Oregon University System logo

Oregon State Board of Higher Education
Board Budget and Finance Committee
December 15, 2000

Table of Contents

  1. Action Items - Executive Summaries
    1. McNary Dining Hall Renovation, Phase III, OSU
    2. New Bell Tower, OSU
    3. Cancellation of Acquisition of Westfall Apartments for Student Housing, PSU
    4. Restrictive Covenant on the Peter W. Stott Community Field, PSU
    5. 2001 Summer Session Fee Book

  2. Information Item
    1. IAD Resource Allocation and Planned Activities

  3. Meeting Notes
    1. October 16, 2000
    2. October 20, 2000



McNary Dining Hall Renovation, Phase III, OSU

Executive Summary
(Action Item)
(See further detail)

Summary:
Oregon State University (OSU) officials request the Board Budget and Finance Committee approve the use of $1,500,000 of Article XI-F(1) bond proceeds to renovate about 16,260 gross square feet (gsf) of the McNary Dining Hall for an expanded and modernized food service area; and authorize the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration to seek Legislative Emergency Board approval for this project and the expenditure limitation for $1,500,000 of required bond proceeds.

Staff Report to the Board Committee:
OSU is renovating a minimum of one housing or dining facility per year. In most cases, this work involves upgrading of basic building systems such as the heating and ventilating systems; addressing the lack of code conformance (for ADA accessibility, removal of ceiling and/or floor tiles containing asbestos, fire/life safety); changing the interior appearance; and reconfiguring interior space.

McNary Dining Hall, the subject of this request, is a 24,000 gsf facility. The project will replace asbestos ceiling and floor tiles, update dining furniture, and improve lighting. Further, it will continue the conversion of traditional cafeteria-style food service to provide diners more choices, including pre-wrapped sandwiches and "display service," where the food is prepared at the counter just prior to serving. A coffee bar will be moved and expanded.

Design of the final project phase is 75% complete; estimated total project cost based on the design is $1.5 million. All operating expenses, including debt service of approximately $105,000 per year for the 20-year term of the bonds, will be paid from anticipated increased cash sales in the dining room as well as the increased revenues from the meal plans; the room rate will not be changed. Under current assumptions, a small subsidy will be required from the Housing and Dining general budget for the first three of the 20-year repayment schedule.

This project is included in the OUS 2001-2003 Capital Construction Project approved by the Board in July. However, given the strong enrollment pressures, OSU wishes to accelerate the project so it will be readied by Fall 2001. Construction would occur over the summer, when the facility will be closed.

There will be no significant effect on the student room-and-board rate from this project.

Staff Recommendation to the Board Budget and Finance Committee:
Staff recommend approval of the project and financing as proposed.


New Bell Tower, OSU

Executive Summary
(Action Item)

Summary:
Oregon State University (OSU) officials request the Board Budget and Finance Committee recommend the full Board approve a project to construct a bell tower on the campus, at a cost of $1,800,000, largely funded by a gift from Shirley Pape, in honor of her late husband, Dean Pape; and authorize the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration to seek Legislative Emergency Board approval of the required Other Funds (gifts) expenditure limitation in order to complete construction prior to the annual Alumni Association celebration in fall 2001.

Staff Report to the Board Committee:
OSU seeks Board approval to construct a bell tower, with the possible addition of a carillon, to be located in the heart of the campus on the central library quad. Approximately 65 feet tall, 14 feet long by 14 feet wide, the tower will serve as a significant landmark, gathering place, and rallying point for students, faculty, and others in the OSU community. Five bells will be installed and a small plaza built at the foot of the tower. The tower will be traditional in design, a brick veneer laid over structural steel, and thus will be consistent architecturally with other buildings around the quad.

The new bell tower is consistent with the Campus Master Plan, with its reliance on reinforcing pedestrian walkways and focal points. A construction permit is required from the City of Corvallis, which has reviewed the design and declared no initial objections to proceeding with construction. All required utilities currently serve the site.

The idea for a campus bell tower emerged after Mr. & Mrs. Pape visited other campuses in the West, including Stanford University, the University of California at Berkeley, and Mills College where they heard carillons and bells and found that these were much-beloved features of those campuses. They sought to bring the pleasure of the sound of the bells to OSU, where Mr. Pape had been an alumnus.

Mrs. Pape's initial gift of $550,000 would fund most of the project without a carillon. Should OSU and Mrs. Pape agree on the carillon, an additional $1,110,000 would be provided. In addition, $150,000 will be provided by the OSU Foundation either for the bells or the carillon. Minimal costs are expected for the operation and maintenance; these will be funded by the University.

The University would like to dedicate the tower at the fall 2001 OSU Alumni Association function.

Staff Recommendation to the Board Budget and Finance Committee:
Staff recommend approval of the project and financing as proposed.

Note: A bell tower map was included here in the hard copy of the Budget and Finance Committee docket. Please contact the Board's office at (541) 346-5795 to request a copy.


Cancellation of Acquisition of Westfall Apartments for Student Housing, PSU

Executive Summary
(Report Item)

Summary:
At the October 2000 meeting, the Board approved a request by Portland State University (PSU) to acquire the Westfall Apartment Building and to authorize the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration to seek authorization from the Legislative Emergency Board for an Other Funds expenditure limitation of $2,800,000 for the issuance of Article XI-F(1) bonds to finance the project. The property, located at the junction of Fifth Avenue and Hall Streets in Portland, immediately adjacent to PSU, would have helped provide much needed additional student housing.

The proposed purchase was subject to review and acceptance of the following terms: a thorough inspection of the premises and examination of all books, records, leases, etc. associated with the property; approval by the State Board of Higher Education; approval of the Legislative Emergency Board; the receipt of two independent appraisals for which the average values equal or exceed the agreed-upon purchase price; receipt of a satisfactory Level I environmental report; and obtaining adequate bond proceeds to finance the transaction.

Upon completion of this due diligence, PSU determined that more than $800,000 of deferred maintenance and code needs existed in the facility. Following further negotiations with the Seller, PSU requested the Chancellor's Office withdraw its request for review before the Legislative Emergency Board, which was accomplished. The week of November 26, 2000, PSU notified the Chancellor's Office it would withdraw from negotiations and not proceed with the sale at this time. Therefore, this report is intended to notify the Board that this acquisition did not take place and is not expected to take place.


Restrictive Covenant on the Peter W. Stott Community Field, PSU

Executive Summary
(Action Item)
(see further detail)

Summary:
Portland State University (PSU) officials request Board approval of an easement and restrictive covenant affecting the recently completed "Peter W. Stott Community Field," a capital project approved by the Board in May 1998. Mr. Stott was the major project donor with an initial gift of $1,000,000. Now, in consideration of an additional $1,000,000 gift, Mr. Stott requests an easement for the purpose of granting access to erect and maintain a commemorative plaque naming the field as the "Peter W. Stott Community Field." The restrictive covenant would require PSU to continue to use the field "as an outdoor athletic field until at least November 17, 2025, and until that date PSU agrees not to construct any structures or improvement at or upon the Field that are inconsistent with the use of the Field as an outdoor athletic field." Both aspects require a vote by the Board because the easement is non-routine, and the Board does not at present have a policy on restrictive covenants.

Staff Report to the Board Budget and Finance Committee:
The easement presents no policy issues. However, the restrictive covenant would be the first such document approved by the Board. Lacking a specific policy, staff worked with the campus, the Department of Justice, and Chancellor's Office administrators to develop criteria that could form the core of such a policy. The criteria include:

PSU officials provided information affirming that each criteria has been met: the project is vitally needed; it is in conformance with the City's approved University District Plan requirements for open space, and would not limit the campus' ability to provide for its current and future facilities needs. Further, the field is in a location that is optimal for this purpose, and due to its unique configuration and location is not likely to be suitable for alternate uses.

Staff Recommendation:
In light of the response provided by PSU to the criteria noted herein, staff requests that the Board Budget and Finance Committee recommend the full Board approve the request for an easement and restrictive covenant as noted above.


Tuition & Fee Recommendations,
Residence Hall and Food Service Charges,
Amendment to OAR 580-040-0035, Summer Session Fee Book

(Action Item)

Staff Report to the Board:
The proposed fee rates and policies for the year 2001 Summer Session are set forth in the accompanying fee schedules. A public hearing on these proposed fees was held on November 28, 2000, in Susan Campbell Hall on the University of Oregon campus. No one attended the hearing, nor was any written testimony submitted.

Tuition and fees represent the mandatory enrollment charges assessed all students in the summer session program of all institutions. These fees are comprised of the following separately maintained fees: Tuition, Resource, Building, Incidental, and Health Services. The revenue generated by each element is dedicated to a specific purpose, independent of the other components. An overview of these fees is provided in the next section.

The Governor and Legislature, in the 1999 Legislative session, approved the OUS Resource Allocation Model, which resulted in significant changes in the funding basis of summer session. The budget model provides, for the first time in several years, state general fund support of qualified summer session enrollment as set by Board policy. Although summer session income has historically been retained by each institution, the change in funding allocation is causing institutions to view summer session more like a regular academic term. Continuing a pattern from summer session 1999, several fee adjustment are being proposed to bring summer session tuition and fee rates in closer alignment with the regular academic year rates, reflecting these policy changes.

