October 4th, 2011
Attendance: Diane Belz, Chris Carruth, Bruce Deakyne, Brian Erickson, Colin Finch, Tyler Goering, Tom Goodhew, George Hoey, Tim Jorgensen, Cheryl Kent, Steve Najera, Sam Rhoades, Zack Strang, Andrew Yoder
- Call to Order & Approval of Minutes
- Called to Order: 5:39pm
- Mr. Finch motioned to approve the minutes from the meeting on September 9, 2011. Mr. Goering seconded this motion. Motion passed
- Project Update/Discussion
- Tom Goodhew and Brian Erickson were invited to the meeting to discuss Buff up the Rec.
- Brian Erickson with Davis Partnership is working with Canon Design and Tom Goodhew with Facilities Management on a program plan, management with the design team, and interface with the campus community.
- Mr. Erickson: We are gathering information from different sources and putting it together. We have held a couple of workshop sessions with design groups to make progress in gaining insight on facility priorities and about the forces that will affect the recreation center project.
- Mr. Erickson: So far, we have been working to verify priorities and gain internal function understandings.
- Big rocks (big functions): Where the ice rink will go, where the turf field will go etc. These things must go in first. These things will define the smaller aspects and what will go into the “container” (smaller functions within).
- We are trying to gain insight from different stakeholders (Campus Management, Review Board ect.)We don’t want to spend time coming up with the interior solution and then have to go back and fix it because of problems with the outside. So far we have set up the forces that are driving the “big rock” ideas. Once this is done, we will focus on internal factors.
- Now we will meet with other groups to configure particular spaces. There has been a logical progression throughout all of this. What I would like to see as we move forward is how we can involve students more in the process. We have done some workshops that lack student presence. I would like student feedback and to seek better involvement.
- Mr. Goodhew: This is an ongoing process, as we move forward there will be a lot more reliance on student feedback. Especially for the detailed feedback.
- Mr. Erickson: We brought in a general contractor: Saunders (they did the c4c and the law school.) They understand the campus and have exposure to students, they are familiar with the campus and its space. We also completed electrical interviews and we are leaning toward RMH leaders in sustainable design.
- For landscape: Civitas (nationally known) they are strong in campus design and understands sustainable sites.
- We are still looking for an IT sub consultant (telecomm and Wi-Fi). Interviews are scheduled for this Friday.
Q: Ms. Kent: Can you talk about how you take all of our great ideas (i.e. improving the gateway) and tell us how certain budget decisions might affect others? We need to go back to basics on the budget. Will things like a gateway improvement result in lack of other things being incorporated into the project?
A: Mr. Goodhew: These budget issues will start to resolve themselves. During planning there will be integration of all the concepts, team building, and weighing all options. We will figure out the priorities and what is most important. There is a lot of this discussion during the beginning stages. We want to make sure that we don’t negatively impact other sites (being good neighbors to other buildings.)
A: Mr. Erickson: If there are compromises to be made, it must happen within the site. We don’t want a runaway site or to rob the building of important functions and qualities. We have to set limits on how much will be set aside for each section of the facility.
Mr. Finch: We want what is best for the students. This is funded by the students so we really need to concentrate on them.
Ms. Kent: We need to work with architects to find solutions we all like and can afford. We have to make certain improvements. We sit on university land, not student land. We need to be good neighbors because in doing that we help the campus as a whole. We need to focus on being functional and staying with the budget by working together. No one opinion has more weight than another.
Mr. Erickson: If you look internally where we are going with the project, we need to look logistically at different concerns (internal and external forces.) As far as the campus side goes, we are trying to set up a place that beautifies the campus and is good for the students, inside and outside.
Mr. Deakyne: One of the pros to your firm that that you guys are involving us as a facility. I would like this to keep up. I see certain construction communication aspects of the project as interaction issues. From a student perspective, it seems, for example, that the firm is willing to give up cardio space for a loading dock at any cost. We would like you to look at different perspectives and considerations. We want to see realistic tradeoffs in a way that we can understand.
