-
Council Chamber, Simcoe Hall, 2nd floor
REPORT NUMBER 203 OF THE PLANNING AND BUDGET COMMITTEE
April 13, 2022
To the Academic Board,
University of Toronto
Your Committee reports that it met on April 13, 2022, at 3:10 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Simcoe Hall, with the following members present:
PRESENT:
Jan K. Mahrt-Smith, (Chair), Mark Lautens, (Vice Chair), Cheryl Regehr, (Vice-President and Provost), Scott Mabury, (Vice-President, Operations and Real Estate Partnerships), Jeff Lennon, (Interim Assistant Vice-President, Planning & Budget), Carol C. Chin, Janet Cloud*, Lisa Rebecca Dolovich, Daniel Haas, Tony Harris, Sarosh Jamal, Rita Kandel*, Rajiv Mathur*, Nicole Mideo, Amy Mullin, Marium Nur Vahed, Melanie A. Woodin, Vishar Yaghoubian
*participated remotely via Zoom
REGRETS: Bisma Ali, Andrew Chen, Ettore Vincenzo Damiano, Markus D. Dubber, Ernest W.N. Lam
NON-VOTING ASSESSORS:
Leah Cowen, (Vice-President, Research and Innovation and Strategic Initiatives), Trevor Rodgers, (Chief Financial Officer)
SECRETARIAT:
Tracey Gameiro, Secretary
IN ATTENDANCE:
Mary Choi, (Chief Administrative Officer, Faculty of Dentistry), Elizabeth Cragg, (Director, Office of the Vice-President, Operations and Real Estate Partnerships), Emma del Junco, (Assistant Coordinator, Academic Planning & Reviews), David Lock, (Coordinator, Academic Planning & Reviews), Daniella Mallinick, (Director, Academic Programs, Planning and Quality Assurance, Office of the Vice-President and Provost), Ben Poynton, (AODA Officer), Archana Sridhar, (Assistant Provost, Office of the Vice-President and Provost), Isaac Straley, (Chief Information Security Officer), Bo Wandschneider, (Chief Information Officer), Sandy Welsh, (Vice-Provost, Students)
ITEMS 3 AND 4 AND IN CAMERA ITEMS 10 AND 11 ARE RECOMMENDED TO
THE ACADEMIC BOARD FOR APPROVAL. ITEM 6 WAS APPROVED. ALL
OTHER ITEMS ARE REPORTED FOR INFORMATION.
Pursuant to section 33(i) of By-Law Number 2, items 10-12 were considered in camera.
OPEN SESSION
- Chair’s Remarks
The Chair welcomed members and guests to the Committee’s first in-person meeting since the start of the pandemic. He encouraged member participation and reviewed procedures for voting and speaking during the meeting. The Chair also welcomed the Committee’s newest assessor, Mr. David Lehto, who joined the Operations and Real Estate Partnerships team as Chief of University Planning, Design and Construction.
- Assessors’ Reports
Vice-President & Provost - Professor Cheryl Regehr
The Provost provided the Committee with an update on the Strategic Mandate Agreements with the Province (“SMA3”).
As was presented during the annual budget presentations the previous cycle, the Provost reiterated that the Province was shifting a significant amount of the University’s operating grant funding to performance-based funding tied to 10 metrics in the areas of skills and job outcomes, and economic and community impact. Metrics would be phased in over the three years of the SMA3, and associated targets would be formulaic, informed by past results and accounting for annual variation. In the context of the pandemic however, the government announced that it would decouple funding impacts from metrics performance for at least the first three years of the agreement; though performance would continue to be measured and reported relative to annual targets.
The Provost announced that the University had exceeded targets on all active metrics in year two, notably in the areas of experiential learning (by 25%), and the number of start-ups supported by incubators and campus-led accelerators (by more than 80%). She stated that the University’s share of tri-agency research funding and funding from private sources continued to increase. The average employment income of graduates was also higher than the previous year and ahead of target.
In conclusion, the Provost stated that the University was well-equipped to deal with the performance based funding model and remained confident that it would continue to meet targets for the remainder of the SMA3.
Vice-President Operations and Real Estate Partnerships – Professor Scott Mabury
Professor Mabury’s report provided an update on the challenges faced managing continuing supply chain disruptions and the (unprecedented) inflationary construction market, their impact on the progress of capital projects, and strategies to address those challenges.
Material costs continued to increase, with bids coming back 50% over expected estimates. To adjust to this highly inflationary construction market, Professor Mabury shared that the University had retained third-party cost consultants to provide an independent verification of projected budget and cost estimates for each capital project coming forward to governance. In addition, construction logistic support had been acquired for several major projects, and program validation exercises had been conducted to minimize scope. Contractors were also being involved much sooner in project development, together with the architect so that projects were designed in accordance with market conditions. Architects would also be directed to design around more locally sourced materials.
Professor Mabury also reported that contractual ‘off ramps’ were now being introduced, with one being recently triggered to cease a current tender on the Academic Wood Tower project. He explained that this signalled to the market that the University would not bend blindly to market demands and would adhere to its fiduciary duty to spend funds judiciously. Professor Mabury expected the Academic Wood Tower to be resurrected some time in the future, once project estimates began to show good value.
Discussion
In Response to the Provost’s Report
In response to a member’s question regarding whether the University’s performance on the SMA funding metrics would adjust targets upward in future years, Jeff Lennon, Interim Vice-President, Planning and Budget, confirmed that targets were based on the three most recent years of performance, but added that there was an allowance for volatility each year, such that a significant increase in one year would create a corresponding large band of tolerance for the following year.
In addition, the Provost stated that there was a recognition of ‘best in class’ in how metrics were conceptualized, such that institutions that were already performing at exceptional levels would not need to improve as much those which were struggling in that area.
In Response to the Report of the Vice-President, Operations and Real Estate Partnerships
A member inquired whether, given the uncertain market, there was a preference for partners who offered more consistent costing. In response, Professor Mabury stated that procurement requirements were in place to prequalify bidders to quality, so that contractors who had deviated from appropriate delivery of quality of service in past projects with the University would not be allowed to bid for future projects. Processes were therefore in place to adjudicate effectively and provide confidence in accepting lower bids, as only those service providers meeting these higher quality standards would be allowed to bid on the project. Professor Mabury emphasized, however, that policies and procedures would need to be re-evaluated in light of the unparalleled inflationary construction market. Integrated project design was one approach being undertaken to adapt to market uncertainty. This approach saw the builder, architect and the University aligned on the project budget, with all proportionately exposed to the liability of costs exceeding budget estimates, and the net benefit of delivering the project under budget. Professor Mabury expressed his confidence that the University was well equipped to navigate the current market. He credited the expertise retained by the University and its responsive governance structure in helping to facilitate addressing market demands.
A member asked whether there was a higher tolerance in the market for precedent setting projects (like the Academic Wood Tower, which was projected to be the tallest wood structure in North America). Professor Mabury noted that while unique projects did usually have cost implications, recognition in the market of being the architect and contractor that first designed and built these types of ambitious projects did deliver some benefit, causing some bidders to be more aggressive in elements of their bid in order to advance their interest, because they saw it as long term investment.
- Capital Project: Report of the Project Planning Committee for the University of Toronto Health and Wellness Centre Renovation and Expansion at the Koffler Student Services Centre – Project Scope and Sources of Funding
The Committee received a presentation of the project from Professor Scott Mabury.
Highlights of the presentation included the following:- the project renovated 3,400 gross square metre of existing interior space, adding a new two-storey addition (which would not be outwardly visible, and was not contemplated in the 2011 University of Toronto Master Plan);
- the renovation and expansion offered improvements in accessibility and responded to a key recommendation made by the “Presidential and Provostial Task Force on Student Mental Health”, (released January 15, 2020), increasing access to functional and therapeutic space for health promotion, mental health services, and mental health and wellness programming;
- services were accessible to all full-time and part-time University of Toronto undergraduate and graduate students on all campuses;
- health and wellness services would be housed temporarily in leased renovated space at 700 Bay Street for the duration of the project, with no disruption to students;
- architects had provided a Heritage Impact Assessment for the project;
- initial project consultation had included two focus group sessions with students;
- consultation with students was undertaken again with students during the design development;
- an accessibility consultation with students with lived experience was being organized with support from the University’s Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (“AODA”) office;
- the project would be funded through a combination of deferred maintenance funds, donations received, and future major capital project reserves;
- construction was anticipated to begin in September 2022, with occupancy targeted for January 2025; and,
- there was no foreseeable impact with adjacent campus construction.