During the development of the Resource Allocation Model, the Board Committee on Budget and Finance determined that existing tuition approval processes should continue. Unlike the academic year tuition, which is based on system and state funding policy decisions, summer session tuition is based on the separate recommendations of each president, with input from various student and staff advisory committees and review of the revenue and expenditure relationship of the summer session programs. The president then forwards the tuition and fee recommendations to the Chancellor for Board review and approval each year.

The proposed summer fee rates are tested for reasonableness (inflationary cost increases, changes in minimum wage). In those cases where the fee revenue provides student services and student life activities, the staff reviews the proposal to ensure that it was endorsed by student government or through student referendum. As a result of this due diligence, the staff believes that each proposed fee for Summer Session 2001 meets this test and warrants the favorable action of the Board.

Overview of Current Tuition and Fee Policies:
Tuition: Tuition supports the direct instruction and administrative costs of each institution's summer session program. The recommendations are summarized on Schedule 1. To determine the recommended tuition rates, institutions must balance the fiscal requirements of their summer session programs with market considerations, including tuition rates of competing education providers. Although there was considerable attention regarding the legislature's action to continue the freeze on tuition for resident undergraduate students for the 1999-2001 biennium, that tuition relief was made possible by offsetting state general fund support and only funded the tuition freeze for the academic year programs. As a result most institutions are recommending increases in the summer tuition for 2001. Institutions are not required to make a residency determination for summer term, although PSU and UO do assess nonresident surcharges.

Building Fee: The building fee is the same for all institutions. The rate of $19 per student for 2001 is the same as in 2000. This fee generates monies to finance the debt retirement for construction associated with student centers, health centers, and recreational facilities constructed through the issuance of Article XI-F(1) bonds. The maximum rate that can be assessed during the academic year is set by the Legislature through ORS 351.170. The 1997 Legislature approved a Board request to authorize an increase in the academic year student building fee to $25 per student per term. OUS did not request an increase in this fee for the 1999-2001 biennium. Historically, the building fee charge for summer session has been approximately 80 percent of the academic year rate.

Resource Fee: Resource fee changes recommended by the institutions are described below and shown on Schedule 2. Resource fees provide funds for specific programs in order to pay for materials unique to the program, equipment, and specialized services. The fees are assessed only to targeted student populations admitted to, or generally understood to be enrolled in, specific programs. The only exception to this policy is the Technology Resource, which fee is assessed to all students. Students enrolled under the part-time student fee policy are subject to the resource fees appropriate to specific courses taken. New resource fees may be proposed by institutions for approval by the Board. Summer session operations have been exempt from the academic year policy restricting the estimated income of all such fees to be no more than five percent of Education and General tuition and state general fund budgeted resources. Institutions have the option of assessing individual programmatic resource fees during the summer session if these fees had been assessed in the preceding academic year.

Incidental Fee: Incidental fee changes are described below for each institution and summarized on Schedule 3. Incidental fee recommendations are generally made by student committees in accordance with a Board-approved incidental fee policy (OAR 580-010-0090) on each campus. In some instances, the student committee recommendations are supported by general campus student referenda. The funds generated by this fee are to be used for "student union activities, educational, cultural, and student government activities, and athletic activities." The president of each institution reviews the student committee recommendations. Once satisfied with each proposal, presidents submit recommendations to the Chancellor, who, after review, submits proposals to the Board. There are fewer incidental fee supported activities during the summer term, resulting in significantly lower rates than those assessed during the academic year.

Health Services Fee: Institution recommendations for health services fee are described for each institution below and summarized on Schedule 4. This fee is used to support each institution's student health services, which are operated similarly to auxiliary services. Generally, rate increases reflect the institutions' efforts to maintain the self-support nature of these services. Optional health insurance policies are also made available by some institutions. During summer sessions, student health services operations function at reduced levels or are not provided at all. The recommended rates reflect these lower levels of activity.

Total Tuition and Fees: The total tuition and fee rates for each institution compared to the 2000 summer session are summarized on Schedule 5. This is the sum of tuition, technology/resource, building, incidental, and health services fees.

Institutional Recommendations:
The following are explanations for each institution-generated fee recommendation. Each of these proposals has been reviewed by the Chancellor's Office staff. Each of these fee proposals has met the criteria outlined at the beginning of this docket item.

Eastern Oregon University
Total tuition and fees at EOU are not increasing for undergraduates but are increasing 11.7 percent for graduate students over the summer 2000 rates. EOU is increasing graduate tuition only.

Tuition for graduate students is being increased by $15; which is a 11.8 percent increase for the first credit hour and a 12.8 percent increase for each additional credit hour over the summer 2000 rates. This increase is necessary to support increased costs associated with summer session graduate programs.

EOU is recommending that the undergraduate tuition, incidental and technology resource fees remain at academic year 2000 rates. Health services are not provided during summer session and, therefore, no fee is assessed.

Programmatic resource fees applicable in the 2000-01 academic year may be applicable in the 2001 Summer Session. These are noted in Schedule 2.

Oregon Institute of Technology
Total undergraduate tuition and fees at OIT are increasing 12.7 percent over the summer 2000 rates. For the first time, OIT is creating a graduate tuition for summer session. Total graduate tuition and fees are proposed at $1,363 per student, at nine credit hours.

Tuition for undergraduates is increasing $8; which is a nine percent for the first credit hour and a 12.5 percent increase for each additional credit hour to support operating cost increases and to move toward the academic year quarter rate.

The technology resource fee is increasing by $1 to $4 for the first credit hour with a $4 increase for each additional credit hour to a maximum of $40. This keeps the summer session fee consistent with the academic year rates.

Incidental fees are proposed to increase $3 (9.7 percent), to support operating costs for summer session services.

Health services are not provided during summer session; therefore, no fee is assessed.

Programmatic resource fees applicable in the 2000-01 academic year may be applicable in the 2001 Summer Session, as well. These are noted in Schedule 2.

Oregon State University
Total tuition and fees at OSU are increasing 4.5 percent for undergraduates and 5.9 percent for graduate students over the summer 2000 rates. OSU is recommending increases in its tuition and health services fees.

Tuition for undergraduate students is being increased by $4; which is a 3.9 percent for the first credit hour and 5.6% for each additional credit hour over the 2000 rates. The tuition for graduate students is being increased by $9; which is a 5.7 percent increase for the first credit hour and 7.1percent for each additional credit hour. This increase covers faculty and staff salary adjustments and inflation.

The health services fee is being increased by $1 (1.3 percent), due to inflation.

Technology resource fees and incidental fees are remaining at the summer 2000 rates.

Programmatic resource fees applicable in the 2000-01 academic year may be applicable in the 2001 Summer Session, as well. These are noted in Schedule 2.

Portland State University
Total tuition and fees at PSU are increasing 6.6 percent for resident undergraduate and 16.7 percent for resident graduate students over the summer 2000 rates. PSU is recommending increases in tuition, resource, incidental and health services fees.

Tuition for undergraduates is increasing by $2 (1.6 percent) for the first credit hour and 2.9 percent for each additional credit hour over the summer 2000 rates. Tuition for graduate students is being increased by $17; which is an 8.4 percent increase for the first credit hour and 15.3 percent for each additional credit hour over the summer 2000 rates. This increase is a continuation of a policy decision to align summer session with the academic year rates.

The technology resource fee is increasing by $2 to $5 per credit hour. The nonresident surcharge is increasing $10 (33.3 percent) per credit hour beginning at nine credit hours.

The incidental fee is being increased by $10 (20 percent) at the recommendation of the student fee committee to offset increasing costs and expanded program initiatives.

The health services fee is being increased by $9 (25 percent) due to increases in the cost of health services operations and to assist with retiring debt on construction of a new combined Health Service/Counseling and Psychological Services facility.

Programmatic resource fees applicable in the 2000-01 academic year may be applicable in the 2001 Summer Session, as well. These are noted in Schedule 2.

Southern Oregon University
Total tuition at SOU is increasing 5.4 percent for undergraduate students and 11.8 percent for graduate students over the summer 2000 rates. SOU is recommending increases in its tuition, resource, incidental, and health services fees.

Undergraduate tuition is being increased by $3; which is 2.5 percent for the first credit hour and 4.4 percent for each additional credit hour. Tuition for graduates is increasing by $15; which is an 8.9 percent increase for the first credit hour and 12.0 percent for each additional credit hour. These increases are necessary to accommodate operating cost increases.

The technology resource fee is increasing from $8 to $18 for the first credit hour. Rates for credit hours above the first credit hour are remaining at $2 increments. The fee has a maximum of $40 above 11 credit hours. The increase will fund upgrade and expansion to computer labs.

The incidental free is increasing $5 (15.2 percent) to support increased operating costs and provide expanded fee supported services.

The health services fee is being increased $3 (6.5 percent). This is directly related to the approved increase in the 2000-01 academic year and the desire to keep a consistent ratio between summer session and the academic year rates. The academic year increase was the result of faculty and staff salary increases and other operating cost increases.

Programmatic resource fees applicable in the 2000-01 academic year may be applicable in the 2001 Summer Session, as well. These are noted in Schedule 2.

University of Oregon
Total tuition and fees at UO are increasing 2.9 percent and 4.7 percent for resident undergraduate and graduate students respectively; 4.4 percent and 5.4 percent for nonresident undergraduate and graduate students respectively; and 0.3 percent and 0.7 percent for resident and nonresident law students respectively, over the summer 2000 rates. UO is recommending increases in its tuition, nonresident surcharge resource, technology, and health services fees. The UO is also proposing an increase in the law nonresident surcharge and resource fees.

