Parking_Garage_Feasibility_Report.pdf

8/12/2019 Parking_Garage_Feasibility_Report.pdf

1/40

RD DR FTPARKINGGARAGEFEASIBILITYSTUDYPreparedFor:

PARKINGADVISORYSUBCOMMITTEE

April2011

PreparedBy:

49 West 37th

Street 5th

FloorNew York, New York 10018


2/40

Parking Garage Feasibility Study

April 2011

DESMANA S S O C I A T E S

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1.0 Introduction Page 1Section 2.0 Parking Demand Analysis Page 3Section 3.0 Site Alternatives & Preliminary Design Concepts Page 8Section 4.0 Financial Analysis (to be completed) Page 18

LIST OF TABLES

Table #1 Parking Occupancy Surveys Page 4Table #2 Parking Demand Ratios Page 6Table #3 Projected Staffing & Enrollment Growth (Fall 2013) Page 7Table #4 Projected Parking Demand Increases Page 7

Table #5 Lot #1 Conceptual Construction Budget Page 13Table #6 Lot #2 Conceptual Construction Budget Page 14Table #7 Lot #5 Conceptual Construction Budget Page 15Table #8 Parking Garage Site Alternates Matrix Page 17Table #9 Capital Cost & Debt Service Page 22Table #10 Operating & Maintenance Budget Page 23

LIST OF FIGURES/PLANS

Site Identification Aerial Page 9Site Footprint Studies After Page 10Lot #1 Concept Plans After Page 12Lot #2 Concept Plans After Page 13Lot #5 Concept Plans After Page 14


3/40


April 2011


Page 1 of 24

SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION

DESMANAssociateswasretainedtoprovideconsultingservicesforWilliamPatersonUniversity(WPU)forthepurpose

ofperformingaFeasibilityStudy foraddingaparkinggarageon thecampus.Toaccomplish thiswecompleted the

followingtasks,workinginconjunctionwiththeUniversitysParkingAdvisorySubCommittee,whichwascomprisedof

thefollowing:

AdministrationandFinanceVicePresident,SteveBolyai AdministrationandFinanceAssociateVicePresident,RosemarieGenco AdministrationAssociateVicePresident,RichardStomber CapitalProjects,DesignandConstructionDirector,JohnUrinyi CommuterServicesDirector,AllenWilliams PublicSafetyandUniversityPoliceInterimDirector,BobFulleman FacultyRepresentativeRajenderKaur,DepartmentofEnglish

PARKINGDEMANDANALYSIS Our initial task consisted of updating the supply and demand analysis performed byDESMAN in2004.Thistaskidentifiedcurrentparkingoccupanciesandthenumberofparkingspacesrequiredtomeetthe

parkingneedsbothtodayandforecasted3yearsforward.

Basedontheverificationofparkingspaceinventory,fromdatathatwasprovidedbytheUniversity,DESMANtabulatedthe

parkingsupplyanddemandonthecampus. Byusingthedemandbasedratioscalculatedinthe2004Study,anestimate

offutureparkingdemandatWPUwasforecasted.

SITEALTERNATIVESANALYSIS&PRELIMINARYDESIGNCONCEPTS ConsideringtheinfluenceoftheUniversitysgoalsforthisprojectaswellas forecastedparkingdemand,anumberofsiteswere identified forpossibleconsideration for future

parkingalternatives.Criteriaweredevelopedtoevaluateandprioritizealternativesitesforfuturestructuredparking. Using

thesecriteria,parkingsiteswerecomparativelyevaluated. Asaresultofthisprocess,asiteevaluationmatrixwasdeveloped

includingadvantagesanddisadvantagesasmeasuredby identifiedcriteriaandsummarized inthematrix. Asimplerating

systemof1 to3was incorporated toprioritizeparkingsites,withthegoalofselectingmultipleparkingsites thatwillbe

subjecttoamoreindepthdesignstudyandeconomicanalysis.


