2014-03-19 Joint Work Session CITY COUNCIL - BOROUGH ASSEMBLY
JOINT WORK SESSION AGENDA
Wednesday, March 19, 2014, 6:30 p.m.
Assembly Chambers
(Borough Chairing)
Joint work sessions are informal meetings of the Borough Assembly and City Council
where elected officials discuss issues that affect both Borough and City governments
and residents. Although additional items not listed on the joint work session agenda are
sometimes discussed when introduced by elected officials, staff, or members of the
public, no formal action is taken at joint work sessions and items that require formal
action are placed on a regular Borough Assembly and/or City Council meeting agenda.
Public comments at work sessions are NOT considered part of the official record. Public
comments intended for the "official record"should be made at a regular Borough
Assembly or City Council meeting.
Page
1. Public Comments (limited to 3 minutes each)
2. Items for Discussion
2 - 13 A. Community Statement to the North Pacific Fisheries Management
AA Council on Gulf of Alaska Trawl Bycatch Management
Kodiak FWG work product re comment to NPFMC draft.pdf
R13-10, CGOA Purpose & Need, Council Motion.pdf
B. Washington DC Lobbying Trip Discussion
14 - 41 C. University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Options
Summary and Analysis
BOG Options Summary and Analysis.pdf
Page 1 of 41
AGENDA ITEM #2.A.
DRAFT
Comment to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
GOA Trawl Bycatch Management
From the City and Borough of Kodiak
Based around community goals, linked to elements of the Council
framework motion, and additional elements
Attachments:
Joint Resolution FY2013-10
Council purpose and need statement. and framework motion
1. Provide effective controls of prohibited species catch and other
bycatch to provide for balanced and sustainable fisheries and healthy
harvesting and processing sectors.
Applicable elements of the Council motion:
Strongly support the Council's initiative to reduce bycatch, and encourage
timely Council progress in advancing the cooperative management program.
Support continued expansion and analysis of Section I of the framework
motion. Bycatch Management, particularly Part (a). Reduced PSC, and Part
(c). Cooperative Management.
Support Section 2 of the framework motion, calling for 100% observer
coverage.
2. Maintain or increase target fishery landings and revenues to Kodiak.
Applicable elements of the Council motion:
Support Section 5. Allocated Species. which anticipates that the program
would allocate target species pollock and Pacific cod, and PSC species
including halibut and Chinook salmon.
Page 2 of 41
Community Statement to the North Pacific Fisheries Managemen...
AGENDA ITEM #2.A.
Support continued analysis of Section 7. both Part (b). and the Part (b)
Option. Part (b) would require target species to be landed within the region
(either Western Gulf or Central Gulf/West Yakutat) to which the fish had
been delivered historically. The Part (b) Option would require target species
in the Central Gulf that had been historically landed in Kodiak to continue to
be landed in Kodiak.
3. Maintain or increase employment opportunities for vessel crews,
processing workers, and support industries.
Applicable elements of the Council motion:
For maintaining processing worker and support industries, support the
continuing analysis of the sections listed under Goal #2 above, that help
maintain historic landings of target species in Kodiak (or in the region).
Support continued analysis of Section 6 regarding the potential structural
elements required in the voluntary cooperatives, particularly Parts (d) and (e)
and (f).
Part (d) deals with the required duration of the initial cooperatives (two
years).
Part (e)deals with cooperative contracts between processors and harvesters,
and cooperative exit strategy: it also contains an option for requiring
community sign-off on cooperative contracts, thereby enabling community
participation in the cooperative management structure. More information on
this option will allow community members to deliberate on how community
participation might be best accomplished.
Part (f) deals with potential additional contract elements that align with the
goals of the community and the Council, such as bycatch management,
active participation requirements, mechanisms to facilitate entry, and other
community provisions. It was noted that the community could potentially
bring these additional elements to the contract structure.
For maintaining vessel crew opportunities, support continued analysis of
Section 7, which deals with limiting consolidation through setting caps on
vessel use, on allocation percentages held, and on processors.
Page 3 of 41
Community Statement to the North Pacific Fisheries Managemen...
AGENDA ITEM #2.A.
Support adding a provision for analysis that would also set a cap on the
percentage of quota that could be held in one cooperative.
Additional element:
Consider support for adding an element to the analysis that provides for
community quota banks, (sometimes referred to as Community Fishing
Associations). Criteria for participation in community quota banks could
include crew pay and local crew hire requirements, and other community
provisions.
The concept of community entity ownership of some portion of groundfish
harvest quota is an issue that has been discussed both at the Council table
and the Council workshop, and in Kodiak FWG meetings. The discussion
paper describes several types of entities that own fishing quota; New
England has two state-run quota banks (New Hampshire and Maine) and
seven private non-profit quota banks that lease out groundfish, surf clam and
scallop quota, which was purchased through various financing programs.
4. Provide increased opportunities for value-added processing.
Applicable elements of the Council motion:
The slowing down of the fishery for both harvesters and processors, through
a cooperative management structure, facilitates the industry's ability to
realize greater utilization of the resource, including value-added processing.
5. Maintain opportunities for fishermen to enter the fishery.
Applicable elements of the Council motion:
Support continued and expanded analysis of Section I. Part (b), which deals
with duration of shares and calls fora portion of target species share
allocations to be evaluated for retention based on achievement of Council
bycatch targets and other Council objectives. The discussion paper notes that
any subsequent redistribution of share allocations could be made to existing
shareholders, or to groups that organize as a fishing community non-profit.
Support expanded analysis of Section 7, Part (a) on consolidation limits
through ownership and use (vessel) caps.
Page 4 of 41
Community Statement to the North Pacific Fisheries Managemen...
AGENDA ITEM #2.A.
Support expanded analysis of Section 7. Part (c), which requires individuals
or entities to meet fishery participation criteria, or other criteria, to purchase
an eligible license with associated history.
The Part (c) provision could help prevent the acquisition of available quota
by entities with no fishery participation. In addition, the discussion paper
notes that transfer limitations could be structured as a right of first refusal
(ROFR), where local acquisition of available quota is given priority. Also,
the Council could consider making transfer limitations a means of
maintaining an owner-operated fleet,or of providing other ways of tying
licenses and quota to a community.
Support continued analysis of Section 8 on Transferability. Part(b). which
allows the severing of target species history from an LLP. This could allow
the harvester with little or no quota the opportunity to add to his quota
without purchasing an additional LLP and a large block of quota.
Additional element:
Consider support for adding to the analysis an element that provides for
communities holding quota. (See the discussion on this additional element
under Goal #3 above.) Criteria for community quota banks could include
providing additional quota to a harvester who has under a certain amount of
quota, or little or no initial allocation, facilitating the continued participation
of harvesters in the rationalized fisheries.
6. Maintain opportunities for processers to enter the fishery.
Applicable elements of the Council motion:
Support continued analysis of Section 6. Part (e), regarding the rules
governing the ability of a harvester to exit an initial cooperative associated
with his historical processor. Theoretically, the harvester could then enter
into a cooperative with another processor, which could theoretically be a
new entrant into the fishery.
Support continued analysis of Section 7. Part (a), second bullet, which
provides for processor caps in each area.
Page 5 of 41
Community Statement to the North Pacific Fisheries Managemen...
AGENDA ITEM #2.A.
7. Minimize adverse economic impacts of consolidation of the harvesting
or processing sectors.
See the discussions on limiting consolidation under Goals#3, #5 and #6
above.
8. Maximize active participation by owners of harvesting vessels and
fishing privileges.
I f this community goal refers to inclusion of owner-on-board requirements,
it would require adding that provision to the motion for analysis, as it is not
currently included.
9. Maintain the economic strength and vitality of Kodiak's working
waterfront.
This is incorporated in the discussions regarding the Goals above.
10. Establish methods to measure success and impacts of all programs,
including collection and analysis of baseline and after-action data.
Applicable elements of the Council motion:
Support robust data collection and reporting requirements, including
continued analysis of maintaining the ability for reporting on cooperatives,
in light of confidentiality requirements.
Additional element:
Support the Council action requiring reviews of the management program,
including the five-year review required by the Magnuson Stevens Act, and
possible reviews at the one and three year marks.
Page 6 of 41
Community Statement to the North Pacific Fisheries Managemen...
AGENDA ITEM #2.A.
1 Introduced by: Borough Assembly
2 Requested by: Kodiak Fisheries Workgroup
3 Drafted by: Borough Clerk
Introduced on: 09/20/2012
4 Adopted on: 09/20/2012
5
6 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
7 RESOLUTION NO. FY2013-10
8
9 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY AND THE
10 CITY OF KODIAK COUNCIL SUPPORTING COMMENTS TO THE NORTH PACIFIC
11 FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL ON PENDING ACTIONS REGARDING
12 COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF PROHIBITED SPECIES CATCH (PSC) BY THE
13 TRAWL FISHERY IN THE CENTRAL GULF OF ALASKA
14
15 WHEREAS, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council is considering the need for
16 and beginning development of a comprehensive program to manage prohibited species
17 catch by the trawl fleet of the central Gulf of Alaska; and
18
19 WHEREAS, any such comprehensive management program for fisheries in the central
20 Gulf of Alaska will have major and direct effects on the economy and well-being of
21 residents of the Kodiak region; and
22
23 WHEREAS, National Standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
24 Management Act require that federal fishery management decisions take into account the
25 importance of fishery resources to fishing communities, in order to provide for the
26 sustained participation of such communities and minimize adverse economic impacts on
27 such communities; and
26
29 WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak represent the
30 communities of the Kodiak region, rather than individual user groups or fishing interests;
31 and
32
33 WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak have begun a program to
34 participate directly in public processes for fishery policy decision-making as outlined in
35 Resolution No. FY2013-09 of the Kodiak Island Borough
36
37 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED BY THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
38 ASSEMBLY AND THE CITY OF KODIAK COUNCIL that these bodies support the Kodiak
39 Fisheries Workgroup's proposed overarching purpose for consideration of fishery
40 management issues of interest and concern to the Kodiak region as follows:
41
42 Overarching Purpose:
43 1. Maintain healthy, sustainable resources in the central (and western) Gulf of Alaska.
44 2. Promote a sustainable, vigorous economy in the Kodiak region with healthy and
45 competitive harvesting and processing sectors and support industries.
46 3. Maintain quality of life and social well-being in Kodiak.
Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2013-10
Page 1 of 2
Page 7 of 41
Community Statement to the North Pacific Fisheries Managemen...
AGENDA ITEM #2.A.
47
48 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER JOINTLY RESOLVED BY THE KODIAK ISLAND
49 BOROUGH ASSEMBLY AND THE CITY OF KODIAK COUNCIL that these bodies
50 support the Kodiak Fisheries Workgroup's proposed goals for management programs as
51 follows:
52
53 Goals for Management Programs:
54 1. Provide effective controls of prohibited species catch and other bycatch to provide
55 for balanced and sustainable fisheries and healthy harvesting and processing
56 sectors.
57 2. Maintain or increase target fishery landings and revenues to Kodiak.
58 3. Maintain or increase employment opportunities for vessel crews, processing
59 workers, and support industries.
60 4. Provide increased opportunities for value-added processing.
61 5. Maintain opportunities for fishermen to enter the fishery.
62 6. Maintain opportunities for processers to enter the fishery.
63 7. Minimize adverse economic impacts of consolidation of the harvesting or
64 processing sectors.
65 8. Maximize active participation by owners of harvesting vessels and fishing
66 privileges.
67 9. Maintain the economic strength and vitality of Kodiak's working waterfront.
68 10. Establish methods to measure success and impacts of all programs, including
69 coliection and analysis of baseline and after-action data.
70
71 ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
72 THIS TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2012
73
74
75 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
76
77
78
79 ATT.,T: Je.(,me M. Selby, ,t- , :fi fa .r
80
82 ' i� �V ✓V '
83 N. a M. Javier, MMCI Borough Clerk
Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2013-10
Page 2 of 2
Page 8 of 41
Community Statement to the North Pacific Fisheries Managemen...
AGENDA ITEM #2.A.
D 1(a)Council Motion–GOA Trawl PSC tools
October 9,2012 and revisions incorporated from the February 9, 2013 motion
The Council approves the following purpose and need statement and goals and objectives for the Gulf of
Alaska trawl PSC action:
Purpose and Need Statement:
Management of Gulf of Alaska(GOA)groundfish trawl fisheries has grown increasingly complicated in
recent years due to the implementation of measures to protect Steller Sea lions and reduced Pacific
halibut and Chinook salmon Prohibited Species Catch(PSC)limits under variable annual total allowable
catch(TAC's) limits for target groundfish species.These changes complicate effective management of
target and non-target resources,and can have significant adverse social and economic impacts on
harvesters, processors,and fishery-dependent GOA coastal communities.
The current management tools in the GOA Groundfish Fishery Management Plan(FMP)do not provide
the GOA trawl fleet with the ability to effectively address these challenges,especially with regard to the
fleet's ability to best reduce and utilize PSC. As such,the Council had determined that consideration of a
new management regime for the GOA trawl fisheries is warranted.
The purpose of the proposed action is to create a new management structure which allocates allowable
harvest to individuals,cooperatives,or other entities,which will mitigate the impacts of a derby-style
race for fish. It is expected to improve stock conservation by creating vessel-level and/or cooperative-
level incentives to eliminate wasteful fishing practices, provide mechanisms to control and reduce
bycatch,and create accountability measures when utilizing PSC,target,and secondary species. It will
also have the added benefit of reducing the incentive to fish during unsafe conditions and improving
operational efficiencies.
The Council recognizes that GOA harvesters,processors,and communities all have a stake in the
groundfish trawl fisheries.The new program shall be designed to provide tools for the effective
management and reduction of PSC and bycatch,and promote increased utilization of both target and
secondary species harvested in the GOA. The program is also expected to increase the flexibility and
economic efficiency of the Central GOA groundfish trawl fisheries and support the continued direct and
indirect participation of the coastal communities that are dependent upon those fisheries. These
management measures could apply to those species,or groups of species, harvested by trawl gear in the
GOA,as well as to PSC. This program will not modify the overall management of other sectors in the
GOA,or the Central GOA rockfish program,which already operates under a catch share program.
Goals and Objectives:
1. Balance the requirements of the National Standards in the Magnuson Stevens Act
2. Increase the ability of the groundfish trawl sector to avoid PSC species and utilize available
amounts of PSC more efficiently by allowing groundfish trawl vessel to fish more slowly,
strategically,and cooperatively, both amongst the vessels themselves and with shore-based
processors
3. Reduce bycatch and regulatory discards by groundfish trawl vessels
CGOA trawl CSP Purpose and Need—Council Oct 2012—Page 1 of 2
Page 9 of 41
Community Statement to the North Pacific Fisheries Managemen...
AGENDA ITEM #2.A.
4. Authorize fair and equitable access privileges that take into consideration the value of assets
and investments in the fishery and dependency on the fishery for harvesters, processors,and
communities
5. Balance interests of all sectors and provide equitable distributions of benefits and similar
opportunities for increased value
6. Promote community stability and minimize adverse economic impacts by limiting consolidation,
providing employment and entry opportunities,and increasing the economic viability of the
groundfish harvesters,processors,and support industries
7. Improve the ability of the groundfish trawl sector to achieve Optimum Yield,including increased
product retention, utilization, landings,and value by allowing vessels to choose the time and
location of fishing to optimize returns and generate higher yields
8. Increase stability relative to the volume and timing of groundfish trawl landings,allowing
processors to better plan operational needs as well as identify and exploit new projects and
markets
9. Increase safety by allowing trawl vessels to prosecute groundfish fisheries at slower speeds and
in better conditions
10. Include measures for improved monitoring and reporting
11. Include the trawl sector's ability to adapt to applicable Federal law(i.e.,Endangered Species Act)
12. Include methods to measure the success and impacts of all program elements
13. Minimize adverse impacts on sectors and areas not included in the program
14. Promote active participation by owners of harvest vessels and fishing privileges
CGOA trawl CSP Purpose and Need—Council Oct 2012—Page 2 of 2
Page 10 of 41
Community Statement to the North Pacific Fisheries Managemen...
AGENDA ITEM #2.A.
C-5(a)GOA Trawl Bycatch Management
Council Motion 10/5/13
The Council requests that the staff provide a discussion paper reviewing the program structure described below
using the decision framework provided in the June 2013 'roadmap'document and the Council's purpose and
need statement. The paper should evaluate whether and how the elements of this design address the
objectives in the Council's purpose and need statement. The intent is to receive feedback characterizing: 1)
how the fishery would operate under the new design; 2) how well it may meet the Council's stated objectives;
and 3)which second-tier decisions are necessary to transform the program structure into alternative(s)for
analysis.The paper should also include information on bycatch reduction results from other trawl catch share
programs in the North Pacific and other regions.
GOA Trawl Bycatch Management Program
1. Bycatch Management
The primary objective of this action is to improve incentives for PSC reduction and PSC management,achieved
in several ways through this program design.
a. Reduced PSC: The Council intends to adopt a program to:(1)minimize Chinook salmon bycatch,
and(2)achieve more efficient use of halibut PSC,allowing some efficiency gains to provide
additional target fishery opportunity while leaving some halibut PSC savings in the water for
conservation and contribution to exploitable biomass.
b. Duration of shares:A portion of target species share allocations(maximum 25%)will be
evaluated for retention based on achievement of performance targets relative to bycatch and
other Council objectives after a set period of time(3-10 years). The time period and the criteria
used to evaluate performance will be established in regulation.
c. Cooperative management: A system of cooperative management is best suited to managing
and reducing bycatch(such as, hotspot program,gear modifications,excluder use, incentive
plan agreements)while maximizing the value of available target species. Cooperatives are
intended to facilitate a flexible, responsive,and coordinated effort among vessels and
processors to avoid bycatch through information sharing and formal participation in a bycatch
avoidance program.
d. Gear modification. Option: gear modifications for crab protection.
2. Observer Coverage
All trawl catcher vessels in the GOA will be in the 100%observer coverage category.
3. Areas
Western Gulf,Central Gulf,West Yakutat
4. Sector allocation of target species and PSC
Allocations for the trawl CP and CV sectors for WG and CG Pacific cod (Am 83), CGOA rockfish program (Am
88),and GOA pollock(Am 23)are maintained. Am 80 target sideboards and GOA flatfish eligibility are
maintained. Allocate halibut and Chinook salmon PSC caps between CP and CV sectors.
1
Page 11 of 41
Community Statement to the North Pacific Fisheries Managemen...
AGENDA ITEM #2.A.
5. Allocated species.
Target species are pollock and Pacific cod.PSC species include halibut and Chinook salmon.
6. Program structure for trawl catcher vessel fishery
Voluntary cooperative structure
a. Allocate target species(pollock, Pacific cod)at the cooperative level,based on aggregate catch
histories associated with member vessels' LLPs.
b. Apportion halibut PSC and Chinook salmon PSC limits to each cooperative on a pro rata basis
relative to target fisheries of GOA trawl vessels in the cooperative[such as,pollock Chinook salmon
PSC cap divided based on pollock landings; non-pollock Chinook salmon cap divided based on non-
pollock landings(excluding rockfish); halibut PSC apportioned in proportion to the cooperative's
allocation of target species.]
c. Participants can choose to either join a cooperative or operate in a limited access pool [sector-level,
non-transferable target allocations and PSC]. Harvesters would need to be in a cooperative with a
processor by a specified date prior to the season to access a transferable allocation of target species
and PSC.
d. Initial (2 years)cooperative formation would be based on the majority of a license holders' historical
landings(aggregate trawl groundfish deliveries,excluding Central GOA rockfish harvested under a
rockfish cooperative quota allocation)to a processor.
e. Each cooperative would be required to have a private cooperative contract. The contract would
require signatures of all harvesters in the cooperative and the processor(option:and community in
which the processor is located). The contract would include clear provisions for how the parties
may dissolve their contract after the first two years. If a harvester wants to leave that cooperative
and join another cooperative,they could do so if they meet the requirements of the contract.
f. Additional contract elements(such as bycatch management,active participation,mechanisms to
facilitate entry,community provisions) may be required to ensure the program is consistent with
Council objectives.
