A Redevelopment Study for the Northland Center Mall in the City of Southfield, Michigan

Transcription

1 A Redevelopment Study for the Northland Center Mall in the City of Southfield, Michigan Prepared For: Mr. James M. Houk, ASLA, AICP OHM Advisors 580 N. Fourth St., Suite 610 Columbus, Ohio Project Number D2113KDMB August 22, 2016 Danter Company, LLC National Leaders in Real Estate Research 2760 Airport Drive Suite 135 Columbus, OH

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... I-1 A. OBJECTIVES... I-1 B. METHODOLOGY... I-1 C. DATA ANALYSIS... I-2 D. USES AND APPLICATIONS... I-2 II. SCOPE OF SURVEY... II-1 III. CONCLUSIONS... III-1 A. INTRODUCTION... III-1 B. RETAIL... III-2 C. MARKET-RATE APARTMENTS... III-10 D. STUDENT HOUSING... III-40 E. SENIOR HOUSING... III-73 F. PLANNED/PROPOSED/UNDER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS... III-83 G. EMA RENTAL BASE... III-84 H. EMA DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS... III-88 I. LODGING... III-93 J. OFFICE... III-114 K. CONDONIUM... III-123 IV. THE SITE... IV-1 A. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION... IV-1 B. SITE EVALUATION... IV-2 C. EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA (EMA)... IV-5 RETAIL EMA MAP... IV-6 MARKET-RATE APARTMENT/CONDONIUM EMA MAP... IV-7 SENIOR HOUSING EMA MAP... IV-8 LODGING CMA/OFFICE EMA MAP... IV-9 D. COMMUNITY SERVICES... IV-10 ii

3 V. SITE AREA MAPS AND PHOTOGRAPHS... V-1 NEIGHBORHOOD MAP... V-2 SITE LOCATION MAP... V-3 COMMUNITY SERVICES MAP... V-4 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS... V-5 VI. FIELD SURVEY OF MODERN APARTMENTS... VI-1 VII. FIELD SURVEY OF MODERN APARTMENTS (STUDENT HOUSING)... VII-1 VIII. LOCATION MAPS AND PHOTOGRAPHS... VIII-1 APARTMENT LOCATIONS MAPS... VIII-2 ASSISTED-LIVING LOCATIONS MAP... VIII-8 INDEPENDENT-LIVING LOCATIONS MAP... VIII-9 CONDONIUM LOCATIONS MAP... VIII-10 LODGING LOCATIONS MAP... VIII-11 OFFICE LOCATIONS MAPS... VIII-12 APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS... VIII-14 IX. AREA ECONOMY... IX-1 A. EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS... IX-1 B. HOUSING STARTS... IX-4 DEMOGRAPHICS GLOSSARY... G-1 QUALIFICATIONS AND SERVICES... Q-1 iii

4 I. INTRODUCTION A. BACKGROUND This report identifies the level of market support and redevelopment potential of the existing, but closed, Northland Center Mall located in Southfield, Michigan. The mall is located at the intersection of Northwestern Highway and Greenfield Road, north of 8 Mile Road, in the City of Southfield, Michigan. Initial construction began in 1952 and was completed in March, Designed by Victor Gruen and developed by the J.L. Hudson Company, the mall was a leader in regional shopping centers. It originally was anchored by a four-level Hudson s Department store. The mall contains 1,449,719 square feet on 125 acres. There is parking for 8,700 vehicles. The mall was enclosed in the 1970 s and expanded several times thereafter to include over 100 stores. Macy s, the last anchor, closed in 2015 and was subsequently purchased by the City of Southfield. B. OBJECTIVES This report identifies the level of market support and redevelopment potential of the existing, but closed, Northland Center Mall located in Southfield, Michigan. Uses considered include: 1. Market-rate apartments (upscale and senior) 2. Office 3. Retail/commercial 4. Lodging 5. Condominiums 6. Senior assisted housing Conclusions and recommendations are predicated on the development of a mixed use property containing, at the least, residential, office and sufficient retail to establish the mixed use branding of the property. Such mixed use creates a synergy that maximizes the marketability and rents that can be achieved. I-1

5 C. METHODOLOGY The methodology we use in our studies is centered on four analytical techniques: the Effective Market Area (EMA) principle, Competitive Market Area (CMA) principle, a 100% data base, and the application of data generated from supplemental proprietary research. The Effective Market Area (EMA) Our residential conclusions for the market potential of the subject project are based on a thorough analysis of the Effective Market Area (EMA). EMA refers to a methodology developed by The Danter Company to describe areas of similar economic and demographic characteristics. The EMA is the smallest area expected to contain the greatest concentration (60% to 70%) of support for the proposed project. EMA boundaries have been determined based on interviews with area real estate, planning, and housing professionals, analysis of area mobility patterns, and past surveys conducted by The Danter Company. The EMA may differ between land uses. For example, the EMA for apartments may be different than a retail EMA. The EMA will be defined in each of the following component recommendations. A 100% data base provides substantial advantages over looking at only a selected comparables. A 100% data base allows consideration of the proposed project in the context of the whole area market, establishing a relationship to other area properties. Further, it allows us to identify potential product and pricing niches not previously considered, as well as the potential for identifying replacement support. The EMA is defined by the existing facility configurations relative to the proposed site, location of population, density of support components, and highway patterns. This methodology has significant advantages in that it considers existing natural and manmade boundaries and socioeconomic conditions. It also enables us to make market share calculations and estimates. In the case of lodging analysis, the EMA in not practical given that the end consumer comes from a wide, national or even international, area. In the lodging analysis a Competitive Market Area (CMA) is defined. The CMA is defined by the site proximity to lodging generators and the relative location of competitive facilityes. Survey Data Base Our surveys employ a l00% 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 modern developments within the EMA. Proprietary Research In addition to site-specific analyses, The Danter Company, Incorporated conducts a number of ongoing studies, the results of which are used as support data for our conclusions. I-2

6 D. DATA ANALYSIS This study represents a compilation of data gathered from various sources, including the properties surveyed, local records, and interviews with local officials, real estate professionals, 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 the report preparation. This report can be updated based on any new information, with the cost contingent on the amount of data impacting the report and the proportionate production costs. In the Field Survey components of our report, we have attempted to survey l00% of all competitive development. All properties included in the study are personally inspected by a field analyst directly employed by The Danter Company, Incorporated. The objective of this report is to gather, analyze, and present as many market components as reasonably possible within the time constraints agreed upon. The conclusions 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 be realized as stated. It is our function to provide our best effort in data aggregation, and to express opinions based on our evaluation. The analysis of specific development alternatives is presented independently. However, our conclusions reflect the synergistic impact of the totality of the development. Each component adds to the value of the entire concept. I-3

7 II. SCOPE OF SURVEY A complete analysis of a residential and commercial market requires several considerations: field surveys of retail centers and freestanding retail, for-sale condominiums, area lodging facilities, market rate and student apartments, office space and assisted living facilities; an analysis of the area economy; a demographic analysis; and recommendations for development. Field Survey To analyze the redevelopment potential of the site, six field surveys were completed: Survey of retail facilities including total square feet, year built, type of establishment, and vacancy rates. Survey of apartments (including student apartments), including rent, amenities, occupancy and comparative index. Survey of office space by class, price and vacancy rate. Survey of lodging facilities. Survey of for-sale condominiums. This survey includes sales prices, unit and project amenities, and sales rates. Survey of senior housing alternatives, including independent- and assistedliving. Area Housing and Commercial Analysis We have conducted an analysis of housing and commercial demand that includes a study of support by both growth and internal mobility. Further, we have analyzed existing housing using the most recent census material. Economic Analysis Major employers, utilities, banks, savings and loans, and media that serve the area are listed in the study. The information gathered has been used to create 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 demographic characteristics of the area, and a description of the area economy that includes income and employment trends. Recommendations This section of the study considers project development and includes support by total square feet, price range, number of supportable units, and unit mix. Recommendations are made based on the analysis of these factors. II-1

8 III. CONCLUSIONS A. INTRODUCTION This report evaluates the potential to revitalize the existing Northland Center mall in Southfield, Michigan as an integrated-use development. The Northland Center Mall, located at Northwestern Highway, was originally developed by JL Hudson Company and opened in The mall encompassed approximately 2,000,000 square feet of retail floor space. The mall was open air until the 1970s, when expansion and enclosure of the mall created an indoor locale. Eventually most retailers and anchors moved out and the last anchor tenant, Macy s, closed in March Northland Center was a local landmark and major shopping destination for over five decades. Recommendations are based on the premise that the integrated-use branding of the development will contain, at a minimum, the market-rate apartment, retail/commercial and office components. The synergistic impact of such an integrated development creates increased demand, as well as the potential for premium product pricing. It will be important to generate enough retail, commercial and entertainment uses as possible in order to create a true integrated concept. We anticipate that the development will reflect an urban mixed-use lifestyle with a walkable site plan. Office space will provide a wide range of options from institutional style development to smaller, entrepreneurial, space reflecting a live/work lifestyle. Such mixed-use development optimizes lease rates, investment and employment on the site. It is also essential that the revitalized development appear as an exciting new development rather than simply as an old mall with some apartments attached. Seven development alternatives were evaluated: 1. Retail/commercial 2. Market-rate apartments 3. Student housing 4. Senior housing 5. Lodging 6. Office 7. Condominiums III-1

