UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO THE GOVERNING COUNCIL REPORT NUMBER 36 OF THE PLANNING AND BUDGET COMMITTEE November 4, 1997   To the Academic Board, University of Toronto.   Your Committee reports that it met on Tuesday, November 4, 1997, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Simcoe Hall with the following members present:   Professor Carl Amrhein (In the Chair) Ms Wendy M. Cecil-Cockwell, Vice-Chair, Governing Council Professor Adel S. Sedra, Vice-President and Provost Professor Michael Finlayson, Vice-President, Administration and Human Resources Professor Derek McCammond, Vice-Provost, Planning and Budget Professor Ethel Auster Mr. Brian C. Burchell Professor David Clandfield Professor W. Raymond Cummins Mr. Jacob Glick Mr. John Malcolm   Professor Robert H. McNutt Ms Carole Moore Professor Wendy Rolph Professor Kenneth Sevcik Mr. Robert G. Spencer Professor Ronald D. Venter   Non-Voting Assessors   Professor Carolyn Tuohy, Deputy Provost   Secretariat:   Ms Margaret McKone (Secretary) Ms Susan Girard   Regrets:   Dr. John R. G. Challis Professor Ronald Daniels Mr. Paul V. Godfrey Dr. Robert J. Kyle Professor David Mock Mr. Faisal S. Raja Professor Paul Thompson In Attendance:  Professor Arnold Aberman, Dean, Faculty of Medicine Professor Rorke Bryan, Chair, Task Force on Jokers' Hill Mr. Louis Charpentier, Assistant Vice-Provost, Health Sciences Mr. Martin D. England, Assistant Vice-Provost, Strategic Planning Dr. Beata FitzPatrick, Assistant Provost Ms Susan Isbister, Director, Professional and International Programs, Woodsworth College Professor Bruce Kidd, Director, School of Physical and Health Education and Acting Director, Department of Athletics and Recreation Miss Janice Oliver, Assistant Vice-President, Operations and Services Mr. Anthone Pieterse, Comptroller THE MEETING WAS HELD IN OPEN SESSION. ITEMS 4, 5, 7, 8 AND 9 ARE RECOMMENDED TO THE ACADEMIC BOARD FOR APPROVAL.  1. Report of the Previous Meeting held on September 2, 1997   Report Number 35 was approved. 2. Business Arising from the Report of the Previous Meeting   A member referred to the business arising item in the Report of the previous meeting, in particular the second paragraph on page 3. The Report indicated that on June 30, 1999, the pension plan would have a surplus in excess of $100 million. He asked about its availability for use in the operating budget. Professor Sedra explained that the surplus in the pension fund, by federal regulations, had to remain in the fund. The employer could, however, choose to take a holiday from paying its current service contribution into the fund. A member cautioned that the $100 million figure was an estimate and its size depended on the performance of the financial markets. 3. Senior Assessor’s Report  (a) Appointments   Professor Sedra and the Committee congratulated Professor Carl Amrhein on being appointed Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science and Professor Carolyn Tuohy on her re-appointment as Deputy Provost.  (b) Supplemental Retirement Arrangement   Professor Sedra briefed the Committee on developments with respect to the funding of the Supplemental Retirement Arrangement (SRA). He recalled that the Committee had first heard of this matter during the summer in connection with the salary and benefits settlement with the University of Toronto Faculty Association (UTFA). At the September meeting, there had been a preliminary indication of the cost of this benefit and he could now report on the arrangements made to fund it. The Business Board, at its meeting on October 27, had approved the funding proposal which would have an impact on the operating budget. Briefly, he reviewed the outcome of the salary settlements with the Faculty and Staff Associations, which included a two-year holiday for employee contributions to the pension fund. The pension plan improvements that were approved as part of the settlements would be funded mostly within the pension fund. This was not possible with the SRA. Its name indicated that it was a supplementary arrangement and, as such, had to be funded outside the pension fund. He noted that the issue at this time was not whether this benefit was a good one; that point had been dealt with when the settlements had been approved by the Business Board. The question now was how to pay for it; it would cost $80 million to start and there would be on-going or current service costs. The administration had proposed that the $80 million be amortized over five years instead of paying the full cost as soon as possible. The longer time period would leave the University some funds from the anticipated employer pension contribution holiday to pay for other initiatives. The Business Board had approved the proposal but had decided that this matter would be revisited annually. Professor Sedra outlined the plan to pay for the SRA. The first assumption was that there would be a five-year employer contribution holiday. The second assumption concerned the line item in the budget set aside yearly for the employer's contribution. Because of the surplus in the pension fund, this amount had not been used for that purpose for a number of years, allowing it to be spent instead on other items. If the budgeted amount was reduced by $5 million, from the current level of $27-$28 million, this would provide relief to the budget of approximately 1%. The amount to be set aside in the budget for the employer's contribution would then be $22-$23 million a year for five years or about $120 million. The cost of the SRA was $80 million leaving some $40 million for OTO funding over the five-year period. The proposal called for the full amount of the annual holiday to be used for the SRA in the first and second years. In the remaining three years, there would be $40 million to spend on such items as deferred maintenance and matching infrastructure funding. He noted that this was much less than had been available for the last few years.   