All higher education facilities management professionals have a story to tell campus leadership. This story focuses on facility needs in both physical asset management and facilities operational management, and it can be crucial to an institution’s future. How can facilities managers tell their story to have the most influence on key decision makers and gain their support? This presentation, entitled "Using Metrics for Facilities Resource Advocacy," featured the University of North Texas (UNT) and highlighted how they have effectively used metrics to tell their facilities story. Armed with third-party verified data and associated metrics, facilities leaders were able to help senior decision makers better understand the campus’ facilities. Specifically, UNT was able to accurately inform their leadership of their space profile and financial challenges making the case for additional funds to reduce their backlog. They were also able to gain support from the UNT Board of Regents for a system-wide application of the data gathering and management model. Going forward, UNT is considering ways metrics can be used to help improve their current space utilization on campus.

2. Using Metrics
for
Facilities Resource Advocacy
at
The University of North Texas
Colin Sanders-Estrada, Regional Service Manager, Sightlines facilities asset advisors
David Reynolds, PE – Associate Vice President for Facilities, University of North Texas

3. Using Metrics for Facilities Resource Advocacy
- Current Discussions in Higher Ed
- UNT Facilities Situation
- Strategies to Make the Case for Funding

4. Where Does Our Data Originate?
Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums, & state systems
4
2015 State of Facilities in Higher Education
draws from the largest verified database of
college and university facilities metrics in
the country.
• The database features 345 institutions with over
400 campuses in 44 U.S. states and four
Canadian provinces with over 1.5 billion gross
square feet of space.
• All data is collected and verified by Sightlines
professionals
• The database includes 60% public and 40%
private institutions with a mix of
comprehensive/doctoral, research, and small
institutions serving over 2.5 million students
• The database is supplemented by our 2014
analysis of 51 Canadian universities with over
200 million gross square feet of space.
Distribution of Sightlines membership
across North America

5. 2015 Trends

6. Putting Campus Building Age in Context
The campus age drives the overall risk profile
6
Pre-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
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
%ofConstructedSpace
Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex
Percent of Total
Space 35%
Percent of Total
Space 31%

7. Square Footage by Age Category
Progress in resetting the clock on buildings over 50 years old
7
14% 20%
17%
25%
32%
31%
37%
24%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Construction Age Renovation Age
%ofSpace
Construction Age vs. Renovation Age
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
Buildings over 50
Life cycles of major building components are past due.
Failures are possible.
Highest risk
Buildings 25 to 50
Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come
due.
Higher Risk
Buildings 10 to 25
Short life-cycle needs; primarily space
renewal.
Medium Risk
Buildings Under 10
Little work. “Honeymoon” period.
Low Risk

8. Space and Enrollment Growth
Space growing faster than enrollment in 2013 and 2014
8
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

9. Space per Student
Slight increase as enrollment levels off
9
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
GSF/Student
Space per Student
(Public/Private)
Public Private National Average

10. Annual Capital Investment
2014 levels finally reach pre-recession, but with a different funding mix
10
$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

11. Annual Capital Investment
Private campuses rely more on annual institutional capital
11
$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

12. How Are Capital Dollars Being Spent?
Higher investment into envelope/mechanical projects
12
44% 41% 38% 39% 39% 38% 36% 36%
43% 42% 41% 44% 44% 41% 43% 45%
37%
38% 42% 41% 42% 43% 44% 41%
41% 40% 41%
41% 41%
42% 42% 40%
19% 21% 20% 20% 19% 19% 20% 23%
16% 18% 18% 15% 15% 17% 15% 15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Space Renewal & Safety Code Envelope & Building System Infrastructure
Public Average Private Average
%ofSpending

13. Facilities Backlogs Continue to Rise
Capital investment not enough to keep backlogs from growing
13
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

14. Facilities Operating Budgets
Small increases in campus operating budgets from 2008-2014
14
Public Average
3.65 3.91 3.92 3.85 3.92 3.88 4.04 4.13
0.25
0.25 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.29
0.30 0.30
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$/GSF
4.44 4.61 4.62 4.62 4.70 4.78 4.83 4.98
0.32
0.34 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.42
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Private Average
Operating Budget $/GSF

15. Custodial Coverage
Custodial coverage rates going up slowly- cleanliness scores declining slowly
15
3.80
3.85
3.90
3.95
4.00
4.05
4.10
4.15
4.20
4.25
4.30
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
TotalGSF/FTE
Coverage Cleanliness Scoring
Custodial Coverage
National Average Public Average Private Average

16. Maintenance Coverage
Maintenance coverage rates steadily increasing
16
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
TotalGSF/FTE
Maintenance Coverage
GSF per FTE
National Average Private AveragePublic Average

17. Summary of Trends
17
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

18. UNT Situation…Is this you?
 Large Investment in Facilities -- Replacement Value
 Struggles to Overcome Years of Reduced Funding
 Historically, Facilities Not at Forefront of Leadership’s Concerns

