ARKS

 **Cover Letter**

123 Delaware Avenue Newark, DE 19711

April 16, 2009

Dr. Patrick Harker Office of the President University of Delaware 104 Hullihen Hall Newark, DE 19716-0101

Dear Dr. Harker:

In response to your request for proposals for the possibility of an expansion of the current gym space on your campus, ARKS Consulting Group is pleased to submit the following proposal.

The enclosed statement outlines our plan of action for expanding the recreational space.The proposal includes the procedure and schedule for the project. It also provides a company overview and a history of our past work.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding the proposal. We look forward to working with your University.

Sincerely,

Ryan Galloway Vice President ARKS Consulting Group

Enclosure: Proposal


 * Proposal**

 ARKS Consulting, INC.


 * Introduction:**

The University of Delaware has issued a request for proposal for a feasibility report on the potential expansion of the University’s current gym facilities.


 * Statement of Problem:**

The Carpenter Sports Building currently serves as the primary workout facility for the University of Delaware’s students and faculty. The 167,000 square foot building was built in 1942 at a time when the student enrollment was much smaller (Delaware Website).


 * Objective:**

By conducting extensive research, we will determine if it is feasible to expand the current recreational space on the University of Delaware’s campus. The option chosen will maximize student/faculty usage of the facility while keeping costs at a minimum. 


 * Procedure:**

1. We will identify the problems with the current facility by distributing surveys to the student body and faculty. a. We will target a sample size between 200 and 300 to ensure validity of the survey. 2. We will analyze our survey results in order to include student/faculty preferences in the planning process. 3. We will research other schools with similar student enrollments, campus sizes, and past problems with workout facilities to compare available recreational space. (Towson, JMU, Pittsburgh, Virginia, UNC-Chapel Hill, Boston University, Northeastern University) 4. We will document our findings in a detailed report that will state our suggestion for the new facility. 5. We will research the costs of the possible improvements.


 * Record of Service:**

ARKS Consulting, Inc. was founded in 1985 and for the past 24 years, we have set the bar in the facility design industry. Past projects include the Ripken Academy in Aberdeen, Maryland, and the Walnut Street YMCA in Wilmington, Delaware. For a complete list of past projects visit our website at arksconsulting.com.


 * Budget:**

Both our initial proposal and the research we conduct will be free of charge.


 * Schedule:**

//Week of April 27, 2009//

-Initial Review of Carpenter Sports Building -Distribute surveys -Research other college workout facilities

//Week of May 4, 2009//

-Analyze survey results -Develop pros and cons of other college facilities. Compare these to Delaware's facility. -Meet with President Harker again to present our findings and make suggestion

//Week of May 11, 2009//

-Give final presentation to University of Delaware’s Board of Trustees 


 * Cover Letter for Report**

123 Delaware Avenue Newark, DE 19711

May 18, 2009

Dr. Patrick Harker Office of the President University of Delaware 104 Hullihen Hall Newark, DE 19716-0101

Dear Dr. Harker:

Enclosed is the ARKS Consulting Group Project for increasing the University's fitness space. This report contains how we went about our research, the analysis of what we found and our ultimate reccomendation.

The different projects are analyzed according to cost and location. Both projects represent what the student body would like to see with more recreational space.

It is my hope that this report outlines the complete project and is clear to you. If you have any questions regarding anything, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you. Austin Tatum, President ARKS Consulting Group Enclosed: Report

=REPORT=


 * Executive Summary**

This report analyzes the University of Delaware's current recreational/workout space on the Newark campus. It is designed to inform the University on the sentiment of the student/faculty toward the University's facilities. This feeling was discovered through a series of surveys that were distributed to members of the faculty and staff. The results of the surveys have strongly indicated a desire for new and improved facilities at the University.

We also researched a number of colleges similar to the University of Delaware in the size of the student enrollment. This research helped us to determine what a college the size Delaware needs in terms of gym/workout space to accommodate an active student body.

