Committee Members Not Present:

George Brown

Dave Dorfan

Latrice Jones

Fran Owens

Introduction:

· Meeting convened by Tom Vani.

Discussion of Notes from the Previous Meetings:

· The notes from the May 7, 2002 meeting were not discussed.

Informational/Discussion/Report Items:

1. Faculty/Staff Housing

Presenters: Jean Marie Scott and Geri Wolff

Handout: Laureate Court/Hagar Court Update

· Laureate Court apartments consist of 64 units located just below campus. Total purchase price is still under negotiations, but is expected to be around $14 million. Closing timeline is August 31.

· Purchase of Laureate Court apartments is tied to the current Hagar Court rentals (which have $1.8 million in outstanding debt). The existing 50 town homes will renovated and 20 of them sold in 2003 to finance Laureate Court purchase. Sales price will be based on below-market figures.

· Current Laureate Court occupants will be offered a 6-month extension. UCSC affiliates (non-student) will receive a grand-fathered extension (2-3 years, depending on individual leases).

· How would this action impact the campus’ debt capacity and what is the impact for future academic buildings? Based on analysis to date, this action would fully utilize the campus’ debt capacity for 2-3 years. This means the campus would not be able to issue debt over that time period for other projects.

· Why are rents set at 20% below market? Is this realistic? This amount is set only for initial rents. Rents will increase in the future, since there are other benefits for renting one of these units (3-year guarantee, more attention, etc).

· Update on UCSC Inn:

Ø Not related to Laureate Court/Hagar Court projects.

Ø Projected deficit over the first 2-3 years. Lease extends for 10 years.

Ø Terminating vendor who is overseeing management of the property.

Ø Housing staff will take over this function, while the hotel, conference, and facility operations will be managed by another vendor (August 31).

2. Space Management Principles

Presenter: Dave Kliger

Handout: Academic Scheduling of Classes and Classrooms policy

The following sections of the draft Space Management Principles document were discussed. Refer to the mentioned sections of that document for additional information.

· Section 3.3: Space is re-assignable as needed by the campus.

What policies prevent reassignment? If students vote on a fee to pay the debt of a building, the building can be used for another purpose once the debt has been paid, but the fact that the fee was incurred would be a consideration in any decision. Language included in the referendum could also be a determining factor (potential legal obligations?). Should these types of referenda come before ACF if they will restrict use of a structure forever? Would students pass any fee measures if the building they funded could be taken for another need?

The subcommittee explained they were trying to be flexible and reasonable, based on the needs of the time. If the debt is paid, there isn’t necessarily an entitlement to the structure, since the land was provided without charge, among other factors. However, the “reasonableness” of the committee members will weigh all factors before a potential reassignment in the future.

The addition of “funding source obligation” to the list of conditions in the first sentence of section 3.3 should address the referendum issue.

· Section 3.5: This section will be eliminated.

· Section 3.6: The considerations indicated in this section are NOT the sole considerations when determine space assignments and usage.

· Should there be a principle about keeping academic programs on campus? The consensus was not to incorporate this into the policy, since we currently have such units off campus (MBEST, Long Marine Lab, Silicon Valley Center, etc.).

· Section 4: Criteria for student services, programming and athletics space will be added. Gail Heit will forward draft principles for these functions to the subcommittee.

· Section 5.1.1: The University Librarian and Dean of University Extension will be added to the list of Space Control Officers. Appendix A will also be so modified.

· Section 5.2.2: Re-evaluating use of release space and new building space.

The problem of a PPG representing a contact for state-funded buildings (and hence cannot be changed) would be addressed by section 3.3, which supercedes any following principles.

“… consistent with principle 3.3” will be added to the last sentence of this section.

Why conduct the review 2 years before completion? The period of construction leaves the window of opportunity open for changes to decisions made many years earlier. The ACF will be responsible for ensuring the reviews occur.

· Section 5.3.4: Reassignment of space between Space Control Officers does not need to explicitly state PAC.

· Sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3: Purpose of these sections is to increase space utilization of classrooms/labs, but 6.2.3 allows Deans to make exceptions.

Reference policy for Academic Scheduling of Classes & Classrooms.

· Section 6.4.2: Space Control Officers make requests to the EVC for space assessments.

· Section 6.4.3: What is the role of the SET or ACF in space assessments?

Eliminate “…(members of the faculty, administration, and/or staff)” part of this section and instead reference ACF.

· Sections 8.2.4 and 8.2.5: Should these be eliminated, since they are not followed under current practice and are not reciprocal?

Section 8.2.4 should remain in the principles, but Section 8.2.5 can be eliminated.

Review of Upcoming Agenda Items

· Handout of topics provided.

Next Scheduled Meeting:

· Tuesday, June 18, from 2:00 – 4:00 at 307 Kerr.

· The 2001-02 schedule will be the 1^st and 3^rd Tuesdays from 2:00 – 4:00 in 307 Kerr.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR FACILITIES

Daniel Barnett

Dario Caloss

Suresh Diffenbaugh

Allan Dyson

Graeme Smith

(for Ben Friedlander)

Gail Heit

Meredith Michaels

Dave Dorfan

Fran Owens

Review of Upcoming Agenda Items