The undergraduate tuition is being increased $2; which is a 1.9 percent increase for the first credit hour and 2.6 percent for each additional credit hour. The graduate tuition is being increased for the first credit hour by $6; which is a 3.8 percent increase for the first credit hour and by 4.8 percent for each additional credit hour over the summer 2000 rates. These increases are necessary to accommodate faculty and staff salary cost increases and other costs of operation.

The nonresident surcharge resource fee is increasing $3 (8.1 percent). For the Law School, the nonresident surcharge is increasing $2 (5.4 percent). These fees are being increased to further close the gap between academic year and summer session rates.

The technology resource fee is being increased $5 (16.7 percent) to support increased operating costs and to upgrade and expand computer labs.

The health services fee is being increased by $3 (5.0 percent) as a result of increases in labor costs and other operational expenses.

UO is recommending that its incidental and recreation center fees remain at the summer 2000 rates. The Law School tuition and general resource fee will also remain at the current rate.

Programmatic resource fees applicable in the 2000-01 academic year may be applicable in the 2001 Summer Session, as well. These are noted in Schedule 2.

Western Oregon University
Total tuition and fees at WOU are increasing 1.3 percent for undergraduate students and 3.2 percent for graduate students over the summer 2000 rates. WOU is recommending increases in its graduate tuition, resource, and health services fees.

The graduate tuition is being increased $4; which is a 2.3 percent for the first credit hour and 2.8 percent for each additional credit hour. This continues to move the summer graduate tuition rates closer to those assessed during the regular academic year.

The resource fee is being increased from $1 (16.7 percent) for the first credit hour. The incremental rate for each additional credit hour increases to $3 for each additional credit hour. This increase is to cover inflation, and provide additional dial-up services and computer labs. This rate matches that assessed during the regular academic year.

The health services fee is being increased by $1 (3.5 percent) for inflation.

WOU is recommending its incidental fees remain at the summer 2000 rates.

Programmatic resource fees applicable in the 2000-01 academic year may be applicable in the 2001 Summer Session, as well. These are noted in Schedule 2.

Other Significant Policy Changes
Institutions are given the option to recommend and assess summer tuition and fees on a per credit hour basis as has been done historically or to align tuition structures to the academic year plateau.

The policy has been revised to conform to the academic year to extend the staff fee privilege to qualifying family/dependents.

Public Hearing
A hearing was conducted on November 28, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 358 of Susan Campbell Hall on the University of Oregon campus concerning the 2001 Summer Session Fee Book. There was no testimony presented at the hearing, nor was any written testimony submitted.

Staff Recommendation to the Committee:
After consideration of any comments or testimony received at the public hearing, staff requests that the Board Budget and Finance Committee recommend the full Board amend OAR 580-040-0035 as follows:

Summer Session Fee Book OAR 580-040-0035
The document entitled "Summer Session Fee Book 2001" dated December 15, 2000, is hereby adopted by reference as a permanent rule. All prior adoptions of summer session fee documents are hereby repealed except as to rights and obligations previously acquired or incurred thereunder.

Through the amendment, the residence hall and food service charges and the tuition and fee rates and policies applicable during the Summer Session 2001 will be adopted.

Schedule I

Tuition - Summer Session 2001

 

2000

 

2001

 

Percent Diff

Tuition

First Hour

Each Add'l

 

First Hour

Each Add'l

 

First Hour

Each Add'l

Undergraduate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EOU

88.00

78.00

 

88.00

78.00

 

0.00%

0.00%

OIT

89.00

64.00

 

97.00

72.00

 

8.99%

12.50%

OSU

103.50

71.00

 

107.50

75.00

 

3.86%

5.63%

PSU

122.00

69.00

 

124.00

71.00

 

1.64%

2.90%

SOU

119.00

69.00

 

122.00

72.00

 

2.52%

4.35%

UO

103.00

77.00

 

105.00

79.00

 

1.94%

2.60%

WOU

106.00

72.00

 

106.00

72.00

 

0.00%

0.00%

Graduate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EOU

127.00

117.00

 

142.00

132.00

 

11.81%

12.82%

OIT

0.00

0.00

 

150.00

140.00

 

n/a

n/a

OSU

158.50

126.00

 

167.50

135.00

 

5.68%

7.14%

PSU

202.00

144.00

 

219.00

166.00

 

8.42%

15.28%

SOU

175.00

125.00

 

190.00

140.00

 

8.57%

12.00%

UO

157.00

126.00

 

163.00

132.00

 

3.82%

4.76%

UO Law

197.00

195.00

 

197.00

195.00

 

0.00%

0.00%

WOU

178.00

144.00

 

182.00

148.00

 

2.25%

2.78%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Schedule 2

Resource Fees - Summer Session 2001

 

2000

 

2001

 

Percent Diff

 

First Hour

Each Add'l

 

First Hour

Each Add'l

 

First Hour

Each Add'l

EOU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tech Fee - All

6.00

4.001

 

6.00

4.001

 

0.00%

0.00%

OIT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tech Fee - All

3.00

3.001

 

4.00

4.001

 

33.33%

33.33%

OSU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tech Fee - All

16.00

1 

 

16.00

 

 

0.00%

 

PSU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tech Fee - All

3.00

3.00

 

5.00

5.001

 

66.67%

66.67%

Nonresident Surcharge

0.00

30.00

 

0.00

40.002

 

--

33.33%

SOU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tech Fee - All

8.00

2.001

 

18.00

2.001

 

125.00%

0.00%

UO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tech. Fee All

30.00

0.00

 

35.00

0.00

 

16.67%

--

Nonresident surcharge

37.00

37.00

 

40.00

40.00

 

8.11%

8.11%

N/R - Law surcharge

37.00

37.00

 

39.00

39.00

 

5.41%

5.41%

Gen Resrc Law

140.00

140.00

 

140.00

140.00

 

0.00%

0.00%

Recreation Center

10.00

0.00

 

10.00

0.00

 

--

--

WOU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tech Fee - All

6.00

2.00

 

7.00

3.00

 

16.67%

50.00%

1 Maximum amount assessed: EOU - $50; OIT-$40; OSU - $31; PSU-$60; SOU - $40.
2 PSU Nonresident surcharge $0 for 1-8 credit hours $360 at 9 credit hours.
OSU rate $16 1-4 credit hours $31 above 4 credit hours.

Schedule 2

Programmatic Resources Fees

In addition to the board resource fees above, the following programmatic and special resource fee may be assessed to specific student population groups during summer session. These fees are at the academic year 2000-01 rates:

EOU

A $100 one-time Matriculation Fee on all new and transfer students.

OIT

A $45 one-time Matriculation Fee on all new and transfer students. Note for OIT Portland students: $2 per term Incidental Fee is assessed.

OSU

Engineering students, undergraduates and graduates are assessed up to $150 per term. Pharmacy undergraduates and PharmD students are assessed up to $1,149 per term. MBA students; Per Term assessments for residents are up to $130 and nonresidents are up to $315. Honors College students are assessed $25 per term. A $75 one-time Matriculation Fee is assessed on all new and transfer students.

PSU

Engineering students are assessed $15 per credit hour up to $150 per term. Student admitted into the School of Business Administration Baccalaureate Degree program are assessed $5.00 per credit hour up to $50 per term. Students admitted into the School of Business Administration Master's Degree program are assessed $12 per credit hour up to $120 per term. A one-time Matriculation Fee is assessed to all first term admitted students.

SOU

A one-time Matriculation Fee of $75 for new and transfer students. Resident students admitted in the Master of Business Administration program are assessed $11per credit hour up to $100 per term. Nonresident students admitted into the Master of Business Administration program are assessed at $17 per credit hour up to $150 per term. Resident students admitted into the Master of Management program are assessed $15 per credit hour up to $105 per term. Nonresident students admitted into the Master of Management program are assessed at $17 per credit hour up to $333 per term. Students admitted into the Master of Applied Psychology program are assessed $37 per credit hour up to $333 per term for Mental Health Counseling track. Students admitted into the Master of Applied Psychology are assessed $18.50 per credit hour up to $167 per term for Group Facilitation and Training track.

UO

AAA-Architecture and Landscape Architecture majors are assessed at $30 per term. Lundquist College of Business students; undergraduates-$100 per term and Master degree program's $500 per term. College of Arts and Sciences undergraduates and undeclared students-$15 per term. Science program undergraduates-$20 per term (in addition to the $15 per term General CAS fee). Honors College students; admits dated between Fall 97 and Fall 99 are assessed $50 per term. Honors College students admitted Fall 99 are assessed $100 per term for the first and second years. Fall 2000 admits are assessed $200 per term. Matriculation Fee: New undergrads $200 one-time (matriculation term only). New Grad and Post-baccs $100 one-time (matriculation term only). New Law students $100 one-time (matriculation term only).

WOU

A $75 one-time Matriculation Fee is assessed on all new and transfer students.

