K. Norman Berry Associates Architects PLLC University of Louisville Residence Hall Renewal Master...

K. Norman Berry Associates Architects PLLCK. Norman Berry Associates Architects PLLC

University of LouisvilleUniversity of Louisville Residence Hall Renewal Master Plan Residence Hall Renewal Master Plan

ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

University of LouisvilleResidence Hall Renewal Master Plan

September 14, 2005

–Vision –Market Analysis–Operations Review –Facility Assessment and Plan–Implementation Plan




Residence Hall RenewalMaster Plan Assumptions

• University wants the residence halls to be a recruitment advantage

• University wants the residential experience to increase student campus engagement and academic success

• University wants to enrich campus life through increased on campus student housing capacity

• Living on campus at U of L improves student retention as shown in other national and institutional research




Visioning the Future

• H&RL is integral to the campus community for student retention and satisfaction, leadership development and civic engagement and most importantly, support students’ academic success

• All residential housing on Belknap and Health Science campuses are seamlessly by our University HRL Team





• Students are living and learning on campuses 2900 in single, double, suite, and apartment style housing

• A major facility renovation project funding and beginning with a completion goal of 2014

• Utilizing a combination of full-time/part-time university staff and outsourced vendor staff to provide the services necessary to maintain the halls





• Providing contemporary, progressive technological services for residents and prospective students





• Provide focused living learning communities for first year students, honors students and students interested in leadership development

• Sustaining active partnerships with the College of Arts and Sciences, The Speed School, and the Southern Police Institute resulting in new living learning centers for these schools’ students





• Our facilities will be updated to provide an amenity-driven, consumer-oriented residential experience while remaining affordable

• Our facility environments will provide space that encourages engagement and academic success

• Students living on campus will gain a stronger connection to the overall university community




Capacity Growth

1998

2005

2182 ON-CAMPUS1582

600

RETURNING DEDICATED FIRST YEAR

2182 TOTAL CAPACITY

2239

919

3158 TOTAL CAPACITY

2605 ON-CAMPUS

2011

2475

981

3456 TOTAL CAPACITY

2956 ON-CAMPUS




University of Louisville

Market Analysis–Benchmarking–Student Survey–Demand Projections




Market Analysis

Benchmarking• Profile of Off-Campus Properties

– Sample Size: 22 properties located within 15 miles of campus

– Property Size: 42 to 689 units; median 208 units

– Leases: All offer 12-month leases; majority offer 6- or 9-month leases (most for an additional charge)

– Security deposits: $0 to $450– Occupancy: 77% to 100%; median 92%




Market Analysis

Benchmarking• Off-Campus Rents by Unit Type

$565

$890 $930 $1

,080

$460

$459 $5

62

$779

$390

$345

$369

$550

Efficiency

(n=6)

1 Bedroom

(n=20)

2 Bedroom

(n=21)

3 Bedroom

(n=8)

High

Median

Low




Market Analysis

Benchmarking• Peer Institutions

– SUNY at Buffalo– University of Cincinnati– University of Illinois – Chicago– University of Kentucky – Lexington– University of Memphis– University of Missouri – Columbia – University of Nevada – Reno – University of Pittsburgh– University of South Florida– Wayne State University




Market Analysis

Benchmarking• Peers: Beds/Units as a % of Enrollment

– Median: 12% 65%

25%

23%

23%

12%

12%

12%

12%

10%

9%

7%

SUNY at Buffalo

University of Pittsburgh

University of Kentucky-Lexington

University of Missouri-Columbia

University of Memphis

University of Illinois-Chicago


University of Nevada-Reno

University of Cincinnati

University of South Florida

Wayne State University

18%University of Louisville Proposed




Market Analysis

Benchmarking• Peers: Fall 2004 Occupancy

– Median: 98.5%100%

100%

99%

99%

98%

97%

93%

82%


SUNY at Buffalo










Market Analysis

Benchmarking

Peers: Room Rate Suite Double

– Median: $4,636$5,290

$5,210

$5,138

$4,790

$4,750

$4,636

$4,280

$4,250

$3,777

$3,108

$2,912






SUNY at Buffalo






$5,140University of Louisville Proposed




Market Analysis

BenchmarkingPeers: Room Rate Suite Double

– Median: $4,636

$5,290

$5,210

$5,138

$4,790

$4,750

$4,636

$4,280

$4,250

$3,777

$3,108

$2,912






SUNY at Buffalo









Market Analysis

Student Survey• Off-Campus Housing Costs Per

Person– Single Students

$425

$300$250 $250

$144

$117

$100 $102

$569

$417

$350 $352

One Bedroom

(n=45)

Two Bedroom

(n=93)

Three Bedroom

(n=47)

Four Bedroom

(n=23)

Utilities

Rent




Market Analysis

Student SurveyOff-Campus Housing Costs Per Unit– Married/Family Students

$450 $525$625

$175$160

$245$625

$685

$870

One Bedroom

(n=16)

Two Bedroom

(n=38)

Three Bedroom

(n=11)

Utilities

Rent




Market Analysis

Student SurveyMedian Price Per Unit Comparison With Market Rents

– Students are generally renting at or below the median price in the market

– Married/family students generally seek lower cost housing than single student who share the rent

ASL Market Sample $460 $459 $562 $779

Single Student Survey Respondents $392 $425 $600 $750

Married/ Family Survey Respondents - $450 $525 $625

EfficiencyOne

BedroomTwo

BedroomThree

BedroomMarket




Market Analysis

Student SurveyUnit Types and Rents Tested in the Survey

Renovated Traditional Double

Full renovation that includes new furniture, new wall and floor finishes, replacement of heating and cooling, plumbing, electrical systems, and new windows so that the hall is like

when it was first built

$3,920 $436

Improved Traditional Double

Full renovation as described above plus more private and less crowded bathrooms, new study/ lounge areas, expanded public

areas including kitchens, laundries, and meeting rooms, improved in-room temperature control, and new acoustically

insulated windows

$4,600 $511

New Semi-Suite DoubleNew construction, two double rooms sharing a semi-private

bath (similar to Kurz Hall)$5,140 $571

New Semi-Suite SingleNew construction, two single rooms sharing a semi-private

bath (similar to Kurz Hall)$5,860 $651

DescriptionTested AY Rent

Monthly EquivalentUnit Type




Market Analysis

Student SurveyMost Important Factors Respondents Considered in their Housing Decision

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Availability of parking

Ability to meet other students/social atmosphere

Physical condition of the housing

Freedom from rules and regulations

Security

Have own bedroom

Have personal space/privacy

Adequate living space

Proximity to campus facilities and services

Affordable cost

Weighted Scale

OverallOn CampusOff Campus




Market Analysis

Student SurveyInterest in Proposed Housing

45%

18%

37%

20%

26%

57%

18%

15%

9%

9%

41%

On Campus Off Campus Total

Would not have livedthere.

Probably would not havelived there (less than a50/ 50 chance).

Might have lived there(50/ 50 chance).

Definitely would havelived there.




Market Analysis

Student SurveyReasons for Lack of Interest in Proposed Housing

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Prefer University Tower or Medical/Dental Apartments

Prefer Louisville Hall

Prefer existing traditional campus housing

I already own a home

Prefer Bettie Johnson Hall

I live with my spouse and/or children

I do not want to move

Concerned about the level of rules & regulations

I live with my parents/relatives

Prefer to rent off campus

The housing is too expensive

Number of Respondents

Off Campus

On Campus




Market Analysis

Demand ProjectionsOff-Campus Student Demand – Fall 2004

– Overall, 7.5% of current off-campus residents “would” or “might” be interested in the proposed housing

– Significant percentage of off-campus freshmen interested

ClassCapture

Rate50%

ClosureCapture

Rate25%

Closure

Freshmen 2,167 8% 82 30% 164 245

Sophomores 1,884 2% 22 17% 79 101

Juniors 2,120 5% 48 21% 114 161Seniors 2,285 3% 36 17% 98 134

8,456 187 454 641

Full-timeOff-Campus Enrollment

Projected Demand

Definitely InterestedMight Be Interested




Market Analysis

Demand ProjectionsOn-Campus Student Demand – Fall 2004

– Overall, 32% of current on-campus residents “would” or “might” be interested in the proposed housing

