VMI executive committee approves submission of six-year plan, seeks state funding for operations including aquatic center staffing and fitness initiative

The Virginia Military Institute Board of Visitors executive committee voted to approve the institute’s draft six-year plan and the associated general fund requests, and authorized the acting superintendent to make final technical edits and submit the plan to state officials.

The committee approved the motion by voice vote during its meeting; the proposal authorizes submission of the draft by the July 3 deadline and signals VMI’s top priorities for state funding, including operational support for the recently built aquatic center, a unified amendment to continue a state-funded program labeled in the plan as VMS DEP, and a new “forging fit leaders” fitness and nutrition initiative for cadets.

The vote sends VMI’s draft to state reviewers as required by the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2011 and the state planning process described in the institute’s presentation. Committee members were briefed on the plan’s structure, the template’s data and narrative requirements, and a timeline that includes a Richmond presentation in August, feedback in September and a final submission to state reviewers on Dec. 1.

General Clark, the presenter for the plan briefing, told the committee the six-year submittal pairs a two‑year operating request with a longer-term financial outlook and must align with the state strategic plan (referred to in materials as “Pathways for Opportunity, the Virginia plan for higher education”). Clark said the submission is an annual process even though it is called a six-year plan, and that the template constrains some inputs (for example, standard percentages for salary and employer health insurance increases are provided in the template). He said the institute is proposing a 3% tuition‑increase upper threshold for forecasting purposes but emphasized that the figure does not commit the board to such an increase.

The executive committee discussed six broad general fund request categories outlined in the presentation: (1) operational support related to CLEA Phase 2 (noting that capital costs themselves are not included in the operational template), (2) a unified amendment for the VMS DEP program to transition funding from one‑time allocations to recurring support, (3) “mission ready facilities,” primarily to staff and operate the new aquatic center and to meet maintenance needs across post facilities, (4) a “forging fit leaders” fitness and nutrition initiative that would include a nutritionist and a fitness‑probation structure, (5) strengthening academic excellence (including items tied to the SACSCOC quality enhancement plan, internships and instructional support), and (6) “access to excellence” to bring a current Pell‑targeted program into the base budget.

On the aquatic center, Clark said the facility is roughly 50,000 square feet and that current maintenance and custodial staffing has been covered by moving technicians and housekeepers from other shops; the general fund request would staff the facility with dedicated trade technicians and custodians. He described the mission ready facilities request as a high priority because several recent capital projects increase long‑term maintenance needs.

On internships, a committee member asked whether the institute’s proposals were intended to cover placement services, stipends or both. Clark said both, noting an existing grant of roughly $100,000 is being used to help cadets take unpaid internships by supporting housing and related expenses, and that the plan seeks a larger, more strategic internship program going forward.

On the forging fit leaders request, Clark said the initiative would centralize several fitness tests, create a standard assessment for non‑commissioning cadets, develop a fitness improvement program and add a nutritionist position. He said nutrition support is now handled in a dispersed way across athletic trainers, counselors and other staff and that the proposed position would centralize nutrition and performance dining support; the institute is exploring whether to fund a full‑time nutritionist or expand services via the food vendor contract (Parkhurst).

Clark said the draft narrative totals about 32 pages and that Dave Sigler has coordinated much of the work with a team that includes several named officers and staff. He said the team received the template and instructions on May 5, will submit a draft on July 3, expects to present in Richmond on Aug. 21, anticipates feedback on Sept. 1 from the state review group (identified in materials as OP6), and plans to finalize the plan for Board of Visitors approval at the September meeting (Sept. 22–24, date shown in materials).

After discussion, the committee chair called for a motion. Conrad Garcia moved approval of the proposed six‑year plan and general fund requests and to authorize the acting superintendent to make final technical edits prior to submission; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The committee chair thanked staff for their work and noted a VMI Board of Visitors priorities statement would be posted to the institute website the following day.

The meeting closed with public thanks to departing committee members Conrad Garcia and Damon Williams, who will leave the board at the end of the month.