1. Challenges to the Physical Campus
How to Change the Conversation
about 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

2. 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

3. Campus Profiles
Public
university with
13,000
students
466 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

4. Sightlines Profile & Database
 Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums and state systems
Serving 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

5. Northeast Regional Trends in
Higher Education Facilities

6. Campus space growth less than enrollment growth
Enrollments leveling starting in 2011 and declining in 2013
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
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%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Percent Change of Enrollment & Space
Growing Campus Enrollment
Northeast Average within Sightlines Database
Northeast Space Growth Northeast Enrollment Growth

7. Campus Space and Enrollment by Institution Type
Research institutions only group to see continued enrollment growth
and lower space growth
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Comprehensive Institution Research Institution Small Institution
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Percent Change of Enrollment and Space
Campus Enrollment vs. Space
By Constituent Group
Space Growth Enrollment Growth

8. Discussion Questions for the Panel
Issue 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?

9. Waves of Construction in the Northeast
Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Total Database GSF Constructed (Millions)
Constructed Space Since 1880

10. Northeast Public and Private Campuses after Renovations
Northeast publics have high % of space in 25-50; private high % in over 50
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Northeast Average Public Average Private Average
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
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
% of Space
Square Footage by Age Category
Renovation Age
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
Old

11. Capital has not recovered from 2008-09 recession
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
Public Average Private Average
UVM has Averaged
$4.37/GSF
Bentley has Averaged
$6.31/GSF, the Majority
from Annual Capital
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
$/GSF
Capital Investment into Existing Space
Annual Capital One-Time Capital Average

12. Reliance on annual institutional capital sources is growing
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
Public Average Private Average
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
$/GSF
Capital Investment into Existing Space
Recurring Capital
Annual Capital Average

13. Facilities Backlogs Continue to Rise
Public campuses over $100/GSF; private campuses at $80/GSF
Public Average Private Average
UVM’s $/GSF Backlog has
Grown by 12% Over This
Time and is Well Below the
National Average
$91 $93 $95 $98 $101 $104 $107
Bentley’s $/GSF Backlog
Remains Significantly Below
the National Average, but is
Growing at a Similar Rate
$69 $70 $73 $74 $76 $79 $80
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$-
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
$/GSF
Backlog $/GSF
Backlog/GSF Percentage Change of Backlog

14. Discussion Questions for the Panel
Issue 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?

15. Northeast Campuses Operating Budgets Flat
And definitely not keeping pace with inflation
$0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3
$4.6 $4.7 $4.8 $4.8 $5.0 $4.9 $5.0
$6.0
$5.0
$4.0
$3.0
$2.0
$1.0
$0.0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
$/GSF
Operating Budget $/GSF
Daily Service Planned Maintenance

16. Public vs. Private
Operating budgets averages adjusted for inflation
Public Average $5.63 Private Average
$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
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
$/GSF
Daily Service Planned Maintenance
$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

17. Discussion Questions for the Panel
Issue 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?

18. 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

19. Strategies for Long-Term Facilities Success
Strategy 1: Build strategically. New construction must support the master plan and future program
needs of the university. Implement policies that result in minimal net new square footage until the backlog is
reduced to manageable levels.
Strategy 2: Less can be more. Sometimes less is more when it comes to addressing aging
buildings with high backlogs. Consider eliminating or replacing aging space of certain construction vintages
with more modern and more efficient facilities.
Strategy 3: Look ahead. Set capital priorities that reflect an investment strategy spanning at least five
years. Such an approach has proven highly effective at lowering the backlog needs in aging buildings that are
determined 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. The
more 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 who
make buildings run more efficiently (lower maintenance, custodial or energy costs) by reallocating the savings
to increase annual capital budgets – stewardship. The payback in capital is three to four times the value of the
savings reallocated.
19
Strategies for Long-Term Facilities Success

20. Discussion Questions for the Panel
Issue 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?

21. Questions from
Audience?
www.sightlines.com