Five Year Planning Report
Table of Contents
 MSU Mission Statement
 Acknowledgements
 Committee Membership
 Special Thanks
 Action Plan / Committee Agenda / Meeting Minutes
 Student Union Philosophy & Trends Research
 PASSHE Trends / Comparative Institutions
 Data Collected
 MSU Space Usage Report
 Hourly Room Utilization (EMS Reservation System)
 MSU Lounge Use Assessment
 KUSSI/Bookstore Consultant Report-Summary
 MSU Student Organization Space Utilization
 Staff Analysis
 Student Perspectives – Committee Discussion
 Student Union Fee Comparison
 Summary of Recommendations and Rationale
 Facility Condition Assessment
 Operational Technology Recommendations
 MSU Energy Recommendations & Action Plan
 Space Usage Recommendations
 Staffing Recommendations
 Fiscal Projections
Page 1
Page 2
 Acknowledgements
 Committee Membership
 Special Thanks
Page 3
MSU 5 Year Plan Committee
Leah Cassellia
Kent Dahlquist
Matt Delaney
Vicki Graft
Andrea Kirshman, D.Ed.
Lisa Kowalski
James Mallozzi
Kevin Schukraft
Terry Sitler
Carol Sztaba
Associate Director - Student Involvement Services
Director - Housing, Residential Life and Dining Services
Budget Director – Finance & Business Services
Retail Manager - KU Bookstore
Assistant Vice Provost - Academic & Student Affairs
Executive Director – KUSSI
Senior Food Service Director - Aramark
Manager of Networking - Network Technology
Director - Conference Services
University Architect - Facilities
Jordana Nicholls
Paul Keldsen
Hillary Doe
Nathan Hines
Amber Brookhart
Brittany Parsons
Student representing Off Campus Advisory Council
Student representing Student Government Board
Student representing Commuter Student Association
Student representing Association of Campus Events
Student representing United Greek Council
Student representing Resident Housing Association
John Alfero
Trisha Scarcia-King, Ph.D
Jennifer Tanzos
Technical Services Coordinator - MSU
Director - McFarland Student Union
Secretary – McFarland Student Union
Page 4
 Special Thanks
Clearly, this report would not be possible without the participation of the committee members
who provided ideas, suggestions, brainstormed, gave feedback and who made time to attend
meetings on Friday afternoons. I deeply appreciate their willingness to make time for this
project.
I would like to extend a special acknowledgement and appreciation for several individuals who
made themselves available for consultation, feedback and assistance. These individuals
provided invaluable support.
 Mr. Kenneth Long, Assistant Vice President for Administration and Finance provided
support for the context of this plan and provided guidance and enabled me to visualize
the purpose and goals for this project.
 Mr. Jeff Grimm, Assistant Vice President for University Facilities Maintenance and
Construction for making time to discuss the physical space recommendations, respond to
general questions and brain storm possible options.
 Mr. Tom Green, Director of Facility Energy Management and Campus Utilities for
meeting with me to discuss the literature on energy conservation for the student union
building and for providing a number of useful and effective ideas to conserve energy and
save money.
 Mr. Paul Mackewicz, Assistant Director of Custodial Services for providing creative ideas
and potential strategies to address some of our current challenges in custodial staffing.
 Ms. Letitia Manwiller, Information Desk Assistant who was unable to attend many of
the committee meetings, but provided a wealth of support researching University web
sites, making phone calls to verify information and assisting with the development of
several reports and documents.
 Richard Sliwinski, student designer for working during the summer to provide design
support for this document.
 Student Building Assistants and Building Managers: David Alaio, Ahmed Awadallah,
Jeff O’Conner, Bryan Tomasko, Shawn Hines, Zac Manmiller, Jeremiah Perez, Clinton
Watton and Ahmad “Eddie” Abuali for their contribution to the lounge assessment
project.
 Student Information Desk Workers: Christopher Shaw and Anthony Seng for assistance
gathering data, verifying information and assisting with report development.
Page 5
 Action Plan / Committee Agendas / Meeting Minutes
Page 6
McFarland Student Union
Five Year Assessment Process & Procedures
I.
Review 2005 MSU expansion feasibility study
II.
Develop and invite committee members – cross section of MSU users
a. Identify users; Gain support from VP F&A; Invite potential committee members
III.
Review facilities infrastructure document to assess major building system needs (HVAC, etc.)
a. Follow up with facilities for clarification and confirmation of status
b. Review logistics and usability, consider improvements
i. Signage: interior and exterior
ii. Exterior digital display
IV.
Gather data from benchmarked institution’s union buildings
a. ACUI peer data as applicable
b. NACAS data if applicable
c. Contact institutions on KU Peer list as needed
d. Explore programs, services, etc. that are available / utilized at peer institutions
i. Literature review and research on college unions as needed
V.
Assess space utilization
a. Work with Conference Services to develop EMS report
i. Percentage of space utilization, including percentages
ii. Data triangulation – heaviest space utilization (unmet needs)
b. Break out:
i. Day of week
ii. Daytime / evening weekday
iii. Weekend use
VI.
Technology Assessment
a. Wireless system
b. Carousel TV system
c. Cable TV and big screens
d. Hardware
e. Software
VII.
Financial Projections
a. Revenue
b. Operational Costs
c. Maintenance
d. Major system needs
e. Staffing
f. Reserves
g. Debt structure
VIII.
Determine feasibility of initiating and scheduling a building expansion.
a. Develop a Report with results of analysis
Page 7
b. Communicate results with the campus, if student referendum is anticipated
i. Note comprehensive communication to the student body will be critical if a vote
is needed
MSU Building Expansion Feasibility Study
Committee List
Anticipated: Meetings on Friday’s at 2pm, every two weeks as needed.
Key stakeholders of the MSU are reflected in the membership and participation in the MSU advisory
board. This committee also reflects that membership.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
Andrea Kirshman: Connections / Student Affairs; MSU Advisory Board (confirmed)
Carol Sztaba: Facilities dept.; MSU Advisory Board (Confirmed)
Kent Dahlquist Res. Life & Dining Services Rep (Confirmed)
Jim Mallozzi: Dining Services (Confirmed)
Conference services – Terry Sitler (confirmed)
Matt Delaney: One Card & PSECU
Kevin Schukraft: Campus IT Rep (confirmed)
Lisa Kowalski: KUSSI Rep (confirmed)
Leah Cassellia: Student Involvement
Faculty Rep - TBD
Student Representatives:
Students who serve on the MSU advisory board - continue with MSU 5-yr
Assessment Meetings
a. Commuter Student – TBD (Jenni Rach)
b. Association for Campus events – TBD (Petritsa)
c. Greek Life – Amber Brookhart (confirmed)
d. Student Government Board – Paul Keldson (confirmed)
e. OCAC – Jordana Nicholls (confirmed)
f. RHA – Brittany Parsons
Page 8
McFarland Student Union 5 Year Planning Committee
February 3, 2012 – MSU 312
1. Welcome & Introductions
2. Review the proposed process (see handout)
a. Feedback / Modifications
b. 2005/2006 expansion feasibility – off the priority list (not due to a negative
student vote)
3. Current use-ability
a. Types of Needs
i. Meeting space
1. Size of groups
ii. Programming space
iii. Lounge space
iv. Study space
v. Retail
1. Dining / eating space
2. Bookstore space
3. One Card / PSECU
vi. Technology
1. Equipment
2. Services (wireless, etc.).
b. Current Usage
i. What is working – how do we know?
ii. What isn’t working (data triangulation) – how do we know?
4. Student Unions Comparison – in progress, see draft
5. Other
6. Next Meeting: Friday, February 17, 2012 at 2pm in MSU 322
Page 9
McFarland Student Union 5 Year Planning Committee
February 17, 2012 – MSU 312
1. Welcome & Introductions
2. Review the proposed process (see handout)
a. Feedback / Modifications
b. 2005/2006 expansion feasibility – off the priority list (not due to a negative
student vote)
3. Student Unions Comparison – in progress, see draft
4. Survey – draft / status
5. Current use-ability
a. Types of Needs
i. Meeting space
1. Size of groups
ii. Programming space
iii. Lounge space
iv. Study space
v. Retail
1. Dining / eating space
2. Bookstore space
3. One Card / PSECU
vi. Technology
1. Equipment
2. Services (wireless, etc.).
b. Current Usage
i. What is working – how do we know?
ii. What isn’t working (data triangulation) – how do we know?
