MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE

MINUTES

January 27, 2004

Members Present: Paul Bylaska; Debra Decker; Curtis Foltz; Tom Gusler; Scott Horch; Bernadette Krenzer; Marie Scovoran; Lou Tripodi; Harry Tripp; Lisa Turner; Ron Wilshire

I. Approval of Minutes – January 15, 2004

1. A motion was made by Bernadette Krenzer and seconded by Debra Decker to approve the minutes of January 15, 2004 as presented. The motion carried unanimously.

II. Additional Near-Term

1. University Relations Home

Lou Tripodi distributed an e-mail from Bernadette Krenzer which discussed some of the open items from the last meeting including the demolition of the Haskell and Alumni houses and the need to find a new location for University Relations.

Is it feasible to move the program into the Mail Receiving Building with Printing Services which is a part of the University Relations area?

Need to consider what other departments or services University Relations needs to be near. Other considerations include parking, public access and overall appearance.

2. Mail/Receiving Building

It was questioned if the mail/receiving functions should be consolidated with other related offices in McEntire. Is this building suitable space for housing the University Relations function?

3. East Entrance to Campus – not addressed

4. Moore Hall

Renovations possibilities for this building are limited due to its age and structure. Need to determine what program(s) would be a viable candidate for the building since only the top floor would be available and it is not handicapped accessible.

5. Tippin Trailer – not addressed

6. Becht vs. Ralston

Ralston would seem to be a better candidate for use as surge space. If the first floor is occupied by Academic Support Services, the remaining 3 floors would be available for use in 2006 when

The current programs on first floor of Becht should be considered as temporary occupants. When that building is renovated, probably not before 2008-2010, it will need to be completely vacated.

The residence hall master plan did not exist when the Facilities Master Plan was developed. The impact of current construction was not considered in the near-term.

Ralston will be vacated for housing purposes in 2006 and a decision will need to be made as to whether it will be demolished or turned over for e & g use.

A decision will also need to be made on Campbell Hall. All indications are that it should be demolished but the cost of doing so also needs to be considered.

III. Process

1. Tom Gusler questioned the procedure to be used in recommending changes to the plan.

Would it be more beneficial to have a smaller group arrive at suggestions for where programs should be housed and have the larger committee have final approval and recommendation to PEC?

Are there common questions that could be asked for each situation to help determine the best options, i.e. parking consideration, proximity to related functions, etc. Lou Tripodi indicated that this was why the committee was discussing each move – to identify problems and/or advantages in relation to each suggested move or use. A smaller group of individuals would then prepare the final recommendations for overall approval by the committee.

2. Curtis Foltz added that he was still having a problem determining from the charts presented in Mr. Bylaska’s memo what recommendations from the plan were complete and which were open. Also, the document did not identify decisions that may have been made, i.e. the new building for Advancement, that would impact other items contained in the plan.

The committee reviewed the charts and confirmed that in the near-term open items were use of Moore Hall and Becht.

3. The need for an overall academic plan was expressed. Some guidance form the Council of Deans as to what academic programs will be needing more space or less and what new programs may be anticipated is necessary in planning facilities use. Harry Tripp added that a plan from the Student Affairs area would also be beneficial. Perhaps any recommendations on revisions to the plan need to contain a statement that they were developed in the absence of a formal academic plan.

IV. Mid-Term

1. Timeline for Becht

As indicated previously, funding for the renovation projects is scheduled to be released in 2008 but this does not mean construction will start then and it is more likely it would be at least 2010 before the project would start. However, until funding is approved, there are no guarantees the project will proceed.

2. Peirce Status

Funds have not yet been released. It is still expected that construction will occur in 2006.

3. Becker

No plans have been formulated for renovation of the building. Discussions need to occur with the departments in that building regarding program plans.

4. Parking

Lou Tripodi distributed a report from Dave Tedjeske regarding parking and update of recommendations contained in the Master Plan.

The information presented indicates that parking problems are mainly in the 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. time period. Solutions for this problem may best be addressed through scheduling rather than construction.

The report suggests that parking is adequate at least until Peirce goes off-line.

5. One Stop Shopping

Bernadette Krenzer reported on a committee she had formed to discuss this concept. She provided a handout summarizing the issues the committee considered and conclusions arrived at, including:

The need to improve technology offerings and provide better training to students in its use.

Cross-training of personnel

Parking must be available

In considering whether Becht or Ralston, preferred Becht because it is more in the main stream, easier to find.

Large reception area would be preferred.

Be careful not lose smaller functions, i.e. non-traditional student union, already housed in Becht.

Space needs of the programs need to be addressed.

It was suggested that a more formal One Stop Shopping Committee be appointed to address outstanding issues prior to the time when consolidation may actually occur.

V. The next meeting is scheduled for February 12.