to Start a Dialogue with Our Presenters
Enter questions in the box at any time
Enter questions
here at any
point during the
webinar
Presentation slides
and webinar
recording will be
sent to each
attendee following
today’s session
4

5. Introduction

6. Who We Serve
Robust membership and growing database provides experience and perspective
Partners to the Nation’s Leading Institutions:
• 14 of the Top 20 Colleges*
• 15 of the Top 20 Universities*
• 34 Flagship State Universities
• 13 of the 14 Big 10 Institutions
• 8 of the 12 Ivy Plus Institutions
• 8 of 13 Selective Liberal Arts Colleges
Serving state systems in:
• Alaska
• California
• Connecticut
• Hawaii
• Maine
• Massachusetts
• Minnesota
• Missouri
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Texas
• West Virginia
6
6

7. Sightlines Drives a New Conversation
Facilities intelligence toolkit that connects the dots between space, capital, and operating policies
A new conversation around
facilities management…
• Treats physical plant like a core
business
• Uses concepts of endowment
management to contextualize
investment decisions;
• Aligns facilities operations and
capital investment with institutional
mission and finance;
• Uses predictive analysis to focus
on outcomes and not inputs.
• Lets you tell your “facilities story”
as effective as possible.
7

8. 2015 State of Facilities in
Higher Education

9. Space and Enrollment Growth
Space growing faster than enrollment in 2013 and 2014
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Space and Enrollment Growth
National Average
Space Growth Enrollment Growth
9

10. Space per Student
Slight increase as enrollment levels off
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
GSF/Student
Space per Student
(Public/Private)
Public Private National Average
10

11. Square Footage by Age Category
Progress in resetting the clock on buildings over 50 years old
14% 20%
17%
25%
32%
31%
37%
24%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Construction Age Renovation Age
%ofSpace
Construction Age vs. Renovation Age
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
Buildings Under 10
Little work. “Honeymoon” period.
Low Risk
Buildings 10 to 25
Short life-cycle needs; primarily space
renewal.
Medium Risk
Buildings 25 to 50
Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come
due.
Higher Risk
Buildings over 50
Life cycles of major building components are past due.
Failures are possible.
Highest risk
11

12. Annual Capital Investment
Private campuses rely more on annual institutional capital
$0.90 $0.84 $1.03 $0.91 $1.02 $1.10 $1.19 $1.02
$2.57
$3.07
$3.14
$2.84
$3.34 $3.15
$3.31
$3.00
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
$8
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$/GSF
$1.59 $1.68 $1.63 $1.74 $1.89 $2.12
$2.52
$2.82
$4.02
$4.44
$4.97
$3.81
$3.94
$3.91
$3.66
$4.44
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Public Average Private Average
12

13. Facilities Backlogs Continue to Rise
Backlog $/GSF
Public Average Private Average
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$/GSF
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Capital investment not enough to keep backlogs from growing
13

14. Facilities Operating Budget
Daily Service & Planned Maintenance
3.99 4.20 4.20 4.15 4.23 4.23 4.36 4.49
0.28
0.28 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.35
-
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$/GSF
Facilities Operating Budget
Planned Maintenance Daily Service
14

15. Custodial Coverage
Custodial coverage rates going up slowly – cleanliness scores declining slowly
3.80
3.85
3.90
3.95
4.00
4.05
4.10
4.15
4.20
4.25
4.30
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
TotalGSF/FTE
Coverage Cleanliness Scoring
Custodial Coverage
GSF per FTE
National Average Public Average Private Average
15

16. Maintenance Coverage
Maintenance coverage rates steadily increasing
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
TotalGSF/FTE
Maintenance Coverage
GSF per FTE
National Average Private AveragePublic Average
16

17. Rutgers’ Facilities Story

18. Institutional Profile – Rutgers University
> Sightlines Member since
2003
> Public University
> 67,000+ total students
> Main Campus in New
Brunswick, NJ
> Biomedical & Health
Science Campus in
Newark, NJ
> Regional campuses
across the state
> 27 Million GSF
> 1,009 Buildings
> 1,550 Maintained Acres
18

19. Rutgers is Getting Busier
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
%ChangefromFY08
Change since FY2008 – Students vs. Academic Space
Rutgers Student FTE Rutgers Academic GSF
Increasing
Density
D Space
D Students
19

20. Space Challenge: Older Buildings
50.4 49.448.8
41.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Rutgers Big 10 Peers
Years
Construction vs. Renovation Age
Construction Age
Renovation Age
Under 10
Years
Under 10
Years
10 to 25
Years
10 to 25
Years
25 to 50
Years
25 to 50
Years
Over 50
Years
Over 50
Years
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Rutgers Big 10 Peers
%ofTotalCampusGSF
Campus Buildings by Renovation Age
High
Cost
High
Cost
20

21. Space Challenge: Smaller Buildings
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
Rutgers Big 10 Peers
AverageGSF/Building
Average Building Size
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Under
10,000
GSF
10,000 to
30,000
GSF
30,000
GSF to
60,000
GSF
Over
60,000
GSF
Building Count vs.
Building Size
% of Buildings
% of GSF
21

22. Spending into Existing Space Below Target
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
Millions
Capital Spending vs. Targets
Existing Space Only
Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment
Target Need Equilibrium Need
$98
$79
$126
$96
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
Rutgers Big 10$/GSF
Asset Reinvestment Need
FY10 vs. FY15
FY10 FY15
22

23. Funding Challenge: New Space Uses 69% of Available Funds
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
Millions
Existing vs. New Space Spending
Existing Space New Space
35%
65%
Rutgers
FY2010-FY2015
60%
40%
Big Ten
FY2010-FY2015
23

24. Maintenance & Custodial Coverages on the Rise
Budget reductions straining service levels
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Maintenance Coverage
GSF/FTE
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Custodial Coverage
GSF/FTE
24

25. Interrelated Facilities Issues Affecting Rutgers
Small, Older
Buildings
Underfunding
leads to
Increased
Backlog
Strain on Operations &
Service Levels
25

26. Q&A with Tony Calcado:
A New Paradigm at Rutgers
University

27. • Facilities and CAO/Provost work side by
side for space allocation, especially
dealing with decisions about the future of
small buildings
• Facilities supports the mission of the
University
• Project coordination occurs between
facilities needs and program needs
EXPECTED
OUTCOME
Envelope
32%
Building
Systems
36%
Safety/ Code
6%
Infrastructure
6%
Space
Renewal
20%
Project Selection for
Existing Buildings –
College Avenue Campus,
FY2011-FY2015
Currently, building needs drive investment. With
a coordinated approach, Rutgers will achieve a
more balanced investment mix.
Keystone Strategy: Facilities Needs a Seat at the Table
• Positive relationship between Facilities and campus leadership teamACTION
27

28. • Small buildings are taken down
• Buildings with high backlog are taken down
EXPECTED
OUTCOME
Strategy #1: No Net New Policy
• For any new building, at least one building comes down
• Enforced through Facilities Leadership & President’s Office
ACTION
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
Under 10,000
GSF
10,000 to
25,000 GSF
25,000 to
50,000 GSF
Over
50,000 GSF
MaintenanceCost-
$/GSF
Typical Maintenance Costs* by Building Size
*Costs are from the Sightlines database, featured in the Chronicle of Higher Ed article,
“Less is More: Campus Officials Trim Square Feet to Cut Costs”
28

29. • Owners release space
• University has flexibility to consolidate and take down excess space
• Campus utilization increases – more revenue with lower carrying cost of facilities
EXPECTED
OUTCOME
Strategy #2: Change the Budget to Charge for Space
• Schools/Departments/Centers pay for space – RCM ModelACTION
29

30. Strategy #3: Change the Paradigm of Classroom Utilization
• Document and measure utilization
• Get serious about scheduling – target the low hanging fruit
• Set policies that incentivize central control:
• If departments put space into the pool for general use, facilities will
support upgrades
• If departments keep space for their own use, the department is on
their own to fund improvements
ACTION
• Campus utilization increases – more revenue with lower carrying cost
of facilities
• Starts to make an impact on reducing the cost of Higher Education
EXPECTED
OUTCOME
30

31. Interrelated Strategies to Drive Change on Campus
• Divest from old
space
• Divest from small
buildings
• Divesting reduces
backlog
• Frees capital for high
priority/use spaces
• Lower backlog allows operators to do PM instead
of fight fires
• Larger buildings create economies of scale
31

32. Summary of Strategies &
Concluding Thoughts

33. Summary of Strategies
Facilities needs a seat at the table
No net new
policy
Change the
budget to
charge for
space
Change the
paradigm of
classroom
utilization
33

34. Questions?
Please remember to complete the survey after the webinar ends.
Thank you!

35. Stay Current with Latest Trends and Best Practices
Let us keep you current, visit our Insights page
35
If you haven’t downloaded
our report, The State of
Facilities in Higher
Education: 2015
Benchmarks, Best
Practices & Trends, please
go to sightlines.com to
download your copy today.
Sign up for our monthly
newsletter
Read our blog, explore our
content