Still paying for the DakotaDome

[JimmyJack]

This week, the Regents will authorize USD to use $191,000 annually from HEFF (Higher Education Facilities Fund) to cover a shortfall in bond payments for the roof on the DakotaDome. Students at all of the Regental campuses contribute to HEFF, which is intended to pay for academic buildings. HEFF payments for the dome roof will continue through 2024.

The roof replacement was authorized by the Regents in 1998, with the specific provision that no HEFF dollars be expended. State taxpayers put in $4 million of the approximately $12.5 million price tag.

USD said then that they could cover the rest through energy savings and general activity fees paid by students. They overestimated the energy savings.

Now SDSU students will be paying 40 percent or so of that $191,000 each year to repay the debt on the dome roof. The total commitment of HEFF funds for the Dome roof will total nearly $2.5 million between 2012 and 2024 when the thing will finally be paid for.

The Regents did the right thing when they approved the project only if HEFF money was not used. Now they have no choice, because of a $2.5 million mistake by USD, but to find a way to cover the payments.

Here's the documentation:

http://www.sdbor.edu/theboard/agenda...MB0511IIIA.pdf

[KUlawJack]

Re: Still paying for the DakotaDome

Where can I get a list of emails for the BOR members? A century of favoritism for USD continues unabated. Stupid.

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Still paying for the DakotaDome

That really burns my ass! SDSU and USD were given the same amount to build their athletic facilities (HPER building/Frost for SDSU, DakotaDome for USD). USD actually got more dollars because an inflation factor was considered when they built the DD. So when the roof had to be replaced (where in the hell was the consideration that a fabric roof wouldn't last like a permanent roof), USD turned to the state for help in financing a new roof. Janklow, a USD grad, made the $4 million available, and it was approved by the legislature, to help pay for it. The Legislature was assured that energy savings and a student fee would pay the bond payments.

So now, they get an additional $2.5 million from HEFF funds, which is taken out of the tuition and fees money from all the other state institutions. USD estimated the energy savings high in order to get the money from the legislature...where was the check on that figured? The whole thing stinks, and yet nobody will be held accountable for it and the rest of the schools get the shaft.

Which means to me that the equal HEFF money should be provided to SDSU, along with $4 million (adjusted for inflation, which should make it about $5 million), for a grand total of $$7.5 million, to help fund an Indoor Practice Facility (our Dome!). Yeh...fat chance! What a rip-off!

[Nidaros]

Re: Still paying for the DakotaDome

That really burns my ass! SDSU and USD were given the same amount to build their athletic facilities (HPER building/Frost for SDSU, DakotaDome for USD). USD actually got more dollars because an inflation factor was considered when they built the DD. So when the roof had to be replaced (where in the hell was the consideration that a fabric roof wouldn't last like a permanent roof), USD turned to the state for help in financing a new roof. Janklow, a USD grad, made the $4 million available, and it was approved by the legislature, to help pay for it. The Legislature was assured that energy savings and a student fee would pay the bond payments.

So now, they get an additional $2.5 million from HEFF funds, which is taken out of the tuition and fees money from all the other state institutions. USD estimated the energy savings high in order to get the money from the legislature...where was the check on that figured? The whole thing stinks, and yet nobody will be held accountable for it and the rest of the schools get the shaft.

Which means to me that the equal HEFF money should be provided to SDSU, along with $4 million (adjusted for inflation, which should make it about $5 million), for a grand total of $$7.5 million, to help fund an Indoor Practice Facility (our Dome!). Yeh...fat chance! What a rip-off!

Could it be that Dean Krogman is possibly circulating this idea amongst his fellow regents?

[hareball]

Re: Still paying for the DakotaDome

The numbers provided by Jimmy Jack are incomplete and misleading.

The original projections were for an annual bond payment of $521,015 of which $214,000 was to come from energy savings with the remaining $307,015 to come from facility revenues and general activity fees. The actual bond payment is $500,000 and the actual energy savings are $191,000 leaving $309,000 to come from facility revenues and general activity fees.

The $191,000 is not an added cost to the SDBOR but is simply a transfer of the energy savings amount so it can be paid from the correct fund.

[zooropa]

Re: Still paying for the DakotaDome

The $191,000 is not an added cost to the SDBOR but is simply a transfer of the energy savings amount so it can be paid from the correct fund.

Why would USD need to transfer money into the HEFF?

[zooropa]

Re: Still paying for the DakotaDome

Okay, I read the regents' report, and it has not improved my opinion of that august deliberative body.