9 The recommendations for each will be fully evaluated and defined within this of the report. This analysis is based on the establishment of a Site Effective Market Area (EMA) for the proposed project. EMA refers to a methodology developed by the Dander Company, LLC to describe areas of similar economic and demographic characteristics. The EMA is defined as the smallest geographic area that is expected to generate 65% to 70% of support. In the case of lodging (in which customers originate from well outside the market, a Competitive Market Area (CMA) is defined). EMAs are bounded by both "hard" and "soft" boundaries. Hard boundaries are marked by rivers, freeways, railroad rights of way, and other physical boundaries. Soft boundaries are changes in the socioeconomic makeup of neighborhoods. EMAs may differ based on the type of development. For example the office EMA may not be the same and the retail or residential EMA. The EMA specific to each use in this report will be defined in the introduction portion of each component. B. RETAIL 1. INTRODUCTION This component of our report evaluates the market potential for retail development as part of an integrated-use redevelopment of the Northland Center Mall in Southfield, Michigan. Additional uses recommended for the site include upscale market-rate apartments, student housing, assisted living, lodging and office. This analysis is based on the establishment of a Site Effective Market Area (EMA) for the proposed project. EMA refers to a methodology developed by the Danter Company, LLC to describe areas of similar economic and demographic characteristics. The EMA is defined as the smallest geographic area that is expected to generate 65% to 70% of support. EMAs are bounded by both "hard" and "soft" boundaries. Hard boundaries are marked by rivers, freeways, railroad rights of way, and other physical boundaries. Soft boundaries are changes in the socioeconomic makeup of neighborhoods. EMAs may differ based on the type of development. For example the Lodging EMA will not be the same as the Retail or Residential EMA. The EMA specific to each use in this report will be defined in the introduction portion of each component. The retail Effective Market Area for the subject site has been defined as a relatively small area because of the impact of surrounding larger retail centers. The area is bounded by West 13 Mile Road to the north, West 7 Mile Road to the south, Coolidge Highway to the east and Evergreen Road to the west. III-2

10 The following map illustrates the retail EMA. Based on the characteristics of the Site EMA, a field survey of existing neighborhood retail development, an analysis of the appropriateness of the site for the proposed development, and an analysis of the Site EMA, support levels can be established for additional retail development on the subject property. Retail development potential at the site is based on: A field survey of shopping centers and districts in the region Interviews with area commercial leasing agents, business owners, and shopping center managers Site characteristics, strengths and weaknesses Appropriateness of the site for development An analysis of competition, retail mobility patterns, area demographics, and consumer spending patterns A void analysis of existing retail establishments A thorough analysis of Effective Market Area (EMA) including Population and household trends Consumer spending patterns A sales and spending comparison III-3

11 2. RECOMMENDATIONS With the closing of the Northland Center Mall, the Effective Market Area experienced significant voids among many retail categories. Nevertheless, the revitalized development will not be defined by its retail presence in the market, but by branding the property as an integrated-use development. It is anticipated that the retail component would require 100,000 to 125,000 square feet, including restaurant and entertainment categories. It is important to have sufficient retail space to give the development the credibility of being an integrated-use development. It is also noteworthy that 30% to 40% of the retail space will be occupied by office, service and/or medical tenants. The preceding does not include out-parcel big box development anticipated along 8 Mile Road at the south edge of the site. The Effective Market Area of the subject site is well-developed with scattered retail uses, however, there is little in the way of branded retail centers. Because of the regional nature of the area anchored by a large employment base and major thoroughfares, retail sales among selected categories exceed the expenditures. However, we should also point out that, with the strength of the site there is always the possibility to attract retailers or restaurants seeking market share within the area. 3. RETAIL ANALYSIS Based on the inventory of EMA retail establishments, the EMA has a very welldeveloped retail base. This area includes a wide range of retailers and few vacant storefronts. Overall, the EMA has a wide range of retail choices. In a comparison with peer city and neighborhood retail districts, the EMA fares above average in the distribution of retailers by category. The most notable voids in the market were limited more by specific store offerings rather than by retail categories. Following is a summary of the retail facilities identified in the Southfield EMA. III-4

12 RETAIL SUMMARY NUMBER OF BUSINESSES Total Retail Trade and Food & Drink 891 Total Retail Trade 675 Total Food & Drink 217 Retail Group Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers 20 Automobile Dealers 8 Other Motor Vehicle Dealers 2 Auto Parts, Accessories & Tire Stores 10 Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores 25 Furniture Stores 9 Home Furnishings Stores 16 Electronics & Appliance Stores 37 Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply Stores 22 Bldg Material & Supplies Dealers 17 Lawn & Garden Equip & Supply Stores 5 Food & Beverage Stores 57 Grocery Stores 27 Specialty Food Stores 11 Beer, Wine & Liquor Stores 19 Health & Personal Care Stores 86 Gasoline Stations 31 Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores 255 Clothing Stores 144 Shoe Stores 37 Jewelry, Luggage & Leather Goods Stores 74 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book & Music Stores 34 Sporting Goods/Hobby/Musical Instr Stores 27 Book, Periodical & Music Stores 7 General Merchandise Stores 29 Department Stores Excluding Leased Depts. 13 Other General Merchandise Stores 16 Miscellaneous Store Retailers 66 Florists 9 Office Supplies, Stationery & Gift Stores 25 Used Merchandise Stores 14 Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers 18 Food Services & Drinking Places 217 Full-Service Restaurants 116 Limited-Service Eating Places 80 Special Food Services 15 Drinking Places - Alcoholic Beverages 6 III-5

13 According to ESRI, in 2015 there were 891 retail businesses in the retail EMA. Among the various different categories, food service and drinking places account for the most retail stores, with a total of 217. One hundred and sixteen (116) of the restaurants are full service and 80 are limited-service restaurants. A full service restaurant offers a wide range of food and beverages. Customers at a full service restaurant order and are served while seated. Generally, bakeries, pubs & bars and diners are subsets of the full service category but offer a somewhat different dining experience. These restaurants are generally categorized as limited service. Clothing stores account for 144 stores and the overall clothing and accessories stores account for 255. Stores in the miscellaneous store retailers category include discount stores, antique stores, pet supplies, shoe repair, video rental, tobacco stores, art stores, florists, office supplies, used merchandise, and seasonal stores. 4. EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA EXPENDITURES AND SALES The following table compares expenditures in the EMA with total sales and the resulting drain, in which expenditures exceed the total sales or, conversely, a capture in which sales exceed expenditures. The expenditures represent the dollars spent by residents within the EMA and sales represent the sales by the EMA retail stores. In a situation where the EMA has a net capture, the EMA is functioning as a regional attraction, attracting more dollars into the market than are expended. III-6

