University of Alaska Anchorage Administrative Services FY11 PBAC Submission

University of Alaska Anchorage Administrative Services FY11 PBAC Submission The Administrative Services division at the University of Alaska Anchorage encompasses several functional and service areas: Athletics Budget Financial Services Business Services o General Support Services o Bookstore o Procurement o Housing/Dining o Parking Services Facilities and Campus Services o Facilities Planning and Construction o Facilities Management o Risk Management o Environmental Health and Safety o Utilities Human Resources University Police Sustainability Debt Service Total number of employees is approximately 375, with a combined budget of $57,284.9M, which includes $27,325.6 of general funds and $19,631.0M of auxiliary operations. In addition, the total budget for Administrative Services includes campus-wide needs such as utilities, debt service and lease costs (approximately $6.5M). FY10 Status Administrative Services will end the year with an approximate $130,000 deficit, due primarily to a downturn in revenue, and increased scholarship costs within Athletics. All functions within Administrative Services will be reviewed to reduce the deficit prior to year-end. In addition, the reduced research activity has impacted the indirect cost recovery revenue generation for Facilities and the Vice Chancellor s office. 1

Impact of 5%-7% General Fund Reduction A 5% - 7% general fund reduction (approximately $1.3M) would require Administrative Services to take the following actions: Reduce/eliminate positions in Financial Services, Human Resources, Facilities, and UPD Decrease hours of operation at the Wells Fargo Sports Complex Decrease travel and commodity purchases Encourage energy efficiencies to reduce utility costs o Temperature ranges enforced o Evening, weekend and holiday setbacks enforced o Equipment shut-off enforced Reduce temporary summer help Delay on filling vacancies Reduce custodial services to 4 days/week FY11 Request Administrative Services will not be requesting any additional funding for FY11. 2

ATTACHMENT V Project/Initiative Evaluation PBAC SPRING 10 Project/Initiative Title: Carrs/Safeway Great Alaska Shootout Contact: Dr. Steve Cobb, Director of Athletics E-mail: ansrc@uaa.alaska.edu Org #: 15369 - $500,000 This document is intended to provide basic assessment information for each special project or initiative program funded in FY10. This includes priority program funding from the Legislature, base funding through the UAA internal reallocation process, strategic opportunity fund awards, Chancellor s Research awards, and one-time SB137 workforce development funds. This evaluation will be used to assess the effectiveness of funded projects and programs and as part of the internal scan for the upcoming accreditation process. Please provide a brief paragraph on each question, with the total document totaling no more than two pages. 1. What were the original objectives of this initiative? (Include goals, expected outcomes, what you hoped to accomplish.) The provision of additional funding for the Carrs/Safeway Great Alaska Shootout will assist Athletics in absorbing a substantial increase in game guarantees (the cost to contract and bring up Outside Division I basketball teams). The competition between colleges to attract athletic teams to an increasing number of basketball tournaments has driven game guarantee costs to an all-time high. The additional funds will assist Athletics with the ability to negotiate contracts on a more level playing field and attract high ranking teams as well as secure a national television contract. 2. What was accomplished? (What actually happened? Include personnel hiring, status of funds spent, and any changes to original plans, goals, or objectives. What goals were met? Include specific outcomes of the project or initiative.) Shootout game guarantees, which make up 60 percent of all Athletics game guarantees, increased $138K between FY09 and FY10, and $228.7K between FY06 and FY10. The cost remains high. Approximately 15 percent of the funding to date has been used to contract Outside consultants to find, persuade and negotiate with teams to participate in the Shootout; a job Athletics staff cannot give sufficient time and resources to. To date, five teams have been signed to participate in one of the years 2010, 2011 or 2012. Funding has also allowed negotiators to offer game guarantees well beyond the standard Shootout contract scopes and limits set in the past. 3