– Lower-division students most interested

ClassCapture

Rate50%

ClosureCapture

Rate25%

Closure

Freshmen 1,550 50% 389 35% 135 524

Sophomores 604 45% 135 35% 53 187

Juniors 164 30% 24 53% 22 46Seniors 68 33% 11 33% 6 17

2,386 560 215 775

Full-timeOn-Campus Enrollment

Projected Demand

Definitely InterestedMight Be Interested




Market Analysis

Demand ProjectionsTotal Demand by Unit Preference – Fall

2004

– Demand at higher rents for renovated traditional halls and new semi-suites still exceeds the proposed supply of 1,033 beds

Renovated Traditional Double $3,920 18% 117 20% 158 274

Improved Traditional Double $4,600 30% 194 42% 323 517

New Semi-Suite Double $5,140 20% 127 19% 149 276

New Semi-Suite Single $5,860 32% 204 19% 144 348

Total 100% 641 100% 775 1,416

Preference Demand

Total Projected Demand

2004 Rent Per Student

Per AY Unit TypeOff-Campus Students Preference Demand

On-Campus Students





Operations Analysis– Progress Report– Challenges and Opportunities– Visioning the Future




Operations Review

Overview• Four Aggressive Years of Growth and

Improvements• Challenges and Opportunities

Remaining– Major issues and recommendations for

University Leadership– Major Issues and recommendations for Housing

and Residence Life

• Visioning the Future




Operations Review

Progress Report• Four Years of Growth and

Improvement– General fund subsidy has been eliminated from

the housing budget– Student housing capacity has grown in four

years from 9% to over 12% of fulltime undergraduate students

– Space renovated in Threlkeld for the Etscorn Honors Center – significant endorsement of the learning value of living on campus




Operations Review

Progress Report

…More Improvements– Housing cancellation policies and penalties

have improved spring occupancy by 2-3 % annually.

– Enhanced security and fire safety program with access control and sprinkler systems

– Began house calls and facility assistant visits – Enhanced the First Year Experience for

residential students with various initiatives




Operations Review

Challenges and Opportunities• University Leadership

– Do you want the residential experience to help recruit tomorrow’s best students?

– What level of commitment is sustainable from academic affairs for world-class residential learning communities?

– Can retention be increased through the nexus of a distinctive residential experience?

– Is the time right to establish a single source campus housing management approach?




Operations Review

Challenges and Opportunities• Recommendations for University

Leadership– Effect the coordinated marketing and

management of UofL Housing with ULP to have a single source of authority for the University’s student residential experience• Recruitment - Marketing• Retention• Asset management• Occupancy designations• Policy development• Academic and educational focus




Operations Review


Leadership

– For a specified period of years consistent the housing master plan, re-direct general fund overhead charges, interest on housing revenues/reserves and housing budget surpluses directly to the residential capital projects




Operations Review


Leadership– Delegate to the Housing and Residence Life

management team the decisions of where students should be assigned based on market forces and educational needs.

– Develop a plan to eliminate the requirement that upper class students living on campus must purchase a meal plan




Operations Review


Leadership– Appoint a task force of faculty and student

affairs and housing staff to develop a strategic plan for an expanded focus on residential learning

– Provide appropriate educational funds to support the residential learning initiatives needed to support recruitment and retention of students




Operations Review

Challenges and Opportunities• Housing and Residence Life

– How can the residential facilities and the on campus experience support recruitment and retention of students?