Our final research step was to determine the cost of the two viable option: Build a new facility or expand the existing one. This cost analysis was based on the construction projects of three other universities and it included data on the costs of workout equipment.

After reviewing the potential costs of each option, we concluded that an expansion of the Carpenter Sports Building would be the best financial option. We estimate that a new building would cost twice as much as a renovation and in today's economy that is not feasible.


 * Introduction**

ARKS Consulting has assessed a long awaited issue facing the students and faculty at the University of Delaware dealing with a need for a better sized fitness center. Through careful research and analysis, ARKS determined what is necessary and feasible action to increase satisfaction with the University's current workout area and maximize the facility usage.

The fitness centers at the University of Delaware consist of one main center called the Carpenter Sports Building (CBS) and three satellite gymnasiums - Pencader, Rodney and Harrington. The Carpenter Sports Building, also known as the "Little Bob", has approximately 9,200 square feet of combined student facilities which is supposed to provide services to 18,000 students, according to Barry Miller, the assistant director of recreation services. (Alhambra, 2) The reason for this present size dilemma is because originally the Little Bob was designed for about 5,000 students back in 1967 and served multiple purposes aside from just fitness. (Alhambra, 1) Enrollment has since then more than tripled those numbers, yet no substantial renovations for updating the amount of equipment has been made to counter the growth of the University. The Little Bob should be a direct reflection of the size and quality of the University itself, yet students are constantly waiting in long lines, not getting the equipment they desire, dealing with overcrowdedness, and the facility is always creeping close to full capacity.

In the Carpenter Sports Building, there are 4 full-sized basketball courts available for usage. This seems like a decent amount, but an underlying problem is that a decent amount of the time these courts serve multiple purposes which hinder the full potential for the students. At any given time, not only are there students playing basketball, but the courts are shared with random badminton games, volleyball nets, cheer-leading practice, exercise classes, intramural sports games, and other activities that should be separated with their own space. The basketball courts are a necessity to having a successful workout facility, yet students are constantly interrupted in their games due to other miscellaneous uses that are all packed into one gymnasium.

The overall consensus seems to point way to the huge dilemma of wait time problems. Whether it be an elliptical, treadmill, weight machine, or stair stepper, there is always a line. It does not seem plausible to have less than 10 treadmills to accommodate 18,000 students who are allowed to use the facilities that they pay for in their tuition. One student, Jessica Fiefer, stated "I could never get the equipment I wanted and I was intimidated by how many people were there." (Alhambra, 3) She is not the only one that felt that way. When the CBS is at near full capacity, students must enter the gym one by one as someone exits before them. It is extremely frustrating to have to wait in a line to just enter the workout room just to be standing in more lines, anywhere from 2 minutes to 30 just for a machine of choice. If the center could be expanded to fit the correct student enrollment, the University could finally be at the recommended level of 1 square foot per student, which they are slacking in presently. (Alhambra, 2) Due to the excessive wait time, students are drawn away from using the CBS and on-campus facilities and are forced to enjoy fitness experiences at expensive gyms off-campus or near their home.

High wait times are in direct correlation with the large number of students desiring to use the machines, courts, and gym space. Those high numbers of students utilizing the equipment so heavily causes problems beyond surface wait times and overcrowded annoyances. The actual machines are constantly undergoing maintenance because they are used nonstop. "The average piece of cardio equipment has a life of three to five years and we are happy when we get four years out of it," Barry Miller told the UD Review. That is wear and tear on machinery that is extremely high in cost and is not maximizing the full potential of the equipment. With more machines available the maintenance would be less burdensome for each individual piece because students would be spreading out and not straining them will nonstop use.

