the state of housing facilities: trends & best practices [acuho-i/appa 2017]

University of South FloridaUniversity of Southern

University of Southern MaineUniversity of St. Thomas

University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleUniversity of Texas - Austin

University of Texas at DallasUniversity of Texas Health

University of Texas Rio Grande ValleyUniversity of the Sciences in Philadelphia

University of ToledoUniversity of Vermont

University of WashingtonUniversity of West Florida

University of Wisconsin - MadisonVanderbilt University

Virginia Commonwealth UniversityWake Forest University

Washburn UniversityWashington State University

Washington State University - Tri-Cities CampusWashington State University - Vancouver

Washington University in St. LouisWayne State University

Wellesley CollegeWesleyan University

West Chester UniversityWest Virginia Health Science Center

West Virginia UniversityWestern Oregon University

Westfield State UniversityWidener University

Williams CollegeWorcester Polytechnic Institute

Worcester State UniversityXavier University

The State of Housing Facilities: Trends and Best Practices

ACUHO-I / APPAOctober 18, 2017

© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.2

Today’s Presenters

➢ Kevan Will; Senior Account Manager, Sightlines➢ 11+ years of tenure at Sightlines

➢ Has worked with over 100 campuses in 27 states➢ Sightlines Operational Lead for The University of Mississippi

➢ Graduated from Gettysburg College with a BA in Management

➢ Lionel Maten; Assistant Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management and Housing, The University of Mississippi

➢ 5+ years of tenure at The University of Mississippi➢ Previous Student Affairs Experience: University of Texas at San Antonio, University of Arkansas

at Monticello, University of Southern Mississippi, Carnegie Mellon University, University of Louisville and Oakland University

➢ Received Masters Degree from Murray State University


Session Outline

• Introduction to Sightlines/Gordian

• National & Regional Trends (Challenges) in Facilities in Higher Education

• Housing Specific Trending – Spotlight on The University of Mississippi

• 5 Strategies for Success in Managing Risk

• Questions/Discussion

Leading provider of construction and facility data, software and expertise for all phases of the building lifecycle.

With decades of construction and facility experience, Gordian’s significant industry contributions include:

• Pioneer of Job Order Contracting, the streamlined construction procurement method

• Developer of RSMeans data, the most trusted construction cost data for over 75 years

• Leader in defining facilities benchmarking and analysis with Sightlines

Sightlines is a Gordian Company

4

Leading provider of facilities

intelligence in higher education

helping them to identify ways to use

capital more strategically and identify

opportunities to improve operational

effectiveness and providing them with

tools for strategic planning, analyzing

and benchmarking.

Sightlines by the NumbersRobust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums, and state systems

43States+DC

90%Memberretention

rate

360+ROPA

Members

450Colleges &Universities

170New members

since 2013

5Canadianprovinces

Sightlines has advised state systems in:

• Alaska• California• Florida• Hawaii• Maine

• Massachusetts• Minnesota• Mississippi• Missouri• Nebraska• Ohio

• New Hampshire• New Jersey• Pennsylvania• Texas• Washington


Integrated Campus Stewardship

Facilities intelligence that connects space, capital, and operating policies

Sightlines breaks through the organizational siloes and creates alignment from the “boardroom to the boiler room.”


8

2016 State of Facilities Report Highlights Challenges

http://www.sightlines.com/insight/state-of-sustainability-in-higher-ed-2016

Coming Soon:2017 State of Facilities Report


Who are Sightlines Housing Members?There are 51 Housing Members in the analysis

Alcorn State University Kutztown University of PA The University of Alabama (Tuscaloosa)

Arizona State University - Tempe Lock Haven University of PA University of Calgary (CAD)

Bloomsburg University of PA Mansfield University of PA University of Colorado - Boulder

Bowling Green State University Massachusetts College of Art and Design University of Connecticut

California Polytechnic State University Millersville University of PA The University of Maine

California University of PA Mississippi State University The University of Mississippi

Cheyney University of PA Mississippi University for Women The University of Nebraska at Kearney

Clarion University of PA Mississippi Valley State University University of Nebraska - Omaha

Clemson University New Mexico State University University of New Hampshire

Delta State University Plymouth State University University of Northern Iowa

East Stroudsburg University of PA Portland State University University of North Texas

Edinboro University of PA Rutgers University - Camden University of Rhode Island

Fitchburg State University Rutgers University - Newark University of Southern Mississippi

George Mason University Rutgers University - New Brunswick University of Texas Dallas

Indiana University of PA Shippensburg University of PA Virginia Commonwealth University

Jackson State University Slippery Rock University of PA West Chester University of PA

Keene State College Towson University West Virginia University


Challenges: Space Profile

11

Space Growing Faster Than Enrollment

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

ange

Space and Enrollment TrendsNational Average

Space Enrollment

12

Space and Enrollment Growth – Public vs. Private

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

ange

Space and Enrollment - Public

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

ange

Space and Enrollment - Private

13

Space and Enrollment Growth by Constituent Group

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

ange

Comprehensive Institutions Research Institutions Small Institutions


Movement of Public University StudentsFrom the NY Times Article: “The Great Out of State Migration”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/26/us/college-student-migration.html



Mississippi is a ‘Net Importer’



16

Growth at Ole Miss Outpaces Public & Research Peers

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

ange

Space and Enrollment – Ole Miss

Space Enrollment

“One side effect of this rapid growth has been the creation of anincreasingly large obligation for the future renewal and replacement ofthe physical plant.”

