june 4 2012 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Building and Grounds Report PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Building and Grounds Report

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 23

Building and Grounds Report - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Download Presentation
Building and Grounds Report
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. June 4, 2012 Building and Grounds Report

  2. Classroom Building • Location between U. Hall and Hamilton Hall • Estimate cost $19.2M + site costs • includes $1M for technology • Classrooms • 4 Scale-Up style classrooms (1x180, 2x126, 1x90 seat rooms) • 1 tiered classroom (225 seat) • No traditional classrooms planned • Tunnel access from U. Hall

  3. Classroom Building • Will incorporate “Student Success Center” • University College advising services (moving from U. Hall) • Math Academy (moving from M&M Bldg) • Tutoring Service (moving from basement Dunbar) • Adequate lounge space • Vending machines

  4. Classroom Building • Concerns raised by UBGC • Future tunnel connections – student housing? • Food service (coffee shop)? • Classroom instructional equipment? • Covered drop-off?

  5. Neuroscience & Engineering Collaboration (NEC) Building • Located between Health Sciences and Russ • Approximate cost $37M ($12M State, $20M local, $5M donors) • Incorporates • Research lab space • Tunnel access to LAR • Graduate student bullpen • Auditorium (~120 seat) • Conference rooms (small sizes)

  6. NEC Building • Concerns raise by UBGC • No enclosed/covered disability access to building • No analysis of increased parking requirements • Shared (Registrar scheduled / NEC scheduled) 120 seat conference room may not be practical • Process for selecting art

  7. Enrollment Services • One-Stop Facility in 1st floor Student Union • Estimated cost $2.6M • Supports student centered service model using “counselors” • Includes a ~50 seat presentation area • Front-of-the-house located on 1st floor of Student Union • Back-of-the house operations moving to 2nd floor of Med. Sci.

  8. Special Thanks The following individuals were quick to provide information to UBGC, listened to suggestions for improvement and in general worked to improve conditions on campus for faculty, staff and students: • Registrar’s Office (Marian Brainerd, Mary Holland) • Parking and Transportation (Rob Kretzer) • CaTS (Mary Clem, Debbie Whisler) • Physical Plant (Jeff Trick)

  9. Problem Area Facilities and Planning Department (FPD) is a source of problems for UBGC. The information provide by FPD to the UBGC • is not timely • is not readily accessible (written form) to others • is, at times, inaccurate or biased

  10. The bottom line • FPD decisions are not fully aligned with the University’s academic and research mission • FPD has assumed a decision making role rather than serving as an aid to decision makers

  11. Design Death Spiral • Decision is made to initiate a project • Information flows to faculty and staff is limited and delayed • FPD then makes decisions based on perceived needs • Decisions not properly aligned with the academic mission • End products don’t always meet faculty and staff needs • Faculty and staff request changes to better fulfill mission • Changes and modifications increase costs • Reduces possibility of initiating new projects Lack of communication and interaction  Leads to poor decision making  Limits creativity and innovation

  12. Typical Example --Russ Engineering Center Renovation • Decision was made to renovate the lobby of Russ • Approximate budget $500K • Design Process • Dean appoints an ad hoc design review committee • MSA Architecture holds a design cherrette • MSA delivers initial design concept • Committee solicits input from building occupants • Committee made recommendations to the Dean

  13. Process goes off the rails • Staff member asks Chair of UBGC why the CECS has to accept “art work” that the committee organized to provide input said was inappropriate and unnecessary. • Chair of UBGC contacts CECS Assoc. Dean who states FPD said the art is “mandated” • Chair of UBGC contacts VP Sweeney and asks what is the process for selection of State mandated art?

  14. Russ Renovation -- Lobby

  15. Cost Analysis • Art work (banner) -- estimated cost $30-35K • Portals – estimated cost $18-22K • Total cost for art and banners $48-57K • Estimated cost of renovation $480K Art plus portal cost 10% - 12% of budget!

