board of trustees - Blackboard Learn

Transcription

BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Finance, Facilities
and Operations Committee
November 6, 2014
No item in this report for release prior to 1:30 p.m. Thursday, November 6, 2014.
A
G
E
N
D
A
NIU Board of Trustees
FINANCE, FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
1:30 p.m. – Thursday – November 6, 2014
Board of Trustees Room
315 Altgeld Hall
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
2. Verification of Quorum and Appropriate Notification of Public Meeting
3. Meeting Agenda Approval .......................................................................................... Action........... i
4. Review and Approval of Minutes of August 28, 2014 ................................................... Action.......... 1
5. Chair's Comments/Announcements
6. Public Comment*
7. University Recommendations
a. Bowl Game Participation Expenses ...................................................................... Action.......... 9
b. FY16 Tuition, Fees, and Room and Board Recommendations ................................ Action........ 10
c.
New Facility for Campus Distributive Antenna System .......................................... Action........ 24
d. Energy Infrastructure Improvements – Phase XI Performance Contract ................. Action........ 25
8. University Report
a. Semi-Annual Progress Report of Active Capital Projects ................................ Information........ 26
b. Quarterly Summary Report of Transactions in Excess of $100,000 ................ Information........ 37
c.
Periodic Report on Investments .................................................................. Information........ 42
9. Other Matters
10. Next Meeting Date - TBD
11. Adjournment
Finance, Facilities and Operations Committee
-i-
November 6, 2014
*The Board and its committees comply with P.A. 91-0715 through its Bylaws, Article II, Section 5.B:
1. Consistent with Public Act 91-0715 and reasonable constraints determined by these Bylaws and the Chair, at each regular or special meeting of
the Board or its committees that is open to the public, members of the public may request a brief time on the approved agenda of the meeting
to address the Board on relevant matters within its jurisdiction.
2. Committees of the Board review University proposals for action and make adjustments and endorsements as appropriate for further
consideration by the full Board. Public comments are generally most useful at meetings of Board committees, where proposals are first
considered and the time for interaction most feasible.
3. To facilitate an orderly process, appearance requests must be registered on a Board-provided form and submitted to the Board’s Parliamentarian
at least 45 minutes before the meeting is scheduled to be called to order. To be recognized, the appearance request will include the name,
address and position of the individual wishing to speak, the name of the organization or group represented, a concise summary of the
presentation, and whether the requestor has appeared earlier on the topic before any other meeting of the Board. The Parliamentarian may
confer with registered speakers to cooperatively assist the Chair of the meeting in assuring coordinated issue presentation and an efficient use of
allocated time. The Parliamentarian will acquaint requestors with the generally acceptable rules of decorum for their presentations. In lieu of
oral presentations, individuals may present brief written materials not to exceed five (5) pages to the Parliamentarian for distribution and
consideration by the Board in advance of the meeting.
4. The Chair of the meeting will recognize duly registered individuals at the appropriate point during the meeting. Unduly repetitive comments may
be discouraged and restricted by the Chair. To assure an orderly and timely meeting the Chair may limit time allotments to five minutes or less,
may delay or defer appearances when appropriate, and defer or refer questions received from presenters for answers if available.
Anyone needing special accommodations to participate in the NIU Board of Trustees meetings
should contact Ellen Andersen, Director of Special Events, at (815)753-1999, as soon as
possible, normally at least a week before the scheduled Board meeting.
-ii-
November 6, 2014
Minutes of the
NIU Board of Trustees
FINANCE, FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS
COMMITTEE MEETING
August 28, 2014
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order by Chair Marc Strauss in the Board of Trustees Room, 315 Altgeld Hall.
Recording Secretary Cheryl Ross conducted a roll call of Trustees. Members present were Trustees
Robert Marshall, Cherilyn Murer, Robert Boey, John Butler, Marc Strauss, Anthony Iosco, and Student
Trustee Paul Julion. Also present were President Douglas Baker, Committee Liaisons Bill Nicklas and
Nancy Suttenfield, and Board General Counsel Jerry Blakemore.
VERIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
Confirmation of Open Meetings Act notification compliance was given by Board General Counsel Jerry
Blakemore.
MEETING AGENDA APPROVAL
A motion to approve the agenda was made by Trustee Julion and seconded. The motion was approved.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Trustee Boey made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 29, 2014 Committee meeting. The
motion was seconded by Trustee Iosco. The motion was approved.
CHAIR’S COMMENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Strauss invited comments from members of the advisory council. Jay Montiero welcomed everyone
back for a new academic year and congratulated Student Trustee Paul Julion, saying he will surely be an
excellent Trustee. Rebecca Shortridge from the Department of Accountancy introduced herself and had
no comments.
Chair Strauss noted that today we have reports from fiscal year ’14 which just ended. We’re going to try
to deal with finalizing our budget for 2015, which we couldn’t do until we had some greater data about
enrollment and what was going to happen with the state budget. Due to the way that the state maintains
the calendar, we’re going to start taking a look at fiscal year 2016, which will be in part an exercise in
pure fancy, but we’re required to submit documentation concerning our plans for the coming year on a
schedule that doesn’t allow for a very orderly consideration of those items. We have a couple of other
action items that are more traditional for the committee for the approval of appropriation for purposes,
and we’ll get to those in due course. So with this confluence of different budgets, I simply encourage my
colleagues to keep your fiscal years straight. This is also a culmination of some of the educational effort
that we’ve undertaken over the last year, where we have in various order considered what our budget
process would look like; where we’ve taken a look at what our capital budget looks like with regard to
auxiliary funds, but not with regard to non-auxiliary funds; and we’ve also had some conversation about
what we want to get to regarding a capital budget. So this will be a good opportunity to try to draw
together what we’ve done over the last year and then take a look at these three fiscal years. I think that
concludes my remarks and with that I’ll turn the microphone over to Nancy Suttenfield for the university
recommendations.
1
November 6, 2014
PUBLIC COMMENT
The Chair asked Board General Counsel Jerry Blakemore if any members of the public had registered a
written request to address the Board in accordance with State law and Board of Trustees Bylaws. Mr.
Blakemore stated that no requests had been received.
UNIVERSITY RECOMMENDATIONS/REPORTS
Agenda Item 7.a. – Fiscal Year 2015 Internal Budget
Nancy Suttenfield presented the FY 15 operating budget recommendations. I’d like to limit my comments
just to some of the key features that I’d like to remind you about that helped guide us to the
development of these recommendations, and then I’d like to highlight some of the considerations that
were very much on our mind as we put together these recommendations starting at a macro level, a
strategic level, and then a fiscal level. Then I’ll conclude with a really quick overview of the budget itself
so that we can then move on to questions. The first couple of points that I’d like to make is in the
lengthy summary in the advanced materials we’ve traced through the journey thus far towards
sustainability. We’ve traced through the first phase of that journey, but there are a couple of things that
I’d like to just touch upon briefly to set the stage. The first one is that the budget that we have in front of
the board for approval reflects a new joint oversight approach that is very much focused on
sustainability. The elements of the new approach start with the importance of a partnership between the
executive vice president and provost who insures an academically responsive approach in putting
together a budget. The emphasis there is on sustainability with respect to the mission, sustainability with
respect to academic priorities, giving the attention to students that they need to be successful, and
importantly, engagement and involvement with our internal governance bodies. The role of the chief
financial officer in this new model is one that focuses on fiscal responsibility. That just simply means
prudence in all recommendations and decisions that involve the universities budget and finances starting
with balanced budgets, but looking at many more issues that lead to sustainability over time. We had
talked previously about the importance of having guided principles that are centered on alignment,
clarity, transparency of information, and the paramount principle of sustainability. I’d like to just say a
few more words about alignment and not a great deal more about the principles because I think the
principles are more or less self-evident in the recommendations that you have. When I talk about
alignment, I talk about alignment with the core missions of the university; alignment with everything that
we’re trying to do to assure student’s success; in the coming fiscal year the immediate student retention
priorities that we have; and, all of the other support obligations that we have to our faculty, staff, and
students as well as to the public at large. When I talk about alignment, I also talk about alignment of
both our resource allocation recommendations with authority not just responsibility and accountability but
alignment of resources to carry out responsibilities and to be properly accountable for results. Alignment
also means that now that we have lower baseline revenue because of the trends that we’ve reviewed and
discussed in previous years that we’re matching lower baseline expenses against that revenue to get us
to a balanced budget. Alignment is very important in all of these respects because alignment contributes
to program vitality which drives the revenue for our future and leads to fiscal sustainability. I’ve talked
about the key features that lead to the development of the budget. I’d like to talk about several things
that I believe are important considerations to be aware of as you look at the budget itself in just a couple
of minutes. At the macro level we’ve done our best to pay attention to all of the uncertainties and
unknowns and the complex interactions between all of those along with what we do know. I’ve
mentioned the fact that we’re very much aware that there are potential reductions coming at the state
level in the form of our state appropriation, and if in fact we are placed in a situation where as the result
of decisions that come from the court we have costs shifted to use associated with the state pension
plan, that of course is almost like an appropriation reduction. We know that we’re in a very competitive
and dynamic landscape with respect to sister institutions in the state of Illinois, with respect to
community colleges, with respect to on-line providers of education. Finally, as we touched upon in an
earlier presentation about the international pipeline, we’re constantly attuned to shifts that are taking
place among the pipelines and within the pipelines not only from international sources but in partnerships
2
November 6, 2014
with community colleges. We’re even starting to talk about the opportunities that may exist in adjacent
states. On the revenue side we have many pricing options that we’re looking at and other ways to
enhance revenue. All of those things were on our mind even though we haven’t reflected them in the
recommended budget. So that’s the macro level. At the strategic level, we’ve also paid very close
attention to our primary responsibilities as leaders of the institution. We have given foremost attention to
our students and their education. We’re here to help them succeed and our budget reflects their priority.
The second responsibility is elimination of any potential for a structural deficit in the current fiscal year to
build a solid foundation going forward. We’re very much aware of the weakness in our revenue drivers,
and we’re aware of the pricing constraints that we have in our market and with respect to students and
their families and what they are able to pay. We’re very much aware of the cost drivers that we have
represented by significant commitments that we have to the people that we employ as well as the
scholarship aid that we provide. And thirdly, in the realm of strategic , we have done our very best in
these budget recommendations to reflect an allocation of resources that go to the highest and best uses
with all the competing priorities considered. In the third category of considerations, once we get down to
the micro level and we’re looking at the fiscal situation itself, we’ve given our strongest focus on the
largest area of expense in our budget and that’s the 60 to 70 percent of our budget that is devoted to
people. The approach that we’ve taken is to rely upon attrition versus potentially painful workplace
reductions. We’ve managed our vacancies and our rehire approvals very strategically, and at the same
time we’ve kept some of our powder dry from vacancies that we have not yet authorized for refill. Again,
just the point that I made previously, the overall approach in the budget-level decisions that were made
was to realign our baseline revenue and our baseline expenses so that we would be in equilibrium. I’d
like to turn your attention now to the budget itself which is in your materials. If you have paper copies or
on-line copies, those of us at the table here have a table three in front of us which is the summary of the
budget. I’ll just quickly walk you through what this represents. It’s a different presentation than any of us
have seen previously as part of our efforts to be much more clear and transparent about the budget
information that we all need to understand. Just walking across the top of the page, the columns as well
as that first row, you will see information that you’ve previously seen that identifies projected revenue
from each one of our primary revenue sources. Then down the page by row, we have listed in
descending order of the size of the allocation from the appropriation and income fund since that revenue
source is in fact our source of general operating revenue and is our largest source of income. That is our
appropriation from the state and tuition and certain fees that our students pay. If you look at the top of
the page you’ll see the 233.9 million dollars coming from those sources allocated by division according to
the size of the allocation. As you move to the right, at our May meeting, we had an extended discussion
about revenue bond facilities and auxiliary operation. So you have two columns side by side. The first
column there, the revenue bond facilities, represents the revenue and the expenses that come from the
operation of activities in facilities that were originally financed from revenue bonds. Right alongside that
column is all of the other auxiliary activities. Most of what you see there represents athletics activities.
Twenty-three million dollars is coming in; thirteen million is going out for athletics so that is a very
different source of auxiliary income than the revenue bond facilities. Then working our way across the
page, what we call local funds represents activities that generate income. That income covers the
expenses and often leaves a little balance on the bottom line from those activities; things like our
regional centers in Rockford and Naperville as well as conferences that we hold throughout the year
where the conference income exceeds the actual expenses. Then we get to the gifts and grants and
contracts column where we’re reflecting the revenue that we receive from sponsored contracts, which
Vice President Rigg reviewed with us earlier, along with other contracts. There are expected deliverables
associated with the revenue that comes in for those sponsored projects. They have a finite duration,
usually a year sometimes several years, but when the funding expires, the expenses go away. Then of
course there’s gift revenue that is also dedicated for specific purposes in many cases. Finally, in the two
columns that I left as paper copies at the place of every member of the committee at the table, we have
listed in order of descending amount the percentage of the total appropriation and income fund that’s
been allocated out to the different divisions, and then we’ve done the same thing, the percentage
according to their total funds, from all different sources. So that is an overview of the recommended
budget for fiscal ’15. The budget is in balance based upon what we know at this time and based upon
3
November 6, 2014
certain assumptions that we’ve made that are described in greater detail in the advanced materials. It
reflects an emphasis on retention; it adheres to our guiding principles; and, it certainly enhances clarity
and transportation with the kind of information that we’ve begun to present with you today. But we know
that to maintain lasting fiscal sustainability/equilibrium, we need to monitor our environment
continuously, we need to complete strategic planning, we need clear priorities, and we need to update as
the environment changes. So I will stop here with the recommendation and invite questions for either
myself or Executive Vice President and Provost Lisa Freeman.
Chair Strauss asked for a motion to approve the FY15 internal budget as represented on tables 1, 2, and
3. Trustee Boey made the motion, and Trustee Murer seconded the motion. There was discussion
regarding the item. Trustee Boey asked for clarification regarding the total income of $426 million and
the $700,000 remaining for contingencies, after expenses. Nancy Suttenfield noted that is correct, but
within the other operating expenses managed centrally line includes approximately $7 million that was
recaptured from vacancies that were not authorized to be refilled. Trustee Boey asked if those two
figures combined totaled approximately 2% of the operating budget, Nancy Suttenfield responded that’s
correct.
Trustee Butler reminded the Board that this is dependent on enrollment meeting forecasted levels, and
assuming there’s no state rescission, or some other budget development, and assuming there’s no shift
of pension costs and so on; so, based on the best available information today.
Trustee Murer asked if off-site campuses, such as Naperville and Hoffman Estates, are considered in the
equation. Are they a positive revenue source because of all the out sourcing that we do in the use of
those buildings, or are they still more of an expense line item for facilities for classes? Anne Kaplan noted
these sites come close to netting out. Trustee Murer responded, is our objective to be budget neutral so
that this revenue then offsets the cost of having these facilities, or is there potential for these venues to
actually be a significant, additional revenue source? President Baker said our three branch campuses in
Rockford, Naperville, and Hoffman Estates are tremendous opportunities. Currently we’re basically
breaking even, and we’re doing it with a lot of conferencing and group kinds of activities. We’re building
out into the communities and doing our outreach through those, and doing positive things in the
communities, but there’s also a capacity to teach at those physical facilities better than we do. In
Hoffman Estates, we’ve got big corporations across the street from us. You know those are real
opportunities for us to reach out and try to develop academic programming or certificate programming
with them. So we’re looking at how we might go ahead and do that. In the past I don’t think we’ve
pursued that maybe as aggressively as we’re talking about doing now. So as we look at our enrollment
goals, there are different niches to looks at. One is the traditional 18-24 year old group, another one is
adult learners. Adult learners are often time and place bound, and there maybe solutions on-line but