6. Other
7. Next Meeting: Friday, March 2, 2012 at 2pm in MSU 312
Page 10
McFarland Student Union 5 Year Planning Committee
March 2, 2012 – MSU 312
1. Welcome & Introductions
2. Student Unions Amenities Comparison -- updated, see draft
3. Student Union – Fee Comparison
4. Current use
a. EBI – trends
b. First Floor TV lounge (room 116)
c. Current Usage – observation – next few weeks
i. Casual Study Areas Time study of lounge use
1. 10, 11, 12 , 1, 2pm
2. 5, 6, 7, pm
3. 1st floor hallways, Bear’s Dean, Cyber Lounge, Commuter Lounge
5. Other
6. Next Meeting: Friday, March 23, 2012 at 2pm in MSU 312
Page 11
McFarland Student Union 5 Year Planning Committee
March 23, 2012 – MSU 322
1. Welcome & Introductions
2. Review Minutes – questions/concerns
3. Current use
a. EBI – trends – see handout
b. First Floor TV lounge (room 116) – door counter
c. Current Usage – observation – next few weeks
i. Casual Study Areas Time study of lounge use – see handout
4. ACE – attendance data for events – space usage for student orgs
5. Student Unions Amenities Comparison -- updated, see draft
6. Bloomsburg University comparison and power point.
7. Next Meeting: Friday, April 6, 2012 at 2pm in MSU 312 – CANCELED
Friday, April 20, 2012 at 2pm in MSU 312
Page 12
McFarland Student Union 5 Year Planning Committee
April 20, 2012 – MSU 322
1. Welcome & Introductions
2. Review Minutes – questions/concerns
a. Any follow up discussion / lingering questions from last meeting?
i. EBI data
ii. TV lounge? / Current Space Usage
iii. Bloomsburg Visit
iv. Other?
3. TV Lounge – Multi-purpose space
a. Peak Time Usage vs. Door Counts
b. Web-conference / training space proposal
4. Book Store Update
5. Aramark / Dining Update?
6. EAC update – non-satisfied first requests report – in progress
7. Round Robin
8. Needs / Priority – final report
9. Next Meeting: ?????
a. – as needed / electronic?
Page 13
McFarland Student Union 5 Year Planning Committee
February 3, 2012 – MSU 312
1. Advisory Board agenda items – please note that meetings are scheduled every two
weeks with the anticipation that some details will be discussed in one to one meetings.
Since we already have an “MSU advisory board” group we are combining efforts in order
to support students on the committee and ensure that students have a voice in this
planning process. Therefore, occasionally we will have MSU advisory board grants to
review and discuss. These typically take a few minutes per grant.
2. It was also noted that students who serve on this committee play a very important role
of representing their organizations and constituents. We appreciate the time that they
are dedicating to these meetings and their input, opinions and sharing of their
experience at KU is greatly appreciated.
3. Review the proposed process (see handout)
a. Trisha outlined the purpose of the committee is to provide support for the
development of a five year plan for the building. This plan will be developed by
identifying current and projected needs. The five year plan will have fiscal
projections to coincide with the needs assessment and building operations.
b. Feedback / Modifications – Matt Delaney clarified that one of the results of this
plan was to have fiscal projections as a result of this process.
c. It was also noted that the 2005/2006 expansion was not dropped due to
student’s unwillingness to pay an increased fee as was mentioned at an earlier
MSU advisory board meeting. The 2005 prior expansion simply fell off the KU
priority list in part due to change in leadership at the cabinet level. It was not
due to a negative student vote.
4. Current use-ability
a. Types of Needs
Some early ideas regarding signage were discussed. One example of a future
goal is the internal and external signage for the building. Guests including new
students have a very difficult time finding their way around the building. i.e.
external digital signage may benefit the student body. Carol explained that we
cannot erect any digital displays on the street side of the MSU due to borough
safety concerns. Any digital display must face the campus side of the building
(similar to Sharadin Art Center).
Page 14
Paul asked if there is an opportunity to poll the students on their wishes/desires
for the MSU. Trisha responded that a survey was done in 2005. University is
trying to cut back on surveys to students and asked if anyone had other options
to get input from students.
Matt suggested a paper questionnaire distributed to students in the building.
Jordana suggested gearing the survey toward what they use the building for and
not what they want in the building.
Carol expressed concern focusing on data compiled in 2005 and noted the
students and their perspectives have changed.
TSK also indicated that there has been so much change with technology and that
has modified their behavior and needs when it comes to hang out space.
Andrea noted some concepts in the 2005 report were tried elsewhere on
campus and were not successful.
It was agreed that the information in the 2005 study was worth knowing about,
but that it would be important to take the “pulse” of our current student body.
Since the University is cutting back on mass surveys, it was suggested that a
targeted approach should be helpful. Potentially an electronic survey can be
taken within the MSU to target users of the facility. TSK will see if approval will
be granted to include a link in the Bear Essentials and Daily Brief in order to
accommodate students who desire to have a voice in their union building.
i. Space use analysis. Honey Svoboda provided TSK with some detailed
reports on the space usage in the MSU. They are currently being
analyzed. Additional information will be available for the next meeting.
ii. Round Robin discussion of building usage / needs:
5. Trisha suggested the committee provide input as to what their experience of what is
working, what additional needs exist:
a. Andrea – Large space! Add a 500 seat space similar to the MPR. This is needed
for the academic programs at the beginning of the year for undergraduate and
graduate sessions
b. Paul – Find something productive for the cyber lounge…the space seems to be
under-utilized. Also, we could use more space for student organizations.
c. Terry – Mentioned the priority list that the space is designated first for student
organizations. Once the data about the space usage is finalized, we will have
more reliable information about the facility. Conference Services finds their
hands tied because space in the building is used up by students and they cannot
accommodate requests from external sources.
Page 15
d. Matt – One Card Office – he doesn’t like how the office is set up. There is a
possibility that the One Card Office may be moving to Admin. PSECU seems
happy with their space.
e. Kent – Reports an Aramark study was begun in the Fall – once the study is
complete, they will have a better idea of the needs for food service and will be
discussing with building managers.
f. John – Conference rooms need updating; lighting in the MPR needs to be
improved. Room 312 doesn’t have a drop down screen for power point, the
portable one is currently used.
g. Carol – there is a significant need for students to hang out between classes. Also
a need for more informal study space as well as group study space.
h. Hillary – Seconded the need to more hang out space. Also expressed a need for
more food service space.
i. Amber – Also agreed that we need more hang out space and also the large group
space Andrea mentioned.
j. Nathan – Hang out space, study space similar to the glass rooms in the library.
Food space, large space, larger meeting spaces. Trisha asked Nathan to compile
some attendance numbers from ACE’s events over the last few years.
k. Jordana – larger meeting room spaces. The computer lounge’s configuration
makes it difficult to set anything in front of the new computers like a book or
papers. Also liked the idea of study rooms or cubicles.
l. Lisa – More bookstore space. KUSSI is currently working with an independent
consultant to evaluate the bookstore space.
m. Vicki – suggested it might be a good idea to incorporate a Bear Bucks outlet/One
Card office in the bookstore. Looking to add “flex space” within the store similar
to a Barnes and Noble.
n. Carol mentioned that whatever is done needs to have flexibility in its design.
6. Other – any outstanding questions, comments for today?
7. Adjournment
8. Next Meeting: Friday, February 17, 2012 at 2pm in MSU 312
9. Respectfully submitted by Jennifer A. Tanzos
Page 16
McFarland Student Union 5 Year Planning Committee
February 17, 2012 – MSU 312
1. Welcome and Introductions – Aaron Brouse will be filling in for Brittany Parsons, RHA
Rep.
2. Error on Agenda – Approval of Minutes – two spelling corrections noted. Minutes
approved.
3. Student Union Comparison
Trisha thanks Tish (info desk associate) for compiling the information. Also
obtained some documentation from Carol for benchmarking purposes.
Matt D. suggests adding a column for student fee amounts. He can provide fees
for PASSHE schools. Carol suggests trying to find a benchmark for Universities
regarding amount of usable space in their Student Unions to serve as a guideline
and to see if we our using our space efficiently.
Matt L. asked if is important to note the locations of other Universities’ Student
Union. Some of the services offered by their Unions might be reflected by how
close they are to their residential housing. Jordana mentioned that she felt the
commuters should be a larger focus in defining the needs of students. Amber
agrees that as a commuter student herself, she spends more time in the Union
than when she was a resident student.
Jordana asked how the schools of the comparison chart were chosen. Trisha
explained that most of the schools were listed as our peer institutions plus she
added a few more to provide a full range comparison.
Leah mentioned that Bears @ Night should be removed from the list as a special
service provided in the building - - most events take place in the South Dining
Hall. Also suggested removing the Leadership Conference as the event is not a
major event. It was suggested by the group to add Connections, GradFest,
KUSSI, One Card Office and the commuter lounge as special services provided in
the building.
4. Survey
Based on the committee’s recommendation, Trisha discussed the possibility of a
survey to determine the students’ desires with Mr. Silberman. He recommended
that we do not move forward with a survey at this point. He expressed concerns
a survey might increase a wide range of expectations. Trisha stated that when
the idea of expansion was initially developed, it was before the Sharadin art
Page 17
center build. Now, there is a very limited amount of space for expansion of the
MSU, since there are buildings on both sides. Trisha temporarily tabled moving
forward with a survey and noted that a great deal of information is available via
bench marks and other data.
Jordana mentioned that she had suggested in the previous meeting that the
survey not focus on wants, but on current usage (ex. How do you use the MSU?
Study? Socialize? Meeting? Etc.)
Trisha will review a recent EBI Benchmark survey of students that might have
answers to those questions.
Andrea agreed that holding off on the survey is a good idea….this is a 5 year
plan, the current students won’t be here in 5 years.
