Union WELL Expansion – Athletics

Tuesday, July 9, 2013 – 2:30 PM

The WELL, The Shoreline Conference Room

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Bill Olmsted, Leslie Davis, Alle Moreno, Bill Macriss, Steve Tebbs, Adam Primas, Terry Wanless, Ruben Volta, Jason Borchin, Becca Whitman, Josh Mandel‐Sonner, Ryan Bjork, Tod Bannister, and Donna Seley.

1. Priority Setting: To discuss facilities, programs and service priorities and while clarifying what they might include in the building of the event center. a) Leslie discussed each item on the facilities list and the programs and services briefly while clarifying what certain items were or where they would fall into. Items such as healthy food and food options, lighting on the fields, and study space options were grouped together for clarity. Some items were removed as a given that would be built into the building regardless. These were quality ventilation, scoreboards, extensive storage, natural light and great sound. Faculty and staff lounges along with dedicated workout spaces will be a campus recommendation. Lights have been determined as a priority and that we will need turf and fencing for the baseball field. An indoor portable track has been added as we would be able to fill this niche since the closest indoor track is a few states away. An indoor track could bring a great amount of revenue. Victor also discussed parking issues that would result in larger events and that we would need to take in consideration the busy times on campus.

b) To determine the athletics priorities the committee was asked to place 11 yellow dots next to their priority items while an orange dot was placed next to their number 1 item. Statistics will be drawn from these dots, and then the current list will be narrowed down and used as a starting point for the architect.

2. Trip to Visit Southern Schools With Event Centers Discussion a) Bill did a PowerPoint highlight reel of the universities that were toured on the Southern CA trip. The Walter in Long Beach, while unique in design, had more than a few drawbacks. Obstructed views, poor flow throughout building, poor acoustics and was not ideal for large events. The Jenny Craig Pavilion at the University of received a better reception in regards to form and function. Dr. Wanless mentioned that the Jenny Craig Pavilion had a division 1 look. RIMAC at UC San Diego reminded everyone of the WELL in design and activities. They had a unique puzzle piece floor cover for the fixed floor that offered them some diversity to events that could possibly be held. The final event center visited was the largest, the Viejas Arena at San Diego State. With seating for 12,414 people, a cement floor, a huge interior loading docks, a variety of conference rooms it was the most versatile.

3. Discussion of the Floor: Full Wood or a Drop Floor a) Wood floor: the pros of a wood floor would be more student use and that more of the student fee goes into operations versus a debt mortgage. You could run more intermural sports and camps with fixed floors. With a full wood floor you could run more student sporting events without having to close down the event center to change the flooring. Cons are weight limitations and limited types of events that could ultimately be held. Student dollars would go into care and maintenance of a full wood floor.

b) Drop floor: pros include a variety of events that can be held on a cement floor. From graduation ceremonies, to a circus, to an ice rink and so on. We could attract bigger names in entertainment with a cement floor capable of handling the demand of a big act. Cons are the possibility of dead spots that a drop floor might have causing a dribbling ball to go haywire. Leslie and Bill mentioned how most professional teams use a drop floor with great success. However it was mentioned that no D‐1 volleyball teams use a concrete flooring.

c) Another option with the cement flooring was using a sport court like UC Davis has, essentially a rubber mat covering the cement. The issue with this is the abuse it plays on the body such as stress fractures and shin splints. However this option would allow the students use of the facility for a variety of sports without having to worry about changing the flooring until a booked event. Any incoming events would also be generating revenue by having to pay to change, and then put back the flooring. This would result in some creative scheduling and it would limit the student use. Overall athletics believe that flooring is the student’s decision.

4. Fee Discussion a) The biggest concerns about the event center and flooring stem from whether the event center should have more of a student focus or an event focus. Promoters might take away the student focus and the overall return of funds while limiting entry for students. Promoters would be taking a cut of ticket sales, but they are the ones drawing in the big names and paying for them. However by bringing in large acts there is an opportunity to make more money and could result in charging students less. Arco Arena is no longer appealing and fulfilling their niche, thus we could fill that void and we wouldn’t have to turn students away like San Diego State does. Bill and Leslie both agreed that in the beginning there would be screaming deals to fill all the seats, and as the event center became more successful they’d ramp down the deals while still keeping the student focus. Money would get pumped back into the event center and there would be a student board that helps set priorities. Everyone agreed that they would like to see some numbers to compare flooring options to, along with the projected numbers of having more of a student or event focus. Leslie and Bill are working with promoters to determine what kind of events they can attract and the revenue they will bring in. They are also getting financials from other schools with event centers to get two financial proformas of capital versus operations of each flooring option. These are expected to be completed by the end of July.