20 South 3rd Street. Suite #219. Columbus, OH ri c h a ri e th j o n e s. c o m. th j o n e s.c o m

Transcription

1 s 20 South 3rd Street. Suite #219. Columbus, OH ri c h a ri e th j o n e s. c o m. th j o n e s.c o m

2 INTRODUCTION ( Lake State, LSSU, or the University ) is currently undertaking multiple strategic and physical planning initiatives in addition to its continued focus on enrollment. In March 2018 the University engaged Rieth Jones Advisors ( RJA ) to develop a (the Plan or Master Plan ). The scope of the planning initiative included the following items: 1. Assess current on-campus housing offerings for Lake State students; 2. Compare those offerings to the off-campus market and select peer institutions; 3. Gather student feedback through focus groups and a web-based survey; 4. Analyze and synthesize offerings, market conditions, and feedback; 5. Forecast demand for on-campus housing; 6. Evaluate the current housing system s operating performance; 7. Test various renovation and new construction scenarios to address on-campus needs; and 8. Recommend a feasible approach and next steps for the University s consideration. Feedback and direction were collected from key stakeholders representing the Student Life, Business Affairs, Facilities, Academic, and Administrative departments at the University (collectively the Committee ) in addition to the LSSU Board of Trustees ( BoT ). Six goals and objectives were identified by the Committee at the onset of the planning process: 1. Develop a plan that is consensus-driven among the various departments at the University; 2. Create a plan that meets the needs of today s students and future populations; 3. The Plan should address all on-campus housing facilities, rather than a single project or building, to best position LSSU s housing and residence life program for long-term success; 4. Receive and incorporate student feedback and data; 5. The Plan must be financially self-sufficient; 6. Identify next steps for LSSU should the Committee recommend that the Plan be implemented through a public-private partnership ( P3 ) transaction structure. Page 1 of 17

3 LSSU HOUSING OVERVIEW The Department of Residential Life s mission is to provide an enjoyable and memorable living experience to. In order to offer a cohesive living and learning environment, we maintain high behavioral standards of all students. We strive to uphold a sense of community while giving individualized attention to all on-campus residents. Current University policy requires all freshmen and sophomore students to live on campus. Junior and senior students are not required to live on campus but are able to live on campus if they desire to do so. The University offers the following communities for on-campus residents: Brady Hall traditional-style residence hall for freshmen (all-male) Osborn Hall traditional-style residence hall for freshmen (female) on the facility s larger side, with limited availability for upper-class women and men on the smaller side. Student Village / Towers suite-style hall for sophomores and above. Neveu Hall & Moloney Hall apartment-style hall for juniors and seniors only. Townhouses apartment-style townhouse units for juniors and seniors only. Living Learning Communities (Row Houses) community-style housing in individual houses for sophomores and above. Some communities are tied to specific academic programs. Lake State currently has a total on-campus supply of 935 beds. The system inventory is made up of approximately 40% community-style beds, 37% suite-style beds, and 23% apartment beds. All LSSU sponsored housing is located within a five-minute walk of all campus facilities, including the Student Activity Center, dining hall, library, and academic buildings. Figure 1 outlines unit types, bed counts, and the rental rates by semester for each of the University s six different on-campus communities. Residence Halls Total GSF Unit Type Total Beds Bedroom Rates Occupancy (per semester, room only) Brady 48,896 Traditional 148 Single $3,168 Double $2,360 Osborn 47,476 Traditional 226 Single $3,168 Double $2,360 Student Village / Towers 48,192 Suites 232 Single $3,168 Double $2,360 Townhouses 29,665 Apartments 118 Single $3,339 Double $2,605 Moloney 16,824 Apartments 63 Single $3,641 Double $2,723 Nevue 13,203 Apartments 37 Single $3,641 Double $2,723 Rowhouses 42,606 Community/LLC 111 Single $3,339 Double $2, , Figure 1 LSSU On-Campus Housing Beds & Rates Page 2 of 17

4 On-campus occupancy has averaged 85.5% for the past five academic years. The halls with the highest five-year occupancy averages are Brady and the Townhouses (99.5% and 92.9%, respectively). Neveu Hall and the Row Houses have the lowest five-year averages, as seen in Figure 2. 5 year Averages Residence Hall Residents Hall Hall by Hall Capacity Occupancy Brady Hall % Annual Occupancy 92.6% 112.8% 104.1% 103.4% 84.5% Osborn Hall % Annual Occupancy 74.8% 86.3% 88.5% 80.5% 81.4% Village % Annual Occupancy 92.2% 78.9% 86.2% 89.7% 81.9% Townhouses % Annual Occupancy 94.1% 91.5% 94.9% 91.5% 92.4% Neveu Hall % Annual Occupancy 67.6% 56.8% 56.8% 59.5% 64.9% Moloney Hall % Annual Occupancy 85.7% 85.7% 92.1% 81.0% 73.0% Row Houses % Annual Occupancy 77.5% 73.9% 74.8% 73.0% 71.2% Total Residents % Total System Beds System Occupancy 85.1% 86.6% 88.6% 86.1% 81.0% Figure 2 LSSU On-Campus Occupancy by Hall ( ) Figure 3 represents the on-campus occupancy by student classification, system occupancy, fall semester enrollment, and the overall capture rate for the through academic years. Resident Classification Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors Total On Campus Residents Total On Campus Beds System Occupancy 85.1% 86.6% 88.6% 86.1% 81.0% Fall Semester Enrollment 2,433 2,406 2,249 2,231 2,132 Overall Capture Rate 32.7% 33.7% 36.8% 36.1% 35.5% Figure 3 LSSU On-Campus Occupancy by Classification, Enrollment, Overall Capture Rate The system saw five-year lows for freshman and sophomore on-campus residents in ; however, the numbers of junior and senior on-campus residents was at a five-year high. System occupancy also saw a five-year low in at 81% of the 935 total system beds, while the overall capture rate (number of on-campus residents compared to fall enrollment) decreased to 35.5%. Page 3 of 17

5 MARKET ANALYSIS Off-Campus Market The Sault Sainte Marie off-campus housing market accommodates students but does not actively market to them. Ten (10) local apartment properties were analyzed as part of this process. As shown in Figure 4, all the properties are close to campus (average drive time of four minutes), but only one of the 10 properties, Hillside Student Apartments, is student focused. Property Name Distance Distance Student Student (miles) (minutes) Friendly? Focused? 1 Hillside Student Apartments Yes Yes 2 West Pier Place Apartments Yes No 3 Bingham / Court Apartments Yes No 4 Woodfield Terrace Apartments Yes No 5 Bridge Village Apartments Yes No 6 Wood Creek Apartments No No 7 West Bridge Apartments No No 8 Park Place City Center Apartments Yes No 9 Edge of the Woods Apartments No No 10 Ashmun Creek Apartments Yes No Averages Figure 4 Off-Campus Apartment Offerings Hillside Student Apartments and West Pier Place Apartments are LSSU s top off-campus apartment competition. Both complexes offer a variety of one, two, three, and four-bedroom units. However, Hillside is considered student focused because it offers both nine- (academic year) and 12-month lease terms, only leases to students, provides flexible payment options, and offers the most desirable unit configuration for students (four-bedroom apartment-style). West Pier leases to students, but they only offer 12-month leases and allow qualifying non-students to live on the premises as well. Figure 5 shows the average rent per bed, per month for the different unit types offered at West Pier and Hillside Apartments. Estimated utility costs (based on actual LSSU student survey feedback) have been added to all offerings and assessed based on the number of residents by unit size. Inclusion of utility costs ensures that the total cost of living in an off-campus apartment is accurately portrayed for comparison purposes. Page 4 of 17

