Campus Planning Committee: Meeting of November 19, 2009

With neither welcome, nor introduction, the Campus Planning Committee (CPC) commenced its November 19, 2009 meeting. There were four items on the agenda:

1) Approval of the November 12, 2009 Minutes.

2) Irwin Goldman, Interim Dean of CALS, gave the presentation on replacement of the existing Seeds Facility. The wooden structure was built in the late 1940's. The reasons for this request is the proposed expansion of the Meat Science and Muscle Facility and the inability to preserve seeds. For example, under normal conditions, seeds should last at least 25 years, but in the current facility, it is only 5 years.

3) Al Fish, FP&M, gave the presentation on the improvement of the lakeshore area that is north adjacent to Memorial Union and the Evelyn White building. The scope of work includes repair of the concrete piers, improvement of the walking areas, and the development of a park between the Red Gym and the Memorial Union. The goal is the prevention of lakeshore erosion and the connections of a pedestrian walkway from the lake shore to 21 North Park Street/Smith Hall.

4) Teresa Adams, FP&M, presented a proposed scheme for the Capital Projects requests for the 2011-13 biennium. The requests originate from the projects reviewed this semester. After some deliberation, the ranking of General Fund Supported Bonds are as follows:

1. Nursing Science Building
2. Utility Projects
3. Walnut Street Greenhouses
4. Seeds Facility replacement.

The ranking of Program Revenue Supported Borrowing is as follows:

1. University Houses
2. Natatorium Renovation (pending student vote)
3. Lakeshore Improvement/Alumni Park

The Chemistry request has been placed in the 2013-15 biennum for further discussion/analysis.


With that, the meeting adjourned.

dr-m

Campus Planning Committee: Meeting of November 12, 2009

With neither welcome, nor introduction, the Campus Planning Committee (CPC) commenced its November 12, 2009 meeting. There were three items on the agenda:

1) Kathryn May, Dean of the School of Nursing, gave a presentation for the construction of a new School of Nursing building to be located at Parking Lot 85. Currently the school is ranked 20th in the nation and 18th in funds from the NIH. Current enrollment is nearly 500 students, but because of low student teacher ratios, the School of Nursing has to turn down qualified students because of lack of facility space. In addition, the new building will allow the school to incorporate POD, SCALE and Human Patient Simulators as part of the curriculum.

2) Paul Evans, Director of Housing, gave a presentation regarding the renovation of the University Houses. These are graduate housing facilities that are south adjacent to Eagle Heights and abuts the Village of Shorewood. These wooden apartment facilities were built in the late 1940's as post WWII faculty housing required for the large number of returning veteran students. An earlier proposal advised that these buildings be removed, however, that proved expensive. Housing derives its funding from its residents and a demolish/rebuild would have seriously increased rental rates. As proposed as a phased renovation, the rental increase will only be $50 per month for University House residents.

3) John Herrod, FP&M, gave a presentation that outlines more utility projects for the campus. They will be located near the Cogeneration Plant and Central Campus. In addition, one project will improve stormwater reduction within existing retention ponds.

With that, the meeting adjourned.

dr-m

Campus Planning Committee: Meeting of Oct 29, 2009

After a brief welcome and introduction, the Campus Planning Committee (CPC) commenced its October 29, 2009 meeting. Provost DeLuca chaired the meeting an gave an address regarding the process and functions of the committee. There were three items on the agenda:

1) Approval of the October 22, 2009 Minutes.

2) Robert Hammers, Chair - Dept. of Chemistry, made a presentation that demonstrated that the current chemistry building does not meet the current demand for students of organic and applied chemistry. The current building has out-of-date fume hoods, lack of storage, and limited lecture discussion facilities. He stated that Chemistry courses serve 41% of CALS students, 33% of Engineering students, and 48% of Med/Nursing students. However, he was not able to determine if this were students with single, double, or triple majors. Unfortunately, their proposal did not contain a minimum square footage or any costs, but suggested a 6 story structure.