Option:Each processor controls a portion of PSC within the cooperative and negotiates terms of access through
private agreement.The processor would activate the incremental PSC through NMFS, making it accessible to the
cooperative. PSC made available by these agreements cannot be used by processor-owned vessels.
7. Fishery dependent community stability
a. Consolidation limits
• Vessel caps and limits on the percentage of the total allocation that a person can hold
(accessible only through a cooperative).
• Processor caps in each area (WG and CG).
b. Target species quota would be regionalized(WG or WY/CG designation) based on historical
delivery patterns.
2
Page 12 of 41
Community Statement to the North Pacific Fisheries Managemen...
AGENDA ITEM #2.A.
Option:Target species CG quota that has historically been landed in Kodiak would have a port of
landing requirement to be delivered to Kodiak; CG quota not historically landed in Kodiak would
be regionalized(WG or WY/CG).
c. Require individuals or entities to meet fishery participation criteria in order to be eligible to
purchase an eligible license with associated history.
8. Transferability
a. (Annually) Full transferability for annual use within the cooperative. Cooperatives can engage in
inter-cooperative agreements on an annual basis.
b. (Long-term)The LLP is transferable,with the associated history of the target species(which,
when entered into a cooperative, brings with it a pro rata share of PSC). Target species history is
severable and transferable to another eligible license.
9. Gear conversions
Upon further development,the Council could include gear conversion provisions that allow Pacific cod trawl
allocations to be fished with fixed gear,although any harvest would continue to be deducted from the
vessels'annual trawl quota account and would not affect the fixed gear Pacific cod sector allocations.
3
Page 13 of 41
Community Statement to the North Pacific Fisheries Managemen...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
Rik Fri UNIVERSITY OF
ALASKA
Ih ,, FAIRBANKS
Budget Options Group (BOG) - Options Summary ft Analysis
February 26, 2014
The Budget Options Group (BOG), appointed by Chancellor Brian Rogers and convened in
January 2014, was charged with generating and compiling a list of options and
recommendations complete with budgetary impact analysis for the Planning & Budget
Committee (P&BC) to consider. This document serves as this initial list.
The UAF P&BC will be asked to recommend a prioritized shortlist of quantifiable options for
the Chancellor's Cabinet review. To assist the Cabinet in its review, an Executive Leadership
Workshop (ELW) group will be convened in the spring. The Cabinet will aim to finalize
decisions by May to allow implementation lead time prior to the beginning of the fiscal year in
July.
Many items were generated directly by the UAF community via an online form made available
to UAF students, faculty and staff as a mechanism to make suggestions for cost savings and
efficiencies. The form is located on the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) website:
http://www.uaf.edu/finsery/omb/budget-planning/suggestions/ for additional suggestions.
The budget target beginning in FY15 is $14M. This will be updated if current budget
conditions change. For prudent planning, this number is reflective of an estimated UAF
budget gap and is not reflective of a direct budgetary reduction at this level. This
document is intended to be dynamic in the sense that it is expected to change as ideas
are vetted and new options are developed.
The BOG identified the following areas as unique to UAF's mission and competitive strengths.
Efforts to maintain or reduce adverse impact to these areas were considered as options were
developed.
• Continue strong focus on serving Alaska as part of UAF mission and goals
o UAF must maintain a relevance to communities and the state; uphold a
commitment to workforce development for high demand job degree areas; and
maintain outreach efforts to rural students in order to promote engagement
• Continue and strengthen Arctic Research and programs
• UAF must continue to be a place of research prominence
o Continue commitment to increasing graduate enrollments and undergraduate
engagement in research
• Student enrollment is critical for UAF success
o Preserve and enhance these activities; great service to students requires some
personal level of attention
• Employees and students must have access to current technology and tools to be most
effective and effective in their work, such as eLearning, access, long-distance
collaboration, etc.
• Avoid a "brain drain" by retaining and developing highly qualified and skilled
employees
• Focus on a strong core of staff and faculty
o Retain a smaller group of core employees who are empowered to do their job
and have the tools they need to do it well, as opposed to cutting many
ancillary items that may have an adversely broad impact
Page 1 of 28
Page 14 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UNIVERSITY OF
ALASKA
Ih FAIRBA SKNKS
• Avoid cross-charging or shifting costs to internal departments; maintain a focus on
strategic reduction of costs
o Functions that pass on costs may not create longer term solutions; find ways to
promote good behaviors and decisions
• Maintain the ability to attract outside revenues for facility and/or faculty support; UAF
should have a reputation of a quality institution worthy of continued investment
Recommendations
The BOG identified the following recommendations for Planning Et Budget Committee
consideration as part of the prioritization process:
1) Efforts should be taken to make significant reductions in targeted areas rather than
large amounts of smaller reductions (i.e., death by 1000 paper cuts).
2) Where opportunities exist for greater efficiencies, even if over a longer time period or
when multiple campuses or the UA System is involved, those opportunities should be
explored.
3) A reduction in the total number of UAF positions instead of making reductions that
effectively reduce compensation for all employees may be prudent.
4) Outsourcing opportunities should be fully vetted to understand impact to internal
and/or external groups.
5) Interest exists to move out of off-campus space where lease costs exist and may be
expensive; space and facility conditions must be fully examined to optimize on-campus
space and co-locate groups for best results.
Option Detail and Analysis
Options listed are not in priority order; however are listed by general category:
• Across-the-Board (ATB)
• Personnel/Payroll
• Program/Service
• Space
• Green Initiatives/Sustainability
• Systemwide Efficiencies
• Revenue-Generating Ideas
Page 2 of 28
Page 15 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
ALASTKA
ari )A F A I R B A N K S
The following definitions and metrics are used to interpret components of each idea:
Acronym definitions
• OTO: one-time only
• ATB: across-the-board
• FTE: full-time equivalent employee
• ROI: return on investment
• GF: general fund
Ability to implement by general level (related to scope of decision-making)
1. Chancellor/Campus Level Decision
2. President/UA System Level Decision
3. Board of Regents' Level Decision
4. External Action - change in state or federal law (i.e. Alaska statute, Borough, etc.)
Timeline for action
• Short-Term: May 2014 through Dec 2014 (FY14-FY15)
• Mid-Term: Dec 2014 through June 2015 (FY15)
• Long-Term: July 2015 and beyond (FY16+)
ATB REDUCTION OPTION: $4.25M to $14.5M
Idea: Across-the-Board(AIR)reduction to unrestricted General Fund(OF)
Description: Apply an across-the-board reduction proportionally to all units based on estimated General
Fund(unrestricted)dollars. UAF expected proportional share of State reduction is approx.$7M.
Cost Statistic: FY14 OF is approx.$177M; FY15 estimate is$170M to date
Ability to Implement: I —Chancellor/Campus Level Decision
Timeline: Short-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Immediate savings realized • Priority programs could receive
and easy to administer same proportional cuts;
• Could increase long term potentially not strategic
savings, not just one time • Monitoring may be required if
• Allows Deans/Directors/VCs units enter into a deficit
to apply reduction within each situation
unit as it makes the most sense • May deter cross-collaboration
—pushes strategic decision as each unit could he focused
making to unit level on internal priorities rather than
sharing services or finding
efficiencies between units
• Focus on long term savings is
difficult if cut is administered at
start of FY15;tendency to
reduce short term items first
• Reduction in OF may limit
some ability to generate new
revenue
Alternative Scenarios: Some combination of an ATB and vertical or specific reductions may still
he desirable and/or necessary. May consider finding incentives to increase
partnership between units. May increase efficiency if some duplication of
services or programs is reduced.
Estimated Savings Target: Min:$4.25M (2.5%AIR) I Max: $145M(S.5%AIR)
Page 3 of 23
Page 16 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
leUNIVERSITY OF
ALASKA
FAIRBA SKNKS
PERSONNEL & PAYROLL OPTIONS: $6.84M to $14.595M
Option #1:
Idea: Continue 90-day vacancy holds or increase to 120 days
Description: In May 2013, UAF instituted a vacancy hold to delay employee hires for 90 days and
centrally pullback a portion of accrued savings on a one-time basis. This formally applies to Regular and
Term Staff and Executive positions,and does not apply to Faculty positions(although there may be
delays in Faculty hires outside of this hold process). This mechanism is short-term and has no permanent
savings unless positions are reorganized or eliminated. Average UAF annual turnover is 300 positions.
Average annual cost per VIE ranges from $75.000-$100.000.
Cost Statistic: Average UAF annual turnover is 300 positions. Each FTE costs approx.
$75K-$100K/year salary and benefits.
Ability to Implement: I —Chancellor/Campus Level Decision
Timeline: Short Fenn
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Mechanism already in place • Vacancy rates may be
• Savings are immediate proportionally higher in
• Vacancy hold time to hire is not some units causing some
materially different than normal units to be disproportionately
time to hire impacted
• Savings are OTO
• Not strategic; based on
attrition
Alternative Scenarios: Savings are dependent on when the vacancy holds start and how long they
are continued. One-time savings increases if this practice is maintained
overtime.
