HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20180109
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
January 09, 2018
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Red Brick Management Model discussion
II. Affordable Housing Tax
P1
Page 1 of 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jeff Woods, Manager, Parks & Recreation
Sarah Roy, Interim Executive Director, Red Brick Center for the Arts
Ben Sachdeva, Financial Analyst, Parks & Recreation
THRU: Sara Ott, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: January 5th, 2018
MEETING DATE: January 9th, 2018
RE: Red Brick Center for the Arts
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting the following four decisions from Council:
1. Preservation of the Red Brick Center for the Arts: Staff is requesting City Council to
acknowledge and uphold the Red Brick Center for the Arts as a building for the arts, affordable
office space for related nonprofits, studio space for artists, and other community uses.
2. Facility Management: Staff is requesting authority to assume ongoing responsibility for
facility management of the Red Brick Center for the Arts building. This would include handling
of all building revenues and operating expenditures through City of Aspen internal systems. The
City will assume all duties related to the physical operations and maintenance, as well as the
long-term capital improvements of the facility.
3. Interim Programming: Staff is requesting interim budget authority for directly managing the
existing community art programming planned for the Red Brick Center for the Arts for up to one
year. This will allow for the current art programming to continue without interruption. In
addition, this interim period will allow the time for staff to research and identify optimal
governance models for managing and developing the art programming and culture at the Red
Brick Center for the Arts.
4. Cultural Arts Commission: Staff is requesting to work in collaboration with the Wheeler
Opera House staff to conduct in-depth research of a potential Cultural Arts Commission under
the direction of the City government. Staff will study the various roles and directives such a
Commission can occupy to understand how it could support and enhance the cultural arts and the
cultural arts’ economy within Aspen.
P2
I.
Page 2 of 7
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On November 13th, 2017 through Resolution 155, the City
of Aspen suspended management services outlined in its agreement (Resolution 131-2015) with
the Red Brick Center for the Arts, the nonprofit organization to allow City staff to adequately
assess the status of the facility and operations management. City Council agreed to sign new
leases with tenants through September 30, 2018.
BACKGROUND: The Red Brick building was acquired by the City of Aspen pursuant to the
August 1992 election approving the $2.6 million purchase. Funding for the purchase and
improvement of the building was financed through the issuance of $3.6 million in general
obligation bonds, which voters approved by a vote of 526 for to 523 against. The building was
thus acquired with the stated intent of providing “a long-term home for arts and other nonprofit
groups and for other community uses”.
The Red Brick Arts Council has managed the facility under the operating entity Red Brick
Center for the Arts since the purchase of the building in 1993, according to a management
agreement with the City of Aspen. The managing entity collected building revenue in the form of
rent, utilities and parking fees from tenants, which it in turn used as its operating cash flow. After
expenses were covered, 15% of the remaining revenue was then paid to the Arts Council as
compensation for its management services. Under this format, the Arts Council has helped the
City defray costs of the building over time by committing its income to debt service and
contributions to a capital reserve fund. With income earned through the management agreement,
The Red Brick Arts Council implemented art programming including children and adult art
classes, rotating gallery exhibitions and art-related community events.
Since November 13th, staff has conducted numerous interviews with all relevant stakeholders to
better understand and assess the current situation affecting the Red Brick Center for the Arts.
This has included comprehensive discussions with the artists in residence, nonprofit tenants of
the building and members of the Red Brick Arts Council. This process has allowed staff to better
understand the needs of the building tenants and the involvement and importance of the
organization to the community at-large.
DISCUSSION:
Preservation of Red Brick Center for the Arts: Organizations such as the Red Brick Center and
the nonprofits and artists who call it their home are essential because they create venues for a
richly vibrant and diverse community and life. A community and culture will often be guided
and even defined by its keystone organizations. Aspen is fortunate to have many robust and
timeless establishments that give dimension to the community. It creates a synergy and
statement to Aspen’s values by continuing the Red Brick as a place for the arts that provides
affordable rent for nonprofits and artists and a community resource, all under one roof.
The Red Brick Center for the Arts is comprised of 10 nonprofit tenants, 14 resident artists, a
gallery, art classroom, dance studio and conference room. The dance studio and conference
room are available for the public to rent, and are utilized by a wide range of organizations and
support groups, as well as for activities such as taekwondo, fencing, tap and dance, theater, and
P3
I.
Page 3 of 7
music. Staff held several meetings with the nonprofit and resident artist tenants and art
instructors to discuss the Red Brick’s art programming. The invested parties were asked to share
what they value about the Center. Overall, the sentiments expressed as to why they chose and
continue to choose the Red Brick as their home were community, vitality, collaboration and
inspiration. Tenants hold these intangible benefits as the bedrock to the importance and role of
the Red Brick. The tenants expressed anxiety about not knowing the future of the Red Brick
Center, and a deep concern if the purpose was to change. As the real estate prices in Aspen
continue to rise, the intent of the Red Brick endures to be even more relevant and a truly
invaluable asset. The employees that work for the nonprofits, the artists, the art educators, and
the community members who use the dance studio and conference room all contribute and
represent a diversified community and economy. By continuing the Red Brick Center for the
Arts original intention, Aspen is protecting the attributes that make-up the values and vision of
our community.
Facility Management: As outlined in the first request above, the City would be responsible for
ongoing facility management of the Red Brick Center for the Arts building. Currently, the
Recreation Department operates the east wing of the facility providing maintenance, repair,
janitorial and custodial services through its internal building management team. Creating a
program that includes the Arts Center’s facility maintenance needs will result in a consistent and
smoother operation, through the economies of scale associated with the Department’s existing
resources and expertise.
Handling of all operating cash flows through the City’s internal systems will offer increased
accountability and oversight of any monies related to the operation of the Red Brick Center
facility. Implementing modern checks and balances will ensure transparency through business
and technology best practices. Ultimately, the Red Brick Center for the Arts will end up
benefiting by leveraging the City’s existing overhead resources.
Receiving the full cooperation and support from the City of Aspen’s Finance, Parks &
Recreation, and Capital Asset Departments, the City can bring its resources and staff to further
improve and preserve the Red Brick Center for the Arts building.
Specific Facility Responsibilities:
· Collection of building revenues – rent, utility assessment and parking fees
· Custodial and janitorial services
· Property management services
· Landscaping, lawn care and snow removal
· Capital maintenance, improvement and repair
Interim Programming: The Red Brick Arts Council has used the income earned through the
management agreement to develop its community art programming offered within the facility.
During the past 25 years, this programming has grown to include youth education, adult art
classes, gallery exhibitions and other community events. The Arts Council has also implemented
various fundraising activities, such as grant applications and auction events, to supplement
income earned through the management fee and grow programming further.
P4
I.
Page 4 of 7
Due to the suspension of the existing management agreement with the Red Brick Council for the
Arts, the nonprofit is unable to fund the programming it has planned for the upcoming year. Staff
is requesting budget authority to directly operate the planned art programming for the interim
period. This would include extending the employment of Sarah Roy to lead operations and
administration of the programming.
The current art programming at the Red Brick is utilized by numerous participants both local and
visiting. The Red Brick Arts Council stated that in 2017 more than 2,100 participants partook in
the various art programs and community events offered. The programming contributes to the
culture and vitality of the Red Brick Center as well. During the recent meetings held with
current nonprofit and resident artist tenants, staff heard how the art programs can be a source of
inspiration through the artwork displayed on the walls and provide opportunities for
collaboration and engagement through the classes and events. The predominate sentiment from
the Red Brick tenants was a desire for the art programming to be modern in its offerings and for
a level of quality that is aspirational in its reach. The Red Brick art programming not only offers
the community a place for creative exchange, but also contributes to the Red Brick Center as a
beloved public asset and cornerstone for ideas and activities important to the community.