In answer to a question, Professor Sedra explained that the Business Board, in its consideration of the fiscal prudence of the proposal, would have preferred to pay the full costs as soon as possible. The administration had wanted some funds for OTO needs, and the final position - making maximum payments in the first two years and paying the balance over the last three - was the compromise.  A member asked what effect, if any, funding of the SRA would have on the deficit. Professor Sedra stated that this matter did not affect the clawback that had been announced over the summer or the current budget reductions that were now being planned in the academic divisions. There would be the 1% relief to the budget as noted above. The budget model would be updated. The prediction for 2000 was a deficit budget of $3.5 million. The use of the $5 million of relief would probably lead to a balanced budget, and the accumulated deficit would probably be a bit higher than the amount allowed for under Governing Council policy. He assured the members that the budget model would be brought to the Committee as soon as it was available.   A member asked whether the University would be starved of OTO funding for the next two years. He understood that there was approximately $10 million left in the Academic Priorities Fund (APF). Professor Sedra replied that the APF was base funding and that it would be allocated in February, following reviews of the academic plans. He agreed that potential infrastructure funding would be constrained for the next two years. The money in the University Infrastructure Investment Fund (UIIF) was almost fully committed. There was about $4.3 million still available in the Academic Transitional Fund (ATF).   In response to a question, Professor Sedra said that the current service cost of the SRA would be about $3 million. At the end of the five-year period, the line item in the budget for the current service costs for retirement benefits would be $24 million, including the $3 million for the SRA. A member asked if the Business Board's yearly review could result in an extension to the payment period. Professor Sedra said that the Business Board would be looking at the valuation of the pension fund and would determine whether a continued holiday would be prudent. It could also look at the amortization schedule.   Several members expressed concern over the lack of funds for leveraging outside funding for projects, especially in the first two years. Professor Sedra explained it was important to be able to make commitments, which was why the administration's proposal called for some funding to be available beginning in the third year. There would be funds available through The Campaign but those funds would be given for a specific purpose. The University was also hoping to maximize funding from the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI). CFI would contribute 40% towards a project, while the remainder had to be found from private and university funding. It was important to the University to have the flexibility provided by the $40 million expected to be available in the last three years of the proposal.  (c) Performance Indicators   Professor Sedra invited Professor Tuohy to give the Committee a brief electronic presentation of performance indicators. She had made a similar presentation to Governing Council in September but the information was evolving. She would also be making a presentation to the Academic Board later this month. It was planned that the performance indicators would eventually be approved by governance before the end of this calendar year.   Professor Tuohy explained that there had been interest in performance indicators since the early 1990s. In 1993, the Broadhurst Task Force on University Accountability had recommended that the governing body of each University select performance indicators relevant to its mission on which to report annually. The Council of Ontario Universities (COU) established a Core Indicator Project to determine core indicators that could be calculated across all universities. This University had endorsed the Broadhurst recommendations in principle and had started to work on identifying particular University of Toronto indicators. There were three main purposes to this work: • Assessing the reliability and validity of the COU core indicators. Can they be calculated consistently over time and across institutions? • Developing an effective mode of presentation and communication. • Compiling base-line data. In addressing these, Professor Tuohy said that the University had chosen ten of the eleven COU core indicators, rejecting one. Others specific to the University have been created. The development of a graphical display and textual commentary had made the information accessible. All relevant data would be provided in an appendix. Finally, 1995-96 was chosen as the base-line against which future performance could be measured.   Professor Tuohy gave some observations of the project so far. COU core indicators were developed primarily based on first-entry programs. This University had expanded its indicators to second-entry and graduate programs. The best interpretation of the data occurred at the program level. Divisional level data could be placed in the context of divisional reviews. The indicators had developed in the Ontario university context but there were numerous peers for the University of Toronto outside the province. She had been working with data from the Association of American University Data Exchange (AAUDE) to develop some indicators which would allow comparison with U.S. peer institutions.   