3-9 11 13 39 41 43 Page 1 of 293 - CivicWeb

CONFIDENTIAL

BOARD OF GOVERNORS MEETING

Wednesday, April 15, 20091:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.

Boardroom 424, University Centre

AGENDA

Page

Board Meeting InformationBoard Members

Meeting Attendees

1. Welcome and Approval of Agendaa) Approval of the Agenda for April 15, 2009 [Motion]

2. Approval of Minutesa) Approval of the Minutes for January 14, 2009 [Motion]

3. President's Reporta) Status Report on University Activities

b) Faculty Appointments, Tenure and Promotions

4. Pensions Committee Reporta) Report from the Chair

5. Audit Committee Reporta) Report from the Chair

6. Physical Resources & Property Committee Reporta) Report from the Chair

b) Federal and Provincial Programs for Capital Infrastructure Funding [Motion]

7. Finance Committee Report

3-9

11

13

15-30

31-36

37-38

39

41

43

45-58

Page 1 of 293

BOARD OF GOVERNORS MEETING AGENDA

Page

7. Finance Committee Reporta) Integrated Planning Up-date

b) Capital Activities - Clinical Skills Facility for Large Animal Teaching [Motion]

c) Proposed 2009-10 Preliminary University of Guelph MTCU Budget [Motion]

d) Proposed 2009-10 Preliminary University of Guelph- Humber Operating Budget [Motion]

e) Proposed 2009-10 Preliminary University of Guelph OMAFRA Budget [Motion]

f) Proposed 2009-10 Ancillary Budgets [Motions]

g) General Endowment Fund - Review of Policy [Motion]

h) Fundraising Activities

8. Membership and Governance Committee Reporta) Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality - By-law Amendments and Policies [Motion]

b) Governor Appointments - Report on 2009 Elections (Students, Staff, Faculty) [Motions]

9. OTHER BUSINESS

10.Move to Closed Sessiona) Move to Closed Session

59-111

113-117

119-170

171-182

183-199

201-246

247-251

253-256

257-288

289-291

293

Page 2 of 293

BOARD OF GOVERNORS MEMBER LISTING

2008-2009

Pamela Wallin, Chancellor Senior Advisor on Canada-US relations to the President of the Americas Society and Council of the Americas in New York Pamela Wallin, O.C., S.O.M., is the Senior Advisor on Canada-US relations to the President of the Americas Society and the Council of the Americas in New York. In Canada, she serves on several corporate boards, including CTV globemedia, Canada’s premier multimedia company with ownership in CTV and The Globe and Mail; Gluskin Sheff & Associates, an investment and wealth management firm; and Oilsands Quest, an energy development company. Pamela is a member of a special Advisory Board for BMO Harris Bank, a co-Chair of the National Strategy Council for the Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute and a Board member of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research. Pamela was recently named an Officer of the Order of Canada. In 2006, she completed four years as the Consul General of Canada in New York. On March 6, 2007 the University of Guelph Senate elected Pamela Wallin as the 7th Chancellor of the University of Guelph since its founding in 1964.

Evan W. Siddall, Board Chair Chief Financial Officer, Irving Oil Mr. Siddall is a graduate of the University of Guelph (CSS '87), where he was also briefly a member of the 1986 Guelph Gryphons football team, and Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. He is currently Chief Financial Officer for Irving Oil in Saint John, New Brunswick. He was Managing Director with Lazard and head of Lazard's investment banking business in Canada. In addition he was formerly head of Canadian Mergers & Acquisitions with Goldman, Sachs & Co. in New York and an investment banker with BMO Nesbitt Burns in Toronto. Mr. Siddall is active in the Toronto arts community where he is Past President of the Power Plant Contemporary Art Gallery and has chaired the Toronto Arts Council Foundation Awards jury. He is also a member of the Young Presidents' Organization.

Kathy Bardswick President and Chief Executive Officer Kathy began her career with The Co-operators in 1978. Prior to her appointment as President and Chief Executive Officer of The Co-operators Group on March 1, 2002, Kathy served as Chief Operating Officer of The SovereignGeneral and L’Union Canadienne. From 1998-2002, she was in charge of operations for these companies and their subsidiaries under the umbrella of The Co operators Group Limited. A graduate of McMaster University’s M.B.A. program, Kathy also holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics from the University of Manitoba. Kathy is Chairperson of the Institute of Catastrophic Loss Reduction. Equally active in the co-operative sector, Kathy serves as Chair of the International Cooperative and Mutual Insurance Federation and a member of the Credit Union Central of Canada’s CEO committee. Kathy is a board member of Addenda Capital Inc. She is also a member of the executive committee of The Conference Board of Canada, and serves as Vice-Chair of the University of Guelph’s Board of Governors.

Current as of July 20, 2008 Page 1 of 7

Board Members Page 3 of 293


2008-2009

Brian W. Barrington President, Barrington & Associates Mr. Barrington, a Chartered Accountant, was previously Technical Partner, National Accounting Standards Group for Ernst & Young. He chaired the national Board of Directors of the Victorian Order of Nurses (VON) for Canada. Mr. Barrington also chaired the Board of Trustees of the Pension Plan for VON Canada, one of the larger pension plans in Canada. As well, he organized the national charitable foundation for VON Canada, subsequently serving as Chair of its Board. He is President, Barrington & Associates and currently acts as a consultant to the Canadian Accounting Standards Board and provides support to the Board’s Not-for-Profit Advisory Committee.

Tye Burt President and Chief Executive Officer - Kinross Gold Corporation Mr. Burt is also a member of the Kinross Board of Directors. Prior to joining Kinross, Mr. Burt was the Vice-Chairman and Executive Director, Corporate Development at Barrick Gold Corporation. He was responsible for strategic initiatives and acquisitions. Mr. Burt is on the Board of NRX Global Corporation, a network platform provider and portal for the global heavy equipment and parts industry. Mr. Burt is a Member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and received his law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School in 1983 and a B.A. (Honours) from the University of Guelph in 1980. In 1986, Mr. Burt Co-authored the CCH book entitled, “So You Want to Fight? - Shareholder Rights & Remedies in Canada”.

Peter J. Devine President, Devine Securities Inc. Appointed: 2005-2008 (Board) Mr. Devine is an undergraduate of the University of Ottawa; a business graduate of York University (M.B.A); and a C.A. He is a retired Vice-President and Managing Director, RBC Dominion Securities Inc. Mr. Devine is a past Governor of the Board, Bishop Strachan School, and past Chair of the Board of Trustees, The Bishop Strachan School Foundation.

Dick Freeborough, FCA Corporate Director Mr. Freeborough retired as a partner of KPMG late in 2004 after a 40 year career. The main focus of his practice has been financial services and particularly international insurance companies, although he also has considerable experience with heavy industry. He was a member of the board of KPMG and Deputy Chair. Since retiring he has taken board positions with ACE INA Insurance, The Independent Order of Foresters, RGA Life Reinsurance Company of Canada Triad Guaranty Insurance Corporation, Canada and Seniors Money Limited. His other volunteer board is Mississauga Golf and Country Club where he serves as Finance director. He continues as a volunteer at the Oakville Hospital Foundation (Past Chair) and Tafelmusik Baroque Orchestra (past Board President). Mr. Freeborough also provides professional accounting and advisory services on a part time basis. He is a graduate (ICD.D) of the Directors Education Program sponsored by the Institute of Corporate Directors and the Rotman School of Business.




2008-2009

Kevin Golding President, Rothsay (Member of Maple Leaf Foods Inc. Kevin Golding is President of Rothsay and Maple Leaf Agri Farms, two independent operating companies of Maple Leaf Foods Inc. He was appointed President of Rothsay in 2000 and most recently President of Maple Leaf Agri- Farms in November 2005. Rothsay is Canada’s leading independent animal by-products recycling operation. The Company continues to develop new outlets for its products and under Mr. Golding’s guidance, is pursuing innovation in an environmentally-friendly way. One of its most recent innovations has been the conversion of animal and food by-products into biodiesel, an alternative and environmentally sustainable fuel product. Rothsay’s production facility in Ville Ste-Catherine, QC was the first commercial plant in Canada. Mr. Golding’s career with Maple Leaf Foods spans more than 28 years, in a wide variety of functions, including 17 years with Maple Leaf Poultry across Canada. Mr. Golding graduated from McMaster University in Hamilton in 1980 with a Bachelor of Commerce degree. He is Vice Chairman of the National Renderers Association, was a former director of Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council and an alternate director of Chicken Farmers of Canada. Having completed the trainee program at the start of his career, Mr. Golding was the Executive Sponsor of Maple Leaf Foods’ Management Trainee program across the Company from 2001-2006. Kevin and his wife Leigh reside in Guelph as do his three children and 1 grandchild.

Jonathan Guss Chief Executive Officer, Ontario Medical Association

Mr. Guss is a graduate of Harvard University (Economics) and the University of Toronto (law) and is a member of the Bars of New Brunswick and Ontario. Mr. Guss was previously the President and Chief Executive Officer of Credit Union Central of Ontario, the financial services co-operative and trade association for the 200 Ontario credit unions. Prior to joining Central, Jonathan worked for Credit Union Central of Canada. He was also an advisor to the Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and Foreign Service Officer, Department of External Affairs, including two years as a diplomat in the Canadian Embassy in The Hague, Netherlands. Mr. Guss is Chief Executive Officer of the Ontario Medical Association.

Joel Harnest BA, International Development, 4th year Joel Harnest is completing his Bachelor of Arts degree in International Development while attaining a Certificate in Leadership. He is currently the Finance and Human Resources Commissioner at the Central Student Association. In the four years before his current term with the CSA, he was actively involved in residence student government, culminating in his term as Interhall Council President. After receiving his undergraduate degree, Joel hopes to spend some time within Student Affairs/Services at a post-secondary institution before pursuing a career more closely related to his degree - children's education in a developmental context - and would like to settle and work in Latin America.

Ric Jordan Manager, University of Guelph Arboretum Mr. Jordan is a graduate of the University of Guelph. He has held a variety of positions at The Arboretum during his 30 year+ association with the department. Over the years he has been a member of various committees for the United Steel Workers 4120 (previously UGSA) especially dealing with safety issues and most recently sat on their negotiation committee. Now a member of the Professional Staff Association his interests remain in many of the same areas. During the 80’s and 90’s Mr. Jordan was on the College of Social Sciences Alumni Board and then the UofG Alumni Association where he served two terms as president. At present he is the acting chair of the Campus Landscape Advisory Committee.




2008-2009

Karen Kuwahara President, Nestle Purina PetCare Canada Karen Kuwahara is President of Nestle Purina PetCare Canada. She has been with the company for over 26 years, and was appointed President in May 2000 following a successful career in Marketing. She obtained her B.Sc from the University of Guelph and her MBA from York University with a concentration in Marketing. Within Industry, she has held Board positions with the ACA (Association of Canadian Advertisers), PMB (Print Measurement Bureau), and is currently on the Board of Governors of FCPC (Food and Consumer Products of Canada). Karen’s community involvement has included Big Sisters, United Way, and the Modernization of Income Security for Working Adults Task Force. Currently she sits on the Council of Champions for Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada.

Jeff Lozon President and CEO, St. Michael’s Hospital Jeff Lozon is a graduate of the University of Guelph and University of Alberta. Jeff is a Board Member at the University of Guelph and an Associate Professor at the University of Toronto. He holds an Honourary Doctor of Civil Laws from Bishops University. Jeff was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer of St. Michael's Hospital in 1992 and is Vice Chair of the St. Michael's Hospital Foundation. He served as Deputy Minister of Health and Long-Term Care for the Province of Ontario during 1999/2000. Under his leadership, the Hospital is building the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, comprised of the Keenan Research Centre and the Li Ka Shing International Centre in Health Care Education. A North American first, the Knowledge Institute will speed the transfer of research breakthroughs to the patient bedside. Jeff has served on many national boards and advisory panels, notably Canada Health Infoway (as Vice Chair since 2000). In 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed Jeff as the inaugural Chair of the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, a national agency devoted to improving cancer control across Canada.

Rohan Mathai Bachelor of Arts & Sciences, 3rd year Rohan Mathai is completing his final year in the Bachelor of Arts and Science (BAS) program. Throughout his undergraduate career, he has been involved with several extra-curricular activities. Last year, he represented the College of Arts At-Large on the Central Students Association (CSA) Board of Directors. Previous to that, he was an executive member of the Indian Students Association. He has also been involved with CHROMA, the varsity track team, and the University of Guelph orchestra. This year, in addition to sitting on the Board of Governors, he also sits on Senate as the BAS representative and on the CSA Board of Directors as the Board of Governor appointed representative.

Barbara Miller President & CEO, Woodwylde Inc. Barbara Miller is currently the President & CEO of Woodwylde Inc., a consulting firm which works with clients whose business plans require the successful collaboration between the private and public sectors. Previously, Barbara served as Deputy Minister of Ontario’s Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, serving as a champion for innovation and competitiveness in Ontario. Barbara has extensive experience in the business world, and a background in the food industry. In the private sector, she has held senior executive positions with the Campbell Soup Company, Ault Foods and Parmalat, both in Canada and internationally. Ms. Miller holds a Bachelor of Science from the University of Guelph, and an MBA from Queen’s University.




2008-2009

Virginia McLaughlin President, Helmhorst Investments Ltd. Virginia McLaughin currently serves as volunteer trustee on the Boards of the University of Guelph, Bloorview Kids Rehab (where she chairs the Provincial Outreach committee), Wellspring and the National Ballet School. In addition she has recently been appointed Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel of the 25th (Toronto) Field Ambulance. She is the immediate past Chair of the Board of Directors, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and the Governance Leadership Council of the Ontario Hospital Association. She continues to sit on the Sunnybrook Building Committee to chair the Breast Cancer Campaign Cabinet for Sunnybrook. In private life, she is president of Helmhorst Investments Ltd., a family owned company comprising agricultural operations, real estate and a portfolio of market investments.

Graeme Morton Professor, Department of History, University of Guelph Graeme Morton is the inaugural Scottish Studies Foundation Chair, and Director of the Centre for Scottish Studies, at the University of Guelph. Previously he was Senior Lecturer in Economic and Social History at the University of Edinburgh. He specializes in Victorian national identity, nationalism and urban history in Scotland. He is the author of three books: William Wallace: Man & Myth (2004), Unionist-Nationalism (1999), and Locality, Community and Nation (1998). He is the editor of the International Review of Scottish Studies (since 2004) and co-editor of Civil Society, Associations and Urban Places (2006). With Prof K. Inwood (Economics/History), he directs a CFI funded project to create a research database from a digitised sample of the Scottish and Canadian Censuses for 1871.

Pat Shewen Professor, Department of Pathobiology, University of Guelph Dr. Shewen first came to the University of Guelph as an undergraduate student in 1968, eventually completing BSc, DVM, MSc and PhD degrees. She joined the faculty of the Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Immunology in 1982, and has served on many committees at the department, college and university levels. In 1995 and 1996 she served as Assistant Dean Research and Graduate Studies at OVC and was inaugural Chair (1997-2002) of the new Department of Pathobiology. Outside the University, Dr. Shewen has been on the National Research Council of Canada governing council (1997-2003), the governing Boards of the American Association of Veterinary Immunologists, the Conference of Research Workers in Animal Diseases, the Steacie Institute for Molecular Sciences, and the NRC Biotechnology Institutes and the advisory council of Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.

Alan Sullivan Professor, Department of Plant Agriculture Dr. Sullivan is a professor in the Department of Plant Agriculture, OAC. His teaching and research are in the area of plant breeding and genetics. During 1996-1998 he was acting Chair of the former Department of Horticultural Science and was part of the team responsible for creating the new Department of Plant Agriculture. Alan has a long record of service around the Promotion and Tenure process, having served for several terms at the department level, and served a three year term as the College representative at the Departmental meetings. He has been a Senator for several years and spent six years on the Board of Graduate Studies as a member, Vice-Chair and then Chair. Alan has just completed the second year of a two year term as the Chair of Senate Executive Committee. He is currently a member of the Senate Committee on University Planning.




2008-2009

Alastair J.S. Summerlee President and Vice-Chancellor, University of Guelph Dr. Alastair Summerlee is the University of Guelph’s seventh president. President Summerlee, whose career as a scholar, professor, researcher and administrator spans nearly 30 years, joined the University of Guelph faculty in 1988 as a professor in the Department of Biomedical Sciences. He was named an associate dean of the Ontario Veterinary College in 1992, dean of graduate studies in 1995, associate vice-president (academic) in 1999, provost and vice-president (academic) in 2000, and president in 2003. He has continued teaching while holding administrative positions and was awarded a prestigious 3M Teaching Fellowship in June 2003 for outstanding leadership in teaching, education and academic program development. His research in biomedical sciences is acclaimed internationally and he has attracted significant funding to support his research, published extensively and been an invited lecturer at universities and colleges around the world. He holds a B.Sc., B.V.Sc., Ph.D. and LLD, from the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom and is a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

Bill Teesdale IT Support, Department of Physics, University of Guelph Mr. Teesdale is a graduate of the University of Guelph. He has been a member of the Department of Physics for over 25 years in various capacities. Currently, Bill is responsible for a variety of computer administrative duties involving UNIX and Windows servers, departmental web page management and workstation support. He also serves as Manager of the Guelph Scanning Proton Microprobe facility. Bill is a member of various bodies within the University structure, including our departmental Joint Health and Safety Committee, executive member of USW Local 4120, the Human Rights Advisory Group and a member of Senate.

Honourable Lyle Vanclief, P.C., P.Ag., FAIC, ICD.D Agricultural and Agri-Food Consulting Appointed: 2005-2008 (Board/Alumni) Honourable Lyle Vanclief is a graduate of the University of Guelph. He was a Member of the Parliament of Canada from 1988-2004, serving as the Federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food from 1997-2003. He is a Distinguished member of the Ontario Institute of Agrologists and a Fellow of the Agricultural Institute of Canada. Currently a consultant in the agriculture and agri-food sector, he is also acting as a Senior Counsel for Hill & Knowlton, a public affairs and public relations firm and serving as a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy in Washington, DC. Mr. Vanclief is also Ambassador for the Ontario 4-H Foundation.

Trish Walker THE Consulting, President As a consultant, Patricia Walker, of Moffat, conducts consumer research within the consumer and packaged goods industry and provides higher education planning advice to the secondary school market. Prior to being a consultant, Ms. Walker was Vice President of Marketing and Sales with WorkNet Inc., Director of Operations with the Canadian Living Foundation's Breakfast for Learning and Director of Alumni Affairs at the University of Guelph. Her community involvement includes serving as Past President of the University of Guelph Alumni Association, and former member of the Guelph Community Foundation Marketing Committee and past Chair of the University of Guelph United Way campaign. She holds a Masters of Science in Consumer Behaviour and a Bachelor of Arts in Geography from the University of Guelph.




2008-2009


Joel Wood PhD Economics, 3rd year Joel Wood is a graduate student pursuing a PhD in Economics at the University of Guelph. He received a MA in Economics at the University of Guelph in 2005, finishing with the highest CGPA in his departmental MA class. He received a BA, majoring in Economics, at the University of British Columbia in 2003. His graduate research is focused on investigating the economic aspects of climate change and climate change policies. Joel has been involved in student government since the start of his doctoral studies in 2005. He has represented his department on the Graduate Students' Association (GSA) Board of Directors since 2005, and is currently the V.P. Finance of the GSA. He has also represented the College of Management and Economics on the University Senate over two Senate terms (2006-2008). On Senate he sat on the Board of Graduate Studies and the Senate Executive Committee. He also was a member of the chancellor selection committee that selected Pamela Wallin as chancellor of the University of Guelph. Joel's interests include traveling, rugby, baseball, reading, hiking, and fly-fishing.


Page 10 of 293

BOARD OF GOVERNORS MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 2009

1:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. Room 102, Rozanski Hall

LIST OF MEETING ATTENDEES

To Attend Administrative Support Brian Barrington Lori Bona-Hunt,Assoc.Director, News Service Tye Burt Bob Carter, AVP Physical Resources Peter Devine Pat Case, Director, Human Rights & Equity Dick Freeborough Mary Childs, Legal Counsel Kevin Golding Serge Desmarais, Associate VP Academic Joel Harnest Genevieve Gundy, Secretariat Officer Karen Kuwahara Kevin Hall, VP Research Jeff Lozon (teleconference) Martha Harley, AVP Human Resources Rohan Mathai Kerry Lissemore, Assoc. Dean, Academic Affairs Virginia McLaughlin Claude Macorin, Managing Director, Investments Barb Miller Maureen Mancuso, Provost & VP (Academic) Graeme Morton Bill McNaughton, Director, University Centre Pat Shewan John Miles, AVP Finance Al Sullivan Rich Moccia, Interim AVPR (AgriFood & Partnership Program) Alastair Summerlee (President) Sandra Nervo, Manager, Audit Services Bill Teesdale Kate Revington, Associate University Secretary Lyle Vanclief Joanne Shoveller, VP (Alumni Affairs & Development) Trish Walker Nancy Sullivan, VP (Finance & Administration) Joel Wood John Walsh, Vice-Provost (Guelph-Humber) Vicki Hodgkinson (University Secretary) Brenda Whiteside, Assoc. VP (Student Affairs) Regrets Guests Kathy Bardswick Nathan Lachowsky, Undergraduate Student Jonathan Guss Gavin Armstrong, Undergraduate Student Evan Siddall (Chair) Aaron Massecar, Graduate Student Ric Jordan Christi Garneau Scott, CSA Academic Commissioner Pamela Wallin (Chancellor)

Meeting Attendees Page 11 of 293

Page 12 of 293

UNIVERSITY SECRETARIAT TO: Members, Board of Governors FROM: Vicki Hodgkinson, University Secretary SUBJECT: 1. Welcome and Approval of Agenda

MEETING: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, that the agenda be approved. N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09 April 15 Meeting Item 1 cover memo.doc

Approval of the Agenda for April 15, 2009 [Motion] Page 13 of 293

Page 14 of 293

UNIVERSITY SECRETARIAT TO: Members, Board of Governors FROM: Vicki Hodgkinson, University Secretary SUBJECT: 2. Approval of the Minutes

MEETING: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 a) Approval of the Minutes for January 14, 2009 The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, that the minutes of the January 14, 2009 meeting be approved. b) Business Arising All matters of business arising are addressed elsewhere in the meeting agenda. N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 2 cover memo.doc

Approval of the Minutes for January 14, 2009 [Motion] Page 15 of 293

Page 16 of 293

BOARD OF GOVERNORS MEETING Minutes of the 1:30 Meeting Held

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2009 Boardroom 424, University Centre

LIST OF MEETING ATTENDEES

To Attend Administrative Support Pamela Wallin (Chancellor) Bob Carter, AVP Physical Resources Evan Siddall(Chair)(teleconference) Pat Case, Director, Human Rights & Equity Kathy Bardswick Mary Childs, Legal Counsel Brian Barrington Chuck Cunningham, Director, Communications & Public Affairs Tye Burt Serge Desmarais, Associate VP Academic Peter Devine Genevieve Gundy, Secretariat Officer Dick Freeborough (teleconference) Kevin Hall, VP Research Kevin Golding Martha Harley, AVP Human Resources Jonathan Guss Claude Macorin, Managing Director, Investments Ric Jordan John Miles, AVP Finance Karen Kuwahara (teleconference) Sandra Nervo, Manager, Audit Services Rohan Mathai Kate Revington, Associate University Secretary Virginia McLaughlin Joanne Shoveller, VP (Alumni Affairs & Development) Barb Miller Elizabeth Stone, Dean, OVC Graeme Morton Nancy Sullivan, VP (Finance & Administration) Pat Shewan Rob Vanderspek, Director, Design, Engineering & Construction Al Sullivan John Walsh, Vice-Provost (Guelph-Humber) Alastair Summerlee (President) Bill Teesdale Guests Lyle Vanclief Christi Garneau-Scott, Academic Commissioner, CSA Trish Walker Nathan Lachowsky, Co-Chair, Student Senate Caucus Joel Wood Paul Lametti, Project Manager Vicki Hodgkinson (University Secretary) Robin-Lee Norris, (Board of Trustees) Regrets Joel Harnest Jeff Lozon


CONFIDENTIAL

BOARD OF GOVERNORS MEETING

Minutes of the 1:30 p.m. meeting heldWednesday, January 14, 2009

University Centre, Boardroom 424

1. Welcome and Approval of AgendaMr. Burt explained that, in light of the unexpected necessity for Mr. Siddall to participate in the meeting by telephone, he has been asked to chair the meeting.

a) Approval of the Agenda for January 14, 2009

On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the agenda for the January 14, 2009 meeting be approved.

2. Approval of Minutes

a) Approval of the Minutes for October 2, 2008A typographical error was identified for correction on page 19 of the meeting package

On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, That the minutes for the October 2, 2008 meeting be approved.

3. President's Report

a) Status Report on University ActivitiesDr. Summerlee was joined by other Governors in offering congratulations to Chancellor Wallin on her recent appointment to the Senate by the Prime Minister.

The new Vice-President (Research) for the University, Dr. Kevin Hall, was introduced.

Dr. Summerlee reported on recent developments at the University including a commitment from the federal government to provide $25 million in support for the University’s Institute on Biodiversity and the January 13th event providing retired Canadian general and chief of defence staff Rick Hillier with the Lincoln Alexander Outstanding Leader Award from the University of Guelph's College of Management and Economics (CME). Reference was also made to the most recent full-page advertisement in the Globe and Mail which appeared on December 31, 2008 as part of a continuing program of activity to maintain and enhance the public reputation of the University.

Page 1 of 13


CONFIDENTIAL

Referencing information circulated at the meeting about the February 2009 convocations, Dr. Summerlee welcomed Governors to consider attendance and participation in the procession.

Turning to an up-date on planning activities, Dr. Summerlee observed that the current and prevailing financial environment means significant discussions are continuing about changes to the University; resulting in an environment that will not be ‘business as usual’ for the next while. He reviewed the three main areas of challenge currently before the University: University endowments, pension plans and the structural deficit. Governors were advised that the senior academic and administrative leaders of the University are identifying opportunities for change in the University’s activities and organizational structures to deal with these challenges. Dr. Summerlee noted that the University of Guelph’s challenges are shared by other Ontario universities but Guelph is in a better position in many ways than other institutions due to the advanced stage of the institutional planning processes. He explained that the planning work that has been done across the institution allows the University to focus on changes that will allow realignment of resources, while protecting areas of strength and distinctiveness.

Dr. Summerlee highlighted the importance of communications as part of the change process. He identified the measures being used to keep the chairs of Board Committees informed and the communications that have been issued to Governors between Board meetings. The President referenced communications within the University community including the budget web page and video-cast by Dr. Summerlee, At Guelph articles and town hall meetings (including one held on January 13, 2009).

Governors were also up-dated on government advocacy at the federal and provincial level, particularly initiatives regarding pension issues and infrastructure funding. Dr. Summerlee reported on the advocacy support provided through the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) and the Council of Ontario Universities (COU). Reference was made to the COU’s pre-budget submission to the provincial government which was provided for information in the Board meeting package.

The President also reported on the progress that had been achieved between the University administration and the University of Guelph Faculty Association (UGFA) around language for the collective agreement pertaining to intellectual property issues. Governors were informed that tentative agreement had been achieved between the parties on provisions for inclusion in the collective agreement, without need of mediated arbitration. On January 13th, UGFA had advised that the proposed language had been ratified by its members. Dr. Summerlee advised that a recommendation will be presented to the Negotiations and Compensation Committee for ratification in the near future.

The President also provided Governors with an up-date on fundraising activity as of December 31, 2008. Dr. Summerlee noted that the University had welcomed Ms Kathy Hay in October as the new Associate Vice-President (Advancement) and that her contributions were already showing a positive

Page 2 of 13


CONFIDENTIAL

impact. He provided a brief overview of fundraising results as of December 31, 2008, observing that results are being affected by the challenging economic conditions. Dr. Summerlee informed the Board that cultivation of prospects continues to proceed very well and that the University is poised to secure gifts once the financial climate improves. He also referenced the focus being given by Alumni Affairs and Development to the development of the legacy gift opportunities. Governors were directed to the fundraising report to be provided as part of the Finance Committee report later in the meeting, and assured that regular up-dates would continue to be provided.

Questions of clarification followed allowing Dr. Summerlee to elaborate on the COU position with regard to provincial funding proposals for infrastructure funding and operating support, planned communications with government and within the University community, and the impact of the intellectual property provisions with UGFA for graduate students. Governors expressed thanks to the President for the communications sent to Governors and Trustees in December to keep them informed of developments pertaining to the University’s current challenges with endowments, pension funds and the structural deficit.

Mr. Siddall and Chancellor Wallin provided up-dates on the provincial advocacy activities of Board Chairs and Chancellors. Dr. Wallin noted the recent TVO program involving Chancellors discussing topical issues affecting Ontario universities and the upcoming presentation by Chancellors at the Canadian Club in February. She credited the President of COU, Paul Genest, for designing an advocacy approach that allowed Chancellors, Board Chairs and Executive Heads to each contribute to advocacy without duplication of effort and with due regard to the roles of each group. Mr. Siddall also observed the ongoing role of Board Chairs in government advocacy and referenced plans to take an even more active and high profile role in the coming year. He also advised Governors that he had been asked to serve as Vice-Chair of the Ontario Council of University Chairs and has agreed to take up this responsibility for 2009-10.

b) Code of Conduct ReportReferencing the background information and report provided in the meeting package, Dr. Summerlee observed that while the aims and objectives of the Code of Conduct are laudable in terms of trying to make sure that the products the University is selling come from places where workers are not disadvantaged, the process of verifying the suitability of products under the Code is proving to be very challenging. Despite the challenges, he remarked that the University should feel proud it is taking this matter seriously and will continue to do so.

In response to questions, clarification was provided on whether instances of non-compliance or issues of ethics have emerged in the application of the Code. Ms Sullivan advised that no letters had been issued to producers to raise questions or concerns but that it has been difficult, at times, to pursue concerns fully due to the limits on monitoring suppliers.

Page 3 of 13


CONFIDENTIAL

4. Audit Committee Report

a) Report from the ChairMr. Barrington reported on the matters reviewed by the Audit Committee at its meeting on December 2, 2008 including up-dates on Enterprise Risk Management, legal activities, campus community policing, and University emergency planning. Governors were also informed of the report provided by Ms Shoveller and Ms Hay concerning the risk management aspects of University fundraising, in keeping with the recently approved amendments to the Audit Committee’s terms of reference. Mr. Barrington advised that no issues arose from the meeting which the Committee wishes to report to the Board.

In response to a Governor’s question, Mr. Barrington overviewed the potential implications for the University should the not-for-profit sector agencies be required to apply International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). It was observed that compliance with IFRS would require a major change in financial reporting for the University if it is required in future.

5. Physical Resources & Property Committee Report

a) Report from the ChairMr. Vanclief expressed thanks to the President for his assistance in chairing the last Physical Resources and Property Committee (PRPC) meeting. Governors received a report on the items addressed by the PRPC at its meeting on November 17th including an up-date on the status of major capital projects as well as 2008-09 campus renewal activities, proposals for 2009-10 capital activities under the 10-year campus renewal and utilities capacity plan and the 5-year student housing plan, and the proposed design for the Primary Health Care Centre.

Mr. Vanclief noted that PRPC was satisfied with the up-dates provided concerning capital projects in progress. He also reported that the 2009-10 capital project activity proposals are recommended by PRPC for approval by the Board subject to review by the Finance Committee. He observed that a related motion would be presented later in the meeting as part of the Finance Committee report. Mr. Vanclief highlighted the fact that some projects originally scheduled for 2009-10 have been deferred to future years in light of the need for constraints required by the University’s current financial challenges. He advised that project priorities had been established using various factors including unforeseen events (e.g. breakdowns), risk assessment derived from facility condition audits, and restrictions on available government funding.

With regard to the Primary Health Care Centre, Mr. Vanclief referenced the background information provided in the meeting package describing earlier Board approval of the project and also noted the visual display material provided in the meeting room for the information of Governors.

Mr. Vanclief observed that Governors’ inquiries at previous meetings concerning student residence security had been pursued by the PRPC and, as indicated in the meeting materials, Student Housing Services is preparing

Page 4 of 13


CONFIDENTIAL

a detailed costing report on Perimeter Access and Security of residence facilities and it is anticipated that the first phase of the project will begin in 2009/10.

Questions were invited. Clarification was sought on the use of contingency budgets provided for the reported projects. It was observed that while a contingency provision of 10% of project costs is budgeted, it is not clear what the actual experience is in relation to this budgeted amount. Ms. Sullivan agreed to report back to the Board through PRPC and Finance Committee with information on the experience with contingency lines over the past 4 to 5 years in response to the inquiry. She observed that every year the University has unanticipated events, exemplified by a ruptured chilled water line in recent days, and contingency resources provide an important financial buffer to respond to these situations.

Clarification was also sought on budgeting assumptions for planning; it was observed that the percentages used for planning campus renewal under the 10-year plan for campus renewal are different from those used for student housing projects. Ms Sullivan and Mr. Carter observed some of the factors affecting the difference in planning assumptions. It was agreed that the assumptions would be reviewed and a report provided to PRPC on the rationale for differences.

With regard to the Primary Health Care facility, it was noted that the project was described in meeting materials as a dedicated teaching facility and clarification was sought about whether activity in the building would make any contribution to University research. Dean Elizabeth Stone provided Governors with additional information about the contribution the facility would make in providing Ontario Veterinary College (OVC) students with experience in general practice and primary care making the activity in the building critical to the teaching and learning experience. She added that this activity would be the basis for OVC research on ways to assess and improve clinical studies and the development of best practices in primary care, an area not researched at any other veterinary school in the country. From this perspective, the facility would contribute to research activities as well as teaching.

6. Finance Committee Report

a) Report from the ChairMs Bardswick reviewed the matters considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting of November 19th. Governors were advised that the Committee continues to give diligent attention to key standing items including government advocacy up-dates, implementation of the annual budget plans, up-dates on the investment climate and its impact for the University, and progress with the University’s multi-year plan to address the structural deficit. She assured Governors that the attention given to investment issues does not replicate work done at the Pensions Committee or the Investment Management Committee and focuses on how the market conditions are affecting the University’s ability to finance initiatives supported through endowments and or fundraising activities.

Page 5 of 13


CONFIDENTIAL

b) 2008-09 Semester Results and Budget Update: University of Guelph-HumberDr. Walsh referenced the material in the meeting package providing semester results and budget up-date for the University of Guelph-Humber as of September 30, 2008 He offered a brief up-date on implementation of the 2008-09 budget plan, advising that no cost over-runs or major changes to expense or revenue areas are currently anticipated and that, consequently, Guelph-Humber expects to fulfill its overall budget objectives by year-end. Dr. Walsh indicated that meetings are underway to prepare the 2009-10 budget proposal. He also reported that information on enrolment applications to the University of Guelph-Humber for September 2009 indicates that demand is in excess of what is needed to meet enrolment objectives for the coming year.

Ms Bardswick advised that the Finance Committee was happy with the continuing good news from Guelph-Humber and pleased that up-dates indicate that the budget plan is being executed as hoped.

c) 2008-09 Semester Results and Budget Update: University of GuelphMr. Miles provided Governors with an overview of the University of Guelph semester report as of August 31, 2008. He noted that semester reports are prepared three times during the academic year to indicate progress on the University’s MTCU, OMAFRA and ancillaries budgets and that the current report reflects activity over a relatively quiet period in the academic year. His presentation focused largely on the University’s MTCU budget activity.

Governors were advised that the preliminary 2008-09 budget approved by the Board in June 2008 has experienced no changes apart from incorporating the approximately $25 million in carry-forwards from the prior year (see footnote on page 76 of meeting package). Mr. Miles observed that these carry forward funds provided useful flexibility to individual units to manage the changes required to meet the University’s objectives for budget reductions or revenue increases as part of the multi-year plan to eliminate the structural deficit.

Governors were also advised that while the voluntary early retirement/resignation program for staff has closed (see footnote on page 77 of the meeting package), to-date, no expenses have been booked against the Board approved restructuring cost of $20 million. Up-dates will be presented to the Finance Committee at its next meeting.

Overall, Governors were advised that there are no significant issues with regard to the various budgets in the semester report and that the University continues to remain on track with all of its operating budgets. Some questions remain with regard to aspects of MTCU operating grants but indications to date have not given cause to revisit these revenue assumptions.

Discussion followed. Clarification was provided with regard to reported variances and Governors were advised that those reported are typical for August (e.g. scholarships and bursaries) and that salary variances will be addressed by the University’s current hiring freeze. It was confirmed that

Page 6 of 13


CONFIDENTIAL

disposition of contingency funds is tracked and reported to the Board as part of year-end budget information. It was also confirmed that the $20 million authorized for expenditure in regard of restructuring will not be spent in 2008-09 unless necessary but will be carried forward to respond to restructuring costs in future years.

d) Up-date on Multi-Year Plan to Address the Structural DeficitPresident Summerlee reviewed the key features of multi-year plan to address the University’s structural deficit and advised that the Finance Committee continues to receive up-dates at each of its meetings. Governors were advised that the University will retain the overall approach and timeframes for eliminating the structural deficit despite learning this fall that the provincial grants will be flatlined for at least the next two years. This new information about operating support from the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities will require the University to increase the planned reductions from 5% to 7.5% in 2009-10 and 2010-11. This adjustment will allow the overall approach to eliminate the structural deficit by the end of 2011-12 to proceed as planned.

Governors were informed of the various measures being taken to implement the multi-year plan including a hiring freeze, suspension of any new building in instances where the University does not have money in hand to proceed, and operating expense reductions. Dr. Summerlee reported on the ongoing discussions involving deans to determine how to remove costs from the institution while rebalancing academic activity and preserving those things which are key to institutional strengths and distinctiveness. He advised that careful consideration was being given to academic program changes in light of information showing 80% of the University’s undergraduate students are in 20% of program offerings. Options to enhance the learning experience through different approaches to credit weighting and program delivery options were being pursued. Courses and programs with very low enrolment will be examined carefully to assess whether they can continue to be supported.

The President reiterated the factors indicating that the University of Guelph is in a better position than many other Ontario universities in addressing the challenges confronting the entire sector. The investments made over the past number of years in planning activities directed to research themes and priorities, institutional branding, campaign preparation, capital planning and integrated planning allow the University to avoid the use of across-the-board cuts and proceed strategically.

Ms Bardswick noted that the Finance Committee has decided to meet more frequently in light of the challenges before the University and will meet next on February 6th. Dr. Summerlee indicated that the University administration would be presenting its plan for next steps for effecting changes to institutional structures and practices at this meeting. He reviewed the planning stages which are to be completed over the next several months including the completion of decisions around academic programs, the implications for organizational structures, enrolment management and staffing, and the complementary communications with internal and external stakeholders.

Page 7 of 13


CONFIDENTIAL

Discussion followed. Governors sought clarification on the attention given to graduate education in plans for academic restructuring and advised that adjustments in response to activity levels in undergraduate activity should anticipate the impact on strengths and distinctiveness offered through the University’s graduate programs. Dr. Summerlee advised that while analysis on graduate education was not complete, the University will consider implications for both undergraduate and graduate education arising from change initiatives.

In response to a question concerning inter-institutional communications and/or planning about program reductions and closures, the President indicated that there were communications among presidents, especially those with similar programs and activities. Co-operative planning was limited, however, as a result of the need for relatively prompt decisions and the advanced state of academic planning at the University of Guelph relative to other universities. He observed that most other institutions that have announced measures to address the current financial challenges are proceeding with across-the-board cuts.

Dr. Summerlee also elaborated on the factors affecting course and program offerings indicating that the University has, in the past, marketed its wide range of program and course offerings by emphasizing its ability to be flexible and responsive to student interest. The funding challenges before the University will necessarily reduce the ability to offer the current degree of flexibility and responsiveness. He observed that the University currently has approximately 850 ways to graduate and contrasted this to program structures in the United States which normally offer about 4 ways to graduate. He also commented on the impact changes will have for the University’s overall faculty-student ratio and, while it will deteriorate somewhat, is expected to remain above the average for Ontario universities.

Dr. Summerlee confirmed that changes are being linked on a continuing basis to the financial targets that need to be achieved at each stage of the multi-year plan to address the structural deficit.

e) Fundraising Up-date as of October 31, 2008Ms Shoveller reviewed the information in prepared for the November of the Finance Committee, provided in the meeting package, and briefly elaborated on the ongoing activities to maintain fundraising potential even in challenging economic times. She advised Governors that while the current economic conditions are creating significant challenges to achievement of 2008-09 major gift fundraising targets, excellent discussions are continuing with existing and potential donors. The overall tenor of these discussions is very encouraging and indicative of a loyal and engaged donor support base for the University. Alumni Affairs and Development staff are persisting in ongoing communications with prospects and are retaining the focus and positive outlook reflected in the institution’s overall fundraising strategy. Governors were informed that the University is staying the course, waiting for a return of confidence in the markets, and is poised to take action at the appropriate time to bring gift prospects to fruition in support of the University.

Page 8 of 13


CONFIDENTIAL

Ms Shoveller indicated that the Finance Committee will continue to receive regular up-dates on fundraising as part of its recently amended terms of reference.

f) 2009-10 Up-date of 5-Year Capital Renewal Financing Plan Mr. Miles provided Governors with an overview of the proposed up-date of the 5-Year plan provided in the meeting materials confirming that it reflects financial requirements necessary to proceed with the projects endorsed by PRPC for implementation beginning in 2009-10. The overview included a review of the funding available through provincial support, operating budget contributions and borrowing requirements in 2009-10. It was noted that the overall approach reflects the need for constraint in light of the financial challenges before the University. Governors were also assured that the University will only borrow as building activity for approved capital projects necessitates and only if no other funding sources are available. Mr. Miles also described the process that will be used to tender for loans with major banks and the conditions that currently prevail relative to the cost of borrowing.

Discussion followed with questions asked and answered to the satisfaction of Governors in regard to the University’s current credit rating status and outlook. Clarification was provided about the prospect of new government funding for infrastructure and its potential to reduce borrowing for student housing projects. Governors were informed that the provincial government does not provided grant support for student housing; Student Housing Services will continue to retain a business plan that allows it to cover borrowing costs for renewal of student housing facilities.

On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, That Board of Governors approve the 2009-10 Five-Year CapitalRenewal Financing Plan, dated November 19, 2008, including authority for the University Administration to:a) proceed with the projects incorporated in the Plan; andb) borrow up to $7.790 million in fiscal 2009-10 for the purposes specified in the Financing Plan.

7. Pensions Committee Report

a) Report from the ChairReferencing the materials supplied in the meeting package, Governors received a report from Mr. Freeborough on the matters addressed by the Pensions Committee at its meeting on November 28, 2008. He noted that the Pensions Committee is being kept informed of the progress with a review of custodial services initiated by the University administration and will continue to be engaged in discussion of the outcomes of the review as the process progresses.

b) Investment Management Committee UpdateMr. Freeborough advised Governors that the Pensions Committee had initially hoped to have the Chair of the Investment Management Committee (IMC) attend its last meeting with the goal of strengthening the liaison between

Page 9 of 13


CONFIDENTIAL

the two Committees. (He reminded Governors that IMC serves as a sub-committee to the Pensions Committee in regards to oversight of the investment of pensions assets.) Unfortunately, the Chair of IMC was unable to attend at that time and, consequently, Ms Sullivan prepared the report about recent IMC activities and approaches to pension investment which is provided in the meeting package for the information of all members of the Board.

Discussion followed with questions of clarification about the investment approach being used by the IMC. Governors expressed some concern and sought assurance that the IMC was actively considering whether its current strategy was suitable and whether conventional methods and approaches are suited to unconventional times.

In response to questions, Ms Sullivan confirmed that the IMC is not planning to make any significant change in overall investment strategy at this time but continues to monitor the situation closely. She assured Governors that the IMC reviews its strategy at every single meeting and has held special sessions to probe that matter specifically. She observed that as of the end of November 2008, pension assets had fallen in value by 16.69%, year-over-year as compared to -20% for the benchmark. Ms Sullivan observed that neither of these returns are desirable but, given overall market conditions, the IMC’s approach has allowed the University’s pensions assets to outperform the benchmark over the past year.

Ms Sullivan also reported that her peers across Ontario universities had been very active in assembling information about the impact of markets on university pension assets and that a representative group was scheduled to meet with representatives of the Ministry of Finance in the near future to contribute to the overall advocacy effort. Ms Sullivan observed that the Ministry representatives seemed very attentive to the potential implications for universities of their current challenges arising from obligations for funding pension plans.

Clarification was sought about whether the University could “immunize” its pension portfolio from exposure the risks of market volatility using specialized techniques and Governors were advised that while this approach had been considered at different times it was not a viable approach to apply to the University’s plans at this time. It was observed that the approach requires the plan sponsor to accept relatively low returns on pension assets and, in these economic conditions, even an “immunized plan” cannot avoid exposure to market conditions.

Information was requested concerning the quantitative information used by IMC to identify and assess risk relative to decisions about portfolio management for pension assets. It was agreed that this information should be made available to interested Governors and incorporated in the reporting provided for the Board in future.

Page 10 of 13


CONFIDENTIAL

c) Update on Provincial Government Review of Pension LegislationMr. Freeborough referenced the past discussions at the Board about the University’s pension contribution challenges and the up-dates provided to Governors by the President in recent weeks. The ongoing review of provincial pension policies was noted and the prevailing uncertainty about whether and how the province might be prepared to provide measures to relieve Ontario universities from the formidable impact of pension plan wind-up solvency funding provisions on operating budgets. Governors were directed to the detailed information provided in the meeting package concerning the options currently under consideration by the province.

Mr. Freeborough advised that, as part of the ongoing assessment of this very serious situation, the plan actuaries from Towers Perrin provided the Pensions Committee with a presentation on a range of scenarios that may transpire. The information provided by the plan actuaries gave a preliminary assessment of the impact of current market conditions on the University’s future required contributions to the pension plans. The scenarios were developed based on the current regulatory structure; they did not anticipate the potential of any proposed changes announced or under discussion by the provincial government. Mr. Freeborough reported that the information presented to the Pensions Committee indicated that the current annual contributions by the University of approximately $20 million could rise to a minimum of between $68 and $115 annually beginning in 2010. (Governors wishing to have a copy of the detailed materials circulated by the actuaries to the Pensions Committee were invited to contact the University Secretary.)

In light of the gravity of these scenarios, the Pensions Committee has discussed ways in which the pension situation might be ameliorated. Towers Perrin will be preparing additional information and scenarios to reflect the Committee’s discussions for future consideration. Mr. Freeborough observed that most options discussed by the Committee offer relief very gradually and only over an extended period of time. In addition, all options would require some level of cooperation among a number of parties (e.g., employer, employee groups, retirees, government). He added that some would necessitate amendment to current negotiated employee agreements and, therefore, could only be pursued through discussion at the bargaining table. Overall, the Pensions Committee sees the pension issues currently before the University as one of the institution’s key restructuring issues that must be addressed.

The Board will continue to be kept apprised of the situation and will receive recommendations for action from the Pensions Committee in due course.

d) Proposal for Non-Professional PlanMr. Freeborough referenced the materials provided to Governors proposing that the Non-Professional Pension Plan be re-opened. He observed that the Non-Professional plan is relatively small and, in contrast to the other two University plans, has a relatively small surplus. Due to historical factors, the plan is closed and has not accepted new members for a number of years. The intention of the proposal is to reactivate the plan to put more people in it and, in doing so, use up some of surplus and demonstrate to the

Page 11 of 13


CONFIDENTIAL

province that the University is utilizing all possible solutions to reduce its pension-related challenges. At its meeting in November, the Pensions Committee resolved to recommend this direction to the Board. All Plan members in attendance for the vote at the Pensions Committee asked that their objection to the proposal be recorded and reported to the Board.

Governors were advised that since the date of the last Pensions Committee meeting, there are new indications about possible changes to pension regulation by the provincial government that could expand and/or change the context for University-level decisions. In addition, advocacy of the government seeking relief for pension challenges confronting Ontario universities are continuing and there has been some indication that the government may be prepared to offer some sector-specific measures. It has also become evident that the opportunity to take up some of the opportunities emerging from changes to government policy may require consultation with and/or agreement from internal stakeholders such as all plan members and retirees. For example, the province is proposing to allow solvency funding contributions by plan sponsors to be amortized over a 10-year period rather than a 5-year period, contingent on agreement from plan members,and retirees.

Observing that the implications of developments on the public policy front remain unclear, Mr. Freeborough indicated that he and the President think that it would be wise for the Board to defer a decision on this matter until the situation is a little clearer. As a result, Governors were advised that the motion in the meeting package would not be put forward at this time.

No objection was raised to the deferral of this matter and the motion was not put forward.

8. Membership and Governance Committee ReportMr. Guss referenced the material provided in the meeting package concerning proposed by-law amendments pertaining to conflict of interest and confidentiality. He reviewed the recommendation coming forward from the Membership and Governance Committee to move from detailed by-laws in these two areas and, instead, require Board policies to guide Governors on these matters. Governors were advised that the proposal and supporting material is offered at the meeting as a notice of motion for amendment of Board of Governors By-Law No. 1.

A brief discussion followed. Clarification was provided by Ms Hodgkinson giving assurance that the policy document would be just as binding on a Governor’s conduct relative to by-law provisions for both conflict of interest and confidentiality.

Governors were encouraged to provide any detailed comments to Mr. Guss or Ms Hodgkinson so that their feedback could be incorporated in the materials to be presented for decision by the Board at its next meeting.

Page 12 of 13


CONFIDENTIAL

9. Other BusinessIn response to Governor interest in Mr. Hillier’s speech given on the occasion of his receipt of the Lincoln Alexander Outstanding Leadership Award, Dr. Summerlee indicated that an audio recording of the presentation would be made available.

No other new business was brought forward.

10. Move to Closed Session

a) Motions for Closed Session

On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors move into closed session.

AND

RESOLVED, that Kevin Hall, Martha Harley, Claude Macorin, John Miles, Robin Lee Norris, Kate Revington, Joanne Shoveller, Nancy Sullivan, and Genevieve Gundy remain for the closed session of the meeting.

Page 13 of 13


UNIVERSITY SECRETARIAT TO: Members, Board of Governors FROM: Vicki Hodgkinson, University Secretary SUBJECT: 3. President’s Report

MEETING: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 a) Status Report on University Activities The President will provide an up-date report on University activities, including government advocacy. Enclosed for reference is the Fiscal Update issued by the President to the Board of Governors on February 14, 2009. Additional up-date information concerning the budget and planning issues before the University is being posted by the President on web page dedicated to this purpose: http://www.uoguelph.ca/president/budget/. This is also the web page where the President’s regular video-cast up-dates are being posted. b) Faculty Appointments, Tenure and Promotions Enclosed for the Board’s information is a report on Faculty Appointments, Tenure and Promotions from October 2007 to March 2008. N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 3 cover memo.doc

Status Report on University Activities Page 31 of 293

Page 32 of 293

FACING THE FINANCIAL CHALLENGES BRIEFING DOCUMENT BOG

14th February 2009

Update on dealing with the financial situation Part three

CCOONNFFIIDDEENNTTIIAALL This is third update for members of the Board of Governors. It provides further information on the University’s plan to deal with its fiscal challenges. The updated information is based on the continued planning by members of the University’s senior management team, further clarifications from the federal and provincial government, updates on government advocacy around capital, operating and pensions, discussion and decisions at the recent additional meeting of the Board’s Finance Committee and a number of formal and informal meetings across campus. In addition, I thought that it would be helpful to share information gleaned from other Ontario universities about the ways that they are approaching similar fiscal challenges.

As a reminder, the University is facing three major challenges: (1) elimination of the structural deficit; (2) funding the costs of pension liabilities; and (3) responding to challenges on endowment payouts. In addition, we have been advocating for a change in the level of capital funding in the province.

The Structural Deficit The University has a structural deficit of approximately $16 million for 2008/2009 and the Board, in June 2008, approved a four-year plan to eliminate that structural deficit. Over the four-year period, the University committed to eliminating a total of $36 million from the operating budget and restraint targets were differentially applied across the various colleges and administrative units.

In October 2008, as the global economic situation deteriorated, the government announced that grants to universities would be frozen for the next two fiscal years. This added the need for a further $10 million to be eliminated from the operating budget, with a further $5 million to be added to restraint targets in each of 2009/2010 and 2010/2011

With considerable concern that the economic outlook is still not clear, the Board accepted the administration’s recommendation to continue with the four-year plan to eliminate the structural deficit and budget targets for units were adjusted to accommodate the additional $10 million of cuts.

Guided by the priorities and directions expressed in the University’s Integrated Plan, deans and directors have been working on plans to eliminate costs and increase revenues where appropriate. These detailed and specific plans include the elimination of positions through the early retirement and resignation process, expenditure reductions, suspension of new building and renovation projects, and a hiring freeze. In each case, proposals have been weighed against the key objective of preserving quality and programs in areas of strength while more carefully focusing the application of our limited resources. It will be necessary to pass of number of these changes through the governance processes of the University.

Update: all units have submitted initial plans which address their revised budget targets. Overall, considering the fact that the detailed planning started in summer 2008 and had to be recalibrated to include the additional $10 million restraint identified in the fall, the progress across the institution is significant. Sixty percent of the four-year $46 million budget adjustment has been identified and there are three colleges that have been able to identify 100% of their targets at this stage. The provost continues to work with the deans to ensure that the adjustments will be giving particular focus to those colleges/units experiencing the greatest challenges. At its next meeting in April 2009, the Finance Committee will


2

2follow up on all activities designed to meet the University’s overall targets and its adjustments for the University’s 2009/2010 budget. The administration is now developing the budget for 2009/2010. This will include updated assumptions and confirmation of the overall commitment to the multi-year plan to address the structural deficit. The expectation is that the restraint target of 6.8% or $16.2 million in 2009/2010 will be met across the institution. This includes the original plan assumption that tuition revenue would be increased to the maximum within the provincial government framework. The provost will also be ensuring that the proposed tuition rate increases do not disadvantage the University of Guelph in the current competitive market. Since the existing budgetary plans are built on this assumption of maximum increases, any reduction in the increases would require deeper cuts to programs and likely lead to significant deterioration in program quality, disruption of our key Integrated Planning objectives, priorities and outcomes, and a considerable number of involuntary lay-offs.

As indicated in Update II, members of the senior executive team, including deans, have agreed that their salaries and variable pay increases should be suspended for 2009/10 and this recommendation is going forward to the Negotiations and Compensation Committee of the Board in the coming weeks as part of the budget development process.

The proposed magnitude of the current multi-year targets to address the structural deficit is shown below in the table:

Year Percent Dollar impact 2008/09 2.3% $ 5.5 M 2009/10 6.8% $ 16.2 M 20010/11 6.8% $ 16.2 M 2011/12 3.4% $ 8.3 M Total 19.3% $46.2 M

The University of Guelph is not alone. Many of the universities in Ontario are making cuts over the next four years ranging from 5-8% per year. The differences are that (1) Guelph is the only university making differentiated cuts to focus our resources in areas of strength and on areas of greatest demand and (2) Guelph has not applied the cuts equally over the four-year period, but developed an approach through the Integrated Planning process that will allow the changes to be made more effectively across the institution.

There is an internal communication plan in place allowing information about the planning and budgeting process to be shared across the University. In addition to the University budget web page (http://www.uoguelph.ca/president/budget/), information is being provided through College meetings, University townhalls, Rumour Mill meetings and podcasts, and informal meetings with individuals across the University to try to ensure that the changes being proposed are well-understood across the community.


3

3Pension Liabilities As Governors are aware, the University is facing a significant challenge in fulfilling the Board’s obligations as sponsor for the pension plans. The global financial crisis has created an untenable situation shared by about half of Ontario universities, as well as private-sector organizations that have defined-benefit pension plans.

Update: in addition to the proposed legislative change to pensions which the provincial government announced in December, the University sector continues to press the Ministry of Finance to make significant change to the pension funding rules in Ontario. The president and vice-president (Finance and Administration) are both involved in this government advocacy work. At the same time, there is a federal committee of Senators reviewing pension legislation and management at the national level. The president and past members of the Board are assisting with advocacy leading toward a national strategy, too. Endowment Funds Market conditions continue to impact endowment performance and it is certain that there will not be sufficient funds for 2009/2010 to cover all the normally anticipated disbursements from University endowments. This will primarily affect student scholarships and bursaries. While approximately 15% of the scholarships and bursaries funded by the University of Guelph are supported from endowed funds, on the basis of current market conditions, about half of these endowments will not be able to support disbursements this year. The administration will continue to work with Alumni Affairs and Development, donors and the Finance Committee to monitor developments and make sure that information is shared with all appropriate parties.

Update: We are continuing to monitor the return on investment for all University endowments. In addition, the administration will be implementing a reduction in the spending rate (to 3.5% from 4.5%) in 2009/2010 to begin the recovery of our endowment fund and to protect long-term capacity for disbursements. The Finance Committee was provided with a detailed briefing on the situation at its February 6th meeting and agreed to support the recommended approach. It is also recommending changes to the current Board policy on endowment fund management for future years. At this time, it is also very likely that the University will not draw down resources from the endowed funds of Heritage Trust this year. Typically, Heritage Trust resources have been available to assist the University in meeting the costs of strategic initiatives. Capital allocations Last year, the Ministry commissioned a review of capital funding programs for the postsecondary system in the province. The final report of the consultants has been shared with the provincial government. Although the universities are not aware of the details of the report’s recommendations, the consultants have made it clear that they have recommended: (1) a very significant increase in annual funding for routine deferred maintenance; (2) a specific allocation of funds for immediate capital renovation and expansion of facilities over summer 2009; and, (3) a long-term plan for on-going requests for major capital development and expansion.

In keeping with discussions previously at Board, where possible any additional funds for deferred maintenance will be used to reduce or eliminate the capital borrowing identified in the 2009-10 edition of the rolling 5-Year Capital Financing Plan recently approved by the Board. In addition, the University submitted to the Ministry a list of specific projects where upgrade or renovation of facilities could begin immediately. If these funds materialize along with others targeted to support growth in engineering programs, the following projects may be eligible for funding: extensive renovation of teaching facilities; re-development and renovation of Axelrod and the Richards Building; and re-development of the OVC teaching hospitals. Related announcements are expected in the provincial


4

4budget which is likely to be in late March 2009. The Physical Resources and Property Committee will be briefed on all resulting developments for capital initiatives. Concluding Remarks The University continues to take its obligation to deal with the budget challenges seriously while it continues to plan for the future. Recently, the federal government made announcements about additional monies for infrastructure and graduate student support and the provincial government indicated that it will fund additional graduate student places in 2009 and 2010. We are not clear how these funds will be managed but it is clear that our Integrated Plan has prepared us to capitalize on the opportunities. I will continue to make sure that each of the relevant Board standing committees are kept fully apprised of developments and also provide an update at the next regular Board meeting in April.


BOARD OF GOVENORS REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT

Faculty Appointments during the period of September 2008 - March 2009

FACULTY APPOINTMENTS

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, PROBATIONARY APPOINTMENTS NAME DEPARTMENT DATE OF APPOINTMENT Lisa Duizer Food Science January 1, 2009 Sarah J. Adamowicz Biodiversity Institute February 1, 2009 M. Alexander Smith Biodiversity Institute February 1, 2009 Mehrdad Hajibabaei Biodiversity Institute February 1, 2009 Kathryn Harvey Library February 16, 2009 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, APPOINTMENTS James Irving Engineering January 2, 2010 ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, APPOINTMENTS Luis Lehner Physics August 1, 2009 CONTRACTUALLY LIMITED APPOINTMENTS – ASSISTANT PROFESSOR Pavneesh Madan Biomedical Science September 2, 2008 – 1 year Kelly Mitchell Clinical Studies October 1, 2008 – 1 year Martin Williams Department of Physics January 1, 2009 – 3 years Mar Bardagi Department of Clinical Studies April 20, 2009 – 6 months

ADMINISTRATIVE APPOINTMENTS

Art Hill Chair, Food Science April 1, 2009 – 5 years Andy Robinson Chair, Animal & Poultry Science March 1, 2009 - 5 years Alan Ker Chair, Food, Agricultural Resource March 1, 2009 – 5 Years

Economics

ADJUNCT NEW APPOINTMENTS All appointments are for a 3 year term unless otherwise stated

NAME DEPARTMENT DATE OF APPOINTMENT Mark Sears Environmental Biology September 1, 2008 Sean Westerveld Plant Agriculture October 1, 2008 Andrew Brooks Pathobiology October 22, 2008 Dean H. Betts Biomedical Sciences November 1, 2008 Hannah Mathers Plant Agriculture November 1, 2008 Alireza Navabi Plant Agriculture November 1, 2008 Daryl Somers Plant Agriculture November 1, 2008 Judith Strommer Plant Agriculture November 1, 2008 Lily Tamburic Plant Agriculture November 1, 2008 Duane Chung Land Resource Science December 1, 2008 Les Shipp Environmental Biology January 1, 2009 Mhairi Skinner Molecular and Cellular Biology February 1, 2009 Gordon Mitchell Pathobiology February 1, 2009 Jan Dijkstra Animal Poultry Science February 1, 2009

(For Information)

Faculty Appointments, Tenure and Promotions Page 37 of 293

BOARD OF GOVENORS REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT

Faculty Appointments During the Period of September 2008 – March 2009 Robert Berthiaume Animal & Poultry Science February 1, 2009 Katheline Hua Animal & Poultry Science February 1, 2009 Ron Woznow Business March 1, 2009 Beverley Fretz Business March 1, 2009 Angelo Caravaggio Business March 1, 2009 Danny Rinker Plant Agriculture April 1, 2009 Jonathan Newman Philosophy July 1, 2009

ADJUNCT RE-APPOINTMENTS Paul Goodwin Plant Agriculture November 1, 2008 Gord Surgeoner Plant Agriculture November 1, 2008 Graham J. Crawshaw Pathobiology November 1, 2008 Christopher J. Dutton Pathobiology November 1, 2008 R.J. Julian Pathobiology November 1, 2008 Roger Johnson Pathobiology November 1, 2008 Dragon Rogan Pathobiology November 1, 2008 Tony van Dreumel Pathobiology November 1, 2008 Gabriela Mastromonaco Biomedical Sciences November 1, 2008 (5 year) Richard Reid-Smith Pathobiology November 1, 2008 Alfonso Clavijo Pathobiology November 1, 2008 Takashi Gomi School of Engineering November 14, 2008 Otman Basir School of Engineering November 14, 2008 Punidadas Piyasena School of Engineering November 14, 2008 Youbin Zheng Environmental Biology November 1, 2008 Joshua Gong Animal & Poultry Science January 1, 2009 Margaret Quinton Animal & poultry Science January 1, 2009 Lisa Taraba Family Relations & Applied Nutrition January 1, 2009 Andrew Hamilton-Wright Computing & Information Science January 24, 2009 Aru Balachandran School of Engineering January 29, 2009 Hamidreza Salsali School of Engineering February 28, 2009 Colin McKerlie Pathobiology February 1, 2009 Last updated – March 30, 2009

Faculty Appointments, Tenure and Promotions Page 38 of 293

UNIVERSITY SECRETARIAT TO: Members, Board of Governors FROM: Vicki Hodgkinson, University Secretary SUBJECT: 4. Pensions Committee Report

MEETING: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 a) Report from the Chair Mr. Dick Freeborough, Committee Chair, will provide a brief oral report on recent activities of the Pensions Committee. N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 4 cover memo.doc

Report from the Chair Page 39 of 293

Page 40 of 293

UNIVERSITY SECRETARIAT TO: Members, Board of Governors FROM: Vicki Hodgkinson, University Secretary SUBJECT: 5. Audit Committee Report

MEETING: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 a) Report from the Chair Mr. Brian Barrington, Committee Chair, will provide a brief oral report on recent activities of the Audit Committee. N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 5 cover memo.doc


Page 42 of 293

UNIVERSITY SECRETARIAT TO: Members, Board of Governors FROM: Vicki Hodgkinson, University Secretary SUBJECT: 6. Physical Resources and Property Committee Report

MEETING: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 a) Report from the Chair Mr. Lyle Vanclief, Committee Chair, will provide a report on recent activities of the Physical Resources and Property Committee, including discussion by the Committee of the project proposal to be addressed as part of the Finance Committee’s report. N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 6a cover memo.doc


Page 44 of 293

UNIVERSITY SECRETARIAT TO: Members, Board of Governors FROM: Vicki Hodgkinson, University Secretary SUBJECT: 6. Physical Resources and Property Committee Report

MEETING: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 b) Federal and Provincial Programs for Capital Infrastructure Funding Enclosed are materials presented to the Physical Resources and Property Committee (PRPC) at its March 23, 2009 meeting together with a letter sent by President Summerlee to the federal government in connection with the “Knowledge Infrastructure Program.” At its March meeting, PRPC approved a motion, as follows:

RESOLVED, That the Physical Resources and Property Committee approve in principle the projects listed in the submission for funding consideration under the Federal Knowledge Infrastructure Program.

This motion was necessary in light of program eligibility conditions needed for the University’s submission to go forward by the prescribed deadline. All proposals that receive funding support in response to submissions will still be presented for consideration through the Board’s normal capital review and approval processes. The Board of Governors is asked to RESOLVE, That, the Board of Governors endorses the approval in principle provided by the Physical Resources and Property Committee for the projects listed in the University of Guelph submission for funding consideration under the Federal Knowledge and Infrastructure Program. N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 6b cover memo.doc

Federal and Provincial Programs for Capital Infrastructure F... Page 45 of 293

Page 46 of 293







Memorandum FROM THE OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT (FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION)

To: Members of the Physical Resources and Property Committee From: Nancy Sullivan, Vice-President (Finance and Administration) Date: March 17, 2009 Subject: Federal Government’s Knowledge Infrastructure Program (KIP) In early March the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, Mr. Gary Goodyear, and the federal Minister of Industry, Mr. Tony Clement, advised all Canadian universities and colleges of the details of the submission process related to the $2 billion allocated in the 2009 Federal Budget for investment in postsecondary infrastructure in order to stimulate the economy. (See attached letter.) Universities have been advised that the funding will be split into two tranches- half to be awarded in spring 2009 and the other half to be part of a proposal process in fall 2009. It is expected that projects submitted in the fall 2009 process will be subject to a longer timeline for construction completion. The Federal KIP program has set criteria for project selection including: job creation and local economic stimulation, research (linked to the Federal Science and Technology Strategy), improve research and development space, increase energy efficiency, upgrade health and safety of research and development facilities. The Ontario government, unlike some other jurisdictions, has not yet finalized an agreement with the federal government on matching funding for selected projects. At the time of writing, the MTCU had just announced that it will schedule phone calls with each Ontario university the week of March 16th to discuss the provincial approach to supporting projects submitted under the KIP. The University of Guelph’s KIP submissions will be based on the priority projects submitted to MTCU in fall 2008. All requests for funding under the KIP must be submitted by March 30, 2009 and the infrastructure projects funded in the spring 2009 are to be materially complete by March 31, 2011. The Federal Government is committed to fund up to 50% of the project costs for selected projects.


2

PRPC members may recall that in May of 2008, the Provincial Government announced a $180 billion fund for public infrastructure renewal. In the fall of 2008, the University responded to a provincial government request (MTCU) to identify its top 5 priorities for capital investment and the summary of those projects submitted was provided to PRPC at the September 15, 2008 meeting. Subsequently the MTCU hired Courtyard Consultants to develop a capital planning process and advise on the specific proposals submitted. The University understands that the Courtyard report has been submitted but no decisions on the recommendations made have been communicated to the Ontario postsecondary sector. It is hoped that the President and I may be able to provide more detail at the PRPC meeting. Since the fall of 2008, the University has continued its planning on four of the priority projects and updates on that planning have been provided regularly to PRPC. Based on the timeline for completion and the federal criteria for project selection, the University proposes to submit the following four projects for funding in the spring 2009 proposal process under the KIP. The fifth project, an innovative centre for Business and Management Programs would facilitate a partnership between the College of Management and Economics and the College of Arts. This project will be more fully developed following the appointment of the new Dean of the CME. This project and elements of the OVC Health Sciences Centre are expected to be submitted for the fall 2009 proposal call. The total estimated capital cost noted for each of the projects that we plan to submit by March 30, 2009 is that provided in the fall 2008 provincial submission. The University and its consultants are now refining these estimates based on the passage of time, changes in scope of the projects as planning has progressed and an assumption that the release of a large sum of infrastructure dollars may result in inflationary increases in the construction industry. The four projects are: Redevelopment of the Axelrod Building to develop an environmental cluster. Total capital costs estimated at $45 million. Expansion of engineering facilities to create a focus on sustainable

engineering and enable the integration of CIS with the School of Engineering. This entails redevelopment of the Richards Building which will be vacated as a result of the relocation of Land Resource Science to the redeveloped Axelrod Building. Total capital costs estimated at $30 million.

