socioeconomic analysis

Transcription

College Town at
Rutgers University Livingston Campus
Piscataway, New Jersey
Phase I – Opportunity Assessment
December 22, 2003
e
College Town at Rutgers University
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................7
BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................................7
MARKET AREA AND SITE ANALYSIS..............................................................................................................7
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................................8
KEY DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................................9
AREA MARKET & DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ...................................................................................................9
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.........................................................................11
BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................20
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS..............................................................................................................................................25
KEY DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................................................33
IDENTIFIED MARKET AREAS ..........................................................................................................................................45
E
3
SITE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................................45
AREA DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ......................................................................................................................................53
MARKET RATE HOUSING ASSESSMENT.......................................................................................................................58
AFFORDABLE HOUSING MARKET ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................84
UNIVERSITY HOUSING MARKET ASSESSMENT ...........................................................................................................90
RETAIL MARKET ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................................101
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................................................115
APPENDIX 1: SOURCES AND CONTACTS ...................................................................................................................123
APPENDIX 2: PROJECTS IN MIDDLESEX COUNTY .....................................................................................................125
APPENDIX 3: FEDERAL LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS...............................................................................134
APPENDIX 4: STUDENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS PLANNED OR UNDERWAY IN NEW JERSEY ......................136
APPENDIX 5: UNIVERSITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDIES ....................................................................138
APPENDIX 6: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................148
E
4
STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
This report is subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions:
This report and its contents are intended only for Middlesex County Improvement Authority and Rutgers University’s internal use
in connection with their evaluation of the development potential of the site. The report is not to be used in connection with the
registration, purchase or sale of securities, nor is it to be filed or referred to in whole or in part in a prospectus or other financial
offering document.
No liability is assumed for matters, which are legal or environmental in nature. In addition, any reference to physical property
characteristics in terms of quality, condition, cost, suitability, soil conditions, obsolescence, and the like are strictly related to their
economic impact on the site. No liability is assumed for any personal property or engineering-related issues, including
inadequacies or defects in the structures, design, mechanical equipment or utility services associated with the improvements; air or
water pollution; noise; flooding, storms or winds; traffic and other neighborhood hazards; radon gas; asbestos; natural or artificial
radiation, or toxic substances of any description, whether on or off the premises.
Improvements, if any, are assumed to be within lot lines and in accordance with local zoning and building ordinances as well as all
applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
All direct and indirect written information supplied by the client, its agents, and assigns, concerning the Subject Property is
assumed to be true, accurate, and complete. Information identified as supplied or prepared by other sources is believed to be
reliable; however, no responsibility for its accuracy is assumed.
The signatories shall not be required to give testimony, or appear in court or at any public hearing with reference to the subject
property, unless prior arrangements have been made with Ernst & Young LLP (“E&Y”).
This report is intended to be read and used as a whole and not in parts.
Our analyses are based on currently available information and estimates and assumptions about future developments and economic
conditions. Such estimates and assumptions are subject to uncertainty and variation. Accordingly, we do not represent them as
results that will be achieved. Some assumptions inevitably will not materialize and unanticipated events and circumstances may
occur; therefore, the actual results achieved may vary materially from the estimated results.
E
5
Possession of this report or a copy thereof, or any part thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication, nor may it be used by
anyone but the party for whom it has been prepared without the prior written consent and approval of E&Y.
None of the contents of this report shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media, new media, sales media, or any
other public means of communication without the prior written consent and approval of E&Y.
With respect to our analysis, our work did not include an analysis of the potential impact of any unexpected sharp rise or decline in
local or general financial market or economic conditions or technological changes.
Our report is dated December 22, 2003. All data collection, site visits, research and analyses for this report were conducted prior
to that date. Subsequent to that date, we cannot be held responsible for changes in the market conditions or subject property,
which would have a material impact on the contents of this report. The terms of our engagement did not provide for reporting on
events and transactions that occur subsequent to the date of this report. However, we are available to discuss the necessity for
revision as a result of changes in the economic or market factors affecting the project for which additional fees will be incurred.
We have not performed an audit, review, or compilation, in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants (“AICPA”), on any historical or prospective financial information that may be included in the
accompanying report. Accordingly, we do not express any opinion or any other form of assurance on such information.
E
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Middlesex County Improvement Authority (“MCIA”) engaged the Real Estate Advisory Services practice (“REAS”) of Ernst &
Young LLP (“E&Y”) to provide project management and financial advisory services associated with the development of College
Town at Rutgers University’s Livingston Campus in Piscataway, New Jersey. MCIA contemplates financing and coordinating the
proposed College Town development, and has engaged E&Y to assist in the pre-development processes to move the project from
the draft master plan and concept stage to the final master plan and development strategy stage. The report represents the final
deliverable of the first Phase of our work, as described in our engagement letter dated June 19, 2003, and approved by the
Resolution of the Middlesex County Improvement Authority, on August 13, 2003. Phase I – entails the Opportunity Assessment
and will be followed by Phase II, Development of a Master Plan and Development Strategy.
Market Area and Site Analysis
For this assessment, the Local Market Area (“LMA”) includes Piscataway and the Primary Market Area (“PMA”) is Middlesex
County. These areas were determined based on the site’s location attributes, analysis of geographic boundaries, neighboring
communities, population trends, proximity to major employment centers, mass transit and general development patterns.
The College Town site (the “site”) is approximately 44 acres, located in the Township of Piscataway, Middlesex County, New
Jersey. The site is owned by Rutgers University, and is on the Livingston College campus. The Livingston College campus is the
least developed of the Rutgers University campuses, and has the most potential for future development.
Key site and area attributes positively impacting potential development opportunities on the site include: 1) Well located as part of
the Livingston College campus; 2) Located at the outer edge of the Livingston College campus; 3) Good car access; 4) Route 18
extension, one of the state’s most complex road projects, designed to allow motorists direct access from Route 18 to Route 287, 5)
Established residential area to the north of the site; and 6) Limited retail development, complementing the development of retail on
the site.
Site and area attributes with less positive impacts include: 1) Livingston Campus is not as active as Busch campus; 2) Fragmented
nature of surrounding uses; 3) No direct access by train or bus; 4) No direct access or visibility from major highways; and 5)
Limited multi-family development in the area.
E
7
Stakeholder Analysis
The three key stakeholders are:
♦ Middlesex County Improvement Authority – MCIA is the facilitator and coordinator of this project. MCIA has bonding
authority and has the capacity to bond development projects. They seek to identify the financial feasibility and understand the
optimal project size.
♦ Rutgers University – Rutgers is the landowner, and seeks to create College Town as a development with a critical mass of
residences (student and market-rate housing), retail and other university-related development. Rutgers’ objective for this phase
of the project is to define its needs, and further refine the proposed development program for College Town.
♦ The Township of Piscataway (“Piscataway” or the “Township”) – Rutgers University’s Livingston College is located in the
Township of Piscataway. Piscataway seeks to meet its affordable housing requirement.
Site Concept
Based on E&Y’s discussions with Rutgers University (“Rutgers”), it is our understanding that concepts for the site include:
♦ Market Rate Residential – E&Y identified the market support that exists for market rate for-sale units and rental units.
♦ Affordable Rate Residential – 80 units of low- to moderate-income housing.
♦ University Housing for Graduate and Undergraduate Students – A total of 350 units of university housing for
undergraduate and graduate students.
♦ Support Retail – Ancillary commercial development to serve demand at the project level, as well as demand from students at
the Livingston campus and in the surrounding area.
♦ University Uses – Rutgers would like various uses to be developed on the site, such as a theater, internet café, bookstore, day
care, student center and post office, to name a few.
E
8
Rutgers would like to retain ownership of the land, and may ground lease to a developer(s).
Key Development Considerations
The key development considerations associated with development of the site are:
♦ Affordable Housing - The development is proposed to include 80 units of affordable housing. These units are included based
on a request from the Township of Piscataway. The Township seeks to meet its affordable housing requirements, as mandated
by the NJ Supreme Court Mount Laurel decision and the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (“COAH”).
♦ University Uses - Based on conversations with Rutgers, 350 units of the development have been allocated for graduate and
undergraduate student housing. Rutgers has requested 350 rental units, each with 2 bedroom, and 2 bathrooms. Rutgers would
offer these units to students as an on-campus housing option offering two or four beds (1 or 2 beds per bedroom) for
undergraduate students, and 2 beds (1 bed per bedroom) for graduate students. Additionally, Rutgers would like certain
university uses to be located in the College Town development. The square footage and development program of the university
uses are yet to be finalized, but the university uses may include a small theater, internet café and cultural center.
♦ Zoning - Rutgers is not required to comply with local planning and zoning regulations for education-related uses. However,
based on the Haines Act, (State of New Jersey Statute -18A: 65-33.3-5), it is assumed that the market rate and affordable
housing components of the development will be subject to local land use planning and zoning regulations.
Area Market & Development Trends
Middlesex County has experienced significant growth over the past decade including the redevelopment of urban areas such as
New Brunswick, and continued development of the Rutgers University campuses.
Residential - The PMA is densely developed and developable land is becoming more scarce for both for-sale and rental units. The
PMA is currently a for-sale market for multifamily development.
♦ For-Sale - There is limited supply of for-sale condominium and town house units in the PMA, and there is limited amount of
new construction of single family and multifamily residential units. The Dodge Pipeline Report, as of third quarter 2003,
reports 1,608 units in the planning stage, and one project of 12 town house units currently underway in the PMA. While 1,608
E
9
units represnts significant planned development, new units cannot be built fast enough to keep pace with current demand. Sales
velocity of new units exceed pro forma numbers and sales prices continue to climb.
♦ Rental - According to the Dodge Pipeline Report, as of the third quarter 2003, there are no rental units in the planning stages in
Piscataway, and the 339-unit Birchview Apartment Complex (rental units) is underway. In the PMA, there are eleven projects
comprising 1,313 rental units in the planning stage, and 4 projects comprising 629 units are under construction. These projects
continue to provide new supply to the steady demand levels in the PMA.
Commercial Development - There is a substantial amount of commercial development along Route 1. With respect to sectors of
the local market area in closer proximity to the site, however, there is little new construction activity.
♦ Office - According to NAI Direct, Class A suburban office vacancy in Middlesex and Somerset Counties is currently 24% with
Class B space 15% vacant. Dodge Pipeline reports 6.5 million square feet of planned office space in the PMA and 154,000 SF
currently underway.
♦ Industrial - Colliers’ reports that the PMA warehouse market has seen positive net absorption for the first half of 2003.
Vacancy rates have decreased from levels close to 20% at year-end 2002 to approximately 14.2% in the second quarter 2003.
The light industrial region located north of the site is experiencing high levels of vacancy approaching 25% with depressed
rent levels.
♦ Hotel - Dodge Pipeline reports that in the PMA, there are 8 hotel projects with 711 rooms in the planning stages, and 6 hotel
projects comprising 739 rooms underway as of third quarter 2003.
E
10
Summary of Findings of Development Potential
Based on E&Y’s assessment, the development potential for identified uses is summarized below.
Overall Project
E&Y’s assessment indicates that potential demand exists for revenue generating uses in the College Town project, and it is viable,
on an overall basis, assuming favorable financing. The project could be a one-phase project (our cashflows assume that it is a onephase project). Assuming that the pre-development phase of the project and the approvals processes take 12 months, the earliest
construction start date for the project is January 2005. Assuming that construction will take 18 months, occupancy may begin in
July 2006, in time for the 2006-2007 academic year.
Market-Rate Residential
E&Y’s assessment indicates that the residential rental and for-sale markets within the PMA are strong. As a result of consistent
growth in the northern and central New Jersey economy, since 1995, residential markets have experienced significant price
increases. Additionally, due to limited supply and steady demand, vacancy rates remain low in Piscataway and New Brunswick.
Based on existing zoning, College Town may support the proposed development of a total of 230 market rate units. These units
may be a mix of for-sale town homes and condominiums, and rental units. The potential break out of units between for-sale and
rental units is as follows: Thirty for-sale units and 200 rental units; or if only rental units, 230 rental units. The potential mix of
unit sizes is 1 bedroom (26%) and 2 bedroom (56%) units, and a limited number of 3 bedroom units (18%). It is likely that the
actual ratio of for-sale to rental units would be driven by market conditions at the project construction start date. Currently, forsale units predominate due to the strong housing market and low interest rate environment. The developer would determine the
final ratio of for-sale to rental. Our cashflow analysis assumes that all units are rentals.
The development of for-sale units on leased land appears to be possible from a legal standpoint. However, issues relating to
marketability and financing require additional input on the part of the potential developer.
Our assessment indicates that there are three primary sources of demand: 1) Rutgers faculty and staff interested in new housing
options proximate to the University; 2) Young singles and couples interested in a new development with convenient access to
E
11
central New Jersey and New Brunswick; and 3) Empty Nesters seeking lower maintenance housing options or new construction
rental options. Economic and demographic trends in Piscataway and the PMA for these sources are positive.
In the LMA and PMA, new condominium projects have asking prices starting at $210,000 for a two-bedroom, two-bathroom unit
with approximately 1,200 square feet. Comparable offerings on a per square foot basis that are at the high end of current new
construction sale prices of $180-193/SF (2003 dollars).
There is limited competitive and comparable supply of rental units in Piscataway. Competitive rental product in New Brunswick
rents for between $1,320 for a one-bedroom unit to $2,800 for a three-bedroom unit. Based on a 15% discount to New Brunswick
rental rates, resulting pro-forma rates are $1,240 ($1.55/SF) to $2,050 ($1.45/SF).
Rutgers has a limited supply of units (under 50 units) of on-campus and off-campus rental housing available for faculty and staff
on the Livingston College campus.
The potential demand segments exhibit the following demand preferences: pedestrian environment; a sense of community; private
parking; convenience of shopping; varied housing options; privacy and security; access to major highways, transit, and airports;
convenient access to urban areas; large suburban size rooms; high quality fixtures, finishes, and appliances; and pool, tennis, and
exercise facilities.
Affordable Housing
The development of 80 affordable units on the site would help Piscataway meet its affordable housing requirements, as mandated
by the NJ Supreme Court Mount Laurel decision and the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH).
In order for affordable units to qualify for COAH approval as part of a municipality’s fair share, they must be marketed to people
who live in the housing region. The site is in Region 3 comprising Middlesex, Somerset, and Hunterdon Counties where the
median income level for a 3-person household is $78,210. Per COAH income guidelines for Region 3, income eligibility for lowincome housing is $43,450; and for Moderate Income Housing is $69,520.
The supply of and demand for affordable housing units in the State of New Jersey is calculated on a regional basis due to the
manner in which individuals qualify for affordable units.
♦ The total projected supply for Region 3 between 1999 and 2014 is 13,265 units. Annually, this translates to 884 COAH units.
E
12
♦ The total projected demand for Region 3 between 1999 and 2014 is 17,532 units. Annually, this translates to 926 COAH units.
Rental rates are determined by COAH. For low-income units in Region 3, the rental rate is currently $860 per month, and for
moderate-income units, the rental rate is currently $1,173 per month, including an $88 allowance for utilities.
Affordable units would be two bedroom, one and a half bath units, averaging 950 square feet with private parking and modern
appliances.
It is likely that the ratio of low-income to moderate-income housing for the 80 units would be determined primarily on the
eligibility requirements for various forms of financing. The New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency (“HMFA”)
typically provides funding for affordable housing projects in New Jersey. The HMFA can designate Federal Low Income Housing
Tax Credits, tax-exempt financing, and state sponsored Balanced Housing Grants. The Middlesex County Improvement Authority
may also provide financing for the affordable housing component.
University Housing
E&Y’s discussions with Rutgers indicates that there is a strong potential demand for 350 university housing units on Rutgers
University’s Livingston campus for graduate and undergraduate students.
Universities in New Jersey and across the country are upgrading campus housing and undertaking major construction projects.
Campuses are upgrading primarily in response to higher student enrollment nationally, and increased competition between
colleges for students. Also, most campuses have not upgraded since the last construction wave in the 1960s and 1970s and now
require upgrades. Most universities are opting for apartments and townhouses over dormitories, as students are attracted to the
privacy and independence of these units.
Case studies for Aggie Village (UC Davis), University Gateway Center (Ohio State University) and UTC Place (University of
Tennessee) indicate that universities are undertaking new development projects that include residential development, catering
towards faculty and staff, as well as students. The residential component may include for-sale or rental units, and are often
developed by private developers or collaborative ventures between the university, the town, and private developers. Often the land
is leased to the developer, or the developer is a fee developer. The developer is also often the manager and operator of the
development once completed. Financing is often by or through the university’s bonding process.
E
13
Rutgers University’s Livingston campus has limited on-campus housing options for undergraduate and graduate students. As a
result, there is pent up demand for on-campus housing, particularly apartments. Due to the lack of housing options, university
students move to off-campus housing (90% of students live on campus freshman year, but only 40-45% of juniors and seniors live
on the Livingston campus).
Students are attracted to the following amenities in student housing: private bedrooms and bathrooms; wireless web access;
individually controlled heating and cooling; adequate storage; lounges, meeting space and study rooms.
Universities finance student housing through: direct university credit, indirect university credit; unaffiliated student housing; and
project financing through state issued debt.
Retail
E&Y’s assessment indicates that retail in the New Jersey market continues to be strong and is expected to grow in the next five
years.
New Jersey has strong demographics with the second highest disposable income and the second largest retail market in the
country. Retailers recognize the potential demand that exists in New Jersey, and continue to be attracted to entry and expansion
opportunities in this market.
Additionally, E&Y’s assessment of existing retail supply on or near the Livingston campus indicates that retail supply is limited.
Most of the local retail is found in the regional malls of Piscataway and South Plainfield. There is little mid sized neighborhood
retail development (30,000 to 50,000 SF) to serve both the university students and the local market needs and there is limited new
construction of retail supply.
There are various sources of potential demand. E&Y’s review of the development concept and potential users of retail indicates
that the proposed retail would be a university town center or neighborhood retail development (to serve the university and local
market demand) with some eating and drinking offerings for the university students and athletic stadium attendees.
The assessment indicates that there is sufficient demand from potential customers for the development of retail. This demand is
from the local market area, the university level demand and the project level demand. This demand is anticipated to support at
least 30,000 SF of retail development. The retail demand is for a neighborhood center that includes General Apparel Furnishing
and Other (“GAFO”), food eating and drinking, and entertainment retail.
E
14
Summary of College Town Residential Development Potential
Table 1: Summary of College Town Residential Development Potential (2004 Dollars)
Estimated No./Size
of Units
Use
Pricing
Lease Terms Approx. Absorption
Market Rate Residential
For-Sale
30 units (1250-1750 SF)
Rent
200 units (800-1450 SF)
NA
3-5 units per month (10 –15 months
sell out)
1 year
8 units per month (24 month rent out)
$772 monthly
($9.75 PSF annual)
$1,085 monthly
($13.70 PSF annual)
1 year
Will be rented immediately
I year
Will be rented immediately
$2,220 per unit/$555 per bed
($29.52 PSF annual)
$1,241per unit/$621 per bed
($16.54 PSF annual)
12 months
NA
12 months
NA
$15 PSF
$24 PSF
$18 PSF
10 years
10 years
10 years
$237,500 - 332,500
($190 PSF)
$1,240-2,050 monthly
($17-18.60 PSF annual)
Affordable Housing
Low Income
Total 80 units
(950 SF)
Moderate Income
University Housing
Undergraduate
175 units (900 SF)
Graduate
175 units (900 SF)
Retail
General Apparel
Furnishing and Other
17,500 SF (44%)
Food, Eating & Drinking 12,500 SF (31%)
Support and Service
10,000 SF (25%)
50% pre-lease, 6 months for the
remaining 50% of the space.
Source: E&Y Assembled Data
E
15
Financial Analysis
The financial analysis incorporated conclusions from the market study to review the feasibility of each component of the College
Town project. This analysis was an order of magnitude analysis, the first iteration of which has been developed and is presented in
this report. It is our assessment that the financial feasibility of each of the components is within the ranges presented in Table 3 of
this section. However, it is important to note that the focus of this phase has been the correct structuring of the financial model,
and that the input assumptions are subject to revision and refinement in Phase II, upon further discussion with MCIA and Rutgers
and other relevant parties. Revisions to the input assumptions will alter the results presented in Table 3.
Additionally, in this first iteration:
♦ The market-rate rental-housing yield is below levels that would attract a typical residential developer
♦ The financial analysis considered an all rental scenario to calculate the potential value or returns to Rutgers. Future iterations
of the financial analysis (as part of the master planning process) will consider the incorporation of for-sale units on the site to
make the market rate aspect of the project more attractive.
♦ Each of the other components (affordable housing, university housing and retail) generates development fees, management
fees or a positive return to the developer and provides potential ground rent payments to Rutgers.
♦ Based on Rutgers desire to maintain ownership of the land, the transaction structure considered was a ground lease structure,
with Rutgers as ground lessor, and the private sector developer(s) as the ground lessee(s).
♦ The analysis is a residual land value analysis, and no ground rent is considered (with the exception of retail) in this iteration as
Rutgers has indicated that they would like the university uses to be developed in return for Rutgers contribution of land to the
deal.
E
16
The following forms of financing have been considered:
Table 2: Potential Sources of Financing for Each Component
Terms
Source
Affordable Housing
Student
Housing
University Uses
LTV
Conventional 70%
Financing
Term Amort. Rate
Pd.
20
30
6.25%
Low Income 30% 18
Housing Tax
Credits
and Tax Exempt 100% 20
Bonds
Retail Uses
Conventional 70%
Financing
10
30
7.25%
30
5.75%
20
6.5%
Each of these components could be financed through additional sources or partnerships involving multiple funding sources.
The table below provides estimates of the potential value of each component to Rutgers. These estimates will change as a result of
fluctuations in market interest rates over the initial development cycle.
E
17
Table 3: Potential Range of Value of Each Component to
Rutgers University
Potential Value to Rutgers
(2006 Dollars)
Affordable Housing
Student Housing
$0
$300,000 to $440,000
Scenario 1 - ($5,000,000)
Scenario 2 - $24,000,000
Retail Uses
University Uses
$300,000 to $385,000
($5,000,000) to ($6,000,000)
Scenario 1 – 2 beds per unit for undergraduate and 2 beds per unit for graduate
and Scenario 2 – 4 beds per unit for undergraduate and 2 beds per unit for graduate
Following is a summary of the conclusions of the financial analysis:
♦ Market Rate Residential – For this component, the project was assumed to include only rental units. The project yield is only
6% versus an expected 20-30% yield a developer would expect for a comparable project. However, the project is able to
generate positive cash flow after stabilization and is therefore a potentially viable project depending on the ownership and
operating structure that Rutgers decides to implement. The low yield reflects current market trends that prefer for-sale units.
The analysis assumes conventional financing of the market rate component. Rutgers could take a more active role and decide
to provide housing for faculty and staff, develop alternative financing structures with the potential developer and financing
source, and develop the project as a fee based component.
♦ Affordable Housing - The NPV of the lease payments would range from $300,000 to $440,000. Our analysis illustrates that
the affordable housing component is a viable option that covers debt service as well as generates income for Rutgers. We have
conservatively assumed conventional financing for the 23% of the affordable housing budget not covered by the Low Income
Housing Tax Credits (59%), NJ Balanced Housing Grant (15%), and deferred developer equity (3%).
E
18
♦ Student Housing - The NPV of the cash flow after debt service is estimated to range from a loss of $5,000,000 to a profit of
$24,000,000. The loss results when undergraduate occupancy is one student per room with the profit resulting when occupancy
is 2 students per room. Because Rutgers cannot recognize a profit, any surplus could be used to construct additional University
uses. It is also important to note that in a scenario where a surplus is generated, alternative financing options to the 100% taxexempt option would be explored. A partnership involving developer equity, tax-exempt financing, and conventional financing
could be structured.
♦ Retail - Using our concluded market rental rates and an annual ground rent payment of $50,000, the project yield over a 10year hold was 19%. On an NPV basis the value to Rutgers would be in the range of $300,000 to $385,000. Conventional
financing was assumed for the retail component.
♦ University Uses - Assuming Rutgers pays $0 rent for the space, the cost for the university aspect of the project would be
$5,000,000 to $6,000,000. These costs can be broken out into operatin and capital costs: $100,000 to $150,000 of operating
costs annually over a over a 15-year period; and $4,900,000 to $5,850,000 of capital costs. The range represents the NPV of
the costs to Rutgers of 50,000 square feet of University uses. The space is financed through tax-exempt financing. Alternative
funding strategies include conventional financing, bonds issued by Rutgers or combining the project with the student housing
component.
♦ Other Considerations - Table 3 illustrates the large portion of potential revenue generated by the student-housing component.
Based on the final breakdown of students per unit and undergraduate to graduate student ratios, a potential benefit to Rutgers
may or may not exist. The development program that is concluded by Rutgers will determine the residual value available for
the construction of additional university uses.
E
19
BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
Middlesex County Improvement Authority (“MCIA”) engaged the Real Estate Advisory Services practice (“REAS”) of Ernst & Young LLP
(“E&Y”) to provide project management and financial advisory services associated with the development of College Town at Rutgers
University’s Livingston Campus in Piscataway, New Jersey. MCIA contemplates financing and coordinating the proposed College Town
development, and has engaged E&Y to assist in the pre-development processes to move the project from the draft master plan and concept
stage to the final master plan and development strategy stage. This report represents the final deliverable of the first phase of our work, as
described in our engagement letter dated June 19, 2003, and approved by the Resolution of the Middlesex County Improvement Authority on
August 13, 2003. Phase I entailed the Opportunity Assessment and will be followed by Phase II, Development of a Master Plan and
Development Strategy.
The College Town site (“the site”) is approximately 44 acres, located in the Township of Piscataway, Middlesex County, New Jersey. The
site is owned by Rutgers University, and is part of the Livingston College campus. The Livingston College campus is the least developed of
the Rutgers University campuses, and has the most potential for future development.
At this time, the majority of the site is unused. The only uses on the site are a Day Care Center and the Livingston Theater, at the southern
edge (at the intersection of Road 3 and Joyce Kilmer Avenue); and surface parking, at the southwestern edge (along Joyce Kilmer Avenue,
the main spine of the Livingston College campus).
Over the past 18 years, there has been significant interest in the development of the site and several different development plans have been
developed. To summarize:
♦ 1963 - The site, part of the former US Army Base, Camp Kilmer was acquired by Rutgers University in 1963 from the federal
government. The land transfer was contingent upon a 20-year period of federal interest which stipulated that the land be used only for
“educational purposes” during the years of joint tenure. In December 1984, Rutgers obtained clear title to the site.
♦ 1969 – Livingston College campus was developed.
♦ 1985 - At that time, governing and administrative bodies of Rutgers determined this property to be surplus land that could be converted
into a revenue source through development. (The university’s governing and administrative boards define the site as land that exceeds the
E
20
university’s educational needs for the next fifty years.) In 1985, graduate students in the Department of Urban Planning and Policy
Development prepared a “Study and Proposal for the development of Surplus University Land Adjacent to Livingston College” for the
University’s Office of Physical and Capital Planning.
♦ 1986-88 - The College Town Site was a portion of the Kilmer ABC site, one of the seven sites identified by Rutgers University in
October 1986 for a Land Use for Commercial Concepts Study, completed in January 1988, exploring land use options for commercial
development on the Busch and Livingston (then Kilmer) campuses.
♦ 1989 - Based on the results of the Land Use Concepts for Commercial Development study, Rutgers pursued development of 800 units on
another site. However, development of this site was faced with intense public opposition. At the request of Piscataway Township,
Rutgers put forth the development of Kilmer Village as an alternative. The development of Kilmer Village was approved by the
Township of Piscataway and the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (“COAH”), and supported by the campus community.
♦ 1990 – The site was the focus of Professor Anton Nelessen’s Graduate Urban Design Studio within the Department of Urban Planning
and Policy Development at Rutgers University.
♦ 1990s - When the Township of Piscataway saw the plan, they approached the RU Board of Governors asking that 96 units affordable
housing (COAH/Mt. Laurel) be added to the plan.
♦ 1991 - In January 1991 the Board of Governors approved designation of the site for the development of “Kilmer Village”, a planned
residential development with 480 residential units (including 96 COAH/Mt. Laurel units) and 40,000 square feet of retail. The site was to
be ground leased to and developed by the Morlok Development Group (“MDG”) of Haddonfield, NJ. The project was a Realty Asset
Development Project of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. The design concept for the site was based on concepts put forth by
the Graduate Urban Design Studio. The start of construction is scheduled for mid-1992, with completion of the multi-phase effort
planned for late 1994. The project was not started.
♦ Late 1990s – Early 2000s - The Township of Piscataway came back to RU and asked that 80 units of COAH housing be developed. A
resolution was passed by Rutgers, recommending the development of 80 units of COAH housing.
E
21
♦ 2002 – Project planning was initiated again, and Ayers Saint Gross planners along with Rutgers University developed the College Town
concept further.
Based on E&Y’s discussions with Rutgers, it is our understanding that concepts for the redevelopment area include:
♦ Market Rate Residential – E&Y is identifying the market support that exists for market rate for-sale and rental units.
♦ Affordable Rate Residential – 80 units of low to moderate income housing.
♦ University Housing for Graduate and Undergraduate Students – 350 units of university housing for undergraduate and graduate
students.
♦ Support Retail – Ancillary commercial development to serve demand at the project level, as well as demand from students at the
Livingston campus and in the surrounding area.
♦ University Uses – Rutgers would like various uses to be developed on the site such as a theater, internet café, bookstore, day care,
student center and post office, to name a few.
The primary objective of E&Y’s engagement in Phase I was to conduct the research and analysis necessary to provide MCIA with a Phase I
– Opportunity Assessment report that will assist in evaluating the short and long-term feasibility of the project.
To accomplish this objective, E&Y undertook the following tasks:
♦ Conducted an introductory meeting with Rutgers University to introduce our team, exchange contact information and confirm objectives
and goals for the report.
♦ Met with MCIA, Rutgers University and the Township of Piscataway to understand the stakeholders’ objectives and goals for successful
development; project history; obtain background data; understand demand segments; and identify and discuss critical issues.
E
22
♦ Conducted an assessment of the site and surrounding area to identify key atributes including access, area image and characteristics,
existing and proposed supply and potential demand generators.
♦ Reviewed data and reports supplied by MCIA and Rutgers University.
♦ Reviewed third party data, as well as articles, area market reports and other published data.
♦ Identified a Local Market Area (“LMA”) and Primary Market Area (“PMA”) based on preliminary assessments and knowledge of the
area.
♦ Assessed key economic and demographic trends, development trends and supply and demand characteristics in the LMA and PMA.
♦ Conducted primary research in select comparable markets within the PMA, including interviews with brokers, town planning and
economic development agency officials.
♦ Developed three case studies of university developments, including development programs and financing plans of a similar scale
undertaken by other universities.
♦ Assessed the market potential for residential development and ancillary retail uses based on:
Identification of market areas
Site and area assessmnent
Major economic and demographic trends
Area wide development trends
E
23
Relevant supply and demand trends and critical measures
Background material and discussions with MCIA, Rutgers and Piscataway
♦ Conducted a high level financial analysis to understand the viability of the project. The pro-forma included preliminary estimates of
construction costs, land development costs, operating revenues and expenses and preliminary financing structures and costs.
♦ This report is subject to the assumptions and limiting conditions discussed in Appendix 6 of this report, Statement of Assumptions and
Limiting Conditions.
E
24
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
There are numerous stakeholders who are interested in, and would like to be involved with, the development of College Town. However,
there are three key stakeholders. These stakeholders are:
♦ Middlesex County Improvement Authority – MCIA is the facilitator and coordinator of this project. MCIA has bonding authority and
has the capacity to bond development projects. Middlesex County has a strong bond rating which allows MCIA to obtain financing at
very low interest rates, without increasing County taxes. MCIA’s objective for this phase of the project is to understand the financial
feasibility of the project in order to ensure that the College Town development can be financed and is sustainable.
♦ Rutgers University – Rutgers is the landowner, and seeks to create College Town as a development with a critical mass of residences
(student and market-rate housing), retail and other university-related development. Rutgers’ objective for this phase of the project is to
define its needs, and further refine the proposed development program for College Town.
♦ The Township of Piscataway – Rutgers University’s Livingston College is located in the Township of Piscataway. Piscataway seeks to
meet its affordable housing requirement. Piscataway approached Rutgers regarding this affordable housing requirement and the Rutgers
Board of Governors approved the development of 80 units of affordable housing on the site. Additionally, if the development is not
limited to university- and education-related development, the development may be subject to Piscataway’s zoning requirements and
approvals.
Ernst & Young LLP met with each of the key stakeholders with the objectives of:
♦ Understanding the stakeholder’s goals and objectives for the project
♦ Identifying the stakeholder’s critical issues with regard to the project
Following are summaries of E&Y’s meetings with the key stakeholders:
♦ Middlesex County Improvement Authority
E
25
E&Y met with Jane Leal, Director of Administration at MCIA on October 30, 2003.
MCIA’s goals are:

Move this project forward.

Understand the optimal size of the development and identify what is financially feasible for College Town.
MCIA’s critical issues:

Project Feasibility - The development of a sustainable and financeable project.

Affordable Housing Requirement - Understanding the affordable housing component of the project:

▫
The Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) has issued a Mount Laurel Third Round Methodology to make Mount Laurel
more flexible and less negotiable. This methodology is in the comments stage, but may result in a revision of Piscataway’s
total fair share obligation of affordable housing, and a revision in the affordable housing ratio for new construction. At this
time, the affordable housing ratio is 2 units per 10 units, this ratio may go down to 1 unit per 10 units.
▫
MCIA would like to understand the regulations associated with the affordable housing units. For example, can affordable
housing units be offered to Rutgers students, faculty and staff.
Satisfying Rutgers requirements –
▫
The concept plan for College Town has been in existence for over a decade. MCIA would like this plan to move forward
from a concept to an actionable plan.
▫
MCIA realizes that there is a need for housing options for Rutgers University students, on-campus and off-campus, for
graduate and undergraduate students. The housing that students seek is apartment units, not residence halls. Due to the lack
of housing options, Rutgers is losing good quality students.
E
26
MCIA’s Participation
MCIA has bonding capacity and can finance part of the project (the amount and type of financing is specified by law), but
MCIA would also like to understand the other forms of financing available for the project.

MCIA utilizes the following types of financing:
▫
Capital Equipment Lease Program - A pooled financing program for the County and townships.
▫
Capital Improvement Programs – For buildings and renovations.
▫
County Wide Bonds – County guaranteed bonds for the Middlesex County Educational Services Commission.
▫
Private Bonds – A new form of financing offered by MCIA. MCIA has issued these bonds for the New Brunswick
Apartments and to Devco for the development of College Hall project with Rutgers University.
Impact of Other Area Developments on College Town – Other projects that may impact College Town:

Route 18 expansion project

Light rail project

Raritan River project
Potential other stakeholders

Piscataway’s senior population

Delaware Raritan Canal Commission and related non-profit groups.
E
27
♦ Rutgers University
E&Y had two meetings with Rutgers stakeholders:

On October 3, 2003, E&Y met with Kyu Whang (Interim Vice President for Facilities and Capital Planning), Frank Wong
(Executive Director), Debra McNally (Manager, RE Planning) and Michael C. Imperiale (Director of University Housing and
Conference Services).

On November 11, 2003, E&Y met with Arnold Hyndman (Dean of Livingston College), George Jones (Dean of Students at
Livingston College), Kyu Jung Whang (Interim Vice President for Facilities and Capital Planning), Debra McNally (Manager,
RE Planning), Michael C. Imperial (Director of University Housing and Conference Services) and Jane Leal (MCIA, Director
of Administration).
Rutgers’ goals are:

Understand the optimal size of the development

Identify what is financially feasible for College Town.

Define the development program for College Town, based on Rutgers’ needs for housing and other academic related uses.

Add activity and vitality to the Livingston College campus.

Enter into an agreement with a private developer, while retaining ownership of the land.
Rutgers critical issues:

Project Feasibility - The development of a sustainable and financeable project.

Affordable Housing Requirement –
E
28
▫
Rutgers would like to see if the affordable housing component can be assigned to students, faculty and staff.
▫
Rutgers would like to understand the affordable housing component and mix as defined by Piscataway, to make sure that
the affordable housing component is complementary to the rest of the development.

Inclusive Process - Rutgers would like the pre-development process to be inclusive as there are numerous stakeholders that are
interested in being involved with the development process.

Satisfying Rutgers Requirements –
▫
▫
Rutgers would like to satisfy their housing requirements for graduate and undergraduate students. Rutgers would like to:
–
Reduce the number of undergraduate students moving off-campus. Most students move off-campus in their sophomore
year. Rutgers would like to retain at least 70-75% of the students living on-campus between sophomore and senior
years. Currently, 90% of the students live-on campus freshman year, but between freshman and sophomore years, this
percentage drops to approximately 40-45% and remains steady between sophomore and senior years.
–
Provide graduate students with 300 units of quality on-campus housing.
–
Provide apartment units for their graduate (1-2 bedrooms) and undergraduate (3-4 bedrooms) students at prices that the
students can afford. Currently, there is a waiting list of 3-6 months for existing units. Existing units are priced at 85% of
market.
Rutgers would also like to satify their requirements for other academic uses, such as:
–
Student center expansion
–
Theater building – 250-300 seat capacity theater
–
Internet café – 150-200 work stations, or as many as 300-400 work stations if a Rutgers department moves from College
Avenue
E
29
–
Bookstore
–
Post office
–
Support retail with recreation/entertainment opportunities for students (billiards, arcades, fitness center)
–
Link to the Edison rail station
–
New dining facility
–
Recreational/entertainment opportunities – such as billiards, arcades, fitness center
–
Cultural center
▫
Maintain a semi-urban environment
▫
Understanding of potential environmental issues
▫
Potential Other Stakeholders
–
Rutgers deans
–
Alumni groups
–
Student groups on campus
♦ The Township of Piscataway (Piscataway)
E&Y met with Mayor Brian Wahler, James Clarkin III (Town Attorney) and John Donnelly (Director of Community Development)
on October 30, 2003.
E
30
Piscataway’s goals are to:

Meet its affordable housing requirements.
Piscataway’s critical issues:

Achieving Piscataway’s affordable housing requirement ▫
To date the Township has met its COAH obligations. Piscataway would like this project to have an affordable housing
component so that Piscataway can continue to meet their COAH obligations.
▫
The Mount Laurel methodology is now in its “Third Round” comments stage. This may result in a revision of Piscataway’s
total fair share obligation of affordable housing, and a revision in the affordable housing ratio for new construction. At this
time, the affordable housing ratio is 2 units per 10 units, this ratio may go down to 1 unit per 10 units.
Impact on local infrastructure
▫

The addition of new graduate and married student housing may impact the school systems. At present, there are 66 Rutgers
students’ children living on campus and attending local schools. There are no school taxes collected for these students. If
the development of married and graduate student housing on Rutgers University is tax-exempt, Piscataway may experience
a fiscal burden.
Zoning Requirements –
▫
If a portion of this development is market-rate and not for exclusive university use, the Township of Piscataway believes
that local zoning will apply. Piscataway zoning regulations do not allow for multifamily housing. Multifamily housing is
only allowed by rezoning, or establishing a planned residential development (PRD). Recently, Piscataway has approved a
412 unit development on a 28 acre site, this equates to 15 units per acre. Piscataway would not want the College Town
development to exceed 15 units per acre.
E
31
▫

Zoning in an educational zone is limited to 50’ in height.
New Developments Impacted by or Impacting Proposed Development – These developments include:
▫
Widening of Suttons Lane to four lanes
▫
Route 18 Expansion project
▫
Suttons and Metlars Lanes intersection to be widened
▫
Addition of a traffic light at Ethel Road and Suttons Lane
E
32
KEY DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Key development considerations include:
1. Affordable Housing
2. University Uses
3. Zoning
4. Site Conditions
5. Traffic Report
6. Environmental Remediation
The following summarizes the key development considerations associated with development of the site.
1. Affordable Housing
♦ The development is proposed to include 80 units of affordable housing. These units are included in the project development based on a
request from the Township of Piscataway. The Township seeks to meet its affordable housing requirements, as mandated by the NJ
Supreme Court Mount Laurel decision and the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH).
♦ COAH, an administrative and regulatory agency, was created by the Fair Housing Act of 1985, and is the State Legislature's response to
the Mount Laurel decision, requiring municipalities to plan for and provide their fair share of affordable housing. Each of the 566
municipalities in New Jersey is required to establish a realistic opportunity for the provision of fair share low and moderate-income
housing obligations, generally through land use and zoning powers.
E
33
Table 4: Region 3 (Including Township of Piscataway)
COAH Income Limits for a Family of 3
Area Median Income (AMI)
$78,210
Low Income Housing (50% AMI)
$39,105
Moderate Income Housing (80% AMI)
$46,926
Source: The Council on Affordable Housing
♦ At this time, COAH has proposed a new Mount Laurel Third Round Methodology, to make the Mount Laurel requirements more flexible
and less negotiable. The Third Round Methodology was issued August 25, 2003 and is in the comments stage. If the Third Round
Methodology is enacted, Piscataway Township will have exceeded its prior round obligation (1987 – 1999) of 747 units by 10 units and
have a rehabilitation share of 93 units. Piscataway must therefore rehabilitate 93 units of affordable housing and going forward, must
provide affordable housing in the ratio of 1 unit per 10 new units constructed, and 1 unit per 30 new jobs created. The rehabilitation
share is the portion of the state’s need for rehabilitated affordable housing that the municipality will provide.
♦ The COAH Mount Laurel Third Round Methodology does not significantly affect the number of units in the project development. Eighty
units have been requested by Piscataway. The inclusion of the project’s 80 units of affordable housing in Piscataway’s affordable housing
plan would help Piscataway to achieve their Fair Share Obligation of affordable housing. The Fair Share Obligation is the portion of the
state’s need for affordable housing that the municipality will provide.
♦ It is important to note that these 80 units were previously included in Piscataway’s plan, but were recently removed because the COAH
board was not confident that the units would be marketed in a fair manner. The units have to be marketed to the general public in order to
count towards Piscataway’s fair share. That is, they cannot be designated solely for use by Rutgers students, faculty, or staff.
♦ Additionally, COAH is not a funding agency. Funding for affordable housing projects is usually provided by the New Jersey Housing
and Mortgage Finance Agency (“HMFA”) using its bonding capabilities or its federal low income housing tax credit allocations. Some
municipalities also expend their own funds or utilize bonding resources.
E
34
♦ It is likely that the ratio of low income to moderate income housing for the 80 units will be determined primarily based on the eligibility
requirements for various forms of financing. For example, for the project to be eligible for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (“LIHTC”),
there are two thresholds for eligibility: 1) 20% of the units in the total development are reserved for households with income levels
below 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI), or 2) 40% of the units are reserved for households with income levels below 60% of
AMI. Percentage of units is based on the lower of square footage or number of units.
2. University Uses
♦ Based on conversations with Rutgers University, 350 units of the development would be allocated for graduate and undergraduate
student housing. Rutgers has requested 350 rental units, each with 2 bedrooms, and 2 bathrooms. Rutgers would like to offer these units
to students as an on-campus housing option offering: Either 4 beds (2 beds per bedroom) per unit, or 2 beds (1 bed per bedroom) per unit
for undergraduate students, and 2 beds (1 bed per bedroom) per unit for graduate students.
♦ Rutgers would like certain university uses to be located in the college town development. The square footage and development program
of the university uses are yet to be finalized, but the university uses may include a small theatre, internet café and cultural center.
3. Zoning
♦ Based on a review of the Minor Subdivision map prepared for Rutgers University on November 30,1989, the site is located on Rutgers
University’s Livingston College campus. The campus is known as Lots 1,2 and 3, in Block 858, as shown on Sheet 75 of the tax map of
the Township of Piscataway. The campus is zoned E (Educational). For Zone E, there are no minimum lot dimensions or yard
requirements applicable.
♦ Rutgers is not required to comply with local planning and zoning regulations for education-related development. However, according to
the Haines Act, a statute of the State of New Jersey (18A: 65-33.3-5):

“Whenever the Board of Governors of Rutgers, the State University, intends to sell, exchange, lease or dispose of, or otherwise
convey any interest, legal or equitable, in undeveloped real property held by the university or held by the State and in the custody of
the university, the board shall, not less than six months prior to the intended conveyance, provide written notice of intent to the
E
35
Governor, the Senate Revenue, Finance and Appropriations Committee, or its successor, and the General Assembly Appropriations
Committee, or its successor.

“Within sixty days after providing notification pursuant to Section 2 of this act, of the intent to sell, lease, or otherwise convey land,
the Board of Governors shall conduct a public hearing for the purpose of permitting the public to comment on the proposed
conveyance.

“Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary and except with regard to facilities which are directly related to the provision of
educational services, any development of real property held by the Board of Governors of Rutgers, The State University or held by
the State and in the custody of the university, shall be subject to local land use planning and zoning requirements.”
♦ It is assumed that the market rate and affordable housing components of the development will be subject to local land use planning and
zoning requirements.
♦ A review of surrounding zoning indicates that it includes, R-10, R-15, R-15A, R-20, R-20A, E-R, HC, LI-1, SC, C, GB and SC.
E
36
♦ A summary of surrounding zoning includes:
Table 5: Surrounding Zoning
Zoning
Permitted Uses
Designation
R-10, R-15, R- Single family detached dwellings; governmental parks and playgrounds, governmental buildings.
20
Maximum Height
35’
R-15A
Same as R-10, R-15 and R-20, but conditional uses permitted include: Planned Residential 35’
Development with maximum density of 5 units/acre.
R-20A
Same as R-10, R-15 and R-20, but conditional uses permitted include: Planned Residential 35’
Development with maximum density of 10 units/acre.
E-R
Educational research activities and related service activities conducted by public and private 50’
educational institutions not operated for profit; and scientific or research laboratories of private
corporations, institutions or other agencies devoted solely to research, design and experimentation.
Accessory Uses permitted: Dormitories, auditoriums, classrooms, shops, garages, laboratories,
meeting halls; and group dining facilities and personal convenience stores.
HC
Conference center, clubhouse, health services facility and used incidental to the main use including: 96’
restaurants, auditoriums, swimming pools, tennis courts, gymnasia and retail and professional stores.
LI-1
Government building and uses; business and professional offices, banks and studios; research 40’
activities; funeral homes; nursery schools; single family dwellings; industrial uses; executive,
administrative and professional offices; some non-polluting manufacturing.
SC, C and GB
Business and professional offices and banks, retail and personal services, governmental buildings and 35’
uses, wholesale trade establishments, commercial recreational establishments and shopping centers.
Conditional uses include: public utility installations, service stations and public garages, fast food and
drive in restaurants.
Source: Township of Piscataway Zoning Ordinance Chapter XXI
E
37
♦ Surrounding zoning for residential is limited to single family residential. There is no residential zoning for multi-family in Piscataway. In
order to develop multifamily housing it is necessary to apply for a zoning change. The zoning change process will include:
An application process for a planned residential development (PRD)
A public hearing period
A review and approval by a nine member planning board
An implementation of the approved zoning by the government body
♦ Also, the maximum density allowable for a PRD is 10 units per acre as a conditional use under the R20-A zoning designation.
♦ Recently, a zoning change was approved for a 28-acre site in Piscataway. The site is zoned 10-A which has a maximum allowable
density of 10 units per acre as a conditional use. The approved maximum density has been increased from 10 units per acre to 15 units
per acre. This was a unique situation and it is not certain that 15 units per acre will be approved for the College Town site. To compare
the difference in the number of market rate units that can be built assuming densities of 10 and 15 units per acre.
Table 6: Summary of Developable Units assuming Market Rate, Affordable and University Housing
are subject to Local Zoning
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Site Acreage
44 acres
44 acres
Maximum Density per Acre
10 units
15 units
Total Units Developable per Zoning
440 units
660 units
Total Market Rate Units Developable (assuming 80 units 10 units
affordable housing and 350 units university housing)
230 units
E
38
♦ From the above table:
If the project has a maximum density of 10 units per acre, the maximum number of units that can be developed on the site is 440
units, and the number of market rate units is 10.

If the project has a maximum density of 15 units per acre, the maximum number of units that can be developed on the site is
660 units, and the number of market rate units is 230.

If the university housing component of the project is not subject to zoning:
Table 7: Summary of Developable Units assuming Market Rate and Affordable Housing are subject to Local Zoning
Site Acreage
Scenario 1
21 acres
Scenario 2
21 acres
Maximum Density per Acre
10 units
15 units
Total Units Developable per Zoning
210 units
315 units
Total Market Rate Units (assuming 80 units affordable housing)
130 units
235 units
* Assuming that 350 units of university housing are developed at a density of 15 units per acre, this development will cover 23 acres. That is, 21 of the 44 acres will
remain for the market rate and affordable housing components.
E
39
From the above table:

If the project components, other than the university housing component, have a maximum density of 10 units per acre, the
maximum number of units that can be developed on the site is 210 units, and the number of market rate units is 130.

If the project components, other than the university housing component, have a maximum density of 15 units per acre, the
units that can be developed on the site is 315 units, and the number of market rate units is 235.
♦ As the development concept is further developed, a meeting with the Township of Piscataway to discuss zoning is advised. It is also
important to note that the Township of Piscataway will be amending their Master Plan. This is a 12 to 18 month process that is to be
initiated in 2004. The process includes public hearings and approval by the nine member planning board. Once the Master Plan is
amended, the amendments will be implemented by the Governing Board of the Township of Piscataway.
4. Site Conditions
♦ E&Y is not an engineering firm and does not conduct site reviews. For this section, E&Y has reviewed the background data provided by
Rutgers University, including Kilmer Campus - Master Plan (1988); Land Use Concepts for Commercial Development Study (1988);
Environmental Resources Management’s Phase I Site Assessment (1990), Appraisal of Fair Net Rental Value (1991). Review of
background data indicates that some prior studies have been conducted to understand site conditions. However, these studies were
conducted in 1988, 1989 and 1990. No recent studies have been conducted. It is likely that updated studies will have to be conducted.
Information on site conditions included in prior reports is summarized below:
Soils1
The soil on the Livingston College campus is derived from the underlying formation of soft red shale bedrock. Klinesville Shaley loam is
the predominant soil type. These soils are shallow to shattered red shale bedrock, with low available water capacity and medium natural
fertility and generally low organic matter. Considerable soil modifications will be required for planting on the site.
1
Kilmer Campus - Master Plan (1988)
E
40
Reaville silt loam soils are moderately deep, formed in material weathered from shale or silstone on level to sloping upland. Natural
fertility is moderate, and available moisture capacity is moderate or low, depending on depth to bedrock and coarse fragment content.
Cansdowne variant soils are moderately deep with medium natural fertility and moderate available water capacity.
The soil descriptions covered here are only meant as a general guide to their overall qualities. Soil tests are recommended for the specific
areas chosen for future construction and planting in order to determine site-specific problems.
Surface Hydrology2
Most of the Livingston College campus drains down to the south toward the Raritan River through streams in the existing wooded area.
Guidelines for additional run off from future developments on the site that would prevent any adverse impact on the water regime of the
wooded area should be developed.
Vegetation3
Mature natural vegetation at and around the Livingston College is mostly confined to the wooded area, which consists of a fine old
growth forest of Oak, Ash, Maple and Beech. The mature forest is supplemented by a diversity of old fields and hedgerows undergoing
natural succession.
Utilities4
Based on a review of the utilities map from the 1988 Master Plan, all utilities (sewer, water, gas and electric) are readily available to the
site. There are water mains underneath Joyce Kilmer Avenue, Road 3 and the northeast corner of Suttons Lane; underground electrical
lines underneath Joyce Kilmer Avenue; and a sanitary sewer at the northeast corner of the site.
2
3
4
ibid
Land Use Concepts for Commercial Development – The Busch and Kilmer Campuses (1988)
E
41
Water service for Piscataway Township is provided by the Elizabethtown Water Company.
•
Sanitary sewer service is provided by the municipality. Each municipality collects and transports its own wastewater and then
discharges it to the Middlesex County Utility Authority interceptor sewer for treatment at the Sayreville Treatment Plant. New
connections to the MCUA treatment plant are permitted as long as the flow to the treatment plant is within the plant’s capacity.
•
Electric service is provided by the Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) franchise service area for electric power.
Electric service can be made available to the development parcels provided that the major arterial power lines running adjacent to the
development parcels are adequate. If they are not adequate, upgrading will be necessary and will be done by PSE&G, as required to
provide electric service for the specific needs of the development.
•
Natural gas service by PSE&G which can extend and upgrade the service if necessary.
Flood Plain5
With respect to the Raritan River, Livingston College is located in Flood Zone C, an area of minimal flooding.
Topography6
The topography is buildable, with only one small knoll in excess of 15% slope, and soil types do not indicate limitations or cost
premiums for foundations or drainage.
5. Traffic Report7
♦ E&Y is not an traffic planning or engineering firm and does not conduct traffic reports. For this section, E&Y has reviewed the
background data provided by Rutgers University, namely the Kilmer Campus - Master Plan performed in 1988. According to this report,
a traffic report for development on the site has not been conducted. A detailed traffic report would most likely be conducted by the
developer, but it may be necessary to conduct a preliminary traffic study prior to developer selection.
5
Flood plain maps
Appraisal of Fair Net Value of Approximately 44 Acres of Vacant Land, Kilmer Village (1991)
7
6
E
42
6. Environmental Remediation8
♦ E&Y is not an environmental planning or engineering firm and has not conducted an environemental study of the site. For this section,
E&Y has reviewed the background data provided by Rutgers University, namely the Phase I Site Assessment, Block 858, Lots 1-4,
Rutgers University, Livingston Campus (1990). According to this report, the site was part of Camp Kilmer, an Army embarkation point
during the 1940s, 50s and 60s. While the property was owned by the US Government, the government kept autonomous files, therefore
no records were maintained with the municipality. Since the property was acquired by Rutgers University, there have been no reports of
environmental problems. A developer will need to conduct at least a Phase I environmental assessment.
While the US Government owned the property, Regiment No. 4 used it. The regiment consisted of approximately 50 barracks with a
common regiment building. A motor storage area was also included and, based on field observations, was likely used for the storage of
vehicles. Direct and indirect evidence indicate that:
8

All buildings were heated by coal fired furnaces

Cement asbestos board was used selectively in the construction of at least some buildings, for interior/exterior walls surrounding
toilets. Demolition by the Army of similar structures in other areas of Kilmer involved the prior safe removal of asbestos before
demolition could occur. However, all site buildings were demolished between 1969 and 1976, and it is likely that no special care was
taken to isolate asbestos debris from other building demolition debris. Thus, asbestos fiber could be found in bulk on the site.

Rutgers removed two underground fuel tanks from the site. There seems to have been a third smaller tank that may have been used
for waste oil; this tank may not have been removed. This tank shows up in plans developed in 1958 for the installation of a fuel oil
tank. It is not certain whether the tank was installed, and if installed, if it was properly removed.

There is no evidence that the site has hazardous waste problems. Investigation on the past use and handling of hazardous substances
should be conducted.
Phase I Site Assessment, Block 858, Lots 1-4, Rutgers University, Livingston Campus (1990)
E
43
On an overall basis, the site does not seem to be in need of a great deal of environmental remediation, but a new Phase I assessment will
have to be conducted, as well as further studies to identify the amount, cost and timing of remediation.
E
44
IDENTIFIED MARKET AREAS
For this analysis, the market areas are defined as below:
Local Market Area (“LMA”) includes Piscataway.
Primary Market Area (“PMA”) is Middlesex County
These areas were established based on the site’s locational attributes, analysis of geographic boundaries, neighboring communities, population
trends, proximity to major employment centers, mass transit and general development patterns.
SITE ANALYSIS
The site is approximately 44 acres, located in the Township of Piscataway, Middlesex County, New Jersey. The site is owned by Rutgers
University, and is on the Livingston College campus, the Social Sciences and Urban Studies campus of Rutgers University. The Livingston
College campus is the least developed of the Rutgers University campuses, and has the most potential for future development.
The site is located in the Northeast corner of Livingston College, bounded by Joyce Kilmer Avenue on the Southwest, Suttons Lane on the
Northeast, Rockafeller Road on the Northwest and Road 3 (Gordon Road) on the Southeast. Joyce Kilmer Avenue is the central spine of
Livingston College and separates the college from the site.
At this time, the majority of the site is unused. The only uses are a Day Care and the Livingston Theater, at the Southern edge of the site, at
the intersection of Road 3 and Joyce Kilmer Avenue; and surface parking, along Joyce Kilmer Avenue. Additionally, there are access roads
built that remain from the military that run through the site.
The site is located in close proximity to:
♦ Rutgers University:
E
45

Livingston Campus Facilities, including Mason Gross Visual Arts Center, the Livingston Theater, the Livingston Student Center and
the Livingston Bookstore.

Rutgers University’s Ecological Preserve, a 400 acre preserve between the Livingston and Busch College campuses.

Other Rutgers University facilities on the campus, but not part of the Livingston College campus including the Louis Brown Athletic
Center, the Rutgers Business School, a commuter parking lot and recreational fields. The Louis Brown Athletic Center has a capacity
of 8,500, and is home to the Rutgers University basketball team, a Big East division team.

Busch Campus is separated from Livingston Campus by the Ecological Preserve and Route 18. Busch Campus is the Sciences college
and grew much faster than the Livingston campus. This campus also has the University of Medicine and Dentistry at New Jersey.
This campus is more vibrant and active than the Livingston campus.
♦ Sgt. Joyce Kilmer US Army Reserve Center.
♦ Warehouse and light industrial off of Suttons Lane. These facilities include, Popular Club, a Pathmark Distribution Center and a US
Postal Facility.
♦ VOTEC, the Middlesex County Vocational School
♦ Social Services’ Hospice for the Homeless
♦ Single and two family middle-income residential neighborhoods along Suttons Lane, School Street, and off of Metlars Lane on Drake
Lane and Sturbridge Lane. Many of these neighborhoods have been developed on old farm lands that have been sub-divided and sold for
residential development.
♦ Some multifamily, including townhomes on Red Bud Road.
E
46
Within a five to seven mile radius of the site:
♦ Retail - There is no retail within one mile of the site. Neighborhood and support retail is 3 to 5 miles away on Stelton Road (parallel to
Suttons Lane) in South Plainfield; and on Centennial Avenue in Piscataway. Retail offerings include:

Piscataway Towne Center (2-3 miles from site) which has a Shop Rite, Walmart and Loews.

Retail on Stelton Road including dry cleaners, bagel store, local restaurant and gas station.

Big box retail in South Plainfield including Kohls, Bennigans and Home Depot.
♦ The Sierra Suites Hotel, a 112 suite extended stay hotel, on Randolphville Road, just off of Centennial Road in Piscataway
♦ Hoes Lane, which is considered the main street of Piscataway as a library, a high school, corporate offices, municipal offices, a senior
citizens center and a cemetary. Although it is considered the main street, there is no retail on Hoes Road.
♦ Corporate offices of American Standard, Amersham Biosciences and Foley Inc. on Centennial Road in Piscataway. Other corporate
offices in Piscataway include, Easylink Services, Quality Computer Accessories and Roma Food. Additionally, Johnson and Johnson’s
headquarters is located in New Brunswick.
Access
♦ The site is easily accessible by car; it is less accessible by train and bus.
♦ By Car –

The main artery in the surrounding area is State Route 18 (“Route 18”). Route 18 provides access to the New Jersey Turnpike,
Garden State Parkway and Route 287 (See Table). At this time, an extension of Route 18 is underway (a seven-stage project). The
E
47
project is proposed for completion in 2005 and will link the terminus of Route 18 with Route 287.The first stage of the seven stage
project will be completed in Fall 2003, with the next stage scheduled to start in Winter 2003. The extension will provide a direct
entrance to the Livingston College Campus from Route 18, and a new highway overpass alleviating backups at the River
Road/Metlars Road interchange.
♦ The site can be accessed:

Outside the Campus – By turning off of Route 18 (River Road) onto Metlars Lane (County Route 609), and then right onto Sutton
Lane, the Northeastern edge of the site.
Table 8: Summary Directions to the Site
Roadway
Summary Directions
Route 18
By turning off of Route 18 (River Road) onto Metlars Lane (County Route 609), and then right onto Sutton Lane,
the Northeastern edge of the site.
NJ Turnpike
Take Exit 9 and follow signs for Route 18 N- New Brunswick. Continue on Route 18 N over the Raritan River on
the John Lynch Memorial Bridge (approx. 3.7 miles). Once over the Raritan River, proceed straight at traffic light
on Metlars Lane. Right at first traffic light onto Avenue E, or Suttons Avenue.
Garden State Parkway
Southbound – take Exit 129 for NJ Turnpike and head south. Follow directions to campus from Route 18 N.
Northbound – take Exit 105 and follow signs for 18 N (24 miles). Follow directions to campus from 18 N.
Route 287
Take Exit 9 (formerly Exit 5) “River Road, Bound Brook and Highland Park”. Proceed East on River Road toward
Highland Park. At fifth traffic light, the intersection of River Road, Metlars Lane and Route 18, turn left onto
Metlars Lane, and then right onto Sutton Lane, the Northeastern edge of the site.
E
48

Within the Campus – By turning off of Route 18 (River Road) onto Metlars Lane (County Route 609), and then right onto Avenue E
following signs for Livingston Campus proceeding toward the Louis Brown Athletic Center. At Rockafeller Road turn left and then
right on Joyce Kilmer Avenue, the Southwestern edge of the site.
♦ By Bus –

Rutgers University Intra-Campus bus system – The bus system serves 45,000 riders a day and has 13 different lines and is the second
largest bus system in the state after NJ Transit. The bus system runs primarily between campuses, and varies in frequency: every 1017 minutes during peak times (7 am to 8:30 pm), every 40 minutes during summer weekdays (7 am to 5:40 pm); and every 40-60
minutes on weekends (8 am to 9 pm). There is a bus stop on the site on Joyce Kilmer Avenue. The site is served by the B, G, GG, L
and LX routes. Buses on these routes run between Livingston and Busch campuses, Livingston and Cook-Douglass campuses and
Livingston and College Avenue campuses.

NJ Transit – The closest bus stop is Centennial and Knightsbridge (Bus Route 980). This stop is at least a mile away from the site.
♦ By Train –

The most direct train service is on New Jersey Transit's Northeast Corridor Line. NJ Transit provides New Brunswick with both local
and express service between New York and Newark's Penn Stations and Trenton, New Jersey. The frequency of this train service is
every 20-30 minutes on weekdays and weekend during peak hours, and every 30 to 60 minutes on weekday nights and weekends.

Amtrak provides limited direct service to New Brunswick, however connections can easily be made via New Jersey Transit trains to
principle Amtrak stations at MetroPark, New York and Trenton.

SEPTA (“Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority”) provides service at Trenton to and from Philadelphia.

New Brunswick Train Station, located approximately 5 miles from the site. There is no direct bus service via RU or NJ Transit from
the New Brunswick train station to the Livingston campus, and thus the site. The closest bus service is the RU Intra-Campus bus
system from the College Avenue campus to the Livingston campus.
E
49
♦ To summarize:

Relative to the Livingston campus, the site is central and well-located, along the central spine, Joyce Kilmer Avenue.

Relative to the surrounding area:

The site is located at the edge of the Livingston College campus, along Suttons Lane.

However, the site does not have direct access to Route 18 or other main roads in the area. The lack of direct access will have a
negative impact on the potential for residential and retail development.
Visibility
♦ Within the campus, the site has excellent visibility. It is located directly opposite the Livingston Student Center, Lucy Stone Hall and the
Livingston Bookstore, the commuter parking lot, and is diagonally opposite the Louis Brown Athletic Center.
♦ From the outer edge of the campus (along Suttons Lane), the site has visibility for cars traveling along Suttons Lane, but Suttons Lane is
not a major road. The site has no visibility from Route 18, or any other major roads in the immediate area.
Area Image
♦ The area is very suburban with low-density and low to mid-rise development, both on and around the campus.
♦ The site is part of the Rutgers University, and is thus, primarily surrounded by university-related uses and by academic buildings in a
suburban campus-type setting. The area of the Livingston campus near the site has been well-planned and is well-landscaped, and the
scale of the buildings creates a sense of place.
♦ Other non-university uses, including warehouse and industrial, residential and educational, are numerous and fragmented. Due to the
fragmented nature of the uses, the area image is not well-established.
E
50
♦ Busch campus has grown much faster than the Livingston campus. As a result, the Livingston campus is not as dense, active or vibrant
as the neighboring Busch campus. This has been a problem for some time, and is affecting student interest in living and studying at
Livingston campus.
Key site and area attributes positively impacting potential development opportunities on the site include:
♦ Well Located within Livingston College campus – Well-located for graduate school housing.
♦ Located at the outer edge of the Livingston College campus – Being at the edge of the Livingston College campus, it is a good
location for non-campus uses, including market-rate housing.
♦ Good Car Access – The site is easily accessible by car and is well linked to the surrounding area.
♦ Route 18 Extension - When the extension of Route 18 is complete, Livingston College will have an entrance directly off of Route 18.
This is a positive attribute for the site because the entrance off of Route 18 leads to the Louis Brown Athletic Center which is diagonally
opposite the site.
♦ Residential Development – The surrounding area has middle income housing and is relatively established as a residential area.
However, there is very little competitive multi-family housing in the area, this positively impacts the development potential for
residential units.
♦ Limited Retail Development – The surrounding area has limited retail development positively impacting the potential for development
of support retail.
Site and area attributes with less positive impacts include:
♦ Livingston Campus is not as Active as Busch campus - This is affecting student interest in living and studying at Livingston campus.
♦ Fragmented Nature of Surrounding Uses – There is no strong area image due to the fragmented nature of surrrounding uses.
E
51
♦ No Direct Access by Train or Bus – The only direct access is by Rutgers University’s intra-campus bus. The closest direct bus and train
routes are to downtown New Brunswick.
♦ No Direct Access or Visibility from Major Highways – Although the site is well-connected to Route 18, it is not directly accessible,
nor is it visible from major highways. This negatively impacts the site’s potential for destination retail development; and also somewhat
negatively impacts the potential for residential development.
♦ Limited Multi-Family Development in the Area - The site location is currently not perceived as a multi-family residential location in
the local area.
♦ Industrial and Warehouse Markets are Weak– The industrial and warehouse development in the area is experiencing high vacancies.
E
52
AREA DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
Middlesex County has experienced significant growth over the past decade in terms of redevelopment of urban areas such as New Brunswick
and continued development of the Rutgers University campuses. The following discussion notes overall development trends in the PMA.
♦ In New Jersey, infill growth has become a means to curtail suburban sprawl. As a result, New Brunswick has witnessed a rebirth over
the past several years while permitting in more suburban areas such as Piscataway has become more difficult.
♦ In a further quest to decrease suburban sprawl, mixed-use projects have gained in popularity as a means to provide housing, office, and
retail opportunities.
♦ Affordable housing development and planning has also become a contentious topic as towns seek to meet their affordability requirement
under New Jersey state laws.
♦ Also, the demand for the development of transit-oriented communities in New Jersey located close to rail stations providing easy access
to New York and Philadelphia has grown over the past three to five years. As a result, the City of New Brunswick, which offers transit
access and varied housing stock, has experienced an increase in demand over the past five years.
♦ The most critical proposed infrastructure developments currently under consideration are the light rail line or dedicated bus line
providing linkages to New Brunswick through the Livingston campus, and the Route 18 expansion project currently underway. Both of
these will significantly affect commercial and residential development in the LMA and PMA.
Development trends by use are summarized below:
Residential
Piscataway Township authorized 217 building permits from 2000-2002 with 190 single-family permits and 27 multi-family permits.
Middlesex County has authorized 6,343 permits from 2000-2002 with 5,006 single-family permits and 1,337 multi-family permits.
The PMA is densely developed and becoming supply constrained for both for-sale and rental units. Regarding the multifamily housing
market, the PMA has recently been more of a for-sale market than a rental market. On an overall basis, the residential market is a bifurcated
E
53
one where, the urban areas are primarily 2 to 5 family homes, condominium and townhouse developments; and the suburban areas are
dominated by single-family homes.
The PMA and the local market area are primarily focused on suburban living. There are a number of relatively new multifamily
developments in downtown New Brunswick that are less than 3 years old. At this time, there are no new projects under construction in
Piscataway.
In the local market area, the developments are primarily single-family homes, constructed on land that was formerly farmland. New
development in downtown New Brunswick is limited to infill housing and proposed and planned projects for mid-rise multi-family, both
rental and for-sale.
Research and analysis indicates there is noted market acceptance within the LMA, PMA and SMA for the development of single family
homes, town homes, and condominiums, both for-sale and rental.
There is also state government support for mixed-use and residential development in New Jersey. However, local municipalities are very
concerned about the impact of new development on student enrolment.
On an overall basis, the residential rental and for-sale markets within the PMA and SMA are strong. As a result of consistent growth in the
northern and central New Jersey economies since 1995, residential markets have experienced significant price increases.
For-Sale
There is limited supply of for-sale condominium and town house units in the PMA, and there is limited new construction of single family and
multifamily residential units.
Dodge Pipeline, as of third quarter 2003, reports 1,608 units in the planning stage, and one project of 12 town house units currently
underway in the PMA.
E
54
Table 9: PMA Development Trends - For-Sale Residential
Planned
1,608 units
Under Construction
12 units
Source: FW Dodge Pipeline, third quarter 2003
Rental
According to the Dodge Pipeline third quarter 2003 report, there are:
♦ Zero rental units currently in the planning stages in Piscataway, and the 339-unit Birchview Apartment Complex is underway in
Piscataway.
♦ Eleven projects comprising 1,313 rental units in the planning stage, and four projects comprising 629 units are under construction in the
PMA.
Table 10: PMA Development Trends - Rental Residential
Planned
1,313 units
Under Construction
629 units
Commercial Development
There is a substantial amount of commercial activity along Route 1. With respect to sectors of the local market area in closer proximity to the
site, however, there is little new construction activity.
E
55
Office
According to NAI Direct, Class A suburban office vacancy in Middlesex and Somerset Counties is currently 24% with Class B space 15%
vacant.
Dodge Pipeline reports 6.5 million square feet of planned office space in the PMA and 154,000 SF currently underway.
Table 11: PMA Development Trends - Office
Planned
Under Construction
6,500,000 SF
154,000 SF
Industrial
Colliers’ reports that the PMA warehouse market has seen positive net absorption for the first half of 2003. Vacancy rates have decreased
from levels close to 20% at year-end 2002 to approximately 14.2% in the second quarter 2003.
The light industrial region located north of the site is experiencing high levels of vacancy approaching 25% with depressed rent levels.
Hotel
Dodge Pipeline reports that in the PMA, there are 8 hotel projects with 711 rooms in the planning stages, and 6 hotel projects comprising 739
rooms underway as of third quarter 2003.
E
56
Table 12: PMA Development Trends - Hotel
Planned
711 rooms (8 hotels)
Under Construction
739 rooms (6 hotels)
E
57
MARKET RATE HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Objective
The objective of the market rate housing assessment was to identify the potential demand that exists for multifamily rental and for-sale units
in Piscataway, PMA, and SMA.
Summary of Findings
E&Y’s assessment indicates that the residential rental and for-sale markets within the PMA and SMA are strong. As a result of consistent
growth in the northern and central New Jersey economy since 1995, residential markets have experienced significant price increases.
Additionally, due to limited supply and steady demand, vacancies remain low in Piscataway and New Brunswick.
E&Y’s assessment indicates that College Town may support the proposed development of a total of 230 units, either a mix of for-sale town
homes and condominiums, and rental units, or all rental units. The potential break out of units between for-sale and rental units is as follows:
30-50 for-sale units and 180-200 rental units; or if only rental units, 230 rental units. The potential mix of unit sizes is 1 bedroom (26%) and
2 bedroom units (56%), and a limited number of 3 bedrooms (18%). It is likely that the actual ratio of for-sale to rental units would be driven
by market conditions at the project construction start date. Currently, for-sale units predominate due to the strong housing market and low
interest rate environment. The final ratio of for-sale to rental would be determined by the developer.
The development of for-sale units on leased land appears to be possible from a legal standpoint. However, issues relating to marketability
and financing and require additional input on the part of the potential developer.
The age cohorts that typically favor market-rate multifamily housing are considered young singles and couples without children from 25-34
years old and empty nesters in the 45-64 year-old age bracket. A review of the demographic data indicates that economic and demographic
indicators show improving trends in household and median household income growth in qualified households over the next five years,
between 2003 and 2008. To summarize, positive trends include: 1) Growth in the number of households in the 25-34 year age cohort with
annual median household incomes greater than $100,000; 2) Growth in the number of households in the 45-64 year age cohort with annual
median household incomes greater than $50,000; and 3) Growth in median household incomes of households in the 25-34 and 45-64 age
cohorts.
E
58
To summarize supply:
♦ There was no competitive or comparable supply of for-sale units in Piscatway. In the PMA, new condominium projects have asking
prices starting at $210,000 for a two-bedroom, two-bathroom unit with approximately 1,200 square feet, to $300,000 for two bedroom,
two bathroom units of approximately 1,700 square feet. Comparable offerings on a per square foot basis that are at the high end of
current new construction sale prices of $180-193/SF (2003 dollars).
♦ There is limited competitive and comparable supply of rental units in Piscataway. Existing supply is 10-15 years old, and the one and two
bedroom units rent in these developments for $960-$1,300 monthly. Additional rental product in Piscataway currently rents for $900$1,560 for one and two-bedroom units; and new rental communities in downtown New Brunswick rent for between $1,320 for a onebedroom unit to $2,800 for a three-bedroom unit.
♦ Rutgers has a limited supply of units (under 50 units) of on-campus and off-campus rental housing available for faculty and staff on the
Livingston campus.
Our assessment indicates that there are three primary sources of demand. These sources are: 1) Rutgers faculty and staff interested in new
housing options proximate to the University; 2) Young singles and couples interested in a new development with convenient access to central
New Jersey and New Brunswick; and 3) Empty Nesters seeking lower maintenance housing options or new construction rental options.
The potential demand segments exhibit the following demand preferences: walkability of the environment; a sense of community; private
parking; convenience of shopping; varied housing options; privacy and security; access to major highways, transit, and airports; convenient
access to urban areas; large suburban size rooms; high quality fixtures, finishes, and appliances; and pool, tennis, and exercise facilities.
E&Y’s assessment indicates that:
♦ There is sufficient potential demand to support the development of market-rate residential for-sale and rental components.
♦ A College Town mixed-use community with open space and complementary retail amenities is considered a viable option for the site. It
would cater to Rutgers faculty and staff, as well as a niche market looking for a unique community that is estimated to continue growing
over the next decade.
E
59
♦ The market rate component is potentially a one phase project with a total of 230 units. These units would include 200 rental units and
approximately 30 for-sale units (townhouses and condominiums). The potential developer would likely help to determine the actual ratio
of for-sale to rental units based on market conditions. Assuming a development and approvals period of 12 months, and a construction
period of 18 months; the expected construction start date is January 1, 2005 and the expected occupancy date is July 1, 2006.
Based on current absorption rates of comparable projects of 5-10 units per month
Proposed Development Concept
The development concept is for a mixed-use, new urbanism community with market rate residential, graduate and undergraduate student
housing, affordable housing, support retail services, and a mix of university uses.
The market rate-housing component is likely to include a maximum of 230 market rate units. The units may be a combination of rental and
for-sale, or only for-sale units. These units will likely be rented or sold to Rutgers University students, faculty and staff. Although by virtue
of its location, the market rate housing may also appeal to local office workers (young single and couples and empty nesters).
Economic and Demographic Trends
Using data provided by ESRI Business Information Solutions (ESRI BIS), a national market research firm, the key economic and
demographic characteristics of Piscataway, and the PMA were assessed to determine the demand for market rate multifamily housing at
College Town, the proposed development on the Livingston Campus.
Consumer preference surveys were studied, and national and regional residential housing trends were analyzed to determine consumer
preferences for housing types, finishing, locations, and amenities. Consumer preference trends reflect an increase in demand that a segment
of the population has for new urbanism communities.
Qualified households were considered to be the growth segments of Piscataway and the PMA who could afford housing priced at a minimum
of $200,000 (based on the following assumptions: 28% of annual household income is spent on housing; and mortgage terms include 90%
LTV, 6% interest rate and a 30 year term). This is equivalent to rental rates of $1,250/month for a one-bedroom unit and $1,500 for a twobedroom unit (based on rental rates at 30% of annual household income).
E
60
The age cohorts that typically favor market-rate multifamily housing are considered young singles and couples without children in the 25-34
year-old age cohort (young singles and couples); and 45-64 year-old age cohort (empty nesters) singles and couples whose children have
moved out looking for new construction, low maintenance, and walkable communities.
The demographic data was analyzed to understand the number of households in the targeted cohorts, their income levels, and the anticipated
growth in these age cohorts.
According to ESRI BIS, economic and demographic indicators show improving trends in household and median household income growth in
targeted age and income cohorts for Piscataway and the PMA over the next five years, between 2003 and 2008.
E
61
Positive trends in the local market as can be seen in the table below include:
Table 13: Local Area Market Households in Targeted 25-34 Year-Old Age and Income Cohorts Local Market Area
2003
Est. 2008
% Change
25-34
25-34
25-34
$50,000 - $74,999
749
606
-19%
$75,000 - $99,999
581
487
-16%
$100,000 - $149,999
530
565
7%
$150,000 - $199,999
106
146
38%
$200,000 - $249,999
56
75
34%
$250,000 - $499,999
47
61
30%
$500,000+
6
12
100%
2,075
1,952
-6%
745
859
15%
Median HH Income
$69,063
$77,370
12%
Average HH Income
$87,264
$99,262
14%
Age
Total
$100,000+ Total
Source: ESRI BIS forecast for 2003 and 2008
E
62
♦ Growth in the number of households in the 25-34 year age cohort with annual median household incomes greater than $100,000.
♦ Growth in the number of households in the 45-64 year age cohort with annual median household incomes greater than $50,000.
♦ Growth in median household incomes of households in the 25-34 and 45-64 age cohorts.
E
63
Table 14: Households in Targeted 25-34 Year-Old Age and Income Cohorts - PMA
2003
Est. 2008
% Change
25-34
25-34
25-34
$50,000 - $74,999
10,704
9,331
-13%
$75,000 - $99,999
8,045
6,622
-18%
$100,000 - $149,999
6,926
7,339
6%
$150,000 - $199,999
1,580
2,087
32%
$200,000 - $249,999
555
706
27%
$250,000 - $499,999
511
645
26%
$500,000+
67
139
107%
Total
28,388
26,869
-5%
$100,000+ Total
9,639
10,916
13%
$64,833
$69,607
7%
$76,171
$85,424
12%
Age
Median HH Income
Average HH Income
E
64
From Tables 13 and 14 above, household and income trends between 2003 and 2008 include:
♦ On an overall basis, Piscataway and PMA households in the 25-34 year-old age cohorts with median household incomes greater than
$50,000 are expected to decrease by 5 to 6%:

In Piscataway, the number of households with median incomes above $50,000 is anticipated to decrease by 6% (123 households),
from 2,075 to 1,952 households.

In the PMA, the number of households with median incomes above $50,000 is anticipated to decrease by 5% (1,519 households),

Although the number of households in the 25-34 year-old age cohort with median household incomes above $50,000 per year is
decreasing, the median household incomes are rising. Additionally, there is growth in the number of households with median
household incomes above $100,000. However, there is significant growth in qualified households with income levels above
$100,000. The segment is expected to increase by 13% in the PMA, or 1,277 households, from 9,639 to 10,916 households. On an
annual basis, this translates to 255 households.

Median household incomes in the PMA are rising. In the 25-34 year-old age cohort, median household incomes are projected to
increase by 12% in Piscataway and 7% in the PMA.
E
65
Table 15: Qualified Households in 45-64 Year-Old Age and Income Cohorts - Local Market Area
2003
Est. 2008
% Change
45-64
45-64
45-64
$50,000 - $74,999
1,218
1,228
1%
$75,000 - $99,999
1,268
1,283
1%
$100,000 - $149,999
1,846
2,375
29%
$150,000 - $199,999
497
788
59%
$200,000 - $249,999
142
220
55%
$250,000 - $499,999
117
172
47%
$500,000+
20
49
145%
5,108
6,115
20%
Median HH Income
$87,836
$99,248
13%
Average HH Income
$96,163
$109,282
14%
Age
Total
E
66
Table 16: Qualified Households in 45-64 Year-Old Age and Income Cohorts - PMA
2003
Est. 2008
% Change
45-64
45-64
45-64
$50,000 - $74,999
18,853
21,309
13%
$75,000 - $99,999
18,229
19,335
6%
$100,000 - $149,999
23,912
32,152
34%
$150,000 - $199,999
7,048
11,161
58%
$200,000 - $249,999
2,547
4,035
58%
$250,000 - $499,999
2,678
3,914
46%
444
937
111%
73,711
92,843
26%
Age
$500,000+
Total
Median HH Income
$82,213
$91,590
11%
Average HH Income
$97,092
$109,369
13%
E
67
From Tables 15 and 16 above, in the 45-64 year-old age cohort, household and income trends between 2003 and 2008 include:
♦ Growth in qualified households at all income levels above $50,000:

In Piscataway, the number of households with median incomes above $50,000 is anticipated to increase by 20% (1,007 households),

In the PMA, the number of households with median incomes above $50,000 is anticipated to increase by 26% (19,132 households),
♦ Qualified median household incomes in the PMA are rising:

In Piscataway, median household incomes are anticipated to increase by 13% ($8,327), from $87,836 to $96,163, translating to
$1,665 annually.

In the PMA, median household incomes are anticipated to increase by 11% ($9,737), from $82,213 to $91,950. This translates to
$1,947 annually.
E
68
Supply and Survey of Competitive Market Rate Residential Projects
On an overall basis, the residential rental and for-sale markets within the PMA are strong. As a result of consistent growth in the northern
and central New Jersey economy, since 1995, residential markets have experienced significant price increases.
The supply of and demand for transit-oriented multifamily residential development located close to rail stations providing easy access to
New York and Philadelphia has grown over the past three to five years. Downtown New Brunswick offers transit access.
For-Sale Supply
The supply assessment included research on condominium and townhouse developments located in Piscataway and the PMA.
In Piscataway:
♦ Existing housing stock typically attracts residents who work in areas of Central New Jersey and nearby New Brunswick. In Piscataway,
current asking prices are in the range of:

$62,000 to $260,000 for condominiums

$220,000 to $370,000 for town homes

$150,000 to $650,000 for single-family homes
♦ The lowest priced homes are the older condominiums at the Mayflower community with prices increasing with newer construction and
modern amenities. For-sale townhouse and condominium development is limited in Piscataway with most new for-sale development
comprised of single-family homes.
In the PMA, competitive and comparable developments with for-sale units were identified. These developments are summarized below:
E
69
Table 17: Summary of Competitive For-Sale Projects
Community
Price ($000s) Dist. from Site
Size (SF)
Type
Year Unit Type
Amenities
$/SF
Condo
2003 2 Bed/2 Bath
Tennis, Pool
$191.60
TH
2003 3 Bed/2.5 Bath Tennis, Pool
$189.71
Under Development
Maple Grove
$229-$250
Piscataway
(5.2 miles – N of 287)
1,250
Maple Grove
$320-$325
Piscataway (5.2 miles - North 1,700
of 287)
Completed Developments
Society Hill
$185-$235
Piscataway (1.6 miles - off of 1,300
Hoes Lane)
Condo/TH 1988 2 Bed/2 Bath
Club house, pool
$161.54
The Commons
$200
Piscataway (2 miles - East 1,200
across Stelton Road)
Condo
N/A
$166.67
Canterbury
$205-$265
Piscataway (5.3 miles - North 1,200-2,100 Condo/TH 1991- 2 -3
of 287)
2000 Bath
Hidden Woods
$250
Piscataway (4 miles - North 1,380-1,440 Condo
of 287)
$177.30
Starpoint
$260
Piscatway (2.3 miles)
1,350
Condo
1992 2 Bed/2.5 Bath N/A
$192.59
Birchview Estates
$327
Piscataway
1,728
TH
2001- 3 Bed/2.5 Bath N/A
2002
$189.24
Castle Point
$330-$370
Piscataway (1.8 miles - off 1,775-1,843 TH
Morris)
$193.48
1988 2 Bed/2 Bath
Bed/2 Clubhouse, tennis $142.42
courts
Key: TH = Townhouse; Condo = Condominiums
E
70
New condominium projects are under construction in the northern portion of Middlesex County with asking prices starting at $210,000 for a
two-bedroom, two-bathroom unit with approximately 1,200 square feet. Townhouse projects are underway in downtown New Brunswick
and the northern portion of Middlesex County with prices above $300,000 for units with approximately 1,700 square feet.
A review of developments in the PMA offer condominium and townhouse options, but none currently has an offering combining all of the
attributes of College Town. College Town would combine a new urbanism community with open space, retail, and a low level of
maintenance close to Rutgers University. The following table summarizes competitive for-sale offerings in the region. It is important to note
that additional offerings exist, but none are similar to the community envisioned to be offered at College Town.
Price
Competitive Condominiums and Townhomes are priced within a range of $185,000 to $370,000. The upper end of this range is reflected in
new communities. In general those communities offering additional amenities are offered at higher prices.
The asking prices on a per square foot unit rate basis for new construction ranges from $189 to $192/SF, or a 17 to 33% premium versus
comparable supply built in the late 1980s to early 1990s.
Size
Competitive new supply averages close to 1,750 square feet for a townhouse, and 1,250 square feet for a condominium.
Typical Development Program
The typical development program for these communities is to offer single floor condominiums and two story town homes. Amenities
typically offered include a clubhouse, tennis, pool and proximity to highways and public transportation. Units average two bedroom, two
and one-half bathroom, 1,400 square feet with private parking and modern finishes and appliances. Association fees average $100 -$200 per
month and cover landscaping, trash removal, use of on-site facilities, and common area maintenance. The absorption pace for the newer
developments researched has been in-line with pro-forma with projects selling approximately 3-5 units per month.
Our market review indicates that comparable developments in the PMA have similar interior offerings such as: wood flooring, washer/dryer,
fully equipped kitchens, and central heating/air. These communities offer direct and quick access to major highways and offer proximity to
retail and cultural destinations in Central New Jersey and nearby New Brunswick.
E
71
Standard community offerings in the developments researched in central New Jersey include: quick and easy access to highways and mass
transit; tennis facilities and a pool; and ample free parking.
Comparable offerings of new construction for-sale units in the local market area could achieve sale prices on an overall and a per square foot
basis that are at the high end of current new construction sale prices of $180-193/SF (2003 dollars).
Resulting pro-forma prices of $190/SF translate into sales prices of $332,500 for a 1,750 SF town home and $237,500 for a 1,250 SF
condominium.
Rental Supply
Rutgers has some on and off campus rental housing available for faculty and staff. To summarize:
♦ On campus housing stock includes:

20 efficiencies and two bedroom units on Busch Campus. These units rent for $840 to $1,695 per month.
♦ Off campus housing stock includes:

Fifteen off campus one and two bedroom units at the Treetop Apartments just outside the Livingston Campus. These units rent for
$1,455 to $1,695 per month. These units are fully furnished (dishes, linens and appliances) and include all amenities.
♦ Faculty and staff housing options offered by the university are very limited on and off campus.
In Piscataway:
♦ Rental communities in the immediate area to the site are 10-15 years old and are comprised of one and two bedroom units. The monthly
rental rates are in the range of $960-$1,300.
♦ Additional rental product in Piscataway within six miles of the site currently rents for $900-$1,560 for one and two-bedroom units.
E
72
♦ No new rental product is planned in Piscataway. New rental communities under construction are located in downtown New Brunswick
approximately 4 miles from the site. These units are renting for between $1,320 for a one-bedroom unit to $2,800 for a three-bedroom
unit.
♦ Due to limited supply and steady demand, vacancies remain low in Piscataway and New Brunswick.
♦ There was limited competitive or comparable supply of for-sale units.
Due to the lack of newly constructed competitive and comparable residential developments and units within the local market area, the
residential rental assessment was broadened to include mid-rise and high-rise developments in downtown New Brunswick.
In the PMA, competitive and comparable developments with rental units were identified. Most of these communities were in New
Brunswick and Middlesex County. The following pages highlight competitive projects. These developments are summarized in the
following table:
E
73
Table 18: Comparable Rental Developments in the PMA
Community
Location
# of Units Rental Range 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Size (SF)
Average
Amenities
$/SF
Under Development
Riverwatch
Downtown New
Brunswick
199
$1,290-$1,760
Highlands at Plaza Square
Downtown New
Brunswick
415
$1,444-$2,800
647-950
$1,444$1,800
$2,065$2,300
$2,495$2,800
$1.91
946-1,511 $1.73
Private health club,
parking
Outdoor
pool,
sauna,
fitness
center, parking @
$75/month
Pleasant View Gardens
Piscataway
1,142
$905-$1,560
704-864
$1.57
Pool
Cedar Lane/Cedar Arms
Piscataway
430
$960-$1,250
650-850
$1.47
Pool, tennis
Treetops
Piscataway
216
1,090-$1,300
760-960
$1.39
Pool, tennis
Royal Garden Apartments
Piscataway
550
$930-$1,370
830-950
$1.29
Rivendell at Edison
Piscataway
455
$1,060-$1,610
982-2,388 $0.79
Pool, play area,
basketball
Walking distance to
train
From Table 18 above, analysis of comparable housing developments in the PMA indicates:
Rental rates in Downtown New Brunswick are higher than those proposed for established properties in Piscataway.
E
74
The typical rental developments in downtown New Brunswick: 1) Have one or two phases of development; 2) Is either all rental or for-sale
units, approximately 200 to 500 units; 3) Is new mid-rise.
The new construction offerings in New Brunswick have similar interior finishes such as: wood flooring, washer/dryer, fully equipped
kitchens, central heating/air, high ceilings, high-speed Internet access, and satellite or cable television.
Standard amenities in developments in New Jersey include: quick and easy access to mass transit; a health club or fitness center with pool,
tennis courts; and ample free outdoor parking.
In addition, developments in New Brunswick include amenities that are typically not found in suburban areas of New Jersey, these include:
lobbies with doorman and elevators, indoor parking, and support retail space.
Typical developments are transit-oriented and almost always are located close to major highways and roads providing quick access to
suburban New Jersey job markets; and/or near NJ Transit station stops or bus stops with routes to New Brunswick. The College Town
concept is not transit oriented development resulting in an approximately 15% discount to rental units in downtown New Brunswick.
Price
Competitive rental units are priced within a range of $930 - $2,800/ month. The upper end of this range is reflected in three-bedroom units
in new communities. In general those communities offering additional amenities are offered at higher prices.
The asking rents on a per square foot unit rate basis for new construction ranges from $1.73 to $1.91/SF, or a 21 to 48 percent premium
versus comparable supply built in the late 1980s in Piscataway.
Comparable offerings of new construction for-sale units in the local market area could achieve rental rates on an overall and a per square foot
basis that are 15% lower than current rental rates of $1.73 to $1.91/SF in New Brunswick. The resulting range of rental rates $1,200 - $1,300
for a one-bedroom unit; $1,400 to $1,600 for a two-bedroom unit; and $2,000 to $2,100 for a three-bedroom unit.
Resulting pro-forma rental rates of $1.45-$1.55/SF translate into rents of
♦ $1,240 ($1.55/SF) for an 800 SF one-bedroom unit
♦ $1,500 ($1.50/SF) for a 1,000 SF two-bedroom unit
E
75
♦ $2,050 ($1.45/SF) for a 1,450 SF three bedroom unit
Size
Competitive new supply averages close to 700-900 square feet for one-bedroom, and 900-1,200 square feet for a two-bedroom, and 1,500+
square feet for a three-bedroom.
The typical development program for these communities is a single floor rental unit. Amenities typically offered include a clubhouse, tennis,
pool and proximity to highways and public transportation. Units average two bedrooms, two bathrooms, 1,000 square feet with private
parking and modern finishes and appliances. The absorption pace for the newer developments researched has been in-line with pro-forma
with projects leasing approximately 5 units per month.
Our market review indicates that comparable developments in New Brunswick have similar interior offerings such as: wood flooring,
washer/dryer, fully equipped kitchens, central heating/air, high-speed internet access, and satellite or cable television. These communities
offer direct and quick access to major highways and offer proximity to retail and cultural destinations in Central New Jersey and New
Brunswick. The units in Piscataway were determined to not be comparable in terms of modern amenities.
Standard community offerings in the developments researched in central New Jersey include: quick and easy access to highways and mass
transit; tennis facilities and a pool; and ample free parking.
E
76
Market Demand
Research and analysis indicates there is noted market demand in Piscataway and the PMA for the development of single family homes, town
homes, and condominiums, both for-sale and rental.
Our assessment indicates that there are three primary sources of demand. These sources are:
♦ Rutgers faculty and staff interested in new housing options proximate to the university.
♦ Young singles and couples interested in a new urbanist environment with convenient access to central New Jersey and New Brunswick.
♦ Empty Nesters seeking lower maintenance housing options or new construction rental options.
Rutgers faculty and staff:
♦ Seek affordable housing options, for rent and for-sale, that are proximate to the university.
This age cohort includes both singles and couples. The targeted median household income for these households is over $50,000.
♦ As seen in Tables 13 and 14 of the economic and demographic trends section, there is an increase in the number of households with
median incomes over $100,000.
♦ Young singles and couples are in search of a dynamic community with proximity to cultural and entertainment opportunities, open space
and convenient access to places of employment.
♦ The College Town concept would provide a more urban density and scale of development, as well as walkable access to on-site retail.
♦ Young couples may be interested in either rental or for-sale units, therefore, if feasible, both options should be explored.
E
77
Looking more closely at the empty nesters (45-64 age cohort) as a source of demand:
♦ These couples include both working and retired households. The targeted median household income for these households is over
$50,000. As the baby-boom generation is growing older, the number of empty nester households will increase as illustrated in Tables 1
and 2 of the economic and demographic trends section.
♦ The demand is primarily from home owners seeking to downsize their homes and move closer to environments with proximity to transit
and entertainment options.
♦ They are seeking a community atmosphere with retail offerings, open space, and a mix of housing options.
♦ Empty Nesters may be interested in either rental or for-sale units, therefore, if feasible, both options should be explored.
Demand Preferences
The potential demand segments exhibit the following demand preferences:
♦ Walkability of the environment
♦ A sense of community
♦ Private parking
♦ Convenience of shopping
♦ Varied housing options
♦ Privacy and Security
♦ Access to major highways, transit, and airports
♦ Convenient access to urban areas
E
78
♦ Large suburban size rooms
♦ High quality fixtures, finishes, and appliances
♦ Pool, tennis, and exercise facilities
Aggregate potential demand for the market rate residential component is summarized below:
Table 19: Summary of Aggregate Potential Demand for Market Rate Residential – 2003
Rutgers (Busch and
Livingston Campuses)
Piscataway
PMA
1,606
NA
NA
Young Couples
NA
2,075
28,388
Empty Nesters
NA
5,108
73,711
Faculty and Staff
Source: ESRI BIS; and E&Y Assembled data
Aggregate Demand of Faculty and Staff
Table 20: Summary of Aggregate Demand (Faculty and Staff)-2003
Busch
239
Livingston
1,367
Total
1,606
Source: Rutgers University
E
79
Aggregate Demand of Young Singles and Couples
Table 21: Summary of Aggregate Demand - Young Singles and Couples (Qualified Households)
2003
2008
Change %
Piscataway
2,075
1,952
-123 (-6%)
PMA
28,388
26,869
-1,519 (-5%)
SMA
54,856
51,463
-3,393 (-6%)
Aggregate Demand of Empty Nesters
Table 22: Summary of Aggregate Demand – Empty Nesters (Qualified Households)
2003
2008
Change %
Piscataway
5,108
6,115
1,007 (20%)
PMA
73,711
92,843
19,132 (26%)
SMA
158,204
200,455
42,251 (27%)
E
80
Other factors supporting the potential demand for this development include:
♦ Demand in the PMA is growing due to stable employment markets and the current strength of metropolitan area residential real estate
markets.
♦ The future bus or light rail commuter line running through the Livingston campus.
♦ Continued employment growth in the Central New Jersey area.
A potential limitation for the development of the market-rate residential component is that Rutgers would like to maintain ownership of the
land. It is likely that the project developer(s) will be ground lessee(s). If this is the case, the development of for-sale residential must be
explored further, as it may not be easy to finance through conventional means.
E
81
Conclusions
A College Town mixed-use community with open space and complementary retail amenities is considered a viable option for the site. It
would cater to Rutgers faculty and staff, as well as a niche market looking for a unique community, and is estimated to continue growing
over the next decade.
Based on discussions with Piscataway Township, Middlesex County personnel, Rutgers, local planners, and real estate professionals, the
following is an estimate of potential absorption and pricing for the College Town development.
The following table summarizes conclusions for pricing and absorption assuming for-sale units were a viable option:
Table 23: Summary of Development Potential – Market Rate Residential
Phase
Unit Type
2006-2007
For-Sale Units
Size (SF)
# of Units
Price Point (2004 Dollars)
Absorption
30
Town Homes
1,750
10
$332,500
4-5 Units per month
Condominiums
1,250
20
$237,500
3-5 Units per month
Rental Apartments
5-8 Units per month
200
One Bedroom
800
40
$1,240
Two Bedroom
1,000
120
$1,500
Three Bedroom
1,450
30
$2,050
Source: E&Y Assembled data
E
82
A one-phase development plan with initial construction of rental apartment units coinciding with construction of the retail and university
uses is advised. Assuming infrastructure improvements, zoning approvals, and developer selection and negotiation are completed in line
with the above timeline residential construction could begin in 2005.
Based on current absorption rates of 5-10 units per month for comparable projects and factoring a slower initial absorption level in the future
to be conservative, Phase One would include 180-200 rental units and 30-50 for-sale units including condominiums and town homes. This
phase would also include the construction of the support retail space as well as the initial university uses.
Based on comparable properties and the positioning of College Town toward the top of the range for for-sale properties, price points in 2003
dollars would be in the range of $237,500 to $332,500 for town homes and condominiums. Rents would be at the high end of the range for
Piscataway properties and at a 15% discount to properties in New Brunswick, resulting in a range of $1,240 to $2,050 per month depending
on size. Prices are anticipated to increase as the project progresses.
College Town presents a unique opportunity in the region to provide a pedestrian oriented community for the Rutgers faculty and staff, as
well as the growing 45-64 year-old age cohort and for young couples without children in the 25-34 year-old age cohorts. The site would
provide recreational opportunities to the surrounding communities and continue the development of the Livingston Campus accordance with
Rutgers’ long-term planning priorities.
E
83
AFFORDABLE HOUSING MARKET ASSESSMENT
Objective
The objective of the affordable rate housing assessment was to understand the Township of Piscataway’s affordable housing requirements, as
mandated by the NJ Supreme Court Mount Laurel decision and the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), as well as the
supply of and demand for affordable housing units in the State of New Jersey.
Summary of Findings
E&Y’s assessment indicates that the development of 80 affordable units on the site would help the Township of Piscataway to meet its
affordable housing requirements, as mandated by the NJ Supreme Court Mount Laurel decision and the New Jersey Council on Affordable
Housing.
In order for affordable units to qualify for COAH approval towards a municipality’s fair share, they must be marketed to the housing region.
The site is in Region 3 comprising Middlesex, Somerset, and Hunterdon Counties. The median income level for a 3-person household is
$78,210. COAH income guidelines for Region 3 are $43,450 for Low Income Housing and $69,520 for Moderate Income Housing.
COAH conducts their own economic and demographic analyses to estimate the supply and demand for affordable housing units. The total
projected supply for Region 3 between 1999 and 2014 is 13,265 units. The supply of and demand for affordable housing units in the State of
New Jersey is calculated on a regional basis due to the manner in which individuals qualify for affordable units.
♦ The total projected supply for Region 3 between 1999 and 2014 is 13,265 units. Annually, this translates to 884 units.
♦ The total projected demand for Region 3 between 1999 and 2014 is 17,532 units. Annually, this translates to 926 units.
For 2003, rental rates for two-bedroom low-income units are $860 per month and $1,173 per month, including an $88 allowance for utilities.
Affordable units in the proposed development will be two bedroom, one and a half bathrooms, averaging 950 square feet with private
parking and modern appliances.
E
84
For College Town, it is likely that the ratio of low-income to moderate-income housing for the 80 units will be determined primarily based
on the eligibility requirements for various forms of financing.
Funding for affordable housing projects is usually provided by the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency (HMFA). Another
source of funding includes the Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits program. The Middlesex County Improvement Authority may also
provide financing for the affordable housing component.
Proposed Development Concept
housing, affordable housing, support retail services, and a mix of university uses. The proposed project development is to include 80 rental
units of affordable housing. These units are included in the project development based on a request by the Township of Piscataway. The
Township of Piscataway seeks to meet its affordable housing requirements, as mandated by the NJ Supreme Court Mount Laurel decision
and the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH).
COAH Summary
COAH, an administrative and regulatory agency, was created by the Fair Housing Act of 1985, and is the State Legislature's response to the
Mount Laurel decision, requiring municipalities to plan for and provide their fair share of affordable housing. Each of the 566 municipalities
in New Jersey is required to establish a realistic opportunity for the provision of fair share low and moderate-income housing obligations,
generally through land use and zoning
At this time, COAH has proposed a new Mount Laurel Third Round Methodology, to make the Mount Laurel requirements more flexible
and less negotiable. The Third Round Methodology was issued August 25, 2003 and is in the comments stage. If the Third Round
Methodology is enacted, Piscataway Township will have exceeded its prior round obligation (1987 – 1999) of 747 units by 10 units and have
a rehabilitation share of 93 units. Piscataway must therefore rehabilitate 93 units of affordable housing and going forward, must provide
affordable housing in the ratio of 1 unit per 10 new units constructed, and 1 unit per 30 new jobs created. The rehabilitation share is the
portion of the states need for rehabilitated affordable housing that the municipality will provide.
The COAH Mount Laurel Third Round Methodology does not significantly affect the number of units in the project development. Eighty
units have been requested by the Township of Piscataway. The inclusion of the project’s 80 units of affordable housing in Piscataway’s
E
85
affordable housing plan would help Piscataway to achieve their Fair Share Obligation of affordable housing. The Fair Share Obligation is
the portion of the states need for affordable housing that the municipality will provide.
It is important to note that these 80 units were previously included in Piscataway’s plan, but were recently removed because the COAH
board was not confident that the units would be marketed in a fair manner. The units have to be marketed to the general public in order to
count towards Piscataway’s fair share. That is, they cannot be designated solely for use by Rutgers University students, faculty or staff.
COAH establishes the income guidelines for affordable housing eligibility, and conducts their own economic and demographic analyses to
identify supply and demand for affordable housing units.
Income Guidelines
COAH income guidelines change yearly, varying by household size and county. State income guidelines are summarized in Table 22 below,
and apply to all Mount Laurel housing.
Table 24: COAH Income Limits for a Family of 3 – Region 3
Area Median Income
$78,210
Low Income Housing (50% AMI)
$39,105
Moderate Income Housing (80% AMI)
$46,926
Source: The Council on Affordable Housing
It is important to note that the State of New Jersey suffers from a shortage of affordable housing units. The state has always maintained a
waiting list for affordable units and affordable projects historically have maintained low vacancy rates. An 80-unit project as discussed for
the site would be quickly occupied due to the existing shortage. In addition, acquiring approvals for housing units in general is difficult in
New Jersey. Affordable units often require a longer process with additional public meetings and input. As a result, the anticipated supply of
new units remains low.
E
86
Supply
COAH estimates that the projected supply of affordable units between 1999 and 2014, will be 18.7% of total anticipated new multifamily
residential construction will be affordable units. During this time period, it is anticipated that the total construction of multifamily housing
units in Region 3 will be 53,329 units. That is, the projected supply of affordable units in Region 3 is 18.7% of this, or 9,973 units.
Additionally, per COAH’s third round methodology, estimated employment growth also contributes to housing supply. In Region 3, COAH
estimates that employment growth will result in an additional 3,294 units of anticipated supply.
The total projected supply for Region 3 between 1999 and 2014 is 13,265 units. Annually, this translates to 884 units.
The total projected demand for Region 3 between 1999 and 2014 is 13,885 units. Annually, this translates to 926 units
Demand
The projected demand for affordable housing between 1999-2014 can be summarized as follows:
♦ Total potential demand

Statewide need for up to 146,021 affordable housing units.

In Region 3 up to 31,417 affordable housing units based on population and household growth projections.
♦ Total potential demand is expected to be reduced due to filtering, older housing stock, public housing construction, and rehabilitation:

Statewide, total demand (146,021 units) is expected to be reduced by approximately 97,000 units (66.4%). That is, a potential
demand exists for 49,000 affordable housing units (33.6%) statewide.

In Region 3, total demand (31,417 units) is expected to be reduced by approximately 17,532 units (55.8%). That is, a potential
demand exists for 13,885 affordable housing units (44.2%) in Region 3.
E
87
♦ Annually, this equates to:

Statewide, the anticipated demand for affordable units is 3,267 units.

In Region 3, the anticipated demand for affordable units is 926 units.
Price
Rental rates for affordable housing units are established based on the COAH income limits for Region 3. The rental rates are specified by
COAH, and are approximately 30% of the income limits stated earlier.
That is, for this project:
♦ For low income units, the rental allowance is $860 per month including an $88 allowance for utilities.
♦ For moderate income units, the rental allowance is $1,173 per month including an $88 allowance for utilities.
Size
The affordable housing units are all two bedroom, one and a half bathroom units. The units are comparable in size to the market-rate units,
averaging 950 SF for two-bedroom units.
The affordable units will be developed as part of the larger market-rate housing component. Externally, the affordable units will look like the
market-rate units. Units will have private parking and modern appliances.
It is likely that the ratio of low income to moderate income housing for the 80 units will be determined primarily based on the eligibility
requirements for various forms of financing. For example, for the project to be eligible for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), there
are two lower thresholds for eligibility: 1) 20% of the units in the total development are reserved for households with income levels below
50% of the Area Median Income (AMI), or 2) 40% of the units are reserved for households with income levels below 60% of AMI. The
percentage of units is based on the lower of square footage or number of units. To satisfy the LIHTC eligibility requirements, all affordable
units will need to be low-income housing units (as opposed to a mix of low- and moderate-income).
E
88
Financing Structure
COAH is not a funding agency. Funding for affordable housing projects is usually provided by the
New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency (HMFA) using its bonding capabilities or its federal low income housing tax credit
allocations. Some municipalities also expend their own funds or utilize bonding resources.
Additionally, the affordable housing component is eligible for Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Reference Appendix 3 for
additional details on the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. There are two housing credit programs, either a 4 percent or a 9 percent
tax credit. Each is calculated on virtually all hard and soft construction costs incurred to develop or rehabilitate affordable rental properties.
The Middlesex County Improvement Authority may provide financing for the affordable housing component.
Conclusions
The development of 80 affordable units on the site would help the Township of Piscataway seeks to meet its affordable housing
requirements, as mandated by the NJ Supreme Court Mount Laurel decision and the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH).
The demand for affordable units is high on a statewide basis. New multi-family supply is difficult to construct and the existing pipeline of
affordable units is low. The 80 units proposed for the site would be welcomed by the Township and would be quickly occupied by those on
the waiting list.
E
89
UNIVERSITY HOUSING MARKET ASSESSMENT
Objective
The objective of the university housing market assessment was to understand the potential demand that exists for university housing on the
Livingston campus, as well as the trends in university housing in New Jersey and comparable public/state universities around the country.
Summary of Findings
E&Y’s assessment indicates that there is a strong potential demand for 350 units of university housing on Rutgers University Livingston
campus.
Universities in New Jersey and across the country are upgrading campuses and undertaking major construction projects. Campuses are
upgrading primarily in response to higher student enrollment nationally, and increased competition between colleges, for students. Also,
most campuses have not upgraded since the last construction wave in the 1960s and 1970s, and thus, now require upgrades.
Most universities are opting for apartments and townhouses, over dormitories, as students are attracted to the privacy and independence of
these units.
Case studies for Aggie Village (UC Davis), University Gateway Center (Ohio State University) and UTC Place (University of Tennessee)
indicate that universities are undertaking new development projects that include residential development, catering towards faculty and staff,
as well as students. The residential component may include for-sale or rental units and are often developed by private developers or
collaborative ventures between the university, the town and private developers. Often the land is leased to the developer or the developer is a
fee developer. The developer is also often the manager and operator of the development once completed. Financing is often by or through
the university’s bonding process.
Rutgers University’s Livingston campus has limited on-campus housing options for undergraduate and graduate students. As a result, there is
pent up demand for on-campus housing, particularly apartments. Due to the lack of housing options, university students move to off-campus
housing (90% of students live on campus freshman year, but only 40-45% of juniors and seniors live on the Livingston campus).
E
90
Students are attracted to the following amenities in student housing: private bedrooms and bathrooms; wireless web access; individually
controlled heating and cooling; adequate storage; and communal areas such as lounges, meeting space and study rooms.
Universities finance student housing through: direct university credit; indirect university credit; unaffiliated student housing; and project
financing through state HFA issued debt.
Development Program
housing, affordable housing, support retail services, and a mix of university uses. The proposed project development is to include 350 rental
units of university student housing. These units will be for undergraduate (175 units) and graduate (175 units) students. These units are
apartment style 2 bedroom units to be occupied by 4 undergraduate students per unit or 2 graduate students per unit.
Admission Levels
The Livingston campus currently has 4,028 students. Growth in undergraduate and graduate admissions is expected to remain flat over the
next several years. State funding directly impacts admissions growth and with future funding levels uncertain, it is expected that growth will
remain flat.
University Housing in New Jersey
In 2003, it is hard to find a college campus in New Jersey without at least one major construction project under way and more on the drawing
board. Due to increasing student demand and low interest rates, the state's colleges are staging an unprecedented building boom, according to
new statistics released by the state financing authority.
According to the NJEFA and Moody’s Investors Service, in the last three years, there has been a trend toward upgrading campuses
nationwide. The campuses are upgrading because more students are enrolling in college and competition for these students is escalating.
Additionally, many campus facilities were built during the last construction wave, in the 1960s and 1970s, and now require upgrades.
E
91
As colleges and universities are increasing their levels of investment, a significant portion of that is being funded through debt. The level of
investment could ease over the next few years if interest rates rise or if government funding of research facilities at larger universities is
reduced. Strong student demand, however, should help stabilize the sector.
Most universities are opting for apartments and townhouses, as opposed to dormitories, as students are attracted to the privacy and
independence of apartment and townhouse living. Universities are often opting for the one-bed per room model, whereas in the past the norm
was two-beds per room. Newer residential facilities in universities offer a wider variety of choices: singles, suites and apartments.
According to the NJEFA, colleges are building additional capacity to meet growing student needs, and simultaneously are modernizing their
campuses.
Examples of student housing developments planned or underway in New Jersey include Rowan University, Rutgers University, College of
New Jersey, Montclair State University and Kean University. Details on these projects are included in Appendix 4.
Case Studies
Three case studies were conducted to understand the various university housing projects being developed by public universities in various
parts of the country. These case studies are summarized below and discussed in more detail in Appendix 5.
Aggie Village at University of California – Davis - Davis, CA - Aggie Village, a residential development on the UC Davis campus was
designed by Peter Calthorpe, and was completed in 1997. Aggie Village offers UC Davis faculty and staff unique, affordable, quality homes
created specifically to suit the needs of the growing university community. The development consists of 21 single-family homes and 16
split-lot town homes. The units are sale units, some with a one-room cottage in the backyard offering an additional source of income for the
homeowners. Aggie Village was developed collaboratively between UC Davis, the City of Davis and Pyramid Construction. UC Davis is the
land owner and faculty and staff own the housing. UC Davis fixed home sale prices, and has a buyback option. Homeowners pay a monthly
lease payment to UC Davis as the land has been ground leased for 99-years. Staff and faculty were selected first by lottery, and now by rank
of recently recruited faculty. The development was a success and a new neighborhood has been planned.
University Gateway Center at Ohio State University – Columbus, OH – University Gateway Center is a two-phase project including
retail, restaurant, entertainment space, office space, residential and structured parking. This development will be one of the largest mixed-use
urban redevelopments in central Ohio. The first phase of the project, the housing component, is currently under construction, scheduled for
completion in 2005. This phase of housing is geared towards housing for law school students. The university is financing the development.
E
92
The development will be owned and managed by Campus Partners for Community Urban Redevelopment (Campus Partners) and Ohio State
University (OSU). Campus Partners is a non-profit organization formed by Columbus and OSU in January 1995.
UTC Place at University of Tennessee – Chattanooga – Chattanooga, TN – UTC Place is a three-phase project including university, as
well as faculty and staff housing, retail, and parking. UTC Place is a town center building intended to serve as a community-gathering place.
UTC Place is a collaboration between the University of Chattanooga Foundation and Place Properties. Phases I and II of the development
have been completed, and Phase III is underway. The University of Chattanooga Foundation, also the land owner, is financing the
development. The development is managed by Place Properties, the developer, property manager and ground lessee.
Supply
Rutgers undergraduate students at the Livingston campus have two housing options, living on-campus, or living off-campus.
On-Campus Options
On-campus options for undergraduates on the Livingston College are limited to residence halls. There are five options on the campus
including Ernest Lynton Towers North and South; and Quads One, Two and Three. These facilities have single and double occupancy
rooms. Each student has a bed, desk, chair, dresser, and a closet. In-room facilities include smoke detector, basic phone service (at least one
working phone jack). In the buildings, there are common bathrooms on each floor, a laundry room, a lounge (many with TV), a study area, a
kitchen or kitchenette, and food and beverage vending machines.
Rutgers undergraduate students on other Rutgers – New Brunswick campuses have on-campus housing options including residence halls and
apartments.
There are no on-campus options for graduate students on the Livingston campus. There are on-campus options for graduates on other
campuses of Rutgers – New Brunswick. These options, similar to undergraduates, are limited to residence halls, with facilities and amenities
as described above.
E
93
Table 25: Summary of On-Campus Housing Options for Graduates and Undergraduates
Rutgers University – New Brunswick Campus
Beds
Monthly Rent
(2002-2003)
Annual Rent (2002-2003)
Lease Term
Residence Halls
(Graduates and
Undergraduates)
9,029
$463 – 537/bed
$450 – 508/bed
$4,400 – 5,100/bed
$5,400 - 6,100/bed**
9.5 months
12 months
Apartments and Suites
(Graduates and
Undergraduates)
4,771
$463 – 556/bed
$479 – 524/bed
$4,400 - 5,282/bed
$5,742-6,282/bed**
9.5 months
12 months
Graduate Student
Family Apartments*
376
1 BR – $745/unit
2 BR - $945/unit
$8,940/unit
$11,340/unit
12 months
12 months
Source: Rutgers University
*Unfurnished , ** Graduate Students only
Conversations with Rutgers University indicate that current on-campus student housing options are not the standard upon which new oncampus student housing should be based.
There are no new on-campus options under construction on the Livingston college campus for either undergraduates or graduates. There is
one new student housing facility for Rutgers students being planned in downtown New Brunswick. This project, College Hall, is to be
developed by the New Brunswick Development Corporation (“Devco”) and will be occupied by Rutgers students, in downtown New
Brunswick. The project is 12 stories with 186 units (671 or 722 beds), 13,000 SF retail and an 818-car garage. Pricing and sizing
recommendations for new on-campus student housing are based on the proposed College Hall development
Off-Campus Options
Off-campus options for undergraduates and graduates are located in New Brunswick, Piscataway, and Highland Park. A summary of offcampus rental options is included in the table below.
E
94
Table 26: Comparable Rental Developments in the PMA
Community
Location
# of Units Rental Range
1 BR
2 BR
3 BR
Size (SF)
Average
Amenities
$/SF
647-950
$1.91
Under Development
Riverwatch
Downtown New
Brunswick
199
$1,290-$1,760
Highlands at Plaza Square
Downtown New
Brunswick
415
$1,444-$2,800
$1,444$1,800
$2,065$2,300
$2,495946-1,511 $1.73
$2,800
Private health club,
parking
Outdoor pool,
sauna, fitness
center, parking @
$75/month
Pleasant View Gardens
Piscataway
1,142
$905-$1,560
704-864
$1.57
Pool
Cedar Lane/Cedar Arms
Piscataway
430
$960-$1,250
650-850
$1.47
Pool, tennis
Treetops
Piscataway
216
$1,090-$1,300
760-960
$1.39
Pool, tennis
Royal Garden Apartments Piscataway
550
$930-$1,370
830-950
$1.29
Rivendell at Edison
455
$1,060-$1,610
Piscataway
982-2,388 $0.79
Pool, play area,
basketball
Walking distance
to train
E
95
Demand
In universities across the country, students seek on-campus student housing when it is available, preferring it to off-campus due to: security,
affordability, proximity to university, opportunity to meet and live with students and the amenities and facilities offered. However, students
opt for off-campus housing at universities where on-campus housing availability is limited, or housing options are limited to residence halls,
because students (particularly juniors and seniors) have a marked preference for newer facilities and apartment living. As a result of this
preference for apartment living, most new on-campus housing developments have a high percentage of apartments.
As illustrated in the table below, at Rutgers New Brunswick campus the demand for on-campus housing from undergraduate and graduate
students is greater than the supply. That is, there are more applications than there are available beds. The potential demand for new university
housing apartments is likely even greater for two reasons: 1) the on-campus housing stock is primarily residence halls and older apartments;
and 2) the number of applications is lower than it would be if there were more diverse housing options on-campus; that is, many students
may not even be applying.
Table 27: Summary of Demand for On-Campus Housing
Rutgers University – New Brunswick Campus
Supply
Demand
Beds
Applications
Potential Demand
Undergraduates
9,029
Graduates
4,771
15,406
1,607
Graduate Student Family Apartments*
376
415
39
14,176
15,821
1,645
Source: Rutgers University (Fall 2002)
E
96
Other factors affecting potential demand:
♦ Continuing students, first year students and transfer student demand exceeds supply of beds.
♦ Rutgers believes that the lack of graduate student housing options is turning away potential students from the Rutgers New Brunswick
campuses, if new graduate student housing options were available, Rutgers would be able to attract additional students.
Price and Size
As mentioned earlier conversations with Rutgers indicate that current on-campus student housing options are not the standard upon which
new on-campus student housing should be based. Therefore, pricing and sizing for the proposed university housing is based on
conversations with Rutgers and review of new student housing developments. These prices and sizes are summarized below.
Table 28: Summary of Proposed Pricing for University Housing
College Town
Monthly Rent
Annual Rent
Lease Term
Undergraduate Students
$555/bed
$6,660/bed
12 months
Graduate Students
$621/bed
$7,452/bed
12 months
E
97
Table 29: Summary of Proposed Sizing for University Housing
College Town
Unit Type
Unit Size
One Bedroom Units, One Bathroom Units
650 SF
Two Bedroom Units, Two Bathroom Units
900 SF
Source: E&YAssembled Data
Case studies and a review of the other projects indicate that the typical development program for these developments is to offer one
bedroom, one bathroom and two bedroom, two bathroom units. Additionally, some developments offer four and five bedroom units, but one
and two bedroom units are much more flexible and marketable.
Students are attracted to housing options that include the following amenities:
♦ Private bedrooms and bathrooms
♦ Wireless web access
♦ Individually controlled heating and cooling
♦ Adequate storage
♦ Lounge, meeting space, and study rooms
E
98
Financing
Campuses are finding themselves with a shortage of adequate residential space for a variety of reasons including increasing student
enrollment, obsolete facilities, and higher student expectations.
The demand for university housing is very high, as students want to live on campus. The universities, like homeowners, are taking advantage
of the low interest rates and the opportunity for mortgage refinancing; colleges are saving money by refinancing their outstanding bonds
from previous building projects.
According to the National Association of College and University Business Officers and Moodys’ Investor Services, there are various options
available to Universities to finance undergraduate and graduate student housing. These include:
♦ Direct University Credit: This is the most traditional route taken where the university issues bonds in the name of the university
secured by a direct university legal commitment to pay debt service. Universities enjoy a low cost of capital that is associated when
investors are offered a direct legal commitment from the university.
♦ Indirect University Credit: Many universities have begun to utilize the privatization of student housing. The common ingredient is that
the university maintains some financial stake in the project, but the actual financing has no legal tie back to the university to pay debt
service. The housing is generally built on campus on land that the university owns. The housing may be managed by the university or
by a private property manager. The university does not issue the bonds. They typically receive residual revenues of the project after debt
service and other expenses and takes title to the project when the debt is retired. An unrelated conduit issuer such as a local development
authority issues the debt on behalf of the borrower, which is generally a 501(c)(3) organization or foundation related to the university.
Universities have a strong incentive to assist these projects if they were to get into trouble due to the indirect link to the university.
♦ Unaffiliated Student Housing: Housing may be acquired or constructed without the benefit of any direct or indirect university
involvement. Unaffiliated projects have similar real estate exposure as more traditional affordable housing although they have a different
risk profile affiliated with the niche market of student housing.
♦ Project Financing Through State HFA Issued Debt: Many State Housing Finance Agencies are exploring issuing their own bonds to
finance student housing. State HFAs typically issue tax-exempt bonds to finance single family and multi-family housing for low and
moderate-income residents. Some HFAs have begun to consider including student housing in their real estate pools thus lending the
E
99
strength of their balance sheets to these projects. The Massachusetts HFA has been at the forefront of this new partnership with
Universities.
Conclusion
The development of 350 university housing units on the site is viable, as potential demand exists for university housing for undergraduate
and graduate students.
There are significant new developments of university housing in New Jersey and around the country. These new developments are primarily
apartment style units. A significant portion of the new developments are being funded through debt.
E
100
RETAIL MARKET ASSESSMENT
Objective
The primary objective of the retail market assessment was to determine the competitive supply and potential demand that exists for the retail
component of the proposed development.
Summary of Findings
E&Y’s assessment indicates that approximately 40,000 SF of retail is supportable on the site.
The retail market in New Jersey continues to be strong. Retail rents and lease terms have room for negotiation, but the retail market is strong
and is expected to grow in the next five years.
New Jersey has strong demographics and is the second largest retail market in the country with the second highest disposable income.
Retailers recognize the potential demand that exists in New Jersey, and continue to be attracted to entry and expansion opportunities in this
market.
Additionally, E&Y’s assessment of existing retail supply on or near Livingston campus indicates that retail supply is limited. Most of the
local retail is found in the regional malls of Piscataway and South Plainfield. There is little mid sized neighborhood retail development
(30,000 to 50,000 SF) to serve either the university students or the local market needs.
At this time, there is limited new construction of retail supply.
On the demand side, there are various sources of potential demand. E&Y’s review of the development concept and potential users of retail
indicates that the proposed retail would be a university town center or neighborhood retail development (to serve the university and local
market demand) with some eating and drinking offerings for the university students and athletic stadium attendees.
The assessment indicates that there is sufficient demand from potential customers for the development of retail. This demand is from the
local market area, the university level demand and the project level demand. This demand is anticipated to support at least 40,000 SF of
retail development. The retail demand is for a neighborhood center that includes GAFO (“General Apparel Furnishing and Other”), food
eating and drinking and entertainment retail.
E
101
The proposed retail merchandising plan is as follows:
Table 30: Summary of Aggregate Potential Demand for Retail Component of Proposed Development
GAFO
Food, Eating and Drinking
Support and Service Retail
1 Bookstore (5,000-10,000 SF)
3 Specialty Goods Stores (2,0005,000 SF each) Specialty Goods
Store, Apparel, Bookstore, Sports
Related Retail
11,000-25,000 SF
3-5 - Restaurants (take away, 1 - Drugstore (5,000 SF),
family), Café, Sports Bar (each 3 - Laundry, Video store (1,0002,000 to 3,500 SF each)
2,000 SF each)
6,000-17,500 SF
8,000-11,000 SF
Total Retail Square Footage
17,500 SF
12,500 SF
10,000 SF
% Breakout
43.75%
31.25%
25%
Retail Types
Retail rents in Piscataway are estimated to be $15-18 PSF on a NNN basis for a vanilla box. The expenses are estimated to be $5 to $6 PSF
leading to gross rents of approximately $21 PSF on average.
E
102
Retail Supply
E&Y’s assessment indicates that the retail component of the proposed development can be classified as a university town center or
neighborhood retail center, and as urban retail adjacent to a sports and entertainment venue. Each of these categories included certain retail
product types, and is attractive to various types of retailers. For example:
♦ University Town Center or Neighborhood Retail Center – includes convenience retail (food, drugs etc.) and personal services
(laundry, drycleaning etc.) for day to day living needs of the immediate neighborhood. Smaller retailers include local mom and pop
stores, banks, convenience stores, bakery, café, video store, etc. This retail is a form of support retail serving the local area. In theory,
the typical size is 50,000 square feet. In practice, the average size of the center may range from 30,000 to 100,000 SF.
♦ Urban Retail adjacent to a Sports and Entertainment Venue – includes retail and eating and drinking components typically found in
or near a sports stadium. In the case of the proposed project, it is likely that there will be additional retail demand from attendees, as
retail typically found within the sports venue will be located outside as part of the retail component of the proposed development.
In Piscataway, there is almost 262,290 SF of existing retail supply.
Table 31: Table 29: Summary of Local Market Area Retail Supply
Retail Category
Total SF
Typical Size of Development (SF)
Neighborhood
262,290 SF
30,000 to 100,000 SF
Urban Retail adjacent to a Sports and
Entertainment Venue
NA
NA
E
103
Looking at comparable supply of retail within each of the retail development categories:
University Town Center or Neighborhood Retail
The retail component of the proposed development will complement the retail near the university in Piscataway and South Plainfield.
Table 32: Summary of Neighborhood Retail in the Local Market
Retail Project
Piscataway
Centennial Square
GLA (SF)
Tenants
Vacancy
79,000
Dollar tree, Hallmark Cards, Modern Nails, Supercuts,
T.G.I. Fridays
0%
Edwards Shopping Center
4,000
5%
Piscataway Towne Center
37,348
Applebee’s Grill & Bar, GNC, Personal Touch Dry
Cleaners.
5%
Hadley Shopping Center
87,410
Nail Salon, Kinko’s Copies, Laundromat, Blockbuster
0-25%
Middlesex Mall
South Plainfield Center
35,993
18,540
Taco Bell, Radio Shack, Dress Barn, King Chinese
Blockbuster Video
16%
7%
S Plainfield
Source: E&Y Assembled Data and NRB Shopping Center Directory
From the above table it is seen that there is not much supply of neighborhood retail in the area. The retail is moderately priced (not upscale)
and does not offer much price and product differentiation.
E
104
Urban Retail Adjacent to Sports and Entertainment Venue
The urban retail component of the project will be visited by stadium attendees. Retail outside a sports venue typically competes with retail
inside the sports venue, but in this case there will be little retail inside the stadium. Most will be outside the stadium.
Retail offerings adjacent to sports and entertainment venues typically include specialty sports-related retail, food and eating and drinking.
Typical Rental Rates and Lease Terms
Retail rents in Piscataway are estimated to be $15-18 PSF on a NNN basis for a vanilla box. The expenses are estimated to be $5 to $6 PSF
leading to gross rents of approximately $21 PSF on average. Lease terms are 5 to 10 years with renewal options. The market is very strong
with very low vacancy rates.
E
105
Retail Demand
E&Y’s review of supply and assessment of demand for retail space in the proposed development indicates that there is potential for the
development of retail in the proposed development. Proposed demand for the retail space is anticipated to be from the following demand
segments:
♦ Demand from residents and office workers in the Local Market
♦ Demand from university students, university employees and stadium attendees.
♦ Project Level Demand – University housing for the graduate students, university housing for the undergraduate students, market rate
residential and affordable housing.
These demand segments are interested in the following retail merchandising mix:
♦ PMA Demand of residents and office workers will be attracted to neighborhood retail. The typical retail mix this demand segment
would be interested in is support retail with a mix of specialty in line retailers (both GAFO) and some food, eating and drinking.
♦ University Students will also be attracted to the retail as there is very limited retail on or near the campus. The typical retail mix this
demand segment would be interested in is support retail with a mix of specialty in line retailers (both GAFO) and some food, eating
and drinking.
♦ In addition to the above demand, there is project level demand of residents, office workers and athletic stadium attendees. Retail
demand from these demand sources includes:

Convenience and support services retail (Residents, Office Workers and Commuters)

Sports related retail and food, eating and drinking (Athletic Stadium Attendees)
E
106
To summarize the potential retail demand segments:
GAFO
Piscataway Residents and
Office Employees
Specialty Goods Store, Apparel,
Office Supplies, Bookstore
Restaurants (take away,
family), Café
Drugstore (5,000-10,000 SF)
Laundry
University Students
Specialty Goods Store, Apparel,
Office Supplies, Optical Store,
Bookstore
Restaurants (take away,
family), Café
Laundry
Restaurants, Café
Laundry, video store
Project Level Demand
University Students Residential, Specialty Goods Store, Apparel,
Office
Office Supplies, Optical Store,
Bookstore
Athletic Center
Sports Related Retail
Sports Bar, Café, Restaurant
E
107
The aggregate potential demand from this demand segment is summarized in the table below:
Table 34: Summary of Aggregate Potential Demand for Retail Component of Proposed Development - 2003
Local Market
University
Project Demand
Residential
16,726 Households
NA
660 Households
Office
13,263 Employees
1367 Employees1
NA
University Students
NA
4028 Students2
NA
Athletic Stadium
NA
258,125 Attendees
NA
1
Livingston campus staff and faculty; 2 Livingston campus students
Aggregate potential demand is calculated based on the following sources:
♦ ESRI US 2003 Data provides the number of households and the number of employees
♦ Project level demand is based on E&Y’s assessment and the proposed development program provided by MCIA
♦ Athletic stadium attendees information provided by Rutgers. The stadium has an average occupancy of ~8,000 attendees. The
stadium hosts approximately 70-75 events annually, including basketball games, post-season NCAA games, Rutgersfest,
commencement exercises and college fairs. For each of these events, the attendance is summarized below:

Men’s Basketball – 15 games – 6,000 attendees per game

Women’s Basketball – 15 games – 2,000 attendees per game
E
108

Other events – 40-45 events – 3,000 – 3,500 attendees per event
Based on these assumptions, there are 258,125 attendees annually.
The retail spending assumptions are as follows:
♦ According to the 2004 National Research Bureau Shopping Center Directory, average retail sales per square foot is $250.
♦ According to the Shopping Center Directory, total existing retail square footage is 262,291 square feet.
♦ Residents – Claritas Inc., based on Census 2000 data, calculates annual household retail spending by residents in the following
relevant categories General Apparel, Furnishing and Other (“GAFO”), Food, Eating and Drinking and Entertainment. For the Local
Market, the spending assumptions are as follows:
Table 35: Annual Retail Spending per Household in the Local Market
GAFO
$5,198
Food Eating and Drinking
$5,906
Entertainment
$2,874
Total
$13,978
♦ Office Employees – According to a report conducted by ICSC, office employees in urban environments spend approximately $1,000
annually on support and service retail, and eating and drinking during or after work. This retail spending is split equally between retail
and eating and drinking.
E
109
♦ University Employees – According to a report conducted by ICSC, employees in urban environments spend approximately $1,000
annually on support and service retail, and eating and drinking during or after work. This retail spending is split equally between retail
and eating and drinking.
♦ University Students – According to the student monitor the average discretionary spending per month for full-time university students
on GAFO, food away from home and entertainment is $188.
♦ Athletic Stadium Attendees – According to CSI International, athletic stadium attendees spend a total of $8.43 per attendee, on
concessions and merchandise. It is assumed that all of this spending is outside the stadium.
Based on the assumptions on the previous pages, the potential retail spending for the retail component is as follows:
Local Market Level Demand
Total annual retail spending potential from residents and office workers in the local market is $246.9 Million.
Table 36: Total Annual Retail Spending in Local Market
Households or
Employees
Retail Spending per
Household or Employee
Total Annual Retail Spending*
Residents
16,726
$13,978*
$233.7 Million
Employees
13,263
$1,000
$13.2 Million
Total
$246.9 Million
Source: E&Y Assembled Data; * Retail Spending is for GAFO, Food, Eating and Drinking and Entertainment
E
110
University Level Demand
Total annual retail spending from university level demand is $10.34 million
Table 37: Total Annual Retail Spending from University Level Demand
Households or Employees or
Attendees
Retail Spending per
Household or Employee or
Attendee
Total Annual Retail
Spending*
University Employees
1,367
$1,000
$1.3 Million
University Students
4,028
$1,7861
$7.1 Million
Stadium Attendees
258,125
$8.43
$2.176 Million
Total
$10.58 Million
Source: E&Y Assembled Data; * Retail Spending is for GAFO, Food, Eating and Drinking and Entertainment
E
111
Project Level Demand
Project Level Residential –Each new housing unit requires approximately 50 SF of support retail. The total retail that will be needed to
support the proposed development of 660 units is approximately 33,000 square feet.
Total annual retail spending from project level demand is $4.5 million
Table 38: Total Annual Retail Spending from Project Level Demand
Households
Retail Spending per Household
Total Annual Retail Spending*
Residents
Market Rate
230
$13,978
$3.2 Million
Affordable
80
$6,989
$0.5 Million
University
350
$2,256
$0.7 Million
Total
$4.5 Million
Source: E&Y Assembled Data; * Retail Spending is for GAFO, Food, Eating and Drinking and Entertainment; ** Less Local Area Residents and Employees
From tables 37, 38 and 39, total annual retail spending in the PMA is $262 Million.
Based on an assumption of retail sales of $250 PSF, total potential retail spending of $262 Million translates to a total supportable square
footage of retail of 1.05 million square feet.
Based on an assumption of total existing retail square footage in the PMA of 262,291 square feet, the net supportable square footage of
retail in the PMA is 0.7 million square feet.
E
112
That is, the retail component of the proposed project is supportable.
Looking at the retail component as a neighborhood center retail merchandising is anticipated to include:
GAFO
Retail Types
1 Bookstore (5,000-10,000 SF)
3 Specialty Goods Stores (2,0005,000 SF each) Specialty Goods
Store, Apparel, Bookstore, Sports
Related Retail
11,000-25,000 SF
3-5 - Restaurants (take away, 1 - Drugstore (5,000 SF),
family), Café, Sports Bar (each 3 - Laundry, Video store (1,0002,000 to 3,500 SF each)
2,000 SF each)
6,000-17,500 SF
8,000-11,000 SF
Total Retail Square Footage
17,500 SF
12,500 SF
10,000 SF
% Breakout
43.75%
31.25%
25%
E
113
Conclusion
E&Y’s assessment indicates that approximately 40,000 SF of retail is supportable on the site.
Additionally, E&Y’s assessment of existing retail supply on or near Livingston campus is limited. Most of the local retail is found in the
regional malls of Piscataway and South Plainfield. That is, there is little mid sized neighborhood retail development (30,000 to 50,000 SF)
to serve first and foremost, the university students, and secondly, the local market needs.
E
114
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Summary of Findings
The financial analysis incorporated conclusions from the market study to review the feasibility of each component of the College
Town project. This analysis was an order of magnitude analysis, the first iteration of which has been developed and is presented in
this report. It is our assessment that the financial feasibility of each of the components is within the ranges presented in Table 41 of
this section. However, it is important to note that the focus of this phase has been the correct structuring of the financial model,
and that the input assumptions are subject to revision and refinement in Phase II, upon further discussion with MCIA and Rutgers
and other relevant parties. Revisions to the input assumptions will alter the results presented in Table 41.
The financial analysis reviewed the feasibility of each component of the College Town project. From a financial analysis
standpoint, each component of the project is feasible. However, it is important to note that the market-rate rental housing yield is
below levels that would attract a traditional developer.
Additionally, the financial analysis considered an all rental scenario, to calculate the potential value or returns to Rutgers. Later
iterations of the financial analysis will consider the incorporation of for-sale units on the site to make the market rate aspect of the
project attractive. Each of the other components (affordable housing, university housing and retail) generates development fees,
management fees or positive return to the developer and provides potential ground rent payments to Rutgers.
The transaction structure considered was a ground lease structure, with Rutgers University as the ground lessor, and the private
sector developer(s) as the ground lessee(s).
E
115
For each of the components, the following forms of financing were considered:
Table 40: Potential Sources of Financing for Each Component
Terms
Source
LTV
Conventional
Financing
70%
Affordable Housing
Low Income
Housing Tax
Credits
Tax Exempt
Bonds
30%
18
30
7.25%
100%
20
30
5.75%
70%
10
20
6.5%
Student
Housing
University Uses
and
Retail Uses
Conventional
Financing
Term Amort. Rate
Pd.
20
30
6.25%
E
116
The ranges in the table below are estimates and will change as a result of fluctuations in market interest rates over the initial
development cycle. The table summarizes the range of value to Rutgers from each component:
Table 41: Potential Value of Each Component to Rutgers
University
Potential Value to Rutgers
(2006 Dollars)
Affordable Housing
Student Housing
Retail Uses
University Uses
$0
$300,000 to $440,000
Scenario 1: ($5,000,000)*
Scenario 2: $24,000,000
$300,000 to $385,000
($5,000,000) to ($6,000,000)
* Scenario 1 – 2 beds per unit for undergraduate and 2 beds per unit for graduate
and Scenario 2 – 4 beds per unit for undergraduate and 2 beds per unit for graduate
Following is a summary of the results of the financial analysis:
♦ Market Rate Residential – For this component, the project was assumed to include only rental units. The project yield is only
6% versus an expected 20-30% yield a developer would expect for a comparable project. However, the project is able to
generate positive cash flow after stabilization and is therefore a potentially viable project depending on the ownership and
operating structure that Rutgers decides to implement.
E
117
♦ Affordable Housing - The NPV of the lease payments would be range from $300,000 to $440,000. Our analysis illustrates
that the affordable housing component is a viable option that covers debt service as well as generates income for Rutgers.
♦ Student Housing - The NPV of the cash flow after debt service is estimated to range from a loss of $5,000,000 for single
occupancy to a profit of $24,000,000 for undergraduate double occupancy.
Overview of Input Assumptions
E&Y’s financial analysis analyzed the feasibility of each aspect of the College Town project. The first page of the financial
analysis includes development assumptions for the project. These input assumptions are based upon the findings of the market
study; market research and publications; discussions with Rutgers University, real estate professionals and brokers, possible
financing sources; and E&Y compiled research.
Infrastructure
The infrastructure budget was compiled using a rate per residential unit for comparable land developments in the region. The
estimate of $15,000 per unit was then allocated on a pro rata basis to each segment of the project in order to adequately spread the
costs of the infrastructure.
Project Sources and Uses
Sources and Uses tables are presented for the overall project as well as each project component. The Sources and Uses breakdown
demonstrate the allocation of potential funding sources and the breakdown of development components within the project. We
tested our final breakdowns against market benchmarks in order to assure that our analysis was in line with market expectations.
Tax Credit Calculation
An estimate of the potential Low Income Housing Tax Credit was developed to analyze the financial feasibility of providing lowincome housing on the property. We analyzed the 9% and 4% credit in order to determine which program would provide the
greatest return for a potential developer. It is important to note that the calculation is a preliminary estimate of potential equity for
the project. The annual tax credits are not discounted over the 10-year period, however the expected project loses are not included.
E
118
In a detailed analysis these factors balance allowing a high degree of accuracy for the preliminary method. The total equity
estimate calculated was used in the affordable housing operating pro-forma. For more information on the 9% and 4% credits
please refer to Appendix 3.
Operating Pro Formas
For purposes of our analysis, we have treated each potential use as an independent project with separate funding sources and
development structures. The details of each pro forma are detailed below:
♦ Market Rate Residential Housing

The market-rate housing component for this scenario is all rental units. It is assumed that this component will be
funded using conventional financing sources with the developer expecting a project yield of 20-30%. Our analysis
assumed that the return to Rutgers would include any yield above the expected developer yield. Using our concluded
market rental rates, the project yield over a 10-year hold was 6%, significantly lower than the expected developer
yield. The analysis confirms our market research that developers are building for-sale units due to the higher demand
and resulting yield. The project is able to generate positive cash flow after stabilization and is therefore a potentially
viable project depending on the ownership and operating structure that Rutgers decides to implement.
♦ Affordable Housing

The affordable rate housing component is assumed to be funded using low income housing tax credits. An analysis of
the 9% and 4% low income housing tax credit options concluded that the 9% option resulted in a better yield to the
landowner. Affordable housing developers rely on a high development fee of approximately 10% of hard and soft
costs as well as a management fee of approximately 5% of revenues versus a 2% management fee for market rate
housing. As a result the affordable housing developer does not traditionally generate additional revenue from annual
cash flows. In our analysis the annual residual cash flows would be paid to Rutgers University in the form of a
ground rent. For this aspect of the project, the NPV of the lease payments would be range from $300,000 to
$440,000. Our analysis illustrates that the affordable housing component is a viable option that covers debt service
as well as generates income for Rutgers.
E
119
♦ University Housing

Student housing construction is assumed to be financed through the issuance of tax-exempt bonds. These bonds
would require no equity input and have a rate below current taxable rates. We investigated two options in our
analysis; first single occupancy per bedroom for both graduate and undergraduate students and second single
occupancy per bedroom for graduate students and double occupancy per unit for undergraduate students. We
assumed that the developer would again be fee based seeking a 10% development fee with a 5% annual management
fee. Ownership issues would need to be structured between Rutgers and the developer. Again, the residual annual
cash flow after debt service would be used to calculate the value of the land to Rutgers.

For our analysis, we initially assumed one bed per room (single occupancy) for graduate students, and one bed per
room (single occupancy) for undergraduate students. This resulted in large annual losses for the student housing
component. These losses exceeded $1,000,000 per year. As a second scenario, we analyzed single occupancy for
graduate students and double occupancy for undergraduate students. The annual cash flows were positive for this
scenario, after the first year. The NPV of the cash flow after debt service is estimated to range from a loss of
$5,000,000 (scenario one) to a profit of $24,000,000 (scenario two).

The retail development is assumed to be financed using conventional financing sources with the developer expecting
a project yield of 15-20%. Our analysis assumed that the return to Rutgers would include any yield above the
expected developer yield. Using our concluded market rental rates and an annual ground rent payment of $50,000,
the project yield over a 10-year hold was 19%. On an NPV basis the value to Rutgers would be in the range of
$300,000 to $385,000.
♦ Retail
♦ University Uses

The construction of additional university uses is assumed to be financed through the issuance of tax-exempt bonds.
These bonds are assumed to require no equity input and have a rate below current taxable rates. We assumed that the
developer would again be fee based seeking a 10% development fee with a 5% annual management fee. Ownership
issues would need to be structured between Rutgers and the developer. Again, the residual annual cash flow after
E
120
debt service would be used to calculate the value of the land to Rutgers. Assuming Rutgers pays $0 rent for the
space, the cost for the University aspect of the project would be $5,000,000 to $6,000,000.
E
121
Conclusion
From a financial feasibility standpoint each segment of the project is feasible. However, it is critical to note that the market raterental housing yield is below levels that would attract a typical developer.
The possibility of incorporating for-sale units on the site is important to explore further in order to make the market-rate aspect of
the project attractive. Each other use generates development fees, management fees, or positive return to the developer and
provides potential ground rent payments to Rutgers. The ranges below are estimates and would change as a result of fluctuations
in market interest rates over the initial development cycle.
E
122
APPENDIX 1: SOURCES AND CONTACTS
CONTACT
1. RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
Livingston College Housing Office
Off-Campus Housing
On-Campus Graduate Student Housing
Douglas Kokoskie, Assistant Athletic Director
2. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Jaime Reynolds, NJHMFA
Art Bernard, Former Director of COAH
NUMBER/EMAIL
732-445-2346
732-932-7766
732-445-2215
732-445-4223
609-278-8803
609-397-8070
Township of Piscataway
Ann Nolan, Municipal Clerk Township of Piscataway
John Donnely, Township Planner
Lester Nebbinsol, Planning Consultant
732-562-2344
732-463-3900
732-257-4040
Middlesex County
George Ververides, Director of County Planning
Carl Spataro, Director, Economic Development
732-745-3013
732-745-3433
Steven Hood, University of Chattanooga
Molly Ranz-Calhoun, Ohio State University
[email protected]
[email protected]
3. CASE STUDIES
E
123
John M. Yates, UC Davis
Kathie Weatherford, Aggie Village
Paul Sehnert, University of Pennsylvania
530-297-4610
530-297-4609
[email protected]
Doug Firstenberg, Stonebridgeassociates
Jason Duckworth , Arcadia Land
Maple Grove Condominiums
Cedar Lane/Cedar Arms Apartments
Forest Glen Apartments
Treetops Apartments
301-913-9610
610-687-3100
732-522-7069
732-846-0806
732-846-8100
732-846-0400
4. DEVELOPERS, BROKERS AND
LEASING AGENTS
E
124
APPENDIX 2: PROJECTS IN MIDDLESEX COUNTY
SF
# of
Units
Primary
Property
Class
Sierra Suites Hotel
45
132
Hotel
Final Planning
Branchburg
NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
Marriot Forrestal Village (Addition)
Robert Wood Johnson Hotel and Parking Garage
Hotel/Vehicle Service
40
89
99
100
119
108
Hotel
Hotel
Hotel
Planning
Planning
Planning
Princeton
New Brunswick
Woodbridge
NJ
NJ
NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
Fairfield by Marriott Hotel
Hampton Inn Hotel/Pool
Sayreville Waterfront Development Project
Heldrichs Hotel & Conference Center
24
11
94
Hotel
Hotel
Hotel
Hotel
Planning
Planning
Pre-Planning
Pre-Planning
Edison
South Plainfield
Sayreville
New Brunswick
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
Project Title
Project
Phase
City
State
County
Hotel Projects
120
Hotel-Planning
158
711
Heldrich Plaza Mix-Use Building (DEVCO) (NEGOTIATED)
Hampton Inn Princeton Forrestal Center/Pool -Fire Rebuild
Comfort Suites Hotel
Staybridge Suites Hotel
Country Inn & Suites
Holiday Inn Express Hotel and Suites - Tower Center
Hotel-Underway
365
50
40
55
50
56
290
111
66
87
85
100
739
Hotel
Hotel
Hotel
Hotel
Hotel
Hotel
Underway
Underway
Underway
Underway
Underway
Underway
New Brunswick
Princeton
East Brunswick
Cranbury
Avenel
East Brunswick
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
Courtyard by Marriott Hotel and Restaurant
Hilton Garden Inn & Pool
Studio 6 - Extended Stay Motel
Residence Inn -Executive Stay
Fairfield Inn by Marriott
Princeton Forrestal Marriott Hotel Addn
Marriott Courtyard Hotel (128 Suites) - Pool
(North Brunswick) Comfort Suites Hotel
Woodbridge NJ French Motel
Hotel - Completed
95
89
55
60
36
49
87
71
30
144
132
70
108
90
100
128
71
40
883
Hotel
Hotel
Hotel
Hotel
Hotel
Hotel
Hotel
Hotel
Hotel
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Dayton (Sbrunswick)
Edison
East Brunswick
Cranbury
Avenel
Princeton
Edison
North Brunswick
Woodbridge
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
E
125
Project Title
SF
# of
Units
Primary
Property
Class
Project
Phase
City
State
County
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Final Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Pre-Planning
Pre-Planning
Pre-Planning
Pre-Planning
Pre-Planning
Pre-Planning
Edison
Plainsboro
New Brunswick
North Brunswick
Old Bridge
Helmetta
Old Bridge
Avenel
Perth Amboy
New Brunswick
Plainsboro
Perth Amboy
Woodbridge
Brunswick
South Amboy
Perth Amboy
Helmetta
Middlesex
Carteret
Piscataway
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Underway
Underway
Underway
Underway
Piscataway
Plainsboro
Piscataway
Woodbridge
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
Multi-family Projects
Rivendell Apartment Complex
Princeton Nursery Apartment/Retail/Office MASTER REPORT
Metropolitan Apartments-Parking Garage/Swimming Pool
Hartland Square Townhouses w/ Garage
Oaks at Glenwood Housing Subdivision - Outdoor Pool
Apts-Office-Retail (Redevelopment)
Old Bridge Town Center Mixed Use Development
Hillcrest Apts
Commercial Building w/ Apt
Construction Management Apts
Village Center Retail Office Residential Complex
Mixed Use Bldg Office&Apts
Apt Bldg (addition)
Fulton Square Housing Development
South Amboy Central Waterfront Redevelopment
Commercial District (Redevelopment)
Luxury Apt Complex (Convert Former Factory)
Apt Bldg
Meridian Terrace (Apts-Townhouses)
Townhouses
Multifamily-Planning
Birchview Apartment Complex
Villas at Tuscany Apartment Complex
Townhomes
Hyde Park Village - Apartment Building
Multifamily-Underway
E
117
41
600
186
380
92
3
10
8
85
9
10
131
148
36
340
108
1,500
280
250
8
9
21
20
8
3
190
30
131
2
229
35
26
114
2
200
30
3,293
339
285
17
77
339
220
12
70
641
126
Project Title
SF
# of
Units
Primary
Property
Class
Project
Phase
City
State
County
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
New Brunswick
New Brunswick
Woodbridge
Old Bridge
Woodbridge
New Brunswick
Sayreville
Piscataway
Cranbury
South Plainfield
New Brunswick
Piscataway
Monmouth Junction
Old Bridge
Woodbridge
Woodbridge
Perth Amboy
South Brunswick
Green Brook
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
Multi-family Projects (cont.)
New Brunswick Hope VI Townhouse & Retail Complex (Phase 1)
Skyline Tower (Former County Admin Building (Alt))
Fox Hill Run Apts
Condominiums (4 Buildings 60 Units)
Apartment Buildings
Highlands at Plaza Sq Apts-Retail Parking Garage
Winding Woods Apartments
Townhouses
Parkside Affordable Housing Apts-NEGOTIATED
Traditions Condominium & Townhouse Complex
Town Houses
Birch Glen Estates Townhouses
South Ridge Roads Apartment Complex
Foxborough Village 2 - Residential
Apartment Building
Harbortown Village - Townhomes
Row-Type Town Homes (34 Units)
South Brunswick NJ Apartment Building (72 Units)
(Greenbrook NJ) Townhouses (22 Units)
Multifamily-Completed
E
50
80
132
78
63
619
27
21
16
292
9
426
94
19
24
24
54
36
30
53
70
120
60
40
417
20
10
16
365
8
254
118
17
21
21
34
72
22
1,738
127
Project Title
SF
# of
Units
Primary
Property
Class
Project
Phase
City
State
County
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Final Planning
Final Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Pre-Planning
Pre-Planning
Pre-Planning
Pre-Planning
Woodbridge
North Brunswick
North Brunswick
Dayton
Woodbridge
South Brunswick
Iselin
Edison
Plainsboro
Monmouth Junction
Sayreville
Edison
Old Bridge
Old Bridge
Iselin
New Brunswick
East Brunswick
North Brunswick
Dayton
Colonia
New Brunswick
South Brunswick
Old Bridge
Middletown
Piscataway
East Brunswick
South Brunswick
Old Bridge
Edison
Cranbury
Metuchen
Cranbury
Old Bridge
New Brunswick
Monmouth Junction
Monmouth Junction
Iselin
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
Office
Office
Underway
Underway
New Brunswick
Edison
NJ
NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
Office Projects
Siemens Office Buildings with Parking Decks (MASTER REPORT)
Medical Arts Building
Medical Office Building Addition
(South Brunswick NJ) Commerce Bank
(Woodbridge/RT35 NJ) Commerce Bank
Office Building
Metropark Corporate Center Office & Garage
Office Building & Parking Garage
Office Development-Phase II
Office Building
Limousine Office & Garage
Edison Crossing Office Building
Oaks Office Commercial Complex
Floor Sales & Offices
Research Development Office (Addition)
Office Residential w/ Parking Deck
Radiology Office
Millpond Realty Office Bldg
(Dayton) Commerce Bank
Office Bldg
Albany Street Plaza (expansion)
Miele Headquarters Expansion MASTER REPORT
Financial Resources Office Bldg
Markel Insurance Building
Bank
(E Brunswick/Milltown) Commerce Bank
Office Building
Plaza w/ Single Family Homes
Commerce Bank Customer Service Center & Offices
Cranbury Executive Center
(Metuchen) Commerce Bank
Office Warehouse Facility
Office Building
Research and Development Buildings (3 Buildings Expand/Alts
Office Bldg
Bank
Office Building
Office-Planning
Child Health Institute
(Edison) Commerce Bank
Office-Underway
E
816
22
6
4
4
11
290
409
800
245
58
168
352
8
400
190
8
5
4
4
52
136
35
42
6
4
56
12
500
100
4
1,143
12
545
15
2
5
6473
150
4
154
128
Project Title
SF
# of
Units
Primary
Property
Class
Project
Phase
City
State
County
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Plainsboro
Woodbridge
Old Bridge
Dayton
Avenel
Piscataway
Piscataway
Plainsboro
Plainsboro
Old Bridge
Woodbridge
Perth Amboy
Woodbridge
Edison
North Brunswick
East Brunswick
South Brunswick
East Brunswick
South Plainfield
Monmouth Junction
Woodbridge
Old Bridge
New Brunswick
Edison
Metuchen
8818
Sayreville
Woodbridge
Plainsboro
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
Office Projects (cont.)
Office Building
(Woodbridge) Commerce Branch Bank
Academy Honda Car Dealership Alteration/Addition
South Brunswick Office Building
Leesville Auto Wreckers Office Building
Office Building-NEGOTIATED
Telcordia Technologies Office
Office Building
Office Building at Princeton Forrestal Center (Core & Shell
Office Building (Negotiated)(Core & Shell)
Office Building
Banco Popular
Warehouse / Office Building
Office Building
CHUBB Computer Services Office (expansion)
Office Building
Miele Headquarters Office (Addition)
(East Brunswick NJ) Commerce Bank
Commerce Bank (South Plainfield, NJ)
Office/Research Building
Siemens Office Building #1
Office Building
Albany Street Plaza II Office Building (Addition)
(Edison NJ) Commerce Bank (NEGOTIATED)
(Metuchen NJ) Commerce Bank
Colonial Wire Office Building
Service/Administration Building
Office Building
Office Building
E
44
3
10
15
5
6
233
6
100
200
5
27
47
5
7
12
23
4
4
66
237
8
58
4
4
10
10
8
16
129
Project Title
SF
# of
Units
Primary
Property
Class
Project
Phase
City
State
County
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Edison
Cranbury
Jamesburg
South Brunswick
Old Bridge
Old Bridge
Old Bridge
East Brunswick
South Brunswick
Piscataway
Edison
Old Bridge
Cranbury
South Brunswick
East Brunswick
Woodbridge
Edison
New Brunswick
Monroe
Old Bridge
Woodbridge
Cranbury
Woodbridge
Jamesburg
Plainsboro
Old Bridge
Cranbury
Plainsboro
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
Office Projects (cont)
Office Building
Phase 1 - Keystone Cranbury East
Renaissance Commons Office Building
Laboratory Building
Office Building
(Old Bridge NJ) Commerce Bank (NEGOTIATED)
New Commercial Building - 3N
New Building
Miele Corp Headquarters Addition
Ironwood Office Commons
Office Building
Synergy Bank/ Old Bridge/NJ
Phase 2 - Keystone Cranbury East
Commercial Building
Cranbury Medical Arts Building
Administration Building Addition & Garage
(Edison/Stony Road) Commerce Bank
(New Brunswick NJ) Commerce Bank
Admininstration Building (Addition)
Office Building
Metrotop Plaza II Office Complex and Parking Deck (Phase 2)
Office Building at South River Park
Prudential Office Building & Parking Garage
(Jamesburg NJ) Commerce Branch Bank
Flex Building at Enterprise Business Center
Pulaski Savings Bank
Cranbury Gates Office Park
Plainsboro NJ Office Building
Office-Completed
E
7
510
21
6
8
4
9
22
23
17
3
4
500
4
22
2
4
4
5
12
265
212
1,303
4
4
3
12
13
4180
130
Project Title
SF
# of
Units
Primary
Property
Class
Project
Phase
City
State
County
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Final Planning
Final Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Pre-Planning
Cranbury
Piscataway
Jamesburg
Cranbury
S. Brunswick
South Brunswick
South Brunswick
Cranbury
Woodbridge
Edison
Carteret
Edison
Cranbury
Edison
Piscataway
South Plainfield
Cranbury
Monmouth Junction
Edison
South Brunswick
South Brunswick
Cranbury
Perth Amboy
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Underway
Underway
Underway
Underway
Underway
Perth Amboy
Monroe
Perth Amboy
Cranbury
South Plainfield
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
Warehouse Projects
Warehouse & Office Building
Warehouse/Office (expansion)
Industrial Warehouse Space MASTER REPORT
Industrial Park Warehouse/Dist. Bldgs. MASTER REPORT
Office/Warehouse
Laboratory Building #1360
Storage Assets (Self-Storage)
Paulaur Corp (Addition)
Distribution/Warehouse
Edison Storage Building
Port Carteret JV Warehouse
Office Warehouse (Addition)
Offices and Warehouse - Kerzner Associates
Pierson Warehouse
Warehouse & Office
Warehouse/Retail
Warehouse & Parking lot
Office / Warehouse Addition and Loading Docks
Warehouse
Adler Development Warehouse
Knipper Warehouse/Distribution Facility
Warehouse
Industrial Buildings(Redevelopment)
Warehouse-Planning
'Happy Kids' Clothing Warehouse Distribution Center
Spec Warehouse
Warehouse -Flex -Light Industrial (Phase 2)
Distribution Center/Outlet Store (NEGOTIATED)
Warehouse & Loading Dock (Former Rickels Hdqtrs)
Warehouse-Underway
E
428
290
150
2,000
131
30
300
24
1,650
6
20
9
73
14
15
4
84
75
10
231
300
400
6,244
251
230
203
675
90
1,449
131
Project Title
SF
# of
Units
Primary
Property
Class
Project
Phase
City
State
County
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Jamesburg
Monroe Township
Sayreville
Edison
Cranbury
South Brunswick
Monroe Twp
Woodbridge
Metuchen
New Brunswick
South Brunswick
Jamesburg
Old Bridge
South Brunswick
Piscataway
Monroe
Cranbury
S. Brunswick
Cranbury
Sayreville
Sayreville
South Brunswick
Cranbury
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
Warehouse Projects (cont.)
Industrial Warehouse Space
2 Warehouses
Warehouse/Office Building
Mill Road East Warehouses (Negotiated)
Warehouse
Distribution Center
Warehouse/ Distrubution Center
Repair Warehouse
Storage Building (756 Units)
R & D Lab Building # 50
Warehouse
Turnpike Crossing 3 Warehouse
Old Bridge Self-Storage Facility
Warehouse
Distribution Center & Headquarters Bldg (Negotiated)
Warehouse Office Building
Industrial Park Warehouse #1 NEGOTIATED
Office-Warehouse Addition NEGOTIATED
Volkswagen Warehouse Bldg
Flex Office Building/ Warehouse
Flex Office Building/ Warehouse
Warehouse & Office (DESIGN/BUILD)
Warehouse
E
560
204
46
1,129
54
526
528
14
75
145
62
418
49
176
140
204
900
7
928
62
62
209
54
756
132
APPENDIX 2: APPENDIX 2: PROJECTS IN MIDDLESEX COUNTY
Project Title
SF
# of
Units
Primary
Property
Class
Project
Phase
City
State
County
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Warehouse
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
South Brunswick
Piscataway
S Brunswick
North Brunswick
Cranbury
Parlin
Piscataway
Monroe Twp
Cranbury
Edison
Cranbury
Cranbury
Edison
Monroe Twp.
Piscataway
New Brunswick
Woodbridge
Edison
Cranbury
Cranbury
Cranbury
Jamesburg
Monroe Twp
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
MIDDLESEX, NJ
Warehouse Projects (cont.)
Distribution Center
Warehouse
Warehouse Bldg with Office Area
North Brunswick NJ Storage Post Facility
Warehouse
Warehouse
SK Realty Office/Warehouse
Warehouse
Industrial/Warehouse Building 473 - NEGOTIATED
Linear Excellerator (Addition/Renovation)
Warehouse/Office B (281,034 square feet)
Warehouse/Office Building - NEGOTIATED
Office Building/Warehouse (Shell Only)
Mori Seiki Office / Warehouse
Siemens Corporate Headquarters (Ofc & Mfg Addn)
2 Warehouse Buildings (New)
Roadway Packaging Services (RPS)
Warehouse (Addition)
Distribution Warehouse
Distribution Warehouse #7
Distribution Warehouse #8
Storage Warehouse Building
(Monroe NJ) Cold Depot Storage Building/Site Work
Warehouse-Completed
E
294
30
122
150
223
125
130
17
473
8
281
510
160
26
19
30
678
160
134
299
501
12
220
11,154
133
APPENDIX 3: FEDERAL LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS
Program Summary - The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program (the “housing credit”) is a federal tax incentive designed to encourage
the development and preservation of affordable rental housing. The housing credit program was established in 1986 under Section 42 of the
Internal Revenue Code and was made a permanent fixture of the Code in 1993. Since 1986, housing tax credits have attracted more than $41
billion in equity to affordable housing development and have helped finance the construction of more than 1.1 million apartment units.
How the Program Works - The program is administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), however the federal government plays a
limited role by allocating the credits annually to state agencies that in turn award tax credits through a competitive process. Housing credits
are allocated to affordable rental properties in an amount that is based on a number of factors including the size and cost of developing a
property and the percentage of units that will be reserved for low-income households.
Guidelines for Eligibility - The properties can be either newly constructed or substantially renovated apartment complexes. To be eligible
for housing credits, a property must meet certain guidelines including:
♦ Affordability Component – Reserve a portion of the units for low-income households, though projects can have a mix of market-rate
and affordable units. To meet this requirement, either 20 percent or more of the units must be rented to households earning 50 percent or
less of area median income (AMI), or 40 percent or more units must be rented to households earning 60 percent or less of AMI.
♦ Rent Affordability – Limit rents for the affordable units so as not to exceed 30 percent of the above income restrictions.
♦ 15-Year Holding Period – Be held by the owner for at least 15 years from the date the building is placed in service. Investors must hold
the investment for 15 years, though interests can be sold through the secondary market.
Types of Tax-Credits - The housing credit is either a 4 percent or a 9 percent tax credit calculated on virtually all hard and soft construction
costs incurred to develop or rehabilitate affordable rental properties.
♦ The 9 Percent Credit - The 9 percent credit is available for a qualified newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated property. To
qualify for the 9 percent credit, the cost to build or rehabilitate the property generally must not be financed through the use of a federal
E
134
subsidy. A federally subsidized loan is any federal loan that carries an interest rate that is less than the applicable federal rate for the
month in which the loan was issued, such as a HUD loan or tax-exempt bond financing.
♦ The 4 Percent Credit - An alternative to the 9 percent housing credit is the 4 percent housing credit. This credit is applied against the
acquisition or rehabilitation costs of an existing building, as well as the cost of newly-constructed or substantially rehabilitated property
which is financed through the use of a federal subsidy, such as a HUD loan or tax-exempt bond financing.
E
135
APPENDIX 4: STUDENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS PLANNED OR UNDERWAY IN NEW JERSEY
Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ - is building university housing for on-campus. It will be the first on-campus housing built since 1985.
Currently, one third of the nearly 3,000 students who live on campus each year are tripled up in dorm rooms designed for two. The
university is counting on 100 three-story townhouses being ready to house 464 students by fall 2004; and will still require another 400 beds
for existing student needs. Rowan University opted for townhouses. Groundbreaking was in Fall 2003 and occupancy is expected by the fall
of 2004. The cost of construction is $25.5 million, according to the university, and will be financed by a 30-year loan repaid through housing
fees charged to the residents. The units will contain four or five bedrooms. All bedrooms will be single occupancy. A two-story parking
facility will be built to accommodate 258 vehicles.
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ - Rutgers University is developing a master plan to alleviate crowding at the university. Rutgers is
very serious about providing housing resources and options to students, as space is at a premium at all Rutgers facilities. Residence halls and
dorms in New Brunswick and Piscataway are especially tight. Some students have started out the last few academic years tripled up in dorms
meant for two. Typically, this eases by the end of the fall semester, when students withdraw or move off campus. With the strong demand for
off-campus apartments, Rutgers is reviewing various options to give students alternatives to the traditional dorm room. Rutgers currently has
a lack of variety in the student-housing stock. Most of the student-housing options are shared dorm rooms with communal bathrooms.
Additionally, Rutgers also allocates less residential space per student than most universities. One of the new projects that Rutgers is
undertaking is in downtown New Brunswick, Devco (the New Brunswick Development Corporation), has been awarded the development of
a new student complex, a 186-unit, 12-story apartment building to be constructed at George and New streets. The building, which is expected
to be complete in September 2005, would accommodate 722 students and have retail space on the first floor.
College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ - In 2001, The College of New Jersey in Ewing, NJ, unveiled a nine-year plan to build or renovate nearly
two-dozen academic and residential buildings at a cost of $250 million. The development:
♦ Will be funded by an increase in tuition fees: 1) In-state tuition, room and board for undergraduates will increase by 7.4 percent for the
2001-2001 academic year to $13,425; 2) Out-of-state undergraduates will pay $17,173 - a 7.5 percent hike; 3) In-state students who
commute will pay $6,661 next year, an 11.2 percent increase; and 4) Graduate students will also face tuition increase. Other funding will
come in the form of more than $70 million in bonds issued by the state Educational Facilities Authority. Officials hope to tap local
businesses and corporations to sponsor individual buildings.
E
136
♦ Includes three phases of construction and renovation. The development program includes: A new library and chapel; an art and education
building; a 2,400 seat sports arena; a two-story ice rink; several student parking decks; an expanded student center; residential (three oncampus apartment complexes and redesign of five existing dormitories); expansion of the Rathskellar, a campus bar for older students;
♦ Will provide housing for an additional 550 students, increasing the on-campus beds to 4,050 from 3,500.
Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ - At Montclair State University, at least eight major projects are in the works or in progress,
including a 30-acre student residential village due to open next month.
Kean University, Union, NJ- Due to rising enrollment at Kean University, a public school in Union, N.J., the university is designing a
larger health and wellness center with a pool, fitness center, and basketball court. The project will be funded by proceeds from a $75 million
fixed-rate bond sale this month led by Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and co-senior manager Wachovia Bank. Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer
will be bond counsel. The school is also conducting a feasibility study on constructing new dormitories. Since 1999, Kean's undergraduate
enrollment is up about 20% to 9,000 full- and part-time students.
E
137
APPENDIX 5: UNIVERSITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDIES
AGGIE VILLAGE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA – DAVIS
DAVIS, CALIFORNIA
Project Timeframe
Spring 1995 – Fall 1997
Development Program
Aggie Village is a residential development on the UC Davis campus. This development, completed in 1997, was designed by Peter
Calthorpe, and is an example of new urbanism.
Aggie Village offers UC Davis faculty and staff unique, affordable, quality homes created specifically to suit the needs of the growing
university community. The development consists of 21 single-family homes and 16 split-lot town homes. Designs include Craftsmanstyle bungalows, Victorian- and Mission-style homes, and are consistent with the diverse architectural character and scale of the surrounding
neighborhood.
UC DAVIS – AGGIE VILLAGE
SUMMARY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Use
E
Residential Single Family
Area (SF)
21 units
Residential Split Lot
16 units
One Room Rental Cottages
17 units (behind the Single Family
homes)
138
The neighborhood was planned and built through collaboration between UC Davis, the City of Davis and
Pyramid Construction. The development is adjacent to the UC Davis campus, Davis Commons shopping
area, and downtown Davis.
The location of Aggie Village integrates the campus with downtown Davis,
and in part, functions as a gateway both to the City of Davis and the UC
campus. The five-block site includes retail, residential and university uses,
and useable open spaces. Bicycle trails and pedestrian paths offer
connections to destinations in the City of Davis and the UC campus. Aggie
Village is bordered on the south by the UC Davis Arboretum, which has its
pedestrian paths.
own bicycle and
Of the 21 single-family homes, 17 also have one-room cottages in their
backyards. The cottages
are an innovative feature of the development, and offer a source of additional income for the homeowners. Most of the faculty rent the
backyard cottages to graduate students. At this time, rental rates for the backyard cottages are approximately $800/month. With recent
refinancing and low interest rates, rental of the cottage is sufficient to cover the mortgage on the main home. Additional benefits include
faculty and graduate students living in the same neighborhood, with faculty managing a portion of graduate student housing for UC Davis.
The homeowners were selected first via lottery, then by priority of recently recruited ladder rank faculty. There is currently a waiting list of
approximately 150 people. The list is doubling for a new neighborhood that is planned.
Financing Structure
An RFQ and RFP process was used to select the builder. Prior to construction, UC Davis negotiated the project budget and fixed home
prices. UC Davis required that the builder put up $3M in an unsecured line of credit. Additionally, UC Davis would not let the land or site
improvements (roads and infrastructure) be subordinate to a construction loan.
UC Davis noted that this financing structure would be difficult to duplicate. Their initial expectations were far exceeded by the project and
the homebuyers received excellent homes at approximately 75% of market.
E
139
Management and Ownership Structure
UC Davis is the landowner and faculty and staff own the homes. The homeowners pay a monthly lease payment for the land to the
University of $85 per month for split lot town homes and $105 per month for single family detached on a 99-year ground lease.
Buyback option – The University agrees on the maximum resale price with the seller (based on indexed appreciation plus an agreed upon
value of improvements). The University then has a 20-day window to purchase the property. If the university declines, the seller has a 45day window to sell to a full-time employee of the university. If there is still no sale, the university has another 20 days to purchase at the
agreed upon resale price or a newly negotiated price. If there is still no sale, the seller is free to sell to the general public at market value.
There have been seven re-sales and the university has exercised its option to purchase in the first instance every time. This provides the
opportunity to offer the home to the highest priority buyer, usually a highly prized recruit.
Budget
The estimated project budget was $6,850,000 in 1995. The budget included a negotiated 9% profit for the builder, negotiated direct and
indirect costs, and a 10% contingency. Additionally, the builder was responsible for quality of construction and finish hurdles. The project
was an open and audited books project.
At the completion of the project, the builder used the entire contingency plus 0.5%, so developer profit dipped to 8.5%.
Stakeholders
University of California at Davis – Land Owner; and provided Land Development requirements (site planning, design guidelines, etc).
City of Davis - Certified the Environmental Impact Report required by the California Environmental Quality Act and provides all services
(water, sewer, drainage, solid waste, road repairs, lighting, fire), except police and parking enforcement provided by UC Davis.
Pyramid Construction – Project Developer; Pyramid financed and built the homes at their risk.
E
140
UC Davis Faculty and Staff – Homeowners responsible for paying property taxes, utility district, and school district fees.
Lessons Learned
Faculty is basically locked in at Aggie Village as the homes have capped appreciation, and resale prices are now at 45% of market. That is,
they cannot afford to move out. Due to the capped appreciation, there is virtually no incentive for homeowners to make home improvements.
E
141
UNIVERSITY GATEWAY CENTER, OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
COLUMBUS, OHIO
Project Timeframe
Phase I – 2003 – 2005
Phase II – 2005 - 2007
Development Program
Campus Partners for Community Urban Redevelopment (Campus Partners) is a nonprofit organization formed by Columbus and OSU in
January 1995 to master plan a comprehensive revitalization of the neighborhoods adjoining the OSU campus
One of Campus Partners’ first projects was the University Gateway Center. It is planned for the area of 11th Avenue and High Street in
Columbus, and will offer a mix of retail, entertainment, office, and residential uses, plus parking, serving the adjacent 80,000-student OSU
campus.
By early 2002, Campus Partners had assembled all properties required for University Gateway Center, negotiated relocation agreements with
the existing businesses, and selected the Drucker Company, Ltd. of Boston through a public procurement process to serve as project
developer.
The project will comprise 210,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, and entertainment space, 70,000 square feet of office space, 150 to 200
multifamily units, and a 1,200-space parking garage. University Gateway Center will be one of the largest mixed-use, urban redevelopment
projects in central Ohio.
E
142
University Gateway Center - Summary Development Program
Use
Retail, Restaurant, and Entertainment
Area (SF)
210,000 SF
Office
70,000 SF
Residential Multifamily
150-200 units
Parking Garage
1,200 spaces
The Phase I housing component is under construction now. Part of the housing is west of High Street and geared toward the law school for
housing of law students. There is additional housing on the east side of High Street geared toward market rate housing, specifically young
professionals or faculty and staff.
The next phase will move north on High Street and will focus on the area at 15th and High Street.
Financing Structure
Campus Partners was created as a 501(C) 3 corporation by the University in 1995 and is heavily influenced by the University. Campus
Partners purchased and now owns all of the property where the project is being developed. Originally, Campus Partners had planned to have
a third party finance the project, but have since decided to fund the project through the University’s General Receipt bonds due to better
available rates. The University continues to become more and more involved with the group specifically following the issuance of bonds for
the project.
E
143
The facility will be owned and managed by Campus Partners and Ohio State University.
Stakeholders
Ohio State University – Financier
Campus Partners - 501(c)3 corporation started by the University – Land Owner
Drucker Ltd. – Developer
City of Columbus, Ohio
Lessons Learned
Ohio State has learned the importance of developing a detailed project plan with input by all interested stakeholders. They have not rushed
the project and have seen great success to date.
E
144
UTC PLACE, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE – CHATTANOOGA
CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE
Project Timeframe
Phase I – 10 months ending in Fall 2001
Phase II – December 2001 – Fall 2002
Phase III – Ongoing – The Phase began in July 2003 with completion expected in 10 months
Development Program
The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (formerly the University of Chattanooga) is in the process of completing Phase III of UTC
Place, a mixed-use development that includes university, as well as faculty and staff housing; retail; and parking. UTC Place in Chattanooga
is planned as a town center building intended to serve as a community gathering place, with the retail proposed to serve the university and
the surrounding neighborhood.
The purchasing power and demand of UTC students made the urban retail component economically viable, providing an amenity for the
entire community.
Place Properties also is planning to develop UTC faculty and staff housing, further connecting the university and its neighbors.
Phases I and II of UTC Place house 1,000 students; with Phase III, now under construction, providing room for an additional 560 students.
A multi-level 464-spot parking garage is also included in the project.
Residential units are state-of-the-art, including washer and dryer units in each apartment, full kitchens and individual rooms with phone and
Internet hookups.
E
145
UTC PLACE
SUMMARY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Use
Retail,
Restaurant
Entertainment
Area or # of Units
and In Planning Stages
University Residential
1560 units
Faculty and Staff Residential
In Planning Stages
Parking Garage
464 spaces
Financing Structure
The University of Chattanooga Foundation has financed each Phase of development. Financing has occurred through private funds raised by
the Campus Development Foundation Inc. of the UC Foundation. Place Properties handled all aspects of construction and design for each of
the three phases as part of the agreement between the Foundation, the University, and Place Properties. The Foundation also owns the
underlying land where the complex was built.
Place Properties manages and owns the properties for the University.
E
146
Budget
Phase I - $25 million
Phase II - $72 million
Phase III - $33 million
Total
- $130 million
Stakeholders
University of Tennessee Chattanooga – Require Student Housing
University of Chattanooga Foundation – Land Owner and Project Financier
Place Properties – Handled construction and design of the project and now manage the assets.
Lessons Learned
If the development will be managed by an outside source it is important to agree on all terms prior to students moving into the complex.
UTC has had challenges with the Housing office policies conflicting with Place Properties policies.
E
147
APPENDIX 6: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
1. Development Assumptions
2. Infrastructure Costs
3. Overall Project Sources and Uses
4. Market Rate Housing Sources and Uses
5. Affordable Housing Sources and Uses
6. Student Housing Sources and Uses
7. Retail Sources and Uses
8. Non-Housing University Sources and Uses
9. Tax-Credit Calculation
10. Operating Pro-Forma - Market Rate Rental Units
11. Operating Pro-Forma – Affordable Housing
12. Operating Pro-Forma – Student Housing – Scenario 1
13. Operating Pro-Forma – Student Housing – Scenario 2
14. Operating Pro-Forma – Retail
15. Operating Pro-Forma – University Uses
Please refer to spreadsheets attached.
E
148
1. Development Assumptions
Unit Count
Student Housing
Graduate Housing
Bed Count
Unit Count
Beds/Unit
Unit Size (SF)
Undergraduate Housing
Bed Count (Scenario 1)
Bed Count (Scenario 2)
Unit Count
Beds/Unit (Scenario 1)
Beds/Unit (Scenario 2)
Total Student Housing Units
Unit Size (SF)
Affordable Housing
Moderate Income Unit Count
Low Income Unit Count
Total Affordable Housing
Unit Size (SF)
Market Rate Rental
Unit Count
Unit Size (SF)
Market Rate For-Sale
Unit Count
Unit Size (SF)
Total Number of Residential Units
Total Number of Beds
E
4 BR
Units
3 BR Units
2 BR Units
1 BR Units
Total
0
0
4
0
0
3
350
175
2
900
0
0
1
350
175
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
650
350
0
0
350
700
175
2
4
350
900
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
80
950
0
0
0
0
0
80
80
0
0
40
1,450
130
1,000
60
800
230
0
0
1,750
40
0
0
1,200
560
700
0
0
60
0
660
700
0
0
175
350
149
Building Size
Student Units
Graduate
Undergraduate
Total Student Units
Affordable Residential
Market Rate Rental
For-Sale Condo
For-Sale Townhouse
Total Residential
Restaurant
Specialty Goods - Book Store
Total Retail
Total University
Use 1
Use 2
Use 3
4 BR
Units
3 BR Units
2 BR Units
1 BR Units
0
0
0
0
0
NAP
NAP
-
0
0
0
0
58,000
NAP
NAP
-
157,500
157,500
315,000
76,000
130,000
NAP
NAP
-
0
0
0
0
48,000
NAP
NAP
-
-
-
-
-
Project
Total
E
NSF
GSF
157,500
157,500
315,000
76,000
236,000
NAP
NAP
627,000
12,500
10,000
17,500
40,000
20,000
20,000
10,000
50,000
185,294
185,294
370,588
89,412
277,647
NAP
NAP
737,647
14,706
11,765
20,588
47,059
23,529
23,529
11,765
58,824
717,000
843,530
150
Monthly Rental Rates (2003-2004 Rates)
Student Units
Graduate (/Student)
Graduate (/Unit)
Undergraduate (/Bed)
Undergraduate (/Unit)
Affordable Residential (Net Rents)
Utility Allowance
Moderate Income
Low Income
Market Rate Rental
Retail (Annual/SF - NNN)
Restaurant
Specialty Goods - Book Store
University (Annual/SF)
Use 1
Use 2
Use 3
Sale Prices
For-Sale Condo
For-Sale Townhouse
Financing Assumptions
Student Housing
Affordable Rental
Market Rate Rental
Retail
University
E
3 BR Units
2 BR Units
1 BR Units
$621
$1,241
$555
$1,110
$106
$1,250
$888
$2,050
$88
$1,085
$772
$1,500
72
906
645
$1,240
Term
20
18
10
10
20
Amort
Period
30
30
30
20
30
Rate
5.75%
7.25%
6.25%
6.50%
5.75%
$24
$18
$15
$0
$0
$0
NAP
NAP
LTV
100%
30%
70%
70%
100%
Source
Tax Exempt
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Tax Exempt
151
Escalation Assumptions
Student Housing
Affordable Rental
Market Rate Rental
Retail
University
Income
3%
2%
3%
3%
3%
Expenses
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Jan-2004
15%
Occupancy
Jul-2006
85%
Additional Assumptions
Time Until Occupancy Begins
Loss Factor
2.5
Years
Soft Costs Include
Architecture and Engineering
Soils/Structural Reports
Environmental
Accounting
Legal
Title and Recording
Insurance
Appraisals
E
152
2. Infrastructure Costs
Infrastructure Costs
Est. Cost/ Unit
$15,000
Pro Rata Share
Affordable
Market Rate
Student
Retail
University
Total Infrastructure Costs
$9,900,000
$1,050,000
$3,260,000
$4,350,000
$550,000
$690,000
$9,900,000
Sources: Local Residential Developers of Multi-family housing; E&Y Compiled Data
E
153
3. Overall Project Sources and Uses
Overall Project Sources and Uses
Source
Conventional Hard Debt
Tax-Exempt Hard Debt
Equity
Investor's Equity (Tax Credits)
NJ Balanced Housing Grant
Deferred Development Fee
Amount
$39,187,000
$72,450,000
$15,423,000
$8,100,000
$2,000,000
$350,000
$137,510,000
Amount/GSF
$46.46
$85.89
$18.28
$9.60
$2.37
$0.41
$163
% Breakout
28.5%
52.7%
11.2%
5.9%
1.5%
0.3%
100.0%
$0
$99,700,000
$8,290,000
$7,290,000
$9,900,000
$12,330,000
$137,510,000
$0.00
$118.19
$9.83
$8.64
$11.74
$14.62
$163
0.0%
72.5%
6.0%
5.3%
7.2%
9.0%
100.0%
Use
Land
Hard Costs
Soft Costs
Developer Fee
Infrastructure
Financing Costs
E
154
4. Market Rate Housing Sources and Uses
Market Rate Housing Sources and
Uses
230
Units
Source
Equity
Amount
$31,549,000
$13,521,000
$0
$45,070,000
Amount/Unit
$137,170
$58,787
$0
$195,957
% Breakout
70.0%
30.0%
0.0%
100.0%
$0
$34,200,000
$2,870,000
$700,000
$3,260,000
$4,040,000
$45,070,000
$0
$148,696
$12,478
$3,043
$14,174
$17,565
$195,957
0.0%
75.9%
6.4%
1.6%
7.2%
9.0%
100%
Use
Land
Hard Costs
Soft Costs
Developer Fee
Infrastructure
Financing Costs
E
155
5. Affordable Housing Sources and
Uses
Affordable Housing Sources and Uses
80
Units
Source
Investor's Equity (Tax Credits)
NJ Balanced Housing Grant
Amount
$3,200,000
$8,100,000
$2,000,000
$350,000
$13,650,000
Amount/Unit
$40,000
$101,250
$25,000
$4,375
$170,625
% Breakout
23.4%
59.3%
14.7%
2.6%
100.0%
$0
$9,600,000
$810,000
$1,000,000
$1,050,000
$1,190,000
$13,650,000
$0
$120,000
$10,125
$12,500
$13,125
$14,875
$170,625
0.0%
70.3%
5.9%
7.3%
7.7%
8.7%
100%
Use
Land
Hard Costs
Soft Costs
Developer Fee
Infrastructure
Financing Costs
E
156
6. Student Housing Sources and Uses
Student Housing Sources and Uses
350/700
Units/Beds
Source
Equity
Amount
$64,610,000
$0
$0
$64,610,000
Amount/Unit
$184,600
$0
$0
$184,600
Amount/Bed
$92,300
$0
$0
$92,300
% Breakout
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100%
$0
$45,600,000
$3,800,000
$4,900,000
$4,350,000
$5,960,000
$64,610,000
$0
$130,286
$10,857
$14,000
$12,429
$17,029
$184,600
$0
$65,143
$5,429
$7,000
$6,214
$8,514
$92,300
0.0%
70.6%
5.9%
7.6%
6.7%
9.2%
100.0%
Use
Land
Hard Costs
Soft Costs
Developer Fee
Infrastructure
Financing Costs
E
157
7. Retail Sources and Uses
Retail Sources and Uses
47,059
GSF
Source
Equity
Amount
$4,438,000
$1,902,000
$0
$6,340,000
Amount/GSF
$94
$40
$0
$135
% Breakout
70.0%
30.0%
0.0%
100.0%
$0
$4,900,000
$360,000
$100,000
$550,000
$430,000
$6,340,000
$0
$104
$8
$2
$12
$9
$135
0.0%
77.3%
5.7%
1.6%
8.7%
6.8%
100.0%
Use
Land
Hard Costs
Soft Costs
Developer Fee
Infrastructure
Financing Costs
E
158
8. Non-Housing University Sources and Uses
Non-Housing University Sources and Uses
58,824
GSF
Source
Equity
Amount
$7,840,000
$0
$0
$7,840,000
Amount/GSF
$133
$0
$0
$133
% Breakout
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
$0
$5,400,000
$450,000
$590,000
$690,000
$710,000
$7,840,000
$0
$92
$8
$10
$12
$12
$133
0.0%
68.9%
5.7%
7.5%
8.8%
9.1%
100.0%
Use
Land
Hard Costs
Soft Costs
Developer Fee
Infrastructure
Financing Costs
E
159
9. Affordable Housing Tax Credit Calculation
Affordable Housing Tax Credit Calculation - 9% Credit
Total Development Costs
Less:
Land
Ineligible Costs
% Low Income Housing
Credit Rate
Annual Tax Credits
Years of Credits
Total Credits
Price Per Credit
Total Equity
Rounded
E
$13,650,000
$0
($1,006,975)
$12,643,025
100%
$12,643,025
8.03%
$1,015,235
10
$10,152,349
$0.80
$8,121,879
$8,100,000
Calculation of Ineligible Costs - 9%
Ineligible Costs
Total Land Costs
$0
Soft Cost Contingency
$19,200
Misc other ineligible
$100,000
Total Financing Costs
$887,775
$1,006,975
As of Dec 2003
160
Affordable Housing Tax Credit Calculation - 4% Credit
Total Development Costs
Less:
Land
Ineligible Costs
% Low Income Housing
Credit Rate
Annual Tax Credits
Years of Credits
Total Credits
Price Per Credit
Total Equity
Rounded
E
Calculation of Ineligible Costs - 4%
Ineligible Costs
Total Land Costs
$0
Soft Cost Contingency
$19,200
Misc other ineligible
$100,000
Total Financing Costs
$887,775
$1,006,975
$13,650,000
$0
($1,006,975)
$12,643,025
100%
$12,643,025
3.44%
$434,920
10
$4,349,201
$0.84
$3,653,329
$3,700,000
As of Dec
2003
161
10. Operating Pro Forma - Market Rate Rental Units
Rental Assumptions
Rental Rate per Unit - One Bedroom
Rental Rate per Unit - Two Bedroom
Rental Rate per Unit - Three Bedroom
Total # of Units
Total # of One Bedroom Units
Total # of Two Bedroom Units
Total # of Three Bedroom Units
2004 Rates
$1,240
$1,500
$2,050
230
60
130
40
12 month periods Starting July 2006
Occupancy
Occupied Units
Revenue
One Bedroom Units
Two Bedroom Units
Three Bedroom Units
Gross Market Rate Revenue
Less Vacancy
Total Gross Revenue
Operating Expenses
Variable
Administrative and General
Property Operation and Maintenance
Utility Expenses
Management Fee (of revenues)
Fixed
Insurance
Property Taxes
Replacement Reserve
Total Operating Expenses
$/unit
$1,200
$800
$1,000
2%
$400
$1,500
$300
NOI
Less Debt Service Payment
Cash Flow After Debt Service
Equity Invested
Equity at Sale
Debt Service Coverage Ratio
E
Escalations
Income
Expenses
$45,070,000
70%
$31,549,000
$13,521,000
30
6.25%
10
($2,353,645)
3%
3%
2006
70%
161
2007
80%
184
2008
95%
219
2009
95%
219
2010
95%
219
2011
95%
219
2012
95%
219
2013
95%
219
2014
95%
219
2015
95%
219
2016
95%
219
$961,274
$2,519,468
$1,059,469
$4,540,211
($1,362,063)
$3,178,148
$990,112
$2,595,052
$1,091,253
$4,676,418
($935,284)
$3,741,134
$1,019,816
$2,672,904
$1,123,990
$4,816,710
($240,836)
$4,575,875
$1,050,410
$2,753,091
$1,157,710
$4,961,211
($248,061)
$4,713,151
$1,081,922
$2,835,684
$1,192,441
$5,110,048
($255,502)
$4,854,545
$1,114,380
$2,920,754
$1,228,215
$5,263,349
($263,167)
$5,000,182
$1,147,812
$3,008,377
$1,265,061
$5,421,250
($271,062)
$5,150,187
$1,182,246
$3,098,628
$1,303,013
$5,583,887
($279,194)
$5,304,693
$1,217,713
$3,191,587
$1,342,103
$5,751,404
($287,570)
$5,463,834
$1,254,245
$3,287,335
$1,382,366
$5,923,946
($296,197)
$5,627,749
$1,291,872
$3,385,955
$1,423,837
$6,101,664
($305,083)
$5,796,581
($208,018)
($138,678)
($173,348)
($63,563)
($244,866)
($163,244)
($204,055)
($74,823)
($300,188)
($200,125)
($250,156)
($91,517)
($309,193)
($206,129)
($257,661)
($94,263)
($318,469)
($212,313)
($265,391)
($97,091)
($328,023)
($218,682)
($273,353)
($100,004)
($337,864)
($225,243)
($281,553)
($103,004)
($348,000)
($232,000)
($290,000)
($106,094)
($358,440)
($238,960)
($298,700)
($109,277)
($369,193)
($246,129)
($307,661)
($112,555)
($380,269)
($253,513)
($316,891)
($115,932)
($92,000)
($345,000)
($69,000)
($1,086,377)
($94,760)
($355,350)
($71,070)
($1,204,842)
($97,603)
($366,011)
($73,202)
($1,375,375)
($100,531)
($376,991)
($75,398)
($1,416,637)
($103,547)
($388,301)
($77,660)
($1,459,136)
($106,653)
($399,950)
($79,990)
($1,502,910)
($109,853)
($411,948)
($82,390)
($1,547,997)
($113,148)
($424,306)
($84,861)
($1,594,437)
($116,543)
($437,036)
($87,407)
($1,642,270)
($120,039)
($450,147)
($90,029)
($1,691,538)
($123,640)
($463,651)
($92,730)
($1,742,284)
$2,091,771
$2,536,292
$3,200,499
$3,296,514
$3,395,410
$3,497,272
$3,602,190
$3,710,256
$3,821,564
$3,936,211
$4,054,297
($2,353,645)
($2,353,645)
($2,353,645)
($2,353,645)
($2,353,645)
($2,353,645)
($2,353,645)
($2,353,645)
($2,353,645)
($2,353,645)
($2,353,645)
($261,874)
$182,647
$846,854
$942,869
$1,041,765
$1,143,627
$1,248,545
$1,356,611
$1,467,919
$1,582,566
$1,700,652
($261,874)
$182,647
$846,854
$942,869
$1,041,765
$1,143,627
$1,248,545
$1,356,611
$1,467,919
$13,275,444
$14,858,010
$1,700,652
1.08
1.36
1.40
1.44
1.49
1.53
1.58
1.62
1.67
1.72
($13,521,000)
($13,521,000)
IRR
Debt
Total Costs
LTV
Debt
Equity
Amortization
Interest Rate
Term (years)
Annual Debt Service
July 2006 Rates
$1,335
$1,615
$2,207
6.26%
0.89
162
11. Operating Pro Forma - Affordable Housing - 9%
Rental Assumptions
Escalations
Income
Expenses
2004 Net Rent
$772
$1,085
July 2006 Net Rent
$811
$1,140
2006
75%
60
2007
85%
68
2008
95%
76
2009
95%
76
2010
95%
76
2011
95%
76
2012
95%
76
2013
95%
76
2014
95%
76
2015
95%
76
2016
95%
76
2017
95%
76
2018
95%
76
2019
95%
76
2020
95%
76
2021
95%
76
$778,734
$0
$778,734
($194,683)
$584,050
$794,308
$0
$794,308
($119,146)
$675,162
$810,195
$0
$810,195
($40,510)
$769,685
$826,398
$0
$826,398
($41,320)
$785,078
$842,926
$0
$842,926
($42,146)
$800,780
$859,785
$0
$859,785
($42,989)
$816,796
$876,981
$0
$876,981
($43,849)
$833,132
$894,520
$0
$894,520
($44,726)
$849,794
$912,411
$0
$912,411
($45,621)
$866,790
$930,659
$0
$930,659
($46,533)
$884,126
$949,272
$0
$949,272
($47,464)
$901,808
$968,257
$0
$968,257
($48,413)
$919,845
$987,623
$0
$987,623
($49,381)
$938,241
$1,007,375
$0
$1,007,375
($50,369)
$957,006
$1,027,523
$0
$1,027,523
($51,376)
$976,146
$1,048,073
$0
$1,048,073
($52,404)
$995,669
$/unit
$1,200
$800
$1,000
5%
($77,522)
($51,681)
($64,602)
($29,203)
($90,494)
($60,329)
($75,412)
($33,758)
($104,175)
($69,450)
($86,812)
($38,484)
($107,300)
($71,533)
($89,417)
($39,254)
($110,519)
($73,679)
($92,099)
($40,039)
($113,835)
($75,890)
($94,862)
($40,840)
($117,250)
($78,166)
($97,708)
($41,657)
($120,767)
($80,511)
($100,639)
($42,490)
($124,390)
($82,927)
($103,658)
($43,340)
($128,122)
($85,415)
($106,768)
($44,206)
($131,965)
($87,977)
($109,971)
($45,090)
($135,924)
($90,616)
($113,270)
($45,992)
($140,002)
($93,335)
($116,668)
($46,912)
($144,202)
($96,135)
($120,168)
($47,850)
($148,528)
($99,019)
($123,774)
($48,807)
($152,984)
($101,989)
($127,487)
($49,783)
$400
$1,200
$300
($5,709)
($32,000)
($96,000)
($24,000)
($371,778)
($32,960)
($98,880)
($24,720)
($413,226)
($33,949)
($101,846)
($25,462)
($456,751)
($34,967)
($104,902)
($26,225)
($470,069)
($36,016)
($108,049)
($27,012)
($483,778)
($37,097)
($111,290)
($27,823)
($497,891)
($38,210)
($114,629)
($28,657)
($512,420)
($39,356)
($118,068)
($29,517)
($527,376)
($40,537)
($121,610)
($30,402)
($542,772)
($41,753)
($125,258)
($31,315)
($558,622)
($43,005)
($129,016)
($32,254)
($574,938)
($44,295)
($132,886)
($33,222)
($591,736)
($45,624)
($136,873)
($34,218)
($609,028)
($46,993)
($140,979)
($35,245)
($626,829)
($48,403)
($145,209)
($36,302)
($645,156)
($49,855)
($149,565)
($37,391)
($664,022)
$212,273
$261,936
$312,934
$315,010
$317,002
$318,904
$320,712
$322,419
$324,018
$325,504
$326,870
$328,109
$329,214
$330,177
$330,991
$331,647
($264,383)
($264,383)
($264,383)
($264,383)
($264,383)
($264,383)
($264,383)
($264,383)
($264,383)
($264,383)
($264,383)
($264,383)
($264,383)
($264,383)
($264,383)
($264,383)
($52,110)
($2,447)
$48,551
$50,627
$52,619
$54,522
$56,329
$58,036
$59,635
$61,121
$62,487
$63,726
$64,831
$65,794
$66,608
$67,264
0.99
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.21
1.22
1.23
1.23
1.24
1.24
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
Total # of Low Income Units
Total # of Moderate Income Units
Gross Rent
$860
$1,173
80
Debt
Total Costs After State Grant
Debt
Equity (Tax Credits)
Amortization Period (Years)
Interest Rate
Term (Years)
Annual Debt Service
Utility Allowance
$88
$88
Rental Rate per 2 BR Unit - Low Income
Rental Rate per 2 BR Unit - Moderate
Total # of Units
80
0
Occupancy
Occupied Units
Revenue
Low Income 2 BR Units
Moderate Income 2 BR Units
Gross Affordable Revenue
Less Vacancy
Total Gross Revenue
Operating Expenses
Variable
Utility Expenses
Fixed
Insurance
Property Taxes
Replacement Reserve
NOI
NPV (of Cash Flow After Debt Service)
E
5%
$11,650,000
$3,200,000
$8,100,000
30
7.25%
18
($264,383)
2%
3%
$440,605
0.80
163
12. Operating Pro Forma - Student Housing - Scenario 1
Rental Assumptions
Rental Rate per student
Rental Rate per Bed - Graduate
Rental Rate per Bed - Undergraduate
Total # of Units
Total # of Beds
Total # of Graduate Units
Total # of Graduate Beds
Total # of Undergraduate Units
Total # of Undergraduate Beds
2004 Rates
$621
$555
350
700
175
350
175
350
Occupancy
Occupied Beds
Occupied Units
Revenue
Graduate Student Beds
Undergraduate Student Beds
Less Vacancy
Total Gross Revenue
Operating Expenses
Variable
Utility Expenses
Fixed
Insurance
Property Taxes
Replacement Reserve
$/unit
$1,200
$800
$2,000
5%
$400
$0
$300
NOI
Debt
Total Costs
Term (Years)
Interest Rate
Annual Debt Service
July 2006 Rates
$701
$627
$64,610,000
20
5.75%
30
($4,568,976)
Escalations
Income (to 2006)
Income (2006-202
Expenses
5%
3%
3%
2006
85%
595
298
2007
95%
665
333
2008
95%
665
333
2009
95%
665
333
2010
95%
665
333
2011
95%
665
333
2012
95%
665
333
2013
95%
665
333
2014
95%
665
333
2015
95%
665
333
2016
95%
665
333
2017
95%
665
333
2018
95%
665
333
2019
95%
665
333
2020
95%
665
333
2021
95%
665
333
$2,944,971
$2,633,392
$5,578,363
($836,754)
$4,741,608
$3,033,320
$2,712,394
$5,745,714
($287,286)
$5,458,428
$3,124,319
$2,793,766
$5,918,085
($295,904)
$5,622,181
$3,218,049
$2,877,579
$6,095,627
($304,781)
$5,790,846
$3,314,590
$2,963,906
$6,278,496
($313,925)
$5,964,571
$3,414,028
$3,052,823
$6,466,851
($323,343)
$6,143,509
$3,516,449
$3,144,408
$6,660,857
($333,043)
$6,327,814
$3,621,942
$3,238,740
$6,860,682
($343,034)
$6,517,648
$3,730,601
$3,335,902
$7,066,503
($353,325)
$6,713,178
$3,842,519
$3,435,979
$7,278,498
($363,925)
$6,914,573
$3,957,794
$3,539,059
$7,496,853
($374,843)
$7,122,010
$4,076,528
$3,645,230
$7,721,758
($386,088)
$7,335,671
$4,198,824
$3,754,587
$7,953,411
($397,671)
$7,555,741
$4,324,789
$3,867,225
$8,192,014
($409,601)
$7,782,413
$4,454,532
$3,983,242
$8,437,774
($421,889)
$8,015,885
$4,588,168
$4,102,739
$8,690,907
($434,545)
$8,256,362
($385,026)
($256,684)
($641,711)
($237,080)
($443,155)
($295,437)
($738,592)
($272,921)
($456,450)
($304,300)
($760,750)
($281,109)
($470,143)
($313,429)
($783,572)
($289,542)
($484,248)
($322,832)
($807,079)
($298,229)
($498,775)
($332,517)
($831,292)
($307,175)
($513,738)
($342,492)
($856,230)
($316,391)
($529,150)
($352,767)
($881,917)
($325,882)
($545,025)
($363,350)
($908,375)
($335,659)
($561,376)
($374,250)
($935,626)
($345,729)
($578,217)
($385,478)
($963,695)
($356,101)
($595,563)
($397,042)
($992,606)
($366,784)
($613,430)
($408,954)
($1,022,384)
($377,787)
($631,833)
($421,222)
($1,053,055)
($389,121)
($650,788)
($433,859)
($1,084,647)
($400,794)
($670,312)
($446,875)
($1,117,186)
($412,818)
($140,000)
$0
($105,000)
($1,761,195)
($144,200)
$0
($108,150)
($1,998,019)
($148,526)
$0
($111,395)
($2,057,960)
($152,982)
$0
($114,736)
($2,119,698)
($157,571)
$0
($118,178)
($2,183,289)
($162,298)
$0
($121,724)
($2,248,788)
($167,167)
$0
($125,375)
($2,316,252)
($172,182)
$0
($129,137)
($2,385,739)
($177,348)
$0
($133,011)
($2,457,311)
($182,668)
$0
($137,001)
($2,531,031)
($188,148)
$0
($141,111)
($2,606,962)
($193,793)
$0
($145,345)
($2,685,171)
($199,607)
$0
($149,705)
($2,765,726)
($205,595)
$0
($154,196)
($2,848,698)
($211,763)
$0
($158,822)
($2,934,158)
($218,115)
$0
($163,587)
($3,022,183)
$2,980,413
$3,460,409
$3,564,221
$3,671,148
$3,781,282
$3,894,720
$4,011,562
$4,131,909
$4,255,866
$4,383,542
$4,515,048
$4,650,500
$4,790,015
$4,933,715
$5,081,727
$5,234,179
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($1,588,563)
($1,108,567)
($1,004,755)
($897,829)
($787,694)
($674,256)
($557,414)
($437,067)
($313,110)
($185,434)
($53,928)
$81,524
$221,039
$364,739
$512,751
$665,202
0.65
0.76
0.78
0.80
0.83
0.85
0.88
0.90
0.93
0.96
0.99
1.02
1.05
1.08
1.11
1.15
NPV
E
5%
($5,691,026)
164
13. Operating Pro Forma - Student Housing - Scenario 2
Rental Assumptions
Rental Rate per student
Rental Rate per Bed - Graduate
Rental Rate per Bed - Undergraduate
Total # of Units
Total # of Beds
Total # of Graduate Units
Total # of Graduate Beds
Total # of Undergraduate Units
Total # of Undergraduate Beds
2004 Rates
$621
$555
350
1,050
175
350
175
700
Debt
Total Costs
Term (Years)
Interest Rate
Annual Debt Service
July 2006 Rates
$701
$627
$64,610,000
20
5.75%
30
($4,568,976)
Escalations
Income (to 2006)
Income (2006-202
Expenses
5%
3%
3%
2006
85%
893
298
2007
95%
998
333
2008
95%
998
333
2009
95%
998
333
2010
95%
998
333
2011
95%
998
333
2012
95%
998
333
2013
95%
998
333
2014
95%
998
333
2015
95%
998
333
2016
95%
998
333
2017
95%
998
333
2018
95%
998
333
2019
95%
998
333
2020
95%
998
333
2021
95%
998
333
$2,944,971
$5,266,784
$8,211,755
($1,231,763)
$6,979,991
$3,033,320
$5,424,788
$8,458,107
($422,905)
$8,035,202
$3,124,319
$5,587,531
$8,711,851
($435,593)
$8,276,258
$3,218,049
$5,755,157
$8,973,206
($448,660)
$8,524,546
$3,314,590
$5,927,812
$9,242,402
($462,120)
$8,780,282
$3,414,028
$6,105,646
$9,519,674
($475,984)
$9,043,691
$3,516,449
$6,288,816
$9,805,265
($490,263)
$9,315,001
$3,621,942
$6,477,480
$10,099,422
($504,971)
$9,594,451
$3,730,601
$6,671,805
$10,402,405
($520,120)
$9,882,285
$3,842,519
$6,871,959
$10,714,477
($535,724)
$10,178,753
$3,957,794
$7,078,117
$11,035,912
($551,796)
$10,484,116
$4,076,528
$7,290,461
$11,366,989
($568,349)
$10,798,640
$4,198,824
$7,509,175
$11,707,999
($585,400)
$11,122,599
$4,324,789
$7,734,450
$12,059,239
($602,962)
$11,456,277
$4,454,532
$7,966,484
$12,421,016
($621,051)
$11,799,965
$4,588,168
$8,205,478
$12,793,646
($639,682)
$12,153,964
($385,026)
($256,684)
($641,711)
($349,000)
($443,155)
($295,437)
($738,592)
($401,760)
($456,450)
($304,300)
($760,750)
($413,813)
($470,143)
($313,429)
($783,572)
($426,227)
($484,248)
($322,832)
($807,079)
($439,014)
($498,775)
($332,517)
($831,292)
($452,185)
($513,738)
($342,492)
($856,230)
($465,750)
($529,150)
($352,767)
($881,917)
($479,723)
($545,025)
($363,350)
($908,375)
($494,114)
($561,376)
($374,250)
($935,626)
($508,938)
($578,217)
($385,478)
($963,695)
($524,206)
($595,563)
($397,042)
($992,606)
($539,932)
($613,430)
($408,954)
($1,022,384)
($556,130)
($631,833)
($421,222)
($1,053,055)
($572,814)
($650,788)
($433,859)
($1,084,647)
($589,998)
($670,312)
($446,875)
($1,117,186)
($607,698)
($140,000)
$0
($105,000)
($1,873,114)
($144,200)
$0
($108,150)
($2,126,858)
($148,526)
$0
($111,395)
($2,190,664)
($152,982)
$0
($114,736)
($2,256,383)
($157,571)
$0
($118,178)
($2,324,075)
($162,298)
$0
($121,724)
($2,393,797)
($167,167)
$0
($125,375)
($2,465,611)
($172,182)
$0
($129,137)
($2,539,579)
($177,348)
$0
($133,011)
($2,615,767)
($182,668)
$0
($137,001)
($2,694,240)
($188,148)
$0
($141,111)
($2,775,067)
($193,793)
$0
($145,345)
($2,858,319)
($199,607)
$0
($149,705)
($2,944,069)
($205,595)
$0
($154,196)
($3,032,391)
($211,763)
$0
($158,822)
($3,123,362)
($218,115)
$0
($163,587)
($3,217,063)
$5,106,877
$5,908,344
$6,085,594
$6,268,162
$6,456,207
$6,649,893
$6,849,390
$7,054,872
$7,266,518
$7,484,514
$7,709,049
$7,940,320
$8,178,530
$8,423,886
$8,676,603
$8,936,901
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
($4,568,976)
$537,901
$1,339,368
$1,516,618
$1,699,186
$1,887,231
$2,080,917
$2,280,414
$2,485,896
$2,697,542
$2,915,537
$3,140,073
$3,371,344
$3,609,554
$3,854,910
$4,107,626
$4,367,924
1.12
1.29
1.33
1.37
1.41
1.46
1.50
1.54
1.59
1.64
1.69
1.74
1.79
1.84
1.90
1.96
Occupancy
Occupied Beds
Occupied Units
Revenue
Graduate Student Beds
Undergraduate Student Beds
Less Vacancy
Total Gross Revenue
Operating Expenses
Variable
Utility Expenses
Fixed
Insurance
Property Taxes
Replacement Reserve
$/unit
$1,200
$800
$2,000
5%
$400
$0
$300
NOI
NPV
E
5%
$23,848,903
165
14. Operating Pro Forma - Retail
Rental Assumptions
Rental Rate - Restaurant
Rental Rate - Retail
Rental Rate - Book Store
Total # of Square Feet
Total SF Restaurant
Total SF Retail
Total SF Book Store
2004 Rates
$24
$18
$15
40,000
12,500
10,000
17,500
2008
93%
2009
93%
2010
93%
2011
93%
2012
93%
2013
93%
2014
93%
$323,009
$193,805
$282,633
$799,447
($239,834)
$559,613
$332,699
$199,619
$291,112
$823,430
($164,686)
$658,744
$342,680
$205,608
$299,845
$848,133
($59,369)
$788,764
$352,960
$211,776
$308,840
$873,577
($61,150)
$812,427
$363,549
$218,130
$318,106
$899,784
($62,985)
$836,799
$374,456
$224,673
$327,649
$926,778
($64,874)
$861,903
$385,689
$231,414
$337,478
$954,581
($66,821)
$887,760
$397,260
$238,356
$347,603
$983,219
($68,825)
$914,393
$409,178
$245,507
$358,031
$1,012,715
($70,890)
$941,825
($42,000)
($2,400)
($62,000)
($6,000)
($11,192)
($81,592)
($43,260)
($2,472)
($63,860)
($6,180)
($11,528)
($84,040)
($44,558)
($2,546)
($65,776)
($6,365)
($11,874)
($86,561)
($45,895)
($2,623)
($67,749)
($6,556)
($12,230)
($89,158)
($47,271)
($2,701)
($69,782)
($6,753)
($12,597)
($91,833)
($48,690)
($2,782)
($71,875)
($6,956)
($12,975)
($94,588)
($50,150)
($2,866)
($74,031)
($7,164)
($13,364)
($97,425)
($51,655)
($2,952)
($76,252)
($7,379)
($13,765)
($100,348)
($53,204)
($3,040)
($78,540)
($7,601)
($14,178)
($103,359)
$478,020
$574,704
$702,202
$723,269
$744,967
$767,316
$790,335
$814,045
$838,466
($402,777)
($50,000)
$25,244
($402,777)
($50,000)
$121,927
($402,777)
($50,000)
$249,426
($402,777)
($50,000)
$270,492
($402,777)
($50,000)
$292,190
($402,777)
($50,000)
$314,539
($402,777)
($50,000)
$337,558
($402,777)
($50,000)
$361,268
($402,777)
($50,000)
$385,690
($1,902,000)
$25,244
$121,927
$249,426
$270,492
$292,190
$314,539
$337,558
$361,268
$385,690
5%
19.33%
$386,087
1.43
1.74
1.80
1.85
1.91
1.96
2.02
2.08
$/SF
$1.05
$0.06
$1.55
$0.15
2%
NOI
IRR
NPV (Ground Rent)
($1,902,000)
Reversion
11th Year NOI
Reversion Cap Rate
Sales Price
Sales Costs
Mortgage Payoff
E
3%
3%
2007
80%
Revenue
Restauant Revenue
Retail Revenue
Book Store Revenue
Gross Retail Revenue
Less Vacancy
Total Gross Revenue
Less Ground Rent
Equity Invested
Equity at Sale
Escalations
Income
Expenses
$6,340,000
70%
$1,902,000
$4,438,000
10
6.50%
20
($402,777)
2006
70%
Occupancy
Operating Expenses
Total Maintenance and Housekeeping
Total Advertising and Promotion
Total Real Estate taxes
Total Insurance
Total G&A
Debt
Total Costs
LTV
Equity
Debt
Term (Years)
Interest Rate
Amortization Period
Annual Debt Service
July 2006 Rates
$26
$19
$16
1.19
2%
$863,620
10%
$8,636,205
($172,724)
($2,895,495)
$5,567,986
166
15. Operating Pro Forma University Uses
Rental Assumptions
Use 1
Use 2
Use 3
Total # of Square Feet
Total SF Use 1
Total SF Use 2
Total SF Use 3
2004 Rates
$0
$0
$0
50,000
July 2006 Rates
$0
$0
$0
20,000
20,000
10,000
Debt
Total Costs
LTV
$7,840,000
100%
Debt
Term (Years)
Interest Rate
Amortization Period
Annual Debt Service
$7,840,000
20
5.75%
30
($554,415)
Escalations
Income
Expenses
3%
3%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
($52,500)
($3,000)
$0
($7,500)
$0
($10,500)
($54,075)
($3,090)
$0
($7,725)
$0
($10,815)
($55,697)
($3,183)
$0
($7,957)
$0
($11,139)
($57,368)
($3,278)
$0
($8,195)
$0
($11,474)
($59,089)
($3,377)
$0
($8,441)
$0
($11,818)
($60,862)
($3,478)
$0
($8,695)
$0
($12,172)
($62,688)
($3,582)
$0
($8,955)
$0
($12,538)
($64,568)
($3,690)
$0
($9,224)
$0
($12,914)
($66,505)
($3,800)
$0
($9,501)
$0
($13,301)
($68,501)
($3,914)
$0
($9,786)
$0
($13,700)
($554,415)
($554,415)
($554,415)
($554,415)
($554,415)
($554,415)
($554,415)
($554,415)
($554,415)
($554,415)
Total Operating Expenses and Debt Service
($564,915)
($565,230)
($565,555)
($565,889)
($566,233)
($566,588)
($566,953)
($567,329)
($567,716)
($568,115)
Operating Expenses
Total Maintenance
Total Advertising and Promotion
Total Real Estate taxes
Total Insurance
Total G&A
NPV
NPV of Operating Expenses
NPV of Debt Service
E
$1.05
$0.06
$0.00
$0.15
3%
5%
($5,886,202)
($131,560.29)
($5,754,641.34)
167