1 FY16 Emerson College ROPA & Sustainability SolutionsPresenters: Dan Willman & Cesar Perez December 2016

2 Who Partners with Sightlines?Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums and state systems Sightlines is proud to announce that: 450 colleges and universities are Sightlines clients including over 325 ROPA members. Consistently over 90% member retention rate We have clients in over 40 states, the District of Columbia and four Canadian provinces More than 125 new institutions became Sightlines members since 2013 Sightlines advises state systems in: Alaska California Florida Hawaii Maine Massachusetts Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey Pennsylvania Texas Serving the Nation’s Leading Institutions: 70% of the Top 20 Colleges* 75% of the Top 20 Universities* 34 Flagship State Universities 14 of the 14 Big 10 Institutions 9 of the 12 Ivy Plus Institutions * U.S. News 2016 Rankings

3 A Vocabulary for MeasurementThe Return on Physical Assets – ROPASM The annual investment needed to ensure buildings will properly perform and reach their useful life “Keep-Up Costs” Annual Stewardship The accumulation of repair and modernization needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them “Catch-Up Costs” Asset Reinvestment The effectiveness of the facilities operating budget, staffing, supervision, and energy management Operational Effectiveness The measure of service process, the maintenance quality of space and systems, and the customers opinion of service delivery Service Asset Value Change Operations Success

4 Building Connections Facilities intelligence toolkit that connects the dots between space, capital and operating policies

5 Comparative ConsiderationsPeer Institutions ROPA+ Analysis includes 1.18M GSF Peer Avg = 513 Institution Location Berklee College of Music Boston, MA Drexel University Philadelphia, PA Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago, IL Massachusetts College of Art and Design Northeastern University Pace University New York City, NY The College of Saint Rose Albany, NY The New School New York, NY University of San Francisco San Francisco, CA Widener University Chester, PA Peer Avg = 3.0 Comparative Considerations Size, technical complexity, region, geographic location, and setting are all factors included in the selection of peer institutions

6 Putting Your Campus Building Age in ContextSee Edit Data – calculations now done via the BI template and pasted in standard is for the years to lead up to the increment. Examples: 2010 includes all GSF from 2015 includes all GSF from Putting Your Campus Building Age in Context The campus age drives the overall risk profile 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 Modern Complex Emerson = 78% Emerson = 22%

7 Campus Age Profile – “Barbell” CampusUnderstanding the impact of age on capital & operations Buildings over 50 Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures are possible. Core modernization cycles are missed. Highest risk High Risk High Risk High Risk Buildings 25 to 50 Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come due. Functional obsolescence prevalent. 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 Resetting the Clock Through Renovations*Peers ordered by increasing tech rating.

9 Asset Value Change

10 Total Capital InvestmentAverage total investment of $30.1M from FY07-FY16 Paramount Theater LA Campus 2 Boylston

11 Total Capital Investment into Existing SpaceAverage investment of $7.0M into existing space from FY07-FY16

12 Similar, But Inconsistent Investment Into Existing SpaceEmerson spending in existing space has decreased the past 3 years Peers Emerson 5-year Avg: $5.89/GSF 5-year Avg: $4.25/GSF

13 Defining an Annual Investment Target$8M Annual Investment would keep backlog at steady state Replacement Value: $574M Functional obsolescence drives investment prior to life cycles & discounts the annual investment target

14 Chasing a Moving TargetIncreasing Net Asset Value Lowering Risk Profile Increasing Backlog & Risk

15 Funding by Age CategoryAnnual Stewardship (AS) and Asset Reinvestment (AR) G doesn't have a grounds dept.

16 Comparing Funding StrategiesPeers Emerson

17 Project Package BreakoutHigher investment into higher ROI projects than peers Emerson (FY07 – FY16) Peers Emerson Peers (FY07 – FY16)

18 Underfunding Target Increases Backlog on CampusEmerson’s asset reinvestment need increased 26% in the last 5 years Peers Emerson

