EXHIBIT 17. Anderson Strickler - Bloomsburg University Housing Feasibility Study

EXHIBIT 17 Anderson Strickler - Bloomsburg University Housing Feasibility Study

Housing Feasibility Study Bloomsburg University ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC 18310 Montgomery Village Avenue, Suite 520 Gaithersburg, MD 20879 November 21, 2006 2006 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

TABLE OF CONTENTS BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY Executive Summary... 1 Off-Campus Market Analysis... 5 Overview... 5 Market Trends... 5 Where Students Live... 6 University Housing Preferences... 9 Existing University Housing... 9 Housing Satisfaction...12 Unit Configuration and Interest Level...15 Demand Analysis... 22 Fall 2005 Demand...22 Amenity Survey Analysis... 24 Overview...24 Amenity Prevalence and Usage...24 Amenity Preferences...24 Housing Interest...26 ATTACHMENT 1: Methodology ATTACHMENT 2: Focus Group Notes ATTACHMENT 3: Off-Campus Market Data ATTACHMENT 4: Student Survey Tabulation ATTACHMENT 5: Student Survey Demographics ATTACHMENT 6: Amenity Survey Tabulations ATTACHMENT 7: Amenity Survey Data Analysis ATTACHMENT 7: Amenity Survey Open-Ended Text Page i ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the fall 2005 semester, Bloomsburg University retained STV Architects and Anderson Strickler, LLC (ASL) to conduct a housing feasibility study with two components an evaluation of the demand for and the feasibility of a new housing project and an evaluation of renovation options for Elwell Hall. By fall 2006, Bloomsburg estimated 728 beds of unmet needs from upperclass students and transfers on a wait list; students currently housed in lounges, with RAs, and in triples; students on the Honeysuckle wait list; and from the planned reduction in density in Elwell Hall. ASL conducted a series of focus groups with students, conducted a student survey, and reviewed the off-campus apartment market that serves students, and later conducted a follow-up survey to refine the design of the new housing to incorporate a reasonable level of amenities without driving prices above a point that would suppress demand. Previously, ASL had conducted a market study for Bloomsburg in 2002 and an update in 2003 to support the feasibility of developing the Honeysuckle Apartments. Bloomsburg s on-campus housing system has a capacity of 2,900 beds in a mix of traditional and apartment-style housing, offering bed spaces to 34% of enrollment. The University requires freshmen to live in on-campus housing, mostly in the residence halls in doubles. Fall 2005 opening occupancy was 109%. Room rates for 2006 2007 in a traditional-style room range from $1,641 (double) to $2,462 (single) per semester; apartment-style housing ranges from $1,789 to $1,997 per semester. Of survey respondents, 70% believe there should be a price differential for different unit types. Honeysuckle Apartments rent for $2,755 per semester for a bedroom in a three-bedroom, three-bathroom unit and $2,520 per semester for a bedroom in a four-bedroom, two-bathroom unit. Bloomsburg s rental market consists of apartments in a complex (34%), houses/townhomes/duplexes (30%), apartments in a house or converted house (25%), apartments above retail (10%), or some other type (1%). Since the 2002 study, rents have experienced an average annual growth of 4.7%. The median rent paid by single survey respondents in two-bedroom units is $1,605 per person per semester. Honeysuckle has attracted some students away from apartments downtown, leaving vacancies at the beginning of the school year. To remain competitive among students desiring private bedrooms like Honeysuckle, landlords have increased the number of private bedrooms in many units, but the rent increase is not enough to make up for lost revenue from the missing roommate(s). In fall 2005, 23% of survey respondents were renters. The majority of those who live off campus previously lived on campus and moved off to have a more independent lifestyle, get more space, and because friends were moving off campus. Despite cost often playing a major role in the decision to move off-campus, Bloomsburg students ranked cost only 16th out of 20 choices. Many students choose to move off the (dry) campus when they turn 21. Living off campus has advantages in terms of having more freedom, space, privacy, and control over noise and distractions, but off-campus students have more responsibilities paying bills, cleaning up after themselves, liability when a roommate defaults on rent and must accept some inconveniences more difficulty parking and a harder time getting to campus. When considering where to live off campus, cost was the most important factor, followed by having adequate living space and private bedrooms. On-campus respondents valued proximity to campus facilities and services, cost, and the ability to meet other students. Most students believe that it is extremely important to offer housing to freshmen, international students, and transfer students. Only one in five Page 1 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY stated that the quality of student housing positively affected their decision to attend Bloomsburg, although few said it affected their decision negatively. Mount Olympus Apartments and Honeysuckle residents were more likely to be very satisfied with their living situation compared to other on-campus living options. Students who live in Honeysuckle apartments appreciate that it is comfortable and clean; offers attractive amenities private bedrooms, semi-private bathrooms, kitchens, nearby parking, nearby laundry facilities, responsive and timely maintenance, and good staff while some residents are noisy and some smoke in the breezeways against the rules. More residents than non-residents believe the cost to be reasonable. Some non-residents expressed the opinion that Honeysuckle is inconvenient, but residents appreciate its being slightly removed from the campus core and might prefer Upper Campus living to Lower Campus. Almost all Elwell Hall residents are either very satisfied or satisfied with their living situation; they like the location, size, efficient layout of furnishings, and coed-by-door occupancy. The long, straight hallways encourage community, but can conflict with the desire for privacy. Elwell s main disadvantages are that it lacks movable furniture, places to cook, and distributed common areas and has insufficient and inconveniently located hall lounges. Students appreciate the convenience of Lower Campus, getting to class quickly without the shuttle bus. Living on campus makes it easier to meet people and to be involved in campus activities and is less stressful than dealing with unresponsive landlords and multiple utility bills every month. Living on campus can have downsides: students feel like they are being too closely supervised while it can be too noisy with unsupervised neighbors. Privacy can be elusive, with few places to go to get away from roommates or others making noise. Having a roommate can be stressful and exacerbate the lack of privacy, especially during disagreements or when cultures clash. Larger bedrooms, elimination of triple rooms, and air-conditioning are the three most important facility improvements. Convenient parking and wireless