Salem Superior Courthouse and County Commissioners Building Feasibility of Real Estate Options (GLC 2012) - September 2012
September 2012
Prepared for:
Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management
Prepared by:
GLC Development Resources with Bruner/Cott
Bruner/Cott
Salem Superior Courthouse &
County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options
2012 Update
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 1
1. I NTRODUCTION & E XECUTIVE S UMMARY
As a result of the decision to consolidate, update and expand courthouse functions in Salem
into a new facility – the J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center (opened in 2011) – the historic
Salem Superior Court Building (1861‐91) and Essex County Commissioners Building (1841),
located at 32‐34 Federal Street in Salem, will become surplus. A study was commissioned
by the Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM) in 2008 order to evaluate the likely
feasibility of reusing those two buildings, and analyze various broad re‐use options to
determine the implications for these historic buildings. This report updates the 2008 Study.
The information provided in this report will first be utilized in soliciting potential State or
other governmental uses and, if that is not successful, preparing a Request For Proposals
(RFP) in order to offer the property to private parties or institutions.
The findings of this study show that redevelopment of the two buildings could work
physically for a number of uses, including office, institutional and residential. The initial
development schemes developed in 2008 still do not work financially; however new
schemes incorporating apartment, office, and institutional uses do have the potential to
financially.
1‐A Study Methodology
For the purposes of executing this study, existing information and reports on the buildings
were collected and reviewed, and the property was toured with a preservation architect
(Bruner/Cott and Associates) and structural engineer (Structures North) specializing in the
re‐use of historic buildings. The consultant team, including an historic preservation
consultant (Overlook Associates), considered the key defining features that needed to be
retained to allow National Park Service (NPS) certification for tax credits as well as those
elements and features that were important to retain.
A broad regulatory review was also conducted in order to determine issues that might
impact redevelopment. Zoning does not appear to be a concern for any of the otherwise
viable uses.
GLC Development Resources reviewed the market for uses that could potentially make use
of either building.
With physical, regulatory and market analysis completed, the project team was able to
determine opportunities and constraints for the buildings and begin to define potential
redevelopment opportunities.
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 2
1‐B Reuse Options
Several re‐use options were determined, and concept plans prepared for the re‐use options.
Financial models were then developed in order to determine viability of the options.
ORIGINAL 2008 STUDY OPTIONS
OPTIONS 1A‐1D Residential—both Rental and For‐Sale Scenarios, with a Small‐Unit
Configuration and a Large‐Unit Configuration. These options were determined to be
not feasible as part of the 2008 study and are not feasible currently. Issues include
an inability to achieve more than approximately six parking spaces on‐site thereby
limiting the marketability of condominiums, and sales prices relative to development
costs. These alternatives would most likely have a significant greatest impact on the
historic character of the interior of the buildings, although the schemes have little
impact on building exteriors and would preserve important interior features.
OPTIONS 2A‐2B Mixed Uses. These options presented mixed office/residential
schemes in different configurations. The office re‐use in the Superior Court Building
would be similar to the all‐office scheme. These options were determined to be not
feasible as part of the 2008 study and are marginally feasible currently when
including a rental apartment component.
OPTION 3 Office. The buildings lend themselves well to office conversion and
provide the opportunity for a minimally invasive use that preserves much of the
historic character of the buildings. It makes sense that the many law firms
occupying smaller residential buildings in the adjacent neighborhood could take
advantage of upgraded space in a renovated Superior Court/County Commissioners
complex. Many of the courtrooms may be able to be re‐used without subdivision
and the Law Library could be used as a common meeting center or a high quality
restaurant. The vacated houses in the neighborhood currently being used as office
space could be returned to residential use. This option was determined to be
marginally feasible as part of the 2008 study and are not feasible currently.
2012 UPDATE OPTIONS
OPTIONS 4A‐B & 5A‐B & 6A‐B Mixed Use With Institutional Anchor. The Institutional
use, along with office or rental residential, potentially makes the best use of the
historic buildings in terms of maintaining historic attributes. A major user has
indicated a strong interest in exploring acquisition and re‐use of the buildings for
institutional use. This 2012 Update presents three schemes that each pair
institutional uses with either office uses or apartment residential uses. Based on
financial analysis, the institutional/apartment mix schemes are economically feasible
and the institutional/office mix schemes are marginally economically feasible.
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 3
1‐C Conclusions
It is our opinion that there is a strong likelihood that interest will be achieved from
developers via the RFP process based on the number of potentially economically viable
schemes developed as a part of these studies. Although it is unlikely that a developer
scheme would exactly match a scheme presented here, the combination of an institutional
anchor tenant, the use of historic tax credits, and minimal parking and site costs make
development here possible due to a strong rental apartment market and a marginally
strong office market.
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 4
2. B ACKGROUND
2‐A Building Data & Site Analysis
i. Building Description
The Salem Superior Court Building,
built in phases between 1861‐1891,
and the Essex County Commissioners
Building (1841) operate as one
building with connected rear atrium
space, common elevator, and
common main entrance. The buildings
are located at 32‐34 Federal Street in
Salem. In general the red brick
exterior, brownstone banding,
columns and details appear to be in
very good condition. A thorough
exteriors analysis was not conducted
but it was noted that interior areas of
the north/east and north/west brick
turrets showed signs of water
infiltration. Other areas showing signs of damage due to water infiltration were at the roof
of the connector between the two buildings. Up until January 2012, the Superior Court
building housed a historic law library, three grandly detailed spacious courtrooms, a holding
cell facility and storage in the basement. (The library functions were relocated to the
renovated Baptist church as part of the construction of the new J. Michael Ruane Judicial
Center.)
The Romanesque Revival Superior Court building, constructed in 1861, is approximately
39,500 gross square feet with red brick exterior, brownstone banding and arched
windows. Brownstone columns and a heavy brownstone arch support a projecting entry
bay with gabled roof. Projecting stair turrets with conical roofs and a tower provide vertical
accents. Major spaces are three courtrooms, the Former Essex County Law Library and
Superior Court Clerk Magistrate’s Office.
The Greek Revival Commissioner’s building, constructed in 1841, is approximately 15,600
gross square feet. Its gray granite façade and slate roof are in good condition. This building
housed ancillary space for the Superior Court, first floor offices, second floor open plan
offices and basement storage. The previous alterations included masonry infills at the
basement’s vaulted masonry piers as a means to support the altered open plan of the upper
floors. The attic space has wood rafters and heavy timber tie beams supporting the roof.
Public entrances to Superior Court (left) (1861‐1891) and Commissioners’
Building (right) (1841)
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 5
The ridge height is approximately seven feet above the wood floor and an additional two to
three feet to the top of the wood joists below.
The only accessible means of entry is at the recently constructed connector between the
Superior Court and the Commissioners’ building. This entrance can serve as public access to
both buildings from Federal Street, but is currently not frequently in use due to security
operational issues. The existing heating system for the two buildings is via a steam line and
tunnel to the Probate and Family Court.
ii. Overview of Salem Trial Courts Existing Conditions Report
As part of the decision making process for developing the J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center,
an existing conditions report was completed. The report, dated September 2003, describes
the condition, use and historic qualities of the Superior Court and County Commissioners
Building.
That study focused primarily on looking at the buildings in terms of their adequacy for use
as a courthouse and civic facility; whereas this study assumes that the buildings will be
rehabilitated and a new use determined. As a result, the 2003 report is geared mostly
towards adequacy for a civic, public, legal use. The analysis, however, is relevant to this
study, as a new user may have similar issues and requirements as the current user. Also, the
general building condition, layout, and key issues are discussed. The “Summary Findings”
listed in the report are as follows:
No separate circulation systems
Multiple level changes
Unenclosed egress stairs
Superior Court building has unprotected wood joists
Small floor plates for each building: 5,200 – 11,799 square feet
Structure
The Superior Court was built in several stages and consists of the older portion nearest to
Federal Street that is constructed of masonry bearing walls and wood joists, and the more
recent portion built closer to Bridge Street, which has masonry bearing walls and columns.
The Commissioners Building has masonry bearing wall construction, and the attic space has
a wood floor on wood joists. Wood rafters and heavy timber beams support the roof.
Interior Features
The most notable spaces in the complex, all located in the
Superior Court Building, are the three courtrooms, the south
stairs, and the Essex Law Library. The Law Library features a two‐
story open space, vaulted ceiling with wood arches, skylights, and
Essex Law Library
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 6
ornate oak bookcases, a perimeter mezzanine structure supported by iron brackets, and
perhaps most dramatically, a large twenty‐five foot wide brownstone fireplace.
Accessibility & Circulation
The joint facility currently lacks an accessible
entrance that is co‐located with the general
public entrance. The accessible entrance is
located on the Federal Street side of the
connection point between the two buildings and
is often blocked by parked cars. On the interiors,
the majority of the complex is not in
conformance with current accessibility
regulations, most notably the courtrooms.
The two buildings – the Superior Court and the
County Commissioners building – are built at
different floor elevations, and as a result floors
do not line up between them. The circa‐1980s
elevator, located in the tower turret of the
Superior Court, manages this difference with an
elevator cab that stops at all levels in each
building. However, the elevator does not access
the basement of the Superior Court Building where the holding cells and public men’s
restrooms are located; and does not comply with current codes. A wheelchair lift does
access the basement level from the lowest elevator landing; however, the operability of the
lift is unknown.