3. What has been the impact? (How has UAA benefited from this initiative? Were additional courses offered or students served? What research was completed, what knowledge gained? What are the indicators that point to the impacts? How do the results further the strategic objectives of UAA 2017? How has the initiative affected UA Performance Measures?) The impact to date is that we were able to ensure that the Shootout did not fold and that future Shootouts have more teams signed in a timely manner. We were able to attract better Division I teams than what Athletics staff would have had by now due to their lack of time or resources to competitively recruit teams. In effect, there may have been or still could be, no more Shootout. The Shootout provides several benefits to UAA, the community and the State of Alaska: economic impact; cultural education; challenges UAA s Division II basketball teams to play at Division I level; inspires those who love the game or are just learning; brings the only highest level of college basketball to Alaska once each year; attracts some of Alaska s most prestigious leaders, including the Governor; provides incentives to local high schools to participate as hosts to each team; and, is a mainstay of Athletics budget providing approximately 15 percent of earned revenue. 4. What are the expected future outcomes of this initiative? (Where is this initiative going next? How will this initiative continue to benefit UAA and its constituents? What is the anticipated future impact on UA Performance Measures?) The competitiveness among colleges to attract teams to their basketball tournaments will eventually die down as the cost alone could force tournaments to fold. Athletics has plans to promote the Shootout at a level not seen before nor needed. The inability to attract high ranked teams has caused attendance to wane in recent years. Athletics must now try and recoup the Shootout image (and revenue) and remind fans it is still the only game in town during Thanksgiving week. It is a big piece of UAA s image as well. 5. To what extent, if any, was this initiative allocation to your unit offset by reductions? $187,000 2009 Carrs/Safeway Great Alaska Shootout game guarantees were encumbered in FY09 instead of FY10 to make use of available year-end funds and provide a cost-savings in FY10 should the Shootout be canceled. 4

ATTACHMENT V Project/Initiative Evaluation PBAC SPRING 10 Project/Initiative Title: Travel Fixed Costs Contact: Dr. Steve Cobb, Director of Athletics E-mail: ansrc@uaa.alaska.edu Org #: 153 (various) - $203,000 This document is intended to provide basic assessment information for each special project or initiative program funded in FY10. This includes priority program funding from the Legislature, base funding through the UAA internal reallocation process, strategic opportunity fund awards, Chancellor s Research awards, and one-time SB137 workforce development funds. This evaluation will be used to assess the effectiveness of funded projects and programs and as part of the internal scan for the upcoming accreditation process. Please provide a brief paragraph on each question, with the total document totaling no more than two pages. 1. What were the original objectives of this initiative? (Include goals, expected outcomes, what you hoped to accomplish.) The provision of additional travel funding for the Athletic Department will assist Athletics in absorbing mainly airline, but also other travel cost increases. These funds will enable Athletics to budget travel 100 percent and fully cover all travel costs for all NCAA sport teams and reduced administrative travel. 2. What was accomplished? (What actually happened? Include personnel hiring, status of funds spent, and any changes to original plans, goals, or objectives. What goals were met? Include specific outcomes of the project or initiative.) Approximately 90 percent of the Athletic Department travel budget costs are associated with inbound and outbound team travel. $300K was allocated for travel in FY07, FY08 and FY09 ($100K each year) and $202,500 in FY10. The department as a whole has benefited as noted by the increasing success of all teams and number of championship teams and student-athletes within the last four years. The recruiting budget overall was given a $5,000 increase to assist coaches in competing for high caliber student-athletes. Athletics travel budget is currently balanced. 5

3. What has been the impact? (How has UAA benefited from this initiative? Were additional courses offered or students served? What research was completed, what knowledge gained? What are the indicators that point to the impacts? How do the results further the strategic objectives of UAA 2017? How has the initiative affected UA Performance Measures?) The allocation of additional resources to travel has reduced the strain to this area. Athletics team travel is a fixed cost as the NCAA sets the guidelines in terms of the number of competitions allowed per season. Athletics is not increasing the volume of travel. Actual travel expenses increased over $670K from FY06 to FY10, with the greatest increase occurring during FY09 ($327K). These new challenges are clearly reflected in FY09 game guarantees where inbound travel costs increased $125K over FY08 and were still increasing in FY10. Outside teams are less willing and able to pay the cost to travel to Alaska. The current and past years of funding allocations to travel have truly helped Athletics to keep up with the cost of business. 4. What are the expected future outcomes of this initiative? (Where is this initiative going next? How will this initiative continue to benefit UAA and its constituents? What is the anticipated future impact on UA Performance Measures?) The ultimate goal of this initiative is to stabilize athletic travel costs from year-to-year with sustainable resources to permit ease of travel to and from the Lower 48 so that UAA athletic teams may continue to be competitive and successful. Until the airline and travel industry stabilize costs, Athletics is at the mercy of their increases. FY10 projections show outbound travel up $60,000 over FY09 and inbound travel up $81,000 over FY09. 5. To what extent, if any, was this initiative allocation to your unit offset by reductions? $13,000 Cuts to Athletic Administrative staff travel as compared to FY09 actual costs. $8,700 - The Athletic Director and three Athletic coaches did not travel to the Final Four or Shootout Reception. 6