Concurrently, the interim period will allow staff the time to more thoroughly research potential
governance models for the art programming and culture custodian of the Red Brick. Staff has
held meetings with the directors of both the Yellow Brick and Wheeler Opera House, to learn
their relationship with the local government and the structure of their management and
programmatic decisions. In addition, staff began to inquire about other potential governance
models for the Red Brick’s art programing and looked at cities with successful community art
centers. The spectrum of governance ranges from a nonprofit to local municipality managing
and giving directive, to a combination or partnership between the two. From the multitude of
conversations staff has had with stakeholders the overarching sentiment is a desire to optimize
the Red Brick’s offerings to match expectations of the current market, patrons, and users of the
facilities. In the wake of the 25th year anniversary, the Red Brick has an opportunity to celebrate
its history and position itself for the future. The appropriate governance model to usher the Red
Brick’s art programming and culture forward is to be explored.
As originators of the Red Brick Center for the Art conception, the Red Brick Arts Council has an
important role in this interim period. The Arts Council holds historical knowledge that is
pertinent to continuing the essence as a community pillar. In an advisory role, the Arts Council
could contribute to the success of the interim programming and offer opinion and insight into the
most successful future governance structure.
Cultural Arts Commission: Aspen has a diverse community of artists and art related businesses
and organizations that range the cultural arts spectrum of performance, visual, music, film,
literary and more. A Cultural Arts Commission under the leadership of the local government
could be a conduit for collaboration among the various art interests, and give directive for
policies and programs that support and promote the local arts’ economy. In collaboration with
Wheeler Opera House leadership, staff will explore the structure of a Cultural Arts Commission,
P5
I.
and assess the best model and directives
community members and art related
cities with relevant Art Commissions including Sa
more time, staff will be able to present a recommendation for the directive of a Cultural Arts
Commission.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Facility Management: The financial assumptions herein are based on the Red Brick Center for
the Arts historical operating statements.
develop a more detailed understanding of the budgetary requirements after a thorough
operational assessment. Under direct management of the City, staff
through efficiencies gained by integrating the Red Brick Center
Aspen processes. This budget is not included in the 2018 approve
addressed accordingly during the 2019 budget development process.
material impact to the existing Parks
additional responsibilities related to the Red
with Parks & Recreation Facilities team and
addresses both the operational and capital needs of the building.
Interim Programming: Staff is requesting an interim budget to continue the art classes, gallery
exhibitions and events for the upcoming year. The budget will allow for the quality and
expectation of the art programming to be maintained, and allow staff to further and enhance
offerings. In meetings with staff, the nonprofit and resident artist tenants and art instructors
expressed their support for the art programming and their desire to see it advance.
Page 5 of 7
and directives for Aspen guided by the needs and input from
art related organizations and individuals. Staff has identified several
cities with relevant Art Commissions including Santa Fe, NM and Santa Monica, CA. With
more time, staff will be able to present a recommendation for the directive of a Cultural Arts
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
The financial assumptions herein are based on the Red Brick Center for
the Arts historical operating statements. These are preliminary projections, and
develop a more detailed understanding of the budgetary requirements after a thorough
Under direct management of the City, staff expects to realize
integrating the Red Brick Center for the Arts into existing
processes. This budget is not included in the 2018 approved budget, and will need to be
addressed accordingly during the 2019 budget development process. There will likely be a
existing Parks & Recreation Department’s operations by assuming the
additional responsibilities related to the Red Brick Center for the Arts. Staff is working closely
Recreation Facilities team and Capital Asset Department to determine a budget that
addresses both the operational and capital needs of the building.
Staff is requesting an interim budget to continue the art classes, gallery
exhibitions and events for the upcoming year. The budget will allow for the quality and
expectation of the art programming to be maintained, and allow staff to further and enhance
offerings. In meetings with staff, the nonprofit and resident artist tenants and art instructors
expressed their support for the art programming and their desire to see it advance.
for Aspen guided by the needs and input from
Staff has identified several
nta Fe, NM and Santa Monica, CA. With
more time, staff will be able to present a recommendation for the directive of a Cultural Arts
The financial assumptions herein are based on the Red Brick Center for
and staff expects to
develop a more detailed understanding of the budgetary requirements after a thorough
to realize savings
into existing City of
d budget, and will need to be
There will likely be a
Recreation Department’s operations by assuming the
Brick Center for the Arts. Staff is working closely
Asset Department to determine a budget that
Staff is requesting an interim budget to continue the art classes, gallery
exhibitions and events for the upcoming year. The budget will allow for the quality and
expectation of the art programming to be maintained, and allow staff to further and enhance the
offerings. In meetings with staff, the nonprofit and resident artist tenants and art instructors
expressed their support for the art programming and their desire to see it advance.
P6
I.
Staff is proposing the $75,000 Facility Net Income from the Red B
spent towards the art programming budget.
programming costs and labor through the interim period. Staff will evaluate the art
programming expenses and income during the year t
the budgetary requirements for future governance models.
During the interim period, staff will seek other funding opportunities and partnerships to
subsidize and develop new art programming.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
develop and implement an Asset Management Plan that seeks opportunities to modernize
systems to create energy and environmental efficiencies. Staff will look at other operational and
procedural practices to further the environmental initiatives of the Red Brick Center for the Arts.
Page 6 of 7
Staff is proposing the $75,000 Facility Net Income from the Red Brick Center for the Arts
spent towards the art programming budget. Staff will need an additional $50
programming costs and labor through the interim period. Staff will evaluate the art
and income during the year to create a more informed understanding of
for future governance models.
During the interim period, staff will seek other funding opportunities and partnerships to
subsidize and develop new art programming.
CTS: Working with the Capital Asset Department, staff will
develop and implement an Asset Management Plan that seeks opportunities to modernize
systems to create energy and environmental efficiencies. Staff will look at other operational and
actices to further the environmental initiatives of the Red Brick Center for the Arts.
rick Center for the Arts be
,000 to cover art
programming costs and labor through the interim period. Staff will evaluate the art
o create a more informed understanding of
During the interim period, staff will seek other funding opportunities and partnerships to
Capital Asset Department, staff will
develop and implement an Asset Management Plan that seeks opportunities to modernize
systems to create energy and environmental efficiencies. Staff will look at other operational and
actices to further the environmental initiatives of the Red Brick Center for the Arts.
P7
I.
Page 7 of 7
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is requesting four decisions from City Council on the
following items:
1. To acknowledge and uphold the intent of the Red Brick Center for the Arts as a building
for the arts, affordable office space for related nonprofits, studio space for artists, and
other community uses.
2. To give City staff authority to manage and maintain the daily and long-term operations of
the Red Brick Center for the Arts.
3. To authorize interim budget and extend the employment of Sarah Roy to manage the Red
Brick Center for the Arts current art programming, and to authorize City staff to research
governance models for the art programming to continue into the future.
4. To authorize staff to research a potential Arts Commission for the City of Aspen.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
______
________________________________________________________________________
P8
I.
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
THRU: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: January 5, 2018
MEETING DATE: January 9, 2018
RE: Aspen Housing Partners (AHP) Low Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC) Application Process
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting that Council agree to: (1) move forward with
application for 4% Federal + State Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) for the Aspen
Housing Partners (AHP) project, and (2) plan for the 488 Castle Creek Road site to be a 100%
LIHTC rental facility while the other two sites at 802 West Main Street and 517 Park Circle would
contain rent al units which serve income levels in APCHA Categories 2, 3 and 4.
BACKGROUND / PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 2015, staff was directed to issue City
of Aspen RFP # 2015-139 “Public Private Partnership Affordable Housing Development ” which
aimed to develop rental housing at City-owned properties located at 517 Park Circle, 802 West
Main Street and 488 Castle Creek Road. At a work session on November 1, 2016, Council
approved Aspen Housing Partners (AHP) as the selected developer.
