brocku.ca of Trustees Capital Infrastructure Committee Cycle 3 – Wednesday, March 7, 2018 11:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. Cairns 207 Agenda # Item By …

Board of Trustees

Capital Infrastructure Committee Cycle 3 – Wednesday, March 7, 2018

11:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. Cairns 207

Agenda

# Item By Start Time

Length Action

1. Call to Order KF 11:00 1

2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest KF 11:01 1

3. Approval of Agenda (including consent items) KF 11:02 2 Approval

4. Business Arising from the Minutes KF 11:04 1

KEY ITEMS

5. Capital Infrastructure Committee Goal ProgressScorecard/Metrics

BH 11:05 5 Information

6. Rodman Hall Follow-up- Biography- Donna Szoke & Presentation DS 11:10 10 Information

7. Rodman Hall Update (Including appendix 1) TA 11:20 15 Information

8. 2021 Canada Summer Games (Including appendix 1) TA 11:35 10 Information

9. T2 Financial Update on Capital and Related Project Plan(Including appendix 1)

SJ 11:45 15 Information

10. 2018-19 Fiscal Framework – Capital & DeferredMaintenance Guidance Update (Including appendix 1)

SJ 12:00 10 Information

11. Brock DEEP Project Update (Including appendix 1) SJ 12:10 10 Information

12. Zone Expansion (Including appendix 1 and PowerPoint Presentation) BB 12:20 10

13. IT Policies (Including appendices 1-3) DC 12:30 5

Recommendation

14. RM 12:35 10 Recommendation Space Management Policy (Including appendices 1-3)

CONSENT ITEMS 12:45 5 minutes

(if needed)

15. Minutes of Previous Meeting – Meeting #2 held onNovember 29, 2017

KF Approval

16. Major Projects Update – ITS (Including appendices 1-10)• Workday Update• OCUL Collaborative Futures Project

DC Information

Recommendation

https://brocku.sharepoint.com/:p:/r/teams/Board-of-Trustees/Open-Session/_layouts/15/doc.aspx?sourcedoc=%7Ba3bf20da-ecd2-495e-8046-289082903130%7D&action=edit&uid=%7BA3BF20DA-ECD2-495E-8046-289082903130%7D&ListItemId=421&ListId=%7B3AE7E803-B0F8-45D0-AAD7-38C7

Page 2 of 2

# Item By Start Time

Length Action

17. Goodman School of Business Building Project(Including appendix 1)

AG Information

18. BrockLINC Project Update (Including appendix 1) TK Information

19. Brock Active Living Complex (Including appendix 1) PT/ BH

Information

20. Energy Conservation & Demand Management AnnualScorecard (Including appendix 1)

SJ Information

21. Contract Award for Campus Security Services CM/DM

Information

CONSENT ITEMS (IN CAMERA) 12:50

5 minutes

(if needed)

22. IN CAMERA Record of Proceedings – Meeting #2 held onNovember 29, 2017 - (IN CAMERA)

KF Approval

23. DEEP-2, GGRP Grant Funding -(IN CAMERA)(Including appendix 1) SJ Information

KEY ITEMS (IN CAMERA)

24. Heritage Plaza Options - (IN CAMERA)(Including appendix 1 and PowerPoint)

BB 12:55 15 Information

25. Goodman School of Business Building Project- (IN CAMERA) (Including appendix 1)

AG 13:10 10 Information

26. BrockLINC Project Update - (IN CAMERA) (Including appendix 1) TK 13:20 10 Information

27. Other Business KF 13:30 5

28. ADJOURNMENT KF 13:35

Agenda Legend AG Andrew Gaudes KF Kristine Freudenthaler BB Bryan Boles PT Peter Tiidus BH Brian Hutchings RM Roland Mech CM Chuck MacLean SJ Scott Johnstone DC David Cullum TA Tom Arkell DM Donna Moody TK Tim Kenyon DS Donna Szoke

2017 – 18 Capital Infrastructure Committee Goals and Objectives Progress Scorecard

as at Cycle 3 – March 7, 2018

February 22, 2018 Page 1 of 6 2017-18_CIC Goal Progress Scorecard_Cycle3_FINAL.docx

LEGEND: GREEN = COMMITMENTS COMPLETE YELLOW = COMMITMENTS IN PROGRESS AND ON TRACK RED = COMMITMENTS ARE NOT ON TRACK ORANGE = NOTHING TO REPORT

Item #

Action Goal Measurement Target Date

Progress / Status / Comments

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

CIC1 East Lands • Review updated plansand governance ofupcoming decisions

March 2018

Environmental Assessment is complete.

CIC2 Heritage Plaza • Review updated plansand governance ofupcoming decisions

May 2018 A report will be presented at this cycle.

CIC3 South Campus Lands • Review updated plansand governance ofupcoming decisions

May 2018 Environmental Assessment is complete.

MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS

CIC4 Develop a new capital project prioritization model and user group and develop a new Five-Year Long Term Capital Plan

• Approve FY 2018-19LTCP December

2017

ITS and FM have developed a prioritization model for use in the development of the LTCP. FM to roll out to Faculties and Departments in March 2018. ITS is also aligning the Five-Year Long Term Capital plan submission with FM for a joint presentation to CIC.

CIC5 Review COU and MTCU reports • Ongoing

PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND DELIVERY

CIC6 Goodman School of Business Project

• Ensure progress is on-time, on-budget andrisks are identified andmitigation plans are inplace January

2019

Project continues to progress well. First move is underway in February 2018. Will begin renovation of Taro Hall in March 2018. Project is slightly behind schedule and over budget.

Brock accepted Audio/Visual Consultant’s classroom technology design configuration. The Atrium video wall design is complete and installation scheduled.

ITS is considering expanding the Brock LINC wayfinding solution to include the Goodman School of Business (see CIC7).

CIC7 Brock LINC May 2018 Project being impacted by poor weather. Still outside work on the building roof beams, skylight and curtain wall. Project





Item #



tracking for July 2018 substantial completion. Working to finalize programming on Level 200 with Librarian and Level 300 with VP Research. Working with CCOVI to ensure space needs are met. Golden Badgers to provide support for West Alcove.

IT infrastructure specifications are completed (including wireless, networking and audio visual), and the IT project is forecast to be on time and within budget. Digital signage and electronic wayfinding requirements are being finalized. ITS is also considering scalability to identify potential solutions that can be applied to GSB and the rest of the University, within the current budget.

CIC8 Brock DEEP

May 2018

DEEP 1 project watermain work complete. ES Fox awarded engine and chiller construction. Work to commence in February 2018. Engines ready for delivery. Chiller is scheduled to be on site early March 2018. Funding received for DEEP 2 through GGRF Program.

CIC9 Canada Games 2021 • Scope andresponsibilities defined

• Decision makingauthorities establishedand implemented

2017-18

Preliminary Site Plan developed with assistance of Rankin Construction.

SPACE MANAGEMENT

CIC10 Review and recommend to the Board the physical space that is available, allocated, and required to accommodate the academic and administrative entities of the University

• Facility Needs andPriorities Study Updatecompleted December

2017

Study complete. Developed implementation strategy. Policy to be approved by Board of Trustees in March 2018.

CIC11 Receive and review information on the summary and

• Receive reports March 2018

Working with Brock community to ensure information is accurate for COU submission.





Item #



interpretation of the Triennial Council of Ontario Universities (COU) Report on the inventory of physical facilities of Ontario universities

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

CIC12 Review the University’s information technology infrastructure and make recommendations to the Board as appropriate

• Receive regular reports

2017-18

ITS continues to review and assess the University’s IT infrastructure to ensure alignment with the Strategic Mandate Agreement as well as evolving current and future technology infrastructure trends.

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

CIC13 Develop deferred maintenance/facilities condition index scorecard/dashboard & review the annual facilities condition audit & annual deferred maintenance report

• Report on BoardMandate of minimumspend March

2018

Consultant has provided an updated spreadsheet with the changes in prioritization methodology included. Linear assets review underway. FM reviewing priorities for inclusion in LTCP. FCI scorecard prepared and reviewed, Cycle #5 (Infrastructure) audit currently underway, completion for April 2018.

ACCESSBILE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

CIC14 Receive and review recommendation from management on the campus-wide implementation of the legislated requirements of the Accessibility Standards for the Built Environment, under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)

• Scorecard update

2017-18

Identified AODA projects for LTCP. Exterior paths of travel, service counters and universal washroom projects to be prioritized.

SUSTAINABILITY AND SUSTAINABLE FACILITY OPERATIONS





Item #



CIC15 Review annual report on sustainability-related plans and activities

• Update scorecardJune 2018

ECDMP updated for CIC Cycle-3, New Sustainability Launch Feb. 28th

CIC16 Review annual non-hazardous waste audit report

• Waste diversion rate June 2018 Annual waste audited completed, report to be presented in Cycle 5

CIC17 Review annual energy conservation and demand management plan

• Updated ECDMP March 2018

ECDMP Scorecard updated and reviewed by FM.

SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

CIC18 Emergency Management Plan (EMP) and Emergency Preparedness activities

• Receive and reviewannually any changesand/or updates to the June 2018

HIRA- (Hazardous Identification Risk Assessment) for Brock University is being developed and Campus Security is working with Facilities Management on Risk Update. External consultation completed. Internal consultation will be completed mid February. Report will be sent to the Board at the June meeting.

CIC19 Campus Security Services Annual Report

• Annual statistics,community policinginitiative andinformation regardingoperations andresources

September 2017

The annual report is being prepared for 2017. Crime rate still continuing on a slight decline. Several joint projects with NRP and investigations. A new committee between Brock, Niagara Regional Police and the community has been formed. First meeting held on February 9th, in preparation for St. Patrick’s day.

RISK MANAGEMENT

CIC20 Manage and control capital assets, infrastructure and facility operations risks of the University

• Scheduled updates

2017-18

A new capital and deferred maintenance prioritization model is underdevelopment. A draft Risk Management procedure is complete and has been project tested on small projects. Risk Review to be implemented with DeCew renewal project.

POLICIES CIC21 Review, revise and approve all

existing University policies related to its purview

• Receive reports2017-18

Three existing IT policies have been presented to CIC / the Board of Trustees for approval. One additional IT policy is still under BUFA review. Five other IT policies are still under review





Item #



by ITS, with a goal of presentation for approval to CIC / the Board of Trustees by Cycle 5.

OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES

CIC22 Develop plan for New Undergraduate Residence

• Plan to achieve goalonce undergradstrategy is approved

September 2017

N/A

CIC23 Rodman Hall • Receive regularupdates

December 2017

A report will be presented at this cycle.

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

CIC24 Compromised accounts • Breakdown by monthof compromisedaccounts (an accountwhere Brock Universitylogin credentials areused by someone otherthan the accountholder)Target = 2 per month

See attached.

CIC25 Number of tickets created per period sorted by staff/faculty/students/other (alumni, retired, external (non-Brock))

• Number of ticketsopened per month

See attached.

CIC26 Application availability per period

• Percentage of time permonth that serviceswere operational andavailable (outside ofscheduledmaintenance)Target = 99%

See attached.





Item #



CIC27 Quarterly incidents reported to Campus Security Services

• See attached.

CIC28 Monthly Call for Service by Campus Security Services

• See attached.

CIC29 Crime Rate • See attached. CIC30 Number of Emergency/After

Hour Call-Ins • See attached.

CIC31 Energy Intensity (GJ/m2) • See attached. CIC32 Number of FM Work Requests • Deleted. CIC33 Water Consumption (m3) • See attached.

Information Technology Services scorecard

Application availability (April 2016 to Jan. 2018)

24228

20 30

40 283

525

FallSpring/SummerWinter

2.2 x 1

Students Staff, Faculty, Labs (in terabytes)

All sites/campuses 2017 Jan. – Oct. 22 All sites/campuses 2016

Lorem ipsumLorem ipsum

2017 Jan. to Oct. 222016201520142013

Service: ADFS Portal (my.brocku.ca) card.brocku.ca careerzone.brocku.ca your.brocku.ca/Footprints Sakai mailbox.brocku.ca (OWA)

93%

94%

95%

96%

97%

98%

99%

100%

101%

Jan.-18Dec.-17Nov.-17Oct.-17.Sept.-17Aug.-17Jully-17June-17May-17April-17March-17Feb.-17Jan.-17Dec.-16Nov.-16Oct.-16Sept.-16Aug.-16July-16June-16May-16April-16

256242

231

185

126134

111

134

8271

Threats (Jan. 2018)

Brute-forceBotnetSpywareDosSql-injection

55,471

580

9,892

41,927

7

Blocked threats (Jan. 2018)

Command-and-controlPhishingMalware

44,9151

1,5613,837

sgulamhussein

Textbox

Network threats blocked by Intrusion Prevention System (Jan 2018)

sgulamhussein

Textbox

Web traffic blocked by URL filter (Jan 2018)

sgulamhussein

Textbox

Overall threat activity (Oct 2017 - Feb-15 2018)

sgulamhussein

Placed Image

Campus Security scorecard

Reported incidents in Sept. to Dec. – 2016 vs. 2017

10

1869

120

256240

65

23

1911

3229

5662

10

15970

60

118

20

2016 2017

Municipal offences

Safety concern

Support services

General information

Property related

Traffic accident

Contravention University policy

Provincial Offences Act

Protest/0ccupation

Emergency

Criminal offences

Criminal and provincial offences trend 2011-2017

Criminal offences Provincial offences

2017201620152014201320122011

301

245256

242231

185

154167

134133 134

111

8292

Calls for service 2016 vs. 2017

6.0918 x 23056

new 6.0918 x 2.4

552485

652

511490

499469

680499

653547

721718

940834

797625

776686

726799

834993

964

2016 2017

Jan.

Feb.

March

April

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Facilities Management scorecard

Number of emergency/after hour call-ins

4030

3643

3028

4443

2323

216

123

918

3622

3229

2245

1467

2017 2016

Jan.

Feb.

March

April

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Energy intensity (GJ/M2)*

enlarged 105% after done

new 6.0918 x 2.4

2017 2016 * Purchased energy (electric and gas) – gigajoules/square metre of campus space.

Jan.

Feb.

March

April

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec. 0.22

0.19

0.19

0.190.19

0.19

0.18

0.18

0.18

0.21

0.21

0.23

0.17

0.18

0.18

0.20

0.20

0.20

0.18

0.16

0.20

0.22

0.22

0.23

Water consumption (M3)*

6.0918 x 23056

new 6.0918 x 2.4

2017 2016

Jan.

Feb.

March

April

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec. 22,63723,586

21,815

24,84134,434

36,83123,631

47,223

37,97819,444

18,145

17,081

18,503

17,601

28,405

22,504

23,038

36,706

30,109

22,830

24,481

38,532

24,967

29,476

* Cubic meters

Biography

Prof.DonnaSzoke’sartworkhasexhibitedinternationallysinceshewas20yearsold.HerpracticehasspannedtheartcommunitiesofWinnipeg,LosAngeles,SanFrancisco,VancouverandSt.Catharines.Shehassatontheboardsofbothgalleriesandartistruncentres.Recentlysheservedasanexternalexaminerandassessorfororganizationalfundinginprovincialartgrants(OntarioArtsCouncil)andnationalmulti-universitylargeprojects(SSHRC).

RHAC:Whyculture?

Imagecredit:RHACPermanentCollection:MaryAnneBarkhouse,Settlement,outdoorinstallation,2012.

Prof.DonnaSzoke,ChairofVisualArts,March7,2018

RodmanHallArtCentreispartofasystem-widecommitmentinOntariotogeneratingculturalprogrammingofthehighestcaliber.

RodmanHall,aswithotherUniversitygalleriesormuseumssuchastheMcMasterMuseumofArt,thenewlydesignatedArtMuseumattheUniversityofToronto,ArtGalleryofYorkUniversity,orOCADUniversity’snewlyopenedOnsiteGallery,tonameafew,arethevehiclesparexcellence ofmajorculturalprogrammingthatservesallmembersoftheUniversity,thestudentbody,andthecommunityatlarge. Theseplayauniqueroleinourcommunitiesandarecelebratedinstitutionsthataredeemedessentialtothequalityofourlives,education,andwellbeing.

Image:RHACPermanentCollection:EdwardBurtynsky,DanaFramePlant#2,ThoroldON,2010

LivingCulture

RodmanHallisvitaltoourUniversitycultureaswedonotliveinamajorurbancentre thatalsooffersmanyadditionalopportunitiestoengagewiththeideaofalivingculture.RodmanHallisattheheartofatriangulationofanewlyreviveddowntownthatincludestheMarilynI.WalkerSchoolofFineandPerformingArtsandtheFirstOntario PerformingArtsCentre.Itsrolehasneverbeenmorevital.

Image:Incoming2018applicationsplaceVISASTUDIO/HVAC#1Ranking:45,#2Ranking:17.Thisis61%increaseinVISArankingfrom2017.

*

AnationalexampleofexcellenceatBrock

WhenwemeasurethevalueofRHACinresearch,pedagogy,recruitment,retention,andexperientiallearningweseetheUniversity:

•Doingtherightthings(Strategic)•Doingthemtherightway(Architecture)•Gettingthemdonewell(Delivery)•Gettingthe(expected)benefits(Value)

HowdowemeasurethecontributionsofRHAC?

Metricsofitsimpact:

-AlignmentwiththeUniversityStrategicMandate-Meetsregulatorycompliancewithnationalmuseumstandards-Significantimprovementofuserexperienceforstudents,faculty,staffandcommunity-nationaloutreachsurpasseswhatcanbeboughtwithadvertising-experientiallearninghasrealoutcomesinalumniemployment-exhibitions,children’sartclassesandotherpresentationsarerecruitmentforBrockasawhole-canberolledouttootherareasoftheUniversity

LEARNING STRATEGICMANDATE

EXPERIENTIAL

RECRUITMENT

TheRHACincludessignificantcontributionsto:

RECRUITMENT

RETENTION

Supportingour$46Minvestmentin theMIWSFPA

UniversityofWindsorjustopenedastateoftheartfacilitythatrivalsthenewMarilynIWalkerSchooldowntown.LikeBrock,theyexistoutsideoftheGTA,andhaveasignificantgallery—ahallmarkofaprofessionalvisualartprogram.Withthiscombination,theybecomea‘destinationartschool.’RodmanHallremainsthemostsignificanttoolforrecruitment,retention,andexperientiallearningforourstudents.Itisastrategicinvestmenttoadvanceandpromoteour$46milliondollarschool.

13

MA

RILYN I. W

ALKER SC

HO

OL O

F FINE A

ND

PERFORM

ING

ARTS

brocku.ca/miw

sfpa

STUDY IN THE HEART OF A

VIBRANT ARTS COMMUNITY

Check out our state-of-the-art downtown St. Catharines campus for the fine and performing arts.

�

�

�

Director’sReplacementTheDirector/curatorgeneratestheprogrammingwithfundingsupportfromtheCanadaCouncilandOntarioArtsCounciltoassistwithartist’sfees,mountingofexhibitions,publicationsandpromotion. Grantsassistingwithprogrammingaretheresultofpeerevaluationinahighlycompetitivefieldwhereinstitutionsmustproposetheirprogrammingatleastthreeyearsinadvanceinordertoqualify.ThisdeterminationtodeliverexemplaryexhibitsofthehighestprofessionalcaliberandrelatededucationalprogramminghasbeenthedrivingforceofRodman’sresurgenceandtherespectithasgarneredfromartists,scholarsandpublicalike.IthasneverbeenasrelevantasitistodaythankstothevisionofitsCurator.Upuntillastyear,RodmanHalloperatedwithafull-timeDirector,Curator,EducationFacilitator,Secretaryandpart-timeAnimator.Thishasbeenasustainable,buthard-wonmodelbuiltoverthe16yearssincetheUniversityacquiredownershipandresponsibilityforthegallery,itsstaffingandprogramming.However,thepositionofDirectorhassincebeenlostthrougharesignationandnowwiththedireconsequencethatgrantproposalsaswellasallprogrammingandcuratorialdecisionsfallontheshouldersofoneindividual,theCurator.ReplacingtheDirectorisvitaltoitsabilitytofunctionandmaintainexternalfunding.

Staffing&Professionalization

AlthoughaseniorUniversityadministratorhasbeenappointedonatemporarybasisasco-Director,hisexpertiseisoutsidethevisualarts.ThisfactorhascompoundedtheresponsibilitiesthatnowfalltotheCurator,especiallyduringthelongleaduptograntsubmissionsandhaveaffectedherabilitytofocusprimafacie onthemanylogisticsinvolvingprogramming.Therecentchangeshavecreatedagreaterdependencyonvisitingexhibitionsintheexhibitioncycle.Thelegacyofresearchinvolvinglocal,nationalorinternationalartistsandthepublicationsthataccompanytheirexhibitions,havealreadybeencompromisedinthelasttwotothreeyearswithoutaDirector’sleadership.Therearefewerexhibitionsbeingmountedandmoralehasbeengreatlyaffected,asthosecolleagueswhoworkundersuchduressaretheoneswhoshouldertheimmensepressureandinjusticeofthesituation.

PublicTrustRodmanHallisdesignatedan“A”statusinstitutionbytheCanadianCulturalPropertyExportReviewBoard,theonlyinstitutionintheNiagararegiontohavereceivedsuchrecognition(withtheexceptionoftheGibsonLibraryanditsSpecialCollections),whichmeansitcanacceptdonorworksofartwithReviewBoardapprovalaspartofthepublictrustgrantedcollectinginstitutionsacrossCanada.RodmanHall’sartcollectionhasbeenbuiltoverthelast50ormoreyearsthroughthegenerosityofthepublicandartistswhohavedonatedtothecollectioninexchangeforataxbenefit.ThispracticehascontinuedunderBrock’smanagementwithanemphasisonliving,practicingartists.

WebelievethispublictrustisimportanttosustainatBrock.18%ofthelocalcommunityiscurrentlyattendinguniversity,ascomparedtothe26%averageacrossOntario.Wemustmaintaintrustrelationshipslocallyforeffectiverecruitment.

ImpactonPedagogy

andTeaching

Theaward-winningprogramming,especiallyfollowingtheappointmentofthelastDirector,establishedRodmanHallasaleadingprogrammerofcontemporaryart.AbroadrangeofartistsfromacrossthecountryaswellastheUShasparticipatedineither one-personorgroupexhibitions.ThesehavebeenlargelygeneratedbytheRodmanHallcuratorialstaffandhaveexceededexpectationswiththeirlastingimpact,especiallyforourfacultywhodependonthisprogrammingtoedifytheirstudents.

ImageSource:Prof.AmyFriend’sphotosontourwithDianaKrallImageCredit:DavidJ.Murray,cleareyephoto.com

ExperientialLearning&StudentRetention

Our4th-yearBA(Hons.)studentsgainauniqueopportunityinworkingatRodmanHallwheretheysharestudiosonthe3rdfloor.Thisisoneofthepinnaclesofourstudioprogram,especiallyforthosestudentswhoseethemselvesaspursuingaprofessionalartcareerorqualifyingforanMFAgraduateprogram.InadditiontothementoringtheyreceivefromVISAfaculty,theirinteractionwithRodmanHall'sprofessionalstaffprovidesalevelofmentorshipthatisuniqueinundergraduateeducation.AgraduatingspringexhibitionatRodmanHallfacilitatesoutreachtothecommunityandprovidestangibleevidenceofafullyrewardingpost-secondaryexperiencethatdistinguishesourstudioprogramlikefewothers.ThishaslongbeenourstrengthanditsignifiestheinnovativepedagogicalapproachwehavedevelopedinconjunctionwiththestaffandfacilitiesatRodmanHall.

Imagecredit:BrittanyBrooks,EverythingISaw,videostill,2016.https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=20&v=ikcgGXf1H_M

CommunityTrustItisimperativethattheUniversityliveuptotheletterofitsagreementtomanageandoperateRodmanHallforourprofessionalintegrity,thetrustofthecommunity,andasamajorrecruitmenttoolfortheVisualArtsBA(Hons)studioprogram.AmajorvoidinprofessionalartprogrammingintheNiagararegionwillensueasnootherinstitutionorculturalorganizationenjoysthemandateoftheUniversityanditsgenerouscommitmenttomindfuleducation,communityoutreach,andtheintegralvaluesofprofessionalization.ThelinkagebetweenBrockUniversityandRodmanHallhasbroughtawelcomestabilitythathasenabledittogrowinmeasured,butinnovativeways,especiallyinitsscholarshipandgenerationofprogrammingthatcrossestheculturalorsocialspectrum.

Thestudentexperiencegainedfromwell-researched,imaginativeandacademicallysoundexhibitionsresonate.RHACembodiesresearch&pedagogyleadershipbeyondtheregion.DedicatedpeopleincludingfacultyandstaffwiththeguidanceofsuccessiveAdministrations,DeansofHumanities,andanAdvisoryBoardcomprisingfacultyandcommunitymembersmandatedbytheBoardofGovernors,havenurturedthisextraordinarylegacyoveryears.

TolosethisgemofaculturalorganizationwiththedistinctiveimprintoftheUniversity’sboldinitiativeinsustainingcommunityoutreachandallofitspotentialascurrentlyenvisioned,willbedevastatingandalossthatwebelieveriskstheintegrityoftheUniversity.

Artistphotocredit: DeniseApostolatoshttps://brocku.ca/miwsfpa/visual-arts

IntegrityinResearch&Pedagogy

WewelcometheopportunityforaconstructivedialoguebetweenfacultyandstaffandtheUniversityAdministrationasweremaincommittedtoseeingajustresolutionforthestaffandtheirongoingcontributiontoRodmanHall’sfuture.WefeelstronglythatitisintheinterestoftheDepartmentofVisualArts,ourstudentsandthereputationofourprogramtoengageindialoguewhilevoicingourconcernsandaspirationsforaproductiveandviablesolution.WehavemanyinnovativeideasinfurtherintegratingRHACacrossthespectrumoftheUniversity.

1

Board of Trustees

Report to the Capital Infrastructure Committee

INFORMATION ITEM

TOPIC: Rodman Hall Update

March 7, 2018 Tom Arkell, Special Advisor, Office of the VP Administration

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Purpose of the Report

• To provide an update on the transitioning of Rodman Hall Arts Centre from BrockUniversity to the community

2. Key Background

• Rodman Hall Arts Centre was transferred to the University in 2003• In December 2014 the Board of Trustees received an In Camera report highlighting

an ongoing deficit of $613,000.• In the subsequent 24 months, a number of studies and tasks were undertaken to

assist with the transition of Rodman Hall Arts Centre to the community• In 2017 a coalition of interested groups was formed and tasked with moving the

project forward.• At the last CIC meeting, the following steps were identified and are in progress or

have been completed:o Brock and the Coalition will create and execute a charter of shared

expectations, goals and timelines. Complete.o The Coalition and Brock will launch a series of aspirational community

consultations. Completeo The Coalition will prepare a plan to create a non-profit entity, complete with

a full board of directors and bylaws. Complete.o A matrix of potential board leaders and champions will be compiled, with

inaugural board members identified. Underwayo Brock will issue a media advisory (to coincide with the above steps) that

highlights the positive progress to date and next steps. Completeo Brock will pursue possible future partners in a new operation while keeping

the four pillars of agreement. They are: Keeping the building as an historical entity Keeping the botanical gardens Acting as an art gallery, and Allowing for a place for research and pedagogy

o Meetings have taken place at the staff level with Ridley College, the City ofSt. Catharines and the Region of Niagara to socialize the notion of partnershipthrough funding or other form of collaboration. Ongoing

2

o A meeting and tour of the Cuddy Gardens in Strathroy (Fanshawe College)has taken place with a desire to understand the relationship between itsoperation and the college horticultural program, and to determine if such anarrangement might be desirable for Niagara College or the local schoolboards. Ongoing

3. Next Steps

• The University has issued a call for an arts consultant to assist with the creation ofa feasibility study to support a sustainable pathway forward. RFP closed February28, 2018

• The University has met with and will continue to meet and provide an RFI packageto potential partners for future funding and/or collaboration. Interested potentialpartners have been asked to self-identify by March 9, 2018

• The Coalition will identify members of the new board and will incorporate a newnot-for-profit organization.

• Updates will be provided following the above timelines, and at the next andsubsequent CIC meetings

4. Background Materials

Appendix 1 – Rodman Hall Community Conversations (4 pages)

1

Capital Infrastructure Committee TOPIC: Rodman Hall Update

DATE: March 7, 2018 Appendix 1

Rodman Hall Arts Centre

Community Conversations November 25-29, 2017

2

Community Conversations

On November 25th and 29th, 2017, the Rodman Hall Coalition, in conjunction with Brock University, conducted three in-depth ‘appreciative inquiry’ sessions with members of the public in order to sample the community’s aspirations for the Rodman Hall Art Centre (“RHAC”). Additionally, an online version was made available in order to enhance accessibility for those who could not attend in person.

Sixty-one people participated in the personal conversations and 109 sent digital contributions. Included are community members with a broad range of experience with RHAC; from newcomers to those with a long history, both students and teachers, and art-lovers and artists.

The information gathered by this effort will be a valuable reference to guide decision-makers planning the future of RHAC. The large volume of data is currently being reviewed in order to identify recurring themes, common threads and unique ideas.

In the meantime, here are some initial impressions on reading through the data, as expressed by David Vivian, Director of MIWSFPA, and, a member of the Coalition:

Participants responded with vigour and a clear expression of personal investment in the future of RHAC. The content is thoughtful, reflective, and personal. It presents a sense of historical legacy and a future vision for sustainability. The information collected at the Community Consultations strongly aligns with the salient themes and recommendations of the Barlow Report. This Community Consultations process has encouraged and reinvigorated the work of the Coalition and its subcommittees.

Giulia Forsythe, coalition member and one of the facilitators, has prepared the following as a preliminary synthesis of general themes she feels deserved to be highlighted and shared back with the community.

