danter report

8/19/2019 Danter Report

1/174

A Mixed -Use Analysis

in the City of

Mentor, Ohio

Danter Company, LLCNational Leaders in Real Estate Research

2760 Airport Drive | Suite 135Columbus, OH 43219

614.221.9096http://www.danter.com

Prepared For:Mr. Dave WilesCT Consultants

8150 Sterling CourtMentor, Ohio 44060

Project Number D1883KDMBAugust 20, 2015


2/174

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... I-1

A. OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................... I-1B. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. I-1C. DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. I-2D. USES AND APPLICATIONS ............................................................................. I-2

II. SCOPE OF SURVEY ............................................................................................... II-1

III. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................... III-1

A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ III-1B. ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................................................. III-3C. SINGLE-FAMILY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................... III-4D. RENTAL HOUSING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............ III-15E. APARTMENT CASE STUDY ........................................................................ III-38F. CONDOMINIUM CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................. III-47G. PLANNED/PROPOSED PROJECTS ........................................................... III-55H. DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY ...................................................................... III-55I. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PROFORMA………………………..………III-56J. ESTIMATED TAXABLE VALUE……………………………………………….…III-57K. CHANGING BUYER/SELLER RATIOS……………………………………..….III-58

L. EMA HOUSING BASE…………………………………………………………….III-61M. EMA DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS………………………………………...……..III-65

IV. THE SITE ............................................................................................................. IV-1

A. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION .................................................................... IV-1B. SITE EVALUATION ........................................................................................ IV-2C. EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA (EMA) .............................................................. IV-4

SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAP ................................................... IV-6D. COMMUNITY SERVICES ............................................................................... IV-7

V. SITE AREA MAPS AND PHOTOGRAPHS ............................................................. V-1

NEIGHBORHOOD MAP .................................................................................. V-2SITE LOCATION MAP .................................................................................... V-3


3/174

iii

SITE MASTER PLAN………………………………………………………… .....…V-4COMMUNITY SERVICES MAP……………………………………………………V-5SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ...................................................................................V-6

VI. FIELD SURVEY OF MODERN APARTMENTS .................................................... VI-1

VII. MODERN APARTMENT LOCATIONS AND PHOTOGRAPHS ......................... VII-1

APARTMENT LOCATIONS REFERENCE MAP ........................................... VII-2 APARTMENT LOCATIONS MAP A .............................................................. VII-3 APARTMENT LOCATIONS MAP B .............................................................. VII-4 APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS ................................................................... VII-5

VIII. AREA ECONOMY ............................................................................................ VIII-1

A. EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS ................................................................... VIII-1B. HOUSING STARTS .................................................................................... VIII-4

DEMOGRAPHICS

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................. G-1

QUALIFICATIONS AND SERVICES ........................................................................... Q-1


4/174

I-1

I. INTRODUCTION

A. OBJECTIVES

This study analyzes the feasibility of developing a single-family, condominium andapartment community on the existing Mentor Lagoons in Mentor, Ohio. After fullydiscussing the scope and area of survey with Mr. Dave Wiles of CT Consultants, theDanter Company, LLC undertook the analysis.

B. METHODOLOGY

The methodology we use in our studies is centered on three analytical techniques: theEffective Market Area (EMA)

SM principle, a 100% data base, and the application of data

generated from supplemental proprietary research.

The Effective Market Area (EMA) Principle—The EMA principle is a concept developed

by the Danter Company, LLC to delineate the support that can be expected for aproposed development. An EMA is the smallest specific geographic area that willgenerate the most support for that development. This methodology has significantadvantages in that it considers existing natural and manmade boundaries andsocioeconomic conditions.

Survey Data Base—Our surveys employ a 100% data base. In the course of a study,our field analysts survey not only the developments within a given range of price,amenities, or facilities, but all conventional developments within the EMA.

Proprietary Research—In addition to site-specific analyses, Danter Company, LLC

conducts a number of ongoing studies, the results of which are used as support data forour conclusions. Danter Company, LLC maintains a 100% data base of more than1,500 communities, with each development cross-analyzed by rents, unit and projectamenities, occupancy levels, rate of absorption, and rent/value relationships.

SM Service mark of Danter Company, LLC


5/174

I-2

C. DATA ANALYSIS

This study represents a compilation of data gathered from various sources, includingthe properties surveyed, local records, and interviews with local officials, real estateprofessionals, and major employers, as well as secondary demographic material.

Although we judge these sources to be reliable, it is impossible to authenticate all data.The analyst does not guarantee the data and assumes no liability for any errors in fact,analysis, or judgment.

The secondary data used in this study are the most recent available at the time of thereport preparation.

In Section VI—Field Survey, we have attempted to survey 100% of all units. Since thisis not always possible, we have also compared the number of units surveyed with thenumber of multifamily housing starts to establish acceptable levels of representation.

All developments included in the study are personally inspected by a field analystdirectly employed by the Danter Company, LLC.

The objective of this report is to gather, analyze, and present as many marketcomponents as reasonably possible within the time constraints agreed upon. Theconclusions contained in this report are based on the best judgments of the analysts;we make no guarantees or assurances that the projections or conclusions will berealized as stated. It is our function to provide our best effort in data aggregation, andto express opinions based on our evaluation.

D. USES AND APPLICATIONS

Although this report represents the best available attempt to identify the current market

status and future market trends, note that most markets are continually affected bydemographic, economic, and developmental changes. Further, this analysis has beenconducted with respect to a particular client's development objectives, and consequentlyhas been developed to determine the current market's ability to support those particularobjectives. For these reasons, the conclusions and recommendations in this study areapplicable only to the proposed site identified herein, and only for the potential uses forthat site as described to us by our client. Use of the conclusions and recommendationsin this study by any other party or for any other purpose compromises our analysis andis strictly prohibited, unless otherwise specified in writing by the Danter Company, LLC.


6/174

II-1

II. SCOPE OF SURVEY

A complete analysis of a rental market requires the following considerations: a fieldsurvey of conventional apartments; an analysis of area housing; an analysis of the areaeconomy; a demographic analysis; and recommendations for development.

Field Survey—Our survey of conventional apartments includes a cross-analysis ofvacancies by rents, a survey of unit and project amenities, and a rent/value analysis.

Area Housing Analysis—We have conducted an analysis of housing demand thatincludes a study of support by both growth and internal mobility. Further, we haveanalyzed existing housing using the most recent census material.

Economic Analysis—Major employers, utilities, banks, savings and loans, and mediathat serve the area are listed in the study. The information gathered has been used tocreate a Community Services map showing school, shopping, and employment areas in

relation to the proposed site.

Demographic Analysis—The study includes an analysis of social and demographiccharacteristics of the area, and a description of the area economy that includes incomeand employment trends.


7/174

III-1

III. CONCLUSIONS

A. INTRODUCTION

This report evaluates the potential to develop a single-family, condominium andapartment community on the existing Mentor Lagoons in Mentor, Ohio. The site is inLake County.

The subject site, the existing Mentor Lagoons Marina, contains three peninsulas offeringpotential development. The entire site is proposed to be developed as mixed-useresidential with apartments, condominiums and single-family homes. The apartmentcomponent is recommended for the south peninsula. The remaining two peninsulashave individual boat basins in place and are better suited for single-family use.Condominiums would occupy the tips of a peninsula or relate to the existing marina.

MENTOR LAGOONS MASTER PLAN


8/174

III-2

The Danter Company has completed all of the data collection and analysis necessaryfor the preparation of a development plan. The following represents our opinion of themost profitable development scenario. Other alternatives considered are the following:

1. The site being total developed as single-family – This alternative resulted in aprolonged absorption period that would not be desirable to a potential developer.

2. Totally developed as condominiums – The condominium market has not returnedto the robust years predating the financial crises of the mid-2000s. The numberof condominiums that could be accommodated on the site would far outpace themarket potential.

3. Land values associated with a 100% rental community world not be as profitableto the sellers. Further, the number of units could not be supported by the market.

4. It is our opinion that the site will not support any significant retail or officedevelopment. Lack of accessibility and visibility are contributing factors.

5. The recommended plan, with a mix of rental, single-family and condominiums,will minimize the overall absorption period and maximize the value of the site.

Conclusions for the development of this project are based on analyses of the areaincluding the existing and anticipated rental, single-family and condominium housingmarkets, demographics, the economy, the appropriateness of the site for the proposeddevelopment, and overall housing demand. The study will evaluate past, current, andfuture trends in the area; the impact of those trends on rental housing alternatives;current rental housing alternatives; need and market support for additional rentalhousing; and any proposed additions to the area rental base.

The analysis of the existing rental housing market is based on the establishment andanalysis of a Site Effective Market Area (EMA) for the proposed project. EMA refers toa methodology developed by the Danter Company, LLC to describe areas of similareconomic and demographic characteristics. EMAs are bounded by both "hard" and"soft" boundaries. Hard boundaries are marked by rivers, freeways, railroad rights ofway, and other physical boundaries. Soft boundaries are changes in the socioeconomicmakeup of neighborhoods. EMAs differ for the various development types based on themobility patterns associated with each.

Based on the characteristics of the Site EMA, a field survey of existing residentialdevelopment, an analysis of the appropriateness of the site for the proposeddevelopment, and a demographic analysis of the Site EMA, support levels can beestablished for additional multifamily rental development.