The notion seems to be: "We didn't create a set aside account for energy savings, and we can't take $191,000 out of the system wide utility budget because the actual savings may not be $191,000 and that would harm other campuses, so we'll take $191,000 out of the HEFF instead."

This means that 30% of the DakotaDome bond payment (give or take) is being made by students at the other 5 campuses--subject to a theoretical offset of $191,000 in system wide energy savings.

[KUlawJack]

Re: Still paying for the DakotaDome

The numbers provided by Jimmy Jack are incomplete and misleading.

The original projections were for an annual bond payment of $521,015 of which $214,000 was to come from energy savings with the remaining $307,015 to come from facility revenues and general activity fees. The actual bond payment is $500,000 and the actual energy savings are $191,000 leaving $309,000 to come from facility revenues and general activity fees.

The $191,000 is not an added cost to the SDBOR but is simply a transfer of the energy savings amount so it can be paid from the correct fund.

Does this somehow change the fact that money is being removed from HEFF? Is USD's money they might receive in the future from the HEFF fund reduced by this amount? If not, they get to double dip and get this shortfall, i.e., BOR shortsightedness or screw-up in 1998 (however you'd like to characterize it), paid out of the HEFF fund and also get money for other buildings resulting in a higher rate of return for the investment made by USD students. Seems like it should be explained more clearly for people like me who probably don't understand and have only witnessed the BOR's ongoing favoritism for USD for the past 11 decades.

[goon]

Re: Still paying for the DakotaDome

didnt they need to get state money to help finish the med school also? Like they were going to be short so state helped out again?

[JimmyJack]

Re: Still paying for the DakotaDome

The numbers provided by Jimmy Jack are incomplete and misleading.

The original projections were for an annual bond payment of $521,015 of which $214,000 was to come from energy savings with the remaining $307,015 to come from facility revenues and general activity fees. The actual bond payment is $500,000 and the actual energy savings are $191,000 leaving $309,000 to come from facility revenues and general activity fees.

The $191,000 is not an added cost to the SDBOR but is simply a transfer of the energy savings amount so it can be paid from the correct fund.

Not trying to mislead. Your explanation is helpful.

[hareball]

Re: Still paying for the DakotaDome

A more notable fact regarding the agenda for the May BOR meeting (and one that both USD & SDSU would agree on) is the continued lack of addressing the additions/improvments to the athletic facilities at both institutions.

[slosho]

Re: Still paying for the DakotaDome

I can see the headline now... "students (student associations for BHSU, DSU, NSU, SDSM&T, and SDSU) sue SD BOR over mismanegement of student fees".... And I think they should!

[el_presidente]

Re: Still paying for the DakotaDome

On top of what has been mentions, they have been allowing them to use $140,000 in General Activity Fee (GAF) money paid by students all of this time! SDSU had strict limits put on it in the use of GAF fees when we went Division I. Do you think the BOR would let us use GAF money for a stadium?

Oh, and before they use HEFF, they have extra GAF available. The BOR let them raise their GAF fee up to the highest in the system and they have $2.0 M in extra money. They are going to use it to help pay for a renovation on the Muenster student union. http://www.sdbor.edu/theboard/agenda...MB0511IIIB.pdf

Shouldn't they use that extra $2.0 M extra in GAF for their Dakota Dome payment instead?

[zooropa]

Re: Still paying for the DakotaDome

Does this somehow change the fact that money is being removed from HEFF? Is USD's money they might receive in the future from the HEFF fund reduced by this amount?

$191,000 is being removed from the HEFF, but (theoretically) the system-wide utility bill has also been reduced $191,000 so the amounts balance out.

In theory.

In practice this is what seems to have happened:

Rather than cut USD's utility allowance by $191,000 and redirect $191,000 from that amount to the bond, the BoR is pulling $191k out of a system wide fund and allegedly pulling that $191k out of savings on the utility budget.

----

Or, to simplify:

Say you're going to buy some solar panels for the house. You buy the solar panels on a credit card and figure you'll pay off the solar panels with your savings.

Well, you save $30 per month with the solar panels, keep your energy budget the same and deduct $30 from your car insurance budget. You don't create a 'solar panel repayment' budget item carved out of your energy budget, you just grab $30 from another budget item that isn't really related.

The savings are still legitimate, but your bookkeeping is terrible. And like I said, it doesn't give me a great deal of confidence in the BoR.