Internet service are the most important amenity improvements. More opportunities for social interaction, as well as the ability to live near others with similar interests or in a living and learning community were highest ranked student life improvements. Students preferred semi-suite-style housing to the existing residence halls, but few would pay more and few indicated that it would cause them to remain on campus longer than they would now. Students contradictorily indicated that suite-style housing is worth more than on-campus traditional singles but less than the similarly priced units at Honeysuckle. Suites with private bedrooms might cause many to remain on campus for at least one additional year, although some would still turn 21 and leave. Although the privacy of single bedrooms would ease roommate conflicts, they are only appropriate for upperclassmen. Apartment-style units with a full kitchen made many participants indicate they would have stayed on campus for another year. Apartments with single bedrooms raised fears of too high a price. Surveyed students preferred four-single-bedroom apartments in new housing and a two-doublebedroom suite in the renovated Elwell Hall. While 34% of respondents indicated they would have definitely lived there, 38% indicated they might have lived there or that they probably would not (12%) or would not (16%) have lived in the described housing. Those who were not interested most often cited cost and other rules, regulations, and policies. Page 2 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY ASL calculated incremental demand from students not currently living on campus to estimate that students demand between 385 and 761 beds of housing. The mid-point of the range (due to the survey sample size compared to enrollment) is 573 beds. Also, almost 1,600 on-campus students would prefer one of the new unit types to the existing offerings. Bloomsburg s estimation of 728 beds of unmet need fits well within this range. Distributing the demand for housing among all of the tested unit types gives Table 1, showing demand for each unit and room type at the tested rent. Unit Type Interested Off-Campus Student Preference Potential Incremental Demand Interested On-Campus Student Preference Potential On- Campus Demand Total Potential Demand 2-Double-BR Suite 6% 37 7% 116 153 4-Single-BR Suite 20% 115 13% 198 312 2-Double-BR Apt 3% 18 3% 40 58 4-Single-BR Apt 35% 202 30% 475 676 3-Single-BR Apt 12% 69 10% 156 224 2-Single-BR Apt 14% 78 12% 195 273 Total New 518 1,179 1,697 Renovated Elwell 2-Double-BR Suite 7% 41 13% 208 249 Renovated Elwell Double-Size Single 2% 14 3% 44 58 Renovated Elwell Traditional Double 0% 0 9% 143 143 Total Elwell 55 395 450 100% 573 100% 1,575 2,147 Table 1: Overall Unit Preference ASL conducted a second survey to gain additional insight into students needs for amenities. Students who live off campus typically have to pay extra for some amenities included in the rent at Honeysuckle or else do not have it at all. Most off-campus renters, like Honeysuckle residents, brought their own microwave. Few Honeysuckle or off-campus residents use their local phone service often. Almost half of off-campus renters have a washer/dryer in their unit; of those that do, about two-thirds use it often and one-third, occasionally. In contrast, seven-eighths of Honeysuckle residents use theirs in their unit often. Although Honeysuckle units come with garbage disposals and only a quarter of off-campus units do, usage is similar, with two-thirds using them often and one-third, occasionally. Given a choice between two contrasting design attributes, most students would prefer 1) more space in the bedroom to having more space in building common areas, 2) more bathroom space (or more fixtures) to having more space in the cooking area, 3) more space in the unit s living area to having more space in the dining area, 4) more space in the unit to more space in building common areas, 5) more small common areas to having large ones, and 6) lower overall building quality with more amenities to a higher building quality level but fewer amenities. Respondents indicated an increasing level of importance for an elevator as they progressed to higher floors. Interestingly, however, those currently living on the fourth floor or higher indicated that they would find an elevator slightly less important than did those on lower floors. Page 3 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY Faced with several upgrade options with per-person per-semester costs given, between 65% and 93% of respondents would pay $140 for a full-size bed in a larger bedroom. Although 61% of Honeysuckle residents would pay $480 for a full-sized kitchen, 35% indicated they would prefer a more limited kitchenette for only $250. Of off-campus respondents, 44% chose the kitchen and 49% the kitchenette, and of on-campus respondents, 21% chose the kitchen and 64% the kitchenette. A majority of Honeysuckle residents would pay $5 for a garbage disposal, while only a minority of other respondents would. While 90% of Honeysuckle residents would pay $20 for a dishwasher, only 71% of off-campus residents and 58% of on campus residents would. In an exception to their propensity to choose the upgrade, only 32% of Honeysuckle residents would pay $5 to have a microwave provided, while 50% of off-campus residents and 59% of on-campus residents would. In an almost even split, 48% of Honeysuckle residents would pay $190 for a dining area with a table and chairs, while 45% would pay $65 for counter seating. Only 24% of off-campus residents and 20% of oncampus residents would pay for the dining area, while 70% of off-campus residents and 66% of oncampus residents would pay for the counter seating. Most 63% of Honeysuckle residents, 58% of offcampus residents, and 62% of on-campus residents would not upgrade for $395 to a building with interior entrances on a corridor from one, like Honeysuckle, with exterior entrances. Neither would most upgrade for $445 to a building with interior entrances and an elevator (selected by only 15% of Honeysuckle residents, 16% of off-campus residents, and 11% of on-campus residents). Virtually all respondents would pay $75 for a parking lot next to their building. As an upgrade from a central laundry room, for $40, 90% of Honeysuckle residents would upgrade to a washer/dryer in their unit, while 19% would only pay $10 for one on their floor but not their unit. Of off-campus residents, 56% would have it in their unit and 26% on their floor; only 43% of on-campus residents would have it in their unit and 33% on their floor. For $15, 80% of Honeysuckle residents, 55% of off-campus residents, and 52% of on-campus residents would take a side-by-side washer/dryer over a stacked unit. The most important amenities were bedroom size, wireless Internet service, a community room, local phone, and a garbage disposal. Had upper-campus housing with their desired amenity package been available when they were selecting their current housing, respondents would have been, with even three-quarters of Honeysuckle residents expressing definite interest or an even (50/50) chance. Of on-campus respondents, 52% indicated they would definitely have lived there. Page 4 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

