Historic Millwork District Master Plan_Modeling ApproachEconomics Research Associates
Final Report
Financial Analysis Summary
Warehouse District Masterplan
Prepared for:
Cuningham Group
City of Dubuque
Submitted by:
Economics Research Associates
January 27, 2009
ERA Project No. 17886
This study was funded by a grant from the US Department
of Commerce, Economic Development Administration
20 E. Jackson Boulevard Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60604
312.427.3855 FAX 312.427.3660 www.econres.com
Los Angeles San Francisco San Diego
Chicago Washington DC London New Vo rk
ERA
Introduction
As part of work efforts related to the Dubuque Warehouse District Masterplan, ERA was asked to
evaluate the financial implications of the redevelopment concept. The approach was built around a
discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis, which evaluates:
• A proposed renovation program (new apartment units, office space and retail space)
• A phasing plan for the project
• Assumptions for achievable rents and operating expenses over the holding period for the asset
• Renovation costs
• Financing (debt service) costs over the asset holding period
• Investment requirements for streets, parking, and infrastructure
• The value of federal and state historic tax credits, which are assumed to reduce the debt service
requirement that would otherwise be absorbed by the developer.
• A terminal value, which assumes the sale of the project at the end of a set holding period,
adjusting for payment of remaining debt service and costs of sale.
The DCF approach looks at all of these factors over amulti-year development period from a
developer's perspective, evaluating the resulting stream of cashflows to identify the balance of
revenues and costs that achieve two alternative minimum rates of return:
• Unleveraged return of 10%-Assumes a 100% equity investment by the developer
• Leveraged return of 15% -Factoring in the positive impact of debt service and financial leverage
While the second approach assumes that a minimum rate of return of at least 15% is "feasible", as
every developer's threshold for return and holding period is different, not all developers will agree
with the 15% hurdle rate. In general, ERA experience has shown that renovation projects of this
scale and complexity require developers with patient capital and along-term perspective.
As important, the approach looks at likely public sector infrastructure investment requirements in
relation to resulting fiscal benefits, to clarify the extent to which the public side of the project can be
justified. The essence of this approach is simple; for a project to be "feasible" in practical terms,
both the public and private sides need to be in balance.
Page 1
ERA
Policy J Planning Assumptions
Key framevvork assumptions that guided the analysis include.
Although the warehouse district project includes a total of four identified phases of future
development, covering both renovation and new construction, the DCF approach focuses entirely
on renovated space, with focused analysis of an identified phase 1 program that includes
apartments, retail space, and office space.
- The market analysis process identified a small but relevant market opportunity for urban housing
in Dubuque. Considerations relate to market scale (i.e. is it sufficient to keep four warehouse
district property owners satiated?) and depth (i. e. support for a residential element that is 100%
loft style apartments?).
Given that every developer has different expectations for return and timing, ERA has assumed
that the project is renovated by nnP n~n~nPrshin amity who makes initial investments in the
project, generates operating income and pays debt service over the holding period, and sells the
asset at the end of the holding period; this stream of income is used to calculate the project rate
of return. This is an important assumption, given that there are currently four primary property
owners in the district, each with different costs of capital and investment horizons, and return
expectations. This assumption is based entirely on ERA experience with similar projects.
The project will require considerable reinvestment for streets, infrastructure, parking, and
streetscape improvements. Assessments by City Staff and the Cuningham Group identified total
"public" costs of approximately $24 million over three phases, with afirst-phase increment of
about $7 million. The approach assumes that the developerwill be unable to internally absorb all
of these costs, meaning that the City of Dubuque will need to find ways to support and justify a
share of these costs.
The approach does not specifically factor in the potential impact of recent announcements by
IBM that they will locate a 1,300-position information service center in downtown Dubuque. This
expansion should bode well for the warehouse district, to the extent that necessary public and
private improvements can be made in a timely fashion.
The approach assumes that the federal and state historic tax credits are used in the analysis. The
approach assumes a 20% federal creditand a 25% state credit, with eligible construction costs at
95% of total construction costs. The tax credits are assumed to be syndicated, with the federal
credits converting at $0.90 on the dollar and the state credit at $0.50 on the dollar. Importantly, the
project is dependent on at least two credits, so if the state historic credit is unavailable, other
incentives will need to fill the gap. These include new markets tax credits, low income housing
Page 2
ERA
credits, and other HUD loan productswhich offer credit enhancement. The program does not
include the incremental benefit of the warehouse district being defined as an Iowa Cultural or
Entertainment District, which would justify additional state historic credit support. The project also
does not specifically account for the impact of carbon / Brownfield credits /grants. From ERA
experience with other warehouse district projects, all of these incentive approaches may be needed
to round out the project's financial base.
Absorption /Development Phasing
The proposed Phase 1 program includes the following program elements:
202 loft style apartments, assuming an average gross unit size of about 1,400 sq. ft. This is a
gross space factor, and includes living space as well as public space per unit.
92,300 sq. ft. of office and retail space
89 internal parking spaces
Proposed program absorption is estimated at three years, with one year of construction.
Income and Expense Assumptions
All income and expense numbers are currentvalues, and are inflated to futureyears of occurrence at
an annual rate of 3%:
• Retail - $10 per sq. ft, less a vacancy allowance of 5%. Operating expenses of $4 per sq. ft. are
assumed.
• Office- $10 per sq. ft, less a vacancy allowance of 5%. Operating expenses of $4 per sq. ft. are
assumed.
• Residential: $0.65 per sq. ft on an average 1,400-sq. ft. unit, for a monthly rent of $910, less a
5% vacancy allowance. Operating expenses are assumed at 33% of effective gross revenue, or
approximately $3,500 per unit.
• No revenue from interior parking is assumed
Project Construction Costs
Preliminary order-of-magnitude construction cost estimates were developed with support from
Cuningham Group, Jeff Morton, city staff, and property owners, based onwalk-through's of a sample
of buildings, developer input, and team experience. The preliminary construction costestimates for
phase 1 include renovations to interior space, building facades and roofs, and below grade parking.
