University of Colorado at Boulder
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
ON BUFFALO FUTURES:
Enrollment Management Plan 2004
Draft
January 18, 1995
Roderic B. Park, Chancellor
Chair of the Commission
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-3
INTRODUCTION
Charter and Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Organization of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
PART I: Enrollment Management Plan 2004
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
General Planning Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
Campus-Specific Planning Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-7
Proposed Enrollment Management Plan 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-12
PART II: Evaluation and Fiscal Impact
Funding and Fiscal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Reasonable Share vs Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-14
Enrollment Scenarios and Fiscal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-15
Auxiliary Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendices are in a separate document
Financial, Operating and Facilities Model 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A
Financial, Operating and Facilities Model 2004 Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Appendix B
Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Appendix C
Key Issues Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix D
Uses of Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Appendix E
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Colorado higher education faces dramatic enrollment increases in the next decade, offering
opportunities for institutional growth, service, innovation, and differentiation. Projected increases in
enrollment demand of up to 30 percent require that postsecondary institutions consider major shifts in
their planning scenarios.
The University of Colorado at Boulder is committed to participating in State enrollment growth while
continuing to provide undergraduate, graduate and professional education of the highest quality. CUBoulder proposes a 10-year plan of active enrollment management using a combination of four tools:
Substitution: CU-Boulder will make room for more Colorado residents by substituting
residents for some non-residents. We will compensate for the lost tuition differential with state
support for the additional resident students and through modest tuition increases for all resident
students. Resident tuition will remain well within the range of resident tuition at other public
flagship institutions.
Efficiency Improvements: To accommodate additional Colorado residents, CU-Boulder will
pursue further efficiency improvements through judicious use of instructional technologies,
summer session tuition rebates to shift student loads, and re-engineering selected instructional
and administrative processes. These measures will help ensure the most effective use of our
existing facilities.
Targeted Growth: CU-Boulder will make room for more Colorado residents by measured,
targeted growth based on academic priorities and demand. The requisite increase in physical
capacity would be supported primarily by capital construction and renovation projects already
planned and approved.
Redirection: CU-Boulder will help enable access to the University for residents of Colorado
by cooperating with the other CU campuses to direct some resident freshman applicants to CUColorado Springs or CU-Denver to start their college careers. Redirected students would be
provided the opportunity to enroll at CU-Boulder through a guaranteed transfer program.
Graduate enrollment is expected to remain near current levels during this 10-year period, reflecting
projections of demand.
This plan of active enrollment management helps meet changing circumstances through the flexible
combination of substitution, efficiency improvements, targeted growth, and redirection. The advantages
it offers to the State, CU System, and CU-Boulder include:

This plan is cost effective for the State because accommodating Colorado residents by
substitution, efficiencies, and redirection is less expensive than adding the personnel,
facilities, and infrastructure that otherwise would be needed at CU-Boulder.
CU-Boulder : Enrollment Management Plan, January 18, 1995 (Draft) Page 1

This plan grants all qualified Colorado residents access to the CU System, encourages
cooperation and transferability within the System, and promotes the development of CUDenver and CU-Colorado Springs, where plans call for the addition of residence halls and
substantial enrollment growth.

This plan ensures that growth at CU-Boulder -- of students, faculty, staff and facilities -will be consistent with academic priorities, available resources, campus physical
limitations, and the concerns of the Boulder community.

This plan provides flexibility to adjust the balance of substitution, targeted growth,
efficiency improvements, and redirection to reflect changing circumstances.

This plan keeps tuition for Colorado residents well within the range of resident tuition at
other public flagship institutions. Tuition increases slightly above inflation, coupled with
appropriate financial aid for students with demonstrated need, will effectively reduce state
subsidies for financially capable Colorado residents. (The effect of this is revenue neutral,
and does not affect Amendment 1 limits.)

This plan encourages more efficient, innovative use of existing facilities, and takes
advantage of CU-Boulder's continuing cost effectiveness in degree production.

This plan will help match Colorado's best-prepared and motivated students with CUBoulder's exceptional educational opportunities and research faculty.
The success of this plan depends upon consistent State revenues at least equal to current State funding
per Colorado resident, plus inflation. Any enrollment plan, for CU-Boulder or any other institution, that
aims to maintain and enhance quality and access would require a similar level of commitment.
CU-Boulder : Enrollment Management Plan, January 18, 1995 (Draft) Page 2
University of Colorado at Boulder:
Proposed Enrollment Management Plan to 2004
EXAMPLE
The following example illustrates the mechanics of the plan. The numbers are illustrative only. The actual mix of
substitution, growth from efficiency improvements, targeted growth, and redirection would depend on actions of the
State, the Board of Regents, the CU System, and students over the next 10 years.
Current enrollment of Colorado resident undergraduates at CU-Boulder is about 13,500 students. If there is no
change in CU-Boulder’s historical share of Colorado high school graduates, by Fall of 2004 enrollment would
increase by 3,000 resident undergraduates.
CU-Boulder plans to manage this increased demand from Colorado resident undergraduates by accommodating
2,250 additional students at CU-Boulder and redirecting 750 to CU-Colorado Springs and CU-Denver.
CU-Boulder will make room on the campus for these 2,250 additional Colorado resident undergraduates by:

Substituting 750 residents for nonresidents, with modest increases in resident tuition to offset non-resident
tuition revenue losses. By Fall of 2004, CU-Boulder's resident tuition would be about $300 over 1994 levels,
plus inflation.

Efficiency improvements in use of facilities and technology to accommodate additional students, including 750
Colorado resident undergraduates.

Targeted growth to increase total enrollment, which will accommodate the remaining 750 Colorado resident
undergraduates.
CU-Boulder will redirect 7% of Colorado resident freshman applicants to other CU campuses, creating up to 750
additional enrollments there. Redirection will not affect admission to CU-Boulder of applicants in the top third of
their high school classes, and CU-Boulder will maintain its commitment to diversity. CU-Boulder's share of
Colorado high school graduates entering as freshmen would fall from about 6.0% to 5.6%.
In summary, this example shows plans for an increase of 3,000 in demand for resident undergraduate places at
CU-Boulder by 2004, with:
2,250 accommodated at CU-Boulder by
Substitution
Efficiency improvements
Targeted growth
+750
+750
+750
Redirected to CU-Denver and CU-Colorado Springs
+750
Overall growth in fall enrollment, from residents and non-residents combined, would be 1,000-1,200 students in
this example, depending on how efficiencies are implemented.
CU-Boulder : Enrollment Management Plan, January 18, 1995 (Draft) Page 3
INTRODUCTION
Charter and Membership
The Commission on Buffalo Futures was formed in August 1994 to study the impact on the CU-Boulder
campus of a forecasted 36% growth in state high school graduates over the next 10 years, and to
develop the basis for a new or updated strategic plan. The Commission membership consisted of:
Roderic B. Park, Chancellor, Chair
Bruce R. Ekstrand, Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs
William R. Herbstreit, Acting Vice Chancellor, Administration
James W. Palmer, Acting Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs
David R. Kassoy, Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs
Lorrie A. Shepard, Professor, Education (Chair, BFA Enrollment Committee)
Richard F. Porreca, Budget Director, Vice Chair
Susan B. Stine, Director, Planning and Institutional Research
William R. Haid, Registrar
Lou McClelland, Director, Research and Information
Hans P. L'Orange, Asst. Director, Planning and Institutional Research
Adam Griff, United Government of Graduate Students
Karen Lipker, University of Colorado Student Union
Gordon J. Johnson, Staff to the Commission
Organization of the Report
The report is divided into two main parts and five appendices. In Part I we identify enrollment planning
assumptions relating both to statewide considerations and to characteristics of the Boulder campus.
Based on these assumptions and other factors we concluded that it is untenable either to grow
indefinitely by maintaining our current share of Colorado high school graduates, or to fail to respond in
a positive way to the forecasted growth. The result is a proposed multifaceted plan of active enrollment
management that provides a flexible, balanced approach to enrollment growth.
In Part II we endeavor to evaluate and test the feasibility of the plan and determine its fiscal impact
using a financial, operating and facilities model developed for this purpose. Part II and its appendices
also include estimates of impacts on auxiliary facilities and of the incremental costs for new space,
renovated space, deferred maintenance and infrastructure.
Comments about this plan can be sent to Chancellor Park at:
Campus Box 17, or e-mailed to buffalo@spot.colorado.edu
CU-Boulder : Enrollment Management Plan, January 18, 1995 (Draft) Page 4
PART I: ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN 2004
Background
Access to high-quality education is one of the most valuable and critical services governments supply to
their constituents. This includes a first-rate K-12 educational system and a diverse array of
postsecondary, higher education opportunities. The most valuable asset that Colorado can build and
nurture is an educated citizenry. Colorado must plan for expected growth in the demand for education
at both the K-12 and postsecondary levels and must make every effort to accommodate the growth. At
the same time, educators must find ways to enhance the quality of the education that is delivered.
Over the next 10 years, the State can expect a substantial increase in the number of Colorado residents
seeking postsecondary education. Given the known numbers of students currently enrolled in K-12
grades and reasonable estimates of in- and out-migration, CCHE currently estimates a 36% increase in
the number of Colorado high school graduates by the year 2004. This will likely translate into a 20% to
30% increase in the number of students seeking postsecondary opportunities by that year. All of
Colorado's postsecondary institutions must work together to develop a plan for accommodating this
growth.
General Planning Assumptions
To address the problem of enrollment growth, it is useful to state at the outset the general enrollment
planning assumptions that guide our efforts:

Growth should be seen as a positive opportunity to enhance the quality and efficiency of education
and services. The overall goal should be to produce an educated citizenry that will meet the needs
of the State for all segments of the society and economy.

To avoid wasteful competition and duplication of effort and assure the efficient delivery of
postsecondary education to the citizens of Colorado, all institutions and sectors of the higher
education system should have optimally differentiated roles and missions.

All institutions should strive to maintain and improve the quality of education at each level of
study (vocational, undergraduate, graduate, and professional) pertinent to their respective roles and
missions.

All segments of the higher education system in the State will need to plan for growth and
participate in the opportunity to educate the increasing number of high school graduates who are
expected to seek postsecondary education during the next 10 years.

All segments of the higher education system will have to work together and in partnership with K12 to ensure no loss of access to postsecondary opportunities occur. In fact, enhanced access
should be the goal, given the ever increasing need for a better educated citizenry. Assured
transferability between institutions and tiers for qualified students should be an integral part of an
overall, coordinated, higher education system for the State.
CU-Boulder : Enrollment Management Plan, January 18, 1995 (Draft) Page 5

Meeting the educational needs of the State requires significant investment. Therefore, the plan for
accommodating growth must include a plan for paying for its costs. The costs will need to be
borne jointly by the State and the consumers of the educational services.

Each institution of higher education will need to devise more effective methods of meeting the
increasing demands placed on the statewide higher education system through the use of technology
and improved facility utilization.
Campus-Specific Planning Assumptions
The Boulder campus is deeply committed to providing the highest quality education at the
undergraduate, graduate, and professional levels to all academically qualified Colorado citizens. Within
the context of its stated role and mission as a comprehensive research university, and given its national
and international reputation, the campus must participate with the higher education community to meet
the State's growing need for educational services. To be successful, our enrollment plan must meet the
test of the general planning assumptions articulated above, as well as the additional assumptions which
are specific to CU-Boulder:

CU-Boulder has traditionally served a higher proportion of top Colorado high school graduates than
any other state institution. Well prepared, motivated students are best able to take advantage of the
educational opportunities the campus offers. The faculty is committed to attracting and retaining
students who are well qualified to meet the academic challenges they will find here.

In addition to a high quality undergraduate experience, CU-Boulder has a special responsibility
within the State to provide graduate and professional education. Although no significant increase in
graduate enrollments is forecast over the 10-year planning horizon, total enrollment planning must
take into account the eventual growth in demand for graduate and professional education that could
derive from the anticipated growing undergraduate population.

CU-Boulder has a major responsibility to the State and the nation to conduct a vigorous research
agenda that will make possible a challenging and unique undergraduate education, advance
knowledge, support graduate education, contribute to the solution of important problems, and yield
strong economic benefits to the State.

CU-Boulder has become highly dependent upon tuition as a major revenue source, especially
tuition from nonresident students. Nonresident tuition at CU-Boulder is the second highest among
the AAU public institutions and dramatically subsidizes Colorado students. Nonresidents, who
comprise one-third of CU-Boulder’s student body, provide two-thirds of CU-Boulder’s tuition
revenue. Current nonresident tuition is approaching the limit we can reasonably expect students to
pay. We believe that it will not be possible to increase the subsidy of residents by nonresidents any
further and that resident students will have to bear a greater share of the full cost of their education.
Affordability for Colorado residents is not endangered if those who can afford to pay more do so,
or are subsidized to a lesser extent than students who are economically disadvantaged.

The faculty is at the core of CU-Boulder's ability to provide an outstanding educational experience.
Although it is in fierce competition with the country's best universities for the services of
exceptional faculty, CU-Boulder is fortunate in being able to attract and retain distinguished faculty
CU-Boulder : Enrollment Management Plan, January 18, 1995 (Draft) Page 6
members. However, because of the highly selective and competitive nature of recruiting for the
Boulder campus faculty, growth in the number of faculty here will be more expensive than at most
other institutions in the State.

CU-Boulder operates in a city that is highly conscious of growth issues and is seriously concerned
with the effects that growth on the campus will have on the community.

Growth plans must take into account the architectural integrity and beauty of the current campus,
which require relatively high costs of construction and maintenance. The campus also has a
significant list of deferred maintenance needs necessary to keep the facilities and infrastructure
essential to our mission in safe and serviceable condition. Already, certain expensive infrastructure
upgrades will be needed whether or not significant growth occurs at CU-Boulder. There is also a
limited reserve of appropriate new building sites with little in the way of contiguous land
acquisition opportunities.
Proposed Enrollment Management Plan 2004
The foundation of CU-Boulder's proposed enrollment management plan is our recognition that it is
untenable either to grow indefinitely or to fail to respond in a positive way to the State's projected
enrollment growth. If CU-Boulder's current admission and enrollment practices are simply continued,
resident undergraduate enrollment could increase by 3,000 by the year 2004. Total fall enrollment
would grow from 25,000 to over 29,000 students by that year, and would continue to grow after that.
Such indefinite growth is unacceptable. It would threaten academic quality, require significant and
expensive construction, and exceed the limits of our campus and community settings. On the other
hand, remaining at 25,000 is unacceptable as well, because we want to respond positively to State
enrollment pressures. With no other changes in practices, staying at 25,000 would mean rejecting 25
to 35 percent of resident freshmen applicants.
With Plan 2004, CU-Boulder will be able to respond to the increase in State enrollment demand,
control campus growth, and maintain campus academic integrity. The Plan balances the interests of
the campus, the CU System, the State, and the City of Boulder. It incorporates four essential
elements:
1) substitution of resident students for nonresidents on a revenue neutral basis;
2) improved efficiency;
3) modest targeted growth; and
4) redirection of some freshman applicants to other CU campuses.
The first three of these elements provide for more residents at CU-Boulder. Each of the four elements is
described in more detail below.
1) Substitution: We will make more room for Colorado residents. CU-Boulder proposes to
accommodate a significant number of additional resident students by substituting them for some
nonresident students on a “revenue-neutral” basis. To achieve a revenue neutral exchange, the State
would need to provide the current average general fund support ($4,000 plus inflation) for each
additional resident, and the Board of Regents would need to assure that this funding is passed through to
the campus undiminished. We propose to offset the remainder of the loss in nonresident tuition revenue
CU-Boulder : Enrollment Management Plan, January 18, 1995 (Draft) Page 7
by spreading it across the entire resident student body, increasing resident tuition by just enough to
achieve a revenue-neutral status.
Substitution will bring no change in total campus enrollment, thereby reducing the need for new
facilities and capital investment. The increase in resident tuition required to fund substitution would
be in addition to inflationary increases, but gradual, and spread over 10 years as the number of
substitutions increases. The size of the increase depends on the number of substitutions -- the more
substitutions, the greater the resident tuition increase needed by 2004.
We estimate that, on the average, an increase to resident tuition of $12 (over inflation) each Fall and
Spring term for 10 years would offset the revenue loss arising from substitution of 750 resident
undergraduates for an equal number of nonresidents over 10 years. This is about the cost of a large
pizza. To ensure access for qualified students who cannot afford the higher tuition levels, it would be
necessary for the State and campus to increase contributions or appropriations for financial aid.
Resident tuition will remain under the median for AAU public universities with as many as 1,250
substitutions, and will remain solidly in the midrange for these institutions even with 3,000, the
maximum number we would consider, as seen in the following graph. Substitution will not
jeopardize CU-Boulder's cosmopolitan character because the campus would remain at least 20% nonresident even with 3,000 substitutions.
2) Efficiency: We believe it is possible to improve our efficiency, thereby accommodating more
students through existing facilities. CU-Boulder is already a highly productive and efficient operation
in terms of such indices as administrative overhead as a percent of expenditures (9.7%), the lowest in
the state, and cost to the State per undergraduate resident degree produced ($18,000). This cost has
declined by 3.4% in the last five years and is lower than that at the other research institutions in the state
(an undergraduate resident degree costs the State about $4,500 more at CSU and $24,500 more at the
Colorado School of Mines). CU-Boulder's graduation rates are higher than the state average for
entering students at every level of academic preparation.
CU-Boulder : Enrollment Management Plan, January 18, 1995 (Draft) Page 8
Although CU-Boulder can demonstrate its high efficiency and has been highly innovative, we are
committed to continuing these efforts with the goal of making the campus more cost effective as well as
a more exciting, stimulating learning environment. CU-Boulder will continue to pursue efficiencies
and innovations in the delivery of higher education services. We will also continue to curtail low
demand undergraduate courses and expand the availability of high demand, required and core courses
consistent with good educational practices. Specifically, we believe that we can improve our efficiency
in the areas described below:

Summer Session: We will continue to improve the utilization of existing facilities at CUBoulder and at the same time help control the cost of education by providing a tuition rebate
to those students who avail themselves of courses offered in summer sessions totaling a
specified number of credit hours during their baccalaureate degree program. We anticipate
that this rebate will attract enough students to the summer to help relieve the pressure on
enrollments during the academic year. For some number of additional students, the summer
incremental revenue less the rebate is expected to exceed incremental cost by a significant
margin and therefore the rebate should not impair our ability to pay the attendant cost of an
expanded summer session.

Technology: Boulder expects that information technology will also play an increasingly
important role in fulfilling its missions during the next decade. Opportunities for using
technology to improve teaching methodologies, the learning environment, and the location,
timing and delivery of educational services will be explored and incorporated into
instruction, research, and service both to improve learning and use resources most
effectively. It is anticipated that information technology will allow faculty and students to
work together in an increasingly interdisciplinary and global environment. Key elements for
academic use will be multimedia, technology-supported cooperative work, distance learning,
and expanded information access and use. We will adjust current faculty, student, and staff
roles and organizational structures to redeploy resources to take advantage of technology.
See Appendix E for further examples.

Administrative Management: We are already deeply involved in a number of efforts to reengineer selected instructional and administrative processes to improve efficiency. Reform
measures now under consideration by the legislature are also expected to reduce the
administrative burden of the campus.
Improving efficiency will increase CU-Boulder's capacity to serve students, but will not add
significantly to what we might call "peak load enrollment." Peak load enrollment is academic year
(especially Fall), on-campus enrollment which puts a direct, full load on campus and city physical
facilities. Efficiency improvements, especially the summer rebates, can potentially decrease peak
load enrollment while at the same time allowing the campus to serve more students.
Most of the facilities required for the degree of growth envisioned are already well along in the
approval process. Projects currently in the capital construction program include New Geology, Old
Geology renovation, Engineering Integrated Teaching Lab, Carlson Gym renovation, Molecular,
Cellular and Developmental Biology building, Humanities and Social Sciences classroom building,
CU-Boulder : Enrollment Management Plan, January 18, 1995 (Draft) Page 9
APAS addition, and Science Library phases II and III. Normal deferred maintenance and renovation
funding would, of course, still be necessary.
3) Targeted Growth: Modest growth will be permitted for targeted opportunities in areas of high
demand or where exciting new developments have occurred. Growth will be entirely deliberate and
occur only with sound academic planning, based on quality and feasibility. The schools and colleges
promoting growth will be required to develop plans for accommodating the additional students and
deploying additional faculty.
4) Redirection: We will work cooperatively with the other CU campuses to accommodate the CU
System's share of enrollment growth. This may involve the redirection of up to 25% of Colorado
resident freshmen applicants to CU-Colorado Springs and CU-Denver. We would, however, maintain
our commitment to enrolling an outstanding, diverse student.
Under this proposal all qualified applicants would still be admitted to the University of Colorado
System, but some percentage would be directed either to CU-Denver or CU-Colorado Springs, where
plans call for the addition of residence halls and substantial student-body growth. These redirected
students would be offered guaranteed transfer to CU-Boulder, contingent upon their earning the
minimum hours and GPA specified in the guarantee agreement.
Redirection will, of course, affect the share of Colorado high school graduates enrolling at CUBoulder as freshmen. This share is currently about 6%, but has varied considerably in recent years,
as seen in the following graph. With 1,000 redirects our share would drop to 5.4%, with about 10%
of resident freshmen applicants redirected, all from below the 70th HS percentile rank. With 2,000
redirects our share would be 4.8%, with almost 20% of applicants redirected, all from below the 80th
HS percentile rank.
CU-Boulder : Enrollment Management Plan, January 18, 1995 (Draft) Page 10
We believe this CU System approach is an excellent means for dealing with the University’s share of
enrollment growth. In particular, it complements the growth plans of CU-Colorado Springs and CUDenver and takes advantage of UCCS residential housing plans. Although some redirected students
might elect not to attend CU-Denver or CU-Colorado Springs, many will, and we expect that more
than half of these will elect to remain there to graduation.
Combining the Tools. Plan 2004 is flexible, allowing CU-Boulder to combine the four tools as
needed to manage increased demand. The balance among the tools can vary from equal contributions
from all four, to emphasis on just one or two. In addition, the combination of tools will enable us to
manage increases in demand for resident undergraduate places at CU-Boulder ranging from 3,000
(our best guess) to as much as 5,000. This flexibility will put us in an excellent position to take
advantage of opportunities and react positively to actions of the State, the CU system, students, and
the City of Boulder.
Graduate enrollment. Plan 2004 is designed to manage an increase in demand for resident
undergraduate places at CU-Boulder. We are projecting no significant growth in graduate enrollment
until after 2004. This projection is based on recent campus and national trends showing slowing
graduate-level demand, and on the considerable lag before significantly larger numbers of high
school graduates make their way to graduate and professional schools. However, Plan 2004 ensures
that, once demand for graduate enrollment does increase, there will be room for more graduate
students at CU-Boulder.
To summarize, the benefits of the proposed Enrollment Management Plan 2004 include:

This plan is cost effective for the State because accommodating Colorado residents by
substitution, efficiencies, and redirection is less expensive than adding the personnel,
facilities, infrastructure that otherwise would be needed at CU-Boulder.

This plan grants all qualified Colorado residents access to the CU System, encourages
cooperation and transferability within the system, and promotes the development of CUDenver and CU-Colorado Springs, where plans call for the addition of residence halls and
substantial enrollment growth.

This plan ensures that growth at the CU-Boulder -- of students, faculty, staff and facilities -will be consistent with academic priorities, campus physical limitations, and the concerns
of the Boulder community.

This plan provides flexibility to adjust the balance of substitution, growth, and redirection
to reflect changing circumstances.

This plan keeps tuition for Colorado residents well within the range of resident tuition at
other public flagship institutions. Tuition increases over inflation, coupled with
compensatory financial aid for students with demonstrated need, will effectively reduce
state subsidies for financially capable Colorado residents.

This plan encourages efficient, innovative use of existing facilities, and takes advantage of
CU-Boulder's continuing efficiency in degree production.
CU-Boulder : Enrollment Management Plan, January 18, 1995 (Draft) Page 11

This plan will maintain or increase the academic preparation of CU-Boulder's entering
students, matching Colorado's best-prepared, motivated students with CU-Boulder's
educational opportunities.
CU-Boulder : Enrollment Management Plan, January 18, 1995 (Draft) Page 12
PART II: EVALUATION AND FISCAL IMPACT
Funding and Fiscal Impacts
For Plan 2004 to be successful, CU-Boulder must receive, through CU system allocations, an amount
of State funding per resident FTE that grows at least at the rate of inflation. This amount is currently
about $4,000 per resident FTE. Such consistent support would be necessary for any enrollment plan
-- at CU-Boulder or any other institution -- that aims to maintain and enhance quality and access.
In addition, substitution requires that the State approve modest increases in resident tuition over
inflation. Because the effect of such increases would be revenue neutral, they would not violate
Amendment I limits.
We estimate that, on the average, additional resident tuition of $12 per semester (in 1993-94 dollars)
each year for 10 years would offset the remainder of the revenue loss arising from the substitution of
750 resident undergraduates for an equal number of nonresidents over that time period. This is about
the cost of one large pizza.
To assure access for qualified students who cannot afford the higher tuition levels, it would be
necessary for the state and campus to increase their contributions or appropriations for financial aid.
State operating costs resulting from adding residents at CU-Boulder are the same whether they are
added through growth or substitution. However, capital construction costs are quite different. We
estimate that with Plan 2004, including substitution, capital costs will range from $10 to $25 million,
with the amount depending on the mix of tools.
In contrast, we estimate that $100 million in capital construction would be required to accommodate
the same increase in resident undergraduate demand without substitution, redirection, or major
efficiencies.
The Commission on Buffalo Futures developed a financial, operating, and facilities model to
determine in more detail the fiscal impact of varying combinations of the four enrollment
management tools. The model is discussed and documented in Appendices A, B, and C.
Reasonable Share vs Capacity
Although there are various ways of determining CU-Boulder's share of the expected increase in
Colorado high school graduates, we believe that 3,000 additional residents by the Fall of 2004 is a
reasonable estimate of that number. No additional nonresident undergraduates above the current level
would be considered until the 3,000 residents are adequately accommodated within the CU System.
Given the approval, funding, and completion of CU-Boulder's current capital construction program, we
estimate the physical capacity of the campus will grow gradually over the next 10 years.
Most of the facilities required for the degree of growth envisioned are already well along in the
approval process. Projects currently in the capital construction program include New Geology, Old
CU-Boulder : Enrollment Management Plan, January 18, 1995 (Draft) Page 13
Geology renovation, Engineering Integrated Teaching Lab, Carlson Gym renovation, Molecular,
Cellular and Developmental Biology building, Humanities and Social Sciences classroom building,
APAS addition, and Science Library phases II and III. Normal deferred maintenance and renovation
funding would, of course, still be necessary.
Enrollment Scenarios and Fiscal Impacts
The fiscal impact of enrollment changes are important because the amount of revenue available in
relation to campus needs obviously has a direct and significant effect on the quality of education that
can be provided. We used our Financial, Operating and Facilities Model to determine the fiscal impact
of several different enrollment scenarios for the 10 years leading up to 2004. The model is illustrated in
Appendix A. Additional documentation and discussion of the model appears in Appendix B.

Scenario #0 assumes that CU-Boulder will continue to take 6% of all Colorado high school
graduates. This, together with other subordinate assumptions, would result in a headcount of
29,300 in the Fall of 2004, toward the low end of the range previously discussed. This scenario
represents the base case if there are no changes in admissions policies and no substitution of
residents for nonresidents.

Scenario #1 assumes certain changes in admissions policy and the substitution of 1,000 resident for
an equal number of nonresident FTE.

Scenario #1a raises the substitution level to 1,706 FTE.

Scenario #1b tests the substitution level of about 800 FTE, which requires an extra resident tuition
increase of 1% per year to be compounded with the normal increase.

Scenario #1c shows the fiscal impact of applying the general enrollment model to a "fair share" of
resident enrollment growth, estimated at 3,000 additional residents over the next 10 years. Under
this scenario each of the four elements of the model is assigned a target of 750 students or one
quarter of the total.
In terms of immediate financial outlay, it would cost less to provide the state support required for 750
resident undergraduate substitutes at Boulder over 10 years than it would to construct the necessary
facilities to accommodate an equivalent amount of real enrollment growth at Boulder or elsewhere. The
extra resident tuition increase at Boulder necessary to make the substitution model “revenue-neutral” is
quite modest and, as stated previously, need not result in a resident tuition rate in excess of the mean of
resident tuition rates at peer institutions. The incremental operating cost to the state, assuming the
additional resident students would otherwise have to be supported elsewhere, is the difference, if any,
between Boulder's $4,000 per resident FTE plus inflation and that provided elsewhere, estimated for the
purposes of this report at $3,500. (At $4,232 and $6,159 respectively, Colorado State and Colorado
School of Mines both receive higher levels of state support per resident FTE than CU-Boulder. These
are the only other Colorado institutions in the research university sector. Some community colleges
also receive larger appropriations per resident FTE than Boulder.)
For 750 resident undergraduates, a difference of $500 per resident FTE amounts to $375,000 in
incremental operating funds. Enrollment growth-related capital savings at Boulder for that number of
CU-Boulder : Enrollment Management Plan, January 18, 1995 (Draft) Page 14
students are estimated to be about $19 million (750 students X 165.5 gross square F/FTE X $150/GSF),
or $469,000 per year on an amortized basis (2.5% per year). These capital savings would arise from the
substitution model as a result of the displacement of 750 nonresidents by an equal number of residents.
There would be no net increase in total enrollment as a result of this substitution and therefore the
additional residents could be accommodated at Boulder without any additional enrollment-related
facilities.
To the extent that real growth, as opposed to substitution, occurs at CU-Boulder some additional capital
construction beyond the current plan would certainly be necessary. The normal deferred maintenance
and renovation funding would still be necessary. Because of Boulder's architectural standards there
would also be an added cost differential compared with construction costs elsewhere.
Auxiliary Needs
The Financial and Operating Model deals in general terms with the cost of expanding auxiliary facilities
to accommodate various levels of enrollment growth. The purpose of this section is to summarize
analyses provided by four major auxiliary centers: Housing, Student Recreation Center, University
Memorial Center and Wardenburg Student Health Center.
Housing
CU-Boulder has residence halls and dining facilities designed to accommodate 6,061 single students,
with 163 of those spaces designed to handle over capacity. Family housing consists of 861
apartments (buffets, one, two and three bedroom) for approximately 2,300 people.
Historically Housing has accommodated approximately one third of all single students and one
quarter of all student with families.
Demand for University Family Housing has been strong in recent years and does not seem likely to
weaken significantly in the near future. In 1992, CU-Boulder undertook a study of the likelihood of
needing additional housing space in the future. It concluded that a number of factors, including the
Boulder/Metro Denver rental market and the student RTD bus pass program, are likely to affect oncampus housing demand. If enrollment at CU-Boulder increases, Housing expects the demand for
affordable housing on campus to increase somewhat. Housing expects that an increase in enrollment
to 27,150 would mean additional bed space of about 250 and a total residence hall capacity of 6,311
bed spaces. An increase in enrollment to 27,795, would require additional bed space of 400 and a
total residence hall capacity of 6,161 bed spaces.
Student Recreation Center
About 90% of our students use the Recreation Center. In addition there were over 1,400 faculty/staff,
1,200 alumni, 500 student affiliate, 175 university affiliate, 110 special use ice rink memberships, and
22,000 one day guest passes sold in 1993-94.
Even after the 63,000 square foot expansion opened in 1990, complaints about overcrowding have
continued. This suggests that any additional enrollment would have to be accommodated by: (1)
expansion, (2) limiting membership sales; (3) selling memberships that are valid only during off-peak
CU-Boulder : Enrollment Management Plan, January 18, 1995 (Draft) Page 15
hours. Other alternatives could include some sort of arrangement with other athletic clubs in the area.
All of these possibilities have advantages and disadvantages.
University Memorial Center
The UMC facility is currently heavily used. The Packer Grill cannot accommodate any more people
from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Meeting rooms are at a premium in the evening Sunday through Thursday. In
summary, the UMC is at its limit with a current enrollment of approximately 25,000 students unless
creative ways can be found to shift use to non-peak hours. This is unlikely to provide any significant
amount of relief and, therefore, growth would have to be accommodated through an expansion of the
current facility or the construction of a satellite student union.
Wardenburg Student Health Center
The director stated that Wardenburg currently has the physical capacity to provide primary care services
to a student population of 30,500. Less than 10 additional staff members may be required to maintain
the quality of current services. However, the Dental Clinic, Specialty Clinics and Physical Therapy
departments would not be able to meet the anticipated demand beyond a 4,000-student increase. On the
other hand, a student enrollment increase of 2,000 would have no adverse impact on Wardenburg.
Existing facilities and staffing are adequate to meet the anticipated increase in utilization generated by a
student population of 27,000.
Wardenburg administration would welcome a student enrollment increase of 5,500. Since the Center’s
current fixed expenses will continue to be incurred regardless of volume, an increase in health center
utilization will result in an increase in net income. In other words, up to at least this 5,500 additional
student level, marginal revenue can be expected to exceed marginal cost. Regardless of any increase in
student enrollment, Wardenburg administration is in the process of seeking approval to proceed with the
development of a new program plan to address the feasibility of adding 12,000 square feet to the present
facility.
Other Issues
Enrollments which begin to approach campus physical capacity raise a variety of issues regarding
classroom utilization, time utilization, term utilization and graduation rates/times. All of these have
been discussed during development of the enrollment management plan, and will continue to be
considered as the campus plan is implemented. Some of these issues have already been addressed but
are included as questions in Appendix D for reference.
CU-Boulder : Enrollment Management Plan, January 18, 1995 (Draft) Page 16