The true problem at hand is that the University of Delaware offers just a small amount of fitness services for such a large number of students. Naturally, there is confusion and delay in the facilities and satisfaction is decreasing. Miller agrees, "University President David P. Roselle is aware of the need for a bigger gym but the project is a matter of funding," and it is promising to see the thought has been addressed. ARKS is happy to change that need into action with a new project that is more cost efficient. Fitness facilities are a main attraction of apply and attending college, and every student has the right to take advantage of the best recreational space they are offered. In this case, there just is not enough space for everyone to do so. Even with a few satellite gyms available, the equipment count is extremely low and there are low capacity numbers that must be acknowledged. For example, Harrington facilities have a capacity of a mere 45 people, only 4 treadmills, but plenty of lines to get into the gym. The other side gyms, such as Pencader and Rodney, have similar structures and lack equipment and space. It is up to the University of Delaware, with the aid of our suggestions, to alleviate the dissatisfaction of the student body and help increase the size and quality of the gyms to meet the expectations.


 * Procedure**

To start gathering information for our report, we created a survey to determine if more recreation space was needed. We distributed the first survey to 250 students at the “Little Bob”, Harrington Gym, and the new Independence Gym. The surveys were handed out at these locations because we wanted to hear from the students who used the University’s workout facilities. At a 95% Confidence Level, a sample size of 250 gave us a 6.2 Confidence Interval. Our group felt this was an appropriate sample size. The questions on the survey were: 1. How often do you use the University’s workout facilities per week? a. 0 b. 1-2 c. 2+ 2. How often do you have to wait to use the workout machines at the facilities? a. Never b. Rarely c. Sometimes d. Often 3. When you have to wait for a machine, how long is it? a. 2 minutes or less b. 2-5 minutes c. More than 5 minutes 4. If the workout facilities were less congested, would you use them more often? a. Yes b. No 5. Do you think the University needs to expand its current workout facility space? a. Yes b. No

Next, our group started researching other schools comparable to the University of Delaware. We went onto collegeboard.com and searched schools with similar enrollments to UD. The University of Delaware has about 17,000 undergraduates and 3,000 graduate students. We came up with a list of schools and then proceeded to research their fitness facilities. After reviewing what each school had, we made lists of the size of the facilities and the workout equipment they had. The schools that we looked at were Towson University, James Madison University, UNC- Chapel Hill, Boston University, Northeastern University, University of New Hampshire, and the University of Rhode Island.

Our group also researched recent expansions/renovations and new projects undertaken by other Universities that were about Delaware’s size. We conducted this research to determine what other schools were doing and the approximate costs of these projects.

We than created a second survey and distributed to about 250 students at the same locations as the first. This survey was to determine which facility on campus was most popular and what machines were the most popular at the gyms. The questions on the second survey were: 1. Based on location, which gym on campus is most convenient? a. Carpenter Sports Building b. Harrington c. Independence 2. Do you feel that the basketball courts are readily available when you go to use them? a. Always b. Sometimes c. Rarely d. Never 3. Do you feel that the two gymnasiums in the Carpenter Sports Building are over saturated with sporting events other than basketball? (i.e. Cheer leading, Intramural Sports, Badminton, Volleyball, etc.) a. Yes b. No c. Sometimes 4. Do you think that there is a need for more gymnasiums/basketball courts on campus? a. Yes b. No 5. What workout machines do you use the most? a. Free Weights b. Cardio Machines (Treadmills, PreCors, Stationary Bikes, Elliptical) c. Weight machines 6. What type of workout machine do you have to wait for most often? a. Free Weights b. Cardio Machines (Treadmills, PreCors, Stationary Bikes, Elliptical) c. Weight machines

The last bit of research we did conducted was a cost-based. The two options were to either expand on a current facility or to build an entirely new building. We estimated the costs of both by looking at the prices of similar projects and the prices of workout equipment. The schools we looked at for this research were: The University of South Carolina, the University of Texas Southwestern, and ( Look up).


