University of Mississippi Medical Center

University of Missouri – ColumbiaUniversity of Missouri – Kansas CityUniversity of Missouri – St. LouisUniversity of Nebraska at KearneyUniversity of Nebraska at LincolnUniversity of Nebraska Medical CenterUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of New HampshireUniversity of New HavenUniversity of North TexasUniversity of Northern IowaUniversity of Notre DameUniversity of OregonUniversity of PennsylvaniaUniversity of RedlandsUniversity of Rhode IslandUniversity of RochesterUniversity of San DiegoUniversity of San FranciscoUniversity of Southern MaineUniversity of Southern MississippiUniversity of St. ThomasUniversity of Tennessee, KnoxvilleUniversity of Texas at DallasUniversity of the PacificUniversity of the Sciences in

PhiladelphiaUniversity of ToledoUniversity of VermontVanderbilt UniversityVassar CollegeVirginia Commonwealth UniversityVirginia Department of General

ServicesVirginia State UniversityWagner CollegeWake Forest UniversityWashburn UniversityWashington University in St. LouisWellesley CollegeWesleyan UniversityWest Chester UniversityWest Liberty UniversityWest Virginia Institute of Technology

Exploring the State of FacilitiesYour Chance to “Ask Sightlines”

State of Facilities in Higher Education:2014 Benchmarks, Best Practices & Trends

Your Presenters

Jim KadamusVice Presidentjkadamus@sightlines.com

Jim KadamusVice Presidentjkadamus@sightlines.com

Jay PearlmanAssociate Vice Presidentjpearlman@sightlines.com

Jay PearlmanAssociate Vice Presidentjpearlman@sightlines.com

Today’s Agenda

Introduction

Facilities Trends

“Ask Sightlines”

Strategies & Conclusion

Still time to “Ask Sightlines”Enter questions in the box

Enter questions here at any point during the webinar

Please take our satisfaction survey at the end of the presentation.

Where Does Our Data Originate?Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums and state systems

Serving the Nation’s Leading Institutions:

• 19 of the Top 25 Colleges*• 17 of the Top 25 Universities*• 42 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 2014 Rankings

Sightlines is proud to announce that:

• 450 colleges, universities and K-12 institutions are Sightlines clients including over 340 ROPA members.

• 93% of ROPA members renewed in 2013

• We have clients in 43 states, the District of Columbia and Canada

• 100 new members since 2013

Sightlines advises state systems in:

• Alaska• California• Connecticut• Hawaii• Maine• Massachusetts• Minnesota• Mississippi• Missouri• New Hampshire• New Jersey• New York: CUNY and

SUNY• Oregon• Pennsylvania• Texas• West Virginia

ROPA+: The Foundation of a Database

Process tells the campus story of historical trends, forecasts future needs, and tracks performance

QVQ (Quantify, Verify, Qualify) process allows apples-to-apples comparisons

5 years of data collected on site and updated annually

Three phases provide a 360 degree view of campus

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

Visit our website at Sightlines.com to download

your free copy

Introduction

“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 – 1980Founder, Pacific Partners Consulting Group

An Accurate Prediction

Campuses Face Broad Challenges

An overall decline in the number of high school graduates

Broad Challenges

Resources on most campuses remain constrained and outside support is steady, at best

Campuses Face Broad Challenges

Broad Challenges

Capital and operating investments for campus facilities have fallen and remain below FY 2009 levels, in terms of real dollars

Campuses Face Broad Challenges

Broad Challenges

Capital needs for facilities continue

Spaces built in the 1950s-1960s need renewalComplex buildings constructed since 1995 require keep up

