In 1980, Rick Biedenweg and Robert Hutson's article Before the Roof Caves In shouted a warning that more effective planning approaches were needed to address higher education's looming facilities challenges. Many industry leaders used their research to make predictions of imminent system failures in order to compel action. However, the reality is that over these last 35 years, funding has remained well below estimated needs but the widespread failures that have been publicized have not occurred. This leads us to the question "why?" Why hasn't the roof caved in? There are several contributing factors; some are systemic, and others are the result of resourceful facilities operators. This presentations outlines the root causes of compounding capital needs, the reasons we do not see crumbling facilities, and some simple strategies that are used to avoid program interruption on higher education campuses.

1. Wheaton College (MA)
Whitworth University
Widener University
Wilkes University
Williams College
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester State College
Wright State University
Xavier University
Yeshiva University
Youngstown State University
Why the Roof Hasn’t Caved In
Sightlines Webinar; Presented by Jim Kadamus
September 15, 2015

2. Review of national facilities trends – Space, capital, and
operations
Identify what the trends tell us about the State of Facilities in
Higher Education institutions
Explore the reasons why the roof has not caved in despite the
trends and predictions
Examples from campuses that are successfully combating the
challenges
Recommendations and conclusions
Agenda

3. 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

4. National Trends & The
State of Facilities

5. The Sightlines’ Paradigm

6. 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

7. 0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Space and Enrollment Growth
Research institutions only group growing enrollment faster than space
Small InstitutionComprehensive Research Institution Community College

8. 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

9. Square Footage by Age Category
Progress in resetting the clock on buildings over 50 years old
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 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.
Higher Risk
Buildings over 50
Life cycles of major building components are past due.
Failures are possible.
Highest risk

10. Square Footage by Renovation Age Category
Public vs. private – both groups face significant challenges with over 25 year old space
20% 21% 22% 22% 21% 21% 20% 21%
18% 19% 20% 20% 21% 21% 22% 23%
42% 41% 39% 38% 38% 37% 35% 34%
19% 20% 19% 20% 21% 21% 22% 22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
22% 23% 23% 23% 22% 21% 20% 19%
19% 20% 21% 23% 24% 25% 26% 27%
33% 32% 31% 29% 29% 28% 27% 26%
26% 25% 25% 25% 25% 26% 26% 27%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Public Average Private Average
%ofSpace

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

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. 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?

16. Why the Roof Hasn’t Caved In
& Campus Successes

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. State System Sets Priority on 1960-70s Buildings
19% 20% 20% 20% 21% 21% 21% 21% 20% 20% 19% 19% 17% 20% 20% 20% 22% 23%
29% 30% 30%
35% 37% 37%
14% 14% 13% 13% 13% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 15% 16%
10%
10% 10% 12%
14%
14%
15% 16% 17%
17%
18% 20%
47% 47% 46% 46% 45% 43% 42% 40% 40% 40% 38% 36%
59% 57% 57% 56%
53% 50%
44% 41% 38%
34% 31% 29%
20% 20% 20% 20% 21% 22% 23% 25% 25% 26% 28% 29%
13% 13% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 13% 14% 14% 14% 14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
%ofTotalCampusGSF
Renovation Age by Category
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
Peers State System

21. $0.00
$0.05
$0.10
$0.15
$0.20
$0.25
$0.30
$0.35
$0.40
$/GSF
Planned/Preventive Maintenance
$/GSF
Impact of Renovating or Replacing 1960-70s Buildings
76% 77%
79% 79% 80% 81% 82% 82%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Campus Inspection Index

22. Identified Needs by Category
Categorizing the $151.6 M in total campus needs; building needs are heavily in A timeframe
$130.5 ,
86%
$15.3 ,
10%
$5.8 ,
4%
Total Needs by Structure
$ in millions
Building Needs Infrastructure
Grounds Needs
$84.0
$2.3 $0.7
$27.4
$3.5 $10.4
$19.1
$0.1
$4.2
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
Building Infrastructure Grounds
TotalNeed,$inmillions
Total Needs by Structure and Timeframe
A (1-3 years) B (4-7 years) C (8-10 years)

23. 7%
9%
55%
1%
28%
Campus Identified Needs
Reliability
Safety/Code
Asset Preservation
Economic Opportunity
Program Improvement
Identified Needs by Investment Criteria
Timeframes A, B, & C only
8%
11%
48%
3%
30%
Comparison Campuses
Reliability – Issues of imminent failure of compromise to the system that may result in interruption to program or use of
space.
Safety/Code – Code compliance issues and institutional safety priorities or items that are not in conformance with
current codes, even though the system is “grandfathered” and exempt from current code.
Asset Preservation – Projects that preserve or enhance the integrity of buildings systems or building structure, or
campus infrastructure.
Economic Opportunity – Projects that result in a reduction of annual operating costs or capital savings.
Program Improvement – Projects that improve the functionality of space, primarily driven by academic, student life, and
athletic programs or departments. These projects are also issues of campus image and impact.

