Laserfiche WebLink
Table 3: Projected Tax Increment Revenues <br />Ryan Companies <br />Total Building Square Footage 451,000 <br />Total Estimated Taxable Value $31,570,000 <br />Projected Annual Tax Increment Revenues upon Completion <br />(Full Buildout Year 2) $358,367 <br />Less: City withheld for Admin (5%) $17,918 <br />Projected Annual Net Revenues (95%) Year 2 $340,449 <br />Projected Total Gross Revenues over District Term $3,444,854 <br />Less: City Retainage (5%) $172,240 <br />Projected Total Net Revenues over District Term (95%) $3,272,614 <br />Recommended Developer Assistance $2,900,000 <br />Projected Surplus Increment 372,614 <br />Financial Needs (Pro forma Analysis) including But-For <br />Upon approval of a TIF district and project, the City must make several findings, including the “but for” test: that <br />the proposed redevelopment would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment <br />within the reasonably foreseeable future. The developer has stated that but for the provision of tax increment <br />financing, the project as proposed would not occur. Based on the developer’s stated position relative to the <br />need for tax increment financing assistance, the City could make its “but for” finding and provide tax increment <br />assistance. We recommend, however, that the City review the provided assumptions to consider if the project <br />meets the but-for test and, if so, what an appropriate level and type of TIF assistance may be based on the <br />information submitted by the developer. <br />Following thorough evaluation of the project as provided allows the City to be prepared to make an informed <br />“but-for” decision based on the likelihood of the project needing assistance, as well as the appropriate level of <br />assistance. To complete this analysis, we reviewed the developer’s provided operating proforma and <br />constructed similar ten-year project proformas, showing a result if the project received financial assistance as <br />pay-as-you-go (reimbursement for TIF eligible costs) and showing a result if the project did not receive <br />assistance. Our analysis of the proformas include a review of the development budget, projected operating <br />revenues and expenditures, and the project’s capacity to support annual debt service on outstanding debt. The <br />purpose of evaluating the operating proformas is to understand the potential cash flow performance through <br />initial development of the project and the annual operations of the project over a 10-year period to assist with <br />determining if the project is financially feasible and in need of public participation. <br />Measuring project feasibility is typically accomplished by analyzing a combination of 1) projected rate of return – <br />both annual and cumulative and 2) estimated debt coverage ratio (DCR). Rate of return analysis illustrates the <br />projected return to the investor using the available cash flow after payment of operating expenses and debt as a <br />measurement to the initial equity investment. Industry standards for development types indicate the level of <br />investment a developer is willing to make based on projected returns from the project. Should the projected <br />annual and cumulative returns fall below those standards, the project would require a reduced level of equity <br />participation and/or increased cash flow to be feasible. Debt Coverage Ratio (DCR) is a calculation detailing <br />the ratio by which operating income exceeds the debt payments for the project. If the DCR is greater than 1.0 it <br />indicates the project has operating income that is greater than the debt-service payment by some margin; <br />conversely if the DCR is less than 1.0, it indicates the project is incapable of meeting its debt-service payment <br />and would need to seek additional revenue sources in order to pay its debt. Typical lending standards will <br />require a DCR of greater than 1.0 as a measure of cushion in the event actual revenues and expenses are <br />different than projected. <br />Review of the operating proformas based on with assistance as pay-as-you-go and with no assistance provides <br />the range of financial feasibility for this project and what the estimated gap would be without assistance. It is <br />important to note that certain assumptions were made based on the developer’s provided information and <br />market industry standards to understand the project performance. Adjustments made to those assumptions