 * Analysis**

Based on the results of the first survey, it is clear that there is a demand on campus for additional recreational/workout space. Of the individuals polled, 48% responded that they have to wait at least five minutes before they are able to use the workout machines in the current facilities while 92% said that they wait at least 2 minutes. Furthermore, 87% would use the facilities more if they were less crowded. Finally, and most important, 78% of survey participants felt that the University of Delaware is in need of more workout space. VISUAL- graph*
 * Results of first survey**

According to a UD Review article by Christine Alhambra, "Miller said the National Intramural Recreation Organization recommends there be 1 square foot of workout area per student. Ideally then, the university should have approximately 18,000 square feet of gym space." However, even with the addition of the Independence Gym the University of Delaware has approximately 13,000 square feet. Other universities comparable to Delaware have more gym space and more machines for their students to use. One such school is Boston University. BU has a student body of 18,534 and 18,000 square feet of gym space. In addition, in order to free up more cardio machines, schools of similar size often feature indoor tracks. For example, University of Rhode Island features a six-lane, 200-meter indoor track, including eight lanes on the straightaways. A track of this size could easily accomodate dozens of runners at any time. Also, many other schools have larger locker space for students to hold their belongings while they work out.
 * Pros and cons of other schools facilities**
 * VISUAL- comparison chart

After the second survey's results were analyzed, it was evident that there is a problem with the amount of gymnasium space in the Carpenter Sports Building. 42% of the students surveyed expressed that the basketball courts were rarely available for regular use. It seems that these gyms are being used for several other purposes. Whether it be chearleading practice, intramural sports, or volleyball games, students don't usually have access the to the basketball courts. Out of the 250 students polled, 45% said that they usually have to wait to get onto a basketball court. When asked if the University should have additional gymnaisum space, a resounding 82% marked "yes" on the survey. Out of all of the equipment at the facilties around campus, cardio machines seem to be the most popular. 68% of students said they regularly use these machines, and almost half of all the students expressed that these machines had the longest wait. The free weights and weight machines seem to also be very popular among the students, and these are apparently backed up as well. It is pretty evident that students would like more workout equipment on campus so they don't have to wait as long to get on these machines.
 * Results of second survey**


 * Cost of expansion vs brand new facility**

When researching other schools, we looked at the costs of current and past renovations. Based on space, popularity,and location, the Little Bob would be the best option for a renovation. An 8,000 sq. ft. recreational space renovation to the little bob would be appropriate for the current size of the building. After looking at other schools, it costs approximately $115 per sq ft of renovation. Similar infrastructure costs would total about $5,000,000. The estimated cost of all the workout equipment (cardio machines, free weights, and weight machines) and the basketball courts would be somewhere around $300,000. We also included an additional $200,000 for miscellaneous costs. A round estimate of a 8,0000 sq ft. addition to the Little Bob would be about $6.5 million. Instead of expanding on current workout facilities, some universities have started from scratch and built an entire new facility. While this route is much more expensive, many schools have chose to do this. The Little bob is about 167,000 sq ft with only about 8,000 sq ft of student workout space. If the decision to build a new building was to be made, an 80,000 sq ft building with approximately 8,000 sq ft of fitness space would be realistic. Similar sized projects from other schools have costed anywhere from $12-$15 million. This brand new facility would have all of the same equipment as the other option. In addition, it will also have multiple studios for workout classes.

http://www.nirsa.org/am/documents/about/awards/osf/osf_award_winners_2004.pdf [|**http://tiny.cc/YeQny**]


 * Conclusions and Recommendations**

After reviewing both options, we feel the more feasbile project would be to expand the Carpenter Sports Building. There really wouldn't be an ideal location around the campus to construct a new facility. The renovation would be estimated at about half of the cost of building an entire new facility ( $13 million for the new building, $6.5 million for the renovation). With the current state of the economy, it wouldn't be very realistic to spend $13 million a new faciltiy. Budgets are very tight, so the more economical choice would be the expansion. We would build up on the Carpenter Sports Building. This renovation would include two basketball courts with an indoor track around them. In addition, a large workout room would be built. This space would be occupied by the additional cardio machines (treadmills, olipiticals, etc.), weight machines (weight benches, curling benches, and squat racks), and more free weights. Attached to the gymnasium, there will also be a guys and girls locker room built with showers. This project seems to include all of the expressed wants by the students and also makes sense economically with regards to the current recession we are facing.
 * VISUAL- comparison chart**