Schedule 3

Incidental Fees - Summer Session 2001

 

2000

 

2001

 

Percent Diff

 

First Hour

Each Add'l

 

First Hour

Each Add'l

 

First Hour

Each Add'l

EOU

32.00

0.00

 

32.00

0.00

 

0.00%

--

OIT

31.00

0.00

 

34.00

0.00

 

9.68%

--

OSU

51.50

5.00

 

51.50

5.001

 

0.00%

0.00%

PSU

50.00

0.00

 

60.00

0.00

 

20.00%

--

SOU

33.00

0.00

 

38.00

0.00

 

15.15%

--

UO

27.00

0.00

 

27.00

0.00

 

0.00%

--

WOU

38.00

0.00

 

38.00

0.00

 

0.00%

--

1 OSU-Up to $86.50

Schedule 4

Health Services Fees - Summer Session 2001

 

2000

 

2001

 

Percent Diff

EOU

--

 

--

 

--

OIT

--

 

--

 

--

OSU

79.00

 

80.00

 

1.27%

PSU

36.00

 

45.00

 

25.00%

SOU (9 hrs or more)

46.00

 

49.00

 

6.52%

UO

60.00

 

63.00

 

5.00%

WOU (6 hrs or more)

29.00

 

30.00

 

3.45%

Comparison of Total Summer Session Rates
The following schedule compares rates for summer session 2000 to summer session 2001:

Schedule 5

Total Tuition and Fees - Summer Session 2001

 

12 Credit Hours - Undergraduate

 

9 Credit Hours - Graduate

Total Tuition

Summer 2000

Summer 2001

Percent Diff.

 

Summer 2000

Summer 2001

Percent Diff.

EOU

1,047.00

1,047.00

0.00%

 

1,152.00

1,287.00

11.72%

OIT

871.00

982.00

12.74%

 

--

1,363.00

--

OSU

1,100.00

1,149.00

4.45%

 

1,382.00

1,464.00

5.93%

PSU Res.

1,022.00

1,089.00

6.56%

 

1,486.00

1,734.00

16.69%

PSU Nonres.

1,382.00

1,569.00

13.53%

 

1,756.00

2,094.00

19.25%

SOU

1,006.00

1,060.00

5.37%

 

1,297.00

1,450.00

11.80%

UO Res.

1,096.00

1,128.00

2.92%

 

1,311.00

1,373.00

4.73%

UO Nonres.

1,540.00

1,608.00

4.42%

 

1,644.00

1,733.00

5.41%

WOU

1,012.00

1,025.00

1.28%

 

1,438.00

1,484.00

3.20%

UO Law Res.

--

--

--

 

3,163.00

3,171.00

0.25%

UO Law Nonres.*

--

--

--

 

3,496.00

3,522.00

0.74%

Total Tuition and Fees Compared to Preceding Academic Year
Rate structures for summer session developed as institutions adapted to direct cost support following the 1982 elimination of General Fund support of summer session. Although state General Fund support for summer session was reinstated in 1999 by the Governor and Legislature, it will take some time before the effect fully impacts tuition and fee structures. The summer session rates proposed for 2001 and 2000-01 academic year resident rates, except for the University of Oregon and Portland State University as noted, are compared on the following schedule:



Schedule 6

Total Tuition and Fees - Academic Year Term to Summer Session

 

Resident

 

Resident

 

12 Credit Hours - Undergraduate

 

9 Credit Hours - Graduate

Total Tuition

Summer 2001

Acad.Term 2000-01

Summer@ % Acad Yr

 

Summer 2001

Acad.Term 2000-01

Summer@ % Acad Yr

EOU

1,047

1,129

92.74%

 

1,287

1,970

65.33%

OIT

982

1,153

85.17%

 

1,363

1,955

69.72%

OSU

1,149

1,218

94.34%

 

1,464

2,297

63.74%

PSU Res.

1,089

1,175

92.68%

 

1,734

2,173

79.80%

PSU Nonres.

1,569

4,097

38.30%

 

2,094

3,709

56.46%

SOU

1,060

1,123

94.39%

 

1,450

1,948

74.44%

UO Res.

1,128

1,273

88.61%

 

1,373

2,352

58.38%

UO Nonres.

1,608

4,613

34.86%

 

1,733

3,986

43.48%

WOU

1,025

1,114

92.01%

 

1,484

1,939

76.53%

UO Law Res.*

--

--

--

 

3,171

5,602

56.60%

UO Law Nonres.*

--

--

--

 

3,522

7,678

45.87%

* The Law School amounts are stated in per term rates, although the academic year is on the semester basis.

Tuition and fee rates are not totally comparable. The academic year rates apply to a range of credit hours designated for full-time students classified as residents (12-18 credit hours for undergraduates and 9-16 credit hours for graduates). Summer session rates displayed are for 12 undergraduate credit hours and nine graduate credit hours. Additional summer credit hours require incremental charges. Also, incidental and health services levels differ from academic year to summer.

Room and Board Rates

Summer Session room and board accommodations on each campus vary according to the need and demand. They may include rates by day, week, multi-week or term. A combined room and board rate is usually offered, as well as rates for room only, board only, and conference activities. Rates are generally comparable to those for individual terms of academic year. Student housing facilities operate as auxiliary enterprises and are to be wholly self-supporting.

The rates shown in the tables in the fee book are for all campuses except Portland State University, where College Housing Northwest, Inc., operates the residence halls and establishes the rates as specified in a service contract. The rates require preliminary review and approval by Portland State University officials before becoming effective.

Proposed rate increases from Summer Session of 2000 to 2001, summarized in Schedule 7, generally vary from three percent to eight percent for a basic housing package. These and the other institutions' rate changes are consistent with rates for the preceding Academic Year. They are based on anticipated cost increases for labor, utilities, services, food, and debt service reserve as well as some facilities improvement and expansion of services available to residents.

Comparison of Basic Residence Hall Rates, Summer 2000 to 2001

The following are comparative samples of board and room rates for a basic dorm room with double occupancy. Each institution offers a variety of room and meal options at rates above and below these listed. Please refer to the Fee Book for a more definitive rate schedule.

Schedule 7

Selected Housing Rates -Summer Session 2001

  Institutional Contract Type

2000

2001

% Difference

EOU Per Week

65.00

70.00

7.69%

OIT Eight Week - Double (room only)

467.00

504.00

7.92%

OSU Eight Week - Double

1,224.00

1,288.00

5.23%

SOU Eight Week - Multiple

1,136.00

1,172.00

3.17%

UO Eight Week - Multiple

1,236.76

1,273.22

2.95%

WOU Six Week

804.60

872.18

8.40%




McNary Dining Hall Renovation, Phase III, OSU

Further Detail

Summary:
Oregon State University (OSU) officials request the Board Budget and Finance Committee approve and seek subsequent full Board approval to accomplish the following: a) expend $1,500,000 of Article XI-F(1) bond proceeds to renovate about 16,260 gross square feet (gsf) of the McNary Dining Hall for an expanded and modernized food service area; and b) authorize the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration to seek authorization from the Legislative Emergency Board for an Other Funds expenditure limitation of $1,500,000 for the Article XI-F(1) bond proceeds for such renovation.

Staff Report to the Board Committee:

Background
OSU is in a major enrollment growth phase: Fall 2000 base headcount was 16,777 and by 2010-11 is projected to be about 20,700, with undergraduates comprising about 75% of the totals. To accommodate this enrollment, OSU is moving quickly to construct new facilities and renovate older ones. However, as of Fall 2000, OSU's residence halls, cooperative houses, and the College Inn had reached their maximum capacity. The dining facilities that support these facilities also had reached their maximum capacity.

Halfway through a 15-year plan to upgrade its aging residence and dining halls, OSU is renovating a minimum of one housing or dining facility per year. In most cases, this work involves upgrading of basic building systems such as the heating and ventilating systems; addressing the lack of code conformance (for ADA accessibility, removal of ceiling and/or floor tiles containing asbestos, fire/life safety); changing the interior appearance; and reconfiguring interior space.

To date, five major projects have been completed: McNary Residence Hall ($3.4 million), West International House ($8.6 million), Marketplace West (formerly West Dining, for $4.8 million), McNary Center, Phases I and II (formerly McNary Dining, for $1.5 million), and Hawley Hall Renovation ($6.5 million).

Facilities Information
McNary Dining Hall, the subject of this request, is a 24,000 gsf facility. It is located in and serves the Callahan, McNary, Wilson Hall student residential complex located in the historic core of the OSU campus. In earlier phases of work, portions of the building were renovated to consolidate mail and service center activities, add four different food areas serving different menus (hamburger grill, pasta, pizza, deli and home-style food areas), and update dishwashing facilities.

Phase III, the current proposed project, will replace asbestos ceiling and floor tiles, update dining furniture, and improve lighting. Further, it will continue the conversion of traditional cafeteria-style food service to "a la carte" dining services, which is quite popular with students, faculty and staff, and has resulted in a source of significant new revenue for the University Housing and Dining Services Department. Under the a la carte meal plan, each students pays only for what he or she selects. The coffee bar will be moved and expanded; new pre-wrapped sandwiches and salads will be added; and "display service" will be provided, where the food is prepared at the counter just prior to serving.

Design of the final project phase is 75% complete; estimated total project cost based on the design is $1.5 million. All operating expenses, including debt service of approximately $128,000 per year for the 20-year term of the bonds, will be paid from anticipated increased cash sales in the dining room as well as the increased revenues from the meal plans; the room rate will not be changed. Under current assumptions, a small subsidy will be required from the Housing and Dining general budget for the first three years of the 20-year repayment schedule.

This project is included in the OUS 2001-2003 Capital Construction Project approved by the Board in July. However, given the strong enrollment pressures, OSU wishes to accelerate the project so it will be readied by fall 2001. Construction would occur over the summer, when the facility will be closed.