14 EXPENDITURES RETAIL SUMMARY EXPENDITURES SALES CAPTURE (DRAIN) AS A PERCENT OF SALES Total Retail Trade and Food & Drink $1,164,032,760 $1,057,351,734 ($106,681,026) 110.1% Total Retail Trade $1,056,362,629 $939,731,247 ($116,631,382) 112.4% Total Food & Drink $107,670,131 $117,620,487 $9,950, % Retail Group Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers $236,076,963 $41,414,970 ($194,661,993) 570.0% Automobile Dealers $194,497,011 $31,265,390 ($163,231,621) 622.1% Other Motor Vehicle Dealers $23,660,228 $1,912,641 ($21,747,587) % Auto Parts, Accessories & Tire Stores $17,919,723 $8,236,939 ($9,682,784) 217.6% Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores $30,181,798 $45,470,636 $15,288, % Furniture Stores $19,671,116 $19,878,523 $207, % Home Furnishings Stores $10,510,681 $25,592,113 $15,081, % Electronics & Appliance Stores $58,270,452 $148,495,060 $90,224, % Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply $48,956,225 $30,310,448 ($18,645,777) 161.5% Bldg Material & Supplies Dealers $40,470,476 $28,589,553 ($11,880,923) 141.6% Lawn & Garden Equip & Supply Stores $8,485,749 $1,720,895 ($6,764,854) 493.1% Food & Beverage Stores $196,007,674 $93,989,818 ($102,017,856) 208.5% Grocery Stores $172,465,595 $74,788,919 ($97,676,676) 230.6% Specialty Food Stores $12,075,616 $5,929,345 ($6,146,271) 203.7% Beer, Wine & Liquor Stores $11,466,463 $13,271,554 $1,805, % Health & Personal Care Stores $73,569,873 $131,167,259 $57,597, % Gasoline Stations $72,508,229 $69,456,699 ($3,051,530) 104.4% Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores $53,823,522 $126,112,585 $72,289, % Clothing Stores $35,489,387 $62,398,518 $26,909, % Shoe Stores $7,050,624 $30,652,452 $23,601, % Jewelry, Luggage & Leather Goods $11,283,512 $33,061,615 $21,778, % Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book & Music $30,414,230 $24,307,934 ($6,106,296) 125.1% Sporting Goods/Hobby/Musical Instr $23,977,147 $20,455,071 ($3,522,076) 117.2% Book, Periodical & Music Stores $6,437,083 $3,852,863 ($2,584,220) 167.1% General Merchandise Stores $188,807,244 $144,611,894 ($44,195,350) 130.6% Department Stores Exc. Leased Depts. $136,273,487 $128,736,293 ($7,537,194) 105.9% Other General Merchandise Stores $52,533,757 $15,875,601 ($36,658,156) 330.9% Miscellaneous Store Retailers $48,228,826 $36,669,411 ($11,559,415) 131.5% Florists $2,122,976 $1,207,611 ($915,365) 175.8% Office Supplies, Stationery & Gift Stores $9,429,020 $9,170,493 ($258,527) 102.8% Used Merchandise Stores $5,573,698 $5,500,509 ($73,189) 101.3% Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers $31,103,132 $20,790,799 ($10,312,333) 149.6% Food Services & Drinking Places $107,670,131 $117,620,487 $9,950, % Full-Service Restaurants $54,903,164 $53,143,919 ($1,759,245) 103.3% Limited-Service Eating Places $43,960,570 $56,412,139 $12,451, % Drinking Places - Alcoholic Beverages $6,239,397 $2,732,655 ($3,506,742) 228.3% III-7

15 Expenditures exceed sales in most categories. Overall, total retail sales are $1.1 billion while expenditures are $1.2 billion, yielding a net drain of retail expenditures of $100 million. The largest categories of drain are: Auto Dealers Grocery Stores General merchandise Stores $163.2 million $97.7 million $44.2 million The total Food and Drink category deserves special mention with a net capture of $10.0 million over EMA expenditures. This is the result of the high traffic created by major thoroughfares serving the EMA, as well as the proximity of over 5,000,000 square feet of office space in the immediate area. 5. FIELD SURVEY OF NEIGHBORHOOL RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS In the Danter Company field survey of retailers in the EMA we identified 668 retailers. A total of 63 (9.4%) were vacant, excluding the stores at Northland Center Mall. While there are numerous shopping plazas and strip centers in the area, there are no defined malls. The Danter Company identified 16 neighborhood and strip centers in the EMA with a total of 1,347,777 square feet and an overall vacancy rate of 20.4%. The average nonanchor rent was $15.55 (NNN). The average rent for anchor space was $10.84 (NNN). Non-anchor space accounted for 51.6% of the total space. Following is a distribution of space by rent and vacancy rate: RENT RANGE SQUARE FEET VACANCY RATE $ $24,99 230, % $ $ , % $ $ , % Under $ , % Total 1,347, % Clearly, vacancies are higher among neighborhood centers at the lower end of the rate spectrum. III-8

16 The 16 shopping/strip centers surveyed include 270 occupied spaces distributed as follows: BUSINESS TYPE PERCENT OF TOTAL Restaurant 21.2% Clothing Store 15.3% Personal Grooming 12.3% Financial Office 11.9% Medical Office 6.4% Grocery & Convenience Store 6.3% General Merchandise 5.1% Cell Phone & Electronics 4.7% Pharmacy 3.8% Insurance & Real Estate Office 3.4% Cell Phone Store 3.4% All Other 6.2% Total 100.0% Restaurants and eating establishments are the largest commercial group (21.2%) followed by clothing stores (15.3%). Personal grooming (12.3%), including barber and beauty shops, was dominated by nail salons. Grocery stores, convenience and specialty food stores account for 6.3% of businesses. III-9

17 C. MARKET-RATE APARTMENTS 1. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS It is our opinion that a market exists for multiple development alternatives within the integrated-use development. Conclusions for the development of a rental housing project are based on analyses of the area including the existing and anticipated rental housing market, demographics, the economy, the appropriateness of the site for the proposed development, and housing demand. The study will evaluate past, current, and future trends in the area; the impact of those trends on rental housing alternatives; current rental housing alternatives; need and market support for additional rental housing; and any proposed additions to the area rental base. The analysis of the existing rental housing market is based on the establishment and analysis of a Site Effective Market Area (EMA) for the proposed project. EMA refers to a methodology developed by the Danter Company, LLC to describe areas of similar economic and demographic characteristics. EMAs are bounded by both "hard" and "soft" boundaries. Hard boundaries are marked by rivers, freeways, railroad rights of way, and other physical boundaries. Soft boundaries are changes in the socioeconomic makeup of neighborhoods. The apartment EMA is bounded by West 13 Mile Road to the north, Interstate 75 to the east, West 7 Mile Road to the south, and U.S. Route 24 to the west. III-10

18 Based on the characteristics of the Site EMA, a field survey of existing rental housing development, an analysis of the appropriateness of the site for the proposed development, and a demographic analysis of the Site EMA, support levels can be established for additional multifamily rental development. The following analyses have been conducted to identify market potential for a proposed market-rate apartment development at the site: Analysis of the overall EMA rental housing market Historical housing trends Current market conditions based on 100% field survey of modern apartments Appropriateness of the site for the subject development Current and expected economic and household growth conditions Area apartment demand factors, including Income-appropriate households Support from existing multifamily renters (step-up/down support) A trend line analysis, based on a "rent by comparability rating" evaluation of all conventional developments within the Site EMA, is used to evaluate rents for the proposed development. Floor plan analysis and comparison with comparable product 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 the remaining utilities (gas, electricity, cable television, and high-speed Internet). Half of the market-rate properties that have gas utilities have landlords paying for gas; however, those properties are predominately older, constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. Most new properties have tenant-paid gas. The rents at the subject property will include water, sewer and trash removal. As such, the rents among the market-rate properties (when necessary) have been adjusted to represent a utility package similar to what will be included at the site in order to complete an even rent comparison. These will be referred to as collected rents throughout this analysis. MARKET-RATE PROJECTS TENANT LANDLORD Gas Electric 90 0 Water/Sewer Trash Cable TV 90 0 Internet 88 2 III-11

19 Residential development is critical to the success of an integrated-use development. It is attractive equally to both employees and employers. There are multiple types of rental housing recommended for the subject site and each add to the concept of integrated use. The number of units presented below represents the total units recommended. We understand that the final site plan may contain a more appropriate mix. Size of units is intended to be guidelines. A final site plan may yield a somewhat different mix of products. Rental housing recommendations include the following: Three- and four-story elevator building over storefronts this component is critical to branding the integrated-use concept. It is not necessarily immersed into the core of the development and may be mixed with adjacent retail/commercial space. Free-standing three-plus story buildings adjacent to retail/commercial Townhouse streetscapes walkable to retail/commercial. These may be in a freestanding neighborhood or used to clad parking structures. A gated luxury development with large units and expanded personal amenities We anticipate that the residential development will be distributed over a relatively wide area. Therefore we recommend a master community facility with the following project amenities: The following project amenities would be provided: PROJECT AMENITIES Swimming pool Pet park Community building On-site management Business/computer center Elevator, where applicable Fitness center Security patrol TV lounge Library Jog/bike path (serving entire development) Car wash area Theatre/media center Spa area with steam room and Pet friendly with pet park and pet washing sauna, room for visiting masseuse. Concierge Spa pool In addition, there will likely be a state-of-the-art fitness center associated with the development. While every effort should be made to secure special benefits for residents (as well as employees), this would not replace a dedicated fitness center in the common community facility. III-12

20 Some project amenities would relate to specific buildings or neighborhoods. These would include the following: BBQ areas Fireplace pavilions Bicycle storage Additional storage It should also be noted that there will be additional benefits associated with the proposed development relating to the relationship with an integrated-use development. Development security patrol Priority relationship with restaurants Discounts from merchants where possible VIP access to events Door-to-door security Concierge services It is also expected that the architectural and landscaping elements will be consistent with standards established throughout the development. We anticipate that residential development will meet, or exceed, competitive properties in all aspects of development. In addition, the gated luxury development would include the following: Climate controlled wine storage vault Demonstration kitchen (may be part of the retail development) Steam room Sauna We expect approximately 30% to 40% of the residents to be empty nesters. Approximately 12% of residents will be home employed. There will be very few school age children. III-13

