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.

FLCC Projects Committee Wants Questions on Proposed Geneva Extension Center:We Want Answers

Thursday, February 25, the Finger Lakes Community College Projects Committee, which is chaired by County Supervisor Richard Calabrese (R-Gorham) and includes Geneva City Supervisor Rocky LaRocca, and additional Supervisors and members of the FLCC staff and Board of Trustees, met to discuss public presentations regarding the proposed Geneva Extension Center.

To kick off the meeting, JMZ Architects and Planners provided a viewing of their PowerPoint presentation which explores various options for a new extension center. The County currently leases classroom space in the building which formerly housed the Geneva Middle School, at the corner of Milton and Pulteney Streets in the City of Geneva. Purchasing and renovating that building was one of three options considered initially for the new center.

At Thursday's meeting, JMZ stated unequivocally that the main structure at that site-- the 1926 structure originally built to house Geneva High-- is structurally sound. The 1965 natatorium and gymnasium additions have not fared as well. They, apparently, were built without expansion joints and as a result of a lack of maintenance, have deteriorated. Under every option proposed, that wing (facing Pulteney and William Streets) is recommended for demolition.

Reuse of the main structure was the least costly of the three initial options presented. The estimated cost of renovation-- $18 million-- did exceed the $12 million budget, but would make available 90,000 square feet of renovated space. FLCC currently utilizes 80,000 square feet within the building, but a revised space assessment had come in at 58,000 square feet. Full renovation would leave 32,000 square feet open for use by potential co-tenants. But the Projects Committee Chairman ruled that Thursday's meeting was not the time or place to examine issues of co-tenancy, layout and contracting options and the minutia of each plan. Instead, he opened the floor to questions from non-committee members which were recorded by the clerk and made part of the official record. Chairman Calabrese assured everyone present that written responses would be provided for every question submitted on the record.

Here are the comments and questions put to the Committee on Thursday:

1) The Geneva City Councilors who had penned a defense of the County's process the day before in the local paper, Ron Alcock and Paul D'Amico, were in attendance, as was Councilor Augustine. D'Amico did not ask questions, but simply repeated his support for demolishing the main building at Milton and Pulteney and building new. Alcock noted the need for the community to be notified of, and perhaps involved in, the design process for any new building, to foster clear communication on issues such as set backs from the street and the overall orientation of the building within the neighborhood.

2) City resident and member of the FLCC Foundation Board, George Michaels, asked for more detailed analysis of the space needs. He pointed out that the $11.9 million plan that includes demolition of the building and construction of a new space would result in far less than the 58,000 square feet that FLCC said it needs. He received an immediate response from the architect, who stated that the orientation of the new building on the site allows for further additions and expansion in the out years. Michaels responded that he would prefer to see the money spent to accommodate current needs stemming from recent growth and anticipated needs from projected future growth. He noted a 28% increase in student enrollment at the Geneva center within the past year. He asked again for a detailed analysis of those projections as they related to space needs and square footage costs under each option.

3) Pulteney Street resident Diana Davis asked about the practices for estimating particular line item costs, and in particular, the nearly $900,000 projected to improve the parking lot at the corner of Pulteney and William Street.

4) Augustine submitted six questions/requests for information for the record, three directed at the architects and three at the committee as a whole.

From the architects, she asked for the following:
1. A timeline for the project, if approved, including phasing of the construction and demolition elements. An assurance that the full range of classes would continue to be available at the extension center site while the project proceeds.
2. A clarification on the cost estimates per square foot for the $18 million project that puts FLCC classroom space on all three floors.
3. The estimated process timeline for SHPO sign off for the draw down of state funds for a project option that includes demolition.

From the Committee as a whole, she asked for the following:
1. A detailed description of the process of considering and rejecting each of various co-tenancy options for the renovated main building. This a follow up to an assurance made by President Risser at a 2008 City Council meeting, that the committee along with the Community Advisory Committee, would look at co-tenancy options.

2. (Similar to Mr. Michaels' request), the five-year growth projections (both in programming and enrollment) for the Geneva Extension and the associated space needs.
3. Results of focus studies and/or other research that indicate that a flat-roof, contemporary building design is needed to achieve the "message of hope" that President Risser says that the building must convey to students. This is in contrast to other college improvement projects that opt for a more traditional collegiate design that might be more in line with the existing neighborhood.

We assume the FLCC Projects committee is already hard at work developing responses to the questions posed and will conduct public meetings (TBD) to receive input on the plans before a decision is made, beginning with a presentation to the Geneva City Council (TBD). While Chairman Calabrese said that he didn't want to give any "false hope" that the committee would step back and reconsider demolition, we do remain confident that an honest and open public process will bring forward the public intelligence that will ensure the best decision for the long term needs of the County, the college, and the Geneva community.