Professor Tuohy then showed a number of the graphical representations of the performance indicators, giving commentary on progress made, particular problems or differences in interpretation. She ended her presentation by noting that indicators for accessibility, student experience and employment of graduates would be developed for future reports, but that such data were not available for this year’s report.   A member expressed his appreciation of the work that had been done but he said that the University should be careful that the indicators not become the objective. For example, in admissions, entering grades were not the only criterion that was reviewed. He did not want the weight of this criterion to grow as a result of its being a measured indicator.   A member referred to the employment equity indicators as they might be applied to students in terms of accessibility. He supposed they would be geared to admissions data but he wondered whether it would be possible to track how well targeted students prospered at university. Another member was surprised that there were employment equity or pension fund indicators at all since he believed they were staff data and not something that arose out of the University's mission. He also noted the absence of an indicator that measured teaching quality. Lastly, he suggested "part-time instruction" would be better named "instruction for part-time students".   Professor Tuohy explained that the indicators should cover areas the University wished to track over time. Some could be assessed against optimum levels or benchmarks, others would trigger the need for further analysis. The employment equity policy called for hiring to match the pool of candidates. This was something that should be monitored. Similarly, there was a fiduciary responsibility to monitor the performance of the pension fund. Although these items could not be tracked to a specific line in the mission statement, they were matters the University should be interested in.   A member noted two concerns. He believed that the cost of central administration might be misleading depending on how the administration costs of the college system were factored in. He wondered whether other institutions had the same multi-levels of administration as this University. His second point concerned students entering with scholarships. He asked if there were data indicating how many lost the scholarships after first year. Conversely, he wondered how many came without scholarships and made the Dean's list in first year. A member, noting the length of the agenda, suggested that this matter be added to the agenda of the next meeting. Professor Tuohy indicated that there would be another presentation and opportunity for discussion at the Academic Board on November 27. The next Committee meeting would, however, occur after presentation to the Executive Committee. Professor Sedra said that the University was on a learning curve and would benefit from members' views, even after the document had gone forward to Governing Council for approval.   The Chair made several comments. He asked where students were counted in program completion data when they shifted programs between first and second years. Professor Tuohy said they would be part of the program into which they had moved. The Chair noted that because of the size of the University, fluctuations in U of T data would render comparison to a mean of dubious value. He also suggested that Fulbrights be added to the list of awards. Professor Tuohy noted that the Ontario system mean had been calculated excluding the University of Toronto for purposes of comparing entering averages.   A member suggested indicators concerning the percentage of students housed on campus be developed as well as indicators that looked at the percentage of students who worked and for how many hours per week they worked.

4. Capital Project: Interim Users’ Committee Report - Physical Education and Athletic Centre of the Department of Athletics and Recreation   The Chair welcomed Professor Bruce Kidd, Director, the School of Physical and Health Education (SPHE) and Acting Director, the Department of Athletics and Recreation (DAR). He noted that the Planning and Budget Committee considered reports of users’ committees and recommended to the Academic Board approval in principle. The University Affairs Board would also be asked to review this project prior to its recommendation to the Governing Council as it had implications within that Board’s areas of responsibility.   Professor McCammond noted that this capital project was very important to the new Faculty of Physical Education and Health. In 1994, a facilities development team had looked at the two buildings that house the School and the Department and had made a number of recommendations for improving the physical facilities. Some of the recommendations concerned the locker rooms, fitness room, safety, accessibility, the clinic and air conditioning. In the fall 1996, a Users' Committee was established and it concluded that it was important to move immediately on the matter of the locker rooms to provide gender equity in these facilities. This project could be undertaken without constraining future renovations. The overall plan was, of course, to address the other issues. The cost of the locker room renovations was $1.5 million plus $80,000 for the concept plan. The new Faculty had identified the funding from the DAR carryforward and some student services funds. Professor Kidd underlined the urgency of the project and its importance to the students.   