3) Bill Tracy, Chair - Dept of Agronomy, gave a presentation that outlines the need for new and updated greenhouses that are north of the Cogeneration Plant. Within the next few years, another phase of construction at the Cogerneration Plant will place the existing greenhouses under shade. The proposal is construct 5 new state-of-the-art greenhouses so that the current facility square foot capacity is not reduced. Within the past 3 years, the facility has upgraded its utilities and therefore, the site is fully capable to support the construction. An alternative plan, using a West Madison (Junction Road & Mineral Point) was discussed. The disadvantages of this location is the distance and the required infrastructure.

With that, the meeting adjourned.

dr-m

Campus Planning Committee: Meeting of Oct 22, 2009

After a brief welcome and introduction, the Campus Planning Committee (CPC) commenced its October 22, 2009 meeting. Provost DeLuca chaired the meeting an gave an address regarding the process and functions of the committee. There were four items on the agenda:

1) Approval of the September 24, 2009 Minutes.

2) Hank Walter, of Food Services, gave an overview of the food service locations that exist on and are planned. His main points were that food service must turn a profit, therefore new food service requests (i.e. ICU Deli) should have a quantifiable demand. If the demand is not met, then the requesting organization must pay into an operational subsidy. Over the summer an ad-hoc subcommittee made recommendations for the implementation of future food service requests: a) Housing Services or the Wisconsin Union have first right of refusal of any request. b) Outside vendors (i.e. Starbucks, Taco Bell, etc.) can then submit an rfp. The ad-hoc committee 'recommended' that living wages would be used by outside vendors, but did not make any statements regarding corporate ethics or responsibility.

3) Faramarz Vakili, of FP&M, gave an update on the We Conserve program. The guiding principles are Efficient Systems, Informed People, Realistic Expectations, and Responsipble Action. Currently, the campus' utility bill is $50M per year--3x the maintenence budget. The increases in fuel and electricity costs are the drivers of this amount. The biggest demanders of energy are HVAC systems and as a result, they use 65% of a daily energy use. The program was commenced on Earth Day 2006 and will terminate in 2010, unless support (finanical and adminsitrative) is found.

4) Al Fish, of FP&M, gave an update on 2 NIH grants and 1 NSF proposal.

With that, the meeting adjourned.

dr-m

Campus Planning Committee: Meeting of Sept 24, 2009

After a brief welcome and introduction, the Campus Planning Committee (CPC) commenced its September 24, 2009 meeting. Provost DeLuca chaired the meeting an gave an address regarding the process and functions of the committee. There were three items on the agenda:

1) Approval of the May 14, 2009 Minutes--at this session the committee discussed --at length--the process of ranking projects. The CPC had intended to meet over the summer, but due to the pending appointment of incoming Provost, Alan Fish advised that the CPC suspend these discussions until fall.

2) David Miller, of UW System, gave an overview of the capital ranking process from the UW System point of view. In essence, he addressed whether or not any one UW campus disporpotionately benefits from the process. In short, campuses, such as UW-Madison, that are able to supplement their proposals with Gifts & Grants are more successful.

3) Alan Fish, of FP&M, gave a presentation on the UW-Madison 2011-17 Capital Budget and explained Madison's process of developing construction proposals. At his conclusion, the CPC voted on the proposals that we will hear during the Fall 2009. In addition, the CPC questioned the two-tier system and has marked the December 3rd meeting for a larger discussion on projects that lack Gifts and Grants.

With that, the meeting adjourned.

dr-m

Campus Planning Committee: Meeting of April 23, 2009

After a brief welcome and introduction, the Campus Planning Committee (CPC) commenced its April 23, 2009 meeting. Interim Provost Julie Underwood chaired the meeting. Chancellor Martin was also in attendance an addressed the committee. There were five items on the agenda:

1) Approval of the March 26, 2009 Minutes.

