• Savings and Risks in Fast-Tracked Construction

    by Oliver Snider August 2015

    Last time I wrote, we talked about owners’ adjusted expectations of the building process when fast-tracking a construction project. What, exactly, accounts for the potential money savings in a fast-tracked process?

    A building that is fast-tracked by adding workers to the project, working overtime or working outside in adverse weather conditions (such as through the winter months) may well end up costing more. These are situations associated with a project that has fallen behind schedule and on which the contractors are playing catch-up. However, for properly handled fast-tracked projects, where a shorter schedule is a result of pre-construction planning, savings can accrue by limiting overhead costs for the firms involved in completing the project and leading to more-generous financing terms. Also, depending on the circumstances in the broader economy, a shorter schedule can also ease the impact of inflation on the overall project budget.

  • Salt Lake City Leaders Slash $150M Park and Rec Bond

    by Christopher Smart, The Salt Lake Tribune August 2015

    There will not be a $150 million recreation bond on Salt Lake City's Nov. 3 ballot. A $99.8 million general obligation bond, however, could be put to voters.

  • Wellness Center, Staff Raises Part of $6.1M Park Budget

    by LEANN ECKROTH Bismarck Tribune August 2015

    The Mandan Park Board approved this week a $6.1 million preliminary budget that will provide funds for dismantling infrastructure to make room for a Family Wellness Center next to Raging Rivers.

  • Millions at Stake in Vikings Stadium Cost Feud

    by Rochelle Olson, Star Tribune August 2015

    The amount involved in M.A. Mortenson's dispute over costs at the new Minnesota Vikings stadium - $15 million - equals the amount the company stands to collect for completing the $1.1 billion project on time.

  • Blackhawks Practice Facility Deal to Net City $16.3M

    by Fran Spielman August 2015

    Cash-strapped Chicago will net $16.3 million from the deal that will bring a Blackhawks practice facility and new academic buildings for Rush University Medical Center to the site of the soon-to-be-demolished Malcolm X College.

  • $30M Soccer Complex Coming to Atlanta?

    by Mark Niesse; Staff August 2015

    Supporters of a proposed $30 million soccer complex in DeKalb County say it could be a boon for the local economy, but some commissioners are warning that many of their constituents aren't on board with the plan.

  • Sports Complex Plans Stall as Tax Hike Talks Tabled

    by Lawrence Budd July 2015

    The construction of a $10 million sports complex on 88 acres outside Lebanon hinges on more than an increase in Warren County's lodging tax.

  • UT Chattanooga to Give Basketball Players $2K Stipend

    by Jay Greeson July 2015

    University of Tennessee at Chattanooga athletic director David Blackburn said Wednesday that each of the school's 15 women's basketball players and 13 men's basketball players on scholarship will be given $2,000 to cover cost of attendance this school year.

  • Bonuses, Incentives Perk Up MWC Coaching Contracts

    by Geoff Grammer, Albuquerque Journal (New Mexico) July 2015

    The devil is in the details. And for many college coaching contracts - even those in the Mountain West Conference, just out of the glare of the national spotlight - the real perks can be found in those quirky little clauses that go beyond the base salary and compensation numbers often cited at news conferences and in media reports.

  • A Response to Critics of Soaring College Rec Spending

    by Emily Attwood June 2015

    “LSU Faces Dramatic Budget Cuts While It Builds An Expensive Lounging Pool” This was the headline of an article that appeared in The Huffington Post this past May criticizing Louisiana State University’s spending of $84.75 million on an overhaul of its recreation facilities despite a threatened $55.5 million funding cut from the state.

    Last week New Jersey governor Chris Christie admonished what he considers wasteful spending in the higher education system, denouncing “extras” such as lazy rivers and climbing walls.

    "Some colleges are drunk on cash and embarking on crazy spending binges,” he said.

    If you work in college recreation, the incidents made you cringe.

    The cost of higher education is going to get a lot of attention leading up to the 2016 election, and unfortunately, that’s going to come with a lot of misguided scrutiny of campus recreation programs.

    What both incidents overlook — as anyone working in college recreation will immediately recognize — is that a university’s education budget and recreation budget are two entirely different things. Campus recreation centers are not built at the expense of science labs or classrooms. For most universities, such projects are funded (and maintained) from students fees.

    "The funds for the project come directly from the student fee and can only be used for the project," LSU spokesman Ernie Ballard told The Huffington Post. "Similar to donations to the university or funds from the state for capital projects, these types of funds can't be shifted to fill in budget holes or be used in another way. They can only be used for what they were originally designated for."

    The impact of such facilities on the price of a college education is actually minimal, according to David Feldman, economics professor at College of William & Mary.

    “Lazy rivers are only a tiny piece of the costs,” he told Inside Higher Ed. “These lazy rivers are not the reason why student debt is soaring seemingly out of control. The big problem that higher education faces today, at the public side, is cuts in state spending.”

    Some argue that cuts in spending are actually driving the construction of bigger and better recreation amenities, as universities look draw in more out of state students. According to research from the University of Michigan, “wealthier students [are] much more willing to pay for consumption amenities.”

    Despite its negative headline, The Huffington Post article went on to admit as much, quoting a 2013 article in which former Miami University president James Garland explains, “We took advantage of low interest rates for municipal bonds and invested in rehabilitating our residence halls and eating facilities and putting in more recreation -- workout rooms and lounges, and the kinds of accouterments that really dressed up a campus and made it a much more comfortable and familiar place for upper-middle class students. So those students started applying to us in droves. Application numbers went up, we became more selective, and the SAT scores of the entering class became higher."

    So, in the face of a $55.5 million budget cut (avoided, thankfully) LSU would need to rely more heavily on the appeal of its non-academic offerings to bring in more students and more revenue. As Jane Wellman, a finance expert with College Futures Foundation, told Inside Higher Ed, the issue is not of how colleges spend money, but the priorities of schools.

    “The sense is that college costs are going up too rapidly, and institutions aren’t doing enough to control them,” she says. “The critique underneath that is the critique of the decision-making culture in higher education.”

    Rather than ask why LSU would spend $85 million on a recreation center, maybe politicians should be asking why the state of Louisiana was mulling a $55 million cut to education.

    We won’t get into the other complexities of campus recreation facilities, such as the positive economic impact of construction (According to NIRSA, $1.7B was spent on 157 recreation construction projects in 2012), the employment opportunities afforded to students, the educational programming opportunities, the importance of recreation to students' quality of life (and GPA), the role in building a schools’ reputation, or any number of issues.

    Unfortunately, neither will the politicians pinning the climbing costs of higher education on climbing walls.