With a vote of 36-6, Saint Louis University students will be paying $40 extra per semester for their health and well-being. After being tabled at last week’s meeting, the Student Wellness Fee passed in the Student Government Association meeting this Wednesday. The new fee will be attached to the already-instated $50 recreation fee.
“I think it’s our best option,” Commuter Senator Katie Becherer said. “The money needs to come from somewhere. We need to think financially conservatively.”
The fee will be used to pay off the incurred debt of the Simon Recreation Center Renovation and Student Health and Counseling Services. Additionally, should the decision be made to build an outdoor recreation complex, the fee would go toward its construction, as well. The Wellness Fee may also be used to pay for club sports, enhanced services at the rec., possible tennis and softball courts, coverage of rec. center class fees, and a possible renovation of SLUruba.
A Student Wellness Fee Advisory Group will be created to oversee the distribution of the revenue brought in by the Wellness Fee. The group will be comprised of students selected by SGA and representatives of Student Development, including the Vice President of Student Development, Kent Porterfield. After the addition of an amendment proposed by John Cook School of Business Senator Samantha Morr, it was confirmed that 50 percent of the voting members of the group will be students and the members will include either a SGA representative or a designee.
“I just think it makes it more agreeable to the people in the Chamber,” Morr said.
The passing of the bill did not go unopposed, however. It was questioned why current students should pay for debt that was incurred by renovations that happened four years ago.
SGA President Michael Harriss argued that, while the debt is old, current students would benefit from the other projects funded by the Wellness Fee.
“I encourage you to think of it as a fee for services, not a fee for debt,” Harris said.
First Year Senator Chris Ackels questioned why the cost of student health services was not included in the tuition budget proposed in December.

“Because it wasn’t included, what should we conclude? That this isn’t with in the first $32,000 of priority for the University? Should we draw the conclusion that the University was planning on enacting this fee regardless of SGA’s decisions?” Ackels asked. “Should we draw from this that the University doesn’t find enough money in its current budget to do the simple things like student health counseling?”

Porterfield pointed out that it wasn’t a necessity to make this a fee, but a choice.
“[The President’s Coordinating Counsel] didn’t want to act without student input. … The overwhelming majority of [other universities] have a health fee, especially the ones that provide the kinds of services that we do,” he said.
When it came time to debate the bill, it became clear that the majority of the Senators were warming up to the idea of the fee.
“We’re a diverse group, but privileged,” College of Arts and Sciences Senator Max Jordan said. “Yes, $40 is a lot, but it would be much worse to have these services cut down the road.”
Commuter Senator JP Johnson admitted to being hesitant about the bill initially, but said that he was coming to see the fee as a good thing for the University.
“You’re going to spend a lot of money doing nothing. This money will actually go somewhere,” he said.
Ackels, however, remained strongly opposed to the proposal.
“In previous discussions, we called it a ‘worst case scenario’ if we have to raise the Student Activity Fee. That would be raised like $10,” Ackels said. “Why have we decided that raising these $40 is a good scenario? It is implied in the [SGA] constitution that we do not have the power to enact a new fee.”
Despite the negative opinion of some Senators, the bill passed with relatively strong support.