6 Figure 5 West Pier & Hillside Apartments Rental Rates The average room cost for an on-campus apartment with a single-occupancy bedroom is approximately $809 a month (based on a nine-month academic year lease). This average includes utilities but does not include the cost of a LSSU meal plan, which is required for all on-campus residents. Per the averages in Figure 5, it is more affordable to live in an off-campus apartment that living on campus. On-campus offerings such as residence life programming, proximity to campus resources, and the sense of community within each residence hall provide value that are difficult to quantify. In addition to the aforementioned off-campus apartments, junior and senior students are electing to live in single-family houses in and around Sault Sainte Marie. The average cost of living for these types of houses is inconsistent and difficult to benchmark because students oftentimes share bedrooms to reduce costs. Additionally, these houses often lack professional property managers compared to larger apartment communities, so the physical living conditions vary greatly. Student feedback and an analysis of the local housing market indicated that the cost to rent these homes is slightly below the cost of a student-focused apartment on a per-bed basis. Page 5 of 17

7 Peer Benchmarking A peer benchmarking exercise was completed that analyzed on-campus supply by unit type offerings, rental rates, residency and meal plan requirements, and recent new construction or renovations at other comparable institutions. Lake State identified seven (7) peer and cross-applicant schools to be included in the analysis: Ferris State University Grand Valley State University Michigan Tech University North Central Michigan College Northern Michigan University Northwestern Michigan College Saginaw Valley State University As shown in Figure 6, the most popular unit offerings within the peer group are double-occupancy traditional units, semi- and full-suites (single- and double-occupancy), and one, two, and four-bedroom single-occupancy apartments. Lake State offers all of these unit types to its residents with two exceptions: 1. LSSU only offers full-suites on campus (i.e. apartments without a kitchen). The University does not offer semi-suite units, which typically have four students sharing two double-occupancy bedrooms and one semi-private bathroom. These are popular unit types because they typically have efficient floor plans that offer more privacy than a traditional or community-style residence hall. 2. LSSU does not offer a four-bedroom apartment unit. This is the most popular apartment-style unit configuration amongst the select peer group and nationally across higher education. These units also offer the institution the lowest square foot per bed ratio of all apartment types, thus typically resulting in more favorable operating economics on a standalone basis and for the housing system. Selected Institutions On Campus Unit Mix Traditional Suites Apartments 1BR 1BR 2BR 2BR 3BR Single Double Single Double Single Double Single Double Single Figure 6 Peer Benchmarking: Unit Type Offerings Comparison 3BR Double Ferris State University Grand Valley State University Michigan Tech University North Central Michigan College Northern Michigan University Northwestern Michigan College Saginaw Valley State University % Offering Units by Type & Occupancy 57% 71% 71% 71% 71% 43% 86% 43% 29% 0% 86% 14% Count (out of 7 peers) BR Single 4BR Double Page 6 of 17

8 Despite the differences in unit type offerings, the analysis did not find a significant difference in the overall cost of housing at Lake State compared to the average for the select peer group. As shown in Figure 7, rental rates for LSSU s non-apartment units were an average of 9.6% below their peer averages. LSSU s average apartment rates are 22.7% higher than those of their peers. The average difference is 16.7% if the three-bedroom comparison was excluded from the apartment average, as it appears to be an outlier in the data set On Campus Housing Rental Rate Comparison (per semester) Selected Institutions Traditional Suites Apartments Single Double Single Double 1BR Single 1BR Double 2BR Single 2BR Double 3BR Single 3BR Double 4BR Single 4BR Double Ferris State University $3,783 $2,688 $3,783 $2,957 $0 $0 $3,547 $0 $0 $0 $3,242 $0 Grand Valley State University $0 $2,770 $0 $2,967 $3,818 $3,130 $3,486 $2,170 $3,130 $0 $2,977 $0 Michigan Tech University $3,888 $3,088 $4,448 $3,520 $3,853 $0 $2,496 $0 $2,091 $0 $4,689 $0 North Central Michigan College $2,450 $1,850 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northern Michigan University $3,396 $2,716 $3,842 $2,987 $3,725 $2,288 $2,895 $1,823 $0 $0 $2,965 $0 Northwestern Michigan College $0 $0 $2,900 $2,675 $4,200 $0 $2,475 $0 $0 $0 $3,200 $2,800 Saginaw Valley State University $0 $0 $3,268 $0 $3,683 $3,168 $3,515 $2,290 $0 $0 $3,180 $0 Average Rental Rates (per semester) $3,379 $2,622 $3,648 $3,021 $3,856 $2,862 $3,069 $2,094 $2,610 N/A $3,375 $2,800 LSSU Room & Board $5,701 $4,893 $5,872 $5,138 $6,361 N/A $5,994 $5,138 $6,117 $5,138 N/A N/A less: Average Board Cost ($2,533) ($2,533) ($2,533) ($2,533) ($2,415) N/A ($2,415) ($2,415) ($2,415) ($2,415) N/A N/A LSSU Room ONLY per Semester $3,168 $2,360 $3,339 $2,605 $3,946 N/A $3,579 $2,723 $3,702 $2,723 N/A N/A Delta ($) ($212) ($262) ($310) ($416) $91 N/A $510 $628 $1,091 N/A N/A N/A Delta (%) (6.3%) (10.0%) (8.5%) (13.8%) 2.4% N/A 16.6% 30.0% 41.8% N/A N/A N/A Figure 7 Peer Benchmarking: Rental Rates In addition to the program offerings and rental rates, the other significant result of the benchmarking analysis is the investments that the select institutions have been making in their on-campus housing offerings. For example, Northern Michigan University recently completed a new residence hall, The Woods, consisting of 1,200 new semi-suite beds. As shown below in Exhibit H, the new beds are semisuite units that offer single and double-occupancy unit configurations. The project also offers amenities such as study spaces, classrooms, outdoor patios, fireplaces, and programming spaces. Northern Michigan is actively marketing the project to current and future students on their housing homepage. Figure 8 The Woods Renderings & Unit Plans (Northern Michigan) Page 7 of 17

9 Focus Groups RJA met with four groups of students while on campus for the Housing Master Plan kickoff meetings. Attendance was robust (approximately 35 participants) and the all sessions were characterized by lively discussion amongst the students. There were three key takeaways from our conversations with students: Why did you choose at attend Lake State? o Students repeatedly referenced Lake State s campus size and outdoor activities as top draws for them and their peers. There was significant discussion about the opportunities to camp, hike, hunt, fish, and spend time outside especially when the weather is nice in the late spring, summer, and early fall. o Several students indicated that they chose LSSU for specific academic programs. Nursing, criminal justice, and engineering were three programs that repeatedly were referenced. The issue is finding the right space, not finding a space. o A student made this statement and it generated a lengthy discussion for the rest of that particular session. The student was specifically referring to on-campus housing options after their first year in Brady or Osborn. Many of the groups elected to focus on the transition from Brady/Osborn to the Village (Towers) and the decline in the sense of community during this transition from freshman to sophomore year. The tremendous sense of community in Brady and Osborn came up in every session, and each group talked about how to replicate that in other on-campus halls. Why do junior and senior students move off campus? o The primary drivers, according to focus group participants, are the cost of room and board. Many students spoke about the cost of the meal plan specifically and the lack of quality on-campus dining options. Others indicated that the off-campus apartments and houses were nicer than the Townhomes and Neveu/Maloney. Survey Data A custom web-based survey was crafted by RJA following the kickoff meetings and our initial interactions and conversations with Lake State students. The survey received 621 responses, which is an excellent response rate (29%); the results of the survey can be found as an exhibit to this report. There was good representation across all classes with only minor discrepancies between survey respondents and institutional demographics. Additionally, RJA received 30+ pages of written comments from respondents in the optional thoughts box at the end of the survey form. These comments have been shared with Housing and University stakeholders for their review. Below are several key survey analysis charts and data points that support the phasing and economic recommendations made by the Plan. Page 8 of 17

10 Students were asked to rate their satisfaction with the on-campus dining program and meal plans on a scale from one to five, with a one being very poor and a five being very good. As shown in Figure 9, respondents indicated a slightly below average satisfaction level. This is consistent with what was conveyed by students during the focus groups and highlights the larger issues with on-campus dining at LSSU. Dissatisfaction with on-campus dining offerings and policies can have a negative impact on a student s desire to live on campus, especially when meal plans are required for residents living in units with kitchens (i.e. apartments). Figure 9 Satisfaction with On-Campus Dining & Meal Plan Options A similar scale was utilized to understand how students rated their current living conditions (very poor to very good). Figure 10 shows that satisfaction rates for off-campus residents were higher for all student classifications, with the largest gap coming from sophomore students. The overall on-campus rating was a 3.4 while the off-campus rating was a 4.1 based on feedback from survey respondents. Figure 10 Satisfaction with Current Living Conditions Page 9 of 17

