USF Board of Trustees Strategic Initiatives Committee · 2017. 8. 16. · The USFSP Vision 20/20 Strategic Plan projects a steady rise in student enrollment over the next 10 years

USF Board of Trustees Strategic Initiatives Committee

Thursday, August 17, 2017

11:30 am – 12:45 pm

Marshall Student Center Room 3707

Trustees: Hal Mullis, Chair; Michael Carrere, Stephanie Goforth,

James Stikeleather, Jordan Zimmerman

Senior Vice President: Edmund Funai

Community Liaison: Bob Churuti

Staff Liaisons: Paige Beles, April Ingram, Judy Lowry

A G E N D A

I. Call to Order and Comments Chair Hal Mullis

II. Public Comments Subject to USF Procedure Chair Mullis

III. New Business – Action Items

a. Approval of May 18, 2017 Meeting Minutes Chair Mullis

b. St. Petersburg Campus P3 Project Regional Vice Chancellor Joe Trubacz

IV. New Business – Information Items

a. Morsani College of Medicine Project Update Vice President Calvin Williams

Senior Vice President Charles Lockwood

b. Stadium Feasibility Study Vice President Calvin Williams

Athletic Director Mark Harlan

c. Understanding and Navigating Institutional Executive Vice President Ralph Wilcox

Rankings at USF Tampa

V. Adjournment Chair Mullis

Next Scheduled Meeting: October 12, 2017

Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting - Agenda

1

Board of Trustees

Strategic Initiatives Committee

Meeting Minutes

Thursday, May 18, 2017

9:04 a.m. - 11:45 a.m.

Marshall Student Center, Room 3707

Tampa, Florida

Present:

Committee Members: Vice Chair Scott Hopes; Mike Carrere; Stephanie Goforth; James

Stikeleather; Jordan Zimmerman

Trustees: Brian Lamb, James Garey, Byron Shinn, Nancy Watkins

President: Judy Genshaft

Senior Vice President: Edmund Funai

I. Call to Order and Comments

Vice Chair Hopes called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.

II. Public Comment Subject to USF Procedure

There being no public comments, Vice Chair Hopes proceeded to New Business.

III. New Business – Action Items

Approval of the April 6, 2017 Meeting Minutes

A request to adopt the Minutes was made by Vice Chair Hopes. A motion was made by

Trustee Carrere and seconded by Trustee Goforth and the Minutes were unanimously

approved as submitted.

IV. New Business – Information Items

A. USF St. Petersburg Campus P3 Project Update

USF St. Petersburg (USFSP) Regional Chancellor Sophia Wisniewska introduced her

Vice Chancellor of Finance and Administration, Joe Trubacz, to present an update

regarding a current plan to construct new student housing at that campus. Due to a steady

rise in student enrollment over the past 10 years, USFSP’s current student housing

demand exceeds capacity. As a result, in August 2016, the USF Board of Trustees

authorized proceeding under current P3 (public/private partnership) authority. So, under

Florida law and Florida Board of Governors’ (BOG) Guidelines’ processes, an Invitation

Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting - New Busness - Action Items

2

USF Board of Trustees Strategic Initiatives Committee May 18, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5 ________________________________________________________________________________________

to Negotiate was issued and a design/build firm (EDR) ultimately selected. The proposed

Project facility would house a 550 bed residence hall, a conference center and a dining

area. In addition, $5M is needed to build out the conference center portion and Sodexo,

its managing vendor, has preliminarily committed that investment amount as well as an

additional $600,000 for furnishings and audio visual needs.

Trustee Goforth clarified that while this has not yet been finalized as a P3 Project, USFSP

has strictly followed current BOG Guidelines to date with all items on the BOG Guidance

checklist to be completed in the next few weeks. However, as President Genshaft noted,

the current BOG Guidelines and processes are under review; therefore, EDR will prepare

a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding under P3 process versus

a university-financed facility.

Chair Lamb asked that the prepared comparison be shared as soon as available with

Trustees; Mr. Trubacz agreed that each trustee will be briefed in that regard. Recognition

of the necessity for the Board to consider operating costs, details of a Sodexo future

agreement and consideration of the strategic importance of preserving the University’s

capital assets and debt capacity were also raised.

All agreed the facility is critically needed, that a P3 is the University preferred vehicle,

that BOG guidance will be sought and followed and that, to accommodate USFSP student

needs, time is of the essence for submission of this Project plan to the BOG (no later than

November 2017), and its approval with a planned facility opening by Fall 2019 for

student/community benefit.

B. Plan to Improve Student to Faculty Ratio at USF Tampa

University of South Florida Executive Vice President and Provost Ralph Wilcox presented

the USF Tampa 5-year plan to enhance its student to faculty ratio; noting the goals

outlined in his slideshow were ambitious, yet achievable.

He first defined (1) programs to be included in the presentation (excluding, for purposes of

this discussion, “stand-alone” graduate and professional programs as provided, for

example, at USF Health or the College of Marine Sciences; and (2) FTE value, meaning

the number of students requiring instruction related to the full and part time faculty

providing that instruction.

After generally noting how lower student/faculty ratios would contribute to USF’s

Strategic Goals and higher national rankings, he specifically compared USF Tampa,

USFSP and USFSM’s ratios to each other, to public and private universities within Florida

and to 34 public AAU (American Association of Universities) designated institutions in

the United States and public AAU prospects.

The latter two analyses were based on IPEDs data and illustrated that:


3


1. For 2008-2015, among USF Tampa and its Florida research university peers, Tampa’s

faculty/student ratio not only ranked above the mean and was higher than USFSP and

USFSM;

2. In 2015, among AAU institutions, the average ratio was a 17 (student) -1 (fulltime

faculty) ratio while 25% of those ranked institutions maintained a 19-1 ratio, the figure

which USF Tampa seeks to achieve;

3. That for 2008-2015, USF Tampa’s ratio was the highest among designated public

AAU prospects.

Based upon certain strategic planning assumptions (reduction of contingent faculty %, no

enrollment growth – except for the USF College of Nursing – that any new faculty

positions would be strategically hired with interprofessional emphasis and distributed to

enhance educational and research profile, that there would also be an even distribution of

ranked faculty hires, that investment in new research hires would be focused on the USF

Morsani College of Medicine and its new downtown site, and that ongoing monitoring

would occur to ensure strategic alignment, he then outlined current student to faculty

ratios by USF Tampa College areas and goals for each; the total goal being achieving a

19-1 ratio in the next 5 years.