Planning Considerations
The project is consistent with the City-approved University Master Plan. Construction of this project presents no known conflicts with existing local or state rules, regulations, statutes or policies. A construction permit is required from the City of Corvallis. All required utilities currently serve the site. There are no known legal considerations or concerns.

Financial Considerations
Using existing bond proceeds for 20-year Article XI-F(1) bonds, the project was analyzed both on the basis of a stand-alone financial investment and within the context of the OSU University Housing and Dining auxiliary budget as a whole. There will be no significant effect on the student meal plan rate from this project. The increase in debt service will be covered by increased cash sales in dining services and from previously planned increases to the FY 2000-01 meal rate, projected to be between 4% and 6%, depending on the meal plan.

The anticipated increase in total Housing and Dining revenues will provide sufficient income to retire the 20-year debt and cover annual operations and maintenance expenses, although some cash flow subsidy from the general Housing and Dining Auxiliary budget will be required for the first three years.

Staff Recommendation to the Board Budget and Finance Committee:
Staff recommend the Board Budget and Finance Committee approve and seek subsequent full Board approval to accomplish the following: a) expend $1,500,000 of Article XI-F(1) bond proceeds to renovate about 16,260 gsf of the OSU McNary Dining Hall for an expanded and modernized food service area; and b) authorize the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration to seek authorization from the Legislative Emergency Board for an Other Funds expenditure limitation of $1,500,000 for the use of Article XI-F(1) bond proceeds for such renovation.

Note: A McNary Dining Hall map was included here in the hard copy of the Budget and Finance Committee docket. Please contact the Board's office at (541) 346-5795 to request a copy.


Restrictive Covenant on the Peter W. Stott Community Field, PSU

Further Detail

Summary:
Portland State University (PSU) officials request Board approval of an easement and restrictive covenant affecting the recently completed Peter W. Stott Community Field. Mr. Peter W. Stott was the major donor to the field with an initial gift of $1,000,000. Now, in consideration of an additional $1,000,000 gift, Mr. Stott requests an easement for the purpose of granting access to erect and maintain a commemorative plaque naming the Field as the "Peter W. Stott Community Field." The restrictive covenant would require PSU to continue to use the field "as an outdoor athletic field until at least December 14, 2025, and until that date PSU agrees not to construct any structures or improvement at or upon the Field that are inconsistent with the use of the Field as an outdoor athletic field."

This request for the easement requires a full vote by the Board: OAR 580-050-0010 specifies full Board review if the easement is more substantive than for underground utilities or rights-of-way. Likewise, the request for the restrictive easement requires a full Board vote as no specific Board policy has been adopted to date.

Staff Report to the Board Budget and Finance Committee:

Background:
At its May 15, 1998, meeting, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education approved the Community-Campus Recreation Field project at PSU. This project included "approval to lease vacant land on the campus to the PSU Foundation in order to facilitate the construction of an all-weather 120x65' community and campus recreation field. The Foundation would lease the land from the Board for the period of time needed to construct the field...[and] upon completion...the Foundation would donate it to the Board of Higher Education and the lease would be canceled." The estimated project total was $2.2 million, with all funds for the project either donated or guaranteed by Peter W. Stott, a major donor to PSU. In June 2000, the Board officially approved naming the field the "Peter W. Stott Community Field."

The decision to construct a single field for use both by the University community and the campus physical education, recreation, and athletic programs resulted from a) the loss of the use of Civic Stadium for practice fields for PSU's newly elevated Division I sports teams; b) the need for outdoor recreation space associated with a then-planned facility to house both a Portland grade school and new PSU student housing; and c) the growing requirement for more intramural and club sports space by the PSU student body. Finally, the City of Portland required a certain amount of open space as a condition of approving the University District Plan, PSU's Campus Master Plan, toward which the field was to contribute.

In siting the field in 1999, the University placed it on an existing practice field southwest of the campus core, on a parcel bounded by the Peter W. Stott Center, which houses the University's physical education and recreation program, the West Heating Plant and Recycling Center, Interstate Highway I-405, and Millar Library (see attached map).

The total project cost of the field was $1,990,000 of which $600,000 was provided by other donors. Mr. Stott provided an initial $1,000,000 to begin the field, fund renovations in the Peter W. Stott Center, and for scholarship support. Mr. Stott also agreed to provide the full backup funding for the field and added funds for scholarships which totaled an additional $1,000,000 at project completion. It is in consideration of this final $1,000,000 that the donor now requests an easement from the University for the purpose of granting access to erect and maintain a commemorative plaque naming the field as the "Peter W. Stott Community Field." He also requests a restrictive covenant that would guarantee PSU's continued use of the field "as an outdoor athletic field until at least November 17, 2025," and agreement by PSU to maintain the field without unrelated structures.

Policy Issues
The easement and restrictive covenant requested by Portland State University has been reviewed by staff in the absence of a Board policy concerning such long-term land use restrictions on its campuses. Working with the PSU administration, the Department of Justice, and OUS Chancellor's Office staff, criteria were drawn up that could form the core of such a policy. The PSU proposal was then reviewed in light of the following:

In response to these criteria, President Dan Bernstine and his staff affirmed that the donor is one of PSU's most loyal and generous supporters; that the University District Plan calls for the field to serve as open space; that the campus growth plans do not require the use of this field; and that the given site is best used for open space for the campus buildings in the southwest corner of the campus.

Staff Recommendation:
In light of the response provided by PSU officials to the criteria noted herein, staff request that the Board Budget and Finance Committee recommend the full Board approve the request for an easement granting access to erect and maintain a commemorative plaque naming the Field as the "Peter W. Stott Community Field," in accordance with OAR 580-050-0010; and approve a restrictive covenant requiring PSU to continue to use the field "as an outdoor athletic field until at least December 14, 2025, and until that date PSU agrees not to construct any structures or improvement at or upon the Field that are inconsistent with the use of the Field as an outdoor athletic field."

Note: A PSU Community Recreation Field map was included here in the hard copy of the Budget and Finance Committee docket. Please contact the Board's office at (541) 346-5795 to request a copy.


Oregon University System Internal Audit Division Resource Allocation and Planned Activities

BACKGROUND

OUS Internal Audit Division Responsibilities

The Internal Audit Division (IAD) is an independent appraisal activity established to perform audits of Oregon University System (OUS) operations. The department's responsibilities include conducting reviews and providing OUS personnel with information related to the:

The OUS Internal Audit Division also serves as a liaison for audit activity conducted at OUS campuses.

Chancellor
Joseph Cox

Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration
Thomas K. Anderes

Director, Internal Audit
Patricia A. Snopkowski

Office Coordinator
Katherine Abney

Principal Auditor
Paul Bartlett
Principal Auditor
Kathy
Berg
Principal Auditor
Leslie
Frost
Principal Auditor
Gary
Hicks
Principal Auditor
Vacant
Principal Auditor
David
Riley
Principal Auditor
Michael Roberson
Principal
Auditor
Kenneth
Self

IAD RESOURCE ALLOCATION

The Internal Audit Division will perform system wide audits of functions common to all campuses. The goals of this approach are to provide the system and campuses with a more comprehensive view of the critical operating functions and to serve as a basis for coordination with external auditors. Resources permitting, there will be an internal audit of each critical operating function once every three years. The scope of each review will be dependent upon relative risks in each area and available audit hours. The Internal Audit Division will also allocate direct hours towards other mission critical activities.

Resource Allocation of Direct Auditor Hours

System Cycle Audits - The objective is to promote financial stewardship, compliance, and effective and efficient use of resources. The critical operating functions identified are as follows:

Payroll/ Human Resources
Accounts Payable / Purchasing
Cashiering Functions
Student related activities: student accounts, financial aid, admissions, registrar
Facility operations
Bookstore and auxiliary operations
Campus housing and dining
Research offices (pre-award and post-award operations)
College (departmental) and institutes (selected units to be based upon risk)

Other Direct Audits - The objective is to ensure adequate resources are available for the other IAD responsibilities.

Follow-up audits
Fraud audits
Information technology audits
Training efforts
Campus and committee involvement
Management advisory

Campus resource allocations

The Internal Audit Division will be assigning audit hours to each OUS campus. The goal of campus allocations is to provide each university with a constant and consistent internal audit resource. All auditors will continue to directly report to OUS Internal Audit Division. The resource allocations of the eight IAD auditors will be as follows:

3 System auditors 1
2 Oregon State University auditors 2
1 Portland State University auditor
1 University of Oregon auditor 3
1 Regional auditor to cover 2

1 System auditors activities will include Chancellor's Office operations, supervision, data analysis, fraud investigations, and information technology audits.
2 Oregon State University was provided additional resources based upon their wide spread geographical locations, percentage of revenue and other support revenue, and assets. However, the additional auditor will also be used for other system assignments as deemed necessary.
3 University of Oregon currently has an audit coordinator who works very closely with IAD. In addition, a quality assurance review function within the business affairs office helps augment IAD efforts by performing operational departmental reviews.

