UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO  THE GOVERNING COUNCIL  REPORT NUMBER 35 OF  THE PLANNING AND BUDGET COMMITTEE  September 2, 1997   To the Academic Board, University of Toronto.   Your Committee reports that it met on Tuesday, September 2, 1997, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Simcoe Hall with the following members present:   Professor David Mock (Chair) Professor Carl Amrhein (Vice-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 Dr. John R. G. Challis Professor David Clandfield Professor W. Raymond Cummins Professor Ronald Daniels Mr. Jacob Glick Dr. Robert J. Kyle Mr. John Malcolm Professor Robert H. McNutt Ms Carole Moore Mr. Faisal S. Raja Professor Wendy Rolph   Non-Voting Assessors  Professor Heather Munroe-Blum, Vice-President, Research and International Relations Professor Carolyn Tuohy, Deputy Provost   Secretariat:  Ms Margaret McKone (Secretary) Mr. Neil Dobbs Regrets:  Mr. Paul V. Godfrey Professor Kenneth Sevcik Mr. Robert G. Spencer   Professor Paul Thompson Professor Ronald D. Venter             In Attendance:   Ms Wendy Talfourd-Jones, member, Governing Council Mr. Alfred Cheng, Director, Finance and Administration, Robarts Library Mr. Martin D. England, Assistant Vice-Provost, Strategic Planning Dr. Beata FitzPatrick, Assistant Provost Mr. Mike Lavelle, Director of Residences, Erindale College Miss Janice Oliver, Assistant Vice-President, Operations and Services Ms Elizabeth Sisam, Director of Campus and Facilities Planning University Professor Janice Stein, Chair, the Centre for International Studies Users’ Committee Mr. Glen Walker, Chief Administrative Officer, Erindale College THE MEETING WAS HELD IN OPEN SESSION. ITEMS 4, 5, 6 AND 7 ARE RECOMMENDED TO THE ACADEMIC BOARD FOR APPROVAL. Chair’s Remarks   The Chair welcomed members to the first meeting of the Committee for 1997-98. He then reviewed the Committee’s structure, its rules and procedures, and invited members to get in touch with him, the Provost or the Secretariat at any time throughout the year if they had questions. He also asked that if members had questions arising from their review of agenda items that they call the Secretary prior to the meeting so that the pertinent information could be available in a timely fashion during the consideration of the item.  Vary the Agenda: Property: Varsity Stadium  The Chair noted that the administration had requested that agenda item 9 -- Property: Varsity Stadium - Declaration of Land as Surplus -- be removed from the Committee’s agenda at this time. Invited to comment, Professor Finlayson said that the administration wished to pursue the issue of whether a 400 metre track was required on the St. George Campus and, if so, where such a track would be located prior to proceeding with the recommendation. There were no objections to the request.  1. Report of the Previous Meeting held on July 15, 1997   It was noted that Ms Wendy M. Cecil-Cockwell had been incorrectly recorded as having been in attendance at the meeting. The Chair responded that the Report would be corrected. Report Number 34, as amended, was then approved. 2. Business Arising from the Report of the Previous Meeting  Item 2: Senior Assessor’s Report - Pension Contribution Savings  A member recalled that, at the previous meeting members had inquired about the monies budgeted for contribution to the pension plan but not expected to be needed for that purpose (pension contribution savings). Professor Sedra’s response had been that a substantial part of the pension contribution savings would be required to fund the Supplemental Retirement Arrangement (SRA) contained within the salary and benefits settlements; however, it had not at that time been clear how much of the savings would be required for this purpose.  Invited to update the Committee, Professor Sedra explained that it was estimated that the cost of pension plan improvements that were to be funded from pension contribution savings amounted to approximately $84 million. It was the administration’s intent to amortize this amount over four or five years. An amount, depending on the length of amortization, should be available for other academic purposes such as infrastructure and transitional funding. Professor Sedra noted that $27 million was currently budgeted for annual contribution to the pension plan and initial estimates were that $20 million would be required annually to finance pension plan improvements, if amortized over four years. Professor Sedra explained that these numbers were preliminary estimates only and they had not yet been been finalized. Thus, the administration was not prepared at this time to make a recommendation for the allocation of any remaining funds. A member asked why the administration was considering a four-year amortization period for payment of the SRA given that the salary and benefits agreements had been for three-year periods. Professor Sedra explained that there was a great need within the University for one-time-only funding. He believed it would be in the best interests of the University to choose to pay for the SRA over a four- or five-year period so that there would be monies available in each of the next four years for one-time-only opportunities (e.g. matching opportunities that might arise under the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Ontario Challenge Fund).  A member inquired about the status of the pension plan surplus. Professor Finlayson responded that it had been estimated that, after taking into account the cost of the recent salaries and benefits agreements, on June 30, 1999 the pension plan would have a surplus in excess of $100 million. By way of providing a context for this amount, Professor Sedra clarified that this surplus was within an acceptable range for the pension fund, which was currently valued at approximately $1.8 billion.  