Estimated Savings Target: Min: $3M OTO(90 day holds; Max: 54M OTO(120 day holds;
duration dependent) duration dependent)
Page 4 of 28
Page 17 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UNIVERSITY OF
,a ALASKA FAIRBANKS
Option #2:
Idea: Consolidate administrative and support FPEs
Description: Administrative and support positions are continually a focus for reduction or streamlining.
Many functions across campuses or departments are similar and potentially duplicative and warrant
exploration to identify opportunities to create greater efficiencies.
Cost Statistic: Each FTE approx.$75K-$100K/year
Ability to Implement: I —Chancellor/Campus Level Decision
Timeline: Mid-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Opportunity to reduce or • Level of service must remain
reorganize administration to find consistent
greater efficiencies • Strategic selection of
• May allow for shared service positions or locations that are
models where positions are the best candidates may be
redefined,have ability for career difficult
ladders and are cross-trained • Consolidation should not
• Partnerships between departments adversely impact any group
and/or between departments and disproportionately
central offices can be encouraged • Savings would be realized
• Employees are empowered to over time with organizational
excel as new career change
paths/opportunities are developed
Alternative Scenarios: Create mechanism to examine and strategically downsize I in 5 vacancies.
This is approximately 60 FTE over the course of a full year on average. A
reorganization of this size could produce$4.5-$6M in base savings. Level
of service must remain consistent and employee training and career ladders
should be a primary focus.
Estimated Savings Target: Min:5250K(2-3 FTE) Max: 53M(30-40 FTE)
Option #3:
Idea: Reduce or eliminate Annual Leave(AL)cash-out option
Description: Current program allows for 40 hrs."cash-out"per calendar year
Cost Statistic: AL cash-out is a cost to the university considering employees do not take
the leave they have earned and are paid for all days worked. 408 UAF
employees used this in FY 13;total UAF cash-out value was 5468K.
Figures are similar in previous years.
Ability to Implement: 2—President/System Level Decision
Timeline: Short Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Impact to employees is relatively • May require multi-campus
minimal agreement
• Savings are immediate and • May be viewed as a loss of
reoccurring an employee benefit
• Use of AL should be encouraged • Employees must have ability
to promote wellness to take earned AL
• More employees may`lose'
earned AL-if over 240 hour
threshold
Alternative Scenarios: Reduce AL cash-out to 20 hours per calendar year. Expected result may
he 5240K; roughly half of the savings than if the program were
eliminated.
Estimated Savings Target: Min:$240K(20 hrs) I Max: 5470K(40 hrs)
Page 5 of 28
Page 18 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UAUNIVERSITY OF
FAIRBA ALASKA NKS
Option #4:
Idea: Extend winter break or other closure periods
Description: Consider extending winter break closure: or extending spring break for certain academic
departments; or extending summer breaks in departments where it makes sense.
Cost Statistic: • $750K/day if all unrestricted staff and faculty take A/L or LWOP
• Consider utilities savings(approximate):
✓ Winter closure savings: $1.500-$2.000/day
✓ Summer closure savings(no headbolts): $1.000/day
Ability to Implement: I —Chancellor/Campus Level Decision
Timeline: Short-term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Utility savings for office area • Employees must be aware:
(lights_computers) this could impact employee
• Salary savings generated if retirement if they exceed 10
employee elects to use LWOP or days of LWOP within a
A/L single year; individual choice
• Real benefit may only be seen if • May be an adverse impact to
fully buildings/facilities are shut restricted fund projects or
down(utility savings) staff(grants/researchers)
• May adversely impact lower-
income employees who can
less afford LWOP
disproportionately
• May require union
negotiation or notification of
employees ASAP
Alternative Scenarios: Decide if UAF mandates the actual days,or allows departments to offer
the flexibility to the employee.
Estimated Savings Target: Min: 5250K(I day; not all employees) I Max: $500K(2 days)
Option #5:
Idea: Utilize II-month contracts for certain employee groups
Description: Consider offering the option of II-month contracts to volunteers in administrative
employee types.This option is already available for supervisors to use based on job needs, but additional
staff may elect to use an I I-month contract ifgiven the choice.
Cost Statistic: Each PTE approx. $75K-St00K/year.
$75K/12 mos=$6K per month savings per PIE.
Ability to Implement: I —Chancellor/Campus Level Decision
Timeline: Short to Mid-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Savings arc immediate and • Employees must be aware of
reoccurring earnings reduction; that they
• Offers flexibility to employees do not accrue leave or pay
• May be an ideal schedule for into retirement accounts on
some employees the month off
• Is an available option now for • Applies to employees whose
supervisors when job jobs do not require a
requirements permit this continual presence_
arrangement particularly in academic units
Alternative Scenarios: Voluntary 30-hour work weeks for Explore this scenario with new
staff without benefit reductions. hires.
Estimated Savings Target: Min:$100K(16 ITE) Max: $625K (100 FTE)
Page 6 of 28
Page 19 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
Ar UNIVERSITY OF
ALASKA
Ih s FAIRBANKS
Option #6:
Idea: Utilize 37.5 hour workweek for regular employees
Description:The State of Alaska has instituted a 37.5 hour workweek to foster additional savings;
savings represents reduction of annual compensation increase. UAF could consider a similar structure,
but. in lieu of annual compensation increases,pay is equivalent to a 40-hour work week.
Cost Statistic: Each FTE approx.$75K-$100K/year; FY I5 annual compensation increase
is$6M(maximum target),minimum is 50%of that.
Ability to Implement: I —Chancellor/Campus Level Decision
Timeline: Short to Mid-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Savings are immediate and • Employees must be aware of
reoccurring earnings reduction
• Offers flexibility to employees • Potentially disparate impacts
• Improved work-life balance for hourly/salaried employees
(could be a recruiting tool) • No savings generated for
restricted employees
• Most faculty already on 9-
month contracts or soft
funding
Alternative Scenarios: 4 day x 10 hr.work weeks are discussed under sustainability options
Estimated Savings Target: Min: 53M (50%comp. increase) I Max:$6M(100%comp.increase)
PROGRAM AND SERVICE CHANGE OPTIONS: $2.67M to $17.15M
Option #1:
Idea: UAF Athletics program savings
Description: UAF Athletics is a Division II school and has 10 teams(the minimum required to maintain
DII status). Some operate as Division I(hockey). multi-divisional (swimming)or independent(rifle).
Cost Statistics: Total cost$6.3M. GE support$3.5M,other unrestricted fund
(Tuition/Fees)$900K,sell-generated revenues SLIM.
Approx. 130 total student athletes; 15%UA Scholars
Ability to Implement: 3—Board of Regents' Decision
Timeline: Long-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Allows approx.$3.5-$4M in • Less attractive to new students
general fund and other and negative student life impact
unrestricted funding relief • Related tuition and fees may be
• May allow for stronger focus lost(approx. 130 total student
on academic athletes; 15%are UA Scholars)
programs/services • Some revenue generation
• May increase available capability may be lost; 30%of
campus space; renovation athlete aid is from other non-UA
required sources($400K/year)
• PR/community support issues
• NCAA/Titic IX impact must be
considered
Alternative Scenarios: Eliminate or reduce the Consider Carlson Boost revenue:
preconference tournaments Center contract costs examine Booster
for certain sports; $75K vs. renovate Patty Club and/or fee
net savings estimate Center for games revenue distribution
Estimated Savings Target: Min:$75K(pre-conf only) Max: $3.5M
Page 7 of 28
Page 20 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UNIVERSITY OF
h ALASKA
M F A I R BSA N R S
Option #2:
Idea: Change UAF Athletics program from Division 11 to Division III
Description: UAF Athletics is a Division II school and includes 10 different teams(the minimum number
of teams required to maintain Division I I status in the NCAA). UAF would not be able to field a hockey
team as a Division Ill school. Scholarship requirements change between divisions which would change
the aid package for student athletes(Division III does not require scholarships):change may result in no
net savings produced as operational costs may not change significantly.
Cost Statistics: Cost to rent Carlson Center is approx. $170K and seats 4500:current
attendance at hockey games covers this cost.
Pre-conference tournaments$75K net.
Total cost$6.3M. CP support$3.5M,other unrestricted fund
(Tuition/Fees)$900K.self-generated revenues$I.IM.
Ability to Implement: 3—Board of Regents' Decision
Timeline: Long-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Savings in scholarships • Less attractive to new students
$600K but will likely be and negative student life impact
offset by other aid and • Related tuition and fees may he
financial incentives necessary lost(approx. 130 total student
to attract athletes athletes; 15%are UA Scholars)
• May allow for stronger focus • Some revenue generation
on academic capability may he lost:30%of
programs/services athlete aid is from other non-UA
sources($400K/year)
• PR/community support issues
• May have unintended Title IX
impacts
• Operational costs may not change
significantly
Alternative Scenarios: See alternative options listed above.
Estimated Savings Target: Min:$0 Max: $600K
Page 8 at 28
Page 21 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UNIVERSITY OF
ALASKA
Ih . F A I R B A N K
Option #3:
Idea: Implement shared service models
Description: Shared services is a business model that enables resources to be leveraged across
departments resulting in lower-costs and increased efficiencies. It can be a good long-term savings choice
for highly-transactional business functions such as in the areas of proposal preparation,payroll/personnel
processing, and travel.
Cost Statistic: Each PTE_approx.$75K-$100K/year.
Ability to Implement: I —Chancellor/Campus Level Decision
Timeline: Short to Mid-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Opportunity to explore more • Possible resistance to change
efficient and less costly services to • Culture-shi ti is required
UAF departments • Investment in training and
• Opportunity for employees to technology is required
specialize in certain areas and do • Executive and leadership
one thing well as opposed to support is required
several things'okay" • Possible loss of personalized
• Cross-training and larger groups service to specific units
of customers may keep staff busy
at all times rather than high vs.
low volume fluctuations
Alternative Scenarios: Research institutes/departments can Evaluate"slivered" FIE(i.e.
train a business"hub"or"team"that those who perform a wide variety
supports many research-intensive of multiple tasks)and consolidate
departments rather than a single to have fewer FTE perform
department.The same is true for shared service functions and
Academic areas and Administrative become specialized/empowered
areas. to do more within the job.
