Like other new recruits to the University of Connecticut, I was  attracted by the tangible benefits of the past 10 years of construction and  renovation under the UConn 2000 program. 
						
							
								|   | 
							
								| Provost Peter Nicholls  | 
						
						The first-rate teaching facilities, lab space, residence halls,  and administrative offices resulting from the $1 billion committed by the  legislature for UConn 2000 have already drawn an increasingly talented and  diverse student body and many outstanding and highly qualified new faculty and  staff. 
						 We are uniquely fortunate as a state university that this  progress will continue over the next decade with 21st Century UConn. This major  commitment from the State of Connecticut will provide an additional $1.3  billion in continued infrastructure improvements to Storrs and the regional  campuses and to the UConn Health Center in Farmington. 
						 Times and conditions change, and so must our plans and  priorities. As we transition from UConn 2000 to 21st Century UConn, and as  three major projects—the Pharmacy/Biology Building, the Burton/Shenkman  Athletic Complex, and Phase II of the Student Union—reach or approach  completion, it is time to re-examine our construction plans to ensure that the  scope and sequence of the projects reflect our current needs. 
						 When state legislators approved a continuation of funding for the  University several years ago, they didn’t write us a blank check; they asked  for an outline of intended projects. On the University’s part, a great deal of  careful planning went into identifying the infrastructure needs not yet addressed  by UConn 2000. 
						 For Storrs and the regional campuses, 43 separate projects are  listed by name. It has become clear to me, however, from looking at the plans  and the budgeted amounts, 
							that the list presents some challenges, not least because inflation has  rendered it over-optimistic. 
						 We remain committed to each of the projects named and are not  authorized to add or remove any. But we also have considerable flexibility in  deciding the scope of each project and hence its budget, and also the sequence of  the projects identified.
						 The task at hand is to figure out a 10-year plan that’s going to  be realistic and speaks to the needs of the University, without exceeding the  fiscal limits of the program. 
						 As we consider all of our priorities, there will be tough  decisions to make. These will be made through a process of consultation with  the Council of Deans, the Building and Grounds Committee, the Senior  Administrative Team, and through open discussions with the University community  at large. 
						 While we will be guided by the careful planning to date, the  criteria grounding the decision-making process will include the projects’  centrality to the mission of the University and the physical condition of the  current facility.
						 During the next 10 years, we have the opportunity to get our  undergraduate education facilities right. We must replace or augment the  available classroom space to meet the needs of our increased student  enrollment, while ensuring that our students enjoy a positive educational  experience and a safe environment. 
						  
	
	At the same time, research is a priority and we have a goal of  increasing research funding, so we must ensure that our research units,  especially those with the potential to attract significant external funding,  have the type of up-to-date facilities that will support their mission.
	The 10-year construction program includes several research and  teaching facilities that are needed to accommodate the needs of faculty, staff,  and students in many different schools and colleges. It is critically important  that we develop a realistic timeline for the entire program of construction and  renovation. 
	 In order to accomplish this, we must develop a practical,  well-researched set of cost data for all the projects, especially given the  impact of inflation in the past several years and public interest in the  University’s construction program. 
	 As one cost-saving measure, we plan to have guidelines developed  for faculty space, lab space, classroom space, and equipment, to avoid the need  to develop separate plans for every building. These guidelines will be based on  practices in higher education, our own experience to date, and our budget.  Adopting a more uniform approach in the future will enable us to cut down our  costs by reducing the number of special features, while still accomplishing our  goals. 
	 We also plan to form a new committee, the Capital Projects  Advisory Committee, which will take the place of the former 
		Master Planning Committee. This group, chaired by me and Vice President 
		Flaherty-Goldsmith, will foster communications on campus and provide advice on  the implementation of capital projects. Our aim is to have a revised, 10-year  construction program ready for approval by the Board of Trustees by early 2006. 
	 Our next immediate priority will be to proceed with the planning  process for the Arjona/Monteith and Torrey Life Sciences projects. These were  the next two major projects that our previous planning had identified. They are  both facilities that are central and critical to the success of our teaching  and research missions and both facilities are currently in very poor physical  condition.
	 It is no exaggeration to say that undergraduate education at UConn  cannot be satisfactorily accomplished without replacing the current worn and  outdated space in the Arjona and Monteith Buildings. 
	 In view of this, I will be working over the coming weeks with the  dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and with others to identify  who will be the occupants of the Arjona/Monteith replacement facility, what  their space needs are, whether the current buildings should be remodeled or  replaced, and where – if rebuilt – they should be located. 
	 There are other important decisions to make too, such as how many  classrooms to include, and whether to incorporate some departments currently  located elsewhere. It is my hope that we will be able to break ground on the  Arjona/Monteith project by fall 2007.
	 The people of the state have made a 20-year investment of $2.3  billion in our buildings. But their expectations are high. We must continue to  develop an infrastructure that will support and facilitate excellence in teaching,  research, and outreach, and serve as the foundation in our quest to be among  the top public universities for the 21st century.