21 UNIT AMENITIES Typical unit amenities will include the following: Range Security system Frost-free refrigerator with icemaker Balcony/patio Dishwasher Secured entry Disposal Garage (some) Central air conditioning Ceiling fan Washer/dryer Vaulted and/or nine-foot ceilings in Carpet and/or wood flooring some units Additional storage (patio, garage, remote) Window covering Some granite or similar countertops Pet friendly In addition, townhome and luxury units would have upscale treatments including stainless steel (or similar) appliances, upgraded cabinetry, carpet, granite countertops, tray ceilings, etc. Competitive features such as room sizes, closets and storage, and entryways are addressed in Section III, Page III-27 (Competitive Analysis). Residential over Retail/Commercial UNIT DESCRIPTION NUMBER SQUARE FEET RENTS AT OPENING* Studio $850 One-Bedroom/1.0 Bath Garden $1,250 One-Bedroom/1.0 Bath Garden $1,375 Two-Bedroom/2.0 Bath Garden 36 1,000 $1,600 Two-Bedroom/2.0 Bath Garden 36 1,100 $1,750 Three-Bedroom/2.0 Bath Garden 16 1,200 $2,000 Total 180 *2018 Rent includes water, sewer and trash removal. Tenants will pay all other utilities. This would include surface parking with an attached parking structure available at an additional rent ($75). III-14

22 Freestanding Market-Rate Apartments (Single-Story Units in a Multifloor Building) These units will be in multiple buildings generally adjacent to the retail commercial district. SQUARE FEET RENTS AT OPENING* UNIT DESCRIPTION NUMBER Studio $775 One-Bedroom/1.0 Bath Garden $1,125 One-Bedroom/1.0 Bath Garden $1,300 Two-Bedroom/2.0 Bath Garden 48 1,000 $1,450 Two-Bedroom/2.0 Bath Garden 40 1,150 $1,550 Two-Bedroom/2.0 Bath Garden 20 1,250 $1,600 Three-Bedroom/2.5 Bath Garden 24 1,400 $1,850 Total 232 *2018 Rent includes water, sewer and trash removal. Tenants will pay all other utilities. These would be in a midrise (three to five stories) structure with internal garage parking adjacent or below. Covered parking would be an additional $75. It is anticipated that the 312 units would be developed in two phases. Townhome Apartments These units will be in a townhome streetscape with raised front entries (to have first floor windows above eye level from the street). One- and two-car garages would occupy ground level. Access to this neighborhood would be through a gated entry adjacent to the commercial/retail portion of the property. UNIT DESCRIPTION NUMBER SQUARE FEET RENTS AT OPENING* Two-Bedroom/2.5 Bath/One-Car Garage 60 1,200 $1,800 Two-Bedroom/2.5 Bath/Two-Car Garage 24 1,280 $1,950 Three-Bedroom/2.5 Bath/One-Car Garage 16 1,350 $2,250 Three-Bedroom/2.5 Bath/Two-Car Garage 12 1,450 $2,400 Total 102 *2018 Rent includes water, sewer and trash removal. Tenants will pay all other utilities. III-15

23 Luxury Apartments in a Gated Community These units will be in a gated community in two- to three-story elevator buildings, generally adjacent to the retail commercial district. UNIT DESCRIPTION NUMBER SQUARE FEET RENTS AT OPENING* One-Bedroom/1.0 Bath Garden $1,400 Two-Bedroom/2.0 Bath Garden 24 1,200 $2,000 Two-Bedroom/2.0 Bath Garden 24 1,300 $2,200 Three-Bedroom/2.5 Bath Garden 8 1,500 $2,800 Total 72 *2018 Rent includes water, sewer and trash removal. Tenants will pay all other utilities. These would be in a two- to three-story structure with internal garage parking adjacent or below. Parking for one vehicle is included in rent with additional spots available at $75. SUMMARY UNIT TYPE UNITS MODELS RENT RANGE Apartments Over 180 Studio, One-, Two-, & Three-Bedroom $850 - $2,000 Retail/Commercial Stand Alone Midrise 232 Studio, One-, Two-, & Three-Bedroom $775 - $1,850 Townhouse 102 Two- & Three-Bedroom $1,800 - $2,400 Gated Luxury 72 One-, Two-, & Three-Bedroom $1,400 - $2,800 Total ABSORPTION Each of the product recommendations has been sized to reflect a 12 to 15 month absorption period, commencing with the release of the first units for occupancy. It is, however, unlikely that all of the product choices will become available at the same time which could extend the overall absorption over a longer period. It is further anticipated that there will be a significant pre-marketing program starting with the start of construction of the development. We anticipate 18% to 20% of the units to be preleased during that period. Prior studies have shown that absorption tends to be seasonal, with up to 64% of annual absorption taking place in the peak summer months (May through August). The shoulder season (the two months on either side of the peak season) generally accounts III-16

24 for approximately 24% of annual absorption. The off season, November through February, typically accounts for the remaining 12% of absorption. While these percentages do not hold true in all markets, they give a good indication of the potential seasonal variations in absorption. Factors that affect absorption include (but are not limited to) the following: area mobility patterns; availability of new product; age, quality, and rent of existing rental properties in the 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 targeted absorption period. The 15 months absorption thus reflects two prime marketing seasons. A later release may extend absorption through the slower winter months. 3. 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 a trend line analysis for the area apartment market. For each unit type, the trend line analysis compares net rent by comparability rating for all market-rate developments. Comparability ratings have been established for all developments in the Site EMA based on unit amenities, project amenities, overall aesthetic appeal, and location. The comparability ratings for each property are listed in the Field Survey section in this report. The trend line is a function of a scatter plot showing each apartment community created by plotting the comparability rating on the horizontal axis and the rent on the vertical axis. This evaluation provides a comparison of existing market rents to those at the proposed project. Additional factors also influence a property s ability to actually achieve the comparable market rent, including the number of units at that comparable market rent, the step-up support base at that rent range, and the age and condition of the subject property and competitive units. Following are the Comparability Ratings for each of the recommended apartment product concepts at the subject site. PROJECT CONCEPT UNIT AMENITIES PROJECT AMENITIES ASTHETIC APPEAL TOTAL COMPARABILITY RATING Apartments over Retail/Commercial Stand Alone Midrise Townhouse Gated Luxury III-17

25 Considering the proposed unit and project amenities and an appealing aesthetic quality, the recommended developments are anticipated to have an overall comparability ratings ranging from 29.5 to Based on prior studies conducted by The Danter Company, rents in the Site EMA have increased at an established rate of 2.8% per year over the past several years. The following tables compare the recommended rents with the market driven trend line rents for each of the product types. Market driven rents have been trended forward to 2018, the anticipated time of opening. APARTMENTS OVER RETAIL/COMMERCIAL MARKET RENT AT OPENING AT 31.5 PROPOSED COMPARABILITY OPENING AVERAGE RATING RENT PROPOSED RENT AS A PERCENT OF MARKET RENT UNIT TYPE Studio $1,140 $ % One-Bedroom $1,481 $1, % Two-Bedroom $1,865 $1, % Three-Bedroom $2,486 $2, % MARKET RENT AT OPENING AT 29.5 COMPARABILITY RATING STAND ALONE DRISE PROPOSED OPENING AVERAGE RENT PROPOSED RENT AS A PERCENT OF MARKET RENT UNIT TYPE Studio $1,036 $ % One-Bedroom $1,481 $1, % Two-Bedroom $1,730 $1, % Three-Bedroom $2,310 $1, % MARKET RENT AT OPENING AT 34.0 COMPARABILITY RATING TOWNHOUSE PROPOSED OPENING AVERAGE RENT PROPOSED RENT AS A PERCENT OF MARKET RENT UNIT TYPE Two-Bedroom $2,020 $1, % Three-Bedroom $2,766 $2, % III-18

26 MARKET RENT AT OPENING AT 35.5 COMPARABILITY RATING GATED LUXURY PROPOSED OPENING AVERAGE RENT PROPOSED RENT AS A PERCENT OF MARKET RENT UNIT TYPE One-Bedroom $1,580 $1, % Two-Bedroom $2,124 $2, % Three-Bedroom $2,849 $2, % With the proposed rents ranging from 74.6% to 98.9% of market-driven rents, the proposed units will be perceived as a significant value within the market. Such a value is recommended due the overall size on the development and the required absorption rate. Because of the value, the properties are expected to outperform rent and occupancy trends for the EMA. The number of units proposed at the site must be considered relative to the project s ability 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 value in the marketplace than smaller properties due to the higher number of units that must be rented each month. To generate a sufficient number of potential renters, larger properties typically need to set rents below comparable market rent. The relative value the proposed units represent in the market is further illustrated by the following trend line analyses. III-19

27 STUDIO UNITS BY COLLECTED RENT AND COMPARABILITY INDEX $1, $1, $1, $ $ COLLECTED RENT $ $ $ COMPARABILITY RATING $ Legend: Site - Apartments over Retail/Commercial Site - Stand Alone Midrise Market-Rate Properties Tax Credit Properties Market-Driven Rent III-20

