This document provides an overview of facilities trends in higher education based on data from 377 institutions in the Sightlines State of Facilities Database. Some key findings include: - Space is growing faster than enrollment, with the exception of some research institutions. 67% of campus space was built between 1955-1975 or 1995-2015. - Despite increases in capital investment, deferred maintenance backlogs continue to rise as investment has not been enough to address aging campuses. - After years of flat funding, facilities operating budgets saw modest increases in 2014-2015. - Case studies of Rutgers University and Chapman University show strategies they are employing to address challenges like older building stock and inadequate capital investment through policies around space utilization and

1. Taming Deferred Maintenance
Before the Roof Caves In
Mike Gower, Executive Vice President for Finance and
Administration and Treasurer, Rutgers University
Harold Hewitt, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer,
Chapman University
Mark Schiff, President, Sightlines
Hugh Warren, Associate Vice President, Facilities Operations &
Maintenance, University of Alberta

2. WHERE CAMPUSES STAND…
National, Public & Peer Group Trends in Facilities
June 2016

3. By the Numbers – State of Facilities Database
3
Public,
60%
Private,
40%
377 Higher Education Institutions
Comprehensive
/Doctoral, 34%
Research,
26%
Small
Institutions,
32%
Community
Colleges, 8%
1.5 Billion Total GSF
2,137,705 Students
educated at included
institutions

4. The Sightlines’ Paradigm
4

5. 5
Space and Enrollment Growth
Space growing faster than enrollment beginning in 2013 to 2015
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Space and Enrollment Growth
(National Average)
Space Growth Enrollment Growth

6. 0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
%ofGSF
Sightlines Database- Construction Age Sightlines Database- Renovation Age
6
The campus age drives the risk profile with Post-War and Complex comprising 67%
Putting Campus Building Age in ContextPre-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
Percent of Total Space
40%
Percent of Total Space
27%

7. 7
Progress in resetting the clock on buildings over 50 years old
Square Footage by Age Category
13% 19%
18%
27%
31%
30%
38%
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

8. 8
Annual Capital Investment
Private campuses rely more on annual institutional capital; public rely more on one-time
Public Average Private Average
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
$/GSF

9. 9
Annual Capital Investment
36% of private campus capital comes from annual institutional sources
26%
22% 25% 24%
28% 28% 28% 29% 28%
74%
78% 75% 76%
72% 72% 72% 71% 72%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
PercentofTotalDollarsSpent
Public Average Private Average
28% 27% 25%
31%
35% 33% 35% 36% 36%
72% 73% 75%
69%
65% 67% 65% 64% 64%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

10. 10
Facilities Backlogs Continue to Rise
Capital investment not enough to keep backlogs from growing
Backlog $/GSF
Public Average Private Average
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
$/GSF
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00

11. 11
Facilities Operating Budgets
After years of flat budgets, small increases in campus operating budgets in 2014 and 2015
Public Average
3.65 3.91 3.92 3.85
4.29 4.28 4.39 4.51 4.67
0.25
0.25 0.26 0.26
0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29
0.31
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
$/GSF
4.44 4.61 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.64 4.58 4.75 4.84
0.32
0.34 0.34 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.34
0.37 0.36
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Private Average
Operating Budget $/GSF

12. Trends in Summary
 Space is growing faster than enrollment; there are exceptions,
particularly research institutions
 Campus age profile driven by when buildings were constructed. 67% of
space was built in two periods: 1955-1975 or 1995-2015
 There is some progress on resetting the clock on building systems. But
the majority of space (55%) needs some level of renovation.
 Capital investment at public campuses is the highest since 2009, mainly
as a result of borrowed one time capital.
 Capital investment at private campuses is gradually returning to 2009
peak levels, driven by annual institutional capital.
 Despite capital investment increases there is not enough money to
address aging campuses, so deferred maintenance continue to grow.
 After years of flat funding, facilities operating budgets grew modestly in
2014 and 2015.

13. Rutgers University
13
Case Study: Rutgers University
 What data made the case that a
paradigm shift was needed?
 What strategies are being adopted?
 What are the expected outcomes?
 How is campus engaged in the
conversation?

14. Top Research University
Member of the Association of American
Universities (AAU) and the Big 10 Conference
Top 20 in the U.S. in research R&D expenses
Celebrating its 250th Anniversary this year
Sightlines member since
2003
27M
Supported
GSF
1,550
Maintained
Acres
67,000
Students
Established
1766

15. Space Challenge: Older Buildings
15
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

16. Space Challenge: Smaller Buildings
16
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

17. Inadequate Spending into Existing Space
17
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Millions
Capital Spending vs. Targets
Existing Space Only
Annual Capital One Time Capital
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

18. A New Paradigm
18
1. Engage campus in a conversation to think about space in a new way
2. Provide Facilities with a Seat at the Table
3. Put in place new policies around space use

19. • Small buildings are taken down
• Buildings with high backlog are taken down
EXPECTED
OUTCOME
19
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”

20. • 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
20
Strategy #2: Change the Budget to Charge for Space
• Schools/Departments/Centers pay for space – RCM ModelACTION

21. 21
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

22. Mission: To provide personalized education of distinction
that leads to inquiring, ethical and productive lives as
global citizens.
7th Best University in the Western Region According to US
News and World Report
Sightlines member since
2006
2.1M
GSF
75
Maintained
Acres
7,500
Students
Established
1861

23. Space Growth vs. Enrollment Growth
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Peers % Change in Space and
Enrollment
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
180%
190%
200%
Chapman % Change in Space and
Enrollment

24. 24
Impact of Campus Growth
19% decrease in density since 2004
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Users/100KGSF
Density Factor
Chapman Density Factor Peer Avg Density
Wear & Tear on Facilities
Capital Investment
Trades Staffing Levels
Operating Expenses
Density Affects:

25. 24%
35%
25%
46%
21%
14%29%
6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Peer Reno Age Chapman Reno
Age
%ofGSF
Campus Age by Category
Under 10 10 to 25
25 to 50 Over 50
25
Campus Age Profile
Understanding the Impact of Age on Capital & Operations
$32.94 $34.65
$111.66
$174.06
$0.00
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
Under 10 10-25 25-50 Over 50
$/GSF
10-Year Capital Need from BPS
$0.63
$0.69 $0.72
$0.29
$0.00
$0.10
$0.20
$0.30
$0.40
$0.50
$0.60
$0.70
$0.80
Under 10 10-25 25-50 Over 50
$/GSF
Average Work Order Cost by Reno. Age Category

26. Total Needs
$469.4M
Projects beyond
FY23 (10 years)
$18.0M
New Space
$358.1M
Grounds &
Infrastructure
$1.4M
Building Needs
$91.9M
Capital Upkeep
$27.2M
1.1M GSF
$24/gsf
Repair and Maintain
$15.4M
191,383 GSF
$81/gsf
Systemic Renovation
$24.3M
232,982 GSF
$124/gsf
Transitional
$25.0M
117,495 GSF
$212/gsf
26
Creating Building Portfolios

27. 27
Total Investment vs. Funding Target
One-time capital closed the gap prior to FY13
$1.5 $1.8 $2.6 $2.5 $2.9 $3.5 $4.0 $4.2 $3.3
$5.0
$3.5 $3.6$1.4
$1.9
$2.5 $2.7 $2.3
$4.1 $3.9
$5.0 $6.7
$0.8 $3.3 $3.2
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
$inMillions
Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Targets
Annual Capital One Time Capital Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need
Increasing Backlog
Reducing Backlog
Stabilizing Backlog

28. 28
Asset Reinvestment Need
Spending at target levels has arrested growth in Asset Reinvestment Need
$66
$57 $59 $58 $58 $58 $55 $56 $57
$60
$54 $57
$72 $73 $73 $74 $74 $73 $76
$80 $78 $81 $83 $85
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
$/GSF
Total Asset Reinvestment Need $/GSF
$6/GSF Difference
$28/GSF Difference
PeersChapman

29. $4
$25
$114
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$inMillions
ROPA+
10 Year Total Capital Need
29
Defining Need with ROPA+ Prediction
ROPA+ provides a more comprehensive view of backlog and upcoming need
Renewal Need
• What building needs will come
due in the next 10 years?
• Building Exteriors
• Electrical
• HVAC
• Interiors
• Plumbing
• Roofing
Current Need
• What on campus is currently
broken, operating at a
significantly higher cost, or
requires significantly more time
to maintain?
Mod. & Infra. Need
• Large-scale renovations
• Upgrading systems prior to end
of useful life
Type of Need Type of Funding
One-Time
Annual
Annual & One-Time

30. Top Research University
Top 5 Canadian, Top 100 world wide
6 Years on “Canada’s Greenest Employers”
Sightlines member since
2014
11.3M
Supported
GSF
443
Maintained
Acres
36,918
Student FTE
Established
1908

31. Waves of Construction
UAlberta differs from Canadian national trend due to recent construction
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
%ofspace
CAUBO National Trend
Alberta
UAlberta 8% 49% 10% 33%
CAUBO 11% 48% 13% 28%
Pre-War
Prior to 1951
Durable construction, older but built to last
Post-War
1951-1975
Low quality
construction,
not aging well
Modern
1975-1990
Quick-flash
construction, low
quality
Complex
1990 to today
Quality but costly
construction, highly
technical

32. Understanding the Age of Campus
Some of UAlberta’s oldest buildings have been reset, but profile changing in coming years
18%
25%
13%
13%
17%
20%
47%
46%
35%
21%
12%
32%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
U Alberta
Construction Age
U Alberta Renovation
Age
Peer Renovation Age
University of Alberta Campus Age
Under 10 10-25 25-50 Over 50
Buildings Under 10
Little capital work required, Implement PM
program.
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. Reactive
maintenance needs are high.
Highest Risk

33. Complexity Drives Operating Costs
Younger buildings are more complex and cost intensive
4.1
3.5 3.4
3.2
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
TechRating
Tech Rating by Age Category
$504
$517
$551
$655
$801
$- $300 $600 $900
Tech 1
Tech 2
Tech 3
Tech 4
Tech 5
$/WO
Average WO Cost

34. Adding Complex Space Increases Costs
UAlberta will double the amount of Tech 5 space in the next 10 years

35. High campus density impacts flexibility
UAlberta is as Dense as Research Peers
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Users/100,000GSF
Density Factor
Density Peer Average

36. Consistent Investment while Need Increases
One-time capital helps close the gap between stewardship and target
$-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
USD
Total Investment vs. Target
Annual Capital One Time Capital Target
Decreasing Campus Value
Sustaining/Increasing Campus Value
Annual Investment Capacity: $35-$55M
Due to limited decant space and contractor restrictions

37. Ten Years of Repair & Maintenance Need
UAlberta’s priority need is largest of peer group, with less occurring after year 5
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
A B C D E U of A G
US$/GSF
Repair & Maintenance Need
5-Year Need Years 5-10
Peer avg: $72

38. Operating Budget Compared to Peers
UAlberta has lowest resources in peer group
Benchmarks ordered by increasing technical complexity
$-
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$8.00
A B C D E F G H U of A J K
US$/GSF
Operating Budget Actual Expenditures
Daily Service Preventive Maintenance
Peer avg: $4.83

39. Plan Going Forward
• Continue to use quality data to show the DM
need, support for partnering funds and making
decisions
• Explore Campus as a Living Lab with Faculties for
Student Research
• Be agile and ready to partner in with new
opportunities
• People Counters

40. Grab your free State of Facilities report today!
Come visit us at Booth #1220