He recounted the estimated costs of reaching the outlined goals considering salary,

operational support, overhead, space needed and other factors; also pointing out possible

sources of resource available to underpin these costs.

After linking specific projected “return on investment” to each criterion of Florida’s state

university system preeminence formula via proposed investment in 300 new full-time

faculty members for USF Tampa, he also addressed benefits of lower student/faculty

ratios to faculty and staff retention, student financial aid, enterprise business systems and

branding and marketing.

Provost Wilcox responded to specific questions regarding the current number of USF

Tampa faculty, the difficulty in planning for new faculty hires based on uneven funding

sources-yet gratitude for new sources, e.g., the newly legislatively established World Class

Scholars fund, the “lag” time between funding availability and ability to finalize new

hires, and the relationship of online courses to ratios at USF and other AAU institutions,

such as Purdue.

Robust discussion followed, including notation that many of the AAU compared

institutions were much senior to USF, that the advantageous ratios of some institutions

reflected consistent home state strategic investments, that possible leveraging of the USF

System for new faculty hires could occur and that Board focus should occur in the future

on metrics such as these (among others) to further inform Board strategy, with the primary

goal being to further student success.

C. USF System Strategic Planning Process Update


4


USF System Senior Vice President Ed Funai handed out a one-page summary of a new

partnership with Suncoast as an example of System interdisciplinary and collaborative

effort.

He announced, on behalf of USF Health Senior Vice President and Morsani College of

Medicine Dean Charles J. Lockwood, that a new Dean for the College of Nursing has been

named, Dr. Victoria Rich with details of Dr. Rich’s experience available on the USF

Health website.

Turning to the USF System Strategic Plan update, he noted a draft version of the Strategic

Plan had been posted and was linked to this Committee Meeting agenda, adding it would

immediately be distributed to all Board of Trustees members for review and comment.

In further remarks by Trustee Stikeleather (Board liaison for the System Strategic

Planning process) he pointed out that future iterations of the Plan will be made using a

different format and structure, and that the Plan will be reviewed at least on a 6-month

cycle of continuous review and fine tuning, especially after each legislative session to

address possible directional/governance needs.

Raising a specific concern about the shortage of highly educated and qualified nurses in

the Sarasota/Manatee area, Trustee Shinn sought information about how this first Plan

iteration or subsequent ones will address such needs. In response, Dr. Funai noted current

faculty and space needs to enable additional nursing graduates, but added that USF Health,

via College of Public Health Dean Donna Petersen, was in process of surveying healthcare

provider needs in that area to enable collaboration with those providers to best address

those needed.

With respect to “branding” and “marketing”, Dr. Funai commented that he was aware of

some of the preliminary observations by current marketing and branding consultants and

which will later be included in the Plan indicating that national recognition of USF is

relatively high among prospective applicants vs. their parents.

Trustee Carrere expressed interest in using the metrics reported now and in future Plan

documents for transmission to the Board of Governors and discussion followed reiterating

the need to align (but not duplicate) those metrics with those already promulgated by USF

to the BOG, e.g., the campus workplans.

Provost Wilcox noted the difference between the USF Tampa Campus 2013-2018

Strategic Plan and those for Sarasota/Manatee and St. Petersburg campuses, with Trustees

Hopes and Stikeleather concluding that this first iteration of the System Strategic Plan

delineates System mission and is intended to address the identity of the System in future

versions.

President Genshaft noted, that as illustrated in all this Meeting’s presentations, student


5


success was the paramount focus for the System.

V. Adjournment

Vice Chair Hopes thanked all presenters and attendees and adjourned the meeting at

11:45 a.m.

Minutes prepared by Cheryl Lesko and Roberta Burford


6

Agenda Item: III.b.

USF Board of Trustees September 7, 2017

Issue: USFSP Proposed Public-Private Partnership (P3) Housing

Development Project ________________________________________________________________ Proposed action: Request the BOT approve a multi-use development project and enter into a ground sublease agreement with National Campus and Community Development Corporation (NCCDC), or an affiliate; request the Florida Board of Governors approve the project and approve the terms of the ground sublease agreement; and provide an effective date as outlined in the attached resolution. ________________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: The USFSP Vision 20/20 Strategic Plan projects a steady rise in student enrollment over the next 10 years. In addition, the university has already exceeded capacity to meet current student housing demand. In response to growing demand for on-campus housing, USFSP developed an Invitation to Negotiate (“ITN”) to solicit responses from interested parties to enter into a public private partnership agreement with the University to develop a new 550 bed residence hall with a new dining facility and a conference center. The University is seeking approval for a Private Entity to design-build-finance the new facilities consistent with the University’s objectives and Florida BOG P3 Guidelines. The Project has a target date of completion of August 2019.

Financial Impact: The public private partnership allows for major capital improvements to be done on the St. Petersburg campus with modest impact to the financial position of the University.

________________________________________________________________ Strategic Goal(s) Item Supports: Infrastructure to Meet Current and Future Needs Sustainable Funding Student Success and Culture BOT Committee Review Date: August 17, 2017 Supporting Documentation Online (please circle): Yes No USF System or Institution specific: USFSP Prepared by: Joseph Trubacz, Regional Vice Chancellor Administrative & Financial Svcs


7

Draft Date 8/2

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MULTI-USE

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND ENTERING INTO A

GROUND SUBLEASE AGREEMENT WITH NATIONAL

CAMPUS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION, OR AN AFFILIATE; REQUESTING THE

FLORIDA BOARD OF GOVERNORS TO APPROVE THE

PROJECT AND APPROVE THE TERMS OF THE GROUND

SUBLEASE AGREEMENT; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE

DATE.