28 ONE-BEDROOM UNITS BY COLLECTED RENT AND COMPARABILITY INDEX $2, $2, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $ $ $ $ $ $ COLLECTED RENT COMPARABILITY RATING $ Legend: Site - Apartments over Retail/Commercial Site - Stand Alone Midrise Market-Rate Properties Tax Credit Properties Market-Driven Rent Townhome Gated Luxury III-21

29 TWO-BEDROOM UNITS BY COLLECTED RENT AND COMPARABILITY INDEX $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $1, $1, COMPARABILITY RATING $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $ $ $ $ $ $ COLLECTED RENT Legend: Site - Apartments over Retail/Commercial Site - Stand Alone Midrise Market-Rate Properties Tax Credit Properties Market-Driven Rent Townhome Gated Luxury III-22

30 THREE-BEDROOM UNITS BY COLLECTED RENT AND COMPARABILITY INDEX COMPARABILITY RATING $3, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $ $ $ $ $ COLLECTED RENT Legend: Site - Apartments over Retail/Commercial Site - Stand Alone Midrise Market-Rate Properties Tax Credit Properties Market-Driven Rent Townhome Gated Luxury III-23

31 4. STEP-UP/DOWN SUPPORT Previous studies performed by the Danter Company, LLC indicate that 60% of the support for new apartment development will typically be generated from the existing apartment base in the EMA, especially from those tenants paying rent within an appropriate step-up of the proposed rents. The 100% database field survey methodology allows us to accurately measure potential support from conventional renters. Our studies indicate that, at the proposed rent range, tenants are willing to incur rental increases of up to 15% per month for a rental alternative when it is perceived as a value. This is the step-up support base. In addition, the existing units in the market with rents higher than those proposed at the subject site and with project comparability ratings equal to or lower than the proposed project represent potential step-down support for the subject site. Step-up/down support is a critical factor in projecting absorption because it directly measures the depth of potential support from the households most likely to move to the subject site. Step-up/down 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 initial absorption. A higher ratio indicates a lower level of potential support from conventional renters and that the subject site will have to attract a higher level of support from outside this group, potentially slowing absorption. Step-down support represents existing renters within the Site EMA who should perceive the proposed development as offering a greater value at a rent lower than or equivalent to their current rent. Typically, this value results from renters who would perceive the subject site as a higher-quality project at an equal or lower rent, or as a project of quality similar to their current unit but at a lower rent. III-24

32 The step-down base includes all units with higher rents than the subject site, but lower or equivalent comparability ratings within the Site EMA. At the proposed rent levels, the step-up/down support base for each product type is as follows. DISTRIBUTION OF STEP-UP/DOWN SUPPORT APARTMENTS OVER RETAIL/COMMERCIAL STAND ALONE DRISE TOWNHOME GATED LUXURY Step-Up Support 625 1, Step-Down Support Total 932 2, Units Proposed Share from EMA Ratio of Proposed Units to Potential Step-Up/Down Support Base 11.6% 5.7% 26.2% 16.9% The proposed development concepts represent 5.7% to 26.2% of the total step-up/step-down support base, a very good ratio. 5. GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN OF SUPPORT A comparison of typical versus anticipated geographic support for the subject site is as follows: TYPICAL SUPPORT ANTICIPATED SUPPORT Internal Mobility Apartment 50% 55% Other 20% 20% External Mobility 30% 35% Total 100% 100% Geographic support at the subject site is expected to be typical of most upscale developments. III-25

33 6. RENT GAP Absorption at the development should be closely monitored. Rent adjustments may be necessary in order to maintain an even absorption of all units. An absorption rate proportionate to unit mix can be maintained by establishing appropriate rent gaps (price differences) between unit types. Proper rent gaps between all unit types will be important in order to ensure an even absorption of all units. Rent gaps must be monitored by mix, comparability differences, and location/view premiums. Suggested rents are responsive to absorption and can only be fine-tuned after product is available. In the Effective Market Area, the rent gaps between unit types for each product type are as follows: DISTRIBUTION OF RENT GAP BY PRODUCT TYPE APARTMENTS OVER RETAIL/ COMMERCIAL STAND ALONE DRISE TOWNHOUSE GATED LUXURY Studio/One-bedroom $400 $350 N/A N/A One-Bedroom/Two-Bedroom $225 $150 N/A $600 Two-Bedroom/Three-Bedroom $250 $250 $300 $600 The recommended rents yield rent gaps appropriate for the number of units in each unit and project concept. III-26

34 7. COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS There are two sets of criteria which can be used to identify comparable properties. A project can be conceptually and/or economically comparable. Conceptually Comparable Properties are those properties that have a similar comparability rating to the proposed project. A similar comparability rating indicates that properties will likely have similar unit and project amenities and a similar aesthetic rating. They may or may not have similar rents. Economically Comparable Properties are those properties with similar net rent levels to the proposed project. These properties may or may not have a similar comparability rating. Following is a list of properties judged to be economically and/or conceptually competitive with the subject site: MAP CODE PROJECT TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS YEAR OPENED - Subject Site* Apartments over Retail Freestanding Midrise Townhouse Gated Luxury North Park Towers (r. 2000) TWO- BEDROOM RENT $1,600 - $1,750 $1,450 - $1,600 $1,800 - $1,950 $2,000 - $2,200 COMPARABILITY RATING $1,208 - $1, West 44** 2016 $1,556 - $1, Station 3 Lofts $1,900 - $2, Eight $2,465 - $2, Amber Crossing $1,175 - $2, *Recommended for subject site **Plus an additional 70 units under construction opening Summer 2016 The two-bedroom rents listed for the competitive properties above are net rents, adjusted to match the utilities to be included in rent at the subject site. III-27

35 A comparison of unit amenities at these projects and the proposed project is as follows: PROJECT RANGE REFRIGERATOR CROWAVE DISHWASHER Subject Site X I X X X C X X X X X X S X S North Park Towers X X X X X C X B X X X 42 West X I X X X C X X X B X X X X X Station 3 Lofts X I X X X C X X B X X X Eight55 X I X X C X X B X X X X Amber Crossing X I X X X C X X B X X X S S I Ice maker C Central air conditioning B Blinds S Some Project amenities are listed as follows: DISPOSAL AIR CONDITIONING WASHER/DRYER WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS CARPET WINDOW COVERINGS INTERCOM/SECURED ENTRY BALCONY/PATIO GARAGE CEILING FAN VAULTED/9 CEILINGS PROJECT POOL COMMUNITY BUILDING SAUNA Subject Site X X X X X X X X X X X North Park Towers X X X X X X X 42 West X X X X X Station 3 Lofts X X Eight55 X X Amber Crossing X SPA POL FITNESS CENTER JOG/BIKE TRAIL PICNIC AREA LAUNDRY ON-SITE MANAGEMENT ELEVATOR BUSINESS CENTER SECURITY PATROL The amenities comparison shows the proposed project to be very competitive on a feature-for-feature basis. III-28

36 MAP CODE A distribution of competitive properties by units offered follows: PROJECT - Subject Site Apartments over Retail Freestanding Midrise Townhouse Gated Luxury TOTAL UNITS STUDIO ONE- BEDROOM UNITS OFFERED TWO- THREE- BEDROOM BEDROOM FOUR- BEDROOM 6 North Park Towers West 44* Station 3 Lofts Eight Amber Crossing *Plus 70 Units under construction: (22) 1-bedroom, (28) 2-bedroom, (20) 3-bedroom 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 facilitate rent increases since it is virtually impossible for a tenant to move into another unit with less storage than they already have. A total of 30 competitive one-, two- and three-bedroom floorplans from the properties listed above were evaluated and compared to the floorplans recommended for the subject site. III-29

37 The charts on the following pages summarize the average rent and features of the competitive units. $3,000 $2,800 $2,600 $2,400 $2,200 $2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 AVERAGE RENT BY UNIT TYPE Comparable Unit Average Subject Site - Over Retail Subject Site - Stand Alone Midrise Subject Site - Townhouse Subject Site - Gated Luxury One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three-Bedroom Overall the subject site will offer rents slightly lower than the average comparable unit, the notable exceptions being the three-bedroom townhome units and the two- and three-bedroom gated luxury units. There are two reasons for that, the first being that those units at the subject site will have a significantly higher Comparable Rating than the units at the comparable properties, and the second being that there are very few three-bedroom units at the comparable properties, which skews the comparison somewhat. III-30

38 The following chart shows the average total square feet of the recommended floorplans at the subject site compared to the average total square feet of the competitive floorplans. 1,600 AVERAGE SQUARE FEET BY UNIT TYPE 1,400 1,200 1, Comparable Unit Average Subject Site - Over Retail Subject Site - Stand Alone Midrise Subject Site - Townhouse Subject Site - Gated Luxury One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three-Bedroom The floorplans recommended for the subject site are comparable in unit size to the average competitive unit. The following table summarizes the average master bedroom sizes at the competitive units compared to the average recommended for the subject site. MASTER BEDROOMS IN SQUARE FEET BY UNIT TYPE One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three-Bedroom Comparable Unit Average Subject Site - Over Retail Subject Site - Stand Alone Midrise Subject Site - Townhome Subject Site - Gated Luxury III-31