Building Systems
Per the September 2003 report, a list of building system issues is as follows:
Potential roof leaks, most notably with respect to the roof over the circa 1980 link
between the Superior Court Building and the Commissioners Building.
Electrical systems (upgraded in 1980) are generally in good condition.
Emergency power and emergency lighting systems do not appear to be up to current
electrical and safety codes.
Lighting types in the complex vary between buildings and rooms. The majority of
fixtures are older T‐12 lamps. Light fixtures vary from modern to older than 50 years.
Fire alarms and detectors exist throughout the Superior Court Building; they are
non‐existent within the Commissioners Building.
Heating is provided via a shared plant located underground between the complex
and the neighboring Probate and Family Court Building. Localized specific
temperatures cannot be controlled throughout the Superior Court building. Air
South Stair at Superior Court
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 7
conditioning is provided via window units. Heat in the Commissioners building is
provided via individually controlled convection heaters.
Ventilation systems in both buildings require replacement due to condition, noise,
and age.
Summary
Generally, the building complex is in sound
structural condition. However, as noted by the
decision to relocate the building functions in a new
consolidated facility, the building has out‐lived a
useful life for the demands of the currently
programmed use. A new user to the space would
be required to make many of the upgrades and
modifications that are currently deficient in the
current complex. However, depending on the use
and user type, the extent of renovations would
vary.
iii. Historic Considerations
Both buildings are on the National Register of
Historic Places. The notable interior features of the
Superior Court Building are the second floor Essex
Law Library, the courtrooms and the stairways.
These elements likely will be required to be
maintained in order for a re‐use to be eligible for
Historic Tax Credits; which are included in the financial calculations found later in this
report. The Law Library retains its original historic architectural elements of fluted pilasters,
crown moldings and a mezzanine with a vaulted ceiling and skylight. The Library is remote
from the building’s street entry.
The three courtrooms retain their wood wainscot and the wood ribs of the high vaulted
ceilings. All courtrooms have desirable spaciousness that could be maintained with the
second floor Session I courtroom as the most likely to be of highest priority in terms of
retention in a new program. This courtroom also has high stained‐glass arched windows.
The open tread stairs at the north central stair hall between the 1861 and 1891 buildings
are ornate iron with bracketed supports. A herringbone pattern tile floor surrounds the
stairway landings. This and the south stair have historical significance and could be
maintained as existing.
Session One Courtroom
Essex Law Library Mezzanine
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 8
The County Commissioners Building interior has been significantly altered, with any
remaining historic details, therefore, most likely gaining increased preservation significance
under historic review of a new program. The most notable interior features are the brick
arches of the masonry floor and bearing wall construction system. These are currently
concealed under dropped ceilings. Interior shutters still exist in many of the large windows.
Many materials of both buildings such as the original staircase with wall supported granite
treads of the Commissioners building and the spiral iron stairs of the clerk space in the
Superior Court, could be preserved, and if necessary and appropriate, could be re‐used
elsewhere in the complex. A list of these features is presented in Section A‐1.
iv. Regulatory Review
This section is based on review of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance and other relevant
ordinances, and discussions with Lynn Duncan, Director, Department of Planning and
Community Development for the City of Salem.
The subject property is located within the following districts in Salem:
Local zoning is the B‐5 Central Development Zoning District.
The building complex (the “Essex County Court Building Complex”) is on the National
Register of Historic Places.
The site is located within the Federal Street National Historic District.
The site is not located with a local City of Salem Historic District, but is located
nearby the McIntire District.
The site is located within the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA) jurisdictional
boundary.
The site is located within the City of Salem’s Ward 2.
Local Zoning
The B‐5 Central Development Zoning District is a mixed‐use, downtown core zoning district
incorporating all viable uses for the purposes of creating a vibrant downtown. Uses include
all manner of office, retail, and residential uses. All uses under the generalized “B”
commercial zoning districts are allowable (which is essentially the range of non‐industrial
commercial and institutional uses), with the general exception of automobile and
warehouse/wholesale commercial establishments. Residential uses allowable include “one‐
family, two‐family, and multi‐family residential uses in townhouse, row house, flats or
multi‐story arrangements, including high‐rises, and secondary uses in upper floors.” By and
large, all residential uses are allowable with the exception of single‐family detached
structures.
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 9
Density regulations in the B‐5 District, as they would apply to a re‐use of the Courthouse
Complex and as presented in Table III of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, are as follows:
Non‐residential
Uses,
Existing Building
Residential Uses or
Combined Residential
& Non‐residential
Uses, Existing Building
Minimum Lot Area (sq ft) 2,000
2,000
Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit (sq ft)n/a n/a
Minimum Lot Width (feet) 30 30
Maximum Lot Coverage By All Buildings (%)100 100
Minimum Width of Side Yard (feet) n/a n/a
Maximum Height of Building (Feet) 70 70
Maximum Height of Building (Stories)6 6
Floor Area Ratio 6:1 6:1
Parking is not required for non‐residential uses in the B‐5 District. For residential uses, a
requirement of one space per unit is required; however, the requirement can be met by
parking “at municipal or other parking facilities in the vicinity of the proposed use.” A
candidate site for parking is the shared municipal parking facility in downtown Salem and
future facilities planned in conjunction with the MBTA commuter rail station in Salem. As a
parking requirement could most likely not be met on‐site for a residential use, these
alternative parking locations would most likely be utilized to meet the requirement.
All viable re‐use schemes and all schemes investigated as part of this study would conform
to the current B‐5 Zoning District. As a result, a re‐use scheme would most likely be a by‐
right use and therefore not subject to a zone change and could be approved by the Salem
Planning Board. Assuming the project has more than six residential units, an application,
site plan review, and public hearing would all be required.
However, due to the historic nature of the building and the location of the site within the
Salem Redevelopment Agency’s jurisdiction, primary approval and permitting hurdles would
be a part of those processes.
Historic Review
The buildings are included in two overlapping historic districts listed in the National Register
of Historic Places: the Essex County Court Building Complex (listed 1976) and the Federal
Street Historic District (listed 1983).
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 10
All properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places are automatically included in
the State Register of Historic Places. Disposal of the buildings by the Commonwealth for
private redevelopment will be subject to review under the Massachusetts Environmental
Policy Act (MEPA) as it applies to the actions undertaken by agencies, boards, departments,
commissions and authorities of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Such action would
also be subject to the Massachusetts Historical Commission Act, which requires reviews of
projects that affect properties on the State Register of Historic Places that are undertaken
by any agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division, or
authority of the Commonwealth established to serve a public purpose. The end result of
such reviews may be the placement of a preservation covenant on the buildings. The
covenant will require review by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) of any
proposed changes to exterior features and may also cover significant interior spaces of the
Superior Court building, particularly the Essex County Law Library and courtroom spaces.
The buildings are not in a local historic district, which means that alterations to the
structures are not subject to local review by the Salem Historical Commission (SHC).
However, SHC would have the opportunity to review and comment as an interested party
under the Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of Capital Asset
Management (DCAM) and MHC for the development of the J. Michael Ruane Judicial
Center. The Memorandum of Agreement also includes specific provisions for the review of
any proposed plans by MHC as well as other interested parties.
If the buildings were opened to private redevelopment and Federal or State historic tax
credits were used as a funding component for that redevelopment, all plans for re‐use
would be subject to reviews associated with those programs. Use of Federal tax credits
requires review by the National Park Service and use of State historic tax credits requires
review by the Massachusetts Historical Commission.
Salem Redevelopment Authority
All development projects proposed in the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA) Urban
Renewal Areas are required to undergo a two‐step review process as it relates specifically to
SRA review. The process involves: 1) Preliminary Approval at the Schematic Design Review
phase; and (after Planning Board approval) 2) Final Approval of the final design of the
project. As the membership of the Planning Board and the Salem Redevelopment Agency
are staffed similarly, the application & review process can be completed efficiently. SRA
guidelines include historic preservation standards.
2‐B Market Overview
The Market Overview section from the 2008 report remains current in terms of a broad
understanding of the Salem market for residential, retail, and office uses; however the most
significant change since 2008 is the strong apartment rental market that exists currently,
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 11
and the subsequent availability of funding for apartment development projects. The for sale
residential market has dipped slightly since 2008 and the office market has improved
slightly. A review of comps was undertaken for the purposed of providing assumptions for
the underwriting performed as part of the financial analysis here. The comps are for
apartment and office uses in and around Salem and are presented in the appendix.
2‐C Redevelopment Opportunities
Private Office
Pros
Market Opportunity
Potential Tax Revenue
Spaces Potentially Appropriate
Opportunity to Maintain Public
Access
Cons
Public May not Have Access to
Historic Space
Residential
Pros
Market Opportunity
Potential Tax Revenue
Historic Assets Could be Maintained
Historic Tax Credits Could Be Used In
For‐Rent Scenario.
Cons
Public May Not Have Access to
Historic Spaces
Parking
Retail
Pros
Unique & Interesting Retail
Opportunity
Public Access to Historic Asset
Historic Assets Could be Maintained
Historic Tax Credits Could Be Used
Cons
Location & Structure Potentially Not
Well Suited to Retail Use
Parking
Mixed Use
Pros
Character & Usability of Each
Building Could Address Different
Market Opportunities
Potential Tax Revenue
Historic Assets Could be Maintained
Historic Tax Credits Could Be Used
Cons
Public May not Have Access to
Historic Spaces
Government & Institutional
Pros Cons
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 12
Public Access & Historic Assets Could
be Maintained
Appropriate Use for Location
Potential Challenge to Find
Appropriate User
Limited or No Tax Revenue
2‐D Opportunities & Constraints
The Superior Court & County Commissioners Building Complex offers a unique opportunity
for redevelopment based primarily on locational and historic attributes. An overview
evaluation of key opportunities & constraints is as follows:
Opportunities
Unique historic structure
Prime location in downtown Salem adjacent to MBTA station, downtown shopping,
historic areas, and existing court complex.
Constraints
Design constraints and considerations:
Multiple level changes at the Superior Courthouse
Regulatory upgrades at both buildings: rated stair enclosures, fire protection
systems, interior ADA upgrades
Historic features:
Details at Superior Court courtrooms to be
incorporated as is or salvaged and reused
elsewhere within the building
Voluminous space of Session I Courtroom
Exterior to be unaltered
Window replacements to match original
Heating system separation from neighboring
Family & Probate Court
Legal lot separation from neighboring Family &
Probate Court
Retaining and integrating internal and external
historic qualities of buildings, including historic
courtrooms and law library.
Cost of renovation
Market appropriateness for development
schemes
If an institutional user is desired; finding an
appropriate user
Public & ADA Access at Common Connector
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 13
3. R EUSE O PTIONS
This section of the report – which includes economic feasibility information and
accompanying architectural feasibility information – evaluates several proposed
development scenarios. The analysis illustrates that viable re‐use options exist for the
historic existing courthouse facility, with interior renovations. In summary:
The complex has a viable economic use.
Proposed viable uses work in tandem with the planning goals of the City of Salem.
Proposed viable uses could preserve the historic character and integrity of the
buildings, including the preservation of the Essex County Law Library room with
public access.
3‐A Reuse Options Approach
i. Design Feasibility Approach
A field study was conducted to determine the
feasibility of various new uses. The final plans were
designed with the intent of minimally invasion
measures. Due to the layout of masonry bearing walls
and columns and their combined vaulted ceilings, it
was determined that reconstruction to accommodate
parking in either basement would not be economically
feasible. The configuration of the buildings interiors
and the lack of parking negated a number of uses
initially discussed including retail and a boutique hotel.
The included plans outline the alternate options for
most viable programs of combining residential units
with commercial office and institutional uses. The
attached construction implications list the major
renovation changes. A structural report is included in
the appendix which includes the structural implications
for each option.
In each option the central ramp location is maintained for public and handicap access. All
options also include the addition of a canopy cover over the ramp entry and a new drop off
area. Seven parking spaces have been added to the north of the site with access along the
west of Superior Court drive entered from Federal Street. The single storey masonry shed at
the rear of the Commissioners’ building will be removed. Public and private circulation is
well organized and consistent on each level.
High & arched windows on the west side of the
Superior Court Building
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 14
ii. Economic Feasibility Approach
A residual land value analysis was completed for each scenario. Assumptions for each
analysis are embedded with the summary pro formas, presented here. Positive land value
assumed economic viability; negative land value assumes that the scheme would not be
economically viable. Positive land value can be viewed as a potential land sales price from
the Commonwealth to a developer. All scenarios assume the use of Federal and State
Historic Tax Credits.
Option 1: Residential Alternatives (2008 Scheme)
As presented in the architectural feasibility report, two residential alternatives were
developed. Each utilizes the full extent of both the Superior Court Building and the County
Commissioners building as residential space. The historic library space in the Superior Court
Building would be preserved as common, public space for both building tenants and the
general public. Minimal on‐site parking is provided and it is assumed that parking
requirements would be met off‐site, most likely in the nearby Salem municipal garage.
i. Options 1A‐1D ‐ Residential Units
The 1B & 1D options fit 22 large residential units in both buildings, including both flats and
duplexes. Security control can be maintained at each of the residential suite entries with
keycard access. Principal features of this option include:
Superior Court
Loft style inter‐flooring at the 2nd floor Session I
creates additional square footage while
maintaining daylight and views through the
existing high arched windows and maintains
the spatial feel.
A new floor above the coffered ceilings makes
use of the interstitial space allowing for full
height units at the 3rd floor level.
Skylights are added between the dormers of
the 3rd floor units.
The Essex Law Library and mezzanine is transformed into a café/library with public
access maintained through the central stair and elevator.
The anteroom to the Law Library is programmed as an exercise room available to
private residences and the public.
The basement combines residential flats, storage and mechanical space.
A new stair is added within the existing north structure as a second means of egress.
Skylights added to the Commissioners’ Building
Roof would not be visible from the street
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 15
Commissioners’ Building
A new elevator and stair are added at the Federal Street entrance allowing access
from the basement to the 2nd floor.
The basement space is made habitable by combining into a duplex with the first
floor. The east basement windows can be enlarged to add more daylight to these
spaces.
The 2nd floor is combined with a new floor added to the attic to allow for spacious
duplexes.
Skylights are added to provide daylight to the top level of the upper duplexes.
Units in this scheme create a single loaded corridor facing the potential garden
space between the buildings.
A private access door at the rear of the building leads to a private garden space.
The 1A & 1C options fit 32 smaller residential units in both buildings, including flats and
duplexes. Security control can be maintained at each of the residential suite entries with
keycard access. Principal features of this option include:
Superior Court
Full inter‐flooring is added at the 2nd floor Session I creating a duplex with the 3rd
floor.
Skylights are added between the dormers of the 3rd floor units.
The Essex Law Library and mezzanine is transformed into an exercise space with
public access maintained through the central stair and elevator.
The anteroom to the Law Library is transformed to a studio residential unit.
The basement combines residential flats, storage and mechanical space.
A new stair is added within the existing north structure as a second means of egress.
Commissioners’ Building
A new elevator and stair are added at the Federal Street entrance allowing access
from the basement to the 2nd floor.
The basement space is made habitable by combining into a duplex with the first
floor. The east basement windows can be enlarged to add more daylight to these
spaces.
The 2nd floor is combined with a new floor added to the attic to allow for duplexes.
Skylights are added to provide daylight to the top level of the upper duplexes.
Units in this scheme create a central double loaded corridor.
A private egress door at the rear of the building leads to a private garden space.
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 16
iii. Financial Feasibility, Residential Only Options
These options were determined to be not feasible as part of the 2008 study and are not
feasible currently. The summary pro formas for these alternatives are presented on the
following pages.