2) Gary Brown, of FP&M, gave an on the Campus Master Plan. Highlights include that we currently have 13 projects under construction. Mr. Brown currently represent the University on the City of Madison's Zoning Code Update Committee. Currently, their is a proposal that would create a new sub-district for the University. This would allow the University to bypass certain commission during the approval of construction projects--as long as the proposed projects were in compliance with the Campus Master Plan.

3) Dan Okoli, of FP&M, gave a presentation on the role of the Design Review Board. Currently the board is charged with design review of upcoming projects as long as the review does not hinder production of add addition costs. A current issue is the maintenance of green space that is not associated with a construction project.

4) Al Fish, of FP&M, gave an update of projects proposed for the NIH portion of the Federal stimulus bill.

5) Al Fish, of FP&M, gave an update on the 2009-11 Capital Budget.

With that, the meeting adjourned.

dr-m

Library and Childcare Committees

University Libraries Committee:
The main issue highlighted at this month's University Library Committee meeting was anticipated budget cuts coming down the road. There is still some question about what form these will take. Nonetheless, the ULC is being proactive in looking at where the libraries can increase efficiency while maintaining services and what could be eliminated if need be. The anticipated cuts are somewhere in the range of 5-10% of the overall budget. What the numbers are will not be entirely clear until everything is worked out with the revised State budget and what impact the federal stimulus package will have. What the directors of the General Library System have committed themselves to, however, is to maintain innovation to meet the university's information needs. While the library system will have to slim down in some places, the overall attitude remains positive and hopeful for the future.

University Child Care Committee:
At the University Child Care Committee meeting we discussed broad array of issues, but perhaps the most prominent one was the problem of a lack of available child care on campus. There are many great programs at this university, such as the Child Care Tuition Assistance Program which makes it possible for parent students to better focus on their studies, but clearly more could be done. One of the concerns I raised with the committee was the difficulty of using the current after care program for students. After care is a service for parents who need to take evening classes, and it is something that may need more attention as graduate programs increasingly migrate their classes to evening timeslots to accommodate students who work full time. The facilities used for the after care program are excellent (the Little Chicks Daycare on Whitney Way and University), but they are also inconveniently located far from much of the campus. We discussed the possibility of finding another daycare east of campus that could provide services for students who live in that part of town. Ultimately, however, many agreed that there is a glaring need for modern daycare facilities located near the heart of the campus. When new buildings are drawn-up for campus the feasibility of having a daycare located in them is supposed to be explored. It seems, however, that increased pressure on decision-makers would help move this forward, since there are no solid prospects at this point. If UW-Madison wishes to continue to attract a diverse array of students they will have to invest more in child care infrastructure.

Perhaps this is an issue the Campus Planning Committee could be willing to take up?

Campus Planning Committee, October 23, 2008

After a brief welcome and introduction, the Campus Planning Committee (CPC) commenced its October 23, 2008 meeting. There were five presentations on the agenda:

1) Approval of the September 13 Minutes. During that meeting, the Campus Planning Committee toured the Grainger Hall addition and University Square.

2) Civic Participation and Engagement: I presented 20 minute presentation regarding Civic Participation and Engagement that asked: As a Committee, are we disregarding our responsibility to our community (Chancellor, Faculty Students, Alumni, Boosters, etc.) when we do not engage in meaning conversation regarding the University and how it affects the urban fabric.

A Microsoft '07 PPT copy of the presentation can be found HERE.

A 20MB PDF copy of the presentation can be found HERE.

As follow-up to the issues raised, Facilities Planning & Management will present their policies at the next meeting on November 13, 2008.

3) Alan Fish, of FP&M, presented an outline of the 2011-17 Capital Budget,

4) Julie Grove, of FP&M, presented an update of Chazen Museum of Art addition, and

5) Dan Cornelius, of Wisconsin Union, presented an update of the Union South redevelopment project.

Campus Planning Committe, Meeting of September 25, 2008

At the inaugural meeting of the Campus Planning Committee, we accomplished three items:

• MINUTES: We approved the minutes of the May 15, 2008 meeting.

