Outdoor Recreation & Fitness Facilities Proposal Frequently Asked Questions, Facts & Figures 1. What are the major components of the Outdoor Recreation & Fitness Facilities proposal? A. Proposal A Proposal B Difference Improve Campus Recreation fields $5,850,000 $5,850,000 $0 and tennis courts Construct a new track and small $2,100,000 $2,100,000 $0 multi-purpose stadium Convert Field 3 to a multi-purpose Not included $2,170,000 $2,170,000 space with a season bubble Install synthetic turf at multi-purpose Not included $1,750,000 $1,750,000 field and Blakeslee Field Four additional tennis courts Not included $340,000 $340,000 Contingencies/design fees $1,590,000 $2,442,000 $852,000 Total $9,540,000 $14,652,000 $5,112,000 Proposal A Proposal B Difference Cost per credit hour for field and $2.90 $4.46 $1.56 facility construction (banded) Cost per credit hour for operations $0.40 $0.96 $0.56 and maintenance (banded) Total cost per credit hour $3.30 $5.42 $2.12 Cost per semester $39.63 $65.02 $25.39 Cost per day (155 academic days) $0.51 $0.84 $0.33 Cost per day (365 calendar days) $0.22 $0.36 $0.14 Cost per week (31 academic weeks) $2.56 $4.19 $1.64 Cost per week (52 week year) $1.52 $2.50 $0.98 Cost per month (7 academic months) $11.32 $18.58 $7.25 Cost per month (12 month year) $6.60 $10.84 $4.23
2. How is the project going to be paid for? A. As currently proposed, the entire project would be funded through student fees. The $14.65 million project, bonded over 15 years, would result in the assessment of a student fee most likely beginning in the fall of 2007 of approximately $65/semester, or $130/academic year. For context, that cost breaks down as follows: Cost per day: $.84 per day (based on 155 academic days) Cost per day: $.36 per day (based on 365 day year) Cost per week: Cost per week $4.19 per week (based on 31 academic weeks) $2.50 per week (based on 52 week year) Cost per month: $18.57 per month (based on 7-month academic calendar) Cost per month: $10.84 per month (based on 12 month year) 3. What evidence is there to suggest that students are willing to support this kind of project through an assessment of student fees? A. A survey completed at the end of the 2006 spring semester yielded 930 responses. The top priorities were addressing unsafe conditions with the current softball fields and outdoor track. The most appealing elements of the plan were field improvements for softball, flag football, rugby, lacrosse, soccer fields along with lighting to extend the playability of these areas, new/additional tennis courts, and a new outdoor track. At that time, nearly 47% of the respondents favored the introduction of a student fee to support the addition of these new outdoor facilities. It is expected that support for the proposal has grown during the current school year, as individuals have become better informed and the project has been scaled back, refined, and tailored to better meet student interests based on their feedback. 4. What role have students played in this process? A. The survey last year indicated last year that more than 68% of students favored a referendum process where this proposal could be voted on by all students. Recently a petition supporting this referendum process was signed by more than 300 students, with the objective of establishing a date for a referendum prior to the end of the current school year. The plan has been continuously refined as a result of an ongoing consultation process and presentations of the proposal to various student leadership groups. Along with this, a number of students have served on the Outdoor Recreation & Fitness Facilities Committee. The proposal is also available for review on the Campus Recreation website and campus open forum sessions are scheduled to occur prior to any potential referendum.