3

DISCOVER (high points in history and how are you using RHAC now) Professionally run, Class A art gallery

• High quality art gallery showing “contemporary art of national importance” • Many respondents identified their favourite exhibitions (often recent ones within the past 5

years) and even more respondents highlighted exhibitions, in general as high points; A few mentioned enjoying the permanent collection

• Commitment to indigenous art, artists, ways of being • Many respondents identified Hot Talks/ having the artist describe their exhibits as being

high points

Botanical Gardens

• Walker Botanical Gardens • Arboretum; historic Carolinian

forest • Nature; Trails; Hiking

Education

• Brock University courses o Experiential Learning; Work-

integrated learning; internships

• Art Classes; studio • Kids Camps; K12 School

programs (both from participants and their children)

Historical Location

• Building; Land; Stories

In addition, a lot of attention was paid to the venue as a Public Space (both inside and outside)

• Also highlighted as one dish one spoon • Meeting place, gathering space; writing retreats • Wellness, healing, yoga (Willlow); mindfulness retreats; art bookclub • Concerts (Echo often mentioned but general use of the amphitheatre as well for

audio/music sensations • Multi-sensory experience; Juxtaposition of contemporary art with historic location and

building

4

Word Cloud f responses

1

Board of Trustees


INFORMATION ITEM

TOPIC: 2021 Canada Summer Games

March 7, 2018 Tom Arkell, Special Advisor, Office of the VP Administration

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


• To provide an update on Brock University’s involvement the 2021 Canada SummerGames

2. Key Background

• In January 2017 Brock University, the Region of Niagara and a local committee biddingon the 2021 Canada Summer Games entered into a MOU whereby if the bid weresuccessful and the Canada Games built athletic facilities on Brock’s land, that Brockwould provide in-kind use of its residences and athletic facilities for the Games inreturn for some use of the new facilities.

• The Canada Games were awarded to Niagara in the spring of 2017.• As reported at the last CIC meeting, several meetings have taken place involving

executive from the Canada Games, Brock University and local municipalities topotentially plan a facility that will provide for Canada Games and other requirementsand be built on Brock’s south lands.

3. Update on Facilities

• Brock University was to undertake environmental and servicing studies todetermine potential south land restrictions and servicing capacities. Complete

• Brock University, in conjunction with Urban Strategies and the Canada Games wereworking on layout and location. Complete

• The Canada Games was working with a local contractor to identify costs andtimelines. Complete

• The Canada Games will prepare a funding request of the provincial and federalgovernments. Complete and submitted prior to Christmas.

• The Canada Games has engaged a firm to prepare a feasibility and business planfor operation. Ongoing

4. Update on Other University Involvement

• The Canada Games, Brock University and Niagara College have been in discussionsto create an experiential education program that will identify opportunities for co-

2

op opportunities, placements, internships, and in the year leading up to the Games, first jobs for students from both institutions.

• The Office of the Vice-Provost, Teaching, Learning and Student Success hosted asummit to discuss potential ideas for new courses and/or how to leverage existing courses and to discuss the potential for projects and applied research that would be a value add to the 2021 Canada Summer Games.

• A steering committee is being created to provide campus-wide oversight andguidance for curriculum development and research projects and will focus on identifying collaborative opportunities to help support and update faculty, staff and students in an effort to engage Canada Games initiatives and opportunities.

• The University is also involved in the U18 Basketball Americas Championship, firstas an athletes village partner to Basketball Canada and the City of St. Catharines, and now with the Canada Summer Games as this event is being coordinated by the local host society as its first test event.

5. Next Steps

• Brock Sport, Conference and Student Experience staff will continue to work on thissummer’s basketball event.

• Brock Teaching, Learning and Student Success Staff will continue to developopportunities for experiential education opportunities as well as projects andapplied research.

• Facilities Management staff will continue to stay in touch with Canada Games staffto further refine ideas for facilities.

• Canada Summer Games Host Committee and its partners will wait for news ofprovincial and federal funding, expected in April.

• Updates will be provided at the next and subsequent CIC meetings, though ameeting of the Executive Committee may be required dependent upon the timingof external funding.


Appendix 1 – Canada Games Summit Report (2 pages)

1

Canada Games Summit Report December 18th, 2017, 8:30am-1:00pm Objective: • To discuss potential ideas for new courses and/or how to leverage existing courses

to support the vision of 2021 Canada Summer Games and provide students with valuable learning experiences.

• To discuss the potential for projects and applied research that would be a value

add to the 2021 Canada Summer Games and lend to the existing and/or development of research at Brock

Attendees: Approximately 60 faculty members and staff, senior administration, Canada Games Board members and students attended the event. Questions addressed: • What do you see as potential new courses and/or new ways in which to leverage

existing courses in support of the 2021 Canada Summer Games?

• What do you see as potential collaborative projects and/or applied research that could be done pre, during and post the 2021 Canada Summer Games?

Summary: At each of the tables notes were taken by the table facilitators and collated in to a master spreadsheet. The full list of ideas and themes are available upon request. These are being themed and categorized and will be used to advance specific initiatives as highlighted in the below framework. The following major themes developed as potential areas that Brock can focus in on to support the 2021 Canada Games vision and to provide students with valuable learning opportunities:

• Development of new courses that are focused on the games. These would be new and/or the use of V-level special courses designations. Many examples of courses were provided including the idea of using directed reading courses for specific student projects.

• Leveraging existing courses by integrating Canada Games projects and information (i.e., case studies about the Canada games; proactive risk

Capital Infrastructure Committee TOPIC: 2021 Canada Summer Games


https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj09svl5e7YAhXF7YMKHfIYAB8QjRwIBw&url=https://www.canadagames.ca/&psig=AOvVaw3qe3n6LQCXVbAKRWpBUFxR&ust=1516821295796585

2

assessments; predictive modeling of the resource demands on IT resources in Niagara; cyber security; sport business innovation competitions).

• Interdisciplinary courses focused on linking courses or creating new courses that are cross faculty/departments to reflect the needs of the games (i.e., linking departments to engage in a pre-and post-game economic assessment of the games on the Region; KINE and DART in opening ceremonies; linking public health and digital humanities to create health apps)

• Potential research projects were identified in all Faculties. There were 61 projects discussed and ranged from sports specific research projects to a focus on volunteerism, social capital, surveying athletes pre-and post games, and environmental legacy projects.

How can we make this work? This was a predominant question that was discussed by attendees and many ideas were offered by to help build the strategy. Structural requirements

- The focus of these initiatives will be on PRE – DURING – POST Canada Games. - Central method by which to help support faculty to engage in the Canada

Games initiatives. Some faculty may choose to engage students in the classroom, others may want to be involved in research projects and looking for partnership opportunities, and others may want assistance in aiding students in finding internships/placements. There are a variety of ways faculty may want to be involved and therefore having a central method to strategically provide support will be created.

- A central resource person to be a conduit with the Canada Games committee and Brock to identify needs and expertise and help to facilitate opportunities

- There is a need to develop more spring and summer offerings to support the Games.

- The potential to link volunteer opportunities for students through ExperienceBU and the Campus Wide Co-curriculum will be pursued.

Next Steps:

- Teaching and Learning Innovation Grants are available to faculty to help advance experiential education opportunities with the Canada Games

- Steering Committee will representatives from across all faculties will be brought together to help advance these Canada Games activities. This committee will focus on identifying collaborative opportunities and help to support/update individual faculty members in their efforts to engage in the Canada Games activities.

- Focus on partnerships that need to be considered through all the potential courses and research projects. After the Steering Committee meets, a community engagement session will take place to identify further opportunities.

Board of Trustees


INFORMATION ITEM

TOPIC: T2 Financial Update on Capital and Related Project Plan

March 7, 2018 Josh Tonnos, Associate Vice-President, Financial Services

Scott Johnstone, Associate Vice-President, Facilities Management David Cullum, Associate Vice-President, Information Technology Services Karen Epp, Manager Finance and Administration, Facilities Management

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


• Provide the Capital Infrastructure Committee with the trimester two update of theLong Term Capital Plan.

2. Key Background

• Continued progress was made completing capital projects – 44 FM projects and 16 ITSprojects have been completed and closed in this fiscal year as of December 2017. Atotal of 23 new projects were opened – 22 FM projects and 1 ITS project. This activityresulted in a net decrease of 22 active FM projects and 15 active ITS projects.Appendix 1 - Figure 1 illustrates the activity with respect to the number of projects.

• A breakdown of the Facilities Management and Information Technology Services projectsby category identifies a total of $42 million dollars remaining to spend. The FM projectfunds available to spend as of December 2017 is $38 million, of which 87% are Majorcapital projects. This includes DEEP, LINC and Goodman School of Business. Theremaining ITS project funds available to spend is $4 million, of which 60% are Enterprisesoftware projects. This includes Workday Finance system, Project Mosaic and theStudent Information System.Appendix 1 - Figure 2 illustrates the activity with respect to the type and dollar amountof projects by Facilities Management and Information Technology Services.

3. Next Steps

• As this report serves as an update on project activity, the next steps will be a year endupdate of the Long Term Capital Plan in June 2018.

4. Background Materials• Appendix 1 – T2 Financial Update on Capital and Related Project Plan (1 page)

Capital Infrastructure CommitteeTOPIC: T2 Financial Update on Capital and Related Project Plan

DATE: March 7, 2018Appendix 1

Figure 1: Status of Capital Projects as of December 31, 2017

Facilities Management

Information Technology Services

Open projects as of April 30, 2017 89 44Projects opened to December 31, 2017 22 1Projects closed/completed to December 31, 2017 44 16Total projects open to December 31, 2017 67 29

Project Revenue / Funding

Spending to December 31, 2017

Remaining to Spend

Facilities ManagementAODA* Projects 323 152 171 Above surface/sub surface utilities, drainage, roads, parking lots, sidewalks 1,265 1,000 265 Adaptations/renovations and major renewal projects 5,242 4,628 614 Audits and studies 678 629 49 Buildings 3,118 2,462 656 Energy conservation and demand management 199 106 93 Major capital projects 56,421 23,222 33,199 New construction and replacement (under $1M) 343 303 40 Residence projects 3,925 1,128 2,797 Vehicles and wheeled equipment 228 228 - FM - surplus/deficit 304 28 276

Total Facilities Management 72,046 33,886 38,160

Information Technology ServicesEnterprise software projects 8,771 6,201 2,570 Hardware evergreening projects 2,906 1,850 1,056 Hardware growth projects 809 609 200 IT infrastructure projects 196 81 115 IT - surplus/deficit 322 - 322

Total Information Technology Services 13,004 8,741 4,263

Total Capital and Related Projects 85,050 42,627 42,423 *AODA -Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities

Figure 2: Capital and Related Project Summary (By Category) (000's)

Board of Trustees


INFORMATION ITEM

TOPIC: 2018-19 Fiscal Framework – Capital & Deferred Maintenance Guidance Update

March 7, 2018 Scott Johnstone, Associate Vice-President, Facilities Management

Josh Tonnos, Associate Vice-President, Financial Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


• The purpose of this report is update the Capital Infrastructure Committee on the2018-19 Fiscal Framework, specifically the targeted guidance for capital anddeferred maintenance funding.

2. Key Background

• The Fiscal Framework is designed to support budgetary planning. It is a tool to ensureBrock has a funding model that promotes strategy development in a sustainable,efficient, responsive, and accountable manner.

• The fiscal framework targeted guidance will increase the contribution to the capitaland related project programs for Facilities Management annually by a minimum ofthe construction price index plus new government funding identified for capital.

• The capital and deferred maintenance funding guidance remains intact with thisupdate and continues to recognize the University’s history of under investing in themaintenance of our facilities.

• Brock University is committed to addressing deferred maintenance with a goal ofmaintaining an FCI Level of approximately 0.18 or better.

• In a recent Sightlines publication, 2017 State of Facilities in Higher Education, thereis a strong warning to institutions across North America that they are at a “high riskfor deferral acceleration” and cautions that growing DM has been masked by newconstruction, giving the impression that FCI`s have been stable.

3. Next Steps

• While the funding outlined in this fiscal framework update continues to grow it isexpected that it will not be sufficient to improve our FCI. Therefore, FacilitiesManagement is developing an action plan to address larger segments of the DMportfolio by leveraging additional government funding programs and comprehensiveEnergy Performance Contracts to enhance the funding model.

• Focus on maximizing DM investment return by investing with space utilization inmind, connecting renewal to modernization and investing to reduce current costs.

• An annual Facility Condition Index and Deferred Maintenance report and scorecardwill be presented in June 2018 (Cycle 5).


Appendix 1 – 2017-18 Fiscal Framework Capital &DM Update (4 pages)

The capital and deferred maintenance funding guidance remains intact with this update to the fiscal framework; however, the use of

the capital envelop is being expanded to include ‘soft capital costs’. Soft capital costs in this context represents capital project support costs and in some cases leasing arrangements where there has been a purposeful shift away from future capital replacement costs for a similar asset or system.

The fiscal framework continues to recognize the University’s history of under investing in the maintenance of our facilities. The capital and related projects budget process was developed in 2013-14. The Board of Trustees recognized the University was not investing enough in maintaining its facilities and began a process to establish and improve the capital funding envelop within the University’s budget process. For the 2014-15 budget the Board of Trustees endorsed a motion to invest $6 million in deferred maintenance. The reality that the University did not contribute any funding to deferred maintenance beyond the Provincial Facilities Renewal Program Funds (historically close to $600,000 annually) prior to 2013-14 made this transition towards building a sustainable facilities renewal investment into the budget a challenging endeavour. In May 2017, VFA Inc. (through the Council of Ontario Universities) performed a condition assessment which determined that Brock has $167 million in deferred maintenance requirements that have accumulated over a number of years of under-investing. At the same time it was determined Brock’s overall Facility Condition index (FCI)*, which determines the relative condition of the asset, was 0.18, which translates to “poor” and compares to other Ontario universities with an average FCI of 0.10.

Therefore, going forward it is important to recognize that this investment is an investment not only in maintaining our facilities but also the ability to teach future generations in a safe, secure and modern environment. If the University was to revert into past practice by reducing or eliminating our annual contribution to deferred maintenance we would likely find ourselves requiring debt financing to renew or replace our facilities in the future when major failures occur. Our ability to borrow is also limited given our high debt burden relative to our peers making that strategy a risky alternative to the current model. This fiscal

16

Capital and support costs

Targeted guidance

To increase the contribution to the capital and related project program for Facilities Management annually by a minimum of the construction price index plus new government funding identified for capital.

Improve Brock's Facilities Condition Index (FCI).

Providing and maintaining infrastructure that meets the needs of students and staff is critical. In establishing the long-term capital and related projects plan for infrastructure, a ranking system is to be utilized to support the selection of projects and communication of that selection. Projects selected must tie into an integrated infrastructure strategy that reduces risk and supports students, faculty and staff while working towards the FCI target.

To increase the contribution to the capital and related project program for Information Technology annually.

In establishing the long-term capital and related projects plan for information technology, a ranking system is to be utilized to support the selection of projects and communication of that selection. Projects selected must tie into an integrated information technology strategy that reduces risk and supports students, faculty and staff. When setting this strategy all laws and regulations must be followed.

Update

*FCI represents deferred maintenance divided by the current replacement value.

2018

-19

Fis

cal F

ram

ewor

k U

pdat

e FI

SCA

L FR

AM

EWO

RK |

Gui

danc

e by

obj

ect

Capital Infrastructure CommitteeTOPIC: 2018-19 Fiscal Framework – Capital & Deferred

Maintenance Guidance UpdateDATE: March 7, 2018

Appendix 1

1

framework update maintains the targeted guidance as set out in the 2016-17 Fiscal Framework, to increase the capital and related project program for Facilities Management annually by a minimum of the construction price index plus new government funding identified for capital with the goal of improving Brock’s FCI. Figures 20 and 23 were previously presented in the 2016-17 Fiscal Framework and have been updated for this document. Figure 20 details the outgoing deferred maintenance spending. While Figure 23 outlines our current and forecasted funding model. As more analysis is performed on the deferred maintenance backlog, we expect the funding from the operating budget as outlined in this fiscal framework update will not be sufficient to improve our

17

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

201

5-16

201

6-17

201

7-18

201

8-19

201

9-20

202

0-21

202

1-22

202

2-23

202

3-24

202

4-25

202

5-26

202

6-27

202

7-28

202

8-29

202

9-30

203

0-31

203

1-32

203

2-33

203

3-34

203

4-35

203

5-36

203

6-37

203

7-38

203

8-39

203

9-40

204

0-41

204

1-42

204

2-43

204

3-44

204

4-45

Deferred maintenance spending

Repurposed debt payments ($millions).Facilities Renewal Program Funds (government funded) spend ($millions).Incremental parking revenue spend ($millions).Operating spend ($millions).Facilities condition index.

Figure 20

facilities condition index. As a result, Facilities Management is developing an action plan to address larger segments of the deferred maintenance portfolio by leveraging additional government funding programs and comprehensive Energy Performance Contracts to enhance the funding model.

Capital support costsWith the growth in funding of the capital and related projects budget each year, the university must be able to manage this increased project load. Investments in project management staff to ensure projects are supervised and completed on time and on budget are necessary. Given the operating budget would be challenged to support

2018

-19

Fis

cal F

ram

ewor

k U

pdat

e FI

SCA

L FR

AM

EWO

RK |

Gui

danc

e by

obj

ect

2

18

incremental operating costs to manage these projects, the fiscal framework will now allow for the funding of operating costs that are primarily dedicated to managing projects to be funded from the capital budget as well as the capital support costs.

Capital and major operating leasing arrangementsInvestment in information technology has shifted from infrastructure-based investment to a focus on software as a service (SaaS) computing, and through these investments traditional costs of purchasing and maintaining physical equipment is being replaced with lease payments. For example, the recent implementation of Workday, a SaaS product, as Brock’s new finance system and soon to be human resources and payroll system was a decided move away from the home-grown enterprise software, requiring on premise infrastructure. The fiscal framework will ensure any future leasing costs that result from transitions to SaaS computing have a sustainable funding source, namely the information technology capital budget.

This same rationale will apply for Facilities Management where a case is made to lease equipment instead of purchasing or renewing the asset. Under some circumstances leasing may prove to be more cost effective as compared to buying an asset and the fiscal framework should facilitate this type of analysis and decision making. With leasing costs traditionally included in facilities management operating budgets, our facilities management decision makers would find it challenging to absorb the costs of leasing previously owned equipment into their operating budget envelope. For this reason, leasing costs for

capital assets where appropriate will also be funded through the capital budget. These costs are included in the fiscal framework forecast on page 8 under the category “transfer of operating – funded capital management and licensing.”

Capital and related projects budgetThe 2016-17 Fiscal Framework set out the capital and related projects budget for both facilities management and information technology services to 2020-21. This fiscal framework update extends the guidance to 2021-22 as follows: Figures 21 and 22 below detail these funding envelops for the Facilities Management (FM) and Information Technology (ITS) capital and related project budgets. The funding envelop for deferred maintenance increases as described in Figure 23, while the funding for the other segments increase at 2.5 per cent annually (proxy for the construction price index) with the following exceptions:

• In 2017-18, as part of the budget preparation, $1.0 million of the capital and related projects budget was funded by savings from prior year approved projects and removed from the operating budget.

• In 2018-19 almost $3.0 million of the FM deferred maintenance budget is being repurposed for new capital to fund the Brock Linc and Brock District Energy Project.

• In 2019-20 $0.5 million of the FM deferred maintenance budget is being repurposed to fund the addition to the Walker Complex tentatively called the “Brock Active Living Complex”.

• In 2019-20 there is a one-time increase to the ITS core application funding as a result of the Workday student information system implementation.

Figure 21: Facilities Management capital and related debt project budget

($000s) 2016-17Actual

2017-18T2 Forecast

2018-19Forecast

2019-20Forecast

2020-21Forecast

2021-22Forecast

New or "flexible" 5,958 2,449 5,650 3,239 2,809 2,879 Deferred maintenance 3,305 7,096 4,720 7,787 8,440 8,596

Total 9,263 9,545 10,370 11,026 11,249 11,475

Figure 22: Information Technology Services capital and related debt project budget

($000s) 2016-17Actual

2017-18T2 Forecast

2018-19Forecast

2019-20Forecast

2020-21Forecast

2021-22Forecast

New or "flexible" 1,500 2,832 3,523 4,832 4,953 5,077

Core applications 3,177 576 1,615 1,655 1,696 1,738

Total 4,677 3,408 5,138 6,487 6,649 6,815

2018

-19

Fis

cal F

ram

ewor

k U

pdat

e FI

SCA

L FR

AM

EWO

RK |

Gui

danc

e by

obj

ect

3

Deferred maintenance fundingThe following figure was developed as a forecasted funding plan for deferred maintenance to work towards established targets. While the 2016-17 Fiscal Framework forecasted both deferred maintenance and the resulting facilities condition index, work is currently underway to update the University’s deferred maintenance project costs, recognizing that replacement costs also require more than physical asset replacement. Architecture and engineering design costs, project management costs, surrounding facilities requiring outdated building code upgrades for approved work permits need to be included in the overall project costs. For this reason the forecasted impact on the FCI has been removed while work on an updated plan to address the full cost of the deferred maintenance backlog is developed. Increased funding to address the deferred maintenance backlog is expected and plans to secure funding from beyond the operating budget from third parties such as government and energy performance contractors will address this increase.

19

Figure 23

Deferred Maintenance funding includes the following:

• Funded by operating (starting at $5.1 million in 2015-16 and growing at Construction CPI each year) with the exception of 2016-17 (funding the post-MIWSFPA space moves and repurposing) and 2018-19 (funding the Brock Linc project and the Brock District Energy Efficiency project).

• Funded by parking revenue (starting at $0.4 million in 2016-17 and growing by Construction CPI each year).

• Funded by increase in Facilities Renewal Program funds grant (additional $0.4 million in each of 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20).

• Repurpose of debt payments (starting in 2024-25).

2018

-19

Fis

cal F

ram

ewor

k U

pdat

e FI

SCA

L FR

AM

EWO

RK |

Gui

danc

e by

obj

ect

4

1

Board of Trustees


INFORMATION ITEM

TOPIC: Brock DEEP Project Update

March 7, 2018Scott Johnstone, Associate Vice-President, Facilities Management

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


• The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the progress of the SIF–DEEPproject. Once completed this initiative will significantly reduce Brock University’sgreenhouse gas (GHG’s) emissions as well as provide considerable energy savings andreduce future maintenance costs. Considerable progress has been made throughoutthe last 3 months.

2. Key Background

• The SIF-DEEP project has a total budget of $10,787,528• Project currently trending at $109,267 underspent• Main Potable Waterline installation is complete, and all main campus buildings have

been connected to the new line. This operationally intrusive project was completedon time and on budget with minimal disruption to University Community.

• The main construction contract for the new engine and chiller installation wasawarded in January 2018 to ES Fox. ES Fox will be mobilizing and beginningconstruction in February.

3. Next Steps

• All equipment has been procured, the new (2) Co-generation Engines have beendelivered, the Absorption Chiller has shipped and is currently en-route to be receivedin February.

• Co-generation/Chiller - Installation will continue throughout the spring/summerwith anticipated start-up and commissioning scheduled for August/September.

• The schedule has been developed to minimize costly co-generation downtime andcampus disruptions.


Appendix 1 – Brock DEEP Project Update (1 page)

Project Details:Account(s)Project Description:Approved Budget Amount: $10,787,528Project Start Date June 1, 2016Project Status: OngoingProject Completion Date: August 31, 2018Date of this Revision: January 10, 2018

Summary of Budget, Actual and Projected CostsBudget Actuals Commitments Anticipated Costs Total Remaining Balance

A B C D E=B+C+D A-E1 Professional Services 1,079,458$ 769,971$ 192,517$ 21,365$ 983,853$ 95,605$ 2 Construction 4,183,842$ 1,898,613$ 510,492$ 3,210,396$ 5,619,500$ (1,435,658)$ 3 Equipment 5,141,476$ 3,197,570$ 522,277$ -$ 3,719,847$ 1,421,629$ 4 Furniture -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5 Miscellaneous Charges 27,027$ 2,939$ -$ -$ 2,939$ 24,088$ 6 IT Equipment -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7 Linear Assets -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8 Vehicles -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9 Project Contingency -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Subtotal 10,431,803$ 5,869,092$ 1,225,287$ 3,231,761$ 10,326,139$ 105,664$ NET HST 3.41% 355,724$ 200,136$ 41,782$ 110,203$ 352,121$ 3,603$ Total Project Cost 10,787,528$ 6,069,228$ 1,267,069$ 3,341,964$ 10,678,260$ 109,267$

Brock UniversityCampus Planning, Design & Construction Project Budget

SIF-DEEP ProjectChillers, Engines, Waterline

Capital Infrastructure CommitteeTopic: Brock DEEP Project Update

Date: March 7, 2018Appendix 1

dmcarthur

Typewritten Text

dmcarthur

Typewritten Text

1

Board of Trustees


RECOMMENDATION ITEM

TOPIC: Zone Expansion

March 7, 2018 Faisal Hejazi, BUSU President

Bryan Boles, Associate Vice President, Ancillary Services

MOTION

THAT subject to a successful BUSU referendum to fund the Zone expansion, the Capital Infrastructure Committee recommend to the Board of Trustees that:

1) The zone expansion be approved as a capital project (as outlined in Appendix 1– Zone Expansion) and included in the 2018-19 Long Term Capital Plan and;2) The President and Vice-President Administration be authorized to execute therelated contracts, including construction contracts and an agreement with BUSU, associated with the Zone Expansion project.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Rationale

• Brock University Student Union (BUSU) would like to fund the expansion of theexisting Zone estimated between $6 and 6.8 million.

• Undergraduate students have a Zone membership as a result of a referendum passedin 2012 where they pay approximately $40 over their 8 month term (assuming 5credits) to use the Zone

• University population has grown significantly since the Zone was build• Zone capacity is frequently being exceeded• Brock has the smallest facility in terms of square feet and second smallest in terms

of square feet per undergraduate student when compared to other OntarioUniversities

2. Key Background

• A potential Zone referendum was noted at the Strategic Planning Committee onSeptember 27, 2017

• The Brock University Student Union, Brock Sports, Facilities Management and otherUniversity members have now assessed the feasibility and related costing

• The Senior Administrative Council endorsed the project on February 5, 2018

2

3. Implications

• Do Not Proceed – This option is not advisable given the considerable student interestin the Zone. The University prides itself on the student experience, Appendix 1 –Zone Expansion, identifies we can do better in terms of our facilities. In the absenceof this funding model presented by BUSU, this project could not proceed.

• Potential Risks – These include the referendum does not succeed and/or the ancillaryfee falls short of the actual project cost. In the event the referendum is notsuccessful the project will be shelved and to mitigate against the ancillary fee fallingshort an initial site engineering review has already been conducted which includedcost estimates and appropriate contingencies have been built into the ancillary feeproposed.

• Budget Impact – The University’s financing of the zone expansion through internalfinancing will result in lost interest revenue over 7 years in the range of $400,000assuming a 1.75% interest rate, dependent on the timing of cashflows. BUSU to fundthe Zone expansion and repay the internal financing through a referendum (subjectto referendum approval). Ancillary fees to fund the expansion will start once theZone can be used by undergraduate students. The Zone will be a University assetrecorded on the balance sheet of the University at an estimated cost between $6and $6.8 million.

4. Next Steps

• BUSU referendum March 27 to 29, 2018• Upon successful completion of the referendum, design and build the zone expansion.


Appendix 1 – Zone Expansion (19 pages)

1

Zone Expansion

Capital Infrastructure CommitteeTOPIC: Zone Expansion


2

Forward Looking Statement

This report contains certain forward-looking information. In preparing this report, certain assumptions and estimates were necessary. They are based on information available to management at the time of preparing this report. Users are cautioned that actual results may vary.

3

Outline

1. Background

2. Zone Expansion - Illustration

3. Cost

4. Referendum

5. Case Studies

6. Questions

7. Appendices – Ontario Examples

4

Background

• Undergraduate students passed a referendum where they pay approximately $40 over their 8 month term (assuming 5 credits) to use the Zone

• University population has grown significantly since the Zone was build

• Zone capacity is frequently being exceeded

5

Background

Institution Size (Square Feet)

McMaster 80,000Queen's 24,500Guelph 22,000Western 19,000Waterloo 17,000Windsor 16,000Trent 12,000Wilfrid Laurier 11,000Carleton 11,000Ottawa 11,000York 11,000Algoma 10,000UOIT 10,000Laurentian 7,200Brock 4,300

InstitutionSquare Feet Per Undergraduate

Algoma 6.25McMaster 3.13Trent 1.55Windsor 1.52Queen's 1.50UOIT 1.15Guelph 1.07Laurentian 0.80Wilfrid Laurier 0.65Western 0.60Waterloo 0.54Carleton 0.39Ottawa 0.31Brock 0.29York 0.24

6

Zone Expansion - Illustration

Sept

embe

r 202

0

7


8


9

Cost

Estimate $6 - $6.8 million

$17 per credit for 5 years($85 annually, assuming 5 credits)

10

Referendum

• BUSU to hold March 27 to 29, 2018• BUSU question to include:

• Per credit fee of $17 for 5 years collected and retained by the University• After 5 years a $1.25 equipment replacement fee (increasing at CPI) will

remain and get rolled into the Student Life fee collected and retained by the University

• Any unused funding will be deposited into BUSUs capital reserve and/or the fee will be stopped early, if possible

• Fee will not start until the Zone expansion is complete (forecasted September 2020)

• Brock’s contribution – internally finance the build, interest free.

11

Case Study: University of Guelph

• Opened September 2016• Student population: approx. 22,000• 22,000 sq. ft.• Membership increase: from 4,000 to 9,000• Student Participation increase of 82%

12

Case Study: Carleton University

• 2013 expansion from 5,000 sq. ft. to 11,000 sq. ft

Pre-ExpansionVisits

Post-Expansion Visits

Percent Increase

Sept 47,624 62,105 30.4%

Jan 56,574 74,008 30.8%

13

Questions

14

McMaster University

• Existing 20,000 Square Feet.• Adding 60,000 Square Feet.• Spinning Studio, Fitness

Studio, Climbing Wall.• Construction to begin in

2018.

15

Queen’s University

• 24,500 Square Feet• Divided into Zones• Spin Studio • Women’s Only Space• Televisions• Opened in 2009.

16

University of Guelph

• 22,000 Square Feet• Plus Multipurpose Studios,

Climbing Wall, Lounge • Opened this Fall.

17

University of Windsor

• 16,000 Square Feet• Construction to Begin in

2018.

18

Wilfrid Laurier

• 11,000 Square Feet• Cycling Studio• Opened in 2013.

19

Algoma University

• 10,000 Square Feet• Fitness Studios x 2• Cycling Studio• Opened in 2015.

Board of Trustees


RECOMMENDATION ITEM

TOPIC: IT Policies

March 7, 2018 David Cullum, Associate Vice-President, Information Technology Services

MOTION

That the Capital Infrastructure Committee recommend to the Board of Trustees that the amendments to the following policies be approved as outlined in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 of the Report dated March 7, 2018:

a) IT Service Provider Policy;b) Cloud / Hosted / SaaS Policy; andc) Technology Support Policy.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Rationale

• Much effort has been expended by Information Technology Services (“ITS”) over thelast few years on information technology (“IT”) governance, including thedevelopment of policies, the design and implementation of related controls and thematuring of underlying processes;

• While the IT policies have been designed to be as technology-agnostic as possible,there is recognition that with constantly evolving technology, including related risks,the fluidity of change and the unique requirements of Brock’s technologyenvironment, it is imperative to review IT policies annually to ensure they remaincurrent;

• The chart below summarizes minor changes to the IT policies presented.

Policy New / Existing / Repeal

Required for PCI-DSS compliancei

Summary of new policy / key changes to existing policy / reasons for repeal

Cloud / Hosted/ SaaS Policy

Existing Yes • Clarified contact information for Information TechnologyServices

• Updated next review dateIT Service Provider Policy

Existing Yes • Clarified contact information for Information TechnologyServices

• Updated next review dateTechnology Support Policy

Existing No • Updated next review date• Adjusted related documentation (Technology Support

Standards)

2

2. Key Background

• The status of policies due for review by March 2018 is presented in the table below.

Policy Internal ITS review

Stakeholder review

SAC acceptance

Collective Agreement

compliance (1)

CIC/ Board Approval

Cloud / Hosted / Software as a Service x x x Not required Submitted IT Backup Underway IT End User Communication & Encryption Underway IT Firewall Underway IT Incident Response x x x May 10, 2017 IT Service Provider x x x Not required Submitted IT System Security Underway Technology Support x x x Not required Submitted Wireless Security Underway

Note (1): Submitted for BUFA review / negotiation

3. Implications

• No budget implications. The policies as presented for approval further clarifyservices offered by ITS.

4. Next Steps

• Upon approval by the Board of Trustees, the amended policies and related documents(e.g., standards / procedures / questionnaires) will be posted to the University’spolicies web page for the Brock community.

5. Background MaterialsAppendix 1 – Cloud / Hosted / SaaS Policy (3 pages) Appendix 2 – IT Service Provider Policy (2 pages) Appendix 3 – Technology Support Policy (2 pages)

i PCI-DSS is the Payment Card Industry’s Data Security Standards. As a “merchant” (i.e., an organization that accepts credit cards as a means of payment), Brock University is required to comply with the PCI-DSS. According to Chase Paymentech, the University’s acquirer (i.e., credit card processor), “… the security standards represent industry best practices derived from a combination of preventative, detective and responsive controls that should be applied to processes, people and technologies across an organization.” The PCI-DSS has been mapped to leading practice frameworks such as CobIT 5 and ISO/IEC 27001:2013

Page 1 of 3

APPENDIX 1: CLOUD / HOSTED / SaaS POLICY

PURPOSE This Policy and related documents provide a framework to assist in the assessment of potential cloud / hosted / SaaS solutions and arrive at a decision that results in reduced risk to the University and its community.

This Policy aligns with the University’s goal to deliver services in the most cost-effective, efficient, convenient and secure manner within the limits of its capacity and resources.

SCOPE This Policy applies to all areas / departments / faculties at Brock University as well as the Brock community (faculty and staff) [hereafter collectively referred to as “area(s)”] who are considering a cloud / hosted / SaaS solution or have already engaged with a solution for Brock University data or services.

All areas must comply with the University’s procurement requirements as part of their consideration of a cloud / hosted/ SaaS solution.

In the event that any provision of this Policy is found to be inconsistent with the provisions of a collective agreement, the collective agreement will prevail.

POLICY STATEMENT

The security of the Brock University environment and the integrity of Brock data in a cloud / hosted / SaaS solution must be paramount at all times.

The risks of utilizing a proposed cloud / hosted / SaaS solution must be explicitly identified and assessed by the area contemplating or engaged in such a solution. The area must work with Client Services, Information Technology Services (“ITS”) to identify, document and assess risks of the proposed solution.

Capital Infrastructure Committee TOPIC: IT Policies


Cloud Hosted SaaS Policy Page 2 of 3

Appropriate controls must be implemented to address key known risks for a cloud / hosted / SaaS solution engaged by any area.

Responsibility

This Policy, including its interpretation and application, is under the jurisdiction of the Information Technology Steering Committee.

DEFINITIONS1 Hosted. The software solution is purchased from a publisher or Value Added Reseller (VAR), and installed at a data center or 'hosting center' set up with owned /leased /financed physical or virtualized servers. There is typically a large upfront software payment, a price for hourly or project-based implementation, possibly an initial provisioning fee from the hosting center and then a monthly fee for the rental/usage of the hosting center's equipment, people and bandwidth.

Cloud Computing. Usually refers to deploying software similar to hosting, but with virtualized servers, potentially over multiple servers in real time according to demand. Servers, communications and messaging capacity, data storage capacity etc. are rented, with charges based on usage.

Software as a Service (SaaS). SaaS is almost always a Web/ HTML-based solution sold on a rental model based on dollars per month and / or per user. SaaS applications are usually 'multi-tenant’, i.e., one database shares multiple end-user customers 'partitioned' from each other via a security model in the application, not via separate virtual servers.

COMPLIANCE AND REPORTING

ITS enforces this Policy at all times. Anyone who has reason to suspect a deliberate and / or significant violation of this Policy is encouraged to promptly report it to the ITS Help Desk. Policy violations that come to the attention of the ITS Help Desk will be escalated to the Director, Client Services.

Policy violations will be assessed and action taken to remediate the violation, including consequences where appropriate,

1 Definitions adapted from http://www.erpsoftwareblog.com/2011/05/cloud-saas-and-hosted-whats-the-difference/

http://www.erpsoftwareblog.com/2011/05/cloud-saas-and-hosted-whats-the-difference/

http://www.erpsoftwareblog.com/2011/05/cloud-saas-and-hosted-whats-the-difference/

Cloud Hosted SaaS Policy Page 3 of 3

subject to collective agreements and / or other contractual conditions.

Where Policy violations are considered severe and / or cannot be easily remediated, the incident will be escalated to the AVP, ITS for further action. Periodically, the AVP, ITS will provide to SAC a summary of all policy violations.

Policy owner: Associate Vice-President, Information Technology Services Authorized by: Board of Trustees, Capital Infrastructure Committee Accepted by: Senior Administrative Council Effective date: March 20172018 Next review: March 20182019 Revision history: 2016 Related documents:

Privacy Impact Assessment

Cloud Hosted SaaS Assessment Questionnaire

Brock University Purchasing Policy

Page 1 of 2

APPENDIX 2: IT SERVICE PROVIDER POLICY

PURPOSE This Policy and its related documents provide a framework to assess the risks associated with engaging a potential information technology (IT) service provider and arrive at a decision that is in the best interests of the University and its community.

This Policy aligns with the University’s goal to deliver services in the most cost-effective, efficient and convenient manner within the limits of its capacity and resources.

SCOPE This Policy applies to all areas / departments / faculties at Brock University as well as the Brock community (faculty and staff) [hereafter collectively referred to as “area(s)”] considering engaging an external service provider for any direct or indirect IT-related products or services (e.g., hardware / software, consulting, etc.).

Note that the scope of this Policy excludes the engagement of individuals who are providing services as IT contractors.

In the event that any provision of this Policy is found to be inconsistent with the provisions of a collective agreement, the collective agreement will prevail.

POLICY STATEMENT

The security of Brock’s data centre and the Brock University technology environment as well as the integrity of Brock data under the care or control of an IT service provider must be paramount at all times.

The risks of utilizing an IT service provider must be explicitly recognized by the area contemplating such use. The area must work with Client Services, Information Technology Services (“ITS”) to determine and document all related risks as outlined in the IT Service Provider Assessment Questionnaire.



IT Service Provider Policy Page 2 of 2

Appropriate controls related to the engagement of an IT service provider must be implemented by the area to address key known risks.

All areas must comply with the University’s procurement requirements as part of their consideration of an external IT service provider.

Responsibility

This Policy, including its interpretation and application, is under the jurisdiction of the Associate Vice-President (“AVP”), ITS.


ITS enforces this Policy and the related Standards at all times. Anyone who has reason to suspect a deliberate and / or significant violation of this Policy is encouraged to promptly report it to the ITS Help Desk. Policy violations that come to the attention of the ITS Help Desk will be escalated to the Director, Client Services.

Policy violations will be assessed and action taken to remediate the violation subject to collective agreements and / or other contractual conditions.

Where Policy violations are considered severe and / or cannot be easily remediated, the incident will be escalated to the AVP, ITS for further action. Periodically, the AVP, ITS will provide to SAC a summary of all policy violations.

Policy owner: Associate Vice-President, Information Technology Services Authorized by: Board of Trustees, Capital Infrastructure Committee Accepted by: Senior Administrative Council Effective date: March 20172018 Next review: March 20182019 Revision history: 2016 Related documents:

Privacy Impact Assessment (where applicable)

IT Service Provider Assessment Questionnaire

Brock University Purchasing Policy

Page 1 of 2

APPENDIX 3: TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT POLICY

PURPOSE The Technology Support Policy is designed to assist faculty and staff to procure technology that is supportable.

SCOPE This Policy applies to all Brock University employees (i.e., faculty and staff).

POLICY STATEMENT

For the purposes of this Policy, technology includes:

• Computers for administration use;• Computers to be used in research;• Tablets;• Printers;• Storage (e.g., USB, SD card);• Mobile communications devices (e.g., smartphone)• Systems / solutions used in teaching and learning.

All Brock University technology procurement must adhere to the Technology Support Standards which detail the requirements for the above listed technologies.

All proposed Brock University technology procurement must meet the requirements of the Brock University Purchasing Policy.

All Brock University technology procurement made in collaboration with Information Technology Services (“ITS”) are eligible for full support. All other technology procurements are eligible for “best effort” only support.

All procured University technology must be registered with the ITS Help Desk and affixed with a Brock University asset tag before connecting to the University network and receiving support.



Technology Support Policy Page 2 of 2


ITS enforces this Policy and the related Standards at all times. Anyone who has reason to suspect a deliberate and / or significant violation of this Policy is encouraged to promptly report it to the ITS Help Desk as outlined in the Safe Disclosure Policy. Policy violations that come to the attention of the ITS Help Desk will be referred to the Director, Client Services.

Policy violations will be assessed and action taken to remediate the violation, including consequences where appropriate, subject to collective agreements and / or other contractual conditions.

Where Policy violations are considered severe and / or cannot be easily remediated, the incident will be escalated to the AVP, ITS for further action, subject to collective agreements and / or other contractual conditions. Periodically, the AVP, ITS will provide SAC with a summary of all policy violations.

Policy owner: Associate Vice-President, Information Technology Services Authorized by: Board of Trustees, Capital Infrastructure Committee Accepted by: Senior Administrative Council Effective date: March 13, 20172018 Next review: March 20182019 Revision history: New Related documents: Technology Support Standards

Safe Disclosure Policy

1/1

Board of Trustees


RECOMMENDATION ITEM

TOPIC: Space Management Policy

March 7, 2018 Brian Hutchings, Vice-President, Administration

Nota Klentrou, Associate Dean, Applied Heath Sciences Roland Mech, Associate Director, Space Management and Planning

MOTION

THAT the Space Management Policy, attached as Appendix 1, be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


• Approval of the Space Management Policy.

2. Key Background

• The purpose of the policy is to enable the University to plan, allocate, use and manageits building space as a valuable and finite resource and using transparent processes andprocedures consistent with best practices in higher-education facilities management.

• A sub-committee to the Facility Needs and Priorities Study Project Steering Committeedeveloped space allocation standards and an evidence-based space request andevaluation process. These documents are included as Appendices to the policy:

• Space Request Procedures• Space Management Framework Documents

• University stakeholders affected by this policy were consulted during policy drafting.

3. Implications

• Approval of this policy will provide clarity, consistency and transparency to spacemanagement decisions at the University.

• There are no budget implications and no material risks associated with approval.• The Space Management Framework Documents provide the University with space use

guidelines that are aligned with the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) guidelines andbest practices.

2/1

4. Next Steps

• Facilities Management, in consultation with the Advisory Committee on Space (ACS),develop the Terms of Reference for the Space Request Evaluation Review Committee.

• The University designate space coordinators for each Faculty and Administrative units.


Appendix 1 – Space Management Policy (5 pages)Appendix 2 – Space Request Procedures (22 pages)Appendix 3 – Space Management Framework Documents (48 pages)

Page 1 of 5

SPACE MANAGEMENT POLICY

PURPOSE The purpose of the policy is to enable the University to plan, allocate, use and manage its building space as a valuable and finite resource and using transparent processes and procedures consistent with best practices in higher-education facilities management.

SCOPE This Policy applies to all buildings owned or leased by Brock University.

This Policy applies to the use and management of University space including how space is allocated and assigned, the design and creation of new space and/or the design renovation and modification of existing space.

In the event that any provision of the Policy is found to be inconsistent with the provisions of a collective agreement, the collective agreement will prevail.

POLICY STATEMENT

The guiding principles of the University Space Management Policy are:

Consultative and Collaborative: The University will consultwith University space users on matters of space allocationand space utilization and all space users will collaboratewith and contribute to space management data collection,analysis and decision processes.

University Space: All owned and leased space is Universityspace even when the space is allocated to faculties,departments and specific users.

rmech

Text Box

Capital Infrastructure Committee TOPIC: Space Management Policy DATE: March 7, 2018 Appendix 1

Space Management Policy Page 2 of 5

Shared Responsibility: University space is managed jointlyby the Vice-President, Administration, the Provost and Vice-President, Academic and the Vice-President, Research.

Strategic: the use or modification of space must be alignedwith the University’s strategic goals and institutional plansset out in documents such as the Brock’s Strategic Plan andrelated academic and research plans as well as the planningdirections and priorities set out in the Campus Master Plan,Facilities Needs and Priorities Study and relatedinfrastructure plans.

Functional: all space resources are to be supportive of theUniversity mandate ensuring that the members and guests ofthe University community have access to safe, comfortableand space conducive to its intended purpose or use whetherto teach, learn, research, study or work.

Physical: space is a limited campus resource. The Universitymust ensure that the physical facilities are well maintained,appropriately apportioned and used in the most efficient andeffective manner.

Financial: space decision-making shall incorporateevaluation of the financial impact to the University bothfrom a perspective of available capital budgets andoperating costs as well as a clear understanding of thebroader impact each project has on the University as aninstitution. Optimizing stewardship of available fundskeeping in focus the positive impact the project will have inthe promoting the University’s objectives.

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNIVERSITY

Brock University Facilities Management (FM) has the responsibility, on behalf of the University, for the management of Brock’s physical assets and for space planning.

Allocating Space

The University has the responsibility to allocate space for use by faculties and administrative and service departments. The University is committed to provide space for academic staff, administrative staff and students that is appropriate and


sufficient to support activities that are part of the University’s mandate, according to the University’s space standards.

The University may reallocate space to meet changing needs and priorities in consultation with the affected space user(s) and in accordance with its Space Management Procedures.

Space allocations are to be reviewed periodically and, at least, once every five years.

Needs-Based Allocations and Space Standards

Space standards will be used to allocate space based on assessed need.

The University’s space allocation standards may be adjusted from time to time in accordance with the total amount of space available.

The University will use discretion in applying the space standards to existing space uses and space allocations. Any new reallocation, renovation or provision of new building shall conform with the space standards, unless an exception or exemption is authorized by the President.

Space Request Process

The University shall implement a space request process which users must follow to obtain a space allocation and shall establish a Space Request Committee to review major requests for space. The University will define and communicate the criteria that distinguish major space requests from minor requests.

Audit Function

The University has the right to assess space use to ensure that the institution can meet evolving needs and institutional priorities.


RESPONSIBILITIES OF USERS

Communications

The University shall designate space coordinators for each faculty and administrative unit and then set out the responsibilities of the space coordinator.

The Space Coordinator will be the primary liaison with FM regarding space management decisions and allocation changes. The Space Coordinator must inform FM of all proposed and actual space allocation changes for validation and / or space inventory record purposes.

Using Space Efficiently

All space allocated to a department or service unit must be used efficiently. It is the responsibility of the user to seek opportunities to introduce compatible, approved University uses to maintain utilization at a level which is consistent with University standards.

Resolving Space Issues

It is the responsibility of the user to address changing and emerging needs for space by optimizing the utilization of the space they currently occupy. The first response to a perceived need is to identify space resources already available to the user that can meet the need.

Identifying Opportunities

It is an obligation of users to identify underutilized space and provide for improved space use.

Sharing Space and Functions

To avoid duplication of space, equipment, and staff services, and to avoid unnecessary costs, as much space as possible should be shared among departments. This applies specially to meeting rooms, office work rooms, staff lounge areas, technical support work areas, and storage areas. Where there are multiple users, protocols shall be developed to establish responsibilities and priorities for use and management of the space


DEFINITIONS Allocation: to give primary responsibility over use of a space to a specific unit (Faculty or Department).

Assignment: the distribution of allocated space to individual space users within a specific unit.

Space User(s): University staff assigned to the use of space within a specific unit.

Space: refers to any portion of the University's buildings, rooms and grounds that may have either a specific or discretionary use. All usable floor space, measured in square metres or feet, of buildings and portable structures.

Space Coordinator: refers to a staff that liaises with the University on space management needs and decisions on behalf of the Faculty or major service or administrative group they represent.


The Vice-President Administration, the Provost and Vice-President Academic and the Vice-President Research will oversee compliance with the Policy on the advice of Facilities Management and the Space Request Evaluation Committee.

The interpretation and application of this Policy is the responsibility of Facilities Management.

Facilities Management will report regularly on space to Senior Administrative Council (SAC) and Senate Information Technology and Infrastructure Committee (IT&I) and the Board Capital Infrastructure Committee (CIC).

Policy owner: Vice-President, Administration Authorized by: Board of Trustees, Capital Infrastructure Committee Accepted by: Senior Administrative Council Effective date: March, 2018 Next review: March, 2021 Revision history: New Related documents: Space Request Procedures

Space Management Framework Documents

Page 1 of 3

SPACE REQUEST PROCEDURES

PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to provide instructions to members of the University community on how to request an additional space allocation or make modifications to existing allocated space.

Space allocations are guided by the University’s Space Management Framework Document.

Space allocation decisions are based on the process and the decision points outlined in the Space Allocation Request Flowchart illustrated in Appendix 1.

SHORT FORM Step 1

SPACE REQUEST

The process begins with the submission of a short-form application to Facilities Management (FM). A determination is then made by FM that the request is either a Space Renovation, Minor Space Request or Major Space Request.

Space requests are initialized with the submission of the Space Request – Short Form found in Appendix 2. For guidance on completing the form you should contact the University’s Associate Director, Space Management and Planning.

FM REVIEW Step 2

A determination is made by FM that the request is either a Space Renovation, Minor Space Request or Major Space Request.

FM will evaluate, manage and implement a Minor Space Request in consultation with its proponent(s) based on the Guiding Principles of the Space Management Policy, the University’s Space Management Framework Documents, space availability and other related factors.

If the space request is determined to be a Major Space Request the applicant will be directed to submit a Space Request -Long

1

rmech

Text Box


Space Request Procedures Page 2 of 3

Form. (Appendix 3)

A space request with any of the following attributes is considered a Major Space Request:

• The change in the amount of space to allocated orrenovated exceeds 1,000 square feet

• The functional classification of the space changes, asdefined by the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) space categorization system

• The funding of the project is sourced externally to BrockUniversity

• The estimated project cost exceeds $100,000• Any capacity change of an instructional space• Significant (+50%) capacity change of non-instructional

spacesA Minor Space Request is defined as meeting none of the above attributes.

LONG FORM Step 3

MAJOR SPACE REQUESTS

The process to evaluate major space requests follows the steps and decisions points outlined in the Space Allocation Request Flowchart (Appendix 1).

The proponent(s) of a Major Space Request complete a Long Form Application outlining the need and rationale for the space allocation, and its merits in relation to the Criteria framework.

Five broad criteria are used to evaluate and prioritize space requests:

• Alignment with University Plans and Standards• Excellence, Innovation, Creativity and / or Inclusiveness• Benefits• Stewardship and Sustainability• Investment and Risk

Appendix 4 provides the details of the criteria framework and evaluation rubric.

EVALUATION Step 4

Space requests are evaluated and prioritized according to the Criteria for the Evaluation of Space Requests presented in Appendix 4.

The Space Request Evaluation Committee evaluates the Major

2

Space Request Procedures Page 3 of 3

Space Requests against the criteria rubric and assigns a score between 0 and 100. The consistent and continued application of the five criteria to evaluate space allocation requests promotes transparent, priority-driven and evidence-based space allocation decisions.

The Committee will meet as required and twice a year to coincide with the development of the Long-Term Capital Plan (LTCP) and Budget review (January and July of each year). Space requests that have scored high shall be evaluated within the LTCP Prioritization process used in the development of the LTCP, and as a result may or may not be funded through the LTCP.

RANKING & APPROVAL Step 5

Once evaluated, a Major Space Request is added and prioritized based on its score in relation to other past and current requests. Together, past and current requests form of cumulative pool of ranked requests evaluated from time to time by the University’s senior leadership, President/Vice-Presidents (PVP), who designates them as approved, postponed or dismissed.

A request can be held in the cumulative pool of ranked requests for no more than three years, after which the proponents of the request must resubmit it to the University or withdraw it.

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Proponents of minor and major space requests and the Space Request Evaluation Committee can ask for technical support from FM, Information Technology Services, Registrar’s Office, Institutional Analysis and Finance.

APPENDICIES Appendix 1 Space Allocation Request Flowchart Appendix 2 Space Request – Short Form Appendix 3 Space Request – Long Form Appendix 4 Criteria for the Evaluation of Space Requests

3

Appendix 1 – Space Allocation Process Flowchart

4

Space Allocation Process Flowchart

5

Appendix 2 - Space Request Short Form

6

Brock University Facilities Management

Space Request – Short Form Applicants of space allocation, renovation or modernization requests must complete this Short Form to describe their needs or plans and to determine what process will be followed for the evaluation and implementation of their requests. Space request applications will be categorized as follows:

SPACE RENOVATION or UPGRADE Request MINOR SPACE ALLOCATION Request MAJOR SPACE ALLOCATION Request

The application will be processed as a SPACE RENOVATION or UPGRADE request if all the following checkpoints apply:

The amount of space allocated remains constant

The space remains allocated to the same department or unit

The request is to improve the allocated space, including:

- Room finishes - HVAC, electrical, plumbing and other services - Furniture changes or upgrades - Equipment changes or upgrades

The application will be processed as a MINOR SPACE ALLOCATION request if all the following checkpoints apply:

The change in the amount of space to be allocated or renovated does not exceed 1,000 square feet

The functional classification of the space remains constant, as defined by the Council of Ontario Universities space classification system *

The funding of the project is sourced internally within Brock University

The estimated project cost is below $100,000

No capacity change of an instructional space

Not significant (<50%) capacity change of a non-instructional space

The application will be processed as a MAJOR SPACE ALLOCATION request if any one of the following checkpoints applies:

The change in the amount of space to allocated or renovated exceeds 1,000 square feet

The functional classification of the space changes, as defined by the Council of Ontario Universities space classification system *

The funding of the project is sourced externally to Brock University

The estimated project cost exceeds $100,000

Any capacity change of an instructional space

Significant (> 50%) capacity change of a non-instructional space

Next Step

1. Fill this Short Form and submit toFacilities Management for processing,evaluation and implementation

Next Step

1. Fill this Short Form and submit toFacilities Management for processing,evaluation and implementation

Next Steps

1. Fill this Short Form and submit toFacilities Management for processing

2. Once instructed, fill a Long Form inconsultation with Facilities Management,IT, Registrar, Institutional Analysis and/orFinancial Services

3. Liaise with the University’s SpaceRequest Evaluation Committee asrequired

Applicant Information

Department:

Contact: Name / Email / Ext.

Date of Application: DD / MM / YY Allocation or Change Needed by: DD / MM / YY

Authorization of Request by: Name / Dean or Associate VP

Authorization Signature Signature Date: DD / MM / YY

* Council of Ontario Universities 1 Classrooms 5 Library and In-Library Study Space 11 Non-Library Study Space Major Space Classifications 2 Instructional Labs 6 Athletics /Recreation Space 14 Common & Student Activity Space

3 Research 7&8 Food Services, Bookstore & Retail 4 Academic Offices 10 Administration and Related

For Information Contact: Roland Mech, Associate Director, Space Management and Planning Facilities Management x5901 e-mail: [email protected]

7

mailto:[email protected]

Request Description

Request Details (as applicable)

Number of Room(s) Required

Capacity of Room(s)

Area of the Room(s)

Usage of Room

(Office, Lab, Lounge, etc)

Present Location of Occupant(s)

(Bldg. & Room#) New Location Funding Source

8

Appendix 3 – Space Request Long Form

9

Brock University Facilities Management

Space Request – Long Form Applicants for a Major Space Allocation requests must complete this Long Form. The request will be evaluated by the Brock University Space Request Evaluation Committee using the following criteria: * A Alignment with University Plans and Standards B Excellence, Innovation, Creativity and / or Inclusiveness C Benefits D Stewardship and Sustainability E Investment and Risk Applicants are encouraged to describe their needs and plans for space with reference to each criteria when completing Part B – Project Rationale of the Long Form. Applicants are invited to seek, as required, the assistance and input of the following University services to complete this Long Form: Facilities Management, Information Technology, Registrar, Institutional Analysis and Financial Services.

Applicant Information

Department:

Contact: Name / Email / Ext.

Date of Application: DD / MM / YY Allocation or Change Needed by: DD / MM / YY

Authorization of Request by: Name / Dean or Associate VP

Authorization Signature

Signature Date: DD / MM / YY

* Please refer to the Criteria document for further details

For Information Contact: Roland Mech, Associate Director, Space Management and Planning Facilities Management x5901 e-mail: [email protected]

10

mailto:[email protected]

PART A – PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Overall Project Description, Background Information and Rationale for the Space Request

11


If applicable, identify / list spaces vacated as a result of the space allocation, with square footage area

Describe the space program for the allocated space (i.e. a list of the functions to be accommodated or the rooms to be assigned, and their respective areas).

If applicable, describe high -level estimated or anticipated capital costs (renovation, equipment, other) and recurring operating costs associated with the space allocation. Describe estimated cost savings if applicable.

12


If applicable, describe any new program and/or enrolment changes related to this space request.

If applicable, describe projected weekly utilization of the instructional room(s) allocated or vacated in terms of additional or fewer hours, considering all semesters and all levels of the program(s) or activity to be offered.

If applicable, describe any planned or proposed services and staffing changes

13

PART B – PROJECT RATIONALE

Criterion A - Alignment with University Plans and Standards

Criterion B - Excellence, Innovation, Creativity and / or Inclusiveness

14


Criterion C - Benefits

Criterion D – Stewardship and Sustainability

15


Criterion E – Investment and Risks

16

Appendix 4 – Criteria for the Evaluation of Space Requests

17

Resource Request Evaluation Criteria A1 A2 A3 B C = A x B

0 to 3 pts

Inadequate to Poor

4 to 7 pts

Average

8 to 10 pts

Good to Excellent

Weighing Factor

Total

Criterion A – Alignment with University Plans and Standards

Assessment Statement

The resource supports implementation or aspects of the University’s:

• Strategic Plan

• Academic and enrolment plans

• Research plans and activities

• Business, staffing and service plans

• Campus Master Plan, Facilities Needs and Priority Studyand related asset renewal or maintenance plans

• Alignment with standards the University is seeking to achieve

The allocation of the resource is NOT or is only marginally aligned with the University’s plans.

The allocation of the resource is aligned with some of the University’s plans and contributes to their implementation and achievement.

The allocation of the resource is highly aligned with most of the University’s plans and greatly contributes to their implementation and achievement

2 ___ / 20 pts

___ out of 10 pts

Rationale Statement

In the resource request process, applicants are encouraged to:

Describe how the resource aligns with and / or supports the achievement of University’s plans, standards as listed above as well as its research and outreach mandates. Outline benchmarks, indicators, direct comparison with other institutions, and before-and-after descriptions to demonstrate change and progress in the pursuit of the University’s plans.

18

Resource Request Evaluation Criteria

A1 A2 A3 B C = A x B

0 to 3 pts

Inadequate to Poor

4 to 7 pts

Average

8 to 10 pts

Good to Excellent

Weighing

Factor

Total

Criterion B – Excellence, Innovation, Creativity and / or Inclusiveness

Assessment Statements

The resource supports:

• The leadership, competitive position and differentiation of the Faculty, School or Department within the relevant environment(s) or market(s) it targets or intends to target

• The fostering of learning excellence / the promotion or demonstration of innovation / the creation of conditions that mirror external best-in-class practices

• The varied needs (including special needs) and expectations of students, users or partners

• Compliance with applicable accreditation requirements

The allocation of the resource is poorly aligned with the assessment statements and does NOT or only marginally contributes to excellence, innovation and inclusiveness at the University.

The allocation of the resource aligns with 1 or 2 of the assessment statements and contributes, directly and demonstrably, to excellence, innovation and inclusiveness at the University

The allocation of the resource aligns with 3 or 4 of the assessment statements and greatly contributes, directly and demonstrably, to excellence, innovation and inclusiveness at the University

2 ___ / 20 pts

___ out of 10 pts

Rationale Statement


Describe how the requested resource contributes to the pursuit of Excellence, Innovation, Creativity and Inclusiveness by the Faculty, School or the Department, and in relation to the Assessment Statements listed above. Outline the anticipated impact(s) or risk(s) incurred by the Faculty, School or the Department if the resource is not allocated in relation to the Assessment Statements listed above.

19

Resource Request Evaluation Criteria

A1 A2 A3 B C = A x B

0 to 3 pts

Inadequate to Poor

4 to 7 pts

Average

8 to 10 pts

Good to Excellent

Weighing

Factor

Total

Criterion C – Benefits


The resource creates measurable:

• Exceptional learner success / user experience / stakeholder satisfaction

• Exceptional or anticipated research outcomes / innovation potential

• Collaboration and strengthening of pathways, synergies and asset sharing between programs or services

• Enhancement(s) of industry, alumni, education and/or community partnerships

• Additional revenue stream(s), saving(s) or efficiencies

The allocation of the resource is poorly aligned with the assessment statements and does NOT or only marginally contributes direct and demonstrable benefits to the University.

The allocation of the resource aligns with 1 or 2 of the assessment statements and contributes direct and demonstrable benefits to the University.

The allocation of the resource aligns with 3 or 4 of the assessment statements and greatly contributes direct and demonstrable benefits to the University.

3 ___ / 30 pts

___ out of 10 pts

Rationale Statement


Describe and/or quantify how the requested resource benefits the University in general, or specific stakeholder or user group in particular, as per the Assessment Statements listed above. Identify the direct and indirect beneficiaries of investment in the resource. Outline the baseline(s) and the measurement method(s) to be used to monitor the continued benefits resulting from investment in the resource.

20


0 to 3 pts

Inadequate to Poor

4 to 7 pts

Average

8 to 10 pts

Good to Excellent

Weighing Factor

Total

Criterion D – Stewardship and Sustainability


The resource fosters, demonstrates or addresses:

• Alignment with University Sustainability Plan

• Best use of University resources

• Life-cycle status of resource(s) being replaced

• Long-term potential to adapt or re-purpose allocated resource(s)

• Social and ecological sustainability

The allocation of the resource is poorly aligned with the assessment statements and does NOT or only marginally contributes to the stewardship and sustainability objectives of the University.

The allocation of the resource aligns with 1 or 2 of the assessment statements and contributes, directly and demonstrably, to the stewardship and sustainability objectives of the University

The allocation of the resource aligns with 3 or more of the assessment statements and greatly contributes, directly and demonstrably, to the stewardship and sustainability objectives of the University

1 ___ / 10 pts

___ out of 10 pts

Rationale Statement


Describe how the requested resource fosters, demonstrates or addresses the University’s Stewardship and Sustainability goals and plans as per the Assessment Statements listed above. Outline the qualitative and quantitative baseline(s) and the measurement method(s) to be used to monitor progress in the pursuit of Stewardship and Sustainability resulting from investment in the resource.

21


0 to 3 pts

Inadequate to Poor

4 to 7 pts

Average

8 to 10 pts

Good to Excellent

Weighing Factor

Total

Criterion E – Investment and Risk


The request for resource allocation considers or recognizes:

• Size of initial investment in capital or other resources, space in particular

• Donation, unencumbered funding, or contribution in kind from external source(s)

• Recurrent operating, renewal and maintenance costs

• Compliance with regulatory requirements

• Implementation or operational risk factors

The allocation of the resource has low feasibility with respect to the assessment statements and represents a poor investment / risk decision for the University.

The allocation of the resource has acceptable feasibility with respect to the assessment statements and represents an acceptable investment / risk decision for the University.

The allocation of the resource has high feasibility with respect to the assessment statements and represents a good investment / risk decision for the University.

2 ___ / 20 pts

___ out of 10 pts

Rationale Statement


Summarize key aspects of the business case, costs, amortization, payback and/or risks associated with procuring the requested resource in relation to the Assessment Statements listed above. Describe potential future deferred costs and cumulated risk(s) factors related to forgoing the requested investment. Outline known risk factors related to the implementation / installation of the requested resource.

TOTAL SCORE CRITERIA A to E __ / 100 pts

22

Space Management Framework Documents

November 29, 2017

1

rmech

Text Box


Executive Summary

2

Space Management Framework Documents i November 29, 2017

Renewed Space Management and Allocation Practices at Brock University

In May 2016 Brock University initiated a planning and consultation process to update the 2006 Facilities Needs & Priorities Study (FNPS). A key deliverable of the FNPS is to strengthen Brock’s current space management and space allocation practices. The University wishes to review and renew its practices to ensure they are evidence-based, transparent and equitable. One aspect of this change is the need to adopt space allocation standards that reflect Brock’s operational realities and best practices in the sector.

A Working Group was assembled in November 2016 to study and report back to the FNPS Project Steering Committee on the definition of space allocation standards deemed appropriate in defining the space needs and priorities of the University. The Working Group met five times between November 2016 and March 2017 to discuss, evaluate and recommend to the FNPS Project Steering Committee space allocation standards and tools to evaluate space needs.

Recommendations of the Working Group on Space Standards

Classroom Facilities

The Working Group recommends that the need for classrooms space be evaluated based on the number of the number of class-hours that must be scheduled into a given set of rooms, considering the number of students in a class and a pre-set room utilization target.

The Working Group recommends that the target per room be set at 47.7 hours out of 66.0 hours per week in available in daytime, late afternoon and evening. This target exceeds the rate of utilization recommended by the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) as follows:

Brock Recommended Total Weekly Scheduling Window 66 hours x 72% = 47.7 hours per room and Room Utilization Rate

COU Total Weekly Scheduling Window 57 hours x 60% = 34.2 hours per room and Room Utilization Rate

The Working Group notes that the target should be viewed as a threshold that alert the University to add or remove rooms from the classroom inventory. Instructional Laboratories

The Working Group recommends that the need for instructional laboratory space also be evaluated based on the number of class-hours that must be scheduled into rooms sharing the same physical attributes and equipment (wet-bench science laboratories, computer laboratories, etc.).

The Working Group recommends that the room utilization target for general computer laboratories be the same as the one it recommends for classroom space.

3

Space Management Framework Documents ii November 29, 2017

Instructional Laboratories (continued)

The Working Group recommends that the room utilization target for specialized laboratories be set at 27.0 hours out of 45.0 daytime hours a week. This target exceeds the rate of utilization recommended by the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) as follows:

Brock Recommended Total Weekly Scheduling Window 45 hours x 60% = 27.0 hours per room and Room Utilization Rate

COU Total Weekly Scheduling Window 45 hours x 40% = 18.0 hours per room and Room Utilization Rate

The Working Group notes that the utilization of instructional laboratories in the late afternoon and evening is possible, but creates operational and safety staffing challenges the University will have to consider before the room utilization target can be increased to account for the availability of the facilities at those times.

Academic (Including Graduate Student) and Administrative Offices

The COU methodology to evaluate office space needs is based on a generic space allocation per full-time allocation employee, with minor adjustments related to the status of the employee.

The Working Group has tested and recommends using Brock-specific worksheets to evaluate the office space needs of a given academic or service unit. The proposed worksheets account for the differences between these groups: academic units, library services and administrative units. This finer-grained evaluation of needs considers:

The full-time, part-time, contract and alternative status of the employee

The need for office or workspace accommodation by non-full time employee when present on campus

The nature of the employee’s position in terms of confidentially requirements

The type and size of office or workspace accommodation based on the employee’s role and responsibilities in the organization

The Thesis vs. Professional status of graduate programs, this to determine how much space is allocated

Research Facilities

The Working Group recommends using the COU methodology to evaluate the need for research space at the University, with no modification.

The Working Group notes that using the COU methodology should not be literally applied to the actual design and configuration of research laboratories. Each research initiative is unique, and takes place in varying types of buildings providing very different research environments. Small variations between the COU standard and the actual space allocations will occur. Large variations, on the other hand, should draw the attention of the University and prompt an analysis of reasons and possible remediation measures.

4

Space Management Framework Documents iii November 29, 2017

Other Facilities

Other facilities include:

Library Facilities & Study Space Central Services Non-Library Study Space Health Service Facilities Athletic / Recreation Space Common Use and Student Activity Food Services Assembly and Exhibition Facilities Bookstore / Merchandising

The Working Group recommends that Other Facilities be monitored and evaluated using the following benchmarks, indicators and institutional planning inputs:

Benchmarks Achieved in Relation to Other Ontario Universities

Area per full-time equivalent student (SM / FTE) benchmarks achieved by the University in the space category being examined in relation to Ontario’s other universities, particularly institutions Brock deems to be similar in terms of program offerings and size (Wilfrid Laurier University for example).

Indicators and Institutional Planning Inputs

Alignment and benefits of a space allocation in relation to the University’s strategic, academic and business plans.

Results of general or of targeted user satisfaction surveys, including but not limited to annual Key Performance Indicator (KPI) results directly or indirectly linked to the service or amenity provided or considered.

Relevant reports and data sets describing existing conditions, issues, opportunities and trends in the delivery or configuration of services and amenities.

Compliance of the University in providing the service or the amenity space allocations in relation to standards set externally by regulators and accrediting bodies.

5

Table of Contents

6

Space Management Framework Documents iv November 29, 2017

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................... i

Table of Contents ............................................................................ iv

Introduction ................................................................................... Section 1

Classroom Facilities ........................................................................ Section 2

Instructional Laboratories .............................................................. Section 3

Academic and Administrative Offices ............................................ Section 4

Research Facilities .......................................................................... Section 5

Other Facilities ............................................................................... Section 6

7

Section 1 - Introduction

8

Space Management Framework Documents 1-1 November 29, 2017

Context

In May 2016 Brock University initiated a planning and consultation process to update the 2006 Facilities Needs & Priorities Study (FNPS).

The purpose of the FNPS is to guide mid-term (10 years) capital projects at the University based on academic, research and student services plans, recorded shortfalls or surpluses of space allocated to certain functions or user groups, and the condition of existing buildings. The updated version of the FNPS is also guided by the University’s Campus Master Plan which sets broad land use, building placement and infrastructure development directions on a long-term basis (30-years).

Renewed Space Management and Allocation Practices at Brock University

A key deliverable requested by the University at the beginning of the FNPS is to strengthen Brock’s current space management and space allocation practices. The University wishes to review and renew its practices to ensure they are evidence-based, transparent and equitable.

One aspect of this change is the need to adopt space allocation standards that reflect Brock’s operational realities and best practices in the sector. The standards are not prescriptive. Rather, the standards are intended to enhance management of the University’s valuable space resource when evaluating space current and future allocation priorities, planning major renovations in existing buildings and designing new facilities.

Space Allocation Standards Working Group

A Working Group was assembled in November 2016 to study and report back to the FNPS Project Steering Committee on the definition of space allocation standards deemed appropriate in defining the space needs and priorities of the University.

The following individuals (i.e. the Working Group) met five times between November 2016 and February 2017 to discuss, evaluate and recommend to the FNPS Project Steering Committee space allocation standards and tools to evaluate space needs. This document was prepared to report on the proceedings, considerations and recommendations of the Group regarding the adoption of Brock-specific space allocation standards.

Working Group Members

Nota Klentrou - Chair Associate Dean, Applied Health Sciences Thomas Dunk Interim Provost and Vice-President Academic Anna Lathrop Vice-Provost, Teaching and Learning Cara Boese Director, Co-op, Career & Experiential Education Geraldine Jones Registrar Neil Culp Associate Director, Organizational Development & Effectiveness Ed Wall Director, Financial Strategy & Operations Julianna McCormick Director, Campus Planning, Design & Construction Services

9


Advisors / University Resource Staff to the Working Group

Roland Mech Associate Director, Space Management and Planning Gloria Gallagher Associate Registrar, Enrolment Management, Reporting &

Systems Mark Robertson University Librarian Jill Grose Director, Centre for Pedagogical Innovation

Consultant / Facilitator

Michel de Jocas Partner, Educational Consulting Services Corp.

Brock University Accessibility (AODA) Policy

The space allocation standards described in this document are aligned with the Brock University Accessibility (AODA) Policy. The standards thus consider, where applicable, the amount of space required to achieve barrier-free environments.

However, this document does not describe the detailed physical and design considerations needed to ensure that a space is universally accessible. The Working Group trust that these features and requirements are to be consistently applied by the University in compliance with the Policy, statutory requirements and best practices.

10

Section 2 - Classroom Facilities

11


Definition of Classroom Facilities

The Council of Ontario Universities (COU) defines a classroom facility as follows:

“A room primarily used for scheduled teaching purposes which does not require equipment of a kind that makes the room unsuitable for classroom instruction (i.e., laboratory benches) and rooms directly serving such facilities.”

Additionally, classroom facilities typically include or feature:

Classrooms, seminar rooms, lecture halls and auditoria used for scheduled instruction and learning activity

Breakout rooms, if they are used concurrently with scheduled classrooms

Rooms scheduled centrally or locally by individual academic departments or administrative units

Various configurations of fixed or movable types of chairs and tables

Support spaces such as storage areas; front or rear projection facilities; IT/AV equipment rooms; sound/light vestibules and lobbies; stages, technical space, and demonstration areas

Classroom facilities typically exclude:

Unscheduled breakout rooms used as student study rooms. These are considered learner support spaces (COU Category 11)

Departmental, faculty or administrative meeting or conference rooms (COU Category 4 and Category 10)

Large capacity performing arts spaces predominantly used for drama, music, etc. (COU Category 2)

COU Methodology for Assessing Classroom Facility Requirements

COU Methodology Overview

The COU methodology to assess classroom requirements relies, as its primary input, on the population of a university expressed in FTE students. This input is then multiplied by a space factor expressed in square meters (SM). For example:

1,000 FTE students enrolled x 1.11 SM per = 1,110 SM of classroom facilities at the University FTE student space generated

The value of the FTE student figure is based on exacting enrolment reporting protocols set between the University, COU and the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development. This FTE figure accounts for all students enrolled at the University regardless of their need for classroom space. Thus, for example, the FTE figure will include students enrolled in online programs that never attend classes on campus.

12


COU arrives at the 1.11 square meter per FTE student space allocation based on the following assumptions and calculations:

Assumptions

A (Area) – Average University classroom station size 1.7 SM per station assuming a mix of classroom types and inclusive of classroom service space

H (Hours) – Room utilization target per week 34 hours out of 57 hours a week (60%) assuming 45 daytime weekly hours plus 12 evening weekly hours

S (Seat) – Seat utilization target 70% of the Seats Occupied when the room is used

C (Contact Hours) – Contact hours per student 16 hours (non-laboratory) per student per week

Calculation

A (1.7 SM) x C (16 hours) = 1.11 SM per FTE Student H (34 hours) x S (70%)

Strengths of COU Methodology

Convenience of using a single input (i.e. FTE student population) to estimate the amount of classroom facility space required on a University-wide basis.

Consistency and comparability for benchmarking purposes with other Canadian universities that use the same COU methodology (including the majority of G15 institutions).

Weaknesses of COU Methodology

The SM per FTE method does not account for the institution’s practices, plans or needs in terms of section sizes, preferred room configurations and institution-specific room and seat utilization targets.

The average of 16 contact hours per student is generous considering this figure does not include any laboratory hours. The 16 contact hours figure also does not account for emerging alternative instructional delivery modalities where students attend classes remotely, every other week, etc.

The 1.7 SM per station allocation assumes that a fair portion of instructional hours is delivered in large sections in lecture halls and auditoria. This may or may not accurately reflect an institution’s practices and does not inform decisions on optimizing an institution’s classroom inventory in terms of the capacity of each room.

The 60% room utilization target for a scheduling window of 57 hours a week is low. Many institutions, including Brock University, achieve higher utilization rates particularly during the prime daytime hours (8:00 AM to 3PM) that are preferred by students and faculty.

13


Proposed Framework for Assessing Classroom Facility Requirements at Brock University

The COU methodology is too broad-based to assist an institution plan or project its classroom space requirements with precision. A more detailed approach is required to assist in day-to-day space management and the scheduling / booking of these spaces. What follows describes the proposed framework for assessing classroom facility requirements at Brock University.

The primary determinants of demand for classroom space in a university setting are:

The number of hours per day, per week or per semester that must be scheduled in that institution’s pool of classrooms

The size of the student groups that must be accommodated for each of the hours that must be scheduled in a given day, week or semester

The types of classrooms (regular, lecture hall, active learning, etc.) in which the hours of instruction are or should be scheduled

The primary measure for describing demand for instructional space is the section-hour, calculated as per the following examples:

1 section of 60 students attending a 1-hour class = 3 section-hours generated for sections 3 times per week in a regular classroom of 60 students in a 60-seat regular (table & chair) (1 section x 1 hour x 3 times per week = 3 section-hours)

4 sections of 40 students attending separate = 8 section-hours generated for sections 2-hour classes 1 time per week in active learning of 40 students in a 40-seat active classrooms (mobile furniture) learning classroom (4 sections x 2 hours x 1 time per week = 8 section-hours)

2 sections of 60 students attending a joint 3 hour = 3 section-hours generated for section of class one time per week in a lecture hall 120 students in a 120-seat lecture hall (fixed furniture) (1 section x 3 hours x 1 time per week = 3 section-hours)

Quantifying and categorizing the section-hours for classroom facilities (i.e. the demand for such space) can be done in several ways:

Analysis of past or current scheduling records and room timetables to extract and quantify instructional activity expressed in section hours

Calculation of future number of section hours based on the institution’s academic and enrolment plans

Combination of the two approaches

14


The facilities used by a university to accommodate the above-referenced section-hours can be characterized as its classroom supply. To inform space allocation and space planning decisions around the adequacy of this supply the following attributes are typically used:

Room capacities in conjunction with types or configurations (flat floor, tiered, fixed furniture, loose furniture, etc.)

Room availability for scheduling, usually expressed in hours per day, per week or per semester, often referred to as the scheduling window. For example, most universities in Ontario have adopted a 45-hour daytime weekly scheduling window based on a 5-day week (Monday to Friday) and a 9-hour day (8:00 AM to 5:00 PM).

Utilization targets, i.e. the number of section-hours scheduled within a given scheduling window. For example, an institution may set a utilization target whereby on average rooms of certain types are used 75% of the 45-hour scheduling window. Space planning decisions to add or remove rooms from the inventory will be based on whether the utilization is approaching or not the target set by the University.

15


Framework for Assessing Classroom Facility Requirements at Brock University

In view of the above, the worksheet outlined below is to be used to reconcile the demand inputs (expressed in section-hours) and the supply inputs (expressed as the number of a certain type of room by capacity):

Classroom Facility Requirement Worksheet Proforma

The worksheet can be used on a campus-wide basis, or for any sub-sets of the space inventory and/or faculty or departmental instructional activity being evaluated. The values for the relevant inputs - section-hours, utilization targets and number of rooms in the inventory - are placed in areas highlighted in yellow. Users then compute the space requirements as per the alphabetic notations and formulas shown on the top and left of the worksheet.

A B C.0 = A / B D = A / B E F = E - D

G Daytime Weekly Scheduling Window - Hours or Periods: __.__H Daytime Room Utilization Target - Percentage: ____%I Afternoon Weekly Scheduling Window - Hours or Periods: __.__J Afternoon Room Utilization Target - Percentage: ____%K Evening Weekly Scheduling Window - Hours or Periods: __.__L Evening Room Utilization Target: ____%M = (GxH)+(IxJ)+(KxL) Weekly Scheduling Target per Room: ##.#

Number of Section Hours

to Accommodate

per Week M1 to 8 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__

9 to 16 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__17 to 24 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__25 to 32 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__33 to 40 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__41 to 48 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__49 to 60 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__61 to 80 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__

81 to 100 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__101 to 120 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__121 to 140 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__141 to 160 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__161 to 180 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__181 to 200 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__201 to 240 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__241 to 280 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__281 to 320 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__321 to 360 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__

361 + Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__Total Total

Number of Rooms

Required (Rounded to

One Decimal)

Number of Rooms

Required (Decimals

Carried Over to the Next

Highest Room

Capacity as Appropriate)

Number of Rooms in Inventory Variation

16


Example of Classroom Facility Requirement Worksheet

The two worksheets example shown below are representative of the Fall 2015 scheduling activity at the University’s St. Catharines campus.

Daytime and Evening Activity

The first example looks at daytime and evening hours of instructional activity (column A, i.e. demand) and the optimal capacities of the classrooms needed to absorb this activity (column D, i.e. supply). The number of rooms required is a function of the weekly scheduling target set, which in this instance assumes daytime and evening scheduling windows used as per target rates shown on lines G to M.

A B C.0 = A / B D = A / B E F = E - D

G Daytime Weekly Scheduling Window - Hours or Periods: 45.0

H Daytime Room Utilization Target - Percentage: 75%

I Afternoon Weekly Scheduling Window - Hours or Periods: 9.0

J Afternoon Room Utilization Target - Percentage: 75%

K Evening Weekly Scheduling Window - Hours or Periods: 12.0

L Evening Room Utilization Target: 60%

M = (GxH)+(IxJ)+(KxL) Weekly Scheduling Target per Room: 47.70


to Accommodate

per Week M1 to 8 Students / Occupants 488.0 / 47.7 Hours or Periods per Week 10.2 10.2 0.2 10 0 -10

9 to 16 Students / Occupants 640.5 / 47.7 Hours or Periods per Week 13.4 13.7 0.7 13 2 -11

17 to 24 Students / Occupants 1768.0 / 47.7 Hours or Periods per Week 37.1 37.7 0.7 37 60 +23
















361 + Students / Occupants 55.0 / 47.7 Hours or Periods per Week 1.2 1.4 0.4 2 3 +1

Total 4836.0 Total 101.4 110.2 9.2 102 120 +18

Number of Rooms


One Decimal)

Number of Rooms

Required (Decimals


Highest Room



17


Daytime-Only Activity – All Classes that Started before 5:00 PM in Fall 2015

The second example looks at daytime hours of instructional activity (column A, i.e. demand) only and the optimal capacities of the classrooms needed to absorb this activity (column D, i.e. supply). The number of rooms required is a function of the weekly scheduling target set, which in this instance assumes a daytime-only scheduling window used as per target rate shown on lines G, H and M.

Other Considerations

The worksheet proforma can also be used to evaluate the classroom space needs of specific academic units of the University, including for example:

The classroom requirements of the Faculty of Education at the Hamilton Campus

The impact on classroom facilities of adding a new program(s) and / or new student cohort(s) that increase the number of section hours to be scheduled, or the size of the sections to be scheduled. A practical way of evaluating these changes is to overlay the new or modified section-hour values generated because of such initiatives over existing data sets, such as the one shown in worksheet example above.

A B C.0 = A / B D = A / B E F = E - D









to Accommodate

per Week M1 to 8 Students / Occupants 433.0 / 33.75 Hours or Periods per Week 12.8 12.8 0.8 12 0 -12


















361 + Students / Occupants 39.0 / 33.75 Hours or Periods per Week 1.2 1.9 0.9 2 3 +1

Total 3946.0 Total 116.9 126.7 10.7 117 120 +3

Number of Rooms


One Decimal)

Number of Rooms

Required (Decimals


Highest Room



18


Utilization Targets

The Working Group recommends the following utilization factors which, in combination, define the weekly utilization target for classroom facilities at Brock University:

Daytime Scheduling Window – Monday to Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM 45 hours Daytime Room Utilization Target (%) 75% Daytime Utilization Target (Hours) 33.8 hours per room

Afternoon Scheduling Window – Monday to Thursday 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM 8 hours

– Friday 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM 1 hour Afternoon Room Utilization Target (%) 75% Afternoon Utilization Target (Hours) 6.7 hours per room

Evening Scheduling Window – Monday to Thursday 7:00 pm to 10:00 PM 12 hours Evening Room Utilization Target (%) 60% Evening % Utilization Target (Hours) 7.2 hours per room

Total Weekly Scheduling Window 66 hours Total Weekly Utilization Target (%) 72% Total Weekly Utilization Target (Hours) 47.7 hours per room

The above targets expressed in percentages and hours should be viewed as thresholds that alert the University to a need, for example, to shift delivery times between afternoon and evening, or to add or remove rooms from the classroom inventory.

When aggregated, the targets recommended by the Working Group match or exceed the COU standards outlined on page 2-2.

COU Daytime Scheduling Window and Room Utilization Rate 45 hours x 60% = 27.0 hours Brock Recommended Daytime Scheduling Window 45 hours x 75% = 33.8 hours

and Room Utilization Rate COU Evening Scheduling Window and Room Utilization Rate 12 hours x 60% = 7.2 hours Brock Recommended Afternoon and Evening Scheduling 21 hours x 66% = 13.9 hours

Window and Room Utilization Rate COU Total Weekly Scheduling Window and Room Utilization Rate 57 hours x 60% = 34.2 hours Brock Recommended Total Weekly Scheduling Window 66 hours x 72% = 47.7 hours

and Room Utilization Rate These targets achieve a balance between good utilization of the rooms and the development of timetables that acknowledge student and faculty conflicts at certain times of the day and the need to maintain some availability for one-time bookings during semesters.

19


Of note, Brock achieved in Fall 2015 a 73% utilization average of its classroom pool in daytime, thus almost reaching the 75% target indicated above. The utilization rates of large-capacity rooms ranged between 75% and 90%.

In the coming years, the Working Group believes the overall daytime target could be set at 80%. However, the Working Group was advised by its consultant / facilitator that few universities in Canada achieve an overall utilization average of 80%, and that only one or two consistently achieves a rate of 85% across the entire range (in terms of seat capacities) of their room inventories.

Achieving rates higher than 85% consistently is difficult given the complexity and inter-dependency of many scheduling variables and constraints in play.

Quantitatively, such constraints include the removal of any margin (i.e. room availability) to adjust schedules once they are set, or to occasionally book a room for ad hoc one-time events. Further, as higher education makes the transition from semester-long courses to offering varying course delivery formats and lengths (hybrid, short-duration, etc.), it will become more difficult to achieve high rates of utilizations. Here is why: traditional delivery can be imagined as a set of uniform Lego blocks stacked neatly and regularly on a board (i.e. a room’s weekly time grid). Emerging course delivery formats can be imagined as odd-shaped Lego blocks that vary in size and duration from week to week stacked in combination with the previously described and uniform Lego blocks. There is bound to be some gaps (i.e. unused time) left between the Lego blocks in their final arrangement.

Qualitatively, scheduling variables and constraints include a variety of factors, including but not limited to the following:

Policy-sanctioned, time-related accommodations for professors and instructors that dictate when a course can be scheduled. These may trigger cascading effects throughout many room, student and other instructor schedules.

Like the above, the availability of highly-sought part-time lecturers may have the same type of cascading effects as described above.

Sequencing and pacing of the courses for students over the course of a given week, with attention given to allowing them to create schedules that avoid, for example: - Having to travel to and from campus on a given day for a single one-hour class - Long gaps (4 hours or more) between classes during a given day - Having too many back-to-back classes in a given day when one is following the program of study recommended by a department - etc.

20


Area per Classroom Seat or Station

The Working Group recommends the following guidelines for estimating the size of classrooms based on both their intended capacity and configuration.

Type of Furniture Loose Tables & Chairs

Fixed Tables & Seating

Theater Seat with Tablet Arms

Loose Chairs with Tablet Arms

Active Learning Classroom

Suitability as per Classroom Layout Designations

• Classroom Layout (Exam / Traditional / Presentation)

• Discussion / Seminar Space




• Discussion / Seminar Space

• Active Learning Space

• Collaborative Technology Learning Space

• Adaptable / Flexible Learning Space

SM per Seat or Station





up to 5 seats 2.6 6 to 10 seats 2.5

11 to 15 seats 2.4 16 to 20 seats 2.4 1.6 3.3 21 to 25 seats 2.3 1.6 3.3 26 to 30 seats 2.2 1.7 1.6 3.0 31 to 35 seats 2.2 1.7 1.6 2.8 36 to 40 seats 2.1 1.6 1.5 2.8 41 to 50 seats 2.0 1.6 1.5 2.8 51 to 60 seats 1.9 1.6 1.5 2.8 61 to 70 seats 1.8 1.6 1.4 2.3 71 to 80 seats 1.7 1.5 1.4 2.3 81 to 90 seats 1.5 1.4

91 to 100 seats 1.5 100 + 1.5 1.1

not recommended

The areas per seat or station indicated above are inclusive of internal circulation (i.e. aisles) and the teaching / lecture area at the front of the room. The areas indicated above exclude specialized facilities sometimes associated with large capacity rooms such as projection and AV rooms or demonstration preparation rooms.

21

Section 3 –

Instructional Laboratories 22


Definition of Instructional Laboratory Facilities

The Council of Ontario Universities (COU) defines instructional laboratory facilities as follows:

“A room used for instruction of undergraduate students that requires special purpose equipment or is so arranged that use is restricted to a particular field of study; and rooms directly serving these facilities. Activities in these facilities would include student participation, experimentation, observation or practice in a field of study.”

Laboratory facilities as defined above include rooms scheduled centrally and room scheduled locally by individual academic departments or administrative units.

Instructional laboratory facilities typically exclude:

Gymnasia, fitness rooms, physical training rooms, facilities shared between academic and recreational or varsity users, pools, day care facilities - unless they are used primarily for instructional purposes.

Unscheduled, open laboratories, workshops or studios used for study or practice COU Methodology for Assessing Instructional Laboratory Facility Requirements


The COU methodology to assess instructional laboratory requirements relies, as its primary input, on the number of contact hours accommodated during a typical academic week. These weekly student laboratory contact hours (WSLCH) are calculated as shown in the following example:

24 students in a Chemistry x 3 hour class = 72 WSLCH generated laboratory class

The amount of space required to accommodate these activities is tied to the discipline / subjects taught in the laboratory. COU classifies in groups W, X, Y and Z as listed below along with examples of the disciplines:

Group W: Visual Arts, Communication, Popular Culture and Film, Computer Science Group X: Chemistry, Fine Arts, Geology, etc. Group Y: Anthropology, Geography, Psychology, etc. Group Z: Business, Mathematics, Sociology, etc.

As per the above example, the 72 WSLCH generated in a Chemistry laboratory belongs in Group X.

The number of WSLCH generated by laboratory instructional activity is assigned to one of the four groups (W, X, Y and Z), totaled, and multiplied by a space allocation factor as follows:

800 Group X WSLCH generated x 0.6 SM / WSLCH = 480 SM

23


The SM / WSLCH factors used by COU to evaluate space requirements are defined as follows:

A B C D=A (BxC) SM per

Laboratory Station

Hours of Laboratory

Utilization per Week (COU

designated target)

Seat Utilization (COU designated

target)

SM/WSLCH

Group W: 20.25 SM 18 Hours 75% 1.5 SM / WSLCH Group X: 10.80 SM 18 Hours 75% 0.8 SM / WSLCH Group Y: 6.75 SM 18 Hours 75% 0.5 SM / WSLCH Group Z: 4.05 SM 18 Hours 75% 0.3 SM / WSLCH


Based on actual activity taking place in the institution’s laboratories.

Space allocations per station include service space outside the laboratory and are generally adequate (8.10 SM for Group X for example).



The SM / WSLCH method does not account for the institution’s practices, plans or needs in terms of section sizes, preferred room configurations and institution-specific room and seat utilization targets.

The 18 hours per week room utilization rate is exceptionally low if one assumes a daytime delivery window of 45 hours a week (8:00 AM to 5:00 PM from Monday to Friday). The room utilization rate expressed in percentage is 40%.

The 75% seat utilization rate is somewhat low, considering that the size of a student group scheduled in a laboratory is often set based on the capacity of the laboratory itself.

Proposed Framework for Assessing Instructional Laboratory Facility Requirements at Brock University

The proposed framework for assessing instructional laboratory facility requirements at Brock University is the same as the one proposed for the assessment of classroom space requirements.

In summary, the framework must reconcile demand inputs (expressed in section-hours) with supply inputs (expressed in the number of certain types of laboratory by capacity). Please refer to pages 2-3 and 2-4 where the concepts of demand and supply are described in more detail.

24


When using the framework Brock University will be able to broaden or narrow the analysis of instructional laboratory space requirements as it deems appropriate. For example, questions such as these ones can be asked:

Does the University have sufficient wet bench life science laboratories for instructional needs in the following subjects: biology, anatomy, zoology, botany, etc.?

What should be the capacity profile of the University’s pool of general computer laboratories?

Framework for Assessing Instructional Facility Requirement at Brock University

In view of the above, the worksheet outlined below is to be used to reconcile the demand inputs (expressed in section-hours) and the supply inputs (expressed in the number of certain types of room by capacity):

Instructional Laboratory Facility Requirement Worksheet Proforma

The worksheet can be used on a campus-wide basis, or for any sub-set of the space inventory and/or faculty or departmental instructional activity being evaluated. The values for the relevant inputs - section-hours, utilization targets and number of rooms in the inventory - are highlighted in yellow. Users compute the space requirements as per the alphabetic notations and formulas shown on the top and left of the worksheet.

A B C.0 = A / B D = A / B E F = E - D

G Daytime Weekly Scheduling Window - Hours or Periods: __.__H Daytime Room Utilization Target - Percentage: ____%I Afternoon Weekly Scheduling Window - Hours or Periods: __.__J Afternoon Room Utilization Target - Percentage: ____%K Evening Weekly Scheduling Window - Hours or Periods: __.__L Evening Room Utilization Target: ____%M = (GxH)+(IxJ)+(KxL) Weekly Scheduling Target per Room: ##.#


to Accommodate

per Week M1 to 8 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__

9 to 16 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__17 to 24 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__25 to 32 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__33 to 40 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__41 to 48 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__49 to 60 Students / Occupants __.__ / ##.# Hours or Periods per Week __.__ __.__ __.__ __.__

Total Total

Number of Rooms


One Decimal)

Number of Rooms

Required (Decimals


Highest Room



25


Examples of Instructional Laboratory Facility Requirement Worksheets

The worksheet example shown below is representative of the Fall 2015 scheduling activity at the University’s St. Catharines campus.

General Computer Laboratories

Chemistry Laboratories

A B C.0 = A / B D = A / B E F = E - D









to Accommodate

per Week M1 to 8 Students / Occupants / 47.7 Hours or Periods per Week 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 +0

9 to 16 Students / Occupants / 47.7 Hours or Periods per Week 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 +0





49 to 60 Students / Occupants / 47.7 Hours or Periods per Week 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 +0

Total 381.0 Total 8.0 9.4 2.4 8 16 +8

Number of Rooms


One Decimal)

Number of Rooms

Required (Decimals


Highest Room



A B C.0 = A / B D = A / B E F = E - D









to Accommodate

per Week M1 to 8 Students / Occupants / 27 Hours or Periods per Week 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 +0

9 to 16 Students / Occupants 93.0 / 27 Hours or Periods per Week 3.4 3.4 0.4 3 4 +1

17 to 24 Students / Occupants / 27 Hours or Periods per Week 0.0 0.4 0.4 0 0 +0

25 to 32 Students / Occupants 33.0 / 27 Hours or Periods per Week 1.2 1.7 0.7 2 1 -1




Total 126.0 Total 4.7 5.6 1.6 5 5 +0

Number of Rooms


One Decimal)

Number of Rooms

Required (Decimals


Highest Room



26


Biology Laboratories

A B C.0 = A / B D = A / B E F = E - D









to Accommodate

per Week M1 to 8 Students / Occupants / 27 Hours or Periods per Week 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 +0

9 to 16 Students / Occupants 63.0 / 27 Hours or Periods per Week 2.3 2.3 0.3 2 2 +0


25 to 32 Students / Occupants 133.0 / 27 Hours or Periods per Week 4.9 5.3 0.3 6 5 -1




Total 196.0 Total 7.3 7.9 0.9 8 7 -1

Number of Rooms


One Decimal)

Number of Rooms

Required (Decimals


Highest Room



27


Utilization Targets

General Computer Laboratory Utilization Target

The Working Group recommends the same utilization targets for general computer laboratories as recommended for classroom facilities – see page 2-6.

Specialized Instructional Laboratory Utilization Target

The Working Group deems that the use of instructional laboratories in the late afternoon (5:00 PM to 7:00 PM) and evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM) creates operational challenges and safety concerns around the work load of technicians and the availability of first responders. Based on current human resources limitations, the Working Group recommends the following utilization factors which, in combination, define the weekly utilization target for specialized instructional laboratories at Brock University:

Daytime Scheduling Window – Monday to Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM 45 hours Daytime Room Utilization Target (%) 60% Daytime Utilization Target (Hours) 27 hours per room

The Working Group notes that extending the utilization window of specialized laboratories in the afternoon and evening will require adjustments to the allocation of staff overseeing the operation and safety of the facilities. Use of afternoon and evening hours should be reconsidered if daytime hours are at capacity.

The utilization target of 27 scheduled daytime hours of use per week allows for nine 3-hour laboratory sessions that can be delivered as shown generically here:

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM Set-up Set-up Set-up

Set-up / Maintenance

Set-up 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM

Lab Session Lab Session Lab Session Lab Session

12:00 PM to 1:00 PM Set-up / Clean Up Set-up / Clean Up Set-up / Clean Up Set-up / Clean Up 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM

Lab Session Lab Session Lab Session Lab Session Lab Session

4:00 PM to 5:00 PM Set-up / Clean Up Set-up / Clean Up Set-up / Clean Up Set-up / Clean Up Set-up / Clean Up

Of note, the 27-hour daytime utilization target set by the Working Group is 33% longer than the 18-hour target set by COU.

28


Space Allocation Guidelines to Evaluate the Size of an Instructional Laboratory in Relation to Intended Capacity

The Working Group recommends using the following area figures to estimate the size of instructional laboratories based on type and intended capacity. The SM per laboratory station values shown in the table below apply to generic instructional laboratory configurations, inclusive of the spaces typically found to support them.

The area per laboratory station figures should prove useful in the early planning and evaluation stages of projects involving instructional laboratories, when the amount of space needed is not yet known.

The actual SM per workstation allocations will likely vary from the guideline given actual conditions (a renovation in an existing building for example), unique curricular requirements and special equipment in place. In view of this the SM per laboratory station figures are expressed as a range with lower and upper ends. Any space allocation that fall below or above this range should warrant particularly scrutiny as to the reasons why.

Laboratory, Workshop, Studio Description SM per Laboratory Station, Including Support Areas

Low End of Range

SM per Laboratory Station, Including Support Areas

High End of Range

Computer, General 3.3 3.7 Computer, Graphic or Specialized 4.2 4.6 Dry Lab (Humanities / Social Sciences / Business) 4.2 4.6 Electronics & Electrical / Automation 5.6 6.0 Wet Lab, Life Sciences 5.6 6.0 Wet Lab, Physical Sciences 5.6 6.0 Media Studio / Performance Arts Studio 5.6 6.0 Media Post-Prod. / Music Practice Suites 4.2 4.6 Fine Arts / Graphic Arts / Drafting 4.2 4.6 Patient Care / Simulation / Therapy / Dental 5.6 6.0 Daily Living / Counseling / OSCE / Briefing 4.2 4.6 Fitness / Exercise / Weight / Combat / Climbing Facility 7.4 8.0

29

Section 4 - Offices

30


Definition of Office Facilities

The Council of Ontario Universities (COU) defines offices in two broad categories:

Academic Departmental Offices and Related Space

“A room usually assigned to one or more individuals on a permanent basis, containing office-type equipment and used by faculty, departmental administrative and support staff, and students, or a room directly serving these facilities. Also included are general purpose offices and project rooms used for the conducting of research”.

Academic departmental offices typically accommodate all employees and graduate students attached to a faculty or school, up to and including its decanal offices. The space is further sub-categorized as follows:

Academic offices Research office / project space Graduate student offices Departmental administrative and support employee offices Office support space

Central Administrative Offices and Related Space

“A room usually assigned to one or more individuals on a permanent basis containing office-type equipment and used by central administrative and support staff in non-academic departments/faculties/divisions, or a room directly serving these facilities.”

The Central Administrative Office space category is comprehensive and is meant to capture the needs of all non-academic employees of the institution, excluding the office space assigned to Library employees and to on-campus contracting employees not directly hired by the University. The space is further sub-categorized as follows:

Office areas Office support space

COU Methodology for Assessing Office Space Requirements


The COU methodology to assess office space requirements relies, as its primary input, on employee and graduate student counts. The tallies are done as per the following two methods:

Academic Departmental Offices and Related Space

Full-time equivalent faculty count Full-time equivalent post-doctoral fellows, research associates and funded research support

employee count Full-time equivalent non-academic departmental support staff count Full-time equivalent graduate students

31


Depending on the category of staff/student, factors are applied to the counts to calculate area requirements. Full-time equivalent employee inputs (the total employee count) are multiplied by 12 square meters (SM); graduate student inputs are multiplied by 3 SM. An additional 25% is added to the area calculation to account for office support space requirements (meeting rooms, storage, etc.). A sample calculation is shown below:

12 full-time equivalent employee x 12 SM = 144 SM 24 full-time equivalent graduate student x 3 SM = 72 SM Office support areas 25% of above = 54 SM

Total 270 SM

Central Administrative Offices and Related Space

100% of the full-time equivalent employee count

The employee inputs (the total employee count) is multiplied by 12 square meters (SM). An additional 50% is added to the area calculation to account for office support space requirements (meeting rooms, storage, etc.). A sample calculation is shown below:

15 full-time equivalent employee x 12 SM = 180 SM Office support areas 50% of above = 90 SM

Total 270 SM



Simplicity for estimating, at a high level, the space requirements of a given group of employees (an academic department, a service unit).


The COU methodology does not provide a framework for the conversion of non-full time employee counts to full-time equivalent employee counts. This can prove problematic: the office space needs of a cadre of part-time employees are usually quite different from those of full-time employees. The problem is further compounded by the fact that part-time to full-time employee ratios may vary substantially from one faculty or administrative unit to the next.

The use of a generic 12 SM allocation for all employees ignores the need to size office accommodations based on the position and responsibilities of a person. Student counsellors, for example, need access to dedicated or shared spaces where privacy can be achieved. Senior leaders of the University should have offices that befit their role in the organization and in which they can host small group meetings. In future, more and more University employees will telecommute and be on campus only occasionally, if not at all.

The use of a generic 12 SM allocation leaves the impression among many stakeholders that their office space should exactly be of that size, and private.

32


Proposed Framework for Evaluating Office Space Requirement at Brock University

The Working Group has tested and recommends using the following three worksheets to evaluate the office space needs of a given academic or service unit of the University. The Working Group notes the following regarding the use of the worksheets:

The worksheet can readily be used when planning new facilities or major renovations in existing buildings to determine the amount of office space needed on a green field basis.

When evaluating existing office space allocations, the worksheets should be used to calculate what the University considers to be the optimal amount of office space. The area figures generated in this way can then be compared to actual space allocations to determine if a unit is in a surplus or shortfall situation. Once that assessment is made key questions should be asked: Assuming a space surplus assessment: can the surplus be practically and economically recouped? Assuming a space shortfall assessment: can the shortfall be mitigated by reassigning facilities so that more employees are accommodated in spaces that meet the University’s standards?

The worksheet should not be viewed as a design standard that stipulates if employees should be accommodated in private offices or in suites of open offices. Overall both types of accommodations (private and open) require approximately the same amount of space when factoring the circulation space needed by private offices of various sizes (11, 15, 24 SM) placed along a corridor. The size of workstations in an open office environment will tend to be more uniform (6 to 8 SM per station) with the balance of the space allocated in the worksheets on a per capita basis redirected to sought-after open office amenities (private interview rooms, coat rooms, coffee stations, etc.) above and beyond the 25% and 30% office support allocations embedded in the calculations.

In some instances, the worksheets indicate if an allocation should be in a “Shared Office”, or a “Station in Workroom”. A “Shared Office” allocation suggests an enclosed office ranging in size between 11 and 24 SM occupied by two, three or four employees at their designated desks. A “Station in Workroom” allocation suggests an open office environment where desk space and related are not assigned to a given employee but are used instead on a first-come-first-serve basis (i.e. the hoteling model).

Graduate offices follow the COU standard of allocating 3 SM per full-time equivalent student enrolled in thesis-based programs. However, the allocation of office space for professional graduate programs follows instead the trend observed in other Canadian universities whereby workrooms and group study spaces are made available rather than individual dedicated desk allocations. An allocation of 0.6 SM per student is proposed instead to dedicate individual and group study space to students enrolled in professional-stream programs. Of note, this allocation is above the general allocation of general study space made available on campus in the Library and elsewhere.

33


Academic Offices

School / Department / Group Name: ___________________________________________________________________________________

A B C D E = A x B x C x D Status Title or Title Equivalent

Employee

Headcount

Headcount Employee to

FTE Employee Conversion

Factor

Ratio of FTE Employee or Student per

Office or Desk

Area per Office or

Station (NASM)

Area Allocated

(NASM)

Full-Time

Dean x 1.00 x 1.00 x 24 Associate Dean x 1.00 x 1.00 x 15

Department Chair/ Program Director x 1.00 x 1.00 x 15 Full-time Faculty x 1.00 x 1.00 x 11

Research Appointment (Post-Doctoral) x 1.00 x 1.00 x 11 Administrative Director/Manager x 1.00 x 1.00 x 11

Administrative Employee x 1.00 x 1.00 x 6 Shared Office Student Advisor x 1.00 x 1.00 x 11

Support & Technical Employee x 1.00 x 1.00 x 6 Shared Office Sub-total F

Term / Contract / Part-Time LTA/ILTA Faculty x 1.00 x 1.00 x 11 CUPE Instructors x 0.10 (C1) x 1.00 x 6 Shared Office

Teaching Assistant x 0.03 (C2) x 1.00 x 4 Station in Workroom Student Employee x 0.50 (C3) x 1.00 x 4 to 6 Station in Workroom

Sub-total G Contractor / Alternative Status

3 or 4 Days a Week Work on Campus x 0.80 x 1.00 x 6 Shared Office 2 Days a Week Work on Campus x 0.40 x 1.00 x 6 Shared Office 1 Day a Week Work on Campus x 0.20 x 1.00 x 6 Shared Office

Off-Site Clinical/Placement Faculty/Staff x 1.00 x 0.20 (S1) x 4 Station in Workroom Multi-Campus Employee x 1.00 x 0.20 (S1) x 4 Station in Workroom

Sub-total H FTE Graduate Student

Thesis x 1.00 x 1.00 x 3 Station in Workroom Professional x 1.00 x 0.20 (S1) x 3 Station in Workroom

Sub-total I

Offices and Workstations Space Allocated J = F + G + H + I

25% Office Support Space Allocated K = (J x 1.33) - J

TOTAL ALLOCATION – Excluding Internal Circulation L = J + K

TOTAL ALLOCATION – Including 25% Internal Circulation Space Allocation M = L x 1.33

C1 1 Half Credit Course compared to faculty workload = 0.10 FTE S1 2 Hours Use per FTE / 10 Hours AM or PM Weekly Window = 0.20 C2 60 hours per half credit course = 0.03 FTE C3 Contracts range in number of hours

34


Academic Offices - Library



Employee

Headcount



Factor


Office or Desk

Area per Office or

Station (NASM)

Area Allocated

(NASM)

Full-Time

University Librarian x 1.00 x 1.00 x 24 Associate University Librarian x 1.00 x 1.00 x 15

Unit Head x 1.00 x 1.00 x 15 Full-time Librarian x 1.00 x 1.00 x 11

Administrative Director/Manager x 1.00 x 1.00 x 11 Administrative Employee x 1.00 x 1.00 x 6 Shared Office

Support & Technical Employee x 1.00 x 1.00 x 6 Shared Office Sub-total F

Term / Contract / Part-Time Administrative Employee x 1.00 x 1.00 x 6 Shared Office

Support & Technical Employee x 1.00 x 1.00 x 6 Shared Office Student Employee x 0.50 (C1) x 1.00 x 4 to 6 Station in Workroom

Sub-total G Contractor / Alternative Status


Multi-Campus Employee x 1.00 x 0.20 (S1) x 4 Station in Workroom Sub-total H

Offices and Workstations Space Allocated I = F + G + H

30% Office Support Space Allocated J = (I x 1.43) – I

TOTAL ALLOCATION – Excluding Internal Circulation K = I + J

TOTAL ALLOCATION – Including 25% Internal Circulation Space Allocation L = K x 1.33

C1 Contracts range in number of hours S1 2 Hours Use per FTE / 10 Hours AM or PM Weekly Window = 0.20

35


Administrative / Student Services Offices



Employee

Headcount



Factor


Office or Desk

Area per Office or

Station (NASM)

Area Allocated

(NASM)

Full-Time - Administrative

President x 1.00 x 1.00 x 50 Vice-President x 1.00 x 1.00 x 24

Associate VP / Vice-Provost x 1.00 x 1.00 x 15 Executive Director / Director x 1.00 x 1.00 x 15

Associate Director / Manager x 1.00 x 1.00 x 11 Administrative Employee - Confidential x 1.00 x 1.00 x 11

Administrative Employee x 1.00 x 1.00 x 6 Shared Office Support & Technical Employee x 1.00 x 1.00 x 6 Shared Office

Full-Time Student Employee x 1.00 x 1.00 x 4 to 6 Shared Office Sub-total F

Student Services – Confidential Accessibility Employee x 1.00 x 1.00 x 15

Counsellor / Student Advisor x 1.00 x 1.00 x 11 Administrative Employee – Confidential x 1.00 x 1.00 x 11

Full-time Student Employee x 1.00 x 1.00 x 4 to 6 Shared Office Sub-total G Term / Contract / Part-Time

Administrative Employee - Confidential x 1.00 x 1.00 x 11 Administrative Employee x 1.00 x 1.00 x 6 Shared Office

Support & Technical Employee x 1.00 x 1.00 x 6 Shared Office Student Employee x 0.5 (C1) x 1.00 x 4 Station in Workroom

Sub-total H Contractor / Alternative Status


Multi-Campus Employee x 1.00 x 0.20 (S1) x 4 Station in Workroom Sub-total I

Offices and Workstations Space Allocated J = F + G + H + I

30% Office Support Space Allocated K = (I x 1.43) – J

TOTAL ALLOCATION – Excluding Internal Circulation L = J + K

TOTAL ALLOCATION – Including 25% Internal Circulation Space Allocation M= L x 1.33

C1 Contracts range in number of hours S1 2 Hours Use per FTE / 10 Hours AM or PM Weekly Window = 0.20

36

Section 5 - Research Facilities

37


Definition of Research Facilities

The Council of Ontario Universities (COU) defines research facilities as follows:

“A room used for laboratory applications, research or training in research methodology which requires special-purpose equipment for staff or graduate student experimentation or observation and preparation, service and other rooms directly serving these facilities.”

COU Methodology for Assessing Research Laboratory Facility Requirements


The COU methodology to assess research laboratory requirements relies, as its primary input, on staff and graduate student counts. The tallies are done based on the following designations and count adjustments:

100% of the full-time equivalent faculty count 50% of the full-time equivalent post-doctoral fellow count 50% of the full-time equivalent research associate count 50% of the full-time equivalent graduate student count

Of note, the staff counts used to assess research space requirements include both full-time and part-time staff and students, with the important caveat that the part-time staff and student counts must be converted into full-time equivalent (FTE) values. The staff counts exclude administrative staff.

The staff and graduate student counts are used to calculate space requirements using allocation factors that reflect the nature of the research being done. A list of the discipline groupings and allocations assigned based on their classification of instructional programs (CIP) codes and as defined by COU is provided on pages 5-4 to 5-6.

Group A 40 NASM per FTE Staff Group B 30 NASM per FTE Staff Group C 25 NASM per FTE Staff Group D 20 NASM per FTE Staff Group E 15 NASM per FTE Staff Group F 5 NASM per FTE Staff Group G 2 NASM per FTE Staff

38


Based on the above inputs and factors, the research space requirements for a unit of the university can be calculated as per the following example describing a department attached to a faculty of science:

Group A 8 FTE faculty x 1 x 40 NASM per FTE Staff = 320 NASM Group A 1 FTE postdoc x 0.5 x 40 NASM per FTE Staff = 20 NASM Group A 2 FTE RAs x 0.5 x 40 NASM per FTE Staff = 40 NASM Group A 13 FTE grads x 0.5 x 40 NASM per FTE Stud. = 260 NASM Group B 12 FTE faculty x 1 x 30 NASM per FTE Staff = 360 NASM Group B 3 FTE postdoc x 0.5 x 30 NASM per FTE Staff = 45 NASM Group B 1 FTE RAs x 0.5 x 30 NASM per FTE Staff = 15 NASM Group A 8 FTE grads x 0.5 x 30 NASM per FTE Stud. = 120 NASM

Total 1,180 NASM



Each research undertaking is unique and calls for varying allocations of human, space and equipment resources. In view of this, the COU methodology achieves a balance between: - the need to evaluate the space requirements of a research group (i.e. a faculty, a department, a team) at a high level vs. - the need to describe in detail the specific space needs of that research group.


The use of a “per FTE capita” count as the primary input to evaluate research space requirements does not consider key aspects of an institution’s research enterprise. When the demand or the expectations for research space exceeds supply, other criteria or parameters must be considered. These include, for example, the source and amount of funding support of a research undertaking, the alignment of the research activity with strategic directions of the institution, the support accorded by the institution to tenure-track faculty at the start of their research careers, etc.

The “One-Size-Fits-the-Group” approach of the COU methodology is often poorly received by research stakeholders, particularly when there are perceived or real inequities in the allocation of space within a department, a faculty or a university.

39


Proposed Framework for Evaluating Research Facility Space Requirement at Brock University

For evaluating the overall demand for research space at Brock University, the Working Group recommends using the COU methodology as previously outlined, with no modification.

Use of the COU methodology will inform Brock of trends and the benchmarks it achieves when compared to other institutions. Importantly, it will also inform the University on relative surpluses and shortfalls between faculties or departments using a neutral, third-party framework.

The Working Group notes that using the COU methodology to inform space planning decisions around needs and priorities should not be literally applied to the actual design and configuration of research laboratories. Each research initiative is unique, and takes place in varying types of buildings providing very different research environments (Cairns vs. Mackenzie Chown vs. Walker for example). In other words, the COU methodology should be used to calculate the quantity of space deemed adequate to accommodate a given sets of researchers. Small variations between the COU standard and the actual space allocations will occur. Large variations, on the other hand, should draw the attention of the University and prompt an analysis of reasons and possible remediation measures.

Finally, the Working Group also notes that the allocation of research space to departments and faculties that predominantly fall in COU groups F and G will yield relatively small allocations. Typically, these 2 and 5 NASM “per capita” space allocations are aggregated in a way that allows a department or a faculty to dedicate space to a given research centre (a European Studies resource centre for example) or a given type of research activity (a Social Science room for focus group research for example).

40


Research Space Needs Evaluation Worksheet

Faculty / Department / Group Name: ______________________________________________________________________________

A B C D = A x B x C COU Classification

Position Description FTE Count

COU FTE Adjustment

Factor

COU Allocation

per FTE (NASM)

Area Requirment Evaluation

(NASM)

Group A1

Faculty FTE x 1.0 x 60 x NASM

Post Doctoral Fellow FTE x 0.5 x 60 x NASM

Research Associate FTE x 0.5 x 60 x NASM

Graduate Student FTE x 0.5 x 60 x NASM

Group A2 Faculty FTE x 1.0 x 40 x NASM




Group B Faculty FTE x 1.0 x 30 x NASM




Group C Faculty FTE x 1.0 x 25 x NASM




Group D Faculty FTE x 1.0 x 20 x NASM




Group E Faculty FTE x 1.0 x 15 x NASM




Group F Faculty FTE x 1.0 x 5 x NASM




Group G Faculty FTE x 1.0 x 2 x NASM




Total Space Generated NASM A

Total Space Allocated NASM B

Variation NASM C = A - B

41


COU Space Allocation Factors by Group and CIP Codes

CIP Code CIP Name COU Group COU Space Allocation Factor

(NASM)

CIP 1.09 Animal Sciences Group A 60.0CIP 1.10 Food Science and Technology Group D 20.0CIP 1.11 Plant Sciences Group A 60.0CIP 3.01 Natural resources and conservation Group C 25.0CIP 3.05 Forestry Group C 25.0CIP 4.02 Architecture Group F 5.0CIP 4.03 City/Urban, Community and Regional Planning Group F 5.0CIP 4.06 Landscape Architecture Group F 5.0CIP 5.01 Area studies Group G 2.0CIP 5.02 Ethnic, cultural minority, gender, and group studies Group G 2.0CIP 9.01 Communication and media studies Group G 2.0CIP 9.07 Radio, television and digital communication Group G 2.0CIP 11.01 Computer and information sciences, general Group F 5.0CIP 11.04 Information science/studies Group F 5.0CIP 11.07 Computer science Group F 5.0CIP 13.01 Education, General Group G 2.0CIP 13.02 Education, General Group G 2.0CIP 13.03 Curriculum and instruction Group G 2.0CIP 13.04 Educational administration and supervision Group G 2.0CIP 13.12 Teacher education and professional development, specific levels and methods Group G 2.0CIP 13.13 Teacher education and professional development, specific levels and methods Group G 2.0CIP 14.01 Engineering, general Group C 25.0CIP 14.02 Aerospace, aeronautical and astronautical /space engineering Group C 25.0CIP 14.05 Bioengineering and biomedical engineering Group E 15.0CIP 14.07 Chemical engineering Group C 25.0CIP 14.08 Civil engineering Group C 25.0CIP 14.09 Computer engineering Group F 5.0CIP 14.10 Electrical, electronics and communications engineering Group E 15.0CIP 14.12 Engineering physics/applied physics Group E 15.0CIP 14.18 Materials engineering Group C 25.0CIP 14.19 Mechanical engineering Group D 20.0CIP 14.21 Mining and mineral engineering Group C 25.0CIP 14.27 Systems engineering Group E 15.0CIP 14.35 Industrial engineering Group D 20.0CIP 15.15 Engineering related fields Group E 15.0CIP 16.01 Linguistic, comparative and related language studies and services Group G 2.0CIP 16.09 Romance languages, literatures and linguistics Group G 2.0CIP 16.12 Classics and classical languages, literatures and linguistics, general Group G 2.0CIP 16.17 Teacher education and professional development, specific levels and methods Group G 2.0CIP 19.01 Family and consumer sciences/human sciences, general Group F 5.0CIP 19.05 Foods, nutrition and related services Group C 25.0CIP 19.07 Human development, family studies and related services Group F 5.0CIP 23.01 English language and literature/letters Group G 2.0CIP 24.01 Liberal arts and sciences, general studies and humanities Group G 2.0

42


COU Space Allocation Factors by Group and CIP Codes (continued)


(NASM)

CIP 26.01 Biology, general Group A 40.0CIP 26.02 Biochemistry/biophysics and molecular biology Group B 30.0CIP 26.03 Botany/plant biology, general Group A 40.0CIP 26.04 Cell/cellular biology and anatomical sciences Group A 40.0CIP 26.05 Microbiological sciences and immunology Group B 30.0CIP 26.07 Zoology/animal biology Group A 40.0CIP 26.08 Genetics Group B 30.0CIP 26.09 Physiology, pathology and related sciences Group B 30.0CIP 26.10 Pharmacology and toxicology Group B 30.0CIP 26.13 Ecology, evolution, systematics and population biology Group G 2.0CIP 27.01 Mathematics Group G 2.0CIP 27.03 Applied mathematics Group G 2.0CIP 27.05 Statistics Group G 2.0CIP 30.13 Medieval and renaissance studies Group G 2.0CIP 30.18 Natural sciences Group G 2.0CIP 30.20 International/global studies Group G 2.0CIP 30.22 Classics Group G 2.0CIP 31.01 Parks, recreation, leisure and fitness studies Group G 2.0CIP 31.05 Health and physical education/fitness Group D 20.0CIP 38.01 Philosophy, logic and ethics Group G 2.0CIP 38.02 Religion/religious stuides Group G 2.0CIP 40.02 Astronomy and astrophysics Group E 15.0CIP 40.05 Chemistry Group A 40.0CIP 40.06 Geological and Earth sciences/geosciences Group B 30.0CIP 40.08 Physics Group B 30.0CIP 42.01 Psychology, general Group D 20.0CIP 44.07 Social work Group G 2.0CIP 45.01 Social sciences, general Group E 15.0CIP 45.02 Anthropology Group D 20.0CIP 45.03 Archaeology Group D 20.0CIP 45.04 Criminology Group F 5.0CIP 45.06 Economics Group G 2.0CIP 45.07 Geography and cartography Group E 15.0CIP 45.10 Political science and government Group G 2.0CIP 45.11 Sociology Group G 2.0CIP 45.12 Urban studies / affairs Group F 5.0CIP 50.01 Visual, digital and performing arts, general Group F 5.0CIP 50.04 Design and applied arts Group G 2.0CIP 50.05 Drama, theatre arts and stagecraft Group F 5.0CIP 50.06 Film/video and photographic arts Group F 5.0CIP 50.07 Fine arts and art studies Group F 5.0CIP 50.09 Music Group G 2.0

43


COU Space Allocation Factors by Group and CIP Codes (continued)


(NASM)

CIP 51.00 Health Sciences Group G 2.0CIP 51.02 Communication disorders sciences and services Group E 10.0CIP 51.04 Dentistry Group D 20.0CIP 51.07 Health and medical admnistrative services Group G 2.0CIP 51.10 Clinical/medical laboratory science/research and allied professions Group E 10.0CIP 51.12 Medicine Group A 40.0CIP 51.16 Nursing Group G 2.0CIP 51.17 Optometry Group B 30.0CIP 51.20 Pharmacy, pharmaceutical sciences and administration Group D 20.0CIP 51.22 Pubic health Group G 2.0CIP 51.23 Rehabilitation and therapeutic professions Group E 10.0CIP 51.25 Veterinary biomedical and clinical sciences Group A 40.0CIP 52.01 Business/commerce, general Group G 2.0CIP 52.02 Business administration, management and operations Group G 2.0CIP 52.03 Accounting and related services Group G 2.0CIP 52.09 Hospitality administration/management Group G 2.0CIP 52.12 Management information systems and services Group G 2.0CIP 54.01 History Group G 2.0

44

Section 6 - Other Facilities

45


Preamble

The previous sections of this report considered Brock-specific space standards as follows:

Section 2 Classroom Facilities Section 3 Instructional Laboratories Section 4 Office Facilities Section 5 Research Facilities

The impetus for clear, evidenced-based and transparent methods to assess needs and allocations of the spaces listed above is driven by their repetitive and distributed nature across a typical campus. The standards for these types of spaces are intended to answer questions such as:

How many classrooms of this capacity do we need on campus? How many private 11 square meter private faculty offices will this new building require? How much space will be required by this new research initiative based on the number of PIs, RAs

and graduate students involved?