there may be physical solutions in those neighborhoods that have lots of people around them or
corporations around them. So we are looking at those, and I think it’s a real opportunity for us.
Chair Strauss thanked all the people who were involved in getting us to this point. I applaud the effort to
get us to full transparency here so adopting budget principles, trying to adhere to those, having a
presentation that allows us to see by functional area and line item what we’re doing is a great advance
over what it is that we were looking at previously. I know that we’ve had discussions before about
getting to a final step in this process which is to be able to fully explain in the normal budget process
what happens in that general university expense and pending allocation line item, and hopefully by next
year we’ll have enough opportunity to finish getting through those things and also be able to consider the
capital budget, but this is a great step forward. I’m very appreciative of the effort that went into this. So
if there are no other comments, I have a motion and a second, all those in favor? The Trustees voted
aye, and the motion was approved.
4
November 6, 2014
Agenda Item 7.b. – Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request Guidelines
Nancy Suttenfield presented the fiscal 2016 budget request guidelines for operations and capital which
we are required every year, at this time, to submit to the IBHE. The budget request document, which we
submit to the IBHE, kicks off the entire annual budget cycle. In October we will be visiting with members
of the IBHE to review the budget situation and our request. From there it moves through the IBHE review
process, then on to the governor, and the legislature. The guidelines that we have presented will in fact
be used to develop a budget proposal. Included in the budget guidelines are a set of cost escalation
factors for such areas of expense as salaries, utilities, and library materials. At this time we also have the
opportunity to make requests to establish or enhance academic programs as well as put additional funds
into our deferred maintenance. The guidelines that we are recommending to be used for the submission
of our budget request are very similar to guidelines that we’ve used in previous years. Chair Strauss
asked if Table 1 in the item reflects the submission for the 2016 budget to the IBHE, and Nancy
Suttenfield confirmed that is correct. A motion made by Trustee Boey was seconded by Trustee Butler,
and the motion was approved.
Agenda Item 7.c. – Fiscal Year 2016 Appropriated Capital Budget Request
Vice President Bill Nicklas presented the 2016 appropriated capital request. As Chair Strauss mentioned
at the outset of the meeting, we have a number of different budget cycles to address today. This is a
type of request that we are obliged to present every year around this time. The IBHE fields a request
from member universities, and in this case, our FY16 appropriation requests are to be submitted by
October 15th. You’ll see in your background that there are two pieces to this; one includes the large
capital projects, and as the board is aware, there is no capital appropriation in FY15. Many of the items
here are going to look familiar. It is, I should say parenthetically, our intent and the president’s intent to
do a thorough-going analysis of the condition of all of our major buildings so that we can more
scientifically prepare this type of a list going forward. At this point, with the information we have available
to us, we’re proposing the projects as presented in the spreadsheet on page 48. The other piece is
something we call capital renewal projects. You will see a lot of things such as steam tunnel rehab work,
roof replacements, and so forth. They add up of course every year. We are hoping to get support for all
of these. A motion to approve was made by Trustee Marshall and seconded by Trustee Iosco. Chair
Strauss asked if he understands correctly that these priorities are the same as they have been, there are
no new items, but the dollar amounts have been adjusted. Bill Nicklas answered that’s correct. The
motion was approved.
Agenda Item 7.d. – Fiscal Year 2016 Nonappropriated Capital Budget
Nancy Suttenfield presented Item 7d. If you will recall the discussion that we had in May about the noninstructional facilities and the dedicated reserves that are established for reinvestment in those facilities
according to state regulations, each one of the projects here is being funded from those reserves. The
projects have been identified through a collaborative process with representatives from housing, dining,
and athletics participating along with colleagues and facilities. IBHE specifically requires approval of noninstructional capital projects that exceed $2 million, but there are no projects on this list that exceed that
amount. A motion to approve the item was made by Trustee Murer and seconded by Trustee Iosco. A
discussion followed. Chair Strauss asked if staff would return for specific project approval for items in
this request. Nancy Suttenfield said no, as I understand the process, once you approve this list of
projects as a request that goes to IBHE, you have approved this as the capital budget for noninstructional facilities for next year. It’s a bit out of sync with our other capital budget. It’s something
we’re going to need to look at as we put together a new capital budget process so that we can look at
everything together for the same year.
5
November 6, 2014
Chair Strauss said I’m interested in FY16; what do we believe the revenue bond funds generated produce
in addition to the reserve? So we got to a number where we knew what the reserve was at a point in
time, and we’ve approved the use of some of those funds, but every year we have some income that’s
coming in and there’s an addition to the reserve. In order to try to keep mental track of this, what I want
to see is whether we can get some idea about whether we’re reducing further the $61 million dollar
figure or will the figure be larger by the time we get to FY16? Nancy Suttenfield said the $61 million that
we talked about in May was reduced immediately by $6 million dollars for the two projects that were
authorized from that funding source; the demolition of Douglas as well as advanced planning for Holmes
and peripheral improvements there. So that brought us down to $55 million. The reserves have not been
touched for capital projects that were not previously approved in the budget. The calculation that I have
done was to determine whether or not, with the approval of these projects even within current year
outflows and projected inflows into those reserves, we still remain within the max/min ranges that are
prescribed under the state regulations from the Legislative Audit Commission. We’re keeping the reserves
at the required levels, and as long as we don’t spend more than we add every year, we’re in good shape.
Chair Strauss said I’d like specific information when it’s available. Trustee Boey asked what the reserve
figure is now. Nancy Suttenfield said the $60 million was roughly half and half, Build America Bonds
proceeds and the other half a combination of reserves and cash balances.
The Trustees continued to discuss the reserve figures. Chair Strauss noted the $55 million figure includes
bond proceeds as well, so when those funds are spent they’re not going to replenish. So, the true reserve
number is approximately $30 million dollars for the auxiliary system. Trustee Murer asked for a historical
perspective over the last three or four years in terms of what it has been? Have we stabilized? Nancy
Suttenfield said yes we can go back and look over the last several years to see what the changes were
with the inflows and the outflows in the reserves.
Chair Strauss said just for clarity, I know these are difficult concepts to retain if you don’t use them every
day. So again, I don’t want there to be a misconception, these are the revenue bond reserves. These
aren’t funds that are generally applicable across campus. What I want to do is avoid the creation of an
impression that there is $30 million dollars available for use for any purposes. It’s restricted in terms of
its purpose from when those funds were derived, and we have bond covenants that require us to keep on
hand a certain amount of money. Trustee Murer said that’s a point of great clarification. Are we saying
that when you use the word reserve is it all restricted? Nancy Suttenfield said yes. Trustee Murer said are
there any other reserves that are non-allocated reserves? Nancy Suttenfield said no, not for facilities.
Trustee Murer said what I’m asking now is more of a general question, not just related to facilities. That’s
where I’d like to see a table if we could. Trustee Butler noted the first question was whether or not the
items listed here will come back to the board for individual approval. Chair Strauss responded, the
answer as I understand it is no. When we approve this item we are approving the expenditure of these
funds within FY16 for these purposes. The Trustees voted aye, and the motion was approved.
Agenda Item 7.e. – ITS Oracle Exalogic Hardware and Software
Brett Coryell presented Item 7e. The software that provides the HR Finance and Student capabilities for
the institution is called PeopleSoft. PeopleSoft is sold by a vendor called Oracle, and at the highest level
of generalization, the PeopleSoft architecture has three layers. The bottom layer is the database; the top
level is a data warehousing capability; and the middle layer is what most people use every day. It
provides the web function and the application servers. This layer is eight to ten years old today. Most of
the servers have already served two complete duty cycles. The newer ones that are only eight years old
are the recycled database servers that we refreshed in 2012; so the equipment is ready for refresh and
renewal. After analysis of the different options that we have available, such as using our virtual server
capabilities or purchasing an engineered system from Oracle, we’ve determined the most cost effective
solution is to buy the engineered system from Oracle. I’m happy to explain that decision or to answer any
questions. A motion to approve was made by Trustee Boey and seconded by Trustee Iosco. Trustee
6
November 6, 2014
Boey asked why Oracle? Brett Coryell answered; we could buy servers from many different companies.
Oracle would be happy to sell of us servers; so would Cisco, Dell, and other venders, but what we’re
buying is not a set of servers on which we would install the hardware and software. That capability we
can already do today. That would be for our own virtual server or private internal cloud server
environment. What we’re buying from Oracle instead is an already engineered system. It’s a set of
hardware that they specially manufacture. It comes with the software already preloaded as well as
certain extra templates that we can use to rapidly spin up development, test, or sandbox environments.
Essentially the system is already preconfigured to connect to its sister systems at the database layer and
the data warehouse layer, and it requires no extra installation from us. So we’re buying a total turnkey
solution, almost an appliance if you will. Trustee Murer said when this was originally presented to the
board 8 or 10 years ago PeopleSoft was presented to us as state-of-the-art. I trust that this new
methodology that you’re using would also equate to being state-of-the-art or are we just trying to do the
best we can from a cost efficiency perspective in matching what we already have, and would there have
been something better if you had had that latitude? Brett Coryell said for an IT person that’s actually a
very interesting question, and it makes me sort of carve out a fine line of answers. So if you’ll permit me
I’d like to answer that in two different ways. The first is to say that if we’re staying with PeopleSoft, and
that’s a huge decision right there. The cost and pain and expense and time that would go into switching
away from PeopleSoft is a very large effort. If we’re staying with PeopleSoft, and this is the state-of-theart; it’s the future direction for Oracle, we’ve already bought into the same engineered solution at the two
other layers. The database layer was already approved and installed several years ago. The data
warehouse layer has already been approved, purchased, installed, but is not currently in use right now,
but the same type of engineered system is already in place. This is the third component of their forwardlooking, future-engineered system platform. So this is absolutely the completion of a long term plan that’s
well positioned. The flip side of that is that we might consider not staying with Oracle or with PeopleSoft,
and in that regard, there are only a few competitor solutions. One is SAP, which I’m sure many of the
board members are familiar with. Another is Banner, which is very common in higher education, and their
systems are probably about like PeopleSoft. I have been at schools that have done Banner for the
student system; SAP for finance. I’ve been at PeopleSoft schools. They’re all roughly the same. We can
have preferences but none really substantially ahead of another. There is one other option that we’re
making the smallest steps towards exploring and that is the person who originally founded PeopleSoft
has a new company called Workday. And Workday is getting some traction. We’ve had a few meetings.
We have a few more coming up in the next couple of weeks to see whether or not a sort of high-risk,
high-reward move away from PeopleSoft would be warranted. It’s going to take us tens of person years
and probably a million dollars of cost to really revitalize all of our current business processes inside of
PeopleSoft. So I’d like to spend a hundred hours talking to the Workday vendor before we go down that
road. In that respect, I think there probably is a more modern offering out there. It would of course be
less mature, but it would be more state-of-the-art.
Chair Strauss said if we were to move in that direction the time table for that would take us beyond the
expected useful life of what it is that you’re proposing, correct? Brett Coryell said, yes, in the best case,
we could begin in a year or two, but we wouldn’t finish migrating HR, finance, and student until at least
five years from now, which would be the expected life of this purchase. Trustee Marshall asked if there is
a lifespan on this. Brett Coryell said yes, I would expect it to last four or five years. The Trustees voted
aye, and the motion was approved.
Agenda Item 7.f. – Grant Central Core – Roof Replacement Capital Project Approval
Bill Nicklas said this item comes from the operations division to this agenda, but it came to the operations
division with a blinking red light from Housing and Dining Services. We’re talking about the central core
roof at Grant Hall. The current roof reached its useful life several years ago. It is a traditional, 3-ply, builtup roof, three layers of felt, mopped with asphalt in between, but it has an unconventional top layer to it.
It’s a membrane of about an inch in thickness that was applied in three-foot by six-foot sections. Because
7
November 6, 2014
it’s so thick, it could not be applied in large rolls. Then it was sheet-mopped on top as a protection
against projectiles that seemed to regularly find their way out of windows in the residence hall. It’s been
generally successful in repelling those; although a 4x4 a couple of years ago penetrated the roof and
almost the deck underneath. In any case, what makes this so urgent is that the seams between all the
sections on this 59,000 square foot roof are beginning to separate and the plies below have separated in
many places. The result is that, as we have seen particularly in recent weeks from recent torrential
downpours, we have water pouring in at a rate and in so many different areas, it’s just impossible to
contain it in buckets and other ways. So, this very important common area in the central core is
practically uninhabitable when there is a threat or the actuality of rain. And so we come to you with an
urgent recommendation for approval. It is a substantial cost at $812,000. Now what’s proposed is to put
on another built-up roof. We could look at a roof that would have a shorter life such as a single
membrane, though we’d probably have to put a protective membrane on that as well. That might have a
15-year life to it. What is a disadvantage for the board, and also for us at this point, is that because we
have just begun the process of assessing the future uses of many of our major buildings on campus and
the many questions that go with that, we’re not at a point today to say whether this should be a 15-year
or a 20-year or a 30-year roof. We come to you with what is conventional and we feel, as we go to bid,
will probably be a competitively priced type of roof. Trustee Boey made a motion to approve Item 7.f,
and the motion was seconded by Trustee Iosco. Trustee Boey said I understand roofing problems a little
bit, and I certainly want to get this done now before the whole thing starts to collapse. Trustee Butler
asked if this is the entire amount for the project; this will get a roof finished on Grant? Bill Nicklas said
just the central core, not the tower. The trustees voted aye, and the motion carried.
Agenda Item 7.g. – Montgomery Hall and Psychology Building Animal Facility Renovation
Bill Nicklas said this also is an item of urgency. The Montgomery Hall and Psych building are facilities
where animal studies and experiments are conducted on a regular basis. We have, in this case, a need
for a new mechanical and HVAC system. We do not have any reliable humidity control or temperature
control in these facilities, and we haven’t for a long time. We are now at the point where we no longer
comply with regulations and standards that are set by the Association for the Assessment and
Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International, and it’s important to have this work done in order
for us to be able to continue to conduct these experiments. So we recommend this to the board. A
motion to approve the item was made by Trustee Murer and seconded by Trustee Iosco. The motion
was approved.
OTHER MATTERS
None.
NEXT MEETING DATE
The next meeting of the FFOC will be November 6, 2014 at 1:30p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion to adjourn was made and seconded, and the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Cheryl Ross
Recording Secretary
In compliance with Illinois Open Meetings Act 5 ILCS 120/1, et seq, a verbatim record of all
Northern Illinois University Board of Trustees meetings is maintained by the Board Recording
Secretary and is available for review upon request. The minutes contained herein represent a
true and accurate summary of the Board proceedings.
8
November 6, 2014
Action
Agenda Item 7.a.
November 6, 2014
BOWL GAME PARTICIPATION EXPENSES
Summary: The university has requested that the Board of Trustees delegate to the President, or his
designee, approval for all necessary and proper expenses related to NIU’s participation in a post-season
Bowl Game competition, including (but not limited to) the following: the Bowl agreement(s), expenses
relating to ticketing, tickets, travel/transportation, lodging, rentals, insurance, dining, beverages (nonalcoholic), fees, services, broadcast, apparel, commodities, equipment, and supplies. Further, such
approval is requested to also authorize the President, or designee, to undertake all business transactions
necessary in relation to an anticipated upcoming Bowl event.
Recommendation: Board of Trustees approval is requested for expenditure authority for a post-season
Bowl Game competition and delegation of approval authority to the President, or designee, to undertake
all transactions necessary in relation to the Bowl, reporting actions taken where required beyond
customary authorizations at a subsequent meeting of the Board.
9
November 6, 2014
Action
Agenda Item 7.b.
November 6, 2014
FY16 TUITION, FEES, AND ROOM AND BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
Background and Summary:
Last year, NIU modified the review and management process and
related timelines for developing recommendations for the “pricing” of students’ total cost of attendance
(COA) such that all tuition and fee decisions were made in February. In previous years, the
Administration presented its recommendations for over a dozen separate student fees and for various
room and board rates to the Finance, Facilities, and Operations Committee in February, with approval by
the Board of Trustees following in March. Tuition rates (per credit hour) were adopted later in a separate
action by the Board at its June meeting to permit subsequent preparation and approval of the next
annual budget.
This year, the Administration recommends advancing these pricing decisions to December. As noted last
year, there are several compelling reasons to move these decisions up another three months:




Some Illinois institutions (and others around the nation) make their pricing decisions in January.
Approval later than January is an unnecessary competitive disadvantage to NIU at the very time
we are implementing multi-faceted long-term strategies and short-term tactics to boost
enrollment and generate the revenue essential for fiscal equilibrium.
Most institutions of higher education have prepared their financial aid offers by mid-March; these
offers must by law consider the total COA. Earlier pricing will allow NIU to use staff time more
effectively and efficiently to focus on other aspects of our student aid practices to be more
responsive to needs of students and their families.
Many current NIU students begin making final decisions as early as January about whether to
continue living in our residence halls. The earlier timeline for approvals of next year’s housing
rates will allow NIU to maximize re-capture of students who might choose to live on campus, and
thus improve our ability to maximize housing revenue, as well as foster a more vibrant residence
hall and on-campus social community that is attractive and important to current and prospective
students.
Demand is a function of both marketplace and price, along with many other combinations of
unique factors that students and parents consider. For this reason, along with continued focus
on earlier pricing decisions our consolidated pricing recommendation provides for an increase in
tuition and fees, with a more than offsetting reduction in room and board rates. The result is a
reduction of 2.8 percent in the total COA for entering freshmen and transfers compared to fiscal
year 2015.
This year, there is an additional reason to advance pricing decisions to December. This decision point is
the final step in accomplishing an annual timetable that permits a more effective, efficient, and
transparent annual budget development process. With pricing decisions made in December, the annual
budget planning and development process for the next fiscal year can begin in January, thus permitting a
final budget for both the operating budget (and a new annual capital budget) in June versus September.
Compared to the last internal budget cycle, which was tightly compressed and did not conclude until late
August, this timetable allows more time for analysis and discussions with University leaders and other
campus stakeholders. There have been clear benefits to increased transparency across the board during
the past year. Further transparency and opportunity for interactive discussion during an expanded budget
development phase will permit a continued focus on enrollment issues and fiscal sustainability within the
new academic responsiveness/fiscal responsibility oversight model and reflecting our Guiding Principles
for Financial Planning and Budgeting, and will thus allow for better informed decision making.
10
November 6, 2014
Moreover, assuming that decisions on appropriations are made prior to the end of June, the University
will be better able to notify campus units about their approved budgets as close to the beginning of the
fiscal year as possible. In order for there to be appropriate alignment of responsibility and budget
authority, campus units need as much time as possible to notify their academic departments and other
administrative units of the resources that will be available for the fiscal/academic year to dedicate to their
student career success and other strategic goals.
As noted, the Administration is recommending a reduction in its total COA for entering undergraduate
students living in most residence halls. Our undergraduate pricing recommendations thus reflect a
continuation of last year’s approach with some minor exceptions explained in the next section. The
recommendations for graduate pricing, however, represent a number of major reforms that are related to
one another and aimed at increasing enrollments and generating revenue by pricing programs instead of
courses. The recommendation reflects an entirely new pricing structure that overcomes numerous current
challenges and obstacles represented in the pricing of education delivered on-campus, off-campus, or online. Similar to the extended time devoted to the pricing of undergraduate education last year, the
Administration welcomes the opportunity to devote significant time this year to a focus on the pricing of
graduate education.
Appendix I provides a comparison of NIU’s tuition and fees to other Illinois institutions for the past ten
years.
In the next several sections, we describe the specific Fiscal Year 2016 recommendations for each major
component of pricing that drives the total cost of attendance and 50 percent of the NIU revenue budget.
I. Tuition Recommendations:
Undergraduate Tuition
Similar to the tuition approved for FY 2015, in concert with the other pricing recommendations that
comprise the total cost of attendance (COA) the undergraduate tuition recommendation for FY 2016
reflects a 2.3 percent increase for a student enrolled in 15 credit hours. Further, the recommendation
reflects:



Pricing that is consistent with NIU’s current market and does nothing to discourage a student
from enrolling, all other things being equal;
Pricing that also reflects the importance of accessibility and affordability to new students that NIU
wishes to attract, following an extended period prior to FY 2015 during which the COA had been
increasing while numbers of new NIU students and appropriations were declining, resulting in a
financial model that is clearly not sustainable if not strategically altered for current
circumstances;
A pricing decision early enough in the financial aid packaging cycle to have a positive impact on
student/family choices for FY 2016 and in future enrollment cycles;
In addition to the above rationale, the tuition recommendations also reflect Truth-in-Tuition legislation,
which took effect Fall 2004 for Illinois residents seeking an undergraduate degree. Under the provisions
of the law, the entering degree-seeking undergraduate class for each fiscal year, beginning in FY 2005, is
guaranteed the same tuition rates for four continuous years. NIU policy adds one additional semester to
this four year guarantee. NIU’s current policy is that after nine continuous semesters, the guaranteed
undergraduate tuition rate adjusts to the fixed tuition rate paid by students who entered the university
one fiscal year after the date of original entry for two years (in accordance with Senate Bill 3222 which
was passed effective July 1, 2010). The fixed tuition rates for such students are maintained consistent
with that cohort.
11
November 6, 2014
Other FY2016 recommendations that are reflected emanate from a new tuition task force established by
the Executive Vice President and Provost and the Interim Chief Financial Officer. The task force was
charged with making a comprehensive review of all instruction-related pricing to assure that it is rational
and easy to understand by prospective and enrolled students, parents, and individuals inside and outside
of NIU and that it is structured so as to generate sufficient revenue to sustain the institution, sustain the
institution’s value proposition, and eliminate barriers to enrollment by prospective students. The task
force was asked to examine alternatives that would address the following broad goals:





Modify or eliminate the current declining credit hour rate structure to eliminate unintended
consequences that occur when a student drops individual courses; and to encourage students to
enroll in more than the minimum number of hours required to be classified as full-time.
Consider establishing an alternative tuition rate to attract more students from adjacent states.
Identify options to use housing scholarships to fill residence halls in concert with alternative
tuition rates for out-of-state and international students.
Identify obstacles as well as opportunities to modify tuition to make NIU more competitive with
major local competitors.
Examine, rationalize, and simplify current program fee, on-line tuition, and other pricing and
identify changes that may be in order.
Accordingly, in addition to a 2.3 percent tuition increase, the Administration is recommending two
changes that affect the structure of undergraduate tuition as follow:
1. Abandon the declining credit hour structure and replace it with a flattened bundled structure. The
current declining credit hour structure was originally thought to be an incentive to encourage
students to take additional courses and graduate on time. There is no evidence that it ever had
that effect. The declining rate structure has created enormous confusion for students and parents
and is highly difficult to administer due to its complexity. This strategic change from a declining
scale to a bundled rate is estimated to have a time savings, simplification factor, and better
service implications for the service areas interacting with students and parents addressing
concerns.
2. Establish a lower out-of-state tuition for students from the Midwest (i.e., Iowa, Wisconsin,
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Missouri) that covers the direct and estimated indirect instructional
costs at 140 percent of in-state tuition to create a greater incentive for these students to enroll at
NIU. (Students from other states, of which there are not many, would continue to be charged
tuition at 200 percent of the in-state rate.) Although there is a revenue loss associated with this
reduction, it is estimated that recruitment of approximately 80 additional students would make
this proposal revenue neutral, which could be achieved through purchase of a student prospect
list and targeted recruitment of students from these states.
See Table 1 at the end of this section for a summary of the undergraduate pricing recommendation along
with the graduate pricing recommendations described below.
Graduate Tuition
The Administration recommends a series of structural changes to graduate and law student tuition. All of
the changes are recommended with the objective in mind of either easing burdens that fall on graduate
and law students or of providing pathways to enrollment growth and additional revenue production.
The Administration recommends establishing an alternative tuition rate for graduate assistants and
fellows equal to the in-state rate. This recommendation is revenue neutral, but it will ease a tax
withholding burden that falls on out-of-state graduate assistants who serve in graduate staff assistant
roles. Additionally, billing graduate assistants and fellows at the in-state rate will align our tuition policies
12
November 6, 2014
with our grant policies, which require cost recovery for only the in-state portion of tuition, when tuition
can be included in an externally-funded grant or contract.
The Administration recommends combining “tuition” (currently $349.18 per credit hour) and “general fee”
charges (currently $113.16 per credit hour) into one consolidated tuition rate for graduate students and
law students. Charging graduate students a consolidated tuition in each semester will aid in attracting to
NIU students with employer reimbursement. Generally, employer reimbursement benefits are limited to
tuition charges only, making NIU, even when the institution of first choice, appear less attractive to
prospective students who can attend a private institution with 100 percent reimbursement of tuition.
Furthermore, consolidating the instructional charge and fees, which together constitute the cost of
instruction, into a single tuition charge makes the true cost of attendance readily apparent to adult
students.
The Administration recommends establishing a minimum graduate program and law school differential
tuition rate of $30 per credit hour and a maximum of $400 per credit hour in addition to the tuition
charge described above. Currently, advanced students are charged program, excellence, and regional
delivery fees, ranging from $50 per hour to $349.18 per hour. This recommendation eliminates program,
excellence, and regional delivery fees and replaces them with a differential tuition charge that will be
approved by the Executive Vice President and Provost and the Chief Financial Officer. Because the
differential tuition will be applied to all students admitted to a program of study, regardless of the
location of the program, academic leaders including deans will need to determine how best to propose a
differential tuition that takes into consideration individual program costs and competitive pricing for the
program in question; thus, the recommendation is for the Board to approve a minimum and maximum
rate that accommodates a wide range of reasonable possibilities.
Online Tuition
The Administration recommends establishing a minimum tuition rate of $500 per credit hour and a
maximum tuition rate of $1,000 per credit hour for both graduate and undergraduate online programs.
Over a two year period, the undergraduate online program rate range will facilitate a demonstration
project to determine the viability of large scale online programming designed particularly to appeal to
adult students in our region, as well as international students. The components of the minimum online
tuition rate are illustrated below in Figure 1. This recommendation relies on approval of a consolidated
tuition charge and differential tuition, where the minimum differential charge will be $30 per hour and the
maximum differential charge will be $530. NIU’s efforts to develop budget and pricing models to
stimulate growth of online programs and enrollment has been discussed for many years. Coupled with
the efforts of the Office of Online Program Development and Support, this recommendation paves the
way for that growth.
Figure 1
Components of the Minimum Online Tuition
Components of Tuition
Per Hour Charge
Instructional Charge
$357
Central Services Charge
$69
Outreach Charge
$18
Career/Professional Development Charge
$4
Technology Charge
$22
Program Differential
$30
TOTAL Minimum Online Tuition
$500
The recommended tuition rates for undergraduate, graduate and law students are presented in Table 1.
13
November 6, 2014
Table 1
Fiscal Year 2016 Tuition Recommendations
Undergraduate:
AY 16
Part Time
Per Cr. Hr. Rate
1 - 11 Cr. Hrs.
$348.84
Full Time
Package/Bundle Rate
12 or more Cr. Hrs.
$4,732.80
PriorTruth in Tuition Year Rates (cap at 14 hrs.)
AY 15
AY 14
AY 13
AY 12
AY 11
AY 10
1 - 13 Cr. Hrs
$330.45
$323.95
$317.60
$303.20
$283.90
$259.25
14 or more Cr. Hrs.
$4,626.30
$4,535.30
$4,446.40
$4,244.80
$3,974.60
$3,629.50
(1) Undergraduates who are entering in FY2016 or who are non-degree seeking; non-residents in the Midwest at 1.4 times
and all others at 2 times the FY2016 rate.
Graduate:
1 - 11 Cr. Hrs.
12 or more Cr. Hrs.
AY 16
$493.63
$5,923.56
The above hourly tuition rate includes an instructional charge of $357 per credit hour and an institutional
charge of $136.63 per credit hour.
Law:
1 - 11 Cr. Hrs.
12 or more Cr. Hrs.
AY 16
$913.27
$10,959.24
The above hourly tuition rate includes an instructional charge of $677.29 per credit hour and an
institutional charge of $235.98 per credit hour.
II. Room and Board Recommendations:
The collection of room and board from students living in university residence halls supports Student
Housing and Dining Services operations and related Revenue Bond obligations.
Room rate
recommendations typically address increased student wage and service contract costs, software support,
indirect costs, contractual services, general operating expenses, and debt service payments related to
renovations to the residence halls. At this time, in order to address student affordability concerns, the
university is recommending a single room and board rate that represents a 7.08 percent
reduction in rates for Fiscal Year 2016 as a modest step to entice more students to reside on
campus and to reduce the total pricing package for students entering the University in the
Fall of 2015. (NOTE: Rates for New Hall and Northern View, the Collegiate Housing Foundation II
Project, are considered separately and are not included in this recommendation.) A summary is provided
in Table 2 which details each residence hall room and board rate.
14
November 6, 2014
Table 2
Fiscal Year 2016 Room and Board Rate Recommendations
FY15
FY16
NEPTUNE
Double as Single
Double
$
$
R ATE
4,658
3,663
G ILBER T
Double
$
4,206
G R ANT TO W ER S
Single
Double
$
$
4,828
4,206
STEVENSO N TO W ER S
Single
Double
Suite with bath, 2-person
Suite with bath, 4-person
Suite, no bath, 2-person
Suite, no bath, 4-person
$
$
$
$
$
$
4,828
4,206
5,637
4,635
5,389
4,389
M EAL PLANS
Huskie Unlimited
Huskie 65
Huskie 90
$
$
$
1,040
1,040
1,440
NEPTUNE
Multiple-Occupancy
$
R ATE
4,703
G ILBER T
Multiple-Occupancy
$
5,246
G R ANT TO W ER S
B Tower - Multiple-Occupancy
C/D Towers - Single-Occupancy
C/D Towers - Multiple-Occupancy
$
$
$
4,703
5,868
5,246
STEVENSO N TO W ER S
Single-Occupancy
Multiple-Occupancy
$
$
5,868
5,246
NOTE: The board rates will be bundled with room rates for a combined single rate.
Dining revenues will be allocated via internal processes (journal entries), beginning in FY16
Other Residential Fees
Winter Break Fee
Prior to deadline
After deadline
$42/week or $150/4 weeks
$56/week or $200/4 weeks
Living-Learning Communities
-
$50/semester
(Formerly Academic Residential Programs)
Board Rates
In an effort to best meet the dining center usage patterns for residential students and to minimize the
cost of the board plan, all residents will purchase the existing Unlimited Access meal plan for FY2016 as
part of their room and board package. There is an expectation that the reduced cost could result in
additional nonresident student participation to help make it budget neutral through this and other dining
program initiatives.
15
November 6, 2014
Since the required meal plan will be the same for all students, it allows NIU to create a combined room
and board rate that brings us in line with what other universities are already doing in terms of showing a
combined rate. It also gives students and parents a single number that they can use to determine the
cost of living in the residence halls. Finally, a combined room and board rate falls in line with our desire
for student bills to be streamlined and easier to read.
III. Student Fee Recommendations:
The university has numerous student activities, programs, services and operations that are supported to
various degrees by the assessment of dedicated-use student fees. Table 3 provides a summary of fee
rates for FY 2015 and recommendations for FY 2016. This year, fee committees were again asked by the
President to review the continuing necessity of each fee, ensure the fee is being utilized for the intended
purpose, and assume a zero percent fee increase, unless compelling documentation could be provided
that would support the need for an increase.
As part of the simplification of pricing, the Administration is also recommending a two-year phase in that
will collapse over a dozen separate dedicated fees into four broad categories of related fees for the
purpose of publicized pricing and easier to explain billing. The color coded diagram that follows depicts
the current fees and the new fee to which it will be mapped beginning with next year’s fee
recommendations. The uses of each of the “fees within the new replacement fee” will be explained on
the University website and still be reviewed, as currently, with students each year. The accounting for the
fee allocations will continue in the same manner so that fee revenue remains dedicated to the approved
purpose and assure continued transparency to the students who participate in the fee review process or
any student who wishes to drill down to understand where the dollars go. This change is strictly
“cosmetic” and involves no change in policy.
16
November 6, 2014
17
November 6, 2014
Excluding the health insurance fee increase, the increases recommended for approval
represent a 0.3 percent increase for undergraduate students. Fees for graduate and law student
are incorporated into the recommended tuition rates. Following Table 3, fee descriptions are provided to
describe each fee and the recommended fee rate.
Table 3
FISCAL YEAR 2016 FEE RECOMMENDATIONS
(Including Pre-Approved Fees)+
CURRENT FEES FY 15
Per Credit
Semester (@
12 + Cr. Hrs.)
Proposed
Change per
Credit Hour
Hour
12 + Cr. Hrs.)
Per Credit
Semester (@
Hour
Mandatory Fees
PROPOSED FEES FY 16
Percent
Change
ACTIVITY FEE
$
4.40
$
52.80
$
0.13
$
4.53
$
54.36
3.0%
ATHLETICS
$
22.59
$
271.08
$
-
$
22.59
$
271.08
0.0%
BOND REVENUE
Bond Facilities
Living/Learning+
West Campus Improvement+
$
38.98
29.78
6.00
3.20
$
467.76
357.36
72.00
38.40
$
(0.10)
(0.10)
$
38.88
29.78
6.00
3.10
$
466.56
357.36
72.00
37.20
-0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
-3.1% +
BUS
$
9.45
$
113.40
0.33
$
9.78
$
117.36
3.5%
HEALTH SERVICES
$
10.25
123.00
-
$
10.25
123.00
0.0%
GRANTS IN AID
$
0.88
10.56
-
$
0.88
10.56
0.0%
STUDENT TO STUDENT GRANT
$
0.50
6.00
-
$
0.50
6.00
0.0%
250.00
-
250.00
0.0%
75.00
-
75.00
0.0%
ACAD PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT
CAMPUS IMPROVEMENT
NA
$
6.25
$
NA
$
6.25
$
TOTAL IF REGISTERED FOR 12 OR MORE SEMESTER CREDIT HOURS*
2014-15 per
Semester
$ 1,369.60
UNDERGRADUATE
2015-16 per
Semester
$ 1,373.92
0.32%
* Totals do not include the Health Insurance Fee
Refundable Fee**
HEALTH INSURANCE***
NA
$
759.00
-
NA
TBD
** Can be waived with proof of comparable insurance.
*** For full time students only. FY 16 Rates not available yet.
+ = BOT Pre-approved fee schedule.
18
November 6, 2014
Fee Descriptions
Activity Fee
The Student Association recommends allocations from collected Activity Fees, which are used to support
student organizations, activities, and programs including concerts, films, speakers, etc. The Student
Activity Fee Review Committee is recommending a $.13 increase from $4.40 to $4.53 per
semester credit hour for undergraduate students. The increase, 3 percent, is requested by the
students on the committee, who feel strongly that the activities supported by these fees contribute to
student engagement and retention by supporting student organizations and student services areas.
Athletics Fee
Intercollegiate Athletics maintains sixteen sports (7 men’s and 9 women’s) at the NCAA Division 1A level.
The Athletic Fee is the primary source of fiscal support for Intercollegiate Athletics. In order to support
operations in the coming fiscal year, the Athletics Fee will stay at $22.59 per credit hour, with no
increase.
Revenue Bond Fees