11 Survey data was cross-tabulated to analyze satisfaction rates by individual residence hall for all oncampus respondents. The first-year halls (Brady and Osborne) received the highest marks with a 3.6 and 3.3, respectively. Student Village ranked the lowest of all halls with an average satisfaction level of 3.1. The results indicate that the programming and community taking place in the first-year halls is having a positive impact on resident satisfaction levels. RJA believes that the configuration of the Village (doubleoccupancy suites with minimal community space outside the individual units) is impacting satisfaction levels for those residents, who are primarily sophomores. The survey asked all students, If you live off campus or are considering moving off campus next year, please identify the reasons why? The cost of on-campus housing was the top reason, with a desire for more privacy coming second. Students feel that the cost to live on campus, especially when considering the total room and board cost, is too expensive given what they can find off campus, even if those offerings are not student focused. Figure 11 Reasons Students Move Off Campus Respondents were given the option to indicate which future improvements to the residence halls would be most important to them. They were also asked about their willingness to pay a 5+% and 10+% premium over current rates for these improvements. As shown in Exhibit L, in-unit kitchens, single-occupancy bedrooms, and sharing a bathroom with fewer students were the top three improvements chosen by students. Additionally, 46% of current on-campus residents indicated a willingness to pay at least a 5% premium over current rental rates for their desired improvements (as seen in Figure 12). Page 10 of 17

12 Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior On-campus Residents Off-campus Residents More Social Spaces 9% 8% 6% 6% 8% 6% More Study Spaces 4% 7% 6% 13% 6% 11% Single Occupancy Bedrooms 26% 31% 32% 30% 30% 28% In-unit Kitchens 45% 41% 40% 32% 44% 33% Share Bathroom w/ Fewer Students 16% 13% 16% 19% 12% 22% Will Pay 5+% Premium 47% 37% 42% 40% 46% 34% Will Pay 10+% Premium 7% 7% 4% 6% 6% 6% Figure 12 Preferred Improvements to On-Campus Housing Offerings Students were asked about their preferred on-campus living units by type and occupancy (shared vs. private bedrooms). Figure 13 shows the preferred unit types by classification. All classes clearly expressed their desire for apartment-style living; however, the University believes that this unit type is not ideal for freshmen students as it doesn t promote the sense of community seen in Brady and Osborn. Twenty-five percent of sophomores indicated they would rather live off campus, which supports the low satisfaction levels with where most second-year students currently reside in the Village (Towers). Figure 13 Preferred On-Campus Living Unit (by type) Page 11 of 17

13 Figure 14 breaks down respondent preferences for sharing a bedroom. Freshman students indicated a greater desire to live with a roommate than sophomore, junior, and senior students. Within the survey question, students were provided the option for a double- or single-occupancy bedroom, with a singleoccupancy bedroom being 15-20% more expensive than the double-occupancy option. 100% 100% 90% 80% 41% 38% 32% 90% 80% 38% 70% 64% 70% 66% 67% 55% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 30% 59% 62% 68% 40% 30% 62% 20% 36% 20% 34% 33% 45% 10% 10% 0% Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior 0% Traditional Semi suite Full suite Apartment Single Double Single Double Figure 14 Single vs. Double-Occupancy Preference (by class & unit type) Page 12 of 17

