South Dakota State University Updated Residential Life & Dining Services Master Plan

Transcription

1 South Dakota State University Updated Residential Life & Dining Services Master Plan March 2011

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 3 Section 1 Status Report: Phase 1 Implementation 4 Section 2 Mission and Priorities Updated Master Plan Mission Statement 2.2 Updated Master Plan Priorities Section 3 Relationship Between Enrollment Trends and Residential Life Enrollment and Enrollment Trends 3.2 Housing Arrangement and Class Status Based on Enrollment 3.3 University and Residence Hall Retention and Graduation Rates 3.4 Sophomore Success 3.5 Residential Life Impact on Student Success, Retention, and Graduation 3.6 Residential Life Impact on Recruiting Graduate Students Section 4 Existing Housing Inventory and Rate Structures Hall Inventory and Floor Plans 4.2 Rates Section 5 Defining the Sophomore and Freshman Market: Occupancy and Preferences Fall 2010 Residence Hall Capacity and Occupancy: Freshmen and Sophomores Residence Hall Capacity and Occupancy Gap: Freshmen and Sophomores 5.3 Student Preferences in Residential Life: Freshmen and Sophomores 5.4 Summary: Freshmen and Sophomores Section 6 Defining the Upper-Division Market: Occupancy and Preferences Fall 2010 Residential Facility Capacity and Occupancy: Upper-Division and Graduate Students 6.2 Current and Projected On-Campus Housing Demand: Upper-Division and Graduate Students 6.3 Student Preferences in On-Campus Living: Upper-Division and Graduate Students 6.4 Summary: Upper-Division and Graduate Students Section 7 Dining Services Square Footage, Utilization, and Preferences Current Dining Services Square Footage and Utilization by Location 7.2 Design Standards and Future Demands 7.3 Student Preferences in Dining Services 7.4 Summary: Dining Services Section 8 Update to the Master Plan Residential Life Phase II ( ): Freshman and Sophomore, Upper-Division and Graduate Student Neighborhoods 8.2 Dining Services Phase II ( ): Freshman and Sophomore, Upper-Division and Graduate Student Neighborhoods 8.3 Residential Life and Dining Services Phase III ( ) Section 9 Constructability and Financial Modeling Constructability 9.2 Financial Model for Residential Life Projects Phase II ( ) 9.3 Financial Model for Dining Services Projects Phase II ( ) Page II

3 Table of Contents (continued) Selected Resources and Supporting Documents 32 Appendix A Peer Institution Data Analysis 33 Appendix B Residential Life Site Visits 37 Appendix C Residential Life and Dining Service Master Plan: Planning and Construction 38 Phases ( ) Page III

4 List of Graphs and Tables List of Graphs Graph 1 Enrollment Brookings Campus Actuals; Projections 6 Graph 2 Retention and Graduation Rate History Graph 3 Freshman and Sophomore Housing Capacity vs. Occupancy Actual; Projected Graph 4 Freshmen and Sophomores Required to Live On-Campus 15 Graph 5 Top Five Preferred Amenities 16 Graph 6 Preferred Number of Students per Floor 16 Graph 7 Students Not Required to Live On-Campus Actuals; Projections Graph 8 Usage by Dining Location ARAMARK Survey 23 Graph 9 Housing Types-Peer Institutions Fall Graph 10 Peer Institution Cost (Room/Board and Tuition/Fees) Breakdown Fall Graph 11 Peer Institution Cost (Room/Board) Breakdown Fall List of Tables Table 1 Brookings Campus Enrollment On- and Off-Campus Housing Arrangements by 7 Student Class Level Actuals; Projections Table 2 Retention by Hall: 2008 and Table 3 Sophomore Return Rates Based on Living Status 10 Table 4 Housing Inventory: Fall Table 5 Housing Rates per Semester: Fall 2010 Actual and Fall 2011 Proposed 13 Table 6 Freshman and Sophomore Hall-by-Hall Capacity vs. Occupancy: Fall Table 7 Upper-Division and Graduate Student Capacity vs. Occupancy: Fall Table 8 Average Customers per Day: 2010 and Table 9 Average Customers by Meal and Location: 2010 and Table 10 Estimated Annual Revenue and Annual Costs: Residence Halls 30 Table 11 Estimated Annual Revenue and Annual Costs: Dining Services 31 Page IV

5 Executive Summary Master Plan ( ) are: Increase the freshmen to sophomore retention rate to 80% or higher Increase the six-year or less undergraduate graduation rate to 60% or higher Increase graduate student enrollment by 178 (11.1%) by fall 2013 The plan was approved in concept by the Board of Regents in October, The central theme of the plan was to create two distinct student residential neighborhoods: A traditional freshman and sophomore neighborhood on the southeast side of campus An upper-division (juniors, seniors, transfers) and graduate student neighborhood on the northwest side of campus The Student Success Model was launched in This model promotes student success through programs, services, and facilities. One of the guiding values of the model is to create physical environments that encourage meaningful social and academic interactions. Establishing two neighborhoods directly links to student success and is a key to implementing the model. To establish the two neighborhoods, a three-phased approach was developed to construct new buildings and to renovate and reprogram existing housing and dining facilities. A campus map identifying the physical location of each neighborhood is provided below. N Southeast Neighborhood Northwest Neighborhood Phase I was completed in Since baseline data supporting the plan was from 2007, it was necessary to update the plan before implementing Phases II and III. The methodologies employed included analyzing enrollment, housing and dining data, collecting student preferences through surveys and focus groups, and visiting other universities. Enrollment and Enrollment Trends Between 2000 and 2010, total enrollment growth at the University has averaged 3.7% per year, reaching a total of 12,816 (10,728 Brookings campus) in fall In Brookings, the University has experienced growth of 10.7% (1,037 students) from 2007 to 2010 and projects growth of 9.6% (1,026 students) by fall This increase includes 316 new freshmen/sophomores, 532 new junior, senior, and transfer students, and 178 new graduate students. Page 1

6 Freshman and Sophomore Neighborhood Since 2006, the University has not been able to house all freshmen and sophomores due to the shortage of residential life facilities. For 2010, the gap between freshmen and sophomore housing capacity and demand is 355 students. This gap is projected to grow to 671 students by The updated plan calls for the 218 freshmen residing in Hansen Hall to be relocated to the southeast neighborhood because of poor and falling retention rates. For 2008 and 2009, the average retention rate of freshmen living in the northwest neighborhood was 2.7 and 5.3 percentage points lower than the retention rate of freshmen living in the southeast neighborhood. Housing applications indicate students are three times more likely to select a hall on the southeast over the northwest side of campus. For the University to achieve its retention and graduation goals, the conclusions from the analysis conducted is that the majority of freshmen and sophomores need to be housed in the southeast neighborhood. By 2013, the University would need to provide 889 additional beds in the southeast neighborhood. This need will be met by adding 800 new beds and releasing approximately 100 sophomores to Greek Chapter houses in the Greek Village. Upper-Division and Graduate Student Neighborhood In 2010, there are 7,048 students not required to live on-campus; 331 of these students are residing in an on-campus facility in the northwest corner. Between 2010 and 2013, it is projected that the number of Brookings students not required to live on-campus will grow by 710 to a total of 7,758 students. A small proportion of these students are interested in an oncampus living experience. For example, in 2010, there were 157 junior, senior, transfer, and graduate students that showed interest in single-occupancy rooms in the northwest -division students in 1994, have experienced 98% occupancy for the past decade. Finally, the 2009 feasibility study by Brailsford and Dunlavey (B&D) consulting firm, identified a small market for an on-campus, private, upscale, contemporary-style apartment to serve upper-division and graduate students. The updated master plan establishes an upper-division and graduate student neighborhood which will support the goal of achieving a graduation rate of 60% or higher. First, Bailey and Berg apartments will be exclusively for junior, senior and transfer students. Second, Waneta Hall and Wecota Annex will be reprogrammed as single-occupancy rooms. These housing options will accommodate only 504 of the almost 7,800 students not required to live on-campus. Third, employ a request-for-proposal to market test the B&D recommendation for an upscale, private, contemporary-style apartment configured and sized to meet the market demand. Finally, the updated plan supports a small number (215) of academically-dedicated sophomores living in single-occupancy rooms in Hansen Hall in the northwest neighborhood. Not only can this small group of students be successful in this environment, but this approach accommodates the total number of sophomores required to live on-campus. Dining As two residential neighborhoods (freshman and sophomore/upper-division and graduate student) are developed, appropriate dining services will be required. The updated plan calls for expanding the Union to address current overcrowding issues and accommodate the new residents in the southeast neighborhood. In the northwest neighborhood, Medary Commons will be reprogrammed to another University priority and a satellite dining site will be developed in Hansen Hall. Contingency Plan Over the past decade, the University has experienced consistent enrollment growth. The contingency plan addresses an unlikelihood of a change in this trend. Sophomores in Hansen Hall and released to Greek Chapter houses would be assigned to the southeast neighborhood. Hansen Hall would then be available to junior, senior, transfer and graduate students. Page 2

