University of Minnesota,
Morris
Campus Resources and
Planning Committee
March 25, 2004
Members
Present: Andy
Lopez, LeAnn Dean, Kevin Ely, Annie Olson, Ken
Hodgson, Lowell Rasmussen,
Arne Kildegaard, Carol McCannon,
Bryan Herrmann, Tammy Faux,
Ferolyn Angell
(In
these minutes: Update on Capital
Request and Social Science Building)
Lowell
Rasmussen distributed the following handout as outlined below:
i.
Biomass
plant for 5.5 million
ii.
Football complex for 1.5 million
i.
Self-supporting
ii. Existing space
iii. New space
i.
Central
Admin
ii. Regents
iii. Legislative
i.
Master
Plan
ii. Academic Plan
iii. Fiscal and demographic influences
HEAPR
Request (90
million system-wide request)
UMM Up to: $
3,200,000.00
Priority 1 $
1,500,000.00 Indy/Blakely
Sprinklers
2 $ 300,000.00 Food
Service Sprinklers
3 $ 150,000.00 Camden
Utilities/Tunnel
4 $ 450,000.00 District
Tuckpointing
5 $ 400,000.00 District
Elevators
6 $ 400,000.00 PE/RFC
Chilled Water
Subtotal $
3,200,000.00
Classroom
Improvement
1
HFA21
Darkroom
2
HFA6
3
Sci
Auditorium
4
HFA
Lighting controls
District
Facilities
Football
Complex $
1,500,000.00 (1M
provided by MAHS)
Biomass $
5,500,000.00 (1M
provided by Dry Cask Storage)
Subtotal $
8,000,000.00
UMM (??????)
Priority 1 $
2,000,000.00 Briggs
Library Phase 1
2 $ 500,000.00 Behmler Air Quality
3 $ 500,000.00 PE Center Infill work
4 $
1,000,000.00 Mall
Building Rehabilitation Phase 1
Bonding Request None
UMM (??????)
Priority 1 $
2,000,000.00 Briggs
Library Phase 2
2 $
2,000,000.00 Mall
Building Rehabilitation
3 $
1,000,000.00 HFA
Window Phase 2
Bonding
Request
1 $ 1,000,000.00 Planning
for HFA III (330,000 UMM match)
Ken
Hodgson made a motion to support the bonding requests in principle, second by
Ferolyn Angell. So moved.
Lowell
Rasmussen explained that the social science project has been approved for CMAR
(Construction management at risk).
This is a relatively new concept for the University and has never been
done before on the Morris campus.
The concept is to select a contractor before the final construction
documents are and allow the contractor involvement in development of the final
construction documents.
Contractors can have practical suggestions for the design and helpfully
can help avoid costly errors.
Contractors are also more likely to provide current and accurate
construction costs estimates.
Additionally, this process allows construction to begin sooner than
would be possible if we had to wait until all the documents were completed and
then go out for bid.
Due
to a lack of time, the committee agreed to continue this discussion at the next
CRPC meeting on 4/1/04.
Adjourned
at 9:00 a.m.