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 17
1A. Rental Apartment ‐ 32 Units (2008 Scheme)
PROGRAM SUMMARY Sq Ft
Residential 33,410
Circulation 10,540
Public 3,830
Mechanical/Common/Storage 3,420
Total Sq Feet 51,200
LEASABLE SPACE SUMMARY Units Sq Ft
Superior Court Building 23 22,270
County Commissioners Building 9 11,140
Total 32 33,410
ANNUAL REVENUES Annual
Residential Rental Revenue $2.05 monthly rent PSF $821,900
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($41,095)
Less: Operating Expense $350 monthly expense per unit ($134,400)
NOI $646,405
Uses of Funds
HARD COSTS
Site Prep & Landscaping & Utilties $250,000 estimate $250,000
Hard Costs ‐ Renovation $240 psf of total sq ft $12,288,000
SOFT COSTS
Soft Costs 25% of hard costs subtotal $3,134,500
FEES & OVERHEAD
Developer Fee 18% of hard + soft costs $2,821,100
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $18,493,600
Sources of Funds
SUPPORTABLE DEBT 1.15 DSCR $8,334,800
4.50% rate
25 year term
OWNER EQUITY $84,314 Annual Cash Available after Debt Svc $562,100
15% Required Annual Return
FEDERAL HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 95% of TDC $3,408,400
20% credit
$0.97 price per credit
STATE HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 5# of successful applications $2,175,000
$500,000 per award
$0.87 price per credit
DEFERRED DEVELOPER FEE 75% deferred $2,115,800
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $16,596,100
Value or (Funding Shortfall)
Positive Value or (Funding Shortfall)($1,897,500)
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 18
1B. Rental Apartment ‐ 22 Units (2008 Scheme)
PROGRAM SUMMARY Sq Ft
Residential 30,820
Circulation 8,280
Public 4,550
Mechanical/Common/Storage 3,200
Total Sq Feet 46,850
LEASABLE SPACE SUMMARY Units Sq Ft
Superior Court Building 16 19,840
County Commissioners Building 6 10,980
Total 22 30,820
ANNUAL REVENUES Annual
Residential Rental Revenue $1.95 monthly rent PSF $721,200
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($36,060)
Less: Operating Expense $400 monthly expense per unit ($105,600)
NOI $579,540
Uses of Funds
HARD COSTS
Site Prep & Landscaping & Utilties $250,000 estimate $250,000
Hard Costs ‐ Renovation $225 psf of total sq ft $10,541,300
SOFT COSTS
Soft Costs 25% of hard costs subtotal $2,697,800
FEES & OVERHEAD
Developer Fee 18% of hard + soft costs $2,428,000
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $15,917,100
Sources of Funds
SUPPORTABLE DEBT 1.15 DSCR $7,472,600
4.50% rate
25 year term
OWNER EQUITY $75,592 Annual Cash Available after Debt Svc $503,900
15% Required Annual Return
FEDERAL HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 95% of TDC $2,933,500
20% credit
$0.97 price per credit
STATE HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 5# of successful applications $2,175,000
$500,000 per award
$0.87 price per credit
DEFERRED DEVELOPER FEE 75% deferred $1,821,000
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $14,906,000
Value or (Funding Shortfall)
Positive Value or (Funding Shortfall)($1,011,100)
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 19
1C. Condo ‐ 32 Units (2008 Scheme)
PROGRAM SUMMARY Sq Ft
Residential 33,410
Circulation 10,540
Public 3,830
Mechanical/Common/Storage 3,420
Total Sq Feet 51,200
SELLABLE SPACE SUMMARY Units Sq Ft
Superior Court Building 23 22,270
County Commissioners Building 9 11,140
Total 32 33,410
SALES REVENUES
Residential Sales Revenue $335.00 per square foot $11,192,400
Less: Cost of Sales 5% cost of sale ($559,600)
TOTAL REVENUE FROM SALES $10,632,800
Uses of Funds
HARD COSTS
Site Prep & Landscaping & Utilties $250,000 estimate $250,000
Hard Costs ‐ Renovation $240 psf of total sq ft $12,288,000
SOFT COSTS
Soft Costs 20% of hard costs subtotal $2,507,600
FEES & OVERHEAD
Fees & Overhead 5% of hard + soft costs $752,300
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $15,797,900
Sources of Funds
REVENUE FROM SALES $10,632,800
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $10,632,800
Value or (Funding Shortfall)
Positive Value or (Funding Shortfall)($5,165,100)
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 20
1D. Condo ‐ 22 Units (2008 Scheme)
PROGRAM SUMMARY Sq Ft
Residential 30,820
Circulation 8,280
Public 4,550
Mechanical/Common/Storage 3,200
Total Sq Feet 46,850
SELLABLE SPACE SUMMARY Units Sq Ft
Superior Court Building 16 19,840
County Commissioners Building 6 10,980
Total 22 30,820
SALES REVENUES
Residential Sales Revenue $345.00 per square foot $10,632,900
Less: Cost of Sales 5% cost of sale ($531,600)
TOTAL REVENUE FROM SALES $10,101,300
Uses of Funds
HARD COSTS
Site Prep & Landscaping & Utilties $250,000 estimate $250,000
Hard Costs ‐ Renovation $225 psf of total sq ft $10,541,300
SOFT COSTS
Soft Costs 20% of hard costs subtotal $2,158,300
FEES & OVERHEAD
Fees & Overhead 5% of hard + soft costs $647,500
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $13,597,100
Sources of Funds
REVENUE FROM SALES $10,101,300
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $10,101,300
Value or (Funding Shortfall)
Positive Value or (Funding Shortfall)($3,495,800)
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 21
Option 2: Mixed Use Alternatives (2008 Scheme)
The mixed‐use alternatives effectively re‐splits the complex into the two original buildings,
with the Superior Court being used solely as a small office building and the Commissioners
building being retrofitted as six, large residential units with loft areas. The existing
courtrooms would become office space and the historic law library would be utilized as
common meeting space or a café open to the public. Security control can be maintained at
each of the residential suite entries with keycard access.
i. Option 2A ‐ Office & Residential Mix
Superior Court – Offices
Loft style inter‐flooring at the 2nd floor Session I creates additional square footage
while maintaining daylight and views through the existing high arched windows and
the spatial feel.
Skylights are added between the dormers of the 3rd floor units.
The Essex Law Library and mezzanine is transformed into a café/library with public
access through the central stair and elevator.
The anteroom to the Law Library is transformed to an office suite.
The basement houses offices, storage and mechanical space.
A new stair is added within the existing north structure as a second means of egress.
Commissioners’ Building – (6 Large Residential)
A new elevator and stair are added at the Federal Street entrance allowing access
from the basement to the 2nd floor.
The basement space is made habitable by combining into a duplex with the first
floor. The east basement windows can be enlarged to add more daylight to these
spaces.
The 2nd floor is combined with a new floor added to the attic to allow for spacious
duplexes.
Skylights are added to provide daylight to the top level of the upper duplexes.
Units in this scheme create a single loaded corridor facing the potential garden
space between the buildings.
A private egress door at the rear of the building leads to a private garden space.
ii. Financial Feasibility, Office & Residential Mix
Financial feasibility for the office/residential mix is as follows, illustrating a marginally viable
project.
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 22
2A. Office/Rental Apartment Mix (2008 Scheme)
PROGRAM SUMMARY Sq Ft
Residential 10,980
Office 24,030
Circulation 9,090
Public 3,600
Mechanical/Common/Storage 2,380
Total Sq Feet 50,080
LEASABLE SPACE SUMMARY Sq Ft
Superior Court Building ‐ Office (Ofc SF Total + 50% allocation of Circ & Public) 30,375
County Commissioners Building ‐ Rental Apartment 6 units 11,140
Total 41,515
ANNUAL REVENUES Annual
Office Lease Revenue $18.00 annual PSF rent (NNN)$546,800
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($27,300)
Less: Operating Expense 5% op ex/cap reserve ($27,300)
Residential Rental Revenue $1.95 monthly rent PSF $260,700
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($13,000)
Less: Operating Expense $350 monthly expense per unit ($2,100)
NOI $737,800
Uses of Funds
HARD COSTS
Site Prep & Landscaping & Utilties $250,000 estimate $250,000
Hard Costs ‐ Renovation $225 psf of total sq ft $11,268,000
SOFT COSTS
Soft Costs 25% of hard costs subtotal $2,879,500
FEES & OVERHEAD
Developer Fee 18% of hard + soft costs $2,591,600
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $16,989,100
Sources of Funds
SUPPORTABLE DEBT 1.15 DSCR $9,513,300
4.50% rate
25 year term
OWNER EQUITY $96,235 Annual Cash Available after Debt Svc $641,600
15% Required Annual Return
FEDERAL HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 95% of TDC $3,131,100
20% credit
$0.97 price per credit
STATE HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 5# of successful applications $2,175,000
$500,000 per award
$0.87 price per credit
DEFERRED DEVELOPER FEE 75% deferred $1,943,700
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $17,404,700
Value or (Funding Shortfall)
Positive Value or (Funding Shortfall)$415,600
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 23
ii. Option 2B ‐ Office & Institutional Mix
The second mixed use alternative assumes a use of the structures in an institutional format,
mixing offices and classrooms in a manner most likely to be utilized by an academic
institution. As detailed in the architectural plans, the existing courtroom spaces would be
utilized as classrooms (along with other spaces) and the historic law library would be
maintained as a library & gathering area use.
This option combines cellular and open offices with classrooms and/or conference space
throughout both buildings. Principal features of this option include:
Superior Court
2nd floor Session I is open to the existing full height. It is anticipated that offices in
this space can be open plan or glazed wall cellular offices.
Skylights are added between the dormers of the 3rd floor units to bring more
daylight to the office space at this level.
The Essex Law Library and mezzanine is transformed into a café/library with public
access through the central stair and elevator.
The anteroom to the Law Library is transformed to a classroom.
The basement offices, storage and mechanical space.
A new stair is added within the existing north structure as a second means of egress.
Commissioners’ Building
A new elevator and stair are added at the Federal Street entrance allowing access
from the basement to the 2nd floor.
The east basement windows can be enlarged to add more daylight to the office
spaces.
The attic space is used for storage.
Classrooms in this scheme create a corridor at the 2nd floor.
An egress door at the rear of the building leads to a outdoor garden space.
ii. Financial Feasibility, Office & Institutional Mix
Financial feasibility for the office/residential mix is as follows, illustrating no viability, based
on the 2008 plans. Office/Institutional Mixes are presented in Schemes 4‐6 and do achieve
financial viability.
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 24
2B. Office/Institutional Mix (2008 Scheme)
PROGRAM SUMMARY Sq Ft
Office 20,890
Institutional 6,930
Circulation 7,960
Public 3,600
Mechanical/Common/Storage 7,170
Total Sq Feet 46,550
LEASABLE SPACE SUMMARY Sq Ft
Office (Ofc SF Total + 25% allocation of Circ & Public) 23,780
Institutional (Inst Total + 25% allocation of Circ & Public) 9,820
Total 33,600
ANNUAL REVENUES Annual
Office Lease Revenue $18.00 annual PSF rent (NNN)$428,000
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($21,400)
Less: Operating Expense 5% op ex/cap reserve ($21,400)
Institutional Rental Revenue $15.00 annual PSF rent (NNN)$147,300
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($7,400)
Less: Operating Expense 5% op ex/cap reserve ($7,400)
NOI $517,700
Uses of Funds
HARD COSTS
Site Prep & Landscaping & Utilties $250,000 estimate $250,000
Hard Costs ‐ Renovation $225 psf of total sq ft $10,473,800
SOFT COSTS
Soft Costs 25% of hard costs subtotal $2,681,000
FEES & OVERHEAD
Developer Fee 18% of hard + soft costs $2,412,900
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $15,817,700
Sources of Funds
SUPPORTABLE DEBT 1.15 DSCR $6,675,300
4.50% rate
25 year term
OWNER EQUITY $67,526 Annual Cash Available after Debt Svc $450,200
15% Required Annual Return
FEDERAL HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 95% of TDC $2,915,200
20% credit
$0.97 price per credit
STATE HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 5# of successful applications $2,175,000
$500,000 per award
$0.87 price per credit
DEFERRED DEVELOPER FEE 75% deferred $1,809,700
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $14,025,400
Value or (Funding Shortfall)
Positive Value or (Funding Shortfall)($1,792,300)
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 25
Option 3: Office Only Alternative (2008 Scheme)
This alternative assumes a use of both structures in an office
format. No drawings of this feasibility are provided, but
would utilize the office layout of the Superior Court Building
presented in Alternative 2‐C (Office/Residential Mix) and the
office layout of the Commissioners Building presented in
Alternative 2‐D (Office/Institutional Mix). Financial
feasibility for the office/residential mix is as follows,
illustrating no viability, based on the 2008 plans.