7 Introduction The updated Residential Life and Dining Services Master Plan drew from the strategic goals and Strategic A central theme of the 2008 master plan was to establish two student residential neighborhoods: 1) a freshman and sophomore neighborhood on the southeast corner of campus, and 2) an upper-division and graduate student neighborhood on the northwest corner of campus. This central theme is re-emphasized in the updated master plan. The purpose for graduation, and graduate student enrollment goals as set forth in the strategic plan. There are nine sections in the updated plan plus three appendices. The 2008 plan establishes a three-phased approach for implementation. Phase I was completed in A review of the implementation of Phase I provided the foundation for updating the master plan and is presented in Section 1. The priorities of the updated plan are presented in Section 2 linking In Section 3, the analysis of enrollment and enrollment trends, which focuses on students at the Brookings campus segmented into those required to live on-campus and those eligible to live off-campus, is presented. This section also contains a time-series assessment of retention and graduation rates, in general, and the retention rate for freshmen by residence hall and for sophomores living in on-campus housing versus those released to live off-campus. The current inventory of on-campus housing and housing rates are examined in some detail in Section 4. In Section 5, the freshman and sophomore market is presented including current on-campus housing capacity, current on-campus housing gap and the forecast gap (demand versus capacity) for Included in the market assessment is a report on preferences of freshmen and sophomores, for on-campus housing and associated location and level of amenities, obtained through surveys and focus groups. A similar market analysis for upper-division and graduate students is presented in Section 6. Dining services capacity, utilization, and customer preferences is covered in Section 7. In Section 8 is the updated Phase II of the master plan with details regarding current plans for freshman and sophomore students in the southeast neighborhood and upper-division and graduate students in the northwest neighborhood. Included in this section are details on associated Phase II dining service plans for the respective neighborhoods. An update to Phase III of the master plan is also provided. Section 9 contains general financial models for Phase II of the master plan for both residential life and dining service projects. Page 3

8 Section 1 Status Report: Phase I Implementation The initial plan defined a set of priorities to be completed in three-phases. A status report on Phase I is provided below. Phase I Implementation Actions Status Establish a freshman and sophomore neighborhood on the southeast side of campus, to meet demand from students required by policy to live on-campus, by constructing a pod-style residence hall. Opened Jackrabbit Village ($19.5 million), a pod-style residence hall, fall Reached facility capacity (411 beds) within three days. Improve Larson Commons dining site to increase student usage and relieve crowding in other facilities. Remodeled Larson Commons ($450,000), fall While student usage did not increase, overall student satisfaction improved by 17% (2008 to 2010). Expand dining sites in the Union to accommodate additional students. Constructed two new sites in the Union ($7.1 million). Einstein Bros. Bagels (152 seats) opened October (198 seats) opened January Average daily customer counts in all Union dining sites increased 743 from January 2010 (3,339) to January 2011 (4,082). Reprogram Waneta Hall, on the northwest side of campus, to singleoccupancy rooms for upper-division students. Piloted single-occupancy room program in fall 2010 with 52 students. 105 additional upper-division students were on a waiting list until May 2010, when demand from freshmen suspended the program. Renovate Mathews Hall to reinvest in existing residential facilities. Remodeled Mathews Hall ($1.5 million), fall Added an elevator, lounge space, study rooms, and carpeting. Complete previously identified maintenance and repair list including: bathroom remodels and roof and window replacements. Remodeled Binnewies Hall bathrooms ($1.5 million) and roof ($185,000), summer Replaced Young Hall roof ($203,000) and Mathews Hall windows ($400,000), fall Establish differential rate structure for residence halls based on available amenities. Investigate the need for additional upper-division and graduate student living options on the northwest corner of campus. Implemented a three-tiered rate structure in freshman and sophomore neighborhood, fall The three levels include: Basic ($1,288), Upgraded ($1,418) and Premium ($1,926-$1,957). Engaged local stakeholders and University leaders in dialogue regarding the development of a request-forproposal for a private, upscale, contemporary-style apartment. Page 4

9 Section 2 Mission and Priorities The mission statement and priorities of the updated Master Plan were established using multiple resources including: University Strategic Plan Division of Student Affairs Strategic Plan Student Success Model (2010) These documents all support increasing retention (80% or higher) and graduation (60% or higher) rates, and growing research and graduate student enrollment. 2.1 Updated Master Plan Mission Statement The Residential Life and Dining Services Master Plan identifies facilities and service priorities, students as well as support growth in research and graduate student enrollment. The plan focuses on long-term student needs and addresses demand for housing and dining services. 2.2 Updated Master Plan Priorities Based on the mission statement, the following are priorities of the plan: 1. Strengthen the southeast freshman and sophomore neighborhood, to meet the demand of students required by policy to live on-campus, by constructing and renovating housing and 2. Develop the upper-division and graduate student neighborhood in the northwest corner of campus by reprograming existing halls, eliminating sophomore occupancy from the upperdivision Bailey and Berg apartments, constructing an upscale, private, contemporary-style apartment per market demand (to fill a gap in rental housing), and providing appropriate dining options. 3. Provide rate structures in each neighborhood that align with amenities and level of service. 4. Construct new facilities to achieve at least LEED silver certification standards. SDSU Mission Statement (Strategic Plan ) South Dakota State University will create a prosperous future for the people of South Dakota and their communities, and for the region and the nation, through excellence in education, in innovation and new knowledge creation and in putting knowledge to work. Division of Student Affairs Mission Statement (Strategic Plan ) The Division of Student Affairs at South Dakota State University educational experiences through the delivery of quality services and programs as well as by providing intentional learning experiences in diversity, global awareness, leadership and social responsibility. In partnership with the academic student community, the Division seeks to measurably impact student success by effectively recruiting, retaining and graduating students. Student Success Definition (Success Model 2010) Student success is defined as supporting student achievement to develop graduates who have a high level of self-confidence, are professionally competent, and are prepared to assume leadership roles in their communities as well as their chosen discipline. Page 5