Campuses Face Broad Challenges

Broad Challenges

Changing the Conversation in Facilities Management

Space, Density & Age

Campus Space and EnrollmentNational average for enrollment and space growth

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

% C

hang

e of

Enr

ollm

ent &

Spa

ce

Space & Enrollment GrowthNational Average

National Space Growth National Enrollment Growth

Campus Space and EnrollmentBy institution type

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

% C

hang

e of

Enr

ollm

ent a

nd S

pace

Space & Enrollment GrowthBy institution type

Space Growth Enrollment Growth

Comprehensive Research Small

Campus Space and EnrollmentPublic vs. Private Institutions

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Perc

ent C

hang

e of

Enr

ollm

ent &

Spa

ce

Campus EnrollmentBy Public vs. Private

Space Growth Enrollment Growth

Public Private

The Aging CampusNational Trending vs. Public and Private

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

% o

f Spa

ce

Square Footage by Age Category (Renovation Age)Public vs. Private

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

National Average Public Average Private Average

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

% o

f Tot

al G

SF C

onst

ruct

ed

Constructed Space Since 1880

Waves of Construction Hitting Major Life CyclesPercent of total database GSF

Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex

*FY15 includes projections of new space online FY14-15

40% 27%

Pre-

War Built before 1951

Durable constructionOlder but typically lasts longer Po

st-W

ar

Built between 1951 and 1975Lower-quality constructionAlready needing more repairs and renovations M

oder

n Built between 1975 and 1990Quick-flash constructionLow-quality building components

Com

plex

Built in 1991 and newerTechnically complex spacesHigher-quality, more expensive to maintain & repair

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Constructed New Space

Academic Non-Academic

Academic vs. Non-Academic

Historic Look at Constructed Space on Campus

*FY15 includes projections of new space online FY14-15

“Ask Sightlines”Response

At Risk Age Profiles TrendNational Trending vs. Public and Private

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

% o

f Spa

ce

Square Footage by Age Category (Renovation Age)Public vs. Private

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

National Average Public Average Private Average

24

Institutions Can Get YoungerState system reverses the trend

Peers System A

Capital Investment

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

$/ G

SF

Capital Investment into Existing SpacePublic vs. Private

Annual Institutional Capital One-Time Capital Average

Annual institutional capital

Public Private

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

$/ G

SF

Capital Investment into Existing SpacePublic vs. Private

Annual Institutional Capital One-Time Capital Average

Annual institutional capital

Public Private

20% increase

52% increase

Facilities Backlogs Continue to RiseNational Average

$79 $81 $82 $85 $87 $90 $92

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

$/G

SF

Backlog $/GSF

Backlog/GSF Percentage Change of Backlog

Facilities Backlogs Continue to RisePublic vs. Private

$83 $86 $88 $90 $93 $96 $99

$74 $74 $76 $78 $81 $82 $85

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

$-

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

$/G

SF

Backlog $/GSFPublic vs. Private

Backlog/GSF Percentage Change of Backlog

Public Private

“Ask Sightlines”Response

Understanding the Next 10 Years

$230

$-

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Total 10 Year Need

Tota

l Dol

lars

(Mill

ions

)

$107

$23

$100

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Total 10 Year Need

Tota

l Dol

lars

(Mill

ions

)

Backlog & Renewal NeedBacklogBacklog

Remaining Backlog Need (years 4 – 6)

Critical Deferred Maintenance (years 1 – 3)

Renewal Need (Lifecycle needs coming due between 2014-2023)

An Execution Strategy for 10 Years

$230

$-

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Asset Reinvestment

Tota

l Dol

lars

(Mill

ions

)

$107

$23

$100

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Total 10 Year Need

Tota

l Dol

lars

(Mill

ions

)

Backlog & Renewal Need

Requires additional data above the current Discovery process

32

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

Tota

l Dol

lars

(Mill

ions

)

10 Year Breakout of NeedBacklogBacklog

10-Year Needs vs. Investment Capacity

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

Tota

l Dol

lars

(Mill

ions

)

10 Year Total Capital Need by Year

$107 $120

$23

$100

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Total 10 YearNeed

ProjectedInvestmentCapacity

Tota

l Dol

lars

(Mill

ions

)

10 Year Total Capital Need & Capacity

Operations Effectiveness

Operating Budgets See Little GrowthNational operating budget average

$4.2 $4.3 $4.4 $4.4 $4.5 $4.5 $4.6

$0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

$6.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

$/G

SF

Facilities Operating BudgetNational Average

Daily Service Planned Maintenance

$4.16 $4.30 $4.49 $4.38 $4.52 $4.45 $4.59$4.15 $4.32 $4.39 $4.40 $4.42 $4.50 $4.55