4/40


April 2011


Page 2 of 24

OptionswerepresentedanddiscussedwiththeParkingAdvisorySubCommittee tosolicitcommentsanddiscussvarious

advantagesanddisadvantagesofeachpotentialsitesolution.Afteranumberofpreferredsiteswereselected,functional

design concepts and preliminary building plans were developed to further investigate and analyze each sites

feasibility. Concept Design Documents including Grade, Typical and Roof Plans, were prepared to visualize the

followingprojectcomponents:

VehicularIngressandEgressLocations. RampingMethods,slopesandlocations. InternalTrafficFlow. ParkingGeometry,includingbaywidths/heights,parkingangleandstallwidths. Perfloorspacecounts. PossibleStair/elevatorlocations. Efficiencyonsq.ft.perspacebasis.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Utilizing Concept Design Drawings and the construction budget thatwas developed, a financialanalysiswasperformedfortheLot1alternatetoassisttheUniversityininvestigatingfundinganddevelopmentrequirements

andoptions.Projectcosts, including softcostsandassociated feeswere investigated for two financingoptions.The first

scenariowasdevelopedassumingtheUniversityfundstheprojectthroughtheNewJerseyEducationalFacilitiesAuthority,or

anotherlikebondingagency,asatraditionalcapitalimprovementproject.Thesecondscenarioforecastedtheprojectcosts

andfundingrequirementsiftheUniversityenteredintoaPublicPrivatePartnership(P3),wherebyprivateinvestmentfunds

wouldbeusedtofinancethedevelopmentandconstructioncosts.


5/40


6/40


April 2011


Page 4 of 24

TABLE#1

ParkingOccupancySurveys

Location/Facility Lot Capacity Nov. 2003 Parking Survey Oct. 2010 Parking SurveyLot1 124 124 124

Lot 2 284 313 237

Lot 3 299 261 286

Lot 4 375 364 375

Lot 5 1030 1055 1030

Lot 6 874 862 857

Lot 8 60 47 53

Admissions Lot 16 12 4

Visitors Lot 37 15 34Veritans Lot 200 25 37

415 Hamburg Tpk. 40

TotalReported Population 3 299 3 078 3 087

Faculty 370 380

Staff 720 746

On-Campus Resident

Students 2300 2630

Commuter Students 8625 8730


7/40


8/40


April 2011


Page 6 of 24

Giventheapparentaccuracyofthismodelandpresumingitsaccuracywithrespecttoindividualusergroups(faculty,

staff, students,etc.), the population topeak parking demand factors could be utilizedwhen assessing the parking

demandontheWPUcampusasstaffingandenrollmentlevels increaseovertime. Thefollowingtableillustratesthe

factorsthatweredevelopedspecificallyforWPU.

TABLE#2

PopulationtoPeakParkingDemandRatios

(drove&

parked

own

car/persons

per

auto

present

during

peak

period)

Category Demand RatioFaculty 0.54

Staff 0.82

On-Campus Resident Students 0.50

All Other Students 0.24

Visitor/Other 0.46

Giventhedevelopmentofaccuratepopulationbasedparkingratiosforeachcampususergroup,projectionsforfuture

staffingandenrollmentcouldbeusedtoestimateanticipatedpeakweekdayparkingdemand fortheWPUcampus.

Theuniversityhasprovidedprojectedgrowthnumbersforthenextthreeyearsonthecampuswhichcanbeusedto

forecastparkingneeds.Theforecastedgrowthforthefallsemesterin2013isasfollows:


9/40


April 2011


Page 7 of 24

TABLE#3

ProjectedStaffing&EnrollmentGrowth

Fall2013

Category Growth ProjectionFaculty 20

Staff 40On-Campus Resident Students 370

All Other Students 1400

Visitor/Other 50

Utilizingtheabovegrowthfactorsandpopulationbasedparkingratiosfortheseusercategorieswillresultinaforecastfor

addedunconstrainedparkingdemandexpectedonthecampus.Thefollowingtableillustratedtheseforecasts.

TABLE#4

ProjectedParkingDemandIncreases

Fall2013

Category Growth Projection Demand Ratio Parking SpaceDemandFaculty 20 0.54 11Staff 40 0.82 33

On-Campus Resident Students 370 0.50 185

All Other Students 1400 0.24 336

Visitor/Other 50 0.46 23

TOTAL PARKING DEMAND 588


10/40


April 2011


Page 8 of 24

Aspreviouslyillustratedwiththerecorded2003and2010surveys,parkingdemandshaveremainedrelativelyconstantover

that period while student populations have grown by almost 4%. This could be attributed to many factors such as

modifications to the class schedules and/or programs thereby shifting the distribution of student population during

traditionalmidday peak period, increased dependence on public transportation and/or a capacity constrained parking

system.Ifweassumethatitwasanythingbutacapacityconstrainedparkingsystem,thenthestudentdemandfactorwould

needtobemodifiedslightlytoaccountfortheaddedpopulationgeneratingasimilarparkingdemand.

Accounting

for

an

added

student

population

of

approximately

500

students

would

reduce

the

demand

factor

to

roughly

0.22

spacesperstudentduringthemiddaypeakperiod.Thiswouldinturnreducethedemandforthiscategorytoapproximately

308spaceswith1400addedstudentsintheFallof2013.Thereforeforplanningandfeasibilitypurposes,theaddedparking

demandsthatcouldbeexpectedwiththeforecastedgrowthinyear2013willapproach530spaces.This,whenaddedtothe

existingdeficitof250spaceswiththeeliminationoftheVeritansLotandwhentheprincipalofpracticalcapacityisapplied,

wouldsuggestaminimumparkingexpansionof750800spacesshouldbeplanned.

SECTION 3.0 - SITE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS & PRELIMINARY DESIGN CONCEPTS

The Parking Advisory SubCommittees goals were to select and evaluate potential sites that would meet the

immediateand forecastedparkingdemands for thecampus.Theunderlyingpremisewas thatanyexpansionwould

result intheUniversitysfirststructuredparkingfacility. Theinitialstepwastoidentifyviableoptions,orsites,onthe

campusthatcouldsupportastructuredparkingfacility. Someofthecriteriausedtoidentifyviablesiteswerethefollowing:

Siteavailabilityownership. Siteconditions(subsurfaceconditions,topography,etc.). Sitesize(dimensions). GatewayImpacts. ProximitytoCampusdestinations. Vehicularaccess. Pedestrianaccess. Sharedparkingopportunities. Alternativeplansfordisplacedcarsduringconstruction. Constructionstagingandstorageissues.


11/40


April 2011


Page 9 of 24

Thisdeliberation resulted in theParkingAdvisoryCommittee selecting sixareasof thecampus for furtherconsideration.

Theseareas,orsites,wereidentifiedasSite#1(Lot1),Site#2(Lot2),Site#3(St.JosephsWayneHospitaljointuse),Site

#4(HobartHall),Site#5(Lot5)andSite#6(MorrisonHall). Thefollowing imagegraphically illustratesthesegeneral

locationsonthecampus.

SITEIDENTIFICATIONAERIAL


12/40


April 2011


Page 10 of 24

Thenextstep inouranalysiswastotakeacloser lookattheopportunitiesateachoneofthe identifiedsitesonthe

campus. This was done by incorporating industry practices with regard to parking geometry, functional design

requirementsand thephysicalcharacteristicsofeach site. Footprintsweredeveloped foreachof the six locations

takingintoconsiderationsuchitemsassiteconditions,sitesizeandstandardparkinggeometricalrequirements,vehicular

accessandminimizingthedisplacementofexistingparkingspaces.Thisresultedintheplacementofgaragefootprintsthat

wouldrespondtothesegeneralrequirements.Theplacementofthefootprintscouldthenbeconvertedtoparkingcapacities

toallowtheCommitteetoassessthevalidityofeachsite.

Thefollowingdiagramsillustrateingreaterdetaileachsiteslocationonthecampusandtheresultantparkingfootprintsthat

would be feasible. These footprintswere then tested against the ability for each site to support the suggested parking

requirements/needs,orwhatwouldbethenumberoflevelsneededtoachieveagoalofaddingapproximately900additional

spacesonthecampus.Thebuildingmassingwasthencomparedtothesurroundingbuildingsonthecampustoqualitatively

measureitsimpact.


