- Participatory. Feedback from multiple stakeholders in the process, both as it is being developed and as it is being applied to the candidate projects, can help mitigate (though likely not eliminate) post-decision conflicts.
- Easily understood. All calculations should be straightforward and easy to explain. The number of criteria should be reduced to only those that are most important to make the decision.
- Incentivizing. The process should reward positive behavior. It could, for instance, include weight for institution’s performance vis-à-vis established strategic goals like program growth, or something more directly related to facilities like maintenance spending. It should provide an “incentive” for institutions to do more.
- Consistent. To be fair, all criteria should apply to all projects from all institutions.
- Transparent. Simple matrix tables and graphs should be sufficient to explain the reasons for relative project priorities. There should be no “black boxes.” This would apply to use of online forms and other such methodologies. The “value” of funding one project vs. another should be visible and, if not universally accepted, at least agreeable to all participants at the end.
- Utilization by Students and Faculty: The higher the building utilization by students and faculty, the higher the number. The higher the utilization number, the higher the number is on the matrix, and vice versa. This can be quantified by the Space and Utilization study. (Multiplier 2.0)
- Life Safety and ADA Compliance Needs: The greater the need for life safety and ADA upgrades, the higher this number is on the matrix. (Multiplier 3.0)
- Fundable (State Funding or Corporate Partnerships): If funding is available for a renovation specifically allocated for a particular building, the greater the number is on the renovation matrix. (Multiplier 1.0)
- Master Plan Factor: If the Master Plan recommends renovation, in whole or in part, within a given time frame (within five years, ten years, or fifteen years), the higher the number is on the matrix. A recommended renovation within five years would have a higher value on the matrix than a recommendation within fifteen years. (Multiplier 2.0)
- Faculty, Staff and Student Needs: The higher the Faculty, Staff and Student needs in this space, the higher number on the renovation matrix is. (Multiplier 3.0)
- Visibility to Campus, Community, and Prospective Students: The more visible the building is, the higher the number on the matrix. (Multiplier 2.0)
- Building Exterior Needs (Roof, Brick, Curtain wall, Glazing, etc.): The more exterior work the building needs, the higher the number is on the matrix. (Multiplier 2.0)
- Deferred Maintenance Needs (MEP, HVAC): The more heating, ventilating, air conditioning, plumbing, etc. building needs, the higher the number is on the matrix. (Multiplier 3.0)
- Facilities Condition Assessment Factor: The Facilities Condition Assessment, updated 2014, outlines the deferred maintenance needs, criticality of work needing to be done, and associated renovations estimates. The greater the need for facilities repair/replacement, the higher the number on the matrix. The matrix factor is inversely proportional to the FCA value, as the FCA’s scale 1 as buildings in the worst condition. (Multiplier 2.0)
- Other: Here input other contributing factors which are not otherwise easily categorized. (Multiplier 2.0)
•Relative size of deferred maintenance (facilities renewal) backlog
•Availability of space (reported deficits based on Statewide norms)
•Number of projects in the capital queue
•Square feet per student
•Capacity for enrollment
•Building repair and replacement
•Sustainability & hazard mitigation
• Building envelope
• Structural integrity
• Environmental abatement
2. Code, life safety, ADA
3. Soft priorities
• Reconfiguration (program, convenience)
• IT / technology
• Historic preservation
4. Finishes (cosmetic vs. protective)
Institution Submissions (March)
Draft to Presidents (April & May)
Feedback from Presidents (May)
Workshop with Regents / Hearing with Presidents (May)
Follow-up w/Presidents (June)
Regents Finance Committee (June)
Approval by Board of Regents (June)
Submit to State (June 30)