OFF-CAMPUS MARKET ANALYSIS BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY OFF-CAMPUS MARKET ANALYSIS Overview To evaluate the local real estate market, ASL spoke to realtors and property managers and conducted Internet and telephone research. The off-campus rental market consists of apartment buildings as well as other rental housing, such as apartments above retail stores, apartments in converted houses, duplexes or townhouses, or detached houses. Typical off-campus apartments have private, permit parking available. Most have laundry facilities on site and some offer furnished or partially furnished units. Many collect rent by the semester, as University housing does. Market Trends The 2002 study ASL conducted reported a median rent of $1,000 per person per semester, or about $220 per person, per month. In 2006, ASL found a median rent of $1,200 per person per semester, or about $267 per person, per month. The median rent paid by single survey respondents who rent their own housing in two-bedroom units is $1,605 per person per semester. The per person semester rates for three-bedroom, four-bedroom, and units with more than four bedrooms does not vary much from the cost of the two-bedroom unit. The opening of Honeysuckle Apartments has attracted students who formerly would have lived in apartments in downtown Bloomsburg, according to landlords. Although there were empty beds before Honeysuckle, the problem is more acute now, with some signs still up for vacancies as of the middle of August, barely a week before students start to return. Landlords who have adapted to changing circumstances face little financial hardship, but others tend to prefer blaming the University s competition rather than their own properties lack of attractive features in a competitive market. In terms of student preferences, the most noticeable trend to landlords is the unwillingness of this wave of students to share a bedroom with another student. As a result, to remain competitive, landlords feel pressured to increase the number of bedrooms in a unit. For example, a landlord may take two bedrooms and divide the space into three bedrooms, converting a unit from a two-bedroom unit to a three-bedroom unit. Although landlords may recoup some of the cost of this change with a rent increase of $100 to $150 per semester (for a private bedroom compared to a shared bedroom); the increase is not enough to make up for lost revenue from the missing roommate. Damage from students seems to be increasing according to a local landlord who leases to students. Attributing the cause to binge drinking, the landlord claims to have observed funnels they don t use glasses any more in nearly two-thirds of the apartments he manages. Some landlords are starting to install high-speed Internet in response to student requests. In contrast, although some students do bring their own air conditioners, few ask landlords if the units are air-conditioned. Students do inquire about private bathrooms, although very few are available. Landlords believe that attempting to enforce a 12-month lease would be impossible; therefore academic-year leases are still prevalent. Page 5 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

OFF-CAMPUS MARKET ANALYSIS BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY Where Students Live Off-Campus Renters As of the fall 2005 semester, two-thirds of survey respondents lived on campus, while 9% stated that they live with parents or relatives and 1% own their home. The remaining 23% rented their own housing. Of those who rented their own housing: Thirty-four percent of students renters rented an apartment in an apartment or condominium complex, while 30% rented a house, town home or duplex (where the whole building is rented by one or more students), a quarter rented an apartment in a house or converted house, 10% rented an apartment in a space above retail, and 1% rented some other type of housing. Only 5% of renters lived alone while 17% lived with one other person, 22% with two others, 19% with three others, and 37% with more than three others. The vast majority of renters lived on their own or with roommates (95%), while 4% lived with their spouse, partner, or children, and 1% lived with parents or other relatives and contributed toward their living expenses. Seven percent of renters lived in one-bedroom units, one-third in two-bedroom units, 23% in three-bedroom units, 17% in four-bedroom units, and 20% in units with more than four bedrooms. No survey respondents indicated that they lived in an efficiency apartment. Only 6% did not share a bathroom with other residents; 37% shared at most with one other, while 57% shared with more than two people. This is atypical in ASL experience in which the majority of off-campus renters share a bathroom at most with only one other. Thirty-seven percent shared their bedroom with someone other than their spouse or child and 6% shared a bedroom with a spouse or child; 57% did not share a bedroom. The 37% who shared a bedroom with a roommate is a significantly higher percentage than the 10% ASL typically sees at other institutions nationwide. Thirty-five percent rented their unit furnished, while 17% rented their unit unfurnished and 48% rented their unit partially furnished. The largest percentage of renters have signed academic year leases (57%), while a quarter have semester leases, 12% have 12-month leases, 2% have a month-to-month lease from the beginning of the lease, 1% have a month-to-month lease starting at the end of my original lease term, 1% have a six-month lease, and the remaining 2% have signed some other type of lease. Reasons Students Move Off Campus Of survey respondents living off campus in fall 2005, the majority (72%) previously lived on campus at Bloomsburg University. These respondents were asked to indicate all the reasons they moved off campus. Off-campus respondents most often chose the desire for a more independent lifestyle followed by preference for more space and that friends were moving off campus. The top ten responses out of the 20 Page 6 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