Basement windows allow for potential of
additional rentable space on the lower level
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 26
3. Office (2008 Scheme)
PROGRAM SUMMARY Sq Ft
Office 32,200
Café 3,600
Circulation 7,960
Public 1,640
Mechanical/Common/Storage 4,230
Total Sq Feet 49,630
LEASABLE SPACE SUMMARY Sq Ft
Office (Ofc SF Total + 50% allocation of Circ & Public) 37,000
Café 3,600
Total 40,600
ANNUAL REVENUES Annual
Office & Café Lease Revenue $18.00 annual PSF rent (NNN)$730,800
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($36,500)
Less: Operating Expense 5% op ex/cap reserve ($36,500)
NOI $657,800
Uses of Funds
HARD COSTS
Site Prep & Landscaping & Utilties $250,000 estimate $250,000
Hard Costs ‐ Renovation $225 psf of total sq ft $11,166,800
SOFT COSTS
Soft Costs 25% of hard costs subtotal $2,854,200
FEES & OVERHEAD
Developer Fee 18% of hard + soft costs $2,568,800
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $16,839,800
Sources of Funds
SUPPORTABLE DEBT 1.15 DSCR $7,440,500
4.50% rate
20 year term
OWNER EQUITY $85,800 Annual Cash Available after Debt Svc $572,000
15% Required Annual Return
FEDERAL HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 95% of TDC $3,103,600
20% credit
$0.97 price per credit
STATE HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 5# of successful applications $2,175,000
$500,000 per award
$0.87 price per credit
DEFERRED DEVELOPER FEE 75% deferred $1,926,600
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $15,217,700
Value or (Funding Shortfall)
Positive Value or (Funding Shortfall)($1,622,100)
OPTION 1A & 1C
OPTION 1B & 1D
OPTION 2A
OPTION 2B
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 31
Options 4‐6: Mixed Use Scheme with Institutional Anchor (2012 Schemes)
This 2012 Update presents three schemes that each pair institutional uses with either office
uses or apartment residential uses. The schemes are based on discussions with an
institutional user, and illustrate the potential location of an institutional use in three
different areas of the complex. The remaining space would then be utilized for either office
or residential rental use. Each of the schemes assume progressively less space to be set
aside for an institutional user, and each of the schemes attempts to separate uses between
the institutional user and the companion use. Option 4 assumes the institutional use in the
back (north) portion of the Courthouse building only, on both floors 1 & 2. Option 5
assumes the institutional use only on the second floor of both buildings. Option 6 assumes
the institutional use occupies the entirety of the Commissioners building and remains out of
the courthouse building.
Base assumptions for these schemes are imbedded in the pro formas, illustrating current
market rates. The basis for the assumptions are presented in the comparables and market
data included in the appendix. All schemes assume that the institutional user would pay $15
per square foot annually, triple net.
Based on financial analysis, the institutional/apartment mix schemes are economically
feasible and the institutional/office mix schemes are marginally economically feasible.
A summary is as follows:
Scheme Positive Land Value or (Funding Shortfall)
4A. Institutional/Office Mix ($351,800)
(52% office, 22% Institutional, 26% Circulation)
4B. Institutional/Rental Apt Mix $110,600
(52% apartment, 22% Institutional, 26% Circulation)
5A. Institutional/Office Mix ($307,700)
(54% office, 20% Institutional, 26% Circulation)
5B. Institutional/Rental Apt Mix $253,800
(54% apartment, 20% Institutional, 26% Circulation)
6A. Institutional/Office Mix ($248,500)
(58% office, 16% Institutional, 26% Circulation)
6B. Institutional/Rental Apt Mix $456,100
(58% apartment, 16% Institutional, 26% Circulation)
Pro formas and scheme layouts are included in the following pages.
OPTION 4 Inst User
INSTITUTIONAL USER
INST USER
INST USER
INSTITUTIONAL USER
INSTITUTIONAL USER
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 33
4A. Institutional/Office Mix (2012 Scheme)
PROGRAM SUMMARY Sq Ft
Office 23,494
Institutional 10,100
Mechanical/Circulation/Storage 12,000
Total Sq Feet 45,594
LEASABLE SPACE SUMMARY Sq Ft
Office (Ofc SF Total + 25% allocation of Circ & Public) 26,494
Institutional (Inst Total + 25% allocation of Circ & Public) 13,100
Total 39,594
ANNUAL REVENUES Annual
Office Lease Revenue $18.00 annual PSF rent (NNN)$476,900
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($23,800)
Less: Operating Expense 5% op ex/cap reserve ($23,800)
Institutional Rental Revenue $15.00 annual PSF rent (NNN)$196,500
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($9,800)
Less: Operating Expense 5% op ex/cap reserve ($9,800)
NOI $606,200
Uses of Funds
HARD COSTS
Site Prep & Landscaping & Utilties $250,000 estimate $250,000
Hard Costs ‐ Renovation $225 psf of total sq ft $10,258,700
SOFT COSTS
Soft Costs 25% of hard costs subtotal $2,627,200
FEES & OVERHEAD
Developer Fee 18% of hard + soft costs $2,364,500
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $15,500,400
Sources of Funds
SUPPORTABLE DEBT 1.15 DSCR $7,816,400
4.50% rate
25 year term
OWNER EQUITY $79,070 Annual Cash Available after Debt Svc $527,100
15% Required Annual Return
FEDERAL HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 95% of TDC $2,856,700
20% credit
$0.97 price per credit
STATE HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 5# of successful applications $2,175,000
$500,000 per award
$0.87 price per credit
DEFERRED DEVELOPER FEE 75% deferred $1,773,400
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $15,148,600
Value or (Funding Shortfall)
Positive Value or (Funding Shortfall)($351,800)
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 34
4B. Institutional/Rental Apt Mix (2012 Scheme)
PROGRAM SUMMARY Sq Ft
Institutional 10,100
Residential Apartment 23,494
Mechanical/Circulation/Storage 12,000
Total Sq Feet 45,594
LEASABLE SPACE SUMMARY Sq Ft
Institutional (Inst Total + 25% allocation of Circ & Public) 13,100
Residential Apartment 20 units 23,494
Total 36,594
ANNUAL REVENUES Annual
Institutional Lease Revenue $15.00 annual PSF rent (NNN)$196,500
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($9,800)
Less: Operating Expense 5% op ex/cap reserve ($9,800)
Residential Rental Revenue $1.95 monthly rent PSF $549,800
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($27,500)
Less: Operating Expense $400 monthly expense per unit ($8,000)
NOI $691,200
Uses of Funds
HARD COSTS
Site Prep & Landscaping & Utilties $250,000 estimate $250,000
Hard Costs ‐ Renovation $240 psf of total sq ft $10,942,600
SOFT COSTS
Soft Costs 25% of hard costs subtotal $2,798,200
FEES & OVERHEAD
Developer Fee 18% of hard + soft costs $2,518,300
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $16,509,100
Sources of Funds
SUPPORTABLE DEBT 1.15 DSCR $8,912,400
4.50% rate
25 year term
OWNER EQUITY $90,157 Annual Cash Available after Debt Svc $601,000
15% Required Annual Return
FEDERAL HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 95% of TDC $3,042,600
20% credit
$0.97 price per credit
STATE HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 5# of successful applications $2,175,000
$500,000 per award
$0.87 price per credit
DEFERRED DEVELOPER FEE 75% deferred $1,888,700
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $16,619,700
Value or (Funding Shortfall)
Positive Value or (Funding Shortfall)$110,600
OPTION 5
INSTITUTIONAL USER
INSTITUTIONAL USER
INST USER
INST USER
Inst User
INSTITUTIONAL USER
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 36
5A. Institutional/Office Mix (2012 Scheme)
PROGRAM SUMMARY Sq Ft
Office 24,694
Institutional 8,900
Mechanical/Circulation/Storage 12,000
Total Sq Feet 45,594
LEASABLE SPACE SUMMARY Sq Ft
Office (Ofc SF Total + 25% allocation of Circ & Public) 27,694
Institutional (Inst Total + 25% allocation of Circ & Public) 11,900
Total 39,594
ANNUAL REVENUES Annual
Office Lease Revenue $18.00 annual PSF rent (NNN)$498,500
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($24,900)
Less: Operating Expense 5% op ex/cap reserve ($24,900)
Institutional Rental Revenue $15.00 annual PSF rent (NNN)$178,500
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($8,900)
Less: Operating Expense 5% op ex/cap reserve ($8,900)
NOI $609,400
Uses of Funds
HARD COSTS
Site Prep & Landscaping & Utilties $250,000 estimate $250,000
Hard Costs ‐ Renovation $225 psf of total sq ft $10,258,700
SOFT COSTS
Soft Costs 25% of hard costs subtotal $2,627,200
FEES & OVERHEAD
Developer Fee 18% of hard + soft costs $2,364,500
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $15,500,400
Sources of Funds
