BOT Meeting 7/16 Post 3

President’s Report– Joe Collins.

COD enrollment — we offer different kinds of classes.

Our overall enrollment is pretty good – we are down only 1 percent from last year. That is pretty posit considering the publicity that COD has gotten.

But college-level courses have actually increased which indicates that people still recognize COD for its academic excellence.

I would also like to note that we have public comments, including questions, at BOT meetings. We have now posted answers to questions we get form the public and they are now posted on the Board website.

Joe Moore goes to the podium to show where the answers are located — on the BoT page of the COD website. There is a section called Public Comment Responses.

Joe Moore opens up one of the documents and Joe Collins points out that the answers are given although the name of the person who asks the questions is not listed.

Trustee Birt asks if these will only be answers to questions made at BOT meetings or can other questions be posted there.

Collins: For now they are questions that have been asked at BOT meetings but we could also begin to post others.

Napolitano: The name of the person will not be there, but will the person be notified?

Collins: We could do that.

Trustee Roark: I have been using the summer to begin preparing my presentations to the August 20th meeting.

Collins: We would like to present more information on the Waterleaf. Now Ellen Roberts, Director of Business Affairs and Dean Donna Stewart will present.

Ellen Roberts: Leased space option. Bringing in a third-party entity to lease and run the restaurant. The rental would be for a restaurant option. It will not include the removable items that could be used elsewhere in the college. We did our best to estimate the expenses. But if a broker came in the numbers could change.

rental rate $20 per square feet, as per Glen Ellyn areas. We are assuming that the leaser would pay for cleaning, taxes, etc.

Gross rental would be 120,000. Offsetting of electricity and gas, snow removal, etc.

EXPENSES — utilities are hooked into the building systems so the bills would have to come to the college. There would be expenses for a security system.

Subtracting total expenses we come up with a total of about 84,000 dollars.

One thing we really feel is important. We feel there is a real risk that we cannot rent this facility. Location, venue type, anticipated additional expenditures and the recent publicity. So the income could be much greater or it could be much less. Plus there would be no income while we waited to rent the space if we had to wait.

60% of new restaurants fail within the first three years.

Plus our current Sodexo contract indicates exclusivity with the exception of the Wheat Café and the Waterleaf, so we would possibly have to renegotiate that contract with Sodexo.

We also looked at Event Rental Assumptions.  Space would be used for event rentals only when not scheduled for use by academic programs. Rental fees for the college – this is a unique space. But we looked only at square footage even though the Waterleaf has some unique features.

We lose five rental opportunities per month, so using that as our base, the total annual revenue could be as high as 34,000. We would have to balance academic needs with rental opportunities a priority. All events would require a College Event Supervisor. Sodexo would have to assess the use of the kitchen space.

Donna Stewart: Conversion to Academic Lab Wheat and waterleaf Revenue Projections. I am looking to maximize opportunities for our students and opportunities for our students to learn. Unlike Ellen I am not looking for maximizing revenue. I am an Academic Dean. Looking for student preparation rather than revenue generation.

My projects are based on a continued enrollment at about the same rate as today. Enrollment patterns seem to be staying steady. Our enrollment is a little soft in culinary because of the economic.

We want to present the best prepared students we can to the growing restaurant field in the improved economy.

Immediate student benefits: expanded academic offerings. more breadth in the program for students.

The Waterleaf can host more people, has greater capacity. The Wheat can only hold about 50 people. The Waterleaf can seat about 175 people. Our students are not prepared to host that number. We could increase the number of people we can now serve by about 10% comfortable, now.

Back and front of the house opportunities would emerge for students.

As we transition more courses into the Waterleaf facility there will be more opportunities for the students to interact with more diners. More variation in their life as opposed to the controlled environment of the Wheat Café. Moving more work into that lab facility would provide a more realistic experience of the workforce.  The kitchen facility is actually crowded at the Waterleaf. It is a real restaurant kitchen. unlike the student kitchens which are very spacious, the Waterleaf would offer a more realistic experience to the students.

I know we can strengthen our culinary program. We have a stellar program now. We can make it even better by reviewing the curriculum and strengthen the program. We can improve the profile of our program by having students more involved in student run activities.

Recently I attended an international cuisine event, all student prepared and delivered. During that event two people came up to me to express their passionate support for these type of activities. The more we can get the public to come in an interface with the students, the better our program will be.

There has been considerable confusion about who is doing what in the Waterleaf. Between myself and AD Chris Faye we know that student run dinners know that students cook on Mondays and Tuesdays. We are the only people who know who is cooking on what night.  If it is only students who cook there, there will be strong community support for our programs.

Quantitatively, what does that mean? We are not running a profit-making venue.

the big picture: we have revenue flow from 4 different sources. Wheat café lunches and dinners.

Monday and Tuesday dinners from classes.

We  sell through our retail venue, the Market, some of our student made products. In 2014 our revenue stream from all of that was 138,000.

In 2015  134,000.

Bear in mind, all of this is course related — not looking to maximize revenue, looking for student opportunities.

So we run at about 135,000 of revenue.

I am anticipating for the upcoming year — the fall semester is cast. Students have registered. Monday and Tuesday classes are set.

