Item 3.b.: SCW Financial Calculator Assumptions-Affordable Housing-Market — original pdf

Backup

To: South Central Waterfront Advisory Board From: Alan Holt Date: September 23, 2020 RE: Financial Calculator Assumptions- Notes, Affordable [housing], and Market __________________________________________________________________________ At the September 23, 2020 meeting of the SCWAB, staff will provide a real-time demonstration of the Financial Calculator, developed by ECONorthwest for the City of Austin Planning Department. The Financial Calculator is a dynamic spreadsheet which combines multiple layers of varying inputs (physical project costs; district buildout assumptions; redevelopment assumptions, etc.) that can be mixed-and-matched to do scenario pro forma analysis. During this demonstration, staff will show the kinds of data which are included with the multiple “tabs” in the spreadsheet. The full range of tabs include: Notes; Rollup; Development Summary; Plan Scenarios; Pro Formas; OTC; Market; Infrastructure; Affordable. Some of those data inputs the SCWAB has seen before. For instance, the “Infrastructure” tab includes the information from the District Physical Framework Project Costs spreadsheet, which was backup material provided to the SCWAB earlier this year that associates the costs per property. Another tab (“OTC”) looks specifically at six redevelopment scenarios for affordable housing on the One Texas Center parking lot, which was also supplied as backup in a prior SCWAB meeting. This supporting pdf backup provides a snapshot of the following three tabs, for the purpose of informing the live demonstration of the calculator tool at today’s meeting: This tab provides an overview of the methodology, assumptions and terms that ECONorthwest used in developing the calculator. The “Notes” tab provides specific definitions for data found in the subsequent tabs. Notes Tab: Affordable Tab: The “Affordable” tab contains information about the cost incurred by the City of Austin to produce income-restricted housing units, with the intention to incentivize and support affordable housing to ultimately equal 20% of the district’s new residential units. The data draws from recent affordable housing projects that the NHCD helped develop. Market Assumptions Tab: The “Market” tab includes critical market assumption inputs that affect the pro forma analysis. In 2016, the SCW Appendices called these inputs the “development assumptions.” These are the range of inputs that a developer uses to create a pro forma analysis. For this new calculator, EcoNorthwest recycled the development assumptions from 2016 as one potential input, and created six new “Development Assumptions” that can be chosen to compare the feasibility. For the demonstration today, the “2019 Interviews” market assumptions are used to drive the financial modeling. These values triangulated from confidential 2019 interviews that EcoNorthwest conducted with approximately twenty Austin-based contractors, developers, market researchers, and others. We provide the pdf of this tab to show the other potential “development assumptions” that can also be tested. 'NOTES' TAB Notes on Draft SWC Tool Tool delivered July 23rd, 2020; Updated August 12th, 2020 About this Spreadsheet: This Excel file has been developed by ECONorthwest for the City of Austin Planning Department. This is a sketch planning tool to directionally compare and contrast the financial implications of different policy options. A primary purpose of this analysis tool is to test the affordability requirements that might be feasible within the South Central Waterfront plan area. This spreadsheet is modeled on prior analyses conducted by ECONorthwest. The outputs on the 'Development Summary' tab are formatted similarly to the Framework Plan appendix to allow for comparison. While the Framework Plan analyses relied on cash flow models, this spreadsheet uses pencil outs that consider threshold yields on stabilized income and returns on sales. No IRR calculations exist in this spreadsheet. The scale of buildings assumed for the '2020 Updated SCW Plan' scenario generally match the values found in the 'Robust_Scenario' developed by McCann Adams Studio as part of the SCW planning process and delivered to ECONorthwest in 2016. The scale of buildings in other scenarios reflect sites and building programs developed by McCann Adams Studio based on 2019 proposals for the Statesman site. For Users of this Spreadsheet: Blue text is relied upon by other calculations in the spreadsheet. Critical assumptions are found in blue text throughout the workbook, particularly on the 'Rollup', 'Plan Scenarios', 'OTC', 'Market', 'Infrastructure', and 'Affordable' tabs. Black text is either a label or a calculation that will adjust automatically. Notes are provided in italicized gray text. Tab Descriptions: The 'Rollup' tab includes both critical inputs and outputs from the model. The 'Development Summary' tab describes parcel-by-parcel results. While not identical, this sheet is comparable to the summary table used during the framework planning process. The 'Plan Scenarios' tab includes data provided by McCann Adams for a variety of development scenarios The 'Pro Formas' tab contains financial calculations for each parcel besides the OTC site. The 'OTC' tab includes details on the various development scenarios that were evaluated on the OTC site. This tab contains assumptions and feeds other tabs, especially the 'Development Summary' tab. The 'Market' tab includes critical inputs into the pro forma analysis. The 'Infrastructure' tab includes infrastructure cost allocation options. The user can select options on the 'Development Summary' tab to see how they influence the results. The 'Affordable' tab contains information about the cost incurred by the City of Austin to produce income-restricted housing units. The tab also includes information about in-lieu fees, which are based on the cost to subsidize housing in market-rate buildings. Caveats / Notes: This model relies on in-place tipping prices from the 2016 plan. In other words, the hurdle for viable development is inaccurate, but is consistently so across scenarios. This value influences the district funding gap calculations in particular. This model assumes all condo buildings pay the citywide affordable housing in-lieu fee (based on assumed unit mix and proposed LDC Revision fees). This reflects NHCD practice and is expected to be policy in the district. Further, this model assumes in-lieu fees are paid to district (or to a dedicated NHCD fund) and funds are used to build/preserve units outside of condo developments. While we included 2016 plan options and market values, it is not possible to get the same results shown in the 2016 plan appendix due to different inputs/calculations from previous analyses. The '2019 Interview' market values represent our triangulations from diverse sources and our best estimate of market conditions for an array of development entities that might invest in the plan area. Some interviewees and contributors of market assumptions did not provide comprehensive information. For example, some sources did not provide low-rise building inputs. In these instances, we used '2019 Interview' values to fill in missing values. Assumed gross sq ft per hotel room in 'Market' tab that matches values found in the 305 S Congress PUD proposal. OTC LIHTC deals (>85% aff units) assume negligible land transfer price (e.g., $1) to a non-profit developer and mid-rise NHCD subsidy costs per unit to make development feasible, which is an optimistic assumption. Assumes NHCD funds OTC units from funds generated outside of the district. There was a previous agreement with owners of the Statesman site for an affordability requirement that reflected higher infrastructure burden on the site. The affordable units are expected to be achieved in one building under the 2016 SCW plan and the 305 S Congress PUD proposal, which is reflected in the '2020 Updated Plan' and '305 S Congress PUD' scenarios. We assume the requirement is met across all residential buildings in the '2020 Hybrid' scenario. Assumes district fees are reduced by crediting the development for any district-required infrastructure costs (bonus costs above baseline infrastructure requirements) and affordable housing contribution (in-lieu fees or the equivalent in-lieu fee payment for the quantity of on-site units delivered). For the purposes of this model, we relied on City of Austin staff to determine whether residential buildings were modeled as condo or multifamily rentals. In the case of the '305 S Congress PUD' scenario, building tenures match the 305 S Congress PUD proposal. 'AFFORDABLE' TAB Affordable Housing Inputs Affordable Subsidy Allocations (for reference in model) PARCEL ID Zero Aff Subsidy 2016 Plan Doc Aff Subsidy Per Unit 2020 Aff Subsidy Option For use in model based on 'Rollup' selection A6 $ $ $ $ $ B3-5 $ $ $ $ $ - - - - - C6-8 $ $ $ $ $ - - - - - Affordable Percentage on-site in Framework Plan Appendix (for reference in model) PARCEL ID Framework Plan % 2020 site-by-site 0% 0% 0% 0% B3-5 A6 C6-8 NHCD Affordable Housing Costs Deal data provided by NHCD in Fall 2019 AHI . Contract Date Project ID D9 F12 G14-15 H16-20 S1 0% 0% 25% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% S5 0% 0% *ECO added new column to allocate costs by Statesman building B67 J22-J23 C2 C1 C3 K31-K33 L1 28% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 24% 0% 0% 0% Reflects values in 2016 Framework Plan analysis Available for site-by-site user inputs S5 $ $ $ $ $ - - - - - - - - 2,400,000 2,400,000 *ECO added new column to allocate costs by Statesman building B67 $ $ $ $ $ J22-J23 $ $ $ $ $ C2 $ $ $ $ $ C1 $ $ $ $ $ 20,440,000 20,440,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C3 $ $ $ $ $ 15,600,000 8,510,000 All K31-K33 $ $ $ $ $ - - - L1 $ $ $ $ $ - - - - - - - - - - $0 M $61 M $0 M $0 M 15,600,000 8,510,000 Assumes $0 on all sites Reflects values in 2016 Framework Plan analysis Calculated from user input Available for site-by-site user inputs - - - C4 $ $ $ $ $ C4 D9 $ $ $ $ $ - - - - - 5,460,000 4,050,000 4,300,000 - - - F12 $ $ $ $ $ - - - G14-15 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ H16-20 $ $ $ $ $ - - - S1 $ $ $ $ $ - - - - - 5,460,000 4,050,000 4,300,000 S2 $ $ $ $ $ S2 - - - - - - - - - - S3 $ $ $ $ $ S3 S4 $ $ $ $ $ S4 0% 0% 0% 0% 117 151 160 209 272 292 337 380 422 164 257 289 417 417 417 417 417 417 9/9/2016 12/1/2017 2/29/2016 8/1/2018 12/28/2017 5/31/2016 9/22/2016 12/18/2017 1/11/2018 7/20/2016 4/19/2016 7/18/2016 8/3/2017 8/3/2017 8/3/2017 8/3/2017 8/3/2017 8/3/2017 Project Name Address 1915 Briarcliff Blvd 3300 Oak Creek Drive 1800 Alexander Avenue 21 Waller Street 1800 S IH 35 12190 N Mopac Expressway 1018 Linden Street 809 E 9th Street 3502 Gaston Place 3533 Housing First Oak Springs3000 Oak Springs Drive 3541 LaMadrid Apartments 11320 Manchaca Road 3590 Ruth R. Schulze House 915 W 22nd Street 3757 Elysium Grand 3772 The Rail at MLK 5417 Rebekah Baines Johnson Center 3973 Aria Grand 4487 Waterloo Terrace 3545 Linden - SF 3683 Guadalupe Neighborhood Development Corporation - SF 3769 2203 Salina Street Rehab2203 Salina Street 2800 Prado Street 4442 GNDC Alley Flats 2808 Gonzales Street 4445 GNDC Alley Flats 2800 Prado Street 4443 GNDC Alley Flats 2808 Gonzales Street 4446 GNDC Alley Flats 1902 Willow Street 4447 GNDC Alley Flats 4444 GNDC Alley Flats 705 Lydia Street 27 50 95 34 85 235 279 70 132 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 27 50 83 9 72 58 246 60 132 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 100% 100% 87% 26% 85% 25% 88% 86% 100% -97.689883 30.313425 Multifamily -97.70056603 30.273522 Multifamily 30.1659 Multifamily -97.82835765 -97.74790896 30.28524 Multifamily -97.704184 30.426674 Multifamily -97.709385 30.27815 Multifamily -97.733152 30.253439 Multifamily -97.738699 30.238642 Multifamily -97.708737 30.413996 Multifamily -97.70504537 30.26568 Single Family -97.73283499 30.26807 Single Family -97.722755 30.28299 Single Family -97.70835214 30.26229 Single Family 30.2603 Single Family -97.708853 -97.70835214 30.26229 ADU -97.708853 30.2603 ADU -97.724599 30.25636 ADU -97.7285 30.26545 Duplex Field11 Rental Rental Rental Rental Rental Rental Rental Rental Rental Ownership Rental Rental Rental Rental Rental Rental Rental Rental Total COA Funding $ 2,249,260 $ 3,888,112 3,300,000 $ $ 928,089 3,320,000 $ $ 2,500,000 $ 6,479,000 $ 1,500,000 3,200,000 $ 158,600 $ $ 50,000 150,095 $ 213,577 $ 213,577 $ 213,577 $ 213,577 $ 213,577 $ 213,577 $ Subsidy Per Unit LIHTC $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 83,305.93 77,762 39,759 103,121 46,111 43,103 26,337 25,000 24,242.42 158,600 50,000 150,095 213,577 213,577 213,577 213,577 213,577 106,788 N/A 4% 9% N/A 4% N/A 4% 9% 9% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Units Total Affordable Units percent affordable Longitude Latitude Tenure 30% MFI 50% MFI 60% MFI 80% MFI Market-Rate% Funds LeveragedConstruction TypeParking Type 9 12 3 27 6 27 27 50 34 9 40 55 153 24 105 40 20 52 30 191.15% 5A 472.97% 1A, 5B (podium)Integrated podium 518.31% 5A/5B Surface Affordable 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 Surface Surface (only providing 3 spaces) Surface Free standing garage; 2 levels underground Tuck under Surface 12 25 13 167 468 10 5A 434.71% 5B 1300% 3A 1023.53% 5A 681.02% 5B 24 rehab of existing tower & construction of new buildings - don't know which structures the funding went into Cost to NHCD to subsidize an income-restricted unit Bldg Type Lowrise Podium Mid/Highrise Application Shortfall offsite / OTC OTC Shortfall onsite Subsidy $ $ $ 46,074 77,762 196,200 Notes Averages all NHCD 100% affordable projects; Includes 1 podium project Considers the one affordable podium project subsidized by NHCD Calc based on in-lieu fees to appy to all mixed-income projects source: https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/LandDevCodeRev/Housing/AHBP_Guide-10-4-19_PUBLIC.pdf Using proposed citywide fees-in-lieu, which reflect the cost to buy-down units in downtown adjacent areas, to: 1) Calculate NHCD subsidy for affordable units in mid/highrise towers 2) Compute the fees paid for affordable housing in the district's condo developments Units Studio 1-bed 2-bed 3-bed Fees in Lieu 135,000 180,000 335,000 444,000 196,200 Unit mix from assumptions 45% 35% 15% 5% 100% 'MARKET' TAB (page 1) Market Assumptions Input 2016 Plan 2019 Interviews 2019 Low CAPs 2019 CAP History 2019 Local Consultant 2019 Endeavor 305 S Congress PUD 202+ TIF Inputs Notes Value being modeled Selection determined Known values from by 'Rollup' inputs framework plan process Values triangulated from 2019 interviews with contractors, developers, market researchers, and others Values triangulated from 2019 interviews with aggressive CAP rates from ranges Values compiled from 2019 interviews combined with 2000- 2019 historical CAP Assumptions from 2019 Interviews Values provided by Endeavor based on Values interpreted from proposed 305 S Placeholder for values to be used in a TIF study so that conducted by recent market Congress PUD apples to apples ECONW, adjusted conditions and related application comparisons can be made provided by interviewees rates based on local to their proposed economic consultant redevelopment of the opinion Statesman site This analysis $ $ $ $ 994 994 1,135 1,278 50% MFI $ $ $ $ 60% MFI $ $ $ $ 828 828 946 1,065 80% MFI $ $ $ $ 994 994 1,135 1,278 Weighted average NHCD rent $ 1,043.45 Affordable Unit Variables Austin 2018 Aff Gross to Net Vacancy Opex (100% aff bldg) Target AMI Rentals Target AMI Sales Affordable Unit Rent District Multifamily Mix % of Units Studio % of Units 1-bed % of Units 2-bed % of Units 3-bed Rental rate target NHCD Rent Studio NHCD Rent 1-bed NHCD Rent 2-bed NHCD Rent 3-bed Efficiency - Gross to Net Use Low Office Low Hotel Low Retail Low Multi-family Low Condo Mid Office Mid Hotel Mid Retail Mid Multi-family Mid Condo High Office High Hotel High Retail High Multi-family High Condo $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 86,000 85% 2% 40% 60% 100% 15% 55% 25% 5% 100% 85% 100% 80% 85% 100% 85% 100% 85% 85% 100% 85% 100% 85% 85% 86,000 85% 2% 40% 60% 100% 45% 35% 15% 5% 100% 85% 100% 80% 85% 100% 85% 100% 80% 85% 100% 85% 100% 85% 90% 86,000 85% 2% 40% 60% 100% 15% 55% 25% 5% 100% 85% 100% 80% 85% 100% 85% 100% 85% 85% 100% 85% 100% 85% 85% 86,000 85% 2% 40% 60% 100% 15% 55% 25% 5% 1,321 1,321 1,510 1,698 100% 85% 100% 80% 85% 100% 85% 100% 85% 85% 100% 85% 100% 85% 85% 86,000 85% 2% 40% 60% 100% 15% 55% 25% 5% 100% 85% 100% 80% 85% 100% 85% 100% 85% 85% 100% 85% 100% 85% 85% 86,000 85% 2% 40% 60% 100% 10% 60% 25% 5% 100% 85% 100% 80% 80% 100% 850% 100% 80% 80% 100% 85% 100% 80% 80% 86,000 85% 2% 40% 60% 100% 16% 50% 35% 4% 100% 85% 100% 80% 85% 100% 85% 100% 85% 85% 100% 85% 100% 80% 78% Parking Costs and Revenues Hard Cost Surface Hard Cost Structure Hard Cost Underground Hard Cost Wrap Res Rev/Yr Surface Res Rev/Yr Structure Res Rev/Yr Underground $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 7,000 30,000 50,000 22,000 750 1,500 1,500 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,000 25,000 40,000 15,000 750 1,500 1,500 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 7,000 30,000 50,000 22,000 750 1,500 1,500 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 7,000 30,000 50,000 22,000 750 1,500 1,500 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 7,000 30,000 50,000 22,000 750 1,500 1,500 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 8,500 35,000 55,000 20,000 - 1,500 1,500 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 7,000 30,000 53,000 22,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 86,000 85% 2% 40% 60% 100% 16% 50% 35% 4% 100% 85% 100% 80% 85% 100% 85% 100% 85% 85% 100% 85% 100% 95% 78% 7,000 28,000 50,000 22,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 No affordable condo, so mix is based on multifamily; Assumes mix of affordable is required to be identical to market rate Unused in model Defaults to 60% when input is not in list 'MARKET' TAB (page 2) Res Rev/Yr Wrap Office Rev/Yr Surface Office Rev/Yr Structure Office Rev/Yr Underground Office Rev/Yr Wrap Hard Costs per SF / Key Use Low Office Low Hotel Low Retail Low Multi-family / Condo Low Site Prep Mid Office Mid Hotel Mid Retail Mid Multi-family / Condo Mid Site Prep High Office High Hotel High Retail High Multi-family / Condo High Site Prep Soft Costs as % of Hard Costs $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Low Office Low Hotel Low Retail Low Multi-family Low Condo Mid Office Mid Hotel Mid Retail Mid Multi-family Mid Condo High Office High Hotel High Retail High Multi-family High Condo Other Costs Developer Fee Contingency Retail TI Office TI Revenues per SF / Key Low Office Low Hotel Low Retail Low Multi-family Low Condo Mid Office Mid Hotel Mid Retail Mid Multi-family Mid Condo High Office High Hotel High Retail High Multi-family $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,500 750 1,000 1,000 1,000 $ $ $ $ $ 200 185,000 165 165 - 200 200,000 165 205 - 200 225,000 165 240 - $ 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 30% 25% 25% 25% 25% 30% 1,500 750 1,500 1,500 1,500 125 175,000 130 120 - 140 175,000 130 190 0 160 175,000 130 220 - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 17% 25% 1,500 750 1,000 1,000 1,000 200 185,000 165 165 - 200 200,000 165 205 - 200 225,000 165 240 - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 30% 25% 25% 25% 25% 30% 1,500 750 1,000 1,000 1,000 200 185,000 165 165 - 200 200,000 165 205 - 200 225,000 165 240 - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,500 750 1,000 1,000 1,000 200 185,000 165 165 - 200 200,000 165 205 - 200 225,000 165 240 - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 200 185,000 165 165 - 200 200,000 165 215 - 200 225,000 165 240 - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 30% 25% 25% 25% 25% 30% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 30% 25% 25% 25% 25% 30% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 30% 25% 25% 25% 25% 30% 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 200 185,000 165 165 - 200 200,000 165 215 - 165 325,000 165 240 - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 30% 25% 25% 25% 25% 30% 4.0% 4.0% 50.00 75.00 $ $ 3.5% 3.5% 40.00 50.00 $ $ 4.0% 4.0% 50.00 75.00 $ $ 4.0% 4.0% 50.00 75.00 $ $ 4.0% 4.0% 50.00 75.00 $ $ 4.0% 4.0% 60.00 75.00 $ $ 3.0% 5.0% 85.00 85.00 $ $ 40.00 82,125 40.00 31.80 400 40.00 82,125 50.00 34.20 450 40.00 82,125 50.00 38.40 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 29.00 46,625 35.00 30.00 400 32.00 45,625 35.00 34.20 450 35.00 45,625 35.00 37.20 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 40.00 82,125 40.00 31.80 400 40.00 82,125 50.00 34.20 450 40.00 82,125 50.00 38.40 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 40.00 82,125 40.00 31.80 400 40.00 82,125 50.00 34.20 450 40.00 82,125 50.00 38.40 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 40.00 82,125 40.00 31.80 400 40.00 82,125 50.00 34.20 450 40.00 82,125 50.00 38.40 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 38 82,125 40 30 400 38 82,125 50 30 450 38 82,125 50 39 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 38 82,125 40 32 400 38 82,125 50 34.20 450 38 120,450 35 41 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 200 185,000 165 165 - 200 200,000 165 215 - 165 325,000 150 225 - 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 30% 25% 30% 25% 23% 30% 0.0% 0.0% 85.00 85.00 38 82,125 40 32 400 38 82,125 50 34.20 450 38 120,450 35 41 Assume negligible site prep for general case Assume negligible site prep for general case Assume negligible site prep for general case % of Hard % of Hard / SF / SF Endeavor provided high-rise only Endeavor provided high-rise only Endeavor provided high-rise only Endeavor provided high-rise only Endeavor provided high-rise only Endeavor provided high-rise only Endeavor provided high-rise only Endeavor provided high-rise only Endeavor provided high-rise only Endeavor provided high-rise only 'MARKET' TAB (page 3) High Condo $ 750 $ 450 $ 750 $ 750 $ 750 $ 900 $ 750 $ 750 Vacancy Operating Cost Low Office Low Hotel Low Retail Low Multi-family Mid Office Mid Hotel Mid Retail Mid Multi-family High Office High Hotel High Retail High Multi-family Low Office Low Hotel Low Retail Low Multi-family Mid Office Mid Hotel Mid Retail Mid Multi-family High Office High Hotel High Retail High Multi-family Parking Hotel Room Size Gross SF $ $ $ $ $ $ Market-rate Unit Variables Waterfront premium Condo construction premium Condo Sales costs Monthly Condo fees $ Valuation Metrics Valuation CAP Rates Hotel Multi-family Office Retail Returns Condo ROC Hotel Multi-family Office Retail 10% 25% 5% 4% 10% 25% 5% 4% 10% 25% 5% 4% $ $ $ $ $ $ 19.20 30% 5.50 40% 19.20 30% 5.50 45% 19.20 30% 5.50 45% 20% 800 0% 20% 10% 7% 700 7.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.50% 33.00% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 10% 25% 5% 4% 10% 25% 5% 4% 10% 25% 5% 4% $ $ $ $ $ $ 16.80 30% 3.85 30% 16.80 30% 3.85 30% 16.80 30% 3.85 30% 20% 600 20% 10% 4% 700 7.00% 5.50% 6.00% 9.00% 33.00% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 10% 25% 5% 4% 10% 25% 5% 4% 10% 25% 5% 4% $ $ $ $ $ $ 19.20 30% 5.50 40% 19.20 30% 5.50 45% 19.20 30% 5.50 45% 20% 800 20% 10% 7% 700 7.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.50% 33.00% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 10% 25% 5% 4% 10% 25% 5% 4% 10% 25% 5% 4% $ $ $ $ $ $ 19.20 30% 5.50 40% 19.20 30% 5.50 45% 19.20 30% 5.50 45% 20% 800 20% 10% 7% 700 6.00% 4.50% 5.50% 6.50% 33.00% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 10% 25% 5% 4% 10% 25% 5% 4% 10% 25% 5% 4% 10% 25% 5% 6% 10% 25% 5% 6% 10% 25% 5% 6% $ $ $ $ $ $ 19.20 30% 5.50 40% 19.20 30% 5.50 45% 19.20 30% 5.50 45% 20% $ $ $ $ $ $ 24.00 30% 3.85 40% 24.00 30% 3.85 45% 26.00 30% 3.85 45% 20% 10% 25% 5% 4% 10% 25% 5% 4% 10% 25% 5% 4% $ $ $ $ $ $ 29.00 35% 25.00 45% 29.00 35% 25.00 45% 29.00 35% 25.00 45% 20% 10% 25% 5% 4% 10% 25% 5% 4% 5% 25% 5% 4% 29.00 35% 25.00 45% 29.00 35% 25.00 45% 29.00 35% 25.00 45% 20% 800 20% 20% 7% 700 7.75% 4.50% 8.25% 7.50% 45.00% 1.75% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 800 800 800 Assumption; Data not gathered from interviews; Results approximate room counts from plan $ $ $ $ 20% 10% 7% 700 $ 20% 10% 6% 700 $ 20% 10% 7% 700 $ Premium % increase over average residential rents/pricdes Premium % increase over multifamily costs As % of total sales price Unused in model 7.50% 6.25% 7.25% 7.50% 33.00% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 7.00% 6.00% 6.50% 6.50% 20.00% 2.50% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 7.75% 4.50% 8.25% 7.50% 35.00% 1.75% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% "Yield on Cost" "Untrended ROC" or "Going-in CAP" if spread is 0% "Yield on Cost" "Untrended ROC" or "Going-in CAP" if spread is 0% "Yield on Cost" "Untrended ROC" or "Going-in CAP" if spread is 0% "Yield on Cost" "Untrended ROC" or "Going-in CAP" if spread is 0% Return on project cost used as a proxy for a 2:1 equity multiple assuming 35-40% equity; Not used in earlier models Spread over CAP for 'Going-in CAP' Spread over CAP for 'Going-in CAP' Spread over CAP for 'Going-in CAP' Spread over CAP for 'Going-in CAP' Endeavor provided high-rise only Endeavor provided high-rise only Endeavor provided high-rise only Endeavor provided high-rise only Endeavor provided high-rise only Endeavor provided high-rise only Endeavor provided high-rise only Endeavor provided high-rise only Edeavor provided significantly higher expenses than other sources