On July 24, 2017 City Council approved Resolution #104, Series of 2017, Aspen Housing Partners
(AHP) Master Development Agreement , which outlined three different levels of tax credit funding
available: (1) 9% Federal (competitive), (2) 4% Federal + State (competitive) and (3) 4% Fede ral
(non-competitive).
Throughout 2017, AHP and staff executed a comprehensive community outreach program which
informed designs for housing at the three sites. AHP submitted three development applications for
Major Public Project Review, and after numerous public hearings, was granted development
approvals in Ordinance 25 of 2017 (517 Park Circle, 11 units), Ordinance 28 of 2017 (802 West
Main Street, 10 units) and Ordinance 31 of 2017 (488 Castle Creek Road, 24 units).
DISCUSSION:
(1) Applying for 4% Federal + State tax credits instead of applying for 9% Federal tax
Credits:
In Colorado, the federal LIHTC program is administered by the Colorado Housing and Finance
Authority (CHFA). AHP and City staff met with CHFA officials in November, and CHFA
described the difficulty for the City of Aspen to receive a 9% tax credit award. Over the past two
years, approximately 30% of projects which applied for the 9% tax credits received a 9% tax credit
award of some amount. But digging deeper into the projects which did receive an award shows
that nearly all of those projects had rental units specifically set aside for the 30% AMI income
level. This is equivalent to about the lowest half of APCHA Category 1. And many of those
projects also provide accommodation specifically for the homeless, disabled, seniors or veterans.
And given the City of Aspen’s known ability to fill some of the funding gap for the AHP project ,
if competing with projects of greater financial need which also serve lower incomes and homeless,
disabled, seniors or veterans, there is little chance that the City of Aspen would receive a 9%
LIHTC tax credit award.
P9
II.
Page 2 of 4
The 4% Federal + State LIHTC application process will provide the City of Aspen with a greater
chance to receive a competitive tax credit award in 2018. In the 4% Federal + State LIHTC
application pool, the AHP project may still be competing with some projects which provide
housing at the 30% AMI income level and with specific accommodation for the homeless,
disabled, seniors or veterans, but within the past two years some projects awarded 4% Federal +
State tax credits have been straight 60% AMI or less projects like the AHP project. And a threshold
requirement for the 4% + State LIHTC program is a financial contribution from the municipality
in which the project will be developed. The AHP project satisfies this criteria, which helps the
chances of an award, but the outcome depends highly on the pool of applications which CHFA
receives.
The 2018 4% Federal + State LIHTC application deadline is February 1, 2018. If the City were to
decide to forego this application deadline and instead apply for 9% LIHTC tax credits in June, this
would pose a risk that the project would not receive competitive LIHTC funding in 2018. This has
been a known project risk from the start, and staff recommends that we aim to submit a 4% Federal
+ State LIHTC application by the February 1 deadline.
The City’s 2018 budget for the AHP project is $17 million, and the July 2017 Master Development
Agreement with AHP lists three potential levels of City of Aspen initial contribution to the project :
Also in the November meeting, CHFA officials also cautioned that CHFA is less able to award a
“maximum” 9% tax credit award due to a focus on credit efficiency (which essentially translates
to spreading the 9% credits around and thus watering them down, particularly in our region). Thus,
AHP has recently revised their estimation of the potential benefit of the 9% cr edits for our project
(shown in the table above) and has also reset expectations for a potential “medium level” 4%
Federal + State LIHTC award where the City’s initial contribution to the AHP project would be
approximately $14.2 million.
But procuring 4% Federal + State tax credits is still a competitive process, thus staff suggests that
we need to be prepared for the above two highlighted scenarios where the City’s contribution may
be based on either a 4% Federal + State competitive tax credit award or alternatively on a
secondary plan for 4% Federal only tax credits which are non-competitive. Later in this memo, we
will consider the project subsidy for both of those cases.
(2) 488 Castle Creek Road site to be a 100% LIHTC rental facility while the other two sites
at 802 West Main Street and 517 Park Circle would contain rental units which serve
income levels in APCHA Categories 2, 3 and 4.
Staff has more deeply reviewed the possibility of any potential to convert these rental units to
become future APCHA ownership condominiums. The LIHTC units are subject to an initial
compliance period of 15 years, and under the 4% Federal + State tax credit program, there is a
P10
II.
Page 3 of 4
required extended use period of an additional 15 years. If we comingle the 4% Federal + State
LIHTC units with the APCHA (non-tax-credit) units, we will be in effect self-imposing a need to
continue to operate the APCHA (non-tax-credit) units as rentals for a total of 30 years.
But by placing all of the LIHTC units at 488 Castle Cr eek and keeping all of the APCHA (non-
tax-credit) units at 802 West Main Street and 517 Park Circle, we completely remove this
dependency. A major benefit of this approach is that it will maximize the City’s future flexibility,
and it will have the added benefits of simplifying management and also that an application for a
100% LIHTC facility at 488 Castle Creek will be viewed favorably in the 4% Federal + State
LIHTC application process. To do this, 802 West Main Street and 517 Park Circle will have a first
mortgage which is separate from the first mortgage at 488 Castle Creek , and the City may have a
slightly higher (less than 1% higher) initial contribution to the project. Another drawback is that
we will be segregating people based on income more so than originally intended. But staff feels
that these impacts could be viewed as less significant than the downstream flexibility which is
gained by using this approach.
For the above reasons, AHP and staff have concluded that it will be best to place all the tax credit
units at the 488 Castle Creek site (24 units) and to submit that project as a stand-alone 100% tax
credit application serving incomes of 60% area median income (AMI) or less. Those 24 LIHTC
units will provide the flexibility to house workforce within the APCHA Category 1 income range
plus about the lowest 10% of the APCHA Category 2 income range. The remaining 21 units at 802
West Main Street and 517 Park Circle would be unencumbered by the tax credit program
requirements and would be dedicat ed to serving income levels in APCHA Categories 2, 3 and 4.
After being managed as rentals for 15 years by AHP, all 21 of these units could be later converted
to APCHA ownership condominiums if the City so desired in the future.
Thus, t he proposed 45-unit program for the AHP project is shown in the table below. APCHA staff
have been consulted and support the proposed program.
City of Aspen/AHP Project - 45 Rental Units Proposed
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: To calculate the City of Aspen subsidy for the AHP housing
project, it is important to consider the full lifecycle of the facilities proposed. Most full -lifecycle
cash-flow analyses for such rental developments project a useful life of 50 years – even though the
City would endeavor to maintain the facilities so that they may last much longer than this.
P11
II.
Page 4 of 4
Another factor which relates to analysis of rental developments (and less so to ownership projects)
has to do with whether or not to consider the residual value of the land and any appreciation of its
value after the 50-year period – since the City will maintain ownership of the land in this case.
Thus, to consider the potential for a 4% Federal + State LIHTC award versus a potential fallback
of 4% Federal Only LIHTC funding, and (for the sake of argument) to look at the value of the land
to either include the residual value of the land and some nominal appreciation or to exclude (i.e.
ignore) the residual value of the land and some nominal appreciation, staff has limited the subsidy
calculations to the 4 scenarios illustrated in the boxes below.
Four Scenarios and Calculated Full-Lifecycle City of Aspen Subsidy, 45 AHP Rental Units:
Scenario 1:
4% + State “Medium” LIHTC Award
Exclude Residual Land Value
Subsidy per FTE = $249,342
Scenario 2:
4% + State “Medium” LIHTC Award
Include Residual Land Value
Subsidy per FTE = ($137,978)
Scenario 3:
4% Federal Only LIHTC Funding
Exclude Residual Land Value
Subsidy per FTE = $261,004
Scenario 4:
4% Federal Only LIHTC Funding
Include Residual Land Value
Subsidy per FTE = ($126,316)
See the attached exhibits for the entire 50-year analyses. In the exhibits, each case shows numerous
assumptions which are held constant for all four scenarios. Each case also assumes a constant City
of Aspen contribution to the facilities once AHP is removed from the project (year 16).
Given that the income levels to be served work out to an average APCHA Category 1.9, the
calculated subsidy in each case is compared to an extrapolated Fee In Lieu of Housing Mitigation
from the Municipal Code which corresponds to an average APCHA Category 1.9 (which works
out to $322,764 per FTE). Staff considers this the most pertinent benchmark for comparison.
In the cases where the value of the land and some nominal appreciation (assumed at only 1.5%
annually) at the end of the 50-year period are included in the calculation (scenarios 2 & 4), the
residual value of the land causes a negative subsidy. In the cases where the residual value of the
land and any land appreciation is excluded (scenarios 1 & 3), the subsidy per FTE is calculated to
be 19% & 23% below the average APCHA Category 1.9 Fee in Lieu amount.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council direct staff to: (1) move forward
with application for 4% Federal + State Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) for the Aspen
Housing Partners (AHP) project, and (2) plan for the 488 Castle Creek Road site to be a 100%
LIHTC rental facility while the other two sites at 802 West Main Street and 517 Park Circle would
contain rental units which serve income levels in APCHA Categories 2, 3 and 4.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Detailed AHP Lifecycle Subsidy Model, Scenarios 1-4
P12
II.
Calendar Year 2008 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Count Year -11 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cost Escalation Factor 73.00%100.0%103.0%106.0%109.0%112.0%115.0%118.0%121.0%124.0%127.0%130.0%133.0%136.0%139.0%142.0%145.0%148.0%
Revenue Escalation Factor 86.50%100.0%101.5%103.0%104.5%106.0%107.5%109.0%110.5%112.0%113.5%115.0%116.5%118.0%119.5%121.0%122.5%124.0%
City of Aspen / Aspen Housing Partners 1/4/2018
Scenario1: 488 Castle Creek 100% LIHTC @ 4% + State "Medium" Award
Main and Park with separate mortgage, buyout AHP/Debt after 15 years
Exclude Residual Land Value after Year 50
City of Aspen Initial Investment ($2018)$14,200,000
Annual Cost Escalation 3.0%
Annual Revenue Escalation 1.5%
Vacancy 5.0%
OpEx/Unit/Yr ($2018, occurrs after AHP buyout)$5,500
CapRes/Unit/Yr. ($2018, occurrs after AHP buyout)$1,100
Include Residual Land Value? ("Include" or "Exclude")Exclude
Annual Land Appreciation Assumed 0.0%
CoA Income
Aspen Housing Partners (Owner-Manager Years 1-15)
Excess Funds / Waterfall (Years 1-15)$0
517 Park Circle
Rents (Years 16-50)($10,358,050)
Other Income $0
802 West Main St
Rents (Years 16-50)($7,717,475)
Other Income $0
488 Castle Creek
Rents (Years 16-50)($13,018,806)
Other Income $0
Total Income ($31,094,331)
CoA Expenses
Aspen Housing Partners
Initial Closing / Investment (Year 0)$14,200,000 $14,200,000
Buyout/Debt Service (Years 16-50)$3,420,000
517 Park Circle
Land (2008 Historical Cost - 2070 Residual Value)$4,105,000 $4,105,000
Operation/Maintenance (Years 16-50)$4,277,350
Capital Reserve/Maint. (Years 16-50)$855,470
802 West Main St
Land (2008 Historical Cost - 2070 Residual Value)$3,690,000 $3,690,000
Operation/Maintenance (Years 16-50)$3,888,500
Capital Reserve/Maint. (Years 16-50)$777,700
488 Castle Creek
Land (2008 Historical Cost - 2070 Residual Value)$5,400,000 $5,400,000
Operation/Maintenance (Years 16-50)$9,332,400
Capital Reserve/Maint. (Years 16-50)$1,866,480
Other Expenses
Capital Investment (Year 16)$662,513
Total Expenses $52,475,413
Total Subsidy (Profit)$21,381,081 $13,195,000 $14,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subsidy (Profit) / Sq Ft $669
Subsidy (Profit) / Bedroom $362,391
Subsidy (Profit) / Unit $475,135
Subsidy (Profit) / FTE $249,342
Average APCHA Category 1.9
City of Aspen Municipal Code, 26.470.050. Calculations
E. Employee housing fee-in-lieu payment.
Category 1: $356,433 Fee In Lieu
Category 2: $320,186 Category
Category 3: $286,495 1.9
Category 4: $223,072 $322,764
Category 5: $157,280
Category 6: $132,817
Category 7: $104,148
AHP is owner / operator of facilities for minimum 15-year compliance period. Master Development Agreement contains terms which
returns to City of Aspen any funds in excess of debt service, operating costs, reserves, management fee and any deferred
development fee.
Any such funds to be returned to the City during this time are assumed for this exercise to equal zero.
Master Development Agreement contains terms which require no additional funding from the City of Aspen during this time. In the
event of loan or other default, City maintains right to repurchase facilities.
Exhibit A: Detailed AHP Lifecycle Subsidy Model, Scenarios 1-4, Page 1 of 12
P13II.
2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
151.0%154.0%157.0%160.0%163.0%166.0%169.0%172.0%175.0%178.0%181.0%184.0%187.0%190.0%193.0%196.0%199.0%202.0%205.0%208.0%
125.5%127.0%128.5%130.0%131.5%133.0%134.5%136.0%137.5%139.0%140.5%142.0%143.5%145.0%146.5%148.0%149.5%151.0%152.5%154.0%
($245,967)($248,907)($251,847)($254,786)($257,726)($260,666)($263,606)($266,546)($269,486)($272,426)($275,365)($278,305)($281,245)($284,185)($287,125)($290,065)($293,004)($295,944)($298,884)($301,824)
($183,263)($185,453)($187,643)($189,834)($192,024)($194,215)($196,405)($198,595)($200,786)($202,976)($205,167)($207,357)($209,547)($211,738)($213,928)($216,119)($218,309)($220,499)($222,690)($224,880)
($309,150)($312,845)($316,540)($320,236)($323,931)($327,626)($331,321)($335,016)($338,711)($342,406)($346,101)($349,796)($353,491)($357,186)($360,881)($364,576)($368,271)($371,966)($375,661)($379,356)
$3,420,000
(Note: See 'Debt Service Options' tab to get debt service payment info for years 16-40 if debt service is not to be bought out after year 15)
$91,355 $93,170 $94,985 $96,800 $98,615 $100,430 $102,245 $104,060 $105,875 $107,690 $109,505 $111,320 $113,135 $114,950 $116,765 $118,580 $120,395 $122,210 $124,025 $125,840
$18,271 $18,634 $18,997 $19,360 $19,723 $20,086 $20,449 $20,812 $21,175 $21,538 $21,901 $22,264 $22,627 $22,990 $23,353 $23,716 $24,079 $24,442 $24,805 $25,168
$83,050 $84,700 $86,350 $88,000 $89,650 $91,300 $92,950 $94,600 $96,250 $97,900 $99,550 $101,200 $102,850 $104,500 $106,150 $107,800 $109,450 $111,100 $112,750 $114,400
$16,610 $16,940 $17,270 $17,600 $17,930 $18,260 $18,590 $18,920 $19,250 $19,580 $19,910 $20,240 $20,570 $20,900 $21,230 $21,560 $21,890 $22,220 $22,550 $22,880
$199,320 $203,280 $207,240 $211,200 $215,160 $219,120 $223,080 $227,040 $231,000 $234,960 $238,920 $242,880 $246,840 $250,800 $254,760 $258,720 $262,680 $266,640 $270,600 $274,560
$39,864 $40,656 $41,448 $42,240 $43,032 $43,824 $44,616 $45,408 $46,200 $46,992 $47,784 $48,576 $49,368 $50,160 $50,952 $51,744 $52,536 $53,328 $54,120 $54,912
$662,513
(Note: The above capital investment after year 15 assumes City pays B14-$450 per unit for 15 years X 45 Units
$3,792,602 ($289,825)($289,741)($289,656)($289,571)($289,486)($289,402)($289,317)($289,232)($289,147)($289,063)($288,978)($288,893)($288,808)($288,724)($288,639)($288,554)($288,469)($288,385)($288,300)
Exhibit A: Detailed AHP Lifecycle Subsidy Model, Scenarios 1-4, Page 2 of 12
P14II.
