Strategic Planning Committee Minutes, February 22, 2002

Strategic Planning (SPC) Committee Minutes
February 22, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Morton, Greg Johnson, John Carlsten, Betsy Centa, Jon Wraith, Kay Chafey, Mary Noll, Michelle McLendon.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Brown, Jaynee Groseth, Mark Sheehan.

OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Lashaway, Kathy Attebury, Ben Sharp.

The meeting was convened at 3 PM by Chair Bruce Morton.

Announcements:

• The Strategic Planning Committee web site can be accessed at the President's Office web page, under Annual Planning and Budget Cycle. Agendas and minutes are currently available. Membership and the committee charge are still to be linked.
  
• URLs for each college's strategic plan are being identified. For strategic plans not available electronically, hard copies will be provided to SPC committee members.
  
• The Chair is working on a time line for this semester so the committee will maintain a pace allowing it to complete its immediate task, as charged by UPBAC.

Facilities Services - Discussion.

• Bob Lashaway, Director of Facilities Services, was introduced. Discussion today will focus on MSU's facilities, including physical plant infrastructure and capacity.
  
• As a general overview of the status of MSU's physical facilities, Lashaway stated that each month, a maintenance team visits one of the 36 major academic buildings on campus to assess the structure. On this schedule, each major building is visited only once every three years, and one of the serious components of the building, the mechanical systems, can't really be assessed.
  
• Although it is difficult to determine, Facilities Services assumes deferred maintenance on campus is about 10% of the current replacement value of the facilities. Nationally, between 0 - 5% is considered "above average" and between 5-10% is considered "fair". The deferred maintenance on animal facilities is almost 0%, because standards of inspection groups must be maintained. Animal facilities have one of the higher regulatory maintenance needs on campus.
  
• Because current replacement value of MSU's facilities is about $300 million, it is assumed deferred maintenance is about $30 million. This does not include streets or the power distribution system.
  
• Facilities Services does not have a good feel for how much deferred maintenance exists in MSU's infrastructure. However, the current electrical distribution system dates to 1988-90 (with an anticipated lifespan of 10 years). In addition, when that system was completed, the huge demands made by computer usage could not be projected.
  
• According to Director Lashaway., the greatest deferred maintenance liability is the University's mechanical systems and secondary electrical distribution system. There is pressure to do maintenance that is visible, so the hidden systems tend to be disregarded.
  
• Deferred maintenance at the Agricultural Research Centers is budgeted through the AES and the legislative Long Range Building Program.
  
• It is not known how increased energy costs will impact budgets. MSU-Bozeman is one of the top twenty users of MPC in Montana. Although there will be some impact from the July 2002 deregulation of power prices, the impact will probably continue for two to three years.
  
• The 10% decrease in energy use mandated by the Governor is difficult to meet at MSU. Energy set-backs during nights and vacation periods aren't possible in research-oriented buildings because they are occupied 24 hours a day and week-ends by people and by experiments requiring controlled temperatures.
  
• The legislative Long Range Building Program provides money for deferred maintenance, adaptive changes, land purchases, and new construction. It appears the next legislature will have about $40 million bonding capacity for the Program.
  
• The President's Executive Council is discussing top priorities for the 2003 Long Range Building Program. The priority project for MSU is a complete renovation of Gaines Hall, projected to cost $25 million and having a completion date of 2007.
  
• The request for the upcoming legislative session includes $17-18 million in maintenance and adaptive changes for Montana Hall. Other items in the request include the next step in MSU-Bozeman's mechanical/electrical renovation, the smokestack (use of it has been discontinued, but should it be historically preserved?), and streets.
  
• From Lashaway's perspective, a priority is construction and maintenance of mechanical and electrical systems in existing buildings. Renovation of buildings built in the 1920's-40's must also be considered. The cost of this renovation is about 65% of new construction cost. In some cases, renovation or adaptation makes sense, and in some cases, it does not.
  
• The last legislature authorized $5 million to begin planning an agricultural pathology building. The building site will be determined partly by the amount of animal material entering the building. It is expected a significant amount of money will be donated by agricultural organizations. It is also anticipated that some of the funding for the building will come from an MSU Foundation land swap.
  
• Some consequences of budget reductions during the 1990's are that maintenance budgets have been reduced from 1% of replacement value to the current 0.7%, and the number of custodians has been reduced from 80 to 50.
  
• Accreditation groups take into account the maintenance of facilities and grounds, as well as accouterments.
  
• In regard to IT facilities' location, there is a connection between IT and the Libraries, so there is reason to have them near each other, but the Library basement is not the best location for ITC.
  
• There are many considerations when additional space needs are discussed.
  
• Strategic considerations include the latest technological direction and the relative success in receiving grants from certain agencies. For example, researchers may currently have greater success in receiving funding from NIH and NSF, but do these grants lead to growth in areas MSU is pursuing? Additionally, emphases can change more quickly than the Long Range Building Program can shift.
  
• Of 2.8 million square feet of space at MSU, 12.9% is classroom space. The national average is 10-15%. Nationally, about 67% classroom utilization appears optimal (30 hours/week use), which allows for informal use of these areas. To increase utilization of classrooms, utilization of the remaining 87% of the space would need to increase, or new construction would be necessary.
  
• How much growth can occur at MSU may depend more upon MSU's determination and "pain threshold" than many other variables. There probably is underutilized space, if people are willing to accommodate. Some "reserved in place" space could perhaps be converted to other uses.
  
• The concept of a campus master plan has changed in the past 20 years. The last MSU Campus Master Plan is an aerial photo with new buildings spotted in possible locations. Now, the quality of the physical space and utilization are more important issues. A current master plan is a series of dynamic evaluations instead of photos with possible buildings sited on it.

Other Issues.

• President Gamble has charged the university community to define areas where MSU can excel and seek out opportunities in these areas. This will influence MSU's facilities.
  
• The old Faculty Court area will be used as a program incubator.
  
• Are there commercial opportunities around the Museum of the Rockies, and how will this influence the Museum?
  
• The city of Bozeman has grown around MSU and is exerting pressure, especially on the university's agricultural lands.
  
• The issue was raised of whether MSU has considered other parts of Bozeman for expansion - or buying property around campus. Property around campus has been considered, but because of the price, a significant portion of MSU's physical plant money would be used for it. However, such purchases need to continue to be a consideration.
  
• MSU-Bozeman and the Strategic Planning Committee may not be able to separate themselves from the other MSU campuses and may need to look at an overall strategic effort. Facilities Services continually attempts to provide information to the other campuses, and it is an effort that continues to increase as other units call upon MSU. Prior to consolidation, MSU and UM sought equal consideration for funding physical plants. Now, there is some expectation from the other MSU campuses that they will receive equal representation, even though MSU-Bozeman has the largest facility.
  
• If there were a combined facilities services budget for the MSU system, MSU-Bozeman would inherit huge deferred maintenance from some of the units.
  
• The MSU system is different from the usual model, where satellite campuses grew out of the principle campus. At MSU and UM, units were brought together with the major institution.