5. Current Use-Ability
a. Trisha reported that she is working with Conference Services to define reports
to clearly represent building usage. It’s a work in progress
b. Jim reported that Dining Services is still awaiting the release of the Food
Services study. Should be released any day.
c. Vicki reported that their Independent Consultant will begin polling student
groups about their bookstore usage.
d. John submitted a rough draft of a MSU 5 Year Technology Plan to the group.
Vicki asked when WIFI would be updated. Kevin replied that the focus has
been on areas where students congregate. It is an on-going process and they
are trying to increase signals. Jordana asked what percentage of the building
is covered by WIFI, Kevin replied approx. 65%. Vicki stated that the bookstore
is going more mobile and that there are spots in the bookstore that do not get
a signal. This will be problematic for them as they upgrade their technology.
i. Trisha asked the students on the committee about whether the removal
of the computers from the Cyberlounge has had an impact on the
students or not. Amber replied that the Cyberlounge was convenient for
group work, however she has not heard any complaints from other
students since the computers were removed. Kevin asked if upgrading
the WIFI signal in the Cyberlounge would be helpful to students who have
their own laptop. Jordana replied yes, and suggested also increasing the
signal in the Fireside Lounge.
ii. Trisha asked if the students had a choice, would they rather have more
computers in the computer lab or more computers in the Cyberlounge.
The students agreed they would rather have more “printable
computers.” Leah noted that 5 years down the road technology will be
significantly different. The students then indicated that more than
Page 18
printable computers, the additional WIFI access in the building would be
desired and utilized by students.
e. Amber questioned the current usage of the TV Lounge. Trisha mentioned
that the MSU office staff had recently been discussing various ways to
improve the usability of the TV lounge. In general to turn this into a space for
presentations and webinars by adding additional technology and replacing the
TV (see last item on John’s Technology Plan). Leah suggests adding a door
counter to see how much the space is used.
Trisha mentioned that it is important that our students get what they needed
in regards to technology and that this group needs to be forward thinking to
devise a plan for 5 years (or more) in the future.
6. Other –N/A
7. Next Meeting: Friday, March 2, 2012 at 2pm in MSU 312
8. Respectfully submitted by Jennifer A. Tanzos
Page 19
McFarland Student Union 5 Year Planning Committee
March 2, 2012 – MSU 312
1. Welcome and Introductions – Caitlin Fitzpatrick will be filling in for Hilary Doe, CSA Rep.
Error on Agenda – Approval of Minutes – Minutes approved.
2. Student Union Space Usage Comparison
Trisha distributed the MSU Space Usage Report for Fall 2011 which provided
information on the usage of the major reservable spaces in the building. The
space report showed nearly 80% usage during the day for the large spaces such
as MSU 218, 223. It was also discussed the peak times of the building are 10am2pm and 4pm-8pm. Paul suggested the possibility of opening up the conference
rooms in the evening hours for study groups if the space is not reserved. The
MSU team will look into making this possible for this semester prior to exam
week.
3. Student Union – Fee Comparison
Trisha handed out a Fee Comparison Chart that shows Kutztown University’s fees
vs. the other 13 PASSHE schools. Thank you Matt for compiling the information
on the chart. Matt pointed out that these fees can vary due to the services
offered at each school. TSK indicated this data is useful for benchmarking.
4. Current Use
a. Following up from an earlier discussion, Trisha passed around the EBI
Benchmark survey that was conducted in 2008. Jordana asked about what
information is available for learning about how students use the building. TSK
indicated we could gain this info from the EBI student from 2006 and 2008 to
see if the trends are similar.
b. Trisha announced that the door counter for the TV Lounge has been ordered
to better define the usage of that particular space.
c. Trisha announced that the MSU staff would be conducting staff observations
for specific spaces in the building to accurately track the usage of the study
and lounge spaces in the building included the 1st floor hallways, Bear’s Den,
Cyber Lounge and Commuter Lounge. Leah suggested adding the Fireside
Lounge and the Computer Lounge to this group.
5. Other –
Page 20
a. Trisha announced the Carol is working on a Building Efficiency Report that will
determine the usable space vs. the gross square footage of the building.
b. Nathan is looking to gather attendance numbers for the large ACE events
c. Vicki reports the Campus Bookstore Consultants will be presenting their
report sometime between mid-March and early April.
d. Paul stated that SGB is looking to move upstairs and they are interested in the
cyberlounge.
e. Kevin reported that they are still working on the strength of the WIFI signal in
the cyberlounge. He did run a test on the signal in the Fireside Lounge and is
recommending that the space could use a signal boost.
6. Next Meeting: Friday, March 23, 2012 at 2pm in MSU 322
7. Respectfully submitted by Jennifer A. Tanzos
Page 21
McFarland Student Union 5 Year Planning Committee
March 23, 2012 – MSU 322
7. Welcome and Introductions – Anna Crisci, secretary of ACE is joining the meeting as a
guest
8. Approval of Minutes – Leah made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 2,
2012 meeting. All in favor, motion passed.
9. Current Use:
a. Trisha handed out a copy of the EBI trends data from the 2008 student survey as a
follow up to Jordana’s questions from previous meetings. Highlights from the
report are:
33% of the students use the building 2-3 times a week
37% participate in activities in the building 1-2 times a semester
40% say the MSU is a central meeting place for students
39.4% visit the Union between 9am-2pm.
Top three reasons for visiting the MSU: 1. Eat, 2. Bookstore, 3. Attend a program.
b. Trisha reported that a door counter has been installed on Monday in the TV
Lounge to better gauge the rooms usage. 40 students used the space on Monday
3/19, 85 used it Tuesday 3/20 and 46 used the space on Thursday 3/21.
c. Casual Lounge report – Trisha handed out a document that follows the number of
students utilizing the lounge spaces. Lisa noted some of the numbers are low due
to spring break. Vicki asked for the capacities of each space added to the chart.
10. ACE Attendance – Nate submitted a document that shows ACE attendance figures for
their major events during the 2009-2010 academic year. He reported that, on average,
4 events a semester max out the MPR. Trisha noted that the MSU staff keeps
Production reports for large events in the building and will be reviewing those reports to
get a better picture of large event attendance.
11. Student Union Comparison
a. Trisha handed out a document that compared Millersville, Bloomsburg & KU’s
student centers. Trisha noted the square footage listed for Bloomsburg is
incorrect on the document – it should read 90,000 sf. Carol reported that
3000-3500 sf in the MSU is unusable space. Matt pointed out that Millersville
includes a Dining Hall & Fitness Center.
12. Bloomsburg Visitation report – Trisha displayed a slideshow presentation from a visit to
Bloomsburg University’s Kehr Student Center on Friday, March 16. Highlights from the
report include:
Page 22
a. They have a ballroom that stands 600, accommodates 400 in round tables and
breaks into 3 smaller sections all with their own individual technology. This
space also has a large reception area.
b. They have a second multipurpose room of approximately 400 that can break
into two separate rooms.
c. They have a space called “The Hideaway” that was a former bowling alley. It is
used for dances, movies, etc.
d. They have 6 conference rooms.
e. Dining Hall is really close to the Union
f. Their Fireside Lounge is comparable to our Bear’s Den.
g. They have a multicultural center in the union with its own lounge.
h. Computer lab combined with a 9 table billiards room. Note: Computer lab is
funded through E&G Budget - computers, paper and attendant.
i. Bloomsburg has similar challenges with multiple entrances and levels to their
building.
j. Parking is problem on their campus.
Bloomsburg is looking to build a brand new facility that would have a 1000 seat
ballroom, would be 300,000sf. and would cost roughly $100 million dollars.
Carol asked what they will do with the old building. Trisha responded that they would
tear it down.
Andrea asked what the reasoning is for the large expansion. Trisha responded that they
are running
out of space to accommodate groups, meetings and events.
13. Round Robin:
a. Amber asked if it is possible to have a crosswalk across College Blvd. Carol
replied that they have tried but PENNDOT, Maxatawny Twp. & Kutztown
Borough will not approve.
b. Lisa reported that they have not received the report from their consultant to
date, it is in the works.
c. Kent reported that dining services is investigating financing for any expansion
d. Matt reported that the Council of Trustees approved the student union fees
for the 2012-2013 academic year – it will remain at $186 per year.
e. Andrea asked Carol if any of the “non-usable” space in the MSU can be
converted into “usable” space. Carol replied that the “non-usable” space is a
cause and effect of the expansions in the building which created dead space.
f. Carol reported according the feasibility study the North Campus Academic
Building is to replace Lytle (offices and classrooms are too small) and will
house the English, History, Mathematics & Modern Languages departments.
Page 23
There is an option in the plan for a 100 seat lecture space. She also reported
that all expansion is based on enrollment mandated by PASSHE.
g. Kevin reported that testing for the WIFI signal in the Fireside Lounge is ongoing.
14. Next Meeting: Friday, April 20, 2012 at 2pm in MSU 312 (Friday, April 6 meeting is
cancelled).
15. Respectfully submitted by Jennifer A. Tanzos
Page 24
McFarland Student Union 5 Year Planning Committee
April 20, 2012 – MSU 312
16. Welcome and Introductions
17. Approval of Minutes – Leah made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 23,
2012 meeting. All in favor, motion passed.
