HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 CON HA Community Housing Works and Mercy Housing - Kimball Morgan Towers - Exclusive Negotiating AgreementEXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT
(Morgan and Kimball Tower)
This Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("Agreement") is dated as of the 6th day of December, 2017
("Agreement Date"), by and between the Community Development Commission -Housing
Authority of the City of National City ("CDC -HA") and Community HousingWorks, a California
nonprofit public benefit corporation, and Mercy Housing California, a California nonprofit public
benefit corporation (collectively, the "Developer").
RECITALS
A. The CDC -HA owns the Kimball and Morgan Towers, which are generally located
at 1317 D Avenue and 1415 D Avenue in the City of National City, County of San Diego,
California ("Property").
B. The Developer desires to recapitalize the Property and rehabilitate the
improvements thereon generally as set forth in that certain Request for Qualifications ("RFQ")
issued by the CDC -HA dated March 24, 2016, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Community HousingWorks and Mercy Housing California responded jointly to the RFQ and the
entities are jointly referred to as Developer throughout this Agreement.
C. The CDC -HA and Developer desire to negotiate any and all agreements reasonably
necessary for the CDC -HA to ground lease the Property and transfer title to the improvements
thereon to the Developer to the Developer and for the Developer to recapitalize and rehabilitate
the Property as generally set forth in the RFQ ("Project"). The Property is currently being used as
affordable housing for senior citizens, and this Agreement and the Project do not contemplate
changing the use of the Property.
D. The Developer responded to the Request for Proposals issued on June 30, 2017 by
the CDC -HA to evaluate financial proposals. The CDC -HA selected the Developer on December
5, 2017 for the Project and provided the Executive Director the authority to enter into this
Agreement.
D. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a period during which Developer shall
have the right to exclusively negotiate with the CDC -HA the terms of the ground lease of the
Property, the transfer title to the improvements thereon to the Developer and the implementation
of the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, Developer and the CDC -HA, hereby agree as follows:
1. Negotiating Period. The CDC -HA agrees to exclusively negotiate with Developer and
Developer agrees to exclusively negotiate with the CDC -HA regarding the terms of any and all
agreements reasonably necessary respect to the Project for a one (1) year period beginning on the
Agreement Date ("Negotiating Period"). The CDC -HA and Developer shall negotiate diligently
and in good faith to carry out the obligations of this Agreement during the Negotiating Period.
The obligation to negotiate in good faith requires the respective parties to communicate with each
1
other with respect to those issues for which agreement has not been reached, and such
communication to follow reasonable negotiation procedures, including meetings, telephone
conversations, and correspondence.
2. Site Control. The Property is currently owned by the CDC -HA.
3. Costs and Expenses. Each party shall be responsible for its own costs and expenses in
connection with any activities and negotiations undertaken in connection with the performance of
its obligations under this Agreement.
4. Activities During Negotiating Period.
(a) Due Diligence. During the Negotiating Period, the CDC -HA shall provide the
Developer and its contractors, consultants and employees with access to the Property as set forth
in Section 9, below. CDC -HA will deliver to the Developer copies of: (i) all prior assessments in
its possession or control related to the Property, including but not limited to Phase I and II
Environmental, geotechnical, as -built building plans, specialized physical system inspections and
assessments including roof, mechanical equipment, vertical transportation, building envelope and
structural systems, survey including ALTA survey, if any; (ii) all HUD contracts and inspection
reports, rent rolls, and financial statements for the Property in its possession or control, if any. In
addition, CDC -HA will provide Developer feasibility for potential legal parcel modification.
(b) Conceptual Proposal. Developer agrees that not later than One Hundred Eighty
(180) days following the Agreement Date, Developer shall submit to the CDC -HA for review, a
proposal for development of the Property and the Project, with supporting documents. In addition,
Developer will provide the CDC -HA with the following documents, reports and information prior
to the expiration of this Agreement:
(1) The potential unit mix by number of bedrooms (if the Developer proposes
a change from the existing unit mix), proposed income targeting, proposed rehabilitation
work with preliminary cost estimates, and site amenities, with a schedule for
implementation.
(2) A proposed schedule for rehabilitation of the Property/development of the
Project.
(3) A financial pro forma which contains: (i) a projected development budget
for the Project, (ii) a projected sources and uses analysis, (iii) a 15-year cash flow analysis,
(iv) a proposed rent schedule and utility allowance schedule, (v) a projected operating
budget for the Project, (vi) a phasing plan if applicable for development of the Project as
two separate projects; and (vii) a proposal for long term contracts with U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development and /or CDC -HA for project based housing vouchers.
(4) Preliminary evidence of conventional construction and permanent financing
options.
2
(5) The name and qualifications of the architect which Developer proposes to
use, if any. The CDC -HA will approve or disapprove the proposed architect in its sole and
absolute discretion.
(6) The name and qualifications of the management agent that Developer
proposes to use. The CDC -HA will approve or disapprove the proposed management agent
in its sole and absolute discretion.
(c) Negotiation and Approval of Agreements. If both the CDC -HA and Developer are
satisfied with the proposed Project following submission of the documents in Subsection 4(b), the
CDC -HA and Developer shall seek in good faith to negotiate and draft any and all mutually
acceptable agreements reasonably necessary for the Project and for the Developer to demonstrate
site control of the Project required by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and
California Debt Limit Allocation Committee and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. However, by entering into this Agreement, the Parties are not contractually bound
to enter into any further agreements.
5. Termination/Expiration of Agreement. Except as provided in Section 10, below, or if this
Agreement is extended by written consent of the Executive Director the CDC -HA and Developer,
if at the end of the Negotiating Period, the CDC -HA and Developer have not agreed upon mutually
acceptable agreements reasonably necessary for the development of the Project, then this
Agreement shall terminate.
6. Cooperation. The CDC -HA agrees to cooperate with Developer in supplying proposed
lenders or investors with appropriate information, if available and not otherwise privileged, to
facilitate the Developer's financing for the Project. The CDC -HA shall also cooperate with
Developer's professional consultants and associates in providing them with any information and
assistance reasonably within the capacity of the CDC -HA to provide in connection with the
proposed Project.
7. Nondiscrimination. Developer shall not discriminate against nor segregate, any person, or
group or persons on account of sex, race, color, marital status, religion, creed, national origin or
ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Project,
nor shall Developer establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or
segregation in the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants,
sublessees or vendees of the Project.
8. Environmental Requirements. Certain state and local environmental requirements
(including, but without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public
Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) may be applicable to the proposed Project. Pursuant to
such requirements, certain environmental documents may be required to be prepared and certified
for the proposed Project.
9. Inspection of the Property. Developer and its agents, representatives, consultants and
contractors may enter upon the Property, upon not less than forty-eight (48) hours advance notice
to the CDC -HA, solely for the purpose of conducting visual, non-invasive inspections of the
3
Property as further described in Section 4. If the Developer desires to do any invasive testing at
the Property, the Developer may do so only after obtaining the CDC -HA' s prior written consent
to the same, which consent may be withheld or granted on conditions in the CDC-HA's sole and
absolute discretion. The Developer shall provide the CDC -HA with a complete set of plans,
drawings and specifications ("Invasive Testing Plans") that define to the sole satisfaction of the
CDC -HA the invasive testing to be performed on the Property and the names of all environmental
and other consultants, contractors and subcontractors who will be performing such invasive testing
(collectively "Developer's Consultants"). The Developer shall deliver the names of the
Developer's Consultants and the Invasive Testing Plans to the CDC -HA concurrently with its
request to the CDC -HA that the Developer desires to perform invasive testing. The Developer
shall promptly restore the Property to the condition the Property was in immediately prior to any
such tests, at the Developer's sole cost and expense. The Developer's Consultants, the Developer
and each of their agents, representatives, consultants and contractors entering the Property shall
maintain commercial general liability insurance covering such entry, in the amounts of Two
Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) combined single limit for each occurrence or Four Million Dollars
($4,000,000.00) general aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage
including contractual liability. Prior to entering upon the Property, the Developer and any of its
agents, representatives, consultants and contractors entering upon the Property shall provide,
additional insured endorsements naming the CDC -HA and the City of National City as additional
insureds. The Developer shall indemnify and defend the CDC -HA, the City of National City and
their agents and employees and the Property from and against, and shall hold the CDC -HA, the
City of National City and their agents and employees and the Property harmless from, any actions,
losses, costs, damages, claims and/or liabilities, including but not limited to, mechanics' and
materialmen's liens and attorney fees, proximately caused by the actions of Developer and/or its
agents, representatives, consultants and contractors upon the Property. The Developer shall repair
any damage caused to the Property by the Developer or its agents, representatives, consultants and
contractors. The Developer shall not permit any mechanic's, materialman's, contractor's,
subcontractor's or other lien arising from any work done by the Developer or its agents,
representatives, consultants and contractors pursuant to this Agreement to stand against the
Property. If any such lien shall be filed against the Property, the Developer shall cause the same
to be discharged or bonded within ten (10) days after actual notice of such filing, by payment,
deposit, bond or otherwise. The Developer's obligations under this Section 9 shall survive the
termination or expiration of this Agreement.
10. Developer.
(a) Developer Experience. As a condition precedent to the CDC-HA's execution of
this Agreement, Developer submitted to the CDC -HA a detailed response to the RFQ regarding
development experience of the Developer and its principals, associates, employees, partners and
joint ventures.
(b) Offices of Developer. The principal offices of the Developer are located at:
2815 Camino del Rio South, Suite 350
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone (619) 282-6647
4
The Project Manager for the Developer will be Mary Jane Jagodzinski
11. Address for Notices. Any notices pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent to the following
addresses:
To CDC -HA:
Copy to:
To Developer:
Community Development Commission -
Housing Authority of the City of National City
1243 National City Blvd.
National City, California 91950
Attn: Executive Director
Christensen & Spath LLP
550 West C Street, Suite 1660
San Diego, CA 92101
Attn: Walter F. Spath, Esq.
Community HousingWorks
2815 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 350
San Diego, CA 92108
Attn: Susan M. Reynolds, CEO
Mercy Housing California
1500 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, California 90015
Attn: Ed Holder
12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of
the parties, integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and
supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the parties or their predecessors in
interest with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof.
13. Amendment of Agreement. No modification, rescission, waiver, release or amendment of
any provision of this Agreement shall be made except by a written agreement executed by the
CDC -HA and Developer.
14. Future Agreements to Supersede this Agreement. This Agreement will be superseded, if
and when the Developer and CDC -HA approve and execute all mutually acceptable agreements
reasonably necessary for the development of the Project.
15. Assignment Prohibited. In no event shall Developer assign or transfer any portion of
Developer's rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior express written consent
of the CDC -HA, which consent may be withheld in the CDC-HA's sole and absolute discretion.
16. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of every portion of this Agreement in which time
is a material part.
5
17. Signature Authority. All individuals signing this Agreement for a party which is a
corporation, limited liability company, partnership or other legal entity, or signing under a power
of attorney, or as a trustee, guardian, conservator, or in any other legal capacity, covenant to the
CDC -HA that they have the necessary capacity and authority to act for, sign and bind the respective
entity or principal on whose behalf they are signing.
18. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and
year first above written.
CDC -HA:
Community Development Commission -Housing Authority of the City of National City
Leslie Deese, Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
[SIGNATURES CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
6
DEVELOPER:
CommunJousingWorks, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation
nne B.`WiYson, Senior Vice
Mercy Housing California, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation
By:
Ed Holder, Regional Vice President
DEVELOPER:
Community HousingWorks, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation
By:
Anne B. Wilson, Senior Vice President
Mercy Housing California, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation
By:
Ed Holder, Regional Vice President
EXHIBIT A
Request for Qualifications issued by the CDC -HA dated March 24, 2016
8
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ)
Morgan and Kimball Towers
Rehabilitation and Recapitalization
1415 & 1317 D Avenue
National City, California
''''''''''''' 0110 III
March 24, 2016
RFQ Deadline:
Thursday, May 12, 2016, 2:00 p.m. PST
Community Development Commission -
Housing Authority of the City of National City
140 E. 12th St., Suite B
National City, CA 91950
Exhibit "A" of ENA
RFQ AT A GLANCE
ISSUE DATE: March 24, 2016
PROJECT TITLE:
DESCRIPTION OF
PROJECT
DEPARTMENT
REQUESTING
SUBMITTAL
DEADLINE
DELIVER SUBMITTAL
TO
PRIMARY CONTACT
Morgan and Kimball Towers Rehabilitation and
Recapitalization Project
The Community Development Commission -
Housing Authority of the City of National City (CDC -
HA) intends to rehabilitate and recapitalize the
existing Kimball and Morgan Towers. Kimball and
Morgan Towers (Towers) are located in National
City at 1317 D Avenue and 1415 D Avenue,
respectively. They are owned by the CDC -HA and
help serve National City's affordable senior housing
needs. The CDC -HA is seeking qualifications from
experienced non-profit or for profit developers to
enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement to
complete due diligence and design and is expected
to lead to a Disposition and Development
Agreement to rehabilitate and recapitalize existing
structures.
Housing, Grants, and Asset Management
Three (3) original copies of submittal due 2:00 p.m.
Thursday, May 12, 2016 in hard copy
(no facsimile or e-mailed submittals)
City of National City
Office of the City Clerk
1243 National City Blvd
National City, CA 91950
Carlos Aguirre
Community Development Manager
City of National City
140 E. 12th St., Suite B
National City, CA 91950
Direct Line: (619) 336-4391
Fax: (619) 336-4292
caguirre@nationalcityca.gov
Exhibit "A" of ENA
BACKGROUND
The General Plan's Housing Element: National City's Housing Element
(a required section in the General Plan) lays out an objective of continuing
to provide housing opportunities and development of programs to improve
the existing housing stock. The rehabilitation and recapitalization of
Kimball and Morgan Towers ("Towers") is in line with each of these
objectives.
Community Need and Relevance to General Plan: The existing
structures are dated and are in need of rehabilitation (Kimball built in 1986
and Morgan in 1978). Additionally, the availability of senior housing in
National City is far below demand. The Towers have a 1.5 to 3 year
waiting period and other affordable senior housing facilities within the city
are experiencing comparable waiting periods. These trends will be
amplified in the coming years as the baby boom generation continues to
move into senior status (62+) and by the fact that people are living longer.
To meet future community needs, the CDC -HA must transform the
Property into a financial sustainable real estate asset; preserve
affordability; improve resident experience; and insure the City's housing
infrastructure by restructuring current debt to leverage additional private
and public funding sources
The Project Site: The Towers are located in central National City, within
the Kimball Community. It is across the street from Kimball Park, and
near Wal-Mart and other commercial businesses, the Boys and Girls Club,
a Fire Station, a health center, and civic facilities.
The project site (Attachment 1) is approximately 5.37 acres located on D
Avenue between Kimball Way and 15th Street (APN: 561-410-05-00; 561-
410-04-00) in National City. The site is in an RM3 zoned area. It is a
residential multifamily zone specifically designated for senior citizen
housing and allows higher density development than the standard
residential multifamily units (22.9 units/acre). The CDC -HA may elect to
segregate a portion of the subject parcels for the future development of
housing.
Currently, the site is comprised of two 9-story senior housing complexes
(Kimball and Morgan Towers) and Nutrition Center. There are a total of
303 units between the 2 towers: 152 units at Kimball Tower (150 currently
unrestricted units rented to households at or below 50(Yo AMI, and 2 units
for property management staff), and another 151 at Morgan Tower
(approximately 148 project -based units funded directly by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2 unrestricted
Exhibit "A" of ENA
units rented to households at or below 50% AMI, and 1 unit for the
assistant manager).
Purpose: The purpose of the Project is to renovate the buildings and
common area of the property. The renovation will result in updated
housing units and building systems, energy efficiency and technology
improvements, improved resident services, and other interior and exterior
improvements. The CDC -HA desires to retain ownership of the land and
negotiate a Tong -term ground lease. It is recommended that the selected
developer purchase and operate the existing senior housing units and
other improvements from the CDC -HA and provide a Tong -term financial
package to recapitalize the improvements to finance the rehabilitation,
preserve current levels of affordability at or below 50% of Area Median
Income and repay any financial assistance provided by the CDC -HA.
Project Objectives: The CDC -HA will take into strong consideration the
applicant's ability to leverage outside resources to enhance the affordable
housing project targeted for seniors. Submittals should prominently
highlight the development teams past experience in seeking and being
awarded grants and financing for similar projects. The project proposed
shall (at a minimum) meet the following objectives:
1. Extend affordability covenants as feasible and the useful life of the
improvement for at least 20 years without compromising affordability using
any available financial resources.
2. Consider a financial structure that will maintain CDC -Housing
Authority's ownership of the parcels through a long-term ground lease.
3. Assure full property renovation and rehabilitation including energy
efficiency improvements, technology upgrades, upgraded building
systems, and property/residential unit improvements.
4. Provide a method to relieve the City of National City's general fund
subsidy to the George Waters Nutrition Center (Nutrition Center).
5. Allow the Nutrition Center to be managed and operated by the City of
National City in the proposed financial model.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Development Team
a. Design Team: Identify the Developer, Design Team and sub -
consultants who will be responsible for implementing the proposed
Exhibit "A" of ENA
project (name of individuals in charge, firm addresses, telephone
numbers, website and e-mail addresses);
h. Experience: Schedule of relevant projects completed by the developer
and design team, including photographs, type of project, project
address, unit count by type and size of unit, completed value, lenders
involved (with contact references) and construction/completion dates.
Experience with projects in an urbanized redevelopment area should
be identified;
c. Financial Partners: Identify all proposed financial partners for the
project including banks, equity partners etc (name of firm and
individuals in charge, addresses, telephone numbers, website and e-
mail addresses);
d. References: Each team member must include three professional
references (lenders, investors, major accounts, etc.) with full names,
relationship to team member, address and contact information.
Grant Funding Experience
Identify and provide examples of past successful experience applying for
and winning grant funding for similar projects in California.
