lake tahoe community college
play

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


  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. MARKET ANALYSIS 3 programmanagers.com

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. DEMAND ANALYSIS 14 programmanagers.com

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 18 programmanagers.com

  19. 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

  20. 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

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