18. TV Lounge discussion:
d. Trisha handed out a report of the average usage of the MSU TV Lounge per the
door counter:
a. Monday – avg. of 47 people entered the space
b. Tuesday – avg. of 52
c. Wednesday – avg. of 44
d. Thursday – avg. of 48
e. Friday – avg. of 27
f. Saturday – avg. of 24
g. Sunday – avg. of 26
e. Trisha reported that the office is pursuing the pricing and feasibility to turn the TV
Lounge (room 116) into a multi-purpose space that would provide a TV Lounge +
webinar/video conference, training and meeting space. It would be a smaller
version of room 183 that could be reserved for some part of the day, depending
on the results of the data collection. The plan would include an upgrade in the TV
(adding a DVD player) but also adding the ability to do power point, host webinars
and videoconferencing. Since the room is not currently equipped with these
capabilities as our other meeting rooms are, there would be significant equipment
and software cots.
a. Matt offered that this change would benefit offices more than students and
that it might be more appropriate to seek E&G funding for this project.
b. Vicki asked if it’s the intention to do this prior to the implementation of the 5
year plan. Trisha responded that she thought it would be implemented
before 5 years, since it would only take a year or less, but would be
considered part of the 5 year plan.
c. James suggested doing a cost analysis of using the space for
webinars/videoconferences vs. going off campus for that purpose. Matt
responded that this would help justify a request for E&G funds.
d. Jerry liked the idea of a dual purpose room.
e. Trisha explained that the MSU staff would identify peak usage for the TV
Lounge and search for low usage to make available for webinars.
Page 25
f. Matt asked, was the lack of usage as reported was due to a lack of
promotion? Leah responded that part of the problem was the space was out
of commission for so long that students need to rediscover the space.
g. Leah suggested a need to gather data for a longer period. Trisha responded
that we do have data per each hour.
h. Leah suggested that the committee needs to know the cost before they can
consider. John replied that both quotes came in around $60,000. Carol
asked if either quote required room modifications. John responded that the
only modifications would be switching out an electrical outlet and adding a
jack.
i. Matt asked if the room still floods. Trisha responded that a sump pump was
installed and the room is now flood free.
19. Bookstore Update: report is in its draft phase. Vicki is hoping the consultant will be able
to present to the group in the near future. Some comments gleaned from the report
are:
a. “Bookstore has not been improved in 20 years”
b. “Bookstore is not customer friendly and is in dire need of an upgrade.”
c. “Sales ratio – course work is below industry averages”
d. “Sales per square feet is dropping”
e. “Sales space per full-time student is below industry averages”
f. Sales sf = 8967, recommended upgrade to 12,000sf.
g. Consultant looking at places to find space. TV Lounge was a recommendation
for bookstore expansion.
h. Consultant indicated a concern about the rock that is underground in front of
the bookstore, making it difficult / expensive to expand in that direction.
i. Would like to have an exterior entrance.
j. In response to questions raised, Carol and Trisha both indicated that any
thought to build out the front of the building to create a better entrance to
the building and more space for the bookstore would require investigation.
Of note is that a plan in 2005 specifically provided architectural renderings of
an expansion in that area.
20. Aramark/Dining Update: no update
21. EAC Update: Trisha is seeking a report of first request denials report from Conference
Services in order to provide detailed information on unmet needs…report is in progress.
22. Round Robin – No reports
Page 26
23. Next meeting: This is our last scheduled meeting. University may be doing other things
what would affect our priority list. Trisha is hoping to get something out to the
committee in the next few weeks once other reports have been gathered.
24. Meeting adjourned.
25. Respectfully submitted by Jennifer A. Tanzos
Page 27
Page 28
 Student Union Philosophy & Trends Research
Page 29
Student Union Philosophy & Trends
Historically, the broad context for student union buildings on college campuses is to
serve as the living room of the campus community, according to the Association for College
Unions International. This analogy presumes that the student union building is the center for a
wide variety of communal gatherings from small groups of students meeting over coffee to
major events such as lectures and banquets and everything in between. Butz (1971) suggests
that student unions and corresponding professional staff are a unifying entity for the University
community, according to Vaccaro (2011).
The MSU is geographically situated amidst the academic core of the University on the
north end of campus. Its direct neighbors are the Rohrbach library and Sharadin art building.
Also, the building is situated within a 10 minute walk to the nearest residence hall on the south
campus. It is worth noting that KU’s student population is 60% commuters and 40% residents.
Due to the location and student population on campus, the building serves students who tend
to be on the north end of campus during the day as well as commuter students living in the
Kutztown borough (also known as “resimuters”), commuters living within driving distance (such
as Fleetwood, Blandon, Topton, Allentown and Reading), faculty, staff and guests as the
primary constituents. This is somewhat unique in relation to the PASSHE schools such as
Millersville University and Bloomsburg University where student unions provide support for late
night programs to residential students. As an example, Millersville University has changed its
building hours for the 2012-2013 academic year to be open 24 hours a day, seven days per
week. Such a change would not be beneficial on the KU campus since neither residents or
Page 30
resimuters would not make the walk from the surrounding areas during the evening,
particularly during the cooler months.
In preparation for this five year planning project a number of documents on student
unions were reviewed. The following list provides a succinct overview of this research.
 Trends and Benchmarking Data for the Modern Union (Turner, Fifer & Hall, 2005)
 Provides 13 Common components found in University bookstores, overarching
trends in student union facility operations, future trends and references an
extensive qualitative and quantitative report of 40 University Unions.
 Food Service
 Bookstore Facilities
 Ballroom Facilities
 Student Organizations
 Administrative Offices
 Conference / Meeting Rooms
 Theater / Auditorium Space
 Additional Retail Sales
 Recreation / Entertainment
 Lounge Space
 Special / Miscellaneous Components (i.e. at KU – the Commuter Lounge, Art Gallery
Spaces)
 Academic Related and Student Services (i.e. computer labs)
 Multicultural Centers (located elsewhere on the KU campus)
The overarching trends identified in this document include:
 An increase in the development of flexibility and multi-use spaces
 An increase in developing components that respond to student trends (such
as an increase on the use of technology) and feedback
 An increase in the student friendly atmosphere, programs and services
Specific attention was made to reflect a large increase in the need for casual,
flexible space in student unions. Examples included lounges that would be used
for individuals or groups for discussion, computer use, eating or other events.
As the use of technology and social networking increases among the college
student population, the likelihood of students to utilize the flexible, multi-use
spaces within the student union may also increase. This is also supported by
Wineki (2010)
 The Make Up and Utilization of University Unions, A Comparative Analysis (Wineki, 2010).
Interesting items within this document include:
Page 31
 Examining the facility reservations and analyzing usage among students and faculty /
staff. The concept of a reservation fee for faculty / staff departmental groups.
Specifically 67% of the Student Unions benchmarked in the study implement a
reservation fee for faculty / staff groups.
 KU already has a priority reservation system that provides preference for student
organizations and therefore, the MSU is not planning to pursue a reservation fee for
faculty/staff groups.
 The importance of marketing the building to incoming students and student
organizations in order to increase building traffic.
 Maximizing the usage of facility space.
 A Strategic Action Plan for Student Centers & College Unions (Vaccaro, 2011). This
document provides a historical and ideological role of the student center that includes:
 The creation of community
 Education outside the classroom
 Emphasis on citizenship and service
 Student development through student activities
The document also provides six strategic objectives:
 Student voice and representation
 Operations
 Marketing
 Programming
 Sustainability
 Collaboration with other university departments
 Major Trends in Auxiliaries and Higher Education (Bob Hasmiller, President of the National
Association for Campus Auxiliaries). This document provides a succinct summary of the
current trends identified at the national level for auxiliary programs and services.
 Outsourcing is increasing
 Financial models are changing
 New approaches to student, faculty and administrative success
 Succession planning will soon be crucial
 Impact of rising enrollment and new students
 Increasing our connections and networking in a “new reality” economy
 Cooperate, compete, or something else…
 Doing more with less
 Standards
 Marketing
Page 32
 Association for College Unions International (ACUI) states that the union is the community
center of the college serving students, faculty, staff, alumni and guests. The union provides
a well-considered plan for the community life of the college that complements the
academic experience, values participatory decision making, encourages self-directed
activity, giving maximum opportunity for self-realization and for growth in the individual
social competency and group effectiveness. ACUI also provides a list of 11 core
competencies that include:
 Communication
 Facilities Management
 Fiscal Management
 Human Resource Development
 Intercultural Proficiency
 Leadership
 Management
 Marketing
 Planning
 Student Learning
 Technology
As this research on current and future trends for college unions and higher education is
digested, I have distilled it and applied this as a foundation for a plan that reflects balance in
the key areas of fiscal efficiency, responding to the increased reliance on technology and a
balanced approach for staffing and human resource development.
Page 33
PASSHE Trends / Comparative Institutions
 Key Feature Analysis
 Reservable Space Analysis
Page 34
PASSHE Trends / Comparative Institutions
During the past nine months that this plan was researched and developed, a trend has emerged
among the PASSHE institutions. Millersville University, Bloomsburg University and East
Stroudsburg University have either completed major renovations or are in the midst of planning
and construction for brand new student union buildings.
Comparative analysis of the current facilities for Millersville University and Bloomsburg
University resulted in two documents that follow.
