Thursday, April 15

Keep Community in Finger Lakes Community College

No Strings Geneva has long championed “a more robust Finger Lakes Community College extension campus in the City of Geneva.” As our post two years ago asserts, the educational opportunities and workforce development that educational facilities provide ought to make them a top local priority.

And that’s why it seems so odd to us that the current discussion of the fate of FLCC’s extension center building project rests not on an insistence on providing the greatest programming possible, but, instead, on the FLCC administration’s desire for a facility with a certain ‘feel.’ In other words, we can’t figure out why form should matter more than function.

Educational institutions in general are tax-exempt for a variety of reasons: They contribute to the overall well-being of a community; They strive to be accessible and keeping costs down helps develop broader constituencies; And, while they must be fiscally responsible, profit is not in their mission. In addition, while not a justification for tax exemption, education serves as an engine of economic development, preparing people for the local workforce, creating jobs on the campus, and making positive contributions to the host city.

In the case of community colleges, their host-community relationship is especially vital. Community colleges in our state are governed by the State University of New York, and have the following mission:
“The SUNY Community Colleges ensure open access to high quality postsecondary education and contribute significantly to the development of an educated citizenry and skilled workforce. They offer comprehensive learning opportunities ranging from transfer and career degrees to programs customized to serve specific individual, community, business and economic development needs. All share a dedication to instruction and services that nurtures the academic and personal achievement of individuals with diverse backgrounds and aspirations.”

The specific mission of FLCC is:
“Finger Lakes Community College is a supportive, learning-centered environment that empowers our students, provides enriching life experiences, and enhances the quality of life throughout our community.”

According to a 2008 Extension Center Growth Assessment plan, conducted by the FLCC administration, the existing Geneva extension has outpaced all other locations in new enrollment. 50% of those students are currently in the local workforce, only 26% are coming directly from high school. This is almost directly inverse to enrollment at the main (Hopewell) campus, where 48% of students are directly out of high school, and only 29% are coming into the community college system from work.

In addition, 52% of the students at the Geneva center are over age 30, compared to only 22% students over 30 at the main campus. While 37% of students at the Geneva center have one or more children, only 14% of students at the main campus are parents. And, one last important statistic, 85% of students at the main campus take the majority of their classes during the day (8am-5pm). At Geneva, 50% of the courses taken are at night (5-10pm).

So, we learn from this that the success of the Geneva campus-- its ability to draw in an increasing amount of tuition revenue for the system-- is based on its robust offering of night classes for non-traditional students who are advancing their existing careers or looking to change careers. In addition, this report concludes that a vibrant Geneva campus will continue to draw a substantial number of students from Seneca County, who bring with them an additional tuition differential, making their enrollment even more critical to the diversification of the FLCC revenue stream.

On page 7 of the report, it is suggested that “new program offerings at the Geneva Campus Center” should “include second-year courses for Criminal Justice and first-year courses for the proposed A.A.S. Degree in Paramedicine and expansion of courses in the A.A. Degree in Teacher Education. Additionally, courses will be offered in the Ornamental Horticulture area.” This is based not just on what will generate the most revenue for the college, but also what the community needs.

The report states (again, on page 7):
“demand for emergency medical services will naturally parallel the aging of the general population, and demand for paramedicine training is magnified by relatively high turnover rates in these jobs…Evening and weekend enrollments are common for these audiences.”

“….the new Teacher Education transfer program responds to the growing public school teacher shortage…representing a combination of prospective day and evening students.”

“….proximity to the Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station and the interest expressed by current individuals from the Geneva area suggests that the [Ornamental Horticulture] program could be very successful [and] could be tailored to meet specific demands of the area with classes such as organic land care, viticulture, and others.”

Continuing (on page 8):
“…the target audience…is a combination of traditional age students and older adults already engaged in the helping professions seeking a career change. The scheduling of these offerings will probably favor evening time slots.”

“Prospective areas to explore for these additional programs include tourism-related offerings, customer service management, viticulture, and hotel/resort management. These prospects share the common thread of relationship to various aspects of the grape growing and wine making businesses, particularly including hospitality, food service, and other retail services to visitors attracted to the area by the wine industry. Continued growth of other programs at Geneva is also expected to generate demand for additional sections of courses previously offered.”

All in all, this college planning document, completed by the administration shortly before President Barb Risser took the helm as the College President, shows a dedicated effort to identify community needs and employment trends, and tailor community college course offerings to meet those needs and provide a vibrant extension center for residents of Ontario, Seneca, and Yates Counties.