The framework and standards outlined in sections 2 to 5 of this report can provide answers to these questions.

This “Other Facilities” section covers the types of spaces where questions like the ones listed above cannot be distilled into calculations set up as inputs (staff count, section hours, etc.) multiplied by set space allocation factors. Such a methodology does not easily support answering questions such as:

How much space should be allocated to library collections? How much campus space should be allocated to food services and dining facilities? How big should the Art Gallery be? Should the University have a semi-Olympic or Olympic pool? A running track?

Sensible answers to these questions must take into account institutional strategy and priorities, a campus’ urban context, history and legacy factors and a host of other considerations that are difficult to quantify, describe, or apply.

In other words, space allocation decisions for other facilities rightfully tend to be or have to be made on a case-by-case basis. These decisions typically concern common academic and campus services and amenities that benefit the University community as a whole, or very large stakeholder groups.

This section outlines the approach recommended by the Working Group to monitor and inform Brock University space planning and capital decisions that touch on other facilities.

46


Description of Other Facilities

“Other Facilities” represent approximately one fifth of Brock’s gross square footage inventory, excluding residence buildings. For most space types the COU space standard framework relies on the FTE student count of the University to notionally assess space requirements, as noted below:

Space Type COU Primary Space Standard Input

% of Brock Space Inventory Excluding

Residences Library Facilities & Study Space Size of Collections / FTE Population 4.3 % Non-Library Study Space FTE Student Population 1.9 % Athletic / Recreation Space FTE Student Population 6.4 % Food Services FTE Student Population 2.5 % Bookstore / Merchandising FTE Student Population 0.8 % Central Services FTE Student Population 2.2 % Health Service Facilities FTE Student Population 0.4 % Common Use and Student Activity FTE Student Population 0.9 % Assembly and Exhibition Facilities FTE Student Population 2.2 %

Considerations for Assessing Other Facilities Space Requirements

The Working Group recommends that other facilities be monitored and evaluated using the following benchmarks, indicators and institutional planning inputs:

1) Benchmarks Achieved in Relation to Other Ontario Universities

Area per full-time equivalent student (SM / FTE) benchmarks achieved by the University in the space category being examined in relation to Ontario’s other universities, particularly institutions Brock deems to be similar in terms of program offerings and size (Wilfrid Laurier University for example).

The Working Group notes that calculated SM / FTE benchmarks must be interpreted with discernment and should primarily be viewed as a prompt to ask key questions such as:

Benchmark Below Other Institutions - Why is Brock XX% below the provincial benchmark and how does this notional shortfall truly affect student success, campus life, the University brand, etc.? How does the University get by without this space, and does the situation warrant a planning and one-off space allocation response?

Benchmark Above Other Institutions – Why is Brock XX% above the provincial benchmark, and how does this benefit or hamper the University in terms of quality of service and campus experience, future campus development plans, etc.? Can the space be recouped now or will it be needed as the university develops?

47


2) Indicators and Institutional Planning Inputs

Alignment and benefits of a space allocation in relation to the University’s strategic, academic and business plans.

Results of general or of targeted user satisfaction surveys, including but not limited to annual Key Performance Indicator (KPI) results directly or indirectly linked to the service or amenity provided or considered.

Relevant reports and data sets describing existing conditions, issues, opportunities and trends in the delivery or configuration of services and amenities.

Compliance of the University in providing the service or the amenity space allocations in relation to standards set externally by regulators and accrediting bodies.

48

Brock University Niagara Region 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1 Canada

(Circulated Prior to Approval)

MINUTES OF MEETING #2 (2017-2018)

CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2017, 11:00 AM

CAIRNS FAMILY HEALTH AND BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH COMPLEX, ROOM 207

MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Kristine Freudenthaler (Chair), Mr. William Rickers (Vice-Chair),

Mr. Gary Comerford, Dr. Gervan Fearon, Mr. Dennis Hewko, Mr. Chris Phillips, Ms. Kristen Smith, Dr. David Whitehead, Mr. John Zoccoli

RESOURCE PERSONNEL: Ms. Chabriol Colebatch, Mr. David Cullum, Dr. Thomas Dunk, Mr. Brian Hutchings,

Mr. Scott Johnstone, Ms. Angela Magro, Dr. Joffre Mercier, Ms. Margaret Thompson

Deans: Dr. Ingrid Makus, Dr. Carol Merriam, Dr. Peter Tiidus

By invitation during specific agenda items: Mr. Tom Arkell, Mr. Bryan Boles, Mr. Roland Mech, Dr. Diane Miller, Ms. Janet Muenzberger, Mr. Paul Smeltzer, Mr. Scott Roper, Dr. Donna Szoke Mr. Benjamin Hoff, Urban Strategies Inc. and Mr. Michel de Jocas, Educational Consulting Services (Item 11)

REGRETS: Ms. Michele-Elise Burnett, Mr. Faisal Hejazi

1. Call to Order

Ms. Freudenthaler welcomed members, guests and staff and called the meeting to order.

2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest

There were no conflicts of interest declared to any matter on the Agenda.

3. Approval of Agenda

The Chair referred members to the Agenda requested a motion for approval.

On a motion by Mr. Zoccoli seconded by Mr. Rickers, and carried, it was

RESOLVED that the Agenda, including consent items, be approved.

Board of Trustees

Minutes of the Capital Infrastructure Committee Meeting – November 29, 2017 2.

4. Business Arising from the Minutes - None

5. 2017-18 Capital Infrastructure Committee Progress Scorecard/Metrics[An Information Item TOPIC: 2017-18 Capital Infrastructure Committee Goals and ObjectivesProgress Scorecard dated September 27, 2017, together with the Campus Security Services,Facilities Management and Information Technology Services Scorecards, had been posted with themeeting materials.]

The Vice-President, Administration provided an overview of the Scorecard and appended metricdata for information.

The Chair noted a motion was required to move in camera for consideration of the followingAgenda Items:

6. Presentation – Current Infrastructure Opportunities – In camera7. Campus Facility Opportunity – In camera

On a motion by Mr. Zoccoli seconded by Mr. Hewko and carried, the Committee movedin camera at 11:05 a.m. Only members of the Committee and those invited staff remained for theclosed session.

*****

[During closed session, confidential Reports were reviewed.]

The Committee resumed open session at 11:30 a.m.

8. 2021 Canada Summer Games Update[An Information Item TOPIC: 2021 Canada Summer Games Update dated November 29, 2017, hadbeen posted with the meeting materials.]

Mr. Tom Arkell, Special Advisor, provided an update on the proposed facilities for the 2021Canada Summer Games as outlined in the Report. During discussion members sought and receivedclarification from Mr. Arkell and Mr. Hutchings regarding processes underway, potentialopportunities and benefits for students and other aspects of the proposed facilities.

9. Brock Active Living Complex Plan for Development[A Recommendation Item TOPIC: Brock Active Living Complex Plan for Development datedNovember 29, 2017, together with Appendix 1: Brock Active Living Complex, had been postedwith the meeting materials.]

The Committee reviewed the Report that contained the rationale and supplementary information forthe proposed motion. The Report also contained a floor plan indicating the areas of proposedrenovation and new construction in the Walker Complex as related to the Brock Acting LivingComplex.

During discussion, members sought and received clarification on the proposed course of action andrequested clarification on the source funding for the development of the functional plan. It was


suggested, and members concurred that the motion be considered following Item 10: 2018-2019 Capital and Related Projects Budget.

Following consideration of the 2018-2019 capital and related projects budget, it was suggested, and members agreed that the motion be amended to specify that the funding for the development of the functional plan come from the 2019-2020 deferred maintenance capital plan budget. The inserted text is indicated in highlight in the motion. On a motion by Ms. Freudenthaler, seconded by Dr. Fearon and carried, it was RESOLVED that the Capital Infrastructure Committee recommend to the Board of Trustees

that pre-committed funding of up to $500,000 for the development of a functional plan for an addition to the Walker Complex tentatively called the “Brock Active Living Complex” be approved; with the funding coming from the 2019-2020 deferred maintenance capital plan budget.

10. 2018-2019 Capital and Related Projects Budget

[A Decision Item TOPIC: 2018-2019 Capital and Related Projects Budget dated November 29, 2017, together with Appendix 1: Net Funding, Appendix 2: Facilities Management, Appendix 3: Information Technology Services, Appendix 4: Capital and Related Project Summary (Work in Progress) and Appendix 5: Deferred Maintenance Spending 2014/15-2018/19, had been posted with the meeting materials.] The Vice-President, Administration and the Associate Vice-President, Facilities Management outlined the rationale for the proposed motion as detailed in the Report and responded to all questions from members during Committee review. The Committee also engaged in discussion regarding the funding source for the development of a functional plan for the proposed Brock Active Living Complex and concurred with the suggestion that the funding come from the 2019-2020 deferred maintenance capital plan budget. On a motion by Ms. Freudenthaler, seconded by Mr. Zoccoli and carried, it was RESOLVED that the Capital Infrastructure Committee approve the Fiscal Year (FY)

2018-2019 Long Term Capital and Related Project Budget presented in Appendix 1 of the Report to the Committee dated November 29, 2017, subject to funding approval from the Board of Trustees.

11. Facility Needs and Priorities Study Update

[A Recommendation Item TOPIC: Facility Needs and Priorities Study Update, dated November 29, 2017, together with Appendix 1: Presentation – Brock University Facility Needs and Priorities Study Update, by Urban Strategies Inc. and ECS, had been posted with the meeting materials.] The Chair welcomed Mr. Benjamin Hoff from Urban Strategies Inc. and Mr. Michel de Jocas from ECS (Educational Consulting Services), who provided a detailed presentation on the Brock University Facility Needs and Priorities Study. The presentation included an overview of the work completed to date, enrolment projections, space inventory and needs, planning principles and


directions and facility planning opportunities.

During the Committee’s review of the Facility Needs and Priorities Study, Mr. Hoff and senior administrators received feedback on the Study and addressed all questions from members. On a motion by Ms. Freudenthaler, seconded by Dr. Fearon and carried, it was

RESOLVED that the Capital Infrastructure Committee recommend to the Board of Trustees

that the Facility Needs and Priorities Study be accepted as outlined in Appendix 1 of the Report to the Committee dated November 29, 2017.

12. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan [An Information Item TOPIC: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, dated November 29, 2017, together with Appendix 1: September 27, 2017 Report to the Capital Infrastructure Committee on Ontario’s Climate Change Action Plan Report (CCAP) and Appendix 2: Memorandum from Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development on the Greenhouse Gas Campus Retrofit Program Innovation Grant Fund, had been posted with the meeting materials.] The Committee reviewed the Report which contained an update on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) and potential project funding. During discussion, the Associate Vice-President, Facilities Management clarified details of potential cogeneration initiatives as requested by members. It had been noted that a meeting of the Capital Infrastructure Committee and Executive Committee may be required for review of any time-sensitive matters which may arise prior to the next Board Cycle.

13. Rodman Hall Update [An Information Item TOPIC: Rodman Hall Update, dated November 29, 2017, together with

Appendix 1: Draft Rodman Hall Transition Project Charter, had been posted with the meeting materials.] The Committee reviewed the Report which contained an update on the transitioning of the Rodman Hall Arts Centre from Brock University to the community and a draft project charter for the transition. The Committee engaged in a comprehensive discussion on matters related to Rodman Hall and the content and timeline of the draft charter during which senior administrators responded to all questions from members. The Chair of the Board also provided perspective to the Committee on the transition process to date. The Chair confirmed with the Vice-President, Administration that another update will be provided at the next scheduled Committee meeting in March 2018.

14. Information Technology Policies [A Recommendation Item TOPIC: Information Technology (IT) Policies dated November 29, 2017, together with Appendix 1: IT Remote Access Policy, Appendix 2: IT Remote Access Standards, Appendix 3: End User Logical Access Policy and Appendix 4: End User Logical Access Standards, had been posted with the meeting materials.]


The Committee reviewed the Report which contained the rationale for the proposed motion. On a motion by Ms. Freudenthaler, seconded by Mr. Hewko and carried, it was RESOLVED that the Capital Infrastructure Committee recommend to the Board of Trustees

that the amendments to the following policies be approved as outlined in Appendices 1 and 3 of the Report dated November 29, 2017:

a) IT Remote Access Policy; b) End User Logical Access Policy.

15. Draft Space Management Policy

[An Information Item TOPIC: Draft Space Management Policy dated November 29, 2017, together with Appendix 1: Draft Space Management Policy, had been posted with the meeting materials.] The Committee received the Report which contained background information related to the development of the draft Space Management Policy at the University and the draft policy document for input. During a brief discussion, the Chair noted the importance of an organizational policy on space management for transparency and process clarity. Consent Items:

16. Minutes of the Previous Meeting – Meeting #1 (2017-18) held on September 27, 2017

[The Minutes of Meeting #1 (2017-18) of the Capital Infrastructure Committee held on September 27, 2017 had been posted with the meeting materials.] The Minutes of Meeting #1 (2017-18) of the Capital Infrastructure Committee held on September 27, 2017 had been approved by consent.

The following Items had been received by consent:

17. Major Projects Update – Information Technology Services (ITS)

[An Information Item TOPIC: Major Projects Updates – Information Technology Services (ITS) dated November 29, 2017, together with Appendix 1: Multi-function printers, Appendix 2: Workday, Appendix 3: Brock LINC, Appendix 4: Goodman School of Business and Atrium, Appendix 5: IT Security, Appendix 6: Bring Your Own Device (BYOD), Appendix 7: Implementation of Office 365 collaboration tools, Appendix 8: Sakai Cloud, Appendix 9: Internet Enhancements, Appendix 10: IT Roadmap / Architecture Plan and Appendix 11: Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Collaborative Futures, had been posted with the meeting materials.]

18. Natural Gas Procurement Update & Electricity Procurement and Generation Update

[An Information Item TOPIC: Natural Gas Procurement Update & Electricity Procurement and Generation Update, dated November 29, 2017, together with Appendix 1: Brock University Generated Electrical Power vs. Purchased, had been posted with the meeting materials.]

19. Brock District Energy Efficiency Project (DEEP) Update [An Information Item TOPIC: Brock District Energy Efficiency Project (DEEP) Update, dated November 29, 2017, together with Appendix 1: DEEP – Project Key Milestones and Appendix 2: DEEP Budget Update – October 2017, had been posted with the meeting materials.]


20. Memorandum of Understanding with Niagara Regional Police Service

[An Information Item TOPIC: Memorandum of Understanding with Niagara Regional Police Service, dated November 29, 2017, together with Appendix 1: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Brock and the Niagara Regional Police Service, had been posted with the meeting materials.]

21. Goodman School of Business Building Project

[An Information Item TOPIC: Goodman School of Business Building Project, dated November 29, 2017, together with Appendix 1: Goodman School of Business Project Budget, had been posted with the meeting materials.]

22. Brock LINC Project Update [An Information Item TOPIC: Brock LINC Project Update, dated November 29, 2017, together with Appendix 1: Brock University Project Budget – Brock LINC, had been posted with the meeting materials.]

The Chair noted a motion was required to move in camera for consideration of the following

Agenda Items:

23. Record of the In Camera Session of Meeting #1 (2017-18) held on September 27, 2017 – In camera

24. Cybersecurity Update – In camera 25. Potential Land Acquisition – In camera 26. Goodman School of Business Building Project – In camera 27. Brock LINC Project Update – In camera

On a motion by Mr. Zoccoli seconded by Ms. Smith and carried, the Committee moved in camera at 1:30 p.m. Only members of the Committee and those invited staff remained for the closed session.

*****

[During closed session, confidential Reports were reviewed.] The Committee resumed open session at 1:49 p.m.

28. Other Business The Vice-President, Administration announced that Mr. Scott Johnstone will serve as the Associate Vice-President, Facilities Management in an ongoing capacity. The Chair solicited feedback from members on the meeting content and welcomed comments and suggestions by email.

29. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 1:51 p.m.

Board of Trustees


INFORMATION ITEM

TOPIC: Major Projects Update - ITS

March 7, 2018 David Cullum, Associate Vice-President, Information Technology Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


• To provide a status update on key IT projects across the University.

2. Key Background

• Aligning with client needs (including students, faculty and staff) and strategicrequirements of the University in a cost-effective and compliant manner;

• Implementing new technology, enhancements or improved functionality;• Increasing student, faculty and staff efficiency and effectiveness.• The status of key IT major projects is provided below:

Project Status Multi-function printers (Appendix 1) Completed Workday (Appendix 2) Project Phoenix (Finance) – on track

Project Mosaic (Human Resources) – on track Project Student Information System – on track

Brock LINC (Appendix 3) On track Goodman School of Business and Atrium (Appendix 4)

On track

IT Security (Appendix 5) CISO – on track IT Security Projects – underway PCI – underway Cybersecurity Awareness Program – CY2017 completed; planning underway CY2018 -April 2019

Bring your own device (Appendix 6) Underway Implementation of Office 365 collaboration tools (Appendix 7)

Delayed due to on-premise hardware / software failures, to be resolved by February 2018

Internet enhancements (Appendix 8) Underway IT roadmap / architecture plan (Appendix 9) Underway OCUL Collaborative Futures (Appendix 10) On track Technology Day Completed The Technology Showcase was held on December 6, 2017 in the Guernsey Market. The event was a combination of CPI’s Educational Showcase and ITS’ Research Day. Sixty members of the Brock community attended. CPI and ITS are reviewing the event with the possibility of changing the date and expanding.

2

3. Next Steps

• Successful project implementation and completion• Technology adoption and acceptance by client.

4. Background MaterialsAppendix 1 – Multi-function printers (1 page)Appendix 2 – Workday (11 pages)Appendix 3 – Brock LINC (1 page)Appendix 4 – Goodman School of Business and Atrium (1 page)Appendix 5 – IT Security (5 pages)Appendix 6 – Bring your own device (BYOD) (1 page)Appendix 7 – Implementation of Office 365 collaboration tools (4 pages)Appendix 8 – Internet enhancements (2 pages)Appendix 9 – IT roadmap / architecture plan (1 page)Appendix 10 – OCUL Collaborative Futures (2 pages)

1

Capital Infrastructure Committee TOPIC: Major Projects Update - ITS


Appendix 1 – Multi-function printers

February 2, 2018

Project Status Update

Project Description: Faculty and staff across the University have access to print to departmental multi-function printers (MFPs). Students are also able to print to the MFPs in the Library. The contract for the current fleet of 106 MFPs expired on November 1, 2017. Ricoh Canada Incorporated was selected as the vendor to supply MFPs under a new contract for the next 5 years. This project is the replacement of the current fleet of MFPs with the new Ricoh devices. The benefits include “follow me printing” which allows users to print to a shared queue, roam and release the print job from any of the new fleet of MFPs. A user can request the print job from one department and print the request in another. The new contract stipulates that all new MFPs will be colour-enabled and have power conditioning modules installed to protect against power fluctuations. Impact: Faculty, staff and students Status/Issues: The project is complete: all 96 Ricoh MFPs have been deployed. Training and documentation was provided through the Ricoh online portal and Brock’s SharePoint intranet site throughout the implementation. Upcoming Milestones: None

Schedule Original Current Print server upgrade FY2017/2018 Q2 completed

Print accounting server upgrade FY2017/2018 Q2 completed

Replacement of departmental MFPs with new Ricoh MFPs FY2017/2018 Q3 completed

Budget * Budget (17/18) – Project #867 Total projected cost Variance to approved budget

Note: The budget for Multi Function Printers falls under Printing Services Project Team


Chris Tatarnic, Project Manager Carol McIntosh, Project Steering Committee Andy Morgan, Project Steering Committee Zaher Elahi, Project Steering Committee Jonathan Younker, Project Steering Committee Michael Tisi, Technical team member Matthew O’Beirn, Technical team member Desmond Flynn, Technical team member David Genkin, Faculty of Education technical team member Mich Robichaud, Library technical team member Andreas Paulisch, IT Architect

Service Provider Ricoh Canada Incorporated

1



Appendix 2 – Workday January 26, 2018


Project Description: The Workday project currently consists of the following: 1) Project Phoenix (Finance) - underway2) Project Mosaic (Human Capital Management) – underway3) Project SIS (Student Information System) – underway4) Workday Support Model - underway.

In addition, key risks to the Workday project have been identified below, along with high-level mitigation actions.

1) Project Phoenix (Finance) - underway• On September 3, 2015, the Board of Trustees approved a motion to implement Workday Finance

with a $4.8M budget;• The system was successfully implemented in May 2016 and has been in use since.

• Phoenix Phase 2 (queued activities):- Outsourced to Deloitte.

• Planning (budget) module:- Implementation of the Planning module has been split into two phases:

Phase 1 - the 5-year plan; Phase 2 - The 1-year plan.

Impact: Employees (staff and faculty), students

Status/Issues: • Phoenix Phase 2 (queued activities):

- Work on Phase 2 activities is nearly complete; testing with 3rd party systems is underway.

• Planning (budget) module:- Phase 1: The 5-year plan is in production; - Phase 2: The 1-year plan is targeted for the end of trimester 1 in FY18/19.

• Overall user adoption continues to be high with over 900 unique users monthly. Use of the mobileapp to capture expenses remains low at approximately 100 users monthly. In FY 17/18 to date,over 12,100 expense reports, 13,500 supplier invoices and 1,800 purchase orders have beenprocessed;

• New supplier invoice business process was rolled out to users;• Approval workflow refinements were completed for multiple business processes to reduce rework

by end users;• New series of organizational reports was rolled out to end users to aid in daily financial questions;• Kainos Smart finance module (automated testing) is complete and in production;• Key value / benefits of the system are outlined below.

Upcoming Milestones: • Phoenix Phase 2 (queued activities):

- Final testing is being completed by Scotiabank for Direct Deposit and new consolidated cheque layouts.

2

• Planning (budget) module: - Phase 2 is scheduled for UAT at the end of trimester 1 in FY18/19.

• Finance is currently conducting a review of the Science Stores and facilities stores operations to

determine if the Workday Inventory module is an appropriate fit. The Inventory module is also being investigated to determine if it can be used to track chemical storage in laboratories.

2) Project Mosaic (Human Resources) - underway

• Board of Trustees / CIC motions: - June 22, 2016 - the Board of Trustees approved a motion to accept Workday as the

preferred system vendor for the new human resources system and proceed with pre-implementation harmonization activities to prepare for Workday implementation;

- September 28, 2016 - the Board of Trustees approved a motion to sign the Workday subscription for Human Capital Management (HCM), Time Tracking, Recruitment and Canadian Payroll starting January 30, 2017;

- June 21, 2017 - CIC approved finalizing the recommended relationship with Deloitte Inc. as implementer of the Workday HCM solution;

- August 1, 2017 - the Statement of Work for the Deloitte implementation relationship was finalized.

• Other key activities:

- On October 2, 2017, Project Mosaic held its official kickoff for the project team with all Executive and Project Sponsors, the University President and stakeholders from the University community. This was followed by two-weeks of intensive design sessions with Deloitte on-site;

- On October 2, 2017, Brock’s Workday SharePoint site was published; project posters were distributed to all work areas including Brock’s downtown St. Catharines and Hamilton sites;

- On November 27, 2017 the first prototype build was reviewed by the project team; - On January 9 and 15, 2018, All Campus Update information sessions on Workday HR were

held, with almost 350 participants in attendance as well as Executive and Project Sponsor support and participation;

- Stakeholder engagement continues to be an ongoing change management initiative. In addition to the All Campus Update information sessions, articles in Brock News, weekly updates to the HR department and meetings with union Executives have been held, along with a Workday Recruiting demo from P1 presented to a stakeholder group.

Impact: Employees (staff and faculty) and external employment applicants

Status/Issues: • On January 29, 2018 the second prototype build will be reviewed by the project team; • On February 5, 2018 the first prototype build will be reviewed with a stakeholder group; • A comprehensive list of action tasks continues to be established and completed by Brock and

Deloitte during Design, P1 Review and P2 Build. Integration design and build are also occurring during P2 configuration;

• Stakeholder engagement continues to be an ongoing change management initiative. Upcoming activities include stakeholder deep dives with a focus on demos of specific work processes for specific groups including:

- create contracts; - time clocks; - recruitment & sabbatical leaves; - medical absence; - approval chain; and - the HR Operating Model.

• Review and testing of the P2 configuration tenant will commence on January 29, 2018. • Planning for end-user training and job aides will commence in February. • Key value / benefits of the system are outlined below.

3

Upcoming Milestones: (see timeline below) • Integration design and build ending March, 2018 • P2 review ending February, 2018 • Testing (includes System and Integration, ending May, 2018

User Acceptance and Payroll) • Deploy June, 2018 • Go-live July 1, 2018

3) Project SIS (Student Information System) - underway

• In alignment with long term capital and resource planning and the ITS strategy for the modernization of legacy systems and improved data integration, a replacement for the current student information system (SIS) is under investigation by the Office of the Vice-Provost Enrollment Management and International. The replacement should be cloud-based and enterprise-wide, and support integration with other Brock systems;

• The SIS Modernization project is a complex undertaking involving information used by a majority of the University’s administrative and academic units. This multi-year project will transform how students, staff and faculty use the data underlying administrative functions and services, and thus, will greatly enhance the student’s ability to succeed in an increasingly complex and competitive landscape.

Impact: Students, employees (staff and faculty) Status/Issues: • Initiation phase:

- A selected group of University representatives met with a solution provider (Workday) to determine the expected benefits of a modernized student information system and to build an informed business case for the SIS modernization;

- System requirements have been documented. Verification by team leaders in progress;

• The external review of the Office of the Registrar directed by the Provost’s office: - Noted several human resources and work process deficiencies that may negatively impact

the SIS Modernization initiative and may extend anticipated timelines; - Recommended that that the Office of the Registrar modify its overall organizational

structure, increase staffing levels and document all work processes, all categorized as high priority. This may be difficult for the Office of the Registrar to complete at the same time as supporting the SIS modernization efforts without impinging on student services.

• Project roles have been defined, participants identified and Project Team Leads and Subject

Matter Experts confirmed. The Project Lead met with Team Leads to determine individual department staffing requirements to support the project. The need to backfill staff in order to allow subject matter experts to participate in time-consuming pre-implementation and implementation tasks must be addressed as soon as possible.

Upcoming Milestones: • Identification of system requirements to be met by the selected vendor is underway. Once

developed, the system requirements will be verified by departmental leaders and subject matter experts – to be completed by the end of February 2018;

• Development and launch of project website to facilitate stakeholder communication and engagement – to be completed by the end of February 2018;

• Vendor presentations (i.e., Workday, PeopleSoft, Banner) to demonstrate the features and functions available in leading SIS platforms to be completed by the end of February 2018. Presentations will enhance stakeholder understanding of current state products, provide a comparison of leading products and build grassroots consensus for the need for SIS modernization.