ATTACHMENT V Project/Initiative Evaluation PBAC SPRING 10 Project/Initiative Title: ISB Operations and Maintenance Contact: Susie Arnold or Chris Turletes E-mail:ansa@uaa.alaska.edu; ancmt2@uaa.alaska.edu Org #: This document is intended to provide basic assessment information for each special project or initiative program funded in FY10. This includes priority program funding from the Legislature, base funding through the UAA internal reallocation process, strategic opportunity fund awards, Chancellor s Research awards, and one-time SB137 workforce development funds. This evaluation will be used to assess the effectiveness of funded projects and programs and as part of the internal scan for the upcoming accreditation process. Please provide a brief paragraph on each question, with the total document totaling no more than two pages. 1. What were the original objectives of this initiative? (Include goals, expected outcomes, what you hoped to accomplish.) The intent of this funding was to be able to operate the ISB (lights, heating, cooling, cleaning, exterior operations, and M&R). The estimated cost for operating the facility for a year was $1.8M since we were really only operating it 10 months or so in FY10 and not a full capacity we could get by with the legislative amount of $1.025. 2. What was accomplished? (What actually happened? Include personnel hiring, status of funds spent, and any changes to original plans, goals, or objectives. What goals were met? Include specific outcomes of the project or initiative.) Due to the science building not being fully operational, a fairly mild winter and built in highly efficient equipment we were able to operate the ISB at about $100K per month on the average for the 8 months we have data for. 3. What has been the impact? (How has UAA benefited from this initiative? Were additional courses offered or students served? What research was completed, what knowledge gained? What are the indicators that point to the impacts? How do the results further the strategic objectives of UAA 2017? How has the initiative affected UA Performance Measures?) The impact of the funding was that we were able to get in the building and uses it for its intended purpose. Classrooms, offices, research and teaching lab space. The building is large and sophisticated and has hundreds of pieces of equipment that 7

need attention, filter replacement and periodic servicing. We do expect this building to cost more than the average cost of about $8 per GSF to operate. Due to its energy demands we expect it to cost closer to $13 per GSF to operate when it is in full use. 4. What are the expected future outcomes of this initiative? (Where is this initiative going next? How will this initiative continue to benefit UAA and its constituents? What is the anticipated future impact on UA Performance Measures?) It is expected that the Legislature will fund the full operating costs for this building in the FY11 budget. 5. To what extent, if any, was this initiative allocation to your unit offset by reductions? The University supplemented operational cost including staff funding (EHS) and other through a onetime gift. 8

ATTACHMENT V Project/Initiative Evaluation PBAC SPRING 10 Project/Initiative Title: Facilities Cost Increase $315,000 Contact: Rick Mason E-mail:anrim@uaa.alaska.edu Org #: 17075; 17012 This document is intended to provide basic assessment information for each special project or initiative program funded in FY10. This includes priority program funding from the Legislature, base funding through the UAA internal reallocation process, strategic opportunity fund awards, Chancellor s Research awards, and one-time SB137 workforce development funds. This evaluation will be used to assess the effectiveness of funded projects and programs and as part of the internal scan for the upcoming accreditation process. Please provide a brief paragraph on each question, with the total document totaling no more than two pages. 1. What were the original objectives of this initiative? (Include goals, expected outcomes, what you hoped to accomplish.) The intent of the additional $315K in FY10 was to allow Facilities Custodial to cover an expected increase in the new custodial contract, plus fund the contract additional work as well as to fund an additional staff member, and provide that employee with relevant training and equipment. 2. What was accomplished? (What actually happened? Include personnel hiring, status of funds spent, and any changes to original plans, goals, or objectives. What goals were met? Include specific outcomes of the project or initiative.) We were able to fund the base contract of approximately $1.001M per year plus fund the above and beyond cleaning costs now at about $80K per year (extra services, before/after event services, deep cleaning areas where there is heavy use, extra carpet cleaning). We have been able to fund from the custodial budget an additional staff person to be used as a day porter to cover evening and weekend needs. A few years ago we added weekend coverage to meet the needs of campus events and routine activities over the weekend and preclude trash buildup over the weekend, keep restrooms and common areas cleaned. 3. What has been the impact? (How has UAA benefited from this initiative? Were additional courses offered or students served? What research was completed, what knowledge gained? What are the indicators that point to the impacts? How do the 9