13/40

DESMA


14/40

DESMA


15/40

DESMA


16/40

DESMA


17/40

DESMA


18/40

DESMA


19/40

DESMA


20/40


April 2011


Page 11 of 24

The Parking Advisory Committee reviewed the opportunities for each of the sites and reached the following

conclusions. In general, floor to floor heights are programmed at 11 feet, and bay widths are 60 feet, which is

comprisedofan18footdeepparkingspace,24footwidedrive/circulationaisleandan18footdeepparking. Parking

spaceswereassumedtobe9feetwideforthisexercise.A900spaceparkinggaragewouldequateto280,000290,000

squarefeetofbuildingarea.

Site#1Lot1BetweenFacilitiesandScienceHallEasto Aestheticallyoneofthebetterlocationsrequiringtheleastamountoffaadearticulation.o Doesnotimpactanyexistingparkingspaces.o Elevatorsandpedestrianbridgeswillbe required tospan fromtopdeck togradeadjacentto the

ScienceHall.

o TruckaccesstoStudentCenterloadingdockneedstobemaintained.o Thewarehouseandswitchgearwouldneedtoberelocated.o Providesgoodaccesstoandfromthreecampusentrypoints.

Site#2Aand#2BLot2o OptionBwasdeemedtobefunctionallysuperior.o OptionBwouldbemoreeconomicalthanOptionAintermsofcostperspace.o Providesgoodaccesstoandfromthreeentrypoints.o Resultsinthelossofspaceduringconstruction.o Notasclosetocampusdestinationsassomeoftheothersites.

Site#3St.JosephsWayneHospitalWestofLot5o Thetopographyofthissiteischallenging.o Requirestheinvolvementofanotherpropertyowner.o Theheightofnewgaragemayblockexistingsolarpanels.

Site#4EastofHobartHallo Buildableareadoesnotappearlargeenoughtomeetprojectedparkingrequirements.o PedestrianbridgecrossingPomptonRoadwouldberequired.o Trafficsafetyisaconcern.


21/40


April 2011


Page 12 of 24

Site#5Lot5o Fivelevelstructurewouldberequiredfor800addedspaces.o Resultsinthelossofspaceduringconstruction.o Highlydesirablelocationforcommuters,residents,andStudentCentervisitors.o GoodvehicularaccessfromPomptonRoadandCollegeRoad,o AddedtraffictoEntry4mayneedtobemitigated.o LoadingDockaccessforWayneHallneedstobemaintained.

Site#6EastofMorrisonHallo Proximitytocampusdestinationsisquestionable.o Existingtopographycreatesfunctionalandeconomicchallenges.o Buildableareadoesnotappearlargeenoughtomeetprojectedparkingrequirements.

The ParkingAdvisory Committee completed their review of theopportunities foreach of the sites and concluded,

basedontheabovefactors,thatSite#1Lot1,Site#2BLot2andSite#5Lot5shouldbeadvancedforfurtherplanning

andstudy.Withtheselectionofthesesites,functionaldesignconceptsandpreliminarybuildingplansweredeveloped

tofurther

investigate

and

analyze

each

sites

feasibility.

Concept

Design

Documents

including

Grade,

Typical

and

Roof

Plans,werepreparedtovisualizethefollowingprojectcomponents:

PossibleVehicularIngressandEgresslocations. RampingMethods,slopesandlocations. InternalTrafficFlow. ParkingGeometry,includingbaywidths/heights,parkingangleandstallwidths. BuildingSections. Perfloorandtotalparkingspacecounts. PossibleStair/elevatorlocationsandconnectionstothecampus.

Constructionbudgetswerealsopreparedforeachoptiontoassistthecommitteetoevaluatethealternatives.Budgets

werepreparedonasquarefootbasisforthemajordivisionsofwork(i.e.earthwork,foundations,structure,elevators,

architecturaltreatment,plumbing,electrical,etc.),usingourinhousedatabaseofcostsforrecentsimilarareaprojects

anddiscussionswithcontractorsandmaterialsuppliers.TheconceptplansandbudgetsforLot#1,Lot#2andLot#5

areasfollows:


22/40

DESMA


23/40

DESMA


24/40


25/40


April 2011


Page 13 of 24

TABLE#5

LOT#1CONCEPTUALCONSTRUCTIONBUDGET


26/40

DESMA


27/40

DESMA


28/40


April 2011


Page 14 of 24

TABLE#6

LOT#2CONCEPTUALCONSTRUCTIONBUDGET


29/40

DESMA


30/40


31/40


April 2011


Page 15 of 24

TABLE#7LOT#5CONCEPTUALCONSTRUCTIONBUDGET


32/40


April 2011


Page 16 of 24

Theconcept

designs

were

presented

to

the

Parking

Advisory

Committee

to

discuss

the

pros

and

cons

of

the

alternatives.