BS (as in Bait and Switch) Part II:Wonderful Bait for a Sinister Switch

On March 29, 2009, NY State Senator Mike Nozzolio’s website read “Senator Nozzolio Delivers!” What was it that he was delivering? Over $26 million in State dollars for projects bundled as the “21st Century Geneva Plan”-- and what turned out to be lots of bait for local practitioners of bait and switch.

$5 million of the bundle was dedicated to a “signature building for the Finger Lakes region that will serve as a destination for tourists.” That building, it was eventually determined by City Council, would be the Finger Lakes Boating Museum, currently operating out of meager facilities in Penn Yan.

$6 million was earmarked to match $6 in funding the Ontario County board of supervisors had already set aside for the “Finger Lakes Community College Campus in Geneva.” The Geneva FLCC campus had been housed for many years at the “Civic Center” and, in 2006, was moved to the former Geneva Middle School building at the corner of Pulteney and Milton Streets, leased to Ontario County by the Geneva City School District.

At first, taxpayers seemed generally pleased with the use of their state dollars in these ways. State money, it appeared, was being used to support placement of a regional tourist attraction, the Boating Museum, on the lakefront. And the new structure would be an architecturally significant building replacing the drab City building which currently houses the Chamber of Commerce.

Recall how the current building, which formerly housed the local Boy Scouts Council, was put on that site without proper footings. Over time, revenue from the lease with the Chamber for the use of interior fell short of expenses for the upkeep of the exterior. The building, of no historical significance, has been generally accepted as an eyesore on the lakefront and might be better used as a source of recycled building materials.

In September 2009, the City Council agreed with the Finger Lakes Boating Museum (FLBM) to design and build a more appropriate facility to house the Chamber and to serve as a regional tourist destination. However, as that project appears to move forward, the money Nozzolio promised seems to move back to Albany.

Nozzolio had come up with the $5 million figure by securing $4 million from the NYS Dormitory Authority and keeping his fingers crossed for another $1 million from a specific source he has yet to identify. The Senator’s office still has not been able to tell reporters from the local paper where the other $1 million resides.

In addition, it seems, Nozzolio’s priority has shifted from a regional destination to a local office complex. Rather than clearly backing the boating museum concept, the $4 million seems now to be flagged for new-and-improved offices to be occupied by the Geneva Area Chamber of Commerce (GACC).
If that is the case, Geneva City taxpayers would lose out doubly. While both the GACC and FLBM are tax-exempt entities, the FLBM is a regional destination, a place that people living here or visiting would come to experience. So, not only would the upgraded deluxe Chamber of Commerce not house activities that local residents could participate in, it would also eliminate another activity that would presumably draw tourists Geneva to boost the economy.

It is also worth noting that the notorious Bergmann report of 2009 on downtown-lakefront connectivity emphasizes the need to pursue water-related uses on the lakefront as a maximization of the highly coveted land that currently belongs to all of Geneva’s citizens. A Chamber of Commerce executive suite hardly seems water-based or even water-related. A boating museum and the proposed enhanced dockage fits the vision perfectly.

In the case of the FLCC extension center, use of the former Geneva Middle School building has accomplished many community goals. First, it stabilized a building that has significant community value and is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic places along with its neighboring church and church school.

Second, it keeps FLCC students near the city center, utilizing its optimal location both to benefit students looking for a convenient location and downtown businesses happy to have more patrons in the vicinity. Last, it assisted the Geneva City School District in putting to good use a building that was no longer serving the district but still in need of maintenance.

But wait. A memo from FLCC president, Barb Risser, states her preference to tear down the building and looking forward “to the day a couple of years from now when we will open a… modern campus center in Geneva." So those two $6 million amounts, $12million total, which is nothing more than a combination of county tax and state tax dollars, will be used to pay Casella to take tons of building debris and then to build a smaller more contemporary looking building in its place.

Bait and switch takes many forms. In this instance, what’s used as the ‘bait’ are the community’s own values and ideas. Then, once the tax dollars are appropriated, under the guise of the public good in the public interest, the ‘switch’ comes in and we end up with projects that not only don’t achieve the intended outcome, but actually work against it.

Foregoing a boating museum for a Chamber office takes up valuable lakefront space for an unnecessary purpose. Foregoing a building renovation for contemporary new construction destroys a valuable piece of the community fabric and dumps a costly, unsightly single-purpose structure in its place. In both cases, what is unique about Geneva is used as leverage to get money for projects that ultimately destroy that very character.