A criminal justice program to help with recruitment and retention of well-qualified police officers, a paramedicine program to make sure we have the emergency responders we need for an aging population, a teacher education program to help local students get ready to return to their schools as instructors to make a positive impact, courses to help adults make career changes, programs to support the workforce needs of the thriving tourism industry. All of it sounds like a recipe for success for the Community College and the Community itself.

So, why is the Ontario County Board of Supervisors so eager to adopt Dr. Risser’s plan which appears to pre-empt future growth in enrollment at the Geneva Center? When asked this very question, directly and at a public meeting, Supervisor (and Projects Committee Chair) Richard Calabrese (Gorham) stated that the architects designed the new building far back on the lot “to allow for a new wing for expansion in a couple of years.”

This raises an interesting question: If the Board of Supervisors acknowledges that their $12 million “Option #4” doesn’t give enough room to grow and will require an addition within five years, why can’t the community have the benefit of the full project cost. If this is stage 1, why not tell us how much is budgeted for stage 2? Maybe the cost of both is less than the cost of “option 1” that makes the existing building fit for the current, and anticipated needs? Spending $12 million on a campus center that barely meets existing program needs doesn’t seem like the “growth position.”

At the same meeting, Dr. Risser and county planner Tom Harvey were quick to point out that the new building will allow for a sufficient number of “FTE” hours to accommodate some growth. But they should recognize that this number is misleading (and if they don’t realize it, well, maybe that’s even worse!). The FTE (full time equivalent) hours are based on projections of enrollment in classes offered from 8am-5pm 5 days per week and from 5pm-10pm four days per week. But FLCC’s own data shows that extension center students can’t be evenly distributed in that way. Working folks aren’t taking daytime courses, and main campus students aren’t traveling to Geneva to get smaller classes. In other words, students are not just as likely to take English 101 at 10:10am as at 6:30pm, the student demand is just different, it’s specific to the area. So Dr. Risser can’t take a ‘main campus’ mentality and apply it to an extension center and call it all even.

At the March 31st, and again at the April 7th City Council meetings, Councilor Augustine tried to raise these points. In reply, she was asked by President Risser for a copy of the planning document. We would hope, since Augustine received her copy from the President’s office, that Dr. Risser will familiarize herself with it before continuing to endorse a building project that works directly against its well-reasoned and data-driven recommendations. The future of FLCC in Geneva clearly depends on it.

We hope that the County Board of Supervisors can be reminded that the mission of a Community College is not to build buildings that look sleek and modern, and it’s not to draw down millions of taxpayer dollars to create large glass-enclosed atriums and fancy lounges.
The mission is to educate, to prepare, to equip local residents to be good citizens, productive workers, better people. The Board of Supervisors has the ability to use what we have, a 1926 building that is, by all architectural assessments done thus far structurally sound and built better than most recently constructed projects in the city limits, to achieve that very end. We know that some people want something that ‘looks prettier,’ that ‘feels newer,’ that they can point to and say “I built that!”

But, in the name of fiscal responsibility, community development, and the educational and economic needs of the residents they represent, that $12 million dollars should go into renovating the existing building that has a whole lot of learning potential left.

3 comments:

d.r. long said...

Dear Mr. Capraro and Ms. Augustine,
I respect your efforts on many matters and appreciate the diligent effort you make in making sure that all options are explored. I felt compelled to comment on this latest article.

I read your last comments on the FLCC Geneva campus and am very dissapointed in the assumptions and negative comments you have made. "fact based?" If this is the case, please refrain from the emotional and charged comments made, especially in the last paragraphs regarding the motives of FLCC and the county. Backhanded comments serve no positive purpose in this discussion.

I worked on the building evaluation for this facility and have an intimate knowledge of the facility and it's assests and deficiencies. There are many other factors to deal with other then if the building is "well constructed". No one at FLCC or the County have ever stated that they wanted to demolish the original building, if fact they stated they liked the "collegate" feel of the oringal building and it would be nice to save it if it was feasible for the budget.

The comments made by you on this blog that upset me are:

" We hope that the County Board of Supervisors can be reminded that the mission of a Community College is not to build buildings that look sleek and modern, and it’s not to draw down millions of taxpayer dollars to create large glass-enclosed atriums and fancy lounges." Where has ANYONE stated that? That's quite a loaded comment, to say the least. Your argument on saving the building is damaged by these comments.

"The mission is to educate, to prepare, to equip local residents to be good citizens, productive workers, better people. The Board of Supervisors has the ability to use what we have, a 1926 building that is, by all architectural assessments done thus far structurally sound and built better than most recently constructed projects in the city limits, to achieve that very end. We know that some people want something that ‘looks prettier,’ that ‘feels newer,’ that they can point to and say “I built that!”"

