Faculty and
Instructional Staff
December 7, 2005
•Master Planning
•Budget/Funding Updates
•Branding
•Campus Master Plan
•Part of Strategic Plan
•Develop plan, iteratively, that integrates academic,
research, and physical design
•Follows Landscape Architecture Plan
•RFQ selection process
•Fletcher Thompson Architecture Engineering
partnered with Ayers/Saint/Gross
•Experience includes U of Maryland, U of Chicago,
GWU, Rutgers
•Focus group and plan integration approach
•Complete in 2006
Ayers Saint Gross
Fletcher Thompson
Project Management, Architectural, and
MEP Review of Existing Facilities
Master Planning Services
Principal-in-Charge
Kevin King, AIA
Thomas A. Fantacone, AIA
Lead Planner
Campus Planners
Peter D. Ottavio, PE
Chris Rice, AIA
Naomi Susman
Project Manager
Principal-in-Charge
Principal of Engineering
Robert McNamara, AIA, PP
Consulting
Consulting Engineers
Engineers
Collaborative
Collaborative (CEC)
(CEC)
Structural
Structural Review
Review
Of
Existing
Facilities
Of Existing Facilities
Adam Gross, FAIA
Paulien
Paulien &
& Associates
Associates
Langan
Langan Engineering
Engineering
Cost
Cost Estimating
Estimating
Site
Site // Civil
Civil // Utilities
Utilities
Environmental
Environmental Review
Review
Of
Of Existing
Existing Facilities
Facilities
Space
Space Utilization
Utilization
New
Buildings
Sites
High
School
Landscape Master Plan
Acquisition
Process
Observations
Final Plan
2 months
3 months
Principles & Concept
Design Guidelines 2 months
1 month
Precinct Studies 1 month
•FY07 budget Issues
•State issues
•Structural deficit ($5 B)
•Transportation Trust Fund
•School construction
•Stem cell research (grants=$350M,
RU/RWJ=$95M, NJIT=$50M, others=$80M)
•Pensions
•Property taxes
•FY07 budget Issues
•Higher Ed issues
•Capital bond issue
STATE
REQUEST
STATE
APPROPRIATION
FISCAL YEAR
SHORTFALL
%FISCAL
YEAR
TUITION/ FEE
SHORTFALL
REVENUE
FY0 2
5 6 ,1 1 0
5 2 ,1 3 3
(3 ,9 7 7 )
-7 .1 %
6 2 ,3 7 8
FY0 3
5 5 ,8 9 6
4 9 ,6 2 1
(6 ,2 7 5 )
-1 1 .2 %
6 7 ,5 9 6
FY0 4
5 2 ,3 6 7
4 8 ,6 9 0
(3 ,6 7 7 )
-7 .0 %
FY0 5
5 1 ,5 2 6
5 0 ,1 1 2
(1 ,4 1 4 )
FY0 6 (a)
5 3 ,1 3 1
5 0 ,9 1 2
(2 ,2 1 9 )
Cumulative
(a) proposed
(3 1 ,1 4 7 )
TUITION/ FEE
REVENUE ∆
N/ A
Annual
% Increase
Tuition
%
Tuition
Cap
BUDGET
EXPENDITURE
REDUCTIONS
6 .9
-
5 ,2 1 8
9 .7
-
7 2 ,7 7 7
5 ,1 8 1
8 .5
9 .0
3 ,9 3 6
-2 .7 %
7 4 ,4 6 2
1 ,6 8 5
8 .0
8 .0
6 ,0 7 0
-4 .2 %
8 0 ,0 2 4
5 ,5 6 2
7 .0
8 .0
3 ,3 0 3
1 7 ,6 4 6
N/ A
2 ,8 9 6
1 6 ,2 0 5
Federal R&D
Expenditures in Millions
FY2003 Federal
Engineering R&D
Expenditures in Millions
Institution
Princeton
NJIT
Rutgers
R&D Exp in $M
$32
$21
$14
Fiscal Year
R&D Exp in $M
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
$17.4
$23.3
$27.6
$30.5
$29.4
$33.7
FY06 Congressional Projects in Millions
Project
Bill
Advanced Cluster Energetics
DoD
Disruptive Technology Accelerator DoD
Homeland Defense InteroperabilityDoD
Smart Gun
SSJC
TELUS
Trans
Liberty Corridor
Trans
Port Security
Trans
International Intermodal Trans CenTrans
Power Grid Security
E&W
Total
Request House
$3.8
$5.0
$5.0
$2.0
$1.0
$4.0
$2.0
$2.0
$2.0
$26.8
Senate
Conf
Law
$2.5
$4.0
$3.0
$0.0
$0.4
─
─
─
─
$0.4
─
─
─
─
$0.4
─
─
─
─
$0.4
$1.0
$4.0
$0.4
$0.0
$0.0
$6.9
$3.4
$0.4
$5.8
New Jersey Institute of Technology is betterknown and better-liked in all parts of the state
compared to 2001.
Q4 - Please tell me if you have a favorable opinion of…
New Jersey Institute of Technology.
80% 80%
Percentage of NJ residents
64%
60% 60%
49%
69%
5/04 4/01
62%
56%
45%
40% 40%
47%
41%
33%
38%
20% 20%
0% 0%
TotalTotal
NorthNorth
Central
Central
South
South
Parents
Parents