With the expansion in college and university square footage, physical assets make up a greater portion of institutional wealth than ever before with values several times most endowments. However, with the ongoing needs brought about by a larger footprint, and challenges to operating and capital funding alike, it has never been so important to have an effective partnership between the CFO and Chief Facilities Officer. Learn how institutional leaders are utilizing a new breed of facilities intelligence solutions to provide the same level of analytical rigor to facilities that most institutions already have for financial assets. Webinar attendees will leave with an understanding of national trends affecting physical plant; insight into aligning space, capital, and operations; and how a new conversation can be created on your campus to assess performance, discover opportunities, and create lasting change.

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 New Brunswick
University of New Hampshire
University of New Haven
University of North Texas
University of Northern Iowa
University of Notre Dame
University of Oregon
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, Knoxville
University of Texas at Dallas
University of the Pacific
University of the Sciences in
Philadelphia
University of Toledo
University of Vermont
Vanderbilt University
Vassar College
Virginia Commonwealth University
Virginia Department of General
Services
Virginia State University
Wagner College
Wake Forest University
Washburn University
Washington University in St. Louis
Wellesley College
Wesleyan University
West Chester University
West Liberty University
West Virginia Institute of Technology
West Virginia School of Osteopathic
Take Control of Your Facilities:
Explore the Tools for Aligning
Space, Capital, and Operations
Sightlines Webinar; Presented by Jon King
October 20, 2015

2. Introducing Our Presenter
Jon King
Associate Director, Member Services
Sightlines

3. Today’s Desired Outcome
Introduction: Who is Sightlines?
Why the Roof Hasn’t Caved In
ROPA+ - Changing the Conversation
Five Strategies for Success
3

4. Feel Free to “Ask Sightlines”
Enter questions in the box at any time
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. Who is Sightlines?

6. Sightlines is a Facility Asset Advisory Firm
Identify ways to use capital more strategically and identify opportunities to
improve operational effectiveness.
Separate fact from fiction on key issues – operational performance,
annual funding needs, and project backlogs.
Document trends, provide consistent measurement, credible
benchmarking and track progress to goals.
Analytical Rigor, Common Vocabulary, Consistent Methodology, Common Platform

7. 7
Who Partners with Sightlines?
Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums and state systems
Serving the Nation’s Leading Institutions:
• 14 of the Top 20 Colleges*
• 15 of the Top 20 Universities*
• 34 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 2015 Rankings
Sightlines is proud to
announce that:
• 450 colleges,
universities and K-12
institutions are
Sightlines clients
including over 325
ROPA members.
• 93% of ROPA
members renewed in
2014
• We have clients in 43
states, the District of
Columbia and Canada
• 100 institutions
became new members
since 2013
Sightlines advises state
systems in:
• Alaska
• California
• Connecticut
• Hawaii
• Maine
• Massachusetts
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Texas
• West Virginia
JP2

8. Slide 7
JP2 Make sure this is the most recent version of slide
Jay Pearlman, 10/7/2015

9. Why the Roof Hasn’t Caved In

10. 0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
%ofConstructedSpace
Sightlines Database- Construction Age Sightlines Database- Renovation Age
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%
The campus age drives the overall risk profile

11. Space and Enrollment Growth
Space growing faster than enrollment
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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Facilities Operating Budget
Daily Service & Planned Maintenance
3.99 4.20 4.20 4.15 4.23 4.23 4.36 4.49
0.28
0.28 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.35
-
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$/GSF
Facilities Operating Budget
Planned Maintenance Daily Service

15. Facilities Backlogs Continue to Rise
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
Capital investment not enough to keep backlogs from growing

16. 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
In the face of these “bad news” trends, why have we not seen more building
failures and major facility problems on campuses?

17. The Predictions Have Not Become Reality – Why???

18. 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.
What are Campuses Doing to Manage Risk?
To keep the roof from caving in and building systems from failing

19. 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.
What are Campuses Doing to Manage Risk?
To keep the roof from caving in and building systems from failing

20. ROPA+ - Changing the
Conversation

21. Comprehensive Facilities Intelligence Solutions

22. Changing the Conversation in Higher Education

23. A Vocabulary for Measurement
The Return on Physical Assets – ROPASM
Asset Value Change
The annual
investment needed
to ensure buildings
will properly
perform and reach
their useful life
“Keep-Up Costs”
Annual
Stewardship
The accumulation
of repair and
modernization
needs and the
definition of
resource capacity
to correct them
“Catch-Up Costs”
Asset
Reinvestment
The effectiveness
of the facilities
operating budget,
staffing,
supervision, and
energy
management
Operational
Effectiveness
The measure of
service process,
the maintenance
quality of space
and systems, and
the customers
opinion of service
delivery
Service
Operations Success
22

24. Sightlines ROPA+ Service

25. 24
ROPA+ The Process
Disciplined Methodology + Past Performance = Facilities Intelligence
• Sightlines collects and assembles data on campus to
quantify, verify, and qualify facility performance.Measure
• Through the benchmarking process, institutions have
the capability to create custom comparisons that help
them understand context and performance.
Benchmark
• Sightlines synthesizes an institution's verified data to
provide expert insight and perspective and develop
strategic directions for change.
Analyze &
Interpret
• Sightlines continues to support each campus through
our Member Portal, national thought leadership,
educational webinars, and ongoing campus
consultation.
Membership

26. Sightlines’ Member Portal
It’s time to get more from your data
25
More Support
Informed with live
notification to your data
More Access
Create customized
dashboard featuring
the metrics most
important to you
Seamlessly benchmark
against 300 member
institutions
More Context
My Story feature
presents Sightlines key
findings as an easy to
digest narrative

27. 26
Collected Data Elements
Building Information Building Construction Date
Dates of Major Building Renovations
Building Function (Resident Hall, Academic, Athletic, …)
Building Gross Square Footage, Land Acres
Locations Served by Central Systems – Heating, Cooling, Electrical
Deferred Maintenance Deferred Maintenance Assessment (in-house or contracted)
Building Information Building Construction Date
Dates of Major Building Renovations
Building Function (Resident Hall, Academic, Athletic, …)
Building Gross Square Footage, Land Acres
Locations Served by Central Systems – Heating, Cooling, Electrical
Deferred Maintenance Deferred Maintenance Assessment (in-house or contracted)
CampusProfile
Staffing Table Department Organizational Chart
Distribution of Trades, Cust. and Grounds Staff by Shop Including Super.
Work Order Report Total Number of Requested and Completed
Completed Work Orders by Shop and Type (Repair, PM, Project, etc.)
Energy Profile Monthly Utility Cost and Consumption by Fuel Type (Gas, Oil, Electric)
Primary Generation Equipment Profile Including Hours of Operation
Staffing Table Department Organizational Chart
Distribution of Trades, Cust. and Grounds Staff by Shop Including Super.
Work Order Report Total Number of Requested and Completed
Completed Work Orders by Shop and Type (Repair, PM, Project, etc.)
Energy Profile Monthly Utility Cost and Consumption by Fuel Type (Gas, Oil, Electric)
Primary Generation Equipment Profile Including Hours of Operation
Operations
Institutional Financial Statement Balance Sheet and Operating Budget
Facilities Operating Budget Operating Budget and Actual by department and line item
Capital Budget Recurring & One-Time Capital budget (Plant fund, R&R account)
Institutional Financial Statement Balance Sheet and Operating Budget
Facilities Operating Budget Operating Budget and Actual by department and line item
Capital Budget Recurring & One-Time Capital budget (Plant fund, R&R account)
Finance

28. More Space & Smaller Buildings = Savings Opportunity
27

29. $39.4
$14.2
$10.6
$17.3
$8.7
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
$35.00
$40.00
$45.00
3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need Annual Investment Target
$inMillions
FY14 Annual Investment Target
Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program
Defining an Annual Investment Target
28
Functional obsolescence drives
investment prior to life cycles &
discounts the annual target

30. $0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
$35.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Millions
Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target
Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need
Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target
Includes only the investment in existing facilities
Increasing Backlog & Risk
29
Increasing Net Asset Value
Lowering Risk Profile

31. $0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
TotalDollars(Millions)
Current Need Renewal Need Modernization & Infrastructure
ROPA+ Prediction: Predictive Investment Model
$65
$172
$155
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
Asset Reinvestment Need
TotalDollars(Millions)
30
Asset Reinvestment
Need
10 Year Capital Forecast

32. Facilities Operating Expenditures
31
$-
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
Total Daily Service Costs
Maintenance Custodial Grounds
Daily Service Breakout
Area of
Focus
Area of
Focus

33. Maintenance Staffing Profile vs. Peers
Maintenance Performance
32
More Material SpendingSimilar SupervisionCovering More Space

34. Demonstration Campus
Energy Consumption vs. Peers
33
• Older facilities & new
technically complex space
is driving up energy
consumption
• Older facilities should be
targeted for renovation to
reduce consumption
• Savings should be
redirected back into annual
stewardship
Peer Averages
• Peers strong investment into
infrastructure & building
systems have helps level off
energy consumption.

35. Multiple Perspectives on Quality of Service
Service Process, Campus Inspection, and Customer Survey
Service Process
How are requests made?
Who can make requests?
Who schedules the work?
Is there a timeline/completion date given?
Are customers made aware of request
status?
34

36. Multiple Perspectives on Quality of Service
Service Process, Campus Inspection, and Customer Survey
0 1 2 3 4 5
Performance…
Work Requests
Organization
Scheduling Process
Centralization
Service Process
35

37. Multiple Perspectives on Quality of Service
Service Process, Campus Inspection, and Customer Survey
0 1 2 3 4 5
Performance…
Work Requests
Organization
Scheduling Process
Centralization
Service Process
Campus Inspection
Sightlines completes a building and
grounds inspection rating the general
repair, cleanliness, exterior condition,
and mechanical systems spaces in a 3
hour tour
36

38. Multiple Perspectives on Quality of Service
Service Process, Campus Inspection, and Customer Survey
0 1 2 3 4 5
Performance…
Work Requests
Organization
Scheduling Process
Centralization
Service Process
0 1 2 3 4 5
Grounds
Exterior
Mechanical Spaces
General…
Cleanliness
Campus Inspection
37

39. Multiple Perspectives on Quality of Service
Service Process, Campus Inspection, and Customer Survey
0 1 2 3 4 5
Performance…
Work Requests
Organization
Scheduling Process
Centralization
Service Process
0 1 2 3 4 5
Grounds
Exterior
Mechanical Spaces
General…
Cleanliness
Campus Inspection
Customer Survey
13%
50%
32%
5%
Far Exceeds Expectations
Exceeds Expectations
Meets Expectations
Below Expectations
38

40. Multiple Perspectives on Quality of Service
Service Process, Campus Inspection, and Customer Survey
0 1 2 3 4 5
Performance…
Work Requests
Organization
Scheduling Process
Centralization
Service Process
0 1 2 3 4 5
Grounds
Exterior
Mechanical Spaces
General…
Cleanliness
Campus Inspection
Customer Survey
13%
50%
32%
5%
Far Exceeds Expectations
Exceeds Expectations
Meets Expectations
Below Expectations
1.00
3.00
5.00
1.00 3.00 5.00
WorkPerformance
Communication & Process
Excellent
Performance
Poor
Performance
Excellent
Performance
Best practice range
Separate report with all the
results & feedback
39

41. 40
ROPA+ = Total Facilities Intelligence Solution
1. Stewardship falls
2. Failures increase
3. Increased operational demands
4. Customer satisfaction
decreases
5. Capital investment driven by
customers. Space wins over
systems.
6. Backlog increases
1. Focused project selection
2. Decreasing operating costs
3. Increasing stewardship
4. Reduce emergency work
5. Increased customer
satisfaction
6. Flexibility of project selection

