MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Members Present: Paul Bylaska; Debra Decker; Curtis Foltz; Gail Grejda; Clare Heidler; Scott Horch; Bernadette Krenzer; Michael McConnell; Holly McGill; Lou Tripodi; Harry Tripp; Lisa Turner; Ron Wilshire
A. Introduction
1. Lou Tripodi explained that this meeting would cover near-term elements of the Master Plan, what had been accomplished and what still needs to be done or revised.
2. Members were reminded of the time frame for completion of the review. The next meeting, scheduled for January 29, will need to be changed. A new date will be established and communicated via e-mail.
B. Assumptions & Key Elements (pages 1 through 5 of the “Master Plan Update” document)
1. The following elements were included as driving the plan:
Need to link campus
Keep maintenance needs in check
With maintenance crews smaller need to make the
most efficient use of personnel.
When planning program changes or landscaping
needs arise, keep custodial and/or maintenance requirements in mind.
Expand and diversify student residential facilities
Academic support services should be close to
classrooms. Functions should be located
where they best serve customers. We should create memorable student gathering
places (bell tower is result).
Upgrade main street face of campus, connections
to the river, parking and traffic.
Complaint from community that many campus
buildings seemed to turn their back to the town. The Carlson Library project improved that
area.
Harry Tripp indicated that efforts were underway
to secure grant funds to initiate trails from campus to the river. Gail Grejda
mentioned that the power company had offered dock space to the university on
several occasions but funds were not available to pursue placing a dock for use
by departments, i.e. HPE, for new course offerings.
Identify property acquisitions to expand
capacity of campus. Create phased,
prioritized capital improvement program.
Need to explore ways to lessen the impact on the
community when the university purchases property.
Technology and landscaping plans separate from
the Master Plan.
C. Near Term Elements Completed (page 6)
1. The status of items listed to be completed in the first five years was identified as follows:
Founders, Harvey and Carlson renovations and
construction of
- Completed
Renovations to mechanical system in Peirce – need to check status. Feasibility
study for future replacement – Completed
Communications Science Disorders consolidated in
Keeling – Completed
Gail Grejda inquired
if any further thought was being given to moving Health Services to a new
facility. This is in the plan although
in the long term. The CSD program is an area that has potential for growth but is
restricted by its current space allocation.
Advancement moves to Moore Hall and Haskell and
Alumni Houses are
demolished to construct new residence hall – Not done
Ground floor of Becht
Hall used as surge space – Was used during Founders and
Carlson renovations but occupants currently in this space are more permanent.
2. Review of table elements resulted in the same findings. The elements not accomplished were move of advancement to Moore Hall and the demolition of the Haskell and Alumni Houses.
With current plans for construction of a new
building to house Alumni and Development, Moore Hall is not needed for these
programs. However a home for University
Relations personnel was never identified in the Master Plan and that department
will not be moving to the new facility.
3. Clare Heidler distributed a handout which listed current square footage allocations by space category. The chart identifies surplus or deficit amounts using figures contained in the formula established by the State System. These numbers are used when computing the allocation of funds. This information would be reviewed by the System offices when requests are made to construct new facilities or to renovate existing facilities for specific purposes, i.e. offices, classrooms, etc. These numbers need to be kept in mind when changing the use of specific areas or when adding new square footage use.
Day Care facilities are shown as 0 because they
are included in the lab category since they are used by the Education
Department as a teaching experience for their students.
Gail Grejda mentioned
the need for additional space for the day care program either in the same
building or a separate building.
D. Near Term Elements In-Process/Changes
1. Alumni/Advancement
The new Alumni/Development Center will not
affect the net square footage since the Haskell and Alumni houses should be
demolished.
Need to keep in mind that University Relations
needs to be relocated.
2. Academic Support Services
Move to the first floor of Ralston is being
considered.
3. Residence Halls
Reinhard Villages to
be occupied in Fall 2004 which would take
Plans are to construct suite style residence
facilities on campus to be open by Fall of 2006. This would vacate Becht
Hall and the remainder of Ralston and allow alternate use.
Wilkinson and Nair would be converted to single
units.
These changes should be incorporated into the
Master Plan update.
Must assess how the change in use would affect
the square footage numbers reported to the System and ultimately allocated e
& g funding.
E. Open Issues
1. Becht Hall
It is anticipated that the capital project to
renovate Becht Hall could be funded in 2008.
Need to consider the best use for this space and
if the consolidation of service offices suggested in the Plan as a one stop
shopping concept is still feasible.
Converting the building from auxiliary to E
& G use has budget implications.
Must be careful that the reallocation of use does not negatively affect
our formula numbers.
2. Rest of Ralston Hall
With the availability of the 2nd and
3rd floors planned for 2006, need to identify the best use. Could consider moving programs or could be
used instead of Becht as temporary “swing” for
programs displaced by renovations, i.e. Peirce
project.
3. Demolition
of
Members were informed of items that need to be
considered when considering demolition, including:
Demolition can be expensive given the need to
properly handle hazardous materials that may be present.
Not demolishing a building involves the need to
budget funds for custodial upkeep and maintenance.
If the building square footage remains on the
books, it could result in loss of approval for construction of new space
4. Parking
A report prepared by Dave Tedjeske on parking
and the Master Plan will be distributed to the committee and discussed at the
next meeting.
5. Financial Support
Need to project the availability of funds to
support the recommended changes to the Plan.
The annual allocation has been greatly reduced
from the original amount of $700,000.
6. Cultural Changes
Need to assess the cultural changes that may affect
the university and planned uses of space.
Is the one stop shopping concept defined the
same as it was when the plan was written?
Instead of consolidating the offices in one area perhaps it is more important
to cross train personnel so the student does not have to go from office to
office.
It was suggested that perhaps a subcommittee
consisting of individuals who are involved in the student registration process
could meet to develop a recommendation on how to best proceed in implementing a
plan. Bernadette Krenzer will follow up
on this idea.
7. Other
Moore Hall:
The top floor is not being used although a proposal has been made to
move the Honors Program into this area.
It was noted that structural problems would prohibit any heavy duty use
of the area. No definite use of the area
has been approved and it remains open for discussion.
F. Committee Assignment
1. Committee members were asked to review the information that had been discussed today and forward any suggestions or comments on any of the items that need to be addressed in the update of the Plan to Lou Tripodi via e-mail prior to the next meeting.