CAMPUS REENGINEERING COMMITTEE

MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1995

MEMBERS PRESENT:

The meeting was called to order at 12:00 Noon by Larry Furukawa-Schlereth.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA MSPU the agenda (Hams/Merrifield)

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

MSPU the minutes of July 25, 1995 (Merrifield/McIntyre) Minutes of August 1, 1995 were distributed and deferred to the next meeting.

NEW INFORMATION ITEMS: INFORMATION AND ACTION ll - MS FROM AUGUST 1, 1995

Larry reviewed the list of action and information items from the previous meeting distributed with the agenda. Specifically he commented that the CRC had approved the AFD Strategic Objectives for 1995-1996 and has approved the Administrative Intern Program also known as the Super Student Initiative. Information was provided on 8-1-85 with respect to the status of 1994-1995 University Reserve, the status of the general fund budget and the transfer of testing for learning disabilities to Academic Affairs.

Furukawa-Schlereth then provided information on a number of new items including:

He also informed that CRC that the renovation of the Pub had been delayed until Summer, 1996 and that a new proposal from PG&E would likely be received with respect to a potential Thermal Energy-Utility Conservation project.

UNIVERSITY FINANCIAL STATUS. 1995-1996, 1996-1997

The University's preliminary general fund financial status was reviewed with the CRC. Furukawa-Schlereth indicated that while data was still being analyzed and information was still sketchy, it appeared that the institution had on-going needs in Academic Affairs totaling over $1,000,000 In addition, the campus had identified a number of one-time needs related primarily to the University infrastructure. He commented that very little, if any, new general fund money was available to meet these needs but that the financial staff was exploring one-time funding sources as well as analyzing the possibility of inter-fund borrowing. Furukawa-Schlereth also highlighted the initial projection of the Trustees general fund budget for 95-96 commenting that the Trustees' key funding issues were focused on compensation increases for employees and deferred maintenance. He indicated that more precise financial information would soon be available for discussion by the expanded President's Budget Advisory Committee.

FINANCING HOUSING DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

Furukawa-Schlereth presented a revised financial plan to fund the housing deferred maintenance project. The revisions were made at the suggestion of the CRC who, at a prior meeting, urged the Vice-President to develop a plan that would (a) finance the project over 15 years rather than 30 and (b) reduce interest and borrowing costs by utilizing, to the extent possible, internal funds. In keeping with this advice, the revised plan calls for the depletion of the CSU/SSU Housing deferred maintenance reserve and the utilization of the mandated Housing operating budget deferred maintenance allocation over a three year period to finance the $2,400,000 project. Furukawa-Schlereth asked to a motion to approve the revised plan.

MOTION

(Harris/Barnier) to recommend approval of the Housing Deferred Maintenance Project Scope and Financing Plan as distributed with the amendment: move Jacuzzi to 1997 and ADA Compliance to 1996

Discussion then ensued with particular emphasis on (l) could or should Housing resources be utilized to finance other campus priorities and (2) what impact would the increased occupancy levels of Housing for both the 94-95 and 95-96 budget years have on the Housing deferred maintenance project.

MOTION TO TABLE

(Link/Barrier) Pending more information such as occupancy levels and projections; previous, current and projected housing budgets compared to actual expenditures.

Discussion ensued with respect to the motion to table. Furukawa-Schlereth indicated that while it was true that occupancy levels were higher than anticipated for 94-95 and were higher than budget for 95-96, these new resources would be needed to finance the loss of income from Summer conferences associated with the renovation project, planning for housing growth and the housing operating reserve. Moreover, he stressed the importance of not building a spending plan based on 100% occupancy levels. Finally, he explained that even if additional funds were to be realized in Housing, they were restricted, by bond covenant, to the Housing Program.

The vote on the motion to table failed with 1 aye vote and 18 nay notes.

The vote on the original motion passed with 13 ayes, no nays and 6 abstentions.

HOUSING GROWTH

Furukawa-Schlereth commented that AFD was about to embark upon a planning process to explore the possibility of adding student housing spaces for both existing students and a possible larger freshman class. The CRC advised the Vice-President that (1) it was not appropriate to have the Housing Program drive enrollment composition (2) it was prudent to initially look at increased housing for the existing student body mix and (3) it might be wise to incorporate faculty and married student housing into the housing growth project. Furukawa-Schlereth thanked the CRC for its input and promised to incorporate these aspects into the planning process. With specific respect to the freshman class size, he indicated that he would rely on the Academic Affairs Redesign Coordinating Committee for direction in this regard.

CORPORATIZATION OF SSU

Furukawa-Schlereth introduced this topic by indicating that he had received some feedback from members of the campus community that certain activities of AFD were inconsistent with the historical culture of SSU and that a feeling of "corporatization" and emphasis on sound business practices seemed to be a growing trademark of the Division's activities. While some discussion took place on this topic, it was deferred until the next meeting when time would permit a more comprehensive discussion.

ANALYSIS OF AFD BUDGET GROUP I

Furukawa-Schlereth informed the CRC that as part of his effort to fully disclose the expenditures of Administration and Finance and its related entities, he would be asking the CRC to review and suggest appropriate modifications to the AFD budget. For purposes of manageability, he indicated that he would like the CRC to approach the task by looking at various AFD Budget Groups, the first of which included the Office of the Vice-President, the University Foundation and the Parking Program. He asked the Committee to review the data contained in the agenda packet prior to the next meeting of the CRC when more detailed discussion would be expected.

ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY

Three items were raised by CRC members during this portion of the meeting:

  1. Why did the lawns and greenery on campus seem to be withering?
  2. Was it possible to extend the hours of the Parking Lot coffee cart?
  3. Why were persons without proper permits being permitted to park in Visitor Parking?

Furukawa-Schlereth promised to search these three issues and communicate his findings and actions to the CRC via Quick-Mail.

The meeting was adjourned the meeting at 4:00 PM.

CRC Minutes 1995-1996
Updated 2007-12-14
AFD.WebContact@Sonoma.edu