As part of the ensuing discussion, the following was addressed: - many of the forms of virtual care, (including mental health counselling services), developed through the pandemic would continue to be offered;
- delivery of services was moving towards an ‘options’ model offering students the choice to have virtual or in-person consultations;
- primary care never ceased on-campus;
- positive uptake by students in in-person workshops, making the new health promotion spaces of the project all the more important;
- the transitional space at 700 Bay St was the closest space to campus for the relocation of student services during construction;
- embedded care existed within the faculties and colleges, with offices set aside for consultations, and with the hope of more being set aside for health and wellness services, so that care could be provided directly on their premises during the construction period; and,
- communication strategies were being led by Professor Joe Desloges, regarding how best to advertise and direct students to services at the remote site at 700 Bay St.
On motion duly moved, seconded and carried
YOUR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED
THAT the project scope of the Health & Wellness Centre Renovation and Expansion at the Koffler Student Services Centre, as identified in the Report of the Project Planning Committee for University of Toronto Health and Wellness Centre Renovation and Expansion at the Koffler Student Services Centre, dated February 14, 2022, be approved in principle; and,
THAT the project totaling 1,847 nasm is proposed, with 3,398 gsm renovated space, 456 gsm third floor new addition, and 408 gsm second floor new addition shell space, be approved in principle, to be funded by Donations Received, Deferred Maintenance (towards roof replacement), and Future Major Capital Project Reserves.
- Capital Project: Report of the Project Planning Committee for the University of Toronto Faculty of Dentistry Pre-Clinical Simulation Lab 4 Renewal – Project Scope and Sources of Funding
Professor Mabury presented an overview of the capital project for the Dentistry Pre-Clinical Simulation Lab 4 Renewal (“the Lab Renewal”), highlighting the following aspects:- the Lab Renewal sought to implement upgrades to meet the objectives of the faculty’s academic mission and current regulatory requirements;
- a potential secondary effect renovation area was included to provide necessary upgrades to building infrastructure, services and energy performance;
- modernization of the Pre-Clinical Lab was badly needed with the objective of it becoming more of a simulation lab to support student learning from the preclinical setting to the actual dentistry clinic run by the Faculty;
- the existing mannequin set-up was obsolete, with simulators more closely emulated the clinical environment and offered feedback on the treatment being delivered;
- the Clinic Master Plan initiated by the Faculty in 2019 identified opportunities for providing students modern clinic spaces to manage patients effective and efficiently and to meet clinic practice standards and pedagogical requirements;
- the project was the second implemented phase of the Clinical Master Plan;
- the design was not required to be reviewed by the University of Toronto Design Review Committee as it was an interior renovation with no impact on the public realm;
- the renovation would address deferred maintenance to base building systems with the implementation of new energy efficient mechanical and electrical servicing including sustainability and energy efficiency upgrades;
- the Clinical Master Plan project included graduate and undergraduate students on the Project Planning and Implementation Committee; and,
- construction was expected January 2023-June 2023.
At the conclusion of Professor Mabury’s presentation, the Provost added that the Faculty of Dentistry provided 90,000 visits to low-income Torontonians each year.
There were no questions from members.
On motion duly moved, seconded and carried
YOUR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED
THAT the project scope of the Faculty of Dentistry Pre-Clinical Simulation Lab 4 Renewal described in the Report of the Project Planning Committee for the University of Toronto Faculty of Dentistry Pre-Clinical Simulation Lab 4 Renewal, dated February 28, 2022, be approved in principle; and,
THAT the project totaling 752.62 gross square metres (gsm), be approved in principle, to be funded by a combination of Faculty of Dentistry Operating Funds, Future Major Capital Project Reserve, F&S Deferred Maintenance, and Fundraising.
- Annual Report: Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), 2021-22
The Planning and Budget Committee received the Annual Report: Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), 2021-22 from Professor Sandy Welsh, (Vice-Provost, Students), and Ben Poynton, (AODA Officer), on behalf of Kelly Hannah-Moffat, Vice-President, People Strategy, Equity and Culture. The report was also presented to the University Affairs Board for information.
Professor Welsh introduced the report, highlighting that it reviewed activities from January to December, 2021, and spanned transitions to and from virtual learning, a gradual expansion of in-person activities across all three campuses, and many disruptions and uncertainties due to the evolving pandemic. She indicated that many of the University’s pandemic lessons would be incorporated into AODA strategies going forward.
Mr. Poynton shared the progress and challenges detailed in the report. He explained that the report was organized in sections covering a review of the AODA Office, National AccessAbility Week, accessible built environment, accessible communications, accessible service delivery, pedagogy, and mental health. As part of his presentation, Mr. Poynton highlighted specific successes throughout the year towards these areas of focus. He also provided an overview of the AODA Plan which outlined planned initiatives to realize the potential of a universally designed, barrier-free University.
There were no questions from members.
The Chair thanked Professor Welsh and Mr. Poynton for their presentation.
- Report of the Previous Meeting: Report Number 202 – February 28, 2022
Report Number 202, from the meeting of February 28, 2022 was approved.
- Business Arising from the Report of the Previous Meeting
There was no business arising from the report of the previous meeting.
- Date of the Next Meeting –May 4, 2022, 3:10 – 5:10 p.m.
The Chair reminded members that the next meeting would be held on May 4, 2022 at 3:10 p.m.
- Other Business
There were no items of other business.
The Committee moved IN CAMERA.
- Capital Project: Report of the Project Planning Committee for the University of Toronto Health and Wellness Centre Renovation and Expansion at the Koffler Student Services Centre - Total Project Cost and Sources of Funding
On motion duly moved, seconded and carried
YOUR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED
THAT the recommendation of the Vice-President, Operations and Real Estate Partnerships, as outlined in the memorandum dated March 23, 2022, regarding the Total Project Cost and Sources of Funding for the University of Toronto Health and Wellness Centre Renovation and Expansion at the Koffler Student Services Centre, be approved in principle.
- Capital Project: Report of the Project Planning Committee for the University of Toronto Faculty of Dentistry Pre-Clinical Simulation Lab 4 Renewal - Total Project Cost and Sources of Funding
On motion duly moved, seconded and carried
YOUR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED
THAT the recommendation of the Vice-President, Operations and Real Estate Partnerships, as outlined in the memorandum dated March 23, 2022, regarding the Total Project Cost and Sources of Funding for the University of Toronto Health Faculty of Dentistry Pre-Clinical Simulation Lab 4 Renewal, be approved in principle.
- Annual Report: Information Security and the Protection of Digital Assets
Members received the Annual Report on Information Security and the Protection of Digital Assets, for information. The Report was presented by Isaac Straley, Chief Information Security Officer. Key accomplishments highlighted included: renewed incident response practices, new remote work guidelines, multi-factor authentication adoption across the University’s three campuses, and advanced email, file, and collaboration threat protection.
The Chair reminded members that the annual report was received by the Committee as a requirement of the Policy on Information Security and the Protection of Digital Assets, and stressed that review of the report was a critical function of the Committee in dispensing with its oversight duties of accountability frameworks. He underscored that review of the report was a delegated responsibility and that the Committee was relied on by Governing Council to undertake a considered review of the information presented and to weigh its significance carefully in view of resource allocations for the priorities identified and the security programs and protocols developed in response.
Members of the Committee affirmed the importance of the Policy and the need to adhere to the guidance provided by Information Technology Services to address information security and privacy challenges.
The Chair noted that the Report would also be presented to the Audit Committee who would consider it from a risk management perspective. A summary of the Committee’s discussion of the Report could be found in Report Number 147 of the Audit Committee (April 25, 2022).
The Committee returned to Open Session.
The Chair thanked members for their attendance and participation.
The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
April 18, 2022