10 Section 3 Relationship Between Enrollment Trends and Residential Life 3.1 Enrollment and Enrollment Trends Between 2000 and 2010, total enrollment growth at the University has averaged 3.7% per year reaching 12,816 (10,728 Brookings campus) in fall For the Updated Residential Life and Dining Services Master Plan, enrollment on the Brookings campus was analyzed. In the spring modeling was initiated under the Comfort Enrollment Model. This model forecasts Brookings campus enrollment from 2008 to 2012, using the following: Fall 2007 enrollment used as baseline Enrollment trends from Current and projected retention and graduation rates Enrollment potential based on markets and market share Academic program capacity Since the updated master plan spans to 2013, the Comfort Enrollment Model was used as a foundation to establish projections for an additional year. Brookings campus actual enrollment for and projected enrollment for is presented in Graph 1. Graph 1: Enrollment Brookings Campus Actuals; Projections From 2007 to 2010, enrollment on the Brookings campus increased 10.7% (1,037 students), an average of 3.57% per year. By extending the model to 2013, the projected enrollment increase is 21.29% (2,063 students), an estimated average of 3.55% per year. By 2013, undergraduate and graduate enrollments are projected to increase by 18.32% (1,544 students) and 41.10% (519 students), respectively. Currently, enrollment trends are on target to realize the projections. Page 6

11 3.2 Housing Arrangement and Class Status Based on Enrollment In Table 1, the Brookings campus enrollment is divided into two classifications: those students required to live on-campus and those students eligible to live off-campus. Based on the Comfort Enrollment Model, actual data for and projections for are provided. Table 1: Brookings Campus Enrollment On- and Off-Campus Housing Arrangements by Student Class Level Actuals; Projections Required to live on-campus Freshmen/Sophomores Subtotal 3,418 3,229 3,680 3,784 3,896 3,996 3,418 3,229 3,680 3,784 3,896 3,996 Eligible to live off-campus Freshmen/Sophomores* Non-Required and Non-Degree Seeking** Transfer Students Juniors Seniors Graduate Students Subtotal Total ,674 1,680 1,744 1,836 1,929 1,945 2,045 2,053 2,132 2,245 2,357 2,378 1,347 1,579 1,604 1,643 1,674 1,782 6,590 7,043 7,048 7,361 7,622 7,758 10,008 10,272 10,728 11,145 11,518 11,754 Actual Projected *Includes freshmen and sophomores released from campus living requirement by waiver. **Includes freshmen and sophomores who are not required to live on-campus as well as non-degree seeking students. Note: Since the student information system calculates student status based on credit hour rather than year in school, there is a non-material difference in the calculation of transfer students. This difference impacts the following categories: freshmen/sophomores required to live on-campus, transfer students, juniors, and seniors. Key observations are: In 2009, an additional 294 sophomore housing releases were granted to accommodate an increase in the freshman class. Based on a four-year average from fall 2007 to fall 2010, approximately 320 sophomore and 102 freshman releases were granted. By 2013, it is estimated that 316 additional freshman and sophomore students will need to live on-campus. By 2013, it is estimated that 532 additional non-required/non-degree seeking, junior, senior, and transfer students will need housing. By 2013, it is estimated that 178 additional graduate students will be enrolled on the Brookings campus. Page 7

12 3.3 University and Residence Hall Retention and Graduation Rates University Retention and Graduation Rates retention rate 80% or higher graduation rate 60% or higher Retention rate is the percentage of first-year, full-time students who return the following fall semester. Graduation rate is the percentage of students who graduate within six years of entering the University. Graph 2: Retention and Graduation Rate History Retention Graduation Retention rates have remained within the 74%-78% range, with a slight decline of 1 percentage point in The graduation rate has been stable over the past five years, 54.6%-56.7%, with a slight decrease in Page 8

13 3.3.2 Residence Hall Retention Rates The retention rates for traditional residence halls housing 50 or more freshmen, for fall 2008 and fall 2009, are presented in Table 2. Table 2: Retention by Hall: 2008 and 2009 Hall Southeast Binnewies 77.7% 80.5% Brown 78.5% 73.7% Mathews 87.0% 87.0% Pierson 78.3% 75.4% Young 72.5% 77.3% Average 78.5% 78.8% Northwest Hansen 83.7% 74.2% Waneta 64.6% 72.5% Average 75.8% 73.5% Total Average 77.8% 77.7% Key observations are: 2008 average retention rate among southeast halls was 2.7 percentage points higher than the average retention rate among northwest halls. The difference in 2009 was 5.3 percentage points. Retention rates in 2008 for freshmen living on-campus range from 64.6% to 87%, and from 72.5% to 87% in Mathews Hall, which supports living/learning communities (Honors, Engineering and Health Professionals), has consistently had the highest retention rate (87%). Waneta Hall had the lowest retention rate for both 2008 and 2009, 13.2 and 5.2 percentage points below the total average, respectively. 83.7% to 74.2%). In the southeast corner of campus, which has been defined as the freshman and sophomore neighborhood, the average retention rate has remained consistent. In the northwest corner of -to- has remained the lowest in the system. Furthermore, according to housing applications for fall 2010, students were three times more likely to select halls on the southeast corner than the northwest corner of campus. 3.4 Sophomore Success In 2009, due to higher than anticipated enrollment growth, an additional 294 sophomores were granted housing releases, for a total of more than 600 sophomores released from on-campus living requirements. Over the past decade, approximately 320 sophomores have been released each year to live off-campus. Page 9

14 The comparison between the retention rate of sophomores released from campus to the retention rate for sophomores living on-campus is presented in Table 3. Table 3: Sophomore Return Rates Based on Living Status Retention Rate Living Status On-Campus Sophomores 88.2% 89.3% 89.3% Off-Campus Sophomores 77.0% 83.6% 83.1% In 2008, 2009, and 2010, the number of sophomores who lived on-campus who returned to the University for a third year is 11.2, 5.7, and 6.2 percentage points higher than the return rate of sophomores living off-campus. The impact of an on-campus living environment on sophomore student success is not unique to South Dakota State University. According to Gardner (2010), engaging sophomores in the university community through an on-campus living experience is an important factor in improving their level of student success. While the majority of sophomores experience a higher level of academic success when living in traditional on-campus housing environments, academically-dedicated sophomores can thrive in a more mature on-campus living environment. Housing academically-dedicated sophomores in single-occupancy rooms is an emerging trend. Academically-dedicated sophomores can be defined as students who earn a 2.8 or higher GPA (grade point average) and declare majors in rigorous programs, including: engineering, nursing, and pharmacy. For 2009, approximately 400 sophomores fell into the academically-dedicated group. 3.5 Residential Life Impact on Student Success, Retention, and Graduation Chickering (1974), Astin (1977), and Pascarella and Terenzini (1991/2005) substantiate the positive association between living on-campus and student persistence to graduation. Students (at all class levels) living in university housing have been found to perform 10% better academically. It has also been determined that the most important environmental characteristic positively linked with graduation is residing on-campus during the freshman year (accounting for a 12% increase in the likelihood of graduation). Finally, according to Gardner (2010), the most difficult year for students sophomores persist to their junior year is a positive on-campus living environment which helps them connect to academic resources. 3.6 Residential Life Impact on Recruiting Graduate Students As the University continues to foster science and technology-based economic development, it is important to recruit graduate students to serve in assistantships to support external grant and contract-funded research. A broad range of housing options Page 10

15 Section 4 Existing Housing Inventory and Rate Structures 4.1 Hall Inventory and Floor Plans Detailed information (style, capacity, years of construction and major renovations) on current housing options for freshmen/sophomores and juniors/seniors/graduate students are provided in Table 4. Table 4: Housing Inventory: Fall 2010 Planned Year Year of Hall Style Capacity Constructed Major Renovation Freshmen/Sophomores Housing (to meet on-campus living requirement) Binnewies Traditional (double) Brown Traditional (double) Caldwell Semi-Suite Hansen Traditional (double) /2004 Jackrabbit Village Pod-Style Jackrabbit Village Single Mathews Traditional (double) /2006 Pierson Traditional (double) /2006 Young Traditional (double) Total 3,325 Junior/Senior Apartments and Single-Occupancy Options Bailey Apartment Berg Apartment Waneta Single Wecota Annex Single Total 504 Family Student Housing Apartments State Village Family 88 (units) 1959 Total 88 Page 11