14 HOUSING DEMAND RJA used a combination of methodologies to estimate potential demand for on-campus housing at LSSU. Demand is forecasted by synthesizing student survey data, current and historical capture rates by classification, national best practices for on-campus living, local market research, and peer benchmarking information. These components are analyzed and forecasted by applying policy-driven (residency requirements, ability to live in specific unit configurations) and market capture rates to the University s enrollment projections. The ultimate recommendation yields a market-based number of beds grounded in the institution s strategic vision for LSSU housing. Figure 15 shows the projected demand and capture rates for the academic year. Demand was forecasted by applying the historical capture rates for policy sub-populations (freshmen) and market demand for non-policy sub-populations (sophomore, junior, and senior students). The on-campus housing demand shown below is representative of a specific target market of students, including students that are between the ages of and either currently live on campus or rent an apartment off-campus for more than $400 per person per month. Classification Bed Demand (Fall 2017) Community Semi Suite Full Suite Apartment Total Freshman (first time) Sophomore Junior Senior TOTAL DEMAND ,066 Existing LSSU Capacity EXCESS / (SHORTFALL) 126 (106) (13) (138) (131) Figure 15 RJA Projected Demand (based on 2017 Fall Enrollment) The demand analysis indicates that the University has an estimated deficit (shortfall) of 131 on-campus beds. Regardless of their selection on the student survey, neither freshmen or sophomore students will be allowed to live in apartment-style units; as such, demand for those units was reallocated to traditional-, semi-suite, and full-suite style units. The majority of the additional demand for on-campus housing is from junior and senior students, as evidenced by the large increase from existing capture rates (39% and 18%) to potential capture rates (59% and 42%). The large delta between existing demand (number of residents) and potential demand is a result of the on-campus bed mix not aligning with student unit type preferences. The 126 beds of excess supply in traditional-style configurations coupled with 138 fewer apartment-style beds than desired by students is having a significant negative impact on overall occupancy and resident counts. Although the off-campus market is less expensive than on-campus housing options, facilities that better meet student needs (unit Page 13 of 17

15 configurations, common spaces, residential programming, etc.) will augment the on-campus value proposition and ultimately lead to more junior and senior students electing to stay in LSSU housing and bolster the University s recruitment efforts. LSSU s Office of Enrollment Management has intentionally focused on increasing the number of first-time freshman students and the retention rates for specific sub-populations. The Enrollment Team, led by John Kawauchi, established a strategic and calculated strategy for the coming fall 2018 semester. The approach is paying dividends as the University is forecasting a first-time freshman enrollment of 375 students and a total projected enrollment of approximately 2,150 students for the fall 2018 semester. For every one percent (1%) increase in enrollment, demand increases by approximately 10.7 beds (2.5 traditional, 1.1 semi-suite, 2.4 full-suite, and 4.7 apartment-style beds). Page 14 of 17

16 ECONOMICS & PHASING Economics Nationwide, student affordability and the total cost of higher education is a primary focus and concern for administrators, students, and parents. At the onset of the planning process, keeping room rates affordable was identified as being of paramount importance to this planning process. In addition to student focus groups, the off-campus analysis, and research regarding rates at LSSU s peer institutions, the sensitivity around affordability was key in developing the phasing strategy and proposed rental rate structure. The below recommendations (Figure 16) for rental rates assume that the current rate structure is kept for all existing facilities, and rates for new construction are based on a 5% premium over comparable, existing units. Existing & Renovated Room Rates AY $ Basis Regular Room (Brady, Osborn, Towers) $5,193 Existing Private Room (Brady, Osborn, Towers) $6,051 Existing Regular Room (Rowhouses) $5,453 Existing Private Room (Rowhouses) $6,232 Existing Private Room in 1BR (Nevue) $7,380 Existing Shared Room in 1BR (Nevue) $7,097 Existing Private Room in 2BR (TH) $6,812 Existing Shared Room in 2BR (TH) $5,961 Existing Private Room in 3BR (Moloney) $7,380 Existing Shared Room in 3BR (Moloney) $7,097 Existing New Construction Rental Rates Traditional Single $6,353 Brady, Osborn, Towers private + 5% Traditional Double $5,453 Brady, Osborn, Towers regular + 5% Semi suite Single $6,544 Rowhouse private + 5% Semi suite Double $5,726 Rowhouse regular + 5% 4BR / 2BR Apartment Single $7,749 1BR Neveu, 3BR Moloney private + 5% Figure 16 Housing Master Plan Rate Structure Anticipated project costs, representing both hard costs and soft costs (but excluding financing or other costs) total $28.69M (in 2018 dollars): Brady Hall renovation $1.25M Student Village / Towers renovation $1.20M Townhouses renovation $0.80M Moloney Hall renovation $1.10M Nevue Hall renovation $0.86M Rowhouses renovation $1.10M Osborn Hall demolition $0.55M Student Village / Towers addition $1.26M New Residence Hall I $14.5M New Residence Hall II $6.04M Page 15 of 17

