BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Finance, Facilities
and Operations Committee
February 26, 2015
No item in this report for release prior to 12:30 p.m. Thursday, February 26, 2015.
A
G
E
N
D
A
NIU Board of Trustees
FINANCE, FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
12:30 p.m. – Thursday – February 26, 2015
Board of Trustees Room
315 Altgeld Hall
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
2. Verification of Appropriate Notification of Public Meeting
3. Meeting Agenda Approval .......................................................................................... Action........... i
4. Review and Approval of Minutes of November 6, 2014 ................................................ Action.......... 1
5. Chair's Comments/Announcements
6. Public Comment*
7. University Recommendations
a. Division of Information Technology - Fiber Optic Network Expansion...................... Action........ 22
b. FY15 Physical Plant Contracted Electrical Services-Open Order Amendment ............ Action........ 23
c.
FY16 Transportation Services, Physical Plant & Finance, Facilities & Operations
Motor Fuels ........................................................................................................ Action........ 24
d. FY16 NIU Foundation Professional Services Contract ............................................. Action........ 25
e. FY16 Student Health Insurance Fee ..................................................................... Action........ 26
f.
FY16 Student Health Insurance ............................................................................ Action........ 27
g. FY16 Materials Management-Central Stores Commodities Contract Renewal ........... Action........ 28
h. FY15 Office of General Counsel-Open Order Amendment for Internal and External
Investigations ..................................................................................................... Action........ 29
i.
FY16 Architectural & Engineering Services and Physical Plant Open Orders ............. Action........ 30
j.
FY16 Physical Plant Elevator Services and Maintenance Open Order contract
Renewal ............................................................................................................. Action........ 31
k.
FY16 International Programs Division Expenditures ............................................... Action........ 32
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
-i-
February 26, 2015
l.
FY16 University Outreach Education Centers Catering Services Contract Renewals .. Action........ 33
m. Division of Marketing and Communications Comprehensive Marketing Consultative
Services.............................................................................................................. Action........ 34
n. FY16 ITS Document Services and Materials Management Printing Paper Open
Orders Contract Renewal ..................................................................................... Action........ 35
o. FY16 DOIT – Document Services Campus Copier Program Contract Renewal .......... Action........ 36
p. Office of the Provost Externally Funded Research and Scholarship Benchmarking .. Action........ 37
q. FY16 Student Mass Transit Board Campus Busing System Contract Renewal .......... Action........ 38
r.
Northern Illinois Research Foundation Expenditure Authority Amendment .............. Action........ 39
s.
Intercollegiate Athletics/Facilities Replacement of Turf at Huskie Stadium............... Action........ 40
t.
Treasury Operations – Signatory Authorization ..................................................... Action........ 41
u. FY15 Office of General Counsel-Open Order Amendment for Outside Legal Services
Regarding Civil Complaints .................................................................................. Action...... 41a
v.
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Joint Appointment between NIU and Argonne
National Laboratory ............................................................................................. Action...... 41b
8. University Report
a. Quarterly Summary Report for Transactions in Excess of $100,000 ................ Information........ 42
b. Periodic Report on Investments ................................................................... Information........ 45
9. Other Matters
10. Next Meeting Date
11. Adjournment
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
-ii-
February 26, 2015
*The Board and its committees comply with P.A. 91-0715 through its Bylaws, Article II, Section 5.B:
1. Consistent with Public Act 91-0715 and reasonable constraints determined by these Bylaws and the Chair, at each regular or special meeting of
the Board or its committees that is open to the public, members of the public may request a brief time on the approved agenda of the meeting
to address the Board on relevant matters within its jurisdiction.
2. Committees of the Board review University proposals for action and make adjustments and endorsements as appropriate for further
consideration by the full Board. Public comments are generally most useful at meetings of Board committees, where proposals are first
considered and the time for interaction most feasible.
3. To facilitate an orderly process, appearance requests must be registered on a Board-provided form and submitted to the Board’s Parliamentarian
at least 45 minutes before the meeting is scheduled to be called to order. To be recognized, the appearance request will include the name,
address and position of the individual wishing to speak, the name of the organization or group represented, a concise summary of the
presentation, and whether the requestor has appeared earlier on the topic before any other meeting of the Board. The Parliamentarian may
confer with registered speakers to cooperatively assist the Chair of the meeting in assuring coordinated issue presentation and an efficient use of
allocated time. The Parliamentarian will acquaint requestors with the generally acceptable rules of decorum for their presentations. In lieu of
oral presentations, individuals may present brief written materials not to exceed five (5) pages to the Parliamentarian for distribution and
consideration by the Board in advance of the meeting.
4. The Chair of the meeting will recognize duly registered individuals at the appropriate point during the meeting. Unduly repetitive comments may
be discouraged and restricted by the Chair. To assure an orderly and timely meeting the Chair may limit time allotments to five minutes or less,
may delay or defer appearances when appropriate, and defer or refer questions received from presenters for answers if available.
Anyone needing special accommodations to participate in the NIU Board of Trustees meetings
should contact Ellen Andersen, Director of Special Events, at (815)753-1999, as soon as
possible, normally at least a week before the scheduled Board meeting.
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
-iii-
February 26, 2015
Minutes of the
NIU Board of Trustees
November 6, 2014
COMMITTEE MEETING
FINANCE, FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 pm by Chair Marc Strass in the Board of Trustees Room, 315
Altgeld Hall. Recording Secretary Vicky Rippberger conducted a roll call of the Trustees. Members present
were Trustees Robert Boey, Wheeler Coleman, Robert Marshall, Cherilyn Murer, Student Trustee Paul
Julion, Board Chair John Butler, Committee Chair Marc Strauss. Also present were President Douglas
Baker, Committee Liaisons Lisa Freeman, Nancy Suttenfield, and Lesley Rigg, Board Liaison Mike Mann,
and Committee Liaison and Board General Counsel Gregory Brady.
VERIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
Confirmation of Opening Meetings Act compliance was given by Board General Counsel Gregory Brady.
MEETING AGENDA APPROVAL
A motion to approve the agenda was made by Trustee Murer; seconded by Trustee Boey. The motion
was carried.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made to approve the minutes of the August 28, 2014 meeting by Student Trustee Julion;
seconded by Trustee Boey. The motion was carried.
CHAIR’S COMMENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Strauss welcomed everybody to today’s meeting. Now that we’ve gone through the formalities, let
me start by welcoming two new people. First Vicky Rippberger, who is at least for today going to serve as
our scribe and faithful attendant; so thank you, and we look forward to working with you. And also I’d
like to welcome Michele Danza. She is the new Director of Procurement and Strategic Sourcing. Did I get
the title right? Well we’ll look forward to working with you as well. I also want to take this opportunity to,
on behalf of the committee, bid farewell to Nancy Suttenfield. Not that she’s leaving campus, but this is
going to be her last meeting with the committee, and I’ve really enjoyed working with Nancy. She’s been
instrumental in helping us find a budget process, lead us on the road toward financial transparency, help
evaluate the capabilities of the people within her organization, help us understand bond funding, and the
amount she’s been able to accomplish here in about a year has really been helpful to the committee and
to the board. I want to thank her for her service here and look forward to working with her for the
balance of her tenure. So thank you Nancy. I can see we have at least some University Advisory Council
members here. I’m not sure whether they’re all here, but Jay I see for sure. Do you have any comments
Jay? Jay responded that he had no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Strauss asked General Counsel Brady if we had any registered public comment requests. General
Counsel Brady stated that no such requests had been received.
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
1
February 26, 2015
UNIVERSITY RECOMMENDATIONS/REPORTS
Action Item 7.a. – Bowl Game Participation Expenses
Nancy Suttenfield presented the first action item which relates to bowl game participation expenses. It’s
happy news to have this on the agenda, and it is a practice that we’ve followed in the past in anticipation
of being invited to a bowl. We seek advance approval to obligate funds and enter into a business
relationship appropriate to a bowl invitation. In seeking approval from the board, it is with the
commitment and the board’s expectation that we file a follow-up report on all of our expenses and the
other terms associated with the business relationship.
A motion was made to approve the recommendation by Trustee Boey; seconded by Student Trustee
Julion. The motion was carried.
Action Item 7.b. – FY16 Tuition, Fees, and Room and Board
Additional Speakers: Eric Weldy, Vice President for Student Affairs
Management
Brad Bond, Dean of the Graduate School and
Associate Vice President for Graduate Studies
Mike Stang, Executive Director for Housing & Dining
&
Enrollment
Nancy Suttenfield presented our second action item, which as Chair Strauss mentioned, is our
centerpiece agenda item for today. It relates to all of our pricing recommendations for fiscal ’16. I’d just
like to go back, not quite a year ago, and talk a little bit about our focus last year. The focus when we
met last year to review pricing recommendations for fiscal ’15 was on access and affordability for our
undergraduate students and a recommendation that we made for a flat cost of attendance, pricing
structure for our students and at the same time to advance approval for all of our pricing from June to
February which improves our competitive position with respect to other institutions in Illinois. This year
we have continued our focus on these same two concerns, access and affordability, as well as even
earlier pricing approval. I’m pleased to add that in addition to the change that we made last year wherein
we held costs of attendance flat for entering undergraduates, this year we’re recommending a reduction
of $600.00 for new undergraduate students compared to fiscal ’15. That’s about a 2 ½ percent overall
reduction largely attributable to a change in our board package. We’re also pleased to say that there will
be similar slight reductions for our continuing students in the actual tuition costs that they will see in their
bills for next year as well as dining charges if they reside and dine on campus. In addition, this year
we’ve endeavored to simplify, streamline, and realign the underlying structure of each one of our sticker
prices, often rethinking the overall rationale for the structure that we’ve used for many years, and
therefore we have quite a number of reforms that we would like to discuss with you today. I’ll just
highlight what some of them are, and then we’ll have the opportunity to get into them in more detail. In
the realm of tuition, we looked at a declining credit hour rate structure that had been in place for quite a
few years. We also looked at our pricing for out of state students with respect to the tuition that they
pay. We looked at ways that we could bring about greater consistency between pricing for on campus,
off campus, and on line, and we looked at the relationship between instructional charges as well as other
related academic fees at the graduate and law level. With respect to student fees, we looked at
collapsing over a dozen fees down to a group of about four through a two-year phase-in process, and
then importantly in the room and board area, we looked at brining pricing down and becoming especially
more competitive in that area because it appeared that we were well out of step with other Illinois
institutions when we did our review last year. As part of that we updated our overall board plan to reflect
a plan that is already proven to be very popular with our students. Many, many people participated in the
process this year to bring you these recommendations. They participated in a very thoughtful and
enthusiastic way and there are too many of them for me to name today, but let me just say that they
represent, I think, the best minds at Northern Illinois University. They came to their work on these tasks
from Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, Finance, and importantly from the student body. With respect to
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
2
February 26, 2015
the tuition recommendations, we had very, very good participation and extensive discussion this year on
two occasions at the Dean’s Council. So I would like to congratulate and thank each and every person
that participated in this process this year and helped us put together this package of recommendations.
And just as importantly the work that they did in contributing to greater transparency in pricing,
everything that we offer to students that come to our campus, whether they’re the instructional charges
or our non-instructional charges. So with that as an opening overview of what we’ve done and the
objectives behind, I would now like to call upon Dean Brad Bond who’s the Dean of the Graduate School
and who served as the chair of our tuition task force. He will provide a summary of the recommendations
related to tuition and other academic pricing and he will then be prepared to take questions, and
Executive Vice President and Provost Freeman and I will assist in any way that we can. Then following
Dean Brad Bond’s comments, we will invite Eric Weldy, Vice President for Student Affairs and Enrollment
Management, to do a similar summary on other student fees including room and board.
Brad Bond opened, just to reiterate a couple of things that Nancy had said. First of all, at the risk of
being hyperbolic, it might be the most inclusive conversation about tuition structure and pricing that I’ve
ever seen on this campus. It has been an iterative process and it’s involved a large number of people.
Throughout our discussion, we tried to focus on a couple things, but primarily on being very strategic and
understanding the decisions that we were making would shape the strategy of the university moving
forward as it attempted to address enrollment and retention issues; revenue issues as well. I’m pleased
to say what I’ll do today is just to provide you, hopefully, a neat summary of the items that are in the
board book. We’ll take them rather systematically if you don’t mind. We’ll start on page 12 with the
declining rate schedule and the bundled tuition rate for undergraduates. The declining rate schedule was
instituted in about 1998. The purpose of that schedule was to encourage students to buy credit hours in
bulk. It has not had the necessary desired effect. If you don’t understand the declining rate schedule, this
is the way it functions. For students who are part-time, enrolled in 1 to 11 hours, they are charged a
tuition rate, a per credit hour tuition rate. When they enroll in 12 – 14 hours the per credit hour tuition
rate is lowered. When they enroll in 15 or 16 hours the rate is again lowered. Besides failing to achieve
its desired purpose, which was to encourage students to enroll in more hours, the declining rate schedule
also causes some extraordinary confusion amongst students and parents. An example of that is when a
student drops from 15 to 14 credit hours in a given semester, the charges that the student confronts
actually increase. It’s a very difficult and indeed an illogical conversation to have with the student to
explain that less costs more. The bundled tuition rate that’s being proposed here actually addresses and
eliminates that difficulty. It continues to charge a per credit hour rate to part-time students, those who
are enrolled in 1 to 11 hours. But at the 12 hour mark, all students pay the same tuition. That tuition rate
at the 12 hour mark is set as the equivalent of 13 ½ credit hours roughly. 13 ½ credit hours is about the
average credit hours in which undergraduate students are enrolled. The bundled tuition rate also
provides an undergraduate student, who intends to enroll full time, a very clear incentive to enroll in
something beyond the minimal full-time level. For example, a student who intends to be full-time is
advantaged to enroll in 15 or 16 hours. The price is exactly the same as it is for 12 hours. Indeed, if you
look at the 16 credit hour level for students who will arrive next fall, they will be charged about $200.00
less than a student in the exact same situation this year. The bundle rate has that effect. We do care that
students enroll beyond the minimum to be full-time students. We need them to be enrolled at that level.