16 The images below are layouts of existing housing spaces as well as details regarding capacity and cost for fall Traditional-Double (Freshmen/ Sophomores) Semi-Suite (Sophomores) Halls Binnewies, Brown, Hansen, Mathews, Pierson, Waneta, and Young Total Capacity 2,774 beds Square Feet/Room 160 SF Cost/Semester/Person $1,288-$1,418 (There are 52 rooms in Waneta Hall rented as singles at a rate of $1,772.) Hall Caldwell Total Capacity 300 beds Square Feet/Room 174 SF Cost/Semester/Person $1,926 Pod-Style (Freshmen/Sophomores) Apartments (Juniors/Seniors) Hall Jackrabbit Village Total Capacity 411 beds Square Feet/Room 182 SF (double) 120 SF (single) Cost/Semester/Person $1,957 (double), $2,153 (single) Apartments Bailey and Berg Total Capacity 320 beds in 80 units Square Feet/Unit 1000 SF Four bedrooms/unit Cost/Semester/Person $1,926 Additional housing includes 52 single-occupancy rooms in Wecota Annex (programmed for juniors/seniors/transfer students) and 88 family student apartments. -style. The mean among peer institutions is 54.6%. Additional information regarding housing options at peer institutions can be found in Appendix A. Page 12

17 4.2 Rates The University is committed to meeting a variety of housing demands by freshmen and sophomores to fulfill the on-campus living requirement and support student success. This requires rates based on amenities provided through different style housing. Presented in the tables are the 2010 actual and 2011 proposed rates for housing, reflecting the alignment of rates with amenities. Table 5: Housing Rates per Semester: Fall 2010 Actual and Fall 2011 Proposed Southeast Neighborhood Freshmen/Sophomores Halls Hall 2010 Rate Traditional Double Brown $1,288 Young $1,288 Binnewies $1,418 Pierson $1,418 Mathews $1,418 Suite-Style/Pod-Style Caldwell $1,926 Jackrabbit Village $1,957 Jackrabbit Village (singles) $2,153 Northwest Neighborhood Hall 2010 Rate Traditional Double/Single (Freshmen/Sophomores) Waneta (double) $1,288 Hansen $1,418 Wecota Annex (single) $1,632 Traditional Single (Juniors/Seniors/Graduate) Waneta (single) $1,772 Apartments (Juniors/Seniors/Graduate) Bailey $1,926 Berg $1,926 Southeast Neighborhood Freshmen/Sophomores Halls Hall 2011 Proposed Rate Traditional Double Brown $1,352 Young $1,489 Binnewies $1,489 Pierson $1,489 Mathews $1,592 Suite-Style/Pod-Style Caldwell $2,100 Jackrabbit Village $2,100 Jackrabbit Village (singles) $2,261 Northwest Neighborhood Hall 2011 Proposed Rate Traditional Double/Single (Freshmen/Sophomores) Waneta (double) $1,352 Hansen $1,352 Wecota Annex (single) $1,714 Apartments (Juniors/Seniors/Graduate) Bailey $2,100 Berg $2,100 Note: There is no proposed 2011 rate for single-occupancy rooms in Waneta Hall, as this space will be used as double-occupancy rooms for freshmen and sophomores, due to anticipated enrollment growth. The proposed 2011 rates reflect the level of amenities provided in each hall: Increase the rate for the four premiere facilities (Bailey, Berg, Caldwell Hall and the Jackrabbit Village) Adjust the rate for the renovated Mathews Hall (2010) Retain Brown, Hansen and Waneta Halls at the lowest rate The proposed 2011 rate structure was compared to the room and board costs at peer institutions. Based on this analysis, the University can increase room and board costs by $400-$800 and remain very competitive. See Appendix A for details. Page 13

18 Section 5 Defining the Freshman and Sophomore Market: Occupancy and Preferences 5.1 Fall 2010 Residence Hall Capacity and Occupancy: Freshmen and Sophomores The comparison between planned capacity in each hall with fall 2010 actual occupancy of freshman and sophomore students (those required to live on-campus) is presented in Table 6. Table 6: Freshman and Sophomore Hall-by-Hall Capacity vs. Occupancy: Fall 2010 Hall Capacity Fall Occupancy % of Capacity Binnewies Brown Hansen Mathews Pierson Waneta Wecota Annex Young Caldwell Jackrabbit Village Bailey/Berg (required)* 52 Total 3,537 3, *Actual planned capacity for Bailey and Berg apartments is 320. In fall 2010, 279 upper-division students and 52 freshman/sophomore students were tenants in these four-bedroom, four-person apartments. 36 freshmen were provided apartments in the following configuration: two four-bedroom units housing six freshmen each. In fall 2010, occupancy exceeded hall capacity. The difference between planned capacity (3,537) and actual occupancy (3,680) is 143. This reflects 91 students placed in community living spaces (i.e. study rooms and lounges) and 52 freshmen/sophomores housed in Bailey and Berg, which are apartments designed for upper-division students. The following additional temporary housing configurations were employed to meet demands: 160 freshman and sophomore students were placed in 80 rooms in Waneta Hall, which were to be reprogrammed to upper-division single rooms in sophomore students placed in Wecota Annex, which is programmed to house upper-division students For fall 2010, the difference between freshman and sophomore fall occupancy and planned capacity was 355 students. Page 14

19 Residence Hall Capacity and Occupancy Gap: Freshmen and Sophomores Each year from 2006 to 2010, a shortfall in housing for freshman and sophomore students was experienced. Based on enrollment projections, the shortfall will increase in 2011, 2012, and 2013, under existing capacity. The shortfall is forecast to be 671 in The actual and forecasted shortfall is illustrated in Graph 3. Graph 3: Freshman and Sophomore Housing Capacity vs. Occupancy Actual; Projected The need for additional and strategically-placed housing in the southeast freshman and sophomore neighborhood is linked to current and projected enrollment in students required by policy to live on-campus. The Brookings campus actual ( ) and projected ( ) freshmen and sophomores required by policy to live on-campus is shown in Graph , 2012, and 2013 freshman and sophomore enrollment forecasts are from the Comfort Enrollment Model. Graph 4: Freshmen and Sophomores Required to Live On-Campus To provide an accurate comparison between years, 294 additional sophomore releases granted in 2009 were included with the number of students residing on-campus (3, = 3,523). The average number of sophomore releases granted is approximately 320, Between 2008 and 2010, consistent enrollment growth in freshman and sophomore students was experienced. It is anticipated this trend will continue. The goal is to maintain first-year freshmen enrollment between 2,200 and 2,300 and increase the number of sophomores by improving the first to second-year retention rate to 80% or higher. Additional housing is an important factor in reaching these goals. Page 15

20 5.3 Student Preferences in Residential Life: Freshmen and Sophomores In October 2010, 1,000 on-campus students were randomly-selected to participate in a Residential Life survey, 253 (25.3%) of the students responded. The survey sought feedback on housing proximity, policy updates and programs, preferred amenities, price point, and preferred number of students per floor. In relationship to proximity, the two most preferred destinations to live near were academic spaces (58.5%) and the Union (58.1%). 73.5% of the respondents wanted 24-hour visitation and 47.8% of the respondents showed an interest in having academic assistance programs in the halls. The preferred amenities and price points, along with the preferred number of students per floor are shown in Graphs 5 and 6, respectively. Graph 5: Top Five Preferred Amenities Graph 6: Preferred Number of Students per Floor For the amenities listed, 58.1% of the respondents indicated a willingness to pay a rate higher or equivalent to the current Jackrabbit Village rate ($1,957/ semester). 92.5% of respondents prefer 50 or fewer residents per floor. Three focus groups of freshmen and sophomores from the southeast corner of campus (Caldwell Hall, Jackrabbit Village, and Mathews Hall) were convened. Students were asked to identify perceived strengths and weaknesses of their current residence hall. The following themes emerged: Strengths Proximity to the Union, Wellness Center, and academic spaces; fewer residents per floor Weaknesses minimal outdoor recreation space, no keyless entry to individual rooms Additional preferences revealed through the focus groups are identified below. Caldwell Hall Hall Description Suite-style, built in 2005 Strengths Room size (larger than traditional halls) Fewer residents per bathroom In-room sinks Weaknesses Limited closet space Thin walls Jackrabbit Village Hall Description Pod-style with single and double-occupancy rooms, built in 2010 Strengths Kitchen and living room on each floor Aesthetics (i.e. colored paint, carpet, high ceilings, large windows) On-floor amenities (laundry, recycling bins, study space, bathroom lockers) Weaknesses One central desk for all three buildings Lack of in-room sinks Mathews Hall Hall Description Traditional, doubleoccupancy, renovated in 2010 Strengths Lobby/study lounge upgrades Aesthetics (i.e. carpet, furniture, colored paint) Presence of living/learning communities Weaknesses No in-room carpeting Lack of in-room sinks Page 16