9/174

III-3

The following analyses have been conducted to identify market potential for a proposedmarket-rate apartment development at the site:

Analysis of the overall EMA housing market Historical housing trends

Current market conditions based on a 100% field survey of apartments,condominiums and single-family development. Appropriateness of the site for the subject development Current and expected economic and household growth conditions Area demand factors, including

Income-appropriate households Support from existing population base A trend line analysis, based on a "rent by comparability rating" evaluation

of all conventional developments within the Site EMA Floor plan analysis and comparison with comparable product Regional case studies of waterfront and/or marina-based residential

development

B. ASSUMPTIONS

There are several assumptions relative to these recommendations for development.The assumptions are:

1. All of the on-site development costs will be the responsibility of the developer.

2. There will be no off-site expenses. All utilities, road improvements, etc., will beavailable to the site

3. The depth of the waterways surrounding the development area has not beendetermined although The City of Mentor and the Mentor Harbor Yacht Clubannually dredge a portion of the lagoon area. For purposes of this report, it isassumed that the water throughout the property will be of sufficient depth toaccommodate most sailboats (5’)

4. There is an agreement in place with the Mentor Harbor Yacht club for jointmaintenance of the harbor.

5. The property will be appropriately zoned for the recommended development.

6. The property can be gated

7. The existing marina and building are part of the development


10/174

III-4

8. Docks and camping spots along the south edge of the nature preserve will beremoved.

C. SINGLE-FAMILY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

We have identified the potential to develop 134 residential single-family andcondominium lots as part of Mentor Lagoons redevelopment area as follows:

LOT TYPENUMBEROF LOTS LOT PRICE

COMPLETED HOMEPRICE RANGE

Boat House Lot – Premium

7 $225,000 $1,000,000+

Boat House Lot – Standard

9 $175,000 $650,000+

Basin Lot 49 $150,000 $500,000+Standard Waterfront

Lot

14 $110,000 $450,000+

Condominium Lots 44 $50,000 $250,000 - $350,000Total 123

There are 47 basins inset into the north and middle peninsulas that can be developedas either “boathouse” or “basin” lots. A boathouse lot is one that encompasses an entirebasin and enables the construction of a boathouse over the basin. The boathouse may,or may not, be attached to the residence. The premium boathouse lots are located onthe end of the peninsulas. A “basin” lot is one that shares a basin, in which case therewould be no boathouse but docks could be accommodated. Standard waterfront lots are

the lots with conventional waterfront frontage. Docks could be accommodated parallel tothe waterway.

The 32 condominium lots would be developed at the tip of the north peninsula andwould encompass 7 of the basins. Twelve of the condominium lots would overlook themarina.

Total absorption of the single-family and condominium components is estimated at 3.5to 4.0 years.

1. SINGLE FAMILY SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS

SINGLE-FAMILY SUPPLY ANALYSIS

The proposed development, Mentor Lagoons, is unique in Northeast Ohio. Little or nowaterfront development has been done in the past 40 to 50 years. In addition to thehomes bordering the existing Mentor Lagoons, somewhat similar developments, dating


11/174

III-5

to the 1970s, can be found in Eastlake, Vermilion and Sandusky. Following is acomparison summary of these developments.

PRICE RANGE MENTOR EASTLAKE SANDUSKY

VERMILION

LAGOONS TOTAL$1,000,000+ 0 1 9 1 11

$900,000 - $999,999 3 0 7 0 10

$800,000 - $899,999 1 1 13 4 19

$700,000 - $799,999 2 2 11 15 30

$600,000 - $699,999 5 2 14 26 47

$500,000 - $599,999 0 2 43 42 87

$400,000 - $499,999 5 36 79 25 145

$300,000 - $399,999 22 21 41 21 105

Under $300,000 0 12 16 2 30

Total 38 77 233 137 485

Average $487,552 $412,863 $528,473 $553,308 $496,448

Median $392,064 $422,222 $480,173 $558,705 $457,143

Average Square Feet 2,625 1,832 2,774 2,155 2,446

Average Price persquare foot

$185.73 $225.36 $190.51 $256.76 $202.96

Average Age (Years) 45 40 55 52 47.4

Values are based on the respective county auditor estimates of market value. A reviewof properties currently listed or recently sold shows values ranging from 110% to 165%of the auditor ’s estimate of market value. The above values represent 110% of theauditor estimates.

The Mentor properties are those homes located on the water across from the existingMentor Lagoons marina and campground. The Eastlake homes are those waterfrontproperties along the Chagrin River in Eastlake, Ohio and the Sandusky homes are thewaterfront properties facing south into Sandusky Bay along Cedar Point Road.


12/174

III-6

SINGLE-FAMILY LOCATIONS MAP


13/174

III-7

SINGLE-FAMILY AERIAL MAPS

The average value for Mentor is 18.1% higher than values in similar properties inEastlake and 7.7% below Sandusky values. Homes in Vermilion Lagoons have thehighest average price, $553,308.

Mentor homes are significantly larger than Westlake and about equal to Sanduskyhomes. Average square feet in Mentor is 2,625, second largest among the fourdevelopments. Price per square foot is lowest in Mentor at $185.73, compared with anaverage of $202.98.


14/174

III-8

It is also our opinion that values of Mentor homes are impacted by the nature ofdevelopment on the Mentor Lagoons campground which significantly compromises theview. All of the properties in the database have river or canal type views. None havelake views. However, some of the properties along Cedar Point Drive have a second-floor lake view across Cedar Point Drive. These properties also have Lake Erie beaches

across the Lake Erie Drive, hence their somewhat higher price.

Following is a distribution of lots in the market by width and depth.

FRONTAGE MENTORCHAGRINLAGOONS

VERMILIONLAGOONS SANDUSKY TOTAL PERCENTAGE


15/174

III-9

Following is a distribution of resales in the four developments with waterfront properties.

COMMUNITY 2000-2004 2005-2009 2010-2014 TOTAL

Sandusky 29 38 37 104

Chagrin Lagoons 4 20 17 41

Mentor 4 8 1 13Vermillion Lagoons 32 21 28 81

Total 69 87 83 239

The years 2005 through 2009 had the highest number of resales at 87 (17 per year).There were 83 resales between 2010 and 2014, about 16 per year.

NEW SINGLE FAMILY SALES, LAKE COUNTY, OHIO

Lake County had a high of 478 single family sales in 2006 of which 37 were at $450,000

or higher, 8% of the total. Since 2010, there have been 123 sales at $450,000 or higheraccounting for 21% of total sales.

Sales declined since the 2006 high to a low of 142 in 2011. There was a recovery to193 sales in 2013. Sales declined again in 2014 to only 55 closings. However, the mostrecent decline is a function of supply rather than demand. Currently, there are very fewactive subdivisions in the market, especially with product in the upper price ranges.

0

100

200

300

400

500

LAKE COUNTY, OHIO

NEW SINGLE FAMILY SALES

2000 - 2015


16/174

III-10

TOTAL NEW HOME SALES BY PRICELAKE COUNTY, OHIO

YEAR < $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0

$ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 -

$ 3 9 9 , 9 9 9

$ 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 -

$ 4 9 9 , 9 9 9

$ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 -

$ 5 9 9 , 9 9 9

$ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 -

$ 6 9 9 , 9 9 9

$ 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 -

$ 7 9 9 , 9 9 9

$ 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 -

$ 8 9 9 , 9 9 9

$ 9 0 0 , 0 0 0 -

$ 9 9 9 , 9 9 9

$ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 +

TOTAL

2000 55 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 68

2001 186 29 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 227

2002 179 48 13 3 0 0 0 0 1 244

2003 252 77 11 1 0 0 0 0 1 342

2004 315 81 19 2 3 1 0 0 0 421

2005316 69 32 11 2 1 0 0 1 432

2006 344 82 31 12 3 3 1 0 2 478

2007 289 78 32 13 2 0 0 0 0 414

2008 181 59 21 5 1 3 0 1 1 272

2009 146 52 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 206

2010 148 38 9 3 0 0 0 0 2 200

2011 99 33 7 0 1 2 0 0 0 142

2012 132 37 7 1 1 0 1 0 0 179

2013 135 44 7 3 1 0 0 1 2 193

2014 32 14 6 0 1 1 0 1 0 55

2015 8 6 4 3 0 0 0 1 0 22

TOTAL 2,817 754 221 59 15 12 2 4 11 3,895

DISTRIBUTION 72.3% 19.4% 5.7% 1.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 100.0%

The share of new Lake County homes selling for over $400,000 increased dramaticallybetween the 2000-2004 period and the 2005-2009 period, increasing from 5.6% to10.3%. This decreased to 7.4% in the most recent time period, 2010-2015, due primarilyto the lack of available product.


17/174

III-11

2. SINGLE-FAMILY DEMAND ANALYSIS

All of the demographic and economic characteristics of an EMA combine to provide anindication of the relative level of support for the development of additional for-saleresidential concepts. By comparing the EMA characteristics with profiles previously

established for other communities, we establish an appropriate level of support fordevelopment in the EMA.

In projecting future demand, consideration must be given to the fact that pastperformance of a market may not be a true indication of future demand. In manyinstances demand can be limited by supply. This may be the case in the Site EMA,which offers few single-family development alternatives.

