In the realm of campus
development, public-private partnerships are becoming a more common occurrence,
but are nothing new. The trend began nearly
20 years ago as cash-strapped colleges and universities looked to the private
sector to assist with the construction of student housing. Private development had been used previously to
construct bookstores, student centers, and offices, so upon a key IRS decision in
the 90's, housing was the next natural extension of this arrangement. Private
developers, with knowledge of real estate markets and the development process,
saw that their skills could marry well with universities' tax-exempt status,
land holdings, and constant stream of tenants.
Universities are finding that
this is a beneficial arrangement for a number of reasons. For one, it provides the obvious advantage of
deferring the delivery and budget risks to the developer as well lessening the
impact of the debt to the university's books. This also makes the developer
solely accountable for completing the project on time. When students sign contracts for the housing
months in advance, they and their parents fully expect to move in at the
designated date before the semester begins.
If a project gets behind schedule and the facility is not ready for
occupancy on day one of the contract, the developer is charged with finding
suitable accommodations, usually in a nearby hotel, and arranging
transportation to campus.
This partnership structure also
leads to a more manageable bidding process that greatly reduces the amount of
time and money needed to go from project inception to completion. As opposed to a standard process, whereby the
university bids out separately for planning, design, and construction services
in stages, with public-private development the university issues a single RFP
for full-service developer-led teams.
The developer is able to assemble a specialized team of architects,
engineers, and contractors and leads the process while working intimately with
university administration. The value of
this type of integrated planning is that it allows for the entire team to
discuss design and specification issues as they happen, rather than requiring
the construction team to loop back with the design team over discrepancies,
helping to keep the project on budget and on schedule. The development and construction process is
also more streamlined because the developer is required to guarantee the design
to the exact specifications agreed on by the University at a guaranteed
maximum price.
In the end, it's the
institution's students, faculty, or staff, not the development team, who will
be the users. As Vickie Hawkins, Director of Housing for Georgia Southern
University, states, what is most important in the relationship is to choose a
developer that is willing to treat the university as a customer and work
collaboratively. "When disagreements arose
on issues such as how much money was allocated to the project, interpretation
of the contract, or interpretation of the University's architectural standards,
the clear, open, and honest communication as well as the strong working
relationship that the university and developer had established was the key to
effectively resolving these issues. You
cannot have an adversarial relationship and get what you want out of the
project." The university's administration has to be very involved with
decisions on the design and material selection throughout the project.
Hawkins, who has been with
Georgia Southern University for 30 years, offers the following advice for
institutions seeking to enter into a public-private partnership.
·
Each state and
university is different. Find out how
your state addresses public-private development and what your college or
university administration desires from the project before moving forward. Some trustee
boards are more willing to take on risk than others to control the development
process and outcome. Also, contact
others who have been through the process to see what worked and what didn't to
get information that will help you make the best decision.
·
Ensure that the
RFP is as comprehensive and specific as possible so that developer teams know
what you are seeking and what to expect from the project.
·
Ensure that the
contract is strong with clear language to help avoid disputes because, in the
end, the contract guides the process.
·
For the University
and the developer, the detailed architectural design specifications provided a
high level of clarity so that Ambling knew what GSU wanted and GSU also could
refer back to the standards when disagreements in design came up. The specifications went from the broad to the
specific, including items such as the type of surveillance system to install and
bathtub faucets.
·
Ensure that you
work with a developer team that values open communication, an honest working
relationship, and collaboration to work out problems and keep everyone on the
same page.
·
Set expectations
of one another at the beginning and review them every few months to see how
well you are meeting them
Public-private partnerships do not work for all campus housing projects, but they do allow universities to drastically increase the stock of on-campus housing and other revenue producing campus facilities without relying on public money or donations. While it is too early to understand the long-term implications of this type of development, to date it has allowed a more efficient and collaborative process that can create a winning formula for both the universities and development teams involved.
-Erika Johnson

interesting about public private