OFF-CAMPUS MARKET ANALYSIS BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY offered are shown in Figure 1. Based on ASL experience at other campuses, cost often plays a major role in the decision to move off-campus. Bloomsburg students ranked cost only 16 th out of the 20 choices. Wanted a more independent lifestyle 53% Preference for more space My friends were moving off campus 42% 45% Rules, regulations, and policies in general Preference for private bedroom Lack of proximate parking Alcohol restrictions 37% 35% 34% 33% Did not want to move out during breaks Age/general condition of facilities High noise level 19% 21% 23% Figure 1: Reasons Off-Campus Respondents Moved Out of Bloomsburg Housing According to focus group participants, many students choose to move off-campus when they turn 21. Those who live off campus see its advantages in terms of having more freedom, space, privacy, and control over noise and distractions. On the other hand, off-campus residents believe they have more responsibilities paying bills, cleaning up after themselves, accepting responsibility when a roommate defaults on rent. They also accept some inconveniences more difficulty parking, and a harder time getting to campus, especially during bad weather. Page 7 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

OFF-CAMPUS MARKET ANALYSIS BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY Factors Considered in Housing Decision The survey asked for the five most important factors respondents considered in selecting their residence for the 2005 2006 academic year. The factors were weighted (the most important factor was given a score of 5, the second most important factor a 4, and so on) and totaled to calculate a weighted relative score. Despite the low ranking in reasons for moving off campus, cost was the most important factor for off-campus respondents, followed by having adequate living space and private bedrooms. For oncampus respondents, proximity to campus facilities and services was most important followed by cost and the ability to meet other students (or the social atmosphere). Of least importance were no credit check, ability to enter into a 12-month lease, flexible lease terms, and the ability to have pets. The top ten responses are shown in Figure 2. Cost Near campus facilities and services Adequate living space Ability to meet other students/social atmosphere Private bedroom Physical condition of the housing Security/safety features In-room Ethernet/Internet connection Satisfy parents' wishes Ability to cook meals Total On Campus Off Campus 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Figure 2: Most Important Factors Used in Decision of Where to Live Page 8 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

UNIVERSITY HOUSING PREFERENCES BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY UNIVERSITY HOUSING PREFERENCES Existing University Housing Housing Capacity, Unit Types, and Amenities The Bloomsburg University system has a capacity of 2,900 beds in a mix of traditional and apartmentstyle housing. Most rooms in traditional-style residence halls are double-occupancy, although there are some singles and triples. Table 2 shows a breakdown of the residence halls in the housing system. Residence Hall Year Built Last Renovation Housing Style Room Type Design Capacity Fall 2005 Occupancy Columbia Hall 1970 2003 Traditional Double 400 110% Elwell Hall 1968 - Traditional Double 660 114% Luzerne Hall 1967 2005 Traditional Double 288 106% Lycoming Hall 1976 2003 Traditional Double 250 118% Montour Hall 1965 - Traditional Double 248 110% Northumberland Hall 1958 2005 Traditional Double 184 104% Schuylkill Hall 1965 - Traditional Double 248 114% Lower Campus 2,278 112% Montgomery Place Apts 1988 2005 Apartments Double 376 100% Mt. Olympus Apts 2001 - Apartments Single 246 100% Total 2,900 109% Table 2: Existing Residence Hall Configurations By providing the above spaces for its fall 2005 enrollment of 8,570, Bloomsburg offers bed spaces to 34% of enrollment. The University requires freshmen to live in on-campus housing. The fall 2005 occupancy for the housing system at Bloomsburg was 109%. Occupancy by hall is shown in the table above. The University offers many amenities in some or all of the residence halls, including coin-operated laundry facilities, computer labs, study rooms, community kitchens, TV lounges, recreation rooms, and piano rooms. In-room features include one or two telephone outlet(s) and two network computer connections. Mt. Olympus and Montgomery Place Apartments offer coin-operated laundry facilities and dedicated parking. Apartment units are fully furnished and carpeted and include basic appliances, basic cable, telephone lines, and computer network connections in each bedroom. Most utilities are included in the rent but students at the complexes pay for electricity. Honeysuckle Apartments are fully furnished, including a full-size washer and dryer. Residents sign individual leases, which means residents are not responsible for their roommate s rent. Each resident has a private bedroom with individual room connections for telephone, Internet, and cable TV. Community amenities include computer areas, TV lounge, fitness center, and study and meeting rooms. Although the complex is within walking distance to campus, there is a shuttle service to the University available. The University maintains a waiting list for incoming transfer students and upperclass students who are interested in living in University Housing; Honeysuckle also maintains a wait list. Currently, as suggested by the occupancy rates of over 100%, some residence hall students are assigned to occupy Page 9 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

