At the faculty’s second major opportunity to prod administrators about the $200 million basketball arena project – which would be the most expensive college arena in history – many of them expressed continued skepticism about parking for the estimated 12,500-seat arena and whether the arena will prevent the University from spending money on other academic construction projects.
Faculty passed a motion suggesting the University follow strict environmental requirements, but it failed another that said the University should request a smaller loan than $200 million from the state. The body also postponed voting on parking issues and revenue sharing between the athletic department and the academic departments.
The parking resolution suggested that the University not spend any of its academic money on parking lots or garages, and require the athletic department to cover that cost. City codes say the University must add parking spaces, but just how many will be determined by David Evans and Associates, Inc. in March.
Other faculty said it would be fine for the academic budget to cover more parking spaces because the University desperately needs more parking.
“We can all use those 400 spots,” Ramey said.
Considering people can park on city streets and take EmX, the University might need between 400 and 1,200 more spots, said Chris Ramey, associate vice president of campus planning.
Administrators say the University probably already has enough land to facilitate the needed spaces.
But any additional spots needed will have to incorporate the loss of the large visitor lot on 13th Avenue and Agate Street that will be replaced by an Academic Learning Center for athletes.
University President Dave Frohnmayer emphasized that no academic dollars would be used to pay for construction of the arena, and that critics of the administration’s priorities should know that in the past decade the University has spent nearly $500 million on construction projects and about three-fourths of those were for academic and housing purposes.
Faculty and students at the meeting questioned whether the arena will usurp money from the Strategic Housing Plan that is intended to create more residence halls, but Vice President for Finance and Administration Frances Dyke said housing plans are included in long-term projections of debt limitations and shouldn’t interfere with the University’s ability to complete the plan.
University professor Nathan Tublitz offered more criticism of consulting firm CSL International’s revenue estimations than did a faculty subcommittee two weeks ago. Tublitz pointed out that the $200 million bond only allows for a $4 million cushion in case costs are greater than anticipated.
The CSL report explains that it got its information from focus groups, potential user surveys, comparative facility analysis, competitive facility analysis, market characteristics and historical operations, but it doesn’t explain in detail how they made calculations. Tublitz and professor emeritus Frank Stahl said how the numbers were formulated should be open to the public because of the magnitude of the project, and that CSL’s most conservative scenario suggests:
? Men’s basketball revenues will more than double.
? Women’s basketball revenues will nearly double.
? Concession revenues will increase from $163,000 to $598,000.
? The arena will make a profit from non-athletic events such as concerts and family shows.
? Annual donations to the department via premium basketball seating will increase from $65,000 to $1.6 million.
Frohnmayer said concerns about the scope of the project should be nulled because it has been reviewed and supported by:
? Athletic department officials
? The University administration
? The Oregon State Board of Higher Education
? The Legislative Fiscal Office
? The Joint Ways and Means Committee of the Oregon Legislature
A four-person faculty subcommittee of the University Senate also vetted CSL’s numbers, and although they painted a more skeptical picture of how much money the arena could generate, they said only if half of CSL’s most conservative estimations came true the project would face significant trouble. “I think we all agree here that this is a huge project,” Frohnmayer said.
[email protected]