Pleasanton Economic Outlook
Download
Report
Transcript Pleasanton Economic Outlook
bae
Financial Strategy
FMFADA Board
November 19, 2009
Today’s Agenda
bae
BAE/RCLCO Analysis
Capital market conditions
Developers in down markets
Current RFI/Q/P solicitation strategy
Master versus multiple developer partners
FMFADA as “master developer”
Recommended revision to developer RFI/Q/P process
BAE and RCLCO Analysis
bae
In the course of performing their respective work,
BAE and RCLCO have independently come to the
same conclusion regarding FMFADA’s master
developer RFI/P/Q strategy
BAE and RCLCO have conferred over the past
several weeks and prepared a joint analysis for
FMFADA
This presentation shares our analysis and
recommendations
Big Picture Economic Conditions
National economy emerging from steep recession
•
•
bae
Unemployment at 26-year high
Blue Chip Economic Indicators - November Forecast for 2010
•
•
•
•
8M jobs lost
Consensus forecast GDP growth @ 2.7%
Growth slower than normal recovery
1.4% disposable personal income growth
2% inflation
Wall Street Journal Survey - November Survey for 2010
•
•
•
•
Average forecast of solid 2.9% GDP growth
Employment growth slow - 600,000 non-farm jobs
Low inflation @1.8%
Shape of recovery:
•
•
•
•
Half of respondents: “U-shaped” -slowness followed by solid growth
31% “V-shaped” -strong rebound
11% “L-shaped” - economy stabilizes at lower level
7% “W-shaped” or “Double-dip” recession
Constraints on Capital Availabiliity
bae
Real estate credit markets have been “frozen” for the past 18
months and despite some recent “thawing” remain extremely
challenging.
The “great de-leveraging” of commercial real estate is expected to
absorb much of real estate capital over the next several years,
constraining capital available for new projects.
$950B+/- commercial real estate debt maturing over next three
years
Developers in Down Market
bae
Lack of capital will constrain developer response to
opportunities at Fort Monroe, particularly for new
development
Developers are reluctant to expend precious equity dollars
for pre-development activities as would be required for
planning new development at Fort Monroe
Soliciting a master developer for the entirety of Fort Monroe
will attract interested parties seeking to “tie-up” the
property and “wait-out” the market
Current RFQ/RFP Strategy
bae
RFP for leasing and property management entity
• Action: Fiscal year 2010 - NO CHANGE
RFQ, RFP, and ENA for Master Developer
• National outreach
• Experience and financial resources key criteria
• Use selection process to get up front concessions
• Action: Fiscal year 2010 - NEED TO REVISE
RFP for marina operator in partnership with U.S. Army
• Action: Fiscal year 2011 - NO CHANGE
Master Developer Pros and Cons
bae
Pros:
•
•
•
•
Single entity handles real estate on behalf of FMFADA
Integrated planning and development
Access to private/public debt and equity markets
“Lean and mean” staffing of FMFADA
Cons:
•
Risky: “All of one’s eggs in one basket”
•
•
•
Rare for one developer to excel in all development types
Financial returns: reduced due to lease “sandwiches” with sub-developer
•
•
Encumbers Fort Monroe if partner’s financial conditions deteriorate
Too many financial pockets to feed
Lack of control: economic and programmatic interests not always aligned
The Multiple Developer Scenario
Pros:
•
•
“Best in class” niche developers selected for discrete projects
Improves financial returns by:
•
•
•
bae
•
•
•
Eliminating master lease
Fee development opportunities
Direct end user leases
Access to private/public debt and equity markets
Deal structure can be customized to fit the opportunity
Greater control by FMFADA to balance economic and programmatic interests
Cons:
•
•
•
Lower degree of integrated planning
Increases staffing requirements for FMFADA
FMFADA assumes master developer role
FMFADA as Master Developer
Under a multiple development partner scenario the FMFADA acts as
master developer providing:
bae
Integrated planning
Overall real estate marketing and branding
Infrastructure financing and construction
Lease negotiation and execution
Project coordinating and monitoring
Lease administration
As a master developer, FMFADA will require a larger staff than
previously planned.
Near Term Development Opportunity
Prepaid Residential Leaseholds
bae
174 historic residences
Good to excellent condition
Have value today that can be leveraged
Low-to-moderate capital investment required
Can be offered on a cluster-by-cluster or neighborhood
basis
Developer can be engaged on “fee” basis
•
Developer invests little of own capital and is compensated by a fee
(percent of project value and performance bonus)
Leaseholds used as collateral to secure financing
Recommendations
bae
Adopt a multiple developer approach
Reduce scope of first RFI/P/Q to Residential Lease
Program
Postpone Industry forum to mid-2010
• Allows participation of new Interim Director of Real Estate
• Permits FMFADA to resolve planning, historic tax credit, and infrastructure
•
issues
Time to formulate Residential Leasehold program details
“Soft” Marketing Campaign
• Identify and brief potential “best in class” developers
• Ensure developer market understands and buys into program
• Line up local lender and real estate community support
• Need to ensure qualified developer response
Background Slides
bae
Residential Leasehold Program
Concept approved by Board:
Offer long-term (50+ year) leases of historic residences with prepayment of rent
Establish endowment/pay for capital costs with proceeds
bae
Issues:
•
•
•
•
Pioneering product in Hampton Roads
Need to develop support infrastructure (e.g, local lenders, brokers, title
companies)
Avoiding fixed rental rates/avoiding “surprises” to leaseholders
Capturing future property appreciation
Examples:
•
•
•
•
Sea Colony, Delaware
Pensacola, Florida
Jekyll Island, Georgia
Palm Desert/Palm Springs, California
•
•
•
•
Hawaii
Santa Inez, California
Universities/Colleges
Land Trusts
Capital Requirements: “Three Buckets”
bae
Reuse and redevelopment of Fort Monroe will
require significant capital at three levels:
Low
Medium
High
Interim Leasing
Residential
Leasehold
New Construction
•Own land and
improvements “free &
clear”
•Minor upgrades
•Little capital at risk
• Exposure to “market”
risk
• Leasing and property
management functions
• Own land and
improvements “free &
clear”
• Moderate unit rehab
• Site & parking
improvements
• 3rd-party capital
required
• Own land only
• New construction of
improvements &
infrastructure
• Highest capital
requirement
• Highest level of risk
• 3rd-party capital
required
This suggests different contractual arrangements
and deal structures with private management and
development entities.