2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
211.0%214.0%217.0%220.0%223.0%226.0%229.0%232.0%235.0%238.0%241.0%244.0%247.0%250.0%253.0%256.0%
155.5%157.0%158.5%160.0%161.5%163.0%164.5%166.0%167.5%169.0%170.5%172.0%173.5%175.0%176.5%178.0%
($304,764)($307,704)($310,644)($313,583)($316,523)($319,463)($322,403)($325,343)($328,283)($331,222)($334,162)($337,102)($340,042)($342,982)($345,922)
($227,070)($229,261)($231,451)($233,642)($235,832)($238,022)($240,213)($242,403)($244,594)($246,784)($248,974)($251,165)($253,355)($255,546)($257,736)
($383,051)($386,746)($390,441)($394,136)($397,831)($401,526)($405,221)($408,916)($412,611)($416,306)($420,001)($423,696)($427,391)($431,086)($434,781)
$0
$127,655 $129,470 $131,285 $133,100 $134,915 $136,730 $138,545 $140,360 $142,175 $143,990 $145,805 $147,620 $149,435 $151,250 $153,065
$25,531 $25,894 $26,257 $26,620 $26,983 $27,346 $27,709 $28,072 $28,435 $28,798 $29,161 $29,524 $29,887 $30,250 $30,613
$0
$116,050 $117,700 $119,350 $121,000 $122,650 $124,300 $125,950 $127,600 $129,250 $130,900 $132,550 $134,200 $135,850 $137,500 $139,150
$23,210 $23,540 $23,870 $24,200 $24,530 $24,860 $25,190 $25,520 $25,850 $26,180 $26,510 $26,840 $27,170 $27,500 $27,830
$0
$278,520 $282,480 $286,440 $290,400 $294,360 $298,320 $302,280 $306,240 $310,200 $314,160 $318,120 $322,080 $326,040 $330,000 $333,960
$55,704 $56,496 $57,288 $58,080 $58,872 $59,664 $60,456 $61,248 $62,040 $62,832 $63,624 $64,416 $65,208 $66,000 $66,792
($288,215)($288,131)($288,046)($287,961)($287,876)($287,792)($287,707)($287,622)($287,537)($287,453)($287,368)($287,283)($287,198)($287,114)($287,029)$0
Exhibit A: Detailed AHP Lifecycle Subsidy Model, Scenarios 1-4, Page 3 of 12
P15II.
Calendar Year 2008 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Count Year -11 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cost Escalation Factor 73.00%100.0%103.0%106.0%109.0%112.0%115.0%118.0%121.0%124.0%127.0%130.0%133.0%136.0%139.0%142.0%145.0%148.0%
Revenue Escalation Factor 86.50%100.0%101.5%103.0%104.5%106.0%107.5%109.0%110.5%112.0%113.5%115.0%116.5%118.0%119.5%121.0%122.5%124.0%
City of Aspen / Aspen Housing Partners 1/4/2018
Scenario2: 488 Castle Creek 100% LIHTC @ 4% + State "Medium" Award
Main and Park with separate mortgage, buyout AHP/Debt after 15 years
Include Residual Land Value after Year 50
City of Aspen Initial Investment ($2018)$14,200,000
Annual Cost Escalation 3.0%
Annual Revenue Escalation 1.5%
Vacancy 5.0%
OpEx/Unit/Yr ($2018, occurrs after AHP buyout)$5,500
CapRes/Unit/Yr. ($2018, occurrs after AHP buyout)$1,100
Include Residual Land Value? ("Include" or "Exclude")Include
Annual Land Appreciation Assumed 1.5%
CoA Income
Aspen Housing Partners (Owner-Manager Years 1-15)
Excess Funds / Waterfall (Years 1-15)$0
517 Park Circle
Rents (Years 16-50)($10,358,050)
Other Income $0
802 West Main St
Rents (Years 16-50)($7,717,475)
Other Income $0
488 Castle Creek
Rents (Years 16-50)($13,018,806)
Other Income $0
Total Income ($31,094,331)
CoA Expenses
Aspen Housing Partners
Initial Closing / Investment (Year 0)$14,200,000 $14,200,000
Buyout/Debt Service (Years 16-50)$3,420,000
517 Park Circle
Land (2008 Historical Cost - 2070 Residual Value)($6,227,556)$4,105,000
Operation/Maintenance (Years 16-50)$4,277,350
Capital Reserve/Maint. (Years 16-50)$855,470
802 West Main St
Land (2008 Historical Cost - 2070 Residual Value)($5,597,974)$3,690,000
Operation/Maintenance (Years 16-50)$3,888,500
Capital Reserve/Maint. (Years 16-50)$777,700
488 Castle Creek
Land (2008 Historical Cost - 2070 Residual Value)($8,192,157)$5,400,000
Operation/Maintenance (Years 16-50)$9,332,400
Capital Reserve/Maint. (Years 16-50)$1,866,480
Other Expenses
Capital Investment (Year 16)$662,513
Total Expenses $19,262,725
Total Subsidy (Profit)($11,831,606)$13,195,000 $14,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subsidy (Profit) / Sq Ft ($370)
Subsidy (Profit) / Bedroom ($200,536)
Subsidy (Profit) / Unit ($262,925)
Subsidy (Profit) / FTE ($137,978)
Average APCHA Category 1.9
City of Aspen Municipal Code, 26.470.050. Calculations
E. Employee housing fee-in-lieu payment.
Category 1: $356,433 Fee In Lieu
Category 2: $320,186 Category
Category 3: $286,495 1.9
Category 4: $223,072 $322,764
Category 5: $157,280
Category 6: $132,817
Category 7: $104,148
AHP is owner / operator of facilities for minimum 15-year compliance period. Master Development Agreement contains terms which
returns to City of Aspen any funds in excess of debt service, operating costs, reserves, management fee and any deferred
development fee.
Any such funds to be returned to the City during this time are assumed for this exercise to equal zero.
Master Development Agreement contains terms which require no additional funding from the City of Aspen during this time. In the
event of loan or other default, City maintains right to repurchase facilities.
Exhibit A: Detailed AHP Lifecycle Subsidy Model, Scenarios 1-4, Page 4 of 12
P16II.