Enhanced learning facilities to complement curricular innovation. Upgrade and renovate classrooms, including relocation of Human Anatomy to provide a safe learning environment for this high demand program which provides


3

education for students at Guelph Humber as well as students on the Guelph campus. Total Capital cost estimated at $22 million

Redevelopment of the OVC facilities many of which date back to the 1950s to create the OVC Health Sciences Centre. This will involve a combination of “new build” and renovation to existing facilities to provide the support the OVC needs to continue to deliver superior education, research, advanced training and innovation needed by the Province of Ontario. The OVC Health Sciences Centre functional program has been presented to both Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities. In light of the two-year window for construction under the KIP, only those elements of the program that can be completed by March 2011 will be submitted. Total capital cost for all phases estimated at $377 million. Cost estimates for those phases that can be completed by March 2011 are being developed.

These four projects are consistent with our capital planning priorities as enunciated in the submission to the Provincial government and based on the planning work that has taken place to date can be materially completed within the very short timeline set by the federal government. As part of the submission process, the federal government requires that the projects receive approval in principle from the University’s governing Board. The administration is seeking approval in principle from the PRPC to submit the projects for consideration under the KIP program. Any decision to proceed on any or all of these projects will be subject to the university’s regular governance approval process. We will return to PRPC and the Finance Committee to seek approval to proceed with any or all of these projects if they are approved under the KIP program.


Page 56 of 293



UNIVERSITY SECRETARIAT TO: Members, Board of Governors FROM: Vicki Hodgkinson, University Secretary SUBJECT: 7. Finance Committee Report

MEETING: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 a) Integrated Planning Up-date Dr. Maureen Mancuso will speak to the enclosed 2009 edition of the University’s Integrated Plan. As in previous year’s, the plan has been instrumental to the 2009-10 budget planning process as well as to ongoing implementation of the University’s multi-year plan to address the structural deficit. N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 7a cover memo.doc

Integrated Planning Up-date Page 59 of 293

Page 60 of 293

University of Guelph Integrated Plan

2009/10 Update April 2009

Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 About Integrated Planning .............................................................................................. 1 1.2 About this Integrated Plan .............................................................................................. 3

2 Vision and Context ................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Strategic Directions ........................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Operationalizing the Directions ...................................................................................... 6

3 Planning ................................................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Planning Considerations ................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Maintaining a Strong Foundation ................................................................................. 16 3.3 Planning Themes .......................................................................................................... 27

4 Resource Allocation ............................................................................................................. 35 4.1 Prioritizing Our Resources ............................................................................................ 36 4.2 Charting the Course ...................................................................................................... 38 4.3 Space Allocation ........................................................................................................... 46

5 Assessment & Accountability .............................................................................................. 47 6 Conclusion and Next Steps .................................................................................................. 49

Tables Table 1: Required Net Savings per Year .......................................................................................... 9

Table 2: Budget Target Allocations .................................................................................................. 9

Table 3: Low-Enrolment Courses ................................................................................................... 39

Table 4: Low-Enrolment Majors .................................................................................................... 41

Table 5: Low-Enrolment Programs ................................................................................................ 41


University of Guelph - 1 - Integrated Plan

1 Introduction Guelph’s position as a leading university is the direct result of careful institutional planning. The past decade has not been an easy one for Ontario universities: support commitments have fallen, while demands placed on the system have continued to increase. Despite these challenges, or perhaps because of them, a spirit of innovation and dedication has driven Guelph to achieve major successes and the University’s national and international reputation has progressively risen to new heights.

Since the publication in 1995 of the strategic plan Making Change, the University has developed a clear and effective focus on enrolment management that helped it cope successfully with challenges like the double cohort and recent graduate expansion. We created a strategic research plan that has been fundamental in our significant success in Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), Canada Research Chairs (CRCs), Centres of Excellence programs and our continued success with the funding councils, the Canada Council and with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). We developed three regional innovation centres for applied research, diploma education and outreach, and the University of Guelph-Humber in the northwest of Toronto. We enhanced our reputation as a leading institution in innovative teaching and supported learning. And we promoted development of students inside and outside the classroom. Achievements like these, and the attitudes and approaches they demonstrate, have created a unique atmosphere on campus which is recognized by staff, students and faculty and often observed by visitors.

These operational successes confirm and validate our strategic vision, and reflect a careful and hard-won balance between always-limited resources and overwhelming demands. Because we continue to face significant challenges, it is now time to build upon our accomplishments and transform our planning process from one that is successful into one that is truly exceptional in order to ensure continued success in an ever more complex, competitive, and uncertain educational environment.

This document is an updated version of the first Integrated Plan for the University of Guelph. It is the result of a process begun formally in 2004 with the express purpose of linking and co-ordinating our planning more effectively across the academic and support areas of the institution. Enhancing institutional quality requires Making Choices—choices about priorities, resources, and goals. Guelph has always benefited from strong and effective strategic planning; now we must build on that legacy and extend it to address the challenges and opportunities that confront us over the next decade. Integrated Planning is the framework we will use to make more informed and considered choices.

1.1 About Integrated Planning Integrated Planning is a multi-year approach to institutional planning which emphasizes transparency, predictability, accountability, and effectiveness. The ‘integration’ inherent in this



method operates on a number of dimensions, each serving a basic goal of the process. These include:

• systematizing distributed planning efforts into a well-defined, dynamic, and repeatable procedure

• ensuring a match between resource allocations and objectives

• supporting the innovation and creative agenda of the institution

• enhancing accountability by measuring and reporting tangible progress and results

• focusing on longer-term forecasts and effects

The ultimate intent is to build a more efficient and more reliable planning process at all levels, with broad, overall institutional priorities both guiding and emerging from the more specific intentions and opportunities arising in the many individual units.

One key medium-to-long-term benefit will be more predictable alignment of planning and budgeting. Plans are not budgets: plans express what units would like to do; budgets express what they can afford. As a creative, progressive and intellectually adventurous institution it is important that our reach continue to exceed our grasp, and that we devise possibilities that may not all be simultaneously achievable. In the past, however, the processes of elaborating our intentions (planning) and applying constraints (budgeting and resource allocation) have been conducted independently and on disconnected schedules. In particular, a one-year budget cycle undermines the effectiveness and reliability of multi-year planning, by adding uncertainty and risk.

What distinguishes Integrated Planning is not only that it integrates planning at all levels, but also that it links planning with resource allocation and comprehensive assessment—measuring progress in terms of achieving articulated goals—and views them all as components of an integrated process, rather than separate activities. Integrated Planning, when fully developed, is a continuous pathway; a closed loop rather than a collection of associated activities. Effective planning identifies key priorities—for the institution as a whole, for the colleges, and for each individual unit. Those priorities drive allocation, directing limited resources toward where they will be most effective. But priority is not just a matter of assertion—it must be demonstrated. If allocation is based on specific plans, then accepting resources means accepting responsibility for execution of those plans.

Both planning and resource allocation are inherently future-focused processes: they govern what might, can, and will be done by the institution. But both are also inevitably imperfect, and require the feedback of retrospective measurement and evaluation in order to be reliable and accurate. Careful assessment of performance helps to improve the accuracy of planning forecasts, and thus limit the misallocation of resources. As a public institution, we are accountable to the people of Ontario for our activities, few of whom will assume that investment in higher education is an inherent and invaluable good. Clear accountability and demonstrable return on investment is critical if we are to continue to make such investment a social and political priority.



1.2 About this Integrated Plan Accordingly, this plan is organized primarily around each of these three components: Section Three synthesizes the planning proposals and priorities that have emerged from the multi-level deliberations throughout the academic units of the University; Section Four focuses on aligning resource allocation with planning priorities and constraints; and Section Five discusses the process of Assessment.

The multi-year horizon and emphasis of this process mean that it cannot spring into being all at once. This first planning cycle is necessarily a transitional one, and it will take some time for the process and the institution to adapt to one another. The overall plan is intended to map out a consistent long-term direction for the University, but, as embodied in this update, that direction will need to be refined and corrected as we gain experience with the process and its requirements, and also as we begin to reap the benefits it yields. Some of those benefits will not be realized until we complete a full cycle, so the introduction of Integrated Planning should be regarded as an important investment.

It should be emphasized, however, that the new process itself is not the ultimate goal. Integrated planning is a means not an end. Its importance to the strategic vision of the University arises from its operational objective of more effectively marshalling the University’s ever-limited resources toward common goals, in support of important institutional values, and in service of an institutional mission. This vision of Guelph as an exceptional, world-renowned university is rearticulated and reaffirmed in Section Two, as a reminder of the target toward which our planning efforts are aimed, and the goals to which we all aspire.

It follows that this document will make extensive reference to the University’s strategic vision, not to alter or supplant it, but in order to draw upon it for guidance and validation. The Integrated Plan is an operational plan, not a strategic plan. Because of its wide scope and high level—it will eventually attempt to account for not only most of our non-trivial resource allocation choices, but also the decision procedures through which we make those choices—it is important to keep this distinction clear. The Integrated Plan will spawn and be supported by a number of operational guidelines and procedures governing areas like graduate growth, research overhead, position management, but it is not intended to change the established strategic plan, other than by providing a more accurate and transparent model of performance assessment that may at some point help identify areas in which the strategic plan needs enhancement.

This document—inherently transitional and intentionally operational—is therefore primarily oriented toward an internal audience within the University of Guelph community. Our strategic vision documents proclaim to the world what sort of institution we believe ourselves to be, or desire to be. This document is more a self-assessment of where we are, and where we need to go over the short and medium term in order to fulfill that strategy. Although it enumerates many specific initiatives and issues, it by no means attempts to provide a comprehensive depiction of all important activity at the University. The Integrated Planning process is largely about clarifying priorities. This plan emphasizes the emerging priorities—some of them longstanding and well-known, others latent and still being defined.



1.2.1 About this Version of the Plan This is the fourth iteration of the Integrated Plan, incorporating progress updates and course corrections identified during the first three years of the planning cycle. Following the adoption of a multi-year fiscal plan to eliminate the University’s structural deficit, it was decided to extend the lifespan of this five-year cycle by one year, to harmonize these two mutually-reinforcing planning efforts. Small changes appear throughout the document, but there are also some higher-level modifications that should be noted. Two organizational changes previously foreshadowed have been completed in this version. The planning efforts of units reporting to the Vice President Research and Vice President Alumni Affairs and Development, which support the planning themes of the colleges and academic units, are now incorporated into this document. The discussion of physical space planning has been significantly expanded.

In section 3, the discussion of initiatives under the planning themes has been updated to reflect ongoing and new initiatives. Section 4 has been reorganized completely, in the wake of the significant economic challenges that have emerged globally over the past year: instead of detailing the now-suspended Priority Investment Fund, it outlines proposals to better prioritize resources through curriculum rationalization and organizational restructuring .

We are still devising appropriate mechanisms to achieve the planning goal of accountability. Two years ago, we began publishing a ‘University Report Card’ to document progress made on initiatives arising from the Plan, as well as the planning process itself. These accessible, results-oriented summaries will be published each Fall, and are intended to allow the whole University community a chance to track and observe planning activities and outputs.

2 Vision and Context An initial vision statement for the University of Guelph was its 1964 Act of incorporation, in which the government of Ontario charged the new University with two broad “objects and purposes”:

a) the advancement of learning and the dissemination of knowledge, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the advancement of learning and the dissemination of knowledge respecting agriculture; and

b) the intellectual, social, moral and physical development of its members and the betterment of society. (1964, c.120, s.3; 1965, c.136, s.1.)

From this somewhat dry and legalistic exhortation, our self-conception has evolved and elaborated through a number of important milestones. In 1972, a report on Aims and Objectives of the University was prepared. In 1985, the University published Toward 2000, a strategic plan which recognized the broadened focus of the University across seven areas of knowledge, each forming the organizing principle of a constituent college: agriculture, arts, biological science, family and consumer studies, physical science, social science, and veterinary medicine. The next ten years were a period of rapid development and expansion of the high quality graduate and undergraduate programs in all these areas.



2.1 Strategic Directions In 1995, it was time once again to re-examine the essential vision of the University. The result was a major defining report, Making Change, which established the five core strategic directions that continue to guide us: learner-centredness, research-intensiveness, internationalism, collaboration, and open learning. The first two directions are pre-eminent in every aspect of the University, and the connection between the two—“the research-teaching link”—is a fundamental pillar of the Guelph approach. Our vision of active, engaged, intentional learning involves a learner who differs from an established research chair only in level of experience, not attitude toward the as-yet unknown.

Making Change also set forth a formal mission statement for the University, which encapsulates these directions and emphasizes important institutional values. That mission resonates with the objects and purposes of the University of Guelph Act, by asserting that “our core value is the pursuit of truth,” and “our aim is to serve society and to enhance the quality of life through scholarship.” The mission statement acknowledges our special responsibility for agriculture and veterinary medicine, and assigns us the institutional responsibility of providing our students, faculty, and staff with an exceptional intellectual environment across a wide range of disciplines, and a caring social community. The statement ends with a pledge of accountability to the people of Ontario.

In many ways, the principles and directions of Making Change still form the essential driving goals of the University. Shortly after the publication of that document, however, the University’s environment went through a series of drastic changes. There was a significant downturn in provincial support for the university system as a whole. Funding rollbacks and cutbacks became routine, and tuition began to rise noticeably to compensate. Despite having just articulated a bold new vision, the University found itself expending most of its planning effort on survival and the preservation of vital programs and services, rather than organic expansion.

This stress was amplified a few years later when the termination of the five-year high school system was announced. Planning for the resulting double cohort and its impacts began in earnest, using Making Change as a framework, but with recognition of the constraints posed by the new environment. Four critical areas were emphasized: enrolment growth with quality, recruitment and retention of high quality faculty and staff; intensifying and supporting research development and innovation; and development of enabling facilities. This agenda successfully carried the University through the crucial double cohort year.

During this period, the University launched what turned out to be a highly-successful capital fundraising campaign, which gave birth to the tagline “The Science of Life, the Art of Living.” This phrase has come to be recognized as an apt crystallization of the unique qualities of the University of Guelph, including the balance between the Sciences and the Arts, between pure and applied research, between research and teaching, between seeking truth and serving society. This recasting of our “objects and purposes” encapsulates an overall vision of how we forge, from a diverse collection of academic interests and priorities, a truly integrated community of scholars. The University is now gearing up to extend this vision yet again in a new capital campaign, and to solidify its unique ‘brand’ as an institution dedicated to “Changing Lives and Improving Life.”



2.2 Operationalizing the Directions By 2004, with urgent expansion pressure abating, the President signaled the beginning of a new phase of strategic development in a document titled Moving From a Time of Making Change to a Time of Making Choices. In it, he reaffirmed the core vision and mission as expressed in Making Change, but also articulated the need, in an era of growing uncertainty, for a more comprehensive and intentional approach to strategic planning and resourcing. This report ushered in the era of Integrated Planning, which over the next year was adapted from models successfully in use elsewhere in Canada and the United States and applied to the Guelph context through a consultative process led by the provost and the deans. That process has now, in the form of this plan, borne its first preliminary fruit.

Strategic planning is an ongoing process, and while Making Change will eventually be superseded or at least updated, it has proven to be remarkably far-sighted and adaptable to numerous upheavals in the educational environment. At this time, its statements of purpose, mission, direction, and goals continue to define the larger intentions of the University of Guelph. This Integrated Plan complements the strategic plan by providing an operational framework for translating those intentions into concrete practice. It specifies how decisions will be made, how conflicting priorities can be resolved, how our limited resources should be distributed, how we will emphasize our core strengths and continue to use our uniqueness as an advantage .

This plan is thus guided by, and serves, a vision of the University that has been remarkably consistent over the years. That vision is grounded in a firm and dedicated sense of mission, and is informed by a set of fundamental values and principles that include social awareness and responsibility; intellectual curiosity, innovation and entrepreneurship; breadth of understanding; tolerance of diversity and freedom of expression; and a commitment to accessibility. These values, our five strategic directions, and our dedication to the pursuit of truth in the service of society, are the foundation upon which the plan is built.

3 Planning This University-level plan integrates the work of the seven college plans, the plans of Student Affairs, Computing and Communications Services, the Library, the units reporting to the Associate Vice-President Academic, the Finance and Administration Division, Alumni Affairs and Development, and the Office of Research. Many of these plans in turn reflect integration of other unit plans (e.g. departments within colleges). All these plans reveal a host of creative ideas and proposals, designed to exploit and extend existing strengths, seize important opportunities, or open new possibilities for the university and its members. Since the initial iteration of the plan, and in response to feedback from the community on all levels of the plan, the college and unit plans have evolved to clarify their own project priorities and timelines. Departments, schools, units, and colleges will continue the deliberative effort of refining their plans, and aligning internal objectives with overall institutional directions. This plan itself will also be a living document, and evolve as required.



The following discussion therefore emphasizes not specific initiatives, but high-level themes and considerations that arise from integrated consideration of the college and unit plans in the context of overall university goals as well as external requirements and pressures. Planning considerations are priorities of necessity: challenges, constraints, and enablers that demand our attention and need to be addressed in operational decisions. Planning themes are priorities of intention: areas of emphasis that have emerged to distinguish Guelph as a uniquely interested or uniquely capable institution. As the University continues to follow its core values of pursuing truth in the service of society, the themes represent truths sought with special vigour, and services considered particularly valuable. They are not new strategic directions, but rather newly-focused manifestations of our ongoing commitment to the science of life and the art of living and the unique values of the University of Guelph community.

3.1 Planning Considerations Plans are ultimately choices, but not all choices can be made freely. Some choices are forced by external constraints or conditions, so that there really is no choice. Some choices are made easier by extenuating or exceptional circumstances, but then again unusual scenarios can demand new choices of their own. In order to establish meaningful priorities, a plan must also acknowledge and reflect the controlling factors that shape those options and affect their costs, benefits, desirability, and impacts. These planning considerations include problems that must be solved, constants that must be maintained, special opportunities that can be exploited, and other contextual issues.

3.1.1 Fiscal Context and Challenges This year’s Integrated Plan reflects a deepening fiscal challenge faced by not only the University of Guelph but the whole Ontario university system. This is despite investments in postsecondary education (such as the provincial government’s 2005 “Reaching Higher” commitment). Over the past decade, the University has been asked to educate more students, produce more research, and improve our service and services with few incremental resources to meet basic or structural cost increases (utilities, salaries and retirement benefits and building maintenance). These competing demands for limited funding have created a serious shortfall between core income and expenses. While this shortfall has been masked by one-time provincial year end funding (often transferred in March or April of a fiscal year) the underlying “structural deficit” remains a serious risk to the fiscal stability of the University. Budgetary challenges—which in the past were manageable within annual financial plans containing what now seem like minor adjustments—have become so significant that major structural changes are required if the University is to achieve basic financial stability.

3.1.1.1 Operating Budget and the Structural Deficit The size of the fiscal problem coupled with the inflexible nature of expenditures has meant that we can no longer rely on year-by-year incremental adjustments to maintain a balanced budget. The annual budget process has effectively become a single component in a multi-year process of constantly trying to match a real decline in resources with increasing costs. This condition is fast becoming the most significant driver of structural change. If the University is to advance quality



and system capacity beyond what is in place today more effective investment is required. The options for this investment are limited.

Our traditional source of investment (provincial grants), are still critical for our success especially in competing with other post-secondary jurisdictions; but they can no longer be counted on. Today, what new provincial funding does flow is targeted toward specific provincial objectives such as growing enrolments or improving “quality” which often necessitates incurring incremental expenditures. Such funding is also encumbered with demands for more comprehensive demonstrations of actual return on investment, and more detailed accountability procedures, frequently oriented toward short-term horizons which further restrict flexibility. Funding eligibility is often tied to achievement of targets, with failure to meet specific goals often resulting in automatic “clawbacks”. Ontario universities are now required to establish a multi-year agreement with the government, specifying benchmarks, metrics, and targets for the measurement of quality improvements. The provincial fiscal situation, exacerbated by a rapidly worsening global economy, is decreasing the likelihood of more provincial investment.

This increasingly targeted provincial funding is also becoming unstable and unpredictable and driven or affected by political considerations. Vital funding announcements—whether involving grants or regulations affecting allowable tuition levels—can be delayed for any number of reasons beyond our control. It is now the norm to receive annual provincial operating grant commitments well after a fiscal year is underway. Uncertainty over whether the resources will actually materialize creates significant risk and disrupts planning. When resources are ultimately determined, the result is often one-time-only support or semi-restricted funding that does not support basic cost increases and often entails more expenses. This climate of ambiguous, deferred, generally “soft” funding and one-time or limited-duration commitments has grown more prevalent in recent years and is unlikely to improve.

This targeted and soft funding, which does not recognize ongoing cost increases or general depreciation of our building and service infrastructures, has serious financial consequences. On the expense side, the University experiences cost increases in the range of 4-6% per year. These are largely dominated by compensation commitments including salaries and benefits and the need to invest in our space, technology and teaching infrastructures. The gap between core expenses and reliable funding creates a structural deficit that in 2008/2009 reached $16.1 million per year. It was recognized that a problem of this scale could not be resolved in one year therefore a multi-year plan and a deficit-financing proposal was developed for Board of Governors consideration as part of the University’s 2008/2009 MTCU Operating Budget. We are now entering the second year of that plan. The key objective was to reallocate existing resources both to eliminate the structural deficit and meet anticipated cost increases . Operationally this meant establishing initial budget targets for major operating units to remove $36.2 million in net MTCU base costs over the period of the plan (2008-2012).

When developing any multi-year plan it is necessary to make assumptions. While some elements of the budget are more predictable than others, the most critical revenue components remain provincial grants (50% of revenues) and tuition/enrolment (30% of revenues). In April 2008, when the initial multi-year assumptions were set, it was assumed a general structural reinvestment would be made by the province on the order of 3.5% of our grants starting in 2009/2010. Subsequent provincial economic updates suggest that the post-secondary system will at best receive no new incremental base funding for at least the next two years. This amounts to a net projected loss of $10 million relative to initial assumptions. As a consequence, eliminating



the structural deficit will now require units to find a total of $46.2 million in internal cost savings or external net revenues by 2012. This equates to just over 19% of our personnel cost base budget.

Table 1: Required Net Savings per Year

Fiscal Year Target Net Savings/Net Revenues

% of 2008/2009 Personnel Cost Base

2008/2009 $ 5.5M 2.3%

2009/2010 $16.2M 6.8%

2010/2011 $16.2M 6.8%

2011/2012 $ 8.3M 3.5%

TOTAL $46.2M 19.3%

In order to achieve these levels of savings it will be necessary to focus and prioritize limited resources while preserving the overall capacity of our graduate and undergraduate programs. This is where the Integrated Planning framework will assist the necessary and difficult decisions that are required.

IP metrics, while not yet fully developed, guided the allocation of the $46.2 million overall University target to individual colleges/divisions. While no unit remains unaffected by these reductions, differential allocations have been made. Priorities articulated in the Integrated Plan (over the past three years) now have become the focus for resource allocations and activities of low demand or low productivity will need to be curtailed. This Plan provides us a context and a framework within which this challenge can be met, but changes in the operational behaviour will be required in all areas of the institution. The following Table is the current allocation of these targets.

Table 2: Budget Target Allocations Table 1

College/Division 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 4 year TOTAL

% Target to Personnel Base

Budgets

COLLEGE OF ARTS (515) (2,358) (2,338) (789) (6,000) -28.6%COLLEGE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE (481) (1,571) (1,550) (798) (4,400) -22.6%COLL.OF SOC.& APP. HUMAN SCIENCE (473) (699) (690) (338) (2,200) -10.1%COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT & ECONOMICS (245) (288) (284) (134) (950) -7.1%ONTARIO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE (830) (3,493) (3,434) (2,292) (10,050) -41.3%ONTARIO VETERINARY COLLEGE (627) (1,395) (1,383) (495) (3,900) -12.6%COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL & ENGINEERING (590) (2,488) (2,461) (1,060) (6,600) -28.8%TEACHING UNITS (3,761) (12,292) (12,140) (5,907) (34,100) -22.2%

CIO (LIB/CCS including Infrastructure) (338) (649) (641) (334) (1,962) -11.6%

ASSOCIATE V/P ACADEMIC (113) (297) (293) (155) (858) -16.4%

REGISTRAR (129) (170) (168) (85) (552) -9.4%

STUDENT SERVICES (225) (643) (634) (337) (1,839) -16.4%

OFFICE OF RESEARCH (113) (249) (245) (129) (736) -13.1%

ALUMNI AFFAIRS AND DEVELOPMENT - (145) (143) (79) (368) -9.3%

PHYSICAL RESOURCES OPERATIONS (427) (931) (919) (482) (2,758) -12.9%

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES (345) (574) (567) (292) (1,778) -11.7%NON TEACHING UNITS (1,690) (3,658) (3,609) (1,893) (10,850) -12.7%TOTAL UNITS (5,451) (15,950) (15,750) (7,800) (44,950) -18.8%CAMPUS UTILITIES - (250) (450) (500) (1,200) TOTAL UNITS PLUS UTILITIES (5,451) (16,200) (16,200) (8,300) (46,150) -19.3%

$thousands <----------------------ALLOCATIONS--------------------->



To date approximately 65% of the total target has been identified or committed to by Deans or Division heads. While this represents a major effort, perhaps the most difficult portion of the challenge remains. Efforts to complete strategic restructuring need to be continued if we are to meet our objectives and return to a sustainable fiscal position. The next steps in the process will be the continued prioritization of our resources especially in the delivery of the undergraduate curriculum.

3.1.1.2 Capital Funding For decades, funding for physical space has been markedly insufficient. The result has been the accumulation of significant deferred maintenance especially in the utilities and building infrastructure of the entire post-secondary system. Because of the number and age of our buildings, Guelph had a particularly significant backlog of repairs and replacement that could not wait for provincial response. In 2005 the University began to develop a plan to systematically identify and prioritize major elements of our deferred maintenance burden. While the total estimate for deferred maintenance on the main campus alone was estimated at $300 million, a five year plan was developed and implemented beginning in 2006/2007 to invest $80 million (an average of $16 million per each year of the plan) in the most critical components. These projects number in the hundreds and range from rebuilding power delivery systems to repairing leaking roofs. In the absence of provincial support, external borrowing serviced from the MTCU Operating budget was used to backstop these costs.

The province recently began to recognize the need to invest in physical infrastructure as a matter of policy (in 2007/2008 the University received one-time year-end funding of $20M restricted for deferred maintenance), but at this point it is estimated that $30.5 million in borrowing (of which $16 million has already been borrowed) is still required to complete the Five-Year Plan in 2010/2011.

In addition to these critical deferred maintenance projects there are a number of other major capital projects underway on campus. The OVC Redevelopment project has two major ongoing projects: the Pathobiology Animal Health Laboratory Building and Large Animal Isolation Unit, funded from federal and provincial grants; and the Primary Care Hospital, funded from donations and a provincial grant. The Axelrod redevelopment project is being funded from MTCU and the multi-year graduate expansion grant. All of this activity is externally funded from grants/donations received for and restricted to capital projects.

Additional capital investments are becoming critical to both the continuation and advancement of teaching and research programs. Many buildings and much of the campus utilities infrastructure date back to the 1970s or earlier. Since that time provincial funding for maintaining, updating or investing in new facilities has been sporadic and inadequate. The reaction by many universities has been a combination of crisis response and debt financing. In recent years, driven by continuously mounting evidence of a serious deferred maintenance problem this lack of investment is being acknowledged in the form of ad hoc provincial funding.

More recently, with the deepening impact of the global recession, both federal and provincial governments, anxious to address increasing unemployment, have promised increases funding for capital renewal. The federal government recently announced $2 billion in capital renewal funding for the Canadian post-secondary sectors, but the process for the allocation of these funds



has not yet been determined. In response to provincial planners, the University has submitted a number of proposals outlining our major capital priorities (see section 3.2.1 for more details). There is no response to these plans as yet

3.1.1.3 Research Funding Over the past several years, the federal government has recognized the importance of investing in fundamental research in all disciplines. Much of the necessary infrastructure (space, library, administrative support) to support research has for many years been absorbed in operating budgets. Recent federal government budgets have provided funding to support the indirect costs of research from federal granting councils at the 25% level. This is a start, but international jurisdictions truly committed to innovation, cultural and economic development generally provide greater levels of support. It is important therefore that university advocacy efforts continue to press the federal government first to maintain and ideally increase that indirect cost support to a more appropriate level (roughly 40% or more). At the provincial level some major provincial projects do contain indirect costs as a standard component. In addition, efforts continue to increase indirect costs components on industry-support research.

In 2008/2009, the University introduced a new Resource Allocation Guideline (#4) on the Indirect Costs of Research. A key principle in that guideline was the expansion of the distribution of indirect cost recoveries to colleges in recognition of colleges growing their research funding.

3.1.1.4 Post-Employment Benefits Post-employment benefits are commitments to University retirees for both pension and non-pension (health and dental) benefits. Rapidly increasing medical costs, especially for prescription drugs, and the worst financial market performance in decades are drastically escalating the cost of these benefits, and in them the University is facing perhaps the greatest immediate risk to its financial viability.

At the end of fiscal 2008/2009 the University will be carrying a $33 million deficit in the operating budget for its three sponsored pension plans. In addition, non-pension post-employment benefits have grown to an unfunded liability of over $250 million, with cash requirements projected to increase at over 10% per year over the next decade. This alone is a significant challenge.

The potential coup de grace, however, is scheduled to be realized on August 1st 2010 when under provincially-legislated requirements the University will be required to prepare “valuations” for each of the three pension plans. Under current provincial requirements those valuations determine cash funding requirements as if the pension plans were to be closed (“wound up”) and all past and future obligations settled using market conditions at the time of the measurement. While the exact amount of money required cannot be determined until that time, the University actuaries are projecting that there is a 50% probability that cash requirements will range from $65 million to over $115 million per year. This is the result of falling market value of assets held to fund pension liabilities, declining interest rates (used to determine “wind up” obligations to be paid for) and the design of the plan themselves (employee contribution levels and benefit levels such as early retirement). With our annual base budget provision of only $20 million, the deficit will grow rapidly. In a short time this deficit will



threaten the University’s ability to meet our daily cash requirements, our credit rating and capability to raise working capital requirements.

One small comfort is the fact that we are not alone in this impending threat. Many universities and other institutions in the province are facing similar conditions. At this time the province appears unmoved by university lobbying efforts to request relief in the form of revised valuation requirements (as has been the response in most other provinces and jurisdictions). It seems almost inconceivable that the government would allow the kind of system-wide devastation of post-secondary educational capacity that would result under the current plan. Nevertheless, full erasure of liabilities is just as unlikely, and as efforts to press the province for some feasible relief from these rules continue, planning is underway to determine what options remain for responding to the possibility of cash requirements at projected or altered levels.

3.1.2 Enrolment Trends Much of the last, pre-IP planning cycle was dominated by the challenge of the double cohort, and the need to prepare for and absorb a significant expansion of undergraduate enrolment. Guelph’s successful management of this jolt to the system was entirely due to careful operational planning—planning which in a sense paved the way for the more ambitious approach embodied by this document. This planning cycle will in turn face two enrolment-related issues which can be seen as aftershocks from the double cohort.

3.1.2.1 Graduate Expansion The first is the need to expand graduate student enrolment capacity. Increased undergraduate enrolment has driven student/GTA ratios upwards as well as student/faculty ratios, but if anything it is the GTAs who are less able to deal with increased load. The wave of new faculty hiring that occurred in part in response to the undergraduate enrolment trend brought in many new professors. Those faculty have now begun to establish themselves in their positions, and are developing their research programs. This creates both a need and a capacity for additional graduate student participation, and provides a reservoir of support and supervision for conducting more graduate-level research

More fundamentally, our ambitious research agenda will require an increased level of graduate and post-graduate enrolment to support it. As a fundamentally research-intensive institution, we need a vital population of graduate researchers to support and advance the research projects so central to our academic mission, and to help transfer the experiences and insights gained from research to the classroom for the benefit of undergraduates. True global leadership in our strategic research areas will require a critical mass of graduate students to play these roles, and our international reputation will depend on enhancing the quality and scope of our graduate programs.

Ultimately, we also need to keep in mind the self-perpetuating nature of academia—the professoriate is sustained only by the development and training of new faculty through the graduate level and into the profession. There are concerns that at least in some disciplines, a long-term shortfall of quality faculty is beginning to develop.

As noted, none of these trends is unique to Guelph. The Ontario government acknowledged system-wide expansion of graduate-level enrolment as a top priority. It provided full funding for a 40 per cent expansion in the number of graduate spaces up until 2007/8. The university has



achieved its overall growth target but now needs to redress the balance between doctoral and masters students to optimize the fiscal return from the investment it has already made. The uncertainty over future provincial and, possibly, federal funding for further graduate growth presents a challenge at a time when academic units have responded aggressively and effectively to the opportunities for expanding graduate education at Guelph.

In March 2008 a revised graduate growth program was announced under which universities will “bid” on any unused growth capacity as determined by the province. The University submitted a proposal and was awarded growth targets of 213 masters (including the unfunded growth from 2007/2008) and 62 doctoral students (including 49 unfilled spaces from our previous target). These increases put our overall targets at 1,354 masters and 520 doctoral FTE eligible students by 2011/12.

3.1.2.2 Undergraduate Enrolment The clarity of the government’s approach to graduate funding has not, however, been matched at the undergraduate level. With the sudden fluctuations of the double cohort only recently behind us, the province has yet to indicate unambiguously what level of undergraduate enrolment it is willing to fund on a stable, long-term basis. Demand is definitely increasing in the GTA, but may be static or slightly in decline outside it. This puts Guelph in a difficult situation, as we are close enough to the GTA to be expected to draw from that applicant pool, and yet far enough away that we have traditionally been disadvantaged relative to truly ‘local’ institutions. Guelph-Humber is clearly our most effective means of addressing GTA demand increases, but not all programs can or should be mounted at Guelph-Humber. In the absence of clear targets—and clear commitments to fund those targets—any increase or reduction of undergraduate capacity at the Guelph campus is essentially a gamble, except in a few special areas like Engineering where the province has indicated potential interest in funding expanding system capacity.

Therefore for 2009/10, the University of Guelph has set an estimated intake target of 4,250 to hold eligible undergraduate enrolment steady at approximately 16,000 FTE’s on the main campus. Degree program intake will remain flat-lined at last year’s targeted levels except in Engineering, and future intake growth will be focused only on programs where new growth is planned (Engineering and DVM) or where unused capacity exists. We will need to manage applications and retention very carefully to ensure that overall enrolment does not fall with this static intake, because with funding now so closely tied to undergraduate numbers, a drop can trigger penalties and reductions.

Active discussions have taken place with a number of community colleges during the past year exploring strategies to increase access and mobility between college programs and the University. During the coming year it is anticipated that new partnerships, beyond the traditional sort of articulation agreement, will be developed with four or five colleges to facilitate student transfer into professional programs. In support of these efforts, the College of Physical and Engineering Science has been developing a “bridging program” encompassing a number of core science and mathematics courses designed to support students who may not have taken specific required core courses during high school but who are otherwise high achieving, well qualified college students committed to pursuing a university degree.



3.1.2.3 Competitive Pressures We are not alone in these predicaments of unsure funding and conflicting targets; other institutions are facing the same issues, and are making their own choices. The net result is a more competitive—potentially much more competitive—environment for admissions. This effect has only exacerbated a longer-term sharpening of competition that has resulted from other causes. Like Guelph, other institutions have diversified their program offerings, in part to attract students to specializations with emergent demand. Meanwhile new institutions have been added to the system, and some colleges have created programs that overlap with ours (or we have extended our offerings to cover areas previously left to the colleges). There are few exclusive niches left—more of our programs must compete head-to-head with parallel programs at an increasing number of other institutions, which in turn means that specialized programs can no longer count on a reliable applicant stream from which they might have benefitted in the past.

At the same time, another after-effect of the double cohort was the decision by the Ontario government to tie operating funding much more closely to actual student enrolment, including devices such as all-or-nothing targets. Universities that wish to retain or increase funding must now be much more careful to retain or increase their student head counts. This adds an urgency of quantity as well as quality to the recruitment equation.

A key factor in managing enrolment will be adapting to the shifting nature of program demand. The perceived desirability of different degrees varies significantly over time, in response to workforce evolution, changes in the local and global economies, and value or lifestyle shift. In the short and medium term, the University must plan to offer a mix of programs that satisfactorily accommodates and attracts the mix of students it seeks. In the longer term, the University must plan to develop the flexibility in program management necessary to modify that mix as required.

Competitive pressures affect both undergraduate and graduate admissions, and competitive consideration must be taken into account in the balance between the two levels. As noted above, a given undergraduate enrolment requires a certain level of support from a pool of available graduate students. At the graduate level, competition has a special impact on retention issues as well, because of the way time-to-completion affects graduate funding. Those who take a relaxed and meandering path to their bachelor’s degrees pay tuition like their conventionally-scheduled peers. But the one-third of domestic graduate students on campus who have passed their period of funding eligibility use up places that might otherwise be filled with new, eligible students. We have been making progress on reducing our times-to-completion, and we have some of the best rates in the system, but there is more that can be done, especially in our Master’s programs.

Meanwhile, increased international recruitment efforts over the past year, focused especially on professional programs, have resulted in increased applications and registrations at the undergraduate level. At the same time the province’s focus on expanding eligible graduate spaces has led to a decline in international graduate enrolments, since only domestic students ‘count’ when determining availability of additional funding to support expansion.

3.1.3 Institutional Characteristics The University of Guelph is exceptional (in both senses of the word). There are a number of distinctive organizational parameters and practices that need to be reflected in operational plans.



These are aspects of Guelph’s unique multi-campus structure, its relationship with active and engaged alumni, and its legacy of service to the community and the public.

Guelph is the most geographically dispersed university in Ontario. The regional campuses are vital to the research activities of the University as a whole, and are becoming more integrated into main campus activity. The University of Guelph-Humber continues to provide the University enhanced access to the Greater Toronto Area, a region from which we have historically been less successful in recruiting students.

The University has always relied on a very strong alumni base. From the strength of the connections developed by the founding colleges, we have enjoyed a strong relationship with alumni and these in turn have forged important industry partnerships with the communities we serve. We continue to need strong support from our alumni and friends, not only to be part of the wider university community but also to play an active role in supporting innovative opportunities at Guelph by providing people, facilities and financial support for new program initiatives. An increasing proportion of our operating and capital budgets are supported by philanthropic donations to the University and through a series of gifts to support student scholarships and research initiatives. We need to continue the success of the past several years in increasing alumni connections with their alma mater, boosting annual giving and bequests and the increasing the support of targeted initiatives and activities in the institution.

The University’s contributions to society are not limited to the relatively indirect effects of educating students and conducting world-class research. We also provide many direct services to the members of our surrounding communities, the people of Ontario, our collaborative, governmental, and industry partners, and other constituents. All of these services must be delivered at a very high level of quality to be credible and to maintain and enhance the reputation of the University. Managing them to achieve the highest standards is critical not only for the service consumers but in some cases to the health and safety of the public at large. Clinical, regulatory, advisory, and outreach services require a management approach and emphasis that often differs from what is typical in academia. Most services involve a mechanism for cost-recovery and can be self-financing or even revenue-generating; at the same time this characteristic usually entails a more explicit and tangible commitment to accountability and value for money. Our extensive involvement in the provision of important services places many demands upon the structures and activities of the University, but it also enriches the scholarly community with a practical immediacy and sense of direct social engagement.

One of the hallmarks of a Guelph education is the learner-centred, whole-student approach that is exemplified by our commitment to a supportive learning environment. We have worked hard and well to establish leadership in this area, and are recognized as innovators. And this attention to the learning experience as a whole is an important factor in the attraction and retention of students as well as their longer term success and relationship with the University. This is an advantage we must continue to press, not just exploit. Innovators continue to innovate, and respond to challenges with bold creativity, not fearful stasis. The spirit of Integrated Planning is to constantly self-assess, to enhance what is working well, and to change what is not. Our curriculum is a source of strength; that does not mean it cannot be improved or that we should relax efforts to reform it.



3.2 Maintaining a Strong Foundation The University’s institutional plan and vision can only be realized through the mobilization of our campus physical, human, and intellectual resources. It is from those concrete assets—their capabilities, condition, and management—that we construct the “idea” of the University of Guelph as a unique and leading institution of knowledge, and without proper stewardship of those assets and resources we will find it hard to achieve the excellence for which we strive. The University plan must address the needs and requirements of this foundation—the buildings and facilities, the people who work, learn, and live within them, the land on which they are built, the relationships with old and new friends who support our efforts, and the institutional structures that animate all the communal activity that contributes to our accomplishments.

3.2.1 Physical Space The capacity and quality of the physical space on campus is integral to our success. Not only is it important to be able to provide adequate and safe teaching and research space but the quality of that space impacts our competitiveness in attracting high-quality faculty and staff and recruiting undergraduate and graduate students. Optimization of this space and our physical assets is a key emphasis of the Finance & Administration integrated plan.

3.2.1.1 Context and Challenges In order to improve management of these assets, a new position of Manager of Space and Capital Planning was created within the Physical Resources Directorate and the manager appointed in April 2008. The manager is responsible for facility renewal and space planning. In 2008/9, the University with the assistance of a consultant, has verified and updated the capital renewal database used to compile our long-term deferred maintenance plan. This entailed adding new buildings and updating the life-cycle models for existing buildings. The Physical Resources Directorate has allocated resources to ensure that our capital renewal models are accurate and kept up to date. The directorate will begin re-auditing all our facilities on a 5-year cycle beginning in the summer of 2009. This will ensure that the database information is verified regularly by physical inspections of the condition of our buildings.

On average, the buildings at Guelph are estimated to be eight years older than the Ontario system average, and University has the fifth largest building area in the system. Many of these buildings are small and inefficient in terms of space and energy use. Linking these older multiple facilities together is an aging infrastructure that has now reached the point of impending failure in some areas. At the same time, the University has grown in size and in research strength, and our original buildings were not designed for the demands of modern cooling, computing, communications, and bio-containment requirements.

It is now essential for the University to upgrade the physical facilities to create buildings and working conditions that help the institution remain competitive in recruiting and retaining first-class faculty, staff and students. But upgrading tired facilities is not a simple process. Significant changes in building codes can require expensive alterations to ensure compliance. Renovations must also incorporate code improvements for physical access to buildings that require retrofit and alteration to buildings not designed originally for such modifications. Current building codes are also more stringent (and thus expensive) in terms of health and safety requirements.



The Ontario government’s Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act will also place exacting standards for accessible physical access into and within new and existing buildings and outdoor spaces. A public review process to guide the finalization of provincial mandatory built environment standards has begun and will likely be completed by the end of calendar 2009. The University, Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities and the Council of Ontario Universities will be commenting on the scope and proposed timelines for implementation of these new standards which are expected to be “add-ons” to the Ontario Building Code. It is expected that these new standards will have financial implications for the Ontario university system.

Finally, there is now a clear and substantial need for most buildings on campus to be retrofitted to reduce energy consumption and waste generation, which will have significant long-term impact on the operating budget of the institution. Addressing all of these issues will require capital expenditure. In order to pursue that option, the University will have to prioritize activities in order to be able to justify additional borrowing and also accept the additional constraints that new debt will place on the operating budget.

3.2.1.2 Repair and Remediation The fiscal challenge for facilities renewal related to all of our buildings, including residences and utilities infrastructure, is now estimated to be about $300 million for building repair alone. It is estimated that the University should spend between $20 million and $25 million each year to deal with these challenges. The annual grant from the province of $1.6 million for facilities renewal for academic and support facilities, was meant to cover capital maintenance and upgrade, code compliance and improvements for barrier-free access. Clearly this level of annual support from the province (less than one per cent of the total maintenance deficit) falls short of meeting requirements, and continuation at this level will further strain the operating budget.

The Board of Governors has approved a ten-year plan to identify our most critical deferred maintenance and utilities capacity issues. This plan was developed as the result of a Physical Resources audit of all buildings and infrastructure on campus. The prioritized list for investment integrates and balances issues of critical deferred maintenance, energy retrofit and facilities upgrade (including teaching and learning facilities). This ten-year plan also balances attention to issues of physical accessibility and the appearance of the campus with critical items of safety and urgency (e.g., roofs, stairs and walkways) and the need to reduce energy use and consumption.

To implement the first five years of this plan the Board authorized the University to borrow following a rigourous annual review. At the end of the 2007/8 fiscal year, however, MTCU provided one-time funding of $20 million to be used by the University to address critical deferred maintenance needs. This one-time funding, while very welcome in that it alleviated the need to borrow funds for renewal projects in 2008/09, does not provide the needed stable, adequate funding to address critical deferred maintenance items identified in the ten-year plan. The MTCU has committed to developing a multi-year capital plan for universities and the University’s ongoing capital planning will position us well to take advantage of increased funding that may be forthcoming in 2009/10 and subsequent fiscal years. An ongoing base commitment from government of funding at the $15-$20 million level is required to address our critical needs.



Among the major projects that we were able to complete in 2008/9 as a result of the one-time funding was the remediation work on the Macdonald Institute parapet, walls and portico. This work was required to protect the structural integrity of the building. At the same time, the large teaching facility in Macdonald Institute (Mins 300) was upgraded to the university’s standard for teaching facilities. In addition, this funding enabled us to remove PCB –containing electrical transformers in several campus buildings ; replace out of date fire alarm controls and complete badly needed roof repairs to several major buildings including Landscape Architecture, Graham Hall, Thornborough, and University Centre. These roof repairs increased energy efficiency and rectified water penetration issues in these buildings. The largest project completed to deal with longstanding water penetration issues was the restoration of the MacNaughton Courtyard. However, without a guarantee of long-term stable funding it is very difficult to address our critical facility renewal needs.

Student Housing Services has also had a five- year capital plan approved by the Board of Governors to address deferred maintenance and competitiveness issues. As an ancillary operation, residences must pay for their renovations. However, for the next five years the unit will borrow on average $5 million per year.

Space is one of our most valuable resources, and the University has completed an update of its comprehensive physical space inventory. Allocations of funds are governed by a budget; allocations of staff through a human resources plan. Space allocations need to be managed in an integrated manner to ensure that we make the best use of what we have. We will review the effectiveness of the use and operation of University space to ensure it is consistent with current and future resource availability. This includes consideration of whether several deteriorated buildings should be removed. In 2007/08, an obsolete greenhouse adjacent to the Axelrod Building was demolished and the portables used by EHS and OHS were removed. The extent of retrofit required in the Axelrod Building has been greater than anticipated and as a result, the demolition of the Textiles Building has been deferred until the 2009/10 fiscal year. Moreover, capital maintenance costs will be clearly identified, prioritized, and planned to ensure that as space is inevitably modified in structure and use, appropriate consideration is given to both up-front and ongoing costs. Managing this inventory is an area where the responsibilities of the Vice-Presidents Research, Finance and Administration, and Academic all overlap, and they will be jointly developing plans for this inventory and processes for managing it.

3.2.1.3 Capital Projects In the fall of 2008, the University responded to a request from MTCU to identify its top priorities for major capital projects as part of the province’s commitment to the development of a long-term capital planning process for universities. The projects emanated from academic and facilities planning at the university. These projects included:

• Redevelopment of the animal teaching hospitals at the Ontario Veterinary College as part of a larger proposal under discussion with Infrastructure Ontario and the MTCU for the OVC Health Sciences Centre as part of a significant Alternative Financing and Procurement program.

• Development of an environmental cluster that will support innovation and entrepreneurism dealing with environmental issues including climate change. This entails



renovation of the Axelrod Building to house the Land Resources Science department; elements of SEDRD and the Faculty of Environmental Studies.

• Renovation of the Richards Building which will be vacated by LRS to expand the School of Engineering as set out in this Integrated plan and to provide the enabling facilities needed by the Engineering School to focus on sustainable engineering. This builds on the School’s niche engineering programs in water and biological engineering linked with the university’s focus on food and agriculture. New programs in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, computer and electrical engineering are all dependent on the appropriate physical facilities.

• Renovations to teaching facilities across campus that will significantly enhance the educational and learning experience at Guelph. This would be a concerted effort to reinvigorate our physical teaching and learning space congruent with our vision of reimagining the curriculum. This includes renovations to existing space to provide the specialized teaching facilities required by the Department of Human Anatomy to enable us to increase enrolment in the Guelph Humber Kinesiology Program and to provide a safe learning environment for these students and to expand enrolment in the BSc program on the main campus .

• An innovative centre for business and management programs that will focus on two of the University’s signature themes: sustainability and corporate social responsibility. The new facility would create unique opportunities and synergies through the linkage of business and other disciplines on campus, including performance arts programming. The project will consolidate the teaching and research activities of the College of Management and Economics (CME) and include a large multi-purpose space to be used as a theatre, lecture room, and event venue. This will facilitate innovative, collaborative programming in arts management for undergraduates, graduates, and life-long learners.

Thanks to funding provided several years ago, the obsolete facilities for Pathobiology/Animal Health Labs are being replaced with a new state of the art building now under construction on Gordon Street. This building is schedule for completion in summer 2010. As well, thanks to provincial funding and the generosity of a private donor, a Companion Animal Primary Health Care Centre will be constructed and open in spring 2010. This facility will provide our students with the problem-solving skills essential in a private practice setting or in other career pathways. Our current facilities can only support specialty services that provide tertiary care and learning opportunities. The Large Animal Isolation Unit will open in the spring of 2009 as the final piece in the first phase of the redevelopment of the OVC consistent with the Master Plan approved by the Board of Governors.

2008/09 saw the completion of phase one of the relocations made possible through renovation of the Axelrod Building. This work provided safe, appropriate studio space for fine arts students in studio art, and over the summer, the beginnings of the environmental cluster with the move of SEDRD and FES from Blackwood Hall and the Textiles building. Phase two renovation work will complete the environmental cluster with the relocation of Land Resource Science to the Axelrod Building. This latter move will finally provide these labs with operational fume hoods for faculty research. These renovations and relocations are key to enabling the university to increase its graduate enrolment.



The Centre for Bioproducts Discovery and Development (phase 1) project created new lab space and opened in the fall of 2008. This state-of-the-art facility will enable the university and in particular the Premier’s Chair in Biomaterials to undertake research in bioproducts development.

3.2.2 Information and Information Technology The University has continued to enhance its IT infrastructure and its information resources in a number of ways. A refresh strategy for the network, telephony and enterprise servers will facilitate continuous operation of key systems, while new storage capacity will significantly expand user access to file space for information of all kinds in all formats. The campus portal, MyPortico, will be re-envisioned as a gateway for single sign-on (SSO), identity authorization, and resource provisioning. This new implementation will also provide the core infrastructure for more effective, personalized communication to members of the campus community.

In conjunction with Campus Community Police, CCS enabled an emergency communications capacity that will be expanded in the coming years to include additional services focused on alerting the community and assembling the resources necessary to respond to emergency situations.

CCS is expanding its Identity Management System which will provide standardized authentication and authorization services for a wide range of campus systems. This will include participation in the Canadian Access Federation enabling use of EDUROAM, a service which allows Guelph users to access their Guelph IT resources and services from the wireless networks of the many participating universities around the world.

With the implementation of Gryph Mail and Calendaring (Zimbra) in 2008, CCS established an enterprise collaboration platform that will be expanded this year to include document sharing, co-authoring, chat and a pilot project to test an online meeting toolset. A joint initiative of TSS, OOL and CCS is migrating the University to Desire2Learn (D2L) as its single Learning Management System. This will provide a rich e-learning environment that will be substantially integrated with the other core learning systems (e.g. Colleague, Gryph Mail, Identity Management).

The Library implemented the PRIMO ”discovery layer“ for the Library’s catalogue providing a one-stop solution for the discovery and delivery of a wide range of local and remote information resources, such as books, journal articles, web resources, and digital objects. As one of the project leads in the Ontario government funded ODESI project, Guelph has been instrumental in providing online access to data, finding tools, and statistical management tools making data resources more accessible to a wider range of faculty and students at Guelph and around the province.

The Library is reviewing strategies for the expansion of Archival and Special Collections to accommodate the growth of these national and world class collections, and to provide the user consultation space necessary to engage with these primary research materials. These primary resource materials are increasingly key to the research enterprise and to resource based learning approaches

The challenges of the declining value of the Canadian dollar have stressed the purchasing power of the Information Resources (IR) budget. The Library has implemented a short term strategy to mitigate the immediate affects and developed a longer term strategy to sustain and grow



collections in consort with the changing teaching, learning and research programs of the University.

The IT Portfolio Management Office continued the focus on enhancing governance allowing the University to better understand and support its complex IT environment and future needs. An emerging repository will provide the platform for more effective decision making regarding IT assets and IT needs. In addition, the IT PMO has lead a major initiative to define and promulgate a comprehensive IT Security Program to ensure the effective protection of IT resources and core enterprise information.

3.2.3 The Campus Community The people who work, study, and live at the University are our most important strength. We need to ensure that they are not only provided with a safe, accessible, and supportive environment, but also engaged and challenged by work and learning opportunities that make use of and expand their potential. This commitment to our internal community should be expressed in a culture of health, safety, active participation, respect for a work/life balance, and the kind of lifelong learning that we promote as an institutional mission.

To this end, the Human Resources will refocus from a largely transactional service to one that focuses on building organizational and individual capabilities, through consulting, coaching, and facilitation services in partnership with units across the University. A Leadership Development program has been implemented to promote competency and accountability, wellness promotion and accommodation programs, and outreach programs to enhance diversity.

This kind of engagement will also characterize the promotion of health and safety on campus. With participation of stakeholders, we will develop new, more comprehensive systems and frameworks for Emergency Management, Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, Environmental Health and Safety Management, and physical plant security and access. An Emergency Management Plan has been developed and shared with the community. An internal regulatory compliance database related to environmental health and safety will be developed to ensure that our procedures and provisions are transparent, accountable, and effective in caring for the members of our community.

3.2.4 Environmental Stewardship The University is committed to integrating environmentally responsible practices into its teaching, research, and institutional services. What we do, what we build, and what we operate must respect and protect the natural foundation we share with the larger community and the world as a whole. An overarching principle of environmental stewardship and sustainability should be incorporated into our business practices and plans.

A five-year energy conservation plan—including the purchase of energy efficient vehicles, appliances, and equipment—will provide both ecologic and economic benefits. This investment will be supported by our students who are contributing approximately $400,000 per year. We will continue to research and incorporate green and sustainable technologies in the design of new buildings and renovations. In partnership with the City of Guelph, we will work to reduce our environmental footprint through water conservation and promoting and facilitating the use of public transit and other transportation alternatives.



As part of our sustainability commitment, a Transportation Demand Plan will be finalized and will set out initiatives aimed at reducing our community’s reliance on single occupant motor vehicle travel to and from the Guelph campus. In 2008/09, the University finalized its Community Energy Plan including measurable goals for reductions in utility use, and water conservation. In 2008/09, the University completed a major lighting retrofit of the McLaughlin Library thanks to the generous contributions of our students, alumni, retirees and employees. The energy reduction goal of 2 million kilowatt hours will be exceeded and there has been a noticeable improvement in lighting levels. For 2009/10, the student/alumni/employee/retiree supported energy retrofit project will be another high visibility/high impact lighting retrofit in 10 buildings ranging from the University Centre to residences to teaching focussed facilities including Graham Hall, Axelrod and Zavitz Hall. The goal is reduce energy consumption by 1 million kilowatt hours and reduce our CO2 emissions by 303 tonnes.

Investment in water conservation efforts included autoclave water retrofits to reduce the amount of water running to drains, installation of raw water meters in the Central Animal Facility and Animal Science and Nutrition which are heavy users of raw water for aquatic research , installation of low flow toilets. In the 2009/10 year, Physical Resources and staff in the Aqualab will be exploring ways to conserve water without compromising research activities. Water consumption on the Guelph campus has continued to drop as a result of these efforts and has resulted in a reduction in waste water which reduces our sewage costs.

The University was also able, thanks to the one-time additional facility renewal funding, to complete construction of a new energy efficient chiller and cooling towers to support the redevelopment of the OVC facilities which date back to the 1950s. The proposed OVC Health Sciences Centre will also be a showcase example of facilities that take no more from the environment than they give back, both in resources and innovations. The innovations will include the use of daylight to help protect the environment from bacteria and invasive contaminates to innovative systems for disposal of infectious material.

The Physical Resources Directorate developed and implemented a revised Vehicle Policy which includes strategies to reduce greenhouse gases through our purchasing, and driving practices and a pilot project to use bio-based lubricants for vehicle fleet and equipment uses. In the winter of 2009, the directorate replaced three full size cab pick-up trucks with electric utility vehicles to enable our trades staff to drive to jobs on campus. This new transportation initiative will result in both financial savings and a reduction in greenhouse gases.

3.2.5 Responsible and Effective Business Practices Underlying all these commitments is the need for careful, insightful, effective, efficient, and wise management and administration. The business practices and processes of the University are the means by which we attempt to turn operational goals into reality, and we must be committed to continuous improvement. Effective business practices need to be secure, focused on requirements, and also flexible and adaptable to the wide variety of local and exceptional needs and considerations that characterize a diverse institution. We will need to regularly review and invest in business information technologies that enhance effectiveness, revise and implement policies and procedures that protect university assets, and develop innovative methods for service delivery, all the while ensuring that costs are balanced with benefits.



Key initiatives in this cycle will include the assessment of options for improvements in human resources information reporting and management. The objective will be to enable far more planned and effective management of this people-centred institution, as well as increase the level of employee self-service available for employment services. The ongoing reorganization of research financial services into Financial Services will continue to improve accountability and administration of the University’s considerable research budget. Plans are being finalized to create simplified online FRS reports for researchers including the addition of a “budget” for individual research grants/contracts where possible.

We will also develop more on-line web-based training facilities for faculty and staff in order to provide continuous support for users of central administrative services, with specific attention to high-priority needs (e.g. Financial Reporting System, travel procedures, etc.). Financial Services continues to take advantage of new technologies to add efficiencies to its operations and improve information services provided to the community. The implementation of on-line entry for high-value purchase requisitions in the 2009/10 fiscal year will benefit users by eliminating paperwork and allowing electronic access to the status and history of these high-value transactions. A web-based travel expense form will be introduced make it easier to submit claims and expedite reimbursement to employees. Plans are underway for the implementation of electronic routing of certain expense invoices in order to reduce the creation and transmission of paper documents. This is the initial stage of future objectives to replace paper with electronic “documents.”

3.2.6 Building Strong Relationships The role of Alumni Affairs and Development is to advance the mission of the University of Guelph by raising private support and building relationships with internal and external constituencies. Historically, AA&D planning has been organized around the multi-year capital campaigns that serve as a focus of fundraising efforts. The completion of the highly-successful “Science of Life; Art of Living” campaign in 2003 coincided with the initial phases of Integrated Planning, and has afforded an opportunity to roll AA&D activity into the overall University Plan. For example, analysis of that campaign identified gaps and led to important changes in the structure and approach of AA&D. We are now embarking upon another major campaign, highlighting and culminating in the University’s 50th anniversary in 2014.

Detailed planning, involving both outside consultation and a benchmarking effort against other comparable institutions, has driven a number of preparatory changes over the 2005-2008 period. We have expanded the volunteer team, centralized front-line AA&D staff to offer strong service to current and prospective donors with targeted support to individual units, and contributed to an integrated branding strategy to help define and clarify the University’s public image. Preparation for the next campaign has involved consultation with groups throughout the campus, in the wider University community, and in networks of supporters and potential supporters.

Unfortunately, poor economic conditions complicate and hinder development efforts: the University’s need for support increases, even as the availability and accessibility of support dwindles. Downward trends in the stock market and the economy have had a significant impact on existing and potential donors and thus on our ability to raise large gifts in the short term. Donations of stock, which have been a key source of major giving in recent years, are diminishing and key donors are understandably reluctant to commit to significant gifts or pledges as confidence in the global economy continues to diminish. And yet, the University’s vision and



its “case”—the concrete stories we tell and the opportunities we offer to participate by supporting that vision—have never been more timely. Our promise to address global challenges related to food, water, the environment, animal/human health and sustainable communities is one that resonates deeply and strongly with potential donors and the public at large.

Over the long term, we believe that this vision and case will hold their attractiveness and continue to drive interest in supporting our efforts, and our list of current and potential donors will remain robust: the issue right now is uncertainty rather than insolvency. The question then becomes how to adapt in the short and medium term, as the recession unfolds. Development efforts will need to shift short-term emphasis toward those sources most likely or able to be productive in spite of uncertainty—such as the historically best relationships, and industries less affected by the downturn.

At the same time, however, this period is an opportunity to build future potential, by building relationships and expanding “soft assistance” such as the volunteer cabinet and indirect sponsorship. We will explore untapped potential in intermediate giving ($2,500-$50,000) to fill a pipeline of new donors who can be approached for leadership gifts in future years. We will focus on strengthening and expanding these ties that bind donors to the University and its values, and seek to gather hearts and minds where dollars are hard to come by, so that when the environment improves, the relationships that underlie significant and lasting support will be established and strong.

The University acknowledges the critical role of government funding in many ways, and organizes its efforts around the need to consider government relationships in all areas of endeavour. It has become clear that strong, sustainable fundraising requires the same kind of pervasive sensitivity to issues of external private relationships: a culture of philanthropy and philanthropic awareness in the University community. This in turn means that AA&D will need to be more responsive to the detailed needs and skills of units across campus, so that the partnerships between giving and doing, and between doing and showing can be more effective and productive.

As with units throughout the University, AA&D will need to adapt to fiscal issues by pursuing rigorous cost management, and restructuring efforts as necessary to enhance efficiency. As a business-oriented unit with well-defined outputs, AA&D is more amenable to the use of ‘hard’ metrics: to some extent, the unit has dollars as both input and output, so it is possible to use traditional enterprise metrics like Return on Investment to gauge effectiveness of programs and initiatives, in a way that is not generally possible in academic endeavours. Of course, not all returns on investment in relationships are monetary or tangible, so metrics that take into account participation, satisfaction, engagement, follow-up opportunities, and ineffable quantities like sentimental attachment. All these metrics will be pursued rigorously, and well-defined assessment criteria will be established for all programs, and be a prerequisite for new efforts. Benchmarking against best practices across North American universities will be a foundation of these criteria, and even our volunteer model will be scrutinized to ensure that contributions of time are maximized in scope and effectiveness.

As the department gears up for the coming campaign, a number of changes have been put in place or are in progress. Following the recommendations developed over the past few years, we have designated a strategic focus on Principal Gifts: transformative, high-profile, multi-million-dollar pledges of support. A new Principal Giving Division has been established, with an



Executive Director managing the specialized efforts of securing this kind of support. Major gift fundraising efforts have been centralized and put under the direction of a senior manager to improve coordination across different divisions within AA&D, while fundraising support has been realigned with discipline and college-oriented clusters. ROI analysis has led to a change in ‘style’ as well: we are reducing the total number of annual events and emphasizing those that provide the greatest effectiveness. Just recently, the Alumni Affairs and Alumni Advancement divisions were consolidated. These changes and other continuous improvements will help AA&D continue to support the University’s objectives by fielding a strong team of dedicated staff, with a clear customer-service orientation.

3.2.7 Guiding the Research Enterprise The University of Guelph is a research-intensive institution where excellence in research capacity, capability, and output underlies and contributes to almost every aspect of our mission. The multi-layered research enterprise ultimately depends on the individual researchers or teams, including the high quality personnel we train at the graduate and post-doctoral level, who explore beyond the frontiers of the known, but those explorations are in turn dependent on an infrastructure that supports, coordinates, encourages, expedites, plans, publicizes, and recognizes them. The Office of Research provides leadership, expertise and resources, and is responsible for ensuring that Guelph’s research intensity is properly funded, administered, and directed.

Long-term, high-level priorities for research have traditionally been set out in a Strategic Research Plan (SRP). The SRP at Guelph has evolved over a 10 year period and was last revised in 2008. It represents a snap-shot of research strengths and is closely aligned with Canada Research Chair (CRC) allocations and investments in infrastructure through the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI). In this first year of coordination with the overall University Integrated Plan, the current SRP will maintain a more distinct identity. The SRP will further evolve to better inform the University and the external community of the most important priorities and goals, and serve as the primary specification for overall research priorities, resource allocations, and assessment criteria.

A key emphasis in research planning this cycle will be the establishment and strengthening of collaborative partnerships to support and enhance research. These arrangements will be pursued externally—with governmental entities, national research facilities and institutions (e.g. TRIUMF, Canadian Light Source, and the Canadian Space Agency), foundations, private enterprises, community organizations and the City of Guelph, and other educational institutions—as well as internally—between colleges and departments and programs. The partnership with OMAFRA is a key example of the Guelph’s strong and unique model for university-government relationships

The Business Development Office is undergoing a strategic planning process and is developing new models with an emphasis on collaborative partnerships and commercialization opportunities. The Research Services Council (RSC) continues to develop into an important governance model for research support, and most importantly a collaborative enterprise among the Office of Research and the Colleges. The Office of Research is also working more closely with Alumni Affairs and Development on relationship-building: helping to cement good relationships and also identify ones that could be stronger and deserve attention. Involvement in such partnerships as well as other cooperative ventures will increase opportunities for Guelph researchers to participate in or gain access to funding for projects that might otherwise be



unavailable, and will also provide a venue for Guelph to continue to demonstrate leadership in strategically important areas.

This same collaborative imperative naturally leads toward more emphatic internationalization of our research efforts and profile. The University’s strategic planning themes are global in scope and impact; they should encourage and be manifested in research activity with worldwide input and output—research that takes into account the full diversity of the world’s societies, biomes, structures, beliefs, languages, and issues, produces understanding that can positively affect both the diverse challenges that we face separately around the globe and the common challenges we must face together. An international research focus is inherent in this plan’s strategic themes: explicitly in the Global Engagement theme, and implicitly in the others: by their very nature, the problems of food, public health, and environmental change are global in scope, and thus so must be the research undertaken to address them.

The Office works closely with researchers as well as institutional partners in advancing international research opportunities and assisting in the development of collaborative agreements that help to advance these research opportunities. This is not always as well coordinated or as carefully administered as it should be. The Office or Research is working closely with the Associate Vice-President Academic, who is leading development of an improved internationalism strategy, in particular on measures that could help open new opportunities, promote additional international activities and raise the University’s global profile. In order to support agenda research intensive enterprise, we must take a more comprehensive approach to research infrastructure: labs, equipment, offices, administrative staff, resources, communications and information technology, and especially physical space. Research imposes significant demands for an appropriate foot-print to house the activity, infrastructure and people who are engaged in the research program. This in turn creates cascading requirements on campus facilities such as electrical power, communications and IT capacity, and in some cases special emergency response protocols. The University must have the flexibility to redeploy space where there are shifts in emphasis and as determined by clear measurement indicators. A formal campus space inventory has now been institutionalized and will assist in research space planning. We need to establish processes to ensure that space and infrastructure are properly and completely acknowledged in the planning phases of research efforts, and not bundled on as afterthoughts. The recent planning and prioritization for CFI projects in the 2009 competition was a good example of engaging all stakeholders and fully considering space requirements.