SUPPORTABLE DEBT 1.15 DSCR $7,857,700
4.50% rate
25 year term
OWNER EQUITY $79,487 Annual Cash Available after Debt Svc $529,900
15% Required Annual Return
FEDERAL HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 95% of TDC $2,856,700
20% credit
$0.97 price per credit
STATE HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 5# of successful applications $2,175,000
$500,000 per award
$0.87 price per credit
DEFERRED DEVELOPER FEE 75% deferred $1,773,400
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $15,192,700
Value or (Funding Shortfall)
Positive Value or (Funding Shortfall)($307,700)
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 37
5B. Institutional/Rental Apt Mix (2012 Scheme)
PROGRAM SUMMARY Sq Ft
Institutional 8,900
Residential Apartment 24,694
Mechanical/Circulation/Storage 12,000
Total Sq Feet 45,594
LEASABLE SPACE SUMMARY Sq Ft
Institutional (Inst Total + 25% allocation of Circ & Public) 11,900
Residential Apartment 20 units 24,694
Total 36,594
ANNUAL REVENUES Annual
Institutional Lease Revenue $15.00 annual PSF rent (NNN)$178,500
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($8,900)
Less: Operating Expense 5% op ex/cap reserve ($8,900)
Residential Rental Revenue $1.95 monthly rent PSF $577,800
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($28,900)
Less: Operating Expense $400 monthly expense per unit ($8,000)
NOI $701,600
Uses of Funds
HARD COSTS
Site Prep & Landscaping & Utilties $250,000 estimate $250,000
Hard Costs ‐ Renovation $240 psf of total sq ft $10,942,600
SOFT COSTS
Soft Costs 25% of hard costs subtotal $2,798,200
FEES & OVERHEAD
Developer Fee 18% of hard + soft costs $2,518,300
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $16,509,100
Sources of Funds
SUPPORTABLE DEBT 1.15 DSCR $9,046,500
4.50% rate
25 year term
OWNER EQUITY $91,513 Annual Cash Available after Debt Svc $610,100
15% Required Annual Return
FEDERAL HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 95% of TDC $3,042,600
20% credit
$0.97 price per credit
STATE HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 5# of successful applications $2,175,000
$500,000 per award
$0.87 price per credit
DEFERRED DEVELOPER FEE 75% deferred $1,888,700
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $16,762,900
Value or (Funding Shortfall)
Positive Value or (Funding Shortfall)$253,800
OPTION 6 Inst User
INSTITUTIONAL USE
INST USE
INST USE
INSTITUTIONAL USE
INSTITUTIONAL USE
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 39
6A. Institutional/Office Mix (2012 Scheme)
PROGRAM SUMMARY Sq Ft
Office 26,394
Institutional 7,200
Mechanical/Circulation/Storage 12,000
Total Sq Feet 45,594
LEASABLE SPACE SUMMARY Sq Ft
Office (Ofc SF Total + 25% allocation of Circ & Public) 29,394
Institutional (Inst Total + 25% allocation of Circ & Public) 10,200
Total 39,594
ANNUAL REVENUES Annual
Office Lease Revenue $18.00 annual PSF rent (NNN)$529,100
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($26,500)
Less: Operating Expense 5% op ex/cap reserve ($26,500)
Institutional Rental Revenue $15.00 annual PSF rent (NNN)$153,000
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($7,700)
Less: Operating Expense 5% op ex/cap reserve ($7,700)
NOI $613,700
Uses of Funds
HARD COSTS
Site Prep & Landscaping & Utilties $250,000 estimate $250,000
Hard Costs ‐ Renovation $225 psf of total sq ft $10,258,700
SOFT COSTS
Soft Costs 25% of hard costs subtotal $2,627,200
FEES & OVERHEAD
Developer Fee 18% of hard + soft costs $2,364,500
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $15,500,400
Sources of Funds
SUPPORTABLE DEBT 1.15 DSCR $7,913,100
4.50% rate
25 year term
OWNER EQUITY $80,048 Annual Cash Available after Debt Svc $533,700
15% Required Annual Return
FEDERAL HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 95% of TDC $2,856,700
20% credit
$0.97 price per credit
STATE HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 5# of successful applications $2,175,000
$500,000 per award
$0.87 price per credit
DEFERRED DEVELOPER FEE 75% deferred $1,773,400
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $15,251,900
Value or (Funding Shortfall)
Positive Value or (Funding Shortfall)($248,500)
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 40
6B. Institutional/Rental Apt Mix (2012 Scheme)
PROGRAM SUMMARY Sq Ft
Institutional 7,200
Residential Apartment 26,394
Mechanical/Circulation/Storage 12,000
Total Sq Feet 45,594
LEASABLE SPACE SUMMARY Sq Ft
Institutional (Inst Total + 25% allocation of Circ & Public) 10,200
Residential Apartment 20 units 26,394
Total 36,594
ANNUAL REVENUES Annual
Institutional Lease Revenue $15.00 annual PSF rent (NNN)$153,000
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($7,700)
Less: Operating Expense 5% op ex/cap reserve ($7,700)
Residential Rental Revenue $1.95 monthly rent PSF $617,600
Less: Vacancy 5% average vacancy ($30,900)
Less: Operating Expense $400 monthly expense per unit ($8,000)
NOI $716,300
Uses of Funds
HARD COSTS
Site Prep & Landscaping & Utilties $250,000 estimate $250,000
Hard Costs ‐ Renovation $240 psf of total sq ft $10,942,600
SOFT COSTS
Soft Costs 25% of hard costs subtotal $2,798,200
FEES & OVERHEAD
Developer Fee 18% of hard + soft costs $2,518,300
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $16,509,100
Sources of Funds
SUPPORTABLE DEBT 1.15 DSCR $9,236,000
4.50% rate
25 year term
OWNER EQUITY $93,430 Annual Cash Available after Debt Svc $622,900
15% Required Annual Return
FEDERAL HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 95% of TDC $3,042,600
20% credit
$0.97 price per credit
STATE HISTORIC TAX CREDIT EQUITY 5# of successful applications $2,175,000
$500,000 per award
$0.87 price per credit
DEFERRED DEVELOPER FEE 75% deferred $1,888,700
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $16,965,200
Value or (Funding Shortfall)
Positive Value or (Funding Shortfall)$456,100
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 41
4. A NALYSIS & R ECOMMENDATIONS
4‐A Physical Analysis
All of the options make sense from a physical
perspective. One can provide reasonable marketable
spaces with appropriate circulation that do not require
extraordinary manipulation of the buildings. The historic
exteriors are kept intact, capable of meeting Park Service
standards. On the interior, the law library is preserved
for public access in all schemes and the character of the
large courtrooms is retained to some extent in all
schemes. However, these courtrooms are kept whole to
a much greater extent in the office and institutional
scenarios.
The major difficulty with the property from a physical
and market perspective is that it is physically and
financially impractical to provide parking within the
structures and it is only possible to get approximately 6‐
7 spaces on the site. This severely limits the
marketability of for‐sale units to more than 6 or 7 units.
Rental housing and office or institutional use could make
use of nearby parking facilities.
4‐B Analysis of Economic Feasibility & Recommendation
It is the opinion of the consultant that the 2008 Schemes remain infeasible.
Regarding the 2012 schemes, it is the opinion of the consultant that the schemes coupling
an institutional user with an office user are marginally infeasible, however, slight increases
in rents from either an office tenant or the institutional tenant, or a higher allocation of
public space to leasable space, could result in a feasible project.
It is the opinion of the consultant that the schemes coupling an institutional user with an
apartment user are feasible; however, such a use may not be the most ideal solution as the
uses could be seen as incompatible.
There is a strong likelihood that interest will be achieved from developers via the RFP
process based on the number of potentially economically viable schemes developed as
Small green space located behind
Commissioner’s Building
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 42
part of this study, and that those schemes would address the goals of the Commonwealth,
the local community, and potential institutional users. Although it is unlikely that a
developer scheme would exactly match a scheme presented here, the combination of an
institutional anchor tenant, the use of historic tax credits, and minimal parking and site
costs make development here possible due to a strong rental apartment market and a
marginally strong office market.
As such, it is recommended that an RFP be issued to solicit developer proposals.
Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building
Feasibility of Real Estate Options – 2012 UPDATE
Page 43
A PPENDIX
‐ Market Data for Salem
Salem, Massachusetts
2
Map of Rental Properties from Surrounding Area
.
Salem, Massachusetts
3
1.Princeton Crossing DATE:5/17/2011
12 Heritage Drive
Salem, MA
Route 107
Tori DEVELOPER:
978.740.1700 MANAGEMENT CO.:Princeton PropertiesPHONE NUMBER:
COMP. PROPERTY:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
CONTACT NAME:
KEY CROSS STREET:
UNIT TYPE BATH # UNITS % LEASED
1 BR 1 179 $1,030 $1,170 600 700 $1.72 $1.67
2 BR 1 179 $1,290 $1,360 800 900 $1.61 $1.51
TOTAL 358 96.0%
RENT RANGE $/ SQ. FT. RANGESQ. FT. RANGE
Salem, Massachusetts
4
1970's SECURITY DEPOSIT:
BUILDING TYPE Garden OTHER FEES:
NUMBER OF BUILDINGS LEASE TERMS:1 year
3.0 FURNISHED UNITS:
CONCESSIONS/SP ECIALS:
None
MICROWAVE:SECURITY:(intercom)WINDOW COVERING:
F/F REFRIGERATOR:X alarm:blinds:X
WASHER/DRYER:gate:shades:
conn:patrol:CARPET X
full size:CEILING FAN:HARDWOOD:
stacked:FIREPLACE:VINYL:X
DISHWASHER:X VAULTED CEILING:OUTSIDE STORAGE:
GARBAGE DISPOSAL:X VIEWS:PATIO/BALCONIES:
CABLE READY:X INTERNET ACCESS:ELEVATOR:
COUNTERTOP TYPE:Formica AIR CONDITIONING:X
LAUNDRY ROOM:X FITNESS:X
POOL:X CLUBHOUSE:
JACUZZI/SAUNA:BUSINESS CENTER:
TENNIS: PARKING:X off street:
BASKETBALL:carport:
PLAYGROUND:garage:
COMMUNITY SPACE:zip car:
ON SITE OFFICE X SERVICE COORDINATOR:
OTHER:
PETS:UTILITIES (type):
deposit:resident pays:Unit Electric and Cooking Elec.
pet rent:
OTHER FEES:included:Gas Heat, Water, Sewer, Garbage
CLASS:
PROPERTY CONDITION:
COMMENTS:
286 Market rate units and 72 affordable units
INTERIOR AMENITIES
NUMBER OF FLOORS:
YEAR BUILT:
BUILDING COM M ENTS:
EXTERIOR AMENITIES
OTHER
Good
Salem, Massachusetts
5
2. The Millery DATE:5/17/2011
101 Rantoul Street
Beverly, MA
Fayette
Scott DEVELOPER:
866.304.9755 MANAGEMENT CO.:Peabody Properties
COMP. PROPERTY:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
KEY CROSS STREET:
CONTACT NAME:
PHONE NUMBER:
UNIT TYPE BATH # UNITS % LEASED
1 BR 1 24 $1,050 $1,210 615 615 $1.71 $1.97
2 BR 2 75 $1,260 $1,420 950 950 $1.33 $1.49
TOTAL 99 100.0%
RENT RANGE SQ. FT. RANGE $/ SQ. FT. RANGE
Salem, Massachusetts
6
1978 SECURITY DEPOSIT:1 Month
Mid-rise OTHER FEES:
1 LEASE TERMS:Flexible
7 FURNISHED UNITS:
CONCESSIONS/SP ECIALS:
None
MICROWAVE:SECURITY:Intercom WINDOW COVERING:
F/F REFRIGERATOR:X alarm:blinds:
WASHER/DRYER:gate:shades:
conn:patrol:CARPET X
full size:CEILING FAN:HARDWOOD:
stacked:FIREPLACE:VINYL:X
DISHWASHER:X VAULTED CEILING:OUTSIDE STORAGE:
GARBAGE DISPOSAL:X VIEWS:PATIO/BALCONIES:
CABLE READY:X INTERNET ACCESS:X ELEVATOR:
COUNTERTOP TYPE:Formica AIR CONDITIONING:X
LAUNDRY ROOM:X FITNESS:
POOL: CLUBHOUSE:
JACUZZI/SAUNA: BUSINESS CENTER:
TENNIS:PARKING:X off street:x (w/rent)
BASKETBALL:carport:
PLAYGROUND:garage:
COMMUNITY SPACE:X zip car:
ON SITE OFFICE X SERVICE COORDINATOR:
OTHER:
PETS:UTILITIES (type):
deposit:resident pays:Unit Electric and Cooking Elec.
pet rent:$25/cat $50/dog
OTHER FEES:included:Gas Heat, Water, Sewer, Garbage
CLASS:
PROPERTY CONDITION:
COMMENTS:
YEAR BUILT:
NUMBER OF FLOORS:
BUILDING TYPE
NUMBER OF BUILDINGS
EXTERIOR AMENITIES
OTHER
Good
Mixed income property
BUILDING COM M ENTS:
INTERIOR AMENITIES
Salem, Massachusetts
7
3. Northgate Apts DATE:5/17/2011
237 Lantern Road
Revere, MA
Route 60
Roxanne Aiello DEVELOPER:
781.289.3535 MANAGEMENT CO.:Dolben Company
COMP. PROPERTY:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
KEY CROSS STREET:
CONTACT NAME:
PHONE NUMBER:
UNIT TYPE BATH # UNITS % LEASED
Studio 1 11 $885 $965 385 385 $2.30 $2.51
1 BR 1 125 $1,200 $1,200 412 698 $2.91 $1.72
2 BR 1 61 $1,350 $1,400 912 912 $1.48 $1.54
2 BR-TH 1.5 2 $1,475 $1,545 1,278 1,278 $1.15 $1.21
3 BR 1 6 $1,545 $1,545 1,200 1,220 $1.29 $1.27
3 BR-TH 1.5 10 $1,595 $1,595 1,425 1,425 $1.12 $1.12
TOTAL 215 98.0%
RENT RANGE SQ. FT. RANGE $/ SQ. FT. RANGE
Salem, Massachusetts
8
1980's SECURITY DEPOSIT:1 Month
BUILDING TYPE Garden OTHER FEES:
NUMBER OF BUILDINGS LEASE TERMS:12 Months
4 FURNISHED UNITS:
CONCESSIONS/SP ECIALS:
None
MICROWAVE:SECURITY:Intercom WINDOW COVERING:
F/F REFRIGERATOR:X alarm:blinds:X
WASHER/DRYER:gate:shades:
conn:patrol:CARPET X
full size: CEILING FAN: HARDWOOD:
stacked:FIREPLACE: VINYL:X
DISHWASHER:X VAULTED CEILING: OUTSIDE STORAGE:
GARBAGE DISPOSAL:X VIEWS:City PATIO/BALCONIES:X
CABLE READY:X INTERNET ACCESS:X ELEVATOR:X
COUNTERTOP TYPE:Formica AIR CONDITIONING:Window
LAUNDRY ROOM:X FITNESS:X
POOL:X CLUBHOUSE:
JACUZZI/SAUNA:BUSINESS CENTER:
TENNIS:PARKING:X off street:X
BASKETBALL:carport:
PLAYGROUND:garage:
COMMUNITY SPACE:X zip car:
ON SITE OFFICE X SERVICE COORDINATOR:
OTHER:
PETS:UTILITIES (type):
deposit:resident pays:Unit Electric and Cooking Elec.
pet rent:
OTHER FEES:included:Gas Heat, Water, Sewer, Garbage
CLASS:
PROPERTY CONDITION:
YEAR BUILT:
NUMBER OF FLOORS:
EXTERIOR AMENITIES
OTHER
Good
BUILDING COM M ENTS:
INTERIOR AMENITIES
Salem, Massachusetts
9
4. Kings Lynne Apts DATE:5/17/2011
115 O'Callaghan Way
Lynn, MA
Walnut
Elaine Kalapinski DEVELOPER:
781.581.7106 MANAGEMENT CO.:CMJ Managaement
COMP. PROPERTY:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
KEY CROSS STREET:
CONTACT NAME:
PHONE NUMBER:
BEDROOM BATH # UNITS % LEASED
1 BR 1 188 $1,090 $1,090 675 675 $1.61 $1.61
2 BR 1 72 $1,245 $1,245 708 708 $1.76 $1.76
2 BR-TH 1.5 52 $1,325 $1,325 725 725 $1.83 $1.83
3 BR 2 89 $1,495 $1,495 800 800 $1.87 $1.87
4 BR 3 40 $1,615 $1,690 850 1,000 $1.90 $1.69
TOTAL 441 100.0%
RENT RANGE SQ. FT. RANGE $/ SQ. FT. RANGE
Salem, Massachusetts
10
1978 SECURITY DEPOSIT:
BUILDING TYPE Midrise OTHER FEES:
NUMBER OF BUILDINGS LEASE TERMS:
2-5 FURNISHED UNITS:
CONCESSIONS/SPECIALS:
MICROWAVE:SECURITY:Intercom WINDOW COVERING:
F/F REFRIGERATOR:X alarm:blinds:X
WASHER/DRYER:gate:shades:
conn:patrol:CARPET X
full size: CEILING FAN:HARDWOOD:
stacked:FIREPLACE: VINYL:X
DISHWASHER:X VAULTED CEILING:OUTSIDE STORAGE:X
GARBAGE DISPOSAL:X VIEWS:PATIO/BALCONIES:X
CABLE READY:X INTERNET ACCESS:X ELEVATOR:X
COUNTERTOP TYPE:Formica AIR CONDITIONING:Unit
LAUNDRY ROOM:X FITNESS:X
POOL:X CLUBHOUSE:
JACUZZI/SAUNA:X BUSINESS CENTER:
TENNIS:PARKING:Yes off street:X
BASKETBALL:carport:
PLAYGROUND:garage:
COMMUNITY SPACE:X zip car:
ON SITE OFFICE X SERVICE COORDINATOR:
OTHER:
PETS:UTILITIES (type):
deposit:resident pays:Unit Electric and Cooking Elec.
pet rent:
OTHER FEES:included:Gas Heat, Water, Sewer, Garbage
CLASS:
PROPERTY CONDITION:
COMMENTS:
BUILDING COMMENTS:
There are 15 of the larger four bedroom units. These include a den.