We want them to be. It’s the right thing to emphasize. It emphasizes to students that we want them to
complete their degrees in four years, and there’s a lot of pressure to do that. There’s pressure on the
institution to do that because of the ever-growing influence that performance-based funding will have.
For prior truth in tuition years you’ll notice on page 14, table 1, that the bundled rate kicks in at 14 rather
than 12 hours. What’s less evident in that table is that we honor our legislatively mandated commitment
to truth in tuition by actually lowering, if only marginally, the tuition charged to every student who’s
subject to a prior year’s truth in tuition. The second recommendation that I’ll draw your attention to is
the one in which we seek to improve the geographic diversification of our undergraduate student body.
We make that recommendation based on the proposition that establishing an alternative tuition rate for
students in nearby states will facilitate their enrollment. An alternative tuition rate for students who are
residents in propinquities states, in our case that would be Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, is not a
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
3
February 26, 2015
novel idea. Many institutions in the state of Illinois do that. We have not done it in the past. We do
propose something a little bold in extending that alternative rate to include residents in the states of
Michigan and Ohio. The primary purpose in doing that is we do have traction with students in those
states. We do attract students from those states, in small numbers, admittedly. We believe that owed
largely to the success of Huskie athletics in the MAC conference, which is numerically dominated by
schools in those two states. And just as Huskie athletics are capable of bringing student athletes from
those states, we believe that we’ll also be able, strategically thinking, be able to draw other students as
well. The other tuition recommendations I want to draw your attention to all revolve around graduate or
professional tuition. But like the items that focus on undergraduate tuition, these are intended to pave
away forward by removing barriers to enrollment growth. One of the components that I’ll start with is on
page 13. There is a proposal there that seeks to consolidate for graduate and law students all tuition and
fees under the rubric of tuition. We make this recommendation to approve a consolidated tuition rate
because every semester we lose graduate students who have employer reimbursement benefits. We lose
those respective students because NIU charges tuition and general fees and program fees and excellence
fees and regional delivery fees. And for students who have employer reimbursement, that reimbursement
typically only covers what is labeled as tuition. By calling what we charge students tuition, we will be able
to attract them because right now what happens is those students look at our price and what they have
to pay, and though the overall price is substantively lower than private institutions where they often go,
it’s much more affordable for them to go to a more expensive institution than it is to come here. We
believe this will help us with enrollment, particularly in professional programs. In constructing this
consolidated tuition rate, it’s important to recognize in part what will happen there is that we have to
smooth out some of the differences that we see in fees. For example, the academic enhancement
surcharge which is currently on a sliding scale of $125.00 per semester or $250.00 per semester, will
need to be evened out to be $22.00 per credit hour. Likewise, the outreach delivery charge which for
students who take courses off campus or on line is currently $56.00 an hour will need to be evened out
across all graduate students enrolled to be $18.00 an hour. The next recommendation is not unrelated to
the first or the final one. It seeks to get your approval to create program level differential tuition rates.
Differential tuition is not an unfamiliar concept in higher education institutions. It’s certainly not
unfamiliar with many of our competitor institutions which do charge differentials based on the enrollment,
a program which a student is enrolled. As envisioned here, differential tuition will be a substitute for
program excellence; regional delivery fees which do in fact function as differential tuition under a
different name. Restyling those fees as tuition is necessary to consolidate instructional and institutional
charges. More importantly, by approving the proposed range for differential tuition to be charged to all
students enrolled in a specific program, the board will be turning loose the creativity and the
entrepreneurial spirit of faculty. Effectively, by assuming regional delivery fees under the rubric of
differential tuition and spreading those charges across all students enrolled in an academic program, the
board will be removing location and modality as a consideration. The board will be incentivizing academic
programs to educate the greatest number of students, graduate students, regardless of location or
modality. The board item related to differential tuition asks approval for establishing a minimum and
maximum differential rate. Here the compressed timeline in which we’ve operated as a task force has
affected our ability to consult widely enough to develop program specific differential rates. Faculty and
chairs and deans will need some time to consult and figure out at what rate, if they wish to charge a
rate, differential they should use. We do envision a process that would require academic units to propose
and receive approval from the CFO and the provost for any differential charged. We do envision a
process for reporting to the board what those approved rates are and how they’re functioning. The
compressed timeline under which we operate and not withstanding approving a range, as proposed here
for differential graduate professional rates, will help academic programs be sufficiently nimble to address
dynamic market conditions. Finally, seeking approval for a range of differential rates is not without
precedence with the Board of Trustees. Some years ago, the Board approved a maximum rate for
regional delivery charges so that Dr. Kaplan would not have to seek specific board approval each time
that a program wished to alter the charge. Since the differential rate will be supplanting the regional
delivery charge in part, the item seeks an extension of the consideration that’s been previously afforded.
The final item that I’ll point to is the on-line tuition that’s proposed there. Everyone at the institution
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
4
February 26, 2015
knows that for years now we’ve struggled to get on a path forward to do on-line graduate education, online education for adult students. Provost Freeman and Dr. Kaplan have of late started down that path by
bringing together the sources of e-learning and the Center for Faculty Development and Instructional
Design and placing them under the rubric of the Office of Online Program Development and Support.
That effort is intended to seed and to bolster ongoing efforts to deliver outstanding academic programs
on-line as well as certificates to working adults. The justification for establishing a per credit hour range
for programs that undergo a process for designation on line is not unlike the justification for differential
tuition. In fact, the two are intimately related. We seek to provide proper incentives to encourage faculty
to think creatively about how best to provide an NIU education to the largest possible pool of students. I
readily admit that the range that we ask the board to approve is wide. The minimum per credit charge is
roughly the equivalent of proposed graduate tuition rate, and the maximum requested is not
unprecedented in the marketplace for online business and health-science related degree programs. That
maximum however is at the upper bounds of the price charged for online education. We are aware of the
need to balance cost and the desire to grow enrollment. We also know that working professionals
desiring advanced credentials have created a very vibrant marketplace where quality and convenience
are very much in demand, highly desired. The tuition range for which we seek approval allows the
university to compete in a very diverse online graduate education, adult education market. Miss
Suttenfield I will yield to you. It’s your show. I’ll take questions or you can.
Chair Strauss asked if there were any questions for Dr. Bond before we move on to hear the presentation
regarding room and board and fees? So let me ask one question with regard to the graduate level tuition,
if we are okay with consolidating the two and creating a range, how long would that arrangement remain
in effect?
Provost Freeman responded that the presumption is that on an annual basis, when we set tuition and
fees at this committee meeting and the subsequent board meeting, we would ask the board either to
reaffirm or modify the range.
Chair Strauss thanked Provost Freeman. If there are no other questions for Dr. Bond at this point then I
think the plan is to hear from Dr. Weldy next.
Dr. Weldy thanked Nancy for giving a nice summary in regards to room and board rates as well as our
student fees. What I would like to do is to just share a few highlights in looking at our housing and
dining, excuse me our room and board rates. There were some changes that were made; our
recommendations for changes for FY16, and I just want to highlight a few of those. One is looking at
coming up with a single meal plan focusing on our unlimited access meal plan. In FY15, our current fiscal
year, when factoring in the meal plan options available, there are 16 possible room and board rate
combinations when factoring in only the rates by room type. The recommendation for FY16 is to come up
with just one single meal plan, unlimited access meal plan, for our students. This will allow for just three
possible combinations. So parents can now at a glance quickly determine the per semester cost of living
on campus. One of the difficulties for our parents and for families is figuring out what is it going to cost
as it relates to room and board and being on campus. So depending on where a student decides to live, it
basically was a little bit complicated. What this allows us to do is really to fall in line with our competitors
and what they’re doing and make it easier for our families to make a decision. The other thing I want of
focus on is from the standpoint of the language. When we talk about rooms, (and there are different
types of rooms this year, for example, students have the options of a single occupancy room, a double
occupancy, or a suite), to simplify the language, we’ll have basically just two areas, one is the single
occupancy rate and the other one is what we call a multiple occupancy rate. So we now consider all living
spaces that house two or more students as a multiple occupancy which is in line with what many other
colleges and universities are doing around the state and around the country. There are no competitive or
market advantages in pricing suite style rooms differently than standard, double-style rooms, and so I
think that this a good decision on our part from the standpoint of making this recommendation. As we
move to a single unlimited access meal plan, what we’re doing is instead of having two rates, one for
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
5
February 26, 2015
room, one for board, we’re looking to have one single rate for our students. And so as we move to a
single unlimited access meal plan, which all students who are living on campus are required to purchase
on campus, the need for separate roommates and board rates has been eliminated. This will allow us to
present a single combined room and board rate which is also in keeping with what other institutions are
doing, and once again I think it simplifies it for our families and parents and students from the standpoint
of looking at what will it cost to live on campus here at NIU versus other institutions, other competitors.
So those were just a few things I wanted to highlight in regards to the room and board rates, and I think
it would probably be easier to open up for questions here and then go to the student fees.
Chair Strauss asked if there were any questions at this point? The following discussion took place:
Chair Strauss: Let me ask just a couple then and we’ll come back. With regard to multiple occupancy,
you could have a single resident in a multiple occupancy room, at least in theory?
Eric W eldy: In theory, I think so.
Chair Strauss: What would be the pricing for a multiple occupancy room occupied by a single person in
the proposed plan?
Eric W eldy: In the proposed plan I think the price would basically be the same.
Chair Strauss: It would be the same, alright. Again, at least in theory, you could have a student living
off-campus that wanted to buy a meal plan. Is that still an option?
Eric W eldy: Yes.
Chair Strauss: And what would the pricing for that be?
Eric W eldy: The commuter plan - Mike do you have the price off-hand?
M ike Stang: There’s a variety of options for off-campus students. The highest plan is just over $1,000
for the semester.
Chair Strauss: Alright, so is that something that we would need to approve but that isn’t in table two?
Eric W eldy: In regards to the commuter?
Chair Strauss: In regards to the rate for the commuter. We may not solve this today. I just want to
make sure that we’ve done everything that we need to do to give you the approvals required.
Eric W eldy: Okay. I don’t think that we’re not making any changes with the commuter meal plan rates.
Chair Strauss: Alright I’ll just leave it as a question for now.
Chair Strauss: The last question I have is regarding the table two provision for Grant Tower B which
isn’t in service currently.
Eric W eldy: Yes, that’s correct.
P resident Bak er: If I could just briefly speak to that, we had a wonderful challenge this fall which was
with residence halls closed we had more students than we had room. It’s a wonderful thing to have as an
issue. We’re sixty?
M ike Stang: About seventy.
P resident Bak er: Seventy students short so we used Holmes and open areas and other things. So
looking forward next year with our increased recruiting efforts, we’re hoping we have a bigger challenge,
and so we need to decide going forward what we need to do, and this is one proposal. We’ve got two
residence halls that are mothballed; one is Lincoln and one is Grant A and B, and we’re doing an analysis
on that right now. So I’d offer this as a placeholder that we’ll come back to you in December. We need to
do some more analysis to finalize what we want to do there. We’ve got a lot of options with the wings in
Lincoln and then the two towers. I think this is a placeholder number we might frame it as, and we’ll
come back to you with more detail in December.
Chair Strauss: Thank you. Bob?
Trustee Boey: Eric, under meal plans, you have the Huskie unlimited at $1,040, I understand that;
Huskie 65 at $1,040; what is 65? 65 years old? I figure it can’t be because Huskie 90 is more expensive
than Huskie 65.
Eric W eldy: No I don’t think it’s in regards to how old you are.
Trustee Boey: No I’m kidding, but help me with the numbers 65 and 90.
Eric W eldy: Under the FY16 recommendation, we’re just going with the one meal plan, the Huskie
unlimited plan, and so the other two would be eliminated for FY16.
Trustee Boey: Thank you.
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
6
February 26, 2015
Chair Strauss: Trustee Bulter?
Trustee Butler: Can you walk me through the determination that the room and board rate, the
consolidated room and board rate, that’s being proposed represents a 7.08% reduction, because I’m
seeing, as I’m doing some calculations, I’m not seeing there to be a significant difference if you were to
add the meal plans to the single rooms, because this is an analysis of single room costs, right? But if
you’re not in a single room, let’s say you’re in a double room, I guess I’m trying to figure out, it seems to
me it’s the same price. So if I’m in Gilbert in a double last year I’m paying $4,206 plus a meal plan, let’s
say the lower end of $1,040, that’s $5,246 isn’t that what you’re proposing in FY16?
Eric W eldy: Yes.
Trustee Butler: So how is that a reduction?
Eric W eldy: The number that is given in regards to the reduction rate of 7.08 percent is a little bit
misleading because not all of the students would be eligible for that reduced rate.
Trustee Butler: Why is that?
P resident Bak er: If you look at table two, go down to the meal plans, you see the Huskie 90?
Trustee Butler: Yeah.
P resident Bak er: So for this year per semester it’s $1,440.
Trustee Butler: Yeah.
P resident Bak er: And next year it would drop $400.00 a semester. So that $1,000 plus the tuition gets
you to the $5,246. It would have been that $400 per semester times two, $800. So that’s the decline you
see, and then if you go over to table four, it shows a parenthetical $800 in the change column. That’s the
difference. That’s the $800 reduction going from the premium meal plan.
Chair Strauss: Just calculated off the Huskie 90 meal plan not the Huskie unlimited meal plan?
P resident Bak er: Right.
Chair Strauss: That’s how you get to the 7.08 percent.
Trustee Butler: Okay, so the reduction analysis assumes the expensive meal plan.
Chair Strauss: Right.
P resident Bak er: So in the new one, it’s unlimited food, like just want you had for lunch until you eat
and blow up or something.
Chair Strauss asked if there were any other questions before we move on to the introduction of the fee
piece of this? Okay Eric let’s move on then.
Eric Weldy continued, that was a wonderful example of what some of our families and students were
going through in trying to figure this stuff out depending on where they would end up living on campus.
So I think it’s a good move. The next one is in regards to our students fees. There were a number of
subcommittees looking at the various fees, and I just want to note that, as last year, President Baker
charged the fee committees to review the continuing necessity of each fee as well as insuring that the
fees are being utilized for their intended purpose, and looking at FY16, assuming a zero percent fee
increase unless compelling documentation could be provided that would support the need for an
increase. As we look at our recommendations for FY16, we are recommending no fee increase for a
majority of the fees, with a couple of exceptions at this time. One is the bussing fee, and the other is the
student activity fee. Just to make a couple of notes in regards to these fees; in regards to the bus fee,
the recommended fee increase for FY16 is 3.49% or 33 cents per chargeable credit hour. The reason for
this is twofold: one is that we expect a decrease in the chargeable credit hours (basically, low enrollment
means that you have fewer dollars), and the second is an increase in the contract amount of the bus
contract due to the purchase of one bus each year. There are times when, due to heavy use by our
students depending on the routes, there’s been a need to add a bus. In regards to the student activity
fee, just a couple of talking points. There is a 3.04 % or 13 cents per chargeable credit hour
recommended increase. The recommended increase is due to increased funding requests for
programming from over 200 student organizations and service departments. The increase will also allow
for funding to remain flat due to drop in enrollment, possible drop in enrollment. Secondly, it is to
address any small salary increments for full-time staff.
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
7
February 26, 2015
Chair Strauss asked for questions and the following conversation ensued:
Trustee Butler: When you say full-time staff, you mean staff whose salaries are paid by the activity
fees?
Eric W eldy: Yes, that’s correct.
Trustee Butler: So this could be say a minimum wage alteration?
Eric W eldy: Yes, that’s correct.
Trustee Butler: The other question I had was if whereas tuition levels out at 12 credit hours, do fees
stop at that point or if you take 15 hours, are you charged 15 credit hours times the fee?
Eric W eldy: Yeah, I mean you’re charged per credit hour.
Chair Strauss: Up to 12.
Trustee Butler: It caps at 12 just like tuition does?
Eric W eldy: Yes.
Chair Strauss: Any other questions before we have a greater discussion? Let me just ask one before we
move on to the bus contract. We’re paying for a new bus the way that you described it?
Eric W eldy: No what I said was that in previous years there’s been a high demand depending on what
line, and so when we’ve had students that have been waiting and not being able to get on busses
because of the heavy use on a particular line, then we’ve had to add a bus line.
Chair Strauss: Oh I see. Not purchase a bus, add another bus to the mix.
Eric W eldy: Yes.
Chair Strauss: Okay if there are no other questions at present then thank you.
Eric W eldy: Thank you very much.
Chair Strauss asked for a motion to approve the recommendation that’s in the printed materials on page
12. This will at least get it on the floor, and then we can have a discussion about all three of these items.
A motion was made to approve the recommendation by Trustee Murer; seconded by Trustee Butler. The
motion was carried.
Chair Strauss opened it up for discussion:
Trustee Colem an: My question is related to total revenue. Based on the changes that we’re projecting
here, and I’m assuming we’re doing different scenarios with the students whether there’s an increase or
decrease of students on campus, what is the projected revenue impact with these changes?
Nancy Suttenfield: Imbedded in the tuition recommendation, is a 2.3 percent increase. The estimated
revenue on that is about 1.2 million dollars as I recall. Depending upon the assumptions you make about
how many students actually participate in the board program, you will have very different projections of
room and board rates. So we’ve run a lot of scenarios with a lot of combinations, and at this point in time
I can’t really give you a definitive net change in revenue, but we do have sufficient revenue coming in on
the tuition side to give us a little bit of maneuvering room for general operating purposes (meaning our
instructional programs and the administrative and student support programs that are paid from that) but
the margin will be very, very small. Because there are so many moving parts to all of this, it’s very hard
to anticipate what the actual change to the overall bottom line will be.
Trustee Colem an: So raising the rates in some cases could have an adverse impact to our bottom line.
Is that correct?
Nancy Suttenfield: It’s possible because we have to make changes, but when you put together a
variety of different assumptions, and that’s all they are, it’s really hard to compare what the world will
look like in this new structure to the structure that we know we have today.
Trustee Colem an: So with all moving parts and seeing only part of picture, this is really tough for me, I
have to tell you, because we’re looking at the income side of the organization, at least as it relates to our
students, without taking a closer look at the expense side of the equation. I know we’ve got to give rates
out there so we can market it and get people locked, but it’s kind of difficult looking at just one side of
the ledger at a time, and I struggle with this. I struggle blindly looking and approving rates and rate
increases, and I think you guys have done some creative things here. I like some of the creative stuff
that you’re trying to do in terms of bundling items and keeping it simple, but I also have to emphasize
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
8
February 26, 2015
that I’m concerned about the expense side of the equation, and we need to address that at a different
time. We have a tendency to say we will spend what we have. Right now we’re putting a down payment
on what we would project to get based on the income side, versus looking at both income and expenses
together. Maybe this is just the timing of it in the way we do things, but I struggle with this.
Nancy Suttenfield: My response is, and I think you make an excellent point, it is the elephant in the
room in terms of financial planning and budgeting for the next fiscal year. I think the way that we will
address it is to be extremely conservative in all of our assumptions about revenue and then assure that
when we are projecting expenses for next year, that we project worse case scenarios for revenue so that
we can assess the bottom line implications and make resource allocation decisions accordingly. That’s the
way I would respond. But it’s clear that the structure that we have is not working, and it’s clear that we
are maxed out in terms of what our pricing can be with respect to our competitors. So we do have to
make changes.
Trustee Colem an: One last comment. We’re losing a lot of students to nearby states. When we look in
terms of comparisons to the public institutions and their annual increases and their annual rates, how do
we compare to the Missouri’s and the Iowa’s and some of the other schools in Indiana and Michigan?
Nancy Suttenfield: Dean Bond did the task force look at that specifically?
Brad B ond: Can you ask the question again?
Trustee Colem an: Sure absolutely. On page 14 we have a breakout of the Illinois schools, and right
now I guess Northern is probably around the middle of the pack in terms of increases from the prior
year. The question I have is, since Illinois is losing as a state, we’re losing a lot of our high school
graduates to neighboring states, how do we stack up in terms of the fiscal year or the annual costs for
full-time students to some of the neighboring public institutions?
Brad B ond: In states like Iowa, our costs are going to be very similar. Their rates have been similar.
Missouri is a lot cheaper. Indiana is a bit cheaper for their in-state students. Those are our tough
markets, and if you go as far south as Kentucky, we have very few students from Kentucky for a reason,
it’s really cheap to go to school there.
P resident Bak er: If you go to Indiana or Iowa from Illinois?
Brad B ond: If you go there from Illinois, it gets pretty competitive. It gets pricey quickly. Some of those
states, well at least Iowa I believe, is three times the rate for out of state.
Trustee Colem an: What’s wrong with this picture? If Illinois is the second largest exporter of high
school students and those students are willing to pay three times the price, something’s wrong. Why? I
would love if anybody’s got any insight on that. So you’re saying they’re paying more to go out of state.
Brad B ond: That’s what the book rate says.
Trustee Colem an: Okay, but that may not necessarily be the case. They may be getting subsidies?
Brad B ond: That’s exactly right.
Trustee M urer: Okay I have like three disconnected thoughts on this and questions. The first one is,
could you just refresh my recollection as it relates to the truth in tuition. That remains a mandate?
Nancy Suttenfield: Yes.
Trustee M urer: Yes, so what we’re establishing here today is the tuition of an entering freshman that
will not have increases for four years. Do you say four or five years?
Chair Strauss: Nine semesters.
Trustee M urer: Nine semesters, alright, regardless of the costs, so there’s a guarantee of nine
semesters on this. Is the room and board applicable to that or it is just the tuition?
Nancy Suttenfield: Just the tuition.
Trustee M urer: Just the tuition. That is guaranteed.
Chair Strauss: Not fees.
Nancy Suttenfield: That is correct.
Trustee M urer: Alright the other question I had was when we were speaking of extending these rates
to multi states and including Ohio and Indiana, Wisconsin, are we saying that we are going to offer instate tuition? Tell me what that meant again in terms of when you talked about the multi-state approach.
Nancy Suttenfield: Currently all out-of-state students pay twice the in-state rate.
Trustee M urer: Literally?
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
9
February 26, 2015
Nancy Suttenfield: In-state tuition rate, and there is not state law or policy that mandates what the
out-of-state rate should be, we felt that we had opportunities to be more competitive in adjacent states if
we offered something less than two times the in-state rate. When we looked at what the other Illinois
institutions were charging out-of-state students, they were somewhere between 1.5 and 2.3 times
higher, so we felt this was a good opportunity to test the concept of going from two times to 1.4 times in
our geographic region, recognizing that there could be, would be a revenue loss associated with two
times versus 1.4 times.
Trustee M urer: You want to make it up in volume.
Nancy Suttenfield: We want to make it in volume, and we believe that approximately 80 students, if
we could purchase lists or practice other forms of targeting marketing, could make up that difference and
perhaps even give us a revenue gain.
Trustee M urer: Is it true that Missouri is one of the larger poachers of Illinois students? University of
Missouri?
Eric W eldy: Missouri, and Iowa is right up there.
Trustee M urer: What is the University of Missouri offering Illinois students vis-a-vis the rates that are
provided for an in-state Missouri student?
Eric W eldy: I don’t have that off the top of my head, but I think that Brad may.
Brad B ond: It’s not going to be real clear off the top of my head, but as I recall, Illinois residents, or
maybe all out-of-state residents, applying to the University of Missouri with a 25, I believe, or higher on
their ACT are guaranteed in-state rates.
Trustee Boey: Guaranteed in-state rates?
Brad B ond: In-state rates.
Trustee M urer: They’re getting the in-state rate?
Brad B ond: Yes. Now University of Missouri does have differential tuition so they have a book price on
their regular in-state rate, but if you start digging a little bit deeper, that in-state rate with a differential
goes up pretty high.
Trustee M urer: To be clear on what you just said, the University of Missouri is offering in-state tuition
to neighboring states including Illinois?
Brad B ond: And it’s attached to an ACT score.
Trustee M urer: Okay.
Brad B ond: Iowa State does a similar thing too.
Trustee M urer: Is Missouri one of the more aggressive universities doing that?
Brad B ond: University of Missouri is very aggressive doing that. I don’t know if Dr. Weldy’s seen data
lately, but I think the numbers of Illinois students that are going to Missouri are increasing.
Trustee M urer: And just one last question, Mr. Chair could I?
Chair Strauss: Yes is Brad going to answer it, if not maybe I could ask just a couple short questions.
Trustee M urer: Oh certainly.
Chair Strauss: Before we have him leave the microphone and then we’ll come back to you. So to finish
the context as long as you’re at the microphone, we haven’t explicitly talked about the tuition setting for
international students, and that’s a multiple as well. Is there a proposal for that or the continuation of a
practice?
Brad B ond: It would be treated just as out-of-state students, yes sir.
Chair Strauss: Two times
Brad B ond/ Nancy Suttenfield: Two times the rate.
Chair Strauss: Alright, and I know that everybody sets their tuition at different times and we’ve had a
discussion now about out-of-state schools. Is there any context that’s available about what other in-state
schools are going to be charging?
Brad B ond: We do not know that.
Chair Strauss: Okay. Thank you. Trustee Murer.
Trustee Boey: Before you go, let me just clarify what I thought.
Chair Strauss: For Brad? Because I think Cher had a question.
Trustee Boey: For Brad, excuse me.
Trustee M urer: So if you have it for Brad because I have a totally different question for Eric too.
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
10
February 26, 2015
Trustee Butler: I have a question for Brad too.
Trustee Boey: Brad, you mentioned Missouri has a changing in-state rate within themselves, I thought I
heard that.
Brad B ond: A differential rate program, yes that’s right.
Trustee Boey: So for an ACT of 25, a student from Illinois going to Missouri is twice you said, or is it
1.5?
Brad B ond: It’s one. It’s the equivalent of in-state.
Trustee Boey: It’s equivalent of in-state but what is the actual, I thought I heard….
Brad B ond: What is the actual tuition? I’m sorry I don’t remember.
Trustee Boey: No, no, no I don’t mean the number, but I thought they were playing games with instate rate and that the differential was in their in-state rate.
Brad B ond: There is depending on the academic program, the major that you’re enrolled in, your rates
would go up. Engineering students are paying an additional (I think it’s close to) $50.00 maybe $75.00
per credit hour.
Trustee Boey: But that’s the degree difference?
Brad B ond: That’s right.
Trustee Boey: But otherwise in-state. If in-state they’re not playing games with it?
Brad B ond: My only point in mentioning that was that you have to be careful when you look at book
rates.
Trustee Boey: You bet, okay, thank you.
Chair Strauss: Trustee Butler.
Trustee Butler: Brad my question for you is, were there any discussions in the group that you led with
regard to international students providing some opportunity for nimble pricing there?
Brad B ond: Yes there was. We looked at both views of that question - that is making the rate higher
than two times the in-state rate which is a practice at some institutions, but also looked at making it a
little bit lower. And in the end, in part because the influence of the Dean’s Council and Deans, the rate
that’s being proposed at two times the in-state rate, the traditional place, was where we held steady. We
did look at it.
Chair Strauss: Trustee Boey.
Trustee Boey: I thought we were, and Dr. Baker, I thought we’re making an extra effort to increase the
international students coming in. That was my sense that we’re trying to increase the enrollment of
international students, and yet we haven’t made any adjustment other than twice the in-state rate for
international students. Is there any room there to try to make it more attractive?
P resident Bak er: Well two comments on that. One is some international students are not price
sensitive. The Saudi Student Association approached me and said that they’d be happy to recruit and
their government pays 100 percent of their tuition.
Brad B ond: Plus the living stipend.
P resident Bak er: Plus a living stipend. So they’re not very price sensitive as it turns out.
Trustee Boey: That’s from Saudi Arabia?
P resident Bak er: Right. Now they don’t pay room and board, so these room and board changes are
going to make us more attractive for those kinds of students. So they’re more sensitive to room and
board rates than they are to tuition. On the tuition side, if we set it at two, that gives us some flexibility
because we’re covering more than costs there that we can discount if we need to. So it gives us a flexible
cap that we can deal with. If you put it at 1.4, you maybe not even be breaking even there, or breaking
even just barely, so you don’t have any room to discount. So we’re probably better off at that level and
then having some flexibility, if we get into contractual negotiations, to make some adjustments if needed.
Trustee Boey: So what I’m hearing Dr. Baker is that two times is not a drop dead rate. It’s a rate that is
flexible for international students.
P resident Bak er: It is. It’s one we’d like to collect if we can, and a lot of the universities use out-ofstate students as a place to enhance their budgets. Our tuition doesn’t cover the costs of educating; an in
state tuition does not cover all our costs. So you’ve got to make it up with the state funding piece which
we’ve seen a steady decline in for twelve years, or other revenues and this may be another revenue
source.
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
11
February 26, 2015
Trustee Boey: Well okay. You and I have talked about this in the past. I view the international student
situation is that when they come they have to live on campus and that’s all the other necessities of room
and board and whatever is – it is basically a full service program for international students as versus
someone in state that may or may not live on campus.
P resident Bak er: They don’t have to live on campus.
Trustee Boey: No but it’s more probable that a foreign student will live on campus.
P resident Bak er: I don’t know. What do you think Brad?
Brad B ond: Maybe amongst the undergraduates yes, but not for graduate students.
Trustee Boey: I’m thinking about undergrads.
Brad B ond: It’s probably 50/50 I would say. Mike? International undergraduates living at higher or lower
rate on campus?
M ike Stang: We have very few living on campus, but we would have very few traditional freshmen
international students. (no microphone last sentence inaudible.)
Trustee Boey: Okay, and I’m thinking of freshmen. I’m just thinking of 100 years ago when I came as a
freshman, I lived on campus. There was no other place to go. As simple as that.
P resident Bak er: On the way out, we’re not just competing on price, we need to compete on quality,
and we have to have enough money to have a great faculty and facilities and programs and staff to run
the place.
Chair Strauss: Alright Trustee Murer and then Trustee Coleman.
Trustee M urer: I have a question back to Eric, I understand the issue of the food, that makes a lot of
sense to me to just bundle it, and you’re just giving people one price, is that correct, the $1,040?
Eric W eldy: Yes.
Trustee M urer: Okay, but the more I thought about this consolidation of the single and multiple where
you had such a description before on the two people, the four people, the bath, the no bath, when you
just do a single and a multiple then who makes those decisions? I mean there still will be, or are all the
rooms uniform now?
Eric W eldy: All the rooms aren’t uniform. It just kind of depends on where you live. So a student will
select a residence hall really based on what their needs may be. Maybe there’s certain things that one
residence hall offers that’s more appealing than another. Sometimes you’re comparing apples and apples
and sometimes you’re comparing apples and oranges. It really depends on the students.
Trustee M urer: You’re saying a family and a student isn’t concerned whether its two people or four
people, whether there’s a bath or not a bath, and they’re not willing to pay a differential on that. Is that
what your research has shown you?
Eric W eldy: According to my housing director yes. That’s what the research is showing.
Chair Strauss: Okay Trustee Coleman.
Trustee Colem an: I need further clarification on a couple things. So the truth in tuition covers the book
rate but not necessarily the differential?
Chair Strauss: It covers, somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but it covers tuition for undergraduates
guaranteed for nine semesters. It doesn’t cover fees. It doesn’t apply to graduate students or incoming
undergraduates.
Trustee Colem an: So what about differentials? If the College of Business charged $200.00 extra for a
credit hour or something of that nature, I’m assuming that’s not included in the book rate. Is that
correct?
Chair Strauss: It could be done as a fee.
Trustee Colem an: Okay. So what we are voting on is the book rate of a 2.3 % increase as well as the
options for different colleges to charge differentials.
Chair Strauss: Differentials are for graduate tuition, not for undergraduate tuition.
Trustee Colem an: Okay.
Chair Strauss: And for on-line. I know it’s confusing. It took me a while when I sat down to talk about it
first.
Trustee Colem an: I am confused and I appreciate and I’m sorry if my questions are not appropriate
but before I render a vote here I want to make sure I know what I’m voting for. So what we’re saying is
for the grad level and there’s differentials but not for undergrad?
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
12
February 26, 2015
Chair Strauss: That’s correct and then there’s a separate set of proposals relative to on-line that also
has a range in it. Those are for programs and not for classes and they’d primarily be graduate classes.
P resident Bak er: Could I just comment on that? One of the reasons we’re probably confusing you and
others is that we’re going from a slope in tuition you with a declining amount, and we’re making it linear
so that at 12 credit hours the line becomes a plateau right. So if you, last year if you would have looked
at as Brad said somebody at 16 credit hours, this year or next year if we approve this, they’d pay less. So
it depends on where you are on those curves.
Trustee Colem an: I get that aspect of what we’re trying to do here. I was confused about the
differential in terms of I thought we were giving the liberty for undergrads as well as grads.
Chair Strauss: I think they’re great questions and the confusion isn’t just going to be ours, it’s going to
be everybody who is being asked to consider to come here and their families who are participating in the
decision making. So part of this is about how we message whatever it is that we ultimately decided to do
with this. It has to become understandable for the consumer. Trustee Butler?
Trustee Butler: So when we started this conversation I had three concerns that I thought I would need
to be given more information on before I could support this. I mean I’ll support this coming out of the
committee regardless. Now I’m a little bit down to maybe two. On the international students I felt as
though we needed to have flexibility. If I understand President Baker, there is flexibility in the potential
for the university to negotiate with another university, for example with the issues we were working on
with China. That’s good because I would want us to have that flexibility, so I’m not as concerned about
that. Now before I say this, I do want to say I greatly appreciate the work that’s been done here. This is
the kind of nimble thinking and creative entrepreneurial thinking and flexibility that I’ve been hoping for,
that I have actually publically stated when I’ve spoken on behalf of the board, that the board is open to,
and I’ve actually used the word nimble so bring us your ideas and we will work with you. However, I do
have some reservation about the differential tuition rate. Not the rate as it’s been presented here but the
precedent we’re setting as a board by approving such a wide range of pricing without us sort of putting
our final stamp on it. So if I understand that at the graduate level, this is the pricing that we are saying
yes to if we vote for this - $493.63 per credit hour plus a differential tuition rate between $30 and $400
to be determined by the various units and departments and programs as some point in the future,
presumably before we begin to promote these programs. On-line we’re approving $500 to $1000 per
credit hour. I didn’t mean to stress $1,000. I understand that there are some programs that would
warrant that high level, plus $30 to $530 in differential tuition rate, and I understand from Provost
Freeman that the recommendation is and will continue to be that these differential ranges be brought to
us on an annual basis, and we will approve them on an annual basis. I’m a little uncomfortable with that.
The board has within its authority and mandate to set tuition rates and fees. I’m a little uncomfortable
with that big of a range. I think I’d be comfortable with it for a year, and then I would like us to settle on
some sort of a routine process whereby we bring the pricing structure in all of its complexity to the board
for its approval. But I’d be comfortable with it for a year. I don’t want to go back on the notion of being
nimble and encouraging an entrepreneurial pricing structure and doing the work that needs to be done.
But going forward, I would hope that we could do that work before the cost of attendance proposals
come before the board.
Chair Strauss: I saw Dr. Bond advancing to the microphone again, but let me see if I can simplify this
somewhat and provide a little context and then you may also want to have some consultation before we
get to the full board meeting, because I don’t know that we’ll be able to flush out all the details for you.
My understanding is that the range that’s being requested now pretty much reflects the range that we
have in actual costs for our current programming, within a range of $50 or thereabouts. So this flexibility,
that range, is already imbedded in the many different tuitions that we’ve either approved or have come
out of other programs. So the annual review of the range will allow us to be sensitive. I don’t know
whether that’s fully satisfactory for you or not, but whatever we do today we’re gonna have a chance to
address it again in the full board meeting. If I’ve missed any point or you want to clarify further please go
ahead.
Brad B ond: I did want to clarify the business about on-line where you were talking about $500 plus,
$1,000 plus. Is that what I understood you to say?
Chair Strauss: (no microphone)
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
13
February 26, 2015
Brad B ond: It’s no plus. That range is for on-line, minimum per credit charge would be $500. The
maximum that’s in the proposal would be $1,000. Nothing else, period; so there’s no plus. That was my
only point Trustee Butler.
Chair Strauss: That’s a fully bundled rate as it’s proposed.
Trustee Butler: The written materials do not reflect that. I’ll read directly from it. It says, “This
recommendation relies on approval of a consolidated tuition charge and differential tuition where the
minimum differential charge will be…” which it seems like that should say differential tuition, “will be 30
per hour and the maximum will be 530.”
Chair Strauss: So the intent is that it be fully bundled.
P rovost Freem an: If you look at Figure 1, which is labeled Components of the Minimum On-Line
Tuition, and you look at the second line from the bottom in that table, the line item is called Program
Differential. What’s shown there is the minimum differential charge of $30 per hour that’s referred to in
the narrative that you just read, and that results in a bottom line in that table of the total minimum online tuition. If instead of the program differential line item being the minimum of $30, it was the
maximum of $530, you would have a total maximum on-line tuition that would be $1,000.
Chair Strauss: $1,000. So that was the intent, and if some clarification of the language is in order, I
think we can have that discussion, but that was the intention.
Trustee Butler: Okay.
P rovost Freem an: Is that helpful?
Trustee Butler: Yes it is. So then I would modify my comments only to say that the differential on the
graduate from $30 to $400 as an ongoing basis is a regular practice of us approving a range as opposed
to an actual cost. That troubles me at the moment. I could be talked into it, there could be some
argumentation here, but at the moment I’m uncomfortable relinquishing that board authority going
forward.
Chair Strauss: Okay. Anything else?
Trustee Butler: Yeah there was one other thing which was the existence of the B Tower placeholder
price. Here’s what concerns me about this, and this gets into setting precedence as well. If we approve
this, but then we don’t look at proposals regarding the B Tower project say for another meeting cycle, we
kind of lock ourselves into that proposal. What I’m concerned with is before we approve the price for
occupancy of a residence hall that is currently not prepared for occupancy, I would like us to look at the
proposal of preparing it for occupancy.
Chair Strauss: Alright. Do you understand the question?
P resident Bak er: Yeah, and we’ll have that for the December meeting.
Trustee Butler: That would be fine.
Chair Strauss: Alright. That’s it John? Trustee Boey thank you for being patient.
Trustee Boey: I see how we struggle to try to understand room and board and tuition changes. I see
how we struggle here. We are people who are supposed to know something about it. I shudder to think
how a typical family at home is going to understand and compare favorably as to how much it costs for
NIU versus Northwestern or somebody else. What I’m leading up to, is there any way we can simplify this
thing? I know it’s hard. I know we’re trying to cover a lot of changes.
Chair Strauss: I agree with this, but I will tell you that what’s being proposed is simpler than what
currently exists. So this is a step in the right direction, but there certainly is a communication piece to this
as well.
Trustee Boey: Wait a minute, you mean there is a simpler solution that what we have heard?
Chair Strauss: This is a simpler solution to what currently exists believe it or not.
P resident Bak er: Could I explain. Let me use a visual. What we’re proposing is a line, a straight line up
to 12 credit hours for undergraduates. That’s probably what you’re most interested in; where currently
that line is not straight. It’s an S curve. Okay, and so Brad said that if you go from 16 to 15 hours you
drop a – let’s say you drop a one credit class – you owe the university money currently because you’ve
backed into a more expensive tuition rate. So that’s confusing when you’re paying tuition and you say to
this point, I pay a certain amount, to this point I pay a little more, and up here I pay a certain rate, but
if I drop back I owe more. That’s very confusing. So we’re just saying straight line to 12, and it’s the
same price after that.
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
14
February 26, 2015
Trustee Boey: What I’m saying Doug is let’s make this clear and simple to the family listen to it.
P resident Bak er: I agree.
Trustee Boey: They don’t have a view of your curve in front of them when they’re reading at night, at
ten o’clock at night trying to decide NIU or Western Michigan.
P resident Bak er: Right and I think what we’re proposing does exactly that. It is the same amount per
credit hour to 12; easy to understand and there’s no increase after that.
Trustee Boey: So when will we see the new version?
P resident Bak er: You’ve got it in your hand. That’s it.
Nancy Suttenfield: Students and families will see something different.
Trustee Boey: I’m trying to put myself in the families shoes, and I’m saying if I’m very confused, they’re
smarter than me. I won’t make that assumption, but we’re viewing the consumer’s eye now. Make it
simple for them to understand so they will say yes.
P resident Bak er: My hope would be that having a flat per credit hour rate up to 12 hours is as simple
as you can get.
Trustee Boey: It sounds simple, but when you start looking at all those components, maybe the thing
too is not to give them too many components to look at. I don’t know.
P resident Bak er: I think that’s what we’re trying to do both in the room and board where we’ve taken
it from a dozen or whatever it was to three options and then tuition it’s basically a flat rate, I mean per
credit hour rate to 12 with a plateau after that, meaning no additional charge.
Trustee Boey: We’re at three simple lines to say that as I read it into the schedule?
Chair Strauss: You bet. This isn’t the marketing material. This was a lot of background and all the bells
and whistles.
Trustee M urer: So I agree, and I get it on the 12 hour under/over. I think that’s simple. I get it alright,
and that makes a lot of sense especially this issue of owing money which that would have probably
gotten people like crazy, crazy. So I get that. I think that’s really easy. I get the meal thing. That makes
perfect sense, that’s really easy. But I am still very uncomfortable on the room side where dorms really
matter to people. They really do. And what you’re living conditions are is really important, and what I’m
hearing is it’s a, I don’t know, a bird shoot, whatever we want to call this, but not knowing what you’re
getting for what you’re paying, really concerns me, and I’d like to see the data behind that. I would
respectfully request Eric that you share with me the data that you have on that.
P resident Bak er: They pick the room not us.
Trustee M urer: Well then that’s even worse. So you mean you get there and what is it it’s like a gold
rush and rush to the room? I don’t understand this.
P resident Bak er: No. They see the room and they pick it well before they’re here.
Trustee M urer: You mean virtually?
Eric W eldy: Yes.
Trustee M urer: Virtually. So it’s…
P resident Bak er: They come for campus visits and they do the tour.
Trustee M urer: So they virtually pick a room and they lock in a room?
P resident Bak er: Yeah and they can say I want to be in the new hall and have this kind…
Trustee M urer: Do they lock it in?
P resident Bak er: Yeah.
Trustee M urer: For sure?
Eric W eldy: Yes they see the rooms.
P resident Bak er: Eric doesn’t pick. The students pick where they live.
Eric W eldy: They pick the rooms. They decide from the standpoint of …
Trustee M urer: So it’s like on an airline. So you keep blocking out the seats, you keep blocking out the
rooms and then the longer you wait then that’s the only thing that’s available?
Eric W eldy: Yep.
Trustee M urer: Okay I get that better now. So does that then encourage people to make their decision
quicker?
Eric W eldy: Oh yeah.
Trustee M urer: Is that what that’s about?
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
15
February 26, 2015
Eric W eldy: Very much so.
Trustee M urer: Okay, alright. I’m better now on this. It’s like the airplane and you cross out the seats.
Chair Strauss: Trustee Coleman.
P resident Bak er: Yeah there’s not bait and switch here.
Trustee M urer: Okay.
Trustee Colem an: I’m struggling with the way some of this information was packaged and pulled
together. I’d love clarification on this. We’re talking about a 2.3% tuition increase. Is that for all
students?
Nancy Suttenfield: No. Continuing students see no increase.
Trustee Colem an: I’m sorry for all students coming to the university. And then we say here that there’s
a 7% reduction and my question is, is that a 7.08% reduction for all residents? That’s not the case is it?
Chair Strauss: My understanding is it won’t be for everybody but it will be for those people who had the
most expensive board rate.
P resident Bak er: Wheeler, that 2.3% is a point estimate along that curve. So if you’re at 16 you’ll pay
less next year than you did, I mean if you were a freshman last year versus a freshman next year, you’ll
pay less next year. So it depends on how many credit hours because of the plateau.
Trustee Colem an: Maybe it’s just the way we approach this, because I think those numbers are very
uneven looking at Figure 1 where we talk about the minimum on-line and we’re using the $30, but the
reality is there’s another $500 that could be placed here for the max right? So for me it seems like we
didn’t paint both sides of the picture. Here’s the minimum and here’s the max, and I don’t know so
maybe that’s why I’m struggling. I think some of the things that we’re trying to do to simplify, I think
that’s the right thing to do. My concern is that are we really saying there’s a reduction of room and board
of 7.08 or are we just saying there’s, in some scenarios, a 7.8 reduction of room and board, but not all.
Trustee M urer: It’s an average.
Trustee Colem an: I’m not quite sure I’m getting an average either.
Nancy Suttenfield: I think one comment that we haven’t offered yet, when we have published the cost
of attendance it’s what a typical student pays and it reflects the cost of attendance as I understand for
the purposes of financial aid packaging as well. Now will every student see the change or the
combination of changes, students that are returning, no; what we’re talking about is the cost of
attendance for a typical student based upon a typical room and a typical meal plan.
Trustee Colem an: I hear what you’re saying. Thank you.
Chair Strauss: Alright, any other discussion? Trustee Butler.
Trustee Butler: I would just add I think, and correct me if I’m wrong President Baker, but when we’re
talking about differential tuition rate on the graduate level and the, I’ll use my correct terms here, the
program differential on the on-line level, what we are approving in this vote is a framework for programs
to set the differential aspect of their costs. That’s what we’re approving. Now that won’t translate, it’s not
meant to translate, publically. We’re approving a framework, a range, so that they can do planning
activities and think about price in the marketplace with respect to their particular program. That’s what
we’re approving. That will never translate publically, it’s not meant to. So it’s the difference between a
policy discussion at the board level and the way that we market our services and their costs publically. I
would like to see us approve this recommendation, this framework for a year; let’s see how everything
gets set, let’s get a report of what that looks like on a program basis, the whole menu, the whole
spreadsheet, and then going forward maybe we can approve that menu, that spreadsheet as an actual
vote.
P resident Bak er: It sounds like a good management practice to me.
Trustee Butler: That’s what I would prefer.
Trustee M urer: What is the impact though of the truth in tuition to approve something for a year?
Trustee Butler: The only thing that I’m saying we would approve for a year is the portion of this
recommendation that says we’re going to approve a range for the differential tuition and for the program
differential on the on-line programming.
Chair Strauss: Let me come back to that. The on-line portion refers to graduate programs, not
undergraduate programs, and the graduate recommendation is for graduates. Truth in tuition doesn’t
apply to either of those. So I think the administration understands your input John, and if it’s acceptable,
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
16
February 26, 2015
then we’ve got three weeks where we can hash this out. You can talk to people and see whether you can
get comfortable. If not, we can present several options when we get together again, but I think
everybody understands the question that you’ve asked and the point. It has been a good conversation. It
is complicated, and there are consumer communication issues that come out of this too. So I think it’s
been valuable to talk about it. Wheeler?
Trustee Colem an: One last question. On page 14 we see that Northern is at $13,500 - that’s for a full
year of entry level, annual, full-time, undergrad student. I’m assuming that’s room and board. Is that the
correct interpretation there?
Nancy Suttenfield: That’s tuition and fees only.
Trustee Colem an: And so it would be nice to know, what’s our fiscal year 2016 full-time book rate? Are
we saying $4,700 times two plus whatever our predicted fees are would be our book rate for 2016, and
how does that compare to the $13,500?
Nancy Suttenfield: If you go to Table 4 which is page 13 and you look at the upper portion for new
undergraduate students, it would be the top two lines, tuition and fees.
Trustee Colem an: So something doesn’t add up.
M ike M ann: I think I can clarify. The data in Appendix 1 is from the Board of Higher Education. When
they collect tuition and fee information from all the universities they include student health insurance. If
you take the $13,510 reported in Appendix 1 and you take our $759 per semester (so take that out
twice), you will get to $11,992 and if you go back to Table 4, and add $9,253 to $2,739 you will also
$11,992. So the difference is the student health insurance.
Chair Strauss thanked everyone for the discussion. If there’s no other discussion, we have a motion and
second, and it appears that we’ll have some more conversation about this when we get to the board
meeting. People will have the opportunity to talk about other modifications. All trustees were in favor and
the motioned was carried.
President Baker thanked everyone for the good discussion. That’s complex stuff. I do appreciate
everybody that worked on this. As Nancy said at the beginning, we’re taking a very complex, convoluted
system and trying to make it simpler, and sometimes we make it even more complex when we talk about
the old system, so thank you for walking through it with us.
Action Item 7.c. – New Facility for Campus Distributive Antenna System
Additional Speakers: Matt Parks, Sr Director of Network & Communication Services
Angie Bollinger, Space Administrator
Nancy Suttenfield introduced colleague Matt Parks who coordinated the planning and the development of
services for wireless - we’re all very interested in having more bars rather than fewer on our cell phones.
Matt Parks introduced himself - I’m the Senior Director of Network and Communications Services here at
NIU. I’m here to talk with you about how we can improve cell phone service around campus. For years
NIU has suffered from poor cell coverage from all the major providers across our campus community.
This has inhibited our students, faculty, and staff from making and receiving cell phone calls and text
messages along with leveraging the capabilities of today’s next generation 4G data networks. This is a
typical problem in higher education. In order to effectively solve it, that poor service in a university
environment, it’s common for universities to partner with what are called distributive antenna service
providers, for short we call them DAS providers. Here at NIU that partnership was formed in 2010 with a
company named Crown Castle, one of the nation’s largest providers of shared wireless infrastructure.
Since the Crown partnership was formed in 2010, my division has focused on systematically improving
coverage in key areas of our campus. In 2011 and 12 in partnership with Crown, we deployed four
separate cellular outdoor DAS nodes to targeting areas. First, on the north side of campus to service both
the College of Engineering and the College of Business; second to the east central part of campus at
Wirtz; third to the south part of central campus at parking; and lastly over at Steven’s building to serve
that complex. Systems were successfully deployed to address several major known outdoor coverage
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
17
February 26, 2015
problems, but specific only to Verizon Wireless services, and I’ll get to more on that later. Today we’re
focused on improving in-building coverage at NIU’s new residence hall facility by the end of this year. We
plan to begin discussions with athletics to look at improving several key venues over the next 12 to 18
months. But many more DAS appointments are needed for a campus such as ours. So that’s the good
news. We’ve got four outdoor DAS systems that are in service and have been in service for a couple
years now. We’ve got the new res hall system that will come on line at the end of this year, and we’ve
got focus on a number of venues in athletics. But what we need in order to continue to grow these inbuildings and venue-specific data systems beyond the new residence hall is a permanent DAS head-end
facility, or hub space, to house the cellular equipment. Crown Castle currently has equipment co-located
in our telecom central office. Unfortunately, that space is inadequate for growth, and Crown has been
working with us for over a year to find a new permanent space for their equipment along with that of the
wireless providers. This new proposed facility identified in partnership with NIU’s A&E and Facilities group
will be located on the west side of campus in an area adjacent to and north of printing services. The
space will be a fenced in facility that on day one will house both Crown Castle and Verizon Wireless
equipment with the eventuality of adding other major wireless providers such as AT&T, Sprint, or TMobile. While this facility will not in and of itself improve wireless coverage on campus, it will provide the
adequate space to house the cellular equipment necessary to enable the growth of these in-building and
venue-specific data systems for years to come. While Verizon Wireless is currently the only major
provider connected to NIU’s data system, all data deployments currently and will continue to neutral host
systems. This will allow all other major providers that come to NIU the ability to connect into this
infrastructure without a significant investment. We believe the creation of the new DAS hub space will
entice at least one other major provider to come to the table within the relative near term, and creating
this facility will also provide unfettered access to the wireless hub space for maintenance and break fix of
the data system by both Crown and the wireless providers. Upon consideration and approval by the
board, NIU will move to finalize lease terms with Crown Castle for this unique and important campus
facility and will then initiate the hub space deployment expeditiously. We anticipate the facility could be
operational by mid next year. It will allow for the expansion of data systems in athletic venues shortly
thereafter and promote future growth of the system across campus. Crown will bear all costs for the
construction of the facility, which will also include installation of fiber optic infrastructure to deliver
connectivity to our major fiber optic arteries on campus. This connectivity will provide the transport
between the hub space location and all existing and future DAS systems across campus. As part of the
project, NIU will ensure Crown and its subcontractors will comply with all existing construction and
infrastructure campus standards. Additionally, any incidental costs to NIU associated with the DAS hub
space project will be reimbursable to Crown. As I mentioned, the new space is critical in order to facilitate
the growth of targeted DAS systems across our campus. By doing so, we will improve sorely needed
wireless 3G and 4G coverage and capacity, improving services for our students, faculty, and staff for
years to come. Thanks for your consideration, and I’ll take any questions. I have a couple slides up here.
One is, if you can see that, where our proposed facility is just north of the Document Services and
Human Resources Building on the west end of campus; and, I think slides two and three are a couple of
design drawings from the vendor, Crown Castle, as to what that complex would actually look like. So this
is what the interior of the outdoor compound will be. It will be surrounded by an eight-foot fence with a
central Crown Castle neutral host configuration and then sort of fiber optic feeds up to four wireless
providers on campus of which Verizon will be the first entity to join them as part of this.
Chair Strauss asked for a motion to approve the recommendation in the printed materials.
A motion was made to approve the recommendation by Trustee Murer; seconded by Student Trustee
Julion. The motion was carried.
Chair Strauss asked for discussion and the following ensued:
Trustee M arshall: Just a couple of questions. You mentioned various phases such as the athletics, are
we looking at a contract that will be covering everything that you’ve listed, or do we go for additional
contracts for the additional phases.
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
18
February 26, 2015
M att P arks: That’s a good question. Every single phase of the DAS deployment, so every new building
and new venue has what we call a network order attached to it, which articulates the specific deployment
of that antenna system. That gets added to the master contract that we have with Crown Castle. So yes,
we will have for every single venue. The new res hall there’s one; when we start to talk with the athletics
venues there will be a separate network order attached to that; and as we go to central campus with
more deployments, there will be separate ones that are just attached to that master service agreement
contract.
Trustee M arshall: So there’s no bidding process for the additional contracts?
M att P arks: No, and the Crown Castle contract per se has been in effect since 2010.
Trustee M arshall: When does it end?
M att P arks: I think the term for that contract is five years. It’s possible that it’s seven. As part of this
new hub space, we are to co-terminate everything. Right now we’re looking at that lease term to be ten
years with multiple renewals in that.
Trustee Boey: What is our current problem now; cell phone problem?
M att P arks: The deployments that we’re done this far are fairly limited; only a couple different venues
that we’ve deployed cell service at. We have a macro layer, the Verizon’s normal macro network, AT&T’s
network, and so on, that serves the community. And we’ve got a lot of old buildings. As you go down, for
example, to the lower level of Holmes Student Center, you can see Wi-Fi on your phone but you will not
see any 3G or 4G service.
Trustee Boey: Okay. So when this is all done then everything will be fine.
M att P arks: I caution when we say done on cellular service. This is a continuous process. We’ll be
looking at improving coverage on this campus for five years; for seven years; for ten years. Part of it is
the spectrum that’s used, part of it is the RF technology, the new technology like 4G, that’s coming to
leverage, but this will be a process that will take quite a while for us to hone-in on the areas of campus
that need the help.
Trustee Boey: Thank you.
M att P arks: You’re welcome.
M arc Strauss: Let me ask a couple of questions. How did we choose this site?
M att P arks: I wanted it in central campus, but they wouldn’t let me. If you look at the first slide that
showed the map, this is kind of a perfect area for this type of space just based upon what’s surrounding
it. This is unused of course, and there are no plans for its use, so it’s out of the way. It’s easy for Crown,
the wireless providers, and NIU to access on the 24/7/365 basis, and it doesn’t conflict with the sort of
central campus core operation of the university.
M arc Strauss: And the fiber optic that you have to tie-in to, is it on-site or are you going to need an
easement to get there?
M att P arks: It’s on site. It’s all on NIU property, so we should be good there. We’re going to build up.
We’ve got a main artery through campus going east and west, north of where this facility is, so part of
the scope here is to construct from this facility up to tie-in to the main arteries to connect into our core
campus infrastructure to serve buildings as we go forward.
M arc Strauss: So the lease will include both the building and whatever areas necessary to get you to a
connection to the fiber optic cable?
M att P arks: Yes.
M arc Strauss: Okay thanks. Any other questions?
Trustee Colem an: Just clarification about the improvements from Crown. So Crown will actually build
out the complex and they will own the improvements?
M att P arks: No. I’m looking at one of our facilities people.
Angie Bollinger: {Not on microphone} Crown Castle will build out all the infrastructure improvements
including the fence and the data fiber and everything needed. All those become permanent
improvements to the university and are owned by the university. The only thing they will own are the
little huts, for a lack of a better term, that their equipment is housed in.
Trustee Colem an: Okay, and the actual build out of the building, we will own that?
Angie B ollinger: There’s no building.
M att P arks: There’s no building. It’s a fence with gravel inside.
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
19
February 26, 2015
P resident Bak er: Can you reiterate how much this costs Matt?
M att P arks: Zero dollars for the university. I did mention in here incidental costs. Like any project you’re
gonna have things come up, and we’re accountable. My group is accountable that they do things right.
We may choose to fix something that needs to be fixed in the short term, and we’ll reimburse to Crown
so they build it, they pay for it all, both the structure itself and all the fiber to connect into the campus.
Chair Strauss asked if there were other questions. There were none. All trustees were in favor and the
motion was carried.
Action Item 7.d. – Energy Infrastructure Improvements - Phase XI Performance Contract
Additional Speakers: Ken Pugh, Acting Director of the Physical Plant
Nancy Suttenfield presented Item 7.d. as our last action item for today. It involves the extension of a
performance contract that is designed to conserve energy. We have with us today interim Associate Vice
President John Cheney and members of the facility staff who will update us on this project.
President Baker briefly introduced John. He’s on loan from athletics. John has been running athletic
facilities for us for about a year. He came to us from Oregon State University and ran the facilities there.
We really appreciate him being on loan to help us in this interim period.
John Cheney thanked the President and the Board. Actually this is day four for me so I’m not completely
up to speed on all these individual aspects so I’m going to turn it over to Ken Pugh, who oversees the
Physical Plant who does have this information.
Ken Pugh explained, basically we are finishing up on phase eleven currently of the performance contract.
So this would be just an amendment/extension of the same type of categories. We obtained procurement
and state approval for $18 million of phase eleven, but we only asked for Board approval at that time for
$10.8 million, because that’s what we thought we could get done in this one-year period. So this is just a
continuation. We have various ECMs, Energy Conservation Measures, to choose from in each of these
categories, and we need time to work with <ESCO> to put together, I guess you would say, the optimum
combination for energy savings. In a nutshell, that’s what we’re looking for doing for next year.
Chair Strauss thanked Ken and asked for a motion to approve the recommendation in the printed
materials.
A motion was made to approve the recommendation by Student Trustee Julion; seconded by Trustee
Butler. The motion was carried.
Chair Strauss asked for discussion:
Chair Strauss: Let me just ask one question. We’re familiar with the performance contract since we’re
up to number 12. I would hope we would have some idea about what they involve. My question is, are
we working on buildings that we’re going to keep in service so we get the full recovery?
K en P ugh: Well as far as I know.
Chair Strauss: Well hopefully we’ll keep you advised. But that’s the intent right?
K en P ugh: Yes sir.
Chair Strauss asked if there were other questions. There were none. All trustees were in favor and the
motion was carried.
President Baker congratulated Ken and all the facilities folks for the energy savings and money savings
over the years on these.
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
20
February 26, 2015
Chair Strauss asked if Nancy was interested in presenting any of the information items?
Nancy Suttenfield replied that the items that are here for information are certainly topics that anyone on
the committee could raise questions about, but we have no plans to make a formal presentation.
There were no questions.
Information Item 8.a. – Semi-Annual Progress Report of Active Capital Projects
Information Item 8.b. – Quarterly Summary Report of Transactions in Excess of $100,000
Information Item 8.c. – Periodic Report on Investments
OTHER MATTERS
None
NEXT MEETING DATE
Thursday, February 26, 2015, at 12:30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made to adjourn by Student Trustee Julion; seconded by Trustee Marshall. The motion was
carried.
Meeting adjourned at: 3:19 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Vicky Rippberger
Recording Secretary
In compliance with Illinois Open Meetings Act 5 ILCS 120/1, et seq, a verbatim record of all
Northern Illinois University Board of Trustees meetings is maintained by the Board Recording
Secretary and is available for review upon request. The minutes contained herein represent a
true and accurate summary of the Board proceedings.
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
21
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.a.
February 26, 2015
DIVISION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY – NETWORK & COMMUNICATION
SERVICES – FIBER OPTIC NETWORK EXPANSION
Summary: The Division of Information Technology - Network & Communication Services group requests
permission to issue an order for labor, materials and temporary replacement fiber required to achieve
expansion of the fiber optic network co-owned by the University. The purpose of the expansion is to
increase bandwidth available to the University. This purchase has been advertised on the Illinois Public
Higher Education Procurement Bulletin (KMC153835) as a sole source procurement due to the University
and vendor's co-ownership of the physical network and the specification in the ongoing contract that any
changes are to be made in cooperation with the vendor.
Funding: Institutional – Local Funds
Recommendation: The University request Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY15-FY16 as follows:
DeKalb Fiber Optic – DeKalb, IL……………………………………………………….$400,000
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
22
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.b.
February 26, 2015
FISCAL YEAR 2015 PHYSICAL PLANT CONTRACTED ELECTRICAL SERVICES
OPEN ORDER AMENDMENT
Summary: The Physical Plant requests permission to increase an open order with Virgil Cook & Son for
the balance of Fiscal Year 2015. The open order provides contracted electrical services campus wide for
miscellaneous maintenance work orders or capital improvements as required. The University had
originally contracted with Mascal Electric to provide these services; however, they went out of business in
summer 2014. This request to increase the FY15 open order with Virgil Cook & Son will cover part of the
services for the remainder of FY15 that were originally to be provided by Mascal Electric. Original
presidential approval for the open order was given on March 28, 2014. The original bid was opened on
May 19, 2010. This amendment will be advertised on the Illinois Public Higher Education Procurement
Bulletin.
Funding:
Institutional – Local Funds
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY15 as follows:
Virgil Cook & Son – DeKalb, IL
Current Order…………………………………………………………….$249,000
Amendment……………………………………………………………….$160,000
New Order Total……………………………………………….……$409,000
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
23
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.c.
February 26, 2015
FISCAL YEAR 2016 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, PHYSICAL PLANT & FINANCE,
FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS MOTOR FUELS
Summary: Transportation Services, Physical Plant and Finance, Facilities and Operations request
permission to purchase 10 percent ethanol blended regular non-leaded gasoline, B2 2% soy ultra-low
sulfur biodiesel and 11 percent soy ultra-low sulfur biodiesel for use by these departments as well as the
Grounds Department. Under Illinois Complied Statute, 110 ILCS 65/5, universities are required to
purchase ethanol blended gasoline. The ethanol and soy blends increase the demand for Illinois grown
farm products and these fuels use renewable energy components. An invitation for bid is prepared, will
be published to the bulletin shortly, and bids will be opened as soon as possible.
Funding: Institutional – Local Funds
Recommendation: The University request Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY16 as follows:
Vendor to be determined……………………………………………………………….$725,000
Amount Requested in FY15: $975,000
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
24
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.d.
February 26, 2015
FISCAL YEAR 2016 NIU FOUNDATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
Summary: The Northern Illinois University Foundation contract supports the fundraising services and
activities provided by the Foundation on behalf of the university. This contractual agreement is in
accordance with the Legislative Audit Commission Guidelines. The contract amount will be offset by the
Foundation payment to the University for personnel services, fringe benefits, administrative services,
facilities and program expenditures to meet the contract obligations.
Funding: Appropriated
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval of a renewal order for the FY16
contract for the Northern Illinois University Foundation in the amount of $630,052.
Amount Requested in FY15: $630,052
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
25
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.e.
February 26, 2015
FISCAL YEAR 2016 STUDENT HEALTH INSURANCE FEE
Summary: At its December meeting, the Board of Trustees approved the tuition, fees and room and
board rates for fiscal year 2016. At that time, due to the decision to set rates much earlier in the year to
give students and their families the information they need to make enrollment decisions, the student
health insurance fee rate for next year was not available for Board consideration. Information regarding
the fee rates for next year is now available. The University provides group health insurance to students
and their families and the cost of this coverage is funded by the student health insurance fee. Students
may waive their participation in this plan if they have proof of other comparable health insurance
coverage. In FY 2016 the rate will increase from the current board-approved rate of $759 per semester
to $1,052 per semester. This rate increase reflects the impact of the Affordable Care Act and was
selected as the best option when considering co-pays, deductibles and the service coverages. The
students on the student health insurance fee committee had direct input on students’ needs and wants
and supported the decision.
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval for the FY 2016 student health
insurance fee totaling $1,052 per semester.
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
26
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.f.
February 26, 2015
FISCAL YEAR 2016 STUDENT HEALTH INSURANCE
Summary: The University provides group health insurance, funded by student health insurance fees, to
students and their families. Students may waive their participation in this plan if they have proof of other
comparable health insurance.
The recommended vendor was selected through competitive bidding based on a Request for Proposal
(RFP) for Student Health Insurance opened on November 19, 2014. Fiscal Year 2016 is the initial term
for this RFP insurance plan coverage. In addition to the initial term, there are five one-year renewal
options to be determined annually at the discretion of the university and the vendor, with renewal rates
determined through negotiations between the vendor and the Student Health Insurance Committee.
Renewal rates will change based on claims history for prior years and changes in policy terms. This
award will be advertised in the Illinois Public Higher Education Procurement Bulletin.
Funding: Agency Funds
Twenty (20) vendors were solicited.
Five (5) bids were received.
Fifteen (15) vendors did not respond.
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY16 as follows:
Academic Health Plans – Colleyville, TX…………………………………………$12,500,000
Amount Requested in FY15: $7,700,000
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
27
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.g.
