Search this Site

Close

Building the Case for Investing in Your Campus

By Kevin Scully, AIA, NCARB

April 6, 2026
Post Tagged in
, , ,

Let’s talk about the elephant quietly aging in the room: your campus buildings.

Across the country, institutions are operating facilities built during the post–World War II expansion boom—buildings that have served generations of students well. But today, many of those same structures are carrying 50–70 years of wear inside their walls, above their ceilings, and beneath their floors.

And while the brick may still look beautiful from the quad, the systems behind it are telling a different story.

The numbers back this up. APPA estimates more than $112 billion in “urgent deferred” maintenance nationwide. Moody’s Ratings projects $750–$950 billion in capital renewal and upgrade needs over the next decade. But there’s good news. With the right framework, this challenge becomes an opportunity.
Two students walking into Taylor Univeristy's Horne Academic Center. A brick building with a white dome.
Two students walking into Taylor Univeristy's Horne Academic Center. A brick building with a white dome.

Understanding Your Assets

Your campus buildings aren’t just places—they’re assets. And like any asset, they require reinvestment to retain value.

One of the most effective tools for bringing clarity to this is the Facilities Condition Index (FCI). The formula is straightforward:

Cost to Correct Deficiencies ÷ Current Replacement Value (CRV) = Percentage of CRV needed to “catch up”

The result represents how much reinvestment is required to bring a facility back to optimal condition.

  • 0–5%: Good
  • 5–10%: Fair
  • 10–30%: Poor
  • 30%+: Critical

An FCI score allows campus leaders to evaluate buildings not by anecdote (“it still works”) but by measurable performance against replacement values. It answers:

Are we maintaining value—or slowly eroding it?

And here’s something important: a high FCI does not mean facilities teams haven’t done their job. The real pressure comes from invisible systems—mechanical piping, electrical infrastructure, hydronic systems—that quietly age until replacement is unavoidable.

But deferred systems do not disappear. They compound.

Where the Real Risk Hides

In almost every campus assessment we conduct, the same systems rise to the top:

  1. Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing (MEP)
  2. Roof systems
  3. Building envelope

These aren’t flashy upgrades. They’re foundational systems that keep campuses operating safely and efficiently.

When MEP systems fail, learning environments suffer. When roofs deteriorate, interior investments are compromised. When envelopes leak, energy efficiency declines and structural damage follows.

Deferred maintenance isn’t just about aging buildings. It’s about managing institutional risk.
Indiana Wesleyan University IWU - Hall of Engineering Exterior
Indiana Wesleyan University IWU - Hall of Engineering Exterior

A Clear Process

The solution begins with clarity. Strategic reinvestment begins with a comprehensive Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) that evaluates the entire building ecosystem:

  • Site accessibility and circulation
  • Structural systems
  • Exterior envelope
  • Interior finishes
  • HVAC infrastructure
  • Plumbing
  • Fire protection
  • Electrical systems
  • ADA compliance and code alignment

The assessment provides a prioritized roadmap with cost ranges that align with financial planning cycles. Instead of reacting to surprises, campus leaders have the ability to forecast and phase reinvestment thoughtfully.

Budgeting with Intention, Not Urgency

The campuses that thrive financially approach renewal as a predictable investment and not an emergency line item.

This typically includes:

  • Multiyear capital forecasting (typically 5-10 years)
  • Lifecycle-based replacement planning
  • Blended operating and capital funding
  • Scenario modeling for cash flow impact

The goal is predictability.

Addressing only what fails each year creates sudden capital spikes and reactive decision-making. Predictable renewal funding smooths expenditures and reduces emergency interventions, which are almost always more expensive.

It’s the difference between planning for a roof replacement and discovering one in the middle of a storm.

Prioritization: Aligning Buildings with Mission

Not every project can happen at once. And it shouldn’t.
Strategic prioritization evaluates projects through a broader lens:

  • Mission alignment
  • Health and safety impact
  • Student experience
  • Faculty and staff effectiveness
  • Enrollment and retention influence
  • Cash flow implications

When facilities discussions incorporate these factors, they move from maintenance meetings to strategic planning sessions.
Exterior view of Frann's Fieldhouse with orange entrance details and large glass windows at Heidelberg University.
Exterior view of Frann's Fieldhouse with orange entrance details and large glass windows at Heidelberg University.

Shifting the Narrative

Language shapes mindset. “Deferred maintenance” implies delay. “Capital renewal” communicates stewardship.

The most forward-thinking institutions adopt a hybrid approach:

  • Allocate recurring annual operating funds for renewal
  • Establish strategic reserves or endowments dedicated to infrastructure reinvestment
  • Adopt formal capital renewal programs integrated into long-range financial planning

This reframing changes the tone of the conversation—from catching up to investing forward.

Reinvestment as a Catalyst

Reinvestment doesn’t just preserve—it can transform.

At St. Mary’s College, a former nunnery was repositioned into a modern Health Sciences facility through mechanical upgrades, electrical improvements, roof replacement, and strategic space activation. An investment that unlocked new academic capacity.

At LeTourneau University, an administrative building became a School of Nursing with new infrastructure systems, an exterior refresh, and modest expansion—supporting program growth without ground-up construction.

In both cases, thoughtful reinvestment extended asset life, strengthened enrollment positioning, and aligned facilities with institutional mission.

The Leadership Conversation

For campus leaders, clarity for a path forward begins with asking these questions:

  • Do we know our campus-wide FCI?
  • Which buildings are approaching critical thresholds?
  • What is our 10-year capital renewal forecast?
  • Are we funding reinvestment consistently or reacting to failure?
  • How does our facilities strategy align with enrollment and academic growth strategy?

When these questions have data-driven answers, institutions gain confidence in both planning and messaging.
Design Collaborative team of three people collaborate together in a meeting room.
Design Collaborative team of three people collaborate together in a meeting room.

Buildings as Strategic Assets

Campus buildings are often the largest asset class on an institution’s balance sheet. They shape first impressions. They influence student decision-making. They support faculty research. They reflect institutional credibility.

Investing in them is not simply about maintenance; it’s about momentum.

With the right assessment, prioritization framework, and funding strategy, deferred maintenance shifts from a quiet liability to a visible leadership opportunity.

And when that shift happens, facilities planning becomes what it was always meant to be: a strategic driver of institutional strength.

Is your campus facilities conversation centered around “what broke this year?” Contact us to learn how our team can help you assess your assets, prioritize with confidence, and build a campus investment strategy that supports your mission for decades to come.

Post Tagged in
, , ,
Share
Contact Us Firm News Join Our Team Privacy Policy Office Locations: Fort Wayne, Indiana & Charlotte, North Carolina
©2026 Design Collaborative. All rights reserved.
Copyright ©2026 Design Collaborative