– Can we guarantee housing to all first year students?– What is the primary focus of the educational

experience in residence life?– Can you develop business practices that enable full

tracking of all fiscal issues while allowing reduction in operating costs

– Should you adopt practices where appropriate from the Allen & O’Hara management and marketing model




Operations Review

Challenges and Opportunities• Recommendations for Housing

Leadership– Develop a plan, in collaboration with

enrollment management, to guarantee all first year students who apply by May 1st each year (and thereafter as well)

– Identify market niches and marketing strategies to increase overall fall occupancy by 2-3% within three years




Operations Review


Leadership– Establish first year residence halls so that

front-loaded student support can efficiently enhance their retention to the sophomore year

– Centralize housing’s residence life and student services around simplified and focused residential learning objectives to enhance the success of first year and other residential students




Operations Review


Leadership– Reduce operating expenses through re-organization,

more clearly focused student academic success activities, and re-engineered business practices

– Develop a business model scenario applying the ULP operations structure to UofL Housing to clearly identify the added operating expenses of the current H&RL budget

– Analyze the differences to determine if the added expenses are justified by student outcomes in terms of recruitment or retention




Operations Review


– The educational experience gained by living on campus is recognized and valued by all stakeholders

– Aggressively funded capital investments transform the traditional residence halls into engaged learning environments with comfortable and secure accommodations

– The recruitment of your next generation of students is enhanced by the quality of the residential experience at the University of Louisville





Facility Assessment and Plan–Assessment –Options–Implementation




Part One - Analysis

Facility Existing Condition Assessment• Site• Structure• Exterior Enclosure• Roof• Finishes• Conveying• Mechanical, electrical, Plumbing, Fire Protection Systems• Building Code• ADA Accessibility

Program Assessment• Unit types / mixes• Amenities• Living – learning Communities




Miller Hall – Recommended OptionThrelkeld Similar

Lounge(2500 sf new)

Seminar

Office

Front Desk

Recreation

Kit.

WC

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

RD Apt.

2B

Elev.

Residence Hall

Shared Spaces

Floor 1

Computer

WC

Laundry

Vending

LoungeBath

System Renewals

•New Mechanical System

•New Electrical System

•New Windows

•New Roof

•New Interior Finishes

•Elevator




Miller Hall – Recommended OptionThrelkeld Similar

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

Lng

2B

2B

2B

2B

Lng2B

Elev.

Floor 2-4

Bath

Bath

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B

2B




49 Complex – Recommended Option

- Three existing dormitories, three stories each.

- First floor elevations are unequal

- Underutilized first floor plan




49 Complex – New Construction

- Two new 250 bed Residence Halls at 65,000 GSF each.

- 4 levels.

- Food Service at 9,500 GSF. 1 level.

- 2 Fraternity Chapter Rooms at 4,000 GSF

Service




i

49 Complex - New Construction Floor Plan

First Floor Plan

Reasons for replacement of 49 Complex• New Unit types• All new systems, better fit to campus• Better use of site• New image for complex = higher rents

Reasons for removal of Stevenson Hall

• Existing rooms too small for doubles

• Raises $ / bed cost to higher than new construction

• Removed beds accommodated in 49 Complex replacement

• Residence Life offices remain at Stevenson; upper floors change program use




49 Complex - New Construction Floor Plan

Typical Floor Plan




Semi-suites Options for New Construction

Living Learning Suite

2B

1B

2B

1B

1B

2B

1B

2BBATH

STUDYLOUNG

E





Implementation Plan– Scope– Financial Plan– Summary Recommendations




Implementation Plan

Scope

• On-Campus Facilities– Operations: All existing halls – Capital Improvements: Residential master plan

projects; others deferred

• ULP Beds– Bettie Johnson, Kurz, and Campus Commons not

in financial model– Project surpluses source of revenue only– Merger of management systems to be

determined




Implementation Plan

Scope• ULP Merger/Acquisition

– Ownership to remain with ULH• No financial benefit to University ownership• Risk of financial default should remain with ULH• Improving net available cash flow to University• Additional debt service not advisable in wake of

$50 million in new debt for residential master plan

– Management• Short-term: Process re-engineering to approach

vision• Long-term: Realignment to single point of control

within University to achieve vision




Implementation Plan

Financial Plan• Challenges and Constraints

– Rental rates are low– High operating costs per bed

– Ongoing renewal and replacement – Existing debt service– No reserves

• Outcome: Minimal existing debt capacity to fund renovations and quality construction




Implementation Plan

Financial Plan• Creating Debt Capacity

– Increase rents faster than operating costs– Charge rental premiums for comprehensive

renovations and new construction– Trim operating costs and non-operating

transfers– Minimize capital expenses

• Outcome: Increased cash flow that can be leveraged to fund capital improvements