A member recalled an earlier plan to renovate the locker facilities which called for an exchange of the men's and women's locker rooms for a cost of about $.5 million. The new plan was three times as expensive and he asked for an explanation. Professor Kidd said that the Users' Committee had decided that the old plan would not achieve the objectives of gender equity. He recalled that one part of the plan had been to recycle the lockers and this idea had been abandoned, causing the cost to rise significantly. The new plan called for the creation of two locker rooms from the current men's locker area. This would provide an efficient use of space and modern facilities for women. The next stage of the capital project would consider the use of the present women's locker room. He said that DAR was much happier with the present plan. The member asked whether the approval of this project was a stand-alone project or would it commit the University to undertaking further renovations. Professor Kidd said that the Users' Committee would have liked to recommend the whole group of renovations right away. However, the funding was not there. The locker rooms were important so that part was being proposed now. This was a self-contained project. A member suggested that the current women's room would then be empty and would provide an impetus to continue with the renovations. He then turned to the question of funding. He noted that there had been discussion of sharing the costs between the academic budget and the students fees because the students in the academic program used the lockers. He asked whether it was proposed that all the funding come from the fees. Professor Kidd indicated that the funding would come entirely from the co-curricular side of the budget. The students in the academic program paid student fees and locker fees, the same as DAR student users did.   A member asked about the Varsity Stadium reserve fund. Professor Kidd explained that this was a deferred maintenance fund for that facility which was held by DAR. It had not been used for the last couple of years. Another member commented that he had not previously seen carryforward funds as a source of funds for a renovation project. Professor Kidd compared it to a forced savings fund. A member said that the project was dependent on funding from the surplus of student services fees which was still under discussion. If that matter was resolved such that no surplus funds could be applied to this project, the member asked whether it would go ahead using other university funding. Professor Sedra said that in that event the project would not be undertaken.  On the recommendation of the Vice-Provost, Planning and Budget,  YOUR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS  THAT the Interim Report of the Users’ Committee for the Physical Education and Athletic Centre of the Department of Athletics and Recreation, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix “A”, be approved, and  THAT the renovations to the locker room facility be approved as a capital project at an estimated cost of $1.5 million, the funding to be provided by the Faculty of Physical Education and Health. 5. Faculty of Medicine: Proposed Bachelor of Science Program in Radiation Sciences   The Chair welcomed Professor Arnold Aberman, Dean, Faculty of Medicine. The Chair noted that the Committee on Academic Policy and Programs had reviewed the academic aspects of this program at its meeting on October 29 and recommended the program's approval. This Committee's role was to review the resource implications of the program.   Professor McCammond introduced the proposal which called for a collaborative program with the Michener Institute in Radiation Sciences. The University would award a degree and the Institute, a diploma. There were no budgetary implications, the program being self-supporting from fee revenue which was expected to cover both the direct and indirect costs. In the steady-state, the program was expected to generate net revenues of $75,000; start-up costs amounted to approximately $170,000 incurred in the first year of the program. The Faculty of Medicine had agreed to underwrite any financial risk associated with the program. There was a strong demand for the current program at the Institute and this was expected to continue.   A member supported the program, indicating that it was very topical and important. He wondered whether there were any plans to mount a master's program. Professor Aberman said there were not.  On the recommendation of the Vice-Provost, Planning and Budget,  YOUR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS   THAT the financial plan for the B.Sc. Program in Radiation Sciences be approved.  Documentation is attached hereto as Appendix “B”. 6. School of Graduate Studies: Proposed Master of Engineering in Telecommunications   The Chair indicated that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda and that the administration hoped to bring the matter forward at the next meeting. 7. Woodsworth College: Proposed Certificate Program in Case Management   The Chair welcomed Ms Susan Isbister, Director, Professional and International Programs, Woodsworth College. This program had also been reviewed by the Committee on Academic Policy and Programs at its meeting on October 29 and had been recommended for approval.   Professor McCammond introduced the proposal for a joint program that would lead to a certificate from Woodsworth College or a diploma from McMaster University. This was a self-funding program which was expected to produce net revenues of $13,000 in steady-state. Start-up costs amounted to $28,000. He noted that the preliminary discussions of the program had envisaged a truly integrated one but as it developed, the logistics led to the decision that the program be conducted entirely and separately at both McMaster and this University. The program was developed at the request of the Home Care Program of Metropolitan Toronto. Ms Isbister added that the program was very good and there was an urgent need for it.   