Sul Ross State University
Housing Pilot Program Study
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
September 2002
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Pamela P. Willeford (Chair)
Martin Basaldua, M.D. (Vice Chair)
Raul B. Fernandez (Secretary of the Board)
Neal W. Adams
Ricardo G. Cigarroa, M.D.
Gen. Marc Cisneros (ret.)
Kevin Eltife
Jerry Farrington
Cathy Obriotti Green
Gerry Griffin
Carey Hobbs
Adair Margo
Lorraine Perryman
Curtis E. Ransom
Hector de J. Ruiz, Ph.D
Robert W. Shepard
Windy Sitton
Terdema L. Ussery II
Austin
Kingwood
San Antonio
Bedford
Laredo
Corpus Christi
Tyler
Dallas
San Antonio
Hunt
Waco
El Paso
Odessa
Dallas
Austin
Harlingen
Lubbock
Dallas
Coordinating Board Mission
The mission of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is to provide the
Legislature advice and comprehensive planning capability for higher education, to coordinate
the effective delivery of higher education, to administer efficiently assigned statewide programs,
and to advance higher education for the people of Texas.
THECB Strategic Plan
Coordinating Board Philosophy
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board will promote access to quality higher
education across the state with the conviction that access without quality is mediocrity and that
quality without access is elitism. The Board will be open, ethical, responsive, and committed to
public service. The Board will approach its work with a sense of purpose and responsibility to
the people of Texas and is committed to the best use of public monies.
THECB Strategic Plan
Executive Summary
The General Appropriations Act, Senate Bill 1 of the 77th Texas Legislature (Section 6,
Subsection 8(b), III-232) states that educational and general funds appropriated to a state
institution or agency may not be used for auxiliary enterprises. However, the housing needs of
smaller public institutions in the state has prompted the 77th Legislature to direct the Texas
Higher Education Coordinating Board to conduct a pilot program to study the amount of revenue
needed to pay for student housing at such an institution. Sul Ross State University met the
legislatively mandated criteria and was chosen as the small institution for this study. This
directive was made in the General Appropriations Act, Senate Bill 1 of the 77th Texas
Legislature (Section 53, III-245).
The Coordinating Board used the following methodology to conduct this study:
1. Identify five institutions that are similar in size, remote location, and student
demographic characteristics as Sul Ross State University.
2. Study these peer institutions to determine the quantity, quality, and cost of their oncampus housing and the availability of off-campus housing.
3. Determine what construction and/or renovations are needed to bring Sul Ross State
University’s housing within the 75th percentile of its peers.
4. Determine the revenue stream necessary to retire any debt issued for identified
construction needs.
The findings of this study are as follows:






Sul Ross State University has an adequate number of residential units available for
its students.
Residence halls require renovations to bring them up to the level of its peers,
including extensive renovations to Graves-Pierce Hall due to the fire safety issues
that have kept it closed for a number of years.
New single student apartments would be a more cost-effective alternative to
renovating the existing units.
Existing family housing units should be demolished and replaced with new
construction. Renovations to these structures would not be cost-effective due to
their age and condition.
Rent comparisons with its peers and available off-campus housing in Alpine indicate
that the university’s residence hall rates are reasonable, but the university could
charge more for its one-, two- and three-bedroom units.
None of the university’s peers use state funds for housing construction, renovation,
or maintenance; primary funding sources include housing revenues and approved
fees.
An estimated $20.1 million is needed to bring Sul Ross’ housing up to the level of its peers. The
following actions could be implemented to generate additional revenue to retire debt from
remodeling and new construction:

Improve the residence hall occupancy rates to a constant 90 to 95 percent from fall
to spring through increased enrollment, stricter housing policies, and updated
housing facilities.
i






Increase the rental rates charged to students living in single student apartments by
20 percent.
Increase the rental rates charged to students living in family housing by 25 percent.
Initiate a housing fee. Many peer institutions in this study charge between $45 and
$90 per semester.
Increase energy efficiency by renovating or replacing existing housing units.
Increase gifts/donations that can be applied to housing improvements.
Explore grant opportunities. Federal or state agencies and foundations offer grants
for which the university may qualify.
The implementation of these actions would produce a revenue stream to support debt of
approximately $7 million. Additional revenue sources need to be identified for the additional
$13.1 million needed to complete required construction.
ii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. i
Background .............................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose of the Housing Pilot Program................................................................................... 2
Sul Ross State University Housing – Existing Conditions.................................................... 3
Study Rationale ........................................................................................................................ 4
Peer Institutions ....................................................................................................................... 5
Adams State College .............................................................................................................. 5
Chadron State College ........................................................................................................... 6
Georgia Southwestern State University .................................................................................. 7
Southern Arkansas University – Magnolia .............................................................................. 8
Western New Mexico University ............................................................................................. 9
Comparison .............................................................................................................................11
Quantity .................................................................................................................................11
Quality – Dorms .....................................................................................................................11
Quality – Apartments and Family Housing .............................................................................12
Housing Costs .......................................................................................................................14
Funding .................................................................................................................................15
Findings ...................................................................................................................................17
Sul Ross State University Master Plan ..................................................................................18
Cost Estimates and Possible Revenue Sources ...................................................................19
Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................22
Appendix A: Sul Ross State University Housing Pictures...………………………………...A-1
Appendix B: Questionnaire………………………………………………………………………..B-1
Appendix C: Institutional Housing Department Contacts……………………………………C-1
Appendix D: Institutional Housing Conditions………………………………………………...D-1
Appendix E: Sul Ross State University Housing Revenue and Expense Report
for Fiscal Year 2001…………………………………………………………………E-1
i
Background
Sul Ross State University is located in Alpine, Texas, approximately 150 miles from
Midland/Odessa. Alpine, with a population of approximately 6,000 people, is considered the
gateway to the Big Bend Country. Its location features multi-cultural Indian, Spanish, Mexican,
and Anglo characteristics. This cultural mix is reflected in the demographics of the university’s
student population.
The institution was created in 1917 as a training college for teachers. In 1920, the college’s first
class had 77 students. Since that time, the institution has undergone many changes. In 1969,
the Legislature changed the name of the college to Sul Ross State University. Branch
campuses were created in Del Rio, Eagle Pass, and Uvalde in conjunction with Southwest
Texas Junior College. Known as the Sul Ross State University Rio Grande College, these
campuses do not offer housing to their students. This study focuses on Sul Ross State
University’s main campus in Alpine.
Currently, the university offers certificates, associate, bachelor’s, and master’s degrees in
programs within three schools:



Arts and Sciences,
Professional Studies, and
Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences.
Although Sul Ross’ enrollment has grown over the last several decades, the university’s main
campus enrollment has decreased since 1997. Current enrollment figures hover around 2,000
total students. Of these, approximately 25 percent are pursuing master’s degrees. The
demographic breakdown of the student body:



Approximately 97 percent of the students are state residents,
Over 40 percent of students are Hispanic, and
Approximately 90 percent of all students receive some form of financial aid.
Sul Ross offers its students a number of housing options, including three residence halls, three
single student apartment complexes, and two family housing complexes. There are over 450
residence hall beds available for use, which are primarily assigned to freshmen and sophomore
students at the institution. Sul Ross’ residence halls experience significant fluctuations in
occupancy rates each year – sometimes as much as a 50 percent decrease from the fall to the
spring. On the other hand, the more than 100 apartments and family housing units are
extremely popular, maintaining an average 90 percent occupancy rate throughout the year.
Overall, 31.8 percent of the university’s student body currently resides on campus.
The university’s housing policy requires single students under 20 years of age and with less
than 45 semester credit hours to reside in a residence hall unless they:





Are married,
Have a child,
Reside with their parents, grandparents, or legal guardian,
Are veterans and have spent at least 24 months on active duty, or
Are 21 years of age or older by the first class day of the semester.
1
Purpose of the Housing Pilot Program
According to the Special Provisions Relating Only to State Agencies of Higher Education,
Section 6, Subsection 8 of the General Appropriations Act, 77th Legislature, educational and
general funds appropriated to an institution or agency in the state may not be used for auxiliary
enterprises. However, the housing needs of smaller public institutions in the state prompted the
77th Legislature to direct the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to conduct a pilot
program to study the amount of revenue needed to pay for student housing at such an
institution, as stated in the Special Provisions of the General Appropriations Act:
Sec. 53. Housing Pilot Program. As part of the review mandated in Section 49
(Formula Funding Study) the Higher Education Coordinating Board shall provide for a
pilot program at the smallest public university within the Texas State University
System in a county along the Texas/Mexico border. Notwithstanding the limitations
elsewhere in this Act, the Legislature expressly finds that there is a demonstrated
need to provide funding for improving student housing at a small university in this
state in order to study the effect of formula funding on small institutions. The pilot
program shall allow such university to use education and general funds for the limited
purpose of providing student housing. The pilot program shall study the amount of
revenue necessary at small universities to bond or otherwise pay for student housing
in the event the limitations in Section 6, Subsection 8 (Appropriations Expenditure
Authorization) or similar legislation remain in place. The board and the university
shall report the results of the pilot program to the Legislative Budget Board no later
than January 2, 2003.
Sec. 6. Expenditure Provisions.
8. Appropriation Expenditure Authorization.
b. No educational and general funds appropriated to any institution or
agency named in this article may be expended on auxiliary enterprises,
unless specifically authorized in this Act.
2
Sul Ross State University Housing – Existing Conditions
Sul Ross offers its students a variety of different housing options, ranging from residence halls
to apartments. Sul Ross has three residence halls, although one has been closed for a number
of years due to fire safety issues.
Residence Hall
Year
Built
Year
Renovated
Total Number
of Beds
Spring 2001
Occupancy
Fall 2001
Occupancy
Mountainside
Hall
1969
–
350
47%
97%
Fletcher Hall
1963
–
110
83%
94%
Graves-Pierce
Hall
1966
–
120
closed
closed
Students who satisfy the residential living policy by the first class day of a semester are
permitted to move out of the residence halls and into an on-campus apartment or off-campus
residence. Single students have the option of three different on-campus apartment facilities:
Year
Built
Year
Renovated
Total Number
of Units
Spring 2001
Occupancy
Fall 2001
Occupancy
Marquis Hall
1958
1982
17
N/A
N/A
Smith Hall
1961
1981
24
N/A
N/A
Brick Cottages
1948
–
28
N/A
N/A
69
85%
92%
Apartment
Total
Students with families may choose to reside in one of the following facilities:
Apartment
Year
Built
Year
Renovated
Total Number
of Units
Spring 2001
Occupancy
Fall 2001
Occupancy
Rock Cottages
1935
–
17
N/A
N/A
Duplexes
1950
–
39
N/A
N/A
56
89%
92%
Total
Sul Ross officials believe that the institution’s housing should be upgraded because housing
quality may be a big draw to prospective students or, alternatively, a deterrent. Sul Ross
currently has closed a number of apartment units due to various fire safety, structural, and
plumbing problems that it believes are not cost-effective to repair due to the age of the
buildings. The institution would demolish most of its apartment buildings in favor of a more
modern complex if appropriate funds were available. Sul Ross would also renovate its
residence halls to provide certain amenities that are currently lacking in their existing facilities.
See Appendix A for pictures of the university’s housing.
3
Study Rationale
To meet the requirements of the special provision requesting this study, a methodology was
developed by the Coordinating Board in consultation with Sul Ross officials. This methodology
uses comparisons between Sul Ross and institutions with similar student demographics, sizes,
and remote locations to determine how well Sul Ross’ housing compares with other institutions’
housing facilities in quantity, quality, and student cost.
Due to Sul Ross’ small size and remote location, it was not feasible to compare it with any other
public institution in Texas. Instead, schools across the country were studied to determine how
closely they matched certain Sul Ross characteristics. The following five public colleges and
universities were chosen for this study and accepted by Sul Ross prior to the study:





Adams State College in Alamosa, Colorado
Chadron State College in Chadron, Nebraska
Georgia Southwestern State University in Americus, Georgia
Southern Arkansas University – Magnolia, in Magnolia, Arkansas
Western New Mexico University in Silver City, New Mexico
These institutions were chosen because they were similar to Sul Ross State University in the
following manner:





Size of the city in which they are located,
Size of the student population,
Demographics of the student population,
Percentage of students receiving financial aid, and
On-campus housing availability.
A questionnaire requesting information on the quality and cost of on-campus housing, as well as
the funding sources used to build, renovate, and maintain their housing facilities and the
availability of off-campus housing (See Appendix B), was sent to each institution’s housing
department. After answers were received, a conference call was set up to discuss their housing
in more detail.
The results of the questionnaire and phone calls were used to estimate how much funding
would be required to bring Sul Ross’ housing up to the 75th percentile of its peers in quantity,
quality, and cost to students. After this amount was determined, possible methods to finance
these improvements were considered.
See Appendix C for a list of institutional housing department contacts.
4
Peer Institutions
Adams State College
Adams State College is located in Alamosa, Colorado, a city with a population of less than
10,000 people. Situated in the San Luis Valley 220 miles south of Denver and 200 miles north
of Albuquerque, New Mexico, this college offers associate’s, bachelor’s, and master’s degrees
in over 50 areas of study. Programs of study fall within the following schools:




Education and Graduate Studies,
Arts and Letters,
Business, and
Science, Mathematics, and Technology.
The demographic breakdown of the student body yields the following:



Approximately 75 percent of the students are state residents,
Approximately 30 percent of students are minorities, and
Approximately 77 percent of all students receive some form of financial aid.
Of the almost 2,500 students who attend classes on campus, over 44 percent live on campus.
Adams State College housing includes three residence halls, three apartment complexes, and
three family housing complexes.
Adams State College requires students under 21 years of age to live on campus, unless they:





Are married,
Have a child,
Reside with their parents,
Have lived on campus for at least four consecutive semesters, or
Have obtained 30 credit hours with a 3.50 grade point average.
Adams State College
Residence Hall, Exterior
Adams State College
Residence Hall, Interior
5
Adams State College
Apartment, Interior
Adams State College
Apartment, Interior
Chadron State College
Chadron State College is located in Chadron, Nebraska, approximately 240 miles from
Cheyenne, Wyoming and 260 miles from Pierre, South Dakota. About 5,600 people live in the
Chadron area. The college offers bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the following schools:




Business and Applied Sciences,
Education and Graduate Studies,
Liberal Arts, and
Math and Science
The demographic breakdown of the student body yields the following:



Approximately 68 percent of the students are state residents,
Less than 10 percent of students are minorities, and
Approximately 54 percent of all students receive some form of financial aid.
The college houses about 40 percent of the approximately 2,500 students attending classes on
campus. Chadron State College offers single students a choice of seven different residence
halls (although one is currently out of service). Married students and students with children
have the option of living in one of two apartment complexes.
Chadron State College requires freshmen to live on campus, unless they:



Are married,
Have a child, or
Reside with their parents.
6
Chadron State College
Foreground: Kent Hall
Background: 11-Story High-Rise Residence Hall
Chadron State College
Residence Hall, Interior
Georgia Southwestern State University
Georgia Southwestern State University, located in Americus, Georgia, is 135 miles south of
Atlanta. Americus has a population of approximately 17,000 people. The university offers
associate’s, bachelor’s, and master’s degrees from the following schools:





Arts and Sciences,
Business Administration,
Computer and Information Science,
Education, and
Nursing.
The demographic breakdown of the student body yields the following:



Approximately 95 percent of the students are state residents,
Almost 30 percent of students are minorities, and
Approximately 76 percent of all students receive some form of financial aid.
With approximately 2,500 students attending classes on campus, the university houses 20
percent of them in five residence halls. The university does not offer apartment living.
Georgia Southwestern State University requires students under 21 years of age and with less
than 60 credit hours to live on campus, unless they:




Are married,
Have a child,
Reside with their parents, or
Have lived on campus for at least four consecutive semesters.
7
Georgia Southwestern State University
Residence Hall: Jordan Hall
Georgia Southwestern State University
Residence Hall: Duncan Hall
Southern Arkansas University – Magnolia
Southern Arkansas University is located in Magnolia, Arkansas, a city with a population of
almost 11,000 people. Situated 55 miles from Texarkana, this university offers associate’s,
bachelor’s, and master’s degrees in over 40 areas of study. Programs of study fall within the
following schools:




Business Information,
Education Information,
Liberal and Performing Arts Information, and
Science and Technology Information.
The demographic breakdown of the student body yields the following:



Approximately 78 percent of the students are state residents,
Approximately 23 percent of students are minorities, and
Approximately 54 percent of all students receive some form of financial aid.
Of the nearly 2,800 students who attend classes on campus, over 35 percent live on campus in
six residence halls. The college has no apartments on campus.
Southern Arkansas University – Magnolia requires students under 21 years of age and with less
than 60 credit hours to live on campus, unless they:




Are married,
Have a child,
Reside with their parents, or
Are in the military.
8
Southern Arkansas University – Magnolia
Residence Hall: Harrod Hall
Southern Arkansas University – Magnolia
Residence Hall: Talley Hall Lounge
Southern Arkansas University – Magnolia
Residence Hall: Harrod Hall
Southern Arkansas University – Magnolia
Residence Hall: Greene Hall
Western New Mexico University
Western New Mexico University, located in Silver City, New Mexico, is approximately 150 miles
from El Paso, Texas. Silver City has a population of over 10,000 people. The university serves
just over 3,000 students with on-campus courses, offering associate’s, bachelor’s, and master’s
degrees within the following academic departments:














Applied Technology
Business, Economics, and
Public Administration,
Criminal Justice,
Expressive Arts,
Humanities,
Law Enforcement Academy,
Mathematics and Computer
Science,
Natural Sciences,
Nursing,
9
Occupational Therapy,
School of Education,
Social Science,
Social Work, and
Wellness and Movement
Science.
The demographic breakdown of the student body yields the following:



Approximately 76 percent of the students are state residents,
Over 40 percent of students are minorities, and
Approximately 92 percent of all students receive some form of financial aid.
The university houses only about 10 percent of the students attending classes on campus.
Western New Mexico University housing includes three residence halls, one apartment
complex, and one family housing complex.
Western New Mexico University requires students under 21 years of age and with less than 30
semester hours to live on campus, unless they live with their parents.
Western New Mexico University
Residence Hall: Ritch Hall
Western New Mexico University
Residence Hall: Centennial Hall
Western New Mexico University
Apartments: Regents Row
Western New Mexico University
Family Housing: Muir Heights
10
Comparison
Quantity
Occupancy rates at Sul Ross show that its apartment and family housing are popular, with an
average 90 percent occupancy for fall 2001. However, according to the 1998 to 2001
occupancy statistics provided by Sul Ross, residence halls experience a significant drop in
occupancy from the fall semester to the spring semester, sometimes as much as 50 percent.
This decline is attributed to two major causes. First, students who reside in residence halls are
mostly freshmen and sophomores because Sul Ross’ housing policy requires students less than
20 years of age and with less than 45 semester credit hours to reside in on-campus residence
halls. Some of these students, for various reasons, leave Sul Ross after the fall semester.
Second, there are students who, after reaching 20 years of age and the required credit hours,
become eligible during the fall semester to leave the residence halls in favor of apartments or
off-campus housing.
Currently, 31.8 percent of Sul Ross’ students live in university housing. This is lower than the
40.7 percent reported by the 75th percentile of its peers. To reach this percentage, Sul Ross
would have to add 136 beds. With the fluctuations in dormitory occupancy rates, it would seem
inadvisable to build another residence hall because this may cause occupancy rates to creep
even lower. Graves-Pierce residence hall has been closed for fire safety reasons; however, the
university plans to renovate this facility and put it back in operation, which would provide an
additional 120 beds – bringing the institution in line with its peers.
With Sul Ross’ current occupancy rates, the quantity of its housing does not seem to be an
issue. Although Sul Ross includes increasing its enrollment figures as one of its goals, opening
Graves-Pierce should provide the institution with enough housing to meet future growth in
demand.
Quality – Dorms
The average age of Sul Ross’ dormitories is 35 years. This is in line with the 75th percentile of
its peers. Two peer institutions have renovated dorms within the last 10 years. On a scale of 1
to 5, with 1 being Excellent, the 75th percentile condition rating for the five peer institutions’
dorms is 2.3. Western New Mexico University, with the newest dormitories and most recent
renovations, averaged 4.0 on its condition assessments, possible because it has the lowest
percentage of students residing on campus – less than 10 percent – and, therefore, collects the
least amount of housing revenue.
Sul Ross has a total of three dormitories, but Graves-Pierce has been unused for a number of
years from lack of funds to address fire safety issues. Although Sul Ross originally rated its two
remaining dormitories at a 4.0, the Coordinating Board upgraded the condition rating to a 3.0
after its October 2001 site visit. Sul Ross indicated that routine maintenance on its housing
includes painting and refinishing woodwork where needed, but no major renovations have been
performed on these buildings.
11
The amenities offered in Sul Ross’ dormitories are comparable to its peer institutions in many
respects. All the institutions claim to offer furnished rooms, Internet access, and access to
laundry facilities. However, Sul Ross housing facilities lack many amenities:





Computer labs. The majority of Sul Ross’ peers have computer labs in all of their
dormitories, even if those labs only house five computers.
Air conditioning. Many of Sul Ross’ peers have some sort of air conditioning in their
dormitories. Southern Arkansas University – Magnolia has in-room control.
Fire sprinklers. Not all peer institutions have this safety feature in all their
dormitories, but those that do have not limited their application solely to buildings
greater than four stories.
Access for persons with disabilities. Three of the five peer institutions have this
accommodation in at least one of their dormitories.
Security card access. Two of the five peer institutions have this security measure in
all their dormitories.
The above listed modifications should place Sul Ross’ dormitories within the 75th percentile of
its peers.
In addition to the above renovations, Graves-Pierce Hall would require extensive work to bring it
up to date and up to code. First, the state’s fire safety code requires that a fire within a dorm
room be contained within that room for a specified period of time, but the construction of the
building leaves pockets of air between the corridor and the rooms that could potentially reduce
this time significantly. These gaps must be eliminated before this residence hall could be
operational. Second, Graves-Pierce is the only dormitory on campus that does not contain a
laundry facility. Third, this residence hall contains group showers, an outdated layout.
Mountainside Hall has a dining area on the top floor that is no longer used because a new
dining facility has opened in the university’s student union. The unused dining area provides
space that could be used for a variety of purposes, but some of the area should be considered
for use as a computer lab for dorm residents.
Quality – Apartments and Family Housing
The average age of Sul Ross’ apartments is 45 years, while its family housing units are over 60
years old. The duplexes used to house families were moved onto campus in the 1950s, but
were used as barracks on an Army base well before this time, and their exact age is unknown
by university officials.
See Appendix D for the housing condition information received from each institution.
Although there are only three peer institutions in this study that offer apartments or family
housing to their students, Chadron State College representatives were unable to speak with the
Coordinating Board by phone to provide the information necessary to include its family housing
in this study. The information provided on apartments and family housing pertains to Adams
State College and Western New Mexico University only. The average age of their apartments
and family buildings is 40 years. Both peer institutions and Sul Ross have renovated these
facilities within the last 20 years. The 75th percentile condition rating for the two peer
12
institutions’ apartments and family housing is 3.0, although Western New Mexico University
renovated one of its apartment buildings less than five years ago and rates the condition of
these apartments at a 4.0. Sul Ross rates its apartments and family housing units at a 4.0.
When comparing Sul Ross’ apartments and family housing to those of its peers, a number of
differences emerge:





Adams State College has three-bedroom apartments that can house up to six
students. Western New Mexico University stated it would construct this layout, if
given the opportunity, because of a change in student living needs. Western New
Mexico University currently offers efficiencies to its single students. Like its New
Mexico counterpart, Sul Ross would prefer to move to a more community-like layout.
For its single students, Sul Ross offers apartments ranging from one-bedroom
efficiencies in two of its complexes to one-bedroom efficiencies in autonomous brick
cottages.
The two apartment complexes on Sul Ross’ campus offer Internet access. Neither
Adams State College nor Western New Mexico University offers this in their
apartments.
All Adams State College and Western New Mexico University apartment complexes
contain laundry facilities. Sul Ross’ apartment residents are required to use the
facilities located in the residence halls.
Unlike its peers, Sul Ross’ families are not housed in complexes, but in single unit
structures of various sizes.
All Adams State College family housing facilities are at least partially furnished and
contain laundry facilities or washer/dryer hookups. Sul Ross offers neither of these
amenities.
Sul Ross staff said that some apartment units have been unsuitable for use due to major
plumbing and flooring problems, but there is no clear documentation supporting their claim that
these repairs are not cost-effective alternatives to demolition and new construction. One of the
major reasons given by staff to support their claim is that asbestos exists in many of their
structures. Consequently, repairs and renovations performed on any of these structures would
require additional funds to address asbestos abatement, which can add thousands of dollars to
a project. Housing staff also noted that there were four apartments within the Marquis complex
that were unsuitable for use due to their location. According to the State Fire Marshal, they are
too far away from the exit stairs.
Apartment occupancy rates at Sul Ross do not seem to fluctuate as dramatically as the
dormitory rates. Available off-campus housing is extremely limited, which is believed to be the
driving factor in the high occupancy rates. Sul Ross has made numerous attempts to lure
apartment developers to the area, but to no avail. The university believes that it has a larger
responsibility than most institutions to provide adequate and affordable on-campus apartments
for its students due to the lack of other housing options in the area. Both peer institutions with
on-campus apartments stated this same problem.
Sul Ross believes that the brick cottages, affectionately called their “Monopoly houses,” have an
historic and sentimental value that should prevent their demolition. Unfortunately, it is difficult to
renovate these small structures to add certain amenities, such as laundry hookups, due to their
size and autonomy. These brick cottages make up the majority of student apartments, and they
have the highest occupancy rating (96 percent for fall 2001).
13
Sul Ross’ main concern with its apartments and family housing is not their functionality, but their
ability to meet the current desires of their student population. Marquis and Smith Apartments
were built circa 1960 as residence halls, but in the early 1980s they were converted to
apartments by merging two rooms into a single efficiency apartment, converting one room into a
bathroom, kitchen, and breakfast area. Although functional, they lack the charm of many more
modern apartments available on other campuses in the state.
On the other hand, Sul Ross’ family housing has not undergone major renovations since their
introduction to the campus. The rock cottages, like the brick cottages, are appealing in
appearance. However, their age is a significant factor in determining whether or not they should
be “saved.” Although well maintained, their autonomy makes it less cost-effective to invest
funds into repairing or updating certain areas of these homes, such as replacing the tile flooring
or adding air conditioning. The same could be said of the duplexes. Moved to the campus in
the 1950s, these 39 structures are very well maintained and popular with families, but a highway
must be crossed to reach the university. The duplexes front this highway. Although there is a
small access road between the duplexes and the highway, the proximity of high-speed (albeit
light) traffic to children must be a concern for parents.
Compared to the peer institutions, Sul Ross’ family housing is extremely outdated. If the rock
cottages and duplexes were combined units rather than multiple separate structures, the
Coordinating Board would have investigated in more detail the cost of renovating them. But
because of their age, and the fact that no major renovations have been performed on them
since their construction, the Coordinating Board recommends that these structures be
demolished and new apartments be built.
The Coordinating Board staff believes that the student apartments should be demolished and
replaced with modern complexes to achieve equality with peer institutions. Peer institution
apartments are of similar age, but the Sul Ross facilities have outdated layouts and lack modern
appliances and amenities. More modern facilities would be attractive to students contemplating
enrollment at Sul Ross, but cost is the driving factor behind recommending new construction
versus renovation.
Housing Costs
Housing fee amounts charged to students depend upon a number of factors, including:




Housing type (residence hall versus apartment),
Layout (typical dormitory rooms versus suites),
Approved rental rate increases, and
Off-campus housing availability and cost.
For the 2001-2002 academic year, Sul Ross charged an average of $848 per semester (double
occupancy) and $1,273 per semester (single occupancy). Adams State College skews the
average due to a rental rate increase that students approved in 1993. This increase allowed the
college to increase rents 10 percent per year for five years. After those five years, the college
could apply additional increases as needed – and it has been doing so. If Adams State College
is included in the calculations, Sul Ross should be charging closer to $950 per semester (double
14
occupancy) and $1,425 per semester (single occupancy). On the other hand, if Adams State
College is not included due to the rental increases it has applied over the last eight years, the
75th percentile values drop to $834 per semester (double occupancy) and $1,285 per semester
(single occupancy), which are in-line with Sul Ross’ current charges.
Because there are so few peer institutions that offer apartments and family housing to their
students, it is difficult to make a clear cost comparison between them. Adams State College
has applied its rental rate increase to their apartments and family housing, which makes a
comparison even more difficult. Both Adams State College and Western New Mexico University
note that off-campus housing availability is limited, a complaint shared by Sul Ross. However,
Adams State College seems to charge fees that are comparable to off-campus apartment rental
rates, while Western New Mexico University and Sul Ross are almost 25 percent lower than
local off-campus rates.
Comparing Sul Ross apartment and family housing costs to Alpine’s off-campus apartment
costs seems to be the fairest way to determine whether or not Sul Ross could conceivably
charge more for their on-campus apartments. Based upon the information provided by Sul
Ross’ housing staff, the average cost for a one-bedroom off-campus apartment, including
utilities, is $349 per month, while two- and three-bedrooms average $397 per month. Sul Ross
currently charges an average $298 per month for a one-bedroom/efficiency apartment and $317
for two- and three-bedroom cottages/duplexes, including utilities. This difference in costs
suggests that there is room for a significant rate increase before off-campus apartment
competition would be matched.
Sul Ross has a number of housing units occupied during the summer months, when its
residence halls are approximately 25 percent full and apartments are about 90 percent full.
Rates during this time are roughly the same per month as those charged during the fall and
spring.
Funding
The revenues that Sul Ross’ housing receives come primarily from the rental fees the institution
charges to students during the fall, spring, and summer sessions. There is also a small amount
of money received from forfeited housing deposits, guest fees, and special events, but it is
minimal (approximately $17,000 for Fiscal Year 2001). There are no mandatory, nonrefundable
housing fees charged to students at this time.
For Fiscal Year 2001, Sul Ross received $970,512 in housing revenue. Almost $100,000 of this
revenue was received from summer tenants. Approximately $535,000 was used to operate and
maintain the university’s housing (almost 70 percent of this went to utilities). Sul Ross has
indicated that its housing revenue will not meet budgeted expenditures for Fiscal Year 2002,
which include costs associated with their physical plant, custodial needs, and housing
administration. Designated Funds from the university’s General Use Fee have been used in the
past to make up the deficit. See Appendix E for a general breakdown of revenues and
expenditures for Fiscal Year 2001.
Sul Ross had planned to use approximately $620,000 in state-appropriated funds to renovate its
brick cottages. However, due to increased renovation costs, other options are being
considered.
15
The five peer institutions included in this study share similar funding characteristics with Sul
Ross. All five indicated that none of their housing is owned or operated by private developers.
All five stated that they receive no funds from the state to build, renovate, or otherwise maintain
their on-campus housing. Their funds are received from a variety of sources:





Adams State College
o Rental rate increases. Approved in 1993, this increase was 10 percent for
the first five years, and as needed thereafter. Last year, a 2.7 percent
increase was applied.
o A $7.9 million bond was recently approved to renovate a number of buildings.
This bond will be repaid using housing revenue.
Chadron State College
o All its residence halls have been built using revenue bonds.
Georgia Southwestern State University
o Donations from the Georgia Southwestern Foundation, which raises,
manages, and administers gift funds for the university.
o Housing revenues.
Southern Arkansas University – Magnolia
o Original residence hall construction was funded with revenue bonds.
o A $90 fee per semester is charged to students living on campus to help pay
for necessary repairs and renovations. It is included in their room and board
charge.
o The housing department has access to a general university fund, which may
be used as needed. The housing department contributes to this fund, as it is
one of the few departments on campus that generates revenue. This fund
will provide $10 million in debt service for housing renovations to begin in
2002.
Western New Mexico University
o A $45 fee per semester is charged to students to pay for housing
renovations. This fee was approved in 1997, with the agreement that it would
not increase for 20 years. A $1.5 million bond was used to fund various
housing renovations, to be paid for with this student fee.
o The university has a contract with Sodexho Marriott to handle repairs. This
contract allows the housing department to use the funds originally budgeted
for repair and renovation for other purposes.
o Operation and maintenance are funded from housing revenues.
o There are plans to apply for a federal grant to replace the large windows in
family housing. The government’s focus on energy conservation makes the
university believe it has a good chance to receive such a grant.
Funding sources seem to vary from institution to institution, but some similarities are evident:


Housing revenues are the main source used to fund housing construction,
renovations, and maintenance.
Three of the five institutions recently applied rate or fee increases to fund repairs and
renovations.
16
Findings
Based upon the comparisons made between Sul Ross and the peer institutions used for this
study, the following conclusions are presented:

The quantity of on-campus student housing is not a major issue at Sul Ross.
Occupancy rates for its residence halls indicate that the university offers more than
enough rooms to its single students. Apartment and family housing occupancy rates
are stable at a healthy 90 percent. If Sul Ross re-opens Graves-Pierce Hall, the
amount of housing available to its students will be in line with its peers.

The condition of residence halls at Sul Ross is below that of its peers. To bring the
universities dormitories up to the 75th percentile of its peers, a number of amenities
should be added, including computer labs, air conditioning, and various fire and
safety updates. Graves-Pierce Hall will require extensive renovations, including the
elimination of its group shower layout and the addition of laundry facilities, to bring it
up to an acceptable level.

The layout, lack of modern amenities, and various life safety issues make renovating
Sul Ross’ student apartments a necessity. However, the presence of asbestos in
some facilities, the institution’s location, and the individual set-up of the brick
cottages make demolition and new construction a more cost-effective choice.

Due to the age of Sul Ross’ family housing and the isolated layout of its units,
renovations to these structures are not deemed cost-effective. Renovations to these
facilities have not been made during the more than 60 years they have been on
campus. Demolition and new construction could be the most appropriate alternative.

Housing cost comparisons with Sul Ross’ peers and available off-campus housing in
Alpine indicate that rates for Sul Ross residence halls are reasonable. However,
rental rates for Sul Ross apartment units are 15 to 25 percent lower than the average
rates for off-campus apartments, indicating that Sul Ross could charge more.

None of Sul Ross’ peer institutions are provided funds from their state governments
for housing construction, renovation, or maintenance. Primary funding sources are
housing revenues and approved fees, both of which are often used to pay back
revenue bonds.
17
Sul Ross State University Master Plan
On October 11, 2000, the Texas State University System Board of Regents adopted a Campus
Master Plan for Sul Ross State University. Darrow, McSpedden, Sellars, Inc., an architectural
firm in San Angelo, Texas, prepared this master plan with input from university faculty and staff.
The following outlines the housing demolition, renovation, and construction plans the university
has included in the report:



Demolition
o Smith Hall (24 units)
o Marquis Hall (17 units)
o Rock Cottages (17 units)
o Duplexes (39 units)
Renovations to modernize rooms and bathroom facilities, and to address comfort
and safety for residents
o Mountainside Hall
o Graves-Pierce Hall
o Brick Cottages
New Construction
o 40 two-bedroom apartments for single students
o 40 two-bedroom and 20 three-bedroom family apartments, with a secure
playground area, adequate parking, and a meeting room
The findings of this study agree with many of the plans Sul Ross has laid out. The Coordinating
Board would agree that Smith Hall, Marquis Hall, the Rock Cottages, and the Duplexes are
prime candidates for demolition and that new apartments would be necessary to offset the lost
units. Also, the renovations Sul Ross has listed in its master plan for Mountainside Hall and
Graves-Pierce Hall are improvements that would help bring its residence halls in line with its
peers. These would include:






Addressing life safety codes and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
requirements,
Adding computer labs,
Adding services to accommodate modern technology and appliances,
Installing individual air control,
Modernizing bathroom facilities, and
Identifying and addressing security and safety concerns.
Plans included in the master plan report that are not supported by the study findings are:

Renovating the Brick Cottages
18
Cost Estimates and Possible Revenue Sources
The following table lists the estimated costs necessary to bring Sul Ross’ housing up to the level
of its peers, as listed in this study. Gross square feet and renovation cost estimates were
obtained from Sul Ross’ master plan. Demolition and new construction cost estimates are
based upon similar projects approved by the Coordinating Board in the last five years.
Gross Square Feet
Facility
Family
Apartments
Rock Cottages
New
Construction
Renovation
Demolition
37,396
Total Cost
$4,113,560
8,110
$81,100
24,073
$240,730
Duplexes
Student
Apartments
Brick Cottages
25,000
$2,723,560
10,080
$100,080
14,400
$144,400
13,204
$132,040
Smith Hall
Marquis Hall
Mountainside
Hall
Graves-Pierce
Hall
Total
62,396
94,942
$9,494,000
24,847
$3,105,875
119,789
69,867
$20,135,345
For Fiscal Year 2001, Sul Ross’ housing department experienced a deficit of $30,907 that was
eventually covered by the university’s General Use Fee. Although this source is available for
such uses, ideally the housing department should be able to cover its expenses with the
revenues it generates.
The revenue sources to retire the $20.1 million bond issue required to implement the master
plan have not been identified. However, four major concerns arise when considering the use of
state appropriations to cover housing improvement costs:


First, no other institution in the state or any of the peer institutions has been
permitted to fund housing construction, renovations, or maintenance with state
appropriations. However, Sul Ross is somewhat different from other public
universities in the state because of its remote location and student demographics.
Second, permitting an institution to use state appropriations to fund auxiliary
enterprises is setting a precedent that may not be desirable. Such a decision would
open the door to other institutions to make their case for similar actions.
19


Third, none of the peer institutions in this study use state-appropriated funds to cover
their housing projects.
Fourth, without a demonstrated plan to increase residential student enrollment, the
planned housing units may not be needed. Without a demonstrated plan to increase
occupancy rates, the student housing may not be able to cover current operating
costs.
Because none of the peer institutions that share characteristics with Sul Ross State University
are allowed to use state funds for housing expenses, an investigation into the funding sources
they use is warranted. Based upon the information provided by the peer institutions in this study
and the analyses of the University’s housing conditions and rental rates, the following options
should be explored:

Improve current residence hall occupancy rates. Current fluctuations between fall
and spring semester occupancies need to be addressed before funds are spent to
improve the campus’ housing units. Drops of 20 percent, 30 percent, and even 50
percent from one semester to the next affect Sul Ross’ ability to obtain predictable
housing revenues. The most effective way to increase revenue is to obtain a better
return on the university’s existing investment in student housing by increasing
occupancy rates to a constant 90 to 95 percent. This will require some up-front
investment for renovation of these facilities. It may also require a change in housing
policy to raise the age and credit hour requirements for mandatory on-campus
student living.

Increase the rental rates charged to students living in one-bedroom apartments. The
rates charged for these units are approximately 20 percent less than the average
apartment rents charged off-campus. Applying a rate increase to these units would
help Sul Ross service debt for the bonds needed to fund some of its housing
projects. An additional rate increase on apartments may be possible the year the
new units become available.

Increase the rental rates charged to students living in family housing. The rates
charged for these units are approximately 25 percent less than the average
apartment rents charged off-campus. An additional rate increase on family housing
may be possible the year the new units become available.

Initiate a housing fee. Some peer institutions charge a housing fee, ranging from
$45 to $90 per semester, to students living on campus. These fees are also used to
service debt for bonds used to fund their housing projects.

Increase energy efficiency. Renovation of existing housing and demolition of existing
housing and replacing it with new structures should result in some significant energy
savings.

Increase gifts/donations that can be applied to housing improvements. Many
institutions have aggressively sought donors, usually alumni, to obtain donations to
fund various campus projects, including student housing.

Explore the possibility of obtaining grants. Federal or state agencies and
foundations are possible sources of money to fund various housing improvements.
20
Western New Mexico University is applying for a federal grant that could help pay for
renovations to the fronts of its family housing units.
The following are estimates of revenue that could be obtained with each of these strategies,
assuming implementation of the university’s master plan:
Increased
Annual
Revenue
Strategy
Increase residence hall occupancy rates to 90 percent for fall and spring
semesters
 Renovation and re-opening Graves-Pierce will create an
additional 120 revenue-producing beds. Assuming net income of
$960 per occupied bed per year, this will yield $103,680 per year.
 Renovation of Mountainside Hall will make that facility more
desirable and bring occupancy rates up. Assuming that
occupancy rates rise to 90 percent, per-bed revenue for
Mountainside Hall would increase from the current $1,025 per
bed per year to $1,700 per bed per year, yielding increased
revenue in the amount of $107,100 per year.
Increase rental rates, assuming 100 percent occupancy for fall and
spring semesters
 The master plan calls for demolition of existing family housing
and replacing it with 60 new units. Assuming net revenue of
$3,100 per unit per year, this would generate $186,000 per year.
 Demolition of existing student apartments and the construction of
40 new units could increase net revenue by $2,500 per unit per
year, generating $100,000
Housing fee
 A $50 per semester housing fee to support housing operations
paid by students living on campus would produce $64,500 per
year.
Energy efficiency
 Renovation of existing housing facilities and construction of new
housing facilities should generate energy savings estimated at
$10,000 per year.
Gifts and grants
 A reasonable effort by the institution’s development office should
generate revenue to support specific student housing programs
at $25,000 per year.
Total
$210,780
$286,000
$64,500
$10,000
$25,000
$596,280
The total amount would be sufficient to provide debt service for $7 million in revenue bonds,
assuming bonds earning 5 percent interest amortized over 20 years.
This would leave a shortfall of approximately $13.1 million that would need to be made up from
other sources.
21
Conclusion
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board was asked to study the housing needs of Sul
Ross State University. The following are the conclusions of this study:

The university has an adequate supply of student housing.

The quality of housing available at the university is not adequate, and the institution
should take steps to improve the quality and energy efficiency of student housing.

The university has developed a master plan that addresses all or most of the quality
problems with existing housing, and this master plan should be implemented. The
estimated cost of implementing the plan is approximately $20.1 million.

The university should take steps to increase revenue to support housing operations.
Possible steps could include increasing student enrollment, increasing occupancy
rates, raising rental rates, imposing a student housing fee, and fund-raising for
specific student housing projects.

These steps would not be sufficient to provide debt service for the $20.1 million in
revenue bonds required to implement the master plan, and a one-time infusion of
$13.1 million or approximately $522,000 per year in debt service would be required
from other sources.
22
Appendix A
Sul Ross State University Housing Pictures
The following pictures were taken during a September 15-16, 2001 site visit to Sul Ross State
University.
Mountainside Hall, Front
Mountainside Hall, Back
Mountainside Hall, Reception
Mountainside Hall, Lounge
Mountainside Hall, Dining (no longer in service)
Mountainside Hall, Room
A-1
Mountainside Hall, Room
Mountainside Hall, Laundry
Fletcher Hall, Exterior
Fletcher Hall, Interior
Fletcher Hall, Interior
Graves-Pierce Hall, Interior
A-2
Marquis Apartments, Exterior
Smith Apartments on Left, Rock Cottages
On Right
Marquis Apartments, Interior
Marquis Apartments, Interior
Marquis Apartments, Interior
Brick Cottage, Exterior
Brick Cottage, Interior
A-3
Brick Cottage, Interior
Brick Cottage, Interior
Rock Cottage, Exterior
Rock Cottage, Interior
Duplexes, Exterior
Duplex, Interior
A-4
Appendix B
Questionnaire
1. The accompanying spreadsheet requests a variety of information on your housing
facilities. Some items may already be filled in based on information obtained from your
institution’s website. Please fill out the spreadsheet as completely as you can, and
correct anything that is incorrect. For the Condition Assessment, please rank the
condition of each facility on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being in excellent condition and 5 being
unsuitable for use. Please briefly explain your reasoning behind your ranking.
2. What is your policy on mandatory on-campus living?
3. What is your housing occupancy rate? Do you have a waiting list? What is the ratio of
undergraduates to graduates living in your institution’s housing?
4. How much is spent on average in Operation & Maintenance on your residence halls
each year? How much is your current deferred maintenance for these buildings?
5. Are any of your dormitories subsidized by the State? How many of your dormitories are
owned and operated by private developers?
6. Are there plans to demolish any existing dormitories and/or build new ones within the
next five years? Have you performed any renovations on these buildings in the last ten
years?
7. What fire & safety measures are in place in your existing residence halls?
8. What is the cost and availability of off-campus housing?
B-1
Appendix C
Institutional Housing Department Contacts
1. Ms. Lynn Whayne-Graff, Director of Residential Living
Sul Ross State University
P.O. Box C-53
Alpine, TX. 79832
(915) 837-8190
whayne@sulross.edu
2. Mr. Michael J. Jolly, Director of Housing & Residence Life
Mr. Kenneth Marquez, Associate Director of Housing & Residence Life
Adams State College
Alamosa, CO 81102
(719) 587-7227
klmarque@adams.edu
3. Ms. Sherri Simons, Director of Housing
Chadron State College
1000 Main Street
Chadron, NE 69337
(308) 432-6355
ssimons@csc1.csc.edu
4. Ms. Darcy Schraufnagel, Director of Residence Life
Georgia Southwestern State University
Office of Student Life
800 Wheatley Street
Americus, GA 31709
(229) 931-2375
dls1@canes.gsw.edu
5. Mr. Kevin Solomon, Area Coordinator
Southern Arkansas University – Magnolia
100 E. University
BCT 212
Magnolia, AR 71753-5000
(870) 235-4041
kasolomon@saumag.edu
6. Ms. Peggy Lankford, Housing Director
Western New Mexico University
Housing Office
P.O. Box 680
Silver City, NM 88062
(505) 538-6629
lankfordp@iron.wnmu.edu
C-1
Appendix D
Institutional Housing Conditions
The following pages are a consolidation of the spreadsheets received in response to Question 1
of the questionnaire sent to each institution. This information was used to compare the quantity,
quality, and cost of Sul Ross’ housing to its peers.
D-1
Institutional Housing Conditions
Institution
Sul Ross State University (Soph)
Mountainside Hall
Graves-Pierce Hall (CLOSED)
Fletcher Hall
Brick Cottages
Marquis Apartments
Smith Apartments
Rock Cottages
Duplexes
Adams State College (Soph)
Conour Hall
Coronado Hall
Girault Hall
McCurry Hall
Savage Hall
Petteys Hall
Moffatt Hall
Houtchens Hall
Faculty Drive
Chadron State College (Freshmen)
Andrews Hall
Brooks Hall
Crites Hall (CLOSED THIS YEAR)
Edna Work Hall
Edna Wing
High Rise
Kent Hall
West Court
Sparks Hall
Georgia Southwestern State University (Soph)
Prance Hall
Duncan Hall
Jordan Hall
Jacob Hall
Morgan Annex
Southern Arkansas University - Magnolia (Junior)
Talley Hall
Harrod Hall
Bussey Hall
Talbot Hall
Graham Hall Annex
Greene Hall
Western New Mexico University (Freshmen)
Ritch Hall
Eckles Hall
Centennial Hall
Regents Row
Muir Heights
Type of Facility
Year Built
Condition
(1 to 5)
# of
Units
# of
Beds
Min & Max # of
People per Room
dorm suites, two suites share 1 bath
3-story dorm, shared bath on floor
2-story dorm suites, two suites share 1 bath
off-campus efficiency apartments
off-campus efficiency apartments
off-campus efficiency apartments
for families of 3 or less; kitchen, living room
one-, two-, or three- bedroom units, kitchen, living room
1969
1966
1963
1948
1958
1961
1935
1950
3
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
175
60
55
28
17
24
17
39
350
120
110
28
34
48
34
78
1 min/ 2 max
1 min/ 2 max
1 min/ 2 max
1 min/ 2 max
1 min/ 2 max
1 min/ 2 max
2 min/ 3 max
2 min/ 6 max
3-story dorm, shared bath on floor
3-story dorm suites, two suites share 1 bath
2-story dorm, shared bath on floor
three-bedroom apartments; kitchen, living room
three-bedroom apartments; kitchen, living room
three-bedroom apartments; kitchen, living room
3-story three-bedroom apartments; kitchen, living room
3-story two-bedroom apartments; kitchen, living room
ground level fourplex two- and three- bedroom apartments; kitchen, living room
1961
1968
1957
1962
1962
1958
1962
1962
1958
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
44
122
100
24
24
11
24
30
80
88
448
200
72
72
33
72
60
160
1 min/ 2 max
1 min/ 4 max
1 min/ 2 max
1 min/ 3 max
1 min/ 3 max
1 min/ 3 max
1 min/ 3 max/ family
1 min/ 3 max/ family
2 min/ family
3-story dorm suites, two suites share 1 bath
dorm, shared bath on floor
3-story dorm, shared bath on floor
3-story dorm, shared bath on floor
3-story dorm, shared bath on floor
11-story dorm suites, two suites share 1 bath
3-story dorm, shared bath on floor
one- and two- bedroom apartments
one-bedroom apartments
1966
1957
1938
1932
1960
1967
1965
4
2
144
38
20
43
50
218
149
42
12
288
76
40
86
100
436
298
50 families
12 families
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3-story dorm, shared bath on floor
dorm, shared bath on floor
2-story dorm, shared bath on floor
2-story dorm, shared bath on floor
2-story dorm, shared bath on floor
1963
1969
1967
1966
1963
3
3
3
3
3
55
142
46
52
28
105
274
89
101
54
2
2
2
2
2
3-story dorm, shared bath on floor
3-story dorm, shared bath on floor
3-story dorm, shared bath on floor
3-story dorm, shared bath on floor
3-story dorm, shared bath on floor
3-story dorm, shared bath on floor
1966
1966
1950
1966
1966
1966
2.5
2.5
1
2.5
2
2.5
96
99
100
93
46
105
186
183
200
185
94
197
2
2
2
2
2
2
3-story dorm, shared bath on floor
2-story dorm, shared bath on floor
dorm suites (4 bedrooms, two baths & general living area)
studio apartments
one- and two- bedroom apartments; kitchen, living room
1957
1963
1989
1960
1960
4
3
5
4
3
78
100
27
30
32
117
145
117
45
32
D-2
3
3
5
4
1 min/ 2 max
1 min/ 2 max
1 per bedroom
2 min/ 2 max
families
Institutional Housing Conditions
Institution
Sul Ross State University (Soph)
Mountainside Hall
Graves-Pierce Hall (CLOSED)
Fletcher Hall
Brick Cottages
Marquis Apartments
Smith Apartments
Rock Cottages
Duplexes
Adams State College (Soph)
Conour Hall
Coronado Hall
Girault Hall
McCurry Hall
Savage Hall
Petteys Hall
Moffatt Hall
Houtchens Hall
Faculty Drive
Chadron State College (Freshmen)
Andrews Hall
Brooks Hall
Crites Hall (CLOSED THIS YEAR)
Edna Work Hall
Edna Wing
High Rise
Kent Hall
West Court
Sparks Hall
Georgia Southwestern State University (Soph)
Prance Hall
Duncan Hall
Jordan Hall
Jacob Hall
Morgan Annex
Southern Arkansas University - Magnolia (Junior)
Talley Hall
Harrod Hall
Bussey Hall
Talbot Hall
Graham Hall Annex
Greene Hall
Western New Mexico University (Freshmen)
Ritch Hall
Eckles Hall
Centennial Hall
Regents Row
Muir Heights
Type of Students Housed
Occupancy
Rate
coed
men
coed
upperdivision coed
upperdivision coed
upperdivision coed
families
families
97%
94%
96%
93%
87%
79%
97%
women
coed
coed
upperdivision coed
upperdivision coed
upperdivision coed
Juniors & up coed; family
Juniors & up coed; family
family
88%
88%
88%
88%
88%
88%
100%
100%
100%
Date of Last Major
Renovation
Student Cost, Housing Only
(2001-2002)
$1305 single, $870 double; meal plan required
meal plan required
$1240 single, $825 double; meal plan required
$295 per month (includes utilities)
1982 $295 per month (includes utilities)
1981 $295 per month (includes utilities)
$300 per month (includes utilities)
$300 (1 bed)/$315 (2 bed)/$335 (3 bed) per month
1987
2001
1987
1987
1986
1988
1996
1997
1992
$1270 double, $1570 single; meal plan required
$1420 double, $1810 single; meal plan required
$1270 double, $1570 single; meal plan required
$1780 per semester (includes utilities)
$1780 per semester (includes utilities)
$1780 per semester (includes utilities)
$1780/sem or $425/mon for family
$1780/sem or $400/mon for family
$400/mon (2 bed), $435/mon (3 bed)
upperdivision coed
first year women
nontraditional coed
honors coed
honors coed
women
lowerdivision men
couples or single parents w/ children
couples or single parents w/ children
85% 2000-01, two floors
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
90%
90%
$1220 single, $750 double; meal plan required
$1220 single, $750 double; meal plan required
$1220 single, $750 double; meal plan required
$1220 single, $750 double; meal plan required
$1220 single, $750 double; meal plan required
$1220 single, $750 double; meal plan required
$1220 single, $750 double; meal plan required
$297 (1 bed)/$323 (2 bed) (includes utilities)
$323/mon (includes utilities)
freshmen
coed
coed
freshmen
upperdivision men
84%
84%
84%
84%
84%
$1350 single, $950 double; meal plan required
$1350 single, $950 double; meal plan required
$1350 single, $950 double; meal plan required
$1350 single, $950 double; meal plan required
$1350 single, $950 double; meal plan required
upperdivision men
freshmen wormen
upperdivision women
coed
upperdivision coed
freshmen
97%
97%
97%
97%
97%
97%
freshmen & transfer/returning only
male freshmen & transfer/returning
coed
couples & singles over 21
couples or single parents w/ children
75%
75%
90%
75%
50%
D-3
$795; meal plan required
$795; meal plan required
$795; meal plan required
$795; meal plan required
$795; meal plan required
$795; meal plan required
1998 $844 single, $700 double
1997 $796 single, $661 double, $949 suite
$999-$1424, dependent upon GPA
1998 $1166 single, $1403 family
$1403 one bedroom, $1570 two bedroom
Institutional Housing Conditions
Institution
Sul Ross State University (Soph)
Mountainside Hall
Graves-Pierce Hall (CLOSED)
Fletcher Hall
Brick Cottages
Marquis Apartments
Smith Apartments
Rock Cottages
Duplexes
Adams State College (Soph)
Conour Hall
Coronado Hall
Girault Hall
McCurry Hall
Savage Hall
Petteys Hall
Moffatt Hall
Houtchens Hall
Faculty Drive
Chadron State College (Freshmen)
Andrews Hall
Brooks Hall
Crites Hall (CLOSED THIS YEAR)
Edna Work Hall
Edna Wing
High Rise
Kent Hall
West Court
Sparks Hall
Georgia Southwestern State University (Soph)
Prance Hall
Duncan Hall
Jordan Hall
Jacob Hall
Morgan Annex
Southern Arkansas University - Magnolia (Junior)
Talley Hall
Harrod Hall
Bussey Hall
Talbot Hall
Graham Hall Annex
Greene Hall
Western New Mexico University (Freshmen)
Ritch Hall
Eckles Hall
Centennial Hall
Regents Row
Muir Heights
Computer
Lab
Amenities (check all that apply)
Exercise
Pool
A/C
Room
Furnished
Rooms
Wired
Rooms
Laundry
Facilities
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
partial
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
0
1
0
2
0
1
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
**
**
**
**
**
3 wash, 4 dry
3 wash, 4 dry
6 wash, 6 dry
3 wash, 4 dry
2 wash, 2 dry
2 wash, 4 dry
in-room control
in-room control
in-room control
in-room control
in-room control
in-room control
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Fire Sprinklers ADA Compliant
Security Card
Access
x
x
x
x
D-4
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Institutional Housing Conditions
Institution
Sul Ross State University (Soph)
Mountainside Hall
Graves-Pierce Hall (CLOSED)
Fletcher Hall
Brick Cottages
Marquis Apartments
Smith Apartments
Rock Cottages
Duplexes
Adams State College (Soph)
Conour Hall
Coronado Hall
Girault Hall
McCurry Hall
Savage Hall
Petteys Hall
Moffatt Hall
Houtchens Hall
Faculty Drive
Chadron State College (Freshmen)
Andrews Hall
Brooks Hall
Crites Hall (CLOSED THIS YEAR)
Edna Work Hall
Edna Wing
High Rise
Kent Hall
West Court
Sparks Hall
Georgia Southwestern State University (Soph)
Prance Hall
Duncan Hall
Jordan Hall
Jacob Hall
Morgan Annex
Southern Arkansas University - Magnolia (Junior)
Talley Hall
Harrod Hall
Bussey Hall
Talbot Hall
Graham Hall Annex
Greene Hall
Western New Mexico University (Freshmen)
Ritch Hall
Eckles Hall
Centennial Hall
Regents Row
Muir Heights
Other
cable, phone included
cable, phone included, no lobby
cable, phone included
cable included
cable included
cable included
kitchen, bath, cable included
utilities, cable included
all: washer hookup, 1/2: dryer hookup
kitchen, rec. lounge, study lounge
kitchen, rec. lounge, study lounge
kitchen, rec. lounge, study lounge
kitchen, rec. lounge, study lounge
kitchen, rec. lounge, study lounge
kitchen, rec. lounge, study lounge
kitchen, rec. lounge, study lounge
5 computers per lab
*2 beds, desks, chairs, built-in
dressers, closets
**all halls have wireless network
receivers, free of charge to
students
D-5
Appendix E
Sul Ross State University Housing Revenue and Expense Report for Fiscal Year
2001
This information was received from Mr. Mickey Havens, Vice President of Administrative
Services, in February 2002.
Sul Ross State University
Residential Living
FY 2001
Revenues:
Marquis Hall
Fletcher Hall
Mountainside Dormitory
Smith Hall
Brick Cottages
Duplex Apartments
Rock Cottages
Guest Fees, Damage, etc.
Total Revenues
$38,480
228,468
358,630
66,396
90,068
129,772
40,988
17,710
$970,512
Budgeted Expenditures:
Physical Plant
Salaries
M&O
128,653
75,685
Custodial
Housing Administration
Individual Unit
Marquis Hall
Fletcher Hall
Mountainside
Smith Hall
Brick Cottages
Duplex Apartments
Rock Cottages
Total Expenditures
Budgeted Surplus/(Deficit)
64,673
79,122
210,774
39,818
33,372
83,499
24,022
204,338
178,811
82,990
535,280
$1,001,419
($30,907)
Note: The budgeted deficit is funded from Designated Funds.
E-1
For more information, contact:
Roberta M. Rincon
Program Director, Campus Planning
Finance, Campus Planning, and Research
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
P.O. Box 12788
Austin, TX 78711
(512) 427-6110; (512) 427-6147 (fax)
Roberta.Rincon@thecb.state.tx.us
Printed on Recycled Paper
The Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board does not
Discriminate on the basis of
race, color, national origin,
gender, religion, age or
disability in employment or
the provision of services.