WHEREAS, The University of South Florida Board of Trustees (the “Board”), the

governing body of the University of South Florida (the “University”) is authorized and

empowered pursuant to Section 1013.171 (1), Florida Statutes and the University’s policies to

lease its land for the purpose of having erected thereon facilities and accommodations necessary

and desirable to serve the educational needs and purposes of the University; and

WHEREAS, in 2016, the Board engaged Brailsford & Dunlavey (“B&D”) a nationally

known comprehensive planning and program management firm to act as a development advisor

for USFSP for a new, on campus mixed use project which analysis included a study of the of the

strategic needs and demand for additional on campus housing and an evaluation of alternative

delivery methods including public private partnerships (the “B&D Study”); and

WHEREAS, the B&D Study identified additional student housing, in addition to dining

and conference space, was needed in response to the Board’s strategic objectives, enrollment

growth and short supply of student beds, food service and meeting space on USFSP; and

WHEREAS, the Board finds that a need exists to provide student housing including

associated on-campus dining and a conference center (the “Project”) on its St. Petersburg campus

(“USFSP”); and

WHEREAS, while the student housing and dining components of the project do not

require specific legislative approval the conference center did receive legislative

approval pursuant to Section _11_ of SB 2500 adopted during the 2017 legislative session; and

WHEREAS, the Project is to be located on the USFSP campus and is consistent with the

2010 Campus Master Plan and the 2015 Master Plan Update (collectively referred to as

the “Master Plan”) and the USFSP Strategic Plan 2014-2029; and

WHEREAS, based on the results of the B&D Study the Board conducted a

publically announced competitive selection process as required pursuant to Section 1013.171

(4), Florida statutes and issued ITN #17-06-GC on October 24, 2016 for the development of the

Project using the public private partnership delivery method to include a mixed-use

residential community containing approximately 550 beds and associated residential

spaces (the “Residential Component”), approximately 15,000 square feet of dining space (the

“Dining Component”) and

25552/016/01222020.DOCv2

1


8

Draft Date 8/2

25552/016/01222020.DOCv2

2

approximately 21,000 gross square feet of conference space (the Conference Center Component”)

with appropriate parking, lighting, security, site infrastructure and other related services and

amenities; and

WHEREAS, the Project, as a whole, will support expansion of student life programming,

community building and integration of the USFSP with the City of St. Petersburg, Florida; and

WHEREAS, the Board received eleven proposals in response to the ITN and following a

shortlisting process negotiated with five of the proposers and selected the proposal submitted by

EdR Collegiate Housing (“EdR”); and

WHEREAS, the Housing Component and the Dining Component will be jointly

developed by National Campus and Community Development Corporation, a national not-for-

profit 501(c)(3) organization, or an affiliated entity (“NCCD”) and EdR in order to take advantage

of tax exempt financing available for these components;

WHEREAS, the Conference Center Component will be jointly developed by the Board,

Sodexo, the Board’s current on campus dining provider for USFSP and EdR; and

WHEREAS, the Conference Center Component will be entirely financed with funds

contributed to the Board by Sodexo; and

WHEREAS, the Board will enter a Ground Sublease Agreement, a proposed form of which

is attached hereto as item (b) of Appendix A and the Senior Vice President has reviewed the

Ground Lease Agreement in accordance with the Board’s Real Property Policy; and

WHEREAS, the Board anticipates EdR having certain continuing asset maintenance

responsibilities with respect to the building as a whole, operational responsibilities for the

Housing Component remaining with the Board and operational responsibilities for the Dining

Component and the Conference Center Component remaining with Sodexo; and

WHERAS, in order to accommodate the different ownership interests in the various

components, NCCD anticipates subjecting its leasehold interest to a commercial condominium

whereby NCCD will own the condominium unit associated with the Housing Component and

the Dining Component and the Board will own the condominium unit containing the Conference

Center Component that will be constructed, equipped, operated and managed by Sodexo; and

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA BOARD OF

TRUSTEES:

Section 1. The Board hereby finds that the Project is necessary and desirable to be

erected on USFSP and is consistent with the University’s Master Plan and the USFSP Strategic


9

Draft Date 8/2

25552/016/01222020.DOCv2

3

Plan and it is more desirable to have NCCD, Sodexo and EdR develop the Project rather than the

Board. The Board hereby approves the development of the Project, as more particularly described

herein, and the Ground Sublease Agreement with NCCD, or an affiliated entity, to design, build,

finance, manage, operate and maintain the various components of the Project as described herein

and in the Ground Sublease Agreement and requests the Florida Board of Governors (the “Board

of Governors”) to approve the Project and the terms of the Ground Sublease Agreement.

Section 2. The Project is consistent with the objectives contained in the Housing

Element of the 2010 Campus Master Plan (Section 7) that generally provides as a goal of the

University is the provision of enhanced support facilities for campus housing, including

expansion of programs to accommodate food service for the University’s residential program.

Section 3. The Board hereby finds that development of the Project (i) is consistent

with the goals contained in the Board’s 2013-2018 Strategic Plan including Goal 1 to produce well

educated and highly skilled global citizens through our continuing commitment to students

success , Goal 3 to be a highly effective, major economic engine, creating new partnerships to

build a strong and sustainable future for Florida in the global economy, and Goal 4 to use sound

financial management to establish a strong and sustainable economic advancement which

requires enhancing the physical infrastructure of the campus thorough fiscally responsible

investments and (ii) complies with the requirements of the Board’s Real Property Policy.

Construction of the Project is expected to begin following execution of the Ground Sublease

Agreement and is expected to be completed in July 2019.

Section 4. The University President, the authorized representatives of the University

and the members of the Board are hereby authorized to take all actions and steps, to execute all

instruments, documents, and contracts, and to take all other actions as they may deem necessary

or desirable, in connection with the Project and this resolution, including the execution and

delivery of a Ground Sublease Agreement. The University’s President or the President’s designee

is authorized to execute and deliver the Ground Sublease Agreement in a final form acceptable

to the President, or the President’s designee, General Counsel and Bryant Miller Olive P.A., the

University’s Special Counsel.

Section 5. In making the determination to approve the Project and the terms of the

Ground Sublease Agreement, the Board has reviewed the information attached as Appendix A

and finds that the Project and the Ground Sublease Agreement are in compliance with the

University’s Campus Master Plan and applicable law.

Section 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

Adopted this ____ day of ________, 2017.