Increasingly, reliance on state-of-the-art tools including instrumentation, analytical equipment, and high-performance computing, is a key factor in attracting and retaining the best researchers and best students to our research programs. Maintaining, repairing, replacing, and housing this infrastructure is not a trivial undertaking, and in general, centralization of facilities—both physically in dedicated space or virtually through well-defined cross-discipline committees (e.g. Advanced Analytical Centre)—is better able to achieve the efficiencies and economies of scale required to achieve long-term sustainability. This kind of coordination also helps promote the availability and more intensive use of the facilities we already have, and direct new facility investment toward faster payback. We need to ensure that research infrastructure is as carefully budgeted as research funding, so that it available when needed, and can be used effectively and efficiently. Financial management strategies for use of operating monies for CFI infrastructure are helping to sustain infrastructure through the life-cycle in a more cost-effective and sustainable manner.



To this end, and for more fundamental reasons of better management, the Office of Research is like the rest of the University developing a series of performance metrics and assessment criteria that can be applied to individual initiatives and larger efforts. Development of and migration to an enterprise information management system is a critical milestone which will nevertheless involve a multi-year project to implement. The Office of Research is acquiring expertise in the area of research reporting, data mining, analysis and planning to be able to support the development of performance measures. We are preparing to benchmark our research support procedures and capabilities against comparable and competitive institutions to quantify expectations and set practical goals. Over the next planning cycle, these criteria will be formalized and embedded in the Plan, and all the Office of Research to participate in the standard cycle of planning, resource allocation, and assessment.

3.3 Planning Themes The areas of emphasis enumerated in this plan are those that have emerged from patterns and commonalities in the various college and support unit plans, which in turn resonate strongly with the University’s overall Strategic Research Plan. In choosing to highlight these specific themes, we are building upon an already solid foundation of leadership and strength in these areas that is formed of established faculty research interests, including NSERC, SSHRC, CIHR, OMAFRA and Canada Research Chairs; curriculum emphases and methodologies; collaborative arrangements and partnerships, both public- and private-sector; and important or unique facilities, institutes, grants, and research centres. Initiatives supported under the themes are intended to extend and consolidate this leadership, and expand Guelph’s global reputation for excellence into new aspects of the broad thematic areas that we target.

Each theme draws upon and encompasses proposals and possibilities raised by every college, some enhancing areas of current strength, some identifying areas of potential development. In a sense, the themes form a framework that can help guide the activity and ongoing planning of a significant part of this diverse institution. The themes are not meant to be exclusive of all other areas of inquiry, and like any good categories, they overlap and complement one another. Initiatives under any one theme will necessarily involve collaboration and multi-disciplinary effort, and may well touch upon other themes as well. Alignment with a theme is not a prerequisite for the allocation of resources to new or existing programs, but it will be a contributing factor in decisions about priorities. These themes will evolve along with the plan, and that new or modified ones will emerge in later cycles of planning as we continuously adapt to changing conditions and assess and improve our performance.

The discussion of the themes is illustrated by a sampling of proposals drawn from the college plans. The various initiatives described are at different stages of development—some represent straightforward extensions of existing efforts, or even just the restoration of emphasis to neglected areas; others will require significant new investment, and may still need elaboration and refinement. More detailed information about the initiatives, including priorities, is available from the individual college and unit plans, which are now publicly available.

3.3.1 Health, Food, and Well-being One of the founding purposes of the University of Guelph was to enhance human health by improving and protecting the health of animals. The advanced veterinary and agricultural



research and training emerging from Guelph have made enormous contributions to animal and human nutrition, medical care, and both physical and economic well-being. In the past four decades, those contributions have increased and widened in scope, to encompass a broad array of disciplines well beyond our special responsibilities as declared in the Act.

Public health and food pose some of the most severe challenges that society faces today. We live in an age of once unimaginable medical miracles, but one where many of our most impressive therapies are beginning to fail or lose effectiveness. Developed countries confront overlapping epidemics of obesity and dysmorphic disorders, while in the developing world famine continues to take a horrific toll. The provision of health care—how it is organized, who controls it, how much it costs, and how decisions are made—has arguably become one of the defining facets of the Canadian national identity, and the system we have seems perpetually to be in a crisis of policy, direction, economics, or will. Meanwhile, we fear the inevitable return of past scourges lurking deep and ineradicable in the animal and plant kingdoms—diseases which might devastate human and animal populations or the resources on which they depend for their well-being.

These problems require a comprehensive, multifaceted approach because they scale from the molecular to the global, from the physics and chemistry of unliving BSE prions to the biological processes and socio-cultural structures that vectored them into the food supply. Guelph’s unique position at the interface between the human, animal, plant, and microbial worlds gives us an unparalleled opportunity to study these problems, and fulfil our mission of serving society by helping to create a healthier society.—and not just healthier individuals, but also more sustainable and supportive communities in which they can flourish and reach their potential.

As an employer, a vital part of the municipal community, and a home to many students, the University will also need to apply the best practices to its own administration and management, and embody the principles that our research in this area uncovers.

Initiatives in this area include: • New grad programs in Molecular and Cellular Biology and Integrative Biology (CBS) • Development of interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Neuroscience (CSAHS, CPES, CBS,

OVC) • BSc in Computational Biology (CPES) • MSc and diploma in Bioinformatics (CPES, CBS, OAC) • Expansion of coursework MSc in Human Health and Nutrition (CBS) • BSc in Nanoscience (CPES, OAC, CBS) • Establish MPH in Public Health (OVC) • Interdisciplinary business plan and product development in food, biomaterials and engineering

(CME, OAC, CPES) • Research centre encompassing consumer protection and public policy (CME) • Establish Centre for Public Health and Zoonoses (OVC) • Institute of Advanced Studies (OAC) • Centre for Dairy Education and Research (OAC) • Centre for Bioproducts Discovery and Development (OAC) • Relocation of HNRU to the Guelph Food and Technology Centre to enhance food-health

interface (CBS) • Increase enrolment in the BSc Food Science and MSc Food Safety Policy programs (OAC, OVC)



• New BSc program in Neuroscience and Applied Cognitive Science (CSAHS) • New program at University of Guelph-Humber in Kinesiology (CBS) • Guelph-Humber Psychology program (CSAHS) • Strategically grow collaboration with the cereals industry and with food packing industry (OAC) • New BASc major in Adult Development, Families, and Well-Being (CSAHS) • Develop core imaging facility for diagnosis and monitoring of animal diseases (OVC) • Develop high profile, innovative animal medical centres for training, research and clinical

services (OVC) • Establish Institute for Comparative Cancer Investigation and Animal Cancer Centre (OVC) • Create OVC Health Sciences Centre and obtain funding from government, industry, new revenue

and/or donations (OVC) • Secure funding and construct Equine Sports Medicine and Reproduction Centre (OVC) • Develop Companion Animal Primary Healthcare Initiative (OVC) • Build and equip new building for Pathobiology and Animal Health Laboratory (OVC) • Creation of state-of-the-art ‘demonstration kitchen’ for use in student experiential and

collaborative learning opportunities, teaching demonstrations, food science activities, nutritional demonstrations, and food safety and security in terms of mainstream teaching and research, as well as executive development programs, revenue generation activities and professional and community engagement (CME)

• Athletics Master Plan (Student Affairs) • Agri Food for Healthy Aging—collaborative initiative between UG and the Research Institute for

Aging at the University of Waterloo (CSAHS, CBS) • Develop Veterinary Molecular Diagnostics Initiative for rapid, early detection of disease and

pathogens (OVC)

3.3.2 Environmental Impact and Risk In a sense, public health and food issues are a particularly specialized form of a more general challenge, which is to understand and ideally improve how humanity engages with and within the natural environment. Humanity is the product of environmentally-directed evolutionary processes so complex they have produced mentalities capable of denying their very feasibility. Human activity has significant impacts on the environment, and at times it seems as if the environment is beginning to bite back. The management of natural resources and our impact on biodiversity put economic, philosophic, and sometimes even political intentions up against physical and biological limits. Environmental degradation, environmental risk management, the amelioration of environmental contamination and destruction, and the processes and policies that control the spread and dangers of environmental perturbation are all areas which have attracted extensive attention on campus, and in which we have developed significant expertise.

Guelph’s first decade as a university was characterized by widespread realization (at least by western industrialized cultures) that the environment was not an infinitely elastic resource, as well as predictions that disaster and collapse would overtake us years ago. Have we survived because of or despite better understanding of the underlying natural processes? What have we learned about stewardship of resources? Is the human-nature interface a strict boundary or a false dichotomy? How do we reliably predict environmental impacts and create sustainable practices,



businesses, and industries that understand the social, cultural, and environmental issues facing the world?

Both the City and University of Guelph are well-known for their advanced awareness of environmental issues. Choosing where (and in which colour bag) to dispose of even a small amount of waste is a trivial act that nevertheless invokes practical, physical, biological, social, moral, and ethical issues. We will continue our tradition of leadership in these areas and extend it to address problems and answer questions about the essential place of human beings in the world they inhabit.

Initiatives in this area include: • MSc and PhD programs in Environmental Science (OAC, FES, CPES, CBS) • Undergrad program in environmental forensics (FES, CPES, OAC) • Grad diploma in Engineering in Water Resources (CPES) • Research and graduate programming in market organization in the context of risk management

and regulation (CME, OAC) • Strengthening core in Bio-engineering, Environmental Engineering, and Water Resources (CBS,

CPES, OVC) • Centre for Environmental Measurement and Prediction (OAC) • Sustain ecosystem health within DVM and MPH programs (OVC) • New interdisciplinary major in Environmental Governance (CSAHS) • Development of governance and fiscal foundation for the Biodiversity Institute of Ontario (CBS) • Field Course in Philosophy on Environmental Risks and Ethics (COA)

3.3.3 Global Engagement and Internationalism Problems of public health and environmental management are ultimately global problems. Their severity may vary from place to place, reflecting local conditions or practice, but acid rain, migrating birds, and dangerous exotic species neither recognize nor respect human-defined artificial boundaries. The University of Guelph has a special responsibility to serve the people of Ontario, but restricting our inquiries and investigations solely to a provincial scope would serve neither the province nor our intellectual curiosity very well. The shrinking world is still very large, and its range of both natural diversity and human creativity vastly multiplies the insights, understanding, and possible solutions available to those who seek its varied lessons.

The University has long entrenched internationalism as one of its core strategic directions for just this reason. Some ongoing activities that reflect this direction include many “semester abroad” programs, CIDA-funded research, model UN and model NATO programs, participation in Engineers (or Vets, or other disciplines) without Borders, and a wide array of curricular offerings focused on global issues. But our commitment to this goal involves more than just the awareness and understanding of international conditions, cultures, and research. Global engagement demands participation in the international community, and active contribution to its vitality. The University and its community of scholars are not just beneficiaries of the insights yielded by a global perspective; we are also agents of change, helping to enhance and spread that perspective and its benefits. We are citizens of that international community as well as our local ones, and we should take our responsibilities of citizenship very seriously.



Collaboration on a global scale once required extensive travel and resources. Now it requires an email account. It still requires a certain sensitivity to cultural variance. Ideally, it leads to the development of entrepreneurial skills and the ability to assume leadership roles in projects of global reach and significance.

Initiatives in this area include: • New MA program in Latin American Studies (COA) • A new project to encourage students to study outside Canada and to encourage faculty members

to internationalize their courses (AVPA) • Initiatives intended to increase the importance of women and science and science education

(CPES) • Development of a comprehensive university international strategy for recruitment, research and

curriculum to increase and enhance our international reach and profile (Associate VPs Academic, Research, Student Affairs, and the Registrar)

• More active engagement with external organizations and programs such as Leaders Today, Volunteer Now, World Affairs Council, Katamivak, CUSO, and Canada Corps (Student Affairs)

• Expansion of Leadership research, undergraduate and graduate programming (CME) • Stabilize staff complement in CIP (AVPA) • Encourage identification of preferred partners and encourage collaboration via use of e-learning

(all) • PhD International Development (CSAHS) • Relationship building with international partners on several continents to promote opportunities

in teaching, research and student exchange (CME) • Offer summer orientation transition programs for new international undergrad and grad

students(Student Affairs) • Expand Global Learning Program to include a program in Botswana • Leading Global initiative to bar-code life (CBS, IBOL) • All co-op programs opened to International students • Develop credit opportunities for Global Learning Program in Botswana (Student Affairs) • Expand our international veterinary (DVM) program (OVC) • Expand our focus on One World, One Health (OVC) • Moving towards accreditation through the European Foundation for Management Development

and partnership with the Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative (CME) • New initiatives in Food Management research, undergraduate and graduate programming, linked

to international collaborative educational programs (CME)

3.3.4 Cultural Change and Continuity Global awareness and global participation lead inevitably to the acknowledgement of constant cultural flux. Whether driven by external, environmental factors, or arising entirely from within the natural process of the human experience, cultural evolution is inescapable. Technological advancement, economic development, and the expansion on international relations have already resulted in an increased awareness of cultural diversity and change. But the intricacies of cultural differences remain complex. Cultures operate within specific sets of norms, rules and customs shaped by history, geography, religion and politics; different cultures subject to similar conditions will react differently, according to their beliefs, organizational structures, decision-



making processes, and historical experiences. In this new age of global engagement, how do patterns of cultural continuity and change affect our world?

Understanding how different cultures renew, reinvent, and re-imagine themselves and the world around them allows us not only to predict their responses to the transitions they undergo, but also to understand the human impacts of both change and stasis. Because cultural scholarship varies significantly, the need for multiple perspectives is essential. From the interpretation of artistic expression in drama, literature, music, and the visual arts, to the appreciation of the historical, political, sociological and psychological factors that contribute to and are impacted by culture, research must endeavour to capture the richness of cultural experiences. There is also an increasing awareness that the way society and its citizens create wealth has both dramatic and subtle impacts on communities, the environment and quality of life. Business models and organizational structures need to recognize these effects and promote more sustainable and socially responsible modes of wealth creation.

Another motivation for studying cultural continuity and change is to maximize the human benefits that derive from fostering an understanding of cultural diversity while facilitating and guiding the process of change. The University of Guelph’s leadership in the collaborative and interdisciplinary approach to rural studies and international development exemplifies this mode of serving society. In yet a different way, and at a different scale, units like the Library, Learning Commons, OOL, TSS are fostering, through the use of technology, a new online culture of scholarship and community interaction. Guelph’s leadership in applying new digital technologies to both artistic creation and humanities research are helping push back that frontier and explore new possibilities. Understanding the diversity of cultural prospects and their own unique processes of change, in the context of their causes and effects, is a prerequisite to intervention and practical improvement of conditions. Initiatives currently underway in this area include:

• Trans-Canada Institute of Critical Studies in Canadian Literature (COA) • Shakespeare—Made in Canada (COA) • Centre for Scottish Studies (COA) • Ethical issues in Biotechnology—a GE3LS project (COA) • New doctoral program in Political Science (CSAHS) • Increase collaboration and co-operation among researchers within the university and in

government agencies (OVC) • New initiatives in Sustainable Commerce (CME) • MA Criminal Justice and Public Policy (CSAHS) • Develop picture archival and communications system PACS (OVC) • New doctoral program in Sociology (CSAHS) • Expanded digital access to humanities and social science journals and resources, in partnership

with CFI (Library) • Improvisation, Community and Social Practice MCRI (COA) • Launch of the Centre for Business and Social Entrepreneurship (CBASE) (CME) • New PhD in Management with specializations in organizational leadership, service management

and marketing and consumer behaviour (CME) • Partnership with the Open Content Alliance to digitize selected items from the Library’s rare

Scottish collection (Library) • Expand learning opportunities for rural community veterinary medicine (OVC)



• Development of a comprehensive website for the L.M. Montgomery collections (Library) • ASTRA series of lectures on Arts/Science themes (COA, CBS) • MA in Art History and Visual Culture (COA) • Trans Canada Colloquia and Speaker Series (COA) • Development of a campus-community initiative on community engaged scholarship (CSAHS) • Outreach and continuing education initiatives with community partners, industry, high schools

and professional bodies (CME)

3.3.5 Innovation in Teaching and Learning Guelph has a history of acknowledged leadership in the provision of a supportive learning environment. Our innovation in this area has been recognized not only by third party evaluations (such as the Maclean’s rankings and the Globe and Mail Report Card) but also by students themselves—it consistently shows up as a key component of student satisfaction. This success is the result of collaborative efforts by many units across the university—including not only academic departments, but also Student Affairs, the Library, Computing and Communications Services, the Office of Open Learning, Teaching Support Services, and the Learning Commons—and incorporates deliberate and intentional programming such Supported Learning Groups, Project Serve, Co-op programs, the Leadership Certificate, and many more. More than anything else, our learning environment reflects the caring and positive attitudes of our faculty, staff, GTAs, peer helpers, and alumni, who all help to provide a welcoming and supportive community of learning.

In this planning period we will not be content simply to enjoy this success, but rather, as signalled by the work of the 21st Century Curriculum Committee, we will seek to press our advantage and apply significant effort to continuing to enhance the learning environment. Guelph will rededicate itself to embodying the strategic direction of learner-centredness. We will continue to focus on the whole student, providing not just academic advancement, but social, moral, and practical skill instruction as well. We will intensify our emphasis on the first and final years of the undergraduate experience—critical transitions that shape and condition the whole academic career—with small, group-oriented first-year seminars and culminating capstone programs.

This re-emphasis on learner-centredness will be matched by renewed focus on our other primary strategic direction of research-intensiveness. The link between teaching and research is a matter not just of balance but of synergy: we need to forge deeper and more detailed integration between these two imperatives and exploit their mutually reinforcement. Creating more opportunities for students to participate in research will foster more active and engaged learning, and will give faculty the opportunity to develop more creative, less traditionally classroom-bound modes of instruction. It will create valuable opportunities for students to gain practical experience and skills, and immerse them more directly in the essential processes of scholarly inquiry.

Continued and expanded use of innovative learning technologies will not only help address issues of accessibility, but also extend the power and reach of all modes of instruction. Use of e-learning is an imperative for a generation of students who have grown up with e-mail, who learned touch typing rather than cursive penmanship in primary school, who don’t understand jokes about unprogrammed VCRs because they’ve only ever used digital. It goes without saying



that in-class and more general in-program use of technology needs to be buttressed by appropriate use of technology in supporting programs and activities as well.

Initiatives in this area include: • Creation of additional hybrid courses (Colleges, and OOL) • Summer Student Research Experiential and Professional Program (BAS program) • Capstone experiences (COA) • Development of interdisciplinary business education opportunities (CME) • A renewed focus on the First-year experience (all colleges) • Library and information resources initiatives including Scholar’s toolbox, Academic Town

Square, and iCampus (Library and CCS) • Development of large-class teaching strategies—“briefcase demos” (CPES) • Expansion of curricular and co-curricular opportunities in entrepreneurship and business

development, including the growth of experiential and service learning (CME) • Integration of leading edge Bioimaging, DNA technologies and Proteomics facilities available in

the Advanced Analysis Centre into teaching laboratories at both undergraduate and graduate level (CBS)

• Develop academic interface between Biodiversity Research Institute, graduate and undergraduate experience (CBS)

• Development of a common biological core and small group experiences at undergraduate level (CBS)

• Pedagogical symposia and practica (COA) • Launch a research-teaching link pedagogy project to encourage new faculty-led ventures in

bridging research and teaching (AVPA, AVPR) • Enhanced student engagement and laboratory renewal (CPES) • Development and implementation of an e-Learning strategy (AVPA, CIO) • Develop primary care services to maximize clinical learning opportunities (OVC) • Curriculum redesign of senior capstone course in BASc Applied Nutrition (CSAHS) • Creation of a College-wide curriculum working group with a focus on the transformation of the

1st year experience (multi-college collaboration) credit re-weighting and reconsideration of 4th year capstone experience (CSAHS)

• Increased student engagement in research/design (CBS, CPES) • Introducing more academic clusters in residence (Student Affairs) • Introduction of a comprehensive athlete development program (Student Affairs) • Expansion of a support program for students on probation after the first semester (AVPA, and

AVPSA) • Introduction of an e-portfolio in BAS and Graduate Studies. Begin to review opportunities in

other programs. (Student Affairs, COA) • New Major in Aboriginal Resource Management (OAC, CBS) • Review of First Year BSc learning experience (CPES, CBS, OVC, OAC) • Development of an “Orientation to the Bachelor of Commerce” course which promotes academic

success amongst first year students and introduces them to opportunities within the B.Comm. program (CME)

• Implementation of a single Learning Management System: Desire2Learn (CIO) • Further development of Gryph Mail and Calendaring as a collaboration platform (CCS)



• Develop specific service learning opportunities for all varsity teams (Student Affairs) • Expand Project Serve to include new regional locations (Student Affairs) • Introduction of Momentum program an academic transition program for first year students in the

first 6 weeks (Student Affairs) • Introduction of a co-curricular transcript (Student Affairs) • Introduction of new academic clusters in residence e.g. varsity athletes (Student Affairs) • Introduction of a theme house for women in Engineering and co-op students (Student

Affairs)enhance recruitment programs for aboriginal students and develop an aboriginal summer camp (Student Affairs)

• Develop college wide digital library using medical imagining software (OVC) • Develop Comparative Anatomy Centre for both animal and human anatomy (CBS, OVC) • Expand learning opportunities in rural community veterinary medicine (OVC) • Development of senior capstone experience for all Bachelor of Commerce students (CME) • Creation of the Learning Opportunities Trust to support expansion of experiential learning

(CSAHS) • Development of a database of companies seeking students for community-based research

(Student Affairs)

4 Resource Allocation As stated above, one key goal of the Integrated Planning process is to move the University beyond an incrementalist, short-term-oriented model of resource allocation and toward one that is more proactive, responsive, and focused on strategic initiatives. This means at the very outset recognizing that resource allocation is about more than just money. It is clearly a critical resource in the operation of any enterprise, but there are three distinct primary resources that need to be considered: financial, human, and capital. More bluntly, this means that we need to plan the allocation of dollars, people, and space, and we need to manage all three in an integrated, proactive, and transparent way.

The multi-year budget needs to be complemented by human resource processes and a comprehensive staffing plan, which will, in concert with the planning initiatives contained in academic plans, help guide and reflect personnel changes that occur as a result of growth and changes in emphasis. For example, new strategic priorities may require additional effort to be expended in the retention of staff with particular specialized skill sets, or the training of internal candidates. Similarly, an integrated facilities plan to administer the acquisition, maintenance, and use of space, equipment, and technological resources will be vital to support the strategic initiatives we wish to pursue. Research intensity pervades all of the colleges of the university, yet in many respects its support is autonomous from the support of academic programs. Therefore the University is actively discussing ways to enhance research funding and innovation.

Full integration of people and space with dollars is beyond the scope of this transitional plan, although we have now assembled the necessary components as inputs into the this document. True integration–as opposed to aggregation—of academic and administrative planning remains a key goal, and in the next cycle, we will ask departments and colleges to more comprehensively



identify their staffing and facilities requirements and expectations, and include administrative plans in the college and University-level integration exercises.

4.1 Prioritizing Our Resources In order to face the challenges and opportunities described in section 3, we must take more control over our resources, and give ourselves the flexibility to absorb shocks and work around roadblocks or detours without paying inordinate transaction costs. We thus need to develop a balanced budget each year that includes strategies to address all sources of inflation, including salaries, benefits, utilities, and other services; we need to reduce long-term debt; and we need to address the burdens of deferred maintenance, renovation, and capital replacement, and we need to address the debt burden on the institution.

4.1.1 Adapting to New Challenges The need to prioritize our resources takes on an added sense of importance and urgency this year. The Integrated Planning process was intended to give us more consistent and effective planning, resource allocation, and assessment regardless of the external forces that shape the University’s range of options. IP is for good times and for bad, and as administrators have been pointing out all over the world and in all economic sectors, we are embarking on a stretch of especially bad times. We don’t know how deep or long this recession will be, only that it will place—has already placed—significant additional pressure on an already pressurized fiscal situation here at the University of Guelph. We must respond decisively, effectively, and without illusion about the severity of the problem. And our response must be guided by the goals of this institution, and wherever possible preserve and enhance the quality of our teaching, research, and service to society.

Those goals have not changed, nor has the fact that our finances are not yet in order, despite progress in the past few years. The intensity of the problem is being exacerbated by further erosion of funding, and the ever-present pernicious perception that higher education and advanced research are somehow in the luxury category of public goods, to be scaled back when money is tight. This is not the place to make the argument—already well-championed elsewhere—that research and education are especially important targets for investment during the troubled times that cause economic realignment: from where else will arise the innovation that will drive the next wave of advances . We must continue to press that argument, and also to proceed even if it has limited success.

At the same time, the need to periodically reinvigorate our curriculum, especially in undergraduate education, has not changed either. Again, only the urgency has been increased, along with the severity and consequences of inaction or failure. As has been repeatedly established, the overlap between our financial issues and our curricular issues is large and expansive. Inefficient delivery of an inefficient undergraduate curriculum is a dominant factor limiting overall efficiency of the institution, and we can no longer afford inefficiency. If we must do more with fewer resources, we must be creative and find ways to deliver a better learning experience for less money. If we do not adapt, we will lose hope of ever regaining those resource losses, and inevitably find ourselves delivering a poorer experience for even less money. The time has come to make some difficult choices, before we lose the ability to choose, or have those choices made for us by others.



This year, Prioritizing Our Resources is not about choosing which projects or initiatives deserve strategic investment. The Priority Investment Fund is being suspended, as the resources underlying it must instead be fully applied to meeting our budget reduction targets. Our priority this year is change on a whole-University scale: changing the University to become the kind of institution that more clearly epitomizes the values and characteristics that make us exceptional, and the kind of institution that can deliver on our goals and aspirations, with confident self-reliance.

To make that kind of change, we need to apply our limited resources better: more effectively, to avoid loss of quality; more efficiently, to retain control over our destiny; and more carefully, to achieve our primary goals and avoid dissipation of effort. Prioritizing Our Resources is about focusing on what we do well, and can do well; about recognizing that we cannot do everything; and scaling back or abandoning resource-sapping efforts, so that we can play to our strengths and continue to lead and innovate. We are still and always will be a “comprehensive university” (a phrase that redundantly implies limitless scope). But we must take a careful look at ourselves, and our abilities, and our environment, and decide just where we locate reasonable limits on our comprehensiveness, so that excellence, and not mere breadth, remains our defining characteristic.

4.1.2 Dissipation and Focus In some ways we have contributed to the problem of inefficiency we now face. We have enjoyed the fruits of growth and the luxury of expanding our programs and course offerings; but we can no longer afford to be so expansive. The great flexibility and diversity of our programs has a significant cost in itself: ironically it reduces our operational flexibility by adding requirements and constraints and overhead. An overabundance of choice hinders our ability to ensure that all the choices we offer are viable ones.

The imperative for us now is to focus our efforts more carefully. This is not really a new imperative: the Integrated Planning process has always had a key goal of shifting effort toward priorities and away from distractions, and it continues to guide us in ever-more troubled times. Over the past year, the assessment phase of IP has begun to reveal imbalances that may need to be addressed. We put a great deal of teaching effort into activities that yield a minority of our learning results. Meanwhile, program options and alternatives have been allowed to proliferate speculatively, not because of proven and sustainable demand. This is not to say that speculative innovation is inherently wrong; on the contrary it is vital to leadership. But it needs to be carefully controlled and assessed—productive speculations need to be encouraged, and unproductive ones should be recognized as such, and wound up before they exhaust too many resources better used elsewhere.

Institutions and structures evolve constantly; convergent evolution sometimes means that opportunities for eliminating duplication or exploiting similarities will present themselves. As always anticipated in the IP process, we will continue to restructure as necessary to enhance efficiency and quality by recognizing such opportunities and acting on them. Some restructuring may even fall under the rubric of ‘speculative innovation’ and be subjected to the same scrutiny.



4.2 Charting the Course Efforts to restructure and restore balance were already underway even before the economic picture turned especially sour: the 21C Curriculum Committee began several years ago to discuss transforming the undergraduate learning experience. More recently the IP-guided multi-year plan to retire the University’s structural deficit was put in place last year, and the differential cuts allocated to the colleges in part reflected assessment metrics that take into account important factors of efficiency and effectiveness in curriculum delivery. We are continuing to move forward with this results-oriented, assessment-driven approach. In the lead-up to the release of this Plan, a high-level strategy has emerged through the deliberations of VPAC and in consultation with other stakeholders.

This strategy has five primary components:

• Eliminate low-enrolment courses

• Eliminate low-enrolment majors and degree programs

• Eliminate minors

• Intensify the undergraduate curriculum beginning with first and fourth year

• Restructure departments and units as required

Each of these will be discussed in more detail below, including rationale and initial impacts. It should be noted that just as these are not new issues, so some units have already made progress toward resolution. Some colleges are in different phases of the ongoing strategic self-analysis of their curricula, and have more recently undergone changes of the type we now anticipate.

4.2.1 Elimination of low-enrolment courses Courses with consistently low enrolment consume resources out of proportion to the value they add to the curriculum. Recognizing this fact in no way negates that value, but it does underscore the cost we pay to achieve that benefit. By definition, the benefit of a perpetually undersubscribed course accrues to just a few students (and perhaps one instructor), but the cost is borne by the rest of the community, in the form of time and effort not available elsewhere.

When, as in recent semesters, some 70% of the total teaching effort we expend goes to serve only 30% of the overall undergraduate teaching mission, we have to ask whether the curriculum is out of balance. Too much of the student learning experience is squeezed into the margins and receives diminished attention because of this imbalance. Too many students are forced into larger, less-engaging sections where faculty time is spread thinly in order to make room for additional courses that cannot demonstrate sustained demand. We need to recognize that while courses may go through occasional periods of low demand, failure to attain and maintain ‘critical mass’ is an indication that a course does not represent a sustainable and wise investment. Or more precisely, that in comparison with other possible uses of the same resources, such a course is less efficient and less effective at converting teaching into learning.

In an ideal world, we would not have to subject highly specialized courses to such strict criteria. In this non-ideal world, we can only do so much, and only mount so many courses. Those we do mount must meet an expected level of contribution to the overall teaching mission of the University.



After careful study of enrolment patterns for the past three years, we have decided on a simple criterion: a course is defined as “low-enrolment” and subject to elimination if it has been unable to achieve a level of ten student enrolments in each of its last three offerings. This is not an automatic, three-strikes-and-out process, but henceforth courses meeting this criterion will need compelling justification to be retained in the calendar and rescheduled for future semesters. The following table lists courses that are being proposed at this time for elimination due to low enrolment, as well as for other related reasons such as course consolidation or replacement.

Table 3: Low-Enrolment Courses

College Course # Course Title Notes

CME BUS*2000 Organizational Behaviour I Replaced by BUS*2090

ECON*3200 Economics of Industrial Relations No enrolment last 3 years

ECON*4940 Model Building and Economic Analysis No enrolment last 3 years

HTM*2120 Hospitality and Tourism Marketing I Replaced by MCS*1000

HTM*4120 Entrepreneurship in Hospitality/Tourism No enrolment last 3 years

HTM*4140 Current Management Topics No enrolment last 3 years

HTM*4150 Current Management Topics No enrolment last 3 years

ISS*2500 Management in Organizations Replaced by BUS*2090

OAC EDRD*2010 Introduction to Landscape Mgmt 1 enrolment last 3 years

ENVB*2010 Food Production and Environment Was slated for redevelopment; instructor now retired

ENVB*4400 Forest Systems Field Camp 4 enrolments in last 3 years

ENVB*4800 Topics in Applied Biology 7-13 enrolments; substitution is the revised AGR*4460

FOOD*4140 Communication in food Science III 11 enrolments in last 3 years; other project courses available

FOOD*4240 Topics in Food Science 9 enrolments in last 3 years, other independent study courses available

HORT*2450 Intro to Turfgrass Science 10 enrolments last 3 years

OAGR*3030 Tutorials in Organic Ag. I 5 enrolments

OAGR*3130 Tutorials in Organic Ag. II 4 enrolments

OAGR*4160 Design of Organic Production Systems 3 enrolments

GEOL*3120 Tutorials in Organic Ag. II 4 enrolments

HORT*4900 Plant Agriculture Special Project I 6-12 enrolments. Substitution is the revised AGR*4460

HORT*4910 Plant Agriculture Special Project I 2 enrolments. Substitution is the revised AGR*4460

CBS ZOO*4600 Tropical Ecology Low enrolment

ZOO*2050 Natural History in Ontario Course consolidation

BOT*2030 Plants in Ontario Landscape Course consolidation



ZOO*4470 Comparative Endocrinology Course consolidation

NUTR*4200 Nutrition and Immune Function Course consolidation

CPES CHEM*2300 Chemical Reactivity Due to changes in B.Sc. (Env)

CIS*4400 Distributed Information Systems Low enrolment

STAT*4080 Data Analysis Low enrolment

STAT*4100 Survival Analysis Low enrolment

PHYS*2040 Fundamental Electronics and Sensors Due to changes in B.Sc. (Tech) and (Env)

PHYS*4510 Advanced Physics Project

Going forward, the intent is that colleges will be notified of courses that should be examined against this criterion and will be expected to consider their offerings as appropriate. In future years the precise criteria may be adjusted as necessary to retain balance.

In addition to the course deletions identified above, a number of colleges have temporarily suspended low enrolment courses for the coming year to allow review of how they fit the curriculum and to make a decision on long-term viability. In addition, some units have twinned 4th year and graduate courses to avoid unsustainable enrolment at both levels, adopted alternate year offerings, and have merged course content from two courses into one. It should also be recognized that this list is a starting point, and we should expect additional courses to be considered for elimination in subsequent years, through the appropriate Senate process (BUGS).

4.2.2 Elimination of low-enrolment majors and undergraduate degree programs

This logic applies at higher levels of organization as well. Just as sparsely-attended courses drain away resources needed by those with robust demand, so do low-enrolment majors hinder our ability to concentrate effort on sustainable or growing programs. For each major it offers, a college or department incurs costs in organizational overhead, scheduling complexity, faculty time allocation (both formal and informal) and other forms. Overspecialization of majors increases overhead and fragments demand. Below a certain level of participation, learning opportunities such as colloquia, technology portals, travel, invited speakers, group research, and even an appropriate diversity of related courses simply stop making economic sense and start to wither. Again, this is a question of the critical mass needed to sustain a healthy curriculum as well as the extra-curricular but programmatically-relevant learning environment on which the curriculum relies for support and enrichment.

The criterion for eliminating majors for low enrolment has been initially set at forty registered students over the last three years (or an average intake of ten per year). This is a starting point, and admittedly a rough criterion intended to spur careful examination. Some majors that do not achieve strong enrolment may be considered non-sustainable for other reasons, such as poor fit with the University’s mission. The following table itemizes affected majors, with relevant notes about the services or capabilities that each has been unable to provide—either because of internal insufficiency or because of enrolment-driven retraction of sustaining college, department, or program resources.



Table 4: Low-Enrolment Majors

College Major Notes

OAC Urban Landscape Management B.Sc. Agr.

0 majors

Organic Agriculture, B.Sc. Agr. 8 majors

Ag. Ec. B.Sc. Agr. 11 majors

CME BA Gen. Economics 29 majors

CBS Ecology, B.Sc. 38 majors

COA Women’s Studies, BA 25 majors, no full-time faculty, no fixed budget, no core courses. Explore possibility of Centre for research and graduate studies, and intention that this be one of the themes in the redesigned first year curriculum.

Classical Languages, BA 2 majors, rolled into existing Classical Studies Major.

CPES Applied Pharmaceutical Chemistry

See B.Sc. (Tech) below

Physics, Computing, and Communications

See B.Sc. (Tech) below

It is proposed that these majors be wound-up beginning immediately, and similar criteria be applied in future years to identify additional issues. Eliminating a major is somewhat more complex than eliminating a course, due to the presence of in-program students, so precise details will have to be worked out on a case-by-case basis. In general, majors targeted for elimination will immediately suspend intake of new students and expire with their final cohort, perhaps with reduced administrative presence made possible through sharing with continuing majors. Where possible and amenable to those affected, targeted majors may be academically absorbed into related programs more quickly.

What applies to courses and majors must naturally apply to whole degree programs as well, and so we have also proposed eliminating a small number of undergraduate programs. This is not just a matter of consistency at multiple levels: correlation is also at work, and low-enrolment can be a more systemic issue (low-enrolment programs are likely to spawn low-enrolment majors and courses). The basic argument is the same; the formal numeric criterion even less precise. Nevertheless, consultation among the colleges has identified this list of proposed deletions

Table 5: Low-Enrolment Programs

College Program Notes

CPES B.Sc. (Tech) constituent majors eliminated above

Guelph-Humber Computing Despite major revamp, still unable to recruit sufficient applicants



4.2.3 Elimination of minors If the proliferation of dissipative options in the curriculum is an essential problem—and it is—then we must naturally progress to scrutinizing the system of program minors. Minors are essentially a means of creating increased diversity in the formal curricular pathways from matriculation to graduation. This is not in itself a problem, as it provides some guidance and assistance to students who wish to combine multiple fields of interest. The question is whether the added expense is justified by the amount of assistance rendered. We have concluded that in their current format, the answer is “no” and propose to move toward the elimination of the system of designated minors.

The cost of minors is essentially measured in increased complexity and overhead. Minors must be designated, administered, and scheduled; courses within a minor must be selected, and as the curriculum evolves, minor requirements must be updated or altered; the same minor requirements may also hinder or complicate otherwise desired curriculum changes. Minors create additional system costs in advising, faculty and program counselling, scheduling, curriculum and program management, calendar review, degree audit, and BUGS. Minors generate paperwork to track student progress in meeting minor requirements, to approve variations and substitutions when the calendar does not accommodate needed courses, to add and remove courses from the minor’s list, to designate students who fail to make sufficient progress within the minor, and for countless other reasons; and all this paperwork must be processed by staff and usually approved by one or more academic committee. It is because of the proliferation of minors that the University currently features—and must support and administer—well over 2,500 distinct designable curriculum combinations: a map of our undergraduate curriculum would show a maze of over 2,500 separate paths from entrance to exit.

Frequently, minors have become vectors for students to gain better access to restricted courses (such as those in business administration)—students declare a minor to “reserve a place.” This practice is being overused and exploited—some students declare two or even three minors, increasing the complexity of their own schedule of studies exponentially. This “country club” model—join a group in order to obtain privileges available only to members—is not an ideal way to organize a curriculum, and it makes selecting courses even more difficult for those who do not affiliate themselves but still have interest in the material.

Course restrictions in part reflect insufficient capacity to meet demand, and so this reservation aspect of minors is connected to the issue of offering too many low-enrolment courses. If we retarget more effort toward mounting courses that are in demand, and are vital to programs with sustained demand, we will need fewer mechanisms to restrict access, and the pressure to declare a minor to evade those restrictions will be reduced. In other words, we should solve the core problem rather than continuing to elaborate a complex system that only shifts the issue to another administrative realm.

This idea of unintended complexity also applies in reverse: by complicating and constraining curricular choice for students, minors tend to hinder breadth of study. Students commit to ten courses for a minor (possibly, as noted above, in order to obtain access to one or two high-priority courses), which leaves them with fewer credits available for true electives, and less



freedom to schedule courses. This is an unusually high number of courses to require for a minor (the norm in Canada is more like four to six), which exacerbates this restrictive effect.

And yet our calendar definition of a ‘minor’ is quite vague and arbitrary: “a group of courses which provides for exposure to and mastery of the fundamental principles of a subject.” Other curricular constructs like majors, diplomas, and certificates also provide exposure and mastery, but they also serve a clear intention and yield a primary credential. The use and appearance of minors is as inconsistent as their definition: some programs feature a plethora of minors, some few or even none. This begs the question whether the number of minors in a program truly reflects disciplinary imperatives, or just historical practice. In many cases, it seems that minors exist more as an afterthought than a core component of the program of study—indeed many have been tacked onto existing programs in an ad hoc, as-requested manner.

Minors provide labels for students to attach to their degrees. This value is hard to quantify. At the level of majors, official university designation of an approved, consistent schedule of studies is clearly advantageous and helps certify and communicate qualifications and skills. The words “Major in Computing and Information Science” are a tangible asset when applying for a first job at RIM (or for that matter to a graduate program in Artificial Intelligence). Official minors are less persuasive—interest in multi-level hierarchical taxonomies like “English major, minors in Landscape Architecture and Biochemistry” are far greater within the academic sphere than outside it.

The literature suggests that students and their parents nevertheless believe that minors have competitive value in the job market. But it also suggests that students—most of whom have never participated full-time in that market—tend to have a poor understanding of its operation, and that this perceived value is largely self-perpetuating or a result of hyper-attention to credentials. There is no anecdotal or empirical evidence that graduates of minor-less institutions are disadvantaged by having only a single dimension of official qualification. Nor is there evidence that graduates of our own minor-less degree programs are disadvantaged. Arguably, the career value of designated minors is equally achievable simply by clearer communication of personal interests, in other words self-labelling and resume-writing advice. The E-Portfolio pilot program is addressing this need by giving students a more direct and explicit means to display to potential employers the skills acquired during their studies.

Guelph has some unique majors that serve as recruitment draws. We don’t have evidence that students choose Guelph because of the availability of a specific minor. More compelling seems to be the overall choice of courses offered—a choice that will be maintained despite the eliminations described above. Once students arrive, the convention of choosing a label is reinforced through socialization and entrenched practice.

Systems and processes that have tangible costs but nebulous benefits are precisely the kind that need to be reconsidered in an era of strict constraint and resource shortage. The effort currently invested in administering minors should be put to better use streamlining and supporting a simpler, more robust curriculum. The effort invested in pursuing minors could be diverted toward more intentional, more focused expressions of academic distribution and breadth.

The first step in this proposal would be approving the overall principle of eliminating minors. The consequent program reorganization would need to be planned and would not be expected to occur immediately or simultaneously across the University. As in the case with eliminated



majors, programs will need to accommodate in-progress students and provide transitional options.

4.2.4 Intensification Focusing the learning experience is not simply limited to paring away dissipative efforts or unproductive processes. It is also about intensifying the core of that experience in order to make it more engaging, more rewarding, and more effective. We have long acknowledged the need to do more to deserve our own designation as a “research-intensive, learner-centred” university. Much of the work of the 21C committee was concerned with achieving this kind of intensification.

Examples of successful and productive experiments in course intensification can be found scattered all around the University. We need to continue to embed this kind of intensification more widely and consistently in the curriculum. Our first priorities will be the first year—where a more immersive first-year transition into the university environment and mindset has clear advantages—and the final year—where similarly concentrated ‘capstone experiences’ will enrich the learning of students preparing for another kind of transition. Program changes instituted at these ‘bookends’ will eventually work their way through and should pervade the entire undergraduate curriculum.

The operational steps we will take to enhance the first year will be changes in credit weightings, and compensatory changes in the typical course load. One possible approach would be that instead of five 0.5 credit courses, the normal load will become three 0.5 credit courses and one 1.0 credit course. The overall workload for students will not change, just be organized differently and somewhat more concentrated. Fewer discrete courses will need to be taught; some of those courses will become more demanding in terms of total commitment. A number of different models that keep credits earned constant while lowering course count are also possible, and may be more appropriate in certain areas. Programs will have appropriate latitude to develop options as long as the basic goals are met.

Similarly, all honours programs will establish (or strengthen and/or universalize) intensive capstone courses with increased credit weightings (and consequent program adjustments). This more accurately reflects the amount of work students expend on concentrated major projects and culminating efforts, and epitomizes the strategic direction of learner-centredness. Students at this level are expected to drive themselves to expand their own capabilities—this should be acknowledged and accommodated in program structure. The increased specialization of fourth year means that a common, university-wide solution would be even less applicable, and appropriate solutions for each discipline will need to be explored and designed.

Some colleges and departments had long ago made independent advancements toward intensification, and others have recently made these changes--for example a number of departments/schools in the College of Arts have already adopted higher credit weightings for their fourth year courses. We need to learn from these changes and adopt similar kinds of changes more widely across the University, and continue to encourage further creative solutions.

The goal of intensification is not primarily to achieve cost savings, though any changes cannot rely on increased resources and should eagerly seek opportunities to increase efficiency. Rather the key goal is to balance changes already required to achieve cost savings with reorganization and restructuring to ensure that quality and excellence are maintained. Focusing our efforts and



becoming more efficient means that more of the resources we put into teaching pay off in learning outcomes. We cannot avoid a change in our approach—we need to channel the forces of change as best we can toward a better future.

4.2.5 Restructuring The case for academic restructuring should be relatively straightforward. Integrated Planning has always contemplated the periodic need to re-evaluate structures and adjust them as needs evolve. The process of assessing structures and proposing changes as opportunities or challenges arise will continue throughout the University. In this particular plan, we will embark upon two specific restructurings: the merger of the OAC’s Department of Environmental Biology (EVB) and Land Resource Science (LRS) into a new School of Environmental Sciences, and the creation of a new Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science.

4.2.5.1 School of Environmental Sciences Amalgamation of EVB and LRS is an issue that has been repeatedly broached over the past fifteen years. There has long been recognition that research and teaching in the two departments are mutually complementary, and it is natural to consider whether in combination their strengths would be greater than as separate departments. Today, it has become quite clear than ever that a new unit integrating the life and physical sciences to address environmental issues in the two dominant land-uses in Ontario is an ideal manifestation of the University’s priorities in land, food, and the environment. Moreover, adapting in this manner to serve the needs of Ontario is precisely the kind of mission upon which OAC was founded.

A combined School will facilitate the development of a pedagogically strong, intellectually rigorous undergraduate curriculum with a focus on this important interface, which will be attractive to many potential students—more than either department would be able to sustain alone. Together the School will build stronger and more robust programs than could have beens established apart, especially in the context of the significant cuts each department has faced as part of the structural deficit elimination plan (again, the issue is critical mass). By combining research and service in the physical and life sciences, we will create an opportunity to lead nationally and internationally in new research areas that are absolutely vital to society in the face of global and regional environmental change.

4.2.5.2 Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Engineering and Computer Science represent some of very few areas where existing plans—both institutional and governmental—call for significant increases in capacity. The plan for the structural deficit already highlighted the opportunity for targeted and carefully controlled growth in these disciplines, reflecting the provincial and federal governments’ strategic agenda for innovation in science and technology in an idea-based economy. Creating a new Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science will allow us to focus this growth and assist in aligning it with those external imperatives. No new costs will be incurred by this restructuring, and it is hoped that eventual savings will result.

The new Faculty will formalize a partnership to enhance research, teaching, and fundraising, and foster enhanced sharing of staff resources, infrastructure and curricular offerings among already interdependent units. Unlike the School of Environmental Studies, the short-term goal is not to supersede the existing units, but to create an umbrella structure for collaborative work within



CPES and more important with other colleges. Of particular immediate interest are areas with significant emphasis in the University’s strategic planning themes, including bioengineering and bioinformatics efforts in CBS and OAC, and biomedical engineering in OVC and CBS. The new Faculty will highlight the links and synergies between pure and applied research and help to manifest the transformation of ideas into technology.

4.2.6 The University Report Card For the past two years, we have prepared a University Report Card each Fall to track progress on the priorities of the Integrated Plan, and provide a simple, easily-digested summary of accomplishments. Given the impact of resource-driven changes on our priorities this year, the 2009 Report Card will include an update on the measures described above. Again the intent will be to keep the community informed about how well the University is conforming to its stated expectations. Next year’s plan, in addition to proposing additional changes of the types described, will also provide a similar progress update.

4.3 Space Allocation The University’s Space Planning Committee has been very active throughout the 2008/09 academic year. An institutional Space Management Policy is expected to be finalized early in the 2009/10 fiscal year following consultation with deans/directors and senior administrators. The policy will enunciate the University’s commitment to making the most effective use of its space and outline key principles on the allocation and effective utilization of space. Beginning in the summer of 2009 a Space Allocation Committee (SAC) will be responsible for all decisions on the allocation of space. The work of the SAC will be guided by the University’s Campus Master Plan and this Integrated Plan.

In the 2009/10 academic year, the University will begin a program of space allocation and utilization audits to ensure that space utilization is maximized. The Provincial Auditor has identified the need for universities to demonstrate accountability for the space resource allocation across the institution. A new space management software system is now in place and will support the allocation of space. Space management reports will be available to provide senior administrators with the data required to make decisions regarding this resource. These developments will enable the University to establish efficient and effective space utilization objectives for the future.

The recent completion of the Science Complex continues to trigger a number of space reallocations. A capital grant linked to graduate enrolment growth will be used to renovate and retrofit the vacated Axelrod building to accommodate Land Resource Science, the Faculty of Environmental Science, and Occupational and Environmental Health and Safety. This would provide an opportunity to maximize connections among these units and with Geography and Environmental Biology, forming an Environmental Cluster, aligned with the relevant planning theme. The building will also provide additional space to the School of Fine Art and Music. These relocations will subsequently free up space for additional CSAHS and CME graduate student offices.

Student Housing Services has developed a long-term plan for development, upgrade, renovation and retrofit of residences. As an ancillary of the institution, any development will have to be



funded from residence fees, according to government regulations. Clearly the plans cannot be completed without incurring debt, which will affect the borrowing capacity of the institution. Nevertheless, this investment is required in order to ensure that Guelph can continue to provide an attractive residential environment for undergraduate students.

A comprehensive plan for equipment purchase and replacement will need to be developed as we move forward, and in coordination with the elaboration of an integrated facilities plan.

5 Assessment & Accountability In current planning efforts, we have readily acknowledged the obligation to identify performance indicators. We have been particularly adept in publishing such indicators to external consumers such as the government and prospective students. However, we have largely avoided applying these metrics internally, where they are most useful. We need to establish procedures to make measures of performance meaningful by applying them in a formal manner to evaluate achievements relative to plans. This not only provides us with a better sense of our progress, but also encourages the development of better, more accurate, and more informative indicators.

When plans fail to be realized, we want to be able to identify the reasons why—ideally in order to learn from mistakes. Similarly, successful planning needs to be recognized and its characteristics propagated. Making units more accountable to their plans encourages more careful planning as well as more conscientious execution. And the sword of accountability cuts both ways: it also protects individual units from contingent failures in the plans upon which they are dependent, and disruptions in their inputs. No unit—and thus no unit’s plan—stands alone, without dependencies on other units. Clarified performance measures and accountability standards allow us to detect, and ideally correct, cascading problems before too many dominoes topple.

Assessment is the final stage of the Integrated Planning cycle and the one that “closes the loop.” It provides valuable input into subsequent iterations of planning, in the form of feedback on performance and execution, as well as output to external entities to which the University is accountable, in the form of demonstrable measures of performance, and return on investment. In this initial plan, assessment is unfortunately the least developed phase of the cycle, largely because we are only now establishing a plan that can be subject to integrated assessment. It is therefore the area in which the most work will be required—by all participants—over the next cycle. Establishing clear, consistent, and reliable means of assessment is arguably where Integrated Planning will provide the greatest benefit, since this has been a historical weakness in our processes.

Valid assessment needs to adhere to two sometimes conflicting imperatives. The first is that measurement is clearest and most reliable when it can be expressed numerically—dollars per FTE, students per instructor, year-over-year enrolment change. At the same time, not everything that we do at is necessarily quantifiable, and attempting to reduce complex judgements to a few summary numbers is inappropriate in many cases, and perhaps even dangerously misleading. We can have no illusions about the desire of the government and other sources of funding to obtain clearer and more accurate accounts of how their funds are used, and what results are accrued.



Where it makes sense, we will need to support this demand for finer-grained accountability with more comprehensive reporting and tighter controls. But simple thresholds are no substitute for the kind of deliberative and collegial judgment that is essential to academic governance. A simple, objective count can measure the quantity of a tenure candidate’s research output. But until we perform a more subjective evaluation of the work’s overall quality, we have not truly completed a reliable assessment of the case. The same balance will need to be applied as we construct measures of success at the level of programs, initiatives, and themes.

Assessment methods should be devised in such a way as to facilitate benchmarking of performance. Units will be encouraged to identify important peers or competitors or functional equivalents and provide a means of comparison and/or ranking. Appraisal of performance solely against planned intentions or targets can be abstract and hard to visualize. Benchmarking provides a relative and in some cases competitive perspective that can assist in making assessments more accurate and effective. Collaboration among units will be vital to developing institutionally commensurable methods of assessment. Resource Planning and Analysis will have an important role to play, not just as a data generator but also as a repository of expertise and a coordinating influence. Some progress has been made on setting benchmarks, but it has been hindered by the diversity of incompatible reporting formats used by various institutions (and even within institutions). In Spring 2009, we hope to gain access to data that will allow us to develop reliable ways of comparing at the disciplinary level.

The integrated assessment that forms part of the planning cycle is not the only measurement that units will need to undergo. External agencies, including certification and accreditation bodies like OCGS, comparison surveys such as Maclean’s and NSSE, and other mandated accountability structures imposed by funding sources will all be keenly interested in gauging our progress. Moreover, the normal process of Internal Reviews mediated by SCIR will continue. Assessment criteria should be devised so as to integrate internal and external requirements, and harmonize data gathering and interpretation. It is simpler to start from a full suite of comprehensive metrics and discard those not appropriate to a particular reporting model, than to add assessment capacity repeatedly and incrementally as each new requirement is presented.

Progress on assessment criteria has been slow, and this should remain a critical priority for the next plan iteration. VPAC has worked on establishing a common, repeatable set of indicators—course enrolments, budgeted faculty, graduate supervisions, etc. This needs to be extended and formalized, and applied to the development of college and unit plans. These indicators were used to guide the establishment of budget-reduction targets for the colleges in the plan to eliminate the structural deficit.

We have also recognized and focused on the need for an appropriate assessment infrastructure: a framework for record-keeping in which metrics and indicators can be effectively tracked and compared. We have thus spent a significant amount of effort simply on setting the stage, and establishing the databases and data collection standards and techniques that underlie reliable reporting. Eventually this infrastructure should be able to support the publication of annual reports. We have also revised the integrated planning operational guidelines and finalized the planning templates. Resource allocation guidelines (RAGs) have been developed for graduate growth and position management, and this cycle we will produce guidelines for the allocation of research overhead and undergraduate enrolment growth.



One of the key goals of integrated planning is greater transparency not only in the making of plans, but also in the assessment of performance. We will continue to publish the annual University Report Card to publicly document progress and achievement on planning priorities and other initiatives begun or continued under the strategic themes. There is also a Integrated Planning website which among other things houses copies of all the individual unit and college plans, the operational guidelines, the Report Card, and this plan itself.

One final form of assessment that needs to be developed is the assessment and improvement of the Integrated Planning process itself. We have conducted this first cycle with an initial approximation of planning templates, schedules, deliverables, and priorities. We will undoubtedly refine our expectations as we learn what works well, what facilitates the planning effort for each unit and the integration of multiple unit plans. At the same time some continuous improvement should be expected to occur naturally and informally, as participants in the process become more familiar with its requirements and discover and share strategies for more efficient execution.

6 Conclusion and Next Steps The University of Guelph has a proud and impressive history. This Integrated Plan is an attempt to ensure that it continues to have an exciting and successful future. A synthesis of institutional aspirations, intentions, constraints, and opportunities, it represents an expression not only of where we hope to find ourselves in five years, but also a guide toward that destination. This University Plan is a large-scale map; the college and unit plans from which it was integrated form successive more magnified layers of guidance. Together they provide a detailed atlas of institutional development.

As Guelph’s first document of this kind, this plan is necessarily somewhat incomplete, and must be considered a work in progress. The Integrated Planning cycle is a true cycle, with each step in the process enabling and contributing to the efficiency and accuracy of subsequent steps, and each iteration of the cycle providing feedback that helps monitor, control and improve future ones. This year, we were able to build upon and extend the solid foundation laid in previous years, and were guided by our growing body of experience. It will take some careful adjustment, additional effort, and a substantial portion of willpower before all phases of the process—planning, resource allocation, and assessment—are working at nominal efficiency. Important process benefits such as enhanced predictability and more effective management will not manifest themselves in full until several revolutions of the cycle have been completed.

One of the most important tasks over the next year will be to make further progress on developing and implementing reliable assessment methodologies, without which we cannot gain the most important benefits of the process. Assessment will also be the key to answering a question which in previous years was largely left implicit, but has now (as discussed above in section 4) become critical: even as we embark upon new and promising initiatives, where are we going to scale back? What are we going to stop doing, in order to be able to continue to foster creative, new initiatives? How will we establish a sustainable financial equilibrium for the University, and simultaneously maintain and enhance quality? The underlying question usually



asked at this point is “and how will we make such decisions?” With a fully-developed Integrated Plan, the answer is obvious: the priorities inherent in the plan, and especially the assessment methods it applies, will help make those decisions, and make them in an equitable and rational manner.

The cyclical nature of Integrated Planning is an important model to keep in mind: it anticipates and assumes change and evolution, and attempts to guide that evolution in a careful and effective matter. For a variety of reason, the status quo is not a viable option, and difficult choices will have to be made. In the current economic climate, many organizations of all types are struggling to adapt and redefine their roles. Some have already failed and more will undoubtedly fail, for reasons that range from inability or unwillingness to change, to ineffective or incautious management, to simple bad luck. But those organizations that can evolve, and that manage to update and execute their goals effectively, will emerge stronger and more capable from even a deep disruption.

Throughout the world, governments are emphasizing that the way out of recession is innovation, and that the harsh conditions of a slowdown are the ideal incubator for significant advances. No societal institution better epitomizes that spirit than the university, and Guelph’s global leadership provides us not only an opportunity but also an obligation to contribute what we can to the recovery effort. We must do our best—which means that we cannot simply do as we have done in the past.

This plan will help us make forward progress, but decisions guided by the plan will still reflect the core values and vision on which it is founded. The Integrated Plan itself, and indeed the very processes by which it has been developed and through which it will be implemented, have all been devised as a means of reaffirming those values and realizing that vision. It is a means of Making Choices that still results in Making Change.

In addition to building a framework of process and coordinating the efforts of the many loosely-coupled units that form our university, the plan also serves to identify a level of organization and intention midway between the broad institutional mission statement and the dizzying variety of individual research projects, courses, and programs that animate the University’s campuses. The planning themes developed here are ultimately aggregations of especially concentrated and coherent activity. They are a small set of directions toward which the net motion of the institution is channelled, even as the individual members of the university community remain free to pursue their own interests, wherever they may lead. And at the same time, the themes represent directions in which extra effort will be made to support the discovery and exploitation of new opportunities.

Finally, this plan represents the integration of contributions of the many people who have participated in the process of its development. In some respect, almost every member of the community has added at least something to the plan, because it attempts to incorporate, through the integration that has occurred at multiple levels, a sense of the totality of the University’s priorities and options. We especially thank those who have participated more actively in the construction of the plan—the process has demanded a great deal of work, but has been energizing and helped to focus our efforts. It is only through the amazing dedication of its faculty, staff, students, and alumni that the University of Guelph has built its record of achievement, and it is through their continuing commitment that it will move forward into a bright and well-planned future.


Page 112 of 293


MEETING: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 b) Capital Activities- Clinical Skills Facility for Large Animal Teaching Both the Physical Resources and Property Committee (March 23) and the Finance Committee (April 8) have agreed to support a recommendation to the Board of Governors for the design and construction of the Ontario Veterinary College Clinical Skills Facility and renovations to Barn #37, Wing C, and related infrastructure. This proposed capital project will provide a facility for large animal, hands-on laboratories and clinical teaching spaces associated with training in animal handling, safety, species-specific demonstrations and communications. It will also provide permanent housing for both bovine and equine teaching animals. The location of the proposed project is identified on the enclosed map. This project is critically important to fulfillment of the CVMA/AVMA Accreditation and the Canadian Council on Animal Care requirements which specify that teaching animals be housed separately from OVC hospital patients. This project would also allow the University to satisfy the Accreditation and Animal Care needs identified in the Master Plan for the phased redevelopment of the OVC facilities. This Master Plan received Board of Governor in principal on April 7, 2004. The total estimated cost of the project of $2.545 million will be met through is a combination of resources that the University already has in hand. Specifically the total estimated cost would be met through a combination of resources available to the University through (a) the Veterinary Clinical Education Program under the partnership agreement between the University and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAFRA) and (b) the Special Grant Funding Envelope funding provided to the University by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) for the Ontario Veterinary College.

Capital Activities - Clinical Skills Facility for Large Anim... Page 113 of 293

The consultants for the project are Randy Wilson Architect and Jova, Daniels and Busby Architects. If the project is approved, it will move ahead on the timeline outlined in the enclosed project summary. . The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, That the Board of Governors approve, that the University Administration be authorized to proceed with the design and construction of the Ontario Veterinary College Clinical Skills Facility and renovations to Barn #37, Wing C, and related infrastructure at an estimated total project cost of $2.545 million and subject to design approval by the Physical Resources and Property Committee. N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 7b cover memo.doc



Page 116 of 293

Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

Prop

osed

Maj

or C

apita

l Pro

ject

Pre

pare

d fo

r th

e Ph

ysic

al R

esou

rces

and

Pro

pert

y C

omm

ittee

2

3 M

arch

200

9 P

11

C

API

TAL

PRO

JEC

T: O

VC

Bar

n #3

7 R

enov

atio

n &

Clin

ical

Ski

lls F

acili

ty A

dditi

on

D

ETA

ILS

NO

TES

LOC

ATI

ON

O

VC B

arn

#37

PU

RPO

SE

Larg

e An

imal

dem

onstr

atio

n, te

achi

ng a

nd h

ousin

g fa

cilit

y.

BOA

RD

APP

RO

VA

L Re

quire

d at

Jun

e 04

th, 2

009

mee

ting

Des

ign

appr

oval

May

04th

, 200

9 PR

PC.

STA

RT

DA

TE

Cons

truct

ion

sum

mer

200

9,

C

OM

PLET

ION

DA

TE

April

201

0

PRO

JEC

T ST

ATU

S Pr

ojec

t pre

sent

atio

n on

23rd

Mar

. 200

9

AR

CH

ITEC

T Ra

ndy

Wils

on A

rchi

tect

and

Jov

a, D

anie

ls Bu

sby

Arch

itect

s

GEN

ERA

L C

ON

TRA

CTO

R

To b

e de

term

ined

APP

RO

VED

PR

OJE

CT

CO

ST

Up

to $

2.54

5 m

illio

n,

BO

AR

D D

ECIS

ION

S N

EED

ED

IN T

HE

NEX

T 12

MO

NTH

S

Appr

oval

for d

esig

n, p

roje

ct b

udge

t and

con

struc

tion

at th

e Ju

ne 0

4, 2

009

mee

ting.


Page 118 of 293


MEETING: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 c) Proposed 2009-10 Preliminary University of Guelph MTCU Budget Mr. John Miles will speak to the enclosed proposal for the 2009-10 University of Guelph Preliminary Ministry of Colleges and Universities (MTCU) Operating Budget. The President will provide an oral report at the meeting concerning the April 7, 2009 Senate discussion of the integrated plan and budget proposal. At its meeting on April 8, 2009, the Finance Committee considered and approved for recommendation to the Board, the 2009-10 Preliminary University of Guelph Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Operating Budget. Incorporated in the budget proposal are the resource implications associated with various administrative and curricular measures identified in the Integrated Plan, as presented under item 4a. This includes two proposals for departmental restructuring that were approved at the Senate meeting on April 7, 2009. This budget proposal incorporates recommendations concerning changes to tuition rates and other compulsory student fees. The detailed schedule of fees proposed for 2009-10 incorporated in the budget proposal includes fees for all degree and diploma programs at the Guelph campus as well as the regional campuses (Alfred, Kemptville and Ridgetown) and the University of Guelph-Humber. It includes proposed tuition fee rates for both domestic and international students. The enclosed schedule of the University’s proposed 2009-10 non-tuition related compulsory student fees has been prepared following the requirements specified in Board-approved Student Services Fee Protocols applicable for the relevant fee proposals. The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, That the Board of Governors approve 2009-10 University of Guelph Preliminary Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Operating Budget, as presented. N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 7c MTCU cover memo.doc

Proposed 2009-10 Preliminary University of Guelph MTCU Budge... Page 119 of 293

Page 120 of 293

University of Guelph

2009/2010 Preliminary MTCU

(Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities) Operating Budget

For the fiscal year May 1, 2009 to April 30, 2010

For presentation to the Finance Committee of the Board of Governors

April 8, 2009


University of Guelph 2009/2010 Preliminary MTCU Operating Budget

i

Table of Contents

Contents Impact of the March 26th Provincial Budget........................................................................................... 2 A: Budget Context and the Structural Deficit: ........................................................................................ 3 B: The Multi-Year Plan and Integrated Planning: ................................................................................. 4 C: The 2009/2010 Budget Process: ....................................................................................................... 5 D: Provincial Grants: ............................................................................................................................. 6 E: Tuition Revenues (Enrolment and Fees): .......................................................................................... 9 F: Provision for Compensation (Salaries and Benefits) ..................................................................... 13

F.1 Post-Employment Benefits ......................................................................................................... 13 G: Other Incremental Budget Assumptions: ...................................................................................... 15

G.1 Other Institutional Revenues and Recoveries: ........................................................................... 15 G.2: Other Institutional Expenses: .................................................................................................... 17 G.3: Incremental Investments and Initiatives: .................................................................................. 18

G.3.1: Academic Investment and Integrated Planning ................................................................. 18 G.3.1.1: Academic Investments ..................................................................................................... 18 G.3.1.2: Integrated Planning ......................................................................................................... 19 G.3.2: Capital Infrastructure Debt Servicing ................................................................................. 20 G.3.3: Other Institutional Support Costs and Contingency Funds: ................................................ 21

H: Multi-Year Planning Targets 2009/2010 ........................................................................................ 21 H.1: Progress Toward the Targets .................................................................................................... 23 H.2: Closing the Remaining “Gap” .................................................................................................... 25 H.3: Multi-Year Deficit Plan .............................................................................................................. 25

I: Summary of Major 2009/2010 MTCU Preliminary Budget Assumptions ...................................... 27 J: Section: 2008/2009 Forecast (Budget versus Forecast Results)...................................................... 28 K: Definitions and University Financial Context ................................................................................. 30 L: Tables ............................................................................................................................................... 32

L1: Table A - 2009/2010 Preliminary Budget by Unit and Expense Category .................................. 33 L2: Table B - Summary by Major Revenue and Expense Categories ................................................ 37 L3: Table C - MTCU Forecast Results 2008/2009 ............................................................................. 40 L4: Table D - Full-time Equivalents (FTE’s) for MTCU Budgeted Positions ....................................... 41

M: Proposed Tuition Fees and Non-Tuition Compulsory Student Fees .............................................. 44 Appendix A: 2009/2010 Schedule of Proposed Tuition Fees ............................................................. 44 Appendix B: 2009/2010 Schedule of Non-Tuition Compulsory Student Fees .................................... 48



2

Impact of the March 26th Provincial Budget The Ontario Budget announced that the post-secondary education sector (PSE – includes colleges

and universities) will be receiving an increase in funding for 2009/2010. This is an unexpected reversal of previous provincial announcements which indicated a “freeze” on operating grants. In that context, it is very welcome. At the time of the release of the provincial budget, the preparation of the University’s 2009-10 MTCU Preliminary Operating budget was well underway and, for the most part, completed. It is recognized that while certain University budget assumptions will require adjustment over the course of the fiscal year as the provincial budget details are clarified, the University’s view is that the new funding may provide additional opportunities and flexibility but not fundamentally alter the need to continue with the multi-year plan to address the structural deficit. Therefore, at this time, the assumptions underlying the University’s budget proposal for 2009/2010 have not been altered to reflect possible changes to provincial funding. As confirmation of provincial funding is received (including amounts, levels, restrictions), this information will be factored into both the 2009/2010 budget and into the remaining years of the multi-year plan to eliminate the structural deficit. The following is a brief discussion of the reasons for that position.

The provincial budget, as in the past, comes in the form of a number of high-level announced

capital, research and operating envelopes of funding. In terms of impact on the University’s operating budget, it must be assumed that research and capital funding will be restricted to use on specific research and capital projects. This funding will provide a welcome support for these areas but it cannot be expected to directly address our structural deficit in the operating budget.