Cost factors, in current 2008 dollars, include:
Page 3
ERA
• Building exterior shell renovation: $2.5 million
• Building roof renovation: $790,100
• Interior parking: $1,068,000
• Retail/Officelnterior:$9.2million
• Residential Interior: $20.2 million
• Soft costs: 23% of hard costs, or$7.8 million
• Contingency: 10% of hard costs, or $3.4 million
• Total phase 1 project costs are estimated at $45.1 million, with annual inflation at 3%.
The program also includes neighborhood infrastructure, streetscape, and public parking
improvements. Cost estimates, in current 2008 dollars, include:
• Street reconstruction: $3.9 million
• streetscape improvements: $621,500
• Phase 1 structured parking: $2.5 million
• Total phase 1 infrastructure cost of $7.1 million are estimated
The infrastructure element of the project is complicated by the existence of private streets in the
district and existing infrastructure systems that, in some cases, date back before 1900. ERA views
parking is the key variable, with the existing buildings having limited capacity for internal parking,
pointing to the need for additional street parking, as well as parking lots and structures. The extent
of public parking requirements, related costs, and the public sector's share of costs will be
influenced by overall parking policy objectives defined by city council.
Project Financing Scenarios
The approach assumes three tiers of development financing:
10D% equity: A simplistic theoretical approach, with the developer investing 100% of project
costs, owning the asset for a set holding period, and selling the property at the end of the
holding period (15 years) using a terminal capitalization rate (8.5%).
Traditional debt financing: Atypical market approach, with 25% equity/ 75% debt financing,
assuming 8% monthly interest and a 20-year term. The project is developed, maintained over a
set holding period (15 years), and then sold at the end of the holding period, less costs of
outstanding debt and costs of sale, using a terminal capitalization rate (8.5%).
Debt financing plus federal and state historic tax credits: This approach follows from above, with
the exception that the project benefits from approximately $13.5 million in federal and state
Page 4
ERA
historic tax credit equity, which reduces the amount of debt that the developer would have to
cover from operating income, improving the projects rate of return.
Development Implications
The Phase 1 financial analysis yields several significant results:
• Federal and state historic tax credits are essential for project viability. Based on noted
assumptions, and with both historic tax credits, the project generates an internal rate of return
(IRR) of 15.5% over the 15 year period. While the 15.5% IRR meets ERA's minimum threshold
for feasibility, there are several caveats:
- The majority of the return on investment is on the back side of the project, including the
terminal capitalized value. Also, initial year cash flows are projected to be negative for years
1 through 4, with positive cash flow building from there. Given these realities, patient capital
and along-term perspective are prerequisites for project success.
- Project feasibility is equally dependant on infrastructure improvements, which are discussed
on the next page.
- The retail and office elements are a challenge, in that while downtown rents are in the $8 to
$12 per sq. ft. range, commercial renovation costs are falling in the $120 per sq. ft. range,
which would be comparable to new construction. If market reaction to these elements
proves to be modest, delayed investment could improve near-term project performance.
• Obviously, since the near-term status of state historic tax credits is uncertain, the development
may need to access alternative tax credit options, including new markets credits, and/ or low
income housing credits to sustain the current IRR. Other options include the use of HUD
Section 202 loans, which allow specific projects to benefit from below-market interest rates (6%
versus 8%, for example).
• Given that the analysis is preliminary in nature (reflected by a contingency of 10%) it is difficult to
precisely define the financial benefits of district energy and other sustainable /energy saving
elements. In principle, these programs offer the potential to reduce operating expenses, either
far the developer (which would enhance rate of return), or the renter (which would enhance
marketability and competitive positioning, offset by a marginal increase in development costs.
However, since the long-term expense of building operation will outweigh one-time casts, these
elements need to be further explored.
- The approach assumes that revenue and cost inflation at 3%. Developers would need to
assume effective revenue growth at a rate faster than cost growth. Factoring in such a premium
would improve project feasibility. As well, the approach does not assume growth in value at a
Page 5
ERA
faster rate in the future. Accelerated value growth becomes realistic if the development team
and city agree to a firm upfront investment basis in the project.
• The approach assumes a conservative three-year absorption period for Phase 1. To the extent
that demand occurs faster than projected, project financial performance would improve.
• From a retail standpoint, the ability to attract one or more anchor tenants (grocery/ restaurants)
or national chains (Starbucks) will be supportive of project feasibility. Anchor tenants will support
smaller adjacent retailers, and national chains will tolerate higher rents compared to locally
owned stores.
• While the analysis assumes a balanced mix of retail and office use, the project could initially
support a larger share of office and service functions, which in some cases could be supportive
of higher rents.
• Bank lending for the projectwill be tied initially to credit worthiness of the development team
fi.e. their ability to commit equity to the project). Also, the presence of credit-worthy retail and
office tenants who can commit to pre-lease a percentage of the commercial spaces will also
impact bank lending capacity. To the extent that banks are unwilling/ unable to lend for the
project, additional offsetting gap financingwould be required.
• All rate of return estimates are on apre-tax basis.
Infrastructure Implications
As noted above, Phase 1 includes a requirement for up to $7 million in infrastructure improvements
for infrastructure, streetscape, and parking. These improvements are an essential element of the
renovation program, and their cost and viability has to be factored into the overall project. To place
the infrastructure improvements in perspective, ERA evaluated likely project fiscal benefits, primarily
property tax payments to local taxing jurisdictions linked to supportable tax increment financing (TI F)
capacity. The approach includes the following assumptions:
Current building valuations that range from $3 to $8 per sq. ft. for the majority of existing un-
renovated space, according to assessment records, with an overall average of about $5.77 per
sq. ft. on an inventory of about 1 million sq. ft.
An assessed property value "as renovated" that starts at about $40 per sq. ft. in 2008, which is
based on discussions with city staff and the local property assessor regarding achievable
renovated building values. Renovatedvalues are assumed to grow at 3% peryear. Assuming
$5.77 per sq. ft. as the base yearvalue, the analysis will use only the growth in increment above
the base value for calculation of supportable TI F proceeds.
Page 6
ERA
• Using the noted phasing plan, the Phase 1 project could result in a renovated inventory of about
401,800 sq. ft. by Year 5, with a renovated value of about $15.9 million. Property tax rates of
34.44676 per $1000 of value, and a commercial rollback of 99.73% are used to estimate
incremental property tax proceeds, allowing for the two year lag between project completion and
tax bill payment. Using these assumptions, the defined phase 1 project could generate
incremental property taxes of about $194,600 by Year 4 of development, and about $547,800 by
year 7 of development, which would be a conservative stabilized occupancy year for Phase 1
from a tax perspective.
• Assuming stabilized year tax increment of $547,800 in year seven, ERA estimates thatTlF
revenue bond debt of approximately $7.5 million could be supported, which assumes a 2% semi-
annual interest rate and a 20-year bond, with two payments per year.
• Importantly, the City of Dubuque has already committed capital improvement dollars to the
district, programmed between 2009 and 2013 for improvements to streets, stormwater and
sanitary systems, water main replacement, streetscape, fiber optics, and related improvements.
The total value of public investment currently committed to the project from funding sources
other than TIF is about $4.8 million through 2013.
Overall the fiscal implications of the project appear in line with overall investment. Assuming an
overall project value of about $52.2 million and a potential public share of about $7.1 million, every
dollar of public investment would leverage more than six dollars in private investment, which has
traditionally been a realistic ratio. Considerations include:
• While Phase 1 public and private shares of investment seem appropriate, public investment
requirements for Phase 2 are more challenging, with about $10 million in improvements
identified, including structured parking-a specific challenge.
• Although phase 1 includes a modest parking structure, relatedTlFrevenue support for this
element may lag behind a developer's need for these additional spaces. This reality reinforces
the need for a deliberate parking strategy that considers the Warehouse District, the port, and
the downtown area.
• The proposed Phase 1 project does not include a condominium component, which rneans that all
program elements will incur property taxes at the lower commercial rollback rate (99.73%). In
future phases, as condominium ownership becomes a more significant reality, there will be a
relevant impact on property tax proceeds due to the significant residential rollback (44.0803%).
• The TIF approach assumes that all taxing jurisdictions participate in the TIF.
Page 7
ERA
General & Limiting Conditions
Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the data contained in this report are accurate
as of the date of this study; however, factors exist that are outside the control of Economics
Research Associates and that may affect the estimates and/or projections noted herein. This study
is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed by Economics Research
Associates from its independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry, and information
provided by and consultations with the client and the client's representatives. No responsibility is
assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by the client, the client's agent and representatives, or any
other data source used in preparing or presenting this study.
This report is based on information that was current as of .larniarv_ ~fS(79 and Economics Research
Associates has not undertaken any update of its research effort since such date.
Because future events and circumstances, many of which are not known as of the date of this study,
may affect the estimates contained therein, no warranty or representation is made by Economics
Research Associates that any of the projected values or results contained in this study will actually
be achieved.
Possession of this study does not carry with it the right of publication thereof or to use the name of
"Economics Research Associates" in any mannerwithout first obtaining the prior written consent of
Economics Research Associates. No abstracting, excerpting or summarization of this study may be
made without first obtaining the prior written consent of Economics Research Associates. This
report is not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, debt, equity, or
other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the client,
nor is any third party entitled to rely upon this report, without first obtaining the prior written consent
of Economics Research Associates. This study may not be used for purposes other than that for
which it is prepared or forwhich priorwritten consent has first been obtained from Economics
Research Associates.
This study is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations,
conditions and considerations.
Page 8
Interior Ground Interior Upper Interior Below
Block Building Phase Building Name Gwner Total GBA SF Root area FaSade Area
Floor GBA Floor GBA Grade GBR
E 2 Central Caradco Annex McNamara 30.160 120.640 30.160 180,960 30.160 53.856
E 7 & S Central Restoration warehouse Johnson 21 300 42,60[ 21,300 85,200 19,400 22,000
F 7 & 8 Central Bettv Building McNamara 7,00 17.OOC 24.00 7.006 11.800
/1
4 98 21 14
1I 4 7
G 2 Central Alamo Building Gronan /Johnson 6.0001 C 6.000 7.206 7.600
Sub-Total 173,S6N~ 278A56r1 57,46 443,4841 172,86F~~ 777,555
H 1.2.3 South 875 White Street McNamara 11.000 11.00( U
~ 22.006 11.006 10.566
H 4 South Wilmac Building McNamara 23.000 69.00( 92.006 28.126 46.014
k 1 South Kirbv BUildina Pfohl 27)60 111.440: ~ 1~g
2 4 7
M
1
South
Farle/ and Loetscher
Pfohl
25.600
153.60(
DD 0C1
. 31.9 2.000
Sub-Total u;!
B7,36U' ~~vv
345,04uJ I 432,4011 98,527 793,880
E 1 North Renovation Stuart&Marv Mabus[h a.000 4.000 8.006 4.006 7.800
E 3 North Renovation Stuart&Marv Mabus[h 10.000 10.000//11 20.006 9.006 12.000
E 5 North Renovation Johnson 15.238 61.152) 15.288 91.728 15.288 9.000
E 6 North Renovation Johnson 11.811 a7,2a 1 11.811 70.866 8.00(' 11.811
Sub-Total )
4L09 JI 122 9611 27,091 190,594 36,28F~1 40,671
E
E
F
G
G
H
H
k
M
E
E
E
E
Redevelopment Program
Renovate(New
2 Central Lull renovation
7 & S Central Lull renovation
7 & S Central Lull renovation
1 Central Lull renovation
2 Central Lull renovation
1, 2. 3 South 30 % renovated
4 South 30 % renovated
1 South Lull renovation
1 South Lull renovation
1
3
5
6
North Lull renovation
North Lull renovation
North Lull renovation
North Lull renovation
1400 1400
Rental GBA
120,960
30,8001
17,001 1
117,601 1
I1
286,36E
64
(1
28,001
70,001
89,601
187,60E
4801n
4,000
10,000
76,440
47,244
137,684)
Office GBA
Condo GBA Renovated
U U
0 17,500
U 7,000
U 10.00(
U U
( 34,500
0°.S ~ 800
U 13,200
U 27,600
U 69,600
U 89,600
l I 200,000
D°ro 52°70
U
U
U
Total Housing Units
Retail GBA Renovated Total Rentals
Renovated Interior Parking Renovated GBA
1 0,000 SU,000 180,960 S4J
16,800) 21,300 $4,000 14~
25.00 152,6DU sdJJ
57, 300) 71,300 449001 2062
g(( 13,201 U
(( 55,601 BUJ
(( 139,60( 5'
Cf 179,201 ~4
Lr 387,600 734
09 r
4,000 B,000 _
10,000 20,000 1
U 15,288 91,728 44
Condos Spaces Provided
U 45
0 44
U
C~
C~
QI s~
U UJ
U ('
U ('
L' ~ d
G
G
G
E'
efficiency
100%
101%r
100%
104%
100%
101%
6044
604E
100%
10044
90%
(' 100%
8 100%
3E 100%
75 100%
77:t 700°O/a
S100,00o S12o,o00 $100 $10o S1 s 87 S12,oo0
Nrrent Dollar Construction COSts 23% 10%
Exterior Shell Roof In Lerior Total
Rental Apartments Condo Office Retail Renwation Renovation Parking Total Hard Cost Sof[ Costs Contingency Development per sq foot
Cost
E 2 Central 88400000 80 80 81000000 8807&10 8211.120 $540,000 810.958960 82520561 81095.6 814575417 $81
E 7&3 Ceni rel $2.20009 8175009 8168]0 833009 $135.8x01 $528,fD01 $6.6238fI~ $1523474 $662.38f~! SS809.654 81fR
F ] R R Central Al X16' $](Y]( $1 ]] ( A49 (Ylnl $01 A714n J56 A49J J6f $714 (Y A7 RD6 SRf, $119
6 1 Central 884000. y 81000. 82500. 81144. 8343.7561 $01 813.38824 8307929 81 .338. 817806.36'f 8117
G 2 Cenral 1 $6fI] 81140 $5040f~ $ $7644 $1]581" 87644 "'''',,,,,,777777NNNNNN $1016.65"1~ 8169
AJx 214 JRf ( A3dSxr AS ]SSIf A7 S]3"r A]9x (1]F Al x6R (Ylf A33 R]S 6ff A]]91 df A33R]564 4dS xSd 66'1 A1xx
H 1 ~ 3 Sn ith Af $1 3~n nf. $15R4 ! A]] mr $ Al SSS 69f~ AiS] ]6" $1 SS rd5 A7 n6R Wl: $15]
H 4 South 820000C 82760. 8690.'L1 8196.01 $01 85.6A705 812988 8564.70E $7510.577 8135
k 1 South $S fDO ( $6960. $9795' $194.3201 $OI $13.1338"/Y $302017, 81.313.38: $17467.9SI $125
AA 1 Snnth r.6 ann nf. /y AR a6f1( Al nttl( AJ~i SR7 Atjrr $1 (. 6635] A3 R3J 6'~ A166"35~ AJJ 167 Sit Al Jd
813400. l 820000. ( 829' 8691,]4 8~ 836.99994' 8850998 83699.99' 849209.93( 8127
E 1 North $28571 84000( 81170 828N $ 8830714 819106 I 883.07/11 $1:101.85( $138
E 3 North $71428) 8100]. 81 ~. $63.m01 $01 $1 .9572 $4501] 8195.719' $2603.19f $130
F S Nnrih Ad 36R of/'~`l, ~ r A135 ( Rl fli fll (.I $AS6,OOIJt AS fKf. n1f Al 1 f.S 1ppp~~~ ASn(. (.(]J'! A(. i 3] SII'll A]t
E 6 North $3.3795'.1 r $177: 6'~ $56 N9 $900.00 $a.50i iii $1036 i7 YA50.771 45.995.28` $85.
88.742.5 I 'E Lllllr 814fD.lltf 8603 u6`~ t 8244,0161 81 356 `fX1~ ; 123611E11 18, 8462 3 81 2C 6.17151 1816441'13~r1 SS6
. :--~=-..-yll. ...///-111Y111J11~ .------"~li ---._~_._:~. ~_.___~..i ._..-"---11It ..__.~.,-1' -~----G-III, .:.--=_~. ...__-_"~J, ,--"---..~lll_ ...,__._
Development Program
Vear constru Rion in hated
Rena I Apartments
Condominiums
Office Space
Retail Space
Total on sHe par king
Absor boon
Rena I Apartments
Condominiums
Office Space
Reta ilSpa ce
Total on sRe par king
Total
Cumulative Inventory Absorbed
Rena I Apartments
Condominiums
Office Space
Retail Space
Total on sRe par king
Cumulative GSF Absorbed
Rena I Apartments
Condominiums
Office Space
Reta ilSpa ce
Total on sRe par king
Total Buildup in renovated rove n[ory
Vear 0 Vear 1 Vear 2 Vear 3 Vear 4 Vear 5 Vear 6 Vear ] Vear 8 Vear 9 Vear 10 Vear 11 Vear 12 Vear 13 Vear 14
202
34,500 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5],800
89
92,300
Vear 0 Vear 1 Vear 2 Vear 3 Vear 4 Vear 5 Vear 6 Vear ] Vear 8 Vear 9 Vear 10 Vear 11 Vear 12 Vear 13 Vear 14
- 82 60 60 - - - - - -
11,500 11,500 11,500
14,450 28,900 14,450 - - - - - - - - - - -
89
- 14,621 40,460 26,010 11,500 - - - - - - - - - -
Vear 0 Vear 1 Vear 2 Vear 3 Vear 4 Vear 5 Vear 6 Vear J Vear 8 Vear 9 Vear 10 Vear 11 Vear 12 Vear 13 Vear 14
82 142 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202
- - 11,500 23,000 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500
14,450 43,350 5],800 5],800 5],800 5],800 5],800 5],800 5],800 5],800 5],800 5],800 5],800 5],800
89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Vear 0 Vear 1 Vear 2 Vear 3
- 114,800 198,800 282,800
11,500 23,000
- 14,450 43,350 5],800
26,]00 26,]00 26,]00
155,950 280,350 390,300
Vear 4
282,800
34,500
5],800
26,]00
401,800
Vear 5
282,800
34,500
5],800
26,]00
401,800
Vear 6 Vear ] Vear 8
282,800 282,800 282,800
34,500 34,500 34,500
5],800 5],800 5],800
26,]00 26,]00 26,]00
401,800 401,800 401,800
Vear 9
282,800
34,500
5],800
26,]00
401,800
Vear 10
282,800
34,500
5],800
26,]00
401,800
Vear 11 Vear 12 Vear 13 Vear 14
282,800 282,800 282,800 282,80C
34,500 34,500 34,500 34, SOC
5],800 5],800 5],800 5],80C
26,]00 26,]00 26,]00 26,]OC
401,800 401,800 401,800 401,80C
Rental Housing DCF
ASSUMPTIONS
Inflation Factor
Numbs of Units
Averaye Unit Size
Renb'$F
Vacancy
N~ ~P~~+(tiI,G INCOME
Less:Vacan cy
Total Lease Revenues
Operedng E>~enses
Total Operating Expenses
Net Operating Inmme
DEVELOPMENT C0Sf5
Direct Shell Cost
Interior Parking
Sh are of Facade Ren oration
Share of Roof Renovation
Soft Corts
Contingency
DevelopmentCosts
Phase
Percent Built 6y Year
Remaining Increment
DeveloomentCosts
Annual Cesh Flow Before Debt Servio:
Net Operating Income
Development Corts
AIN fach Fnur
Assumption Yeer 0 Year 1 Veer 2 Vear 3 Vear 4 Year 5 Yeer 6 Yeer 7 Veer 8 Vear 9 Yeer 10 Vear 11 Yeer 12 Vear 13 Vear 14 Terminal
I T tW I 1.03 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1 53 1 47 1.51 1.56
202 1
1 500 I v 114,80v 1 98,80v 282,800 282,8v0 282,8v0 282,80v 282,80v 282,8v0 282,8v0 282,8v0 282,800 282,80v 282,80v 282,800
IA [1551
1 5.0°o I
$v $919,972 $1,694,426 $2,482,692 $2,557,173 $2,633,888 $2,712,9x6 $2,791,292 $2,878,121 $2,964,465 $3,053,398 $3,145,OVV $3,239,35v $3,336,531 $3,436,627
$v $47,499 $81,721 $124,135 $127,859 $131,691 $135,615 $139,715 $143,906 $148,223 $152,670 $167,26v $161,968 $166,827 $171,831
$v $902,474 $1,609,705 $2,358,558 $2,429,314 $2,BV2,194 $2,577,260 $2,654,578 $2,734,215 $2,816,241 $2,90v,729 $2,987,76v $3,v77,383 $3,1fi9,704 $3,264,796
I 33.1 $v $297,816 $531,203 $778,324 $8v1 ,674 $825,724 $86v,49fi $876,011 $9v2,291 $929,360 $957,240 $985,958 $1,015,536 $1 ,v4fi,v02 $1,v77,383
$0 $601,657 $1 ,x78,602 $1,580,234 $1,627,611 $1,676,470 $1,726,761 $1,778,567 $1,831,924 $1,886,882 $1,943,488 $2,v01 ,793 $2,061,847 $2123,702 $2,187,413
$20,214,286
$1,v68,00v
$1,714,657
$526,443
$5,191 ,567
$2,257,203
530, 972,16fi
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
10v.~ v.~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ v.~ v.~ v.~ 0.~ O.OYo v.~ v.~ 0.0% 0.~ 0.0%
v.ov v.ov o.ar o.ar o.ar v.ar v.ar v.wr o.ar v.ar v.ar v.wr o.ov o.ar o.ov
531.901.320 SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO
$v $604,fi67 $1 ,v78,602 $1,580,234 $1 ,fi27,641 $1 ,fi76,470 $1,726,761 $1,778,567 $1,831,924 $1,~"~ ""2 E1 943,488 $2,v01 ,793 $2,afi1,847 $2,123,702 $2,187,413 $24,447,557
$31,901 ,32v $v $0 $0 $0 $v $v $v $0 4~0 $v $v $0 $0 $v
-S T19f11 iJf1 A6n166] Al f1]R 6N S16Rf1 J~6 Al 6J]fu1 Al 6]64][1 Al ]J6 ]fit S1 7]R 56] Al R319J4 fit ::;,!i ,-„-„ fit 9434RR AJ f1f11 ]93 AJ f1fi1 P6] SJ1J3 ]N SJ 1R]413 $J444]55]
Internal Rete pf ReNrn: 3.8?i
OFFICEf COMMERCLAL DEVELOPMEM
Income $tatem eat
ASSIIMPTIDNG
• Sinhiliswrl VmrD Y mr1 Vmr) Ywarl Vmr4 YmrS Vmrfi Ymr7 VmrR Ywar9 Vwnr 111 Ywar 11 Vwnr 1J Ywar1R Vwar 14 TwrminalVmr
Inila[ion Factor I ; fK 1 D; 1 Dfi 1 D9 1 1 3 1 1 fi 1 19 1 >; 1 >] 1 ;D 1 ;4 1 3R 1 43 1 4] 1 51 1.56
6tA Absorbed 11 500 23 w0 34 500 34 500 34 500 34 500 34 500 34 500 34 500 34 500 34 500 34 500 34 500
Vacancy Factor
S
Inflated Annual Lease Rate I a 1f13I1 a 1(161 a 1(193 A 11 >6 a 1159 a 1194 a 1J 3I1 a 1>(.] a 13 (1S a 13d4 a 13 R4 a Id >6 a 1469 a 1513 a 15.58
N el Lease Revenue Per SF i tll fl[I"i 1n;f'i tnfi[r4 1[19f'i tt ~( i It fit'[ tt 9[rT 1>;f'i t>]["[ 1; Ilf~i 1;4[r'i 13 kf'i t4 ~( [ to ]f'i is t[ R is fin
NLT DPFRATINC INCDMG
Leasing Revenues $0 $0 $125,350 $259,900 $40],200 $410,550 $4M,350 $438,150 $448,500 $462,300 $476,100 $493,350 $50],150 $520,950 $538,200
Less Yecency $0 $0 $6,268 $12,995 $20,010 $20,528 $21,218 $21,908 $22,425 $23,115 $23,805 $24,668 $25,358 $26,048 $26,910
Op.&Maint. Expenses (per SF)'9 dn1 $0 $0 $50,265 $103,547 $159,980 $164,779 $169,723 $174,814 $1 x,059 $185,460 $191,024 $196,755 $202,658 $203,737 $215,000
Net Opefatinn lnrnmw an a0 a6R R1] a1633SR aJ>n>1n a»S>63 aJ3361n a>414>R a>d6 (116 a>53 ]>5 aJ61 >]1 a>]19>] aJ]9135 a>W.165 aJ96>9n
DEVELOPMENT COST$
Direct Snell ton $;4SU,W0
Interior Parking $o
Share of Facade Renovation $657,387
Share of Raof Renwal ion $201,835
Sofl Costs $1,990,410
coMingenry $865,396
Developm eat COSts 57,7,028
Phase 1 Phase 2
Percent Built by Vear 100. OYo 00'k QOYo QO'k QOYo 00'k 0.65 QO'k 00".5 QO'k QOYo QO'k QOYo QO'k 0.0.5
DevAopm eat casts $ ),3)979 S - $ - $ - $ - $ - S - S - $ - S - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ANNUAL CASH FLWY
•
NH Operating Income $0 $0 $68,817 $Id3,353 $220,210 $225,243 $233,410 $241 p2^o $=x6016 $253,725 $261,271 $271,927 $279,135 $2,165 $296,290 $3311 ir:z
Oevelopm~rA ~- i~ F7 i]9,979 $0 $0 FO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NM Cash Flnw - t].l)9.9J9 tD tfiR Rt] t16~.'.SR SJ>D.J1D SJJS.JQR lJRl.61D tJdt.dJR S>4fi n1fi fJSR.)J5 S>fi'I»'I a>)1.9)J <»91'6 {>Rfi.16S SJ9f..J9D S~.'.11.4.^.J
Internal Rate of Relum: -1.2%
RETAIL DEV ELOPMEPIT
ASSUMPFIONS
Inflation Factor
GL4 Absorbed
Vacancy Factor Stabilized
3. VYo
S/ Year 0
1.V3 Vear 1
1.V6
14;3SV Year 2
1.V9
43,3SV Yeer 3
1.13
SI,kW Vear 4
1.1b
S145VV Veer 5
1.~9
Sf,?:OV Vear 6
tL3
Sl,8UV Year 7
1.1J
SI aVV Year 8
13V
Sl,ifVU Year 9
1.#
SI,tlVU Veer 10
1.3if
5f t5UV Year 11
143
Sf,xUV Year 12
1.4J
Sf,iSUV Vear 13
1.51
SI,oVV Veer 14 Terminal Veer
1.Sb
Sl,r5V0
In Aated Annual Lease Rate )$ 10.30 $ 10.61 $ 10.93 $~ 11.26 $ 11.59 $ 11.94 $ 12.30 $ 12.67 $~ 13 ~5 $ 13.44 $ 13.84 $ 14.26 $ 14.69 $ 1513 $ 15.58
Net Lease Revenue per SF a 1V.UC la 1V-30 a 1n_br to 1VyUlb 1t_,Ula 11.bUlx 11.~c 15 1t-~clx 1trc lb 1~0 la 13.4U1b 1380 $ 14.~c 1x 14_lC lx 1]lc lb 1~h0
NET OPERATING INCOME
Grass leasing Revenues $0 $153,170 $472,515 $fi53,140 $fi70,480 $687,820 $710,940 $734,060 $751,400 $774,520 $797,610 $82 fi,540 $849 660 $872,780 $901,680
Vacan cY and Gedit Loss $0 $7,659 $23,626 $32,657 $33,524 $31,391 $35,547 $36,703 $37,570 $38,726 $39,882 $41,327 $42,483 $43,639 $45,084
Op. & Maint. Expenses (per SF) ~ 8 4.00 ~ $0 $fi1,320 $189,479 $260,218 $268,024 $27fi,065 $284,347 $292,877 $301,fi64 $310,713 8320,035 $329,636 $339,525 $349,711 $360,202
Net Operating lnmme $0 $84,191 $259,410 $360,265 $368,932 $377,364 $391,046 $404,480 $412,166 $425,081 $437,723 $455,577 $467,652 $479,430 $496,391
DEVEL(~P~~r fO5T5
UireR $S,/BV,VVV
Interior Parking $0
Share of Facade Renovation $201,281
Share of Roof Renovation $fi1,798
Soft Costs $609,431
Contingency $261,970
Development Costs 86,917,480
Percent Built by Year 100.E 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ O.OYo 0.~ 0.~ 0.0% 0.~ O. Uy O.OYo
Development Costs 8 7.125.004 s - a - s - s - s - a - a - 9 - s - s - s - a - s - s -
ANNUAL CASH FLOW
Net Vpera6ng lnmme $V $iS4,191 $LS9,41V $36V,L bS $36ii,93L $3//,3b4 $391 ,V46 $4V4,4i5V $41 L,16b $4LS,Vif1 $43/,/13 $4S S,S// 7~Ah/~~52 $4 /9,43V $496,3c11 $8,84/,932
Development Cost; $7,125,004 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Su $0 $0
Nat Cach Flrnnr -A] 1 ]5 fltu SR4191 8]5941 fl Ai5f1 ]55 AiSR 93] A3]] 351 A391 f145 S4f114Rf1 A41 ] 155 A4]5 f1R1 A43] ]]3 A455 5]] 1~4n7 n5] S4]943f1 5495 391 AS 54] 93]
Internal Rabe of Return: 3.9~
Summary of Results - 100%Equity Investment Analysis
NET OPERATING INOOME Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Terminal Value
Rental Apartments $0 $604,657 $1,078,502 $1,580,234 $1,627,641 $1,676,470 $1,726,761 $1,778,567 $1,831,924 $1,886,882 $1,943,488 $2,001,793 $2,061,847 $2,123,702 $2,187,413 $24,447,557
Condominiums $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Office Space $0 $0 $fi8,817 $143,358 $220,210 $225,243 $233,410 $241,428 $246,016 $253,725 $261,271 $271,927 $279,135 $286,165 $296,290 $3,311,482
Retail Space $0 $84,191 $259,410 $360,265 $368,932 $377,361 $391,046 $404,480 $412,166 $425,081 $437,723 $455,577 $467,652 $479,430 $496,394 $5,517,932
Total NOI $0 $688,849 $1,406,730 $2,083,857 $2,216,783 $2,279,077 $2,351,220 $2,424,475 $$,490,107 $2,565,687 $2,642,482 $2,729,297 $2,808,633 $2,889,297 $2,980,097 $33,306,971
~r ~I~rT9
Rental Apartments $31,901,320 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,901,320
Condominiums $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Office Space $7,379,979 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,379,979
Retail Space $7,126,004 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,125,004
Total Development CAS[5 $46,406,303 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $46.406.303
ANNUAL CASH FLOW
Net Operati ng Income $0 $688,&19 $1,406,730 $2,083,857 $2,21 6,783 $2,279,077 $2,351,220 $2,424,475 $2,490,107 $2,565,687 $2,612 482 $2,729,297 $2,808,633 $2,889,297 $2,980,097 $33,306,971
Total Deaelopmerrt Costs $46,406,303 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
IJet Cash Flow -546 406.303 $688.&45 $1 406.730 S2 083 857 52.21 6.783 $2.279.077 52.351 220 S2 424475 $2 490.107 $2.565.687 52.642 482 $2 729.297 S2 808 633 $2.885.297 82.980.097 $33.306.971
Internal Rabe pf Return: 3.1 %
Summary of Results -Traditional Debi and Equity Analysis
NET OPERATING INCOME Yea 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 72 Year 13 Year 74 Tertninel Value
Rental Apartments yV $bW,bS/ y1,V/i3,S VL y1,SifV,L 34 y1,bLf,b91 y1,b/6,9/V y1,7Lb,fb4 y1,778,Sbf y1,iSi1,gL9 y1,i5ifb,iSifL y1,N43,9ifi5 yL,VV1,fN3 yL,Vb1 ,i59/ yL,1 LS,f VL yL,l iff,9li ~L4,94f,bb/
Condominiums $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Office Space $0 $0 $fi8,817 $143,358 $220,210 $225,243 $233,410 $241 p28 $246,Otfi $253,725 $261,271 $271,927 $279,135 $286,165 $296,290 $3,311,482
Retail Space $0 $84,191 $259,410 $360,265 $368,932 $377,361 $391 ,04fi $404,480 $412,16fi $425,081 $437,723 $455,577 $467,652 $479,430 $496,394 $5,547,932
TotaIN01 50 5688,849 51,406,730 52.083,857 52.216,783 52279,077 52.351,220 52.424,475 52.490,107 52.565,687 52.642,482 52.729,297 52.808,633 52.889,297 52.980,097 533,306,977
DFj/ff
(7pfy)ffdi r~STS
~ yhase1
Renter Apartments $31,901,320 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,901,320
Condominiums $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Office Space $7,379,979 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,379,979
Retail Space $7,125,001 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,125,004
Total DevAooment Costs 546,406,303 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 $4fi,406,303
ANNUAL CASH FLOW
1.1=t Operating Income $0 $688,849 $1,406,730 $2,083,857 $2,216,783 $2,279,077 $2,351,220 $2,424,475 $2,490,107 $2,565,687 $2,fi42,482 $2,729,297 $2,808,633 $2,889,297 $2,980,097 $33,306,971
TotalDerelopmentCosis $4fi,406,303 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Cesh Flow -546,406,303 5688,849 51.406,730 52.083,857 52216,783 52.279,077 52357,220 bZ424,475 52.490,107 52565,687 52.642,482 52729,297 52808,633 52889,297 52980.097 533,306,977
Internal Rate of Return: 3.1%
Debt Service
Net Cash Ylow yV ~bifi5,if9N y1,9V6,73V yL,VifS,iSb/ yL,L16,fifi yL,L/y,V// yL,Sb1,LLV yL,9L9,9/S yL,9yV,1 Vf yL,SbS,biff yL,b4L,9ifL yL,/Ly,Lyf ye,>:ViS,b]i yL,i58y,Ly/ yL,yifV,Vy/
Debt Se-vice-Phasel $3,493,448 $3,493,448 $3,493,448 $3,493,448 $3,493,448 $3,493,448 $3,493,448 $3,493,448 $3,493,448 $3,493,448 $3,493,448 $3,493,448 $3,493,448 $3,493,448 $3,493,448
Debt Se-vita-Phasel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Debt Se-vice-Phase3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NOI After Debt Servioz -83493448 -82804599 -82086719 -81409591 -81276666 -81214.371 -81142228 -81068973 -81003.342 -8927762 -88h09fifi -876A 151 -8684815 -8604151 -8513.351 819456445
ra,..mi r.....,d p:~a.,...... ms otion
m
No developer fee induded in cost
D bt: 8% in~rc~t, 240 payments
Terminal Capitalization Rate: 1
Phasel Phasel Phase3 Total
Total Investment $4fi,406,303 $0 $0 $46,406,303 Phasei Phese2 Phase3
Private EquiTy $11,601 ,57fi $0 $0 $11,601 ,57fi 26% 26% 26%
Financing $34,804,727 $0 $0 $34,804,727 76% 76% 76%
Historic Tat tedit Equity $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Tax credit Equity $0 $0 $0 $0
City EquiTy $0 $0 $0 $0
Total $4fi,406,303 $0 $0 $4fi,406,303 10~ 10~ 10~
Phasel Phese2 Phase3
Term 1 Payments 240 240 240
Annual ln~rest Rate
Monthly ln~rest O.fi7% O.fi7% O.fi7%
M onthly payment $291,120.69 $0.00 $0.00
Annual payment $3,493,448.23 $0.00 $0.00
Year 15 NOI $2,980,091
Terminal Capitalization Rate B. SiA.S
Value $35,059,970
Les s: mst of sale (3Yo) $1,051,799 Payments
Le; s: Outstanding Debt- Phasel $14,651,126 180
Le; s: Outstanding Debt-Phasel $0 132
Le; s: Outstanding Debt-Phase3 $0 96
Residu al Valueto Developer $19,456,445
Summary of Results -Tax Credit E quity Analysis
NET OPERATING INCOME Year 0 Yea 1 Yea 2 Yea 3 Yea 4 Yea 5 Yea 6 Yea 7 Yea 8 Yeer 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Terminal Value
Rental Apartrnmtr yV ~bV4,bb/ ~1 ,Vli5,SVL ~1 ,SifV,L]4 ~1 ,5[1,591 $1 ,616,4fV ~1 ,116,169 $1 ,f liS,Sbl yi,iSii ,gL4 yl,tlifb,ifiSL y1,3M1],4i5if yL,VVi,lgi ~1,Vbi,tf9/ yL,i L],IVL X1,1 iff,4li 514,491,887
Condominiums $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Office Space $0 $0 $68,817 $143,358 $220,210 $225,243 $233,410 $241,428 $246,01fi $253,725 $261,271 $271,927 $279,135 $286,165 $296,290 $3,311,482
Retail Space $0 $84,191 8259,410 $360,265 $368,932 $377,361 $391 ,04fi $404,480 $412,16fi $425,081 $437,723 $455,577 $467,652 $479,430 $496,391 $5,547,932
ToteI NOI 50 5688,849 51,406,730 52,083,857 52,216,783 52,279,077 52,351,220 52,424,475 52,490,107 52565,687 52642482 52729,297 52808,633 52,889,297 52,980,097 533,306,971
DEVELOPMENT ODST6
Uevelopment COSts Phase1
Rental Aparbnent; $31,901,320 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,901,320
Condominiums $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Office Space $7,379,979 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,379,979
Retail Space $7,125,007 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,125,004
Total Development Costs 54fi,406,303 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 546,406,303
100% EpuiN Return
Net Operatinglncome $0 $688,849 $1,406,730 $2,083,857 $2,216,783 $2,279,077 $2,351,220 $2,424,475 $2,490,107 $2,bfi6,fi87 $2,612,482 $2,729,297 $2,808,fi33 $2,889,297 $2,980,097 $33,306,971
Total Devdopment Cots $46,40fi,303 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Cash Flow -596,406,303 563$849 51,406,730 52,033,857 52,216,783 52,279,077 52,351,220 52,424,475 52490,107 52565,687 52642482 52729,297 52,808,633 52,889,297 52,980,097 533,306,971
Internal Rate p(Retum: 3.1 %
Debt Service
Net Cash plow 5V 56isif,if9g 51 ,9V6,1]V 51,Vif],ifb/ 5[,[1 b,li5i 51,1/g,Vf/ 5L,]51,11V 5[,919,418 51,9gV,1 V/ 51}bb,bi5/ 5L,69L,4i5L SL,fLg,Lgl 5L,i5Vif,b]i 51,isisg,Lgl 5[,980,V91
Deht Service-Phasei $2,143,813 $2,143,813 $2,143,813 $2,143,813 $2,143,813 $2,143,813 $2,143,813 $2,143,813 $2,143,813 $2,143,813 $2,143,813 $2,143,813 $2,143,813 $2,143,813 $2,143,813
Deht Service -Phase 2
Deht Service -Phase 3
NOI Aker Deht Service -82143.813 -81454.961 -8737.083 -859.955 872.970 8135265 8207407 8280.fi62 8346.291 8421.874 8498.fi69 8585485 8664821 8745485 883fi 285 825078267
Internal Rate o(Retum: 15.5%
r9 ~«ar r...+a,.a F~.,..,.~.,~ a.q~..,,.n ...
Feral and state historictax credits
Na dereloper fee included in mst
Deht: 89o interest, 240 payments
Terminal Capitalization Rate 8.5%
Eligible Historic Cred it lnvestrnent C onstruction Cmt
Phasei Phese2 Phese3 Toml Phesel Phese2 Phese3 Phesel Phese2 Phese3 Eligehility%
Total Investment $46,40fi,303 $0 $0 $46,40fi,303 2~ Federal $8,817,198 $0 $0 0.95
Private Equity $11,601,57fi $0 $0 $11,601,57fi Priv ate EquiTy 26% 26% 26% 26% State $11,021,497 $0 $0 0.95
Financing $21,358,501 $0 $0 $21,358,501 Fin ancing 4690 76% 76% Syn dicated Value
Hisoric Tax Credit EquiTy $13,44fi,22fi $0 $0 $13,44 fi,22fi Hist oric Tax Credit 2~ ~ ~ $0.90 Federal $7,935,478 $0 $0
Other Tax credit EquiTy $0 $0 $0 $0 ~ ~ ~ $0.50 State $5,510,749 $0 $0
City Equity $0 $0 $0 $0 ~ ~ ~ Tvtal Value $13,44 fi,22fi $0 $0
Total $46,40fi,303 $0 $0 $46,40fi,303 100% 10~ 10~
Phesel Phese2 Phese3
Term) Payments 240 240 240
Annual In# est Rate 890 890
Moodily Interest O.fi7% O.fi7% O.fi7%
Moodily payment $178,651.Ofi $0.00 $0.00
Annual payment $2,143,812.73 $0.00 $0.00
ae,e..:.., r.i.~u.«.,.,
Year 15 NOI
$2,980,097
Terminal Capitalization Rate 8.5~
Value $35,059,970
Less: mst of sale(3%) $1,051,799 Paymen«s
Less: Oubtanding Deht-Phasei $8,929,909 180
Less: Oubtanding Deht-Phase2 $0 0
Less: Oubtanding Deht-Phasei $0 0
Residual Valueto Derelopa $25,078,262