19. University of North Texas Campus Profile
37,000 +
Students
$2B Replacement
Value7.2M GSF
174
Facilities
904 Acres325 Facilities
Staff

20. - Needed Data and Some Positive Actions
- Sightlines had the data from 2007 to Present
- UNT Facilities had Opportunities to Show Results
Strategy to Engage Leadership & Partners

21. Data Has Some Core Observations
21
Current age profile holds higher risk than peers
Increasing capital closes gap between peers
Decreasing budget has impacted staffing levels

22. Space
Current age profile holds higher risk than peers. Strategic
renovations would greatly impact the overall age profile of campus.

23. Fundamental Metrics: Density & Technical Complexity
Busy campus has capital, operational implications; Less complex buildings
23
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
A B C D E F G H I UNT
Users/100,00GSF
Density
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
A UNT B C D E F G H I
TechnicalComplexity
Technical Complexity
Measure of “How busy campus is”
• Capital Implications
• Increased Custodial Needs
Complexity of Building Systems
• Capital Implications
• Advanced Staffing Knowledge
Equates to nearly 4,500 additional
people on UNT’s campus

24. More small, simple buildings
Understanding increased cost due to number of buildings
24
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
A UNT B C D E F G H I
GSF
Average Building Size
Public School Average Peer Average
Institutions organized by Technical Complexity
Tech 1 & 2
Buildings
Tech 3 & 4
Buildings
90% of
Campus GSF
45 Buildings
Average Size:
66k/186k

25. Putting Your Campus Building Age in Context
The campus age drives the overall risk profile
25
Pre-War
Built before 1951
Durable construction
Older but typically lasts
longer
Post-War
Built from 1951 to 1975
Lower-quality
construction
Already needing more
repairs and renovations
Modern
Built from 1976 to 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
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
PercentofGSF
Sightlines Database- Construction Age My Campus
Modern Complex
32%14% 32% 22%University of North Texas
Sightlines Database 19% 36% 15% 30%

26. 11% 14%
21%
28%
12%
17%
19%
23%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
UNT
Construction
Age
UNT
Renovation
Age
Public
University
Average
Peer
Average
Campus Age by Category
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
Campus Age Profile vs Public Average vs Peers
Understanding the Impact of Age on Capital & Operations
26
High
Risk
High
Risk
Buildings Under 10
Little work. “Honeymoon” period.
Low Risk
Buildings 10 to 25
Short life-cycle needs; primarily space
renewal.
Medium Risk
Buildings 25 to 50
Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come
due. 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
High
RiskHigh
Risk
26%
17% 14%17%
51%
52%
43%
35%

27. 11% 14%
21%
28%
12%
17%
19%
23%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
UNT
Construction
Age
UNT
Renovation
Age
Public
University
Average
Peer
Average
Campus Age by Category
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
Selective Renovations with Largest Impact
Understanding the Impact of Age on Capital & Ops
27
Building Name GSF Renovation Age
Discovery Park 563,296 26
Willis Library 175,521 44
General Academic Building 146,679 36
Chilton Hall 142,117 25
Music Building 140,735 36
TOTAL GSF 1,168,348
Includes 5 of 6 Largest
Buildings totaling 30% of
Campus GSF
High
Risk
High
Risk
High
RiskHigh
Risk
26%
17% 14%17%
51%
52%
43%
35%
High
Risk

28. Capital
Increasing capital closes gap between peers; ROPA+ Prediction presents
opportunity for strategic capital planning

29. $0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
$35.0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$inMillions
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
29
Increasing Backlog & Risk
Increasing Net Asset Value
Lowering Risk Profile
Annual Funding Average
Without Infrastructure Project: $11.4M

30. $0.0
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0
$7.0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$/GSF
Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target
Total AS $/GSF Total AR $/GSF
Capital Investment vs Peers
Includes only the investment in existing facilities
30
UNT Spending Peer Average Spending
$2.96/GSF $3.94/GSF
Does not include infrastructure spending

31. Infrastructure project skews spending mix
Even mix of space renewal and building systems
31
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$Millions
Capital Investment Mix
Envelope Building Systems Infrastructure Space Renewal Safety/Code
6%
28%
32%
31%
3%
Total Investment Mix

32. Operational Metrics
Decreasing budget has impacted staffing levels. Peer operational spending has
remained consistent while UNT has seen decreases.

