Motions passed by the University Planning Council 2009-2010

(from Minutes) 

 

SUBJECT

DESCRIPTION

DATE

 

Motion

MOTIONThe “Capital Project Proposal Form” and “Capital Program Priority Criteria” were discussed at the last meeting and a motion was formulated.  Council members unanimously voted to pass it as follows:

The UPRC recommends the following changes be made to the Capital Project Proposal form and Capital Program Priority Criteria:

·         Use one set of criteria for minor, major, and intermediate projects so that there will still be only one proposal  form.

·         Require all proposers to address the University Planned & Stated Goals and/or Mission.

·         Require all proposers to address at least one of the following three areas:

1.          Space Need, Functionality, & Utilization (Student Experience).

2.          Infrastructure, Maintenance, & Operational Efficiency.

3.          Health, Safety, Code, & Legal Issues.

Projects can address all of them if they are all relevant, but projects will not be downgraded because they are focused in a specific area.

·      Request that proposers provide information on potential Leveraging Partners and Return on Investment if it is relevant to the project.

·      Provide proposers with information about the HECB Master Plan and the most recent OFM Capital Budget Instructions, and request that they address these issues if it is possible.  Require that units (colleges, divisions, etc.) address these issues if the project is expected to move forward.

·      The Capital Planning and Development Office should determine the exact phrasing of each of the required and desired items for optimum clarity.

4/21/10

Council Executive Motion

Motion on the ten year capital plan (moved and seconded):

Motion: We endorse the ten year plan with the understanding that over the next year more information regarding the projects and their connections to the campus and individual units will be provided, and that next year the plan will be revisited when more time and information is available.

 

3/10/10

Council Executive Motion

 Motion on minor capital project proposals (moved and seconded)

Motion: We endorse the recommended priorities for minor capital projects 
for the 2011-13 Biennium.

3/10/10

Motion

Minor Cap Motion Newcomer proposed coming back with motions on these two discussion topics next meeting. The main discussion topics will be debriefing and budget update. Benner will ask listeners whether the meeting should be audiocast. 3/3/10

Motion

Motion on Capital request and 10-year Capital Plan – Long Term Vision Newcomer will bring a motion to approve the plan at the next meeting. There will be a proviso that we plan to bring a broader plan next year. Pearce thanked the Vice Presidents for the listings and priorities and added that a sentence or two of explanation for the six intermediates – the basis of the decisions – would help us next year. Wetherell men-tioned it all came back to the criteria. Eileen Coughlin added that the Vice Presidents are going to provide some sug-gestions when we debrief. The hope is that we can start with more active involvement. When we talk about vision-ing the future we don’t mean just ranking but the long term vision, how does this serve it, and what can we do. Coughlin appreciated the request for a sentence or two as it gave her the opportunity to mention the big picture. Bowers added that even in the longer meetings with the small amount of information the VPs were not any closer. This year has caught us in a maelstrom of a timeframe, and we are all in this together. Pearce gave as an example the question about the meaning of the North Campus Upgrade and how helpful it was when Wynn made a pithy comment about its imminent collapse. Description then need to be somewhat fleshed out. Johnson added that on the form we can say that if the form isn’t filled out it doesn’t count! April Markiewicz asked if this feeds into the institutional master plan. Newcomer responded that we have to look at the strategic plan and recommend what its future should be and how it might mesh with the institutional master plan. If they had genesis together it has drifted away.

3/3/10

Motion

Motion on Capital request and 10-year Capital Plan – Long Term Vision Newcomer will bring a motion to approve the plan at the next meeting. There will be a proviso that we plan to bring a broader plan next year. Pearce thanked the Vice Presidents for the listings and priorities and added that a sentence or two of explanation for the six intermediates – the basis of the decisions – would help us next year. Wetherell mentioned it all came back to the criteria. Eileen Coughlin added that the Vice Presidents are going to provide some suggestions when we debrief. The hope is that we can start with more active involvement. When we talk about visioning the future we don’t mean just ranking but the long term vision, how does this serve it, and what can we do. Coughlin appreciated the request for a sentence or two as it gave her the opportunity to mention the big picture. Bowers added that even in the longer meetings with the small amount of information the VPs were not any closer. This year has caught us in a maelstrom of a timeframe, and we are all in this together. Pearce gave as an example the question about the meaning of the North Campus Upgrade and how helpful it was when Wynn made a pithy comment about its imminent collapse. Description then need to be somewhat fleshed out. Johnson added that on the form we can say that if the form isn’t filled out it doesn’t count! April Markiewicz asked if this feeds into the institutional master plan. Newcomer responded that we have to look at the strategic plan and recommend what its future should be and how it might mesh with the institutional master plan. If they had genesis together it has drifted away.

3/3/10

Motion

Council Members Speak to the Motion on Intermediate Capital Projects

Members had reviewed the following motion prior to the meeting and Newcomer asked members to speak to or against the motion, or propose amendments:

Motion on intermediate capital project proposals (moved and seconded from the Executive Committee):

The UPRC endorses the recommendation to seek funding for the following 
intermediate capital projects, and recommends that they be ranked as follows:

1.      476086 -- General Use Classroom & Lab Upgrades

2.      472040 -- North Campus Utility Upgrade

3.      476408 -- Fraser Hall Renovation (including access)

4.      472047 -- Performing Arts Center Exterior Renovation

5.      471186 -- Wireless LAN Upgrade & Expansion

6.      479700 -- Waterfront Land Acquisition

After the following discussion, Newcomer called the question and the MOTION passed unanimously.

 

3/3/10

Motion

Council Members Speak to the Motion

Members had reviewed the following motion prior to the meeting and Newcomer asked members to speak to or against the motion, or propose amendments:

o Motion on Capital Project Proposals: “The UPRC endorses the recommendation to
 request $20M for minor capital projects and $7.7M for design of the Carver Academic 
Facility Renovation, and further recommends that pre-design money be requested for a 
High Street Academic & Performing Arts Facility. 
o The High Street pre-design will consider, as a priority, all of CFPA programmatic 
elements previously targeted for the Armory as well as Student Admissions Services, and 
general use academic requirements.  The High Street pre-design will also consider
whether an Armory renovation might better accommodate some of these needs as well as 
the relative costs, accessibility issues, including parking and traffic flow, and environmental 
impacts of these two sites.”

2/24/10

Motion

MOTION TO ACCEPT CRITERIA

A motion was made (moved by Scott Pearce, seconded by Steve Sulkin) to accept the Capital Program Priority Criteria with minor modifications (to be edited by Scott Pearce), which PASSED.  The following are the Capital Program Priority Criteria approved by the motion:

Major and Line-item Appropriations (greater than $2 million):

Integral to Achieving Statewide Policy Goals

Supporting information in considering these criteria taken from the most current goals listed in the

2009-11 OFM Capital Budget Instructions:

·         Increases number of bachelor’s degrees awarded beyond the 2011 level specified in

·         institution’s current HECB/OFM performance measures.

·         Increases number of bachelor’s degrees awarded in high-demand fields beyond the 2011

·         level specified in institution’s current HECB/OFM performance measures.

·         Increases number of advanced degrees awarded beyond the 2011 level specified in

·         institution’s current HECB/OFM performance measures.

·         Increases economic development through theoretical or applied research.

·         Promotes access for underserved regions and place-bound adults through distance learning

·         and/or university centers

·         Promotes safety from violence for students, faculty, and staff.

·         Promotes partnerships with K-12 and other public and private institutions.

Integral to University’s Planning & Stated Goals

Supporting information in considering these criteria:

·         Consistent with goals stated in the University’s Strategic Plan.

·         Consistency with the goals stated in the University’s Campus Master Plan.

·         Consistency with the goals stated in the University’s (draft) Climate Action Plan.

Codes, Standards, Health, Safety & Environmental Impact

Supporting information in considering these criteria:

·         Highest consideration for those projects that correct a record of citations or notices of noncompliance.

·         High consideration for projects that correct deficiencies based on current use and applicable

·         codes/standards or best practices.

Infrastructure, Maintenance, Operational Impacts

Supporting information in considering these criteria:

·         Highest consideration for renovation of existing space or system that will reduce

·         maintenance and/or operational costs.

·         Lowest consideration for new space or system that adds significant maintenance and/or

·         operational costs.

Space Need, Functionality & Utilization

Supporting information in considering these criteria:

·         Highest consideration for projects that demonstrate both an improvement in the space’s

·         utilization and its functionality.

·         Lowest consideration for projects that request new space when existing spaces are

·         significantly under-utilized and function appropriately.

Leveraging Partnerships and Return on Investment

Supporting information in considering these criteria:

·         Highest consideration for projects that demonstrate a commitment of funds from non-capital

·         sources and, based on the other criteria listed above provide the greatest return on

·         investment.

·         Lowest consideration for projects that rely entirely on capital funds and have minimal return

·         on investment based on the other criteria listed above.

·         Minor Works Omnibus Appropriations (individual projects between $25,000 and $2 million)

 

Minor Works Omnibus Appropriations (individual projects between $25,000 and $2 million):

Mission Driven

Supporting information in considering these criteria:

·         Highest consideration for projects that best realize the goals and objectives set forth by the

·         institution in its strategic plan.

Addresses Health, Safety, Code & Legal Liabilities

Supporting information in considering these criteria:

·         Highest consideration for those projects that correct a record of citations or notices of noncompliance.

·         High consideration for projects that correct deficiencies based on current or projected use

·         and applicable codes/standards or best practices.

Enhances Student Experience

Supporting information in considering these criteria:

·         Highest consideration for projects that deliver many programs, support student demographic

·         trends, enable the institution to attract and retain high quality students and faculty, and/or

·         enhance the student learning environment.

Operational Efficiency

Supporting information in considering these criteria:

·         Highest consideration for projects that demonstrate the most of these traits:

§  Uses human, financial, and energy resources in the most efficient and sustainable manner.

§  Reduces dependence on leased space.

§  Decreases operating and maintenance costs.

§  Reduces future capital deferred maintenance costs.

§  Is the best use of existing space.

§  Addresses operational risk to the institution.

§  Increases the lifespan of building systems

1/27/10

Motion

MOTION to Accept the Projects List

Scott Pearce moved to accept the Capital Planning Preservation Projects List of 7 buildings to be presented to OFM, seconded by Keith Hyatt, which was passed by the Council

10/28/09

Motion

Motions to Endorse Processes

v  Following the discussion, the Council passed a motion to endorse the new Capital Planning Process (moved by Scott Pearce, seconded by Roger Anderson).

v  The Council then passed a motion to endorse the proposed Operating Budget Process (moved by Keith Hyatt, second by Robert Lopresti)

10/14/09

Motion

Motions to Endorse the Capital Planning Process, and the Operating Budget Process

Councilors reviewed and added further comment to the discussion of the previous meeting:

·      Archive Log:  While the process seems convoluted whereby the forms originate and then go first to Rick Benner and Francis Halle and then goes back to the supervisor, Halle explains that this step is essential in order to prepare a log of projects which can be archived and then can be tracked as they progress through the system.

·      Roger Anderson suggested that Halle and Benner act as original initiators of the form as a less complex way of doing this.  However, once the system is tried the problems might solve themselves.  Halle will open the issue with administrative computing to see if the process can be amended.

·      What will be reviewed:  Hart Hodges mentioned getting feedback from colleagues and questioned whether what we get to review will always be important at the time we review it.  Also, how can decisions can be made without knowing the cost, and will that information be provided?  Benner and Halle explained costs, risk assessments, the ripple effects on other buildings and operations along with a fully developed scope statement will be viewed.

·      November 18th meeting.  Paula Gilman explained that when the President comes to the UPRC on November 18 we should have the updated analyses that the planning units worked on their intentions and directions. In March next year we will have a complete set of budget proposals with numbers, costs and descriptions, plus the summary operating budget for 2010-2011, cuts included, along with the 2011-2013 request.

·      Scott Pearce remarked that everything looks fine with these projects, but that the challenge is to understand the potentials – where the fat would be cut.   Gilman explained that in 2009-11 we gave a target for cuts and every planning unit had to come up with a proposal for cuts, even the smallest groups.  It was up to the final group going through all that detail to decide whether to accept the proposed cuts from the planning units or not.  We may go thru a similar exercise in 2011 and 2013.  It is a “bottom-up” process from the planning units so you will hear what their ideas will be. 

·      Parallel the Strategic Plan.  Jeff Newcomer reminded councilors that part of our focus is not to tell the units how they should set priorities, but to help to set priorities at the university level and to make sure the university, its units, and the strategic plan are going in parallel directions.

10/14/09