21 5.4 Summary: Freshmen and Sophomores Freshman and Sophomore Demand For the past seven years, freshman and sophomore enrollment exceeded housing capacity. For fall 2010, 355 freshmen and sophomores were housed in short-term alternative housing. Enrollment projections for 2013 indicated there will be an additional 316 freshmen and sophomores requiring on-campus housing. With no additional capacity, the gap between capacity and occupancy levels will reach Facility and Program Concepts in the New Hall To assess freshman and sophomore housing preferences, surveys, and focus groups were conducted. The following housing features and program concepts emerged: Proximity to academic spaces and the Union Larger rooms with sinks On-floor community living rooms, kitchens, and laundry facilities Smaller floor populations Indoor/outdoor recreation space Keyless entry to individual rooms Carpet in rooms Academic-assistance programs Page 17

22 Section 6 Defining the Upper-Division Market: Occupancy and Preferences 6.1 Fall 2010 Residential Facility Capacity and Occupancy: Upper-Division and Graduate Students Existing capacity in facilities dedicated to juniors, seniors, transfer and graduate students (those not required to live on-campus) is compared to actual occupancy for fall 2010 in Table 7. Table 7: Upper-Division and Graduate Student Capacity vs. Occupancy: Fall 2010 Facility Capacity Fall Occupancy % of Capacity Waneta (traditional-single) Bailey/Berg (apartments) State Village & Court Total Note: Wecota Annex (52 beds) is programmed for upper-division students. Due to increases in freshmen and sophomores, this housing option was not available to upper-division students in fall In fall 2010, the number of units available for upper-division students was at capacity. Key observations include: Based on the 2008 Master Plan, Waneta Hall was intended to be dedicated as a singleoccupancy residence hall for juniors, seniors and graduate students. As of May 2010, 157 upper-division students had expressed a desire to live in single-occupancy units in Waneta Hall. Due to increased demand among freshman and sophomore students, only 52 could be accommodated. Bailey and Berg apartments are designed for 320 juniors, seniors, and graduate students in 80, four-bedroom units. Due to increased freshman and sophomore enrollment, only 279 upper-division students were tenants in fall freshmen and sophomores were housed in 10 four-bedroom units. 36 of the freshmen were housed in double-occupancy rooms in six units. State Village and State Court provide apartments for students with families. These units are in high demand and often exceed capacity. There is a demand by upper-division and graduate students for on-campus housing that exceeds current capacity. Page 18

23 6.2 Current and Projected On-Campus Housing Demand: Upper-Division and Graduate Students The actual ( ) and projected ( ) number of students on the Brookings campus not required to live on-campus is provided in Graph 7. These students include: Freshmen and sophomores released by policy and non-degree seeking students, juniors/ seniors/transfer students, and graduate students. Graph 7: Students Not Required to Live On-Campus, Actuals; Projections *Number includes 294 additional sophomore releases granted in The average number of sophomore releases is 320. The enrollment projection for students not required to live on-campus is 7,758 in This includes: 826 freshmen/sophomores released and non-degree seeking students, 1,782 graduate students, and 5,150 juniors, seniors and transfer students. In 2009, the Chicago consulting firm, Brailsford and Dunlavey (B&D) undertook a feasibility study on possible public/private partnerships to bridge gaps in facilities and services currently available to students and faculty/staff in the greater Brookings community, on-campus and off-campus. The feasibility study was restricted to the northwest part of campus, west of Medary Avenue. B&D reported in their study several opportunities including the demand for upscale, contemporary, on-campus, private apartment housing by a small segment of the upper-division and graduate student market. B&D estimated this demand to be between 300 and 400 upper-division and graduate students. 6.3 Student Preferences in On-Campus Living: Upper-Division and Graduate Students Focus groups and site visits were conducted to determine upper-division student preferences for on-campus living. In fall 2010, focus groups of juniors, seniors, and transfer students from Bailey and Berg Apartments and Waneta Hall (single-room occupancy for upper-division students) were convened. Page 19

24 Upper-division students provided feedback on perceived strengths and weaknesses of their current living environment. While there was no consistency among strengths, both groups identified the following weaknesses: minimal outdoor recreation space, no keyless entry to buildings or rooms, and no alcohol policy. Additional preferences included: Bailey and Berg Apartments Complex Description Four-bedroom, apartment style, built in 1994 Strengths Single bedrooms In-apartment kitchens with modern appliances Waneta Hall Hall Description Single-occupancy rooms for upper-division students, built in Strengths Single room option Quiet hours In-room amenities (i.e. micro-fridges, soft furnishings) To gain additional information on upper-division on-campus and near campus housing, a visit to Minnesota State University-Mankato was conducted. This institution was selected because of its wide variety of upper-division housing. Details on the site visit are in Appendix B. 6.4 Summary: Upper-Division and Graduate Students Upper-Division Demand The 2008 Master Plan anticipated that Waneta Hall would transition from serving freshman and sophomore students in double-occupancy rooms to serving juniors and seniors in singleoccupancy rooms. Due to increased freshman and sophomore enrollment this portion of the plan was not actualized. There is evidence of a small, but strong, market for on-campus housing in a variety of configurations. A focus group with current upper-division residents indicated that the single-occupancy room configuration met their needs. Bailey and Berg apartments, built in 1994, were designed to serve juniors and seniors and has been at capacity since its construction. Based on feedback gathered from the focus group, these apartments continue to meet the needs of upper-division students. The study completed by B&D showed there was a small market for an on-campus, upscale, contemporary, private-style apartment in the northwest neighborhood. The study concluded the size of this market was students Enrollment Growth Among Upper-Division Students Between 2008 and 2010, the number of upper-division students (those not required to live on-campus) on the Brookings campus grew by 458 to a total of 7,048. Between 2010 and 2013, the number of upper-division students on the main campus is projected to grow by 710 to a total of 7,758. A market of this size will be served mostly by commercial rentals in the Brookings area, and to some extent, by on-campus options in the northwest neighborhood. Page 20

25 Section 7 Dining Services Square Footage, Utilization, and Preferences 7.1 Current Dining Services Square Footage and Utilization by Location Below is the square footage dedicated to each of the three primary dining sites on-campus: Larson Commons (all-you-care-to-eat) 4,705 square feet Medary Commons (retail) 2,466 square feet The Union (retail) 15,509 square feet The average number of daily customers at each location during the week of January 23, 2011, with the number of customers during the same week in 2010 is available in Table 8. Table 8: Average Customers per Day: 2010 and 2011 Dining Location Larson Commons Medary Commons The Union* Difference ,339 4, Sports Grill. Key observations are: Renovations to Larson Commons to accommodate more students in the freshman and sophomore neighborhood were not successful. The average number of daily purchases decreased by 46 transactions. Student counts in Medary Commons declined significantly (112) between 2010 and The Union is serving 743 additional customers per day in 2011 than in The Union was expanded by 350 seats in 2010 to accommodate the addition of the Jackrabbit Village (411 students). Demand for Union dining services in the freshman and sophomore neighborhood currently exceeds capacity. Page 21