2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
151.0%154.0%157.0%160.0%163.0%166.0%169.0%172.0%175.0%178.0%181.0%184.0%187.0%190.0%193.0%196.0%199.0%202.0%205.0%208.0%
125.5%127.0%128.5%130.0%131.5%133.0%134.5%136.0%137.5%139.0%140.5%142.0%143.5%145.0%146.5%148.0%149.5%151.0%152.5%154.0%
($245,967)($248,907)($251,847)($254,786)($257,726)($260,666)($263,606)($266,546)($269,486)($272,426)($275,365)($278,305)($281,245)($284,185)($287,125)($290,065)($293,004)($295,944)($298,884)($301,824)
($183,263)($185,453)($187,643)($189,834)($192,024)($194,215)($196,405)($198,595)($200,786)($202,976)($205,167)($207,357)($209,547)($211,738)($213,928)($216,119)($218,309)($220,499)($222,690)($224,880)
($309,150)($312,845)($316,540)($320,236)($323,931)($327,626)($331,321)($335,016)($338,711)($342,406)($346,101)($349,796)($353,491)($357,186)($360,881)($364,576)($368,271)($371,966)($375,661)($379,356)
$3,420,000
(Note: See 'Debt Service Options' tab to get debt service payment info for years 16-40 if debt service is not to be bought out after year 15)
$91,355 $93,170 $94,985 $96,800 $98,615 $100,430 $102,245 $104,060 $105,875 $107,690 $109,505 $111,320 $113,135 $114,950 $116,765 $118,580 $120,395 $122,210 $124,025 $125,840
$18,271 $18,634 $18,997 $19,360 $19,723 $20,086 $20,449 $20,812 $21,175 $21,538 $21,901 $22,264 $22,627 $22,990 $23,353 $23,716 $24,079 $24,442 $24,805 $25,168
$83,050 $84,700 $86,350 $88,000 $89,650 $91,300 $92,950 $94,600 $96,250 $97,900 $99,550 $101,200 $102,850 $104,500 $106,150 $107,800 $109,450 $111,100 $112,750 $114,400
$16,610 $16,940 $17,270 $17,600 $17,930 $18,260 $18,590 $18,920 $19,250 $19,580 $19,910 $20,240 $20,570 $20,900 $21,230 $21,560 $21,890 $22,220 $22,550 $22,880
$199,320 $203,280 $207,240 $211,200 $215,160 $219,120 $223,080 $227,040 $231,000 $234,960 $238,920 $242,880 $246,840 $250,800 $254,760 $258,720 $262,680 $266,640 $270,600 $274,560
$39,864 $40,656 $41,448 $42,240 $43,032 $43,824 $44,616 $45,408 $46,200 $46,992 $47,784 $48,576 $49,368 $50,160 $50,952 $51,744 $52,536 $53,328 $54,120 $54,912
$662,513
(Note: The above capital investment after year 15 assumes City pays B14-$450 per unit for 15 years X 45 Units
$3,792,602 ($289,825)($289,741)($289,656)($289,571)($289,486)($289,402)($289,317)($289,232)($289,147)($289,063)($288,978)($288,893)($288,808)($288,724)($288,639)($288,554)($288,469)($288,385)($288,300)
Exhibit A: Detailed AHP Lifecycle Subsidy Model, Scenarios 1-4, Page 5 of 12
P17II.
2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
211.0%214.0%217.0%220.0%223.0%226.0%229.0%232.0%235.0%238.0%241.0%244.0%247.0%250.0%253.0%256.0%
155.5%157.0%158.5%160.0%161.5%163.0%164.5%166.0%167.5%169.0%170.5%172.0%173.5%175.0%176.5%178.0%
($304,764)($307,704)($310,644)($313,583)($316,523)($319,463)($322,403)($325,343)($328,283)($331,222)($334,162)($337,102)($340,042)($342,982)($345,922)
($227,070)($229,261)($231,451)($233,642)($235,832)($238,022)($240,213)($242,403)($244,594)($246,784)($248,974)($251,165)($253,355)($255,546)($257,736)
($383,051)($386,746)($390,441)($394,136)($397,831)($401,526)($405,221)($408,916)($412,611)($416,306)($420,001)($423,696)($427,391)($431,086)($434,781)
($10,332,556)
$127,655 $129,470 $131,285 $133,100 $134,915 $136,730 $138,545 $140,360 $142,175 $143,990 $145,805 $147,620 $149,435 $151,250 $153,065
$25,531 $25,894 $26,257 $26,620 $26,983 $27,346 $27,709 $28,072 $28,435 $28,798 $29,161 $29,524 $29,887 $30,250 $30,613
($9,287,974)
$116,050 $117,700 $119,350 $121,000 $122,650 $124,300 $125,950 $127,600 $129,250 $130,900 $132,550 $134,200 $135,850 $137,500 $139,150
$23,210 $23,540 $23,870 $24,200 $24,530 $24,860 $25,190 $25,520 $25,850 $26,180 $26,510 $26,840 $27,170 $27,500 $27,830
($13,592,157)
$278,520 $282,480 $286,440 $290,400 $294,360 $298,320 $302,280 $306,240 $310,200 $314,160 $318,120 $322,080 $326,040 $330,000 $333,960
$55,704 $56,496 $57,288 $58,080 $58,872 $59,664 $60,456 $61,248 $62,040 $62,832 $63,624 $64,416 $65,208 $66,000 $66,792
($288,215)($288,131)($288,046)($287,961)($287,876)($287,792)($287,707)($287,622)($287,537)($287,453)($287,368)($287,283)($287,198)($287,114)($287,029)($33,212,687)
Exhibit A: Detailed AHP Lifecycle Subsidy Model, Scenarios 1-4, Page 6 of 12
P18II.
Calendar Year 2008 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Count Year -11 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cost Escalation Factor 73.00%100.0%103.0%106.0%109.0%112.0%115.0%118.0%121.0%124.0%127.0%130.0%133.0%136.0%139.0%142.0%145.0%148.0%
Revenue Escalation Factor 86.50%100.0%101.5%103.0%104.5%106.0%107.5%109.0%110.5%112.0%113.5%115.0%116.5%118.0%119.5%121.0%122.5%124.0%
City of Aspen / Aspen Housing Partners 1/4/2018
Scenario3: 488 Castle Creek 100% LIHTC @ 4% Non-Competitive Only
Main and Park with separate mortgage, buyout AHP/Debt after 15 years
Exclude Residual Land Value after Year 50
City of Aspen Initial Investment ($2018)$15,200,000
Annual Cost Escalation 3.0%
Annual Revenue Escalation 1.5%
Vacancy 5.0%
OpEx/Unit/Yr ($2018, occurrs after AHP buyout)$5,500
CapRes/Unit/Yr. ($2018, occurrs after AHP buyout)$1,100
Include Residual Land Value? ("Include" or "Exclude")Exclude
Annual Land Appreciation Assumed 0.0%
CoA Income
Aspen Housing Partners (Owner-Manager Years 1-15)
Excess Funds / Waterfall (Years 1-15)$0
517 Park Circle
Rents (Years 16-50)($10,358,050)
Other Income $0
802 West Main St
Rents (Years 16-50)($7,717,475)
Other Income $0
488 Castle Creek
Rents (Years 16-50)($13,018,806)
Other Income $0
Total Income ($31,094,331)
CoA Expenses
Aspen Housing Partners
Initial Closing / Investment (Year 0)$15,200,000 $15,200,000
Buyout/Debt Service (Years 16-50)$3,420,000
517 Park Circle
Land (2008 Historical Cost - 2070 Residual Value)$4,105,000 $4,105,000
Operation/Maintenance (Years 16-50)$4,277,350
Capital Reserve/Maint. (Years 16-50)$855,470
802 West Main St
Land (2008 Historical Cost - 2070 Residual Value)$3,690,000 $3,690,000
Operation/Maintenance (Years 16-50)$3,888,500
Capital Reserve/Maint. (Years 16-50)$777,700
488 Castle Creek
Land (2008 Historical Cost - 2070 Residual Value)$5,400,000 $5,400,000
Operation/Maintenance (Years 16-50)$9,332,400
Capital Reserve/Maint. (Years 16-50)$1,866,480
Other Expenses
Capital Investment (Year 16)$662,513
Total Expenses $53,475,413
Total Subsidy (Profit)$22,381,081 $13,195,000 $15,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subsidy (Profit) / Sq Ft $700
Subsidy (Profit) / Bedroom $379,340
Subsidy (Profit) / Unit $497,357
Subsidy (Profit) / FTE $261,004
Average APCHA Category 1.9
City of Aspen Municipal Code, 26.470.050. Calculations
E. Employee housing fee-in-lieu payment.
Category 1: $356,433 Fee In Lieu
Category 2: $320,186 Category
Category 3: $286,495 1.9
Category 4: $223,072 $322,764
Category 5: $157,280
Category 6: $132,817
Category 7: $104,148
AHP is owner / operator of facilities for minimum 15-year compliance period. Master Development Agreement contains terms which
returns to City of Aspen any funds in excess of debt service, operating costs, reserves, management fee and any deferred
development fee.