3. Senior Assessor’s Report  Professor Sedra briefed the Committee on the status of the following matters noting that he would be giving a lengthier report on the state of the academic enterprise to the Academic Board on Thursday. During the course of his comments, Professor Sedra introduced the following members of his staff who contributed to the proposals that were brought to the Committee: Dr. Beata FitzPatrick, Mr. Marty England, and Ms Elizabeth Sisam. Also, Professor Sedra welcomed Professor Derek McCammond to his first meeting as Vice-Provost, Planning and Budget. (a) Academic Planning Divisional plans for the University’s academic and administrative divisions arising from the “Planning for 2000” exercise had now been finalized and a long-term budget framework was now in place. During the past two years, the Planning and Budget Committee had, with one exception, reviewed these plans and endorsed supporting allocations from the University’s academic and administrative priorities funds. Professor Sedra noted that although the divisional plan for the Faculty of Pharmacy had not been reviewed subsequent to the start of the “Planning for 2000” exercise, a plan for that division had been reviewed by the Planning and Budget Committee in 1993 at which time the Faculty had just undergone a major change in its curriculum. (b) Campaign  The Campaign for the University of Toronto was scheduled to be launched officially in the fall of 1997. The initial goal of the Campaign was to seek a minimum of $300 million in donations toward the University’s highest priorities by the year 2000. As of March 31, 1997, over $227 million in cash and pledges had been committed. The Campaign priorities arose from the academic planning process and were servant to the University’s academic plans. (c) Capital Plan, 1997-2002  The Capital Plan, reviewed by the Committee at its May 22 meeting, had now been approved by the Governing Council. Included within the plan were projects for which funding would have to be obtained from a number of sources including fundraising and government grants. Recent federal and provincial matching program initiatives, including the $800 million Canada Foundation for Innovation (a total of $800 million in matching funds available over a five- to seven-year period) and the $50 million R&D Challenge Fund ($50 million in matching funds available per year over a ten-year period), would provide the University with opportunities to secure much needed funding for the projects within the plan. Information about government research infrastructure programs and how the University planned to respond to them would be made available shortly by the Vice-President, Research and International Relations.  (d) Information Technology  The Planning and Budget Committee had, over the past two years, endorsed many proposals in support of information technology and the Library. One of the successes arising from these initiatives was the Information Commons, located on the main floor of the Robarts Library. Governors would be invited to a tour of the facility during the fall. (e) Employee Relations Multi-year salaries and benefits agreements had now been reached with all the University’s employee groups. Improvements contained within these agreements would enable the University to remain a competitive employer. Furthermore, the multi-year nature of the agreements should provide a relatively stable planning environment. (f) Tuition Fees and Financial Aid In order to compensate, at least partially, for the massive withdrawal of government funding, the University had increased tuition fees in the past two years by substantial amounts. Furthermore, as members were aware, additional increases in tuition fees were planned for the two years remaining in the budget plan, 1994-2000. The other side of the tuition fees coin was financial aid. In partnership with the provincial government and the private sector (the Ontario Student Opportunity Trust Fund) and with its own matching funds, the University would have a sizable endowment for scholarships and bursaries (about $240 million at this time). It seemed appropriate therefore to establish task forces to review and refine the University’s policies and procedures in the areas of tuition fees and financial aid. Vice-Provost Derek McCammond would chair the task force on tuition fees and Deputy Provost Carolyn Tuohy had been appointed chair of the task force on financial aid. The reports of both task forces would be forwarded to this Committee along with any ensuing recommendations for policy revision.  A member asked if there were data available on the breakdown of donations received under the Ontario Student Opportunity Trust Fund. Specifically, how much funding had been designated for certain divisions and how much had been undesignated? Also, what criteria would be used in the disbursement of these funds? Professor Sedra responded that he did not have definitive information on the breakdown of funds received. The disbursement of these monies was regulated by University policy, as were all monies for financial aid. He added that the breakdown the member sought might become available as a result of the deliberations of the task force on financial aid. In response to the member’s question regarding student membership on the previously mentioned task forces, Professor Sedra responded that it had not yet been determined how members to the task forces would be nominated; however, they would include a student representative. (g) Updating Divisional Plans As a result of the effect of the recent multi-year salary and benefits agreements on the budget model (an increase in expenditure of approximately $15 million), divisions were to be assigned further base budget reductions. Professor Sedra had outlined these reductions in his memorandum of July 15, 1997, a copy of which had been distributed at the previous meeting. Divisional leaders had been informed of the new round of budget reductions and had been instructed to revise their academic and budget plans accordingly. As had been the practice in the past, the Provost would meet with the divisional leaders to discuss their plans, and, after agreements were reached, make selective recommendations to this Committee for Academic Priorities Fund allocations early in the new year.  (h) Long-range Guidelines for Planning and Budgeting, 1998-2004  As the current long-range budget plan entered its second half, it was time to commence work on a new six-year planning cycle. The 1998-2004 planning cycle would overlap the current cycle by two years, as had been done during the previous planning cycle. It would require a new set of budget guidelines and a new planning framework of objectives and strategies -- a “White Paper II.” Members of the Planning and Budget office had commenced work on the comprehensive process required for the development of the new set of planning and budget guidelines. One of the objectives of this Committee in reviewing the new set of guidelines would be to review the list of contractual obligations and policy commitments (COPC list) with a view to determining if policy reform was required.  (i) Performance Indicators  In response to the Report of the Task Force on University Accountability (the Broadhurst Report), the administration had developed a preliminary series of performance indicators that would be used by governance to monitor the University’s progress in reaching its objectives and fulfilling its mission. These performance indicators would be presented to the Governing Council at its September 15 meeting as part of an overall accountability session. Professor Sedra commented that performance indicators were sometimes resisted in academic circles because they often encouraged a simple-minded approach to problems usually considered complex and multi-faceted. He assured members that the University would proceed cautiously in using these indicators and in interpreting their results.  (j) Upcoming Business  In addition to those items of business mentioned earlier, the Committee would as part of its calendar of business for 1997-98 review a revised agreement with the federated universities and a number of users’ committee reports, including the Centre for International Studies, Joker’s Hill and the Health Sciences Complex. (k) Enrolment  Preliminary indications were that, as of November 1, 1997, the University would have exceeded its enrolment target by 300 students. All three campuses had done well in meeting stated enrolment targets and Professor Sedra congratulated those who had participated in the various processes that had led to this achievement. (l) Other Matters  Professor Sedra reported on the status of the Faculty of Management and the School of Continuing Studies in implementing their academic and budget plans.  The Faculty of Management’s budget had been the subject of the Committee’s discussion on several occasions during the past few years as the Faculty had had difficulties in balancing its budget. The Faculty received only 60% of its revenue from the University’s operating budget and relied for the remaining 40% on revenue generated from its self-funded programs. During the past year, the Faculty had suffered a major set-back because of a decline in enrolment in its executive development programs. This had coincided with the move of the Faculty to its new location, which had resulted in additional expenditures. As a result, it had originally been estimated that the Faculty would incur a deficit of approximately $1 million by the end of 1996-97.  Professor McCammond had worked with the Faculty to find ways to reduce its expenditures and as a result, the deficit at the end of 1996-97 was reduced to $225,000. Nevertheless, it was expected that this year (1997-98) would also result in a deficit amounting to as much as $650,000. On the positive side, the Faculty was undertaking various initiatives to improve its budgetary situation including the appointment of a new director of the executive development programs. The Executive M.B.A. program currently had an enrolment of 60 students, 20 above planned. The M.B.A. program was doing well, with an enrolment of 130 students and discussions were underway to expand this program overseas. Professor McCammond continued to work with the interim Dean of the Faculty to address its budgetary problems.  The School of Continuing Studies had experienced significant growth in its revenue over the past four years, having increased from $6.3 million in 1992-93 to $7.6 million in 1996-97. To support a continuation of this growth, the School’s director and Professor Sedra had agreed on a reinvestment in physical infrastructure, including renovations to the OISE/UT building which housed the School’s Intensive ESL Program and updates to the management computer system. To help finance these improvements, Professor Sedra had approved a deficit budget for the School for the coming year. He concluded that plans for the School to repay its deficit would be shared with the Committee at a forthcoming meeting.