26 Each location serves breakfast, lunch and dinner. The average number of customers per meal, per location during the week of January 23, 2011 compared to the same week in 2010 is presented in Table 9. Table 9: Average Customers by Meal and Location: 2010 and 2011 Larson Commons Breakfast Lunch Dinner Total Day Medary Commons Breakfast Lunch Dinner Total Day The Union Breakfast Lunch Dinner Total Day Difference In Larson and Medary Commons, customer demand has decreased during all three meal periods. This shift has occurred as enrollment has increased. Patterns indicate a migration from Larson and Medary Commons to the Union. While the Union dining sites have increased in customer counts during all three meals, demand peaks during the lunch period. The number of purchases in the Union during lunch is equivalent to approximately 20% of the Brookings campus total enrollment. 7.2 Design Standards and Future Demands Based on dining usage reports, as well as an analysis of information from the 2008 Master Plan, the following standards for dining operations have been identified: Minimum seating requirement is 18 net square feet per customer. Operators can expect 70% usage in locations that provide dual dining and social space, which is consistent with the experience in the Union. Turnover (meal duration per individual) in a casual dining location (similar to the Union) is 60 minutes per diner. The Union currently averages 2,142 customers during lunch. Dining space in the Union is currently 15,509 square feet. The square footage necessary to accommodate current customer counts in the Union during lunch (11:00am-2:00pm) is calculated as: 2,142 (customers) 714 (seats) 1,020 (seats) / 3 (turnover) = 714 (seats) /.70 (seating use) = 1,020 (seats) x 18 (square feet) = 18,360 (square feet) Page 22

27 The difference between required and available square footage for seating in the Union is: 18,360-15,509 Required dining (seating) square footage Available dining (seating) square footage 2,851 Disparity between required and available square footage for seating An additional 2,851 square feet of seating for customers is needed to meet current demand in the Union dining services. 7.3 Student Preferences in Dining Services Student demand for on-campus dining indicates a need to expand services. Student dining preferences were gathered using surveys, focus groups, and a site visit to inform an expansion On-Campus Student Survey In November 2010, 1,000 students living on-campus were randomly selected to receive an electronic survey, 275 (27.5%) students responded. The survey collected information on proximity, dining habits, hours of operation, atmosphere, and food preference. Key findings are: Proximity 97.8% of respondents expressed a desire for dining options near their residence hall. Dining Habits 50% or more of respondents chose to dine in the Union during each meal period: 60.9% breakfast 61.0% lunch 50.0% dinner Hours of Operation 68.3% of respondents wanted an option to dine throughout the day and into the evening. Atmosphere 73.5% of respondents preferred a casual dining location as opposed to a cafeteria. Food Preference A strong preference for recognized national brands that offer Mexican, Asian, deli, and Italian cuisines ARAMARK Student Satisfaction Survey In October 2010, (prior to the opening of new dining options in the Union), 927 customers participated in an electronic intercept survey: 507 (55%) on-campus students, 378 (41%) off-campus students, and 42 (4%) faculty/staff. This bi-annual survey collects information on preferred location and food quality. Information on the locations visited most often is presented in Graph 8. Graph 8: Usage by Dining Location ARAMARK Survey Other locations include Java City outlets, Library and Crothers grab-and-go stations. It is clear that 50% or more of the respondents in each category chose the Union as a primary dining location. On a scale of 0 (poor) to 100 (best), survey respondents rated overall quality. The all-site average was 98%. Page 23

28 7.3.3 Dining Focus Groups ARAMARK conducted two focus groups of randomly selected freshmen and sophomores living on-campus, from both the northwest and southeast corners of campus. A small number of off-campus students was also included in each group. Both focus groups indicated strong Additional results are: Southeast Key Findings Northwest Key Findings Current meal plans meet student needs High interest in on-campus pizza delivery service Continue to provide nutritional information, low-fat options and locally-grown products Interest in afternoon and evening dining hours Disliked Medary Commons environment (i.e. office space co-located with cafeteria-style dining) Open a convenience store in this area of campus University of Minnesota-Twin Cities Site Visit In December 2010, ARAMARK staff members and students visited the University of Minnesota dining system (operated by ARAMARK). The team visited residential and retail dining options throughout campus that offered multiple national and ARAMARK brands. Key features observed during the visit: Lunch-only dining service site offering three branded concepts with capacity to seat 500 in the Union Presence of popular national brands (i.e. Panda Express, Chick-fil- Deli options (i.e. Subway) located within convenience stores at satellite locations serving upper-division students Hot entrees provided in market-style deli case at satellite locations serving upper-division students Variety of full-service coffee shops located throughout campus Eco-friendly dining operations 7.4 Summary: Dining Services Dining Utilization and Needs As housing capacity is increased on the southeast corner of campus, dining needs in this neighborhood have increased. Currently, the Union is serving numbers beyond the planned capacity. Based on daily customer counts, student behavior, and industry standards, the Union should provide 18,360 square feet of dining (seating) space to meet current demand. The Union only has 15,509 square feet devoted to seating for dining customers. The disparity between required and available square footage is 2,851 square feet. While customer counts in the Union have increased, the use of Medary Commons has declined. Usage in Larson Commons has remained relatively constant. As the southeast and northwest neighborhoods develop, it will be important to expand and design dining options to meet the market demand in these locations Program Concepts for New Dining Options Based on student feedback and site visits, several program components designed to meet student needs in both the southeast and northwest neighborhoods emerged. The features that should be considered when constructing new dining sites in each neighborhood are: Southeast (Freshman and Sophomore) Neighborhood Lunch-only dining concept Casual dining atmosphere Presence of national brands Northwest (Juniors, Seniors, Transfer and Graduate Students) Neighborhood Convenience stores with prepared foods Hot entrees displayed in market-style deli case in satellite locations Page 24

29 Section 8 Update to the Master Plan Assessing Phase I, updating the mission statement and priorities, and collecting and analyzing data, have confirmed that the two main concepts of the 2008 Master Plan remain strong and relevant. Develop a freshman and sophomore neighborhood in the southeast corner of campus. This neighborhood will capitalize on proximity to key academic spaces, the Union, and Wellness Center. A differential rate structure for this neighborhood will be retained. Older traditional halls (Binnewies, Brown, Pierson, and Young) should be modernized to meet student needs. Dining options should be expanded to meet current and anticipated student demand. Establish a relatively small, compared to total market size, upper-division and graduate student neighborhood in the northwest corner of campus. This will be achieved by reassigning existing halls to single-occupancy rooms, maintaining Bailey and Berg as university apartments, and potentially adding a market-driven, upscale, private, contemporary-style apartment. A differential rate structure for the upper-division neighborhood based on amenities will be developed. Dining venues in this neighborhood should be created to meet student needs. 8.1 Residential Life Phase II ( ): Freshman and Sophomore, Upper-Division and Graduate Student Neighborhoods Freshman and Sophomore Neighborhood (southeast corner) The numbers below outline current and future demand for housing among freshman and sophomore students on the southeast corner of campus. 91 beds needed to accommodate students currently living in community spaces. 160 beds needed to reassign freshmen and sophomores to the southeast neighborhood by dedicating Waneta Hall to upper-division, single-occupancy housing. 52 beds needed to reassign freshmen and sophomores to the southeast neighborhood by reestablishing Bailey and Berg as upper-division housing. * 218 beds needed to reassign freshmen and sophomores to the southeast neighborhood by reprogramming Hansen Hall to single-occupancy housing. Current Needs 573 additional beds are needed to meet current demand and develop a freshman/ sophomore neighborhood that promotes student success. 52 beds needed to rededicate Wecota Annex to single-occupancy for upper-division students. 316 beds needed to accommodate the projected increase in freshmen/sophomores living on the Brookings campus by fall total beds needed by fall 2013 Future Needs 316 additional beds will be necessary to meet enrollment projections. *The goal is to house the majority of freshmen and sophomores on the southeast corner of campus. However, 218 single-occupancy rooms in Hansen Hall will be programmed for academically-focused sophomores. Page 25