Estimated Savings Target: 'Savings noted above in Payroll&Benefits section(#2)
Option #4:
Idea: Streamline CRCD administration layers
Description: CRCD serves the community college mission for UAF with focus on workforce
development,career and technical education and academic preparation for college. CRCD serves many
rural campus locations across the state,has administrative support in each based on geographic
distribution and has some centralized administrative support functions in Fairbanks. Are there similar
functions in different locations that could be streamlined? Are there centralized functions within CRCD
that could be restructured,reduced or eliminated that would result in efficiencies and/or cost reductions?
Cost Statistic: Each FTE approx.$75K-$100K/year. CRCD has approx.270 total FTE.
Of this,88 are traditional admin hlEs which consist of Admin
Generalists/Managers/Professionals. Fiscal, HR. IS staff. 10%=8 FTE.
Ability to Implement: I —Chancellor/Campus Level Decision
Timeline: Mid-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Opportunity for greater • Potential negative public
efficiency perception ofUAF's support
• Increased communication of rural students
between rural/urban campuses • Potential for loss of local
• CRCD is heavily grant funded; student service or support
has alt.funding sources/options
Alternative Scenarios: N/A
Estimated Savings Target: Min:$75K(I FTE) Max: $600K(8 FTE; approx. 10%)
Page 9 of 28
Page 22 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UNIVERSITY OF
ALASKA
)h FAIRBANKS
Option #5:
Idea: Consolidate or reduce duplicative functions at UAF farms: LARS. Fairbanks and Palmer
Description: LARS is Large Animal Research Station that contains reindeer and musk ox.Fairbanks
farm has 260 acres cropland and 50 acres forest land. Use of all three facilities has declined. Consider
where active research exists and consolidation of the farms/research space.
Cost Statistic: Cost to operate all three farms is approx.51.8M annually(LARS: 5500K;
Fairbanks 5300K; Palmer$1 M).
Ability to Implement: 2-3—President/UA System Decision or Board of Regents' Decision
Timeline: Mid to Long-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Options to lease or sell land • Likely to result in some concern
to local farmers could from the Reindeer Herders
generate revenue Association and SNRAS/IAB
• Reduces related overhead and • Fairbanks Farm buildings among
maintains specialized the oldest on campus and have
research space historical significance
• May encourage active • May not be possible to co-locate
research through new these types of large animals
partnerships/co-location
Alternative Scenarios: Explore new revenue-generating opportunities: lease cropland to local
Farmers; farm peonies or other lucrative option(s); muss consider viability
of combining herds together: consider less expensive facility costs by
combining programs or administrative functions
Estimated Savings Target: Min: 5500K Max: 5750K
Option #6:
Idea: Reduce unrestricted administrative travel
Description:Travel costs,particularly administrative in nature on unrestricted funds,are a cost that can
be controlled by UAF(as opposed to travel occurring on restricted funds where the cost is home by an
external entity).
Cost Statistic: FY 13 unrestricted travel is approx.$6M.Of this total,approx.$3.3M-
3.5M is admin.travel(excludes Athletics$1.3M and Instructional $l.4M).
Ability to Implement: I —Chancellor/Campus Level Decision
Timeline: Short-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Easily implemented • Face-to-face meetings or first-hand
• Encourages planning attendance at conferences or
strategically within trainings is very valuable
departments for • Unrestricted travel is already fairly
administrative or support regulated and limited
needs • "[ravel budgets within units also
• Raises awareness of areas include relocation funding and
where travel is necessary employee performance bonuses;
(CRCD/facilities,etc) these areas could be impacted
• May be able to reduce • Must understand impact to rural
Athletics travel separately and community campuses
Alternative Scenarios: Rotate training opportunities Utilize video-conferencing or audio-
among employees rather than conferencing options.
sending many to the same
conference. Encourage travel
reports to shared findings.
Estimated Savings Target: Min: 5350K at 10%ATB Max: 5700K at 20%ATB
Page 10 of 28
Page 23 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UNIVERSITY Or
ALASKA
' th t F A I R B A N K S
Option #7:
Idea: Outsource campus housing to an external entity or seek additional P3 partnerships
Description: Some institutions have entered into lease or other agreements for housing located on
campus(land owned by the university)but leased externally.The external leaseholder will maintain and
operate the facilities, thereby eliminating university expenditures for deferred maintenance and other
costly upkeep. In some cases, it can he negotiated where the University is in no obligation to guarantee
occupancy or support the facilities financially.
Cost Statistic: Many housing options at UAF are located in buildings that are very old
and inefficient.The costs associated with upkeep and upgrades may
exceed the benefit. Note that faculty housing is a component of total bed
inventory on campus; UAF does not separately track faculty vs. student
housing. Assumptions are expanded to include all housing inventory.
rather than faculty or student housing separately.
• Min target$650K assumes UAF would significantly reduce CIF
support for residence life(50%;currently SI.3M)
• Max target assumes revenue share arrangement with the entity
which returns(at minimum)the current commitments from the
auxiliary(P3 lease)operations and a 50%reduction in GF outlay
Ability to Implement: 1-2—Chancellor/Campus Decision or President/UA System Decision
Timeline: Mid-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Outsourcing would free UAF • Difficult to establish savings
resources up from these aging target without an RIP
facilities and focus resources • Currently housing operates
elsewhere on a financially sound basis
• May put aging facilities on an • Custodial costs are already
upgrade path over time as quite low
external entity would do • Housing/dining currently
improvements provides support for annual
• Updated facilities help lease payments on the P3
attractretain new students and Dining addition
improve student life
Alternative Scenarios: Outsource the Maintenance& Repair(M&R)contracts only
Estimated Savings Target: Min: 5650K Max: $1.75M
Page 11 of 28
Page 24 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UNIVERSITY OF
h ALASKA
�. F A I R B A N K S
Option #8:
Idea: Outsource Printing Services
Description: Printing Services is located in the basement of Bunnell building and serves the campus for
internal printing needs.
Cost Statistic: FY 13 subsidy$250K to balance operations; currently on approx. break-
even basis. Savings projected is realized through repurposing the space
for other uses including relocating off-campus units from leased space.
6200 sq. ft. in Bunnell Building; $750K to repurpose this space
Ability to Implement: 1-2—Chancellor/Campus Decision or President/UA System Decision
Timeline: Mid-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Cost of utilities savings due • Certain services could be more
to printing equipment expensive or take more time via
• If closed. UAF could external vendors
relocate other oil-campus • Confidentiality concerns may
departments into the newly arise if documents are printed via
vacated space external vendor
• Would require investment to • Less brand identity protection if
repurpose space for longer going external
term benefits • Without central service,
departments may create internal
print shops/services at higher cost
• Space impact unknown at this
point further analysis needed if
this option is more heavily
considered
Alternative Scenarios: Reduce current operations or streamline costs/services
Estimated Savings Target: Min: $0 Max: $I OOK(net operations)+space
Page 12 of 28
•
Page 25 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UNIVERSITY OF
,n ALASKA
.. FAIRBANKS
Option #9:
Idea: Eliminate or outsource US Postal Services
Description: Mail is processed at Marika location and the Campus Post Office is located in Constitution
Hall.The post office oilers rented post office boxes and most other LISPS services.The contract with
USPS has remained unchanged since 1991.The contract requires CAI'to process all UAF mail,operate a
contract post office,and sets up a single delivery point.
Cost Statistic: • Post Office occupies 1900 sq. ft. in Constitution I-tall and 2600 sq. ft.
on Marika for processing mail.(4500 sq ft total impact).
• $450K—average annual operating costs
• Major revenue sources that would cease if post office is eliminated
include: USI'S contract$72K/yr; PO Box rentals$170K (total $242K).
• Result is approx.$200K net loss/annually.
Analysis must consider the net effect of expenses/revenues and space, in
addition to non-financial considerations(i.e. Student Life,etc).
Ability to Implement: 1-2—Chancellor/Campus Decision or President/UA System Decision
Timeline: Mid to Long-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Space in Constitution Hall could • Students must leave campus
be repurposed to house another to mail packages/large items
dept. • Departments may need to
• Space in Marika could he bear costs of new mail
repurposed or sold practices
• Mailboxes installed campus-wide • Internal routine system may
to meet basic mailing needs still he needed for campus
• Mail may be delivered directly to mail purposes
offices/dorms by USPS rather than • 'trade-off:without contract
through internal campus mail in place, USPS could limit
routing their services to UAF
Alternative Scenarios: Have USPS deliver mail to Explore service Explore
specific hubs on campus(i.e. changes if mail is outsourcing
dorms, Wood Center) for delivered by USPS to options
student pick-up individual addresses
Estimated Savings Target: Min:$50K I Max: $250K
Option #10:
Idea: Review Shuttle Service operations and business model
Description: Explore opportunities for student involvement(i.e.,run as student business out of School of
Management)or outsource
Cost Statistic: Current overall budget for shuttle operations is$906K(covered via
$700K in student fee and parking revenues with a$200K central subsidy).
Min target$100K assumes break-even operation with subsidy; max target
$200K assumes a break-even operation without continuing the subsidy
Ability to Implement: I —Chancellor/Campus Level Decision
Timeline: Short to Mid-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Engage students if run out of a • May not result in significant
school or program revenue returns
• Could be cost neutral if cost
structure is managed
Alternative Scenarios: N/A
Estimated Savings Target: Min: $100K I Max: $200K
Page 13 of 28
Page 26 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
cs UNIVERSITY OF
ALASKA
fh F A I R BSA N K S
Option #11:
Idea: Consolidate CRCD and Fairbanks bookstores _
Description: CRCD bookstore occupies 3000 sq. ft. in Bowers Building off campus and costs about
$66K annually for the leased space,not including other areas in the Bowers Building that are leased.
