DRAFT 11/1/04

Committee on Enrollment and Waterfront Potential

Background and Committee Charge:

In November, 2003, President Morse wrote to the Western community inviting comment on the future of Western in terms of its possible enrollment growth and its potential for involvement in the Bellingham Waterfront Renewal Project. Following discussions with the University Planning Council, the Faculty Senate and the academic Deans, she convened a committee composed of faculty, students, administrators, and staff on May 10, 2004 to discuss three key questions: (1) What future strategies are needed regarding size of the University?  (2) What should be our approaches to enrollment, particularly if development of a WWU presence on the Waterfront is a real possibility? (3) What should be Western’s role in the Waterfront development with Bellingham?

The committee subsequently met on May 28 with Patricia Decker, Director of the Bellingham Waterfront Futures Project Group and received an overview of the Group’s current planning and projections for the Waterfront Futures. At the third meeting, June 8th, the committee brainstormed about procedures, programs and principles that might guide continued discussion of a possible Western presence in the Waterfront future. Following this meeting, a subcommittee agreed to meet to review, collate and flesh out the ideas generated at the June 8th meeting and again following a full committee meeting on August 9th. Subsequently, that draft was reviewed with the University Advisory Committee, The Faculty Senate, the Board of Trustees, and the Provost Advisory Council. The following document is a product of input from these reviews.          

 The committee, now having met five times including meetings with the directors of the Waterfront Futures group and the Port of Bellingham, appears to be unanimous in its support for Western continuing to explore involvement in the Waterfront development.

Facts concerning the Waterfront space in questions:

1. The Waterfront development will be a multiple use project including the following elements: commercial, light industrial, residential, recreational, and educational with waterfront access, parks and green spaces.
2. The space available for possible WWU development (current GP operation and Port terminal) contains approximately 20 acres and is roughly bounded by Pine Street on the South and Chestnut on the North. This compares with 177 acres on Western’s main campus.
3. On-site buildings, likely available for renovation, contain approximately 500,000 square feet of space.

Planning, Discussion, and Decisions Concerning WWU Presence on the Bellingham Waterfront Should Consider the Following Principles:

• Remain consistent with WWU’s strategic principles, goals and missions and maintain Western’s identity and integrity.
• Add value directly or indirectly to students’ educational experience.
• Be driven by faculty and academic initiatives or by initiatives that enable enhancement of programs on the main campus (e.g. moving support programs from the main campus might free up space on the hill that can be used academically).  Multidisciplinary proposals should be strongly encouraged.
• Allow for long range visioning, well into the future
• Provide and maintain quality physical environment with a campus-like atmosphere that maintains integrity with the present campus in terms of aesthetics and  atmosphere, including continuity of architecture and the outdoor sculpture collection (e.g. avoid appearance of the storefront)
• Contribute to the larger Bellingham community and to the State
• Integrate Western with the community in mutually beneficial partnerships
• Promote sustainable waterfront development (economic, social, environmental)
• Incorporate programs or program elements that position Western in a national and international arena such as the Pacific Rim.
• Make logistical sense (e.g. not involve isolated classes allowing students insufficient time to return to main campus) and promote access to WWU (e.g. with convenient parking/transportation ).
• Encourage inclusiveness and integration with campus

Process:

The processes involved in development of the waterfront and the GP site have many players and are currently ongoing.   The external parties, including the Port, the City, private developers, and potential funding sources, have a significant role in determining the timeline, availability of various properties, and fiscal feasibility.  Clarification of these issues will emerge from discussions and negotiations over the next few years. 

While several important parameters are still unclear, what is clear is that Western is a desired partner in this process.  Thus, Western has an opportunity to proceed in deliberate planning that seeks ideas broadly across campus.  Western’s role is to determine what, if any, involvement would be beneficial to the university community, and to propose a case for such involvement that is consistent with the principles identified above.  The process outlined below is intended for the campus community and to encourage innovative ideas and structures that are consistent with these principles and ensure that the project would be economically feasible for WWU.  

• Brainstorming:   Generate and collect ideas for how (or whether?) WWU should consider waterfront involvement, consistent with the principles above.   Use multiple venues: forum, web site, letters to all members of the campus community, etc. (fall quarter).   Encourage collaboration and discussion across disciplines and colleges.
• Provide feedback to campus that summarizes and groups options obtained in phase 1, thus encouraging further discussion across campus  (fall quarter)
• Invite pre-proposals (1-2 pages) that include parameters such as outlined in the principles and are based on data collected from phases 1 and 2.  
•  A committee, (to be determined), will meet and consider desirability and feasibility of the pre-proposals.
• RFP:  Request more extensive proposals
• review proposals and consider feasibility
• (this may involve a group other than/broader than the current committee, such as a Role and Mission Task Force that will continue planning in a broader context.) 
• ( still not a final decision given staging of overall project)

As Western’s potential involvement is refined, WWU will consult with Port and City officials to ensure feasibility of plans and partnerships.   

Funding: 

Three basic sources of funding should be pursued:

1. External funding (grants, contracts, Port, philanthropic, State/federally funded centers or institutes)
2. Self sustaining programs  (e.g. conferences/workshops/continuing professional education)
3. State funded programs and buildings (e.g. to accommodate new enrollments above the target of 12,500 FTE)

We likely would phase-in off-campus development (i.e. self-sustaining/externally funded programs) sooner than state funded programs.

Important points not covered above that should be addressed in the process:

• Elucidate procedures by which final or first programmatic decisions will be made.
• The waterfront development should be viewed as National model that demonstrates public, private, and university cooperation with the community in the development of a previously contaminated industrial site into an economical, educational, and aesthetic community asset. 
• The transportation corridor connecting the main (upper) campus with the waterfront campus should be visually continuous and functional in terms of promoting transition between sites.