39 As the following charts illustrate, the majority of competitive units have layouts lacking quality entries. A significant number of competitive units have entries classified as Poor, meaning that upon entry to the unit, there is an impression of a small, closed-off space. A poor entry, for example, would be an entrance that leads into a long hallway, with no direct view of windows and/or no straight path into an open living room area. Competitive One-Bedroom Unit Entry Ratings 7.7% 15.3% 38.5% Poor Fair Good Very Good 38.5% Competitive Two-Bedroom Unit Entry Ratings 7.1% 14.3% 21.4% Poor Fair Good Very Good 57.1% The three-bedroom unit floorplans were evenly split between Poor and Fair entries. Very few of the competitive units have floorplans with entries rated Very Good, which describes the sort of open, airy entry that is recommended for the subject site. III-32

40 8. INCOME-APPROPRIATE HOUSEHOLDS Based on findings from the Danter Company's nationwide telephone survey, we anticipate that the proposed studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units will predominantly house one- and two-person households. Leasing industry standards for market-rate projects typically require households to have net rent-to-income ratios of 25%. The net rents (includes water, sewer, and trash pickup) at the site range from $725 to $2,300 per month. With the lowest net monthly rent of $725, the minimum annual housing cost is $8,700. Applying the 25% rent-to-income ratios requires a minimum annual household income of $34,800. There are no income restrictions for market-rate units. Further, more and more households are renters by choice, often not opting for home ownership until their family status changes. Therefore, household incomes are not limited. All Income-Qualified Households The 2014 Census reported that 31.3% of the EMA households were renters. However, the reality is that this percentage varies depending on the income levels of the households. For example, at lower income levels, a higher ratio of renters is likely compared to the higher income levels. Considering the renter to total households ratio established for households with higher incomes, the estimated number of renter households within the Site EMA that are income-appropriate for the proposed subject project (above $34,800) is estimated at 11,800 households in Approximately 60% of the total support will be generated from within the EMA or 352 of the 586 proposed units. This would represent 3.0% of their potential income-appropriate renter base. This is an excellent ratio of proposed units to potential income-appropriate renter households. III-33

41 9. EMA APARTMENT FIELD SURVEY OVERVIEW (MARKET-RATE) A total of 15,446 conventional apartment units in 99 projects were surveyed in the EMA. A total of 14,150 of these units are in 89 market-rate developments and 1 Tax Credit development. There are 1,296 units located in 9 government-subsidized developments. An additional 102 units are under construction at 2 existing market-rate developments. Following is a distribution of market-rate units surveyed by unit type and vacancy rate: DISTRIBUTION OF CONVENTIONAL MARKET-RATE APARTMENTS AND VACANCY RATE SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 UNIT TYPE MARKET-RATE UNITS NUMBER PERCENT VACANCY RATE Studio % 3.2% One-Bedroom 5, % 2.9% Two-Bedroom 7, % 2.7% Three-Bedroom % 1.5% Four-Bedroom 7 0.0% 0.0% Total 14, % 2.7% Among market-rate and Tax Credit projects, 41.1% are 100.0% occupied, accounting for 21.4% of the total units. The overall vacancy rate is extremely low at 2.7% and would indicate that the market is limited by a lack of supply, rather than lacking demand The Site EMA apartment base contains a disproportionately high percentage of onebedroom units, over 40% of the total. Despite the high percentage, these units are adequately absorbed, as evidenced by the low vacancy rate among the one-bedroom units of only 2.9%. III-34

42 A comparison of median and upper-quartile rents and vacancies by each unit type follows: UNIT TYPE MEDIAN RENTS MEDIAN AND UPPER-QUARTILE RENTS AND VACANCIES SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 OVERALL VACANCY RATE UPPER-QUARTILE NUMBER RENT RANGE OF UNITS VACANCY RATE Studio $ % $646 - $1, % One-Bedroom $ % $835 - $2,297 1, % Two-Bedroom $ % $1,097 - $2,815 1, % Three-Bedroom $1, % $1,563 - $2, % Four-Bedroom $2, % $2,811 - $2, % Based on previous studies conducted by the Danter Company, LLC, it was determined that rents in the Site EMA have increased at an established annual rate of 2.8% over the past several years. III-35

43 Following is a distribution of units and vacancies by year of construction: PERIOD DISTRIBUTION OF UNIT AND VACANCIES BY YEAR BUILT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 PROJECTS BUILT UNITS BUILT CURRENT VACANCY RATE Before , % , % , % % % % % * % Total 90 14, % *Through May The Site EMA is overwhelmingly categorized by older product, with more than 50% of the total units constructed before The majority of these older units may be classified as older, with few amenities, and functionally obsolete. Another good illustration of how the Site EMA is limited with supply is the fact that there have been only 5 new apartment projects that have opened in the area since Two of these, Eight55 and $2 West, opened in 2016 and are still in lease-up, which accounts for the unusually high vacancy rate. III-36

44 Projects in the area range in size from 8 to 723 units. The average area project includes 157 units. The following table provides a distribution of units by the size of the project. Two existing projects, McNichols, Map Code 75, and 42 West, Map Code 43, have units under construction. The units under construction were not included in each project s unit total for the following table. When those units open the average area project will include 158 units. DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS AND PROJECTS BY PROJECT SIZE SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 TOTAL UNITS PROJECTS UNITS VACANCY IN PROJECTS NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT RATE Less Than % % 0.0% 25 To % % 2.6% 50 To % 1, % 1.4% 100 To % 3, % 2.7% 200 To % 2, % 3.1% 300 Or Greater % 5, % 3.0% Total % 14, % 2.7% III-37

45 The area apartment market has been evaluated by the comparability rating of each property. Comparability ratings are based on a rating system that awards points to each project based on its unit amenities, project amenities, and aesthetic amenities (curbside appeal). Comparability ratings for projects in the Site Effective Market Area range from 11.0 to The average comparability rating in the EMA is The following table identifies units and vacancies by comparability rating: COMPARABILITY RATING RANGE DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS AND PROJECTS BY COMPARABILITY RATING SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 NUMBER OF PROJECTS NUMBER OF UNITS VACANCY RATE Less Than , % 15.0 To , % 18.0 To , % 21.0 To , % 23.0 To , % 26.0 To % 29.0 Or Greater Total 90 14, % None of the properties had a Comparability Rating of 29.0 or higher. Even newer properties have unusually low overall Comparability Ratings, despite the fact that some have luxury unit amenities such as stainless steel appliances, vaulted ceilings, and granite counters. The reason for the lower than expected overall rating is that several of these newer properties are lacking in project amenities. The highest-rated conventional project in the area is 42 West (Map Code 43), which opened in 2016 and has a rating of The proposed project is anticipated to have the highest overall Comparability Rating in the market with ratings ranging from 29.5 to The standard amenities featured in at least 60% of the apartments in the Site EMA include a refrigerator, range, carpeting, air conditioning, disposal, window coverings, dishwasher, laundry facility and on-site management. Washer and dryer and/or hookups are relatively uncommon, which explains the high number of developments with a laundry. With the exception of a laundry facility, the subject site has all of the amenities common to over 60% of the total properties in the EMA. III-38

46 A distribution of amenities at market-rate and Tax Credit projects follows: AMENITY DISTRIBUTION OF AMENITIES BY PROJECT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 INCLUDED AT SUBJECT TOTAL NUMBER OF PROJECTS* (OUT OF 90) SHARE OF PROJECTS WITH AMENITY Range X % Refrigerator X % Window Coverings X % Air Conditioning X % Disposal X % Carpet X % Laundry Facility % Dishwasher X % On-Site Management X % Balcony/Patio X % Pool X % Intercom Security X % Carport % Common Building/Common Room X % Exercise Room X % Washer/dryer Hookups X % Ceiling Fan X % Elevator X % Microwave X % Washer/dryer X % Security Gate % Business/Computer Center X % Vaulted/9 Ceiling % Garage X % Picnic Area X % Basement % Playground 6 6.7% Security Patrol X 5 5.6% Security System 4 4.4% Sports Court 4 4.4% Tennis 4 4.4% Hot Tub 3 3.3% Fireplace 2 2.2% Lake 2 2.2% Sauna X 1 1.1% *Includes properties in which some or all of the units contain the amenity III-39