4. Capital Project: Users’ Committee Report - The Centre for International Studies   The Chair welcomed Professor Janice Stein, Chair of the Users’ Committee, Ms Elizabeth Sisam, Director of Campus and Facilities Planning, and Miss Janice Oliver, Assistant Vice-President, Operations and Services, who were in attendance to answer members’ questions on the Users’ Committee Report.  The Chair explained that the Committee considered the reports of users’ committees and recommended to the Academic Board projects for approval in principle. This included recommendations for the approval of the use of the site, the project's space plan, its overall cost and its sources of funds.  Professor McCammond commented that the proposal for the Centre for International Studies had reached an exciting point in a process that had begun in 1993 with the establishment of a committee, chaired by Deputy Provost Carolyn Tuohy, to review international studies at the University. The Committee had reported on means that could be employed to strengthen the University's capacity in international studies by drawing together the University's disparate strengths in international studies that were currently scattered throughout the University - establishing a whole that was significantly greater than the sum of its parts. Among the recommendations of the task force were the following: • that the University pursue a "physical focus for international studies . . .in the form of a building to house graduate and undergraduate programs and research centres"; and • that the University make fundraising for international studies a high priority in the forthcoming campaign. The University had acted on both of those recommendations. With respect to the building, the Report of the Users' Committee for the Centre for International Studies was now before the Planning and Budget Committee. At one point, Trinity College had been identified as a major partner. Trinity had the goal of improving the accommodation for its library, which included a significant collection in the field of international studies. This led to the recognition of a substantial synergy between Trinity's goals and those for the University's various programs in international studies and a decision to use the three houses of Devonshire House for a single capital project to accommodate both the Trinity Library and the new Centre for International Studies. The Province of Ontario provided a grant to fund a concept design, with the objective of determining what facilities could be provided at an appropriate cost through the renovation of the Devonshire House space. About one year ago, a potential benefactor emerged who expressed an interest in making a major gift to fund the project, and a donation agreement had recently been signed that would provide $4 million (U.S.) towards the project, on the condition that the University obtained or otherwise provided matching funding. This would be applied to the estimated $10 million cost of the University's share of the project. Because one half of the donation would be paid at once and the remaining half over ten years, the present value of the gift was estimated at $4.65 million (Canadian), leaving a further $5.35 million to be obtained. Therefore, Professor McCammond proposed that the approval process be started at this time to provide the $5.35 million necessary to secure the donation and to enable the University to proceed with detailed design work and to begin the renovation.  Professor McCammond noted that the Users' Committee Report for this project was a little different from most others. The specific details of the occupancy of the new Centre might well change. The proposed occupants had drawn up exciting plans, but some depended on securing external funding. Only programs that had in fact secured the necessary funding by the opening of the proposed building would in fact be given space. Therefore the list of occupants was only illustrative. With respect to funding, Professor McCammond commented on the sources of funding for the remaining $5.35 million. The project had been approved by the Governing Council, on the recommendation of the Planning and Budget Committee, as a high priority on the University Capital Plan 1997-2002 and a request for funding had been submitted to the Ministry of Education and Training. The project had also been approved as a high priority in the forthcoming Campaign.  To move the project forward and to secure the benefaction, Professor McCammond proposed the approval of $5.35 million of bridge funding from the Capital Renewal Fund. That advance would be repaid from the Ministry of Education and Training capital grant for which the University had applied or from the proceeds of the Campaign. Should there remain any shortfall from these sources, the administration would bring forward a recommendation for a funding allocation from the contingency (or uncommitted) monies in the Capital Renewal Fund or from the University Infrastructure Investment Fund (UIIF).  The Chair explained that the Business Board would also consider this project at its meeting of September 8. That Board would be asked to approve the execution and financing of the project, subject to approval in principle of the Users’ Committee Report before this Committee by the Academic Board and the Governing Council. The Business Board's role was to satisfy itself that the project would be executed at an appropriate cost - that the University would get value for its money - and that the financing for the project was secure. The financing for the project would be provided by the Capital Renewal Fund. The repayment of that Fund depended on government support and on the proceeds of future fundraising. If those sources fell short, then this Committee would be asked to recommend alternative funding - from the contingency monies in the Capital Renewal Fund or from the UIIF. It would be inappropriate to commit amounts of alternative funding at this time. But, the Chair of the Business Board had asked that it be clearly understood that approval of the motion before the Planning and Budget included a commitment to supply funds either from the Capital Renewal Fund or from the UIIF, if that became necessary. The Business Board would wish to have that commitment understood so that it could do its job of satisfying itself that the project would not leave the University with an unpaid bill.  Professor McCammond, Professor Sedra, Miss Oliver, and Professor Stein replied to a number of questions for clarification.   • Occupants. Invited to reply, Professor Stein clarified the references to some of the potential occupants. The building itself would be described as the Centre for International Studies. (Subject to approval of the project, that name would be expanded to include the name of the major benefactor.) The other Centre for International Studies was the existing centre within the School of Graduate Studies representing a collection of faculty and students from various disciplines who worked in the area of international studies. The International Relations Program was an undergraduate teaching program based in Trinity College. The International Studies Program was an undergraduate teaching program in the Faculty of Arts and Science. Some of the potential occupants were fully funded from operating budget. Others were seeking private funding.  • Organizational consequences of the proposed building. A member asked if placing the various centres and programs into one building might lead to an amalgamation of the units. Invited to reply, Professor Stein said that the objective of the building, as stated in Professor Tuohy's report, was to promote cross-disciplinary co-operation and stimulation in teaching and research. There was no plan to amalgamate any of the units. Professor Sedra replied that amalgamation would in fact defeat the purpose of the proposal, which was to bring about cross-disciplinary stimulation and not the establishment of a new monolith.  • Capital Renewal Fund. The Capital Renewal Fund contained the following amounts, as reported in the Supplementary Financial Report for the Year ended April 30, 1997:   Cash balance in the fund $13.3 million Amounts receivable from funds used to bridge-finance various projects 6.8 million Total $20.1 million Funds designated for specific projects 12.3 million Undesignated funds plus reserve of monies to match federal or provincial grants $ 7.8 million   Of this $7.8 million, $3.5 million had been designated as a reserve to provide matching funding for federal or provincial grants and $4.3 million was regarded as undesignated or contingency funds. The $3.5 million reserve amount could be used to match the private donation, if this became necessary. The $4.3 million was completely unencumbered.  In response to a member's question, Professor McCammond commented on the sources of the undesignated funding. In past years, the University had from time to time placed the proceeds of the sale of capital assets in the Capital Renewal Fund or its predecessor fund. In addition, the interest earnings on the Fund were added to the undesignated total.  The proposed use of this Fund to provide bridge funding and to fund a shortfall would be entirely consistent with its terms of reference. Those terms of reference stated that "the Capital Renewal Fund may be used to provide bridge financing for projects in order to respond to urgent priorities to take advantage of special opportunities either in the availability of funding or in attractive construction costs. Investment income earned when the fund is in positive balance may provide a further source of undesignated funding for the Capital Plan or for unforeseen expenses.”  The use of the Fund for bridge financing or for fallback funding for this project would of course have an opportunity cost in that the amount would not be available for other projects. It would not, however, (in response to a member's question) reduce the funding available for regular repair and maintenance work. That work was funded from other budgets. The decision would have no implication with respect to operating budgets because the Capital Renewal Fund was strictly for capital purposes.  There was some discussion concerning the proposed funding. One member took a cautious stance. While he recognized that it was necessary to use the Fund to "keep the ball rolling," this involved the risk of also having to "keep several balls in the air." If one dropped - if the University did not secure sufficient government or private funding - this would have a cost to all other potential projects. Another member commented that in an ideal world, funding for projects would come in tidy packages. More recently, as in the case of the Fields Institute, it had been necessary to be more creative in providing the funding needed to have capital projects completed.  A member spoke in support of the project. He stated that the academic merits of the case were clear. In no area of his department's work was there more need for coordination than in the area of international studies. The proposal would help the University to derive a higher return for its investment in various areas of international studies. Another member, while expressing her support for the project, recorded a conflict of interest because she served as director of a unit that would potentially be an occupant of the proposed Centre.  A member commented that there would likely be a tortuous process involved in securing approval for the relocation of individual faculty members to offices in the proposed Centre. He hoped that this process would receive attention and be completed before the proposed Centre opened.  In the course of discussion, Professor Stein said that the proposal represented a genuine effort to provide synergy among units in the area of international studies. There would be an opportunity to share support services, reducing the costs of each unit. The idea of sharing floor space, mixing members from various units, was apparently unprecedented. The proposed Council on International Studies would deal with questions of reallocating space and would encourage collaborative research, and would promote shared program activities.  The Chair stated that the motion was to approve the Users' Committee report in principle. That meant that the general thrust of the report was approved - not the details. Such details as the allocation of offices, for example, were not before the Committee for approval. Similarly, one of the Users' Committee's recommendations concerned a specific allocation from the prospective endowment for the Centre. Again, the approval in principle should not be construed as approval of a payout from the endowment beyond the usual payout for the endowed funds that were actually in place.  On the recommendation of the Vice-Provost, Planning and Budget,  YOUR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS   THAT the report of the Centre for International Studies Users’ Committee, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix “A,” be approved in principle; and  THAT the Centre for International Studies be approved as a capital project at an estimated cost to the University of $10M to be funded by donations of US$4M and up to $5.35M to be advanced from the Capital Renewal Fund. The advance, plus debt service charges, to be repaid from the requested MET funding and/or campaign donations.

