Challenges to the Physical Campus
How to Change the Conversationabout Facilities on Your Campus
Panel of Experts:
Bill Ballard, Associate Vice President, Admin. & Facilities, at University of Vermont
Ken Cody, Vice President for Administration & Finance, at Bentley University
Moderated by:
Jim Kadamus, Vice President, at Sightlines
Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this program you will be able to:
• Communicate national and regional trends affecting higher education
finance and facilities today
• Address the age profile and functional obsolescence of campus buildings
• Optimize campus operations and reduce facilities overhead
• More effectively build constituency on campus and engage your Board to
identify and support the right facilities improvements
Campus ProfilesPublic
university with 13,000
students466 acres
276 buildings and nearly 5.5
million GSF
Sightlines member since
2005
Private university with 5,600 students
163 acres
49 buildings and more than 1.7 million GSF
Sightlines member since
2002
Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums and state systemsServing the Northeast’s Institutions:
• 138 institutions – evenly split public and private with 422 million gsf
• Average of over $2 billion in capital investment per year
• Average of over $3 billion in annual facilities operating budgets
• Backlog of over $40 billion
* 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
Sightlines Profile & Database
Northeast Regional Trends in Higher Education Facilities
Campus space growth less than enrollment growthEnrollments leveling starting in 2011 and declining in 2013
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Perc
ent C
hang
e of
Enr
ollm
ent &
Spa
ce
Growing Campus EnrollmentNortheast Average within Sightlines Database
Northeast Space Growth Northeast Enrollment Growth
Bentley has increased enrollment by 7% while shrinking campus GSF by 1%
UVM’s enrollment has grown by 14% while campus GSF has increased by 6%
Campus Space and Enrollment by Institution TypeResearch institutions only group to see continued enrollment growth and lower space growth
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Percen
t Cha
nge of Enrollm
ent a
nd Spa
ce
Campus Enrollment vs. SpaceBy Constituent Group
Space Growth Enrollment Growth
Comprehensive Institution Research Institution Small Institution
Discussion Questions for the PanelIssue 1: What are the implications for facilities of the enrollment changes facing northeast campuses?
UVM:How does a changing mix of students (in-state; out-of-state and international) impact facilities decisions?
How do UVM’s enrollment trends affect your space management and capital investment strategies?
Bentley:How do you factor in anticipated enrollment changes in your long term financial planning for facilities?
How do you address facilities needs to attract and retain quality students and faculty?
Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex
Waves of Construction in the Northeast
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Tota
l Dat
abas
e G
SF C
onst
ruct
ed (M
illio
ns)
Constructed Space Since 1880
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 CategoryRenovation Age
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
Northeast Average Public Average Private Average
Northeast Public and Private Campuses after RenovationsNortheast publics have high % of space in 25-50; private high % in over 50
Nearly 50% of UVM’s GSF is Over 50 Years Old with More than 10% Under 10
Years Old
Bentley’s GSF Profile is Balanced with Approx. 50% Under 25 Years Old and 50% 25 to 50 Years
Old
Capital has not recovered from 2008-09 recession
$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 Space
Annual Capital One-Time Capital Average
Public Average Private Average
UVM has Averaged $4.37/GSF
Bentley has Averaged $6.31/GSF, the Majority from Annual Capital
Reliance on annual institutional capital sources is growing
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
$/G
SF
Capital Investment into Existing SpaceRecurring Capital
Annual Capital Average
Public Average Private Average
Facilities Backlogs Continue to RisePublic campuses over $100/GSF; private campuses at $80/GSF
$91 $93 $95 $98 $101 $104 $107
$69 $70 $73 $74 $76 $79 $80
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 $/GSF
Backlog/GSF Percentage Change of Backlog
Public Average Private Average
Bentley’s $/GSF Backlog Remains Significantly Below the National Average, but is Growing at a Similar Rate
UVM’s $/GSF Backlog has Grown by 12% Over This
Time and is Well Below the National Average
Discussion Questions for the PanelIssue 2: How are you addressing age profile and growing backlog in buildings on your campus?
UVM:How are you balancing investments into new and existing space?
What are you doing to address buildings that are in poor condition or functionally obsolete and underutilized?
Bentley:How are you addressing the needs of campus buildings from the ‘60s and ‘70s?
What data are you using to better understand space utilization of buildings?
Northeast Campuses Operating Budgets FlatAnd definitely not keeping pace with inflation
$4.6 $4.7 $4.8 $4.8 $5.0 $4.9 $5.0
$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
Operating Budget $/GSF
Daily Service Planned Maintenance
$4.50 $4.72 $4.76 $4.72 $4.94 $4.83 $5.00$4.62 $4.73 $4.88 $4.94 $4.98 $5.04 $5.07
$0.22$0.24 $0.25 $0.25
$0.28 $0.28$0.27
$0.31 $0.32$0.35 $0.35 $0.36 $0.38 $0.40
$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
Public vs. PrivateOperating budgets averages adjusted for inflation
Public Average Private Average$5.63 $5.89
Bentley’s Operating Budget has Shrunk per GSF by 3% since FY2009
UVM’s Budget has Increased by 6% per GSF Since FY2009 and is Still Below the Public Average
Discussion Questions for the PanelIssue 3: How are you managing campuses with limited operational funding?
UVM:What organizational and operational changes have you made to reduce the impact of significant funding cuts?
How have these changes impacted customer satisfaction?
Bentley:What are you doing to reduce the overhead of facilities operations and make the facilities department more proactive?
Conclusions
Enrollment trends in northeast are declining, having a negative impact on net tuition revenue used to fund facilities investments or pay for debt service
Aging facilities are competing with faculty needs and financial aid for funding
Capital funding has not returned to pre-recession levels; public campuses have continued to see cuts in State funding
Funding for facilities operations have not kept pace with inflation, meaning cuts in staffing and contracts
Backlogs are growing and at public campuses reaching unsustainable levels
Institutional mission needs to drive the facilities conversation if money is to be secured
Strategies for Long-Term Facilities Success
19
Strategy 1: Build strategically. New construction must support the master plan and future programneeds of the university. Implement policies that result in minimal net new square footage until the backlog isreduced to manageable levels.
Strategy 2: Less can be more. Sometimes less is more when it comes to addressing agingbuildings with high backlogs. Consider eliminating or replacing aging space of certain construction vintageswith more modern and more efficient facilities.
Strategy 3: Look ahead. Set capital priorities that reflect an investment strategy spanning at least fiveyears. Such an approach has proven highly effective at lowering the backlog needs in aging buildings that aredetermined to be critical to the mission and programmatic needs of universities.
Strategy 4: Keep-up. Make annual stewardship (keep-up) investment a priority at every campus. Themore a campus keeps-up with life cycles as they come due, the less the backlog grows.
Strategy 5: Reward savings to be more proactive. Incentivize facilities operators whomake buildings run more efficiently (lower maintenance, custodial or energy costs) by reallocating the savingsto increase annual capital budgets – stewardship. The payback in capital is three to four times the value of thesavings reallocated.
Strategies for Long-Term Facilities Success
Discussion Questions for the PanelIssue 4: Which of these strategies are you implementing on your campus and how are you securing support for those strategies?
Group Discussion:Which strategies have you used to develop broader support for facilities investment?
Which data did you need to look ahead and make the case for annual investment in facilities?
How have you engaged the Board to secure funding for deferred maintenance needs on campus?
Questions from Audience?
www.sightlines.com