Minutes of the Joint Meeting of APPC and the APPC Subcommittee on Long-Range and Strategic Planning
Monday, October 1, 2001 in the Art Exhibit Room
Present: Scott
Heinekamp, Laura Purdy, Candace Collmer, Cynthia Garrett, Carol Shilepsky,
Janna Pulver, Sydney-Casandra Miller, Jeri Vargo, Karla Leybold, Ellen Hall,
Karen Green, Terry Martinez, Nan DiBello, Karen Green, Terry Martinez, Ann
Rollo, Arthur Bellinzoni, Patti Callahan, Erna Coon, Cynthia Koepp, Melissa
Golden, Kirsten Strigel, Crawford Thoburn
Grace Chiang of HOLT
Architect and Jay Woolford, Trustee
The meeting convened at
4:40 p.m. in the Art Exhibit Room.
Preparation for Collegiate Meeting
It was announced that not only members of the subcommittee were invited to the Collegiate meeting that evening at 6:45 p.m., but also members of APPC. The meeting location was changed to the AER to better accommodate the two committees. Collegiate members requested this meeting in order to gain a better understanding of the Master Planning process, to ask specific questions related to this process, to hear the different perspectives of the committee members, and to open up the lines of communication so that students are part of the process. It was agreed that all information would be given in a clear and forthright manner, and students would be reminded that they have access to the website and the resource materials in Macmillan 317.
Academic Charrettes
Ellen Hall reported that charrettes had taken place during the past academic year with all disciplines, except Mathematics and Computer Sciences, to determine the academic functional space needs for programming and to discuss appropriate adjacencies and efficiencies that should be considered during the planning process. The Math and Computer Science charrette will be scheduled after additional input and data are collected. She explained the process is similar to what the science faculty went through in developing the plan for the new science building.
Grace Chiang started with a power point presentation, which summarized the data collection from the various disciplines. She explained that some disciplines with more specialized needs were broken off into small groups to better develop a preliminary functional space program. The tabulation chart showed existing space on campus, projected net assignable square footage (based on space within a room needed to accomplish activities within the program and on national standards), and projected gross square footage (how big a building actually needs to be). The gross square footage is determined by a standard formula – 1.8 times the net assignable square footage. Grace arrived at these preliminary figures by factoring in everyone’s ideas for a perfect space for their programs. She noted that the plan for the current science building is approximately two-thirds the size of the original plan. Crawford questioned the statistics on Barler, and Grace will recheck how she arrived at these figures. [Post Meeting: The figures were corrected and are in the attached report.] The other charts diagramed the distribution of teaching spaces/classrooms and faculty offices throughout the campus. It was noted that the dance program and physical education class spaces were not included in these graphics; however, they are included in program planning. Administrative offices were also not included. These charts (attached) will be available on the website and as resource materials in Macmillan 317.
The discussion turned to clustering of disciplines. To better enhance space programming, relationships among the different areas of study should be considered. For example, if the Performing Arts classes were all housed in one building, it would greatly benefit their program. Another good alliance would be Arts, Book Arts, and Humanities. This topic was briefly discussed by APPC last year, but no in-depth conversations took place.
Zabriskie Possibilities
Zabriskie will be a vacant building in approximately three years, and for this reason, discussion should resume on the potential use of this space. Although renovating Zabriskie for the sciences was rejected because of the limited flexibility of the building, due to numerous massive load-bearing walls, and because of the cost factors involved, it is well worth restoring for other academic programs. It is in a central location, has approximately 25,000 square feet, and is a beautiful building with good light. The large lab areas could be converted to state-of-the-art classrooms and many of the smaller areas would make ideal office spaces. It was stressed that rational decisions need to be made on what is the best fit for this building. There are large rooms on both ends of Zabriskie with windows on three sides, which would be advantageous for the visual arts, but proper ventilation could be a problem. Carol stated that there is a need for larger computer classrooms; maximum lab capacity currently is 16. The building may be a good fit for the performing arts; there are large areas for dance and performance classes, as well as space for a black box theatre. It may be a good space for the Book Arts and Humanities, which triggered the question as to why Humanities needed to be moved out of Macmillan. Ellen stated that moving Humanities out of Macmillan has not been proposed, and that we were using this part of the meeting as a brainstorming session. It was noted, however, that Macmillan is over crowded. Faculty members are struggling for appropriate classroom spaces and office space is at a premium. Ann noted from past discussions by the subcommittee that Macmillan is seen as the “center” of campus activity, which fosters a sense of isolation in some of the other buildings. Choosing the right programs for Zabriskie might help alleviate this perception. Adjacency issues resurfaced, and Jeri stated that she thought it was essential that the Book Arts and the library somehow be connected.
Nan voiced her concerns that what we are looking at now may be very different in ten years, and that we need to factor in a degree of flexibility in our plans so that the programs can grow with the times. It is extremely important that faculty look forward with their academic “crystal balls” to see where their disciplines are going. As an example, computer labs now have a computer on every desk; it is most likely that the future holds wireless labs. Ellen mentioned that visiting buildings on other campuses helped formulate the plans for the new science building. She noted that there will be a GIS (Geographic Information System) lab in the new science building, which will be an interdisciplinary lab.
Sydney asked how fluctuating student enrollment would be taken into consideration for future planning, especially classroom size. Grace reported that she analyzed historical data from the Registrar’s Office to come up with an average class size for each course offered. It is important to get the right mix of programs and the right number of classrooms. The projected enrollment goal for Wells College is 450 residential students and 50 commuter and part-time students. The intention is to retain the rich classroom instruction with small classes.
Arthur reminded us that we need to be mindful of the need to raise money for all future projects. There is enormous competition at this time for major gifts from foundations and individuals. The sooner the committees can come to a consensus on a recommendation for Zabriskie, the sooner the fund raising process can begin. It will also be necessary to project where other departments will go once programs are vacated from their present space. There needs to be an ongoing comprehensive review of facility utilization as the process goes forward, with multiple plans in place. In our considerations, it will be important to determine what programs fit best in which facility without major changes in space. Special needs of a program will also have to be seriously considered. As Crawford pointed out, the music program has a need for proper acoustics and soundproof rooms. Jay suggested that a series of four or five scenarios be drafted.
Course of Action for the Upcoming Year
The new science building will add approximately 23,000 net assignable square footage to the campus. The hope is to keep the campus comparable to the same size it is so there will not be a lot of underutilized space and operating costs remain stable. There was a discussion on the current utilization of buildings on campus. It was pointed out that when the Book Arts Center moved into Morgan, classroom and office space were lost, which has contributed to the overcrowding of Macmillan. Three of the heaviest enrolled majors (Psychology, Math and Computer Science, and English) are housed there, as well as a social sciences lab for developmental research. Candace asked how close the proposed ideal spaces and planning for growth came to the existing space on campus. Would there be much “leftover” space after removing the crowding and adding in the needed larger spaces (such as labs). Ellen proposed that Grace do a study on this. CJ stressed that larger seminar rooms are needed (ones where 15-20 students could fit around a table).
In considering what would be the best fit for Zabriskie, it was suggested that everyone on campus be canvassed by email for his/her ideas, especially on the large spaces in the building. This idea went over well, and it was the consensus that Scott and Laura, as co-chairs of the subcommittee, will do this. The committee may next want to focus on the reuse of Macmillan since it is likely space will be freed up when programs are moved to Zabriskie. Questions asked included: should the purpose of Macmillan be shifted; should the concentration be on academic space or administrative space; are the spaces in Macmillan used well?
In conclusion, Scott suggested the subcommittee devise four or five scenarios (multiple plans) to send forward to APPC for their consideration. Laura suggested that considering the scenarios might be too time consuming for APPC and wondered if an ad hoc committee should consider them first. This idea was rejected since the charge of the subcommittee, with the expertise of Grace and Jay, will be to do the “nitty-gritty” detail work in drafting the scenarios. It was also agreed that APPC will act on the scenarios as quickly as possible and make recommendations to Grace.
Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Erna Coon, secretary pro tem
Contact information:
Dean Ellen Hall, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dean of the College
Wells College, Aurora, NY 13026
Voice: 315.364.332441; Fax: 315.364.3227; Email: ehall@wells.edu