2014 ACUHO-I Construction and Renovation Findings

Transcription

1 2014 ACUHO-I Construction and Renovation Findings

2 Presenters Dave Sagaser, Florida State University Cynthia Parish Balogh, MGT of America, Inc. Ray Thompson, MGT of America, Inc. Case Studies Jamie Penven, Virginia Tech Pat Connor, Indiana University 1

3 Introduction History of the Survey Jim Grimm ACUHO-I and MGT Collaboration Project Goals and Objectives Establish a national data set that is reliable, useful, and easily accessible for institutional planning 2

4 Purpose of Presentation Share results from the 2014 survey of 246 colleges and universities Identify trends over six iterations of the survey Facilitate discussion among CHOs concerning construction/renovation issues Showcase exemplary projects related to current trends 3

5 Survey Instrument Section A: Institutional Characteristics Section B: Facilities Planning Initiatives Section C: New Construction Projects Section D: Renovation Projects 4

6 Survey Results 5

7 Responding Institutions 1,373 Institutions Contacted (957 members, 416 non-members) 246 Respondents ~ 17.9% Response Rate 93% 4-Year, 4% 2-Year Institutions, 2% Other 64% Public, 35% Private, 1% Other 58% have an on-campus residency requirement 6

8 Construction or Renovation Completed, Winter Fall 2013 None, 37% New construction only, 13% Both new construction and renovation, 17% Renovation only, 33% n=201 7

9 Planning to Initiate Construction or Renovation Project in Next Five Years None, 6% Undecided, 11% New construction only, 12% Both new construction and renovation, 50% Renovation only, 21% n=198 8

10 Institution Has a Campus Master Plan That Includes Housing 80% 78% 60% 40% 22% 20% 0% Yes n=195 No 9

11 Institution Has a Separate Housing Master Plan 50% 43% 40% 30% 25% 32% 20% 10% 0% Yes Not yet, but in process of developing a housing master plan No 10

12 New Construction Findings Institutions Reporting New Construction Projects 11

13 4% 5% 8% 9% 8% 8% 9% 12% 11% 13% 15% 17% 16% 18% 16% 18% 17% 16% 18% 20% 20% 20% 20% 23% 21% 24% 26% 25% 25% 26% 23% 25% 27% 30% 30% 29% 32% 34% 34% 32% 43% 48% Type of Living Units 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Traditional Rooms Modified Traditional Rooms Adjoining Suites (semi-suites) Super Suites Individual Contract Apartments Apartments 12

14 Target Resident by Housing Type 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 76% 59% Traditional Freshmen 68% 91% Modified Traditional 64% 83% 36% 88% 50% Suites Apartments Other Upperdivision (i.e., juniors and seniors) 67% 13

15 Projects Configured as Single Occupancy Bedroom 60% 50% 50% 40% 20% 12% 20% 25% 26% 37% 32% 30% 18% 19% 9% 0% % or more with single-occupancy bedrooms No single-occupancy bedrooms 14

16 Projects Configured as Double Occupancy Bedroom 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 59% 50% 42% 41% 36% 37% 34% 34% 25% 25% 25% 26% % or more with double-occupancy bedrooms No double-occupancy bedrooms 15

17 Types of Amenities in Unit Furniture (97%) Top Responses Coaxial cable TV service (95%) Wireless Internet access (93%) Temperature control in each living unit (92%) Hardwired Internet access (90%) Air conditioning (89%) Carpeting (63%) Refrigerator (60%) 17

18 Project Cost Per GSF by Type of Unit (2014 Survey) $350 $300 $250 $335 $278 $285 $240 $251 $238 $285 $200 $150 $100 $50 $- Traditional Modified traditional Adjoining suites Super Suites Individual Contract Apartments Apartments Other Traditional, n = 10 Adjoining Suites, n = 10 Individual Contract Apts., n = 9 Modified Traditional, n = 11 Super Suites, n = 13 Apartments, n = 12 Other, n = 2 18

19 Construction Cost Per GSF by Type of Unit (2014 Survey) $300 $250 $280 $237 $232 $217 $214 $217 $246 $200 $150 $100 $50 $- Traditional Modified traditional Adjoining suites Super Suites Individual Contract Apartments Apartments Other Traditional, n = 10 Adjoining Suites, n = 10 Individual Contract Apts., n = 7 Modified Traditional, n = 10 Super Suites, n = 10 Apartments, n = 11 Other, n = 1 19

20 $156 $141 $148 $154 $151 $126 $150 $211 $213 $216 $202 $237 $240 $208 $187 $238 $275 $285 Project Cost Per GSF Trends 2004 through 2014 Surveys $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $- Adjoining suites Super Suites Apartments

21 Reason Facility Was Built Meet the demand for additional beds (73%) Meet the needs and interests of students (68%) Increase the variety of housing options (56%) Keep pace with institutional enrollment growth (49%) Increase the percentage of undergraduates housed on campus (43%) Primary Reason: Meet demand for additional beds (33%) 24

22 Project Funding Mechanisms Tax exempt revenue bonds issued by state or other public bonding authority 67% Reserve funds Bank loan to institution or institutionally affiliated non-profit foundation Operating funds Donor State appropriations Private developer financed, taxable Taxable revenue bonds Other 4% 4% 3% 3% 1% 17% 21% 26% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 27

23 Renovation Findings Institutions Reporting Renovation Projects 29

24 Extent of Renovation (all institutions) System Refurbishment Modified Rehabilitation Cosmetic Refurbishment General Refurbishment 26% 22% 20% 19% Rehabilitation 12% 0% 10% 20% 30% 30

25 Project Cost Per GSF $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $- $255 Rehabilitation $193 Modified Rehabilitation 32

26 Construction Cost Per GSF $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $- $213 Rehabilitation $131 Modified Rehabilitation 33

27 $89 $137 $122 $115 $128 $172 $172 $180 $171 $200 $193 $255 Trends in Project Cost Per GSF $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $- Rehabilitation Modified Rehabilitation 34

28 $71 $114 $102 $145 $143 $123 $121 $130 $131 $163 $163 $ Trends in Construction Cost Per GSF, $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $- Rehabilitation Modified Rehabilitation 35

29 Reason for Renovation (all respondents) Update facilities (192 responses) Meet the needs and interests of students (100 responses) Other (30 responses) Provide higher levels of privacy (21 responses) Primary Reason: Update facilities (163 responses) 37

30 Project Includes Rental Rate Increase (Rehab/Modified Rehab) Undecided, 5% Yes, 13% No, 82% 40

31 DISCUSSION & QUESTIONS For more information, please contact: or