–Rick Biedenwig, 1980

Founder, Pacific Partners Consulting Group

Source: Before the Roof Caves In II: Published with assistance from APPA and Stanford University

An Accurate Prediction

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Sightlines Database- Construction Age

Built pre-1951• Durable construction• Older but lasts longer

18

Putting Your Campus Building Age in ContextCampus age drives overall risk profile

% o

f C

on

stru

cted

Sp

ace

Pre-War Built 1951 - 1975• Lower quality • Needs more repairs

& renovation1975 - 1990• Quick flash

construction• Low quality

components

Built post-1991• Technically complex• Higher quality• More expensive to maintain

or repair

Modern

Post War Complex

© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

19

Non-academic Construction Rising

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

% o

f G

SF b

y Ty

pe

of

Spac

e

% o

f G

SF

Sightlines Database- Construction Age Academic Non-Academic


Housing Facilities Have Significantly Newer Age ProfileThe campus drives the overall risk profile

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

% o

f G

SF

% of GSF by Construction & Renovation Year

Sightlines Database- Construction Age Housing Construction

21

Ole Miss Housing: Progress in Balancing the Age Profile

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% o

f Sp

ace

Housing 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

22

Challenges: Capital

23

Capital Investment in Existing SpaceSteady investment levels with continued improvement in annual capital funding

$1.12 $1.19 $1.28 $1.21$1.60 $1.67 $1.71 $1.59 $1.73

$3.10

$3.83 $3.88$3.63 $3.09

$3.37 $3.35$2.99

$3.32

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$/G

SF

Capital Investment into Existing Space

Annual Capital One-Time Capital Average

24

Capital Investment in Existing SpaceReliance on annual institutional capital growing for both public and private institutions

$0.77 $0.93 $1.11 $1.00$1.39 $1.47 $1.49 $1.30 $1.48

$2.51

$3.37$3.66 $4.06 $3.28

$3.56 $3.43

$2.95

$3.39

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$/G

SF

Public Institutions

$1.55 $1.53 $1.51 $1.51$1.88 $1.96 $2.01 $1.97 $2.06

$3.83$4.43

$4.19

$3.04$2.84

$3.12 $3.23 $3.05$3.22

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$/G

SF

Private Institutions

25

Capital Investment in Existing Space

$1.12 $1.19 $1.28 $1.21$1.60 $1.67 $1.71 $1.59 $1.73

$3.10

$3.83 $3.88$3.63 $3.09

$3.37 $3.35$2.99

$3.32

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$/G

SF

Total Institutions

$0.83 $0.99 $0.97 $0.76 $0.78$1.09 $1.26 $1.43

$1.02

$2.09$2.39

$3.09$2.99

$2.59 $1.76 $1.48$1.78

$2.30

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$/G

SF

Housing Campuses


Chasing A Moving Target – Sample University’s Data Shown

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Mill

ion

s

Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target

Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need

Increasing Net Asset Value

Lowering Risk Profile

Increasing Backlog & Risk

27

Facilities Backlogs Continue to Rise

$81.72 $83.42 $87.19 $88.52 $90.73 $93.27 $95.31 $97.56 $100.07

$0.0

$20.0

$40.0

$60.0

$80.0

$100.0

$120.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$/G

SF

Backlog $/GSF

The Sightlines backlog total includes maintenance/repair, modernization and infrastructure

28


$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$/G

SF

Public Institutions


$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$/G

SF

Private Institutions

29


$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$/G

SF

Total Institutions


$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$/G

SF

Housing Campuses

Challenges: Operations

$3.98$4.26 $4.33 $4.37 $4.41 $4.44 $4.54 $4.65 $4.74

$0.25

$0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.27 $0.29 $0.29$0.31 $0.33

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$/G

SFFacilities Operating Budget $/GSF

Daily Service Planned Maintenance

31

Facilities Operating BudgetSmall increases in campus operating budgets from 2007 - 2015

Inflation

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

Tota

l GSF

/FTE

Private Average

32

Custodial Coverage Rates Flatten in 2015

National Average Public Average

Custodial Coverage

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Tota

l GSF

/FTE

33

Custodial Coverage

National Average Housing Average

Custodial Coverage

34

Maintenance Coverage Rates Start to Level Off

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

Tota

l GSF

/FTE

Private AverageNational Average Public Average

Maintenance Coverage

35


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Tota

l GSF

/FTE

National Average


Housing Average

36

Modest Energy Reductions Nationally Since 2007

82,251 83,320 78,403 75,875 77,505 69,317 73,993 76,834 72,740

51,196 52,788 53,124 52,471 53,031

52,010 51,230 51,553

50,487

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

ange

BTU

/GSF

Energy Consumption

Fossil Electric Percent Change

5 Strategies for Managing Facilities Risk

Five Strategies for Success

Build strategically

Less can be more

Look ahead

Keep-up

Reward savings


Questions/Discussion