5. Why are student fees being targeted as a funding source for this project? A. MSU students have benefited from more than $46.8 million in privately funded and state allocation improvements to indoor recreation and fitness facilities over the last six years. With private resources and state funds earmarked for future academic projects, the introduction of a student fee to support this proposal is critical and is the only way to ensure that these much needed improvements will become a reality for current and future MSU students. Even with the proposed increase, the overall total cost of tuition and students fees will maintain MSU s current position as the third most affordable public university in the state. 6. Would the use of student fees be a strategy that is unique to MSU? A. No. As mentioned above, MSU students have been fortunate to see nearly $46.8 million in improvements over the last six years, with about $18.4 million or 39% of that total coming from private sources, and the remaining $28.4 million (61%) as the result of state allocations. In the meantime, student fees have been used to fund improvements similar to those proposed in this plan at campuses around the country including the University of Nebraska, University of Northern Colorado, University of Northern Iowa, St. Cloud State University, University of Minnesota-Duluth, and the University of Minnesota. In many cases, student fees were used at these institutions to build these facilities and were then combined with additional student usage and access fees. Currently, MSU students use a variety of recreation and fitness facilities at no additional charge and there are no plans to initiate those kinds of fees within the current proposal. 7. How many students will potentially be impacted by these kinds of improvements and how will they benefit? A. When you consider intramural activities, sports clubs, outdoor recreation, fitness and wellness, physical education classes and informal and open recreation, over 60 percent of Minnesota State University, Mankato students currently utilize the existing recreation and fitness facilities. That s over 8,400 participants each year and those numbers have grown rapidly, with a strong correlation between increased usage and the dramatic improvements to MSU s indoor facilities, such as Myers Field House and Otto Recreation Center that students have benefited from in recent years. The benefits of this project to MSU students are countless. Safer spaces, more playable places, and smarter use of existing facilities will all become the standard and remove potential hazards that exist with the current arrangement. An unprecedented level of collaboration between Campus Recreation and Athletics will change the way facilities are shared, programmed, and utilized, making opportunities such as flag football at Blakeslee Field a reality. New facilities will improve the space available for high demand physical education courses. And expanded hours will make accessing all of these facilities more convenient than ever for busy students.
8. I don t currently use many of the outdoor spaces, but I am a heavy user of the indoor facilities. How would I benefit by supporting this plan? A. More than 60% of MSU students make use of indoor facilities that have come as a result of nearly $47 million in improvements over the last five years (Taylor Center-$18.4 millionprivately funded; Phase I-Myers Field House-$11 million-state funded; Phase II-Highland Center-$9 million-state funded; Phase III-Otto Recreation Center-$8.4 million-state funded). Fewer MSU students utilize the outdoor facilities because of the relatively poor and unsafe condition of these fields. This proposal, however, addresses those concerns and seeks to bring the area south of Stadium Road up to a standard similar to MSU s sparkling array of indoor facilities. The new outdoor facilities will help embody a culture of health and wellness by showcasing a beautiful, active, and vibrant campus. In addition, these new facilities can help to improve recruitment and retention, thereby helping to contain future tuition and fee costs. Finally, a new multi-use outdoor facility like the seasonal bubble will free up a considerable amount of time devoted to varsity athletics and club teams in high demand indoor spaces such as Myers Field House and Schellberg Gym, so users of these indoor facilities will see a direct benefit through their support of this proposal. 9. Is there a programming plan to ensure students will have access to facilities that they are being asked to fund? A. Blakeslee Field, outdoor track, tennis courts, indoor bubble (seasonal): Human Performance: Monday thru Thursday; 8am-12:00pm Campus Recreation: Monday thru Friday; 12:00pm-1:00pm; 6:00pm-close Intercollegiate Athletics: Monday thru Friday; 2:00pm-6:00pm Weekday and weekend schedules will be coordinated to maximize usage of facilities and programming time. Use of the bubble would be seasonal in nature, from approximately November April. Campus Recreation softball, flag football, soccer, lacrosse and rugby/multipurpose fields and paved fitness trail: Human Performance: Monday thru Thursday; 8am-12:00pm Campus Recreation: Monday thru Sunday; 12:00pm-close Intercollegiate Athletics: No scheduled usage.