This coming year we are looking at approx. 145,000.

If in 2017 we work with the 10 % increase we are looking at 151,000. This is not a substantial increase in revenue but there is some increase to offset the concerns we would have about this use vs. other uses of the space.

I do not see the number of credits being offered. I do not see this changing. The ICCB is clear- we are a two year college. We have to get the students through this in two years.

We can build new courses but then we will have to revise old courses.

We are looking at a revenue increase of about 15,000 but this does not take into consideration of any revenue developed through a quick-serve facility.We would need to write that course and we haven’t yet so we cannot venture a guess.

There are a number of concepts — grab and go, or breakfast service — this would all be for the Wheat. All that would be offered through this new use of the Wheat café would be based on courses, based on curriculum. We would need to write these courses.

In talking with faculty — they are interested in some flexible spaces for advance students who want special topics sources. They would like to have a venue to execute those special topics courses.

Also venues for new faculty and faculty retirement spaces. This is the perfect size for that kind of event, that kind of celebration. SRC 2800 is cavernous and too large.

Special events for hospitality would be there — the hospitality industry is really hot right now and we could use the venue for special events.

Any questions?

Trustee Bernstein: What kind of timeframe are you looking at to come up with some very concrete, fleshed out proposals?

Stewart: As soon as possible.

Bernstein: A listing of courses perhaps, specific courses, and whether or not this would be open to the public?

Stewart: Open to the public? That would be a year and a half out. That is in the future. For the fall we could transition to a couple events.

Bernstein: Would a month be realistic to have something that is actually very specific? Is that enough time?

Stewart: The faculty is looking at doing some good, intensive research through the fall semester, develop curriculum in the spring semester.  This might take several months to get to the point of new activities. We could use it in a small way this fall for courses. We could transition to special events in the fall semester. We could transition existing courses into that space for spring semester, before we actually get new courses written.

Bernstein: So you could have specific proposals by when? You tell me? Or do you need to think about it? Or should people in the finance department work with you to develop revenue projections?

Stewart: We are an academic program. I don’t see huge changes to our costs. That would not change dramatically. The revenue flow would not change until we open it to the public.  For what the academic team is visioning for use of that space — I don’t know that our budget would change much. If we asks faculty — what do we need for capital needs? What travel money? What instructional supplies?   If we serve 10% more meals, that number would tick up a bit but not much. We would continue to ask the faculty, what capital do you need? We have state grants. Our budget for the related programs would not change dramatically.

Mazzochi: Can you walk me through the process that faculty and staff would use to go through this process?

Stewart: Several steps. Faculty would develop their curriculm ideas. Then share with their advisory comittees. All programs have those committees. Then the Divisional curriculum review would take place, then an all-campus, then down to the ICCB for approval. We have been working carefully with our faculty over the course of this summer to be ready for this process. This is for all our programs in our Division. We have a long queue of courses that need to be moved through. Moving curriculum through the process — this will take at least a semester or more.

Mazzochi: If you want something approved by ICCB for Spring term, how long would that take?

Stewart: It would have to be approved by last spring. We can do some things creatively already in the spring semester by using new concept courses as special topics courses. We can offer them three times as special topics. The faculty team is clear that they want to do some thorough research before presenting. It’s a lengthy but a good process.

Mazzochi: As a Board, there is nothing we can do as a Board to expedite that, regarding the ICCB.

Stewart: I don’t think that’s a problem because we can do some special things in the spring term. We need a realistic and a larger venue. Even without changing a course. We would see benefits in year two and year three.

Mazzochi: Have you done further investigation to see if this would really distinguish the COD program from other area community colleges? Would we attract non-district students by our special offerings?

Stewart: No, we haven’t. We would need to.

Napolitano: Does the contract with Sodexo allow students to cater the special events such as retirements that you mentioned could be held

Ellen Roberts answers the question — Student run events are excluded from the Sodexo contract. We do believe we could negotiate with Sodexo about of the catering.

Hamilton: Any more questions? I find your vision wonderful. Thank you very much for your work.

Hamilton: This is our second presentation about the Waterleaf. We are narrowing in on this. How does this Board see our voting on this in a strategic manner for our next meeting?

Mazzochi: Some of the numbers we see on the Wheat Café, with an academic focus — we see that being a net positive for the school. Unlike the Waterleaf which has lost so much. This could be a model.  Possibly with some income from leasing. IT seems that using the Waterleaf for that could be positive, and offer students some new courses and activitites. I like that we could shift some existing programs into the Waterleaf Space.

Napolitano: I am in favor of expanding the student activities into the

Birt: I will sound redundant, but I think that when those involved in it present the numbers, I think it would be an appropriate thing to do.

Bernstein: Student Trustee Roark: I had the chance to talk with Tim Meyers this week and he reinforced how wonderful this would be.

Trustee Wozniak: I would like to invite the chef to the next BOT meeting to see what her take on this is. Would she welcome the students, or support leasing out the space?

Hamilton: We should put this up for a vote next month. Hopefully we will have some great numbers to look at.

Hamilton: We will skip the citizen’s report and move on to New Amended Board Policies.