The
Integrated Instructional Facility
ACTION ITEM:
The Integrated Instructional Facility (Project No.
95- 7465) - Conceptual Approval
ISSUE:
The University of Arizona requests Conceptual Approval
for the Integrated Instructional Facility, UA Project
No. 95-7465.
BACKGROUND:
The Arizona Board of Regents granted Project Initiation
approval for this building on September 8, 1994.
The
University of Arizona proposes to construct an Integrated
Instructional Facility (IIF) comprising 50,670 net
assignable square feet (NASF) in 84,500 gross square
feet (GSF) of new construction. It would serve approximately
4,500 first-year students. The proposed $20.25 million
building is considered important for the successful
implementation of the University's new first-year
initiative. The new undergraduate program is being
designed to ensure that University graduates are better
prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Estimated
total project cost of 16.9 million submitted at Project
Initiation was based on preliminary programming with
the construction costs calculated using ABOR Cost
Control and Professional Fee Guidelines, Revised October
26, 1992. The revised project cost of $20.25 million
reflects detailed project programming based upon programmatic
space requirements and site location parameters. Major
budget increases are found in Utility Extensions to
the central campus project site ($0.6 million), and
increased higher construction costs ($2.6 million)
using the estimate furnished by an independent cost
consultant which more accurately reflects current
and projected market conditions.
The
IIF concept stems from a planning effort devoted to
improving undergraduate education. Goals developed
through this effort, as presented to the Board of
Regents on September 8, 1994, focus on: increasing
first-year student persistence rates, improving graduation
rates, increasing first-year student exposure to ranked
faculty, alleviating the current classroom space shortfall,
and providing state-of-the-art classrooms in a more
cost-efficient manner than renovating older facilities.
The proposed facility would furnish the necessary
space to deliver a common curricular experience, and
would furnish an academic/intellectual "home
base" for freshman students.
Principal
program elements proposed to be incorporated into
the new facility include multi-use, state-of-the-art
technology lecture halls and classrooms; a Student
Support area; and instructional support space. The
building integrates multi-media and teaching/learning
support systems into a facility that provides flexible
space configurations. The facility would also contain:
offices for the three program coordinators; Instructional
Commons where first-year students, faculty, and graduate
teaching assistants can meet; and an Instructional
Support Area.
A
student support area would include the Instructional
Commons, a primary component associated with student
support activities. The commons area would be staffed
with graduate teaching assistants from each core area.
Students would have access to small group study rooms
for informal discussions and study sessions, as well
as access to the University's computer network. The
facility would provide first-year students with access
to the services and resources of the University Learning
Center, a unit that plays a key role in helping students
develop study skills that equip them for success at
the University. Academic advising for freshman students
would also be situated in close proximity to the Instructional
Commons area.
An
Instructional Support area would serve as a center
for the continuous professional development of the
faculty. The area would house technicians to support
instructional classroom equipment, and to assist faculty
in developing and completing multi-media instructional
presentations. It would furnish the necessary environment
for faculty members to learn how to utilize state-of-the-art
instructional resources and to preview class presentations.
The
University of Arizona continues to be deficient in
classroom space in both quantitative and qualitative
terms. Completion of the IIF would diminish this University-wide
space deficit, and provide the necessary surge space
for the renovation of existing classroom spaces.
It
is proposed to locate the project in the central area
of the campus, adjacent to the Main Library (refer
to the map on page 12). This location promotes the
notion of centrality, and is within reasonable walking
distance to existing residence halls, the Student
Union, libraries, and other related student support
facilities. Two sites are being evaluated to determine
the "best fit" from a campus form and function
perspective, as well as to optimize programmatic functions
of the facility.
Operation
and maintenance costs for the facility would be funded
from future state appropriations.
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
State appropriations ($16,900,000), Other ($3,350,000).
RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION
RESOLVED: The University of Arizona's request for
Conceptual Approval for the Integrated Instructional
Facility , UA project No. 95-7465, be, and hereby
is, approved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona
Board of Regents
PROJECT
JUSTIFICATION:
University of Arizona
PROJECT
NAME:
Integrated Instructional Facility
DATE:
December 1-2, 1994 Project Number 95-7465
Basic
Justification
Project
purpose and justification:
This project symbolizes a fundamentally different
way of thinking about learning methods and environments.
It is structured around five fundamental principles
that go beyond the specific orientation inherent in
any single building or academic program. These principles
are designed to implement an outstanding first-year-experience
curriculum, as well as to address current institutional
challenges in successfully delivering a general education
curriculum. They are as follows:
A.
Deliver a common educational experience in support
of the first-year curriculum. The Integrated Instructional
Facility (IIF) project will provide first-year students
with a resource-rich learning environment that would
contribute to the development of knowledge, skills,
and attitudes of thought that are the foundation of
a lifetime commitment to learning, personal development,
and social responsibility.
B.
Provide freshman students with an academic/intellectual
"home base" which is especially important
on a large and complex campus. Development of such
a campus home base has been found to support student
retention.
C.
Provide an enriched environment for students that
integrates learning support resources and services
with campus physical facilities.
D.
Facilitate the implementation of "teams and technologies"
as key, central components of the curriculum delivery
process.
E.
Ensure maximum flexibility of student learning environments
to support numerous academic programs. A facility
would need to accommodate a wide variety of student
learning experiences while allowing technological
flexibility.
Does
this project address fire and life safety issues?
Yes
Explain: The
new facility will meet all current University fire
and life safety codes, and will meet all ADA criteria.
Is
this project designed to correct current deficiencies?
Yes
Explain: The
IIF project would address current deficiencies in
quality, quantity, and "mix" of classroom
space on campus. It is planned to begin remedying,
in a significant way, the existing quality of classroom
space through the provision of a modern campus "neighborhood
center" type of environment, specifically designed
to promote stimulating learning interactions. It would
enhance the University's quantity and mix of instructional
(classroom) space, by creating opportunities for the
integration of a wider variety of learning resources
both in the classroom and after scheduled class hours.
The University's current situation frequently precludes
extended faculty/student interactions, group/team
study, peer tutoring, access to technological resources,
etc. The facility would provide a place for students
to meet with faculty and/or other students, to complete
assignments, and access information via the campus
computer network.
The
project would also take advantage of technology access
to sophisticated network resources available locally
as well as globally. This kind of technological connectivity
is out-of-reach for a majority of first-year students
in the existing campus environment.
The
IIF project would allow the full integration of learning
resources in the fundamental classroom experience
of first-year students. The proposed facility will
also be an attractive building within which the University's
ranked faculty would teach, thereby furthering the
President's commitment for greater faculty involvement
in the student's first-year experience.
Through
thoughtful, well-planned siting, the IIF Project will
help create a unique learning environment that focuses
on the undergraduate experience. Although fully integrated
in its internal building and educational support systems,
the project will also be integral with the broader
campus living/learning environment. Its centrality
within the core campus will promote positive adjacencies
with other student support facilities such as the
Main Library, Student Union, Student Health and Wellness
Center, residence halls, and the Student Recreation
Center.
The
Task Force on Undergraduate Education focused the
attention of the campus community upon the first-year
experience, observing that "the freshman-year
experience is pivotal in fully engaging undergraduate
students in the fabric of intellectual, social, and
cultural life on campus. The freshman year should
be designed to provide a stimulating introduction
to academic disciplines, classes (including small
group sessions) with professorial faculty, accurate
academic advising, and carefully constructed opportunities
for out-of-classroom contact with faculty and professional
staff".
The
existing, deficient configuration of widely dispersed
classroom space in aging facilities does not meet
these objectives.
Does
this project support a strategic objective? Yes
Explain: There
are a number of University strategic objectives that
will be furthered by implementing the IIF project.
For example, the IIF project will:
Support implementation of the new teaching initiative
which addresses University learning strategies such
as assessing students' academic preparation, study
skills, and motivation; and providing course placement
and graduate entrance exams required by academic departments;
Create
needed space and a "student-friendly" learning
environment;
Address
our desire to become a more student-centered university;
Provide
technological resources to maximize training for faculty
and students which supports achieving a shared University
vision; and,
Contribute
toward achieving the "Proposed Measurable Goals
for Linking Faculty Teaching Efforts to the Improvement
of the Quality of Undergraduate Education" presented
to the Board at their September, 1994, meeting. The
IIF project will promote University success in the
retention of our students and graduates in the 21st
century. The project will provide a place for students
to acquire learning skills beyond just the acquisition
of knowledge; a place where students' difficult, often
turbulent, transition from high school to university
is a challenging and supportive team experience rather
than an intimidating solitary one.
The
IIF project also has the added benefit of gaining,
for the University, valuable experience in the planning,
development, and deployment of model learning/technology
environments for future application in the renovation
of other campus facilities.
What
alternatives were considered and why were they rejected?
Alternatives
considered include the implementation of a first-year
learning curriculum in facilities scattered across
campus. This option would fail to provide students
with the same centralized shared experience that the
University seeks to provide in order to enhance their
prospects for academic success. Construction of the
proposed facility would furnish surge space essential
for the University to complete classroom renovations
to accommodate state-of-the-art instructional and
informational technology. Therefore, no reasonable
alternative to the Integrated Instructional Facility
will achieve the University's long-term goals and
objectives to improve undergraduate education.
Space
and Utilization Information
Space and Population by Program (a)
1
2 3 4
Current
Space-(NASF) (b) 294,740 N/A N/A
Students (population or FTE) --- --- ---
Faculty & Staff " " " --- --- ---
Administration " " " --- --- ---
Projected
(c) Space, with project (NASF) 336,121(d)16,000 3,870
Students (population or FTE) --- 4,500 ---
Faculty & Staff " " " --- 32 7
Administration " " " --- 0 0
a) Programs correspond to those listed on page 7.
b) Net Assignable Square Feet (NASF).
c) Based upon planned occupancy date.
d) Program 1 includes AME (7,781 NASF) classroom under
construction.
Provide
relevant space utilization information or other service
level data, including current and forecasted, with
and without the project.
Comments:
Program
1- Central scheduled classroom space
The facility would add 30,800 NASF of state-of-the-art
lecture halls and classroom space to the campus. Completion
of the project, along with other facilities currently
under construction, would slightly exceed estimated
classroom space requirements. Excess space would provide
the University with the necessary flexibility to renovate
outmoded classrooms, and to reassign areas to address
other pressing space requirements based on a detailed
University assessment of needs (e.g. class laboratory
space is substantially below minimum standards). Student,
faculty, staff, and administrative numbers will remain
constant with the completion of the Integrated Instructional
Facility.
Program
2 - Student Support Space
Three core coordinators will manage faculty teaching
within the proposed core curriculum. These coordinators,
along with a limited support staff, will be housed
in the Integrated Instructional Facility (IIF).
Student
support activities are currently provided for all
University students by the University Learning Center,
Office of Academic Services within the College of
Arts and Sciences, and the Center for Computing &
Information Technologies (CCIT). A portion of these
programs with a freshman orientation would be incorporated
within the IIF's Instructional Commons to provide
a central support area for first-year students. It
would include: open access computer laboratory/study
area, tutoring, student mentors, and academic advising.
The Instructional Commons would be staffed with teaching
assistants to assist students with assignments and
computer software as needed.
Program
3- Instructional Support Space
The facility would provide an area for faculty to
develop class presentations, enhance teaching skills,
and obtain assistance in utilizing state-of-the-art
classroom equipment. The area would provide on-call
technical support to faculty lectures and media-based
presentations.
Arizona
Board of Regents
CONCEPTUAL AND PROJECT APPROVAL SUMMARY
University of Arizona
PROJECT
NAME: Integrated Instructional Facility
DATE:
December 1-2, 1994 Project Number: 95-7465
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION :
A new instructional facility that contains multi-use,
state-of-the-art lecture halls, classrooms, and instructional
support space.
