1. The Capital Budget Game in Utah SHEEO 2006 Professional Development Conference Kevin Walthers Assistant Commissioner Utah System of Higher Education August 16, 2006 kwalthers@utahsbr.edu

2. 2 Key Issues with Utah Facilities Operation and Maintenance Ongoing funds for building upkeep Capital Improvements Renewal projects less than $1.5m Capital Development New square footage or projects in excess of $1.5m

3. 3 Key Issues with Utah Facilities: O&M Operation and Maintenance Funding for state projects provided with approval Funding amount calculated through formula developed by USHE, Exec Branch and Legislative Staff Operation and Maintenance From General Fund$2,300,000 From General Fund One-time($2,300,000)

4. 4 Key Issues with Utah Facilities: Capital Improvements Capital Improvements Renewal projects less than $1.5m Funded at 1.1% of the replacement value of state buildings ($5.1b in FY 2006)

5. 5 Key Issues with Utah Facilities: Capital Improvements Capital Improvements Formula forces growth as replacement value increases

6. 6 Capital Development: Utah’s Process Contains Many Players

7. 7 Building Board v. Regent Ranking Building Board System relies on scoring anchors and consensus scoring Provides reliable way to compare projects among disparate state entities Regent Process relies on established space standards and measurements of existing inventory Allows Regents to establish system priorities among institutions with disparate missions

8. 8 Q&P Primer: Key Terms Q Score: Qualification (Quantitative Need) Calculated Gap = Space Standards x Five Year Projection for FTE Students Q Score = Calculated Gap - Inventory – Request Projects ranked on Q score and assigned descending points with a two point gap P Score: Prioritization (Institutional Priority and Safety) Life Safety (electrical, mechanical, fire, seismic) Functional Deficiency (proposed) Donated Funds (capital or operation & maintenance) Function Points (infrastructure) Priority Points (Institution’s first project gets 25, second gets 22)

9. 9 FY 2006 Ranking

10. 10 Q Score Example: Snow College Space Type Calculated Gap (Ft 2 ) Total Inventory Gap as % of Inventory Classroom4,60032,47114.16% Teaching Labs7,90095,1418.29% Study8,90020,65143.25%

11. 11 Q Score Example: Snow College Space Type Calculated Gap Project (Ft 2 )Q Score Example Project (Ft 2 ) New Q Score Classroom4,60021,0000.0004,6000.8353 Teaching Labs7,9005,0000.29187,9000.8384 Study8,90023,0001.488111,0005.3930 Office09,5000.0003,0000.0000 Total21,40058,5001.779926,5007.0667 Q Rank 8 th 4 th

12. 12 Q&P Primer: Strategies for Scoring Increase Enrollment Target underserved markets in service region Increase relationship of FTE to Headcount

13. Enrollment Scenario Fall FTE to Headcount Ratio Fall 198478.7% Fall 200568.1%

14. 14 Q&P Primer: Strategies for Scoring Choose the Right Project Match project to five-year gap Size building to best match space needs Focus on Renewal of Existing Space Eliminating space that is no longer functional increases the five-year gap.

15. 15 Q&P Primer: Strategies for Scoring Ensure optimal utilization Create flexible space More classes throughout the day Increase room and station utilization

16. 16 Q&P Primer: Suggested Updates Leased space for Q&P functions should be included as part of an institution’s space inventory Life Safety points should include “functional usability” “Other Funds” points not awarded for student fees or local govt. funds that result in an ownership right for the local entity Research Institutions may submit two projects for Q&P scoring