10

Draft Date 8/2

25552/016/01222020.DOCv2

4

Appendix A

The following documents have been reviewed by the Board prior to the execution of this

Resolution:

(a) A study prepared by Brailsford & Dunlavey dated May 2016;

(b) the Project operating pro-forma and cost information provided by EdR as validated

by Public Financial Management and Brailsford & Dunlavey;

(c) the Ground Sublease Agreement;

(d) the depiction of the Project location on the USFSP Campus Master Plan Map, along

with preliminary Project renderings and proposed floor plan; and

(e) the letter of Bryant Miller Olive P.A., University Special Counsel, describing the rights

and remedies to be available to the University upon a default of the Ground Sublease

Agreement by NCCD.


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25


26


27


28


29


30


31


32


33


34


35


36


37


38


39


40


41


42


43


44


45


46


47


48


49


50


51


52


53


54


55


56


57


58


59


60


61


62


63


64


65


66


67


68


69


70


71


72


73


74


75


76


77


78


79


80


81

A u g u s t 2 0 1 7

Project Presentat ion


82

T h i s p r o j e c t m e e t s a l l B O G P 3 G u i d e l i n e s W I T H N O E X C E P T I O N S

Project Overviewu 552 beds (538

revenue-generating beds)

u 15,000 GSF residential dining facility

u 21,135 GSF conference center on top floor

u Delivered in Fall 2019


83

PROJECT DEFINITIONE N R O L L M E N T P R O J E C T I O N S

Enrollment numbers above were utilized to inform demand projections

USFSP Full-Time Enrollment Projections for Demand

AcademicClassification Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017 Fall 2018 Fall 2019 Fall 2020 Fall 2021 Fall 2022 Fall 2023 Fall 2024 Fall 2025Freshman 549 656 689 723 759 797 837 879 923 969 969Sophomore 378 422 451 481 513 547 583 620 660 701 701Junior 765 763 793 825 859 894 931 969 1,009 1,050 1,050Senior 966 935 964 996 1,029 1,062 1,097 1,134 1,172 1,212 1,212Graduate 143 168 206 216 227 238 250 263 276 290 290TOTAL 2,801 2,944 3,103 3,241 3,387 3,538 3,698 3,865 4,040 4,222 4,222

ProjectionsActual Enrollment


84

DEFINITIONS T U D E N T H O U S I N G D E M A N D T R E N D S

Growing demand has led to maximum occupancy in existing facilities

USFSP Fall Housing Occupancy Trends

*Fall 2017 occupancy assumes 158 students in Hilton / Prince Gregor Apts.


85

PROJECT DEFINITION

Impact of St. Petersburg Off-Campus Marketu Lack of affordable student housing near campus

– On-campus housing directly impacts retention and graduation rate

u Students leave USFSP due to lack of affordable housing in downtown (Fall 2017 rental rates shown below)– AER Apartments – 2 bedroom units start at $1,225 / month including

utilities (equal to $5,513 / semester)• Will not rent to students

– Cottonwood Bayview (formerly Modera Prime 235) – 2 bedroom units start at $1,068 / month including utilities (equal to $4,804 / semester)

– Hermitage Apartments (Opening Fall 2017) – 2 bedroom units start at $1,218 / month including utilities (equal to $5,479 / semester)

P 3 O B J E C T I V E S


86

Unit Type Rental Rate 2019 P3 Rental Rate 2019 Dollars Percent

Hilton Double *$4,984 / Semester $4,600 / Semester -$384 / Semester -8.3%

USC Double $4,505 / Semester $4,600 / Semester +$95 / Semester 2.1%

RHO Single $4,671 / Semester $4,800 / Semester +$129 / Semester 2.7%

AER Apts. - 2BR $5,849 / Semester $4,800 / Semester -$1,049 / Semester -21.9%

Cottonwood - 2BR $5,097 / Semester $4,800 / Semester -$297 / Semester -6.2%

Hermitage Apts. - 2BR $5,813 / Semester $4,800 / Semester -$1,013 / Semester -21.1%

2/1 Suite DO $4,571 / Semester $4,600 / Semester +$29 / Semester 0.6%

2/1 Suite SO $5,770 / Semester $4,800 / Semester -$970 / Semester -20.2%

4/2 Suite SO $4,808 / Semester $4,800 / Semester -$8 / Semester -0.2%

*Hilton is projected to come offline in Fall 2019, but rental rate is being utilized as comparison in this chart

**Off-campus rates assume 3% annual inflation between Fall 2017 and Fall 2019

**Off

Campus

On

Campus

Survey

Rates

DifferentialRental Rates

u Rates are priced competitively with the existing housing system

u Rental rates are comparable with those tested in survey

u Students living in the Hilton will experience a reduced rental rate

u Nearby off-campus inventory is priced significantly higher than the new project – most will also not rent to students

P3 HOUSINGR E N T A L R A T E C O M P A R I S O N


87

P3 HOUSINGP R O G R A M

Housing Program

Unit Description Bed Count Net SF / Unit Net SF / Bed Net SF4-Bed / 2-Bath Suite (SO) 288 829 207 59,688

2-Bed / 1-Bath Suite (DO) 248 556 139 34,472

2-Bed / 1-Bath Suite (SO) 2 243 243 486

Revenue-Generating Beds: 538 696 176 94,646

RA Beds (SO) 14 243 243 3,402

Total Beds: 552 654 178 98,048


88

P3 HOUSINGO P E R A T I O N S / P R O J E C T D E L I V E R Y

Operations

u Within the parameters of debt covenants, annual rate increases will be established by a USFSP-controlled advisory committee

u New and existing USFSP housing operations to be transferred to EdR, resulting in reduced operating costs

u Budget includes mandatory repair and replacement reserves for long-term asset management

Project Delivery

u EdR chose to deliver 538 revenue beds, as well as dining and conference space, for Fall 2019 to comprehensively meet University objectives and quantified 2019 student demand

u USFSP transfers budget, occupancy, construction, and financing risk to EdR

Existing housing system cash flow is not supporting the new project


89

P3 HOUSINGD I S T R I B U T I O N S

Distributionsu USFSP receives 100% of cash flow after debt service and expenses,

estimated at $23mm discounted at 8% over 40-year term

u USFSP receives annual reimbursement of $600 per bed for Residence Life and $225 per bed for USFSP IT services

u USFSP receives one-time contributions of $1,054,000 for parking and $500,000 for predevelopment cost reimbursement

u EdR team receives 5.00% of project cost one-time development fees, and $132,000 for one-time foundation partnership fees

u EdR team annually receives 4.00% of project revenue as management fee (of which 1.50% subject to meeting Key Performance Indicators) and $87,000 for foundation partnership fees

u EdR team receives 11.90% taxable interest on subordinate corporate debt ($4.7mm) – The overall weighted interest rate average is 5.20%


90

HOUSING COMPONENTSD I N I N G / C O N F E R E N C E C E N T E R / P A R K I N G

u Full Service Dining Program and Operations– New full service dining program replaces existing limited service

facility– 15,000 GSF – Kitchen doubles as cooking area for conference center– Seats up to 400 students (equal to 1/3 of residential population)– Sodexo is guaranteeing $600,000 in commissions to be returned to

USFSP (USFSP will utilize these funds to support dining debt service)– Sodexo is financially responsible for operations

u Conference Center Program and Operations– 21,135 GSF – Ballroom, breakout rooms, and lobby– Sodexo is contributing $5 million in equity upfront for the buildout and

an additional $600,000 for FF&E– Sodexo is financially responsible for operations– Sodexo will be providing commission to USFSP

u Parking Contribution– EdR upfront parking contribution for lost spaces equals $1.05 million


91

Assumptions

Net New Revenue-Generating Beds 538 Beds 538 Beds 538 Beds 195 Beds Net New Total Beds 552 Beds 552 Beds 552 Beds 200 Beds

Student Rental RatesConsistent with BOT-Approved Rental Rates in

2019-2020

Consistent with BOT-Approved Rental Rates in

2019-2020


2019-2020


2019-2020

Housing Construction Cost Per Bed $60,300 $60,300 $60,300 $64,927 (Fall 2020 Delivery)Total Housing / Conference / Dining Cost $49,428,634 $49,428,634 $49,428,634 $22,586,080 (Housing / Dining Only)Dining Facility Cost $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $3,323,295

Dining Facility Funding SourcesSodexo repays shell and buildout debt through

annual commission

Sodexo repays shell and buildout debt through

annual commission

Sodexo repays shell and buildout debt through

annual commission

Sodexo repays shell debt through annual

commission / Sodexo funds buildoutConference Center Cost $5,006,254 $5,006,254 $5,006,254 N/AConference Center Funding Sources Equity Funded by Sodexo Equity Funded by Sodexo Equity Funded by Sodexo N/AResidence Life Operating Cost / Bed $600 $600 $600 $800USFSP IT / Cable Cost / Bed $225 $225 $225 $225Facilities & Maintenance Cost / Square Foot $2.62 $2.62 $2.62 $3.00Parking Contribution $1,054,000 $1,054,000 $1,054,000 No Parking ContributionGround Lease Term 40 years (30 year bond) 40 years (30 year bond) 50 years N/AMinimum Facility Life 62.5 years 62.5 years 62.5 years 62.5 years

Delivery RisksProject Delivery Date Fall 2019 Fall 2019 Fall 2019 At Earliest - Fall 2020Deliver Dining Facility Included Included Included IncludedDeliver Conference Center Equity Funded by Operator Equity Funded by Operator Equity Funded by Operator Not Funded by OperatorProject Delivery Risk Transfer Private Partner Private Partner Private Partner Design-Builder

Operating Risks Occupancy Assumption 95% 95% 95% 95%

Required Residential Policy Changes: First Fill / Live-on /

Reduction in Existing HousingNo No Developer Requirement No

Required Control over Operations / Performance: Marketing /

Leasing / Maintenance University's Choice University's Choice Developer Requirement University

Facilities Management Private Partner Private Partner Private Partner Private Partner

USF Self Fund

Housing System Debt Project Delivery Methods

USFSP P3 - 501(c)(3)

(No Sub Debt)

USFSP P3 - 501(c)(3)

(10% Sub Debt)

USFSP P3

100% Equity

FUNDING MODEL COMPARISONC O M P A R I S O N M A T R I X

USFSP / EdR collaborated to evaluate and model all partnership options


92

Financial Risks% Project Funded with Senior Debt 100% 90% 0% 100%Term of Senior Debt 30 years 30 years N/A 30 years

Credit Rating Baa3 Baa3 N/A A1 - USF Housing SystemRate on Senior Debt 4.46% 4.46% N/A 5.00% (State's Official Bond Rate)

Term of Subordinated Debt N/A 30 years N/A N/ACredit Rating N/A Private Partner Debt N/A N/ARate on Subordinated Debt N/A 11.9% NA N/A

Term of Equity N/A N/A Equal to ground lease term N/AInternal Rate of Return (IRR) N/A N/A 9.17% (Return on Capital) N/AWeighted Average Rate on Project Debt 4.46% 5.20% 9.17% (Return on Capital) 5.00% (State's Official Bond Rate)

DSCR Year 1 1.20x 1.31x N/A 1.02x (1.26x Housing System)DSCR Year 2 1.20x 1.36x N/A 1.05x (1.29x Housing System)DSCR Year 3 1.22x 1.40x N/A 1.08x (1.33x Housing System)USFSP Share of Project Net Cash Flow 100% 100% after Subordinated Debt Payment 100% after Equity Payment 100%40 Years Cumulative Project Cash Flow $178 MM $166 MM $96 MM $60 MM40 Years Net Project Cash Flow (discounted at 8%) $24.8 MM $23.0 MM $8.1 MM $7.8 MMRisk to University Credit Ratings Limited Limited Low DirectRisk to University Debt Capacity Limited / No Impact Limited / No Impact No Impact DirectRisk for USFSP Project Step-In Moderate Moderate / Low Moderate Low Low

Institutional RisksUSFSP Guarantees Occupancy No No Developer Requirement NoUSFSP Support Agreements / Subordinated Expenses No No Developer Requirement NoRental Rates Control University University Developer Requirement UniversityAssignments / Marketing / Leasing Control University University Developer Requirement UniversityBuyout Option Call Bonds at Par Call Bonds at Par Purchase Equity Interest at Premium Call Bonds at ParAdditional Bed Development Restriction Market Study Market Study / Sub Debt Retirement Market Study / Hold Harmless NoneMandatory Replacement Reserve $150 / bed $150 / bed $150 / bed $200 / bedUniversity Competitive Position Value Positive Positive Positive PositiveForce Majure Events Insured Insured Insured Insured

USF Self Fund

Housing System Debt Project Delivery Methods

USFSP P3 - 501(c)(3)

(No Sub Debt)

USFSP P3 - 501(c)(3)

(10% Sub Debt)

USFSP P3

100% Equity

FUNDING MODEL COMPARISONC O M P A R I S O N M A T R I X

USFSP / EdR collaborated to evaluate and model all partnership options


93

FUNDING MODEL COMPARISON5 0 1 ( C ) 3 W I T H 1 0 % S u b D e b t V S U S F H o u s i n g S y s t e m D e b t

USFSP P3 Housing Project 501(c)3 with 10% subordinated debt

USF Self Fund Housing System Debt

Net New Total Beds 552 200

Total Project Cost $49,428,634 $22,586,080

Project Completion Date August 2019 August 2020

Ground Lease Term 40 Years N/A

Min. Certified Useful Life 62.5 years 62.5 years

Debt Service Coverage Ratio 1.31x Year 1 1.02x Year 1

EdR Total Management Fee Debt Service on B-Bond

Up to $217,502 first year$618,314

N/A

USFSP Cash Flow over 40 yrs $23 MM (discounted at 8%) $7.8 MM (discounted at 8%)

Construction, Financial and Operating Risks

Transferred to P3 Retained

Weighted Cost of Debt 5.2% 5.0% (State’s Bond Rate)


94

RECOMMENDATION

The recommended structure is the 501c3 with subordinate EdR corporate debt because:u Ability to meet student housing demand in Fall 2019u Effective transfer of risk:

– Construction delivery risk– Occupancy risk– Operating risk– Asset management risk

u Strength of financial structure (1.30x DCR in Year 1 and beyond) and cash flow is returned to USFSP

u Ability to include the mixed-use components (dining / conference center), which are funded by Sodexo

u 10% of project debt provided through subordinate EdR corporate debt that functions as equity, enhancing DSCR

u Preserve University debt capacityu Alignment with BoG Guidelines – No exceptions

M O D E L S E L E C T I O N


95

P3 ENGAGEMENT SCHEDULEP R O J E C T D E F I N I T I O N T H R O U G H O P E N I N G


96

NEXT STEPS

u BoG materials submission due by August 11th

submitted August 4th

u USFSP Campus Board approved August 11th

u USF BOT Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting is scheduled for August 17th

u USF BOT approval is scheduled for September 7th

u BoG approval is scheduled for November 8-9th


97

EdR’s SITE PLAN


98

Agenda Item: IV.a.


Issue: Update on USF Health Morsani College of Medicine & Heart Institute Proposed action: Information Purposes ________________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: The new USF Health Morsani College of Medicine and Heart

Institute, to be built in downtown Tampa, is envisioned to provide a superior teaching

and research environment. The high-rise tower is to be 11 stories with the addition of

two (2) floors and ground floor retail at this time as shell space. The project area is

projected to be 395,194 GSF, including 57,000 NSF for Morsani College of Medicine,

64,000 NSF for Heart Institute labs, 29,100 NSF for auditorium/dining/support, 22,100

NSF for faculty offices, and 6,000 NSF for Clinical Trials/Care unit. The Design/Build

team is proceeding with the construction phase of project development. Guiding

principals have been followed in the design of the project.

Financial Impact: The total project budget is $173 million.

________________________________________________________________ Strategic Goal(s) Item Supports: USF System Strategic Goals Nos. 1-4; student success, high impact research, major economic engine and more secure economic base BOT Committee Review Date: SIC August 17, 2017 Supporting Documentation Online (please circle): Yes No USF System or Institution specific: USF Health Prepared by: Calvin Williams

Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting - New Business - Information Items

99

USFSystemMCOM+HIProjectUpdateAugust,2017

Rev.Aug.4,2017


100

$112.2M*

$40.5M

$20.3M

Budget: $173M

STATE FOUNDATION OTHER FUNDING

USF Health: Morsani College of Medicine and Heart InstituteScope:Total Usable Space: 277,544 SF

MCOM InstructionalHeart Institute LabsAud/Dining/SupportFaculty OfficesClinical Trials/Care UnitShell Space

Total Gross Area: 395,194 SF

Status: GMP #1 (July2017)

GMP #2 (Oct 2017)

GMP #3 (Jan 2018)Contractor (D/B Team):Skanska/HOK

Legend: End Event

Funding Source:

Schedule:

DD Complete, CD’s in progressConstruction On Schedule

Board-Approved Project

August 2017

*We are not asking the State for anything more than $112.2M for the MCOM+HI project


101

3

USFHealth:MCOM&HI– DesignFeaturesBoard-ApprovedProject


102

Agenda Item: IV.b.


Issue: Draft USF Football Stadium Conceptual Planning Study Overview Proposed action: Information Purposes ________________________________________________________________ Executive Summary:

Provide an overview of the USF Football Stadium Conceptual Planning Study that was requested by the University Board of Trustees.

Financial Impact:

________________________________________________________________ Strategic Goal(s) Item Supports: Goal 1; Goal 2; Goal 3; Goal 4 BOT Committee Review Date: SIC August 17, 2017 Supporting Documentation Online (please circle): Yes No USF System or Institution specific: USF Tampa Prepared by: Calvin Williams


103

DRAFTJuly25,2017

1

USFFootballStadiumConceptualPlanningStudy• Background

• PreliminaryProjectParameters

• OutofStateComparisons

• PotentialZoneLocations

• PreliminaryConceptualRenderings

• Long-rangeMilestones


104

DRAFTJuly25,2017

2

BackgroundThispresentationisinresponsetotheUSFSystemPresident’sJuly2016-June2017Goals.(PresentedtotheBoardofTrusteesonAugust25,2016)

Goal4:StrategicInitiatives…USFAthletics- completeafeasibilitystudyandanalysisforanoncampusfootballstadium

AtthedirectionoftheUSFSystemPresident,inNovember2016aconsultantwasretainedtoassistUSFwithaconceptualplanningstudytohelpexplorethepossibilityofaUSFfootballstadium.