UNIVERSITY HOUSING PREFERENCES BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY lounges, some rooms designed as doubles are used as triples, and RAs whose job typically requires the level of privacy that a single affords are assigned roommates. After a renovation that includes a reduction in the number of bedrooms and bed spaces, the University expects that Elwell Hall will house fewer students. As Table 3 Shows, the total unmet need from these sources is for 728 beds. Source Beds 2006 University Housing Wait List (Upperclass & Transfers) 225 Current RA Roommates & Residents Housed in Lounges 180 Current Tripled Rooms 165 Ellwell Hall Planned Downsizing 100 Honeysuckle Wait List 58 Total Unmet Need 728 Table 3: Unmet Housing Need Housing Rates As shown in Table 4, the total cost for room for the 2006 2007 academic year in traditional-style housing ranges from $1,094 per semester for a triple occupancy room to $2,462 per semester for a single occupancy room. The total cost for room for apartment-style housing ranges from $1,789 to $1,997 per semester. The rates shown do not include the cost of a meal plan for residence halls or the utility allowance in the apartments. For comparison, the housing rates for the various unit types at Honeysuckle Apartments are shown in Table 5. Cost Per Type of Housing Academic Year Cost Per Semester Triple Occupancy $2,188 $1,094 Double Occupancy $3,282 $1,641 Single Occupancy $4,924 $2,462 Montgomery Place Apts $3,578 $1,789 Mt. Olympus Apts $3,994 $1,997 Table 4: Housing Rates, 2006 2007 Tupe of Housing Cost Per Academic Year (AY) Cost Per Semester (AY Lease) Annual Lease (12 months) 3-Bedroom/3-Bathroom $5,510 $2,755 $5,856 4-Bedroom/2-Bathroom $5,040 $2,520 $5,280 Table 5: Housing Rates, 2006 2007 Honeysuckle Apartments Seventy percent of survey respondents (75% of off-campus respondents vs. 68% of on-campus respondents) believe there should be a price differential for different unit types or halls offered in Bloomsburg housing (e.g., a double in a suite in a renovated hall/apt should cost more than a double with a community bath in a non-renovated hall). Page 10 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

UNIVERSITY HOUSING PREFERENCES BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY Source of Housing Funds Survey respondents indicated what percentage of their housing costs were funded by different sources. As shown in Figure 3, responses reveal that almost twice as many students who live off campus rely on their own income for over 50% of their housing costs than on-campus residents (24% off-campus residents vs. 13% on-campus residents). In addition, on-campus residents are more likely than off-campus residents to rely on parents /guardians, scholarships, grants, and loans for housing costs. 21% 25% 16% 9% 41% 27% 11% 12% 26% 12% 88% 5% 70% 20% 5% 54% 19% 8% 14% 6% 15% 19% 11% 27% 28% 40% 41% 7% 7% 6% 95% 51% 33% 5% 7% 30% 28% 14% 20% 9% None Some, but less than 50% 50% More than 50% but less than 100% 100% Parents or guardians Self Another person Scholarships / Grants Loans Parents or guardians Self Another person Scholarships / Grants Loans Off Campus On Campus Figure 3: Source of Housing Costs Importance of Student Housing When asked how important it is to provide housing for particular student groups, most survey respondents believe that it is extremely important to house freshmen (96%). The level of importance diminishes as a students move from sophomore to junior year and from junior to senior year. By the time a student is in graduate school providing campus housing is not as important. There is a high level of importance placed on housing internationals and transfer students and a fair level of importance in housing families and Greek students, as shown in Figure 4. Extremely important Somewhat important Not very important Not important 96% 39% 60% 18% 58% 9% 30% 42% 25% 36% 30% 17% 82% 46% 50% 11% 28% 42% 20% 28% 39% 22% 19% 9% 19% 13% Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors Graduate students International students Transfer students Students with families Greek students Figure 4: Importance of Providing Campus Housing Page 11 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

UNIVERSITY HOUSING PREFERENCES BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY Of all survey respondents, 19% stated that the quality of student housing affected their decision to attend Bloomsburg in a significantly positive way (23% of on-campus respondents vs. 11% of off-campus respondents). Few respondents, whether they live on or off campus, stated that the quality of Bloomsburg housing affected their decision to attend the University in a negative manner, as shown in Figure 5. 30% 50% 34% 44% Significant negative impact Slight negative impact No impact Slight positive impact Significant positive impact 11% Off Campus 23% On Campus Figure 5: Impact of Bloomsburg Housing on Decision to Attend Housing Satisfaction A cross-tabulation of satisfaction with housing by current living situation reveals that survey respondents living in Mount Olympus Apartments and Honeysuckle Apartments were more likely to be very satisfied with their living situation compared to other on-campus living options. Figure 6 shows housing satisfaction by place of residence, where n is the number of survey respondents that live in a particular residence. Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Off Campus On Campus Live with parents/relatives, would consider (n=38) Lived in rental housing (n=169) Honeysuckle Apartments (n=40) Kile Apartment Complex (n=10) Schuylkill Residence Hall (n=43) Northumberland Residence Hall (n=29) Mount Olympus Apartments (n=28) Montour Residence Hall (n=42) Montgomery Place Apartments (n=37) Lycoming Residence Hall (n=35) Luzerne Residence Hall (n=55) Elwell Residence Hall (n=100) Columbia Residence Hall (n=75) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 6: Satisfaction with Current Housing According to focus group participants, students who live in Honeysuckle apartments appreciate that it is quiet, comfortable, and clean. It offers attractive amenities private bedrooms, semi-private bathrooms, kitchens, nearby parking, nearby laundry facilities, responsive and timely maintenance, and good staff. Some residents are noisy, and some students smoke in the breezeways against the rules. Residents be- Page 12 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

UNIVERSITY HOUSING PREFERENCES BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY lieve the cost to be reasonable, although the perception among other focus group participants is that it is very expensive. Although some non-residents expressed the opinion that Honeysuckle is inconvenient, Honeysuckle residents appreciate its being slightly removed from the campus core and might prefer Upper Campus living to Lower Campus. Also shown above, the vast majority of survey respondents (90%) living in Elwell Hall are either very satisfied or satisfied with their living situation. Students who live in Elwell Hall, according to focus group participants, like it for its location, size, efficient layout of furnishings, and coed-by-door occupancy. Its disadvantages are the inability to move furniture or personalize the layout, the lack of kitchens or places to cook, and the lack of a common are on each floor or wing; the first floor and basement lounges do not meet the needs of all users. The long, straight hallways encourage community since residents know everyone and can visit on the way to or from the bathroom, but this constant availability can wear on residents. What Students Like About University Housing In general, students find much to like about living on campus. Students appreciate the convenience of living on the Lower Campus, being able to get to class quickly and without taking the shuttle bus. They appreciate that living on campus makes it easier to meet people and to be involved in campus activities. Living on campus is less stressful than living off-campus where students need to deal with multiple utility bills every month and landlords who can be unresponsive to maintenance concerns. Page 13 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

UNIVERSITY HOUSING PREFERENCES BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY Suggested Improvements and Amenities While the advantages focus group participants noted revolved around convenience and social aspects, they admit that living on campus can have downsides. Some students feel like they are being watched and supervised, while others find on-campus living too noisy with unrestrained neighbors. Privacy can be elusive, with few places to go to get away from roommates or others making noise. Having a roommate can be stressful and exacerbate the lack of privacy, especially during disagreements or when cultures clash. Survey respondents were asked to indicate the importance of various improvements to campus housing. As shown in Figure 7 (and using the methodology described above), larger bedrooms, elimination of triple occupancy rooms, and air-conditioning are the three most important facility improvements to survey respondents whether they live on campus or off campus. Larger bedrooms Elimination of triple occupancy of rooms Air-conditioning Storage space Individual room temperature controls Sound insulation Private or suite bathroom Private bedroom Private changing area in showers in community bathrooms Location of network, cable TV, and/or telephone connections Total On Campus Off Campus 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Figure 7: Facility Improvements Page 14 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

UNIVERSITY HOUSING PREFERENCES BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY Survey respondents were asked to indicate the importance of various amenity improvements for campus housing. Convenient parking and wireless Internet service topped the list. An on-site laundry facility ranked higher for off-campus respondents than on-campus respondents in comparison to other amenities. Figure 8 shows the top ten amenities from those tested. Of least importance were covered bicycle storage, group meeting space, and having a convenience store near housing. Convenient parking Wireless Internet Fitness center/weight room Carpeting Common area kitchens on each floor Late night food options On-site laundry facility Study lounges Computer labs with network access Business center (e.g., copier, printer, fax machine) Total On Campus Off Campus 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Figure 8: Amenity Improvements Survey respondents were asked to indicate the importance of various student life improvements for campus housing. Survey respondents were most interested in more opportunities for social interaction, as well as the ability to live near others with similar interests or hobbies and the ability to live in a living and learning community. All tested student life improvements are ranked in Figure 9. Opportunities for social interaction Ability to live near others with similar interests/hobbies Ability to live in a living/learning community Ability to live near those in my same academic year In-hall tutoring services In-hall academic advising Opportunities to interact with faculty outside of classroom Programs to develop leadership skills In-hall review sessions In-hall writing help center Total On Campus Off Campus 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Figure 9: Student Life Improvements Unit Configuration and Interest Level Focus group participants were shown a series of floor plans to generate discussion about living preferences. The focus was on three types of housing: semi-suites, suites, and apartments. Semi-suite-style housing: This type of housing (with no community bathroom) was attractive to most participants, although some questioned having to clean their own bathroom or al- Page 15 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

UNIVERSITY HOUSING PREFERENCES BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY lowing access to their room to the two suite-mates. Most admitted that this unit would be more attractive with a self-selected group than if they were assigned to it with three strangers. Most preferred this to the existing residence halls, although few indicated that it would cause them to remain on campus longer than they would now and few indicated more than minimal willingness to pay more for this than they would pay for the doubles on campus now. Suite-style housing: Almost all participants would prefer such a layout (with a living area and semi-private bathroom) to the existing layouts, although some indicated that the presumed expense might be an issue. A few participants believe the additional common space and semi-private bathrooms make this unit worth as much as an on-campus traditional single, although few participants believed it to be worth as much as Honeysuckle, with virtually the same cost as a single. Still, very few indicated having suites with shared bedrooms as an option would have caused them to stay on campus for an additional year, but suites with private bedrooms might cause many to remain on campus for at least one additional year, although some would still leave upon becoming 21. The privacy of single bedrooms would ease much of the friction caused by roommates. Most participants agreed that these units, especially with private bedrooms, were more appropriate for upperclassmen than for freshmen. Apartment-style housing: Apartments, with a full kitchen, appealed to those who liked to cook, and, although not well suited for freshmen, made many participants indicate they would have stayed on campus for another year. Some, however, feared that if the University developed significant numbers of these on the Upper Campus, they would attract so many upper division students that the Lower Campus residence halls would only have freshman and sophomore residents. Apartments with single bedrooms, offering the most privacy of any of the options, garnered much praise but also raised fears of too high a price. Conceptually identical to a Honeysuckle unit, these were familiar to many but considered least appropriate for freshmen. Few students would prefer this type of housing due to its cost. The survey asked respondents to indicate what unit types were most appropriate for each year of study. As shown in Figure 10 and supporting the views of focus group participants, survey respondents think the privacy within the unit should increase as year of study increases; the largest percentage of respondents think seniors (53% of respondents) should live in apartments and that graduate students (63% of respondents) should live off campus on their own. 8% 15% 8% 5% 10% 16% 23% 29% 37% 5% 63% Live off campus on his/her own Live at home Apartment 75% 47% 39% 53% 13% Suite Semi-Suite 23% Traditional room Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Figure 10: Appropriate Unit Type for Year of Study Page 16 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

UNIVERSITY HOUSING PREFERENCES BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY In the student survey, six potential floor plans were tested at estimated per person rental rates. Students were asked to rank each option as Preferred, Acceptable, or Would not live there. The rental rates and floor plans tested are shown in Table 6. The rents assume that all units are furnished and that prices include utilities and high-speed internet, but not the price of a meal plan. TWO-DOUBLE BEDROOM SUITE $4,060 per AY or $4,280 per Annual Lease FOUR-SINGLE BEDROOM SUITE $4,460 per AY or $4,710 per Annual Lease TWO-DOUBLE BEDROOM APARTMENT $4,550 per AY or $4,800 per Annual Lease FOUR-SINGLE BEDROOM APARTMENT $4,750 per AY or $4,980 per Annual Lease THREE-SINGLE BEDROOM APARTMENT $5,200 per AY or $5,520 per Annual Lease TWO-SINGLE BEDROOM APARTMENT $5,450 per AY or $5,750 per Annual Lease Table 6: Floor Plans and Tested Rents Potential New Housing The proposed housing could be located on one of several sites. The largest percentage of all survey respondents (46%) think new housing should be located on lower campus (32% of off-campus respondents vs. 52% of on-campus respondents); 35% think the housing should be located closer to downtown Bloomsburg (55% of off-campus respondents vs. 27% of on-campus respondents). The remaining 19% of survey respondents think the housing should be located on upper campus. After viewing the floor plans and rents, students were asked make a selection for each unit: preferred, acceptable, or would not live there. The four-single bedroom apartment garnered a higher percent- Page 17 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

UNIVERSITY HOUSING PREFERENCES BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY age of preferred responses (32%) than any other unit type; an additional 55% found the four-single bedroom apartment acceptable. Results from the unit preference question are shown in Figure 11. Preferred Acceptable Would not live there Two-Single Bedroom Apartment 13% 56% 31% Three-Single Bedroom Apartment 13% 64% 23% Four-Single Bedroom Apartment 32% 55% 13% Two-Double Bedroom Apartment 57% 40% Four-Single Bedroom Suite 17% 68% 16% Two-Double Bedroom Suite 10% 57% 33% Figure 11: Unit Preference Potential New Housing Respondents were also presented with three potential floor plans for a renovated Elwell Hall. Those floor plans and tested rents are shown in Table 7. RENOVATED HALL TRADITIONAL DOUBLE BEDROOM Rent Premium Per Person: $300 per semester over traditional double room rate RENOVATED HALL DOUBLE-SIZE SINGLE ROOM Rent Premium Per Person: $900 per semester over traditional double room rate RENOVATED HALL TWO-DOUBLE BEDROOM SUITE Rent Premium Per Person: $780 per semester over traditional double room rate Table 7: Floor Plans and Tested Rents Renovated Elwell Hall Page 18 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

UNIVERSITY HOUSING PREFERENCES BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY After viewing the floor plans and rents, students were asked make a selection for each unit using the same response options in the potential new unit preference. The two-double bedroom suite in the renovated hall was by far the most preferred unit type. The unit preference for renovated Elwell Hall units is shown in Figure 12. Preferred Acceptable Would not live there Renovated Hall Two-Double Bedroom Suite 44% 41% 15% Renovated Hall Double-Size Single Bedroom 11% 48% 41% Renovated Hall Traditional Double Bedroom 14% 62% 23% Figure 12: Unit Preference Elwell Hall As Figure 13 shows, those who had selected a preferred from both new and Elwell options, 90% of offcampus respondents and 74% of on-campus respondents would prefer the new apartments. 10% 90% 26% 21% 74% 79% My preferred option in a renovated Elwell Hall My preferred option among the new apartments Off Campus On Campus Total Figure 13: Preference between New Hall and Renovated Elwell If the student housing options in the survey had been available to the respondents for the 2005 2006 academic year, just over a third of respondents indicated they would have definitely lived there (8% of off-campus respondents and 47% of on-campus respondents) and 38% indicated they might have lived there (37% of off-campus respondents and 38% of on-campus respondents); 16% of all respondents indicated they would not have lived in the described housing. Figure 14 separates results from on-campus respondents and off-campus respondents. Page 19 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