5. Academic Priorities Fund: Allocation for a Peer Training Program for Teaching Assistants  Professor Sedra introduced the proposal to allocate $25,000 per year for two years of one-time-only funding from the Academic Priorities Fund to support a peer training program for teaching assistants (TAs). The proposal was part of the recent collective agreement with the TAs, CUPE local 3902. It was a creative idea that would be tried as a pilot project. The funding was modest and would pay for two teaching assistants to provide advice and coaching to other TAs on carrying out their assigned duties. Professor John Browne, the Provost's Advisor on Undergraduate Education, and Professor Martin Wall, Chair of the Department of Psychology, had developed the program which would be launched this fall.  A member strongly endorsed the proposal and indicated that there was a similar program at Erindale. Another member asked how the success of the two-year pilot project would be evaluated. Professor Sedra took that question under advisement. He suggested that perhaps Professor Browne could attend the next meeting of the Committee to discuss the project.  A member asked whether there was a role for the OISE/UT in this type of program. Professor Sedra indicated that it was his hope that in the future OISE/UT would play a role in developing and improving teaching methods. This was one reason why he had not appointed a permanent replacement for Professor John Kirkness, who had been his advisor on teaching effectiveness, when he left the position. However, at the moment, OISE/UT was much occupied with matters arising from its establishment as a new division within the University.  In response to a member's question, Professor McCammond said that both the teaching assistants and the University had put a high priority on training TAs and there was no disagreement on the aims of the program.  A member referred to a course offered by the School of Graduate Studies on teaching techniques. Professor Sedra confirmed that there was such a course offered in conjunction with Woodsworth College but it was not mandatory for all graduate students. It held about 50 students and was offered twice a year. It was a very successful course.  On the recommendation of the Vice-President and Provost,  YOUR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS   THAT an allocation of $25,000 per year for two years from the Academic Priorities Fund for a Peer Training Program for teaching assistants be approved.   Documentation is attached hereto as Appendix “B.” 6. Academic Priorities Fund: Allocation to the University of Toronto Library - Smart Card Project  The Chair welcomed Mr. Alfred Cheng, Director, Finance and Administration, Robarts Library, who, along with Committee member Ms Carole Moore, the Chief Librarian, was in attendance to answer members’ questions on the proposal.  Professor Sedra introduced the proposal noting that there had been discussions within the University’s various divisions for a number of years concerning the introduction of a single multi-purpose identification card to replace the numerous cards currently issued to students. The University of Toronto Library had been selected as the pilot site for the “Smart Card Project” because it already issued a variety of cards to every constituency of the University for borrowing materials, photocopy payment, and for door and elevator access. The University of Toronto Library wished to consolidate the functions of various cards in circulation and it was expected that eventually there would be need for only one card for all the services provided. The Department of Athletics and Recreation was a partner in the pilot, and it was hoped that other divisions would seek to utilize the Smart Card following the fall 1997 pilot. The total cost of the pilot project was $730,000. The Library would cover 50% of this cost, including new card readers and staff costs.  Invited to comment, Ms Moore recalled that the idea for a multi-purpose identification card had been discussed in the planning process, particularly the “Re-thinking Administration” project. At that time, it had been proposed that the Library be used as a test site for a pilot project. During the development process, the Library had been in touch with various divisions to ensure that their needs would also be met by the new Smart Card. The technology that had been selected had enjoyed considerable success in the U.S. and Ms Moore was optimistic that the system, once implemented, would serve the University community well. To minimize the unavoidable line-ups associated with implementing the Smart Card, the Library was focusing its efforts on issuing the Smart Card to all new students. All returning students and all holders of the old bar-coded library card were being encouraged to obtain new cards later this fall. As well, faculty and staff would be invited to obtain cards. Additional staff were working on the project during September to accommodate the distribution of new cards to students.  Ms Moore spoke of the increased demand within the Library for photo-copied materials and for laser printing as a result of the increase in on-line materials and for the need for maintenance of the current equipment. It was becoming more pressing for the Library to update or to replace the current electronic card system to prevent the level of service from deteriorating as well as to expand the system to accommodate additional applications. There were, therefore, many reasons for the Library to proceed with the Smart Card project at this time. In future, as divisions expressed interest, possible usage of the card could be increased. During the course of the discussion, Ms Moore clarified that use of the new card would not be mandatory. Students who had existing library cards would still be able to use these cards.  A member commented that the proposal seemed to be sensible. He wondered however if there would be on-going costs to the University given that this was a pilot project. Professor Sedra and Ms Moore responded that future costs would depend on divisional decisions regarding a variety of possible applications. Divisions that expressed an interest in utilizing the Smart Card would be asked to share in its costs. Funding was sought at this time to finance the project to alleviate the need to charge students for the introduction of a card which would accommodate multi-purpose applications.  Professor Finlayson noted that during discussions in the “Re-thinking Administration” project it had been estimated that, because of the reduction in cash-handling, there was potential for significant savings to be realized upon the successful introduction of the Smart Card project. In response, a member noted that it would have been helpful for the Committee to have received more definitive data on the potential for cost savings. Invited to comment, Mr. Cheng spoke about the nature of the Smart Card. The project team had chosen a multi-purpose card that anticipated future needs. The smart chip on the card had four electronic purses that would enable the card in future to be used for meal plans, bus pass programs, etc. This usage would be in partnership with other services on campus, such as Marriott and Red Carpet.  In response to a member’s security concern regarding the possible usage of the card as an electronic purse with the ability to add monetary value at Cash-to-Card stations, Ms Moore clarified that the Library proposed to cap the amount available for this purpose at $100, an amount equal to similar previous arrangements for the existing card.  In response to concerns, Ms Moore assured members that the Library would seek to accommodate the high demand for the new cards. Initially ten stations would be installed: eight at Robarts, one at Gerstein and one at OISE/UT Library. The total number of stations would be reduced gradually during October with the objective of having permanent stations at Robarts, Gerstein and OISE/UT Library. Additional part-time staff would be hired for the distribution phase. Students would also be encouraged to defer applying for the new card to help spread the demand over the next few weeks.  A member noted that it would be possible under the new Smart Card project for the University to collect demographic information on students. He expressed concern over the possible Institutional use and/or dissemination of such information. Ms Moore, in response, noted that the Library had no intention of gathering statistical information on users of the card. She added that the libraries had a tradition of not retaining individual transaction records once material was returned.  A member noted that there had been need for some time for the introduction of a universal authenticator. Would the introduction of the Smart Card assist the University in its identification of students? Ms Moore responded that the card at present could not assist in this regard; however, the project team would work closely with Professor McCammond to determine possible future linkages with existing systems.  A member noted that the Library had already commenced the introduction of the Smart-Card pilot program. What would happen to the project if the Committee chose not to support the proposal? Professor Sedra and Ms Moore responded that in such an event, the Library would scale back the project and fund the remaining balance from internal sources. A member expressed concern that the proposal had been forwarded to the Committee after arrangements had been made for the purchasing of the new technology and after the pilot project had been introduced. He suggested that the process for forwarding recommendations be revisited to ensure more timely consideration of future proposals. The Chair undertook to raise the matter with the Committee’s agenda planning group.  In response to a member’s query regarding the amount of funding required for the pilot project, Ms Moore and Mr. Cheng provided a brief summary of the costs involved. The cost of each card was approximately $6; however, it was anticipated that this cost could be reduced to $4.50 per card as the demand increased. Students currently paid $1 for the existing electronic cards. Under the pilot program, students would not be charged for the cards. The Library would cover 50% of the total start-up cost of $730,000, including new card readers and staff costs. $365,000 was being requested to cover the cost of acquiring cards and software capable of serving multiple cash, security and identification functions for any divisions. This capacity exceeded the University’s current needs; however, the Library believed it was a worthwhile investment given that the replacement of the cards in future to upgrade to this capacity would significantly increase the costs associated with the program.  On the recommendation of the Vice-President and Provost,  YOUR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS   THAT $365,000 be approved as a one-time-only allocation from the Academic Priorities Fund to cover the cost of acquiring cards and software to support the Smart Card pilot project.   Documentation is attached hereto as Appendix “C.”  7. Capital Project: Users’ Committee Report - Erindale College Student Residences, Phase VI  The Chair welcomed Mr. Glen Walker, Chief Administrative Officer, Erindale College, and Mr. Mike Lavelle, Director of Residences, Erindale College, who, along with Committee member Professor Robert McNutt, Principal of Erindale College, were in attendance to answer questions on the Users’ Committee Report.  Professor McCammond noted that the proposed residence was a two-story apartment building that would contain 48 4-bedroom units and would be built between the townhouses in Phases I and II of the Residence. Phase VI would house 192 first-year students including 115 relocated from Phase I. There was significant demand for family housing and Phase 1 would provide housing for an additional 23 families. The net increase in undergraduate and family housing was 100 (77 undergraduates and 23 families).  Professor McCammond noted that the residence was an ancillary and was therefore self-funding. The construction costs associated with the new residence, estimated at $7.3 million, would be financed by a mortgage. The mortgage payments would be covered by residence fees and income from summer rentals.  Professor McNutt outlined the rationale for the new residence for first-year students. The primary reason for the construction was an academic one. Experience suggested that first-year students required more attention to assist them in the development of their academic skills and with the problems associated with the transition from high school to university. It was anticipated this need would grow as students entered the University directly from grade 12. The Users’ Committee proposed an increased number of student dons to counsel students. Having 192 first-year students in one residence would afford the dons, the residence staff and the Dean of Students the opportunity to develop programs especially geared to the first-year experience.  The Users’ Committee report also stressed the need for increased availability of married housing, and housing for graduate students and mature undergraduates. There was a lack of off-campus housing for these groups, and therefore, it was proposed that, with the construction of Phase VI, the number of married quarters in Phase I would be increased and that Phase V would be designated for single graduate students and childless couples (both graduate and undergraduate) and mature undergraduate students.  Professor McNutt stressed the need to provide accommodation to the students admitted to the College. The past year had yielded the highest acceptance rate ever and the College was making it its first priority to guarantee accommodation to first-year students. He added that the new residence was an ancillary operation which must cover all direct and indirect costs. Phase VI would be air-conditioned and full wired for the Internet. As a result, it was anticipated that the residence would be in high demand from May to September for conferences and business purposes.  In response to a member’s question, Mr. Lavelle explained that there would be no construction costs associated with the conversion of Phase I. Furnishings currently in storage, including living room, bedroom and kitchen furniture would be added to the residences.  During the course of discussion, it was re-iterated that all costs associated with the construction of the Phase VI residence and its ongoing operation would be borne by the Ancillary. The capital costs, estimated at $7,337,000 would be financed by a 25-year mortgage at 10%. In response to a member’s concern, Mr. Lavelle confirmed that the College chose fixed-rate mortgages rather than incurring unnecessary risks that might be associated with flexible-rate mortgages.  A member noted that initial estimates concerning the building cost inflation had been revised upward of 5% over previous estimates because of an expected increase in cost inflation. The member wondered if revisions to the approval process should be sought so that projects could be expedited to take advantage of periods of low inflation. The Chair took the member’s suggestion under advisement.  During the discussion, the Principal of Erindale College recorded a conflict of interest.  On the recommendation of the Vice-Provost, Planning and Budget,  YOUR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS   THAT the report of the Phase VI Erindale Residence Users’ Committee, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix “D,” be approved.  8. Items for Information   (a) Capital Project: Users’ Committee Terms of Reference - Welcome Centre and Student Services Addition at the University of Toronto at Scarborough   Members received the terms of reference for information. 9. Date of Next Meeting  The Chair reminded members that the next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, September 23, 1997 at 5:00 p.m.  10. Other Business Conflict of Interest  A member noted that during the Committee’s deliberations, two members had declared a conflict of interest because their divisions would benefit from the approval of the proposals. He commented that, in his opinion, these members had been too hard on themselves. The Chair took note of the member’s comment. Professor Sedra agreed with the member, noting that the nature of the Committee’s business was such that members would often be asked to consider proposals that affected their divisions. In so doing, members should vote in the best interests of the University as a whole. He noted that matters concerning salaries and benefits, which were considered by the Business Board, were definitely considered to be a conflict of interest for staff and faculty. The Chair of that Board reminded members that they were not eligible to vote when these matters were being considered.  The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.       Secretary Chair   September 9, 1997