4

4) Workday Support Model - underway • A hybrid support model for Workday was approved by the IT Steering Committee and includes in-

house support for on-going matters and out-sourced support as needed for new module implementations, complex integrations, critical backlog enhancements and issues;

• Existing ITS staff have been assigned to the Workday support team, with job roles and responsibilities clearly identified through updated job descriptions;

• All required training has been planned and scheduled; • Established processes for incidents, service requests and changes will continue to be used,

leveraging current leading practices.

Impact: Employees (staff and faculty), students

Status/Issues: No major issues

Upcoming Milestones: • An Enterprise Systems Change Advisory Board for release management will be established by the

end of FY2017/2018. Key project risks

• Key project risks along with mitigating action plans are identified in the table below; - Note: for all projects, the decision to first proceed with pre-implementation

harmonization and transformation activities mitigates the risk typically anticipated with a systems implementation. In addition, a contingency has been built into the budget for any requirements not known or anticipated at the time of SOW negotiation. The establishment of a Workday Support model has also provided the project with the resourcing needed for requirements that may not necessarily be critical for go-live and instead can be completed post-implementation by the Brock team.

Project Key risk Mitigating action Project Phoenix (Finance)

Planning (budgeting) module – promised functionality unavailable and / or delayed

Continue using existing system and processes; investigate alternatives and related costs. Potential for higher consulting fees

Project Mosaic (HR) Promised functionality unavailable and / or delayed

Continue using existing system and processes; investigate alternatives and related costs. The current Payroll system is on a supported platform; the current HRIS is on an older platform posing a security vulnerability which may require additional security and infrastructure support. Potential for higher consulting fees, lost licensing costs, additional infrastructure costs

Project Student Information System

Promised functionality unavailable and / or delayed resulting in unrealized recruitment goals and related opportunity cost (e.g., missed opportunity to track possible students and implementing technology-based recruitment efforts)

Continue using existing system and processes; investigate alternatives and related costs. Potential for system costs and higher consulting fees

Project Student Information System

Cost of system is significantly higher than outlined in the fiscal framework

Continue using existing system and processes; investigate other possibilities such as moving the current SIS to the cloud, thereby reducing

5

costs associated with housing the solution on premise, and mitigating the business continuity risk. Cost of moving to the cloud to be factored

All projects Level of anticipated automation not realized

Staffing levels may need to be increased as anticipated efficiencies are not realized

All projects Loss of key staff / skilled resources

Need to identify and train backup resources

Budget

• As outlined in the table above, the totals for all three

major Workday projects (Finance, Human Resources and Student Information Systems) are shown as a cumulative running balance and indicate that anticipated costs are covered by the University’s fiscal framework, except for a shortfall of $79,000 forecasted in FY 2020/21;

• From a funding perspective, the timing of certain expenditures will require a draw down on reserves

from FY 2017/18 to FY 2019/20; • Individual project dashboards are available below.

Funding 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 TotalFunding per Fiscal Framework 3,800$ 1,639$ 1,832$ 3,523$ 4,832$ 4,953$ 20,579$ ITS Operating Budget Underspending 500$ 500$ Additional Budgeted Funding 1,000$ 79$ 1,079$

Cumulative Funding 3,800$ 5,939$ 8,771$ 12,294$ 17,126$ 22,158$

Workday Projects Fiscal Framework (000s)

Finance (Project Phoenix) 4,800$ Human Resources (Project Mosaic) 7,279$ Student Information System 10,079$

Total 22,158$

Budget by Project

6

Project Phoenix (Finance)Project Status Update

Project Status 86% Change Orders 0

Project Goal Project PlanPhase Notes

1

2

Budget Actual Variance

0 0 0

0 0 0

4,800 4,174 626 34,800 4,174 626

Top 5 outstanding issues

Description Date Priority Impact31-Dec-17 Med Med

The University is seeking to implement a cloud based accounting system and its related processes. The project is intended to improve the timeliness, relevance and accuracy of information to support decision, streamline processes by implementing leading practices to improve the experience of those participating in financial transactions, and support a strong environment of internal control. When implementing, system customization will be limited.

Budget (000s)

Implementation

Total

Completed (Phase 2)

Item % Complete

Initial implementation 100%

100%

Workday 27 release 100%Workday 28 release 100%Approval hierarchy 100%Cheque requisition 100%

Planning (Budgets) 50%

Cheque Layout Consolidation 100%

Direct deposit 95%Expense approval 100%

Internal chargebacks 95%

Punchouts 90%Reporting 100%

VISA integration 100%

** Inventory implementation is conditional on appropriate pricing and fit.

50%

Owner Progress/Resolution Continuing to work on supplier punchouts with vendors to resolve non-standard tax code issues.

Finance/ITS Implementing UNSPSC codes to help identify items with non-standard tax codes.

Inventory ** 5%

86%Pre-Implementation

Assesment

7

Project Mosaic (Human Resources) Project Status January 26, 2018

Brock University

Project Status Implementation 55% Change Orders 3

Project Goal The University needs a holistic Human Resources (“HR”) system that will meet the complex requirements of a higher education institution, including multiple unions and high volumes of temporary staff and faculty. The implementation of a new HR system is intended to provide a truly unified system that will create efficiencies, allocate resources, improve access to information and deliver better HR services.

Budget (000s) Budget Actual Variance Assessment 109 108 1 Pre-implementation 748 746 2 Implementation 6,422 1,962 4,460 Total 7,279 2,816 4,463

Project Plan

Phase Item % Complete Notes Assessment

100%

100% Pre-implementation

100%

100% Execute pre-implementation

100%

100% Implementation Plan

Architect Configure Prototype

Test Deploy Support

100% 100% 90% 85% 5% 0% 0%

55%

Top 5 outstanding issues Description Date Priority Progress / Resolution Period Activity Pay in Recruitment

Dec 2017 Critical Deep dive session with Brock and Deloitte resulted in workaround solution that supports the current hiring process for contract hires outside of HR and allows Brock to maintain a desired position management structure.

Tracking Hours in Period Activity Pay for Record of Employment

Nov 2017 Critical Brock submitted a brainstorm to Workday Community and an Implementation Strategy & Enablement (ISE) case was created by Workday delivery assurance. This resulted in a significant 33 votes from 20 organizations. Workday has confirmed in writing that they acknowledge Brock's needs and are considering a solution to be released with WD31 (Fall 2018).

Position Budget in US Dollars Only Nov 2017 Critical An ISE case was created by Workday delivery assurance and the solution will be available in Preview tenant on Feb 3, 2018. T4A for non-workers Nov 2017 Critical Brock submitted a brainstorm to Workday Community and an ISE case was created by Workday delivery assurance. Workday has

not yet provided a solution. Brock's interim solution is to fall back to the legacy system. Multiple Positions Jan 2018 Critical The Workday solution does not provide stat holiday calculation, retroactive pay or time/absence calendars for those employees

with multiple positions. This requirements gap has been communicated to Workday delivery assurance and Enterprise Interface Builders (EIBs) and manual work in Excel are being considered as interim solutions.

8

Project SIS Modernization Project Status January 26, 2018

Project Status Initiation 25% Change Orders 0 Project Goal To provide a unified, student-centric platform that transforms how students, staff and faculty use the data that support the essential administrative functions and services which facilitate student success in an increasingly complex and competitive environment.

Budget (000s) Budget Actual Variance Assessment $ 883 $ 95 $ 788 Pre-implementation 3,805 - 3,805 Implementation 4,383 - 4,383 Subtotal $ 9,071 $ 95 $ 8,976 Contingency 1,008 - 1,008 Total $ 10,079 $ 95 $ 9,984

Project Plan

Phase Item % Complete Notes Initiation Discovery 25% 25% Assessment 0% 0% Pre-implementation 0% 0% Implementation Plan

Architect Configure Prototype

Test Deploy Support

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0%

Top 5 outstanding issues Description Date Owner Priority Impact Progress / Resolution Fill critical project roles Jan 26, 2018 Jamie Mandigo

Camille Rutherford Medium Medium Project Manager - in progress

Registrar’s Office re-organization Jan 26, 2018 Jamie Mandigo, Geraldine Jones

High High Registrar’s Office's leadership team to review external review results and commence re-organization process in January 2018

Staffing backfill needs Jan 26, 2018

Jamie Mandigo, Geraldine Jones

Medium High SIS Team Project Leads to meet in February 2018 to identify backfill needs

Current state and system requirements documentation

Jan 26, 2018

Rico Natale High High In process. Meeting with departments to validate current state and system requirements in February.

9

Project Mosaic (Human Resources) Implementation Timeline

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26

Time Clock

EDM

End User TrainingJob Aides

Kainos

Pre-implementation tasks to be finalized

SUPPORTApr

DEPLOY

Stakeholder input and feedback Assistance to end users entering high volume of contracts

May Jun Jul

Workday Training

Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

Stakeholder P1&P2 Review

AugPLAN ARCHITECT CONFIGURE & PROTOTYPE TEST

Design

Int. Design Integration Build

Prep

SIT UAT

Gold Build

Update 29

CHANGE MANAGEMENT & TRAINING

PROJECT MANAGMENT`

Go-Live

Configure & Prototype

P2 Config & Review Payroll Parallel

Architech

P1 Config & Review

Test Deploy Support

Pre-work(Data; BP) Pre-Work SIT

Prep

ReviewReviewData Gathering

Integration

Update 30

Parallel Build

Plan

10

Value / benefits of the system Project Phoenix (Finance)

• 64% reduction in number of cheques printed year over year: - FY 2015-16: 49,605 cheques printed; - FY 2016-17: 17,649 cheques printed; - The old financial system did not have the ability to batch payments and print

multiple invoices or expense reimbursements on one cheque; the old financial system printed one cheque for every payment request. With Workday, cheques are issued once a week with all invoices and expense reimbursements batched onto one cheque for each payee.

• Ability to outsource printing and distribution of cheques to Scotiabank resulted in the

elimination of a part-time 0.75 FTE position in Finance;

• Ability to send e-mail money transfers to students for account balance refunds. Student addresses are not regularly kept up-to-date on Brock's student information system resulting in a large volume of cheque reprints as they would be mailed to outdated addresses. E-mail money transfers eliminated this problem by sending payments directly to the student's Brock e-mail account;

- Brock University won a national award through the Canadian Association of University Business Officers (CAUBO) for the combined cheque outsourcing and e-mail money transfer initiative made possible by the Workday financial system. The award is available for viewing on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlpIGVwNPow

• A more efficient external audit process as stated in the external auditor’s audit

findings report: "Our experience with Workday has been very positive throughout the audit. We were given user accounts with read only access rights to be able to search supporting documentation directly through Workday as opposed to requesting the management team locate and provide the physical copy. This has led to efficiencies throughout the audit."

• Workday provided the platform to launch a University purchasing card program:

- This program provides many administrative benefits to faculty and staff resulting from full integration into Workday expenses;

- In the first year of operation, the program was adopted by 670 faculty and staff with over $16 million spent on the card;

- This program contributed to the significant decline in cheque volumes and provided an additional revenue source to the University through the loyalty program.

• Analysis, reporting, forecasting and budgeting processes have been enhanced with

greater access to quality financial data that was previously unattainable in the prior financial system. A simple question such as how much is spent on hotels could not be answered previously. However, now the University has the ability to report on this level of granular information in real time;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlpIGVwNPow

11

• The ability to fully operate financial services remotely from anywhere using the cloud-based financial system has resulted in significantly reduced risk of losing operational capabilities in the event that on-site work by Financial Services is not possible (e.g., labour disruption).

Project Mosaic (Human Resources)

• Existing workflows, including processes external to HR (e.g., faculty recruitment and part-time and teaching support contract recruitment) have been documented;

• Existing processes have been optimized prior to beginning the implementation phase; • A governance structure and support model have been established, increasing

transparency and providing clear responsibility and accountability for end users; - The support model is not just for HR, but for the overall Workday solution as

outlined below (see “Workday Support Model”).

• Payroll: work completed for the Payroll Conversion project has resulted in the following efficiencies:

- A reduced number of pay days every month resulting from all employees except BUFA members and non-union academics paid on the same bi-weekly pay date;

- Payroll staff with greater ability to focus on: The processing of bi-weekly payrolls on the same pay cycle; Government remittances and payroll-related payments, both at the

same time; Payroll system updates and related controls during the “off week” with

no bi-weekly payroll. Project Student Information System (SIS)

• Brock is completing a Value Realization Analysis with Workday; results of which will help define the value Brock can expect from modernizing its student information system.

Workday Support Model

• The hybrid Workday support model takes advantage of current in-house expertise while being fiscally responsible and cost-effective. Advantages realized include:

- Better internal control of IT systems; - Centralized helpdesk support and tracking for Workday-related issues; - Centralized support for standardized job aid and training materials; - Increased flexibility and responsiveness of Workday support as a result of in-

house support and expertise; - More focused Workday support function, with greater knowledge of the

University's processes, thereby helping ITS to become a better business partner overall.

1


DATE: November 29, 2017 Appendix 3

Appendix 3 – BrockLINC October 20, 2017


Project Description: BrockLINC will consist of 31,970 square feet of space directly adjacent to the Schmon Tower main entrance that that will be dedicated to research, innovation and commercialization. Information Technology Services (“ITS”) will facilitate the installation of technologies in the space to support these activities. Wireless access, classroom and meeting space audio-visual equipment, telecommunications, network connectivity, security systems and digital displays will be installed in the space. As an adjunct to the BrockLINC Project, an institutional wayfinding initiative will select a technology that will be used by students and visitors to enable them to navigate in and around campus. The solution will be coordinated between the Brock LINC and Goodman School of Business (see Appendix 4) projects. Impact: Students, faculty and staff Status/Issues: Construction has commenced; IT infrastructure specifications completed. Continued meetings with stakeholders to finalize some audio-visual design requirements. Upcoming Milestones: Installation of IT infrastructure scheduled for 2017/2018 Q4

Schedule

Original Current

Start of construction Construction completed

FY 2017/2018 Q4 FY 2017/2018 Q4

FY 2017/2018 Q4 FY 2017/2018 Q4

Budget * Budget (17/18) – Project 819 Technology budget $ 605,000 Budget - Institutional Wayfinding Initiative TBD Total Budget – Project 819 + Wayfinding TBD Costs to date Commitment to date

$ 0 0

Future planned spend – Project 819 Future planned spend - Wayfinding Initiative

$ 605,000 TBD

Total projected cost TBD Variance to approved budget TBD

Note *: Budget is included in the total Facilities Management major capital projects Project Team


Edward Blasinski, Team Lead Luciano Della Smirra, Team Member Roman Cierny, Team Member Andy Morgan, Team Member Phil Nardangeli, Team Member Milos Maslek, Team Member Patti Froese, Team Member

Facilities Management Scott Roper, Project Manager

Service Provider Karl Hergert, Cinemastage, AV Integrator

1


DATE: March 7, 2018 Appendix 4 Appendix 4 – Goodman School of

Business and Atrium

February 2, 2018


Project Description: The Goodman School of Business is undergoing an expansion of 28,858 square feet of space in addition to major renovations in the existing portions of the building. With the addition of educational, teaching, meeting and common spaces, Information Technology Services (“ITS”) will facilitate the supply and installation of support technology in the new and upgraded spaces. Impact: Students, faculty and staff Status/Issues: Construction is underway and ITS continues with ongoing meetings with the construction and project management teams for the coordination of technology installation. The west portion of the project is to be completed in April 2018; IT equipment will be installed prior to occupancy. Upcoming Milestones: ITS infrastructure installation completed in west addition FY 2017/18 Q4

ITS technology infrastructure completed in east addition FY 2018/19 Q3 ITS technology infrastructure completed in Taro Hall FY 2018/19 Q3

Schedule

Original Current

Construction start Construction complete

FY 2016/17 Q2 FY 2018/19 Q3

FY 2016/17 Q2 FY 2018/19 Q4

Budget * Budget (17/18) – Project #615 $ 1,382,595 Costs to date $ 520,789 Commitment to date - Future planned spend 861,806 Total projected cost $ 1,382,595 Variance to approved budget $ 0

Note *: Budget is included in the total Facilities Management major capital projects

Project Team


Edward Blasinski, Team lead Luciano Della Smirra, Team member Roman Cierny, Team member Andy Morgan, Team member Phil Nardangeli, Team member Milos Maslek, Team member Patti Froese – Team member

Consultants Karl Hergert, AV Integrator, Cinemastage

Facilities Management Janet Muenzberger

1



Appendix 5 – IT Security

January 24, 2018


Project Description: Several key IT Security initiatives are underway, updates to which are provided below:

1) Chief Information Security Officer (CISO); 2) Other IT Security Projects; 3) PCI; 4) Cybersecurity Awareness Program.

1) Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) - underway The CISO program is a collaborative shared Chief Information Security Officer amongst 5 universities and three colleges (collectively known as the “G8”) in Ontario for a pilot timeframe of two years. The CISO reports administratively to ORION and provides consulting services to the G8. Impact: Employees (staff, faculty), students Status/Issues: On schedule. Brock University completed the individual security self-assessment exercise, which resulted in a score consistent with the other G8 institutions. An overall security roadmap was presented to the Security Working Group, with workshops under development to assist each institution in increasing its security maturity. There are three project streams, each with several key initiatives: • Development of a shared information / cybersecurity framework

- Workshop on Security Governance expected in February 2018) - Workshop on Threat Risk Assessment – occurred in January 2018

The assessment framework is a customized combination of best practices from other security frameworks such as ISO27001, COBIT, NIST, etc.

The framework depends on an established enterprise risk management practice that defines and classifies enterprise risk.

The framework should be available to participants shortly. • ORION – G8 Cyber Security Incident Response services (“ORION-G8 CERT”)

- Pilot launch of security penetration testing and vulnerability assessment expected to begin in January 2018

- Initiation of a proof of concept exercise for the shared Security Incident Event Management (SIEM) solution expected to begin in January 2018

• Training and awareness and skill development sessions

- Expected to commence in January 2018. Upcoming Milestones: Workshop for Threat Risk Assessments FY 2017/18 Q4 Development of cybersecurity framework FY 2018/19 Q1 Development of a G8 Shared SIEM program FY 2018/19 Q1 Development of a G8 Shared CSIRT program FY 2018/19 Q1 2) Other IT Security Projects - underway ITS is in the process of elevating the University’s IT security posture through various security initiatives, as outlined below. Impact: Employees (staff, faculty), students

2

Status/Issues: On schedule. The various security initiatives include: • Firewall upgrade

- End-of-life firewalls have been replaced. The new firewalls offer additional functionality over threat monitoring and protection;

- Discussions on threat protection have been held with Legal and Faculty Relations, with no major concerns raised;

- A discussion with BUFA is currently being planned and to be scheduled. • Canarie Security Pilot Project

- Canarie manages and develops components of digital research infrastructure for Canada's research, education and innovation communities;

- Canarie and 35 universities and colleges have recently partnered in a cyber security pilot project. The project is focusing on the number and type of cyber security attacks each institution experiences 7x24 365 days a year;

- One of the main purposes of this project is to obtain a better understanding of the sources of these attacks and to minutely analyze the attacks in order to better avert them in future through proactive action;

- Each institution has received infrastructure at no charge from Canarie to collect this data. The data collected will be sent to a centralized logging center for further analysis by Canarie. Reports will be sent to each institution for their perusal and follow-up action;

- If this project is successful, Canarie will apply for a further government grant in order to expand the program to all higher education institutions.

Upcoming Milestones: Setup servers and sensors for CANARIE security project FY 2017/18 Q4 3) PCI – underway Brock accepts credit cards across the University for various types of transactions. As a “merchant”, Brock is required to be compliant with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (“PCI DSS”), with compliance to be demonstrated quarterly through network vulnerability scans and annually through self-assessment questionnaires to our “acquirer” (Chase Paymentech). Impact: All University areas accepting credit card payments. Status/Issues: A PCI compliance roadmap, including anticipated budget, is under development. The University has signed a contract with Pepsi Beverage Co., whose vending readers process credit cards, debit cards and Brock cards. It was determined that Pepsi Beverage Co.’s cardholder data environment does not add additional risk to the University’s network infrastructure. Additional training sessions were held with University merchants on PIN pad security Upcoming Milestones: PCI roadmap and budget approval FY 2019/20 Q1 Implement PCI-compliant network architecture FY 2019/20 Q1 4) Cybersecurity Awareness Program – completed CY2017; planning underway CY2018 - Apr 2019 This program facilitates raising awareness within the Brock community of the risks associated with living in a connected world, both at work and at home. The more informed the Brock community is, the less likely are students and employees (including faculty and staff) to fall victim to a targeted security attack, and the safer are Brock’s systems. The Cybersecurity Awareness Program is comprised of a number of campaigns, each focused on a specific risk or threat. Additional campaigns may be added to counter any new risks or threats that emerge. The overall message of the Cybersecurity Awareness Program is that no matter who you are or the level of access you have, you are the target. Impact: Students, employees (staff, faculty)

3

Status/Issues: Completed for 2017. In 2017, the Cybersecurity Awareness Program held 28 events including departmental presentations and new employee orientations. Workshop attendance improved this year. Completed campaigns from March to December 2017:

• Phishing March 2017 • Social Engineering April 2017 • Passwords May 2017 • Encryption June 2017 • Social Networks July 2017 • Mobile Devices August 2017 • You are the Target September 2017 • Hacked October 2017 • Ransomware October 2017 • Internet of Things (IoT) November 2017.

In addition, the University’s shared CISO and IT Security Specialist held a workshop on cyber security in October, attended by faculty, staff and students. Major issues related to the Cyber Security Awareness Program include continued compromised accounts. Upcoming Milestones: Planning for CY2018 to April 2019 underway

Schedule

Original Current

CISO

Health Check Self-Assessment questionnaire Start-up of G8 Security Working group meetings Security roadmap G8 Shared SIEM program G8 Shared CSIRT program Cybersecurity framework

FY 2017/18 Q1 FY 2017/18 Q2 FY 2017/18 Q4 FY 2017/18 Q4 FY 2017/18 Q4 FY 2017/18 Q4

Completed Completed Completed

FY 2018/19 Q1 FY 2018/19 Q1 FY 2018/19 Q1

Other IT Security Projects

Fine-tune perimeter security technology Install servers and sensors for CANARIE security project Threat data analysis from CANARIE

FY 2017/18 Q3 FY 2017/18 Q2 FY 2017/18 Q3

FY 2017/18 Q4 FY 2017/18 Q4 FY 2017/18 Q4

PCI

Contract QSA company Contract QSA company – part 2 PCI footprint reduction recommendations Develop technology architecture to segment PCI Implement technology recommendations Compliance assessment – auditor selection Compliance assessment

FY 2014/15 Q3 FY 2015/16 Q2 FY 2015/16 Q3 FY 2017/18 Q1 FY 2016/17 Q4 FY 2017/18 Q4 FY 2018/19 Q4

Completed Completed Completed Completed

FY 2019/20 Q1 FY 2018/19 Q4 FY 2018/19 Q4

4

Cybersecurity Awareness Program

Phishing campaign Social Engineering campaign Passwords campaign Encryption campaign Social Networks campaign Mobile Device campaign You are the target campaign Hacked campaign Ransomware campaign CISO presentation Cyber Security Awareness Month Halloween candy giveaway Hall spin the wheel of security event IoT campaign Annual program review Planning for CY2018 to April 2019

FY 2016/17 Q4 FY 2016/17 Q4 FY 2017/18 Q1 FY 2017/18 Q1 FY 2017/18 Q1 FY 2016/17 Q2 FY 2017/18 Q2 FY 2017/18 Q2 FY 2017/18 Q2 FY 2017/18 Q2 FY 2017/18 Q2 FY 2017/18 Q2 FY 2017/18 Q2 FY 2017/18 Q3 FY2017/18 Q4

Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed

FY2017/18 Q4

Budget CISO

Budget (16/17) – Project #845 $ 20,000 Costs to date $ 19,218 Commitments to date (excluding costs to date) - Future planned costs - Total projected cost $ 20,000 Variance to approved budget

$ 782 3.91%


Budget (16/17) – Project #778 $ 200,000 Costs to date $ 158,172 Commitments to date (excluding costs to date) 0 Total projected cost $ 158,172 Variance to approved budget

$ 41,828 21%

PCI

Budget (14/15) – Project #495 $ 20,000 Budget (15/16) – Project #707 45,000 Budget (16/17) – Project #773 60,000 Budget (17/18) – Project #843 47,000 Budget (18/19) 0 Total budget (to date) $ 172,000 Costs to date $ 95,615 Commitments to date (excluding costs to date) 0 Future planned commitments 48,000 Total projected cost TBD Variance to approved budget

TBD

5


Budget 16/17 $ 2,500 Budget 17/18 2,500 Total budget $ 5,000 Costs to date $ 3,869 Commitments to date (excluding costs to date) 0 Future planned commitments 75 Total projected cost $ 3,944 Variance to approved budget

$ 1,056 21%

Project Team

CISO


David Cullum, Sponsor Patti Froese, Team member

Service provider Orion



Michael Tisi, Team Lead Patti Froese, Team member Roman Cierny, Team member Chad Cupola, Team member

Service provider Palo Alto

PCI

PCI Steering Committee David Cullum, Associate Vice President, ITS Joshua Tonnos, Interim Associate Vice President, Finance

PCI Team Shamira Gulamhussein, Team Lead Patti Froese, Team member ITS staff members as required University areas accepting credit card payments

QSA Consultant NCI Secured Intelligence – part 1 NCI Secured Intelligence – part 2 MNP (formerly NCI Secured Intelligence) – part 3

PCI-DSS Auditor TBD


Security Awareness Team Russ Fisenko, Team lead John D’Amico, Federated IT team member Andy Morgan, Team member Matthew O’Beirn, Team member Brad Saxton, Team member Professor Teju Herath, Team member Patti Froese, Team member

1



Appendix 6 –Bring your own device (BYOD)

February 2, 2018


Project Description: The purpose of the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) project is to offer students remote access through a Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) solution to course software currently only available in the ITS computer labs. Microsoft Project Standard was selected as the software, and students in the course will be able to run Project from their own device from anywhere. Impact: Students Status/Issues: On schedule – VDI infrastructure build complete. Solution successfully deployed. Due to the successful adoption, the proof of concept (POC) has been extended to the end of FY 2017/2018 to gather additional data from a broader range of students. Awaiting the public release of the next major version of Remote Desktop Services (RDS) in Azure (Spring 2018, according to Microsoft). Depending on features, availability and costs, ITS may choose to implement the new version of Azure RDS during the PoC. In order to facilitate students’ use of their own devices at the University, ITS installed a cell phone charging locker and device charging stations in the Computer Commons in addition to making loaner charging cables available at both Help Desks. This makes it easier for students to charge their devices (see BUSU student video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaKbqS0MrcE&t=4s ). Upcoming Milestones: PoC Completion Report FY 2018/19 Q2

Schedule

Build POC infrastructure Release to POC VDI solution to students in course Computer Commons cell phone charging locker installation Deploy Computer Common mobile device charging stations PoC Completion Report

Original FY 2017/18 Q2 FY 2017/18 Q2 FY 2017/18 Q2 FY 2017/18 Q2 FY 2018/19 Q2

Current Complete Complete Complete Complete

FY 2018/19 Q2

Budget Budget – FY17/18 Project 842 $ 30,000 Costs to date $ 5,012 Commitments to date (excluding costs to date) 0 Total projected cost TBD Variance to approved budget TBD

Project Team


Andreas Paulisch, Team Lead Cory Hutchings, Client Services Desktop Team Lead Andy Morgan, Director, Client Services Mike Tisi, Manager, Infrastructure Zaher Elahi, Client Services Patti Froese, Team member

Vendor Microsoft Canada Incorporated (VDI Components) ChargeTech (Mobile device charging stations)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaKbqS0MrcE&t=4s

1



Appendix 7 – Implementation of Office 365 collaboration tools

February 2, 2018


Project Description: The implementation of collaboration tools initiative is a collection of projects with the following deliverables: 1) Replacement of the current faculty and staff portal – complete 2) Rollout of Office Pro Plus to students, faculty and staff – complete 3) Migration of faculty and staff email to Office 365 Exchange Email – delayed Replacement of the current faculty and staff portal – complete SharePoint is an enterprise web platform that replaced the current staff and faculty portal (my.brocku.ca). Named OneBrock (myoffice.brocku.ca), the employee portal provides document management, content management, workflow, enhanced search functionality and collaboration tools. After an investigation into feasibility and a review of Office 365 functionality, OneBrock was implemented on the Office 365 cloud platform instead of on-premise. The Office 365 platform offers rich collaboration and analytic tools not available on-premise. The information architecture and roadmap developed as part of this project have been applied to the cloud solution. All my.brocku portal functionality not related to BrockDB has been migrated to OneBrock as part of this project. The rollout of OneBrock included 78 sites comprised of department, team and committee sites. Future sites will be implemented following established processes. Rollout of Office Pro Plus to students, faculty and staff – complete Downloadable versions of Microsoft Office 2016, as part of Office 365 ProPlus licensing, were rolled out to students, faculty and staff on June 29, 2016. Office 365 ProPlus tools include Word, Access, Excel, Outlook, OneNote, PowerPoint, OneDrive, Publisher and Skype for Business. Training was held October 11 and 12, 2016. 6,641 unique users (8,500 activations) have downloaded Office ProPlus, and the number of users increases by 400 to 1,500 users per month. Migration of faculty and staff email to Office 365 Exchange Email – delayed Faculty and staff email currently residing on campus will be migrated to the Office 365 cloud environment. The email currently resides on aging technology that will need to be replaced within the next 18 months if the email is not migrated. This project aligns with the ITS strategic vision of pursuing a cloud-first strategy and helps facilitate the reduction of the on-premise data centre footprint. With the migration of faculty and staff email to Office 365, the email platform will be the same as student email, with all Brock email users on one platform. As a result, ITS will be able to free up significant resources to work on other projects moving forward. As a pilot project, ITS was migrated to the new platform in 2016 Q2 and ITS staff have been using this email platform successfully since then. Impact: Faculty and staff Status/Issues: Currently, both the ITS and CPI departments have been migrated to the Office 365 cloud. No major issues have been experienced to date. For most users, the transition has been seamless and uneventful, and some have expressed appreciation for the greater functionality offered by Office 365 Exchange email.