PotentialsitelocationsonandaroundcampuswereexploredandvettedagainstasetofcriteriadefinedbyUSFAthletics,FacilitiesManagement,anduniversityleadership.Thesepotentialsiteswerenarroweddowntotwo“zones”selectedforfurtherstudyandconsideration.

Concurrentwiththezoneselectionprocess,apreliminaryprojectscopeandbudgetwereestablishedandbenchmarkedagainststadiumsofsimilarqualityandscalebuiltinthelast17years.


105

DRAFTJuly25,2017

3

PreliminaryProjectParameters

Stadium:A. 40,000seats(withfutureexpansionupto50,000seats)B. 2,000ClubseatsC. 20to26suitesD. 4to6FoundersSuitesE. 2clubloungesF. 10,000sfofclassroomspace(softtarget)G. Parkingdirectlyadjacenttothestadiumwillsupport200-300spacesH. BullsZone– spacetosupportthe“fanexperience”andpromotetheUSFbrandI. Premiumtailgatingoptions

Mixed-UseFacility:A. Hotel(200beds)B. ConferenceSpace(10,000sf- softtarget)C. RetailOpportunitiesD. Parking


106

DRAFTJuly25,2017

4

OutofStateComparisonsUniversityofConnecticut UniversityofLouisville UniversityofHouston ColoradoState

UniversityUniversityofSouth

Florida

NUMBEROFSEATS 40,642 55,000 40,000 41,200 40,000

OVERALLGSF 595,596 715,000 629,000 562,132 520,000

STRUCTURE PrecastConcrete PrecastConcrete Cast-In-Place+PrecastConcrete PrecastConcrete+Steel Cast-In-Place+Precast

Concrete

PROGRAMDESCRIPTION

5,300clubseats(1,300indoor,4,000outdoor),38luxurysuites

450seatfunctionroom

1,800clubseats,62luxurysuites,1,750logeboxes,60'wideverandaoverlookingthefield.

Severallargeballroomsavailableforrent.

Canbeexpandedupto65,000seats.

766clubseats,26luxurysuites,42logeboxes

Stadiumincludes4open-airpartypatios,2open-airpartysuites


Indoorandoutdoorclubs,22suites,43logeboxes.HallofChampionsandAlumniCenter,retail.

Stadiumincludescorporateeventspaceavailableforrent.LEEDcertified.HousesandAlumniAssociation,AcademicClassrooms,andStudentAdvisingCenter.

2,000clubseats,20to26suites,4to6founderssuites,2clublounges.

LEDscoreboardandribbonboardscomparabletoRaymondJamesStadium.


COSTPERSEAT $2,244 $2,455 $3,200 $5,340 $5,060

YEARPRICED 2000 2007 2012 2015 2017(estimate)

CONSTRUCTIONCOST $91.2M $135M $128M $220M $202.4M


107

DRAFTJuly25,2017

5

PotentialZoneLocations

Thetwozoneswereevaluatedforpotentialimpactstoexistinglanduse,infrastructure,parkingavailability,andcampusconnectivity.Preliminaryconceptualrenderingswerecreatedforthetwozones.


108

DRAFTJuly25,2017

6

PreliminarySiteConcepts

Zone2

Zone1Mixed-useFacility

FowlerAve.

BruceB.Dow

nsBlvd.

N50t

hSt.

SunDome


109

DRAFTJuly25,2017

7

Zone1– PreliminaryConceptualRendering


110

DRAFTJuly25,2017

8

Zone2– PreliminaryConceptualRendering


111

DRAFTJuly25,2017

9

Long-rangeMilestones

✓ ConceptualPlanningStudy

•FinancingStrategy

•FundraisingFeasibilityStudy


112

Agenda Item: IV.c.


Issue: Understanding and Navigating Institutional Rankings at USF Tampa. ________________________________________________________________ Proposed action: Information only ________________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: Given the worldwide proliferation of rankings or “league tables” across the contemporary higher education sector, it is essential for university leadership to be able to identify and understand those rankings that hold greatest significance for USF Tampa, how they align with the university’s strategic goals, and what can and should be done to improve USF Tampa’s standing over time? This high level overview will differentiate between classification systems and rankings in higher education, with a primary focus on select institution-wide rankings identified by the Florida State Legislature and Florida Board of Governors for Preeminence Metric 2: Public University National Ranking:

Academic Ranking of World Universities (Shanghai)

Fiske Guide, Best Buy

Forbes, America’s Top Colleges

Kiplinger Best College Value

Princeton Review, Colleges That Pay You Back

QS World University Rankings

Top American Research Universities/Center for Measuring University Performance

Times Higher Education World Rankings (London)

US News and World Report, National Universities

Washington Monthly The relative importance of each to institutional reputation, student and faculty recruitment, public and private funding, and institutional improvement will be discussed. Furthermore, the challenges associated with enhancing USF Tampa’s position in select rankings and the potential risks associated with adherence to various ranking methodologies will be considered.


113

Financial Impact: This presentation will introduce the cost-benefit of prospective strategic initiatives and financial investments in elevating USF Tampa’s institutional rankings while maintaining a disciplined path toward the institution’s long-term strategic vision. At the same time, the importance of improved institutional rankings will be explored in the context of the recruitment, retention and success of world class faculty and student talent, student success, research productivity, along with alumni and philanthropic giving, all measures associated with preeminence designation in the State of Florida.

________________________________________________________________ Strategic Goal(s) Item Supports: USF Tampa Goals: I-IV BOT Committee Review Date: August 17, 2017 Supporting Documentation Online (please circle): Yes No USF System or Institution specific: For USF Tampa Prepared by: Ralph C. Wilcox, Provost and Executive Vice President


114

Understanding andNavigating InstitutionalRankings at USF TampaPresented to the USF Board of TrusteesStrategic Initiatives Committee

Ralph C. Wilcox, Ph.D.

Provost & Executive Vice President

August 17, 2017


115

Classification vs. Ranking

Classification represents a grouping of institutions based upon mission differentiation or specific attributes.

Rankings denote relative institutional/program positions with respect to a variety of cohorts including global, national, and public institutions.

