SHEEO Information Request Regarding Deferred Maintenance October 29, 2015

Transcription

1 SHEEO Information Request Regarding Deferred Maintenance October 29, 2015 SHEEO Query: Members: Peter Blake of Virginia has a question about how common it is for states to appropriate money (cash or debt service) separately for major deferred facility maintenance needs of their public colleges and universities. Virginia has a maintenance reserve program that provides funding for major facility repairs (up to $1 million per project) that are not addressed in the institutions operating budgets and usually are too small to qualify for state capital outlay funding. Examples include roof repair, boiler and chiller replacement, and electrical system upgrades. This funding is provided in addition to the regular support provided through the Educational and General program for the operation and maintenance of the physical plant. Could you please let me know by November 5 whether your state, district, or territory: a. Appropriates funding specifically and separately for major deferred facilities maintenance needs; or b. Specifically includes costs for major deferred facilities maintenance in its formula for determining appropriations for colleges and universities but does not make a separate appropriation for them; or c. Includes no specific amount for major deferred facilities maintenance needs and assumes that colleges and universities will cover these types of costs from the total resources available to them. State Agency Responses: State a. b. c. Additional notes Alabama No. There are occasionally lines included for institutions in the budget but they are for relatively small amounts and specific projects. Alaska The answer to your question regarding state appropriations for major deferred facility maintenance needs that best fits the University of Alaska is: a. Appropriates funding specifically and separately for major deferred facilities maintenance needs Although, the state appropriation may not provide for the entire cost of the project, thus UA may be expected to cover some of the costs with internal resources (operating funds, bonding, loans, etc). Although deferred maintenance costs are included in the formula the Alabama Commission on Higher Education uses in its formula, the formula is not used by the Legislature to determine appropriation amounts to the colleges and universities so it has no impact on actual funding. This is the main method used in Alabama. The institutions are primarily responsible for all deferred maintenance and capital costs.

2 Arizona Arizona has adopted a building renewal formula (primarily based on building age and value) to determine the annual need for building repair. The state has 3 building systems, one of which is the public university system. The FY16 formula calculation for the university system was $115.9M (pending FY17 request is $129.9M); no monies were appropriated by the state for building renewal. The following shows a 10-year history of building renewal requests vs. appropriations. Fiscal Year Building Renewal Formula State Appropriation Difference from Formula Percent of Formula ,188,900 20,000,000 50,188, % ,534, ,534, % ,862, ,862, % ,525, ,525, % ,957, ,957, % ,136, ,136, % ,630, ,630, % ,401, ,401, % ,480,474 3,000, ,480, % ,892, ,892, % Totals 916,610,761 23,000, ,610, % Historically, Arizona has not had a deferred maintenance component in an (operating) budget formula; however, the pending FY17 operating budget request includes a new formula oriented approach (based primarily on achieving a dollar target per resident student). In addition, the new formula also includes a $200/student component for capital related needs (deferred maintenance and/or new construction). There have been instances in the past when the state has funded stand-alone capital initiatives (primarily debt service). Arkansas California State University Yes, CA appropriates funds separately for deferred maintenance- when it has money. The state does not have a formula for funding CSU and UC deferred maintenance needs. However, California s Prop 98 funding formula (a constitutional guarantee of state funding for K-14 education) does afford We have no dedicated funding for deferred maintenance and do not include deferred maintenance costs in funding formulas. Yes, the state has no specific amount for major deferred maintenance and assumes the CSU will cover until the state is able to identify and appropriate funds.

3 California, University of more consistent funding for the California Community Colleges which could be spend on deferred maintenance. The General Assembly of North Carolina transfers funds from the state General Fund into a Repairs and Renovations Reserve for all state agencies on an annual basis. A percentage of this Reserve is made available to the University of North Carolina s 17 system institutions through our Board of Governors. This percentage made available to UNC varies from fiscal year to fiscal year, and has been historically between 33%-60% of the available R&R Reserve. The Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina is statutorily required to allocate the UNC Repairs and Renovations funding to each of its member institutions according to a formula that takes into consideration the institution s mission, level of degree programs, net assignable square footage, gross square footage, campus population, current replacement value of facilities, facility condition index, and deferred maintenance. Specific Repairs and Renovations Capital Improvement Projects are prioritized at the campus level and updated every two years concurrent with the state of N.C. biennial budget process. When our Board of Governors allocate the R&R funds to the campuses, the capital project priorities are adjusted accordingly and funded.