INTERIOR AMENITIES
EXTERIOR AMENITIES
OTHER
Good
Property contains mix of market and affordable units with MRVP and HAP contract apartments Rents shown reflect market rents
YEAR BUILT:
NUMBER OF FLOORS:
Salem, Massachusetts
11
5. Hawthorne Commons DATE:5/17/2011
205 Highland Ave
Salem, MA
First
Kim DEVELOPER:
978.825.0030 MANAGEMENT CO.:Lincoln Properties
COMP. PROPERTY:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
KEY CROSS STREET:
CONTACT NAME:
PHONE NUMBER:
UNIT TYPE BATH # UNITS % LEASED
1 BR 1 114 $1,270 $1,340 768 795 $1.65 $1.69
2 BR 1 114 $1,630 $1,680 1,060 1,093 $1.54 $1.54
TOTAL 228 93.0%
RENT RANGE SQ. FT. RANGE $/ SQ. FT. RANGE
Salem, Massachusetts
12
2003 SECURITY DEPOSIT:1 Month
BUILDING TYPE Garden OTHER FEES:
NUMBER OF BUILDINGS LEASE TERMS:6 and 12 Months
3 FURNISHED UNITS:
CONCESSIONS/SP ECIALS:
None
MICROWAVE:X SECURITY:Intercom WINDOW COVERING:
F/F REFRIGERATOR:X alarm:blinds:X
WASHER/DRYER:X gate:shades:
conn:patrol:CARPET X
full size: CEILING FAN: HARDWOOD:
stacked:FIREPLACE: VINYL:X
DISHWASHER:X VAULTED CEILING: OUTSIDE STORAGE:
GARBAGE DISPOSAL:X VIEWS:PATIO/BALCONIES:X
CABLE READY:X INTERNET ACCESS:X ELEVATOR:X
COUNTERTOP TYPE:Formica AIR CONDITIONING:Central
LAUNDRY ROOM:X FITNESS:X
POOL:X CLUBHOUSE:X
JACUZZI/SAUNA:X BUSINESS CENTER:X
TENNIS:PARKING:X off street:Free
BASKETBALL:carport:
PLAYGROUND:garage:$150/mo.
COMMUNITY SPACE:X zip car:
ON SITE OFFICE X SERVICE COORDINATOR:
OTHER:
PETS:Cats and Dogs OK UTILITIES (type):
deposit:resident pays:Heat, Unit Electric and Cooking
pet rent:45 35
OTHER FEES:included:Water, Sewer, Garbage
CLASS:
PROPERTY CONDITION:
BUILDING COM M ENTS:
Excellent
INTERIOR AMENITIES
EXTERIOR AMENITIES
OTHER
Excellent
YEAR BUILT:
NUMBER OF FLOORS:
Salem, Massachusetts
13
The next table illustrates the range of rents observed at the comparables examined. The table
illustrates the unit rents and the rent adjusted to reflect the fact that most Class B apartments
provide heat, hot water, electricity and cooking fuel. We have displayed the rents as a
monthly rent and as a rent per square foot of living space.
Summary of Rent Comparables
BEDROOM BATH
1 BR 1 412 795 $1,030 $1,340 $1.61 $1.97
2 BR 1-2 708 1,093 $1,245 $1,680 $1.33 $1.76
RENT RANGESQ. FT. RANGE $/ SQ. FT. RANGE
UNIT RENTS
In the apartment rental market, occupancies above 95% are generally considered effectively
“fully occupied”, since most property owners assume approximately 5% vacancy and credit
loss for market rate apartments in their pro forma analysis and projections. The comparable
properties reviewed exhibited an overall occupancy of 97.4%, with two development fully
occupied. Of the more than 1,300 units at the five properties reviewed, only 35 units are
currently available.
Comparable Occupancy Data
%
Comparable Total Vacant Vacant
1.Princeton Crossing 358 14 4.0%
2. The Millery 99 0 0.0%
3. Northgate Apts 215 4 2.0%
4. Kings Lynne Apts 441 0 0.0%
5. Hawthorne Commons 228 16 7.0%
1,341 35 2.6%
Units
Residential Operating Expenses
These vary widely depending on the final product. Relevant variables include number of
units, building type, level of affordability and reporting requirements, level of site amenities,
and others.
The data in the next table are taken from 15 rental properties in Eastern Massachusetts
Salem, Massachusetts
14
Residential Operating Expenses
Low High Mean Median
Units
Studio 0.00 54.00 7.60 0.00
1-BR 8.00 193.00 69.13 69.00
2-BR 1.00 120.00 43.47 38.00
3-BR 0.00 36.00 7.53 0.00
4+-BR 0.00 8.00 0.80 0.00
Total 76.00 231.00 128.53 124.00
Family 0.00 229.00 37.47 1.00
Elderly 0.00 188.00 29.67 0.99
HP 0.00 20.00 2.29 0.00
Low-Income
Mod-Income
Market
Building Type
Mangement Fee %2.1%5.5%4.1%4.1%
Benefits %0.0%60.3%27.6%24.9%
Gross Rental Income
Vacancy 0%14%4%1%
Effective Gross Income
Management Fee $300 $3,017 $808 $651
Administrative
Payroll $375 $2,920 $912 $691
Taxes and Benefits $0 $728 $206 $167
Legal $0 $260 $84 $60
Audit $0 $239 $109 $91
Marketing $0 $827 $127 $33
Telephone $27 $176 $75 $66
Office Supplies $48 $255 $134 $105
Accounting $0 $77 $38 $64
Miscellaneous $0 $738 $153 $125
Subtotal Adminstrative $920 $5,754 $1,837 $1,526
Maintainance
Payroll $361 $1,230 $772 $770
Taxes and Benefits $0 $421 $201 $173
Janitorial Materials $14 $695 $166 $101
Landscaping $46 $555 $256 $191
Contracts $0 $0 $0 $0
Decorating (Interior)$0 $917 $267 $162
Repairs (Int/Ext)$198 $1,046 $474 $469
Elevator $0 $196 $61 $30
Trash $0 $246 $109 $112
Snow $0 $521 $121 $101
Extermination $0 $111 $32 $24
Recreation $0 $159 $12 $0
Other $0 $456 $59 $16
Subtotal Maintenance $1,616 $3,129 $2,530 $2,627
Utilities
Electricity $99 $1,333 $531 $435
Gas/Oil $31 $865 $414 $421
Water and Sewer $127 $823 $375 $354
Other
Subtotal Utilities $399 $2,498 $1,320 $1,269
Other Expenses
Real Estate Taxes $204 $3,889 $1,156 $781
Insurance $103 $903 $383 $369
Resident Services $0 $19,149 $1,321 $43
Security $0 $762 $141 $20
Other $0 $113 $10 $1
Subtotal Other Expeness $805 $20,985 $3,012 $1,393
Total $4,255 $34,219 $9,507 $7,227
Salem, Massachusetts
15
For Sale Housing:
Not requested, can provide.
Residential Land Sales
Not requested, would be similar to Rutland data.
Salem, Massachusetts
16
Commercial
Salem Commercial Lease Data
Street Town Type Low High Low High Notes
Congress Salem Retail 800 2,000 $15.00 $15.00 Single story brick
Church Salem Reail 1,830 1,834 $15.00 $15.00 Two story renovated brick
Essex Salem Retail 500 21,500 $12.00 $18.00 Musuem Place Mall
Lafayette Salem Retail/Rest 1,500 3,875 $10.00 $14.67 Licquor License
Front Salem Retail 2,000 5,000 $20.00 $20.00 Two stdory brick, street retail
Washington Salem Retail 620 2,150 $13.09 $20.00 Two story brick, street retail
Salem Green Salem Office 850 5,000 $15.00 $15.00 Space in 40,000 sf builidng
Holyoke Sq Salem Office 1,750 4,200 $16.50 $16.50 Space in 55,000 sf builidng
Front St Salem Office 2,229 2,229 $14.25 $14.25 Space in 24,000 sf builidng
Federal Salem Office 2,000 20,000 $8.00 $14.00 Space in 150,000 sf builidng
Essex Salem Office 500 21,500 $12.00 $18.00 Musuem Place Mall
Low
High
Median
Mean
$8.00
$20.00
Size (SF)Rent/SF
2,000
4,721
500
21,500
$15.00
$15.06