Again, you make a statement that while is starts out based in fact, ends with a assumption, quite a negative one in fact. You can have a building that is "architecturally sound" what that means, I can't tell you exactly, but with the current code requirements you need to also take into consideration asbestos/lead mitigation requirements at the very least. What assessment are you referring to? My report cited several areas where the building needed substantial repairs and would need upgrades to correct years of deferred repairs.

I tried to inform some of the group pursuing this preservation of the original building about renovating buidings, but it would appear that this has taken a back seat to finding anyway to justify the assumptions that FLCC just wants to build new and scrap the old.

While I would enjoy seeing a school I went to continue to serve the community, you also have to balance this with a realistic assessment of programming needs and practical requirements to properly repair and maintain such a building.

I have made substantial business and personal commitments to working and living in Geneva with my family. Some wishing to keep the old high school have contacted me and I have offered what I know based upon years of professional experience in the field. I have no obligation to FLCC or the County and do not stand to benefit from supporting their efforts.

Try and keep the assumptions and personal comments on what you think people want out of the discussion and stick with the facts. The debate will be better served that way.

Respectfully,
Daniel R. Long, RA NCARB
DLA+A Architect + Associates
44 Castle Street
Geneva, NY 14456

Capraro and Augustine said...

Dear Mr. Long,

We're glad you're a reader of the blog and we appreciate your feedback, and your willingness to sign your critique, because it has always been our goal to have our blog model democratic interaction in sorting out complex issues.

While you're correct that we strive to be "fact-based," don't forget the second part of our mission, namely, a "point of view." We present facts and opinions AND connect opinions and facts. Of course, we agree that the facts need to be presented accurately, but we do not agree that this requires all posts to be stripped of any conclusions, comments, or other criticisms that we might derive from those facts. We do our best to make information available to our readers and provide evidence for everything we say on the blog.

On your specific points, we did not mean to suggest the determination by the County's lead architects (JMZ Associates)-- that the main building is "structurally sound"-- is equivalent to saying that the building needs zero work. We agree it is structurally sound but does need work. There are measures that must be undertaken to further modernize and adapt the building to meet FLCC's stated programming needs as well as NYS Fire code.

However, as it relates to the code issues, we look to building renovation projects (such as the Canandaigua YMCA, the Canandaigua City Hall, the Ontario County Courthouse in Canandaigua) which illustrate how Section 12 code reviews and state-issued variances and adaptations of requirements, in light of the historic character of those buildings, have led to a much different code compliance strategies. Those strategies, in turn, allows much greater flexibility and overall lower costs. For instance, the claim by the County that the central staircase will "never meet code" and therefore must be demolished does not comport with several historic buildings that have managed to maintain their central stairwells (take Geneva's own city hall for instance!). We are disheartened to see that the County is not willing to pursue for Geneva the same level of review and advocacy that has worked so well in Canandaigua. (Our being 'disheartened' is a point of view based on the County's factual unwillingness.)

Capraro and Augustine said...

With regard to asbestos and lead-based paint abatement, we again point out that the County's estimate is based on the use of a private contractor. However, when Augustine pushed the county on this issue, it was determined that not only was she correct in the availability of state labor to perform this function at a lower rate, but that the County has, in fact, an existing contract with CorCraft (the agency that provides these services) that requires CorCraft to be allowed first pass on the work. As you likely know, this program yields high quality work at a much lower cost. The CorCraft estimate has not been used to adjust any of the publicly presented budget numbers thus far.

On several occasions, FLCC President Barb Risser has stated her preference for a facility that inspires "hope for the future" amongst students. This comment is always made in the context of her defense of a building of 'modern' design. As you know, the three story glass atrium and updated lounge concept space were the parts of the proposed design that JMZ pointed to as some of the 'most expensive' elements. So, our concern that those elements would be seen as essential and thereby put the reuse of the building over budget, remains. We maintain that the building *can* be reused, and used *well*, for FLCC's needs. Yet, it seems that this is not something FLCC *wants*.

To achieve the modern aesthetic that FLCC wants, the final product will be much less than what FLCC needs in terms of space for existing and new programs. Their 2008 extension center visioning document outlines a clear path for making the Geneva Center a prosperous extension, both in terms of serving the community needs and serving the College's bottom line. If the new President wishes to deviate from that plan, and turn the focus instead to the Victor center, we do not believe that the County is required to go along.

So, our question to the Ontario County Board of Supervisors remains the same: Is their primary responsibility to the county taxpayers or to the FLCC administration? If it's the former, then there's more work to be done with regard to options for the Geneva campus; if it's the latter, well, then we guess they're ready to move full steam ahead. That's our opinion, grounded in the facts.