1 / 46

ACUHO-I Construction & Renovation Survey 2006 Report of Findings

ACUHO-I Construction & Renovation Survey 2006 Report of Findings. Jim Day, University of Georgia Ray Thompson, Partner, MGT Cynthia Parish Balogh, Principal, MGT. June 25, 2006. Introduction. History of the Survey – Jim Grimm ACUHO-I and MGT Collaboration Project Goal s and Objectives

sondra
Download Presentation

ACUHO-I Construction & Renovation Survey 2006 Report of Findings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ACUHO-I Construction & Renovation Survey 2006 Report of Findings Jim Day, University of Georgia Ray Thompson, Partner, MGT Cynthia Parish Balogh, Principal, MGT June 25, 2006

  2. Introduction • History of the Survey – Jim Grimm • ACUHO-I and MGT Collaboration • Project Goals 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

  3. Purpose of Presentation • 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

  4. Survey Instrument • Section A: Institutional Characteristics • Section B: Facilities Planning Initiatives • Section C: New Construction Projects • Section D: Renovation Projects • Section E: Survey Feedback

  5. Survey Results

  6. Responding Institutions • 276 Respondents ~ 38% Response Rate • 97% 4-Year, 3% 2-Year Institutions • 63% Public, 35% Private, <2% Other

  7. Construction or Renovation Completed Winter 2004 through Fall 2005

  8. Planning to Initiate Construction or Renovation Project in Next 5 Years

  9. Institution Has a Campus Master Plan That Includes Housing

  10. Institution Has a SeparateHousing Master Plan

  11. New Construction Findings 59 Institutions Reporting 65 New Construction Projects

  12. Type of Living Units

  13. Number of Projects by Percent of Units Configured as Single 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 nosingle occupancy bedrooms

  14. Number of Projectsby Percent of Units Configured as Double 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. 80.1% 80.1% 72.3% 70.8% 70.8% 69.2% 63.1% 63.1% Laundry Staff Office(s) Staff Apartment(s) Lobby Elevator(s) Electronic Security System Central lounge Kitchen(s) Types of Space & Amenities in Facility Top Responses

  16. Types of Amenities in Unit Top Responses 95.4% 92.3% 92.3% 89.2% 87.7% 86.2% 78.5% 72.3% Telephone Outlet Internet Access Cable TV Furniture Air Conditioning Individual Temperature Control Carpeting Refrigerator

  17. Project Cost Per GSFBy Type of Unit(2006 Survey) Sample Sizes: Adjoining Suites: n = 3, Super Suites: n = 8, Apartments: n = 24

  18. Construction Cost Per GSFBy Type of Unit(2006 Survey) Sample Sizes: Adjoining Suites: n = 3, Super Suites: n = 6, Apartments: n = 23

  19. Comparison of Project Cost Per GSF to 2003-04 Survey

  20. Comparison of Construction Cost Per GSF to 2003-04 Survey

  21. RS Means Median Cost Per GSF Estimates2000-2006

  22. RS Means Costs Per GSF % Change 2000 - 2006

  23. Project Cost Per GSFAdjoining Suites Sample sizes: NEACUHO: n = 1, SEAHO: n = 1, AIMHO: n = 1

  24. Construction Cost Per GSF Adjoining Suites Sample sizes:, NEACUHO: n = 1, SEAHO: n = 1, AIMHO: n = 1

  25. Project Cost Per GSFSuper Suites Sample sizes: NEACUHO: n = 2, GLACUHO: n = 1, UMR-ACUHO: n = 1, NWACUHO: n = 2, SEAHO: n = 1, SWACUHO: n = 1

  26. Construction Cost Per GSFSuper 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.

  27. Project Cost Per GSFApartments Sample sizes: NEACUHO = 4, GLACUHO: n = 2, WACUHO = 5, MACUHO = 1, NWACUHO: n = 1, SEAHO: n = 8, SWACUHO: n = 2, UMR-ACUHO: n = 1 One 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.

  28. Construction Cost Per GSFApartments Sample sizes: NEACUHO = 4, GLACUHO: n = 2, WACUHO = 4, MACUHO = 1, NWACUHO: n= 1, UMR-ACUHO: n = 1, SEAHO: n = 8, SWACUHO: n = 2

  29. LEED Certification for Project

  30. Reason 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 Ownership

  32. Management of New Facility

  33. Management of Foundation-Owned Facility (only)

  34. Project Primary Funding Mechanism

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

  36. Renovation Findings 86 Institutions Reporting 193 Renovation Projects 54 Rehabilitation or Modified Rehabilitation Projects

  37. Extent of Renovation(all institutions)

  38. Type of Living Unit(Rehab/Modified Rehab)

  39. Project Cost Per GSF By Region(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

  40. Construction Cost Per GSF By Region(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

  41. Reason for Renovation(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 Funding(Rehab/Modified Rehab) 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,Who is Responsible for Debt?(Rehab/Modified Rehab)

  44. Project Includes Rental Rate Increase(Rehab/Modified Rehab)

  45. Discussion & Questions

  46. Discussion • Issues for Other Campuses • Barriers to Construction & Renovation • Innovative Ideas

More Related