Revenue Bond Fees are used to support facilities and operations that have been established through the
issue of revenue bonds. Included in the Revenue Bond fee is the 1996 Bond Series fee and the 2010
Bond Series Fee. One of these fees have been pre-approved by the Board based on a schedule
established when the financing arrangements were created. The 1996 Bond Series (West Campus
Improvements) bond fee structure was established in 1997 and initiated in FY98. The approved structure
provided a specific schedule for 1996 Bond Series fees through calendar year 2022, and began
decreasing in FY03; therefore, a decrease of $0.10, from $3.20 to $3.10 per credit hour, is included in
the overall bond fee package for FY 2016. The 2010 Bond Series (Living & Learning) bond fee structure
was established in 2010 and initiated in FY12. The recommendations for each Revenue Bond fee are as
follows:
Holmes Student Center – The fee will remain at $12.33 per credit hour, with no increase.
Recreation Center I – The fee will remain at $4.57 per credit hour, with no increase.
Recreation Center II – The fee will remain at $2.26 per credit hour, with no increase.
Huskie Stadium – The fee will remain at $2.40 per credit hour, with no increase.
Convocation Center – The fee will remain at $8.22 per credit hour, with no increase.
1996 Bond Series (West Campus Improvements) – This previously approved fee decreases $0.10,
from $3.20 to $3.10, per credit hour.
2010 Bond Series (Living & Learning) – The fee will remain at $6.00 per credit hour.
Overall, the FY 2016 recommended bond fee package reflects an decrease of $0.10, from
$38.98 to $38.88, per credit hour.
Student Bus Service Fee
The Bus Fee supports the university’s Huskie Line bus and Freedom Mobile paratransit services. All feepaying students are eligible to utilize Huskie buses without being charged fares. The Bus Fee Review
Committee is recommending a $0.33 increase from $9.45 to $9.78 per semester credit hour
19
November 6, 2014
per academic semester and a $0.11 increase from $3.17 to $3.28 per semester credit hour
for the summer session. These increases are needed to meet obligations of the contract with the
vendor that provides student bus services.
Health Service Fee
The Health Service Fee supports the University Health Services, Disability Resources, and Health
Enhancement, which provide comprehensive ambulatory health care, disability-related accommodations,
and health education for students. The Health Fee Review Committee is recommending no
increase at $10.25 per semester credit hour.
Grants-in-Aid Fee
The Grants-in-Aid Fee supports the University Scholar and Academic Finalist Awards Program, a
scholarship-based financial aid program. It is the only major academically focused scholarship program
available at Northern Illinois University for outstanding incoming new freshmen and community college
transfers. The Grants-in-Aid Fee Review Committee is recommending no increase at $0.88 per
semester credit hour.
Student-to-Student Grant
Revenues collected to fund the Student-to-Student Grant program support a need-based financial aid
program for economically disadvantaged students. The fee is assessed only to undergraduate students
registered for twelve or more credit hours of on-campus instruction and is refundable upon request.
Schools are eligible for matching funds from the state of Illinois; however, matching funds were not
appropriated in fiscal year 2014, and are not expected in fiscal year 2015. The fee is presently at the
ISAC statutory maximum of $6.00 per semester; therefore, no increase is recommended for
next year.
Academic Program Enhancement and Instructional Surcharge
The Academic Program Enhancement and Instructional Surcharge is a flat fee that is assessed in order to
meet the ever-emerging demands for cutting edge academic programs and services for NIU students.
Critical areas for funding include library journals and books, support for courses in high demand,
technology upgrades, as well as support for identified academic strategic planning initiatives designed to
strengthen, direct and further improve academic programs, research, and the academic experience of
students. The fee will remain the same at $250.00 per semester.
Campus Improvement Fee
The resources generated by this fee will be used to maintain and improve classroom physical conditions,
perform renovations needed to enhance the teaching and learning environment, provide support needed
for classroom buildings and campus infrastructure improvements such as mechanical, electrical and
plumbing systems. These basic needs must be satisfied in order to provide students with a quality
learning environment and faculty with tools and surroundings from which they can perform their mission.
The fee will remain at the current rate of $6.25 per semester credit hour.
Health Insurance Fee
The student health insurance plan provides comprehensive medical insurance for students and their
dependents. The Health Insurance fee is a flat fee, which provides coverage for all students registered
for nine or more credit hours of on-campus instruction, unless proof of comparable health insurance
coverage is provided. It should be noted that Spring Semester enrollment in the plan includes summer
20
November 6, 2014
coverage regardless of whether the student is registered for summer session instruction. This assures
year-round health insurance coverage for participating students. The Student Health Insurance Fee
Review Committee is currently undergoing the Request for Proposal (RFP) process to select
a plan administrator and underwriter for the FY2016 student health insurance plan. This
process will not finished until the March 2015 Board of Trustees meeting.
Overall Pricing Recommendation for Fiscal Year 2016: The university requests approval of the
recommended FY 2016 pricing package as described in this item and detailed in Tables 1 – 3, and
summarized in Table 4. These figures reflect the average annual costs for a full-time student at the
undergraduate, graduate and law school level.
21
November 6, 2014
TABLE 4
Fiscal Year 2016 Tuition, Fee and Room & Board Recommendations
Annual Cost Summary for Full-Time Students
NEW UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
FY 2015
In-State
FY 2016
In-State
Change FY15-FY16
$
%
TUITION
$
9,253
$
9,466
$
213
2.30%
FEES*
$
2,739
$
2,748
$
9
0.33%
ROOM & BOARD**
$
11,292
$
10,492
$ (800)
-7.08%
TOTAL
$
23,284
$
22,706
$ (578)
-2.48%
Assumptions:
Full-time 15 hours for both Fall and Spring
* Excludes Health Insurance Fee
** Renovated Double, Grant, Gilbert, Stevenson; w ith an Unlimited Meal Plan ($2,080 in FY 2016).
NOTE: Does not include housing rates at New Hall or Northern View . Those rates are set in a separate process.
NEW AND CONTINUING GRADUATE STUDENTS
FY 2015
In-State
FY 2016
In-State
Change FY15-FY16
$
%
TUITION*
$
11,096
$
11,847
$
751
6.77%
TOTAL
$
11,096
$
11,847
$
751
6.77%
Assumptions:
* In FY 2015 includes $2,716 in Fees. The FY 2016 figure is all Tuition.
NEW AND CONTINUING LAW SCHOOL STUDENTS
FY 2015
In-State
FY 2016
In-State
Change FY15-FY16
$
%
TUITION*
$
21,564
$
21,918
$
354
1.64%
TOTAL
$
21,564
$
21,918
$
354
1.64%
Assumptions:
* In FY 2015 includes $5,628 in Fees. The FY 2016 figure is all Tuition.
22
November 6, 2014
23
November 6, 2014
5,050
7,091
6,306
7,229
6,899
6,831
5,209
8,498
5,965
Governors State University
Illinois State University
Northeastern IL University
Northern Illinois University
Western Illinois University
SIU Carbondale
SIU Edwardsville
U of I Chicago
U of I Springfield
9,966
7,252
9,748
5,938
7,795
7,411
7,871
7,166
8,040
5,478
7,035
$
7,138
FY 2007
11,244
8,108
10,546
7,033
8,899
8,079
8,589
7,998
9,019
5,966
7,990
$
7,730
FY 2008
12,240
9,077
11,716
7,831
9,813
8,862
9,403
8,964
9,814
7,542
8,783
$
8,878
FY 2009
12,660
9,541
12,034
8,336
10,411
9,617
10,180
9,908
10,531
8,352
9,429
$
9,500
FY 2010
13,658
10,374
12,864
8,401
10,467
10,149
11,144
10,698
11,417
8,746
9,987
$
10,366
FY 2011
14,414
10,984
13,464
8,865
11,038
10,719
11,795
11,394
12,230
8,936
10,534
$
10,724
FY 2012
*Source: IBHE. Includes student health insurance, which can be waived with proof of comparable insurance.
8,688
6,339
Eastern Illinois University
U of I Urbana-Champaign
$
6,626
FY 2006
Chicago State University
PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES
($ in 000s)
TUITION & FEES* HISTORY FY 2006 - FY 2015
Entry Level, Annual, Full-Time Undergraduate Students
Appendix I
ILLINOIS PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES
14,960
11,413
13,938
9,251
11,528
11,182
12,472
11,435
12,726
9,116
10,930
$
11,006
FY 2013
15,258
11,776
14,338
9,666
11,942
11,766
12,853
12,015
13,010
9,386
11,144
$
11,126
FY 2014
15,602
12,195
14,588
9,738
12,056
12,217
13,510
12,609
13,296
9,386
11,108
$
11,912
FY 2015
8.8%
11.6%
8.0%
9.7%
8.5%
8.6%
9.7%
11.1%
9.7%
9.5%
8.4%
8.9%
Average
Annual
Increase
Action
Agenda Item 7.c.
November 6, 2014
NEW FACILITY FOR CAMPUS DISTRIBUTIVE ANTENNA SYSTEM
CAPITAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Summary: The Division of Information Technology in partnership with Crown Castle, one of the nation’s
largest providers of shared wireless infrastructure, has proposed a new facility to house a Distributed
Antenna System (DAS) hub. When completed, the proposed facility will provide a central collocation
point from which Crown Castle and major wireless providers (i.e. Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint, TMobile) can expand outdoor and indoor antenna systems across NIU’s campus in order to improve
cellphone coverage for the entire campus. If approved, the new facility will be located on the west side
of campus in an area adjacent to and north of Printing Services. It will consist of a gravel surfaced open
equipment area approximately 16,000 square feet, enclosed by an 8’ high chain link fence with a privacy
screen. Within the fence area there will be a 900 square foot central precast equipment shelter for the
neutral host and space for between four (4) and ten (10) smaller precast concrete equipment shelters for
cellphone carriers. A new fiber optic infrastructure will also be built and interconnected to the
University’s main fiber optic arteries in order to provide the required transport from the DAS hub to
specific outdoor/indoor DAS deployments across campus.
All cost of all improvements, equipment, shelters and fiber optic infrastructure will be covered by Crown
Castle, the neutral host of the proposed facility. The University is currently in discussions with Crown
Castle on the terms of an equitable ten (10) year land lease agreement that may also include three (3)
additional five (5) year lease renewals.
Funding:
Crown Castle will fund all proposed improvement costs.
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees authorization to establish a project for
the improvements to real property including the proposed facility and fiber optic infrastructure. The
University further requests approval to proceed with an equitable ten (10) year land lease agreement
with Crown Castle.
24
November 6, 2014
Action
Agenda Item 7.d.
November 6, 2014
ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS-PHASE XI
PERFORMANCE CONTRACT AMENDMENT
Summary: The university requests permission to expand the Phase XI Performance Contract Project to
include needed infrastructure improvements resulting in reduced energy consumption and maintenance in
the future involving exterior lighting upgrades campus-wide, HVAC upgrades and air handling needs and
roof replacements in various buildings on campus. As with prior Performance Contract projects the
University makes no initial capital outlay or investment to fund the project. Energy and operational
savings are guaranteed by the contractor to be at least at the level to fund the project, including finance
charges, for up to twenty years.
Original Board of Trustees approval for Energy Infrastructure Improvements-Phase XI Project was given
on December 5, 2013.
Recommendation: The University requests Board of Trustees approval to expand the Phase XI
Performance Contract Project to include these additional items as follows:
Prior amount........................................................
Amendment.........................................................
not to exceed $10.8 million
including financing $7.2 million
New total.............................................................
not to exceed $18.0 million
25
November 6, 2014
Information
Agenda Item 8.a.
November 6, 2014
SEMI-ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT OF ACTIVE CAPITAL PROJECTS
WITH A BUDGET OVER $100,000
All projects listed herein were previously approved by the Board of Trustees or the President and are
currently in process. The Authorization Date is identified for all NIU-funded projects; the fiscal year is
identified for all CDB-funded projects. Status reports are provided on any project, regardless of initiation
date, until all work has been completed and all payments have been made.
CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD PROJECTS
I.
Projects in the Planning Phase
A. Remodeling and Rehabilitation
1. Williston Hall - ADA Fire Alarm Upgrade
Total Project Budget:
$150,150 (estimated)
Source of Funding:
FY2004 - CDB
Architect/Engineer:
AON Fire Protection Engineering – Glenview
Status: The CDB has contracted for engineering services and 100 percent documents have
been prepared for review. Advertisement and acceptance of bids awaits release of
appropriated funding.
2. Campus Electrical Switch Gear Upgrade
Source of Funding:
FY2004 - CDB
Architect/Engineer:
Crawford, Murphy & Tilly, Inc. - Aurora
Status: The CDB has contracted for engineering services and 100 percent documents have
been prepared for review. Advertisement and acceptance of bids awaits release of
appropriated funding.
3. William R. Monat Building Total Project Budget:
Source of Funding:
Architect/Engineer:
Replace Air Conditioning
FY2004 - CDB
KJWW Engineers - Rock Island
Status: The CDB has contracted for engineering services to produce bidding documents.
Advertisement and acceptance of bids awaits release of appropriated funding.
4. Founders Library – Upgrade Sunken Plaza
Source of Funding:
FY2005 - CDB
Architect/Engineer:
Wills Burke Kelsey Associates - St. Charles
Status: The CDB has closed the original professional services agreement with Wills Burke
Kelsey. Engineering and bidding awaits release of appropriated funding.
26
November 6, 2014
5. East Heating Plant – Repair Main Steam Tunnel
$1,705,000 (estimated)
Source of Funding:
FY2010 - CDB
Architect/Engineer:
Affiliated Engineers, Inc. – Chicago
Status: Affiliated Engineers has been selected as the consulting A/E for the project. CDB
will not issue a contract for engineering services until appropriated funding has been
released.
II. Projects in the Construction Phase
1. Two Buildings on Campus – Roof Repair and Replacement
$845,072 (amended - estimated)
Source of Funding:
FY2010 - CDB
Architect/Engineer:
INSPEC - Chicago
Status: All roofing work is complete. Final payments have been made.
2. Stevens Building – Addition & Renovation
$22,517,600 (estimated)
Source of Funding:
FY2010 - CDB
Architect/Engineer:
PSA Dewberry/BCA - Elgin
Status: River City Construction was awarded the general contract and received the