PROPOSED
SITE: Central campus: location and configuration to
be determined.
Scope:
Total
Gross Square Feet 84,500
Net
Square Feet: Total 50,670
Classroom 30,800 Classroom Service 2,800
Computer Laboratory 8,000 Study Room 2,600
Office 6,470
Other Applicable Scope Measure (1): Item N/A Quantity
Programs To Be Housed: (Use additional sheets as necessary)
Program Name Net Assignable Square Feet
1.
Centrally Scheduled Classrooms 30,800
2. Student Support 16,000
3. Instructional Support 3,870
4. Vacated Space
Amount
Of Space To Be Vacated: To be determined
Projected Use Of Vacated Space
Completion
of the project would permit the University to renovate
existing classroom space to meet its existing space
deficit (2). Quantity, location, and space to be reassigned
would be determined as part of the Instructional Renovation
Projects.
Project Budget Cost
1.
Total Capital Cost $20,250,000
2. New Construction Budget 9,444,000
3. New Construction Budget per Gross Sq. Ft 111.76
4. Total Annual Operating Cost 678,700
Funding Source Dollars Per Year ($millions)
FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
State
Appropriation, Other $0.53 $4.21 $12.45 $3.06
Project
Schedule Date
Begin Finish
Hire Consultants July 95 Sep 95
Design Oct 95 Nov 96
Bidding Dec 96 Feb 97
Construction Mar 97 Sep 98
Occupancy Nov 98
Staffing
Plan
Construction
Manager (Full Services) Yes X No
In-house
Staff Discipline(3) FTEs Months
Comments:
A number of external consultants were retained to
assist in planning the proposed facility. Paulien
& Associates completed the facilities program
report which identifies space requirements; Durrant
Roberts/Dinsmore assisted with the Site Suitability
Study to identify the optimal building location; and,
Andrew Chartwell & Co. produced the construction
budgets.
Notes:
(1)
Other applicable scope measures may include items
such as number of parking spaces for a parking garage
or additional cooling capacity for a utility project.
(2)
The University's Space Management Information Requirements
were presented to the Board at their May 26, 1994,
meeting. Total estimated space deficit was 1.35 million
NASF. After the completion of the Aerospace and Mechanical
Engineering Building currently under construction,
the University's space deficit will decrease to approximately
1.25 million NASF.
(3)
To be filled in only if full construction manager
services are not to be used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIVERSITY:
University of Arizona
PROJECT
NAME: Integrated Instructional Facility
DATE: December
1-2, 1994 Project Number 95-7465
DESCRIPTION:
New undergraduate classroom building.
ARCHITECT:
To be determined.
CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER: To be determined.
CONTRACTORS:
To be determined.
CURRENT
ACTIONS: Conceptual Approval.
SCHEDULE: PROPOSED REVISED ACTUAL
Preliminary
Plan Approval Oct 95
Bid
Date Dec 96
Const.
Period (Calendar Days) 548
Occupancy
Date Nov 98
SOURCE OF FUNDS: State Appropriation ($16,900,000),
Other ($3,350,000).
PROJECT PRE
CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL CONSTRUCT. FINAL
ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE COST
Capital
Costs
1. Land Acquisition $ 0
2. Construction Cost
A. New Construction $ 9,444,000 (1)
B. Remodel/Renovate
C. Special Fixed Equip. 1,398,000 (2)
D. Site Develop. (exc. P&L) 25,000
E. Parking/Landscape. (P&L) 195,000
F. Utilities Extensions 955,000
G. Other 80,000
H. Inflat. Adjust.(39) mos. 2,251,000(3)
Subtotal Construction Cost $14,348,000
3. Fees (% of Constr. Cost)
A. Constr. Manager (4%) $ 574,000
B. Arch./Engineer (8.5%) 1,220,000
C. Other: Reimbursable 430,000
Subtotal Fees $ 2,224,000
4. F/F/E Movable $ 1,510,000 (4)
5. Conting./Design Phase (6%) 892,000
6. Conting./Const. Phase (5%) 717,000
7. Parking Reserve 0
8. Telecomm. Equipment 49,000
Subtotal Items 4-9 $ 3,168,000
9.
Additional University Costs
A. Surveys and Tests $ 80,000
B. Move-in Costs 36,000
C. Public Art 72,000
D. Printing Advertisement 36,000
E. Other 286,000(5)
Subtotal Add. Univ. Costs $ 510,000
TOTAL
CAPITAL COST $20,250,000
PROJECT
PRE
CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL CONSTRUCT. FINAL
ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE COST
Annual
Operating Cost
10.
Personal Services $ 174,600
11.
Operating Costs 58,400
12.
Capital Equipment 17,500
13.
Utilities 428,200
TOTAL
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS $ 678,700 $ $ $
Probable
Costs (Not in Budget)
14.
Cost of Req.'d Remodeling $ -- of
Vacated Space
15.
Major Equip. Not In Budget --
16.
Intrm.Housing,Bldg.Occup. --
17.
Other Probable Costs: --
TOTAL
PROB COSTS (Not in Budget) $ 0 $ $ $
NOTES:
1)
Construction cost estimated provided by Andrew Chartwell
& Co.,
November 1, 1994.
2) Special Fixed Equipment includes built-in classroom
projection equipment and building computer network.
3) Inflation adjustment figure was calculated using
the estimate furnished by the independent cost estimator,
Andrew Chartwell & Co.
The figure is higher than ABOR's October, 1992, Construction
Cost and Professional Fee Guidelines, and is a better
reflection of current construction market activities.
It assumes that existing conditions would continue
over the next few years.
4) F/F/E Movable budget allowance provides the necessary
classroom and office furniture, fixtures, and equipment
to make the facility fully operational.
5) Other Additional University Costs, line 9E, include:
Facilities Design & Construction costs: $184,000
Facilities Planning costs: $ 30,000
Facilities Management costs: $ 72,000
Total $286,000 COST PER
CATEGORY
IDENTIFICATION GSF % GSF EXTENSION
"A"
Series A-6 84,500 100.0 $ 38.92 $3,288,740
(Shell)
SUB
TOTAL 84,500 100% $ 38.92 $3,288,740
"B"
Series B-114 Lecture Hall 31,852 38.0 $ 48.98 $1,560,120
(Interior)
B-112 Classroom 19,512 23.0 33.93 662,027
B-221 Instruct. Commons 13,341 16.0 71.02 947,494
B-110 Group Meeting 4,336 5.0 33.69 146,076
B-310 Office 10,123 12.0 35.21 356,419
B-350 Conference 667 1.0 45.77 30,531
B-221 Faculty Resources 1,418 2.0 71.02 100,671
B-110 Workshop 1,251 1.0 33.69 42,137
B-530 Control Room 2,001 2.0 50.81 101,680
SUB
TOTAL 84,500 100% $ 46.71 $3,947,155
TOTAL
CONSTR. COST CONTROL (10/92) 84,500 100% $ 80.52 $7,235,895
Inflation
adjustment factor from 10/92 to 12/94 = 8.36% $ 604,924
TOTAL
ADJUSTED CONSTR. COST 84,500 100% $ 92.79 $7,840,819
New
Construction Cost (Line 2.A, page 1) $ 9,444,000
Total
GSF 84,500
Imputed
Cost per Square Foot $ 111.76
If the Imputed Cost Per Square Foot exceeds the Construction
Cost Control total figure, explain the rationale for
this discrepancy:
The
new construction cost presented on page 9, line 2.A.,
was developed by an independent cost estimator, Andrew
Chartwell & Co., utilizing information presented
in the facilities program report and the site analysis
study. The difference between total adjusted construction
costs (ABOR cost control guidelines), and the new
construction cost (independent cost estimate) is $1.6
million or $19.00/GSF. The higher construction costs
can be attributed to current construction market conditions.