Baselinecosts,parkingefficiencies,siting,floorplansandpotentialtrafficandpedestriancirculationwaspresentedand

discussed. Generalobservationsoftheconceptsaresummarizedbelow.

Lot1o VehicularaccesstothisgarageoptionwouldbegainedthroughLots1and2.o AccessroadtoStudentCenterismaintained.o SectionsofPPOoperations:storeroom,saltshed,switchgear,oldboilerplantwouldneedtobedemolishedaspartofthissolution.o Littletonoimpactonexistingparkingcapacity.o Pedestrianbridgeswouldbeneededforcommunicationtothecampus.

Lot2o Thislocationhasbestproximitytoathleticfacilities.o Inordertoachieveprojectedparkingdemandsthissolutionrequiresoneadditionallevel.o VehicularaccesstothisgarageoptionwouldbegaineddirectlyfromthecampuslooproadandLot2.o Pedestrianbridgesaredesirableforcommunicationtothecampus.o Interimlossof130spacesduringconstruction.o Thislocationisfurthestfromtheprimarycampusdestinations.

Lot5o Thisisthelargestalternativewithat358,000grosssquarefeet(GSF)and1,025spaces.o AccesstothisfacilitywillincreasetraffictoandfromEntry4requiringfurtheranalysisandstudyof

potentialimpactsandmitigation.

oVehicular

entry

and

exit

appears

feasible

from

two

locations

which

will

improve

internal

circulation

and

maydefineusergroundaccess.

o ProximitytotheResidenceHallsisaconcernandprivacyissueswillneedtobeaddressed.o TheSpeertHallloadingdockshouldnotbeaffected.o Interimlossof110spacesduringconstruction.o NJTransitBuscirculationmaybeimpactedand/orrerouted.


33/40


April 2011


Page 17 of 24

Asite

evaluation

matrix

was

developed

including

advantages

and

disadvantages

as

measured

by

identified

criteria

and

summarizedinthematrix. Asimpleratingsystemof1to3wasincorporatedtoprioritizethethreeadvancedparkingsitesto

assisttheCommitteeinevaluatingtheoptions.Eachcommitteememberindependentlycompletedthematrixandtheresults

weretabulatedbyDESMANforpresentationtotheCommittee.Thefollowingtableillustratesthetabulatedresultsfromthe

Committeescompletionofthematrix.

TABLE#8

ParkingGarageSiteAlternatives Matrix

Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 5880 Spaces 1060 Spaces 1115 Spaces

Category 880 Net New Spaces 910 Net New Spaces 1005 Net New Spaces Definitions1-

Sizing/Capacity 2.0 1.0 3.03 having the largest capacity and 1 having the lowest

capacity.

2- Net Increase in Parking 2.1 1.0 2.9 3 having the highest net increase and 1 having the lowest.

3-Parking Efficiency 1.9 1.6 2.3

3 representing best efficiency in terms of sf per parking

space and 1 being least efficient.

4- Expansion Capability 1.9 1.9 2.0 3 representing best opportunity for expansion

5-Mixed Use Potential 2.1 1.5 1.9

3 representing best opportunity for alternate uses and 1

offering worst opportunity. .

6-Ability to Accommodate Different Parkers 2.1 1.5 2.0

3 allowing greatest flexibility to accommodate different

parkers and 1 having least flexibility.

7-Access from Roadway Network 1.8 1.5 2.0

3 providing most direct connections to external roadway

and 1 having least direct.

8-Campus Traffic Flow 2.1 2.1 2.5

3 minimizing conflict points and 1 having greatest

potential for conflict.

9- Pedestrian Connections to Buildings 2.1 1.4 2.5

3 providing most direct unencumbered pedestrian route

and 1 the least.

10-Aesthetic Integration into Campus 2.8 1.4 1.5

3 allowing easiest integration and 1 having the potential

greatest impact.

11- Compliance with Master Plan 2.5 1.8 1.8 3 adhering to master plan and 1 being least compliant.

12- Impacts During Construction 2.6 1.9 1.4 3 having the slightest impact and 1 having the greatest.

13-Economics/Construction Costs 2.1 1.6 2.0

3 providing the potential for the least cost per space and 1

having the greatest cost per space.

TOTAL 28.1 20.2 27.8


34/40


35/40


April 2011


Page 19 of 24

UNIVERSITYFUNDED

ANALYSIS

1. PROPOSEDPROJECTLOT1IMPROVEMENT: 880spaceParkingDeck. 5levelfacility. Contractandhourlyparking. Nootheruses/occupiedareasareplannedaspartoftheproject. Revenuecontrolsystemwillrequireprepayment.

2. Estimatedparkinggarageconstructionschedule: 20months3. EstimatedProfessionalArchitectural&EngineeringDesignFees: 8.5%ofconstructioncosts4. EstimatedFeesforUniversityProject/ConstructionManager: 1.8%ofconstructioncosts5. Nolandcostsareincludedaspartofthefinancingforthisproject.6. The parking garage will be taxexempt financed through the New Jersey Educational Facilities

Authority,or

another

like

bonding

agency,

with

a25

year

term.

7. UniversitydoesnotplananycapitalcontributiontotheconstructionoftheparkingdecktoreducetherequiredBondproceeds.

8. No other sharing of the construction of the parking garage with other funding/financingopportunitiestoreducetheBondamounthasbeenused.

9. EstimatedTaxExemptInterestRate: 5.25%10. Assumedleveldebtpaymentfortermofbond.11. EstimatedBondCostsofIssuance/InsuranceandUnderwritersDiscount:5.0%ofconstructioncosts12. ProjectBudgetincludesanallowanceof$350,000fortrafficimprovements.


36/40


April 2011


Page 20 of 24

Assumptionsfor

the

privately

funding

scenario,

whereby

the

University

would

have

alease

agreement,

or

some

other

arrangement

forpaymenttotheprivatepartnership,arepresentedbelow. TheUniversitywouldeffectivelymakeannualpaymentstotheprivate

investmententityforthetermoftheloan,atwhichtimetheimprovementwouldrevertbacktotheUniversity.Forthepurposeof

thispresentationofcosts, it isassumedthateventhoughprivate investmentwouldbeusedtosecurefinancingfortheproject,

neitherthelocalorcountyjurisdictionswouldimposerealestatetaxesontheimprovement.

PUBLICPRIVATEPARTNERSHIPFUNDEDANALYSIS

1. PROPOSEDPROJECTLOT1IMPROVEMENT: 880spaceParkingDeck. 5levelfacility. Contractandhourlyparking. Nootheruses/occupiedareasareplannedaspartoftheproject. Revenuecontrolsystemwillrequireprepayment.

2. Estimatedparkinggarageconstructionschedule: 16months3. EstimatedProfessionalArchitectural&EngineeringDesignFees: 8.5%ofconstructioncosts4. DevelopmentFees: 5.0%ofconstructioncosts5. ReturnonInvestment(ROI): 10% ofprojectcosts6. TakeouttermonROI: 7years7. Nolandcostsareincludedaspartofthefinancingforthisproject.8. Theparkinggaragewillbefinancedthroughprivateinvestment,withpartoralloftheprojectcosts

fundedorsecuredbyacommercialloan.Loantermwouldbe20years.

9. Universitydoesnotplananycapitalcontributiontotheconstructionoftheparkingdecktoreducepaymentrequirements.

10. No other sharing of the construction of the parking garage with other funding/financingopportunitiestoreducetheprojectcostshasnotbeenused.


37/40


April 2011


Page 21 of 24

11. EstimatedTaxableInterestRate: 6.50%12. EstimatedLegal&ClosingCosts: 2.00%ofconstructioncosts13. ProjectBudgetincludesanallowanceof$350,000fortrafficimprovements.

Thefollowingtableillustratespreliminarycapitalprojectcostsandannualdebtservicepaymentsassociatedwiththe

plannedparkingimprovementsonLot1,incorporatingtheabovementionedfinancialassumptions.Thetwoscenarios

wereforecastedbasedontheconstructionbudgetsthatwerepreparedintermsof2011dollars.Ascanbeseen,the

totalcosttotheUniversitywouldbeslightlyhigherunderaP3taxablefinancingarrangement,butthedebtwouldbe

retiredin20yearsasopposedtotheUniversityfundedtaxexemptoptionof25years.

AdditionallytheUniversitywillhaveadditionalcostsintermsofdesignprofessionalsundertheP3delivery.Thesecosts

generallycomefromtheUniversityfinancingthepreliminaryengineeringstudiesandsurveys,environmentalstudies,

geotechnicalsurveys,trafficsurveysandthearchitecturalfeestodevelopanddefinetheprogramtoa2530%design

effort.Traditionallythesecostsarenonrecoverable inaP3financinganddeliveryandarefundedbytheowner.We

haveincludedacostof$400,000fortheseservices.


38/40


April 2011


Page 22 of 24

TABLE#9

CAPITALCOST&DEBTSERVICE


39/40


April 2011


Page 23 of 24

Inaddition

to

the

annual

debt

service

for

the

capital

cost,

the

introduction

of

anew

parking

facility

on

the

campus

will

increasetheoperationalbudget fortheUniversitytoaccountforaddedstaffingtomanageandoverseethegarage

and costs associated with utility demands, supplies, equipment and maintenance. Operating and maintenance

expensesfortheproposedLot1facilityhavebeenderivedbasedon industryacceptedoperating lineitembudgets,

Universitysuppliedinformationandourexperiencewithsimilarfacilities.

Basedonourresearchandanalyses,weestimate forthefirstfullyearofoperationthattheoperatingbudgetfora

projectconsistentwith theconceptplansdeveloped forLot1willbeapproximately$299,000withamaintenance

budgetof

$110,000,

which

includes

areserve

for

structural

maintenance

of

$44,000.

These

numbers

have

been

derivedfromthefollowingestimatedlineitembudget.

TABLE#10

OPERATING&MAINTENANCEBUDGET


40/40


April 2011


Page 24 of 24

Basedon

our

research

and

analyses,

we

have

presented

estimated

costs

and

operating

expenses

for

the

construction

ofa900spaceparkingfacilityonLot1ofWPUscampus.OnescenariowaspreparedassumingtheUniversityfundsthe

project as a traditional taxexempt capital improvement project. The second scenario forecasted the project costs and

fundingrequirements iftheUniversityentered intoaPublicPrivatePartnership(P3),wherebyprivatetaxable investment

fundswouldbeusedtofinancethedevelopmentandconstructioncosts.

Forthepurposeoftheseanalyses,weassumedthatWPUwouldmaintaintheresponsibilityofoperatingandmaintaining

theparkingfacility,thusresultinginaneutralcostcomparisonforeitherdeliverymethod.WeestimatethattheUniversitys

costto

operate

and

maintain

anew

900

space

parking

facility

similar

to

the

concept

plans

that

have

been

prepared

for

Lot

1,

wouldbeapproximately$410,000duringthefirstfullyearitisopened.Theoperatingcostsandexpensesareexpectedto

escalateonanannualbasis.

Our analyses for a University bonded taxexempt capital improvement suggest an annual debt service payment of

approximately$1.558millionusinga25yearterm.UnderaPublicPrivatePartnership(P3)delivery,wherebyprivatetaxable

investmentfundsareusedtofinancetheprojectandconstructioncosts,theannualleaseorloanpaymentbytheUniversity

wouldbeapproximately$2.204millioninthefirst7years,assumingatakeoutperiodforthereturnoninvestment,reducing

toapproximately

$1.905

million

in

years

8to

20.

Thus,

the

University

should

expect

an

additional

expense

of

approximately

$2,000,000to$2,500,000peryeartodesign,construct,operateandmaintaina900spaceparkingfacilityonthecampuson

Lot1.The$500,000variationisattributedtotheoptionsinfundinganddeliverymethod.