May 7, 2002
Meeting Notes
Approved
Committee Members Present:
Keith Muscutt
(for Ed Houghton)
Bill Hyder
Kathy Jefferds
(for Dave Kliger)
Steve Kang
Free Moini
Tom Vani (Chair)
Committee Members Not Present:
Latrice Jones
Frank Zwart
Introduction:
· Meeting convened by Tom Vani.
Discussion of Notes from the
Previous Meetings:
· At the request of the University Librarian, the March 19, 2002 notes were amended to include duplicate mention of the point in the Summary of Recommendations that the Library project would be increased by $10.5M. The notes were then approved without further discussion.
Action Items:
1. 2003-08
Major Capital Improvement Program
Presenter: Fran Owens
Handouts: Draft of 2003-08 MCIP
· Campus’ plan must be submitted to UCOP on May 10.
· The target amount is better than expected – it puts UCSC close to last year’s target of ~$180M (includes $20M for the Silicon Valley Center).
· Some amounts were fine tuned:
Ø Alterations to Engineering project increased by $1.1M to add sprinklers to the building.
Ø McHenry Library project will be phased as 3 projects because the total amount is so large.
Ø Seismic Corrections Phase 3 is more expensive because it includes components of the carried forward Seismic Phase 2 project and higher costs in general.
Ø Arts Addition project was increased by $4.7M as a “plug”. Real cost amounts are unknown since the Arts’ needs aren’t known and cost estimates haven’t been done yet.
Ø Infrastructure Improvements project was increased by $4.5M (the entire $9.0M figure is a “plug”). We will decide next year where the most appropriate place is for the funds.
Ø Nat Sci 6 project deferred and split into 2 projects. The first “C” amount will likely be increased above $20M to a more realistic amount.
Ø Silicon Valley Center project also deferred so that a PPG can be submitted in Winter 2004 (instead of 2003).
· Concerns were raised by the Dean of Engineering regarding the level of funding for the Alterations to Engineering, Phase 3 project:
Ø The various alterations projects were intended to “finish” the School of Engineering.
Ø The current $2M project includes biomolecular engineering and nanotechnology wet lab space, integrating the 2 buildings, multi-cultural space, Dean’s office and technical staffing space, graduate space, opening of the first floor for student activities/counseling/ student life, wireless links for laptop computing, and pick-up miscellaneous items that were value-engineered out of the Phase 2 alterations project.
Ø SOE wants $3M added to this project (by reducing $1.5M from each Arts and Infrastructure) to add more labs, including nanotechnology labs.
COMMITTEE REACTIONS:
Ø The State wants funding focused on capacity space for enrollment growth and would likely reduce any alterations project, suggesting instead that gifts be raised. We would also need to demonstrate an immediate need for nanotechnology program that doesn’t currently exist.
BROADER CONCERNS/REACTIONS:
Ø Is the campus letting politics and money drive our decisions rather than our priorities?
Ø What are our priorities? Shouldn’t the capital plan match the academic plan?
Ø How do we give feedback?
Ø What should our principles be? Enrollment growth projections, CPEC measurements, level of contract & grant activity… anything else?
Ø How should projects be sequenced?
Informational/Discussion/Report Items:
2. Humanities
Division and Cowell College Space Exchange
· No discussion (issue resolved).
· Humanities is proceeding with renovations.
· Project summary form will be presented at the next meeting.
3. Space
Management Principles
Presenter: Fran Owens
· The subcommittee has met and a draft will be presented to them soon.
· Item deferred until next meeting.
4. CP/EVC
March 1st Planning Update
Committee Comments
· Potential Planning Issues:
Ø Graduate College
Ø Non I&R Space – How do we get funding for that?
Ø Research Space
Ø Siting of new buildings
· Clarification was requested regarding the role of ACF (since 2 major projects – Laureate Court Apartments and UCSC Inn lease) proceeded without ACF review/comment.
· Concern was expressed about confidentiality issues with the mentioned projects; however, it was agreed that all Housing/MBEST/LML/SVC, etc. projects would come before ACF.
· Examples of concerns the committee had regarding items not being presented before ACF included:
Ø Review of finances (or financial analysis)
Ø Impact on campus
Ø Consideration of campus priorities and long-term goals
Ø Discussion of broader implications and impacts of the issue (not necessarily finances).
Ø Review/consider trade-offs or alternatives.
· The Chair agreed to revise the committee’s charge to address comments made, including:
Ø ACF will review all projects
Ø Principles ACF should follow
Ø Should ACF comment on resource issues?
Ø Try to get “ahead of the curve” on the various projects/issues. See notes from 5/8/01 and 5/22/01 meeting for some of the similar questions posed last year.
5. Arts
and Student Affairs Report
Presenter: Fran Owens
· A group larger than the Space Evaluation team will meet in approximately 2 weeks to try to resolve issues.
· If not resolved then, the item will return to ACF.
· Option 2 seems to address the needs, why doesn’t that solve the problem? Option 2 still has outstanding issues, such as whether the Housing Administration Building is in lieu of infill space to Arts or in addition to that space.
Member Items:
6. SHR/OSP
Off-Campus Lease
Presenter: Tom Vani
·
Currently focusing on a building on the West Side
across from University Business Park.
7. Addressing
the Rumor Mill
Presenter: Tom Vani
·
Sentinel article stating UCSC has an interest in a
property near 7-11 is not true.
·
Similarly, UCSC is NOT looking at acquiring a senior
citizen SRO complex (as requested by the State and City).
· Handout of topics provided.
Next Scheduled Meeting:
· Tuesday, May 21, from 2:00 – 4:00 at 307 Kerr.
· The 2001-02 schedule will be the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays from 2:00 – 4:00 in 307 Kerr.