agenda
play

Agenda December 6, 2018 Work Plan Focus Group Feedback - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

E ASTERN ASTERN M ICHIGAN ICHIGAN U NIVERSITY NIVERSITY Housing Master Plan Update Housing Master Plan Update Admin Professionals Admin Professionals December 6, 2018 Page 1 Page 1 Agenda December 6, 2018 Work Plan Focus


  1. E ASTERN ASTERN M ICHIGAN ICHIGAN U NIVERSITY NIVERSITY Housing Master Plan Update – Housing Master Plan Update – Admin Professionals Admin Professionals December 6, 2018 Page 1 Page 1

  2. Agenda December 6, 2018  Work Plan  Focus Group Feedback  Competition Assessment o Off Campus Marketplace o Peer Institutions  Student Survey Analysis  Demand Analysis  Considerations & Next Steps Page 2 Page 2

  3. Why Are We Here? December 6, 2018  Non-Enrolled Student Data  Competition From Peers  Hired A Consultant To Guide Housing Master Planning Page 3 Page 3

  4. Work Plan Student Housing Market Study + Housing Master Plan Student Housing Market Study Housing Master Plan Kickoff & Data Gathering Implementation & Phasing  o Doc + Data Review Reconciliation  o Kickoff Meetings  o Deferred Maintenance / Renovation Assessment  o Stakeholder Interviews  o Student Focus Groups  o Capacity & Program Alignment Analysis  o Steering Committee Engagement o Demo / Reno / New Construction Determination Market Analysis Presentations  o Off-campus Market  o Steering Committee  o Peer & Aspirant Institutions  o Student Government  o Enrollment Review  o Executive Team  o Supply Analysis  o Budget Council  o Historical Capture Rate & Projected  o Senior Housing Management  Enrollment Review Approval & Documentation  o Demand Analysis  o Presentation of Final Findings & o Supply / Demand Reconciliation Recommendations o Housing Master Plan Report Development Page 4 Page 4

  5. Student Survey Analysis Demographics 2,123 Comparison of Survey Respondents to EMU Demographics 28% 26% total respondents 21% 21% 20% 20% 20% 11% 18% 15% 10% total response rate 16% Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate full-time All FT Students FT Survey Respondents response rate  Strong survey participation and engagement Page 5 Page 5

  6. Student Survey Analysis Has living on campus had a positive impact on your overall experience at EMU? Freshman Freshman All Students All Students Yes Yes 85% 94%  85% of students who have lived on campus felt that it had a positive impact on them Page 6 Page 6

  7. Student Survey Analysis What do you find to be the MOST/LEAST valuable aspect to living on campus? Most Valuable Least Valuable Location/Convenience 64% Location/Convenience 2% 2% Proximity to Friends/Peers 18% Proximity to Friends/Peers 4% 4% 7% 3% 3% Academic Environment Academic Environment 7% 54% 54% Affordability Affordability 3% 3% 3% Safety & Security Safety & Security 2% 23% 23% Campus Dining Options Campus Dining Options 0% 12% 12% Rules and Regulations Rules & Regulations  Location/Convenience is the most common theme  Other responses included dissatisfaction with parking and Wi-Fi Page 7 Page 7

  8. Student Survey Analysis How would you rate your current living conditions? 82% 80% 79% 77% Off-Camp -Campus us G + + V VG = 7 70% 60% On-Campu Campus s G + + V VG = 5 59% 56% 51 % 50% 50% 50% 50% 49% 48% 48% 47% 45% 45% 44% 44% 44% 41 % 41 % 40% 40% 36% 35% 23% 20% 1 8% 1 6% Wise The Village Best Downing Putnam Cornell Pittman Munson Westview Buell Phelps Hoyt Brown Sellers Walton Court Good Very Good Acceptable  On average, off-campus housing is rated higher (70%) than on-campus (59%)  Wise (renovation), Village (new + apartment-style), and Best / Downing (Honors halls) Page 8 Page 8

  9. Student Survey Analysis How safe do you feel on/off campus? 68% 94% feel safe or very feel safe or very safe off-campus safe on-campus Safe or Very Safe 1. The Lakeshore 40% 2. University Green 41% 3. Peninsular Place 53% 4. Eastern Lofts 60% 5. Aspen Chase 73% 6. River Drive 76% 7. Riverrain 77% 8. Pines of Cloverlane 80%  Leforge Road and Huron River area is a safety concern Page 9 Page 9

  10. Student Survey Analysis If you live off campus or are considering moving off campus next academic year, please identify the reasons why? Rental Rates EMU 2BR $585 Riverrain $656 38% 38% Eastern Lofts $670 River Drive $671 University Green $686 Peninsular Place $690 23% 23% Aspen Chase $691 The Lake Shore $692 16% 16% Pines of Cloverlane $695 12% 12% 11% 11% EMU 1BR $816 EMU Trd/St Sgl Occ $942 1% 1% EMU 4BR $1,008 Off-campus rents reflect weighted Off-campus Additional Less rules Preferred Physical Meal plan average reported by survey respondents is cheaper privacy unit-type Condition requirement unavailable of housing  Need to help define the value proposition (cost / value) for students  Juniors and seniors are more space-conscious than freshman and sophomores Page 10 Page 10

  11. Focus Group Feedback Feedback Directly from Students  What made you choose to attend 23 EMU? o Convenience/close to home o Affordability o Sense of community o Diversity total student participants o Academic programs (i.e. business)   What do you like most What would you most like to about on-campus housing? improve about on-campus housing? o Convenience / location o Air conditioning o o Sense of community More privacy (occupancy and bathrooms)  Affordability and privacy – drivers to move off campus Page 11 Page 11

  12. Competition Assessment Off-campus Marketplace Apartment Rental Rates $1,008 On-Campus Average = On-Campu s Average = $803 $803 $816 $739 $585 $534 $485 1br 2br 4br EMU Off-Campus  High overall occupancy (98%+) likely due to affordable rental rates  Only one purpose-built student housing community (Peninsular Place)  Safety and security concerns in some areas around campus Page 12 Page 12

  13. Competition Assessment Peer Institutions – Housing Program  Limited number of traditional-style rooms is beneficial, but lack of apartment-style rooms is likely driving down capture rates for So/Jr/Sr students  Low first-time degree-seeking capture rate (FTDS) results in excess supply of suite-style units that may be undesirable to So/Jr/Sr students Page 13 Page 13

  14. Competition Assessment Increasingly Competitive Marketplace • 1855 Place - Opened in 2017, mix of apartments and townhouses, 420 units, $157M • Includes on-site fitness center, greenspace, and community service center • Hillcrest Hall - Opened in 2018, 750 apartment-style beds, $78M • 400 seat dining center, 100 seat micro-rest. & C-store, fitness center, 200 seat MP room • Planning large scale redevelopment of South Neighborhood through 2023 (P3 in 2019) • Includes new residence halls in 2020, student center and dining facilities in 2022/23 • 450+ new suite-style beds in south campus area, delivery TBD (design completed) • $650M+ housing, dining, recreation master plan created in 2016 • 842 new apartment-style beds (440 opened in 2018, 402 in 2019) + retail space • Renovation of existing apartment-style beds into 362 suite-style beds (opening 2021) • Holton-Hooker Living Learning Center - opened in fall 2016, 498 pod-style beds, $37M • Classroom space, campus lounge, Einstein’s Bros. Bagels Page 14 Page 14

  15. Demand Analysis Target Markets for On-campus Housing Target Market #1 Target Market #2 Target Market #3    Full-time Student  Living On-campus Living Off-campus     Age 18 – 24  Age 25 – 29   Undergraduate   Graduate   Paying $550+/month in Rent Page 15 Page 15

  16. Demand Analysis Overall Demand  FTIC can live in any on-campus unit configuration except full-suite and apartment-style Page 16 Page 16

  17. Demand Analysis Historical Enrollment & Capture Rates 14,000 40% 38% 13,500 36% 13,000 34% 12,500 32% 33% 12,000 30% 31% 30% 30% 29% 29% 28% 29% 11,500 28% 26% 27% 27% 11,000 26% 26% 26% 26% 24% 25% 10,500 22% 10,000 20% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 P2018 FT UG Enrollment FT UG Capture Rate  Potential demand exists to increase capture rate from 29% of FT UG students to 33% with the correct bed mix across the residential housing program Page 17 Page 17

  18. Demand Analysis Aligning the System with Student Demand  Significant investment in on-campus residential facilities is required $215M potential new construction $ $255M $40M + = renovation $ (excl Westview) capital investment (2018 $)  Considerations o Balancing institutional priorities (housing / student life / academic) o Execution and funding timeline o Cost of new construction (and type of new construction) vs. renovation Page 18 Page 18

  19. Discussion & Next Steps Student Housing Market Study + Housing Master Plan  Considerations Towers – renovate & re-configure vs. demolition? o New apartment housing – Westview site vs. main campus? o Order of renovations vs. needed investment vs. efficiencies? o  Next Steps Doc + data review (capture rates + enrollment projections, o def. maint. + reno $) Implementation & phasing recommendations o Housing Master Plan Refinement o Report Documentation o Page 19 Page 19

Recommend


More recommend