Higher education is constantly in a state of flux, and campus buildings are no exception. Advances in technology and the changing demands of campus constituents are placing tremendous pressures on buildings and facilities leaders alike. There are an abundance of post-war buildings across the country that are now at life-cycle tipping points which necessitate significant reinvestment. Complicating this already daunting challenge are all the facilities constructed within the last ten years that are still on their “honeymoon”, but require unique strategies to maintain their freshness in order to meet campus expectations. This is why campus age matters. This webinar will explore these issues and discuss the impact campus age will have on facilities leaders and the financial resources of an institution.

1. 1
Why Age Matters
Date: August 23, 2012
Presented by: Jonathan King & Emily Morris
University of Hartford
University of Idaho
University of Illinois at Chicago
University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign
The University of Maine
University of Maine at Augusta
University of Maine at Farmington
University of Maine at Machias
University of Maine at Presque Isle
University of Maine at Fort Kent
University of Maryland
University of Massachusetts Amherst
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
University of Massachusetts Lowell
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
University of Mississippi Medical Center
University of Missouri
University of Missouri ‐ Kansas City
University of Missouri ‐ St. Louis
University of New Hampshire
University of New Haven
University of North Texas
University of Notre Dame
University of Oregon
University of Pennsylvania
University of Portland
University of Redlands
The University of Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay
The University of Rhode Island, Feinstein Providence
The University of Rhode Island, Kingston
University of Rochester
University of San Diego
University of San Francisco
University of St. Thomas (TX)
University of Southern Maine
University of Southern Mississippi
University of the Pacific
University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
University of Vermont
Upper Iowa University
Utica College
Virginia Commonwealth University
Virginia Department of General Services
Washburn University

2. 2
Who we are
Jon King
Associate Director
Over 7 years of Sightlines Experience
Emily Morris
Regional Account Manager
Over 5 years of Sightlines experience

3. 3
Sightlines Profile
Common vocabulary, consistent methodology, credibility through benchmarking
HI
NV
UT
WY
ND
SD
OK
WI
LA
• Company based in Guilford, CT
• Common vocabulary and consistent methodology
• Tracking $4.3 billion in operations budgets
• Database of over 20,000 buildings and 1.1 billion GSF

4. 4
Why Age Matters: Agenda
1. Building lifecycles & construction vintage
2. Campus age and its influence on operational
effectiveness
3. Campus age and the impact on capital investment
and deferred maintenance
4. Campus age and how it plays into customer
satisfaction

5. 5
Building lifecycles & construction vintage

6. 6
The strength of the Sightlines database
Campus Renovation Age of…
0‐25 Years
Old
26‐39 Years
Old
40+ Years
Old
We grouped our Database into 3 main age buckets.

7. 7
Sightlines Database age over time
41
Age of Campus – Construction Age
vs. Renovation Age
42
43
32
35 34
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
2002 2008 2011
Average of Weighted Construction Age GSF
Average of Weighted Renovation Age GSF
Buildings over 50
Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures are
possible. Core modernization cycles are missed.
Highest risk
Buildings 25 to 50
65%
Life Cycles are coming due in envelope and mechanical
systems. Functional obsolescence prevalent.
Higher Risk
Buildings 10 to 25
Lower cost space renewal updates and
initial signs of program pressures
Medium Risk
Buildings Under 10
Little work .“Honeymoon” period.
Low Risk
What is the age of your campus and how does it impact campus leadership?
Physical Asset Risk Level

8. 8
Life‐cycle cost by age of space
$70.00
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$0.00
Case Study University has majority of space in “high risk” area
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
$/GSF
GSF
As buildings and their
components age, different
lifecycles come due and
require varying levels of
institutional resources

9. 9
The strength of the Sightlines database
You can’t forget building construction vintage…..
Not all building construction
vintages are created equal!
For Example….

10. 10
Building Vintage‐ Example of “Gracefully Aging” Architecture
Sturdy structure Simple “guts” Double Hung
Corridors

11. 11
Building Vintage‐ Example of “Mid‐life Crisis” Architecture
Flat Roofs Casement Windows Cement and
Title Interiors

12. 12
Building Vintage‐ Example of “Modern Marvel” Architecture
Sharp Angles Window Walls Advanced
Systems

13. 13
Campus age and its influence on
operational effectiveness

14. 14
Daily Service Cost of Campus
$4.40
$4.30
$4.20
$4.10
$4.00
$3.90
$3.80
New spaces cost
more to operate
on a daily basis
$0.35
0‐25 26‐39 40+
$/GSF
Average of Budget Total Daily Service/GSF
Average of Budget Total Daily Service/GSF
$0.30

15. 15
Energy Consumption
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
‐
Total BTU/GSF
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Average of Total BTU/GSF
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
‐
Total BTU/GSF
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Average of Fossil BTU/GSF
Average of Electric BTU/GSF
Older buildings are less
energy efficient by
approximately 15%
Older buildings
consume 30% more
fossil fuel
The technical nature of
new buildings increase
electricity consumption
by approx. 20%

16. 16
Energy Cost $/MMBTU
$18.00
$17.50
$17.00
$16.50
$16.00
$15.50
$15.00
$14.50
Average of Total Utility Unit Cost
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Average of Total Utility Unit Cost
The increase in
electricity
consumption in
buildings 0‐25
increase the
average unit cost
for energy
10%
8%
$/MMBTU

17. 17
Custodial Coverage & Campus Density
Average of Density Factor
458
379
313
480
430
380
330
280
230
180
130
80
30
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Average of Density Factor
35,000
34,000
33,000
32,000
31,000
30,000
29,000
28,000
Average of Custodial Coverage
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Average of Custodial Coverage
New buildings are approx. 32%
more dense than older
buildings.
Increased density is one factor
that has led to an 11%
decrease in custodial efficiency.
Users/100K GSF
GSF/FTE

18. 18
Tech Rating and Maintenance Coverage
Average of Tech Rating
3.06
2.88
2.86
3.10
3.05
3.00
2.95
2.90
2.85
2.80
2.75
New buildings are 7% more
technically complex than older
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Average of Tech Rating
86,000
84,000
82,000
80,000
78,000
76,000
74,000
72,000
70,000
Average of Maintenance Coverage
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Average of Maintenance Coverage
GSF/FTE
(Scale of 1‐5)
Increasing technical systems
impacts the effectiveness of
maintenance staff

19. 19
Maintenance Skill Mix & Work Order Production
Trades Staff Mix
27% 32% 33%
73% 68% 67%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Average of Total Struct. Tradesmen
Average of Total Mech. Tradesmen
600
500
400
300
200
100
‐
Work Production
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Average of Maintenance DS WorkOrders/FTE
Average of Maintenance PM WorkOrders/FTE
% of FTEs
Work Orders/FTE
Newer, more technically
complex systems require
different staff knowledge
Daily service work orders
increase with age of building

20. 20
Utilizing work order data to identify high cost buildings
$‐
$50,000.00
$100,000.00
$150,000.00
$200,000.00
$250,000.00
$300,000.00
$350,000.00
$400,000.00
$450,000.00
$500,000.00
KENNETH C ROWE MANA
HOWE‐FOUNTAIN HOUSE
CHAPTER HOUSE
ROBIE ST 1322
LSRI‐SOUTH TOWER
ELECTRICAL MOBILE 2
GOLDBERG COMPUTER SCIENCE BUILDING
CENTRAL SRV‐PARKADE
IND ENG&CONT ED
I MACNAB‐A BLD ADDI
RALPH MEDJUCK‐ADDIT
TUPPER BLDG
KILLAM LIBRARY
STUD. UNION BLDG
FORREST
MEMORIAL ARENA
LSC‐COMMON AREA
CHEMISTRY PODIUM
SEXTON MEMORIAL GYM
BERNARD CAIN‐Q BLDG
A.E. CAMERON‐P BLDG
SHIRREFF HALL
BURBIDGE
RALPH M MEDJUCK BLD
B BUILDING
UNIVERSITY CLUB
MACDONALD BLDG
UNIVERSITY AVE 6214
STAIRS HOUSE
COBURG ROAD 6414
UNIVERSITY AVE 6220
LYALL HOUSE
R1‐BUILDING
LEMARCHANT ST 1390
COBURG ROAD 6420
SEXTON HOUSE‐E BLDG
10 25 50 100
Total FY11 Daily Service Work Order Cost by Building & Age Category
Tupper Building
1380 Work Orders
$436,000
953 Work Orders
Dentistry
$380,000
Central Services
519 Work Orders
$372,000
Killam Library
$260,000
652 Work Orders
Strategically “resetting” high cost buildings can reduce “corrective” ops. costs

21. 21
Opportunity to release operational FTEs
Buildings between 25‐50 yrs. old take longer to service
Age Category
Average hours/ DS
Work Order
Less than 10 4.10
10‐25 3.70
25‐50 5.25
Over 50 4.31
Age Category
Total Daily Service
Work Orders
Less than 10 1,295.00
10‐25 2,060.00
25‐50 8,774.00
Over 50 4,797.00
Reduce average work order time in
25‐50 yr. old buildings by 1 hour.
8774 work orders/1 hour= 8774
hours released!
8774 hours/2080 hours (1 FTE)=
4.2 Maintenance FTEs

22. 22
Campus age and the impact on capital
investment and deferred maintenance

23. 23
Total Capital Investment
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
Total Project Spending by
Investment Type
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Envelope/Mechanical Space/Code
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
Total Project Spending
$ /GSF
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Average of Total Project Spending/GSF
$/GSF
$/GSF
Older buildings require
additional reinvestment dollars
Regardless of age,
envelope/mechanical and
programmatic needs require
investment

24. 24
Deferred Maintenance Backlog and Inspection Scores
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Campus Appearance
0‐25 26‐39 40+
Average of General RepairImpression
Average of Exterior
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
‐
0‐25 26‐39 40+
$/GSF
Deferred Maintenance Backlog
Average of Backlog Lump Sum GSF
Average of Backlog Maint/Repair/GSF
(Scale of 1‐5)
Backlog of need is significantly
larger in older spaces
General repair and exterior
appearance decline as buildings
age and backlog of need
increases

25. 25
Backlog Case Study Campus
Aging physical plant has led to widespread critical maintenance projects
$/GSF Building Needs by Age
$33
$93
$100
$90
$80
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$‐
Building Under 50
Years Old
Buildings Over 50
Years Old
$/GSF
Distribution of Need Type
6%
47%
9%
38%
Reliability
Asset Preservation
Safety/Code
Program Improvement

26. 26
Campus age and how it plays into
customer satisfaction

27. 27
Changing Programmatic Demands
Older Buildings often not configured for modern teaching pedagogy
Sample Rooms
1966 Building 2011 Building
Room Features Lecture Halls, filled‐to‐capacity tablet
arm chairs
Student “pods”, reconfiguration
space, multiple technology access
points
Student / Faculty
Opinions
• Dislike of tablet arm chairs
(comfort/space)
• Too many chairs
• Sufficient table space for laptop,
notebook, text book, etc.
• Breakout areas for group discussion

28. 28
Concluding Remarks

29. 29
Concluding Remarks
1. What is the age of your campus and how is it
impacting the facilities management team?
2. Is your capital investment strategy properly
aligned given the age and vintage of your
facilities?
3. How are you measuring your customer
satisfaction levels as they relate to the physical
assets on campus?

30. 30
Questions and comments