Relevant Campus Facts

  Regional Universities OSU PSU UO
         
Assets FYE 6/30/99 16% 39% 14% 31%
Total Current Revenue FYE 6/30/99 16% 37% 17% 30%
Total Current Expenditures FYE 6/30/99 17% 37% 17% 29%
Research and other support OUS Fact Sheet 6% 57% 10% 27%
Student Enrollment 2000-01 22% 24% 28% 26%
Auditor FTE allocation 1 2 1 1

FISCAL YEAR ENDING 6/30/01 PLANNED ACTIVITIES

Office Priorities

Planned Activities

System cycle audits

Payroll reporting
Cashiering functions- planning, fieldwork, and reporting
Accounts payable- planning and begin fieldwork
Colleges and institutes:

1) OSU college audit
2) Develop college web tools for Control Self Assessments

Other direct audit hours

Coordinate IAD audit planned activities with external auditors
Human resource audit follow-up
Fraud investigations as they arise
Information technology audits
Work with campuses to begin developing an internal control training program and a system fraud policy.


Oregon State Board of Higher Education
Board Committee on Budget and Finance

October 16, 2000

Minutes

Budget and Finance Committee members: Tom Imeson, chair, Geri Richmond, Don VanLuvanee, Tim Young, and Bill Williams. Members of the Strategic Planning Committee also joining: Leslie Lehmann.

OUS University Presidents or senior staff: Provost Bruce Shepard, EOU; Vice President Doug Yates, OIT; President Paul Risser, Provost Tim White, Vice President Rob Specter, OSU; President Dan Bernstine and Vice President George Pernsteiner, PSU; Provost John Moseley, and Vice President Dan Williams, UO; and President Sara Hopkins-Powell, SOU.

Chancellor's Office staff: Joe Cox, Chancellor; Tom Anderes, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration; Shirley Clark, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs; Robert Dryden, Vice Chancellor for Oregon Engineering and Computer Sciences; Diane Vines, Vice Chancellor, and Bob Bruce, Corporate and Public Affairs; Marilyn Lanier, Deputy Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration; Lynda Swanson, Director of Capital Construction, Planning, and Budgeting; Marv Wigle, Associate Vice Chancellor for Budget and Management; and Grattan Kerans, Director of Government Relations and Lisa Zavala, Governmental Relations.

Meeting participants also included Dan Layzell, Partner, MGT of America; Danny Santos, Governor's Office; Jim Johnson, Intel; other institutional representatives; other members of the Chancellor's Office staff; and interested observers.

Tom Imeson began the meeting stating that the purpose of the teleconference is to review the MGT of America's findings and the "Enhancing Engineering Programs 2001 and Beyond" proposal in an effort to respond to the Governor's request to flesh out what it would take to enhance engineering programs in Oregon. Chair Imeson emphasized that the Board Committee would not take action today but, instead, would get an understanding of the recommendation. Further discussion of the material and a drafting of a recommendation to the Board will be conducted on Thursday, October 19, in the joint committee meeting.

Vice Chancellor Tom Anderes introduced Dan Layzell, who summarized the findings of the MGT report.

Background
The scope of the study contains four major aspects as charged by the Board: to assist OUS in analyzing the engineering and related programs at OIT, OSU, PSU, and UO in context of their goals for each program; assess the financial resources needed by OSU and PSU to rise to their respective aspirational levels; provide an assessment of the current position of OSU, PSU, and UO's engineering and related programs within the national rankings (both overall and for selected disciplines); provide an assessment of the current strengths and future aspirations of these programs and their associated financial implications; and conduct parallel analysis of the specific facilities needs pertaining to the respective engineering program enhancements for OSU and PSU. MGT conducted interviews at the four institutions on their perceived program strengths and weaknesses and conducted telephonic meetings with industry leaders on their expectations. Also interviewed were selected industry representatives recommended by the four institutions and ETIC. The industry participants ranged from private industry research directors, sales people, and CEOs of large and small organizations. Benchmarks and cost factors were also developed to assess future cost needs.

During the past several years, the System has experienced a steady increase in undergraduate enrollment in engineering and computer science fields. Enrollment has remained fairly stable at the graduate level. Degree production experienced a modest growth at the undergraduate level, a slight decline in master's degrees and a relatively strong growth at the doctorate level. Also, total research expenditures have grown in engineering and computer science (OSU produces 75% of the total research expenditures).

During the campus interviews, the recurring themes were: each campus perceives a different niche in terms of engineering and computer science; all campuses felt the need for enhanced funding to obtain peer aspirations. Long-term goals were to increase degree production, which requires major resource investments of both state and non-state resources for a good return on investment.

Themes from hi-tech industry interviews were: industry is experiencing major shortages of qualified applicants for all position levels and all disciplines (entry through senior); these shortages will only continue into the future. There is also a strong belief that the state needs to enhance the quality and prestige of engineering and related programs within the System in order to retain top high school graduates within the state who may otherwise go out of state to attend college. Director Richmond asked what programs areas have been identified as being affected by the shortage of workers (e.g., civil, mechanical, computer science, or electrical engineering)? Dr. Layzell indicated that the perceived shortages are in all areas of engineering and computer science. However, he cited in particular electrical engineering, baccalaureate degrees in computer science, and doctorates in all areas (with an emphasis in research and development [R&D]). Related areas also impacted are mechanical and chemical engineering.

Industry representatives indicated that they would continue to provide ongoing financial support for program growth; however, they emphasized that to achieve long-term success, the state needed to make a significant and sustained commitment to the program. In turn, institutions believe these investments have a significant favorable impact on Oregon's hi-tech industry and on the state of Oregon, in general.

Rankings
Dr. Layzell described the assessment of rankings of well-known undergraduate/graduate engineering and computer science programs (overall and selected disciplines) that have been conducted since 1995. Three sources of data were used: U.S. News & World Report (1999-2000 version), the Gourman Report (a periodic independent review and ranking of academic programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels, 1999 and 1997 versions), and the National Research Council (most recent version published in 1995). There are differences in methodology but, in general, the rankings are based on quantitative and qualitative factors. Examples of quantitative factors are degree production, number of faculty, research productivity; an example of a qualitative factor would be a reputational survey. The rankings had a high degree of similarity; however, they confirmed a gap exists between the programs in the three Oregon public institutions and the national top tier institutions. MGT report page 4-14 displays the comparison of OSU and PSU to top tier and second tier engineering programs in the country.

OSU and PSU each provided a list of five aspirational institutions (page 5-3) and a comparative analysis was conducted for both. This analysis indicates that the institutions that comprise the aspirational list are at much higher levels than their Oregon counterparts (averaging twice as many faculty, for example).

Operating and Capital Resources
Much of the difference between OSU and PSU and their respective aspirational institutions appears to be related to sheer numbers of faculty. Therefore, the methodology for determining needed resources is based on the number of faculty needed to achieve aspirational goals. To control for bias, the model was worked from multiple estimates.

Operating resources: two approaches were developed. 1) develop a line-item budget model and 2) conduct a survey of engineering programs that were either aspirational for PSU and OSU or considered Tier 1 institutions. Exhibit 6-1 shows that the estimated additional (new) faculty needed at OSU is 118 and at PSU, 42. This generates an annual operating requirement of $30.4-32.8 million for OSU (isolating the top Tier 1 institutions, the need is $49.1 million) and for PSU, $10.8-11.3 million annually is needed to close the gap (net new resources needed). Director Richmond queried as to the source of this information. Dr. Layzell advised that this information is based on the Oklahoma State University faculty salary survey by discipline. In comparison to OSU, the MGT study focused on the average salary for all faculty in engineering for a research Tier 1 institution; and for PSU, the study looked at average engineering salaries overall for doctoral-granting institutions. Bill Williams asked if the gap includes or excludes the ETIC allocation. Dr. Layzell replied that the study focus was not on the source of funds but on what would be needed from all sources to close the gap. Director Imeson asked what assumption was made about other top tier institutions during the phase-in period. Dr. Layzell indicated that assumptions for top tier institutions focused on full phase-in.

Director Richmond, commenting on exhibit 6-2 research start-up assumptions, noted that it is impossible to hire new faculty, even entry level, at a start-up cost package of $150,000. She added that it is unrealistic to assume experienced senior faculty would be hired without a start-up package of $1 million. Dr. Layzell stated that the $150,00 to $200,000 range is based on the survey conducted. The $150,000 for research start-up includes expenditures for supplies, equipment, conference attendance, etc. Provost Moseley agreed with Director Richmond, adding that the $150,000 would be for low-end entering assistant professors (e.g., the computer science field does not have intensive laboratory start-up needs) and does not adequately reflect start-up needs. In his view, this number is off by a factor of three for associate professors. Director Richmond stated that she recently spoke with Dr. Mary Anne Fox, Chancellor of North Carolina State University, who advised that in order to recruit engineering faculty at her institution, a start-up package of $2 million is needed to fill a chaired position, and at least $1 million for an established position with an annual salary of over $100,000. (North Carolina State University is listed as one of the aspirational institutions.) While peer analysis was not conducted for OIT and UO, when these institutions are run through the model and assume a doubling of faculty in those programs, it is estimated that an additional operating requirement of $7.9 million for OIT and $5.2 million for UO is needed. Chancellor Cox noted that while the focus was on four institutions (OIT, OSU, PSU, and UO), there are computer science programs at EOU and SOU that also make a contribution to the degree output.

MGT used two independent approaches to estimate capital resources needs: 1) a space needs estimation model/database developed by MGT using space planning standards by type of space used by state systems across the country; and 2) a simple calculation of total space (in gross square feet) per full-time faculty member as reported through MGT's survey of engineering schools. These estimates are faculty-driven (i.e., number of faculty). Exhibit 6-5 displays the estimated total facilities space needed to accommodate additional engineering faculty at OSU and PSU. It is estimated that 321,000 to 419,000 gsf will be needed for OSU, and 114,000 to 242,000 gsf for PSU.

Conclusions:
A consistent theme in the study was a "return on investment" for the state. This return on investment will be directly seen in the number of additional graduates, meeting the needs of Oregon's hi-tech industry through qualified applicants, and increased applied research activities. The direct economic impact on the state is seen as increased educational opportunities for Oregonians, expanded academic research capabilities, enhanced prestige, and economic impact (e.g., additional jobs and increased business sales). In order to sustain this level of investment, significant resources will be required from both the state and the System. In comparison, of the higher ranked engineering programs surveyed, the higher the institution is ranked, the greater the reliance is on non-state funding.

With regard to the cost equation, Director Williams asked if there are revenue offsets from R&D revenue, tuition revenues derived from increased enrollment, and increased donations. Dr. Layzell noted that the study focused on the expenditure or cost aspects; however, the System's recommendation focuses on revenue sources, with the expectation that there will be federal, private, and industry funding to match and/or exceed the state General Fund request. The trend is that one-third to one-half of funding sources for the aspirational peer institutions' programs is through state funding; however, the study points out that there must be an increased reliance on non-state funding.

Director Richmond asked if interviews were conducted with out-of-state campuses that have undertake similar long-term engineering program enhancements. She also asked what time frame and level of sustainable funding would be needed to achieve an improvement in national rankings. Dr. Layzell replied that interviews were not conducted with institutions outside of Oregon, instead, a collection of information from budget and related data was used. Vice Chancellor Anderes stated that he did talk with individuals, such as deans, at various institutions; however, they did not want to speculate on what it required to move up ladder. Several of the interviewees stated that if OSU wanted to move to a top tier institution, there are a number of conditions that need to be met, including improvements in facilities. Provost Moseley asked if an amount for building operations and maintenance (O&M) was factored into the operating expenses. Dr. Layzell stated that this was not factored into the study. Only direct costs relating to operating needs of the engineering schools were factored. However, he recognizes the additional costs that would be incurred (e.g, O&M and other support services). Vice Chancellor Anderes added that facilities needs are listed in the System recommendation and cover the next biennium. Additional factors influencing facilities are a reasonable growth rate in new and renovated laboratory space, numbers of faculty, increased enrollment, etc.

Director Williams approved of MGT's encouragement of the Board to develop guiding principles to assist in the decision-making process. Chair Imeson added that part of what needs to be accomplished is that the request from the Governor needs to be responded to by providing what OUS believes to be the best path to move into the upper tier of engineering. The Board may want to respond to the Governor's request, but go further than that, as well, in terms of providing best advice as to what needs to be accomplished beyond the Governor's request.

In summarizing Dr. Layzell's report, Chancellor Cox stated that, in order to be competitive, Oregon must invest in building both the quantity and quality of engineering and computer science programs across the System. Secondly, if OUS seeks to create a top tier college of engineering, we must realistically look at the cost. And, OUS must stop considering ETIC/EEIF funding as separate from Tier I funding; all investments play a role in engineering and computer science program enhancement. Three things are needed: additional competitive faculty lines (salaries and start-up investment); larger scholarship funding to increase quality students available; and facilities adequate to the task. The magnitude of the challenge means this plan must be a multi-biennial, sustainable effort and that state funds will not be adequate. The ETIC/EEIF level ratio of 60% state funds to 40% private funds, must reverse as OUS programs move into top tier status.

System Recommendation
Vice Chancellor Anderes provided an overview of the options presented by the Chancellor's Office in "Enhancing Engineering Programs 2001 and Beyond." The funding needs set forth in the MGT report add up to $56.5 million annually, from a variety of sources. The farther up an institution moves on the aspirational ladder, the greater the commitment of the institution to reliance on non-state funding sources. The System recommendation places a strong emphasis on the ETIC Engineering Educational Investment Fund (EEIF) proposal ($30 million request supported by Board, and an additional $17 million in non-state funding. The four recommendations (options) are based on the assumption that the MGT findings on peer comparisons and budget projections were using the $56.5 million as a point of departure. Dollars--whether for faculty salaries, operating costs, graduate assistant salaries or research start-up costs--if they are continuing, on-going resources as part of the budget request, should be contributing to meeting peer improvement goals.

As an example of the options, Option A is built on three assumptions: 1) limited modification of MGT findings in acknowledgment of the EEIF funding request; 2) a three-biennia phase-in; and 3) a 50%-50% funding split between state and non-state funding sources (e.g., federal research money, tuition revenue, etc.).

Director Richmond asked if institutions would be required to develop a strategy that will ensure that the institution or program obtains the additional funding. Dr. Anderes stated that the assumption is that the institutions would be identifying particular areas where they are expanding (e.g., number of faculty, R&D revenues, etc.) and within that realm they will identify proven faculty that they will recruit who will be bringing with them the needed R&D funding. Dr. Richmond asked what the time line is for matching state funds with other funds. Dr. Anderes advised that each institution would then develop an expenditure plan that would identify the prospective matching funding source and the expected receipt of those funds, and how the matching funds would supplement the state General Fund allocation on a continuing basis. An accountability report would then be developed to measure how effectively the state resources and non-state funding were used.

Vice Chancellor Anderes continued reviewing Option A. Funding sources include an ETIC/EEIF request of $30 million (state General Fund), $17 million in private donations and industry matching funds, and an additional $6.5 million allocated through 2005. This totals $53 million of combined state and non-state annual funding for engineering program enhancement. Option A assumes a portion of those funds should be directly related to peer improvement and deducted from the MGT funding requirement ($56.5 million). This also assumes that there is segregated funding for faculty salaries that tie into peer improvement and funded through EEIF ($8.2 million on an annual basis, 50% of FTE faculty developed through MGT findings). Option A assumes $96.58 million is related to the MGT findings of $113 million biennially. Option A recommends reducing the $113 million to $96.58 million based on the funding requested through the EEIF proposal. The $96.58 million funding amount would be supported equally between state and non-state funding. Dr. Jim Johson, Intel, asked for clarification on the amount to be requested from the Legislature. Vice Chancellor Anderes stated that, if this enhancement were to be fully funded over the next biennium, $96.58 million would be the overall request from the Legislature (this includes $48.29 million state General Funds and $48.29 million in expenditure limitation authorization for Other Funds, and the $30 million requested by ETIC/EEIF). Option A proposes total funding support of $96.58 to close the gap within a three-biennia phase-in (six year) and to move OUS engineering and computer science programs to a top tier level (top 25-35 tier range) and/or accomplish aspirational peer improvement goals. However, many corresponding factors would need to be accomplished (e.g., faculty recruitment, facilities, etc.).

Option A, table 3, provides a breakdown, provided through MGT, that defines where the funding could be used if the institution so desired. The annual amount of $48.29 million will be allocated to the institutions, who will have the flexibility to allocate appropriately. Option A, table 4 displays the 2001-2003 biennial budget request of $32.19 million (which is one-third of the total three-biennia phase-in request), of which approximately $16.09 million will be state General Fund and $16.10 million Other Funds expenditure limitation. Option A, table 5, combines the EEIF funding request of $46.85 million ($30 million GF and $16.85 OF) with Tier 1/Spires of Excellence request of $32.19 million ($16.09 GF and $16.10 OF), for a total 2001-2003 biennial request of $32.95 million.

Option C is Option A spread over a four-biennia period. Option B takes the EEIF request of $30 million and an additional amount of funding identified toward peer improvement. Option B, table 2, requests $85 million (instead of $96.58 million identified in Option A), and assumes that there would be additional scholarship funds through EEIF and public/private sources. Option C is also a three-biennia phase-in. Option D is $85 million spread over a four-biennia period; therefore, Option D is recommended to the Board as the appropriate course of action.

The assumption is that at least 50% of non-state funding should be contributing to the peer improvement effort. The logic of applying EEIF funding and a 50%-50% split of funding is the same throughout the options. Top tier institutions' funding will exceed the 50% split for Other Funds and the sustainability of the enhancement of engineering programs is greatly dependent on non-state resources.

Discussion
Director Williams asked that a comparison between MGT findings and the OUS proposal be presented at the October 19th Joint Board Committee meeting. Director Richmond emphasized that the Board's commitment to access, providing excellence in education, faculty, and facilities, and contributing to the needs of the state and its communities continue 10-15 years in the future. Chancellor Cox stated that staff will re-frame and present the Board with a summary of the principles that drive this proposal.

Dr. Richmond expressed concern that priorities be set to identify programs to prevent duplication and that R&D needs and emerging areas in science and engineering will remain competitive in future. She also asked that the faculty start-up figures be revised in order to be realistic, as opposed to the low figures given. Provost Moseley commented that 1) total cost does not include capital costs, O&M; 2) the MGT report has made a mistake of scale by looking at peer institutions in states that are substantially larger than Oregon with funding investments based on their larger economies (tax funds available); and 3) is concerned about making a single-minded commitment to a particular area and following that to the point that it damages other valuable programs outside of engineering and computer science. All programs are underfunded, and engineering may be "less" underfunded than other critically needed programs in the state.

Chair Imeson asked for clarification concerning the relationship to the funding proposed and the non-state funds anticipated and how to proceed if private funds are not obtained. Director Lehmann added that the program must be aligned with the performance measures of the resource allocation model (rewarding success). If these measures are not met, the funding would not be allocated. Chancellor Cox asked if peer institutions use state funds in a similar manner. Dr. Layzell advised that Illinois has an engineering equipment grants program which is an incentive matching plan (private grants for equipment matched with state funds and based on the number of degrees granted). Chancellor Cox asked that more information be provided by Dr. Layzell at the October 19th meeting.

