USF Board of Trustees (March 21, 2013)

Agenda item: (to be completed by Board staff) USF Board of Trustees (March 21, 2013) Issue: Capital Improvement Trust Fund Fee Increase - Tampa Proposed action: Approve increase of Capital Improvement Trust Fund Fee Background information: The Capital Improvement Fee is collected at the time of registration for classes as authorized under Florida Statute 1009.24. Board of Governors Regulation 7.003 (as amended to incorporate provisions in HB 5201, 2012 legislative session) provides for a fall 2013 increase in the Capital Improvement Fee and establishes guidelines for increasing the University of South Florida s Capital Improvement Fee. Universities must establish a fee committee to decide whether to recommend a fee increase and the Boards of Trustees must approve proposed increases to the Capital Improvement Fee prior to being submitted to the Board of Governors. The Capital Improvement Fee Committee met on February 12, 2013 and voted to increase this fee by $1.24. The capital improvement fee will be $8.00 if the recommended increase is approved. The increase is requested to finance further enhancements to the Tampa Library ($0.41), enhancements, renovations, and health and safety for the Marshall Student Center ($0.42) and health and safety for wellness/recreation activities ($0.41). The Capital Improvement Fee Committee is composed of three students appointed by the Student Body President, three faculty or staff members appointed by the University President, and a chairperson appointed jointly by the University President and the Student Body President. Strategic Goal(s) Item Supports: Goal II Promoting globally competitive undergraduate, graduate and professional programs that support interdisciplinary inquiry, intellectual development, knowledge and skill acquisition, and student success through a diverse, fully- engaged, learnercentered campus environment. Goal III Expanding local and global engagement initiatives to strengthen and sustain healthy communities and to improve the quality of life

Goal IV Enhancing all sources of revenue, and maximizing effectiveness in business practices and financial management to establish a strong and sustainable economic base in support of USF s growth. Workgroup Review: Finance and Audit Workgroup Supporting Documentation: SUS Tuition and Required Fees, 2012-13, USF Tampa Fee Committee Signed Recommendation, USF Tampa Capital Improvement Trust Fund Committee Agenda and Minutes Prepared by: Harold Bower on behalf of Dr. Denita Siscoe, Interim VP of Student Affairs

Public Colleges and Universities of Florida, Tuition and Required Fees, 2012-13 For New Undergraduates in Main Campus UF FSU FAMU USF-T USF-SP USF-SM FAU UWF UCF FIU UNF FGCU NCF AVG Main Campus Local Fees - per credit hour Activity & Service $16.06 $12.24 $10.50 $11.71 $25.05 $20.19 $12.32 $13.30 $10.79 $12.87 $14.47 $11.24 $16.65 $14.41 Athletic $1.90 $7.54 $13.97 $14.46 $2.45 $4.23 $17.27 $19.39 $13.44 $14.10 $14.33 $12.79 $6.28 $10.93 Changing NCAA Athletic Divisions $2.00 $2.00 $4.00 $2.67 Health $13.82 $13.42 $6.91 $9.73 $3.90 $4.03 $9.42 $7.23 $10.30 $9.76 $8.79 $4.58 $8.49 Campus Access/Trans $8.41 $8.90 $3.00 $2.25 $8.00 $9.10 $4.08 $8.70 $6.56 Green Fee $1.00 $1.00 $0.75 $1.00 $0.94 Other (USF Marshall Center Fee - $1.5, FSU Student Affairs Facility Use Fee - $2, UNF Student Life and Services Fee - $5.16. $2.00 $1.50 $5.16 $2.89 Subtotal $40.19 $44.10 $31.38 $41.40 $34.65 $28.45 $39.01 $48.67 $43.63 $28.97 $49.80 $45.52 $28.51 $38.79 Technology Fee for Undergraduate $5.16 $5.16 $5.16 $5.16 $5.16 $5.16 $5.16 $5.16 $5.16 $5.16 $5.16 $5.15 $5.16 $5.16 Main Campus Local Fees - block per term Activity & Service $7.00 $7.00 Athletic $10.00 $5.00 $5.00 $10.00 $7.50 Health $83.19 $83.19 Access/Trans $65.00 $76.90 $88.94 $76.95 USF Marshall Center or FSU Student Affairs Facility Use $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 Subtotal $20.00 $65.00 $37.00 $5.00 $5.00 $76.90 $182.13 $55.86 The Capital Improvement Trust Fund (CITF) fee, per credit hour (combines formerly Building fee + CITF fee) CITF $6.76 $4.76 $6.76 $6.76 $6.76 $6.76 $6.76 $6.76 $6.76 $6.76 $6.76 $6.76 $6.14 $6.56 Resident Undergraduate, per credit hour Tuition $103.32 $103.32 $103.32 $103.32 $103.32 $103.32 $103.32 $103.32 $103.32 $103.32 $103.32 $103.32 $103.32 $103.32 Tuition Differential Fee $44.17 $49.59 $36.38 $46.88 $35.14 $35.14 $40.13 $38.88 $44.20 $52.29 $37.63 $36.38 $40.13 $41.30 Financial Aid $5.16 $5.16 $5.16 $5.16 $5.16 $5.16 $5.16 $5.16 $5.16 $5.16 $5.16 $5.15 $5.16 $5.16 Subtotal $152.65 $158.07 $144.86 $155.36 $143.62 $143.62 $148.61 $147.36 $152.68 $160.77 $146.11 $144.85 $148.61 $149.78 Resident Undergraduate, total 2 Sem (30 hrs.) $6,142.80 $6,402.70 $5,774.80 $6,334.40 $5,715.70 $5,529.70 $6,140.00 $6,238.50 $6,246.90 $6,414.06 $6,234.90 $6,068.40 $5,652.60 $6,068.88 Per hour $204.76 $213.42 $192.49 $211.14 $190.52 $184.32 $204.66 $207.95 $208.23 $213.80 $207.83 $202.28 $188.42 $202.29 Non-Resident Undergraduate, per credit hour Tuition & Out-of-State Fee $810.53 $584.80 $482.39 $418.32 $418.32 $418.32 $597.18 $512.26 $614.38 $496.94 $562.34 $707.90 $712.55 $564.33 Tuition Differential Fee $44.17 $49.59 $36.38 $46.88 $35.14 $35.14 $40.13 $38.88 $44.20 $52.29 $37.63 $36.38 $40.13 $41.30 Financial Aid $40.52 $29.23 $24.11 $20.91 $20.91 $20.91 $29.85 $25.61 $30.71 $24.84 $28.11 $35.36 $35.62 $28.21 Subtotal $895.22 $663.62 $542.88 $486.11 $474.37 $474.37 $667.16 $576.75 $689.29 $574.07 $628.08 $779.64 $788.30 $633.84 Non-Resident Undergraduate, total 2 Sem (30 hrs.) $28,419.90 $21,569.20 $17,715.40 $16,256.90 $15,638.20 $15,452.20 $21,696.50 $19,120.20 $22,345.20 $18,813.06 $20,694.00 $25,112.10 $24,843.30 $20,590.47 Per hour $947.33 $718.97 $590.51 $541.89 $521.27 $515.07 $723.21 $637.34 $744.84 $627.10 $689.80 $837.07 $828.11 $686.35 Note 1: Per SCH attributable to changing NCAA Divisions. Per 1009.24(3) - Universities can charge up to an additional $2 per SCH if changing NCAA divisions. These fees are not reimbursable under Bright Futures. Note 2: Students for PharmD (FAMU) and Doctoral of Physical Therapy (FAMU, FGCU, FIU, and UNF) are charged regular graduate tuition and fees. Note 3: USF-T (USF-Tampa), USF-SP (USF-St. Petersburg), USF-SM (USF-Sarasota-Manatee) Office of Institutional Research,SUS 2012-13-SUS-Tuition-and-Fee-for-New-Students-at-Main-Campus-by-level (1).xlsx, 2/12/2013

CITF Committee Meeting Agenda February 12, 2013 Marshall Student Center, Room 2702 Committee Members: Joann Strobbe, Chair John Belohlavek (Staff) Scott Besley (Staff) Robert MacLeod (Staff) Helin Jeff Gao (Student) Christopher Gryniewicz (Student) Taylor Lockwood (Student) I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Introductions IV. CITF Committee Update (Harold Bower) V. Deliberations VI. Concluding Remarks/Adjournment

Minutes from the Capital Improvement Trust Fund Committee Meeting February 12, 2013 Marshall Student Center, Room 2702 Committee Members: Joann Strobbe, Chair John Belohlavek (Staff) Scott Besley (Staff) Robert MacLeod (Staff) Helin Jeff Gao (Student) Chris Gryniewicz (Student) Taylor Lockwood (Student) Observers: Bobbi Almirola, Student Affairs Harold Bower, Student Affairs Rachel Clouse, Student Affairs (minutes) Nick Setteducato, Provost s Office Joann Strobbe called the meeting to order at 11:21 a.m. Ms. Strobbe began the meeting with a roll call of committee members. All members present except Robert MacLeod and Chris Gryniewicz. There was a quorum to continue. Both Mr. MacLeod and Mr. Gryniewicz joined the meeting around 11:23 a.m. Ms. Strobbe discussed that the charge of the committee would be to consider an increase to the Capital Improvement Trust Fund of up to the $2.00 cap. She further stated that currently most institutions across the state are inclined to raise the fee the full $2.00. Ms. Strobbe explained that the money is distributed from the state based on the institutions fee and what they contribute to the fund. Ms. Strobbe asked Mr. Bower to elaborate on the charge. He then discussed that there is concern that by not increasing the fee we would fall behind all other state institutions that do increase the fee. He discussed the history of the fee and stated that before this past year s increase, the fee had not been increased in approximately 15 years. This past fiscal year, the committee agreed to raise the fee the full $2.00 and the statutes now allow for an up to $2.00 increase each year. Mr. Bower explained to the committee that they would not only need to decide if the fee would be raised but also by how much. Ms. Strobbe then discussed that previously almost all institutions raised the fee by the full $2.00 and stated that the total $2.00 increase would raise approximately $1.9 million dollars. The

impact to students is calculated at approximately $1.00 per credit hour so a full time student with 30 credit hours would have an increase in fees of approximately $30.00 a year. The BOT Finance and Audit workgroup would need to approve of the increase at its February 28 th board meeting. Dr. Belohlavek questioned how the statute defines capital improvement. Mr. Bower stated that it is broadly defined in statutes and that it is linked to student activities but not necessarily linked to student affairs. Mr. Bower further explained that faculty buildings cannot be built using this fund and traditionally PECO funds belonged to academic affairs while CITF funds were predominately student affairs. The funds are flexible enough that they can be used for either improvements or construction. Ms. Strobbe then clarified for the committee that they would not have to decide on specific projects if an increase is approved and that at the time of disbursements of the funds, a committee would be created to decide the allocation to specific projects. Dr. MacLeod questioned whether or not the fees could be held over a period of time to allow for larger projects or if the funds are dispensed every year. Mr. Bower and Ms. Strobbe both stated that the funds are typically distributed every two to three years. Dr. Belohlavek asked if the money could be bonded. Mr. Bower affirmed that it could. Dr. Belohlavek discussed that since utilities are still being used across the state, he is unsure why PECO monies are becoming so limited. He questioned why the state is only funding operating costs and maintenance but not new construction. Ms. Strobbe stated that revenue levels across the state are down and the money for PECO is low but she is unsure how the money has been invested. Dr. Belohlavek stated that he does not know anyone who can give a financial figure of how much PECO money is available to spend. Ms. Strobbe then discussed that she is aware that other campuses are looking at funding academic type building with the CITF funds. Mr. Bower stated that as long as there is a student function to the building (i.e. Library) then CITF funds can be used. Mr. Gao further explained that the funds could not be used on Academic Halls, Professor Offices, or labs. Mr. Gao stated that he does not feel that the University is in the best fiscal state currently do consider new buildings but he does feel that maintaining the current buildings is essential. Dr. Belohlavek asked if there are currently any new buildings on the table for USF. Mr. Bower explained that the Wellness Center which has three phases would pull Campus Recreation, Counseling Center, and Wellness all together in one building and a portion of this funding is coming from the CITF fee raised this past fiscal year. Ms. Strobbe then explained to the committee that the proposed projects for the $2.00 increase last year were the Marshall Student