RFQ Developer Statement of Qualifications Worksheet:
Please complete and provide the Developer Statement of Qualifications
Worksheet attached to this RFQ (Attachment 2).
Disclosure of relevant lawsuits:
Identify any and all lawsuits involving any or all of the proposed team
members related to similar projects within the past three years including
any lawsuits between team members and municipalities or redevelopment
agencies.
SELECTION PROCESS AND RFQ SCHEDULE
This Request for Qualifications solicits responses for professional
affordable housing development teams. As such, the selection of the
preferred developer will not be based on the lowest bid and will, instead,
consider all relevant and material factors. A Selection Committee will
review and score (See Attachment 3 for Scoring Criteria) each proposal
individually and will then meet as a group to discuss each proposal in an
effort to select those firms and/or project teams who will be invited to an
interview before the group. Notification of the invitation to interview will be
Exhibit "A" of ENA
by telephone at least two weeks prior to the interview date. It is anticipated
that interviews, if necessary, will be held from June 13-16, 2016. The
CDC -HA will then attempt to enter into an Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement ("ENA") with the selected respondent to the RFQ. If an
agreement cannot be reached, the City will approach and negotiate with
the second highest ranked development team.
Issue date:
Qualifications due:
Interviews, if necessary:
Development Team selected:
March 24, 2016
May 12, 2016, 2:00 p.m.
June 13-16, 2016*
June 29, 2016
*This schedule may be amended, except for the Qualification due date, at
the sole discretion of the CDC -HA.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Issuance of this RFQ does not commit CDC -HA to award an Exclusive
Negotiation Agreement and/or any other contractual obligation, to pay any costs
incurred in the preparation of a response to this request, or to procure a contract
for services. All respondents should note that the execution of any agreement or
contract pursuant to this RFQ is dependent upon the approval of the Board of
Commissioners of the CDC -HA. The CDC -HA retains the right to reject any and
all submittals.
The Community Development Commission -Housing Authority Rights
Regarding this Invitation
The CDC -HA each reserves the right to reject all submittals for any reason
without indicating reasons for said rejection. The CDC -HA does not accept any
financial responsibility for any costs incurred by respondent. Issuance of this
Request for Qualifications does not commit the CDC -HA to award a contract, to
pay any costs incurred in the preparation of a response to this request, or to
procure a contract for services.
The CDC -HA reserves the right to waive any irregularities or informalities in the
proposal or proposal process. The CDC -HA retains the right to reject all
submittals. Selection is also dependent upon the negotiation of a mutually
acceptable contract with the successful respondent(s).
The CDC -HA reserves the right to cancel, for any or no reason, in part or in its
entirety, this RFQ, including but not limited to: selection schedule, submittal date,
and submittal requirements.
Exhibit "A" of ENA
Acknowledgement of Amendments
Each firm receiving a copy of this shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment
to this Request for Qualifications by signing and returning the amendment with
the completed proposal. The acknowledgment must be received by the CDC -HA
at the time and place specified for receipt of proposals.
Additional Information
Questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted in writing to:
Community Development Commission -Housing Authority
Attn: Carlos Aguirre, Community Development Manager
140 E. 12th St., Suite B
National City, CA 91950
Or e-mail: caguirre@nationalcityca.gov
Respondents/firms are cautioned that any oral statements made that materially
change any portion of this RFQ are not valid unless subsequently ratified by a
formal written amendment to this RFQ. No technical questions that may
materially change any portion of this RFQ will be accepted during the seven
calendar days prior to the time and date set for receipt of proposals.
Nonconforming Terms and Conditions.
Any proposal that includes terms and conditions that do not conform to the terms
and conditions of this RFP is subject to rejection as non -responsive. The
Community Development Commission -Housing Authority reserves the right to
permit the respondent to withdraw non -conforming terms and conditions from its
proposal prior to action by the Community Development Commission -Housing
Authority to award a contract.
Late Submissions.
Any proposal received after the date and time specified for receipt shall not be
accepted or considered.
Right to Cancel
The CDC -HA each reserve the right to withdraw or cancel, for any or no reason,
at any time, in part or in its entirety, this RFP, including but not limited to:
selection schedule, submittal date, and submittal requirements.
Exhibit "A" of ENA
Variations in Scope of Work
The CDC -HA may materially change the scope of services by way of written
amendment to this RFQ. Such changes may include additions, deletions, or
other revisions within the general scope of RFQ requirements. The CDC -HA
may waive the written requirement for a variation in the scope of services if, in
the opinion of the CDC -HA, such variation does not materially change the item or
its performance within parameters acceptable to the CDC -HA.
Applicable Laws
The contracts awarded shall be governed in all respect by the laws of the State
of California, and any litigation related to the contract or this RFQ shall be
brought in the State of California, with a venue of the San Diego Superior Courts.
The firm(s) awarded the contracts shall comply with all applicable Federal, State,
and local laws and regulations.
Public Information
All documents received by the CDC -HA are considered public records and will be
made available after the RFQ selection for public inspection and copying upon
request.
Independent Contractor Status
The respondent agrees, if selected, that he or she shall perform the services as
independent contractor(s) and not employee(s) of the Community Development
Commission -Housing Authority. The CDC -HA shall not be considered the
employer of respondent. The respondent understands, if selected, the
respondent shall have the sole responsibility for deciding the manner and means
of providing the services, except as outlined in any final agreement and its
attachments or exhibits.
Indemnification
The respondent agrees, if selected, to indemnify and hold harmless the City of
National City and the CDC -HA and all their respective officers and employees
from any and all liability, claims, costs, including reasonable attorney's fees,
demands, damages, expenses, and causes of action as outlined in the contract.
Examination of Solicitation
The respondent understands that the information provided herein is intended
solely to assist the respondent in submittal preparation. To the best of the CDC-
HA's knowledge, the information provided is accurate. However, the CDC -HA
does not warrant such accuracy, and any errors or omissions subsequently
Exhibit "A" of ENA
determined will not be construed as a basis for invalidating this solicitation.
Further, by submitting a response to this solicitation, the respondent represents
that he or she has thoroughly examined and become familiar with work required
in the solicitation and is capable of performing quality work and to achieve the
objectives of the CDC -HA.
INSURANCE
All required insurance (Attachment 2) shall be submitted within fifteen (15) days
of notice of selection and prior to the commencement of any work. Failure to
provide the insurance certificates within this time frame shall be cause for the
proposal to be rejected as non -responsive. The entity/organization selected shall
maintain insurance in full force and effect during the entire period of performance
under the contract(s). Failure to do so shall be cause for termination of the
contract(s).
All policies must have a thirty (30) day non -cancellation clause giving the
Community Development Commission -Housing Authority thirty (30) days prior
written notice in the event a policy is cancelled.
At the end of each contract year, the CDC -HA reserves the right to review
insurance requirements and to require more or less coverage depending on the
assessment of risk, the entity/organization's past experience, and the availability
and affordability of increased liability insurance coverage.
BUSINESS LICENSE
The Developer selected to perform the work described in this RFQ as well as all
team members, sub -consultants and service providers will be required to obtain a
National City Business License. Business Licenses can be obtained at the City of
National Finance Department.
Exhibit "A" of ENA
SUBMITTAL DUE DATE
Three (3) original copies of the submittal must be delivered to City Clerk's office
no later than 2:00 p.m. on May 12, 2016.
Submittals received by FAX or e-mail will be deemed not received. Incomplete
submittals, incorrect or false information, or late submittals are cause for
immediate disqualification.
CONTACT PERSONS
Carlos Aguirre
Community Development Manager
City of National City
1243 National City Blvd
National City, CA 91950
619/336-4391
caquirre@nationalcityca.gov
Alfredo Ybarra
Director
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950-4301
619/336-4279
alfredoy(a�nationalcityca.gov
Attachments posted with this RFQ
1. Site Parcel Map
2. Developer Qualifications Worksheet
3. Selection Criteria and Scoring
4. Insurance Requirements
Exhibit "A" of ENA
b'N3 40 V, 3!Q!gx3
agRa
RES FOR FUT ST
•� NOT A BLDG SITE
COMM. PARK VILLAGE
DOC79-461740
(SEE SHT 2)
v
0.1
•se4rr4..s ALLEY r r
•w.7
4:1;hK KIM ALL WILLOWS co x
2 - DOC 7,� - 5IS37 N
z EE Siff. el ` 2 72 yr,
MOa
r+irw F'
1.
oc&
1-
1--
N
lq
/4000
6
1.73AC
. _�—r « �.� ■It ARn 0lidifl ,'A•., `- .r : CStz,Nr" n�fpn••�.f . •�.
.030
rla4 t.
,7• -roa d rri Nvu
ST.
-
f10
-sL.
dur
L-412
—T
IZ
-
13
- Tz,I.
la
IZo
1 1918117
Ifi 15
14 13
} 4,I
I
12 . �I
I14
11$
I
I
1
I
0(1)
it) I01
k112
3 4
516
718
91 I
a7--
II_
L—_cysts__,
AU
M1105
216AC
ds1 4
AVE
M AVE
3T
60
1—
ce
a2
2
t—
Le' 1,0,5.Ot
MAP 9199 — PARK VILLAGE (CONDM)
MAP 9042—K1MBALL WILLOWS
MAP 8807--CENTER CITY PROJECT
MAP II05—LOZIERS SUB
ROS 10144
560-41
SHTIOF2 .�
l e
CHA Q S
BLKOLD
NSWY
CUT
I- 9 .?
29e
;s
l0.,za
77 a/sz
10
t Acre,
z
.7
21
70 229
4/0
/
�`e�.
79
410
1
22
E0 55
410
21
Cow"
497
22
wen!,
A) 545
¢/D
s
.1t,'
0 Id
*tor
iwit
ow
5.l ,
•1 1H3VssV atf
RFQ Attach. No. 2
DEVELOPER STATEMENT
OF
QUALIFICATIONS/
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Exhibit "A" of ENA
RFQ Attach. No. 2
DEVELOPER STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
& FINANCIAL SUMMARY
I. DEVELOPER INFORMATION
Name:
Address:
Telephone/Fax:
Contact Name:
Is the Developer a subsidiary of/or affiliated with, any other Corporation(s), Joint Venture(s) or
Firm(s)? ❑ No ❑ Yes
If yes, list each such Corporation, Joint Venture, or Firm by name & address, specify its
relationship to the Developer, the % of interest of the partners & identify the Officers & Directors
or trustees common to the Developer & such other Corporation or Firm:
Name of Corporation/Joint Venture/Firm:
Address:
Relationship to Developer:
Officers/Di rectors/Trustees:
%of Interest of the partners:
Individual(s) authorized to negotiate, on behalf of the development entity/team & responsible
for project execution:
Name(s):
Position:
Telephone/Fax:
Email:
Developer Statement of Qualifications/Financial Summary
2 of 6
Exhibit "A" of ENA
RFQ Attach. No. 2
II. FINANCIAL CAPACITY
A. Sources & amount of cash available to Developer to meet equity requirements of
the proposed undertaking in Bank(s):
1) Bank Name:
Address:
Amount: $:
2) Bank Name:
Address:
Amount: $:
B. By loans from affiliated or associated corporations or firms:
Name:
Address:
Source:
Amount: $:
C. The Following are Three Bank References:
1) Bank Name:
Address:
Contact Person:
Telephone:
2) Bank Name:
Address:
Contact Person:
Telephone:
3) Bank Name:
Address:
Contact Person:
Telephone:
Developer Statement of Qualifications/Financial Summary
3 of 6
Exhibit "A" of ENA
RFQ Attach. No. 2
D. The Following are Three Bank References:
1) Company:
Address:
Relationship:
Contact Person:
Telephone:
2) Company:
Address:
Relationship:
Contact Person:
Telephone:
3) Company:
Address:
Relationship:
Contact Person:
Telephone:
Developer Statement of Qualifications/Financial Summary
4 of 6
Exhibit "A" of ENA
RFQ Attach No. 2
E. Has the Developer or (if any) the parent corporation or any subsidiary or affiliated
corporation of the developers officers or principal members, shareholders or
investors been adjudged bankrupt, either voluntary or involuntary, within the past
ten years? ❑ No ❑ Yes
If yes, please provide the following information:
Date:
Location:
Bankruptcy was filed under the following name (s):
F. Has the Developer or (if any) the parent corporation or any subsidiary or affiliated
corporation of the Developer's officers or principal members, shareholders or
investors been involved in litigation relating to a development project either voluntary
or involuntary, within the past three years? ❑ No ❑ Yes
If yes, please provide the following information:
Date:
Place:
General Description:
Current Status:
G. Total amount of development work completed by developer during the last three
years:
H. Projects currently in planning or development by the Developer or Principals of the
development entity:
I. Does any member of the Developers' Corporation/Partnership have any known
relationship in connection with purchasing & implementing the Project with any
member of the governing body of the Agency to which the accompanying proposal
is being made, or to any officer or employee of the local public agency who exercises
any functions or responsibilities in connection with the carrying out of the Project
under which the local public agency covered by the Developers proposal is being
made available? ❑ No ❑ Yes
If yes, explain:
J. Statements & other evidence of the Developers Qualifications & Financial
Responsibility are attached thereto & hereby made a part hereof as follows:
Developer Statement of Qualifications/Financial Summary
5 of 6
Exhibit "A" of ENA
RFQ Attach No. 2
CERTIFICATION
I/We certify that this Developer Statement of
Qualifications and Financial Responsibility & the attached evidence of the Developers
qualifications and financial responsibility are true and correct to the best of my/our
knowledge and belief, and that the information contained in this statement is considered
public record and will be made available for public inspection and copying upon request.
Availability of these public records begins when the Developer selection process
includes public meetings.
Name Name
Title Title
Signature Signature
Date Date
Street Address Street Address
City, State, Zip City, State, Zip
If the Developer is a Corporation, this statement should be signed by the President & Secretary
of the Corporation; if an individual or proprietorship, by such individual; if a partnership, by one
of the general partners; if an entity not having a President & Secretary, by one of its Chief
Officers having knowledge of the financial status & qualifications of the Developer.
Developer Statement of Qualifications/Financial Summary
6 of 6
Exhibit "A" of ENA
Attach. 3 of RFQ
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS - MORGAN TOWER REHABILITATION AND RECAPITALIZATION
Date Evaluator:
Criteria In RF
Team being evaluated
Staff Detailed descriotons
Circle One (0= Lowest, 10=
Highest
Max
Wt Score Score
1
Experience and Oualifications
Schedule of relevant projects
completed by the developer and
design team, including photographs,
type of project, project address, unit
count by type and size of unit,
completed value, lenders involved
(with contact references) and
construction/completion dates.
Experience with projects in an
urbanized redevelopment area
should be identified;
Experience in development,
finance and property
management of rental housing,
incluidng public, assisted, tax
credit, market & mixed
income. Experience with
development in local area.
Experience with community -
based development, including
collaboration with community
organizations. Evidence of
quality performance on -time
and on -budget. Staff Notes: 1)
HUD Experience should be
required 2) Experience with
public /private partnerships. 3)
Senior housing development
experience
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2.5
25
2
Leveraging
Of special relevance to this RFQ is
the City Council's desire to leverage
outside resources to expand and
enhance an affordable housing
project targeted for seniors.
Submittals should prominently
review the development team's past
experience in seeking and being
awarded grants related to similar
projects.
Approach to structuring the
Public/Priate Finance Plan
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2
20
3
Financial Canacity
Identify all proposed financial
partners for the project including
banks, equity partners etc (name of
firm and individuals in charge,
addresses, telephone numbers,
website and e-mail addresses)
Overall financial strength and
credit of developer.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2
20
4
Operating Experience
Identify experience operating similar
types of housing developments.
Experience with the
operational requirements of
developments similar in size
and target population.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2
20
5
Resident Services and Involvement;
Identify and provide examples of
services provided to residents on
housing they may have already
developed.
Description of resident services
provided by managing partner
that best fit the needs of the
target population.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.5
15
100
Exhibit "A" of ENA
RFQ Attachment No. 4
--r CALIFORNIA
NATIONAL CITY
INCORPOBATV,
City of National City
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Please forward to your Insurance Agent immediately
PRIOR to performing services for the City of National City, the City must have current
Certificates of Insurance on file for all companies, contractors, and consultants.
Required Insurance Certificates per Sections 16 and 17 of the City's Agreement:
Professional Liability Insurance (errors and omissions) with minimum limits of $1M per
occurrence (if applicable)
Commercial General Liability coverage with limits of at least $2M per occurrence/$4M
aggregate.
• Must include separate endorsement adding as additional insureds: "The City of National City,
its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees". The actual endorsements or policy
language regarding automatic additional insureds must be provided.
• General aggregate limits must apply solely to this "project" or "location".
b Commercial Auto Liability coverage with limits of at least $1 M, Combined Single Limit
• Must include "any" auto.
• Must include separate endorsement adding as additional insureds: "The City of National City,
its elected officials, officers, agents and employees". The actual endorsements or policy
language regarding automatic additional insureds must be provided.
Workers' Compensation coverage to meet CA statutory limits, plus employers'
liability coverage of $1 M per accident
• Workers' Compensation Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City is required.
• If there are no employees subject to Workers Compensation law, submit a signed Declaration
(provided on next page).
Deductibles or SIRs (Self -Insured Retention) in excess of $10,000 must be disclosed.
CERTIFICATE HOLDER: City of National City, 1243 National City Boulevard, National City,
CA 91950-4301.
Insurance Document Submittal:
Email insurance certificates to your City contact person and Elena Amaya in the City's Risk
Department (eamaya(a nationalcityca.gov) (Phone: (619) 336-4370).
