ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON FACILITIES

Introduction:

· Meeting convened by Tom Vani, Chair

Discussion of Notes from Previous Meetings:

· Notes for the October 1, 2002 meeting were approved as written. Under the ACF Recommendation for the last item, Larry Merkley will take Lan Dyson’s place in reviewing and updating the Classroom Subcommittee Charge.

Information/Discussion/Report Items:

1. Student Life Facilities Area Planning and Feasibility Study

Presenters: Gail Heit and Dean Fitch

Handout: Advisory Committee on Facilities, November 5, 2002, Student Life Facilities Feasibility and Area Planning Study

· This planning and feasibility study is examining a number of proposed projects that form a “string of destinations” for students. Projects include expansion of the Student Health Center, renovation of the Upper Quarry Amphitheater, a new Student Union building in the Core East Area, an outdoor events venue at the Lower East Field, an indoor recreation-events center, and transit and pedestrian links.

· Efforts to date include making a presentation to the Growth and Stewardship Committee, putting together the consultant team, charging the steering committee, conducting focus group meetings, holding a public forum, and presenting preliminary concepts to the Design Advisory Board.

· Next steps include a student survey, preliminary cost estimates, program refinement, and a student referendum in the spring.

2. Space Plan Principles

Presenter: David Kliger

· The Space Plan Principles Subcommittee took a look at the old space plan principles to see if they could be modified for use today. The subcommittee was concerned that any principles they developed would either be so general they would be useless, or so specific they would create problems within a couple of years. The subcommittee concluded it didn’t make sense to modify the space plan principles until longer-range decisions have been made on the academic plan for the campus. In the meantime, ACF will look at justifications for space and made its recommendations on a project by project basis.

3. ACF Charge

Presenter: Tom Vani

· The ACF Agenda Order found at the end of the Draft Revision of the Charge is for information only; it will not be a part of the Charge for ACF.

· Two items were added to the Draft Revision as a result of comments from the October 1 ACF meeting:

o The description of property UCSC occupies was expanded to include off-campus leases, purchases, and gifts; and

o The Classroom Subcommittee was added as a fifth subcommittee reporting to ACF.

· The meeting schedule of ACF and its subcommittees was discussed. ACF and its subcommittees will meet once a month with meetings being cancelled if necessary.

· The new subcommittee structure for ACF will be implemented winter quarter.

· Without further discussion, the ACF charge was adopted.

4. Update on Funding for the Major Capital Improvement Program (MCIP)

Presenter: Fran Owens

· The latest polls indicate passage of Proposition 47, the general obligation bond measure, is favored two to one. However, if the bond measure does not pass, the campus needs to be prepared to advise OP of its project priorities as other funds may be available to advance some projects. Other funds include 2003-4 lease-revenue bonds and left over funds from the 1998 general obligation bond.

· In most cases, OP would not support using lease-revenue bonds for alterations to existing buildings because the entire building would have to be put up as collateral. However, in the case of the Seismic Corrections, Phase 2A project, OP is willing to consider the use of lease-revenue bonds because Sinsheimer Laboratories, one of the four structures in the project, was originally built with lease-revenue bonds and could be refinanced.

· Construction or “C” funding for the University-wide Northern Regional Library Facility (NRLF), Phase 3 project is also in jeopardy if the bond measure fails. Any campus letter to OP indicating project priorities for other funding also include a statement of support for the NRLF project.

· If the bond measure does not pass, ACF recommends the following priority order of projects to be considered for other funding:

1. Humanities and Social Sciences Facility

2. Emergency Response Center and Seismic Corrections, Phase 2A (if only one of these two projects can be funded, ACF recommends the Emergency Response Center)

Member Items:

Classroom Utilization Analysis:

· ACF members Hernandez and Michaels met with staff and decided to wait for fall 2002 data to conduct an analysis of classroom utilization by hour and day of week. The results of this analysis will be brought back to ACF at the end of fall quarter or the beginning of winter quarter.

Next Scheduled Meeting:

· November 19, from 2:00 – 4:00, at 307 Kerr Hall.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR FACILITIES