Minutes of February 16, 2006 Meeting


	The meeting convened at 10:03 a.m. in room 817, Cathedral of 
Learning.

	UPBC members present were: James Alexander, Livingston Alexander, 
Diana Browning, Stephen Carr, Jerome Cochran, Richard Colwell, David 
DeJong, Christine Dollaghan, Irene Frieze, Susan Kinsey, Patricia Kroboth, 
Ronald Larsen, James Maher, Angela Peskie, Arthur Ramicone, Susan Sereika, 
and Stephen Wisniewski.  Also present were: Jeffrey Liebmann, Jeffrey 
Masnick, Robert Pack, and Paul Supowitz.
	UPBC members not present were: Shirley Cassing, Carol Hodgkiss, 
Rakshiet Jain, Arthur Levine, Maureen McClure, Joseph Pasqualichio, 
Michael Stuckart, and Thomas Wolf.

Approval of Minutes and Report of the Chair

	The minutes of the November 11, 2005 meeting were approved.  Maher 
noted that this meeting would address major strategic issues relating to 
Commonwealth support and institutional facilities planning, both important 
considerations for the FY 2007 parameters discussions.  He stated that he 
and Cochran were  co-chairing a committee to formulate the next 12-year 
facilities plan for the University, which has exhibited very impressive 
cooperation between the Provost's Office, and faculty and staff from 
facilities, finance, auxiliaries, medical, regional campus, athletics, and 
other areas.

Discussion of the Governor's Proposed FY 2007 Commonwealth Budget

	Supowitz summarized the Governor's proposed budget for the 
Commonwealth for FY 2007, which includes a 4.0% increase in the 
Educational and General budget of the state-related universities.  All 
other budget lines contain no increase, which equates to a 3.3% increase 
in the overall appropriation to the University.  In FY 2006, the four 
medical line items were included in the Public Welfare budget to take 
advantage of federal Medicaid matching funds.  Therefore, while the 
current plan amendment makes no increase possible, the Commonwealth may 
make more money available.  Supowitz added that the proposed budget is the 
best starting point for the University in recent history and that no major 
controversial issues loom on the horizon.

Presentation of Facilities Plan II Draft

	Pack presented the current draft of the proposed long-range 
facilities plan of the University, emphasizing that the numbers continue 
to be refined and that some projects are not yet in the presentation.  The 
charge of the Facilities Planning Committee was to:

-- build on the accomplishments of the previous facilities plan;
-- assess the condition, adequacy, and appropriateness of the 
University's facilities;
-- develop priorities for renovation and new construction aligned 
with academic goals and institutional resources;
-- prepare a comprehensive facilities plan that will ensure the 
University's competitiveness in instruction, research, and student life; 
and
-- propose a realistic funding plan that recognizes continuing fiscal 
constraints.

Pack summarized the accomplishments of the previous successful facilities 
plan, which:

-- reduced deferred maintenance;
-- renovated much existing space to adapt to academic priorities;
-- built several important new buildings (Sennott Square, McGowan 
Center, Hillman Cancer Center, BST3, Blaisdell Hall, Petersen Events 
Center);
-- invested in campus utility infrastructure;
-- developed a highly reliable high speed data network;
-- increased residency hall capacity by 35% to 10,100 students 
-- improved recreation and athletics facilities dramatically;
-- implemented a consistent method for classroom renovations and 
improved utilization from 57% to 71% (Pittsburgh Campus);
-- demolished inefficient facilities (MIB, Pennsylvania Hall, Pitt 
Stadium);
-- implemented a consistent policy on rental properties;
-- improved the Forbes-Fifth corridor;
-- doubled the value of physical plant to $1,762 million; and
-- made significant down payments on future renovations to Benedum, 
Allen/Thaw, and Clapp/Langley/Crawford

He added that the previous plan produced significant support, allowing the 
University to accomplish even more than originally planned at a cost that 
was low compared to similar institutions.

	Pack summarized the current condition of facilities and the need 
for adequate, appropriate, and modern facilities to achieve the 
University's goals.  Flexibility in space design is essential to respond 
to rapidly changing instructional, research, and student life programs, 
and the utilization of space, particularly classrooms and offices, must be 
more efficient.  He stressed that regular investments in programmatic 
renovations and instructional facilities are critical, and that limited 
resources will continue to constrain the University's ability to construct 
new facilities, requiring an emphasis on modernizing existing buildings.  
Competition for students, faculty, and externally-funded research will 
continue to increase, requiring substantial investments to keep pace.

	Pack described the planning process to date, which has included 
setting enrollment goals, identifying and prioritizing proposed projects, 
a financial assessment, and an information technology and utility 
infrastructure assessment.  Maher added that the plan is ambitious and 
will leave every unit of the University with modern, adequate space.  He 
discussed the unique financial circumstances of the University and the 
care taken in designing this plan relative to debt service and maintaining 
appropriate fiscal discipline.

	The meeting adjourned at 12:14 a.m.