Post on 26-Dec-2015
transcript
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