Diverse Perspectives on Managing Facilities Demands

Diverse Perspectives on Managing Facilities Demands

• National and Regional Facilities Trends and Challenges – Jim Kadamus

• Case Study – Iowa State, Pam Elliott Cain• Case Study – Washburn U, Rick Anderson• Case Study – College of St. Benedict, Sue Palmer

Date: September 29th, 2013

National and Regional Facilities Trends and Challenges

Speaker: Jim Kadamus, Vice PresidentInstitution: Sightlines

Date: September 29, 2013

Introducing the Comparative Institutions

Sightlines Facts:

• Over 1.2 Billion GSF in database

• Over 90% Retention Rate• 380+ campuses included

into database• 22 Private institutions &

38 Public Institutions in the CACUBO Region

• CACUBO represents over 200 million GSF & over 600,000 student FTEs

41% 40% 39% 39% 38% 36%

18% 18% 18% 19% 20% 21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

% of Spa

ce

(%) Square Footage over 25 years old(Renovation Age)

25 to 50 Years of Age Over 50 Years of Age

National Campus Age Despite new space dollars, 57% of space is over 25 years of age

43% 43% 42% 40% 40% 40% 39% 38% 38% 36% 34% 30%

18% 18% 19% 21% 23% 27%19% 18% 19% 19% 20% 25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

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

% of Spa

ce

(%) Square Footage over 25 years old(Renovation Age)

25 to 50 Years of Age Over 50 Years of Age

CACUBO Campus Age

Public Private

Campuses continue to see space cross into the over 50 year age bracket

$1.2 $1.4 $1.4 $1.3 $1.5 $1.7

$3.1 $3.9 $4.1

$3.2 $3.4 $3.4

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

$/GSF

Capital Investment into Existing Space

Annual Capital One‐Time Capital

National Campus Investment Campuses still have not seen a full recovery from the recession

$1.0 $1.1 $1.4 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $1.5 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4

$1.9 $2.1

$2.5 $2.2

$2.8 $2.6 $2.2 $2.9

$3.0

$2.1 $2.9 $3.0

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

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

$/GSF

Capital Investment into Existing Space


CACUBO Campus Investment

Public Private

Both private and public campuses have seen increase since 2010

$78 $79 $80 $82 $85 $89

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

$‐

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

$/GSF

Backlog $/GSF

Backlog/GSF Percentage Change of Backlog

National Backlog Continued growth in backlog

$76 $78 $80 $84 $89 $93

$70 $71 $73 $76 $79 $86

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

$‐

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

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

$/GSF

Backlog $/GSF

CACUBO Backlog

Public Private

Capital investment is not enough to stem backlog growth

$4.13 $4.31 $4.41 $4.33 $4.42 $4.47

$0.27 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.30 $0.32

$‐

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

$/GSF

Average Facilities Operating Costs

Daily Service Planned Maintenance

National Operating Costs Modest increase in operating budgets since 2009

$3.42 $3.53 $3.60 $3.51 $3.41 $3.56 $3.32 $3.48 $3.54 $3.44 $3.40 $3.31

$0.25 $0.26 $0.27 $0.28 $0.28 $0.32

$0.21 $0.21 $0.24 $0.23 $0.30 $0.34

$‐

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

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

$/GSF


Daily Service Planned Maintenance

CACUBO Operating Costs

Public Private

Operating budgets flat since 2009

$2.30 $2.47 $2.50 $2.27 $2.32 $2.22

$‐

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

$/GSF


National Utility Costs Fuel switching and efficiency projects has helped decrease utility costs

$2.08 $2.20 $2.28 $1.98 $1.97 $1.90

$1.63 $1.95 $2.01 $1.87 $1.99 $1.89

$‐

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

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

$/GSF

Average Utility Costs

CACUBO Utility Costs

Public Private

Public and private campuses utility costs below national average

•Age profiles of institutions indicate that both public and private institutions face growing deferred maintenance needs and overdue life cycles

•Public institutions have a higher portion of space over 25 years of age, which will require additional capital investment and can begin to have an impact on daily operations

Physical and Institutional Profile

•Both public and private campuses have seen increased capital funding since the decline in 2009•The amount of capital invested into facilities has not been enough to keep campuses from hitting the life cycles associated with buildings over 25 years of age

•As a result, backlog at CACUBO campuses has risen substantially to over 20% within the past 6 years

Capital Budget Profile

•More demand placed upon maintenance staff means level of attention to older buildings may falter

•Stable operating costs paired with increasing backlog makes it difficult for facilities to keep pace with facilities’ demands.

•Significant reduction in energy consumption and unit cost have led to gains in utility operations

Operating Budget Profile

CACUBO Final Comments

Iowa State University

Speaker: Pam Elliott CainInstitution: Iowa State UniversityDate: September 29, 2013

Iowa State Campus ProfileIowa State University is a large, public land‐grant and space‐grant institution

Fast Facts:• Founded: 1858• Located: Ames, IA• 174 buildings*• 6.6 Million Gross Square Feet*• 32,000 FTE students

• Created nations first Public Veterinary Medicine school in 1879

• Leader in agriculture and engineering

• High demand campus• Large, technically complex campus that

houses many students and programsSomeone’s always got a problem

*Included in Sightlines’ analysis

47% of buildings are 25‐50 years old ‐ creates unbalanced age profileMore space on campus is high risk

Buildings Under 10Little work. “Honeymoon” period.

Low Risk

Buildings 10 to 25Short life‐cycle needs; primarily space

renewal.Medium Risk

Buildings 25 to 50Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come

due.Higher Risk

Buildings over 50Life cycles of major building components are past due.

Failures are possible.Highest risk

11% 14%

18%19%

47%31%

24%36%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ISU Peer Average

% of Tot

al Cam

pus GSF

Campus Age by Category

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

Breakout of space 25‐50 years old

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

Average Building Size

31%

59%

3% 7%

Acad/adminScience researchStudent lifeSupport

GSF

Function of 25‐50 year old buildings

Buildings built between 25 and 50 years ago are, on average, much bigger than those built in other time periods.• Aging building systems (E.g. HVAC)

• Harder to maintain• Bigger, more complicated systems

• Need more specialized staff

Majority of buildings built between 25 and 50 years ago are science research buildings.• Technically complex systems

• Require specially‐trained maintenance staff

• Expensive equipment• High replacement and modernization

costs

Annual Stewardship (cost of keeping up)

$31.6$23.7

$42.5

$14.9

$81.4

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

3% Replacement Value Total Need Target Need

$ in M

illions

Envelope/Mech Space/Program

FY12 Stewardship Need

DepreciationModel

$74.1 MLife CycleModel

$38.6 MFunctional

Obsolescence

ISU FY12 Replacement Value = $2.7 Billion

Industry Standard Sightlines Recommendations

Life cycle is discounted for the coordination of modernization and

renovation.

Note: Chart is for state‐supported, Ames campus space only

Determining the “right” level of annual funding

Total project spending

$0.0

$10.0

$20.0

$30.0

$40.0

$50.0

$60.0

$70.0

$80.0

$90.0

$100.0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

$ in M

illions

Capital Spending vs. Target Need

Budgeted Capital Dollars One‐Time Capital Dollars

Increasing Backlog

Stabilizing Backlog

Decreasing Backlog

One‐time funding kept facilities investment closer to target until FY10

(State capital, Bonding, Grants, Gifts, College Funding)

13%

28%

12%

42%

5%

5 year project spending on existing buildings

Envelope Building SystemsInfrastructure Space RenewalSafety/Code

Fiscal Year Project Name Actual Spent2012 Util‐Vet Med Steam Supply Improvements $ 4,031,107 2012 Vet Med, Col Of‐Lar Hvac Improvements $ 3,587,498 2008 Util‐College Of Vet Med Chilled Water Plant $ 2,622,564 2010 Replace heating system $ 1,808,384 2009 Vmri Building #40‐Renovate Hvac System $ 1,413,947 2010 Refrigeration system replacement $ 1,375,846 2012 Util‐Applied Science Center Chiller Improvements $ 1,034,466

Total asset reinvestment backlog

$‐

$20.00

$40.00

$60.00

$80.00

$100.00

$120.00

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

AR Ba

cklog $/GSF

Total Asset Reinvestment Backlog vs. Peers

ISU’s backlog increased by 17% between 2008‐2012, but is

significantly lower than peers

Peers’ backlog increased by 18% between 2008‐2012

Historic investment has managed the backlog

Facilities operating budget

$‐

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget $/GSF

Facilities Operating Budget vs. Peers

Daily Service Planned Maintenance Utilities

ISU

Operating with fewer resources than peers; using resource management model

Peers

Custodial coverage Custodial is operating efficiently and providing high value across campus

Cleanliness Inspection Scores:

ISU3.9

Peers4.2

DB4.2

Total energy consumption Consuming 40k fewer BTU/GSF than peers in FY12

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

BTU/GSF

Energy Consumption vs. Peers

Fossil Electric

ISUPeers

Future projects include transition from coal to natural gas for four primary boilers

Consuming less energy than peers. Campus users paying for utilities has made a difference.

What’s the plan for the future?

• Resource Management Model• Working with colleges

• Long term master planning• 20‐year outlook

• Exploring alternative capital financing sources

• Creating flexible space• Example: Troxel Hall

• Eliminating high backlog buildings

Washburn University

Speaker: Rick Anderson, Vice PresidentInstitution: Washburn UniversityDate: September 29, 2013

Washburn Campus ProfileWashburn University is a mid‐sizedcomprehensive urban public university in Topeka, Kansas

Fast Facts:• Founded: 1865• Located: Topeka, KS• 44 buildings• 1.35 Million Gross Square Feet*• 7,300 student headcount ‐> 5,500 student FTE

• Consistently ranked among top Midwestern universities as an independent public institution

• Top rated school of law• High demand campus

• Large, technically complex campus that houses a high number of students

*Included in Sightlines’ analysis

More space on campus is high risk 66% of space is over 25 years old – campus is older than peers

21% 23%

14%21%

42%33%

24% 23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Washburn Peer Average

% of Tot

al Cam

pus GSF


Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50


Low Risk


renewal.Medium Risk


due.Higher Risk



Breakout of space over 25 years old

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

Average Building Size

GSF

Buildings built more than 25 years ago are, on average, much bigger than those built in other time periods.• Lower quality construction

• Harder to maintain• Bigger, more complicated systems

• Need more specialized staff

The majority of high tech space (tech rating 4‐5) is over 25 years old (57%).• More complex systems within aging

structures• Energy intensive• Costly to maintain• Demanding of staff

39%

4%

41%

16%

Distribution of High Tech Buildings

Under 1010 to 2525 to 50Over 50

Density factor presents challenges for WU Washburn is much busier than similar comprehensive universities

Database Distribution

Peers

Liberal Arts Comprehensive University Urban/City School Community College

Databaseavg = 348

Roughly 1,500 more people on campus than at peer institutions

Use

rs/10

0K GSF Washburn

Density Factor

Database Distribution

Use

rs/10

0K GSF


$13.2

$5.3 $4.0

$6.1

$2.1

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need(Equilibrium)

Functional Obsolescence(Target)

$ in M

illions

FY2012 Stewardship TargetsWashburn U Replacement Value = $440M


Total project spending

$0.0

$2.0

$4.0

$6.0

$8.0

$10.0

$12.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012



$ in M

illions

Increasing Backlog

Stabilizing Backlog

Decreasing Backlog

One‐time funding kept facilities investment closer to target until FY10

(Keep up funding) (One‐time catch up funding)

Total asset reinvestment backlog Lack of historical investment has led to an increasing backlog

$‐

$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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

AR Ba

cklog $/GSF

Total Asset Reinvestment Backlog vs. Peers

Peers’ backlog grew 19% between 2008‐2012

WU’s backlog grew 29% between 2008‐2012

Lean facilities operating budget

$‐

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

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

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget $/GSF



WUPeers

Total energy consumption Consuming considerably less energy than peers

‐

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

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

BTU/GSF

Energy Consumption vs. Peers

Fossil Electric

Complete HVAC upgrade to Morgan Hall (admin)‐$750,000 in 2012

Campus‐wide HVAC system upgrade‐$1.4 mil in 2010

WUPeers

What’s the plan for the future?• Recently completed a comprehensive campus master planning effort

including a classroom capacity study.• Mid‐way thru implementation of a $12.3 million dollar performance energy

contract with Trane Corp. Will reduce our annual energy consumption by 27%.

• Hail insurance proceeds will allow for 10‐15 roof replacements in the next two years

• Our main 1950’s classroom and administrative building will be transformed into a student success center and Iconic campus “front door” by Spring 2015.

• Will build a forensic science lab facility in conjunction with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation by January 2015.

• Complete a demand study for additional on‐campus housing by December 2013.

• Target capital improvement funds to address the highest priority deferred maintenance issues on campus.

College of Saint Benedict

Speaker: Susan Palmer, Vice PresidentInstitution: College of Saint BenedictDate: September 29, 2013

College of Saint Benedict Campus ProfileA nationally ranked private liberal arts college in St. Joseph, MN, known as St. Bens

Fast Facts:• Founded: 1913• Located: St. Joseph, MN• 39 buildings• 1.23M Gross Square Feet• 2,059 students• Highest ranked Catholic college for women in

the country• Academically integrated with Saint John’s

University• Relatively young campus, but moving to an

older age profile• Limited capital investment historically

Campus facing higher risk age profile Buildings are aging on this still relatively young campus

12% 7% 12%

39%40% 25%

39%37%

31%

10% 16%

32%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

St. Ben's 2010 St. Ben's 2012 Peer Average

% of Tot

al Cam

pus GSF


Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

49% 53% 63%


Low Risk


renewal.Medium Risk


due.Higher Risk



28%

65%

7%

St. Ben’s: FY07‐12 CapitalInvestment by Type

Existing Space New Space Non‐Facilities

St. Ben’s has spent significantly more into new construction over the last six years than into existing space. New space keeps the average

age down and makes the campus more competitive; but existing space becoming

more high risk.

63%

33%

4%

Peers: FY07‐12 Capital Investment by Type

Investing mainly in new space Future investment will focus on existing space


$4.7$3.5

$5.6

$2.8

$12.4

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

3% Replacement Value Total Need Target Need

$ in M

illions

Envelope/Mech Space/Program

FY12 Stewardship Need

DepreciationModel

$10.3 MLife CycleModel

$6.3 MFunctional

Obsolescence

St. Bens FY12 Replacement Value = $413M


Life cycle is discounted for the coordination of modernization and

renovation.

Determining the “right” level of annual funding

Total project spending vs. targets Backlog has built up over years; 2012 increase in annual capital is by design

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Millions o

f $


Decreasing Backlog

Sustaining Backlog

Increasing Backlog

Total deferral to target over 6 years:

$25.2 M

Annual Capital One‐Time Funds

Total project spending On average, investing $2.67/GSF less than peers annually

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

CSB

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

$5.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

$/GSF

Peers

Total Project Spending by Annual Capital and One‐Time Funds

Would need to invest an additional $3.3 M annually to

invest at peer average.

Annual Capital One‐Time Funds

Lean facilities operating budget Fewer operating resources than peers, but similar inspection scores

$‐

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

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

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget $/GSF



Campu

s Insp

ectio

n Custodial Maintenance Grounds

St.Ben’s

4.4 3.7 3.9

Peers 4.2 3.9 3.9

Total energy consumption On average, consuming over 40,000 BTU/GSF less than peers annually

WUPeers

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

$/GSF

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

BTU/GSF

Energy Consumption

Consuming 49,000 fewer MMBTUs annually ‐ yields a

savings of more than $550,000.

What’s the plan for the future?

Development of a long‐term capital plan to steward our facilities which includes a multi‐pronged funding approach:

• Capital campaign funding to construct a new academic building and a significant renovation and expansion of the existing student center

• Strategic use of debt to update infrastructure needs on campus

• Budget plan to increase annual amount allocated for capital

• Year end surpluses allocated to capital reserve accounts

Education

Diverse Perspectives on Managing Facilities Demands