ACUHO-I C onstruction and R enovation D ata: T he ''N ext G eneration '' S urvey

1. ACUHO-IConstruction and Renovation Data: The ''Next Generation''Survey Jim Grimm, Past President of ACUHO-I Cynthia Parish Balogh, Senior Associate, MGT Ray Thompson, Partner, MGT Kimberly Hardy, Senior Analyst, MGT June 21, 2004

2. Jim Grimm’s Video

3. Introduction • History of the Survey • ACUHO-I and MGT Collaboration • Project Goal and Objectives • Establish a national data set that is reliable and useful for institutional planning • To provide information that CHOs want and need • To create a user-friendly electronic survey • To produce an easily accessible report

4. Purpose of Presentation • Share results from the study of 284 colleges and universities • Obtain feedback for fine-tuning the survey and the process prior to Fall 2005 administration

5. Process for Administering the Survey

6. Study Process • Develop Online Format for Survey • Pilot Test with Expanded Research Advisory Group - 42 Institutions • Analyze Pilot Test Data and Report at ACUHO-I Conference and on Web site • Revise Survey Instrument and Process • Feedback from Pilot Study Participants • Feedback from ACUHO-I Conference

7. Administer Survey • Administer Survey to All ACUHO-I Member Institutions in Fall 2003 • Initial E-mail to CHOs with Link to Survey and Unique Password • Reminder E-mail • Analyze Survey Data and Report at 2004 ACUHO-I Conference • Produce Final Report for Web site

8. Survey Instrument

9. Survey Items • Section A: Institutional Characteristics • Institutional Type, Size, Control • Housing Capacity and Program Information • Section B: Facilities Planning Initiatives • Projects During Relevant Time Period • Projects Planned Within Next Five Years • Existence of Campus/Housing Master Plans

10. Survey Items (cont.) • Section C: New Construction Projects • Types and Numbers of Units/Beds • Gross Square Footage • Cost Figures • Project and Construction Costs • Per SF and Per Bed Costs Calculated • Types of Space and Amenities • Reasons for New Construction • Methods of Funding

11. Survey Items (cont.) • Section D: Renovation Projects • Extent of Renovation • Types and Numbers of Units/Beds • Gross Square Footage • Cost Figures • Project and Construction Costs • Per SF and Per Bed Costs Calculated • Types of Space and Amenities • Reasons for Renovation • Methods of Funding

12. Survey Items (cont.) • Section E: Survey Feedback • Length of Time to Complete Survey • Assistance from Other Departments • Feedback on Questions • Other Comments • Unit/Floor Plans and Photos • New Construction - Plans and Photos • Renovation - Before/After Plans

13. Study Results

14. Respondents • 284 Respondents ~ 30% Response Rate • 97% 4-Year, 3% 2-Year Institutions • 59% Public, 40% Private, <1% Other • Representative of Institutional and Housing Program Size

15. Institutional Enrollment by On-Campus Housing Capacity

16. Construction or renovation completed from Fall 2001 through Fall 2003?

17. Planning to initiate construction or renovation project in next 5 years?

18. Does your institution have a campus master plan that includes housing?

19. Do you currently have a separate housing master plan for your institution?

20. New Construction Findings 88 Institutions Reporting 113 New Construction Projects

21. What type of living units? (choose all that apply)

22. Number of Projects by Percent of Units Configured as Single Occupancy Bedroom

23. Number of Projects by Percent of Units Configured as Double Occupancy Bedroom

24. Laundry - 80.5% Staff office(s) - 77.9% Staff apartment(s) - 77.9% Lobby - 68.1% Elevator(s) - 68.1% Electronic security system - 66.4% Central lounge - 61.9% Vending area - 60.2% Reception office - 58.4% Kitchen(s) - 52.2% Television room - 49.6% Storage for institution furniture/equipment - 46.9% Floor lounge(s) - 44.2% Recreation/Game room - 43.4% Library/Study - 38.9% BBQ/Picnic area - 37.2% Computer lab - 33.6% Classroom(s) - 30.1% Faculty office(s) - 15.9% Storage for student belongings -15.0% Exercise/Fitness room - 14.2% Cafeteria/Dining facility - 13.3% Volleyball court - 10.6% Faculty apartment(s) - 9.7% Snack bar - 9.7% Convenience store - 9.7% Swimming pool - 8.0% Basketball court - 7.1% Conference/Meeting Room - 3.5% Types of space and amenities in facility?

25. Internet access - 92.9% Furniture - 91.2% Air conditioning - 80.5% Carpeting - 79.6% Stove - 64.6% Temperature control in each living unit - 64.6% Telephone Outlet - 64.6% Refrigerator - 61.9% Cable TV service - 58.4% Washer/Dryer in each living unit - 40.7% Microwave - 38.9% Dishwasher - 31.9% Panic button - 19.5% Types of amenities in unit?

26. Project Cost High: $43.0 million Low: $8.1 million Average: $17.7 million Project Costs - Adjoining Suite Style Facilities Project Cost/Bed High: $66,882 Low: $29,809 Average: $43,076 Project Cost/GSF High: $226 Low: $108 Average: $156 Notes: Only includes projects that were strictly adjoining suite facilities not in combination with any other type of unit. Only includes projects that provided either Number of Beds or GSF, and either Project Cost or Construction Cost.

27. Construction Cost High: $40.0 million Low: $5.6 million Average: $15.8 million Construction Costs - Adjoining Suite Style Facilities Construction Cost/Bed High: $64,591 Low: $24,403 Average: $39,143 Construction Cost/GSF High: $185 Low: $88 Average: $135 Notes: Only includes projects that were strictly adjoining suite facilities not in combination with any other type of unit. Only includes projects that provided either Number of Beds or GSF, and either Project Cost or Construction Cost.

28. Project Cost High: $38.0 million Low: $4.0 million Average: $23.6 million Project Costs - Super Suite Style Facilities Project Cost/Bed High: $94,763 Low: $33,957 Average: $50,025 Project Cost/GSF High: $276 Low: $83 Average: $148 Notes: Only includes projects that were strictly super suite facilities not in combination with any other type of unit. Only includes projects that provided either Number of Beds or GSF, and either Project Cost or Construction Cost.

29. Construction Cost High: $39.0 million Low: $4.2 million Average: $20.3 million Construction Costs - Super Suite Style Facilities Construction Cost/Bed High: $49,171 Low: $23,733 Average: $42,757 Construction Cost/GSF High: $204 Low: $88 Average: $116 Notes: Only includes projects that were strictly super suite facilities not in combination with any other type of unit. Only includes projects that provided either Number of Beds or GSF, and either Project Cost or Construction Cost.

30. Project Cost High: $69.0 million Low: $3.0 million Average: $24.4 million Project Costs - Apartment Facilities Project Cost/Bed High: $139,676 Low: $27,728 Average: $52,433 Project Cost/GSF High: $490 Low: $52 Average: $151 Notes: Only includes projects that were strictly apartments and individual contract apartments (or a combination of the two) not in combination with any other type of unit. Only includes projects that provided either Number of Beds or GSF, and either Project Cost or Construction Cost.

31. Construction Cost High: $59.0 million Low: $3.4 million Average: $20.3 million Construction Costs - Apartment Facilities Construction Cost/Bed High: $119,433 Low: $19,149 Average: $43,452 Construction Cost/GSF High: $419 Low: $40 Average: $120 Notes: Only includes projects that were strictly apartments and individual contract apartments (or a combination of the two) not in combination with any other type of unit. Only includes projects that provided either Number of Beds or GSF, and either Project Cost or Construction Cost.

32. Are you seeking or did you achieve LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification for this project?

33. Why was this facility built? Choose All That Apply:  Meet demand for additional beds (81%)  Meet the needs and interests of students (81%)  Increase the variety of housing options (63%)  Increase percent of undergrads housed (53%) Primary Reason:  Meet demand for additional beds (48%)

34. What entity will own the new facility?

35. What entity will manage the new facility?

36. When a foundation owns the facility, who manages it?

37. Method of funding for the project?(choose all that apply)

38. If debt financed, what entity is responsible for the debt?

39. Renovation Findings 98 Institutions Reporting 221 Renovation Projects 72 Rehabilitation or Modified Rehabilitation

40. Extent of the renovation?(all institutions)

41. Type of living unit?(Rehab/Modified Rehab ~ choose all that apply)

42. Project Cost High: $22.0 million Low: $24,000 Average: $5.4 million Project Cost Figures(Rehab/Modified Rehab) Project Cost/Bed High: $109,375 Low: $198 Average: $18,560 Project Cost/GSF High: $888 Low: $11 Average: $90 Note: Only includes projects that provided either Project Cost or Construction Cost.

43. Construction Cost High: $14.9 million Low: $24,000 Average: $4.6 million Construction Cost Figures(Rehab/Modified Rehab) Construction Cost/Bed High: $91,500 Low: $119 Average: $14,267 Construction Cost/GSF High: $259 Low: $13 Average: $64 Note: Only includes projects that provided either Project Cost or Construction Cost.

44. Why was this facility renovated? (Rehab/Modified Rehab) Choose All That Apply:  Update facilities (86%)  Meet the needs and interests of students (74%)  Accommodate academic or other special programs (24%)  Provide higher levels of privacy (19%) Primary Reason:  Update facilities (61%)

45. Method of funding for the project? (Rehab/Modified Rehab ~ choose all that apply)

46. If debt financed, what entity is responsible for the debt? (Rehab/Modified Rehab)

47. Were you able or do you plan to increase the rental rate for this facility? (Rehab/Modified Rehab)

48. Historical Survey Comparison

49. Historical Comparison:Average Construction Cost Per Square Foot *This figure does not include two institutions, Clemson University and North Carolina State University.

50. Historical Comparison:Average Construction Cost Per Bed *This figure does not include two institutions, Clemson University and North Carolina State University. **This figure includes apartments and suites for 1995.