Agenda

Date: March 23, 2026

Members: Warwick Arden, Charles Maimone, Krista Walton

Subcommittee Representatives: Allen Boyette, Alicia Knight, Barbara Moses, Bill Davis, Cameron Smith, Dana Harris, Eduardo Lorente, Lisa Johnson, Patrick Deaton, Sumayya Jones-Humienny

Guests: N/A

Approval of the Minutes: W. Arden (1 min.)

Consent Agenda Approval: N/A

Campus Planning Subcommittee Items:

1. Delegated Authority Determinations:
   1. Revised Lease Space Authority Thresholds A. Knight (5 mins.)
2. Action Items
   1. Witherspoon Student Center Architectural Enhancement Study (Related to #202213038 and #201713018) S. Jones-Humienny (10 mins.)
   2. College of Engineering New Classroom Building Visioning Study, (Related to Info Item 21.12) L. Johnson (10 mins.)
3. Information Items
   1. Campus Development Call for Needs Update L. Johnson/S. Jones-Humienny (20 mins.)
      1. Campus Development Process Draft Video
      2. Evaluation, Scoring, and Next Steps
   2. Holladay Hall Building Condition (Info Item 24.04) A. Boyette/L. Johnson (10 mins.)

Project Execution Subcommittee Items:

1. Updates: C. Smith/B. Davis (15 mins.)
   1. College of Education
      Polk Hall Renovation
      Doak Field
      Budget Bill

Other Business:

Next Meeting:
April 27, 2026, from 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm

Minutes

Date: March 23, 2026

Members: Warwick Arden, Charles Maimone, Krista Walton, Genevieve Garland

Subcommittee Representatives: Allen Boyette, Alicia Knight, Barbara Moses, Bill Davis, Cameron Smith, Dana Harris, Lisa Johnson, Patrick Deaton, Sumayya Jones-Humienny

Guests: N/A

Approval of the Minutes: 

The minutes of the February 23, 2026 meeting were approved and have been posted.

Consent Agenda Approval: N/A

Campus Planning Subcommittee Items:

1. Delegated Authority Determinations:
   1. Revised Lease Space Authority Thresholds A. Knight
      1. The Campus Planning Subcommittee delegated authority charge for lease space decisions is to be revised as follows, to align with the threshold for lease space decisions requiring Board of Trustees approval:
         1. The Campus Planning Subcommittee has delegated authority to make lease space decisions for leases under $100,000 annual cost with a lease term of less than three years.
2. Action Items
   1. Witherspoon Student Center Architectural Enhancement Study (Related to #202213038 and #201713018) S. Jones-Humienny
      1. Previous studies focused on improvements to Witherspoon Student Center were completed in 2017 and 2022. These studies described an ambitious scope of work that was ultimately determined to be beyond budget.
      2. Campus Enterprises has decided to proceed with incremental improvements to the building and has already completed some smaller projects using this phased approach.
      3. The proposed study extends this approach to the building envelope, with phased improvements to the roof, windows, and materials. It also considers incremental additions to provide the lacking student lounge/study and prefunction space for the auditorium, which is also the largest 110 classroom on campus.
      4. While the study began by looking at more minor improvements, the aggregate scope of work is now anticipated to exceed $4M.
      5. CRA, the consulting firm on the study, has done other work in the building.
      6. The intent is to take a forward-thinking approach to Witherspoon and its relationship to Cates West and the new dining facility.
      7. Discussion included maintenance costs in this split-funded building, as 80% of the auditorium’s use is for classroom use.
      8. The Committee approved moving forward with the study.
   2. College of Engineering New Classroom Building Visioning Study, (Related to Info Item 21.12) L. Johnson 
      1. Because Advance Planning appropriated funding has not yet been awarded for the $200M project, COE requests approval to proceed with a headstart study for programming. It will determine the vision for the building and what classrooms, teaching labs, research labs, collaboration spaces, etc., are needed. Given the scale of the study, it must be advertised for designer selection interviews.
      2. COE’s growth pinch point is hiring faculty who all require instructional plus research space.
      3. Although the named project on the approved Six-Year Capital list is the “New Engineering Building,” Dean Pfaendtner calls it the “Engineering Expansion Academic Building.” His vision is to incorporate AI across all engineering disciplines for instruction and research.
      4. The Committee noted Dean Pfaendtner’s vision for growth does not entirely align with the legislators’. While more instructional space is needed on the lower floors, additional research space is also needed on the upper floors.
      5. Discussion ensued, noting the importance of understanding that classroom space is only about 5% of the University’s space inventory (not including residential space).
      6. The Committee remarked funding is not being awarded per the anticipated timeline, limiting the University’s ability to achieve the expected growth results.
      7. The Committee requested the study wait until the new Provost can be involved:
         1. Revisit the Physical Master Plan’s growth percentages for COE’s departments and how they relate to COE’s space on Centennial Campus.
         2. Determine how the new building will address the growth needs: which departments will expand and what will the increase be in student contact hours (SCH)?
         3. Calculate the total project costs and relay them to key stakeholders and leadership.
3. Information Items
   1. Campus Development Call for Needs Update L. Johnson/S. Jones-Humienny 
      1. Campus Development Process Draft Video
         1. This level 2 draft video explains the process and provides guidance for submitting Call for Needs requests over $4M.
         2. Google Vid was used to develop the video quickly and at no cost. Google Vid will be used to redo the Level 1 video for a shorter, more focused course for required training.
         3. The Committee should relay any feedback to L. Johnson for incorporation.
      2. Evaluation, Scoring, and Next Steps
   2. Holladay Hall Building Condition (Info Item 24.04) A. Boyette/L. Johnson
      1. The scoring criteria includes 3 main components: proposal drivers, formal engagement for importance and impact, and University strategic goals.
      2. Formal Engagement presentations are scheduled in April. Committee members are invited to join the Campus Planning Subcommittee (CPS) for these sessions. The presentations have a similar format to 5-minute thesis presentations and provide clarification by the submitters. These presentations will be recorded for on-demand viewing later.
      3. After formal engagement, CPS members will score for Importance and Impact. These scores feed into the overall rankings.
      4. To assist with the University Strategic Goals Alignment scoring methodology, the Evaluation Working Group now includes Fashaad Crawford and Courtney Thornton.
      5. The Evaluation Working Group has further refined the Urgency component of proposal drivers and removed the Emergency category.
      6. 12% of proposals have been partially studied, or have studies in progress. 22% have completed studies. 10% are in design and include: Cates West Development, Avent Ferry Technology Renovation, Poole College of Management New Facility, and Critical Campus Infrastructure Work. The 2% that is ready for construction accounts for the CVM Large Animal Addition.
      7. The College of Education Building was included as an emergency request on the memo accompanying the 2025-27 Six-Year Capital Plan request, but was not on that list. For the 2027-29 request, it will be added to the list.
      8. The needs are split into the Six-Year Capital Plan’s basic funding categories for appropriated/split-funded and non-appropriated.
      9. The question arose regarding the validity of one college’s second priority placing higher than another college’s first priority. There are circumstances where this is warranted, such as COS’s Dabney-Cox Renovation currently underway needing additional funding to start Phase 3, which was not funded in the first tranche. Otherwise, the 4th Floor would remain gutted and vacant as the buffer between the occupied 3rd Floor after construction on the 5th Floor completes. Phase 3 would complete the renovation of Dabney and Cox.
      10. Discussion included commendations on this robust process, leading to great conversations around the colleges’ presentations. This process feeds the Biennial Six-Year Capital Plan. The Committee representatives also need to communicate back to the colleges/divisions the tiered rankings.
      11. The Committee directed that Interim Assistant VC of Facilities, C. Smith, meet with Julie Smith, VC and Chief of Staff for the University, and Mark Schmidt, Interim VC for External Affairs, Partnerships, and Economic Development, before the short legislative session to provide a campus needs update.

Project Execution Subcommittee Items:

1. Updates: C. Smith/B. Davis 
   1. College of Education
      1. Design Development for abatement and demolition was approved. The Construction Document phase is slated to complete in May. EPA’s review will be concurrent with SCO’s for Construction Documents.
      2. The $180M funding request for renovation is in the budget bill. The first funding tranche, per the Board of Governors’ materials, does not align with NC State’s request and clarification is needed from the UNC System Office.
      3. Additional funding is needed for the overall project. C. Smith will meet with Julie Smith to relay this request and ascertain the legislators’ thoughts on the matter.
   2. Polk Hall Renovation
      1. Phase I construction is underway.
      2. Facilities is tracking the legislative short session for Phase 2 funding needed to complete the project.
      3. Swing space is needed but not currently available until Dabney Phase 2 renovation completes in 2030.
   3. Doak Field
      1. This $20M project is substantially complete, and Varsity Drive has been reopened.
      2. The players are excited about the new facility’s features.
   4. Budget Bill
      1. Because of the delay in passing the budget bill and awarding funds, multiple projects have not received the funds needed to proceed. The CVM Large Animal Addition project will be particularly challenging due to additional escalation costs accruing, causing the project to exceed the budget.

Other Business: N/A

Next Meeting:
April 27, 2026, from 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm

Meeting Adjourned
3:31 pm