Agenda

Date: November 24, 2025
Members: Warwick Arden, Charles Maimone, Krista Walton
Subcommittee Representatives: Allen Boyette, Alicia Knight, Barbara Moses, Bill Davis, Cameron Smith, Dana Harris, Doug Morton, Eduardo Lorente, Lisa Johnson, Patrick Deaton, Sumayya Jones-Humienny
Guests: Charles Clift, Cindy Barr, and Kyle Pysher (EMAS); Chris Frey (COE Research); Marc Hoit and Greg Sparks (OIT Comtech) and Julie Swann (OIT Research Computing and Data, COE Fitts Industrial and Systems Engineering)

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

Consent Agenda Approval: N/A

Campus Planning Subcommittee Items

1. Delegated Authority Determinations:
   1. CHASS Psychology Department, Vacate CTI 2nd Fl Lease Space and Request Research IV Suite 2800, Space Request #25-13
   2. CED Community Counseling and Education Research Center (CCERC) and The Literacy Space, Venture IV Partial Suite 110 Sublease from Center for Integrated Pest Management (CIPM), Space Request #25-14
2. Action Items:
   1. Registration and Records, Proposed Update to Classroom Scheduling Policy (Info Item 24.12) : C. Clift / K. Pysher / C. Barr (15 mins.)
   2. b. Molten Salt Loop Study (Info Item 24.14): D. Morton / C. Frey (15 mins.)
3. Information Items:
   1. COE Mineral Research Lab (Info Item 25.18): C. Frey (10 mins.)
   2. OIT Data Demand Study, Related to Space Request #24-24: G. Sparks / J. Swann (20 mins.)
   3. Poole College of Management New Building Site Selection: L. Johnson (10 mins.)

Project Execution Subcommittee Items

1. Updates: C. Smith (15 mins.)
   1. Poe Hall

Other Business

Next Meeting:
January 26, 2025, from 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm

Minutes

Date: November 24, 2025
Members: Warwick Arden, Charles Maimone, Krista Walton
Subcommittee Representatives: Allen Boyette, Alicia Knight, Barbara Moses, Bill Davis, Cameron Smith, Dana Harris, Doug Morton, Eduardo Lorente, Lisa Johnson, Patrick Deaton, Sumayya Jones-Humienny
Guests: Charles Clift, Cindy Barr, and Kyle Pysher (EMAS); Chris Frey (COE Research); Marc Hoit and Greg Sparks (OIT Comtech) and Julie Swann (OIT Research Computing and Data, COE Fitts Industrial and Systems Engineering)

Approval of the Minutes:
The minutes of the October 27, 2025 meeting were approved and have been posted.

Consent Agenda Approval: N/A

Campus Planning Subcommittee Items

1. Delegated Authority Determinations:
   1. CHASS Psychology Department, Vacate CTI 2nd Fl Lease Space and Request Research IV Suite 2800, Space Request #25-13
      1. The Campus Planning Subcommittee approved the space allocation.
      2. The cost estimate for the proposed work to Research IV Suite 2800 is in progress. An appropriate funding source for the move and minimal upfit work will be determined.
   2. CED Community Counseling and Education Research Center (CCERC) and The Literacy Space, Venture IV Partial Suite 110 Sublease from Center for Integrated Pest Management (CIPM), Space Request #25-14
      1. The Campus Planning Subcommittee approved the sublease request.
2. Action Items:
   1. Registration and Records, Proposed Update to Classroom Scheduling Policy (Info Item 24.12) : C. Clift / K. Pysher / C. Barr (15 mins.)
      1. Due to enrollment growth, several renovations underway, and the continued closure of Poe Hall, the university is facing a classroom shortage.
      2. Two proposed adjustments to the scheduling policy will help alleviate this shortage by ex-tending course scheduling during the day and the week. They are to:
         1. Limit scheduling during the four, highly-congested time blocks between 9:35am and 4:25pm, such that no more than 20% of courses could be scheduled in any one of these blocks. This limit is an equitable place to start, while giving colleges some scheduling leeway.
         2. Restrict to no more than 25% of courses to be scheduled on any one day of the week, Monday through Thursday, and review this cap percentage annually for adjustment based on classroom inventory and enrollment growth.
      3. Currently, the policy does not push scheduling to Fridays. Many departments across campus schedule courses on two paired days a week (M-W or Tu-Th).
         1. While shorter classes on a MWF schedule would gain two periods across scheduling blocks, faculty have expressed a preference for longer time periods for their pedagogical needs.
      4. The proposed policy originally looked at scheduling by department; however, the language was revised to place it at either the college or department level based on feedback from some of the smaller colleges.
      5. This policy also gives Registration and Records the ability to align course size with class-room size, based on historic enrollment patterns over the past three years.
      6. The goal is for this policy to be approved by the end of Fall 2025 or beginning of Spring 2026 so that regulation enforcement can begin with Spring 2027 scheduling.
         1. Fall 2026 scheduling begins in late November and sufficient time will be required to allow for scheduling and teaching adjustments.
      7. Registration and Records is currently developing dashboards to enable scheduling officers to see where they’re out of compliance with the policy and which classes need to be moved.
         1. Non-compliant groups will move to the bottom of the scheduling priority list.
      8. Had the proposed policy been in place this semester (Fall 2025), 331 sections would have been moved. Note that 200 sections were manually moved.
      9. The proposed policy is not a panacea, and other efforts will be needed to reduce pressure on 110 classrooms. Registration and Records and the Subcommittee request:
         1. Approval to move the regulation forward. C. Clift will present to the full Faculty Sen-ate on November 25, 2025. [Follow-up: At that full Faculty Senate meeting, faculty had no objections to this proposed regulation.]
         2. Approval to draft a memo to be executed by the Committee requesting that departments share appropriate 210 teaching lab, meeting, and conference rooms with Registrations and Records to increase their available inventory.
      10. The Committee approved both requests.
   2. b. Molten Salt Loop Study (Info Item 24.14): D. Morton / C. Frey (15 mins.)
      1. Phase 1 of this study began with industry interest and is utilizing resources remaining from the Advanced Research and Test Reactor Study to evaluate the feasibility of a real-scale testbed.
         1. The Steering Committee is working in conjunction with Engineering faculty to develop requirements to relay to the consultant team.
      2. A Molten Salt Loop (MSL) can mediate between heat source input and demand, supporting an Integrated Energy System composed of the Research and Test Reactor, MSL, Thermal Energy Storage, and a Campus Microgrid.
      3. These findings also provided an overview of the facility requirements, salt selection, key considerations, and risks.
      4. The team’s request is for approval to proceed with Phase 2 to further study and define practical applications and scalability
      5. The Committee approved proceeding with Phase 2 of the study
3. Information Items:
   1. COE Mineral Research Lab (Info Item 25.18): C. Frey (10 mins.)
      1. US Representative Chuck Edwards recently walked through the Asheville facility accompanied by Matt Peterson, Director of the Office of Federal Relations.
      2. The Mineral Research Lab’s work aligns with current federal priorities, especially the growing need for Rare Earth Elements (REE)
      3. Renovation to a portion of the existing building would allow for expansion of research and training to help meet federal priorities.
      4. The proposed project focuses on the first-floor space, with strategic upgrades to approximately 6,200 GSF. The targeted budget for this work is $4.85M, including equipment. The intent is limit the proposed scope of work to the funding available.
      5. The request will be for discretionary funds from Representative Edwards. Since this is federal funding, there is no opportunity to request associated operating funds from the State.
      6. This request does not include renovations to the main portion of the building.
         1. A study is documenting needed improvements; however, a funding source has not yet been identified for this work.
         2. There may be another opportunity to walk through the building again with Representa-tive Edwards to discuss additional needs beyond this initial scope.
      7. Understanding any expectations that come with the funding is critical to ensure they can be met within the limited budget.
      8. M. Peterson, with COE’s involvement, will draft a proposal to submit to the federal government.
   2. OIT Data Demand Study, Related to Space Request #24-24: G. Sparks / J. Swann (20 mins.)
      1. G. Sparks recapped efforts to date since the Committee reviewed this topic last December:
         1. The study shifted from a larger to a smaller scale to focus on the drivers of the need demand, as requested.
      2. J. Swann delved into the presentation starting with the Research Computing and Data (RCD) overview and planning for its future at NC State with the following key takeaways:
         1. The RCD system supports research from conception to dissemination; if there is no computing, then there will be no research.
         2. Scientific computing is growing at all levels and has significant infrastructure needs with more details on investments needed for ongoing operations.
      3. Liquid cooling is driving power demand, as newer computing generations require 5 – 10 times the power of previous versions.
      4. NC State has two data centers (EDC, MCNC) with no short-term plans to expand. Limited power is available.
      5. Decentralized computing is occurring across campus. There are issues with this approach, and a formal policy around major computing investments on campus is requested.
      6. Centralized computing capacity should be approximately 4 times what is currently available (based on R&D awards in 2024). With anticipated growth over the next 5 years, the capacity should be approximately 10 times what is currently available.
         1. These increases are not feasible with the data centers NC State currently utilizes.
      7. A commercial hosting site and/or partnership with other universities is/are currently seen as the only viable solutions.
      8. The three options studied with associated costs are as follows. All can be scaled up over time.
         1. Long-term: Procure an NC State site. This option is the most cost effective, but ca-pacity would be realized at least five years after investment; therefore, co-locating would be needed as “bridge computing.” OIT has submitted a Call for Needs request to initiate the process.
            1. The proposed request is for both a building (estimated at $180M) plus infra-structure, with a timeline of 5-7 years.
            2. Costs associated with hardware and cloud computing would need to be a separate request.
            3. The total cost is ~$300M over 5 years and ~$462M over 20 years.
      9. Medium-term: Obtain a colocation partner, which can be used to bridge the gap. Capacity is realized at about 2 years after investment, but this creates dependent relationship.
      10. The total cost would be ~$299M over 5 years and ~$806M over 20 years.
      11. Short-term: Maintain services on the cloud. This is the most expensive at ~$100M/year.
          1. The total cost would be ~$833M over 5 years and ~$1.67B over 20 years.
      12. One recommendation is for more options with direct charges for research computing to offset central costs.
      13. The Committee inquired about other university and triangle partners.
          1. M. Hoit noted discussions are underway with Duke University, who is planning to build a non-profit 3 MW data center with the possibility of expanding to 10MW to consolidate needs across the state.
          2. D. Morton noted industry is already working to meet consumer demands.
          3. J. Swann is gathering more information on other options but is currently unaware of any universities completely using commercial means. There may be an option for a joint request by NC State, UNC-CH and Duke Universities to the State CIO for long-term legislative funding to address aggregated needs.
   3. Poole College of Management New Building Site Selection: L. Johnson (10 mins.)

Project Execution Subcommittee Items

1. Updates: C. Smith (15 mins.)
   1. Poe Hall: C. Smith relayed the lack of funding appropriation is causing the timeline for abatement/demolition and other scheduling for the project to be delayed.

Other Business: N/A

Next Meeting:
There is no December 2025 meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for January 26, 2025, 3:00 PM – 4:30

Meeting Adjourned: 3:00 PM