Navigation
Search

JPBC Minutes: October 18, 2018

Time & Location: 8:30 – 10:30 a.m., 220 Seymour 

Attendees

Voting Members

  • Davida Bloom
  • Steven Breslawski
  • Samantha Dicanio
  • Scott Haines
  • Tom Hernandez
  • Katy Heyning
  • Debbie Jacob
  • Kadathur Lakshmanan
  • Brooke Leddon
  • Teresa Major
  • Jose Maliekal
  • Brad Menear
  • Dave Mihalyov
  • Cherise Oakley
  • Kathy Peterson
  • Katy Wilson

Non-Voting Members

  • Denise Copelton: Co-Chair
  • Crystal Hellenbeck
  • Melissa Wight
  • Jim Zollweg

Guests

  • Lerong He - attended on behalf of Susan Stites-Doe
  • John Osowski
  • Craig Ross

Regrets

Voting Members

  • Mike Andriatch
  • Frances Dearing
  • Sara Kelly
  • Cherise Oakley
  • Summer Reiner
  • Susan Stites-Doe

Non-Voting Members 

  • President Macpherson
  • Karen Riotto
  • Jim Wall: Co-Chair

The meeting was called to order at 8:32am

Announcements

  • Dr. Copelton introduced Jay West from Brockport Student Government (BSG). He will be the Undergraduate Representative on the committee. 
  • Dr. Copelton announced the following changes and updates:
    • The meeting on November 1, 2018, is cancelled. This is to allow time for the Five-Year Model to be presented to Cabinet before it is presented to this committee.
    • The meeting on November 15,2018, is when the Five-Year Model will be presented to this committee,
    • The Continuous Improvement discussion will be on December 6, 2018. This should be the last meeting of the fall semester.
    • A draft of the spring meeting schedule will be developed soon and will be sent out to committee members as soon as it is available.
  • Dr. Copelton gave the following updates regarding the Investment Funds: 
    • The submission date for the Letters of Intent has passed. There were 56 proposals
      submitted.
    • The Letters of Intent that were submitted have been sent to the Goal Group Leaders and Division Heads for their list of proposals that should be invited to submit full applications. The list of proposals needs to be submitted to Dr. Copelton by Monday, October 22, 2018. This can be done via email.
    • Notifications will be sent to applicants later in the week of October 22, 2018, on whether or not they have been approved to submit a full application.
    • The first meeting for the Investment Fund Subcommittee is Thursday, October 25, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Union 220. The subcommittee is made up of all Faculty, Staff and Student Representatives. This meeting will involve revising the scoring rubric because there were some issues with the rubric last year.
    • The subcommittee will only review the applications for the Core Needs, Facilities & Alternations Fund and the Venture Fund. The goal groups will review the applications for the Strategic Priorities Fund.
  • Dr. Copelton reviewed with committee members the 2017-18 JPBC Year-End Report and President Macpherson’s response to the Year-End Report. 

Approval of the Minutes

Dr. Copelton asked the committee to review the minutes from the September 27, 2018 meeting. With no corrections, Dr. Breslawski motioned the minutes to be approved, Dr. Lakshmanan seconded the motion, and all present voting members were in favor except for one abstention. Therefore, the minutes were approved.

Dr. Copelton asked the committee to review the minutes from the October 4, 2018 meeting.
With no corrections, Mr. Haines motioned the minutes to be approved, Dr. Peterson seconded the motion, and all present voting members were in favor except for two abstentions. Therefore, the minutes were approved.

5-year Capital Plan

Presented by Mr. John Osowski, Director of Planning

Note: Presentation is available on Blackboard. 

The following are questions, answers and discussion points that occurred during the presentation:

  • The question was raised on whether the Tuttle Complex plan included Tuttle South. Mr.
    Osowski stated that the plan only included Tuttle North. Tuttle North needs to be completed before Tuttle South and Tuttle South will provide swing space for some of the Tuttle North tenants during the renovation. 
  • A request for clarification was made regarding the difference between the State University Construction Fund (SUCF) funding and Brockport’s Capital Improvement funding. Mr. Osowski stated that SUCF allocates money based on high priority need buildings and the Capital Improvement funds are in addition to that. Capital Improvement funds can be used for whatever the campus deems necessary. In addition, there are times that we collaborate with SUCF where Capital Improvement funds are used to pay for the Architecture and Design phase of a renovation and SUCF pays for the construction.
  • A request for clarification was made regarding the phases of the North Campus Construction project. Mr. Osowski explained that the total cost for the project was 35 million dollars and it was decided that the project should be broken down into phases to make it more affordable.
  • A question was raised as to when the signage on the South Campus will be updated like the North Campus. Mr. Osowski stated that the signage for the South Campus is currently being worked into the “Reconstruct/Enhance New Campus Drive & Allen Loop” project and that project is currently in the planning phase.
  • A question was raised if BASC will be contributing to the Brockway renovation. Mr. Osowski stated that BASC will pay for the kitchen equipment. The building is a State building so SUCF funding would be used to renovate the building. Mr. Haines added that
    BASC pays the College to use space on campus.
  • A question was raised if the campus would receive the funds from the sale of the MetroCenter and if the funds can be used for renovation projects. Mr. Osowski said the funds will go into the Capital Improvement funds just like the funds did from the sale of the old REOC building.
  • More information was requested regarding the Regional Sports Complex project. Mr.
    Osowski stated that the plans include installing another turf field with lights and bleachers where the football practice field is. This field is just west of the football stadium. In addition, they are looking into adding restrooms on the home side of the stadium, right now the restrooms are only located on the east side. Also, the existing restrooms need to be updated for ADA compliance as well as putting in an ADA compliant press box.
  • A question was raised regarding the FCI ranking, how Brockport compares to other SUNY schools and if this comparison can be utilized to support our needs. Mr. Osowski stated that this data does exist and it is used to help support our needs. There are spreadsheets that show this information that were not included in the presentation. A question was raised regarding the status of the space utilization study. Mr. Osowski stated the study would be ending this semester. He will review the report and then it will be submitted to Cabinet.
  • A question was raised regarding FCI scores and if there is, any consideration from SUCF
    that if you have a poor FCI that you may not be completing routine maintenance and that
    could affect how much funding you will receive. Mr. Osowski is not aware of any
    consideration.
  • A question was raised since the new buildings on campus raises the campus’s average FCI, how this would affect funding. Mr. Osowski stated that SUCF project funding is based on a building’s individual FCI score and not the campus as a whole. For example, because of the Allen Administration Building’s FCI, it was deemed the building on campus that was in the most need of a renovation, but this is not a full renovation. It is replacing the HVAC system, windows, and carpet. Enough of the carpet was going to be disturbed that all of the carpets will be replaced. The glue that was used to install the carpet had asbestos fibers in it so there will be an asbestos abatement completed as well.
  • A question was raised regarding the renovation of the locker rooms in Tuttle North and the impact. Mr. Osowski stated that the abatement would occur during winter break but the use of other locker rooms will not be needed until years down the road when the full renovation of Tuttle North occurs.

Residential Life Capital Plan

Presented by Mr. Craig Ross, Associate Director of Residential Life

Note: Presentation is available on Blackboard 

The following are questions, answers and discussion points that occurred during the presentation:

  • The question was raised regarding how many buildings are in the middle quad and if the
    buildings are all different styles (suite and corridor), will a different design need to be developed for each building. Mr. Ross stated that there are four buildings and that they are going to try to use the same design for all of the buildings. DASNY just recommended that we start with one building so we are going to start the design for Benedict.
  • The question was raised regarding which funding is used to pay for renovations in Morgan because Morgan is being used for offices. Mr. Osowski stated that SUCF paid for the new entrance addition in the past so Morgan is considered a non-residential life building.
  • The question was raised on when renovating the residential buildings if they will remain
    corridor style or will be changed to a different style. Mr. Ross stated that most of the corridor style residential halls have recently been updated. Right now, the trend that is happening in corridor style residential halls is having private all gender bathrooms installed instead of the communal bathrooms. Brockport has started to do this in our residential halls. In McLean, this summer, a whole section of all gender bathrooms were installed. In Benedict, we are talking about changing it from suite style to corridor style with these private all gender bathrooms. Corridor style is better for a first year student as it gets them out of their room and it may reduce the cost of renovation by decreasing the number of bathrooms.
  • The question was raised regarding the lounge areas that connect the suite style buildings
    and if the lounge areas will still exist if the buildings are switched to corridor style. Mr.
    Ross stated it all depends on cost but the lounge areas may include entranceways with an
    elevator, as this would reduce costs by eliminating the need to have two elevators on the
    other sides.
  • The question was raised if the suite styles are changed to corridor would this eliminate a first year student’s option to live in a suite. Mr. Ross stated there may still be options for students who want that kind of housing, but corridor style living it is part of the process as a student moves through the college experience.
  • The question was raised regarding our occupancy rate over the past ten years and if we have gone up or down. Mr. Ross stated we have stayed stable. The budget has always been designed low and they have been hitting their target each year. This year they were under budget but they did not budget for the increased revenue for Eagle Hall and they did not budget for the converting of 60 rooms in Mortimer to singles. Mr. Ross stated that they do have about eight million in reserves. Next year when they are ready to renovate Benedict and if they see a decline in occupancy, they can delay the renovation to see if this is a trend and re-evaluate what needs to be done.
  • The question was raised about how much revenue is earned to pay back the 87.8 million in debt. Mr. Ross stated they pay about five to six million annually.
  • Dr. Wilson mentioned that DIFR supports a number of positions on campus. Not only does it pay for the Residential Life Staff, it currently supports a third of the University Police positions. In addition, it supports many Facilities positions such as engineers, mechanics, plumbers, and custodians. Many of these Facilities positions work in residential buildings but some of them do not.
  • The question was raised regarding the percentage of students from Downstate and how does that compare to 10 years ago. Dr. Wilson said that currently about a third of our students are from Downstate. That is very different then ten years ago because at one point in time when local demographics were going up, this institution cut all of the recruiters from Downstate. When local demographics were in a decline, we began re-employ recruiters for Downstate. Dr. Breslawski asked if it would be safe to anticipate a growing demand for dorm space as you are replacing local students. Dr. Wilson stated we still have 70% of students from around here. This year we had 40 fewer students from Long Island and we are addressing that aggressively in our recruitment. We also saw more local students living at home.
  • Clarification was requested regarding how Eagle Hall would be swing space for Benedict as Benedict is a first year student building and Eagle Hall is not. Students would be shuffled around, as more space would be available in buildings like Harmon, Gordon and other buildings because sophomore, juniors, and seniors would be utilizing Eagle Hall. A concern was stated that Harmon is used for Graduate Assistants and Graduate Assistants are not supposed to reside with other students. Mr. Ross stated that a location would be determined for Graduate Assistants but it is a year away and they are still in the planning stage.
  • A question was raised regarding the details of the requirement for a first year student to live on campus. The policy is first year students have to live on campus unless they live within 30 miles of the campus.

Other Items from the Committee

None at this time.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:51am

Next Meeting: November 15, 2018, 8:30 - 10:30am

DC/JW/mw