This study offer a detailed look at how academic libraries and campus facilities units share-or contest-authority over buildings, budgets, and operations. Based on responses from academic libraries across institution types and enrollment sizes, the study examines governance structures, satisfaction with responsibility splits, service workflows, response times, and the extent of library control over key facilities resources. The report combines quantitative tables with extensive open-ended commentary that reveals how formal policies often diverge from day-to-day realities. Five Key Findings from the Survey Shared authority dominates-but not without friction.\ Nearly three-quarters of respondents (73.33%) report that facilities decision-making is shared between the library and campus facilities. However, only 48.89% are satisfied with how clearly responsibilities are defined, while 35.

56% report dissatisfaction-suggesting that "shared" often means ambiguous. Campus facilities systems control most workflows.\ An overwhelming 84.44% of libraries rely on a campus-wide CMMS or CAFM system for work orders, with only 2.22% using a library-managed ticketing system. Despite this centralization, many respondents report limited transparency into request status and prioritization. Formal service expectations are uncommon.\ Just 15.

56% of libraries report having formal, measured service-level agreements (SLAs) for routine facilities requests. More than 60% say SLAs either do not exist (33.33%) or they are unsure whether any are in place (28.89%). Routine repairs are usually fast-but often unpredictable.\ The most common response time for routine issues is 1-2 business days (42.22%), followed by same-day service (22.22%).

Still, one in five respondents (20.00%) report that response times vary widely, highlighting inconsistency across institutions. Libraries control space more than maintenance money.\ While 64.44% of libraries control space planning and 84.44% control room-booking technology, far fewer control maintenance resources. Only 17.78% control minor repairs budgets, and just 8.

89% influence cleaning or custodial scope decisions. The report also analyzes differences by institution type, enrollment, tuition level, building age, and library footprint, and includes detailed qualitative insights into communication breakdowns, deferred maintenance, staffing shortages, and contested space use.