17 Phasing Based on tours of existing facilities, a review of facilities conditions assessments, student focus groups, and discussions with the Committee, all of Housing s existing facilities will require some level of improvement or replacement. In addition to renovations, two new residence halls should be developed to realign the housing program. This will allow LSSU to meet student preferences and provide a more focused on-campus residential experience. Renovation projects range from cosmetic upgrades to more invasive improvements (cosmetics + building systems) additional detail regarding required improvements can be found as an exhibit to this report. Figure 17 represents the proposed chronological list of renovation, demolition, and new construction projects: Project Type Location Details Student Villages / Towers Renovation Existing Addition Existing 9k GSF common space addition in courtyard Moloney Hall Renovation Existing Nevue Hall Renovation Existing New Residence Hall I New Between Nevue Hall & Opening for fall semester (255 beds) Arts Center 103 semi suite beds (83 single, 20 double occupancy) 152 apartment style beds (4BR single occupancy) Osborn Hall Demolition Existing Townhouses Renovation Existing New Residence Hall II New Osborn Site Opening for fall semester (144 beds) 144 traditional style beds (34 single, 112 double occupancy) Brady Hall Renovation Existing Rowhouses Renovation Existing Figure 17 Housing Master Plan Phasing Schedule & Project List To ensure that sufficient on-campus supply exists to house all students desiring to live on campus, renovations should be phased in during the summer months. To the extent that individual units in the Townhouses, or Rowhouse buildings, are available and capital funds are available, these renovations should occur over multiple summer semesters. Page 16 of 17

18 NEXT STEPS The Plan, including all of the analyses contained in this report and proposed phasing structure, was presented to the Lake State Board of Trustees on July 19, Although an official resolution was not proposed or approved, the Board provided its overall support for the. The majority of the questions asked by the Board were related to the ability of the institution to execute the Master Plan, or if the most appropriate course of action was to enter into a public-private partnership. RJA s recommendation is that the University engage a private partner to implement the Housing Master Plan via a single-transaction public-private partnership encompassing the entire housing system. Using a P3 structure will allow the University to transfer significant development, execution, and financing risk to the private partner. Lake State will also benefit from their partner s expertise in developing on-campus facilities nationwide to ensure the future success of on-campus housing at LSSU. Lastly, a private partner will bring additional capacity (staff) that will likely result in renovations to the entire system being implemented in a shorter timeframe than if the University were to undertake them itself. The following represents the next steps required to engage a P3 partner and move toward a successful financial close of the transaction: 1. Engage external professional service providers: a. Legal counsel; b. Financial (municipal) advisor; and c. Development advisor. 2. Engage with the United States Department of Agriculture to determine their potential level of interest in serving as the primary lender for implementation of the plan. 3. Draft a Request for Proposals ( RFP ) for a development partner. 4. Conduct market sounding meetings, including campus tours and meetings with University stakeholders, with 4-6 potential development partners. 5. Issue the RFP for a development partner. 6. Review RFP responses, interview development partners. 7. Select a development partner. 8. In conjunction with the University s advisors and development partner, confirm the overall phasing strategy, refine renovation / addition / new construction projects, and begin design. 9. Negotiate all transaction documents, including (but not limited to): a. Pre-development agreement; b. Development agreement; c. Ground lease; d. Property management agreement; e. Affiliation agreement; and f. Financing documents. 10. Close on financing and begin construction. Page 17 of 17

19 20 South 3rd Street. Suite #219. Columbus, OH richard@riethjones.com

20 _ Page 1 of 4 Exhibit A Student Survey Results

21 _ Page 2 of 4 Exhibit A Student Survey Results

22 _ Page 3 of 4 Exhibit A Student Survey Results

23 _ Page 4 of 4 Exhibit A Student Survey Results