cIcu institutions are not immune to the issues facing finance and facilities leaders across higher education, including: constrained capital and operating budgets; aging campus buildings; and growing backlogs. However, there are strategies that can allow institutions to survive and thrive despite these challenges. In this exclusive hour-long webinar for cIcu institutions, Sightlines: - Explores current national trends, - Shows how our cIcu clients have been affected, and - Discuss the proven strategies for success

1. Center
University of Missouri – Columbia
University of Missouri – Kansas City
University of Missouri – St. Louis
University of Nebraska at Kearney
University of Nebraska at Lincoln
University of Nebraska Medical Center
University of New Brunswick
University of New Hampshire
University of New Haven
University of North Texas
University of Northern Iowa
University of Notre Dame
University of Oregon
University of Pennsylvania
University of Redlands
University of Rhode Island
University of Rochester
University of San Diego
University of San Francisco
University of Southern Maine
University of Southern Mississippi
University of St. Thomas
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
University of Texas at Dallas
University of the Pacific
University of the Sciences in
Philadelphia
University of Toledo
University of Vermont
Vanderbilt University
Vassar College
Virginia Commonwealth University
Virginia Department of General
Services
Virginia State University
Wagner College
Wake Forest University
Washburn University
Washington University in St. Louis
Wellesley College
Wesleyan University
West Chester University
West Liberty University
West Virginia Institute of Technology
West Virginia School of Osteopathic
The State of Facilities at cIcu
Institutions

2. Introducing Our Presenters
Jay Pearlman
Associate Vice President
Sightlines
Steve Bellona
Associate Vice President, Facilities & Planning
Hamilton College

3. Today’s Desired Outcome
Introduction: Who is Sightlines?
Key Challenges in Facilities Management – cIcu
Performance
Five Strategies for Success
Case Studies
3
JP1

4. Who is Sightlines?

5. Sightlines is a Facility Asset Advisory Firm
Identify ways to use capital more strategically and identify opportunities to
improve operational effectiveness.
Separate fact from fiction on key issues – operational performance,
annual funding needs, and project backlogs.
Document trends, provide consistent measurement, credible
benchmarking and track progress to goals.
Analytical Rigor, Common Vocabulary, Consistent Methodology, Common Platform

6. Comprehensive Facilities Intelligence Solutions

7. 7
Who Partners with Sightlines?
Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums and state systems
Serving the Nation’s Leading Institutions:
• 14 of the Top 20 Colleges*
• 15 of the Top 20 Universities*
• 34 Flagship State Universities
• 12 of the 14 Big 10 Institutions
• 8 of the 12 Ivy Plus Institutions
• 8 of 13 Selective Liberal Arts Colleges
* U.S. News 2015 Rankings
Sightlines is proud to
announce that:
• 450 colleges,
universities and K-12
institutions are
Sightlines clients
including over 325
ROPA members.
• 93% of ROPA
members renewed in
2014
• We have clients in 43
states, the District of
Columbia and Canada
• 100 institutions
became new members
since 2013
Sightlines advises state
systems in:
• Alaska
• California
• Connecticut
• Hawaii
• Maine
• Massachusetts
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Texas
• West Virginia

8. Partners with 16 cIcu Institutions

9. Key Challenges in Facilities
Management

10. The Sustainability of Higher Education is in Question
Higher education stakeholders are faced with…
Federal and state funding levels for higher education have fallen to historic lows with
no near term vision for recovery.
Demographic shifts have led to level or declining enrollments in traditional
students.
Affordability of education has expanded student debt, capped tuition growth,
and increased dependency on Pell Grants.
Tuition dependency has grown, tuition discounting (privates) increasing,
operating margins have fallen, and balance sheets have weakened.
Administrative and support costs have grown compared to education costs.
10

11. “Approximately one-third of
all colleges and universities
have financial statements
that are significantly weaker
than they were several years
ago.”
Denneen & Dretler, The Financially
Sustainable University
Higher Education’s Liquidity Crisis
11

12. Protect the Real Prize…
The
average
endowment
The average
building
replacement value

13. “One side effect of this rapid growth has been the
creation of an increasingly large obligation for the
future renewal and replacement of the physical
plant.”
Rick Biedenwig – 1980
Founder, Pacific Partners Consulting Group
Source: Before the Roof Caves In II: Published with
assistance from APPA and Stanford University
An Accurate Prediction

14. 0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
%ofConstructedSpace
Constructed Space 1880-2015
Sightlines Database
What’s Your Plan?
14
Pre-War
Built before 1951
Durable construction
Older but typically lasts
longer
Post-War
Built between 1951 and
1975
Lower-quality
construction
Already needing more
repairs and renovations
Modern
Built between 1975 and
1990
Quick-flash construction
Low-quality building
components
Complex
Built in 1991 and newer
Technically complex
spaces
Higher-quality, more
expensive to maintain &
repair
Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex

15. Campus Space and Enrollment
National average for enrollment and space growth
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
PercentChangeofEnrollment&Space
National Space Growth National Enrollment Growth

16. Capital Investment is Down
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
$5.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
$/GSF
Public Private

17. $0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
TotalDollars(Millions)
Existing Space New Space
Capital Investment into Existing Space
Public Average Private Average
51%
49%
62%
38%

18. Budgets Not Keeping Up With Inflation
$5.22
$5.33
Public Private

19. Facilities Backlogs Continue to Rise
$77 $79 $80 $82 $84 $87 $90
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
$/GSF
Backlog $/GSF
Backlog/GSF Percentage Change of Backlog
19

20. Significant Reductions in Normalized Consumption

21. Normalized Utility Emissions Falling
Both normalized metrics falling at similar rates

22. How does the cIcu
Compare?

23. 0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
%ofConstructedSpace
Constructed Space 1880-2015
Sightlines Database cIcu
More Diverse Lifecycles
23
Pre-War
Built before 1951
Durable construction
Older but typically lasts
longer
Post-War
Built between 1951 and
1975
Lower-quality
construction
Already needing more
repairs and renovations
Modern
Built between 1975 and
1990
Quick-flash construction
Low-quality building
components
Complex
Built in 1991 and newer
Technically complex
spaces
Higher-quality, more
expensive to maintain &
repair
Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex

24. 0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
%ofConstructedSpace
Constructed Space 1880-2015
Sightlines Database Hamilton
Hamilton - More Diverse Lifecycles
24
Pre-War
Built before 1951
Durable construction
Older but typically lasts
longer
Post-War
Built between 1951 and
1975
Lower-quality
construction
Already needing more
repairs and renovations
Modern
Built between 1975 and
1990
Quick-flash construction
Low-quality building
components
Complex
Built in 1991 and newer
Technically complex
spaces
Higher-quality, more
expensive to maintain &
repair
Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex

25. Energy Consumption Decreases
0
30,000
60,000
90,000
120,000
150,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Fossil Fuel Electric
BTU/GSF

26. A Focus on Electric Usage
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Fossil Fuel Electric
$/MMBTU

27. Hamilton - Utilities In Context of Institutional Growth
Utility use has decreased despite growth in campus GSF and users
-1%
4%
3%
-5%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
Gross Utility Use Campus GSF Campus FTEs
Hamilton % Change 2009-2014
25.8
24.9 24.8
23.1
24.3 24.6
-
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
kWhinMillions
Hamilton Electricity Use
Total Electricity
27

28. Facilities Operating Budgets on the Rise
4.51 4.75 4.91 5 5.15 5.15 5.27
0.24
0.27
0.29 0.3 0.3 0.32 0.35
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Daily Service Planned Maintenance
$/GSF
*All information based on trends for cIcu
institutions in the Sightlines Database.
$5.68
Facilities operating budgets continue to grow at cIcu institutions at a fairly healthy rate. When compared to steady
state adjusted levels, campuses have actually been able to keep pace with the rate of inflation up until recently
and as of 2014, cIcu campuses are only funding their facilities operations approx. 1% less than the rate of
inflation.

29. Five Strategies for Success

30. Changing the Conversation in Higher Education

31. Five Strategies for Success
Build
strategically
Less can
be more
Look
ahead
Keep-up
Reward
savings

32. Less Can be More

33. > “No Net New Space” – A policy rooted in
sustainability, it states that no new space on
campus will be built without the removal of an
equal amount of deficient square footage.
> “No Net New Backlog” – A variation of no net
new space that states that no new
construction can occur without the mitigation
of an equal value of backlog.
New Policies to Control Overhead

34. Tracking Backlog Progress Since 2005

35. Build Strategically

36. Sample: Nearly Double Peers’ Users
7,500
More users on campus
versus peer campuses
Liberal Arts Comprehensive University Urban/City School
Community
College
Users/100K GSF

37. Insufficient Classroom Space?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
%
Room Utilization – General Classrooms
Room Utilization
Difficult Scheduling
During Most of Day

38. Functional Obsolescence is the Real Issue
Many Small Courses, Few Small Rooms
0% 2%
43%
38%
17%
44%
23%
29%
4% 1%
41%
23%
27%
9%
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
0-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 40+
Distribution of Rooms
Room Capacity Fall '13 Enrollment Spring '14 Enrollment

39. Build Strategically

40. Technical
Assessment
Project
Selection
Traditional Facilities Assessment
Today: No Integration in the Process

41. Fails to harness
operating knowledge
Does not tie to
mission, strategy or
master plans
Ignores financial
capacity
Misses opportunities
to optimize capital
resources
A More Cohesive Approach
Technical
Assessment
Project
Selection
Today: No Integration in the Process

42. Tie to Operations, Mission & Finance
Technical Assessment: Conduct Building walk-
throughs and component inventory to develop
initial list of needs.
Step 1: Integrate Technical Needs
Integrate operational perspective to target
inspections and reduce overall capital needs
Step 2: Create Building Portfolios
Segment the backlog and tie projects to mission
and institutional strategy
Step 3: Develop Multi-year Capital Plan
Create outcome based strategies by portfolio
Step 4: Project Section
Pick projects that support mission, operations,
and financial capacity

43. Example: Blended Functional and Investment Portfolios
Aligning needs with funding opportunities

44. Academic /
Admin
Student
Life
Repair Infrastructure Renovation Houses
$20M Plan $ 2,118,600 $ 4,891,000 $ 7,555,600 $ 1,384,700 $ ‐ $ 271,514
$25M Plan $ 3,368,600 $ 6,540,600 $ 8,055,600 $ 1,734,700 $ ‐ $ 319,094
$30M Plan $ 3,497,100 $ 7,754,900 $ 7,555,600 $ 2,055,800 $ 3,405,555 $ 819,094
$(1)
$-
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
$8
$9
Millions
$20M Plan $25M Plan $30M Plan
Acad/Admin Student Life Repair Infrastructure Renovation Houses
Planning Options Summary
Portfolios

45. Look Ahead

46. 25%
31%
21%
45%
45%
23%
31%
24%
34%
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Construction
Age
Renovation
Age
Peer Renovation
Age
Buildings Under 10
Little work, “honeymoon”
period.
Low Risk
Buildings 10 to 25
Lower cost space renewal
updates and initial signs of
program pressures
Medium Risk
Buildings 25 to 50
Life cycles are coming due in envelope
and mechanical systems. Functional
obsolescence prevalent.
Higher Risk
Buildings over 50
Life cycles of major building components are
past due. Failures are possible. Core
modernization cycles are missed.
Highest risk
Unique Campus Age Profile
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

47. Approx. $45M to be Due in 5 Years
 Currently
Critical
 Immediate
 Potentially
Critical
 Year 1
 Necessary- not
yet critical
 Years 2 to 5
 Recommended
 Years 6 to 10
 Does not meet
current
codes/standards
$196.5K
Total identified needs by priority
$2.1M $42.5M $12.0M $486.7K
Majority of priority
1 projects already
addressed

48. 10 Year Capital Renewal Curve

49. 10-Year Needs vs. Investment Capacity
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
TotalDollars(Millions)
10 Year Total Capital Need by Year
$107
$120
$23
$100
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Total 10 Year Need Projected
Investment
Capacity
TotalDollars(Millions)
10 Year Total Capital Need &
Capacity

50. Keep Up

51. The Multiplier Effect of Reinvested Savings
* Stewardship is the annual investment into campus facilities
$1 Invested in Stewardship* …$3 in Capital Backlog Need
Equals
…$2.70 in Annual Operating Costs
Equals
$1 Invested in Planned Maintenance
Another investment impact is....

52. Reward Savings

53. Low Energy Consumption Keeps Dropping
Increase in PM supports lower energy consumption
Regional Peer Avg.
Regional Peer Avg.
Among the top 10% of lowest
consuming institutions in Sightlines’
database

54. Increasing Focus on Systems, Envelope, & Infrastructure
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
$/GSF
Project Spending $/GSF

55. “The State of Facilities in Higher Education”
Sightlines’ annual publication on broad industry trends

56. Questions & Discussion