Finances & Facilities Working Group
Meeting Notes from April 10, 1999
Present: Conrad Festa (for Gary McCombs), Carl Blackstone, Priscilla Burbage, Marion Doig, Bob Dukes, Dennis Foster, Gordon Jones, Sam Jones, Mike Katuna, Bob Mignone, Jack Parson, Monica Scott, Lucinda Shields, Ann Villeponteaux, Hugh Wilder, and Perry Woodside.
The meeting began with a general discussion regarding finances and facilities at the College of Charleston. This included a discussion of the availability of various data, both financial and facilities related. It was determined that there was significant data available that would need to be put into a useable format.
Monica Scott suggested the following as a fourth issue for the Finances and Facilities Working Group: "External issues and actions affecting the physical development of the campus." These include the City's Strategic Downtown Plan (zoning, height, density, changes, etc.), Parking & Traffic Study, public transportation development, neighborhood concerns, joint public/private ventures for parking, housing and special use facilities (arena, sports complex), and other locations.
The issue of growth at the College of Charleston was discussed. It was noted that enrollment, staff, programs, and other such issues drive the facilities and financial needs of the College. There is the question of needs given growth vs. static enrollment. It was decided that we could not assume that there would be no growth. It was noted that input from the Programs, Enrollments, and Human Resources Working Group would be needed.
Another issue raised was that of the privatization of student housing. It was decided that the decision by the College to not build additional student housing should be revisited.
The issue of looking for targeted revenue sources to improve funding for higher education was mentioned. Bob Mignone is a member of a group working on these issues with a report due to CHE soon. He will keep the group apprised of any progress.
Perry Woodside was mentioned as a source for economic data that may be useful to the group.
The question of whether we get any funding from either the city or county was raised. It was the belief that Coastal Carolina gets 1% of Horry County personal property tax. Gary McCombs agreed to check on the status of this to see if it continued after Coastal separated from the USC system. It was noted that the trend is actually away from city and county funding of higher education to higher education funding the city, examples being impact fees such as storm water runoff.
It was determined that the information and data for issues 1 & 2 of the working group should be presented simply and manageably. The working group does not want to get bogged down in tons of data. They prefer an "executive summary" approach.
Monica Scott discussed the availability of space standard guidelines. It was the consensus of the group that those data should be obtained and comparisons made to the College. Of specific interest was the number of faculty offices, labs, and classrooms. Also, if possible, the numbers from other states and CHE should be further broken down by discipline. It was noted that comparison should be made based on comparable institutions, program by program, and taking into consideration the specific strengths (or peculiarities) of an institution and the impact that these have on its facility needs. A study similar to this has already been done for the Sciences and will need to be updated.
Monica Scott further stated that it was a fair assumption that the space needs of the College of Charleston can be met on the existing downtown campus through revamping and additional building on space that is currently owned. This assumption is valid given the current enrollment and some small regulated growth. This assumption is not valid given any major growth.
It was the consensus of the group that the facility needs should be looked at and then an attempt to match funding made. Sources of funds should include fees, state funding, and bonding authority.
There should be an institutional commitment to fast-track adult students through programs. This allows for additional enrollments with far less demand on facilities.
It was suggested that we look at historical enrollment data as a source for making assumptions about facility needs. It was noted that a 2% enrollment increase over five years would translate into an additional 1,000 students. It was also noted that the impact is both financial as well as on the facilities. Monica Scott suggested that perhaps the space constraints of the campus would naturally cap enrollment at some point.
Discussion regarding enrollment projections and performance funding was had. It was noted that the target for each institution was set annually.
Again, it was stated that this working group would be impacted by the findings of other working groups.
It was suggested that the College of Charleston should be aggressive in trying to obtain property and space that is near the current campus. Examples were the space behind King Street businesses and areas north of Calhoun Street. Monica Scott informed the group that the King Street merchants, by ordinance, must provide a certain number of parking spaces. This makes obtaining any of the space behind those businesses difficult.
There was general discussion regarding the controversy surrounding the new arena. Attempts are being made to help owners in the area identify opportunities other than simply the sale of their property. Ideas include restaurants and other entrepreneurial endeavors.
There was a question as to whether or not there was, in existence, a campus master plan. It was noted that the study done by Ray Huff a few years back resulted only in a preliminary study. There was no final master plan developed pending the outcome of the Long Range Planning of which this working group is a part.
It was suggested that the group move forward using the assumption that there will not be any revolutionary changes to programs or the general operation of the College. The assumption is that fifteen years from now, the core activity of the College will be little different than it is now. Given what we currently know, we should proceed assuming that any changes will be only peripheral.
The question of how the space planning committee fit with this working group was raised. The answer was that the space planning committee was in place to make determinations about placement of individuals and programs into currently existing facilities on what is often a short-term basis. No major facility decisions will be made until the Strategic Plan is complete. It was noted that attempts should be made to make conscious decisions regarding facilities.
The discussion turned to issue number 3 of the charges of the working group. Again, Monica Scott suggested the space standard guidelines with adjustments for specific known exceptions. It was suggested that a master list of the historical space requests (at the College) be compiled. Then this list should be reviewed to determine if there are holes.
It was asked if perhaps there were specific people within city or state government that could be useful to this group as resources. Temple University was suggested as a resource for an institution that moved into areas of a city that were traditionally not "college campus" without disrupting the balance of the neighborhood and displacing the residents.
It was the desire of the group to get copies of the City's Downtown Strategic Plan as well as the Parking and Traffic Study upon completion.
It was again emphasized that information coming to the working group should be readable and useable, "executive summary" form. Otherwise, it is feared that the group will be overwhelmed with stacks of paper.
It was reiterated that we should work closely with other working groups, specifically the Economic Issues group. An example of the information that we hope to get from them is sources of funding. The question of how and when we will interact with the other working groups was discussed.
One source of income mentioned was some sort of percentage in the increase in profits of local businesses as a result of more and more students, faculty and staff becoming customers. The group was encouraged to think of creative sources of revenue.
There was a recommendation that there be a process for getting a list of facilities priorities, other than Sybil Fix's latest column. Currently, there is no way for members of the working group to know what needs are out there and what is at the top of the list.
It was suggested that the working group use the Residence Life Five Year Plan as a model on an institutional level for listing facility needs, renovations, and repairs.
Dr. Festa surmised that at first blush, it appears that the College of Charleston has had no real plan over the last several years, but that in fact this is not true. The College has been reacting to phenomenal growth and has actually managed to progress very well. The energy of the administration has been devoted to meeting these needs and has not been available to focus on planning. In addition, the administration wanted to make sure that the "popularity" of the college was not fleeting before long-term decisions were made regarding facilities. It now seems that our reputation is assured.
It was decided that the working group would meet once per month for approximately 2 hours. The meetings will be held on the third Thursday of each month from 7:00 am to 9:00 am in the Tate Center, Room 205. The first meeting will be May 20, 1999. The time between now and then should be used to begin collecting data.
It was determined that the following should be addressed:
The general guiding principle that "College of Charleston facilities should reflect the quality of the institution" was noted.
It was suggested, and the group agreed, that an effort should be made to keep the students and faculty up to date over the course of this process to demonstrate that action is being taken. Suggestions included articles in the student newspaper, faculty newsletter, and the establishment of a web site devoted to this group.
Addition of Another Issue to be Addressed:
External Issues and actions affecting the physical development of the campus ex: city's strategic downtown plan, zoning ordinances, parking and traffic study, neighborhood concerns, joint ventures.