Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regents committee considers raising delegated approval thresholds to speed campus capital projects
Summary
The committee discussed a proposal to raise the Board’s delegated cost thresholds so smaller capital-renewal projects can be approved more quickly by university leadership; staff will formalize recommended language for the full board.
Pittsburg, Kan. — Board staff presented a proposed change on April 16 to raise delegated approval thresholds for capital projects, a move administrators said would reduce the number of small amendments that require Board action and could speed project delivery and financing timing.
Vice President Frisbie described discussions with campus and system staff and said raising the “middle tier” delegated threshold — thereby giving presidents authority over more projects and reducing the need for frequent small amendments to Board approvals — could cut the number of amendments sent to the Board by an estimated 12 to 15 over the prior year. Frisbie said staff would return a formal proposal with specific thresholds for Board review.
Why it matters: Committee members emphasized that delays in bringing projects to market can materially affect financing costs. Jim McMurray’s earlier market presentation was cited during the discussion; one Regent said small delays from March to April can make a financing window unaffordable.
Discussion covered checks and balances to preserve public stewardship. Frisbie described a proposed multi-tier approach: expanded delegated authority up to a higher small-project limit, an intermediate president/CEO approval tier, and an upper tier for high-profile, high-dollar projects that must still come to the full Board. Committee members asked that the proposal include reporting back to the Board and a threshold (discussed as a 10% program change level) for when an amendment must return for Board consideration.
Internal auditors in the room offered no objection in principle but stressed the need for clear processes and reporting. Regents asked staff to formalize recommended threshold amounts and the accompanying process steps for May consideration.