47 D. STUDENT HOUSING 1. INTRODUCTION This report evaluates the potential to develop a 100-unit (304 beds) student housing development in Southfield, Michigan (Oakland County). The site is 0.3 mile from the Oakland Community College - Southfield campus. In addition, the site is 2.6 miles from the academic center of the Lawrence Technological University campus. Conclusions for the development of a rental housing project for students are based on analyses of the area including the existing and anticipated rental housing market, demographics, the economy, and housing demand. The study will evaluate past, current, and future trends of student enrollment in the area; the impact of those trends on student housing alternatives; current rental housing alternatives; need and market support for additional student housing; and any proposed additions to the area rental base. The analysis of the existing rental housing market is based on the establishment and analysis of a Site Effective Market Area (EMA) for the proposed project. EMA refers to a methodology developed by the Danter Company, LLC to describe areas of similar economic and demographic characteristics. EMAs are bounded by both "hard" and "soft" boundaries. Hard boundaries are marked by rivers, freeways, railroad rights of way, and other physical boundaries. Soft boundaries are changes in the socioeconomic makeup of neighborhoods. The EMA for student housing is bounded by West 13 Mile Road to the north, Interstate 75 to the east, West 7 Mile Road to the south, and U.S. Route 24 to the west. III-40

48 Based on the characteristics of the Site EMA, a field survey of existing rental housing development of the Site EMA, and a student enrollment and demographic analysis of the subject school, support levels can be established for additional rental development. The following analyses have been conducted to identify market potential for a proposed market-rate apartment development at the site: Analysis of the overall EMA student rental housing market Historical housing trends Current market conditions based on 100% field survey of modern apartments Appropriateness of the site for the subject development Current and expected economic and household growth conditions Area apartment demand factors, including: Local trends in student housing Support from existing multifamily renters (step-up/down support) A trend line analysis, based on a "rent by comparability rating" evaluation of all conventional developments within the Site EMA, is used to evaluate rents for the proposed development. Floor plan analysis and comparison with comparable product 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 the remaining utilities (gas, electricity, cable television, and high-speed Internet). Half of the market-rate properties that have gas utilities have landlords paying for gas; however, those properties are predominately older, constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. Most new properties have tenant-paid gas. MARKET-RATE PROJECTS TENANT LANDLORD Gas Electric 90 0 Water/Sewer Trash Cable TV 90 0 Internet 88 2 There are currently no purpose-built student housing projects in the subject Site EMA. It is typical for new purpose-built student housing rents to be all-inclusive, therefore the rents at the subject property will include all utilities, trash removal, high-speed Internet, and cable TV. As such, the rents among the market-rate properties (when necessary) have been adjusted to represent a utility package similar to what will be included at the site in order to complete and even rent comparison. These will be referred to as collected rents throughout this analysis. III-41

49 2. RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT CONCEPT Plans for the proposed project include the development of 100 units (304 private beds) in a newly-constructed student housing development 2.6 miles from the Lawrence Technological campus in the city of Southfield. This recommendation is based on a spring/summer prior to the start of fall 2018 classes. It also assumes that the redeveloped Northland Center site would also be at least partially open. Based on our analysis of the Southfield Site Effective Market Area, interviews with area realtors and school representatives, analysis of school enrollment trends, and current market conditions, it is our opinion that a market exists for a student housing development as proposed in this report. The project is summarized as follows: PURPOSE-BUILT STUDENT HOUSING UNIT TYPE NUMBER OF UNITS NUMBER OF BEDS SQUARE FEET RENT PER BED RENT PER UNIT One-Bedroom, 1.0 Bath Garden $1,200 $1,200 Two-Bedroom, 2.0 Bath Garden $825 $1,650 Four-Bedroom, 4.0 Bath Garden ,400 $700 $2,800 Total Collected rent includes all utilities, trash removal, high-speed Internet, and cable TV. Tenants will be responsible for all other utilities. III-42

50 UNIT AMENITIES Each unit in the proposed development will include the following amenities: Fully furnished Carpet Range (stainless steel or similar) Central air conditioning Refrigerator (stainless steel or similar) USB charging ports (in each bedroom) Dishwasher State-of-the-art keyless entry Microwave oven Window coverings Disposal Ceiling fans Washer/dryer Vaulted and/or 9-foot ceilings Washer/dryer hookup Surface parking (1:1 bedroom ratio) Built-in tech shelving and USB ports Granite or similar counter tops PROJECT AMENITIES Project amenities will include the following: Individual leases Pet care stations Roommate matching Elevators Campus transportation Picnic/BBQ area Community building/room Computer room/business center Swimming pool On-site management Fitness center Tanning bed Secured entry WiFi in common areas Cyber café Conference room TV and Bike storage teleconferencing capabilities Spa pool Additional storage options Bedrooms Bedrooms should be at least 120 square feet and all bedrooms should be the same approximate size. Closets The following lineal feet of closet space should be achieved: One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Four-Bedroom 12 Lineal Feet 18 Lineal Feet 30 Lineal Feet III-43

51 Entry The entry into the units should be open and airy. Entry should be directly into the great room with a view of the opposing windows if possible. ABSORPTION Marketing and advertising for the proposed student housing project is expected to begin concurrent with the start of construction, well in advance of the start of fall semester at Lawrence Technological University (LTU) and OCC-Southfield. A later opening date, after classes have begun, will have a slowing effect on absorption, as many potential residents will have already secured living arrangements by the time the fall semester begins. In fact, reaching a stabilized occupancy will be difficult if the property opens following the start of the expected academic year at LTU. Due to the lack of support from the conventional apartment base, we recommend that the proposed project be marketed directly towards Lawrence Technological University through student services to inform potential student residents of the site. An aggressive advertising program should be implemented, with marketing materials outlining the comprehensive amenity package to be offered; an emphasis should be placed on popular amenities such as the fully furnished units, all-inclusive rents, in-unit washer/dryers, and the many project amenities catering to the student population. Assuming that this marketing plan and preleasing schedule is followed, it is our opinion that the 304-bed subject site will be 80% to 90% preleased by mid-summer 2018 and will reach 92% occupancy by late August/early September COMPARABLE MARKET RENT ANALYSIS Comparable market rent analysis establishes the rent that potential renters would expect to pay for the subject units in the open market. Comparable market rent is based on a trend line analysis for the area apartment market. For each unit type, the trend line analysis compares gross rent by comparability rating for all market-rate developments. Comparability ratings have been established for all developments in the Site EMA based on unit amenities, project amenities, overall aesthetic appeal, and location. The comparability ratings for each property are listed in the Student Housing Field Survey section in this report (Section VII). The trend line is a function of a scatter plot showing each apartment community created by plotting the comparability rating on the horizontal axis and the rent on the vertical axis. This evaluation provides a comparison of existing market rents to those at the proposed project. III-44

52 Additional factors also influence a property s ability to actually achieve the comparable market rent, including the number of units at that comparable market rent, the step-up support base at that rent range, and the age and condition of the subject property and competitive units. The comparability rating methodology is based on 30 years of research performed by the Danter Company, LLC. The value assigned for each unit and project amenity, and locational and aesthetic evaluation, is based on our research that includes over 17,000 multifamily market studies in markets in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. The Danter Company, LLC has also performed over 10,000 consumer surveys and several hundred student surveys indicating preferences and premiums for features (amenities, proximity to campus, furnishings, etc.), as well as case studies of student housing markets around the nation to refine this system. Considering the proposed unit and project amenities and an appealing aesthetic quality, the proposed student housing development is anticipated to have an overall comparability rating of The overall rating is based on ratings of 11.0 for unit amenities, 12.0 for project amenities, and 9.0 for aesthetic quality. Based on previous studies conducted by the Danter Company, LLC, it was determined that rents in the Site EMA have increased at an established annual rate of 2.8% in the last several years. There are 5,907 one-bedroom units within the Site EMA. Collected rents for these units range from $552 to $2,532. Based on the current rent structure of one-bedroom units, present-day rent for a development comparable to the one proposed is $1,650 per month. Based on the established rate of increase (2.8%), probable one-bedroom rent is $1,742 at the anticipated opening in fall There are 7,102 two-bedroom units within the Site EMA. Collected rents for these units range from $668 to $3,092. Based on the current rent structure of two-bedroom units, present-day rent for a development comparable to the one proposed is $2,050 per month. Based on the established rate of increase (2.8%), probable two-bedroom rent is $2,165 at the anticipated opening in fall There are only 7 four-bedroom units within the Site EMA. Due to the lack of fourbedroom units in the Site EMA, three-bedroom units have been used and an appropriate rent gap has been applied in order to determine comparable market rents for the proposed four-bedroom units at the site. There are 754 three-bedroom units within the Site EMA. Collected rents for these units range from $1,162 to $3,129. Based on the current rent structure of three-bedroom units, present-day rent for a development comparable to the one proposed is $2,650 per month. III-45