Implementation Plan

Financial Plan• Revenue Assumptions

– 6% annual escalation through FY2009 all beds– 45% premium in year following project

completion– 95% post-completion occupancy

• Operating Cost Assumptions– Current operating results as baseline– 3% annual inflation (i.e., 3% less than rents) – 10% reduction in year following completion




Implementation Plan

Financial Plan• Capital Improvements

– Capital Expenses• 25% of annual surplus, if available

– Construction Costs• Renovations based on input from planning team• $160 per gross square foot for new construction

– Development Budgets• Include FF&E, design fees, development costs,

contingency, and financing costs• Average markup 33% of construction costs




Implementation Plan

Financial Plan• Financing and Reserves (New/Reno)

– Bond coupon rate 5.5% 5.0%– Term 30 yrs 20

yrs– Earnings on reserves 2.5%– Reserves

• Balance of $1.0 million assumed as of 7/1/2005• Operating surpluses are transferred to reserves• Operating deficits are funded from reserves• Provide backup debt service coverage




Implementation Plan

Financial Plan• Summary

ProjectProjectType

Revenue Beds/Units

Development Budget

Scheduled Completion

49A: West Hall Vacate 0 - Aug-2006

49B: Center Hall Vacate 0 - Aug-2006

49C: Wellness Hall Vacate 0 - Aug-2006

New Commons Phase 1 New Construction 250 14,309,000 Aug-2007

Threlkeld Hall Renovation 241 9,467,000 Aug-2008

New Commons Phase 2 New Construction 250 14,733,000 Aug-2008

Stevenson Hall Vacate 0 - Aug-2009

Miller Hall Renovation 292 11,830,000 Aug-2009

Unitas Towers Deferred 298 -

University Tower Apts Deferred 100 -

Medical Dental Complex Deferred 100 -

Louisville Hall Deferred 209 -

1,740 50,339,000$




Implementation Plan

Financial Plan• Bed Distribution

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

'06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20

ULP BedsSingleDoubleTripleQuad




Implementation Plan

Financial PlanOperating Budget

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

'06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20

Net RevenueOperating CostNet Operating Income




Implementation Plan

Financial PlanDebt Service Coverage

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

'06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20

Target Min. Coverage

Debt Service Coverage




Implementation Plan

Financial PlanReserves

($5,000)

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

'06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20

Restricted for Debt CoverageUnrestricted FundsTransfer To (From) Reserves




Implementation Plan

Summary Recommendations• Establish advisory team to oversee the Plan

• Collaborate with Academic Affairs to establish living/learning environments

• Formalize inter-departmental business processes and agreements in support of full auxiliary status

• Seek operational and programmatic efficiencies to reduce operating costs

• Implement phased facilities renewal plan• Move oversight and control of ULP management

to Residence Administration




Program Summary

1 Bedroom (7) Studio (1)

28 Offices total

5,320 SF

MEDICAL / DENTAL APTS – Recommended Upgrade

74 Apartments

Floor 1

1B

1B 1B 1B 1B

1B ST

1B

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

BATH

RES LOBBY

BATH

BLDG LOBBY

Gross Area/ Floor (first)Gross Area/ Floor (2-4)Gross Area/ Floor (5-7)Total AreaFirst FloorTyp. Office Area7 Offices per FloorBuilding LobbyApts Lobby

10,650 SF32,331 SF

24,735 SF 67,716 SF

190 SF1,330 SF

265 SF403 SF




Program SummarySecond Floor to Fourth

Floor1 Bed room/Studio (10)2 Bed room (1) Work room (1)

MEDICAL / DENTAL APTS – Recommended Upgrade

Floor 2-4

2B ST ST 1B

ST

ST

1B ST 1B 1B 1B

OF

OF

OF

OF

OFOF

OF

Work room

BATHBATH

LOB

K. Norman Berry Associates Architects PLLC University of Louisville Residence Hall Renewal Master...

Documents

Transcript of K. Norman Berry Associates Architects PLLC University of Louisville Residence Hall Renewal Master...