  16. Who approved these items? • Ad Hoc CECS Renovation Advisory Committee said don’t buy the art or the portal. • Ms. Vicky Davidson, Assoc. VP FPD stated in the UBGC meeting on May 25, 2012 the Dean authorized purchasing these items.

  17. Memo to FPD Subject: Russ Project--Additional Feedback Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:58:08 -0500 From: Tom Bazzoli <thomas.bazzoli@wright.edu> To: Robert A Thompson <rob.thompson@wright.edu> Rob, Dean Narayanan is very pleased with your aggressive timeline to get this project finished by Fall 2012. However, he wants to accommodate staff and faculty feedback and "tweak" the results of the charrette design within our time constraints. In addition to the feedback I provided at our meeting, there are two significant issues: 1. At our meeting, I mentioned concerns and push back over the art piece. I understated the feedback. We have pretty much universal feedback that the piece is disliked and will not add to the facility. Similarly there is near universal disapproval of the upper floor portals. We believe the budget set aside for this upper floor tie-in to the atrium remodel could be better used elsewhere. We are open to alternatives, but would like to drop the art piece. […] Thanks, Tom -- Thomas L. Bazzoli Assistant Dean College of Engineering and Computer Science Wright State University

  18. Timeline • Nov 2011  The Dean said don’t spend funds on the art or portals • Feb 2012  Project went to bid • June 2012  Construction begins • August 2012  Project scheduled to finished As far as I can determine, the project still includes the art and portals, but no one in CECS has seen a final plan

  19. What is mandated art? • Ohio's Percent for Art Legislation became effective July 1, 1990. The law provides funds for the acquisition, commissioning and installation of works of art for new or renovated public buildings with appropriations of more than $4 million of state money per House Bill.

  20. For future projects • The only project the Ohio Percent for Art Program applies to on campus at this time is NEC Building • Senate needs to ask for more transparency and input into the art selection process

  21. Contracting Agency’s (WSU) Role It is the contracting agency's responsibility to: • Prepare in writing details of the proposed project including budget, site, timeline and architect. If those details are not known at time of notification by the Ohio Arts Council, the contracting agency should inform the Ohio Arts Council of the date when those details will become available. • Keep the Advisory Selection Committee apprised of the progress of each project. • Appoint a Percent for Art Advisory Selection Committee including an individual who will record meeting minutes. • Appoint an individual to facilitate contract processing and fiscal procedures. • Coordinate any public relations, marketing and dedication of the art work. • Assume any dedication, marketing and public relations expenses. • Develop a plan and a budget for maintenance of the completed piece in consultation with the Ohio Arts Council and the artist. • Implement maintenance plan.

  22. Art Selection Committee A Contracting Agency may select up to two Core Group individuals to serve on the Percent for Art Advisory Selection Committee for their project. Core Group members lend expertise in the art selection process including appropriate site location for artwork and artist selection.  For each project, the Core Group will be joined by the committee established by the Contracting Agency consisting of: • the project architect • when the Contracting Agency is not a university or college, at least two and no more than three voting members appointed by the Contracting Agency; • for universities and colleges, at least four and no more than five voting members appointed by the Contracting Agency. The Ohio Arts Council urges the Percent for Art Advisory Selection Committee to be sensitive to the immediate community. Ideally, the ideas of the community will be carried to the committee through the appointments made by the contracting agency. At all times, artwork will be selected on the basis of artistic integrity, overall quality and appropriateness for the site.

  23. Advisory Selection Committee’s Role • establish a working timeline for each project; • determine the appropriate type of artwork for the site; • determine the method of selecting artists for each project; • serve as the jury for selecting the project artists; • identify additional outside jurors when needed. The Ohio Arts Council urges the Percent for Art Advisory Selection Committee to be sensitive to the immediate community. Ideally, the ideas of the community will be carried to the committee through the appointments made by the contracting agency. At all times, artwork will be selected on the basis of artistic integrity, overall quality and appropriateness for the site. • Visit Ohio Art’s Council website for details: http://www.oac.state.oh.us/grantsprogs/PercentforArt.asp