4 Colorado In Colorado s budget bill, the state appropriates controlled maintenance funding for projects with a cost of less than $2 million. These projects are scored by the state architect, and placed into one of three levels. Depending on the amount of available capital funding, different levels may be funded. Institutions are eligible for these funds, but it is not limited to institutions. The state also allows institutions to pursue a Capital Renewal project. These projects are large scale controlled maintenance projects costing more than $2 million, where it is more cost effective to address a building s maintenance needs through a single, large project than one-off controlled maintenance projects. If funding is granted for these projects, they are appropriated in the state s budget bill. Maintenance needs are not part of the state s formula for determining appropriations for institutions. Although there is state funding available for maintenance, institutions fund a majority of their maintenance needs through internal funds. These funds are not appropriated, but for institutionally funded maintenance projects costing more than $2 million, a list of anticipated projects must be submitted to the Colorado Commission on Higher Education for review, and the Legislature s Capital Development Committee conducts a review. Florida The State of Florida funds education facilities through the Public Education Capital Outlay (PECO) program, which moves a portion of utilities/communications tax revenue into the PECO fund. Once the amount of available PECO fund revenue is determined, there is a statutory formula that allocates a portion of the revenue to routine maintenance and the rest is available for new projects. The Legislature then appropriates a specific amount for maintenance and a specific amount for various education projects. For critical deferred maintenance, there has to be a separate request from the Board of Governors to the Legislature for consideration. We received $20 M in the fiscal year that went a long way in fixing some critical problems. Georgia, University System of In Georgia, we have a program called Major Repair and Rehabilitation (MRR) whereby our state legislature annually authorizes funds from general obligation bonds to be used for major deferred facilities maintenance needs. This program best fits your description a below as these funds are earmarked specifically for these needs and cannot be used to cover operational deficiencies or for new construction. Hawaii Option a

5 Idaho For Idaho s public colleges and universities, the category below which best describes us is a (appropriates funding specifically and separately for major deferred facilities maintenance needs). Each year, notwithstanding any dollars which may be appropriated to fund new, major capital construction projects, the state also provides Alteration and Repair project dollars which help address deferred maintenance needs. Recently, the statewide A&R appropriation has totaled around $15M to $20M each year a small (but welcomed) investment which covers a fraction of the actual deferred maintenance needs across Idaho s state facilities. While a provides the best descriptor for Idaho s approach, there is also a flavoring from the c category, since institutions often have to resort to other resources to cover some of their deferred maintenance needs. Indiana In Indiana we use a repair and rehabilitation formula that employs an index to determine the current replacement value (CRV) of the academic and administrative space of existing facilities. The formula calculates 1% of this value as a guideline for investment. In order to address ongoing maintenance and repairs as a partnership between the state and the institutions, the state has funded 50% of this calculation in recent years. Infrastructure CRV is calculated by each institution the state funds this investment at 50% also. Iowa Answer C (the state usually gives the Regents system $2 million per year for deferred maintenance our current need is $ million). Deferred maintenance is included in the Board of Regents, State of Iowa annual request for Capital Appropriations, though may not be included every year. It is requested as a lump sum to be allocated

6 Kansas Louisiana by the Regents to correct fire and environmental safety deficiencies, deferred maintenance, campus safety improvements, address regulatory compliance and energy conservation improvements, and possible specific additional projects. Actual funding is determined by the Iowa Legislature. The Capital request is part of a Five-Year Plan that is updated every year. Kansas has a statewide property tax that is for the state Regents universities to use for addressing deferred maintenance issues. The tax generates approximately $32-35 million per year, depending on valuations. State law currently does not allow it be used for any buildings built after The amount is distributed among the universities in accordance with the Board s allocation formula, based on the amount of facilities square footage. In addition, the universities selffinance from resources available to them for the buildings constructed after 2007 and as projects become necessary to keep buildings safe or usable. Louisiana Board of Regents Response: The state of Louisiana periodically appropriates funding in HB2 (the state's capital construction bill) for institutions to complete Major Repair/Deferred Maintenance