Authorization to Proceed on April 11, 2014. Site mobilization occurred on April 8, 2014.
Demolition is complete. A groundbreaking was held on September 22, 2014 with Governor
Pat Quinn in attendance. Exterior walls are complete; overall construction is now 20%
complete.
B. Site and Utilities
N/A
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY PROJECTS
I.
Projects in the Planning Phase
1. Grant Central Core – Roof Replacement
$2,685,000
Source of Funding:
Bond Revenue Reserves
Authorization Date:
September 2014
Architect/Engineer:
NIU A&E Services
Status: Construction documents and specifications are in process. Bidding is planned for
late fall 2014 with contract award during early 2015. Work will be scheduled as weather
allows.
2. Montgomery & Psych/Computer Science – Animal Facilities Renovation
27
November 6, 2014
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
Architect/Engineer:
$850,000
Institutional – Local Funds
September 20114
Wold - Palatine
Status: Professional Services Agreement with the A/E is in process. Construction documents
and specifications are planned for early 2015. Bidding is planned for spring 2015 with
contract award during early 2015.
3. NIU Naperville – Carpet Replacement for AIR Phase II
$123,450
Source of Funding:
Institutional - Local Funds
Authorization Date:
July 2014
Architect/Engineer:
NIU A&E Services
Status: Contracts for carpet and installation are in process. The work will be planned and
scheduled to minimize client disruption; overnight shifts and weekends will be used.
1. Parking Lot W – Expansion
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
Architect/Engineer:
$661,500
Bond Series 2010 Project
June 2011
Hanson Professional Services - Rockford
Status: Removal of the soil pile is complete and final payment to the contractor has been
made. Construction documents are complete. However, Parking Services has re-evaluated
the necessity of this project and the staff has requested that the project be cancelled. Site
restoration is complete. Final payments have been made. Final payment to the consulting
Architect/Engineer is in process.
2. Parking Lot P and PS- Reconstruction
$1,745,000
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
June 2011 (confirmed March 2014)
Architect/Engineer:
TBD
Status: Planning and design are in process. Construction work will be coordinated with the
Lucinda Avenue Extension project.
3. Parking Structure- Reconstruct Four Exit Stairs
$1,200,000
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
June 2011 (confirmed March 2014)
Architect/Engineer:
TBD
Status: Planning and design are in process. Construction work will be scheduled to take
advantage of semester breaks.
4. DeKalb Campus- Electrical Infrastructure Replacement Phase III
Source of Funding:
Appropriated Funds
28
November 6, 2014
Authorization Date:
Architect/Engineer:
March 2014
NIU A&E Services
Status: Planning and design are in process. Construction work will begin in late 2014 and
will be scheduled to take advantage of semester breaks.
II. Projects in the Construction Phase
1. Stevenson Towers – Fire Sprinkler Phase III
Source of Funding:
Bond Series 2010 Project (amended)
Authorization Date:
September 2010
Architect/Engineer:
AON Fire Protection Engineering – Glenview
Status: All work has been completed. Final payments have been made.
2. Holmes Student Center – College Grind
$1,100,000 (amended)
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
June 2011
Architect/Engineer:
Cordogan Clark and Associates - Aurora
Status: Construction is complete, the Grind officially opened on February 10, 2014. The
contractor is completing punch list work. Change Orders and final payments are in process.
3. Gilbert Hall – Building Renovation
$22,266,000
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
June 2011
Architect/Engineer:
Cordogan Clark and Associates - Aurora
Status: All work has been completed. Final payments have been made.
4. Grant Towers – Tower D Renovation
$18,000,000
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
June 2011
Architect/Engineer:
BLDD Architects - Chicago
Status: All renovation and construction work has been completed. Final payments are in
process.
5. Thirteen Buildings on Campus – Campus Alerting System Phase III
$385,000
Source of Funding:
Appropriated Funds – Administrative Support
Authorization Date:
December 2011
Architect/Engineer:
NIU A&E Services
Status: All work is complete. Final payments have been made.
29
November 6, 2014
6. Naperville/Hoffman Estates
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
Architect/Engineer:
Status:
process.
- New Emergency Generators
$238,700
Local Funds - ITS NIUNet
February 2012
NIU A&E Services
Generators have been installed, hooked up and tested. Final payments are in
7. Huskie Stadium – New Score Board and Video Boards
$3,300,000
Source of Funding:
Local Funds & Bond Revenue Funds – Stadium
Authorization Date:
April 2012
Architect/Engineer:
Wold - Palatine
Status: All work is complete. Change orders and final payments are in process.
8.
West Heating Plant – Replace Emergency Generator
$142,000
Source of Funding:
Revenue Bond Funds – Housing and Dining
Authorization Date:
May 2012
Architect/Engineer:
NIU A&E Services
Status: Construction is complete. Final payments have been made.
9.
Physical Plant – Drafting Room Renovation
$177,910
Source of Funding:
Local Funds – Physical Plant
Authorization Date:
March 2013
Architect/Engineer:
NIU A&E Services
Status: Work is complete. Final payments have been made.
10. DeKalb Campus – Campus Alerting System Phase IV
$1,250,000
Source of Funding:
Appropriated Funds
Authorization Date:
March 2013
Architect/Engineer:
NIU A&E Services
Status: This project will encompass the final phases of the campus alert system. Work is
approximately 10% complete. The construction work will be planned and scheduled to take
advantage of semester breaks, weekends and summer schedules.
11. Residence Halls - FY14-Rotation Painting
$245,000
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
June 2011 (confirmed August 2013)
Architect/Engineer:
NIU Physical Plant
12. Campus Recreation Center - FY14-Rotation Painting
$123,790
30
November 6, 2014
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
Architect/Engineer:
NIU Physical Plant
13. Evans Field House - FY14-Rotation Painting
$175,000
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
Architect/Engineer:
NIU Physical Plant
14. Campus Recreation Center - Replace Skylights
$149,100
Source of Funding:
Bond Revenue Funds
Repair and Replace Reserves
Authorization Date:
August 2013
Architect/Engineer:
NIU A&E Services
15. Graham Hall - Room 237 & 241 Remodel
$139,630
Source of Funding:
Appropriated Funds – Academic Program Support
Authorization Date:
October 2013
Architect/Engineer:
NIU A&E Services
Status: Construction is complete. Final payments have been made.
16. Graham Hall- Renovate Offices 429, 431 and 431A
$152,000
Source of Funding:
General Revenue Funds- Provost Office- Academic Program
Support
Authorization Date:
December 2013
Architect/Engineer:
NIU A&E Services
Status: Work is complete. Final payments have been made.
17. East Heating Plant Remodel - Renovate Room 239
$171,000
Source of Funding:
Local Funds- Building Maintenance
Authorization Date:
March 2014
Architect/Engineer:
NIU A&E Services
18. DuSable Hall – Concrete Beam Repair at Main Entry
$414,500
Source of Funding:
Institutional - Local Funds
Authorization Date:
June 2014
Architect/Engineer:
AltusWorks - Chicago
31
November 6, 2014
Status: The work to repair the exposed concrete beams at the main entry doors is near
completion. The contractor is working on punch list items.
19. DeKalb Campus – Security Improvements for Nine Academic Buildings
$211,316
Source of Funding:
Grant Funds- Sponsored Projects
Authorization Date:
July 2014
Architect/Engineer:
NIU A&E Services/Student Affairs
Status: The entry doors on nine buildings are being upgraded with new electronic security
locks. The project is approximately 25% complete; work will be planned and scheduled to
take advantage of semester breaks, weekends and class schedules.
20. Residence Halls - FY15-Rotation Painting
$249,000
Source of Funding:
Institutional – Revenue Bond Reserves
Authorization Date:
July 2014
Architect/Engineer:
NIU Physical Plant
Status: Work will be scheduled when feasible and will be scheduled to take advantage of
semester breaks to minimize disruptions. The majority of the work will be done in May 2015.
21. DeKalb Campus – 2014 Campus Initiatives – Founders Library Clean Limestone
$165,000
Source of Funding:
Appropriated/Income Funds
Authorization Date:
July 2014
Architect/Engineer:
NIU A&E Services
Status: The contractor has completed cleaning the limestone at Founders Library. Final
payments are in process.
1. Parking Lot 24 - Reconstruction
$325,000
Source of Funding:
Bond Series 2010 Project (amended)
Authorization Date:
June 2011(amended)
Architect/Engineer:
Wills Burke Kelsey Associates – St. Charles
2. West Campus - Track & Field Facility - Install Lighting
$941,500
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
June 2011
Architect/Engineer:
NIU A&E Services
Status: Construction is complete. Final payments are in process.
3. DeKalb Campus – Outdoor Intramural Recreational Facility
Source of Funding:
32
November 6, 2014
Authorization Date:
Architect/Engineer:
June 2011
Upland Design - Plainfield
Status: Work is complete. Change orders are in process and final payment is in process.
4. Parking Lot 25 - Reconstruction
$155,250
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
June 2011
Architect/Engineer:
Wills Burke Kelsey Associates - St. Charles
5. Parking Lot 13 – Resurface
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
Architect/Engineer:
$733,200 (amended)
June 2011 (amended July 2013)
Knight E/A - Chicago
6. Parking Lot 2/E – Resurface
$1,217,700
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
June 2011
Architect/Engineer:
Crawford, Murphy & Tilly, Inc. - Aurora
Status: Contractor work is complete. Landscape work will be completed by the University.
Final payments are in process.
7. Parking Lot N1 – Reconstruction
$508,950
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
June 2011
Architect/Engineer:
Christopher B. Burke Engineering - Rosemont
8. Parking Lots K & L – Reconstruction
$1,417,000
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
June 2011
Architect/Engineer:
Wight and Company - Darien
9. Neptune North – Renovate South Courtyard
$101,840
Source of Funding:
Revenue Bond Funds – Campus Parking
Authorization Date:
July 2012
Architect/Engineer:
NIU A&E Services & Physical Plant
Status: Construction work is complete. Final payments have been made.
33
November 6, 2014
10. DeKalb Campus – Electrical Infrastructure Replacement Phase II
Source of Funding:
Appropriated Funds – Administrative Support
Authorization Date:
March 2013
Architect/Engineer:
NIU A&E Services
Status: Construction started in fall 2013 and is approximately 60% complete. Work will
continue to be scheduled to take advantage of semester breaks and as schedules allow.
11. Naperville- Parking Lot Replacement- Phase I
$172,265
Source of Funding:
Local Funds- NIU Naperville Operations
Authorization Date:
November 2013
Architect/Engineer:
Engineering Resource Associates, Inc. - Warrenville
Status: The consulting engineer is completing the engineering documents for construction.
Construction work scheduled for 2014 has been delayed due to budget concerns.
12. Lucinda Avenue Extension
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
Architect/Engineer:
Bond Series 2010 (amended)
March 2014 (amended June 2014)
Knight E/A, Inc. - Chicago
Status: Building environmental clean-up is complete. Building and site demolition contracts
are in process with an anticipated start in late fall 2014. Road construction work will bid in
early 2015. Completion is anticipated for late fall 2015.
13. Huskie Stadium – Replace Water Main for West Stadium
$143,000
Source of Funding:
Appropriated Funds
Authorization Date:
June 2014
Architect/Engineer:
NIU A&E Services
Status: Phase I of the project provided a new water main to the building. Construction
work will resume next spring when weather permits.
14. DeKalb Campus – Huskie Tram – Phase I
$450,000
Source of Funding:
Institutional Local Funds
Authorization Date:
May 2014
Architect/Engineer:
Cordogan Clark - Aurora / NIU A&E Services
Status: Four electric trams are now in service as a part of Phase I. One tram is enclosed
and provides for wheelchair access, three have inclement weather shades. The sidewalk
improvements and terminus area at Holmes Student Center is complete. The contractor is
completing punch list work. Final payments are in process.
15. DeKalb Campus – 2014 Campus Initiatives – Core Lighting
$193,000 (amended)
Source of Funding:
34
November 6, 2014
Authorization Date:
Architect/Engineer:
July 2014 (amended September 2014)
Cordogan Clark - Aurora
Status: The contractor has completed 75% of the lighting work for Founders Library, Swen
Parson and Holmes Student Center. Completion is anticipated late fall 2014.
16. DeKalb Campus – 2014 Campus Initiatives – HSC Transit Plaza
$222,100
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
June 2011 (confirmed July 2014)
Architect/Engineer:
Status: The contractor has completed the transit plaza work on the east side of Holmes
Student Center. Final payments are in process.
17. DeKalb Campus – 2014 Campus Initiatives – Founders Library Sunken Terrace
$230,100 (amended)
Source of Funding:
Appropriated Income Funds
Authorization Date:
July 2014 (amended September 2014)
Architect/Engineer:
Status: The contractor has completed 75% of the work on the clean-up of Founders Library
Sunken Terrace. Completion is anticipated late fall 2014.
18. DeKalb Campus – 2014 Campus Initiatives – Carroll Avenue Upgrade
$103,500
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
July 2014
Architect/Engineer:
Status: The contractor has completed the upgrade to sidewalks and bike path at Carroll
Avenue and is following up with punch list items. Final payments are in process.
19. DeKalb Campus – 2014 Campus Initiatives – Lucinda Avenue Bikeway
$196,800
Source of Funding:
Bond Series 2010 (amended)
Authorization Date:
June 2011 (confirmed July 2014)
Architect/Engineer:
Status: The contractor has completed the upgrade to sidewalks and bike path along Lucinda
Avenue and is following up with punch list items. Final payments are in process.
20. DeKalb Campus – 2014 Campus Initiatives – Davis Hall Terrace
$110,300
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
July 2014
Architect/Engineer:
Status: The contractor has completed the work and is following up with punch list items.
21. DeKalb Campus – 2014 Campus Initiatives – Orientation Path
35
November 6, 2014
Source of Funding:
Authorization Date:
Architect/Engineer:
$163,200
July 2014
Status: The contractor has completed the work and is following up with punch list items.
36
November 6, 2014
Information
Agenda Item 8.b.
November 6, 2014
QUARTERLY SUMMARY REPORT OF TRANSACTION IN EXCESS OF $100,000
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2014 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2014
Purchase
Amount
No. of
Transactions
Appropriated
Non-Appropriated
Total
$100,000
