I would like to thank The Post for covering the housing master plan resolution that was recently approved by the Ohio University Board of Trustees. I would like to make a few corrections to Monday’s editorial “Bad Foundation: New housing master plan approved at improper time,” which provided a few points that may be misleading without a good understanding of the project.
The Post is correct in pointing to the financially difficult times that our state and university are facing. It might seem nonsensical for the university to propose financing a major housing project by issuing $190 million in debt financing, but as with everything, there is context behind this funding strategy.
The “deep south” is often how students refer to the residence halls on South Green located behind the front four; however, an administrator or staff member of the Department of Residential Housing would refer to these residence halls as “New South.”
These residence halls are among the youngest on campus; they were built in the early ’70s. Despite these residence halls being the “newest” of OU’s residence halls, they are among the most inefficient.
Every year, the university spends $14 million to $16 million annually on deferred maintenance problems. Approximately 40 percent of that budget is spent on New South alone, which makes up only 24 percent of all of OU’s residence halls.
New South is inefficient and costly to maintain; it is a large contributor to the deferred maintenance problems that our university faces. The housing plan calls for the demolition of New South, effectively removing the most inefficient and costly residence halls on campus and alleviating the “$480 million in backlog maintenance,” referred to in Monday’s editorial.
I also want to provide a clarifying point that the university is not adding 2,058 beds to our current housing stock. The 2,058 beds that the editorial refers to are not in addition to what we currently have, they are replacing the beds that would be demolished on New South. The plan calls for moderate growth of less than 100 additional beds in total.
The Post editorial also stated that “(t)his plan should not have been approved without a good idea of how it would be funded,” and that the trustees “need to think about their wallets.” The resolution that was passed by the Board of Trustees Friday in Zanesville did not approve the financing of this project.
The resolution that was passed simply allows the university to hire a project manager and consult with engineering firms so the university can come back to the board during its April meeting with a more exact grasp on the cost of the housing project. To put it simply, this plan was approved to better understand how it would be funded.
I would like to assure students that this plan was drafted with affordability in mind. This plan has been formulated so OU maintains its current standing in the state for overall affordability. The debt financing strategy was chosen over a public-private partnership because the latter would translate into higher costs for students and less student employment.
Lastly, the plan has been divided into four phases of construction and renovation. The university will not be required to commit to all four phases of the project.
The debt financing number of $190 million is the total cost of the four phases, and the university will have the discretion to revisit certain phases should the need arise; the university is not simply signing a check for $190 million and handing it over.
I personally think that this plan will be a tremendous asset for future Bobcats and for our university, especially when many other universities in Ohio have, or currently are, modernizing.
As a member of Residential Housing Advisory Committee, I would be happy to talk to anyone who may have questions or concerns about this project.
Kyle Triplett is a junior studying political science and a member of the Ohio University Board of Trustees.
