Health, wellness & recreation study

1. Health, wellness & recreation study

2. In 2010, the debt service on the HEC was paid off (approx $11 per student). It was continued for an extra year, 2011-12 to fund a study on recreational needs. • This study recommended a renovation to the Allen Center to expand recreational offerings on campus. • Legislation came to SGA in spring 2012 to referenda the students that spring if the building should be built. • Cost per student would have been:$60 year one; $120 year two; $197 year three for a 20 year bond. • This legislation was tabled indefinitely by a unanimous vote. History

3. Why additional study? • Cost to students was significant when taking into account factors such as differential tuition, tuition increase, etc. • Delzell as a facility is inadequate in meeting students needs (student health services, counseling services, child care services) • State would not address the issue until 2023-2025 • In an attempt to find a solution that meets students health, wellness, and recreational needs in a fiscally responsible manner, the study was expanded, by unanimous vote in Spring 2012. • This study expansion builds off the recreational needs study to assess the viability of a total wellness center on the Allen site.

4. 2011-2012: Recreational needs study phase I • Spring 2012: SGA Vote, commissioning of phase II • Fall 2012-Spring 2013: Study ongoing with periodic meetings with architects, University Administration, SGA representatives, UW System Representatives, Delzell Hall representatives, and University Recreational Sports (URS) • Fall 2013: Study completed, findings presented to University. • Spring 2014: Options submitted to students for referenda vote • 2015: Approval by state in biennial budget • 2016: Construction begins (estimated 18-24 months construction) timeline

5. Does phase II invalidate the phase I? • No. It builds off of what is already finished and paid for. • Do studies expire? • Yes, after 3 years. Phase II ensures that the initial phase I will not expire. • Who are the architects? • The design firm, Kahler-Slater. They are the same firm, and the same architect who did the first study. • One of Kahler-Slater’s specialties is university health, wellness and recreational buildings. • Why is the first study not being sent to the students as referenda now? • A referenda is binding, and would invalidate the study currently in process. • At this point, no building (either just phase I or the expanded phase II) can be built until 2016, due to the state biennial budget process. • How will this new building be paid for? • The primary funding source will be segregated fees, though there is a chance for additional funding from the state. Common FAQ’s

6. How is the expanded study paid for? • Through a Student Health Services budget savings • Will the expanded recreational facility mean free strength and cardio center memberships? • It would still be a charge to students through segregated fees, however there will not be an additional user fee. • Will this expanded building option be a greater expense to the students? • That question cannot be answered until the architects submit their proposal, however they have been instructed to offer the students a low, medium, and high cost option. • Does it have to be the Allen center site? • That site is not set in stone, however was determined as the best possible site for the phase I study. The architects may propose an additional site, we will have to wait until their recommendation. Common faq’s