-- logo** CONTENTS __ Subject __ __ Page __
 * -- insert title page

Cover Letter (for Proposal) 1

Proposal 2

Cover Letter (for Report) 4

Report page 5

Works Cited 12

Appendix 13

· // Distributed to 250 students / faculty outside of the Little Bob / Harrington Gym / Independence Gym // · // 95% Confidence Level, 6.2 Confidence Interval //

** Question #1 ** How often do you use the University's workout facilities per week? o 0 -19% o 1-2 -45% o 2+ -36% ** Question #2 ** How often do you have to wait to use machines at the facilities? ° Never -4% ° Rarely -11% ° Sometimes -43% ° Often -47% ** Question #3 ** When you have to wait for a machine, how long is it? ° 2 minutes or less -10% ° 2-5 minutes -48% ° More than 5 minutes -42% ** Question #4 ** If the workout facilities were less congested, would you use them more often? ° Yes -87% ° No -13% ** Question #5 ** Do you think the University needs to expand its current workout facility space? ° Yes -78% ° No -22%



Based on location, which gym on campus is most convenient? ° Carpenter Sports Building -58% ° Harrington -17% ° Independence -25% ** Question #2 ** Do you feel that the basketball courts are readily available when you go to use them? ° Always -9% ° Sometimes -27% ° Rarely -42% ° Never - 24% ** Question #3 ** Do you feel that the two gymnasiums in the Carpenter Sports Building are over saturated with sporting events other than basketball? (i.e. Cheerleading, Intramural Sports, Badminton, Volleyball, etc.) ° yes -45% ° no -23% ° sometimes -32% ** Question #4 ** Do you think that there is a need for more gymnasiums/basketball courts on campus? ° yes -82% ° no -18% ** Question #5 ** What workout machines do you use the most? Check all that apply. ° Free Weights -35% ° Cardio Machines (Treadmills, PreCors, Stationary Bikes, Elliptical) -68% ° Weight Machines -46% ** Question #6 ** What type of workout machine do you have to wait for most often? ° Free Weights -24% ° Cardio Machines (Treadmills, PreCors, Stationary Bikes, Elliptical) -47% ° Weight Machines -29% __WORKS CITED __ Alhambra, Christine. "Little Bob has big wait problem." UD Review [Newark] 14 Mar. 2006: 1-4.

Campus Recreation Services. 2005. Towson University. 27 Apr. 2009. .

"DePaul University, Lincoln Campus, Ray Meyer Fitness & Recreation Center." American School & University 72.12 (August 2000): 44. Academic OneFile. Gale. University of Delaware Library. 13 May 2009 .

"Facilities." Carolina Campus Recreation. 2009. University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. 27 Apr 2009 .

"Facilities/Directions." New Hampshire Wildcats. University of New Hampshire. 27 Apr 2009 .

"Gerald Tsai, Jr. Fitness Center ." Boston University Fitness and Recreation Center. Boston University. 27 April 2009 .

Kaminski, Joe. "2004 Outsanding Sports Facility Awards." Nirsa.org. 2004. NIRSA. 9 May 2009 .

"Mackal Field House." University of Rhode Island Recreational Services. 2007. University of Rhode Island. 30 Apr 2009 <http://www.uri.edu/athletics/recservices/mackalfieldhouse.html>.

"Master Plans for Facilities of the Future." Future Facility Planning. 2009. James Madison University. 27 Apr 2009 <http://www.jmusports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=14400&KEY=&ATCLID=1371520>.