ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR FACILITIES

March 19, 2002 Meeting Notes

Approved: 5/7/02

Committee Members Present:

George Brown

Dario Caloss

Allan Dyson

Ben Friedlander

Gail Heit

Ed Houghton

Bill Hyder

Dave Kliger

Steve Kang

Meredith Michaels

Free Moini

Fran Owens

Tom Vani (Chair)

Frank Zwart

Committee Members Not Present:

Daniel Barnett

Dave Dorfan

Suresh Diffenbaugh

Latrice Jones

Introduction:

· Meeting convened by Tom Vani.

· Updates to the 2002-03 Space & Capital binder were provided (Section #7 – Academic Office Analysis).

Discussion of Notes from the Previous Meetings:

· Notes for the March 5, 2002 meeting were not discussed.

Informational/Discussion/Report Items:

1. Recommended State-Funded 2003-08 MCIP

Presenter: Fran Owens

Handouts: Start of 2003-08 MCIP with suggested changes

2003-08 MCIP 5-year costs

2003-08 MCIP Summary of Recommendations

· Campus still has no target amount set, but expects a $5M - $10M reduction, meaning our target would be in the range of $150M to $155M.

· Fran’s recommendations were presented and discussed. The University Librarian requested duplicate mention of the point in the Summary of Recommendations that the Library project would be increased by $10.5M.

· Recommendation to put Arts facility ahead of Natural Sciences based on Arts leasing space and needing studio space very badly, as well as the feeling that the campus won’t be able to justify a Natural Sciences Building so soon after the completion of ISB.

· Natural Sciences 6:

Ø ISB really provided space for Environmental Studies, since they could move into Nat Sci II sooner than waiting for ISB.

Ø Suggestion was made to break Nat Sci 6 into three buildings, which would enable the project to be spread over a longer period so that a large amount of funds wouldn’t be needed in any one year. This could be done by department – Physics, Astronomy and Math would each have their own building.

Ø Is Nat Sci 6 so big that there will never be enough money to build it?

Ø Alterations to Thimann may be needed, in association with the new building.

· Added figure for Sinsheimer Building sprinklers.

Ø Walls surrounding corridors do not meet fire code. They must either be fixed or a sprinkler system needs to be added to the building.

Ø Currently exploring cost analysis of both methods. The preference is to add sprinklers.

Ø Building was designed properly, but was not built properly. To try to avoid this from happening again, campus inspectors are involved sooner and more often during construction and the Fire Marshall continues to monitor inspections.

· Alterations to Engineering:

Ø Engineering expected more funds since Engineering II building was designed under the premise that other alterations would be needed to meet certain programmatic needs (such as nanotechnology).

Ø Could nanotechnology labs be added to Nat Sci 6?

Ø Engineering will try to raise private funds to supplement State funding.

The committee raised no objections to moving forward with the plan as presented.

Member Items:

2. Gifts & Purchases of Exterior Public Art

Presenter: Tom Vani

· How should we decide whether gifted/purchased art should be displayed?

· Should principles be established?

· Should a small group, similar to a space evaluation team be created?

· Need mechanism to evaluate quality and appropriateness of work.

· Involvement of surrounding building occupants is necessary.

· Must also consider costs (maintenance, insurance, etc).

Review of Upcoming Agenda Items

· Handout of topics provided.

Next Scheduled Meeting:

· Tuesday, April 2, from 2:00 – 4:00 at 307 Kerr.

· The 2001-02 schedule will be the 1^st and 3^rd Tuesdays from 2:00 – 4:00 in 307 Kerr.