A member asked why the program was not housed in the Faculty of Nursing. Ms Isbister reported that the Faculty had approached Woodsworth College to administer the program, drawing together academic expertise from gerontology, social work and nursing. The students would be administered separately but they would be able to take courses on the other campus.   A member asked whether there were many joint programs at the University. Mr. England noted that this was the only program that had an identical curriculum, developed together but offered separately at different universities. He said there were other programs where different parts were offered at various universities. The member thought this was historically important and praised the effort taken to achieve it. The Chair asked Professor Sedra to undertake to review the answer on the number of these programs.  On the recommendation of the Vice-Provost, Planning and Budget,  YOUR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS   THAT the financial plan for the Certificate Program in Case Management be approved.  Documentation is attached hereto as Appendix “C”.

8. Capital Project: Joker's Hill Task Force and Users' Committee Report  The Chair welcomed Professor Rorke Bryan, Chair, Joker’s Hill Task Force, and Mr. Don Beaton, Manager, Real Estate.   The Chair briefly reviewed the history of this item. Joker’s Hill was donated to the University by Mr. and Mrs. Murray Koffler in 1995. Upon receipt of this extraordinary gift, the Governing Council approved the creation of a Committee to manage the endowment. Subject to Governing Council approval of an overall plan, the Committee was responsible for decisions concerning the allocation of the endowment lands to University activities, allocation of the available endowment income to support the University’s academic mission in the relevant disciplines, and preservation of the capital of the endowment. At the time the gift was received, $1.5 million was set aside by the University to fund the net operating expenses for a period of up to five years from the date of acquisition. These funds were to be repaid from proceeds of the sale of land. He recalled that this Committee had received, for information, the terms of reference for the Users’ Committee in July, 1996.   Professor Sedra explained that the Task Force had been established on receipt of the gift in order to find ways of utilizing the property to help achieve the University's mission. In accepting the gift, the Governing Council undertook that it should be self-financing. There should be ways of generating income to finance the activities that take place there. Towards that end, the administrative response to the Task Force's report instructed the Vice-President - Administration and Human Resources to begin to identify and evaluate those portions of the estate that might be sold to raise the funds necessary for the endowment. Funding from the endowment would support the activities outlined in the Task Force's report. The Vice-President and Chief Development Officer has been asked to explore the possibility of raising private funds in support of this project. Professor Bryan, while agreeing that the University should proceed cautiously, noted that the roof of the main house was in great need of repair.  The Chair noted that any decision to dispose of the assets would come back to this Committee.  A member referred to Hart House Farm and asked whether there were any plans to dispose of it. He remembered that the issue had been raised when this gift was first received. Professor Sedra that that decision was within the purview of the Board of Stewards and that there was no recommendation at this time.   A member noted that the property was to be operated on a self-funded basis and he asked about current funding. Professor Sedra indicated that when the property was accepted, provision was made from the budget to support its expenses for a limited time. The University planned to set up an endowment which would recoup these costs and provide funding on an ongoing basis. It all depended on what amount could be realized from the sale of some of the property. A member asked whether there would be support available to finance non-academic uses of the property. He did not want to see a future student service fee levied in support of this property. Professor Sedra indicated that non-academic uses of Joker's Hill had not been contemplated. Professor Bryan said that the property was currently used by walkers and by horse riders; no charge was made. There was no non-academic use of the house.   A member inquired about further reports on this matter. Professors Sedra and Finlayson responded that the practical effect of the proposed motions was that Professor Finlayson would determine what parts of the estate could be sold to generate sufficient income to recover the original $1.5 million in operating costs and to establish an endowment the proceeds of which would cover the costs of the academic uses of the property. He would be test the market and make a recommendation through the Endowment Committee to this Committee. Professor Sedra said that the Endowment Committee would make annual reports to the Governing Council much like the Connaught Committee. He would be happy to report to this Committee on the implementation of the Users' Committee report.   