Key Features Analysis
This document provides a comparison of the key features within the student unions at
Millersville University, Bloomsburg University and Kutztown University. The MU facility
provides more than 176,000 sq. ft. and includes their University recreation center. As noted
earlier the building will be open 24 hrs / day, seven days / week next year. A tour of this facility
provided the MSU team with new ideas that are recommended to be incorporated into our
facility:
 Additional building identity and community development through the incorporation of
colored photos / static cling film on windows.
 This is going to be implemented in the fall 2012 semester, utilizing building logos and
student photos.
 The goal is to provide additional photos / visual aids to enhance the sense of
community within the building.
 Implementation of interactive digital map directories at the five building entrances. One
major challenge for the MSU is the five unique entrances to the building. This negatively
impacts the ability for new students and campus guests to feel comfortable and confident
with where they are going once inside the building. The current logistics of the entrances
makes it difficult to view the large maps located within the entrances.
 The MSU operational technology plan incorporates the recommendation to analyze
and implement the digital map directories.
Page 35
Page 36
Reservable Space Analysis
This document is a side by side comparison of the reservable space at Bloomsburg University
and Kutztown University. Millersville University was not included in this detailed analysis since
their building is distinctively larger and is a combination of two of the KU facilities; a student
union and recreation center.
 The comparative analysis of the two unions shows that the current square footage of both
facilities is relative;
 The BU union does not have a University bookstore within it.
 The BU union provides three large multi-use rooms
 The largest space known as the ballroom, accommodates 600 lecture style seats and
can be split into three smaller, non-adjoining spaces
 A second space accommodates 400 and can be split into two smaller, adjoining
spaces
 A third space (the Hideaway) accommodates 200, but cannot be split. This space
was a former bowling alley and has a stage, sunken dance floor and a raised area for
additional seating.
The overall décor and look of the BU facility appears to be less polished than the furniture,
fixtures and amenities within the KU student union. The BU student union is located within the
heart of the residential area of campus, but also has easy walking access from street /
neighborhood parking. The building hours are regularly open until 2am and staffed with a
professional, master’s degree staff member to oversee the student staff and attend to any
concerns that may arise. BU is situated in a more rural environment than KU.
BU is embarking on the development of a new student union that will have 300,000 square feet
and provide a 1,000 seat ballroom. They are building this facility in the opposite end of campus
(away from the residential facilities) and will knock down the current building.
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
 Data Collected
 MSU Space Usage Report
 Hourly Room Utilization
 MSU Lounge Use Assessment
 KUSSI / Bookstore Consultant Report Summary
 MSU Student Organization Space Utilization
 Student Perspectives – Committee Discussion
 Staff Analysis
 Student Union Fee Comparison
Page 41
MSU Space Usage Report
The space usage report was developed from data pulled from the EMS campus
reservation system. Currently, the MSU has one large multi-purpose room that seats 365
lecture style. One fixed theatre style space, room 183, two medium sized multi-purpose spaces
that seat between 70-90, one space that seats up to 50 people, there are two large conference
rooms that seat 36 – 25 respectively and three small conference rooms with fixed seating for
15. You will see that room 218, the Multi-Purpose Room (MPR), has been in use more than
76% of the time during the fall 2011 semester. In addition, this does not account for some
major events with extended set up time. Typically the spring semester is shorter and tends to
have more events scheduled in the building as there are additional student organizations that
plan more events in the spring than they do during fall semesters. Thus, 76% space utilization
for 218 is a conservative figure. Additionally, reservations for room 183 during the fall
semester were 67%. The two medium sized multipurpose spaces are utilized 64% (room 250)
and 63% (room 223) of the time.
The current capacity of room 218, the Multi-purpose Room (MPR), is 365 lecture style
seating with 200 banquet style seating. MSU Staff are also seeing an increase in the number of
individuals who indicate that the space is not large enough. This past year there have been five
informal reports from people who have inquired about the space to our department directly
who were seeking a space to seat 500 lecture style. Discussion among the members of the fiveyear planning committee also supports the need for a much larger space for large groups,
ideally a space for 500 - 600 lecture-style seating. Additional discussion among committee
members revealed a need for more space for medium and small group meetings as well.
Page 42
Students indicated that there is a desire to have space for group projects and other small group
meetings. More detail on this is provided in the recommendations section of this report.
Page 43
Page 44
Hourly Room Utilization
During the development phase of the space usage report, an hourly room utilization
report was developed using the EMS room reservation system. Based on an hourly review of
the number of rooms reserved from August, 2010 to December 2010, the data demonstrates
that peak usage is: 10 a.m. – 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. – 8 p.m. It is also worth noting that the
afternoon hours between 2 and 5pm are also consistently used for meetings and events.
Further, the report demonstrates that rooms in the building are reserved nearly 42% of the
time at 11 a.m. Since the University has a free hour twice per week, it is the likely rationale for
this significant usage. Likewise, the academic calendar rotates M/W/F and T/TH, and the free
hour is offered only twice per week, this impacts that hourly average for the week.
A review of the space usage report and the hourly room utilization data, demonstrates
that the highest demand is for the larger multi-purpose spaces such as 218 and 183. While the
mid-sized rooms are utilized slightly less frequently and the smaller conference rooms are not
reserved as heavily as the larger or mid-sized multi-purpose spaces. As previously stated,
students on the committee noted that there is a demand for use of that space for small group
meetings and study. Currently, the EMS reservation system does not allow individual students
to reserve meeting rooms or conference spaces, including the smaller conference rooms. The
policy allows student organizations to utilize the space for events or meetings. The committee
discussed various options with making space available for individual or small groups of students
for enhanced academic support. Referenced reservation procedures include the Rohrbach
Page 45
library process for room reservation. Further exploration of the logistics including safety and
security of the facility and its contents are recommended for a smooth implementation.
Page 46
Page 47
Lounge Space Assessment
Utilizing the peak building hour’s information, an assessment plan was developed to
determine the current usage of the various casual lounge spaces within the building. MSU
building assistants and building managers assessed the lounge space usage, on the half hour, in
one hour increments from mid-March through the last day of classes. The results are provided
on the two following charts one is a detailed summary of each lounge space and the second
chart provides a summary overview. Notable information from this assessment is that the TV
lounge space appears to be underutilized while the remaining lounges are at capacity during
peak times of the year such as mid-terms and before finals week. Since our student population
at the University is 60% commuting students and we are located in the academic core of the
University, it is imperative that the building provides for both the casual and academic support
needs of the student body. The various lounges within the building help to address this need.
First Floor – casual lounge space
One the first floor of the building, room 116 is the official TV lounge for the building.
This space provides for fixed, theatre style seating for 28 – 30 with ADA wheel chair space for
two. This space was recently remodeled with new carpet and paint / wallpaper as a result of
the roof repair and leak remediation project that was completed in the fall 2011 semester. The
result of the lounge assessment indicates the highest daily average during the peak building
hours demonstrates that this room was utilized by an average of seven people per day. In
order to triangulate the data, a door counter was installed. The door counter does not provide
for any detail or hourly count capability. The door counter figures were significantly higher,
Page 48
with a few days of 80 people or higher entering the room. The general trend is a range of 20-30
people per day for the door count. Conjecture notes that the professional staff members that
reside in the building have not observed the space being utilized this heavily. This appears to
contradict the frequency with which the TV room space is utilized. The potential rationale for
this potential discrepancy is that the room is used more heavily during non-peak hours (this
would be inconsistent with the rest of the lounges in the building) or, that the nature of the
space’s location calls people to walk into the room, but not to stay and utilize the room. Since
all that is needed to set off the door counter is for a person to take one step into the room, this
might account for the high door counter totals and low physical assessment by the staff that
monitored the space.
The committee discussed possible uses for the space and providing additional
technology for the room to change the space and make it a space that can be used for multiple
uses such as lectures, seminars, etc. A technology package with surround sound an upgraded
projection TV system and other amenities would be required. This is under exploration.
Also on the first floor are a series of cushioned bench style seating. The lounge style
seating is typically used to support events in 183 and 157 or for casual study by individuals.
These informal seating areas are an asset to the current logistical challenges that this building
provides. The furniture is nearing its life span and the benches either need to be recovered or
replaced. This is on the ‘in house’ list of items to address in the next 3-5 years.
Second Floor – casual lounge space
Page 49
The second floor provides a computer lab (capacity= 25), cyber lounge (capacity= 53),
Bear’s Den / Art Gallery lounge (capacity 58), Bear’s Den Mezzanine (capacity= 44), Fireside
Lounge (capacity= 25) and Mezzanine (capacity=16) and a small Cub Café TV lounge (capacity=
40). The computer lab is utilized very heavily. Comparative PASSHE institutions, such as
Bloomsburg University, the student union computer labs provide for 32 computers and
Millersville University provides 43 computers for student use. In addition, they are staffed and
funded by the University IT department. The MSU computer lab is funded by the MSU auxiliary
fees. Also noteworthy is that during the 2010-2011 academic year when budget reduction
plans were developed, funding for the cyber lounge was cut. Therefore, the current cyber
lounge does not provide computers, but provides easy access for students and guests to
connect to the internet and recharge their laptop computers.
