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

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend