Don’t Leave Your Facilities Needs to ChanceWhat campus leaders can do when rolling the dice doesn’t work

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

Agenda

Condition Assessment

3

Introductions

Robert Wells Chief Facilities OfficerClemson University

Founded: 1889GSF: 7.2MBuilding Count: 270

Students: 19,735Faculty/Staff: 4,524

Founded: 1824GSF: 5.2MBuilding Count: 85

Students: 2,700Faculty/Staff: 2,903

Greg WeigleChief Facilities OfficerMedical University of South Carolina

4

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

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

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

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

/Stu

dent

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.

… With a High Risk Profile15% more of Clemson’s space is in the High Risk category compared to peers

Buildings Under 10Little work. “Honeymoon” period.

Low Risk

Buildings 10 to 25Short life-cycle needs; primarily space

renewal.Medium Risk

Buildings 25 to 50Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come

due.Higher Risk

Buildings over 50Life 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

% o

f Tot

al C

ampu

s G

SF

Campus Reno Age by Category

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

10

High RiskHigh Risk

The Data Pointed Towards…

New Building

$$$

11

Data Talks

“You can’t manage (effectively) what you

don’t measure.”

‐Peter Drucker

13

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

Building Portfolio Identified Needs

15

$-

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

$350.00

$400.00

$ / G

ross

Squ

are

Foot

Identified Needs by Building

'C' (8-10 years)'B' (4-7 years)'A' (1-3 years)

Classroom Space UtilizationDaniel 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 BuildingClassrooms 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

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

Realized Teaching Space Value

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 MSupport$0.9 M

Other$2.5 M

Campus Wide

$8.3 M

Utility Infrastructure

$201.0 M

Functional Building PortfoliosNeeds distributed according to primary building function

20

Clemson: 2020 Forward

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

> 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

Medical University of South Carolina

23

Database Distribution of Density

Less Foot Traffic at MUSCDensity is the lowest amongst peers and below database average

24

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Use

rs/1

00,0

00 G

SF

Density Factor

Peer Average

MUSCPeers

Density Impacts:• Custodial Operations• Wear and Tear on Campus Facilities• Life Cycles of Building Components

Users/100,000 GSF

A More Intense CampusCampus users spread out over more buildings

25

Peer Average

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

MUSC Peer Average

Bld

gs/ 1

,000

,000

GSF

Building Intensity

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Use

rs/1

00,0

00 G

SF

Density Factor

Peer Average

$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

$ in

Mill

ions

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

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

$ in

Mill

ions

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

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…

When Rolling the Dice Doesn’t Work…

DATA can.

29

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

$ / O

ccup

ied

SF

Total Needs (10-year) /Occupied SF

Weighted Average

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Mill

ions

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

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

The Benefit of Building Portfolios

Existing Inventory

33

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

Capital Upkeep Stage

Repair and M

aintain

Portfolios by Net Asset Value

(Replacement Value - Building Needs)

Replacement Value

Systemic Renovation Stage Tran

sitio

n / G

ut R

enov

atio

n St

age

>80%

<80%<60%

>60%

NAV by BuildingB

IOE

NG

INE

ER

ING

BU

ILD

ING

DR

UG

DIS

CO

VE

RY

BU

ILD

ING

DE

NTA

L C

LIN

ICS

BU

ILD

ING

HO

LLIN

GS

CA

NC

ER

CE

NTE

RD

AR

BY

CH

ILD

RE

N'S

RE

SE

AR

CH

INS

TC

OLL

OF

HLT

H P

RO

F C

OM

PLE

X "B

"H

AR

PE

R S

TUD

EN

T/W

ELL

NE

SS

CN

TRC

OLL

EG

E O

F N

UR

SIN

GC

OLB

ER

T E

DU

CE

NTE

R A

ND

LIB

RA

RY

135

CA

NN

ON

ST.

(CA

NN

ON

PLA

CE

)C

OLL

OF

HLT

H P

RO

F R

ES

RC

H B

LDG

CLI

NIC

AL

SC

IEN

CE

S B

UIL

DIN

GW

ALT

ON

RE

SE

AR

CH

BU

ILD

ING

STO

RM

EY

E IN

STI

TUTE

MO

DE

LLE

D B

UIL

DIN

GS

BA

SIC

SC

IEN

CE

BU

ILD

ING

E B

UIL

DIN

GTH

UR

MO

ND

/GA

ZES

RE

SE

AR

CH

BLD

GC

OLL

OF

HLT

H P

RO

F C

OM

PLE

X "A

"C

OLC

OC

K H

ALL

PS

YC

HIA

TRIC

INS

TITU

TEA

LUM

NI M

EM

OR

IAL

HO

US

E

BA

RU

CH

AU

DIT

OR

IUM

F B

UIL

DIN

G0%

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

BIO

EN

GIN

EE

RIN

G B

UIL

DIN

GD

RU

G D

ISC

OV

ER

Y B

UIL

DIN

GD

EN

TAL

CLI

NIC

S B

UIL

DIN

GH

OLL

ING

S C

AN

CE

R C

EN

TER

DA

RB

Y C

HIL

DR

EN

'S R

ES

EA

RC

H IN

ST

CO

LL O

F H

LTH

PR

OF

CO

MP

LEX

"B"

HA

RP

ER

STU

DE

NT/

WE

LLN

ES

S C

NTR

CO

LLE

GE

OF

NU

RS

ING

CO

LBE

RT

ED

U C

EN

TER

AN

D L

IBR

AR

Y13

5 C

AN

NO

N S

T. (C

AN

NO

N P

LAC

E)

CO

LL O

F H

LTH

PR

OF

RE

SR

CH

BLD

GC

LIN

ICA

L S

CIE

NC

ES

BU

ILD

ING

WA

LTO

N R

ES

EA

RC

H B

UIL

DIN

GS

TOR

M E

YE

INS

TITU

TEM

OD

ELL

ED

BU

ILD

ING

SB

AS

IC S

CIE

NC

E B

UIL

DIN

GE

BU

ILD

ING

THU

RM

ON

D/G

AZE

S R

ES

EA

RC

H B

LDG

CO

LL O

F H

LTH

PR

OF

CO

MP

LEX

"A"

CO

LCO

CK

HA

LLP

SY

CH

IATR

IC IN

STI

TUTE

ALU

MN

I ME

MO

RIA

L H

OU

SE

BA

RU

CH

AU

DIT

OR

IUM

F B

UIL

DIN

G0%

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.

> 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 PlanningUse space analysis and Strategic Plan Goals to:

Match Program Value to Campus Need

39

Prog

ram

Val

ue

Stewardship

Maintain/RepurposeTransitional 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

> Links building need to long term building investment requirements

> Allows us to develop a Real Estate Strategy

40

Integrating Building Portfolio & Master PlanningWhat’s in it for MUSC?

> 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

Q&A

Presenter Profile

Robert (Bob) WellsChief Facilities OfficerClemson UniversityEmail: rjwells@clemson.edu

Caroline JohnsonRegional Service Manager –Member ServicesSightlines LLCEmail: cjohnson@sightlines.com

Greg WeigleChief Facilities OfficerMedical University of SouthCarolinaEmail: weigle@musc.edu

43