For operating support, $150 million for the PSE sector is clearly designated in the provincial budget

as one-time year-end funding. These funds will not address the structural deficit but may be available to support one-time costs. Also, it is unknown if these funds were part of previous announcements or if there are any restrictions on the use of these funds. In the past, the province has linked grants of this nature to incremental (and as yet unplanned) spending. Also announced was $200 million of new funding for the final year of the government’s “Reaching Higher” program. It is already known that this amount includes the previously announced multi-year graduate growth funding ($35 million). This graduate program funding is already factored into the University’s budget assumptions for 2009/2010 and beyond. As yet, no details on the distribution of this support (e.g., how much will be allocated to colleges versus and universities), the nature of these funds (base or one-time), or the possible restrictions on the use of these funds, is known. “Quality, growth and sustainability” was the context in which this funding was announced, strongly indicating some conditions will apply and that use of new funding will be subject to demonstrated investments and/or performance outcomes. The conclusion is that there is significant uncertainty in the amount and possible restricted nature of any new provincial funding (consistent with assumptions in the following budget presentation). Therefore the likelihood is that there will be limited opportunity for use of these funds to help with the University’s current structural deficit.

In summary, the Provincial Budget offers welcome news. It is a clear retreat from the previous

funding “freeze” and is a positive signal going forward. Nonetheless, the fundamental risks to the University’s current fiscal situation remain; provincial pension funding rules are effectively unchanged, this is unlikely to be general funding relief for cost increases on the University’s expenditure base, and increased funding support for critical deferred maintenance is uncertain. At this time, there is no expectation that the new funding will remove those fundamental risks. It however, may provide a measure of re-investment that will only be effective if the University continues with its efforts to stabilize the University’s fiscal foundation.



3

A: Budget Context and the Structural Deficit: The 2009/2010 MTCU Operating budget reflects the continuation of two major initiatives begun

over the past several years; Integrated Planning, and the Multi-Year Plan. The Integrated Plan was initiated in 2005/2006 to develop an effective framework for the allocation

of resources in the face of a continuous erosion of provincial funding and increasing demand for limited resources within the University. The 2009/2010 Integrated Plan (available on the University’s Website; www.uoguelph.ca) documents the overall University planning priorities and links these to college/division objectives, priorities and accomplishments. The Multi-Year Plan was created in the 2008/2009 budget as a means to implement multi-year unit financial targets necessary to address the University’s structural deficit. The 2008/2009 Integrated Plan, while presented as a separate document, contains key priorities that have guided certain budget allocations and the Multi-year Plan forms the financial framework to establish and monitor overall budget objectives while the University aligns structural revenues and expenses. Both are critical in the development of 2009/2010 budget assumptions and consequently will be referred to throughout this presentation.

This year’s Integrated Plan (IP) reflects the fiscal challenge faced by not only the University of

Guelph but the whole Ontario university system. This is despite investments in postsecondary education (such as the provincial government’s 2005 “Reaching Higher” commitment). Over the past decade, the University has been asked to educate more students, produce more research, and improve our service with few incremental resources to meet basic or structural cost increases (utilities, salaries and retirement benefits and building maintenance). These competing demands for limited funding have created a serious shortfall between core income and expenses. While this shortfall sometimes has been masked by one-time provincial year end funding, the underlying “structural deficit” remains a serious risk to the fiscal stability of the University. Budgetary challenges—which in the past were manageable within annual financial plans containing what now seem like minor adjustments—have become so significant that major structural changes are required if the University is to achieve basic financial stability.

Provincial grants, our traditional source of funding are still critical for our long term success

especially in competing with other post-secondary jurisdictions; but they can no longer be counted on to cover basic cost increases. What provincial funding does flow is targeted toward specific provincial objectives such as growing enrolments or improving “quality”, often necessitating incremental spending. Such funding is also encumbered with demands for more comprehensive demonstrations of actual return on investment, and more detailed accountability procedures, frequently oriented toward short-term horizons which further restrict flexibility. Funding eligibility is often tied to achievement of targets, with failure to meet specific goals often resulting in automatic “clawbacks”. Ontario universities are now required to establish a multi-year agreement with the government, specifying benchmarks, metrics, and targets for the measurement of quality improvements.

This increasingly targeted provincial funding is also becoming unstable and unpredictable and driven

or affected by short-term political considerations. Vital funding announcements—whether involving grants or regulations affecting allowable tuition levels—can be delayed for any number of reasons. It is now the norm to receive annual provincial operating grant commitments well after a fiscal year is underway (often in March or April of a fiscal year that ends on April 30). Uncertainty over whether the resources will actually materialize creates significant risk and disrupts planning. When resources are



4

ultimately determined, the result is often one-time-only support or semi-restricted funding that does not support basic cost increases and often entails more expenses.

This targeted and often soft funding, which does not recognize ongoing cost increases or general

depreciation of our building and service infrastructures, has serious financial consequences. On the expense side, the University experiences cost increases in the range of 4-6% per year. These are largely for compensation commitments including salaries and benefits and the need to invest in our physical space, technology and teaching infrastructures. The gap between core expenses and reliable funding creates a University structural deficit1 in the MTCU Operating Budget that in 2008/2009 reached $16.1 million per year.

B: The Multi-Year Plan and Integrated Planning: In 2008/2009 it was recognized that the size of the fiscal problem coupled with the inflexible nature

of expenditures meant that year-by-year incremental budget adjustments to maintain a balanced budget were no longer feasible. In addition, if the University is to advance quality and system capacity beyond what is in place today more effective investment is required. It was recognized that a problem of this scale could not be resolved in one year therefore a multi-year plan including a deficit-financing proposal was developed for Board of Governor’s consideration as part of the University’s 2008/2009 MTCU Operating Budget. The University is now entering the second year of that plan. The key fiscal objectives in the Plan are to reallocate existing resources to eliminate the structural deficit, meet anticipated cost increases and provide for repayment of any one-time deficits. Operationally this meant establishing initial budget targets for major operating units to remove $36.2 million in net MTCU base costs over the period of the plan (2008-2012).

When developing any multi-year plan it is necessary to make assumptions. While some elements of

the budget are more predictable than other, the most critical revenue components remain provincial grants (50% of revenues) and tuition/enrolment (30% of revenues). In April 2008, when the initial multi-year assumptions were set, it was assumed a general structural reinvestment would be made by the province on the order of 3.5% to 4% of our grants starting in 2009/2010. Subsequent provincial economic updates suggest that the post-secondary system will at best receive no incremental base funding (non-targeted) for at least the next two years. This amounts to a net projected loss of $10 million relative to initial assumptions. As a consequence, eliminating the structural deficit will now require units to find a total of $46.2 million in internal cost savings or external net revenues by 2012. This equates to just over 19% of our personnel cost base budget.

In order to achieve these levels of savings it will be necessary to focus and prioritize limited

resources while preserving the overall capacity of graduate and undergraduate programs. This is where the Integrated Planning framework will assist in making the necessary and difficult decisions that are required. IP metrics, while not yet fully developed, guided the allocation of the $46.2 million overall University target to individual colleges/divisions. While no unit remains unaffected by these reductions, differential allocations have been made.

1 Structural deficit refers to the shortfall between long-term revenue and expense budget assumptions comprising the

Operating budget. Structural deficits typically arise when major components of revenue (provincial grants and tuition) are insufficient to cover major on-going expense increases such as compensation, utilities and debt servicing. In the past, this shortfall has been temporarily covered in a fiscal year with cyclical savings/revenues such as one-time grants and unspent contingency funds as well as weather-related utility savings. Structural deficits can only be eliminated through active policy/program change either by the province (e.g., grants, tuition regulation) or by the University, through program cost reductions/ net revenue increases.



5

To date approximately 70% of the total target of $46.2 million has been identified or committed to by Deans or Division heads. While this represents a major effort, perhaps the most difficult portion of the challenge remains. Priorities articulated in the Integrated Plan (over the past three years) now have become the focus for resource allocations and activities of low demand or low productivity will need to be curtailed. The next steps in the process will be the continued prioritization of our resources especially in the delivery of the undergraduate curriculum.

Many of the key 2009/2010 budget allocation decisions have been made in the context of the

2009/2010 Integrated Plan. It is the University’s objective that, as the Integrated Plan evolves and develops more comprehensive metrics these will become a key component of the decision making framework in which the budget is prepared. (Refer to Section H for more detailed discussion of the Multi-Year targets by unit and progress to date in meeting those targets.)

C: The 2009/2010 Budget Process: The University starts its annual budget preparation process with a review of strategic budget

objectives. In setting these objectives it is recognized that there is a continuing challenge to manage the competing demands of investing in the improvement of facilities, programs and services and maintaining a balanced budget. For 2009/2010 these two major demands are presented as;

1) To continue the development of resource allocation decisions in the context of objectives and

priorities including: Setting and meeting University undergraduate enrolment objectives and graduate enrolment

growth targets in the context of increasing competitive pressures Incorporating IP metrics and priorities in annual resource allocation processes and decisions Sustaining the quality of teaching, research and the student learning experience Maintaining critical University infrastructures and services in support of the academic mission.

2) To fiscally balance and stabilize the budget including: managing any deficit repayment requirement achieving the University’s Multi-Year Plan targets

There remain a number of critical assumptions made in the Preliminary MTCU Operating Budget

that will not be confirmed until later in the fiscal year. These assumptions include enrolment and provincial funding2 (e.g., provincial funding dependent on fall enrolments is not confirmed by the province until after November). As the University receives confirmation of the financial impact of these events, they will be factored into the budget.

The following sections of this presentation contain the detailed assumptions used for the 2009/2010

Preliminary MTCU Operating Budget and the key elements of our Multi-Year Plan (and targets) to eliminate the structural deficit. While significant uncertainty remains, the 2009/2010 assumptions reflect the continuation of goals the University set for itself in 2008/2009 and the commitment to completing the strategic restructuring needed to meet our objectives and return to a sustainable fiscal position.

2 As noted on page 2, the impact of the March 26th provincial budget remains uncertain and no changes to the

University’s current budget assumption have been made at this time. Normally it takes several weeks/months to determine the impact of provincial budgets on both post-secondary system and the University of Guelph.



6

D: Provincial Grants: Provincial grants ( 50% of our MTCU Operating Budget revenue) are based on provincial funding

announcements that contained a general commitment to provide “full-cost” grant funding per student3 for enrolment growth and under the “Reaching Higher”4 program of 2005, to respond to the need to improve the quality of existing programs. In terms of envelopes there are many (approximately 15-20) specific grants that constitute provincial operating grants in the University’s MTCU budget. Many of these grants are targeted and may not be used for general operating purposes. Others are less restricted but are awarded based on incremental enrolment growth. Still others are allocated only for demonstrated incremental expenses (e.g., for “quality” improvements). No grant increases have been provided in recent years for general cost increases. In 2008/2009 incremental provincial operating funding has flowed under the two enrolment-based “accessibility” envelopes.

Enrolment Based Grants (Accessibility): In the 2001 Ontario Budget, the Province announced special

measures to alleviate anticipated enrolment pressures emerging from the double cohort (elimination of grade 13 in Ontario in 2003), including an increase in operating grants to universities. The critical working assumption made by the University in estimating the Accessibility grants is that “full-cost” grant funding will be provided for all eligible5 incremental growth. Normally accessibility funding is distributed to each university in Ontario based upon actual year-over-year increases in eligible enrolment at each university. Because actual enrolments are not confirmed until November (for fall) and February (for winter), when enrolments are verified and reported to the Ministry, the University does not know the actual distribution of this provincial grant until well into the fiscal year (MTCU confirmations can be as late as March - our fiscal year ends April 30th).

Total actual demand for undergraduate programs for the university system have usually exceeded

Ministry estimates (and therefore funding provided in that year) which has resulted in “discounting”. Discounting refers to a less than full-cost grant provided for student increases because the fixed dollars provided in annual Ministry budgets for growth in any year are spread over more students than anticipated. Discounting not only reduces funding but creates uncertainty in our planning as it is not known when the province will meet the full-cost grant funding promised. To date the MTCU has attempted to fund fully past enrolment growth although it may be several years before this is actually realized in the University’s transfer payments.

Undergraduate Accessibility: Historically, all accessibility funding has been “base” or permanent to

each institution that earned it. During 2007/2008 the province announced the undergraduate component of accessibility funding would become one-time only meaning that funding in any one year could be lost the next depending upon total enrolments. It is assumed that until this continuing one-time funding is rolled into our base grant allotment by the province, it will not form part of the University’s structural solution. Given the provincial funding situation it is not considered prudent to rely on funds that may be

3 “Full cost” funding refers to the commitment by the Province to fund new student enrolments at a level reflecting the

total provincial grant income per student in accordance with the established funding formula. Prior to this commitment, provincial grants were effectively fixed and universities received only tuition revenue for new enrolments effectively discounting provincial grants received per student. A full-cost grant level is on average approximately $6,800 per undergraduate student and between $12,000 (masters) and $27,000 (PhD) per graduate student in the Ontario university system.

4 In this 2004/2005 program the province announced the commitment of $6.2 billion over six years in new investments in post-secondary education (colleges and universities and student assistance) in Ontario. 2009/2010 is the final year of this program in which most of the funds were targeted for incremental activities (e.g., growth in graduate students).

5 Enrolment in unregulated categories (e.g., international students), is not eligible for any provincial grant support.



7

withdrawn or converted into other funding priorities to fund our structural costs. In 2008/2009 the University experienced continued demand for most of its programs and undergraduate enrolments exceed budget expectations6. Additional tuition and grant revenues were realized (refer to section J – 2008/2009 Forecast). It is expected and assumed for budget purposes that the province will continue its current practice of funding undergraduate growth annually albeit at the 80% discounted rate and that with the “flow-through” effect of 2008/2009 growth, additional grant funding of $2.6 million will flow to the University This will be recognized as one-time funding.

Graduate Accessibility: In its 2005 “Reaching Higher” budget, the province announced that the

“accessibility” grant funding priority would shift from undergraduate to graduate student growth. Funding is flowed to universities that achieve their negotiated and approved growth targets for graduate enrolments. In 2005, the University of Guelph established targets for an increase of 330 FTES7 (202 masters and 128 doctoral) graduate enrolments relative to 2004 levels. In 2008/2009 the University had exceeded it masters targets by 46 FTES (this over-target growth was not initially funded) and met all but 34 doctoral FTE’s. This resulted in approximately $6 million in new funding over the course of two fiscal years (2007/2008 and 2008/2009), a significant portion of which has been designated for new allocations for both department teaching expenses and student support.

During fiscal 2008/2009, the province announced that the 2005 program would be extended to fund

additional graduate growth of 3,300 spaces province-wide. Under this extended program the University of Guelph was allocated an increased target of 218 masters (including the unfunded growth from 2008/2009) and 13 doctoral students to be achieved over the next three years. If this growth is achieved, new funding would be $3.6 million. (Under the University’s current resource allocation guidelines a significant portion of this funding will be flowed to colleges in proportion to their sustained graduate growth). As these revised targets were just recently confirmed, only funding which recognizes growth already achieved (i.e., the masters “overshoot” growth in 2008/2009) has been factored into the Preliminary MTCU Operating Budget. Enrolment growth funding beyond these levels, while incorporated into internal enrolment targets, will be reflected in future budget updates. The University has three years in which to attain the full allotment of funded graduate growth. Unlike the undergraduate accessibility funding, graduate accessibility grants are rolled into the University’s base budget once targets are met. For the 2009/2010 budget, $0.600 million has been added to the base assumption for graduate accessibility payments (recognition of growth already achieved).

Quality Improvement Grants: In the 2004 “Reaching Higher” budget, the province announced that a

new fund (QIF - Quality Improvement Fund) was to be created with the objective of improving the quality of post-secondary education in the province. Allocation of this grant to individual institutions was based upon a measure of each institution’s relative share of total system enrolments using a complex formula of program-weighted enrolments and total funding available. Universities are required to account for these funds each year in a separate report (Multi-Year Agreement) to MTCU demonstrating spending on improvements using the provincial funds. This category of grants, when initiated in 2005/2006 was considered to be the major source of new funding to support cost increases and improvements in overall

6 Full-time domestic enrolment was approximately 250 FTE’s over the 2008/2009 budget assumption accounting for most

of this increase. In addition there was an increase in part-time undergraduate enrolments. Part-time enrolments are very unpredictable and may increase/decrease significantly in any single year.

7 FTE or Full-Time Equivalent in the context of enrolment refers to the conversion of actual head counts (part-time, graduate and undergraduate in each semester) into common equivalents. For example a full-time undergraduate student registered for 2 semesters in a year is considered 1 FTE and a full-time graduate student registered for 1 semester is considered 1 FTE. MTCU uses FTE’s as its measure of enrolment across institutions.



8

program quality. Since that time however, the grant has remained essentially unchanged. It however has been the label assigned to one-time funds in 2006/2007 ($12.7 million) 2007/2008 ($3.3 million) for which the University has had to account for in terms of “improvements in quality”.

It is clear that the provincial funding environment has changed to reflect the use of more targeted

and one-time grants and the continuing absence of funding for basic cost increases. The University is assuming there will be no increase to funding for inflation on existing costs and any additional provincial funding we receive will be dependent on either enrolment growth or improvements in quality under the terms of the Quality Improvement Fund. There is a small reduction of $0.300 million reflected in the 2009/2010 budget assumptions reflecting an adjustment to the quality improvement grant. The following chart plots the progression of the changes in MTCU funding over the course of four fiscal years as well as budget assumptions for 2009/2010. The increased use of one-time allocations is clearly demonstrated in recent years. As noted, recent provincial practice has been to flow funds late in their fiscal year (March 31) and with the added complexity of what the March 26th provincial budget may bring, confirmation of the 2008/2009 grants remains incomplete. As information is received it will be factored into the MTCU Operating Budget during the course of the current and coming fiscal year.

05/06 Actual 06/07 Actual 07/08 Actual 08/09 Forecast

09/10 Budget

One-Time 0.0 12.7 2.9 3.2 2.6Other 12.0 11.9 12.0 11.8 3.8Accessiblity 0.6 2.8 5.1 5.8 1.0"Quality" 4.7 7.5 5.0 5.1 4.8Basic 117.1 117.0 118.2 118.2 131.3Total 134.4 151.9 143.2 144.1 143.5

134.4151.9 143.2 144.1 143.5

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0120.0140.0160.0

$ m

illio

ns

MTCU Operating Grants- History and 2009/2010 Budget

The University also receives several other smaller grants such as Performance grants (funding based on overall graduation rates and the employment rates of our graduates) and the Research Infrastructure grant (based on our share of federal granting council awards) as well as several restricted funds e.g., “Tax” grant (flowed to the City of Guelph in lieu of property taxes). Overall, it is expected that these grants will remain relatively unchanged at 2008/2009 levels.

The following table summarizes the grant assumptions for 2009/2010 relative to 2008/2009 budget

assumptions. Note that confirmation has not been received on 2008/2009 grants at this point and estimates for 2009/2010 are based on current (incomplete) information received to date. Many factors will influence the realization of actual grants including the new (March 26th) provincial budget



9

enrolments and provincial year-end adjustments. The “rolled into base” column reflects the provincial practice of consolidating older program funding into the “Basic Grant”. There is no new funding as a result however reporting requirements are often removed for those funds transferred to the Basic Grant envelope. The following do not reflect the impact of the March 26th provincial budget which remain uncertain at this time.

Start Current Rolled Into 2009/2010 2009/2010Name Year Base $ Base $ Assumptions Base $

Quality Assurance Fund 2004 4.0 (4.0) - Accessibilty- Undergraduate 2001 - 2.6 2.6 Accessibilty- Graduate 2001 5.2 (4.8) 0.6 1.0 Quality Improvement Fund 2006 5.4 (0.3) (0.3) 4.8 Performance grants 2001 1.3 1.3 Tuition Compensation 2005 4.0 (4.0) - Restricted Operating Grants 2.5 2.5 Basic Grant Base 118.2 13.1 131.3 TOTAL 140.6 - 2.9 143.5

MTCU OPERATING GRANTS (2009/2010 Preliminary Budget)

E: Tuition Revenues (Enrolment and Fees): Overall, tuition increases and the net impact of enrolment (graduate and undergraduate) combined

are expected to generate $8.100 million in additional revenues ($4.300 million due to tuition fee increases and $3.800 million due to enrolment increases including growth in targeted areas such as the engineering program). Estimating the financial impact of enrolment and tuition fees is a very challenging task. Complexities of fees structures (e.g., program and cohort fees) as well as the volatility of demand can influence the realization of tuition income. The following presents the basis of the major assumptions used in arriving at the 2009/2010 budget assumptions.

Enrolment: Enrolment planning plays an important part in meeting the University’s overall strategic

objectives. In preparation for the double cohort, the University established a strategic enrolment target of 18,000 students for the main campus. This was determined to be the approximate number of students that could be accommodated effectively by the main campus physical infrastructure under existing program delivery assumptions and residence accommodation. There are no plans to materially shift from this overall goal although emphasis on growth is planned in certain areas consistent with planning priorities including the opportunity to grow enrolments in areas where there is capacity and in areas of strategic priority.

The complexity of the enrolment planning is compounded by several issues: (1) the impact of flow-

through enrolment where first year intakes do not flow evenly through to graduation affected by attrition rates, transfers, international entry and advanced standing (2) the extended time line for aligning resources with program demand e.g., faculty availability and recruitment and access to appropriate teaching facilities; (3) the variability of program demand and competition for students which means there can be significant shifts in the applicant pool between academic programs and institutions from year to year and (4) shifting provincial priorities which redirect funding towards varying levels and types of education programs. In this last example with the elimination of grade 13 (the double



10

cohort) in 2004/2005 the province actively supported undergraduate growth and in 2006/2007 there was a major provincial policy shift to graduate enrolment growth.

For 2009/2010, the University of Guelph has set undergraduate intake levels 8 with the objective of holding overall undergraduate degree program enrolment at approximately last year’s levels except in Engineering where new growth9 is planned. This equates to a general objective of 4,250 new undergraduate students. Provincial funding for undergraduate growth currently is on a continuous one-time only basis (renewed each year and not reflected in base funding) and at funding levels that as yet are unconfirmed.

For graduate enrolment the objective will be for the University to achieve the new three year long-

term targets described under section D - Provincial Grants. For 2009/2010 budget the estimates are based on a small decease reflecting potential loss due to graduating students and the difficulty in determining precise graduate enrolments. The potential growth from the new targets has not been factored into the budget at this time. This is a cautious assumption based on the lateness of the provincial funding announcement and University targets confirmed in late February 2009 which is well into the 2009/2010 recruitment cycle. It is expected that the major effort on growth will be focused on years 2 and 3 of the new graduate growth plan. The University allocates new funding to the colleges specifically in support of graduate enrolments for both departmental support and for graduate student awards with the objective of encouraging the attraction of high quality students to our programs. This is necessary given the increased competition created in Ontario as a result of the provincial funding for graduate growth.

The following chart shows total (domestic and international, eligible and ineligible) FTE student enrolments at the University. Fall 2009 reflects the recent increases in graduate growth consistent with University and provincial targets and the impact of the small increase in undergraduates (relative to 2007) reflecting targeted growth and the flow through effect of the fall 2008 increases. (Numbers exclude Guelph-Humber enrolments.)

8 While the University may set undergraduate intake (semester 1) targets, actual intake will vary from this target. Offers

are made to students in a very competitive environment and “yield” rates (percentage of offers who actually enrol) vary significantly from year to year. For example in 2006/2007, the University set its undergraduate intake target at 3,400 students and just over 4,200 actually enrolled , much of the increase due to an increase in the yield rate.

9 Intake will be focused on programs where new growth areas are indentified in the University’s Integrated Plan. Currently those areas include Engineering and international DVM or areas where capacity exists.



11

Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009Graduate 1,890 1,958 1,949 1,946 2,199 2,256 2,183Undergraduate 15,357 15,730 15,589 16,340 16,091 16,408 16,600Total 17,247 17,653 17,538 18,286 18,290 18,664 18,783

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000FT

E's

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Enrolment

Budget

Tuition Fees (History): Until 1996, MTCU controlled tuition fee increases for all degree programs

through strict formulas that removed grant income from an institution should a fee increase exceed the maximum allowed. At that time the province embarked on the creation of a complex fee framework of; deregulated (institutions could set the fee for program for which they received no funding), partially deregulated (Institutions could set fees within limits) and fully regulated fees (increases were proscribed). At the time of these changes the province also mandated that up to 30% of fee increases be set aside for needs-based student financial assistance. In 2000/2001, the province announced a new five-year “cap” (to 2004/2005) on all regulated tuition fees that limited annual increases to no more than 2% of the 1999/2000 maximum regulated fee. The 30% set-aside applied to those increases. In the fall of 2003, the province announced that post-secondary fees would be “frozen” at current levels. The freeze applied to all regulated programs (programs which received some amount of provincial grant support). To offset the lost revenues associated with this freeze the province allocated a compensating grant to each institution based on projected lost income net of the 30% set-aside for student aid.



12

Tuition Fees (Current Framework): In fiscal 2006/2007 the freeze was lifted and a new framework was introduced limiting increases to between 4% and 8% with an overall increase in revenue from tuition increases on provincially regulated programs, not to exceed 5% at the institutional level. For 2009/2010, the University is proposing fee schedules for both regulated and deregulated programs as well as compulsory non-tuition student fees consistent with the maximum allowable under provincial rules with the exception of graduate (entering) rates where the increase will be 4.5% (maximum allowable is 8%10). Detailed tuition and non-tuition compulsory fee schedules have been prepared for 2009/2010 and provided as part of this budget (refer to Appendix A). The following tables summarize tuition fee increases for major tuition classifications in 2009/2010.

Provincially Funded Programs Full-time per semester fees Entering Continuing

Undergraduate – regular 4.5% 4.0%

Undergraduate - professional11 8.0% 4.0%

Graduate – all programs 4.5% 4.0%

International Programs Full-time per semester fees Entering Continuing

Undergraduate – regular 4.5% 0%

Undergraduate -professional12 0% to 8.0% 0%

Graduate – all programs 8.0% 0%

Associate Diploma Programs Full-time per semester fees Entering Continuing

Undergraduate – regular 4.5% 4.0%

International – all programs 8.0% 0%

Cost-Recovery Programs Full-time per program Entering Continuing

MBA 0.3% 0%

MBA- International 0.2% 0%

MA- Leadership 7.9% 0%

MA- Leadership- International 7.1% 0%

10 In order to remain competitively positioned with other institutions, the University is not going to the maximum in this

category. 11 Professional programs include: business, commerce, veterinary medicine, computing science, engineering and

landscape architecture. 12 Professional programs include: business, commerce, veterinary medicine, computing science, engineering and

landscape architecture. In 2009/2010, landscape architecture, engineering and veterinary medicine fees will not be increased to remain competitively positioned in these programs.



13

F: Provision for Compensation (Salaries and Benefits) In comparison to MTCU Operating revenues, 80% of which are earned from provincial grants and

tuition, compensation costs comprise 70% of total operating budget expenses. Of the total compensation budget of approximately $250 million, 20% is allocated for employer benefit costs. In the 2009/2010 budget a provision of $12.675 million has been made to cover the estimated costs of salary and benefit increases. For 2009/2010, agreements have been confirmed with 6 of the 10 major employee groups comprising 90% of all salary costs. This category of expense also includes estimates for temporary and contractual labour and all associated employer benefit costs. Estimates include a provision for the increased salary costs of all negotiated agreements and adjustments to cover projected changes to employer benefits costs. Employer benefit costs include both statutory benefits such as CPP (Canada Pension Plan) and EI (Employment Insurance), and other benefits such as pension (refer to following note on post-employment benefits), extended health and dental coverage for current and retired employees. Final allocation in the budget of the costs of salaries and benefits will be made to unit budgets upon the implementation of salary increases over the course of the fiscal year.

F.1 Post-Employment Benefits

Post-employment benefits are commitments to University retirees for both pension and non-pension (health and dental) benefits. Rapidly increasing medical costs, especially for prescription drugs, and the worst financial market performance in decades are rapidly escalating the cost of these benefits, especially pension plan contribution costs.

Non-pension post-employment: These benefits have grown to an unfunded liability of over $250

million. While there is no legal requirement to fund this liability immediately, cash requirements (currently at $4 million per year) are projected to increase at over 10% per year over the next decade. The budget assumption provides for this increase in 2009/2010.

Pension Plans: The University is the sponsor of three defined benefit pension plans. Due to

provincially-legislated funding requirements for all defined benefit plans in Ontario, the University of Guelph is required to make cash contributions to its pension plans based on assumptions that the University will cease operations and must have funds available to meet all accumulated pension obligations at specified valuation “filing” dates (a minimum of every three years). Because these assumptions are based upon financial market conditions at the time of the valuation, results are very volatile, exposing the University to major changes in cash requirements. On September 30, 2006 the University was required to file a valuation using the prescribed formula and rules. The result was the requirement to contribute cash at the rate of $45 million annually to its pension plans (for at least three years to 2009). In the base budget was an annual contribution provision of $16 million. In November 2007, a further contribution of $28 million was made as part of a formal “filing” to provincial authorities based on an August 1, 2007 valuation date. The result of this tactical decision was to stabilize University contributions for three years until August 2010 (the date of the next required measurement and filing).

While pension contributions are stable for the 2009/2010 fiscal year, on August 1st 2010,

contributions will be recalculated based on market conditions at that time. The exact amount of money required cannot be determined until that time, however the actuaries for the pension plans are projecting that there is a 50% probability that under current provincial pension funding rules, cash requirements will range between $65 million and $115 million per year, at that time. This is the result of a combination of factors including falling market values of assets held to fund pension liabilities,



14

declining interest rates (used to determine “wind up” obligations to be paid for) and the design of the plan themselves (employee contribution levels and benefit levels such as early retirement). With our current annual base budget provision of only $20 million, the deficit will grow rapidly. In a short time this deficit could erode the University’s ability to meet daily cash requirements, threaten its credit rating and the capability to raise either capital or short term financing.

At the end of fiscal 2009/2010 the University will be carrying a $33 million deficit13 in the operating

budget for its three sponsored pension plans. The current deficit status of the pension plans is presented in the graph on the following page. The most significant unknown remains the pending August 1, 2010 valuation impact on University cash flows.

Many universities and other institutions in the province are facing similar conditions. At this time,

the province appears unmoved by the advocacy efforts of Ontario universities to request relief in the form of revised valuation requirements (as has been the response in most other provinces and jurisdictions). It seems almost inconceivable that the government would allow the kind of system-wide devastation of post-secondary educational capacity that would result under the current plan. Nevertheless, full elimination of liabilities is just as unlikely, and as efforts to press the province for some feasible relief from these rules continue, planning is underway to determine what options remain for responding to the possibility of cash requirements at projected or altered levels

06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11

Contributions (Current Valuation) $(28) $(59) $(10) $(17)

Budget Provision $26 $16 $19 $20 $21

Accumulated Deficit $(2) $(45) $(36) $(33)

$(150)

$(130)

$(110)

$(90)

$(70)

$(50)

$(30)

$(10)

$10

$30

$50

University of Guelph Accumulated Cash Deficits From Pension Contributions

After August 1, 2010 Based on Current

Pension Legislation:

50% Probablity of contributions of between

$68M and $115M per year.

?

13 Rather than fund the 100% of actual contributions from the Operating Budget when they are paid, any cash requirement

greater than the Operating Budget base provision ($20 million in 2009/2010) is borrowed and repaid using the budget provision. The budget provision is based on the University’s Normal Actuarial Costs (NAC) of the pension plans. The assumption is that over the long term, NAC funding is sufficient to fund the cash requirements of plans. This practice “cushions” the Operating budget from often volatile contribution requirements due to provincial funding legislation and the global market conditions.



15

G: Other Incremental Budget Assumptions: The following sections complete the major assumptions for the Preliminary 2009/2010 Operating

Budget. Primarily they are focused on incremental institutional assumptions required to meet University budget objectives. Budget adjustments, internal to college/divisions are managed within their overall targets and are not itemized in this presentation.

G.1 Other Institutional Revenues and Recoveries:

Provincial grants and tuition together comprise 80% of the University’s revenues. The remaining

20% is composed of a large number of different sources of revenue including student service fees, non-credit course fees and cost recoveries from research and ancillary services. For budget assumption purposes, these revenues/recoveries are divided between:

Institutional: These are revenues and recoveries available to fund University-wide expenses e.g.,

investment income (earned from operating fund cash flows) research indirect cost recoveries and ancillary cost recoveries in support of institutional and physical plant support services provided from the MTCU Operating budget.

Departmental: Revenues earned from the delivery of specific unit goods/services or designated for specific purposes (and in some cases contractually restricted). These do not directly constitute an immediate source of funding for institutional planning purposes and operationally are credited to the unit providing the service. These units are accountable for achieving any revenue targets set and for controlling all costs for delivering the services. In practice these revenues form an integral part of unit budgets including sources of funds to meet their Multi-Year budget targets. Major examples of these revenues include veterinary hospital revenues and student service and athletic fees.

For 2009/2010 the following summarizes the major incremental changes to institutional revenues and recoveries: Cost Recoveries from Ancillaries: A 3.5% increase in the general cost recovery charges to Ancillaries will be made in 2009/2010 to help offset increases in centrally provided services. These increases were factored into approved 2009/2010 budgets of each ancillary unit. The combined increase in cost-recoveries from Ancillaries is $0.275 million.

Investment Income: As part of normal day-to-day operations, the University invests any temporary positive cash flow (from all non-endowment funds including grant, tuition, research and ancillaries) in high quality short term investments. Income from these investments has formed part of the institutional revenue base in the MTCU Operating Budget for many years. A number of factors will reduce the expected return on these funds in 2009/2010 including a reduction in short-term investment returns which have dropped significantly due to general market conditions and a reduction in overall positive cash flows projected due to cash requirements of operating deficits as part of the multi-year plan to address the structural deficit. Investment income is expected to decline by $0.150 million in fiscal 2009/2010.



16

Research Indirect Cost Recoveries: Over the past several years, the federal government has recognized the importance of investing in fundamental research in all disciplines. Much of the necessary infrastructure (space, library, administrative support) to support research has for many years been absorbed in operating budgets. OMAFRA, under the agreement with the University has for many years provided significant support for the indirect costs of research. This was reinforced in the 2008/2009 renewal of the long-standing agreement with OMAFRA in which $11.0 million was secured to support these costs. In addition, recent federal government budgets have provided funding to support the indirect costs of research from federal granting councils at the 25% level. This is a start, but globally countries committed to innovation, cultural and economic development generally provide greater levels of support. It is important therefore that university advocacy efforts continue to press the federal government first to maintain and ideally increase that indirect cost support to a more appropriate level (roughly 40% or more). At the provincial level certain major provincial projects contain indirect costs as a standard component. In addition, efforts continue to increase indirect costs components on industry-support research.

Specifically the federal government has provided funds for tri-council related research under its

Federal Indirect Cost Program (FICP). Currently the FICP covers approximately 25% of the costs of related research in a consistent manner since it formal creation in 2002. In 2000/2001 the province of Ontario also began to recognize these costs in the context of their research activities initially under the Research Performance Fund (RPF). RPF support has been less stable and has shifted between ministries over several years. Combined, these two funds have provided $9.0 million in base support of infrastructure costs (in addition to OMAFRA support) related to research at the University of Guelph. Funds are flowed to the University based on the level of direct research dollars awarded. Funds are restricted for use in support of eligible infrastructure costs.

In 2008/2009, the University introduced a new Resource Allocation Guideline (#4) on the Indirect

Costs of Research. A key principle in that guideline was the expansion of the distribution of indirect cost recoveries to colleges in recognition of their growing research funding. It is planned to continue the development of this principle and where feasible expand the allocation of indirect cost recoveries for research as research activity increases. Forecasting research indirect costs is difficult given the variable nature of research and related cash flows. In 2009/2010 the University, while not formally recognizing changes in indirect cost recoveries for research in budget assumptions, will review actual results after fiscal year end and expand Resource Allocation Guideline (#4) based on those results.

Other Targeted Grants: The costs of certain University programs or activities are sometimes

funded by the province with the transfer of targeted (restricted) grants. Examples include the OMAFRA Agreement, the special funding for the Associate Diploma program in the Ontario Agricultural College (OAC) and the Special grant in support of clinical education in the Ontario Veterinary College (OVC). While these grants do not directly support core programs, they can support capacity, increase economies of scale or more fully cover the full costs of a program or activity. In 2008/2009, the province announced that the “OVC Special Grant” would be increased to $6.5 million after many years of having been fixed at the $5.0 million level. This increase was allocated both to increase absolute support and to more fully recover the costs of the clinical teaching of veterinary students (in effect recovering past inflationary cost increases). The result is to provide $0.500 million in cost-recovery to the main MTCU Operating budget



17

G.2: Other Institutional Expenses:

Estimated Utilities and Other Institutional Operating Costs This category includes adjustments for major central University operating accounts such as utilities, insurance, legal expenses and funding for new space. All categories of institutional expenses, other than those noted below, are expected to be within existing base allocations.

Information Technology Fund: This centrally supported account (base funding of $3.0 million) will receive an increased allocation of $0.300 million reflecting costs of centrally provided computing and communications infrastructure. This cost increase consist of mainly “price” increases on external contracted services in support of central support hardware and software (e.g., the networking services, campus services including network security, university-wide licenses for administrative and academic support systems.)

$0.300M

Insurance premiums: The University’s centrally managed insurance account ($1.5 million base budget) is subject to increasing rates as a result of the global financial markets impacting insurance providers. In addition, recent University-specific claims mean an additional allocation will be required for the University insurance coverage to be maintained.

$0.100M

TOTAL Cost Increase IT and Insurance $0.400M

Central Utilities (Budget of $21.545 million) is comprised of costs to support all centrally provided main campus energy (electricity), heating, cooling, sewage, water, other utilities and central hazardous waste management services. Actual utility costs are sensitive to climate/temperature variations (the budget assumes “normal” range over the course of the fiscal year) and the rates charged by utility providers of the energy/commodities used. Central Utilities (One-Time): The University undertakes regular reviews of both

hydro and natural gas (campus heating) rates with the objective of reducing exposures to possible significant rate changes. This is accomplished through locking in prices for future supply, participating with other universities in bulk buying where possible. The current contract rates (locked in several years ago) reflect lower prices than currently available (and in the base budget) therefore rate savings estimated at $1.200 million will be reflected as one-time as this rate advantage is expected to expire over the course of the next several years.

Central Utilities (Base); Over the past several years the university has been investing in a number of on-going energy conservation programs funded from external borrowing, provincial grants and a special contributions from students. While very difficult to quantify, in 2009/2010 $0.250 million in savings relative to the base will be recognized as a result of these investments and related energy conservation efforts across the campus. It is expected, that as these investments continue to improve the efficiency of utility supply and consumption including new steam lines, energy distribution controls and retrofitting of building components future savings will be realized.

($1.200)M

($0.250)M

TOTAL Utility Savings ($1.450)M



18

G.3: Incremental Investments and Initiatives:

This section contains the estimated incremental budgetary impact of new investment proposals and

including capital debt obligations. A total of $8.850 million in new funding has been targeted for new expenses including funds for academic planning to address some of the priorities identified in the Integrated Plan. Other provisions have been made for investments in fund raising and an increase to the University’s Contingency Account.

G.3.1: Academic Investment and Integrated Planning

The 2009/2010 Budget contains a number of investments targeted for academic programs including

the continuation of the Integrated Planning process. These investments are new funds allocated for both the Integrated Planning initiatives and continuing academic commitments from earlier enrolment-related allocations.

G.3.1.1: Academic Investments

Student assistance (scholarships, bursaries) at the University of Guelph (approximately $25 million in total) is funded from several different sources. 50% is funded from the MTCU Operating budget with the balance coming from a variety of annual restricted contributions and donation (33%) and finally endowment funds (17%). The 2009/2010 budget contains a $0.300 million (base) increase for undergraduate student awards. These are mainly for entrance awards and are considered necessary based on the increased competition for quality undergraduate students. In addition, there is a provision of $1.500 million for a one-time increase to ensure the University meets its requirements under the “Student Access Guarantee”. The objective of the provincially sponsored program is to support access to post-secondary education by funding any unmet need for tuition, books, and mandatory fees, as calculated (at the institutional level) by the Ministry through the OSAP system. Normally with funding from endowments providing up to $4 million in student assistance the University met the Student Access Guarantee requirements within normal annual funding support. While not confirmed at this time, given current global financial conditions (particularly losses in equity values), many endowments will not be in a position to make payments in 2009/2010. This provision is to provide contingency funds should additional student aid to meet the guarantee be required.

TOTAL Increase to Student Assistance

$1.800M

Library “acquisitions”: The definition of library acquisitions has evolved over recent years to shift from the acquisition of paper-based collections and periodicals to on-line based information and “e-learning” delivery of critical research and teaching information. Inflation and the demands for more accessible information constantly reduce the purchasing power for library information resources. It is proposed to partially address this with the addition of $0.250 million in base funding

$0.250M



19

Total Academic Investments $2.050M

G.3.1.2: Integrated Planning

Graduate Growth/ Support Funds (Base): A key priority in the University’s multi-year planning has been to grow graduate enrolments. This is in response to a number of factors, the most critical being the provincial funding support making growth feasible (refer to provincial graduate accessibility grants). In the context of increased competition for graduate students, new funds must be directed to graduate students (aid or employment based income) and to colleges to recognize success in achieving and maintaining growth targets. Under Integrated Planning resource allocation guidelines, funds will be transferred to colleges annually, based on actual confirmed eligible enrolments. The allocation in the Preliminary budget of $0.750 million recognizes both growth that has occurred and a preliminary estimate of what may occur as a result of targets re-negotiated with MTCU. Allocations to units are made based on actual confirmed eligible enrolments (i.e., if there is no growth, no funds will be transferred to colleges from this allocation).

$0.750M

Undergraduate Enrolment funds (Base): A longer term objective of the Integrated Planning process is to continue to develop resource allocation guidelines for major revenue/resource activities. One of those activities is increased undergraduate enrolment in targeted areas (such as engineering, international undergraduate)14. An allocation increase of $1.700 million is proposed to begin to address this overall objective. These funds will be used to not only support the direct academic program delivery costs but related academic service costs including recruitment and teaching infrastructure. Funds will be transferred based on predetermined milestones such as enrolments achieved and maintained.

$1.700M

Research Growth Funds (Base): An objective of the University’s initial Integrated Plan was the development of a process to allocate funds in support of real research growth especially in areas of strategic strength. In 2008/2009 this objective was started with the development of the formal Resource Allocation Guideline (#4). It is proposed to continue to develop this initiative with the investment of $0.250 million most of which will be transferred (renewable annually) to colleges based upon their success in increasing research activity/funding.

$0.250M

Sub-Total Integrated Planning: $2.700M

TOTAL Academic Investments and Integrated Planning $4.750M

14 Provincial funding for undergraduate growth is currently one-time (subject to change) and there are risks associated

with committing base expenses in this context, however engineering is an area the University has targeted for growth where both capacity and demand exist (applications for 2009 University engineering programs exceeded estimates by significant margins).



20

G.3.2: Capital Infrastructure Debt Servicing

In May 2006, a plan15 was presented to the Board of Governors in which the University sought

approval to borrow external funds over a five-year period (2007 to 2011) for the purpose of financing specific capital (building and utilities infrastructures) maintenance expenditures. These expenditures are required to address the repair/replacement of critical capital infrastructure that can no longer be deferred. It is estimated that the University’s total deferred maintenance liability (excluding residences) on the Guelph campus is $300M and requiring spending of $15M-$20M per year to maintain building and utility delivery systems safely and effectively. Against this need, the province for many years has provided only $1.6M annually. As part of the five-year plan the University made provision on each annual budget for debt servicing necessary in any new debt incurred that year. For example in the 2007/2008 Budget, $1.0 million in base funding was provided for debt servicing related to the unfunded costs of projects approved under the plan. In February and April 2008, the province allocated a total of $20 million in one-time funding restricted for “campus renewal”. The arrival of these funds negated the need to borrow those funds, however, the need to continue to invest remains unmet. In recent years, driven by continuously mounting evidence of a serious deferred maintenance problem, the lack of investment is being acknowledged in the form of ad hoc provincial funding. More recently, with the deepening impact of the global recession, both federal and provincial governments, anxious to address increasing unemployment, have promised increased funding for capital renewal. The federal government recently announced $2 billion in capital renewal funding for the Canadian post-secondary sector, but the process for the allocation of these funds has not yet been determined. In response to a provincial request, the University has submitted a number of proposals outlining our major capital priorities (see the Integrated Plan, section 3.2.1 for more details). There is no response to these plans as yet.

$1 million (base) has been added to the existing $10.8 million base allocation for capital funding and

debt servicing. These funds will be used to provide for any debt servicing required in 2009/2010 (subject to federal-provincial funding announcements) and to completing funding for the VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) capital project16 Should new funding become available that would be eligible to support the projects currently scheduled under the Plan, borrowing (and related debt servicing costs) will be reduced.

In addition to these critical deferred maintenance projects there are a number of other major capital

projects underway on campus. The OVC Redevelopment project has two phases: the Pathobiology Animal Health Laboratory Building, funded from federal and provincial grants; and the Primary Care Hospital, funded from donations and a provincial grant. The Axelrod redevelopment project is being

15 The request was summarized in a document entitled “The Capital Renewal Financing – Five year plan 2006/2007 to

2010/2011” (the Plan). Under the terms of the approval for spending, the University may borrow to finance the costs of the Plan with the provision that debt servicing is to be allocated from the MTCU Operating Budget annually. The most current approved update of this Plan was presented and approved by the Board of Governors at its meeting on January 14, 2009 included total spending for non-residence buildings of $78 million of which $30 million would need to be borrowed. This Operating Budget proposal is consistent with the approved Plan.

16 The VOIP project (approximately $14.5 million) linked the campus with state-of the- art data and voice communications. Major funding for this project was provided from the Heritage Endowment Fund. Current projections are that this fund will not be able to complete the project funding ($3.0 million).



21

funded from MTCU and the multi-year graduate expansion grant. All of this activity is externally funded from grants/donations received for and restricted to capital projects.

G.3.3: Other Institutional Support Costs and Contingency Funds:

This section presents the major proposed institutional investments required to meet the 2009/2010

budget assumptions. Given the need to contain structural costs most support units will continue working toward their Integrated Plan and Multi-year Planning objectives within existing allocations. Two additional items are included in this year’s budget related to fund-raising efforts and the University contingency account.

The University is undertaking a new fund raising campaign to coincide with the

University’s 50th anniversary in 2014. Detailed planning is underway and in order to effectively resource efforts to achieve the targets of this campaign, $0.300 million in base funding and $0.500 million in one-time funding will be invested in Alumni Affairs and Development for the personnel and to cover operating costs. This investment will also support the enhancement of annual giving.

$0.800M

University Contingency Account: The University normally carries a $1 million contingency account in the base budget which may be supplemented with one-time institutional savings from year-end. In recognition of the very preliminary nature of many assumptions used in the budget at this time, including the status of provincial grants, enrolments and achieving Multi-year targets and the costs associated with implementing major restructuring, it is proposed to augment the existing base and one-time balance of this fund. Over the course of the year these funds will be used to assist in implementation of structural changes and if necessary assisting in meeting the University’s overall deficit targets.

$2.300M

H: Multi-Year Planning Targets 2009/2010 As referenced in section B incorporated into the 2008/2009 Preliminary MTCU Operating budget is

an approved17 four year (2008/2009 to 20011/2012) Multi-Year Plan containing four year budget targets for all major units comprising the MTCU Operating Budget including colleges, academic and administrative support units. The key objective of this plan is to eliminate the structural budget deficit of $16.1 million over the four year period while providing for expected costs increases over that period. In setting multi-year targets it was necessary first to prepare multi-year financial assumptions for the major revenue and expense components of the University’s operating budget. The sole purpose of these projections is to establish a baseline against which the targets necessary to eliminate the structural deficit were set. Assumptions for this purpose were therefore focused on macro institutional revenue/expenses. Given the relatively few major components of the Operating Budget (grants and tuition and salaries and benefits) the task was focused on estimating and bringing into balance those components over a set time period.

17 On June 8, 2008 the Board of Governors approved the 2008/2009 Preliminary MTCU Operating Budget. The full report is

available at; http://www.fin.uoguelph.ca/reports/.



22

The current Multi-Year Planning targets for the University (updated to reflect the two year “freeze” in provincial unrestricted funding) are presented in the table below.

Fiscal Year

% of 2008/2009 Personnel Cost Base

Target Net Savings/Net Revenues

2008/2009 2.3% $ 5.5M 2009/2010 6.8% $16.2M 2010/2011 6.8% $16.2M 2011/2012 3.5% $ 8.3M TOTAL 19.3% $46.2M

The plan to eliminate the structural deficit was developed in the context of several key principles and considerations:

The initial 2008/2009 structural deficit ($16.1 million) equates to about 8% of current MTCU Operating budget personnel costs. In addition to covering this structural deficit, each year the University is faced with annual cost increases, especially for compensation. Given the absence of sufficient revenue increases to cover these costs, additional reductions needed to be found in each year going forward.

The unpredictable nature of our principal funding at this time makes multi-year planning, at best, a speculative task with many risks. Therefore we need to be as strategic and flexible as possible in determining the adjustments necessary to achieve financial goals.

While not fully implemented Integrated Planning principles would provide a framework for making critical decisions in the context of the long term goals set for the University.

Over 70% of Operating budget expenses are salary and benefits. Any major budget reduction will mean a reduction in our faculty and staff complement. While necessary, it will be a very difficult process given the constraints of our contractual agreements and the time required to restructure major activities, especially in academic programs. As a result it is necessary to assume a one-time deficit that would be repaid in future years with saving generated in the Multi-Year Plan.

The next step was to allocate the overall $46.2 million targets to college/divisions. A key

consideration in setting these unit targets was the reality that the bulk of resources, including the more recent addition of new resources, exist within the seven major colleges. Accordingly a greater proportion of the necessary target reductions have been assigned to those colleges. The result was a clear differentiation (not “across the board”) to operational units of the institutional target.

Key elements of the Integrated Plan have been used as guide posts in setting multi-year financial

unit targets. These include basic undergraduate and graduate (eligible) teaching performance measures and resource allocation processes that have been developed for IP purposes. While these measures have not been applied with mathematical precision, they were a critical component in the assignment of unit targets. The most important measures were MTCU-funded teaching “productivity measures” such as undergraduate course enrolment levels, resource levels and eligible graduate student numbers. (The



23

details of academic restructuring actions are presented in the 2009/2010 Integrated Plan itself.) The following table is the current distribution of the targeted reductions.

College/Division 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/124 year TOTAL

% Target to Personnel Base

Budgets

COLLEGE OF ARTS (515) (2,358) (2,338) (789) (6,000) -28.6%COLLEGE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE (481) (1,571) (1,550) (798) (4,400) -22.6%COLL.OF SOC.& APP. HUMAN SCIENCE (473) (699) (690) (338) (2,200) -10.1%COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT & ECONOMICS (245) (288) (284) (134) (950) -7.1%ONTARIO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE (830) (3,493) (3,434) (2,292) (10,050) -41.3%ONTARIO VETERINARY COLLEGE (627) (1,395) (1,383) (495) (3,900) -12.6%COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL & ENGINEERING (590) (2,488) (2,461) (1,060) (6,600) -28.8%TEACHING UNITS (3,761) (12,292) (12,140) (5,907) (34,100) -22.2%

CIO (LIB/CCS including Infrastructure) (338) (649) (641) (334) (1,962) -11.6%

ASSOCIATE V/P ACADEMIC (113) (297) (293) (155) (858) -16.4%

REGISTRAR (129) (170) (168) (85) (552) -9.4%

STUDENT SERVICES (225) (643) (634) (337) (1,839) -16.4%

OFFICE OF RESEARCH (113) (249) (245) (129) (736) -13.1%

ALUMNI AFFAIRS AND DEVELOPMENT - (145) (143) (79) (368) -9.3%

PHYSICAL RESOURCES OPERATIONS (427) (931) (919) (482) (2,758) -12.9%

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES (345) (574) (567) (292) (1,778) -11.7%NON TEACHING UNITS (1,690) (3,658) (3,609) (1,893) (10,850) -12.7%TOTAL UNITS (5,451) (15,950) (15,750) (7,800) (44,950) -18.8%CAMPUS UTILITIES # - (250) (450) (500) (1,200) TOTAL UNITS PLUS UTILITIES (5,451) (16,200) (16,200) (8,300) (46,150) -19.3%

$thousands <----------------------ALLOCATIONS--------------------->Multi-Year Plan : Table of College/Division Target Allocations

# Under “Campus Utilities”, the University has set a target of reducing the utilities budget by

approximately 5% over the four years through energy usage/price savings. This will be achieved through a combination of conservation and rates by exploring bulk purchase or other joint programs with energy providers or large users.

H.1: Progress Toward the Targets

After setting unit targets, operational decisions are required to achieve the necessary

saving/revenues. To date, all units have filed detailed financial plans including the current impact of the 2008/2009 VERR (Voluntary Early Resignation and Retirement)18 program5 and the on-going resignation/retirement incentive program for faculty (part of the current faculty collective agreement which expires in 2011). Both faculty and staff programs have comparable incentives.

18 VERR was a temporary (closed September 2008) incentive program offered for staff not covered by the UGFA collective

agreement. As of October 21, 2008, 142 individuals had been approved under this program. Departures have been scheduled between September 2008 and May 1, 2010. Many positions vacated will require restructuring (savings will not be dollar for dollar) and in some cases partial replacement/transfer of functions. Net funding/savings will be factored into detailed unit plans over the course of the Multi-Year Plan.



24

Summarizing progress to date toward achievement of the four-year target: $33.2 million of $46.15 million or 71% in funds have been identified or committed to (specific

actions are planned but not implemented) by units, as savings. A total of 194 positions have been identified for reduction: 72 faculty (7.8% of total

complement) and 122 staff (8.4% of total regular full-time compliment) 93% of 2008/2009 base target is confirmed and implemented (balance will be identified in

2009/2010). Any annual shortfall will be covered from one-time unit savings in 2008/2009. 74% of 2009/2010 base target is confirmed and mainly implemented (balance will be identified

in 2009/2010 and 2010/2011). Any annual shortfall will be covered from one-time unit savings in 2009/2010

The costs of buy-outs added to the deficit to date is $11.0 million (56% of the total provision of $20 million).

The chart below summarizes the progress to date (in percentage terms) for each major unit, as plans

are developed to meet their total four-year targets. As expected, plans are more complete for the more current years. For units with any in-year shortfalls one-time savings to bridge through to the required base saving/revenues will be used. In addition, much of the effort to date reflects unit planning toward their targets prior to the addition of the $10 million as a result of the provincial “freeze” in grant funding (allocated in December 2008). As these unit plans are developed further, they will be reviewed as part of annual budget process, in the context of both new information and overall University fiscal requirements.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

COA (Arts)

CPES (Engineer/Physical Sci)

CBS (Bio Sci)

Administration/AAD

Physical Resources

Academic Services

Student Services

CIO/Library

OVC (Vet Med)

OAC (Agriculture)

CSAHS (Social Sci)

CME (Business)

71%

24%

26%

52%

75%

82%

83%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

MTCU Operating Budget:Four Year Multi-Year TargetsProgress to Date by Major Unit



25

H.2: Closing the Remaining “Gap”

The chart above indicates the CPES (College of Physical and Engineering Science) and the COA

(College of Arts) have the majority of their target unidentified (at the detailed commitment level). This was not unexpected and efforts are underway to finalize plans to identify the necessary savings/revenues.

In CPES, there are a number of strategies planned to meet the target including new revenues from both graduate and undergraduate enrolment growth in the college and restructured academic programming and consolidations. These projections have not yet been recognized in the percentage completed. (There is strong confirmed demand in new engineering programs and intake targets have been set to increase enrolments in the college.) It is expected that over the course of 2009/2010 these plans will be completed and significant elements of the colleges target will be met. The college remains committed to achieving the overall target as set.

In COA, challenges are more significant. The efforts to implement savings from academic

program restructuring (elimination/concentration) especially in the college’s undergraduate course/programs, while clear in planning are more difficult in implementation. Complications and restrictions to savings being realized over the four-years are mainly requirements of faculty contractual obligations and the demographic profile in the college. Efforts continue to develop detailed savings/revenue plans, however, the realization of the target, while still a planning commitment, may need to be rescheduled over a longer period. Any shortfalls in the annual target will be covered from one-time savings and will not impact the overall University budget positions or commitment.

H.3: Multi-Year Deficit Plan

In meeting the Multi-Year Planning objective of eliminating the structural deficit the University will

be incurring a one-time deficit. This deficit is the result of two factors; eliminating the structural deficit will take several years to achieve and there will be one-time costs associated with restructuring e.g., buyout costs for employees. This approach is not unprecedented and in the past has been used to deal with a number of University budget challenges. In each case the University achieved its objectives and repaid all deficits. One-time deficits are repaid using savings realized in the restructuring efforts, set aside in the base budget and designated for repayment of the deficit.

In this context the Board of Governors approved, the 2008/2009 MTCU Budget and Multi-Year Plan

(June 2008) with a four year deficit plan containing a deficit maximum of $47.7 million. Below is a graph illustrating the current revised Plan relative to the initial Board of Governors approved Plan. Changes relative to the initial plan include a small acceleration of the elimination of the structural deficit by $0.300 million and the deferral of $9.0 million of the one-time deficit due to restructuring costs In 2008/2009 $11.0 million was incurred versus $20 million initially presented. At this time it is expected that the remaining $9.0 million will be accessed in 2009/2010.



26

(14.3) (16.1) (11.0) (6.0)

14.3

(11.0)(9.0)

2.0 4.0 6.0

-

(27.1)

(45.1) (47.1)

(41.1)

-

(36.1)

(45.4) (47.7)(41.7)

(60.0)

(50.0)

(40.0)

(30.0)

(20.0)

(10.0)

-

10.0

20.0

07/08 Actual 08/09 Forecast 09/10 Plan 10/11 Plan 11/12 Plan

Multi-Year Deficit Plan: Revised

Structural Deficit Restructuring Deficit Repayments

1-Time Deficit (Revised) BOG Approved

One-time Provincial Grants

Changes in the current deficit plan compared to the initial approved plan are summarized in the

table below. While changes are not significant they are positive and the University expects to eliminate the structural deficit by 2011/12 as originally planned.

TABLE OF CHANGES TO MULTI-YEAR DEFICIT PLAN – 2009/2010 Budget $M

STRUCTURAL DEFICIT: Initial

Plan Revised Plan

Change

2008/2009 16.100 16.100 - 2009/2010 11.300 11.000 +0.300 2010/2011 6.300 6.000 +0.300 2011/2012 - - -



27

I: Summary of Major 2009/2010 MTCU Preliminary Budget Assumptions The following table summarizes the results of major assumptions and incremental changes included

in the University’s 2009/2010 MTCU Operating budget. (Numbers in brackets indicate an increase in costs or deficit; no brackets indicate an increase in revenues or cost savings.)

Institutional Budget Surplus/Deficit Base One-Time Total

Opening Position (Base and One-Time Deficit) (16.100) (27.100) (43.200)

Revenues and Recoveries Base One-Time Total Provincial Grants 0.300 2.600 2.900 Tuition Revenues (Enrolment & Fees) 8.100 8.100 Cost Recoveries from Ancillaries 0.275 0.275 Investment Income (Reduction) (0.150) (0.150) Cost Recovery from OVC Special Grant 0.500 0.500 Sub-total: Revenues and Recoveries 9.025 2.600 11.625

Expenses and Commitments Base One-Time Total Institutional Commitments:

Provision for Compensation (Salaries and Benefits) (12.675) (12.675) IT Infrastructure (0.300) (0.300) University Insurance (0.100) (0.100) Central Utilities 0.250 1.200 1.450

Academic Investment & Integrated Planning: Student Assistance (0.300) (1.500) (1.800) Library Acquisitions (0.250) (0.250) Integrated Planning (2.700) (2.700) Capital Infrastructure Debt Servicing (1.000) (1.000) Other Support Costs & Contingency Funds (0.800) (2.300) (3.100)

Multi Year Planning Target 2009/2010: 2009/2010 Multi Year Target (net of Utilities) 15.950 15.950 Restructuring Costs (9.000) (9.000) Institutional Repayment Plan (2.000) 2.000 0

Sub-total: Expenses and Commitments (3.925) (9.600) (13.525)

Total Annual Changes Revenue/Expenses 5.100 (7.000) (1.900)

Closing Accumulated Budget Position (11.000) ($34.100) (45.100)



28

J: Section: 2008/2009 Forecast (Budget versus Forecast Results)

Table C page 37, contains the forecast 2008/2009 net position for the MTCU operating budget by major organizational unit. When reviewing these results it is important to note that the University operates under a policy whereby colleges and divisions (the largest organizational groups at the University) may “carry forward” unspent funds into the following fiscal year. Under this policy, units are also responsible for any deficits incurred. Most departmental deficits are incurred as part of planned restructuring or capital purchases funded over several years. Included in total University carry-forwards are both departmental and institutional funds. Included in institutional funds are revenue and expense accounts such as provincial operating grants, tuition fees (mainly regulated programs), central utilities, general expense and contingency funds. Departmental Carry-forward Funds: These funds are committed for a variety of one-time expenses including outstanding purchase orders, departmental renovations, teaching equipment, professional development funds or faculty start-up funds and, if necessary assisting with meeting the units overall budget target. Historically, in each year there has been between 3% and 5% of departmental net budgets unspent at the end of each year. While departmental carry forwards are not normally available to meet overall University budget commitments (such as salary or utility increases) they do provide departments with flexibility in planning for major expenses, encourage multi-year planning and therefore form a critical part of the University’s budget management policy.

The forecast results for 2008/2009 indicate total University net departmental carry forwards will be $20.221 million. This compares to $22.672 million in 2007/2008. While down slightly from prior year’s results, indications are that units are reserving funds to assist in the implementation of the Multi-Year Planning targets. It is expected over the course of the next several years these funds will be used for that purpose of assisting the University in meeting its overall budget objectives.

Institutional Carry-forwards Funds: At this time it is expected that the University (exclusive of funds allocated to departments as net carry forwards - see above) will have approximately $12.1 million in one-time funds available. These have been mainly generated as a result of one-time provincial grants (undergraduate and graduate accessibility grants) received greater than initially budgeted. The undergraduate accessibility allocation reflects a relatively small increase in enrolments (relative to budget assumptions) that the province funded during the course of the year (assumed to be at 80% of full-cost funding, still not confirmed). The graduate accessibility grant reflects the recent provincial decision to fund all growth realized to the end of 2008/2009 that exceed earlier provincial approved targets (the University exceeded its formal masters targets – this grant effectively funds that “overage”). It is assumed that the graduate accessibility portion of these grants will become base. This is reflected in the 2009/2010 budget assumptions under provincial grants (section D). Other institutional savings reflect one-time savings from a variety of centrally managed accounts including resignation savings and allocations designated under the Integrated Planning resource



29

allocation process and central utility savings mainly as a result of energy conservation efforts and water/sewage savings19 (relative to budget). Given the many uncertainties in the Preliminary Budget at this time it is proposed to add these funds to the University’s stabilization fund. In addition to the very difficult provincial funding environment (and the increased volatility of grant funding levels), a significant short term risk includes future requirements for restructuring costs and implementing Multi-year targets. With $11.0 million of the initial $20 million provision already expensed and 30% or $13 million of the University’s multi-year target still to be realized, additional restructuring costs may be required. Other potential uses for these one-time funds include pension contributions which while stable until 2010, will require significant additional contributions after that time.

It should be noted that Table C is a pre-audit forecast only. Actual results including carry-forwards

will not be confirmed until after the University’s year-end statements are completed and audited in July.

19 In 2008/2009 the University and City of Guelph implemented a new billing arrangement for water usage based on

actual usage as opposed to the prior long standing arrangement which was based on campus population.



30

K: Definitions and University Financial Context

Total University of Guelph revenue is derived from a variety of sources including government grants, tuition and other fees, research contracts, donations and endowment income. In fiscal 2007/2008, revenues from all sources totaled $569.2 million. Many of these funds are restricted for specific purposes and cannot be used to support ongoing teaching, research, and infrastructure operations. All major graduate and undergraduate teaching costs are managed and funded within the “MTCU Operating Budget”. The following chart presents all 2007/2008 University revenues by major fund:

MTCU: The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) is the provincial ministry responsible for

the administration of grants and regulating university-credit program tuition fees for all post-secondary institutions in the province. In addition, for compulsory non-tuition student fees (such as athletics and student health fees), MTCU requires that University and student groups agree on a protocol for fee increases20. MTCU is also the ministry that allocates the operating grant programs for universities many of which are for designated programs or are contingent on institutions achieving negotiated targets (e.g., enrolment growth). In addition these operating grants may not be used for certain purposes such as capital construction or ancillary services (refer to section D). Together tuition fees (most of which are regulated – refer to section E) and MTCU operating grants comprise 85% of the total revenue in the MTCU Operating Budget.

20 The University of Guelph has such a protocol with student groups under which fees may be increased annually within

certain limits (e.g., CPI based). Fee changes outside of these limits may only be implemented through a student referendum. All tuition fees and compulsory non-tuition student fees are presented to the Board for approval

University of Guelph 2007/2008 Total Revenues from All Major Funds: $569.2

Million (source 2007/2008 audited financial statements)

Ancillary, $69.4, 12%

OMAFRA, $86.7, 15%

MTCU, $290.3, 51%

Restricted, $122.8, 22%

Operating MTCU $MGrants 51% $149.5Tuition* 32% $ 91.7 Other 17% $ 49.1 Total 100% $290.3 * tuition from degree credit only

* Note: Restricted funds are derived from a large variety of sources including capital, sponsored research, donations and endowments.



31

OMAFRA Agreement (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): The University of Guelph has, since its inception, had an agreement for the delivery of specific research, services and education with OMAFRA. This contract, which is unique in the Ontario university system, in fiscal 2007/2008 earned total revenues of $86.7 million consisting of $54.9 million in OMAFRA contract payments and $31.8 million in fees and revenues from the sale of goods and services. Funding received under the OMAFRA contract is restricted for OMAFRA designated activities and programs. However, it is considered part of the University’s total Operating Budget as it historically has funded about 90 University faculty positions, 450 full-time University staff and operating and infrastructure costs.

On April 1, 2008 a new ten year agreement (with funding set for the first five years) was signed

between OMAFRA and the University which included a significant increase in funding and the transfer of the diploma education portfolio of the contract to MTCU. Provincial funding for the first five years of the contract increased significantly by $21.3 million to $76.1 million. This new funding is allocated to both maintain the structural capacity of existing facilities and to fund new initiatives in innovative research and education in agri-food, environmental sustainability, and animal and human health. Included in the total contract are funds allocated for the costs incurred in the MTCU Operating budget for research faculty full-time equivalents ($11.8 million) and infrastructure costs such as physical plant, academic and administrative services ($11.0 million) which are recovered by the MTCU Operating budget annually from contract revenues. A detailed presentation on the entire OMAFRA budget is presented separately to the Board each year for approval. Ancillary Operations: Ancillary operations are self-funded operations managed by the University to provide services (mainly to students) that are not permitted to be funded from university credit program tuition fees or MTCU operating grants. Total 2007/2008 revenues of $69.4 million or 15% of total University revenues, for the five University Ancillary Operations, are derived mainly from the sales of goods and services. Separate budgets are prepared and approved by the Board for each Ancillary Operation. As these units are self-funded, they are charged for all support services including utilities, rent and administration provided by the MTCU portion of the Operating fund. In 2007/2008 the ancillary units were charged approximately $8.0 million for such services. Two Ancillary Services, Hospitality Services and Parking Services, also contribute a portion of their annual net income to fund special academic capital projects, $0.200 million and $0.442 million respectively. In addition, these units may (subject to availability) assist the MTCU Operating budget in meeting its overall budget target (Parking Services contributes $0.400 million annually for this purpose). Individual budgets for each designated ancillary operations are approved by the Board of Governors annually.

The University of Guelph-Humber (Guelph-Humber): In 1999 the University of Guelph entered into a joint venture with the Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning with the objective of delivering joint programs (and degrees) in focused undergraduate programs. With MTCU approval, the funding for these enrolments is based on university funding and tuition rates/regulations. The programs were to be delivered jointly at the Humber College campus at a dedicated facility funded by MTCU for this purpose. Students would graduate with both college and university degrees. The first cohort graduated in 2006. Revenues and related expenses for Guelph-Humber are accounted for and audited separately. The annual net income/expense is divided equally between the University and Humber College.