30 To meet current and future enrollment demands as well as to develop living environments that promote student success, the following approaches are planned: 600 new beds in a complex with single- and double-occupancy rooms (similar to the existing Jackrabbit Village) 200 beds added to a renovated Brown Hall Approximately 100 sophomores released to the Greek Village chapter houses Services was consulted to confirm the existence of several potential residence hall sites on the southeast side of campus. Sites currently under consideration include south and north of Brown Hall and west of the Union. N Potential Sites for new residence hall Upper-Division and Graduate Student Neighborhood Enrollment projections forecast the total number of upper-division and graduate students on the Brookings campus will be 7,758 by While this population is not required to live oncampus, student behavior and trends indicate there is a small, but viable market of junior, senior, transfer and graduate students interested in an on-campus living option. In 2010, there were 157 upper-division students that showed interest in single-occupancy rooms in this neighborhood. Interest in upper-division and graduate student on-campus living is further corroborated by the B&D study that indicated a small demand for an upscale, contemporarystyle apartment. Regarding junior, senior, and transfer students, research has shown that oncampus living for students of all class levels has a positive impact on academic success. of reaching a graduation rate of 60% or higher. Furthermore, on-campus living options are necessary to compete for graduate students to support research initiatives. In establishing an upper-division neighborhood, the following approach will be implemented: 320 beds in Bailey and Berg apartments will exclusively serve upper-division students. 184 beds in Waneta Hall (132) and Wecota Annex (52) will be dedicated to singleoccupancy rooms for upper-division students. Implement a request-for-proposal (RFP) process to build an upscale, private, contemporary-style apartment, configured and sized to meet market demand. If the market test is successful, this additional option for upper-division and graduate students will be constructed. Page 26

31 8.1.3 Housing Contingency Plan The contingency plan will accommodate the highly unlikely decline in the enrollment. Two options to manage an absolute decline in freshman and sophomore enrollment are: Deploy some or all of Hansen Hall single-occupancy rooms to upper-division students, assigning more sophomores to the southeast freshman and sophomore neighborhood Withdraw some or all of the release of the approximately 100 sophomores to Greek Village chapter houses, assigning more sophomores to the southeast freshman and sophomore neighborhood The contingency options are available if the last decade of the actual enrollment experience fails to be a good forecast of the future. 8.2 Dining Services Phase II ( ): Freshman and Sophomore, Upper-Division and Graduate Student Neighborhoods The 2008 Master Plan identified a need to develop appropriate dining options in both the freshman and sophomore, and the upper-division and graduate student neighborhoods. This objective has been reaffirmed through the analysis of current square footage in dining locations, customer counts, and student preferences Freshman and Sophomore Neighborhood (southeast corner) The 2010 Union dining expansion was designed to accommodate additional demand driven by the construction of the Jackrabbit Village. Despite the expansion, the facility is currently exceeding planned capacity. The Union needs an additional 2,851 square feet to accommodate current demand. Based on enrollment projections, an additional 316 freshmen and sophomores will be living on the Brookings campus by Approximately, 1,000 additional students between 2007 and 2010 led to a daily average of 546 additional customers in the Union during the lunch period (11:00am-2:00pm). The 316 additional students translates to 172 new customers per day by Accordingly, the 172 new customers will require 1,458 additional square feet of seating space. 172 (customers) 57 (seats) 81 (seats) / 3 (turnover) = 57 (seats) /.70 (seating use) = 81 (seats) x 18 (square feet) = 1,458 (square feet) Note: See design standards on page 22 for details regarding formula. Currently, Medary Commons has 2,466 square feet of seating space and serves 334 customers during the lunch hour (11:00am-2:00pm). With 334 customers, 2,862 square feet of seating space will be needed to replace Medary Commons. 334 (customers) 111 (seats) 159 (seats) / 3 (turnover) = 111 (seats) /.70 (seating use) = 159 (seats) x 18 (square feet) = 2,862 (square feet) Note: See design standards on page 22 for details regarding formula. Page 27

32 In summary, the square footage needed in the Union to meet current and future dining demand is: 2,851 square feet of dining (seating) space necessary to meet current demand. 1,458 square feet of dining (seating) space necessary to accommodate projected enrollment growth by fall ,862 square feet of dining (seating) space necessary to accommodate the demand transferred from the closure of Medary Commons. 2,519 square feet of preparation space needed to accommodate additional dining demand. 9,690 total additional square feet for the Union dining expansion Upper-Division and Graduate Student Neighborhood (northwest corner) Dining services in the upper-division and graduate student neighborhood need to be configured and sized to meet demand. There will be 402 students living in single-occupancy rooms in Hansen, Waneta, and Wecota Halls. Current usage reports indicate the majority of students eat lunch in the Union. It is anticipated that there will be a demand for dining services at breakfast and dinner. It has been determined a satellite location providing hot entrees and grab-and-go options will meet student demand. Approximately 1,500 square feet of space is needed to provide this type of service. In 2013, Hansen Hall will house the majority of students in single-occupancy rooms. To meet student needs, the satellite dining site will be placed in Hansen Hall lobby Dining Contingency Plan The Union and the Hansen Hall dining projects will be funded by redeploying funds used to service the debt on Medary Commons. When this bond expires in 2014, these funds will become available for Phase II dining projects. Since Phase II recommends the closure of Medary Commons, the operating funds will be reallocated to the new dining locations. These factors will minimize the financial risk associated with the Phase II dining projects. 8.3 Residential Life & Dining Services Phase III ( ) Before Phase III of the Master Plan is implemented, it will be necessary to evaluate Phase II and update priorities. By reviewing both the 2008 and the 2011 Master Plans, it is anticipated that the following projects may be considered: 1. Construct a bed complex in the freshman and sophomore neighborhood to accommodate additional enrollment. 2. Renovate remaining traditional halls on the southeast corner of campus. 3. Add dining services to the freshman and sophomore neighborhood to accommodate additional students. 4. Modernize Bailey and Berg apartments located in the upper-division and graduate student neighborhood. A complete overview of the plans and construction projects (Phase I, II and III) for both residential life and dining is provided in Appendix C. Page 28

33 Section 9 Constructability and Financial Modeling Phase II housing and dining projects were identified to meet the demands of current and future student populations. The financial plan focuses on costs associated with these projects. Being both strategic and comprehensive, the plan seeks to maximize improvements to student housing and dining facilities while maintaining acceptable housing and meal plan rates. This analysis has resulted in a model that will cash flow the debt, principal, and interest on these projects as well as cover annual operating expenses. 9.1 Constructability The timeframe for the housing and dining projects is 15 months with an opening date of fall In consultation with the Department of Facilities and Services, it has been determined the residence hall construction will include air conditioning in new buildings and the addition of an elevator to Brown Hall. In addition to these items, the following construction assumptions will be applied. Structural System A combination of wood and steel construction Shell Thin brick on 75% of the buildings Roofing EPDM low slope Interior Steel stud partitions with medium level finishing/lighting Mechanical Dual-pipe with electric auxiliary heat, using campus steam Basement Partial to accommodate mechanical equipment only Certification LEED Silver Note: Combined wood and steel construction has been successfully used regionally. See information from University of Nebraska (Kearney and Lincoln) site visits in Appendix B. 9.2 Financial Model for Residential Life Projects Phase II ( ) Estimated construction and renovation costs for this project range from $30-33 million based on the recent Jackrabbit Village construction. estimates will be determined by a qualified architecture and engineering firm. Cost and design required financial documents of any bond issuance. The financial model assumes only 95% occupancy. Actual occupancy for the last decade is 98.33%. The financial integrity of the plan rests on two points: Use a combination of steel/wood construction to achieve a cost per bed (with infrastructure) of $37,500-$41,000. Assumes a cost of capital that $80,000 in revenue will finance $1 million in debt, at a 5% rate with a 30-year bond. If necessary, to keep within the projected room rate, a structured bond repayment plan that integrates with the retirement of Caldwell Hall bonds by 2023, will ensure financial viability. Revenue generated through rent from 800 new beds and an increased housing rate for the renovated Brown Hall will be used to support annual operating expenses. The new facility is proposed to be priced the same as the Bailey and Berg apartments, Caldwell Hall (suites), and the three facilities of Jackrabbit Village. The price in 2013, when the new facility comes on line, would be $2,315 per semester. The proposed 2011 price for the facilities of the Jackrabbit Village, Caldwell Hall, and the Bailey and Berg apartments would be streamlined to a single rate of $2,100. This price is inflated 5% in 2012 and Page 29

