On Wednesday, August 5, Sightlines was joined by a few of our outstanding member institutions to present “Don’t Leave Your Facilities Needs to Chance – From Game Plan to Master Planning: Using Data to Load the Dice” during the APPA 2015 Annual Meeting & Exposition. This session offered attendees insight into how two facilities manager have tied deferred maintenance studies to program needs by incorporating that data into space utilization and master planning initiatives. This presentation demonstrates how to: Maximize the value of a deferred maintenance assessment Integrate DM data with space utilization and master planning Optimize institutional resources to mitigate risk Be a partner in program success rather than a follower

1. Don’t Leave Your Facilities Needs to Chance
What campus leaders can do when rolling the dice doesn’t work

2. Who Partners with Sightlines?
Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums and state systems
2
* U.S. News Rankings
Sightlines is proud to
announce that:
• 450 colleges and
universities are
Sightlines clients
including over 325
ROPA members.
• 93% of ROPA
members renewed in
2014
• We have clients in 42
states, the District of
Columbia and four
Canadian provinces
• More than 100 new
institutions became
Sightlines members
since 2013
Sightlines advises state
systems in:
• Alaska
• California
• Connecticut
• Hawaii
• Maine
• Massachusetts
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Nebraska
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• Pennsylvania
• Texas
• West Virginia
Serving the Nation’s Leading Institutions:
• 70% of the Top 20 Colleges*
• 75% of the Top 20 Universities*
• 33 Flagship State Universities
• 13 of the 14 Big 10 Institutions
• 9 of the 12 Ivy Plus Institutions
• 7 of 12 Selective Liberal Arts Colleges

3. Agenda
Condition
Assessment
3

4. Introductions
Robert Wells
Chief Facilities Officer
Clemson University
Founded: 1889
GSF: 7.2M
Building Count: 270
Students: 19,735
Faculty/Staff: 4,524
Founded: 1824
GSF: 5.2M
Building Count: 85
Students: 2,700
Faculty/Staff: 2,903
Greg Weigle
Chief Facilities Officer
Medical University of South Carolina
4

5. Is Facilities Management like Monopoly?
• There are numerous key players
involved
• Every player/constituents may have a
different priority than yours
• Strategic investments are required
• Different properties hold different
values
5

6. Is Facilities Management like Monopoly?
• There are lots of key players involved
• Every player/constituent may have a
different priority than yours
• Both require strategic investments
• Different properties hold different
values
WITHOUT A PLAN YOU WILL LOSE
6

7. What are the Questions Decision Makers are Asking?
Answering these questions is the first step in developing your plan
Where are we NOW?
Where are we GOING?
HOW do we get there?
7

9. Tracking a Changing Campus…
Student population growing at faster rate than campus facilities
9
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Campus Population and Facilities
Change Over Time
Student Population Campus Facilities
0
50
100
150
200
250
GSF/Student
Program Space Per Student*
*This benchmark shows the relative availability of academic,
research and faculty program space to students in terms of
sq. ft. per student.

10. … With a High Risk Profile
15% more of Clemson’s space is in the High Risk category compared to peers
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
6%
22%
29%
27%
28%
27%
38%
23%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Clemson E&G Peer Average
%ofTotalCampusGSF
Campus Reno Age by Category
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
10
High Risk
High Risk

11. The Data Pointed Towards…
New Building
$$$
11

13. Data Talks
“You can’t manage
(effectively) what you
don’t measure.”
‐Peter Drucker
13

14. The Bottom-Up, Top-Down Approach
Project
Identification
•Inventory
•Interviews
•Other studies
Project
Codification
•Timeframe
•Package
•Investment Criteria
Project
Selection
•Project scores
•Meet
investment
objectives
Building Portfolio
Creation
•Group Buildings
•Outline investment
strategies Funding
Identification
•What financial
resources are
available?
Funding
Allocation
•By Portfolio
•By Investment
Criteria Multi-year
capital
investment
plan
Technical
Strategic

15. Building Portfolio Identified Needs
15
$-
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
$300.00
$350.00
$400.00
$/GrossSquareFoot
Identified Needs by Building
'C' (8-10 years)
'B' (4-7 years)
'A' (1-3 years)

17. Classroom Space Utilization
Daniel Hall will feel much more crowded than the other classroom buildings
17
34.6
22.6 20.9 20.8 20.6 20.6
17.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Lee Martin Tillman Brackett Sirrine Poole Daniel
SF/Student by Building
Classrooms Only
Included
Classrooms
18 15 13 20 23 17 39
CHE Standard 22 ASF/Student Station
Daniel Hall is an out of
date building in terms of
CR structure

18. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Fall 2013 Utilization: Classrooms only, MTWRF
Room Utilization Position Utilization
Utilization Analysis – by Room-Type
Classrooms
Laboratories (Wet &
Dry)
Lecture Halls Computer Laboratories
Included Classrooms: 243Included Classrooms: 243
18
gAverage: 64%
p60% Optimal Room Utilization
gAverage: 47%
*Averages are for 8am-4:59pm
p75% Optimal Position Utilization

19. 19
Realized Teaching Space Value

20. Total Project
Inventory
$563.5 M
Grounds
$54.2 M
Building
Needs
$308.3 M
Academic
$184.1 M
Administrative
$13.5 M
Science/
Research
$93.5 M
Student
Life
$5.5 M
Support
$0.9 M
Other
$2.5 M
Campus
Wide
$8.3 M
Utility
Infrastructure
$201.0 M
Functional Building Portfolios
Needs distributed according to primary building function
20

21. Clemson: 2020 Forward
http://blogs.clemson.edu/2020forward/21

22. > Used 10 year BPS project plan to identify project needs for Facilities
stewardship component of the 2020 Forward Plan.
> Used 10 year BPS plan and space utilization study to drive home the need
to completely renew Daniel Hall and to propose Sirrine Hall as swing
space and eventual repurposing.
> Space utilization study highlighted the need to leverage the value in
underutilized scheduled classrooms and labs.
> Secured seat at the table for the implementation of the Facilities
stewardship component of the 2020 Forward Plan.
Monopoly in Progress
22

23. Medical University of South Carolina
23

24. Database Distribution of
Density
Less Foot Traffic at MUSC
Density is the lowest amongst peers and below database average
24
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Users/100,000GSF
Density Factor
Peer Average
MUSC
Peers
Density Impacts:
• Custodial Operations
• Wear and Tear on Campus Facilities
• Life Cycles of Building Components
Users/100,000 GSF

25. A More Intense Campus
Campus users spread out over more buildings
25
Peer Average
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
MUSC Peer Average
Bldgs/1,000,000GSF
Building Intensity
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Users/100,000GSF
Density Factor
Peer Average

26. $31.7
$12.8
$9.6
$17.9
$6.3
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need Annual Investment Target
$inMillions
Annual Investment Target
Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program
$16M in Annual Need
26
Functional obsolescence drives
investment prior to life cycles &
discounts the annual investment target
Can MUSC keep up with campus needs?
Replacement Value: $1.06B
Total $ $31.7M $30.7 $15.9

27. $0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
$35.0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
$inMillions
Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target
Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need
Funding Needs to Grow!
Recurring funds alone are not enough to reach targets
27
Increasing Net Asset Value
Lowering Risk Profile

28. If we utilize our space
better, figure out how we
can condense ourselves…
we can divest ourselves of
this overwhelming need.
28
Making the Problem Smaller…

29. When Rolling the Dice Doesn’t Work…
DATA can.
29

30. Aligning Investment Need with Our RCM Model
30
RCM
Ownership
Total 10-
Year Needs
(Backlog plus
10-year Life
Cycle)
Potential
Annual Charge
A&S‐Edu/Student Life $11,309,107 $1,130,911
A&S‐Library $4,743,028 $474,303
Aux Bookstore/
Vending
$34,379 $3,438
Aux Wellness $9,210,388 $921,039
CDM $15,784,485 $1,578,449
CGS $265,779 $26,578
CHP $7,188,432 $718,843
COM $109,714,770 $10,971,477
CON $1,943,475 $194,348
COP $10,958,664 $1,095,866
MUHA $27,075,777 $2,707,578
VA $3,984,620 $398,462
External Tenant $860,517 $86,052
Total $203.1 M $20.3 M/year
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$/OccupiedSF
Total Needs (10-year) /Occupied SF
Weighted Average

31. $0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
$35.0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Millions
Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target
Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need
Or! How Can we Lower the Line?
Recurring funds alone are not enough to reach targets
31
Increasing Net Asset Value
Lowering Risk Profile

32. Marrying Master Planning with Condition Assessment
How do we do it all?

33. The Benefit of Building Portfolios
Existing
Inventory
33

34. Factors to Consider when Creating Portfolios
 RCM Model
Financial Model
Building
Characteristics
Purpose
 Age
 Condition
 Location
 Function
Mission
 Institutional
Focus
 Academic
Requirements
 Student Needs
Requirements
 Historical
Significance
 Safety/Code
 Recruitment/
Retention
 Transitional
Space
 Adaptive Reuse
Grounds &
Infrastructure
 Athletic Fields
 Utility Needs
34