33. Daily Service costs have declined since 2011
Peers spending $2.98M more on Operational costs than UNT in 2014
33
$-
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$/GSF
Facilities Expenditures
Daily Service $/GSF Total PM $/GSF
UNT Peers

34. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
$-
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$8.00
$9.00
$10.00
A B C D E F G H UNT I
InspectionScore
$/GSF
Facilities Expenditures
Daily Service $/GSF Total PM $/GSF Inspection Score
Spending less per square foot, yielding high output
UNT has 3rd lowest Operating Expenditures yet boasts 2nd highest inspection score
34

35. Custodial Coverage Increases Annually
Custodians covering significantly more space than peers
35
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
GSF
Custodial Coverage
A B C D E F G H UNT I
Peer Coverage
GSF/FTE Peer Average
UNT Peers

36. Steady Maintenance Coverage Above Peers
Maintenance workers covering 105k GSF; Peers average 82k GSF
36
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
GSF
Maintenance Coverage
GSF/FTE
A UNT B C D E F G H I
Coverage vs Peers
Average
UNT Peers

37. Increasing Grounds Coverage
Approaching peer average, maintaining competitive scores
37
-
5
10
15
20
25
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Acre/FTE
Grounds Coverage
Peer Average
3.88 3.96 4.07
3.79
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
Campus
Customer
Survey
Sightlines
Inspection
Peer
Average
Public
School
Average
InspectionScore(1-5)
Grounds Inspection

38. Key Takeaways from Data for
Leadership

39. Key Takeaways
Key Takeaway #1: Campus currently has a high risk age profile with
almost 70% of space over 25 years old – a critical age for buildings. A
large percentage of this space, however, is in select buildings which
presents an opportunity for strategic renovations. Identifying the needs
and purpose of all buildings on campus can drastically change the age
profile.
39

40. Key Takeaways
Key Takeaway #2: Since 2007, recurring funding has seen a positive
trend. Although total capital spending has an increasing trend as well, peer
institutions are spending an average of $1/GSF more than UNT. ROPA+
Prediction presents an opportunity for future strategic capital planning for
limited funding.
40

41. Key Takeaways
Key Takeaway #3: Operational spending has declined in recent years,
increasing the delta between UNT’s spending and peers. This is
correlated to an increasing trend in coverage levels. While campus
inspection scores remain competitive with peers, customer survey results
illustrate that campus constituents are feeling the facilities’ age.
41

42. - Needed Data and Some Positive Actions
- Sightlines had the data from 2007 to Present
- UNT Facilities had Opportunities to Show Results
Engage Leadership and Campus Partners

43. - Reinforce Positive Programs…..Like MEP Renovations
- Be Flexible for Cabinet’s Key Needs…..Emerging Requirements
- Pursue Improvements that Leadership values …Aesthetics
- Build Advocacy for New Funding…….Research & Parking
Engage Leadership and Campus Partners

44. Current HEAF MEP Renovations
Project Budget Status Phase Completion
Date
Music MEP $3.5M Commissioning February 2015
Marquis Hall Interior Renovation
($2.5M), MEP
($4.5M)
Construction August 2015
Hickory Hall MEP $3.0M Design February Board
Matthews Hall MEP $4.2M Design February Board
Wooten Hall MEP $4.45M Design May Board
Willis Library MEP $4.75M Design Construction will
Start in 2016

45. Frisco New College

46. Hurley Administration Building Landscape Project
46
Phase I:
• Planter Re-facing/ New
Landscape Plants
Complete
Phase II: Pedestrian Walkway
Phase III: Rock Garden
• Progress pending Phase II
completion
• Architect producing
construction drawings, then
we will proceed with selecting
contractor/considering
schedule

47. Marquis Hall Complete Renovation

48. Tree Trimming

49. Big Belly
96 total units
18.18 tons of waste last 6 months
4.22 tons of recycling
13.96 tons of trash
Funded in Partnership with Sustainability Fund

50. BEFORE AFTER
Campus Aesthetics?

52. Facilities Maintenance
Call us!

53. Additional Funds Received
0.00
20,000.00
40,000.00
60,000.00
80,000.00
100,000.00
120,000.00
140,000.00
Research Funds
Funds Received Funds Spent
$89,008.20
0.00
50,000.00
100,000.00
150,000.00
200,000.00
250,000.00
300,000.00
350,000.00
400,000.00
Parking & Transportation Funds
Funds Received FY16 Funds Spent
$150,195.60

54. FY16 Parking and
Transportation Projects
(Planned)Area Budget Est. Schedule
Parking Lot 31 $297,000 Summer 2016
Parking Lot 26 $165,000 Summer 2016
Parking Lot 18 $21,000 Summer 2016
Minor Repairs, Striping, and Signage $130,000 Summer 2016
Grounds Parking Lot Maintenance $122,000 On-Going
PM Fee $15,000

55. Using Metrics for Facilities Resource Advocacy
- 3rd Party Party Benchmarking Impacts:
o Strengthened Advocacy for Funding
o Improved Planning for Facility Projects/Capital
o Improved Capital Resource Budgeting
o Common Language for Management

56. 0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
University of North Texas
Operations & Maintenance Funds Used
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015