7 (MR hereafter) type projects. Between 2000 and 2008, public post-secondary institutions received a little over $168M via appropriation by the legislature to accomplish MR projects. Funding for MR projects during this time was not continuous each year, and funding was allocated via four appropriations in the 8-year period. The last major appropriation to public, postsecondary education for MR projects was in 2008 in the amount of $75M. There have not been any additional, significant appropriations for MR projects on public, postsecondary campuses since then; however, we did receive approximately $4.4M for such projects in the last fiscal year (FY14-15). Unfortunately, the $4.4M was split among 4 management systems and their 27 member institutions (does not include satellite campuses). The legislature also provided public, post-secondary education with $40M ($10M per system) in FY for operations and deferred maintenance. Although the language in the bill included "operations", some institutions were able to complete MR projects utilizing this allocation of funds. As part of its FY Capital Outlay Budget Recommendation, the Board of Regents submitted a funding request to create a pool of funds specifically for Emergency Roofing Repairs/Replacements and Emergency Major Repair/Deferred/Maintenance projects. In addition to the MR funding request on the capital side, the BoR included $10M in the operating budget request for a deferred maintenance revolving loan

8 fund. If successful in obtaining the funds during the next session, we hope said funds would be in addition to any possible appropriation(s) from the legislature for FY MR projects. In years without an appropriation(s) from the Louisiana Legislature for MR projects, institutions are generally expected to cover the costs of MR projects through their operating budgets, fees assessed to the students (facility/building-use type fees, and/or technology fees in some instances), or a combination of both. Due to cuts to higher education over the last several years in Louisiana, institutions rarely have operating funds available to cover the cost of an MR project. Some institutions are successful in utilizing their facility/building use fees for MR projects, but other institutions simply do not generate enough revenue to cover the cost of many MR projects in a timely manner. At the same time all institutions have funds budgeted for operations and maintenance (O&M), but O&M budgets normally cover the costs of facilities staff, daily/routine maintenance, etc., and do not include funds for unexpected Major Repair projects. Maine The University of Maine System currently is in category C. Maine is updating its budget process to identify capital funding as a specific and separate part of its budget and budget approval process, but that is in progress and

9 not yet completed." Massachusetts Massachusetts currently has over $2B in bond authorization to support campus projects at each of the 29 public institutions. The ten-year bond issuance was approved in 2008 (referred to in Massachusetts as the 2008 Higher Ed Bond Bill ) and has largely supported the building of new facilities; particularly STEM/Allied Health buildings. The campuses do not carry debt service to support any of the projects from the 2008 bond bill. It has been a huge game-changer in terms of new investment for the campuses, for many the first statesupported project on campus since the 70 s. Additionally, the state has a deferred maintenance bond authorization for the entire commonwealth that public higher ed is also a beneficiary (though in much smaller numbers). And those projects that benefit from that source of funds almost always fall into the critical repair/life safety category (additionally, there is bond funding for ADA projects and energy efficiency projects). The campuses, however, support projects that are for the typical end-of-life-cycle deferred maintenance projects (electrical upgrades, repointing stairs, roof repairs, etc) from their own operating budget. An annual expenditure of between 5-7% of the operating budget is not uncommon for these types of expenses. Not trivial and a financial concern across the segments. Our budget advocacy on behalf of the campuses focuses very heavily on the need for an omnibus deferred maintenance bill to the tune of $5B to support our 29 institutions. It s a huge issue here in Massachusetts. Generally, it is quite rare to see a

