Despite failing to get approval from the student body in the spring election, the $34 LSU Student Union renovation fee increase has been “requested to be put on the agenda” for the July 12 Board of Supervisors meeting, according to Kristine Calongne, director of the Office of Public Affairs.
“LSU sent over a request to the LSU Systems office last Friday to put the Union renovation fee on the Board of Supervisors agenda to be considered at their meeting on July 12,” Calongne said.
Of the 6,898 students that voted in the 2007 Student Government election, 50.99 percent voted against the proposed LSU Union and Theater Fee Referendum. Had the closely contested referendum passed in favor of the fee increase, the fee would have been sent to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Student Government members, who voted to put the referendum on the ballot in their 2007 election, were not surprised by University officials’ actions.
“The student vote is advisory in nature; it’s a recommendation to the Board,” said Heath Hattaway, former Union Board chair, “It’s not overriding the student vote because there is nothing to override.”
Graduate School President Donald Hodge, who campaigned heavily against the fee increase, said he was unsettled by the news but not surprised by the University administration’s actions.
“It won’t be the first time the University administration has turned their backs on students,” Hodge said. “Until students stand up and say enough is enough, they’ll continue to do this.”
SG President Cassie Alsfeld, who was recently elected to the student seat on the 16-member Board of Supervisors, is confident that she will be able to speak for students as a Board member.
“Because the students voted against the referendum, though marginal, I will express that perspective to the Board,” Alsfeld said.
After the initial student vote in 2003 to pass the Union renovation fee, the project ran up a $24 million deficit in 2006 after Hurricane Katrina increased construction costs by 30 to 45 percent. Because the theater could be identified and handled as a separate project, University officials decided to push the Union theater renovation to the final phase of the project, the until necessary funds could be raised. Some said the University, not students, should pay the difference in costs.
“We shouldn’t have to pay for their failures,” Hodge said, adding that he feels University officials should have locked in construction costs before the hurricanes affected rates.
In an attempt to quell the raging deficit and get the theater back on track with the other ongoing Union renovations during the spring 2007 semester, the Union board proposed a $34 student fee to cover the entire deficit.
The proposed fee would be increased by $8 each semester, in addition to the $60 students are already paying for the renovation. By spring 2009 the Union renovation fee would total $94 per semester – a cost deemed too high by students.
Plans to renovate the theater were proposed in 2000 before renovations for the Union were even considered. WTW Architects, the design architects based out of Pittsburgh originally contracted in 2001, defined the early estimates based on square feet of both renovated and new space.
The project included the addition of approximately 50,000 square feet to the Union and renovation of two-thirds of the existing building. The 2001 plan would also require funding from the student body.
The initial Union renovation fee proposed by WTW Architects was $72 per student, but University officials were hesitant to put such a high fee to a student vote in 2003.
“The $72 student fee would have been a hard sell,” Plakidas said.
The proposed fee was dropped to $60 to be phased in over three years in an effort to lessen the impact on pocket books for students graduating before reaping the full benefits of the renovation.
The referendum for the $60 renovation fee was put to student vote on the spring 2003 election ballot and passed by almost 600 votes. The Board of Supervisors later finalized the Union fee for the next 30 years, only to find themselves in a $24 million deficit three short years later.
Regardless of the student decision on the second Union fee referendum, funds still need to be raised to renovate the theater.
“Delaying the project isn’t really an option,” Plakidas said citing start-up fees and the continuous rise in construction cost. “Because of how the vote turned out, the University will re-examine the rationale of using a student vote on University infrastructure matters,” Plakidas said.
Union officials said they would continue pursuing other financial options, such as fundraising and asking the state legislature for money. But these avenues might not be feasibly reached within the current time frame.
“Fundraising for gifts of this size takes time to cultivate prospects,” Plakidas said. “There may not be another way to guarantee the bonds.”
Both SG and University officials agreed the Union theater project must be completed.
“Everyone wants the theater to be renovated, they just don’t know how they want to fund it,” 2006-2007 SG President Chris Odinet said.
—Contact Morgan Ford at [email protected]