ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS - June 18 and 19, 2009

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS

June 18 and 19, 2009 Northern Arizona University

High Country Conference Center Flagstaff, Arizona

Thursday, June 18, 2009 8:00 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. Technology Oversight Committee Meeting – Agassiz Room 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. ABOR Meeting – Humphreys Room 12:00 p.m. – 1:25 p.m. Executive Session (Lunch) – Rees Room 12:00 p.m. – 1:25 p.m. Staff Lunch – Agassiz Room 1:30 p.m. – 4:10 p.m. ABOR Meeting – Humphreys Room 5:30 p.m. Cocktails (Lobby of High Country Conference Center) followed by 6:00 p.m. Regents Award Dinner (by invitation only) – Agassiz/Fremont

Rooms

Friday, June 19, 2009

8:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. Annual Performance Assessment – President Haeger – Rees Room 9:30 a.m. ABOR Meeting – Humphreys Room 12:00 p.m. Adjourn

This page intentionally left blank

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY

HIGH COUNTRY CONFERENCE CENTER Thursday and Friday, June 18-19, 2009

THURSDAY, June 18, 2009 10:00 a.m. CALL TO ORDER, GREETINGS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE

BOARD PRESIDENT 10:05 a.m. ADOPTION OF ALL CONSENT ACTION ITEMS AND ACCEPTANCE OF ALL

CONSENT INFORMATION ITEMS All items on the agenda that are underlined and marked with an asterisk

(*) are consent matters and will be considered by a single motion with no discussion. All other items will be considered individually.

*Minutes A. April 30 – May 1, 2009 Regular Board Meeting B. March 12-13, 2009 Executive Session Meeting 10:15 a.m. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE Per Board Policy 1-114, time has been set aside for Call to the Audience,

an opportunity for people to express their views or concerns to the entire Board in a public setting.

10:30 a.m. STUDY SESSION

1. Draft Plan for Revised Arizona University System Architecture

The Board is asked to discuss a draft plan, Pathways: Access-driven Architecture for the Arizona University System, to revise the system architecture to facilitate the achievement of the 2020 Vision goal to attain national competitiveness in the percentage of Arizonans with a bachelor’s degree by 2020.

12:00 p.m. RECESS 1:30 p.m. REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS MEETING June 18 – June 19, 2009 2

1:45 p.m. ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE (Chair: Regent DeConcini)

2. Report from the Academic Affairs Committee

The Board will receive a report on the June 3, 2009 Academic Affairs Committee meeting.

3. Report on the Learner Centered Education Course Redesign

Initiative

Dr. Carol Twigg, National Center for Academic Transformation, will present the final report on the 10 courses from ASU, NAU, and UA that went through a course redesign process during the past 18 months under a grant program funded by the TRIF Regents Innovation Fund.

4. Proposed Revision to ABOR Policy 2-102 “Undergraduate

Admissions” (First Reading)

The Board is asked to review, on first reading, a proposed revision to ABOR Policy 2-102 on the criteria for assured and delegated admission for Arizona resident transfer students. The Academic Affairs Committee reviewed this proposal at its June 3, 2009 meeting and recommends Board approval.

5. *Proposed Revision to ABOR Policy 2-103 “Enrollment” (Second

Reading)

The Board is asked to approve a proposed revision to ABOR Policy 2-103 which changes the official student census day from the 21st day of the semester to the 45th day and other changes as required by ARS §15-1661. This item was reviewed, on first reading, by the Board at its April 30, 2009 meeting.

RESOURCES COMMITTEE (Chair: Regent Calderón)

6. *Approval of Arizona Area Health Education Centers (Arizona AHEC) Preliminary FY 2010 Program Budget

The Board is asked to approve the preliminary FY 2010 budget for the

Arizona Area Health Education Centers (Arizona AHEC) Program.

7. *Appointments of New Arizona Area Health Education Centers Program (Arizona AHEC) Regional Centers Governing Board Members

The Board is asked to approve appointments to the governing boards of

the five regional Arizona Area Health Education Centers: Eastern


Arizona AHEC (EAHEC), Greater Valley AHEC (GVAHEC), Northern Arizona AHEC (NAHEC), Southeastern Arizona AHEC (SEAHEC), and Western Arizona AHEC (WAHEC).

8. *Proposed Revisions to ABOR Policy 4-105 “Procedure for

Establishing Special Class Fees and Deposits” (Second Reading)

The Board is asked to approve a proposed revision to ABOR Policy 4-105 to update the dollar threshold where a class fee or deposit needs Board approval and which addresses additional applications of course fees. This item was reviewed, on first reading, by the Board at its April 30, 2009 meeting.

9. *Award from the Department of Defense – Office of Naval Research

(ASU)

Arizona State University requests Board approval for acceptance of a new award of $1,118,156 from the Department of Defense-Office of Naval Research N00014-09-1-0815.

10. *Transfer of Technology to Synbuild, LLC (ASU)

Arizona State University requests Board approval to transfer technology to Synbuild, LLC, pursuant to a License Agreement between AzTE and Synbuild, LLC.

11. *Awards from the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security (NAU) Northern Arizona University requests Board approval for acceptance of continuing awards from the U.S. Department of Energy of $896,914 and from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security of $1,281,220.

AUDIT COMMITTEE (Chair: Regent Mariucci)

12. *Proposed New ABOR Policy 3-703 “Identity Theft Prevention Programs” (Second Reading)

The Board is asked to approve the proposed new Board Policy 3-703 to

comply with Federal Trade Commission requirements. This item was reviewed, on first reading, by the Board at its April 30, 2009 meeting.

3:00 p.m. CAPITAL COMMITTEE (Chair: Regent Calderón)

13. FY 2010 Capital Development Plans (ASU, NAU, UA)

Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, and the University of Arizona request approval of their FY 2010 Capital Development Plans.


This item was reviewed by the Capital Committee at its May 21, 2009 meeting and is recommended for Board approval subject to the universities providing additional information on those projects that are more likely to be advanced in FY2010.

A. Arizona State University Arizona State University requests approval of its FY 2010 Capital

Development Plan, which includes 10 projects totaling $447.2 million, and 4 third-party projects, for which costs are yet to be determined. ASU also plans to pursue federal stimulus funding for capital projects.

B. University of Arizona

The University of Arizona requests approval of its FY 2010 Capital Development Plan, which includes 4 projects totaling $477.2 million. UA also plans to pursue federal stimulus funding for capital projects.

C. Northern Arizona University Northern Arizona University requests approval of its FY 2010 Capital Development Plan, which includes 4 projects totaling $134.8 million, and one residence hall third-party project, for which costs are yet to be determined. NAU also plans to pursue federal stimulus funding for capital projects.

14. Wellness Center Project Implementation Approval (NAU)

Northern Arizona University requests Project Implementation Approval

for the Wellness Center Project. The $115.8 million project includes demolition of Lumberjack Stadium, renovation of 39,226 square feet of the existing recreation facility, and construction of 228,000 square feet of new classroom, athletic, recreation and health services space. The project will be financed with 30-year system revenue bonds to be repaid from the wellness fee and tuition revenues. This item was reviewed by the Capital Committee at its May 21, 2009 meeting and is recommended for Board approval.

15. Northeast Campus Utility Extensions: Combined Project

Implementation Approval and Project Approval (NAU)

Northern Arizona University requests combined Project Implementation Approval and Project Approval for the Northeast Campus Utility Extension Project. The $6.5 million project includes utility extensions for steam, chilled water, electrical and telecommunications in order to replace aged, oversubscribed stand-alone systems, as well as provide future utility capacity in the northeast portion of campus. The project will be financed with 25-year system revenue bonds to be repaid from the wellness fee and tuition revenues. This item was reviewed by the


Capital Committee at its May 21, 2009 meeting and is recommended for Board approval.

16. First Amendment to Agreement to Lease and Escrow Instructions

with SunCor Development Company for Property on Rio Salado Parkway West of Rural Road (ASU)

Arizona State University requests approval of an amendment to a lease

agreement with SunCor Development Company for property located on Rio Salado Parkway West of Rural Road. The amendment would: (1) allow a parcel previously designated for a hotel to be used for other purposes; (2) delay the execution of the lease of the first of five parcels to occur no later than December 31, 2012, instead of December 31, 2009; and (3) allow the phasing of each parcel to be based on need, instead of the original sequencing. The Board previously approved the agreement at its June 19, 2007 meeting. This item was reviewed by the Capital Committee at its May 21, 2009 meeting and is recommended for Board approval.

17. Arizona Bioscience Park Master Land Use Plan (UA)

The University of Arizona requests adoption of a Master Land Use Plan

for the Arizona Bioscience Park. This item was reviewed by the Capital Committee at its May 21, 2009 meeting and is recommended for Board approval.

18. Dissolution of the Research Park Development Corporation and

Assignment of Responsibilities and Obligations at the UA Science and Technology Park and Arizona Bioscience Park to the Campus Research Corporation (UA)

The University of Arizona requests approval to dissolve the Research

Park Development Corporation (RPDC) and assign its responsibilities and obligations at the UA Science and Technology Park and the Arizona Bioscience Park to the Campus Research Corporation. This item was reviewed by the Capital Committee at its May 21, 2009 meeting and is recommended for Board approval, with a request that the Campus Research Corporation Board of Directors include representation by current and former Regents.

19. Master Leases between the Arizona Board of Regents and the

Campus Research Corporation for Portions of the UA Science and Technology Park and for the Arizona Bioscience Park (UA)

The University of Arizona requests approval of two master leases with

Campus Research Corporation (CRC) for portions of the UA Science and Technology Park and the Arizona Bioscience Park. The University also is requesting a waiver of ABOR Policy 7-207.A.1 that limits the term


of lease to 120 months. This item was reviewed by the Capital Committee at its May 21, 2009 meeting and is recommended for Board approval.

20. Master Declaration of Covenants for Maintenance of Enhanced

Infrastructure Improvements at The Bridges/Arizona Bioscience Park (UA)

The University of Arizona requests Board approval of a Master

Declaration of Covenants for Maintenance of Enhanced Infrastructure Improvements at The Bridges/Arizona Bioscience Park Planned Area Development. This item was reviewed by the Capital Committee at its May 21, 2009 meeting and is recommended for Board approval.

21. Ground Lease Between the Arizona Board of Regents and the Vail

Unified School District No. 20 (UA)

The University of Arizona requests approval of a 50-year ground lease between the Arizona Board of Regents and the Vail Unified School District No. 20 for 18.08 acres at the UA Science and Technology Park. This item was reviewed by the Capital Committee at its May 21, 2009 meeting and is recommended for Board approval, with the provision that university and Board legal counsel approve the lease documents.

22. *Proposed Revisions to ABOR Policy 7-102 “Overview of the Capital

Development Process and Phases,” Policy 7-109 “Project Approval,” Policy 7-112 “Capital Project Status Reports,” and Policy 7-207 “Leases of Real Property” (Second Reading)

The Board is asked to approve the proposed revisions to ABOR Policies

7-102, 7-109, 7-112, and 7-207. The revisions: 1) increase the dollar threshold for projects that require Board approval from $2 million to $5 million, and 2) provide clarification and expand the information submitted to the Capital Committee and the Board for third-party capital projects. This item was reviewed, on first reading, by the Board at its April 30, 2009 meeting.

3:30 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS

23. Approval of Amendment to ABOR Bylaws with Regard to Appointments of Expert Community Members to Board Standing Committees

The Board is asked to approve an amendment to its Bylaws to permit the appointment of expert community members to Board standing committees.


24. *Approval of Proposed Revisions to ABOR Policies 3-700 “Audit Committee Charter” and 7-103 “Capital Committee Charter” (Second Reading)

The Board is asked to approve proposed revisions to ABOR Policies 3-

700 and 7-103. 3:40 p.m. STRATEGIC PLANNING, BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE (Chair:

Regent Bulla)

25. Report on Strategic Planning, Budget and Finance Committee

The Board will receive a report on the May 28, 2009 Strategic Planning, Budget and Finance Committee meeting.

3:55 p.m. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE (Chair: Regent Bulla)

26. Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Head Coach of the Men’s Basketball Team (UA)

The University of Arizona requests approval of a five-year Multiple-Year

Employment Contract for Sean Miller as Head Coach of the Men’s Basketball Team for the period of May 1, 2009 through April 30, 2014. The Human Resources Committee reviewed this item at its April 7, 2009 meeting and recommends Board approval.

27. Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Head Football Coach (NAU)

Northern Arizona University requests approval of a One-Year Extension

to the Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Jerome Souers as Head Football Coach. The Human Resources Committee reviewed this item at its April 7, 2009 meeting and recommends Board approval

28. *Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Head Soccer Coach (ASU)

Arizona State University requests approval of a Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Kevin Boyd, Head Soccer Coach. The Human Resources Committee reviewed this item at its June 2, 2009 meeting and recommends Board approval.

29. *Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Head Diving Coach (ASU) Arizona State University requests approval of a Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Mark Bradshaw, Head Diving Coach. The Human Resources Committee reviewed this item at its June 2, 2009 meeting and recommends Board approval.


30. *Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Head Softball Coach (ASU)

Arizona State University requests approval of a Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Clinton Myers, Head Softball Coach. The Human Resources Committee reviewed this item at its June 2, 2009 meeting and recommends Board approval.

31. *Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Head Wrestling Coach (ASU) Arizona State University requests approval of a Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Hester LeShawn Charles, Head Wrestling Coach. The Human Resources Committee reviewed this item at its June 2, 2009 meeting and recommends Board approval.

32. *Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Men’s and Women’s Swimming and Diving Head Coach (ASU) Arizona State University requests approval of a Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Dorsey Tierney-Walker, Men’s and Women’s Swimming and Diving Head Coach. The Human Resources Committee reviewed this item at its June 2, 2009 meeting and recommends Board approval.

33. *Approval of the First Amendment to the Cash Balance Pension

Plan The Board is requested to approve the First Amendment to the Cash Balance Pension Plan Restated as of July 1, 2008. The Amendment contains several technical changes which bring the Cash Balance Plan into compliance with the Pension Protection Act of 2006. The Human Resources Committee reviewed this item at its June 2, 2009 meeting and recommends Board approval.

4:10 p.m. RECESS FRIDAY, June 19, 2009 9:30 a.m. MEASURING UNIVERSITY RESEARCH PERFORMANCE

34. Measuring University Research Performance

Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, and the University of Arizona will present and discuss metrics and comparative peer data used to measure the performance of their research programs.


10:30 a.m. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE (Continued) (Chair: Regent Bulla)

35. Notice of Reappointment and Multiple-Year Employment Contract for President of Northern Arizona University

The Board is asked to approve the notice of reappointment and Multiple- Year Employment Contract of Dr. John Haeger as President of Northern Arizona University for the period July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013.

10:40 a.m. TECHNOLOGY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (Chair: Regent DeConcini)

36. Report on Technology Oversight Committee

The Board will receive a report on the June 18, 2009 Technology Oversight Committee meeting.

37. Qwest IT Project (ASU)

The Board is asked to approve Arizona State University’s proposal to

transition management and operations of its network to Qwest Communications for a period of five years at a total five year cost of $54 million.

10:50 a.m. PUBLIC AWARENESS COMMITTEE (Chair: Regent DuVal)

38. Update on Public Affairs and Solutions Through Higher Education

The Board will receive an update on public affairs activities and Solutions Through Higher Education.

11:05 a.m. LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE (Co-chairs: Regent McLendon and

Regent DuVal)

39. Report on Legislative Activities

The Board will receive a report on legislative activities. The Board will be asked to review and may wish to provide additional guidance on the positions on legislation as recommended by the Legislative Affairs Committee and by the university government affairs officers.

11:20 a.m. REPORT FROM PRESIDENT-ELECT ERNEST CALDERON 11:50 a.m. REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL 12:00 p.m. INQUIRIES, REQUESTS, REPORTS, AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS

AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS 12:15 p.m. ADJOURN


PLEASE NOTE: This agenda may be amended at any time prior to 24 hours before the Board meeting. Estimated starting times for the agenda items are indicated; however, discussions may commence, or action may be taken, before or after the suggested times. Any item on the agenda may be considered at any time out of order at the discretion of the President of the Board. During the meeting, the Board may convene in Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding any item on the agenda. Meeting Schedule for 2009-2010 August 6 and 7, 2009 ASU September 24 and 25, 2009 NAU December 3 and 4, 2009 UA January 28 and 29, 2010 ASU March 11 and 12, 2010 UA June 10 and 11, 2010 NAU Meeting Schedule for 2010-2011 August 5 and 5, 2010 ASU September 23 and 24, 2010 NAU December 9 and 10, 2010 UA February 17 and 18, 2011 ASU April 7 and 8, 2011 UA June 16 and 17, 2011 NAU Meeting Schedule for 2011-2012 August 4 and 5, 2011 ASU September 22 and 23, 2011 NAU December 1 and 2, 2011 UA February 16 and 17, 2012 ASU April 5 and 6, 2012 UA June 14 and 15, 2012 NAU

Instruction re: Confidentiality

Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(B) & (C) all are reminded that minutes of and discussions that occur in executive sessions are confidential by law and that violations of that confidentiality may subject the individuals involved to such penalties as are prescribed by law, including fines, costs, attorneys’ fees, and removal from office.

EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA June 18-19, 2009

NOTE: This agenda may be amended at any time prior to 24 hours before the Board meeting.

The executive session is scheduled for 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 18, 2009 and 8:00 a.m. on Friday, June 19, 2009. The executive session may be recessed and continued as necessary.

Statutory Authorization A.R.S. § 38-431.03 Items to be Discussed (A.2) I. Review of minutes of previous Executive Session(s)

II. From the Board, Central Staff or Counsel to the Board

(A.3 & 4) A. Report on pending or contemplated litigation (A.1) B. Review of Assignments - Members of Council of Presidents (A.3) C. Legal advice regarding TGen representation (A.1) D. Legal advice regarding UMCC Board appointments (A.3) E. Update on Havasupai litigation (A.3) F. Legal advice regarding Solutions (A.3) G. Legal advice regarding budget issues

III. Arizona State University

(A.1) A. Discussion of proposed multiple year employment contracts for head coaches of men’s basketball, soccer, diving, softball, wrestling, and men’s and women’s swimming and diving

IV. Northern Arizona University

(A.1) A. Status report regarding the process for evaluation of and the proposed contract extension of the NAU president

(A.1) B. Discussion of proposed multiple year employment contract for men’s head football coach

V. University of Arizona

(A.1) A. Update on General Counsel position search (A.1) B. Discussion of proposed multiple year employment contract for men’s

head basketball coach


Board of Regents Meeting June 18-19, 2009

Agenda Item #1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1 of 13

Contact Information: Michael Crow (ASU) 480-965-8972 [email protected] John Haeger (NAU) 928-523-0866 [email protected] Robert Shelton (UA) 520-621-5511 [email protected]

Item Name: DRAFT PLAN FOR REVISED ARIZONA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

Action Item Discussion Item Information Item

Background

Arizona must respond aggressively to the risks and opportunities presented by dramatic population growth and an increasingly global economy.

Consistent with Governor Brewer’s April 30, 2009, charge to ABOR and the Arizona University System’s 2020 Strategic Plan, and for Arizona’s economy to be nationally competitive, the Arizona University System must increase baccalaureate production by at least 50% by 2020.

Close examination of the cost structure of Arizona’s university system reveals that our existing campuses are among the most productive in America relative to their peers or other similar institutions.

Leveraging these efficiencies, but recognizing that even greater efficiencies are to be found utilizing new instructionally intensive business models, Arizona’s public universities have developed a collaborative model to meet the stated System goal of 9,700 new degrees annually by 2020.

Utilizing this new model, the Arizona University System will develop a new baccalaureate campus by 2010, and at least four new highly-integrated partnership campuses or regional universities established in collaboration with community college partners by 2012.

At full build-out in 2020, the system will include at least four additional four-year campuses, and at least one physically integrated partnership campus or regional university campus in every Arizona county.

Issue: The Board is asked to discuss a draft plan, Pathways: Access-driven Architecture for the Arizona University System, to revise the system architecture to facilitate the achievement of the 2020 Vision goal to attain national competitiveness in the percentage of Arizonans with a bachelor’s degree by 2020.



These goals presume continuing to expand the pipeline from the K-12 and community college systems to baccalaureate programs, leveraging of existing facilities and efficiencies, significant investment by community partners, appropriate levels of state support for existing and new campuses, and appropriate levels of tuition and fees.

In this new Arizona university system, tuition will be lower at instruction-intensive campuses than at their research-intensive counterparts, and every qualified Arizona resident will be able to achieve a baccalaureate degree “at home” regardless of the county in which they reside.

Discussion

In collaboration, the university Presidents developed and prepared a draft plan, Pathways: Access-driven Architecture for the Arizona University System, presented on pages 3-13, to revise the system architecture necessary to achieve the goals presented above.

The Board will review and discuss this draft and provide guidance to the Presidents as to how to proceed with this effort.

Recommendation This is a discussion item only; no Board action is necessary.



Pathways: Access-driven Architecture For The Arizona University System

An Implementation Roadmap for the Arizona University System

Long-Term Strategic Plan, 2010-2020

June 8, 2009

2020 Goal One - Educational Excellence: To be nationally competitive in the percentage of Arizona’s citizens with a high-quality bachelor’s degree by providing affordable access through a well-coordinated and aligned system. Arizona University System 2020 Strategic Plan, 2009 As Arizona’s population grows, our economy must respond aggressively to the

risks and opportunities presented by the compounding factors of globalization and regional competitiveness. To successfully compete, Arizona must retain, attract and develop the best and brightest workforce, strengthen existing businesses and persuade new businesses to relocate to or innovate in Arizona. This will require both strengthened research capacity and increased degree production at Arizona’s public universities.

Indeed, as the State’s primary producer of a highly-educated workforce, our

public universities have a critical role to play in Arizona’s economic transformation, and to help keep pace with our economic competition over time we must dramatically increase degree production at reduced cost both to students and to the state.

In her April 30, 2009, presentation to the Arizona Board of Regents, Governor

Jan Brewer suggested that meeting these needs would require a new business model for Arizona’s universities focusing on affordability, accountability and predictability. In particular, Governor Brewer suggested that “Affordability means giving students choices and financial certainty that recognizes differences in the types of degrees, types of institutions, and the location of our students.” Fortunately, under the leadership of the Regents, Arizona’s universities had recently undertaken a critical planning process which was aligned with the Governor’s goals.

In addition, our University System has had much success on which to build.

Arizona’s three public universities make a significant impact on statewide degree-production needs, providing opportunities for study and training in the necessary range of fields and producing over 18,000 bachelor degrees, 5,900 master’s degrees, 900 doctoral degrees and 550 first professional degrees annually, at a cost per degree that is among the most efficient in the United States. But our current mechanism for public higher education relies almost entirely on a version of the research university platform. In Arizona, 93 percent of students attend such institutions—a costlier model for



undergraduate education than is achieved by an institution focused solely on undergraduate degree production.

Even while relying on this research-based platform, the Arizona University

System is extraordinarily efficient and accessible both in terms of physical locations and student costs. With four ASU campuses, NAU in Flagstaff plus nearly 35 other NAU sites and an NAU branch in Yuma, two UA campuses and seven UA learning centers, plus Arizona Universities Network (AZUN) and individual web delivery by each university, no Arizona student lacks access to the System. This is in addition to significant direct university investment in financial aid, dramatically enhancing affordability.

Moreover, a close examination of Arizona’s University System cost structures

firmly establishes that Arizona’s existing campuses are among the most productive in the United States relative to their peers or other similar institutions. This conclusion is particularly evident when Arizona’s campuses are compared to the range of costs established for relevant Carnegie Classifications1 as set forth below.

Illustration of Cost per Degree

$0$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000$80,000$90,000$100,000$110,000$120,000$130,000

Delta Full Educational Cost per Degree FY07

UA Carnegie

UA

ASU Tempe/Dow ntow n Carnegie

ASU Tempe/Dow ntow n

NAU Flagstaff Carnegie

NAU Flagstaff

ASU Poly Carnegie

ASU Polytechnic

ASU West Carnegie

ASU West

UA

ASU-Tempe/Downtown

NAU- Flagstaff

ASU Poly

ASU West

HIGH RESEARCH

MASTER'S MEDIUM

MASTER'S LARGE

Carnegie Classification

VERY HIGH RESEARCH

It is this efficiency which we intend to leverage, making a significant and cost-effective impact on Arizona’s economy through dramatically increased degree production.

1 The Carnegie Foundation classifies all accredited, degree-granting, non-specialized institutions of higher

education in the U.S. Universities are placed in categories based on a formula that considers a variety of factors, including degree level, enrollment, number of doctoral degrees conferred, research and development expenditures, and other indicators. This classification does not differentiate institutions with respect to research quality or importance.



A. Increasing Baccalaureate Production: An Arizona University System Long-

Term Strategy

The problem in Arizona is not university access, but rather too few students graduating from high school and going on to college. Those students who do attend a community college do not go on to the university in sufficient numbers to make a difference. Unlike in California, Arizona students are not being turned away. The universities provide access to all students who meet admissions requirements. Our system can create additional access, at a cost which must be borne by the state, but that will not increase degree numbers unless we can change aspirations of the students. Simply redesigning the architecture will not take care of the problem, and any redesign must both encourage and facilitate students entering into and graduating from the Arizona University System.

In the recently approved Arizona University System 2020 Long-Term Strategic

Plan, we determined that our system must increase degree production by at least 50% annually by 2020 to remain nationally competitive. To meet this demand, the Presidents of Arizona’s public universities have proposed a structural evolution for Arizona’s University System. To speed the development of capacity for more degrees and to do so in the most cost-efficient manner while continuing to increase research productivity, we must create new educational pathways to serve Arizona’s students. This document serves as the tactical roadmap for achieving these degree production goals.

Using existing infrastructure as a foundation and leveraging the investment of

Arizona’s communities, we propose a new University system of deeply integrated community college-based 2+2 branch campuses, regional universities in partnership with community colleges, new baccalaureate campuses, and collaborative Arizona Public University Centers, with high-demand baccalaureate degrees ultimately available in every Arizona county. The universities have partnered with community colleges on traditional 2+2 articulation models for years, but new models are needed if we are to significantly increase baccalaureate production. Such new models, in which seamless degree programs are developed with community colleges, will dramatically increase the number of students completing bachelor’s degrees.

Our initial model, scalable over time, consists of four highly-integrated branch

campuses or regional university campuses developed in partnership with community colleges by 2012, and the start-up of at least one new baccalaureate campus by 2010. Full 2020 build-out includes at least one physical community-based campus, regional university or other similar program structure in every county where demand and support makes such expansion feasible, plus several additional baccalaureate campuses, the latter most likely in high-population areas. In addition, successful implementation of this proposal requires expansion of the Arizona Universities Network (AZUN) slate of online degrees, making them available anywhere, all the time, and at a lower cost.



This integrated, scalable and cost-effective response will allow the Arizona University System (with appropriate state support) to rapidly expand capacity to meet significantly higher degree production goals. This model describes an array of pathways, both for Arizona students and for growth of the institutions that serve them, which will define the flexible expansion of America’s state university systems in the future.

Specifically, this document will describe how the three universities will work to

enhance productivity, effectiveness and coordination to meet these system-level goals, and to meet Arizona’s workforce and economic development needs.

B. Leveraging the Reach of Arizona’s Universities

In the recently approved Arizona University System Strategic Plan, the universities noted that a “Gold Standard” of doubling the number of degrees produced by 2020 would require complete alignment of effort between K-12, community colleges, private institutions and the universities. While the universities are prepared to devote more resources and effort to the K-12 pipeline, the adequacy of K-12 output is most directly driven by local school districts. The “Silver Standard,” increasing production from a current 18,500 bachelor degrees annually to 28,200 by 2020 relying primarily on university and community college production, would dramatically improve Arizona’s economic competitiveness nationally and worldwide. This latter goal is the basis for the system architecture outlined in this document.

This recommended structural expansion, along with significant enhancements

within the Arizona University System related to distance education, retention rates and time to degree, is capable of supporting the capacity needed to reach this system-driven goal. But the model must be recognized as being limited by the availability of reasonable and predictable state support for the new model and existing campuses, the supply chain of prepared students and the cooperation of other educational systems. The proposed ABOR system architecture, however, is one that can lead to increased cooperation with the community colleges and which requires no more than reasonably enhanced levels of state funding.

Principally, any system-level architecture and its funding model must be built

upon a wider range of mission-differentiated institutions and locations than exist today. Within the core model, enhanced community college relationships must play a critical role in the strategies of all three universities for building degree capacity and output, whether through significantly increased transfer rates, integrated branches or regional universities in which community colleges deliver most lower division courses, increased delivery of upper division content via distance education from our universities to community college campuses, or the physical delivery of face-to-face university content at facilities on or near community college campuses.



In addition, growth at the current institutions and in new stand-alone, partnership

and adjunct institutions must play an equally significant role in advancing system goals and developing greater capacity. With a diverse set of educational options, student choice can be expanded, and differentiated cost structures and revenue models can be established to allow the more rapid expansion and enhanced accessibility necessary to meet those objectives. Indeed, student choice will be a significant factor in retaining and attracting the best students.

As each university reframes its priorities and program offerings to reflect current

economic realities, we are taking advantage of these focused planning processes to increase degree output through improved retention in current programs, reduce both the fixed and variable costs of expansion, and increase degree production in the future. As a core element of long-term strategy, each university has developed an expansion plan which best suits their mission, brand and resource scalability. Perhaps most importantly, these expansion plans have been explicitly reconciled to assure that they are compatible across the system.

These analyses, occurring over the last two years, have been shared with the

Regents, and are reflected in the decisions of each institution to grow in very different yet entirely complementary ways. A brief summary of these core strategies is assembled below, with the addition of a new model related to the creation of Arizona Public University Centers, where the three universities will offer complementary and non-overlapping content utilizing shared infrastructure.

1. Each university will aggressively expand transfer relations with all

community colleges: every student on every community college campus will have a clear and directed path to any campus of the Arizona University System.

2. Each of the universities will develop shorter time to degree options for

students throughout the state. Options may include three year degree programs and year-round schedules. All three universities are also significantly enhancing retention programs.

3. All three universities will continue to engage in extensive efforts to expand

and coordinate their distance education offerings (both through the AZUN channel and through their separate platforms), and to do so at a lower cost both to expand access in Arizona and to create revenue from outside the state which will support Arizona programs.

4. NAU will expand into at least one and perhaps two regional university

models with appropriate community college partners, including Coconino Community College, Yavapai College and perhaps Arizona Western



College. Ultimately, resources and demand permitting, this model will be expanded statewide with additional community colleges.

5. The UA will extend its model of deeply integrated, transfer-free 2+2

partnerships with community colleges, offering high-experience undergraduate and limited masters programs through branches or learning centers in target counties, initially including Pima, Santa Cruz, Cochise, Yuma, Pinal and some Maricopa locations.

6. ASU will develop additional baccalaureate campuses (the Colleges @

ASU) focusing on high-demand degree programs. The first of these colleges will be in Maricopa County, with additional locations throughout the state anticipated dependent upon demand and need. The financial model for the colleges relies on partnerships with local communities to provide facilities. As an adjunct to these campuses, ASU will develop a community college partnership network that includes two or more sites around the state.

7. Each university may also pursue the offering of selected 4-year or

accelerated programs through a hybrid of on-site and online courses to small cohorts at existing community college locations with a sharing of teaching resources and facilities.

8. In a location to be determined by the Council of Presidents and subject to

Regental approval, the universities will explore the feasibility of an Arizona Public University Center model delivering Arizona University System content in a common location.

These efforts will be subject to coordination among universities by the Council of Presidents, and subject to Regental review or approval as appropriate, to alleviate programmatic and geographic duplication or overlap. The proposed expansion models, their relationships to existing campuses and a general expression of relative cost structures are set forth below:



University Structure (Proposed by 2020)

By Carnegie Classification

Very High

Research

Instructional

IntensiveMaster’s

ASU

Tempe

Campus

ASU

Downtown

Phoenix

Campus

ASU

Polytechnic

Campus

ASU

West

Campus

Colleges

@ASU

Arizona Public

University Centers

(joint)

Community College

Partnerships

NAU

Flagstaff

NAU Online

Arizona Public

University Centers

(joint)

Community College

Partnerships

NAU

Regional

Universities

NAU Yuma

Community College

Partnerships

UA Main

UA

Experiment

Stations

UA Medical School

Phoenix In

Partnership

with ASU

UA

Health

Sciences

Center

UA Online

Programs

Arizona Public

University Centers

(joint)

UA South

High

Research

ASU Online

Arizona Universities

Network (AZUN)


Network (AZUN)

NAU Community

Campuses


Network (AZUN)

UA On-Site and

Hybrid Programs

The location of an institution and overall efforts along each continuum tends to reflect the relative cost, necessary support and tuition levels for its programs. Critical to the success of this System expansion strategy, both enrollments and funding must increase at the research and instructionally intensive ends of this continuum.



C. The Collaboration Model

Further, the Presidents have agreed, subject to approval of the Board, to develop an internal process to avoid both geographic and programmatic competition and overlap of programs or efforts as necessary. Specific guidelines will be developed and will take into account the following general principles and observations regarding the relationship between demand and sustainability.

a) In areas where programs might otherwise appear to compete, the Presidents, through the existing mechanism of the Council of Presidents and through the appointment of discipline-specific analysis teams, will jointly evaluate the following factors to determine the offerings and delivery mechanism for a particular locale. These factors will also be used in structuring the variety of relationships with individual community colleges which might involve more than one university.

relevant demographics and demand;

existing infrastructure;

the possibility of leveraging unique relationships;

local demand for particular or niche offerings; and

the level of curricular (or market) differentiation among proposed programs that might otherwise appear similar.

b) Since the Arizona University System is significantly under-built, in

Maricopa County in particular and in Pima County to a somewhat lesser extent, program overlap is rarely a competition issue since the population is large enough; nor is it a system efficiency issue if the content is adequately differentiated to derive a sustainable market share. The principles of existing infrastructure, leveraged relationships, niche demand, unique expertise, and "true differentiation on closer look" may reveal that existing plans likely avoid real competition and overlap, especially in high population areas.

c) The criteria also resolve potential conflicts in areas where the prepared

population does not support the presence of similar programs from more than one institution. None of the universities is interested in offering truly duplicative programs in these areas, so we are in complete agreement that in low-population, potential overlap communities existing programs have priority, and the universities will work together regarding program expansion.

d) In areas that are less populated but rapidly urbanizing, nearly any offering

lacks adequate supply of prepared students (as with rural locations described above) but each university recognizes the need to expand into



those areas in the future. The factors applied to these areas will result in novel collaboration, from offering differentiated niche programs side-by-side to offering shared programs in Arizona Public University Centers.

e) As the universities develop new models Board policy and legislative

authorization may be needed. Examples include the elimination of Board rule 205-A-3 that prohibits the universities from delivering lower-division, 100-200 level courses off-campus; and Board rules that limit the ability of the universities to implement lower tuition costs for specific partnerships. Legislative action may be required to allow the universities to create new baccalaureate colleges or regional universities. The Council of Presidents will also evaluate these issues and make recommendations to the Board as appropriate.

D. Community College Relationships

The community college system is a critical link to expanding the number of baccalaureate degrees. There are thousands of students in the community college system who could be jointly admitted to a university and thousands more older adults in local communities who might return for a focused baccalaureate degree improving their access to high paying jobs. The community colleges also have existing facilities and campuses that can be sites for university investments to increase degree production. NAU has established a presence on nearly every community college campus and these sites can help boost immediate new investments by all three universities.

But the university system architecture must be carefully coordinated with the

community colleges to avoid duplication, to assure smooth access to baccalaureates, and to wisely use state dollars for expansion. Currently there is a significant lack of “system” thus involving each community college and each university in separate discussions and ultimately a bewildering array of legal contracts. The chances for wasted efforts, failed investments, and institutional aggravation are enormous in such a disconnected system.

The Presidents propose a new structure that would make the Council of Presidents the entity responsible for assuring smooth relationships with individual community college districts and presidents. The Council would designate appropriate staff from each university as appropriate to facilitate programming and the development of physical sites, and the three Presidents and the ABOR Executive Director would meet on a regular basis specifically to address those issues. To assure that we neither duplicate programs nor confuse community college presidents, local residents, or students, the Presidents would be the main vehicle for coordinating these various efforts throughout the state, subject to applicable program approval authority of the Board.



E. Relationship of Program Differentiation to Funding Structure One of the critical outcomes of this system design must be the creation of a wider range of tuition prices for Arizona residents to create more options that will allow a student to select the structure and method of instruction that best matches his or her needs. At the same time, while program delivery and style will vary greatly, quality cannot be sacrificed to achieve this end. A degree from any of the programs at the ABOR institutions must represent good value and great preparation. Developing a structure that balances program cost, tuition and fee charges, and required state funding is extremely important to achieving these goals. Indeed, the affordability of tuition for the student in the new models will be significantly enhanced.

The Presidents support a funding structure across the university system that provides greater access and opportunity for students and that reflects both the fixed and variable costs associated with these different institutional missions. Use of national data through tools such as the Delta Educational Cost model2, the Florida database of detailed program costs, or other sources can help to inform an analysis of the relative cost of instruction for the various types of programs. Arizona institution-specific cost profiles for individual program mixes on the varied campuses will also be important in determining the appropriate cost of instruction and the support necessary to advance those programs and campuses.

These costs will vary across the different elements in the new system and may

be unique to the needs and developmental status of a site. These elements of cost and the extent to which state support is made available will determine the appropriate tuition and mandatory fee levels required to properly support each program and each instructional model.

Accordingly, the universities anticipate that cost of instruction, necessary state support and tuition, per Student FTE, will be lower in the new instructional models. The Presidents foresee a likelihood of differential tuition and fee levels, highest in programs on research-intensive campuses with relatively higher costs and lowest in new model programs with lower costs. Tuition levels must take into account regionally-relevant professional, niche or other specialized programs which might be justified by higher inherent costs (e.g., nursing) or which might appropriately command higher program fees or differential tuition (e.g., MBA programs or distributed technical masters programs leveraging main campus infrastructure).

2 The mission of the Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability is

to help improve college affordability by controlling costs and improving productivity. The Delta Full Educational Cost (FEC) is defined as spending on instruction and student services, plus the instruction-related share of spending on academic support, institutional support, and operations and maintenance. This is the model presented to the Regents in recent discussions regarding 2020 financing.



For example,

a) State support (for both fixed and variable costs), and tuition and mandatory fee ranges, would be highest in programs or at campuses where educational costs (such as programs with more expensive instructional modalities or campuses with higher proportions of research and graduate or professional education) are greatest.

b) State support and tuition would be somewhat lower where the cost of

residential education might be higher despite a less graduate-heavy program mix, or where research activity and related costs may be lower.

c) State support and tuition would be lowest at the hybrid locations,

baccalaureate colleges or other predominantly undergraduate instruction-focused locations throughout the state where the sole focus is on active student learning.

F. Summary

Based on these conclusions, the university Presidents, through the existing structure of the Council of Presidents, will oversee teams specific to program disciplines charged with evaluating potential expansion offerings, and will produce for the Board both individual implementation plans and a common document more specifically describing the structure and administration of current and proposed affiliated campuses and describing the relationship of mission differentiation to proposed cost models.



Agenda Item #2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1 of 1

Contact Information: Stephanie Jacobson, ABOR 602-229-2529 [email protected]

Item Name: Report from the Academic Affairs Committee


Discussion The following items were addressed during the June 3, 2009 Academic Affairs Committee meeting.

The Committee approved ASU’s request to disestablish the B.S. program Clinical Lab Sciences program and NAU’s requests to disestablish the BS in Environment Chemistry and the BS in Geochemistry.

The Committee reviewed a proposal to modify ABOR Policy 2-102, “Undergraduate Admissions” related to the admission of transfer students, and has forwarded it to the Board with a recommendation to approve the change. This item is listed on the Board’s agenda for this meeting.

Dr. Carol Twigg, National Center for Academic Transformation, provided an overview of the final report on the Learner Centered Education Course Redesign Initiative, which she will present to the Board during this meeting.

Recommendation This item is presented for the Board’s information.

Issue: The Board will receive a report on the June 3, 2009, Academic Affairs Committee meeting from Chairman Dennis DeConcini.




Contact Information: Stephanie Jacobson, ABOR 602-229-2529 [email protected] Maryn Boess, ABOR 602-229-2560 [email protected]

Item Name: Learner Centered Education Course Redesign Initiative (LCE CRI)

Final Report

Action Item Discussion Item Information Item Background In 2001 the Arizona Board of Regents authorized $500,000 of the TRIF Regents Innovation Fund from Proposition 301 monies for grants to faculty to improve and expand learner-centered education (LCE) throughout the Arizona University System. The purpose of learner-centered education is to change the dynamics of student-faculty interaction to optimize students’ learning and learning outcomes (focusing on what is learned rather than on what is taught); to utilize technology to create opportunities for student learning; to utilize student peer interaction (collaborative learning); and to create more active learning venues for students beyond the standard lecture and discussion method.

In July 2007 the Board allocated $1 million for a two-year LCE initiative based on the successful course redesign model pioneered by the National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT). The LCE Course Redesign Initiative (CRI), to be managed by NCAT consultants over the two-year period, was intended to:

Redesign high-enrollment undergraduate courses to demonstrably improve student learning outcomes;

Reduce per-student costs of instruction in the redesigned courses;

More effectively align existing institutional resources; and

Develop internal capacity to redesign additional courses beyond the project funding period.

The NCAT process requires faculty teams to follow a very structured iterative course redesign development and selection process. Of the initial 27 faculty proposals, 13 projects were selected for redesign grants in August 2007, based on NCAT’s standards for successful redesign projects nationwide:

The team has selected an appropriate course to redesign (large-enrollment, undergraduate, “gateway”).

The redesign plan has a good chance of improving student learning.

The plan to assess the impact of course redesign on student learning is sound.

Issue: The Board will receive a final report on the outcomes of the two-year LCE Course Redesign Initiative. The redesigned courses were fully implemented in the Fall 2008, and final outcomes related to student learning improvements and cost savings/reductions will be provided.



The redesign plan will produce cost savings.

The redesign plan can be implemented within the project time frame. The 13 projects were guided through a pilot phase, in Spring 2008, to test and refine their redesign strategies. Following the pilot phase, three projects were discontinued primarily due to personnel and timing issues. The remaining 10 followed through to full implementation of their redesigned courses in Fall 2008:

ASU General Chemistry

ASU Computer Literacy

ASU Physical Geology

ASU Organizational Behavior and Leadership

ASU Public Speaking

ASU Women and Society

NAU Introduction to Psychology

UA Introductory Biology

UA Chemistry

UA Geology The 10 projects submitted their outcome data from the Fall 2008 semester to NCAT in March 2009 and shared their full final reports in a project conference on April 2, 2009. Strategic Implications The LCE CRI clearly addresses two goals of the 2020 Vision System-wide Strategic Plan:

Goal 1 - Educational Excellence, by developing approaches to course delivery which improve learning and/or increase capacity while retaining or increasing academic performance; and

Goal 4 - Productivity, by maximizing the use of resources with greater effectiveness.

Discussion This report presents NCAT’s compilation of the final data on the 10 course redesign projects individually and collectively, addressing the questions:

Did student learning improve?

Did course completion rates improve?

Were costs reduced?

Will the redesign be sustained and/or expanded? NCAT has prepared a detailed final project report and analysis, which is being made available separately.



Detailed Project Outcomes

Please see Attachment A, “LCE CRI Summary,” and Attachment B, “LCE-CRI Projected and Actual Costs and Cost Reductions,” for details on:

o Total annual cost and savings, by course and by total LCE CRI initiative o Cost per student and cost reductions, by course

Please see Appendix #3, “NCAT’s Summary of the LCE CRI Course Redesign Projects’ Final Reports,” for reported results and explanations for individual projects in:

o Student learning outcomes o Course completion rates o Reduction in instructional costs o Sustainability of redesigned course

Overview of Project Outcomes NCAT compiled the following summary data based on a review of all 10 final project reports.

1. Student Learning: Did student learning in the redesigned course improve, as measured by direct comparisons of content mastery?

5 = Yes – scores measurably improved on substantially similar assessments 2 = Yes – scores show no difference, but course is significantly more challenging 3 = No difference – learning outcomes were comparable to traditional format

2. Course Completion: Did course completion rates improve, as measured by

comparisons of final course grades?

5 = Yes 1 = No difference, but significantly more difficult course 2 = No difference: Course completion was not an issue and was equivalent to

traditional format, at 90% and 93% 2 = No, course completion rates were unchanged

3. Cost Reduction: Were instructional costs reduced?

10 = Yes (in addition, 4 projects saved more than originally projected) (Please see “Summary of Cost and Cost Reductions Results,” below.)

4. Sustainability: Will the redesign be sustained after the grant period is over?

8 = Yes 2 = Questionable



Students Impacted It is also worth noting that more than 14,000 students were enrolled in, and therefore directly impacted by, the redesigned courses during the Fall 2008 semester. Total annual enrollment in the redesigned courses is estimated at more than 21,000 students. Many of the projects plan to further increase enrollment as part of the ongoing redesign, raising the number of students impacted even higher in coming semesters. Summary of Cost and Cost Reductions Results As shown on Attachment A, NCAT’s analysis of the final project reports reveals the following key cost and cost reductions results:

1. Total Annual Cost and Cost Reductions, By Course and by Total LCE CRI Initiative: Across all 10 completed course-redesign projects, total annual cost reductions are calculated at $1,223,432.

a. This represents an overall cost reduction of 28% (compared with the annual cost of $4,386,900 for offering the courses in the traditional, pre-redesign format).

b. Total annual savings were within 2.2% of the projected savings of $1,250,912.

c. On a course-by-course basis, total annual cost reductions range from $36,000 (NAU Introduction to Psychology) to $302,400 (UA Geology).

d. The average course-level cost reduction was 37%, ranging from 13% (UA Chemistry) to 59% (ASU Organizational Behavior and Leadership).

2. Cost Per Student and Cost Reduction, by Course: Overall, the redesigned courses saved $93 per student in instructional costs compared with the traditional course delivery methods.

a. This is within 2.2% of the projected per-student saving of $95. b. On a course-by-course basis, cost reduction per student ranged from $18

(NAU Introduction to Psychology) to $252 (UA Geology). The cost reductions calculated by NCAT were achieved by a number of means through the redesign process, including:

Transferring portions of the class to on-line or distance-learning format

Reconfiguring the staffing: Use of graduate teaching assistants, undergraduate teaching assistants, faculty adjuncts, etc.

Integrating technology into the teaching/learning experience and/or classroom management practices

Reconfiguring classroom/laboratory space to accommodate larger numbers of students

Increasing student-enrollment capacity without additional resources



Sustainability of the Redesigned Courses Both the final reports and the team presentations at the project conference on April 2 clearly show the faculty teams’ high level of enthusiasm for the redesign process and their own project results. Project teams unanimously supported the continuation of the redesigned courses, and many are already working to apply similar redesign strategies to other courses in their departments. (Please see Appendix #3 for comments and observations on sustainability for each course.) Collaborative Oversight and Management From the outset, the LCE CRI grant program has been a collaborative initiative among Regents, faculty, and university administrators.

ABOR Academic Affairs Committee. The Board of Regents’ Academic Affairs Committee provides executive oversight for the LCE program, approves funding for grants, and approves substantive changes to grant process/criteria. Members of the Academic Affairs Committee include three Regents; the three University provosts; and faculty representatives.

The LCE Advisory Council. The LCE Advisory Council is made up of appointees by each of the three university provosts; and Arizona Faculties Council members representing each of the three universities. The Council provides operational expertise and guidance to ABOR staff on managing the LCE program and develops recommendations for the Academic Affairs Committee on project funding and other key program issues.

Next Steps NCAT’s rigorous analysis of all project data provides the foundation for solid decision-making about the next steps for the Learner-Centered Education grant program. The LCE Advisory Council has already discussed a number of options for continuing, expanding, and/or revising the annual LCE grant program. The Council will revisit these discussions in light of the LCE CRI program results and present its recommendations to the Academic Affairs Committee, with the expectation of initiating a new round of LCE program funding by the end of 2009. Additional Information The full report, “ABOR-NCAT Final Report 2006-2009,” is available on the ABOR website at: http://www.azregents.edu

http://www.azregents.edu/



Please find the following information on pages: Pages Attachment A: LCE CRI Summary Results 7-8 Attachment B: LCE CRI Projected and Actual Costs and Cost Reductions 9-10 Appendix NCAT’s Summary of the LCE CRI Course Redesign Projects’ Final Reports Recommendation This report is provided for information. Input from the Regents is welcomed.

Attachment A Board of Regents Meeting June 18-19, 2009


Summary Results, LCE CRI Project Full Implementation – Fall 2008

April 2, 2009

Course

Two-Year Actual Grant

Funding

Total Students

in Fall 2008

Learning Outcomes

?

Course Completion

Rates ?

Continue Redesign

?

Cost Savings Based on Full Implementation Semester

Basis for Actual Cost Savings

Actual Annual

Savings*

ASU: ACC 230: Uses of Accounting Information I

$25,143 Project funding discontinued after pilot semester – funding of $25,143 represents 50% of initial authorized award

ASU: CHM 101: General Chemistry (all three campuses)

$100,000 4,300 No difference

Improved Yes $842,562 – reduced GTAs from 101 to 77 annually $40,458 – 8.5 GTAs replaced w/5 FT instructors Space needs reduced considerably

$883,020

ASU: College Algebra $25,000 Project funding discontinued after pilot semester – funding of $25,000 represents 50% of initial authorized award

ASU: CSE 180: Computer Literacy $51,763 2,000 Improved Improved Yes Per-student costs reduced 34% - from $50 to $33 each $68,000

ASU: GLG 101 Introduction to Geology I, Physical

$52,911 1,200 Improved Improved, with more

challenging course

Yes Time savings of 30% for instructors

Time savings of 35% for TAs

Estimated $24/student savings

$57,600

ASU Poly: MGT 300 Organizational Behavior and Leadership

$49,665 240 Improved No change – already 93%

Yes 59% reduction in per-student costs (from $373 to $159)

In future, classroom will accommodate 500 (up from 360)

$102,720

ASU: CMN 225: Public Speaking $41,178 200 No difference

Slight decline

Not decided Saved $200 per student by doubling enrollment

Capacity to triple enrollment with no additional resources

$80,000

ASU: WST 100 Women and Society; WST 300 Women in Contemporary Society

$45,218 1,400 Improved Slight decline

Yes Reduced cost-per-student by 27%, from $78 to $57

Able to serve 1,200 students with 3 faculty

$58,800

NAU: BIO 181 Introductory Biology $24,719 Project funding discontinued after pilot semester – funding of $24,719 represents 50% of initial authorized award

NAU: PSY 101 Introduction to Psychology

$49,992 1,925 Same but more difficult

course

Same but more difficult

course

Yes Cost per student reduced 30%, from $62 to $43 (compared with estimated 23% projected)

$73,150

UA: MCB 181: Introductory Biology $50,000 1,800 Improved Improved Yes Restaffing and increased enrollment reduced per-student costs (estimated; final figures to come)

$229,500

UA: CHEM 103/104: Fundamentals of Chemistry (and lab)

$49,911 2,000 Improved Improved Yes Reduced course planning and student contact hours (estimated; final figures to come)

$50,000

UA: NATS 101 A Geological Perspective

$50,331 1,200 No difference

No change – already 90%

Not decided Restaffing (estimated; final figures to come) $310,800

TOTALS: $615,831 16,268 Savings average $117.62 per student $1,913,590

*Based on the assumption of two full semesters annually at same enrollment level as Fall 2008

Attachment A Board of Regents Meeting June 18-19, 2009


ABOR LCE-CRI SUMMARY

25-May-09

Table 1. Total Annual Cost and Cost Reduction, by Course and by Total LCE CRI Project:

TOTAL ANNUAL COST: Annual Traditional Redesign - Total Annual Total

Institution/Course: Enrollment (historic) Projected Actual $ Savings %

Savings ASU Chemistry 4,540 $1,616,240 $1,362,000 $1,362,000 $254,240 16%

ASU ^ Computer Literacy 2,196 $109,800 $84,448 $61,488 $48,312 44% ASU Geology 2,200 $202,400 $149,600 $129,800 $72,600 36% ASU ^ Org Mgmt & Leadership 360 $134,280 $57,240 $55,440 $78,840 59% ASU ^ Public Speaking 600 $205,200 $85,200 $85,200 $120,000 58% ASU ^ Women in Society 2,800 $218,400 $159,600 $159,600 $58,800 27% NAU ^ Intro to Psychology 2,000 $120,000 $96,000 $84,000 $36,000 30% UA Biology 1,730 $460,180 $224,900 $307,940 $152,240 33% UA Chemistry 4,000 $796,000 $696,000 $696,000 $100,000 13% UA Geology 1,200 $524,400 $222,000 $222,000 $302,400 58% TOTAL, All Courses: 21,626 $4,386,900 $3,136,988 $3,163,468 $1,223,432 28% AVERAGE Percent Savings by Course: 37%

Table 2. Cost Per Student and Cost Reduction, by Course:

COST PER STUDENT,

BY COURSE: $$ Savings % Savings Annual Traditional Redesign - per Student Per Student, by Course institution/Course: Enrollment (historic) Projected Actual Projected Actual Projected Actual

ASU Chemistry 4,540 $356 $300 $300 $56 $56 16% 16%

ASU ^ Computer Literacy 2,196 $50 $38 $28 $12 $22 24% 44%

ASU Geology 2,200 $92 $68 $59 $24 $33 26% 36%

ASU ^ Org Mgmt & Leadership 360 $373 $159 $154 $214 $219 57% 59%

ASU ^ Public Speaking 600 $342 $142 $142 $200 $200 58% 58%

ASU ^ Women in Society 2,800 $78 $57 $57 $21 $21 27% 27%

NAU ^ Intro to Psychology 2,000 $60 $48 $42 $12 $18 20% 30%

UA Biology 1,730 $266 $130 $178 $136 $88 51% 33%

UA Chemistry 4,000 $199 $174 $174 $25 $25 13% 13%

UA Geology 1,200 $437 $185 $185 $252 $252 58% 58%

^ = Adds students

Attachment B Board of Regents Meeting June 18-19, 2009


LCE CRI Projected and Actual Costs and Cost Reductions

Table 1. ABOR LCE-CRI Projected Savings Summary

Institution Course

Cost per Student Savings % Savings

Traditional Redesign per Student by Course

UA Chemistry $199 $174 $25 13%

ASU Chemistry $356 $300 $56 16%

NAU Intro to Psychology $60 $48 $12 20%

ASU Computer Literacy $50 $38 $12 24%

ASU Geology $92 $68 $24 26%

ASU Women in Society $78 $57 $21 27%

UA Biology $266 $130 $136 51%

ASU Org Mgmt & Leadership $373 $159 $214 57%

ASU Public Speaking $342 $142 $200 58%

UA Geology $437 $185 $252 58%

AVERAGE SAVINGS per course: 35%

Institution Course

Annual Annual Cost Annual

Enrollment Traditional Redesign Savings

NAU ^ Intro to Psychology 2,000 $120,000 $96,000 $24,000

ASU ^ Computer Literacy 2,196 $109,800 $83,448 $26,352

ASU Geology 2,200 $202,400 $149,600 $52,800

ASU ^ Women in Society 2,800 $218,400 $159,600 $58,800

ASU ^ Org Mgmt & Leadership 360 $134,280 $57,240 $77,040

UA Chemistry 4,000 $796,000 $696,000 $100,000

ASU ^ Public Speaking 600 $205,200 $85,200 $120,000

UA Biology 1,730 $460,180 $224,900 $235,280

ASU Chemistry 4,540 $1,616,240 $1,362,000 $254,240

UA Geology 1,200 $524,400 $222,000 $302,400

TOTAL 21,626 $1,250,912

^ Adds students

Attachment B Board of Regents Meeting June 18-19, 2009


Table 2. ABOR LCE-CRI Actual Savings Summary

Institution Course

Cost-per-Student Savings % Savings

Traditional Redesign per Student by Course

UA Chemistry $199 $174 $25 13%

ASU Chemistry $356 $300 $56 16%

ASU Women in Society $78 $57 $21 27%

NAU Intro to Psychology $60 $42 $18 30%

UA Biology $266 $178 $88 33%

ASU Geology $92 $59 $33 36%

ASU Computer Literacy $50 $28 $22 44%

ASU Public Speaking $342 $142 $200 58%

UA Geology $437 $185 $252 58%

ASU Org Mgmt & Leadership $373 $154 $219 59%

AVERAGE SAVINGS per course: 37%

Institution Course

Annual Annual Cost Annual

Enrollment Traditional Redesign Savings

NAU ^ Intro to Psychology 2,000 $120,000 $84,000 $36,000

ASU ^ Computer Literacy 2,196 $109,800 $61,488 $48,312

ASU ^ Women in Society 2,800 $218,400 $159,600 $58,800

ASU Geology 2,200 $202,400 $129,800 $72,600

ASU ^ Org Mgmt & Leadership 360 $134,280 $55,440 $78,840

UA Chemistry 4,000 $796,000 $696,000 $100,000

ASU ^ Public Speaking 600 $205,200 $85,200 $120,000

UA Biology 1,730 $460,180 $307,940 $152,240

ASU Chemistry 4,540 $1,616,240 $1,362,000 $254,240

UA Geology 1,200 $524,400 $222,000 $302,400

TOTAL 21,626 $1,223,432

^ Adds students

APPENDIX Board of Regents Meeting June 18-19, 2009 Appendix Item #3

Page 1 of 16

NCAT’s Summary of the LCE CRI Course Redesign Projects’ Final Reports

Summary

1. Did student learning improve (as measured by direct comparisons of content

mastery)?

5 Yes 2 Yes – scores show no difference, but the course is significantly more difficult 3 No difference (learning was equivalent to traditional format)

2. Did course completion rates improve (as measured by comparisons of final grades)?

5 Yes 1 No difference but significantly more difficult course 2 No difference (course completion was not an issue and was equivalent to

traditional format: 90% and 93%) 2 No

3. Were instructional costs reduced?

10 Yes (In addition, 4 projects saved more than originally projected.)

4. Will the redesign be sustained after the grant period is over?

8 Yes 2 Questionable


Page 2 of 16

Detail, by Project

1. Did student learning improve (as measured by direct comparisons of content

mastery)?

Yes

1. ASU Computer Literacy (compared final grades using common criteria)

The redesigned course included a significant shift in content to ensure student preparation in computing and the use of modern tools and techniques to solve real world problems. Content shifted from learning a few basic concepts and common tools, to covering a broader range of technology advances, and familiarity with a wide variety of tools to support future self-learning.

In six prior terms of the course taught in the traditional format, an average of 26% of students earned 70%+ (a C or better); in the redesigned format, 65% of students earned 70+ (a C or better) on a demonstrably more difficult course.

2. ASU Organizational Management and Leadership (compared common exam

questions)

Students in the redesigned course performed better compared to the traditional format. Specifically, scores on common exam questions in the traditional course averaged 67.4%, while in the redesigned course, exam scores averaged 76%.

3. ASU Women in Society (compared common midterms and common exams)

In each of the fall 2008 redesign sections, the average midterm grade was higher than the average of the spring 2007 traditional course. --In Section A, the average midterm grade was 2.79% higher; --In Section B, the average midterm grade was 14.61% higher; and, --In Section C, the average midterm grade was 9.92% higher

Final exam grades in the fall 2008 redesign courses were also higher than in the spring 2007 traditional course. --In Section A, the average exam grade was 6.13% higher; --In Section B, the average exam grade was 7.83% higher; and, --In Section C, the average exam grade was 7.49% higher.


Page 3 of 16

4. UA Biology (compared common pre-tests and post-tests)

Students in the traditional fall 2007 course gained 7.47% in dealing with core course objectives; students in the redesigned fall 2008 course gained 8.64%. This difference is significant at the 0.001 level.

5. UA Chemistry (compared common American Chemical Society final exams)

Students in the first semester of the redesigned course sequence performed significantly better (p<0.05) than their counterparts in the previous years. The average final exam grade in the two semesters that the redesigned first-semester course has been offered was 59.3 ± 15.1% compared to an average of 54.0 ± 16.3% in the two previous years.

Similar results were obtained for the second course in the General Chemistry sequence. The average grade for the final exam in the fall 2008 semester of the redesigned course was 49.9 ± 11.6% compared to an average of 45.2 ± 7.69% in the equivalent off-sequence semesters in the two previous years.

Comparison of the final grade distribution between the traditional and the redesigned courses also shows a significant improvement in student performance (67.1% to 70.7% in the first semester, and 64.4% to 68.1% in the second semester.)

Development and implementation of common midterm and final exams based on a common set of learning objectives for the two courses has helped decrease the wide variability in the depth and extent of the material covered in different sections of the same course.

Yes – outcomes show no difference, but the course is significantly more difficult

1. ASU Geology (compared concept sketches on exams)

The final class averages are 74.3 percent for the traditional course and 73.4 percent for the redesigned course, a difference that is not statistically significant. The team considers such comparisons to have limited validity because of the major changes in how the course was taught.

The redesign changed the kind of knowledge that students gained compared to the traditional course. Previously this course used multiple-choice questions during exams to assess a thin veneer of factual knowledge spread across many aspects of geology. In contrast, the redesigned course used (1) online quizzes to assess a breadth of knowledge, (2) concept sketches on


Page 4 of 16

exams to assess deep conceptual knowledge in 40 or so of the most important geologic topics, and (3) online investigations that allowed students to solve an authentic scientific problem.

The fruits of this approach were clearly visible in the excellent concept sketches produced by students during exams designed to demonstrate student mastery of conceptual knowledge, which averaged better than 80 percent on nearly every exam. The team considers these concept sketches to be the best indication of how well students understand geological concepts and systems.

2. NAU Psychology (compared common pre-tests and post-tests)

In the redesigned section, performance improved from a mean of 31.2% correct on the pre-test to 40.2% for the post-test. This represents an improvement in .72 of one standard deviation, which is the second best ever obtained for a face-to-face section of this class since the department began using the knowledge assessment.

The traditional section in fall 2006 used as a comparison also showed a large increase across the pre- and post-test (from 32.02% to 47.76%).

When expressed in terms of proportion of one standard deviation, the improvement in the redesigned section is closer to that in the traditional section based on the mean scores alone.

These findings must be considered in light of the substantial increase in the amount and challenge level of required course work compared to the traditional mode of delivery. Traditionally, students completed few or no assignments outside of the standard four exams, and class participation was not required or assessed. In the redesigned course, students completed four required web assignments, daily class participation questions, 14 required online quizzes, and a required research survey.

No difference

1. ASU Chemistry (compared performance on common final exams)

NCAT note: A formal report has not been received, but the PI has conveyed this general information.


Page 5 of 16

2. ASU Public Speaking (compared performance on final speeches)

Overall, the redesigned course allowed for the same learning levels to be achieved by students, while tripling course capacity.

The largest impact on students was an increase in comfort when speaking in a public setting. Students in the redesign course were much more likely to voluntarily engage in public speaking at an earlier point during the semester. Students were quick to engage in class discussions and showed more excitement when about to perform their speech assignments than in the traditional course.

3. UA Geology (compared common pre-tests and post-tests and common exam

questions)

The Geosciences Concept Inventory (GCI v1.0) was given as a pre-test/post-test to students in the traditional course and the redesigned course to compare student learning in terms of gain scores.

Students in the traditional course had a pre-test GCI percentage correct of 28.67 (SD=11.45, n=96) which increased to 45.26 (SD=11.76, n=84) on the post-test. After course redesign, students had a pre-test GCI percentage correct of 38.62 (SD=8.42, n=144) which increased a post-test GCI score of 48.73 (SD=7.49, n=132).

Although the gains from pre-test to post-test are statistically significant, the different in post-test GCI scores between the two groups is not. This is interpreted as students’ knowledge levels were equivalent in both courses.

An analysis of common four separate essay-style exam questions was conducted to compare students in both the traditional and the redesigned courses. In all categories, the student-supplied responses from the two courses were indistinguishable.

Based on additional qualitative data collected, the team believes that these assessment instruments had insufficient resolving power to detect differences in student achievement or the student experience rather than that there were no actual differences in the student experience.


Page 6 of 16

2. Did course completion rates improve (measured by comparing final grades)?

Yes

1. ASU Chemistry

The DFW rate in the first-semester course for science majors dropped by four percent.

The DFW rate did not change in the non-science-majors course. 2. ASU Computer Literacy

In six prior terms of the course taught in the traditional format, an average of 26% of students earned 70%+ (a C or better); in the redesigned format, 65% of students earned 70+ (a C or better) on a demonstrably more difficult course.

Similar results in the number of students withdrawing from the course remained between traditional and redesigned sections.

3. ASU Geology

Student success rate (C or higher in the course) was 85% in the spring 2008 traditional sections compared to 86.3% in the redesigned full implementation in fall 2008.

This improvement accompanied an increase in student workload from the traditional course, where students were only required to take five exams during the semester, to the fully redesigned course, where students completed five exams, 25-30 online quizzes, and 10 online investigations. In other words, the success rate went up slightly even though the workload and depth of coverage in the course increased from the traditional course to the fully redesigned course.

4. UA Biology

The DFW rate for traditional sections was 38.41%; the DFW rate for the redesigned sections was 33.83%, a difference of 4.58%.

The decrease in DFW rates was accompanied by an increase of 5.22% in C grades, with rates of As and Bs relatively unchanged.


Page 7 of 16

5. UA Chemistry

In the past two years, 11.4% of the students enrolled in the first semester of General Chemistry failed the course in the traditional format. This percentage dropped to an average of 6.5% in the two semesters that the redesigned course has been offered.

Similar trends were observed for the second course in the series (a drop from 14.4% to 4.8% when comparing equivalent off-sequence semesters in the past two years).

No difference but significantly more difficult course

1. NAU Psychology

Similar results in the number of students withdrawing from the course remained between traditional and redesigned sections.

These findings must be considered in light of the substantial increase in the amount and challenge level of required course work compared to the traditional mode of delivery. Traditionally, students completed few or no assignments outside of the standard four exams, and class participation was not required or assessed. In the redesigned course, students completed four required web assignments, daily class participation questions, 14 required online quizzes, and a required research survey.

No difference

1. ASU Organizational Management and Leadership

Completion rates in this course are high, averaging around 93%.

2. UA Geology

Completion rates in this course are high, averaging around 90%. No

1. ASU Women in Society

Student success rate (C or higher in the course) was 85% in the spring 2007 traditional sections compared to 75% in the redesigned full implementation in fall 2008. Although students did better on exams, low assignment scores--including assignments not completed--impacted final grades.


Page 8 of 16

2. ASU Public Speaking

Student success rate (C or better) went from 92% in the traditional course to 89% in the redesigned course.


Page 9 of 16

3. Were instructional costs reduced?

Yes

1. ASU Chemistry

The number of graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) involved in the course has been reduced from 101 to 77 annually. This change alone resulted in an annual savings of $842,562.

In addition, the mix of personnel teaching the course has changed: 8.5 GTAs were replaced with five full-time instructors, saving $40,458 annually.

On the Tempe campus there is a considerable reduction in the use of space. The need for 74 recitation rooms for 24 students each was replaced by one newly designed room for 72 students devoted exclusively to general chemistry recitations. Previously we were using 110 recitation rooms for one hour.

2. ASU Computer Literacy

The plan was to decrease the cost-per-student from $50 to $38, a 24% reduction. The design is working better than expected. Delivery of the redesigned course is possible with less support than originally anticipated, leading to a cost reduction from $50 to $28 per student, a 44% savings.

The school chose to sustain the model with a higher level of faculty support which lessens the savings somewhat, although they are still substantial; a reduction from $50 to $33 per student, a 34% savings.

It was challenging to convince administrators that the redesign objectives could be met and that the course should be delivered as designed. It was difficult to get them to understand the substantially different way in which the course would be delivered and to convince them that it was possible to deliver the course with reduced costs. (NCAT note: This comment is from the lead faculty member!)

3. ASU Geology

The plan was to reduce the time spent by instructional personnel by 26%. Overall, we estimate that the redesign effort resulted in a time savings of 30% for instructors and 35% for teaching assistants.


Page 10 of 16

As a result of lessons we learned during deployment of the fully redesigned course, the amount of time spent by instructors and teaching assistants during the current (spring 2009) semester is much less, and so the final time savings will be higher than these estimates.


The team planned to increase the number of students served from 270 to 360 students and to increase section size from ~45 to ~60 students, reducing the cost-per-student from $373 to $159, a 57% decrease. The actual cost-per-student was $154, which represents a 59% savings.

Now that the course is taught in a new building with larger classrooms, the team believes they will be able to increase enrollment to as high as 250 students per term, because one classroom will hold 150 and a second classroom will hold 100. This means that they can increase the annual enrollment to ~500 (from the current 360) without additional resources.


The original cost savings plan was implemented. The university saved $200 per student enrolled in the redesigned course. The enrollment capacity has the ability to triple, although because of university restrictions currently it has only doubled.

In previous semesters, the course was traditionally taught with eight sections, capped at twenty-five each, a total of 200 students enrolled. In contrast, the redesigned course provided six sections capped at 100 students. This provided an opportunity for 600 students to complete the course annually.

No additional resources were required. With the increased enrollment in the redesigned course, the number of faculty members did not change.


As planned, the redesign reduced the cost-per-student from $78 to $57, a 27% decrease. The redesign achieved this cost savings by increasing class size from 150-200 to 400 and reducing the number of sections from nine to four in the redesign.

Our program was able to serve 1,200 students (903 in WST 100 and 300 in WST 300) with only three faculty (one tenure track and two instructors.)


Page 11 of 16

The cost savings will allow us to accommodate new student growth during a time of retrenchment in new hiring and to meet demand of our new graduate program.

7. NAU Psychology

The operational cost of the course was reduced by decreasing the number of sections from 11 to eight, increasing section size, and reducing the number of people teaching the course from seven to five.

Face-to-face section size increased from 175 per section to 400 in three sections and 200 in three sections. During the redesign, the team also added online sections of the course. Two online sections of 100 students each were also added, increasing the total number of students served from 1925 to 2000.

The team saved more than anticipated. The team anticipated that the reduced cost per student would be $48, a 23% reduction. The redesign actually reduced the cost-per-student from $60 to $42, a 30% reduction.

The cost savings were used to address budget cuts and to expand the department of psychology's course offerings to include an honors section of Introduction to Psychology, special topics courses, and individual undergraduate research experiences.

Going forward, full-time faculty will do 90% of the teaching of PSY 101 without it dominating resource use in the department.

8. UA Biology

The plan was to achieve cost savings by decreasing the number of instructors in the fall term from six to four, reducing the number of GTAs and increasing the number of undergraduate learning assistants (who are not paid) while supporting increased enrollment.

The fully implemented redesign reduced the number of faculty in the fall term from six to five. The changes for the graduate teaching assistants and undergraduate learning assistants were implemented as planned.

This change during full implementation means that the cost-per-student has declined from $266 in the traditional course to $178 in the redesigned course (rather than to the planned cost-per-student of $130). This is a savings of 33% rather than the planned 51%.


Page 12 of 16

9. UA Chemistry

As anticipated, major cost savings were associated with the reduction in the number of course planning and student contact hours for faculty and lecturers.

Thanks to these cost savings, the Department of Chemistry has been able to sustain, and even increase, the average enrollment in the General Chemistry courses despite the major budget cuts that we have suffered in the past three years.

10. UA Geology

The team had a two-fold strategy to reduce costs. --decreasing the number of GTAs each term from seven to four and replacing many of them with undergraduate preceptors. --reducing the number of hours spent by faculty and graduate teaching assistants on preparation, class time and grading.

The bulk of our savings came from using twice as many undergraduate preceptors (from 20 to 40) and fewer half-time graduate teaching assistants.

Instructors found that they inevitably found themselves spending more time than they planned on preparation for teaching and on grading purely by choice, not out of necessity.


Page 13 of 16

4. Will the redesign be sustained after the grant period is over?

Yes

1. ASU Chemistry

Sustainability is high because of the construction and monopoly on the new cooperative learning room for the general chemistry classes. The provost toured in April 2009 to see the progress, and visitors from outside the department are impressed with this new learning environment.

2. ASU Computer Literacy

It is certain that the redesigned course will be sustained.

A new faculty member was recruited to deliver the redesigned course and has successfully completed a semester. Feedback from her is positive. She plans to maintain the course as designed.

The transition of the course to the new faculty member was easily facilitated. Alongside the redesigned course, the team created substantial documentation to support training of faculty, teaching assistants and undergraduate learning assistants.

The new faculty member is continuing to implement minor changes in an effort to further improve the quality of the course, and address the challenges the team was unable to focus on due to the technical challenges faced.

3. ASU Geology

The redesign approach is being used in all large Introduction to Geology classes taught by our school. The results of the redesign effort have resulted in improved student understanding of geologic concepts, as assessed with concept sketches, and improved rates of student success. The time and cost savings are significant and are consistent with those originally estimated.

Since the start of the redesign project, all instructors have used the same textbook, PowerPoints, online quizzes, online investigations, online movies, and other materials. Instructors are largely pleased with this new approach, which has now been adopted by seven faculty members–every instructor who


Page 14 of 16

has taught a large Introduction to Geology class since the start of the redesign project. The efforts of the redesign project will be sustained for the foreseeable future.


The redesign initiative is a success. Student learning has increased while the cost-per-student in the course had decreased. There is no question that the team is committed to the redesign and that it will be sustained. Other faculty members who might be assigned to teach the course in the future have also expressed their intent to employ the course redesign in their sections. Additionally, the redesign has also become a model for other courses taught by professors on the team as well as by other faculty in the school.

The team believes the redesign will enable them to accommodate even more students, and without adding new sections, as enrollment in the school continues to grow. With the availability of larger and suitable (that is, classrooms suitable for grouping students on occasion) classrooms, it is believed that class size could increase by about 20% with perhaps graduate teaching assistant and student-grader hours being the only modest cost increase.


The redesign will be very easy to sustain and to replicate for new faculty. This redesign allowed the program to standardize its survey courses. In the past, each instructor taught her own version, and the results were often uneven. Now the course is delivered in a consistent manner.

The redesign was such a success that the program may be adapting the model for some of the other large classes.

6. NAU Psychology

The team is confident that the redesign will be sustained over time.

In fact, the department will have full-time faculty teaching all face-to-face sections of PSY 101 while maintaining a $42 cost per student.

The transition of a new faculty member into the co-teaching team highlights the flexibility of the redesign.


Page 15 of 16

Additionally, the impressive learning outcomes and cost savings of the redesign has resulted in the placement of one of the team members at the university-level to serve as a campus redesign scholar in an attempt to continue the university's efforts to improve student learning and foster a campus community of individuals interested in active-learning approaches, especially in large classrooms.

7. UA Biology

The faculty who participated in the course redesign were uniformly positive about the impact of the redesign. Although the learning gains, as measured by pre- to post-test gains, were relatively modest, there is increased enthusiasm for “optimizing” the approaches and working together to address some of the issues that arose from the post-course analysis.

The instructional team has continued monthly meetings throughout the spring semester, unheard of prior to the redesign, and several are working with the publisher to suggest modifications and improvements to the Mastering Biology materials so that the students will be even better supported in their learning.

8. UA Chemistry

The Department of Chemistry fully supports the changes that were implemented and is committed to provide the resources needed to sustain the project.

At this moment, all of the General Chemistry courses offered by the department are being taught following the new format.

Questionable


The course redesign has proven to be sustainable. It is able to maintain a consistent curriculum and cost savings while course content is delivered effectively to the students. However, because the university is making a wide spectrum of changes to its academic programs, currently ASU is not planning to keep the redesign program in place.


Page 16 of 16

2. UA Geology

The PI says, “The sustainability of the project is not in question unless the general education program at the university sees some significant changes in the wake of the transformation and budget cuts. During the current semester (spring 2009) all sections are being run essentially as they were during our fully implemented redesign semester.”

However, the two strategies used to reduce costs were to replace graduate teaching assistants with undergraduate teaching assistants and reduce instructor time in preparing and teaching the course.

The team does not seem to be committed to cost reduction: 1) Instructors found that they spent more time than they planned on preparing for teaching and on grading purely by choice, not out of necessity. 2) The PI feels that having a graduate teaching assistant in break-out sessions leads to better exam and quiz scores. “If this is the case we will strive to get more teaching assistant support and give the students the value of this experience. We will continue to look for ways to improve learning that may require the use of more graduate teaching assistants in the future.”

Thus, both cost reduction strategies may be abandoned.



Contacts Information: Stephanie Jacobson, ABOR 602-229-2529 [email protected] David Young, ASU 480-727-5155 [email protected] Ron Pitt, NAU 928-523-5291 [email protected]

Item Name: Proposed Change to ABOR Policy 2-102, “Undergraduate Admissions” (First Reading)


Background

ABOR Board Policy 2-102 provides the admission criteria for undergraduate students.

Arizona undergraduate applicants who meet certain academic criteria are assured admission into the universities. Applicants who do not meet those criteria or who are non-residents may be considered for admission under delegated admission, the section of the policy which gives the universities discretion in selecting those students most likely to be successful.

Specific requirements for freshmen and transfer students are also defined under assured and delegated admission criteria.

A recent analysis of the success of Arizona transfer students suggests that the Board policy for assured admission is not optimal for the success of many transfer students at the universities.

As a result, a proposal to redefine assured admission for Arizona transfer students is proposed.

Strategic Implications

The Board of Regents, along with other organizations and entities within the state, are pursuing initiatives to increase the number of baccalaureate degrees produced in Arizona in order to be competitive nationally in education attainment and to insure our economic viability.

Likewise, fiscal efficiency and productivity, while always a concern in the state, are even more critical under what is expected to be an extended period of budget constraint.

By creating policies that support the success of students who enter our universities more students are expected to succeed in meeting their educational goals.

Issue: The Board is asked to review, on first reading of, the proposed change to ABOR Policy 2-102, “Undergraduate Admissions,” on the criteria for assured and delegated admission for Arizona resident transfer students.



Discussion

The primary goal of this change is to set high standards for transfer students as well as to improve the success rate for transfer students who enter the universities.

A recent study of Arizona community college students who transfer to the universities identified a significant difference in student success based on prior academic experiences.

While some of this information is consistent with frequent findings from studies of transfer students (students with higher GPAs and more transfer credits are more successful that students with lower GPAs and fewer credits), this is the most comprehensive review of Arizona students under our existing transfer system.

The proposed policy change would limit assured admission to the resident transfer students who either completed the Arizona General Education Curriculum (AGEC) and have a 2.5 cumulative GPA or an associate degree and have a 2.0 GPA. Students may also qualify for assured admission based on high school performance (top 25% of the graduating class and successful completion of all 16 core competencies).

Other resident students and all non-residents will be eligible for admission under the delegated admission criteria within certain parameters.

This proposal was reviewed by the Academic Affairs Committee on April 13, 2009. While the committee expressed support for the proposal, the Committee asked that it be well vetted with the community colleges before the Committee made a formal recommendation to the Board.

In April, the proposal was presented to Arizona Academic Programs Articulation Steering Committee (APASC), the statewide transfer articulation operations group comprised of university academic administrators and community college chief academic officers, for comment. On May 1, 2009, APASC gave its unanimous endorsement of the policy change. Several community college presidents have also expressed support for the change.

The proposal was also reviewed by a community college-university task force on admissions and records who made some minor recommendations to the language, which has been incorporated.

This policy change would become effective for Fall 2010 admissions.



Key Data/Findings Attachment A provides an analysis of the cohort of students who transferred from the Arizona community colleges in 2004 and their retention, academic performance and graduation status after 4 years.

Attachment B shows the expected break down by assured and delegated admissions with the proposed policy using the last three years of admission data. System-wide, approximately one-third of students met the assured admission criteria. Committee Review and Recommendation The Academic Affairs Committee reviewed this proposal at its meeting on June 3, 2009, and recommends approval. Recommendation The Board is asked to review, on first reading, the proposed change to ABOR Policy 2-102, “Undergraduate Admissions” as presented in this Executive Summary.



2-102 Undergraduate Admission

A. Requirements for Assured Admission for Residents of Arizona

1. Each university will admit all undergraduate applicants who are residents of Arizona and who meet the following general aptitude and basic competency requirements. Because of their strong academic performance in high school, these students will be recognized as “regents’ graduates.”

a. General Aptitude

Applicants from a regionally accredited high school may demonstrate aptitude for academic work by ranking in the 75 to 100 percentile (upper 25 percent/first quartile) of their high school graduating classes.

b. Basic Competencies

Applicants must demonstrate academic competency in each of the subjects listed below. Students who choose to demonstrate their competency in a subject by completing appropriate high school or college courses must attain an overall grade point average for courses in that subject of at least 2.00 on a 4.00=a scale. A high school credit is defined as one (1) year of study.

. . . 2. Each university will admit all undergraduate applicants who are residents

of Arizona and have a minimum of 24 transferable college or university credit hours in academic courses such as English, Mathematics, Social Science, Physical or Life Sciences, Foreign Languages, or the Humanities with a cumulative grade point average of at least 2.00 on a 4.00=A scale and meet the basic competency subjects required in ABOR Policy 2-102A.1.b. (Undergraduate Admission, Requirements for Assured Admission for Residents of Arizona, Basic Competencies)

3 2. Each university will admit all undergraduate applicants who are residents of Arizona and who complete the Arizona General Education curriculum (AGEC-A, AGEC-B or AGEC-S) AND HAVE A MINIMUM CUMULATIVE OF 2.5 or have an associate or higher degree from a regionally accredited institution of higher education with a AND HAVE A minimum 2.00 GPA on a 4.00=A scale.

3. Each university will admit all home schooled students who meet common criteria to be established by the universities.



B. DELEGATED UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSION

1. Each university may use its discretion in admitting NON-RESIDENT APPLICANTS AND RESIDENT applicants for undergraduate admission who do not meet the requirements in ABOR Policy 2-102A Undergraduate Admission, Requirements for Assured Admission of Residents of Arizona) provided the applicants lack no more than one (1) credit in two (2) of the basic competency subjects required in ABOR Policy 2-102A.1.b. Undergraduate Admission, Requirements for Assured Admission for Residents of Arizona, Basic Competencies), except not in both mathematics and laboratory science, and

a. have fewer than 24 transferable college or university credit hours and rank in the upper 50-74 percentile (second quartile) of their high school graduating class or have a cumulative high school grade point average of 2.50 or above on a 4.00=A scale, or

b. HAVE 24-59 TRANSFERABLE COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY CREDIT HOURS IN ACADEMIC COURSES SUCH AS ENGLISH, MATHEMATICS, SOCIAL SCIENCE, PHYSICAL OR LIFE SCIENCES, FOREIGN LANGUAGES, OR THE HUMANITIES WITH A CUMULATIVE GRADE POINT AVERAGE OF AT LEAST 2.50 ON A 4.00=A SCALE, OR

b. c. are not residents of Arizona for tuition purposes and have a minimum of 24 HAVE 60 OR MORE transferable college or university credit hours with a cumulative grade point average of at least 2.00 on a 4.00=A scale.

2. Students admitted under the conditions in ABOR Policy 2-102 B.1.a., and B.1.b,

(Undergraduate Admission, Delegated Undergraduate Admission), must satisfy any deficiencies in the basic competencies and may be required to participate in special programs designed to strengthen academic preparedness for university-level courses.

3. Each university will consider a high school credit in career and technical

education as part of the delegated admissions process. Career and technical education courses are defined as those high school courses in career and technical disciplines that include competencies beneficial to college preparation. These courses should be selected from those that include the highest level of competencies in the Arizona secondary school curriculum for career and technical education.

. . .

Attachment A Arizona University SystemStudents Entering as New AZCC Transfers in Fall 2004

Board of Regents MeetingJune 18-19, 2009

Agenda Item #4Page 6 of 7

Board of Regents Meeting

June 18-19, 2009

Agenda Item #4

Page 7 of 7 Attachment B

Arizona University System

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

New Assured Criteria

Meet high school requirements for assured

admission & has a minimum of 24 college

transfer credits

INA INA INA

Completed an AGEC with a GPA =>2.5 or

completed an AA with a GPA =>2.0 2,896 31% 2,987 33% 2,557 26%

New Delegated Criteria

Have 24-59 college transfer credits with a GPA =>

2.5 2,475 2,404 2,836

Have 60 or more college transfer credits with

GPA => 2.0 3,286 3,048 3,798

New Special Admission Criteria

Have 24-59 college transfer credits with a GPA =>

2.0 and < 2.5 541 563 635

TOTAL 9,198 9,002 9,826

May 28, 2009

Data For Analysis of ABOR Policy 2-102 Change, Admission of Resident

Arizona Transfer Students




Contact Information: Dan Anderson, ABOR 602-229-2544 [email protected]

Item Name: Proposed Revision to ABOR Policy 2-103, “Enrollment” (Second Reading)

Action Item Discussion Item Information Item Background

ABOR Board Policy 2-103 stipulates the date used to identify official student headcount and fulltime equivalent student enrollment for budget reporting purposes.

Previously, the universities used student counts on the 21st day of the semester as the official reporting date.

Recently enacted changes to ARS §15-1661 requires that the universities now use the 45th day of student enrollment for these purposes.

To remain consistent with prevailing practices in other institutions of higher education nationally, it is proposed that the 21st day student count remain for reporting purposes other than state budget preparation, such as federal Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) reporting, Undergraduate Consolidated Accountability Report (UCAR), teaching workloads, persistence rates, graduation rates, Arizona State System for Information on Student Transfer (ASSIST), and other reporting purposes.

Statutory/Policy Requirements

ARS §15-1661 and ABOR Policy 2-103, “Enrollment.” Strategic Implications

This conforms ABOR policy to statutory requirements.

The universities are interested in compiling statistics in a manner consistent with generally accepted practice nationally. Using 45th day census counts as the basis for summary statistics is not standard. Many institutions use earlier periods such as 10th or 14th day.

Discussion

Moving to 45th day counts will slow the availability of enrollment count information.

ARS §15-1661 adds that the funding formula will include both Fall and Spring semester enrollments, where previously funding was based on Fall enrollments only.

Issue: The Board is asked to approve the proposed revision to ABOR Policy 2-103, “Enrollment,” the official student census day from the 21st day of the semester to the 45th day and other changes as required by ARS §15-1661.



Excess student credit hour deductions will also move to the 45th day counts and will add the Spring semester. Previously, students who had fewer than 145 credit hours at the beginning of the Fall semester could attend the universities without the institutions losing funding or the students being required to pay additional tuition during the academic year. Now students exceeding the 145 credit hour threshold during the Spring semester will be removed from the funding formula and be required to pay additional changes.

Policy Revisions

The proposed changes are shown on pages 3-8. Committee Review and Recommendation This proposed policy was reviewed by the Academic Affairs Committee at its April 13, 2009 meeting and was unanimously approved to move forward to the Board for approval. Recommendation That the Board approve a proposed revision to Board Policy 2-103, “Enrollment,” as presented in this Executive Summary.



2-103 Enrollment

A. Non-resident undergraduate headcount enrollment for students taking 7 or more semester credit hours at each university shall not exceed 30 percent of the university’s total undergraduate headcount enrollment.

B. Each university shall report enrollment data on the forms prescribed by the Board.

C. Policies for Determining Fulltime Equivalent Student Enrollments

1. Introduction

a. The Policies for Determining Fulltime Equivalent Student Enrollments establish standards for reporting Headcounts and Fulltime Equivalent Enrollments to the Arizona Board of Regents for the Fall and Spring semesters.

b. The policy document contains guidelines for credit courses and students included or excluded from within the enrollment reports.

c. The intent of the Policies is to provide fair, equitable and uniform methods of computing student Headcounts and Fulltime Equivalent Enrollments.

2. General

a. Enrollment counts are made for both the fall and spring semesters at the close of business on the 21st 45th calendar day following the first day of classes reported in the universities' biennial catalogs. The universities will file official, unaudited enrollment data with the Arizona Board of Regents by the close of business on the 35th 52nd day following the first day of classes. Headcount (HC) and Fulltime Equivalent (FTE) student enrollments reported by statutory budget unit as of the 21st 45th day will reflect all students in courses approved by the Arizona Board of Regents, at the lower division, upper division and graduate



levels for credit or audit. Reported HC and FTE also will reflect student withdrawals, adds and drops, late registrants, and class cancellations.

(1) Each university shall design and install a system of internal control to provide adequate audit trails and produce reliable information for enrollment reports. Each university president will designate an officer responsible for developing the system of internal controls and the enrollment report.

(2) A frozen file reflecting all registration transactions through the 21st 45th day will be the basis for the HC and FTE computations. The frozen 21st 45th day enrollment file does not preclude adjustments during the 22nd 46th to the 35th 52nd day, such as resubmitting rejected transactions, correcting errors, or submitting retroactive transactions.

b. For the purpose of determining student level and load distribution, undergraduate students (including unclassified) will include matriculated students who have not completed a four or five year baccalaureate program, and students seeking another baccalaureate degree.

c. For the purpose of determining student level and load distribution, graduate students (including nondegree status) will include matriculated students holding a baccalaureate degree and admitted to the Graduate College.

d. The course-level will determine undergraduate lower division, undergraduate upper division, or graduate student level.

(1) Lower Division Level = courses numbered 100 - 299.

(2) Upper Division = courses numbered 300 - 499.

(3) Graduate Level = courses numbered 500 and above.



e. Dividing total lower division Student Credit Hours by 15 shall determine the number of undergraduate lower division FTE.

f. Dividing total upper division Student Credit Hours by 12 shall determine the number of undergraduate upper division FTE.

g. Dividing total graduate Student Credit Hours by 10 shall determine the number of graduate FTE.

h. Medicine headcount enrollments shall equal FTE enrollments.

i. For courses jointly convened at the 400- and 500- levels, students registered for 500-level courses count as graduate level credit, and those registered for 400-level courses count as upper division level credit.

3. Inclusion in Headcount and Fulltime Equivalent Enrollments

The following will be included in the computation of HC and FTE enrollments for the Fall and Spring semesters unless the course or the student taking the course is in conflict with university policies or procedures:

a. Courses where the collection of registration and/or tuition revenues derived from registered students are included in state collections in the state operating budgets of each institution when received by the close of business on the 21st 45th day.

b. Courses taken by students who have not paid tuition by the close of business on the 21st 45th day when they are:

(1) Veterans with tuition deferred by state statute.

(2) Students whose tuition in only partially paid due to drop/add transactions.

(3) Students whose tuition is not yet paid by governmental agencies or other organizations that have written commitments to pay such fees.

(4) Students with approved federal or state assistance, guaranteed student loans, or university administered



financial aid, but for whom the university has not yet received funds if adequate documentation is on file.

(5) Students who are enrolled in a university approved tuition payment plan. These plans can be either administered in-house or contracted to a third party vendor, or both. The university or vendor may charge a reasonable administrative fee to pay for the advertising, billing, staffing and other costs of the plan(s).

c. Enrolled graduate students working on theses or dissertations who pay all applicable tuition.

d. Enrollments in courses that begin after the 21st 45th day providing all other applicable criteria above are met, including student registration and payment of tuition by the close of business on the 21st 45th day.

e. Enrollments in tri-semester courses that most nearly coincide with the start of the first day of classes for the Fall or Spring semesters if all other applicable criteria above are met.

f. Enrollments in all courses delivered by nontraditional methods, including educational television, closed-circuit television and internet courses, among others, providing all other applicable criteria above are met.

g. Interdisciplinary courses taught by a faculty member funded by the State Operating budget. For courses taught jointly by faculty from the University of Arizona Main Campus and the College of Medicine, an apportionment of HC and FTE will be made to the Main Campus based upon the number of faculty and the teaching efforts contributed.

h. Enrolled students taking courses at the undergraduate or graduate levels for credit or audit.

4. Exclusion from Headcount and Fulltime Equivalent Enrollments

The following courses or classes will be excluded from HC and FTE computations:



a. Courses not offered for credit. b. Courses where the collection of tuition is not included in the

state operating budgets of each institution. c. Canceled classes. d. Correspondence courses. e. College of Medicine courses where HC and FTE are

reported separately. f. Workshop

(1) That do not meet the minimum definition of Unit of Credit, adopted by the Arizona Board of Regents; or

(2) That end prior to the first day of classes for the Fall and Spring semesters.

g. Courses not approved by the Arizona Board of Regents for inclusion in the universities' biennial catalogs.

h. Courses taught under contract, unless

(1) contract funds for course instruction, less the portion applicable to official local fund allocations, are deposited in state collections. Contract funds for course instruction shall include funds for (a) tuition, and (b) instructor remuneration and fringe benefits; and

(2) the per-student contract funds deposited in state collections equal or exceed tuition otherwise collected.

i. Enrollments in duplicate courses not in accordance with university policies.

5. Retroactive Enrollment Transactions

Retroactive enrollment transactions shall be furnished to the officer responsible for the enrollment report. Any material retroactive transaction not furnished in time for inclusion in the enrollment report shall be identified as an adjustment by university staff. The following list of retroactive transactions is not all inclusive, but is a guide for the types of transactions reported to the officer responsible for the enrollment report:

a. Retroactive student withdrawals, where a student withdrawal is not recorded until after the 21st 45th day but, for



administrative purposes, is effective on or before the 21st 45th day.

b. Retroactive canceled classes, where classes are not formally canceled until after the 21st 45th day.

c. Offset to canceled classes, a class in which a student has enrolled subsequent to the 21st 45th day as a substitute for a canceled class.

d. Student reinstatements, applies to students who did not receive administrative approval to enroll in specific courses by the close of business on the 21st 45th day, but subsequently received the required administrative approval.

e. Offset to student withdrawals, applies to withdrawals from a class or classes recorded on/or before the 21st 45th day but subsequently, for administrative purposes, the student was permitted to re-enroll.

f. Reinstated canceled classes, classes canceled prior to the 21st 45th day and excluded from the HC and FTE computations; however, for administrative purposes, the canceled classes were re-opened.

Board of Regents Meeting June18-19, 2009 Agenda Item #6


Contact Information: Meredith Hay (UA) 520-621-1856 [email protected] William Crist (UA) 520-626-1197 [email protected] Sally Reel (UA) 520-626-6767 [email protected] Kathy Bedard (ABOR) 602-229-2546 [email protected]

Item Name: APPROVAL OF ARIZONA AREA HEALTH EDUCATION CENTERS (ARIZONA AHEC) PRELIMINARY FY 2010 PROGRAM BUDGET


Background/Statutory Requirements

A.R.S. §15-1643 requires the Arizona Board of Regents to establish the Arizona Area Health Education Centers (Arizona AHEC) system in The University of Arizona College of Medicine. The system consists of five area health education centers, each representing a geographic area of the state.

Consistent with statute, the Board appoints an Arizona AHEC Program Director, a statewide Arizona AHEC advisory commission, and a governing board for each of the five centers. As a sponsored project of The University of Arizona, the Arizona AHEC is administered under the direction of Sally J. Reel, PhD, RN, FNP, BC, FAAN, FAANP, Associate Dean for Academic Practice, College of Nursing. Dr. Reel’s appointment was effective July 1, 2006.

Proposition 203 (Healthy Arizona 1), an initiative measure passed by Arizona voters in 1996, requires the Arizona State Lottery to allocate funds to six public health programs specified in A.R.S. §5-522(E) when annual lottery revenues reach a specified threshold. Arizona AHEC is one of the six designated programs and is to receive $4 million annually from the State Lottery. Arizona Lottery revenues reached the specified threshold for the first time in FY 2004, resulting in a partial allocation to Arizona AHEC. Since FY 2005, Arizona AHEC has received at least $4 million annually.


The mission of the AHEC Program is to improve the recruitment, diversity, distribution, and retention of culturally competent personnel providing health services in rural and urban medically underserved communities by addressing the following goals:

Issue: The Board is asked to review and approve the preliminary FY 2010 budget for the Arizona Area Health Education Centers (Arizona AHEC) Program.



Grow our own healthcare workforce

Promote community health

Serve as a bridge between communities and resources

The AHEC Program has implemented an evidence-based statewide program format. Programs are implemented through five community-based centers. These programs include statewide recruitment of rural and minority students into health professions; community-based clinical training for health professions students; partnering with local health systems and employers to recruit, train, and retain health care providers and educators; and the delivery of critical continuing professional education and community health education programs.

Arizona AHEC initiated new undergraduate and graduate interprofessional health education programs in FY 2008 that focus on underserved and rural populations. The purpose of these programs is to provide education and training for interprofessional teams of students from all four Arizona Health Sciences Center colleges—Medicine, Nursing, Public Health, and Pharmacy—and the regional AHEC Centers. The objectives include:

Introducing these teams of students to populations within Arizona needing a stronger health professions workforce

Developing new approaches to improving health within these populations

Demonstrating the rewards for the health professionals who choose to serve these populations throughout their careers

Discussion

The preliminary FY 2010 Arizona AHEC Program budget estimates total revenue of $10,440,771, total expenditures of $6,255,334, and a carryforward into FY 2011 of $4,185,437.

The preliminary FY 2010 program budget includes $3.0 million to sustain and continue new interprofessional and primary care training initiatives, including physician residencies. The focus is on training primary care teams in rural and urban medically underserved sites, with emphasis on educational capacity building particularly at the community level, long-term sustainability, and evaluation. These teams also include Medicine, Nursing, Public Health, and Pharmacy.

In federal FY 2009, the Arizona AHEC Program received $410,552 in federal funds from the Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Arizona AHEC program expects to receive a similar amount in FY 2010 barring



significant downward federal budget changes (federal fiscal year begins September 1, 2009, for model AHEC funds). Continued eligibility for federal funds is contingent upon the ability to document a non-federal source of matching funds of $410,552.

This FY 2010 preliminary AHEC Program budget is submitted to reflect the revenues and expenditures anticipated for FY 2010.

Recommendation to the Board It is recommended that the Board approve the preliminary FY 2010 budget for the Arizona Area Health Education Centers Program, as presented in this Executive Summary.



FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010

Expended through

Mar 2009

Projected

Expenditures Apr-

June 2009

Revised Budget and

Total FY 2009

Expend/Encumb Proposed Budget

REVENUE:

CARRY FORWARD BALANCE 10,544,740$ 6,030,219$ 5

FEDERAL MODEL AHEC 410,552$ 410,552$

ARIZONA STATE LOTTERY FUNDS 4,000,000 3

4,000,000

TOTAL REVENUE 14,955,292$ 10,440,771$

EXPENDITURES:

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 265,691$ 82,610$ 644,880$ 604,863$

PROGRAM OPERATIONS 32,678$ 4,920$ 70,000$ 35,000$

AREA HEALTH EDUCATION CENTERS SUBCONTRACTS:

SEAHEC 216,420 200,247 416,667$ 416,667

WAHEC 287,868 128,799 416,667$ 416,667

NAHEC 248,226 168,441 416,667$ 416,667

EAHEC 285,709 130,958 416,667$ 416,667

GVAHEC 232,205 184,462 416,667$ 416,667

Total AHEC Subcontracts 1,270,428$ 812,905$ 2,083,333$ 2,083,335$ 2

UNLIQUIDATED OBLIGATIONS FOR SUBCONTRACTS IN FY 08:

(remainder of FY 08 federal year-based subcontracts)

SEAHEC 88,198 100,526

WAHEC 73,954 89,506

NAHEC 137,376 110,523

EAHEC 97,229 95,971

GVAHEC 27,314 52,754

Total Federal FY 08 Subcontracts 424,071$ 0$ 449,280$ 0$

UNLIQUIDATED OBLIGATIONS FOR SUBCONTRACTS IN FY 09:

(remainder of FY 09 federal year-based subcontracts)

SEAHEC 83,334

WAHEC 83,334

NAHEC 83,334

EAHEC 83,334

GVAHEC 83,334

Total Federal FY 09 Subcontracts 0$ 0$ 0$ 416,670$

STATEWIDE PROGRAM SUPPORT (Salary Only) 44,869$ 14,956$ 62,251$ 61,963$

INTERPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS (FY09) 2,500,000$ 1,000,000$

INTERPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS (FY08) 351,816$ 22,540$ 4

2,500,000$ 1,979,770$

INTERPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS (FY07) 682,806$ 225,210$ 4

1,214,872$ -$

CLINICAL COMMUNITY PROGRAMS (Salary Only) 50,383$ 7,900$ 70,881$ 68,733$

Preceptor Training Program

Rural Health Conference Sponsorship 5,000$

Primary Care Week Sponsorship

Institutional Partnerships

Continuing Professional Education Programs

EVALUATION, PLANNING, AND DISSEMINATION (Salary Only) -$ -$ 82,054$ -$

Evaluation of Program Activities and Outcomes

Commission and Director Meetings and Development

Publications/Annual Report, Brochures, Displays

HEALTH CAREERS AND HEALTH SCHOOLS PROGRAMS (Salary Only) 27,988$ 9,329$ 38,828$ -$

Youth Recruitment into Health Careers Programs

HOSA School Programs Development

Statewide Coordinating Council Meetings

TOTAL EXPENDITURES1

3,150,730$ 1,180,370$ 9,716,381$ 6,255,334$

CARRY FORWARD 5,238,912$ 4,185,437$

1Expenditures balance from July 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009.

2Subcontracts are 10 months of federal year-based subcontract amounts.

3Payment from the State Lottery funds is contingent on FY 2009 lottery performance (payments usually received after close of fiscal year).

4FIFO method used to record expenses.

5State Lottery fund balance as of 3/09 is $7,210,589. Anticipated expenditures of $1,180,370 through June 30, 2009. Carryforward for the start of FY10 will reflect the

difference between 3/09 balance of $7,210,589, and expenditures of $1,180,370 equaling to $6,030,219. The FY 2009 Revised Budget carryforward amount of $5,238,912

was an estimate of carryforward at Jan 2009. Current estimated carryforward is $6,030,219.

PRELIMINARY FY 2010 ARIZONA AHEC BUDGET

July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010

Board of Regents Meeting June 18-l9, 2009 Agenda Item #7


Contact Information: Meredith Hay (UA) 520-621-1856 [email protected] William Crist (UA) 520-626-1197 [email protected] Sally Reel (UA) 520-626-6767 [email protected] Kathy Bedard (ABOR) 602-229-2546 [email protected]

Item Name: APPOINTMENTS OF NEW ARIZONA AREA HEALTH EDUCATION CENTERS PROGRAM (ARIZONA AHEC) REGIONAL CENTERS GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS


Background/Statutory Requirements

A.R.S. §15-1643 requires the Arizona Board of Regents to establish the Arizona Area Health Education Centers (Arizona AHEC) system in The University of Arizona College of Medicine. The system consists of five area health education centers, each representing a geographic area with specified populations that the system determines currently lack services by the health care professions. The centers are:

Eastern Arizona AHEC (EAHEC) in Globe-Miami

Greater Valley AHEC (GVAHEC) in Apache Junction

Northern Arizona AHEC (NAHEC) in Flagstaff

Southeast Arizona AHEC (SEAHEC) in Nogales

Western Arizona AHEC (WAHEC) in Yuma

Arizona AHEC was established through the National AHEC program in 1984, prior to the 1990 enactment of A.R.S. §15-1643. As a sponsored project of The University of Arizona, the Arizona AHEC Program is administered under the direction of Sally J. Reel, PhD, RN, FNP, BC, FAAN, FAANP, Associate Dean for Academic Practice, College of Nursing. Dr. Reel’s appointment was effective July 1, 2006.

A.R.S. §15-1643 requires the Board to appoint a governing board for each of the five centers consisting of not fewer than 10 people and not more than 20 people. Board membership will consist of health care providers and consumers and will reflect the ethnic representation of the center’s geographic area. Each governing board will make recommendations to the director regarding health professionals’ educational

Issue: The Board is asked to approve appointments to the governing boards of the five regional Arizona Area Health Education Centers: Eastern Arizona AHEC (EAHEC), Greater Valley AHEC (GVAHEC), Northern Arizona AHEC (NAHEC), Southeast Arizona AHEC (SEAHEC), and Western Arizona AHEC (WAHEC).



needs, local program priorities, and the allocation of system monies. Board members are not eligible to receive compensation or reimbursement of expenses.

The requested appointments meet the above criteria.

Complete listings of the requested appointments and reappointments to the EAHEC, GVAHEC, NAHEC, SEAHEC, and WAHEC governing boards are presented on pages 3-12.

Recommendation to the Board: That the Board approve appointments to the governing boards of the five Arizona AHEC Program regional centers, Eastern Arizona AHEC, Greater Valley AHEC, Northern Arizona AHEC, Southeast Arizona AHEC, and Western Arizona AHEC, as presented in this Executive Summary.



EASTERN ARIZONA AHEC GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS (EAHEC)

Name / Affiliation /

Contact Information

Term of Service

(Years)

AHEC Program / Relationship

County/Relationship

*Hart Hintze, RN MBA

Member at Large

807 S. Ponderosa

Payson, AZ 85541

Start: 4/3/2009

End: 4/30/2012

New Appointment

3 year term

(Has served < than 1 year)

Chief Nursing Officer

Payson Regional Medical Center

Gila County

*Linda Clark

Member at Large

P.O. Box 208

San Carlos, AZ 85550

Start: 9/1/2008

End: 9/1/2011

Reappointment

Second 3 year term

(Has served 4 years)

I.H.S. San Carlos Hospital

Representative Diabetes Educator

Gila County

*Kathy Grimes

Member at Large

1615 First Ave

Safford, AZ 85546

Start:11/1/2008

End: 11/30/2011

Reappointment

3 year term


SEABHA

Behavioral Health Youth Coordinator

Graham County

*Carolyn Haro

Board

Secretary/Treasurer

1400 E. Ash St.

Globe, AZ 85501

Start: 9/1/2008

End: 9/30/2011

Reappointment

3 year term


Gila County Health Department

Assistant Deputy to Community Services

Gila County

*Jeff Vaughn

Member at Large

363 W. 160 S

Pima, AZ 85543

Start: 9/1/2008

End: 9/30/2011

New Appointment

3 year term

(Served <1 year)

CanyonLands CHC

Southeastern Arizona Site Director

County: Graham and Greenlee

*Linda Lopez

Board President

1600 20th Ave.

Safford, AZ 85546

Start: 9/1/2008

End: 9/30/2011

Reappointment

3 year term


Mt. Graham Reg. Medical Center

Diabetes and Clinical Education

Coordinator

Graham County

*Shelly Vaughn

Member at Large

363 W. 160 S

Pima , AZ 85543

Start: 8/1/2008

End: 8/31/2011

New Appointment

3 year term

(Has served <1 year)

Gila Health Resources

Morenci Clinic

Greenlee County

*Karen Paz

Member at Large

Gila Health Resources

Morenci, Arizona 85540

Start: 9/1/2008

End: 9/30/2012

3 year term

New Appointment

(Has served 1 year)

EMS Manager

Greenlee County



EASTERN ARIZONA AHEC GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS (EAHEC)

*Linda Yarrington

Board Vice President

5074 E. Forest Street,

Apache Junction, AZ

85219

Start: 9/1/2008

End: 9/30/2011

Reappointment

3 year term


Retired/Private Citizen

Pinal County

*Barbara DeBolt

Member at Large

PO Box 208

San Carlos, AZ 85550

Start: 9/1/2008

End: 9/30/2011

3 year term

New Appointment

Has served <1 year)

Clinical Education

San Carlos I.H.S. Hospital

Gila County

*Olivia Guerrero, MS

Member at Large

8969 W. McCartney

Road

Casa Grande, AZ 85294

Start:1/6/2009

End: 1/31/2012

3 year term

New Appointment

(Has served >1 year)

President/CEO

Pinal Gila Council

For Senior Citizens

Pinal County

Ethnicity Summary – 0 -Asian; 0 - African American; 8-Caucasian; 3-Hispanic; 0-Native American

*New Appointments or Reappointments



GREATER VALLEY AHEC GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS

(GVAHEC)


Contact Information

Term of Service

(Years)


County/Relationship

Kai Gerkey – Current Chairman

1800 E. Florence Blvd.

Casa Grande, AZ 85222

Phone: (520)381-6405

Fax: (520) 381-3061

Start: 07/01/07

End: 06/30/10

3 Year Term


Casa Grande Regional Medical

Center

Pinal County

Frederick Hubbard

Immediate Past Chairman

2830 W. Glendale Ave., Suite 1

Phoenix, AZ 85051

Phone: (602) 417-6180

Fax: (602) 417-6182

Start: 07/01/07

End: 6/30/2010

3 Year Term


AHCCCS, State of Arizona

Maricopa County

Christine Morgan

HPE Program Coordinator

19555 N. 59th Ave

Glendale, AZ 8530

Start: 07/01/08

End: 06/30/11

3 Year Term

(Has served 1 year)

Midwestern University

Maricopa County

Gordon Jensen

11825 N. 76th Place

Scottsdale, AZ 85260

Fax: (480) 948-3584

Start: 07/01/08

End: 06/30/11

3 Year Term

(Has served 1 year)

Arizona Department of Health

Services (retired)

Maricopa County

Randy Danielsen

5850 East Still Circle

Mesa, AZ 85206

Start: 07/01/07

End: 6/30/2010

3 Year Term


A.T. Still University

Maricopa County

Robert Resendes

1090 Commerce Drive

Prescott, AZ 86305

Phone: (928) 442-5966

Fax: (928) 771-3369

Start: 07/01/08

End: 06/30/10

2 Year Term

(Has served 1 year)

Yavapai County Community Health

Services

Yavapai County

Wendy Recinos

320 E. McDowell Rd., Suite 320

Phoenix, AZ 85004

Phone: (602) 218-3902

Fax: (602) 252-3620

Start: 07/01/07

End: 06/30/10

3 Year Term


Arizona Association of Community

Health Centers

Maricopa County



GREATER VALLEY AHEC GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS

(GVAHEC)

Jane Pearson

2929 N. Central Avenue Suite 1550 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (602) 385-6502

Fax: (602) 385-6510

Start: 07/01/07

End: 06/30/10

3 Year Term


St. Luke's Health Initiatives

Maricopa County

William Brown

2402 West Darrow Street

Phoenix, AZ 85041

Start: 07/01/08

End: 06/30/11

3 Year Term

(Has served 1 year)

Arizona Health Occupations Students

of America Foundation

Maricopa County

Ethnicity Summary:

0 Asian 1 African American 5 Caucasian 2 Hispanic 1 Native American

*Indicates New or Reappointments.



NORTHERN ARIZONA AHEC GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS (NAHEC)


Contact Information

Term of Service

(Years)


County/Relationship

*Abel Estrella - President

1703 E. 2nd Av.

Flagstaff, AZ 86004

Start: July 1, 2008

End: June 30, 2011

3 year term

Reappointment


Administrator DES

Coconino County

Philip Garrod - Vice President

2205 N. Cypress Pt. Dr.

Flagstaff, AZ 86004

Start: July 1, 2007

End: June 30, 2010

3 year term


Physician,

Administrator,

Coconino County

*Anna Lewis

Hopi Health Care Center

P.O. Box 4000

Polacca, AZ 86042

Start: July 1, 2009

End: June 30, 2011

New Appointment

2 year term

(Will begin serving

July, 2009)

Physician and Director of Public

Health

Hopi Health Care Center,

Navajo County

Monica Baker

Coconino Community College

2800 S. Lone Tree Rd.

Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Start: July 1, 2007

End: June 30, 2010

3 year term


Dean, Career & Technical

Education

Coconino Community College

Coconino County

*Jack Rice

8215 E. Concho Rd.

Snowflake, AZ 85937

Start: July 1, 2008

End: June 30, 2011

3 year term

Reappointment


Physician Assistant

Private Practice

Navajo County

*Effie Hacklander

Yavapai College

1100 E. Sheldon St.

Prescott, AZ 86301

Start: July 1, 2009

End: June 30, 2011

2 year term

New Appointment

(Will begin serving

July 2009)

Director of Special Programs

Yavapai College

Yavapai County

*Jill Moses

Chinle Service Unit, NAIHS

Chinle Health Care Facility

P.O. Box "PH"

Chinle, AZ 86503

Start: July 1, 2008

End: June 30, 2011

3 year term

New Appointment

(Has served < 1 year)

Director, Division of Public Health

Apache County

*Sharlene Fouser

9455 Antoinette Way

Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Start: July 1, 2008

End: June 30, 2010

2 year term

New Appointment


Current Board President North

Country HealthCare

Small Business Owner

Coconino County



NORTHERN ARIZONA AHEC GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS (NAHEC)


Contact Information

Term of Service

(Years)


County/Relationship

*Todd Bosen

P.O. Box 1087

Eagar, AZ 85925

Start: July 1, 2009

End: June 30, 2010

1 year term

New Appointment

(Will begin serving

July 2009)

Insurance Industry

Apache County

*Maurice Miller

820 E. David Drive

Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Start: July 1, 2008

End: June 30, 2010

2 year term

New Appointment


Retired NARBHA CEO

Coconino County

*Beverley Suetopka-Alex

Northern Arizona University

P.O. Box 5619

Flagstaff, AZ 86011 or

302 W. Cherry St.

Winslow, AZ 86047

Start: July 1, 2009

End: June 30, 2010

1 year term

New Appointment

(Will begin serving

July 2009)

Accountant, NAU

Navajo County

*Steve W. Lewis

Flagstaff Medical Center

1200 N. Beaver Street

Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Start: July 1, 2008

End: June 30, 2011

3 year term

New Appointment

(has served < 1 year)

Medical Director, FMC

Coconino County

Ethnicity Summary: 0 Asian, 1 African American, 7 Caucasian, 2 Hispanic, 2 Native American

* New appointments or reappointments.



SOUTHEAST ARIZONA AHEC GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS (SEAHEC)

Name / Affiliation / Contact Information

Term of Service (Years)

AHEC Program / Relationship County/Relationship

Htay Lwin Hla – Past President

315 S. Calle De Azucena

Tucson, AZ 85711

Start: 09/2006 End: 09/2009 3 year term

(Has served 4 yrs)

Information Management Specialist, Mel and Enid Zuckerman, Arizona College

of Public Health

Pima County

*Bethany L. Spalsbury –

Sec/Treas 1745 N. Pinto Cochise, AZ 85606

Start: 04/2008

End: 04/2011 3 year term

Reappointment (Has served 3 yrs)

Clinic Manager

Sulphur Springs Medical

Center/Sunsites Medical Center Cochise County

Sue Macdonald

14140 N. Alyssum Way

Oro Valley, AZ 85755


(Has served 7 yrs)

Associate Faculty, Retired Cochise College

Pima County

*Susan B. Peru

3701 Via de la Reina

Sierra Vista, AZ 85650


Reappointment (Has served 8 yrs)

Represents Cochise County Dept of Health

Services. Co-President of Cochise/N.E.

Sonora Binational Health Council.

Cochise County

*Rosa Amelia Samaniego 552 N Grand View Drive Nogales, AZ 85621 (520) 287-2158

Start: 01/2008 End:01/2011 3 year term

New

Appointment (Served <1 year)

Retired Business Woman Santa Cruz County

J. Eleazar Garcia, MD Santa Cruz Council on Aging 125 E. Madison Street Nogales, AZ 85621


(Served <1 year)

Executive Director Santa Cruz Council on Aging

(Senior Citizens Centers) Santa Cruz County

Dianna Gonzales UCHC 81 W. Esperanza Blvd. Suite 201 Green Valley, AZ 95614


(Served <1 year)

Director United Community Health Centers

Pima County



SOUTHEAST ARIZONA AHEC GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS (SEAHEC)

Name / Affiliation / Contact Information

Term of Service (Years)

AHEC Program / Relationship County/Relationship

Neil Gago 2314 E. 16

th Place

Douglas, AZ 85607

Start: 01/01/07 End: 01/20/2010

3 year term (Has served 1 yr)

Paramedic, AirEvac

Douglas, AZ Cochise County

Kristobal Fimbres—President 2016 E. Broadway Boulevard

Tucson, AZ 85719

Start: 04/2007

End: 04/2010 3 year term

(Has served 9 yrs)

Executive Director of Native Images,

Tucson based Health Education program

for Native Americans

Pima County

*Jennifer Lakosil—Vice President 3220 E. Carr Canyon Road Hereford, AZ 85615


New

Appointment

Director - Nursing/Allied Health Cochise College of Nursing

Cochise County

Ethnicity Summary: 1 Asian 0 African American 4 Caucasian 4 Hispanic 1 Native American

*Indicates New or Reappointments.



WESTERN ARIZONA AHEC ADVISORY BOARD (WAHEC)


Contact Information

Term of Service

(Years)


County/Relationship

*Raymond Kronenbitter

RCBH/WAHEC Board Chair

2823 W. 22nd

St.

Yuma, AZ 85364

Start: 07/25/07

End: 07/25/10

New Appointment

3 year term

(Has served 6 yrs.)

Clinical Nurse

Yuma County

*Christi L. Brito

RCBH/WAHEC Board Vice-Chair

3444 Rubio Lane

Yuma, AZ 85365

Start: 12/01/07

End: 12/01/10

New Appointment

3 year term

(Has served 2 yrs.)

RN, BSN, MSN

Yuma Regional Medical Center

Yuma County

Victoria Holas

P.O. Box 929

Yuma, AZ 85366

Start: 1/02/08

End:12/31/2011

3 year term

(Has served 2 yrs.)

Educator/Respiratory Therapy

Arizona Western College

Yuma County

Doreen Lewis

3802 16th St

Yuma, AZ 85364

Start: 09/01/2007

End: 08/31/2010

3 year term

(Has served 2 yrs.)

CEO/President

Community Intervention Associates

Yuma County

Mary Rhona Franceour

P.O. Box 929

Yuma, AZ 85366

Start: 01/02/2008

End: 12/31/2011

3 year term

(Has served 2 yrs.)

Director of Nursing

Arizona Western College

Yuma County

Stuart Hamilton


2400 S. Avenue A

Yuma, AZ 85364

Start: 11/01/2007

End: 10/31/2010

3 year term

(Has served 2 yrs.)

Physician/Medical Director


Yuma County

Marion Shontz

La Paz County Health Department

1112 Joshua Ave

Parker, AZ 85344

Start: 11/01/2007

End: 10/31/2010

3 year term

(Has served 2 yrs.)

Health Director

La Paz County Health Department

La Paz County

Linda Reisdorph

Mohave Community College

1977 West Acoma Blvd.

Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403

Start: 11/01/2007

End: 10/31/2010

3 year term

(Has served 2 yrs.)

Director of Nursing

Mohave Community College

Mohave County

Christine Boatwright

Public Health Nursing Manager

700 W. Beale

Kingman, AZ 86401

Start: 01/02/2008

End: 12/31/2011

3 year term

(Has served 2 yrs.)

Manager

Public Health Nursing

Mohave County



WESTERN ARIZONA AHEC ADVISORY BOARD (WAHEC)


Contact Information

Term of Service

(Years)


County/Relationship

Kathy Cox

Lake Havasu High School

2675 S. Palo Verde Blvd.

Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403

Start: 09/01/2007

End: 08/31/2010

3 year term

(Has served 2 yrs.)

Principal

Lake Havasu High School

Mohave County

Ethnicity Summary: 0 Asian 1 African American 8 Caucasian 1 Hispanic 0 Native

American

*Indicates New or Reappointments



Contact Information: Betty Capaldi, Provost, ASU (480) 965-1244 [email protected] Liz Grobsmith, Provost, NAU (928) 523-2230 [email protected] Meredith Hay, Provost, UA (520) 621-1856 [email protected] Mark Denke, ABOR (602) 229-2503 [email protected]

Item Name: Proposed Revisions to Board Policy 4-105, “Procedure for Establishing Special Class Fees and Deposits” (Second Reading)


Background

ABOR Policy 4-105 governs special class fees and deposits. The stated purpose of special class fees is to allow the universities to cover expenses that are necessary for successful completion of the class objectives.

These expenses are: 1) Off-campus field trips or specialized equipment/facilities use; 2) Private instruction; 3) Expendable materials; 4) Technology expense; 5) Selected personnel expenses; and 6) Deposits.

The Board must approve special class fees and deposits greater than $50. Statutory/Policy Requirements ABOR Policy 4-105 “Procedure for Establishing Special Class Fees and Deposits.” Strategic Implications

Goal one of the 2020 Vision long-term strategic plan is focused on increasing the educational attainment rate of Arizonans by 2020 to the national average or above.

The 2020 Vision calls for the system to double the number of bachelor’s degrees produced by 2020, which would require more than 80,000 new students in the system over the next 12 years.

Providing the universities with adequate funding for the colleges, programs, and classes is a key component of this goal

Issue: The Board is asked to approve the proposed revisions to Policy 4-105 “Procedure for Establishing Special Class Fees and Deposits,” Section A, to update the dollar threshold where a class fee or deposit needs Board approval and Section B.5, which addresses additional applications of course fees.



Discussion The $50 threshold where Board approval of special class fees and deposits is needed was established 20 years ago.

Since the establishment of the $50 threshold, the threshold has effectively become more restrictive in relation to tuition levels as tuition and the costs of offering the courses have increased. During the last 20 years, the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI) has more than doubled. Hence, university flexibility to quickly respond to budgetary needs and the increasing cost of course materials and other expenses needed for the successful completion of course objectives has been lessened over the years.

An increase of the threshold where Board approval is not needed from $50 to $100 will reposition the flexibility of the university to the same relative dollar level when this policy was first approved.

The additional applications provide inclusion for special instructional support (Section B.5). The evolution of technologies of research and instruction has increased the need for specialized technological and other forms of personnel support for learning activities. Increased scope for use of course fees will enable the universities to sustain state-of-the-art instruction where costs are increasing substantially.

Examples for uses of instruction support include teaching support for multi-media learning, digital/graphic design, enhanced audio/visual developments, and assistants for small breakout groups, and recitation sections; preparation of materials, chemicals, supplies essential for classroom instruction; and group learning facilitators, including for supplemental instruction.

This policy change would not apply to costs for courses or lab sections taught by graduate assistants or teaching assistants who are the instructor of record. It would be effective for Fall 2010.

Policy Revisions

The proposed changes are shown on pages 3-6.

Key Data/Findings

Of the 31,320 courses in the course bank for the Arizona University System, there are 3,877 courses that have an approved fee.

Of the courses with fees offered for the 2009-10 academic year, 3,396 courses have fees of $50 and under, while 795 courses have fees over $50, producing $7.0 million in total annual revenue.



2008-9 course fees on page 7 provides greater detail regarding the numbers of course fees and total revenue from course fees.

Committee Review and Recommendation This proposed policy was reviewed by the Academic Affairs Committee at its April 13, 2009 meeting and was unanimously approved to move forward to the Board for approval. Recommendation It is recommended that the Board approve the proposed change to ABOR Policy 4-105, “Procedure for Establishing Special Class Fees and Deposits,” as presented in this Executive Summary.



[Excerpt of ABOR Policy 4-105.A with proposed revisions.] 4-105. Procedure for Establishing Special Class Fees and Deposits

A. Authority to Establish New Fees/Deposits New class fees and deposits shall be approved in writing by the University's Vice President for Academic Affairs/Provost and be in compliance with the definitions shown below. Departments shall submit written requests within the required deadlines of the registrar’s office in order to facilitate timely notification to students and necessary adjustments to on-line registration systems. Approval given after the registrar’s deadlines for the current semester will not apply until the next semester or session that the course is offered. Requests for new fees or deposits shall include the following information: Justification or purpose of the fee or deposit, basis upon which a deposit per student was calculated, semesters in which the course is offered, and the local departmental account where the revenue and related expenses will be recorded. New special class fees and deposits totaling more than $50 $100 or which do not comply with the definitions outlined below shall be submitted to the Arizona Board of Regents for approval prior to registrar’s deadlines for implementation. If concurrent registration is required between a lecture and a laboratory, the combined amount of new special class fees for the lecture/laboratory cannot be more than $50 $100 without Board approval. If an increase to the special class fees of such required concurrent registration lecture/laboratory totals more than $50 $100, Board approval of the increase is required before implementation. Increases to existing special class fees and deposits where the proposed additional fee or deposit totals more than $50 $100 shall also be submitted to the Arizona Board of Regents for approval prior to registrar’s deadline for implementation. Approval is not required each time the course with the special fee or deposit is offered. However, all fees or deposits are subject to change resulting from internal periodic reviews of the ongoing need for the fee including fund balance.

B. Definitions Pertaining to Special Class Fees or Requests



Special class fees and deposits for various purposes are defined below. Fees and deposits may not be imposed except under the following definitions, and in every case must be imposed only for expenses that are necessary for the successful completion of the course objectives.

1. Off Campus Field Trips or Specialized Equipment/Facilities Use

Group travel costs such as gas and mileage reimbursements, but not the cost of food except under unusual circumstances, such as, trips to remote areas where food is not readily available;

Admission fees to off campus educational facilities;

Rental or use fees for specialized equipment used exclusively for instruction, e.g., flight simulator, etc.; and

Rental or use fees for off campus facilities or on campus facilities where a usage fee is normally charged, e.g., use of a bowling alley.

2. Private Instruction

One on one study with an instructor in special areas of study, such as, music performance.

3. Expendable Materials

Materials of a specialized nature that are not readily available in retail stores;

Materials that can be purchased by the department in large quantities at significant cost savings to the students;

Materials that must conform to certain specifications and be identical for all students; and

Expensive materials needed by each student in such small quantities that they couldn’t economically be normally purchased in such quantities.

Arizona Board of Regents Policy Manual Chapter III, Section 3-803 entitled Bidding and Source Selection Procedures and the State Bidding and Source Selection Procedures should be adhered to.



4. Technology Expense Fees

Technology expenses must be course-specific, beyond the normally expected basic services, to be defined by each university.

5. Selected Personnel Expenses

Models hired for art classes and for clinical practice classes. Musical accompanists for music and dance classes for classes requiring them.

Supervisory instruction (including travel) for in-context training classes such as on-site student teaching; social work practicum (field experience); and nursing clinical experience.

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT (TECHNOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR MULTI-MEDIA LEARNING, DIGITAL/GRAPHIC DESIGN, ENHANCED AUDIO/VISUAL DEVELOPMENT, AND ASSISTANTS FOR SMALL BREAK-OUT GROUPS, RECITATION SECTIONS; PREPARATION OF MATERIALS, CHEMICALS, SUPPLIES ESSENTIAL FOR CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION, AND GROUP LEARNING FACILITATORS SUCH AS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION.) EXCLUDED ARE COSTS FOR GRADUATE ASSISTANTS AND TEACHING ASSISTANTS WHO ARE INSTRUCTORS OF RECORD.

Deposits

For expensive equipment or apparatus that is temporarily entrusted to students’ care, where the deposit must be fully refundable upon the return, in satisfactory condition, of such equipment or apparatus.

Board of Regents Meeting

June 18-19, 2009

Agenda Item #8

Page 7 of 7

Semester Total # of

courses in

the course

bank

Total # of

courses with

approved

fees

# of courses

offered

% with fees Number of

courses with

fees $50 and

under

% of courses

with fees $50

and under

Revenue

from $50 and

under

Number of

courses

with fees

over $50

% of courses

with fees

over $50

Revenue

from course

fees over

$50

Total

Revenue

from course

fees

Fall 2008 4,729 12.90% 532 11.25% $1,433,731 78 1.65% $438,410 $1,872,141

Spring 2009 4,612 13.34% 542 11.75% $1,681,465 75 1.63% $339,060 $2,020,525

$3,115,196 $777,470 $3,892,666

Semester Total # of

courses in

the course

bank

Total # of

courses with

approved

fees

# of courses

offered


courses with

fees $50 and

under

% of courses

with fees $50

and under

Revenue

from $50 and

under

Number of

courses

with fees

over $50

% of courses

with fees

over $50

Revenue

from course

fees over

$50

Total

Revenue

from course

fees

Fall 2008 2,356 44.65% 934 39.64% $595,423 118 5.01% $253,116 $848,539

Spring 2009 2,360 46.02% 968 41.02% $613,602 118 5.00% $254,312 $867,914

$1,209,025 $507,428 $1,716,453

Semester Total # of

courses in

the course

bank

Total # of

courses with

approved

fees

# of courses

offered


courses with

fees $50 and

under

% of courses

with fees $50

and under

Revenue

from $50 and

under

Number of

courses

with fees

over $50

% of courses

with fees

over $50

Revenue

from course

fees over

$50

Total

Revenue

from course

fees

Fall 2008 4,832 8.40% 209 4.33% $345,414 197 4.07% $289,509 $634,923

Spring 2009 4,780 8.78% 211 4.41% $341,501 209 4.37% $314,380 $655,881

$686,915 $603,889 $1,290,804

Semester Total # of

courses in

the course

bank

Total # of

courses with

approved

fees

# of courses

offered


courses with

fees $50 and

under

% of courses

with fees $50

and under

Revenue

from $50 and

under

Number of

courses

with fees

over $50

% of courses

with fees

over $50

Revenue

from course

fees over

$50

Total

Revenue

from course

fees

Fall 2008 11,917 17.35% 1,675 14.06% $2,374,568 393 3.30% 981,035 $3,355,603

Spring 2009 11,752 18.07% 1,721 14.64% $2,636,568 402 3.42% 907,752 $3,544,320

$5,011,136 $1,888,787 $6,899,923

ARIZONA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

TOTAL REVENUE FROM COURSE FEES


12,500

3,877

1,426

UA


14,085

31,320

2008-09 COURSE FEES

NAU


1,396

1,055

ASU

4,735

Board of Regents Meeting June 18-19, 2009 Agenda Item #9


Contact Information:

Dr. R.F. Shangraw, Vice President for Research and Economic Affairs, (480) 965-4087, [email protected]

Item Name: Authorization to approve a new award from the Department of Defense–Office of Naval Research N00014-09-1-0815. (ASU)


Background

ASU has received an offer of a new award from the Department of Defense-Office of Naval Research for support of a Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences project.

The objective of this project is to employ a novel, transdisciplinary methodology to enhance understanding of counter-radical networks of ideas and actors in critical locations in the Muslim world. It will identify and map networks of counter-radical discourse and the ideas, leaders, institutions, informal social networks and media upon which they are built. Through the innovative methodology a system for tracking shifts in opinions and influence will be constructed.

ASU project director is Mark Woodward.

The project period is April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2014. Statutory/Policy Requirements Pursuant to ABOR Policy 3-203. Strategic Implications

Provides ASU with increased visibility with research activities.

Promotes ASU’s research reputation.

Increases research expenditures. Discussion

No major policy issues or points for the Board to consider. Key Data/Findings Not applicable. Cost Summary The proposed amount of the award is for an obligated amount of $1,118,156 and anticipated award total of $4,970,737 federal funding. No matching or cost sharing is

Issue: Arizona State University requests Board approval for acceptance of a new

award of $1,118,156 from the Department of Defense–Office of Naval Research N00014-09-1-0815.

Department of Defense – Office of Naval Research N00014-09-1-0815. Department of Defense – Office of Naval Research N00014-09-1-0815. Department of Defense – Office of Naval Research N00014-09-1-0815. Department of Defense – Office of Naval Research N00014-09-1-0815. Department of Defense – Office of Naval Research N00014-09-1-0815. Department of Defense – Office of Naval Research N00014-09-1-0815. Department of Defense – Office of Naval Research N00014-09-1-0815. Department of Defense – Office of Naval Research N00014-09-1-0815. Department of Defense – Office of Naval Research N00014-09-1-0815. Department of Defense – Office of Naval Research N00014-09-1-0815. .

Board of Regents Meeting December 4-5, 2008 Agenda Item #9


required. Appendix Not applicable. Committee Review and Recommendation No Committee Review. Recommendation to the Board It is recommended that the Board authorizes ASU to finalize this agreement for the Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences project.




Contact: R. F. Shangraw, Jr., Ph.D., Vice President for Research and Economic Affairs (480) 965-4087 [email protected] Augustine V. Cheng, Managing Director, Arizona Technology Enterprises

(480) 884-1985 [email protected]

Item Name: Transfer of Technology to Synbuild, LLC (ASU)


Dr. Alexandre Y. Borovkov is an Associate Research Professor at ASU’s The Biodesign Institute (the “Institute”). Dr. Kathryn F. Sykes is an Assistant Professor at the Institute and an Assistant Professor of ASU School of Life Sciences. Dr. Andrey V. Loskutov is a Senior Research Scientist at the Institute.

Drs. Borovkov, Sykes and Loskutov (the “Founders”) are the co-founders of a company called Synbuild, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company (the “Company”). Subject to ABOR approval, AzTE will transfer certain technology in the field of gene synthesis produced by the Institute to the Company pursuant to the License Agreement. The technology transferred by ASU/AzTE will provide the basis for the Company to further develop and commercialize the technology.

Under the License Agreement, AzTE will own five percent (5%) of the outstanding initial units of the Company and will receive a royalty of between .5% to 3% on the Net Sales of any Patent Products and Other Products.

It is contemplated that the remainder of the Company’s equity will be owned by the Founders, executive managers, employees and other investors.


ABOR 6-909.10 (D) provides that a university may transfer technology to an entity in which a university employee is an officer, director, stockholder, or in which the employee maintains a material interest. As required by ABOR 6-909.10 (E), the ASU President certifies the following to the best of his knowledge:

Issue: Arizona State University requests Board approval to transfer technology

to Synbuild, LLC pursuant to a License Agreement between AzTE and Synbuild, LLC.



o The nature of the agreement has been described to the president; o The entity has demonstrated that the proposed agreement will benefit the

economies of the state or nation; o The proposed agreement does not violate any state or university contract; o University instructional activities, research and public service will not be

adversely affected; o No employee interest will adversely affect any state interest; o The proposed agreement does not violate ABOR policy on competition

with private enterprise; o As neither the Founders nor Synbuild, LLC intend to supply equipment,

material, supplies or services to ASU, no approval under A.R.S. § 15-1635.01 is required;

o The Agreement will compensate the university for the intended transfer of technology; and

o The ASU Office of General Counsel has approved the Agreement. Recommendation to the Board RESOLVED: It is recommended that the Board approve the License Agreement between AzTE and Synbuild, LLC.

Board of Regents Meeting June 18-19, 2009 Agenda Item #11 Page 1 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CONTACT: Dr. L.F. Huenneke, Vice President for Research


ACTION ITEM: Northern Arizona University requests authorization to approve a

continuing award from the U.S. Department of Energy.

ISSUE: Pursuant to ABOR Policy 3-203, Northern Arizona University (NAU)

requests Board approval for acceptance of a continuing award to NAU’s

Western Center of the National Institute for Climatic Change Research

from the U.S. Department of Energy. The proposed amount is $896,914

for a cumulative total to date of $7,212,817 and an anticipated total of

$8,853,703.

BACKGROUND:

- NAU has received an offer of a continuing award from the U.S. Department of Energy for

continued funding of the Western Center of the National Institute for Climatic Change

Research. The proposed amount of the continuing award is $896,914 for a cumulative

total of $7,212,817 and an anticipated award total of $7,212,817 federal funding. There

is no cost share/matching commitment.

- The U.S DOE NICCR program conducts climatic change research through four Regional

Centers, including the Western Center at NAU which encompasses thirteen western

states including Hawaii and Alaska.

- The NAU project director is Bruce Hungate, Professor of Biology (College of

Engineering, Forestry & Natural Sciences).

- The project period is 12/1/2005 through 11/30/2010.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS:

- The Western Center of the NICCR is the primary federal mechanism for fostering,

integrating, synthesizing, and disseminating experimental, observational, and modeling

research on predicted climate change in the western region and the impacts of that

change on the structure, productivity, and climatic interactions of the region’s natural and

managed ecological systems.

- The Center coordinates a competitive grants program developed in collaboration with

the other three regional centers of the NICCR.

RECOMMENDATION / CONCLUSION:

The Board of Regents authorizes NAU to finalize this agreement for the project for the program.

Board of Regents Meeting June 18-19, 2009 Agenda Item #11 Page 2 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CONTACT: Dr. L.F. Huenneke, Vice President for Research


ACTION ITEM: Northern Arizona University requests authorization to approve a continuing award from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

ISSUE: Pursuant to ABOR Policy 3-203, Northern Arizona University (NAU)

requests Board approval for acceptance of a continuing award to NAU’s

Center for Microbial Genetics and Genomics (MGGen) from the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security. The proposed amount is $1,281,220

for a cumulative total to date of $4,351,505 and an anticipated total of

$4,351,505.

BACKGROUND:

- NAU has received an offer of a continuing award from the U.S. Department of Homeland

Security for continued funding of the project High-Resolution and Highly Sensitive

Assays for Forensic Analysis and Attribution of Bacterial Biothreat Agents. The proposed

amount of the continuing award is $1,281,220 for a cumulative total of $4,351,505 and

an anticipated award total of $4,351,505 federal funding. There is no cost

share/matching commitment.

- This project will develop DNA fingerprinting assays for bacterial biothreat agents.

- The NAU Project Director is Paul Keim, who is a Regents’ Professor of Biological

Sciences (College of Engineering, Forestry & Natural Sciences), Director of MGGen,

and the Cowden Endowed Chair in Microbiology.

- The project period is 9/21/2006 through 4/30/2010.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS:

- The Center carries out research on dangerous pathogens, such as anthrax, plague and

tularemia, that are important to biodefense and in environmental genetics and genomics

as they relate to infectious diseases and ecosystem health.

RECOMMENDATION / CONCLUSION:

The Board of Regents authorizes NAU to finalize this agreement for the project for the program.



Contact Information: Nancy Tribbensee [email protected] 602-229-2510

Item Name: Proposed New Policy 3-703 “Identity Theft Prevention Programs” (Second Reading)


Background

A new Board Policy 3-703 “Identity Theft Prevention Programs” is proposed to comply with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requirements and to address risks associated with identity theft.


The FTC has promulgated “Red Flag” Rules that require financial institutions and other creditors that hold consumer accounts or other accounts which present a reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft, to develop and implement an Identity Theft Prevention Program for combating identity theft in connection with new and existing covered accounts. 16 CFR § 681.2.

The proposed Board Policy 3-703 reflects the FTC requirements, and requires each university to develop and implement an Identity Theft Prevention Program for the covered accounts they maintain.

The FTC rules require that the Identity Theft Prevention Programs be implemented by May 1, 2009.


The proposed Board Policy 3-703 is recommended to comply with FTC rules, as well as to address the serious risks associated with identity theft.

Discussion The proposed Board Policy 3-703 sets forth the requirements for the universities to adopt Identity Theft Prevention Programs as required under FTC rules.

Approved by the Board at its April 2009 meeting, the proposed Board Policy 3-703 went into effect on an emergency basis on May 1, 2009, to remain in effect for 90 days. It is being brought to the June 2009 meeting for final Board approval.

The proposed Board Policy 3-703 is attached to this executive summary.

Issue: The Board is asked to approve on Second Reading the proposed new Board Policy 3-703 “Identity Theft Prevention Programs.”



Committee Review and Recommendation The proposed Policy was reviewed and recommended for adoption at the Audit Committee meeting of April 21, 2009, and forwarded to the Board for First Reading at its April 30-May 1, 2009 meeting. Recommendation to the Board It is recommended that the Board approve the proposed new Board Policy 3-703, “Identity Theft prevention Programs,” as described in this Executive Summary.



3-703 IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAMS

A. THE PURPOSE OF THIS POLICY IS TO IMPLEMENT AN IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE “RED FLAG RULES” ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC), 16 CFR § 681.2.

B. EACH UNIVERSITY MUST DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A UNIVERSITY

IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM FOR COMBATING IDENTITY THEFT IN CONNECTION WITH NEW AND EXISTING ACCOUNTS COVERED BY THE FTC RULES.

C. EACH UNIVERSITY PROGRAM SHALL IDENTIFY COVERED ACCOUNTS AND ESTABLISH MEASURES TO IDENTIFY A PATTERN, PRACTICE, OR SPECIFIC ACTIVITY THAT INDICATES THE POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF IDENTITY THEFT (REFERRED TO AS “RED FLAGS”) IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE FTC REGULATIONS.

D. EACH UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT OR DESIGNEE SHALL HAVE THE PRIMARY

RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEVELOPING, IMPLEMENTING, AND UPDATING THE UNIVERSITY IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM.




Contact Information: Lorenzo Martinez, ABOR Central Office, (602) 229-2525, [email protected] Morgan R. Olsen, Executive VP, Treasurer and CFO, (480)727-9920;[email protected] Joel D. Valdez, Senior VP for Business Affairs, (520) 621-5977, [email protected] MJ McMahon, Executive VP, (928) 523-6104, [email protected] Jane Kuhn, Associate Vice President, (928) 523-7732, [email protected]

ITEM NAME: FY 2010 Capital Development Plans (ASU, UA, NAU)

Action Item Discussion Item Information Item Statutory/Policy Requirements:

Board Policy 7-107 requires Capital Committee review and Board approval of the annual and mid-year Capital Development Plans (CDP).

Strategic Implications:

Board Policy 7-107.C.3 allows universities to expend the lesser of $250,000 or 2% of project costs in preparation of the CDP.

Approval of the CDP allows universities to expend the greater of $500,000 or 3% of project costs for additional planning and design in preparation for the next phase of the capital review/approval process.

Summary:

In total, the CDPs for the three universities include 18 projects totaling $1.1 billion, and 5 third-party projects, for which costs are yet to be determined. The universities also plan to pursue federal stimulus funding for capital projects.

Each university indicates that its debt ratio would remain below the 8% limit in statute and Board Policy.

Arizona State University

The ASU Capital Development Plan includes 10 projects totaling $447.2 million, and 4 third-party housing projects. Of these 14 projects, ASU plans to advance the 4 third-party projects and 7 projects totaling $213.2 million in FY 2010. The advancement of the 3 remaining projects totaling $234 million is uncertain in FY 2010.

The projected debt ratio excluding SPEED projects is 6.5%, and 7.1% including SPEED projects. SPEED projects are exempt from the debt ratio limit of 8%.

Issue: Arizona State University, the University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University request approval of their FY 2010 Capital Development Plans.



ASU Project Name Est. Cost Status 1. Roof Replacements 17,200,000 Preparing planning

documents; project advancement dependent on legislative budget.

2. Storm Damage Prevention Mitigation 7,000,000 Preparing planning documents; project advancement dependent on legislative budget.

3. Phoenix Biomedical Campus Phase 2 (SPEED) 94,000,000 Schematic design will be completed by the end of May 2009. Plan GMP agreement by June 2009.

4. Academic, Operations & Deferred Maintenance Phase 3 (SPEED)

10,000,000 Beginning planning; intent is to submit for PIA in 2

nd

or 3rd

quarter of FY10.

5. Classroom & Laboratory Renovations Phase 3 (SPEED)

10,000,000 Beginning planning; intent is to submit for PIA in 2

nd

or 3rd

quarter of FY10.

6. Manzanita Renovation 65,000,000 Consultant review of options underway; intent is to submit for PIA in 2

nd

quarter of FY10.

7. Health Services Renovation and Expansion 10,000,000 Programming; intent is to submit for PIA in 4

th

quarter of FY10.

Subtotal 213,200,000

Third-Party Projects

Four-Year Colleges NA Planning underway; some locations likely to advance this year depending on level of third-party interest.

Block 12 Development NA RFP issued; advancement dependent on responses received.

Polytechnic – Student Housing NA Negotiations underway with private partners; advancement dependent on successful negotiation.

West – Student Housing NA Negotiations underway with private partners; advancement dependent on successful negotiation.

Projects Less Likely to Advance in FY 2010

New School of Construction Facility (SPEED) 34,000,000 Fund raising continues; awaiting legislative session resolution.

New Business School Facility 150,000,000 Under review.

Packard Drive North Parking Structure 50,000,000 Under review.

TOTAL 447,200,000

University of Arizona



The UA Capital Development Plan includes 4 projects totaling $477.2 million.


UA Project Name Est. Cost Status 1. Environment and Natural Resources Building

Phase II (SPEED) 68,000,000 Contracts with the selected

Design Professional and CM at Risk have been negotiated. Project start pending funding.

2. Phoenix Biomedical Campus (SPEED) 267,000,000 Schematic design will be completed by the end of May 2009. The GMP is scheduled to be agreed upon by June 2009.

3. Bryant Bannister Tree-Ring Building 12,200,000 Project ready to continue into schematic design.

4. Rio Nuevo Science Center/Arizona State Museum 130,000,000 PIA previously approved June 2008. Project is temporarily on hold.

TOTAL 477,200,000


The NAU Capital Development Plan includes 4 projects totaling $134.8 million, and one third-party housing project, for which costs are yet to be determined.


NAU Project Name Est. Cost Status 1. Native American Cultural Center 6,000,000 In programming phase;

ready to continue into schematic design.

2. Northeast Campus Infrastructure 6,500,000 Pending PIA-PA request. Project complete by Nov 2009 (pending JCCR review).

3. Phoenix Biomedical Campus (SPEED) 6,560,000 Schematic design completed by the end of May 2009. Plan GMP agreement by June 2009.

4. Wellness Center Project 115,750,000 Pending PIA request; ready to develop GMP for PA submission. Waiver for expenditures above 3% granted Jan 2009.



Third-Party Projects

Residence Hall NA Commencing proposal reviews. Will report negotiation parameters to Capital Committee.

TOTAL 134,810,000

Appendix:

Additional detail on each university CDP is included in the appendix under Tab 12A (ASU), Tab 12B (UA), and Tab 12C (NAU).

Committee Review and Recommendation:

The Capital Committee favorably reviewed the plans at its meeting on May 21, 2009, and requested the additional Status column information in the tables above in order to have a better sense as to which projects will actually be advanced FY 2010.

Staff is working on revising the structure for future CDPs so that there is a better distinction between projects that will definitely advance in the coming year, and which projects may or may not advance in that timeframe.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board approve the FY 2010 Capital Development Plans for Arizona State University, the University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University, as presented in the Executive Summaries.

Board of Regents Meeting June 18-19, 2009 Appendix Item #13A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1 of 69

Contact: Morgan R. Olsen, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, (480)727-9920; [email protected]

ACTION ITEM: FY 2010 Capital Development Plan (ASU)


PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: FY 2009 Revised CDP January 2009 BACKGROUND: ► Arizona State University requests approval of the FY 2010 Capital Development Plan

in accordance with Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) Policy, Chapter VII. The plan is a comprehensive inventory of major capital projects ASU intends to complete, subject to funding availability and Board Approval, within the next few years.

CHANGES SINCE THE FY 2009 REVISED CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: ► The University requests that the projects below be added to the Arizona State

University FY 2010 Capital Development Plan. Approval of the CDP would allow ASU to initiate design of the projects.

► Details regarding the following new and resubmitted projects are found in the project

justification reports in Attachment 2.

► New projects include the following: 1. Roof Replacements

This project is planned to replace aging roofs at the Tempe, Polytechnic, West, and Downtown campuses. Many of the roofs require replacement before the expected installation of solar power plants on rooftops. Other roofs have deteriorated or been damaged to the point that they can no longer be repaired and must be renewed. The estimated cost of this project is $17,200,000.

2. Storm Damage Prevention/Mitigation This project will remediate recurring flooding and storm damage issues in

facilities at the Tempe campus. State Risk Management recently determined that some ASU insurance claims were a result of long-term, unaddressed

ISSUE: Arizona State University requests ABOR approval of the FY 2010 Capital Development Plan (CDP), which includes 10 projects totaling $447.2 million, and 4 third-party projects, for which costs are yet to be determined.


deferred maintenance. Lack of deferred maintenance funding has prevented ASU from resolving the underlying causes of these claims, which, if it were available, would normally be funded from state building renewal/deferred maintenance funding. Issues include maintenance on storm drains, building exterior weatherproofing, and retention areas. The estimated budget for this project is $7,000,000.

3. Manzanita Renovation Manzanita Hall, a 215,000 gross square foot student residential building which has been in use for over 40 years, is in need of major renovations and/or improvements and a complete interior and exterior restoration. This project would remove obsolete building infrastructure and update building systems and spaces, allowing continued use of the building and ensuring it remains safe and hospitable. This project would be phased so part of the building can remain open during construction. The estimated project budget is $65,000,000.

4. Four-Year Colleges (Third-Party Project) As a next step in the development of its mission to increase access to high-

quality education and to increase the output of undergraduate degrees in Arizona, ASU has proposed the creation of a group of undergraduate colleges in communities throughout the state. The mission of the ASU undergraduate colleges will be to extend access for all qualified students to bachelor’s degree programs in the most popular fields, through high-quality, instruction-intensive campuses at tuition costs lower than those available at the University campuses.

Given the substantial development benefits that will accrue to the locales of

the colleges, ASU's planning for facilities assumes community partnerships will provide the means of funding the capital costs required. Conversations are underway with a number of municipalities on the possibilities. ASU seeks to move some of these discussions onto a fast track to allow colleges to be developed and opened over the next two years.

5. Block 12 Development (Third-Party Project)

This project is planned to develop a currently underutilized Tempe campus site. Depending on the option chosen, the project may potentially consolidate existing University leases, thus fixing rental rates for University uses, and/or provide ASU with an income property that creates employment, internship, and training opportunities. ASU will continue to study which option best serves the interests of the University and the surrounding community.

Board of Regents Meeting June 18-19, 2009 Appendix Item #13A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 3 of 69 ► The following projects have been approved on earlier Capital Development Plans and

are being resubmitted here in accordance with ABOR Policy 7-107.B.5.

6. New School of Construction Facility (SPEED) The project was last approved in the FY 2009 Revised CDP, submitted in

January 2009. The building would house the School of Construction, allowing for expansion of enrollment to meet projected industry needs. The estimated budget for the facility has been decreased to $34,000,000 from $40,000,000, as a result of cuts to SPEED funding. This new facility will house faculty and administrative offices, classrooms, dry laboratories, and ancillary spaces for support of the building and other university functions.

7. Phoenix Biomedical Campus (SPEED)

This project is being designed and scheduled in two phases to maximize flexibility and efficiency in its construction sequencing. Phase 1 includes the 265,000 gross square foot Health Sciences Education Building that could begin construction as soon as fall of 2009. Phase 2 includes the 375,000 gross square foot Arizona Biomedical Collaborative II building, which would follow. The Arizona Legislature’s decision to decrease the SPEED allocation by twenty percent has, in turn, reduced the initial cost estimate by $470 million to $376 million, to be shared among the three universities. It is important to note that alternative funding is being pursued to achieve the original funding level. In its presently planned configuration, the UA portion of the tri-university partnership is 71 percent; ASU’s share is 25 percent or $94 million, and NAU’s share is 4 percent.

8. New Business School Facility

The program for this facility has been initially defined as approximately 384,000 gross square feet. The estimated budget is $150,000,000. Schedule and final scope of this project will be determined by the success of fundraising efforts. The building is planned to be a mid- to high-rise, sustainable structure. The facility would house the entire school, encouraging integration of separate departments and programs, with a large footprint to allow for more than one academic unit to be housed on the same floor. Internal stairways would allow faculty, staff and students to move easily from one academic unit to another. The building is planned to house state-of-the-art classrooms, a lecture hall/auditorium, computer labs, specialized industry spaces, executive education facilities, conference rooms, interview rooms, and team space. Study areas for undergraduate, graduate, and executive students are also planned.


9. Academic, Operations and Deferred Maintenance Phase 3 (SPEED) This $10,000,000 project is the continuation of a series of projects formerly

known as Academic Renovations and Deferred Maintenance. The focus for Academic, Operations and Deferred Maintenance Phase 3 will concentrate on renovating space for academic units and addressing infrastructure and deferred maintenance on all ASU campuses.

10. Classroom and Laboratory Renovations Phase 3 (SPEED) This $10,000,000 project is the continuation of a series of projects formerly

known as Instructional/Research Laboratory Renovations. Many existing classrooms, classroom laboratories, research laboratories and research building systems are inadequate and require renovation. These projects will bring the University into compliance with code requirements for the facilities being renovated. The poor condition of the spaces and the age of building systems distract from instruction and constrain development in strategically important research areas.

11. Health Services Renovation and Expansion The original 8,604 gross square foot Campus Health Services building was

built in 1954, designed to house the student infirmary and heath center. A 15,200 gross square foot addition was made to the building in 1968. Since that time, the building has remained untouched with the exception of maintenance work and several minor renovation projects, while the student population has tripled and student health care service practices have evolved. This $10,000,000 project is planned to build a 10,000 gross square foot addition to the north of the current building, as well as renovate 10,000 gross square feet in the existing building.

12. Packard Drive North Parking Structure

In support of the University’s goal of becoming the model for a New American University, research facilities and residential housing complexes have been constructed on surface parking lots in the core of the Tempe campus, significantly reducing parking availability. In addition, the eventual loss of approximately 2,400 parking spaces in the surface lot known as Lot 59 North will further reduce parking availability for students and in support of Intercollegiate Athletic (ICA) events held at Sun Devil Stadium and Wells Fargo Arena. This proposed project will replace approximately 1,600 parking spaces on campus by constructing a parking garage, as well as office space for Parking and Transit offices. The estimated project budget is $50,000,000.

13. Polytechnic Campus Student Housing (Third-Party Project) This project is envisioned as a multi-phased, third-party project facilitated by a

private developer. The first phase will provide new student residential space of


up to 600 beds, possible renovation of existing units, and the creation of new student dining areas. All existing housing at the Polytechnic campus was designed and occupied by military personnel and is not fully conducive to current student resident needs. Some of the existing housing can be renovated and enhanced to continue to serve ASU students in the future. The 600 new beds are anticipated to be primarily for first-year students and delivered over two years, 300 in 2010 and 300 in 2011.

14. West Campus Student Housing (Third-Party Project) This project is proposed as a multi-phased, third-party project facilitated by a

private developer. The project’s first phase will provide student residential space of up to 600 new units, as well as student dining areas. The 600 new beds are intended primarily for first-year students and would be delivered over two years. This project would increase total West campus student housing capacity to 1,014 beds.

FEDERAL STIMULUS PROJECT REQUESTS:

► ASU is pursuing federal stimulus funding for the projects listed in the table below. This project list is the result of a rigorous internal selection process. In the event that federal stimulus funds are awarded to a select number of projects, an amended CDP will be submitted to the Board for approval. If no federal stimulus funds are awarded, some of the projects identified in the table below may be pursued by ASU with institutional funding.

Project Agency, Program

Federal Stimulus Request

University Funding/

SPEED Funds Total

Translational Impact Accelerator The Translational Impact Accelerator will facilitate the commercialization of technology developed by ASU researchers and foster an environment of innovation.

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

$10,000,000 $0 $10,000,000




University Funding/

SPEED Funds Total

Psychology Research Facility Expansion Expansion of research facilities within the Department of Psychology will allow Psychology to continue its cutting edge research.

NIH $10,000,000 $18,500,000 $28,500,000

Biochemical Core Facility Consolidation/Improvement The consolidation and improvement of existing Chemistry and Biochemistry core facilities will streamline use, foster collaboration and facilitate development of new lines of research.

NIH $7,000,000 $0 $7,000,000

Renovation of Price Road and Psychology Animal Care facilities The renovation will serve to advance University-wide research efforts by improving the quality of the facility and animal care provided.

NIH $9,000,000 $0 $9,000,000

Microscope Facility This project will allow for the creation of a regional microscope facility to house new high technology microscopes to advance regional research efforts.

National Institute of Standards

and Technology

(NIST)

$12,000,000 $0 $12,000,000

HVAC ERC Building As part of Academic Research Modernization efforts underway at ASU a new heating and air-conditioning system for the Engineering Research Center will be installed to reduce energy costs and environmental impacts.

National Science

Foundation (NSF)

$5,000,000 $0 $5,000,000

Renewable Energy – Solar This project would install photovoltaic solar on rooftops of various buildings.

Dept. of Energy (DOE), Energy

Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

Program

$55,800,000 $0 $55,800,000




University Funding/ SPEED Funds

Total

Solar Photovoltaic Electrical Generation Systems – Tempe Campus Parking Structures This project would install solar systems on three parking structures.

Dept. of Commerce,

Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

Program

$12,800,000

$0

$12,800,000

Additional Turbine for CHP This project would install an additional turbine for electricity redundancy to support research operations.

NSF, Academic Research Facilities

Modernization Program

$19,000,000 $0 $19,000,000

Large Renewable Energy Project (Solar Project) This project would install parking canopies with solar photovoltaic on most parking lots and multiple land areas.

DOE, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

Program

$300,000,000 $0 $300,000,000

Energy Efficiency/ Conservation Project Installation of multiple energy conservation measures in various buildings.

DOE, Energy Program

$39,000,000 $0 $39,000,000

Building Renewal/Renovation Project This project would correct building deficiencies at all ASU campuses.

Dept. of Education, State Fiscal Stabilization

Fund

$323,000,000 $0 $323,000,000

Tempe Campus Sewer, Domestic Water and Fireline Water Repair/Replacement This project would repair and/or replace the aging water system at the Tempe campus.


Fund

$50,000,000

$0

$50,000,000

Tempe Campus Infrastructure This project would repair and/or replace steam, condensate, and chilled water lines, as well as address necessary tunnel repairs.


Fund

$32,700,000 $0 $32,700,000




University Funding/

SPEED Funds Total

Polytechnic Infrastructure This project includes installation of new water, sewer, irrigation, and building conditioning utilities as well as new roads and sidewalks.


Fund

$55,000,000 $0 $55,000,000

Tempe Campus Fire Sprinkler Systems This project would install fire sprinkler systems in various buildings at the Tempe campus.


Fund

$6,800,000 $0 $6,800,000

Fire Alarm System Installations/Upgrades This project would install and/or upgrade fire alarm systems in numerous buildings.


Fund

$20,700,000 $0 $20,700,000

Hazardous Waste Facility or Hazardous Waste Facility Renovation Alternative This facility would provide a single point of entry for hazardous materials, enabling secure tracking and storage.


Fund

$10,300,000 $0 $10,300,000

FISCAL IMPACT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN: ► The CDP funding summary identifies total project costs by funding source, along with

the corresponding annual debt service and annual operation and maintenance costs (O & M). The tables present the University’s estimated debt service if next steps are taken to move these projects forward through the approval process. The plan shows that ASU would assume a total of $422,200,000 in additional debt if all of the projects were to be pursued at this time. The debt-financed projects, along with upfront cash gifts of $25,000,000 to fund the New School of Construction Facility and the New Business School Facility, result in total estimated project costs of $447,200,000. ASU anticipates that approximately $117,000,000 in existing debt will be retired over a three-year period, and that approximately $280,600,000 of debt will be issued for capital projects that are no longer on the CDP because they have received ABOR Project Approval. Overall, this would result in a net increase in debt outstanding of $585,800,000. ASU’s debt service requirement, excluding the SPEED projects, would be projected at 5.6 percent of total projected University expenditures, based on the 2008 Debt Capacity Report. Per the SPEED legislation (House Bill 2211), the debt


service on SPEED projects is excluded from the debt ratio. If the SPEED projects were included in the debt ratio, the estimated debt service would be 6.5 percent of total projected University expenditures, significantly under the 8 percent maximum, based on the 2008 Debt Capacity Report.

► The following table identifies the projected incremental debt service for projects included in the FY 2010 CDP:

(1) The total estimated project cost is $34,000,000. The portion that will be debt financed is $24,000,000 and the

remaining $10,000,000 funded by industry contributions. The debt service would be funded by State Lottery allocation proceeds and University tuition.

(2) The total estimated project cost is $150,000,000. The portion that would be debt financed is $135,000,000, with the remaining $15,000,000 funded from upfront cash gifts. The debt service would be funded by tuition and gifts.

(3) Debt Ratio Impact: Per the SPEED legislation (House Bill 2211), the debt service for this project is exempt from the debt service ratio calculation. If the debt service were included, the incremental debt ratio impact for these projects would be .51%.

► It is unlikely that all of these projects will be undertaken within the next few years, given current economic conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: ► That the Board grant ASU approval for its FY 2010 Capital Development Plan and

authorize ASU to add the following new projects to the CDP: (1) Roof Replacements; (2) Storm Damage Prevention/Mitigation; (3) Manzanita Renovation; (4) Four-Year Colleges; (5) Block 12 Development; and,

Project Name Amount Financed Debt Ratio

New Projects

ASU-Roof Replacements $ 17,200,000 0.07%

ASUT-Storm Damage Prevention/Mitigation 7,000,000 0.03%

ASUT-Manzanita Renovation 65,000,000 0.26%

Resubmitted

ASUT-New School of Construction Facility (formerly ISTB 6) (SPEED) (1)(3) $ 24,000,000 0.09%

ASU-Phoenix Biomedical Campus (SPEED) (3) 94,000,000 0.34%

ASUT-New Business School Facility (2) 135,000,000 0.49%

ASU - Academic, Operations & Deferred Maintenance Phase 3 (SPEED) (3) 10,000,000 0.04%

ASU-Classroom & Laboratory Renovations Phase 3 (SPEED) (3) 10,000,000 0.04%

ASUT-Health Services Renovation and Expansion 10,000,000 0.04%

ASUT-Packard Drive North Parking Structure 50,000,000 0.18%

Totals: 422,200,000$ 1.58%

Projected Incremental Debt Service - Indebted Projects - FY 2010 CDP


That the Board authorize ASU to resubmit the following previously approved projects on the CDP: (6) New School of Construction Facility (SPEED); (7) Phoenix Biomedical Campus (SPEED); (8) New Business School Facility; (9) Academic, Operations and Deferred Maintenance Phase 3 (SPEED); (10) Classroom and Lab Renovations Phase 3 (SPEED); (11) Health Services Expansion and Renovation; (12) Packard Drive North Parking Structure; (13) Polytechnic Campus Student Housing; and (14) West Campus Student Housing.






ATTACHMENT 1

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY FY 2010 CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN



Project Project Cost Funding Method * GSF Annual O&M

Board

Approval

Status

New Projects

ASU-Roof Replacements 17,200,000$ Bonds(2) 1,380,200$ (b) n/a n/a CDP Pending

ASUT-Storm Damage Prevention/Mitigation 7,000,000 Bonds(2) 508,500 (a) n/a n/a CDP Pending

Resubmitted

ASUT- New School of Construction Facility

(SPEED)34,000,000

Lottery Revenue

Bonds (2,6)/Gifts(10)1,743,600 (a) 80,000 830,000$ CDP 6/08

ASU-Phoenix Biomedical Campus (SPEED)** 94,000,000 Lottery Revenue

Bonds (2,4,6)6,829,000 (a) 160,000 1,912,900 CDP 6/08

ASUT-New Business School Facility 150,000,000 Bonds(2,9)/ Gifts(10) 9,807,600 (a) 384,000 3,435,000 CDP 6/08

ASU-Academic, Operations and Deferred

Maintenance Phase 3 (SPEED)10,000,000

Lottery Revenue

Bonds (2,6)802,400 (b) 75,000 n/a CDP 6/08

ASU-Classroom and Lab Renovations Phase

3 (SPEED)10,000,000

Lottery Revenue

Bonds (2,4,6)802,400 (b) 33,000 n/a CDP 6/08

Academic/Research Subtotal 322,200,000$ 21,873,700$ 732,000 6,177,900$

New Projects

ASUT-Manzanita Renovation 65,000,000$ Bonds(3) 5,215,800 (b) 215,000 n/a CIP 9/08

Resubmitted

ASUT-Health Services Expansion and

Renovation10,000,000 Bonds(3) 802,400$ (b) 20,000 59,000$ CDP 6/08

Resubmitted

ASUT-Packard Drive North Parking Structure 50,000,000 Bonds(3) 3,632,400 (a) 595,000 347,000$ CDP 6/08

Auxiliary Subtotal 125,000,000$ 9,650,600$ 830,000 406,000$

Auxiliary and Academic Subtotal 447,200,000$ 31,524,300$ 1,562,000 6,583,900$

New Projects

ASU-Four-Year Colleges N/A N/A N/A N/A CPD Pending

ASUT-Block 12 Development N/A N/A N/A N/A CIP 9/08

Resubmitted

ASUP-Polytechnic Campus Student Housing N/A N/A N/A N/A CDP 1/09

ASUW-West Campus Student Housing N/A N/A N/A N/A CDP 1/09

(a) Assumes 30 years, 6%

(b) Assumes 20 years, 5%

N/A

N/A

**Square footage and O&M costs are shown for the ASU share of Phase 2. Total GSF is 640,000; total annual O&M costs are estimated at $7,651,700.

* The reference numbers relate to the Debt Service Funding Source section of the bottom table on the following page.

N/A

N/A

Annual Debt Service

ACADEMIC/RESEARCH

AUXILIARY

Parking & Transit Services

University Student Initiatives

THIRD-PARTY



Funding Method: Total Cost Code Annual Debt Service

1. Certificates of Participation COP

2. System Revenue Bonds 284,200,000$ SRB 21,346,900$

3. General Fund Appropriations GFA

4. Federal Grant FGT

5. Upfront Cash Gifts 25,000,000 GIF

6. Upfront Local/Auxiliary Funds OTH

7. Lottery Revenue Bonds 138,000,000 LRB 10,177,400

Total 447,200,000$ 31,524,300$

Debt Service Funding Source: Total Cost Code Annual Debt Service

1. 301 Fund/Other -$ 301 -$

2. Tuition 90,900,000 TUI 6,753,300

3. Auxiliary 125,000,000 AUX 9,650,600

4. Indirect Cost Recovery 10,900,000 ICR 803,300

5. Other Local Funds - OLF

6. State Lottery Allocation Proceeds 110,400,000 SLP 8,141,900

7. General Fund Appropriation - GFA -

8. Federal Grant - FGT

9. Debt Financed By Gifts 85,000,000 DFG 6,175,200

10. Upfront Cash Gifts 25,000,000 GIF -

Total 447,200,000$ 31,524,300$

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FUNDING MECHANISM SUMMARY




Project Amount Financed 301 TUI AUX ICR OLF SLP FGT DFG OTH TOTAL

ASU-Roof Replacements 17,200,000$ 1,380,200$ $ 1,380,200

ASUT-Storm Damage Prevention/Mitigation 7,000,000 508,500 508,500

ASUT-Manzanita Renovation 65,000,000 5,215,800$ 5,215,800

Resubmitted

ASUT-New School of Construction Facility (SPEED) (1) 24,000,000$ 348,700$ 1,394,900$ 1,743,600

ASU-Phoenix Biomedical Campus (SPEED) 94,000,000 682,900 682,900$ 5,463,200 6,829,000

ASUT-New Business School Facility (2) 135,000,000 3,632,400 6,175,200$ 9,807,600

ASU-Academic, Operations and Deferred Maintenance Phase 3 (SPEED) 10,000,000 160,500 641,900 802,400

ASU-Classroom and Lab Renovations Phase 3 (SPEED) 10,000,000 40,100 120,400$ 641,900 802,400

ASUT-Health Services Renovation and Expansion 10,000,000 802,400$ 802,400

ASUT-Packard Drive North Parking Structure 50,000,000 3,632,400 3,632,400

Total 422,200,000$ -$ 6,753,300$ 9,650,600$ 803,300$ -$ 8,141,900$ -$ 6,175,200$ -$ 31,524,300$

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN • DEBT SERVICE BY FUNDING SOURCE

Fund Source Codes: 301 Funding (301), Tuition (TUI), Auxiliary Generated Revenues (AUX), Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR), Other Local Funds (OLF), State Lottery Allocation Proceeds (SLP), Federal Grant (FGT), Debt Financed by Gifts (DFG), Other (OTH).

(1) The total estimated project cost is $34,000,000. The portion that will be debt financed is $24,000,000. The remaining $10,000,000 will be funded by industry contributions. The debt service will be funded by state lottery allocation proceeds and University tuition.

(2) The total estimated project cost is $150,000,000. The portion that is assumed to be debt financed is $135,000,000. The remaining $15,000,000 would be funded from upfront cash gifts. The debt service will be funded by tuition and gifts.



Project Annual O&M 301 TUI AUX ICR OLF GFA FGT DFG OTH

New Projects

ASU-Roof Replacements n/a

ASUT-Storm Damage Prevention/Mitigation n/a

ASUT-Manzanita Renovation n/a

Resubmitted

ASUT-New School of Construction Facility

(formerly ISTB6) $ 830,000 $ 830,000

Phoenix Biomedical Campus (SPEED)* 1,912,900 1,912,900

ASUT-New Business School Facility 3,435,000 3,435,000

ASU-Academic, Operations and Deferred

Maintenance Phase 3 (SPEED) n/a

ASU-Classroom and Laboratory

Renovations Phase 3 (SPEED) n/a

ASUT-Health Services Expansion and

Renovation59,000 $ 59,000

ASUT-Packard Drive North Parking

Structure 347,000 $ 347,000

Total: 6,583,900$ -$ 59,000$ 347,000$ -$ -$ 6,177,900$ -$ -$ -$

Fund Source Codes: 301 Funding (301), Tuition (TUI), Auxiliary Generated Revenues (AUX), Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR), Other Local Funds (OLF), General Fund Appropriations (GFA),

Federal Grant (FGT), Debt Financed by Gifts (DFG), Other (OTH).

* Phoenix Biomedical Campus: O&M costs are shown for the ASU share of the building. Total annual O&M costs are estimated at $7,651,700.

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN • O & M BY FUNDING SOURCE


ATTACHMENT 2

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

FY 2010 CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

For:

Academic/Research/Auxiliary Projects Roof Replacements (New Project)

Storm Damage Prevention/Mitigation (New Project) New School of Construction Facility (Resubmitted)

Phoenix Biomedical Campus (Resubmitted) New Business School Facility (Resubmitted)

Academic, Operations and Deferred Maintenance Phase 3 (Resubmitted) Classroom and Lab Renovations Phase 3 (Resubmitted)

Manzanita Renovation (New Project) Health Services Expansion and Renovation (Resubmitted)

Packard Drive North Parking Structure (Resubmitted)

Third Party Projects Four-Year Colleges (New Project)

Block 12 Development (New Project) Polytechnic Campus Student Housing (Resubmitted)

West Campus Student Housing (Resubmitted)


Arizona Board of Regents Arizona State University

Capital Development Plan Project Justification Report Roof Replacements (New Project)

Previous Board Action: ► This project has not had previous ABOR action. Statutory Policy Requirements ► Board Policy 7-102 requires Capital Committee review and Board approval of projects

with a total project cost over $5 million. Project Justification/Strategic Implications/Project Compliance with Mission, Strategic Plan, Master Plan and Community Input Process ► ASU currently faces a deferred maintenance backlog in excess of $294 million due to

a lack of state funding for building renewal/deferred maintenance. Since 1987, the University has submitted building renewal requests exceeding $250 million while funding over the same time period has been less than 25% of what was requested. There were five consecutive years in which no funding was provided.

► Roofing problems have caused significant damage to ASU facilities, as well as

interrupting teaching, damaging and halting research, and destroying private property. If water infiltrations impact the electrical or environmental systems it can result in the shutdown of large areas within buildings. Leaking roofs quickly become a costly facility issue; however, the greatest risk is the potential for life/safety problems for students, faculty and staff. Leaking roofs can create dangerous conditions in the buildings, including: falling ceilings, slippery floors, growth of mold and mildew, and potential injury from electrical shock. Over time, water penetrating into the building envelope can result in major structural damage to the building as well.

► This project is planned to replace all the roofs at the Tempe, Polytechnic, West, and

Downtown campuses that require replacement immediately or within the next few years. Many of the roofs on campus are at or approaching the end of their useful life. As roofs wear beyond their useful life, the elastomeric material of which they are constructed has continued to contract and shrink, causing large fissures to open near the edges of the roof. These fissures are difficult if not impossible to patch.


► Additionally, many of the roofs require replacement in anticipation of future installation of rooftop solar power plants.

Project Description/Scope/Compliance with Space Standards: ► This project will replace approximately 860,000 square feet of roofs on all four ASU

campuses.

► The project will remove and replace building roofing. It will provide new roof accessories, flashing, curbs, sheet metal, and other items as necessary. Many of the roof replacement projects will require asbestos abatement prior to replacement of the roof.

► With this project, ASU will make structural repair or upgrades as needed for future installation of solar panels.

► ABOR Space Guidelines are not applicable to this project Programming and Design Costs to Achieve Project Implementation: ► Current Arizona Board of Regents policy (7-107.C.3 and 7-107.E.3) limits pre-Project

Implementation expenditures to the cumulative total of 2 percent of the total estimated project cost (an amount not to exceed $250,000), plus 3 percent of the total estimated project cost.

► ASU does not anticipate expending more than the costs outlined by ABOR in Policy 7-107.C.3 and 7-107.E.3 for programming and design services in order to provide the level of detail required to achieve Project Implementation Approval.

Project Delivery Method and Process:

► It is anticipated that this project will utilize the Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR)

method. This approach can save time through fast-track project scheduling. It provides contractor design input and coordination throughout the project; it improves potentially adversarial project environments; and it allows for the selection of the most qualified contractor team for each individual project. With the use of two independent estimates at each phase, and low bid subcontractor work for the actual construction, this method also provides a high level of cost and quality control.

► The CMAR will be selected through the capital project selection committee process

prescribed by the ABOR Procurement Code. A licensed contractor from the community will be included on the selection committee as required by ABOR policy. The design team will be selected through a similar ABOR process.


Project Costs: ► The estimated total project budget is $17,200,000. ► Overall, the project represents an average construction cost of $18 per square foot, or

$15,480,000 for 860,000 square feet of roofs. Total project costs will be $20 per square foot. Preliminary costs are based on a combination of deferred maintenance inspection estimates, recent ASU construction projects and the nationally-recognized estimating program RS Means. A list of comparable costs will be included at the time of Project Implementation Approval.

► For this Capital Development Plan phase, no external cost estimates have been provided by third-party consultants.

► The Construction Manager is at risk to provide the completed project within the agreed upon Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). A final report on project control procedures such as change orders and contingency use will be provided at project completion.

Project Status and Schedule:

► This project is in the conceptual phase. Design Professionals (DP) will be selected when funding and approvals are secured. Design will be complete in approximately three months after the DP contract is awarded.

► General construction will be scheduled to begin when all approvals are in place. Construction will be completed approximately 12 months after CMAR construction contract is awarded.

Fiscal Impact and Financial Plan:

► The project funding would be system revenue bonds. The debt service would be funded from tuition.

► There are no Operations & Maintenance costs associated with this project.

► Debt Ratio Impact: The incremental debt ratio for this project would be .07 percent.


Backfill Plan:

► Not applicable to this project.

Alternatives:

► ASU can continue to repair aging roofs; however, eventually these roofs will fail and ASU will ultimately have to replace the roofs to prevent facility damage. Roofs must also be replaced in order to prepare the facilities for future solar power plant installations.



Capital Development Plan Project Justification Report Storm Damage Prevention/Mitigation Projects (New Project)

Previous Board Action: ► This project has not had previous ABOR action. Statutory Policy Requirements ► Board Policy 7-102 requires Capital Committee review and Board approval of projects

with a total project cost over $5 million. Project Justification/Strategic Implications/Project Compliance with Mission, Strategic Plan, Master Plan and Community Input Process ► State Risk Management recently determined that some ASU insurance claims were

resulting from long-term, unaddressed deferred maintenance. Issues include failing storm drains, worn building exterior weatherproofing, leaking windows, worn-out caulking, cracks in building exteriors, and undersized retention areas.

► Stake Risk Management has directed ASU to come up with a plan to resolve these

issues. Should ASU not comply with this request, State Risk Management may discontinue funding the repair of facility damage claims that have been classified as recurring.

► The majority of these issues would have been resolved through regular building

renewal/deferred maintenance funding from the Arizona Legislature. However, because ASU has not regularly received annual funding for deferred maintenance, the means to repair these facilities has not been available to ASU.

Project Description/Scope/Compliance with Space Standards: ► Monsoon rainstorms with sustained high winds, horizontal rain, and localized flooding

have caused significant water accumulation and flood damage inside buildings. This project will address water infiltration to multiple buildings by storm and flood water.

► This project will repair or install new roof drains, storm drains, retention basins,

drywells, water-protected ventilation shafts, pumps, lift stations, troughs, windows, caulking, and doors. The project will address ground sloping and ponding of water, as


well as connections to appropriate drains. It will repair any degraded equipment that may lead to storm/flood damage.

► ABOR Space Guidelines are not applicable to this project. Programming and Design Costs to Achieve Project Implementation: ► Current Arizona Board of Regents policy (7-107.C.3 and 7-107.E.3) limits pre-Project


► ASU does not anticipate expending more than the ABOR-limited amount for

programming and design services to achieve Project Implementation Approval.


► It is anticipated that this project will utilize the Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) method. This approach can save time through fast-track project scheduling: it provides contractor design input and coordination throughout the project; it improves potentially adversarial project environments; and it allows for the selection of the most qualified contractor team for each individual project. With the use of two independent estimates at each phase, and low bid subcontractor work for the actual construction, this method also provides a high level of cost and quality control.

► The CMAR or CMARs will be selected through the capital project selection committee

process prescribed by the ABOR Procurement Code. A licensed contractor from the community will be included on the selection committee as required by ABOR policy. The design team will be selected through a similar ABOR process.

Project Costs: ► The estimated total project budget is $7,000,000.

► Comparable costs for this project cannot be determined at this conceptual stage of the

project. When the scopes of individual sub-projects are more clearly defined, comparable projects and costs will be provided. Costs will be determined based on the nationally-recognized estimating program RS Means.

► For this Capital Development Plan phase, no external cost estimates have been

provided by third-party consultants.




► This project is in the conceptual phase. Design Professionals (DP) will be selected when funding is secured. Design will be complete in approximately 3 months after the DP contract is awarded.

► General construction is scheduled to begin when all approvals are in place.

Construction will be completed approximately 18 months after CMAR construction contract is awarded.

Fiscal Impact and Financial Plan: ► The project funding would be system revenue bonds. The debt service would be

funded from tuition.

► There are no Operations and Maintenance costs associated with this project. ► Debt Ratio Impact: The incremental debt ratio for this project would be .03%. Backfill Plan: ► Not applicable to this project. Alternatives: ► There are few alternatives to this project. If these projects are not completed in a

timely fashion, liability to the University will increase substantially because State Risk Management may no longer cover repair costs for any project with a history of recurrence.



Capital Development Plan Project Justification Report (Resubmitted) New School of Construction Facility (SPEED)

Previous Board Action: ► FY 2009 Capital Development Plan June 2008 Statutory Policy Requirements ► Board Policy 7-102 requires Capital Committee review and Board approval of projects

with a total project cost over $5 million. Project Justification/Strategic Implications/Project Compliance with Mission, Strategic Plan, Master Plan and Community Input Process ► The School of Construction is one of 52 accredited construction programs through the

American Council for Construction Education (ACCE) and one of two Schools of Construction in the country. For nearly 50 years ASU has offered a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in construction. Enrollment has grown from 209 students in 1989 to the present enrollment of approximately 470 students, including 65 graduate students. The enrollment of women has increased from 6 percent to 11 percent. The school plans to double undergraduate enrollment in order to meet the industry’s needs for tomorrow’s leaders, as well as launch a doctoral degree program in construction, enabling the education of new faculty who will ensure and enlighten the school’s future.

► The School of Construction has drafted a new strategic vision to become one of the

top-rated Construction Management programs in the world. The School aspires to produce superior graduates, engage in breakthrough research, and create enduring partnerships in support of construction commerce. The realization of this vision requires a state-of-the-art facility to support the program’s growth.

► Consistent with increasing demand for higher education, ASU enrollment levels are

projected to increase in the decades ahead. As enrollment numbers increase, the current facilities cannot meet the needs of this growth. This project would provide the space and resources necessary to accommodate current and incoming School of Construction students, faculty, and staff.

► This project supports the University’s mission by providing the space and resources

necessary to accommodate a world-class construction program. In addition, this


project helps to create a world class University whose buildings and grounds reflect the scope and stature of a world-class educational institution.

Project Description/Scope/Compliance with Space Standards: ► The site under consideration for the approximately 80,000 gross square foot facility is

the southeast corner of McAllister Street and University Road. However, due to recent developments with SPEED (Stimulus Plan for Economic and Educational Development), funding for this project has been reduced by 20 percent. ASU is evaluating how the funding reduction will impact this project.

► The building is proposed to house faculty and administrative offices, classrooms,

department-assigned class laboratories, dry laboratories, and ancillary spaces. The building would be designed to achieve a minimum LEED (Leadership in Environmental Efficient Design) Silver certification. The building, plaza, and landscaping will be integrated with the Valley Metro Station and City of Tempe bus transfer station.

► The proposed program for the School of Construction is a combination of classrooms,

laboratories, offices and administrative support space. The new building also will provide space for the following centers for the School of Construction:

ACE (Alliance for Construction Excellence) CREATE (Construction Research and Education for Advanced Technology

Environments) PBSRG (Performance Based Studies Research Group) HRI (Housing Research Institute) International Construction Center Native American Construction Center Underground Infrastructure Center Centers to be developed

► The project will be in conformance with applicable ABOR Space Guidelines.

► To maximize the long-term investment in this facility, this project will be built to last 50 to 75 years. The facility has been designed in accordance with the ASU Design Guidelines, and will be constructed of high quality, durable, maintainable materials and building systems to maximize energy efficiency and minimize operational, repair and replacement costs.

Programming and Design Costs to Achieve Project Implementation:

► Current Arizona Board of Regents policy (7-107.C.3 and 7-107.E.3) limits pre-Project Implementation expenditures to the cumulative total of 2 percent of the total


estimated project cost (an amount not to exceed $250,000), plus 3 percent of the total estimated project cost.

► ASU anticipates expending $2,000,000 for programming and design services, in order

to provide the level of detail required to achieve Project Implementation Approval. Therefore, ASU requests the Board waive ABOR policy 7-107.C3 and 7-107.E3 for this project.



method. This approach can save time through fast-track project scheduling: it provides contractor design input and coordination throughout the project; it improves potentially adversarial project environments; and it allows for the selection of the most qualified contractor team for each individual project. With the use of two independent estimates at each phase, and low bid subcontractor work for the actual construction, this method also provides a high level of cost and quality control.



Project Costs: ► The estimated total project budget has decreased to $34,000,000 because of cuts to

SPEED funding. Previously, the budget was $40,000,000.

► The ability to move forward with this project is dependent upon the outcome of legislative funding and approval related to SPEED and the completion of industry fundraising efforts. Without legislative and industry support, no project will be pursued. A list of comparable costs will be included at the time of Project Implementation Approval.

► For this Capital Development Plan phase, no external cost estimates have been

provided by third-party consultants.




► This project is in the selection phase and the Design Professionals (DP) will be selected when approvals are secured. Design will be complete in approximately six months after the DP contract is awarded.

► General construction is scheduled to begin when all approvals are in place and

funding has been secured. Construction will be completed approximately 18 months after CMAR construction contract is awarded.

Fiscal Impact and Financial Plan: ► The project funding would be lottery revenue bonds and upfront cash gifts. The debt

service would be funded from state lottery allocation proceeds (80%) and University tuition (20%). Lottery revenue projections will need to be regularly evaluated before proceeding with the project.

► Operations & Maintenance funding costs of $830,000 per year would be pursued through the standard legislative appropriations process for new facility support.

► Debt Ratio Impact: Per the SPEED legislation (House Bill 2211), the debt service for this project is exempt from the debt service ratio calculation. If the debt service was included the incremental debt ratio for this project would be .09%.

Backfill Plan: ► The School of Construction is currently the primary occupant of the Urban Systems

Engineering Building, with approximately 27,500 square feet of the building. The existing facility would be backfilled with non-research-related functions. These functions would be moved from existing research facilities, thus allowing more intensive research activity in those facilities. All costs associated with backfill renovations of the School of Construction will be addressed in a future project.

Alternatives: ► Renovations of existing facilities would be less cost effective and would provide

marginal growth in space. Development of the School of Construction would be slowed without new space, thus reducing educational opportunities for undergraduates, and graduate and postdoctoral associates. The lack of new space also impedes workforce development and constricts research and development opportunities. Several locations for the facility have been evaluated; and it has been determined that the proposed location meets the most needs for the campus.



Capital Development Plan Project Justification Report Phoenix Biomedical Campus (SPEED)


with a total project cost over $5 million. Project Justification/Strategic Implications/Project Compliance with Mission, Strategic Plan, Master Plan and Community Input Process ► Arizona residents find access to quality, affordable health care increasingly difficult

and face a unique set of health-related issues: one of the nation’s fastest growing populations; a large retiree population; a rapidly growing, under-served, low income population; and special concerns of our Native American population. Through collaboration, Arizona’s three universities will address these issues by investing in biomedical and public health research and increasing the pool of healthcare providers. This is the vision of the Phoenix Biomedical Campus (PBC).

► The need for Arizona to educate more healthcare professionals is well documented.

Arizona is one of the nation’s fastest-growing states and suffers from a shortages of physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and other health professionals.

► The overall concept for the PBC is to accommodate a student population of 1,078 full-

time students, 2,668 part-time students and 491 full-time faculty. Programs served would include: UA College of Medicine with 150 full-time students per year. the UA College of Pharmacy with 100 full time students per year; UA College of Pharmacy with 100 full-time students per year; ASU College of Nursing, with a student population of approximately 2,400 students (who will be housed in the Downtown Phoenix Campus); ASU’s Biomedical informatics program with 100 full-time and 340 part-time students; and NAU’s Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, and Physician’s Assistant programs with an on-campus student count of 255 students.

► The decision by the Arizona Legislature to decrease the SPEED allocation by 20

percent will likely affect the square footage and program of this project. However,


alternative funding is being pursued to achieve the original funding level as well as the original scope.

Project Description/Scope/Compliance with Space Standards: ► This project is being designed and scheduled in two phases to maximize flexibility and

efficiency in its construction sequencing. Phase 1 includes the Health Sciences Education Building consisting of 265,000 gross square feet that could begin construction in the fall of 2009. Phase 2 includes the Arizona Biomedical Collaborative 2 building which consists of 375,000 gross square feet that would follow.

Programming and Design Costs to Achieve Project Implementation: ► Current Arizona Board of Regents policy (7-107.C.3 and 7-107.E.3) limits pre-Project

Implementation expenditures to the cumulative total of 2 percent of the total estimated project cost (an amount not to exceed $250,000), and, prior to the Project Implementation Phase, limits outside and professional services up to 3 percent of the total estimated project cost or $500,000, whichever is greater.

► ASU does not anticipate expending more than the costs outlined in ABOR in Policy 7-107.C.3 and 7-107.E.3 for programming and design services in order to provide the level of detail required to achieve Project Implementation Approval.


► This project is being delivered through the Construction Manager (CM) at Risk

method. This approach was selected for this project because: (1) it can save time through fast-track project scheduling; (2) it provides contractor design input and coordination throughout the project and reduces potential adversarial project environments; and (3) it allows for the selection of the most qualified contractor team for each individual project. With the use of two independent estimates at each phase, and low bid subcontractor work for the actual construction, this method also provides a high level of cost and quality control.

► The CM at Risk is DPR/Sundt, selected through the capital project selection committee process prescribed by the ABOR Procurement Code. Six (6) responses to the project RFQ were received and three (3) of the responding teams were short-listed for interview. A licensed contractor from the community was included on the selection committee as required by Board Policy. The Design team is CO Architects, selected through a similar ABOR process, with four (4) teams interviewed out of the fourteen (14) RFQ responses received.


Project Costs: ► The decision by Arizona Legislature to decrease the SPEED allocation by 20 percent

has, in turn, reduced the initial cost estimate of $470 million to $376 million, to be shared among the three universities. It is important to note that alternative funding is being pursued to achieve the original funding level.

► In its presently planned configuration, the UA portion of the tri-university partnership is 71 percent, the ASU share is 25 percent or $94 million, and the NAU share is 4 percent.

► The budget for this project was developed with the assistance of the Construction Managers for this project and in consideration of comparable costs from other recent ABOR projects. A list of these comparable costs is being prepared and will be included in the upcoming Project Implementation Approval submittal.


► The selected Design Professional (DP) is scheduled to complete Schematic Design by the end of May 2009.

► The GMP (Guaranteed Maximum Price) is scheduled to be agreed upon by June 2009. General construction is anticipated to begin when all approvals are in place and funding has been secured in the fall of 2009. Construction will be completed approximately two years.

Fiscal Impact and Financial Plan: ► The project funding would be lottery revenue bonds. The debt service would be

funded from state lottery allocation proceeds (80%), University tuition (10%) and indirect cost recovery (10%). Lottery revenue projections will need to be regularly evaluated before proceeding with the project.

► Operations and Maintenance funding costs of $7,651,700 per year would be pursued through the standard legislative appropriations process for new facility support. The ASU share of the cost is $1,912,900. This share may change as details regarding the overall budget and scope of this project are finalized.



Backfill Plan: ► A backfill plan is not applicable to this project. Alternatives: ► There are no alternatives that will address the critical shortage of healthcare

professionals in Arizona. The absence of a fully developed College of Medicine in Phoenix disadvantages Phoenix and Arizona now, and will adversely influence the quality of health care and the environment for continued development of Arizona’s biotechnology industry. A significantly expanded presence of the UA College of Medicine in Phoenix, with two synergistically related campuses that involve faculty from the universities, is the best strategic choice to advance Arizona’s healthcare needs.



Capital Development Plan Project Justification Report New Business School Facility


with a total project cost over $5 million.

Project Justification/Strategic Implications/Project Compliance with Mission, Strategic Plan, Master Plan and Community Input Process

► Approximately twelve years ago, in August of 1997, the W. P. Carey School of Business completed an AACSB (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business) report for reaccreditation. The report was overwhelmingly positive concerning faculty, students and programs. However, AACSB noted that the school must improve its facilities to reach the top echelon of business schools. The school subsequently hired architectural firms in 1998, 2004, 2007 and 2008 to conduct space studies, with each recommending the school build a new facility of 350,000 to 400,000 square feet.

► To meet the current iteration of the School of Business program fully, the school must

have an additional 150,000 gross square feet of space. Architectural and program studies show that a new facility would ensure the school’s current and future (growth) needs, and accommodate technology/infrastructure requirements.

► Current Carey School facilities are deficient in critical areas. Instructional spaces do

not meet industry standards for floor to ceiling heights, making technology installations difficult and often compromised. MBA classrooms, academic and administrative units’ offices, and student services spaces are all undersized compared to industry standards. The number of student team rooms, recruiting, and career management interview rooms needs to be doubled. Research space, best located in close proximity to the faculty and departments, was relocated into off-campus leased space five years ago. Teaching support areas for graduate and teaching assistants are not contiguous with respective faculty. Current space shortages have become critical deficiencies and are restricting even basic development of programs. The projected growth for faculty, staff and graduate assistants over the next five years is 159. Additionally, in the last year the undergraduate program’s extremely successful BA program has seen


enrollment figures grow with over 1,000 new students, increasing needs for new staff sooner than originally planned.

► Executive education is a key revenue source and a major component for the school in

attaining national recognition and top 25 status, yet the school does not have an executive education-specific facility and shares spaces with other programs. Executive Education plans to expand the program and facilities ten-fold to include dedicated classrooms, break out rooms, student study and interaction spaces, and dining facilities that can be shared with MBA Programs.

► A new facility will allow the School of Business to support world-class business

education in Arizona. The school’s current space situation directly impacts the ability to attract, retain, and educate top students; recruit and retain top faculty; and engage in community-based projects. A new facility would eliminate existing space shortages, which has constrained teaching, scholarship and service in the school, and would increase the overall quality of instruction using advanced state-of-the-art technology and delivery methods.

► The facility will also create a bridge between the business community and the school.

Probably the greatest addition will be that the school will be housed within one complex – greatly improving student service and creating a single, unified culture and identity for the school. This in turn will enhance the reputation and quality of undergraduate and graduate education and assist in the school’s drive to achieve world-class status.

► The W. P. Carey School of Business is a vital component in the continued

development of the economy in Arizona. The proposed facilities will strengthen the quality of both undergraduate and graduate education. Over the last decade, the school has made impressive progress in the national business school rankings and is poised to take its place among the top 25 business schools in the nation.

Project Description/Scope/Compliance with Space Standards: ► The program for the New Business School Facility has been initially defined as

approximately 384,000 square feet. In 2008 ASU hired a design professional to provide conceptual site plans, stacking plans, a building model, and estimated rough order of magnitude costs. The team also created marketing materials to assist the W.P. Carey School of Business in fundraising. As the scope of the project is more fully defined, the square footage may increase or decrease in order to meet University classroom and programmatic needs. Schedule and final scope of this project will be determined by the success of fundraising efforts.


► The building is planned to be a mid- to high-rise sustainable structure, with a minimum of LEED silver certification. The facility would house the entire school, encouraging integration of separate departments and programs, with a large footprint to allow for more than one academic unit to be housed on the same floor. Internal stairways will allow faculty, staff and students to go easily from one academic unit to another. Included in the planning will be: state-of-the-art classrooms; a lecture hall/auditorium; computer labs; specialized industry spaces; executive education dining facilities; conference/seminar rooms; interview and team rooms; and study area areas for undergraduate, graduate, and executive students.

► The building should include space to house all research centers and incubator labs

that support collaborative research. The building design would support community engagement and public events, with space for interactions between students, faculty and business leaders.


► To maximize the long-term investment in this facility, this project will be built to last 50

to 75 years. The facility has been designed in accordance with the ASU Design Guidelines, and will be constructed of high quality, durable, maintainable materials and building systems to maximize energy efficiency and minimize operational, repair and replacement costs.


► Current Arizona Board of Regents policy (7-107.C.3 and 7-107.E.3) limits pre-Project Implementation expenditures to the cumulative total of 2 percent of the total estimated project cost (an amount not to exceed $250,000), plus 3 percent of the total estimated project cost.

► Programming and design costs for the project through schematic design are not

anticipated to exceed the limits defined in ABOR Policy, Chapter VII (7-107.D.3).




► The CMAR will be selected through the capital project selection committee process prescribed by the ABOR Procurement Code. A licensed contractor from the community will be included on the selection committee as required by ABOR policy. The design team will be selected through a similar ABOR process.

Project Costs:

► The estimated total project budget is $150,000,000. The ability to move forward with this project is dependent upon the outcome of fundraising efforts.

► Overall, the project represents a construction cost of $325 per square foot and a total

project cost of $390 per square foot. Costs were determined based on preliminary estimates using a combination of recent ASU construction projects and the nationally-recognized estimating program RS Means. A list of comparable costs will be included at the time of Project Implementation Approval.

► For this Capital Development Plan phase, two preliminary external cost estimates

have been provided by third-party consultants.

► The Construction Manager will be at risk to provide the completed project within the agreed upon Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). A final report on project control procedures such as change orders and contingency use will be provided at project completion.


► This project is in the selection phase and the Design Professionals (DP) will be selected when funding is secured. Design will be complete in approximately six to nine months after the DP contract is awarded.

► General construction is scheduled to begin when all approvals are in place. Construction will be completed approximately 24 months after CMAR construction contract is awarded.

Fiscal Impact and Financial Plan: ► ASU would commit $50,000,000 of University funds to the project. The remaining

funds are planned to be raised by the W.P. Carey School of Business, the ASU Foundation, and from other sources.

► It is anticipated that $15,000,000 of the gifts will be collected upfront, resulting in a Revenue Bond financing of $135,000,000. Bonds will be repaid by the University’s commitment of tuition to service $50 million of debt and $85,000,000 in gifts beyond the $15,000,000 in upfront collections. The project will not proceed until such time as


a significant portion of the gift funds are securely pledged and a financing plan is in place for the remainder.

► The Operations and Maintenance costs are estimated at $3,435,000. Arizona State University will request a General Fund Appropriation for operations and maintenance support through the standard legislative request process.

► Debt Ratio Impact: The incremental debt ratio for this project would be .49%.

Backfill Plan: ► Academic programs will be identified to fill vacant program areas in the two current

business school buildings. Placing these programs in the former Business School spaces may require some renovation. FF&E and mediation upgrades are planned for classrooms currently in the buildings, when classrooms are available for renovation. Separate Project Approval would be submitted at a future date.

Alternatives: ► The W. P. Carey School of Business has considered several alternatives to

constructing a new facility. Expansion to the current facilities has been examined, but expansion would be disruptive, will not remediate the deficiencies with the Business Administration and Business Administration C-Wing buildings, and would not achieve the goals of the proposed new facility. The school has also considered other spaces at the Tempe campus, but the program could only be accommodated in existing space after major renovation and expansion, and currently, the amount of free space needed does not exist on campus. The school could do nothing or continue to lease additional space, but that option constrains growth, development, and research.



Capital Development Plan Project Justification Report Academic, Operations and Deferred Maintenance Phase 3 (SPEED)


with a total project cost over $5 million. Project Justification/Strategic Implications/Project Compliance with Mission, Strategic Plan, Master Plan and Community Input Process ► This project will concentrate on renovating space for academic units and addressing

infrastructure and deferred maintenance on all campuses.

► These projects will enhance the quality of the buildings with improved space for faculty, staff, and students. It will also bring several areas with existing facilities in compliance with code requirements, while addressing ABOR directives to reduce deferred maintenance. Projects essential for life safety/code compliance and University strategic initiatives have been given top priority. The continuing evolution of this project allows ASU to complete renovation and deferred maintenance projects critical to the mission of the University.

► This project supports the University’s mission by providing the space and resources necessary to accommodate current and incoming faculty, and staff. The improvements planned are needed to upgrade buildings to a safe, attractive, and inviting university environment, and to support the enrollment growth projected for ASU in the immediate future.

Project Description/Scope/Compliance with Space Standards: ► This project will renovate approximately 75,000 square feet of academic space, as

well as address infrastructure and deferred maintenance needs. Improvements needed include but are not limited to: heating and cooling systems, plumbing, electrical systems, carpet, interior and exterior paint, roofs, windows, doors, asbestos abatement, internal walls and partitions, elevators and fire prevention equipment.





► Programming and design costs for the project through schematic design are not anticipated to exceed the limits defined in ABOR policy.




► The CMAR or CMARs will be selected through the capital project selection committee process prescribed by the ABOR Procurement Code. A licensed contractor from the community will be included on the selection committee as required by ABOR policy. The design team will be selected through a similar ABOR process.

Project Costs:

► The estimated budget for this project is $10,000,000.

► Comparable costs for this project cannot be determined at this conceptual stage of the project. When individual sub-projects are identified, comparable projects and costs will be provided at Project Implementation Approval. Costs will be determined based on preliminary estimates using a combination of recent ASU construction projects and the nationally-recognized estimating program RS Means.

► For this Capital Development Plan phase, no preliminary external cost estimates have been provided by third-party consultants.

► The Construction Manager is at risk to provide the completed projects within the agreed upon Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). A final report on project control


procedures such as change orders and contingency use will be provided at project completion.


► This project is in the conceptual phase. Design Professionals (DP) will be selected

when projects are identified and approvals are secured. Design will be complete in approximately six to nine months after DP contract or contracts are awarded.

► General construction is scheduled to begin when all approvals are in place. Construction will be completed approximately 18 months after CMAR construction contracts are awarded.


► The project funding would be lottery revenue bonds. The debt service would be

funded from state lottery allocation proceeds (80%), and University tuition (20%). Lottery revenue projections will need to be regularly evaluated before proceeding with the project.

► Since this project consists of renovation of existing spaces there is no increase to the Operation and Maintenance costs.


Backfill Plan: ► A backfill plan is not applicable to this project, since it is renovation of existing space.

Alternatives: ► There are few, if any, alternatives to this project. In many cases, it is more feasible for

ASU to maintain and renovate existing facilities than to construct new buildings.



Capital Development Plan Project Justification Report Classroom and Laboratory Renovations Phase 3 (SPEED)

Previous Board Action:

► FY 2009 Capital Development Plan June 2008 Statutory Policy Requirements

► Board Policy 7-102 requires Capital Committee review and Board approval of projects with a total project cost over $5 million.


► This project is the continuation of a series of projects formerly known as Instructional/Research Laboratory Renovations. The Classroom and Laboratory Renovations Phase 3 project now includes classroom renovations. Many existing classrooms, classroom laboratories, research laboratories and research building systems are inadequate. These projects will bring the University in compliance with code requirements for the facilities being renovated. The poor condition of the spaces and age of the building systems constrains the development of these strategically important areas.

► Due to the age of ASU facilities, many classrooms are in need of renovations. Annual analysis of University classrooms provides a priority list for the most pressing needs to upgrade. The renovations are expected to improve the academic experience of our students and contribute to improving performance, retention, and graduation.

► The hiring of new faculty leads to ongoing pressures to update and renovate laboratory space. These laboratories will provide the core infrastructure from which faculty can compete in the global marketplace of ideas, stimulating not only advances in science and human health needs, but potentially stimulating the regional economy. This project will allow the University to adapt facilities for the requirements of research for new faculty.

Project Description/Scope/Compliance with Space Standards: ► This project will include the renovation of approximately 33,000 square feet of various

classrooms and laboratories in several buildings. It will include upgrading classrooms,


research infrastructure, laboratories and building systems to maximize adaptable and flexible technologies. The project will provide the University state-of-the-art classroom and research facilities.

► Classroom renovations have been identified to include work ranging from completing renovations/upgrades of existing classrooms, asbestos abatement, replacement of damaged carpeting, blackboards/whiteboards, classroom mediation and furniture.

► Classrooms and instructional labs will comply with current ABOR student station size standards. The research laboratories currently comply with overall 7-11 guidelines. These spaces will be upgraded with new building systems and technology. These improvements will comply with space standards where applicable.



► Programming and design costs for the project through schematic design are not anticipated to exceed the limits defined in ABOR policy.




► The CMAR or CMARs will be selected through the capital project selection committee

process prescribed by the ABOR Procurement Code. A licensed contractor will be included on the selection committee as required by ABOR policy. The design team will be selected through a similar ABOR process.

Project Costs:

► The estimated budget for this project is $10,000,000.


► Comparable costs for this project cannot be determined at this conceptual stage of the project. When projects are identified, comparable projects and costs will be provided at Project Implementation Approval. Costs will be determined based on preliminary estimates using a combination of recent ASU construction projects and the nationally-recognized estimating program RS Means.

► For this Capital Development Plan phase, no preliminary external cost estimates have been provided by third-party consultants.

► The Construction Manager is at risk to provide the completed projects within the agreed upon Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). A final report on project control procedures such as change orders and contingency use will be provided at project completion.

Project Status and Schedule ► This project is in the conceptual phase. Design Professionals (DP) will be selected

when projects are identified and approvals are secured. Design will be complete in approximately six to nine months after DP contract or contracts are awarded.


Construction will be completed approximately 18 months after CMAR construction contracts are awarded.

Fiscal Impact and Financing Plan: ► The project funding would be lottery revenue bonds. The debt service would be

funded from state lottery allocation proceeds (80%), indirect cost recovery (15%) and University tuition (5%). Lottery revenue projections will need to be regularly evaluated before proceeding with the project.

► Since this project consists of renovation of existing spaces there is no increase to the

Operation and Maintenance costs. ► Debt Ratio Impact: Per the SPEED legislation (House Bill 2211), the debt service for

this project is exempt from the debt service ratio calculation. If the debt service was included the incremental debt ratio for this project would be .04%.

Backfill Plan: ► A backfill plan is not applicable to this project.


Alternatives: ► There are few, if any, alternatives to this project. In many cases, it is more feasible for

ASU to maintain and renovate existing facilities than to construct new buildings.



Capital Development Plan Project Justification Report Manzanita Hall Renovations

Previous Board Action: ► FY 2010 Capital Improvement Plan September 2008 Statutory Policy Requirements ► Board Policy 7-102 requires Capital Committee review and Board approval of projects

with a total project cost over $5 million.


► Undergraduate student success and student retention rates improve significantly when students reside on campus because these students are supported in their transition to college and its continuing demands. Among first-time full-time freshmen, 81percent of those who live on campus return the following year, as compared to 76 percent of those who reside elsewhere. In response to these statistics, ASU has placed an emphasis on providing student housing in recent years.

► Manzanita Hall, which has continuously been in use for over 40 years, is in need of

major renovations/improvements and a complete interior and exterior restoration.

► This project will reflect the priorities of a new initiative in student housing called the 21st Century Project, which seeks to transform the student living model from dormitories to more livable, apartment-type spaces.

Project Description/Scope/Compliance with Space Standards: ► This project would perform renovations to student residential facilities on the Tempe

campus. The project would include a complete renovation of the 215,000 gross-square-foot Manzanita Hall. The building was constructed in 1967, and many building systems are in very poor condition because of age and heavy use.

► This project would reconfigure rooms, gathering spaces and lobbies, laundry and exercise rooms, bathrooms, classrooms, and all other areas in the building to current student housing standards. The project will upgrade or replace fire protection systems, plumbing, HVAC, windows, doors, mechanical, electrical, lighting, chilled water and


steam distribution, walls, elevators, signage, and security systems. The project would provide more areas for interaction and socialization, as well as a common room and a conference room to bring in other campus activities and students.

► As a result of this renovation, bed counts would likely be reduced from 980 to

approximately 700. This will allow the creation of more common areas, and more student space per unit.




anticipated to exceed the limits defined in ABOR Policy, Chapter VII (7-107.D.3).





Project Costs:

► The estimated total project budget is $65,000,000. ► Overall, the project represents a construction cost of $200 per square foot and a total

project cost of $302 per square foot. Budget costs were determined based on preliminary estimates using a combination of recent ASU construction projects and the nationally-recognized estimating program RS Means. A list of comparable costs will be included at the time of Project Implementation Approval.


► For this Capital Development Plan phase, two preliminary external cost estimates have been provided by third-party consultants.

► The Construction Manager will be at risk to provide the completed project within the agreed upon Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). A final report on project control procedures such as change orders and contingency use will be provided at project completion.


► Design Professionals (DPs) for this project have been selected and are proceeding with a feasibility study. When the study is complete, a CMAR will be selected and the design will be complete in approximately six to nine months.


Construction will be completed approximately 24 months after CMAR construction contract is awarded.

Fiscal Impact and Financial Plan: ► The project funding will be system revenue bonds. The debt service will be paid from

auxiliary generated revenues.

► This project will not increase Operations and Maintenance costs.

► Debt Ratio Impact: The incremental debt ratio for this project would be .26%. Backfill Plan: ► A backfill plan is not applicable to this project.

Alternatives: ► Manzanita Hall is beyond its useful life and requires renovation to remain in use. If the

building is not renovated, demolishing the building and constructing a new residential hall is an alternative.



Capital Development Plan Project Justification Report Health Services Renovation and Expansion


with a total project cost over $5 million. Project Justification/Strategic Implications/Project Compliance with Mission, Strategic Plan, Master Plan and Community Input Process

► The original 8,604 gross square foot Campus Health Services building was built in

1954, designed to house the student infirmary and heath center. A 15,200 GSF addition was made to the building in 1968. Since that time, the building has remained untouched with the exception of maintenance work and several minor renovation projects, while the student population has tripled and student health care service practices have changed. The project is planned to build and renovate sufficient space to improve the efficiency of Campus Health Services operations, which will ultimately improve student services.

► Health Services is committed to providing high quality medical care for students. This

project will allow for easier access to that medical care, allowing students to focus on academic pursuits.

Project Description/Scope/Compliance with Space Standards:

► The design concept for this project is to renovate 10,000 gross square feet of the

existing facility and to build a 10,000 gross square foot addition to the north. The program includes additional waiting rooms, patient examination rooms, consultation rooms, and offices for the following services: Urgent Care, Primary Care, Fast Track, and Women’s Health Specialty. The project will also include the addition of a large Clinical Research area on the second floor that can be utilized by the Office of the Vice President for Research and Economic Affairs.

► Mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection and communications systems in the

existing building will need to be evaluated, where applicable, to determine connectivity


to the addition. Sustainable design aspects and energy efficiency considerations will be incorporated into the renovation and expansion.







anticipated to exceed the limits defined in ABOR Policy, Chapter VII (7-107.D.3). Project Delivery Method and Process:




Project Costs:

► The estimated total project budget is $10,000,000. ► Overall, the project represents a construction cost of $325 per square foot. Preliminary

costs are based on the nationally-recognized estimating program RS Means. A list of comparable costs will be included at the time of Project Implementation Approval.





► This project is in the conceptual phase. The Design Professionals (DP) will be

selected when approvals are secured. Design will be complete in approximately six months after the DP contract is awarded.

► General construction is scheduled to begin when all approvals are in place. Construction will be completed approximately 18 months after CMAR construction contract is awarded.


► The project funding will be system revenue bonds. The debt service will be paid from

auxiliary generated revenues.

► The increase to Operations and Maintenance Costs for this facility will be $59,000. The Operations and Maintenance funding will be from Auxiliary Generated Revenue and Student Fees.

► Debt Ratio Impact: The incremental debt ratio for this project would be .04%. Backfill Plan: ► A backfill plan is not applicable to this project, as the increased space will allow the

University to meet the demands of providing the services necessary for a large and growing campus.

Alternatives: ► Alternatives considered to this project include leasing off-campus space, demolition of

the current structure and building a new medical facility, or moving into other space on campus. It was determined that the best option at this time was to renovate and expand the existing structure.



Capital Development Plan Project Justification Report Packard Drive North Parking Structure


with a total project cost over $5 million. Project Justification/Strategic Implications/Project Compliance with Mission, Strategic Plan, Master Plan and Community Input Process ► Parking space for the ASU community is at a premium. ASU Parking and Transit

Services is a self-supporting service organization dedicated to balancing the competing parking needs of a large and diverse metropolitan University.

► In support of the University’s goal of becoming the model for a New American

University, research facilities and residential housing complexes have been constructed on surface parking lots in the core of campus, significantly reducing parking availability. In addition, the eventual loss of approximately 2,400 parking spaces in the surface lot known as Lot 59 North will further reduce parking availability in support of Intercollegiate Athletic (ICA) events held at Sun Devil Stadium and Wells Fargo Arena.

► This proposed project will replace approximately 1,600 parking spaces on campus.

The project also will facilitate the build-out of office space for Parking and Transit Services, making way for the ASU Foundation to move forward with its plans to convert the space currently occupied by Parking and Transit Services (PTS) in the University Towers building into retail space. The new PTS offices will serve as a more accessible and efficient customer service center for the University community as well as for visitors to the Tempe campus.

► Potential building sites at the campus core, which will be vacated as a result of more

efficient structured parking facilities, are better utilized for academic and research facility needs.


► This project supports the University’s mission by providing the space necessary to accommodate increases in the number of academic and research facilities. As is shown on the ASU Master Plan, ground parking lots have been and will continue to be utilized as building sites in the campus core, allowing those buildings to be constructed in locations that will optimize their use and heighten their interdisciplinary value.

Project Description/Scope/Compliance with Space Standards: ► The Packard Drive North Parking Structure is proposed to be a four to five-tier

structure designed to accommodate approximately 1,600 vehicles at 595,000 gross square feet of parking space. A preliminary study indicates that this structure will include two passenger elevators, Parking and Transit offices, and a security camera system as part of the design.

► The planned building site is Lot 59 on the Tempe Campus. The site is located east of Packard Drive, north of the Packard Drive South Parking Structure, and south of Rio Salado Parkway.



► The project will be in conformance with applicable ABOR Space Guidelines. Programming and Design Costs to Achieve Project Implementation: ► Current Arizona Board of Regents policy (7-107.C.3 and 7-107.E.3) limits pre-Project


► ASU anticipates expending $2,000,000 for programming and design services, in order

to provide the level of detail required to achieve Project Implementation Approval. Therefore, ASU requests the Board waive ABOR policy 7-107.C3 and 7-107.E3 for this project.



method. This approach can save time through fast-track project scheduling. It


provides contractor design input and coordination throughout the project; it improves potentially adversarial project environments; and it allows for the selection of the most qualified contractor team for each individual project. With the use of two independent estimates at each phase, and low bid subcontractor work for the actual construction, this method also provides a high level of cost and quality control.

► The CM at Risk was selected through the capital project selection committee process

prescribed by the ABOR Procurement Code. ASU received five (5) responses to the project RFQ and three (3) of the responding teams were short-listed for interview. A licensed contractor from the community was included on the selection committee as required by Board Policy. The Design team was selected through a similar ABOR process, and three (3) teams were interviewed out of the eighteen (18) RFQ responses received.

Project Costs: ► The estimated total project budget is $50,000,000.

► The project represents a construction cost of $49 per square foot and a total project

cost of $84 per square foot. Costs were determined based on preliminary estimates using a combination of recent ASU construction projects and the nationally-recognized estimating program RS Means. A list of comparable costs will be included at the time of Project Implementation Approval.


► The Construction Manager is at risk to provide the completed project within the agreed upon Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). A final report on project control procedures, such as change orders and contingency use, will be provided at project completion.


► The project is nearing completion of the Design Development phase. The CMAR will submit the GMP when funding is secured.

► General construction is scheduled to begin when all approvals are in place. Construction will be completed approximately eighteen months after CMAR construction contract is awarded.


Fiscal Impact and Financial Plan: ► The funding source for this project would be system revenue bonds. Debt service

would be funded from auxiliary-generated revenues.

► Operations and maintenance costs are projected at $347,000 per year. Funding for operations and maintenance will be from auxiliary generated revenues.

► Debt Ratio Impact: The incremental debt ratio for this project would be .04%. Alternatives:

► Ultimately, ASU is seeking to reduce the number of automobiles that travel on

campus. ASU has actively worked towards this goal by increasing student housing; constructing facilities for bicycles and pedestrians; increasing coordination with local governments to create alternative modes of travel, including East Valley Light Rail; and other forms of mass transit, such as busses and shuttles. However, demand for parking has not waned, and though many alternatives have been discussed, this project is the most space-efficient way to replace parking stalls surrendered for new buildings.



Capital Development Plan Project Justification Report Four-Year Colleges

Previous Board Action: ► There has been no previous ABOR action on this initiative. Statutory / Policy Requirements ► Board Policy 7-102 requires Capital Committee review and Board approval of projects

where the control, financing, or ownership of the project and/or its delivery process is shared with other entities.

Project Justification/Strategic Implications/Project Compliance with Mission, Strategic Plan, Master Plan and Community Input Process ► As a next step in the development of its mission to increase access to high-quality

education and to increase the output of undergraduate degrees in Arizona, ASU has proposed the creation of a group of undergraduate colleges in communities throughout the state. The mission of the ASU undergraduate colleges will be to extend access for all qualified students to bachelor’s degree programs in the most popular fields, through high-quality, instruction-intensive campuses at tuition costs lower than those available at the University campuses.

► ASU is developing the academic plans for the curricular and organizational structures

that will allow these programs to be offered, and must simultaneously develop the facility plans to support the programs. Work on those plans is underway, but is not yet fully developed.

► Given the substantial development benefits that will accrue to the locales of the colleges, ASU's planning for facilities assumes community partnerships will provide the means of funding the capital costs required. Conversations are underway with a number of municipalities on the possibilities. ASU seeks to move some of these discussions onto a fast track to allow colleges to be developed and opened over the next two years.

Project Description/Scope/Project Compliance with Space Standards: ► The projects are intended to be third-party projects, facilitated by either municipal

partners and/or private developers. Details will vary by locale and will be driven by


individual circumstances and will be proposed as separate projects as each becomes clearer.

► The projects will be in compliance with applicable ABOR Space Guidelines. Programming and Design Costs to Achieve Project Implementation: ► It is anticipated that programming and design costs will be covered by the municipal

and development partners. ASU may advance very limited funds to procure early general plans to use in discussions with potential partners.


► The projects will be delivered through third-party partners. Circumstances for selection of design and construction teams will be determined in discussion with partners and will be advanced for ABOR review individually for each project.

Project Costs: ► Project costs are not yet determined, since they will vary based on the scope and

scale of each College, which in turn will be determined by the enrollment potential of each locale pursued. As a means of looking at possible costs, a preliminary assessment was developed for campuses of various enrollment sizes. The projects capital ranging from $24 million for a campus of 1,000 students, to $51 million for a campus of 3,000 students. These projects should be viewed as indicative only and specific programs and costs will be developed to review for each individual project. Cost structures also will need to be agreed to by the municipal partners covering the costs.


► Discussions are under way with potential partners, but are not advanced at this time to the point of defining specific schedules. The goal is to have some colleges open in two years, in either temporary or permanent facilities.

Fiscal Impact and Financial Plan: ► Capital costs are intended to be borne by partners. Operating costs for the programs

will be borne by ASU and covered by tuition collections and State support for enrollment.


Backfill Plan: ► The colleges will expand enrollment capacity and will not result in freeing space at

existing campuses. Alternatives: ► Expanded access can take many forms, from shared University centers to on-site

community college programs, to on-line education, and all should be used in the proper geographical settings. Undergraduate colleges will be an appropriate means of expanding access in locales with high enrollment potential and demand.



Capital Development Plan Project Justification Report Block 12 Development

Previous Board Action: ► FY 2010-2012 Capital Improvement Plan September 2008 Statutory / Policy Requirements ► Board Policy 7-102 requires Capital Committee review and Board approval of projects

where the control, financing, or ownership of the project and/or its delivery process is shared with other entities.

Project Justification/Strategic Implications/Project Compliance with Mission, Strategic Plan, Master Plan and Community Input Process ► This project is planned to develop a currently underutilized site on the Tempe campus.

Depending on the option chosen, the project may potentially consolidate existing University leases, thus fixing rental rates for University uses, or may provide ASU with an income property that creates employment opportunities, internships, and training opportunities. ASU will continue to study which option best serves the interests of the University and the surrounding community.

Project Description/Scope/Project Compliance with Space Standards: ► This mixed-use development is planned to create facilities that support ASU at the

Tempe campus. This project is envisioned as a third-party project facilitated by a private developer. This developer will be chosen through a RFP/RFQ (request-for-proposals/request for qualifications) process.

► ASU is evaluating several different options for developing the Block 12 site, to include

the conversion of off-campus, leased space into a single structure on this site, a new bookstore, street-level commercial or retail uses and market-rate residential.

► The project will be in conformance with applicable ABOR Space Guidelines. Programming and Design Costs to Achieve Project Implementation: ► It is anticipated that programming and design costs would be covered by the third-

party developer.



► This project will be delivered by a third-party developer, wherein the developer is chosen through an RFP process. The developer selection RFP is currently open.

► The RFP selection is divided into two phases. The first seeks to short-list the

respondents based on experience, financial capability and strength of team. The second phase requires a separate submittal providing details on the proposed financial plan, funding sources, project design and programming. The ultimate financing arrangement will be determined once negotiations are complete with the selected developer. However, the RFP states that the University is seeking to eliminate or minimize the credit impacts of this project. In any event, ASU reserves the right to pursue the financing structure that is in the best interest of the University.

Project Costs: ► ASU’s reason for seeking a third-party developer and manager is to minimize the

capital outlay by the University. The initial development phase is expected to be in excess of $70 million in cost, but will result in only negligible, if any, capital outlays by the University. The ultimate cost of all phases of this project may exceed $100 million. Costs for staffing and resources associated with University needs will be covered by rent and fees derived from the office and occupancy uses.


► The developer selection RFP process will begin in May 2009. A two to three-month public offering period is anticipated, with construction anticipated nine to twelve months after award.

Fiscal Impact and Financial Plan: ► The ultimate financial plan and impact will be determined once development

negotiations are complete. Backfill Plan: ► This project will provide for the consolidation of current off-campus leased space and

some additional office space as necessary.

Alternatives:

► Given the nature of this project, there were few alternatives to be explored. This project provides the potential for minimal impact on the University’s credit.



Capital Development Plan Project Justification Report Polytechnic Campus Student Housing

Previous Board Action: ► Revised FY 2009 Capital Development Plan January 2009 Statutory / Policy Requirements ► Board Policy 7-102 requires Capital Committee review and Board approval of projects

shared with other entities the control, financing, or ownership of the project and/or its delivery process.

Project Justification/Strategic Implications/Project Compliance with Mission, Strategic Plan, Master Plan and Community Input Process ► In response to a dramatic increase in projected enrollment Arizona State University

has determined that the Polytechnic Campus should increase its overall enrollment to 15,000 students by the fall of 2015 and provide housing for 25 percent, or approximately 4,000 students, by 2020. The intent to create a live-on-campus culture similar to the Tempe campus will require ASU to invest in the development of student services, including on-campus housing, retail and contract dining, a student union, and recreation facilities.

► These plans will require a fundamental shift in how the University views the

Polytechnic campus in relation to student housing, which heretofore has reflected the assumption that the majority of students’ needs would be met by the private, off-campus market. The University has embraced these strategies and is committed to creating a dynamic on-campus living environment, transforming its program and facilities to meet the following goals:

Redefine the academic atmosphere and social environment associated with living on campus by developing strong and supportive student residential communities

Provide students with a memorable and life-shaping undergraduate experience

Enhance the physical environment of the campus through the construction of new facilities, reducing the need for students to commute to campus

Develop a sense of membership, belonging, and identity for student residents and commuters that is associated with academic programs


Strengthen students’ connections to the University by creating exceptional indoor and outdoor spaces, creating memorable experiences that are life-shaping

Enhance collaboration with all aspects of the University to develop programs and services that reinforce student academic success, and development

Create spaces that improve student engagement with faculty and thus increase their potential for academic success

Develop a residential capacity that will serve all students who may choose to live on campus, especially entering freshman and transfer students

Develop student residential communities that support transition to college, first-year academic success, and sophomore retention in on-campus housing

► The project offers the opportunity to make an immediate impact on the character of

the campus core and introduce a new residential college model.

► This project is called for in the Campus Master Plan and the University Strategic Plan, both of which included significant community and student input. As the student housing project progresses, the selected developer will work with campus stakeholders in the design and programming of the new housing.

Project Description/Scope/Project Compliance with Space Standards: ► This will be a third-party project facilitated by a private developer, delivered in multiple

phases.

► ASU recently advertised through a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the ultimate development of 4,000 beds of student housing in a variety of configurations. At this time, there are no estimates as to how many square feet of space will be constructed. As outlined in the Campus Master Plan, new student housing is an integral part of the successful development of the Polytechnic campus. The buildings themselves will further define the physical campus, and the addition of a significant number of students living on campus will enhance and support virtually every program on the Polytechnic campus.

► The first phase of the project will provide student residential space of up to 600 new

beds, possible renovation of existing units, as well as student dining areas. This housing is primarily planned for first-year students and will be delivered over two years. This first phase would extend the north-south pedestrian mall from the Union, eventually up to the North Residence Halls. Existing housing may be renovated and enhanced to continue to serve ASU students in the future. All existing housing at the


Polytechnic campus was designed and occupied by military personnel and is not fully conducive to current University student residential needs.


party developer. Project Delivery Method and Process:

► This project will be delivered through a third-party developer, wherein the developer is

chosen through an RFP process. The developer selection RFP has been completed and negotiations are under way.

► The ultimate financing arrangement will be determined once negotiations are complete with the selected developer. However, the RFP states that the University is seeking to eliminate or minimize the credit impacts of this project. In any event, ASU reserves the right to pursue the financing structure that is in the best interest of the University.

Project Costs: ► ASU’s reason for seeking a third-party student housing developer and manager is to

minimize the capital outlay by the University. The first phase of the student housing development will exceed $45 million in cost, but will result in only negligible, if any, capital outlays by the University. The ultimate cost of all phases of this project may exceed $100,000,000. Costs for staffing and resources associated with the residence life programming provided by the University will be covered by rent and fees derived from the housing itself.


► The developer selection process is now initially complete and negotiations under way. The intent is to complete the first phase of housing by fall 2010.

Fiscal Impact and Financial Plan: ► The ultimate financial plan and impact will be developed and understood once

development negotiations are complete. The existing student housing at the Polytechnic Campus is encumbered by $20 million in bond debt. This debt must be retired prior to any new housing construction. The intent is to enter into a


public/private partnership which will retire the existing debt and allow the construction of new student housing on campus, without the University bearing the business risk or impacting its debt capacity. With this arrangement, ASU does forgo a large portion of the long-term revenue from student housing. However the ability to reserve the University’s debt capacity for academic program development is the paramount objective realized through a public/private partnership.

Backfill Plan: ► This project will replace the existing substandard housing at the Polytechnic Campus,

which will result in the demolition of those structures once vacated. Parking and Transit Services as well as existing tennis courts will need to be relocated for the first phase of the project. Planning for these relocations is currently under way.

Alternatives: ► Given the nature of this project, there were few alternatives to be explored. The

primary alternatives explored related to the choice between the University building the student housing or using a third-party developer to do so. The latter option was chosen because it allowed for the potential to minimize the impact on the University’s credit. Additionally, the success of a similar arrangement in the Vista del Sol project on the Tempe campus provides a model worth replicating at the Polytechnic campus.



Capital Development Plan Project Justification Report West Campus Student Housing

Previous Board Action: ► Revised FY 2009 Capital Development Plan January 2009 Statutory / Policy Requirements ► Board Policy 7-102 requires Capital Committee review and Board approval of projects

when the control, financing, or ownership of the project and/or its delivery process is shared with other entities.


► In response to a dramatic increase in projected enrollment Arizona State University has determined that the West campus should increase its overall enrollment to 15,000 students by the fall of 2015 and provide housing for 25 percent, or approximately 4,000 students, by 2020. The intent to create a live-on-campus culture similar to the Tempe campus will require ASU to invest in the development of student services, including on-campus housing, retail and contract dining, and recreation facilities.

► Increasing the number of student residents has required a shift in how the University views the West campus in relation to student housing. Previous thinking has reflected the assumption that the majority of students’ needs would be met by the private, off-campus market. Many of the existing students at the West campus are part-time, resulting in a smaller number of traditional-age freshmen than at most campuses. ASU’s desire is to increase this traditional-age group on campus, and to develop housing and academic success programs that will attract, assist, and retain those students through completion of their studies. Emphasis will be placed on the recruitment and retention of traditional-age, first-year, first-time-in-college freshmen, and the retention of on-campus students in living/learning communities. It is believed that the current academic connections that students have to their departmental major represent the kernel of connection that must be used to develop these integrated residential and academic cohort groups.

► This project is called for in the Campus Master Plan and the University Strategic Plan, both of which included significant community and student input. As the project progresses, the selected developer will work with campus stakeholders in the design and programming of the new housing.


Project Description/Scope/Project Compliance with Space Standards: ► This will be a third-party project facilitated by a private developer, delivered in multiple

phases.

► ASU essentially has completed the RFP selection process and is currently negotiating a development agreement to provide up to 4,000 beds of student housing in a variety of configurations. At this time, there are no firm estimates as to how many square feet of space will be constructed. As outlined in the Campus Master Plan, new student housing is an integral part of the successful development of the West campus. The buildings themselves will further define the physical campus, and the addition of a significant number of students living on campus will enhance and support virtually every program on the West campus.

► The initial phase of the project will provide student residential space of up to 600 new

beds, primarily for first-year students. The facilities will be constructed over two years. This initial phase of the project would increase total West campus student housing capacity to around 1,014 beds.


party developer. Project Delivery Method and Process:

► This project will be delivered through a third-party developer.

► The ultimate financing arrangement will be determined once negotiations are

complete with the selected developer. However, the RFP states that ASU is seeking to eliminate or minimize the credit impacts of this project. In any event, ASU reserves the right to pursue the financing structure that is in the best interest of the University.

► The scope of this RFP was based on consultation with ASU Residential Life, ASU

West Campus, a study prepared by Hanbury Evans Wright Vlattas, and the Comprehensive Development Plan for a New American University prepared by Ayers Saint Gross.


Project Costs: ► The reason for seeking a third-party student housing developer and manager is to

minimize the capital outlay by the University. The first phase of the student housing development will exceed $45 million in cost, but will result in only negligible, if any, capital outlays by the University. The ultimate cost of all phases of this project may exceed $100,000,000. Costs for staffing and resources associated with the residence life programming provided by the University will be covered by rent and fees derived from the housing itself.


► The developer selection RFP essentially has been completed and negotiations are under way. The intent is to complete the first phase of housing by fall 2010.


► The ultimate financial plan and impact will be developed and understood once development negotiations are complete. The intent is to enter into a public/private partnership which will result in the construction of new student housing on campus without the University bearing the business risk or impacting its debt capacity. With this arrangement, ASU does forgo a large portion of the long-term revenue from student housing. However the ability to reserve the University’s debt capacity for academic program development is the paramount objective realized through a public/private partnership.

Backfill Plan: ► This project is not anticipated to create vacant space on the West Campus.

Alternatives: ► Given the nature of this project, there were few alternatives to be explored. Options

investigated focused on the choice between the University building the student housing or using a third-party developer. The latter option was chosen because it allowed this project to minimize impact on the University’s credit. The success of a similar arrangement in the Vista del Sol project on the Tempe campus provides a model worth replicating at the West campus.



Appendix Item #13B Executive Summary Page 1 of 28

Contact Information: Joel D. Valdez, Senior Vice President for Business Affairs, (520)621-5977, [email protected]

Item Name: FY 2010 Capital Development Plan (UA) Action Item Discussion Item Information Item

Previous Board Action: June 19, 2008: CDP Approval July 24, 2008: SPEED Allocation Plan March 12-13, 2009: Revised SPEED Allocation Background The University of Arizona (UA) requests approval of the FY 2010 Capital Development Plan (CDP) in accordance with the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) Policy Chapter VII. The plan is a comprehensive inventory of major capital projects approved by the Board that the University intends to complete within the next few years. Changes to the Capital Development Plan The proposed University of Arizona FY 2010 Capital Development Plan does not include any new projects. The plan includes five (5) resubmitted projects (all currently adopted in the CDP) and one (1) previously approved project. It is important to note that Centennial Hall and Veterinary Sciences Research Building projects are not listed in the Financial Management Plan table on page 8 because they are not currently funded. These projects have been resubmitted in the CDP to assure that they may proceed in a timely manner should funding be secured in the coming fiscal year. Three Project Justification Reports which include Environment & Natural Resources II, Phoenix Biomedical Campus and Bryant Bannister Tree-Ring Building have been amended and are attached. The original Project Justification Reports for Centennial Hall, Veterinary Research Science Building and Arizona Science Center/Arizona State Museum-Rio Nuevo are included in this document in pdf file format for your reference (See Appendix).

Additionally, the UA federal stimulus package coordination effort is rapidly advancing to obtain federal stimulus funds that will assist specific research infrastructure and equipment projects, such as campus construction or renovation. Project budgets that were partially funded by the Stimulus Plan for Economic & Education Development (SPEED) will be placed in this category for augmented funding, which is noted in the narrative for each applicable project. This effort will also focus on securing funds for an

Issue: The University of Arizona requests approval of the FY 2010 Capital Development Plan as required by Board Policy 7-107(B).

X

x


Appendix Item #13B EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 2 of 28

additional list of projects which has been evaluated to meet our strategic goals and priorities should this funding become available. We have included these projects in this report so that we may be better positioned to act if funding is approved.

Finally, three (3) previously adopted CDP projects have been removed from the UA FY 2010 Capital Development Plan as they have received Project Approval this fiscal year. Resubmitted Projects (SPEED Related)

Environment and Natural Resources Building Phase II (ENRII): Project funding has been reduced from $90 million to $68 million as a result of the revised reallocation of SPEED funding approved by ABOR in March 2009 through the issuance of SPEED revenue bonds. This project will remain in the plan as a “Resubmitted Project.” It is important to note that alternative funding is being pursued to achieve the original funding level.

Phoenix Biomedical Campus (PBC): This project is being designed and

scheduled in two phases to maximize flexibility and efficiency in its construction sequencing. Phase 1 includes the Health Sciences Education Building consisting of 265,000 gross square feet that could begin construction in the fall of 2009. Phase 2 includes the Arizona Biomedical Collaborative II building which consists of 375,000 gross square feet that would follow. It is important to note that alternative funding is being pursued to achieve the original funding level.

The 20% reallocation has reduced the initial cost estimate of $470 million to $376 million to be shared between the three universities. In its presently planned configuration, the UA portion of the tri-university partnership is 71 percent or $267 million; ASU’s share is 25 percent, and NAU’s share is 4 percent. This project was approved by ABOR in March 2009 and will remain in the plan as a “Resubmitted Project.”

Centennial Hall: This project has been removed from the SPEED ($12M) funding request, which was approved by ABOR in March 2009. This project will remain in the plan as a “Resubmitted Project” with federal stimulus funding while alternative funding sources are being explored.

Other Resubmitted Projects

Bryant Bannister Tree-Ring Building: To meet the complex needs of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research (LTRR), this project has been relocated with a total project budget of $12.2 million. This new project location and configuration will allow for the critically needed growth of the LTRR, with all program components ultimately able to work collaboratively together in a single location.



This relocation will maximize the financial resources and provide improved accessibility to the facilities.

The relocated project will be located adjacent to the existing Mathematics East Building to accommodate the Tree-Ring’s office and research functions. Most of the archive/storage function will remain in its current location under the West Stadium until the current occupants of the Mathematics East Building are relocated at the completion of the ENRII project. At that time, all LTRR facilities will be more fully integrated. Bryant Bannister Tree-Ring Building-Project Site:

Veterinary Sciences Research Building (VSRB): The VSRB project is currently being considered for co-location and collaboration with other programs through potential funding from the federal stimulus grant programs. This collaboration could provide for unmet needs to facilities and improve the performance of each of the programs involved. Plus, this project would take advantage of potential economies of scale, allow for shared resources and improved efficiencies, and provide a stronger justification for the grant proposal. The proposal is expected to be near the $10 million limit for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) G20 grant program. Additional information will become available as the grant proposals are completed.



Previously Approved Project

UA Science Center/Arizona State Museum-Project at Rio Nuevo: This project is intended to relocate the UA Science Center and public exhibit portions of the Arizona State Museum to the museum district of the downtown Tucson redevelopment area. The $130 million project budget is to be completely funded by the City of Tucson and the Rio Nuevo District, with the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds. The UA Science Center and State Museum functions are to be co-located in the same facility to share resources, increase efficiencies and reduce costs. The project was due to begin construction in summer of 2009 and be occupied in early 2012. Due to the economic stresses on both the University and the City, and due to recently reduced TIF revenues, the project was put on temporary hold until such time as the economic situation allows for it to resume. Relevant terms and conditions of the UA/City/District inter-governmental agreement will remain in effect. All parties have confirmed their commitment to completing the project as soon as economic conditions allow. This project received Project Implementation Approval in June 2008, but due to its uncertain funding status, it will remain in the plan as a "Previously Approved” Project.”

Projects Removed from Capital Development Plan The following projects received Project Implementation Approval (PIA) and or Project Approval (PA), and have been removed from the Capital Development Plan.

Sixth Street Residence Life Facilities (PA – August 2008)

Residence Life Building Renewal III & IV (PA– August 2008)

Deferred Maintenance/Building Renewal Projects (SPEED) (Combined PIA-PA September 2008)

Federal Stimulus Project Requests UA is pursuing federal stimulus funding for the projects listed in the table below. As noted in the table, these projects will be funded by institutional, SPEED and/or federal funds or a combination thereof. This project list is a result of a rigorous internal selection process. In the event that federal stimulus funds are awarded to a select number of projects, an amended CDP will be submitted to the Board for approval. If no federal stimulus funds are awarded, projects included in the 2010 CDP will advance with reduced scopes and at the institutional funding level.



National Institutes of Health (NIH)- American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act (ARRA) Grant Proposals

Project


University Funding

Total

Phoenix Biomedical Campus Phase 1 Vivarium NIH CO6 grant application for Phase 1 PBC Campus vivarium needs $15,000,000 $0 $15,000,000

BioMed Imaging/Animal Care Facilities NIH CO6 grant application for needed facilities associated with the UA Medical Research Building $15,000,000 $0 $15,000,000

Pharmacy Research Bldg. Remodel NIH CO6 grant application for renovations and new construction to meet critical laboratory needs $15,000,000 $0 $15,000,000

Integrated Core Facility NIH G20 grant application for renovations to accommodate animal, imaging and analysis components $10,000,000 $0 $10,000,000

Veterinary Sciences Research Facility NIH G20 grant application providing facilities for collaborative efforts related to Veterinary Sciences $10,000,000 $0 $10,000,000

ARRA State Fiscal Stabilization Funds Requests

Project


SPEED Funds

Total

Phoenix Biomedical Campus Request for Stimulus funds to restore SPEED funding reduction $94,000,000 $376,000,000 $470,000,000

Environment & Natural Resources Bldg. Phase II New facility to bring five leading environmental sciences programs together – funds requested to restore SPEED reduction $22,000,000

$68,000,000 $90,000,000

Arizona Cancer Center A new outpatient cancer treatment and research center to be located in the City of Phoenix $183,000,000 $0 $183,000,000

Engineering Research Building A new Materials Research Institute Building to increase the quality and quantity of critical engineering research and education programs $65,000,000 $0 $65,000,000



ARRA State Fiscal Stabilization Funds Requests (continued)

Project


SPEED Funds

Total

Hypersonic Wind Tunnel A unique facility at the UA Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering Bldg. to test various atmospheric conditions at speeds up to Mach 8, as needed for various research programs

$8,500,000 $0 $$8,500,000

Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility A facility to accommodate large scale classified research initiatives in collaboration with Federal agencies and private sector partners

From $2,000,000 to $40,000,000 $0

From $2,000,000 to $40,000,000

Centennial Hall Renovations Upgrade of historic auditorium building for teaching and performance uses – funds requested to restore SPEED reduction, which resulted in this project no longer being funded $12,000,000 $0 $12,000,000

FISCAL IMPACT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN:

The UA CDP, if implemented, would cost a total of $988.7 million for new capital projects. These projects will be funded as follows: $207.8 million by SPEED bonds anticipated to be issued in FY2010, $9 million by gift funds, $130 million from Tax Increment Financing to be provided by the City of Tucson, $3.2 million from Local Funds, and $511.5 million by Federal Stimulus Funds (pending approval). The remaining $127.2 million will be funded by SPEED bonds to be issued in FY2011. By the end of FY2010, in which the UA anticipates issuing $207.8 million in SPEED bonds to finance projects in the CDP and $279.8 million in bonds to finance previously approved projects, the UA will have retired approximately $83.2 million of current outstanding bonds and certificates of participation. This would result in a net increase of $404.4 million in outstanding debt. The debt service associated with SPEED projects financings will be funded up to 80% by State Lottery Revenue Allocations and 20% from tuition revenues. Debt service on financing for previously approved Residence Life projects will be funded from auxiliary funds. Operation and maintenance costs associated with projects in the CDP totaling $10.4 million will be funded by general funds, indirect cost recovery funds, local funds, and auxiliary funds. Debt Ratio Impact: The projected debt ratio previously approved by the Board in the University FY 2009-2011 Capital Improvement Plan was 6.2% excluding SPEED



project financing and 7.2% including SPEED project financing. The projected highest debt ratio for the current Capital Development Plan is 5.8% excluding SPEED project financing and 6.8% including SPEED project financing. The 5.8% debt ratio is comfortably below the maximum ABOR policy and state statute limit of 8%. The reduction in the debt ratio is due to the University’s decision to defer debt financing of the Warren Avenue Parking Garage project and the Mosaic Enterprise Systems Replacement project. The projected debt ratio includes projects listed in the CDP and projects that previously received project approval. The following table lists the incremental debt ratio for each project.

Projected Incremental Debt Ratios - FY2010 Capital Development Plan

ABOR & A.R.S.

Project Name Amount Finance Debt Ratio

Resubmitted Projects

Phoenix Biomedical Campus (SPEED) 175,800,000$ 1 0.71%

Environ. & Natural Resources Building (ENRII)(SPEED) 32,000,000$ 1 0.12%

Previously Approved Projects

Sixth Street Residence Halls 174,500,000$ 2 0.63%

Residence Life Building Renewal III & IV 37,300,000$ 0.13%

Deferred Maint./Building Renewal (SPEED) 68,000,000$ 1 0.22%

Total 487,600,000$

1) SPEED project debt service will be structured with interest payments for the first five years followed by

principal and interest payments through bond maturity. Annual debt service funding is from the allocation of State lottery revenues up to 80% and tuition revenues for the remaining 20%.

2) This financing amount includes $17.8 million for capitalized interest and $156.7 million for project construction.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board approve the proposed revisions to the FY 2010 Capital Development Plan as presented in the Executive Summary.



THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA


Project

Project

Cost

Funding

Mechanism

(1)

Annual

Debt Svc.

(2) GSF

Annual

O & M

Board

Approval

Status (3)

ACADEMIC/RESEARCH

New Capital Project Proposals


ENRII-Environment and Natural

Resources Building Phase II 68,000,000 Speed Bonds 2,325,000 110,500 1,249,700 CDP 6/08

Phoenix Biomedical Campus 267,000,000 Speed Bonds 12,772,000 454,400 5,432,700

CIP 2006

CIP 2009

CDP 6/08

Bryant Bannister Tree-Ring Building 12,200,000

$9M-GIF/

$3.2M-LF 20,000 226,200

CDP 6/07

CDP 12/07

Previously Approved

UA Science Center/Arizona State

Museum-Rio Nuevo 130,000,000 OTH 0 111,111 946,100

CDP 6/08

PIA 6/08

Academic/Research Subtotal

477,200,000

-

15,097,000

696,011

7,854,700

AUXILIARY/STUDENT FEE


Previously Approved

Auxiliary Subtotal

Student Fee Subtotal

-

-

-

-

INFRASTRUCTURE


Previously Approved

Cumulative Totals

477,200,000

15,097,000

696,011 7,854,700



THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA FY 2010 CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN


Fund Source Description Code Total Cost Annual Debt

Service

1. Certificates of Participation COP

2. System Revenue Bonds SRB

3. SPEED Bonds SB $335,000,000 $15,097,000

4. State Appropriations SAP


6. Local Funds LF $3,200,000

7. Gifts GIF $9,000,000

8. Other OTH $130,000,000

Total $477,200,000 $15,097,000

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FUNDING SUMMARY

Fund Source Description Code Total Cost Annual Debt

Service

1. 301 Funding 301

2. Tuition TUI $67,000,000 $3,019,400

3. Auxiliary AUX

4. Local Funds LF $3,200,000

5. Indirect Cost Recovery ICR

6. General Funds GFA

7. Research Infrastructure Appropriation (5) RIA

8. State Lottery Revenue Allocation SLRA $268,000,000 $12,077,600

8. Debt Financed by Gifts DFG

9. Student Fee SF


11. Gifts GIF $9,000,000

12. Other OTH $130,000,000

Total $477,200,000 $15,097,000

Notes:

1) Funding Mechanism Codes: Certificates of Participation (COP), Federal Grant (FGT), Gifts (GIF),

Other (OTH), State Appropriation (SAP), System Revenue Bonds (SRB), Local Funds (LF)

2) Debt Service on SPEED Bonds assume: 35 years maturity, interest rate of 6%. The debt service for SPEED projects

is structured with interest only payments for the first five years, follow with principal and interest payment.

Debt service amounts reflected are principal and interest

3) Board Approval Status Codes: CDP - Capital Development Plan, PIA - Project Implementation Approval,

PA - Project Approval, Pending - requesting approval at the next board meeting.

4) Project to be funded by City of Tucson's Rio Nuevo TIF District. Therefore, UA will assume no debt service obligations.

5) Research Infrastructure Appropriation (RIA) is funded via House Bill 2529.





CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN DEBT SERVICE BY FUNDING SOURCE

Project Amount Financed GIF TUI AUX LF ICR GFA SLRA SF


New Projects Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0


ENRII-Environment and Natural Resources Building Phase II $68,000,000 $465,000 $1,860,000

Phoenix Biomedical Campus $267,000,000 $2,554,400 $10,217,600

Bryant Bannister Tree-Ring Research Building

Resubmitted Projects Total $335,000,000 $0 $3,019,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,077,600 $0

Previously Approved

UA Science Center/Arizona State Museum- Rio Nuevo $130,000,000

Previously Approved Projects Subtotal $130,000,000 $0 $6,038,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Totals $465,000,000 $0 $9,058,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,077,600 $0

Notes: *Debt Service: 20, 25 or 30 years, interest rate no higher than 6.0%.

Fund Source Codes: 301 Funding and/or Other (301 / OTH), Tuition (TUI), Auxiliary (AUX), Local Funds (LF), Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR),

General Funds (GFA), Debt Financed by Gifts (DFG), Federal Grant (FGT), Gifts (GIF), Other (OTH), Student Fee (SF).

State Lottery Revenue Allocation (SRLA)





CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OPERATION & MAINTENANCE BY FUNDING

SOURCE

Project Estimated O&M 301/OTH TUI AUX LF ICR FGT GFA


New Projects Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


ENRII-Environment and Natural Resources Building Phase II 1,249,700 1,249,700

Phoenix Biomedical Campus (1) 5,432,700 5,432,700

Bryant Bannister Tree-Ring Research Building 226,200 226,200

Resubmitted Projects Total 6,908,600 0 0 0 0 0 6,908,600

Previously Approved

UA Science Center/Arizona State Museum-Rio Nuevo 946,100 946,100

Previous Projects Subtotal 946,100 0 0 0 0 0 946,100

Totals 7,854,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,854,700

Note: Fund Source Codes: 301 Funding (301), Tuition (TUI), Auxiliary (AUX, Local Funds (LF), Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR), General Funds (GFA)

Other (OTH), Federal Grant (FGT)

(1) Represents The University of Arizona share of the total O&M costs of $7,651,700.



Arizona Board of Regents FY 2010 Capital Development Plan

Revised Project Justification Report

The University of Arizona – Phoenix Biomedical Campus (SPEED)

Previous Board Action

FY 2009 Capital Development Plan June 2008 Project Justification/Strategic Implications/Project Compliance with Mission, Strategic Plan, Master Plan and Community Input Process

Arizona residents find access to quality, affordable health care increasingly difficult and face a unique set of health related issues: one of the nation’s fastest growing populations; a large retiree population; a rapidly growing, under-served, low income population and special concerns for our Native American population. Through collaboration, the state’s three universities will address these issues by investing in biomedical and public health research and increasing the pool of healthcare providers. This is the vision of the Phoenix Biomedical Campus (PBC).

The need for Arizona to educate more healthcare professionals is well documented. Arizona is one of the nation’s fastest-growing states and suffers from a shortage of physicians, pharmacists, nurses and other healthcare professionals.

The overall concept for the PBC is to accommodate a student population of 1,078 full time students, 2,668 part-time students and 491 full-time faculty. Programs served would include: UA College of Medicine with 150 full-time students per year, UA College of Pharmacy with 100 full-time students per year, ASU College of Nursing student population of approximately 2,400 students (who will be housed in its downtown campus), ASU Biomedical Informatics Program with 100 full-time and 340 part- time students, and NAU’s Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, and Physician’s Assistant Programs with an on campus student count of 255.

The decision by the Arizona Legislature to decrease the SPEED allocation by 20

percent will likely affect the square footage and program of this project. However, alternative funding is being pursued to achieve the original funding level as well as the original scope.




This project is being designed and scheduled in two phases to maximize flexibility and efficiency in its construction sequencing. Phase 1 will include the Health Sciences Education Building consisting of 265,000 gross square feet that could begin construction in the fall of 2009. Phase 2 will include the Arizona Biomedical Collaborative II building which consists of 375,000 gross square feet.


Current ABOR Policy 7-107.C.3 and 7-107.E.3 limits the following expenditures in preparing for the Capital Development Plan submittal at 2% of the total estimated project cost (an amount not to exceed $250,000) and, prior to the Project Implementation phase, limits outside and professional consultant services up to 3% of the total estimated project cost or $500,000, whichever is greater.

UA does not anticipate expending more than the costs outlined in ABOR Policy

7-107.C.3 and 7-107.E.3 for programming and design services in order to provide the level of detail required to achieve Project Implementation Approval.


This project is being delivered through the Construction Manager (CM) at Risk method. This approach was selected for this project because; 1) it can save time through fast-track project scheduling; 2) it provides contractor design input and coordination throughout the project and reduces potentially adversarial project environments; and 3) it allows for the selection of the most qualified contractor team for each individual project. With the use of two independent estimates at each phase, and low bid subcontractor work for the actual construction, this method also provides a high level of cost and quality control.

The CM at Risk is DPR/Sundt selected through the capital project selection

committee process prescribed by the ABOR Procurement Code. Six (6) responses to the project RFQ were received and three (3) of the responding teams were short-listed for interview. A licensed contractor from the community was included on the selection committee as required by Board Policy. The Design Team is CO Architects selected through a similar ABOR process. Four (4) teams were interviewed out of the fourteen (14) RFQ responses received.

Project Costs:

The decision by the Arizona Legislature to decrease the SPEED allocation by 20 percent has, in turn, reduced the initial cost estimate of $470 million to $376



million to be shared between the three universities. It is important to note that alternative funding is being pursued to achieve the original funding level.

In its present planned configuration, the UA portion of the tri-university

partnership is 71 percent or $267 million; ASU’s share is 25 percent, and NAU’s share is 4 percent.

The budget for this project was developed with the assistance of the Construction Managers for this project and in consideration of comparable costs from other recent ABOR projects. A list of these comparable costs is being prepared and will be included in the upcoming project initiation approval submittal.


The selected Design Professional (DP) is scheduled to complete schematic design by the end of May, 2009.

The GMP (Guaranteed Maximum Price) is scheduled to be agreed upon by June

2009. General construction is anticipated to begin when all approvals are in place and funding has been secured in the fall of 2009. Construction will then be completed in approximately two years.


The funding source for this project will be SPEED revenue bonds. The current proposal to the state as part of the SPEED program assumes 20 percent of the costs from the universities and 80 percent from State Lottery Revenue Allocations. In the current scope, UA will have financial responsibility for 71 percent of the operating and maintenance costs of the new facilities. The UA portion of the debt service will be paid by Tuition and Indirect Cost Recovery.

Operations and maintenance funding costs of $7,651,700 per year would be

pursued through the standard legislative appropriations process for new facility support. The UA share of the cost is $5,432,700. This share may change as details regarding the overall budget and scope of this project are finalized.

Backfill Plan:

A backfill plan is not applicable to this project. Alternatives:

There are no alternatives that will address the critical shortage of healthcare professionals in Arizona. The absence of a fully developed College of Medicine in



Phoenix disadvantages Phoenix and Arizona now and will adversely influence the quality of health care and the environment for continued development of Arizona’s biotechnology industry. A significantly expanded presence of the College of Medicine in Phoenix, with two synergistically related campuses, involving faculty from the universities is the best strategic choice to advance Arizona’s healthcare needs.





The University of Arizona - Bryant Bannister Tree-Ring Building


FY 2008 Capital Development Plan Amendment December 2007 Statutory Policy Requirements

Board Policy 7-102 requires Capital Committee review and Board approval of projects with a total project cost over $2 million.


This $12.2 million project is intended to provide new and improved facilities for the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research (LTRR). The project will build a new facility to allow the entire LTRR program, including laboratory and archive functions, to ultimately work collaboratively together in a single location.

The LTRR is a University of Arizona premier endeavor. The science of Dendrochronology (Tree-Ring dating) was invented here to provide a method for dating Native American ruins and objects. Its recent applications are now fundamental to the growing science of global climate change, providing the ability to accurately record past episodes and trends of warming and cooling of wet and dry periods as well as historical patterns in wildfires. The science of Carbon-14 dating was originally tested by comparison with LTRR’s tree-ring record and this record is now used to calibrate Carbon-14 dates for improved accuracy.

Dozens of scientists have and continue to perform ground-breaking research at the LTRR. Hundreds of visiting scholars have come to present and participate in colloquia and to examine the tree-ring record available here. Untold numbers of scientists have used samples and data from the collections and the future value of this archive of world history may be even greater than has already been proven.

Distinguished visitors and media from around the world visit LTRR annually and the cramped and shabby nature of the facilities is an embarrassment to the University. The LTRR faculty and staff morale is low as a consequence of the cramped and inadequate quarters and collapse of new building plans. If the space situation is not remedied, it is anticipated that there will be loss of junior



and senior faculty. It will also be difficult to recruit high quality new faculty and an eventual new director candidate with current facilities.

The LTRR moved into their “temporary quarters” in the West Stadium

approximately 70 years ago. Since that time, only a very few minor room-by-room improvements have been made. Over the years, numerous plans for more or improved space have been developed, most recently in conjunction with ENRB-II. None of these plans have materialized. Concurrently, the growing size of the faculty and staff and sophistication of the science have combined to place extreme pressure on the LTRR existing facilities. The faculty has increased from seven to eleven full-time members in the past seven years. Two additional faculty joined the LTRR since January 2007; one is a joint professor with Geography, and the other is a federal scientist who is an adjunct professor with LTRR. Both are now waiting for lab space.

A multi-phased project over several years is proposed to address critical deficiencies in the quantity and quality of the space available for all aspects of the LTRR activities. Completion of all phases, including the currently-proposed construction of new laboratories and offices and the future renovation or construction of improved archive facilities will allow the LTRR to continue its 70-plus-year history of scholarship.


The new Bryant Bannister Tree-Ring Building will provide approximately 20,000 to 30,000 gross square feet (gsf) of laboratory and office space in all-new construction, as well as improved public outreach facilities and support spaces. The proposed site for the facility is immediately adjacent to the existing Mathematics East Building (No. 45), where the LTRR currently occupies additional “temporary” space in the basement.

Upon completion of the project, the LTRR will vacate all office and laboratory space it occupies in the West Stadium. The LTRR specimen collection will remain in its current West Stadium facilities (which will total approximately 1,000 gsf). These specimens will then be relocated to the adjacent Mathematics East Building and its existing occupants will be relocated as space becomes available.





Due to the challenges involved in developing a complex phased plan that meets

all of the needs of the LTRR, The University of Arizona anticipates that programming and design costs through schematic design will provide the level of detail required to achieve Project Implementation Approval, but will also exceed the limits defined in ABOR Policy 7-107.C.3 and 7-107.E.3.



The previously selected architect, Richärd and Bauer Architects, and the Construction Manager at Risk, Martin Lang Construction, LLC, d.b.a. Lang Wyatt Construction for the Archive Building will continue in their roles on the consolidated project. Both were selected through the Capital Project Selection Committee process prescribed by the ABOR Procurement Code. A licensed contractor and architect from the community served on the respective selection committees.

Project Costs:

The proposed consolidated total project budget for the Bryant Bannister Tree-Ring Building is $12.2 million. This amount includes: new construction and some minor renovation of the Mathematics East Building where circulation connections may be achieved; new equipment and furnishings, and all costs incurred when the previous projects were being managed separately.

The Construction Manager is at risk to provide the completed project within the

agreed upon Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). A final report on project control procedures such as change orders and contingency use will be provided at project completion.


The project is currently at the conceptual design phase and is ready to continue into the schematic design phase.



The design and construction of the project is anticipated to be complete approximately 24 months after ABOR approval is received for the consolidation.


The funding for this project is provided through a $9 million gift from Agnese N. Haury and $3.2 million in Local Funds.

Operations and maintenance costs of $226,200 will be provided from general funds.

Backfill Plan:

Space being vacated in the West Stadium will be re-assigned in support of existing campus space needs.

Alternatives:

There is no other reasonable alternative that will meet the needs of the LTRR under current conditions.





The University of Arizona – Environment & Natural Resources Building – Phase II

(ENRII) (SPEED)


FY 2009 Capital Development Plan June 2008 Project Justification/Strategic Implications/Project compliance with Mission, Strategic Plan, Master Plan and Community Input Process

ENR II is part of The University of Arizona long-term effort to promote interdisciplinary research that focuses upon Earth Science and Environmental Programs. A key aspect of the ENR II facility is to create an atmosphere of scientific collaboration and interdisciplinary research. The units to be located in this facility are the Office of Arid Lands Studies (OALS), Department of Atmospheric Sciences/Institute for Atmospheric Physics (ATMO), The Institute for Environment and Society (IES), Geography and Regional Development (GRD), and the School of Natural Resources (SNR). Limited space will also be allocated on an interim basis for a part of the Mathematics Department. Since 1998, the Arizona District Office of the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) Water Resources Discipline and a portion of the USGS Western Mineral Resources Team have shared the Dennis DeConcini Environment and Natural Resources Building (ENR I) with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Weather Service. The ENR I building was constructed with federal funds appropriated to The University of Arizona (through the General Services Administration) in the mid-1990s and is owned and operated by The University of Arizona. Establishing a central facility creates a collaborative environment in which varied disciplines can flourish in an atmosphere conducive to scientific cooperation. ENR II first appeared in the University FY 1996 Capital Improvement Plan approved by the Board in September 1994 and has remained part of the Capital Plan. The Board granted the authority to negotiate a ground lease in June 1997 to complete the project via a private/public partnership. This was subsequently canceled when one federal partner removed itself from the program. A renewed ENR II will strengthen The University of Arizona goal of interdisciplinary education and research in the environmental sciences and will provide the means to achieve unprecedented synergy in these areas.

An Interdisciplinary team was established as part of the “Focused Excellence Initiative” and established goals for programs in the earth sciences. These goals focused on optimizing The University of Arizona approach in earth and



environmental science in ways that will enhance research, education and the application of knowledge by society. The team’s findings show a strong need for additional facilities and support for the proposed Environment & Natural Resources Building Phase II. Capitalizing on interdisciplinary collaboration will further environmental knowledge as it applies to problems of regional, national and global significance. According to the 2003 Report, Positioning Arizona and Its Research Universities: Science and Technology Core Competencies Assessment, prepared by the Battelle Memorial Institute, “Arizona’s strongest core competency by far is the ecological sciences.” The report’s definition of “ecological sciences” includes primarily arid/semi-arid lands ecology, remote sensing and urban environmental systems, and hydrology and water resources. The report identified these research areas as “worthy of state recognition and nurturing,” and acknowledged that the return to the economy of Arizona would be substantial.

All five University units (IES, OALS, SNR, GRD and ATMO) to be housed in ENR

II are committed to building and maintaining permanent partnerships between University and federal partners (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NASA), U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Aeronautics and the Space Administration and Environmental Protection Agency). These units interact extensively in applications-based scientific research on climate variability and impacts over annual to millennial time scales. They share a strong interest in problems associated with arid lands around the world. Understanding the biophysical and societal dynamics of arid regions, as well as of drought in the world’s dry lands, are priorities for all of these units.

The five units are all engaged in research and product development focused on applications of remotely sensed data, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology, and fire science and environmental monitoring. ENR II provides a place where science-based response to societal needs, particularly the sharing of scientific knowledge and technologies, can occur. Each unit brings a unique strength to the facility which is illustrated in their mission statements.

The Institute for Environment and Society (IES) has a mission to work across The University of Arizona campus to foster both disciplinary and interdisciplinary research relating to the environment of the earth, from local to global scales, and to determine how this environment is likely to change in coming seasons, years, and decades. The IES encourages interdisciplinary research and education on and off campus, as well as with users of environmental knowledge and



information. One of the main goals is to forge new paradigms in University partnership with society's decision-makers.

The Office of Arid Lands Studies (OALS) undertakes interdisciplinary, strategic research that addresses local, state, national, and international problems related to understanding, regenerating, and managing the world’s arid lands. Included in the spectrum of OALS research activities are remote sensing, natural resource development and management, desertification monitoring and control, water conservation and reuse, and traditional but increasing web-based information services.

The School of Natural Resources (SNR) is dedicated to generating and distributing knowledge related to all aspects of natural and managed environments including the use of their services and products. The SNR provides instruction, research and extension/outreach in a range of disciplines related to the conservation and management of renewable natural resources. The academic environment in the school allows students to integrate physical and biological sciences with socio-economic and political factors necessary for the conservation, protection and management of plant and animal species, biotic communities, ecosystems and landscapes. Academic programs provide undergraduate and graduate education that allows graduates to assume leadership positions in agencies and organizations that manage and administer natural resources in Arizona and the nation. Research by school scientists provides the foundation of knowledge and management skills necessary to manage our valuable natural resources, with considerable integration of disciplinary resources within The University of Arizona and through cooperation with federal and state agencies and non-government organizations. Interdisciplinary research and education are facilitated by several laboratories and cooperative research units.

The Department of Geography and Regional Development (GRD) carries out research teaching and outreach across five core areas: The Human-Environment program pursues diverse approaches to tackle current problems such as changing water policy, disturbed ecosystems, invasive and exotic plant invasions, wildfires, urban growth problems, arid lands management, and air pollution. The Critical Human Geography program focuses on theory and policy issues in economic, political, urban, and cultural geography, as well as in development. The Regional Development program concentrates on population geography, economic geography, and urban geography as they intersect regional development and regional science. The Physical Geography program examines systems and processes, both natural and human-caused, which are involved in environmental change at global, regional and local scales. All of these programs are supported by a technical program in Geographic Information



Systems and Satellite Remote Sensing, along with new approaches in web-based technology, decision support science, and geo-visualization.

The Department of Atmospheric Sciences (ATMO), which includes the Institute for Atmospheric Physics, encompasses a wide range of topics that all tie together under one common theme: Earth-Atmosphere System. From long-term climate variability to day-to-day local forecasting, ATMO strives to explore and understand the dynamic nature of the earth-atmosphere system. ATMO researchers utilize some of the most complex weather and climate models available and the department collaborates with federal and private groups to advance knowledge and applications related to the atmosphere.

The project is located near the northwest corner of Sixth Street and Fremont Avenue, and will be sited on the existing parking lot directly east of ENR I. The Master Plan/Concept Design Phase Report for the Environment and Natural Resources Building, completed by Hoover Berg Desmond, February 1994, provides the implementation strategy for the multi-phase development of the complex and furnishes a framework for the integration of the facilities within the University campus environment. These plans are consistent with the current update of the University’s Comprehensive Campus Plan.


The estimated $68 million facility will provide approximately 66,300 net assignable square feet (nasf), or 110,500 gross square feet (gsf), on the southwest campus area directly connected to the existing ENR I (number 120) building. The major functional areas include office space, research laboratory space (no wet labs), and common program support space. Interim space for Mathematics will ultimately be vacated to enable utilization by the other programmed units.

Completion of the ENR II project will be in conformance with applicable ABOR Space Guidelines.





UA does not anticipate expending more than the costs outlined in ABOR Policy 7-107.C.3 and 7-107.E.3 for programming and design services in order to provide the level of detail required to achieve Project Implementation Approval.



The CM at Risk is Hensel Phelps Construction Company selected through the

capital project selection committee process prescribed by the ABOR Procurement Code. Seven (7) responses to the project RFQ were received and three (3) of the responding teams were short-listed for interview. A licensed contractor from the community was included on the selection committee as required by Board Policy. The Design Team is Zimmer-Gunzel-Frasca selected through a similar ABOR process. Three (3) teams were interviewed out of the eighteen (18) RFQ responses received.

Project Costs:

Project funding has been reduced from $90 million to $68 million as a result of the revised reallocation of SPEED funding approved by ABOR in March 2009 through the issuance of SPEED revenue bonds. This project will remain in the plan as a “Resubmitted Project.” It is important to note that alternative funding is being pursued to achieve the original funding level.


Contracts with the selected Design Professional (DP) and the selected CM at Risk have been negotiated and are pending the funding of the project.

Approximately 3 months after the execution of the DP and CM at Risk contracts,

fast-tracked construction will begin with substantial completion occurring approximately 21 months later.




The funding source for this project would be SPEED revenue bonds. The current proposal to the state as part of the SPEED program assumes 20 percent of the costs from the universities and 80 percent from state lottery revenue allocation.

Operations and maintenance costs of $1,249,700 will be provided from general

funds. Backfill Plan:

A backfill plan will be developed in conjunction with the design effort. Approximately 70,000 nasf of permanent and lease space will be evaluated for reassignment to match functional requirements with available space. Future assignments will be made through the University’s Space Committee.

Alternatives:

Among the other alternatives considered and subsequently rejected by The University of Arizona were the "no project" option, the possibility of identifying existing University space to house the various units, and an infill construction approach. The "no project" option is not feasible due to the lack of opportunity to share space with federal units with the desire on both sides to engage in complementary, collaborative research activities. Presently, there is not enough contiguous space available on campus to accommodate University units without new construction. Finally, infill construction at multiple locations does not support the collaborative activities necessary in the program.



Appendix





Board of Regents Meeting June 18-19, 2009 Appendix Item #13C


Item Name: FY 2010 Capital Development Plan (NAU)


ISSUE: Northern Arizona University requests approval of the FY 2010 Capital Development Plan (CDP) as required by Board Policy 7-107 (B).

PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: SPEED Allocation Plan July 24, 2008

Amended FY 2009 CDP January 30, 2009

Revised SPEED Allocation Plan March 12-13, 2009

BACKGROUND: Northern Arizona University (NAU) requests approval of the FY 2010 Capital Development Plan (CDP) in accordance with Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) Policy Chapter VII. The plan is a comprehensive inventory of major capital projects approved by the Board that the University intends to complete within the next few years.

CHANGES TO THE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN:

The Northern Arizona University Capital Development Plan includes no new projects. It reflects the 20 percent reduction in the Stimulus Plan for Economic and Education Development (SPEED) financing approved by ABOR on March 12-13, 2009 and projects postponed due to funding as described below:

Resubmitted Projects: The following projects have been approved on an earlier Capital Development Plan and are being resubmitted here in accordance with ABOR Policy 7-107.B.5.

1. Native American Cultural Center. The project is 12,000 square feet of new construction for a cultural center incorporating unique cultural influences and sustainable design principles. A site near the university union on central campus has been identified. The new facility will offer a network of student support services for native and non-native students. The estimated cost is $6 million. Gifts are anticipated to fund 50 percent of the project.

2. Northeast Campus Utility Extensions. This infrastructure project will extend steam and chilled water to the northeast area of campus. This project is on today’s agenda for Project Implementation Approval and Project Approval.

Contact Information MJ McMahon, Executive Vice President, (928) 523.6515, [email protected] Jane Kuhn, Associate Vice President, (928) 523.7732, [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




3. Phoenix BioMedical Campus. The project was last approved in the NAU FY 2009 CDP submitted June 2008. This project is being designed and scheduled in two phases to maximize flexibility and efficiency in its construction sequencing. Phase 1 includes the Health Sciences Education Building (HSEB) consisting of 265,000 gross square feet that could begin construction in the fall of 2009. Phase 2 includes the Arizona Biomedical Collaborative II building which consists of 375,000 gross square feet that would follow. It is important to note that alternative funding is being pursued to achieve the original funding level.

The 20 percent revised allocation has reduced the initial cost estimate of $470 million to $376 million to be shared among the three universities. In its presently planned configuration, the UA portion of the tri-university partnership is 71 percent or $267 million, ASU’s share is 25 percent, and NAU’s share is 4 percent. The Health Sciences Education Building is being planned at a total project cost of $164 million. The university’s share of the project is $6,560,000. This project was approved by ABOR on March 2009 and will remain in the plan as a “Resubmitted

Project.”

4. Wellness Center Project. The project is renovation and expansion of the existing Recreation Center, Building 25. This project is on today’s agenda for Project Implementation Approval.

5. Privatized Residence Hall. The university intends to develop a comprehensive long-term capital improvement plan primarily for student housing utilizing Third Party Agreements. Development may include related projects such as parking structures, faculty and staff housing, retail space, a sports complex, and academic facilities consistent with the campus master plan, residence life programming objectives and the university’s long-term capital plans.

6. Health Professions Expansion. This project is officially on hold due to lack of funding from SPEED allocations. Given the reduction in SPEED authority and the unlikelihood that alternative funding can be secured for new construction within the year, Northern Arizona University is removing this project from the 2010 CDP and will place it in the September CIP, which is a planning document. The Design Professional and CMAR have been notified. The project was estimated at $80 million with 150,000 square feet of new construction to accommodate expanded programming for the allied health programs in conjunction with the Arizona Biomedical Collaborative and supported by the Stimulus Plan for Economic and Education Development.

7. Faculty and Staff Housing. Additionally, given the current economy, the university is unlikely to move forward with this project during the upcoming year and is removing this project from the CDP and will place it in the September CIP. This project focused on a housing development for faculty and staff on undeveloped university land south of campus and Interstate 40.



Federal Stimulus Project Requests: Northern Arizona University plans to pursue federal stimulus funding for projects listed in the table below, and is requesting Board approval to include these projects in the Capital Development Plan contingent on the university receiving federal stimulus funding. Projects funded solely with federal funds would only proceed if federal monies were awarded.

Project

Federal

Stimulus

Request

University

Funding Total

Biology Annex Renovation and Addition, Buildings 20 and 21A. Major renovation, expansion or construction to support research and training integral to ongoing program growth in the areas of human health, physiology, and biomedical science and engineering. Facility will accommodate interdisciplinary biology, biomechanics, and bioengineering.

$40 million NA $40 million

Research Infrastructure. Project to combine heat and power for the north plant; install gas turbines to generate electricity in combination with steam for reduced utility costs.

$10 million (DOE)

NA $10 million (DOE)

Renovation Health Professions, Building 66. Renovation of 1970’s health sciences facility to support health programs.

$45 million (NIH)

NA $45 million (NIH)

Total $95 million NA $95 million

New Projects $2 - $5 Million:

As information, the following table shows projects in the $2 million to $5 million range, which will not be required to go through the multi-phase approval process under proposed Board policy changes.

Project

Estimated

Cost Fund Source Total

North Union Restaurant $4 million 3rd

Party $4 million



FISCAL IMPACT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN:

Debt Ratio Impact: The debt ratio approved by the Board in the university’s Capital Improvement Plan (debt capacity study) for FY 2010-2012 projects is 6.72% of total projected expenses (ABOR and State policy max 8%). The projected debt ratios for the CDP are 7.83% of total projected expenses (ABOR and State policy max 8%). This includes all non-SPEED projects listed and projects that have received project approval. The following table identifies the incremental debt service for indebted projects in the FY 2010 CDP:

Project Name Amount Financed State

New Projects

Native American Cultural Center $3,000,000 0.05%

Northeast Campus Utility Extensions $6,500,000 0.12%

Wellness Center Project $115,750,000 2.20%

Phoenix BioMedical Campus (SPEED) $6,560,000 0.13%

Total $131,810,000


The incremental debt ratio from annual debt service for the total $131.8 million is 2.33%. The incremental debt ratio from annual debt service for the $125.25 million in Wellness and university projects is 2.20%. The incremental debt ratio from annual debt service for the $6.6 million in the Phoenix Biomedical SPEED project is 0.13%. The projected highest debt ratio including these projects is 9.26%. This includes all university funded and SPEED funded projects from this CDP, as well as the $64.8 million in SPEED projects approved in the prior CDP. The projected highest university debt ratio for all projects not including SPEED is 7.83%, this ratio remains below the maximum debt ratio of 8%.

RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD: It is requested that the Board grant Northern Arizona University approval of its 2010 Capital Development Plan. .



NNoorrtthheerrnn AArriizzoonnaa UUnniivveerrssiittyy

FFYY 22001100 CCaappiittaall DDeevveellooppmmeenntt PPllaann

Project Amount Financed

Funding

Source

Annual Debt

Svc1

GSF

Annual

O & M2

Approval

Status

Previously Approved

Native American Cultural Center $3,000,000 SR Bonds/Gift $213,000 12,000 $150,000 CDP 1/09

Northeast Campus Utility Extensions $6,500,000 SR Bonds $461,000 NA $0 CDP 1/09

Phoenix BioMedical Campus $6,560,000 SR Bonds $526,000 25,600 $125,488 CDP 6/08

Previously Approved

Wellness Center Project3

$115,750,000 SR Bonds $8,100,000 267,181 $1,938,813 CDP 1/08

Subtotal $131,810,000 $9,300,000 $2,214,301

Previously Approved

Residence Hall NA NA NA NA NA CDP 1/09

Cumulative Project Totals $131,810,000 $9,300,000 $2,214,301

PUBLIC / NON-PROFIT PARTNERSHIPS

ACADEMIC / RESEARCH

AUXILIARY / STUDENT FEE

Note1: Debt Service: Estimated annual principal and interest payments, 25 and 30 years at 5.00%.

Note2: Requested Direct Appropriation.

Note3: This phase of the project includes the Recreation Center expansion and additions for athletics and classrooms. Phase I included construction of the

recreation fields for $7.8 million for a combined project cost of $123,550,000.





Project

Amount

Financed GFA1

TRIF/ Sales

Tax GIF AUX / LF ICR GUF DFO Total

Native American Cultural Center2

$3,000,000 $213,000 $213,000

Northeast Campus Utility Extensions $6,500,000 $461,000 $461,000

Phoenix Biomedical Campus $6,560,000 $526,000 $526,000

Wellness Center Project $115,750,000 $8,100,000 $8,100,000

Totals $131,810,000 $526,000 $0 $0 $8,774,000 $0 $0 $0 $9,300,000

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN DEBT SERVICE BY FUNDING SOURCE


New Capital Projects

Note

1: General fund appropriation monies anticipated as part of the Stimulus Plan for Economic and Education Development.

Note2: Total project for Native American Center is $6,000,000, $3,000,000 of the total is debt financed and $3,000,000 is a gift.

Fund Source Codes: General Fund Appropriation (GFA), 301, Tuition (TUI), Auxiliary (AUX), Local Funds (LF), Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR), General University Funds (GUF), Debt Financed by Other (DFO) = Federal Grant (FGT) or Gifts (GIF), or Other (OTH).





Project

Total Project

Cost

Annual

O & M GFA TRIF AUX / LF ICR GUF DFO Total


Native American Cultural Center $6,000,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000

Northeast Campus Utility Extensions $6,500,000 $0 $0 $0

Phoenix BioMedical Campus $6,560,000 $125,488 $125,488 $125,488

Wellness Center Project $115,750,000 $1,938,813 $1,202,064 $736,749 $1,938,813

TOTALS $134,810,000 $2,214,301 $125,488 $0 $1,202,064 $0 $886,749 $0 $2,214,301

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING

Fund Source Codes: General Fund Appropriation (GFA), 301, Tuition (TUI), Auxiliary (AUX), Local Funds (LF), Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR), General University Funds (GUF), Debt Financed by Other (DFO) = Federal Grant (FGT) or Gifts (GIF), or Other (OTH).



Arizona Board of Regents


Capital Development Plan Project Justification Report

Native American Cultural Center

(NAU Project Numbers: #09.140.091)

1. Previous Board Action:

Capital Development Plan January 2009

2. Statutory / Policy Requirements:

Board Policy 7-107 B.1. requires Capital Committee review and Board approval of the annual Capital Development Plan.

3. Project Justification / Strategic Implication for Mission, Strategic Plan, Master

Plan and Community Input Process:

This project is consistent with the NAU Master Plan which promotes quality student activity environments that facilitate student integration into the social community of campus. Student retention and recruitment are inherently linked with the quality of facilities, both academic and recreational.

In the university strategic plan, the university made a commitment to Native Americans to provide a university climate and culture that enhances the academic experiences of Native American students and others. The new Native American Cultural Center that will provide academic and student support services is a critical component of meeting that goal. The Strategic Planning Council involved 500 members of the university community and external partners in preparing the university Strategic Plan.

A Native American Cultural Center which provides academic and student support services is the keystone in this vision. The center will strengthen the support system for students and be a place to seek academic support and counseling from peers and Native American faculty. The Center will provide a place to improve academic, social and cultural experiences on campus.

NAU ranks first in Arizona in Native American enrollment, first in the United States for graduating Native Americans with master’s degrees and fourth in the nation for undergraduate and graduate degrees. Programs with a Native American focus are found across campus and all colleges have partnerships with Native American tribes.



Currently more than 1,300 Native American students at NAU represent 62 tribes from throughout the country. The Native American Cultural Center will provide a visible presence and will enhance the university’s ability to attract, retain and graduate Native American students.

The Center will also focus upon the significance of native cultures in the past, present, and future. Through the impact of its presence and programming, and as a coordinating body for activities of interest to students, Native American constituents, and the general community, the Native American Cultural Center will underscore the vital role of cultural diversity and multi-cultural understanding on campus and in the region.

4. Project Description/Scope/Compliance with Space Standards:

The Native American Cultural Center will be a unique facility emphasizing native traditions and design features, incorporating sustainable design principles influenced by Southwestern Indian cultures, and reflecting traditional values honoring nature. North of the University Union and west of Liberal Arts, a location in the core of north campus has been selected. This location is an existing parking surface in the interior of campus. The new facility is anticipated to be two-story and approximately 12,000 square feet.

It will be designed in accordance with university Design Standards and will be constructed of high quality, maintainable materials and building systems to maximize energy efficiency and minimize operational, repair and replacement costs.

In an effort to demonstrate the university’s commitment to responsible, sustainable design, and in response to the Governor’s mandate that facilities be designed in a sustainable manner, this new construction project will incorporate sustainable materials and practices wherever possible.

All applicable spaces within the Native American Cultural Center will comply with the ABOR space guidelines.

5. Programming and Design Costs, and Exceptions (if Required), to Achieve

Project Implementation:

Programming and design costs for the project will not exceed the limits defined in ABOR Policy, Chapter VII (7-107.C.3. and 7-107.E.3). Consultant and design professional services for Project Implementation Approval will not exceed three percent (3%) of the estimated total project budget.



6. Project Delivery Method and Process:

Selection of the Design Professional and Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) is complete. The CMAR was selected through the capital project selection committee process prescribed by the ABOR Procurement Code. The university received twenty (20) responses to the project RFQ and four (4) of the responding teams were short-listed for interview. A licensed contractor from the community was included on the selection committee as required by ABOR policy. The design team was selected through a similar ABOR process, and five (5) teams were interviewed out of the twenty-nine (29) RFQ responses received.

This approach was selected because it can save time through fast-track project scheduling, it provides contractor design input and coordination throughout the project, it improves potentially adversarial project environments, and it allows for the selection of the most qualified contractor team for each individual project. With the use of two independent estimates, qualification selection and low bid subcontractor work for the actual construction, this method also provides a high level of cost and quality control.

7. Estimated Project Cost and Cost Development:

The Native American Cultural Center has a total budget of $6 million. Funding for the new construction includes: $3 million in university funds and $3 million in gifts.

The university will be building this project to the budget. The funding from this project is based upon the donations received; therefore, the project will not exceed the estimated budget.

Comparable Project Location

Project Gross

Square Feet

Escalated

Construction

Cost/sf

Native American Cultural Ctr Flagstaff 12,000 $367.00

Portland State University Ctr Portland, OR 12,500 $648.48

Huhugam Heritage Center* Gila River Reservation 51,000 $304.64

Average Comparable Project 25,167 $440.04

Note*: Various donations from local tribe tradesmen, including earthwork, were part of this

project.



8. Project Status and Schedule: DP Selection February 2009 CMAR Selection February 2009 ABOR CDP Approval January 2009 ABOR Project Implementation Approval January 2010 (tentative) ABOR Project Approval March 2010 (tentative) JCCR Approval (as scheduled) TBD Construction Start – CMAR May 2010 (tentative) Construction Complete TBD

9. Fiscal Impact and Financing Plan:

Total Project Budget: $6,000,000 Source of Funds: System Revenue Bonds $3M and Gifts $3M Operation & Maintenance: $75,000 Annual Debt Service: $213,000

10. Backfill / Use Plan:

There is no backfill plan associated with this project.

11. Alternatives:

This project is being funded 50% by donations that are designated for this purpose; there is no alternative to this project.



12. Project location map: Native American Cultural Center, North Campus:

Allen

Hall

Plateau

Center

Taylor Hall

Blome Dr. South

Runke Dr.

Huffe

r Lane

Engineering

and

Technology

Babbitt

Academic

Center

College of

Business

Pine K

noll Dr.

McConnell Drive

Knoles Driv

e

Learning

Resource

Center

Health

Professions

Health

Professions

SW Forest

Science

Complex

College of

Business

Social and

Behavioral

Sciences

Rolle

Activity

Center

duBois

Center

Gabaldon

Hall

University Drive

Ardrey

Auditorium

Performing and

Fine Arts

ARD

Information

Systems

Institute for

Human

Development

Rio

rdan R

d.

Rio

rdan

Ran

ch R

d.

Cline

Library

Wilson Hall

Tinsley

Hall

Campus

Heights

Ru

nke C

ircle

Cowden

Learning

Community

University Union

Kn

ole

s D

r.

Counseling

and Testing

Center

Raymond Hall

Adel

Math

Eastburn

Education

Center

Roseberry

Apt

Milton R

oad

Communication

Building

Blome

Bldg

Old Main

Ashurst

Tormey Ave.

Knole

s D

r.

Frier

Hall

Anthropology

Annex

Riles

Bldg

Gammage

Building

McMullen Circle

Osb

orn

e D

r.

North

Union

S. S

an

Fra

ncis

co

St.

Emerald

Complex

South

Family

Housing

Greenhouse

Complex

Pine Ridge

Village Apts

South

Plant

McConnell

Hall

7373

McConnell Drive

Avian

Cognition

Laboratory

Recycling

Building

Pine Knoll Dr.

Ceramics

Complex

SUPPORT FACILITIES

RESIDENCE HALLS

ACADEMIC BUILDINGS

NEW CONSTRUCTION

300'

Franklin Ave.

Wall Aquatic

Center

Recreation

Center

Gateway

Center

Reilly

Hall

Anthropology

Lab

ROTC/Property

Control

Sechrist Hall

Hall

University Drive

Gillenwater

Hall

McDonald Hall

Babbitt

Academic

Center

Bookstore

HRM

Fronski

Health

Center

Peterson

Hall

Lumberjack

StadiumS. S

an Francisco St.

SCALE

north

Mt.View Dr.

0 100' 200'

Biology

Building

Chemistry

Building

Duplicating

Services

Butler Ave.

Phy

Science

Liberal

Arts

LAB

Facility

Bury Hall

North

Hall

Dupont Dr.

Wettaw

Building Beave

r S

t.

Centennial

Building

Mt. View Hall

PARKING

STRUCTURE

Native American

Cultural Center






Northeast Campus Utility Extensions

(NAU Project Number: #10.010.084)


Amended FY2009 Capital Development Plan January 2009

Note: This project is submitted for Project Implementation and Project Approval on the same agenda. Please see project information on the executive summary.






Phoenix Biomedical Campus Phase 2 (SPEED)


FY 2009 Capital Development Plan June 2008

2. Statutory Policy Requirements:


3. Project Justification/Strategic Implications/Project Compliance with Mission,

Strategic Plan, Master Plan and Community Input Process:

Arizona residents find access to quality, affordable health care increasingly difficult and face a unique set of health related issues: one of the nation’s fastest growing populations; a large retiree population; a rapidly growing, under-served, low income population and special concerns for our Native American population. Through collaboration, the State’s three universities will address these issues by investing in biomedical and public health research and increasing the pool of healthcare providers. This is the vision of the Phoenix Biomedical Campus (PBC).

The need for Arizona to educate more healthcare professionals is well documented. Among the nation’s fastest-growing states, Arizona suffers from a shortage of physicians and pharmacists, as well as nurses and other health professionals.

The overall concept for the PBC is to accommodate a student population of 1,078 full-time students, 2,668 part-time students and 491 full-time faculty. Programs served would include: UA College of Medicine with 150 full-time students per year, UA College of Pharmacy with 100 full-time students per year, ASU College of Nursing student population of approximately 2,400 students (who will be housed in its downtown campus), ASU Biomedical Informatics Program with 100 full-time and 340 part- time students, and NAU’s Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, and Physician’s Assistant Programs with an on campus student count of 255.

.



This project is being designed and scheduled in two phases to maximize flexibility and efficiency in its construction sequencing. Phase 1 will include the Health Sciences Education Building consisting of 265,000 gross square feet that could begin construction in the fall of 2009. Phase 2 will include the Arizona Biomedical Collaborative II building which consists of 375,000 gross square feet.

4. Project Description/Scope/Compliance with Space Standards:

This project is being designed and scheduled in two phases to maximize flexibility and efficiency in its construction sequencing. Phase 1 includes the Health Sciences Education Building consisting of 265,000 gross square feet that could begin construction in the fall of 2009. Phase 2 includes the Arizona Biomedical Collaborative II building which consists of an additional 375,000 gross square feet.

5. Programming and Design Costs to Achieve Project Implementation:

Current Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) Policy (7-107.C.3 and 7-107.E.3) limits the following expenditures in preparing for the Capital Development Plan submittal at 2% of the total estimated project cost (an amount not to exceed $250,000) and, prior to the Project Implementation phase, limits outside and professional consultant services up to 3% of the total estimated project cost or $500,000, whichever is greater.

The university does not anticipate expending more than the costs outlined by ABOR in Policy 7-107.C.3 and 7-107.E.3 for programming and design services in order to provide the level of detail required to achieve Project Implementation Approval.


This project is being delivered through the Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) method. This approach was selected for this project because; 1) it can save time through fast-track project scheduling; 2) it provides contractor design input and coordination throughout the project and reduces potentially adversarial project environments; and 3) it allows for the selection of the most qualified contractor team for each individual project. With the use of two independent estimates at each phase, and low bid subcontractor work for the actual construction, this method also provides a high level of cost and quality control.



The CMAR was selected through the capital project selection committee process prescribed by the ABOR Procurement Code. Six (6) responses to the project RFQ were received and three (3) of the responding teams were short-listed for interview. A licensed contractor from the community was included on the selection committee as required by Board Policy. The Design team was selected through a similar ABOR process, and four (4) teams were interviewed out of the fourteen (14) RFQ responses received.

7. Project Costs:

The Arizona Legislature’s decision to decrease the SPEED allocation by 20 percent has, in turn, reduced the initial cost estimate of $470 million to $376 million to be shared between the three universities. It is important to note that alternative funding is being pursued to achieve the original funding level.

In its presently planned configuration, the UA portion of the tri-university partnership is 71 percent or $267 million; ASU’s share is 25 percent, and NAU’s share is 4 percent.

The budget for this project was developed with the assistance of the Construction Managers for this project and in consideration of comparable costs from other recent ABOR projects. A list of these comparable costs is being prepared and will be included in the upcoming project initiation approval submittal.

UA is including a listing of comparable projects in its Project Implementation executive summary.

8. Project Status and Schedule:

The selected Design Professional (DP) is scheduled to complete Schematic Design by the end of May 2009.

The GMP (Guaranteed Maximum Price) is scheduled to be agreed upon by June 2009. General construction is anticipated to begin when all approvals are in place and funding has been secured in the fall of 2009. Construction will then be completed in approximately two years.



9. Fiscal Impact and Financial Plan:

The funding source for this project will be SPEED revenue bonds. The current proposal to the State as part of the SPEED program assumes 20 percent of the costs from the universities and 80 percent from State Lottery Revenue Allocations. In the current scope, the university will have financial responsibility for 4 percent of the operating and maintenance costs for the HSEB facility. The university portion of the debt service will be paid by general university funds.

Operations & Maintenance funding costs of $7,651,700 per year would be pursued through the standard legislative appropriations process for new facility support. The NAU share of the cost is $125,488 for the HSEB; and, for the entire $376 million project, it is $306,068. This share may change as details regarding the overall budget and scope of this project are finalized.

Debt Ratio Impact: Per the SPEED legislation (House Bill 2211), the debt service for this project is exempt from the debt service ratio calculation. If the debt service was included the incremental debt ratio for this project would be 0.13%.

10. Backfill Plan:

A backfill plan is not applicable to this project.

11. Alternatives:

There are no alternatives that will address the critical shortage of healthcare professionals in Arizona. The absence of a fully developed College of Medicine in Phoenix currently disadvantages Phoenix and Arizona, and will adversely influence the quality of health care and the environment for continued development of Arizona’s biotechnology industry. A significantly expanded presence of the UA’s College of Medicine in Phoenix, with two synergistically related campuses involving faculty from the universities, is the best strategic choice to advance Arizona’s healthcare needs.






Wellness Center

(NAU Project Numbers: #09.250.081)


Amended FY 2008 Capital Development Plan January 2008

Amended FY 2009 Capital Development Plan January 2009

Note: This project is submitted for Project Implementation Approval on the current agenda. Please see project information on the executive summary.






Privatized Residence Hall

(NAU RFP Number: #P09CL002)


Capital Development Plan January 2009

2. Statutory / Policy Requirements:

Board Policy 7-107 B.1. requires Capital Committee review and Board approval of the annual Capital Development Plan.

3. Project Justification / Strategic Implications for Mission, Strategic Plan, Master

Plan and Community Input Process:

The mission of Northern Arizona University is to provide an outstanding undergraduate residential education. This project directly supports that mission by seeking to provide residential options for students within a vibrant community setting.

Increasing enrollment on the Flagstaff campus has led to increased demand for student housing. Wait lists are common and student demand exceeds available campus housing. The university expects the increasing enrollment trend to continue and the demand for student housing to continue. Projections indicate a potential shortage of 1,000 beds over the next three years.

In addition, Residence Life data indicates students who live on campus have a higher success rate than those who do not. Retention and graduation rates are considerably higher for those students residing in campus housing. Campus housing provides a safe, supportive learning environment. Even with the recent new residence complexes and housing, much of the existing campus housing is approaching 50 years of age and will require major mechanical renovation or replacement. In addition, these units will require modification to meet student technology needs.



4. Project Description / Scope / Compliance with Space Standards:

The Request for Proposal for Development and Management of Student Housing and Campus Projects includes the option for development of two (2) housing projects: 1) An upperclassmen apartment facility consisting of approximately 1,000 or more beds; 2) one (1) suite style facility for non-Freshman students and consisting of approximately 450 beds. It is the university’s intent that all applicable spaces will comply with ABOR Space Guidelines.

In addition, a parking structure with 1,000 – 1,200 spaces is offered for development. It is envisioned this south campus location could provide a community made up of housing, parking facility, a sports complex and retail spaces consistent with the university’s long-term capital plans.

The university intends to develop a comprehensive long-term capital improvement plan primarily for student housing, but may include related development projects such as parking structures, faculty and staff housing, retail space and academic facilities consistent with the campus master plan, residence life programming objectives and the university’s long-term capital plans.

5. Programming and Design Costs, and Exceptions (if Required), to Achieve

Project Implementation:

The Project Developer is expected to cover all costs.


It is the university’s intent to select a qualified Developer(s) that demonstrates superior knowledge, experience, organization, and financial ability to implement large, complex, and innovative projects. The method of selection will be a two-phase process consisting of a submittal of qualifications followed by proposals.

Phase I Qualifications will be based on an Executive Summary, Developer Profile/Information, Development Team Profile, Previous Development Experience, Financial Capability, Student Housing Management Experience and any additional information that would assist in the university’s evaluation.

A qualified Developer’s list will be created from the submitted qualifications. Developers on the qualified list will be requested to submit additional detailed information on Financials, Development Proposals, and other critical criteria.



7. Estimated Project Cost and Cost Development:

Estimated costs and project scope are undetermined until all proposals are received and reviewed. It is the university’s intent to bring to the Board an information item with details of the selection process and selected Developer(s). The university will include information regarding the proposed agreement terms with the Developer(s) as well.

8. Project Status and Schedule:

Qualifications for Phase I were received on January 15, 2009. A total of eight (8) responses were submitted to the university. Three of the eight proposers were selected to complete Phase II requirements. Phase II documentation was received March 19, 2009. The university is currently reviewing the completed submittals.

9. Fiscal Impact and Financing Plan:

The construction project is anticipated to be funded through a ground lease agreement. A master ground lease agreement between the university and a Project Developer will facilitate the ability of a Developer to finance the project. The university retains ownership of the project site.

Benefits to the university from this type of agreement include: 1. No capital investment or bonded financial obligation to the university. 2. Debt ratio and bonding capacity are preserved for academic and other

facility needs. 3. Upon termination of the ground lease, ownership of the facility reverts to

the university free of encumbrances.

10. Backfill / Use Plan:

A backfill plan is not applicable to this project.

11. Alternatives:

There are no viable alternatives to this project at this time.



12. Project location map: Privatized Residence Hall, South Campus

Allen

Hall

Plateau

Center

Taylor Hall

Blome Dr. South

Runke Dr.

Huffe

r Lane

Engineering

and

Technology

Babbitt

Academic

Center

College of

Business

Pine K

noll Dr.

McConnell Drive

Knoles Driv

e

Learning

Resource

Center

Health

Professions

Health

Professions

SW Forest

Science

Complex

College of

Business

Social and

Behavioral

Sciences

Rolle

Activity

Center

duBois

Center

Gabaldon

Hall

University Drive

Ardrey

Auditorium

Performing and

Fine Arts

ARD

Information

Systems

Institute for

Human

Development

Rio

rdan R

d.

Rio

rdan

Ran

ch R

d.

Cline

Library

Wilson Hall

Tinsley

Hall

Campus

Heights

Ru

nke C

ircle

Cowden

Learning

Community

University Union

Kn

ole

s D

r.

Counseling

and Testing

Center

Raymond Hall

Adel

Math

Eastburn

Education

Center

Roseberry

Apt

Milton R

oad

Communication

Building

Blome

Bldg

Old Main

Ashurst

Tormey Ave.

Knole

s D

r.

Frier

Hall

Anthropology

Annex

Riles

Bldg

Gammage

Building

McMullen Circle

Osb

orn

e D

r.

North

Union

S. S

an

Fra

ncis

co

St.

Emerald

Complex

South

Family

Housing

Greenhouse

Complex

Pine Ridge

Village Apts

South

Plant

McConnell

Hall

7373

McConnell Drive

Avian

Cognition

Laboratory

Recycling

Building

Pine Knoll Dr.

Ceramics

Complex

SUPPORT FACILITIES

RESIDENCE HALLS

ACADEMIC BUILDINGS

NEW CONSTRUCTION

300'

Franklin Ave.

Wall Aquatic

Center

Recreation

Center

Gateway

Center

Reilly

Hall

Anthropology

Lab

ROTC/Property

Control

Sechrist Hall

Hall

University Drive

Gillenwater

Hall

McDonald Hall

Babbitt

Academic

Center

Bookstore

HRM

Fronski

Health

Center

Peterson

Hall

Lumberjack

StadiumS. S

an Francisco St.

SCALE

north

Mt.View Dr.

0 100' 200'

Biology

Building

Chemistry

Building

Duplicating

Services

Butler Ave.

Phy

Science

Liberal

Arts

LAB

Facility

Bury Hall

North

Hall

Dupont Dr.

Wettaw

Building Beave

r S

t.

Centennial

Building

Mt. View Hall

PARKING

STRUCTURE

Privatized Residence Hall Located on the East side of Lone Tree

Road North of the Community College on

NAU Land



Contact Information MJ McMahon, Executive Vice President, (928) 523.6515, [email protected]

Jane Kuhn, Associate Vice President, (928) 523.7732, [email protected]

Item Name: Wellness Center Project Implementation Approval (NAU)


Previous Board Action: FY 2008 Capital Development Plan

January 2008

Amended FY 2009 Capital Development Plan

January 2009

Statutory / Policy Requirements:


Project Justification:

In fall 2004, a web survey was conducted to assess student opinions regarding recreational opportunities. Responding students reported the availability of recreation facilities was important to them and makes a valuable contribution to their total university experience. According to the National Intramural-Recreation Sports Association (NIRSA), “research indicates that student involvement in recreational sports programs, facilities, and services plays a significant role in recruiting new students, supporting the learning environment, integrating students into the social community of the campus, affiliating them with the institution, and enhancing a number of student educational and developmental outcomes.”

With continuing enrollment growth at NAU, the university began to formulate plans to meet the needs of students by upgrading facilities and implementing new recreation and wellness amenities. A separate study of peer institutions showed that NAU students pay the lowest recreation fee compared to all other peer institutions, except Ball State University which is totally state funded. As a result, a recreation and health fee structure was endorsed by the NAU student community and approved by ABOR in December 2007. These approved fees are structured for implementation over a course of four years to fund 61 percent of the project, and were implemented in fall 2008.

Issue: Northern Arizona University requests Project Implementation Approval (PIA) for the Wellness Center Project.


Agenda Item #14


In fall 2007, approximately 1,200 parents responded to a survey assessing their support of health services and a health fee for their students on the NAU Flagstaff campus. The results showed: 98 percent supported increased access to illness and injury care, 93 percent supported increased access to mental health services, 90 percent supported significantly increased recreation services, and overall 64 percent of parents supported the four-year plan and the associated fees to improve the quality of recreation and health facilities for their students.

In January 2008, the university proposed the Wellness Center project to address overcrowding and inaccessibility issues at the existing Recreation Center. The current 46,900 Recreation Center was constructed in 1989.. The mission of

Campus Recreation Services is to provide programs, facilities and educational opportunities that seek to meet the diverse recreational, fitness and wellness needs of the students and campus community. Approximately 6,300 of the 14,766 students enrolled at Flagstaff also reside on campus. With the lack of adequate space for recreation programs, it has become increasingly difficult to meet this mission.

Many of the activity spaces at the Recreation Center have reached maximum capacity. Demand for intramural activities exceeds available gym space. Student access to the weight room must be regulated via a numbered ticket system. To alleviate some of the overcrowding, cardio rooms were added in a few residence halls. Basketball and volleyball, popular student activities, have waiting periods up to two hours during peak times due to lack of space in the existing facility.

Currently, the Fronske Health Center, Disability Resources, and Counseling programs are located in non-contiguous space and integrated services are limited inherently by the facility of each program. The current Fronske facility does not have sufficient examination rooms and the program cannot provide more services to meet student demand because building constraints prohibit growth. The administrative functions of this program have been relocated to a trailer next to the building. The Wellness Center project scope defines a blended facility incorporating health, wellness and recreation into a unique service center addressing the collective mission of these organizations and the university.


Agenda Item #14


Over 92% of NAU students surveyed indicated that campus health services are an important part of a college campus and almost 90% overwhelmingly supported the concept of a blended facility. These student survey results defined the scope of the Wellness Center project which holistically integrates student medical services, mental health services, and disability resources with recreation services into a centralized location on the site of the existing Recreation Center. To meet the current demand for services and facilitate growing needs, an addition of 57,000 square feet was added during preliminary design for these various medical services and clinic programs.

In February 2008, the university received the Athletics Master Plan update that was the result of an NCAA review of NAU athletic facilities. To address Title IX compliance concerns, the Master Plan recommended major renovations at Lumberjack Stadium, which is located directly adjacent to the Wellness project. Due to the poor condition of the stadium, preliminary cost estimates for the work at Lumberjack Stadium were significant. It was determined that because of the early design stage of the Wellness project and the proximate location, additional space could be included to meet these needs. To accommodate the NCAA findings, an additional 32,000 square feet was added to the Wellness project scope. The demolition and reconstruction of Lumberjack Stadium will provide the university with space for women’s soccer, locker rooms for men’s and women’s track and field and tennis, as well as facilities for NCAA officials and visiting teams.

The university received Capital Development Approval in September 2006 for a classroom building, which was delayed due to lack of funding. To address academic program needs and with the initial passage of the SPEED package, the classrooms were incorporated into the design of the Wellness Center to maximize cost efficiencies and eliminate the need for a separate building footprint. The location is consistent with the academic corridor and is close to residence halls, the bookstore, and dining facilities.

Project Description and Scope:

The project scope as designed includes: 1) 71,000 square feet of classroom space; 2) 68,000 square feet of additional recreation space; 3) 32,000 square feet of space for athletic programs; 4) 57,000 square feet of space for health and wellness services; 5) renovation of approximately 39,000 square feet in the existing Recreation facility; and, 6) demolition of Lumberjack Stadium, including asbestos remediation.

The total project square footage addressed by this project is 267,181. Including site work, the project square footage is 283,140. Many interior areas include shared space for greater flexibility and to avoid duplication of services.


Agenda Item #14


The project will renovate a total of 39,226 gross square feet in the existing Recreation Building, which was constructed in 1989. This includes a renovation of the existing gymnasium. This project will renovate 83 percent of the existing space and will address deferred maintenance items in the building.

The recreation expansion will address the areas with the greatest deficiencies for student activities and includes added weight rooms, racquetball courts, multi-purpose exercise and intramural spaces, a new gymnasium and a jogging track.

As previously outlined, the programs and services of the Fronske Health Center, Disability Resources, and Counseling will be consolidated into a 57,000 square foot component.

Two floors of academic classrooms were added to the design of the new Wellness Center facility creating a third and fourth floor respectively. The 28 classrooms will accommodate 30 – 70 students each and are designed for flexible use.

After demolition of the stadium, new NCAA and Dark Skies compliant outdoor field lighting will be installed at the Lumberjack Stadium site. The new lighting will be energy efficient. The stadium will include a covered 1,000 capacity seating arena with indoor public restrooms, concessions and a press box.

Additionally as part of NCAA compliance activities, new space includes locker rooms for women’s soccer, men’s and women’s tennis and track and field. Also included in the facility is space for team meetings, restrooms, showers, coaches’ offices, and visiting team locker rooms. Supporting areas will include space for officials, public restrooms, a training room, concessions and equipment storage. Together, these areas make up the majority of the 32,000 square foot Athletic component to the Wellness Center.

Given the increased scope of the project, NAU is in the process of soliciting input to develop a more appropriate name for the project.

Additional Project Considerations:

This renovation and new construction project has been designed in accordance with university Design Guidelines, and will be constructed of high quality, durable, maintainable materials and building systems to maximize energy efficiency and minimize operational, repair and replacement costs.

In an effort to demonstrate the university’s commitment to responsible, sustainable design, and in response to the Governor’s mandate that facilities be designed in a sustainable manner, this renovation project will incorporate sustainable materials and practices wherever possible.


Agenda Item #14


The backfill plan associated with this project includes the following items which are currently in review by administration. The space currently in use by Fronske Health Center, Disability Resources and Counseling will remain empty until the university determines the best use of these facilities. Some could be demolished to re-purpose sites. Lumberjack Stadium will be demolished and reconstructed as part of the Wellness project. The University Police Department, currently housed in Lumberjack Stadium, will permanently relocate to swing space on south campus.


This project is being delivered through the Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) method. This approach was selected for this project because it can save time through fast-track project scheduling, it provides contractor design input and coordination throughout the project, it improves potentially adversarial project environments, and it allows for the selection of the most qualified contractor team for each individual component of the project. With the use of two independent estimates at each phase, and low bid subcontractor work for the actual construction, this method also provides a high level of cost and quality control.

The CMAR was selected through the capital project selection committee process prescribed by the ABOR Procurement Code. The university received seven (7) responses to the project RFQ and five (5) of the responding teams were short-listed for interview. A licensed contractor from the community was included on the selection committee as required by ABOR policy. The design team was selected through a similar ABOR process, and five (5) teams were interviewed out of the fifteen (15) RFQ responses received.

Project Costs:

The total estimated project budget is $115,750,000. Overall, this represents a construction cost of $330 per square foot and a total project cost of $433 per square foot. The total project budget includes the demolition of Lumberjack Stadium. The construction cost is based on analysis of the conceptual plan by the CMAR and has been examined as closely as possible at this stage of the design process for efficiencies.

The table below lists comparable projects, with construction costs per square foot escalated by the Board approved inflation factor in July 2008 for the 2010 CIP. This project includes renovation, new construction and demolition of Lumberjack Stadium

.


Agenda Item #14



Project Gross

Square Feet

Escalated

Construction

Cost/sf

NAU Wellness Center Flagstaff 267,181 $330.00

UA Student Rec Center Expansion Tucson 53,000 $361.00

Lincoln Hall, U of Illinois Urbana, Illinois 163,850 $363.35

Searle Hall, Northwestern Evanston, Illinois 53,963 $476.05

Ratner Athletic Ctr, U of Chicago Chicago, Illinois 145,000 $391.75

Average Comparable Project 136,599 $384.43

Considering these relevant comparable construction costs, the Wellness Center project construction budget cost of $330 per square foot was considered to be appropriate. Including all required indirect expenses, the resulting total project cost at Project Implementation Approval is $433 per square foot.

The initial project budget was developed at the Capital Development Plan (CDP) Phase and updated as scope changes occurred for the classrooms and athletic facilities. The estimate updates were on the basis of information from professional cost consultants, along with other comparable project costs obtained for similar projects constructed nationally. This formed the basis for the construction cost budget.

For the Project Implementation Approval phase, three (3) cost estimates have been prepared independently by the CMAR, the Architect’s estimating consultant and Capital Assets project management. These have been extensively reviewed and reconciled in group meetings including the DP, Estimator, CMAR, and CAS capital project management. The CMAR’s current estimate consists of roughly 97 percent price projections from subcontractors and 3 percent estimates prepared by the CMAR team.

To ensure that each party agreed and understood the scope and cost components of the project at the schematic design and design development phases, the CMAR, the Architect, the Architect’s estimating consultant (Rider Levett Bucknall), and NAU Capital Assets have completed two (2) cost estimating and cost reconciling cycles. At the last cycle, each party’s cost estimates were within 1.36% of each other.

Due to the critical nature of this project and the uncertain economy, NAU is exceeding Board requirements and three cost estimates are being prepared for the Project Approval phase: 1) one independently by the CMAR; 2) one by the Architect’s estimating consultant; and, 3) one for the University by an independent consultant, HDR Architecture, Incorporated. Cost saving and value engineering measures will be implemented during this phase. These estimates will then be reconciled together to confirm accurate, competitive scope quantities and unit prices.


Agenda Item #14


At schematic design phase in early November 2008, total project cost estimates were approaching $130 million. Through a combination of design change, additional design detail and market de-escalation, an 11.4% savings was recognized for a total project cost of $115,750,000. Current indications on cost estimates are that further cost reductions will be achieved for the Project Approval phase. In consideration of recent market conditions and based upon discussions with the DP and CMAR, NAU is confident that construction costs will be reduced an additional 5.5% at PA. Actual cost reduction efforts will be submitted at PA.

The CMAR is at risk is to provide the completed project within the agreed upon GMP price. A final report on project control procedures such as change orders and contingency use will be provided at project completion.

Fiscal Impact and Financing Plan:

System Revenue Bonds will be issued to finance the project. The bonds will be repaid over a 30-year period. The annual debt service of approximately $8.1 million will be funded from the wellness fee approved by the Board in December 2007 (61 percent) and Tuition (39 percent).

Operations and maintenance costs will increase for the new space being added. Chilled water and steam will replace stand alone equipment previously used to heat and cool the building, which will mitigate maintenance and energy costs. This work will be done as part of the Northeast Campus Utility Extensions project.

Debt Ratio Impact: The incremental debt ratio for this project is 2.20%. The projected highest debt ratio including this project is 7.83%.


The project is in the Design Development phase, and the CMAR preliminary GMP being developed is based upon 97 percent subcontractor estimates. The estimates are within the approved project budget and include the classrooms and athletic spaces. The cost of the additional improvements has been confirmed by the CMAR.

General construction is scheduled to begin in September 2009. Construction is scheduled to be complete in two phases; July 2011 and January 2012.

Committee Review and Recommendation: The Capital Committee favorably reviewed the project at its meeting on May 21, 2009, and recommended Board approval with the expectation that costs would be reduced


Agenda Item #14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 8 of 11 when the project is submitted for Project Approval. NAU also provided the Committee a verbal update on its plan to develop a more appropriate name for the project.

Recommendation:

That the Board grant Project Implementation Approval to Northern Arizona University for the Wellness Center project.


Agenda Item #14


Capital Project Information Summary

University: Northern Arizona University Project Name: Wellness Center

Project Description and Location: The Wellness Center project combines recreation and health services. This includes integrating medical services, mental health services, disability resources and recreation services and programs into a centralized location within an expanded and renovated Recreation Center. The Center will provide consolidated services for students, classrooms, athletic offices and

opportunities for collaborations among medical, mental health, and fitness professionals. The estimated project budget is $115,750,000.

Project Schedule: Planning Spring 2007 Design February 2008 Construction September 2009 Occupancy December 2011

Project Budget: Facility Useful Life 50-75 years (approximately) Total Project Cost $ 115,750,000 Total Project Construction Cost $ 88,350,000 Total Project Cost per GSF $ 433 Construction Cost per GSF $ 330

Change in Annual

Operating/Maintenance Costs:

Utilities $ 900,000

Personnel $ 50,000

All Other Operating $ 988,812

Subtotal $ 1,938,812

Funding Sources: Capital

A. System Revenue Bonds $ 115,750,000 (Funding Source of Debt Service: Wellness Fee approved by Board

December 2007 (minimum of 61%), and Retained Tuition and Fees, and Retained Tuition and/or TRIF (maximum of 39%).

Operation/Maintenance A. Funding Source: Wellness Fee (minimum of 61%) and General University Funds

(maximum of 39%).


Agenda Item #14


University: Northern Arizona University Project:

Capital Project

Development Implementation Project

Plan Approval Approval

Capital Costs

1. Land Acquisition -$ -$

2. Construction Cost - -

A. New Construction 88,350,000

B. Renovation -

C. Special Fixed Equipment - -

D. Site Development (excl. 2.E.) - -

E. Parking and Landscaping - -

F. Utilities Extensions - -

G. Other* - -

Subtotal Construction Cost -$ 88,350,000$

3. Fees

A. Construction Mgr (0.6%) -$ 530,000$

B. Architect/Engineer (9.5%) - 8,383,736

C. Other (0.7%) - 652,960

Subtotal Consultant Fees -$ 9,566,696$

4. FF&E Movable -$ 7,462,400$

5. Contingency, Design Phase (0.5%) - 399,226

6. Contingency, Constr. Phase (5%) - 4,400,000

7. Parking Reserve - 35,000

8. Telecommunications Equipment - 225,000

Subtotal Items 4-8 -$ 12,521,626$

9. Additional University Costs

A. Surveys, Tests, Inspections, etc. -$ 1,199,310$

B. Move-in Costs - -

C. Printing Advertisement - 111,935

D. Keying, signage, facilities support - 279,840

E. Project Management Cost (3%) 3,371,359

F. State Risk Mgt. Ins. (.0034 **) - 349,234

Subtotal Addl. Univ. Costs -$ 5,311,678$

TOTAL CAPITAL COST 115,750,000$ 115,750,000$

*Universities shall identify items included in this category

** State Risk Management Insurance factor is calculated on construction costs and consultant fees.

Capital Project Cost Estimate

Wellness Center


Agenda Item #14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 11 of 11 Project Map:

Allen

Hall

Plateau

Center

Taylor Hall

Blome Dr. South

Runke Dr.

Huffe

r Lane

Engineering

and

Technology

Babbitt

Academic

Center

College of

Business

Pin

e Knoll D

r.

McConnell Drive

Knoles Driv

e

Learning

Resource

Center

Health

Professions

Health

Professions

SW Forest

Science

Complex

College of

Business

Social and

Behavioral

Sciences

Rolle

Activity

Center

duBois

Center

Gabaldon

Hall

University Drive

Ardrey

Auditorium

Performing and

Fine Arts

ARD

Information

Systems

Institute for

Human

Development

Rio

rdan R

d.

Rio

rdan

Ran

ch R

d.

Cline

Library

Wilson Hall

Tinsley

Hall

Campus

Heights

Ru

nke C

ircle

Cowden

Learning

Community

University Union

Kn

ole

s D

r.

Counseling

and Testing

Center

Raymond Hall

Adel

Math

Eastburn

Education

Center

Roseberry

Apt

Milton R

oad

Communication

Building

Blome

Bldg

Old Main

Ashurst

Tormey Ave.K

nole

s D

r.

Frier

Hall

Anthropology

Annex

Riles

Bldg

Gammage

Building

McMullen Circle

Osb

orn

e D

r.

North

Union

S. S

an

Fra

ncis

co

St.

Emerald

Complex

South

Family

Housing

Greenhouse

Complex

Pine Ridge

Village Apts

South

Plant

McConnell

Hall

7373

McConnell Drive

Avian

Cognition

Laboratory

Recycling

Building

Pine Knoll Dr.

Ceramics

Complex

SUPPORT FACILITIES

RESIDENCE HALLS

ACADEMIC BUILDINGS

NEW CONSTRUCTION

300'

Franklin Ave.

Wall Aquatic

Center

Recreation

Center

Gateway

Center

Reilly

Hall

Anthropology

Lab

ROTC/Property

Control

Sechrist Hall

Hall

University Drive

Gillenwater

Hall

McDonald Hall

Babbitt

Academic

Center

Bookstore

HRM

Fronski

Health

Center

Peterson

Hall

Lumberjack

StadiumS. S

an Francisco St.

SCALE

north

Mt.View Dr.

0 100' 200'

Biology

Building

Chemistry

Building

Duplicating

Services

Butler Ave.

Phy

Science

Liberal

Arts

LAB

Facility

Bury Hall

North

Hall

Dupont Dr.

Wettaw

Building Beaver

St.

Centennial

Building

Mt. View Hall

PARKING

STRUCTURE

Wellness Center with New Classrooms and Athletic Spaces




Contact Information

MJ McMahon, Executive Vice President, (928) 523.6515, [email protected]

Jane Kuhn, Associate Vice President, (928) 523.7732, [email protected]

Item Name: Northeast Campus Utility Extensions: Combined Project

Implementation Approval and Project Approval (NAU)


Previous Board Action: Amended FY 2009 Capital Development Plan January 2009

Statutory / Policy Requirements:

Board Policy 7-109 allows projects with a total project cost between Two Million Dollars and Twenty Million Dollars to be granted project approval by the Capital Committee or forwarded to the Board as circumstances warrant.

Project Justification:

This project is seeking combined PIA/PA to minimize utility disruptions to students, faculty and staff by starting this work in late June 2009 when the affected residence hall is not utilized and academic programs have modified schedules for summer. Also, the construction window for outdoor construction at NAU is impacted by summer monsoons and shortened by winter weather conditions.

Repair of aging infrastructure on the NAU campus has been a priority for the university due to past failures and inherent risks. In many cases, the existing infrastructure has exceeded its useful life. Additionally, many areas do not have the capacity to service the electrical demands of today’s technology utilized for academic program delivery. The critical impact on academic programs and student learning environments necessitates this project. The Northeast Campus Infrastructure Expansion project provides essential utilities that support academic programs and technology demands.

Utility tie-ins at Mountain View Residence Hall are among the priority infrastructure work scheduled to be completed before students return for the Fall semester. This residence hall is home to 574 students. In addition, preliminary infrastructure site work near the Wellness Center project must be completed prior to the start of that project.

Issue: Northern Arizona University requests combined Project Implementation Approval and Project Approval for the Northeast Campus Utility Extension Project. The $6.5 million project includes utility extensions for steam, chilled water, electrical and telecommunications in order to replace aged, oversubscribed stand-alone systems, as well as provide future utility capacity in the northeast portion of campus. The project will be financed with 25-year system revenue bonds to be repaid from the wellness fee and tuition revenues.


Agenda Item #15


Underground electrical lines are being consolidated and re-routed for a new switch installation that will permit greater control of utility functions in this section of campus.

This project will also eliminate inefficient, stand alone heating and cooling units and aging systems in the Hotel and Restaurant Management (HRM) building and existing Recreation Center, which is scheduled for renovation as part of the Wellness Center project. The utility connections provided by this project will reduce long term costs of maintenance and equipment replacement in individual buildings, while increasing energy efficiency.

Currently at HRM, the common areas and the kitchen are heated with five (5) gas furnaces that are aging and operate, at best, at 65% efficiency. The individual rooms have hydronic heaters that are supplied by a gas fired boiler that is also aging and inefficient. In addition, these rooms operate highly inefficient window air conditioning units for cooling. To meet demands for HRM programming, the building is scheduled for renovation into academic classrooms as part of the SPEED stimulus renovation funds. Connecting this building to the North Plant will eliminate the stand-alone systems, permit NAU to provide energy efficient steam and chilled water, and provide an improved learning and teaching environment.

This project will eliminate the need for stand alone, gas fired boilers at the Recreation Center. With the expansion and renovation of the Recreation Center into the Wellness Center (which includes two floors of classrooms) connection to the central plant system will eliminate these stand alone units and provide more efficient heating and cooling.


The scope of this project includes the extension of steam and chilled water from the North Plant to the northeastern sections of campus. During construction of the extensions, points of connection will be provided for the Hotel and Restaurant Building, the Recreation Building, as well as future construction likely to occur in this area of campus.

The project includes approximately 3,200 lineal feet of 12 inch pipe for chilled water delivery and approximately 1,600 lineal feet of 10 inch pipe for steam delivery. There will be 9 vaults and an additional 1,350 feet of 5 feet wide tunnel system constructed as part of this project. Additionally, there is approximately 3,200 lineal feet of 2 and 3 inch piping for trapped and pumped condensate.

This project will also include relocation of electrical and telecom lines. The lines will be consolidated and realigned south of San Francisco Street and then east along Mountain View Drive. A new pad mounted switch, utility vault and manholes will be included in this section of work.


Agenda Item #15


This project is similar to the North Campus Utility Infrastructure project that extended electric, steam, chilled water, and reclaimed water to the north perimeter of campus in summer 2007. This project will focus on extensions and upgrades to northeastern areas of campus not included in the 2007 project. Utilities such as potable water, reclaimed water, storm drains, and / or chilled water have been addressed on south and north campus. Following is a list of recent NAU infrastructure projects and areas addressed by each project.

Other NAU Infrastructure Projects have included:

a) FY2001, Infrastructure Upgrades, $17.6 million, Project#10.010.015, complete 1. South Plant chiller addition 2. South Campus electrical upgrade with new switchgear and entire new

cable system 3. High temperature hot water piping repairs

b) FY2004, North Campus Research Infrastructure, $5 million, Project#10.010.045, complete 1. Utility extension to New Science Laboratory 2. Utility extensions to ARD 3. Upgrades to North Plant to allow distribution to Science Laboratory

c) FY2007, North Campus Utility Infrastructure, $5 million, Project#10.010.073, complete 1. Utility extensions to north perimeter of campus including steam, electric,

water, chilled water, reclaimed water, telecom and storm drains d) FY2007, Campus Infrastructure Upgrades, $15 million, Project#10.010.074,

in construction 1. Chilled water extension to Information Technology Services (ITS) and

Central Campus 2. Reclaimed water extensions to Central Campus 3. ITS electrical upgrades 4. Steam and condensate repairs at North and South Plants 5. Installation of two (2) 1000 ton chillers in the North Plant

e) FY2009, North Campus Stimulus Retrofits, $22 million, SPEED Project#10.010.091 1. North Plant boiler upgrade 2. North Campus electrical upgrades including new switchgear and new

cabling

In an effort to demonstrate the university’s commitment to responsible, sustainable design, and in response to the Governor’s mandate that facilities be designed in a sustainable manner, this project will incorporate sustainable materials and practices where possible.


Agenda Item #15



This project is being delivered through the Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) method. This approach was selected for this project because it can save time through fast-track project scheduling, it provides contractor design input and coordination throughout the project, it improves potentially adversarial project environments, and it allows for the selection of the most qualified contractor team for each individual project. With the use of two independent estimates at each phase, and low bid subcontractor work for the actual construction, this method also provides a high level of cost and quality control.

The CMAR was selected through the capital project selection committee process prescribed by the ABOR Procurement Code. The university received ten (10) responses to the project RFQ and three (3) of the responding teams were short-listed for interview. A licensed contractor from the community was included on the selection committee as required by ABOR policy. The design team was selected through a similar ABOR process, and three (3) teams were interviewed out of the three (3) RFQ responses received.

Project Costs:

The total estimated project budget is $6,500,000. While the budget is larger than the similar North Campus Utility Infrastructure project, the distance of the extensions in this project is twice as long. The total budget for this project reflects reduced costs in materials. The construction cost is based on analysis of the conceptual plan by the CM and has been examined closely at this stage of the design process for efficiencies.

The table below lists comparable projects, with lineal foot utility construction costs:


Utility Cost per

Lineal Foot

Escalated

Construction

Costs

Northeast Campus Utility Extension Flagstaff TBD $6,500,000

North Campus Utility Infrastructure Flagstaff $5,482,000

Steam* $2,100 $2,302

Chilled Water $275 $301

Reclaimed Water $125 $137

Electric $550 $603

Note: Infrastructure costs per lineal foot can vary widely depending upon underground conditions

and unknowns. The Flagstaff campus is known to have rock in many areas, but the depth is unknown.

*Steam costs include tunnels and vaults.


Agenda Item #15


For this Project Approval phase, three (3) cost estimates were prepared independently by the Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR), the Engineer, and an independent firm. These estimates were reconciled to confirm accurate, competitive scope quantities and unit prices to compare against the preliminary Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for the entire scope of work. The CMAR’s GMP consists of 100 percent subcontractor bid commitments.

The CMAR is at risk is to provide the completed project within the agreed upon GMP price. A final report on project control procedures such as change orders and contingency use will be provided at project completion.


System Revenue Bonds will be issued to finance the project. The bonds will be repaid over a 25-year period. The annual debt service of approximately $461,000 will be funded from the Wellness fee approved by the Board in December 2007 (50%) and General University funds (50%).

Operations and maintenance costs are not projected to increase for this project.

Debt Ratio Impact: The incremental debt ratio for this project is 0.12%.


The project is in the Design Development phase, and the CMAR submitted the GMP May 2009. The GMP was within the approved project budget.

General construction is scheduled to begin late June 2009. Construction is scheduled to be complete late September 2009.

Committee Review and Recommendation:

The Capital Committee favorably reviewed this item at its meeting on May 21, 2009, and recommended Board approval.

Recommendation:

That the Board grant combined Project Implementation Approval and Project Approval to Northern Arizona University for the Northeast Campus Utility Extension project.


Agenda Item #15


Capital Project Information Summary

University: Northern Arizona University Project Name: Northeast Campus Utility Extensions

Project Description and Location: The Northeast Campus Infrastructure Expansion project will extend steam and chilled water to the Wellness Center site on South San Francisco and the university’s northeast boundary. Additionally, the project will extend increased electrical capacity and telecom services needed for today’s high technology classrooms and equipment. The extension will provide future connection points for HRM and for future development. The estimated project budget is $6,500,000.

Project Schedule: Planning Spring 2008 Design Fall 2008 Construction June 2009 Occupancy NA

Project Budget: Infrastructure Useful life 50-75 years (approximately) Total Project Cost $ 6,500,000 Total Project Construction Cost $ 5,254,820 Total Project Cost per GSF $ NA , Construction Cost per GSF $ NA , Change in Annual Oper. /Main. Cost: Utilities $ 0 Personnel $ 0 All Other Operating $ 0 Subtotal $ 0

Funding Sources: Capital

A. System Revenue Bonds $ 6,500,000 (Funding Source of Debt Service: Wellness fee (AUX – 50%) and General

University Funds (50%) Operation/Maintenance A. Funding Source: Not applicable


Agenda Item #15


Capital Project

Development Implementation Project

Plan Approval Approval

Capital Costs

1. Land Acquisition -$ -$ -$

2. Construction Cost - - -

A. New Construction - -

B. Renovation 5,254,820 5,254,820

C. Special Fixed Equipment - - -

D. Site Development (excl. 2.E.) - - -

E. Parking and Landscaping - - -

F. Utilities Extensions - - -

G. Other* - - -

Subtotal Construction Cost -$ 5,254,820$ 5,254,820$

3. Fees

A. Construction Mgr (0.2%) -$ 10,000$ 10,000$

B. Architect/Engineer (7.7%) - 405,200 405,200

C. Other - - -

Subtotal Consultant Fees -$ 415,200$ 415,200$

4. FF&E Movable -$ -$ -$

5. Contingency, Design Phase (0.2%) - 8,104 8,104

6. Contingency, Constr. Phase (10%) - 526,482 526,482

7. Parking Reserve - 500 500

8. Telecommunications Equipment - - -

Subtotal Items 4-8 -$ 535,086$ 535,086$

9. Additional University Costs

A. Surveys, Tests, Inspections, etc. -$ 70,000$ 70,000$

B. Move-in Costs - - -

C. Printing Advertisement - 14,478 14,478

D. Keying, signage, facilities support -

E. Project Management Cost (3%) 189,320 189,320

F. State Risk Mgt. Ins. (.0034 **) - 21,096 21,096

Subtotal Addl. Univ. Costs -$ 294,894$ 294,894$

TOTAL CAPITAL COST 6,500,000$ 6,500,000$ 6,500,000$

*Universities shall identify items included in this category

** State Risk Management Insurance factor is calculated on construction costs and consultant fees.

Northeast Campus Utility Extensions


Agenda Item #15


Project location map:

Allen

Hall

Plateau

Center

Taylor Hall

Blome Dr. South

Runke Dr.

Huffe

r Lane

Engineering

and

Technology

Babbitt

Academic

Center

College of

Business

Pine K

noll Dr.

McConnell Drive

Knoles Driv

e

Learning

Resource

Center

Health

Professions

Health

Professions

SW Forest

Science

Complex

College of

Business

Social and

Behavioral

Sciences

Rolle

Activity

Center

duBois

Center

Gabaldon

Hall

University Drive

Ardrey

Auditorium

Performing and

Fine Arts

ARD

Information

Systems

Institute for

Human

Development

Rio

rdan R

d.

Rio

rdan

Ran

ch R

d.

Cline

Library

Wilson Hall

Tinsley

Hall

Campus

Heights

Ru

nke C

ircle

Cowden

Learning

Community

University Union

Kn

ole

s D

r.

Counseling

and Testing

Center

Raymond Hall

Adel

Math

Eastburn

Education

Center

Roseberry

Apt

Milton R

oad

Communication

Building

Blome

Bldg

Old Main

Ashurst

Tormey Ave.

Knole

s D

r.

Frier

Hall

Anthropology

Annex

Riles

Bldg

Gammage

Building

McMullen Circle

Osb

orn

e D

r.

North

Union

S. S

an

Fra

ncis

co

St.

Emerald

Complex

South

Family

Housing

Greenhouse

Complex

Pine Ridge

Village Apts

South

Plant

McConnell

Hall

7373

McConnell Drive

Avian

Cognition

Laboratory

Recycling

Building

Pine Knoll Dr.

Ceramics

Complex

SUPPORT FACILITIES

RESIDENCE HALLS

ACADEMIC BUILDINGS

NEW CONSTRUCTION

300'

Franklin Ave.

Wall Aquatic

Center

Recreation

Center

Gateway

Center

Reilly

Hall

Anthropology

Lab

ROTC/Property

Control

Sechrist Hall

Hall

University Drive

Gillenwater

Hall

McDonald Hall

Babbitt

Academic

Center

Bookstore

HRM

Fronski

Health

Center

Peterson

Hall

Lumberjack

StadiumS. S

an Francisco St.

SCALE

north

Mt.View Dr.

0 100' 200'

Biology

Building

Chemistry

Building

Duplicating

Services

Butler Ave.

Phy

Science

Liberal

Arts

LAB

Facility

Bury Hall

North

Hall

Dupont Dr.

Wettaw

Building Beave

r S

t.

Centennial

Building

Mt. View Hall

PARKING

STRUCTURE

Northeast Campus Utility

Extensions Project

Board of Regents Meeting June 18-19, 2009 Agenda Item # 16



Morgan R. Olsen, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and CFO, (480) 727-9920, [email protected]

Item Name: First Amendment to Agreement to Lease and Escrow Instructions with SunCor Development Company for Property on Rio Salado Parkway West of Rural Road (ASU)


Previous Board Action: June 19, 2007:

Approval to sell 10.62 acres of land and approval to ground lease the remaining 15.15 acres of ASU Rio Salado property located north of Rio Salado Parkway and west of Rural Road, Tempe, and a waiver of the requirement for an auction of the sale property.

Statutory/Policy Requirements: Board Policy 7-207 requires Capital Committee review and Board approval for

amendments to leases of real property. Background/Strategic Implications: ASU owned approximately 25.77 acres of land located north of Rio Salado Parkway

on the west side of Rural along the south bank of the Tempe Town Lake (Attachment 1). Pursuant to ABOR approval in June of 2007, 10.62 acres have been sold to SunCor. The remaining 15.15 acres are being made available to SunCor for development pursuant to an Agreement to Lease and Escrow Instructions dated June 29, 2007 (the Agreement). Terms of that Agreement were approved by ABOR at its June 2007 meeting. ASU and SunCor now desire to amend certain terms of that agreement.

Pursuant to the Agreement between ASU and SunCor, five ground-lease development parcels were designated. One of the parcels (Parcel K) was further identified for hotel use (the Hotel Leased Parcel). Pursuant to the Agreement, SunCor has issued a Hotel RFP; however, all responses to the Hotel RFP were rejected because the responses did not meet the financial expectations for a hotel use.

Issue: Arizona State University requests approval of an amendment to a lease agreement with SunCor Development Company for property located on Rio Salado Parkway West of Rural Road. The amendment would: (1) allow a parcel previously designated for a hotel, to be used for other purposes; (2) delay the execution of the lease of the first of five parcels to occur no later than December 31, 2012, instead of December 31, 2009; and (3) allow the phasing of each parcel to be based on need, instead of the original sequencing.



Summary of Business Terms of the Amendment:

The current economic conditions suggest that the highest and best use for Parcel K have changed. Consequently, ASU and SunCor have determined that use of Parcel K should not be limited to use as a Hotel and that the value of the Hotel Leased Parcel (Parcel K) should not be determined solely based on such use. Accordingly, the Agreement would be amended to allow for other use of Parcel K and shall allow a revision to the Development Site Plan for Parcel K once the use for Parcel K is determined.

Current economic conditions have affected the timing of development as well. The Agreement would be amended to allow for a deferred start date for development. The effect would be to defer the takedown of the first parcel from no later than December 31, 2009 to no later than December 31, 2012. SunCor’s acquisition of the remaining phases would be reduced from every four years to every three years, with the last parcel end date of December 31, 2021 remaining the same. Parcel phasing would be determined based on need.

As compensation for the lease extension, SunCor would agree to pay 5 percent of the first phase land value on an annual basis for up to 3 years, calculated at $234,179 annually. Compensation would be based on the following: 1) SunCor to be responsible for the ASU portion of the Tempe Lake Assessment of approximately $138,500 annually; 2) SunCor to lease the parking lot adjacent to Sun Devil Stadium, containing 1115 parking spaces on 11 acres, to ASU for the remaining balance due.

Fiscal Impact and Management Plan:

The amended terms will facilitate development in accordance with the best use of Parcel K in this economic climate and will provide flexibility for development start dates for the other parcels to ensure success of the project.

The lease of the adjacent 11 acre parking lot to ASU provides a revenue stream well in excess of the 5 percent lease extension fee and makes available an additional 1115 parking spaces for student and event use at no additional cost to ASU.

Committee Review and Recommendation: The Capital Committee favorably reviewed this item at its meeting on May 21, 2009,

and recommended Board approval



Recommendation: It is requested that the Board approve the amendment to the Agreement to Lease and Escrow Instructions with SunCor, and that the President of ASU, the Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of ASU, and ASU’s Assistant Vice President for Real Estate Development, or any successor titles to such positions be, are each separately authorized in the name and on behalf of the Board, to take all appropriate actions to finalize negotiations and to execute and deliver any and all agreements associated with and to consummate the First Amendment to Agreement to Lease and Escrow Instructions with SunCor on substantially the terms described herein.



Attachment 1

Arizona Board of Regents Meeting June 18-19, 2009 Agenda Item #17



Bruce A. Wright, Associate Vice President for Economic Development, (520) 621-4088, [email protected]

ITEM NAME: Arizona Bioscience Park Master Land Use Plan (UA)

Action Item Discussion Item Information Item Previous Board Actions: ► March 2007 Board approved a land exchange with KB Home/Lennar Homes of 124

acres of land at the UA Science and Technology Park (UASTP) for 54.5 acres of land at Kino Parkway and 36th Street.

► July 2008 the Board approved a master lease for the Bio Park with the Research Park Development Corporation (RPDC) contingent upon approval of a Bio Park Master Land Use Plan.

Project Justification/Strategic Implications: ► The goal of the Bio Park is to create a leading-edge research park that supports and

promotes scientific exploration and education, technology innovation and commercialization and high technology business development and attraction.

► The Bio Park will assist Tucson and Southern Arizona to develop and capitalize on its emerging bioscience industry.

► The Arizona Bioscience Park is a strategic component of the Arizona Bioscience Roadmap, Southern Arizona Bioscience Road map and the Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities, Inc., Economic Blueprint.

► The Bio Park is being designed in collaboration with the Southern Arizona Bioscience Leadership Council and complements Tucson’s other major bioscience initiatives including the BIO5 Institute, Critical Paths Institute and Innovation Place.

► The Bio Park will have a significant economic impact on the Tucson metropolitan region and will generate high wage jobs at all levels for area residents and university graduates.

► The Bio Park is located adjacent to several historic neighborhoods in Tucson and will be a catalyst for significant redevelopment in this portion of Tucson.

Issue: The University of Arizona (University) requests adoption of a Master Land Use Plan (MLUP) for the Arizona Bioscience Park (Bio Park).



► The Bio Park will create the environment and provide the programs, and facilities to

assist University faculty and students in the commercialization of their discoveries and inventions, especially in the fields of bioscience and biotechnology.

Project Description and Scope: ► The Bio Park is located on 65 acres of land at 36th Street and Kino Parkway in

central Tucson just 2.5 miles from UA main campus.

► The Bio Park is part of a 350-acre City of Tucson approved Planned Area Development (PAD) known as The Bridges that includes 110 acres of retail development and 175 acres of residential development.

► The Bio Park will provide the infrastructure and amenities necessary to support high technology companies including bioscience companies requiring high-intensity laboratory facilities such as bio-containment labs, clean rooms, wet labs and vivaria.

► The Bio Park MLUP authorizes eight permitted uses within the park: (1) research and development, (2) education, (3) housing (4) hospitality (5) office, and (6) convenience retail, (7) open space, and (8) production and manufacturing.

► The MLUP designates six development parcels: (RD1) high intensity research and development, (RD2) low intensity research and development, (E) education, (UH) university housing, (H) hospitality, (OS) open space.

► The MLUP includes a set of development and operating principles as well as development precepts for the park.

► Phase One includes 660,000 square feet of development including a hotel and conference center, a university multi-tenant building which will house the Arizona Center for Innovation, parking structure, and commercial office and laboratory buildings.

Statutory/Policy Requirements: ► Board Policy 7-109 requires Capital Committee review and Board approval of

projects. Additional Project Considerations: ► The University was assisted in the development of the MLUP by NBBJ, an

internationally recognized planning and architectural firm based in Seattle, Washington, and The Planning Center, a planning firm based in Tucson, Arizona.



► The MLUP was reviewed by members of a Planning Committee composed of representatives from the City of Tucson Planning and Development Services, Pima County Planning, and the following University departments: Capital and Facilities Planning, Facilities Design and Construction, and Real Estate Management.

► The MLUP received extensive public comment and review including input from

community, business and governmental leaders, a Citizens Advisory Committee, and neighborhood associations. Additional input was sought from the Southern Arizona Leadership Council, Southern Arizona Bioscience Leadership Council, Arizona Association for Economic Development, Tucson Unified School District, and the Joint Technology Education District (JTED). Two public meetings were held for review and comment regarding the plan.

► Comment was also solicited through a series of presentations and meetings with the University community including the President’s Cabinet, Faculty Senate, Committee of Eleven, Regents Professors, Planning and Design Review Advisory Committee, and Health Sciences faculty.

► The MLUP includes an additional 11.5 acres of land that will be acquired at a later date under the terms and conditions of the original land exchange between ABOR and KB Home/Lennar Homes.

► The Pima County Flood Control District just completed a $9 million project to alleviate chronic flooding on the site.

► The University has submitted a grant proposal to the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA) for $4.5 million to fund construction of the basic infrastructure within the Park – roads, water and sewer lines, electricity and telecommunications.

► The Campus Research Corporation (CRC) will have responsibility for developing,

operating, marketing, and leasing the Bio Park under a proposed master land lease with ABOR.

► CRC will be responsible for all obligations, assessments and liabilities of the Bio Park as assigned to it by ABOR and the University.

► CRC will issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in late summer/early fall to competitively select a private sector development team to assist in designing, developing, financing and operating portions of the Phase One development.

► The University will subsequently adopt Design and Development Guidelines that will set the standards and requirements for all development within the Park.



Project Costs: ► Preliminary planning and development expenses have been paid by CRC. To date,

CRC has spent $511,000 in expenses related to the acquisition, planning, and design of the Bio Park.

► Subsequent planning and design expenses will be covered by CRC and a private sector development partner.

► CRC received a non-recourse loan in the amount of $200,000 from the Arizona

Commerce and Economic development Commission (CEDC) to fund preliminary planning expenses. Balance owed to CEDC is $157,000.

► CRC must provide 50% match to the EDA grant -- $700,000 cash match and $3.8 million in kind (land) match.

► Selection of a private sector “co-developer” is budgeted at $35,000. Source of funds

is CRC.

► CRC will be responsible for the cost of preparing the Design and Development Guidelines.

► The University and CRC will seek additional funding for park development from

private sources, federal stimulus funds, a future Pima County Bond issue and other grants and gifts.


► The first 54.5 acres of land at the Arizona Bioscience Park were obtained through a land-swap with KB Home for 124 acres of land at UASTP.

► The University has the option to acquire an additional 11.5 acres under the terms of the original KB Home land exchange. Cost of acquisition is $1.9 million.

► The University of Arizona has submitted a grant application to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration to fund $4.7 million in infrastructure improvements in the Bio Park. This grant requires a 50% match. The University is utilizing the value of the land as part of its match.

► Funding for Bio Park development and operations will be the responsibility of the Campus Research Corporation (CRC).



► The Bio Park will be subject to a Master Declaration of Covenants Agreement for Maintenance of Enhanced Infrastructure Improvements. CRC or its assignee will be a voting member of The Bridges Property Owners Association and subject to a pro rata assessment for operation and maintenance of The Bridges common area improvements. CRC share of these common area expenses will be assessed to the tenants of the Bio Park.

Project Status & Schedule: ► August 2004: Selection of the site through a comparative analysis of six sites in

downtown and in central Tucson; analysis was prepared by The Planning Center, a planning firm based in Tucson, Arizona.

► March 2006: Bio Park Framework Plan was prepared with the assistance of NBBJ, an international recognized planning and architectural firm based in Seattle, Washington.

► November 2006 – April 2009: MLUP public review and comment process.

► March 2007 Approval of The Bridges Planed Area Development (PAD) by the City of Tucson

► February 2008: Adoption of The Bridges Master Design Guidelines. ► June 2009 (Pending): Approval of Master Land Use Plan (MLUP) by ABOR.

► June 2009 (Pending) Approval of Master Declaration of Covenants

► August/September 2009: Issue RFQ for a Master Developer for Phase One Development.

► August 2009: Award of infrastructure construction grant by U.S. Department of Commerce/Economic Development Administration.

► November 2009: Select Master Developer.

► November 2009: Initiate construction of infrastructure improvements.

► December 2010: Complete infrastructure improvements.

► January 2011: Begin Phase One development.



Appendix: ► Arizona Bioscience Park Master Land Use Plan Capital Committee Review and Recommendation: ► The Capital Committee favorably reviewed this item at its meeting on May 21, 2009,

and recommended Board approval. Recommendation: ► It is requested that the Board approve the Master Land Use Plan for the Arizona

Bioscience Park as described in this executive summary.



Arizona Bioscience Park Master Land Use Plan (proposed)

►


Board of Regents Meeting June 18 - 19, 2009


ITEM NAME: Dissolution of the Research Park Development Corporation and

Assignment of Responsibilities and Obligations at the UA Science and Technology Park and Arizona Bioscience Park to the Campus Research Corporation (UA)

Action Item Discussion Item Information Item Previous Board Actions:

► June 2008 the Board approved the revised Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and Directors of RPDC.

► September 2007 the Board approved a master lease between ABOR and RPDC for portions of UASTP.

► September 2007 the Board approved a master lease between ABOR and RPDC for the Bio Park, contingent upon Board approval of a master land use plan (MLUP).

► August 2006 the Board approved amendment of the lease between ABOR and CRC for portions of UASTP, extending the term of the lease to 2033.

► March 2006 the Board approved the formation, purpose and activity of RPDC, subject to the Capital Committee’s approval of the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation.

Project Justification/Strategic Implications:

► The Board has previously authorized the use of a non-profit corporation to assist in the development, operation, and management of university facilities, including UASTP and Arizona State University Research Park.

► CRC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation organized solely to assist the Board on behalf of the University in the acquisition, financing, improvement and operation of campus, research park, and related properties, including design and development, construction, marketing and leasing of commercial space.



Issue: The University of Arizona requests Board approval to dissolve the Research Park Development Corporation (RPDC) and to assign its responsibilities and obligations at the UA Science and Technology Park (UASTP) and the Arizona Bioscience Park (Bio Park) to the Campus Research Corporation (CRC).




► CRC operates under a lease with ABOR. It manages and leases approximately 1.2 million square feet of commercial space within the portion of UASTP known as the “Project”. The Project encompasses 345 acres of UASTP’s 1,345 acres.

► CRC assists in funding activities related to the development of UASTP outside the Project and in the acquisition and design of the Bio Park.

► CRC is governed by a nine-member board of directors. Directors include a representative of the Board, three university officials appointed by the president of the University, and five private citizens.

► RPDC, an Arizona corporation, was created by the Board in 2006 to assist in developing and leasing the undeveloped areas of UASTP as well as the Bio Park.

► RPDC is governed by an eleven-member board of directors appointed by the Board. Directors include a representative of the Board, three university officials and seven private citizens.

► In September 2007, the Board approved a master lease with RPDC for the non-Project portions of UASTP. This lease has not been executed or recorded. The Board also approved a master lease with RPDC for the Bio Park, contingent upon approval of a master land use plan (MLUP) for the Bio Park. This lease has not been executed or recorded.


► The University has adopted a Ten–Year Financial and Business Plan (Plan) for UASTP. The Plan was reviewed and endorsed by the three governing entities of UASTP – CRC, RPDC and the Arizona Research Park Authority (ARPA).

► A major goal of the plan was a restructuring of the governance and management structure for UASTP. The three boards were unanimous in their view that the governance and management of UASTP is cumbersome, complex, inefficient and expensive.

► Consolidation of the CRC and RPDC boards will allow for a clearer and more accountable process of governance, greater articulation of park mission and goals between the board of directors and the University and the Board, better oversight of management, and a reduction in administrative and legal expenses.

► As a first step towards consolidation, a majority of the University’s park staff will transfer to the employment of CRC effective June 30, 2009.

► A second goal of the Plan is to fund UASTP and Bio Park development, management and operations from park-generated revenues. Over the next ten years, the primary source of revenue will be the CRC commercial leasehold in the Project.



► CRC has a fifteen year record of successfully managing and operating the developed portion of UASTP. It is a credit worthy organization with a record of successful financial performance. It has the capacity to borrow against its leasehold interests in the Project. It is in a position, based on ten-year revenue projections, to fund UASTP operations and expansion as well as to help fund the design and development of the Bio Park. CRC can assume debt and other financial and legal obligations on behalf of the University.

► Currently, RPDC has no assets or liabilities. It is not in a position to fund development at either UASTP or the Bio Park nor to assume any financial obligations on behalf of the University.

► As part of the merger of CRC and RPDC, the CRC board of directors would be expanded to eleven members. The proposed board of CRC would include current members of each organization. Board members will be selected by the President of the University and will include one recent member of the Arizona Board of Regents and one current member of the Board of Regents. Names will be submitted as an informational item to the Capital Committee.

Statutory/Policy Requirements:

► Board Policy 7-102 requires Board review and approval of projects.

Additional Project Considerations: N/A

Project Delivery Method and Process: N/A Project Costs: N/A Fiscal Impact and Financing Plan:

► To date, CRC has expended $2.4 million in support of development activities at UASTP including: $838,991 for master planning and development guidelines, $666,878 for annexation, $811,733 for the hotel and conference center project, $47,456 for the relocation of Vail High School, $7,500 for solar energy development, $30,259 for the Julian Wash Linear Park, and $29,934 for other related activities and projects. In addition, CRC has expended $510,000 for acquisition and development of the Bio Park.

► CRC is in a position to finance several critical projects in UASTP and the Bio Park, including the installation of $1.5 million in water improvements at UASTP, $3.5 million in off-site infrastructure improvements at the Bio Park, and $1 million in a match for a federal stimulus grant for on-site infrastructure improvements at the Bio Park.

Project Status & Schedule:



► Dissolution of RPDC and transfer of its responsibilities to CRC would be effective

July 1, 2009. The master leases to CRC for UASTP and RPDC would be executed on or after July 1, 2009.

Capital Committee Review and Recommendation:

► The Capital Committee favorably reviewed this item at its meeting on May 21, 2009, and recommended Board approval.

► As a result of discussion from the Capital Committee, the intent is to include one recent member of the Arizona Board of Regents and one current member of the Board of Regents in the CRC Board of Directors.

Recommendation:

► The Board is requested to approve the dissolution of the Research Park Development Corporation and the assignment of its responsibilities and obligations at the UA Science and Technology Park and Arizona Bioscience Park to the Campus Research Corporation.





ITEM NAME: Master Leases between the Arizona Board of Regents and the Campus Research Corporation for Portions of the UA Science and Technology Park and The Arizona Bioscience Park (UA)


Previous Board Actions: ► September 2007 the Board approved a master lease with Research Park

Development Corporation (RPDC) for portions of UASTP. ► September 2007 the Board approved a master lease with RPDC for the Bio Park

contingent on Board approval of a Master Land Use Plan (MLUP). Project Justification/Strategic Implications:

► UASTP is located on 1,345 acres of land in the southeast portion of the Tucson

metropolitan area. The Board acquired the Park on behalf of the University from the IBM Corporation in 1994.

► The Board acquired the Bio Park though an exchange of 124 acres of land at UASTP for 54.5 acres of land and the option for an additional 11.5 acres of land at 36th Street and Kino Parkway.

► The Board has previously authorized the use of non-profit corporations to assist in the development, operation and management of the university facilities including The University of Arizona Science and Technology Park and Arizona State University Research Park.

► CRC is an independent, Arizona non-profit corporation organized solely to assist the Board on behalf of The University of Arizona in the acquisition, financing, improvement and operation of campus, research park and related properties, including the design and development, construction, marketing and leasing of commercial space.

Issue: The University of Arizona (University) requests Board approval of two master leases with the Campus Research Corporation (CRC) for portions of the UA Science and Technology Park (UASTP), and the Arizona Bioscience Park (Bio Park). The University also is requesting a waiver of ABOR Policy 7-207.A.1 that limits the term of lease to 120 months.



► Currently, CRC operates under a lease with ABOR, a portion of UASTP, encompassing 345 acres of land and more than 2 million square feet of commercial and support space.

► In addition, CRC has helped the University to fund planning and development expenses for the balance of UASTP and the Bio Park.

Project Description and Scope: ► The first master lease is for UASTP encompassing 872 acres. 129 acres are

designated as “research park” under Section 35-750 (10) of the Arizona Revised Statutes.

► Under the terms of the master lease, CRC will be required to develop, manage, operate and lease the property in conformity with (1) UASTP Revised Master Plan and (2) Design and Development Guidelines.

► The second master lease is for the Arizona Bioscience Park on 54.5 acres of land located at Kino Boulevard and 36th Street.

► Under the terms of the master lease, CRC will be required to develop, manage, operate and lease the property in conformity with the Arizona Bioscience Park Master Land Use Plan and Design and Development Guidelines.

► The University has developed, with the assistance of NBBJ, a nationally recognized

planning firm located in Seattle, and The Planning Center located in Tucson, a Master Land Use Plan (MLUP) for the Bio Park. The board is being asked to approve the MLUP under a separate agenda item.

► The University proposes that the term of each lease expire on July 31, 2082. The

rent paid by CRC to ABOR under each lease will be $1 per year plus the net proceeds of CRC subleases and ground leases to third parties.

► The leases require that the president of The University of Arizona, if so designated

by the Board, approve the CRC annual budget. CRC’s annual net proceeds are to be paid to the University as additional rent. Net proceeds are defined in the leases as gross proceeds, less the amounts authorized by the president of The University of Arizona to be retained by CRC for operation and improvement expenses.

► Under the terms of the two leases, CRC will have the authority to develop and

manage each property, including entering into subleases and agreements with various tenants and other users.

► Each lease between the Board and CRC requires that all subleases between CRC

and other parties have the approval of the UA president, if so designated by the Board.



► Ground leases, subleases for new space exceeding 25,000 square feet and renewals of subleases exceeding 50,000 square feet negotiated by CRC will be submitted for review by the Capital Committee. This is consistent with the provisions of the existing lease between the Board and the Campus Research Corporation for the Project portions of UASTP.

► The Master Leases have been reviewed by UA Counsel.


projects Additional Project Considerations: N/A

Project Delivery Method and Process: N/A Project Costs: N/A Fiscal Impact and Financing Plan: ► Under the terms of the master leases, CRC will assume financial responsibility for

costs associated with the design, development, management, operation, marketing and leasing of UASTP and the Bio Park.

► CRC will assume responsibility for all debts and financial obligations of UASTP and

the Bio Park. Project Status & Schedule: ► The master lease for UASTP needs to be approved and executed prior to July 1,

2009 to allow CRC to finance a series of infrastructure projects related to the relocation and construction of a new campus for Vail High School, development of a well and water system to support construction of the hotel and conference center and development of a regional shopping center.

► The master lease for Bio Park needs to be approved and executed prior to July 1,

2009 to allow for the design of infrastructure improvements related to a grant of $4.7 million in federal funding from the US Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration.

Capital Committee Review and Recommendation: ► The Capital Committee favorably reviewed this item at its meeting on May 21, 2009,

and recommended Board approval



Recommendation:

► It is requested that the Board approve the two master leases with the Campus

Research Corporation for portions of The University of Arizona Science and Technology Park and The Arizona Bioscience Park.





ITEM NAME: Master Declaration of Covenants for Maintenance of Enhanced Infrastructure Improvements at The Bridges/Arizona Bioscience Park (UA)


Previous Board Actions: ► March 2007 the Board approved a land exchange with KB Home/Lennar Homes of

124 acres land at the UA Science and Technology Park (UASTP) for 54.5 acres of land and the option for an additional 11.5 acres of land at Kino Parkway and 36th Street for the Arizona Bioscience Park (Bio Park).

► July 2008 the Board approved a master lease for the Bio Park with the Research

Park Development Corporation (RPDC) contingent upon approval of a master land-use plan.

Project Justification/Strategic Implications: ► The goal of the Bio Park is to create a leading-edge research park that supports and

promotes scientific exploration and education, technology innovation and commercialization and high technology business development and attraction.

► The Bio Park will assist Tucson and Southern Arizona to develop and capitalize on its emerging bioscience industry.

► The Bio Park is being developed in collaboration with the Bioscience Leadership Council of Southern Arizona and complements Tucson’s other major bioscience initiatives including the BIO5 Institute, Critical Paths Institute, and Innovation Place.

► The Bio Park will have a significant economic impact on the Tucson metropolitan region and will generate high wages for area residents and university graduates.

Project Description and Scope: ► The Bio Park is located on 54.5 acres of land at 36th Street and Kino Parkway three

miles south of the University main campus.

Issue: The University of Arizona requests Board Approval of a Master Declaration of Covenants for Maintenance of Enhanced Infrastructure Improvements at The Bridges/Arizona Bioscience Park Planned Area Development.



► The Bio Park is part of a 350-acre Planned Area Development (PAD) known as The Bridges. The Bridges includes 110 acres of retail and commercial development and 175 acres of residential development.

► Under the terms of the proposed Master Declaration, the development partners in the PAD: ABOR/The University of Arizona; 5151 East, LLC (KB Home/Lennar Homes); and Tucson Retail, LLC (Eastbourne Investments), are responsible for the cost of constructing and maintaining common and “enhanced” infrastructure within the PAD.

► The “enhanced infrastructure ” includes paving, street furniture, landscaping, lighting, signage, and art/sculpture.

► The University’s obligations were established in the original land exchange agreement between ABOR and 5151 East.

► The University or its assignee participates as a voting member of The Bridges Property Owners’ Association (Master Association), which will determine the annual assessment for common area expenses.

► The University or its assignee is also a voting member of The Bridges Design Review Committee (DRC), which determines the design and development standards for the common areas and enhanced infrastructure.

► ABOR has no direct, contingent, corporate or recourse liability for payment of the common expenses under the Master Declaration. No liens may be placed on the ABOR property.

► ABOR responsibilities under the terms of the original land exchange agreement and the terms of the Master Declaration will be assigned to the Campus Research Corporation (CRC) through a master land lease between ABOR and CRC.

► The Master Declaration of Covenants was reviewed by UA Counsel and outside counsel representing the University and the Campus Research Corporation.


projects. Additional Project Considerations:

► The University has applied to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic

Development Administration for a $4.7 million grant to fund construction of the on-site infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, telecommunications) for the Bio Park. This grant will be funded from federal stimulus funds.



► The University must initiate construction of these improvements within 120 days of

the award.

► The construction of the on-site improvements must be coordinated with installation of the common area and enhanced infrastructure in The Bridges.

Project Delivery Method and Process: ► Under the terms of the Master Declaration, Tucson Retail and 5151 East will serve

as the developers of the common area and enhanced infrastructure improvements. Project Costs: ► Under the terms of the original land exchange, the University or its assignee (CRC)

is obligated to pay the pro rata share of the common and enhanced infrastructure improvements costs at The Bridges. The University’s financial obligation is capped at $3.5 million. It has eight years to pay for its share of these improvements. These costs will be capitalized by revenues generated from ground leases at the Bio Park.

► As ABOR’s assignee, CRC would be responsible for paying the annual common expenses assessed by the Master Association. Funds for these expenses would be generated from a common service fee assessed by CRC on all tenants.

► Should CRC fail to pay its common area assessment, it could be subject to a late fee

or charge, or a lien against its leasehold interest in the Bio Park. The Master Association will have no recourse against the University or ABOR.


► The Master Declaration does not create financial obligations for ABOR or the University.

Project Status & Schedule: ► The Master Declaration needs to be approved and executed by the development

partners by August 1, 2009, to allow for the construction of a regional shopping center.

► The Master Declaration needs to be approved by August 1, 2009, to allow for the design of on-site improvements to the Bio Park and the award of a federal grant.



Capital Committee Review and Recommendation: The Capital Committee favorably reviewed this item at its meeting on May 21, 2009, and recommended Board approval. Recommendation: It is requested that the Board approve the Master Declaration of Enhanced Infrastructure Improvements at The Bridges/Arizona Bioscience Park as described in this executive summary.



The Bridges PAD Site Map




ITEM NAME: Ground Lease Between Arizona Board of Regents and Vail Unified

School District No. 20 (UA)

Action Item Discussion Item Information Item Previous Board Actions: ► The Board acquired the UA Science and Technology Park (UASTP) on behalf of the

University from the IBM Corporation in 1994. ► The Board approved the UASTP Master Land Use Plan in August 1998. ► The Board approved revisions to the UASTP Master Land Use Plan in December

2008.

Project Justification/Strategic Implications: ► The UASTP is an integral part of The University of Arizona and assists the University

in fulfilling its research, education and outreach mission.

► One of the most innovative and important tenants of UASTP is Vail High School (School), a charter high school operated by the Vail Unified School District 20 (District).

► The School is a small comprehensive high school serving students in grades 9 – 12

with a maximum enrollment of 160 students. Its unique location at UASTP allows the school to capitalize on business relationships and connects students to their futures. This “small school” community with class sizes averaging 20 students promotes personal relationships that optimize the learning of each individual.

► The school and staff provide a challenging academic curriculum that emphasizes science, technology, engineering, math, and business with opportunities to apply knowledge in real-world settings.

► Vail High School currently occupies l5,152 square feet on the first floor of Building 9040 at the Park.



Issue: The University of Arizona requests approval of a 50-year ground lease between the Arizona Board of Regents and the Vail Unified School District No. 20 for 18.08 acres at the UA Science and Technology Park.




► Vail High School’s facilities are located within the Davis-Monthan Approach

Departure Corridor (DM ADC). The presence of the high school within the DM ADC is not consistent with either the February 2004 Davis-Monthan Air Force Base/Pima County Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) or the Pima County Airport Environs and Facilities Ordinance (PC AEFO).

► Approval of the ground lease between the Board and the District for 18.08 acres at

the Park will provide a site where the District will construct a new school to which the existing school will be relocated outside of the DM ADC.

► While 6.24 acres of the land subject to the ground lease are within the DM ADC, all

facilities on the parcel will be constructed so as to be consistent with and conform to the JLUS, the PC AEFO and the City of Tucson Airport Environs Zone Ordinance.

► The school district will construct a unique, integrated, K-12 facility on the parcel.

► The school will include full-day kindergarten. It will accommodate up to 225

elementary and middle school students and 225 high school students. It will offer before school and after school care.

Project Description and Scope: ► The proposed ground lease between the Board and the District is for 18.08 acres at

the Park. This parcel is conterminous with the education land use depicted in the Board-approved UASTP Master Land Use Plan.

► The proposed ground lease is for 50 years at an annual rental rate of $10. The legal description of the 18.08-acre parcel is found in.

► The proposed ground lease species that the parcel be used only for (1) a K-12

school that provides free education available to District residents and, to the extent space is available, to other residents of Pima County and (2) a child care center.

► The proposed ground lease requires that the District, at its expense, obtain all

necessary permits and approvals for the construction of improvements within one hundred eighty (180) days of the commencement date of this ground lease. In the event that the District is unable to obtain the necessary permits, the Board or the District has the right to terminate the agreement.

► The proposed ground lease requires that the District, at its expense, conduct all

necessary site investigation and testing, site preparation, utility hook-ups and any drainage improvements made necessary by the development of the property.

► The proposed ground lease requires that the District, at its expense, conduct all

archaeological and cultural resource remediation required because of the development of the property, including the preparation and filing of any state or Federal permits or plans required for such remediation.



► The proposed ground lease provides for lease termination if the parcel is no longer

being used for the uses intended under the lease. ► The proposed ground lease requires that improvements be constructed by the

District in conformance with the UASTP Master Land Use Plan and Design Guidelines.

► The proposed ground lease requires that the District pay for the cost of all offsite

infrastructure necessary or required in connection with the development of the leased parcel.

► The proposed ground lease has been reviewed and approved by the University

Attorney’s Office and the University’s Department of Risk Management. The Arizona Department of Administration has reviewed provisions relating to indemnity, liability and insurance.

Statutory/Policy Requirements: ► Board Policy 7-207 requires Capital Committee review and Board approval of the

Ground Lease because the term of the lease exceeds 120 months and the rental rate does not meet or exceed the fair rental value of the property.

Additional Project Considerations: N/A

Project Delivery Method and Process: N/A Project Costs: ► All University expenses related to this project are to be reimbursed by the Vail

School District. To date, the Campus Research Corporation has covered University-related expenses in the amount of $47,456.

Fiscal Impact and Financing Plan: ► The Vail School District is responsible for all cost associated with the construction

and operation of the school and its facilities including buildings, parking, recreational fields, access drives and landscaping.

► The District is also responsible for its pro rata share of the cost of construction and

extending infrastructure to the school site. ► The District is also assessed a share of the UASTP common area expenses.



Project Status & Schedule: ► This lease needs to be approved and executed on or before July 1, 2009, to begin

immediate construction of the school and related infrastructure improvements. This project must be completed on or before July 1, 2010, to allow classes to begin for the 2010-2011 school year and to meet the relocation requirement of the DM JLUS.

Committee Review and Recommendation: ► The Capital Committee favorably reviewed this item at its meeting on May 21, 2009,

and recommended Board approval pending approval by UA and ABOR counsel. Recommendation: It is requested that the Board approve the Ground Lease between the Arizona Board of Regents and Vail Unified School District No. 20, as described in the executive summary and pending approval by UA and ABOR counsel.



Contact Information: Lorenzo Martinez (ABOR) (602) 229-2525 [email protected] Morgan Olsen, (ASU) (480) 727-9920 [email protected] M.J. McMahon, (NAU) (928) 523-6515 [email protected] Joel Valdez, (UA) (520) 621-5977 [email protected]

Item Name: Proposed Revisions to ABOR Policy 7-102, “Overview of the Capital Development Process and Phases,” Policy 7-109, “Project Approval,” Policy 7-112, “Capital Project Status Reports,” and Policy 7-207, “Leases of Real Property” (Second Reading)


Background

At the direction of the Board, ABOR staff and university staff have been working on revisions to Board capital policies that would improve the information that is submitted by the universities on capital projects and increase the efficiency of the capital process.

Strategic Implications Approval Threshold

Current Board policy requires that projects with an estimated total project cost of $2 million or more undergo the multi-phase Capital Committee and Board review and approval process outlined in policy for Capital Improvement Plans, Capital Development Plans, Project Implementation Approvals, and Project Approvals.

Over the last five years, 39 projects systemwide in the $2 million to $5 million cost range made up approximately 30% of projects requiring approval, but represented only 4%, or $101.5 million of project expenditures. The following table shows the breakout for each university.

Percent of

Projects Percent of

Total Dollars

ASU 40% 6% NAU 25% 5% UA 24% 2%

Average 30% 4%

Issue: The Board is asked to approve proposed revisions to ABOR Policies 7-102, 7-109, 7-112, and 7-207. The revisions: 1) increase the dollar threshold for projects that require approval from $2 million to $5 million, and 2) provide clarification and expand the information submitted to the Capital Committee and the Board for third party capital projects.



The majority of projects in this cost range represent facility renovations and infrastructure repairs and upgrades.

The proposed policy revisions would increase the dollar threshold of projects requiring approval from $2 million to $5 million, and would create a new section in the quarterly Capital Projects Status Reports for projects in this cost range.

Third Party Partnerships

While current Board policy requires Capital Committee review and Board approval of capital projects shared with third parties, these projects have traditionally been submitted after final terms of the agreements have been negotiated.

The proposed revisions to policy would require a university to provide preliminary notification to the Capital Committee of its intent to pursue these types of partnerships, including an interim report on the development of negotiating parameters. Final Capital Committee review and Board approval of these projects will continue to be required.

For projects in which a university will share control, financing, ownership and/or control of the delivery process, the information required to be submitted to the Capital Committee and Board has been expanded to ensure that university interests and best practices are incorporated into the process. The additional information to be required includes: 1) development of standards for construction, maintenance and operations; 2) third party financial benefits and contributions; and 3) lease and ownership transition terms.

For projects involving commercial development on university property that will be supported primarily from a non-university population, notification to the Capital Committee on intent to solicit commercial development and an interim report on the development of negotiating parameters will be required. The final terms of any lease agreements will continue to require Capital Committee review and Board approval.

Policy Revisions

The proposed changes to ABOR Policies 7-102, 7-109, 7-112, and 7-207 are shown starting on Page 4.

Committee Review and Recommendation

The Capital Committee favorably reviewed the proposed policy revisions at its April 9, 2009 meeting and recommended Board approval.

The Board reviewed these revisions at its April 30, 2009 meeting.



At the request of the Capital Committee, staff is developing additional policy changes to require: a) reporting of significant project costs changes, and b) defining a category of third-party party partnership projects which require universities to enter into agreements or contracts, but that are not on university property, or not fully or partially controlled by the university.

Recommendation That the Board approve the proposed revisions to ABOR Policies 7-102, 7-109, 7-112 and 7-207, as presented in this Executive Summary.



7-102 Overview of the Capital Development Process and Phases … B. Projects That Require Approval

1. All capital projects with an estimated total project cost of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) $5,000,000 or more shall be brought to the Capital Committee and the Board for approval regardless of funding source or financing structure. New construction and renovation projects with an estimated total project cost of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) $5,000,000 or more shall be submitted for Capital Development Plan Approval.

2. Projects that originally were not required to enter the capital development process, but subsequently are forecasted to exceed the dollar thresholds as described above, must be submitted for Capital Committee review and Board approval.

3. CAPITAL projects where the Board and the university share with other entities (Federal, State, local, development groups, public/private ventures, etc.) the control, financing, or ownership (current or future) of the project and/or its delivery process AND THAT ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW UNDER BOARD POLICY 7-207, shall be reviewed by the Capital Committee and approved by the Board. The university shall seek guidance from the Central Office to document the proposed process for Board consideration. That process, at a minimum must INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION, WHICH MAY BE PROVIDED IN A SINGLE REPORT OR IN A SERIES OF REPORTS AS DETAILS OF THE PROJECT ARE DEVELOPED:

a. Define the scope and justify the need for the project;

NOTICE TO THE CAPITAL COMMITTEE OF INTENT TO PURSUE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ELIGIBLE PROJECT, INCLUDING PROPOSED PROJECT SCOPE AND JUSTIFICATION, AS WELL AS THE PROCESS FOR PROVIDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR COMPETITION.

b. Describe the schedule and provide appropriate Capital Committee oversight as the project develops through project updates included in the quarterly capital project status report; NOTICE TO THE CAPITAL COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPMENT OF NEGOTIATING PARAMETERS AFTER THE OTHER ENTITIES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED OR SELECTED.



c. Recognize and describe the unique requirements of the

other entities which may be involved in the project; SUBMISSION FOR CAPITAL COMMITTEE AND BOARD CONSIDERATION:

(1) IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

SINCE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL;

(2) PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE’ (3) PROJECT DELIVERY METHOD AND PROCESS; AS

WELL AS PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL STANDARDS;

(4) FISCAL IMPACT AND FINANCING PLANS, AND OTHER RELATED INFORMATION THAT INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, FUNDING SOURCES, DEBT PAYMENTS, AND ESTIMATED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS, INCLUDING QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES THAT WILL PROTECT UNIVERSITY INTERESTS IN THE AREAS OF PROJECT FINANCING;

(5) PROJECT BUDGET ESTIMATES AND PROCESS USED FOR DEVELOPING ESTIMATES, INCLUDING THE USE OF QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS;

(6) OUTLINE OF OTHER ENTITIES INVOLVED (IF APPLICABLE) INCLUDING THE EQUITY POSITION OF OTHER ENTITIES, ANTICIPATED RETURNS TO OTHER ENTITIES, AND/OR CONTRIBUTIONS OF OTHER ENTITIES;

(7) LEASE TERMS, INCLUDING ANY OWNERSHIP TRANSITION OR PURCHASE OPTIONS, AND

(8) DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RELATED PROJECTS INCLUDING RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.

d. Provide project budget estimates prepared by qualified professionals; PROJECT UPDATES IN THE QUARTERLY CAPITAL PROJECT STATUS REPORT.

e. Provide fiscal impact and project financing plans, and other related data that includes, but is not limited to funding sources and estimated operation and maintenance costs;

f. Description of other related projects including related infrastructure improvements;

g. Identify all significant changes since Capital Development Plan Approval, and



h. Provide a reasonable opportunity for competition.

C. Related Projects

1. The universities are responsible for defining the parameters (size,

cost and discrete elements) of capital projects with the following provisions: a. The parameters of a project shall not be defined with the

objective to bypass or minimize the requirements set forth in Board policy.

b. The overall plans and costs for related and/or phased projects should be documented for consideration by the Capital Committee.

2. If the Board grants Capital Development Plan Approval for a group of related projects, Project Implementation Approval and Project Approval are necessary for any phase that exceeds Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) $5,000,000). Projects within a project group shall share common attributes, such as location, project type, etc. Projects with no common attributes may not be bundled into one project group.

D. Description of Project Financing:

… 6. If projects require specific Legislative review:

a. The projects shall be presented to the Legislature, or its

designated committee, for review anytime after receiving ANY NECESSARY Project ApprovalS from the Capital Committee or the Board.

b. The projects shall have Legislative review prior to construction.

c. Both the request for Legislative review and the request to the Board for bond issuance shall display full disclosure of the estimated costs of the project, and if applicable, the bond issuance.

d. Use of bond authority for a project in excess of the amount

initially approved by the Board and review by the Legislature



will require Board approval prior to seeking review from the Legislature.

…



7-109 Project Approval

A. Applicability: The Project Approval Phase will be used for those projects granted Project Implementation Approval by the Board.

B. Phase Description:

1. The purpose of the Project Approval phase is to allow for review of updated project information and data as the university initiates the bidding and construction process.

2. Project Approval shall include the following steps:

a. Information and data presented in the Project Implementation Approval document is revised where necessary.

b. Construction documents are near completion.

c. Bid advertising date is established for projects utilizing the design/build process; or a guaranteed maximum price has been obtained utilizing the design/build or construction-manager-at-risk process.

d. Project Approval documents are transmitted to the Central Office and reviewed with the university.

3. Level of Board Review

a. Projects with a total project cost between Two Million Dollars

($2,000,000) $5,000,000 and Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000) may be granted project approval by the Capital Committee based upon the budget, schedule, scope, and other considerations as warranted. At the Committee’s discretion, any project approval request may be presented to the Board as circumstances warrant.

b. Projects with a total project cost greater than $20,000,000 should be reviewed by the Capital Committee and approved by the Board.

…



7-112 Capital Project Status Reports

A. The Central Office shall monitor the capital development process and keep the Capital Committee advised on the status of major capital projects (Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) $5,000,000 and greater).

B. A quarterly capital project status report shall be submitted by the universities to the Central Office.

1. Reports include all projects in process with total project costs of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) and greater, with additional detail for those projects Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) and greater.

2. REPORTS SHALL HAVE A SEPARATE SECTION FOR PROJECTS BETWEEN : a. $100,000 and $1,999,999; b. $2,000,000 and $4,999,999; and c. $5,000,000 AND GREATER

23. Routine/preventive maintenance work should not be included in

this report.

34 Reports shall be submitted within forty-five (45) calendar days following the end of the quarter.

45 For major capital projects that were substantially completed during the quarter, a copy of the consultant's Certificate of Substantial Completion shall be included. After submission of the certificate, projects shall be removed from the quarterly report.



7-207 Leases of Real Property

A. All lease agreements and amendments of lease agreements of real property, INCLUDING LEASE AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITAL PROJECTS, AS DEFINED IN BOARD POLICY 7-102(B)(3) shall be reviewed by the Capital Committee and approved by the Board before becoming effective, except as provided below: 1. A university may enter into a lease or lease amendments as

Landlord or Lessor without Board approval (except for use of athletic facilities by professional teams), provided all of the following criteria are met: a. The lease term including all renewals shall not exceed one

hundred twenty (120) months;

b. The annual base lease amount does not exceed Five Hundred Thousand ($500,000); and

c. The rental rate meets or exceeds the fair rental value of the property.

2. A university may enter into leases or lease amendments as tenant or lessee without Board approval provided all of the following criteria are met: a. The original lease term shall not exceed a total of sixty (60)

months;

b. Renewal options in total shall not exceed an additional sixty (60) months;

c. The total annual rental including tax, insurance and maintenance payable to, through, or on behalf of the landlord shall not exceed Five Hundred Thousand ($500,000);

d. The rental rate does not exceed fair rental value; and

e. Funds are available.

B. A UNIVERSITY SHALL REPORT TO THE CAPITAL COMMITTEE ON ITS INTENT TO SOLICIT PROPOSALS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON UNIVERSITY PROPERTY, WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE PROJECT’S BUSINESS IS ANTICIPATED TO COME FROM A NON-UNIVERSITY POPULATION, AND INVOLVING A



LEASE OR LEASE AMENDMENTS THAT WILL REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE CAPITAL COMMITTEE AND APPROVEL BY THE BOARD PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION A ABOVE. A UNIVERSITY ALSO SHALL REPORT TO THE CAPITAL COMMITTEE ON NEGOTIATING PARAMETERS AFTER A PROPOSAL HAS BEEN SELECTED. AS APPLICABLE, REPORTS MAY BE PROVIDED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

BC. All leases entered into shall be reported to the Central Office annually in accordance with procedures developed by the Executive Director.


Board of Regents Meeting June 18-19-2009

Agenda Item #23


Contact: Nancy Tribbensee 602-229-2510 [email protected]

Item: Approval of Amendment to ABOR Bylaws with Regard to Appointments of Expert Community Members to Board Standing Committees


Background:

The current Bylaws permit the President of the Board to appoint only Regents to standing committees of the Board. To permit the appointment of expert community members to these committees, the Board will need to amend its Bylaws as described below. Guidelines for Expert Community Members Serving on Board Committees were presented to the Board and approved at its April 2009 meeting but will not become effective until the Bylaws are changed.

o The proposed change to Article V, Section 1 of the Bylaws is: “The Board may establish and maintain standing committees composed of members of the Board appointed by the President, plus the President and Student Regent as ex officio members. EXPERT COMMUNITY MEMBERS MAY BE APPOINTED TO AND REMOVED FROM STANDING COMMITTEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES FOR EXPERT COMMUNITY MEMBERS SERVING ON BOARD COMMITTEES.”

The amendment would become effective upon approval by the Board.


Article VII: “An amendment to the Bylaws must take place by public vote of a majority of all voting members of the Board. Any proposed amendment to the Bylaws must be filed with the Secretary to the Board, in writing, at least thirty days before the meeting at which the vote occurs, and the Secretary to the Board must promptly provide a copy to each member of the Board.”

The notice to the Secretary to the Board requirement was fulfilled on May 7, 2009. Strategic Implications

Appointment of expert community members to Board Committees will permit appointments to provide additional subject matter expertise for the benefit of the Board and the universities. Protections outlined in the Guidelines will ensure the integrity of board processes.

Issue: The Board is asked to approve an amendment to its Bylaws, to permit the appointment of expert community members to Board standing committees.


Agenda Item #23


Discussion

The Bylaws currently limit membership on standing Board Committees to members of the Board:

o Article V Section 1: “The Board may establish and maintain standing committees composed of members of the Board appointed by the President, plus the President and Student Regent as ex officio members.”

The Bylaws permit ad hoc and special committees to include members outside of the Board.

o Article V Section 2: “The President of the Board may establish such other ad hoc or special committees as the President deems necessary or advisable. The President shall appoint the membership of the committees, which may, but need not, include members of the Board, and shall designate the matters to be considered by each committee. These committees shall act as advisory bodies to the Board and report their recommendations to the Board.”

Regents have received notice of this proposed amendment to the Bylaws to permit the appointment of expert community members to standing committees as well as to ad hoc, special and advisory committees. They are being asked to adopt the amendment to the Bylaws at the June 2009 meeting.

o The appointment of expert community members to Board Committees would be governed by the Guidelines for Expert Community Members Serving on Board Committees. The Guidelines were approved at the April 30-May 1, 2009, Board meeting.

o Expert community members would be appointed in addition to, not in place of, Board members on standing Board Committees.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Board approve the amendment to its Bylaws as described in this Executive Summary.


Agenda Item #23


BYLAWS

ARTICLE V - COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES

Section 1. The Board may establish and maintain standing committees composed of members of the Board appointed by the President, plus the President and Student Regent as ex officio members. EXPERT COMMUNITY MEMBERS MAY BE APPOINTED TO AND REMOVED FROM STANDING COMMITTEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES FOR EXPERT COMMUNITY MEMBERS SERVING ON BOARD COMMITTEES.




Contact Information: Nancy Tribbensee 602-229-2510 [email protected]

Item Name: Revisions to Board Policies 3-700 “Audit Committee Charter” and 7-103 “Capital Committee Charter” (Second Reading)


Background

From time to time, the Board may wish to consider the appointment of expert community members to Board Committees to provide additional subject matter expertise on complex issues facing the Board and the universities.

In a separate item the Board is asked to amend the Bylaws to permit the appointment of expert community members to standing committees.


The Audit Committee Charter, Board Policy 3-700 B., currently limits membership on the Audit Committee to Board members: “The Audit Committee will consist of the President of the Board of Regents, the past President of the Board of Regents, the chair of the Resources Committee, and the voting Student Regent. One member of the committee will be appointed as chair.”

The Capital Committee Charter, Board Policy 7-103 B., currently limits membership on the Capital Committee to Board members: “The Capital Committee shall consist of the Chair of the Resources Committee, the Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee, one or more Regents appointed by the President of the Board, and the voting Student Regent. One member of the committee shall be appointed by the President of the Board to serve as chair.”


Appointment of expert community members to Board Committees will permit appointments to provide additional subject matter expertise for the benefit of the Board and the universities. Protections outlined in the Guidelines for Expert Community members, adopted by the Board at its April 2009 meeting, will protect the integrity of Board processes.

Issue: The Board is asked to adopt revisions to Board policies 3-700 “Audit

Committee Charter” and 7-103 “Capital Committee Charter.”



Discussion

This request seeks to revise the Board policies that contain the charters for the Audit Committee and the Capital Committee to permit the appointment of expert community members appointed pursuant to the Guidelines for Expert Community Members Serving on Board Committees.

Committee charters that are not reflected in Board policy will also be revised as necessary to permit the appointment of expert community members appointed pursuant to the Guidelines for Expert Community Members Serving on Board Committees.

The proposed revisions to Board Policies are attached to this executive summary.

Recommendation to the Board It is recommended that the Board approve the revisions to Board Policies 3-700 “Audit Committee Charter” and 7-103 “Capital Committee Charter.”



3-700 Audit Committee Charter

A. Purpose To assist the Board of Regents in fulfilling its oversight of the university

system’s internal control structure, accounting and financial reporting practices.

B. Organization The Audit Committee will consist of the President of the Board of Regents,

the past President of the Board of Regents, the chair of the Resources Committee, and the voting Student Regent. One member of the committee will be appointed as chair. EXPERT COMMUNITY MEMBERS MAY BE APPOINTED TO AND REMOVED FROM THE AUDIT COMMITTEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES FOR EXPERT COMMUNITY MEMBERS SERVING ON BOARD COMMITTEES.

C. Policy The Audit Committee will assist the Board of Regents in discharging its

system-wide oversight and monitoring responsibilities by: 1. Promoting a coordinated, efficient, and effective audit function.

2. Promoting an effective and continuously improving system of internal control for achieving the university system’s goals and objectives.

3. Promoting coordination in the Central Office auditors’ and the

University system auditors’ risk assessments to plan audit coverage meeting local and system-wide needs.

4. Serving as a voice on the Board of Regents and other standing

Board committees by relaying an audit perspective when related issues are brought before Board committees.

5. Providing a direct channel of communication to the Board of

Regents for the State’s Auditor General and University Presidents regarding audit matters.



D. Meetings

The Audit Committee will meet no fewer than four times per year and more often as needed.

E. Responsibilities Responsibilities of the Audit Committee will include the following:

1. Review and recommend possible changes or additions to the existing Board policy framework regarding external and internal audits of the University System functions and activities.

2. Facilitate the coordination of the Central Office, Universities’ and

other audit activities to assure adequacy of coverage, avoidance of redundant audit work, and the effective use of audit resources.

3. Receive and act on the following from Central Office Audit

Services:

a. Periodically review and revise the department’s charter as needed.

b. Approve the annual plan for audits and related services and

monitor progress quarterly. c. Review and accept audit reports when issued. d. Review audit finding status reports quarterly.

4. Receive and review the following from each university president: a. University audit plans (annually), b. University audit reports (when issued), and c. University audit finding status reports (quarterly)

5. Provide feedback to the Executive Director and University Presidents on the quality and adequacy of audit coverage provided.

6. Discuss with the Executive Director and with University Presidents

any limits on auditors’ objectivity and independence, any difficulties



encountered, or scope restrictions. Ensure auditors have full, free and unrestricted access to information.

7. Meet privately with the chief auditors of the Central Office and

Universities at least annually to discuss any matters that the Committee or auditors believe should be discussed privately.

8. Review State of Arizona Office of the Auditor General reports which

will include the annual audits of the universities’ financial statements.

9. Resolve disagreements about audit recommendations between

internal or external auditors and management. 10. Oversee adherence to ethical standards within the University

System by reviewing and refining Board policies related to: a. compliance with laws and regulations, b. ethics, c. conflicts of interest, d. disclosures of substantial interest, e. the investigation of misconduct and fraud. 11. Require immediate notification be made to the Audit Committee by

the Executive Director and the University Presidents and review actions taken or being taken in their respective organizations, relative to:

a. significant frauds, b. significant violations of laws or regulations,

c. other significant issues raised by university or Central Office staff auditors, state or federal auditors, or any other audit agency.

12. Report at least annually to the Board of Regents on the Audit

Committee’s activities.



7-103 Capital Committee Charter

A. Purpose To assist the Board in fulfilling its oversight and monitoring responsibilities

for the university system’s capital development and real property activities by providing a more in-depth understanding of each university’s planned use of existing capital resources, priorities for capital construction, real property transactions, and the analysis that supports each request relating to these activities.

B. Organization The Capital Committee shall consist of the Chair of the Resources

Committee, the Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee, one or more Regents appointed by the President of the Board, and the voting Student Regent. One member of the committee shall be appointed by the President of the Board to serve as Chair. EXPERT COMMUNITY MEMBERS MAY BE APPOINTED TO AND REMOVED FROM THE CAPITAL COMMITTEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES FOR EXPERT COMMUNITY MEMBERS SERVING ON BOARD COMMITTEES.

C. Goals The Capital Committee shall assist the Board in discharging its system-

wide oversight and monitoring responsibilities by:

1. Promoting a coordinated, efficient, and effective method of planning and utilizing existing capital resources.

2. Promoting an effective and continuously improving capital

development process for achieving the university system’s goals and objectives.

D. Meeting The Capital Committee shall adopt an annual calendar of meetings

consistent with the capital development process and required Board approvals. The Capital Committee shall hold additional meetings, as circumstances require.



E. Capital Committee Authority and Responsibilities Authority and responsibilities of the Capital Committee shall include the

following:

1. Review and recommend possible changes or additions to the existing Board policy framework regarding the capital development process, real property activities, and financing transactions.

2. Act on the following from the Central Office:

a. Periodically review and revise the Capital Committee’s

Charter as needed. b. Monitor the university quarterly construction progress

reports.

3. Review the following from each university:

a. Strategic Plan update (annually), b. Master Plan update (every five years), c. Capital Improvement Plan (annually), d. Capital Development Plan (annually), e. Capital Development Plan revisions (when issued), f. Project Implementation Approval requests, g. Project Approval requests, h. Request to purchase/sell/exchange real property i. Requests to lease space, j. Projects where the Board and the university share with other

entities the control, financing or ownership of the project and/or its delivery process,

k. Debt-financing authority (bonding, lease-purchase,

certificates of participation),



l. Intergovernmental Agreements relating to capital projects

and real property activities, and m. Space utilization report (annually).

4. The Capital Committee shall have approval authority with respect to

individual capital projects, real property transactions, and other matters as authorized by Board policy.



Contact Information: Sandra Woodley (ABOR) 602-229-2557 [email protected]

Item Name: REPORT FROM THE STRATEGIC PLANNING, BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE


Discussion

The Strategic Planning, Budget and Finance Committee met on May 28, 2009, and conducted the following business: Ted Ferris provided an update on the federal stimulus funds, reporting that the

Governor had submitted an application for these funds on May 22. The universities are waiting for issuance of federal guidelines for use of these funds before making final decisions as to how they will spend them. Central office and university staff will create a reporting mechanism to inform the Board as to how the universities plan to spend the money.

Discussed the March 31, 2009, Financial Status Updates from Arizona State

University, Northern Arizona University, and The University of Arizona.

Arizona State University and The University of Arizona are projecting deficits (decreases in net assets) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009. These deficits will result from General Fund budget cuts, decline in TRIF revenues, decline in the investment markets, and reduced pledges and gifts.

NAU anticipates that with financial adjustments to be made in the final

quarter of FY 2009, it will report a slight increase in net assets at June 30, 2009.

The universities advised the Committee that the anticipated, estimated

$100 million two-month (May and June) General Fund appropriation rollover into FY 2010 would be financed by short-term internal loans from local and other cash balances.

Directed Sandra Woodley to assemble a team consisting of Board and university

finance staff and Ted Ferris to develop recommendations for an enhanced system of financial oversight and reporting.

Heard presentations from university staff regarding the preliminary work of the

Issue: The Board will receive a report on the May 28, 2009, meeting of the Strategic Planning, Budget and Finance Committee.



Presidents to develop a plan for a revised system architecture to provide the strategies and tools to achieve the 2020 Vision targets for enrollment and bachelor’s degree production.

Discussed early work on benchmark performance analysis comparing each

university to its Board-approved peers. This work will be included in a detailed accountability report issued this fall and will become an annual analysis to inform the Board on progress toward the 2020 Vision key indicators.


The financial strength of the universities is critical to their ability to achieve the 2020 Vision goals. The recent cuts in General Fund appropriations is concerning. Stimulus funding and tuition surcharges are expected to alleviate some of the financial pressure over the next two years.

In order for the universities to achieve the goal to be nationally competitive in educational attainment by 2020, it is imperative that changes be made to the existing system architecture for delivering academic programs. The current work of the Presidents to develop a plan for an access-driven architecture will facilitate achieving this goal.

Recommendation This is an information item only; no Board action is required.




Jim Livengood 520/621-4622, Director of Intercollegiate Athletics Lynne Wood 520/621-5150, Interim V.P. for Legal Affairs and General Counsel

Item Name: Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Head Coach of the Men’s Basketball Team (UA)


Background

The University of Arizona desires to offer a Multiple-Year Employment contract to Sean Miller (hereinafter "Miller") as Head Men’s Basketball Coach, for the period through April 30, 2014, pursuant to ABOR Policies 6-1001 through 6-1003.

The proposed Multiple-Year contract salary for coaching and additional duties will be $1,600,000 per annum. Miller is a new hire and was most recently employed by the Xavier University as Head Coach of its Men’s Basketball Team.

Miller’s salary and other sums payable under the contract will be paid entirely from revenue generated by the Athletic Department. No part of his salary will be paid from state appropriated funds, tuition or mandatory student fees.


Pursuant to Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) Policies 6-1001 through 6-1003, Board approval is required for multiple-year employment contracts.

Discussion

Miller’s base salary for duties related to coaching the Men’s Basketball Team will be $900,000 per annum. His salary may be increased by an amount not to exceed the percentage increase available annually to employees of the University subject to the Conditions of Professional Service.

In addition, Miller will receive related compensation of $700,000 per annum for performance of peripheral duties, including but not limited to radio, television and internet programs, speaking engagements, public appearances, and University-directed sponsorship and advertising programs. This compensation may be

Issue: The University of Arizona requests approval of a five-year Multiple-Year Employment contract for Sean Miller as Head Coach of its Men’s Basketball Team for the period of May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2014.



increased by an amount not to exceed the percentage increase available annually to employees of the University subject to the Conditions of Professional Service.

Miller will receive $1 million in consideration of the execution of the contract, and the University will pay the buyout of the unexpired portion of his contract with Xavier, not to exceed $400,000.

The contract will provide that, at the end of the second year of the contract, if grounds do not exist for termination for cause, the University will ask the Board to extend Miller’s contract for two additional years. Any such extension is in the sole discretion of the Board.

If Miller completes the full term of his contract, or dies, becomes disabled, or is terminated without cause, he will be entitled to a retention payment equal to $300,000 times the number of years performed. He will not be entitled to any payment if he resigns, retires, or is terminated for cause.

Miller may also receive annual incentive compensation for the following Academic and Athletic Performance achievements:

Academic Achievement Incentives Miller may receive supplemental compensation for achieving the following Academic Progress Rate (APR) and Graduation Success Rate (GSR) team achievements in a given year. Payments are for the highest-ranked achievement attained in each respective category and are not cumulative to any lower-ranked achievement in that category: A. APR

─ $50,000 if the Multi-Year APR is 1,000;

─ $25,000 if the Multi-Year APR meets or exceeds 948.

B. GSR

─ $50,000 if the GSR is 100%;

─ $25,000 if the GSR is greater than 42%.



Athletic Achievement Incentives

Miller may receive supplemental compensation for achieving the following athletic performance achievements in a given year. Except for the PAC-10 competition items, payments are for the highest-ranked achievement attained in each respective category and are not cumulative to any lower-ranked achievement in that category:

A. Regular and Postseason Competition: 1. PAC-10 Competition:

PAC-10 Regular Season Champion $50,000 PAC-10 Tournament Champion $50,000

2. Postseason Competition:

NCAA National Champion $675,000 NCAA Top 4 Finish $300,000 NCAA Elite 8 $125,000 NCAA Sweet 16 Appearance $75,000 NCAA Second Round Appearance $25,000

B. Final NCAA Postseason Team Ranking:

Top 10 Finish $30,000 Top 15 Finish $20,000

C. Regular Season Win/Loss Record:

25 Wins $40,000 20 Wins $20,000

D. Coach of the Year: National Coach of the Year Recognition $40,000 PAC-10 Conference Coach of the Year $20,000

Miller will receive all employee-related benefits that are normally available to other University employees in the professional service. He will receive additional benefits including tickets to UA sporting events, use of two automobiles, country club privileges, and guests to post-season Men’s Basketball events. The University will provide use of a private noncommercial jet for 30 hours per year, for recruiting and other program-related travel.



Miller will receive an exclusive license to operate a summer boys’ basketball camp on the University campus.

To the extent required by NCAA and Pacific-10 Conference regulations or University policy, Miller must disclose all outside income to the Athletics Director, the University President and the Board President annually. Outside income will include $200,000/year from Nike and $200,000/year from IMG.

The contract may be terminated by the University President or his designated representative for cause, in which case the University shall be liable only for salary and incentive payments due as of the date of termination.

If the University President or his designated representative terminates the contract without cause, the University shall pay Miller liquidated damages as follows: (i) $4.8 million if the termination occurred in the first contract year, (ii) $4.0 million if the termination occurred in the second contract year, (iii) $3.2 million if the termination occurred in the third contract year, (iv) $1.6 million if the termination occurred in the fourth contract year, and (v) if termination occurred after the fourth contract year, an amount equal to one-half of the sum of his then-current salary for coaching and additional duties, for each year or portion thereof (pro rata) remaining in the contract.

If Miller terminates the contract before the end of the fifth contract year to take another coaching position, he must pay the University $500,000 in liquidated damages at the University President’s discretion, unless the University is under NCAA or Pac-10 sanctions for violations occurring prior to his hiring.

Committee Review and Recommendation The Human Resources Committee reviewed this item at its April 7, 2009 meeting and recommended that it be forwarded to the full Board for approval. Recommendation to the Board

RESOLVED: That The University of Arizona be, and hereby is, authorized to enter into a Multiple-Year Employment Contract with Sean Miller according to the terms and conditions set forth in this executive summary.



Contact Information: Contact: President John Haeger (928) 523-3232 [email protected]

Item Name: Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Head Football Coach. (NAU)


Coach Souers is currently serving under a One-Year Extension to his Three-Year Multiple-Year Employment Contract that will expire on December 31, 2009.

Coach Souers has increased the Academic Progress Rate (APR) of the football team significantly in each of the last three years including from 938 to 951 this past year. This is above the national average.

His 2006 team finished 6-5 and in fourth place in the Big Sky with a conference record of 5-3.

His 2007 team finished 6-5 and in third place in the Big Sky with a conference record of 5-3.

His 2008 team finished 6- 5 and finished fifth in the Big Sky with a conference record of 4-4.

Coach Souers’ current base salary is $105,000 per annum. Multiple-year contracts are customary in Division I schools and this extension offer is a retention strategy with the expectation of continued good results.

The University wishes to extend the Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Coach Souers for another year, pursuant to ABOR policies 6-1001 through 6-1003

Discussion

Coach Souers’ current salary of $105,000 annually will remain unchanged for this second one-year extension.

Coach Souers will be subject to the same salary increases as other University employees serving under the Conditions of Administrative Service, and whatever merit or market increase the President deems appropriate for the remainder of his contract.

Issue: Northern Arizona University requests approval of a One-Year Extension to the Multiple-Year Employment Contract with Jerome Souers as Head Football Coach through December 31, 2010.



Coach Souers is responsible for supervising, planning, and coordinating the activities of the Football Program. More specifically, Coach Souers shall:

(a) encourage academic progress, in conjunction with the faculty and University, of

student-athletes toward graduation; (b) teach the mechanics and techniques of football to team members;

(c) coach student-athletes, analyze their performance, and instruct them in areas of

deficiency;

(d) develop the Football Team for competition, and oversee daily practice of student-athletes;

(e) promote the University, the Athletic Department and the Football Program

through the Sports Information Office, and through such other activities as assigned pursuant to Paragraph (o);

(f) recruit student-athletes of high moral character that are athletically talented and

demonstrate a high level of academic success and promise for continued success for the Football Program who are qualified for participation;

(g) cooperate with Student Affairs for the benefit of student-athletes;

(h) assist the Strength Coach in designing and maintaining a strength program; (i) maintain responsibility for administrative duties pertaining to the Football

Program;

(j) supervise the conduct of assistant coaches and staff, and their activities, including but not limited to compliance with the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR), University, Big Sky Conference (Conference) and National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) policies and legislation, and provide annual evaluations thereof;

(k) maintain responsibility for the fiscal and budgetary functions associated with the

Football Program; (l) conduct and coach the Football Program in compliance with the Constitution and

By-Laws of the Conference and the NCAA; (m) uphold, comply with and enforce the NAU Athletic Code of Conduct and the

mission of the Athletic Department, with emphasis on sportsmanship, and student-athletes’ and employees’ personal conduct at all times, and serve as a role model for all NAU student-athletes;



(n) comply with all applicable ABOR and University policies, rules and regulations; and,

(o) perform other duties as head coach reasonably related to the improvement of the

Football Program, as may be assigned by the President of the University (President) or Director of Intercollegiate Athletics (Director).

Provided he is still a University employee at that time, the University will grant Coach Souers a license to operate a Football Camp using University facilities beginning with the Football Camp season, which concludes in July 2010. If for any reason the contract between the University and Coach Souers has been suspended or been terminated the camp provision will be null and void. The specific facilities and related services to be used, the fees to be paid by Coach Souers to the University for such use, if any, and any additional relevant items, shall be identified in a separate Licensing Agreement to be executed by the parties.

Outstanding Academic Achievement

Coach Souers understands that academic success is a major component of the position and that the University fully expects that attaining a high team GPA is a basic function of the position. In addition, the NCAA has instituted an Academic Progress Rate (APR) with penalties for not achieving a minimum threshold. It is expected that a minimum APR of 925 should be exceeded and if the APR exceeds certain levels then the highest achievement set forth below will be rewarded as a bonus, and not to base compensation:

Compensation rate APR rate 4% of salary 935 5% of salary 945 6% of salary 955 7% of salary 965 8% of salary 975 NCAA Post Season Appearance

Every effort will be made by Coach Souers to fundraise and solicit external funds for contribution to the Northern Arizona University Foundation to assist with coaching staff retention and to assist in recognizing the staff’s effort in participating in the NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision playoffs.

Miscellaneous

Coach Souers will receive customary employee-related benefits that are normally available to other NAU service professional employees. While the contract is in effect, Coach Souers will receive additional benefits consisting of tickets to NAU football games and the use of an automobile through a donation or lease.



Subject to the President’s and Director’s written approval, Coach Souers may enter into agreements with other persons or entities to provide services not included within the contract for compensation as long as such services can be performed within the limits permitted by the Conference, NCAA, and state and federal law, except that Coach Souers may not enter into agreements with the Northern Arizona University Foundation and Coach Souers may not receive compensation from third parties for advertising, sponsorship, media speaking appearance or fundraising services unless such compensation is expressly allowed by the terms of the contract.

The contract may be terminated by the President at any time without cause. In the event of such termination, the University will pay Coach Souers the current per annum salary, or a pro rata portion thereof, for the period remaining on the contract, as liquidated damages in lieu of any and all other legal remedies or equitable relief.

Coach Souers may terminate the contract for any reason on written notice to the University. Termination by Coach Souers prior to the completion of the contract shall obligate Coach Souers to pay the University liquidated damages in the sum of $10,000 within thirty (30) days of termination. Termination by Coach Souers due to reasons other than accepting another coaching job will not be subject to the $10,000 liquidated damages clause.

The University and Coach Souers may, by mutual agreement, initiate negotiations to renew the contract at any time after December 31, 2009.

All other provisions of Coach Souers’ current One-Year Extension and Multiple-Year Employment Contract not inconsistent with this extension shall remain in full force and effect, and shall be extended through December 31, 2010.

The contract has been reviewed by University counsel.

Committee Review and Recommendation The Human Resources Committee reviewed this item at its April 7, 2009 meeting and recommended that it be forwarded to the full Board for approval. Recommendation to the Board That the Board authorize Northern Arizona University to extend its Multiple-Year Employment Contract with Jerome Souers for an additional one-year to December 31, 2010, according to the terms and conditions set forth in this executive summary.



Contact Information: José Cárdenas, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, ASU, (480) 965-4550, [email protected]

Lisa Love, Vice President for University Athletics, ASU, (480) 965-9743, [email protected]

Item Name: Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Head Soccer Coach (ASU)


Background

Kevin Boyd (hereinafter “Coach”) is currently serving as ASU’s Head Soccer Coach under a Multiple-Year Employment Contract, which will expire on December 31, 2010.

In accordance with ABOR Policies 6-1001 through 6-1003, Arizona State University desires to amend Coach’s current contract, effective January 1, 2010, to extend the term for an additional four years through December 31, 2014.

Coach’s current annual salary is $93,500. Coach’s salary will be paid entirely from revenue generated by the Intercollegiate Athletics Department. No part of Coach’s salary will be paid from appropriated funds or tuition revenues.

Coach has been the Head Soccer Coach since 2007. In his first season at ASU, the Sun Devils finished with a double-digit win total (10) for the first time since 2003. Coach’s team defeated seventh-ranked and defending national champion USC 1-0 on October 19, 2008, representing the program’s first victory over a Top-10 team since 2001. Coach’s 2007-08 team GPA (3.55) was among the top 15 in the country according to the National Soccer Coaches Association of America. ASU had 10 student-athletes named to the Pac-10’s All-Academic Team for women’s soccer, including three first-team members, which tied for most in the Pac-10.


Pursuant to Arizona Board of Regents Policies 6-1001 through 6-1003, Board approval is required for all multiple-year employment contracts with head coaches.

Issue: Arizona State University requests approval of a four-year extension of the Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Kevin Boyd to serve as Head Coach of its Soccer Team from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014.



Discussion

Coach’s salary is $93,500 per year, consisting of $92,500 base salary and $1,000 additional salary. This is for basic duties relating specifically to coaching and for additional duties consisting of participation in media programs, development activities, public relations activities and endorsements and other promotional activities.

Coach’s salary will be increased for the year commencing July 1, 2009 and on each July 1 thereafter by the largest applicable percentage increment depending on achievement of the highest following performance milestone. If no milestone is achieved, the Vice President for University Athletics may increase Coach’s salary by an amount not to exceed the percentage increase available annually to employees of ASU subject to the Conditions of Professional Service. Performance Criteria Salary Increase NCAA National Champion 15% NCAA Round of 4 10% NCAA Tournament Appearance 5%

Coach may receive, but is not assured, Special Compensation annually. Special Compensation is all amounts designated as being for Coach in agreements negotiated by ASU with manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, vendors and others relating to use and promotion of athletic equipment, athletic clothing, athletic shoes and other athletic apparel. However, there is a limit on Special Compensation under any and all athletic program shoe and apparel agreements, as to which Coach will receive the amount designated in the agreements for Coach, less $1,000. An amount of $1,000 for Coach’s promotional and endorsement activities in connection with athletic program shoe and apparel agreements is included in salary.

Coach may receive Supplemental Compensation annually. Supplemental Compensation consists of one-time payments for performance in a particular year. The percentages are applied to salary.

(1) Academic Performance

There will be only one payment for the highest achievement.



Compensation Academic Year GPA

(Fall/Spring semesters) Graduation Success Rate

(NCAA Definition)

$9,500 3.50 OR 100%

$6,000 3.40 OR 95%

$4,000 3.30 OR 90%

(2) Athletic Performance

There will be only one payment for the highest achievement under each section except as otherwise noted.

(i) Conference Performance:

Pac-10 Conference Champion $4,000 Pac-10 2nd or 3rd place finish $2,000

(ii) Post-Season Performance:

NCAA National Champion $15,000 NCAA Round of 4 $9,500 NCAA Round of 8 $7,500 NCAA Tournament Appearance $4,000

(iii) Coach of the Year Awards (Coach may receive up to 8% of salary if

Coach receives National Coach of the year AND either or both the Pac-10 and/or Western Region Coach of the Year)

Pac-10 and/or Western Region Coach of the Year 4% of salary National Coach of the Year 4% of salary

Coach will receive customary employee-related benefits that are normally available to other ASU service professional employees. Coach will receive additional benefits consisting of tickets to ASU sporting events, use of one automobile or a stipend and golf privileges at the ASU Karsten Golf Course.

Coach will have the right to use ASU facilities to conduct a camp. Coach will pay ASU for use of the facilities. Coach will own all rights to the camp and be solely responsible for payment of all camp expenses.

Coach may enter into personal service agreements with other parties to provide services not reserved to ASU within the contract so long as such services can be performed within NCAA and ABOR limits. Coach must provide an annual disclosure of all outside sources of athletics-related income and benefits, which will be provided to the Board President, the ASU President and the ASU Vice President for University Athletics.



The contract may be terminated by the ASU President, or his designated representative, for cause in which case ASU will be liable only for salary and other compensation earned as of the termination date. If the contract is terminated by ASU for cause and the cause is one or more material violations by the program of NCAA or Pac-10 Conference rules, there will be a provision for Coach to pay to ASU its actual damages up to $100,000 resulting from the violations.

ASU may terminate the contract at any time without cause. In that event, ASU will pay Coach as liquidated damages 50% of the then per annum salary for the remainder of the contract term. This sum is not reduced in the event of Coach’s subsequent employment during the original term of the contract. ASU will also pay Coach any salary, Special Compensation and Supplemental Compensation amounts earned through the termination date and reasonably incurred expenses toward the next camp. ASU will not be liable to Coach for other university benefits or collateral business opportunities.

If Coach terminates the contract early and takes another intercollegiate coaching position or a professional coaching position, ASU may require Coach to pay to ASU up to $50,000.

If Coach terminates the contract, Coach may not obtain employment as head coach with any Pac-10 Conference school for the time period remaining under the contract.

Coach’s duties include the obligation to abide by the applicable Board policies and ASU rules, regulations and policies as may be in effect from time to time as well as conflict of interest laws.

Committee Review and Recommendation The Human Resources Committee reviewed this item at its June 2, 2009 meeting and recommended that it be forwarded to the full Board for approval. Recommendation to the Board It is recommended that the Board authorize Arizona State University to enter into an amendment to the Multiple-year Employment Contract with Kevin Boyd according to the terms and conditions set forth in this executive summary.




José Cárdenas, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, ASU, (480) 965-4550, [email protected]


Item Name: Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Head Diving Coach (ASU)


Background

Arizona State University desires to offer a Multiple-Year Employment Contract to Mark Bradshaw (hereinafter “Coach”) as Head Diving Coach, for the period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2012.

Coach’s annual salary would be $60,000. Coach’s salary will be paid entirely from revenue generated by the Intercollegiate Athletics Department. No part of Coach’s salary will be paid from appropriated funds or tuition revenues.

Coach has been active with ASU’s swimming and diving teams for the past eleven years. In that time, ASU has produced nine All-Americans and four National Champions. Under Coach’s guidance, ASU has had six divers earn four NCAA individual titles and 23 All-American honors. In addition, Coach has been named NCAA Diving Coach of the Year twice, in 2003 and 2005. Coach has earned six Pac-10 Men’s Diving Coach of the Year Awards and one Pac-10 Women’s Diving Coach of the Year Award – more Pac-10 Diving Coach of the Year honors than any other coach in conference history. Before coming to ASU, Coach served as the diving coach at Ohio University and at the United States Military Academy. Coach also served as Finland’s head diving coach for the 2004 and 2008 Olympic Games.



Issue: Arizona State University requests approval of a Multiple-Year

Employment Contract for Mark Bradshaw as Head Coach of its Diving Team, for the period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2012.



Discussion

Coach’s salary will be $60,000 per year, consisting of $59,000 base salary and $1,000 additional salary. This will be for basic duties relating specifically to coaching and for additional duties consisting of participation in media programs, development activities, public relations activities and endorsements and other promotional activities.

Coach’s salary will be increased for the year commencing July 1, 2010 and on each July 1 thereafter by the largest applicable percentage increment depending on achievement of the highest following performance milestone. If no milestone is achieved, the Vice President for University Athletics may increase Coach’s salary by an amount not to exceed the percentage increase available annually to employees of ASU subject to the Conditions of Service Professional Service. Performance Criteria Salary Increase NCAA National Champion – Men’s AND Women’s Swimming & Diving 20% NCAA National Champion – Men’s OR Women’s Swimming & Diving 10% NCAA Top 5 Men’s or Women’s Swimming & Diving 8% NCAA Top 10 Men’s or Women’s Swimming & Diving 5%


Coach may receive Supplemental Compensation annually. Supplemental Compensation consists of one-time payments for performance in a particular year. The percentages are applied to salary. The Supplemental Compensation for academic performance mirrors that of the Men’s and Women’s Swimming and Diving Head Coach, and any changes approved by the Board in the Men’s and Women’s Swimming and Diving Head Coach’s contract will also change these performance milestones accordingly.



(1) Academic Performance There will be one payment for the highest achievement in each of Men’s Swimming & Diving and Women’s Swimming & Diving. Compensation Men’s Swimming & Diving Women’s Swimming & Diving $750 GPA 2.95 or GSR 90% OR GPA 3.30 or GSR 90% $1,500 GPA 3.05 or GSR 95% OR GPA 3.40 or GSR 95% $3,000 GPA 3.15 or GSR 100% OR GPA 3.50 or GSR 100%

GPA = Academic Year GPA (Fall/Spring semesters) GSR = Graduation Success Rate (NCAA Definition) (2) Athletic Performance There will be one payment for the highest achievement in each of Men’s Swimming & Diving and Women’s Swimming & Diving except as otherwise noted.


Pac-10 Conference Champion $2,000 Pac-10 2nd place finish $1,000


NCAA Champion $6,000 NCAA Top 5 $5,000 NCAA Top 10 $3,000 (iii) Coach of the Year Awards (there will be a one-time payment for

each achievement):

Pac-10 Coach of the Year $2,500 National Coach of the Year $2,500



Coach may enter into personal service agreements with other parties to provide services not reserved to ASU within the contract so long as such services can be



performed within NCAA and ABOR limits. Coach must provide an annual disclosure of all outside sources of athletics-related income and benefits, which will be provided to the Board President, the ASU President and the ASU Vice President for University Athletics.




If Coach terminates the contract, Coach may not obtain employment as head coach with any Pac-10 Conference school for the time period remaining under the contract without the prior consent of the ASU President.


Committee Review and Recommendation The Human Resources Committee reviewed this item at its June 2, 2009 meeting and recommended that it be forwarded to the full Board for approval.

Recommendation to the Board It is recommended that the Board authorize Arizona State University to enter into a Multiple-year Employment Contract with Mark Bradshaw according to the terms and conditions set forth in this executive summary.


Agenda Item # 30 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1 of 4

Contact Information: José Cárdenas, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, ASU, (480) 965-4550, [email protected]


Item Name: Multiple-Year Employment Contract of Head Softball Coach (ASU)


Background

Clinton Myers (hereinafter “Coach”) is currently serving as ASU’s Head Softball Coach under a Multiple-year Employment Contract, which will expire on June 30, 2010.

In accordance with ABOR Policies 6-1001 through 6-1003, Arizona State University desires to amend Coach’s current contract to extend the term for an additional four years through June 30, 2014.

Coach’s current annual salary is $104,903. Coach’s salary will be paid entirely from revenue generated by the Intercollegiate Athletics Department. No part of Coach’s salary will be paid from appropriated funds or tuition revenues.

Coach has been the Head Softball Coach since 2006. Under Coach’s leadership, the ASU softball team won its first ever NCAA National Championship in 2008. Coach has led ASU to three straight College World Series appearances and four straight Super Regional appearances in his first four seasons. Coach’s teams have posted a 76-8 record at home in the past two seasons. Coach’s teams had a 100% Academic Progress Rate (APR) for 2006-07, 2007-08 and Fall 2008, and a 3.43 semester GPA in Spring 2008.



Issue: Arizona State University requests approval of a four-year extension of the Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Clinton Myers to serve as Head Coach of its Softball Team from the execution of the contract through June 30, 2014.



Discussion

Coach’s salary is $104,903 per year, consisting of $103,903 base salary and $1,000 additional salary. This is for basic duties relating specifically to coaching and for additional duties consisting of participation in media programs, development activities, public relations activities and endorsements and other promotional activities.

Coach’s salary will be increased for the year commencing July 1, 2009 and on each July 1 thereafter by the largest applicable percentage increment depending on achievement of the highest following performance milestone. If no milestone is achieved, the Vice President for University Athletics may increase Coach’s salary by an amount not to exceed the percentage increase available annually to employees of ASU subject to the Conditions of Service Professional Service. Performance Criteria Salary Increase NCAA College World Series (CWS) Champion 10% NCAA College World Series Appearance 5%




There will be only one payment for the highest achievement.



Compensation Academic Year GPA

(Fall/Spring semesters) Graduation Rate

(NCAA 4-Year rolling rate)

10% 3.30 OR 100%

8% 3.25 OR 95%

6% 3.20 OR 90%

5% 3.15 OR 85%

4% 3.10 OR 80%

(2) Athletic Performance

There will be only one payment for the highest achievement under each section.


Pac-10 Conference Champion 3% of salary


NCAA CWS Champion 15% of salary NCAA CWS Championship Game 10% of salary NCAA CWS Appearance 5% of salary (iii) Coach of the Year Awards:

Pac-10 Coach of the Year 4% of salary National Coach of the Year 4% of salary








If Coach terminates the contract early and takes another intercollegiate coaching position or a professional coaching position within the first year following the date of termination, ASU may require Coach to pay ASU up to 100% of the Coach’s total salary for the remaining term of the contract.

If Coach terminates the contract, Coach may not obtain employment as head coach with any Pac-10 Conference school for the time period remaining under the contract.


Committee Review and Recommendation The Human Resources Committee reviewed this item at its June 2, 2009 meeting and recommended that it be forwarded to the full Board for approval. Recommendation to the Board It is recommended that the Board authorize Arizona State University to enter into an amendment to the Multiple-year Employment Contract with Clinton Myers according to the terms and conditions set forth in this executive summary.






Item Name: Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Head Wrestling Coach (ASU)


Background

Arizona State University desires to offer a Multiple-Year Employment Contract to Hester LeShawn Charles (hereinafter “Coach”) as Head Wrestling Coach, for the period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2011.


As a student-athlete at ASU, Coach was ASU’s first four-time wrestling All-American and a two-time Pac-10 Conference champion. He has coached in four Division 1 conferences, including the Big XII Conference, the Ivy League Conference, the Western Athletic Conference and the Mid-American Conference. Coach has worked with 39 NCAA Division 1 All-Americans and three individual NCAA Champions and has helped teams place among the Top 10 nationally in the NCAA Division 1 Championships seven times.


Pursuant to Arizona Board of Regents Policies 6-1001 through 6-1003, Board approval is required for all multiple-year employment contracts with head coaches. Discussion

Coach’s salary will be $80,000 per year, consisting of $79,000 base salary and $1,000 additional salary. This will be for basic duties relating specifically to coaching and for additional duties consisting of participation in media programs, development activities, public relations activities and endorsements and other promotional activities.


Employment Contract for Hester LeShawn Charles as Head Coach of its Wrestling Team, for the period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2011.



Coach’s salary will be increased for the year commencing July 1, 2010 by the largest applicable percentage increment depending on achievement of the highest following performance milestone. If no milestone is achieved, the Vice President for University Athletics may increase Coach’s salary by an amount not to exceed the percentage increase available annually to employees of ASU subject to the Conditions of Service Professional Service. Performance Criteria Salary Increase NCAA National Champion 10% NCAA Top 5 8%




There will be only one payment for the highest achievement. Compensation Academic Year GPA

(Fall/Spring semesters) Graduation Success Rate

(NCAA Definition) $3,000 2.60 OR 80% $5,000 2.70 OR 90% $8,000 2.80 OR 100%



(2) Athletic Performance (i) Conference Performance:

Pac-10 Conference Champion $3,500

(ii) Post-Season Performance (there will be one payment for the highest achievement):

NCAA Champion $8,000 NCAA Top 5 $6,000 (iii) Coach of the Year Awards (there will be a one-time payment for

each achievement):

Pac-10 Coach of the Year 4% of salary National Coach of the Year 4% of salary

Coach will receive customary employee-related benefits that are normally available to other ASU service professional employees. Coach will receive additional benefits consisting of tickets to ASU sporting events, use of one automobile or a stipend, golf privileges at the ASU Karsten Golf Course and one-time payment of relocation expenses for Coach and Coach’s immediate family pursuant to ASU policy.










Committee Review and Recommendation The Human Resources Committee reviewed this item at its June 2, 2009 meeting and recommended that it be forwarded to the full Board for approval. Recommendation to the Board It is recommended that the Board authorize Arizona State University to enter into a Multiple-year Employment Contract with Hester LeShawn Charles according to the terms and conditions set forth in this executive summary.






Item Name: Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Men’s and Women’s Swimming and Diving Head Coach (ASU)


Background

Arizona State University desires to offer a Multiple-Year Employment Contract to Dorsey Tierney-Walker (hereinafter “Coach”) as Men’s and Women’s Swimming and Diving Head Coach, for the period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2012.


Coach has most recently served as the co-women’s head coach of the very successful Auburn program. In her four years at Auburn, the Tigers have won two NCAA Championships and two SEC Conference titles. Under Coach’s leadership, Auburn earned 196 All-American honors. Prior to her time at Auburn, Coach served for seven years as the women’s head coach at Indiana University. She was named Big Ten Coach of the Year in 2001 and 2002 and led the Hoosiers to 99 All-American honors. Indiana finished ninth place at the 2005 NCAA Championships, the best finish in Indiana’s history.


Pursuant to Arizona Board of Regents Policies 6-1001 through 6-1003, Board approval is required for all multiple-year employment contracts with head coaches. Discussion

Coach’s salary will be $95,000 per year, consisting of $94,000 base salary and $1,000 additional salary. This will be for basic duties relating specifically to


Employment Contract for Dorsey Tierney-Walker as Head Coach of its Men’s and Women’s Swimming and Diving Team, for the period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2012.



coaching and for additional duties consisting of participation in media programs, development activities, public relations activities and endorsements and other promotional activities.

Coach’s salary will be increased for the year commencing July 1, 2010 and on each July 1 thereafter by the largest applicable percentage increment depending on achievement of the highest following performance milestone. If no milestone is achieved, the Vice President for University Athletics may increase Coach’s salary by an amount not to exceed the percentage increase available annually to employees of ASU subject to the Conditions of Service Professional Service. Performance Criteria Salary Increase NCAA National Champion – Men’s AND Women’s Swimming & Diving 20% NCAA National Champion – Men’s OR Women’s Swimming & Diving 10% NCAA Top 5 Men’s or Women’s Swimming & Diving 8% NCAA Top 10 Men’s or Women’s Swimming & Diving 5%



(1) Academic Performance There will be one payment for the highest achievement in each of Men’s Swimming & Diving and Women’s Swimming & Diving.



Compensation Men’s Swimming & Diving Women’s Swimming & Diving $1,000 GPA 2.95 or GSR 90% OR GPA 3.30 or GSR 90% $3,000 GPA 3.05 or GSR 95% OR GPA 3.40 or GSR 95% $5,000 GPA 3.15 or GSR 100% OR GPA 3.50 or GSR 100%

GPA = Academic Year GPA (Fall/Spring semesters) GSR = Graduation Success Rate (NCAA Definition)

(2) Athletic Performance There will be one payment for the highest achievement in each of Men’s Swimming & Diving and Women’s Swimming & Diving except as otherwise noted.


Pac-10 Conference Champion $4,000 Pac-10 2nd place finish $2,000


NCAA Champion $10,000 NCAA Top 5 $8,000 NCAA Top 10 $5,000 (iii) Coach of the Year Awards (there will be a one-time payment for

each achievement):

Men’s or Women’s Pac-10 Coach of the Year $2,000 Men’s or Women’s National Coach of the Year $2,000

Coach will receive customary employee-related benefits that are normally available to other ASU service professional employees. Coach will receive additional benefits consisting of tickets to ASU sporting events, use of one automobile or a stipend, golf privileges at the ASU Karsten Golf Course and one-time payment of relocation expenses for Coach and Coach’s immediate family pursuant to ASU policy.


Coach may enter into personal service agreements with other parties to provide services not reserved to ASU within the contract so long as such services can be



performed within NCAA and ABOR limits. Coach must provide an annual disclosure of all outside sources of athletics-related income and benefits, which will be provided to the Board President, the ASU President and the ASU Vice President for University Athletics.






Committee Review and Recommendation The Human Resources Committee reviewed this item at its June 2, 2009 meeting and recommended that it be forwarded to the full Board for approval. Recommendation to the Board It is recommended that the Board authorize Arizona State University to enter into a Multiple-year Employment Contract with Dorsey Tierney Walker according to the terms and conditions set forth in this executive summary.

Board Meeting June 18-19, 2009 Agenda Item #33


Contact Information: Mary Adelman, [email protected], 602-229-2523

Item Name: First Amendment to the Cash Balance Pension Plan


In 1997 Congress enacted changes to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”) permitting the Board to adopt a qualified plan for the benefit of the University Presidents and the Executive Director.

In June 1998 the Board was asked to replace the Deferred Compensation agreement with the Cash Balance Pension Plan. The replacement was desired for several reasons:

The University Presidents and the Executive Director may be 100% vested in his or her accrued benefits held under the plan. The benefits need not be subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture, requiring the participant to be employed as of a specific vesting date or else lose all rights to the benefits.

Accrued benefits under the Plan are not subject to employment taxes (Social Security and Medicare) either at the time the benefits are contributed to the Plan or when distributed.

Accrued benefits under the Plan are not subject to federal and state income tax until actually received by the participant.

Benefits received by a participant may be rolled over tax-free to an IRA or another qualified plan, thus permitting the individual to defer the payment of any federal and state income tax on the benefits until the participant has attained age 70½.

The Board approved the Cash Balance Pension Plan in June 1998 with an effective date of July 1, 1998. The plan was filed with the Internal Revenue Service in June 2002 and received a favorable determination letter as a plan qualified for favorable tax status.

Issue: The Board is requested to approve of the First Amendment to the Cash

Balance Pension Plan Restated as of July 1, 2008.

Board Meeting June 18-19, 2009

Item #33 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 2 of 3

Drs. Coor, Crow, Haeger, and Shelton and Mr. Sideman currently participate in the Cash Balance Pension Plan.

The plan was restated in December 2008 and filed with the Internal Revenue Service in January 2009.

Discussion

The Board has received legal advice regarding the Cash Balance Plan from its tax counsel, Mr. Charles Whetstine, who has prepared the proposed revision.

Contained within the amendment are several technical changes to bring the Cash Balance Plan into compliance with the Pension Protection Act of 2006. These changes include:

o The definition of “Actuarially Equivalent” is amended to incorporate the mortality table prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

o The period in which the Board is required to deliver written notification of terms and conditions of a qualified annuity to a Participant is increased from no more than 90 days prior to the Participant’s Benefit Commencement Date to no more than 180 days prior to the Participant’s Benefit Commencement Date.

o The election period in which a participant may waive in writing the right to receive his benefit in the form of an annuity is increased from 90 days to 180 days ending on the Participant’s Benefit Commencement Date.

o Annuity plans under Section 403(b) of the code are added as an allowable rollover or transferred for after tax funds.

o “Eligible retirement plan” for the purpose of a rollover is expanded to include a Roth Individual Retirement Account (IRA).

o A non-Spouse Beneficiary of a deceased participant may elect to directly rollover any portion of a distribution in a manner the same as a surviving Spouse or alternate payee.

The definition of “Pay Based Credits” for the participant who is the president of University of Arizona as of July 1, 2009 to include 18% of base pay through the plan year ending June 30, 2012. This revision will be effective July 1, 2009.

The definition of “Pay Based Credits” for the participant who is president of Northern Arizona University is extended through June 30, 2013. This revision will be effective July 1, 2009.

There are no substantive changes to the Cash Balance Plan which will either alter a participant’s benefits or change the administration of the Plan.

Board Meeting June 18-19, 2009

Item #33 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 3 of 3

This amendment has been reviewed by Board Counsel.

A copy of the First Amendment is available to Regents upon request.

Committee Review and Recommendation The Human Resources Committee reviewed the First Restatement of the Cash Balance Pension Plan at the June 2, 2009 meeting and recommend Board approval. Recommendation to the Board The Board approve the First Amendment to the Cash Balance Pension Plan Restated as of July 1, 2008 and authorize the President of the Board to execute this Amendment.




Contact Information: Rick Shangraw (ASU) 480-965-4087 [email protected] Laura Huenneke (NAU) 928-523-4340 [email protected] Leslie Tolbert (UA) 520-621-3513 [email protected] Sandra Woodley (ABOR) 602-229-2557 [email protected] Kathy Bedard (ABOR) 602-229-2546 [email protected]

Item Name: MEASURING UNIVERSITY RESEARCH PERFORMANCE


The research programs of Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, and The University of Arizona, while complex in their organization and multiple funding sources, seek to push the envelopes of new knowledge and discoveries that will benefit their local communities and the larger community, while enriching the educational experience of their undergraduate students and significantly impacting their local, regional, and state economies.

A flowchart, “A Framework for Measuring Research Performance,” presented on page 5 illustrates this complexity.

The current Carnegie Classifications1 for our universities are:

ASU and UA are classified as Very High Research Universities

NAU is classified as a High Research University


In adopting 2020 Vision, the system’s long-term strategic plan, the Regents recognized the importance of university research. Goal Two of 2020 Vision is Research Excellence: to increase the research capabilities and performance of the Arizona University System to a level of competitive prominence with peer rankings of top American research universities.

To achieve the Silver targets by 2020, Arizona State University must increase its total research expenditures, the most common national university research measure, by 192%; Northern Arizona University by 48%; and The University of Arizona by 88%. (See graph excerpted from 2020 Vision on page 6.)

Issue: Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, and The University of Arizona will present and discuss metrics and comparative peer data used to measure the performance of their research programs.



To achieve the Gold targets by 2020, ASU must increase its total research expenditures by 226%; NAU by 85%; and UA by 96%.

The federal government is the largest source of university research funding,

providing $30.4 billion in FY 2007 (the latest data available) and accounting for more than 60% of total research expenditures most years since FY 1972. The federal government’s share, however, has declined in recent years, dropping from 64% in FY 2005 to 62% in FY 2007. After adjusting for inflation, federally funded university research expenditures declined 1.6% from FY 2006.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has historically been the largest provider of federal university research funding. In FY 2007 HHS funding constituted 56% of total federally funded expenditures ($17.1 billion) and was concentrated within the medical and biological sciences. The National Science Foundation (NSF) was the second largest provider in FY 2007, funding $3.6 billion across numerous academic research fields.

In FY 2007 medical sciences ($16.5 billion) and biological sciences ($9.2 billion)

once again accounted for more than one-half of all university research expenditures. These two fields have held the largest field shares of academia’s research performance total throughout the NSF’s history of compiling this data. Bioengineering/biomedical engineering research continues to be the fastest growing field, with an average increase of 15% annually since FY 2000.

The universities discuss in their documents behind the university tabs the federal stimulus funding made available for university research in the areas of health, education, energy, and environment under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. All three universities are aggressively pursuing this funding which will cause a temporary uptick in available federal research funding through FY 2011.

The universities describe their screening processes for approving faculty research

proposals to be advanced. Factors considered in this screening include:

Strategic importance Faculty expertise Personnel requirements Infrastructure requirements, including laboratory space, library or computer

resources, specialized equipment Anticipated level of indirect cost recovery (ICR; also called Facilities &

Administration (F&A)) Technology transfer potential



Synergistic opportunities with other awards Collaborative opportunities with other universities and entities; e.g., the TRIF-

supported UA-ASU Solar Energy Initiative; collaborative research efforts with TGen

Attaining even the 2020 Silver research targets will require concerted, robust efforts by all three universities to advance their research programs.

Key Data/Findings

To measure their progress toward achieving the Silver targets and other Research Excellence indicators, the Vice Presidents for Research, working with central office staff, reviewed the research performance measures used nationally by research universities.

The group ultimately agreed on 11 common measures of research performance. These 11 measures were discussed with Regent Mariucci and Regent DuVal, who agreed with their appropriateness. These measures are:

1. Total research expenditures 2. Federally funded research expenditures 3. Doctoral degrees awarded 4. Postdoctoral appointees 5. National Academy members 6. Invention disclosures 7. Patent applications filed 8. Patents issued 9. Licenses and options executed

10. Licensing revenue 11. Start-up companies

University data for these 11 measures are presented in the universities’ documents that follow. Data presented for each measure include:

Nominal data Scaled data showing a percentage change or per $10 million of research

expenditures Comparable data for the universities’ new peer sets, including the peer

median and best-performing peer

NAU also presents four university-specific measures and peer data to illustrate some differences between its research portfolio and the portfolios of ASU and UA.



The final section of each university’s document discusses selected research “jewels,” research areas of high strategic importance to the university. The impact of these research efforts are presented in terms of jobs created, wages paid, purchasing generated, faculty and students—both undergraduate and graduate—involved, indirect cost recovery dollars brought to the university, technology transfer, and other economic impacts to the university and surrounding community.

Recommendation to the Board This is a discussion item only; no Board action is required. 1The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education was developed in 1970 by the Carnegie

Commission on Higher Education to support its program of research and policy analysis. For over three decades, the Carnegie Classification has been the leading framework for describing institutional diversity in U.S. higher education. It has been widely used in the study of higher education, both as a way to represent and control for institutional differences, and also in the design of research studies to ensure adequate representation of sampled institutions, students, or faculty. The 1970 version of the Carnegie Classification classified universities that award the doctorate as Research Universities I and II and Doctoral Universities I and II. Under this classification scheme, ASU and UA were Research I and NAU was Research II. Carnegie discontinued the use of Roman numerals in 2000 to avoid the inference that the categories signify quality differences, which is not the intent of the Carnegie Classification; i.e., Carnegie Classifications are categories identifying meaningful similarities and differences among institutions, but they do not imply quality differences as would rankings. The two classifications established in 2000 were:

Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive: Those universities that award the doctorate in relatively large numbers across a wide range of fields. ASU and UA were so classified.

Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive: Those universities that award the doctorate in smaller numbers or in a more limited set of fields. NAU was so classified.

However, the Carnegie Foundation failed to anticipate that the new categories might be shortened to “Research-Extensive” and “Research-Intensive,” leading to confusion with a widely used term of art, the “research-intensive university”—a term generally applied to universities labeled “extensive” and rarely to those called “intensive.” So in 2005 the Carnegie Foundation assigned doctorate-granting institutions to one of three categories based on a measure of research activity. It is important to note that the groups differentiate solely with respect to level of research activity, not quality or importance. The three categories are:

Very High Research Universities. ASU and UA are so classified.

High Research Universities. NAU is so classified.

Doctoral/Research Universities. Institutions not classified as “very high” or “high” and those not represented in the NSF data collections.

More information on the Carnegie Classification is available at: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/

• • • • •

•

- - -

• • •

- - -

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

June 18-19, 2009Agenda Item #34

Page 5 of 6

FY 2

00

7 A

CTU

AL

FY 2

02

0 B

RO

NZE

FY 2

02

0 S

ILV

ERFY

20

20

GO

LD

NA

U$

27

$

28

$

40

$

50

ASU

$2

24

$

23

6

$6

55

$

73

0

UA

$5

32

$

55

8

$9

98

$

1,0

41

$7

83

$

82

2

$1

,69

3

$1

,82

1

$0

$2

00

$4

00

$6

00

$8

00

$1

,00

0

$1

,20

0

$1

,40

0

$1

,60

0

$1

,80

0

$2

,00

0

Million

Pro

ject

ed F

Y 2

02

0 R

esea

rch

Exp

end

itu

res

NA

U

ASU

UA

Act

ual

an

nu

al r

esea

rch

exp

end

itu

res

will

be

th

ose

rep

ort

ed t

o N

SF.

Sou

rce

: 2

02

0 V

isio

n:

The

Ari

zon

a U

niv

ersi

ty S

yste

m L

on

g-t

erm

Str

ate

gic

Pla

n

20

08

-20

20

, p. 2

4.

ww

w.a

zreg

ents

.ed

u/2

02

0.p

df

June 18-19, 2009Agenda Item #34

Page 6 of 6

Image: Corby Waste, NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona

MEASURING RESEARCH PERFORMANCE MEASURING RESEARCH PERFORMANCE

A PRESENTATION TO THE ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS

JUNE 18-19, 2009

A PRESENTATION TO THE ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS

JUNE 18-19, 2009

Measuring Research Performance – The University of Arizona Research universities provide essential stimulus to advance social welfare and

economic development. Across the country, successful economies in recent decades

have grown up around strong research universities. Despite tough economic times, the

University of Arizona, Arizona’s land-grant institution and only member of the

Association of American Universities, remains one of the top 25 universities in the

country in terms of research strength. Our strength in research is reflected in new

discoveries and inventions in critical areas, in graduates prepared for employment and

leadership in the 21st century workforce, and in a vibrant private sector that has

developed around our intellectual core.

The UA is unusually strong in research that crosses multiple fields of expertise. We

excel in areas including:

• Environmental sustainability, with a focus on science and policy that support clean,

abundant water, use of alternative energy sources, and careful stewardship of our

desert environment

• Bioscience that changes the face of medicine and agriculture in Arizona

• Space science that brings millions of external dollars into the state and provides

high-tech jobs

• Information technology that builds on expertise in optics and produces the spin-off

companies that cause the Tucson area to be known as “Optics Valley”

• People and connection to place, including indigenous peoples of the Southwest and

their connections to the land, our rich cultural history, and sensitive border issues.

Our graduates are educated in open inquiry, information-based decision-making, and

hands-on involvement in their chosen fields. Many, especially those in the majority who

participate in research and creative activity outside of the classroom, go on to obtain

graduate and professional degrees.

Research Funding

The Federal government provides roughly 60% of the total budget for university-based

research. Federally budgeted funds for research and development (R&D) have

remained essentially flat since FY2005. Despite the additional resources that private

universities can invest in research (especially for faculty salaries and research

infrastructure), public universities have increased their share of Federal R&D support

during the last two decades. Currently, public universities obtain 1.6 times as much of

the available Federal R&D support as private universities in the U.S.

Most Federal R&D funds are made available on a competitive basis. How does the UA

maximize its receipt of Federal R&D funds, focused in areas of strategic importance?

We use two basic mechanisms to ensure that we are competitive for research funding in

areas that are important to us.

1. We constantly work to determine where there are opportunities to make a

difference to Arizona, the nation, and the world. In research, we identify our

areas of strength, determine where we have gaps in expertise we need, and hire

faculty to fill those gaps. Faculty then have a “hunting license” to obtain funds to

pursue their research. They are evaluated directly on their ability to create and

communicate new knowledge, including their ability to attract appropriate funds

from available sources. As evidenced by our research rankings, the faculty we

1

hire are among the best in the world at identifying funding opportunities and

competing successfully for outside support. 2. Every grant proposal comes through the Office of the Vice President for

Research with a cover sheet that describes the facilities and other support that

will be needed to perform the proposed research (for example, laboratory space,

library or computer resources, specialized equipment). We sign off only after

determining that the resources required are reasonable for the work to be done.

If the work is deemed to be of particularly high strategic importance or to carry

particularly high technology-transfer potential, we may put significant resources

behind it. In this way, we do not steer faculty to apply for or accept particular grants; instead, we

expect them to know their fields well, be fully aware of appropriate funding opportunities,

and compete actively for top funding. This “entrepreneurial” approach – rather than one

involving central planning and close direction – is the gold standard for the top research

universities in the U.S. Competition is fierce in many areas, and the UA makes

decisions to invest in the infrastructure that will make our faculty most competitive in the

areas that we have deemed to be our areas of strategic focus.

In addition to making sure that our core Federal research support is as strong as

possible, we continue our strategy of diversifying our portfolio of research income

streams across other major sources. Those sources include State research funding

such as that from Science Foundation Arizona, contracts with private industry, gifts, and

revenue based on the intellectual property we produce (“tech transfer” revenues). We

are making changes in our approach to earning tech transfer income, as we strive to

reach the levels achieved by our peer universities in this sector.

Federal Stimulus Funds

In FY2009, the Federal government announced a $787 billion economic stimulus (or

American Reinvestment and Recovery Act – ARRA) package, the details of which reflect

the evidence that science is a key component for economic growth and associated job

creation. The funds for health, education, energy, and environment include support for

university-based research, sometimes in partnership with the private sector.

The majority of ARRA funding for research is available through the same Federal

agencies that ordinarily provide funding for research (e.g., National Science Foundation,

National Institutes of Health). Most will be awarded via a highly competitive and rigorous

peer-review process with which our faculty are familiar. While the amount of available

funding has grown temporarily (by about 15%), so too has the intensity of the

competition among universities. Only the very best research faculty can consistently win

major research awards, which is why investment in top faculty is always a priority.

To maximize our ability to win direct ARRA research funding, we have:

• Created a top-level ARRA coordination group that includes the Provost and Vice

President for Research, as well as Federal and State Relations and Facilities Design

and Construction

• Increased communication of funding opportunities to investigators through a website

(http://www.vpr.arizona.edu/node/84), emails, and workshops

• Improved readiness in handling multiple proposal submission deadlines and

requirements

• Implemented special tracking systems required for handling ARRA funds

2

• Established more frequent and detailed monitoring of research proposals and their

generation, making sure that we do not miss any opportunities in areas of strategic

importance to the University.

ARRA funds will also come to the UA via the State. Uses for these funds also will be

prioritized across the University’s mission, including investment in the research

enterprise.

Achieving “Silver” Goals for Research in the Current Environment

ARRA funding provides a replacement for growth of the Federal R&D budget for FY2009

- 2011, but the annual Federal R&D budget after FY2011 will likely remain flat for at least

a few years before resuming growth. We are positioning ourselves to use the one-time

ARRA funds to build and renovate laboratory facilities, purchase new high-end research

equipment, and to hire new faculty to fill critical gaps in expertise. All of this will poise us

to be even more successful in the competition for standard funding after FY2011.

The UA continues to keep its eye on achieving the Silver standard set for it in the ABOR

2020 Strategic Plan, which is to reach Top Ten among public universities in NSF-

reported Total R&D Expenditures by the year 2018. The downturn in the economy,

affecting all public universities, will likely cause a decrease in the absolute amounts of

research funding in the universities in the coming decade (complicated by a temporary

up-tick with ARRA funds in FY2009 – 2011). Our own performance will therefore be

compared against a target that is unpredictable for a few years.

In sum, the UA’s research engine has an enormous impact on economic development of

the region and a large impact on the state and nation. Each scientific research team is

in effect a small business, acquiring outside funds and then providing jobs and

purchasing supplies in the community. Many teams produce new knowledge that is an

economic driver for the private sector and/or provides direct public good, and higher

education in a research-rich environment in turn elevates personal income and other

aspects of societal stability and prosperity.

As Dr. Tom Grogan, founder and senior vice president for medical affairs for Ventana

Medical Systems, which was recently acquired by the Roche Group, stated to the Board

of Regents at its January meeting, higher education in Arizona is the solution to the

state's budget crisis, not its problem. Dr. Grogan, whose company grew out of the UA,

said, "We will create more wealth from the frontal cortex of man than from what will be

found in the ground in Arizona." Dr. Grogan referred to the UA's top 20 status among

the nation's research universities, saying that it is through the "mental real estate" that

universities create that Arizona will be able to pull itself out of the economic slump.

Research is a key signature of a great land-grant university. It is how we generate new

knowledge to fuel the highest quality teaching and outreach, making it a core element of

our mission to improve the quality of life.

3

Summary of Research Performance MetricsABOR Peer Group Comparisons

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Total R&D Expenditures (in Thousands) % Change in Total R&D Expenditures (Avg. Over 3 Years)

University of Arizona 454,941 478,680 530,233 535,847 531,753 9.7% 9.4% 10.8% 5.7% 3.7%

Median of Peer Institutions 482,145 506,041 530,734 565,491 592,835 9.0% 7.1% 5.6% 5.1% 4.7%

Federal R&D Expenditures (in Thousands) % Change in Federal R&D Expenditures (Avg. Over 3 Years)

University of Arizona 259,074 283,956 292,811 301,619 269,941 11.7% 12.7% 11.7% 5.2% -1.5%

Median of Peer Institutions 231,996 275,896 289,985 273,147 289,331 12.0% 12.4% 8.5% 5.6% 3.2%

Number of Doctorate Degrees Awards Doctorate Degrees Awarded per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures

University of Arizona 378 398 386 395 460 8.3 8.3 7.3 7.4 8.6

Median of Peer Institutions 503 539 571 646 653 10.6 10.8 10.4 10.9 10.7

Number of Postdoctoral Appointees Postdoctoral Appointees per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures



Number of National Academy Members National Academy Members per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures



Number of Invention Disclosures Invention Disclosures per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures



Number of Patent Applications Patent Applications per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures



Number of Patents Issued Patents Issued per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures



Number of Licensing Agreements Licensing Agreements per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures



Licensing Revenue (in Thousands) Licensing Revenue per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures

University of Arizona 1,077 963 1,176 1,689 1,191 24 20 22 32 22

Median of Peer Institutions 8,746 9,241 9,913 8,432 7,628 156 180 181 147 149

Number of Start-up Companies Start-up Companies per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures



Source: Reference "Source" on the individual metrics' exhibit.

4

ABOR Peer Group Comparisons

Ranked by 2007 Values

Commentary Total R&D Expenditures (in thousands) % Change in Total R&D Expenditures (Avg. Over 3 Years)

Institutions 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007University of Wisconsin - Madison 717,044 763,875 798,099 831,895 840,672 9.0% 8.1% 6.4% 5.1% 3.3%

University of California - Los Angeles 849,357 772,569 785,625 811,493 823,083 17.4% 4.1% 0.2% -1.4% 2.1%

University of Washington 684,814 713,976 707,519 778,148 756,787 9.0% 6.6% 4.2% 4.4% 2.1%

Ohio State University, All Campuses 496,438 518,088 608,923 652,329 720,206 11.2% 10.0% 12.2% 9.7% 11.7%

Pennsylvania State University, All Campuses 533,427 600,139 625,764 644,182 652,144 7.7% 9.4% 8.3% 6.6% 2.8%

University of Minnesota, All Campuses 508,557 526,270 548,873 594,877 624,149 7.4% 4.5% 3.6% 5.4% 5.9%

University of California - Davis 482,145 511,757 546,978 573,002 600,508 9.9% 5.8% 6.2% 5.9% 5.5%

University of Florida 429,734 447,146 530,734 565,491 592,835 11.1% 8.8% 11.3% 9.8% 10.0%

Texas A&M University 456,235 456,809 479,735 492,955 543,888 4.7% 4.0% 3.2% 2.6% 6.0%

University of Arizona 454,941 478,680 530,233 535,847 531,753 9.7% 9.4% 10.8% 5.7% 3.7%

University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill 390,542 416,727 441,033 443,790 477,231 13.4% 11.4% 6.0% 4.4% 4.7%

University of Illinois - Urbana - Champaign 493,581 506,041 499,711 476,198 473,890 9.9% 9.1% 5.6% -1.1% -2.1%

University of Texas - Austin 343,854 343,886 410,981 431,398 446,765 8.0% 5.3% 8.9% 8.2% 9.3%

University of Iowa 292,035 312,914 334,144 346,357 363,243 7.3% 7.1% 5.0% 5.9% 5.1%

Michigan State University 321,410 325,438 333,735 358,097 360,852 10.5% 7.0% 4.9% 3.7% 3.5%

University of Maryland - College Park 321,899 325,648 338,648 354,244 359,760 8.8% 7.3% 1.4% 3.3% 3.4%

Median of ABOR Peers 482,145 506,041 530,734 565,491 592,835 9.0% 7.1% 5.6% 5.1% 4.7%

Source: 2007 NSF/SRS Survey of R&D Expenditures at Universities & Colleges

1. Total Research & Development Expenditures

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

• In FY07, UA's faculty competed successfully for

funding to place us 15th in total R&D expenditures

among all U.S. public universities.

• UA's research enterprise ranked 23rd among all

U.S. universities, 2nd in Physical Sciences, and 1st in

Astronomy overall.

5



Commentary Federal R&D Expenditures (in thousands) % Change in Federal R&D Expenditures (Avg. Over 3 Years)

Institutions 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007University of Washington 565,602 625,218 606,317 650,394 620,375 13.2% 12.9% 7.9% 4.9% -0.1%

University of California - Los Angeles 421,174 461,145 469,889 483,873 488,846 15.4% 13.9% 8.7% 4.8% 2.0%

University of Wisconsin - Madison 396,231 434,423 477,582 491,810 469,076 12.5% 12.7% 11.5% 7.5% 2.8%

Pennsylvania State University, All Campuses 301,094 347,996 358,569 367,215 370,789 10.1% 12.4% 8.1% 7.0% 2.1%

University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill 280,678 304,204 320,294 329,215 346,672 13.0% 11.2% 8.0% 5.5% 4.5%

University of Minnesota, All Campuses 293,266 307,677 319,771 326,170 337,966 8.7% 5.3% 2.7% 3.6% 3.2%

Ohio State University, All Campuses 198,488 284,675 294,053 315,914 313,242 14.6% 21.8% 19.4% 18.1% 3.3%


University of Arizona 259,074 283,956 292,811 301,619 269,941 11.7% 12.7% 11.7% 5.2% -1.5%

University of California - Davis 208,327 221,937 240,003 248,190 256,994 13.8% 12.8% 10.9% 6.0% 5.0%

University of Illinois - Urbana - Champaign 266,487 275,896 289,985 264,645 253,612 11.7% 12.5% 11.0% 0.0% -2.6%

University of Florida 194,958 221,898 231,699 248,322 240,819 17.5% 18.0% 11.6% 8.5% 2.9%

Texas A&M University 177,119 173,705 212,923 206,242 228,363 5.9% 5.3% 9.7% 5.8% 10.1%

University of Iowa 197,260 209,865 216,354 216,521 222,944 12.0% 10.6% 6.2% 3.2% 2.0%


Michigan State University 133,820 143,473 156,461 169,116 170,350 11.3% 8.5% 8.5% 8.1% 6.0%

Median of ABOR Peers 231,996 275,896 289,985 273,147 289,331 12.0% 12.4% 8.5% 5.6% 3.2%

Source: 2007 NSF/SRS Survey of R&D Expenditures at Universities & Colleges

2. Federal Research & Development Expenditures

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

• UA's faculty brought in federal research dollars on

par with our peers, ranking us 14th among U.S.

public universities for federal funding.

6



Commentary Number of Doctorate Degrees Awarded Doctorate Degrees Awarded per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures

Institutions 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007University of Minnesota, All Campuses 560 592 678 751 819 11.0 11.2 12.4 12.6 13.1

University of Florida 591 694 702 718 794 13.8 15.5 13.2 12.7 13.4

University of Texas - Austin 674 702 719 796 779 19.6 20.4 17.5 18.5 17.4

University of Wisconsin - Madison 656 628 666 648 775 9.1 8.2 8.3 7.8 9.2

University of California - Los Angeles 596 666 657 708 734 7.0 8.6 8.4 8.7 8.9

University of Illinois - Urbana - Champaign 617 574 636 689 698 12.5 11.3 12.7 14.5 14.7

Ohio State University, All Campuses 575 561 590 664 667 11.6 10.8 9.7 10.2 9.3

University of Maryland - College Park 418 482 516 602 653 13.0 14.8 15.2 17.0 18.1

Pennsylvania State University, All Campuses 503 539 571 646 646 9.4 9.0 9.1 10.0 9.9

University of Washington 493 503 528 612 631 7.2 7.0 7.5 7.9 8.3

Texas A&M University 442 515 528 535 598 9.7 11.3 11.0 10.9 11.0

University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill 412 439 459 490 512 10.6 10.5 10.4 11.0 10.7

Michigan State University 442 430 425 463 493 13.8 13.2 12.7 12.9 13.7

University of California - Davis 373 375 389 413 474 7.7 7.3 7.1 7.2 7.9


University of Iowa 249 300 341 364 376 8.5 9.6 10.2 10.5 10.4

Median of ABOR Peers 503 539 571 646 653 10.6 10.8 10.4 10.9 10.7

Source: NCES IPEDS Completions Survey, Doctoral Degrees Awarded

3. Doctoral Degrees Awarded

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

• In FY2007, UA's doctorates rose to a record

high of 460.

7



Commentary Number of Postdoctoral Appointees Postdoctoral Appointees per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures

Institutions 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006University of Washington 972 865 1043 963 1044 15.5 12.6 14.6 13.6 13.4



University of Minnesota 749 614 629 669 676 15.2 12.1 12.0 12.2 11.4














Source: NSF/SRS Survey of Graduate Students & Postdoctorates in Science & Engineering

4. Postdoctoral Appointees

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

• Postdoctoral appointees are Ph.D's in the final

phase of training or "internships." In many fields,

they constitute a key component of the research

workforce.

• UA postdoctoral appointments match those of our

peers.

8

5. National Academy MembersABOR Peer Group Comparisons


Commentary Number of National Academy Members National Academy Members per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures

Institutions 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007University of Washington 77 78 85 86 90 1.12 1.09 1.20 1.11 1.19





University of Minnesota, All Campuses 38 37 36 36 36 0.75 0.70 0.66 0.61 0.58












Source: National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine Directories

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

• With 30 members of the National Academies on its

faculty, UA is on par with its peers.

9

6. Invention DisclosuresABOR Peer Group Comparisons


Commentary Number of Invention Disclosures Invention Disclosures per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures

Institution 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007University of Wisconsin - Madison 406 405 417 464 409 5.7 5.3 5.2 5.6 4.9

















Sources: AUTM Licensing Activity Survey, UC System Technology Transfer Annual Reports for FY 03-2007, and UL-Urbana-Champaign Ottice of Technology Management Annual Report FY 2007

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

• Invention disclosures are usually made for

technologies that have moved from basic research to

the development phase, prior to licensing.

• Number of invention disclosures at the UA and among

our peers are fairly flat from year to year.

10



Commentary Number of Patent Applications Patent Applications per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures

Institution 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007University of Wisconsin - Madison 146 163 203 203 175 2.04 2.13 2.54 2.44 2.08










Ohio State University, All Campuses 35 N/A 42 64 66 0.71 N/A 0.69 0.98 0.92








7. Patent Applications Filed

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0

50

100

150

200

250

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

• Patent applications are costly, and they therefore are

made primarily for technologies that potentially require

protection for further development toward

commercialization.

• UA's patent applications have been approaching

those of our peers.

11

8. Patents IssuedABOR Peer Comparisons


Commentary Number of Patents Issued Patents Issued per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures

Name of Institution 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007University of Wisconsin - Madison 87 93 89 69 124 1.21 1.22 1.12 0.83 1.47


















Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

• "Patents Issued" is a lagging indicator, because

issuance of patents occurs years after patent

applications were filed, and at a rate that does not

necessarily track the rate at which they were filed.

• UA receives 10-20 issued patents per year.

12



Commentary Number of Licensing Agreements Licensing Agreement per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures

Name of Institution 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007University of Washington 67 70 109 155 203 0.98 0.98 1.54 1.99 2.68


















9. License Agreements

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0

50

100

150

200

250

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

• License agreements range in size, and are scaled on

a case-by-case basis to optimize long-term returns.

• UA enters into 20-25 licensing agreements per year.

13



Commentary Licensing Revenue (in thousands) Licensing Revenue per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures

Name of Institution 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007University of Minnesota, All Campuses 37,493 45,551 47,052 56,193 63,316 737 865 857 945 1,015

University of Washington 29,132 22,808 29,317 36,199 63,284 425 319 414 465 836

University of Florida 35,248 37,402 40,300 42,900 48,035 820 837 759 759 810

University of Wisconsin - Madison 37,573 47,689 49,052 42,364 46,700 524 624 615 509 555

University of California - Los Angeles 10,904 13,931 18,889 18,640 20,896 128 180 240 230 254

University of Iowa 8,746 10,713 19,160 16,913 17,393 300 342 573 488 479

University of California - Davis 9,032 9,241 9,913 8,441 8,081 187 181 181 147 135

Texas A&M University 7,106 6,650 7,847 6,419 7,628 156 146 164 130 140

University of Texas - Austin 3,920 5,058 6,774 8,432 6,652 114 147 165 195 149

Michigan State University 24,463 36,402 23,822 4,183 5,584 761 1,119 714 117 155

University of Illinois - Urbana - Champaign 5,090 3,250 4,190 6,400 4,690 103 64 84 134 99

University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill 3,808 3,818 1,988 2,400 2,133 98 92 45 54 45

Pennsylvania State University, All Campuses 1,644 1,917 2,266 1,348 1,817 31 32 36 21 28

Ohio State University, All Campuses 566 629 696 947 1,245 11 12 11 15 17

University of Arizona 1,077 963 1,176 1,689 1,191 24 20 22 32 22

University of Maryland - College Park 788 907 963 1,873 1,172 24 28 28 53 33

Median of ABOR Peers 8,746 9,241 9,913 8,432 7,628 156 180 181 147 149


10. Licensing Revenue

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

• Licensing revenue is driven by major technologies

that have had time to mature in the market.

14

ABOR Peer Group Comparison


Commentary Number of Start-up Companies Start-up Companies per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures

Institution 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007University of Washington 3 7 4 10 11 0.04 0.10 0.06 0.13 0.15


















11. Start-up Companies

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Peer Maximum

UA

Peer Median

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

• With 17 companies spun out in FY 2003-2007, UA

ranks with its peers.

• New companies created include:

Arizona Microsystems, LLC

dMetrix, LLC

Senestech, LLC (involving both UA & NAU)

RediRipe, LLC

15

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS Introduction and Economic Impact of UA Research Activities

The University of Arizona attracts significant Federal and industrial resources to the

State of Arizona in support of our research mission. As a large and highly-ranked research

university, we have numerous world-class research groups working at the cutting edge of

knowledge and in many cases translating their research results into practical application almost

immediately. An important element of our achievements is our success in synthesizing

research perspectives and expertise from multiple fields, and all of it engages students. The

five examples provided in this section highlight some of our most successful research clusters.

In FY2007 the UA’s $531 million in research and development activities was estimated to

have the following economic impact in the State of Arizona:

• more than 8,000 jobs

• over $390 million in wages

• over $974 million in total output.

According to the Economic Blueprint prepared by Tucson Regional Economic

Opportunities in 2006, the UA is important to industries in the region because it attracts global

talent, creates social and cultural value for the community, helps fuel the regional and state

economies, and is the foundation of the region’s high-tech knowledge economy. The major

companies in the region are keenly aware of the benefits of locating near a major research

university such as the UA, and local economic leaders know that regions flourish when they can

access a highly educated and effective workforce.

Large high-tech corporations (over 500 employees) in the region include Raytheon Missile

Systems, IBM Corporation, UniSource Energy Corp./TEP, General Dynamics Information

Technology, Northrop Grumman Corp., US Customs and Border Protection, Intuit, Inc., Ventana

Medical Systems Inc., Honeywell Aerospace, Texas Instruments, and Bombardier Aerospace.

The UA provides the rich intellectual climate, critical new ideas and inventions, and a workforce

well prepared to further grow our region’s high-tech economy.

A major point of connection between UA’s research enterprise and industry is the UA

Science and Technology Park. The Park is home to forty high-tech companies and enterprises,

the majority of which have a research relationship with the University and that employ over

7,000 people and contribute $2.4 billion annually to the regional economy. In addition to several

of the companies listed above, other major corporations at the Park include Canon USA,

General Dynamics and Citigroup. These companies have stated that their continued presence

in Tucson is due in part to the University and its research enterprise.

The UA is an economic force of its own, educating over 37,000 students and employing

more than 14,400 people with payroll and benefits exceeding $700 million.

16

Arizona Cancer Center

The goals of the UA’s Arizona Cancer

Center (AZCC) are to prevent and cure cancer.

Cancer patients are given leading-edge care that

benefits from intensive in-house research into new

cures and methods of prevention, and educational

outreach programs help millions more to reduce

their cancer risk.

Many of the protocols and techniques developed here have become worldwide

standards of care. In recognition of our broad and deep approach that includes laboratory,

clinical, and population-based research as well as outreach, education, and information

programs, the National Cancer Institute designated our Cancer Center a comprehensive cancer center, their highest-ranking designation.

Armed with test tubes, cancer cells,

computers, and tumor models, our doctors,

scientists, and technicians are learning how

normal cell replication can go wrong in cancer.

Genetics research provides clues to which tumors

may be most aggressive and how individual

patients are likely to respond to a particular

treatment. Our drug discovery researchers have

tested thousands of compounds, plant extracts,

traditional remedies, and drugs currently used for

other purposes to see if they are potential

anticancer treatments. New drugs for the

treatment of leukemia, colon cancer, ovarian

cancer, and breast cancer have been developed

and tested here. We are developing a new generation of more effective targeted drugs that are

less toxic because they will attack only cancer cells without hurting healthy tissue.

Patients visit from throughout Arizona, North America, and countries around the world to

receive promising new cancer therapies and the latest, most effective information on cancer

prevention. Some of the advanced treatments pioneered here and the promises they carry are

available in few other places in the world. In FY2007, the 250 members of AZCC:

• had over $45.6 million in total research and development activity (expenditures), $25.8

million of which was from federal sources

• received almost $33 million in new research awards

• brought in $8.3 million in indirect costs

• made 2 invention disclosures and exercised 1 license

• filed 5 U.S. patent applications

• applied innumerable research findings to their treatment of patients.

17

BIO5 Institute

Recent breakthroughs in the

molecular life sciences offer an

unprecedented opportunity to

improve the quality of life in the 21st

century. The UA’s BIO5 Institute is

at the leading edge of life sciences

research, bringing together faculty

and other researchers from

agriculture, medicine, pharmacy,

basic science, and engineering to

tackle complex biology-based problems affecting humanity today. We are finding new,

collaborative ways to address world hunger while preserving the environment, and to diagnose,

treat, and prevent disease. Through its programs in bioengineering, drug discovery, genome

structure and function, and quantitative biology, BIO5’s scientists address cancer, diabetes,

heart, neurological and respiratory diseases; develop new diagnostic tools; improve yield and

nutritional quality of crops; and develop plants as sources of pharmaceuticals.

Moving scientific breakthroughs from BIO5 labs to the

marketplace is an important facet of BIO5's mission. Teaming

with the UA Office of Technology Transfer, BIO5 researchers

connect to industry through licensing agreements, facility use

agreements, and development of new start-up companies.

BIO5 also provides UA undergraduate and graduate

students with research training, industry internships, and career

development programs; and BIO5's K-12 programs impact

hundreds of teachers and tens of thousands of students

throughout the state each year.

BIO5 contributes to economic development through a focus on human health. In

FY2007, with major funding provided from TRIF, the 200 BIO5-affiliated faculty members from

colleges across the campus brought in:

• over $35 million in new research awards, including $1 million in corporate contracts

and $27,000 in gifts, for a return on investment of 6.7-to-1 on their TRIF support.

• made 37 invention disclosures and licensed 5 new technologies

• filed 49 U.S. patent applications and initiated 1 start-up company

• obtained or renewed 3 training grants (to support students)

• provided research training for 298 UA undergraduates and 24 non-UA students

• provided research training for 437 graduate students and postdoctoral associates

• supported 43 graduate students to work in bioindustry facilities

• provided research experiences for 38 high school students.

Support from BIO5 catalyzed the hiring of 9 new faculty members in the life sciences.

18

Optical Sciences

Technologies that exploit the

properties and applications of light touch

virtually every field of science and all modern

industries. The optics market in

communication, medical care, heavy industry,

sensing and security, and the military exceeds

$200 billion per year. The UA’s College of

Optical Sciences is top-ranked internationally

for its innovative and unusually

comprehensive research programs in this

area. Faculty members partner with scientists

and engineers from industry, government, and academia to conduct leading-edge research that

powers the future of the world’s high-technology industries.

At Optical Sciences, education and

research are inseparable. Under the guidance of

professors, scientists, and administrators, students

acquire scientific expertise and receive valuable

training in administering internationally competitive

programs by participating in cutting-edge

research. Graduates of Optical Sciences have

received recognition at the national and

international levels for their pioneering discoveries

and intellectual leadership. Because so many

optical technology companies are located in

Tucson, many of them spun out of the UA, the

region is known as Optics Valley.

In FY2007 UA’s 31 faculty members in the College of Optical Sciences:

• had almost $27 million in total research and development activity (expenditures), over

$9 million of which was from federal sources

• received $15.8 million in new research awards

• brought in $4.1 million in indirect costs

• made 26 invention disclosures

• filed 28 U.S. patent applications

• licensed 1 new technology

• had patent royalty income of $50,000

• taught 248 graduate students and 148 undergraduates.

Since 2000, Optical Sciences has used TRIF funds to collaborate with the Colleges of

Science, Engineering, and Medicine in photonic and imaging/sensor technology and in

astronomical optics, with a special focus on economic development for Arizona. The broader

group of investigators affiliated with the TRIF initiative in Optical Sciences and Technology

received over $21 million in new research awards. This was a return on the TRIF investment of

6.8-to-1.

19

Space Sciences

The UA leads the state in academic space

sciences research. The total economic impact of

astronomy, space sciences, and planetary sciences in

Arizona exceeds $252 million, which includes more than

$138 million in earnings and $12 million in tax revenues,

as well as 1,830 employees, according to a 2007 study by

the Arizona Arts, Sciences, and Technology Academy.

Space Sciences at the UA is mostly focused in the Steward Laboratory of the

Astronomy Department and in the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory. These groups have

strong collaborative ties to Optical Sciences, Physics, and the National Optical Astronomy

Observatory, located next door, giving Tucson one of the largest concentrations of

astronomers and allied scientists in the world. The research strengths of our faculty in

space sciences are a major factor in the UA’s placing among the top three universities in

physical science research (NSF Total R&D Expenditures annual rankings).

Steward Observatory is one of the world’s

leading astronomy research organizations. It is

the home of the Mirror Laboratory, which

fabricates the largest telescope mirrors in the

world. Steward scientists perform research using

expertise ranging from theoretical astrophysics to

astrobiology. They are building the world’s largest

telescope, the Large Binocular Telescope, near

Safford, Arizona, and they help create the world’s

major telescopes, as well as the Hubble Space

Telescope and the Spitzer Space Telescope.

The Lunar and Planetary Laboratory (LPL) is one of the most productive research

organizations in the nation. LPL is dedicated to the common goal of understanding and

teaching about the formation and evolution of the planetary system. Its faculty, research

staff, and graduate student body are drawn from the diverse backgrounds of astronomy,

chemistry, geology, physics, and engineering. LPL has a world-class reputation in

spacecraft missions, laboratory-based research, theory, and astronomical observations. In

FY2007 LPL led in the Phoenix Mars Mission, which was launched in August 2007 and landed

on the polar region of Mars in May 2008. In FY2007, the 46 space sciences faculty members:

• had almost $143.5 million in total research and development activity (expenditures),

over $81 million of which was from federal sources

• received $70.3 million in new research awards

• brought in over $14 million in indirect costs

• educated 118 undergraduates and 88 graduate students

• comprised the first public university team to lead a mission to Mars

• served as the major contractors for building the largest telescope on earth

• engaged K-12 students in astronomical observation and undergraduate students in

controlling the Phoenix lander.

20

Water Sustainability

A sustainable, high-quality water supply is

essential for economic development and

enhanced quality of life in Arizona. Competing

demands for water due to unprecedented

population growth, emerging contaminants, high-

tech industry needs, ecological concerns about

habitat and species conservation, drought, and the

uncertainties of climate change all contribute to

the growing need for improved water science, new

technologies, and the tools and policies for real-world application.

Faculty from across the UA, but especially in five

programs – the Arizona Water Institute; Department of

Hydrology; School of Natural Resources; Department of

Soil, Water, and Environmental Sciences; and Water

Resources Research Center (WRRC) – perform

collaborative research and education in water-related

research and public policy. The WRRC, a research and

extension unit of the College of Agriculture and Life

Sciences, is the designated State water resources

research center established under the 1964 Federal

Water Resources Research Act. The WRRC conducts

water policy research and analysis, and its information

transfer activities include publications, conferences, lectures, and seminars provided to the

academic community, water professionals, elected and appointed officials, students, and the

public. In FY2007 UA researchers and educators working on water sustainability issues:

• had approximately $25 million in total research and development activity

(expenditures), over $12 million of which was from federal sources

• received over $11 million in new research awards

• brought in over $2.6 million in indirect costs.

The WRRC is the home base for the TRIF initiative in Water Sustainability. Faculty who

received direct support from the TRIF in FY2007:

• brought in over $10.5 million in new research awards, for a return on investment of 3.2-

to-1 on their TRIF support

• reached over 35,000 K-12 students and more than 800 teachers through water

education programs delivered through Arizona Project WET across the state

• created a new university-level water policy certificate for working professionals

• sponsored a conference on water and growth, water assessments for 7 communities, a

new resource on Arizona water policy, and Spanish translation of Arizona Know Your

Water

• served as a model for connection of research into issues of immediate practical

importance.

21

Measuring Research Performance

A Presentation to the Arizona Board of Regents

June 18 - 19, 2009

National Trends in R&D Funding for Universities with Very High Research Activity

•BasicandappliedresearchfundingfromFederalciviliansources(NSF,NIH,NASA,DOE,EPA)hasbeenflatoverthepastfiveyearsanddecliningwhenadjustedforinflation.

•Defenseandhomelandsecurityresearchfundinghasbeenincreasingoverthepastfiveyears.

•Weexpectbothofthesetrendstobereversedoverthenextfiveyears.

•ARRAwillincreasefundingopportunitiesoverthenext24monthsbutthereisconcernabouta“cliff”in2012.

•Industryisincreasinglylookingtowardsuniversitiestobetheirappliedresearchlaboratoriesifintellectualpropertyissuescanberesolved.

ASU’s Approach to Improving our Research Competitiveness

•Wehiregreatfacultymemberswhoknowhowtosecureexternalfunding.Ourfacultyareextremelyentrepreneurial.

•Wehavetargetedseveralkeyareas(e.g.,biologicaldesign,urbansustainability,advancedmaterials,light-inspiredenergy)todifferentiateusfromthecompetition.

•Wearefocusedonuse-inspiredandtranslationalresearchtocomplementourbasicresearchprograms.Wearedriventosolvethegrandchallengesfacingtheworld.

•Wehavecompletelyoverhauledourapproachtointellectualpropertytoencouragethetransferofuniversitydiscoveriestothemarketplace.

•Weareexpandingourcapacitytocompeteforlargescale,multi-disciplinary,multi-institutionalprojects.

•Wearebuildingstrongclinicalandindustrypartnerships.

•WeareapproachingtheARRAfundingasanopportunitytoimproveresearchinfrastructurenotday-to-dayoperations.

Page 1

ASU’s Approach to ARRA

•OfficeoftheVicePresidentforResearchisfacilitatingARRAresearchopportunities.OfficeoftheVicePresidentforEducationPartnershipsiscoordinatingARRAeducationalopportunities.WeeklyupdatesareheldwithPresident,Provost,CFO,Deans,andotherASUleadership.

•AnARRA“warroom”isinplacetohelpfacilitatelarge-scaleproposals.Anextensivewebsitehasbeenestablishedtoalertfacultyandstafftoopportunities(http://pride.asu.edu/recovery/index.shtml).Aninternalwebsitetracksspecificproposals,coordinateswithteamsacrosstheuniversity,andalertsresearchadministrationpersonneltoupcomingdeadlines.FacultyandstaffreceiveaweeklyupdateonARRAactivities.

•FacultyteamsareroutinelyvisitingWashington,DCtodiscussopportunitieswithprogrammanagers.ASUishostinganumberofteammeetingswithpartneringinstitutionstoformulateproposals.

•Weareaggressivelypartneringwithstateandlocalgovernmentsoncomplementaryprograms.

•AsofJune5th,ASUhaswonover$22millioninARRAfundingandsubmittedover$165millioninproposals.

How ASU Will Meet the Silver Scenario for 2020

•Wewillcontinuetopromoteandsupportour“breadandbutter”projectsfromacrosstheuniversity.Theseprojectsrangeinsizefrom$50,000-$750,000andrepresentthefoundationforourresearchprogram.Weexpectthisclassofprojectstogrowbyabout10percentperyear.

•Wearebuildingandexpandingexpertiseinseveralkeyareaswhereweexpecttobemorecompetitiveforlargerprojects(>$10million,multi-institutional).Theseareasincludebiodesign,sustainability,advancedmaterials,light-inspiredenergy,spaceandearthexploration,andinnovativeeducationalresearch.Weexpectsignificantgrowthinthisclassofprojects.

•Wearepursuinganationalresearchlaboratoryonthescaleof$50-$100millionperyearinenergy,aerospace,homelandsecurity,orbiosciences.Wearemakingprogressonallofthesefronts.

•Weareexperiencingstronggrowthinresearchfundingfromfoundationsandindividualdonors.Weexpectsomelevelingofthisgrowthoverthenextseveralyearsbutthenaresurgencebasedontherelationshipsandlargenetwork.

• Weexpectacontinuingshiftinindustrialresearchtoapplieduniversitylaboratories.WehavesignedtwomasterresearchagreementswithFortune100companiesoverthelast12monthsandexpecttosignanotherdozenoverthenexttwoyears.

• Finally,weexpecttoseecontinuedandstronggrowthinangelandventureinvestmentinemergingcompanies.ASU’srecentsuccesswithhostingthelargestmeetingofventurefirmsfromaroundthecountrysuggestsstronggrowthinthissector.

Page 2

Total Research ExpendituresABOR Peer Group Comparisons

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Total Expenditures (in Thousands) % Chg. in Total Expenditures (Avg. Over 3 Years)

Top/BottomQuartile

p ( ) g p ( g )Arizona State University - Tempe 145,591 152,164 166,923 201,955 224,352 10.6% 8.8% 10.9% 11.7% 13.9%MEDIAN of Peer Institutions 332,877 334,767 374,815 394,748 405,004 9.1% 7.5% 5.3% 5.1% 3.5%

Federal Expenditures (in Thousands) % Chg. in Federally-Funded Expenditures (Avg. Over 3 Years)Arizona State University - Tempe 71,741 79,877 94,545 109,893 114,632 12.8% 12.2% 13.7% 15.3% 13.0%MEDIAN of Peer Institutions 197,874 222,573 235,442 240,583 238,278 12.2% 12.6% 8.6% 5.8% 3.0%

Number of Doctorate Degrees Awarded Doctorate Degrees Awarded per $10M in Total ExpendituresArizona State University - Tempe 300 355 314 389 376 20.6 23.3 18.8 19.3 16.8MEDIAN of Peer Institutions 468 493 522 607 639 12.7 12.4 12.5 13.5 14.0

Number of Postdocs Postdocs per $10M in Total Research ExpendituresArizona State University - Tempe 167 170 189 186 11.5 11.2 11.3 9.2MEDIAN of Peer Institutions 318 332 355 362 9 8 9 9 9 7 9 3MEDIAN of Peer Institutions 318 332 355 362 9.8 9.9 9.7 9.3

Number of National Academy Members National Academy Members per $10M in Total ExpendituresArizona State University - Tempe 6 7 16 16 17 0.41 0.46 0.96 0.79 0.76MEDIAN of Peer Institutions 25 26 28 29 26 0.70 0.68 0.84 0.73 0.74

Number of Invention Disclosures Invention Disclosures per $10M in Total ExpendituresA i St t U i it T 86 94 120 154 152 5 9 6 2 7 2 7 6 6 8Arizona State University - Tempe 86 94 120 154 152 5.9 6.2 7.2 7.6 6.8MEDIAN of Peer Institutions 115 149 127 139 146 2.9 3.3 3.8 3.6 3.2

Number of Patent Applications Patent Applications per $10M in Total ExpendituresArizona State University - Tempe 92 180 63 49 84 6.32 11.83 3.77 2.43 3.74MEDIAN of Peer Institutions 63 73 82 78 71 1.55 1.53 1.88 1.79 1.62

Number of Patents Issued Patents Issued per $10M in Total ExpendituresArizona State University - Tempe 17 19 25 23 15 1.17 1.25 1.50 1.14 0.67MEDIAN of Peer Institutions 27 31 31 26 30 0.98 0.86 0.68 0.60 0.72

Number of Licensing Agreements Licensing Agreements per $10M in Total ExpendituresArizona State University - Tempe 3 20 28 19 14 0.21 1.31 1.68 0.94 0.62MEDIAN of Peer Institutions 22 33 31 35 31 0.81 0.94 0.90 1.11 0.73MEDIAN of Peer Institutions 22 33 31 35 31 0.81 0.94 0.90 1.11 0.73

Licensing Revenues (in Thousands) Licensing Revenues per $10M in Total ExpendituresArizona State University - Tempe 1,093 1,422 2,287 3,350 3,304 75 93 137 166 147MEDIAN of Peer Institutions 4,340 4,433 2,417 3,766 4,444 145 164 149 165 152

Number of Start-up Companies Start-up Companies per $10M in Total ExpendituresArizona State University Tempe 1 00 4 00 5 00 5 00 4 00 0 07 0 26 0 30 0 25 0 18Arizona State University - Tempe 1.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 0.07 0.26 0.30 0.25 0.18MEDIAN of Peer Institutions 1.70 3.30 3.35 3.76 3.32 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.10

For data sources and details on metrics' calculations, reference the 'Data Notes' on the individual metrics' exhibit.A green circle in the ‘Top/Bottom Quartile’ data column indicates that ASU is ranked in the top 4 of the 16 member peer group. Page 3

Total Research Expenditures


Data Ranked by 2007 Values of Right-Hand Exhibit

Commentary Total Expenditures (in Thousands) % Chg. in Total Expenditures (Avg. Over 3 Years)

900 000 16 0%• ASU's research enterprise is growing faster than any of its

peer institutions, and more than three times faster than the

median of its peer institutions.

• ASU's research enterprise has been growing at an

accelerating pace, while its peer institutions' growth rates

have been waning. 600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

10 0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

ASU = Top Peer

Top Peer

g

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

ASU = Top Peer

Peer Median

Peer Median

Top Peer

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

ASU

ASU = Top Peer

Peer Median

Peer Median

Top Peer

Institution Med. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Arizona State University - Tempe 145,591 152,164 166,923 201,955 224,352 10.6% 8.8% 10.9% 11.7% 13.9%Ohio State University - Columbus Yes 496,438 518,088 608,923 652,329 720,206 11.2% 10.0% 12.2% 9.7% 11.7%


University of Minnesota - Twin Cities Yes 508,557 515,061 548,873 594,877 624,149 7.4% 3.7% 3.6% 5.4% 6.6%

University of Iowa Yes 292,035 312,914 334,144 346,357 363,243 7.3% 7.1% 5.0% 5.9% 5.1%

University of Connecticut - Storrs 87,557 97,169 101,192 106,477 110,093 -0.8% 2.2% 2.0% 6.8% 4.3%

Florida State University Yes 152,277 168,132 172,858 185,633 189,565 13.2% 13.9% 8.9% 6.9% 4.1%

Michigan State University Yes 321,410 325,438 333,735 358,097 360,852 10.5% 7.0% 4.9% 3.7% 3.5%


University of Wisconsin - Madison Yes 721,248 763,875 798,099 831,895 840,672 9.2% 8.1% 6.4% 4.9% 3.3%

Rutgers the State University of NJ - New Brunswick 244,373 263,915 275,483 280,994 283,567 6.8% 7.8% 6.2% 4.8% 2.4%

University of California - Los Angeles Yes 849,357 772,569 785,625 811,493 823,083 17.4% 4.1% 0.2% -1.4% 2.1%University of California Los Angeles Yes 849,357 772,569 785,625 811,493 823,083 17.4% 4.1% 0.2% 1.4% 2.1%

University of Washington - Seattle Yes 684,814 713,976 707,519 778,148 756,787 9.0% 6.6% 4.2% 4.4% 2.1%

Pennsylvania State University - University Park 480,084 540,125 563,188 567,549 573,887 8.9% 9.4% 8.3% 5.9% 2.1%

University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign 493,581 506,041 499,711 476,198 473,890 9.9% 9.1% 5.6% -1.1% -2.1%

Indiana University - Bloomington 135,068 153,667 122,855 142,002 117,992 14.0% 13.9% 2.2% 3.1% -7.1%

MEDIAN 332,877 334,767 374,815 394,748 405,004 9.1% 7.5% 5.3% 5.1% 3.5%

Top Peer Institution 721,248 763,875 798,099 831,895 840,672 10.6% 8.8% 10.9% 11.7% 13.9%

Data Notes: 2007 Research Expenditures are reported from the 2007 NSF Survey adjusted and to single campus values according to the data adjustments noted in the Center for Measuring University Performance's The Top American Universities 2008

Annual Report. 2003 - 2006 Research Expenditures are reported from the Center for Measuring University Performance's American Research University Data. Research Expenditure growth rates are calculated as the average of the last three years'

percentage changes.

Page 4

Federally-Funded Research Expenditures



Commentary Federal Expenditures (in Thousands) % Chg. in Federally-Funded Expenditures (Avg. Over 3 Years)

18 0%700 000• ASU's federally-funded expenditures are growing faster than

any of its peer institutions, and more than four times faster

than the median of its peer institutions.

• ASU's growth in federally-funded expenditures has

remained strong, while its peer institutions' growth rates have

been waning. 12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

500,000

600,000

700,000

Top Peer

ASU = Top Peer

g

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Top Peer

ASU = Top Peer

Peer Median

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Top Peer

Peer Median

ASU = Top Peer

ASU

Peer Median

Institution Med. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Arizona State University - Tempe 71,741 79,877 94,545 109,893 114,632 12.8% 12.2% 13.7% 15.3% 13.0%University of Texas - Austin 231,996 235,281 254,529 273,147 289,331 9.1% 6.5% 5.2% 5.6% 7.1%


Michigan State University Yes 133,820 143,473 156,461 169,116 170,350 11.3% 8.5% 8.5% 8.1% 6.0%

Florida State University Yes 87,985 102,967 105,747 110,358 113,681 16.3% 21.8% 14.9% 8.0% 3.4%

Ohio State University - Columbus Yes 198,488 284,675 294,053 315,914 313,242 14.6% 21.8% 19.4% 18.1% 3.3%

University of Minnesota - Twin Cities Yes 293,266 308,369 319,771 326,170 337,966 8.7% 5.4% 2.7% 3.6% 3.1%

Rutgers the State University of NJ - New Brunswick 94,393 114,503 122,472 118,732 125,058 10.4% 18.6% 14.9% 8.4% 3.1%

University of Connecticut - Storrs 53,593 61,252 64,487 66,932 66,697 27.3% 30.1% 7.4% 7.8% 2.9%

University of Wisconsin - Madison Yes 396,231 434,423 477,582 491,810 469,076 12.5% 12.7% 11.5% 7.5% 2.8%

University of Iowa Yes 197,260 209,865 216,354 216,521 222,944 12.0% 10.6% 6.2% 3.2% 2.0%

University of California - Los Angeles Yes 421,174 461,145 469,889 483,873 488,846 15.4% 13.9% 8.7% 4.8% 2.0%University of California Los Angeles Yes 421,174 461,145 469,889 483,873 488,846 15.4% 13.9% 8.7% 4.8% 2.0%

Pennsylvania State University - University Park 270,985 313,196 322,712 320,258 322,586 11.4% 12.4% 8.1% 6.0% 1.0%

University of Washington - Seattle Yes 565,602 625,218 606,317 650,394 620,375 13.2% 12.9% 7.9% 4.9% -0.1%

Indiana University - Bloomington 61,450 66,765 68,611 68,254 66,374 12.7% 12.7% 9.0% 3.6% -0.2%

University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign 266,487 275,896 289,985 264,645 253,612 11.7% 12.5% 11.0% 0.0% -2.6%

MEDIAN 197,874 222,573 235,442 240,583 238,278 12.2% 12.6% 8.6% 5.8% 3.0%

Top Peer Institution 565,602 625,218 606,317 650,394 620,375 12.8% 12.2% 13.7% 15.3% 13.0%

Data Notes: 2007 Federally-Funded Research Expenditures reported from the 2007 NSF Survey and adjusted to single-campus values according to the data adjustments noted in the Center for Measuring University Performance's The Top American

Universities 2008 Annual Report. 2003 - 2006 Federally-Funded Research Expenditures are reported from the Center for Measuring University Performance's American Research University Data. Federally-Funded Research Expenditure growth rates are

calculated as the average of the last three years' percentage changes.

Page 5

Doctorate Degrees Awarded



Commentary Number of Doctorate Degrees Awarded Doctorate Degrees Awarded per $10M in Total Expenditures

35 0900• In relation to the size of its research enterprise, ASU confers

more Doctorate Degrees than the median of its peer

institutions.

25.0

30.0

35.0

600

700

800

900

Peer Median

Top Peer

Top Peer

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Peer Median

Peer Median

ASU

ASU

Top Peer

Top Peer

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Peer Median

Peer Median

ASU

ASU

Top Peer

Top Peer

Institution Med. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Indiana University - Bloomington 389 391 397 389 370 28.8 25.4 32.3 27.4 31.4

University of Connecticut - Storrs 237 257 261 307 339 27.1 26.4 25.8 28.8 30.8

Florida State University Yes 290 271 276 325 350 19.0 16.1 16.0 17.5 18.5



Arizona State University - Tempe 300 355 314 389 376 20.6 23.3 18.8 19.3 16.8University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign 617 574 636 689 698 12.5 11.3 12.7 14.5 14.7

Rutgers the State University of NJ - New Brunswick 358 382 332 393 406 14.6 14.5 12.1 14.0 14.3

Michigan State University Yes 442 430 425 463 493 13.8 13.2 12.7 12.9 13.7

University of Minnesota - Twin Cities Yes 560 592 678 751 819 11.0 11.5 12.4 12.6 13.1

Pennsylvania State University - University Park 503 539 571 646 646 10.5 10.0 10.1 11.4 11.3

University of Iowa Yes 249 300 341 364 376 8.5 9.6 10.2 10.5 10.4University of Iowa Yes 249 300 341 364 376 8.5 9.6 10.2 10.5 10.4

Ohio State University - Columbus Yes 575 561 590 664 667 11.6 10.8 9.7 10.2 9.3

University of Wisconsin - Madison Yes 656 628 666 648 775 9.1 8.2 8.3 7.8 9.2

University of California - Los Angeles Yes 596 666 657 708 734 7.0 8.6 8.4 8.7 8.9

University of Washington - Seattle Yes 493 503 528 612 631 7.2 7.0 7.5 7.9 8.3

MEDIAN 468 493 522 607 639 12.7 12.4 12.5 13.5 14.0

Top Peer Institution 560 592 678 751 819 28.8 25.4 32.3 27.4 31.4

Data Notes: Doctorate Degrees Awarded are reported from the Center for Measuring University Performance's American Research University Data. 2007 Research Expenditures are reported from the 2007 NSF Survey and adjusted to single-campus values

according to the data adjustments noted in the Center for Measuring University Performance's The Top American Universities 2008 Annual Report. 2003 - 2006 Research Expenditures are reported from the Center for Measuring University Performance's

American Research University Data.

Page 6

Postdoctoral Appointees



Commentary Number of Postdocs Postdocs per $10M in Total Research Expenditures

18 01 200• ASU's Number of Postdoctoral Appointees reported here

reflects ASU's internal records, as this exercise made clear

that ASU has been systemically under-reporting its

Postdoctoral Appointees to the NSF. ASU is in the process of

submitting revised figures to the NSF.

• In relation to the size of its research enterprise, ASU 12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

800

1,000

1,200Top Peer

Top Peer

In relation to the size of its research enterprise, ASU

supports nearly as many Postdoctoral Appointees as the


4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Peer Median

Peer Median

ASU

Top Peer

Top Peer

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Peer Median

Peer Median

ASU

ASU

Top Peer

Top Peer

Institution Med. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


University of Washington - Seattle Yes 972 865 1,043 963 1,044 15.5 12.6 14.6 13.6 13.4




University of California - Los Angeles Yes 1,351 1,292 1,019 1,094 918 17.2 15.2 13.2 13.9 11.3


University of Iowa Yes 360 334 314 369 328 12.5 11.4 10.0 11.0 9.5

Arizona State University - Tempe 139 167 170 189 186 11.3 11.5 11.2 11.3 9.2University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign 279 317 396 416 411 6.5 6.4 7.8 8.3 8.6


Pennsylvania State University - University Park 266 312 349 341 396 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.1 7.0Pennsylvania State University University Park 266 312 349 341 396 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.1 7.0





MEDIAN 273 318 332 355 362 9.5 9.8 9.9 9.7 9.3

Top Peer Institution 972 865 1,043 963 1,044 7.7 9.4 16.4 14.5 13.6

Data Notes: Postdocs are reported from the Center for Measuring University Performance's American Research University Data. 2007 Research Expenditures are reported from the 2007 NSF Survey and adjusted to single-campus values according to the data

adjustments noted in the Center for Measuring University Performance's The Top American Universities 2008 Annual Report. 2003 - 2006 Research Expenditures are reported from the Center for Measuring University Performance's American Research

University Data.

Page 7

National Academy Members



Commentary Number of National Academy Members National Academy Members per $10M in Total Expenditures

1 80100• In relation to the size of its research enterprise, ASU has

more National Academy Members than the median of its peer

institutions.

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

70

80

90

100

Top Peer

Top Peer

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Peer Median

Peer Median

ASU

Top Peer

Top Peer

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Peer Median

Peer Median

ASU

ASU

Top Peer

Top Peer

Institution Med. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007




University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign 55 52 55 56 56 1.11 1.03 1.10 1.18 1.18




Arizona State University - Tempe 6 7 16 16 17 0.41 0.46 0.96 0.79 0.76University of Maryland - College Park 21 24 27 27 26 0.65 0.74 0.80 0.76 0.72



Pennsylvania State University - University Park 28 27 28 30 26 0.58 0.50 0.50 0.53 0.45Pennsylvania State University University Park 28 27 28 30 26 0.58 0.50 0.50 0.53 0.45





MEDIAN 25 26 28 29 26 0.70 0.68 0.84 0.73 0.74


Data Notes: National Academy Members are reported from the Center for Measuring University Performance's American Research University Data. 2007 Research Expenditures are reported from the 2007 NSF Survey and adjusted to single-campus values

according to the data adjustments noted in the Center for Measuring University Performance's The Top American Universities 2008 Annual Report. 2003 - 2006 Research Expenditures are reported from the Center for Measuring University Performance's

American Research University Data.

Page 8

Invention Disclosures



Commentary Number of Invention Disclosures Invention Disclosures per $10M in Total Expenditures

9 0500

• In relation to the size of its research enterprise, ASU

produces more than twice as many Invention Disclosures than

the median of its peer institutions.

• ASU's research enterprise produces more Invention

Disclosures than the median of its peer institutions.

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

350

400

450

500

ASU

Top Peer

Top Peer


produces more Invention Disclosures than 14 of its 15 peer

institutions.

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Peer Median

Peer Median

ASU

ASU

Top Peer

Top Peer

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Peer Median

Peer Median

ASU

ASU

Top Peer

Top Peer

Institution Med. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


Arizona State University - Tempe 86 94 120 154 152 5.9 6.2 7.2 7.6 6.8University of Wisconsin - Madison Yes 406 405 417 464 409 5.6 5.3 5.2 5.6 4.9









Rutgers the State University of NJ - New Brunswick 155 149 117 120 77 6.3 5.6 4.2 4.3 2.7Rutgers the State University of NJ New Brunswick 155 149 117 120 77 6.3 5.6 4.2 4.3 2.7





MEDIAN 115 149 127 139 146 2.9 3.3 3.8 3.6 3.2


D t N t I ti Di l t d f th A i ti f U i it T h l M ' 2003 2007 U S Li i A ti it S Wh I ti Di l d t h b ti t d f i l l f ltiData Notes: Invention Disclosures are reported from the Association of University Technology Managers' 2003-2007 U.S. Licensing Activity Surveys. Where necessary Invention Disclosures data has been estimated for single-campus values from multi-

institution values by applying the single-campus research expenditures conversion percentages reported in the Center for Measuring University Performance's The Top American Universities 2004-2008 Annual Reports' data notes, or from state-system reported

values by reporting single-campus values reported in the system's or campus' technology transfer report(s) for the respective year(s). 2007 Research Expenditures are reported from the 2007 NSF Survey and adjusted to single-campus values according to the

data adjustments noted in the Center for Measuring University Performance's The Top American Universities 2008 Annual Report. 2003 - 2006 Research Expenditures are reported from the Center for Measuring University Performance's American Research

University Data.

Page 9

Patent Applications



Commentary Number of Patent Applications Patent Applications per $10M in Total Expenditures

14 00250• ASU's research enterprise produces more Patent

Applications than the median of its peer institutions.



produces more Patent Applications any of its peer institutions.

10.00

12.00

14.00

200

250

Top Peer In relation to the size of its research enterprise, ASU

produces more than twice as many Patent Applications than


4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

50

100

150

200

250

Peer Median

ASU

Top Peer

ASU = Top Peer

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0

50

100

150

200

250

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Peer Median

Peer Median

ASU

Top Peer

ASU = Top Peer

Institution Med. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Arizona State University - Tempe 92 180 63 49 84 6.32 11.83 3.77 2.43 3.74Rutgers the State University of NJ - New Brunswick 90 82 84 109 102 3.68 3.10 3.04 3.89 3.59










University of Washington - Seattle Yes 73 104 84 84 88 1.07 1.46 1.19 1.08 1.16University of Washington Seattle Yes 73 104 84 84 88 1.07 1.46 1.19 1.08 1.16





MEDIAN 63 73 82 78 71 1.55 1.53 1.88 1.79 1.62


D t N t P t t A li ti t d f th A i ti f U i it T h l M ' 2003 2007 U S Li i A ti it S Wh P t t A li ti d t h b ti t d f i l l f lti i tit tiData Notes: Patents Applications are reported from the Association of University Technology Managers' 2003-2007 U.S. Licensing Activity Surveys. Where necessary Patents Applications data has been estimated for single-campus values from multi-institution

values by applying the single-campus research expenditures conversion percentages reported in the Center for Measuring University Performance's The Top American Universities 2004-2008 Annual Reports' data notes, or from state-system reported values by

reporting single-campus values reported in the system's or campus' technology transfer report(s) for the respective year(s). 2007 Research Expenditures are reported from the 2007 NSF Survey and adjusted to single-campus values according to the data


University Data.

Page 10

Patents Issued



Commentary Number of Patents Issued Patents Issued per $10M in Total Expenditures

1 60140• In relation to the size of its research enterprise, ASU has

nearly as many Patents Issued as the median of its peer

institutions.

1 00

1.20

1.40

1.60

100

120

140

ASU

Top Peer

Top Peer

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

40

60

80

100

120

140

Peer Median

Peer Median

ASU

Top Peer

Top Peer

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Peer Median

Peer Median

ASU

ASU

Top Peer

Top Peer

Institution Med. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007










Arizona State University - Tempe 17 19 25 23 15 1.17 1.25 1.50 1.14 0.67University of Maryland - College Park 20 22 23 22 24 0.62 0.68 0.68 0.62 0.67

University of Washington - Seattle Yes 46 38 40 37 43 0.67 0.53 0.57 0.48 0.57University of Washington Seattle Yes 46 38 40 37 43 0.67 0.53 0.57 0.48 0.57





MEDIAN 27 31 31 26 30 0.98 0.86 0.68 0.60 0.72


Data Notes: Patents Issued are reported from the Association of University Technology Managers' 2003-2007 U.S. Licensing Activity Surveys. Where necessary Patents Issued data has been estimated for single-campus values from multi-institution values by

applying the single-campus research expenditures conversion percentages reported in the Center for Measuring University Performance's The Top American Universities 2004-2008 Annual Reports' data notes, or from state-system reported values by reporting

single-campus values reported in the system's or campus' technology transfer report(s) for the respective year(s). 2007 Research Expenditures are reported from the 2007 NSF Survey and adjusted to single-campus values according to the data adjustments

noted in the Center for Measuring University Performance's The Top American Universities 2008 Annual Report. 2003 - 2006 Research Expenditures are reported from the Center for Measuring University Performance's American Research University Data.

Page 11

Licensing Agreements



Commentary Number of Licensing Agreements Licensing Agreements per $10M in Total Expenditures

3 00250• In relation to the size of its research enterprise, ASU

produces nearly as many Licensing Agreements as the


2.00

2.50

3.00

200

250Top Peer

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

50

100

150

200

250

Peer MedianTop Peer

Top Peer

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0

50

100

150

200

250

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Peer Median

Peer Median

ASU

ASU

Top Peer

Top Peer

Institution Med. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007











Arizona State University - Tempe 3 20 28 19 14 0.21 1.31 1.68 0.94 0.62University of California - Los Angeles Yes 17 36 34 39 43 0.20 0.47 0.43 0.48 0.52University of California Los Angeles Yes 17 36 34 39 43 0.20 0.47 0.43 0.48 0.52





MEDIAN 22 33 31 35 31 0.81 0.94 0.90 1.11 0.73


D t N t Li i A t t d f th A i ti f U i it T h l M ' 2003 2007 U S Li i A ti it S Wh Li i A t d t h b ti t d f i l l f ltiData Notes: Licensing Agreements are reported from the Association of University Technology Managers' 2003-2007 U.S. Licensing Activity Surveys. Where necessary Licensing Agreements data has been estimated for single-campus values from multi-

institution values by applying the single-campus research expenditures conversion percentages reported in the Center for Measuring University Performance's The Top American Universities 2004-2008 Annual Reports' data notes, or from state-system reported

values by reporting single-campus values reported in the system's or campus' technology transfer report(s) for the respective year(s). 2007 Research Expenditures are reported from the 2007 NSF Survey and adjusted to single-campus values according to the

data adjustments noted in the Center for Measuring University Performance's The Top American Universities 2008 Annual Report. 2003 - 2006 Research Expenditures are reported from the Center for Measuring University Performance's American Research

University Data.

Page 12

Licensing Revenues



Commentary Licensing Revenues (in Thousands) Licensing Revenues per $10M in Total Expenditures

1 20070 000• In relation to the size of its research enterprise, ASU

produces nearly as many Licensing Revenues as the median

of its peer institutions.

800

1,000

1,200

50,000

60,000

70,000

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Top Peer

Top Peer

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Peer Median

Peer Median

ASUASU

Top Peer

Top Peer

Institution Med. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

University of Minnesota - Twin Cities Yes 37,493 45,551 47,052 56,193 63,316 737 884 857 945 1,014

University of Washington - Seattle Yes 29,132 22,808 29,317 36,199 63,284 425 319 414 465 836

University of Wisconsin - Madison Yes 37,573 47,689 49,052 42,364 46,700 521 624 615 509 556

University of Iowa Yes 8,746 10,713 19,160 16,913 17,393 299 342 573 488 479

Rutgers the State University of NJ - New Brunswick 4,760 3,808 5,060 4,636 7,208 195 144 184 165 254

University of California - Los Angeles Yes 10,969 13,964 0 18,880 20,911 129 181 0 233 254

Indiana University - Bloomington 2,172 3,435 1,852 2,691 1,854 161 224 151 189 157

Michigan State University Yes 24,463 36,402 23,822 4,183 5,584 761 1,119 714 117 155

University of Texas - Austin 3,920 5,058 6,774 8,432 6,652 114 147 165 195 149

Arizona State University - Tempe 1,093 1,422 2,287 3,350 3,304 75 93 137 166 147Florida State University Yes 24,023 14,317 2,546 1,140 1,814 1,578 852 147 61 96

University of Connecticut - Storrs 333 823 705 399 444 38 85 70 37 40University of Connecticut Storrs 333 823 705 399 444 38 85 70 37 40

University of Maryland - College Park 788 907 963 1,873 1,172 24 28 28 53 33

Pennsylvania State University - University Park 1,479 1,725 2,040 1,187 1,599 31 32 36 21 28

Ohio State University - Columbus Yes 566 629 696 947 1,245 11 12 11 15 17

University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MEDIAN 4,340 4,433 2,417 3,766 4,444 145 164 149 165 152

Top Peer Institution 37,493 45,551 47,052 56,193 63,316 737 884 857 945 1,014

D t N t Li i R t d f th A i ti f U i it T h l M ' 2003 2007 U S Li i A ti it S Wh Li i R d t h b ti t d f i l l f lti i tit tiData Notes: Licensing Revenues are reported from the Association of University Technology Managers' 2003-2007 U.S. Licensing Activity Surveys. Where necessary Licensing Revenues data has been estimated for single-campus values from multi-institution




University Data.

Page 13

Start-up Companies



Commentary Number of Start-up Companies Start-up Companies per $10M in Total Expenditures

0 3512 00


produces more than twice as many Start-up Companies than


• ASU's research enterprise produces more Start-up

Companies than the median of its peer institutions.

0.25

0.30

0.35

8.00

10.00

12.00

Top Peer

Top Peer


produces more Start-up Companies than 14 of its 15 peer

institutions.

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Peer Median

ASU

ASU

Top Peer

Top Peer

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Peer Median

Peer Median

ASU

ASU

Top Peer

Top Peer

Institution Med. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

University of Maryland - College Park 7.00 5.00 7.00 2.00 7.00 0.22 0.15 0.21 0.06 0.19

Arizona State University - Tempe 1.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 0.07 0.26 0.30 0.25 0.18Indiana University - Bloomington 1.60 1.20 0.80 0.80 2.00 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.17

University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign 5.00 11.00 6.00 5.00 7.00 0.10 0.22 0.12 0.10 0.15

University of Washington - Seattle Yes 3.00 7.00 4.00 10.00 11.00 0.04 0.10 0.06 0.13 0.15

Michigan State University Yes 1.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 0.03 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.14

University of Connecticut - Storrs 0.46 0.92 0.92 0.49 1.47 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.13

Rutgers the State University of NJ - New Brunswick 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.64 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13

University of Wisconsin - Madison Yes 0.00 2.00 4.00 7.00 6.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.07

University of Texas - Austin 6.00 5.00 4.00 7.00 3.00 0.17 0.15 0.10 0.16 0.07

University of Minnesota - Twin Cities Yes 4.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.06

University of Iowa Yes 1.00 1.00 5.00 4.00 2.00 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.12 0.06University of Iowa Yes 1.00 1.00 5.00 4.00 2.00 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.12 0.06

Florida State University Yes 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.13 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.05

Pennsylvania State University - University Park 1.80 3.60 2.70 3.52 2.64 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.05

Ohio State University - Columbus Yes 4.00 6.00 2.00 5.00 3.00 0.08 0.12 0.03 0.08 0.04

University of California - Los Angeles Yes 1.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.04

MEDIAN 1.70 3.30 3.35 3.76 3.32 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.10

Top Peer Institution 3.00 7.00 4.00 10.00 11.00 0.22 0.15 0.21 0.06 0.19

D t N t St t C i t d f th A i ti f U i it T h l M ' 2003 2007 U S Li i A ti it S Wh St t C i d t h b ti t d f i l l f lti i tit tiData Notes: Start-up Companies are reported from the Association of University Technology Managers' 2003-2007 U.S. Licensing Activity Surveys. Where necessary Start-up Companies data has been estimated for single-campus values from multi-institution




University Data.

Page 14

ASU Strategic Research Initiative Biodesign Institute (BDI)

Overview

The hundreds of researchers at ASU’s Biodesign Institute are driven by a passion to solve some of the world’s most urgent problems affecting human health and the health of our planet by:

• Improving health care through more personalized diagnostics and treatment • Providing renewable sources of energy and cleaning our environment • Outpacing the global threat of infectious disease, including emerging diseases • Securing a safer world, particularly through technology that detects threats in advance

Research Performance 2008

Total Award Obligations (in Thousands) 58,783 Total Expenditures (in Thousands) 46,938 Percentage Change in Total Expenditures (Average Over 3 Years) 23.8% Federal Expenditures (in Thousands) 22,204 Percentage Change in Federally‐Funded Expenditures (Average Over 3 Years) 32.1% F&A (in Thousands) 6,721

Research Productivity (Cumulative)

Number of Invention Disclosures 250Number of Licensing Agreements 8Number of Patent Applications 168Number of Patents Issued 63Number of Start‐up Companies 5

Research Involvement (Cumulative)

Number of Active Investigators 91 Number of Graduate Students Engaged 301 Number of Postdocs 188

Research Highlights

• Participated in history’s largest comparative DNA analysis of higher organisms, which involved assembling complete genomes from a dozen different fruit fly species to understand the differences between species at the DNA level. This could aid development of new understanding of the human genome.

• Developed the world’s first gene detection platform made entirely from self‐assembled DNA nanostructures. This could have broad implications for gene chip technology.

• Advanced a new technology to detect proteins or molecules in an individual’s blood or serum as a predictive snapshot of one’s health, which could enable disease to be detected before symptoms appear.

• 460 new scientific findings documented in peer‐reviewed journals over the past five years. • Provided research experiences for more than 400 undergraduates, 70 high school students and 35

high school teachers. • Major Research Awards include:

o $45M initiative to develop personalized diagnostics (in partnership with TGen) o $18M to understand cell growth and decline in cancer, stroke and heart disease o $6.9M to develop a breast cancer vaccine o $6.1M to create an improved integrated micro‐fluidic device

Page 15

ASU Strategic Research Initiative Biofuels

Overview

Arizona State University scientists are developing cyanobacteria and algae as sources of environmentally friendly fuel that are efficiently produced by solar energy conversion. Unlike other biofuels, ASU’s production processes can be carried out in closed systems on barren lands, saving farmland for food production, avoiding increases in food prices and saving water resources. ASU’s use‐inspired research creates new pathways into the biological world through sustainable engineering practices – leading to real‐world solutions for today’s needs. Research Performance 2008

Total Award Obligations (in Thousands) 4,375 Total Expenditures (in Thousands) 3,654 Percentage Change in Total Expenditures (Average Over 3 Years) 35.1% Federal Expenditures (in Thousands) 1,066 Percentage Change in Federally‐Funded Expenditures (Average Over 3 Years) 20.6% F&A (in Thousands) 274


Number of Licensing Agreements 2Number of Patent Applications 64Number of Start‐up Companies 2


Number of Active Investigators 5 Number of Graduate Students Financially Supported 3 Number of Postdocs 13

Research Highlights

• Time Magazine spotlighted ASU’s research (Hu & Sommerfeld) in this area as #11 in the Top 50 inventions of 2008.

• The Cyanobacterial Biodiesel effort (Tubes in the Desert), has emerged from basic science research into a translational phase with a large energy company.

• The Algal‐Based Biofuels and Biomaterials project, has moved from the laboratory to field pilot‐scale demonstration and production. This project resulted in the spin‐off of Heliae with support of SFAz. Fuel from these sources could be commercially available within five years.

• Estimated economic impact to East Valley of $25M • Received $ 1M in licensing revenues from a licensing agreement with Heliae LLC. • Major Research Awards include:

o $1.5 M from Heliae LLC, $1.5 M from Science Foundation Arizona o $1.14 M from Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) o $225,000 from the Boeing Company

Page 16

ASU Strategic Research Initiative Global Institute of Sustainability (GIOS)

Overview

Arizona State University has made a university‐wide commitment to conduct research, education and practice in sustainability. This commitment manifests by developing science‐based knowledge and solutions that address specific local and global sustainability challenges and by assisting public institutions, corporations, and individuals with their real‐time problems of sustainability. The Global Institute of Sustainability (GIOS) supports this research and teaching mission across ASU’s four campuses and is the parent unit to the new School of Sustainability (SOS). Research Performance 2008



Number of Invention Disclosures 56Number of Licensing Agreements 3Number of Patent Applications 78Number of Start‐up Companies 1


Number of Active Investigators 135 Number of Graduate Students Engaged 64 Number of Postdocs 12

Research Highlights

• A start‐up company based on ASU research in photovoltaics/sustainable energy was established and began operations in 2009. $5M was invested in this venture by ASU’s business partner, TUV Rheinland, to create a 40,000 square‐foot lab in Tempe, presently the world’s most comprehensive for testing and certification of solar energy equipment. 40 private sector jobs were created as result.

• Several faculty received recognition from prestigious organizations for their work in sustainability science and research including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Gober, Grimm), Leopold Leadership Fellowship (Wu), Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Allenby), Ecological Society of America’s (Fisher), Geochemical Society and European Association for Geochemistry (Shock)

• Major Research Awards include : o $14.6M to establish an Energy Frontier Research Center o $10M for Developing Designer Organisms and Fuel Cells for Biohydrogen Production o $6.7M Decision Center for a Desert City o $5M CAP‐Long Term Ecological Research o $5M Conservation in a Social Context

Page 17

ASU Strategic Research Initiative Flexible Display Center (FDC)

Overview

The Flexible Display Center provides a unique immersive environment for the training of advanced degree candidates in science and engineering, preparing them to compete effectively in today’s high technology economy. The Center operates a commercial‐standard pilot production facility where students, faculty, technical staff, and private industry researchers work side‐by‐side. Research projects are focused on mission‐critical challenges in developing manufacturing technology for emerging electronic and photonic materials. Operations are largely funded through a 10‐year, $94 million Cooperative Agreement with the US Army. The Center is organized as a research consortium, and currently has 25 subscribing corporate partners. Research Performance 2008



Number of Invention Disclosures 30Number of Patent Applications 28


Number of Active Investigators 9 Number of Graduate Students Financially Supported 21

Research Highlights

• Four new products commercialized by partner companies from FDC development projects • $1.95M in annual corporate partner dues • $1.1M in outside contract awards to local businesses tied to FDC collaborations • $7.5M sale booked by locally headquartered company derived from FDC development project • Support of recent $12 million Ground Soldier Ensemble contract win by Scottsdale division of General

Dynamics • Featured international coverage this year in the Economist, Wired Magazine, Fortune, and the Fox

News Science Report. • Featured local coverage in last 12 months by Channel 8 Horizon and the Arizona Republic. • More than 60 publications in peer‐reviewed technical journals.

Page 18

ASU Strategic Research Initiative School of Earth and Space Exploration (SESE)

Overview

The quest for scientific knowledge has been an important driver for human exploration. The School of Earth and Space Exploration (SESE) – established in 2006 – is dedicated to expanding the frontiers of knowledge through the exploration of Earth, space, matter, time and life. It unites astrophysicists, cosmologists, earth scientists, and planetary scientists with engineering faculty who have research interests in the development and deployment of novel technologies essential to scientific exploration. The broad scope of research targets pursued by SESE researchers demands a transdisciplinary perspective, and a defining characteristic of the SESE culture is a high degree of collaboration (including joint faculty appointments) with other academic and research units at ASU. Research Performance 2008



Number of Invention Disclosures 4Number of Patent Applications 13


Number of Active Investigators 72 Number of Graduate Students Financially Supported >70

Research Highlights

• SESE researchers continue a long tradition of supervising science operations of major planetary observational instruments (e.g., three spectrometry systems on the surface of and in orbit around Mars). New instruments scheduled for 2009 deployment include the principal camera for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which is currently scheduled for a June launch.

• A new, ASU‐led team for the NASA Astrobiology Institute, which involves 40 scientists from Arizona to Australia, aims to understand the rules that govern the use of chemical elements in biology, and the distributions of these elements in potentially habitable environments beyond Earth. This research effort will develop new criteria to guide the search for life on other planets.

• In collaboration with various NASA research laboratories, SESE researchers are playing a central role in developing and testing new technologies and operational protocols for planetary field science operations that will be used on the Moon, Mars, and beyond. SESE is known internationally for the strength of its multi‐investigator teams focusing on active tectonics, earth surface processes, and mantle geodynamics. For example, SESE geophysicists play an essential role in NSF’s multi‐year EarthScope initiative to study the structure and dynamics of the North American Continent.

• Major Research Awards include: o $27.1M NASA Themis Project – Phase E o $17.4M Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera Contract o $9.1M Planetary Imaging and Analysis Facility and Advanced Training Institute o $6.5M NASA Astrobiology Institute “Follow the Elements” project.

Page 19

0

MMeeaassuurriinngg RReesseeaarrcchh PPeerrffoorrmmaannccee

Arizona Board of Regents June 18-19, 2009

Fossil Creek Restoration

1

NNaattiioonnaall TTrreennddss iinn RR&&DD FFuunnddiinngg:: IImmppaaccttss oonn RReeggiioonnaall HHiigghh--RReesseeaarrcchh

UUnniivveerrssiittiieess

High-Research Doctoral Universities (76 public H-R) rank just below Very-High-Research institutions in the Carnegie Foundation’s 7 categories of higher education institutions.

Smaller institutions are limited by lack of resources for cost-share or matching funds expected by many funding agencies (exception: the National Science Foundation has moved to reduce or eliminate cost-share requirements, in order to level the playing field among institutions).

Institutions without medical schools have been less able to tap into the increase in federal funding for biomedical fields over the past decade, so fell behind in proportional share of funding.

There are substantial increases in funding proposed for the physical and non-medical life sciences for the first time in 15 years – funding that will be more readily competed for by non-medical school institutions.

State support of research activities is a double-edged sword: it funds work of direct relevance to the state and regional citizens, but state support is more volatile and less reliable in tough economic times.

2

RReesseeaarrcchh MMiissssiioonn aanndd OOuuttccoommeess iinn RReeggiioonnaall RReesseeaarrcchh UUnniivveerrssiittiieess

Specialized expertise in problems and topics of particular regional relevance. Research outcomes provide solutions

for regional problems, graduates to work in regional settings, new technologies adopted by regional businesses, and

startup companies providing new services.

o NAU is near the top of its peer group in competitive funding for research from state/local sources and in

funding for environmental sciences

o NAU leads its peer group in starting up new companies

o NAU has the capacity to increase its graduate programs to provide additional advanced workforce

Direct economic impact by bringing external dollars to the community and creating high-income employment.

