The University of Toledo Campus Presentation June, 2010

The University of Toledo Campus Presentation June, 2010

Commissioned by The Ohio Board of Regents Technical Complexity Age of Space Peer Review Project Spending Deferred Maintenance Opera'ng Budget Impression Scores Peer Review U'lity Overview Summary

We Are a Membership Based Organiza'on 95%+ annual reten'on rate of member campuses 260+ member campuses 120+ public and 140+ private insituions Developed a useful tool based on: Common vocabulary Consistent analy'cal methodology Credibility through benchmarking 0 1-5 6-11 12-17 18-23 24- above 3

A Vocabulary for Measurement The Return on Physical Assets ROPA SM Toledo s Data Using Sightlines Terminology State Basic The Renova'on annual investment needed to Local insure Recurring buildings will Funds properly perform Opera'ng and Budget reach their Planned useful life Keep- Up Maintenance Costs Annual Stewardship The State accumulated Capital backlog Alloca'on of repair and moderniza'on Local One- Time needs Funds and the defini'on of resource GiYs, Grants capacity, and to Bonds correct them. Catch- Up Costs Asset Reinvestment The Maintenance, effec'veness of Custodial, the facili'es and opera'ng Grounds Staffing budget, staffing, Opera'ng Budget supervision, and energy Energy Cost and management Consump'on Opera'onal Opera'ons Effec'veness Success The Campus measure of service Inspec'on process, and the maintenance quality Service of Process space and systems. Customer Sa'sfac'on Survey Service Asset Value Change Opera'ons Success 4

Benchmark Ins'tu'ons Using peer groups for Total Campus, Main Campus and Health Science Campus Total Campus Peers Georgetown University Nova Southeastern University St. Louis University Temple University Thomas Jefferson University TuYs University University of Rochester ComparaIve ConsideraIons Size, technical complexity, region, geographic loca'on, and se^ng are all factors included in the selec'on of peer ins'tu'ons Ohio System Peers Bowling Green State University Cleveland State University Kent State University Miami University of Ohio Ohio State University Ohio University University of Akron University of Cincinna' Wright State University Youngstown State University Hospital/Medical Peers Georgetown University Medical Thomas Jefferson University Hospital TuYs University Boston University of Rochester Hospital University of Rochester Medical 5

Benchmark Ins'tu'ons Using peer groups for Total Campus, Main Campus and Health Science Campus Total Campus Peers Georgetown University Nova Southeastern University St. Louis University Temple University Thomas Jefferson University TuYs University University of Rochester ComparaIve ConsideraIons Size, technical complexity, region, geographic loca'on, and se^ng are all factors included in the selec'on of peer ins'tu'ons Ohio System Peers Bowling Green State University Cleveland State University Kent State University Miami University of Ohio Ohio State University Ohio University University of Akron University of Cincinna' Wright State University Youngstown State University Hospital/Medical Peers Georgetown University Medical Thomas Jefferson University Hospital TuYs University Boston University of Rochester Hospital University of Rochester Medical 6

High Tech Ra'ng Influences Campus Needs Health Sciences- 4.11 and Main Campus- 3.32 GSF Impact of Tech Ra'ng The opera'ng cost increase as complexity rises. The maintenance demands increase with elevated technical ra'ngs due to the complexity of the systems. The trade mix of structural and mechanical staff can also be affected by the complexity of systems. Medical Peers Ohio Peers The 'me to maintain the systems is higher on more technically complex campuses. Energy consump'on increases with more complex systems. As tech ra'ng increases so does the annual investment need. 7

Analyzing Older Space on Campus 75% of space on HSC is over 25 years old 90% 80% RenovaIon Age - % of Space Over 25 Composite Peer Group Ohio and Medical/ Hospital Peers 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Total MC HSC 20% 10% 0% A B U of T D E F G H U of T Ohio Ohio Peers U of T Med/Hospital Medical/ Peers Hospital Peers Composite Peer Average = 57% 8

Defining the Annual Investment Need Stewarding younger buildings will prevent future costly repairs Age Category < 10 Years Age Category 10-25 Years Age Category Over 25 Years Construc'on age: 8% 19% 73% Renova'on age: 18% 23% 59% $/GSF $60 $55 $50 $45 $40 $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 Years Annual Life Cycle Cash Flow Amor'za'on of Life Cycle Expenses Weighted Renova.on Age = 30.0 years old Data Base Histogram

Project Spending Exis'ng Space Renova'on investment over 5 year 'me period $12 Project Spending, excluding New ConstrucIon $10 $8 $5.46 $/GSF $6 $6.61 $2.39 $4 $2 $3.67 $4.23 $2.61 $4.40 $4.88 $0 $1.19 $0.77 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 Main Campus HSC 5- year average $/GSF $2.77 /GSF $4.47 /GSF 5- year TOTAL $80.2 Million $40.0 Million 10

Project Spending - 5 year Average Retrofit/Renova'on project spending falls below peer averages $8 Project Spending $7 $6 $5 $ / GSF $4 $3 $2 $1 $- UT - Composite Composite Peer Group UT - Main Campus Ohio Peer Group UT - Health Science Medical Peer Group The University of Toledo Peer Averages 11

Project Spending Mix Strong investment towards building systems given age of facili'es The University of Toledo 5- Year Spending 6% 7% Main Campus 5- year Spending 5% 4% 39% 38% 43% 42% 10% Total Campus Peers 5 Year Spending Bldg. Envelope Infrastructure Code Bldg. Systems Space 6% Health Science Campus 5- year Spending 9% 15% 9% 13% 40% 29% 31% 29% 7% 18% 12

Capital Investment Over Time One 'me capital infusions help to offset deferral Capital Investment Annual Investment Target Increasing Backlog Decreasing Backlog One- 'me capital Total Capital Investment Average 13

Project Spending Over Time Reliance on one 'me capital 140% 120% Projects vs. Target Composite Peer Group The University of Toledo Total Campus 100% % of Target 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Recurring Capital Planned Maintenance One- Time Capital Composite Peer Average = 88% The University of Toledo Campus Average = 59% 14

Project Spending Over Time HSC Reliance on one 'me capital 140% 120% Medical/Hospital Peer Group Projects vs. Target The University of Toledo Health Science Campus 100% % of Target 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Recurring Capital Planned Maintenance One- Time Capital Medical/Hospital Peer Average = 90% The University of Toledo Health Science Campus Average = 67% 15

Asset Reinvestment Backlog Comparable backlog to Ohio peer average $120 Asset Reinvestment Backlog $100 $80 $ / GSF $60 $40 $102 $64 $99 $95 $112 $89 $20 $- UT - Composite Composite Peer Group UT - Main Campus Ohio Peer Group UT - Health Science Medical Peer Group The University of Toledo Peer Averages 16

Facili'es Opera'ng Budget The University of Toledo maintains campus with a lower budget than peers FaciliIes OperaIng Budget Total $16 $14 Composite Peer Group Ohio and Medical/ Hospital Peers $12 $10 $/GSF $8 $6 $4 $2 Total MC HSC $- B D F H U of T Ohio U of T Medical/ A U of T E G Ohio Peers Med/Hospital Hospital Peers Daily Service Budget Planned Maintenance Budget U'lity Budget 17

Opera'ng Budget Comparisons 16% increase 3% increase 18

Campus Inspec'on Toledo has highest campus inspec'on in peer group Medical Peers Ohio Peers 19

Campus Opera'ons Overview Maintenance, custodial, and grounds metrics Maintenance Custodial Grounds Benchmark University of Toledo Ohio Peer Group M Maintenance Staffing GSF/FTE 109,016 81,986 M Maintenance Manager FTE/Manager 30.5 12.6 M Maintenance Materials $/GSF.16.18 General Inspection Index 4.3 3.8 M Custodial Staffing GSF/FTE 35,145 33,386 H Custodial Manager FTE/Manager 24.7 13.0 H Custodial Materials $/GSF.3.3 H Cleanliness Inspection Index 4.8 4.1 H Grounds Staffing Acres/FTE 75.4 11.7 M Grounds Materials $/Acre 256 671 Grounds Inspection Index 4.3 3.8 Inspec'on Range 1-5 Above average inspec'on scores show great value obtained with fewer people Less supervision than peers but superior value Using more workers to compensate for the growing HSC backlog and lack of capital investment, producing a great inspec'on Higher inspec'on scores despite fewer people and less material dollars Grounds workers are covering far more space per person 20

Composite Energy Consump'on Toledo takes house bill 251 seriously The Ohio peer group has been used for comparison in energy consump'on and cost 21

Overview The University of Toledo FY 2009 I. Age Profile and Technical Complexity impact operaional and capital needs The high technical complexity and program of the Health Science Campus drives opera'onal needs in those spaces. Main campus has a balanced age profile; however, 75% of space on Health Science Campus is over 25 years old, increasing opera'onal and capital demands. II. A^empIng to control a higher backlog using local funds and an influx of one- Ime capital On average, The University of Toledo has funded 19% of its Annual Stewardship target over the past 5 years, resul'ng in a projected deferred maintenance backlog higher than peer ins'tu'ons. Local and one- 'me funds have been cri'cal in supplemen'ng state funds. It is important that the University con'nues to receive these funds in order to slow the projected deferral rate. The University of Toledo has a good iden'fica'on of need, (Facili'es Condi'on Analysis) which is key for capital planning especially given the high amount of need on Health Science Campus. Focusing on Asset Reinvestment spending in the future will help rejuvenate the campus and cut into the backlog. III. Strong service performance despite a lean operaing budget and growing backlog Toledo operates with a lower facili'es budget than peer ins'tu'ons Opera'ng Budget has not kept pace with peer ins'tu'ons Space renewal investment and a hardworking opera'onal department have helped Toledo achieve among the highest campus inspec'on scores in the peer group. 22

Closing Remarks Capital Review 1) The age and complexity of the Health Science Campus influences the total stewardship need of space. A less than op'mal annual stewardship and a reliance on one- 'me capital drives the projected backlog above peer averages. 2) Historical spending shows that when dollars are available, Toledo s investment mix is appropriate. However, total project spending remains a challenge. OperaIons Review 1) The opera'ng budget has not kept pace with age, density and infla'on factors, making UT the most cost effec've peer. This model may not be sustainable. 2) Toledo s main campus and Health Science Campus received above average campus inspec'on scores from Sightlines despite covering more space per person and having less management on average. 3) Toledo con'nues to take house bill 251 very seriously. Even with a more complex campus, Toledo s energy consump'on remains below peer levels and has decreased over the past 5 years. Asset Reinvestment Annual Stewardship Service Opera'ng Effec'veness Optimal Target Actual 23

Thank you University of Toledo Whole Campus ROPA Presentation June 8, 2010 oster Connec'cut College Cornell University Dartmouth College Davidson College Drew University Drexel University Duke University Duquesne University East St University Northwestern University Nova Southeastern University Oregon Ins'tute of Technology Oregon State University Pace university Pacific Lutheran University ity of Massachuseus Amherst University of Massachuseus Boston University of Massachuseus Dartmouth University of Massachuseus Lowell University of Michigan 24 Uni