10. How does this proposal fit within the overall university plan and align with the strategic plan? A. These improvements are but a part of the overall master plan that will include other beautification efforts, a transition to a pedestrian campus, and additional academic buildings, such as the Trafton Science Center addition and a new home for the College of Business. Future phases of the recreation and fitness facilities plan may include a student ice center and other improvements to Blakeslee Field. Undoubtedly, when fully implemented, these plans will improve the quality of the experience for students at MSU and provide a tremendous campus setting that will become the envy of other universities throughout the country. As part of the university s health and wellness strategic initiative, President Davenport has suggested a personal commitment to providing high quality academic, recreational and athletic facilities that would result in the improved health and wellness of students, faculty and staff, an enjoyable recreational and academic experience and highly competitive intercollegiate programs. Expanded programming, excellent services and exceptional facilities promote exercise, friendship, development of social skills and leadership opportunities and make for a healthier, happier Minnesota State Mankato community. In addition, these new outdoor recreation and fitness facilities have the potential to enhance the quality of life and the type of opportunities available for students, boost campus camaraderie and enthusiasm, and help attract prospective students and other visitors to our campus. 11. Are there ways to scale back the plan to make it more affordable for students, or are there other ways to share costs and/or generate revenue to offset student investment? A. Many of the components of the plan are interrelated and dependent upon one another, so an ala carte approach where students could pick and choose amongst various elements is not completely practical. When evaluating affordability, students should bear in mind a cost factor of $7.30/million. That is, adding or subtracting $1 million to the cost of the proposal increases or decreases the cost by a factor of $7.30. For example, reducing the scope of the project by $3 million, including contingency costs, would reduce the annual student fee by approximately $22 ($21.90). These facilities could be rented to outside users when they are not being utilized for university programming, but these revenue streams are unpredictable at this time and create private competition for these spaces. State funding is being channeled into academic buildings such as the Trafton Science Center, while private funding will be tapped for the new College of Business facility and other university academic needs as part of the upcoming capital campaign. Private partnerships with the school district and the community have been vigorously pursued, but there seems to be no interest at this time. Again, students would need to bear in mind that an outside investment of $100,000 would only change the proposed student fee by less than $1 ($.73) per year.
12. Does the proposed student fee provide for such things as operation, maintenance, and replacement? A. The proposal that will generate a student fee cost of approximately $80 annually includes an annual charge of $9.62 ($.40/credit hour), which will generate $125,000 for operation and maintenance related expenses. The option resulting in an overall student fee of $130 includes a $23 ($.96/credit hour) cost for operations and maintenance. This amount will generate approximately $300,000 per year, with nearly 60% of that figure earmarked for setup/teardown expenses and utility costs associated with operating the seasonal bubble, and other maintenance expenses tied to the synthetic turf fields. Replacement costs will vary with the expected life of various components and be dependent upon a variety of other factors. For example, the seasonal bubble has a life expectancy of 15-18 years, and the replacement cost of $450,000 in today s dollars would include only the outside membrane, with all other related structural elements still presumed to be useful at the end of that cycle. The synthetic turf should last 12-15 years with a replacement cost of $400,000-$500,000 depending on field size. The outdoor track surface, with an initial price tag of $850,000, will last up to 30 years with routine maintenance (striping, repair) costing an estimated $20,000-$30,000 every 15 years. The tennis courts can have a life expectancy of up to 50 years, if re-striped and maintained at an approximate cost of $3,000 per court every 5-7 years. 13. Are we certain that there is a need for these kind of improvements? A. It is clear that the current facilities are nearing their capacity because of increasing demand and student participation. For example, softball team participation has grown by 300% during the most recent seven year period, while the number of flag football teams has increased from 21 teams participating in 1999 to over 50 teams last fall. With limited physical space, the lighting of certain fields will greatly expand the window of opportunity for organized play and the current proposal addresses lighting pollution concerns first brought forward by faculty and students associated with the astronomy program. An increasing number of students involved in campus recreation and fitness programming means the need for infrastructure is growing and this proposal is a critical step in accommodating both current demands and future growth. 14. What happens if there isn t interest in supporting this proposal with student fee funding or if the referendum fails? A. There are several potential pitfalls in trying to maintain the status quo. As mentioned, the current facilities are at or near capacity which makes any future growth nearly impossible without these proposed upgrades. In addition, one of the primary motivators for pursuing these facility improvements was to address a number of health and safety issues related to the relatively poor condition of these play areas. The university is currently investing $300,000 to address safety concerns on two of the varsity practice fields and similar issues
with the campus recreation, club, and intramural fields could lead to these spaces being taken off-line, which would result in an accompanying reduction in programming. 15. If the referendum passes, how soon will students begin to see the benefits of some of these improvements? A. If the proposal goes to referendum and passes this spring, there is a possibility that some of these components could come on-line as early as the start of the 2007-2008 school year. If the bid process and vendor selection process moved fairly quickly, the synthetic turf surfaces could be installed during the summer, pending contractor schedule and availability. Work on the track, tennis courts and seasonal bubble would likely begin the spring of 2008. Timing on the new field areas would be phased and the availability would be dependent on a preference for seeding or sodding. In the interim, the new synthetic turf areas would absorb some programming, while other activities may have to be temporarily relocated off-campus to Jaycees Park or Land of Memories.