42. Five Strategies for Success

43. Five Strategies for Success
Build
strategically
Less can
be more
Look
ahead
Keep-up
Reward
savings

44. Less Can Be More

45. > “No Net New Space” – A policy rooted in
sustainability, it states that no new space on
campus will be built without the removal of an
equal amount of deficient square footage.
> “No Net New Backlog” – A variation of no net
new space that states that no new
construction can occur without the mitigation
of an equal value of backlog.
New Policies to Control Overhead

46. Tracking Backlog Progress Since 2005

47. Campuses Taking Action
Our partnership gives them the power to act and drive results

48. Build Strategically

49. Sample: Nearly Double Peers’ Users
7,500
More users on campus
versus peer campuses
Liberal Arts Comprehensive University Urban/City School
Community
College
Users/100K GSF
Campus A

50. Insufficient Classroom Space?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
%
Room Utilization – General Classrooms
Room Utilization
Difficult Scheduling
During Most of Day

51. Functional Obsolescence is the Real Issue
Many Small Courses, Few Small Rooms
0% 2%
43%
38%
17%
44%
23%
29%
4% 1%
41%
23%
27%
9%
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
0-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 40+
Distribution of Rooms
Room Capacity Fall '13 Enrollment Spring '14 Enrollment

52. Build Strategically

53. Technical
Assessment
Project
Selection
Today: No Integration in the Process

54. Fails to harness
operating knowledge
Does not tie to
mission, strategy or
master plans
Ignores financial
capacity
Misses opportunities
to optimize capital
resources
Technical
Assessment
Project
Selection
Today: No Integration in the Process

55. Tie to Operations, Mission & Finance
Technical Assessment: Conduct Building walk-
throughs and component inventory to develop
initial list of needs.
Step 1: Integrate Technical Needs
Integrate operational perspective to target
inspections and reduce overall capital needs
Step 2: Create Building Portfolios
Segment the backlog and tie projects to mission
and institutional strategy
Step 3: Develop Multi-year Capital Plan
Create outcome based strategies by portfolio
Step 4: Project Section
Pick projects that support mission, operations,
and financial capacity

56. Look Ahead

57. 25%
31%
21%
45%
45%
23%
31%
24%
34%
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Construction
Age
Renovation
Age
Peer Renovation
Age
Buildings Under 10
Little work, “honeymoon”
period.
Low Risk
Buildings 10 to 25
Lower cost space renewal
updates and initial signs of
program pressures
Medium Risk
Buildings 25 to 50
Life cycles are coming due in envelope
and mechanical systems. Functional
obsolescence prevalent.
Higher Risk
Buildings over 50
Life cycles of major building components are
past due. Failures are possible. Core
modernization cycles are missed.
Highest risk
Unique Campus Age Profile
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

58. 10 Year Capital Renewal Curve

59. 10-Year Needs vs. Investment Capacity
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
TotalDollars(Millions)
10 Year Total Capital Need by Year
$107
$120
$23
$100
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Total 10 Year Need Projected
Investment
Capacity
TotalDollars(Millions)
10 Year Total Capital Need &
Capacity

60. Keep Up

61. The Multiplier Effect of Reinvested Savings
* Stewardship is the annual investment into campus facilities
$1 Invested in Stewardship* …$3 in Capital Backlog Need
Equals
…$2.70 in Annual Operating Costs
Equals
$1 Invested in Planned Maintenance
Another investment impact is....

62. Reward Savings

63. Low Energy Consumption Keeps Dropping
Increase in PM supports lower energy consumption
Regional Peer Avg.
Regional Peer Avg.
Among the top 10% of lowest
consuming institutions in Sightlines’
database

64. Increasing Focus on Systems, Envelope, & Infrastructure
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
$/GSF
Project Spending $/GSF

65. “The State of Facilities in Higher Education”
Sightlines’ annual publication on broad industry trends
JP3

66. Slide 64
JP3 Update to "Coming Soon - 2015 SoF"
Jay Pearlman, 10/7/2015

67. Questions & Discussion