February 26, 2015
FISCAL YEAR 2016 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT – CENTRAL STORES
COMMODITIES CONTRACT RENEWAL
Summary: Renewal is required of an open order utilized for the purchase of miscellaneous nonfood,
food service related commodities such as napkins, disposable plates, and carry out containers, sold
through Materials Management’s resale program. This is the fifth year of five renewal options based on a
bid opened on May 25, 2010. The renewal will be advertised in the Illinois Public Higher Education
Procurement Bulletin.
Funding: Institutional – Revenue Bond
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY16 as follows:
Vendor to be determined………………………………………………………$300,000
Amount Requested in FY15: $490,000
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
28
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.h.
February 26, 2015
FISCAL YEAR 2015 OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL – OPEN ORDER AMENDMENT
FOR INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS
Summary: An amendment is required to increase the open order for FY15 to cover outside legal
services and costs in representation of senior staff and Board of Trustees related to various internal and
external investigations. Original President’s approval was received on September 19, 2014. This order is
exempt from advertising on the Illinois Public Higher Education Procurement Bulletin in accordance with
Section 4.10 (d)(7) of the Procurement Code.
Funding: Institutional – Local Funds
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY15 as follows:
Original Approval………………………………………………. $220,000
Amendment……………………………………………………… $265,000
New Order Total…………………………………………… $485,000
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
29
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.i.
February 26, 2015
FISCAL YEAR 2016 ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES
AND PHYSICAL PLANT OPEN ORDERS
Summary: Architectural & Engineering Services and the Physical Plant request permission to issue open
orders for labor and materials required for Fiscal Year 2016 for a minimum of three electrical contractors
and a minimum of one general contractor. Services will be requested on an as-needed basis throughout
the period July 1, 2015 - June 30, 2016. An Invitation for Bid will be issued on the bulletin, and bids will
be opened as soon as possible.
Funding: Institutional – Local Funds
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY16 as follows:
Vendors to be determined: Electrical
Electrical Vendor 1……………………………………………………………….NTE $425,000
Electrical Vendor 2……………………………………………………………….NTE $425,000
Electrical Vendor 3……………………………………………………………….NTE $425,000
Vendor to be determined: General Construction…………………………..NTE $350,000
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
30
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.j.
February 26, 2015
FISCAL YEAR 2016 PHYSICAL PLANT ELEVATOR SERVICES AND MAINTENANCE
OPEN ORDER CONTRACT RENEWAL
Summary: The Physical Plant requests permission to renew an open order for elevator service repair
technicians on an as-required basis for Fiscal Year 2016. There are 107 lifts/elevators which require
continual repair and maintenance in order to maintain university facilities safety standards. Due to
staffing changes, the university determined that the most expeditious approach to maintaining service
standards is to establish an open order with an outside vendor. The certified elevator repair person
maintains and repairs the elevators 40 hours per week. Pricing and specifications are based on a Request
for Proposal opened August 1, 2014. The intent to award this contract was advertised in the Illinois
Public Higher Education Procurement Bulletin. The award was waived by the Procurement Policy Board.
Award now held by G.D. Barrie & Associates, who qualifies as a MAFBE (Minority and Female Business
Enterprise).
Funding: Institutional – Local Funds
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY16 as follows:
Vendor to be determined…………………………………………………………..$325,000
Amount Requested in FY15: $325,000
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
31
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.k.
February 26, 2015
FISCAL YEAR 2016 INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
DIVISION EXPENDITURES
Summary: Northern Illinois University’s International Programs Division is given an annual authorization
for expenditures for foreign study programs. All expenditures are made from payments received from
the approximately 600 students expected to enroll in these programs. Costs include travel, overseas
instructional and administrative services, room and board, and local tuition. Expenditures never exceed
revenues. Once program enrollments are determined, payments are made immediately to secure and
guarantee registration, accommodations and other program-related costs.
Due to the many variables, including actual number of enrollees in each program, program choices and
currency fluctuations, the amount of authorization needed for specific programs is unpredictable.
Consequently, aggregate expenditure authority is requested within which the International Programs
Division can secure specific program and group arrangements. Under this authority, specific transactions
will be processed in accordance with the Procurement Code and internal approval procedures. Overall,
the university does not expect the program level to fluctuate significantly from FY15. All funds and
disbursements remain subject to university accounting controls and management.
Funding:
Appropriated
Institutional – Local Funds
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY16 as follows:
Various Vendors……………………………………………………………………NTE $3,000,000
Amount Requested in FY15: $3,000,000
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
32
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.l.
February 26, 2015
FISCAL YEAR 2016 UNIVERSITY OUTREACH EDUCATION CENTERS
CATERING SERVICES CONTRACT RENEWALS
Summary: NIU Naperville requests permission to purchase catering services for clients renting the
Education Centers (Naperville, Hoffman Estates, and Rockford) for the period July 1, 2015 – June 30,
2016. The vendors will provide meals for breakfast and lunch for clients renting the education centers for
events, seminars, meetings, etc. Clients renting the education centers charge a fee for events (and
meals, if provided). A portion of that fee allows the university to recover the full cost of that catering.
This is the third year of five one-year renewal options based on a proposal opened on March 20, 2012.
The renewal awards will be advertised in the Illinois Public Higher Education Procurement Bulletin.
Funding: Institutional – Local Funds
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY16 as follows:
Vendor to be
Vendor to be
Vendor to be
Vendor to be
determined…………………………………………………..………
determined……………………………………………………..……
determined………………………………………………..…………
Determined……………………………………………………..……
$ 85,000
$420,000
$150,000
$105,000
Total………………………………………………………………………………..
$760,000
Amount Requested in FY15:
Mary’s Market $110,000
Sodexo $580,000
Tasty Catering $172,000
My Chef $105,000
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
33
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.m.
February 26, 2015
DIVISION OF MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS
COMPREHENSIVE MARKETING CONSULTATIVE SERVICES
Summary: The Division of Marketing and Communications intends to establish open orders with
multiple vendors for consultative service engagements to provide branding, advertising, creative services,
media relations, market research, digital and social media support and consultative services on an asneeded basis through the end of Fiscal Year 2016 (approximately 16 months). The engagement of these
firms is a necessary supplement to current efforts to quickly and effectively move the university's key
initiative of recruitment forward at the pace needed. Vendors may be engaged for comprehensive,
longer-term campaigns or smaller, individual projects. Budgets and specific goals will be determined on a
project-by-project basis with the vendor selected for each project. Total expenditures with the selected
vendors during this period will not exceed $550,000. A Request for Proposal (RFP) for these services is
currently under evaluation. Three one-year renewal options may be offered, depending on the vendors
selected. The award will be advertised in the Illinois Public Higher Education Procurement Bulletin.
Funding: Institutional – Local Funds
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY15 ($50,000) & FY16 ($500,000) as follows:
Various Vendors to be determined………………………………………….…NTE $550,000
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
34
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.n.
February 26, 2015
FISCAL YEAR 2016 ITS DOCUMENT SERVICES AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
PRINTING PAPER OPEN ORDERS CONTRACT RENEWAL
Summary: Document Services and Materials Management request permission to issue open orders for
purchases of various printing papers, envelopes and supplies on an as-needed basis for the period July 1,
2015 - June 30, 2016, for campus resale. Pricing will be based on industry market pricing for each
quarter. This is the first of nine one-year renewal options based on a bid opened on May 15, 2014. The
renewal award will be advertised on the Illinois Public Higher Education Procurement Bulletin.
Funding:
Institutional – Revenue Bond
Institutional – Local Funds
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY16 as follows:
Vendor to be determined……………………………………………………………$750,000
Amount Requested in FY15: $750,000
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
35
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.o.
February 26, 2015
FISCAL YEAR 2016 DOIT - DOCUMENT SERVICES CAMPUS COPIER PROGRAM
CONTRACT RENEWAL
Summary: Document Services requests permission to issue an order for renewal of the campus copier
program consisting of approximately 325 copiers of various configurations. The annual volume of copies
is approximately 20 million. This program is provided under a rental agreement based on a flat rate per
copy charge, which includes all equipment, toner and maintenance. Machines located in the libraries and
other public areas are operated with a campus copier card controller system. Peripheral devices, such as
fax boards and networking cards, are included in the contract. This is the third year of nine one-year
renewal options based on a proposal opened December 2, 2011. The renewal award will be advertised in
the Illinois Public Higher Education Procurement Bulletin.
Funding: Institutional – Local Funds
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY16 as follows:
Vendor to be determined…………………………………………………………….$1,000,000
Amounted Requested in FY15: $1,000,000
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
36
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.p.
February 26, 2015
OFFICE OF THE PROVOST
EXTERNALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP BENCHMARKING
Summary: The Provost's Office requests permission to issue a multi-year order (FY15-FY19) for
benchmarking of externally funded research and scholarships. The selected vendor compiles data on
faculty scholarly activity, at the aggregate (department/discipline) level and also the faculty productivity
level. This benchmarking allows for deeper understanding of NIU's research/scholarship strengths,
opportunities and collaborations. The intent to award this contract as a sole source will be advertised in
the Illinois Public Higher Education Procurement Bulletin.
Funding: Appropriated/Income Funds
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY15-FY19 as follows:
Academic Analytics LLC……………………......................................................$475,000
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
37
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.q.
February 26, 2015
FISCAL YEAR 2016 STUDENT MASS TRANSIT BOARD
CAMPUS BUSING SYSTEM CONTRACT RENEWAL
Summary: The Student Mass Transit Board requests permission to issue an order for continued
operation of the campus busing system that provides services on campus and to residential and business
areas of DeKalb and Sycamore. The Student Bus Fee supports this contract. The terms and conditions
are based upon pricing specified for the second year of a four-year renewal option from the sealed bid
opened July 31, 2012. The renewal award will be advertised in the Illinois Public Higher Education
Procurement Bulletin.
Funding: Institutional – Local Funds
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY16 as follows:
Vendor to be determined……...............................................................$4,100,000
Amount Requested in FY15: $4,000,000
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
38
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.r.
February 26, 2015
NORTHERN ILLINOIS RESEARCH FOUNDATION
EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY AMENDMENT
Summary: Research and Innovation Partnerships (RIPs) requests permission to amend the Northern
Illinois Research Foundation (NIRF) agreement to increase expenditure authority to NIRF to support an
expanded scope of NIRF services to NIU, including facilitating the acquisition of EIGERlab, the Rockfordbased business incubator/accelerator/innovation center, and increased activity in patent prosecution and
investigation of intellectual property commercialization. President’s approval was received for the initial
amount on April 17, 2014. This order is exempt from posting on the Illinois Public Higher Education
Procurement Bulletin.
Funding: Institutional – Local Funds
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY15 as follows:
Northern Illinois Research Foundation – DeKalb, IL
Prior Amount…………………………………………………………………….
Amendment………………………………………………………………………
$249,000
$400,000
New Order Total………………………………………………………..
$649,000
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
39
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.s.
February 26, 2015
INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS / FACILITIES
REPLACEMENT OF TURF FIELD AT HUSKIE STADIUM
Summary: Intercollegiate Athletics / Facilities requests permission to replace the existing turf field at
Huskie Stadium. Approval amount includes such items as removal and disposal of existing field, fine
grading of existing base, installation of the artificial in-filled grass surface, inlaid football markings, inlaid
three-color Huskie center logo, inlaid two-color end zone letters, and warranty. Once approval is
received, a bid will be prepared and advertised in the Illinois Public Higher Education Procurement
Bulletin.
Funding: Institutional – Revenue Bond
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY15 as follows:
Vendor to be determined………………………………………………………………$460,000
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
40
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.t.
February 26, 2015
TREASURY OPERATIONS – SIGNATORY AUTHORIZATION
Summary:
The University requests Board of Trustees approval for the designation of the
Treasurer of the Board of Trustees (the Vice President of Administration and Finance), the Assistant
Secretary/Assistant Treasurer of the Board of Trustees, and the Director of Treasury Operations to be the
authorized signatories for all Treasury Operations. This designation is consistent with prior authorizations,
but provides an update with current administrative titles and designations.
Recommendation: The University requests approval of the signatory authorization designation for
Treasury Operations as detailed above.
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
41
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.u.
February 26, 2015
FISCAL YEAR 2015 OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL – OPEN ORDER AMENDMENT
FOR OUTSIDE LEGAL SERVICES REGARDING CIVIL COMPLAINTS
Summary: An amendment is required to increase the open order for FY15 to cover outside legal
services and costs in representation of senior staff in regards to civil complaints. Original President’s
approval was received on September 19, 2014. This order is exempt from advertising on the Illinois
Public Higher Education Procurement Bulletin in accordance with Section 4.10 (d)(7) of the Procurement
Code.
Funding: Institutional – Local Funds, 41 SG34217
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY15 as follows:
Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP – Chicago, IL
Original Approval…………………………………………….… $249,000
Amendment……………………………………………………... $52,000
New Order Total…………………………………………… $301,000
Amount Requested in FY13-14: $200,000
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
41a
February 26, 2015
Action
Agenda Item 7.v.
February 26, 2015
COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES
JOINT APPOINTMENT BETWEEN NIU AND ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Summary: The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences requests permission to amend an agreement to
support the joint appointment of Dr. Mike Papka, Deputy Associate Lab Director- Computing,
Environment and Life Sciences, between NIU and Argonne National Laboratory. Dr. Papka's appointment
with the university contributes substantially to research and teaching programs in the area of high
performance computing and leverages our area national lab resources to advance external funding and
student training opportunities at NIU. Original President’s approval was received on October 11, 2013.
The intent to award this contract as a sole source will be advertised in the Illinois Public Higher Education
Procurement Bulletin.
Funding:
Appropriated/Income Funds, 02 KA14010
Sponsored Projects, 44 G1A62561
Institutional – Local Funds, 41 KA26611
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval of expenditure authority for
FY15-16 as follows:
UChicago Argonne LLC – Chicago, IL
Current Approval…………………………………………………………….$186,444
Amendment…………………………………………………………………..$ 78,948
New Order Approval………………………………………………..$265,392
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
41b
February 26, 2015
Inform ation
Agenda Item 8.a.
February 26, 2015
QUARTERLY SUMMARY REPORT OF TRANSACTIONS IN EXCESS OF $100,000
FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2014 TO DECEMBER 31, 2014
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Purchase
No. of
Appropriated
Non-Appropriated
Amount
Transactions
$100,000
to
$250,000
8
$630,500
$575,007
Total
$1,205,507
TRANSACTIONS DETAIL:
Purchases:
1.
Department of Anthropology/International Training Office - Participant Recruitment 150,000
The Department of Anthropology and the International Training Office requested
permission to contract with FILIPINO Foundation, Inc., for recruitment, selection,
screening, travel, orientation and follow-on activities under a U.S. Department of State
grant project titled “ECA/PE/C/PY Citizen Exchange Programs: Youth Programs Project:
GLOBAL”. FILIPINO Foundation, Inc. will conduct a Philippine-based, open, merit-based
recruitment and selection process to solicit applications for the U.S.-based Philippine
Youth Leadership Program at Northern Illinois University. FILIPINO Foundation, Inc. will
also provide for travel, orientation and follow-on activities in support of this process. This
order is exempt from the Illinois Procurement Code, because the vendor is named in the
grant. (FILIPINO Foundation, Inc., Mandaue City, Philippines)
2.
Facilities Planning and Operations - Flooring - An amendment was required to cover final
invoices for labor and materials needed for the installation of resilient flooring in the
Chessick Practice Center. Original President’s approval was received on May 31, 2013.
This change order will be advertised in the Illinois Public Higher Education Procurement
Bulletin. (Kiefer Speciality Flooring, Lindenhurst, IL)
239,900 *
3.
Office of the Provost – Student Success Collaborative - The Office of the Provost
requested permission to renew their agreement with the Educational Advisory Board
(EAB) as a development partner in a graduation success initiative. EAB has granted NIU
access to a web-based student degree tracking system and is assisting in the further
development of the system. NIU is a designated development partner along with other
partner universities. This is a collaborative venture between NIU and EAB to further
refine a system that will aid NIU and future partners in improving student success. The
renewal period will be December 13, 2014 - December 12, 2017. The intent to award
this contract as a sole source was advertised in the Illinois Public Higher Education
Procurement Bulletin. (Education Advisory Board, Washington, DC)
157,500 *
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
42
February 26, 2015
4.
Division of Information Technology – Classroom Computers – The Division of IT
requested permission to issue an order for notebook computers for use in the WZ 332
and mobile classrooms, including managed charging carts. This purchase is exempt
from the bid process due to utilization of the Midwest Higher Education Consortium
(MHEC) contract. (Hewlett Packard Corporation, Omaha, NE)
100,007
5.
Division of Information Technology – DATA Network Participation – DoIT – Network and
Communication Services requested permission to issue a purchase order for participation
in the DATA Network project. NIU generates the invoices and receives payments from
the local participating school districts and pays DeKalb County for the services rendered.
Because the vendor is a governmental agency, this purchase is exempt from posting on
the Illinois Public Higher Education Procurement Bulletin. (DeKalb County, Sycamore, IL)
200,000
Capital I m provem ent P rojects:
1.
Grounds – Replace Salt Shed – Facilities, Planning and Operations, Grounds Department
has requested the replacement of the existing salt storage shed to improve operations
and reduce salt shortages during critical winter weather conditions. The current salt
shed is slightly bigger than a single car garage, approximately 16’ X 30’. During regular
winter season operations, because of the limited size, Grounds typically needs to restock
the salt supply several times. Multiple deliveries and additional labor are required to
keep the smaller shed stocked. The extreme weather conditions that were experienced
last winter required more than double the amount of salt that is normally used on
campus. Luckily extra salt was available from our normal vendor. This year the salt
vendors in this region have changed their method of supplying and delivering the salt.
They are advising customers to take delivery of the full salt order needed for the entire
winter season. If a single delivery of the entire order is not feasible vendors are
requiring pre-payment of 70 – 80 % with no guaranty that the salt in the pre-purchased
agreement will be available for delivery. Procurement is concerned with a 70% prepayment term with no guaranty. They recommend that winter operations be adjusted to
help maintain the overall cost of the de-icing salt. The new shed will quadruple the
storage floor area and allow Grounds to take delivery on the full amount of salt needed
for the season. Work will be completed by an outside contractor and Physical Plant crafts
under the supervision of an NIU project manager. The work includes removal of the
existing wood framed constructed salt shed and foundation, the installation of a new
cast-in-place concrete foundation and floor slab, with a concrete block pony wall
supporting a clear span steel arch and poly fabric membrane roof structure.
2.
Adams Hall- Floors 2-4 – Replace Insulation on Chilled Water Piping - Facilities Planning 100,000 *
and Operations, at the request of Murali Krishnamurthi, Acting Vice Provost for Faculty
Affairs, investigated interior building conditions at Adams Hall. Concerns have been
raised by students, faculty and staff about the prevalent moldy and musty smell in the
building. The initial investigation found that the existing air conditioning piping
insulation has failed allowing condensation to saturate the insulation material and
support the growth of mold in several areas. Work will be completed by outside
contractors under the supervision of an NIU project manager. The work will include
removal of the existing saturated pipe insulation, any remaining mold will be cleaned,
then new insulation installed on the piping located in the corridors on floors 2, 3 and 4.
The fan coil heating & cooling units in each room will be cleaned and the carpet in
corridors and rooms will be steam cleaned. A comprehensive mold assessment report
for the building will also be completed.
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
43
133,100 *
February 26, 2015
3.
DeKalb Campus – FY15 Parking Lot Repairs - Many of the campus parking lots require 125,000
minor patching and asphalt repairs due to normal wear and tear, winter weather and
snowplowing activities. Parking Services has requested repairs in numerous parking lots
as part of a regular maintenance program to keep the parking lot facilities safe and the
surfaces in good condition. Work will be completed by an outside contractor and
Grounds Department under the supervision of an NIU project manager. The work will
include various operations such as cutting, filling, compacting and patching needed to
repair deteriorated asphalt surface areas. Other repair work may also be included to
ensure a safe facility.
Total
$1,205,507
*Appropriated Funds
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
44
February 26, 2015
Inform ation
Agenda Item 8.b.
February 26, 2015
PERIODIC REPORT ON INVESTMENTS
FOR PERIOD JULY 1, 2014 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2014
In accordance with the approved University Investment and Cash Management policy, this report on
investments is submitted at the end of each calendar quarter to the Board of Trustees.
The following schedules are included with this report:
Investment Holdings as of December 31, 2014
Investment Earnings by Investment Type and Duration for the six months ending December 31, 2014
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
45
February 26, 2015
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
INVESTMENT HOLDINGS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2014
For Fiscal Year 2015
Bond
Investment
Type
Local Funds:
Treasury
Treasury
Federal Agency
Treasury
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Treasury
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Treasury
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Project Funds:
Treasury
Treasury
Treasury
Treasury
Treasury
Treasury
Treasury
Treasury
Money Markets:
IL Funds-Operations
Amalgamated Bank
Maturity
Value
Maturity
Date
05/31/2013
05/31/2013
09/24/2014
09/27/2013
07/30/2014
08/13/2014
09/12/2014
09/25/2013
04/16/2013
09/12/2014
01/31/2014
01/30/2013
03/21/2013
10/11/2012
01/31/2014
11/21/2012
11/30/2012
12/11/2013
09/25/2013
01/09/2014
10/24/2012
02/26/2013
03/13/2013
10/24/2012
05/16/2013
09/26/2014
06/26/2013
12/11/2013
04/25/2013
02/26/2013
11/21/2012
09/15/2014
10/10/2012
05/28/2013
09/12/2014
12/18/2013
01/30/2013
03/13/2013
02/21/2014
10/24/2014
05/31/2013
05/30/2013
11/25/2014
06/21/2013
09/12/2014
10/27/2014
12/13/2013
02/21/2014
09/27/2013
$
2,000,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
1,500,000
2,500,000
1,500,000
1,425,000
2,000,000
3,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
3,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
2,812,500
100,237,500
10/29/2013
05/30/2013
08/22/2013
09/30/2013
11/19/2014
11/24/2014
11/24/2014
11/24/2014
$
1,500,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
20,500,000
05/31/2015
07/15/2015
10/02/2015
10/15/2015
10/15/2015
11/02/2015
11/30/2015
12/15/2015
01/15/2016
01/25/2016
06/27/2016
07/29/2016
09/21/2016
10/11/2016
11/15/2016
11/21/2016
11/29/2016
12/09/2016
12/19/2016
12/30/2016
01/11/2017
01/30/2017
03/06/2017
04/11/2017
05/16/2017
05/26/2017
06/13/2017
06/19/2017
07/25/2017
08/07/2017
08/21/2017
09/15/2017
10/10/2017
11/28/2017
12/11/2017
12/18/2017
01/30/2018
03/12/2018
04/24/2018
04/30/2018
04/30/2018
05/25/2018
06/05/2018
06/20/2018
06/26/2018
10/23/2018
11/26/2018
02/19/2019
08/15/2019
01/31/2015
01/31/2015
02/15/2015
03/31/2015
10/31/2015
11/30/2015
12/31/2015
01/31/2016
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
TOTAL INVESTMENT HOLDINGS
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
$
$
37,208,538
9,268,615
46,477,153
$
167,214,653
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
46
Market
Value
Book
Value
Purchase
Date
$
1,999,838
1,999,526
1,500,342
2,497,970
2,000,469
2,000,754
999,887
998,622
1,503,725
1,500,585
1,499,769
1,000,132
2,500,000
1,999,776
2,999,055
1,500,000
2,500,000
1,500,000
1,418,276
2,000,000
3,497,978
1,998,618
1,500,000
3,497,676
1,998,814
2,499,436
2,469,095
1,000,000
2,000,000
2,997,805
2,000,000
1,497,969
3,500,000
3,000,000
999,773
2,001,854
2,999,074
1,500,000
1,505,960
993,371
1,991,873
3,000,000
1,999,028
1,985,241
1,997,699
2,500,000
2,000,000
2,503,624
2,740,667
100,094,281
$
1,500,116
3,000,087
3,000,180
3,000,156
2,002,471
2,002,602
3,003,086
3,006,645
20,515,343
$
Equivalent
Rate
0.270%
0.294%
0.220%
0.353%
0.200%
0.180%
0.220%
0.394%
0.410%
0.303%
0.510%
0.540%
0.580%
0.626%
0.642%
0.600%
0.640%
0.679%
0.994%
0.800%
0.669%
0.733%
0.750%
0.730%
0.715%
1.010%
1.330%
1.000%
0.740%
0.878%
0.800%
1.176%
0.900%
0.800%
1.258%
1.218%
1.040%
1.030%
1.376%
1.224%
1.130%
1.050%
1.315%
1.470%
1.484%
1.600%
1.700%
1.713%
2.140%
$
2,001,840
2,003,710
1,500,844
2,501,839
2,000,511
1,999,214
998,891
1,000,117
1,504,736
1,500,905
1,496,888
1,001,212
2,498,203
1,995,195
3,002,734
1,491,340
2,487,572
1,493,783
1,422,193
1,998,944
3,476,663
2,000,012
1,498,764
3,467,784
1,976,705
2,499,681
2,481,687
998,353
1,986,273
2,989,950
1,981,978
1,502,374
3,456,302
2,960,200
997,594
1,992,503
2,987,431
1,483,873
1,504,232
984,028
1,974,649
2,948,760
1,990,538
1,973,364
1,995,523
2,494,506
1,994,806
2,509,042
2,768,866
99,777,112
0.159%
0.215%
0.202%
0.229%
0.101%
0.108%
0.147%
0.170%
$
1,486,851
3,018,757
3,003,433
3,003,416
2,001,256
2,000,239
2,999,721
3,006,208
20,519,881
0.010%
0.010%
$
$
37,208,538
9,268,615
46,477,153
$
37,208,538
9,268,615
46,477,153
$
167,086,777
$
166,774,146
February 26, 2015
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
INVESTMENT EARNINGS BY TYPE AND DURATION
For Fiscal Year 2015
July 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014
Average Daily
Investment
Balance
Percent
of
Portfolio
Annualized
Rate of
Return
Income
Earned
Short-Term Investments
Illinois Funds
$
30,516,883
15.85%
$
1,998
0.013%
Investment Accounts - Financial Institutions
$
30,995,223
16.10%
$
8,056
0.052%
Investment Accounts - Project Funds
$
13,477,631
7.00%
$
718
0.011%
$
74,989,737
38.95%
$
10,772
Short-Term Total
Short-Term Average Yield
0.028%
Intermediate/Long-Term Investments
Local Funds
$
94,126,578
48.89%
$
409,910
0.871%
Project Funds
$
23,403,090
12.16%
$
15,536
0.133%
$ 117,529,668
61.05%
$
425,446
Intermediate/Long-Term Total
Intermediate/Long-Term Yield
COMBINED TOTAL
0.724%
$ 192,519,405
AVERAGE ANNUALIZED RATE OF RETURN
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
100.00%
$
436,218
0.45%
47
February 26, 2015