$0.22$0.23

$0.24 $0.25$0.27 $0.29

$0.29

$0.31$0.32 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.36 $0.37

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

$/G

SF

Daily Service Planned Maintenance

$5.22 $5.33

Budgets Not Keeping Up With InflationOperating budgets averages

Public Private

Maintenance Coverage Rates Continue to IncreaseTrend continues across public, private and nationwide

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Tota

l GSF

/FTE

Maintenance CoverageGSF per FTE

National Average Public Average Private Average

Custodial Staffing is also IncreasingSeen on public, private and nationwide levels

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Tota

l GSF

/FTE

Custodial CoverageGSF per FTE

National Average Public Average Private Average

Energy Use

Significant Reductions in Normalized ConsumptionNational average for energy consumption

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

% C

hang

e Si

nce

2007

BTU

/GSF

Normalized Energy ConsumptionNational Average

Fossil Consumption Electric Consumption Percent Change of Total Consumption

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

% C

hang

e Si

nce

2007

MM

BTU

Average Total Energy UseNational Average

Fossil Consumption Electric Consumption Percent Change of Total Consumption

Average Energy Use Flat Since FY07Finding efficiencies in existing space to balance new construction

Use of Natural Gas Continues to GrowMajor change in short timeframe

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Campus Fuel MixNational Average

Natural Gas Other Fuel Types

-14%

-12%

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

MTC

DE/

Stud

ent F

TE

Avg. Utility Emissions per Student FTENational Average

Utility GHG per StudentPercent Change since 2007

Normalized Utility Emissions FallingBoth normalized metrics falling at similar rates

-14%

-12%

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

MTC

DE/

1,00

0 G

SF

Avg. Utility Emissions per 1,000 GSFNational Average

Utility GHG per 1,000 GSFPercent Change since 2007

“Ask Sightlines”Response

Low Energy Consumption Keeps DroppingIncrease in PM supports lower energy consumption

Regional Peer Avg.

Regional Peer Avg.

Within the top 10% of lowest consuming institutions in

Sightlines’ database

46

Increasing Focus on Systems, Envelope, & Infrastructure

Five year average investment: $2.97/GSF

11%

10%

20%

35%

24%

Project Spending Mix

Building Systems Envelope Infrastructure Space Renewal Safety/Code

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

$/G

SF

Project Spending $/GSF

47

Increasing Focus on Systems, Envelope, & Infrastructure

Five year average investment: $2.97/GSF

11%

10%

20%

35%

24%

Project Spending Mix

Building Systems Envelope Infrastructure Space Renewal Safety/Code

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

$/G

SF

Project Spending $/GSF

Leaner Operating Expenses

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

$ / G

SF

Total Operating Actuals

Peers

48

Total Avg. $6.12Total Avg. $5.61

Sample

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$/G

SF

Daily Service

Daily Service Below Peer AverageOperating with fewer daily service resources; trending down

Institutions ordered by tech rating

Daily Service Over Time

$0.0

$0.2

$0.4

$0.6

$0.8

$1.0

$1.2

$1.4

$1.6

$1.8

$ / G

SF

Planned Maintenance

Planned MaintenanceIncreased PM efforts has improved in-house PM performance

Institutions ordered by tech rating

$0.13$0.26 $0.27

$0.12

$0.31 $0.29

2011 2012 2013

Sample PM

In-House External

Strategies for Success

Changing the Conversation in Facilities Management

Five Strategies for Success

Build strategically

Less can be more

Look ahead Keep-up

Reward savings

Stay Current with All TrendsLet us keep you current, visit our Insights page

If you haven’t downloaded our report, The State of Facilities in Higher Education: 2014 Benchmarks, Best Practices & Trends, please go to sightlines.com for your copy.

Sign up for our monthly newsletter

Read our blog, explore our content

Questions?Please remember to complete the survey after the webinar ends.

Thank you!