The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 2 - 83

Public-Private Partnerships in College Student Housing

A culture of tradition. Amidst a tradition-oriented institutional culture, specific traditions
became associated with campus residence halls
because they remained largely unchanged for
more than 40 years. For example, certain residence halls had become recruitment centers
for specific fraternities and sororities. Multiple
generations had lived in some residence halls,
which carried specific visitation guidelines
(e.g., no men after 11 p.m.). Enduring these
basic conditions in some halls was viewed as
rite of passage for first-year students. This
culture of tradition provided some appeal for
students historically; however, UFM began
losing significant numbers of upperclassmen
from housing that threatened its viability. The
assistant director tasked with room selection
noted, "We're really going to start to see how
that legacy piece impacts us where a lot of the
students wanted to live in the building where
their parents lived. Or you had to live in [a
specific hall] to get in your sorority according
to myth. ... As we move away from those and
break those longstanding traditions, it will be
really interesting to see how that [affects] our
populations around."
A failed PPP. UFM's housing department
funded its new initiatives through bonds rather
than engage in another PPP. The decision was
based, in part, on a failed attempt at a PPP that
burdened the housing department with a loan
for what multiple administrators characterized
as "105% of the value of the building." Approximately five years ago, the housing department was pressured to assume management
of a building previously owned and operated by
a private company that received funding from
the university's foundation. The building was
located adjacent to campus, housed hundreds

of UFM students, and had even hired UFM students as community liaisons in roles similar to
resident advisors on campus. After just a few
years of operation, the building had deteriorated significantly and housing department staff
often fielded complaints from parents and students who lived in the facility. Senior administrators at UFM described the failure of the PPP
as a result of both a poor financial approach
and a lack of trust among the partners. One official noted that "The [UFM] board of trustees
decided that they wanted to dabble in the real
estate market ... and everyone who had been in
the profession long enough to have any sense
about this, was telling [UFM], this is a mistake.
They don't have the expertise to do it." A second
administrator more directly pointed to financial issues and mistrust among partners: "We
didn't plan on it at the time and when ... the
developer wanted to get rid of [the building], I
think the [UFM] president was in cahoots with
the developer and so [university housing was]
told to buy it. Like $56-$57 million. Now, we
have it in a debt." Thus, the housing department was forced to purchase and manage what
began as a partnership between the university
foundation and a private developer.
When the housing department assumed
management, it also assumed the debt and
maintenance on a poorly managed and maintained building. The sprinkler system did not
meet code requirements, residents had been
allowed to own pets and to smoke, and the
overall building construction quality was lower
than the standard for on-campus facilities. Accordingly, many administrators at UFM lacked
trust that another PPP would not leave them in
the same situation - burdened with unnecessary debt from a building over which they had

V O L U M E 4 3 , NO. 2 * 2 0 1 7

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 2