University of Minnesota, Morris
Campus Resources and Planning Committee Minutes

December 1, 2000

Members Present:         Margaret Kuchenreuther (chair), Prince Amattoe, Ferolyn Angell, Mary Elizabeth Bezanson, LeAnn Dean, Pam Gades, Bryan
                                               Herrmann, Maddy Maxeiner, Lowell Rasmussen, Jim VanAlstine

Members Absent:         Ken Crandall, Annie Olson, Norrine Ostrowski, Joe Timmerman, Bryan Welle

Guest:                                  Chancellor Sam Schuman

(In these minutes: focus on Campus Compact proposal with Chancellor Schuman)

Motion to approve 11/17/00 minutes by Bezanson.

Schuman presents the Campus Compact proposal, stating to keep in mind that there are two organizations using the term "Campus Compact"  (one a budgeting process, the other a community service initiative).  There are two processes, the Biennial Operating Budget process and the Biennial Capital Bonding process.  The Operating Budget process will include the next two years while the Capital Bonding process will take place next year and include two years worth of physical facilities, although there will be some physical facilities in the Operating Budget.

The Operating Budget is divided into two categories: Strengthening Foundations and Investing in the Future.  Strengthening Foundations represents the cost to maintain the University subtracting the $150 million tuition income and including the increase in health insurance premiums and a 3% salary increase.  Under item 4, Undergraduate Experience, UMM is in line for two new faculty positions.  Investing in the Future indicates new expenses.  UMM will be included in the new faculty salary proposal that previously would have only included the Twin Cities faculty, and there are the possibilities of two new positions in technology.  The whole request is $220 million of new money.

Schuman discussed the Capital Improvement Plan, the three year Biennial Plan which includes:
Preserving Campus Heritage
Nurturing the Future
Creating a Student and University Friendly Community
The University as a whole is moving away from new construction and towards renewal and renovation.  UMM is a priority on the list but again towards the bottom.  UMM meets all three criteria for the renovation of the facilities included in the Heritage District.  The Heritage District is requesting $8.8 million of which $5.5 million will go towards the renovation of the Social Science building.  Under the new policy, if UMM received all of the $8.8 million, under $3 million would come from the University and about $1 million will come from UMM.

Rasmussen added that the University may excuse this contribution from UMM in 2002 but by 2004 campuses will be expected to have the money.

Herrmann asked whether the new sprinkler systems are included.  Schuman responded that it is included in the Heritage District and in the year's Capital Emergency Request; the $8.8 million also includes Edson.

Schuman added that there are two things to be considered even though they are not included in the proposal.
1.) A new football stadium for the Gophers ­ there is pressure on the University to build a new facility and, although the President has stated that it will not be built with State money and only with private money and gifts, that could change.  It also could draw private donor money away from other projects.
2.) HFA phase III ­ UMM is not ready to propose this project because our vision for it is not yet clear; additionally, it is a new construction project that will need significant private funding.

Bezanson stated that the strength of the music discipline should help attract private money.  Schuman stated that the issue of the size of the auditorium is related to what it is going to be used for (i.e. music, theater, lecture, dance) and how many performances per year it might be expected to host.  Angell replied that in considering the auditorium's use, rehearsal times as well as performance times need to be considered.  Rasmussen also reminded the committee that we may have our own stadium issue in the near future as well.

VanAlstine asked whether we still will have legislative support even though the UMM precinct didnít support the incumbent legislators in the elections.  Schuman replied that the support will be there but it still remains an issue.

Schuman corrected previous remarks made about UMMís capital campaign.  UMM raised about $1 1/2 million and has about $1 million in cash, but most of that money is not available immediately.

Dean asked about including the library under Priority 2 in the Compact.  Schuman replied that it isnít too late but that the library is included under the Operating Budget and maybe should not be included in the Campus Compact.

Angell noted that the priorities of the Campus Compact match with CRPCís priorities.

Bezanson asked if UMM students have very high satisfaction with their UMM experience, why do we still have enrollment problems.  Schuman replied that a solution is proposed through more scholarship offers.  Private colleges are making their costs cheaper than UMM through their scholarships.

Kuchenreuther questioned the $85,000 budget request for a single staff position in External Relations; subtracting fringe leaves a salary that is much higher than that of most staff and many faculty salaries. Schuman clarified that the budget item also includes funding for a secretarial position.

Herrmann asked about scholarship money.  Schuman replied that we are asking for an additional $175,000 of recurring funds each year for four years.

Herrmann moved to support that priorities to be presented to the legislature, second by Bezanson.  Kuchenreuther stated that it is understood that the numbers are fluid.

Meeting adjourned at 9:05 a.m.

Minutes submitted by Sara Persons