Mr. Erickson: Different budgets will fund different sites. We need to balance all of these. We rely on all of you to let us know when something doesn’t look right. There is no inappropriate time to speak up and voice your thoughts. It is something we really need from all of you. Without feedback it will not be the building you want it to be.
Q: Mr. Strang: As far as fitness equipment goes, there is going to be a lot of new machines. How are we going about finding space for equipment?
A: Ms. Kent: That will be later on. We have a budget for new equipment and there will be a natural changeover in old equipment. We have percentages that need confirmation, but we have had conversations about areas where everything will fit.
Q: Mr. Yoder: The UMC is doing an add on and has funding coming from other areas, has administration asked for help for this project?
A: Mr. Kent: There is money for certain things that could become available, but as of right now, we have our budget and that’s all. There are no evident pots of money as right now.
A: Mr. Goodhew: In time, the campus could come up with money for certain parts of the project that will make a huge difference in the design. In other projects there are certain aspects of the design that were not part of the initial plan, but financially, they made it work.
A: Mr. Erickson: As things become visible and people actually see the design coming together, things could happen that will catalyst possible funding and upgrades.
Q: Mr. Finch: We have to look where we come from. We need to look at the fact that we cut our project in half. One of my concerns is that the visions of architects are not looking at functions; they are looking at beauty and being “award winning.” I’m scared that we will miss the basic needs and functions of the students. We need more student involvement at these meetings. It is and has been a student project. We need their voice.
A: Mr. Erickson: I understand that review boards have particular bias. It is my job to take this and reconcile it with what we can and cannot do. I want to try to manage the costs on this project in such a way that everything gets equal funding. Look at each site (internal and external) and find necessities. If there are real issues, we may have to go back to the drawing board, but I doubt this will happen. We will make sure everything is cost effective. We will do everything in our power to avoid this and to ensure that the facility is not only pleasing to look at, but also functional.
Q: Mr. Hoey: Knowing that the ultimate product will meet the need of students, and given the cost factor, how can we engage students and give information to them that they can understand for now and for the future? How can we make them feel good about this project? Are there things that can be done to encourage students in wanting to come here (the recreation center) and get involved?
A: Mr. Erickson: I have thought about high traffic times, and we are considering setting up update presentations on a regular basis that would get students involved.
A: Ms. Kent: We have biweekly steering and weekly executive meetings. Availability is a problem. We need to figure out how to address this. The workshops are fast, now we need to know what’s next. Do we do once a month report? Do we do a CUSG report?
Q: Mr. Deakyne: We need to draw from the Board and CUSG to get more students to the workshops. When should we bring in the general students?
A: Mr. Erickson: After this workshop we will have a floor plan that people will react to.
Ms. Kent: I like the idea of interactive boards in the rec and information on the website. We should also reengage with the groups from the campaign.
Mr. Jorgensen: During Buff up the rec, the pictures in the lobbies upstairs and downstairs created lots of talk and conversation between students, which is what we want. This could spark interest.
Mr. Deakyne: The bottom line is for students to be more proactive because this makes everyone’s job easier. We should meet with CUSG to make sure we have all aspects of student life covered and pull them back in for the next stages.
Mr. Erickson: We will let everything play out until everyone is satisfied.
Mr. Goodhew: The goal is to take advantage of space and to benefit all programs.
- CUSG Report
- Program Area Liaison Reports
- Mr. Jorgensen: Club Sports has an active weekend at The Pepsi center and Dick’s Sporting Goods Park.
- Intramurals got their foot in at Coors Event Center for their Basketball Tournament.
- Executive Team Reports
- Mr. Najera: There were 180 applicants for the Facilities position. We offered the Structural Trade’s position to the number one choice and he accepted.
- Chair’s Report
- Mr. Deakyne: The First Quarter report went up.
- Sustainability round table discussion has not set a date yet, we will know more information within next few weeks.
- Director’s Report
- Old Business
- New Business
- Buff Up The Rec
a. 7:16pm: Mr. Strang motions to move into executive session, Mr. Goering seconds this motion. Motion passes 4-0-1.