In Sightlines’ State of Facilities in Higher Education report, in both 2013 and 2014, we cited warning signs of new challenges for colleges and universities. These trends have accelerated in 2015 and suggest that for many institutions the recovery, if it ever really occurred, was a temporary situation. Our 2015 report shows that enrollment and financial pressures require finance and facilities leaders to yet again find new ways to address the latest challenges. In this webinar, we delve deeper into the trends that informed our analysis and provide insight into aligning space, capital, and operations. We also offered an opportunity for attendees to "Ask Sightlines" about the key facilities challenges they face and learn about innovative solutions at campuses across the country designed to address them.

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 Nebraska Omaha
University of New Brunswick
University of New Hampshire
University of New Haven
University of New Mexico
University of North Texas
University of Northern Iowa
University of Notre Dame
University of Oregon
University of Ottawa
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 Health
Science Center
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
University of Texas at Dallas
University of the Sciences in
Philadelphia
University of Toledo
University of Vermont
University of Washington
Vanderbilt University
Virginia Commonwealth University
Virginia Department of General
Services
Wagner College
Wake Forest University
Washburn University
Washington University in St. Louis
Wellesley College
Wesleyan University
State of Facilities in Higher
Education: An In-Depth Look at the
2015 Trends & Best Practices
Sightlines Webinar; Presented by Jim Kadamus
December 10, 2015

2. Today’s Presenter
Jim Kadamus
Vice President
jkadamus@sightlines.com
2

3. Agenda
Introduction to Sightlines and our database
Review of 2015 State of Facilities trends – Space, Capital, &
Operations
Preview of trends in our upcoming “State of Sustainability”
report
Explore the reasons for “why the roof has not caved in” despite
the “bad news” trends and dire predictions
Recommendations and conclusions
3

4. Feel Free to “Ask Sightlines”
Enter questions in the box at any time
4
Enter questions
here at any
point during the
webinar
Presentation slides
and webinar
recording will be
sent to each
attendee following
today’s session

5. Introduction

6. Where Does Our Data Originate?
Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums, & state systems
6
The 2015 State of Facilities in Higher
Education draws from the largest
verified database of college and
university facilities metrics in the
country.
• The database features 345 institutions
with over 400 campuses in 44 U.S.
states and four Canadian provinces
with over 1.5 billion gross square feet
of space.
• All data is collected and verified by
Sightlines professionals
• The database includes 60% public and
40% private institutions with a mix of
comprehensive/doctoral, research,
and small institutions serving over 2.5
million students
• The database is supplemented by our
2014 analysis of 51 Canadian
universities with over 200 million gross
square feet of space.
Distribution of Sightlines membership
across North America

7. Comprehensive Facilities Intelligence Solutions
The foundation of a database
7

8. The Sightlines Paradigm
8

9. 2015 Trends - Space

10. Space and Enrollment Growth
Space growing faster than enrollment in 2013 and 2014
10
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

11. Space and Enrollment Growth
By constituent group
11
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
24%
Space Growth Enrollment Growth
Comprehensive/Doctoral Research Institutions Community College Small Institutions

12. Space per Student
Slight increase as enrollment levels off
12
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

13. Constructed Space Over Time
Campuses construct equal amounts of academic and non-academic space
13
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Constructed Space Historically
Academic Non-Academic Linear (Academic) Linear (Non-Academic)

14. Putting Campus Building Age in Context
The campus age drives the overall risk profile
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
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
%ofConstructedSpace
Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex
Percent of Total
Space 35%
Percent of Total
Space 31%

15. Square Footage by Age Category
Progress in resetting the clock on buildings over 50 years old
15
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 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

16. Square Footage by Renovation Age Category
Public vs. Private – both groups face significant challenges with over 25 year old space
16
20% 21% 22% 22% 21% 21% 20% 21%
18% 19% 20% 20% 21% 21% 22% 23%
42% 41% 39% 38% 38% 37% 35% 34%
19% 20% 19% 20% 21% 21% 22% 22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
22% 23% 23% 23% 22% 21% 20% 19%
19% 20% 21% 23% 24% 25% 26% 27%
33% 32% 31% 29% 29% 28% 27% 26%
26% 25% 25% 25% 25% 26% 26% 27%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Public Average Private Average
%ofSpace

17. 2015 Trends - Capital

18. 18
Annual Capital Investment
2014 levels finally reach pre-recession, but with a different funding mix
$1.19 $1.18 $1.27 $1.24 $1.36 $1.50 $1.71 $1.77
$3.18
$3.63
$3.86
$3.22
$3.58 $3.44
$3.45
$3.60
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$/GSF
Capital Investment into Existing Space
Annual Capital One-Time Capital Average

19. 19
Capital Investment into Existing Space
By Constituent Group
0.88 1.01 1.12 1.09 0.98
1.21 1.42
1.73
2.87
3.33
3.76
3.51 3.56
3.71
3.60
3.22
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Comprehensive/Doctoral Research Institutions Community College Small Institutions
$/GSF
1.35 1.28 1.36 1.36
1.57 1.68
1.91 1.82
3.32
3.72
3.85
3.08
3.71 3.29
3.48
3.98
0.45 0.61 0.79 0.92
1.39
1.06
0.82
1.20
1.61
4.60
3.55
3.83
3.55
3.02
1.72
1.55
1.19 1.18 1.15 1.03 1.23 1.32 1.46 1.62
3.45
3.76
4.20
2.96
2.82
3.51 3.11 2.73

20. 20
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

21. 21
Annual Capital Investment
Almost 40% of private campus capital comes from annual institutional sources
26%
22%
25% 24% 23% 26% 26% 25%
74%
78%
75% 76% 77% 74% 74% 75%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
PercentofTotalDollarsSpent
Public Average Private Average
28% 27% 25%
31% 32% 35%
41% 39%
72% 73% 75%
69% 68% 65%
59% 61%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

22. 22
Sightlines’ Impact on Capital Spending
2011 new members’ capital spending before vs. after joining Sightlines
$0.72
$1.11
$3.29
$3.30
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
$5.00
Before After
$/GSF
54% Increase

23. 23
How Are Capital Dollars Being Spent?
Higher investment into envelope/mechanical projects
44% 41% 38% 39% 39% 38% 36% 36%
43% 42% 41% 44% 44% 41% 43% 45%
37%
38% 42% 41% 42% 43% 44% 41%
41% 40% 41%
41% 41%
42%
42% 40%
19% 21% 20% 20% 19% 19% 20% 23%
16% 18% 18% 15% 15% 17% 15% 15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Space Renewal & Safety Code Envelope & Building System Infrastructure
Public Average Private Average

24. 24
Impact of Investing More Into Durable Components
Investment in envelope and building systems lasts longer
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Envelope Systems Space Safety/Code
Years
Average Life Expectancy
(Data taken from BPS Life Cycle Estimates)
HighROI
HighROI

25. 25
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%
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

26. 2015 Trends - Operations

27. 27
Facilities Operating Budgets
Small increases in campus operating budgets from 2008-2014
Public Average
3.65 3.91 3.92 3.85 3.92 3.88 4.04 4.13
0.25
0.25 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.29
0.30 0.30
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$/GSF
4.44 4.61 4.62 4.62 4.70 4.78 4.83 4.98
0.32
0.34 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.42
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Private Average
Operating Budget $/GSF

28. 28
Importance of a Growing PM Program
Opportunity for Savings:
Invest $1.00 in PM now
OR
Spend $2.73 in reactive
maintenance later*
$1.00
$2.73
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
Planned Maintenance Reactive Maintenance
IncrementsofOperationalSpending
*Data from Ozanne Analytics – research of Sightlines database of work orders comparing costs of corrective and
emergency work orders to planned and preventative work orders

29. 29
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

30. 30
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

31. 2015 Trends – Energy &
Emissions
Source: “State of Sustainability in Higher Education”, a joint University of
New Hampshire and Sightlines report – Coming soon!

32. 32
Scope 1 Stationary and Scope 2 Emissions
Gross emissions decreased 5% since 2010, but consumption is higher
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MTCDE
Emissions
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric
Percent Change
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MMBTU
Consumption
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric
Percent Change

33. 33
Normalized Scope 1 Stationary and Scope 2 Emissions
Normalized emissions decreased 13% since 2007; consumption had small decline
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MTCDE/1,000GSF
Emissions
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric
Percent Change
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
BTU/GSF
Consumption
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric
Percent Change

34. 34
Stationary Fuel Mix
Proportion of natural gas increased 13% since 2007
74% 75% 76%
80% 82% 85% 87% 87%
17%
18% 17%
14% 14%
12% 10% 10%
9% 7% 7% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Fuel Mix
Natural Gas Coal Other Fuel

35. 35
Cost Matters
Consumption lowest in regions with highest cost
Degree
Days=6951
Degree
Days= 6426
Degree
Days=7114
Degree
Days=4769
Degree
Days=9922
Degree
Days=15178
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Far West &
Southwest
New England Mid-East Plains &
Rockies
Southeast Great Lakes
$/MMBTU
BTU/GSF
Consumption
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric Fossil Unit Cost Electric Unit Cost

36. 36
Summary of Trends
The aging campus is driven by the need to renovate or replace 1960s and 70s
buildings, many of which were poorly constructed
To add to the problem, campuses have added new square footage to address
increasing enrollment that has now leveled off or is even in decline
The demand for both “catch up” on aging buildings and “keep up” of newer buildings
is much higher than the availability of capital funding
Therefore, backlogs continue to grow even though capital funding is finally back to
pre-recession levels
Flat operating budgets have not provided relief to the backlog problem
After some gains, energy consumption has leveled off; emissions have improved due
to fuel switching
In the face of these “bad news” trends, why have we not seen more building
failures and major facility problems on campuses?

37. Why the Roof Hasn’t Caved In

38. 38
What are Campuses Doing to Manage Risk?
To keep the roof from caving in and building systems from failing
Better data to identify and manage the most critical
repair risks for campus.
Systems tend to outperform their statistical target.
Lower cost repairs to systems rather than full system
replacements have bought extra service time.
Because campuses are a collection of buildings –
the risk is diversified over the portfolio.
The functional obsolescence of space drives
investments that brings outside resources, especially
to space.

39. 39
We Need to Make the Problem Smaller
Not all buildings are created equal, therefore they
should not be treated that way.
Use building portfolios – for operations and capital - to
make the problem smaller
Subdivide capital projects by issues of reliability,
safety/code, program, and asset preservation.
Create “balance” and “diversity” in all facility
investments to lower risks.

40. 40
Time is On Our Side
Yes it is
What we’ve learned over the past 30 years …
fixing components rather than replacing entire systems,
that life cycle estimates are inherently conservative,
coordinating campus needs and projects can lower capital costs,
and
functional obsolescence of space can bring capital resources to
allocate for repairs
There is no reason to believe that these factors will change
in the next 15 to 20 years. Therefore although we will need
to act, we have time to manage the investments.

41. 41
Make the Case for Resources
By controlling the things you can control
The old approach of defining needs in a way that makes the DM
problem bigger and then requesting money will not work.
Problem is too big to address in total – must break it down in size
and priority
Opportunities exist to…
Lower Demands - Space Management
Make the Problem “Smaller” – Use Building Portfolio
Management
Sustain Impact of Finite Funding - Create Multi Year Plans
Mitigate Risk - Target Capital to Reliability, Safety/Code, and Critical
Asset Preservation Issues
Apply these actions to make the case for additional
funding and use savings to self-fund stewardship

42. Conclusion

43. 43
Changing the Conversation
Strategies for success
Understand
and
communicate
that not all
buildings are
created equal
Use
building
portfolios
Invest over
time
Reallocate
savings

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

45. 45
Stay Current with Latest Trends and Best Practices
Let us keep you current, visit our Insights Page
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