34 The rates for Brown and Mathews Halls will be aligned by The proposed 2011 rate for Mathews Hall is $1,592. The rate for these two halls would be $1,755 in 2013, based on a 5% annual increase in 2012 and Estimated annual revenue and annual costs for building 800 beds (600 new hall and 200 Brown Hall addition) and renovating Brown Hall common areas are included in Table 10 below. Table 10: Estimated Annual Revenue and Annual Costs: Residence Halls Gross Revenue New Construction 95% occupancy $3,518,800 (760 beds new hall and Brown $2,315/sem) Gross Revenue Renovated Brown Hall 95% Occupancy $1,298,700 (370 $1,755/sem) Total Revenue (annual) $4,817,500 Operating Costs New Construction $1,340,800 (800 $1,676) Operating Costs Renovated Brown Hall $653,640 (390 $1,676) Principal and 5% (for approximately $2,797,226 Total Operating Costs (annual) $4,791,666 Revenue Less Costs (annual) $25,834 The reprogramming of Hansen and Waneta Halls from double- to single-occupancy can be financially supported by: Implementing rate changes for Caldwell and Mathews Halls Increasing the single room rate from $1,772 to $1,950 in 2013 Reducing annual operating expenses (hall staff will be reduced from fourteen to three, due to single-room occupancy) Page 30

35 9.3 Financial Model for Dining Services Projects Phase II ( ) Estimated construction costs for the Union and Hansen Hall dining sites range from $4.4-$5.4 million based on the recent Union dining expansion project. approval, final cost estimates will be determined by a qualified architecture and engineering firm. process. To fund these projects three sources will be used: Approximately $3 million in annual payment capacity is freed-up by the retirement of the Increase in the Bond and Utility Fee, $3.00/semester, (last increase was $6.15 in 2009) Increase in the General Activity Fee of $.60/credit hour Phase II of the plan concentrates on three major dining services projects to meet the demand in the southeast neighborhood and the continued evolution of the northwest neighborhood: Expand Union preparation space and add 400 seats for dining (9,690 square feet) Reprogram Medary Commons (vacating it as a dining/food preparation facility) Add satellite dining services to Hansen Hall lobby (1,500 square feet) An overview of the estimated annual revenue and annual expenses associated with these projects is provided in Table 11. Table 11: Estimated Annual Revenue and Annual Costs: Dining Services Retirement of the Medary Commons Bond $286,000 Bond and Utility Fee $21,336 General Activity Fee $156,000 Total Revenue (annual) $463,336 Operating Costs (utilities, custodial, maintenance) $21,336 Principal and 5% (for approximately $5,400,000) $442,000 Total Operating Costs (annual) $463,336 Note: Cost of capital assumes $80,000 in revenue will finance $1 million in debt, at a 5% rate with a 30-year bond. Page 31

36 Selected Resources and Supporting Documents Astin, A.W. (1977). Four critical year: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brailsford and Dunlavey Consultants. (2009). Northwest Quad Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study. Chicago: Brailsford and Dunlavey Facility Planners. Chickering, A.W. (1974). Commuting versus resident students: Overcoming the education inequities of living off-campus. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hunter, M., Tobolowsky, B., Gardner, J., et. al. (2010). Helping sophomores succeed: Understanding and improving the second-year experience. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., Whitt, E., et. al. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Overview and Status Report SDSU Residential Life and Dining Services Master Plan (2010). Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students, Volume 2, A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. South Dakota State University Residential Life & Dining Services Master Plan (2008). Page 32

37 Appendix A Peer Institution Data Analysis Student Affairs staff gathered data, including housing types, costs of attendance, and room and board fees, from 15 peer institutions. SDSU has identified the following 12 universities as peer institutions: Colorado State University Kansas State University Montana State University New Mexico State University North Dakota State University Oklahoma State University Southern Illinois University Carbondale University of Idaho University of Montana University of North Dakota University of Wyoming Utah State University The Division of Student Affairs also identified the following institutions as recruitment competitors: University of Minnesota Twin Cities University of Nebraska Lincoln University of South Dakota Key Findings and Comparisons Data regarding housing systems at peer institutions is analyzed below: Housing vs. Enrollment SDSU provides housing for 32.1% of its total enrollment. Peer institutions provide housing from a low of 12% (University of Minnesota) to a high of 33% (North Dakota State University) of their enrollment. Living Requirements Among the identified peer institutions, six have no residency requirements, eight require freshmen to live on-campus, and one requires both freshmen and sophomores to live on-campus. SDSU maintains a two-year, live-on requirement. New Construction The following peers reported new construction since 2007: Colorado State Aspen Hall, 91 double-occupancy rooms, suite-style with private bathrooms for freshmen and sophomores and upper-division students North Dakota State Living-Learning Center East and West, 48 four-bedroom units, 140 studio-style apartments for upper-division students University of Nebraska Knoll Residential Center, 565 beds, suite style with private bathrooms for upper-division students University of North Dakota University Place (with retail options), 550 beds, double and single-occupancy, apartment complex for sophomores and above University of South Dakota Coyote Village, 546 beds, four-bedroom/two-bath and two-bedroom/one-bath, apartment complex for freshmen and sophomores Page 33

38 Housing Type Percentages at Peer Institutions The table below depicts the percentages of housing types available at each peer institution. Housing types include: Traditional/Pods Suite Apartments Currently, 82% of SDSU housing options are classified as traditional. The mean among peer institutions is 54.6% traditional housing. Graph 9: Housing Types Peer Institutions Fall 2010 Note While Southern Illinois University at Carbondale is identified as a peer institution, the university was not willing to provide details regarding housing options. Page 34

39 Cost of Attendance Comparison Using Admissions marketing materials from peer institutions, SDSU obtained room and board, of the peer institutions. Peer institutions are listed from most to least expensive. Total costs include room, board, and tuition and fees. Graph 10: Peer Institution Cost (Room/Board and Tuition/Fees) Breakdown Fall 2010 SDSU ranks fourth from the bottom in overall costs. In relationship to the mean ($13,779) for the three categories, SDSU is positioned significantly below the peer institutions. Page 35

40 Room and Board Costs The graph below compares SDSU room and board rates to the peer institutions. Peers are listed from most to least expensive. The lowest housing rates were applied by the majority of the institutions. Board rates were based on a cost of meals/week dining plans (or closest equivalent). It should be noted that the SDSU room cost reflects the average annual room rate available on campus ($2,836/academic year). Graph 11: Peer Institution Cost (Room/Board) Breakdown Fall 2010 When compared with 15 peer institutions and recruitment competitors, SDSU ranks 14th in room costs and is the lowest in board costs. According to this analysis, SDSU could increase room and board costs by $400-$800 and remain competitive. Page 36