1

ACUHO-IACUHO-IConstruction & Renovation Construction & Renovation

SurveySurvey 2006 Report of Findings2006 Report of Findings Jim Day, University of Georgia Ray Thompson, Partner, MGT

Cynthia Parish Balogh, Principal, MGTJune 25, 2006

2

History of the Survey – Jim Grimm

ACUHO-I and MGT Collaboration

Project Goals and ObjectivesEstablish 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

IntroductionIntroduction

3

Share results from the 2006 survey of 276 colleges and universities

Increase awareness and familiarity with this on-going ACUHO-I project

Facilitate discussion among CHOs concerning construction/renovation issues

Purpose of PresentationPurpose of Presentation

4

Section A: Institutional Characteristics

Section B: Facilities Planning Initiatives

Section C: New Construction Projects

Section D: Renovation Projects

Section E: Survey Feedback

Survey InstrumentSurvey Instrument

5

Survey ResultsSurvey Results

6

276 Respondents ~ 38% Response Rate

97% 4-Year, 3% 2-Year Institutions

63% Public, 35% Private, <2% Other

Responding InstitutionsResponding Institutions

7

Construction or Renovation Construction or Renovation Completed Winter 2004 through Completed Winter 2004 through

Fall 2005Fall 2005

RenovationOnly, 36.9%

None, 38.8%New Construction

and Renovation, 12.7%

NewConstructionOnly, 11.6%

8

Planning to Initiate Construction Planning to Initiate Construction or Renovation Project or Renovation Project

in Next 5 Yearsin Next 5 Years

RenovationOnly19.0%

NewConstruction

Only13.4%

Undecided10.4%

New Construction

and Renovation

53.5%

None3.7%

9

Institution Has a Campus Master Institution Has a Campus Master Plan Plan

That Includes HousingThat Includes Housing

71.8%

28.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Yes No

10

Institution Has a SeparateInstitution Has a SeparateHousing Master PlanHousing Master Plan

52.6%47.4%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Yes No

11

New Construction FindingsNew Construction Findings59 Institutions Reporting

65 New Construction Projects

12

Type of Living UnitsType of Living Units

16.9%

26.2%

33.8%

20.0%

10.8%

7.7%

12.3%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%

Other

Apartments

Individual ContractApartments

Super Suites

Adjoining Suites

Modified TraditionalRooms

Traditional Rooms

13

Number of Projects Number of Projects by Percent of Units Configured as by Percent of Units Configured as

Single Occupancy BedroomSingle Occupancy Bedroom

Nearly ½ of new projects were configured with 75% or more single occupancy bedrooms

A little more than 20% of new projects had no single occupancy bedrooms

14

Number of ProjectsNumber of Projectsby Percent of Units Configured as by Percent of Units Configured as

Double Occupancy BedroomDouble Occupancy Bedroom

Nearly ¼ of new projects were configured with 75% or more double occupancy bedrooms

More than ½ of new projects had no double occupancy bedrooms

15

Types of Space & Amenities in Types of Space & Amenities in FacilityFacility

Top ResponsesTop Responses

Laundry

Staff Office(s)

Staff Apartment(s)

Lobby

Elevator(s)

Electronic Security System

Central lounge

Kitchen(s)

80.1%

80.1%

72.3%

70.8%

70.8%

69.2%

63.1%

63.1%

16

Types of Amenities in UnitTypes of Amenities in Unit

Telephone Outlet

Internet Access

Cable TV

Furniture

Air Conditioning

Individual Temperature Control

Carpeting

Refrigerator

95.4%

92.3%

92.3%

89.2%

87.7%

86.2%

78.5%

72.3%

Top ResponsesTop Responses

17

Project Cost Per GSFProject Cost Per GSFBy Type of UnitBy Type of Unit

(2006 Survey)(2006 Survey)

Sample Sizes: Adjoining Suites: n = 3, Super Suites: n = 8, Apartments: n = 24

$141$154

$126

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

AdjoiningSuites

SuperSuites

Apartments

18

Construction Cost Per GSFConstruction Cost Per GSFBy Type of UnitBy Type of Unit

(2006 Survey)(2006 Survey)

Sample Sizes: Adjoining Suites: n = 3, Super Suites: n = 6, Apartments: n = 23

$113

$128

$123

$105

$110

$115

$120

$125

$130

AdjoiningSuites

SuperSuites

Apartments

19

Comparison of Project Cost Comparison of Project Cost Per GSF to 2003-04 SurveyPer GSF to 2003-04 Survey

$156$141 $148

$154 $151

$126

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

AdjoiningSuites

SuperSuites

Apartments

2003-04

2005-06% change:

- 9.6 %% change:

4.1 %% change:

- 16.6 %

20

Comparison of Construction Cost Comparison of Construction Cost

Per GSF to 2003-04 SurveyPer GSF to 2003-04 Survey

$135

$113 $116

$128$120

$123

$0$20$40$60$80

$100$120$140$160$180

AdjoiningSuites

SuperSuites

Apartments

2003-04

2005-06% change:

- 16.3 %% change:

10.3 %% change:

2.5 %

21

RS Means Median Cost Per GSF RS Means Median Cost Per GSF EstimatesEstimates2000-20062000-2006

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Mid-RiseResidence Halls

Low-RiseResidence Halls

22

RS Means Costs Per GSF % RS Means Costs Per GSF % Change Change

2000 - 20062000 - 2006

Type of Hall 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Low-RiseResidence Halls $87.20 $88.75 $92.00 $94.90 $100.00 $111.00 $117.00Mid-RiseResidence Halls $113.00 $116.00 $120.00 $124.00 $126.00 $141.00 $148.00

Percent Changefrom previous year 1.8% 3.7% 3.2% 5.4% 11.0% 5.4%

23

Project Cost Per GSFProject Cost Per GSFAdjoining SuitesAdjoining Suites

Sample sizes: NEACUHO: n = 1, SEAHO: n = 1, AIMHO: n = 1

$88

$100

$234

$141

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250

AIMHO

SEAHO

NEACUHO

TOTAL

24

Construction Cost Per GSF Construction Cost Per GSF Adjoining SuitesAdjoining Suites

Sample sizes:, NEACUHO: n = 1, SEAHO: n = 1, AIMHO: n = 1

$66

$93

$180

$113

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180

AIMHO

SEAHO

NEACUHO

TOTAL

25

Project Cost Per GSFProject Cost Per GSFSuper SuitesSuper Suites

Sample sizes: NEACUHO: n = 2, GLACUHO: n = 1, UMR-ACUHO: n = 1, NWACUHO: n = 2, SEAHO: n = 1, SWACUHO: n = 1

$104

$109

$132

$140

$178

$258

$154

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300

SEAHO

NWACUHO

UMR-ACUHO

SWACUHO

GLACUHO

NEACUHO

TOTAL

26

Construction Cost Per GSFConstruction Cost Per GSFSuper SuitesSuper Suites

Sample sizes: NEACUHO: n = 2, SWACUHO: n = 1, NWACUHO: n = 1, UMR-ACUHO: n = 1, SEAHO: n = 1.The GLACUHO institution reported $15 construction cost/GSF – based on the data from other regions, it has been determined that this region is an outlier and is not used in this chart.

$67

$102

$114

$117

$238

$128

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250

SEAHO

UMR-ACUHO

NWACUHO

SWACUHO

NEACUHO

TOTAL

27

Project Cost Per GSFProject Cost Per GSFApartmentsApartments

Sample sizes: NEACUHO = 4, GLACUHO: n = 2, WACUHO = 5, MACUHO = 1, NWACUHO: n = 1, SEAHO: n = 8, SWACUHO: n = 2, UMR-ACUHO: n = 1One additional SEAHO institution reported $1.31 construction cost/GSF – based on the data from other regions, it has been determined that this region is an outlier and is not used in this chart.

$12

$84

$91

$133

$145

$162

$168

$210

$126

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250

UMR-ACUHO

SWACUHO

SEAHO

NWACUHO

WACUHO

MACUHO

NEACUHO

GLACUHO

TOTAL

28

Construction Cost Per GSFConstruction Cost Per GSFApartmentsApartments

Sample sizes: NEACUHO = 4, GLACUHO: n = 2, WACUHO = 4, MACUHO = 1, NWACUHO: n= 1, UMR-ACUHO: n = 1, SEAHO: n = 8, SWACUHO: n = 2

$66

$85

$99

$100

$129

$140

$175

$190

$123

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 $200

SWACUHO

SEAHO

UMR-ACUHO

NWACUHO

MACUHO

WACUHO

GLACUHO

NEACUHO

TOTAL

29

LEED Certification for ProjectLEED Certification for Project

Certified5.1%

Silver 1.7%

The project has been LEED

certified at the following level

6.8%

We are not seeking LEED

certification78.0%

The project has been

registered for LEED

certification15.3%

30

Reason Facility Was BuiltReason Facility Was Built Meet demand for additional beds (83%)

Meet the needs and interests of students (71%)

Increase the variety of housing options (59%) Increase percent of undergrads housed (55%) Keep pace with enrollment growth (45%) Provide higher levels of privacy (45%) Replace outdated facilities (34%)

Primary Reason: Meet demand for additional beds (38%)

31

New Facility OwnershipNew Facility Ownership

77.3%

15.2%

3.0% 0.0% 4.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

College/University

InstitutionallyAffiliated

Foundation

Privatenon-profitfoundation

Private for-profitdeveloper/owner

Other

32

Management of New FacilityManagement of New Facility

90.9%

1.5% 1.5% 4.5% 1.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

College/University

InstitutionallyAffiliated

Foundation

Privatenon-profitfoundation

Privatefor-profit

developer/owner

Other privatepropertymanager

33

Management of Management of Foundation-Owned FacilityFoundation-Owned Facility (only) (only)

66.7%

8.3%

16.7%8.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

College/University

InstitutionallyAffiliated

Foundation

Private for-profitdeveloper/owner

Other privateproperty manager

34

Project Primary Funding Project Primary Funding MechanismMechanism

3.1%

1.5%

1.5%

3.1%

9.2%

9.2%

13.8%

15.4%

72.3%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Other

State appropriations

Private developerfinanced

Donor

Taxable revenuebonds

Bank loan

Reserve funds

Operating funds

Tax-exemptrevenue bonds

35

If Debt Financed, Who Is If Debt Financed, Who Is Responsible For Debt?Responsible For Debt?

College/University

77.3%

Institutionally affiliated

foundation15.1%

Private foundation

1.9%

Other5.7%

36

Renovation FindingsRenovation Findings86 Institutions Reporting

193 Renovation Projects

54 Rehabilitation or Modified Rehabilitation Projects

37

Extent of RenovationExtent of Renovation(all institutions)(all institutions)

13.5%

20.7%

37.8%

18.7%

9.3%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%

GeneralRefurbishment

CosmeticRefurbishment

SystemRefurbishment

ModifiedRehabilitation

Rehabilitation

38

Type of Living UnitType of Living Unit (Rehab/Modified Rehab)(Rehab/Modified Rehab)

5.6%

9.3%

9.3%11.1%

5.6%0.0%

3.7%1.9%

16.7%13.0%

3.7%3.7%

55.6%

63.0%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

Other

Apartments

Individual contractapartments

Super suites

Adjoining suites

Modified traditionalrooms

Traditional rooms

Before Renovation

After Renovation

39

Project Cost Per GSF By RegionProject Cost Per GSF By Region(Rehab/Modified Rehab)(Rehab/Modified Rehab)

Sample sizes: NWACUHO: n = 3, MACUHO: n = 7, UMR-ACUHO: n = 2, WACUHO: n = 5, NEACUHO: n = 8, SEAHO: n = 8, GLACUHO: n = 5, AIMHO: n = 1, SWACUHO: n = 1

$5

$45

$96

$98

$109

$125

$219

$220

$240

$129

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250

SWACUHO

AIMHO

GLACUHO

SEAHO

NEACUHO

WACUHO

UMR-ACUHO

MACUHO

NWACUHO

Total

40

Construction Cost Per GSF By Construction Cost Per GSF By RegionRegion

(Rehab/Modified Rehab)(Rehab/Modified Rehab)

Sample sizes: NWACUHO: n = 3, MACUHO: n = 7, UMR-ACUHO: n = 2, SEAHO: n = 8, NEACUHO: n = 8, GLACUHO: n = 5, WACUHO: n = 5, AIMHO: n = 1, SWACUHO: n = 1

$5

$33

$93

$96

$97

$115

$181

$208

$273

$122

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300

SWACUHO

AIMHO

WACUHO

GLACUHO

NEACUHO

SEAHO

UMR-ACUHO

MACUHO

NWACUHO

Total

41

Reason for RenovationReason for Renovation (Rehab/Modified Rehab)(Rehab/Modified Rehab)

Update facilities (93%) Meet the needs and interests of students (65%) Other reasons (24%) Provide higher levels of privacy (20%)

Increase the variety of housing options (19%)

Accommodate academic or special programs (19%)

Meet the demand for additional beds (17%)

Primary Reason: Update facilities (63%)

42

Method of Project FundingMethod of Project Funding(Rehab/Modified Rehab)(Rehab/Modified Rehab)

5.6%

1.9%

33.3%

35.2%

42.6%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%

Other

Stateappropriations

Tax exemptrevenue bonds

Operating funds

Reserve funds

No respondents indicated using taxable revenue bonds, a bank loan, donor funds, or a private developer to finance their rehab projects.

43

If Debt Financed,If Debt Financed,Who is Responsible for DebtWho is Responsible for Debt??

(Rehab/Modified Rehab)(Rehab/Modified Rehab)

Other16.7%

College/University

83.3%

44

Project Includes Rental Rate Project Includes Rental Rate IncreaseIncrease (Rehab/Modified Rehab)(Rehab/Modified Rehab)

Yes28.3%

No 69.8%

Undecided1.9%

45

Discussion & QuestionsDiscussion & Questions

46

DiscussionDiscussion

Issues for Other Campuses

Barriers to Construction & Renovation

Innovative Ideas