LAKE TAHOE COMMUNITY COLLEGE S T U D E N T H O U S I N G M A R K - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

LAKE TAHOE COMMUNITY COLLEGE S T U D E N T H O U S I N G M A R K E T A N A L Y S I S P R E S E N T A T I O N O F F I N D I N G S D E C E M B E R 1 3 T H , 2 0 1 6 1 programmanagers.com

SCOPE & SCHEDULE S T U D E N T H O U S I N G D E M A N D A N A L Y S I S Project Initiation  Phase 1: Phase 1: Demographic Analysis  Operational Assessment Operational Assessment Off-Campus Market Analysis  June-August September Student Focus Groups  Phase 2: Phase 2: Survey Implementation + Analysis  Detailed Market Analysis Detailed Market Analysis Market Demand Analysis  October October Financial Analysis  Phase 3: Phase 3: Support Facility Analysis  Synthesis + Recommendations Synthesis + Recommendations November November - December Decision Support + Documentation Phase 4: Phase 4: Final Presentations Documentation Documentation Final Report 2 programmanagers.com

MARKET ANALYSIS 3 programmanagers.com

TOTAL ENROLLMENT D E M O G R A P H I C A N A L Y S I S *Figures only reflect fall 2016 in-person enrollment. 2,409 2,354 2,063 2,038 1,633 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 32% Decrease in fall enrollment over the past five years Overall college-wide demographic makeup is positive Total enrollment must be monitored during the life of the project to ensure its viability 4 programmanagers.com

FINDINGS F O C U S G R O U P A N A L Y S I S  Campus life – Students chose LTCC for its natural beauty – Highly satisfied with educational experience • Small student-teacher ratio – Indicated that small campus population limited sense of community on campus  Off-campus market – Process of finding housing very difficult • Limited offerings – forced into motels/homeless • Competition from vacationers • Predatory property managers – Available housing in poor condition – Impactful on ability to work and study 5 programmanagers.com

INTEREST IN HOUSING F O C U S G R O U P A N A L Y S I S  Interest in LTCC Housing – Overwhelmingly in support of campus housing – Students are very price sensitive • Currently pay $300-$500 – Interested in whichever version allowed LTCC to keep the cost of housing low • No need for apartments, double occupancy  Amenities and Features – As few amenities as possible if it kept the price of housing down – Basic amenities • Lounge and study space were most critical – Academic year leases 6 programmanagers.com

OVERVIEW O F F - C A M P U S M A R K E T A N A L Y S I S 15 10 Multi-Family Single Family Properties Properties Surveyed Surveyed 1.6 Miles 1.7 Miles Average Distance of Average Distance of Properties from Properties from Campus Campus 51 45 $615 $785 Average Rental Rate Average Rental Rate per Person per Month Years Old per Person per Month Years Old Average Age of Multi-Family Average Age of Multi-Family Properties Properties 7 programmanagers.com

MARKET TYPE O F F - C A M P U S M A R K E T A N A L Y S I S Student Student Student Averse Friendly Focused  Discourages Students  Welcomes Students  Built for Students  Requires Credit Check  Many Student Residents  Only Students Residing  12-Month Leases  Some Student Amenities:  Student Amenities – Fitness Center  Few Student Amenities  Individual Lease – Swimming Pool  General Market Focused  Roommate Matching – Some Flexible Lease – Parental Lease Guarantee  Academic Term – Some Furnished Units  Full-furnished  Community Space  Walk to Campus 8 programmanagers.com

ATTAINING HOUSING S U R V E Y A N A L Y S I S  Market Conditions – How easy was it for you to attain housing? 39% 26% 25% 10% Very easy Easy Difficult Very difficult Off-campus Renters Nearly 66% of students found it difficult to attain housing 9 programmanagers.com

IMPACT OF HOUSING S U R V E Y A N A L Y S I S  What kind of negative impact has renting in the off- campus market had on your academic pursuits? 40% 53% 24% 23% Of students felt a severe/moderate negative impact on 13% their studies Severe negative Moderate negative Minor negative impact No impact impact impact Off-campus Renters 51% of students living at home felt no impact on their studies 10 programmanagers.com

RENTAL RATES S U R V E Y A N A L Y S I S  Market Conditions – Rental Rates $569 $111 Average Rent Average Utilities 23% 15% 14% $680 11% 10% Average Monthly Cost of Living 7% 6% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% < $99 $100 - $200 - $300 - $400 - $500 - $600 - $700 - $800 - $900 - $1,000 - $1,100 - $1,200 - $1,300 - $1,400 - $199 $299 $399 $499 $599 $699 $799 $899 $999 $1,099 $1,199 $1,299 $1,399 $1,499 Nearly 40% of students are in a lease of one year or more Students indicated in focus groups that $300-$500 was affordable 11 programmanagers.com

INTEREST IN HOUSING S U R V E Y A N A L Y S I S How likely would you be to live in LTCC Which year(s) would you choose student housing if it were available? to live on campus (Select all that apply)? 32% 71% 1 st Year 26% 24% 24% 22% 21% 21% 56% 2 nd Year 13% 10% 46% 8% 3 rd Year + Very likely Somewhat likely Neutral Somewhat Very unlikely unlikely Off-campus Renters Lives with Guardians More than 50% of neutral students were unlikely to raise their rent to live on campus Approximately 42% of PT students would change to FT-status if housing was present 12 programmanagers.com

FUTURE ON-CAMPUS HOUSING S U R V E Y A N A L Y S I S Factors LTCC Should Consider When Developing Housing 86% 99% Keep Housing Costs Affordable Make LTCC attractive to new students 84% 90% Academically-focused communities Provide attractive living environments Most Important Physical Features to Consider with New On-campus Housing 62% 60% 47% 41% Which personal preferences would be the most important to you? 68% Flexible payment terms 67% Flexible occupancy terms 62% Ability to retain the same living unit from year to year 26% Availability of maintenance and custodial services 13 programmanagers.com

DEMAND ANALYSIS 14 programmanagers.com

PROCESS/METHODOLOGY D E M A N D A N A L Y S I S Demand analysis is a combination of qualitative and  quantitative methods that are used to inform B&D’s demand model. Model projects demand through the extrapolation of unit  type preferences to the LTCC population. Students were shown sample unit types and price points  to indicate preference. A series of filters are then used to isolate a likely target  market to project a range of demand An Occupancy Coverage Ratio is applied to mitigate  occupancy risk. Students not interested in housing had the ability to  decline all housing options on survey 15 programmanagers.com

RECOMMENDED PROGRAM D E M A N D A N A L Y S I S Occupancy Coverage Recommended Age Current Enrollment Capture Rate Total Demand Ratio Program 17or under 42 3% 1 1.20 1 18-19 258 15% 38 1.20 32 20-24 434 13% 55 1.20 46 25-29 230 21% 49 1.50 33 30-50+ 669 19% 125 1.50 83 Total 1,633 16% 269 195 Target Market Demand (beds) 79 Target market demand can accommodate between 80 to 95 beds “Living with guardian(s)” did not meet the criteria to be included Semi-suite (double) units and cooperative housing were most popular 16 programmanagers.com

DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS D E M A N D A N A L Y S I S Sufficient overall demand for new housing on campus across all  age ranges (269 beds) Recommended program for target market is 80 to 95 beds,  potential for capturing non-target market students exists Students living at home with parents did not meet the criteria to  be considered in our demand analysis A facility of approximately 100 beds allows for a more  conservative project, while stimulating demand for future phases LTCC should reevaluate the scope and scale of the project if in-  person enrollment continues to decrease 17 programmanagers.com

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 18 programmanagers.com

MODEL OVERVIEW F I N A N C I A L A N A L Y S I S 50-Year Operating Pro Forma – Three Scenarios • Designed to test feasibility for individual project • Allows for testing of various ‘large scale’ assumptions  Fee increases  Revenue Assumptions  Cost Assumptions  Program Strategies • Tests the implications of three financial delivery scenarios  Self-finance Model  501(C)(3) – Foundation Model  Equity Model 19 programmanagers.com

PROJECT PROGRAM F I N A N C I A L A N A L Y S I S Units Unit SF Total NASF Total Beds NASF/Bed Semi-Suite - Double Unit A: 2 Bed / 1 Bath Semi-Suite (single) 15 450 6,750 30 225 Unit A: 2 Bed / 1 Bath Semi-Suite (double) 17 630 10,710 68 158 RA Unit 1 450 450 2 225 Total 33 17,910 100 Community Space (i.e. laundry, study, lounge, etc.) 3,970 Administrative Space 670 Custodial 280 Maintenance 300 Total Building NASF 23,130 Non-assignable Space 8,995 Building Core & Circulation Efficiency 72% Total GSF 32,125 GSF/Bed 321 20 programmanagers.com