Additionally,the CRCD bookstore is not currently part of the Follett agreement at the UAF bookstore and
receives no commissions from sales.
Cost Statistic: 530K estimated Follett commissions if moved to UM'bookstore: $70K
lease cost savings: administrative efficiencies TBD—further operational
and inventory analysis may be needed.
Ability to Implement: I —Chancellor/Campus Level Decision
Timeline: Short to Mid-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • One UAF bookstore reduces • Loss of some personalized
confusion service to CRCD students
• Increase in commissions from who may challenges due to
Follett from additional sales by rural locations
consolidating CRCD sales • Potential negative public
• Saves on of-campus lease costs perception of UAF's support
• Relatively easy to integrate CRCD of rural students
into existing bookstore on campus
Alternative Scenarios: N/A
Estimated Savings Target: Min:570K (lease savings only) I Max: 5100K
Page 14 of 28
Page 27 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
MI UNIVERSITY OF
ti BSA A I R B A N K S
Option #12:
Idea: Eliminate Vet-Med program(partially-funded)
Description: UM'teamed with top ranked Colorado State University.College of Veterinary medicine
and Biomedical Sciences in the new proposed 2+2 joint DVM program. Students will apply at CSU
CVMBS and choose Alaska resident or preference to attend the first two years of the program at UAF. In
years 3-4 the students will attend CVMBS in Ft. Collins ultimately acquiring a DVM degree.
Cost Statistic: UAF requested$400K from the State of Alaska; $200K was funded in
FY13,$0 in FY 14 and DA is asking for the remaining$200K in FYI 5, a
budget process which is underway now—results pending.
Ability to Implement: 2-3—President/UA System decision or Board of Regents'decision
Timeline: Long-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • May allow UAF to reallocate • UAF already received
$200K already provided by the funding from the State as a
Legislature high priority item;may
appear contrary to
immediately discontinue
• Consider lost future tuition
revenue; UAF expects
$250K-$300K tuition
revenue over time
• Building program takes time
• Vet-Med program allows
competitive edge at UAF due
to our unique location and
statewide demand for
veterinarians
• This agreement fits with UA
strategic themes for
partnerships
• This partnership may be
lower cost than delivering
the full program solely at
UAF
Alternative Scenarios: Maintain program at existing level (partially funded):what are drawbacks?
Estimated Savings Target: Min:$200K I Max: 5400K
Page 15 of 28
Page 28 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UNIVERSITY OF
ti ALASKA
F A I R B A N K S
Option #13:
Idea: Identify the ROI for Marketing&Communications efforts; how do we know what the correct
balance is for UAF investment and the impact of these services?
Description: Can we measure the ROI on efforts put forth by Marketing&Communications to advertise
UAF. Does the investment justify the return? Student impact, development impact. UAF reputation and
service mix could be considered.
Cost Statistic: FY13 UAF Marketing&Communications budget is 52.2M.Additional
costs occur in department budgets for public information officers
(P10)/communication functions.
NOTE:According to the Council for Advancement and Support of
Education(CASE)report on Marketing Spending at Colleges and
Universities(July 2010),the general rule is that the expenditure budget to
perform marketing related activities should be between 1-3%of the total
operating budget excluding salaries and benefits. UAF currently spends
significantly less in this area than do peer institutions.
Ability to Implement: I —Chancellor/Campus Level Decision
Timeline: Short-term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Analyzing ROI is a valuable • Marketing has a broad impact in
exercise for administrative a direct and indirect way to
functions spectrum of programs and
• May better understand services; pin-pointing 1201 for
appropriate investment or certain functions may be difficult
staffing levels based on peer • Marketing does not happen
data/functional analysis solely within the Marketing&
• May better understand service Communications department at
mix: what we provide in-house UAF—this function is located
vs.what has potential for within units as well
outsourcc • Defining an impact to student
• May require analysis and/or recruitment or philanthropic
consolidation of department donations may be indirect
functions(Public Information • Outsourcing some functions may
Officers and"swag spend")to be more expensive/cost
understand full impact of UAF prohibitive
marketing at all levels; greater • UAF branding and reputation
efficiencies possible may be diminished
Alternative Scenarios: Create comprehensive marketing Conduct analysis of total UAF
plan with defined goals and investment for`marketing.'at all
outcomes(i.e. utilize X percent of units;consolidate or develop shared
budget or X dollars for a major service models for greater efficiency
marketing effort or program and
define desired outcomes)
Estimated Savings Target: Min: SO Max: $2.2M (FY 13 M&C expend)
Page 16 of 28
Page 29 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
-- UNIVERSITY OF
ALASKA
s Ih - FAIRBANKS
Option #14:
Idea: Evaluate unrestricted fund balance(UM)principles—evaluate ways to encourage higher-value
strategic year end procurement/spending vs.use or lose mentality
Description: Ideally,central administration advises each school or college to have a 2-4%UM at the
end of each fiscal year. Department behavior is generally such that if funds are available=year-end spend
may not he strategic, for fear of not receiving those funds in the future. To date, UFB principles have
been adjusted to encourage managed"banking"of large unit reserves for future years(if needed); but this
may not deter habits to spend out balances at year end.
Cost Statistic: 56-8M is typical DEB target(S2M is centrally-managed, remainder is
$6M)
Ability to Implement: I —Chancellor/Campus Level Decision
Timeline: Short-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Immediate savings,easily • Difficult to change behavior
administered • May require additional
• May develop models to central vs. unit controls
consolidate certain types of • Behavior may change in
purchases with vendors, i.e. large advance of any pull-back so
campus-wide less-strategic spend is
computer/technology refresh unknown
purchases annually • Highly dependent on types of
• May develop models to pool year end purchases to
funds and accomplish larger determine optimal ways to
projects rather than asking for collaborate or consolidate
new State funding efforts
• May find options to encourage • If UM'does not allow for
strategic year end spending habits prudent DEB in units, units
that meet unit and central needs may spend out balances
• Volume discounts with vendors entirely which has a negative
may be available institutional impact
Alternative Scenarios: Creating a year end pull-hack may function similarly to an ATB reduction
at the beginning of FY 15.
Estimated Savings Target: Min:$600K (10%of DEB) Max: 56M (if UFB is eliminated)
Page 17 of 28
Page 30 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UNIVERSITY OF
AL
Ih FAIRBA ASKA NKS
Option #15:
Idea: Review low-enrollment areas and/or duplicate degree programs across campuses. Consider
consolidating the degree offering or eliminating it.
Description: Regular and ongoing Academic Program Review and Student Outcomes Assessment
already takes place,as driven by accreditation standards. 1302 Policy& Regulation and UAF governance
groups.
Cost Statistic: Currently,traditional academic program review does not necessarily
include a component such as a"cost of education"analysis for resource
decision making. This analysis is currently underway at UAA; outcomes
pending. A full cost analysis(by program)at UAF,with impact and
dependencies, may be necessary to fully evaluate in the FY 15 context.
Considerations must be given to core courses(where they are delivered as
feeders to other programs)and rural vs. urban conditions.
Ability to Implement: 3—Board of Regents' Action or Decision
Timeline: Mid to Long-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • May increase program • Elimination certain programs
efficiencies and sharing of may cause public outcry
services or support • Obligation to"teach out"
• May reduce cost and promote programs for students
joint partnerships for faculty hires currently enrolled. Savings
or with other campuses may not accrue until several
• May streamline options for years out.
students and lead to faster degree • May reduce ability to
completion generate other revenues
• Quality of education and a UAF (tuition/fees or outside
strategic plan(what we want to support/grants)
be)must he considered • Some high-cost/low-
throughout this type of review; enrollment programs may be
financial savings may not he the mission specific
sole driver for review • Some high-cost/low-
enrollment programs may
have other external funding
Alternative Scenarios: N/A
Estimated Savings Target: Min: STBD(program dependent) Max:STBD(program dependent)
Page 18 of 28
Page 31 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
-' UNIVERSITY OF
th ALASKA
wit11. FAIRBANKS
Option #16:
Idea: Analyze number of rural campus sites; is there opportunity to convert one or more rural campuses
to become Learning Centers operated by one of the other campuses at lower cost(or vice-versa)? Can
any campus absorb functions of another?
Description: Each rural campus has a main campus in the largest community in the region and typically
several learning centers located in smaller regional communities.Consider enhancing some rural campus
sites to serve a larger area or create(.earning Centers where full campus support can be reduced.
Cost Statistic: Dependent on campus operations and locations based on geographic
needs: number of students impacted, facilities and employees in each
location—further review necessary to arrive as cost estimates
Ability to Implement: 3—Board of Regents' Action or Decision
Timeline: Mid to Long-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Learning Centers serve areas with • Potential negative public
small student populations and perception of UAF's support
could be more cost-effective to of rural students
operate via distance or with • May reduce level of local
minimal impact to student support in some locations
service/support based on • May reduce student
consolidated structure with a attendance in some locations
nearby campus and create loss of tuition/fee
• Many CRCD campuses and revenue
I.earning Centers are partially • May be difficult to
grant funded which may help consolidate based on
cover for any reduction in geographic distance or needs
unrestricted UAF support between locations
Alternative Scenarios: N/A
Estimated Savings Target: Min: STUD(campus dependent) Max:STUD(campus dependent)
SPACE OPTIONS: $190K to $1.OM
Option #1:
Idea: Consolidate off campus leases
Description:
I. Bowers Building(FL 186)houses eLearning& Distance Ed,CRCD Bookstore and Math in a
Cultural Context. Lease costs$300K/year and occupies 14K sq. ft.in Fairbanks
2. Bachner Building(FL139)houses SNAP and OIPC. Lease costs$200K/pear and occupies 7K sq.
It. in Fairbanks
3. Marine Advisory Program in Anchorage(FL178)plus(8)MAP parking:approx.$90K/ear
Cost Statistic: $590K/vear total for facilities above.Other leases can he discussed further.