• TOUR 1: The committee was led on a tour of the New Granger Hall extension. Highlights of the tour included various classroom configurations, an electronic room reservation system and the interactive capabilities for distance learning. The building was envisioned as a five-story structure, but due to cost overruns, it was limited to four-stories. All floor are accessible to students.

• TOUR 2: The committee was led on a tour of the University Square Complex. Highlights of the tour include the green roof, the new WSUM radio facility/lounge, the two-level UHS offices and treatment rooms, the new ASM offices and the student organization carrels.

After University Square, the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting will be on 10/25/08.

Campus Planning Committee: March 27, 2008

After a brief welcome and introduction, the Campus Planning Committee (CPC) commenced its March 27, 2008 meeting. There were three items on the agenda:

Approval of the February 28, 2008 Minutes

During that meeting, the Campus Planning Committee had reviewed the Wisconsin Institutes of Discovery/Vivarium, the Charter Street Heating Plant, ATC Line-Overhead/Underground.

The UW-Madison Campus Masterplan

Presented by Gary Brown Director of Campus Planning and Landscape Architecture, a division of Facilities Planning and Management.

The theme of the Masterplan is “Recreating Ourselves in Place.” The two components of the theme, ‘re-creating” and “in place,” speak to the land use issue of infill development.

Infill Development can be defined as “development that occurs on contiguous vacant lots scattered within areas that are already predominantly developed or urbanized to the highest intensity allowed by the zoning designation and the General Plan” (City of Escondido Municipal Code, 2008).

Infill matters because this type of land use is ecologically sustainable. Infill can utilize existing infrastructure (streets, water/sewer, and utilities), reduce dependence on cars by taking advantage of existing/proposed transit, recycle polluted brownfields and/or vacant lots, satiate neighborhood deficiencies (housing, commerce, social services), and fit within the existing neighborhood context (height, setbacks, architectural design, mass, etc).

Most importantly, Infill does not require the University to expand its development footprint into the surrounding neighborhoods.

The University had explored two other strategies (1) creating a satellite campus and, (2) expanding the existing campus and concluded that utilizing an Infill scheme was more financially advantageous. Driving this decision is the projected increase of educational land uses (office, recreation, housing, labs, etc) of 6.3M square feet of space, from 18.5 to 25.3M and the identification of 65 acres of parking lots. It is financially cheaper to recreate a parking lot into a university building.

The Committee raised three questions:

1. Did the University enter into an agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) with the City of Madison regarding the intended developments (6.3M square feet) of the Masterplan? The answer is no.

2. How does the Masterplan affect Operating Costs? Essentially, the plan identifies maintenance intensive older buildings and examines if a new building or re-fabricated building can serve the needs of the University. The criteria is as follows:

• Does the building have historic significance (as defined by being on the National Register of Historic Places or identified by the Wisconsin Historical Society as a potentially eligible building) and/or is it a pivotal or contributing building in an identified historic district?
  

• Is the building a heritage building or signature building on campus?

• Does the building meet current and projected functional needs and if if not, can it be remodeled, renovated or reprogrammed?

• Does the facility have major building inadequacies related to its structure, HVAC,etc.?

• Is the existing site in demand for future development which has a higher & better use?
  

To understand the evaluation of buildings please click here and turn to page 81:

https://fpm-www3.fpm.wisc.edu/cpla/Portals/0/2005%20CMP%20Chapter%203%20Observations.pdf

3. How does this plan effect parking on Campus? An underground parking space can cost between $25-$50K per parking space depending on the foundation, soil type, building construction, number of parking spaces, etc. In order to pay for new construction, the parking rates will need to be raised in the future.

For more UW-Madison Campus Masterplan Information:

You can find the entire master plan here:

https://fpm-www3.fpm.wisc.edu/CPLA/tabid/66/Default.aspx

You can find Mr. Brown’s presentation here:

https://fpm-www3.fpm.wisc.edu/cpla/Portals/0/Report%20to%20CPC%20March%2008.pdf

You can find a video presentation of the master plan, given by Alan Fish – Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Planning and Management here (click 2005-2025):

http://www.uwalumni.com/home/coolstuff/masterplan/masterplan.aspx

You can find the Campus Long Range Transportation Plan here:

https://fpm-www3.fpm.wisc.edu/cpla/Portals/0/Trans%20LRTP%20031808.pdf

Design Guidelines

Presented by Dan Okoli, Director and University Architect of Campus Planning & Management, a division of Facilities Planning and Management.

What is notable about his presentation is the identification of the best location for UW-Madison amenities (Wisconsin Union, the Bascom Hill Historic District, etc.) happen to be locations built at least 80 to 100 years ago. It was striking that nothing built within that last 10 years was included. Therefore, if you have ever wondered why there seems to be a lack of design cohesion on the campus, you must examine two aspects of any campus Land Use Entitlement. An Land Use Entitlement can be defined as the right to develop land with government approvals for zoning changes, density, utility installations, occupancy permits, use permits. In this case, the government is the City of Madison.

Lets create a scenario where I want to construct a 5-story structure that will contain classrooms, faculty offices, underground parking, a small food court, and a penthouse conference room.

1. Design Review Board: After the interior requirements have been programmed (square feet, classrooms, faculty offices, underground parking, a small food court, and a penthouse conference room) and the site has been selected, I must propose an exterior design for the structure. The following is excerpted from the Campus Design Guidelines technical report:

The University of Wisconsin-Madison has neither advocated stylistic consistency nor prescribed particular roof forms, colors or materials throughout it campus; instead it is our expectation that buildings and campus places should be designed to be sensitive to their neighborhood context. Clearly such intimate dialogue between new projects and their context will take account of materials, colors, quality, scale, proportions, massing, and overall character of existing buildings and spaces in the neighborhood.

In implementing the 2005 Campus Master Plan, these criteria: richness, balance and unity should be applied to the treatment of open spaces, the buildings, and primary interior spaces…

So what architectural style should we employ? What are the heights of buildings? What about colors and materials? Answers to questions such as these are not prescribed; instead the guideline focuses on a process, through dialogue, that would lead to answers that are appropriate for our campus. It suffices to say that every project on campus should be acutely sensitive to its immediate and larger contexts, and contribute to a greater sense of coherence, even as it expresses its uniqueness and embodies the spirit of its age.

In short, the Design Review Board does not dictate a style, but reacts to proposals. It is important to note that the guidelines contain important information regarding building heights, roof materials, HVAC location, parking specs, etc. and also divides the campus into different districts (based on use, Health Sciences Neighborhood, Lakeshore Residence Neighborhood, etc.), but these are not mandatory requirements. It is hoped that the ‘dialogue’ can mitigate design concerns, but there is no formal design approval process.

If my proposed building has completed the Design Review Board, has been recommended by the Campus Planning Committee (the CPC does not review design), has received recommendation from UW-System, and has received funding from the State of Wisconsin, then I apply for a Land Use Entitlement from the City of Madison.

2. Urban Design Commission: At the City, the project needs approval by the Urban Design Commission (UDC). As a legal reviewing body, the UDC is authorized by the City of Madison General Ordinances, specifically Chapter 33.24 (http://www.municode.com/resources/ClientCode_List.asp?cn=Madison&sid=49&cid=11618).

Because the primary UW-Madison is not within a Design District, any campus project would be reviewed as a Planned Development. Therefore, under Section 33.32.4(b) of the City of Madison General Ordinance, the following shall apply:

The Urban Design Commission shall review the design of all proposed developments which are considered planned developments under provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. In exercising this power, the commission shall be bound by the provisions of Sec. 28.07(4), (5) and (6) and Sec. 28.12(11)(k) and shall report its findings to the City Plan Commission and Common Council.

As Planned Development, Section 28.07(6)(a) of the City of Madison General Ordinance, the following shall apply:

The planned unit development district is established to provide a voluntary regulatory framework designed to encourage and promote improved environmental and aesthetic design in the City of Madison by allowing for greater freedom, imagination and flexibility in the development of land while insuring substantial compliance to the basic intent of the zoning code and the general plan for community development. To this intent it allows diversification and variation in the bulk and relationship of uses, structures and spaces in developments conceived as comprehensive and cohesive unified plans and projects. It is further intended to encourage developments consistent with coordinated area site planning.