Mail the certificates and endorsements to:
City of National City
c/o Risk Manager
1243 National City Blvd
National City, CA 91950-4301
Questions: Curtis Stephen, Risk Manager: (619) 336-4220
Elena Amaya, Office Assistant: (619) 336-4232
Exhibit "A" of ENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2017 — 60
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION -HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS FROM THE ANALYSIS COMPLETED BY
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC., OF FOUR FINANCIAL PROPOSALS
SUBMITTED THROUGH A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PROCESS;
SELECTING THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM COMPRISED OF COMMUNITY
HOUSINGWORKS, INC., A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT
CORPORATION, AND MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA, INC., A CALIFORNIA
NON-PROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, FOR THE RECAPITALIZATION
AND REHABILITATION OF KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS LOCATED
AT 1317 AND 1415 "D" AVENUE IN NATIONAL CITY; AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING
AGREEMENT IN ORDER TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS
WITH THE SELECTED DEVELOPER
WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission -Housing Authority of the
City of National City ("CDC -HA") owns the Kimball and Morgan Towers, which are generally
located at 1317 "D" Avenue and 1415 "D" Avenue, National City (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, Community HousingWorks and Mercy Housing California (jointly
referred to as "Developer") responded jointly to the Request for Qualifications ("RFQ") issued by
the CDC -HA dated March 24, 2016 and to the Request for Proposals ("RFP") issued by the
CDC -HA dated June 30, 2017, and desires to recapitalize the Property and rehabilitate the
improvements thereon generally as set forth in the RFQ; and
WHEREAS, the Selection Committee established and approved by the CDC -HA
as part of the Request for Qualifications process reviewed all of the complete RFQ responses,
heard presentations, and conducted interviews from each development team; considered
experience and qualifications, leveraging of non -CDC -HA resources, financial capacity,
operating experience; and resident services and ranked the Developer as the highest of five
development teams; and
WHEREAS, the CDC -HA Board of Commissioner heard presentations on behalf
of five development teams on October 25, 2016, and on December 6, 2016 determined an in-
depth financial evaluation and comparison of financial proposals was necessary through a
Request for Proposals (RFP) process to make a selection of a development team; and
WHEREAS, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) issued the RFP on June 30,
2017 on behalf of the CDC -HA and, through the established financial evaluation criteria that
included an analysis of each development team's development program, depth of affordability,
overall project feasibility, scored the Developer the highest of the four development teams that
responded to the RFP; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Community Development
Commission -Housing Authority of the City of National City accepts the findings from the analysis
completed by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., of four financial proposals submitted through a
Request for Proposals process.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Community Development Commission -
Housing Authority of the City of National City selects the development team comprised of
Community HousingWorks, Inc., a California non-profit public benefit corporation, and Mercy
CDC -HA Resolution No. 2017 — 60
Page Two
Housing California, Inc., a California non-profit public benefit corporation, for the recapitalization
and rehabilitation of Kimball and Morgan Towers located at 1317 and 1415 "D" Avenue in
National City.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Community Development Commission -
Housing Authority of the City of National City, in order to begin negotiations, authorizes the City
Manager to execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with the selected developer.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 5th day of Decembers 2017
on Morrison, Chairman
ATTEST:
Leslie Deese, Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
�+ o'is-Jove
era se
Passed and adopted by the Community Development Commission -Housing Authority of
the City of National City, California, on December 5, 2017 by the following vote, to -wit:
Ayes: Commissioners Mendivil, Rios, Sotelo-Solis.
Nays: Cano, Morrison.
Absent: None.
Abstain: None.
AUTHENTICATED BY: RON MORRISON
Chairman, Housing Authority
Secretary, Housing Authority
By:
Deputy
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-60 of the Community Development Commission -Housing
Authority of the City of National City, California, passed and adopted on
December 5, 2017.
Secretary, Housing Authority
By:
Deputy
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION -HOUSING AUTHORITY
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ETING DATE:
December 5, 2017
AGENDA ITEM NO.
18
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution of the Community Development Commission -Housing Authority of the City of National City
accepting the findings from the analysis completed by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., of four
financial proposals submitted through a Request for Proposals process; selecting the development
team comprised of Community HousingWorks, Inc., a California non-profit public benefit corporation,
and Mercy Housing California, Inc., a California non-profit public benefit corporation, for the
recapitalization and rehabilitation of Kimball and Morgan Towers located at 1317 and 1415 "D"
Avenue in National City; and authorizing the City Manager to execute an Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement in order to begin negotiations with the selected developer.
PREPARED BY:
Carlos Aguirre, Housing & Economic Dev. Mgr.
PHONE: 619-336-4391
EXPLANATION:
See attached Background Report and Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. ("KMA") Financial Review of the
Development Proposals.
H •using Economic
en
lop t
DEPARTMENT:
APPROVED B
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
ACCOUNT NO.
D:'v
APPROVED: ffil Finance
APPROVED: MIS
A ranking of the Developer's financial proposals can be found on page 4 and 5 of KMA's report
(Attachment No. 2) based on the points awarded to each proposal and their respective financial return.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The review of development proposals is not considered a project as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and therefore, is not subject to CEQA review.
ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION:
FINAL ADOPTION:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
n/a
TACHMENTS:
1. Background Report
2. KMA Financial Review of Development Proposals
3. Resolution
Attachment No. 1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION -HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
STAFF REPORT
December 5, 2017
Item
Resolution of the Community Development Commission -Housing Authority of the City of
National City accepting the findings from the analysis completed by Keyser Marston Associates,
Inc., of four financial proposals submitted through a Request for Proposals process; selecting
the development team comprised of Community HousingWorks, Inc., a California non-profit
public benefit corporation, and Mercy Housing California, Inc., a California non-profit public
benefit corporation, for the recapitalization and rehabilitation of Kimball and Morgan Towers
located at 1317 and 1415 "D" Avenue in National City; and authorizing the City Manager to
execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement in order to begin negotiations with the selected
developer.
Background
Kimball and Morgan Senior Towers ("Towers") are located in central National City, within the
Kimball Community. The two nine -story Towers are located on D Avenue between Kimball Way
and 15th Street. Morgan Senior Tower is a 151-unit affordable senior residential property built
in 1978. Kimball Senior Tower is a 152-unit affordable senior residential property completed in
1986.
On March 4, 2016, the HA's Board of Commissioners ("HA's Board") was presented with a draft
RFQ to provide direction in considering qualified development teams for the recapitalization and
rehabilitation of the Towers. The RFQ process presented was modeled after the RFQ previously
issued in March 2010 for the Kimball and Morgan Tower Enhancement and Expansion Project.
The HA was supportive and voted in favor of City staff issuing the RFQ as drafted. The draft
RFQ incorporated a Selection Committee to be composed of experienced professionals and
community members with working knowledge of affordable housing development, public
finance, and community needs that could deliberate on and rank RFQ submissions with respect
to the goals, objectives, and scoring criteria provided in the RFQ. The RFQ was issued on
March 24, 2016. The RFQ solicited responses from professional affordable housing
development teams and considered the following criteria:
1. Experience and qualifications (Max. Score: 25)
2. Leveraging of non -HA resources (Max. Score: 20)
3. Financial Capacity (Max. Score: 20)
4. Operating Experience (Max. Score: 20)
5. Resident Services and Involvement (Max Score: 15)
City staff reviewed the RFQ submissions first for completeness and, on the week of May 30,
2016, delivered copies of the eight RFQ submittals to each member of the Selection Committee.
The Selection Committee convened on Monday, June 6, 2016 to review and score each
submission in an effort to select the project development teams who would be invited to
1
Attachment No. 1
interview. The Selection Committee selected five RFQ proposals for interviews scheduled for
Monday, June 13, 2016. After the interviews were completed, the Selection Committee scored
the development teams interviewed based on the RFQ's criteria taking into consideration the
quality of each interview with the Selection Committee. By calculating an average of all
cumulative scoring provided by each Selection Committee Member, the development team
consisting of Community Housing Works and Mercy Housing California ranked the highest
overall out of a total of 100 points:
1. Community HousingWorks and Mercy Housing California (Overall Score: 83.4)
2. Bridge Housing Corporation (Overall Score: 81.6)
3. Chelsea and Serving Seniors (Overall Score: 77.8 )
4. National Community Renaissance of California and Reiner Communities (Overall
Score: 77.5)
5. The RAHD Group, Affirmed Housing, Community Preservation Partners LLC,
Thompson Consulting, and Casa Familiar (Overall Score: 70.6)
At the Regular Meeting on October 4, 2016 of the HA, City staff provided a recommendation to
the HA's Board to select Community Housing Works and Mercy Housing as the developer for
the rehabilitation and recapitalization of Kimball and Morgan'Towers based on the scoring
provided by the Selection Committee. However, after public and written comments were
considered by the HA's Board requesting that the HA's Board provide an opportunity for
presentations by each development team, the HA's Board directed City staff to coordinate
presentations to be made directly to the HA's Board.
As requested by the HA's Board, the five development teams that had previously delivered
presentations to the Selection Committee were called to present at the HA's meeting on
Tuesday, October 25, 2016. The HA's Board was provided with each RFQ submission and any
materials also provided during the RFQ Selection Committee presentations. The development
team RFQ responses that were originally submitted were made available for review on the City
of National City website. The order of the presentations was drawn randomly by the City Clerk.
As directed by the HA's Board, the presentation ground rules were provided in advance to each
development team and were the following:
1. Presentations will be the same as made to the original Selection Committee, including
the answers to the prior interview questions.
2. Presenters will have no more than 20 minutes, immediately followed by 20 minutes for
questions and answers.
3. Presentations should not include a discussion of financial proposals to the HA unless
such proposal was part of the original presentation.
4. Presenters should address the attached interview questions during their 20 minute
presentations.
5. During development presentations, members of other development teams are asked to
refrain from being present in City Council Chambers, out of fairness to each presenting
group.
6. As requested by the HA's Board, presenters should refrain from submitting organized
public comment.
2
Attachment No. 1
City staff returned on December 6, 2016 carrying forward the recommendation made on
October 4, 2016 to enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with the development team
comprised of Community HousingWorks and Mercy Housing since the information provided in
the development team presentations made on October 25, 2016 to the HA Board had already
been provided and incorporated in the ranking provided by the Selection Committee. However,
upon the HA Board's consideration of the strengths found in the qualifications of all five
development teams through the presentations made on October 25, 2016 and upon public
comments received that suggested that it would not be in the HA's best interest to select a
developer without qualifying their financials proposals further, the HA's Board agreed that a
review of each development team's financial proposals was necessary to make a final
determination.
City staff informed the HA's Board that a financial review of proposals would be a lengthy and
expensive process, however, several of the development teams stated that they would be
interested in funding their participation in a Request for Proposals ("RFP") process that would
allow for a thorough comparison of their financial proposals. Based on the developer's interest
to fund the process, the HA's Board directed City staff at the HA meeting on December 6, 2016
to provide approaches to implement a RFP process that would incorporate a comparison of
financial proposals for the rehabilitation and refinancing of the Towers.
Request for Proposals Process and Staff Recommendation
City staff has worked with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. ("KMA") since May 2013 to model
and evaluate financing structures for rehabilitating and recapitalizing the Towers. Because of
the extensive work KMA conducted, City staff requested a proposal from KMA that would
compare approaches to further evaluate the financial models proposed by each development
team. On February 7, 2017, the HA's Board considered the approaches included in KMA's
proposal. The HA Board then directed City staff to return with a consultant services contract
with KMA ("KMA Agreement") to implement a specific approach for the RFP process to further
review each financial proposal, provided that the participating development teams ("Participating
Developers") covered the cost of the RFP process and review. On April 18, 2017, the HA Board
approved the KMA Agreement to proceed with a financial evaluation of the Participating
Developers contingent that each Participating Developer enter into a Participation Agreement
that would require each Participating Developer to cover the cost of KMA to issue an RFP and
evaluate the proposals equally.
Four of five development teams considered by the HA Board consisting of (i) Community
HousingWorks and Mercy Housing California (collectively, "CHW-Mercy"); (ii) Bridge Housing
Corporation ("Bridge"); (iii) Chelsea Investment Corporation and Serving Seniors (collectively,
"Chelsea -Serving Seniors"); and (iv) RAHD Group, Affirmed Housing Corporation, Community
Preservation Partners LLC, Thompson Consulting and Casa Familiar (collectively, the "Affirmed
Group") agreed to participate in the RFP process and pay all costs incurred by the HA in equal
share with respect to the KMA Agreement by executing a Participation Agreement. The fifth
development team previously considered by the HA Board composed of National Community
Renaissance of California and Reiner Communities decided not participate in the RFP process.
The Participating Developers were made aware that the HA reserved the right to select any one
or none of the Participating Developers.
3
Attachment No. 1
On June 30, 2017 KMA issued the RFP on behalf of the Housing Authority. KMA's criteria,
approach, key findings, and financial analysis are found in Attachment No. 2 of this Staff Report.
Based on KMA's extensive analysis and key findings, City staff recommends the selection of the
team comprised of Community HousingWorks, Inc. and Mercy Housing California, Inc. for the
recapitalization and rehabilitation of Kimball and Morgan Towers located at 1317 and 1415 "D"
Avenue in National City. City staff also recommends that the HA authorize the City Manager to
execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement to begin negotiations with Community
HousingWorks, Inc. and Mercy Housing California, Inc.
4
ADVISORS IN:
REAL ESTATE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SAN F'RANCISCO
A. JERRY KEYSER
TIMOTHY C. KELLY
KATE EARLE FUNK
DEBBIE M. KERN
REED T. KAWAHARA
DAVID DOEZEMA
LOS ANGELES
KATHLEEN H. HEAD
JAMESA. RABE
GREGORY D. Soo-Hoo
KEVIN E. ENGSTROM
JULIE L. ROMEY
SAN DIEGO
PAUL C. MARRA
Attachment No. 2
TO:
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES
ADVISORS IN PUBLIC/PRIVATE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
Alfredo Ybarra, Director
Housing & Economic Development Department
City of National City
FROM: KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
DATE: November 28, 2017
SUBJECT: Review of Development Proposals
Kimball and Morgan Towers RFP
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
In accordance with our agreement dated May 1, 2017, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA)
has undertaken an analysis to assist the Community Development Commission -Housing
Authority of the City of National City (Housing Authority) in its efforts to select an affordable
housing developer to refinance and renovate the 152-unit Kimball Tower and the 151-unit
Morgan Tower (Towers), located on D Avenue between Kimball Way and 15th Street.
On March 24, 2016, the Housing Authority issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to
affordable housing developers. The Housing Authority formed a Selection Committee made
up of experienced professionals and community members to review, score, and interview the
RFQ submissions. Following the outcome of the RFQ process, the Housing Authority received
feedback from respondents suggesting that the Housing Authority issue a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for a better understanding of each respondent's anticipated scope of work
and financial proposal.
i5 WEST BEECH ST., SUITE 460 ➢ SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92ioi ➢ PHONE: 619 718 9500 ➢ FAX: 619 718 9508 17122ka1
.IWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 16104.011.001
Mr. Alfredo Ybarra
Housing & Economic Development, City of National City
Attachment No. 2
November 28, 2017
Page 2
The Housing Authority requested KMA's assistance in the issuance of an RFP, evaluating developer
responses, preparing long-term feasibility analyses, and providing guidance as to the structuring of the
business arrangement between the Housing Authority and the selected developer. It is the Housing
Authority's desire to retain ownership of the land and negotiate a long-term ground lease with the
selected developer. The selected developer would purchase and operate the existing senior housing
units and other improvements from the Housing Authority. The developer would also provide a
financial package to finance the rehabilitation of the Towers, preserve current levels of affordability at
or below 50% Area Median Income (AMI), and repay any financial assistance provided by the Housing
Authority.
The Housing Authority issued the RFP on June 30, 2017 to the following four development teams:
Developer
Team Members
BRIDGE Housing Corporation (BRIDGE)
BRIDGE, Harley Ellis Devereau, and Allgire
General Contractors
Chelsea Investment Corporation (CIC)
CIC and Serving Seniors
Community HousingWorks (CHW)
CHW and Mercy Housing
Morgan and Kimball Community Partners
(MKCP)
Community Preservation Partners, The
RAHD Group, Thompson Consulting, and
Casa Familiar
B. KMA Approach
In undertaking this assignment, KMA completed the following work tasks:
1. Discussed with the Housing Authority the primary goals and objectives for the Towers.
2. Reviewed pertinent information related to the Towers including the RFQ responses submitted by
each developer.
3. Prepared the RFP for distribution to the four development teams.
4. Identified appropriate evaluation criteria and scoring for proposal evaluation.
5. Responded to developer questions regarding the RFP.
17122ka1
16104.011.001
Mr. Alfredo Ybarra
Housing & Economic Development, City of National City
Attachment No. 2
November 28, 2017
Page 3
6. Participated in tours of the Towers with each development team. Each development team was
provided an opportunity to visit each property including common areas/public lounges, laundry
room, boiler room, electric room, elevator room, residential units, tenant services offices, and
Nutrition Center.
7. Evaluated each developer's RFP response, including the proposed deal structure and business terms.
8. Evaluated each developer's financial pro forma, including 55-year cash flow projections for each
developer proposal.
9. Prepared independent financial models of each developer's proposal, adjusting various assumptions
used in their financial pro formas, including the developer's 55-year cash flow projections for each
Tower.
C. Evaluation Criteria
The RFP identified the following criteria and points to evaluate each development team's RFP response.
Evaluation Criteria
Maximum
Points
(1) Development
Program
i. Incorporates specific necessary elements for
efficient operation of an affordable housing complex
and rehabilitation of the Towers
ii. Assumes full property renovation and rehabilitation
including energy efficient improvements, technology
upgrades, upgraded building systems, and
property/residential improvements
20 points
(2) Depth of Affordability
i. Extends affordability covenants as long as feasible
and extends the useful life of improvements for at
least 20 years
ii. Maintains deep levels of affordability for existing
and future tenants
20 points
(3) Overall Project
Feasibility
i. Financial pro forma contains valid assumptions and
estimates within reasonable range of industry
standards
35 points
17122ka1
16104.011.001
Mr. Alfredo Ybarra
Housing & Economic Development, City of National City
Attachment No. 2
November 28, 2017
Page 4
Evaluation Criteria
Maximum
Points
ii. Project demonstrates long-term economic
sustainability
iii. Project provides for a financial return to the Housing
Authority
(4) Soundness of
Financing Plan
i. Financing plan is reasonable and achievable to
enable project completion in a timely manner
ii. Financing plan provides a realistic timeline for
securing financing
iii. Demonstrates successful experience with similar
financing plans on comparable projects
25 points
Total
100 points
D. Developer Financial Proposals
As requested in the RFP, each development team submitted a financial proposal and pro forma for each
Towers. Every development team assumed in their financial proposal the use of 4% Low Income
Housing Tax Credits and tax-exempt bonds for one or both Towers, except for CHW. CHW proposed to
apply for 9% tax credits in the At -Risk Set -aside for Morgan Tower given Morgan Tower's expiring FHA
231 Agreement.
The tax reform plan recently approved by the U.S. House of Representatives calls for the elimination of
private activity tax-exempt bonds. If approved by the Senate, states would no longer have the ability to
issue tax-exempt private activity bonds and their linked authority to provide 4% Low Income Housing
Tax Credits. As a result, the financial proposals submitted by each development team would no longer
be valid. At this time, it is unknown if the Senate will pass the tax reform plan and become law as
currently drafted.
II. KEY FINDINGS
As summarized in Summary Tables 1 through 3, attached, the RFP submittals were ranked based on the
evaluation criteria noted above and each development team's financial proposal. The financial proposal
figures below represent the following:
17122kaI
16104.011.001
Mr. Alfredo Ybarra
Housing & Economic Development, City of National City
Attachment No. 2
November 28, 2017
Page 5
1. Upfront cash proceeds to the Housing Authority, estimated as the purchase price for the existing
senior housing units and other improvements less the Seller Note proposed to be carried back by
the Housing Authority;
2. Net present value of annual subsidy contributions from the developer to the Nutrition Center over a
55-year period;
3. Net present value of Seller Note repayments to the Housing Authority; and
4. Net present value of other annual contributions provided to the Housing Authority from project
cash flow over 55 years.
The ranking and points awarded do not take into consideration the possibility that 4% tax credits and
tax-exempt bonds may no longer be available after December 31, 2017.
Rank
Developer
Points (1)
Financial Proposal (2)
Kimball
Morgan
Developer
Response (3)
KMA Adjusted
Pro Forma (4)
#1
Community HousingWorks
90 pts.
85 pts.
$67.0 M
$62.6 M
#2
Chelsea Investment
85 pts.
85 pts.
$70.0 M
$60.9 M
Corporation
#3
MK Community Partners
75 pts.
75 pts.
$52.2 M
$54.1 M
#4
BRIDGE Housing
70 pts.
70 pts.
$27.4 M
$38.0 M
(1) See Summary Table 1, Selection Criteria Scoring Sheet, attached.
(2) Reflects upfront cash payment and present value of annual contributions (i.e., payment to Nutrition Center,
repayment of seller note, and other cash flow to the Housing Authority) for Kimball Tower and Morgan Towers
combined. See Summary Tables 2 and 3, attached.
(3) Based on RFP response submitted by developer; see Section III.
(4) Reflects pro formas adjustments made by KMA related to acquisition costs, rehabilitation costs, and monthly rent;
see Section IV.
As shown above, Community HousingWorks ranked #1, receiving the highest number of points. The
CHW proposal was projected to provide the highest financial return to the Housing Authority at $62.6 M
based on the KMA adjusted pro forma. This was followed by #2 ranked Chelsea Investment Corporation,
estimated to provide the Housing Authority with a return of $60.9 M; #3 ranked MK Community
Partners with a Housing Authority financial return of $54.1 M; and #4 ranked BRIDGE Housing with a
financial return to the Housing Authority of $38.0 M.
17122ka)
16104.011.001
Mr. Alfredo Ybarra
Housing & Economic Development, City of National City
Attachment No. 2
November 28, 2017
Page 6
It is important to note that the financial proposal figures shown above in either the "Developer
Response" column or the "KMA Adjusted Pro Forma" column do not represent the ultimate outcome of
any transaction that the Housing Authority may enter with a selected developer. Rather, there are a
series of variables yet to be determined (e.g., scope of cost of rehabilitation, appraised acquisition costs,
and achievable fair market rent, etc.) that will influence the final financial outcomes for the Towers.
III. DEVELOPER FINANCIAL PROPOSALS
The RFP required each team to submit a financial proposal and pro forma using the KMA pro forma
template. Each developer's pro forma is summarized in a side -by -side comparison format in Attachment
A, and includes the following:
• Table 1: Development Costs — Estimates the costs incurred by the developer to acquire and
rehabilitate the Towers.
• Table 2: Net Operating Income (NOI) — Estimate of stabilized NOI generated by each Tower from
monthly rental income and other income (i.e., laundry/vending); less operating
expenses.
• Table 3: Estimate of Seller Note — Calculated as the difference between achievable sources of
funds and total development costs, as illustrated below:
Estimate of Seller Note
Sources of Funds:
• Permanent Loan
• Tax Credit Equity Investment
• Deferred Developer Fee
• General Partner Equity Contribution
• Income During Construction
• Other Funding Sources
Total
Development
Costs
Including
Acquisition
Seller Note
• Table 4: Cash Proceeds to the Housing Authority — Upfront cash paid to the Housing Authority.
Estimated as the purchase price proposed by each developer less the seller note.
17122ka1
16104.011.001
Mr. Alfredo Ybarra
Housing & Economic Development, City of National City
Attachment No. 2
November 28, 2017
Page 7
A. Key Terms and Assumptions in Developers' Pro Formas and Financial Proposals
KMA reviewed the financial proposals and pro formas submitted by each development team for each
Tower. An overview of key assumptions used in each developer's financial pro proposal is presented
below. The following does not reflect a complete itemization of all inputs and assumptions assumed by
each development team.
(1) BRIDGE Housing
Kimball Tower:
1. Ground lease term of 65 years with two 10-year options (total of 85 years).
2. Annual ground lease payment of $237,500 per year (escalating at 2.5% per year) for potential use
toward Nutrition Center.
3. Acquisition costs of $143,000 per unit or $21.8 M total.
4. Monthly rent of $1,194 for 150 units based on National City's Payment Standard Voucher of $1,235
less a $41 utility allowance.
5. Operating expenses1 of $6,288 per unit per year.
6. Refinancing with a tax-exempt bond at 5.41% interest for 35 years; and 4% tax credits with an
estimated price of $0.96.
7. Total developer fee of $5.1 M.
8. General Partner equity contribution of $3.6 M.
9. Seller Note totaling $13.6 M.
10. 50% of residual receipts paid to the Housing Authority beginning in Year 1 for repayment of the
Seller Note.
11. Projected repayment of Seller Note in Year 55.
1 Excludes replacement reserves, property taxes, service amenities, affordable housing monitoring fee, issuer's fee,
and annual contribution toward Nutrition Center.
17122ka1
16104.011.001
Mr. Alfredo Ybarra
Housing & Economic Development, City of National City
Morgan Tower:
Attachment No. 2
November 28, 2017
Page 8
1. Ground lease term of 65 years with two 10-year options (total of 85 years).
2. Annual ground lease payment of $237,500 per year (escalating at 2.5% per year) for potential use
toward Nutrition Center.
3. Acquisition costs of $152,000 per unit or $23.0 M total.
4. Monthly rent of $1,194 on 150 units based on National City's Payment Standard Voucher of $1,235
Tess a $41 utility allowance.
5. Operating expenses' of $6,336 per unit per year.
6. Refinancing with a tax-exempt bond at 5.41% interest for 35 years; and 4% tax credits with an
estimated price of $0.96.
7. Total developer fee of $5.2 M.
8. General Partner equity contribution of $3.7 M.
9. Seller Note totaling $14.4 M.
10. 50% of residual receipts paid to the Housing Authority beginning in Year 1 for repayment of the
Seller Note.
11. Projected repayment of Seller Note in Year 55.
(2) Chelsea Investment Corporation
Kimball Tower:
1. Ground lease term of 65 years.
2. $3.0 M pre -paid ground lease payment.
3. Acquisition costs of $207,000 per unit or $34.1 million total.
4. Monthly rent of $1,500 on 150 units based on a value analysis conducted by Lea & Company.
17122ka1
16104.011.001
Mr. Alfredo Ybarra
Housing & Economic Development, City of National City
Attachment No. 2
November 28, 2017
Page 9
5. Operating expenses' of $4,911 per unit per year.
6. $237,500 annual contribution to Nutrition Center (escalating at 2.5% per year).
7. Refinancing with a tax-exempt bond at 4.0% interest for 40 years; and 4% tax credits with an
estimated price of $1.05.
8. Total developer fee of $6.6 M.
9. Deferred developer fee and General Partner equity contribution totaling $4.1 M.
10. 50% of residual receipts paid to the Housing Authority beginning in Year 1 for repayment of the
Seller Note.
11. Projected repayment of Seller Note in Year 19.
Morgan Tower:
1. Ground lease term of 65 years.
2. $3.0 M pre -paid ground lease payment.
3. Acquisition costs of $217,000 per unit or $32.7 million total.
4. Monthly rent of $1,500 on 150 units based on a value analysis conducted by Lea & Company.
5. Operating expenses' of $4,900 per unit per year.
6. $237,500 annual contribution to Nutrition Center (escalating at 2.5% per year).
7. Refinancing with a tax-exempt bond at 4.0% interest for 40 years; and 4% tax credits with an
estimated price of $1.05.
8. Total developer fee of $6.7 M.
9. Deferred developer fee and General Partner equity contribution totaling $4.2 M.
17122ka1
16104.011.001
Mr. Alfredo Ybarra
Housing & Economic Development, City of National City
Attachment No. 2
November 28, 2017
Page 10
10. 50% of residual receipts paid to the Housing Authority beginning in Year 1 for repayment of the
Seller Note.
11. Projected repayment of Seller Note in Year 21.
(3) Community HousingWorks
Kimball Tower:
1. Ground lease term of 99 years, including extensions.
2. Ground lease payment of 50% of residual receipts after repayment of Seller Note.
3. Acquisition costs of $218,000 per unit or $33.1 million total.
4. Monthly rent of $1,301 on 150 units based on National City's Fair Market Rent of $1,342 less $41
utility allowance.
5. Operating expenses' of $4,600 per unit per year.
6. Refinancing with a tax-exempt bond at 4.5% interest for 35 years; and 4% tax credits with an
estimated price of $1.03.
7. Total developer fee of $6.6 M.
8. General Partner equity contribution totaling $4.1 M.
9. 50% of residual receipts paid to the Housing Authority beginning in Year 1 for repayment of the
Seller Note.
10. Projected repayment of Seller Note in Year 33.
Morgan Tower:
1. Ground lease term of 99 years, including extensions.
2. Ground lease payment of 50% of residual receipts after repayment of Seller Note.
3. Acquisition costs of $230,000 per unit or $34.7 million total.
17122ka1
16104.011.001
Mr. Alfredo Ybarra
Housing & Economic Development, City of National City
Attachment No. 2
November 28, 2017
Page 11
4. Monthly rent of $1,342 on 150 units based on National City's Fair Market Rent.
5. Operating expenses 1 of $4,600 per unit per year.
6. $475,000 annual contribution to Nutrition Center (escalating at 3.5% per year).
7. Refinancing with conventional financing at 5.6% interest for 35 years; and 9% tax credits (in the At -
Risk Set -Aside) with an estimated price of $1.02.
8. Total developer fee of $2.0 M.
9. 50% of residual receipts paid to the Housing Authority beginning in Year 1 for repayment of the
Seller Note.
10. Projected repayment of Seller Note in Year 55.
(4) MK Community Partners
Kimball Tower:
1. Ground lease term of 99 years.
2. Ground lease payment of $100 per year.
3. Acquisition costs of $127,000 per unit or $19.3 M total. The Housing Authority has an option to
repurchase improvements for $1.00 at end of compliance period.
4. Monthly rent of $1,342 on 150 units based on National City's Fair Market Rent.
5. Operating expenses' of $5,364 per unit per year.
6. Funding for Nutrition Center paid by the Housing Authority from $19.3 M acquisition proceeds
and/or the Housing Authority portion of project cash flow.
7. Refinancing with a tax-exempt bond at 4.75% interest for 35 years; and 4% tax credits with an
estimated price of $0.98.
8. Total developer fee at $4.7 M.
17122ka1
16104.011.001
Mr. Alfredo Ybarra
Housing & Economic Development, City of National City
Attachment No. 2
November 28, 2017
Page 12
9. Deferred developer fee totaling $3.0 M.
10. 20% of deferred developer fee payments and 100% of residual receipts after repayment of deferred
developer fee paid to the Housing Authority.
Morgan Tower:
1. Ground lease term of 99 years.
2. Ground lease payment of $100 per year.
3. Acquisition costs of $127,000 per unit or $19.3 M total. The Housing Authority has an option to
repurchase improvements for $1.00 at end of compliance period.
4. Monthly rent on 148 units based on National City's Fair Market Rent of $1,342; three non -HAP units
with a monthly rent of $811.
5. Operating expenses' of $5,294 per unit per year at Morgan Tower.
6. Funding for Nutrition Center paid by the Housing Authority from $19.3 M acquisition proceeds
and/or the Housing Authority portion of project cash flow.
7. Refinancing with a tax-exempt bond at 4.75% interest for 35 years; and 4% tax credits with an
estimated price of $0.98.
8. Total developer fee at $4.7 M.
9. Deferred developer fee totaling $3.0 M.
10. 20% of deferred developer fee payments and 100% of residual receipts after repayment of deferred
developer fee paid to the Housing Authority.
B. Seller Note
Based on the above assumptions, KMA calculated the Seller Note requested of the Housing Authority as
identified in the developer's proposals. As indicated above, the Seller Note is calculated as the
difference between sources of funds and total development costs, as follows:
17122ka1
16104.011.001
Mr. Alfredo Ybarra
Housing & Economic Development, City of National City
Attachment No. 2
November 28, 2017
Page 13
Estimate of Total Seller Note (1)
Developer Proposals
BRIDGE
CIC
CHW
MK Community
Partners
I. Sources of Funds
Permanent Loan
$20.0 M
$50.9 M
$34.6 M
$41.8 M
Tax Credits
$27.1 M
$38.5 M
$42.4 M
$25.1 M
Developer Equity (2)
$7.3 M
$8.3 M
$4.1 M
$6.1 M
Other
$1.8 M
$8.5 M
$6.2 M
$0.0 M
Total Sources of Funds
$56.2 M
$106.2 M
$87.3 M
$73.0 M
II. Development Costs
($84.2) M
($112.6) M
($101.4) M
($73.5) M
III. Seller Note
($28.0) M
($6.4) M
($14.1) M
($0.5) M
(1) Figures shown are for Kimball and Morgan Towers combined.
(2) Includes both deferred developer fee and General Partner equity contribution.
C. Total Value to the Housing Authority
For each developer proposal, KMA estimated the financial return to the Housing Authority. As indicated
above, the Housing Authority's financial return was assumed to include upfront proceeds paid to the
Housing Authority (i.e., proposed purchase price less the Housing Authority Seller Note) and the present
value of annual contributions to the Housing Authority for the Nutrition Center, repayment of the Seller
Note, and other cash flow, as follows:
Estimated Total Value to the Housing Authority (1)
Developer Proposals
BRIDGE
CIC
CHW
MK Community
Partners
I. Purchase Price
$44.7 M
$64.1 M
$67.8 M
$38.5 M
II. (Less) Seller Note
($28.0) M
($6.4) M
($14.1) M
($0.5) M
III. Upfront Cash Proceeds
to the Housing Authority
$16.8 M
$57.7 M
$53.7 M
$38.0 M
IV. Present Value of Annual
Contributions (2)
$10.6 M
$12.3 M
$13.4 M
$13.7 M
V. Total Value to the
Housing Authority
$27.4 M
$70.0 M
$67.1 M
$51.7 M
(1) Figures shown are for Kimball and Morgan Towers combined.
(2) Reflects present value of annual contributions to Nutrition Center, repayment of seller note, and other cash
flow to the Housing Authority. Assumes discount rate of 8.0% for contributions toward Nutrition Center and
10% for repayment of Seller Note and/or cash flow to the Housing Authority.
17122ka1
16104.011.001
Mr. Alfredo Ybarra
Housing & Economic Development, City of National City
IV. KMA ADJUSTED PRO FORMAS
Attachment No. 2
November 28, 2017
Page 14
During the RFP response period, the developers were provided an opportunity to submit questions to
KMA seeking clarification or additional information regarding information contained in the RFP. Each
question and KMA response were circulated to all development teams. Attachment C presents a list of
the questions and responses provided to the developers. In particular, developers were provided
guidance regarding the rehabilitation budget and monthly rent assumption to use in their pro forma
submittal, as follows:
• Rehabilitation Costs: For proposal purposes, each respondent shall assume a rehabilitation budget
allowance of $55,000 per unit. This figure is assumed to include contract overhead fee, general
conditions, and contractor contingency. Figure does NOT include FF&E/amenities and owner
contingency.
• Monthly Rent: Respondents are to use the current Fair Market Rents (FMR) that are found on the
Housing Authority's utility allowance schedule. The current monthly utility allowance paid by
tenants totals $41 per month.
KMA found that some developers adjusted these directive assumptions based on input from third
parties and/or other factors. In addition, the developers' estimates for the Tower's acquisition costs
varied greatly. As such, in order to better understand the overall project feasibility and soundness of
each team's financing plan, KMA adjusted the developer's pro formas by equalizing three items, as
follows:
1. Acquisition Costs — Assumed at $200,000 per unit for each tower (or $60.6 M for both Towers
combined). This represents the approximate mid -range estimate of acquisition costs assumed by
the developers. KMA understands that the ultimate acquisition costs will be determined by an
appraiser, subject to review/approval by the Housing Authority and other lenders partners proposed
for the Towers.
2. Building Rehabilitation Costs — Assumed at $55,000 per unit inclusive of prevailing wages. Actual
building rehabilitation costs will be determined based on the final scope and costs estimates
proposed for the Towers.
3. Monthly Rent — Assumed at $1,301 reflecting Fair Market Rent of $1,342 less a $41 utility allowance.
It is anticipated that the ultimate final monthly rent will be determined based on the Towers'
achievable Fair Market Rents as determined by HUD.
17122ka1
16104.011.001
Mr. Alfredo Ybarra
Housing & Economic Development, City of National City
Attachment No. 2
November 28, 2017
Page 15
Based on these adjustments, KMA re -ran each developer's pro forma recalibrating estimates of
contingency, developer fee, indirect costs, financing cost, and tax credit eligible basis. KMA held
constant each developer's assumed permanent loan and tax credit underwriting assumptions, operating
expense budget, and other sources of funds. The KMA adjusted pro formas are presented in
Attachment B. The revised estimate of seller note for each developer are shown below:
Estimate of Total Seller Note (1)
KMA Adjusted Pro Formas
BRIDGE
CIC
CHW
MK Community
Partners
I. Sources of Funds
Permanent Loan
$25.0 M
$39.1 M
$33.6 M
$39.3 M
Tax Credits
$31.8 M
$35.5 M
$41.6 M
$31.3 M
Developer Equity (2)
$9.3 M
$8.0 M
$4.1 M
$8.4 M
Other
$1.8 M
$8.6 M
$6.2 M
$0.0 M
Total Sources of Funds
$67.9 M
$91.0 M
$85.5 M
$79.0 M
II. Development Costs
($102.0) M
($103.1) M
($96.7) M
($98.5) M
III. Seller Note
($34.1 M)
($12.0) M
($11.2) M
($19.5) M
(1) Figures shown are for Kimball and Morgan Towers combined.
(2) Includes both deferred developer fee and General Partner equity contribution.
The revised estimate of value to the Housing Authority based on the KMA adjusted pro formas are
shown below:
17122ka1
16104.011.001
Mr. Alfredo Ybarra
Housing & Economic Development, City of National City
Attachment No. 2
November 28, 2017
Page 16
Estimate of Total Value to the Housing Authority (1)
KMA Adjusted Pro Formas
BRIDGE
CIC
CHW
MK Community
Partners
I. Purchase Price
$60.6 M
$60.6 M
$60.6 M
$60.6 M
II. (Less) Seller Note
($34.1 M)
($12.0) M
($11.2) M
($19.5) M
III. Upfront Cash Proceeds to
the Housing Authority
$26.5 M
$48.6 M
$49.4 M
$41.1 M
IV. Present Value of Annual
Contributions (2)
$11.5 M
$12.3 M
$13.1 M
$13.0 M
V. Total Value to the Housing
Authority
$38.0 M
$60.9 M
$62.6 M
$54.1 M
(1) Figures shown are for Kimball and Morgan Towers combined.
(2) Reflects present value of annual contributions to Nutrition Center, repayment of seller note, and other cash flow
to the Housing Authority. Assumes discount rate of 8.0% for contributions toward Nutrition Center and 10% for
repayment of Seller Note and/or cash flow to the Housing Authority.
As shown above, the KMA adjusted pro formas resulted in increasing the estimate of total value to the
HA for both BRIDGE and MK Community Partners, and decreased values to the Housing Authority for CIC
and CHW.
V. LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) has made extensive efforts to confirm the accuracy and
timeliness of the information contained in this document. Such information was compiled from a
variety of sources deemed to be reliable including state and local government, planning agencies,
real estate brokers, and other third parties. Although KMA believes all information in this document
is correct, it does not guarantee the accuracy of such and assumes no responsibility for inaccuracies
in the information provided by third parties. Further, no guarantee is made as to the possible effect
on development of current or future federal, state, or local legislation.
2. The accompanying projections and analyses are based on estimates and assumptions which were
developed using currently available economic data, project specific data, and other relevant
information. It is the nature of forecasting, however, that some assumptions may not materialize
and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Such changes are likely to be material to
the projections and conclusions herein and, if they occur, require review or revision of this
document.
attachments
17122ka1
16104.011.001
Attachment No. 2
KIMBALL AND MORGAN SENIOR TOWERS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES.
Page 17
SUMMARY TABLE 1
SELECTION CRITERIA SCORING SHEET
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS RFP
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Maximum
Score
1. Development Program
Summary
BRIDGE Housing Chelsea Investment Corporation
Kimball Morgan Kimball
4% Tax Credits 4% Tax Credits 4% Tax Credits
a. The Project Proposal incorporates the necessary elements for efficient operation of an affordable housing complex and rehabilitation of the Towers.
b. The Project Proposal assumes full property renovation and rehabilitation including energy efficient improvements, technology upgrades, upgraded building systems, and property/residential improvements.
20
Respondents were instructed to assume a rehabilitation
cost estimate of $55,000 per unit. Actual scope of
rehabilitation and corresponding budget have not yet been
determined.
20
Respondents were instructed to assume a rehabilitation
cost estimate of $55,000 per unit. Actual scope of
rehabilitation and corresponding budget have not yet
been determined.
20
Respondents were instructed to assume a rehabilitation
cost estimate of $55,000 per unit. Actual scope of
rehabilitation and corresponding budget have not yet
been determined.
20
Respondents were instructed to assume a rehabilitation
cost estimate of $55,000 per unit. Actual scope of
rehabilitation and corresponding budget have not yet been
determined.
2. Depth of Affordability
a The Project Proposal extends affordability covenants as long as feasible and the useful life of improvements for at least 20 years.
b. The Project Proposal maintains deep levels of affordability for existing and future tenants.
20
Proposals extends affordability covenants and useful life of
improvements; deep levels of affordability are maintained
for existing and future tenants.
20 20
Proposals extends affordability covenants and useful life
of improvements; deep levels of affordability are
maintained for existing and future tenants.
1 Proposals extends affordability covenants and useful life
of improvements; deep levels of affordability are
maintained for existing and future tenants.
20
Proposals extends affordability covenants and useful life of
improvements; deep levels of affordability are maintained
for existing and future tenants.
3. Overall Project
Feasibility
a The financial pro forma contains valid assumptions and estimates within reasonable range of industry standards.
b. The Project Proposal demonstrates long-term economic sustainability.
c. The Project Proposal provides for a financial return to the Housing Authority.
15 15
BRIDGE's operating budget and underwriting assumptions
appear conservative; the KMA adjusted pro forma yields
increased the financial return from $13.5 M to $19.0 M,
still the lowest return to the Housing Authority.
BRIDGE's operating budget and underwriting
assumptions appear conservative; the KMA adjusted pro
forma yields increased the financial return to the Housing
Authority from $13.9 M to $19.0 M, still the lowest
return to the Housing Authority.
25
CIC's financial proposal reflects the highest financial
return to Housing Authority; however, CIC's pro forma
assumptions appear overly optimistic; the KMA adjusted
pro forma yields reduced financial return to Housing
Authority from $34.5 M to $30.4 M.
25
CIC's financial proposal reflects the highest financial return
to the Housing Authority; however, CIC's pro forma
assumptions appear overly optimistic; KMA adjusted pro
forma yields reduced financial return to Housing Authority
from $35.5 M to $30.6 M.
4. Soundness of Financing
Plan
a The financing plan is reasonable and achievable to enable p oject completion in a timely manner.
b The financing plan provides a realistic timeline for securing financing.
c The Development Team demonstrated successful experience with similar Financing Plans on comparable projects.
15
Funding sources proposed are conservative, not likely to
delay timing. Timeline for completion of Project and
securing financing appears reasonable.
15
Funding sources proposed are conservative, not likely to
delay timing. Timeline for completion of Project and
securing financing appears reasonable.
20
Funding sources proposed are reasonable. Timeline for
completion of Project appears reasonable; delay in
timeline may occur if unable to secure financing for
various funding sources assumed at the levels proposed.
20
Funding sources proposed are reasonable. Timeline for
completion of Project appears reasonable; delay in
timeline may occur if unable to secure financing for
various funding sources assumed at the levels proposed.
TOTAL POINTS SCORED 100 70 70 85 85
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associ tes, Inc.
Filename: National City\National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3;11/28/2017;ema
Page 18
Z ON luewgoelid
SUMMARY TABLE 1
SELECTION CRITERIA SCORING SHEET
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS RFP
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
aximum
' Scor ..
_ •
Community HousingWorks
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
MK Community
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
Partners
Morgan
4% Tax Credits
Morgan
9% Tax Credits
1. Development Program
Summary
a. The Project Proposal incorporates the necessary elements
b. The Project Proposal assumes full property renovation and
20
Respondents were instructed to assume a rehabilitation
cost estimate of $55,000 per unit. Actual scope of
rehabilitation and corresponding budget have not yet
been determined.
for efficient operation of an affordable housing complex and
rehabilitation including energy efficient improvements, technology
20
Respondents were instructed to assume a rehabilitation
cost estimate of $55,000 per unit. Actual scope of
rehabilitation and corresponding budget have not yet
been determined.
rehabilitation of the Towers.
upgrades, upgraded building systems, and property/residential
20
Respondents were instructed to assume a rehabilitation
cost estimate of $55,000 per unit. Actual scope of
rehabilitation and corresponding budget have not yet
been determined.
improvements.
20
Respondents were instructed to assume a rehabilitation
cost estimate of $55,000 per unit. Actual scope of
rehabilitation and corresponding budget have not yet
been determined.
2. Depth of Affordability
a. The Project Proposal extends affordability covenants as long as feasible and the useful life of improvements for at least
b. The Project Proposal maintains deep levels of affordability for existing and future tenants.
20 years.
20
Proposals extends affordability covenants and useful life
of improvements; deep levels of affordability are
maintained for existing and future tenants.
20
Proposals extends affordability covenants and useful life
of improvements; deep levels of affordability are
maintained for existing and future tenants.
20
Proposals extends affordability covenants and useful life
of improvements; deep levels of affordability are
maintained for existing and future tenants.
20
Proposals extends affordability covenants and useful life
of improvements; deep levels of affordability are
maintained for existing and future tenants.
3. Overall Project
Feasibility
a. The financial pro forma contains valid assumptions and e
b. The Project Proposal demonstrates long-term economic
c. The Project Proposal provides for a financial return to the
30
Financial pro forma assumptions generally reasonable;
CHW's estimate of operating expenses appear overly
optimistic; KMA adjusted pro forma yields reduced
CHW's estimate of financial return from $29.7 M to $27.3
M.
timates within reasonable range of industry standards.
sustainability.
Housing Authority.
30
Financial pro forma assumptions generally reasonable;
CHW's estimate of operating expenses appear overly
optimistic; KMA adjusted pro forma yields reduced
CHW's estimate of financial return from $37.3 M to $35.2
M.
20
Development cost assumptions appear overly optimistic;
KMA adjusted pro forma yields increased MK's estimate
of financial return from $25.9 M to $27.3 M.
20
Development cost assumptions appear overly optimistic;
KMA adjusted pro forma yields increased MK's estimate
of financial return from $26.3 M to $27.3 M.
4. Soundness of Financing
Plan
a. The financing plan is reasonable and achievable to enable
b. The financing plan provides a realistic timeline for securing
c. The Development Team demonstrated successful experience
20
Funding sources proposed are reasonable. Timeline for
completion of Project appears reasonable; delay in
timeline may occur if unable to secure financing at the
levels proposed.
project completion in a timely manner.
financing.
with similar Financing Plans on comparable projects.
15
Funding sources proposed are reasonable. Timeline for
completion of Project appears reasonable; delay in
timeline may occur if unable to secure financing for
various funding sources at the levels proposed;
development may be delayed if need to compete for
15
Funding sources proposed are conservative, not likely to
delay timeline. Timeline for completion of Project
appears optimistic.
15
Funding sources proposed are conservative, not likely to
delay timeline. Timeline for completion of Project
appears optimistic.
TOTAL POINTS SCORED
100
90
multiple rounds of 9% tax credits.
85
75
75
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: National City \National City Developer Evaluation Matrlx_v3;11/28/2017;ema
Page 19
Z oN TUOWLPell`d
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS COMBINED
SUMMARY TABLE 2
DEVELOPER FINANCIAL PROPOSAL
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
I. Developer Financial Proposal
BRIDGE Housing
Chelsea Investment
Corporation
Community
HousingWorks (CHW)
MK Community Partners
(RAHD Group)
A. Ground Lease
Term:
65 Years with two 10-year options
65 Years
99 years (including extensions)
99 years
Payments:
$475,000/year escalating at 2.5%/year
'i6.0 M pre -paid ground lease
50% of Residual Receipts after
repayment of Seller Note
$100/ year
B. Acquisition Price
$44.7 M
$58.1 M
$67.8 M (il
$38.5 M
(before Seller Note)
$148,000 per unit
$192,000 per unit
$224,000 per unit
•
The Housing Authority has option to
repurchase improvements for $1.00 at end of
C. Seller Note
$28.0 M
$6.4 M
$14.1 M
•
No Seller Note
$92,000 per unit
$21,000 per unit
$47,000 per unit
D. Funding of Nutrition Center
• Proposes ground lease payments be
used for Nutrition Center
•
$475,000/year escalating at 2.5%/year
• $475,000/year escalating at 3.5%/year
•
Paid by the Housing Authority from $38.5 M
acquisition proceeds and/or the Housing
Authority portion of project cash flow
E. Annual Cash Flow to the Housing Authority
• 50% of residual receipts to the Housing
Authority beginning in Year 1 for repayment
•
50% of residual receipts to the Housing
Authority beginning in Year 1 for repayment of
• 50% of residual receipts to the Housing
Authority beginning in Year 1 for
•
20% of deferred developer fee payments to
the Housing Authority
of Seller Note
Seller Note
repayment of Seller Note
•
100% of cash flow after repayment of
deferred developer fee
II. Total Payments to the Housing Authority
A. Upfront Cash Payment
$16,761,000
$57,697,000
$53,659,000
$37,999,000
Per Unit
$55,000
5190,000
9177,000
$125,000
B. Present Value of Annual Contributions
Payments to Nutrition Center
$8,800,000 (2)
$8,800,000 (3)
$10,303,000
(3)
$0 (4)
Payment to the Housing Authority Seller Note
$1,801,000 (5)(6)
$3,462,000 (s)
$3,051,000
(5)(6)
$0
Other Cash Flow to the Housing Authority
$14,160,000 (7)
Total Annual Contributions
$10,601,000
$12,262,000
$13,354,000
$14,160,000
C. Total Value to the Housing Authority
$27,362,000
$69,959,000
$67,013,000
$52,159,000
Per Unit
$90,000
$231,000
$221,000
$172,000
(1) Includes transfer of tenant deposits.
(2) Present value of ground lease payments at Year 1 assuming an 8.0% discount rate. BRIDGE Housing proposes ground lease payments be used
to fund Nutrition Center operations.
(3) Present value of annual Nutrition Center Services Fee at Year 1 assuming an 8.0% discount rate.
(4) MK Community Partners proposes funding for the Nutrition Center be paid by the Housing Authority from $38.5 M acquisition proceeds and/or Housing
Authority portion of project cash flow.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename \National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3;11/28/2017;lag
(5) Present value of Seller Note payments at Year 1 assuming a 10.0% discount rate.
(6) Includes present value of repayment of outstanding balance at Year 55.
(7) Includes proposed allocation of 20% of deferred developer fee and 100% of
project cash flow to the Housing Authority. Reflects net present value at Year 1 assuming a 10.0% discount rate.
Page 20
Z oN lUOWgOeli`d
SUMMARY TABLE 3
TOTAL PAYMENTS TO CITY
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS RFP
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS CC NED
KMA ADJUSTED PRO FORMAS
Total Payments to Housing Authority
BRIDGE Housing
Chelsea Investment
Corporation
Community
HousingWorks (CHW)
MK Community Partners
(RAHD Group)
A. Upfront Cash Payment
$26,481,000
$48,579,000
$49,418,000
$41,124,000
Per Unit
$87,000
$160,000
$163,000
$136,000
B. Present Value of Annual Contributions
Payments to Nutrition Center
$8,800,000
(1)
$8,800,000
(2)
$10,303,000
(2)
$0
(3)
Payment to Housing Authority Seller Note
$2,746,000
(4)(s)
$3,535,000
(4)
$2,839,000
(4)(s)
$0
Other Cash Flow to Housing Authority
$13,014,000
(6)
Total Annual Contributions
$11,546,000
$12,335,000
$13,142,000
$13,014,000
C. Total Value to Housing Authority
$38,027,000
$60,914,000
$62,560,000
$54,138,000
Per Unit
$126,000
$201,000
$206,000
$179,000
(1) Present value of ground lease payments at Year 1 assuming an 8.0% discount rate. BRIDGE Housing proposes ground lease payments be used to fund Nutrition Center operations.
(2) Present value of annual Nutrition Center Services Fee at Year 1 assuming an 8.0% discount rate.
(3) MK Community Partners proposes funding for the Nutrition Center be paid from acquisition proceeds and/or Housing Authority portion of project cash flow.
(4) Present value of Seller Note payments at Year 1 assuming a 10.0% discount rate.
(5) Includes present value of repayment of outstanding balance at Year 55.
(6) Includes proposed allocation of 20% of deferred developer fee and 100% of project cash flow to Housing Authority. Reflects net present value at Year 1 assuming a 10.0% discount rate.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3_Adjusted Pro formas;11/28/2017;lag
Page 21
Z oN luawyaelld
Attachment No. 2
Attachment A
Kimball / Morgan RFP
Developer Pro Formas
Page 22
DEVELOPEL.FORMAS
TABLE A-1
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
BRIDGE Housing
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
Morgan
4% Tax Credits
Chelsea Investment Corporation
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
Number of Units
One Bedroom
Manager's Unit
Total Number of Units
150
2
152
Units
Units
Units
150
1
151
Units
Units
Units
150
2
152
Units
Units
Units
150
1
151
Units
Units
Units
Total (1)
Per Unit
Total (1)
Per Unit
Total (1)
Per Unit
Total (1)
Per Unit
I.
Direct Costs
On-Sites/Off-Sites, Remediation, Parking
$0
incl below
$0
incl below
$0
$0
$0
$0
Building Rehabilitation - Residential
$8,360,000
$55,000
$8,305,000
$55,000
$10,032,000
$66,000
$9,966,000
$66,000
Building Rehabilitation - Nutrition Center
$0
$0
$0
Incl. above
$0
$0
$0
Incl. above
Amenities/FF&E
$100,000
$658
$150,000
$993
$400,000
$2,632
$337,500
$2,235
Contingency
$1,254,000
15%
$1,245,750
15%
$1,003,200
10%
$996,600
°
10%
Total Direct Costs
$9,714,000
$63,908
$9,700,750
$64,243
$11,435,200
$75,232
$11,300,100
$74,835
II.
Indirect Costs
Indirect Costs
$2,332,000
$15,342
$2,334,500
$15,460
$2,315,240
$15,232
$2,091,208
$13,849
Developer Fee
$5,050,575
$33,227
$5,228,327
$34,625
$6,588,200
$43,343
$6,725,217
$44,538
Total Indirect Costs
$7,382,575
$48,570
$7,562,827
$50,085
$8,903,440
$58,575
$8,816,425
$58,387
III.
Financing Costs
$2,525,760
$16,617
$2,577,828
$17,072
$4,369,675
$28,748
$3,666,672
$24,283
IV.
Total Development Costs Excluding Acquisition
$19,622,335
$129,094
$19,841,405
$131,400
$24,708,315
$162,555
$23,783,197
$157,505
V.
Acquisition Costs
Land
$1,087,720
$7,156
$1,148,810
$7,608
$3,000,000
$19,737
$3,000,000
$19,868
Building
$20,666,680
$135,965
$21,827,390
$144,552
$28,400,000
$186,842
$29,700,000
$196,689
Total Acquisition Costs
$21,754,400
$143,121
$22,976,200
$152,160
$31,400,000
$206,579
$32,700,000
$216,556
VI.
Total Development Costs Incl. Acquisition
$41,376,735
$272,215
$42,817,605
$283,560
$56,108,315
$369,134
$56,483,197
$374,061
Or Say (Rounded)
$41,377,000
$42,818,000
$56,108,000
$56,483,000
(1) Includes the payment of prevailing wages.
(2) Excludes the payment of prevailing wages.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: National City\National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3\11/28/2017; ema
Page 23
Z oN TUeWqpeHV
DEVELOPER PRO FORMAS
TABLE A-1
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Community HousingWorks
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
Morgan
9% Tax Credits
MK Community Partners
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
Morgan
4% Tax Credits
Number of Units
One Bedroom
Manager's Unit
Total Number of Units
150
2
152
Units
Units
Units
150
1
151
Units
Units
Units
150
2
152
Units
Units
Units
150
1
151
Units
Units
Units
Total (2)
Per Unit
Total (2)
Per Unit
Total (1)
Per Unit
Total (1)
Per Unit
I.
Direct Costs
On-Sites/Off-Sites, Remediation, Parking
$467,834
$3,078
$467,834
$3,098
$275,000
$1,809
$275,000
$1,821
Building Rehabilitation - Residential
$7,132,167
$46,922
$7,082,166
$46,902
$7,932,500
$52,188
$7,932,500
$52,533
Building Rehabilitation - Nutrition Center
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$500,000
$3,311
Amenities/FF&E
$75,000
$493
$75,000
$497
$125,000
$822
$125,000
$828
Contingency
$760,000
10%
$755,000
10%
$777,256
9%
$777,256
9%
Total Direct Costs
$8,435,001
$55,493
$8,380,000
$55,497
$9,109,756
$59,933
$9,609,756
$63,641
II.
Indirect Costs
Indirect Costs
$1,477,836
$9,723
$1,454,179
$9,630
$2,459,222
$16,179
$2,459,222
$16,286
Developer Fee
$6,606,733
$43,465
$2,000,000
$13,245
$4,661,247
$30,666
$4,661,247
$30,869
Total Indirect Costs
$8,084,569
$53,188
$3,454,179
$22,875
$7,120,469
$46,845
$7,120,469
$47,155
III.
Financing Costs
$2,675,427
$17,601
$2,620,262
$17,353
$1,007,286
$6,627
$1,007,286
$6,671
IV.
Total Development Costs Excluding Acquisition
$19,194,997
$126,283
$14,454,441
$95,725
$17,237,511
$113,405
$17,737,511
$117,467
V.
Acquisition Costs
Land
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Building
$33,100,000
$217,763
$34,700,000
$229,801
$19,250,000
$126,645
$19,250,000
$127,483
Total Acquisition Costs
$33,100,000
$217,763
$34,700,000
$229,801
$19,250,000
$126,645
$19,250,000
$127,483
VI.
Total Development Costs Incl. Acquisition
$52,294,997
$344,046
$49,154,441
$325,526
$36,487,511
$240,049
$36,987,511
$244,950
Or Say (Rounded)
$52,295,000
$49,154,000
$36,488,000
$36,988,000
(1) Includes the payment of prevailing wages.
(2) Excludes the payment of prevailing wages.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filen< tional City\National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3\11/28/2017; ema
Pa--1A
Z oN luewpeTTV
TABLE A-2
NET OPERATING INCOME
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Kimball Tower - 150 tenant based vouchers
Morgan Tower - 148 project based vouchers (expiring in 2018)
DEVELOPER PRO FORMAS
Fair Market Rent
Payment Standard Voucher
1 Bedroom
$1,342
$1,235
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
BRIDGE
Housing
Morgan
4% Tax Credits
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
Chelsea Investment
Corporation
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Residential Income
30% AMI
50% AMI
N/A
Manager
Total Residential Income
Add: Other Income
Gross Scheduled Income
(Less) Vacancy
Effective Gross Income
Operating Expenses
(Less) Operating Expenses
(Less) Service Amenities
(Less) Other
Total Operating Expenses
Net Operating Income
(Less) Services Fee to Nutrition Center
# Units Monthly Rent
(1)
Annual GSI
# Units Monthly Rent
Annual GSI
# Units Monthly Rent
(2)
Annual GSI
# Units Monthly Rent
(2)
Annual GSI
0 $0
150 $1,194
0 $0
2 $1,1
152 $1,178
$4 /Unit/Month
5.0% of GSI
$6,288 /Unit/Year
$362 /Unit/Year
$448 /Unit/Year
$7,098 /Unit/Year
53% or EGI
$0
$2,149,200
$0
LI
$2,149,200
$7,029
$2,156,229
($107,811)
0 $0
150 $1,194 (1)
0 $0
1
151 $1,186
$4 /Unit/Month
5.0% of GSI
$6,336 /Unit/Year
$364 /Unit/Year
$449 /Unit/Year
57,149 /Unit/Year
53% or EGI
$0
$2,149,200
$0
$2,149,200
$7,405
$2,156,605
($107,830)
150 $1,500
0 $0
0 $0
2
152 $1,480
$4 /Unit/Month
5.0% of GSI
$4,911 /Unit/Year
5342 /Unit/Year
5474 /Unit/Year
$5,730 /Unit/Year
34% or EGI
$2,700,000
$0
$0
$2,700,000
$7,296
150 $1,500
0 $0
0 $0
1
151 $1,490
$4 /Unit/Month
5.0% of GSI
$4,900 /Unit/Year
$344 /Unit/Year
$475 /Unit/Year
$5,720 /Unit/Year
34% or EGI
$2,700,000
$0
$0
$2,700,000
$7,248
$2,707,296
($135,365)
$2,707,248
($135,362)
$2,048,418
($955,800)
($55,000)
($68,100)
$2,048,775
($956,700)
($55,000)
($67,800)
$2,571,931
($746,453)
($52,000)
($72,100)
$2,571,886
(5739,874)
($52,000)
($71,800)
($1,078,900)
$969,518
($237,500) (s)
($1,079,500)
$969,275
($237,500) (s)
($870,553)
$1,701,378
($237,500)
($863,674)
$1,708,212
($237,500)
VI.
NOI After Nutrition Center Fees
Or Say (Rounded)
$732,018
$732,000
$731,775
$732,000
$1,463,878
$1,464,000
$1,470,712
$1,471,000
(1) Reflects payment standard voucher less utility allowance ($41).
(2) Reflects post renovated Fair Market Rents based on value analysis prepared by Lea & Company, August 25, 2017.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: National City\National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3\11/28/2017; ema
(4) Reflects fair market rent (gross).
(5) Reflects ground lease payment proposed for use toward Nutrition Center.
Page 25
oN luawg0e1l`d
TABLE A-2
NET OPERATING INCOME
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Kimball Tower - 150 tenant based vouchers
Morgan Tower - 148 project based vouchers (expiring in 2018)
DEVELOPER PRO FORMAS
Fair Market Rent
Payment Standard Voucher
1 Bedroom
$1,342
$1,235
Community HousingWorks
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
Morgan
9% Tax Credits
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
MK Community Partners
Morgan
4% Tax Credits
I.
Residential Income
# Units Monthly Rent
Annual GSI
# Units Monthly Rent
Annual GSI
0 Units Monthly Rent
Annual G51
# Units Monthly Rent
Annual GSI
30% AMI
75 $1,301
(3)
$1,170,900
30 $1,342
(4)
$483,120
0 $0
$0
2 $811
$19,464
50% AMI
75 $1,301
(3)
$1,170,900
105 $1,342
(4)
$1,690,920
150 $1,342
(4)
$2,415,600
148 $1,342
(4)
$2,383,392
N/A
0 $0
$0
15 $1,342
(4)
$241,560
0 $0
$0
0 $0
$0
Manager
2
L)
1 $_0
O.
2 $1,342
(4)
$32,208
1 $811
$9,732
Total Residential Income
152 $1,284
$2,341,800
151 $1,333
$2,415,600
152 $1,342
$2,447,808
151 $1,331
$2,412,588
Add: Other Income
$8 /Unit/Month
$15,300
$8 /Unit/Month
515,300
$4 /Unit/Month
$7,025
$4 /Unit/Month
$7,030
II.
Gross Scheduled Income
$2,357,100
$2,430,900
$2,454,833
$2,419,618
(Less) Vacancy
5.0% of GSI
($117,090)
5.0% of GSI
($120,780)
4.9% of GSI
($120,780)
5.0% of GSI
($120,143)
Effective Gross Income
$2,240,010
$2,310,120
$2,334,053
$2,299,475
III.
Operating Expenses
(Less) Operating Expenses
$4,600 /Unit/Year
($699,200)
$4,600 /Unit/Year
($694,600)
$5,364 /Unit/Year
($815,372)
$5,294 /Unit/Year
($799,385)
(Less) Service Amenities
$586 /Unit/Year
($89,000)
$589 /Unit/Year
($89,000)
$103 /Unit/Year
($15,607)
$101 /Unit/Year
($15,301)
(Less) Other
$387 /Unit/Year
($58,772)
$388 /Unit/Year
($58,559)
$483 /Unit/Year
($73,416)
$483 /Unit/Year
($72,933)
Total Operating Expenses
$5,570 /Unit/Year
($846,972)
$5,580 /Unit/Year
($842,159)
$5,950 /Unit/Year
($904,395)
$5,880 /Unit/Year
($887,619)
38% or EGI
36% or EGI
39% or EGI
39% or EGI
IV.
Net Operating Income
$1,393,038
$1,467,961
$1,429,658
$1,411,856
V.
(Less) Services Fee to Nutrition Center
($475,000)
L
VI.
NOI After Nutrition Center Fees
$1,393,038
$992,961
$1,429,658
$1,411,856
Or Say (Rounded)
$1,393,000
$993,000
$1,430,000
$1,412,000
(1) Reflects payment standard voucher less utility allowance ($41)
(2) Reflects post renovated Fair Market Rents based on value anal lysis prepared by Lea & Company, August 25, 2017
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: National City\National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3\11/28/2017; ema
(4) Reflects fair market rent (gross).
(5) Reflects ground lease payment proposed for use toward Nutrition Center.
Page 26
Z ON iUeWg3elld
DEVELOPER PRO runMAS
TABLE A-3
SELLER NOTE
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
BRIDGE Housing
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
Morgan
4% Tax Credits
Chelsea Investment Corporation
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
4% Tax Credits
I.
Sources of Funds
Total
Per Unit
Total
Per Unit
Total
Per Unit
Total
Per Unit
Supportable Permanent Loan
$9,987,100
$65,705
$9,983,800
$66,118
$25,381,000
$166,980
$25,499,000
$168,868
Tax Credit Equity Investment
$13,353,920
$87,855
$13,777,728
$91,243
$19,068,405
$125,450
$19,374,747
$128,310
Deferred Developer Fee
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,365,000
$15,559
$2,360,000
$15,629
General Partner Equity Contribution
$3,550,575
$23,359
$3,728,327
$24,691
$1,724,748
$11,347
$1,864,444
$12,347
Income During Construction
$367,000
$2,414
$367,000
$2,430
$1,548,279
$10,186
$1,554,649
$10,296
Seller Note - Accrued Deferred Interest
$539,324
$3,548
$570,952
$3,781
$0
$0
$0
$0
Existing Reserves
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,352,133
$8,896
$743,495
$4,924
AHP
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,500,000
$9,868
$1,500,000
$9,934
Soft Loan Interest
$0
$0
$0
$0
$168,750
$1,110
$183,862
$1,218
Refunds
I0
L
IQ
Total Sources of Fund
$27,797,919
$182,881
$28,427,807
$188,264
$53,108,315
$349,397
$53,080,197
$351,524
Or Say (Rounded)
$27,798,000
$28,428,000
$53,108,000
$53,080,000
II.
Development Costs
($41,377,000)
($272,217)
($42,818,000)
($283,563)
($56,108,000)
($369,132)
($56,483,000)
($374,060)
III.
Seller Note
($13,579,000)
($89,336)
($14,390,000)
($95,298)
($3,000,000)
($19,737)
($3,403,000)
($22,536)
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3;11/28/2017;Iag
Page 27
Z oN luauay3ell`d
DEVELOPER PRO FORMAS
TABLE A-3
SELLER NOTE
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Community HousingWorks
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
Morgan
9% Tax Credits
MK Community Partners
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
4% Tax Credits
I.
Sources of Funds
Total
Per Unit
Total
Per Unit
Total
Per Unit
Total
Per Unit
Supportable Permanent Loan
$21,330,000
$140,329
$13,220,000
$87,550
I $20,949,914
$137,828
$20,812,086
$137,828
Tax Credit Equity Investment
$18,069,795
$118,880
$24,335,215
$161,160
$12,563,031
$82,652
$12,563,031
$83,199
Deferred Developer Fee
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,043,480
$20,023
$3,043,480
$20,155
General Partner Equity Contribution
$4,106,733
$27,018
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Income During Construction
$1,796,480
$11,819
$1,254,501
$8,308
$0
$0
$0
$0
Seller Note - Accrued Deferred Interest
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Existing Reserves
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
AHP
$1,500,000
$9,868
$1,500,000
$9,934
$0
$0
$0
$0
Soft Loan Interest
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Refunds
$100,000
$658
$95,442
$632
Total Sources of Fund
$46,903,008
$308,572
$40,405,158
$267,584
$36,556,425
$240,503
$36,418,597
$241,183
Or Say (Rounded)
$46,903,000
$40,405,000
$36,556,000
$36,419,000
II.
Development Costs
($52,295,000)
($344,046)
($49,154,000)
($325,523)
($36,488,000)
($240,053)
($36,988,000)
($244,954)
III.
Seller Note
($5,392,000)
($35,474)
($8,749,000)
($57,940)
$68,000
$447
($569,000)
($3,768)
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Files \National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3;11/28/2017;Iag
Pa
Z oN TuawgoeTTV
DEVELOPER PRO OAS
TABLE A-4
CASH PROCEEDS TO HOUSING AUTHORITY
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Kimball
BRIDGE Housing
Morgan
I. Purchase Price
$21,754,000
$22,976,000
$44,730,000
II. (Less) Seller Note
($13,579,000)
($14,390,000)
($27,969,000)
III. (Less) Existing Loan Balance
L
$ (i)
g
IV. Cash Proceeds to Housing Authority
$8,175,000
$8,586,000
$16,761,000
Per Unit
$54,000
$57,000
$55,000
(1) Adjusted by KMA to exclude BRIDGE's proposed repayment of existing loan balance estimated at $234,000.
(2) Adjusted by KMA to exclude CHW's proposed repayment of existing loan balance estimated at $726,000.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3;11/28/2017;Iag
Chelsea Investment Corporation
Kimball
$31,400,000
($3,000,000)
$28,400,000
$187,000
$32,700,000
($3,403,000)
gi
$29,297,000
$194,000
$ 64,100, 000
($6,403,000)
$57,697,000
$190,000
Page 29
oN Tuawg0e11y
DEVELOPER PRO FORMAS
TABLE A-4
CASH PROCEEDS TO HOUSING AUTHORITY
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Kimball
CHW
Morgan
Total
,
I.
Purchase Price
$33,100,000
$34,700,000
$67,800,000
II.
(Less) Seller Note
($5,392,000)
($8,749,000)
($14,141,000)
III.
(Less) Existing Loan Balance
$0
$
(2)
Pil
IV.
Cash Proceeds to Housing Authority
$27,708,000
$25,951,000
$53,659,000
Per Unit
$182,000
$172,000
$177,000
(1) Adjusted by KMA to exclude BRIDGE's proposed's proposed repayment of existing loan balance estimated at $234,000.
(2) Adjusted by KMA to exclude CHW's proposed re proposed repayment of existing loan balance estimated at $726,000.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File :\National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3;11/28/2017;Iag
Morgan
Kimball
Kimball Community
(RAHD Group)
Morgan
Partners
Total
$19,250,000
$19,250,000
$38,500,000
$68,000
($569,000)
($501,000)
$19,318,000
$18,681,000
$37,999,000
$127,000
$124,000
$125,000
Z ON Tuawpefy
Attachment No. 2
Attachment B
Kimball / Morgan RFP
KMA Adjusted Pro Formas
KMA Adjustments:
Acquisition Costs $200,000 /Unit
Buidling Rehabilitation $55,000 /Unit
Monthly Rent $1,301
Page 31
KMA ADJUSTED PRO FORMAS
TABLE B-1
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
BRIDGE Housing
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
Morgan
4% Tax Credits
Chelsea Investment Corporation
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
Number of Units
One Bedroom
Manager's Unit
Total Number of Units
150
2
152
Units
Units
Units
150
1
151
Units
Units
Units
150
2
152
Units
Units
Units
150
1
151
Units
Units
Units
Total
Per Unit
Total
Per Unit
Total
Per Unit
Total
Per Unit
I.
Direct Costs (1)
On-Sites/Off-Sites, Remediation, Parking
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Building Rehabilitation - Residential
$8,360,000
$55,000
$8,305,000
$55,000
$8,360,000
$55,000
$8,305,000
$55,000
Building Rehabilitation - Nutrition Center
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Amenities/FF&E
$100,000
$658
$150,000
$993
$400,000
$2,632
$338,000
$2,238
Contingency
$1,254,000
15%
$1,246,000
15%
$842,000
10%
$836,000
10%
Total Direct Costs
$9,714,000
$63,908
$9,701,000
$64,245
$9,602,000
$63,171
$9,479,000
$62,775
II.
Indirect Costs
Indirect Costs
$2,332,000
$15,342
$2,329,000
$15,424
$1,944,000
$12,789
$1,754,000
$11,616
Developer Fee
$6,170,000
$40,592
$6,140,000
$40,662
$6,259,000
$41,178
$6,725,000
$44,536
Total Indirect Costs
$8,502,000
$55,934
$8,469,000
$56,086
$8,203,000
$53,967
$8,479,000
$56,152
III.
Financing Costs
$2,526,000
$16,618
$2,522,000
$16,702
$3,669,000
$24,138
$3,076,000
$20,371
IV.
Total Development Costs Excluding Acquisition
$20,742,000
$136,461
$20,692,000
$137,033
$21,474,000
$141,276
$21,034,000
$139,298
V.
Acquisition Costs
Land
$3,040,000
$20,000
$3,020,000
$20,000
$3,040,000
$20,000
$3,020,000
$20,000
Building
$27,360,000
$180,000
$27,180,000
$180,000
$27,360,000
$180,000
$27,180,000
$180,000
Total Acquisition Costs
$30,400,000
$200,000
$30,200,000
$200,000
$30,400,000
$200,000
$30,200,000
$200,000
VI.
Total Development Costs Incl. Acquisition
$51,142,000
$336,000
$50,892,000
$337,000
$51,874,000
$341,000
$51,234,000
$339,000
(1) Includes the payment of prevailing wages.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filen; tional City\National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3_Adjusted Pro formas\11/28/2017; ems
Z oN 1uawgoeTTV
KMA ADJUSTED rirct) FORMAS
TABLE B-1
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Community HousingWorks
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
Morgan
9% Tax Credits
MK Community Partners
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
organ
4% TaxCreclit
Number of Units
One Bedroom
Manager's Unit
Total Number of Units
150
2
152
Units
Units
Units
150
1
151
Units
Units
Units
150
2
152
Units
Units
Units
150
1
151
Units
Units
Units
Total
Per Unit
Total
Per Unit
Total
Per Unit
Total
Per Unit
I.
Direct Costs (1)
On-Sites/Off-Sites, Remediation, Parking
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Building Rehabilitation - Residential
$8,360,000
$55,000
$8,305,000
$55,000
$8,360,000
$55,000
$8,305,000
$55,000
Building Rehabilitation - Nutrition Center
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$500,000
$3,311
Amenities/FF&E
$75,000
$493
$75,000
$497
$125,000
$822
$125,000
$828
Contingency
$835,000
10%
$830,000
10%
$791,000
9%
$786,000
9%
Total Direct Costs
$9,270,000
$60,987
$9,210,000
$60,993
$9,276,000
$61,026
$9,716,000
$64,344
II.
Indirect Costs
Indirect Costs
$1,624,000
$10,684
$1,598,000
$10,583
$2,504,000
$16,474
$2,486,000
$16,464
Developer Fee
$6,604,000
$43,447
$2,000,000
$13,245
$5,928,000
$39,000
$5,958,000
$39,457
Total Indirect Costs
$8,228,000
$54,132
$3,598,000
$23,828
$8,432,000
$55,474
$8,444,000
$55,921
III.
Financing Costs
$2,940,000
$19,342
$2,880,000
$19,073
$1,026,000
$6,750
$1,018,000
$6,742
IV.
Total Development Costs Excluding Acquisition
$20,438,000
$134,461
$15,688,000
$103,894
$18,734,000
$123,250
$19,178,000
$127,007
V.
Acquisition Costs
Land
$3,040,000
$20,000
$3,020,000
$20,000
$3,040,000
$20,000
$3,020,000
$20,000
Building
$27,360,000
$180,000
$27,180,000
$180,000
$27,360,000
$180,000
$27,180,000
$180,000
Total Acquisition Costs
$30,400,000
$200,000
$30,200,000
$200,000
$30,400,000
$200,000
$30,200,000
$200,000
VI.
Total Development Costs Incl. Acquisition
$50,838,000
$334,000
$45,888,000
$304,000
$49,134,000
$323,000
$49,378,000
$327,000
(1) Includes the payment of prevailing wages.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: National City\National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3_Adjusted Pro formas\11/28/2017; ema
Page 33
Z oN luewt.pell`d
TABLE B-2
NET OPERATING INCOME
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Kimball Tower - 150 tenant based vouchers
Morgan Tower - 148 project based vouchers (expiring in 2018)
KMA ADJUSTED PRO FORMAS
Fair Market Rent
Payment Standard Voucher
1 Bedroom
$1,342
$1,235
BRIDGE Housing
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
Morgan
4% Tax Credits
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
Chelsea Investment Corporation
I. Residential Income (1)
30% AMI
50% AMI
N/A
Manager
Total Residential Income
Add: Other Income
II. Gross Scheduled Income
(Less) Vacancy
Effective Gross Income
III. Operating Expenses
(Less) Operating Expenses
(Less) Service Amenities
Other
Total Operating Expenses
IV. Net Operating Income
V. (Less) Services Fee to Nutrition Center
# Units Monthly Rent Annual G51
# Units Monthly Rent Annual GSI
# Units Monthly Rent Annual GSI
# Units Monthly Rent Annual GSI
0 $0 $0
150 $1,301 $2,341,800
0 $0 $0
2
152 $1,284 $2,341,800
$4 /Unit/Month $7,029
0 $0 $0
150 $1,301 $2,341,800
0 $0 $0
1
151 $1,292 $2,341,800
$4 /Unit/Month $7,405
150 $1,301 $2,341,800
0 $0 $0
0 $0 $0
2
152 $1,284 $2,341,800
$4 /Unit/Month $7,296
150 $1,301 $2,341,800
0 $0 $0
0 $0 $0
1
151 $1,292 $2,341,800
$4 /Unit/Month $7,248
$2,348,829
5.0% of GSI ($117,441)
$2,349,205
5.0% of GSI ($117,460)
$2,349,096
5.0% of GSI ($117,455)
$2,349,048
5.0% of GSI ($117,452)
$2,231,388
$6,288 /Unit/Year ($955,800)
$362 /Unit/Year ($55,000)
$448 /Unit/Year ($68,100)
$2,231,745
$6,336 /Unit/Year ($956,700)
$364 /Unit/Year ($55,000)
$449 /Unit/Year ($67,800)
$2,231,641
$4,911 /Unit/Year ($746,453)
$342 /Unit/Year ($52,000)
$474 /Unit/Year ($72,100)
$2,231,596
$4,900 /Unit/Year ($739,874)
$344 /Unit/Year ($52,000)
)
5475 /Unit/Year ($71,800)
$7,098 /Unit/Year ($1,078,900)
48% or EGI
$1,152,488
($237,500) (51
$7,149 /Unit/Year ($1,079,500)
48% or EGI
$1,152,245
($237,500) (5)
$5,730 /Unit/Year ($870,553)
39% or EGI
$1,361,088
($237,500)
$5,720 /Unit/Year
39% or EGI
$1,367,922
($237,500)
VI. NOI After Nutrition Center Fees
Or Say (Rounded)
$914,988
$915,000
$914,745
$915,000
$1,123,588
$1,124,000
$1,130,422
$1,130,000
(1) Reflects fair market rent less utility allowance ($41).
(2) Reflects ground lease payment proposed for use toward Nutrition Center.
(3) Reflects ground lease payment proposed for use toward Nutrition Center.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: National City\National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3_Adjusted Pro formas\11/28/2017; ema
Page 34
Z ON lU Wg3elld
TABLE B-2
NET OPERATING INCOME
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Kimball Tower - 150 tenant based vouchers
Morgan Tower - 148 project based vouchers (expiring in 2018)
KMA ADJUSTED PRO FORMAS
Fair Market Rent
Payment Standard Voucher
1 Bedroom
$1,342
$1,235
Community HousingWorks
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
Morgan
9%Tax Credits
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
MK Communiy Partners
I. Residential Income i1)
30% AMI
50% AMI
N/A
Manager
Total Residential Income
Add: Other Income
II. Gross Scheduled Income
(Less) Vacancy
Effective Gross Income
III. Operating Expenses
(Less) Operating Expenses
(Less) Service Amenities
(Less) Other
Total Operating Expenses
IV. Net Operating Income
V. (Less) Services Fee to Nutrition Center
# Units Monthly Rent Annual GSI
# Units Monthly Rent Annual GSI
# Units Monthly Rent Annual GSI
# Units Monthly Rent Annual GSI
75 $1,301 $1,170,900
75 $1,301 $1,170,900
0 $0 $0
2 g SID
152 $1,284 $2,341,800
$8 /Unit/Month $15,300
30 $1,301 $468,360
105 $1,301 $1,639,260
15 $1,301 $234,180
1 22 22
151 $1,292 $2,341,800
$8 /Unit/Month $15,300
0 $0 $0
150 $1,301 $2,341,800
0 $0 50
2 g g
152 $1,284 $2,341,800
$4 /Unit/Month $7,025
2 $1,301 $31,224
148 $1,301 $2,310,576
0 $0 $0
1
151 $1,292 $2,341,800
$4 /Unit/Month $7,030
$2,357,100
5.0% of GSI ($117,090)
$2,357,100
5.0% of GSI ($117,855)
$2,348,825
5.0% of GSI ($117,441)
$2,348,830
5.0% of GSI ($117,442)
$2,240,010
$4,600 /Unit/Year ($699,200)
$586 /Unit/Year ($89,000)
$387 /Unit/Year ($58,7721
$2,239,245
$4,600 /Unit/Year ($694,600)
$589 /Unit/Year ($89,000)
$388 /Unit/Year ($58,559)
$2,231,384
$5,364 /Unit/Year ($815,372)
$103 /Unit/Year ($15,607)
$483 /Unit/Year ($73,415)
$2,231,389
$5,294 /Unit/Year ($799,385)
$101 /Unit/Year ($15,301)
$483 /Unit/Year ($72,933)
$5,570 /Unit/Year ($846,972)
38% or EGI
$1,393,038
LD
$5,580 /Unit/Year ($842,159)
38% or EGI
$1,397,086
($475,000)
$5,950 /Unit/Year ($904,395)
41% or EGI
$1,326,989
L)
$5,880 /Unit/Year ($887,619)
40% or EGI
$1,343,770
ig
VI. NOI After Nutrition Center Fees
Or Say (Rounded)
$1,393,038
$1,393,000
$922,086
$922,000
$1,326,989
$1,327,000
$1,343,770
$1,344,000
(1) Reflects fair market rent less utility allowance ($41).
(2) Reflects ground lease payment proposed for use toward Nutrition Center.
(3) Reflects ground lease payment proposed for use toward Nutrition Center.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: National City\National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3_Adjusted Pro formas\11/28/2017; ema
Page 35
Z ON lUOWLpellb'
KMA ADJUSTED PRO FORMAS
TABLE B-3
SELLER NOTE
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
BRIDGE Housing
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
Morgan
4% Tax Credits
Chelsea Invest ent Corporation
Kimball
4% Tax Credits
4% Tax Credits
I.
Sources of Funds
Supportable Permanent Loan
Tax Credit Equity Investment
Deferred Developer Fee
General Partner Equity Contribution
Income During Construction
Seller Note - Accrued Deferred Interest
Existing Reserves
AHP
Soft Loan Interest
Refunds
Total Sources of Fund
Or Say (Rounded)
Total
Per Unit
Total
Per Unit
Total
Per Unit
Total
Per Unit
$12,483,000
$15,938,000
$0
$4,670,000
$367,000
$539,324
$0
$0
$0
L
$33,997,324
$33,997,000
$82,125
$104,855
$0
$30,724
$2,414
$3,548
$0
$0
$0
$0
$223,667
$12,480,000
$15,860,000
$0
$4,640,000
$367,000
$570,952
$0
$0
$0
L
$33,917,952
$33,918,000
$82,649
$105,033
$0
$30,728
$2,430
$3,781
$0
$0
$0
$224,622
$19,481,000
$17,846,000
$1,686,000
$2,074,000
$1,548,279
$0
$1,352,133
$1,500,000
$168,750
$45,656,162
$45,656,000
$128,164
$117,408
$11,092
$13,645
$10,186
$0
$8,896
$9,868
$1,110
$300,369
$19,599,000
$17,626,000
$1,687,000
$2,537,000
$1,554,649
$0
$743,495
$1,500,000
$183,862
$45,431,006
$45,431,000
$129,795
$116,728
$11,172
$16,801
$10,296
$0
$4,924
$9,934
$1,218
L
$300,868
II.
Development Costs
($51,142,000)
($336,461)
($50,892,000)
($337,033)
($51,874,000)
($341,276)
($51,234,000)
($339,298)
III.
Seller Note
($17,145,000)
($112,796)
($16,974,000)
($112,411)
($6,218,000)
($40,908)
($5,803,000)
($38,430)
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filei National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3_Adjusted Pro formas;11/28/2017;Iag
Pa
Z oN }uaua peTTV
KMA ADJUSTED PRO rvnMAS
TABLE B-3
SELLER NOTE
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
4% Tax Credits
9%Tax Credits
4% Tax Credits
4% Tax Credits
I.
Sources of Funds
Total
Per Unit
Total
Per Unit
Total
Per Unit
Total
Per Unit
Supportable Permanent Loan
$21,330,000
$140,329
$12,277,000
$81,305
$19,445,000
$127,928
$19,808,000
$131,179
Tax Credit Equity Investment
$16,998,000
$111,829
$24,586,000
$162,821
$15,631,000
$102,836
$15,709,000
$104,033
Deferred Developer Fee
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,228,000
$27,816
$4,215,000
$27,914
General Partner Equity Contribution
$4,107,000
$27,020
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Income During Construction
$1,796,480
$11,819
$1,254,501
$8,308
$0
$0
$0
$0
Seller Note - Accrued Deferred Interest
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Existing Reserves
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
AHP
$1,500,000
$9,868
$1,500,000
$9,934
$0
$0
$0
$0
Soft Loan Interest
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Refunds
$100,000
$658
$95,442
$632
IQ
LD
Total Sources of Fund
$45,831,480
$301,523
$39,712,943
$263,000
$39,304,000
$258,579
$39,732,000
$263,126
Or Say (Rounded)
$45,831,000
$39,713,000
$39,304,000
$39,732,000
II.
Development Costs
($50,838,000)
($334,461)
($45,888,000)
($303,894)
($49,134,000)
($323,250)
($49,378,000)
($327,007)
III.
Seller Note
($5,007,000)
($32,941)
($6,175,000)
($40,894)
($9,830,000)
($64,671)
($9,646,000)
($63,881)
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3_Adjusted Pro formas;11/28/2017;lag
Page 37
Z'ON 1u8WLIOe
KMA ADJUSTED PRO FORMAS
TABLE B-4
CASH PROCEEDS TO HOUSING AUTHORITY
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Kimball
BRIDGE Housing
Morgan
1
I. Purchase Price
$30,400,000
$30,200,000
$60,600,000
II. (Less) Seller Note
($17,145,000)
($16,974,000)
($34,119,000)
III. (Less) Existing Loan Balance
$ (1)
IV. Cash Proceeds to Housing Authority
$13,255,000
$13,226,000
$26,481,000
Per Unit
$87,000
$88,000
$87,000
(1) Adjusted by KMA to exclude BRIDGE's proposed repayment of existing loan balance estimated at $234,000.
(2) Adjusted by KMA to exclude CHW's proposed repayment of existing loan balance estimated at $726,000.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File :\National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3_Adjusted Pro formas;11/28/2017;
Chelsea
Kimball
Investment Corporation
Morgan
$30,400,000
$30,200,000
$60,600,000
($6,218,000)
($5,803,000)
($12,021,000)
L
$24,182,000
$24,397,000
$48,579,000
$159,000
$162,000
$160,000
Pa
Z'ON TUeWlpelTV
KMA ADJUSTED PRO Nit MAS
TABLE B-4
CASH PROCEEDS TO HOUSING AUTHORITY
KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Kimball
CHW
Morgan
Total
I. Purchase Price
$30,400,000
$30,200,000
$60,600,000
II. (Less) Seller Note
($5,007,000)
($6,175,000)
($11,182,000)
III. (Less) Existing Loan Balance
LI
$ (2)
IV. Cash Proceeds to Housing Authority
$25,393,000
$24,025,000
$49,418,000
Per Unit
$167,000
$159,000
$163,000
(1) Adjusted by KMA to exclude BRIDGE's propos('s proposed repayment of existing loan balance estimated at $234,000.
(2) Adjusted by KMA to exclude CHW's proposed proposed repayment of existing loan balance estimated at $726,000.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename is\National City Developer Evaluation Matrix_v3_Adjusted Pro formas;11/28/2017;Iag
Morgan
Kimball
Kimball Community
(RAND Group)
Morgan
Partners
$30,400,000
$30,200,000
$60,600,000
($9,830,000)
($9,646,000)
($19,476,000)
$20,570,000
$20,554,000
$41,124,000
$135,000
$136,000
$136,000
Page 39
Z oN luauayaelib'
Attachment No. 2
Attachment C
Kimball / Morgan RFP
RFP QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
Page 40
Attachment No. 2
ATTACHMENT C
RFP QUESTIONS/RESPONSES
KIMBALL AND MORGAN RFP
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
I. QUESTIONS/RESPONSE #1: JULY 21, 2017:
1) Can a development team schedule more than one tour of the buildings?
Response: Tours of the buildings will be limited to a total of two hours. The City Council decided
that a capital needs assessment would not be part of the financial evaluation process. RFP
responses will be evaluated based on the financing plan proposed for the project and not the
detail of the rehabilitation budget.
II. QUESTIONS/RESPONSE #2: JULY 24, 2017:
1) The scope and costs assumed for the renovation/rehabilitation of the towers directly affects
the financial terms of the project that can be offered to the City (purchase price and ground
lease payment to the City, seller carryback note, repayment of any City contribution). Has the
City considered determining a fixed renovation budget for each tower for the purposes of the
RFP responses? Having all teams use the same budget could help mitigate potential variation
in proposed financial terms caused by varying budget/scope assumptions.
Response: For proposal submittal purposes, each respondent shall assume a rehabilitation
budget allowance of $55,000 per unit. This figure is assumed to include contractor overhead
fee, general conditions, and contractor contingency. This figure does NOT include
FF&E/Amenities and owner contingency.
This figure is provided as an estimate for RFP submittal purposes only. The City has not
conducted a capital needs assessment for either building. The selected developer will be
responsible for commissioning a capital needs assessment for each building in order to
determine the appropriate rehabilitation budget needed.
2) Can you please provide the current staffing plan for each of the towers— list of current staff,
position, salary and whether they are shared staff or part time.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 41
September 18, 2017
Attachment No. 2
Response:
Title
Hours/Week
Office Assistant
40 hours/week
Manager
40 hours/week
Assistant Manager
32 hours/week
Superintendent
40 hours/week
Maintenance
40 hours/week
Maintenance
40 hours/week
All staff are shared between the Towers. For privacy purposes, the City has requested that
salary information for these individuals not be disclosed.
3) Can you please provide a detailed Profit and Loss Statement for both Kimball and Morgan for
the 12 months ending 12.31/16 (similar to Attachment D.3 that was included for Kimball for
FY 2014)
Response: This information has been requested from property management and will be
distributed when available.
4) Regarding Kimball Tower — what is the $25,000 budgeted for Management Consultants?
Response: The $25,000 for Management Consultants shown in the Operating Budget is an asset
management fee provided to the City of National City. The City will no longer collect this fee
when the Towers are transferred to the new owner/operator.
5) Regarding both Kimball and Morgan Towers — what are the amounts and nature of the
expenses that are paid by the properties for the Nutrition Center (acct #6535) for 2015, 2016
and 2017? Are these payments in addition to the City's annual subsidy of the Nutrition
Center?
Response: The operating budgets for the Towers provide for the maintenance of the common
areas and other non -tenant improvement areas (i.e., shell, roof, building systems, etc.). The City
provides janitorial services for areas inside the Nutrition Center including the lounge, cafeteria,
and kitchen under a separate budget.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 42
September 18, 2017
Attachment No. 2
III. QUESTIONS/RESPONSE #3: JULY 31, 2017:
1) Can you please provide a detailed Profit and Loss Statement for both Kimball and Morgan for
the 12 months ending 12.31/16 (similar to Attachment D.3 that was included for Kimball for
FY 2014)
Response: See attached.
2) Does the City have lead or asbestos reports for the Towers?
Response: No, the City does not have lead or asbestos reports for either tower.
IV. QUESTIONS/RESPONSE #4: AUGUST 3, 2017:
1) We request the last budget year operating budget breakdown for the Nutrition Center- for
which the city's General Fund provides an annual subsidy of $475,000.
Response: Please see attached.
V. QUESTIONS/RESPONSE #5: AUGUST 8, 2017:
1) Can you provide us with annual operating statements for Morgan and Kimball Towers for two
complete years, 2016 and 2015?
Response: Please see attached.
2) Can you provide us with a current rent roll for Morgan and Kimball Towers?
Response: Please see attached.
3) For purposes of underwriting and achieving the best financial outcome for the City of National
City, can we assume that the City would be willing to issue project -based vouchers for 100% of
the units of Kimball Tower? If the City would be willing to issue some project -based vouchers,
but not 100%, how many should we assume? Or, for our evaluation and underwriting, should
we assume that the City will not issue any project -based vouchers at Kimball Tower?
Response: For analysis and underwriting purposes, please assume that the City will not issue
any project -based vouchers for Kimball Tower.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 43
September 18, 2017
Attachment No. 2
VI. QUESTIONS/RESPONSE #6: AUGUST 14, 2017:
1) In RFP Question/Response #5 distributed on Tuesday 8/8/17, proposers were directed as
follows:
"For analysis and underwriting purposes, please assume that the City will not issue any
project -based vouchers for Kimball Tower."
Because the question of project -based vouchers on the Kimball Tower is one of the more
significant issues in the restructuring of the Morgan and Kimball Towers project, we would like
to discuss this issue further.
If no project -based vouchers are provided on the Kimball Tower, the residential rental income
that can be underwritten and leveraged on Kimball Tower as part of the recapitalization will
be significantly lower than the income that can be underwritten on Morgan Tower. Lenders
will not underwrite tenant -based voucher income. Given the economics of the rents and
operating expenses, our conclusion is that it is unlikely that a permanent loan could be
supported on Kimball even though the tenant -based vouchers would generate significant net
income for the project. By contrast, Morgan Tower will have a renewed HAP contract with
essentially FMR-based contract rents, and lenders will underwrite a permanent loan based on
those contract rents.
The result is a much lower amount of permanent financing (by millions of dollars) that can be
leveraged for Kimball compared to Morgan. This in turn means less funding available for the
overall renovation effort and for up -front payments to the Housing Authority.
We believe that by working with the Housing Authority and HUD we can achieve 150 project -
based vouchers on Kimball. Having these vouchers in place would result in better economics
for the project and the City. In light of this, we'd like to respectfully request that the City and
KMA discuss this issue further to evaluate options and then provide direction to the proposers
on this issue.
Response: Please assume that 100% of the units at Kimball Tower are project based. Although
the City does not currently have a formal contract with HUD for the vouchers at Kimball Tower,
HUD does currently recognize the Section 8 vouchers for Kimball as project based.
The selected developer will have to assist in formalizing an agreement with HUD for the project
based vouchers currently being provided at Kimball.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 44
September 18, 2017
Attachment No. 2
VII. QUESTIONS/RESPONSE #7: AUGUST 14, 2017:
1) Please confirm Utility Allowances to be used on a per unit basis and/or in addition if the
tenants pay for the utilities as part of their 30%?
Response: Tenants pay for electric heating, electric cooking, and other electric -lights.
The current monthly utility allowance paid by tenants totals $41.00. Tenants pay 30% of their
monthly income minus the utility allowance of $41.00.
The Housing Authority of National City has its own utility allowance schedule and is revised
yearly in October. The Housing Authority's current utility allowance schedule can be found at:
http://www.nationalcityca.gov/home/showdocu ment?id=187
VIII. QUESTIONS/RESPONSE #8: AUGUST 21, 2017:
Note: The following questions were received prior to the deadline for submittal of questions (August 15,
4:00 p.m.)
1) Our assumption is that when the project based voucher agreement for Kimball is formalized
with HUD, the rent for each unit will be reset to the then -current Housing Authority payment
standard. For the purposes of the RFP proforma, please confirm that teams should use the
current 1BR payment standard from the Housing Authority's website?
Response: Yes, please use the current FMR that our found on the utility allowance schedule.
http://www.nationalcityca.gov/home/showdocument?id=187
2) Regarding the Morgan Tower, a new HAP rent level will be established with HUD via a market
study process as part of the HAP contract renewal. It is possible that the final Morgan rents
could be different than the final Kimball rents. This will be sorted out through negotiations
with HUD. However, since this market study process hasn't taken place, for the purposes of
the RFP proforma should teams use the current Housing Authority 1BR payment standard for
Morgan so that both towers will have the same rental revenue assumption?
Response: Yes, assume the same rent for both Kimball and Morgan.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 45
September 18, 2017
RESOLUTION NO. 2017 —
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION -HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS FROM THE ANALYSIS COMPLETED BY
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC., OF FOUR FINANCIAL PROPOSALS
SUBMITTED THROUGH A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PROCESS;
SELECTING THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM COMPRISED OF COMMUNITY
HOUSINGWORKS, INC., A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT
CORPORATION, AND MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA, INC., A CALIFORNIA
NON-PROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, FOR THE RECAPITALIZATION
AND REHABILITATION OF KIMBALL AND MORGAN TOWERS LOCATED
AT 1317 AND 1415 "D" AVENUE IN NATIONAL CITY; AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING
AGREEMENT IN ORDER TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS
WITH THE SELECTED DEVELOPER
WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission -Housing Authority of the
City of National City ("CDC -HA") owns the Kimball and Morgan Towers, which are generally
located at 1317 "D" Avenue and 1415 "D" Avenue, National City (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, Community HousingWorks and Mercy Housing California (jointly
referred to as "Developer") responded jointly to the Request for Qualifications ("RFQ") issued by
the CDC -HA dated March 24, 2016 and to the Request for Proposals ("RFP") issued by the
CDC -HA dated June 30, 2017, and desires to recapitalize the Property and rehabilitate the
improvements thereon generally as set forth in the RFQ; and
WHEREAS, the Selection Committee established and approved by the CDC -HA
as part of the Request for Qualifications process reviewed all of the complete RFQ responses,
heard presentations, and conducted interviews from each development team; considered
experience and qualifications, leveraging of non -CDC -HA resources, financial capacity,
operating experience; and resident services and ranked the Developer as the highest of five
development teams; and
WHEREAS, the CDC -HA Board of Commissioner heard presentations on behalf
of five development teams on October 25, 2016, and on December 6, 2016 determined an in-
depth financial evaluation and comparison of financial proposals was necessary through a
Request for Proposals (RFQ) process to make a selection of a development team; and
WHEREAS, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) issued the RFP on June 30,
2017 on behalf of the CDC -HA and, through the established financial evaluation criteria that
included an analysis of each development team's development program, depth of affordability,
overall project feasibility, scored the Developer the highest of the four development teams that
responded to the RFP; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Community Development
Commission -Housing Authority of the City of National City accepts the findings from the analysis
completed by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., of four financial proposals submitted through a
Request for Proposals process.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Community Development Commission -
Housing Authority of the City of National City selects the development team comprised of
Community HousingWorks, Inc., a California non-profit public benefit corporation, and Mercy
CDC -HA Resolution No. 2017 —
Page Two
Housing California, Inc., a California non-profit public benefit corporation, for the recapitalization
and rehabilitation of Kimball and Morgan Towers located at 1317 and 1415 "D" Avenue in
National City.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Community Development Commission -
Housing Authority of the City of National City, in order to begin negotiations, authorizes the City
Manager to execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with the selected developer.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 5th day of December, 2017.
Ron Morrison, Chairman
ATTEST:
Leslie Deese, Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Angil P. Morris -Jones
General Counsel
Kimball and Morgan Towers
Request for Proposals
Community Development Commission -Housing Authority
City of National City
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
December 5, 2o17
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES.
Development Teams
Developer
Team Members
BRIDGE Housing Corporation
(BRIDGE)
BRIDGE, Harley Ellis Devereaux
Architects, and Allgire General
Contractors
Chelsea Investment Corporation
(CIC)
Community HousingWorks (CHW
Morgan and Kimball Community
Partners (MKCP)
CIC and Serving Seniors
CHW and Mercy Housing
Community Preservation Partners,
The RAHD Group, Thompson
Consulting, and Casa Familiar
1
DEVELOPER PROPOSALS
Estimate of Seller Note (1)
Sources of Funds
Development Costs
BRIDGE
Housing
Chelsea
Investment
Community
HousingWorks
MK Community
Partners
$56.2 M
($84.2) M
$87.3 M
(slol.4) M
$73.0 M
($73.5) M
Seller Note
($28.o) M
($6.4) M
(1) Figures shown are for Kimball and Morgan Towers combined.
($14.1) M
($o.5) M
11
DEVELOPER PROPOSALS
Cash Proceeds to Housing Authority (1)
Purchase Price
BRIDGE
Housing
$44.7 M
(Less) Seller Note (s28o) M
Chelsea
Investment
$64.1 M
Community
HousingWorks
$67.8 M
MK Community
Partners
$38.5 M
($64)M ($14.1)M ($0.5) M
Cash Proceeds to
Housing Authority
$16.8 M
$57.7 M
(1) Figures shown are for Kimball and Morgan Towers combined.
$53.7 M $38.o M
12
DEVELOPER PROPOSALS
Total Payments to Housing Authority (1)
Upfront Cash
Present Value of
Annual
Contributions (2)
BRIDGE
Housing
$16.8 M
$1o.6 M
Chelsea
Investment
$57.7 M
$12.3 M
Community
HousingWorks
$53.7 M
$13.4 M
MK Community
Partners
$38.0 M
$14.2 M
Total Value to
Housing
Authority
$27.4 M
$70.0 M
$67.1 M
$52.2 M
(1) Figures shown are for Kimball and Morgan Towers combined.
(2) Present value of annual contributions to Nutrition Center, repayment of Seller Note, and other cash flow to
the Housing Authority.
13
DEVELOPER PROPOSALS
WITH REPLACEMENT RESERVES
Total Payments to Housing Authority (1)
Upfront Cash
Present Value of Annual
Contributions (2)
BRIDGE
Housing
$16.8 M
Chelsea
Investment
$57.7 M
sio.6 M $12.3 M
Community
HousingWorks
$53.7M
$13.4 M
MK Community
Partners
$38.o M
$14.2 M
Total Value to Housing
Authority$27.4 M
Replacement Reserves $2.1 M
$70.0 M
so.o M
$67.3. M
$2.1 M
$52.2 M
$2.1 M
Grand Total Value to
Housing Authority
$29.5 M
$70.oM $69.1M
$54.3 M
(1) Figures shown are for Kimball and Morgan Towers combined.
(2) Present value of annual contributions to Nutrition Center, repayment of Seller Note, and other cash flow to
the Housing Authority.
14
KMA ADJUSTED PRO FORMAS
Adjustment to Developer Pro Formas
Acquisition
Costs (s/unit)
DEVELOPER PROPOSALS
BRIDGE Chelsea Community
Housing Investment HousingWorks
KMA
MK Adjusted
Community Pro Formas
Partners
$148,000 $212,000 $224,000 $127,000
Building
Rehabilitation $55,000 $66,000 $47,000 $52,000
Costs (s/unit)
Monthly Rent
(s/month)
$1,194 $1,500 $1,322 $1,342
$200,000
$55, 000 (1)
FM R of
$1,301
(1) Assumed to include contractor overhead fee, general conditions, and contractor contingency. On -Sites/ Off -
Sites, Remediation, and Parking estimated at so. Includes the payment of prevailing wages.
15
KMAADJUSTED PRO FORMAS
WITH REPLACEMENT RESERVES
Total Payments to Housing Authority (i)
Upfront Cash
Present Value of Annual
Contributions (2)
BRIDGE
Housing
$26.5 M
$11.5 M
Chelsea
Investment
$48.6 M
$12.3 M
Community
HousingWorks
$49.4 M
$13.1 M
Total Value to Housing
Authority
$38.0 M
Replacement Reserves $2.1 M
Grand Total Value to
Housing Authority
$40.1 M
$60.9M $62.6M
so.o M $2.1 M
$60.9 M $64.7 M
MK Community
Partners
$41.1 M
$13.0 M
$54.1 M
$2.1 M
$56.2 M
(1) Figures shown are for Kimball and Morgan Towers combined.
(2) Present value of annual contributions to Nutrition Center, repayment of Seller Note, and other cash flow to
the Housing Authority.
16
r
Ranking of Developer Proposals - With Replacement Reserves
Kimball Morgan
KMA Adjusted
Pro Forma
#1 90 pts 85 pts $64.7 M
Chelsea Investment
#2 85 pts 85 pts $60.9 M
Corp.
Community
HousingWorks
#3 MK Community 75 pts 75 pts $56.2 M
Partners
#4 BRIDGE Housing 7o pts 7o pts $40.1 M
(1) Figures shown are for Kimball and Morgan Towers combined.
(2) Includes Replacement Reserves paid to Housing Authority by CHW, MK Community Partners, and
BRIDGE.
17
nfATEU,� AD' `` •
igua..1.n�114 U \N``././
December 18, 2017
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Office of the City Clerk
1243 National City Blvd., National City, California 91950
619-336-4228
Michael R. Dalla, CMC - City Clerk
Mr. Ed Holder, Regional Vice President
Mercy Housing California
1500 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Dear Mr. Holder,
On December 5th, 2017, Resolution No. 2017-60 was passed and adopted by the
Community Development Commission -Housing Authority of the City of National City,
authorizing execution of an Agreement with Mercy Housing California.
We are enclosing for your records a certified copy of the above Resolution and a fully
executed original Agreement.
Michael R. Dalla, CMC
City Clerk
Enclosures
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Office of the City Clerk
1243 National City Blvd., National City, California 91950
619-336-4228
Michael R. Dalla, CMC - City Clerk
December 18, 2017
Ms. Susan M. Reynolds, CEO
Community HousingWorks
2815 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 350
San Diego, CA 92108
Dear Ms. Reynolds,
On December 5th, 2017, Resolution No. 2017-60 was passed and adopted by the
Community Development Commission -Housing Authority of the City of National City,
authorizing execution of an Agreement with Community HousingWorks.
We are enclosing for your records a certified copy of the above Resolution and a fully
executed original Agreement.
Sincerely,
//
dz
Michael R. Dalla, CMC
City Clerk
Enclosures