EDITORIAL: We support state role in funding $44 million UW athletics center

Posted 4/23/15

But some find a way. It’s too much. It’s not enough. It’s the wrong project.

Take the latest headline project as a case in point. UW and the State of Wyoming last week announced a $44 million construction project to build the High Altitude …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

EDITORIAL: We support state role in funding $44 million UW athletics center

Posted

It’s hard to find fault with a marvelous funding partnership between the State of Wyoming and the University of Wyoming that has accomplished such wondrous capital facility projects on campus in the last dozen years.

But some find a way. It’s too much. It’s not enough. It’s the wrong project.

Take the latest headline project as a case in point. UW and the State of Wyoming last week announced a $44 million construction project to build the High Altitude Performance Center as an upgrade to the Rochelle Athletics Center. When complete, Athletics Director Tom Burman says it will be the premier athletics center in the Mountain West Conference, featuring new and expanded space “focused on academic success, nutrition, strength and conditioning, sports medicine and rehabilitation, and recovery facilities for all of Wyoming’s more than 400 student athletes.”

The Legislature approved $20 million in matching money for the project, with UW to raise $24 million in private donations. A lead gift of $3 million from major donor Marian Rochelle has kicked off the private fundraising.

So what has been the reaction? The Laramie Boomerang polled readers by asking “What do you feel about the news of the $44 million campaign to build an athletic center which will benefit, not only football, but all sports at Wyoming?”

Here’s the up side for backers of the project. More than 47 percent checked “Great, exactly what UW athletics needs.” Another 26 percent marked “Good, Wyoming needs to remain competitive with other facilities in the MW.”

That’s nearly three out of four respondents in the unscientific poll with favorable opinions. Another 6 percent said “OK, can see reasons behind it.”

Then there was the 21 percent reader response that said “Think UW could spend money on other things.”

Since the program is a capital facility match, the “other things” must mean other building projects. And of course, UW and the state could spend money “on other things.”

News flash. They are pouring money into other building projects in a big way. Literally hundreds of millions.

To name a few, these projects are in various stages of construction or design: a $106 million new College of Engineering building, a $38 million Mike Enzi STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) building, a $32 million Performing Arts Center, a $53.5 million High Bay Research facility, a $27 million Half Acre renovation as a student recreation center, a $25 million renovation of the Arena Auditorium. The list goes on, and the list of already completed buildings is equally remarkable.

It’s plain there is residual opposition to spending when athletics is the beneficiary.  To which we say former UW President Phil Dubois had it right when he called athletics the front porch of the university. Athletic programs bring people into contact with the university to become long-lasting supporters. Where else in the state do crowds of 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, 25,000 and 30,000 gather at one time? It is enormous opportunity for UW.

Gov. Matt Mead was embracing the Dubois philosophy when he supported in his budget the $20 million dollar state match for the HAPC. The governor said, “A successful athletics program generates excitement. This leads to better student recruitment, better alumni support and stronger schools.”

Yes, some athletic supporters go overboard. When UW had to dip into reserves to add to the Performing Arts Center project in the face of cost overruns, displeasure was voiced that the university trustees haven’t done the same thing to find $3 million to complete renovations to the Arena Auditorium which are also facing higher than anticipated costs.

One outspoken contributor to a UW online sports site was willing to throw the Performing Arts Center under the bus. Calling it a ”fancy piano building,” the online complainer asked, “Have we turned out any fancy piano players?”

That’s way off base. The truth is funding for every project is different. The Legislature views each project independently when the state enters into a matching agreement with UW.

In 2012, the upgrade to the Performing Arts Center was UW’s highest priority for capital construction funds in asking for $32.4 million. The Appropriations Committee of the Legislature initially approved $16.2 million in direct appropriation and said the other $16.2 million would have to be raised in private contributions. It was suggested there are a lot of moms of UW music students who may be willing to donate to Performing Arts.

Down to the wire, the Legislature recognized that $16.2 million was a lot for mom. Faced with the looming loss of accreditation for UW music programs due to critical issues with the 40-year-old Performing Arts Center, a budget amendment was approved in the waning days of the session for another $14.2 million in direct appropriation. The required 50 percent match was pulled back.

The newly underway High Bay Research facility at UW, where laboratory research in oil and gas will be conducted, carries a different split of state and private funding. In this project, the Legislature put in $37.2 million, with private donors anteing up $16.3 million.

The Legislature has been an exceptional partner for UW.  Funding decisions are case specific, but we believe they flow from an overall objective to make units on campus the best they can be. We celebrate every public/private success.

Comments