Our approach to establishing the market for single-family housing is based on ananalysis of the demographic and economic characteristics of the EMA and theapplication of optimal capture factors. By deducting existing competitive product and

evaluating proposed product, the depth of the market is established.

Our approach to establishing the market for condominiums at the site is based on ananalysis of the demographic and economic characteristics of the Site EMA and theapplication of optimal capture factors.


18/174

III-12

Qualifying Incomes

For the purpose of this analysis, we assume that 20% of the purchase price of newhome will be cash, yielding an 80% mortgage requirement. While many developmentsmay offer 90% financing, current underwriting requirements at the proposed price rangegenerally reflect 80% financing.

Because of the difficulty of developing new product under $175,000, our analysis willonly consider households with incomes that will qualify them for homes above that pricepoint.

Income/mortgage/purchase price requirements are as follows:

INCOME MORTGAGEAMOUNT

FINANCED HOME PRICE RANGE

$42,000 - $49,000 $120,000 - $139,999 80% $150,000 - $174,999$49,000 - $56,000 $140,000 - $159,999 80% $175,000 - $199,999

$56,000 - $70,000 $160,000 - $199,999 80% $200,000 - $249,999$70,000 - $84,000 $200,000 - $239,999 80% $250,000 - $299,999$84,000 - $98,000 $240,000 - $279,999 80% $300,000 - $349,999

$98,000 - $112,000 $280,000 - $319,999 80% $350,000 - $399,999$112,000 - $140,000 $320,000 - $399,999 80% $400,000 - $499,999$140,000 - $196,000 $400,000 - $559,999 80% $500,000 - $699,999$196,000 - $224,000 $560,000 - $639,999 80% $700,000 - $799,999$224,000 - $252,000 $640,000 - $719,999 80% $800,000 - $899,999$252,000 - $280,000 $720,000 - $799,999 80% $900,000 - $999,999$280,000 - $560,000 $800,000 - $1,599,999 80% $1,000,000 - $1,999,999$560,000 - $840,000 $1,600,000 - $2,399,999 80% $2,000,000 - $2,999,999

Following are the 2015 estimated income distributions of total households for LakeCounty:

HOUSEHOLDINCOME RANGE

QUALIFIED HOMEPRICE

2015 TOTALHOUSEHOLDS DISTRIBUTION

$49,000 - $56,000 $175,000 - $199,999 6,037 10.1%$56,000 - $70,000 $200,000 - $249,999 12,181 20.4%$70,000 - $84,000 $250,000 - $299,999 10,564 17.7%$84,000 - $98,000 $300,000 - $349,999 9,666 16.2%$98,000 - $112,000 $350,000 - $399,999 4,390 7.4%

$112,000 - $140,000 $400,000 - $499,999 7,023 11.8%$140,000 - $196,000 $500,000 - $699,999 6,604 11.1%$200,000 AND OVER OVER $700,000 3,244 5.4%

TOTAL 59,708 100.0%


19/174

III-13

Based on levels of affordability of new product, an optimal capture factor can be appliedto income ranges to determine the annual demand. The optimal capture factors havebeen established in mature markets with adequate supply. Within these markets,demographic characteristics have been analyzed, including growth rates and householdsize, and economic factors have been considered including income levels and

employment profiles.

Single-Family Penetration Analysis

Based on the application of established capture factors for similar markets, the resultingannual demand for single-family homes in the Mentor Site EMA can be established.

We have applied established capture rates based on those in established markets toestablish the potential demand for single-family homes in the Mentor EMA.

PRICE RANGE

QUALIFIED2015 EMA

HOUSEHOLDS

ESTIMATEDINTERNAL DEMAND

CAPTURE FACTOR

ESTIMATEDDEMAND FROM SITE

EMA HOUSEHOLDS$175,000 - $199,999 6,037 0.0038 23$200,000 - $249,999 12,181 0.0051 62$250,000 - $299,999 10,564 0.0041 43$300,000 - $349,999 9,666 0.0038 37$350,000 - $399,999 4,390 0.0029 13$400,000 - $499,999 7,023 0.0022 15$500,000 - $699,999 6,604 0.0029 19

OVER $700,000 3,244 0.005 1659,708 0.0038 229

When considering all price ranges, the total maximum annual support base is estimatedto be approximately 43 homes, without considering existing supply or demand fromoutside the market area.

Because of the unique character of the proposed development, as well as the subjectsite, we estimate that as much as 65% of the support for any new single-familydevelopment at the site will come from outside the EMA.


20/174

III-14

PRICE RANGE

ESTIMATEDDEMAND FROM

EMA HOUSEHOLDS

ESTIMATEDDEMAND FROM

OUTSIDE THE EMA

ESTIMATEDTOTAL

DEMAND

$175,000 - $199,999 23 42 65$200,000 - $249,999 62 117 177

$250,000 - $299,999 43 80 123$300,000 - $349,999 37 69 106$350,000 - $399,999 13 24 37$400,000 - $499,999 15 28 43$500,000 - $699,999 19 35 54

Over $700,000 16 30 46Total 229 425 654

When considering the demand both from within and outside the EMA, the total supportis estimated to be approximately 121 new single-family homes per year in the proposedprice range. The proposed development will contain 79 single family homes at an

anticipated 5-year absorption period, or 16 units per year. This is a 13.2% capture rate.This is about equal to the number of resale waterfront homes in the market (thesehomes average nearly 50 years of age).

It should be noted that there are few single-family alternatives in the EMA offering alifestyle product for home in the $450,000+ price range. None are waterfrontdevelopments. In fact, there are no waterfront developments in the entire region.

It is important to note that optimal absorption is seldom achieved within a market.Generally, maximum absorption occurs only when sales are a function of demand ratherthan being limited by supply.

In most markets that achieve sales close to demand, there are various product typesrepresented with various sales prices available, i.e., a full range of price, concept andlocation alternatives. Maximum sales are, generally, only achieved in overbuilt markets.In underserved markets, individual projects often exceed expectations due to the lack ofcompetition.

3. GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN OF SUPPORT

Because of the unique character of the subject site, additional support will be generatedfrom outside the Lake County area. A comparison of typical versus anticipated

geographic support for the subject site is as follows:


21/174

III-15

TYPICAL SUPPORT ANTICIPATED SUPPORT ATSUBJECT SITE

INTERNAL MOBILITY 70% 35%

EXTERNAL MOBILITY 30% 65%

TOTAL 100% 100%

D. RENTAL HOUSING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is our opinion that a market exists for a 248-unit rental housing development at thesubject site, assuming the project is developed as detailed in this report. The subjectsite, the existing Mentor Lagoons Marina, contains three “fingers” offering potentialdevelopment. The entire site is proposed to be developed as mixed-use residential withapartments and single-family homes. The apartment component is recommended forthe south “finger.” The remaining two “fingers,” with individual boat basins in place, are

better suited for single family use.Most of the apartment projects in the subject Site EMA include landlord-paid water,sewer, and trash collection in the rents, while tenants are typically responsible for theremaining utilities (gas, electricity, cable television, and high-speed Internet). The rentsat the subject property, however, will include only trash removal. As such, the rentsamong the market-rate properties (when necessary) have been adjusted to represent autility package similar to what will be included at the site in order to complete an evenrent comparison. These will be referred to as collected rents throughout this analysis.

MARKET-RATE PROJECTSTENANT LANDLORD

GAS 11 12ELECTRIC 4 0STEAM 0 1WATER/SEWER 5 23TRASH 4 24CABLE TV 28 0INTERNET 28 0

The proposed project will be available in 2017. Changes in the project’s site, rent, unit

mix, amenities, floor plans, or opening date may invalidate these findings. The projectis proposed as follows:


22/174

III-16

UNIT DESCRIPTION NUMBERSQUARE

FEETRENTS ATOPENING*

RENT PERSQUARE FOOT

One-Bedroom/1.0 Bath Garden

24 700 $1,195 $1.71

One-Bedroom/

1.0 Bath Garden

24 800 $1,350 $1.69

Two-Bedroom/2.0 Bath Garden

48 1,000 $1,600 $1.60

Two-Bedroom/2.5 Bath Townhouse1 Car Attached Garage

72 1,150 $1,950 $1.70

Two-Bedroom/2.5 Bath Townhouse2 Car Attached Garage

60 1,250 $2,250 $1.80

Three-Bedroom/2.5 Bath Townhouse

2 Car Attached Garage

20 1,400 $2,400 $1.71

Total 248*2017

Tenant will pay all utilities except trash removal.

Up to 72 conveniently located garages will be offered for $100 per month. Garden unitswould be in a four-story elevator building, affording both lake and/or marina views.

UNIT AMENITIES

Each unit in the proposed development will include the following amenities:

Range Fireplace Frost-free refrigerator with icemaker Security system Microwave oven Balcony/patio Dishwasher 100% Lake Erie views Disposal Garage Central air conditioning Window coverings Washer/dryer Ceiling fan Washer/dryer hookups 9’ ceilings Carpet


23/174


24/174

III-18

1. ABSORPTION

The overall absorption rate is expected to average 18 to 20 units per month, but couldbe as high as 24 to 26 units per month in the first few months after opening. The overallabsorption period (to 93% occupancy) is expected to be approximately 9 to 11 months.