19 Net Asset Value Compared to PeersEmerson’s manageable backlog helps maintain NAV close to peer levels Investment Strategy “Keep Up” Stage: Primarily new or recently renovated buildings with sporadic building repair & life cycle needs Balanced Profile Stage: Buildings are beginning to show their age and may require more significant investment and renovation on a case-by-case basis “Catch Up” Stage: Buildings require more significant repairs; major building components are in jeopardy of complete failure; large-scale capital infusions or renovations are inevitable Transitional/Gut Renovation/Demo Stage: Major buildings components are in jeopardy of failure. Reliability issues are widespread throughout the building. Replacement Value – Backlog Replacement Value Net Asset Value = Increasing Tech Rating

20 Operations Success

21 Operating Actuals vs. Peers (Unadjusted)Emerson

22 Daily Service & Planned Maintenance (Unadjusted)Increasing Tech Rating Increasing Tech Rating MWCC = $3.98 Peers = $5.46

23 Daily Service & Planned Maintenance (COLI Adjusted)Increasing Tech Rating Increasing Tech Rating MWCC = $3.98 Peers = $5.46

24 Emerson’s Regional Energy Peer GroupEnergy Peer Institutions Babson College Bentley University Berklee College of Music Boston College Fitchburg State University Framingham State University University of Massachusetts - Lowell Worcester State University Westfield State University Comparative Considerations Size Technical Complexity Climate Zone

25 Energy Consumption vs. Regional PeersBoth Fossil and Electric consumption have trended down the last 3 years Peers Emerson 38.8K 49.3K Peers Emerson 64.9K 55.3K Peers ordered by technical complexity Energy Peers: Babson College, Bentley University, Berklee College of Music, Boston College, Fitchburg State University, Framingham State University, Umass – Lowell, Worcester State University, Westfield State University

26 Energy Cost vs. Regional PeersFossil cost impacted by steam use Peers Emerson $0.14 $0.17 Peers Emerson $13.2 $19.8 Peers ordered by technical complexity Energy Peers: Babson College, Bentley University, Berklee College of Music, Boston College, Fitchburg State University, Framingham State University, Umass – Lowell, Worcester State University, Westfield State University

27 Maintenance DepartmentMaintenance staff covering similar space with closer supervision 12.5 81K $0.23 General Repair Score Peers ordered by technical complexity

28 Peers ordered by density factorCustodial Department Custodial staff covering similar space than peers with higher density 16.9 32K $0.18 Cleanliness Score Peers ordered by density factor

29 Sustainability Peer Comparison GroupEmerson College 4,454 3.1 2 Large City Institution Student Enrollment (FY16) Technical Complexity (1-5) Climate Zone Urbanization Babson College 2,801 2.5 2 Urban Fringe Bentley University 5,119 2.8 Mid-Size City Fitchburg State University 5,046 2.6 Large Town Framingham State University 5,743 2.7 University of Massachusetts - Lowell 13,926 3.0 Worcester State University 5,340 3.2 Westfield State University 5,637

30 Overall Utility Consumption at Emerson: FY07-16Scope 1 Scope 2

31 Overall Scope 1 Over TimeStationary fuel consumption drives Scope 1 emissions

32 Overall Scope 1 vs. Peers Peer average stationary emissions = 3.89 MTCDE/1,000 GSF *Benchmark arrayed by Total BTU/GSF

33 Utility Breakout Differs from PeersScope 1 & Scope 2 Energy Consumption Over Time (BTU/GSF) Peers Emerson

34 Utility Breakout Differs from PeersScope 1 & Scope 2 Energy Emissions Over Time (MTCDE/1,000 GSF) Peers Emerson

35 Scope 3 Distribution Study abroad and commuting attributes for more than half of scope 3 MTCDE

36 Total Waste on Campus Equates to 0 MTCDE at Emerson due to type of landfill used

37 Total Air Travel Emissions

38 Total Scope 3 Emissions vs. Peers

39 FY16 Total MTCDE: 15,936 Energy consumption on campus makes up 62% of emissions profile 1,562

40 Total Gross Emissions

41 Normalized Emissions

42 2016 Performance Versus PeersScope 2 emissions push Emerson at or above peer average 11.7 *Benchmark arrayed by Density Factor *Benchmark arrayed by Total BTU/GSF

43 2016 Net Emissions Versus PeersEmerson normalized net emissions fall below peer average 11.1 3.4 *Benchmarks arrayed by Total BTU/GSF *Benchmark arrayed by Total BTU/GSF

44 Questions & Discussion

45 Concluding Comments to be discussed during on campus presentation