Please note that key underlined words, “voluntary, flexible, and basic intent.” In essence, the UDC, like the Design Review Board reacts to proposals rather than applies stringent design standards. Furthermore, any UDC recommendation may be amended or deleted in the subsequent hearings by the Plan Commission and the Common Council. As a result of this process, the urban design of the campus reflects a hodge-podge of styles but no unifying theme.

Alternatively within Planning, New Urbanist Design has gained traction because of its strong design principles. The implementing tool of New Urbanist Design is Form-based codes (referring to Architectural Form). These are zoning codes that place a primary emphasis on building type, dimensions, parking location and façade features, and less emphasis on uses. They stress the appearance of the streetscape, or public realm, over long lists of different use types.

The Committee raised two questions:

• A committee member responded that she considers west campus a not so great place that doesn’t have a sense of community. Mr. Okoli stated that the new ideas and compositions will be brought into the new buildings and developments and humanize the West Campus Area. He said that the conversation is happening. Alan Fish stated that once the new development is complete it will bring more green space, fewer parking lots, and will be developed on a more human scale overall.
  

• A committee member asked if the Design Review Board (DRB) gets involved in pedestrian movement. Mr. Okoli stated that the DRB doesn’t get involved in that portion of the Campus Master Plan, but he will explore future DRB involvement on that topic.

For more information on UW-Madison Campus Urban Design:

You can find the Campus Design Guidelines here:

https://fpm-www3.fpm.wisc.edu/cpla/Portals/0/2005%20CMP%20Chapter%206%20Design%20Guidelines.pdf

You can find a presentation of Historic Campus photos here:

https://fpm-www3.fpm.wisc.edu/FPM_Portal/Portals/0/collegeOnTheHill.pdf

You can find the City of Madison Zoning Codes here:

http://www.municode.com/resources/ClientCode_List.asp?cn=Madison&sid=49&cid=11618

You can find a brochure on Form Based Zoning Codes here:

http://www.lgc.org/freepub/PDF/Land_Use/fact_sheets/form_based_codes.pdf

Campus Planning Committee: February 28, 2008

After a brief welcome and introduction, the Campus Planning Committee (CPC) commenced its February 28, 2008 meeting. There were five items on the agenda:

Approval of the Dec 20, 2007 Minutes

During that meeting, the Campus Planning Committee ranked proposed projects for the 07-09 fiscal year. Our ranking then vies with other projects from other campuses within the UW System. Whether or not any of the UW-Madison projects are funded will depend on UW System priorities as well as the State’s fiscal health. I abstained from approval of the minutes as I was not present at that meeting (Dan Cornelius represented ASM)

School of Medicine and Public Health: Faculty Office

Presented by Mark Wells. The project is the construction of a faculty office building adjacent to the hospital. The location of the seven story structure (130,000 square feet) is currently a green space between the UW Hospital and the Keystone House. No new parking will be provided.

The Keystone House is "a historical stone-and-wood dwelling situated at the west edge of the campus. The house was purchased by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation in 1967 and given to the University. The dwelling, originally a private residence built in 1853, has been converted into small meeting rooms, a library and offices without diminishing the charm of the historical structure. The Dane County Historical Society of Wisconsin lists the "Keystone House" on its register of historical homes deserving preservation (http://csumc.wisc.edu/mki/About/1.AboutFrames.htm ). The site plan noted that FP&M had designated a buffer zone around the Keystone House.

Funding for this building would be provided by the UW Medical Foundation. Therefore, the foundation and the university are negotiating a long-term ground lease for the building.

The purpose of the building is to move offices from the hospital and into the proposed adjacent building. While needed, the proposed site location adjacent to the Keystone house is too close for such a large structure. Other constraints (pedestrian and delivery access to campus drive) arise from the adjacent VA facilities. Discussions are underway to include bike/ped access to Campus Drive via the VA property.

Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery: Vivarium

Presented by George Austin. In Phase I of the Institute for Discovery, the Vivarium (22,400 square feet) was planned to be within the basement. Now, it will be shifted the adjacent lot that is proposed for Phase II. The foundation of will be such that Phase II can still be constructed above the Vivarium.

Funding for this project, $20.5M will come from WARF. WARF will purchase this land from the University as opposed to enter into a long-term lease.

Update: Charter Street Heating Plant

Presented by John Herrod. As part of the Consent Decree (Sierra Club vs WI Dept of Administration and UW-Madison Case #07-C-0251), the campus must Modernize Charter Street Heating Plant’s four coal fired boilers to achieve Best Available Control Technology or BACT at the facility, and comply with the Clean Air Act. Key points:

• We purchase the boilers (used) in 1959.
• This plant provides 45% of the UW-Madison energy needs and operates at 86% of capacity.
• Their has been a 15% coal reduction and is now burning Biomass (paper pellets, tires).
• To operate on coal is costs $10M per year.
• To operate to gas will cost $30M per year.

I have attached to PDF’s for more information. It appears that this may be the University’s next construction priority.

ATC Transmission Line - Over Ground vs. Underground Route

Presented by Steven Ventura. He mentioned a former discussion that occurred at the 10/18/07 Campus Planning Committee meeting. The following is the minutes from that meeting.

Fish provided some background on this issue. Questions have been raised by CPC members and the campus community as to whether his recent radio commercial was an official endorsement of the ATC transmission line project. Fish explained that the campus’ position is that we need reliable power and we are in support of a reliable power source. The campus is not endorsing any route for the line and in fact has voiced concerns about the proposed route near the Arboretum. The language that he used in the radio spot was vetted through the Chancellor’s office as well as UW Communications.

Fish also explained that the campus’ electricity bill accounts for 10% of all of MGE’s billings. 80% of MGE’s power is generated and imported from outside Wisconsin. As a result, the campus has a huge stake in a reliable source of power and ATC provides that power. Fish added that the decision is now in the hands of the Public Service Commission and they have two options before them – the route along the beltline adjacent to the Arboretum and a more southern route. The campus will have opportunities for input as an intervener into the discussion prior to the PSC’s decision.

Fish then introduced Kevin McSweeney, Director of the Arboretum. McSweeney said that he hoped the UW would petition to be an intervener in the PSC’s decision. He said that the Arboretum is an icon to many - it is sacred to the Ho Chunk Nation and has special significance because of its history with the Civilian Conservation Corp. The Arboretum has also petitioned to become a World Heritage Site, and for all of these reasons, McSweeney hoped that the UW and the Board of Regents would take a firm stance against the beltline route. He added that if the beltline route should be chosen, he hoped that ATC would seriously consider an underground rather than overhead line. He concluded by saying he believes there is a lot at stake with this decision and that both the campus and greater Madison community need to address the longer term implications of this project.

Ventura asked Fish how the need for power on campus is linked to the need for the ATC line. Fish replied that a majority of MGE’s power is imported and because of its proximity to two of the great lakes, Wisconsin has no access to power routes from either the north or east. Additionally, the electric grid has evolved in such a way that local decision making on generating electricity has given way to regional decision making about which plants to take on or off line. As such, it is the regional distribution system that has to provide reliable power for our science and research programs and for that we must rely on ATC.

Ventura pressed for the CPC to issue a statement. Chairman Fish noted that this discussion was best at the Chancellor level, as the negations, are at the chancellor level. Venture then introduced Ronald Kalil and Bradley Hunter. In their presentations, they noted that APC’s application has not been rendered complete and that it will be about a year before a decision by the Utilities Commission was to be made. Key points:

• Undergrounding the power lines are now technically feasible—whereas APC said it was not.
• Above Ground will increase vehicular fatalities.
• Higher costs associated with undergrounding are offset by lower maintenance costs.
• APC’s application more than likely will be deemed complete.
• APC has complete eminent domain power, therefore if approved, they are not answerable to local government.

Ventura then read a statement that he wanted the CPC to endorse:

Whereas the construction of a 345 kV electricity transmission line entails significant environmental, economic and cultural impacts; and,

Whereas the option of constructing an underground line may substantially mitigate these impacts;

Therefore, the Campus Planning Committee recommends that the Office of the Chancellor convey to the Public Service Commission a recommendation to conduct independent and unbiased investigation of the feasibility, costs, and benefits of underground construction along the preferred route of the proposed Dane County line.

Provost Farrell interjected that again, this is best handled at the Chancellor’s office. Howell, from the Arboretum, countered that the proposal text says ‘may.’ At this point, I asked Chairman Fish about the campus energy policy. I said that we have heard how the campus handles power supply, but what about demand. What are we doing to reduce demand? Especially in terms of free-riders and marginal costs. Fish said that our next meeting will have ‘demand’ on the agenda.

Someone made a first and second, Ventura’s statement passed. I did not vote either way since I did not have a copy of the text neither prior to the meeting or at the meeting.

One week later, Dawn Crim of the Chancellor’s office sent the following email:

Thank you for sending the Campus Planning Committee's resolution on the proposed route for the ATC line. I was prepared to communicate to the Campus Planning Committee what the campus has done thus far regarding this issue but I had to leave for another meeting prior to the discussion of this item.

UW-Madison is on record with the American Transmission Company (ATC) and the Public Service Commission (PSC) requesting a full evaluation of undergrounding along the beltline route for the same reasons that are outlined in the resolution. The City of Madison, Dane Co. and other key stakeholders have made similar requests. As a result, the PSC has deemed ATC's application incomplete until that information is included in the application. The PSC is requiring specific detailed review of 9 different Beltline routes including underground segments. Additionally, ATC is being required to provide plans for the Arboretum.

Once the PSC deems the application complete, the regulatory review process begins. Our University through the Chancellor's Office and the Arboretum has been engaged for the past two years and will continue to remain vigilant on this issue.

Campus Planning Committee, 2009-2011 Project Priorities

In the December 17th, 2007 meeting, the Campus Planning Committee approved Facilities, Planning & Management's (FP&M) suggested project priorities for funding requests in the 2009-2011 state biennial budget. These priorities will largely dictate FP&M strategy in applying for state funds in the next budget. They are as follows:

1. 21 North Park Street Purchase, $38.60 million
2. Utilities, $31.71 million
3. Integrated Dairy, Phase III, $2.76 million
4. Wisconsin Institutes for Medical Research Middle Tower, $67 million
5. High Density Remote Shelving Facility, $9.7 million

The 21 North Park Street Purchase would save the university $3-4 million per year in lease fees currently paid to a third party owner of office space presently housing such campus operations as the registrar and bursar's offices. The utilities project involves upgrades and replacements throughout the campus utility system. The Integrated Dairy, Phase III and Medical Research Middle Tower (UW Hospital) projects are continuations of current construction projects. Finally, the High Density Remote Shelving Facility would allow the campus library system to relocate seldom-used materials to an off-campus location where the could be stored in climate-controlled conditions until requested.

In the course of deliberations, I expressed a strong belief that the Remote Shelving Facility be given greater consideration due to the direct potential positive impact it would likely bring to students. At peak times such as mid-terms and finals, the libraries are generally packed to capacity. Such a facility would allow the library system to free additional space for added student study areas. Since the facility would also include on-site scanning capability, library users seeking particular sources could conceivably get them quickly and conveniently in an electronic version. Lastly, the facility would be built concurrently with a similar Historical Society facility, thus taking advantage of economy of scale in both construction and long-term staffing and operation. FP&M claimed it's low ranking of the Remote Shelving Facility was based on a lack of articulation of the project's ultimate value. I personally do not see that argument, especially in light of the other much more expensive and seemingly less needed projects.