Ability to Implement: I—Chancellor/Campus Decision
Timeline: Short to Mid-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Results in lease cost savings • Must find suitable space on-
• Results in co-location on campus; campus to put the displaced
renovation may be required for departments
long term benefits • Renovation and
relocation/colocation costs
must be considered
Alternative Scenarios: N/A
Estimated Savings Target: Min:$90K/near(MAP only) Max: $600K/year(all above)
Page 19 of 28
Page 32 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UNIVERSITY OF
BSA FAIRBANKS
Option #2:
Idea: Sell or lease Kodiak property
Description: Kodiak facility(FS916&FS918)
Cost Statistic: There may be ways to move this existing program from the facility,
eliminating costs, but preserving program functions. Est.operating costs
$800K/year($400K/SFOS and$400K/central lease obligations)
Ability to Implement: 2-3—President/UA System Decision or Board of Regents' Action
Timeline: Short to Long-term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Reduction in operating costs by • Selling facility will require
facility sale negotiation with UA to have
• Opportunity for revenue- the funds allocated to UAF
generation if property is leased • Need to find alternative
• Opportunity to consolidate space to accommodate
program for greater ongoing services(may have
administrative efficiencies in new associated renovation costs)
space • Partial central cost savings
• Low impact to students and due to split with SFOS
program delivery • Savings may occur over time
• Allows SFOS to mitigate a deficit based on program stove,etc.
situation
• Alternative Scenarios: Note that sales revenues traditionally go to UA (negotiable),while lease
savings go to UAF, UM'would need to negotiate a prudent agreement.
Estimated Savings Target: Min: 5100K Max: 5400K (central)
Option #3:
Idea: Optimize use of space and facilities across all campuses(including classroom utilization)
Description: UAF is currently conducting a review of all campus space and its condition via an external
vendor(Sightlines) in addition to a full space inventory as part of an implementation of asset management
software(AiM). UAF PAIR is also studying classroom optimization. Results are expected by summer
2014. Review of off-campus leases is currently underway.
Cost Statistic: TBD based on results of various studies in progress
Ability to Implement: 1-2—Chancellor/Campus Decision or President/UA System Decision
Timeline: Short to Mid-Perm
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Improving use of space has a • May require additional
direct impact to cost containment staffing to manage space
at UAF: it reduces deferred changes/impact/renovations
maintenance costs and • May require addition
encourages optimization in investment to modify space
academic/administrative areas • Space can be an emotional
• Investments in external vendor issue with widespread impact
review/services and software • Training for new systems or
(AiM)have already been made; processes will take time to
results expected soon to aid in implement
decision-making • Classroom optimization
efforts may impact existing
programs; unknown to date
Alternative Scenarios: N/A—currently underway
Estimated Savings Target: Min: $TBD(space dependent) Max: $TBD(space dependent)
Page 20 of 28
Page 33 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UNIVERSITY OF
h ALASKA
GREEN INITIATIVES/SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS: $70K to $620K
Option #1:
Idea: Increase energy audits(building envelopes/sensor lights/utilities/heat/sensor headbolts,etc.)
Description: Energy audits were done in 20I I to selected buildings(10 in Fairbanks). These efforts
continue to he explored by evaluating other low-efficiency buildings on campus for energy work.
Cost Statistic: 2011 energy efforts to 10 buildings cost UAF$6M and UAF anticipates
approx. 10-year payback on that investment approx.$600K/yr. Assume
$800K internal investment in FYI 5 for a new batch of high-priority
buildings; ROI may he similar over time:analysis by building needed.
Ability to Implement: I —Chancellor/Campus Level Decision
Timeline: Long-Term (to realize savings)
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Reduced utility footprint • Cost savings realized in future
• Good stewardship of resources years; not immediately
(public relations) • Requires initial investment
• Opportunities for student , (pay cash now and obtain
sustainability efforts savings when work is
• Most is low-tech work that can finished)
he done in-house(as opposed to • May need a third-party audit
highly specialized changes) to monitor that UAF did the
• One-time personnel costs with work and savings are realized
on-going savings (requires investment)
Alternative Scenarios: N/A
Estimated Savings Target: Min: SO Year I Max: 5450K Year 2
Option #2:
Idea: Energy savings for computer/tech shut-down(utilize Nightwatchman software on all computers)
Description: Nightwatchman is a software program that effectively"shuts down"inactive computers
during evening/overnight hours to save energy. It is relatively simple for users to install through OIT and
requires use of UA network.
Cost Statistic: Savings is$95/computer/year: licensing is$20/computer in first year only.
Net savings is$75/computer(first year); $95 ongoing.
Total of 1850 computers at UAF are not using software to date.
(1850*$75=$139K. 50%is minimum target). Maximum target assumes
ongoing cost savings of$170K after initial year one licensing.
Ability to Implement: I—Chancellor/Campus Level Decision
Timeline: Short-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Immediate savings, easy to • Not all 1850 computers
implement may be in use
• Allows for work-arounds if certain • Requires service level
business processes must run nightly agreement when network
• Standardizes use of UA network control is managed in the
with ability to push software unit
updates:reduces IT silos
Alternative Scenarios: N/A
Estimated Savings Target: Min:$70K(925 computers net licensing) Max: $I70K(after first year)
Page 21 of 28
Page 34 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UNIVERSITY OF
F A h KN K
Option #3:
Idea: Reduce or eliminate volume of internal/inter-campus printed mailings
Description: Many departments continually receive internal or inter-campus mailings from other
departments:brochures, newsletters,announcements,etc. Some departments claim to simply throw them
away immediately;they are not useful. Suggestions for greater use of online bulletin hoard or use of
campus list-serves were made.
Cost Statistic: Department magnitude varies—more research required
Ability to Implement: I —Chancellor/Campus Level Decision
Timeline: Short-term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Encourages internal • Employee preference varies
policy/practice changes to"go (printed paper vs.online
green" viewing)
• Reinforces UAF sustainability • Many employees do not like
efforts receiving"more email'
• Increases online traffic in
targeted areas
Alternative Scenarios: Outcomes: create online bulletin hoard; utilize list-serves; utilize
Cornerstone or other online newsletters
Estimated Savings Target: Min: STUD Max: STUD
SYSTEMWIDE EFFICIENCIES OPTIONS: $450K to $3.5M
Option #1:
Idea: Consolidate and streamline certain Statewide and campus functions:avoid duplication of services
Description: System office services include: FIR, Risk Management, Finance, Foundation,Off, Public
Affairs, Budget,General Counsel. Explore opportunities to streamline where it makes sense and prevent
duplication of services. Initial ideas to explore are Risk, Procurement and UR where services are
located in Butrovich building and on Fairbanks campus.
Cost Statistic: Statewide:approx.260 FTE total; 10%is 26 FTE at$100K/FTE=52.6M
max target savings based on consolidation
Ability to Implement: 1-2—Chancellor/Campus Decision or President/UA System Decision
Timeline: Short to Mid-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Opportunity for consolidation and • Must consider centralizing
increased efficiency and decentralizing options
• Geographically can make sense • Must consider Statewide
• UAL'runs the majority of services geographically
administrative operations for the located in Anchorage
Fairbanks location: may be able to • May not include all
absorb certain work with Statewide services since
appropriate resourcing some functions are best
• May require investment in key performed in the System
areas Office(General Counsel etc.)
Alternative Scenarios: Anchorage and Fairbanks both have Statewide FIR functions: previous
consolidations have been explored however budgetary climate may merit
further discussions. Other services may now be options.
Estimated Savings Target: Min: 5250K(approx.2.5 FTE) Max: $2.6M
Page 22 of 28
Page 35 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
•
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UNIVERSITY
h
FAIRBANKS T.
Option #2:
Idea: Reduce PERS penalty
Description: Alaska Statutes require the University contribute to PERS Defined Benefit and Defined
Contribution plans at a minimum each year of 22%of the University's fiscal year 2008 PERS covered
payroll.Additional University contributions of$I.BM,$3I2K and$208K for Fiscal Years 2013,2012
and 2011,respectively,were required to adhere to the minimum contribution levels per the statutes.
Essentially,those additional contributions are"penalties"the University is paying because we do not have
enough people selecting the PERS option.This is a UA item: not specific to only UAP.
Cost Statistic: The annual penalty if the ceiling is not met is$1.8M in FY13 for the UA
system. Of the$1.8M. UAF's portion is$900K.
Ability to Implement: 3-4—Board of Regents' Action or External Action: Change in state or
federal law(i.e. Borough,etc)
Timeline: Mid-to Long-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Possible initial savings by • Savings will only he realized
maximizing current minimum up to the ceiling after which
commitment to PERS based on University contributions
2008 salary schedule rates will be at 22%and
• Balance between ORP and PERS significantly higher than both
is critical for optimal cost of each TERS DC and ORP Tier 3
• Savings are UA-wide DC plans
• Savings not UAF-specific
• May require statutory
changes
Alternative Scenarios: Attempt to incent new hires to select Negotiate with State to alter the
PERS in order to reduce the penalty minimum requirement in order to
amount—goal is to balance between reduce the penalty
ORP and PERS to avoid penalties in
any area
Estimated Savings Target: Min:$200K(based on 2011 penalty) Max: $900K (UAF portion only)
Page 23 of 28
Page 36 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
•
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UNIVERSITY OF
ALASKA
lh ,. FAIRBA SKNKS
REVENUE-GENERATING OPTIONS: $645K to $2.625M
Option #1:
Idea: Increase enrollment or improve student retention(via international recruiting, partnering with
high schools,advising,create complete online degree programs with eLearning.etc.)
Description: Increased enrollment leads to increased tuition,fee,housing, and dining revenues. Could
also create elearning incentives for departments by moving entire degree programs online: explore
tuition distribution models and cost associated with doing instruction in this way.
