Capital Budget Hearings
March 16 & 25, 2004
Salisbury University
Janet Dudley-Eshbach, President
Salisbury University’s new Master Plan for 2003-2013 has been recently approved by the
University System of Maryland Board of Regents. The FY 2005 capital budget provides
the first opportunity to frame the University’s plan within the fiscal realities facing the
State. Since our plan includes many projects which are critical to meeting the needs of
our expanding student population, the University is eager to work with the USM, the
Department of Budget and Management, and the General Assembly to systematically
increase the funding for these projects over the next 10 to 15 years in the Capital
Improvement Program. Once in the queue, it is then imperative that these SU projects
remain fully funded and on schedule. The falling behind of any one project by even as
little as a year’s time has a negative compounding effect on every University project
thereafter.
For example, the inclusion of funds in the Governor’s submission for the Teacher
Education and Technology Complex has been both a welcome and a worrisome situation.
We thank him for maintaining the funds in FY 2005 for architectural planning but are
greatly concerned that the construction funds have been delayed by a year. This delay
has caused our request for a new library to fall out of the queue. Given that the
University has space deficits as of FY 2001 of 35,375 NASF for stack space and 14,228
NASF for study space, the case for a new library is compelling. Construction of these
facilities according to the original schedule is key to our ability to increase enrollment in
response to growing student demand. We encourage your committee and legislative
body to concur with the level of funding for the TETC in the Governor’s request.
Importantly, however, we ask that you reconsider the decision to withhold
construction funding by a year.
1
Capital Projects – State Support (Capital Improvement Program)
Teacher Education and Technology Complex: Our most urgent capital budget project
now is the Teacher Education and Technology Complex. By approving this building in
the capital budget, the University System of Maryland Board of Regents, DBM,
Governor Ehrlich, and the Maryland General Assembly have acknowledged the need for
constructing this project in order to provide an adequate and technologically-advanced
home for Salisbury University’s Seidel School of Education and Professional Studies.
To keep this project on schedule and within a realistic budget, the size of the Teacher
Education and Technology Complex has been decreased from the initial 242,000 to
165,000 gross square feet by eliminating the library portion from the scope of the project.
Reducing the scope of the project has enabled the University to request a facility that
would blend in architecturally with the rest of the campus and reduce the overall total
cost of the project. The University’s most recent cost estimates have yielded a total cost
of $50 million and the approved budget currently lists that same amount. Prior to last
year’s CIP request, there had been over $10 million difference in need and available
funds. We are greatly appreciative that the project is fully funded at this time.
By changing the original site location for the Teacher Education and Technology
Complex from the current site of Caruthers Hall to the corner of Route 13 and College
Avenue, the University expects the following positive impacts:

enhancing the visibility of the SU campus for the thousands of travelers
who use Rt. 13 corridor;

eliminating the need to tear down Caruthers Hall and temporarily displace
the Departments of Education and Social Work while the TETC is being
erected. This results in an estimated savings of $428,128 (by not having
to raze the building and by eliminating previously planned relocation
costs).
2
This is particularly meaningful to our campus in light of our start as a Normal School and
State Teacher’s College. On the Salisbury University Master Plan map that is attached,
the TETC is identified by the letter “A.” We plan to concurrently move forward with an
auxiliary revenue bond project for a parking facility (identified by the letter “H”) to
compensate for parking spaces lost in the construction.
New Library: Next we hope to build a new library. Salisbury University has received
many accolades in the last decade, but the ranking of Blackwell Library as the sixth
among the twenty worst libraries identified in The Princeton Review’s Best 345 Colleges
(2003 edition) points to the gross inadequacy of the existing facility. I have attached a
table entitled “Blackwell Library Peer Comparison Study Results” that indicates our
extremely poor showing in comparisons with our peers in every assessment category
except number of hours open. SU simply must have a new library that befits the needs of
our students, our standards, and our reputation. The plan is to tear down Caruthers Hall,
a demonstration laboratory school built in 1955, which is woefully inadequate and not
suited to renovations, and build our new library at site “D” on the map to serve as a true
centerpiece of a comprehensive university campus. Included in the new library will be
space for the Nabb Research Center for Delmarva History and Culture, the premier site
for original artifacts related to Delmarva history.
Perdue School of Business: The Perdue School of Business is currently located in the
north wing of Holloway Hall, in space that does not support the growth and prestige of
the programs offered. We are proposing a new building on the main campus along
College Avenue.
Capital Projects – Auxiliary Support (System Funded Construction Program)
Parking: Because of the enrollment growth experienced and anticipated at Salisbury
University, parking facilities have become our number one priority for auxiliary support
capital projects. Surface parking will no longer be adequate to serve the campus
population without building parking lots an unacceptable distance from classrooms and
3
offices. With anticipated construction of additional buildings on the main campus, we
believe that the erection of several parking structures will be necessary. These would be
four levels, with the lowest level partially buried, reducing the height of these structures
to about 25 feet, similar to the height of a two-story building.
Public-Private and Private-Private Partnerships for Student Housing: SU currently
has an identified need of 888 beds for student housing. We are satisfying 312 of these
required beds through a public-private partnership arrangement that will expand our
existing low-rise apartments at University Park by fall 2004. In addition, two privateprivate student residence apartments are proposed in areas just east and about two miles
south of campus. Lastly, our consultants have identified space for a residence hall on
campus, and we will be returning to the Board of Regents with a request for additional
student housing support in the future.
Athletic Field House:
State space guidelines point to significant space deficiencies
across nearly every category of university space usage (see attached table), but the
greatest deficit exists in SU’s athletic and recreational space allocations. Our current
field house, Maggs Physical Activities Center, built in 1977, is heavily used, is not airconditioned, and was designed for a much smaller university. A new field house is very
much needed.
Over the past decade, Salisbury University has grown dramatically in enrollment and
reputation. As our Master Plan experts point out, our campus facilities and grounds have
not kept pace. Our vision for the future is bold, and we will be steadfast in our efforts to
make the SU 2003 Master Plan recommendations a reality. We ask for your support as
we work towards this goal.
4
BLACKWELL LIBRARY PERFORMANCE PEER COMPARISON STUDY RESULTS
Peer Institution
Salisbury University
Humboldt State University
Sonoma State University
Eastern Illinois University
Univ. Massachusetts-Dartmouth
Northern Michigan University
Univ. North Carolina-Wilmington
SUNY College at Oswego
SUNY College at Plattsburgh
Western Oregon University
Central Washington University
FTE 12 mo
FTES
Librarians1
5,214.00
12.0
6,869.67
17.0
6,079.67
14.7
10,093.33
21.3
5,723.67
19.0
6,984.67
14.0
8,792.33
17.0
6,899.00
17.5
5,436.33
17.0
3,989.67
7.0
7,509.67
15.0
Staff2
10
22
19.8
44
24
12
24
20
13
8.13
29.08
Books3
Serials Expenditures5 Paper Vols. Serials
$76,664 $322,744
$1,838,858
249,710
1,674
$452,399 $475,067
$3,440,970
559,893
2,799
$242,091 $305,002
$4,643,668
571,505
1,402
$515,740 $467,744
$4,159,618
794,469
3,335
$253,840 $738,100
$3,561,075
455,323
2,925
$92,740 $538,728
$2,028,046
755,366
1,711
$415,189 $1,106,346 $3,309,637
852,937
4,304
$146,469 $323,063
$2,060,507
453,390
1,802
$155,361 $539,500
$2,047,584
302,416
1,412
$119,925 $176,303
$1,127,570
180,588
1,842
$177,228 $394,825
$3,096,329
537,718
1,469
Salisbury University's Rank
Rank compared to peers
10
10
11
9
10th of 11 10th of 11 11th of 11 9th of 11
Normalized Values (to FTE)
All Stats per actual FTE except as noted(*)
1
Peer Institution
Norm. FTE *Librarians
Salisbury University
1.31
9.18
Humboldt State University
1.72
13.01
Sonoma State University
1.52
11.25
Eastern Illinois University
2.53
16.32
Univ. Massachusetts-Dartmouth
1.43
14.54
Northern Michigan University
1.75
10.71
Univ. North Carolina-Wilmington
2.20
13.01
SUNY College At Oswego
1.73
13.39
SUNY College At Plattsburgh
1.36
13.01
Western Oregon University
1.00
5.36
Central Washington University
1.88
11.48
SU's Rank from top (out of 11)
10
10
*
Staff
7.65
16.83
15.15
33.67
18.36
9.18
18.36
15.30
9.95
6.22
22.25
Books
$14.70
$65.85
$39.82
$51.10
$44.35
$13.28
$47.22
$21.23
$28.58
$30.06
$23.60
Serials
$61.90
$69.15
$50.17
$46.34
$128.96
$77.13
$125.83
$46.83
$99.24
$44.19
$52.58
10
10
6
10
10th of 11
Expenditures
$352.68
$500.89
$763.80
$412.12
$622.17
$290.36
$376.42
$298.67
$376.65
$282.62
$412.31
8
Hours
101
96
89
93
89
93
112
95
96
96
95
Circulation
47,598
206,745
109,870
217,333
83,116
82,433
237,295
106,872
74,137
48,906
210,456
Ref.’s
560
750
1,375.00
1,907.00
356
340
630
375
481
233
482
10
8
2
11
5
10th of 11 8th of 11 2nd of 11 11th of 11 5th of 11
Paper Vols. Serials
47.9
0.3
81.5
0.4
94.0
0.2
78.7
0.3
79.6
0.5
108.1
0.2
97.0
0.5
65.7
0.3
55.6
0.3
45.3
0.5
71.6
0.2
10
6
*
Hours
77.3
73.5
68.1
71.2
68.1
71.2
85.7
72.7
73.5
73.5
72.7
Circulation
9.1
30.1
18.1
21.5
14.5
11.8
27.0
15.5
13.6
12.3
28.0
2
11
Ref.’s
428.5
573.9
1052.1
1459.2
272.4
260.2
482.1
286.9
368.1
178.3
368.8
*
5
SU Strategic Plan, 1998-2003: “E.3.4 The library’s holdings and resources will be comparable to those of our aspirational peers.”
FTE
Relative, per normalized FTE
Source: 2000 NCES IPEDS data online
1Normalized
*
5
6