35. 35
Capital Upkeep Stage
RepairandMaintain
Portfolios by
Net Asset Value
(Replacement Value - Building
Needs)
Replacement Value
Systemic Renovation Stage
Transition/GutRenovationStage
>80%
<80%
<60%
>60%

36. NAV by Building
BIOENGINEERINGBUILDING
DRUGDISCOVERYBUILDING
DENTALCLINICSBUILDING
HOLLINGSCANCERCENTER
DARBYCHILDREN'SRESEARCHINST
COLLOFHLTHPROFCOMPLEX"B"
HARPERSTUDENT/WELLNESSCNTR
COLLEGEOFNURSING
COLBERTEDUCENTERANDLIBRARY
135CANNONST.(CANNONPLACE)
COLLOFHLTHPROFRESRCHBLDG
CLINICALSCIENCESBUILDING
WALTONRESEARCHBUILDING
STORMEYEINSTITUTE
MODELLEDBUILDINGS
BASICSCIENCEBUILDING
EBUILDING
THURMOND/GAZESRESEARCHBLDG
COLLOFHLTHPROFCOMPLEX"A"
COLCOCKHALL
PSYCHIATRICINSTITUTE
ALUMNIMEMORIALHOUSE
BARUCHAUDITORIUM
FBUILDING
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
NAV Index by Building
Capital Upkeep Stage (>80%):
Primarily new or recently renovated
buildings w/ sporadic building repair &
life cycle needs; “You pick the projects”
Repair and Maintain Stage (>70%):
Buildings are beginning to show their
age and may require more significant
investment on a case-by-case basis
Systemic Renovation Stage (>60%):
Buildings may require more significant
repairs ; large-scale capital infusions/
renovations are inevitable; “The projects
pick you”
Demolition/Transitional/ Gut
Renovation Stage (<60%): Major
buildings components are in jeopardy of
complete failure.
36

37. BIOENGINEERINGBUILDING
DRUGDISCOVERYBUILDING
DENTALCLINICSBUILDING
HOLLINGSCANCERCENTER
DARBYCHILDREN'SRESEARCHINST
COLLOFHLTHPROFCOMPLEX"B"
HARPERSTUDENT/WELLNESSCNTR
COLLEGEOFNURSING
COLBERTEDUCENTERANDLIBRARY
135CANNONST.(CANNONPLACE)
COLLOFHLTHPROFRESRCHBLDG
CLINICALSCIENCESBUILDING
WALTONRESEARCHBUILDING
STORMEYEINSTITUTE
MODELLEDBUILDINGS
BASICSCIENCEBUILDING
EBUILDING
THURMOND/GAZESRESEARCHBLDG
COLLOFHLTHPROFCOMPLEX"A"
COLCOCKHALL
PSYCHIATRICINSTITUTE
ALUMNIMEMORIALHOUSE
BARUCHAUDITORIUM
FBUILDING
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
NAV Index by Building
NAV by Building
37
Stewardship (>85%):
Ensure these don’t slip.
Reinvestment (<85%):
Need to qualify investment
and prioritize.
Transitional (<50%)
Divest and don’t invest.

38. > Affirm the required space (using standards) we need for
academic, research, clinical and support functions.
> ID functions that can be off campus (potential leaseholds)
> ID the appropriate buildings to optimize our utilization for these
functions and assign on a matrix (next slide).
> Recommend buildings for re-purposing or divestment.
38
Enter our Master Facility Planning
Use space analysis and Strategic Plan Goals to:

39. Match Program Value to Campus Need
39
ProgramValue
Stewardship
Maintain/Repurpose
Transitional
Buildings
Major Capital
Renovations
Poor Building Condition,
High Program Value
Excellent Building Condition,
High Program Value
Excellent Building Condition,
Low Program Value
Poor Building Condition,
Low Program Value

40. > Links building need to long term building
investment requirements
> Allows us to develop a Real Estate
Strategy
40
Integrating Building Portfolio & Master Planning
What’s in it for MUSC?

41. > Getting a seat at the table is not a given
> Your bank is not limitless
> You cannot start over
> Rolling the dice is a risk you cannot take
The Challenges of Playing Monopoly
41

42. Q&A

43. Presenter Profile
Robert (Bob) Wells
Chief Facilities Officer
Clemson University
Email: rjwells@clemson.edu
Caroline Johnson
Regional Service Manager –
Member Services
Sightlines LLC
Email: cjohnson@sightlines.com
Greg Weigle
Chief Facilities Officer
Medical University of South
Carolina
Email: weigle@musc.edu
43