10 Michigan Minnesota OHE Minnesota Legislature uses Higher Education Asset Preservation and Replacement Account (HEAPRA) funding to MnSCU (State Colleges and Universities) and the University of Minnesota for this purpose. as part of a bonding bill that also includes individual new building requests of larger amounts. So option (a) below. The last time the state provided the public universities with deferred maintenance money was separate state operating budget appropriation for any of these types of repairs. It is almost exclusively bond-financed. I reached out to our Executive Budget Officer at Minnesota Management and Budget. They provided me with the information below. Higher Education Asset Preservation and Replacement (HEAPR) is a statutory program that can fund projects at public colleges and universities for: code compliance including health and safety, Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, hazardous material abatement, access improvement, or air quality improvement; building energy efficiency improvements using current best practices; or building or infrastructure repairs necessary to preserve the interior and exterior of existing buildings; or renewal to support the existing programmatic mission of the campuses. This money is appropriated as its own line item but is not specifically earmarked for certain projects. Postsecondary governing boards report their priority projects and then what projects were completed with these funds. Systems are given flexibility to deal with urgent facilities needs that arise. In the 2014 bonding bill the state appropriated $42.5 million in HEAPR funding to the University of Minnesota and $42.5 million to Minnesota State Colleges and

11 Universities. Below is the statute: 135A.046 ASSET PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT. Subdivision 1.Purpose. The legislature recognizes that postsecondary governing boards operate campus physical plants that in number, size, and programmatic use differ significantly from the physical plants operated by state departments and agencies. However, the legislature recognizes the need for standards to aid in categorizing and funding capital projects. The purpose of this section is to provide standards for those higher education projects that are intended to preserve and replace existing campus facilities. Subd. 2.Standards. Capital budget expenditures for Higher Education Asset Preservation and Replacement (HEAPR) projects must be for one or more of the following: code compliance including health and safety, Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, hazardous material abatement, access improvement, or air quality improvement; building energy efficiency improvements using current best practices; or building or infrastructure repairs necessary to preserve the interior and exterior of existing buildings; or renewal to support the existing programmatic mission of the campuses. Up to ten percent of an appropriation awarded under this section may be used for design costs for projects eligible to be funded from this account in anticipation of future funding from the account.

12 Mississippi Missouri Nebraska In Mississippi the legislature appropriates a sum of money each year for repair and renovation. This specific appropriation was started several years ago. While the dollar figure is not large at around 18 million annually, it is an important pocket of money for our universities. The intent was to use this money for R&R and not have to dip into state bonds for this type of facility maintenance. This money is divided between the universities based on square footage of facilities. In Missouri, we would describe our situation as a combination of responses a and c for this request. There is no established process for the ongoing appropriation of funds to address deferred maintenance at public colleges and universities. Maintenance issues, including deferred maintenance, are considered by the legislature to be part of an institution s ongoing operations and, as a consequence, are expected to be addressed through the regular operational budget. In part because the amount of deferred maintenance has become so overwhelming, the legislature recently authorized the sale of bonds, with part of the proceeds designated to assist institutions with repair and renovation of facilities. Most of the projects approved to receive funding from the bond proceeds are designed to address deferred maintenance issues. In Nebraska there is one dedicated funding source for deferred facilities maintenance of university and state college facilities. A portion of the state cigarette tax (currently, $9.2 million) is allocated annually to the Task Force for Building Renewal which is available for fire/life safety, deferred repair, ADA and energy conservation projects at all state-supported facilities. The 309 Task Force reviews institutional/agency Subd. 3.Reporting priorities. Each postsecondary governing board shall establish priorities within its Higher Education Asset Preservation and Replacement projects. By January 15 of each year, it shall submit to the commissioner of management and budget and to the chairs of the higher education finance divisions, the senate Finance Committee, and the house of representatives Capital Investment Committee a list of the projects that have been paid for with money from a higher education asset preservation and replacement appropriation during the preceding calendar year as well as a list of those priority projects for which Higher Education Asset Preservation and Replacement appropriations will be sought in that year's legislative session.

