TIKAHTNU FORUM Art of the Deal. Case Study Example CVP Development

Transcription

1 TIKAHTNU FORUM Art of the Deal Case Study Example CVP Development

2 Opportunity: To develop a mixed use retail-residential project in a defined redevelopment Towncenter area.

3 Outcome(s) Desired: Mission: To develop vacant parcels within a redevelopment area owned by development partners, creating opportunities for affordable (senior) housing and new retail businesses within a local Towncenter area, and resulting in neighborhood revitalization. Profit: To develop a project which operates with positive cash flow over the expected ownership period (30 years). To provide a developer fee to the sponsoring party, which combined with operating cash flow provides a reasonable rate of return for the sponsor, balanced against mission objectives.

4 Financial Feasibility Considerations/Outcomes: We recognized from the onset that new construction costs, generally, far exceed the debt carrying capability of such a project, resulting in a large development funding gap. We developed a strategy(s) around how to minimize the development gap through project design, deal structure, and partnership relationships. New versus old local Title 21 design requirement options. Quality, but not excessive design elements. Limiting size of building to three stories to control construction expenses. Limiting non-revenue producing spaces within the building.

5 Financial Feasibility Considerations/Outcomes: Cont. Using durable, maintenance free materials where possible to ensure reduced operating expenses, higher debt carrying capability. Building to high energy efficiency rating to minimize utility expense, future energy cost risk, and increasing NOI and debt carrying capability. Partnered with the land owner to contribute the land to the deal for 50% of its value in exchange for a share of the developer fee and future retail area revenue stream. Bifurcated specific development expenses to be paid with specific funding sources in order to avoid certain funding source requirements (Davis Bacon, etc.). Developed a design completion and contractor procurement timeline that assured general contractor bid processes no later than early March.

6 Financial Feasibility Considerations/Outcomes: Cont. We evaluated operating revenue and expense assumptions (the end result of which is Net Operating Income [NOI] available to support long term debt) to develop strategies around increasing NOI and resulting debt carrying capability. Note: this may be a compromise between mission and project feasibility requirements. Evaluated rent levels that could be charged per funding limitations versus those lower rents that we may have desired to charge (for mission ) and developed compromises in household income levels to be served (i.e., number of very low income units) and the resulting revenue stream that could be anticipated. Evaluated property management strategy to determine how to manage the project most cost effectively, spreading the manager needs across multiple developments. Incorporated geothermal and solar photovoltaic alternative energy systems that reduced utility expenses and increased debt carrying capability, albeit increasing the upfront development cost and resulting development gap.

7 Financial Feasibility Considerations/Outcomes: Cont. We evaluated financial resources that might reasonably be available, albeit on a competitive basis in some cases, to help fund the development gap (debt, grants, tax credits, etc.). What development or operating requirements will be imposed by each funding source and how will they shape/define the project outcomes? Given the sponsor s other development pipeline priorities and resulting funding needs, we decided to pursue the development as a 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) project. Although the 4% LIHTC program results in only about 40% of the LIHTC equity that a 9% LIHTC award does, the 4% program is not competitive based. So no competition for the 4% LIHTC, but a larger funding gap.

8 Financial Feasibility Considerations/Outcomes: Cont. Given the availability of grant funds at the time for senior housing projects we changed the demographic group to be served from a family to a senior housing project. Submitted a competitive Senior grant application to AHFC and received $2.3M. Utilized AHFC s new (and never before used) mixed use building financing authority, at a lower tax exempt eligible rate, providing a single loan source for both the residential and retail components of the building. Sold Solar System 30% credit to the LIHTC investor, generating an expected $152k in development funding. Applied for and received $3.3M in other grant sources. We decreased our desired developer fee to an amount that contributed to project feasibility.

9 Political Considerations: We maintained communication with the local government on our development plans, assuring consistency with the city s Towncenter guidelines. We met with the city s planning department to work through land use and permitting requirements. We met with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) to discuss and affirm mixed use financing eligibility and obtaining a timely permanent loan commitment. We met with the local community council and presented our proposed development plans. Development plans were shared with our local Tribe.

10 Development Partnerships: We assessed our internal ability (capacity and experience) to develop the project in the time frame desired and sought internal authorizations through the Board level to do so. We also met all funder requirements for experience in developing LIHTC and Senior grant funded projects. We sought a development relationship with the land owner, negotiating a co-development structure that was commensurate with the level of responsibility and funding contributions from each party. The land owner agreed to contribute their land at 50% of its land value in exchange for a share of the developer fee and future land lease that was commensurate with the deal structure. Through the co-development guaranties, the risks associated with development deficits and rental achievement are shared commensurately among the parties.

11 Development Partnerships: Cont. Due to LIHTC investor requirements, a master lease agreement will be executed between the project owner (the LIHTC Limited Partnership, to which the sponsor is the General Partner) and the project developers, thereby guarantying a minimum level of revenue to the owner from the commercial/retail component, and shifting the risk of the retail components from that of the LIHTC LP to that of the developers. The Developers then receive any upside in retail revenue stream above the master lease rate.

12 Development Timeline Risk: The land was tied up as part of the deal structure agreement. Interest rate risk was mitigated by an early application to, and commitment by, AHFC for the permanent loan debt. The construction lender terms were negotiated early on to assure proforma development cost assumptions for loan fee and interest expense. Time critical applications for grant funds and the 4% LIHTC award were submitted and received. Project A&E Designs was completed 3+ months ahead of anticipated construction allowing for timely permitting and general contractor procurement processes.

13 Development Timeline Overview: Project conceptually conceived: February 2014 Deal Structure Overview Agreed by Land Owner and Co- Developers in April 2014 Concept Design Completed: June 2014 LIHTC and Senior Grant Application Submitted July 2014 Funding Award Received November 2014 AHFC Permanent Loan Commitment Received January 2015 LIHTC and Solar Investor Commitment March 2015 Design Completed March 2015 Tax Exempt Bond Issuance/Construction Loan Commitment (anticipated) April 2015 Permits Issued (anticipated): Late April 2015 Deal Structure Closing: May 2015 Construction Start Up: Late May-early June 2015 Construction Completion: August 2016.

14 CVP Project Overview: 49 Senior Housing Units sf of Retail Space GBSF: ~53,000 sf Estimated Total Project Cost: $16.87M Estimated PSF Hard Cost: $231 Rent Levels: $745 - $843 1 Bedroom Units; $1,050 for 2 Bedroom Units Funding Source Summary:

15 CVP Project Overview: Cont. Debt: $3.768M Grants: $6.223M (4 different grants) LIHTC Equity: $4.497M Solar/GeoThermal Equity: $152k Owner Equity Contributions: $2.231M

16 Coronado Park Senior Village 56 Senior Units in Downtown Eagle River 40 Affordable Units & 16 Market Rate Units

17 Coronado Park Senior Village North Side of Building

18 Coronado Park 28 7 Market Rate 4-Plexes in downtown Eagle River!

19 Eklutna Estates II 34 Senior Housing units

20 Ridgeline Terrace 70 units

21 MVVV Price Street 3 Bedroom Duplexes

22 The Lofts and Village at 4302