to
$250,000
22
$779,600
$2,604,826
$3,384,426
TRANSACTIONS DETAIL:
Purchases:
1. Information Technology Services – Novell License Agreement – Information Technology
Services requests permission to renew maintenance and support of Novell software
licenses. These licenses include Groupwise (the Enterprise email system), universitywide and departmental file servers, IDM (Identity Manager) which is used to
automatically provision both staff and student computing accounts, ZenWorks which is
used to manage servers and image lab desktops, Cluster Services which are used to
group servers to protect against hardware failures for critical applications such as
Groupwise, Vibe which is a collaboration product and Directory services which are used
to authenticate/logon to enterprise applications such as Blackboard, PeopleSoft and
LDAP. This purchase is exempt from posting on the Illinois Public Higher Education
Procurement Bulletin as it is covered by an MHEC contract. (Novell Contract
Management, Provo, UT )
185,000*
2. Campus Parking Services - Parking Management System - Campus Parking Services
requested permission to issue an order for a new campus parking management system
to replace the custom-built system that has been utilized for the past 15 years. This
purchase was the result of RFP #KMC145373 that opened December 19, 2013. The
intent to award this contract was advertised in the Illinois Public Higher Education
Procurement Bulletin and has been waived by the PPB. (Electronic Data Collection Corp.,
Syracuse, NY)
230,000
3. Northern Public Radio - Programming and Affiliation Fees - Permission was requested to
establish orders for programming and affiliation fees required for the operation of
Northern Public Radio. These orders were advertised as sole sources in the Illinois
Public Higher Education Procurement Bulletin and have been waived by the PPB.
(American Public Media, St. Paul, MN)
100,000
4. Northern Public Radio - Programming and Affiliation Fees- Permission is requested to
establish an open order for programming and affiliation fees required for the operation
of Northern Public Radio. The intent to award this contract as a sole source was
advertised in the Illinois Public Higher Education Procurement Bulletin and was waived
by the PPB. (National Public Radio, Washington, DC)
249,000
37
November 6, 2014
5. NIU Outreach P-20 - Services - The Department of Outreach P-20, Illinois Interactive
Report Card (IIRC), requested permission to subcontract with Collaborative
Communications Group Inc., for work on an Illinois State Board of Education grant titled
“IIRC Design Work”. The vendor will provide services related to the IIRC web site. This
order is exempt from the Illinois Procurement Code because the vendor is named in the
grant. (Collaborative Communications Group Inc., Washington, DC)
129,000
6. Health Services - Radiographic System - Health Services requested permission to
purchase a new radiographic system to replace an old system. The new system will be
easier to navigate for patient ease, less time consuming to operate, and less expensive
to maintain. Pricing is based on a bid opened August 13, 2014. The intent to award this
contract was advertised in the Illinois Public Higher Education Procurement Bulletin and
has been waived by the PPB. (Central Illinois X-Ray, Bloomington, IL)
123,560
7. International Affairs - Travel Services - International Affairs requested permission to
purchase air travel, lodging, land transfers, coach arrangements, sightseeing tours,
meeting rooms, group dinners, optional day trips, travel insurance and cancelation
insurance for a trip to Santiago, Chile, and Lima, Peru. On March 6 – 16, 2015,
approximately 25 students in the Evening MBA Program will participate in this mandatory
trip. Pricing is based on a sealed proposal opened on August 12, 2014. The intent to
award this contract will be advertised in the Illinois Public Higher Education Procurement
Bulletin (Southbridge Access, Newark, DE)
130,000
8. International Affairs - Travel Services - International Affairs requested permission to
purchase air travel, lodging, land transfers, coach arrangements, sightseeing tours,
meeting rooms, group dinners, travel insurance and cancelation insurance for a trip to
Beijing and Shanghai, China. On May 15-25, 2015, approximately 25 students in the
Evening MBA Program will participate in this mandatory trip. Pricing is based on a
sealed proposal opened on August 19, 2014. The intent to award this contract will be
advertised in the Illinois Public Higher Education Procurement Bulletin. (Lukas Marketing,
Wayne, IL)
100,000
9. Office of General Counsel – Legal Services - The Office of General Counsel requested
permission to establish open orders for Fiscal Year 2015 to these vendors for outside
general legal services including police discharge services and legal representation of
senior staff in regards to civil complaints filed 10/16/2012. This order is exempt from
advertising on the Illinois Public Higher Education Procurement Bulletin in accordance
with Section 4.10(d)(7) of the Procurement Code. (Pugh, Jones & Johnson, PC, Chicago,
IL)
220,000
10. Office of General Counsel – Legal Services - The Office of General Counsel requested
permission to establish open orders for Fiscal Year 2015 to these vendors for outside
general legal services including police discharge services and legal representation of
senior staff in regards to civil complaints filed 10/16/2012. This order is exempt from
advertising on the Illinois Public Higher Education Procurement Bulletin in accordance
with Section 4.10(d)(7) of the Procurement Code. (Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, Chicago,
IL)
249,000
38
November 6, 2014
11. Office of the President - Search Services - The Office of the President requested
permission to enter into a contract with this vendor in order to conduct a search for the
position of Vice President of University Advancement. Services include, but are not
limited to, travel expenses, advertising, committee interviews, candidate travel and
miscellaneous office expenses. Approval to hire a search firm for this position was
received from the Board of Trustees on June 19, 2014. This vendor is exempt from the
Illinois Procurement Code because the selected vendor is an IPHEC pre-approved
vendor. (Witt/Kiefer, Oak Brook, IL)
120,000
Capital Improvement Projects:
1. Residence Halls – Fiscal Year 2015 Rotation Painting – There are areas in NIU’s
residence halls that require painting as part of a regular maintenance program to keep
the building and facilities in good condition. Rotation painting will include those areas
that are in the poorest condition. Generally, when areas are clean and aesthetically
pleasing they are less likely to be vandalized and will encourage members of the
university community to take pride in their surroundings. Physical Plant crafts will do the
work. Existing surfaces will be cleaned and properly prepared prior to painting.
Preparation will include the removal of chipping paint as well as patching and sanding.
Where appropriate, masons will be brought in for the repair of wall surfaces.
249,000
2. NIU Naperville – Carpet Replacement in 2nd Floor Office Suite for American Institute for
Research (AIR) - Phase II – Division of Outreach, Engagement and Information
Technologies had requested carpet replacement in the second floor office suite occupied
by American Institute for Research (AIR) at the NIU Naperville facility in the fall of 2013,
which comprised Phase I. AIR has rented this space for 13 years and would like to recarpet the remaining office areas that were not updated during Phase I. Approximately
56% of the lease space will be updated with new carpet. The AIR has agreed to pay for
this improvement.
123,450
3. DeKalb Campus – Security Improvements for Nine Academic Buildings – The University
applied for and received an “Illinois School Security Grant” to improve the security at the
primary entrances of nine (9) academic buildings on the main campus in DeKalb. This
project will use the grant funds received to upgrade and replace existing door locks with
technologically current remote locking devices. When installed, the remote locking
devices will allow the building entrance to be securely locked electronically from a
remote location. The new upgrade will enhance the security of the building during
emergency situations and in day-to-day operations. The work will be completed by a
combination of NIU Media Services, ITS, Physical Plant crafts and outside contractors
under the supervision of an NIU project manager.
211,316
4. DeKalb Campus – 2014 Campus Initiatives – Orientation Route – This small project was
identified while working on several of the President’s initiatives. Updating of several
areas that are used for the campus orientation route would be in keeping with the
President’s goal of improving student retention and recruiting. This project will include
concrete sidewalk replacement, new lighting, landscaping clean-up, selected shrub and
hedge removal, tree trimming and removal, and planting new decorative flowering trees.
Several paving brick areas will be repaired and leveled. The work will be completed by
an outside contractor under the supervision of Cordogan Clark, the consulting project
manager.
163,200*
39
November 6, 2014
5. DeKalb Campus – 2014 Campus Initiatives – Davis Terrace Upgrade – This was one of
several small projects that had been identified and prioritized as a part of the President’s
initiative for “A Campus RE:ENVISIONED” to update campus in pursuit of improving
student retention and recruiting. Davis Terrace is on the east side of Davis Hall that
serves as the west terminus of the classic grass plaza framed by Faraday Hall, Davis
Hall, Lowden Hall and the East Lagoon. This project will include landscaping clean-up,
selected shrub removal, trimming, and new shrubs will be added. The fountains will be
cleaned and repaired, the concrete paving will be repaired and new tables and chairs will
be added to the terrace. The work will be completed by an outside contractor under the
supervision of Cordogan Clark, the consulting project manager.
110,300*
6. DeKalb Campus – 2014 Campus Initiatives – Carroll Avenue Update – This was one of
several small projects that had been identified and prioritized as a part of the President’s
initiative for “A Campus RE:ENVISIONED” to update campus in pursuit of improving
student retention and recruiting. Carroll Avenue is the current “campus transportation
hub” and turnaround for the Huskie Bus Line. The transit hub will be relocated to
Normal Road on the east side of HSC allowing Carroll Ave to become a pedestrian and
bicycle way that will tie Neptune courtyard into the MLK plaza.
Scope of this project:
 New bicycle and pedestrian path
 Identify a “food truck Friday” area
 Repair and update the center island landscaping
The work will be completed by a combination of Physical Plant crafts and outside
contractors under the supervision of Cordogan Clark, the consulting project manager.
103,500
7. DeKalb Campus – 2014 Campus Initiatives – Founders Library Sunken Terrace – This
was one of several small projects that had been identified and prioritized as a part of the
President’s initiative for “A Campus RE:ENVISIONED” to update campus in pursuit of
improving student retention and recruiting. The exterior sunken terrace on the north
side of Founders Library is in disrepair and in need of cleaning, updating and restoration.
This terrace will enhance and become an integral feature of MLK plaza. Scope of this
project:
 Improve ADA Access to the space.
 Improve Drainage
 Replace Paving, Trim trees, Update / Change landscape
The work will be completed by an outside contractor under the supervision of Cordogan
Clark, the consulting project manager.
199,100*
8. DeKalb Campus – 2014 Campus Initiatives – Founders Library Clean Exterior Limestone This was one of several small projects that had been identified and prioritized as a part
of the President’s initiative for “A Campus RE:ENVISIONED” to update campus in pursuit
of improving student retention and recruiting. The exterior limestone wall elements of
the north and east façades will be cleaned of the accumulated dirt and lichen growth and
then sealed. This will enhance new façade lighting that will define MLK commons and
create a great public space. The work will be completed by an outside contractor under
the supervision of an NIU A/E Services project manager.
165,000*
40
November 6, 2014
9. DeKalb Campus – 2014 Campus Initiatives - Core Lighting – This is one of several small
projects that have been identified and prioritized as a part of the President’s initiative for
“A Campus RE:ENVISIONED” to update campus in pursuit of improving student retention
and recruiting. Martin Luther King Plaza serves as a symbolic center of campus; to
create a great public space at night, new lighting will be introduced to illuminate the
facades of Holmes Student Center, Founders Library, and Swen Parson Hall.
Scope of this project:
 provide controlled / diffused lighting to illuminate existing building facades
 define the MLK plaza night‐time boundaries
 create a safe, warm, and welcoming night‐time environment
The work will be completed by a combination of Physical Plant crafts and outside
contractors under the supervision of Cordogan Clark, the consulting project manager.
180,500
10. Amendment - DeKalb Campus – 2014 Campus Initiatives – Founders Library Sunken
Terrace – The President originally approved this project on July 25, 2014 with a budget
of $199,100. Unforeseen conditions discovered during demolition work included hidden
concrete slab and large amounts of unanticipated grout and mortar setting beds for the
original paving bricks, increasing the cost of demolition. The project budget will need to
increase to ensure that the project can be completed and meet the approved scope. The
work will be completed by an outside contractor under the supervision of Cordogan
Clark, the consulting project manager. Original Amount $199,100; Amendment Amount
$31,000
31,000*
11. Amendment – DeKalb Campus – 2014 Campus Initiatives - Core Lighting - The President
originally approved this project on July 25, 2014 with a budget of $180,500. After the
initial approval, the actual pricing for the light fixtures and associated controls from
outside vendors came in higher than estimated. The existing contingency will not be
sufficient to cover the increase in costs. In order to continue and complete the project,
the budget will need to be increased. The work will be completed by a combination of
Physical Plant crafts and outside contractors under the supervision of Cordogan Clark,
the consulting project manager. Original Amount $180,500; Amendment Amount
$12,500
12,500
Total
$3,384,426
*Appropriated Funds
41
November 6, 2014
Information
Agenda Item 8.c.
November 6, 2014
PERIODIC REPORT ON INVESTMENTS
FOR PERIOD JULY 1, 2014 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2014
In accordance with the approved University Investment and Cash Management policy, this report on
investments is submitted at the end of each calendar quarter to the Board of Trustees.
The following schedules are included with this report:


Investment Holdings as of September 30, 2014
Investment Earnings by Investment Type and Duration for the three months ending
September 30, 2014
42
November 6, 2014
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
INVESTMENT HOLDINGS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2014
For Fiscal Year 2015
Bond
Investment
Type
Local Funds:
Treasury
Treasury
Treasury
Treasury
Treasury
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Treasury
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Project Funds:
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Treasury
Treasury
Treasury
Treasury
Treasury
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Federal Agency
Money Markets:
IL Funds-Operations
Amalgamated Bank
Maturity
Date
Maturity
Value
11/15/2014
05/31/2015
07/15/2015
10/15/2015
12/15/2015
01/15/2016
04/29/2016
06/27/2016
07/29/2016
09/21/2016
10/11/2016
11/15/2016
11/21/2016
11/29/2016
12/09/2016
12/19/2016
12/30/2016
01/11/2017
01/30/2017
03/06/2017
04/11/2017
05/16/2017
05/26/2017
06/13/2017
06/19/2017
07/25/2017
08/07/2017
08/21/2017
09/15/2017
10/10/2017
11/28/2017
12/11/2017
12/18/2017
01/30/2018
03/12/2018
04/24/2018
04/30/2018
05/25/2018
06/20/2018
06/26/2018
10/10/2018
11/26/2018
02/19/2019
08/15/2019
04/16/2013
05/31/2013
05/31/2013
09/27/2013
09/25/2013
04/16/2013
04/29/2013
01/31/2014
01/30/2013
03/21/2013
10/11/2012
01/31/2014
11/21/2012
11/30/2012
12/11/2013
09/25/2013
01/09/2014
10/24/2012
02/26/2013
03/13/2013
10/24/2012
05/16/2013
09/26/2014
06/26/2013
12/11/2013
04/25/2013
02/26/2013
11/21/2012
09/15/2014
10/10/2012
05/28/2013
09/12/2014
12/18/2013
01/30/2013
03/13/2013
02/21/2014
05/31/2013
05/30/2013
06/21/2013
09/12/2014
01/10/2014
12/13/2013
02/21/2014
09/27/2013
$
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
1,500,000
2,500,000
1,500,000
1,425,000
2,000,000
3,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
3,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
2,812,500
93,737,500
11/30/2012
10/05/2012
05/16/2013
10/29/2013
05/30/2013
08/22/2013
09/30/2013
09/24/2014
07/30/2014
08/13/2014
09/12/2014
09/12/2014
$
2,000,000
1,500,000
2,500,000
1,500,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
24,500,000
11/19/2014
11/25/2014
12/31/2014
01/31/2015
01/31/2015
02/15/2015
03/31/2015
10/02/2015
10/15/2015
11/02/2015
11/30/2015
01/25/2016
09/30/2014
09/30/2014
TOTAL INVESTMENT HOLDINGS
Purchase
Date
$
$
18,980,220
14,034,131
33,014,351
$
151,251,851
09/30/2014
09/30/2014
43
Book
Value
$
2,000,477
1,999,740
1,999,303
2,497,321
998,258
1,504,626
2,001,317
1,499,729
1,000,154
2,500,000
1,999,744
2,998,928
1,500,000
2,500,000
1,500,000
1,417,416
2,000,000
3,497,727
1,998,452
1,500,000
3,497,420
1,998,688
2,499,378
2,465,918
1,000,000
2,000,000
2,997,592
2,000,000
1,497,781
3,500,000
3,000,000
999,754
2,002,011
2,998,998
1,500,000
1,506,413
1,991,258
3,000,000
1,984,169
1,997,533
2,994,910
2,000,000
2,503,845
2,736,752
93,585,612
$
1,999,994
1,501,087
2,499,711
1,500,456
3,000,352
3,000,538
3,000,313
1,500,458
2,000,619
2,000,981
999,856
1,500,723
24,505,088
$
Market
Value
Equivalent
Rate
0.184%
0.270%
0.294%
0.353%
0.394%
0.410%
0.460%
0.510%
0.540%
0.580%
0.626%
0.642%
0.600%
0.640%
0.679%
0.994%
0.800%
0.669%
0.733%
0.750%
0.730%
0.715%
1.010%
1.330%
1.000%
0.740%
0.878%
0.800%
1.176%
0.900%
0.800%
1.258%
1.218%
1.040%
1.030%
1.376%
1.130%
1.050%
1.470%
1.484%
1.780%
1.700%
1.713%
2.140%
$
2,003,633
2,004,280
2,003,660
2,505,636
1,001,138
1,502,238
2,000,582
1,496,348
998,207
2,485,978
1,996,076
3,004,682
1,490,935
2,489,897
1,493,753
1,419,492
2,000,525
3,477,118
1,991,832
1,491,766
3,474,889
1,979,655
2,499,481
2,474,150
994,953
1,976,093
2,965,305
1,970,458
1,499,190
3,468,308
2,950,270
994,624
1,992,193
2,962,576
1,473,320
1,502,058
1,965,869
2,952,525
1,978,874
2,002,313
3,009,015
1,995,866
2,485,504
2,738,167
93,163,432
0.273%
0.274%
0.170%
0.159%
0.215%
0.202%
0.229%
0.220%
0.200%
0.180%
0.222%
0.303%
$
2,002,560
1,505,572
2,501,290
1,486,665
3,018,380
3,003,358
3,003,021
1,500,476
2,000,851
2,001,344
1,000,116
1,501,175
24,524,808
0.010%
0.010%
$
$
18,980,220
14,034,131
33,014,351
$
18,980,220
14,034,131
33,014,351
$
151,105,051
$
150,702,591
November 6, 2014
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
INVESTMENT EARNINGS BY TYPE AND DURATION
For Fiscal Year 2015
July 1, 2014 - September 30, 2014
Average Daily
Investment
Balance
Percent
of
Portfolio
Income
Earned
Annualized
Rate of
Return
Short-Term Investments
Illinois Funds
$
32,320,769
17.27%
$
1,027
0.013%
Investment Accounts - Financial Institutions
$
25,007,606
13.36%
$
3,271
0.052%
Investment Accounts - Project Funds
$
15,935,998
8.51%
$
456
0.011%
$
73,264,373
39.14%
$
4,754
Short-Term Total
Short-Term Average Yield
0.026%
Intermediate/Long-Term Investments
Local Funds
$
90,991,748
48.62%
$
195,777
0.861%
Project Funds
$
22,914,301
12.24%
$
15,871
0.277%
$ 113,906,049
60.86%
$
211,648
Intermediate/Long-Term Total
Intermediate/Long-Term Yield
COMBINED TOTAL
0.743%
$ 187,170,422
AVERAGE ANNUALIZED RATE OF RETURN
100.00%
$
216,402
0.46%
44
November 6, 2014

board of trustees - Blackboard Learn

Transcription

Similar documents

2015 Aug Prayer Possible

2007-02-28_northerns..

Printable NIU Campus Map - Northern Illinois University

the Guidelines for the registration on

TotalCard - Identification Systems Group

NIU DPT Class of 2017 is hosting a 5k at Jonamac Orchard! • Date

Vital Signs week 2 - Love God

Funding Your Education - California State University, Fullerton

Arizona Western College Northern Arizona University Yuma Branch

Registration Form - Notre Dame High School