Multiplier effects of approximately 3 are commonly calculated for research funding at a rural institution; that is, for

every $1 M in sponsored research, roughly $3 M of impact for the regional economy is generated in sales, services, and

payroll.

o NAU has demonstrated steady increase in research funding (currently at $27 M) and in sponsored project

funding overall (now $55 M) over the past five years – $165 M impact on regional economy

o Faculty, staff and students supported on external funding represent hundreds of jobs created and maintained in

the Flagstaff community

Connection to real-world economic activity. Technology transfer and commercialization efforts provide opportunities

for faculty to see positive impacts of their discoveries, and introduce students to the business environment in which

most will spend their working lives.

o NAU Ventures is increasing the number of invention disclosures and patent applications, and supporting more

licensing activity, for university technologies

3

Advanced opportunities for students. Research programs provide paid employment and hands-on learning

opportunities, mentoring in advanced skills, and professional networking for students. Research engagement has been

demonstrated to increase retention and graduation rates. Work with meaningful research problems attracts low-

income and minority students to advanced education – High Research Universities enroll higher proportions of such

students.

o NAU leads its peers in attracting competitive funds from the National Science Foundation for organized

undergraduate research programs

o In addition, research-active faculty support students on project grants and in research training programs from

the National Institutes of Health and other funding sources

Enhancement of campus resources and support for core activities. Externally funded research provides supplemental

salary, professional opportunities for faculty members, purchases advanced equipment and instrumentation that state

instructional funds cannot provide; and allows equipment to be shared between research and instruction so students

benefit directly. External funds allow the university to partner with regional agencies and communities to provide

technical support and services.

o Research (40 % of total sponsored projects): basic and applied investigations

e.g., Paul Keim’s work in genetics of disease-causing microbes

o Education (25 % of total sponsored projects): improvements in curricula, teaching facilities, labs

e.g., National Math & Science initiative funding NAUTeach

o Public Service (35 % of total sponsored projects): university partnerships with local governments, tribes, social

service agencies

e.g., Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals, providing workforce training for environmental and

resource specialists in tribal communities

4

NNAAUU’’ss rreessppoonnssee ttoo ccuurrrreenntt ooppppoorrttuunniittiieess aanndd aasssseessssmmeennttss

Stimulus (ARRA) funding – one proposal funded ($100K) and 10 more submitted (total about $17M), more deadlines

coming up, several prior NSF proposals under consideration for ARRA funding

Tri-university collaboration promoted by Flinn Foundation and AZ Bioscience Roadmap, by collaborative activities

funded by Arizona Water Institute and Science Foundation Arizona, by VPRs and faculty collaborating on large statewide

opportunities (e.g., Clinical Translational Science Award and Native American Cancer Partnership); some peers among

regional universities are part of state consortia

Pursuing the Silver Scenario for 2020:

o Maintain steady incremental growth rate in expenditures

o Leverage key areas of strength (life science, environment/sustainability, cultural diversity, teaching and learning;

pursuit of funding for undergraduate research)

o Improve mentoring and workshops for faculty (grantsmanship, tech transfer and IP)

o Coordinate with sister universities to connect our faculty to larger research teams

o Emphasize use of TRIF investments to seed new programs

o Expand graduate degree programs in strategic innovative areas

o Use new tech transfer provider, NAU Ventures, and University Intellectual Property Committee to improve

prospects for industry sponsorship of applied research

o Explore ARRA and other opportunities to continue improvement of facilities and instrumentation

5


ABOR Peer Group Comparisons2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Top/Bottom

Quartile

Total expenditures (in thousands) % Chg in Total Expenditures (Avg over 3 years)

Northern Arizona University 17,446 19,967 22,870 27,632 26,566 12.9% 12.1% 10.8% 19.5% 11.0%

MEDIAN of Peer Institutions 30,324 34,819 34,531 35,129 38,671 15.3% 8.9% 3.2% 11.5% 6.6%

Federal Expenditures (in thousands) % Chg in Federally-Funded Expenditures (Avg over 3 years)

Northern Arizona University 10,900 12,754 14,547 14,305 12,409 13.0% 10.9% 11.3% 10.4% -0.9%

MEDIAN of Peer Institutions 12,131 15,557 16,975 19,573 18,086 25.4% 17.6% 7.3% 7.8% 5.7%

Number of Doctorate Degrees Awarded Doctorate Degrees Awarded per $10M in Total Expenditures

Northern Arizona University 84 75 111 82 88 48.1 37.6 48.5 29.7 33.1

MEDIAN of Peer Institutions 88 90 95 103 101 29.6 32.2 39.2 32.6 34.6

Number of Postdoctoral Appointees Postdoctoral Appointees per $10M in Total Expenditures



Number of National Academy Members National Academy Members per $10M in Total Expenditures



Number of Invention Disclosures Invention Disclosures per $10M in Total Expenditures



Number of Patent Applications Patent Applications per $10M in Total Expenditures



Number of Patents Issued Patents Issued per $10M in Total Expenditures



Number of Licensing Agreements Licensing Agreements per $10M in Total Expenditures



Licensing Revenue (in Thousands) Licensing Revenues per $10M in Total Expenditures

Northern Arizona University 0 119,809 0 170,000 0 0 60,004 0 61,523 0

MEDIAN of Peer Institutions 65,994 138,422 47,527 248,657 301,871 17,586 41,617 42,507 37,974 81,076

Number of Start-Up Companies Start-up Companies per $10M in Total Expenditures


MEDIAN of Peer Institutions 0 0 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3l

l

6

NAU INSTITUTIONAL MEASURES


2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008-9 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008-9

REU Project Awards (in thousands of $, years grouped) REU Project Expenditures per $10M in Total Expenditures

Northern Arizona Univers i ty 616,498 964,166 130,235 232,063 362,932 49,023

MEDIAN of Peer Insti tutions 150,000 228,000 101,000 17,853 35,238 19,373

State and Locally Funded Expenditures (in thousands of $) State and Locally Funded Expenditures per $10M in Total Expenditures

Northern Arizona Univers i ty 3,755 4,366 3,759 4,598 5,143 2,152 2,187 1,644 1,664 1,936

MEDIAN of Peer Insti tutions 1,552 2,336 1,610 1,712 2,464 619 681 567 565 537

Expenditures in Environmental Science (in thousands of $) Expenditures in Environmental Sciences per $10M in Total Expenditures

Northern Arizona Univers i ty 2,777 4,113 4,091 4,649 1390.8 1798.4 1480.5 1750.0

MEDIAN of Peer Insti tutions 1,463 1,445 950 1,254 481.0 582.4 317.8 378.5

Number of Technical Masters Degrees Number of Technical Masters Degrees per $10M in Total Expenditures

Northern Arizona Univers i ty 86 75 68 86 43.1 32.8 24.6 32.4

MEDIAN of Peer Insti tutions 150 157 150 129 64.6 61.6 58.3 44.2

7

INSTITUTIONMEDICAL

SCHOOL2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

% ann

00-03

% ann

01-04

% ann

02-05

% ann

03-06

% ann

04-07

Univers i ty of North Carol ina - Greensboro 3,454 3,762 4,843 6,059 6,130 15.29% -1.02% 2.91% 25.14% 20.98%

Wichita State Univers i ty 22,401 29,948 32,726 31,873 47,398 12.72% 28.51% 24.56% 14.09% 19.42%

Old Dominion Univers i ty 30,324 34,819 47,006 49,966 52,134 7.01% 13.73% 20.28% 21.59% 16.58%

Kent State Univers i ty - Kent 14,549 12,712 11,045 11,076 19,001 11.50% 4.11% -4.72% -7.96% 16.49%

Northern Il l inois Univers i ty 12,368 11,687 11,239 16,627 16,710 22.15% 9.82% 2.81% 11.48% 14.33%


George Mason Univers i ty 44,980 46,210 42,630 50,381 58,252 22.63% 13.51% 3.24% 4.00% 8.69%

Western Michigan Univers i ty 21,571 13,912 17,518 18,005 17,182 17.20% -2.37% -2.64% -5.51% 7.83%

Southern Il l inois Univers i ty - Carbondale Yes 53,018 53,953 57,434 74,520 64,703 15.28% 8.29% 2.38% 13.52% 6.64%

Univers i ty of Maine 68,923 81,216 75,066 93,153 96,135 8.57% 8.92% 6.93% 11.72% 6.12%

Univers i ty of Nevada - Las Vegas 42,205 45,429 48,343 57,031 53,049 24.76% 22.74% 19.45% 11.71% 5.59%

Georgia State Univers i ty 45,653 45,415 50,262 52,690 51,387 8.24% 5.52% 4.26% 5.14% 4.38%

Bowl ing Green State Univers i ty 7,336 8,271 9,746 9,912 9,120 37.46% 21.50% 27.65% 11.70% 3.42%

Univers i ty of Alabama 34,187 35,132 34,531 35,129 36,382 2.45% 0.71% -2.33% 0.92% 2.51%

Ohio Univers i ty Yes 37,527 38,704 43,229 38,000 38,671 19.30% 14.19% 6.04% 0.42% -0.03%

Univers i ty of Akron 27,953 27,488 26,888 28,440 27,138 14.46% 7.82% -1.42% 0.58% -0.42%

MEDIAN 30,324 34,819 34,531 35,129 38,671 15.28% 8.92% 3.24% 11.48% 6.64%

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

-5.00%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

% ann 00-03

% ann 01-04

% ann 02-05

% ann 03-06

% ann 04-07

% Change in Total Research Expenditures

(average over 3 yrs)

TOTAL RESEARCH EXPENDITURES


Commentary

NAU’s peer institutions vary widely in the size of

the research mission; NAU leads five of its peers,

but is below the median in total R&D

expenditures

NAU has maintained a steady rate of growth in

total R&D, well above the growth rate of many of

its peers

NAU is the only institution in its peer group to

have experienced consistent increases in total

R&D across the entire time period

Data Source: NSF/SRS Survey of R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Total Research Expenditures (in thousands)

8

INSTITUTIONMEDICAL

SCHOOL2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

% ann

00-03

% ann

01-04

% ann

02-05

% ann

03-06

% ann

04-07



Univers i ty of North Carol ina - Greensboro 2,704 3,267 3,876 5,211 5,256 25.39% 5.52% 5.35% 30.90% 20.29%


Western Michigan Univers i ty 12,131 8,313 11,987 11,214 10,254 54.88% 11.42% 6.97% -2.52% 7.78%



George Mason Univers i ty 38,510 39,758 36,475 35,911 46,588 28.77% 17.65% 4.79% -2.25% 5.73%



Univers i ty of Alabama 26,241 25,329 24,393 22,847 27,744 11.56% 4.73% -3.11% -4.31% 3.18%

Univers i ty of Akron 9,348 10,284 10,246 11,433 11,210 10.67% 6.20% 2.48% 7.43% 3.00%


Northern Arizona University 10,900 12,754 14,547 14,305 12,409 13.00% 10.88% 11.26% 10.41% -0.90%

Georgia State Univers i ty 22,218 25,845 25,204 24,968 24,569 27.92% 30.13% 10.96% 4.13% -1.65%

Ohio Univers i ty Yes 20,406 20,831 20,736 19,573 18,605 24.83% 20.50% 5.77% -1.36% -3.56%

MEDIAN 12,131 15,557 16,975 19,573 18,086 25.39% 17.65% 7.33% 7.84% 5.73%

FEDERAL RESEARCH EXPENDITURES


Commentary

NAU’s federal R&D expenditures exceed five

peers, but are below the peer median

Federal R&D expenditures have increased

modestly over time for both NAU and its peers,

but the rate of increase has declined over time

for most institutions

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Federal Research Expenditures (in thousands)

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

-5.00%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

% ann 00-03

% ann 01-04

% ann 02-05

% ann 03-06

% ann 04-07

% Change in Federal Research Expenditures

Data Source: NSF/SRS Survey of R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges

9

INSTITUTIONMEDICAL

SCHOOL2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Univers i ty of North Carol ina - Greensboro 67 85 89 76 74 194 226 184 125 121

Bowl ing Green State Univers i ty 88 78 90 93 91 120 94 92 94 100

Kent State Univers i ty - Kent 151 136 160 153 136 104 107 145 138 72

Northern Il l inois Univers i ty 99 90 80 103 107 80 77 71 62 64

Western Michigan Univers i ty 86 75 95 68 95 40 54 54 38 55

Univers i ty of Alabama 178 158 154 181 160 52 45 45 52 44

Ohio Univers i ty Yes 111 111 147 124 162 30 29 34 33 42

Univers i ty of Akron 82 100 114 119 94 29 36 42 42 35

Northern Arizona University 84 75 111 82 88 48 38 49 30 33

Georgia State Univers i ty 123 113 123 149 170 27 25 24 28 33

George Mason Univers i ty 138 149 167 163 181 31 32 39 32 31

Southern Il l inois Univers i ty - Carbondale Yes 126 124 145 139 145 24 23 25 19 22

Old Dominion Univers i ty 67 78 82 87 101 22 22 17 17 19

Univers i ty of Nevada - Las Vegas 37 44 37 60 82 9 10 8 11 15

Univers i ty of Maine 45 40 40 38 50 7 5 5 4 5

Wichita State Univers i ty 26 28 35 24 23 12 9 11 8 5

MEDIAN 88 90 95 103 101 29.58 32.24 39.17 32.63 34.64

DOCTORAL DEGREES AWARDED


Commentary

NAU is near the median in producing doctoral

degrees

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Doctoral Degrees Awarded

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

50

100

150

200

250

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Doctoral Degrees Awarded per $10M in Total Expenditures

Data Source: NCES IPEDS Completions Survey, doctoral degrees awarded

10

INSTITUTIONMEDICAL

SCHOOL2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006




Georgia State Univers i ty 68 67 59 53 53 15 15 13 11 10

Northern Il l inois Univers i ty 20 12 14 21 14 19 10 12 19 8

Univers i ty of Alabama 30 38 37 29 26 8 11 11 8 7



Old Dominion Univers i ty 26 38 30 27 27 9 13 9 6 5

Southern Il l inois Univers i ty - Carbondale Yes 14 11 7 34 27 3 2 1 6 4

Wichita State Univers i ty 9 21 12 13 11 5 9 4 4 3



Univers i ty of Maine 38 32 26 15 0 6 5 3 2 0


Western Michigan Univers i ty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MEDIAN 19 21 15 21 20 6 8 7 6 5

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Postdoctoral Appointees

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Postdoctoral Appointees per $10M in


POSTDOCTORAL APPOINTEES


Commentary

NAU is near the median in number of

postdoctoral appointees

Data Source: NSF/SRS Survey of R&D Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering

11

INSTITUTIONMEDICAL

SCHOOL2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Univers i ty of Akron 2 2 1 1 2 0.72 0.73 0.37 0.35 0.74

Kent State Univers i ty - Kent 0 0 0 0 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53

George Mason Univers i ty 2 3 2 2 2 0.44 0.65 0.47 0.40 0.34

Univers i ty of Maine 1 1 1 1 1 0.15 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.10

Bowl ing Green State Univers i ty 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Georgia State Univers i ty 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Northern Il l inois Univers i ty 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ohio Univers i ty Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Old Dominion Univers i ty 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Southern Il l inois Univers i ty - Carbondale Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Univers i ty of Alabama 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Univers i ty of Nevada - Las Vegas 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Univers i ty of North Carol ina - Greensboro 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Western Michigan Univers i ty 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Wichita State Univers i ty 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

MEDIAN 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

NATIONAL ACADEMY MEMBERS


Commentary

Like the majority of its peers, NAU has no

members of the National Academies in its faculty

Best Performing

Peer

0

1

2

3

4

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

National Academy Members

Best Performing

Peer

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

National Academy Members per $10M in Total Expenditures

Data Source: National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine membership directories for 2004

12

INSTITUTIONMEDICAL

SCHOOL2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007



Univers i ty of Alabama NA NA NA 15 46 NA NA NA 4 13




Western Michigan Univers i ty NA NA NA 20 15 NA NA NA 11 9


Southern Il l inois Univers i ty - Carbondale Yes 17 15 NA 20 21 3 3 NA 3 3



Wichita State Univers i ty NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Georgia State Univers i ty NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Northern Il l inois Univers i ty NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Old Dominion Univers i ty NA 14 NA NA NA NA 4 NA NA NA

Univers i ty of Maine 17 NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA

MEDIAN 16 15 16 20 21 7.34 7.87 9.38 8.97 10.99

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Invention Disclosures

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Invention Disclosures per $10M Total Expenditures

INVENTION DISCLOSURES


Commentary

NAU lagged its peers (those reporting tech

transfer activity) in numbers and rate of

production of invention disclosures from FY03

through FY07

Data Source: AUTM Licensing Activity Survey

13

INSTITUTIONMEDICAL

SCHOOL2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

















MEDIAN 7 9 15 11 19 4 5 5 4 9

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Patent Applications

PATENT APPLICATIONS FILED


Commentary

Approximately 1/3 of NAU’s peers report

substantial patent application activity. NAU is in

the next 1/3 that report some activity. No data

are available for the final 1/3, suggesting little

activity.

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Patent Applications per $10M Total Expenditures


14

INSTITUTIONMEDICAL

SCHOOL2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007





Ohio Univers i ty Yes NA NA 5 4 5 NA NA 1 1 1



Southern Il l inois Univers i ty - Carbondale Yes NA NA NA 2 4 NA NA NA 0 1


Univers i ty of Nevada - Las Vegas NA NA 3 0 0 NA NA 1 0 0




Old Dominion Univers i ty NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Univers i ty of Maine NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA


MEDIAN 2 2 5 2 3 1.36 2.36 1.41 0.77 1.19

POSTDOCTORAL APPOINTEES


PATENTS ISSUED


Commentary

Many of NAU’s peers have not typically reported

tech transfer activity

NAU’s numbers are also modest

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Patents Issued

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

1

2

3

4

5

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Patents Issued per $10M in Total Expenditures


15

INSTITUTIONMEDICAL

SCHOOL2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007















Univers i ty of Maine NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA


MEDIAN 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Licenses and Options Executed

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

1

2

3

4

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Licenses and Options Executed per $10M in Total Expenditures

LICENSES AND OPTION EXECUTED


Commentary

NAU’s peer institutions report small numbers of

licenses and options

NAU has executed very few licenses and options

over the FY03-FY07 period


16

INSTITUTIONMEDICAL

SCHOOL2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Univers i ty of Akron 636,499 485,874 599,405 1,879,684 6,328,239 227,703 176,759 222,927 660,930 2,331,874

Ohio Univers i ty Yes 65,994 2,400,661 2,687,000 3,263,162 4,412,900 17,586 620,262 621,573 858,727 1,141,139

Univers i ty of North Carol ina - Greensboro 4,677 32,212 20,586 29,718 170,732 13,541 85,625 42,507 49,048 278,519

Kent State Univers i ty - Kent 735,400 417,280 578,659 558,028 433,010 505,464 328,257 523,910 503,817 227,888

Southern Il l inois Univers i ty - Carbondale Yes 157,726 224,535 NA 354,045 524,584 29,750 41,617 NA 47,510 81,076

Univers i ty of Alabama NA NA NA 0 150,000 NA NA NA 0 41,229

George Mason Univers i ty 41,568 52,309 47,527 143,269 69,542 9,241 11,320 11,149 28,437 11,938

Univers i ty of Nevada - Las Vegas 0 25,000 25,000 26,500 26,500 0 5,503 5,171 4,647 4,995


Northern Arizona University 0 119,809 0 170,000 0 0 60,004 0 61,523 0



Old Dominion Univers i ty NA 50,000 NA NA NA NA 14,360 NA NA NA

Univers i ty of Maine 225,000 NA NA NA NA 32,645 NA NA NA NA

Western Michigan Univers i ty NA NA NA 2,000 NA NA NA NA 1,111 NA


MEDIAN 65,994 138,422 47,527 248,657 301,871 17,586 41,617 42,507 37,974 81,076

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Licensing Revenue

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Licensing Revenue per $10M in

Total Expenditures

LICENSING REVENUE


Commentary

Many of NAU’s peers have not typically reported

licensing revenue, though a few peers have been

very successful in generating such returns

NAU’s licensing revenue is highly variable, like

that of many of its peer institutions


17

INSTITUTIONMEDICAL

SCHOOL2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Northern Arizona University 1 2 5 0 1 0 1 2










Georgia State Univers i ty NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA 0


Wichita State Univers i ty NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA 0




MEDIAN 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Start-up Companies

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Start-up Companies per $10M in Total Expenditures

START-UP COMPANIES


Commentary

In recent years NAU has led its peer group in the

number of startup companies formed from

university research activity


18

INSTITUTIONMEDICAL

SCHOOL2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

% ann

00-03

% ann

01-04

% ann

02-05

% ann

03-06

% ann

04-07

Univers i ty of North Carol ina - Greensboro 3,454 3,762 4,843 6,059 6,130 15.29% -1.02% 2.91% 25.14% 20.98%






George Mason Univers i ty 44,980 46,210 42,630 50,381 58,252 22.63% 13.51% 3.24% 4.00% 8.69%

Western Michigan Univers i ty 21,571 13,912 17,518 18,005 17,182 17.20% -2.37% -2.64% -5.51% 7.83%




Georgia State Univers i ty 45,653 45,415 50,262 52,690 51,387 8.24% 5.52% 4.26% 5.14% 4.38%


Univers i ty of Alabama 34,187 35,132 34,531 35,129 36,382 2.45% 0.71% -2.33% 0.92% 2.51%

Ohio Univers i ty Yes 37,527 38,704 43,229 38,000 38,671 19.30% 14.19% 6.04% 0.42% -0.03%

Univers i ty of Akron 27,953 27,488 26,888 28,440 27,138 14.46% 7.82% -1.42% 0.58% -0.42%

MEDIAN 30,324 34,819 34,531 35,129 38,671 15.28% 8.92% 3.24% 11.48% 6.64%

STATE AND LOCAL RESEARCH EXPENDITURES


Commentary

Funds obtained through competitive grants and

contracts from state agencies, municipalities, and

tribal governments support research activities of

direct relevance to state and local concerns

NAU has consistently been a strong performer in

attracting state, local and tribal support for research

Relative to the size of its total R&D activity, NAU is at

or near the top of its peer group in addressing state,

local and tribal research issues

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

$ in

Th

ou

san

ds

State and Local Funding per $10M Total Expenditures

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

$ in

Th

ou

san

ds

State and Local Funding for R&D

19

INSTITUTION 2004 2005 2006 2007 2004 2005 2006 2007

Univers i ty of Nevada - Las Vegas 17432 15133 18069 18846 3,837 3,130 3,168 3,553

Univers i ty of Maine 22830 20311 20470 20872 2,811 2,706 2,197 2,171

Northern Arizona University 2777 4113 4091 4649 1,391 1,798 1,481 1,750

George Mason Univers i ty 9951 9321 12601 9522 2,153 2,186 2,501 1,635

Northern Il l inois Univers i ty 1463 1261 856 2092 1,252 1,122 515 1,252

Old Dominion Univers i ty 3826 4223 4731 5094 1,099 898 947 977

Western Michigan Univers i ty 1633 1885 1409 1254 1,174 1,076 783 730

Bowl ing Green State Univers i ty 203 526 48 556 245 540 48 610

Univers i ty of Alabama 1690 2011 1612 1377 481 582 459 378

Ohio Univers i ty 1159 1445 950 1246 299 334 250 322

Southern Il l inois Univers i ty - Carbondale 1568 1893 2344 1322 291 330 315 204

Kent State Univers i ty - Kent 746 714 352 381 587 646 318 201

Univers i ty of North Carol ina - Greensboro 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 83

Univers i ty of Akron 741 467 195 201 270 174 69 74

Georgia State Univers i ty 397 381 299 294 87 76 57 57

Wichita State Univers i ty 35 49 42 57 12 15 13 12

MEDIAN 1463.00 1445.00 950.00 1254.00 481.04 582.38 317.80 378.48

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES EXPENDITURES


Commentary

NAU is consistently in the top third of its peer group

in funding for environmental science and related

fields, and is close to the best of the group in

environmental funding relative to the total size of the

research enterprise.

These figures reflect both NAU’s strategic focus in

environment and its success in obtaining competitive

funding in this disciplinary area.

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2004 2005 2006 2007

Environmental Sciences Expenditures

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2004 2005 2006 2007

Environmental Sciences Expenditures per $10M in Total R&D Expenditures

20

INSTITUTIONMEDICAL

SCHOOL2004 2005 2006 2007 2004 2005 2006 2007

Northern Il l inois Univers i ty 194 211 186 199 166 188 112 119

Western Michigan Univers i ty 243 210 213 161 175 120 118 94

Univers i ty of North Carol ina - Greensboro 87 50 55 56 231 103 91 91

George Mason Univers i ty 390 371 445 482 84 87 88 83

Bowl ing Green State Univers i ty 82 83 81 74 99 85 82 81

Kent State Univers i ty - Kent 104 122 103 128 82 110 93 67

Old Dominion Univers i ty 276 324 371 308 79 69 74 59

Wichita State Univers i ty 275 278 207 213 92 85 65 45

Univers i ty of Akron 137 146 147 118 50 54 52 43

Georgia State Univers i ty 199 168 153 185 44 33 29 36

Ohio Univers i ty Yes 163 169 145 129 42 39 38 33

Southern Il l inois Univers i ty - Carbondale Yes 219 226 250 214 41 39 34 33

Univers i ty of Alabama 132 124 119 118 38 36 34 32

Northern Arizona University 86 75 68 86 43 33 25 32

Univers i ty of Nevada - Las Vegas 119 116 163 118 26 24 29 22

Univers i ty of Maine 106 108 136 121 13 14 15 13

MEDIAN 150 157 150 129 65 62 58 44

TECHNICAL MASTER’S DEGREES


Commentary

NAU produces fewer master’s degrees in technical

fields than do most of its peers

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2004 2005 2006 2007

Master's Degrees in Technical Fields

NAU

Peer Median

Best Performing

Peer

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2004 2005 2006 2007

Master's Degrees in Technical Fields per $10M Total R&D Expenditures

21

INSTITUTION

Awards initiated

02-04 (total $, # grants)

Awards initiated


Awards initiated


INSTITUTION

$$ in Awards initiated 02-

04*

$$ in Awards initiated 05-

07

$$ in Awards initiated

08-09

University of North Carolina - Greensboro 0 309,329 (1) 343,443 (2)

University of North Carolina - Greensboro 0 504,615 560,266

Kent State University - Kent 268,195 (2) 229,743 (1) 200,108 (1)

Kent State University - Kent 141,148 120,911 105,314

University of Alabama 689,293 (3) 358,699 (1) 300,000 (1)

University of Alabama 189,460 98,592 82,458

University of Akron 432,921 (2) 270,000 (1) 206,379 (2)

University of Akron 159,526 99,491 76,048

Northern Arizona University 616,498 (4) 964,166 (5) 130,235 (2)

Northern Arizona University 232,063 362,932 49,023

University of Maine 171,627 (1) 249,985 (1) 300,304 (2)

University of Maine 17,853 26,004 31,238

Southern Illinois University - Carbondale 0 228,000 (1) 200,000 (1)

Southern Illinois University - Carbondale 0 35,238 30,910

Georgia State University 510599 (2) 192,185 (1) 142,223 (1)

Georgia State University 99,363 37,400 27,677

Old Dominion University 246,946 (1) 0 101,000 (1)

Old Dominion University 47,368 0 19,373

George Mason University 0 0 84,934 (1)

George Mason University 0 0 14,580

Bowling Green State University 0 0 0

Bowling Green State University 0 0 0

Northern Illinois University 0 0 0

Northern Illinois University 0 0 0

Ohio University 0 0 0

Ohio University 0 0 0

University of Nevada - Las Vegas 150,000 (1) 529,987 (2) 0

University of Nevada - Las Vegas 28,276 99,905 0

Western Michigan University 651,030 (3) 400,691 (1) 0

Western Michigan University 378,902 233,204 0

Wichita State University 0 0 0

Wichita State University 0 0 0

MEDIAN

* All figures are per $10M in total R&D expenditures, 2007

REU (Research Experience for Undergraduates) AWARDS


Commentary

Funding from the National Science Foundation for

“Research Experiences for Undergraduates”

programs is extremely competitive

Programs are selected for funding based on the

quality of faculty researchers as well as the

effectiveness of the program’s impact on

undergraduate students

NAU has received more such awards and

substantially more dollars than any of its peer

institutions

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Awards initiated, 02-

04

Awards initiated 05-

07

Awards initiated 08-

09

$ in

Th

ou

san

ds

NSF Funding for Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) Programs


ABOR Peer Median

Best Performing Peer

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Awards initiated, 02-

04

Awards initiated 05-07

Awards initiated 08-09

$ in

Th

ou

san

ds

NSF Funding for Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) Programs per

$10M Total Expenses, 2007


ABOR Peer Median

Best Performing Peer

22

Dr. Paul Keim and his colleagues develop and apply leading-edge sequencing and genomics tools to decipher the movements and evolution of disease-causing micro-organisms. The anthrax letters of 2001 drove Keim’s group to develop high-throughput, exceptionally sensitive techniques for finger-printing anthrax strains and sources. They have applied this forensic genomics approach to understand the spread of emerging tropical diseases as well as the evolution of bubonic plague moving through Arizona prairie dog colonies. A strong partnership with T-Gen in Phoenix has led to important advances in understanding multiple-resistance staph infections (a scourge of hospitals today) and Valley fever, and resulted in the creation of T-Gen North, a milestone in the northern Arizona bioscience roadmap. Major external funding comes from the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Homeland Security, and research partners in the private sector seeking breakthroughs in the translation of basic science to clinical solutions. Keim’s group has worked closely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in analyzing the 2001 anthrax attacks and serves as a major resource for the US Centers for Disease Control in understanding the outbreak and spread of emerging infectious diseases.

PRODUCTIVITY AND IMPACTS

$15.34 Million in active research grants from National Institutes of Health, Department of Homeland Security

Additional $5 Million in active grants to group through T-Gen North, Flagstaff, from Department of Defense

Major current awards include: o Population genetic analysis of biothreat pathogens, Phase I; Dept of Homeland Security; $890,000 for first year o Differential Burkholderia pseudomallei virulence and genome studies, NIH-NIAID Pacific Southwest Regional Center of Excellence; $1.6

million, 5 year award o Real-time PCR assays for sepsis and CAP pathogens, NIH-NIAID; $3.2 million, 5 year award (with $3.2 million match from industry)

25 full-time employees at NAU and another 25 at T-Gen North

25 - 35 student employees per year (500 undergraduate research assistants over 20 years)

T-Gen North facility of 10,000 sq ft, annual budget of $3-4 Million

Startup company, Pathogene, with increasing activity in patent applications and licensing

CENTER FOR MICROBIAL GENETICS

AND GENOMICS

22

23

Now in its 50th anniversary year, the School of Forestry at Northern Arizona University has long provided the scientific foundation for wise management and conservation of the state’s forested landscapes. Established in 1995 by Dr. William (Wally) Covington, the Ecological Restoration Institute provides scientific support to help land managers, stakeholders and communities by providing comprehensive studies, monitoring, research in evaluation, and technical support. Managers are provided with the publications and scientific basis for recommended actions, and are supported in the field in designing and implementing restoration treatments that reduce the risk of catastrophic fire while improving the economic viability of communities in forested regions. ERI has been partially supported by federal programmatic funding since 2004, as the lead in a set of southwestern forest restoration institutes. Working in partnership with ERI and others, the Forest Ecosystem Restoration Analysis (ForestERA) Project, led by Dr. Tom Sisk of the university’s Center for Sustainable Environments, provides ecological

science, modeling, and visualization support for stakeholders. ForestERA facilitates collaboration on landscape assessment and planning, in order to move past controversy to guide restoration at landscape-to-regional scales. ERI and ForestERA were instrumental in leading and completing the recently-adopted “20 Year Vision and Strategy to Restore Arizona’s Forests,” a study that is guiding both state and national forest management decisions. In 2005, the university’s established expertise in forest health, fuel loads, and biomass accumulation contributed to the US Department of Energy choosing NAU to host the Western Regional Center for the National Center for Climate Change Research, managing more than $7 million to date in research funding focused in part on carbon cycling, sequestration, and greenhouse gas emissions.

ERI has brought more than $23 Million in federal dollars to NAU since 2000; major funding sources include USDA Forest Service, National Science Foundation, National Park Service, and Joint Fire Science Program

ERI’s work contributes to the avoidance of catastrophic wildfires and associated economic damages to Arizona’s communities and citizens (e.g., estimated cost of the Rodeo-Chediski fire exceeds $400 Million)

ERI employs nearly 30 full-time staff members and 40 or more students per year (117 undergraduates funded on ERI research since 2000)

ForestERA has used $850,000 in external funding over the past three years to build plans for ecological restoration of more than 3 million forested acres in Arizona and New Mexico

Both ERI and ForestERA offer training and professional development workshops to state, federal, and tribal agency professionals (100 – several hundred participants annually)

SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTS:

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION INSTITUTE,

FOREST-ERA, AND THE NATIONAL

INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

RESEARCH

23

24

Education and teacher preparation constitute the roots of Northern Arizona University’s original mission, and they remain crucial elements of the institution’s impact and activities today. The Center for Science Teaching and Learning, led by Walkup Professor Dr. Julie Gess-Newsome, epitomizes the institutional commitment to education by linking faculty from science and mathematics departments as well as education. The Center’s faculty and staff conduct original research on teaching and learning, provide leadership and coordination of professional development opportunities for K-20 teachers across the state, and oversee the university’s recruitment, preparation, advising, and placement of secondary science teachers. Most recently Dr. Gess-Newsome and Dr. Janet McShane (Chair, Department of Mathematics and Statistics) collaborated to bring an extension of the nationally-renowned U-Teach program from the University of Texas to NAU – one of only 13 such projects funded last year by the National Math and Science Initiative. This innovative program will improve the ability of graduates to tackle the challenges of education in rural, low-income, and other state settings, and will double the number of science and mathematics teachers produced by NAU – already a larger number than all other teacher preparation programs in the state combined.

CSTL has administered $9.6 Million in external funding since 2006

Major funding sources include NSF, Arizona Board of Regents programs (Mathematics and Science Partnerships, Improving Teacher Quality, Learner Centered Education), Science Foundation Arizona

CSTL programs have served more than 650 Arizona teachers and administrators, 2006 – 09 (more than 400 in 08-09), more than 75 % from Title 1 schools, nearly 2/3 from rural schools

NAUTeach: $1.4 Million from National Math and Science Initiative, plus $2 Million in endowment funds from Helios Foundation and ExxonMobil Foundation

CENTER FOR SCIENCE TEACHING

& LEARNING AND NAU-TEACH

25

Researchers in the Department of English have long been prominent scholars in the study of second language learning and assessment, and analysis of the English language in spoken and written texts. An advanced analytical approach, “corpus linguistics,” uses sophisticated computing capability to detect grammatical and word choice patterns in written materials, lending insights into the different ways languages are used in different settings or by different authors. Applied Linguistics oversees one of the university’s largest and most well-respected Ph.D. programs, attracting first-rate scholars from around the world. The group has developed deep expertise in the acquisition of second languages (including adult learners); a practical extension of this work lies behind the university’s highly successful Program in Intensive English (PIE) and regional efforts such as the Northern Arizona Writing Project. Funding for the department’s work, including analysis and implementation, has come from sources as diverse as the Educational Testing Service and the National Science Foundation.

Nearly $900,000 in external funding to program since 2006

67 master’s degrees, 15 Ph.D. graduates in past 3 years

PIE employs more than 50 graduate students plus several full-time staff members each year

Developed on-line Graduate Certificate in Teaching English as a Second Language, serving K-12 teachers and community

college instructors across the state in a high-demand area

APPLIED LINGUISTICS AND SECOND

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

26

In recent years the National Institutes of Health have shifted emphasis to try to reduce the stark disparities in disease burden, health care, and outcomes for minority populations, in part through funding minority-serving institution partnerships with major medical research centers. Northern Arizona University has partnered with the University of Arizona’s Arizona Cancer Center over the past seven years to focus on cancer occurrence and outcomes in the state’s Native American communities. Faculty from chemistry and biology have focused on the basic cellular mechanisms associated with cancer and on the environmental triggers found in some tribal communities; a major focus has been the environmental chemistry of uranium and patterns of human exposure in formerly mined areas of the Navajo Nation. Faculty and staff from the health sciences, nursing, and Applied Indigenous Studies have been instrumental in designing and implementing culturally-appropriate outreach and intervention programs, from a Navajo-language video explaining breast cancer screening to a cervical and breast cancer screening project in Hopi. Importantly, the partnership includes explicit focus on recruiting and training native students in cancer research. Nearly 200 students (more than half native students) have received mentoring, coursework, and/or research experiences through the Partnership. Most recently, Northern Arizona University hired Dr. Priscilla Sanderson (Navajo) into a tenure-track faculty position, after her graduate training with the partnership and a postdoctoral research fellowship with the Arizona Cancer Center.


$6.2 Million in NIH funding to NAU since 2002

$720,000 in indirect cost recovery

Startup, equipment, and summer salary funds provided to two new faculty hires in biology and chemistry

Video on breast cancer education, produced in Navajo language by Navajo cancer survivor, Navajo faculty researcher, and Cancer Partnership resources; widely distributed across Navajo Nation and US

Studies of environmental uranium exposure in southwest Navajo Nation (water, livestock, soils), carried out by NAU Navajo faculty researcher and native students

New degree programs developed (Indigenous Health Studies minor; MS in Chemistry with emphasis in Chemical Carcinogenesis)

Collaborations built with tribal colleges to provide research experiences and opportunities for advanced training for native students (Dine College, T’ohono O’odham Community College, Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute)

106 Native American students (and more than 50 non-native students) engaged in Partnership projects

Improved retention, graduation, pursuit of graduate and professional degrees for native student participants

NATIVE AMERICAN

CANCER PARTNERSHIP

27

Although Arizona’s sunny skies are well suited to solar energy generation, the state’s open plains and mountainous

regions harbor a less-visible resource – wind. The Sustainable Energy Solutions group, led by Dr. Tom Acker

(Mechanical Engineering), has led the way in mapping and characterizing the wind resource in Arizona, producing

and distributing maps that are guiding commercial and off-grid development of wind power generation. Using TRIF

funds, the SES group pioneered a unique “anemometer loan program,” where meteorologic towers and data-loggers

are loaned to private individuals for a year; researchers collect and analyze the data, allowing the individual to better

understand the potential for wind generation on the private land while improving our overall understanding of wind resources in Arizona. Dr.

Acker’s group has developed leading-edge skills in modeling wind patterns over complex topography, allowing analysis that leads to optimal

siting or location decisions for individual wind turbines as well as large-scale wind farms – the kind of decision-making necessary for full and

appropriate development of wind energy in the state. These analytical and modeling tools have spurred the formation of two startup

companies, while graduates trained in the group have contributed to the growth of Foresight Wind Energy and Southwest Windpower – the

latter named the national small business export company of the year in May 2009.


Total research funding of $4.9 Million over past 10 years ($2.1 M in indirect cost recovery)

Major funding sources include US Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, NASA, State of Arizona, Navajo Nation, Sandia National

Laboratory, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Current major projects:

o “Wind integration analysis and technical support,” Nat Renewable Energy Lab, $627,000

o “APS Wind Integration: Operating Impacts and Costs,” APS, $190,488

Capstone design projects for mechanical engineering students

Provided fine-scale data that led Iberdrola Renewables to develop the 63 MW Dry Lake Wind Farm (Arizona’s first

commercial windfarm) – $100 Million construction project, lease income to local ranchers and to BLM, permanent

jobs, renewable energy supply for SRP

Two startup companies (Windfinders Inc., TecVerde LLC) applying wind sensor, analysis and modeling methods

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS

AND WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT



Contact Information: Nancy Tribbensee (602) 229-2510 [email protected]

Item Name: Approval of the Notice of Reappointment and Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Dr. John Haeger as President of Northern Arizona University for the period July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013.


Issue: The Board is asked to approve the notice of reappointment and multiple- year employment contract of Dr. John Haeger as President of Northern Arizona University for the period July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013.

Background:

Board policies 6-1101 and 6-1102 authorize the Board to enter multiple-year employment contracts with the university presidents.

Dr. Haeger has served as President of Northern Arizona University since November 12, 2001. His current appointment term extends through June 30, 2010.

The Board desires to enter a new multiple-year employment contract with Dr. Haeger to become effective July 1, 2010 on the following terms:

o Contract term will be July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013. o Dr. Haeger will retain his tenured faculty appointment in the Northern Arizona

University Department of History. o Total compensation to be increased from the current contract by $48,000,

with the expectation that a substantial portion of the increase will be in the form of deferred compensation.

o Same employment-related benefits as all other NAU administrators, including but not limited to medical benefits, sick leave, vacation leave and retirement options.

o The contract includes a provision requiring an annual disclosure to the Board describing all organizations with which Dr. Haeger is affiliated and any compensation associated with those affiliations.

o The contract provides for a separate agreement on performance incentives for the period July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013 to be executed by the Board President. The Chair of the Human Resources Committee will work with President Haeger to develop the incentive plan, which is expected to include ten separate incentives to be measured at the end of the three year contract. Each incentive, if completely achieved, will result in a $10,000 payment, for a possible total in incentive payments of up to $100,000, to be paid after the end of the three year term. If University President completely achieves all ten incentives, he will receive an additional $50,000.



Recommendation It is recommended that the Board authorize the renewal of Dr. John Haeger’s Notice of Appointment and a multiple-year contract as President of Northern Arizona University for the period July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013 as described in this executive summary.



Contact Information: Art Ashton, [email protected], (602) 229-2524

Item Name: Report from the Technology Oversight Committee


Discussion The following items will be addressed at the June 18, 2009, Technology Oversight Committee meeting:

A report on the accomplishments last year’s Arizona Universities Network (AZUN) Strategic Plan will be presented.

The Committee is requested to approve the five-year AZUN Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2010-2014.

A representative from the Governor’s Information Technology Agency will report

on the highlights of the final Arizona Broadband Connection Initiative study. The universities’ Chief Information Technology Officers (CITOs) will also discuss next steps for enhancing Broadband connectivity in Arizona using federal stimulus and other funding sources.

The University of Arizona (UA) will provide a status report concerning its MOSAIC Information Technology project.

The Board’s consultant for UA’s MOSAIC project, Charlie Moran, will present his latest project audit report on the progress of the various system implementation plans.

The Committee is requested to approve funding of $160,000 per year for two

years, and for a third year if funds are available, for the Advancing Arizona Through Web-Based Initiative proposal using $100,000 from TRIF Arizona Regents Reach Out (ARRO) grant funds and $60,000 from TRIF AZUN funds. Approval of an additional $65,000 of TRIF Regents Innovation Funds will be requested of the Board at the August 2009 Board meeting.

Issue: Chair Dennis DeConcini will present an oral report on the June 18, 2009,

Technology Oversight Committee meeting.



The Committee is requested to recommend for Board approval Arizona State University’s project to replace its in-house telecommunications operations using Qwest at an annual budget of $10.8 million for a total five-year project cost of $54 million.

The Committee is requested to approve the universities’ five-year Information

Technology Strategic Plans for fiscal years 2010-2014.

The CITOs will present their draft twelve-month follow-up reports to the Auditor

General concerning the IT Security Performance Audit.

Recommendation to the Board This item is presented for the Board’s information.



Contact Information: Adrian Sannier, ASU, (480) 965-8419, [email protected]

Item Name: Qwest Communications Contract


ASU RFP #020901-Networking Services Vendor was issued on July 3, 2008. ASU has performed an intense review of the RFP responses and is ready to award the contract to Qwest Communications.


In its five-year technology plan, ASU asserted that the best way for it to ensure that its network keeps pace with University demand is to partner with an industry leader that provides networking at a scale far larger than the University can ever attain on its own. The networking partner will help ASU ensure its network technology continues to provide ASU’s community with the reliable connectivity it requires. ASU further planned to work with its partner to converge voice and data into a single network and continue to expand and enhance wireless connectivity to that network.

For the past three years, ASU has successfully piloted this managed services approach at several of its facilities. Beginning in September of 2005, ASU contracted with Qwest Communications to supply all voice and data communications at the ASU Downtown Phoenix Campus as a managed service. In the following year, ASU extended this managed services concept to the management of wireless connectivity in its residence halls and SkySong. In September of 2008, ASU further extended this concept to the management of network and telecommunications services on ASU’s Polytechnic Campus. These managed service locations represent the best of the ASU network, providing voice and data services to the ASU community on a single, converged network.

As of May 2009, approximately 20% of the University’s network was successfully managed by Qwest.

Issue: The Board is requested to approve Arizona State University’s (ASU’s) proposal to transition management and operation of its network to Qwest Communications for a period of five years.

.



Discussion

Based on the success of its various managed services pilots, ASU issued an RFP in July 2008 to select a partner to undertake management of most of ASU’s voice and data network. The scope of the services requested included providing the University with all network communications services management and operations personnel, technical support, training, equipment, supplies, materials, systems, and effort necessary to perform the contracted network services at a level of quality that consistently meets or exceeds the University's expectations.

In November 2008, Qwest's application to bid was accepted and negotiations began to identify risk, define value, analyze past performance, and create a viable financial model. The outcome of those negotiations was an agreement that provides the University with the clearest and best path to consistent network performance and improvement over the five-year period, at lower cost to the University, and with less risk.

Qwest proposes to manage ASU’s voice and data network for an annual cost of $10,806,218. This cost represents an annual savings to the University of $1,481,934. No new operational or capital monies need to be identified to fund the proposal. The managed services will be funded from the existing operations budget of ASU’s University Technology Office.

Key Data/Findings

The scope of the contract shall include operation, management, expansion and ongoing technology enhancement of University networks and associated systems, cabling and hardware necessary to support and further the University’s mission. The networks will be capable of optimally providing all voice, data and other special system requirements of the University, for the current estimated user population of 76,000, at a level of quality that consistently meets or exceeds the University’s expectations.

University-owned network service equipment currently providing service to the portions of the network, which will be included in the scope of this agreement, will be available for acquisition by the Vendor. Additional capital equipment required to execute the Vendor’s proposed concepts and programs must be provided at Vendor expense, to be amortized over the base term of the contract plus extensions. Upon full amortization of Vendor-provided capital equipment and cabling, ownership shall reside with the University.

Qwest performance will be carefully monitored, measured and evaluated throughout the term of the contract. Risk mitigation, penalties with compensation



to the University as well as buy-out clauses and back-out mechanisms will be in place to assure optimal value to the University.

University Network Ranking: The agreement includes an annual University Network Ranking study, which will benchmark ASU’s network services against the network services at 5-7 peer universities to ensure that ASU’s network services are performing on par or better with these identified peers. Incorporating an annual appraisal process with defined metrics is a best practice for ensuring that ASU’s network is at least as capable and reliable as its competitors.

Performance Measurement: Measurement and performance will be overseen by ASU’s Performance Based Studies Research Group using their Best Value Performance Information Procurement System methodologies. Measurements will include dominant network performance, technology, financial, and operational metrics including all associated documentation. Service Levels will be measured and monitored via a five-tier structure based on redundancy and resiliency, with each tier level associated with a fixed penalty for non-performance. Measurements on all levels will also be used for proactive strategic and operational planning ($50,000 annual value).

Qwest will also provide the following value-added upgrades and services as a part of the contract:

Value Added Estimated

Annual Value

New Voicemail system w/integrated email option $75,000

Full voice/data network convergence at ASU’s West campus $500,000

Reduction of ~2000 sq ft ASU office space & utilities $44,000

SkySong state-of-the-art Network Operations Center (12500 sq ft) $100,000

New Contact Center Solution $400,000

Engineering & Design $150,000

Technical experts in other areas of Qwest to draw upon $75,000

Speech Enabled Voice Messaging $25,000

Conferencing & Collaboration Capabilities $9,000

IP Fax Capabilities $12,000

Unified Communications Management Toolset $85,000

Green initiatives (Kw savings) $200,000

Total Additional Estimated Annual Value to ASU: $1,675,000



Cost Summary

Budget: The five-year cost is:

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

$10,806,218 $10,806,218 $10,806,218 $10,806,218 $10,806,218 $54,031,090

Source of Funds: The contract will be funded from ASU’s University Technology Office operating budget. ASU’s current methodology for providing revenue for networking services is based on a charge-back, local budget model.

Cost Savings: $1.48M cost savings per year, compared with current costs for ASU to run the network.

Cost Savings Annual Savings

Direct Purchase Discounts $70,000

Flexibility in distribution of funding and resources $90,000

Current contract buyout (less costly for Qwest) $166,000

Combining workforce for Border, Data Center, HPC & E911 $325,734

Reduction of unnecessary network devices $450,200

Efficiencies in Maintenance Costs $380,000

Total Annual Cost Savings: $1,481,934

Appendix

Dominant Measurements – State of the ASU Network

University Network Comparison

University Ranking

Recommendation to the Board It is recommended that the Board approve Arizona State University’s proposal to transition management and operation of its network to Qwest Communications.

Board of Regents Meeting June 18 and 19, 2009


Contact Information: Andrea C. Smiley, 602.229.2543, [email protected]

Item Name: Update on Public Affairs and Solutions Through Higher Education

Action Item Discussion Item Information Item Background The Solutions Through Higher Education Coalition and Public Awareness Campaign continues to work toward raising support for, and awareness of, the value of higher education for Arizona. This is pursued through building strategic partnerships with key, allied organizations, as well as public awareness activities such as presentations, media relations, special events, and social media tools targeted at key, strategic publics whose support is pivotal to the university system’s future success. Strategic Implications The Solutions Through Higher Education Coalition and Public Awareness Campaign advances the missions of the universities and university system by promoting greater awareness about the critical economic and social challenges facing Arizona, the ways in which higher education provides solutions to these challenges, and the issues facing higher education and Arizona’s public universities. Discussion

Activities to establish The Solutions Through Higher Education Coalition as a separate legal entity, a 501(c)(3), are moving forward and it could be operational by end of summer or sooner. The goal of this effort is to provide for increased flexibility, focused leadership, and enhanced effectiveness for the Coalition.

The Molera Alvarez Group LLC is now managing the day-to-day activities of the coalition until the separate legal entity is established.

On May 18, a meeting took place with community leaders, several Regents and co-chairs to discuss the future of the Coalition and the political challenges facing higher education, and all education, in the current fiscal environment.

Under the management of the Molera Alvarez Group, and in close collaboration with the central office and the universities public affairs and government affairs staffs, the Coalition has been advocating for the university system as part of the 2010 budget process.

A Call to Action was issued to the nearly 6,000 Coalition members on Mon., June 1, the day Governor Brewer released her budget proposal, encouraging members to write their legislators and their local newspapers in support of the Governor’s budget proposal. The Coalition has also been interacting with key organization and business leaders in Arizona, encouraging them to also support the Governor’s budget.

Issue: The Board will receive an update on Public Affairs activities and

Solutions Through Higher Education.

Board of Regents Meeting June 18 and 19, 2009


A second Call to Action was issued on Fri., June 5, following the passage of the legislative budget on Thurs., June 4, asking Coalition members to write to the Governor and ask her to veto the legislative budget.

Also as part of the 2010 budget process, the public affairs groups at the central office and the three universities have been working closely to leverage each other’s effectiveness through joint public affairs efforts including media relations and constituent relations. The teams talk weekly to strategize how to work together toward mutual effectiveness.

As part of the public affairs efforts associated with the budget process, several statements have been issued from ABOR and the universities that have resulted in the university systems position being conveyed in the media coverage regarding the budget.

Additionally, ABOR and the universities worked with community partners Helios Education Foundation and the Flinn Foundation on a Viewpoints section that appeared in the Fri., May 17, 2009 edition of the Arizona Republic that discussed the value of higher education to our state.

Recommendation to the Board This update is provided for the Board’s information.



Contact Information: Christine M. Thompson, 602.229.2520, [email protected]

Item Name: Report on Legislative Activities


Issue: The Board will receive a report on legislative activities. The Board will be asked to review and may wish to provide additional guidance on the positions on legislation as recommended by the Legislative Affairs Committee (LAC) and by the university government affairs officers.

Background

The First Regular Session of the 49th Legislature convened January 12, 2009. Legislation introduced this session may affect resources, operations, programming, and other aspects of the Arizona University System.

Discussion

The FY09 and FY10 budgets constitute a majority of the system’s legislative agenda for the 2009 legislative session. The Legislature passed FY09 budget revisions in January and May. June 3 and 4, the Legislature passed a FY10 budget that, as of the deadline for these materials, has not been transmitted to the Governor for action.

The President of the Senate did not allow any bills to be heard until a budget was passed. June 4, the Senate President began assigning bills to committees. Senate hearings on legislation begin June 8, and a timeline for hearing legislation is expected to be released in the coming days.

The Board will receive an update on legislation and budget at the meeting.

Appendix

The Appendix contains “Bills Affecting Arizona’s Public Universities”.

Recommendation to the Board

The Board may wish to provide additional guidance on the legislative positions as presented during the discussion.



Appendix Item #39 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1 of 10

Contact Information: Christine M. Thompson, 602.229.2520, [email protected]

BILLS AFFECTING ARIZONA’S PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES 49TH LEGISLATURE, FIRST REGULAR SESSION (2009)

Bills that would help the university system; favorably impact students, faculty, or other employees; or enhance the ability of the Board and the universities to carry out their missions and roles effectively:

HB2108: WICHE STUDENT LOANS; REPAYMENT (SEE ALSO SB1370) Requires a student to fully repay the amount of the grant contract under the WICHE Professional Student Exchange Program if the student fails to fulfill his/her obligation to return to the state to practice (current law requires 1/2 of the sum to be repaid). First sponsor: Rep. Ableser. Last action: 2/17 Passed House Rules, placed on consent agenda and awaits House 3rd Reading. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2108p.pdf) HB2300: CENTENNIAL SCHOLARS PROGRAM Establishes a Centennial Scholar Program, effective July 1, 2011, to provide scholarships for tuition and fees at Arizona community colleges and universities. Includes general eligibility requirements for scholarships. Establishes a fund for the scholarships to be administered by the Commission on Post Secondary Education. First sponsor: Rep. Schapira; Others: Rep. Meza, Sen. Burton Cahill, Rep. Ableser, Rep. Waters, Sen. Aguirre, Rep. McGuire, Rep. Pancrazi, Rep. Young Wright, Rep. Patterson, Rep. Chabin. Bill failed to advance. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2246p.pdf). HB2457: UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC FACILITIES DISTRICT Modifies current statute to allow counties containing a state university to form “university stadium districts” permitted to collect fees equivalent to a property tax on all commercial development within designated areas inside the District and issue bonds for the construction, maintenance and management of athletic facilities on campus. First sponsor: Rep. Nichols; Others: Rep. Ableser, Rep. Barnes, Rep. Court, Rep. Crandall, Rep. Driggs, Rep. Goodale, Rep. Konopnicki, Rep. Lujan, Rep. Mason, Rep. Meyer, Rep. Murphy, Rep. Reagan, Rep. Schapira, Rep. Sinema, Rep. Tobin, Sen. Burton Cahill, Sen. Leff, Sen. Paton, Sen. Pierce, Sen. Tibshraeny, Sen. Verschoor. Last action: 4/23 Passed House COW. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2457p.pdf).

HB2521: UNIVERSITY TUITION; FUND SWEEPS; PROHIBITION Prohibits the Board of Regents from transferring tuition revenue to the state General Fund. First sponsor: Rep. Waters Others: Rep. Ableser, Rep. Chad Campbell, Rep. Chabin, Rep. Crandall, Rep. Deschene, Rep. Farley, Rep. Fleming, Rep. Garcia, Rep. Goodale, Rep. Heinz, Rep. Lopes, Rep. Lujan, Rep. McGuire, Rep. Meyer, Rep. Meza, Rep. Miranda, Rep. Pancrazi, Rep. Patterson, Rep. Schapira, Rep. Sinema. Bill failed to advance. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2521p.pdf).

javascript:openNewWindow('members.cfm?id=374',550,750);

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2108p.pdf


javascript:openNewWindow('histories.cfm?bill=H2457',550,750);





















































Bills that would help the university system … continued:

HCM2002: DREAM ACT; URGING ADOPTION Urges Congressional adoption of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, that would create an exception in immigration statutes to allow undocumented students who meet certain criteria and graduate annually from US high schools to apply for legal residency. First sponsor: Rep. Ableser; Others: Rep. Chad Campbell, Rep. Cloves Campbell, Sen. Burton Cahill, Rep. Fleming, Rep. Patterson. Bill failed to advance. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcm2002p.pdf) SB1103: PARTNERSHIP FOR NURSING EDUCATION Extends the sunset of the Arizona Partnership for Nursing Education Demonstration Project, funded in the 2005 higher education budget reconciliation bill (Laws 2005, Chapter 330, Sec 15), for one year to June 30, 2011. First Sponsor: Sen. C. Allen. Last action: Hearing in Sen hel-med set for 6/10. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1003p.pdf) SB1370: WICHE STUDENT LOANS; REPAYMENT (SEE ALSO HB2108) Requires a student to fully repay the amount of the grant contract under the WICHE Professional Student Exchange Program if the student fails to fulfill his/her obligation to return to the state to practice (current law requires 1/2 of the sum to be repaid). First sponsor: Sen. Aboud Last action: Hearing in Sen educ set for 6/10. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1370p.pdf).

Bills that would be potentially detrimental to the university system; adversely impact students, faculty or other employees; or adversely impact the ability of the Board and the universities to carry out their missions and roles effectively:

HB2093: UNIVERSITIES; ADVISORY BOARDS Creates an advisory board for each public university comprised of 5 members (1 appointed by the Senate President, 1 appointed by the House Speaker and 3 appointed by the Governor) with 8 year terms. If ABOR declines to follow a written recommendation of an advisory board, ABOR must allow an opportunity for public comment on the recommendation and adopt a resolution that sets forth the reasons ABOR has declined to follow the recommendation. First Sponsor: Rep. Nichols; Others: Rep. Ableser Bill failed to advance. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2093p.pdf)

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcm2002p.pdf

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1003p.pdf

javascript:openNewWindow('histories.cfm?bill=S1370',550,750);






Bills that would be detrimental to the university system … continued:

HB2175: EASTERN ARIZONA COLLEGE Allows EAC to offer 4-year baccalaureate degrees beginning in FY10. Requires EAC to submit a budget by October 1, 2009, that estimates the FTSE counts for 300 and 400 level courses that will be offered. FTSE counts for upper division are determined by dividing the enrolled credit hours by 24, rather than by 30 as current law for lower division. Also sets differential state aid amounts per FTSE for vocational, 100 and 200 level courses ($2,200) and 300 and 400 level courses ($5,564). Requires these amounts to be adjusted annually by the CPI. Prohibits state aid for dual enrollment for “nonacademic” classes. Tuition amounts must be less than those at state universities. Restricts EAC’s property tax rate to $1.00 for FY10 through FY15. These property tax revenues can only be spent on capital. Gives the Graham County Community College District until June 30, 2014, to decide whether to continue as a community college district and discontinue the tax levy or to dissolve the district and transfer governance authority to ABOR. Establishes a base amount of operating and capital state aid appropriation of $16.9 million until the new formulas exceed that amount. The bill is silent on equalization aid. The bill contains blank appropriations for supplemental funding and campus housing. First Sponsor: Rep. Konopnicki. Last action: Bill failed House educ. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2175p.pdf) HB2438: COLLEGES; TRANSFER ARTICULATION; DIRECT EQUIVALENCY

Amends statutes requiring transfer articulation between community colleges and universities to allow up to 90 credits to transfer, including 300-level courses. Requires that if a university does not accept credit for a community college course, it must notify the college with specific recommendation so that the course may be accepted as a direct equivalent of the university course. First sponsor: Rep. Kavanagh Last action: 5/26 Held in Rules.

(Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2438p.pdf).

HB2607: SCHOOLS; DISRUPTION; INTERFERENCE; CONCEALED FIREARMS

Prohibits educational institutions from banning a person from carrying a weapon on school grounds if the possessor has a valid concealed carry permit. First sponsor: Rep. Biggs Others: Rep. Ash, Rep. Crump, Rep. Seel, Sen. S. Allen, Sen. Gould, Sen. Pearce Last action: Bill failed to advance.

(Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2607p.pdf).

HCR2002: REGENTS; ELIMINATION; REPLACEMENT Proposes a constitutional amendment to abolish the Board of Regents and create separate governing boards for each institution. The new boards would be comprised of 5 members (1 appointed by the Senate President, 1 appointed by the House Speaker and 3 appointed by the Governor) with 8 year terms. Sponsor: Rep. Nichols. Last action: Bill failed to advance. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2002p.pdf)















http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2002p.pdf



Bills that would be detrimental to the university system … continued:

SB1270: FIREARMS POSSESSION; CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT Amends current statute to allow persons with a concealed carry permit to carry a firearm except in enumerated locations. First sponsor: Sen. S. Allen Others: Rep. Antenori, Rep. Ash, Rep. Barnes, Rep. Biggs, Rep. Burges, Rep. Crump, Rep. Gowan, Rep. Kavanagh, Rep. McGuire, Rep. McLain, Rep. Montenegro, Rep. Murphy, Rep. Nichols, Rep. Quelland, Rep. Seel, Sen. Gould, Sen. L. Gray, Sen. C. Gray, Sen. Nelson, Sen. Pearce, Sen. Verschoor Last action: 6/8 Referred to Sen Jud. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1270p.pdf).

Bills that would affect the university system, but require additional discussion before a position is adopted; or bills that may require a position of neutrality at this time:

HB2026: PEACE OFFICERS; FIREARMS; SCHOOL GROUNDS Defines “political subdivision” to include school districts, charter schools, community colleges and state universities in the statute prohibiting various governmental units from banning peace officers from carrying firearms. First Sponsor: Rep. Kavanagh. Last action: Bill failed to advance. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2026p.pdf) HB2244: PHYSICIAN RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION FUND Establishes the Arizona Physician Recruitment and Retention Fund, to be administered by ABOR, to fund grants of up to $50,000 per person for licensed physicians who either begin practicing medicine in Arizona after practicing in another state or who demonstrate a commitment to practice medicine in Arizona for at least 10 years. Upon enactment, all unexpended and unencumbered monies from appropriations to the University of Arizona for the Phoenix medical campus are transferred to the Fund. First sponsor: Rep. Tobin. Last action: Bill failed to advance. Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2026p.pdf) HB2246: UNIVERSITY FUNDING EQUALIZATION PLANS Requires the Board, by Sept. 1, 2009, to conduct or contract for a financial analysis of each state university to determine the amount of state funding provided to each full-time student. Requires the Board to report the highest level of state funding per FTE, classified as the “core support level”, to the JLBC. Beginning FY11, a university that receives state funding per full-time student in an amount less than the core support level must submit a 5-year equalization plan to the Board and a request for equalization assistance for that fiscal year. First sponsor: Rep. Ableser; Others: Rep. Driggs, Sen. Burton Cahill, Rep. Waters, Rep. Nichols, Rep. Biggs, Rep. Hendrix, Rep. Mason. Last action: Bill failed to advance. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2246p.pdf)










































Bills that would affect the university system but require additional study … continued:

HB2293: TEACHER LOAN PROGRAMS; GEOGRAPHIC SHORTAGES Expands the current math, science and special education teacher loan program administered by ABOR to include teaching in any subject in an area of shortage as a means for qualifying for a loan. Clarifies that a recipient teaching in an area of shortage does not lose eligibility for grant forgiveness, if an area of shortage no longer experiences a teacher shortage. Allows a loan recipient to switch disciplines without penalty (i.e., switching from math to science or science to teaching in an area of shortage still fulfills the contract). Sponsor: Rep. Schapira. Last action: Bill failed to advance. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2293p.pdf) HB2386: FIREARMS; PROHIBITION; POSTSECONDARY INSTITUTIONS Expands the definition of school in statutes dealing with misconduct involving weapons, to include postsecondary educational institutions. Differentiates criminal classification of a violation of carrying a weapon onto school grounds to classify violations at a postsecondary institution a class 6 felony and classify violations at a K-12 school as a class 1 misdemeanor. First sponsor: Rep. Ableser. Last action: Bill failed to advance. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2386p.pdf) HB2387: UNLAWFUL HAZING; SCHOOLS Prohibits hazing by persons who attend, work at or volunteer at an educational institution. First sponsor: Rep. Ableser. Last action: Bill failed to advance. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2387p.pdf) HB2495: IN-STATE TUITION; VETERANS Amends statute to extend residency for in-state tuition to persons serving at an Arizona military installation at the time of their honorable discharge. First sponsor: Rep. Fleming Others: Rep. Antenori, Rep. Brown, Rep. Chad Campbell, Rep. Chabin, Rep. Crandall, Rep. Crump, Rep. Deschene, Rep. Garcia, Rep. Gowan, Rep. Lesko, Rep. Lopes, Rep. McGuire, Rep. Meza, Rep. Pancrazi, Rep. Patterson, Rep. Stevens, Rep. Waters Last action: 3/17 Passed House Rules, placed on House consent calendar and awaits House 3rd Reading. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2495p.pdf).































SB1001: WEB & VIDEO CONFERENCE SOFTWARE Requires the purchase, training and usage of on-line Web and video conference software by statewide governmental agencies, municipalities, counties, school districts, state universities and community college districts. Requires that software purchased have the capability to calculate cost savings from using Web and video conferencing software. Establishes a Web and Video Conferencing Savings Committee consisting of three members from the House, three members from the Senate, and five members appointed by the Governor to collect and compile the reported cost savings of each government entity. Self-repeals 12/31/13. First Sponsor: Sen. Waring. Last action: 6/4 Referred to Sen gov inst. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1001p.pdf) SB1135: TEACHER STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM; EXPANSION Expands the Math/Science/Special Education teacher loan program to include any regionally or nationally accredited public or private postsecondary or vocational program. First sponsor: Sen. Huppenthal Last action: Hearing in Sen educ set for 6/10. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1135p.pdf). SB1174: STATE EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE; COVERAGE Defines a dependent in statutes pertaining to health care benefits for state employees to specifically exclude domestic partners. First sponsor: Sen. Pearce Last action: 6/4 Referred to Sen gov inst. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1174p.pdf). SB1286: UNIVERSITIES; INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE CREDITS Requires the universities to accept all college level credits earned in international baccalaureate programs by students accepted for admission at that university. First sponsor: Sen. Gorman Last action: 6/8 Referred to Sen educ. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1286p.pdf). SB1331: PRIME CONTRACTING DEDUCTION; UNIVERSITY IMPROVEMENTS Adds a deduction from the state prime contracting tax base computation for gross sales and income received from a contract entered into with city for construction or infrastructure improvements at any campus of a state university. Self-repeals on Dec. 31, 2014. First sponsor: Sen. Verschoor Last action: 6/8 Referred to Sen fin. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1331p.pdf).

















SB1458: PROCUREMENT; CONSTRUCTION; SPECIALIZED SERVICES Proposes various changes in procurement procedures for state construction contracts, including a requirement that a contractor for rail systems must perform at least 30% of the work with its own personnel. The term used to describe a construction contract in which one party both designs and builds a project is changed to "two-step design-build" from "design-build." A "one-step design-build" contract is also added to define those contracts in which the contracting agency may let separate contracts for pre-construction (including design) services and construction services. The definition of "construction-manager-at-risk" contracts is changed to permit one-step design-build contracts. The state agency is also authorized to award in a single procurement process multiple contracts to different entities for the same project, based on demonstrated competence and experience. Procedures for bid evaluation are prescribed. More. First sponsor: Sen. Huppenthal Last action: 6/8 Referred to Sen gov inst. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1458p.pdf). SCR1031: DISCRIMINATION; PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT; PROHIBITION Proposes an amendment to the Constitution to appear on the 2010 ballot to prohibit discrimination or preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the areas of public employment, public education or public contracting. First sponsor: Sen. Pearce Others: Rep. Crump, Rep. Montenegro, Rep. Seel, Rep. Stevens, Sen. S. Allen, Sen. Gorman, Sen. Harper Last action: Hearing in Sen appro set for 6/9. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/scr1031p.pdf).

SCR1043: TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER; STATE UNIVERSITIES Proposes an amendment to the Constitution on the 2010 ballot to permit the state to take an ownership stake or equity share in a private company in return for technology or intellectual property created at or acquired by one of the state's universities. First sponsor: Sen. Melvin Others: Sen. Huppenthal Last action: Awaits committee assignment. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/scr1043p.pdf).




javascript:openNewWindow('histories.cfm?bill=SCR1031',550,750);









http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/scr1031p.pdf







Bills of general interest on which no position will be taken at this time:

HB2279: STATE DEBT; EXPENDITURES; REPORT Requires the JLBC to analyze state debt, terms of financing, the impact of the debt on taxes and expenditures, the appropriate revenue streams dedicated for repayment and the total amount of state debt. Requires the Department of Revenue to provide JLBC with information on outstanding indebtedness and debt limitations that pertain to the state's debt and expenditures. First sponsor: Rep. Kavanagh. Last action: 4/2 Passed COW with amendment and awaits House 3rd Reading (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2279p.pdf)

HB2280: STATE BUDGET; REVENUES; EXPENDITURE; REPORT Requires that the Governor's annual budget report to the Legislature include on its first page a statement whether the total amount of state revenue will or will not exceed the amount of state revenues appropriated for the current fiscal year, adjusted for changes in population and inflation. Requires the Legislature to adopt a statement within the General Appropriations Act that the appropriated amount will or will not exceed the amount of revenue appropriated for the current fiscal year, adjusted for changes in population and inflation. The duties of the Economic Estimates Commission are expanded to include establishing the percentage change in population and cost of living to be used to comply with the above requirements. First sponsor: Rep. Kavanagh. Last action: 3/24 Passed COW with technical amendment and awaits House 3rd Reading. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2280p.pdf) HB2509: INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS; SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITIES Allows local governments to form a separate legal entity for the purpose of procurement pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement. First sponsor: Rep. Pratt Others: Rep. Brown, Rep. Burges, Rep. Mason, Sen. S. Allen, Sen. Rios Last action: Bill failed to advance. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2509p.pdf). HB2541: BUDGETS; POSTING ON WEBSITES Requires all government entities, including school districts and community colleges, to post their budgets on their official website. First sponsor: Rep. Biggs Last action: Bill failed to advance. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2541p.pdf). HCR2015: LEASED EDUCATIONAL PROPERTY; PROPERTY TAX Proposes an amendment to the Constitution to appear on the 2010 ballot to exempt from property taxes any property that is leased to school districts or charter schools and used for educational instruction and support. First sponsor: Rep. Mason Others: Rep. Driggs, Rep. Goodale Last action: Bill failed to advance. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2015p.pdf).

















javascript:openNewWindow('histories.cfm?bill=HCR2015',550,750);








Bills of general interest … continued:

HCR2020: STATE APPROPRIATION LIMIT; REDUCTION Proposes an amendment to the Constitution to appear on the 2010 ballot to reduce the state appropriation limit to 6.4% of the total personal income for the state for that fiscal year from 7%. Additionally, any state resident has standing to bring a civil action in superior court to enforce compliance. If state revenue collections exceed the maximum allowable under the new appropriation limit, the excess shall be distributed as a tax refund in a manner prescribed by law. First sponsor: Rep. Montenegro Others: Rep. Antenori, Rep. Gowan Last action: Bill failed to advance. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2020p.pdf). HCR2025: STATE EXPENDITURE LIMITATION; REDUCTION Proposes an amendment to the Constitution to appear on the 2010 ballot to reduce the state expenditure limit to 6.8% from 7.0% of total personal income. Adjustments to the limit to account for transference of funding responsibilities between levels of government are no longer allowed. The only exclusions allowed are deposits to the Budget Stabilization Fund and payments to make up for deferrals of payments of state aid to schools. Effective July 1, 2011. First sponsor: Rep. Kavanagh Last action: Bill failed to advance. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2025p.pdf). SB1276: COMMUNITY COLLEGES; RESEARCH; ROYALTY INCOME Allows community college governing boards to enter into agreements to pursue research and development, to organize a corporation to pursue product development, or to establish patent policies regarding research conducted by the college. First sponsor: Sen. L. Gray Last action: 6/8 Referred to Sen educ. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1276p.pdf). SB1388: GRADUATION REQUIREMENT; COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAM Allows a minimum score on one or more nationally recognized college entrance exams, as determined by the State Board of Education, to be substituted for passing scores on the AIMS test in order to satisfy high school graduation requirements. First sponsor: Sen. Huppenthal Others: Sen. S. Allen, Sen. Gould, Sen. L. Gray, Sen. Harper, Sen. Melvin, Sen. Pierce, Sen. Verschoor Last action: 6/8 Referred to Sen educ. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1388p.pdf). SB1461: STATE AGENCY BUDGETS; REVIEW Creates new session law to request that the Governor direct the Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting to review each agency's budget to find efficiencies that may yield significant cost savings and submit a preliminary report by Jan. 11, 2010 and a final report by Dec. 1, 2010. First sponsor: Sen. Gorman Last action: 6/8 Referred to Sen appro. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1461p.pdf).



























Bills of general interest … continued:

SB1463: PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE; PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS Sets procedures by which public entities may enter into public-private partnerships for any project initiated either by the public or private entity. Contains an emergency clause. First sponsor: Sen. Gorman Last action: Awaits committee assignment. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1463p.pdf). SCR1006: STATE APPROPRIATION LIMIT; REDUCTION Proposes an amendment to the Constitution to appear on the 2010 ballot to reduce the maximum amount that the Legislature may appropriate in any fiscal year to 6.4% of the total personal income of the state from 7%. Effective for fiscal years beginning July 1, 2011. State revenue in excess of appropriations in any fiscal year must be paid as a refund to individuals who filed tax returns for that year. Also gives any resident of this state legal standing to bring a civil action in superior court to enforce compliance. First sponsor: Sen. Pearce Others: Rep. Burges, Rep. Court, Rep. Kavanagh, Rep. Montenegro, Sen. S. Allen, Sen. Gorman, Sen. Gould, Sen. Verschoor Last action: Hearing in Sen appro set for 6/9. (Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/scr1006p.pdf).

















Documents

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS - June 18 and 19, 2009