Prior studies have shown that absorption tends to be seasonal, with up to 64% ofannual absorption taking place in the peak summer months (May through August). Theshoulder season (the two months on either side of the peak season) generally accountsfor approximately 24% of annual absorption. The off season, November throughFebruary, typically accounts for the remaining 12% of absorption. While thesepercentages do not hold true in all markets, they give a good indication of the potentialseasonal variations in absorption.

Factors that affect absorption include (but are not limited to) the following: area mobilitypatterns; availability of new product; age, quality, and rent of existing rental properties inthe Site EMA; area growth; area median income; product variety; proposed product

development; and date of opening.

The anticipated spring opening date will be important in achieving the targetedabsorption period. A later release may extend absorption through the slower wintermonths.

2. APARTMENT DEMAND FACTOR ANALYSIS

COMPARABLE MARKET RENT ANALYSIS

Comparable market rent analysis establishes the rent potential renters would expect to

pay for the subject unit in the open market. Comparable market rent is based on atrend line analysis for the area apartment market. For each unit type, the trend lineanalysis compares net rent by comparability rating for all market-rate developments.Comparability ratings have been established for all developments in the Site EMAbased on unit amenities, project amenities, overall aesthetic appeal, and location. Thecomparability ratings for each property are listed in the Field Survey section in thisreport. The trend line is a function of a scatter plot showing each apartment communitycreated by plotting the comparability rating on the horizontal axis and the rent on thevertical axis. This evaluation provides a comparison of existing market rents to those atthe proposed project. Additional factors also influence a property’s ability to actuallyachieve the comparable market rent, including the number of units at that comparablemarket rent, the step-up support base at that rent range, and the age and condition ofthe subject property and competitive units.

It should also be noted that the product to be offered at the subject site is unmatchedanywhere in the greater Cleveland area. The rents will be among the highest in thesuburban market. (Downtown Cleveland rents will be somewhat higher.)


25/174

III-19

Considering the proposed unit and project amenities and an appealing aesthetic quality,the proposed subject site is anticipated to have an overall comparability rating of 36.5.The overall rating is based on ratings of 13.0 for unit amenities, 14.0 for projectamenities, and 9.5 for aesthetic quality.

Based on prior studies conducted by The Danter Company, rents in the Site EMA havein/decreased at an established rate of 1.8% per year over the past 5 years.

Based on the current rent structure of one-bedroom units, present-day rent for adevelopment comparable to the one proposed is $1,275 per month. Based on theestimated rate of increase (1.8%), projected one-bedroom rent is $1,321 at opening in2017. The proposed average rent of $1,273 is 96.3% of the market-driven rent. Theaverage rent among waterfront properties is $1,390.

Based on the current rent structure of two-bedroom units, present-day rent for adevelopment comparable to the one proposed is $1,550 per month. Applying theaverage annual increase in the Site EMA yields two-bedroom rent of $1,606 at opening.

The proposed two-bedroom rent of the garden units of $1,600 is 96.5% of the market-driven rent. The average rent among waterfront properties is $2,173.

There are too few three-bedroom units in the market from which to establish ameaningful trend line. The three-bedroom rents have been established based on thetypical gap found between two- and three-bedroom units.

The two- and three-bedroom townhouse units deserve special attention. These units willnot only have water views, but will have direct water access with the front door openingdirectly onto the water. There is also the potential for a private dock at the front door tothe unit. Rent for these units is comparable to properties in the Cleveland area with

water views (even though none of those units have direct water access). The averagethree-bedroom rent for waterfront properties is $2,810 compared with $2,400 at thesubject site.

The following table compares the market rent at opening with the proposed rent at thesubject site for one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. Rents are net, including only trashremoval.

UNIT TYPE

MARKET RENTAT OPENING AT

36.5COMPARABILITY

RATING

AVERAGE RENTAT

WATERFRONTPROPERTIES

PROPOSEDAVERAGEOPENING

RENT

PROPOSED RENTAS A PERCENT OF

MARKET ANDWATERFRONT

RENT

One-Bedroom $1,321 $1,390 $1,273 96.3% & 91.6%Two-Bedroom $1,606 $2,173 $1,600 96.5% & 73.6%Three-Bedroom N/A $2,810 $2,400 N/A & 85.4%


26/174

III-20

With the proposed rents ranging from 96.4% to 96.5% for direct market comparisonsand from 73.6% to 91.6% compared with waterfront properties, the proposed units willbe perceived as a value within the market.

The number of units proposed at the site must be considered relative to the project’sability to achieve a given rent level. Previous research conducted by Danter Company,LLC indicates that, all other factors being equal, larger properties must be a better valuein the marketplace than smaller properties due to the higher number of units that mustbe rented each month. To generate a sufficient number of potential renters, largerproperties typically need to set rents below comparable market rent. The proposed240-unit complex is of average size in Northeast Ohio and, as such, should equal renttrends in the area.

The relative value the proposed units represent in the market is further illustrated by thefollowing trend line analyses.


27/174

III-21

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

R e n t

Comparability Rating

Legend:

ONE-BEDROOM UNITS BY COLLECTED RENT

AND COMPARABILITY INDEX

Site

Market-Rate PropertiesTax Credit PropertiesWaterfront PropertiesMarket-Driven Rent


28/174

III-22

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

21002200

2300

2400

2500

2600

2700

2800

2900

3000

3100

32003300

3400

3500

3600

12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36

R e n t

Comparability Rating

Legend:

TWO-BEDROOM UNITS BY COLLECTED RENT

AND COMPARABILITY INDEX

Site

Market-Rate PropertiesTax Credit PropertiesWaterfront PropertiesMarket-Driven Rent


29/174

III-23

3. STEP-UP SUPPORT

Previous studies performed by the Danter Company, LLC indicate that 60% of thesupport for new apartment development will typically be generated from the existingapartment base in the EMA, especially from those tenants paying rent within anappropriate step-up of the proposed rents.

The 100% database field survey methodology allows us to accurately measure potentialsupport from conventional renters. Our studies indicate that, at the proposed rent rangeand special site amenities, tenants are willing to incur rental increases of up to $300 permonth for a rental alternative when it is perceived as a value. This is the step-upsupport base.

Step-up support is a critical factor in projecting absorption because it directly measuresthe depth of potential support from the households most likely to move to the subjectsite. Step-up support is best expressed as a ratio of proposed units to potential support.

A lower ratio indicates a deeper level of market support and that the subject site will

have to capture fewer of these households in order to achieve successful initialabsorption. A higher ratio indicates a lower level of potential support from conventionalrenters and that the subject site will have to attract a higher level of support from outsidethis group, potentially slowing absorption.

At the proposed rent levels, the step-up support base totals 337 units.

DISTRIBUTION OF STEP-UP/DOWN SUPPORT

TOTALOne-Bedroom 180

Two-Bedroom 157Three-Bedroom 0

Total 337Units Proposed 240

Ratio of Proposed Units toPotential Step-Up Support Base

71.2%

The proposed 240-unit development represents 71.2% of the total step-up supportbase, This is considered to be a very high ratio. However, because of the uniquecharacter of the site, we expect a much larger share of the support to come from

outside the existing rental pool. The following table compares the typical support withthat expected at the subject site. Only 25% of the 240 units expected to originate fromthe EMA step-up support, 60 units. These 60 units represent 17.8% of the internal step-up support, a much more favorable ratio.


30/174

III-24

4. GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN OF SUPPORT

A comparison of typical versus anticipated geographic support for the subject site is asfollows:

TYPICAL SUPPORT ANTICIPATED SUPPORTInternal Mobility Apartment 50% 25%Other 20% 15%

External Mobility 30% 60%Total 100% 100%

As previously discussed, the unique site is expected to significantly enhance theregional impact of the market.

5. RENT GAP

Absorption at the development should be closely monitored. Rent adjustments may benecessary in order to maintain an even absorption of all units. An absorption rateproportionate to unit mix can be maintained by establishing appropriate rent gaps (pricedifferences) between unit types.

Proper rent gaps between all unit types will be important in order to ensure an evenabsorption of all units. Rent gaps must be monitored by mix, comparability differences,and location/view premiums. Suggested rents are responsive to absorption and canonly be fine-tuned after product is available.

In the Effective Market Area, the rent gaps between one- and two-bedroom and two-and three-bedroom units are as follows:

ONE-/TWO-BEDROOMRENT GAP

TWO-/THREE- BEDROOMRENT GAP

Median Rent $81 $51Rent at 36.5

Comparability Rating$285 N/A

Rent Among WaterfrontProperties

$783 $637

Subject Site (Average) $800 $327

The two-/three-bedroom rent gap at median rent is reflective of the lack of new three-bedroom product in the area. Further, properties in the EMA are generally older andoften functionally obsolete. The large gap among average one- and two-bedroom units


31/174

III-25

recommended at the subject site is a function of the higher rents for two-bedroomtownhouse units.

6. COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS

There are two sets of criteria which can be used to identify comparable properties. Aproject can be conceptually and/or economically comparable. Given that the existingrental pool in the EMA is relatively old and functionally obsolete and does not directlycompare with the units at the subject site, the site is being compared with tenantexpectations among waterfront properties. More information on the waterfront propertiescan be found in Conclusions Section E (page III-38).

Conceptually Comparable Properties are those properties that have a similarcomparability rating to the proposed project. A similar comparability rating indicates thatproperties will likely have similar unit and project amenities and a similar aestheticrating. They may or may not have similar rents.

Economically Comparable Properties are those properties with similar net rent levels tothe proposed project. These properties may or may not have a similar comparabilityrating.

Following is a list of properties judged to be economically and/or conceptuallycompetitive with the subject site:

MAPCODE PROJECT

TOTALNUMBEROF UNITS

YEAROPENED

TWO-BEDROOMRENT COMPARABILITY

RATING

- SUBJECT SITE* 248 2017 $1,600 - $2,250 36.5

Mariner’s Watch 62 2015 $1,900 - $3,500 29.0Flats East Bank 243 2015 $2,425 - $3,165 31.5Quay 55 140 2003 $1,705 - $3,085 32.5The Shoreway 45 2014 $1,500 - $2,500 32.5The Bingham 340 2004 $1,594 - $2,400 27.5

*Recommended for subject site


32/174

III-26

A comparison of unit amenities at these projects and the proposed project is as follows:

PROJECT R A N G E

R E F R I G E R A T O R

M I C R O W A V E

D I S H W A S H E R

D I S P O S A L

A I R C O N D I T I O N I N G

W A S H E R / D R Y E R

W A S H E R / D R Y E R H O O K U P S

C A R P E T

W I N D O W C

O V E R I N G S

H A R D W O O D / C O N C R E T E F L O O R S

O V E R S I Z E D W I N D O W S

I N T E R C O M S E C U R I T Y

B A L C O N Y / P A T I O

G R A N I T E C O U N T E R T O P S

G A R A G E

S T A I N L E S S S T E E L A P P L I A N C E S

C E I L I N G F A N

V A U L T E D / 9 ’ + C E I L I N G S

SUBJECT SITE X I X X X C X X X X X X X X X X X X

Mariner’s Watch X X X X C X X X B X X X X X X Flats East Bank X X X X X C X X X X S X X X

Quay 55 X X X X X C X X X B X O X XThe Shoreway X I X X X C X X X B X X X X O X X X

The Bingham X X X X X C X X S B X X X X O X X SI – Ice makerC – Central air conditioningW – Window air conditioningB – BlindsS – SomeO - Optional for an additional fee

As the unit amenity comparison shows, the proposed project will compete well with themost comparable units in the market in terms of unit amenities. The proposed projectwould be the only one in the market offering fireplaces and lake views from every unit.


33/174

III-27

Project amenities are listed as follows:

PROJECT P O O L

B I L L I A R D S / G A M E R O O M

C A B A N A S

C A R W A S H

C O M M U N I T Y B U I L D I N G / C O M M O N R O O M

C O N C I E R G E

P E T P A R K / P E T C A R E

F I T N E S S C E N T E R

S P O R T S C O U R T

J O G / B I K E T R A I L

L A K E

P I C N I C A R E A

R O O F T O P D E C K / S K Y L O U N G E

S E C U R I T Y G A T E

O N - S I T E M A N A G E M E N T

E L E V A T O R

B U S I N E S S C E N T E R

M A R I N A / D O C K S

SUBJECT SITE X X X X X X X X X X X X

Mariner’s Watch X X X X X X X X

Flats East Bank X X X X X X X X XQuay 55 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XThe Shoreway X X X X X X X X X X XThe Bingham X X X X X X X X X

The project amenities comparison shows the proposed project to be very competitive ona feature-for-feature basis. The spa pool, playground, movie theater, boat storage, on-site marina, and direct access to Lake Erie that are proposed for the project at thesubject site are amenities none of the comparable waterfront projects offer.

A distribution of competitive properties by units offered follows:

UNITS OFFEREDMAP

CODE PROJECTTOTALUNITS STUDIO

ONE-BEDROOM

TWO-BEDROOM

THREE-BEDROOM

FOUR-BEDROOM

- SUBJECT SITE 248 - 48 180 20 -Mariner’s Watch 62 - 33 29 - -Flats East Bank 243 - 175 61 7 -Quay 55 140 - 12 126 2 -The Shoreway 45 - 35 10 - -The Bingham 340 - 85 204 51 -


34/174

III-28

Prospective residents respond to three principal factors when selecting specific units:

Perception of space often based on the entry into the unit Bedroom size Closets are especially important. Large closets are immediately noticed by

prospective tenants. Further, having the largest closets in the market facilitaterent increases since it is very difficult for tenants to move into another unit withless storage than they already have.

Unit and bedroom sizes (in square feet), rent, and features of these projects are listedas follows:

ONE-BEDROOM COMPARISON-TABLE 1

PROJECTUNITSIZE

BEDROOMSIZE

NUMBEROF BATHS RENT

RENT PERSQUARE

FOOT

SUBJECT SITEOne-Bedroom, 1.0 BathOne-Bedroom, 1.0 Bath

700800

150150

11

$1,195$1,350

$1.71$1.69

Mariner’s Watch St. LawrenceSt. Clair

633918

110120

11

$1,400$1,630

$2.21$1.78

Flats East BankUnit Type NUnit Type S

774880

142139

11

$1,785-$2,135*$2,195

$2.40-$2.76$2.49

Quay 55 800 120 1 $1,345-$2,004* $1.68-$2.51The Shoreway

Unit Type 1-AUnit Type 1-D

948895

212129

11

$1,300$1,190

$1.37$1.33

The BinghamUnit Type B1Unit Type B2

824648

146126

11

$1,300$1,129

$1.58$1.74

AVERAGE 802 140 1 $1,535 $1.94

*Higher priced rent includes a premium for best water views.


35/174

III-29

ONE-BEDROOM COMPARISON-TABLE 2

CLOSET/STORAGE SPACE

PROJECT

CLOTHESCLOSET

(LINEAL FEET)GUEST

CLOSETBEDROOM

CLOSETEXTRA

STORAGE ENTRY

SUBJECT SITEOne-Bedroom, 1.0 BathOne-Bedroom, 1.0 Bath

1616

Yes Yes

Walk-InWalk-In

Yes Yes

Very GoodVery Good

Mariner’s Watch St. LawrenceSt. Clair

11.115.1

YesYes

Walk-InWalk-In

NoNo

GoodFair

Flats East BankUnit Type NUnit Type S

14.224.4

YesYes

Walk-InWalk-In

YesYes

GoodPoor

Quay 55 26.6 Yes Walk-In No FairThe Shoreway

Unit Type 1-AUnit Type 1-D 18.817.8 YesYes WallWall NoNo PoorFairThe Bingham

Unit Type B1Unit Type B2

15.113.3

YesYes

Walk-InWall

NoNo

FairGood

AVERAGE 17.1

As the one-bedroom comparison shows, the most comparable one-bedroom units in themarket range in size from 633 square feet at Mariner’s Watch to 948 square feet at TheShoreway. The average one-bedroom comparable unit is 808 square feet. Theproposed one-bedroom units will offer closets equal to or larger than any comparableone-bedroom unit in the market.


36/174


37/174

III-31

TWO-BEDROOM COMPARISON-TABLE 2


PROJECT

CLOTHESCLOSET(LINEAL

FEET)

GUEST

CLOSET

MASTERBEDROOM

CLOSET

SECONDBEDROOM

CLOSET

EXTRA

STORAGE ENTRYSUBJECT SITE

Two-Bedroom,2.0 Bath Garden

Two-Bedroom, 2.5 BathTownhouse, 1 Car Garage

Two-Bedroom, 2.5 BathTownhouse, 2 Car Garage

26

26

26

Yes

Yes

Yes

Walk-In

Walk-In

Walk-In

Wall

Walk-In

Walk-In

Yes

Garage

Garage

VeryGoodVeryGoodVeryGood

Quay 55Plan APlan B

21.628.6

YesYes

Walk-InWalk-In

WallWalk-In

YesYes

FairGood

Mariner’s Watch Detroit

Michigan II

20.3

16.5

Yes

Yes

Wall

Walk-In

Wall

Wall

Yes

Yes

Poor

FairFlats East Bank

Unit Type CUnit Type H2

18.617.6

YesYes

Walk-InWalk-In

Walk-InWall

YesYes

GoodGood

The ShorewayUnit Type 2CUnit Type 2E

29.330.4

YesYes

WallWall

WallWall

NoNo

PoorFair

The BinghamUnit Type H1Unit Type H3

13.221.3

YesNo

Walk-InWalk-In

WallWalk-In

YesYes

PoorGood

AVERAGE 22.7

As the two-bedroom comparison shows, the most comparable two-bedroom units in themarket range in size from 965 square feet at The Shoreway to 1,433 square feet at TheBingham. The average two-bedroom comparable unit is 1,176 square feet. Theproposed two-bedroom units of 1,000, 1,150, and 1,250 square feet will be comparableto other two-bedroom units.

As the above table illustrates, the proposed two-bedroom units will offer more lineal feetof closet space than the comparable units at Mariner’s Watch, the Flats East Bank, andthe Bingham, and are comparable in size to the closet space at The Shoreway andQuay 55.

The proposed two-bedroom garden units will offer walk-in closets in the masterbedroom. Walk-in closets are not required in the second bedroom. The walk-in in themaster bedroom establishes the volume while a wall closet in the second bedroom doesnot compromise the room size as a walk-in might.


38/174

III-32

THREE-BEDROOM COMPARISON-TABLE 1

UNITSIZE

BEDROOM SIZE NUMBER RENT PER

PROJECT MASTER SECOND THIRDOF

BATHS RENTSQUARE

FOOT

SUBJECT SITEThree-Bedroom, 2.5 Bath

Townhouse

1,400 170 150 130 2.5 $2,400 $1.71

Mariner’s Watch Unit Type Not OfferedFlats East Bank 1,600 250 196 132 2 $3,510 $2.19Quay 55 1,628 182 148 148 2 $2,740 $1.68The Shoreway Unit Type Not OfferedThe Bingham

Three-Bedroom GardenThree-Bedroom

Townhouse

1,4581,922

100200

125200

125110

22.5

$2,605$2,655

$1.79$1.38

AVERA GE 1,602 180 164 129 2.0 $2,782 $1.75

THREE-BEDROOM COMPARISON-TABLE 2


PROJECT

CLOTHESCLOSET(LINEALFEET)

GUESTCLOSET

MASTERBEDROOM

CLOSET

SECONDBEDROOM

CLOSET

THIRDBEDROOM

CLOSETEXTRA

STORAGE ENTRY

SUBJECT SITEThree-Bedroom, 2.5 Bath

Townhouse32 Yes Walk-In Walk-In Wall Garage Very

Good

Mariner’s Watch Unit Type Not OfferedFlats East Bank 32 Yes Walk-In Wall Walk-In Yes PoorQuay 55 43 Yes Walk-In Wall Wall No Poor

The Shoreway Unit Type Not OfferedThe Bingham

Three-Bedroom GardenThree-Bedroom

Townhouse

2923.6

YesNo

Walk-InWalk-In

Walk-InWalk-In

Walk-InWall

NoNo

PoorPoor

AVERAGE 32

As the three-bedroom comparison shows, rents among the comparable three-bedroomunits range from $2,400 at the subject site to $3,510 for the three-bedroom units at theFlats East Bank. Bedroom sizes are generally comparable.


39/174


40/174

III-34

Following is a distribution of market-rate units surveyed by unit type and vacancy rate:

DISTRIBUTION OF CONVENTIONAL MARKET-RATEAPARTMENTS AND VACANCY RATE

MENTOR, OHIO

SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREAMARCH 2015

UNIT TYPEMARKET-RATE UNITS VACANCY

RATENUMBER PERCENT

ONE-BEDROOM 1,216 33.9% 4.2%TWO-BEDROOM 2,138 59.6% 4.4%THREE-BEDROOM 236 6.6% 1.7%

TOTAL 3,590* 100.0% 4.2%*Does not include 180 unit under construction at Chagrin RiverWalk (Map Code 20)

Among the 27 market-rate projects, 37.0% are 100.0% occupied, accounting for 18.0%of the total units. No properties have occupancies below 90%.

The Site EMA apartment base contains a well-balanced distribution of one-, two-, andthree-bedroom units, with 33.9%, 59.6%, and 6.6%, respectively.

A comparison of median and upper-quartile rents and vacancies by each unit typefollows:

MEDIAN AND UPPER-QUARTILE

RENTS AND VACANCIESMENTOR, OHIOSITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

MARCH 2015

UNIT TYPEMEDIANRENTS

OVERALLVACANCY

RATE

UPPER-QUARTILE

RENT RANGENUMBEROF UNITS

VACANCYRATE

ONE-BEDROOM $691 4.2% $740-$1,122 304 -TWO-BEDROOM $741 4.4% $849-$1,422 535 8.0%THREE-BEDROOM $822 1.7% $922-$1,622 59 3.4%

Rents in the EMA have increased at an estimated average of 1.8% per year over thepast several years.


41/174

III-35

Following is a distribution of units and vacancies by year of construction:

DISTRIBUTION OFUNIT AND VACANCIES

BY YEAR BUILT

MENTOR, OHIOSITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREAMARCH 2015

PERIODPROJECTS

BUILT UNITS BUILTCURRENT

VACANCY RATE

BEFORE 1970 9 720 3.3%1970-1979 12 1,186 2.2%1980-1989 3 962 5.4%1990-1999 2 192 2.6%2000-2006 1 530 8.1%

2007 0 - -2008 0 - -2009 0 - -2010 0 - -2011 0 - -2012 0 - -2013 0 - -2014 0 - -2015* 0 - -

TOTAL 27** 3,590 4.2%*Through March**Does not include 180 unit under construction at Chagrin RiverWalk (Map Code 20)

Projects in the area range in size from 22 to 642 units. The average area projectincludes 133 units. The following table provides a distribution of units by the size of theproject:


42/174

III-36

DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS AND PROJECTSBY PROJECT SIZE

MENTOR, OHIOSITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

MARCH 2015

TOTAL UNITS PROJECTS UNITS VACANCYIN PROJECTS NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT RATE

LESS THAN 25 2 7.4% 46 1.3% 0.0%25 TO 49 5 18.5% 208 5.8% 3.8%50 TO 99 8 29.6% 537 15.0% 1.3%

100 TO 199 9 33.3% 1,355 37.7% 3.2%200 TO 299 1 3.8% 272 7.6% 2.6%

300 OR GREATER 2 7.4% 1,172 32.6% 7.2%TOTAL 27* 100.0% 3,590 100.0% 4.2%

*Does not include 180 unit under construction at Chagrin RiverWalk (Map Code 20)

The area apartment market has been evaluated by the comparability rating of eachproperty. Comparability ratings are based on a rating system that awards points toeach project based on its unit amenities, project amenities, and aesthetic amenities(curbside appeal). The average comparability rating in the EMA is 16.8. The followingtable identifies units and vacancies by comparability rating:

DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS AND PROJECTSBY COMPARABILITY RATING


MARCH 2015

COMPARABILITYRATING RANGE

NUMBER OFPROJECTS

NUMBEROF UNITS

VACANCYRATE

LESS THAN 15.0 11 639 1.6%15.0 TO 17.5 6 1,066 5.9%18.0 TO 20.5 5 663 3.2%21.0 TO 22.5 2 420 2.4%23.0 TO 25.5 2 272 1.1%26.0 TO 28.5 1 530 8.1%

29.0 OR GREATER 0 - -

TOTAL 27* 3,590 4.2%*Does not include 180 unit under construction at Chagrin RiverWalk (Map Code 20)


43/174

III-37

Just over 80% of the apartment properties surveyed have comparability ratings below21. The highest-rated conventional project in the area is the 530-unit Cobblestone Court(Map Code 32), which opened in 2006 and has a rating of 27.0. The proposed projectis anticipated to have the highest overall comparability rating in the market at 36.5.

A distribution of amenities for market-rate projects, including the units underconstruction at Chagrin RiverWalk, follows:

DISTRIBUTION OF AMENITIESBY PROJECT


MARCH 2015

AMENITYINCLUDED

AT SUBJECT

TOTAL NUMBEROF PROJECTS*

(OUT OF 28)

SHARE OFPROJECTS

WITH AMENITY

RANGE X 28 100.0%REFRIGERATOR X 28 100.0%

AIR CONDITIONING X 27 96.4%CARPET X 27 96.4%ON-SITE MANAGEMENT X 25 89.3%DISPOSAL X 24 85.7%LAUNDRY 23 82.1%BALCONY/PATIO X 21 75.0%WINDOW COVERINGS X 20 71.4%DISHWASHER X 19 67.9%CEILING FAN X 17 60.7%GARAGE X 14 50.0%INTERCOM SECURITY/SECURITY SYSTEM X 11 39.3%WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS X 10 35.7%POOL X 10 35.7%PLAYGROUND X 10 35.7%

COMMUNITY BUILDING/ROOM X 9 32.1%PICNIC AREA X 9 32.1%FITNESS CENTER X 6 21.4%MICROWAVE X 5 17.9%WASHER/DRYER X 5 17.9%CARPORT 5 17.9%VAULTED/9’ CEILINGS X 5 17.9%SPORTS COURT 4 14.3%FIREPLACE X 2 7.1%SAUNA 2 7.1%TENNIS COURT 2 7.1%LAKE X 1 3.6%ELEVATOR 1 3.6%BUSINESS CENTER X 1 3.6%

BASEMENT 0 0.0%HOT TUB X 0 0.0%JOG/BIKE TRAIL X 0 0.0%SECURITY GATE X 0 0.0%SECURITY PATROL 0 0.0%*Includes properties in which some or all of the units contain the amenity.


44/174

III-38

Other than having a laundry, the subject site has all of the amenities common to over60% of the total properties in the EMA.

The standard amenities featured in at least 60% of the apartments in the Site EMAinclude a range, refrigerator, air conditioning, carpet, on-site management, disposal,laundry, balcony/patio, window coverings, dishwasher, and ceiling fan. Washer anddryer and/or hookups are relatively uncommon, which explains the high number ofdevelopments with a laundry. The proposed site is anticipated to offer these unitamenities, as well as numerous other features and amenities.

The subject site will be the only project in the Site EMA featuring a spa pool, jog/biketrail, security gate, movie theater, and on-site marina with boat storage and directaccess to Lake Erie.

Comparability ratings have been established for all developments in the Site EMAbased on unit amenities, project amenities, overall aesthetic appeal, and curbsidemarketability. A comparison of rent levels by comparability rating among the market-

rate developments has been used to establish comparable market rents for one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units. These charts have been used asguidelines to establish appropriate rent levels for the proposed development.

E. APARTMENT CASE STUDY

For the purposes of this case study, 10 market-rate apartment projects were identified

for analysis. These projects were selected based on their location in the state of Ohio,

their proximity to Lake Erie and/or the Cuyahoga River, and because their marketing

relies heavily on their “waterfront” status as a selling point.

An overview of the 10 selected waterfront properties follows.


45/174

III-39

PROJECT INFORMATIONWATERFRONT PROPERTIES

LAKE ERIE AREA2015

MAPCODE PROJECT

TOTALNUMBEROF UNITS

YEAROPENED

COMPARABILITYRATING

PERCENTOCCUPIED

1 Marine Towers West12540 Edgewater Dr.Lakewood, OH 44107866-648-1305

171 1964 28.0 100.0%

2 The Shoreham11800 Edgewater Dr.Lakewood, OH 44107216-521-3074

140 1961 24.0 98.6%

3 Mariner’s Watch 3107 Detroit Ave.

Cleveland, OH 44113216-373-7400

62 2015 29.0 100.0%

4 Stonebridge Waterfront1500 Detroit Rd.Cleveland, OH 44113216-344-2310

226 2001 26.5 99.1%

5 Crittenden Court955 W. St. Clair St.Cleveland, OH 44113216-600-8866

211 1996 25.0 99.5%

6 Flats East Bank1055 Old River Rd.Cleveland, OH 44113216-438-2242

243 2015 31.5 100.0%

7 Quay 555455 N. Marginal Rd.Cleveland, OH 44114216-432-0622

140 2003 32.5 98.6%

8 The Shoreway1200 w. 76th St.Cleveland, OH 44102216-644-6725

45 2014 32.5 100.0%

9 The Bingham1278 W. 9th St.Cleveland, OH 44113216-694-8792

340 2004 27.5 100.0%

239 1970 29.0 100.0%10 Erie Shore Landing5115 E. Lake Rd.Sheffield Lake, OH 45054440-949-8116

See maps on page III-46.


46/174

III-40

A comparison of unit amenities at these waterfront properties follows:

PROJECT R A N G E

R E F R I G E R A T O R

M I C R O W A V E

D I S H W A S H E R

D I S P O S A L

A I R C O N D I T I O N I N G

W A S H E R / D R Y E R

W A S H E R / D R Y E R H O O

K U P S

C A R P E T

W I N D O W C

O V E R I N G S

F I R E P L A C E

I N T E R C O M S E C U R I T Y

B A L C O N Y / P A T I O

C A R P O R T

G A R A G E

B A S E M E N T

C E I L I N G F A N

V A U L T E D / 9 ’ C E I L I N G S

S E C U R I T Y S Y S T E M

Marine Towers West X X X X C X X X XThe Shoreham X X S X C X X OMariner’s Watch X X X X C X X X B X O S XStonebridge Waterfront X X X X X C X X X B X X O X S XCrittenden Court X X X X X C X X B X O X

Flats East Bank X X X X X C X X X S XQuay 55 X X X X X C X X X B X O X XThe Shoreway X X X X X C X X X B X O X X XThe Bingham X X X X X C X X S B X X O X SErie Shore Landing X X X X C S S X B X X OC – Central air conditioningW – Window air conditioningB – BlindsS – SomeO – Optional

Project amenities are listed as follows:

PROJECT P O O L

C O M M U N I T Y B U I L D I N G

S A U N A

H O T T U B

F I T N E S S C E N T E R

T E N N I S

P L A Y G R O U N D

S P O R T S C O U R T

J O G / B I K E T R A I L

L A K E

P I C N I C A R E A

L A U N D R Y

S E C U R I T Y G A T E

O N - S I T E M A N A G E M E N T

E L E V A T O R

B U S I N E S S C E N T E R

S E C U R I T Y P A T R O L

Marine Towers West X X X X X X X

The Shoreham X X X X X X X XMariner’s Watch X X X X X

Stonebridge Waterfront X X X X X X XCrittenden Court X X X X X X XFlats East Bank X X X X X X XQuay 55 X X X X X X X X X X XThe Shoreway X X X X X X X X XThe Bingham X X X X X X XErie Shore Landing X X X X X X X X X


47/174

III-41

A distribution of waterfront properties by units offered follows:

UNITS OFFEREDMAP

CODE PROJECT

TOTAL

UNITS STUDIO

ONE-

BEDROOM

TWO-

BEDROOM

THREE-

BEDROOM

FOUR-

BEDROOM1 Marine Towers West 171 35 86 50 - -2 The Shoreham 140 20 55 55 10 -3 Mariner’s Watch 62 - 33 29 - -4 Stonebridge Waterfront 226 - 62 164 - -5 Crittenden Court 211 75 75 61 - -6 Flats East Bank 243 - 175 61 7 -7 Quay 55 140 - 12 126 2 -8 The Shoreway 45 - 35 10 - -9 The Bingham 340 - 85 204 51 -10 Erie Shore Landing 239 2 96 140 1 -


48/174

III-42

An overview of units offered at the waterfront properties follows.

UNIT SUMMARY

WATERFRONT CASE STUDY PROJECTS

LAKE ERIE AREA, OHIO

2015

PROJECT UNITS UNIT DESCRIPTIONSQUARE

FEETSTREET

RENT

Marine Towers West 358650

Studio, 1.0 Bath, GardenOne-Bedroom, 1.0 - 1.5 Bath, Garden

Two-Bedroom, 2.0 Bath, Garden

550 - 594920

2,000

$705 - $765$895 - $955

$1,240 - $1,510The Shoreham 20

555510

Studio, 1.0 Bath, GardenOne-Bedroom, 1.0 Bath, Garden

Two-Bedroom, 1.0 - 2.0 Bath, GardenThree-Bedroom, 2.0 Bath, Garden

428 - 475560 - 825

805 - 1,3001,700

$650 - $730$755 - $930

$930 - $1,475$1,750

Mariner’s Watch 3329

One-Bedroom, 1.0 Bath, GardenTwo-Bedroom, 2.0 Bath, Garden

633 - 9181,072 - 1,429

$1,150 - $1,630$1,900 - $3,500

Stonebridge Waterfront 6215212


Two-Bedroom, 2.5 Bath, Townhouse

9751,000 - 1,2001,400 - 2,000

$938 - $1,203$1,049 - $1,462$1,619 - $2,111

Crittenden Court 757561

Studio, 1.0 Bath, GardenOne-Bedroom, 1.0 Bath, GardenTwo-Bedroom, 2.0 Bath, Garden

450 - 485680 - 700

1,000 - 1,200

$540 - $580$740 - $815

$950 - $1,030Flats East Bank 175

617


Three-Bedroom, 2.0 Bath, Garden

720 - 1,0781,070 - 1,700

1602

$1,670 - $2,195$2,425 - 3,165

$3,500 - $3,940Quay 55 12

1262

One-Bedroom, 1.0 Bath, GardenTwo-Bedroom, 2.0 - 2.5 Bath, Garden

Three-Bedroom, 2.0 Bath, Garden

8001,000 - 1,715

1,810

$1,345 - $2,004$1,705 - $3,085

$2,740The Shoreway 35

10One-Bedroom, 1.0 Bath, Loft

Two-Bedroom, 1.0 - 2.0 Bath, Loft920 - 1,515

1,078 - 1,570$1,000 - $1,900$1,500 - $2,500

The Bingham 8518024501


Two-Bedroom, 2.0 Bath, TownhouseThree-Bedroom, 2.0 Bath, Garden

Three-Bedroom, 2.0 Bath, Townhouse

599 - 9691,023 - 1,6991,509 - 1,9361,737 - 1,756

2,410

$1,129 - $1,620$1,594 - $2,400$2,055 - $2,155$2,605 - $2,700

$2,655Erie Shore Landing 2

96139

11

Studio, 1.0 Bath, GardenOne-Bedroom, 1.0 Bath, Garden

Two-Bedroom, 1.0 - 2.0 Bath, GardenTwo-Bedroom, 2.0 Bath, Penthouse

Three-Bedroom, 2.0 Bath, Penthouse

500825

1,1501,5003,750

$663$763 - $863

$954 - $1,254$2,255$3,555

Note - Square footage ranges are as advertised, this number may differ from actual square footage, and from square footage as discussed in

the Competitive Analysis (page III-25).


49/174

III-43

Five of the 10 waterfront apartment properties were determined to be comparable to the

proposed project. An in-depth floor plan analysis comparing these comparable projects

to the proposed project can be found in the Competitive Analysis section (page III-24).

A Danter Company analyst interviewed the management and/or leasing staff at each of

these comparable properties regarding view premiums and water-related amenities. Asummary of these projects, Mariner’s Watch, the Flats East Bank, Quay 55, The

Shoreway, and The Bingham, follows:

Mariner’s Watch

Mariner’s Watch is located in Cleveland’s Ohio City neighborhood, approximately 0.2

mile southeast of the Old River, and 0.7 mile south of Lake Erie. The apartments are

marketed as “waterfront,” but are actually removed about one block from the lake. A

major selling point for the apartments is the proximity to Wendy Park (0.6 mile north)

and the Whiskey Island Marina, which is owned by Cleveland Metroparks. There is nodirect access to the water, but every unit in the building has a patio or balcony, and half

of the units face north, and feature water views. There is no specific premium for better

views, but the most expensive units are the units that face north, are located on the

upper floors, and feature the largest balconies. The Mariner’s Watch marketing

materials emphasize the building’s rooftop deck and “SkyLounge” which offer

panoramic views. Management was not sure how many residents own or use boats, but

mentioned that the nearby Whiskey Island Marina and the Edgewater Yacht Club (0.8

miles northwest of the building) would be very convenient for boat owners.

The Flats at East BankThe Flats at East Bank is located less than 0.1 mile northeast of the Cuyahoga River

and 0.3 mile south of Lake Erie in Cleveland. The apartments have no direct access to

the water, however; the apartments are part of the Flats East Bank mixed-use

development, and the development recently constructed a 1,200-foot boardwalk directly

south of the apartments. The boardwalk includes a limited number of temporary boat

docking spots, intended to allow restaurant patrons to pull up to the boardwalk. At this

time the temporary boat parking is free to anyone who wishes to use it, and boats are

only permitted to stay there for less than 24 hours at a time. There is no permanent boat

storage or on-site marina in the development. The boardwalk and the apartments bothopened in June 2015. The apartment staff was not aware what percentage of residents

own or use boats.


50/174

III-44

The apartment building is curved so that the majority of units, which face southeast or

north, have a view of either the river or the lake (with some units having a view of both).

Only a small percentage of units face entirely to the east, and those units have a view of

downtown instead of a water view.

Quay 55

Quay 55 is located directly on the shore of Lake Erie. The property does not have any

boat docks or slips, and there is no direct access to the water for residents. The Forest

City Yacht Club is immediately southwest of the apartments. The yacht club has private

slips for up to 125 boats (sail boats and power boats between 16’ and 42’). Amenities at

the yacht club include: clubhouse, swimming pool, picnic areas, gas docks, Wi-Fi, and a

playground. Immediately northeast of the apartments is the East 55 th Street Marina,

which is operated by Cleveland Metroparks. This is a public marina with 352 seasonal

slips, 8 transient docks, 6 guest docks (for the restaurant) and dry storage for the winter.

The marina’s amenities include the E55 on the Lake restaurant and bar, bait shop andmarina store, restroom/shower facility, picnic area, pump out station, fuel dock, electric

and water for the slips, and gated entry to the slips. Quay 55 has no arrangement with

either marina, meaning any residents who have boats would be paying full prices to use

one of those facilities. Quay 55 management was not sure how many residents own

boats or use those facilities.

According to Quay 55 management, most apartments have a water view of some kind.

There are premiums for better water views, and these premiums range from around

$200 to $300 for each unit type. Units facing south have no water views, and these units

have the lowest rents in the rent range for each unit type. Units facing east have viewsof the marina and are priced a step up from the south facing units. Corner units on the

northeast corner are another step up in price because these have a partial view of the

lake plus a view of the marina. Units facing west have views of the lake and/or the yacht

club marina, and these are the next highest tier of prices. Units facing north have the

best views of the lake, and these are the highest prices in each rent range. There are no

premiums for units on higher floors. There is a single two-bedroom unit in the building

that rents for $5,045. This is a custom unit that was designed and is occupied by the

former owner of the building.

The Shoreway

The Shoreway apartments are located 0.2 mile south of Lake Erie in Cleveland, Ohio.

The Shoreway consists of 45 units in a historic warehouse. It opened in 2014, and

features concrete floors, exposed brick, high ceilings (10’ - 14’), and oversized windows.


51/174


52/174

III-46

WATERFRONT APARTMENT CASE STUDY

LOCATIONS REFERENCE MAP

WATERFRONT APARTMENT CASE STUDY

LOCATIONS DETAIL


53/174

III-47

F. CONDOMINIUM CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on our analysis of the Site EMA condominium home market, the key demandfactors and proposed future potential condominium supply, support levels can beestablished for additional development at the subject site.

For the purposes of this analysis, all residential home developments with a monthly feethat includes outdoor maintenance have been considered together, whether they aredetached units (patio homes) or attached units (condominiums). Unless otherwisenoted, the term “condominium” will apply to all such units, whether attached ordetached.

Thirty-two (32) condominiums would occupy the tip of the northern peninsula and anadditional 12 condominiums would overlook the marina at the base of the southernpeninsula. The project will feature two- and three-bedroom townhome units. All units willhave a private first floor entry and walkout to the waterfront. There would be thepotential to develop docks parallel to the waterway (not included in the recommendedpricing). All units would have a two car garage.

The project is proposed as follows:

PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT MENTOR LAGOONS

MENTOR, OHIO

UNIT TYPENUMBEROF UNITS

APPROXIMATESQUARE FEET BASE PRICE

PRICE PERSQUARE FOOT

Two-Bedroom – Northern Peninsula 12 1,350 $250,000 $185.19

Two-Bedroom – Northern Peninsula 12 1,450 $300,000 $206.90Three-Bedroom – Northern Peninsula 8 1,650 $350,000 $212.12Two-Bedroom – Marina Overlook 8 1,450 $275,000 $189.66Three-Bedroom – Marina Overlook 4 1,600 $325,000 $203.13

Total 44


54/174

III-48

UNIT AMENITIES

Each unit in the proposed project will feature upscale amenities including the following:

Range Central air conditioning Disposal Walk-in closets (at least one) Carpeting and wood flooring 9’ ceilings Private patios Dishwasher

Vaulted ceilings where possible Kitchen pantry

Washer and dryer connections Ample storage space

Two-car garage Frost-free refrigerator

PROJECT AMENITIES

Condominium owners would have full access to the master amenity connected with themarina development.

Project amenities will include the following:

Swimming pool Lake Erie views Community building Picnic area Spa pool Security gate Fitness center On-site management Playground Business/computer center Adjacent to park Movie theater

Car wash area Boat storage area

Jog/bike trail

On-site storage space

Boat dock available

Operating marina

Landscaping and streetscape must be considered when planning the proposeddevelopment. Prior studies of buyer preferences have established that these two factorsare among the most marketable project amenities. Effective landscaping adds a strongvisual appeal to the development that is immediately perceived by potential buyers.When a landscaping design is consistent throughout the project, it becomes anaesthetic component of the project's architecture and has a positive influence onabsorption.


55/174

III-49

The condominium concept is an important feature for residents looking for a morecarefree lifestyle. The proposed development will assess a monthly fee which willprovide lawn care, exterior building maintenance, snow removal services, etc., alongwith common area upkeep and insurance. These features are important marketingpoints.

1. ABSORPTION

The proposed project is expected to begin construction in 2017, with the first unitsavailable in 2018.

Based on area factors such as support potential, existing product, product price points,and product type, as well as historic absorption levels at other projects in similardemographic areas, anticipated absorption for the proposed development is projected tobe slightly higher than what the area has experienced over the past several years,which have been significantly impacted by the economic conditions of 2007 through2010 as well as the overall lack of available product.

As a waterfront development, the site will feature a for-sale residential alternative notcurrently available in the area. We project absorption will range from 1.5 to 2.0 units permonth, or 18 to 24 units annually. Because of the uniqueness of the site, we expectpresales to be especially robust with up to 10 of the units sold prior to completion of thefirst phase. A presale campaign will be especially important since most lenders todayrequire at least 50% of the units to be presold. The 8- to 12-unit buildings will helpfacilitate this requirement.

Factors that affect absorption include (but are not limited to) the following: area mobilitypatterns; availability of new product; age, quality, and rent of existing rental properties in

the Site EMA; area growth; area median income; product variety; proposed productdevelopment; and date of opening. We expect up to 80% of the overall absorption ofthe project to occur during the peak absorption period of May through October.

2. CONDOMINIUM QUALIFIED INCOME DISTRIBUTION

Generally, mobility patterns affecting support of maintenance-free home product(condominium and patio homes) reflect those mobility patterns affecting single-familydevelopment.

Therefore our approach to establishing the market for condominiums at the site is basedon an analysis of the demographic and economic characteristics of the Site EMA andthe application of optimal capture factors. By deducting existing competitive productand evaluating proposed product, recommendations for specific product are made. Theoverall income distributions are included in this section while the specific supportcalculations can be found in the specific ranch and townhouse sections.


56/174

III-50

Qualifying Incomes

For the purpose of this analysis, we assume that 20% of the purchase price of newcondominium will be cash, yielding a 80% mortgage requirement. While manydevelopments offer 90% financing, condominiums are usually influenced by equity fromthe previous sale of a single-family house, and 50% to 60% financing is not uncommon.

Income/mortgage/purchase price requirements are as follows:

INCOME MORTGAGEAMOUNT

FINANCED HOME PRICE RANGE

$42,000 - $49,000 $120,000 - $139,999 80% $150,000 - $174,999$49,000 - $56,000 $140,000 - $159,999 80% $175,000 - $199,999$56,000 - $70,000 $160,000 - $199,999 80% $200,000 - $249,999$70,000 - $8

danter report

Documents