Dr. Richmond noted that as OUS goes forward with 2001-2003 biennial budget, this and other policy option proposals need to be prioritized. Chair Imeson stated that, in the 2001-2003 Agency Request, recommendations have been forwarded to the Governor, with a placeholder included for this particular proposal. That placeholder will be replaced with the proposal approved by the Board at its October 2000 meeting. He also believes it is appropriate for the Board to provide narrative with the proposal on how it links to other policy option packages.

Chancellor Cox wanted to advise, for the record, that he and Grattan Kerans have been meeting with candidates and returning legislators to present OUS priorities to them. Danny Santos, Governor's Office, added that the priorities and guidelines are helpful as the analysts look at the proposals going forward.

Chancellor Cox stated that the joint committee will reconvene on Thursday, October 19th at 3:30 p.m. in Ashland. The meeting adjourned at 12:16 p.m.


Oregon State Board of Higher Education
Board Committee on Budget and Finance
October 20, 2000

Minutes

Budget and Finance Committee members: Tom Imeson, chair, Geri Richmond, Don VanLuvanee, Tim Young, and Bill Williams.

OUS University Presidents or senior staff: President Phil Creighton, EOU; President Martha Anne Dow, OIT; President Paul Risser, OSU; President Dan Bernstine, PSU; President Sara Hopkins-Powell, SOU; Vice President Dan Williams, UO; President Betty Youngblood, WOU.

Chancellor's Office staff: Joe Cox, Chancellor; Tom Anderes, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration; Marilyn Lanier, Deputy Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration; Lynda Swanson, Director of Capital Construction, Planning, and Budgeting; and Marv Wigle, Associate Vice Chancellor for Budget and Management.

Meeting participants also included other institutional representatives, other members of the Chancellor's Office staff, and interested observers.

The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m.

MINUTES FROM JULY 21, 2000
A motion was made by Director Tim Young to accept the minutes from the July 21, 2000, and seconded by Director Bill Williams. The motion was approved.

ACTION ITEMS

ACQUISITION OF WESTFALL APARTMENTS FOR STUDENT HOUSING, PSU
Vice Chancellor Tom Anderes advised that Portland State University is requesting the Board's review and approval of the purchase of the Westfall Apartment Building, a four-story 43,240 square foot facility, built in 1910 with an addition built in 1923, and including 58 rental units. The facility will provide much needed additional student housing and will be managed by College Housing Northwest (CHNW), the University's current student housing provider.

The acquisition is subject to satisfaction of several standard terms and conditions: a thorough inspection of the premises and examination of all books, records, leases, etc. associated with the property; approval by the State Board of Higher Education; approval of the Legislative Emergency Board; the receipt of two independent appraisals for which the average values equal or exceed the agreed upon purchase price; receipt of a satisfactory Level I environmental report; and obtaining adequate bond proceeds to finance the transaction.

Staff recommendation: Staff requests that the Board Budget and Finance Committee recommend the full Board approve the acquisition by Portland State University of the facility known as the Westfall Apartments for a total cost of $2,800,000 plus closing costs, and authorize the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration to seek authorization from the Legislative Emergency Board for an Other Funds expenditure limitation of $2,800,000 plus closing costs for the issuance of Article XI-F(1) bonds to finance the project.

Director Bill Williams made a motion to approve this request, Tim Young seconded; the motion was approved unanimously. The item now goes to the full Board for consideration.

NORTHWEST CENTER FOR ENGINEERING, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: PHASE I, STAGE A: REMODEL OF FOURTH AVENUE BUILDING (PSU)
Portland State University requests the Board Budget and Finance Committee approve and seek full Board approval to accomplish the following: (a) renovate the first two floors of the Fourth Avenue Building, to accommodate faculty and programs being relocated from the PCAT building, for a total cost of $7.2 million; (b) authorize the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration to seek authorization from the Legislative Emergency Board for a $7.2 million Other Funds expenditure limitation for the issuance of Article XI-F(1) bonds, to be repaid from rental revenues from tenants in the Fourth Avenue Building.

Lynda Swanson, Director of Capital Construction, Planning, and Budgeting, advised that this project was included in the 2001-2003 Capital Construction Budget; however, PSU is requesting additional enhancements.

Staff recommends the above request. Director VanLuvanee made a motion, Director Young seconded the motion, and the Committee unanimously approved PSU's request for additional expenditure limitation in the amount of $7.2 million. The item now goes to the full Board for consideration.

CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - GILBERT HALL PHASE III B, UO
The University of Oregon requests the Board Budget and Finance Committee approve and seek subsequent Board approval to accomplish the following: (a) construct Phase III B of the Campus Development Project - Gilbert Hall Additions and Alterations Project, a $33 million entirely gift-funded project to extensively remodel and build an addition to Gilbert Hall; and (b) amend the previously approved 2001-2003 OUS Capital Construction Budget request to the Department of Administrative Services to include this project.

The project will accomplish the following:

•combine the existing historic east and west wings of Gilbert Hall (37,000 gsf), which will be extensively renovated;
•upgrade the Chiles Center (14,500 gsf);
•replace the existing Commonwealth Hall "bridge" (45,000 gsf) with a new, four-story, connecting building with 145,000 square feet; this will result in a net gain of 100,000 gsf;
•increase University classroom capacity by 600 new stations;
•provide a 300-seat auditorium, a 200-seat lecture hall and a 120-seat lecture hall to help redress the deficit of high-quality teaching space at UO;
•build in six new learning centers, each focused on a single discipline and providing faculty offices, student project and meeting space, as well as resource rooms in an interactive setting;
•create eight new case-study rooms as well as other classrooms with state-of-the-art instructional technology;
•a graduate studies center will be provided, to include offices, a graduate lounge, a computer lab and administrative offices and a new career center;
•add informal student gathering places and study areas throughout; and
•provide for a major expansion of the technology center and wireless networking of all instructional and student spaces.

Lynda Swanson that subsequent to the submission of the 2001-2003 Capital Construction Budget, UO received a substantial gift [a total gift package of $33 million] to enable UO to expand the scope of the original project proposal. Staff recommends Board authorize the addition of Phase III to the 2001-2003 Capital Construction Program Request and approval of the University of Oregon's gift-funded project to extensively remodel and build an addition to Gilbert Hall.

Director Young made the motion, Director Richmond seconded the motion, and the Committee unanimously approved the request for the additional Phase III project to the University of Oregon's Gilbert Hall remodel/expansion. The item now goes to the full Board for consideration.

STRAUB HALL ADDITION FOR FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE FACILITY
Lynda Swanson advised that the Board had previously approved a $3 million Straub Hall project in July 1999. However, the UO has received additional federal funds that would allow UO to add a magnetic resonance imaging facility to Straub Hall. Therefore, UO requests the Board Budget and Finance Committee approve and seek subsequent Board approval to accomplish the following: (a) amend the Straub Hall Additions and Alterations project, approved by the 1999 Legislature, to carry out additional remodeling and build a small addition to house a functional magnetic resonance imaging machine (fMRI); (b) approve an increase in the project budget from $3,320,000 to $4,495,000; and (c) authorize the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration to seek authorization from the Legislative Emergency Board for a change in the expenditure limitation from $1,166,000 in Article XI-G bonds and $1,166,000 in Other Funds (Gifts) to $1,166,000 in Article XI-G bonds and $500,000 in Other Funds (Gifts) and $2,829,000 in Other Funds (Federal).

Director VanLuvanee made a motion, Director /Williams seconded the motion, and the Committee unanimously approved the University of Oregon's request. The item now goes to the full Board for consideration.

REPORT ITEM

NAMING OF BUILDINGS WITHIN THE CENTER FOR THE VISUAL ARTS, SOU
President Sara Hopkins-Powell reported that Southern Oregon University is pleased to announce as part of its grand opening celebration of the Center for the Visual Arts, the renaming of two campus buildings that make up part of the Center.

The former Siskiyou Commons Building will be renamed the "Marion Ady Building". Ms. Ady was instrumental in launching art instruction at the University after she appeared on the new campus of the reopened Southern Oregon Normal School in 1926--just one year after construction of Churchill Hall, the first building erected on the new site. She represented, at that time, the entire faculty of the Art Department and built the foundation of what is today a strong and growing program at the University. During her 38 years of service to SOU, Ms. Ady served as chair of the department and as a respected teacher and colleague, valued mentor, and artist. The building now renamed after Marion Ady has been handsomely remodeled and is nearly twice the original size of the Siskiyou Commons Building. The 35,000 gsf building now houses Photography, Printmaking, Art Education, Painting and Drawing. In addition, there is space for two digital media labs and semi-private studios.

The former Art East sculpture facility will be renamed the "DeBoer Sculpture Building." It will house the Sculpture Studios and Gallery. In so naming the building, SOU honors the life of a prominent Ashland citizen, Walter DeBoer, who owned and operated the Lithia Motors auto dealership on the Ashland plaza from 1945 until his untimely death in 1968. This act recognizes a generous gift from the Sid and Karen DeBoer Foundation for the construction of the Center. Sid DeBoer, Mr. DeBoer's son, is a University President's Medal recipient. He has also served as the co-chair of the Center's capital campaign.

Business concluded at 8:45 a.m.