2

A two-step approach is planned for remaining departments / faculties / areas: ·

• First, meetings will be booked with each faculty to discuss the migration, including timelines. The intent is to complete all migration to the cloud activities by August 2018, with administrative department migrations starting in February 2018 and faculty migrations commencing in May 2018.

Meetings will all seven faculties have taken place. The primary focus of the meetings was to discuss the migration approach, the benefits and answer any questions from Deans / Chairs in addition to exploring other topics such as cyber security awareness.

• Second, all user accounts will be upgraded from Microsoft Exchange 2010 to Microsoft Exchange

2016 on-premise prior to being migrated to the cloud. The purpose of this step is to ensure that delegations (for areas that use this functionality) are not broken by the move to the cloud.

Starting in early February, users currently accessing email through the Outlook Web App (OWA) at mailbox.brocku.ca will see a new login screen and eventually a new interface as accounts are upgraded to the Microsoft Exchange 2016 on-premise environment. The new version of Outlook on the Web (formerly OWA) offers improved support for mobile devices and tablets as well as an updated look and feel, improved searching, new themes and an inline video player.

The on-premise effort required prior to the migration of O365 to the cloud has been delayed due to on-premise hardware / software failures. All issues are expected to be resolved by February 2018. Upcoming Milestones: Commence migration of faculty and staff email to the cloud FY 2017/18 Q4

Schedule

Original Current

Replace the current staff and faculty portal Build server farm Select contract help Develop Information Architecture roadmap Develop functional specifications Roadmap (18 months and beyond) Portal Site build Pilot implementation of OneBrock portal, departmental and team sites (early adopters) OneBrock portal replaces staff and faculty portal Facilitated rollout of team sites

FY14/15 Q3 FY14/15 Q3 FY15/16 Q1 FY15/16 Q1 FY15/16 Q1 FY15/16 Q2 FY15/16 Q3

FY15/16 Q4 FY16/17 Q2

Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete

Complete Complete

Rollout of Office Pro Plus to students, faculty and staff Provision Office 365 ProPlus Meet with key Departments Training for faculty and staff Training for students

FY16/17 Q1 FY16/17 Q2 FY16/17 Q2 FY16/17 Q3

Complete Complete Complete Complete

Migration of faculty and staff email to Office 365 Exchange Email Migrate all administrative departments Migrate all academic departments

FY17/18 Q3 FY17/18 Q4

FY17/18 Q4 FY18/19 Q2

3

Budget Replace the current staff and faculty portal Budget (14/15) – Project #636 $ 71,000 Revised funding (15/16) 55,000 Budget (16/17) – Project #774 35,000 Total revised budget $ 161,000 Costs to date Commitment to date

$ 124,505 0

Future planned spend 35,000 Total projected cost $ 159,505 Variance to approved budget

$ 1,495 0.9%

Project Team (Employee portal)


David Cullum – Associate Vice-President, ITS Audrey Fehlow – Project Manager, Director, Application Development Andy Morgan – Director, Client Services Maria Pillitteri – Project Coordinator, PMO Andreas Paulisch – Manager, Integrated Systems Support Group Alba Kotyk – Manager, Applications Architect Norman Young – Manager, Data Architect Yemi Okuwa – Business Analyst, Application Development Matt Cyr – Development, Team Lead James Humphries – Development, Team Lead Ben Davidson – Application Developer Patti Froese – Budget, PASO

Marketing & Communications

Amanda Laprise – Project Manager, Web Marketing Communications Sebastien Marchal – Multi-media Web Specialist, Web Marketing Communications

Service Provider UnlimitedViz

Project Team (Office 365 ProPlus)


David Cullum – Associate Vice-President, ITS Audrey Fehlow – Director, Application Development Andy Morgan – Director, Client Services Maria Pillitteri – Project Manager, PMO Cory Hutchinson – Manager, Client Services Matthew O’Beirn – Technical Analyst, Client Services Bruce Stewart – Technical Analyst, Client Services Desmond Flynn – Technical Analyst, Client Services Andreas Paulisch – Manager, Integrated Systems Support Group Brittany Holyome – Multimedia & Web Content Support Patti Froese – Budget, PASO

Marketing & Communications

Erica Bajer Cate Talue Maryann Marino

Service Provider Microsoft Softchoice

4

Project Team (Faculty and Staff email)


David Cullum – Associate Vice-President, ITS Andy Morgan – Director, Client Services Cory Hutchinson, Manager, Client Services Bruce Stewart, Technical Team Michael Tisi, Technical Team

Service Provider Microsoft

1



Appendix 8 – Internet enhancements

January 24, 2018


Project Description: With a growing reliance on cloud and online services, it is necessary to enhance the University’s Internet connectivity. This project consists of the following: 1) Increase the University’s bandwidth to keep up with demand – completed. 2) Have connectivity redundancy across all campuses to ensure continued academic and administrative operations - pending. Bandwidth - completed Until recently, Brock’s primary Internet connectivity was limited to 2Gbps. ITS increased bandwidth on the primary feed to 3Gbps during the summer. Connectivity redundancy - pending ITS is investigating options to provide redundancy on all campuses in case of failure of the primary feed by provisioning secondary connectivity to provide resiliency in upstream provider, fiber optic cable path and data centre location. Internet redundancy was designed into the Marilyn I. Walker School of Fine and Performing Arts (MIWSFPA) at the onset – completed. Impact: Students, faculty, and staff Status/Issues: Determining diversity of fiber optic cable path for secondary link and upstream providers. ITS is waiting for preferred pricing options from the SWIFT Initiative1 in order to decide on the path forward. Once SWIFT’s pricing options are finalized, ITS will be able to assess SWIFT’s competitiveness vis a vis other service providers in order to determine the most beneficial way to provision a redundant Internet circuit for the University, both at the main campus as well as the Hamilton Campus. Upcoming Milestones: Assess pricing options from various service providers TBD

Schedule

Original Current

MIWSFPA redundant Internet connection At start-up Complete

Upgrade primary link from 2Gbps to 3Gbps FY17/18 Q2 Complete

Acquire secondary Internet connection for St. Catharines campus

FY17/18 Q2 TBD

Acquire secondary Internet connection for Hamilton campus

FY18/19 Q2 TBD

1 The SWIFT Initiative is the South-West Integrated Fibre Technology Initiative, which received a $180 million combined investment from the Governments of Canada and Ontario in support of the initiative to make broadband for everyone a reality in Southwestern Ontario, Caledon and Niagara Region. The SWIFT Initiative plans to invest nearly $300 million to connect 350 communities and almost 3.5 million Ontarions, and is in the process of putting together a rollout plan.

2

Budget Budget (17/18) – Project #830 (Administrative) $ 25,000 Budget (17/18) – Project #831 (Residences) 25,000 Budget (18/19) – Project #925 (Hamilton Campus) 50,000 Total budget $ 100,000 Costs to date $ - Commitment to date 0- Future planned spend 100,000 Total projected cost $ 100,000 Variance to approved budget

$ - 0%

Project Team


Roman Cierny, Network Supervisor Michael Tisi, IT Manager, Infrastructure Patti Froese, Budget, PASO

1



Appendix 9 – IT roadmap / architecture plan

January 24, 2018


Project Description: Develop an IT Enterprise Architecture Plan that will outline strategies and initiatives as well as define how technology at Brock will evolve over time. The plan will adopt a holistic planning approach that considers campus stakeholders and the goals of the University. A five year roadmap, aligned with the IT Strategic Plan, will be developed to support the IT Enterprise Architecture Plan. Ongoing review and updates will ensure that the plan remains current and relevant. Impact: Students, faculty, and staff Status/Issues:

- Guiding principles document draft complete - Roadmap draft complete - Currently soliciting ITS team feedback and refinement - IT service improvement and/or cost reduction opportunities identified - Roadmap / Architecture plan alignment with LTCP complete. This exercise was largely manual,

with the roadmap being informed by planned projects this iteration - Adoption of architecture planning and roadmap processes are slow within the department; high

level approval and support of strategy and roadmap is critical to successful architecture planning - TOGAF, an industry standard architecture framework, has been selected with training in progress

for Infrastructure Architect Upcoming Milestones: Architecture plan and roadmap FY 2017/2018 Q4

Schedule

Original Current

Enterprise Architecture Plan – draft Technology Roadmap – draft to inform LTCP Enterprise Architecture Plan – evergreening strategy Enterprise Architecture Plan and roadmap – 1st release

FY 2017/2018 Q2 FY 2017/2018 Q3 FY 2017/2018 Q4 FY 2017/2018 Q4

Complete Complete

FY 2017/2018 Q4 FY 2017/2018 Q4

Budget Budget (17/18) $ 0 Costs to date $ 0 Commitment to date 0 Future planned spend 0 Total projected cost $ 0 Variance to approved budget $ 0 0%

Project Team


Andreas Paulisch, Infrastructure Architect Norm Young, Data Architect Alba Kotyk, Application Architect Josh Sekel, Sr Project Manager David Cullum, AVP Information Technology Services Audrey Fehlow, Director Enterprise Solutions Andy Morgan, Director Client Services Ed Blasinski, Director Special Projects Patti Froese, Budget, PASO

1



Appendix 10 – OCUL Collaborative Futures

January 18, 2018


Project Description: Several key interrelated library systems used by the James A. Gibson Library for content management are nearing end of life and require renewal. The Library is participating in the selection, procurement and implementation of a shared next-generation Library Services Platform (LSP) through Collaborative Futures, a consortial initiative coordinated by the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL). Collaborative Futures will be a shared cloud-based Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platform that will replace at least four existing library systems including, most substantially, the current integrated library system (i.e., our catalogue) with its acquisition, cataloguing, circulation, serials tracking and public interface modules. The following 13 OCUL institutions signed letters of intent to participate:

Algoma University UOIT University of Waterloo Brock University University of Ottawa Western University Carleton University Queen’s University Wilfrid Laurier University University of Guelph Trent University York University Lakehead University

Update on Accomplishments:

• The RFP was issued on November 29, 2017 by the University of Ottawa Procurement Office on behalf of OCUL. The RFP deadline is January 22, 2018.

• OCUL seconded Brock Library’s Mandy Deans Kassies who started working a year-long contract at OCUL as Library Service Platform Coordinator. She began on January 8th.

Upcoming Milestones:

• An RFP team will be evaluating proposals from late January to late February. • Negotiations with the successful vendor will occur in March-April. OCUL is aiming to award and sign

a contract by late April. • A cost sharing model will be finalized in April or early May. • Implementation cohorts will be finalized in April or May. • OCUL is in the process of finalizing a second secondment for an Implementation Manager. • Implementation will begin in Summer 2018.

Status/Issues: While we have preliminary estimates of the cost of participation in Collaborative Futures, the exact amount will not be known until April or May. Variables include:

• The number of institutions participating; • The supplier selected in the RFP; • The negotiated price; and • The funding model agreed by OCUL members.

Budget See October 2017 report (summary below).

2

Project Team

Library Services Mark Robertson, University Librarian Nicole Nolan, Associate University Librarian, Research Mandy Deans Kassies, Head, Collections Services Tim Ribaric, Digital Services Librarian Barbara Whittard, Innovative Systems Coordinator John Dingle, Metadata Librarian Catherine Foreman, Manager, Collections Services

Service provider TBD

OCUL Collaborative Futures – Revised Estimate of Costs Estimate range based on number of participating institutions (13 - 16) and preliminary figures from potential vendors.

2017/18 - Year 1 Estimate Year 1 Revised Total * $ 149,000 – 275,000

Previously approved funding (March 2017) $ (127,000)

Balance required from Strategic Initiatives Fund $ 22,000 – 148,000

2018/19 - Year 2 Year 2 Revised Total ** $ 97,000 – 160,000

Offset from cancellation of current system (6 months) $ ( 78,000)

Balance required from Strategic Initiatives Fund $ 19,000 – 82,000

Estimated Ongoing Costs (2019 +) Revised Total** $ 97,000 – 160,000

Offset from cancellation of current system (12 months) $ (155,000)

Balance required from Strategic Initiatives Fund / savings $ ( 58,000) - $5,000 Notes:

* includes implementation fee, annual cost (vendor), operational cost (OCUL) ** includes annual cost (vendor) and operational cost (OCUL)

1

A Board of Trustees


INFORMATION ITEM

TOPIC: Goodman School of Business Building Project

March 7, 2018 Andrew Gaudes, Dean, Goodman School of Business

Scott Johnstone, Associate Vice-President, Facilities Management Janet Muenzberger, Project Manager, Facilities Management

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Purpose of the Report

• To provide an update on the Goodman School of Business Project.

2. Key Background

• Construction began in September 2016. • The project is being carried out in 8 phases to allow relocation of staff throughout the

project as each phase is completed. • Work to date includes: Phases 1 and 2: East and West addition foundations,

waterproofing, structural steel, curtain wall, exterior stone, sidewalks and ramps, glazing, operable windows, roofing, stud framing, drywall, electrical, lighting, IT, mechanical systems, commissioning, new west elevator, atrium feature stair, masonry, wood panelling, millwork, flooring, fire detection and suppression systems. AV in East addition classrooms and the atrium is underway.

• Office and classroom furniture is planned for installation in 4th floor offices early February and east addition classrooms and atrium mid March 2018.

• Substantial completion of level 400 offices is scheduled for February 15 and occupancy along with commissioning for east and west additions is expected to be complete by end of March 2018

• The project is approximately four weeks behind schedule, however, the contractor is examining efficiencies to bring the schedule back in line.

• Substantial Completion is on schedule for December 2018 as originally planned. • A multi phased furniture program is in process for East and West addition occupancy • A multi-phased move plan is in process

3. Next Steps

• The East Addition classrooms and washrooms planned for completion March of 2018 to

be scheduled for classes in the spring of 2018. • Signage design is anticipated to be underway in March of 2018. Life safety signage will

be in place for 4th floor and east and west addition occupancies late February

2

employing temporary room and wayfinding signage until later phases when a permanent signage program can be deployed with efficiency.

• Immediately following relocation of 3rd floor occupants to new offices on level 400,renovations will commence in the vacated area of the existing building and once renovated, these offices will be occupied (MOVE #4 - north 300 to south 300 late April/early May 2018).

• The moves and renovations continue to be staged within 3 other areas (MOVE #5 -remaining level 300 offices, MOVE #6 - relocation tenants from N400 to level 200, MOVE #7 - level 400 shuffle and then MOVE #8 which is expected to consist of multiple shuffles to relocate occupants who are not in their permanent offices to those locations


Appendix 1 – Project Budget - Goodman School of Business (1 page)

Project Details:

Account(s)

Project Description:Approved Project Budget Amount 24,130,766$ Project Start Date July 6, 2015Project Status: OngoingProject Completion Date: December 31, 2018 (Occupancy Date)Date of this Revision: January 31, 2018

Summary of Budget, Actual and Projected CostsBudget Actuals Commitments Anticipated Costs Total Remaining Balance

A B C D E=B+C+D A-E1 Professional Services 1,889,538$ 1,671,955$ 216,272$ 203,255$ 2,091,482$ (201,944)$

2 Construction

A. Construction 19,065,516$ 11,007,215$ 9,166,011$ -$ 20,173,226$ (1,107,710)$

B. Construction Contingency 845,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 845,000$

3 Equipment -$ 801$ 1,199$ -$ 2,000$ (2,000)$

4 Furniture 580,000$ 1,425$ 79,619$ 718,955$ 800,000$ (220,000)$

5 Miscellaneous Charges 304,987$ 211,457$ 86,469$ 94,613$ 392,539$ (87,552)$

6 IT Equipment 650,000$ 494,905$ 523,925$ 444,180$ 1,463,011$ (813,011)$

7 Linear Assets -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

8 Vehicles -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

7 Project Contingency -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Subtotal 23,335,041$ 13,387,759$ 10,073,495$ 1,461,004$ 24,922,257$ (1,587,216)$

NET HST 3.41% 795,725$ 456,523$ 343,506$ 49,820$ 849,849$ (54,124)$

Total Project 24,130,766$ 13,844,281$ 10,417,001$ 1,510,824$ 25,772,106$ (1,641,340)$

Brock UniversityCampus Planning, Design & Construction Project Budget

15/16 Goodman School Expansion Project (7-2016)17/18 DMP - Goodman School of Business (7-2016)28,858 sq.ft. - New Construction, 50,482 sq.ft. - Renovation

Capital Infrastructure CommitteeTOPIC: Goodman School of Business Building Project


1

Board of Trustees


INFORMATION ITEM

TOPIC: BrockLINC Project Update

March 7, 2018 Tim Kenyon, Vice-President, Research

Scott Johnstone, Associate Vice-President, Facilities Management Scott Roper, Project Manager, Facilities Management

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


• To provide an update on the BrockLINC Project.

2. Key Background

• Construction commenced in April 2017.• Construction progress on site:

o Structural concrete and steel completeo Shape of BrockLINC now visible from mallo Mechanical and electrical rough in well underwayo Access to services from tunnel completeo Skylight framing completeo Timber framing and roof deck completedo Curtainwall and skylight glazing in progresso Foundations formed for south façadeo Elevator shaft completedo Flooring to be completed within next week

• Significant effort put forth into the operational planning of Level 200 and Level 300.• Technology discussions are complete, and funding is set aside for Makerspace and Digital

Scholarship Laboratory equipment specific to the space and operational needs.• CCOVI to utilize 765 sq.ft. (71.2 sq.m.) on Level 300 for virtual reality and augmented

reality laboratory.• Project is currently on budget. Refer to Appendix 1• The contractor’s schedule indicates that Substantial Performance will be certified in

July 2018.

3. Next Steps

• Ongoing monitoring of construction schedule.• Working with users to confirm layout and furniture requirements.• Plan for post-construction activities to ensure space is operational.• Confirm governance model for operation of BrockLINC.

2

• Work with the Project Steering Committee to create a committee and initiate planningfor a BrockLINC official opening, which would be scheduled for late August 2018


Appendix 1 – Project Budget - BrockLINC (1 page)

Project Details:

Account(s)

Project Description:

Approved Project Funding Amount (Public) 19,273,866$

Project Start Date May 9, 2016

Project Status: Ongoing

Project Completion Date: July 6, 2018

Date of this Revision: February 8, 2018

Summary of Budget, Actual and Projected Costs

Budget Actuals Commitments Anticipated Costs Total Remaining Balance

A B C D E=B+C+D A-E

1 Professional Services 1,540,500$ 1,049,141$ 154,905$ 184,713$ 1,388,759$ 151,741$

2 Construction -$ -$

A. Construction 13,661,000$ 4,171,240$ 10,587,180$ 14,758,420$ (1,097,420)$

B. Construction Contingency (12%) 1,620,800$ -$ -$ -$ 1,620,800$

3 Brock Internal Charges 5,000$ 1,053$ (65)$ 4,012$ 5,000$ -$

4 Furniture 450,000$ -$ -$ 450,000$ 450,000$ -$

5 Miscellaneous Costs 216,000$ 162,007$ 3,670$ 50,323$ 216,000$ -$

6 Information Technology Costs 605,000$ -$ 266,000$ 605,000$ 871,000$ (266,000)$

7 Project Contingency 540,000$ -$ -$ -$ 540,000$

Subtotal 18,638,300$ 5,383,441$ 11,011,691$ 1,294,048$ 17,689,179$ 949,121$

NET HST 3.41% 635,566$ 183,575$ 375,499$ 44,127$ 603,201$ 32,365$

Total Project 19,273,866$ 5,567,016$ 11,387,190$ 1,338,175$ 18,292,380$ 981,486$

Project Managers Projected Final Cost $18,926,691 347,175$

Brock University

Campus Planning, Design & Construction Project Budget

16/17 Schmon Tower Student Services Centre Atrium (The BrockLINC) (33-2016)New Construction: 37,600 sq.ft. Renovation: 3,400 sq.ft. Total: 41,000 sq.ft.

Capital Infrastructure Committee TOPIC: BrockLINC Project Update


1

Board of Trustees


INFORMATION ITEM

TOPIC: Brock Active Living Complex (BALC)

March 7, 2018 Peter Tiidus, Dean, Faculty of Applied Sciences Brian Hutchings, Vice-President, Administration

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Purpose of the Report• To provide an update on the Brock Active Living Complex Project.

2. Key Background• Board of Trustees approved the retention of a Project Team for the initiation of the Pre-

Design and Schematic Design in November 2017.• Request for Proposals issued December 11, 2017.• Proposals received January 15, 2018. Significant interest from some of Ontario’s highest

profile Architects and Engineers.• Step 1 assessment of proposals complete. Interviews with top three scored proposals to

be complete by February 23, 2018.

3. Next Steps• Completion of Proposal evaluation and award to preferred Architect and Professional

Services Team (March 2018).• Initiation of Pre-design and Schematic Design of BALC (April to August 2018).• Monitor Provincial and Federal government announcements for funding programs

appropriate for the Brock Active Living Complex type project.

4. Implications• Proceeding with the Pre-design and Schematic design will ensure Brock University

would be eligible to apply for government funding for “shovel ready” type projects.• The BALC project would address approximately $6.0M in Deferred Maintenance,

impacting on the Facility Condition Index for the University.• Proceeding with the BALC project would free up space vacated by the BALC

stakeholders to be used by others within the Brock community.• In addition, the BALC stakeholders space needs, the proposed work addresses space

needs for Centre for Applied Disability Studies, Nursing and the Brock-Niagara Centrefor Health and Well-Being, which would be considered part of the Inter-ProfessionalHealth Facility, should BALC not proceed.

5. Background MaterialsAppendix 1 – Brock Active Living Complex preliminary plan (3 pages)

Brock UniversityBrock Active Living Complex (BALC) March 7, 2018

AREA OF NEW CONSTRUCTION

AREA OF RENOVATION

WALKER COMPLEX LEVEL 100

Appendix 1 - Page 1 of 3

1

Capital Infrastructure CommitteeTOPIC: Brock Active Living Complex




AREA OF RENOVATION

AREA OF NEW CONSTRUCTION 2




AREA OF NEW CONSTRUCTION

AREA OF RENOVATION

3


Board of Trustees


INFORMATION ITEM

TOPIC: Energy Conservation & Demand Management Annual Scorecard

March 7, 2018 Scott Johnstone, Associate Vice-President, Facilities Management

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


The purpose of this report is to provide an update of the University’s EnergyConservation and Demand Management Plan (ECDMP) progress, through an annualscorecard presenting key related metrics.

2. Key Background

Brock University’s first Energy Conservation and Demand Management Plan wasapproved by Senior Administrative Council (SAC) and filed with the Province in 2014as required by the Green Energy Act (O. Reg. 397/11). This plan provided a roadmapfor Brock University to reduce energy usage and greenhouse gases (GHG).

In 2016, Facilities Management undertook a review of the ECDMP in order to updateit with consideration of current and emerging issues, both legislative (e.g. theProvincial Cap and Trade Program for GHGs) and non-legislative. The updateincluded making the ECDMP easier to read and assisting in stakeholder engagement.

An “Annual Energy Performance Scorecard” was also developed and has beenupdated (Appendix 1). The scorecard is used to track and update the University’sprogress and initiatives on an annual basis to ensure that the institution is on trackfor the ECDMP long-term goal of a 20% reduction in GHG emissions by 2023. The keymetric for Greenhouse Gas Emissions (t CO₂ e) per Floor Area (m²) highlights Brock’splans and progress to reduce GHG emission density over time.

Brock currently produces .1074 t CO₂ e/ m² (2016) which equates to 27,545 t CO₂ ewhich is a slight improvement over the previous year (2015).

3. Next Steps

Energy projects currently in place, including DEEP 1 and DEEP 2 will result insignificant energy savings.

Facilities Management is currently updating new building design standards, whichwill include design elements representing components of energy efficient design,such as efficient use of lighting and power, and heating, cooling and ventilation.

The 2017 update to annual scorecard will be completed in September 2018.


Appendix 1 – Energy Conservation & Demand Management Annual Scorecard - 2016 (2 pages)

INTENSITY (t CO2 e/m2)

0.0000 0.0400 0.0800 0.1200

8061,320

25,419

GHG EMISSIONS (t CO2 e)

FLOOR AREA (m2)

Total 0.1074


0.0000 0.0400 0.0800 0.1200

1,72224,983


FLOOR AREA (m2)

19,45865616,367

220,740

Total 0.1066

Energy Conservation and Demand Management 2016 Annual ScorecardSTRATEGIC PRIORITIESBrock University’s Integrated Strategic Plan, which has been endorsed by both the Board and the Senate, sets out the University’s Integrated Strategic Priorities. In developing this ECDM, wherever possible, these strategic priorities were used as a lens through which decisions were made and priorities were set. The full Integrated Strategic Plan can be viewed at brocku.ca/webfm_send/18651.

Main Campus CFHBRC Satellite Sites

2016

2015

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (t CO2 e)Total tonnes of CO2 produced by Brock University Operations

including Natural Gas, Electricity and Fleet

Floor Area (m2)Total size of Brock building portfolio

Carbon Intensity (t CO2 e/m2)Total GHG Emissions per

square metre of building space÷ =


0.0000 0.0400 0.0800 0.1200


7802,184

23,272

FLOOR AREA (m2)

10,58116,367

214,408

Total 0.1087

2013BASELINE

INFORMATION

19,45816,367

220,740

Capital Infrastrucure Committee TOPIC: Energy Conservation & Demand Management

Annual ScorecardDATE: March 7, 2018

Appendix 1

MAJOR INITIATIVES Based on the proposed energy and GHG reduction initiatives, Brock University plans to pursuea GHG emissions density reduction target of 20% below 2013 baseline levels by the year 2023.The following provides details of some of the key initiatives currently underway.

1 Generation

Improving the Efficiency and Diversity of On-Site Energy Generation The District Energy Efficiency Project (DEEP) is underway, which consists of major equipment retrofit with significant GHG saving. Additionally, continuing to study solar and wind power options on Brock campuses.

www.brocku.ca

TRENDS

Operations

Smart and Efficient Building Operations and RenewalOptimizing campus energy loop to utilize excess heating and cooling provided by Co-Generation Plant and CFHBRC.

Procurement

Leveraging Strategic and Collaborative Procurement of Energy and Carbon OffsetsOn-going involvement with OECM, OAPPA and the Niagara Sustainability Initiative to develop collaborative policies and strategies to reduce GHG emissions collectively with our industry and local peers with a primary focus on managing the impacts of Ontario’s new Cap & Trade System.

Communication

Energy Awareness & Communication Completed major overhaul of the Energy Conservation and Demand Management Plan as wellas implementing an annual scorecard to demonstrate our progress against our goal.

Buildings

Energy Efficient Design, Construction and Renovation of BuildingsDesigning a retrofit strategy for the Schmon Tower with the goal of addressing major deferred maintenance requirements as well as significantly increasing energy efficiency.

2

3

4

5

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

BROCK UNIVERSITY CARBON INTENSITY PROGRESS AGAINST GOAL

Actual Projected

0.1250.1200.1150.1100.1050.1000.0950.0900.0850.080

1

Board of Trustees


INFORMATION ITEM

TOPIC: Contract Award for Campus Security Services

March 7, 2018 Donna Moody, Director, Campus Security Services

Hilary Lindfield, Buyer, Procurement Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


• To advise the Capital Infrastructure Committee that a report has beensubmitted to the Financial Planning and Investment Committee for March 8,2018. The report outlines the RFP process that has taken place to replacethe current contract for Campus Security Services’ contract security guards.

o RFP process replaces the current contract for security services whichexpires April 30, 2018.

o The report recommends the Board authorize Vice-President,Administration to be authorized to sign and enter into the contract.

o Since the last RFP, scope of contracted security guard requirementswas expanded to include downtown campus.

o The impact of Bill 148 would have complicated the negotiations of anextension year (minimum wage increase, minimum vacationentitlements).

2. Key Background

• The RFx Approval to issue the RFP was entered into Workday (REQ-2018-01030) and approved on September 18, 2017.

• The RFP was developed to suit current requirements and was posted onMERX on October 31, 2017.

• 5 submissions were received; 2 submissions were disqualified after review ofthe mandatory requirements; leaving 3 to be evaluated.

• The 3 proposals were reviewed and scored by a cross-functional evaluationteam for Experience & Qualifications, Submission Quality, Selection &Replacement of Staff, References & Past Performance, Relevant WorkPerformed, Training & Equipment Provided, Payroll & Invoicing and Pricing.

• GardaWorld was the lowest bid and the overall top ranked proponent basedon the above selection criteria.

2

• GardaWorld is the incumbent supplier who have been providing contracted security services to the University since 2013, therefore there are no anticipated issues with the transition to the new contract.

• Campus Security and Procurement Services have entered into negotiations with the successful supplier and the finalized contract will be approved and executed by the Vice-President, Administration.

3. Implications

• Projected Cost of Security Services Contract (3.41% HST inclusive):

o for 2017/18: $920,600.00 (current agreement)

o for 2018/19: $980,116.95 o 6.47% increase over 2017/18

o for 2019/20: $1,011,44.93

o 3.16% increase over 2018/19

o for 2020/21: $1,014,465.50 o 0.34% increase over 2019/20

• Note: Minimum wage increased to $14.00 per hour on January 1, 2018, and

will increase to $15.00 per hour on January 1, 2019. • Campus Security have identified the need for one (1) part-time

administrative position to review and maintain contract deliverables which has increased the scope of the contract by an additional 20 hours per week.

• This new individual will also be a licensed Security Guard and will be able to relieve other contract security personnel as required.

4. Next Steps

• The agreement will be effective May 1, 2018. Rates will be firm for the first

three (3) years of the contract with options for up to two (2) two (2) year extensions for a possible total of seven (7) years.

• Contract Management will be conducted annually over the length of the agreement and the rates for the possible extension periods will be negotiated as required.

• Any new contracts (extensions) would be submitted for approval by the Board of Trustees prior to execution.

• A new RFP will be developed to replace the Security Services contract one year prior to the completion of the final extension term (or earlier if we decide not to exercise the optional extensions).


N/A