Feb. 25th: Questions & Answers
Thanks, as well, to all of you that were able to show up. I know some of it is the power of Doodle, but most of it is your commitment to making the meeting and representing your program. Thanks also to Emanuel Magana for accepting the invitation to return to the table, replacing Jerrod Taylor. Welcome back, Emanuel!
I told you all how much value you bring to the conversation as program owners, yet didn’t fully realize what I was even saying until I heard someone talking yesterday about the “multiple realities” that make up modern life on the OSU campus. Some of those realities are program driven, some are driven by the building, some are student initiated, yet all of them compete for attention in an information rich environment such as this. So in light of that conversation, let’s acknowledge again that this work would not be moving forward without your presence at the table and your efforts!
I was encouraged to learn of the progress Student Media is making towards identifying the future of their programs, not just from a space planning perspective, but because that’s what we’re supposed to be doing as program owners. I got to sit in on the conversation with Susan and Kent on the future of the Craft Center and know that as a result of their efforts that the Craft Center is going to continue moving forward. Good work, everyone!
We asked some pretty good questions at the table and I set off to try and answer them from the “building” perspective. So, here’s what I learned at roughly the 10 month mark from our beginning:
1. If June, 2011, is not a real date, what is the real date we need to be out of Snell by?
June, 2011 is a planning horizon used by Facilities Services for their relocations, primarily those related to the Reed and Heckart buildings coming on line. It is also a jumping off point for the MU replacement plan, so we could begin planning our exit of Snell Hall. This is a necessary planning date to catalyze effort to re-think programs at the MU level and space solutions at the Campus level, if needed.
What would make them needed? If the building were to empty out and leave the MU organization and supported programs as the sole tenant, we would bear 100% of the costs of cleaning, maintenance and operations of the building, not to mention project costs of roof, elevator, what have you. Any maintenance and operations cost (M&O) increases are as yet unbudgeted. Any costs incurred in this fashion erode the MU cash reserves available for new construction. So do not think of June, 2011 as an eviction date, think of it instead as a rallying point.
2. What is the status, long term, of the Forum and TV buildings?
There is no indication these spaces are going away. They are our spaces. There are no campus requests for these spaces outstanding. Any effect demolition might have on these spaces would not be realized until it is funded in the 2013-15 biennium. The MU will make a request of Facilities Services that demolition does not occur until future use of the building site is determined. Then we can know the cost, value and impact of retaining the TV Studio building and the International Forum.
I will also be asking Facilities Services to consider a second study by the architect: “What does demolition look like?” In addition, I will be addressing the use of a Memorandum of Understanding with Campus Space Planning to document these determinations. With that approach, we can build a contingency timeline that tells the organization when shifts occur as the space scenario continues to be worked out over time, and we will know a lot more than we know today about placement of programs and their priority.
In the meantime, we will continue pushing questions out there as we always have, including continuing to question the current program need in the new building, holding the design accountable to the development of the space picture at the front end of planning as well as the final design effort, so we are certain our choices are about an agreed upon solution for priority placement of programs.
3. What is the Bookstore status?
The Bookstore can continue to exist in their space. The 2013 date is the end of the current term of their lease, not an eviction notice. If a new building passes the referendum, we can begin construction on it while they are working to get into their new home. While the construction start dates on the Bookstore and a possible new building are not tied, we do want them to be sequential from project to project. So it is possible and looking likely that even if the Bookstore were to announce a funded and agreed upon plan today, they would not make it out of the MU on time according to the present terms of their lease. We need to remain aware of this potential as we continue to plan our future. It is part of our contingency planning.
4. What is the status of the 3rd Floor?Overall, given the information provided above, we are committing to making several sustainable decisions about our space future. Non-sustainable decisions should remain suspect. The cost to expand into upper floors should be examined as part of the planning effort. What is the cost to the program? What is the cost to the maintenance and operational budget of MU East, where building dollars to repair and upkeep reside? Or, will these moves be planned and budgeted according to SIFC expectations?
Overall, the amount of work and information going on in this environment right now concerning space planning and allocation is a tremendous amount to get one’s arms around and fully understand. Our conversations should remain as open and flexible as possible. We have made progress from where we were 10 months ago and by the 1 year mark will know the students’ wishes with respect to a new building.
As we need, I will schedule additional meetings. If you think we need to meet, please feel free to say so. We will certainly meet once or twice more before graduation.
Questions or comments?
Sid Cooper
Asst. Director, Building Services
Memorial Union
Oregon State University