The Bear’s Den and Art Gallery (capacity= 58) and Mezzanine (capacity= 44) lounge
areas provide just enough seating for the building’s current use. During a seven week
assessment, there were 15 days that the Bear’s Den lounge area held 150 or more students and
the Mezzanine held 60 or more for 12 days during the peak building hours of 10:30 – 2:30pm
and 5:30 – 8:30pm. However, any additional growth or changes in the current offerings would
impact this. For long term planning purposes, it may be beneficial to provide for an expanded
lounge area. See the list of recommendations.
Relative to its capacity, the fireside lounge (capacity= 25) seems to have gained
popularity since utilizing the Thomas Moser furniture and expanding the seating to this area.
During the same seven week lounge assessment, the fireside lounge had 11 days that held 40 or
Page 50
more students. Students use this area for quiet study and reading space or for a place to bring
a casual lunch and read. This space provides a quiet space for students to gather and relax.
The mezzanine (capacity= 16) area seems to be less utilized. The seating area is very cramped
for its size and the furniture is a jumble of various types of furniture. This area would benefit
from some attention. It has been the practice, as older furniture is replaced to pick out the best
items and relocate them to other areas. The fireside lounge mezzanine needs a bit of an
upgrade in its furniture and décor.
Likely the most popular lounge, the cub café lounge provides seating for 40 and has two
large screen, wall mounted TVs. In the seven week assessment, this lounge had 12 days of
seating at or above 80 students. This area is the most heavily utilized space for its size and it is
often difficult to find seating in this area between 10am-2pm. Since this area is not utilized in
the evening hours these numbers primarily reflect the day time peak utilization.
Third Floor – casual lounge space
The third floor commuter student lounge provides space for 26 students to congregate
study or warm up their food in the mini-kitchenette and enjoy a casual conversation with
friends between classes. This is reflective of our student population and geographical location
on campus. Although our PASSHE peers are not providing this designated support for
commuting students, it is an important support for this population as reports from national
surveys on commuting students indicate that they typically struggle to connect and engage with
the university more than residential student peers.
Page 51
This summer, the MSU staff had the stained glass billiard style “KU Golden Bears” lights
(that have been in storage for several years after the Billiard room was renovated) installed in
the commuter lounge. It is our goal to add more student atmosphere to the lounge and
provide for more identity within the building.
In summary, this data demonstrates the varied types of casual lounge spaces and indicates
that aside from the TV lounge (room 116) these spaces are currently meeting the needs of our
MSU residents and guests. However during peak hours of the building and in particular during
peak times of the year such as mid-terms and finals, the lounge areas of the building are at
maximum capacity.
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
TV Lounge Counter Averages:
Monday = 47
Tuesday = 52
Wednesday = 44
Thursday = 48
Friday = 27
Saturday = 24
Sunday = 26
Page 57
KUSSI/Bookstore Consultant Report Summary
While the five year planning committee was meeting, the KUSSI Bookstore hired a
consultant to analyze the current space and provide recommendations to address their current
and future needs. I am appreciative of their collaborative nature and willingness to share a
copy of the executive summary from their consultant, Campus Bookstore Consulting. The
following details pertain to the KUSSI Bookstore.
 The current bookstore footprint is 8,967 square feet with 5,796 square feet for sales.
 Recommended space allocation 10,200 – 11,400 square feet.
 The bookstore should have exterior visibility, including exterior signage.
 Note this was partially addressed with the recent addition (June 2012) of the
exterior signage over the current window area.
 Suggestion to assess the feasibility of providing a separate exterior entrance directly
to the bookstore. However, this may negatively impact the additional space gained
should an expansion be approved.
Additionally, due to high demand for web orders and space limitations, the bookstore has been
using room 157 four times per year to support the web order and the book buyback services.
Therefore, it is clear that they are limited with their current space allocation. My
recommendation is to conduct a mutual expansion of the building and extend the current front
wall further to the parking area, see the space usage recommendations section for more detail.
Page 58
MSU Space Student Organization Space Utilization
For many years, it has been common practice for the MSU to do an annual assessment
of the student organizations space utilization. This consists of the student leaders and their
advisors to complete a “space renewal contract” report and provide basic information on the
use of their office space. The organizations that currently have office space within the union
include: Association for Campus Events (ACE), Off Campus Advisory Outreach and the
Community Outreach Center (OCAC / COC) share an office, Essence and Keystonia Yearbook
share an office, Keystone campus newspaper and the United Greek Council. Each of these
organizations, with the exception of the Keystonia Yearbook has completed this report during
the 2011-2012 academic year. The Student Government Board (SGB) also holds office space in
the building, as does the Kutztown University Radio (KUR) station. The SGB and moving
forward, now that KUR has a professional staff member overseeing this organization, do not
need to complete this annual report. All the student organizations that were formally
recognized as registered organizations during the 2011-2012 academic year completed the
space renewal contract assessment and demonstrated use for their assigned office space.
Although there has been a lack of use of the office space by some of the student organizations,
there has never been a desire to remove or “evict” a student organization from their office
space. For the past several years, there have been significant concerns over the Keystonia
Yearbook. This past year, they were not an officially recognized / registered student
organization and they have not completed a year book in the past few years. Thus, the
designated office space may need to be reassessed. Currently this space is shared with Essence
magazine. Since Essence is a one time, annual publication, there is ample space within this
Page 59
office to continue it as a shared space. Should there be political support for making changes
there are various options such as moving another small student organization into the space or,
moving the Greek Life office to this area and proving Essence with its own smaller space. A few
of the members of the five year planning committee (student leaders and professional staff)
who are in the Academic Affairs and Student Affairs division were vocal about supporting a
change within the student organizations. However, I do not recommend moving forward with
any changes without a clear level of support and formal collaboration and support with
Academic Affairs and Student Affairs.
Two other rooms within the McFarland Student Union warrant some general discussion,
rooms 307 and 257. Although not recognized as a formally assigned space, it is important to
note that room 307 has been taken off the EMS reservation system for three years to provide
space for graduate students supporting the Voting and Election Worker campaign. The grant
supporting this program ends in 2013. Additionally, room 257 no longer holds a professional
staff member as a result of the budget reductions. To date there has been no discussion of the
use of this space. It is currently located within the second floor wing where the Associate Vice
Provost and Assistant Vice Provost are located. Use of both rooms 307 and 257 should be
assessed in the near future.
Page 60
Page 61
Student Perspectives and Committee Discussion
Significant effort was made to include a cross section of students on the committee. The
goal was to ensure that students were seen as full members of the committee by having a voice
in the planning for this building and felt comfortable to share their thoughts, opinions and to
ask questions. Six student seats were included in the committee, a Commuter Student
Representative, Association for Campus Events Representative, Greek Life Representative,
Student Government Board Representative, Off Campus Advisory Council / Community
Outreach Representative and the Residence Hall Association Representative. There was
consistent representation and involvement from five of the above organizations throughout the
planning process. Although no formal assessment was conducted, the students on the
committee felt strongly that there is a need for more casual and group study space. In addition,
the students desire a larger multi-purpose facility as does the professional staff members who
are involved with organizing major campus initiatives for the entire student body, three of
whom served on the committee. ACE reviewed their event attendance and indicated that
approximately four times per semester that they max out of space in room 218, the
multipurpose room.
A review of the 2008 Educational Benchmarking Inc. data shows that five years ago, when
the student population at KU was approximately 1,000 students less than recent enrollment
numbers indicate, that:




33% of students used the building 2-3 times per week
37% participate in activities within the building 1-2 times per semester
40% say the MSU is a central meeting place for students
39% visit the Union between 9am – 2pm
Page 62
Committee members generally agreed that the above data was relevant if not conservative
for current student usage, due to larger enrollment numbers and an increase in the programs
and services provided by student organizations and professional staffed offices.
The committee also recommended the exploration of fiscal support from the education and
general funds to support the expansion of the multi-purpose facility since this space is regularly
used by the entire community.
Further discussion included the increasing the number of conferences and events in the
building to raise funds and build revenue for the building. This discussion was limited, but
generally the availability for this falls to the month of July due to the university priority space
request process. Follow up discussion with the Director for Conference Services indicates that
this may be possible but the market for this is slightly limited. Thus, a specific targeted
approach may be required.
Page 63
Staff Analysis
The MSU staff consists of one full-time professional employee (master’s level), three
classified employees and 26-30 student employees, using ACUI terminology. The department
also has approximately five custodial positions that are supervised through the University
facilities department. Due to the budget and split of the SUIS into two distinct departments,
the MSU has lost a full time position. Historically, the department (approximately six years ago,
prior to creating a combined department) had two full-time professional employees (master’s
level), three classified and a similar range of student employees. In addition, there are mixed
results due to an irregular data set because many institutions combine the involvement and
union operations and many institutions separate these two departments. It is improbable to
find the data for organizations of our size without any outliers. Knowing this however, the data
can be reasonably interpreted.
Using the ACUI survey data, seven institutions were used to benchmark staffing levels.
The institutions selected for analysis were targeted sample. Five of the institutions on the
analysis are also KU institutional peers. Two others are within the PASSHE system, but have
approximately 30% less enrollment. In examining the attached report, one strikingly large
outlier is the 14 classified staff at the University at Wisconsin-Oshkosh. Compared to KU’s
three, they seem to have an extravagant number of classified employees, this is likely due to
having custodial staff supervised within their department, rather than centralized through the
University. Outside of this, they have three professional (master’s level) staff relative to KU’s
one with only 1,000 more students (11,000 vs. 10,000).