24. Identified Needs Compared to Investments
Identified needs means shift in future funding allocations
17%
41%
14%
19%
9%
Campus Identified Needs
10%
21%
23%
39%
7%
Historical Project Investments
FY03-FY14
Building Envelope
Building Systems
Infrastructure
Space Improvement
Safety/Code

25. 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

26. Aligning Facilities Renewal Needs with Resources
$295
$103
$186
$378
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
10 Year Need, FCA $ + soft cost
Millions
5-Year Need Current Need
Need Years 5-10 Lifecycle
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Millions
10-Year Facilities Renewal Needs
including soft costs
10-Year Facilities Renewal Needs
including soft costs
*Backlog quantified by FCA analysis

27. Gap Between Facilities Need and Resources
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Millions
Systems Exterior Interior
*Backlog excludes programmatic needs.
10-Year Facilities Renewal Needs
Projected funding based on last 5 years of spending
$481
$250
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
10-Year Need Projected
Funding
Millions
Need vs. Funding

28. Gap Between Facilities Need and Resources
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Millions
Lifecycle Current Need
Average Funding, FY10-14 Grow Funding by $3M/year
10-Year Facilities Renewal Needs
including soft costs
$481
$250
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
10-Year Need Projected
Funding
Millions
Need vs. Funding
including soft costs
Any needs above the
funding line would be
added to the backlog in
future years
*Backlog quantified by FCA analysis

29. 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

30. Needs by Building Portfolio
Total Project
Inventory
$1,854 M
New Space
$341 M
Building Needs
$1,443 M
Transitional
Facilities
$171 M
Building
Renovation
$505 M
Repurpose
$39 M
Maintain
$735 M
Non‐housing
facilities
$551 M
Housing facilities
$183 M
Site &
Infrastructure
Needs
$70.3 M

31. Asset Reinvestment Progress
Significant investments in new and existing space in 2014
$1,974 $1,895 $1,792
$1,627 $1,607 $1,497 $1,443
$126
$107
$82
$82 $82
$77 $70
$457
$434
$410
$571 $541
$442
$341
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
April 09 Update Fall 09 Update June 2010
Update
June 2011
Update
June 2012
Update
June 2013
Update
June 2014
Update
Millions
BPS Identified Needs by Update Stage
Building Needs Infrastructure New Space
$500M+ of Asset Reinvestment need
addressed since FY09 through O&M,
capital investment/renovation, and
demolition of aging facilities

32. 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

33. Blended Functional and Investment Portfolios
Aligning needs with funding opportunities
Total Needs
$253.9M
New
Construction
$83.3M
Grounds &
Infrastructure
$11.3M
Building Needs
$158.3M
Institutionally
Funded
Academic
$41.7M
Administrative
$18.9 M
Sci./Research
$33.9 M
Athletic
$11.6 M
Residence
Halls
$18.0 M
Faculty/Staff
Housing
$10.9 M
Fraternities &
Sororities
$9.0 M
Transitional
$14.2 M
Potential Grants Potential Gifts Potential to Sell Potential Gifts
Focus investment
into core campus
facilities that are
unlikely to receive
donor funding

34. Increasing Capital Investment Over Time
Investing capital in envelope and mechanical; using department dollars for space upgrades
$0.0
$10.0
$20.0
$30.0
$40.0
$50.0
$60.0
$70.0
$80.0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$inMillions
Envelope Systems Infrastructure Space Renewal Safety/Code
Life Cycle
Need
($74.3M)
Target
Need
($38.9M)
Stabilizing/Decreasing
Backlog
Total Capital Investments FY2007 – FY2014

35. Recommendations and
Conclusions

36. We Need to Make the Problem Smaller
Not all buildings are created equal, therefore they
should not be treated that way.
Use building portfolios – for operations and capital - to
make the problem smaller
Subdivide capital projects by issues of safety, reliability,
program, asset management and other issues.
Create “balance” and “diversity” in all facility
investments to lower risks.

37. The experience of the past 30 years …
fixing components rather than replacing systems,
take advantage that campus needs tend to coordinate and
therefore capital costs are lower,
that life cycle estimates are inherently conservative, and
functional obsolescence benefits repairs
There is no reason to believe that these factors will change
in the next 15 to 20 years. Therefore although we will need
to act, we have time to manage the investments.
Time is On Our Side

38. Make the Case for Resources
The old approach of defining needs in a way that makes the DM
problem bigger and then requesting money will not work.
Problem is too big to address in total – must break it down in size
and priority
How do we …
Lower Demands - Space Management
Make the Problem “Smaller” – Use Building Portfolio
Management
Sustain Impact of Finite Funding - Create Multi Year Plans
Mitigate Risk - Target Capital to Safety, Reliability and Program
Issues
Increase Funding – Use actions to make the case for additional
funding and use savings to self-fund stewardship

39. Questions & Discussion

40. Insights Summit ‘15
Not just another facilities conference – it’s an extension of your membership
The Hyatt Regency Newport, RI
November 9 - 11, 2015
Featuring…
insights@sightlines.com