Lawmakers review university capital requests: classroom modernizations, roofs and accessibility work
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The subcommittee discussed a series of university capital projects in House Bill 5, including instructional space and teaching lab upgrades, multiple roof replacements, elevator installations (Lewis Hall) and a music‑building renovation that is split between state cash and authority‑only funding.
Lawmakers examined a cluster of capital requests from the Montana University System that the architecture and engineering division and university representatives described as condition‑driven and programmatic.
Key requests included instructional‑space and teaching‑lab modernization at the University of Montana and Montana State University, multiple roof replacements on campus buildings (including clay‑tile roof systems requiring review by the State Historic Preservation Office), and elevator and accessibility work at Lewis Hall to connect three buildings and provide stops at multiple levels.
The committee heard that many roofs are aged, with failing assemblies and trapped moisture beneath older spray‑applied coatings; clay tile assemblies require coordination with historic preservation reviewers and sometimes need attic rework and added insulation that can raise costs. Catherman and Mr. Stevens said some roofing bids have come back above budget and the division is exploring alternative materials that preserve the building’s historic appearance without reinstalling original clay tile.
On accessibility, the committee reviewed a plan to site an exterior elevator connecting Lewis Hall, Cooley Hall and Teets Lab to provide accessible routes and restrooms on each floor. Committee members asked for status of a prior appropriation and were told earlier funding remains available and the current request supplements that work.
The Music Building renovation at the University of Montana was discussed as a recurring request that the institution is seeking to accomplish with a mix of state funds and authority‑only funding (philanthropy, donor funds or university cash). Committee members asked about phasing, donor commitments and the relationship between authority only requests and state appropriations.
What’s next: Staff and witnesses agreed to provide project phasing, clearer cost breakdowns (for example separating roofing and non‑roofing costs), and to identify the portion of work that will be state funded versus authority only.