Page 64
Additional explanation of potential outlier information includes a look at Fort Hays State
University (FHS), Bridgewater State University and the PASSHE schools: Shippensburg University
and Slippery Rock University. FHS is relative to KU’s enrollment with 9700 students or 3% lower
enrollment than KU and has three professional and two classified staff. Likewise Bridgewater
State University has 20% fewer students, three professional staff and one classified staff. Since
this data was on the ACUI survey results, Shippensburg and Slippery Rock were the only two
PASSHE organizations who participated in the survey. Both Shippensburg and Slippery Rock
have 28% fewer students than KU. Likewise, Salisbury University has 29% fewer students than
KU. Interpreting the numbers, it is likely that all three organizations have combined
departments as their full time professional staffs are essentially 50-90% higher than KU.
Finally, as a result of two site visit trips, we gained additional information regarding their
staffing. It is clear that when controlling for potential outliers the professional staffing is
significantly higher at institutions with 28% - 29% few students than KU.
Finally, although they did not participate in the ACUI survey, personal communication
with Millersville University and Bloomsburg University building directors reveals consistent
staffing of at least two professional staff and at least two classified staff.
Next we’ll explore the custodial staffing for the MSU. Over the past four years, possibly
more we have had inconsistent staffing for weekend / evening custodial shifts. This is
confirmed by the Assistant Director of Custodial Services. During the late spring early summer,
2012 an additional position became open as a result of a loss of a staff member. This poses a
challenge to accomplishing project work and maintaining the building’s cleanliness on the
weekends. A potential stop gap is in place, but it has caused project work to pile up and we
Page 65
have needed to address this by going to vendors for additional cleaning support. Now may be
the time to develop a fresh look at the challenges of weekend and evening staffing. There may
be some potential to adjusting the shifts, mirroring what has worked in other University
Auxiliary areas such as the Recreation Center’s weekend custodial staff schedule.
Page 66
Page 67
Student Union Fee Comparison
To help provide prospective of the current student union auxiliary fee that is paid by
students, it is helpful to examine the fee among the totality of auxiliary fees paid by students
for KU and all 14 PASSHE institutions. The attached Fee Comparison document provides a look
at each auxiliary fee for each of the 14 institutions and identifies which fees are higher than KU.
There is some general color coding. The KU data is highlighted in yellow. The blue cells on the
document are higher fees than KU. In addition, there is a column labeled “over / under” that
specifies the difference in the fee. In general there are six institutions that currently have a
higher student union auxiliary fee than KU. They include: California University $46.00 higher,
Clarion University $19.92 higher, Edinboro University $74.00 Higher, Millersville is $123.00
higher (note that their student union includes a recreation center which may account for this
significant difference), Shippensburg $64.00 higher and Slippery Rock $12.50 higher.
Likewise there are currently seven PASSHE institutions that have a lower auxiliary rate
than KU. Bloomsburg University is $92.25 lower and East Stroudsburg is $65.00 lower.
However this may soon change as both Bloomsburg and East Stroudsburg have confirmed that
they are planning a new building in the next few years. Cheyney is $36.00 lower, Indiana
University is $74.00 lower, Lock Haven has a combined rate with their recreation center of
$214.00 which is $99 lower than the combined rate at KU. Mansfield’s union fee is $99 lower
and West Chester’s is $61 lower than KU’s student union fee.
It is also worth noting that these figures cannot be examined in a vacuum, they need to
be balanced with the additional auxiliary figures. Further exploration of the fiscal projections
and current balance in the MSU reserve account also provide important profile information.
Page 68
While KU has separated their involvement department from the union, the fees have always
been separate. Based on the fee comparison chart, the separation of fees is likely consistent
with other institutions, even though we have previously learned that the building and the
involvement areas are not separate with all other PASSHE institutions. This is helpful
information as we notice that the fee comparison has 13 of 14 PASSHE institutions with higher
student activities fees. Therefore, it may be beneficial to balance all four of these components:
the union fee, recreation fee, activities fee and the reserve account information should KU
move forward with major building changes.
Page 69
Page 70
 Summary of Recommendations and Rationale
 Facility Condition Assessment
 Operational Technology Recommendations
 MSU Energy Recommendations & Action Plan
 Space Usage Recommendations
 Staffing Recommendations
Page 71
Summary of Recommendations and Rationale
1.
Facility Condition Assessment
The KU Director of Facilities Maintenance developed a building facility condition
assessment document and a deficiency list that were generated using the Magellan Assessment
and Project Planning System (MAPPS). The initial reports were generated previously and the
results were then updated during the 2011-2012 academic year. The total anticipated cost for
repair, upgrade and replacement for the MSU based on this system is $6,679,195.00 excluding
the costs of the chillers which are under assessment; data was unavailable at this time.
(Potential projections for the chillers are approximately are well into the six figure range, via
personal communication). The six million dollar figure utilizes a 30% anticipated price increase
for any potential implementation since the initial assessments were developed several years
ago. The 30% increase was a recommended projection in order to provide a more accurate
financial projection for today’s economy.
The deficiency list provides a starting place with the most pressing needs for the
building and site. In consultation with the Director of Facilities Maintenance, these items
should be addressed as soon as possible. The priority of these items is pending the final
support for this overall planning document.
As you will see from this report and the more detailed “2012 Facility Condition
Assessment” document, each provides an outline of the life cycle of the major building systems
and exterior building such as parking areas.
Page 72
The Facility Condition Assessment report provides a look at major areas of the building
such as the Exterior, Site, Interior, HVAC, Electrical, Plumbing, Fires Safety and Technology. A
brief summary of each of these areas follows. Subsequently, a general line item with an
associated cost is provided in the attached report.
Exterior / Site:
This includes asphalt paving, ADA spacing, parking surface and curbs, loading docks and
concrete walkways. The report indicates that the current parking area does not meet with ADA
requirements for markings, curbing and layout for van accessibility. Compliance with ADA
requirements for parking markings and spacing is of significant importance. This should be
addressed as soon as is reasonably possible. Additional exterior needs to be reviewed include
steel window replacement, concrete walkway’s and the loading dock.
Interior:
This includes painting, ceiling tiles and interior ADA access for doorways and ramps.
Each of these items will be assessed separately for project scope and cost, prior to initiation of
an actual project, based on the KU facilities department procedures. Based on the Magellan
assessment, the interior ADA ramp is out of compliance, therefore, this should be on the
priority list for further exploration. Aside from this area, there are no major concerns with
these areas.
HVAC:
Page 73
It is worth noting that the HVAC for this building is quite extensive. There are multiple
chillers including roof top chillers, 2 centrifugal water chillers, cooling towers, multiple package
units, as well as the internal components such as fan coils, HVAC controls, HVAC piping, air
handlers, steam exchangers, steam condensate reliever and several exhaust fans that were
assessed. Likewise there are various radiant heaters and unit heaters throughout the building.
Of most significant need for replacement are the centrifugal chillers and an air cooled chiller for
the building. The life cycle of the centrifugal chillers is nearing the end and the air cooled chiller
is outdated and inefficient. Recent repairs have been made to the chillers and they will last
another two or three years. It is worth noting that potential replacement for these large
chillers will likely be more efficient and provide energy and fiscal savings for the student union.
Electrical:
The electrical distribution panels, exterior lighting fixtures and emergency lighting
fixtures were also assessed. The current life span of these items ranges from three to five
years, based on the Magellan report to bring the items back to original condition. At this time,
these are in working order; there are no anticipated needs for repair or replacement.
Plumbing / Fire Safety:
The plumbing areas including drinking fountains, faucets and the fire sprinkler system
has a life span for an additional 15-25 years, based on the Magellan report. At this time, these
are in working order; there are no anticipated needs for repair or replacement.
Technology:
Page 74
The computer technology infrastructure assessment provides for an additional three
years on its current life span. July 2011, all office and the MSU computer lab areas received
upgraded computers, with expanded screens and the latest software. The wireless technology
for the building was upgraded during the spring 2012 semester, additional coverage will be
evaluated for lounge areas during the 2012-2013 academic year. The network equipment
upgrade was finalized in May 2012. This has a six year life span. At this time, there are no
major concerns for this area. It is also worth noting, that the initial Magellan report was
completed prior to the installation of the current card swipe door access system which was
installed during the spring 2010. Therefore any life span assessment on this system was not
completed.
Overall, the building is in sound shape and has been regularly maintained. For more detail on
the above items, please review the attached Magellan Condition Assessment Report.
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
2.
Operational Technology Recommendations
There is an increase in the use of technology, multi-media, lighting, projection, high
definition, surround sound, as well as safety and other amenities that have become the norm
for meetings, presentations and conferences. In order to maintain a high standard of services
for the University and regional community, a list of recommendations for future projects was
developed. These projects range from updating rooms, modifying an existing room to create a
multi-use room as well as addressing outdated technology in many areas of the building. The
plan provides a general five year projection in order to meet both existing and anticipated
needs. Due to the time involved in assessing costs for these projects, fiscal projections in this
area have not been developed. An estimate will need to be provided prior to project initiation
for each of these items.