13 requests and allocates funding on a project by project basis. In recent years the University of Nebraska and Nebraska State Colleges have received nearly $5 million per year for deferred maintenance projects. Allocations to the 309 Task Force have been fixed at $9.2 million per year since Institutions have been increasingly utilizing operating budget expenditures to supplement limited 309 Task Force funding for deferred repair (averaging $4.2 million in recent years). These funds are in addition to ongoing facilities operating and routine maintenance costs that are also funded from institutional operating budgets. The state (through institutional facilities corporations) also periodically issues longterm bonds to finance renovation/replacement projects that will address deferred maintenance needs in facilities that are funded. This bonding has been financed with equal amount of state appropriations and institutional cash funds (tuition and fees). the 309 Task Force has been in existence since The 309 stands for Legislative Bill 309 which was passed by the Nebraska Unicameral in In the event you have any additional questions regarding the history or mission of the Task Force for Building Renewal Nevada North Dakota We have a very similar program to Virginia here in Nevada. The System receives $15m/ biennium for these type of small dollar deferred maintenance projects. Although with a $1.5 billion backlog, it only slows the speed a bit at which we are losing ground. Institutions often supplement the amounts through other resources available, as necessary. In North Dakota, the biennial budget requests for the public colleges and universities includes separate operating and capital components. Historically, the capital projects could include new construction, major additions/renovations/expansions, etc. Some of the capital projects have been approved to take care of major deferred maintenance issues of a building. In addition, the legislature has appropriated one-time funds for deferred maintenance.either specifically to the campuses, or in a pool at the System Office, to be allocated by the State Board of Higher Education. In all cases, the

14 deferred maintenance appropriations are appropriated as a specific line item in the budgets. Ohio In Ohio, the answer is a ; appropriates funding specifically and separately for major deferred facilities maintenance needs. We accomplish this via our biennial state capital appropriations bill, which makes direct appropriations to our public institutions of higher education from general obligation debt. Oklahoma NO NO YES Oregon Oregon falls under category a. Specifically the State of Oregon appropriate funds specifically and separately for major and minor deferred maintenance needs. It does so in two primary ways: 1. The highest priority in the Oregon Higher Education Coordinating Commission s (HECC) capital request for public universities is funding to all seven public universities for Capital renewal, code compliance, and safety. These funds are allocated to individual universities based on their relative percentage of total education and general square footage and are spent largely on minor deferred maintenance and code compliance projects. Minor being less than full building redevelopment or renovations. For the current biennium, the Oregon Legislature authorized $65,000,000 in state bonded debt for this program, representing more than 25% of the state-backed bonded funds authorized by the Legislature for public universities.[1] 2. For all major capital projects, ten of a possible one hundred points in the HECC s capital scoring and ranking rubric are based whether a project is necessary in order to meet life, safety and code compliance needs of mission critical items, including lifecycle cost analysis or projects that support key programs and initiatives.[2] This focus on deferred maintenance explains why seven of the eleven new public university projects approved by the Oregon Legislature during its 2015 session include significant elements related to addressing deferred maintenance, code compliance or life safety needs. It suffices to say that the bulk of state appropriations for capital were made for either minor or major capital projects. Minor deferred maintenance projects are funded through a formula which allocates available funds, whereas major projects are distributed on a case by case basis. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania s three systems of public postsecondary education are handled differently. The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education and the State Related Universities do not receive a specific amount for deferred facilities maintenance (c.). The Community Colleges are awarded a fixed sum ($40-50 million) which is separate line item called the Community College Capital Work

15 Group (a, sort of). Community colleges submit proposals for the funds and the money is awarded until it is all awarded. Community Colleges can make capital improvements or perform deferred maintenance with these funds. Rhode Island Per statute, the Rhode Island legislature has set a limit on state expenditures to 98.0% of revenues. The additional 2% goes to the RI Capital Plan Funds which allow the state to procure capital assets as specified in the Budget Appropriations Act each year for specific capital projects in a pay-as-you-go fashion. Many of these are significant renovations or renewal of assets. The colleges and universities are regularly recipients of these specific project funds. There are other specifically appropriated funds that go to each state agency that serve as custodians of various state-owned properties for repairs and deferred maintenance. The public colleges and university are among these agencies. These funds go in the form of block grants to these various agencies who must then submit monthly reports related to the spending of these monies. South Dakota Starting in FY13, the state began to appropriate general funds to assist us in meeting our goal of investing 2% of replacement value into maintenance and repair annually. The annual state appropriation commitment for FY16 is $5.4M compared to the annual student fee investment of $16.7M. FY17 will be year 4 of the 4-year plan, which will bring the state s annual investment to approximately $8.0M, which will get us to our 2% goal. South Dakota is not on a funding formula, but does provide a direct appropriation for maintenance and repair. South Dakota public higher education sets aside 20% of tuition to fund maintenance and repair and to fund capital improvements. Tennessee In short, TN addresses major capital maintenance via option (a), below. This discussion can hinge on how major or deferred maintenance gets defined (e.g. is a 20 year old roof that is scheduled for replacement regular maintenance or deferred maintenance?), but in general TN appropriates in most years anywhere from $20-60 million in major capital maintenance. (For reference TN public higher ed has about 40 million square feet of E&G space). It is specific line-item funding to specified institutions for items such as ADA upgrades, HVAC systems replacements, windows, roofs, etc. This funding stream is distinct from both the capital outlay state funding (new buildings or major building renovations), as well as the routine maintenance and operation (M&O) of a campus, which is a small factor in our outcomes-based formula. This M&O funding is for day to day upkeep of E&G facilities.

16 Texas Utah Texas does not fund specifically for deferred maintenance (DM). DM is considered when allocating Higher Education Funds (HEF) but the funds do not necessarily need to be used for that purpose. See response above. DM is a point of consideration and the institutions are statutorily required to report the amounts to their Governing Boards. The option of a, b, or c does not really fit for Texas. C is probably the closest response if you are tallying choices. c. Among the funding sources available for use by institutions are those that consider DM in the allocation process, but other funds may also be used. The State of Utah has a funding formula for capital improvements defined as remodeling, alteration, replacement, repair project, or site and utility improvement with a total cost of less than $2,500,000. Capital improvements include roof repairs, parking lot re-pavement, boiler/hvac upgrades and replacements, ADA improvements, and fire-suppression upgrades among others. By statute, the Utah Legislature is required to fund 1.1 percent of the replacement value of state owned buildings, including higher education facilities, for capital improvement projects. Replacement value is determined by the State s Division of Risk Management, which provides property insurance for the facilities. Space assigned to auxiliary operations is excluded from the calculation while infrastructure (distribution lines, utility tunnels, hardscapes, etc.) are included in the calculation. The statutory requirement of 1.1 percent includes a clause that enables the Legislature to decrease the percentage to 0.9 percent if statewide revenue deficits occur and to temporarily waive the percentage requirement in the event significant

17 revenue deficits persist. Thus, during the recession beginning in 2008, the Legislature used a portion of the capital improvement funds as a rainy day fund to balance the state budget. The percentage of funding subsequently dropped from 1.1 percent of the replacement value of the buildings to 0.6 percent in The legislature has slowly added back the funding, which returned to the 1.1 percent level in This current year (2015) the legislature appropriated $111.5 million for capital improvements based on replacement values of $10.1 billion. After the Utah Legislature appropriates the money for capital improvement, the State Building Board, which has been designated by statute, allocates the funds to agency and institution improvement projects. Each year higher education institutions and state agencies submit lists of capital improvement project requests to the State Building Board, which then prioritizes projects and allocates funding beginning with lifesafety critical projects and then taking into account an agency s or institution s proportionate share of square feet and facilities. Once allocated, projects are overseen and managed by the State s Division of Facilities and Construction Management with the exception of projects allocated to Utah s two research institutions which have been delegated project management. While the 1.1 percent does not cover all of the capital improvement needs for our colleges and universities, it does provide stable funding for these critical investments.

18 Vermont I am responding to your deferred maintenance funding survey on behalf of the University of Vermont (UVM). The State of Vermont has, for past several years, provided an annual appropriation of about $1.4 million/year for deferred maintenance for UVM. This is the only funding of any kind that the State provides to the University that is designated for facilities. The backlog was $325M as of the most recent estimate last year. We are in process of reducing that amount by $36 million by demolishing a residence hall complex and a physical sciences building. The combined investment for the new residence hall and the new STEM center will be $169M, $26M of which will be gift funding and the rest will be funded entirely by the University. There is no state money for either the STEM Center or the Residence Hall and all of the cost, after gifts, is UVM general obligation debt. The State does not issue bonds on our behalf. Virginia State Council of Higher Education Washington the capital budget here includes appropriations to each public baccalaureate institution and the Comm./Technical College system both for minor works and Preventative Facilities Maintenance and Building System Repairs While Virginia tends to be one of the worst supported states in terms of GF per student we do have a couple very important programs such as Maintenance Reserve and the Higher Education Equipment Trust Fund (both are off-book or off-line so to speak because their financing is not part of the institutions regular budgets) that have made a difference over the last 30 years or so

19 West Virginia Wisconsin Historically, the response for the State of Wisconsin is (a), there is a special biennial capital bonding appropriation available to all state agencies targeted specifically for the maintenance, renovation, and repair of those buildings supported by tax dollars. The University of Wisconsin System is one of the state agencies that traditionally receives these funds. The amount of funding made available to state agencies and targeted to the University of Wisconsin System varies each biennium. The following excerpt summarizes this account: Page 1 of 13 - Wisconsin Department of Administration Page 2 of CAPITAL BUDGET OVERVIEW I. Capital Budget Overview The Capital Budget, also known as the State Building Program, includes the construction of new Read more... "2) All-Agency Projects The All-Agency Program was established to provide funding for the maintenance, repair, and renovation of state facilities and related infrastructure. All-Agency projects help extend the useful life of buildings, correct code deficiencies, improve safety and reliability, and can decrease operating costs. The funding authorizations for the specific categories of work serve as the enumerations for projects in these categories: Facility Maintenance and Repair; Utility Repair and Renovation; Health, Safety, and Environmental Protection; Preventive Maintenance; Programmatic Remodeling and Renovation; Land and Property Acquisition; Capital Equipment Acquisition; and There is no specific mechanism for funding deferred mechanism in our system. Institutions are under a duty to amass reserves of their own to fund these. Occasionally there will be a bond issue or appropriation for specific deferred maintenance with usually a requirement that the institution match the amount. Our current reality this biennium, however, is (c), no new funding was made available in this account. It is unknown at this point if this is the new reality going forward, or if this biennium was an anomaly.

20 Energy Conservation The amount of funding released for a particular project depends upon priority of the work, type of work, and funding availability. All-Agency project funding is not intended to replace operating budget funds, but to maintain and protect the state's investment in its existing infrastructure. State funding will be provided only for those facilities whose construction or acquisition has been approved by the State Building Commission." "2) All-Agency Projects The All-Agency Program was established to provide funding for the maintenance, repair, and renovation of state facilities and related infrastructure. All-Agency projects help extend the useful life of buildings, correct code deficiencies, improve safety and reliability, and can decrease operating costs. The funding authorizations for the specific categories of work serve as the enumerations for projects in these categories: Facility Maintenance and Repair; Utility Repair and Renovation; Health, Safety, and Environmental Protection; Preventive Maintenance; Programmatic Remodeling and Renovation; Land and Property Acquisition; Capital Equipment Acquisition; and Energy Conservation The amount of funding released for a particular project depends upon priority of the work, type of work, and funding availability. All-Agency project funding is not intended to replace operating budget funds, but to maintain and protect the state's investment in its existing infrastructure. State funding will be provided only for those facilities whose construction or acquisition has been approved by the State Building Commission." Wyoming Community College Commission Wyoming includes a separate budget item in the biennial budget for major maintenance for the community colleges and the university. The amount is calculated on building value and then adjusted by a number of factors to reach a total for each sector's proportion of the total amount. This appropriation is separate from the amount provided for operations.