09-29-2020 JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEE PACKET

Home Browse Search

Estimated annual available increment (first year) $346,668 Total gross tax increment $9,013,368 City retainage (10%) $901,342 Net amount available for development (90%) $8,112,026 Estimated Maximum Revenues (15 Years) $4,680,015 Total estimated present value (4%) 15 Years $3,217,736 Developer Pro forma Analysis including But-For Upon approval of a TIF district and project, the City must make several findings, including the “but for” test: that the proposed development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future. The developer has stated that but for the provision of tax increment financing, the project as proposed would not occur. Based on the developer’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 developer. 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 developer’s provided operating proforma and constructed similar ten-year project proformas, showing a result if the developer received the assistance as pay-as-you-go (reimbursement for TIF eligible costs) and showing a result if the developer 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 analyzing 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 developer 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 developer to assist with making the determination 1) that tax increment assistance is necessary and 2) what is an appropriate level of assistance. We analysed both the projected rate of return and debt coverage ratios using the available information. 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 developer 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 developer’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 may be.