2USF TAMPA


116

Why Focus on Rankings?Potential advantages: • Rankings inform enrollment decisions for students, and influence parents’ perceptions• Rankings affect faculty recruitment• Rankings (and metrics) affect state and private funding• Rankings reflect perceived institutional reputation and sometimes shape reputation• When used strategically, rankings (and associated indicators) can lead to values-based

institutional improvement

Potential disadvantages:• Rankings carry embedded biases of the methodology used• Metrics used for specific rankings may be incompatible with institutional strategic goals• No single ranking will encompass all institutional objectives, leaving potentially significant

areas underemphasized

3USF TAMPA


117

Highlights of USF’s Graduate Program Rankings

• Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2)• Library and Information Studies (27)• Master’s of Nursing (27)• Engineering – Environmental &

Environmental Health (29)• Engineering- Industrial/Manufacturing (34)• Best Medical Schools: Primary Care (47)• Doctor of Nursing Practice (48)• Computer Engineering (48)

• Public Health* (8)• Audiology* (13)• Rehabilitation Counseling* (22)• Clinical Psychology* (36)• Speech-Language Pathology* (42)• Health Care Management* (42)• Physical Therapy* (47)• Earth Sciences* (47)*previously-ranked USF graduate programs

4USF TAMPA

USF graduate programs ranked in the top 50 public universities by U.S. News and World Report (2018) Best Graduate Schools:


118

USF’s Prominent Global, National & Public Rankings

5USF TAMPA

TOP QUARTILE

SECOND QUARTILE

THIRD QUARTILE

FOURTH QUARTILE

BOLD indicates rankings used for Criterion B of Florida Statute 1001.7065 PreeminentState Research UniversitiesProgram: (A top 50 ranking on at least two well-known and highly respected national public university rankings, using most recent rankings.)

RANKING NAME

YEAR / VERSION OF

RELEASE COHORT NATURE USF RANKING COHORT SIZEGlobal Ranking by the Center for World University Rankings (CWUR) 2016 World Universities 164 1000

Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2016-2017 World Universities 201-250 980Center for Science Technology (CWTS) Leiden Rankings of Scientific

Performance of World Universities 2016 World Universities 227 842Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) by Broad Subject Fields 2016 World Universities 201-300 500

QS World University Rankings 2018 World Universities 501-550 1000Military Times: Best for Vets Colleges Ranking (4-Year Schools) 2017 U.S. 1 130

Top American Research Universities (TARU) Report: Center for Measuring University Performance (CMUP) (Total S&E Research Expenditures)

2015 (2013 data) U.S. 51 953

NSF Ranking of Research (R&D) Expenditures 2015 (FY 2014) U.S. 45 640Washington Monthly: National University Rankings 2016 U.S. 74 303

Global Ranking by the Center for World University Rankings (CWUR) 2016 U.S. 74 224Center for Science Technology (CWTS) Leiden Rankings of Scientific

Performance of World Universities 2016 U.S. 70 173Times Higher Education / Wall Street Journal College Rankings 2017 U.S. 437 1061

Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2016-2017 U.S. 64 148Forbes: America's Top Colleges 2017 U.S. 324 650

US News and World Report Ranking of National Universities & Colleges 2017 U.S. 159 310Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) by Broad Subject Fields 2016 U.S. 72 137

QS World University Rankings 2018 U.S. 94 157Top American Research Universities (TARU) Report: (CMUP) (Total S&E

Research Expenditures)2015 (2013

data) U.S. Public 33 541TARU- Center for Measuring University Performance; Overall Ranking 2015 U.S. Public 26-50 N/A

NSF Ranking of Research (R&D) Expenditures 2015 U.S. Public 28 397Washington Monthly: National University Rankings 2016 U.S. Public 46 188Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2016-2017 U.S. Public 33 97

Forbes: America's Top Colleges 2017 U.S. Public 102 256US News and World Report Ranking of National Universities & Colleges 2017 U.S. Public 83 189

Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) by Broad Subject Fields 2016 U.S. Public 42 92QS World University Rankings 2018 U.S. Public 56 98

Kiplinger Best College Value (in-state students) 2017 U.S. Public 66 100


119

Rankings in Focus

6USF TAMPA

Florida SUS Preeminence

Criteria

Performance Based Funding Metrics

AAU Phase I and Phase II Indicators

*Preeminent Criteria(all public rankings in parentheses)

*THE World University(Public US)

(33)

US News & World Report: National

Public Universities

(83)

Kiplinger Best Public College

Value: In-State

(66)

Forbes: America’s Top Public Colleges

(102)

*Washington Monthly:

Natl. Public Univ. (46)

*TARU: CMUP(Public)(26-50)

*Academic Ranking of World

Universities(Public US)

(42)

Fiske Guide: Best Buy

Public Colleges(Not rated)

Princeton Review:

Colleges That Pay You Back

(Not listed)

QS World University(Public US)

(56)


120

Times Higher Education Ranking Model

7USF TAMPA

Sources: January to March 2016 plus 2015 Academic Reputation Survey; Scopus (Elsevier) database


121

Times Higher Education Ranking Model

8USF TAMPA

Sources: January to March 2016 plus 2015 Academic Reputation Survey; Scopus (Elsevier) database


122

USNWR Ranking Model

9USF TAMPA


123

USNWR Ranking Model

10USF TAMPA


124

Conclusions

11USF TAMPA

∑ USF’s national and global rankings are essential to building reputation, recruiting world class student and faculty talent, and institutional funding (including philanthropy and research investments),

∑ We must align national and global rankings with USF’s strategic goals whenever possible,

∑ USF’s recent gains in national and global rankings have been driven, in large part, by improvements in student success,

∑ We must not “game the system” but rather foster positive long-term strategic impact on the university’s broader ecosystem,

∑ Brand recognition and reputation by peers represents the greatest challenge to enhancing USF’s national and global rankings,

∑ We are developing models, based on sophisticated data analysis, to predict the impact of strategic institutional action on gains in selected rankings, and

∑ Our emphasis on selected rankings must positively impact the broader university ecosystem.


125

Documents

USF Board of Trustees Strategic Initiatives Committee · 2017. 8. 16. · The USFSP Vision 20/20 Strategic Plan projects a steady rise in student enrollment over the next 10 years