Any such funds to be returned to the City during this time are assumed for this exercise to equal zero.
Master Development Agreement contains terms which require no additional funding from the City of Aspen during this time. In the
event of loan or other default, City maintains right to repurchase facilities.
Exhibit A: Detailed AHP Lifecycle Subsidy Model, Scenarios 1-4, Page 7 of 12
P19II.
2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
151.0%154.0%157.0%160.0%163.0%166.0%169.0%172.0%175.0%178.0%181.0%184.0%187.0%190.0%193.0%196.0%199.0%202.0%205.0%208.0%
125.5%127.0%128.5%130.0%131.5%133.0%134.5%136.0%137.5%139.0%140.5%142.0%143.5%145.0%146.5%148.0%149.5%151.0%152.5%154.0%
($245,967)($248,907)($251,847)($254,786)($257,726)($260,666)($263,606)($266,546)($269,486)($272,426)($275,365)($278,305)($281,245)($284,185)($287,125)($290,065)($293,004)($295,944)($298,884)($301,824)
($183,263)($185,453)($187,643)($189,834)($192,024)($194,215)($196,405)($198,595)($200,786)($202,976)($205,167)($207,357)($209,547)($211,738)($213,928)($216,119)($218,309)($220,499)($222,690)($224,880)
($309,150)($312,845)($316,540)($320,236)($323,931)($327,626)($331,321)($335,016)($338,711)($342,406)($346,101)($349,796)($353,491)($357,186)($360,881)($364,576)($368,271)($371,966)($375,661)($379,356)
$3,420,000
(Note: See 'Debt Service Options' tab to get debt service payment info for years 16-40 if debt service is not to be bought out after year 15)
$91,355 $93,170 $94,985 $96,800 $98,615 $100,430 $102,245 $104,060 $105,875 $107,690 $109,505 $111,320 $113,135 $114,950 $116,765 $118,580 $120,395 $122,210 $124,025 $125,840
$18,271 $18,634 $18,997 $19,360 $19,723 $20,086 $20,449 $20,812 $21,175 $21,538 $21,901 $22,264 $22,627 $22,990 $23,353 $23,716 $24,079 $24,442 $24,805 $25,168
$83,050 $84,700 $86,350 $88,000 $89,650 $91,300 $92,950 $94,600 $96,250 $97,900 $99,550 $101,200 $102,850 $104,500 $106,150 $107,800 $109,450 $111,100 $112,750 $114,400
$16,610 $16,940 $17,270 $17,600 $17,930 $18,260 $18,590 $18,920 $19,250 $19,580 $19,910 $20,240 $20,570 $20,900 $21,230 $21,560 $21,890 $22,220 $22,550 $22,880
$199,320 $203,280 $207,240 $211,200 $215,160 $219,120 $223,080 $227,040 $231,000 $234,960 $238,920 $242,880 $246,840 $250,800 $254,760 $258,720 $262,680 $266,640 $270,600 $274,560
$39,864 $40,656 $41,448 $42,240 $43,032 $43,824 $44,616 $45,408 $46,200 $46,992 $47,784 $48,576 $49,368 $50,160 $50,952 $51,744 $52,536 $53,328 $54,120 $54,912
$662,513
(Note: The above capital investment after year 15 assumes City pays B14-$450 per unit for 15 years X 45 Units
$3,792,602 ($289,825)($289,741)($289,656)($289,571)($289,486)($289,402)($289,317)($289,232)($289,147)($289,063)($288,978)($288,893)($288,808)($288,724)($288,639)($288,554)($288,469)($288,385)($288,300)
Exhibit A: Detailed AHP Lifecycle Subsidy Model, Scenarios 1-4, Page 8 of 12
P20II.
2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
211.0%214.0%217.0%220.0%223.0%226.0%229.0%232.0%235.0%238.0%241.0%244.0%247.0%250.0%253.0%256.0%
155.5%157.0%158.5%160.0%161.5%163.0%164.5%166.0%167.5%169.0%170.5%172.0%173.5%175.0%176.5%178.0%
($304,764)($307,704)($310,644)($313,583)($316,523)($319,463)($322,403)($325,343)($328,283)($331,222)($334,162)($337,102)($340,042)($342,982)($345,922)
($227,070)($229,261)($231,451)($233,642)($235,832)($238,022)($240,213)($242,403)($244,594)($246,784)($248,974)($251,165)($253,355)($255,546)($257,736)
($383,051)($386,746)($390,441)($394,136)($397,831)($401,526)($405,221)($408,916)($412,611)($416,306)($420,001)($423,696)($427,391)($431,086)($434,781)
$0
$127,655 $129,470 $131,285 $133,100 $134,915 $136,730 $138,545 $140,360 $142,175 $143,990 $145,805 $147,620 $149,435 $151,250 $153,065
$25,531 $25,894 $26,257 $26,620 $26,983 $27,346 $27,709 $28,072 $28,435 $28,798 $29,161 $29,524 $29,887 $30,250 $30,613
$0
$116,050 $117,700 $119,350 $121,000 $122,650 $124,300 $125,950 $127,600 $129,250 $130,900 $132,550 $134,200 $135,850 $137,500 $139,150
$23,210 $23,540 $23,870 $24,200 $24,530 $24,860 $25,190 $25,520 $25,850 $26,180 $26,510 $26,840 $27,170 $27,500 $27,830
$0
$278,520 $282,480 $286,440 $290,400 $294,360 $298,320 $302,280 $306,240 $310,200 $314,160 $318,120 $322,080 $326,040 $330,000 $333,960
$55,704 $56,496 $57,288 $58,080 $58,872 $59,664 $60,456 $61,248 $62,040 $62,832 $63,624 $64,416 $65,208 $66,000 $66,792
($288,215)($288,131)($288,046)($287,961)($287,876)($287,792)($287,707)($287,622)($287,537)($287,453)($287,368)($287,283)($287,198)($287,114)($287,029)$0
Exhibit A: Detailed AHP Lifecycle Subsidy Model, Scenarios 1-4, Page 9 of 12
P21II.
Calendar Year 2008 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Count Year -11 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cost Escalation Factor 73.00%100.0%103.0%106.0%109.0%112.0%115.0%118.0%121.0%124.0%127.0%130.0%133.0%136.0%139.0%142.0%145.0%148.0%
Revenue Escalation Factor 86.50%100.0%101.5%103.0%104.5%106.0%107.5%109.0%110.5%112.0%113.5%115.0%116.5%118.0%119.5%121.0%122.5%124.0%
City of Aspen / Aspen Housing Partners 1/4/2018
Scenario4: 488 Castle Creek 100% LIHTC @ 4% Non-Competitive Only
Main and Park with separate mortgage, buyout AHP/Debt after 15 years
Include Residual Land Value after Year 50
City of Aspen Initial Investment ($2018)$15,200,000
Annual Cost Escalation 3.0%
Annual Revenue Escalation 1.5%
Vacancy 5.0%
OpEx/Unit/Yr ($2018, occurrs after AHP buyout)$5,500
CapRes/Unit/Yr. ($2018, occurrs after AHP buyout)$1,100
Include Residual Land Value? ("Include" or "Exclude")Include
Annual Land Appreciation Assumed 1.5%
CoA Income
Aspen Housing Partners (Owner-Manager Years 1-15)
Excess Funds / Waterfall (Years 1-15)$0
517 Park Circle
Rents (Years 16-50)($10,358,050)
Other Income $0
802 West Main St
Rents (Years 16-50)($7,717,475)
Other Income $0
488 Castle Creek
Rents (Years 16-50)($13,018,806)
Other Income $0
Total Income ($31,094,331)
CoA Expenses
Aspen Housing Partners
Initial Closing / Investment (Year 0)$15,200,000 $15,200,000
Buyout/Debt Service (Years 16-50)$3,420,000
517 Park Circle
Land (2008 Historical Cost - 2070 Residual Value)($6,227,556)$4,105,000
Operation/Maintenance (Years 16-50)$4,277,350
Capital Reserve/Maint. (Years 16-50)$855,470
802 West Main St
Land (2008 Historical Cost - 2070 Residual Value)($5,597,974)$3,690,000
Operation/Maintenance (Years 16-50)$3,888,500
Capital Reserve/Maint. (Years 16-50)$777,700
488 Castle Creek
Land (2008 Historical Cost - 2070 Residual Value)($8,192,157)$5,400,000
Operation/Maintenance (Years 16-50)$9,332,400
Capital Reserve/Maint. (Years 16-50)$1,866,480
Other Expenses
Capital Investment (Year 16)$662,513
Total Expenses $20,262,725
Total Subsidy (Profit)($10,831,606)$13,195,000 $15,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subsidy (Profit) / Sq Ft ($339)
Subsidy (Profit) / Bedroom ($183,587)
Subsidy (Profit) / Unit ($240,702)
Subsidy (Profit) / FTE ($126,316)
Average APCHA Category 1.9
City of Aspen Municipal Code, 26.470.050. Calculations
E. Employee housing fee-in-lieu payment.
Category 1: $356,433 Fee In Lieu
Category 2: $320,186 Category
Category 3: $286,495 1.9
Category 4: $223,072 $322,764
Category 5: $157,280
Category 6: $132,817
Category 7: $104,148
AHP is owner / operator of facilities for minimum 15-year compliance period. Master Development Agreement contains terms which
returns to City of Aspen any funds in excess of debt service, operating costs, reserves, management fee and any deferred
development fee.
Any such funds to be returned to the City during this time are assumed for this exercise to equal zero.
Master Development Agreement contains terms which require no additional funding from the City of Aspen during this time. In the
event of loan or other default, City maintains right to repurchase facilities.
Exhibit A: Detailed AHP Lifecycle Subsidy Model, Scenarios 1-4, Page 10 of 12
P22II.
2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
151.0%154.0%157.0%160.0%163.0%166.0%169.0%172.0%175.0%178.0%181.0%184.0%187.0%190.0%193.0%196.0%199.0%202.0%205.0%208.0%
125.5%127.0%128.5%130.0%131.5%133.0%134.5%136.0%137.5%139.0%140.5%142.0%143.5%145.0%146.5%148.0%149.5%151.0%152.5%154.0%
($245,967)($248,907)($251,847)($254,786)($257,726)($260,666)($263,606)($266,546)($269,486)($272,426)($275,365)($278,305)($281,245)($284,185)($287,125)($290,065)($293,004)($295,944)($298,884)($301,824)
($183,263)($185,453)($187,643)($189,834)($192,024)($194,215)($196,405)($198,595)($200,786)($202,976)($205,167)($207,357)($209,547)($211,738)($213,928)($216,119)($218,309)($220,499)($222,690)($224,880)
($309,150)($312,845)($316,540)($320,236)($323,931)($327,626)($331,321)($335,016)($338,711)($342,406)($346,101)($349,796)($353,491)($357,186)($360,881)($364,576)($368,271)($371,966)($375,661)($379,356)
$3,420,000
(Note: See 'Debt Service Options' tab to get debt service payment info for years 16-40 if debt service is not to be bought out after year 15)
$91,355 $93,170 $94,985 $96,800 $98,615 $100,430 $102,245 $104,060 $105,875 $107,690 $109,505 $111,320 $113,135 $114,950 $116,765 $118,580 $120,395 $122,210 $124,025 $125,840
$18,271 $18,634 $18,997 $19,360 $19,723 $20,086 $20,449 $20,812 $21,175 $21,538 $21,901 $22,264 $22,627 $22,990 $23,353 $23,716 $24,079 $24,442 $24,805 $25,168
$83,050 $84,700 $86,350 $88,000 $89,650 $91,300 $92,950 $94,600 $96,250 $97,900 $99,550 $101,200 $102,850 $104,500 $106,150 $107,800 $109,450 $111,100 $112,750 $114,400
$16,610 $16,940 $17,270 $17,600 $17,930 $18,260 $18,590 $18,920 $19,250 $19,580 $19,910 $20,240 $20,570 $20,900 $21,230 $21,560 $21,890 $22,220 $22,550 $22,880
$199,320 $203,280 $207,240 $211,200 $215,160 $219,120 $223,080 $227,040 $231,000 $234,960 $238,920 $242,880 $246,840 $250,800 $254,760 $258,720 $262,680 $266,640 $270,600 $274,560
$39,864 $40,656 $41,448 $42,240 $43,032 $43,824 $44,616 $45,408 $46,200 $46,992 $47,784 $48,576 $49,368 $50,160 $50,952 $51,744 $52,536 $53,328 $54,120 $54,912
$662,513
(Note: The above capital investment after year 15 assumes City pays B14-$450 per unit for 15 years X 45 Units
$3,792,602 ($289,825)($289,741)($289,656)($289,571)($289,486)($289,402)($289,317)($289,232)($289,147)($289,063)($288,978)($288,893)($288,808)($288,724)($288,639)($288,554)($288,469)($288,385)($288,300)
Exhibit A: Detailed AHP Lifecycle Subsidy Model, Scenarios 1-4, Page 11 of 12
P23II.
2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
211.0%214.0%217.0%220.0%223.0%226.0%229.0%232.0%235.0%238.0%241.0%244.0%247.0%250.0%253.0%256.0%
155.5%157.0%158.5%160.0%161.5%163.0%164.5%166.0%167.5%169.0%170.5%172.0%173.5%175.0%176.5%178.0%
($304,764)($307,704)($310,644)($313,583)($316,523)($319,463)($322,403)($325,343)($328,283)($331,222)($334,162)($337,102)($340,042)($342,982)($345,922)
($227,070)($229,261)($231,451)($233,642)($235,832)($238,022)($240,213)($242,403)($244,594)($246,784)($248,974)($251,165)($253,355)($255,546)($257,736)
($383,051)($386,746)($390,441)($394,136)($397,831)($401,526)($405,221)($408,916)($412,611)($416,306)($420,001)($423,696)($427,391)($431,086)($434,781)
($10,332,556)
$127,655 $129,470 $131,285 $133,100 $134,915 $136,730 $138,545 $140,360 $142,175 $143,990 $145,805 $147,620 $149,435 $151,250 $153,065
$25,531 $25,894 $26,257 $26,620 $26,983 $27,346 $27,709 $28,072 $28,435 $28,798 $29,161 $29,524 $29,887 $30,250 $30,613
($9,287,974)
$116,050 $117,700 $119,350 $121,000 $122,650 $124,300 $125,950 $127,600 $129,250 $130,900 $132,550 $134,200 $135,850 $137,500 $139,150
$23,210 $23,540 $23,870 $24,200 $24,530 $24,860 $25,190 $25,520 $25,850 $26,180 $26,510 $26,840 $27,170 $27,500 $27,830
($13,592,157)
$278,520 $282,480 $286,440 $290,400 $294,360 $298,320 $302,280 $306,240 $310,200 $314,160 $318,120 $322,080 $326,040 $330,000 $333,960
$55,704 $56,496 $57,288 $58,080 $58,872 $59,664 $60,456 $61,248 $62,040 $62,832 $63,624 $64,416 $65,208 $66,000 $66,792
($288,215)($288,131)($288,046)($287,961)($287,876)($287,792)($287,707)($287,622)($287,537)($287,453)($287,368)($287,283)($287,198)($287,114)($287,029)($33,212,687)
Exhibit A: Detailed AHP Lifecycle Subsidy Model, Scenarios 1-4, Page 12 of 12
P24II.