Cost Statistic: 5500k in tuition and fee revenue for each I%increase in SCI•I (in FY 15,
compared to flat enrollment): option assume 1%-5% increase in enrollment
from F's'13 overall tuition revenues(for an average return)
Ability to Implement: 1-3—Chancellor/Campus Level Decision up to Board of Regents' decision
Timeline: Mid to Long-ferns
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Increased enrollment leads to • Heavily influenced by external
higher revenues without factors(AK I-IS grad rates,economy)
substantial tuition rate • Initial increase in recruiting costs,
increases especially for international students
• Allowing students to • Investment in curriculum
complete an entire degree development,technology and faculty
program online can increase commitment required for eLearning
enrollment(as opposed to online degree programs
offering only a lbw classes
across all disciplines)
• Cost to administer programs
online may be lower over
time(once established)
Alternative Scenarios: • Focus on international/non-resident students(higher rev. per SCH,higher
recruiting costs)
• Focus on in-state students(meet AK needs, requires coordination with K-
12 and workforce needs)
• Example: offer online Masters of Business Administration(MBA)
through SOM and accept 15 students per"cohort`and create a 2-year
online program. The same 15 students complete the program together.
Est. Revenue Target: Min:5500K per 1%increase in Max: 52.5M for 5%increase in
enrollment: net revenue is$400K if enrollment: net revenue is 52M if
assuming 20%upfront investment cost assuming 20%upfront
(5100K) Y I investment cost($500K)Y 1
Page 29 of 28
Page 37 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UNIVERSITY OF
ALASKA
FAIRBANKS
Option #2:
Idea: Charge small fees for"free"services availahle on campus to the public(i.e.events.trail use, etc.)
Description: UAP has approximately 880 different events in a given year,ranging from short(2 hours)to
long(2 weeks)serving various internal and external stakeholders. Many are free and opportunities exist to
increase revenues by charging a small fee for those that use the service or attend the event.
Cost Statistic: Botanical Garden typically collects$3,500 during summer months
(June to September)via donation boxes located in the gardens and
entrance. Average use of VA);trails is approx. 1000/month.
Example: if half(500 people)gave$2/month for trail use=$12K/yr.
There are 880 events on campus per year.
NOTE: The Birch Hill Recreation Area is maintained by the
Fairbanks North Star Borough(FNSB)and Nordic Ski Club of
Fairbanks(NSCF). NSCF has membership fees and in addition
solicits donations for trail maintenance: Fanatic$250/year. Devoted
$175/year, Enthusiast$100/year,Occasional Use$75/year. Min.
donation goal for Birch Hill is$40K/year; although actual
maintenance costs may be higher. Donation boxes are also located
near the trails.
Ability to Implement: 1-2—Chancellor/Campus Decision or President/UA System Decision
Timeline: Short to Mid-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Generally a low financial • Possible negative community
impact to perception to charge public
individuals(small fees) • Collecting funds may be
• Several events may be difficult to enforce(depending
ideal and reasonable where on event logistics)
a fee to attend is well • Significantly large revenue
received and/or expected targets may be difficult to
achieve
Alternative Scenarios: Adding donation boxes to key locations on campus is a relatively
simple way to collect funds for areas of popular use: determining
which events may he most appropriate to charge a fee for attending
may need further analysis.
Estimated Revenue Target: Min: $10K I Max:$25K
Page 25 of 28
Page 38 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UNIVERSITY OF
h ALASKA
,. FAIRBA SKNKS
Option #3:
Idea: Increase alumni giving and internal campaigns for donations
Description: Focus on targeting and increasing alumni giving within UAF.Then,consider expanding on
this to reach out to local businesses to gain UAF awareness and demonstrate alumni support within the
community: this can he a tactic to increase external giving when UAF can show alumni support
Cost Statistic: UAF raise alumni giving:it is low at UA compared to other
institutions. Select an achievable target: `/ of what it is nationally
could generate SIM.
Ability to Implement: I —Chancellor/Campus Level Decision
Timeline: Short to Mid-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Initial investment to • A solid.revised.robust and
dedicated development definitive plan is required
officers allows focus on since seeking increased
revenue and giving giving is a constant UAF
generation goal
• Reaching out to local • Some alumni and local
business can increase business are opposed to
community awareness about giving
UAF, its graduates and how
they work in this community
Alternative Scenarios: Based on overall alumni giving. UAF could seek industry match by
reaching out to local businesses and asking them to match alumni
giving
Estimated Revenue Target: Min:$185K I Max: $350K
Option #4:
Idea: Evaluate opportunities for Kasitsna Bay lease(business plan pending)
Description: Kasitsna Bay Laboratory is located in Kachemak Bay.AK and is owned by NOAA and
operated in partnership with SFOS.Opportunities exist for lab use by external entities for community
educational activities. Lab use is available to approved researchers.
Cost Statistic: Kasitsna Bay operations approx. $100K/year. Minimum and
maximum savings targets assume an aggressive plan to maximize
facility usage by increasing programming which results in net returns
to the institution
Ability to Implement: 2-3—President/UA System decision or Board of Regents' decision
Timeline: Short to Mid-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • Business plan is in progress: • Remote location serves
may reveal other viable specialized needs in marine
options areas
Alternative Scenarios: Evaluate sale or lease options
Estimated Revenue Target: Min: $50K I Max: $250K
Page 26 of 28
Page 39 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UAWUNIVERSITY OF
FAIRBA ALASKA NKS
Option #5:
Idea: Offer summer executive programs and/or additional conferences/workshops
Description: Expand summer offerings for executives(or other groups)where an intensive study
program over a short time period is ideal. Expand or offer conferences.camps or workshops for specific
areas of interest. This may allow greater use of facilities for conferences or workshops(when classes are
not in session)and may increase partnerships and/or revenue opportunities.
Cost Statistic: TBD based on faculty/instructional requirements and facility needs;
dependent on program developed, location,etc. Conferences or
workshops would additionally vary based on topic,anticipated
number of attendees(internal or external).etc.
Ability to Implement: 1-2—Chancellor/Campus Decision or President/VA System Decision
Timeline: Short to Mid-Term
Analysis(Pro/Con): • May increase partnerships • May require initial
with industry.community or investment to develop
other higher education intensive study academic
institutions program(s)
• May increase student • May require additional
enrollment staffing or utilities costs
• May optimize use of
facilities throughout the year
Alternative Scenarios: N/A
Estimated Revenue Target: Min: STI31/ based on program Max:STBD;based on program
developed or potential developed or potential
conference/workshop options conference/workshop options
ADDITIONAL IDEAS UNDER REVIEW BUT NOT CONSIDERED AT THIS TIME:
1) Increase leave without pay (LWOP) limits
a. Currently 10 days is the annual maximum so retirement benefits are not
impacted. This idea would require external exploration and decision-making
since it is connected to State of Alaska PERS requirements. Employees
currently have the ability to take unpaid leave, with supervisor
awareness/approval, and this option can be utilized. Employees are
responsible for understanding the impact this may have an individual
retirement program or time serviced.
2) Early retirement options
a. Investment may be required to do this; may also facilitate "brain drain"
concepts to avoid.
3) Eliminate employee annual increases
a. Employees must be paid adequately for their work; paying employees less for
the same work is not an option.
Page 27 of 28
Page 40 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
UNIVERSITY OF
h A
FAIRBLASKA ANKS
4) Change UA/UAF healthcare practices or policy to match Federal law requirements for
application of employee benefits. UA offers healthcare at a 20 hrs/week threshold
while the Federal government requires it at a 30 hrs/week threshold.
a. Changes of this nature would require a larger analysis of cost and impact to the
UA System.
b. An alternative to not providing coverage at all to employees at the 20-30
hr/week range is to provide some funding to offset costs of purchasing care
through the Healthcare Exchange.
5) Use TAs in courses above 300-level and Adjuncts for 100 and 200 lower-level courses.
a. Adjuncts are more affordable since TAs additionally receive a tuition waiver.
b. Usually larger sections of classes need TAs and some are actually taught by TAs
(as opposed to assisting the instructor).
c. We may lose graduate enrollment by reducing the number of TAs because
graduates are attracted to tuition waivers.
d. Attempting this practice may conflict with our core mission or goals to provide
student learning opportunities.
e. Quality of education may suffer.
6) Create shared learning management system (LMS) with lead campus; reduce
duplication of service at campuses.
a. Currently under review at UA Statewide for Blackboard systems.
7) Utilize 4x10 hour work days/week during summer months.
a. Allowing for alternate schedule is intended to foster savings in utilities
(lights/heat/computers/energy) but is only effective if one-day is selected and
all employees utilize the new schedule.
b. Utility savings is minimal in summer at $1000/day. Winter is estimated at
$2000/day.
c. Assuming 4 months or 16 days of "closure" is approximately $16K minimum in
summer or $32K maximum in winter.
8) Sell property such as the Aurora Building on Marika (FS656), OEM building (FS981) or
Fireweed Building (Palmer).
a. Aurora building replacement cost may exceed the sales costs, plus relocation
costs would be required. OEM building is currently for sale; revenue from a sale
would go to Engineering department (since they bought the building) and would
offset debt service payments for the new Engineering building. The Fireweed
building and other facilities could be considered. Current cost estimates are
only associated with facility or program operations; a full market analysis to
determine value of property at sale would be necessary.
Page 28 of 28
Page 41 of 41
University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Options Group - Option...
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
JOINT WORK SESSION 1f
Joint Work Session of: V Arch 19 ao(
Please PRINT your name Please PRINT youur�na�me
5� a�lc 46jc v ,of t s4S\-7
Lac GJaod 67(
/1
ko-?>-. C\
- � Ko a AK
ig C �
17r, uX ',, u�Ca -(
rOjrelkt\- A
Fane '✓�loo
3