8:30 – 10:30 a.m., Seymour Union, Room 220
Attendees
Voting Members
Mike Andriatch
Jennifer Blood
Monica Brasted
Susan Butler
Denise Copelton
Jana Craft
Frances Dearing
Scott Haines
Tim Henry
Stephanie Learn
Theresa Martinez
Nautica Murray
Carl O’Connor
Kathy Peterson
Heather Raczkowski
Jamie Spiller
Non-Voting Members
Thomas Chew
Keith Davis
Ian Harper: Co-Chair
Mike Harrison
Rachael Killion
Gary Morog
Elliot Weininger: Co-Chair
Melissa Wight
Guests
Dave Bagley
Mike Baird
Don Bigelow
Brian Guarino
William Ruiz
Bonnie Swoger
Elizabeth Weir
Regrets
Voting Members
Lorraine Acker
Steve Barber
Tom Hernandez
Sara Kelly
Logan Rath
Elizabeth Thorpe
Robert Wyant
Non-Voting Members
Crystal Hallenbeck-McPhall
President Macpherson
The meeting was called to order at 8:32 a.m.
Approval of the October 16, 2025, February 19 and February 26, 2026 Minutes
Dr. Weininger asked the committee to review the October 16, 2025, meeting minutes. Dr. Peterson motioned to approve the minutes; Dr. Henry seconded the motion. Members voted to approve the minutes. Therefore, the minutes were approved.
Dr. Weininger asked the committee to review the February 19, 2026, meeting minutes. Dr. Peterson motioned to approve the minutes; Ms. Blood seconded the motion. Members voted to approve the minutes. Therefore, the minutes were approved.
Dr. Weininger asked the committee to review the February 26, 2026, meeting minutes. Dr. Peterson motioned to approve the minutes; Ms. Martinez seconded the motion. Members voted to approve the minutes. Therefore, the minutes were approved.
Announcements
None at this time.
Capital Projects Update
Mr. Baird and Mr. Morog provided an update on the capital projects. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:
- Appreciation was extended for the presentation.
- The question was raised regarding what would be abated in the stairwells of Perry, Bramley, and Briggs. It was stated that it would be asbestos.
- The question was raised regarding how SUCF prioritizes projects so that it is understood that the 6,000 square foot project in Hartwell for Nursing is not coming out of our budget. It was added that SUNY is putting a lot of funding into the nursing workforce. We have turned away 40 qualified people this year because we do not have enough clinical lab space. So we need extra space. There was a law passed in 2023 that we can increase simulation for part of clinical. Our new lab space will allow us to take 30 more people over the next three years. It was stated that at the beginning of every fiscal year, they ask us for our top three priority projects. Then they will work with us to recalibrate the five-year plan. Every year we look at the five-year plan so we can shuffle things and then we tell them our priorities. They will then look at the available funding to see how the projects shake out. It was added that it is about advocating and being the loudest voice that puts forward the requirement and the justification. Then you go through the phases. You may get approval and a little funding to do the design phase and then you go back with the cost estimate where they will say yay or nay. To be fair, this is happening across 60 campuses so there isn’t enough funding for all projects. We do reshuffle projects as priorities change. For example, the athletic field, we originally had that one set to be completed several years out. But when you walk on the track, and the way the football field was constructed, it is like a big jigsaw puzzle. It is not just one rolled out piece of turf. If you look at the emblem in the middle, it is a lot of little pieces of turf that have been laid down. When you go around the track, you can see that the track is starting to separate on the joint. Then you have to determine if that is a safety issue. So now that project gets pushed to the front of the list and something else has to go back down the list. The team come before Cabinet on a fairly regular basis and they go through the list of projects and what needs to be reprioritized. President Macpherson meets with SUCF on an annual basis and lobbies for the campus. The decision on Tuttle was not well received here by any of us, and she was advocating very strongly. In addition, it was stated that with the State projects for SUCF, there are also different buckets of money. We get our SUBOA allocation every year and that is like our checkbook. The State also has lump funding, so they set aside separate money for special projects that they think are noteworthy. So, there are a lot of our projects on the lump funding phase, which means it doesn’t come out of our bank account. So, we may have to put a project off for a year or two and apply for it, but if we are successful, it doesn’t come out of our checkbook, and we can put our checkbook towards other projects. Sometimes the design portion comes out of our checkbook to get the project started with the hopes that we are going to apply for the lump sum funding for the construction portion of it.
- The question was raised regarding whether there is the intention of rebuilding Morgan. It was stated that there is not. We updated our Facilities Master Plan about four years ago and there were a couple of paths that could have been chosen depending on whether how many square feet were needed. Right now, we do not utilize our square footage efficiently. We could get rid of square footage on campus and still function completely fine. So it was determined not to replace it and to just knock it down. It was added that it will be returned to green space and there may be some parking spots added.
- The question was raised regarding whether the $210 million represents all of SUCF items or is there any repair/deferred maintenance coming out of our annual budget or is everything coming out of a separate silo. It was stated that it predominantly comes out of a separate silo. There may be some decisions to replace carpet that will come out of State funds that the team and the project manager will manage, but that funding comes out of the State, but it is relatively small. It was added that when it comes to carpet, there are two things to know that with the money that we get, except for Residential Life through the State, we cannot use our money for finishes. We can’t paint buildings and we can’t carpet buildings because you can’t capitalize on that and the work that we do has to be able to be capitalized. We can remove asbestos and we do that because it helps our buildings, but there are very specific guidelines in terms of the money that we get from SUCF and how we can use it. We found we cannot resurface parking lots as there is a moratorium on asphalt. The one thing that we did do was outside of SERC and we will explain later if we need to because it was a hazard.
- The question was raised regarding whether we could fill the potholes on campus. It was stated that we can fix potholes, we can’t grind up the pavement and resurface it. It was added that you should report any potholes that you see to Grounds.
- The question was raised regarding whether the funding is a little fraction of OTPS or a different part of the budget. It was stated that that it typically comes out of reserves.
- The question was raised regarding how much funding do we typically have in our checkbook. It was stated that it all depends on how quickly we are executing projects. It was stated that annually it is around five million.
- The question was raised regarding whether you get funding for a project and then there is an emergency elevator issue, you can’t shift the funds. It was stated that is correct.
- The question was raised regarding whether we have any lump funding projects going on right now. It was stated that the two big ones are the Tuttle weight room and the nursing suite.
- The question was raised regarding how projects are prioritized locally on campus. It was stated that as items are reported, they are added to the running spreadsheet that is reviewed by the team and Cabinet. At the moment, prioritization is based around maintaining the integrity of the building structure and the building fabric. If you have windows leaking, roof leaking, boiler problems or elevator issues, these tend to be the priority. If there is a larger project that we feel strongly about, then we can run with those and have a conversation with Cabinet and then advocate for those at SUCF. It was added that the money that we get from the State, not from DASNY or Residential Life, cannot be used to increase our footprint. So, if we want to put an addition on a building, that is much more difficult than taking a building and renovating it.
Debrief and Vote on Broad-based Fees
Members discussed the broad-based fee proposals. The following are the discussion points and voting results of the present voting members:
- The request was made for the amount of the collective percentage increase per student credit hour. It was stated that it is a 3.7% increase from what they are currently charged.
- Confirmation of the process was requested. It was stated that the next step is after JPBC votes, Cabinet will review the recommendations and make its own determination. Then SUNY is the last step in the approval process. SUNY reserves the right to approve or deny our proposals.
- The statement was made for the principle and the integrity of service on this committee as a fiduciary, that the decision is, the calculus is not just what each of these areas need, but what the implication for student affordability and recruitment and retention are. There is a variety of things to be taken into account when voting on this.
- The statement was made that we know what services and activities the fee supports for students. We know that they are important to students, and we know that some of the budgets are under significant strain. So that is why I think it comes before this committee, it is because there is a tension that needs to be managed.
- It was stated that the total increase each year is based off of the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI), similar to the consumer price index. So, it is a total of a $62 increase, and it varies depending on which students are assessed what and whether they are part time or full-time status and depending on which term they are enrolled in as well as online or not online.
- The statement was made that we don’t know what SUNY is going to allow this year. As far as it’s been communicated, there has been no decision yet. We won’t know until after the State budget passes, however it is unlikely to approve an increase.
- It was stated that given it is an election year, I suspect their receptivity to an increase is not at a high level. It was added that they have not approved an increase in several years. So, election or not, it is not something that SUNY has been supporting.
- The statement was made that it is believed that in 2023-24, after telling us no, SUNY allowed a small increase. So, every area’s requested increase was much less, and that was divvied up as decided, but that was the last and only increase we have seen in several years.
- Appreciation was extended to Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall and Ms. Killion for giving fee managers their projections based on whether they received the fee proposal and a projection for if the fee remains flat. This way managers could see both ways and know what they are working through for the future.
- The request was made to have the number of fee increases and the average increase over the past 10 years added to the fee summary sheet. It is helpful to know that for many of these fee proposals, they haven’t had an increase for many years. So, a 16% increase for a fee seems like a hard thing to swallow, but if you annualize it over a certain amount of time, or vice versa, it may be that a proposal is asking for yet another fee. That kind of information would be helpful.
Campus Recreation
No discussion items occurred related to this fee. The following are the voting results of the present voting members:
Endorse – 14 Not Endorse – 0 Abstain – 2
Brockport ITS (Technology Fee)
No discussion items occurred related to this fee. The following are the voting results of the present voting members:
Endorse – 15 Not Endorse – 0 Abstain – 1
Student Health Fee
No discussion items occurred related to this fee. The following are the voting results of the present voting members:
Endorse – 16 Not Endorse – 0 Abstain – 0
Athletic Fee
No discussion items occurred related to this fee. The following are the voting results of the present voting members:
Endorse – 14 Not Endorse – 1 Abstain – 1
Transportation Fee
No discussion items occurred related to this fee. The following are the voting results of the present voting members:
Endorse – 16 Not Endorse – 0 Abstain – 0
Career Services Fee
The following discussion points occurred related to this fee:
- Clarification was provided that the Career Design Center is not requesting a decrease. It is a proposed decrease.
- The question was raised regarding who is proposing the decrease as it appears the Career Design Center is not in favor of a decrease to their fee. It was stated that each year when the total increase for all fees is determined, the Vice Presidents meet and discuss how to distribute the funding. So out of those conversations is what gets determined of which area gets what.
- The question was raised regarding if the Vice Presidents meet before the proposals come to JPBC. It was stated that they meet before we start the process.
- The statement was made that the department was notified before the JPBC fee presentation that there will be a $2 decrease. There is a surplus in the department right now. As referenced in the presentation, there is a SUNY definition of how we can use this fee. Which makes it hard sometimes to figure out how to spend the money. We have tried to do some grant stuff and different things that have not been approved by the State. So, we do have a surplus, however over time that surplus will get used up with different resources that we are using it for. We could end up in the same boat as Campus Recreation and Athletics in a number of years, especially with the initiatives that are going on throughout the State that involve career and experiential learning.
- It was stated that the fee conversation occurs every year, so it does not mean that they won’t see an increase in future years. As we discussed, there has been no decision on increases overall yet. But if SUNY does not approve the request, everything will remain flat and this decrease won’t occur.
- The statement was made that this is the first time that a decrease has been seen on campus and it is a hard situation due to all that we are being asked to do.
- It was stated that it is important to recognize SUNY has put more pressure or encouragement on experiential learning and career design, but they also have invested in that area over the last couple of years, and it is part of the current budget cycle to continue that investment. Ideally continuing to get a broader base in their centralized budget moving forward. That is not to diminish what is being asked of Career Design in the last three years is significantly more. So, this isn’t a huge hit to the budget, but it just feels weird to see a decrease and we can all acknowledge our feelings.
- Clarification was requested that it looks like there is a starting surplus balance of about $150,000 and there is non fee budgeted money that is specially designated from SUNY for them. It was stated that is correct.
- The question was raised regarding whether a fee manager should abstain from the vote. It was stated that it is not the rule, but it is the norm.
The following are the results of the present voting members:
Endorse – 10 Not Endorse – 2 Abstain – 4
Gift to the Fund for Brockport (Alumni Fee)
The following question occurred related to this fee:
- The question was raised regarding whether there has been any more discussion on switching the fee from being an opt-out fee to an opt-in fee. It was stated that it is unknown where this discussion stands.
Fine Arts Fee
The following discussion items occurred related to this fee:
- The concern was stated that the fee was removed from docket to vote on. It was stated that in the unlikely event that fees would be approved for changes, the arts fee is not endorsed. SUNY was not in support of adding the arts fee unless changes were made overall. So, it is my understanding that the fee was not included due to the unlikely event the fees would be increased or changes would be made.
- Clarification was requested that by changes, that would mean there would have to be a decrease in other fees to make space for the arts fee. It was stated that by adding the arts fee, some areas wouldn’t have received those few extra dollars. So, the decrease did play into the effect with the entire $62 split up between the areas.
- The question was raised regarding whether the decision to not bring the fee to JPBC for a vote was made by the Campus Based Fee Review Committee. It was stated that it was not made by the committee. It is unknown where the decision occurred.
- It was stated that conversations have occurred at Cabinet and with others because it is likely that it will not get added from the SUNY perspective. One of the things that the Foundation is going to do, next year the $5 arts fee will be covered by the Gift to the Fund for Brockport. They originally proposed $30 and the fee committee knocked that down to $5, so we are going to cover the $5 a semester out of the $30 that we are doing for the Foundation. The plan then is for the following year for them to propose it again. If it doesn’t go through again, then we are going to cover it next year, but then we will propose an increase to the Gift to the Fund for Brockport for the 2027-2028 year. We know everyone was moved by the presentation and sees the importance and we said we can make this work because our fee does support a lot of student programming. So, this is going to allow students to go to events for free and help them that way.
- Appreciation was extended to Mr. Andriatch on behalf of the College of Arts and Sciences, which represents the art programs.
- The question was raised regarding roughly the total cost of covering the fee. It was stated it is $35,000 a year.
- The concern was stated that the presenters did their work and presentation in front of this body and then we are not acknowledging that by not voting on it. It doesn’t feel right that we minimally acknowledge that and let them know what our feedback is.
- It was stated that the concern was seconded, but it was also added that it is not just validating and respecting the presenter(s). It is also that this body has a responsibility and integrity as a deliberative recommending body, if something comes before it, there should be a follow through.
Dr. Copelton put forward the motion to endorse the spirit of the request but not move the request forward because we know that there is an alternative funding mechanism. The following are the results of the present voting members:
Endorse – 16 Not Endorse – 0 Abstain – 0
Additional Items from the Committee
None at this time.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:43 a.m.