A member complimented the Task Force on a very good report which dealt with short-term problems while focusing on long-term goals. Joker's Hill was an outstanding property and this was an outstanding report. A member referred to an original part of the plan which had called for the creation of endowed chairs in support of academic programs at Joker's Hill. Professor Sedra explained that initially the University had been more ambitious than it was now with respect to plans for the property. The Task Force wanted to protect a considerable part of the estate and sell a smaller proportion to establish an endowment. He would be extremely happy if the endowment would fund the operating expenses. The administrative response laid out the general directions for exploring the market in terms of the current needs. In the future, a decision could be made by the Endowment Committee and the governance process to sell more land if increased funding was necessary to accomplish more academic goals.  On the recommendation of the Vice-President and Provost,  YOUR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS   THAT the Report of the Joker’s Hill Task Force and User’s Committee as modified by the administrative response be approved in principle, and  THAT the Administration report to the Joker’s Hill Endowment Committee on implementation and that the Governing Council be consulted further when detailed plans are available for the disposition of property.   Documentation is attached hereto as Appendix “D”. 9. Property: Varsity Stadium - Development   The Chair said that Professor Bruce Kidd, Director, School of Physical and Health Education and Mr. Don Beaton, Manager, Real Estate, were still in attendance to help with this item.   The Business Board had jurisdiction on real estate matters; however, the Academic Board, on the advice of the Planning and Budget Committee, was asked to concur with recommendations concerning the non-University use or development of University property by the University or by others.   Professor Finlayson commented that this was an exciting moment for the University. It was the culmination of a quarter of a century's dreaming and a decade of planning. He believed that people had been speculating on the availability of the Varsity Stadium site since the early 1970s. Anybody would be struck by the potential of the site and its drab utilization. At one time the stadium had accommodated 22,000 but recently it had not been well utilized and it was a drain on the budget of the Department of Athletics and Recreation (DAR). Over the past ten years, explicit plans have been developed within the context of the Campus Master Plan. The final stage was the City's approval of its official plan in July, 1997. The University has identified sites available for development, either for University purposes or for a mixture of commercial and institutional purposes. Throughout this long planning process, there had always been the assumption that some sites, particularly those on Bloor Street West and Spadina Avenue, leant themselves to commercial development. He referred the members to his memorandum which laid out the reasons and logic behind these assertions. He drew particular attention to a number of points. • There was no proposal to sell any land. The administration believed that alienation of land in the campus core was a bad idea. • This was not a proposal to develop this site but rather a proposal to explore the possibilities of developing it. The University needed to determine its value for development and permission was being sought to do that. This was the best time in the real estate market since 1980s. • No final decision would be made without satisfactorily resolving the issue of the enhancement of athletic facilities. • The proposed extent of the developed area was .88 million square feet. By contrast, the University had developed a total of 1 million square feet in the last 20 years.   Professor Kidd commented that he fully supported the strategy outlined in Professor Finlayson's memorandum and he was excited about the possibilities of enhancing the athletic facilities. The Chair clarified the meaning of the approval and the future governance process. If the Committee recommended approval of the motion, it would require Academic Board and then Governing Council consideration. Any specific plans to develop this site would be considered by the Business Board.   A member asked who would be responsible for repairing the stadium facilities if the development did not occur. Professor Sedra indicated that this would be handled as part of an ancillary budget.   In response to a question, Mr. Beaton explained that the designation CR was the most inclusive one and meant the site could be used for commercial / residential development. The total amount of property on the St. George campus with this designation was 1.93 million square feet. The Varsity Stadium site represented slightly less than one half of the total available land with this designation. The member asked whether the property had been costed for student residences. Professor Finlayson indicated that it had not; his long-standing assumption was that this property was most valuable to the University as a commercial development site. There were other sites for residences and a residence on this site would not generate a significant income stream for other University purposes. The member commented on the deplorable state of the married student residences and the graduate student residence.   