UNIVERSITY HOUSING PREFERENCES BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY 5% 10% 38% 16% 12% Would not have lived there. 38% 17% 38% Probably would not have lived there (less than a 50/50 chance). 47% 37% 34% Might have lived there (50/50 chance). On Campus Off Campus Total 8% Definitely would have lived there. Figure 14: Interest in Living in Proposed Housing Those who were not interested in the proposed housing selected all of the reasons they were not interested. The largest number of respondents cited the housing was too expensive followed by other rules, regulations, and policies. Figure 15 shows responses for reasons listed in the survey for on-campus and off-campus respondents. Too expensive Other rules, regulations, and policies Visitation policy Not suitable for students with spouse/partner I live at home with family I do not want to move Not suitable for students with children I own a home On Campus Off Campus 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Number of Respondents Figure 15: Reasons Students Do Not Want to Live in Campus Housing Plans for Housing for 2006 2007 Over two-thirds of on-campus respondents will live in either an on campus residence hall or apartment or in Honeysuckle Apartments for the 2006 2007 academic year; only 4% of off-campus respondents have the same plans for housing. Page 20 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

UNIVERSITY HOUSING PREFERENCES BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY 20% 39% 25% 11% 6% 11% 19% 26% 11% 9% 19% 8% 13% 41% 28% 5% Other rental housing Off-campus apartment At home with family/relatives Honeysuckle Apartments On-campus apartment On-campus residence hall Will not attend Bloomsburg Off Campus On Campus Total Figure 16: Survey Respondents 2006 2007 Living Situation Page 21 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

DEMAND ANALYSIS BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY DEMAND ANALYSIS Fall 2005 Demand Incremental Demand Based on the results of the survey, ASL calculated incremental demand (i.e. demand from students not currently living in campus housing) to estimate the number and types of units desired by students. Details of the methodology for calculating demand are in Attachment 1. Based on sample size of the response to the survey, the confidence interval at a 95% confidence level is ±6.09% 1, resulting in the range for projected demand of between 385 and 761 beds of housing. The mid-point of the range is 573 beds. Table 8 summarizes the results of the demand analysis for full-time off-campus students by class, with the highest demand coming from sophomores. FALL 2005 Full-time Off-Campus Enrollment Definitely Interested Might Be Interested Potential Projected Demand Class Capture Rate 50% Closure Capture Rate 25% Closure Freshmen 565 10% 27 43% 61 87 Sophomores 1,140 10% 55 44% 126 181 Juniors 1,204 9% 52 33% 100 152 Seniors 1,202 6% 37 38% 116 153 4,111 170 403 573 Table 8: Potential Projected Incremental Demand, Fall 2005 On-Campus Student Demand for New Housing Demand for the new unit types from on-campus respondents was also calculated. The same methodology described above was used, but closure rates were increased because these students already live in campus housing and are likely to live in proposed new housing. Demand from on-campus respondents is almost 1,600 beds, however, it is important to note this demand is not incremental; it would deplete the existing housing stock. FALL 2005 Full-time On-Campus Enrollment Definitely Interested Potential Projected Demand Class Capture Rate 75% Closure Capture Rate 37.5% Closure Freshmen 1,888 53% 750 36% 256 1,005 Sophomores 704 46% 245 37% 98 343 Juniors 336 36% 91 49% 61 152 Seniors 218 24% 39 43% 35 74 3,146 1,124 450 1,575 Table 9: Demand from On-Campus Students, Fall 2005 Might Be Interested 1 The plus-or-minus figure seen in many survey or poll results, for example, if the confidence interval is 3% and 50% percent of the sample picks an answer, it is 95% certain that if the entire population had been asked the same question, between 47% (50%-3%) and 53% (50%+3%) would have picked that answer. Page 22 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

DEMAND ANALYSIS BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY Overall Unit Preference In order to distribute the demand for housing among all of the tested unit types, ASL used the unit preference from students (including the proposed new unit plans and the renovated Elwell unit plans) showing interest in the proposed housing. Table 10 shows the demand for each unit and room type at the tested rent. The 2,147 beds do not represent the demand for the entire housing system at Bloomsburg; this figure does not include the students currently living on campus who would prefer to live in one of the existing residence hall configurations. Unit Type Interested Off-Campus Student Preference Potential Incremental Demand Interested On-Campus Student Preference Potential On- Campus Demand Total Potential Demand 2-Double-BR Suite 6% 37 7% 116 153 4-Single-BR Suite 20% 115 13% 198 312 2-Double-BR Apt 3% 18 3% 40 58 4-Single-BR Apt 35% 202 30% 475 676 3-Single-BR Apt 12% 69 10% 156 224 2-Single-BR Apt 14% 78 12% 195 273 Total New 518 1,179 1,697 Renovated Elwell 2-Double-BR Suite 7% 41 13% 208 249 Renovated Elwell Double-Size Single 2% 14 3% 44 58 Renovated Elwell Traditional Double 0% 0 9% 143 143 Total Elwell 55 395 450 100% 573 100% 1,575 2,147 Table 10: Overall Unit Preference Page 23 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC