THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN FOR THE DECEMBER 1997 ISSUE OF THE NACAS COLLEGE ADMINISTRATION JOURNAL and can be reprinted only with the authorization of its authors.

By:

• Harold L. Nixon, Vice President for Student Affairs, University of South Florida
• Joanne Risacher, Student Affairs Consultant to the University of South Florida
• Linda G. Anderson, Director of Consulting, Education Real Estate Services, Inc.

By the spring of 1996, the University of South Florida-Tampa Campus had come to the conclusion that the student housing system’s value as an asset, both financially and programmatically, was at risk and would experience further decline in the absence of significant capital and management improvements. A series of related issues were causing this threat to our system’s value -- occupancy levels were dropping, there was a significant level of deferred maintenance, one hall was off-line awaiting renovation, student preferences had changed since the housing was constructed, and we had a lack of financial resources to achieve the desired on-campus living environment. At the same time, we were facing another major pressure: enrollment is projected to increase by 25% over the next ten years, resulting in a campus master plan that called for the addition of 1,500 new bed spaces to the existing 2,600 bed system. We decided that these issues required a dramatic and immediate response.

The first major step we undertook was to form a Residence Life Advisory Committee (RLAC). The charge to the RLAC was to develop a long-range Comprehensive Housing Plan (CHP) for residence life that would support USF’s goal of becoming the "university of first choice" for students and meet the needs of a diverse student population. The CHP was to address both near-term issues and those that we would face into the 21st century. The RLAC was to identify and integrate information from many sources (including outside consultants) in developing recommendations first to the Vice President of Student Affairs and eventually to the President. The CHP was to include recommendations in the areas of management/organization, facilities, marketing, and programming. Each of these areas of evaluation was supported by a subcommittee composed of faculty, residence life staff, University staff, and students. In addition to the subcommittees, a steering committee comprised of the RLAC chair and sub-committee chair was established to facilitate communication between the campus constituencies and with outside consultants throughout the entire process. The involvement of a broad cross-section of the University community was critical to the success of the planning process for two main reasons. This approach (1) took advantage of the objectivity, knowledge and commitment of a large number of campus participants, and (2) built broad-based University support from the beginning of the process. While it may be easier and more expedient initially to address problems of this nature in a more insular manner, when faced with a magnitude of needed enhancements that require a commitment of University resources, garnering university-wide understanding of the challenge and support for a comprehensive solution is critical to achieving the desired results. The RLAC submitted its final report and recommendations on July 30, 1997.

Also, in July of 1996, we issued a Request for Proposals for a Comprehensive Study of Residence Life Program/Housing System on the USF-Tampa Campus. The RFP included detailed instructions for the submittal of responses, a description of the selection process and evaluation criteria, background information, specifications, and a proposed scope of services. The scope of services included analysis of existing conditions, current and potential markets, operations, residence life programs, financial, and new construction vs. renovations. The RFP was distributed through the university’s normal contracting for services procedures. Five firms responded to the RFP. Of these, three firms were selected to make campus presentations. We ultimately awarded the contract to a team led by the architectural firm Hanbury Evans Newill Vlattas (HENV). Team members included Education Real Estate Services, Inc. (formerly MPC Associates) which was responsible for the market, operational, and financial analyses; the Valladarez Group, which was responsible for the existing conditions analysis; and Carole Henry, Director of Housing at West Virginia University, who was responsible for the residence life analysis. The winning bid was $282,000 including reimbursable expenses. The consultant’s report was submitted April 2, 1997.

The result of the planning process was the creation of a CHP that is self-supporting and addresses both renovation and new construction needs, in addition to the inclusion of significant recommendations for enhanced residence hall programming and operations. The highlights of the study are as follows.

Existing Conditions Analysis: The existing conditions analysis revealed that there was $16.5 million in deferred maintenance in the residence halls. We had $6.8 million available in funding from the State University System of Florida’s Capital Improvement Trust Funds. With these limited initial funds, we had to decide on how to address the "hidden," but critical, deferred maintenance items while still trying to make a visible impact on the student life experience and perception. We also did not want to use this funding for upgrades to buildings that we would either demolish or substantially upgrade as a part of the CHP. These were difficult decisions, as we needed to select the $6.8 million in projects before the CHP was complete. We ultimately split this initial $6.8 million between these "hidden costs" and more visible improvements to lounges, entrances, pedestrian corridors, and technology upgrades. Additionally, we were able to complete a "refreshing" of the existing facilities on a quicker timeline than originally planned. The balance of needed improvements would need to be addressed through annual operations budgets, additional CITF allocations, private contributions or absorbed by the proposed renovations to each facility.

Market Analysis: The market analysis included focus groups, a written survey, a peer institution analysis, and a market comparable analysis. The bad news was that the off-campus market was very competitive. Off-campus units were plentiful and average rents in the off-campus market had increased only marginally over the past five years, while the rates for on-campus accommodations had increased rather dramatically. Students were unhappy about the physical condition of the residence halls, the lack of privacy, and the lack of amenities. The good news was that a wide variety of students indicated an interest in living on campus if facilities could be provided that met their needs. The demand analysis resulted in a conservative estimate of a need for 4,000 beds currently and 5,000 beds at the end of the ten-year planning horizon.

Operations Analysis: The operations analysis covered revenues, operating costs, debt service, non-operating costs, and reserves. Room revenues had been fairly level, as increased rents and decreased occupancy canceled each other out, but this was not a sustainable situation. Major cost components were compared to those of other colleges and universities to identify potential areas for cost savings. Operating costs at other institutions ranged between $3.65 to $9.00 per square foot and private developers operated at $4.25 per square foot while our costs were $8.47. Based on this information, we developed some immediate and long-term ways in which to reduce our costs to the recommended target of $7.00 per square foot. In terms of debt service, we had little to no capacity to handle additional debt once we took on the debt associated with the renovation of one of our halls that was already in the pipeline when the study was commissioned. This emphasized the fact that any CHP had to be self-supporting.

Residence Life Program Analysis: The residence life analysis resulted in an extensive listing of areas in which the program was operating smoothly as well as those areas that could benefit from changes. Major recommendations included (1) focusing on building partnerships with academic units to enhance the learning environment for students, (2) developing a first-year experience program to support the successful integration of new students into the university, (3) developing more opportunities for student employment in the department, (4) increasing the involvement of students in the decision-making processes of the department, and (5) developing special programs to attract transfer students. It should be noted that the University of South Florida receives a significant influx of transfer students each year from the extensive community college system in Florida.

New Construction vs. Renovations Analysis: Through an iterative planning process and series of on-site design workshops, the consultants presented a series of potential strategies for meeting our housing needs. The ultimate solution was therefore a product not just of the consultant, but of our staff as well.

The selected capital program contains a mix of demolition, renovation, and new construction. The CHP supported the demolition of our Village complex (550 beds) that had already been included in the Campus Master Plan. These apartment-style units, while popular with students, were not constructed for the long-term and soon will reach the end of their life expectancy. All remaining residence halls are to be renovated, and in some cases reconfigured either to decrease the number of double rooms/increase the number of single rooms or improve room layouts. The inclusion of appropriate student lounge spaces, academic support areas, technology enhancements and other amenities are projected to be included in all renovation projects. Upon completion of all renovation projects, the housing system will decrease by approximately 100 beds.

Approximately 2,400 new beds will be added to the system. Of these beds, 1,500 will be in apartments designed for non-traditional and graduate students and will be located in an area of the campus apart from the rest of the housing. The remaining beds will be designed for upper-division students and will include a variety of apartment-style arrangements as well as space for academic support, such as classrooms, a student success center, and offices for faculty associated with special residential programs; commercial ventures, such as copy centers and specialized food shops; and recreational spaces such as mini fitness centers.

Financial Analysis: The financial analysis was conducted using a spreadsheet model developed by the consultants. The model utilized inputs for each project, including the program, capital budget, schedule, financing, rental structure, and operating costs. With this input, the model built an operating statement for each project for the time horizon of the CHP, which, when aggregated for all projects, yielded a system operating pro forma. A series of graphs was produced that indicated the performance of the housing system in areas important to the University. The art of the process in which the consultant and our staff engaged was to vary the timing and other basic assumptions to yield a system that operates on a break-even or positive cash flow basis. As this process can result in several positive outcomes, we evaluated these alternatives based on how the alternative met our qualitative and quantitative goals.

In the end, our proposed baseline scenario "penciled", but was based on several key changes to the way we currently conduct business:

Based on the work of our Residence Life Advisory Committee and the consultant team, we are entering the initial phases of implementation. We are preparing a schedule for submitting documentation to the Board of Regents, including a request to allow our Foundation to serve as the 501(c)(3) umbrella for the project. To help accommodate this request, we are splitting the project into multiple phases. The first phase will include both new construction and renovation funding for one of our existing residence halls.

Due to the complexity of the recommendations and the need for continued university support and involvement, we are in the process of establishing a permanent advisory group to monitor and periodically evaluate the implementation of the CHP. Several programming initiatives were put in place for the start of the 1997 fall semester through collaborative efforts with the Honors Program, the College of Business, Information and Technology, and the Office of Academic Support Services. In addition, through restructuring of our contracting processes, initiating a price freeze program for continuing residential students and the hard work of our residence life staff, we have been blessed with a 100+% occupancy for the start of the 1997 fall semester, a strong indication of demand and of good things yet to come.

We are looking forward to the coming changes and the positive impact they will have on student satisfaction and learning. Because of the ideal combination of our internal planning process and the use of outside expertise, we are assured of having a sustainable CHP that is the product of consensus and reflects the needs both of the students and the campus as a whole.