SHEEO QUERY RE HE CAPITAL FINANCE STRUCTURE IN STATES

October 17, 2017

Dear SHEEO Finance Officers:

Our members in Colorado and Tennessee, along with the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) are interested in gathering contextual information about how higher education capital finance is structured in other states. Your responses to the questions below will assist them as they consider possible changes to processes in their states.

Survey Questions:

1. Where do decisions about embarking on and financing higher education capital projects get made in your state? Has that process changed within the last decade and if so, how?
a. What are the aspects of that process that work well?
b. What challenges impede your state’s higher education capital funding process?

2. What is the mix of financial options available to finance higher education capital projects (i.e. general obligation bonds, lease revenue bonds, state general funds, etc.) Has that mix changed over the past decade?

3. For state-funded capital construction, are higher education needs treated separately or incorporated into an overall statewide list?

4. What process is used to rank/articulate the need for higher education projects?

5. To what extent do institutions have control over capital projects financed by institutional reserves and resources (i.e., operating revenue, plant reserves, charitable donations)? To what extent does your agency or another government agency (e.g., state building commission) influence such capital projects?

6. How does your state identify and fund maintenance needs? Is there a policy in place to address identified deferred maintenance? how much has the state provided relative to the institutions?

7. If you were able to change any one thing about the higher education capital planning process in your state, what would it be?

State responses here or just below.
 

Related Categories: