Introduction:

· Meeting convened by Tom Vani, Chair

Information/Discussion/Report Items:

1. 2002-07 State Funded Major Capital Improvement Program

Presenter: Fran Owens

Handouts: Academic Building – Planned Location(s) of Humanities and Social

Sciences Programs.

Table 2 - Summary Comparison of 1999-00 Faculty and Postdoc workload

to Academic Offices by Division and School.

· The continued discussion from the March 27 meeting was opened for Natural Sciences to present potential MCIP projects. Committee members were reminded to consider:

1) How to decide which projects receive priority.

2) Whether to delay alterations in favor of receiving new space.

3) Prioritize between the Team Center and faculty space.

4) Whether to include Infrastructure Improvements.

· Discussion regarding the proposed Academic Building. The handout identifies what was proposed and approved by ACF last November. The building will be enlarged to approximately 51,000 asf.

Natural Sciences Building

Presenter: David Kliger

· Asked Committee members to consider how capital plans mesh with the goals of the campus.

· Three overhead graphs relating to NS space presented:

1) Division of Natural Sciences Space Shortfall According to CPEC Standards – The graph identified two timelines; NS space using 80% CPEC standards through 2010 (what NS is shooting for) and using approximately 72% CPEC (where NS is today) for the same period. When PSB is complete, NS would still be approximately 35,000 asf short of 80% CPEC standards.

2) The same graph was highlighted to note that if there is no additional space, faculty recruitment would stall in the year 2004-05 (based on 15,000 students).

3) Without additional space and due to the loss of potential faculty, UC could lose an estimated $11M in extramural funding.

Questions:

Q. What if other space is received?

A. If Earth & Marine Sciences space were added, Nat Sci would be 50,000 asf short in 2010 instead of 90,000 short. Also, an addition to Earth & Marine Sciences would be more expensive than Nat Sci 6.

General Discussion:

· While making decisions on the projects, Committee members might also want to consider the possible effects of not building certain projects.

Ø How can the campus mitigate the effects of not doing certain projects?

Ø What will the released space be used for?

Ø What units could temporarily rent space off campus in lieu of building new facilities?

· Clarification regarding CPEC – the guidelines for faculty are based on budgeted faculty FTE. Units need to make space decisions based on what is required to get the job done, not necessarily CPEC standards.

· Discussion relating to the presentations given and how CPEC standards were used.

· Discussion relating to the benefit of spending for alteration projects vs. new facilities.

· Handout from the 3/27 meeting (2002-07 MCIP Draft Alternatives) was discussed.

· OP will call for our plan any day. The Committee will then have approximately three weeks to make a decision.

· The Committee may elect to present the arguments for various projects to the Chancellor/EVC (through the Provost’s Advisory Committee) and allow them to make the decision. Whatever the decision, the Chancellor/EVC ought to explain to ACF the reasons for the decision, as well as the trade-offs.

Review of Upcoming Agenda Items

Handout: Anticipated Future Agenda Items (through June 26)

· The agenda items for the next six weeks were not discussed.

Member Items:

· No other items from the members were discussed.

Next Scheduled Meeting:

· April 9, from 3:00 – 5:00, at 481 McHenry.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR FACILITIES

Natural Sciences Building

General Discussion:

Review of Upcoming Agenda Items