32

L: Tables All current 2009/2010 budget assumptions, allocated by major organizational unit and expenditure

type, are presented with accompanying notes on Table A. The 2009/2010 Preliminary MTCU Operating Budget compared to 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 actual results and the 2008/2009 forecast is presented in Table B.

Table A 2009/2010 Preliminary MTCU Operating Budget by Unit and Major Revenue and

Expense Category: This table contains the 2009/2010 Preliminary MTCU Operating Budget incorporating all preliminary budget assumptions, by major category of revenue, expense and organizational group.

Table B 2009/2010 Preliminary MTCU Operating Budget Revenue and Expenses by Major

Category: A time series showing the 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 actual results, 2008/2009

forecast results and the 2009/2010 Preliminary Budget by major categories of revenues, recoveries and expenses.

Table C 2008/2009 Forecast Results: MTCU Operating Budget Net Expenses by Unit:

Table showing 2008/2009 Forecast results compared to 2008/2009 Budget by major organizational group, net of departmental revenues.

Table D Full-time Equivalents (FTE’s) for MTCU funded Budgeted Positions by Unit and Major

Category Full-time Equivalents (FTE’s) for MTCU funded Budgeted Positions by Unit and

Major Category for the years 2003/2004 to 2009/2010 (preliminary).


Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

2009

/201

0 Pr

elim

inar

y M

TCU

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget

33

Tabl

e A

(in

thou

sand

s of

dol

lars

)

L1:

Tabl

e A

- 200

9/20

10 P

relim

inar

y Bu

dget

by

Uni

t and

Exp

ense

Cat

egor

y

(A

)

To

tal

Pers

onne

l

(Not

e #1

)

(B)

O

pera

ting

(N

ote

#2)

(C

)

Inte

rnal

R

ecov

erie

s

(Not

e #3

)

(D

)

Bud

get

R

educ

tions

(N

ote

#4)

(E)

=

(A

)+(B

)+(C

)+(D

)

Tota

l

Expe

nses

(F)

Ex

tern

al

Rec

over

ies

(G

)

Rev

enue

s

(H) =

(F)+

(G)

Tota

l R

ecov

erie

s &

Rev

enue

s

(Not

e #5

)

(I)

= (E

)+(H

)

Net

Bud

get

(N

ote

#6)

Not

es

Inst

itutio

nal R

even

ues

and

Rec

over

ies

Prov

inci

al G

rant

s14

3,50

014

3,50

014

3,50

0Tu

ition

102,

400

102,

400

102,

400

Oth

er1,

254

1,25

41,

254

Tota

l Rev

enue

s24

7,15

424

7,15

424

7,15

4C

ost R

ecov

erie

sO

MAF

RA

Serv

ice

Cos

ts -

Res

earc

h10

,330

10,3

3010

,330

#7Fe

d/Pr

ov R

esea

rch

Indi

rect

Cos

t Pro

gram

s6,

800

6,80

06,

800

Res

earc

h In

dire

ct o

n G

rant

s an

d C

ontra

cts

2,96

02,

960

2,96

0#8

Tota

l Res

earc

h In

dire

ct R

even

ues

and

Rec

over

ies

20,0

9020

,090

20,0

90#9

OM

AFR

A Se

rvic

e C

osts

- O

ther

670

670

670

#7G

uelp

h H

umbe

r Ser

vice

s1,

000

1,00

01,

000

#9Ex

ecut

ive

Prog

ram

s12

012

012

0O

AC D

iplo

ma

Rec

over

y18

518

518

5An

cilla

ry S

ervi

ce R

ecov

erie

s7,

532

7,53

27,

532

#10

Oth

er C

ost R

ecov

erie

s9,

507

9,50

79,

507

Tota

l Ins

titut

iona

l Rev

enue

s an

d R

ecov

erie

s29

,597

247,

154

276,

751

276,

751

#11

Inst

itutio

nal E

xpen

ses

Teac

hing

Uni

tsC

olle

ge o

f Arts

23,7

601,

537

(2,3

58)

22,9

39(6

75)

(42)

(717

)22

,222

Col

lege

of B

iolo

gica

l Sci

ence

20,2

991,

681

(283

)(1

,571

)20

,126

(1,0

83)

(50)

(1,1

33)

18,9

93C

olle

ge o

f Soc

ial a

nd A

pplie

d H

uman

Sci

ence

22,9

012,

919

(44)

(699

)25

,077

(1,5

09)

(25)

(1,5

34)

23,5

43C

olle

ge o

f Man

agem

ent a

nd E

cono

mic

s14

,098

3,14

1(9

2)(2

88)

16,8

59(1

,321

)(2

,229

)(3

,550

)13

,309

Ont

ario

Agr

icul

tura

l Col

lege

35,0

668,

336

(624

)(3

,493

)39

,285

(7,2

08)

(15,

424)

(22,

632)

16,6

53O

ntar

io V

eter

inar

y C

olle

ge32

,692

8,83

7(2

,049

)(1

,395

)38

,085

(3,7

95)

(16,

847)

(20,

642)

17,4

43C

olle

ge o

f Phy

sica

l and

Eng

inee

ring

Scie

nce

24,0

191,

561

(189

)(2

,488

)22

,903

(472

)(5

5)(5

27)

22,3

76O

ffice

of O

pen

Lear

ning

3,16

93,

774

(808

)6,

135

(309

)(4

,402

)(4

,711

)1,

424

Oth

er T

each

ing

Uni

ts1,

270

6,11

5(4

48)

6,93

7(9

6)(9

6)6,

841

#12

Inte

grat

ed P

lann

ing

6,13

36,

133

6,13

3#1

3St

uden

t Ass

ista

nce

700

11,6

3712

,337

12,3

37#1

4To

tal T

each

ing

Uni

ts17

7,97

455

,671

(4,5

37)

(12,

292)

216,

816

(16,

372)

(39,

170)

(55,

542)

161,

274

Libr

ary

Ope

ratio

ns a

nd In

form

atio

n R

esou

rces

Libr

ary

Ope

ratio

ns9,

325

1,81

5(2

51)

(344

)10

,545

(191

)(6

26)

(817

)9,

728

Libr

ary

Info

rmat

ion

Res

ourc

es6,

218

6,21

86,

218

Tota

l Lib

rary

Ope

ratio

ns a

nd In

fo. R

esou

rces

9,32

58,

033

(251

)(3

44)

16,7

63(1

91)

(626

)(8

17)

15,9

46


Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

2009

/201

0 Pr

elim

inar

y M

TCU

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget

34

Tabl

e A

(in

thou

sand

s of

dol

lars

)

(A

)

To

tal

Pers

onne

l

(Not

e #1

)

(B)

O

pera

ting

(N

ote

#2)

(C

)

Inte

rnal

R

ecov

erie

s

(Not

e #3

)

(D

)

Bud

get

R

educ

tions

(N

ote

#4)

(E)

=

(A

)+(B

)+(C

)+(D

)

Tota

l

Expe

nses

(F)

Ex

tern

al

Rec

over

ies

(G

)

Rev

enue

s

(H) =

(F)+

(G)

Tota

l R

ecov

erie

s &

Rev

enue

s

(Not

e #5

)

(I)

= (E

)+(H

)

Net

Bud

get

(N

ote

#6)

Not

es

Acad

emic

Ser

vice

sO

ffice

of R

esea

rch

5,81

11,

078

(579

)(2

49)

6,06

1(1

21)

(121

)5,

940

Teac

hing

Sup

port

Serv

ices

1,61

417

1(9

5)1,

690

(20)

(20)

1,67

0R

egis

trar

6,09

488

0(2

89)

(170

)6,

515

(722

)(7

22)

5,79

3As

soci

ate

VP A

cade

mic

623

240

(1)

(297

)56

5(2

8)(2

8)53

7#1

5O

ther

Aca

dem

ic S

ervi

ces

284

195

(15)

464

(26)

(26)

438

#16

Tota

l Aca

dem

ic S

ervi

ces

14,4

262,

564

(979

)(7

16)

15,2

95(9

17)

(917

)14

,378

Stud

ent S

ervi

ces

Stud

ent S

ervi

ces

7,67

23,

215

(107

)(6

43)

10,1

37(7

,067

)(7

,067

)3,

070

#17

Athl

etic

s3,

805

3,91

8(2

74)

7,44

9(6

,310

)(6

,310

)1,

139

#18

Tota

l Stu

dent

Ser

vice

s11

,477

7,13

3(3

81)

(643

)17

,586

(13,

377)

(13,

377)

4,20

9

Tota

l Tea

chin

g an

d Ac

adem

ic S

ervi

ces

213,

202

73,4

01(6

,148

)(1

3,99

5)26

6,46

0(1

6,56

3)(5

4,09

0)(7

0,65

3)19

5,80

7

Phys

ical

Res

ourc

esPh

ysic

al R

esou

rces

Ope

ratio

ns22

,005

3,19

0(3

,336

)(9

31)

20,9

28(1

25)

(125

)20

,803

#10

Util

ities

20,3

45(4

90)

(250

)19

,605

19,6

05To

tal P

hysi

cal R

esou

rces

22,0

0523

,535

(3,8

26)

(1,1

81)

40,5

33(1

25)

(125

)40

,408

Cap

ital I

nfra

stru

ctur

e Pl

anni

ngR

enov

atio

ns/D

efer

red

Mai

nten

ance

2,00

02,

000

2,00

0C

apita

l Inv

estm

ent S

uppo

rt &

Serv

icin

g9,

800

9,80

09,

800

Tota

l Cap

ital I

nfra

stru

ctur

e Pl

anni

ng11

,800

11,8

0011

,800

Inst

itutio

nal S

ervi

ces

and

Gen

eral

Exp

ense

sAl

umni

Affa

irs &

Dev

elop

men

t4,

140

1,22

6(7

55)

(145

)4,

466

(221

)(2

21)

4,24

5C

ompu

ting

& C

omm

unic

atio

n Se

rvic

es8,

209

4,38

4(4

,419

)(3

05)

7,86

9(3

36)

(73)

(409

)7,

460

Cen

tral A

dmin

istra

tion

Offi

ces

15,8

611,

699

(179

)(5

74)

16,8

07(4

85)

(485

)16

,322

#19

Uni

vers

ity G

ener

al E

xpen

ses

and

Con

tinge

ncy

420

10,8

30(1

,296

)9,

954

(245

)(2

45)

9,70

9#2

0

Tota

l Ins

titut

iona

l Ser

vice

s an

d G

ener

al E

xp.

28,6

3018

,139

(6,6

49)

(1,0

24)

39,0

96(3

36)

(1,0

24)

(1,3

60)

37,7

36

Tota

l Ins

titut

iona

l Exp

ense

s26

3,83

712

6,87

5(1

6,62

3)(1

6,20

0)35

7,88

9(1

6,89

9)(5

5,23

9)(7

2,13

8)28

5,75

1

Res

truct

urin

g C

osts

9,00

09,

000

9,00

0#2

1

Net

Bud

get

263,

837

135,

875

(16,

623)

(16,

200)

366,

889

(46,

496)

(302

,393

)(3

48,8

89)

(18,

000)

#22


Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

2009

/201

0 Pr

elim

inar

y M

TCU

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget

By

Uni

t and

Maj

or E

xpen

se C

ateg

ory

35

Not

es fo

r Tab

le A

1.

Colu

mn

A "T

otal

Per

sonn

el"

incl

udes

bud

gete

d sa

lary

and

ben

efit

cost

s fo

r all

regu

lar f

ull-t

ime,

con

trac

t and

par

t-tim

e em

ploy

ees.

2.

Colu

mn

B "O

pera

ting

Cost

s"

incl

ude

the

budg

eted

am

ount

de

part

men

ts h

ave

allo

cate

d fo

r a

grea

t va

riety

of

cost

s su

ch a

s eq

uipm

ent

purc

hase

s, m

aint

aini

ng d

ay-t

o-da

y op

erat

ions

, tr

avel

an

d re

nova

tions

.

3.

Colu

mn

C "I

nter

nal R

ecov

erie

s"

are

non-

cash

tra

nsfe

rs b

ased

on

inte

r-de

part

men

tal

serv

ices

pr

ovid

ed

such

as

te

leph

one,

m

ail,

labo

rato

ry,

phys

ical

res

ourc

es w

ork

orde

rs,

vehi

cle

rent

als

and

prin

ting.

4.

Colu

mn

D "

Budg

et R

educ

tions

" ar

e bu

dget

con

trib

utio

ns f

rom

un

its fo

r the

Mul

ti Ye

ar T

arge

ts re

late

d to

redu

cing

the

Uni

vers

ity’s

st

ruct

ural

def

icit.

5.

Colu

mn

H "

Tota

l Re

cove

ries

and

Reve

nues

" of

$34

8.9

mill

ion

incl

udes

Pro

vinc

ial

Gra

nts

of $

143.

5 m

illio

n, C

redi

t Tu

ition

of

$102

.4 m

illio

n, O

ther

rev

enue

of

$1.3

mill

ion,

Cos

t Re

cove

ries

of

$46.

5 m

illio

n an

d D

epar

tmen

tal R

even

ues

of $

55.2

mill

ion.

6.

Colu

mn

I "N

et B

udge

t" is

the

tot

al o

f de

part

men

tal e

xpen

ses

less

de

part

men

tal

cost

rec

over

ies

and

reve

nues

for

eac

h m

ajor

uni

t.

Net

bud

get

is t

he t

otal

allo

catio

n am

ount

tha

t un

it m

anag

ers

are

acco

unta

ble

for.

Any

sur

plus

or

defic

it at

yea

r-en

d is

det

erm

ined

us

ing

the

Net

Bud

get

vers

us N

et a

ctua

l res

ults

and

all

defic

its a

nd

surp

luse

s w

ithin

pol

icy

limits

are

cha

rged

or

cred

ited

to t

he u

nit’s

bu

dget

as

a Ca

rryf

orw

ard

into

the

follo

win

g ye

ar’s

bud

get.

7.

OM

AFRA

Cos

t Rec

over

ies

of $

11.0

mill

ion

are

for

serv

ices

pro

vide

d by

the

MTC

U b

udge

t (e

.g.,

utili

ties

and

spac

e co

sts)

. Thi

s re

cove

ry

is f

or r

esea

rch

rela

ted

initi

ativ

es (

$10.

330

mill

ion)

and

oth

er n

on-

rese

arch

act

iviti

es (

$0.6

70 m

illio

n)

In

addi

tion,

OM

AFRA

will

tr

ansf

er $

11.8

15 m

illio

n (a

s a

fixed

dol

lar

tran

sfer

) fo

r 77

fac

ulty

fu

ll tim

e eq

uiva

lent

s (F

TE’s

). Re

cove

ries

for

the

Rese

arch

fac

ulty

, 65

FTE

’s,

are

allo

cate

d to

the

col

lege

s ac

cord

ing

to f

acul

ty t

ime

awar

ded

to O

MAF

RA re

sear

ch p

roje

cts.

8.

Rese

arch

Ind

irect

– O

ther

, ar

e th

e in

dire

ct c

ost

reco

verie

s fr

om

exte

rnal

ly (i

nclu

ding

indu

stry

-fun

ded)

rese

arch

act

iviti

es.

9.

Th

e U

nive

rsity

of

Gue

lph’

s sh

are

of t

he U

nive

rsity

of

Gue

lph

Hum

ber i

ncom

e fo

r 200

9/20

10 is

$1.

0 m

illio

n in

bas

e re

cove

ries.

10.

Anci

llary

Ser

vice

Rec

over

ies

for

the

2009

/201

0 Pr

elim

inar

y M

TCU

bu

dget

exc

lude

s th

e re

cove

ry r

elat

ed t

o cu

stod

ial

and

othe

r se

rvic

es p

erfo

rmed

by

Phys

ical

Res

ourc

es f

or S

tude

nt H

ousi

ng

Serv

ices

. T

hese

rec

over

ies

of $

2.52

2 m

illio

n (0

8/09

) ar

e no

w

repo

rted

as

Inte

rnal

Rec

over

ies

in P

hysi

cal R

esou

rces

.

11.

Tota

l In

stitu

tiona

l Re

venu

es a

nd R

ecov

erie

s in

clud

e pr

ovin

cial

op

erat

ing

gran

ts,

tuiti

on,

gene

ral

reve

nues

an

d ex

tern

al

reco

verie

s re

ceiv

ed f

or c

entr

al f

undi

ng p

urpo

ses

and

excl

ude

exte

rnal

dep

artm

enta

l rev

enue

s an

d re

cove

ries

or fu

nds

rece

ived

fo

r res

tric

ted

purp

oses

.

12.

Oth

er T

each

ing

incl

udes

: BA

Coun

selli

ng O

ffic

e, L

ondo

n Se

mes

ter,

Ad

vanc

ed A

naly

sis

Cent

re a

nd A

cade

mic

Sup

port

fun

ds w

hich

in

clud

es R

esea

rch

Supp

ort,

Acad

emic

Con

tinge

ncy

and

Spec

ial

Proj

ects

.

13.

The

Inte

grat

ed

Plan

ning

in

clud

es

inve

stm

ents

in

gr

adua

te

teac

hing

of

$2.7

98 m

illio

n fo

r G

radu

ate

Supp

ort;

$0.

755

mill

ion

for

Gra

duat

e G

row

th; $

0.50

0 m

illio

n fo

r U

nder

grad

uate

Sup

port

; $1

.200

mill

ion

for

Und

ergr

adua

te G

row

th a

nd $

0.88

0 m

illio

n fo

r


Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

2009

/201

0 Pr

elim

inar

y M

TCU

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget

By

Uni

t and

Maj

or E

xpen

se C

ateg

ory

36

Not

es fo

r Tab

le A

Rese

arch

sup

port

.

14.

Stud

ent

Assi

stan

ce h

as in

crea

sed

by $

1.80

0 m

illio

n fo

r 20

09/2

010

rela

ted

to u

nder

grad

uate

sch

olar

ship

s an

d m

eetin

g th

e St

uden

t Ac

cess

Gua

rant

ee.

15

. As

soci

ate

VP A

cade

mic

inc

lude

s th

e As

soci

ate

Vice

-Pre

side

nt’s

of

fices

, Ed

ucat

iona

l Re

sear

ch a

nd D

evel

opm

ent

Uni

t an

d th

e Ce

ntre

for I

nter

natio

nal P

rogr

ams.

16.

Oth

er A

cade

mic

Ser

vice

s in

clud

es:

Mac

Kinn

on B

uild

ing

Mgm

t, D

ean

of G

rad

Stud

ies,

War

Mem

oria

l/Ro

zans

ki H

all

Ope

ratio

ns,

and

mis

cella

neou

s ac

adem

ic s

uppo

rt fu

nds.

17.

Stud

ent

Serv

ices

Re

venu

es

incl

udes

: Ac

cess

ibili

ty

Gra

nt

for

Stud

ents

with

Dis

abili

ties,

Stu

dent

Hea

lth S

ervi

ces

Fee,

Stu

dent

Su

ppor

t Fee

, Hea

lth a

nd P

erfo

rman

ce C

entr

e re

venu

es, C

hild

Car

e re

venu

es.

18

. At

hlet

ics

reve

nues

incl

ude:

Stu

dent

Ath

letic

Fee

, Stu

dent

Ath

letic

Bu

ildin

g Fe

e an

d us

er f

ees

from

ath

letic

ser

vice

s an

d fa

cilit

y re

ntal

s.

19

. Ce

ntra

l Ad

min

istr

atio

n O

ffic

es

incl

udes

: H

uman

Re

sour

ces,

Ex

ecut

ive

Off

ices

, Fi

nanc

ial

Serv

ices

, Ca

mpu

s Co

mm

unity

Pol

ice

and

Fire

Pre

vent

ion

Serv

ices

, Com

mun

icat

ions

and

Pub

lic A

ffai

rs,

Hum

an

Righ

ts

and

Equi

ty

Off

ice,

O

ffic

e of

In

vest

men

t M

anag

emen

t, an

d En

viro

nmen

tal H

ealth

and

Saf

ety.

20.

Gen

eral

Ex

pens

es

incl

ude

cost

s in

curr

ed

for

prop

erty

ta

xes,

m

embe

rshi

ps,

lega

l, au

ditin

g an

d ex

tern

al s

ervi

ces,

ins

uran

ce,

conv

ocat

ion

and

bank

ing

char

ges.

21.

For

2009

/201

0, a

bud

get

of $

9.0

mill

ion

rem

ains

as

the

unsp

ent

port

ion

of t

he $

20.0

mill

ion

rest

ruct

urin

g fu

nds

esta

blis

hed

in t

he

2008

/200

9 Pr

elim

inar

y Bu

dget

to fu

nd th

e on

e-tim

e co

sts

(suc

h as

em

ploy

ee b

uyou

ts) o

f res

truc

turin

g th

e de

part

men

t bud

gets

.

22.

The

$18.

0 m

illio

n in

net

bud

get

expe

nses

for

200

9/20

10 c

onsi

sts

of $

7.0

mill

ion

rela

ted

to o

ne-t

ime

net

rest

ruct

urin

g co

sts

(aft

er a

pl

anne

d $2

.0 m

illio

n re

paym

ent)

and

a s

truc

tura

l def

icit

of $

11.0

m

illio

n.



Summary By Major Revenue and Expense Categories

37

Table B (in thousands of dollars)

L2: Table B - Summary by Major Revenue and Expense Categories

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10Actual Actual Forecast Budget Notes

RevenueMTCU Grants - Institutional 151,875 143,165 144,056 143,500 #1MTCU Grants - Departmental 5,909 5,897 12,559 11,665 #2Tuition - Credit 87,181 91,501 99,160 102,400 Tuition - Non-Credit 6,018 6,471 9,368 9,354 #3Investment Income 2,063 1,312 526 373 #4Other Revenue 33,098 37,982 41,805 34,970 #3Total Revenue 286,144 286,328 307,474 302,262

Indirect Cost Recoveries - ResearchOMAFRA Cost Transfer - Research 12,427 12,427 20,245 20,245 #5Research Indirect Programs - FICP/RPF 9,237 10,126 6,797 6,800 #6Research Indirect Programs - Other 2,634 3,082 3,061 2,960 Total Reseach Indirect Revenue & Recoveries 24,298 25,635 30,103 30,005

Other RecoveriesOMAFRA Cost Transfer - Other 1,973 1,973 2,070 2,070 Other Program Recoveries 120 120 305 305 Guelph Humber Recoveries 4,380 5,126 6,659 6,715 #7Ancillary Services Recoveries 9,864 7,039 7,304 7,532 #8Other Institutional Recoveries 16,337 14,258 16,338 16,622

Total Revenues and Recoveries 326,779 326,221 353,915 348,889

ExpensesSalaries 177,214 191,490 206,423 211,939 Benefits 39,122 42,023 49,936 51,898 Operating 53,893 49,533 61,162 62,445 Utilities 19,959 20,504 18,846 19,605 Scholarships and Bursaries 11,824 12,739 16,086 16,152 #9Other Institutional Transfers 9,798 10,798 10,800 11,800 #10Unallocated Multi-year Target (15,950) #11Restructuring Costs 11,043 9,000 #12Budgeted Dept. Carryforwards from Prior Year 20,221 #13

Total Expenses 311,810 327,087 374,296 387,110

Change in Fund Balance 14,969 (866) (20,381) (38,221)

Add: Funds From Prior Year - Departmental 20,941 19,150 25,569 20,221 Add: Funds From Prior Year - Budget Relief 6,000 14,200 #14Total Funds Available 41,910 32,484 5,188 (18,000)

Less: For Departments (19,150) (25,569) (20,221) Less: For Budget Relief (14,200) Less: For Institutional/Contingency Purposes (6,915) (12,110) #15Less: Total Funds Transferred to Appropriations (33,350) (32,484) (32,331) -

Net Increase (Decrease) in Fund Balance 8,560 - (27,143) (18,000)

Unappropriated Fund Balance - Opening (8,560) (27,143)

Unappropriated Fund Balance - Closing - - (27,143) (45,143) #16


Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

2009

/201

0 Pr

elim

inar

y M

TCU

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget

Su

mm

ary

By M

ajor

Rev

enue

and

Exp

ense

Cat

egor

ies

38

Not

es fo

r Tab

le B

1.

See

sect

ion

D o

f thi

s bu

dget

doc

umen

t for

det

aile

d di

scus

sion

s of

the

Inst

itutio

nal M

TCU

gra

nts.

In 2

007/

2006

, MTC

U

prov

ided

one

-tim

e ye

ar e

nd g

rant

s of

$12

.6 m

illio

n. In

20

07/2

008

a $3

.0 m

illio

n on

e-tim

e ye

ar-e

nd g

rant

was

re

ceiv

ed.

2.

Th

e M

TCU

gra

nts

cred

ited

dire

ctly

to d

epar

tmen

t bud

gets

are

ta

rget

ed fo

r spe

cific

pro

ject

s an

d in

clud

e th

e $6

.5 m

illio

n Sp

ecia

l Gra

nt O

VC re

ceiv

es fo

r clin

ical

edu

catio

n (in

crea

sed

by

$1.5

mill

ion

in 2

008/

2009

), a

$4.5

mill

ion

gran

t for

OAC

D

iplo

ma

educ

atio

n fo

rmer

ly p

art o

f OM

AFRA

Agr

eem

ent a

s w

ell a

s ap

prox

imat

ely

$0.6

mill

ion

in o

ther

stu

dent

sup

port

. 3.

N

on-C

redi

t Tui

tion

incl

udes

fees

for d

ista

nce

lear

ning

, co

ntin

uing

edu

catio

n an

d ex

ecut

ive

prog

ram

s. W

ith th

e tr

ansf

er o

f the

Dip

lom

a Te

achi

ng a

nd C

ontin

uing

Edu

catio

n pr

ogra

ms

from

the

OM

AFRA

Agr

eem

ent i

n 20

08/2

009,

ther

e ar

e an

add

ition

al $

3.1

mill

ion

in n

on-c

redi

t tea

chin

g tu

ition

as

wel

l as

appr

oxim

atel

y $8

mill

ion

in o

ther

fees

and

sal

es

reve

nues

. 4.

In

tere

st In

com

e cr

edite

d to

the

MTC

U b

udge

ts fr

om e

arni

ngs

on th

e op

erat

ing

port

folio

hav

e de

clin

ed d

ue to

cas

h flo

w

dem

ands

incl

udin

g in

crea

sed

pens

ion

cont

ribut

ions

. 5.

Th

e ne

w O

MAF

RA A

gree

men

t inc

lude

s ad

ditio

nal f

unds

tr

ansf

erre

d to

the

MTC

U b

udge

t for

sup

port

ser

vice

s an

d fa

culty

pos

ition

s. T

he $

8.0

mill

ion

incr

ease

sho

wn

incl

udes

$3

.6 m

illio

n th

at re

plac

es th

e fu

nds

prev

ious

ly re

ceiv

ed fr

om

the

Prov

inci

al re

sear

ch o

verh

ead

fund

ing

prog

ram

s as

a re

sult

of th

e O

MAF

RA a

gree

men

t tha

t is

now

incl

uded

in th

e ba

se

Agre

emen

t. I

n ad

ditio

n, th

ere

was

$3.

4 m

illio

n fo

r ac

cum

ulat

ed fa

culty

cos

t inc

reas

es a

nd a

$1.

0 m

illio

n tr

ansf

er

from

the

mul

ti-ye

ar N

ew In

itiat

ives

fund

.

6.

FICP

/RPF

Res

earc

h su

ppor

t is

fund

ing

from

two

maj

or g

rant

s:

the

Fede

ral I

nfra

stru

ctur

e Co

st P

rogr

am (F

ICP)

and

the

prov

inci

al R

esea

rch

Perf

orm

ance

Fun

d (R

PF).

Thes

e fu

nds

are

rest

ricte

d to

fund

ing

indi

rect

cos

ts o

f res

earc

h ac

tivity

and

are

re

port

ed to

fund

ing

agen

cies

ann

ually

. Ove

r the

pas

t sev

eral

ye

ars

this

fund

ing

has

prov

ided

sig

nific

ant b

udge

t ass

ista

nce

in

cove

ring

cost

incr

ease

s. In

200

8/20

09 th

e RP

F fu

ndin

g re

late

d to

the

OM

AFRA

con

trac

t was

tran

sfer

red

to th

e O

MAF

RA

agre

emen

t.

7.

Th

e Co

llege

s an

d se

vera

l aca

dem

ic s

uppo

rt u

nits

rece

ive

reco

verie

s fr

om G

uelp

h-H

umbe

r for

ser

vice

s pr

ovid

ed (c

ours

e de

velo

pmen

t and

del

iver

y, s

tude

nt s

uppo

rt s

ervi

ces)

. Fo

r 20

08/2

009,

ther

e is

an

addi

tiona

l $1.

0 m

illio

n of

bas

e re

cove

ries

for s

ervi

ces

prov

ided

to th

e U

nive

rsity

of G

uelp

h-H

umbe

r. 8.

Th

e M

TCU

ope

ratin

g bu

dget

reco

vers

the

cost

s of

ser

vice

s (p

rimar

ily u

tiliti

es a

nd s

pace

cha

rges

) pro

vide

d to

Anc

illar

y op

erat

ions

as

wel

l as

cont

ribut

ions

to s

peci

fic p

roje

cts

in th

e M

TCU

ope

ratin

g bu

dget

. Fo

r 200

9/20

10, t

here

is a

3.5

%

incr

ease

incl

uded

in c

osts

. Fo

r 200

7/20

08, t

he p

ortio

n of

the

reco

very

that

sup

port

ed e

nviro

nmen

tal s

ervi

ces

prov

ided

by

Phys

ical

Res

ourc

es to

Stu

dent

Hou

sing

Ser

vice

s ($

2.37

9 m

illio

n) w

as s

egre

gate

d an

d is

bei

ng m

anag

ed d

irect

ly

betw

een

the

units

. In

200

6/20

07, $

0.7

mill

ion

from

Par

king

Se

rvic

es w

as c

ontr

ibut

ed to

gen

eral

MTC

U b

udge

t rel

ief.

9.

The

Scho

lars

hips

& B

ursa

ries

cate

gory

has

bee

n re

-sta

ted

to

incl

ude

the

sala

ry p

ortio

n of

GTA

bur

sarie

s. S

ince

200

8/20

09,

the

Inte

grat

ed P

lann

ing

initi

ativ

e in

sup

port

of g

radu

ate

enro

lmen

t inc

lude

d a

$2 m

illio

n in

vest

men

t in

Gra

duat

e Su

ppor

t pay

men

ts to

stu

dent

s.


Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

2009

/201

0 Pr

elim

inar

y M

TCU

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget

Su

mm

ary

By M

ajor

Rev

enue

and

Exp

ense

Cat

egor

ies

39

Not

es fo

r Tab

le B

10. O

ther

Inst

itutio

nal R

ecov

erie

s is

the

supp

ort f

or th

e co

st o

f ca

pita

l inf

rast

ruct

ure

finan

cing

. 11

. The

200

9/20

10 ta

rget

in th

e M

ulti

Year

Pla

n th

at is

un

allo

cate

d in

the

Prel

imin

ary

Budg

et is

$15

.950

mill

ion,

ex

clud

ing

$0.2

5 m

illio

n al

read

y re

flect

ed in

the

Util

ities

bu

dget

. 12

. The

200

9/20

10 M

TCU

Pre

limin

ary

Budg

et h

as $

9.0

mill

ion

to

fund

the

one-

time

cost

s (s

uch

as e

mpl

oyee

buy

outs

) of

rest

ruct

urin

g th

e de

part

men

t bud

gets

as

part

of t

he M

ulti

Year

Pla

n. I

n 20

08/2

009,

$11

.043

mill

ion

was

reco

rded

for

the

cost

s of

facu

lty a

nd s

taff

(VER

R) in

cent

ives

for p

ositi

on

redu

ctio

ns.

13

. The

one

-tim

e de

part

men

tal c

arry

forw

ards

are

uns

pent

fund

s in

the

prio

r yea

r tha

t will

be

upon

app

rova

l, be

add

ed to

uni

t bu

dget

s (s

ubje

ct to

con

firm

atio

n of

fina

l yea

r end

resu

lts) i

n 20

09/2

010.

14

. W

here

pos

sibl

e an

d af

ter a

nnua

l bud

get t

arge

ts a

re m

et th

e U

nive

rsity

has

follo

wed

the

prac

tice

of re

serv

ing

one-

time

fund

s in

a S

tabi

lizat

ion

Fund

. Whe

n ca

lled

upon

, the

se fu

nds

abso

rb o

ne-t

ime

cost

s su

ch a

s re

stru

ctur

ing

cost

s, in

eff

ect

prov

idin

g a

“cus

hion

” in

man

agin

g ye

ar o

ver y

ear b

udge

t ch

ange

s. In

200

6/20

07 $

6.0

mill

ion

cont

ribut

ed to

fully

pay

off

th

e ac

cum

ulat

ed n

et re

stru

ctur

ing

cost

s fr

om a

n ea

rlier

buy

-ou

t pro

gram

. In

2007

/200

8, $

14.2

mill

ion

in o

ne-t

ime

year

en

d M

TCU

gra

nts

rece

ived

at t

he e

nd o

f fis

cal 2

006/

2007

w

ere

used

to o

ffse

t (fo

r one

yea

r onl

y) th

e bu

dget

ary

stru

ctur

al d

efic

it in

200

7/20

08. (

At th

e en

d of

200

7/20

08 $

5.0

mill

ion

was

set

asi

de, a

gain

, fro

m o

ne-t

ime

year

-end

pr

ovin

cial

gra

nts.

)

15

. The

fund

s re

mai

ning

at t

he e

nd o

f the

fisc

al y

ear t

hat i

s no

t co

mm

itted

to d

epar

tmen

tal u

ses

are

prop

osed

to b

e ad

ded

to

the

Uni

vers

ity’s

Sta

biliz

atio

n fu

nd (s

ee s

ectio

n J o

n pa

ge #

27).

In 2

007/

2008

, the

Sta

biliz

atio

n Fu

nd w

as e

stab

lishe

d w

ith

$5.0

mill

ion

incl

udin

g ex

cess

one

-tim

e M

TCU

gra

nt re

venu

es

plus

con

trib

utio

ns to

allo

wan

ces

for S

elf I

nsur

ed L

osse

s ($

0.45

m

illio

n an

d fu

ture

ben

efit

cost

s ($

1.46

5 m

illio

n).

16

. The

Una

ppro

pria

ted

Fund

Bal

ance

is th

e U

nive

rsity

ac

cum

ulat

ed d

efic

it as

a re

sult

of th

e st

ruct

ural

def

icit

($11

m

illio

n in

200

9/20

10) a

nd c

osts

of r

estr

uctu

ring

($9

mill

ion

less

the

plan

ned

$2 m

illio

n re

paym

ent)

. W

hen

adde

d to

the

fore

cast

$27

.1 m

illio

n fr

om 2

008/

2009

, a to

tal e

stim

ated

de

ficit

of $

45.1

mill

ion

is w

ithin

the

Boar

d of

Gov

erno

rs

appr

oved

pla

n lim

it (s

ee s

ectio

n H

3 on

pag

e#24

).

.


Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

2009

/201

0 Pr

elim

inar

y M

TCU

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget

M

TCU

For

ecas

t Res

ults

for 2

008/

2009

40

Tabl

e C

(in th

ousa

nds

of d

olla

rs)

L3:

Tabl

e C

- MTC

U F

orec

ast R

esul

ts 2

008/

2009

08/0

908

/09

Surp

lus/

Bud

get

Fore

cast

(D

efic

it)N

otes

Inst

itut

iona

l Rev

enue

s an

d Re

cove

ries

Prov

inci

al G

rant

s14

0,55

614

4,05

63,

500

#1Tu

ition

Rev

enue

94,3

0099

,160

4,86

0#2

Oth

er R

even

ues

1,40

41,

740

336

Tota

l Ins

titu

tion

al R

even

ues

236,

260

244,

956

8,69

6

Tota

l Res

earc

h In

dire

ct R

even

ues

and

Reco

veri

es20

,060

20,1

8812

8O

ther

Cos

t Rec

over

ies

12,3

9912

,399

0

Tota

l Ins

titu

tion

al R

even

ues

and

Reco

veri

es26

8,71

927

7,54

38,

824

Teac

hing

Uni

tsCo

llege

of A

rts

(CO

A)23

,220

23,3

06(8

6)Co

llege

of B

iolo

gica

l Sci

ence

(CBS

)22

,938

19,3

393,

599

Colle

ge o

f Soc

ial a

nd A

pplie

d H

uman

Sci

ence

(CSA

HS)

24,7

4523

,392

1,35

3Co

llege

of M

anag

emen

t and

Eco

nom

ics

(CM

E)13

,520

12,3

061,

214

Ont

ario

Agr

icul

tura

l Col

lege

(OAC

)20

,738

19,2

441,

494

Ont

ario

Vet

erin

ary

Colle

ge (O

VC)

20,3

3520

,102

233

Colle

ge o

f Phy

sica

l and

Eng

inee

ring

Scie

nce

(CPE

S)25

,799

24,0

991,

700

Off

ice

of O

pen

Lear

ning

3,51

81,

464

2,05

4O

ther

Tea

chin

g U

nits

6,30

84,

144

2,16

4#3

Stud

ent A

ssis

tanc

e12

,534

11,1

831,

351

#4To

tal T

each

ing

Uni

ts17

3,65

515

8,57

915

,076

Libr

ary

Ope

rati

ons

and

Info

rmat

ion

Reso

urce

s16

,960

16,2

1474

6A

cade

mic

Ser

vice

s16

,518

15,9

8153

7St

uden

t Ser

vice

s6,

324

4,51

31,

811

Tota

l Tea

chin

g an

d A

cade

mic

Ser

vice

s21

3,45

719

5,28

718

,170

Phys

ical

Res

ourc

es O

pera

tions

22,8

3520

,836

1,99

9U

tiliti

es21

,055

18,8

462,

209

#5To

tal P

hysi

cal R

esou

rces

43,8

9039

,682

4,20

8Ca

pita

l Inf

rast

ruct

ure

Plan

ning

10,8

0010

,800

0In

stit

utio

nal S

ervi

ces

and

Gen

eral

Exp

ense

s39

,011

38,5

7243

9#6

Uni

vers

ity

Cont

inge

ncy

3,23

02,

540

690

Tota

l Ins

titu

tion

al C

osts

310,

388

286,

881

23,5

07

Ann

ual O

pera

ting

Inco

me

(Exp

ense

)(4

1,66

9)(9

,338

)32

,331

Tran

sfer

Fro

m P

rior

Yea

r App

ropr

iati

ons

Fro

m D

epar

tmen

tal (

Equi

p&Su

pplie

s)25

,569

25,5

69

Tota

l MTC

U O

pera

ting

Fun

ds A

vaila

ble

(16,

100)

16,2

31

Less

: Tra

nsfe

r to

App

ropr

iati

ons

- Ins

titu

tion

al12

,110

#7Le

ss: T

rans

fer t

o A

ppro

pria

tion

s fo

r Dep

artm

ents

20,2

21#8

Less

: Tot

al T

rans

fer t

o A

ppro

pria

tion

s32

,331

Net

Sur

plus

(Def

icit

) bef

ore

Rest

ruct

urin

g Co

sts

(16,

100)

(16,

100)

Rest

ruct

urin

g Co

sts

- (D

efic

it)

(20,

000)

(11,

043)

#9

Net

Incr

ease

(Dec

reas

e) in

Fun

d Ba

lanc

e (3

6,10

0)(2

7,14

3)#1

0

Su

mm

ary

of M

ajor

Var

ianc

es:

1.

Pro

vinc

ial G

rant

s: U

nder

grad

uate

and

Gra

duat

e Ac

cess

ibili

ty g

rant

s ar

e fo

reca

st to

exc

eed

budg

et d

ue to

hig

her e

nrol

men

ts th

an 2

008/

2009

bud

get

assu

mpt

ions

and

in-y

ear p

rovi

ncia

l fun

ding

cha

nges

reco

gniz

ing

prev

ious

ly

unfu

nded

gro

wth

. It

is e

xpec

ted

that

ther

e w

ill b

e $1

.8 m

illio

n in

un

derg

radu

ate

and

$1.7

mill

ion

for g

radu

ate

grow

th.

2. T

uitio

n Re

venu

e: a

re fo

reca

st to

be

high

er th

an b

udge

t by

5.1%

or $

4.86

m

illio

n. M

ost o

f the

gai

n oc

curr

ed re

lativ

e to

fall

and

win

ter u

nder

grad

uate

cr

edit

enro

lmen

t (in

take

and

rete

ntio

n) e

xper

ienc

e ex

ceed

ing

prel

imin

ary

budg

et a

ssum

ptio

ns.

3. O

ther

Tea

chin

g U

nits

: Inc

lude

d in

this

gro

up is

a u

nit c

ompr

ised

of a

eq

uipm

ent-

inte

nsiv

e re

sear

ch a

naly

tical

ser

vice

s fo

r whi

ch fe

es a

re c

harg

ed.

This

uni

t (Ad

vanc

ed A

naly

sis

Cent

re) i

s ac

cum

ulat

ing

fund

s fo

r equ

ipm

ent

repl

acem

ent.

Mos

t of t

his

repo

rted

car

ry-f

orw

ard

is fo

r tha

t pur

pose

s.

4. S

tude

nt A

ssis

tanc

e: M

ost o

f the

se fu

nds

are

allo

cate

d fo

r the

wor

k st

udy

prog

ram

s pl

anne

d fo

r the

sum

mer

of 2

009.

5.

Util

ities

: Thi

s ac

coun

t is

expe

cted

to b

e $2

.2 m

illio

n un

der b

udge

t re

flect

ing

cons

erva

tion

effo

rts

in e

lect

ricity

, wat

er u

sage

and

nat

ural

gas

as

wel

l as

a ne

w a

rran

gem

ent w

ith th

e Ci

ty o

f Gue

lph

for w

ater

/sew

age

char

ges.

(Und

er th

is a

rran

gem

ent t

he U

nive

rsity

is b

illed

on

actu

al w

ater

us

age

vers

us a

flat

hea

dcou

nt b

ased

fee.

) 6.

Inst

itutio

nal S

ervi

ces

incl

udes

cen

tral

adm

inis

trat

ive

offic

es a

nd s

uppo

rt

serv

ices

(e.g

. fin

ance

, hum

an re

sour

ces,

com

putin

g an

d co

mm

unic

atio

n se

rvic

es, f

und

rais

ing,

com

mun

icat

ions

and

pub

lic a

ffai

rs a

nd s

enio

r ad

min

istr

ativ

e of

fices

). M

ost u

nits

are

repo

rtin

g sm

all c

arry

-for

war

ds

bala

nces

for n

ext y

ear t

arge

ted

mai

nly

to h

elp

deal

with

bud

get r

educ

tions

. 7.

The

“St

abili

zatio

n Fu

nd”:

Any

net

sav

ings

from

inst

itutio

nal a

ccou

nts

(e.g

., gr

ants

, tui

tion,

con

tinge

ncy

acco

unts

) will

be

adde

d to

the

Uni

vers

ity’s

St

abili

zatio

n Fu

nd. T

his

fund

will

be

used

to a

ssis

t fun

ding

pot

entia

l fut

ure

one-

time

oblig

atio

ns o

f the

Uni

vers

ity s

uch

as p

ensi

on c

ontr

ibut

ions

or

rest

ruct

urin

g co

sts

nece

ssar

y to

mee

t the

targ

ets

of th

e M

ulti-

Year

Pla

n.

8. T

he to

tal u

nspe

nt b

udge

t for

dep

artm

ents

is fo

reca

st a

t $20

.2 m

illio

n ($

22.7

mill

ion

in 2

007/

2008

) rep

rese

ntin

g 6.

5% o

f tot

al o

pera

ting

expe

nses

. 9.

The

def

icit

rela

ted

to th

e on

e-tim

e re

stru

ctur

ing

cost

s, to

dat

e, to

tals

$1

1.04

mill

ion.

It c

onsi

sts

mai

nly

of e

x-gr

atia

pay

men

ts fo

r the

retir

emen

t an

d re

sign

atio

n of

facu

lty a

nd s

taff

und

er v

olun

tary

pro

gram

s. T

he o

rigin

al

defic

it al

low

ance

in th

e 20

08/2

009

Prel

imin

ary

MTC

U b

udge

t was

$20

.0

mill

ion.

It is

exp

ecte

d th

at th

e $9

.0 m

illio

n re

mai

ning

allo

wan

ce w

ill b

e us

ed

in fu

ture

yea

rs to

com

plet

e th

e ne

cess

ary

Mul

ti-Ye

ar P

lan

targ

ets.

10

. Net

Incr

ease

(Dec

reas

e) in

Fun

d Ba

lanc

e: T

his

is th

e ne

t def

icit

posi

tion

for t

he M

TCU

bud

get.

It re

flect

s th

e Bo

ard

appr

oved

def

icit

($36

.1 m

illio

n)

and

the

fore

cast

def

icit

($27

.1 m

illio

n). T

he d

iffer

ence

of $

9 m

illio

n is

the

timin

g di

ffer

ence

on

rest

ruct

urin

g co

sts

(see

not

e 9)

.


Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

2009

/201

0 Pr

elim

inar

y M

TCU

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget

Fu

ll-tim

e Eq

uiva

lent

s (F

TE’s

) for

MTC

U fu

nded

Bud

gete

d Po

sitio

ns b

y U

nit a

nd M

ajor

Cat

egor

y

41

Tabl

e D

L4:

Tabl

e D

- Fu

ll-ti

me

Equi

vale

nts

(FTE

’s) fo

r M

TCU

Bud

gete

d Po

siti

ons

Colle

ge/D

ivis

ion

Posi

tion

Type

2003

/200

420

04/2

005

2005

/200

620

06/2

007

2007

/200

820

08/2

009

2009

/201

0N

otes

Prel

imin

ary

TEA

CHIN

G U

NIT

S

COLL

EGE

OF

ARTS

Facu

lty11

6.2

134.

713

1.0

128.

413

4.1

132.

213

1.4

#1St

aff

27.9

29.5

29.5

31.5

33.3

35.5

33.5

144.

116

4.2

160.

515

9.9

167.

416

7.7

164.

9

COLL

EGE

OF

BIO

LOG

ICAL

SCI

ENCE

Facu

lty87

.210

0.1

100.

399

.495

.996

.698

.3#2

Staf

f58

.161

.059

.055

.659

.261

.161

.114

5.3

161.

115

9.3

155.

015

5.1

157.

615

9.3

COLL

.OF

SOC.

& A

PP. H

UM

AN S

CIEN

CEFa

culty

170.

418

3.8

177.

111

6.0

122.

012

3.0

117.

8#3

Staf

f54

.658

.058

.740

.641

.343

.342

.922

5.0

241.

723

5.8

156.

716

3.3

166.

316

0.7

#4

COLL

EGE

OF

MAN

AGEM

ENT

& E

CON

OM

ICS

Facu

lty0.

362

.567

.973

.372

.0St

aff

24.5

26.1

27.5

26.5

0.3

87.0

94.0

100.

898

.5#4

ON

TARI

O A

GRI

CULT

URA

L CO

LLEG

EFa

culty

170.

817

0.7

166.

915

1.2

152.

415

4.4

152.

4St

aff

71.5

59.4

57.9

63.6

61.9

131.

813

0.8

#524

2.3

230.

122

4.9

214.

821

4.3

286.

228

3.2

ON

TARI

O V

ETER

INAR

Y CO

LLEG

EFa

culty

100.

211

5.1

117.

211

5.7

119.

712

2.6

124.

6#6

Staf

f15

2.3

155.

215

6.8

157.

716

2.0

163.

515

9.8

252.

527

0.3

274.

127

3.4

281.

728

6.1

284.

4

COLL

OF

PHYS

ICAL

& E

NG

INEE

RIN

GFa

culty

123.

512

4.3

119.

811

5.8

120.

212

2.0

125.

0#7

Staf

f61

.161

.958

.758

.363

.364

.363

.318

4.6

186.

217

8.5

174.

018

3.5

186.

318

8.3

OFF

ICE

OF

OPE

N L

EARN

ING

Staf

f26

.530

.431

.534

.034

.537

.938

.5

OTH

ER T

EACH

ING

UN

ITS

Facu

lty1.

01.

01.

01.

01.

01.

01.

0St

aff

8.7

8.9

8.7

12.0

12.0

12.0

12.0

9.7

9.9

9.7

13.0

13.0

13.0

13.0

Tota

l Fac

ulty

Tea

chin

g U

nits

769.

482

9.6

813.

779

0.1

813.

282

5.0

822.

5

Tot

al S

taff

Tea

chin

g U

nits

460.

746

4.4

460.

847

7.7

493.

657

6.8

568.

3To

tal T

each

ing

Uni

ts12

30.0

1294

.012

74.6

1267

.813

06.8

1401

.913

90.8

LIBR

ARY

LIBR

ARY

OPE

RATI

NG

Facu

lty23

.125

.926

.327

.628

.028

.028

.0St

aff

93.1

89.5

82.3

81.6

81.3

80.1

77.4

#811

6.2

115.

410

8.6

109.

210

9.3

108.

110

5.4


Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

2009

/201

0 Pr

elim

inar

y M

TCU

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget

Fu

ll-tim

e Eq

uiva

lent

s (F

TE’s

) for

MTC

U fu

nded

Bud

gete

d Po

sitio

ns b

y U

nit a

nd M

ajor

Cat

egor

y

42

Tabl

e D

Colle

ge/D

ivis

ion

Posi

tion

Type

2003

/200

420

04/2

005

2005

/200

620

06/2

007

2007

/200

820

08/2

009

2009

/201

0N

otes

Prel

imin

ary

ACA

DEM

IC S

ERVI

CES

OFF

ICE

OF

RESE

ARCH

Facu

lty3.

33.

93.

73.

84.

04.

94.

9St

aff

38.0

45.3

51.2

54.8

49.6

51.1

50.1

#9,

#14

41.3

49.2

54.9

58.6

53.6

56.0

55.0

TEAC

HIN

G S

UPP

ORT

SER

VICE

SSt

aff

20.0

20.5

18.0

17.8

19.8

20.5

20.5

ASSO

CIAT

E V/

P AC

ADEM

ICSt

aff

6.0

6.0

4.0

7.0

6.7

6.8

5.8

#10

REG

ISTR

ARSt

aff

69.4

70.2

67.4

66.9

76.0

77.8

74.8

#11

OTH

ER A

CAD

EMIC

SU

PPO

RTFa

culty

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.1

1.3

0.8

0.8

Staf

f3.

03.

03.

03.

02.

12.

12.

14.

34.

34.

44.

13.

42.

92.

9

COM

PUTI

NG

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N S

ERVI

CESt

aff

75.7

74.0

73.9

72.1

71.7

72.7

68.0

STU

DEN

T SE

RVIC

ESST

UD

ENT

AFFA

IRS

Staf

f44

.947

.949

.049

.652

.655

.855

.8ST

UD

ENT

HEA

LTH

SER

VICE

SSt

aff

17.2

17.1

17.1

17.1

18.2

17.5

17.5

ATH

LETI

CSSt

aff

26.9

29.7

29.7

29.7

31.9

31.8

28.8

CHIL

D C

ARE

OPE

RATI

ON

SSt

aff

15.0

16.6

17.8

18.0

18.0

17.7

16.7

104.

011

1.3

113.

611

4.4

120.

712

2.7

118.

7

ALU

MN

I AFF

AIR

S &

DEV

ELO

PMEN

TSt

aff

32.7

37.4

38.4

41.7

46.0

47.0

46.0

#12

PHYS

ICA

L RE

SOU

RCES

OPE

RATI

ON

SSt

aff

339.

034

1.0

328.

431

6.0

313.

131

5.8

304.

8#1

3

AD

MIN

ISTR

ATI

ON

HU

MAN

RES

OU

RCES

Staf

f36

.035

.033

.335

.034

.034

.031

.0

CEN

TRAL

AD

MIN

ISTR

ATIV

E O

FFIC

ESFa

culty

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

Staf

f48

.652

.254

.556

.850

.251

.250

.8#1

151

.655

.257

.559

.854

.255

.254

.8

FIN

ANCE

/PU

RCH

ASIN

G/M

AIL

SERV

ICES

Staf

f50

.049

.545

.848

.454

.554

.351

.3#1

4

CAM

PUS

COM

MU

NIT

Y PO

LICE

& F

IRE

PREV

ENTI

ON

Staf

f24

.023

.324

.023

.623

.623

.623

.6

Facu

lty0.

6U

NIV

ERSI

TY G

ENER

AL E

XPEN

SESt

aff

2.7

3.6

4.9

3.9

3.8

4.4

4.4

2.7

3.6

4.9

3.9

3.8

5.0

4.4

Tota

l Fac

ulty

79

9.9

863.

884

8.1

825.

685

0.5

863.

386

1.1

T

otal

Sta

ff

1402

.814

26.2

1403

.514

20.5

1446

.715

40.8

1497

.5To

tal F

acul

ty a

nd S

taff

2202

.822

90.0

2251

.622

46.0

2297

.224

04.1

2358

.7


Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

2009

/201

0 Pr

elim

inar

y M

TCU

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget

43

Not

es fo

r Tab

le D

Def

initi

ons:

FTE

– Fu

ll tim

e Eq

uiva

lent

s ar

e w

orkf

orce

mea

sure

s of

bud

gete

d po

sitio

ns (n

orm

ally

for f

ull t

ime

appo

intm

ents

).

MTC

U-f

unde

d po

sitio

ns in

clud

e O

VC S

peci

al G

rant

, OAC

Dip

lom

a pr

ogra

ms

and

posi

tions

in G

uelp

h un

its fu

nded

by

Gue

lph

Hum

ber

prog

ram

s. A

lso

incl

uded

are

an

estim

ated

77

FTE’

s (2

009/

2010

) of

facu

lty p

ositi

ons

supp

orte

d by

the

OM

AFRA

Agr

eem

ent.

Budg

eted

Pos

itio

ns: a

Bud

gete

d Po

sitio

n is

a s

peci

fic b

udge

t acc

ount

th

at h

as b

een

esta

blis

hed

to re

cord

the

budg

et a

nd e

xpen

ses

of

indi

vidu

al e

mpl

oym

ent a

ppoi

ntm

ents

that

are

in tw

o m

ajor

ca

tego

ries;

regu

lar f

ull t

ime

posi

tions

and

long

er te

rm (o

ver 1

yea

r)

cont

ract

ually

lim

ited

posi

tions

.

Facu

lty:

the

Facu

lty c

ateg

ory

incl

udes

all

fund

ed p

ositi

ons

(fill

ed o

r va

cant

) for

tenu

re tr

ack

facu

lty, s

ecur

ed a

ppoi

ntm

ents

, con

trac

tual

ly

limite

d fa

culty

, vet

erin

aria

ns a

nd li

brar

ians

. Th

is c

ateg

ory

in M

TCU

in

clud

es th

e 77

FTE

’s s

uppo

rted

by

cost

tran

sfer

from

the

OM

AFRA

Ag

reem

ent b

ut e

xclu

des

othe

r ext

erna

lly s

uppo

rted

facu

lty d

irect

ch

arge

d to

OM

AFRA

(28.

9 FT

E’s)

and

Res

earc

h G

rant

s (2

2.2

FTE’

s).

St

aff:

the

Staf

f cat

egor

y in

clud

es a

ll no

n-fa

culty

pos

ition

s bu

dget

ed

for i

n th

e M

TCU

ope

ratin

g bu

dget

. N

otes

: 1.

Th

e in

crea

se o

f 18

facu

lty F

TE in

the

Colle

ge o

f Art

s in

200

4/20

05

incl

uded

9 c

ontr

actu

ally

lim

ited

appo

intm

ents

in re

spon

se to

un

derg

radu

ate

enro

lmen

t gro

wth

dur

ing

the

doub

le c

o-ho

rt y

ears

. 2.

Th

e in

crea

se o

f 13

facu

lty F

TE in

the

Colle

ge o

f Bio

logi

cal S

cien

ce

(CBS

) in

2004

/200

5 w

as d

ue to

the

tran

sfer

of 8

Bio

chem

ist p

ositi

ons

from

the

Colle

ge o

f Phy

sica

l and

Eng

inee

ring

Scie

nces

(CPE

S) to

CBS

as

wel

l as

6 ne

w g

row

th p

ositi

ons.

3.

Th

e pl

anne

d in

crea

se in

the

Colle

ge o

f Soc

ial a

nd A

pplie

d H

uman

Sc

ienc

e (C

SAH

S) b

etw

een

2006

/200

7 an

d 20

08/2

009

incl

uded

7

facu

lty F

TE fo

r inc

reas

ed u

nder

grad

uate

enr

olm

ent (

fund

ed a

s pa

rt

of th

e “O

TA”

plan

). 4.

Th

e Co

llege

of M

anag

emen

t and

Eco

nom

ics

was

form

ed a

t the

be

ginn

ing

of th

e 20

06/2

007

fisca

l yea

r. It

incl

uded

the

amal

gam

atio

n of

the

busi

ness

and

eco

nom

ics

capa

city

that

alre

ady

exis

ted

in o

ther

Co

llege

s. T

his

incl

uded

the

tran

sfer

of t

hree

dep

artm

ents

from

the

Colle

ge o

f Soc

ial a

nd A

pplie

d H

uman

Sci

ence

s (C

SAH

S) a

nd th

e

Prof

essi

onal

Pro

gram

s. T

he in

crea

se in

the

Colle

ge o

f Man

agem

ent

and

Econ

omic

s (C

ME)

bet

wee

n 20

06/2

007

and

2008

/200

9 in

clud

ed

10 n

ew fa

culty

FTE

and

3 s

taff

pos

ition

s fo

r gro

wth

of t

he C

olle

ge

incl

udin

g th

e ne

w B

usin

ess

depa

rtm

ent.

5.

The

net i

ncre

ase

of 7

0 st

aff F

TE in

the

Ont

ario

Agr

icul

tura

l Col

lege

(O

AC) f

or 2

007/

2008

incl

udes

77

FTE’

s CA

RG a

nd s

uppo

rt s

taff

in th

e D

iplo

ma

Teac

hing

pro

gram

tran

sfer

red

from

the

OM

AFRA

agr

eem

ent

to M

TCU

. Thi

s tr

ansf

er w

as fu

nded

with

a $

4.5

mill

ion

spec

ial g

rant

flo

wed

thro

ugh

MTC

U to

OAC

exp

ress

ly fo

r thi

s pu

rpos

e.

6.

The

net i

ncre

ase

in th

e O

ntar

io V

eter

inar

ian

Colle

ge (O

VC) f

or

2007

/200

8 in

clud

ed th

e co

nver

sion

of 5

con

trac

t Vet

erin

aria

ns to

fa

culty

pos

ition

s.

7.

The

tran

sfer

of 8

Bio

chem

ists

to C

BS (s

ee N

ote

1 ab

ove)

from

Ch

emis

try

was

off

set b

y fa

culty

gro

wth

in o

ther

CPE

S de

part

men

ts.

8.

The

decr

ease

of s

taff

FTE

in L

ibra

ry O

pera

tions

sin

ce 2

003/

2004

re

flect

s th

e ac

cept

ance

of e

arly

retir

emen

ts th

roug

h a

num

ber o

f VE

RR P

rogr

ams

incl

udin

g an

add

ition

al 1

4 po

sitio

ns e

xpec

ted

as p

art

of th

e cu

rren

t Mul

ti Ye

ar P

lan.

9.

Th

e in

crea

se o

f 7 s

taff

FTE

in th

e O

ffic

e of

Res

earc

h fo

r 200

4/20

05

was

fund

ed th

roug

h in

crea

sed

rese

arch

indi

rect

cos

t-re

cove

ries.

The

in

crea

se in

6 s

taff

FTE

in th

e O

ffic

e of

Res

earc

h fo

r 200

5/20

06 re

late

s to

a re

-org

aniz

atio

n of

Ani

mal

Car

e Se

rvic

es.

10. T

he A

ssoc

iate

Vic

e Pr

esid

ent A

cade

mic

div

isio

n is

com

pris

ed o

f se

vera

l aca

dem

ic s

uppo

rt u

nits

(eg;

Cen

tre

for I

nt’l

Pgm

s, Ju

dici

al

Off

icer

, ED

RU) a

nd in

clud

ing

3 po

sitio

ns th

at w

ere

prev

ious

ly lo

cate

d in

Cen

tral

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Off

ices

. 11

. The

incr

ease

in s

taff

FTE

for t

he R

egis

trar

in 2

007/

2008

resu

lted

from

th

e tr

ansf

er o

f 7 s

taff

pos

ition

s in

the

depa

rtm

ent o

f Res

ourc

e,

Plan

ning

and

Ana

lysi

s fr

om th

e Ce

ntra

l Adm

inis

trat

ion

Off

ices

. 12

. The

incr

ease

in s

taff

FTE

in A

lum

ni A

ffai

rs a

nd D

evel

opm

ent (

AA&

D)

betw

een

incl

udes

add

ition

al D

evel

opm

ent p

ositi

ons

shar

ed b

etw

een

AA&

D a

nd th

e co

llege

s, g

row

th o

f cam

paig

n st

aff.

13. T

he d

ecre

ase

in to

tal F

TE in

Phy

sica

l Res

ourc

es s

ince

200

5/20

06

rela

tes

to re

stru

ctur

ing

unde

rtak

en to

mee

t bud

get t

arge

ts.

14. T

he in

crea

se in

6 s

taff

FTE

in F

inan

ce S

ervi

ces

for 2

0007

/200

8 re

late

s to

the

tran

sfer

of R

esea

rch,

Fin

anci

al S

ervi

ces

posi

tions

from

the

Off

ice

of R

esea

rch.


Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

2009

/201

0 Pr

elim

inar

y M

TCU

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget

44

App

endi

x A

Tu

itio

n Fe

es

M: P

ropo

sed

Tuiti

on F

ees

and

Non

-Tui

tion

Com

puls

ory

Stud

ent F

ees

Appe

ndix

A: 2

009/

2010

Sch

edul

e of

Pro

pose

d Tu

itio

n Fe

es

MTC

U P

ROV

INCI

ALL

Y FU

ND

ED P

ROG

RAM

S

Reco

mm

ende

dCh

ange

200

8/09

Reco

mm

ende

dCh

ange

200

8/09

Reco

mm

ende

dCh

ange

200

8/09

Reco

mm

ende

dCh

ange

200

8/09

Reco

mm

ende

dCh

ange

200

8/09

A.

Und

ergr

adua

te T

uiti

on F

ees

Fee

to 2

009/

10Fe

eto

200

9/10

Fee

to 2

009/

10Fe

eto

200

9/10

Fee

to 2

009/

10

Full-

Tim

e - R

egul

ar P

rogr

ams

4.5%

incr

ease

4% in

crea

se4%

incr

ease

4% in

crea

se4%

incr

ease

Bac

helo

r of A

pplie

d Sc

ienc

ePe

rSe

mes

ter

$2,4

94.0

0$1

07.0

0$2

,482

.00

$95.

00$2

,470

.00

$95.

00$2

,459

.00

$95.

00$2

,448

.00

$94.

00 B

ache

lor o

f Art

sPe

rSe

mes

ter

$2,4

94.0

0$1

07.0

0$2

,482

.00

$95.

00$2

,470

.00

$95.

00$2

,459

.00

$95.

00$2

,448

.00

$94.

00 B

ache

lor o

f Art

s &

Sci

ence

Per

Sem

este

r$2

,494

.00

$107

.00

$2,4

82.0

0$9

5.00

$2,4

70.0

0$9

5.00

$2,4

59.0

0$9

5.00

$2,4

48.0

0$9

4.00

Bac

helo

r of A

pplie

d Ar

ts (G

uelp

h H

umbe

r)Pe

rSe

mes

ter

$2,4

94.0

0$1

07.0

0$2

,482

.00

$95.

00$2

,470

.00

$95.

00$2

,459

.00

$95.

00$2

,448

.00

$94.

00 B

ache

lor o

f Bio

-Res

ourc

e M

anag

emen

tPe

rSe

mes

ter

$2,4

94.0

0$1

07.0

0$2

,482

.00

$95.

00$2

,470

.00

$95.

00$2

,459

.00

$95.

00$2

,448

.00

$94.

00 B

ache

lor o

f Sci

ence

Pe

rSe

mes

ter

$2,4

94.0

0$1

07.0

0$2

,482

.00

$95.

00$2

,470

.00

$95.

00$2

,459

.00

$95.

00$2

,448

.00

$94.

00 B

ache

lor o

f Sci

ence

in A

gric

ultu

rePe

rSe

mes

ter

$2,4

94.0

0$1

07.0

0$2

,482

.00

$95.

00$2

,470

.00

$95.

00$2

,459

.00

$95.

00$2

,448

.00

$94.

00 B

ache

lor o

f Sci

ence

in E

nviro

nmen

tal S

ervi

ces

Per

Sem

este

r$2

,494

.00

$107

.00

$2,4

82.0

0$9

5.00

$2,4

70.0

0$9

5.00

$2,4

59.0

0$9

5.00

$2,4

48.0

0$9

4.00

Bac

helo

r of S

cien

ce in

Tec

hnol

ogy

Per

Sem

este

r$2

,494

.00

$107

.00

$2,4

82.0

0$9

5.00

$2,4

70.0

0$9

5.00

$2,4

59.0

0$9

5.00

$2,4

48.0

0$9

4.00

Full-

Tim

e - P

rofe

ssio

nal P

rogr

ams

8% in

crea

se4%

incr

ease

4% in

crea

se4%

incr

ease

4% in

crea

se

Bac

helo

r of A

rts

- Com

putin

g M

ajor

Per

Sem

este

r

D

elet

ed, C

ontin

uing

onl

y$2

,740

.00

$105

.00

$2,6

40.0

0$1

02.0

0$2

,541

.00

$98.

00$2

,448

.00

$94.

00 B

ache

lor o

f Com

mer

cePe

rSe

mes

ter

$2,8

46.0

0$2

11.0

0$2

,740

.00

$105

.00

$2,6

40.0

0$1

02.0

0$2

,541

.00

$98.

00$2

,448

.00

$94.

00 B

ache

lor o

f Bus

ines

s Ad

min

istr

atio

n (G

uelp

h H

umbe

r)Pe

rSe

mes

ter

$2,8

46.0

0$2

11.0

0$2

,740

.00

$105

.00

$2,6

40.0

0$1

02.0

0$2

,541

.00

$98.

00$2

,693

.00

$104

.00

Bac

helo

r of C

ompu

ting

Pe

rSe

mes

ter

$2,8

46.0

0$2

11.0

0$2

,740

.00

$105

.00

$2,6

40.0

0$1

02.0

0$2

,541

.00

$98.

00$2

,448

.00

$94.

00 B

ache

lor o

f App

lied

Com

putin

g (G

uelp

h H

umbe

r)Pe

rSe

mes

ter

Del

eted

, Con

tinui

ng o

nly

$2,9

76.0

0$1

14.0

0$2

,866

.00

$110

.00

$2,7

60.0

0$1

06.0

0$2

,658

.00

$102

.00

Bac

helo

r of L

ands

cape

Arc

hite

ctur

ePe

rSe

mes

ter

$3,0

91.0

0$2

29.0

0$2

,976

.00

$114

.00

$2,8

66.0

0$1

10.0

0$2

,760

.00

$106

.00

$2,6

58.0

0$1

02.0

0 B

ache

lor o

f Sci

ence

- Co

mpu

ting

Maj

orPe

rSe

mes

ter

Del

eted

, Con

tinui

ng o

nly

$2,7

40.0

0$1

05.0

0$2

,640

.00

$102

.00

$2,5

41.0

0$9

8.00

$2,4

48.0

0$9

4.00

Bac

helo

r of S

cien

ce in

Eng

inee

ring

Per

Sem

este

r$3

,091

.00

$229

.00

$2,9

76.0

0$1

14.0

0$2

,866

.00

$110

.00

$2,7

60.0

0$1

06.0

0$2

,658

.00

$102

.00

Bac

helo

r of S

cien

ce in

Mec

hani

cal E

ngin

eerin

g (N

ew)

Per

Sem

este

r$3

,922

.00

New

--

--

--

--

Doc

tor o

f Vet

erin

ary

Med

icin

ePe

rSe

mes

ter

$3,0

91.0

0$2

29.0

0$2

,976

.00

$114

.00

$2,8

66.0

0$1

10.0

0$2

,760

.00

$106

.00

$2,6

58.0

0$1

02.0

0

Part

-Tim

ePe

r0.