Center 3 floor addition, Phase 2 of the Wellness Center at Campus recreation, Athletic fields and the library. Ms. Strobbe then asked for the record to reflect that all members of the committee are in attendance. Mr. Gao stated that he feels that there has been a substantial increase to fees all around and he is not prepared to burden the students with another full $2.00 increase. However, he does feel that an increase is warranted but he would like to reserve his opinion on how much until the rest of the committee has discussed their opinions. Ms. Strobbe then discussed that the Governor is not supportive of tuition increases this year and he did not build a tuition increase into his budget. Mr. Gao stated that he is not confident that there would not be a tuition increase. He then asked Mr. Bower what the cons would be if USF fell behind on the full increase compared to other Universities. Mr. Bower stated that we would not have as much available to maintain a comparable level with other Universities. He further explained that there would be no way to catch up to other Universities that pass a full increase. Once you are behind, you are always behind. Mr. Setteducato affirmed Harold s statements. Mr. Gao then stated that we should not compare ourselves to other Universities. Mr. Bower stated that if the Governor vetoes issuing bonds then the monies available to the Universities would be less. He then stated that currently Student Health Services has outgrown the space available and cannot provide all services like dental care and vision due to space confinements. The Counseling Center is another example, just within Student Affairs, that have to turn away students due to space confinements which limit their availability. Mr. Bower stated that there are many ways CITF monies could be used even if only using them in a traditional sense. Dr. MacLeod then discussed that the fee is a gift from current students to future students and by increasing the fee; you help build your alma mater. He stated that as an example booking a room on campus is currently very difficult. We have to put first class lectures and visitors in second class rooms and as USF grows, this issue will only get worse. Dr. MacLeod feels that Universities are like cities and are in constant need of improvements and redesigns. He further discussed that prospective students make decisions about a University within seconds of coming to a campus and the physical presence of the University is important. He feels that USF, with the exception of the Marshall Student Center has a mediocre infrastructure. Increasing the fee would put a long term investment in the University and its buildings. Dr. Besley then asked if there were any alternatives. He questioned whether or not a building would go without repair if the fee is not increased. He stated that he understood that it might be more expensive to wait on repairs than to fix them early on. Mr. Setteducato stated that he feels

there is also an entrepreneurial aspect to raising the fee. He stated that you have to meet the needs of the University now but also build for the future. Dr. Besley then questioned how the funds are administered. Ms. Strobbe explained that it is a trust fund and the monies go into the state. The state then will allocate the money back to the Universities based on what the Universities put in as well as student contact hours. Dr. Besley questioned how the state makes the decision on when to allocate the funds. Ms. Strobbe stated that she believes that the state decides based on when the corpus is substantial enough to allocate and that it has typically been every two to three years. She further explained that the state keeps a minimum in the fund and they do bond and invest the fund. The trust fund is restrictive on the types of projects it is able to fund. Mr. Lockwood gave his opinion to the committee and stated that he felt that it was a dangerous precedent to try and mimic other Universities with the fee increase when USF should be trying to mimic them academically first. He further stated that he felt the University is doing fine with what they currently have and he feels they need to be patient moving forward. He stressed that academically is where USF should be focusing and he does not want to burden the students with another fee increase. Mr. Gryniewicz then stated that when money is needed for repairs, the University seems to find funds available to help. Ms. Strobbe then asked the committee to at least consider a small increase to show that there is an interest in the campus. Mr. Lockwood stated that less than a year before, this same committee showed their interest in the campus by approving a full $2.00 increase. He does not feel another increase is warranted at this time. He further stated that FSU did not increase their fee and they are doing fine. Mr. Gao stated that he would be inclined to a small increase but not the full increase. Mr. Setteducato pointed out the benefits of the fee. He stated that improving health and safety on campus as well as adding and improving current facilities improve the academic experience of the student and attract students to this campus. Mr. Setteducato further explained that this fee is related to academic success and should not be treated as a separate entity. He stated that UF and FSU have endowments and advancements that have been created over time and for USF to not raise the fee at all would limit the University in the future which is contrary to building up an investment base. He pointed out that if the committee is not willing to invest in the future then why should outside investors. Dr. MacLeod then stated that he felt it was wise to raise the fee and the fiscal plan is critical to the University. He then made a motion to approve the full $2.00 increase. There was no second to the motion so the motion failed.

Dr. Besley then asked what efforts are being made in terms of supporting the University privately. Mr. Setteducato stated that the alumni base and community support is low due to USF being relatively young. There is currently not as high of a legacy as UF or FSU and both of these universities have access to endowments. However, he further stated that if you look at the overall value of USF, the cost of education is lower than other universities. Mr. Setteducato stated that he does understand that the burden to students is high but he asks the committee to consider staying competitive with other state universities and investing in USF s legacy. Dr. Belohlavek motioned to raise the fee $1.00. Mr. Gryniewicz seconded the motion. Mr. Gao then stated that he was inclined to raise the fee by $1.24 to make it an even $8.00. He stated that he calculated that every $0.10 is approximately $93,000.00. Dr. Besley made a friendly amendment to the motion to increase the fee $1.24. Dr. Belohlavek accepted the amendment and Mr. Gao seconded the amendment. There was a vote on the motion. Dr. Besley, Dr. Belohlavek, Dr. MacLeod, Mr. Gryniewicz, and Mr. Gao approved the motion. Mr. Lockwood dissented. The motion to raise the fee $1.24 passed with a majority vote. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.