A member asked why the University was apparently moving slowly on this issue. He did not want the University to lose any market advantage. Professor Finlayson noted that there were some issues to be resolved including the athletic facilities. At the moment, the University did not have a precise sense of the market value of the site and this needed to be tested on the real estate market. Once the administration obtained this information and, if the athletics facilities issues were resolved, the University would move quickly to bring a proposal to the Business Board.   A member said that the proposal was excellent. He noted at the top of page four of the memorandum that a 400 metre track and a playing field with accommodation for spectators seemed to be mutually exclusive. Professor Finlayson responded that in certain circumstances there might be room for a 400 metre track but he was in the process of considering various options. He could not be more specific in his response pending actual proposals for development.   A member noted the condition concerning the satisfactory resolution of the matter of replacing any affected campus facilities, particularly athletic facilities. He asked what would happen if the condition was not met. Professor Finlayson said that the Committee would be informed. In response to another question, he said that day care facilities would be in jeopardy only if two other related sites on the west side of Devonshire Road were involved, not the Varsity Stadium site. The member's understanding was that if Professors Finlayson and Kidd were happy with a proposal for development, it would proceed to the Business Board for approval. Professor Kidd indicated he would present the chosen proposal to the DAR Council.   A member recalled that this item had been withdrawn at an earlier meeting of this Committee because the administration had not been prepared to deal with questions about the track and the playing field. At this point, these issues were still unresolved but the motion now called for a satisfactory resolution of the matter between Professors Finlayson and Kidd. He asked whether the agreement of the DAR Council was sufficient approval given the opposition that had been raised earlier this academic year. He wondered whether there would be an opportunity to obtain a general sense of community satisfaction before proceeding with any plans. Professor Finlayson said that there would be full consultation on the plans for athletic facility enhancement.   A member asked whether the administration had considered acting as the developer of this site. Professor Finlayson responded that he had thought about it briefly. It was his and Professor Sedra's opinion that it was not a good use of University resources and the University should not do things that were not in its core business. In response to a question, Professor Finlayson confirmed that the call for proposals would be a public process. He assured members that the administration would be concerned that what was proposed for the site would be appropriate for the University setting and that it was consistent with zoning by-law.   A member expressed his opposition to the proposal on the basis that the University's priority at the moment in terms of capital development should be student residences. The provision of suitable undergraduate, graduate and family housing was more important than athletic facilities. Until students' basic needs were addressed he could not support the proposal for commercial development of the Varsity Stadium site. Professor Sedra noted that plans for a new graduate - second entry residence were almost complete and he had invited the college principals to indicate their interest in pursuing the matter of undergraduate student residences. These issues were being addressed but he did not believe that the best site for a residence was the north end of Varsity Stadium. There were far better sites for residence construction on the campus master plan. Professor Finlayson had discussed the matter of residences with Dr. Neelands who indicated that the University was on track with residence development. Residences were a high priority for Dr. Neelands and he was apprised of the importance of good married student housing but the solutions would not necessarily be found on Bloor Street. The member reiterated his opposition, noting that married students lived in squalor and this proposal would do nothing to solve this problem.  On the recommendation of the Vice-President - Administration and Human Resources,  YOUR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS   THAT the Bloor Street frontage of Varsity Stadium, as identified in the campus map attached to Professor Finlayson’s memorandum of October 28, 1997, be declared available for development in order to generate revenue for university requirements, subject to satisfactory resolution of the matter of replacing any affected campus facilities, particularly athletic facilities.   Documentation is attached hereto as Appendix “E”. 10. Items for Information   (a) Faculty of Medicine: Certificate for Teaching in the Biomedical Sciences (b) School of Graduate Studies: M.A. in Economics (Financial Economics) (c) OISE/UT: Programs in the Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology (d) School of Graduate Studies: Collaborative Program in Aging and the Life Course (e) School of Graduate Studies: Institute of Medical Science - Collaborative M.A. and Ph.D. Program in Biomedical Engineering (f) School of Graduate Studies: Collaborative M.A. and Ph.D. Program in Comparative International, and Development Education (g) School of Graduate Studies: LL.B./M.A. Program in Economics   Members received these items for information.   11. Date of Next Meeting   The Chair reminded members that the next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, December 9, 1997 at 5:00 p.m.       The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.       Secretary Chair   September 9, 1997