5 Cr

edit

$499

.00

$22.

00$4

96.0

0$1

9.00

$494

.00

$19.

00$4

92.0

0$1

9.00

$490

.00

$19.

00A

udit

ing

of C

ours

esPe

r0.

5 Cr

edit

$282

.00

$12.

00$2

82.0

0$1

2.00

$282

.00

$12.

00$2

82.0

0$1

2.00

$282

.00

$12.

00

B. G

radu

ate

Tuit

ion

Fees

4.5%

incr

ease

4% in

crea

se4%

incr

ease

4% in

crea

se4%

incr

ease

Full-

Tim

ePe

rSe

mes

ter

$2,1

90.0

0$9

4.00

$2,1

80.0

0$8

4.00

$2,1

00.0

0$8

1.00

$2,0

22.0

0$7

8.00

$2,0

12.0

0$7

7.00

Part

-Tim

ePe

rSe

mes

ter

$1,4

60.0

0$6

3.00

$1,4

53.0

0$5

6.00

$1,4

00.0

0$5

4.00

$1,3

48.0

0$5

2.00

$1,3

42.0

0$5

2.00

Spec

ial N

on-D

egre

ePe

rCo

urse

$1,0

95.0

0$4

7.00

$1,0

90.0

0$4

2.00

$1,0

50.0

0$4

0.00

$1,0

11.0

0$3

9.00

$1,0

07.0

0$3

9.00

The

unde

rgra

duat

e tu

ition

fees

(Can

adia

n an

d In

tern

atio

nal)

as li

sted

app

ly to

Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

Hum

ber.

Fee

Basi

s

2006

/07

Cont

inui

ng S

tude

nts

2009

/10

Ente

ring

Stu

dent

s20

08/0

9Co

ntin

uing

Stu

dent

sPr

e 20

06/0

720

07/0

8Co

ntin

uing

Stu

dent

sCo

ntin

uing

Stu

dent

s


Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

2009

/201

0 Pr

elim

inar

y M

TCU

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget

45

App

endi

x A

Tu

itio

n Fe

es

VIS

A (I

NTE

RNA

TIO

NA

L) S

TUD

ENTS

Reco

mm

ende

dCh

ange

200

8/09

Reco

mm

ende

dCh

ange

200

8/09

Reco

mm

ende

dCh

ange

200

8/09

Reco

mm

ende

dCh

ange

200

8/09

Reco

mm

ende

dCh

ange

200

8/09

Fee

to 2

009/

10Fe

eto

200

9/10

Fee

to 2

009/

10Fe

eto

200

9/10

Fee

to 2

009/

10

A.

Und

ergr

adua

te T

uiti

on F

ees

(Not

e 1)

See

Not

e 5

no in

crea

seno

incr

ease

no in

crea

seno

incr

ease

Full-

Tim

e - R

egul

ar P

rogr

ams

- Gue

lph

Per

Sem

este

r$8

,097

.00

$349

.00

$7,7

48.0

0$0

.00

$7,4

14.0

0$0

.00

$6,8

65.0

0$0

.00

$4,8

65.0

0$0

.00

Full-

Tim

e - R

egul

ar P

rogr

ams

- Gue

lph

Hum

ber

(Not

e 2)

Per

Sem

este

r$8

,097

.00

$349

.00

$7,7

48.0

0$0

.00

$7,4

14.0

0$0

.00

$6,8

65.0

0$0

.00

$4,6

91.5

3$0

.00

Full-

Tim

e - P

rofe

ssio

nal P

rogr

ams

See

Not

e 5

no in

crea

seno

incr

ease

no in

crea

seno

incr

ease

Bac

helo

r of A

rts

- Com

putin

g M

ajor

Per

Sem

este

r

D

elet

ed, C

ontin

uing

onl

y$8

,312

.00

$0.0

0$7

,954

.00

$0.0

0$7

,365

.00

$0.0

0$4

,865

.00

$0.0

0 B

ache

lor o

f Com

mer

cePe

rSe

mes

ter

$9,2

77.0

0$6

87.0

0$8

,590

.00

$0.0

0$7

,954

.00

$0.0

0$7

,365

.00

$0.0

0$4

,865

.00

$0.0

0 B

ache

lor o

f Bus

ines

s Ad

min

istr

atio

n (G

uelp

h H

umbe

r)(N

ote

2)Pe

rSe

mes

ter

$8,9

77.0

0$6

65.0

0$8

,312

.00

$0.0

0$7

,954

.00

$0.0

0$7

,365

.00

$0.0

0$4

,691

.53

$0.0

0 B

ache

lor o

f Com

putin

g

Per

Sem

este

r$8

,977

.00

$665

.00

$8,3

12.0

0$0

.00

$7,9

54.0

0$0

.00

$7,3

65.0

0$0

.00

$4,8

65.0

0$0

.00

Bac

helo

r of A

pplie

d Co

mpu

ting

(Gue

lph

Hum

ber)

(Not

e 2)

Per

Sem

este

r

D

elet

ed, C

ontin

uing

onl

y$8

,312

.00

$0.0

0$7

,954

.00

$0.0

0$7

,365

.00

$0.0

0$4

,691

.53

$0.0

0 B

ache

lor o

f Lan

dsca

pe A

rchi

tect

ure

Per

Sem

este

r$1

0,71

5.00

$0.0

0$1

0,71

5.00

$0.0

0$1

0,25

4.00

$0.0

0$9

,494

.00

$0.0

0$6

,994

.00

$0.0

0 B

ache

lor o

f Sci

ence

- Co

mpu

ting

Maj

orPe

rSe

mes

ter

Del

eted

, Con

tinui

ng o

nly

$8,3

12.0

0$0

.00

$7,9

54.0

0$0

.00

$7,3

65.0

0$0

.00

$4,8

65.0

0$0

.00

Bac

helo

r of S

cien

ce (E

ngin

eerin

g)Pe

rSe

mes

ter

$10,

254.

00$0

.00

$10,

254.

00$0

.00

$10,

254.

00$0

.00

$9,4

94.0

0$0

.00

$6,9

94.0

0$0

.00

Bac

helo

r of S

cien

ce in

Mec

hani

cal E

ngin

eerin

g (N

ew)

Per

Sem

este

r$1

0,25

4.00

New

--

--

--

--

Doc

tor o

f Vet

erin

ary

Med

icin

e(N

ote

3)Pe

rSe

mes

ter

$25,

598.

00$0

.00

$25,

598.

00$0

.00

$25,

598.

00$0

.00

$23,

702.

00$0

.00

See

Not

e 3

$0.0

0

Part

-Tim

e - R

egul

ar P

rogr

ams

Per

Cour

se$1

,619

.00

$69.

00$1

,550

.00

$0.0

0$1

,483

.00

$0.0

0$1

,373

.00

$0.0

0$9

74.5

0$0

.00

Part

-Tim

e - P

rofe

ssio

nal P

rogr

ams

Bac

helo

r of A

rts

- Com

putin

g M

ajor

Per

Cour

se

D

elet

ed, C

ontin

uing

onl

y$1

,662

.00

$0.0

0$1

,591

.00

$0.0

0$1

,473

.00

$0.0

0$9

74.5

0$0

.00

Bac

helo

r of C

omm

erce

Per

Cour

se$1

,855

.00

$137

.00

$1,7

18.0

0$0

.00

$1,5

91.0

0$0

.00

$1,4

73.0

0$0

.00

$974

.50

$0.0

0 B

ache

lor o

f Bus

ines

s Ad

min

istr

atio

n (G

uelp

h H

umbe

r)(N

ote

2)Pe

rCo

urse

$1,7

95.0

0$1

33.0

0$1

,662

.00

$0.0

0$1

,591

.00

$0.0

0$1

,473

.00

$0.0

0$9

38.3

1$0

.00

Bac

helo

r of C

ompu

ting

Pe

rCo

urse

$1,7

95.0

0$1

33.0

0$1

,662

.00

$0.0

0$1

,591

.00

$0.0

0$1

,473

.00

$0.0

0$9

74.5

0$0

.00

Bac

helo

r of A

pplie

d Co

mpu

ting

(Gue

lph

Hum

ber)

(Not

e 2)

Per

Cour

se

D

elet

ed, C

ontin

uing

onl

y$1

,662

.00

$0.0

0$1

,591

.00

$0.0

0$1

,473

.00

$0.0

0$9

38.3

1$0

.00

Bac

helo

r of L

ands

cape

Arc

hite

ctur

ePe

rCo

urse

$2,1

43.0

0$0

.00

$2,1

43.0

0$0

.00

$2,0

51.0

0$0

.00

$1,8

99.0

0$0

.00

$1,3

99.0

0$0

.00

Bac

helo

r of S

cien

ce -

Com

putin

g M

ajor

Per

Cour

se

D

elet

ed, C

ontin

uing

onl

y$1

,662

.00

$0.0

0$1

,591

.00

$0.0

0$1

,473

.00

$0.0

0$9

74.5

0$0

.00

Bac

helo

r of S

cien

ce (E

ngin

eerin

g)Pe

rCo

urse

$2,0

51.0

0$0

.00

$2,0

51.0

0$0

.00

$2,0

51.0

0$0

.00

$1,8

99.0

0$0

.00

$1,3

99.0

0$0

.00

Bac

helo

r of S

cien

ce in

Mec

hani

cal E

ngin

eerin

g (N

ew)

Per

Sem

este

r$2

,051

.00

New

--

--

--

--

Doc

tor o

f Vet

erin

ary

Med

icin

e(N

ote

3)Pe

rCo

urse

$5,1

20.0

0$0

.00

$5,1

20.0

0$0

.00

$5,1

20.0

0$0

.00

$4,7

40.0

0$0

.00

See

Not

e 3

$0.0

0

B.G

radu

ate

Tuit

ion

Fees

(Not

e 4)

8% in

crea

seno

incr

ease

no in

crea

seno

incr

ease

no in

crea

se

Full-

Tim

ePe

rSe

mes

ter

$5,2

38.0

0$3

88.0

0$4

,850

.00

$0.0

0$4

,491

.00

$0.0

0$4

,158

.00

$0.0

0$2

,825

.00

$0.0

0Pa

rt-T

ime

Per

Sem

este

r$3

,492

.00

$259

.00

$3,2

33.0

0$0

.00

$2,9

94.0

0$0

.00

$2,7

72.0

0$0

.00

$1,8

83.0

0$0

.00

Spec

ial N

on-D

egre

ePe

rCo

urse

$2,6

19.0

0$1

94.0

0$2

,425

.00

$0.0

0$2

,245

.00

$0.0

0$2

,079

.00

$0.0

0$1

,412

.00

$0.0

0

Not

e 1:

Fee

gua

rant

eed

for '

leng

th o

f pro

gram

' as

defin

ed fo

r Und

ergr

adua

te s

tude

nts:

Reg

ular

- 9

sem

este

rs.

Not

e 2:

Beg

inni

ng in

200

6/20

07 e

nter

ing

Inte

rnat

iona

l stu

dent

s at

Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

Hum

ber s

tart

ed to

pay

the

sam

e fe

es a

s U

nive

rsity

of G

uelp

h st

uden

ts.

Not

e 3:

Int

erna

tiona

l DVM

Fee

s ar

e fix

ed a

t ent

ranc

e fo

r ent

ire p

rogr

am (2

005/

06 -

$22,

251.

50; 2

004/

05 -

$21,

457.

00) .

Not

e 4:

Fee

gua

rant

eed

for '

leng

th o

f pro

gram

' as

defin

ed fo

r Gra

duat

e st

uden

ts:

Mag

iste

riate

- 7

sem

este

rs; D

octo

ral -

10

sem

este

rs.

Not

e 5:

Int

erna

tiona

l Und

ergr

adua

te fe

e pe

rcen

tage

incr

ease

s fo

r 200

9/20

10 a

re: 8

% fo

r B. C

omm

., B.

B.A.

GH

and

B. C

ompu

ting;

no

incr

ease

for B

LA, B

Sc E

ng a

nd D

VM; a

nd a

ll ot

her p

rogr

ams

4.5%

incr

ease

Cont

inui

ng S

tude

nts

Cont

inui

ng S

tude

nts

Pre

2006

/07

2006

/07

2009

/10

2008

/09

Cont

inui

ng S

tude

nts

2007

/08

Cont

inui

ng S

tude

nts

Ente

ring

Stu

dent

s

Fee

Basi

s


Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

2009

/201

0 Pr

elim

inar

y M

TCU

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget

46

App

endi

x A

Tu

itio

n Fe

es

CO-O

PERA

TIV

E ED

UCA

TIO

N

Reco

mm

ende

dCh

ange

200

8/09

Fee

to 2

009/

10

Aca

dem

ic o

r Wor

k Te

rmPe

rSe

mes

ter

$230

.00

$30.

00

FULL

CO

ST R

ECO

VER

Y PR

OG

RAM

S

App

rove

dCh

ange

200

8/09

Reco

mm

ende

dCh

ange

200

9/10

Fee

to 2

009/

10Fe

eto

201

0/11

A.

CAN

AD

IAN

AN

D P

ERM

AN

ENT

RESI

DEN

T ST

ATU

S ST

UD

ENTS

MBA

- O

n Ca

mpu

sPe

rPr

ogra

m$2

5,00

0.00

$0.0

0D

isco

ntin

ued

-

-

Dis

tanc

e(N

ote

7)Pe

rPr

ogra

m$3

6,50

0.00

$0.0

0$3

6,60

0.00

$100

.00

MA

- Lea

ders

hip

(Not

e 8)

Per

Prog

ram

$24,

000.

00$0

.00

$25,

900.

00$1

,900

.00

B.V

ISA

(IN

TERN

ATI

ON

AL)

STU

DEN

TS

MBA

- O

n Ca

mpu

sPe

rPr

ogra

m$2

8,00

0.00

$0.0

0D

isco

ntin

ued

-

-

Dis

tanc

e(N

ote

7)Pe

rPr

ogra

m$4

0,55

0.00

$0.0

0$4

0,65

0.00

$100

.00

MA

- Lea

ders

hip

(Not

e 8)

Per

Prog

ram

$26,

700.

00$0

.00

$28,

600.

00$1

,900

.00

2009

/10

(N

ote

6)

Cont

inui

ng S

tude

nts

2009

/10

All

Co-o

p St

uden

ts

Not

e 6:

Ful

l Cos

t Rec

over

y pr

ogra

m fe

es fo

r 20

10/2

011

has

incr

ease

d fr

om th

ose

appr

oved

for 2

009/

2010

. Be

caus

e re

crui

tmen

t for

the

prog

ram

s st

art o

ne y

ear p

rior t

o th

e ac

tual

inta

ke, f

ees

mus

t be

appr

oved

on

e ye

ar in

adv

ance

. Thi

s sc

hedu

le p

ropo

ses

fees

for 2

010/

2011

ent

erin

g st

uden

ts.

The

fee

is fo

r the

ent

ire p

rogr

am a

nd is

fixe

d at

the

year

of e

ntra

nce.

2010

/11

(N

ote

6)

Fee

Basi

s

Not

e 7:

The

MBA

-Dis

tanc

e Fe

e is

for t

uitio

n on

ly.

Not

e 8:

The

MA

-Lea

ders

hip

Fee

is fo

r tui

tion

only

.

Ente

ring

Stu

dent

s

Fee

Basi

s


Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

2009

/201

0 Pr

elim

inar

y M

TCU

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget

47

App

endi

x A

Tu

itio

n Fe

es

ASS

OCI

ATE

DIP

LOM

A P

ROG

RAM

S (N

ote

#1)

Reco

mm

ende

dCh

ange

200

8/09

App

rove

dCh

ange

200

7/08

Reco

mm

ende

dCh

ange

200

7/08

Reco

mm

ende

dCh

ange

200

7/08

Reco

mm

ende

dCh

ange

200

7/08

Fee

to 2

009/

10Fe

eto

200

8/09

Fee

to 2

008/

09Fe

eto

200

8/09

Fee

to 2

008/

09

1.A

SSO

CIA

TE D

IPLO

MA

IN T

URF

GRA

SS M

AN

AG

EMEN

TG

uelp

h Ca

mpu

s

A.

PRO

VIN

CIA

LLY

FUN

DED

PRO

GRA

MS

4.5%

incr

ease

4% in

crea

se4%

incr

ease

4% in

crea

se4%

incr

ease

Full-

Tim

e - R

egul

ar D

iplo

ma

Prog

ram

per

Sem

este

r$2

,494

.00

$107

.00

$2,4

82.0

0$9

5.00

$2,4

70.0

0$9

5.00

$2,4

59.0

0$9

5.00

$2,4

48.0

0$9

4.00

Part

-Tim

e -

Regu

lar D

iplo

ma

Prog

ram

per

Cour

se$4

99.0

0$2

2.00

$496

.00

$19.

00$4

94.0

0$1

9.00

$492

.00

$19.

00$4

90.0

0$1

9.00

B.V

ISA

(IN

TERN

ATI

ON

AL)

STU

DEN

TS8%

incr

ease

0% in

crea

se0%

incr

ease

0% in

crea

se0%

incr

ease

Full-

Tim

e - R

egul

ar D

iplo

ma

Prog

ram

per

Sem

este

r$8

,648

.00

$641

.00

$8,0

07.0

0$0

.00

$7,7

48.0

0$0

.00

$7,1

74.0

0$0

.00

$5,0

84.0

0$0

.00

Part

-Tim

e - R

egul

ar D

iplo

ma

Prog

ram

Per

Cour

se$1

,730

.00

$129

.00

$1,6

01.0

0$0

.00

$1,5

50.0

0$0

.00

$1,4

35.0

0$0

.00

$1,0

18.0

0$0

.00

2.A

SSO

CIA

TE D

IPLO

MA

PRO

GRA

MS

Alfr

ed, K

empt

ville

, Rid

geto

wn

Cam

puse

s

A.

PRO

VIN

CIA

LLY

FUN

DED

PRO

GRA

MS

4.5%

incr

ease

4% in

crea

se4%

incr

ease

4% in

crea

se4%

incr

ease

Full-

Tim

e - R

egul

ar D

iplo

ma

Prog

ram

spe

rSe

mes

ter

$1,3

10.0

0$5

6.00

$1,3

04.0

0$5

0.00

$1,2

98.0

0$5

0.00

$1,2

67.0

0$4

9.00

$1,2

62.0

0$4

9.00

Full-

Tim

e - V

eter

inar

y Te

chno

logy

(N

ote

#2)

per

Sem

este

r$1

,354

.00

$58.

00$1

,348

.00

$52.

00$1

,342

.00

$52.

00$1

,309

.00

$50.

00$1

,262

.00

$49.

00Fu

ll-Ti

me

- Vet

erin

ary

Tech

nolo

gy (A

ltern

ativ

e D

eliv

ery)

per

Year

$1,8

04.0

0$7

8.00

$1,7

95.0

0$6

9.00

$1,7

87.0

0$6

9.00

$1,7

45.0

0$6

7.00

$1,6

81.0

0$6

5.00

Part

-Tim

e -

Regu

lar D

iplo

ma

Prog

ram

spe

rCo

urse

$262

.00

$11.

00$2

61.0

0$1

0.00

$260

.00

$10.

00$2

53.0

0$9

.00

$252

.00

$9.0

0Pa

rt-T

ime

- Ve

terin

ary

Tech

nolo

gy R

egul

ar P

rogr

ampe

rCo

urse

$271

.00

$12.

00$2

69.0

0$1

0.00

$268

.00

$10.

00$2

62.0

0$1

0.00

$252

.00

$9.0

0

B.V

ISA

(IN

TERN

ATI

ON

AL)

STU

DEN

TS8%

incr

ease

0% in

crea

se0%

incr

ease

0% in

crea

se0%

incr

ease

Full-

Tim

e - R

egul

ar D

iplo

ma

Prog

ram

spe

rSe

mes

ter

$3,9

46.0

0$2

92.0

0$3

,654

.00

$0.0

0$3

,535

.00

$0.0

0$3

,273

.00

$0.0

0$2

,332

.00

$0.0

0Fu

ll-Ti

me

- Vet

erin

ary

Tech

nolo

gype

rSe

mes

ter

$4,2

29.0

0$3

13.0

0$3

,916

.00

$0.0

0$3

,789

.00

$0.0

0$3

,508

.00

$0.0

0$2

,332

.00

$0.0

0Fu

ll-Ti

me

- Vet

erin

ary

Tech

nolo

gy (A

ltern

ativ

e D

eliv

ery)

per

Year

$5,6

39.0

0$4

18.0

0$5

,221

.00

$0.0

0$5

,052

.00

$0.0

0$4

,677

.00

$0.0

0$3

,108

.00

$0.0

0

*Not

es

#2 -

The

Vete

rinar

y Te

chno

logy

dip

lom

a pr

ogra

m is

cla

ssifi

ed a

s a

spec

ial p

rogr

am fo

r tui

tion

rate

pur

pose

s. I

n th

e Al

tern

ativ

e D

eliv

ery

optio

n, D

ista

nce

Educ

atio

n m

odul

es a

re c

ompl

eted

dur

ing

the

fall

and

win

ter m

onth

s. S

tude

nts

atte

nd th

e co

llege

cam

pus

from

the

begi

nnin

g of

May

unt

il th

e fir

st w

eek

of A

ugus

t to

com

plet

e th

eir h

ands

-on

labo

rato

ry re

quire

men

ts.

Cont

inui

ng S

tude

nts

Cont

inui

ng S

tude

nts

Cont

inui

ng S

tude

nts

Cont

inui

ng S

tude

nts

Fee

Basi

s

Fee

Basi

s

#1

- The

Ass

ocia

te D

iplo

ma

Prog

ram

s ar

e no

t cur

rent

ly s

ubje

ct to

regu

latio

n by

the

Min

istr

y of

Tra

inin

g, C

olle

ges

and

Uni

vers

ities

(MTC

U).

The

2009

/10

fees

for t

he A

ssoc

iate

Dip

lom

a ar

e re

com

men

ded

by th

e D

ean

of O

AC. A

ll re

venu

es

gene

rate

d fr

om A

ssoc

iate

Dip

lom

a Pr

ogra

m e

nrol

men

t are

cre

dite

d to

the

Asso

ciat

e D

iplo

ma

Prog

ram

bud

get a

t eac

h lo

catio

n.

Ente

ring

Stu

dent

s

Pre

- 200

6/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2006

/07

2009

/10


Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

2009

/201

0 Pr

elim

inar

y M

TCU

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget

48

App

endi

x B

Non

-Tui

tion

Co

mpu

lsor

y Fe

es

Appe

ndix

B: 2

009/

2010

Sch

edul

e of

Non

-Tui

tion

Com

puls

ory

Stud

ent F

ees

2008

/09

2009

/10

Gue

lph

Cam

pus

Fee

Basi

sYe

ar o

f Las

tA

ppro

ved

Reco

mm

ende

d%

Incr

ease

Incr

ease

Fees

Fees

Not

e 4

Ath

leti

c Fe

eN

ote

1

F

ull-T

ime

(Und

ergr

ad &

Gra

duat

e)20

08$8

3.84

$87.

194.

0%

Par

t-Ti

me

(Und

ergr

adua

te o

nly)

2008

$38.

48$4

0.02

Capi

tal A

ccou

nt: A

thle

tic

Build

ing

Fee

F

ull-T

ime

(Gra

duat

e)20

07n/

a

$38.

00N

ote

2

F

ull-T

ime

(Und

ergr

adua

te)

2008

$34.

00$3

8.00

Not

e 2

P

art-

Tim

e (G

radu

ate)

2007

n/a

$1

9.00

Not

e 2

P

art-

Tim

e (U

nder

grad

uate

)20

08$1

7.00

$19.

00N

ote

2

Stud

ent H

ealt

h Se

rvic

es F

ee

F

ull-T

ime

(Und

ergr

ad &

Gra

duat

e)20

08$2

3.36

$23.

902.

3%

Par

t-Ti

me

(Und

ergr

adua

te o

nly)

2008

$10.

24$1

0.48

Stud

ent S

uppo

rt F

eeN

ote

3

U

nder

grad

uate

s:

Full-

Tim

e (p

er s

emes

ter)

2008

$46.

51$4

9.58

6.6%

Pa

rt-T

ime

(per

0.5

cre

dit)

2008

$9.3

0$9

.92

G

radu

ates

:

Full-

Tim

e (p

er s

emes

ter)

2008

$45.

24$4

8.28

6.7%

Pa

rt-T

ime

(per

0.5

cre

dit)

2008

$13.

57$1

4.48

Uni

vers

ity

Cent

re F

ee (U

nder

grad

uate

and

Gra

duat

e)

P

er S

emes

ter (

to a

max

imum

of t

wic

e a

year

)20

08$1

2.43

$12.

722.

3%

Par

t-Ti

me

(per

0.5

cre

dit)

2008

$2.4

7$2

.54

Gra

duat

ion

Fee

(Con

voca

tion

)20

08$3

2.58

$33.

332.

3%

Not

e 1:

Th

e 4%

incr

ease

was

app

rove

d by

the

Athl

etic

Adv

isor

y Co

unci

l on

Mar

ch 1

0, 2

009

Not

e 2:

As

per

the

lett

er o

f agr

eem

ent d

ated

Mar

ch 1

5, 2

000,

the

old

Ath

letic

Bui

ldin

g Fe

e w

as d

isco

ntin

ued

for g

radu

ate

stud

ents

i

n th

e Sp

ring

sem

este

r of 2

008

and

for u

nder

grad

uate

stu

dent

s in

Win

ter 2

009.

In M

arch

200

9, n

ew 3

0 ye

ar a

gree

men

ts w

ere

p

rese

nted

by

the

Athl

etic

Adv

isor

y Co

unci

l to

the

CSA

and

GSA

stu

dent

bod

y an

d co

nfirm

ed b

y re

fere

ndum

. A

new

$38

.00

per s

emes

ter

A

thle

tic B

uild

ing

Fee

will

be

char

ged

to fu

ll-tim

e gr

adua

te a

nd u

nder

grad

uate

stu

dent

s ($

19.0

0 to

par

t-tim

e st

uden

ts) b

egin

ning

in 2

009/

2010

.

Not

e 3:

As

per

the

Stud

ent S

ervi

ces

Com

mitt

ee a

ppro

val o

n Ja

nuar

y 19

, 200

9 to

incr

ease

the

fee

by th

e CO

LA p

lus

an a

dditi

onal

$2.

00 to

sup

port

Cou

nsel

ling.

Not

e 4:

Th

e pu

blis

hed

cost

of l

ivin

g fo

r Ont

ario

on

a m

onth

to m

onth

ave

rage

for

2008

was

2.3

%.


Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

2009

/201

0 Pr

elim

inar

y M

TCU

Ope

ratin

g Bu

dget

49

App

endi

x B

Non

-Tui

tion

Co

mpu

lsor

y Fe

es

2008

/09

2009

/10

Ass

ocia

te D

iplo

ma

Prog

ram

sFe

e Ba

sis

Year

of L

ast

App

rove

dRe

com

men

ded

% In

crea

seIn

crea

seFe

esFe

es

Alfr

ed, K

empt

ville

and

Rid

geto

wn

Cam

puse

s:

Ath

leti

c Fe

eFu

ll Ti

me

- Alfr

edpe

r Sem

este

r20

08$6

6.50

$68.

002.

3%Fu

ll Ti

me

- Kem

ptvi

llepe

r Sem

este

r20

08$6

1.00

$63.

003.

3%Fu

ll Ti

me

- Rid

geto

wn

per S

emes

ter

2008

$61.

50$6

3.00

2.4%

Stud

ent A

ctiv

ity F

eeFu

ll Ti

me

- Alfr

edpe

r Sem

este

r20

08$6

6.50

$68.

002.

3%Fu

ll Ti

me

- Kem

ptvi

llepe

r Sem

este

r20

08$7

2.00

$73.

001.

4%Fu

ll Ti

me

- Rid

geto

wn

per S

emes

ter

2008

$41.

00$4

2.00

2.4%

Stud

ent C

omm

unic

atio

n Fe

eFu

ll Ti

me

- Alfr

edpe

r Yea

r20

08$4

1.00

$42.

002.

4%Fu

ll Ti

me

- Kem

ptvi

llepe

r Yea

r20

08$4

1.00

$42.

002.

4%Fu

ll Ti

me

- Rid

geto

wn

per Y

ear

2008

$41.

00$4

2.00

2.4%

Gra

duat

ion

Fee

(Con

voca

tion

)Al

fred

, Kem

ptvi

lle, R

idge

tow

n20

08$4

1.00

$42.

002.

4%

Build

ing

Fee-

Rid

geto

wn

per Y

ear

2008

$32.

80$3

3.60

2.4%

Aca

dem

ic A

ctiv

ity F

ees

(Fie

ld T

rips

/Lab

s/IT

)Fu

ll Ti

me

- Alfr

edpe

r Sem

este

r20

08$3

35.7

5$3

43.5

02.

3%Fu

ll Ti

me

- Kem

ptvi

llepe

r Sem

este

r20

08$2

97.0

0 - $

416.

00$3

04.0

0 - $

426.

00Fu

ll Ti

me

- Rid

geto

wn

per S

emes

ter

2008

$297

.00

- $88

7.00

$304

.00

- $90

7.00

Bach

elor

of B

io R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent (

BBRM

)Ri

dget

own

and

Kem

ptvi

lle C

ampu

ses

(in a

dditi

on to

thos

e fe

es c

harg

ed fo

r Dip

lom

a):

Stud

ent S

ervi

ces

Fee

per Y

ear

2008

$46.

83$4

8.00

2.5%

Not

e: A

ssoc

iate

Dip

lom

a in

Tur

fgra

ss M

anag

emen

t at

the

Gue

lph

Cam

pus

- Fee

s ar

e th

e sa

me

as G

uelp

h ca

mpu

s de

gree

pro

gram

s.



MEETING: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 d) Proposed 2009-10 Preliminary University of Guelph-Humber Operating

Budget Dr. John Walsh, Vice-Provost, University of Guelph-Humber will speak to the enclosed budget proposal. At its meeting on April 8, 2009, the Finance Committee considered and approved for recommendation to the Board, the 2009-10 Preliminary Operating Budget for the University of Guelph-Humber. The Boards of Governors at the University of Guelph and the Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning each consider and approve a Preliminary Guelph-Humber Operating Budget annually. The enclosed budget proposal was approved by the Board of Humber College Institute on March 23, 2009. The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, That the Board of Governors approve 2009-10 Preliminary University of Guelph-Humber Operating Budget, as presented. N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 7c cover memo.doc

Proposed 2009-10 Preliminary University of Guelph- Humber Op... Page 171 of 293

Page 172 of 293

University of Guelph Humber

Draft 2009-10 Budget

March 2, 2009


University of Guelph-Humber Draft 2009-10 Budget

For the Fiscal Period April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010

1

Introduction The end of the fiscal year March 31, 2009 marks seven years of operation for the University of Guelph-Humber, a joint venture between the University of Guelph and The Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning. The objective of the joint venture is to offer students the opportunity to receive both a college diploma and a university degree integrated into one program. Enrolments have grown from 197 FTE’s (full-time equivalent) in 2002-03 to an expected 2,800 FTE’s in September 2009-10.

Fall 02 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

Undergraduate 197 836 1304 1822 2243 2353 2600 2800

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

FTE's

University of Guelph‐HumberFall Full Time Equivalent Enrolment

Discussion of the Draft 2009-10 University of Guelph-Humber Budget includes the following:

(1) Budget Context and Assumptions (2) 2009-2010 Revenue Expectations (3) 2009-2010 Expense Estimates




2

(1) 2009-10 BUDGET CONTEXT & ASSUMPTIONS: The overall budget context is one of increasing quality in the applicant pool and the potential for enrolment expansion within the current facility, with the completion of the final stage of construction on the 4th floor, to 3,000 FTE’s. Key assumptions in current planning are that students will continue to be fully funded by grant entitlement to a minimum of 2,600 FTE’s and that maximum allowable tuition increases under the MTCU’s tuition framework will be implemented. The key assumptions for the Proposed Budget 2009-10 are:

• Enrolment growth of 8% to 2,800 FTE (full-time equivalent students); • Tuition fee rate is based on University of Guelph framework; • Operating costs reflect the continuation of a management and administrative

service charge of $2 million dollars to be shared by both institutions; • Creation of a Facility Renewal Reserve of $0.500 million;

The overall result is expected to be a surplus of $3.398 million for 2009-10. Enrolments As of March 2, 2009, a total of 5,278 applications have been received for admission for September 2009. This is a 20% increase in the number of Ontario high school student applicants over the same date in 2008. The Ontario system as a whole saw a 1.1% increase during the same period. First choice applications increased 22% over last year and second and third choice applications increased 21%, and 26% respectively. Out of province, international, mature and transfer applications have increased 45% over the same period.

APPLICATIONS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH-HUMBER 2009-2010

March, 2008 March, 2009

Ontario Secondary school 3,493 4,200

Other secondary schools, mature students, international students

193 300

Advanced standing (transfers) from Colleges and Universities

550 778

Total 4,236 5,278




3

Enrolment growth is planned to 2,800 FTE’s in 2009-10, an increase of 200 FTE’s or 8% over 2008-09 levels. This growth is estimated on the basis of flow through of earlier years’ intakes, plus completion of the 2008-09 recruitment plan, which includes intake for the summer bridge programs in Kinesiology and Business. This projection assumes an intake of approximately 930 semester one students in 2009, and 90% retention of in-course students. Enrolment projections take into account the continued suspension of enrolment in the Computing and Telecommunications Program. This suspension is a result of insufficient depth and quality in the applicant pool. (2) 2009-2010 REVENUE EXPECTATIONS: This budget assumes $16.950 million total grant entitlement, based on current information, and tuition of $14.475 million plus the work study set-aside of $0.225 million. With the addition of student non-tuition mandatory fees, other fees, and miscellaneous income, the estimated total revenue for 2009-10 is $32.230 million.

Tuition Tuition revenue allows maximum increase in tuition. Tuition is set for the University of Guelph-Humber by the Board of Governors of the University of Guelph.

University of Guelph-Humber Grant Estimate ($ Million)

Revised Budget

2008-2009

Current

Estimates based on

Preliminary Fall 2008 Enrolment

Counts

Proposed Budget

2009-2010

Basic Grant $7.4 $7.4 $7.400 Accessibility Grant $7.7 $8.3 $8.550 Quality Assurance Fund $0.2 $0.2 $0.200 Tuition Freeze Compensation $0.5 $0.5 $0.500 Quality Improvement Fund $0.3 $0.3 $0.300 Total Government Grants $16.1 $16.7 $16.950




4

Non-Tuition Compulsory Fees The budget assumes that the University of Guelph-Humber students will pay mandatory fees as outlined in the table below. The fees under the jurisdiction of Humber were approved by the Board of Governors of Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning in 2008. The fees under the jurisdiction of Guelph have not yet been set for 2009-10.

(3) 2009-2010 EXPENSE ESTIMATES: The total expenses for 2009-10 are expected to be $28.831 million. Expenses in the University of Guelph-Humber budget consist of the following: Academic Expenses Academic expenses consist of two major components; course delivery transfers based on a set per-section payment and direct academic costs such as course development, transportation and web delivery costs. While enrolments are expected to increase by 8%, overall Academic expenses are expected to increase 12% to $13.079 million, compared to last year’s budget. This increase includes costs for course website development and website delivery for the new Psychology and Kinesiology programs, as well as increased course delivery for the Psychology program and years two and four of the new Kinesiology program. There is also provision made to increase the faculty support staff to service the expanded faculty complement for the two new programs. Library Services It is proposed to increase library services by 7% to $1.672 million. This increase reflects an increase in the student population and on going collection development.

Non-Tuition Compulsory Fees:

2008-2009 Per Semester

2009-2010 Per Semester

Part-Time

Distance education resource (Set by University of Guelph)

$70.00 TBA TBA

Co-op Fee (Set by University of Guelph)

$200.00 TBA -

Convocation/Orientation Fee (Set by The Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning)

$15.07 $15.53 20% full-time fee

Administrative Services Fee (Set by The Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning)

$56.23 $57.90 20% full-time fee

Photo ID (Set by The Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning)

$4.50 $4.64 20% full-time fee

Transcript Fee (Set by The Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning)

$1.30 $1.34 20% full-time fee




5

Information Technology Information technology costs are planned to increase by 12% to $2.034 million which includes an increase in the service agreement and management of the website. Recruitment & Registrarial Services Overall the cost of these services is expected to increase by 9% to $2.347 million which is consistent with higher enrolment targets. Student Aid The student aid budget for 2009-10, is estimated at $1.595 million reflecting an increase in the number of students who qualify for entrance scholarships and the increasing quality of applicants. Student Life (including Alumni, and Graduate Services) Student Life costs are planned to increase by 4% to $1.255 million. This reflects growth and development of the department, consistent with the expansion of student numbers, and strengthening of alumni and career planning services. Physical Resources Building maintenance, cleaning, and utilities have increased by 2% to $1.427 million, reflecting increased costs of building operations. Administrative Support Administrative support costs are expected to be $0.992 million, 2% higher than last year’s revised budget.

Amortization of Capital Assets Capital equipment is amortized over 3 to 5 years. It is assumed that the average amortization period is 4 years and that new purchases are made at the mid-point of the budget year. A sum of $1.429 million is provided for amortization of capital assets for 2009-10. Contingency Reserve A contingency reserve of $0.500 million is provided for 2009-10, reduced by 23% from the previous year’s approved budget. Facility Renewal Reserve On the recommendation of University of Guelph-Humber Finance and Administration Committee a Facility Renewal Reserve of $0.500 million is included in the 2009-10 operating budget. This is intended to provide funds for on-going building maintenance and repair required to maintain the quality of the building.




6

Capital Budget – Multi-Year Plan The Capital Account Financial Multi-Year Plan is described in Table 2. The proposed equipment budget for the next four years from 2009-10 to 2012-13 is $1.218 million, $1.527 million, $0.861 million and $0.507 million respectively. This includes the final completion of the fourth floor in 2009-10 and the reconfiguration of the Computing Program Labs in 2010-11. (4) FORECAST YEAR-END RESULTS 2008-09 Table 1 contains the year-end forecast for 2008-09 and a comparison with the 2008-09 Revised Budget approved by the boards of the University of Guelph and The Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning. Total forecasted revenue for 2008-09 is $30.385 million, an increase of $0.600 million in government grants and a decrease of $0.200 million work study allocation correction. The result is an anticipated $0.400 million increase in revenue for 2008-09. The total expenses for 2008-09 are expected to be $24.531 million, $1.792 million less than budgeted. This arises from unused contingency reserve of $0.650 million; $0.450 million savings in the academic budget which reflects fewer sections delivered, website course development deferral, and reduced Program Head costs; $0.330 million savings in Library Services due to deferred expenditures in acquisitions; $0.182 million savings in Information Technology Services due to staff position deferrals and lower than anticipated software licensing; and a further $0.180 million in Administrative support. The expected year-end for 2008-09 shows a net $0.400 million increase in revenue, and a $1.792 million less than anticipated expenses for an estimated increase in net annual revenue of $2.192 million dollars. The forecast net annual revenue for 2008-09 is anticipated to be $5.853 million. (5) SUMMARY OF PROPOSED BUDGET 2009-10 The Proposed Budget 2009-10 projects total revenue of $32.230 million, total expenses of $28.831 million, and a net annual revenue of $3.398 million. Budget is based on 8% increase in enrolment of 2600 FTE’s in 2008-09 to 2800 FTE’s in 2009-10. Revenue and expenses for 2009-10 broadly reflect this expansion in enrolment. The 2009-10 budget contains one significant new item, the creation of a facility renewal reserve of $0.500 million.




7

Table 1 presents the proposed 2009-10 budget with 2008-09 year-end forecast to budget comparison. Table 2 summarises the capital account financial multi-year plan 2006-07 to 2012-13.


Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph-

Hum

ber

Dra

ft 20

09-1

0 Bu

dget

Fo

r the

Fisc

al P

erio

d Ap

ril 1

, 200

9 to

Mar

ch 3

1, 2

010

8

TAB

LE 1

Rev

ised

Bud

get

2008

-200

9

Yea

r-En

d Fo

reca

st

Stat

emen

t of R

even

ue

& E

xpen

se 2

008-

2009

$

Var

ianc

e %

Var

ianc

e P

ropo

sed

Bud

get

2009

-201

0

Bud

get t

o B

udge

t 08-

09

to 0

9-10

REV

ENU

EG

over

nmen

t Gra

nts

16,1

00,0

0016

,700

,000

600,

000

3.7%

16,9

50,0

005%

Stud

ent T

uitio

n Fe

es13

,175

,000

13,1

75,0

000

0.0%

14,4

75,1

7510

%St

uden

t Non

-Tui

tion

Man

dato

ry F

ees

460,

000

460,

000

00.

0%48

0,00

04%

Oth

er F

ees

20,0

0020

,000

00.

0%50

,000

150%

Mis

cella

neou

s In

com

e30

,000

30,0

000

0.0%

50,0

0067

%W

ork

Stud

y Se

t-asi

de

200,

000

0(2

00,0

00)

-1

00.0

%22

4,82

512

%To

tal R

even

ue29

,985

,000

30,3

85,0

0040

0,00

01.

3%32

,230

,000

7%

EXPE

NSE

Acad

emic

11,6

89,2

9911

,239

,299

(450

,000

)

-3.8

%13

,079

,102

12%

Libr

ary

Serv

ices

1,55

9,92

51,

229,

925

(330

,000

)

-21.

2%1,

672,

159

7%In

form

atio

n Te

chno

logy

1,81

2,38

41,

630,

384

(182

,000

)

-10.

0%2,

034,

477

12%

-

Rec

ruitm

ent &

Reg

istra

rial S

ervi

ces

2,16

0,72

92,

095,

729

(65,

000)

-3.0

%2,

347,

066

9%-

St

uden

t Aid

1,45

0,00

01,

515,

000

65,0

00

4.

5%1,

595,

000

10%

Stud

ent L

ife &

Ser

vice

s1,

208,

157

1,20

8,15

7-

0.

0%1,

255,

421

4%-

Ph

ysic

al R

esou

rces

1,39

9,26

61,

399,

266

-

0.0%

1,42

7,25

12%

Adm

inis

trativ

e Su

ppor

t97

4,40

079

4,40

0(1

80,0

00)

-1

8.5%

992,

162

2%M

anag

emen

t and

Adm

inis

trativ

e Fe

e2,

000,

000

2,00

0,00

0-

0.

0%2,

000,

000

0%Su

b-To

tal O

pera

tiona

l Exp

ense

s24

,254

,160

23,1

12,1

60(1

,142

,000

)

-4

.7%

26,4

02,6

389%

-

Amor

tizat

ion

of C

apita

l Ass

ets

1,41

8,89

81,

418,

898

-

0.0%

1,42

9,23

51%

Con

tinge

ncy

Res

erve

650,

000

(650

,000

)

-100

.0%

500,

000

-23%

Faci

lity

Ren

ewal

Res

erve

-

500,

000

-

Tota

l Exp

ense

26,3

23,0

5824

,531

,058

(1,7

92,0

00)

-6.8

%28

,831

,873

10%

Net

Ann

ual R

even

ue (E

xpen

se)

3,66

1,94

25,

853,

942

2,19

2,00

03,

398,

127

-7%

Full

Tim

e Eq

uiva

lent

Stu

dent

s2,

600

2,60

02,

800

8%

Pro

pose

d 20

09/2

010

Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph-

Hum

ber B

udge

tW

ith 2

008-

2009

Yea

r-En

d Fo

reca

st to

Bud

get C

ompa

rison


Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph-

Hum

ber

Dra

ft 20

09-1

0 Bu

dget

Fo

r the

Fisc

al P

erio

d Ap

ril 1

, 200

9 to

Mar

ch 3

1, 2

010

9

TABL

E 2

Cap

ital E

xpen

seAc

tual

Actu

alFo

reca

stPr

opos

edPr

opos

edPr

opos

edPr

opos

edYe

ar 5

Year

6Ye

ar 7

Year

8Ye

ar 9

Year

10

Year

11

2006

-07

2007

-08

2008

-09

2009

-10

2010

-11

2011

-12

2012

-13

Not

es:

Furn

iture

/Fac

ility

1,28

614

4,84

140

,000

40,0

0040

,000

40,0

00Fo

urth

floo

r - fu

rnitu

re a

nd e

quip

men

t1,

706,

488

Fire

Ala

rm s

yste

m24

9,03

3Fo

urth

floo

r com

plet

ion

540,

000

Fina

l sta

geC

ompu

ting

Prog

ram

Lab

Rec

onfig

urat

ion

250,

000

To b

e de

term

ined

Rec

ruitm

ent

120,

000

50,0

0050

,000

50,0

00N

ew d

ispl

ay p

anel

s, te

chno

logy

and

siz

ing

Info

rmat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy34

,804

535,

120

269,

000

140,

000

74,0

0050

8,30

325

1,81

8Eq

uipm

ent r

enew

al

Busi

ness

12,5

002,

500

Early

Chi

ldho

od

6,00

0Fa

mily

Com

mun

ity S

ocia

l Ser

vice

s 3,

000

Just

ice

Stud

ies

3,00

0Ki

nesi

olog

y23

1,00

060

,000

13,0

0010

,000

12,0

00M

edia

Stu

dies

35

,214

18,0

0030

,000

749,

000

55,0

0032

,500

Sub

tota

l71

,304

679,

961

2,47

3,52

194

2,50

01,

181,

500

666,

303

392,

318

infla

tion

at 4

%37

,700

47,2

6026

,652

15,6

93To

tal e

quip

men

t71

,304

679,

961

2,47

3,52

198

0,20

01,

228,

760

692,

955

408,

011

Taxe

s 13

%32

1,55

812

7,42

615

9,73

990

,084

53,0

41To

tal i

ncl i

nfla

tion

and

taxe

s71

,304

679,

961

2,79

5,07

91,

107,

626

1,38

8,49

978

3,03

946

1,05

2C

ontin

genc

y at

10%

00

33,0

0011

0,76

313

8,85

078

,304

46,1

05C

ontin

genc

y at

10%

beg

inni

ng in

09-

10To

tal e

xpen

se71

,304

679,

961

2,82

8,07

91,

218,

389

1,52

7,34

986

1,34

350

7,15

7

Cap

ital A

ccou

nt F

inan

cial

Mul

ti-Ye

ar P

lan

April

1, 2

006

to M

arch

31,

201

3



MEETING: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 e) Proposed 2009-10 Preliminary University of Guelph OMAFRA Budget Mr. Kevin Hall, (VP Research), Mr. John Miles, and Professor Rich Moccia, Interim Associate Vice-President (Research), Agri-Food & Partnerships will speak to the enclosed budget proposal. At its meeting on April 8, 2009, the Finance Committee considered and approved for recommendation to the Board, the 2009-10 Preliminary University of Guelph Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Operating Budget. The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, That the Board of Governors approve 2009-10 Preliminary University of Guelph Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Operating Budget, as presented. N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 7e cover memo.doc

Proposed 2009-10 Preliminary University of Guelph OMAFRA Bud... Page 183 of 293

Page 184 of 293

UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH

OMAFRA Agreement - 2009/2010 Preliminary Budget

For Presentation to the Finance Committee of the Board of Governors

April 8, 2009


University of Guelph OMAFRA Agreement – 2009/2010 Preliminary Budget

2

Contents

A: The OMAFRA Agreement: Background .............................................................................................. 3

B: Agreement Renewal ........................................................................................................................... 4

C: Major Budget Assumptions for fiscal 2009/2010:.............................................................................. 4

C.1 Agreement Revenue: .................................................................................................................... 5

C.2 Expenditure Assumptions:........................................................................................................... 7

C.2.1 Salary and Benefit Cost Increases (incremental costs): ........................................................ 8

C.2.2 Forecast for 2008/2009: ....................................................................................................... 8

D: Appendices ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Table D.1 - Preliminary 2009/2010 Budget, By Unit and Major Expense Category ......................... 10

Table D.2 - 2008/2009 Forecast of Results, Net Expenses by Unit .................................................. 12

Table D.3 - OMAFRA Direct Funded Full Time Equivalents (FTE’S) .................................................. 14



3

A: The OMAFRA Agreement: Background

Background: Since its formation in 1964, the University of Guelph has had an agreement (the

Agreement) with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) to provide research, education and services to the agri-food sector in the province of Ontario. On April 1, 2008 the Agreement was renewed for 10 years which included increased funding and revised program structures. Under the Agreement1 the University is contracted to deliver innovative research and services in agri-food, environmental sustainability, and animal and human health. Programs are; research (seven research themes), two programs in the Laboratory Services division, the AFL – Agri-Food Laboratory and the AHL – Animal Health Laboratory and finally, a Veterinary Clinical Education Program (VCEP) which assists in the clinical training of veterinary students in the OVC (Ontario Veterinary College)

In addition to the delivery of programs, the University operates the facilities designated under the

Agreement located across Ontario. They comprise 14 research stations, a major laboratory testing facility in Guelph and 3 regional campuses. Included are a wide variety of buildings (residences, research labs, barns and administrative) located on 6,600 acres of land.There are two major classifications of operational responsibilities accompanying these facilities:

1. Those owned by the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario2 across Ontario including:

3 regional campuses of the Ontario Agricultural College (OAC) at Alfred and Kemptville located near Ottawa, and Ridgetown in south-western Ontario,

14 agricultural research stations located across Ontario including two large research stations located near Guelph at Arkell and Elora.

2. The Laboratory Service building in Guelph owned by the Province. The responsibility for operations and maintenance of the Laboratory Service building in Guelph remains with the province, through Ontario Realty Corporation.

For ARIO owned properties, the costs of minor capital projects for facilities are funded through

separate funds held by ARIO. Priorities for capital projects are set as part of a joint (OMAFRA, ARIO and University) planning process. Key considerations are animal care, health and safety, energy efficiencies and program effectiveness.

The Agreement also provides operating, equipment and infrastructure costs including support for

University main campus indirect research costs of $11.0 million. For program management purposes, Agreement funds are transferred to University colleges or

divisions as specific program allocations approved jointly by the University and OMAFRA. All revenues received are restricted under the terms of the Agreement and are reported separately within the University’s OMAFRA Agreement Operating Budget. Any unspent funds or deficits in a fiscal year are

1 Under the renewed agreement, training and diploma programs were transferred to the University under a special

arrangement (and funding) with MTCU (Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities). Historically these programs had been part of prior agreements between OMAFRA and the University.

2 ARIO is an operational services agency reporting to the Minister of OMAFRA. It is provincially incorporated under the ARIO Act (1962). In 2007/2008, the province transferred ownership of most of the facilities (excluding the Laboratory Services building in Guelph) to ARIO. At the same time, OMAFRA amended the Agreement transferring $7.1 million and building and land operations and maintenance to the University. Responsibility for the operations and maintenance of the Laboratory Service building in Guelph remains with the province, through Ontario Realty Corporation.



4

restricted within the Agreement and are carried forward in total to the next fiscal year. Each year, the OMAFRA Agreement budget is presented to the University’s Board of Governors after details on the overall level of provincial support and program priorities are reviewed and key budget assumptions are confirmed with OMAFRA.

B: Agreement Renewal

On April 1, 2008 a new 10 year Agreement was executed between the University of Guelph and

OMAFRA. The renewal was accompanied by a major increase in funding for the first five years of renewal period. The following is a summary of the highlights and changes incorporated for that renewal.

1. Total provincial funding increased $21.3 million to $76.1 million per year for the first five years

of the new Agreement. The increase was an important confirmation of the importance of the relationship between the University and the province in the delivery of key research and services in the provincial agri-food sector. The new funding was allocated both to ensure capacity of the research and laboratory services infrastructure and to provide more research funding to researchers accessible under a competitive process in the seven research themes.

2. The enhanced funding included a major one-time allocation, received by the University in April

2008 of $56.0 million. Under the new Agreement, these New Initiative funds will provide funding of $11.2 million in each of the next five years at which time the $56 million will have been fully consumed. (It is expected that prior to the end of the five year period, discussions will occur with OMAFRA as to the adjustments in the form of a reduction in services or replacement funding that will be necessary when this funding ends.)

3. The transfer of the training and diploma education programs to the MTCU (Ministry of Training

Colleges and Universities); Most of this transfer impacted the regional campuses (there is a small diploma program operated on the University of Guelph main campus) where historically OMAFRA has supported both the formal diploma teaching as well as a variety of continuing education and certificate training programs. The transfer was initiated to consolidate education under MTCU and focus the new Agreement on core objectives (agri-food, environmental sustainability, and animal and human health) and to encourage enrolment planning at the regional campuses consistent with MTCU funding and policy guidelines. The transfer to MTCU included the funding of $4.5 million which now flows from MTCU, as a special grant, to the University (and then to OAC which is responsible for the delivery of these programs.).

C: Major Budget Assumptions for fiscal 2009/2010:

The OMAFRA Agreement is managed as a segregated, self-supporting budget within the University’s

consolidated operating fund. Funds are allocated to organization units within the University’s overall structures and all employees funded under the Agreement are employees of the University. Funding is concentrated in the colleges (particularly OAC and OVC which together account for 33% of funding), the Laboratory Services units (27%) and Guelph research stations operations (10%). In delivering the



5

programs under the Agreement, units follow all University operating policies/procedures including those covering health and safety, employment practices and financial management. Units receiving Agreement funding are accountable for any deficits and funding, unspent at the end of the fiscal year, may be carry-forward into the following year.

The 2008/2009 fiscal year was a transition year during which efforts were concentrated on

establishing new program and project reporting structures and priorities in the context of both new OMAFRA priorities and the enhanced funding (e.g., New Initiatives). This is reflected in the small increase in actual spending relative to 2007/2008. The following section describes the 2009/2010 OMAFRA Agreement budget assumptions for total revenues, program allocations and the estimated cost of increases to salaries and benefits charged to the Agreement budget. It is expected as new projects/initiatives begin to become operational, increased spending will follow.

C.1 Agreement Revenue:

In 2009/2010, Agreement revenue is budgeted at $94.6 million consisting of $74.8 million from the

province (OMAFRA) and $19.8 million in revenues from investment income and the sale of goods and services. (Refer to chart below). Agreement revenues (17% of total University revenue) are, irrespective of source, restricted for use in supporting approved research and services programs in the Agreement.

In meeting their budget targets, units have been encouraged to raise revenues or cost recoveries

from external research, service fees or other sources such as facilities cost recoveries. This is especially the case in the Laboratory Services Divisions where over 50% of their funding comes in the form of external user fees. In this respect, units are expected to build on their research and services infrastructure capacities to generate additional revenues in support of program objectives.

2005/2006 Actuals

2006/2007 Actuals

2007/2008 Actuals

2008/2009 Forecast

2009/2010 Budget

Program Revenues $25.6 $27.1 $27.1 $18.6 $18.4

Investment Income $0.2 $0.4 $0.3 $1.4 $1.4

Provincial - Minor Capital $1.2 $2.9 $4.3 $5.3 $4.5

Provincial - Initiatives $- $- $- $3.9 $11.2

Provincial Agreement $50.2 $54.9 $55.0 $59.1 $59.1

Total $77.2 $85.3 $86.7 $88.3 $94.6

$77.2 $85.3 $86.7 $88.3

$94.6

$-

$10.0

$20.0

$30.0

$40.0

$50.0

$60.0

$70.0

$80.0

$90.0

$100.0

$M

OMAFRA Agreement - Revenues by Source



6

For 2009/2010 key revenue assumptions are: “Agreement Base Revenue”, the core funding from the province, will remain fixed at $59.1

million. This is received as a quarterly transfer payment from OMAFRA to the University. In addition there is an annual New Initiatives allocation of $11.2 million representing one

fifth of the $56 million advance received in April 2008. 2009/2010 is year 2 of this 5 year allocation. The agreement is credited with the interest earned on the balances advanced to the University on both the transfer payment and the New Initiatives which is estimated at $1.4 million in 2009/2010. Due to the one-time nature of this funding, the University is matching only one-time expenses to the New Initiatives Funding.

OMAFRA also funds investment in the provincially owned properties for minor capital projects and repairs. The preliminary allocation for 2009/2010 is $4.5 million ($5.3 million in 2008/2009).

Completing funding are external revenues generated from agreement facilities primarily for lab testing services and the sales of produce. These revenues are credited to the units and programs providing the goods and services. The preliminary 2009/2010 estimate is $18.425 million.

Refer to Table C.1 for a summary of 2009/2010 Agreement revenues

Table C.1

“Program Revenues” are earned and managed by the units responsible for delivering the associated

services and therefore are not allocated centrally. While they do not directly form part of Agreement-level allocations they do support cost increases for which units are responsible.

Table C.2 (following page) summarizes proposed allocation of the revenue components; provincial

funding and investment income by program for the 2009/2010 Agreement Budget. Major envelopes consist of approved programs e.g., research, laboratory services (AHL, AFL) and VCEP. (Program funding is then divided into projects which are assigned to units (e.g. colleges, regional campuses, Laboratory Services Division and research stations) for program delivery.

(A) Agreement Programs(B)

Agreement Revenue

Provincial - Agreement Base Revenue 59,100Provincial - New Initiatives (Year 2 of 5) 11,200Provincial - Minor Capital 4,500Total Provincial Funding 74,800Agreement Investment Income (Year 2 of 5) 1,400Total Provincial Funding and Investment Income 76,200

Program Revenues 18,425

Total Agreement Revenue 2009/2010 94,625

(in thousands of dollars)

Summary of Revenues by Major Source



7

Table C.2

The “Renewed Agreement” column totaling $60.500 million represents the allocation of the

provincial revenue plus the Investment income. The $11.200 million New Initiatives revenue is allocated for new and enhanced program objectives established by the renewed Agreement. The Minor Capital Projects column contains the allocation of the additional funds provided by OMAFRA for facilities renewal.

C.2 Expenditure Assumptions:

The OMAFRA Agreement is a self-supporting budget and is required to cover all incremental cost

increases within total Agreement revenues. The fiscal objectives of the Agreement require major units/programs/locations to find resources within their allocations of provincial support to cover all annual costs increases including salaries and benefit increases. Major efforts have been made at creating revenue as the main source to cover these expense increases however if sufficient revenues are not found, cost reallocations within the total funds available are required. This practice continues under the Renewed Agreement procedures.

Minor Total

Renewed New Total Capital OMAFRACurrent Programs Agreement Initiatives Projects Agreement

Research Programs 26,870 5,700 32,570 32,570

KTT - Knowledge Translation & Transfer 1,000 1,000 1,000

HCP - Graduate Enhancement Program 1,000 1,000 1,000

Facilties Operations & Maintenance 7,130 7,130 4,500 11,630

Total Research & Support Programs 34,000 7,700 41,700 4,500 46,200

Lab Services - AHL 6,100 1,500 7,600 7,600

Lab Services - AFL 5,200 5,200 5,200

VCEP 5,200 1,000 6,200 6,200

Service Costs 10,000 1,000 11,000 11,000

Total Provincial and Investment Income 60,500 11,200 71,700 4,500 76,200

Agreement Programs

(In thousands of dollars)

Funding Allocation of Provincial and Investment Income By Major Program:



8

C.2.1 Salary and Benefit Cost Increases (incremental costs):

While less concentrated in personnel costs than the University’s MTCU Operating Budget, the

OMAFRA Agreement budget is challenged with similar compensation cost increases. Approximately 50% of the Agreement funding is allocated for personnel costs comprised of 106 full-time faculty and veterinarian FTEs (Full Time Equivalents), and 394 regular full-time staff FTEs working facilities across Ontario.

The 106 faculty and veterinarian FTE’s are funded in two ways:

29 FTE’s are charged directly (actual salaries and benefits including annual increases) to Agreement funds. These consist of 9 regular faculty appointments (all at the regional campuses) and 20 veterinary positions (in the Laboratory Services Division and OVC).

77 FTE’s consisting of 65 research FTE’s (mainly associated with the Guelph campus) and 12 veterinary clinical education in OVC FTE’s are supported indirectly through “pooled” funds. These “pooled” funds are fixed dollars transferred to the University, in effect purchasing capacity or access to a notional number of FTE’s. The “pools” are presently fixed at $11.815 million per year effectively transferring the cost increases for these FTE’s to the University. Over time annual personnel cost increases will “discount” the numbers of FTE’s funding by the fixed-dollar “pools”.

University units with program allocations in the Agreement budget are responsible for covering cost

increases for employee (faculty and staff) salaries and benefits directly charged to Agreement programs. It is estimated that the costs of salary and benefit increases for faculty and staff directly charged to the Agreement will be $1.280 million in the 2009/2010 fiscal year. The assumptions used in this estimate are consistent with the assumptions used in all of the University’s general budget planning and contain provisions for increases for all University employee groups charged to the Agreement.

In addition to new revenues, a key solution for meeting the challenge of cost-increases involves the

cost-recovery of OMAFRA-funded research infrastructure costs from all users (non-OMAFRA research programs). For 2009/2010 cost increases, units are preparing plans to absorb these costs within their existing OMAFRA allocations. There are a number of operational reviews underway to find the best usage of Agreement resources and while, at this time, no involuntary reduction in staffing levels is underway, over the course of the fiscal year this action may be necessary.

C.2.2 Forecast for 2008/2009:

Consistent with University policy, University units with OMAFRA funding may carry-forward unspent

allocations into the following fiscal year however they are also responsible for any OMAFRA-program deficits. In fiscal 2008/2009 it is forecast that, overall units with OMAFRA Agreement funding will carry-forward a net $9.845 million. This is historically higher than normal reflecting the significant increase in funding received effective April 1, 2008 and the prudent position taken to carefully restructure programs to ensure the effective use of this new funding. Most of the carry-forward is captured in centrally (unallocated accounts) pending approval of project proposals and program restructuring to meet new Agreement objectives.



9

While most units are reflecting positive carry- forward; three units are carrying significant deficits. These include two regional campuses of OAC (Kemptville and Ridgetown) and the Guelph Research Station Operations (RSO).

For the two regional campuses challenges are similar and mainly structural. Increasing costs

and reduced research and service revenues will require significant restructuring in order to bring these units into balance. OAC has initiated plans to reduce costs and positions in these units. In Kemptville, initially three vacated positions will be deleted. Further plans are underway to reduce expenses (personnel and operating). For all regional campuses, a major restructuring effort is planned by OAC and the Office of Research to reposition these units in the context of the new Agreement including the transfer of education and training to MTCU funding. It is expected that over the course of the next two years the OMAFRA-related deficit in both campuses will be resolved.

For several years, RSO has experienced fiscal challenges mainly associated with rapidly increasing costs for maintaining capital and operationally intensive research stations. Commodity and energy price increases are contributing factors as is the competing demands to cover compensation cost increases on a fixed budget and deliver the capacity demanded by the research programs. The new Agreement assisted in relieving some of this pressure and the deficit has been reduced significantly. In addition efforts continue to increase cost-recoveries for services with mixed results.

D: Appendices

In this section are a series of detailed tables with explanatory notes providing additional information

on the 2009/2010 OMAFRA Agreement budget. Table D.1: OMAFRA Agreement Preliminary 2009/2010 Budget, By Unit and Major Expense

Category Table D.1 shows the 2009/2010 OMAFRA Opening Base Budget by major revenue and expense

category plus one-time budget assumptions for forecast carry-forwards from the 2008/2009 budget, New Initiatives funding and minor capital expenses by organizational unit.

Table D.2: OMAFRA Agreement 2008/2009 Forecast of Results, by Unit Table D.2 presents the 2008/2009 forecast actual results compared to budget by unit, with

projected carry forwards for operations by organizational unit. Table D.3: OMAFRA Direct Funded Full Time Equivalents (FTE’S) Table D.3 contains the FTE’s counts by organizational unit detailing Faculty and CARG & Staff

positions for the fiscal years 2004/2005 to 2009/2010 (Preliminary). FTE’s are the budgeted positions for full time faculty and staff directly charged to the OMAFRA agreement. In addition the agreement supports Faculty positions in the MTCU budget by a fixed cost transfer (see note #3 on table D.3 for more information on the MTCU faculty transfer).


U

nive

rsit

y of

Gue

lph

OM

AFR

A A

gree

men

t –

2009

/201

0 Pr

elim

inar

y Bu

dget

In

Tho

usan

ds o

f Dol

lars

10

Tabl

e D

.1

Ta

ble

D.1

- P

reli

min

ary

20

09

/2

01

0 B

ud

ge

t, B

y U

nit

an

d M

ajo

r E

xp

en

se C

ate

go

ry

Tota

l

(A)

Tota

l Pe

rson

nel

(B)

Fa

culty

Po

ol

Cos

ts(C

)

O

pera

ting

(D)

Dep

t Cos

t

Rec

over

y

(E) =

(A

)+(B

)+(C

)+(D

)

Tota

l

Expe

nses

(F)

R

even

ues

(G) =

(E)-(

F)

O

peni

ng

09/1

0 B

ase

B

udge

t

(H)

Fo

reca

st

Car

ryfo

rwar

ds

from

Prio

r Yea

r

(I)

N

ew

In

itiat

ives

Fu

ndin

g

(J)

2009

/201

0

Min

or

Cap

ital

Pr

ojec

ts

(K) =

(G)+

(H)

+(

I)+(J

)

Pr

elim

inar

y An

nual

B

udge

tN

otes

Inst

itutio

nal R

even

ues

Prov

inci

al F

undi

ng(5

9,10

0)(5

9,10

0)(1

1,20

0)(4

,500

)(7

4,80

0)In

vest

men

t Inc

ome

(1,4

00)

(1,4

00)

(1,4

00)

Tota

l Ins

titut

iona

l Rev

enue

s(6

0,50

0)(6

0,50

0)0

(11,

200)

(4,5

00)

(76,

200)

#1

Inst

itutio

nal E

xpen

ses

Teac

hing

Uni

tsC

olle

ge o

f Arts

07

07

77

Col

lege

of B

iolo

gica

l Sci

ence

s50

423

047

347

316

363

6C

olle

ge o

f Soc

ial &

App

l. H

uman

Sci

ence

s24

179

020

320

314

634

9C

olle

ge o

f Man

agem

ent a

nd E

cono

mic

s1

90

1010

10

OAC

Gue

lph

3,49

77,

207

45(2

40)

10,5

0910

,509

666

11,1

75

Alfr

ed C

ampu

s1,

027

1,05

1(6

21)

1,45

7(3

36)

1,12

1(4

9)43

01,

502

K

empt

ville

Cam

pus

3,10

22,

545

(371

)5,

276

(1,1

32)

4,14

4(3

20)

1,27

05,

094

R

idge

tow

n C

ampu

s3,

024

1,71

9(6

41)

4,10

2(4

65)

3,63

7(2

51)

800

4,18

6

Tota

l: O

ntar

io A

gric

ultu

ral C

olle

ge10

,650

7,20

75,

360

(1,8

73)

21,3

44(1

,933

)19

,411

460

2,50

021

,957

#2O

ntar

io V

eter

inar

y C

olle

ge -

VCEP

2,23

31,

900

1,06

75,

200

5,20

075

61,

000

6,95

6O

ntar

io V

eter

inar

y C

olle

ge -

Res

earc

h50

11,

895

02,

396

2,39

628

2,42

4C

olle

ge o

f Phy

sica

l & E

ng. S

cien

ces

8219

50

277

277

(9)

268

Tota

l Tea

chin

g U

nits

13,5

4111

,815

6,42

7(1

,873

)29

,910

(1,9

33)

27,9

771,

130

1,00

02,

500

32,6

07

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

and

Serv

ices

Gue

lph

Res

earc

h St

atio

n O

pera

tions

4,75

74,

979

(126

)9,

610

(2,2

62)

7,34

8(2

94)

2,00

09,

054

Prog

ram

Sup

port

Acco

unts

192

1,78

31,

975

1,97

531

42,

289

#3La

b Se

rvic

es D

ivis

ion

(AH

L an

d AF

L)16

,400

11,1

98(2

,068

)25

,530

(14,

230)

11,3

002,

504

1,50

015

,304

Cen

tral S

uppo

rt C

osts

10,0

0010

,000

10,0

001,

000

11,0

00#4

Tota

l Oth

er P

rogr

ams

& S

ervi

ces

21,3

490

27,9

60(2

,194

)47

,115

(16,

492)

30,6

232,

524

2,50

02,

000

37,6

47

Una

lloca

ted

Prog

ram

Ope

ratin

g Fu

nds

Tota

l Res

earc

h Pr

ojec

t Ope

ratin

g 1,

900

1,90

01,

900

4,23

15,

700

11,8

31#5

1,96

02,

000

3,96

0#6

34,8

9011

,815

36,2

87(4

,067

)78

,925

(18,

425)

60,5

009,

845

11,2

004,

500

86,0

45le

ss C

arry

forw

ard

from

Prio

r Yea

rs(9

,845

)(9

,845

)#7

34,8

9011

,815

36,2

87(4

,067

)78

,925

(78,

925)

00

00

0

Ope

ning

Bas

e B

udge

t20

09/2

010

One

-tim

e Al

loca

tions

New

Initi

ativ

es P

roje

cts

(KTT

,HQ

P)

Tota

l Agr

eem

ent E

xpen

ses

Net

Agr

eem

ent B

udge

t



In Thousands of Dollars

11

Notes for Table D.1

Notes: 1. See table C.1 on page #6 for details on the Total

Provincial Funding within the Agreement for 2009/2010.

2. Ontario Agricultural College (OAC) includes the regional campus locations in Alfred, Kemptville and Ridgetown.

3. The Program Support Accounts are centrally administered funds used for specific research infrastructure including a capital equipment budget allocated to Plant Ag growth room renovations, discretionary accounts managed by the Research Program Directors and the funds held centrally to manage the responsibilities for facilities and maintenance of provincially owned locations.

4. Central Support Costs are the indirect cost transfers to the MTCU budget in support of the OMAFRA agreement. For 2009/2010, $11.0 million has been allocated for support of campus infrastructure. This amount consists of $10.0 million in the Renewed (Base) Agreement and $1.0 million per year from the 5 year New Initiatives allocation.

5. In 2009/2010 there is an estimated $11.831 million of research project operating funding. This consists of a Renewed Agreement base of $1.9 million and a $5.7 million annual allocation (year #2 of 5) from the New Initiatives revenue. In addition, there is a forecast $4.231 million in unspent project operating carried forward from 2008/2009 ($1.0 million allocated to projects carried over from the previous research awards (‘Last Call’) and $3.2 million in year #1 New Initiative funding). These amounts remain unallocated in the preliminary budget pending completion of award processes and detailed budget planning in the seven new research themes of the Renewed Agreement.

6. There are two new programs funded by New Initiatives revenues for a Knowledge Translation and Transfer (KTT) program and an investment in researcher development (HQP).

7. The $9.845 million in unit carryforwards (see column H) are funded by unspent Agreement revenues brought forward from the prior year. Column Definitions: Column A: Total Personnel includes the salary and

benefit costs for all faculty and staff charged directly to OMAFRA projects including approximately 423 FTE’s of regular full-time staff.

Column B: Faculty Pool Costs are fixed transfers to the

MTCU budget in support of faculty effort on research projects (65 FTE's) and VCEP (12 FTE's). An additional 9 FTE’s of faculty positions are recorded and funded as direct costs of the program. These faculty positions are located in the regional campuses at Ridgetown (4.5), Kemptville (2.5) and

Alfred (2). There are also 16 Veterinary positions in the Labs and 4 budgeted in the Veterinary Teaching Hospital for a total of 29 FTE’s in the Faculty agreement.

Column D: Dept Cost Recovery are non-cash transfers

based on inter-departmental services provided for laboratory and other services to other University departments.

Column F: Revenues within units are external cash

charges for services provided by agreement locations primarily through either the sale of goods and services to third parties.

Column G: Base Budget is the opening net budget by

Unit, for the base portion of the Renewed Agreement, before one-time allocations from carry-forwards and other programs.

Column H: The total $9.845 million in funds are

projected to be available at the end of 2008/2009 will be carried forward to 2008/2009 for operations. Of this amount, a forecast of $7.259 million is in the New Initiatives programs and the remaining $2.586 million within Renewed Agreement base budgets (compared to $2.334 million unspent at the end of 2007/2008). The carryforward amount is added to each unit’s budget as a one-time increase or decrease in the funds available for that unit for the fiscal year (see table D.2).

Column I: There is $11.2 million per year from the New

Initiatives funding provided by OMAFRA which represents year #2 of a 5 year investment as a strategic commitment to new initiatives in research, animal health and veterinary clinical education.

Columns J: Minor Capital Projects presents the

proposed allocation of additional funds from OMAFRA in support of minor capital investments and high priority repairs to equipment and facilities at the provincially owned locations that are managed by the University under the OMAFRA agreement.

Column K: Preliminary Annual Budget is the total of

departmental expenses less departmental cost recoveries and revenues for each major unit. The net budget is the total allocation amount with which budget managers are controlled and measured at the end of each fiscal year. These unit targets do not include Research Project Operating awards that are currently unallocated in the Preliminary budget (see note #5&6 above). Any surplus or deficit at year-end within policy limits is credited to or charged against the unit as a "Carry forward" in the following year's budget.



OMAFRA Agreement – 2009/2010 Preliminary Budget In Thousands of Dollars

12

Table D.2

Table D.2 - 2008/2009 Forecast of Results, Net Expenses by Unit

08/09 08/09 Surplus/ NotesBudget Forecast (Deficit)

Agreement Funding:Provincial Funding - Renewed Agreement 59,100 59,100 0 #1Provincial Funding - New Initiatives 11,200 11,200 0 #2Investment Income 1,400 1,450 50 #3 Total Agreement Funding 71,700 71,750 50

Agreement Expenses:

Teaching Units College of Arts (COA) 7 7 0 College of Biological Science 1,099 936 163 College of Social & Applied Human Sciences 377 231 146 College of Management & Economics 9 9 0

Ontario Agricultural College - Guelph 14,329 13,663 666 Alfred Campus 1,283 1,332 (49) Kemptville Campus 4,519 4,839 (320) #4 Ridgetown Campus 3,976 4,227 (251) #5 Total Ontario Agricultural College 24,107 24,061 46

Ontario Veterinary College (OVC) 8,956 8,172 784 College of Physical & Eng Science 536 545 (9)

Total Teaching Units 35,091 33,961 1,130

Academic Services New Initiatives Programs (Start-up in 08/09) 6,337 146 6,191 #6 Guelph Research Station Operations 7,526 7,803 (277) #7 Campus Animal Facilities 122 139 (17) AVP Agrifood 638 374 264 Laboratory Services Division 13,320 10,816 2,504 #8 OMAFRA Indirect Costs 11,000 11,000 0

Net Agreement Expenses 74,034 64,239 9,795

Annual Operating Surplus (Deficit) (2,334) 7,511 9,845

Add: Transfers from Appropriations - Operations 2,334 2,334

Funds Available 0 9,845 #9

Less: Transfers to Appropriations - Operations (9,845)

Net Revenue(Expense) 0 0



In Thousands of Dollars

13

Notes for Table D.2

Notes:

1. For 2008/2009 the Agreement Base Revenue of $59.1 million reflects the $8.8 million increase in the renewed agreement compared to 2007/2008. (net of the transfer of the $4.5 Million diploma education program to MTCU). An additional $4.5 million ($4.3 million in 2007/2008) in Minor Capital/Repair funds were provided for jointly approved projects. The Minor Capital revenues are recorded in the locations/units of the approved projects.

2. OMAFRA provided $56 million in one-time funds as a

strategic commitment to new initiatives in research, animal health and veterinary clinical education. This allocation will be $11.2 million per year for five years. 2008/2009 was the first of the five years.

3. The University credits the agreement with interest

earned on the advances received from OMAFRA. The New Initiatives funding (see note #2 above) represents most of the interest-earning balance.

4. The Kemptville campus of the Ontario Agricultural College has experienced a structural budget problem over the last several years, The 2008/2009 forecast deficit for OMAFRA supported programs is forecast at $0.320 million; In 08/09 Kemptville eliminated 3 vacated staff positions and OAC (with the Office of Research) has begun to prepare restructuring plans for all four of its campuses. Specific actions under this plan will be implemented during 2009/2010. Plans will include resolving the Kemptville OMAFRA one-time deficit over the next 2 fiscal years.

5. Ridgetown’s year-end forecast is a net deficit of $0.251

million for its OMAFRA supported programs. This will be addressed under the same restructuring program noted above. It is expected to resolve both the structural and one-time deficit in this unit over the next 2 fiscal years.

6. The 2008/2009 Renewed Agreement included

revenues specifically targeted to new initiatives (see note #2 above). These new programs include 7 research themes, a Knowledge Translation and Transfer (KTT) program and an investment in researcher development (HQP). These new programs are in their start up phase and any unspent funds will be carried forward for these specific purposes as part of the five year plan for the programs (see notes #5, #6 Table D.1 on page #11).

7. Guelph Research Station Operations have a forecast

accumulated deficit of $0.277 million (compared to a deficit of $0.870 million in 2007/2008). The financial position of RSO operations have been improved by the investment in program operations and facilities operations and maintenance costs as part of the renewed agreement. Concerns do remain about a continuing structural budget deficit as a result of inflationary impacts on operational costs.

8. The Animal Health Lab (AHL) and the Agri-Food Lab (AFL)

programs in the Laboratory Services division are forecasting an overall surplus of $2.5 million. This includes an estimated $1.1 million for a New Initiative program in the AHL and $1.4 million in net testing revenues earned from other operations. The division has a significant investment in leading edge testing technology and demands for continual development of new testing protocols. Any net revenues are designated for re-investment in support of these needs.

9. The total $9.845 million in funds projected to be

available at the end of 2008/2009 will be carried forward to 2008/2009 for operations. Of this amount, a forecast of $7.259 million is in the New Initiatives programs and the remaining $2.586 million within Renewed Agreement base budgets (compared to $2.334 million unspent at the end of 2007/2008).


U

nive

rsit

y of

Gue

lph

OM

AFR

A A

gree

men

t – 2

009/

2010

Pre

limin

ary

Budg

et

(Exc

lude

s Re

sear

ch a

nd V

CEP

Facu

lty s

uppo

rted

by

cost

tran

sfer

to th

e M

TCU

Bud

get)

14

Tabl

e D

.3

Ta

ble

D.3

- O

MA

FR

A D

ire

ct F

un

de

d F

ull

Tim

e E

qu

iva

len

ts (

FT

E’S

)

Colle

ge/D

ivis

ion

Posi

tion

Typ

e20

04/2

005

2005

/200

620

06/2

007

2007

/200

820

08/2

009

2009

/201

0N

otes

Prel

imin

ary

TEA

CHIN

G U

NIT

S

OAC

GU

ELPH

Facu

lty0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0St

aff

71.5

59.7

49.0

46.6

46.3

46.3

#171

.559

.749

.046

.646

.346

.3

ALFR

ED C

AMPU

SFa

culty

0.7

1.0

2.0

1.9

1.9

CARG

/Sta

ff25

.224

.424

.124

.910

.710

.725

.225

.125

.126

.912

.612

.6#1

KEM

PTVI

LLE

CAM

PUS

Facu

lty1.

01.

73.

04.

32.

62.

6CA

RG/S

taff

55.0

55.6

54.4

57.6

33.0

33.0

56.0

57.3

57.4

61.9

35.6

35.6

#1

RID

GET

OW

N C

AMPU

SFa

culty

4.8

4.8

5.9

6.3

4.5

4.5

CARG

/Sta

ff69

.564

.864

.565

.132

.632

.674

.269

.670

.471

.337

.137

.1#1

OVC

- TE

ACH

ING

DEP

ARTM

ENTS

Facu

lty0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0St

aff

11.6

10.5

10.4

10.4

10.4

10.4

11.6

10.5

10.4

10.4

10.4

10.4

OVC

- VC

EPFa

culty

/Vet

s0.

00.

00.

04.

04.

04.

0#2

Staf

f25

.224

.624

.624

.624

.624

.625

.224

.624

.628

.628

.628

.6

COLL

OF

PHYS

ICAL

& E

NG

INEE

RIN

GFa

culty

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Staf

f1.

61.

61.

51.

31.

31.

31.

61.

61.

51.

31.

31.

3

Tota

l Fac

ulty

/Vet

s Te

achi

ng U

nits

5.8

7.1

9.9

16.6

12.9

12.9

T

otal

Sta

ff T

each

ing

Uni

ts25

9.5

241.

122

8.5

230.

515

8.9

158.

9To

tal T

each

ing

Uni

ts26

5.3

248.

223

8.4

247.

117

1.8

171.

8

ACA

DEM

IC S

ERVI

CES

AVP

AGRI

FOO

DSt

aff

59.6

61.0

64.2

66.8

66.8

66.8

59.6

61.0

64.2

66.8

66.8

66.8

LAB

SERV

ICES

DIV

ISIO

NFa

culty

/Vet

s0.

00.

00.

016

.016

.016

.0#2

Staf

f15

5.7

154.

616

6.1

155.

816

5.5

168.

715

5.7

154.

616

6.1

171.

818

1.5

184.

7

Tota

l Fac

ulty

/Vet

s A

cade

mic

Ser

vice

s0.

00.

00.

016

.016

.016

.0

Tot

al S

taff

Aca

dem

ic S

ervi

ces

215.

321

5.6

230.

322

2.5

232.

423

5.5

Tota

l Aca

dem

ic S

ervi

ces

215.

321

5.6

230.

323

8.5

248.

425

1.5

Tota

l Fac

ulty

/Vet

s5.

87.

19.

932

.628

.928

.9

Tot

al S

taff

47

4.8

456.

745

8.8

453.

039

1.3

394.

5To

tal F

acul

ty a

nd S

taff

480.

546

3.8

468.

748

5.6

420.

242

3.4

#3



OMAFRA Agreement – 2009/2010 Preliminary Budget

15

Notes for Table D.3

Definitions: FTE: Full Time Equivalents measuring budgeted

positions for full time faculty, CARG and staff charged directly to the OMAFRA Agreement.

CARG: Instructors and researchers at the regional

campus locations of OAC who are members of the College and Academic Research Group. There are a total of 51 FTE’s in the CARG group (14.25 OMAFRA, 36.75 MTCU) at the three regional campus locations.

Notes:

1. For 2008/2009 the Diploma Education teaching and the Business Development/Continuing Education programs at the Guelph, Alfred, Kemptville and Ridgetown campus were transferred to MTCU as part of the Renewed Agreement. This change was funded by a $4.5 million grant now being received from MTCU. This transfer included the support for 76.8 FTE’s of regular full time faculty, CARG and staff moving from the OMAFRA Agreement to the MTCU Budget. The details by location are noted in the table below.

Positions transferred to MTCU Location Full Time

FTE’s Guelph 0.9 Alfred 15.4 Kemptville 26.9 Ridgetown 33.6

Total 76.8

2. At the end of 2006/2007, Veterinarian positions formally became part of the University faculty agreement. The current Veterinary positions are located in the Veterinary Teaching Hospital in OVC with 4 of 9 positions funded in the VCEP program of the OMAFRA agreement. In the AHL (Animal Health Labs program in the Labs Services division, there are 16 full-time veterinary positions in the OMAFRA agreement.

3. The total direct funded positions in the preliminary

budget of the renewed OMAFRA agreement currently totals 423.4 budget full-time positions for 2009/2010.

In addition, support for 65 FTE’s of research faculty awarded research projects in the OMAFRA agreement and 12 FTE’s of OVC faculty in the VCEP program are funded by a fixed transfer to the MTCU budget. The total effort for full time position in the OMAFRA agreement totals 500.4 full time equivalents.


Page 200 of 293


MEETING: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 f) Proposed 2009-10 Ancillary Budgets i) Proposed 2009-10 University Centre Operating Budget Enclosed for consideration is the University Centre 2009-10 Budget. The approval process for the University Centre budget is different from all other ancillary budgets coming before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors. The University Centre Board has a direct reporting relationship to the Board of Governors. The University Centre is managed by a Director who reports to the University Centre Board, which is comprised of a majority of student members. The University Centre Board, which has approved the enclosed budget proposal, submits it to the Board of Governors through the Finance Committee for approval. The Finance Committee (April 8) considered and agreed to recommend to the Board the University Centre Operating Budget for 2009-10. The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, That the Board of Governors approve the University Centre 2009-10 Budget, as presented.

Proposed 2009-10 Ancillary Budgets [Motions] Page 201 of 293

ii) Proposed 2009-10 Budgets for Other Ancillary Budgets Enclosed for consideration are the 2009-10 budgets for the following ancillary units: Hospitality Services, Student Housing Services, and Parking Services and Transportation Planning. The Finance Committee (April 8) considered and agreed to recommend to the Board the approval of each of these ancillary budgets. The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, That the Board of Governors approve the 2009-10 budgets for Hospitality Services, Student Housing Services, and Parking Services and Transportation Planning, as presented. N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 7f cover memo.doc



UNIVERSITY CENTRE ADMINISTRATION

2009/2010 BUDGET


UNIVERSITY CENTRE ADMINISTRATION

2009/2010 BUDGET

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction/Operational Summary..............................................................................................1 Current Year 2008/2009...............................................................................................................1 Budget Year 2009/2010................................................................................................................2 Revenue Assumptions......................................................................................................2 Expenditure Assumptions................................................................................................3 Table A - 2008/2009 Forecast to Budget Comparison................................................................4 Table B - 2009/2010 Department Operating Budget...................................................................5 Capital Plan 2010 - 2013............................................................................................................6

UNIVERSITY CENTRE ADMINISTRATION 2009/2010 BUDGET


INTRODUCTION The University Centre is aware of the financial constraints facing the University this fiscal year and the need to control expenditures to achieve the 2009/2010 fiscal requirements. This budget reflects the style of management which will enable the University Centre to continue as a viable entity. The University Centre reports to the Board of Governors and is operated on a cost recovery basis. The University Centre utilizes standard commercial principles in its business operations, and applies contribution towards non-profit events that enhance the University community life. Its organizations and services offered are outlined below. OPERATIONAL SUMMARY Operationally, the University Centre reports through a University Centre Board of 20 members. This Board has a direct reporting relationship to the University’s Board of Governors. The Directorate’s overall purpose is to be the focus for the University as a community, providing those social, recreational and cultural activities that are not normally provided through the academic curriculum or other University services. To accomplish this, the University Centre provides services through the management and operations of the following functional areas. Brass Taps - A fully licensed lounge, licensed under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario with a seating capacity of 500. Programming/University Centre Events - Entertainment and cultural events, including Fairs, initiated and run by the University Centre. Director’s Office and Administration - Administrative support for the Directorate. Building Management - Leases and services including room reservations and locker rentals in addition to managing the physical aspects of the building. BUDGET YEAR 2008/2009 (Forecast to Budget Comparison) This has been a fairly good year for the University Centre in financial terms. Overall, revenues are anticipated to be some $127,000 (6%) above budget, mainly due to increase in revenues from the Brass Taps. This increase of $90,000 in the Brass Taps is attributed to improved marketing strategies and a greater emphasis on food, which resulted in greater student participation. 1


Other Revenues are higher by $37,000. These reflect programming revenues up by $20,000 due to higher table rentals in the UC courtyard. Revenues are higher in Director’s Office and Building Management by $15,000 and $2,000 due to increased student fees and an increase in room rentals, respectively.

The variances in expenditure line items are reflective of increased revenues. Cost of Sales were higher than budgeted reflecting higher sales. Labour was higher which matched the increase in revenues. Operating Costs will be higher than budget due to higher revenues. Renovations are anticipated to come in at a level of $45,000 as an anticipated building painting project estimated at $80,000 did not occur this year. Overall, total Expenditures are projected to be $16,000 higher than the budgeted level. Deficit before Net Transfers is projected to be $166,000, and after Net Transfers of $207,000 the projected surplus is $41,000 compared to a budget deficit of $70,000. BUDGET YEAR 2009/2010 The Budget Year 2009/2010 will be similar to the current fiscal year’s experience. The number of registered students will approximate the current year. Prices will increase approximately 3% for goods and services offered. Operating costs, other than labour, are expected to increase in the 3% range. There is a 8.6% increase in minimum wage effective April 1, 2009. Full-time salaries and benefits will increase in accordance with University of Guelph Budget Office assumptions. The net result of these assumptions will be a deficit of $202,000 before Net Transfers and a final surplus of $8,000 after Net Transfers of $210,000 are considered. 2009/2010 BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS REVENUES ($2,120,000) Brass Taps ($960,000) Prices for items to increase 3%. In addition, entertainment programming will continue to be strengthened. Emphasis will also be placed on increasing food sales given this year’s success and the number of first-year students who are under the drinking age. Other Revenue ($1,160,000) In Programming, ticket prices to remain competitive. The emphasis will continue to be on live performances that will have higher contribution levels. 2


In the Director’s Office, increased revenue reflects 2.00% inflation adjustment for student fees. In Building Management, existing lease rates to increase 3.5%. Room rental usage to increase marginally. EXPENDITURES ($2,322,000) Cost of Sales ($365,000) Material cost is a blended variable cost and is targeted at 36% of revenues for beverages, 40% for food. When these costs are reported against all revenues, the overall ratio is 17%. Personnel Costs ($995,000) Full-time salaries and benefits have been increased in accordance with University of Guelph Budget Assumptions in addition to efficiency changes. Minimum wage has been increased in accordance with the Province’s Minimum Wage Law. Space Cost ($497,000) These costs will increase 3.5% as directed by the Budget Office. Operating Costs ($390,000) Operating costs are variable and are expected to increase 3% Renovations ($65,000) Of these costs $15,000 are to upgrade the lighting in Level 01 in the University Centre. An additional $50,000 has been allocated to upgrade the Brass Taps facility. NET TRANSFERS ($210,000) Internal Transfers of funds from the University for Leased Space and shared costs is estimated to be $210,000. 3


Table A

University of GuelphUniversity Centre Administration

2008/2009Variance

Revenue

Brass Taps 925 45% 835 43% 90Other Revenue 1,130 55% 1,093 57% 37

Total Revenue 2,055 100% 1,928 100% 127

Expenses

Cost of Materials 351 17% 310 16% (41)Personnel 963 47% 920 48% (43)Institutional Charges 480 23% 480 25% 0Operating 373 18% 361 19% (12)Travel 9 0% 9 0% 0Renovations 45 2% 125 6% 80

Total Expenses 2,221 108% 2,205 114% (16)

Income (Expenses) Before Transfers (166) -8% (277) -14% 111

Net Transfer 207 10% 207 11% 0

Increase (Decrease) in Fund Balance 41 2% (70) -4% 111

Unappropriated Fund Balance - Opening 213 213

Unappropriated Fund Balance - Closing 254 143

4

2008/ 2009 Forecast To Budget ComparisonIn Thousands $

2008/2009Forecast

2008/2009Budget


Table B

University of GuelphUniversity Centre Administration

Revenue

Brass Taps 891 46% 925 45% 960 45%Other Revenue 1,029 54% 1,130 55% 1,160 55%

Total Revenue 1,920 100% 2,055 100% 2,120 100%

Expenses

Cost of Materials 344 18% 351 17% 365 17%Personnel 921 48% 963 47% 995 47%Institutional Charges 462 24% 480 23% 497 23%Operating 368 19% 373 18% 390 18%Travel 8 0% 9 0% 10 0%Renovations 40 2% 45 2% 65 3%

Total Expenses 2,143 112% 2,221 108% 2,322 110%

Income (Expenses) Before Transfers (223) -12% (166) -8% (202) -10%

Net Transfer 240 13% 207 10% 210 10%

Increase (Decrease) in Fund Balance 17 1% 41 2% 8 0%

Unappropriated Fund Balance - Opening 196 213 254

Unappropriated Fund Balance - Closing 213 254 262

5

2009/2010 Operating BudgetIn Thousands $

2007/2008Actual

2008/2009Forecast

2009/2010Budget


CAPITAL PLAN 2009/2013 2009/2010 ($65,000) Fifteen thousand for lighting improvements in Level 01 of the UC Courtyard. Fifty-thousand for Brass Taps flooring and facility improvements. 2010/2011 ($60,000) Sixty-thousand dollars for improvements and upgrades to meeting rooms – carpeting. 2011/2012 ($60,000) Sixty-thousand dollars for Building Improvements. 2012/2013 (80,000) Eighty-thousand dollars for Building Improvements. 6



HOSPITALITY SERVICES 2009/2010 BUDGET

PREPARED FOR THE FINANCE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS

APRIL 8, 2009


Hospitality Services 2009/2010 Budget

Table of Contents

Page #

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………....1 Budget Year Assumptions 2009/2010…….………………………………………………….………..2-5 Forecast 2008/2009…………………..……….…………………………………………………………6 Table A 2009/2010 Operating Budget………………………………………………………..…………7 Table B 2008/2009 Forecast to Budget Comparison……………………………………………..…….8 Schedule 1 – 2008/2009 Net Transfer…………………………………………………………………..9 Appendix 1 – Five (5) Year Capital Plan……………………………………………………………....10



1

INTRODUCTION – Context for the 2009/2010 Fiscal Year Hospitality Services' primary responsibility is the delivery of high quality competitively priced food to approximately 5,000 students in residence and over 2,500 off-campus students under the meal card program (servicing an estimated 125,000 meals per week during the fall and winter semesters). Hospitality Services also operates the University's Bookstore, Retail Services, Design & Print Services, Conference Services and Mail Services. Food and retail outlets are at 23 locations across campus and the department has made arrangements with 8 off-campus restaurants for the acceptance of the University's student card for food purchases. As an Ancillary operation, Hospitality Services is responsible to fund all of its operating costs as well as capital projects and related financing costs. In addition, Hospitality Services contributes $200,000 annually towards the financing of several academic buildings. As part of its budget process, Hospitality Services consults with students through the Hospitality Services Advisory Committee (HSAC) and Interhall Council. The financial sub-committee of Hospitality Services Advisory Committee starts meetings in September to review the current budget and assist in the development of the budget for the upcoming year. On February 11, 2009 the 2009/10 Hospitality Services budget was presented for comment to HSAC. These comments were provided on March 4, 2009 and the committee recommended approval of the budget. The budget and operational objectives this year include the following:

• Food safety is a primary goal of Hospitality Services. A key component in achieving this goal is the annual engagement of Steritech, an external food safety company to conduct regular inspections of all food outlets on campus. Outcomes include the application of best practices to ensure the highest levels of food safety in all of our locations are maintained.

• Implement financial measures to deal with the impact of the economic downturn on Hospitality Services.

• Maintain Hospitality Services as one of the top ranked university Food Services in Canada. Hospitality Services at the University of Guelph has been named the #1 university food service provider in Canada for the sixth consecutive year by the Globe and Mail Report Card , a survey of over 43,000 university students.

• Ensure meal plan pricing is within the mid-range of major Ontario university competitors. Hospitality Services conducts pricing surveys with other universities to determine competitive position. This past year’s survey positioned Hospitality Services at the mid-range of the price comparisons. Franchise operations are all priced within the price range dictated by the franchisors.

• Include in the proposed meal plan a price increase sufficient to cover both increased operating costs and the costs of new capital improvements to upgrade residence dining halls and general student food and retail outlets on campus. In 2009/2010 a $425,000 renovation is planned for Starbucks in the University Centre.

• Increase the number of ethnic menu choices available to customers. A new made to order sushi operation is scheduled to open in the University Centre in the Fall 2009.

• Hospitality Services is committed to contributing to a sustainable environment by continuing to implement a Local Sustainability Plan (www.hospitality.uoguelph.ca) on campus. The objective is to continue to be recognized as a leader for local sustainability practices in a Canadian university hospitality operation by becoming even more environmentally responsible while remaining financially viable and satisfying the needs of customers.

• Work with the Code of Conduct Committee to achieve policy mandate. • Continue to develop innovative on-line services for students, faculty and staff. This will include an

updated Hospitality Services web site for all operations so as to conform with the University of Guelph guidelines.



2

A: BUDGET YEAR ASSUMPTIONS 2009 / 2010 (refer to Table A) A.1 Major Budget Considerations and Assumptions: The 2009/2010 budget year will be a very challenging one for Hospitality Services primarily due to the poor economic situation. Department sales continue to be challenged by increased competition, both on and off-campus, diminishing discretionary dollars and the continuing significant increase in food and labour costs in many areas. Although these factors continue to have a negative impact on the generation of revenues and contribution margins, the continued stability in the overall student population should help offset these effects. Meal Plan prices are to rise 4.0% on average to cover cost increases in variable product and labour costs plus contribute to fixed costs. It is expected that commodity prices will increase due to continued supply reductions (e.g., climate-related), competition for grain feed from bio-fuel processors and increased demands for products in emerging markets (especially Asia). The following is a partial list of products in which demand will in many cases outstrip supply driving prices to levels never before encountered:

- all grain products - oils and shortenings - produce - milk and cheese - all types of meats.

Our budget planning also recognizes the significant impact of part-time wage rate increases (provincial minimum wage legislation) of up to 8.6%. Hospitality Services will have to manage this area carefully to achieve the budget and maintain quality and service levels. In 2009/2010 renovations will focus on upgrading existing facilities in various locations on campus. This will include a $425,000 capital project to build a new Starbucks Coffee shop to address service issues at the existing Starbucks operation. This project will be paid for by Hospitality Services and therefore there will be no cost to the University’s Operating Budget. A five (5) year capital plan is attached (see Appendix 1). The department will have to continue its progressive approach to marketing, service and cost controls to meet the financial requirements of the institution while containing costs for students. A.2 Revenue Assumptions Details: Food Services: Prices in the Food Services area are expected to increase by 3% reflecting the anticipated increase necessary to cover the basic rise in variable product and labour costs. On campus meal plan sales volumes are expected to increase based on new marketing initiatives undertaken by Hospitality Services. It is expected that food sales from conference sales are expected to decrease due to the impact of the general economic downturn. Bookstore and Campus Junction: Sales volumes are expected to remain constant compared to 2008/2009 . Textbook prices are set comparable to other university bookstores and are competitive with local on and off-campus bookstores. To ensure competitive prices, the Bookstore offers a "5%" guarantee whereby it matches, within a 5% variance any confirmed lower textbook price at a competitor’s store. The bookstore differs from many local bookstores due to the large variety of textbooks it carries since it is mandated to sell all course-required texts and optional course readings. Retail Services: Revenues will increase due to new marketing strategies and to cover the cost of materials. Design & Print Services: Prices in the Design & Print Services unit are expected to increase by 1% reflecting the increase in the cost of main inputs of labour and materials.



3

A.3 Expenditure Assumptions Details: Cost of Materials: This is a blend of product costs in Food Services, Bookstore, Retail Services and Design & Print Services.

• Food Services: Product cost (a variable cost) is targeted at 35.3% of revenues an increase of approximately 0.7% compared to last year. In addition to increasing prices, Hospitality Services will contain costs by implementing various purchasing strategies including expanding co-operative purchasing initiatives (with other universities) and bulk purchases. In addition product mixes will be adjusted and a local buying plan will continue. It should be noted that all changes will have no negative impact on quality or service.

• Bookstore/Retail Services: The retail method is used to determine the budgeted product cost. Specific product costs vary depending on the type of goods sold and range from 74% in the bookstore to 50% in the variety store located in East Residence. There is no major change expected in these rates from those experienced in 2008/2009.

• Design & Print Services: Product cost is targeted at 54% of revenues consistent with the prior year. Personnel: Salaries and benefit rates are consistent with overall University of Guelph assumptions. Part-time rates will increase up to 8.6% which will increase overall labour costs by approximately 1% over last year. Institutional Charges: University charges, which cover the costs of services provided by the University such as utilities and central services, are increasing 3.5% - mainly to assist with increases in central support services. Operating Costs: Base 2009/2010 operating costs are expected to deal with high volume demands in this category including maintenance costs on aging equipment and facilities. Renovations: Minor renovations necessary to address facility upgrades and deferred maintenance are planned for this year. Starbucks will be upgraded in the University Centre at a cost of $425,000. Equipment: Equipment purchases reflect normal scheduled plans to replace equipment that has outlasted its useful life. Net Transfer: Transfers reflect Hospitality Services’ contribution to assist in funding academic building costs incurred in the early 1990’s. In addition, the transfer also includes capital financing payments to the University for major renovations in the University Centre kitchen and food court, LA Dining Hall, Pages, the Express Centre, Science Complex, Bookstore and Prairie Dining Hall capital projects (see Schedule 1). Overall, the budget for 2009/2010 reflects a Net Income of $14,000. This will be used to increase the unit's Accumulated Fund balance.



4

A.4 Residence Meal Plan Rates:

Hospitality Services continues to offer students competitively priced meal plans while offering the highest quality and widest variety of services. The increase in meal plan rates reflects increased variable and fixed costs to Hospitality Services. The cost of the minimum meal plan will be $3,080 per normal academic year (2 semesters), a $120 increase. Residence Meal Plan Rates per year (2 semesters) are as follows:

2008/09

2009/10

$ Increase

Minimum Plan $2,960 $3,080 $120 Light Plan $3,440 $3,580 $140 Full Plan $3,875 $4,030 $155 Plus Plan $4,240 $4,410 $170 Varsity Plan $4,575 $4,760 $185



5

Comparative rates from other major universities are shown in the following table and reflect Guelph’s competitive relative position.

Name of School Plan Type Mandatory Meal Plan Minimum Amount 2008/2009

Forecasted % Increase 2009/2010

Forecasted Meal Plan Minimum Amount 2009/2010

Queen’s University *Board Plan 3,730 3.5% 3,860

Brock University *Board Plan 3,650 3.1% 3,763

Carleton University *Board Plan 3,284 6.5% 3,497

University of Western Ontario

Debit Plan 3,300 5% 3,465

University of Waterloo Debit Plan 3,320 4% 3,453

University of Windsor Debit Plan 3,195 5% 3,355

University of Toronto (Mississauga)

Debit Plan 3,255 1.23% 3,295

Lakehead University Debit Plan 3,098 2% 3,160

University of Guelph Debit Plan 2,960 4% 3,080

Wilfrid Laurier University Debit Plan 2,946 4% 3,063

Ryerson University Debit Plan 2,593 4% 2,697

McMaster University Debit Plan 2,500 3% 2,575

Trent University *Board Plan 2,390 5% 2,509

York University Debit Plan 2,000 25% 2,500

*A board plan is where a student gets a fixed number of meals per week i.e. 19. A student can eat as much as they would like at each meal but cannot remove food from the dining hall. Due to the nature of this type of plan usually selection is limited. If a student misses a meal they lose it but are still charged for it. In addition normally students are restricted as to where they can use their board plan on campus with no access to off campus restaurants.



6

B: FORECAST 2008/2009: (refer to Table B) Currently, Hospitality Services is forecasting a net increase in fund balance of $21,929 compared to a net increase of $10,973 originally budgeted. Revenues: Overall, revenues remained constant in most food and retail areas due to a stable campus population. In addition the introduction of the Mongolian style grill concept in Prairie Dining Hall was very successful and contributed to increased food sales. Bookstore revenues decreased due to the increase in used textbook sales and electronic courseware availability. Retail Services decreased due to increased competition both on and off campus. Expenses: Cost of materials has decreased relative to total revenues due to product mix changes. Personnel costs have increased relative to total revenues due to Provincial increases to part-time wages. Operating costs have increased due to the additional variable costs which include supplies, small-wares, royalties, equipment and maintenance charges. Certain renovations were deferred in order to accommodate increased variable personnel and operating costs. Net transfers have increased due to the capital project (Prairie Hall) which was completed in 2008/2009. There were no other significant variances to the budget. Table B summarizes the financial forecast compared to budget for the 2008/2009 fiscal year.



7

Table A

Hospitality Services

Revenue

Food Services 21,478 68% 22,703 68% 22,877 68%Bookstore 7,082 22% 7,074 22% 7,130 22%Retail Services 2,221 7% 2,299 7% 2,392 7%University Design and Print 1,036 3% 1,003 3% 1,006 3%

Total Revenue 31,817 100% 33,079 100% 33,405 100%

Expenses

Cost of Materials 13,676 43% 14,079 43% 14,235 43%Personnel 10,843 34% 11,321 34% 11,547 34%Institutional Charges 1,769 6% 1,840 6% 1,904 6%Operating 4,288 13% 4,245 13% 3,785 11%Travel 47 0% 50 0% 52 0%Renovations 35 0% 25 0% 515 2%Capital Equipment 345 1% 560 1% 300 1%

Total Expenses 31,003 97% 32,120 97% 32,338 97%

Income (Expenses) Before Transfers 814 3% 959 3% 1,067 3%

Net Transfer (Schedule 1) (787) -3% (937) -3% (1,053) -3%

Increase (Decrease) in Fund Balance 27 0% 22 0% 14 0%

Unappropriated Fund Balance (21) 6 28

Fund Balance 6 28 42

2009/2010 Operating BudgetIn Thousands $

2007/2008Actual

2008/2009Forecast

2009/2010Budget



8

Table B

Hospitality Services

2008/2009Variance

Revenue

Food Services 22,703 68% 22,095 67% 608Bookstore 7,074 22% 7,572 23% (498)Retail Services 2,299 7% 2,329 7% (30)University Design and Print 1,003 3% 1,089 3% (86)

Total Revenue 33,079 100% 33,085 100% (6)

Expenses

Cost of Materials 14,079 43% 14,400 44% 321Personnel 11,321 34% 11,071 33% (250)Institutional Charges 1,840 6% 1,840 6% 0Operating 4,244 13% 4,137 13% (107)Travel 50 0% 60 0% 10Renovations 25 0% 75 0% 50Capital Equipment 560 1% 560 1% 0

Total Expenses 32,119 97% 32,143 98% 24

Income (Expenses) Before Transfers 960 3% 942 2% 18

Net Transfer (938) -3% (931) -2% (7)

Increase (Decrease) in Fund Balance 22 0% 11 0% 11

Unappropriated Fund Balance 6 6 0-

Fund Balance 28 17 11

2008/2009 Forecast To Budget ComparisonIn Thousands $

2008/2009Forecast

2008/2009Budget



9

Schedule 1

Hospitality Services 2008/2009 Net Transfers

in Thousands $ Actual Forecast Budget 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 Summary: Internal Loans (Principal and Interest): Level 0 (2002-2012) 79 79 79 Centre Six (2003-2013) 79 79 79 Centre Six (2004-2014) 119 119 119 Lennox Addington (2006-2013) 236 236 236 Pages (2006-2011) 50 50 50 Express Centre (2006-2011) 43 43 43 Bookstore (2006-2016) 5 62 62 Science Complex (2008-2018) 43 51 Prairie Cafeteria (2008-2018) 42 127

Total Loans 611 753 846 Interfund Transfer (services provided) (30) (30) (30) Special Contribution (for academic buildings) 257 259 262 Internal Finance Charge (51) (45) (25)

Net Transfers 787 937 1,053



10

Five Year Capital PlanYears/Dollars (000's)

Unit 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014

Bookstore

U of G Bookstore 25$ 75 $ 75$

Total Bookstore 25$ 75 $ 75$

Cash Operations - Food & Retail Services OVC/Ani Sci. Coffee Cart 125$ Centre 6 65$ 100 $ 100

Level 0 75 $ 75$ Greenhouse 60$ Drew Hall 25$ MACKS 50 $ Gryphs Lounge 375$ Daily Grind 65$ Starbucks 425$ Community Services 75$

Total Cash Operations - Food Services 640$ 125$ 375$ 225 $ 250$

Residence Food Services Creelman 35$ 50$ 50 $ 50$ L/A Pit 100 $ 75$ *Mountain 850$

Total Residence Food Services 35$ 850$ 50$ $ 150 $ 125

Total Capital Plan 675$ 975$ 450$ 450 $ 450$

Financed from Operations 675$ 125$ 450$ 450 $ 450$ Financed from Internal Loans 850$

*internally financed projects


STUDENT HOUSING SERVICES 2009/2010 BUDGET


APRIL 8, 2009



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page # Introduction 1 Facilities Improvements 1 2008/2009 Forecast Compared to Budget 2 2009/2010 Budget Assumptions 3 Closing Fund Balance – 2009/2010 Budget 3 Table A – 2008/2009 Forecast to Budget Comparison 4 Table B – 2009/2010 Operating Budget 5 Table C – 2009/2010 Net Transfers 6 Table D – Proposed Fees 7 Table E – Comparison of On/Off Campus Accommodation 8 Table F – Annual Single Student Residence Rate Comparison 9 Table G – 2009/2010 Planned Capital Projects 10



1

INTRODUCTION Student Housing Services (SHS) is responsible for the management of the University’s residence system that accommodates approximately 4,800 students in single student communities (ten buildings ranging in capacity from 50 to 1,770 students) and 294 families and 90 upper year single students in townhouses and apartments at two sites. As an ancillary operation, SHS is required to cover full costs from revenues. Costs include direct operating costs as well as debt servicing, renovations, housekeeping, utilities, security and administration. A significant portion of the unit’s expenditure budget (approx. 38%) is allocated for capital financing and major renovations reflecting the capital-intensive nature of operations. In addition, Student Housing Services adds significantly to the quality of student life on campus through student life programming. In preparing the attached 2009/2010 budget SHS goals were to:

Continue to implement capital projects consistent with our 5 year plan to address deferred maintenance and aesthetic requirements (entering year four of initial 5-year plan).

Identify net revenues to service additional debt required to finance our facilities plan ($6.663 million of the 2009/2010 capital budget will be financed).

Use part of our cumulative surplus to retire existing mortgages so as to provide greater flexibility in the budget for future planning purposes.

Working in conjunction with Student Financial Services, to help make the residential experience more accessible to students in financial need by including ten $500 residence bursaries.

CONSULTATION PROCESS Student Housing Services conducts extensive consultation with the residence student government in developing the annual budget and establishing residence fees. This includes a series of meetings with the Student Housing Budget Advisory Committee consisting of Interhall appointed student representatives. In addition to this, Student Housing Services is also available to present the complete budget to the Interhall Council which is made up of elected student representatives from each hall on campus. The students have consistently demonstrated an understanding of budgeting principles, challenges facing SHS and the need for long-term perspectives. They commit many hours to meet with SHS staff to consider the operating/capital needs and long-term residence fee strategies. Their significant contributions to the budget presented herein are sincerely appreciated. FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS Student Housing Services completed a preliminary facilities review of all buildings in 2003. This preliminary review identified an estimated $42.5 million in deferred maintenance costs (excluding refurbishments and improvements) over the next 10 years and was used as the starting point to develop a rolling Five Year facilities plan that invests significant capital into three major areas: Deferred Maintenance - major work completed prior to 2009/2010 includes exterior & roof repair to Johnston, Macdonald, Mills, Lambton & Lennox-Addington Halls, as well as complete washroom renovations in Johnston, Addington, Maids & Watson Halls. Aesthetic Improvements – these improvements are particularly important with respect to recruitment in an increasingly competitive environment, as well for attracting returning students



2

back to residence. Major work completed prior to 2009/2010 includes interior common area improvements (lobbies, washrooms, kitchens, lounges, corridors, etc) in East, Lambton, Macdonald, and South (Valley) residences as well as complete interior renovations and new furniture in all East Residence suites. Security - work will begin in 2009/2010 to put a perimeter access and security system in place, starting with Johnston, Mills, and East Residence buildings. This new program will further strengthen the security measures of the residences. Table G identifies the planned capital projects for 2009/2010.

2008/2009 - FORECAST COMPARED TO BUDGET (REFER TO TABLE A.) It is forecast that the combined operations of the single student and family housing operations will produce a net income of $0.840 million compared to the budgeted net income of $0.502 million resulting in a net positive variance to budget of $.338 million. This variance is primarily due to a larger than anticipated new student acceptance rate which resulted in the single student occupancy being over 98% compared to the 92% that had been projected in the budget. 2008/2009 was year three of the Five Year facilities plan and $9.911 million was budgeted for renovation and capital projects. The following table shows forecast versus budget.

Total spending on all renovation and capital projects is forecast to be $1.488 million below budget. Three projects caused the majority of this variance. Two mechanical projects could not be undertaken due to a delay in getting key materials (consultant’s report and transformer) in time for the short summer construction season. The third was the South interior project. As this was the first of 12 similar projects scheduled to be completed by 2014/2015, the budget was set conservatively high. Results of this project will allow for more accurate budgeting in future years. Given the higher than anticipated surplus, SHS was able to contribute an additional $.698 million from operations (see Table A). As such, $5.000 million instead of the budgeted $7.186 million will be borrowed resulting in lower debt servicing costs in the future. The Closing Fund Balance surplus as of April 30, 2009 is expected to be $4.675 million compared to a budget of $4.337 million. These funds will be applied to assist funding of major capital renewal projects consistent with the Five Year facilities plan.

2008/2009 Renovation and Capital Projects in Thousands $

2008/2009 2008/2009 Variance Budget Forecast

Total Projects Costs 9,911 8,423 1,488 Amount Financed -7,186 -5,000 -2,186

Amount Funded From Operations 2,725 3,423 -698



3

2009/2010 BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS;

Proposed Fees: It is proposed that 2009/2010 single student residence fees increase by 5.5% for single rooms, 4.3% for double rooms, and 5% for the East Village Townhouses. These increases will continue to position the University in the mid-range of fees when compared to the residence fees of ten other Ontario universities (refer to Table F). Approximately 1% of this overall increase (or $.225 million) will be contributed to Student Affairs to support academic support program initiatives directed primarily to first year students. Details of residence fees per semester are shown on Table D. These increases are expected to accommodate cost increases in SHS (which exceed standard CPI) and the funding requirement for facility renewal as we continue to implement our Five Year facilities plan. Family Housing rent increases are governed by the Residential Tenancies Act and will increase this year by the allowable 1.8%. This facility is much more sensitive to market pressures (vacancy rates and rental prices in the surrounding community) than are the single student operations. Due to increasing vacancies, a total of 45 2-bedroom units have been converted over the past two years to upper year single student housing (rates shown in Table D). This has brought vacancies down to a reasonable level. Table E contains comparisons of estimated off-campus rental costs and the vacancy rates in the city. Other Assumptions: In constructing the 2009/2010 SHS budget the following major assumptions were made: 1. Average occupancy rates (during the fall/winter semesters) of 92% in single student

residences and 93% annually in family housing. 2. Personnel increases are consistent with university budget assumption guidelines. 3. Provision for renovations of $9.597 million to address facility repairs, refurbishment, &

security as approved by the Board as part of the Five Year facilities renewal plan. 4. Costs for centrally provided services have risen 3.5%. CLOSING FUND BALANCE – 2009/2010 BUDGET After investing $0.500 million from the Opening Fund balance to pay down existing mortgages, the budget presented here will produce a Closing Fund Balance of $4.640 million at April 30, 2010.



4

Table A


Student Housing Services

Variance

Revenue

Student Contracts 23,261 82% 22,482 83% 779

Family Housing 3,468 12% 3,442 13% 26

Other sources 1,509 5% 1,324 5% 185

Total Revenue 28,238 100% 27,248 100% 990

Expenses

Personnel 4,678 17% 4,790 18% 112

Institutional Charges 4,369 15% 4,370 16% 1

Custodial Charges 2,522 9% 2,525 9% 3

Operating 5,185 18% 5,122 19% -63

Travel 37 0% 39 0% 2

Renovations 3,423 12% 2,725 10% -698

Debt Servicing - external 5,576 20% 4,895 18% -681

Net Transfer 1,608 6% 2,280 8% 672

Total Expenses 27,398 97% 26,746 98% -652

Increase (Decrease) in Fund Balance 840 3% 502 2% 338

Fund Balance - Opening 3,835 3,835 0

Fund Balance - Closing* 4,675 4,337 338

* Fund Balances include only Unappropriated Balances.

2008/2009 Forecast To Budget Comparison

In Thousands $

2008/2009

Forecast

2008/2009

Budget



5

Table B

University of Guelph Student Housing Services

Revenue

Student Contracts 23,040 83% 23,261 82% 23,570 83% Family Housing 3,388 12% 3,468 12% 3,479 12% Other Sources 1,429 5% 1,509 5% 1,283 5%

Total Revenue 27,857 100% 28,238 100% 28,332 100%

Expenses

Personnel 4,588 16% 4,678 17% 4,850 17% Institutional Charges 4,202 15% 4,369 15% 4,522 16% Custodial Charges 2,379 9% 2,522 9% 2,598 9% Operating 4,461 16% 5,185 18% 5,003 18% Travel 14 0% 37 0% 39 0% Renovations 2,654 10% 3,423 12% 2,934 10% Debt Servicing - external 5,170 19% 5,576 20% 6,130 22% Net Transfer 1,557 6% 1,608 6% 1,791 6%

Total Expenses 25,025 90% 27,398 97% 27,867 98%

Increase (Decrease) in Fund Balance 2,832 10% 840 3% 465 2%

Fund Balance - Opening 6,103 3,835 4,675 Less Investment in Debt Instruments* -5,100 -500

Fund Balance - Closing** 3,835 4,675 4,640

* The 2009/2010 investment of $0.500 million will be used to pay down existing mortgages. The $5.1 million invested in 2007/2008 increased the value of the sinking fund established to retire two Ontario Housing Corporation interest only loans in 2010 and 2011. ** Fund Balances include only Unappropriated Balances.

2009/2010 Operating Budget In Thousands $

2007/2008 Actual

2008/2009 Forecast

2009/2010 Budget



6

Table C

Actual Forecast Budget

2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010

Summary:

Facility End Date

Lennox-Addington Mortgage 2021 195 195 195

East Residence Mortgage 2023 257 257 257

East Internal Loan 2019 30 30 30

Mills Renovations 2015 146 146 146

Village Townhouses 2025 585 609 609

Houses Mortgages 2008 95 33

Wellington Woods Mortgage 2021 144 144 144

Family Housing Projects Loan 2010 202 202 186

Lambton Renovations 2008 114 0

Total Internal Financing Loans 1,768 1,616 1,566

Other Transfers:

Interest Earned on Interfund Balances -142

Mortgage Grant - Houses -71 -23

Contribution to Student Affairs Programming Costs 15 225

Durie Scholarship Fund 10

Residence Life Funding -8

Net Transfers 1,557 1,608 1,791

Internal Loans (Principal and Interest):



2009/2010 Net Transfers

in Thousands $



7

Table D

Actual Proposed Fee Dollar Percentage

2008/2009 2009/2010 Change Change Notes

SINGLE STUDENT (per semester)

North/South Double 2,316 2,416 100 4.3%

Single 2,665 2,812 147 5.5%

East Double 2,512 2,620 108 4.3%

Single 2,745 2,896 151 5.5%

East Village Single 3,049 3,201 152 5.0%

West Residence

78 College Avenue Single 2,549 2,697 148 5.8% #1

Wellington Woods Single 2,549 2,625 76 3.0%

Grad House Single 2,549 2,625 76 3.0%

FAMILY (per month)

(a) Wellington Woods continuing tenants 871 887 16 1.8% #2

new rentals 975 993 18 1.8%

(b) 78 College Avenue

1 Bedroom Apartment - 660 SQ. ft 795 809 14 1.8%



2 Bedroom Apartment 925 942 17 1.8%

Townhouse 975 993 18 1.8%

#1 As of Fall 2009 an internet access fee of $71.86 per semester will be included in the 78 College Avenue West

Residence room fee.

#2 As of May 1, 2001, in conjunction with kitchen upgrades all new tenants paid the townhouse rate for 78 College

Avenue. As of January 2009 only 7 of the units still have continuing tenants paying the lower rate.



Proposed Fees

Rounded to Nearest Dollar



8

Table E

Off-Campus Notes On-Campus Notes

SINGLE STUDENT

There is a great variation in off-campus accommodation.

There is also a great variation in cost. The costs reported

under Off Campus are "typical" or average costs per room per month.

Single Room in private home 400-500 #1 N/S single 703

Shared Apartment 350-450 #1 #2 East Single 724

Shared House/Suite 350-450 #2 Townhouse 800

FAMILY

1 Bedroom Apartment 600-850 809 - 858

2 Bedroom Apartment/Townhouse 700-1100 942 - 993

October 2004 3.30%

October 2005 3.60%

October 2006 2.80%

October 2007 1.90%

October 2008 1.80%

#1 Most students must sign a 12 month lease for off-campus accommodation - ability to

sublet during the summer months varies

#2 Most rents for shared apartments & houses do not include utilities

OFF CAMPUS VACANCY RATE (for Guelph as per CMHC)



Comparison of On/Off Campus Accommodation Rates

Rounded to Nearest Dollar



9

Table F

% Increase


DOUBLE ROOM

2008-2009 2009-2010


Annual Single Student Residence Rate Comparisons

Rounded to Nearest Whole Dollar

Ran

king

Ran

king

1 UC - U of Toronto 5,720 1 UC - U of Toronto tbd tbd

2 Queen's 5,683 2 Queen's 5,882 3.5%

3 Western 4,817 3 Western 5,058 5.0%

4 Wilfrid Laurier 4,651 4 Wilfrid Laurier 4,837 4.0%

5 GUELPH 4,632 5 GUELPH 4,832 4.3%

6 Windsor 4,593 6 Windsor 4,818 4.9%

7 McMaster 4,567 7 McMaster 4,704 3.0%

8 Waterloo 4,348 8 Waterloo 4,478 3.0%

9 York 4,101 9 Carleton 4,269 5.7%

10 Carleton 4,040 10 York 4,183 2.0%

% Increase

SINGLE ROOM

2008-2009 2009-2010

Ran

king

Ran

king

1 Queen's 5,790 1 Queen's 5,993 3.5%

2 UC - U of Toronto 5,720 2 UC - U of Toronto tbd tbd

3 Windsor 5,664 3 Windsor 5,942 4.9%

4 Western 5,378 4 Western 5,647 5.0%

5 GUELPH 5,330 5 GUELPH 5,624 5.5%


7 McMaster 5,034 7 McMaster 5,286 5.0%

8 Waterloo 4,847 8 Carleton 5,124 6.1%

9 Carleton 4,831 9 Waterloo 4,992 3.0%

10 York 4,702 10 York 4,796 2.0%

% Increase2008-2009 2009-2010

SUITE/APARTMENT/TOWNHOUSE - 4 bedroom

Ran

king

Ran

king

1 Western 6,555 1 Western 6,883 5.0%

2 UT - Scarborough 6,264 2 UT - Scarborough 6,640 6.0%

3 Windsor 6,140 3 McMaster 6,473 6.2%

4 GUELPH 6,098 4 Windsor 6,441 4.9%

5 McMaster 6,095 5 GUELPH 6,402 5.0%

6 Queen's 5,905 6 Carleton 6,152 7.0%

7 Waterloo 5,786 7 Queen's 6,112 3.5%

8 Carleton 5,727 8 Waterloo 5,960 3.0%

9 York 5,690 9 York 5,804 2.0%




10

Table G



2009/2010 Planned Capital Projects

in Thousands $

Building Project

Budgeted

Project Cost

South Residence Interior improvement & new furniture 1,600

Transformer replacement 760

Lennox-Addington Addington exterior (cladding, doors, w indow s) 2,500

Bathroom improvements 1,400

Addington elevator upgrade 325

Domestic hot w ater heaters (DHW) 110

Maids Hall Interior improvements 265

Watson Hall Interior improvements 285

Mills Hall Distribution panel & detector replacement 116

Roof repairs & insulation 100

East Residence Interior improvements 150

Balcony concrete repairs (Dundas & Lanark) 75

East Village Accessibility Retrofit 10

Other Perimeter access security 1,000

Contingency 300

2010/2011 design fees 300

Family Housing paving 110

Maritime Office re-organization 100

Miscellaneous painting & caulking 75

Facility improvements - misc buildings 16

Total Capital Projects 9,597

Amount to be Financed 6,663

Total in 09/10 Budget 2,934



PARKING SERVICES AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

2009/2010 BUDGET


APRIL 8, 2009



2009/2010 BUDGET

Table of Contents

Page

Background ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Forecast 2008/2009........................................................................................................................... 2 Closing Accumulated Fund Balance 2008/2009 ................................................................................ 2 Budget Assumptions 2009/2010 .........................................................................................2 Closing Accumulated Fund Balance 2009/2010 ................................................................................ 3 Table A - 2008/2009 Forecast to Budget Comparison ...................................................................... 5 Table B - 2009/2010 Operating Budget ............................................................................................. 6 Table C – Five Year Capital Projects Chart ......................................................................................... 7 Table D – 2008/2009 Parking Rate Comparisons by University ........................................................ 8 Table E - 2008/2009 Parking Rate Comparison of Major Publicly Funded Employers Within the City of Guelph .................................................................................................................. 9 Appendix A – Financial Position ...................................................................................................... 10


PARKING SERVICES AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 2009/2010 BUDGET

1

Background: Parking Services and Transportation Planning has had the responsibility for developing, maintaining

and operating all parking lots on campus since the implementation of paid parking in 1973. Parking Services and Transportation Planning is an ancillary department and as such is responsible for the payment of all its own expenses.

Currently, there are fifty-two (52) lots containing five thousand and seventy-one (5,071) parking

spaces. Spaces are allocated as follows: 3,032 for commuting (79 of which are reserved for short term special needs clients), an additional 41 spaces are reserved for permanent special needs clients, 1,087 for residence, 242 for premium reserved, 189 for service vehicles, 107 for attendant paid parking, 288 for metered parking and 85 for motorcycle parking

Revenues are required to maintain the appropriate level of investments in capital improvements

which include: parking lot and equipment maintenance, road repairs and road reconstruction, installation of new sidewalks connecting to parking lots, repairs to existing sidewalks, bicycle racks, signage, and personal safety and security programs (lighting, surveillance systems and emergency phones). Future modifications are planned to increase the efficiency of existing parking lots to meet the growing needs of visitors, clients requiring barrier-free facilities, University employees and students and to adapt to the elimination of parking due to new construction. In addition, Parking Services and Transportation Planning contributes to the funding of certain completed past academic capital projects and to the University’s Operating Fund Budget to assist in meeting budget targets.

As indicated in Table D on page 8, our annual commuting permit rates are among the lowest of

comparable universities. Table E on page 9 provides a comparison of current university parking rates with those charged by four other major public sector employers in the city. The University of Guelph has the second lowest rate (annual permit) of these employers and remains competitively priced within the city.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Effective September 2006, transportation planning for the University became an added

responsibility of Parking Services. This change signals the University’s commitment to researching, developing and implementing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies including reducing the reliance of university employees, students and visitors on single occupant motor vehicle trips to/from campus. Implementation of TDM strategies will require that we review our operational practices including permit pricing, services and incentives to support the use of alternative modes of transportation. Implementation of TDM objectives have begun with several initiatives in 2008/2009. These include:

Completion of our “transit hub” in the Entrance Mall has improved both intercity and within

city limits bus service with added routes and frequency of service. These improvements have contributed to greater transit usage and reduced our reliance on single occupant motor vehicle usage. 18,000 people now use public transit daily either to or from this location. Additional inter-city bus service from Coach Canada, to the Hamilton/Niagara region was introduced in the summer of 2008 which includes a connection to the Hamilton



2009/2010 BUDGET

2

airport. In addition, GO Transit has introduced express bus service to Toronto International airport. The new activities generated around this “hub” have resulted in increased revenues to Student Affairs from the sale of certain intercity transit tickets. External funding for the project (City of Guelph, GO Transit and Central Students Association-CSA) has eliminated the need for borrowing related to this project.

With the cooperation of the City of Guelph our staff enjoys a reduced rate transit pass on our municipal transit service which further reduces our dependency on motor vehicles. We will closely monitor results of this pilot project as part of our TDM strategies.

In the 2009/2010 Budget, Parking Services and Transportation Planning will continue developing

recommendations consistent with the TDM objectives. Critical to the realization of these objectives will be investments funded from a pricing strategy that moves the University rates closer to both comparable rates charged in other jurisdictions/universities and the University of Guelph bus pass rate (annual rate of $693.60). The target is to move towards 85% of the annual cost of the University of Guelph bus pass within four years. Investments will include continuation of improved parking, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure on campus and investments in campus safety.

Forecast 2008/2009

Revenues (Refer to Table A): For 2008/2009, revenues from parking operations are forecast to be $50,000 below budget. This

decrease is attributed to a combination of reductions in permit sales and violation revenue relative to budget assumptions. In addition, there was $150,000 received from the Central Students Association as a contribution to an additional bus shelter.

Expenses (Refer to Table A):

Expenses overall are expected to be $302,000 greater than budget. Of this variance, $193,000 is related to the additional bus shelter. The bus shelter costs were offset by the capital contribution from the CSA noted in the Revenue section above. In addition there are $50,000 of personnel costs including a voluntary staff buyout package and $65,000 in additional computer software for a new e-commerce system which will improve the efficiency of revenue collection and recording.

Closing Accumulated Fund Balance – 2008/2009

This balance reports the accumulation of all net parking revenues. It provides a reserve for unexpected capital requirements or financing. At the end of 2007/2008 the balance in this account was $297,000. The forecast to the end of fiscal 2008/2009 reports a closing balance of $391,000.

Budget Assumptions 2009/2010

Revenues: It is proposed that all commuting permit rates increase 15% and Premium and Service Vehicle

permits increase by 3% for the 2009/2010 budget year. This equates to an increase of $50.16 on our annual permits. Residence student rates will continue to be based on seventy-five percent of the commuting permit rate. The University of Guelph will continue to offer one of the lowest commuting parking rates among its peers (see page 8 for comparisons). Parking Services and Transportation Planning will also introduce reduced rate perimeter parking (25% reduction) on Dundas Lane, along with



2009/2010 BUDGET

3

formal car pooling lots (30% reduction to premium rates) within P31 (South Ring Road) and P26 (McGilvray Street). In addition multiple day permits are being made available to allow individuals to use different transportation modes according to their needs. These permits are packaged in numbers of 10 and cost $50.00.

The table below reports the effects of the proposed rate change. As most commuting and residence

students are on campus for only two of the three semesters, their annual increase would be limited to two thirds of the annual increase reported in the table below.

Permits*

Current 2008/2009

Proposed 2009/2010

Annual Change

Current Monthly Cost

Proposed Monthly Cost

Commuting $334.44 $384.60 $50.16 $27.87 $32.05 Premium $672.24 $692.40 $20.16 $56.02 $57.70 Residence and Auxiliary $250.68 $288.36 $37.68 $20.89 $24.03 Service Vehicle $567.13 $584.14 $17.01 $47.26 $48.68 Commercial Service Vehicle

$901.90 $928.92 $27.02 $75.16 $77.41

*Permit rates do not include applicable taxes. No changes to violation rates are anticipated.

Expenses:

Under Capital Projects (Refer to Table C), $125,000 is designated for the reconstruction and expansion of P1 (Axelrod) including new accessible and service parking. Axelrod Building improvements to accessible and service areas will be included in this project. An additional $100,000 has been allocated for road maintenance. Included in this amount is $30,000 for a covered bicycle shelter located near the University Centre. $500,000 is budgeted for the reconstruction of Trent Lane to be completed in conjunction with underground utilities deferred maintenance work that is scheduled at the same time requiring the disruption of the roadway.

The 2009/2010 budget (Refer to Appendix A) assumes no increase to the special capital account

contribution, currently set at $442,000. The annual institutional charge will increase by 4% to $224,000. To assist with meeting overall budget targets the annual contribution to the Operating Fund Budget will remain at $400,000. In 2009/2010, additional funds of $100,000 have been allocated for non-capital TDM initiatives. These funds will used for enhancing building and campus safety. All other expense categories have been adjusted to reflect overall University assumptions.

An assessment of the condition of all parking lots and roadways on the Guelph campus has been

completed. This information has been analyzed as part of the development of our TDM strategy and will be used to refine our short and long term capital project plan and determine the level of parking revenues required to maintain our transportation infrastructure. For health and safety reasons our internal sidewalk system continues to be monitored for necessary repairs and new additions that will connect parking lots to the existing sidewalk system.



2009/2010 BUDGET

4

Closing Accumulated Fund Balance – 2009/2010:

Included on the “Net Transfer” line are two separate internally financed charges for $133,000 each. These allocations represent annual payments for the P30 (Smith Lane) and P31 (South Ring Road) projects. The 2007/2008 Closing Accumulated Fund shows a positive balance of $297,000. Of the total capital expenditures planned for 2008/2009 of $2.225 million, $2.0 million will be financed over a 7 year period. The charges for these amounts are included on the “Net Transfers” line. Refer to Appendix A. The forecasted 2008/2009 Closing Accumulated Fund Balance shows a positive balance of $291,000.

The 2009/10 capital project expenditures of $725,000 will be funded from a combination of

accumulated fund balances, net revenues and internal loan. This budget will allow the University to continue implementing transportation related recommendations contained in the Campus Master Plan.


PAR

KIN

G S

ERVI

CES

AN

D T

RAN

SPO

RTA

TIO

N P

LAN

NIN

G

2009

/201

0 BU

DG

ET

5

Tabl

e A

2008

/200

9Va

rianc

e

Rev

enue

2,45

02,

500

(50)

Cap

ital C

ontri

butio

n15

0*

150

Tota

l Rev

enue

2,60

010

0%2,

500

100%

100

Expe

nses

Pers

onne

l47

018

%42

017

%(5

0)In

stitu

tiona

l Cha

rges

215

8%21

5

9%0

Ope

ratin

g25

510

%26

210

%7

Trav

el11

0%10

0%(1

)R

enov

atio

ns41

816

%22

59%

(193

)Eq

uipm

ent

653%

00%

(65)

Net

Tra

nsfe

r*1,

072

41%

1,07

243

%0

Tota

l Exp

ense

s2,

506

96%

2,20

488

%(3

02)

Incr

ease

(Dec

reas

e) in

Fun

d Ba

lanc

e94

4%29

612

%(2

02)

Una

ppro

pria

ted

Fund

Bal

ance

- O

peni

ng29

7

224

(73)

Una

ppro

pria

ted

Fund

Bal

ance

- C

losi

ng39

1

520

12

9

* Cas

h co

ntrib

utio

n fro

m C

SA (1

50) f

or b

us s

helte

r

2008

/200

9 Fo

reca

st to

Bud

get C

ompa

rison

In T

hous

ands

$

2008

/200

9Fo

reca

st20

08/2

009

Budg

et


PA

RKIN

G S

ERVI

CES

AND

TRA

NSP

ORT

ATIO

N P

LAN

NIN

G

2009

/201

0 BU

DG

ET

6

Tabl

e B

Rev

enue

Rev

enue

2,33

42,

450

2,65

0C

apita

l Con

tribu

tions

150

*To

tal R

even

ue2,

334

100%

2,60

010

0%2,

650

100%

Expe

nses

Pers

onne

l35

815

%47

018

%48

018

%In

stitu

tiona

l Cha

rges

207

9%21

58%

224

8%O

pera

ting

387

17%

255

10%

299

11%

Trav

el7

0%11

0%11

0%R

enov

atio

ns66

528

%41

816

%22

58%

Equi

pmen

t57

2%65

3%0

0%N

et T

rans

fer

842

36%

1,07

241

%1,

308

49%

Tota

l Exp

ense

s2,

523

108%

2,50

696

%2,

547

96%

Incr

ease

(Dec

reas

e) in

Fun

d Ba

lanc

e(1

89)

-8%

944%

103

4%

Una

ppro

pria

ted

Fund

Bal

ance

- O

peni

ng48

6

297

39

1

Una

ppro

pria

ted

Fund

Bal

ance

- C

losi

ng29

7

391

49

4

* Cas

h co

ntrib

utio

n fro

m C

SA (1

50) f

or b

us s

helte

r

2009

/201

0 O

pera

ting

Budg

etIn

Tho

usan

ds $

2007

/200

8Ac

tual

2008

/200

9Fo

reca

st20

09/2

010

Budg

et


PA

RKIN

G S

ERVI

CES

AND

TRA

NSP

ORT

ATIO

N P

LAN

NIN

G

2009

/201

0 BU

DG

ET

7

Tabl

e C

2008

/200

920

09/2

010

2010

/201

120

11/2

012

2012

/201

3Bu

dget

Budg

etBu

dget

Budg

etBu

dget

Park

ing

Lot R

econ

stru

ctio

nPa

rkin

g Lo

t #30

1,00

0*

Park

ing

Lot #

311,

000

*Pa

rkin

g Lo

t #1

(Axe

lrod

Gre

enho

use)

125

Park

ing

Lots

#23

and

#24

400

Park

ing

Lots

#20

and

#21

400

Pa

rkin

g Lo

t #26

400

Roa

d M

aint

enan

ceAn

nual

Mai

nten

ance

225

100

230

235

240

Tren

t Lan

e R

edev

elop

men

t50

0**

2,22

572

563

063

564

0

Inte

rnal

ly F

inan

ced

Proj

ects

(2,0

00)

(500

)

TOTA

LS22

522

563

063

564

0

* Pr

ojec

ts w

ill be

inte

rnal

ly fi

nanc

ed o

ver 7

yea

rs**

Pro

ject

will

be in

tern

ally

fina

nced

ove

r 5 y

ears

Cap

ital P

roje

ct P

lan

In T

hous

ands

$


PA

RKIN

G S

ERVI

CES

AND

TRA

NSP

ORT

ATIO

N P

LAN

NIN

G

2009

/201

0 BU

DG

ET

8

Tabl

e D

Laur

ier

Gue

lph

Wat

erlo

oTr

ent

Otta

wa

Que

en's

Wes

tern

McM

aste

r**

York

Facu

lty/S

taff

Non

/rese

rved

245.

1037

7.92

379.

6850

6.50

1,02

1.08

840.

7256

2.20

Cen

tral 9

72.0

01,

044.

80R

eser

ved

662.

841,

137.

551,

515.

121,

128.

601,

492.

28

Com

mut

ing

Stud

ents

Non

/rese

rved

377.

9234

2.00

840.

7232

0.20

Cen

tral 9

72.0

01,

044.

80R

eser

ved

1,13

7.55

638.

001,

492.

28

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

sN

on/re

serv

ed21

2.20

250.

6834

2.00

357.

001,

021.

0858

3.08

343.

20Fr

inge

516

.00

1,04

4.80

Res

erve

d1,

145.

7669

5.40

1,49

2.20

Com

mer

cial

Veh

icle

s1,

019.

15N

AN

AN

A1,

224.

001,

425.

16

Com

mut

ing

Ran

kR

eser

ved

Ran

kR

esid

ence

Ran

k

Laur

ier

245.

109

662.

845

212.

209

Gue

lph

377.

928

1,13

7.55

325

0.68

8W

ater

loo

379.

687

NA

342.

007

Tren

t50

6.50

6N

A35

7.00

5O

ttaw

a1,

021.

082

1,51

5.12

21,

021.

082

Que

ens

840.

724

NA

583.

083

Wes

tern

562.

205

1,12

8.60

434

3.20

6M

cMas

ter *

*97

2.00

3N

A51

6.00

4Yo

rk1,

044.

801

1,49

2.28

11,

044.

801

Not

es:

A ra

nkin

g of

1 in

dica

tes

the

high

est p

erm

it ra

te.

All R

ates

incl

ude

appl

icab

le ta

xes.

Th

e U

nive

rsity

of G

uelp

h ra

te fo

r Com

mer

cial

Veh

icle

s re

ports

the

base

com

mut

ing

perm

it ra

te o

nly.

Al

l oth

er u

nive

rsiti

es h

ave

indi

cate

d th

eir c

urre

nt ra

tes

are

unde

r rev

iew

and

incr

ease

s ar

e ex

pect

ed.

** A

$14

/mon

th le

vy is

add

ed to

all

perm

it pr

ices

for n

ew p

arki

ng fa

cilit

ies

cons

truct

ion.

2008

/200

9 Pa

rkin

g R

ate

Com

paris

ons

by U

nive

rsity

2008

/200

9 Pe

rmit

Park

ing

Rat

es


PA

RKIN

G S

ERVI

CES

AND

TRA

NSP

ORT

ATIO

N P

LAN

NIN

G

2009

/201

0 BU

DG

ET

9

Tabl

e E

Perm

its*

Met

ers

City

of G

uelp

h**

840.

001.

50/h

r

Gen

eral

Hos

pita

l45

0.00

1.50

/hr

Uni

vers

ity o

f Gue

lph

377.

922.

00/h

r

OM

AFR

A

266.

762.

00/h

r

Con

esto

ga C

olle

ge

390.

002.

25

* Per

mit

rate

s in

clud

e ap

plic

able

taxe

s.**

No

char

ge 2

hr p

arki

ng p

ilot p

roje

ct in

trodu

ced

in 2

007

City

of G

uelp

hU

nive

rsity

of G

uelp

h

Met

ers

$15.

00$2

5.00

dis

coun

ted

to $

20.0

0 if

paid

with

in s

even

day

s

Fire

Rou

te$6

0.00

$100

.00

No

Park

ing

Zone

$20.

00$2

5.00

dis

coun

ted

to $

20.0

0 if

paid

with

ing

seve

n da

ys

Dis

able

d$3

00.0

0$3

00 (P

rovi

ncia

lly L

egis

late

d)

Viol

atio

n R

ate

Com

paris

ons

2008

/200

9 Pa

rkin

g R

ate

Com

paris

ons

of M

ajor

Pub

licly

Fund

ed E

mpl

oyer

s W

ithin

the

City

of G

uelp

h


PA

RKIN

G S

ERVI

CES

AND

TRA

NSP

ORT

ATIO

N P

LAN

NIN

G

2009

/201

0 BU

DG

ET

10

Appe

ndix

A

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

ACTU

ALFO

REC

AST

BUD

GET

PRO

JEC

TED

PRO

JEC

TED

PRO

JEC

TED

REV

ENU

ES$2

,334

$2,6

00*

$2,6

50$2

,885

$3,2

25$3

,485

DIR

ECT

EXPE

NSE

SPe

rson

nel

$358

$470

$480

$499

$519

$540

Ope

ratin

g Ex

pens

e$4

51$3

31$3

10$3

22$3

35$3

49In

stitu

tiona

l Cha

rge

$207

$215

$224

$233

$242

$252

Ren

ovat

ions

$665

$418

$225

$630

$6

35

$640

$1,6

81$1

,434

$1,2

39$1

,685

$1,7

32$1

,781

NET

TR

ANSF

ERS

Inte

rnal

Fin

anci

ng -

P30

$115

$133

$133

$1

33

$133

Inte

rnal

Fin

anci

ng -

P31

$115

$133

$133

$1

33

$133

Inte

rnal

Fin

anci

ng -

Tren

t Lan

e$1

00$1

10$1

10$1

10Sp

ecia

l Acc

ount

Con

tribu

tion

$442

$442

$442

$442

$442

$442

Tran

spor

tatio

n D

eman

d M

anag

emen

t$1

00$1

50

$200

$2

50

Budg

et A

ssis

tanc

e$4

00$4

00$4

00$4

00

$400

$4

00

$8

42$1

,072

$1,3

08$1

,368

$1,4

18$1

,468

TOTA

L EX

PEN

SES

$2,5

23$2

,506

$2,5

47$3

,053

$3,1

50$3

,249

Annu

al S

urpl

us (D

efic

it)($

189)

$94

$103

($16

8)$7

5$2

36

Ope

ning

Acc

umul

ativ

e B

alan

ce$4

86$2

97$3

91$4

94$3

26$4

02

Clo

sing

Acc

umul

ativ

e B

alan

ce$2

97$3

91$4

94$3

26$4

02$6

38

Not

esR

even

ues

incr

ease

d 15

% a

nnua

lly fo

r eac

h of

the

first

3 fi

scal

yea

rs (2

009/

10, 2

010/

11, 2

011/

12) a

nd 1

0% th

erea

fter.

For e

ach

proj

ecte

d ye

ar P

rem

ium

/Ser

vice

incr

ease

d 3%

.

Dire

ct e

xpen

ses

incr

ease

d 4%

for e

ach

proj

ecte

d bu

dget

yea

r.* I

nclu

des

cash

con

tribu

tions

of (

$150

) for

a b

us s

helte

r.Ope

ratin

g Fo

reca

st a

nd B

udge

tsYe

ars

2007

/200

8 to

200

12/1

3



MEETING: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 g) General Endowment Fund - Review of Policy At its meeting on February 6, 2009, the Finance Committee received a presentation on the impact of recent financial conditions for pay-outs from the General Endowment Fund under current policies. Mr. Miles will provide the Board with an overview of this presentation and, together with Ms Shoveller, speak to the current activities underway to manage endowment fund pay-outs for the near future. At the same time, the Finance Committee reviewed the current General Endowment Fund (GEF) Management Policy. The GEF Management Policy was originally approved by the Board of Governors on September 23, 1999. As a result of the review, the Finance Committee is recommending revision to the policy. The key changes – apart from minor housekeeping and editorial adjustments – are highlighted on the enclosed copy of the GEF Management Policy. The Board of Governors is asked to RESOLVE, That the amended University of Guelph General Endowment Fund Management Policy, as presented, be approved. N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 7 GEF Management cover memo.doc

General Endowment Fund - Review of Policy [Motion] Page 247 of 293

Page 248 of 293

Financial Services Page 1 of 3

N.B.: This website changes frequently. Please refer to http://www.fin.uoguelph.ca/uploadFiles/FI150.pdf for the most recent version of this document.

General Endowment Fund Management Policy Approved: Board of Governors Effective Date: September 23, 1999Dated: January 22, 2003 Signature/Position: Asst. Vice-President, Finance

Table of Contents

SUBJECT 1 PURPOSE 1 SCOPE 1 POLICY 1 1. Description of the General Endowment Fund 1 2. General Endowment Fund Objectives 2 3. The Preservation of the Donor’s Capital Contributions 2 4. Allocation of Investment Returns 2 5. Spending or “Pay-out” Policy 2 6. GEF Investment Oversight 3

SUBJECT General Endowment Fund Management Policy

PURPOSE The purpose of this Policy is to describe the general objectives, spending or "pay-out" policies and responsibilities for investment oversight regarding the University's General Endowment (GEF).

SCOPE This policy does not apply to the University of Guelph's Heritage Endowment. Policies for the Heritage Fund Endowment are contained in the Heritage Fund trust document and accompanying policies of the Board of Trustees of the Heritage Fund as approved by the Board of Governors.

POLICY

1. Description of the General Endowment Fund

The General Endowment Fund (GEF) consists of funds from external, non-operating fund sources, restricted to provide financial support for a specific purpose in perpetuity. A large majority of GEF funds are designated for student aid in the form of scholarships and bursaries. Other designations include research support, endowed faculty chairs, equipment or library acquisitions and special academic activities such as support for visiting lecturers, student semester abroad programs and on-going support toward the operating costs of academic facilities. Endowments are funds with provisions that prohibit encroachment on the donors' capital contribution. Only monies generated from the donors' capital contribution may be used to support the designated activity. Under special circumstances, however, and only at the direction of the donor, may any portion of the donor's capital contribution be spent. General endowment funds are invested as a single pool in order to optimize net return and the diversification of risk. However, for donor reporting purposes, each endowment donation is accounted for individually.




Since 1996/97, capital additions to the GEF have included funds transferred to the University by the Government of Ontario under the Ontario Student Opportunities Trust Fund program (referred to at the University as the ACCESS program). Spending derived from these funds is restricted to needs-based student aid in accordance with provincially mandated terms for student eligibility. Special provincial reporting rules require the University to account for these funds separately.

2. General Endowment Fund Objectives

The major objectives of the General Endowment Fund are to protect the donors' capital contribution and to provide a perpetual annual flow of return from investments, which revenue shall be spent in accordance with directions of donors. A further objective is to avoid a reduction over time in spending in real terms due to the effects of inflation.

3. The Preservation of the Donor’s Capital Contributions

In order to avoid a reduction over time in spending in real terms due to the effects of inflation, a portion of the total net investment return will be added to the endowment fund. An endowment investment objective will be to earn, over time, a rate of return at least equal to the total of inflation plus spending and the costs of investing and administering the funds. Coupled with this investment objective is a spending or "pay-out" policy that limits disbursements to an estimated long-term real rate of investment return (total investment return less inflation). Any difference between the actual investment return (net of expenses) and the allocation for spending will be accumulated in the endowment fund. Refer to section 5 on Spending Policy.

4. Allocation of Investment Returns

Each endowment account tracks original contributions, disbursements and a proportional share of GEF total net investment return. Each year, on April 30th, the actual annual investment return of the GEF (net of investment manager fees, custodial fees and an administrative fee of no more than 1%) is allocated to each endowment account in proportion to the endowment account fund balance. In the case of funds endowed during a fiscal year, the total annual investment return will be allocated based on the number of months in the fiscal year the funds were endowed, e.g. funds endowed in January would receive 4/12 of the annual return for that fiscal year. The annual investment return will include both realized and unrealized gains and losses.

5. Spending or “Pay-out” Policy

In order to ensure a stable and predictable level of spending from year to year, fluctuations in annual market returns will be "smoothed" by using a moving four-year average of GEF market values. More specifically, each endowment account will be allocated an amount available for spending up to 5% of the average of endowment account fund balances, measure at April 30, over the most recent four-year period. Prior to the start of each fiscal year the spending rate will be set and reported to the Finance Committee. This should be done no later than March 1 prior to the start of the new fiscal year. In case of new endowments, the most recent complete one, two or three fiscal year period will be used. It is possible, in the case of new endowment accounts for the annual investment return to be less than the spending allocation in the short term. In these cases spending on these accounts may be temporarily reduced in order that spending does not encroach on the donor's capital contribution.




6. GEF Investment Oversight

The Board of Governors assigned investment oversight of GEF to the Investment Management Committee of the Board of Trustees. Major responsibilities of the Investment Management Committee include: o Review and recommend changes to the investment policies including asset allocation and allowable

investment classes of the GEF as appropriate. o Appoint, review and replace as necessary investment manager/s. o Monitor and report investment performance.

Refer to the documents: Investment Management Committee's Terms of Reference and the "University of Guelph: Statement of Investment Policy and Goals: University Endowment Fund" for further details.

N:\BOG\BOG Standing Commitees\Finance Committee\Meeting Packages\2008-09\February 6, 2009\Background Documents\Finance Feb 6 2009 Item 5b - GEF Management Policy Proposed Amendments.doc


Page 252 of 293


MEETING: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 g) Fundraising Activities The Finance Committee is responsible for recommendations concerning University fundraising targets and for monitoring progress toward achievement of approved targets. Enclosed for the information of the Board is the most recent report received by the Committee with respect to its monitoring responsibilities. Ms Joanne Shoveller, Vice President (Alumni Affairs and Development) will be available to respond to questions concerning the report. N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 7g cover memo.doc

Fundraising Activities Page 253 of 293

Page 254 of 293

ALUMNI AFFAIRS AND DEVELOPMENT

DATE: 2 April 2009

TO: Finance Committee, Board of Governors

FROM: Joanne Shoveller, Vice-President, Alumni Affairs and Development

Kathy Hay, Associate Vice President, Advancement

New Gifts and Pledges against goal to March 31, 2008:

The current downturn in the market, coupled with the unpredictability of major gift decisions by donors, continues to affect our major gift performance negatively. However, please note that the numbers below do not yet reflect contributions that will be announced later this month, taking our total above $14 million (see solicitation pipeline on page 2).

Year To Date – New Money Raised May 1 2008 – March 31 2009 Goals 2008-09 YTD 2007-08 YTD

Annual $4,000,000 $2,993,888 $3,031,033 Major Giving Goal And Results $16,000,000 $3,940,323 $11,644,886

Total Results $20,000,000 $6,934,211 $13,675,919 Initiatives to increase funding: As conveyed in the fall report, the team continues to focus on areas of strength: industries that are less-affected, stewardship and donor relations, endowment reporting, legacy giving and bequests, in-kind gifts, long-term pledges, foundations, and targeted funds. The team is engaged in active conversations with individual donors, companies and foundations, and has also undertaken the following initiatives: 1. A strategic restructuring of the fundraising team for best financial results and ROI,

with increased accountability 2. A new strategic plan for Planned Giving, a major growth area for the next 3-5 years.


3. An emphasis on “alumni advancement”, engaging the University of Guelph Alumni Association in advocacy on behalf of the University around the budget, and active promotion of the annual fund.

4. Focus on growing affinity program revenue 5. Strategic relationship building with the Research Office to work with companies with

overlapping philanthropic and business interests 6. Engagement with the new President’s Cabinet to focus on top-tier current and

prospective donors 7. Review of all events and expenses to identify new ways to deliver top-level service at

the best rate Current Prospect/Donor Activity – “solicitation pipeline”: As reported in the fall, the team is focused on building a strong pipeline to allow best results when confidence returns. Solicitation Pipeline as of April 2009 Confirmed Gifts, not yet recorded $7,425,000 Verbal commitment, gift agreement in process

4,359,000 Decision pending, proposal/ask made 3,515,000 Solicitation in progress, proposal requested 5,875,000 Top Prospects in cultivation Immediate priorities for solicitation (over $25K), no formal proposal in discussion 3,855,000 Top prospects, longer term strategy required (over $100K) 55,374,000 Total Potential of current prospect pool $80,403,000

Management of Costs As reported in the fall, Alumni Affairs and Development’s budget has been contained over the past four years as resources were re-allocated to increase return on investment, efficiencies and productivity. As we plan for a campaign, we are spending to recruit and retain senior fundraisers, engage strategic counsel and prepare the campaign case materials. More will be presented on an appropriate campaign budget in the future.


UNIVERSITY SECRETARIAT

TO: Members, Membership and Governance Committee FROM: Vicki Hodgkinson, University Secretary SUBJECT: 8. Membership and Governance Committee Report

MEETING: Monday, April 6, 2009 a) Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality – Bylaws Amendments and Policies In consultation with Mr. John Wilkinson, Partner, WeirFoulds, the Membership and Governance Committee has made modifications to the draft documents provided to the Board of Governors at its meeting on January 14, 2009. The revised drafts are enclosed. RE-CAP OF BACKGROUND FOR PROPOSAL In response to questions raised by Governors, the Membership and Governance Committee initiated a review of the current Board provisions concerning both conflict of interest and confidentiality to improve their clarity and relevance to Board operations. The Committee reviewed options developed by the University Secretary in conjunction with external legal counsel. These options were informed by an investigation of related practices at other Canadian universities. As a result of its deliberations, the Membership and Governance Committee recommended the following course of action to the Board in January 2009: • Amendment of current Board of Governor by-laws on conflict of interest and

confidentiality to remove the current detailed wording and replace it with wording that simply states that there shall be Board policies established in these two areas.

• Introduction of a new Board policy on conflict of interest (that initially will apply to Governors but can be extended to cover Trustees)

• Introduction of a new Board policy on confidentiality (that, like the conflict of interest policy, can ultimately apply to both Governors and Trustees)

• Amendment of the current language used for the “Undertaking of Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest”

• Amendment of current practices with regard to information gathering and undertakings with regard to conflict of interest so that forms are up-dated and signed annually

Documents detailing the proposed changes, including proposed amendments to By-Law No. 1 as well as draft policies on conflict of interest and confidentiality, and draft language for a revised Undertaking, were presented to the Board of Governors at its meeting on

Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality - By-law Amendments... Page 257 of 293

January 14, 2009. Support was expressed for the overall approach for changes to Board provisions in this area. Comments and suggested amendments were offered during the Board meeting discussion and provided in the weeks following the meeting. This feedback has informed further refinement of the proposed by-law amendments and related policy documents by the Membership and Governance Committee. PROCESS FOR BY-LAW AMENDMENTS The process of pursuing amendments to Board by-laws is governed by By-Law No. 1, Section 16 which stipulates the following: a) A proposed By-law may only be made effectively if notice of such proposed By-law

has been given to the Board not later than at the Board meeting preceding the Board meeting at which the proposed By-law is to be considered.

b) A By-law may only be amended or repealed by By-law. c) A By-law may be made:

i) at a Board meeting at which at least fifty percent (50%) of the Board Members are present; or

ii) by resolution signed by all Board Members. The presentation of the initial draft material to the Board of Governors at its meeting of January 14, 2009 satisfied the notice provisions for the proposed by-law amendment. The Board of Governors is asked to RESOLVE, That the Board of Governors approve amendments to By-Law No. 1 affecting provisions for conflict of interest, confidentiality and housekeeping matters, as presented; and, That the Board of Governors approve the establishment of the Conflict of Interest Policy Regarding Board of Governors, Board of Trustees, and Board Committees, as presented; and, That the Board of Governors approve the establishment of the Confidentiality Policy for Board of Governors, Board of Trustees, and Board Committees; and, That the Board of Governors approve the presented amendment of the “Acknowledgement and Undertaking of Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest” with the instruction to the University Secretary that the amended undertaking be implemented beginning July 1, 2009. N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 8b cover memo.doc


University of Guelph Board of Governors - By-law No. 1: General By-law Table of Contents 1 of 13

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BOG BY-LAW NO. 1

By-law No. 1: General By-law Table of Contents

The Board of Governors of the University of Guelph Approved: December 14, 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. DEFINITIONS 1.1 Act 1.2 Board 1.3 Board Member 1.4 Board of Trustees 1.5 Chair 1.6 Chancellor 1.7 Committee 1.8 Committee Member 1.9 President 1.10 Secretary 1.11 University 1.12 Vice-Chair 2. OFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITY 2.1 Officer of the University 2.2 The President 2.3 The Secretary 3. CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR(S) 4. BOARD COMPOSITION AND VACANCIES 4.1 Composition 4.2 Vacancies 5. BOARD MEMBERSHIP 5.1 Board Members Office is Deemed Vacated 5.2 Board Members Office is Vacated 6. BOARD MEETINGS 6.1 Regular Meetings 6.2 Special Meetings 6.3 Open and Closed Meetings 6.4 Notice of Regular Meetings 6.5 Place of Meetings 6.6 Attendance 6.7 Quorum 6.8 Voting 6.9 Matters for Inclusion in the Agenda 6.10 Evidence of Resolution 6.11 Record of the Proceedings

Comment: Proposed amendments presented to MGC Dec. 3/08; to BOG as notice Jan /09; to MGC April/09; to BOG for decision April /09



7. COMMITTEES 7.1 Committees 7.2 Standing Committees 7.3 Membership of Standing Committees 7.4 Special Committees 7.5 Closed Meetings 7.6 Notice of Meetings 7.7 Place of Meetings 7.8 Attendance 7.9 Quorum 7.10 Voting 7.11 Record of the Proceedings 8. CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST 8.1 Undertaking 8.2 Confidentiality 8.3 Conflict of Interest 9. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE 10. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 11. CORPORATE SEAL 12. EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS 13. HEAD OFFICE 14. FISCAL YEAR 15. AUDITOR 16. MAKING, AMENDING OR REPEALING BY-LAWS 17. INTERPRETATION 18. REPEAL 19. COMMENCEMENT

Comment: Numbering change reflects need for housekeeping amendment

Deleted: 4

Deleted: 5

Deleted: 6

Deleted: 7

Deleted: 8

Deleted: 9

Deleted: 0



By-law No. 1: General By-law The Board of Governors of the University of Guelph

Approved: December 14, 2005 In accordance with the power vested in the Board of Governors by The University of Guelph Act, 1964 (as amended), the Board of Governors makes the following By-law: 1. DEFINITIONS 1.1 Act, means The University of Guelph Act, 1964 (as amended); 1.2 Board, means the Board of Governors of the University of Guelph; 1.3 Board Member, means a duly appointed Member of the Board; 1.4 Board of Trustees, means the Board of Trustees of the University of Guelph

Heritage Fund; 1.5 Chair, means the Chair of the Board; 1.6 Chancellor, means the Chancellor of the University; 1.7 Committee, means a Committee of the Board; 1.8 Committee Member, means a Board Member, or an individual who is not a

Board Member, appointed to serve on a Committee; 1.9 President, means the President and Vice-Chancellor of the University; 1.10 Secretary, means the University Secretary or designate. 1.11 University, means the University of Guelph; 1.12 Vice-Chair, means a Vice-Chair of the Board. 2. OFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITY 2.1 Officer of the University, means any of the Chair, a Vice-Chair, the President,

the Provost and Vice-President (Academic), the Vice-President (Finance and Administration), the Vice-President (Research), the Assistant Vice-President (Finance and Services), the Controller, the Chairs of each of the Audit, Finance, Pensions, Physical Resources and Property Committees, the Secretary (but not the Secretary's designate), and such other officers as the Board may designate from time to time.

2.2 The President, in addition to the powers set forth in the Act, shall have

authority:

a) to recommend to the Board the appointment or promotion to the office of the Vice-Presidents, Assistant Vice-Presidents, Associate Vice-Presidents and Deans;

b) to appoint, to promote, or to remove (or to delegate to one or more

individual or individuals the authority to appoint, to promote or to remove) all other faculty and staff of the University.

Comment: Proposed amendments presented to MGC, Dec. 3/08; to BOG as notice Jan /09; to MGC April/09; to BOG for decision April /09

Comment: Proposed Housekeeping Amendment

Deleted: Secretary of the Board;

Comment: Proposed housekeeping Amendment

Deleted: and Benefits



2.3 The Secretary shall be entitled to attend all meetings of the Board and each Committee and shall record or cause to be recorded all proceedings of all meetings of the Board and each Committee.

3. CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR(S)

The Board shall elect the Chair and shall appoint one or more Vice-Chairs from among the Board Members for such period as may be determined by the Board.

a) The Chair, when present, shall preside at all Board meetings, shall sign

such documents as may require the Chair's signature in accordance with the By-laws or otherwise, and may perform such other duties as may be assigned from time to time by the Board.

b) The Vice-Chair earliest appointed who is present shall perform the duties

of the Chair when the latter is unable for any reason to perform such duties.

c) Each Vice-Chair may perform such other duties as may be assigned

from time to time by the Board. 4. BOARD COMPOSITION AND VACANCIES 4.1 Composition

The Board is composed of not more than twenty-four (24) Board Members. 4.2 Vacancies

Where a vacancy on the Board occurs before the term of office for which a Board Member has been appointed or elected expires, the vacancy shall be filled by the Board at its earliest convenience, and the Board Member so appointed or elected shall hold office for the remainder of the term of office of the Board Member whose Board membership is vacant. Notwithstanding any vacancy on the Board, as long as a quorum of Board Members remains in office, the Board may exercise all or any of its powers.

5. BOARD MEMBERSHIP 5.1 Board Members Office is Deemed Vacated

A Board Members office may be deemed to be vacated if:

a) such Board Member becomes bankrupt;

b) such Board Member is convicted of a criminal offense under the Criminal Code of Canada (for which a pardon has not been granted) as a result of



which the Board determines such individual to be unfit or inappropriate to act as a Board Member;

c) an order or a decision of a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction order is made declaring such Board Member to be a mentally incompetent person or incapable of managing his or her own affairs;

d) as provided under the Act, after thirty (30) days notice to such Board

Member, a resolution to that effect is passed at a Board meeting by at least two-thirds (2/3) of the total Board Members;

e) such Board Member contravenes any University By-law or policy as a

result of which the Board determines such individual to be unfit or inappropriate to act as a Board Member.

5.2 Board Members Office is Vacated

A Board Members office is vacated if:

a) by notice in writing to the Chair or the President such Board Member resigns such office;

b) in the case of a Board Member who is a student, such Board Member

ceases to be registered in either the fall semester or the winter semester;

c) in the case of a Board Member who is faculty or staff of the University, such Board Member ceases to be faculty or staff of the University.

6. BOARD MEETINGS 6.1 Regular Meetings

The Board shall hold regular meetings not less than four (4) times a year on a schedule to be accepted by the Board.

6.2 Special Meetings

Special meetings may be called to address an issue of immediate concern and may be held at any time at the call of the Chair, or in case of the Chair’s inability for any reason to perform the Chair's functions, at the call of the Vice-Chair, or in case of the Vice-Chair’s inability for any reason to perform the Vice-Chair's functions, at the call of the President and any three (3) Board Members.



6.3 Open and Closed Meetings

Board meetings shall be open to the public except for matters which may be deemed to be confidential including without limiting the generality of the foregoing, matters relating to labour relations, personnel, nominations of Board Members or Committee Members, real estate, and confidential government policies. Minutes of those Board meetings or portions of Board meetings which are open to the public shall be available for inspection by the public, by arrangement with the Secretary.

6.4 Notice of Regular Meetings

Notice in writing of the time and place of any regular Board meetings shall be sent to each Board Member at least three (3) days prior to the day appointed for the meeting. Notice may be sent by campus mail services, courier, email, facsimile or pre-paid regular mail. The accidental failure to give notice of a Board meeting to any Board Member or any accidental irregularity in connection with the giving of notice of a Board meeting shall not invalidate the proceedings at the relevant meeting.

6.5 Place of Meetings

All Board meetings shall normally be held on the University's main campus.

6.6 Attendance

Board Members may attend meetings in person or by telephone, electronic or other communication facilities, as permit all individuals participating in the meeting to communicate.

6.7 Quorum

Ten (10) Board Members shall constitute a quorum at any Board meeting. 6.8 Voting

a) All questions at a Board meeting shall be decided by a majority of the votes of Board Members present and eligible to vote. The Chair may vote on all motions and if regarding any motion there is a tie, that motion is deemed to be defeated. The Chair does not have a second or casting vote.

b) Recommendation to accept a mediated settlement regarding the Special

Plan Agreement with the Faculty Association need only be approved by more than one-third (1/3) of Board Members present and eligible to vote.

Deleted: appointment

Deleted: , at the office of the Secretary during regular business hours.



c) No Board Member may use a proxy or be represented by a proxy-holder.

d) A resolution or By-law signed by all of the Board Members is as valid and effective as if passed or made at a Board meeting duly called, constituted and held for that purpose.

6.9 Matters for Inclusion in the Agenda

All matters for inclusion in the agenda for Regular Board meetings must be delivered to the Secretary at least three (3) days prior to the day of the meeting at which they are to be presented. Inclusion of matters in the agenda is at the discretion of the Chair. No other matter, other than that of privilege or petition, shall be dealt with at any regular Board meeting, unless the introduction of such matter is approved by a majority of all Board Members present at such meeting.

6.10 Evidence of Resolution

Whenever a vote has been taken upon a question, a declaration by the Chair that a resolution has been carried or lost by a particular majority is determinative and an entry to that effect in the Board's minutes is conclusive evidence of that fact without proof of the number or proportion of votes recorded in favour of or against the motion.

6.11 Record of the Proceedings

A record of the proceedings of all Board meetings shall be kept and the minutes of every such meeting shall be submitted at the next Board meeting, and after adoption by the Board, the minutes shall be signed by the Chair and Secretary. Minutes of Board meetings which are open to the public shall be available for inspection by arrangement with the Secretary, or through the University web site.. Minutes of Board meetings which are not open to the public shall be available only to those authorized by the Board or, if the Board has not made a determination in this regard that excludes the Executive Committee from making a determination in this regard, to those authorized by the Executive Committee.

7. COMMITTEES 7.1 Committees

The Board has the power to appoint Standing Committees and Special Committees and to delegate to any such Committee any of its powers.

7.2 Standing Committees

a) There shall be an Executive Committee.

Deleted: in a book provided for that purpose

Deleted: held in Open Session

Deleted: appointment

Deleted: at the office of the Secretary during regular business hours



Deleted: held in Closed Session



b) There shall be other Standing Committees as established from time to time:

i) the Audit Committee;

ii) the Finance Committee;

iii) the Membership and Governance Committee;

iv) the Pensions Committee;

v) the Physical Resources and Property Committee;

vi) the Negotiations and Compensation Committee; and

vii) the Board of Trustees of the University of Guelph Heritage Fund; and

viii) such other Committees as are designated as Standing

Committees by resolution of the Board.

c) The Terms of Reference for each Standing Committee shall be established by resolution of the Board.

7.3 Membership of Standing Committees

a) The membership for each Standing Committee shall be established by

resolution of the Board, in accordance with the Terms of Reference for each Committee. All Standing Committee Members shall hold such office at the pleasure of the Board. The Chair and the President shall each be a member of all Standing Committees (except that only the Chair (and not the President) shall be a member of the Audit Committee).

b) Vacancies occurring in the membership of a Standing Committee shall be

filled by the Board at its earliest convenience. Notwithstanding any vacancy on a Committee, the Committee may exercise all or any of its powers, as long as a quorum is maintained.

7.4 Special Committees

Special Committees may be appointed from time to time as the Board may determine. The membership of and Terms of Reference for each Special Committee shall be established by resolution of the Board.

7.5 Closed Meetings


Deleted: the Development Committee;

Deleted: i

Deleted: v


Deleted: and Benefits

Deleted: i


Deleted: i

Deleted: Senior Compensation and

Deleted: i

Deleted: ix

Comment: Numbering correction is a proposed housekeeping amendment

Deleted: 4



Attendance at Committee meetings is limited to committee members and appropriate resource people.

7.6 Notice of Meetings

Notice in writing of the time and place of meetings of a Committee shall be sent to each Committee Member at least three (3) days prior to the day appointed for the meeting. Notice may be sent by campus mail services, courier, email, facsimile or pre-paid regular mail. The accidental failure to give notice of a Committee meeting to any Committee Member or any accidental irregularity in connection with the giving of notice of a Committee meeting shall not invalidate the proceedings at the relevant meeting.

7.7 Place of Meetings

All Committee meetings shall normally be held on the University's main campus.

7.8 Attendance

Committee Members may attend meetings in person or by telephone, electronic or other communication facilities, as permit all individuals participating in the meeting to communicate.

7.9 Quorum

Subject to exceptions provided for in a resolution of the Board or in a Committee's Terms of Reference, quorum for each Committee shall be two-fifths (2/5) of the membership of such Committee.

7.10 Voting

a) All questions at a Committee meeting shall be decided by a majority of

the votes of the Committee Members present. The Committee's Chair may vote on all motions and if regarding any motion there is a tie, that motion is deemed to be defeated. The Committee's Chair does not have a second or casting vote.

b) No Committee Member may use a proxy or be represented by a proxy-

holder.

c) A resolution signed by all of a Committee’s Members is as valid and effective as if passed at a Committee meeting duly called, constituted and held for that purpose.

Deleted: 5

Deleted: 6

Deleted: 7

Deleted: 8

Deleted: 9


Deleted: the



7.11 Record of the Proceedings

A record of the proceedings of each Committee meeting shall be kept and the minutes of every such meeting shall be submitted at the next meeting of that Committee. Minutes of each Committee's meetings shall be available to: (a) any Committee member of that Committee; (b) appropriate resource persons (by arrangement with the Secretary); and (c) individuals identified by resolution of that Committee or by resolution of

the Board, or if the Board has not made a determination that excludes the Executive Committee from identifying individuals for such purposes, by resolution of the Executive Committee.

8. CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST 8.1 Undertaking

After appointment and prior to the term commencing, each Board Member or Committee Member shall sign an Undertaking regarding Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest in a form approved by the Board. The Undertaking shall be up-dated annually, in accordance with the Board conflict of interest and confidentiality policies.

8.2 Confidentiality

The Board shall establish a confidentiality policy regarding the Board and its

committees.

8.3 Conflict of Interest

The Board shall establish a conflict of interest policy regarding the Board and its committees. 9. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE

a) Except where otherwise prohibited by law, each Board Member and

Committee Member (each an "Indemnified Person"), and their heirs, executors, and administrators, and estate and effects, respectively, is hereby indemnified and saved harmless out of the funds of the University, from and against:

i. all costs, charges and expenses whatsoever (including amounts

paid to settle an action or to satisfy a judgement) that such Indemnified Person sustains or incurs in or about any action, suit or proceeding that is brought, commenced or prosecuted against such Indemnified Person, for or in respect of any act, deed, matter or thing whatsoever made, done or permitted by such Indemnified

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

Deleted: 0

Deleted: for

Deleted: inspection by any individual who is a Committee Member of that Committee and appropriate resource persons, by appointment with the Secretary, at the office of the Secretary during regular business hours.

Deleted: as provided in

Deleted: policy on

Deleted: concerning its affairs

Inserted: concerning its affairs.

Deleted: All proceedings of any Board or Committee meeting which is closed shall be confidential such that any person attending any such meeting shall not disclose any information related to any matter discussed or decision made at such a meeting to anyone who was not properly present at such meeting.¶

Deleted: policy on

Deleted: concerning its affairs

Inserted: concerning its affairs

Deleted: ¶a) Subject to Subsection (b) below, a Board Member or Committee Member who has in any way, directly or indirectly, an interest in a contract, transaction, proposed contract or proposed transaction (each a "Matter") with the University shall:¶¶i. declare the nature of the interest as soon as possible, and not later than at the relevant meeting at which the Matter is first considered; and ¶¶ii. either voluntarily or if required to do so by a resolution of the Board or Committee withdraw from the portion of the relevant meeting during which the Matter is considered ; and¶¶iii. refrain from voting on any resolution regarding such Matter.¶¶If a declaration is made as referred to in Clause (a)(i) above and the Board Member or Committee Member has not voted in respect of the Matter, such Board Member or Committee Member is not accountable to the University or to any of its creditors for any profit realized from that Matter.¶¶Disclosure by a Board Member or a Committee Member to the Secretary that such Board Member or ... [1]



Person, in or about the execution of the duties of such Indemnified Person's office; and

ii. all other costs, charges and expenses that such Indemnified

Person sustains or incurs in or about or in relation to the affairs thereof, except such costs, charges or expenses as are occasioned by the willful neglect or default of such Indemnified Person.

b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, each Indemnified Person shall only be

indemnified in such cases where such Indemnified Person had reasonable grounds for believing that the act, deed, matter or thing made, done or permitted by such Indemnified Person was lawful and in the best interests of the University. If an Indemnified Person incurs any costs, charges or expenses as provided above because of the act, receipt, neglect or default of any other Board Member or Committee Member, or officer or employee of the University, such Indemnified Person shall be indemnified as provided above.

c) The University may purchase and maintain insurance for the Board Members and Committee Members (each an "Indemnified Person") against any liability incurred by such Board Members and Committee Members, in such capacities, except where the liability relates to the person’s failure to act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the University.

d) The preceding provisions regarding indemnification and insurance are

subject to any limitations contained in any applicable statute or regulation.

10. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

Each Board Member and Committee Member may be reimbursed for all reasonable expenses (including reasonable travel expenses) incurred in connection with the performance of such Member's duties.

11. CORPORATE SEAL

There shall be a corporate seal of the University and it shall be in the custody of the Vice-President (Finance and Administration), or such other person or persons as the Board may from time to time designate.

12. EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS

a) All contracts, documents or instruments in writing requiring execution by

the University shall be signed by any two (2) Officers of the University. The University's corporate seal shall, when required, be affixed to such



signed contracts, documents or other instruments by any Officer of the University.

b) The Board may from time to time by resolution appoint any Officer or

Officers of the University or any person or persons on behalf of the University to sign contracts, documents or instruments in writing generally, or to sign specific classes of contracts, documents or instruments in writing, or to affix the University's corporate seal, or any combination of the preceding.

c) All cheques, drafts or orders of payment of money, and all notes and

acceptances and bills or exchange received or issued by the University, shall be signed by such Officer or Officers of the University or such person or persons on behalf of the University, and in such manner as may be designated from time to time by resolution of the Board.

13. HEAD OFFICE

The University's head office shall be in the City of Guelph in the Regional Municipality of Wellington County in the Province of Ontario.

14. FISCAL YEAR

The University's fiscal year shall terminate on April 30 in each year.

15. AUDITOR

The Board shall each year appoint an external audit firm to audit the University's accounts.

16. MAKING, AMENDING OR REPEALING BY-LAWS

a) A proposed By-law may only be made effectively if notice of such

proposed By-law has been given to the Board not later than at the Board meeting preceding the Board meeting at which the proposed By-law is to be considered.

b) A By-law may only be amended or repealed by By-law.

c) A By-law may be made:

i) at a Board meeting at which at least fifty percent (50%) of the

Board Members are present; or

ii) by resolution signed by all Board Members.



17. INTERPRETATION

In all By-laws, where the context requires, the singular shall include the plural and the plural the singular, and the word “person” shall include firms and corporations.

18. REPEAL

The General By-Laws of the Board of Governors of the University of Guelph which came into force on July 1, 1968 and all amendments thereto are hereby repealed.

19. COMMENCEMENT

This By-law shall come into effect on the day it is enacted by the Board.

PASSED this 14th day of December, 2005.

N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 8b Proposed Bylaw Amendments.DOC

Deleted: Page Break

Comment: Proposed amendments to be presented to MGC, Dec. 3/08; to BOG as notice Jan /09; to MGC April/09; o BOG for decision April /09; Date to be changed to “15th day of April, 2009”, if approved by the Board of Governors at that time.


Page 10: [1] Deleted Vicki Hodgkinson 11/27/2008 11:15 PM

a) Subject to Subsection (b) below, a Board Member or Committee

Member who has in any way, directly or indirectly, an interest in a contract, transaction, proposed contract or proposed transaction (each a "Matter") with the University shall:

i. declare the nature of the interest as soon as possible, and

not later than at the relevant meeting at which the Matter is first considered; and

ii. either voluntarily or if required to do so by a resolution of the

Board or Committee withdraw from the portion of the relevant meeting during which the Matter is considered ; and

iii. refrain from voting on any resolution regarding such Matter.

If a declaration is made as referred to in Clause (a)(i) above and the Board Member or Committee Member has not voted in respect of the Matter, such Board Member or Committee Member is not accountable to the University or to any of its creditors for any profit realized from that Matter.

Disclosure by a Board Member or a Committee Member to the Secretary that such Board Member or Committee Member is interested in any company or is a member of a specified firm and is to be regarded as interested in any contract made with such other company or firm, shall be deemed to be a sufficient declaration of interest in relation to a contract so made, and the Secretary shall notify the Board of such a disclosure (and, in the event such declaration is made by a Committee Member, the Secretary shall also notify the other Committee Members of the relevant Committee).

b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a) above and subject to Subsection

(c) below, a Board Member or a Committee Member who is faculty, staff or a student of the University or whose spouse is faculty, staff or a student of the University may participate in the consideration of and any vote at a Board meeting or a Committee meeting (as the case may be) regarding any matter related generally to the University's financial operation other than any matter regarding which the interest of such Board Member or Committee Member differs from the interest of University faculty, staff or students generally.

c) Notwithstanding Subsection (b) above, if a Board Member or a

Committee Member is an employee of the University or if a member


of such Board Member's or Committee Member's immediate family is an employee of the University, such Board Member or Committee Member (at a Board meeting or Committee meeting, as the case may be) shall not participate in the consideration of nor vote regarding any matter related to the terms of employment, remuneration, benefits, rights or privileges available to employees of the University. The term "immediate family" means any spouse, parent, sibling or child (including by adoption).

d) Where the Board or a Committee determines (by resolution passed

by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of those entitled to vote on such resolution) that a conflict of interest exists that has not been declared, the Board or Committee may resolve (by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of those entitled to vote on such resolution) that the Board Member or Committee Member determined to be in conflict shall:

i. withdraw from the portion of the relevant meeting during

which the relevant Matter is considered; and

ii. refrain from voting on any resolution regarding such Matter.


Page 274 of 293

DRAFT FOR REVIEW & APPROVAL PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS

APRIL 15, 2009

CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH

Board of Governors, Board of Trustees and Committees

A. Introduction; Interpretation; Application; Special Considerations

1. Purpose

The purpose of this Policy is:

(a) to facilitate the University, the Board, the Trustees, and Committees maintaining the highest business and ethical standards;

(b) to facilitate the protection of the integrity of the University, the Board, the Trustees, and Committees;

(c) to provide guidance for each Governor, Trustee and Committee Member who believes that he or she may have a Conflict; and

(d) to provide a process for dealing with Conflict situations.

2. Duty of each Governor, Trustee and Committee Member

Each Governor, Trustee and Committee Member owes a duty to the University:

(i) to adhere to the highest business and ethical standards in carrying out his or her duties, including the obligation to act honestly, in good faith and in the best interests of the University;

(ii) to disclose each Conflict.

3. Definitions

"Board" means the Board of Governors of the University.

"Chair" means the Chair of the Board, the Trustees or a Committee, as applicable.

"Committee" means a committee of either the Board or the Trustees.

"Committee Members" means members of any Committee.

Deleted: and to avoid an unacceptable Conflict


Page 2 of 7

"Conflict" means a real, potential or perceived conflict of interest of a Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member where financial, professional or personal considerations may compromise, or have the appearance of compromising, the judgement of a Governor, a Trustee or of a Committee Member in carrying out his or her duties as a Governor, as a Trustee or as a Committee Member, as the case may be.

"Conflict Declaration" means a declaration made pursuant to Subsection B.2(a) or Subsection B.2(b) of this Policy.

"Contract" means a contract or a proposed contract with the University.

"Contract Declaration" means a declaration made pursuant to Section B.1 of this Policy regarding a Contract.

"Disclosure Form" means the form of Disclosure Form (referred to in Part C of this Policy) in the form approved by the Board from time to time.

"Family" means, in relation to an individual, his or her wife, husband, mother, father, sister, brother, daughter, step-daughter, son, step-son, parent-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece or nephew.

"Meeting" means a meeting of the Board, the Trustees or a Committee, as applicable.

"Policy" means this Conflict of Interest Policy.

"Process for Resolution" means the process set out in Section B.3 below.

"Trustees" means the Board of Trustees of the University.

"University" means the University of Guelph.

4. Types of Conflicts

Situations where a Conflict might arise cannot be listed exhaustively. Conflicts generally arise in the following circumstances:

(a) Contracts. When a Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member is directly or indirectly interested in a Contract.

(b) Acting for an Improper Purpose. When a Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member acts in self-interest or for a purpose collateral to the interests of the University.

(c) "Wearing Two Hats". When a Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member diverts to his or her own use and benefit an opportunity in which the University has an interest.


Page 3 of 7

(d) Serving on Competing Corporations. When a Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member has a conflict of "duty and duty". This might arise when, for example:

(i) the Governor, the Trustee or the Committee Member serves on the board of another corporation that has a contractual relationship with the University; or

(ii) the Governor, the Trustee or the Committee Member serves on the board of another corporation and possesses confidential University information that is of importance to a matter being considered by the board of the other corporation.

(e) Misuse of University Information. When a Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member uses confidential University information for personal gain.

(f) Personal or Familial Gain. When a Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member will gain or be affected by a decision of the Board, the Trustees or the relevant Committee or when a Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member is aware that a member of his or her Family will gain or be affected by a decision of the Board, the Trustees or the relevant Committee. For example, when a Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member:

(i) is a faculty member;

(ii) is a student at the University; or

(ii) is aware that he or she has a member of his or her Family who is a student at the University.

5. Application

All Governors, Trustees and Committee Members are required to abide by both the letter and spirit of this Policy.

6. "Structural Conflicts"

The University's governance structure creates automatic Conflicts, especially given the University, faculty, staff and student roles on the Board and on certain Committees. However, these "structural Conflicts" need not prevent participation in most aspects of deliberations by the Board, the Trustees or the relevant Committee. For example, if the Board is aware of an obvious "structural Conflict", as a practical matter, it should not be necessary to make note of the Conflict in regular proceedings of the Board; on the other hand, where the Conflict may not be obvious (such as, for example, where an individual who is subject to this Policy has a member of his or her Family who is a student at the University and such individual is aware of that fact), the Conflict should be declared in accordance with Part B of this Policy and recorded in the minutes of the relevant

Deleted: or his or her family

Deleted: who is

Deleted: who

Deleted: who

Inserted: who

Deleted: whose

Deleted: family

Deleted: a family relationship to a student


Page 4 of 7

Meeting so that all Governors, Trustees or Committee Members (as the case may be) are aware of the situation.

B. Declarations; Disclosure; Process for Resolution

1. Conflicts related to Contracts

(a) Contract Declarations. Every Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in a Contract shall declare that interest at a Board meeting or the relevant Committee meeting or shall disclose the interest to the Chair (a "Contract Declaration"). The Board and each Committee will record every Contract Declaration in the minutes of the relevant Meeting.

(b) Proposed Contracts. In the case of a proposed Contract, the Contract Declaration shall be made prior to or at the Meeting at which the question of entering into the Contract is first considered. In the event that the Governor, the Trustee or the Committee Member is not interested in the proposed Contract at the date of such a Meeting, the Contract Declaration shall be made prior to or at the next Meeting held after he or she becomes so interested.

(c) Existing Contracts. In the case where the Governor, the Trustee or the Committee Member becomes interested in a Contract after it is made, the Contract Declaration shall be made at or prior to the first Meeting held after he or she becomes so interested.

(d) Process for Resolution. In the event that a Contract Declaration is made pursuant to this provision, the Process for Resolution will then be followed.

(e) No Remuneration. A Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member who has an interest in a Contract shall ensure that he or she does not receive, directly or indirectly, remuneration as a result of the Contract.

(f) Collective Agreements. For greater certainty: a collective agreement to which one party is a trade union of which a Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member is a member is not a Contract with respect to which a Contract Declaration must be made pursuant to either Subsection B.1(a) or Subsection B.1(c); a proposed collective agreement to which one party is to be a trade union of which a Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member is a member is not a proposed Contract with respect to which a Contract Declaration must be made pursuant to Subsection B.1(b); and Subsection B.1(e) shall not apply to a collective agreement to which one party is a trade union of which a Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member is a member.

2. Other Conflicts

(a) Self-Disclosure regarding Conflicts

Deleted: d


Page 5 of 7

In circumstances where a Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member has a Conflict that is not related to a Contract, at the earliest opportunity he or she will disclose the Conflict to the Chair. Such Disclosure shall describe the nature and extent of the Conflict. If a Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member is uncertain whether a Conflict exists, the Governor, the Trustee or the Committee Member will err on the side of disclosure. In the event that a Conflict is disclosed pursuant to this provision, the Process for Resolution will then be followed.

(b) Conflicts Disclosed by Another

If any Governor, Trustee or Committee Member believes that another Governor, Trustee or Committee Member has a Conflict, then at the earliest opportunity the former shall refer the situation to the Process for Resolution by disclosing the Conflict to the Chair. Such Disclosure shall describe the nature and extent of the Conflict.

(c) Disclosure by Chair

If the Chair of the Board, the Trustees or a Committee wishes to disclose any matter in accordance with this Policy, he or she shall make such disclosure to the Vice-Chair of the Board, the Trustees or the relevant Committee (respectively) or to the University Secretary.

3. Process for Resolution

A Contract Declaration made pursuant to Section B.1 and a Conflict disclosed pursuant to Section B.2 will be referred to the following process for resolution:

(a) in the case of a Contract Declaration (Section B.1) or a self-disclosed Conflict (Subsection B.2(a)), the Governor, the Trustee or the Committee Member who has made the Contract Declaration or declared the Conflict shall declare to the Board, the Trustees or the relevant Committee the nature and extent of the Conflict (a "Conflict Declaration") at the earliest opportunity (and not later than the Meeting at which the matter to which the Conflict relates is to be considered).

(b) in the case of a Conflict disclosed by another (Subsection B.2(b)), the relevant Chair shall declare to the Board, the Trustees or the relevant Committee the nature and extent of the Conflict (also a "Conflict Declaration") as soon as possible and not later than the Meeting at which the matter to which the Conflict relates is to be considered.

(c) A Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member to whom there relates a Conflict which is an obvious structural Conflict of the type referred to in Section A.6 or a Conflict referred to in a Conflict Declaration may participate in the discussion and may vote on the matter to which the Conflict relates, unless:

(i) the Governor, the Trustee or the Committee Member is a member of faculty or a member of staff, and the matter being considered involves that Governor, that Trustee's or that Committee Member's remuneration, in

Deleted: The

Deleted: the

Deleted: the

Deleted: relates


Page 6 of 7

which case the Governor, the Trustee or the Committee Member may participate in the discussion of the matter but may not vote on the matter (provided that, for greater certainty:

(A) if the matter to which the Conflict relates is a pension-related matter which indirectly rather than directly affects a Governor, the Trustee or the Committee Member who is a member of faculty or a member of staff, the Governor, the Trustee or the Committee Member may participate in the discussion of the matter and may vote on the matter); or

(B) if the matter to which the Conflict relates is related to:

(1) an aspect of a collective agreement to which one party is a trade union of which a Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member is a member and the aspect does not directly relate to the remuneration of the Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member; or

(2) an aspect of a proposed collective agreement to which one party is to be a trade union of which a Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member is a member and the aspect does not directly relate to the remuneration of the Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member;

the Governor, the Trustee or the Committee Member may participate in the discussion of the matter and may vote on the matter); or

(ii) the Meeting then determines otherwise, provided that:

(A) in the case of a self-disclosed Conflict (Subsection B.2(a)), the Governor, the Trustee or the Committee Member who has declared the Conflict may not vote on such determination (but will be counted for the purposes of establishing the quorum for the Meeting); and

(B) in the case of a Conflict disclosed by another (Subsection B.2(b)), neither the Governor, the Trustee or the Committee Member who disclosed the Conflict nor the Governor, the Trustee or the Committee Member to whom the Conflict relates may vote on such determination (but each will be counted for the purposes of establishing the quorum for the Meeting).

(d) The Board, the Trustees and each Committee will record every Conflict Declaration and every determination referred to in Clause B.3(c)(ii) in the relevant portion of the minutes of the Meeting.

Deleted: Clause B.2(d)(i) or in

Deleted: 2

Deleted: d


Page 7 of 7

C. Disclosure Forms

1. The University requires that each Governor, Trustee and Committee Member complete and submit to the University Secretary a Disclosure Form when he or she first takes office and at least annually thereafter during his or her term of office. The purposes of the Disclosure Form are to facilitate:

(a) the consideration by each Governor, Trustee and Committee Member of his or her relationships, board positions, interests in companies, interests in contracts, and other matters with a view to assessing whether or not he or she has a Conflict;

(b) the disclosure of Conflicts as contemplated by this Policy.

Importantly, the completion and submission of a Disclosure Form is neither a Conflict Declaration nor a Contract Declaration under this Policy.

2. A Conflict disclosed on a Disclosure Form shall be communicated at the earliest opportunity by the Secretary to the relevant Chair.

3. In the event that a Conflict is disclosed pursuant Subsection C.2, the relevant Chair will ask the disclosing Governor, Trustee or Committee Member to comply with Subsection B.2(a) as soon as reasonably possible. If the relevant Chair then determines that the relevant Governor, Trustee or Committee Member has not complied with Subsection B.2(a) within a reasonable time period, the Chair may disclose the Conflict in accordance with Subsection B.2(b).

N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 8b Proposed Conflict of Interest Policy.DOC

Deleted: c


Page 282 of 293

Page 1 of 2


APRIL 15, 2009

CONFIDENTIALITY POLICY UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH

Board of Governors

1. Purpose

The purpose of this Policy is to ensure that confidential matters brought before the Board of Governors or any of its standing committees are not disclosed until disclosure is properly authorized.

This policy is designed to provide guidance for each Governor, Trustee and Committee Member with regard to confidential matters that come before the Board of Governors or any of its standing committees. Its objective is to address matters of confidentiality in a manner that facilitates the University, the Board, the Trustees, and Committees maintaining the highest business and ethical standards, protects the integrity of the University, the Board, the Trustees, and Committees, allows for appropriate levels of transparency and accountability in matters before the Board, and supports the maintenance of effective relationships among Board members, University administration and University stakeholders.

2. Definitions

"Board" means the Board of Governors of the University.

"Committee" means a committee of either the Board or the Trustees.

"Committee Members" means members of any Committee.

"Meeting" means a meeting of the Board, the Trustees or a Committee, as applicable.

"Policy" means this Confidentiality Policy.

"Trustees" means the Board of Trustees of the University.

"University" means the University of Guelph.

3. Duty of each Governor, Trustee and Committee Member

(a) Each Governor, Trustee and Committee Member owes to the University a duty of confidence not to disclose or discuss with another person or entity, or to use for his or her own purposes, confidential information concerning the business, activities and


affairs of the University received in his or her capacity as a Governor, a Trustee and a Committee Member unless otherwise authorized by the Board, the Trustees or the relevant Committee (as applicable).

(b) Each Governor, Trustee and Committee Member shall ensure that no statement not authorized by the Board, the Trustees or the relevant Committee (as applicable) is made by him or her to stakeholder groups, the media or public. Normally, as required and appropriate, the Board Chair (or, when requested by the Board Chair, the Board Vice-Chair) serves as spokesperson for the Board of Governors with stakeholders and/or the media. 4. Confidential Matters

(a) Normally, Chairs of standing committees will report activities of their committee during a regular meeting of the Board of Governors during an open or closed session

(b) All matters that are the subject of any in camera portion of any Meeting are confidential until disclosed in an open Meeting of the Board of Governors.

(b) All matters that are before a Committee are confidential unless they have been determined not to be confidential by the Chair of the relevant Committee following consultation with the Board Chair and the President. The overall purpose and objectives of this policy will serve as points of reference in making such judgements. In all cases, the University’s obligations under access and protecton of personal privacy legislation will be satisfied.

N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 8b Proposed Confidentiality Policy.DOC

Deleted: press

Deleted: same body


Page 1 of 4 1111563.2

Formatted: zzmpTrailerItem

Formatted: Left

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font


APRIL 15, 2009

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND UNDERTAKING REGARDING

CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST


Board of Governors

PART 1 – GENERAL UNDERTAKING I acknowledge that, as: (a) a Governor on the Board of Governors of the University of Guelph (the

"Board of Governors"); (b) a Trustee on the Board of Trustees of the University of Guelph Heritage

Trust Fund (the "Board of Trustees"); (c) a Committee Member of a Committee of the Board of Governors or of the

Board of Trustees (a "Committee"); I have read the relevant Board of Governors policy documents pertaining to conflict of interest and confidentiality. I acknowledge that I must adhere to the highest level of conduct in carrying out my duties and responsibilities to the University, including acting honestly, in good faith and in the best interests of the University and disclosing all conflicts of interest as they exist or arise, and addressing such conflicts of interest, in accordance with relevant University by-laws and policies, as applicable. I acknowledge that, in carrying out my duties and responsibilities to the University, my obligation is to act in accordance with this Acknowledgement and Undertaking and with relevant University by-laws and policies, as applicable, while offering my perspective as an individual and, as applicable, as part of any constituency or constituencies of the University of which I am a part. I undertake to keep in strictest confidence all confidential or proprietary information communicated or disclosed to me in accordance with relevant University by-laws and policies, as applicable. Dated this ________ day of ____________________, 20___.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt,Hanging: 36 pt

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt,Hanging: 36 pt

Deleted: a member of

Deleted: of Governors

Deleted: Board of

Deleted: of the University of Guelph

Deleted: am a fiduciary with respect to the business and affairs of the University. As a fiduciary, I

Deleted: my obligation to

Deleted: to

Deleted: e

Deleted: to

Deleted:


Page 2 of 4 1111563.2

Formatted: Left



Signature: _________________________________________ Please print name: ___________________________________

Acknowledgement and Undertaking Regarding Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

PART 2 - DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM PREAMBLE A real, potential or perceived conflict of interest of a Governor, a Trustee or a Committee Member arises where financial, professional or personal considerations may compromise, or have the appearance of compromising, the judgement of a Governor, a Trustee or of a Committee Member in carrying out his or her duties as a Governor, as a Trustee or as a Committee Member, as the case may be.. As a Governor, Trustee, or Committee Member you may be considered to have a conflict of interest: (i) when you hold a personal interest, whether direct or indirect, that you are

aware of and in the opinion of a reasonably informed and well-advised person is sufficient to put into question your independence, impartiality, and objectiveness that you are obliged to exercise in the performance of your duties as a member of the Board of Governors, the Board of Trustees or a Committee (as applicable); or

(ii) when you appear to have, in the opinion of a reasonably informed and well-advised person, a personal interest, whether direct or indirect, that is sufficient to put into question your independence, impartiality, and objectiveness that you are obliged to exercise in the performance of your duties as a member of the Board of Governors, the Board of Trustees or a Committee (as applicable).

A conflict of interest may arise in relation to personal matters including:

• directorships or other employment;

• interests in business enterprises or professional practices;

• share ownership;

• beneficial interests in trusts;

• existing professional or personal associations with the University;

• professional associations or relationships with other organizations;

• personal associations with other groups or organizations, or family relationships.

Formatted: Font: 12 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt

Deleted: conflict of interest arises where

Deleted: a member of the Board of Governors, Board of Trustees, or Board Committees has a personal interest which conflicts, might conflict or may be perceived to conflict with the interests of the University, including a conflict with your duties as a member of the Board or one of its Committees

Deleted: .

Deleted: shall

Deleted:

Deleted: one of its

Deleted: s

Deleted: Board or one of its Committees (as applicable)

Deleted: could

Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted:


Page 3 of 4 1111563.2

Formatted: Left



To assist in identifying real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest and, in so doing, to ease the operation of the Board of Governors, the Board of Trustees and Committees in the conduct of their work, all members of the Board of Governors, the Board of Trustees and Committees are asked each year to review the University's “Conflict of Interest Policy Regarding Board of Governors, Board of Trustees, and Committees” and to disclose any obligation, commitment, relationship or interest that may conflict or may be perceived to conflict with their duties as a member of the Board of Governors, the Board of Trustees or a Committee. In requesting this information, the University acknowledges its responsibilities to protect the privacy of personal information. Personal information that you provide in completing the form below is collected under the authority of The University of Guelph Act (1964) (as amended). It is collected for the purpose of administering the conflict of interest by-laws of the University of Guelph’s Board of Governors. At all times it will be protected in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”). If you have questions about the collection, use and disclosure of personal information, you are encouraged to speak directly with the Chair of the Board of Governors or to the University Secretary.

Deleted: real or potential

Deleted: its

Deleted: University of Guelph’s

Deleted: and of its

Deleted: University of Guelph

Deleted: Board

Deleted: could

Deleted: one of

Deleted: its

Deleted: s

Deleted:


Page 4 of 4 1111563.2

Formatted: Left



Acknowledgement and Undertaking Regarding

Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

QUESTIONS FOR COMPLETION BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS, BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND COMMITTEES 1) A direct or indirect conflict with my duty as a member of the Board of

Governors, the Board of Trustees or a Committee of the Board of Governors or of the Board of Trustees may arise because:

a) I hold the following office(s) or position(s) (employed, appointed or elected): b) I, or any trustee or any nominee on my behalf, own or possess, directly or

indirectly, the following interest(s): 2) It is my view that the nature and extent of the conflict arising out of the above-

mentioned office(s), position(s) or interest(s) is (are):

N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09 April 15 Item xx - Proposed New Undertaking of Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest.DOC

Deleted: ITS

Deleted: one of its

Deleted: s


UNIVERSITY SECRETARIAT

TO: Members, Board of Governors FROM: Vicki Hodgkinson, University Secretary SUBJECT: 8. Membership and Governance Committee Report

MEETING: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 b) Governor Appointments – Report on 2009 Elections (Faculty, Staff, Students) In February 2009 the University Secretariat issued a call for nominations across campus constituencies, to fill elected positions on the Board of Governors. Elections were held using web-based ballots in March 2009 to fill student and staff representative seats. i) Undergraduate Students Mr. Rohan Mathai and Mr. Joel Harnest’s terms as undergraduate student representatives on the Board will end June 30, 2009. Three nominations for the undergraduate student seats were received and voting was held across all campuses, ending on March 27, 2009. Mr. Gavin Armstrong (BComm, 3rd year) and Mr. Nathan Lachowsky (BSc, 3rd year) were elected to the positions by the undergraduate student body. (Both candidates were also elected to the Central Student Association for 2009-10. Mr. Armstrong will serve as the CSA Communications Commissioner, while Mr. Lachowsky will serve as the CSA Academic Commissioner.) Brief statements prepared by Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Lachowsky for use during the election campaign are enclosed for reference. The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, That the Board of Governors confirm the appointments of Mr. Gavin Armstrong and Mr. Nathan Lachowsky to the Board of Governors to serve in the two undergraduate seats for a one-year term effective July 1, 2009 through to June 30, 2010. ii) Graduate Students Mr. Joel Wood’s term as graduate student representative on the Board will end June 30, 2009. Three nominations for the graduate student seat were received and voting was conducted among graduate students, ending on March 27, 2009.

Governor Appointments - Report on 2009 Elections (Students, ... Page 289 of 293

Mr. Aaron Massecar (PhD Philosophy, 2nd year) was elected to the position by the graduate student body. A brief statement prepared by Mr. Massecar for use during the election campaign is enclosed for reference. The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, That the Board of Governors confirm the appointment of Mr. Aaron Massecar to the Board of Governors to serve in the graduate seat for a one-year term effective July 1, 2009 through to June 30, 2010. iii) Staff Mr. Bill Teesdale’s term as a staff/alumnus representative on the Board will end June 30, 2009. Three nominations for the staff/alumnus seat were received and voting was conducted among all regular full-time staff members, ending on March 20, 2009. Ms Gayleen Gray (Manager, IT Services, CCS and OVC) was elected to the position by regular full-time staff members. A brief statement prepared by Ms Gray for use during the election is enclosed for reference. The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, That the Board of Governors confirm the appointment of Ms Gayleen Gray to the Board of Governors, for a three-year term effective July 1, 2009 through to June 30, 2012. iv) Faculty Mr. Alan Sullivan’s term as a Senate-elected faculty member on the Board will end June 30, 2009. Six nominations were received for the position, which will be elected by Senate, per Board by-laws, in April, 2009. The results of this election will be brought forward to the Board for ratification at the June meeting. N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item 8c cover memo.doc


BOARD OF GOVERNORS ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES NOMINEE STATEMENTS

Gavin Armstrong Undergraduate Student, Bachelor of Commerce

The University faces unprecedented financial challenges and it is vital that the governance processes of the University understand and listen to the voice of students. It is particularly important at this time to have strong student representation on the Board of Governors. I am interested in promoting closer connection between the roles and activities of the Governors with Senate and with the issues that are important to students and would intend to consult widely in bringing information to the Board.

Nathan Lachowsky Undergraduate Student, Bachelor of Science

Undergraduate students deserve a strong, experienced and ardent representative to bring their voices to the Board of Governors. I have over two years of experience sitting on Senate, working within governance structures. I would ensure that the Board understands and appreciates the impact that the intersection of budget cuts and academic change has on students. I would work diligently to provide a clear understanding of the decisions being discussed by providing a direct channel between undergraduates and the Board of Governors. Support an experienced and engaged student leader as your voice in the financial decision-making and management of your University.

Aaron Massecar Graduate Student, PhD Philosophy During my tenure of President of the Graduate Students’ Association, I have had the unique opportunity to experience the University from the inside, be involved in some fantastic student-driven initiatives, and to see some of the effects of the University on the wider Guelph community. But as the end of term quickly approaches, I find myself wanting to do more. Being a member of the Board of Governors would allow me to bring some of the experience that I have garnered to a new forum that is responsible for effectuating major changes to each and every student here at Guelph. This entails a lot of responsibility, responsibility that I would only be too happy to take on.

Gayleen Gray IT Manager, CCS and OVC

I am seeking your support as the Staff/Alumnus representative on the Board of Governors. I served as your staff representative on Senate for two terms, sitting on the Senate Committee for University Planning, the Senate Planning and Priorities Committee and currently as Chair of the Honours and Awards Committee. I have been honoured to represent U of G staff in Senate’s important institutional role. Coupled with my Senate experience, my position as a Manager, in both Computing and Communications Services and the Ontario Veterinary College, has allowed me to develop an understanding of the academic and business challenges facing the University of Guelph and this experience will benefit me as a member of the BOG. I appreciate your consideration for this role.


Page 292 of 293

UNIVERSITY SECRETARIAT TO: Members, Board of Governors FROM: Vicki Hodgkinson, University Secretary SUBJECT: 10. Move to Closed Session

MEETING: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, that the Board of Governors move into closed session. and RESOLVE, that, Kevin Hall, Martha Harley, John Miles, Claude Macorin, Maureen Mancuso, Kate Revington, Joanne Shoveller, and Nancy Sullivan remain for the closed session of the meeting. N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2008-2009 Meetings\Meeting Packages\April 15, 2009\Background Documents - Open Session\BOG 09April 15 Meeting Item10 cover memo.doc

Move to Closed Session Page 293 of 293

Date post:	16-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times