results further the strategic objectives of UAA 2017? How has the initiative affected UA Performance Measures?) More accurate record keeping for custodial expenses (for years other operational entities have contributed to the cost of the custodial operation). Now the custodial budget covers the custodial costs. Allowed for expanded evening and weekend coverage with a staff day porter person (hauls out trash, cleans and restocks restrooms, sanding, sweeping snow removal around doors, first responder if after normal maintenance shift). Also raised the labor rate from Custodial to MSW1 for 3 staff. Campus common areas are cleaner, neater over the weekend. Restrooms are serviced; Trash is picked up immediately after an event rather than languishing until the Sunday night contractor response. Improved rodent control; improved response time to UPD calls for service in the evenings and weekends. We also intend to replace some of the custodial equipment long overdue for replacement. 4. What are the expected future outcomes of this initiative? (Where is this initiative going next? How will this initiative continue to benefit UAA and its constituents? What is the anticipated future impact on UA Performance Measures?) Level of cleaning service and custodial support response would be satisfactory throughout the week, evenings and on the weekend. Timely replacement of supplies, equipment and staff. Continue to provide base contract services, above and beyond contract required cleaning, and be able to wash windows at the minimum specified rate. All this improves the overall health, safety and cleanliness of the campus environment. 5. To what extent, if any, was this initiative allocation to your unit offset by reductions? N/A 10

ATTACHMENT V Project/Initiative Evaluation PBAC SPRING 10 Project/Initiative Title: Environmental Health and Safety--$100,000 Contact: Trig E-mail:trig@uaa.alaska.edu Org #:16089 This document is intended to provide basic assessment information for each special project or initiative program funded in FY10. This includes priority program funding from the Legislature, base funding through the UAA internal reallocation process, strategic opportunity fund awards, Chancellor s Research awards, and one-time SB137 workforce development funds. This evaluation will be used to assess the effectiveness of funded projects and programs and as part of the internal scan for the upcoming accreditation process. Please provide a brief paragraph on each question, with the total document totaling no more than two pages. 1. What were the original objectives of this initiative? (Include goals, expected outcomes, what you hoped to accomplish.) The intent of the additional $100K in FY10 was to allow EHS to hire an additional staff member, provide that employee with relevant training and equipment. 2. What was accomplished? (What actually happened? Include personnel hiring, status of funds spent, and any changes to original plans, goals, or objectives. What goals were met? Include specific outcomes of the project or initiative.) A third person (Director plus 2) was added to the EHS staff. His background is in Civil Engineering with strong environmental experience. He is very well trained so training expense was minimal. We also were able to hire locally so did not have to pay relocation costs. 3. What has been the impact? (How has UAA benefited from this initiative? Were additional courses offered or students served? What research was completed, what knowledge gained? What are the indicators that point to the impacts? How do the results further the strategic objectives of UAA 2017? How has the initiative affected UA Performance Measures?) He was instrumental in helping to set up ISB for safe operational and has allowed us to actively review on campus EHS conditions and recommend and or implement solutions. He has been involved with SW EHS/RM in populating the Intellex data 11

base with UAA stuff. We also used part of this fund for a student hire to accomplish data entry. 4. What are the expected future outcomes of this initiative? (Where is this initiative going next? How will this initiative continue to benefit UAA and its constituents? What is the anticipated future impact on UA Performance Measures?) This is a necessary position. This person will be used to continue to keep UAA students, staff and faculty safe by working with departments, researchers and staff and students on EHS issues and as a resource for UAA to use for training and or technical expertise. 5. To what extent, if any, was this initiative allocation to your unit offset by reductions? N/A 12