Institutions have a nearly unlimited number of capital projects they could complete. However, given limited resources, the capital plan must prioritize the most important ones. While building condition is typically the most accessible information for potential projects, renewal needs do not always align with institutional strategic priorities, and comparing quantitative condition data (such as facilities condition index) against qualitative factors (such as impact on student success) can be challenging.
By weighing the impact of individual projects on strategic goals, Facilities leaders can develop final projects lists that balance maintenance needs with broader institutional priorities.
Institutions struggle with inconsistent and insufficient access to capital funding. Other institutional priorities frequently supersede capital needs, requiring Facilities leaders to seek out new ways to fund projects.
Institutions are experimenting with funding strategies ranging from student fees to energy gain-sharing to public-private partnerships. EAB has compiled 100 of the most promising methods into a funding playbook, alongside case studies for each tactic.
Building maintenance endowments enable an initially small investment to grow into a sizeable pool of money from which resources can be pulled to pay for maintenance and renewal. While maintenance endowment may increase project costs at the beginning, they can reduce the long-term costs for the space and streamline future capital renewal projects by easing funding uncertainties. Some institutions, like Furman University and the University of Idaho, have leveraged building endowments successfully for decades.
Given the complexity of modern capital projects and institutional budgets, campus stakeholders can grow frustrated when their desired projects are delayed or rejected. By better communicating the institution’s prioritization methodology, Facilities can signal that it understands broader strategic priorities and ease potential…