02-23-2021 JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEE PACKET

Home Browse Search

financing, the project as proposed would not occur. Based on the applicant’s stated position relative to the need for tax increment financing assistance, the City could make its “but for” finding and provide tax increment assistance. We recommend, however, that the City review the provided assumptions to consider if the project meets the but-for test and, if so, what an appropriate level and type of TIF assistance may be based on the information submitted by the applicant. Following thorough evaluation of the project as provided allows the City to be prepared to make an informed “but-for” decision based on the likelihood of the project needing assistance, as well as the appropriate level of assistance. To complete this analysis, we reviewed the applicant’s provided operating proforma and constructed similar ten-year project proformas, showing a result if the project received financial assistance as pay-as-you-go (reimbursement for TIF eligible costs) and showing a result if the project did not receive assistance. Our analysis of the proformas included a review of the development budget, projected operating revenues and expenditures, and the project’s capacity to support annual debt service on outstanding debt. The purpose of evaluating the operating proformas is to understand the potential cash flow performance through initial development of the project and the annual operations of the project over a 10-year period to assist with determining if the project is financially feasible and would need public participation. Measuring project feasibility is typically accomplished by analysing a combination of 1) projected rate of return – both annual and cumulative and 2) estimated debt coverage ratio (DCR). Rate of return analysis illustrates the projected return to the applicant using the available cash flow after payment of operating expenses and debt as a measurement to the initial equity investment. Industry standards for development types indicate the level of investment a developer is willing to make based on projected returns from the project. Should the projected annual and cumulative returns fall below those standards, the project would require reduced level of equity participation and/or increased cash flow. Debt Coverage Ratio (DCR) is a calculation detailing the ratio by which operating income exceeds the debt payments for the project. If the DCR is greater than 1.0 it indicates the project has operating income that is greater than the debt-service payment by some margin; conversely if the DCR is less than 1.0 it indicates the project is incapable of meeting its debt-service payment and would need to seek additional revenue sources in order to pay its debt. Typical lending standards will require a DCR of greater than 1.0 as a measure of cushion in the event actual revenues and expenses are different than projected. We reviewed the financial information as provided by the applicant to assist with making the determination 1) that tax increment assistance is necessary and 2) what is an appropriate level of assistance. We analysed the financial information as provided by the applicant including total development costs as compared to operating income to estimate both the projected rate of return and debt coverage ratios. The level of debt financing the project can obtain and support is based on the net operating income (NOI). The annual lease and other (parking) revenues and operating expenses have been provided by the applicant to project the NOI. Review of the operating proformas based on with assistance as pay-as-you-go and with no assistance provides the range of financial feasibility for this project and what the estimated gap would be without assistance. It is important to note that certain assumptions were made based on the applicant’s provided information and market industry standards for annual lease rates, vacancy rates and annual revenue and operating expense inflators in order to understand the project performance. Adjustments made to those assumptions assist in understanding potential impact on project performance and what a required level of assistance (number of years and total amounts) may be. To understand viability of the project and need for an appropriate level of public assistance, we provided a sensitivity analysis to the proformas with adjustments made to the total project costs (including land acquisition, development and construction management fee and contingency) and corresponding funding sources, as well as projected annual lease rates and operating expenses. As stated earlier within the memo, the property was previously purchased for redevelopment in 2014 by Sun Rae Development, LLC. Sun Rae Development, LLC and Stonewood Development, LLC have entered into a purchase agreement contingent on receipt of 20 years of TIF for an estimated purchase price of $2,000,000. Included with the application for financial assistance is an appraisal for the property supporting an “as is” estimated value of $1,750,000 “reflective of the land value less demolition of the existing building (estimated demolition cost of $189,000). All other financing and operating performance assumptions remaining the same, reducing the total development costs including potential purchase price and other related development costs is expected to positively impact the project