Formal Recommendation:
An additional line item in the MSU operational budget for the technology recommendations is
also being created. Annually, the line item will begin with $250,000. Thus, these projects
should not exceed this figure within a given year.
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
3.
MSU Energy Recommendations and Action Plan
As part of the long term planning for the building, a discussion with the KU Director for
Facility Energy Management about energy consumption and conservation yielded a few ideas
that would provide both energy reduction and cost savings. General recommendations support
current plans to change out the outdated air conditioning units and the chillers. This
technology is antiquated and inefficient and as noted in the Facility Condition Assessment these
items are at the end of their life span. Other recommendations include benefits from Facilities
department University wide projects such as the steam meter project and MSU specific such as
updating the building energy audit, conducting a window audit, incorporating daylight
harvesting processes and LED lighting. Further details are provided on the following action
plan.
Page 88
McFarland Student Union
Energy Action Plan
I.
Energy Audit: Follow up from NORESCO 2007 audit. It has been five years since the
first energy audit and the following recommended actions will enable the MSU to save
money and run more efficient systems.
a. Action item: Review and update the 2007 energy audit.
i. Recommended Timeline: As can be scheduled by KU Facilities
b. Action item: Drinking Fountains – add components to all drinking fountains in the MSU
to allow guests to refill their water bottles. This may help reduce the use of plastic
water bottles and save students money.
i. Recommended Timeline: 2012-2013, in progress
II.
Air Conditioning Units and Chillers: The MSU currently has two chillers and an outdated room
top chiller (ice equipment-using night time energy). Mitch Finsel is working on repairing the
chillers and to eventually replace these. The recommendation is to replace the old roof top ice
making style chiller and the two A.C. units that are currently under repair, within the next five
years.
a. Action item: repair chillers (required in 2012)
b. Action item: replace chillers – within the next year.
i. Recommended Timeline: As can be scheduled by KU Facilities
c. Action item: replace roof top ice making chiller
i. Recommended Timeline: As can be scheduled by KU Facilities
III.
Update metering capabilities. This will provide better consumption data for evaluation.
a. Action item: Steam Meter installation, part of University wide project.
i. Anticipated Timeline: 2012-2013
b. Action item: Conduct Window Audit
i. Recommended Timeline: 2012-2013
1. Curtains
2. Controls
3. Window function
IV.
Daylight harvesting and LED Lighting potential. Recommended Timeline: As soon as can be
scheduled by Facilities
a. Action item: LED lighting technology audit
b. Action item: Increase the number of day lighting controls
i. Lighting controls - Occupancy sensors
ii. Natural light coming in, reduce wattage of lights
Page 89
V.
Action item: Energy dashboard: investigate appropriate method for increasing awareness in the
building. Anticipated Timeline: 2012-2013
i. Touch screen
ii. Metered data can roll up to a TV touch screen
iii. Rubber/ticker tape on KU information channel TV
iv. Carousel TV
VI.
MSU Advisory board – invite Tom Green to the board meetings once per semester for status
updates and potentially helpful information / new initiatives that may become available.
Page 90
4.
Space Usage Recommendations
As indicated there are several needs for additional space in the MSU. The following
recommendations are in priority order.
1. A multipurpose lecture style area to accommodate 500-600 lecture-style seating.
2. Additional space for the KUSSI Student Bookstore, for total square footage to reach
10,200-11,400 as per the Campus Bookstore Consulting Corp.
 These recommendations may both achieved by expanding the current MPR and
current bookstore space toward the current parking area. This may impact the
current parking lot, reducing the available metered parking as well as 223 / Formal
Dining Room space. Analysis will need to be conducted of this general area.
 When considering an expansion of this scale to increase the lecture style seating and
as a result banquet style seating that appropriate storage is also considered. The
current storage for tables is filled.
 A second option for the bookstore expansion is to consider expanding the Bear’s
Den / Art Gallery and Cyber Lounge out several feet and developing a two story
bookstore. However, these three areas as well as the Java City would need to be
relocated elsewhere in the building. This may be more cost prohibitive than the
previous option.
 The current floor in 218 is a wood floor; many people comment that it makes the
room look like a gym. Due to prior leaks in the building, it is damaged beyond repair
and requires replacement. It would be best if it was folded into an expansion of this
space. Exploratory research was conducted and an upscale terrazzo floor with the
University Seal was tentatively planned for this space. Since this room is the
hallmark of the building, it will be important to have a high quality, permanent
(nearly indestructible) floor.
3. Additional seating in the current Cub Café. This area was researched by Aramark
campus dining services. Further details may be available in their final report. Since they
are an independent vendor, it has not been made available to the five year planning
committee.
4. Additional conference rooms for small sized groups, department meetings that seat
approximately 15-20 individuals
 These recommendations may both be achieved by expanding the current cub café
over the outdoor patio.
 A second floor area could be built over the existing cub café that could generate
additional space for meeting rooms.
 Committee members see a need for additional use for the meeting rooms for small
groups of study space for students, the current reservation procedures is prohibitive
Page 91
for this. However, other methods could be utilized with the additional space such as
specified rooms for individual / small groups of students to reserve, similar to the
Rohrbach library room reservation process. It will be important to have a system
that supports student needs, but also provides for the safety / security of the
building and its contents (i.e. has vandalism deterrents). Further exploration of
these logistics is recommended for a smooth implementation.
5. Additional conference rooms for medium sized groups (approximately 90-100 lecture
seats) that can also be used for banquets and large student organization meetings such
as SGB, ACE, UGC or others.
 If the above space over an expanded Cub Café is developed, examine the possibility
of providing an additional multi-purpose area to seat 90-100 lecture seats.
6. Expand the TV lounge to serve as a small multi-purpose space. Purchase and install
technology to upgrade the space. Note: a pilot test of this will run during the fall 2012
semester, opening up the space to the EMS room reservation system during non-peak
building hours.
7. Additional lounge space to accommodate the growing needs of students who prefer to
study in comfortable seating and small group areas.
 This recommendation may be achieved by expanding the wall out, over the raised
patio. If possible the full length of the exterior wall should be expanded out.
 Once the theatre bubble is vacated, remove the bubble and utilize this concrete slab
to serve as an outdoor patio area.
Page 92
5.
Staffing Recommendations
Based on the data and analysis of KU institutional peers and PASSHE peers and sister
institutions, it is clear that the current staffing is inconsistent. On an average day, there are 5-7
shift changes for the building assistants and building managers. The technology coordinator
monitors the student technicians, responds to the many technology needs throughout the day
and administers service to guests with technology needs. The reservation coordinator supports
all guests set up needs, responds to new events that spring up daily, and supports the financial
processes. The information desk coordinator supports the students who work the information
desk, which changes approximate five (5) times during a traditional work day. However there is
a significant void when it comes to supporting the student building assistants and managers.
These roles change on average six (6) times during a traditional work day. This number has
risen to as many as seven (7) shift changes within a given work day. In addition, as the student
population and an increased reliance on technology and service has changed in the past 5-7
years, so too has the nature of supervising a student staff. It will always be important to utilize
a developmental philosophy. However, these changes and increased needs make it more
crucial that a designated staff member oversee their timeliness, attention to detail of guests
needs and ability to physically address the needs of the position in an organized manner.
Further the nature of the Student Union is such that several times per year we have University,
PASSHE or State dignitaries presenting in the building. We have had approximately five
different occasions where students have failed to show up for a shift. This causes the entire
staff to scramble to meet the needs of this position.
Page 93
As the director, this falls to my responsibility since no other individuals are able to add
additional staff supervision to their role. It is near impossible to address the six and seven shift
changes while serving in this capacity as I am called to respond to guest’s needs, special
requests, attend meetings and both support and oversee the other full time staff.
Formal Recommendations:
1. Create an entry level staff coordinator position that will enhance the student
development philosophy to supervision within the department and oversee the
student building assistants and building managers.
2. As noted in the staff analysis, develop a strategy to provide comprehensive
coverage for custodial staff weekend shifts. Specifically, explore the possibility
of changing the shift schedule on weekends / evenings.
Page 94
 Fiscal Projections
Page 95
 Fiscal Projections
The enclosed document provides a tentative projection of MSU finances over the next five
years. These figures include an enrollment projection that is consistent with our current
numbers, a three (3%) annual fee increase, salary increases that are consistent with the recent
AFSCME contract including increases to the health care and retirement, a 10% projection for
increased costs for utilities and contracts, and a three (3%) increase on operating expenses for
inflation.
Over the past four years the MSU has saved well over a million dollars of its annual operating
costs. This year this savings will be even more significant due to the changes / separation of
departments, a conservative $325,000 will be added to the building reserves.
Finally, a look at the debt structure is important. The current debt burden will be lessened as
the Series Z & AG debt payments will be paid off in 2013, leaving two bonds. One will be fully
paid in 2020 and the second will continue through 2023.
It is too early at this time to project for a potential building expansion. Should the prior
recommendations be approved, several stages of planning will need to take place. At that time,
we will be able to further analyze the fiscal projections including future student auxiliary fees as
well as debt and use of current reserve funds.
Page 96
Page 97