Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Campus Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Consultants propose ~400‑bed Lot 30 housing project; board hears timeline and next steps

Austin Peay State University Board of Trustees · June 17, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Consultants retained by Austin Peay presented a public‑private housing concept for Lot 30 — roughly 400 apartment‑style beds aimed at returning students — and outlined a path that includes finalizing an RFP, submitting materials to the State Building Commission and selecting a development partner.

Consultants from Burrowsford & Dunlevy presented a public‑private housing concept for Austin Peay State University's Lot 30, recommending an apartment‑style development they estimate would deliver about 400 beds aimed at returning students and those who use financial aid for housing.

Evan Morrow and colleagues described how demand projections and student survey work supported the recommended scale: by the projected delivery timeframe they said "there is demand for another 400 beds of new apartment housing" and that a Lot 30 site near campus edge would provide proximity to academic support and reduce strain on core dining infrastructure. Consultants identified key tradeoffs, including whether to pursue a 12‑month lease versus an academic‑year lease and the need to keep rental rates affordable for price‑sensitive students.

Next steps outlined to the board include finalizing the plan and integrating it into an RFP to the State Building Commission (SBC) for approval, then selecting a development partner during 2025 with design and negotiations following and construction expected to begin in 2026 and occupancy targeted for fall 2028. Consultants cautioned that some dates on initial slides were aggressive and that the SBC submission timing would likely move to July to address outstanding items.

Board members asked about SBC approval prospects, parking and the growing wait list for on‑campus housing (consultants said the wait list had increased by roughly 100 students). President Licari and the consultants said these factors create a compelling case for the project but that scheduling and lease‑term issues still need resolution before final submission.

The presentation concluded with the consultants offering to provide additional detail in RFP materials and to continue coordinating with university staff on timeline and solicitation strategy.