53 Previous research conducted by the Danter Company, LLC in numerous student housing markets has determined that typical rents gaps between three- and fourbedroom units range from $450 to $550 per unit. When applying an average typical three- to four-bedroom rent gap of $500 yields a present-day rent of $3,150 for a comparable four-bedroom unit. Applying the estimated annual rent increase in the Site EMA (2.8%) yields a projected four-bedroom rent of $3,326 at the projected fall 2018 opening. The following table illustrates the comparable market rent at opening at the subject site for one-, two- and four-bedroom units. Tenants will be responsible for all utilities at the site, including water, sewer, and trash removal services. MARKET RENTS AT OPENING PROPOSED PROJECT RENTS AT OPENING PROPOSED RENT AS A PERCENT OF MARKET RENT UNIT TYPE One-Bedroom, 1.0 Bath Garden $1,742 $1, % Two-Bedroom, 2.0 Bath Garden $2,165 $1, % Four-Bedroom, 4.0 Bath Garden $3,326 $2, % The proposed rents will range from 68.9% to 84.2% of market-driven rents. However, it should be noted that the proposed rents are average for the development. Some units may rent for considerably less while others, with special features and premiums, will rent for more. While the proposed rents will be perceived as a significant value in the market, it is also important that rents not be significantly higher than existing product in order to facilitate step-up support. Based on this factor, the extensive amenity package expected to be offered, the size of the proposed units, unique concept of the site, and the amount of step-up/step-down support potential in the market, it is our opinion that the proposed rents can be achieved. The determination of market-driven rents is illustrated by the following trend line analyses. III-46

54 ONE-BEDROOM UNITS BY COLLECTED RENT AND COMPARABILITY INDEX $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $ $ $ $ COLLECTED RENT COMPARABILITY RATING $ Legend: Site Market-Rate Properties Tax Credit Properties Market-Driven Rent III-47

55 TWO-BEDROOM UNITS BY COLLECTED RENT AND COMPARABILITY INDEX $3, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $ $ $ COLLECTED RENT COMPARABILITY RATING $ Legend: Site Market-Rate Properties Tax Credit Properties Market-Driven Rent III-48

56 THREE-BEDROOM UNITS BY COLLECTED RENT AND COMPARABILITY INDEX COMPARABILITY RATING $3, $3, $3, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $2, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $ $ COLLECTED RENT Legend: Market-Rate Properties Tax Credit Properties Market-Driven Rent III-49

57 4. STEP-UP/DOWN SUPPORT Previous student housing studies performed by the Danter Company, LLC indicate that 50% to 60% of the support for new apartment development will typically be generated from the existing students occupying apartment units in the Site EMA, especially from those students paying rent within an appropriate step of the proposed rents. Based on surveys of residents, most students moving into a new property move out of an existing property and step-up their rents within a predictable level. At the proposed rent, most residents do not step-up rents more than $60 per month (per bedroom). The step-down support is from units with higher rents but lower or equivalent comparability rating. The 100% database field survey methodology allows us to accurately measure potential support from conventional renters. Step-up/down support is a critical factor in projecting absorption because it directly measures the depth of potential support from the students most likely to move to the subject site. Step-up/down 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 students in order to achieve successful initial absorption. A higher ratio indicates a lower level of potential support from students occupying conventional off-campus apartment units and that the subject site will have to attract a higher level of support from other sources including students who currently live (or are required to live) in on-campus housing and new students transferring to the school. On-campus housing also contributes to the step-up/down support. The step-up base for the proposed student housing project totals 370 beds, and stepdown support totals 460 beds. This total represents units whose residents should perceive the proposed development as offering a greater value than the community in which they currently reside, while allowing them to reduce their current rent levels. In addition, the majority of the housing on the Lawrence Technological University (LTU) campus has rates that are within the appropriate step-up/step-down range for the rents proposed at the site. Double-occupied room rates for the on-campus housing are from $2,800 to $3,350 per semester, or adjusted rates of $ to $ per month. Only the two-bedroom units of $1,950 per semester or $ per month at the South Housing residence hall have room rates below the appropriate step-up base. Therefore, there will be approximately 697 on-campus beds that have room rates within the appropriate step-up/step-down base for the proposed site. III-50

58 The total step-up/step-down support base (in beds) is distributed as follows: DISTRIBUTION OF STEP-UP/DOWN SUPPORT (IN BEDS) PROPOSED SITE UNIT TYPE STEP-UP SUPPORT STEP-DOWN SUPPORT One-bedroom 22 0 Two-Bedroom 7 12 Four-Bedroom 4 88 On-Campus Housing at LTU TOTAL TOTAL STEP-UP/DOWN SUPPORT 830 TOTAL BEDS 304 RATIO OF TOTAL BEDS TO POTENTIAL 36.6% STEP-UP/STEP-DOWN SUPPORT BASE When considering the existing and proposed beds at the site, the 304 total beds would represent 36.6% of the total step-up/down base, which is a modest ratio of support and with such a large portion of the support expected from those students currently living in the on-campus housing, we recommend that the marketing materials for the site emphasize the extensive amenity package, spaciousness of the proposed units, freedom and privacy, and the 1:1 bedroom-to-bath ratio to be offered at the proposed units at the site. An aggressive advertising program should be implemented, with marketing materials outlining the comprehensive amenity package to be offered; an emphasis should be placed on popular amenities such as the fully furnished units, bed-bath parity, individual leases, all-inclusive rents, in-unit washer/dryers, and the many project amenities catering to the student population. III-51

59 5. COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS According to area apartment managers, slightly less than 2% of the occupied conventional market-rate units within the Site EMA are occupied by a student or students attending Lawrence Technological University (LTU). There are currently no purpose-built student housing projects in the market area; however, there is one project reporting 90% student-occupied units. Arbor Lofts (Map Code 61) is the only project that has over 5% student-occupied units in the Site EMA. Because there is only one off-campus apartment property reporting more than 5% student-occupied units, we will include the 3 existing on-campus housing options in this competitive analysis. The following is a summary of these 4 competitive properties in the area: MAP CODE PROJECT YEAR OPENED NUMBER OF UNITS NUMBER OF BEDS OCCUPANCY RATE DISTANCE FROM THE LTU CAMPUS* 61 Arbor Lofts ** % 0.7 Mile - Donley Hall % Adjacent - South Housing % Adjacent - Reuss Hall **** 100.0% Adjacent - Subject Site 2018*** Miles *Academic center of campus **There are currently 31 units being leased by the LTU Housing Department ***Anticipated ****There are 160 beds total in Reuss Hall, but only 150 are for student occupation, the others are for resident advisors. III-52

60 A comparison of unit amenities at these projects and the proposed project is as follows: UNIT AMENITIES Fully Furnished S X X X X Refrigerator X X X X Range X X X X Microwave Oven X X X X Dishwasher X X X Disposal X X Central Air Conditioning X X X X X Carpet/Faux-wood Flooring X X X X X Ceiling Fans Vaulted/9-Foot+ Ceilings X X Window Blinds X X X X X Balcony/Patio X Garage Carport O* Intercom/Keyless Entry X X Washer/Dryer Hookup X X X Washer/Dryer X X X Granite Countertops X X Stainless Steel Appliances X X Fireplace X S Some O Optional *$35 ARBOR LOFTS DONLEY HALL SOUTH HOUSING REUSS HALL SUBJECT SITE III-53

61 Project amenities are listed as follows: PROJECT AMENITIES Individual Leases O X X X X Roommate Matching X X X X X Swimming Pool X Community Building/Room X X X X X Fitness Center X X Picnic/BBQ Area X Central Laundry Facility X X X On-Site Management/Staff X X X X X Study Area X X X X X Tanning Salon Tennis Court Game Room X X Elevator X X X Computer Room/Business Center X X Pavilion with Fire Pit X Movie Theater/Media Room Social Activities X X X X Sports Court Gated Community On-Site Retail X X Car Wash Area DVD Library Security Patrol X X X X Campus Transportation X Pet Walking Area O Optional ARBOR LOFTS DONLEY HALL SOUTH HOUSING REUSS HALL SUBJECT SITE Both the unit and project amenities comparisons illustrate that the site will compete well on a feature-for-feature basis. III-54

62 A distribution of competitive properties by units offered follows: UNITS OFFERED MAP CODE PROJECT TOTAL UNITS STUDIO ONE- BEDROOM TWO- BEDROOM THREE- BEDROOM FOUR- BEDROOM - Subject Site Arbor Lofts Donley Hall Reuss Hall South Housing Each unit in Reuss Hall is double occupancy. Following is a list of comparability ratings for the competitive properties: FACTORS UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC PROJECT AMENITIES AMENITIES AMENITIES - Subject Site Arbor Lofts Donley Hall South Housing Reuss Hall MAP CODE COMPARABILITY RATING While it is important to compare the total square feet in a unit, it is more important to understand how a unit functions. Prospective residents respond to three principal factors when selecting specific units, the amount of total square feet may not be as critical as the following factors: 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 facilitate rent increases since it is virtually impossible for a tenant to move into another unit with less storage than they already have. III-55

63 Unit and bedroom sizes (in square feet), net rent, and features of these projects are listed as follows. Bedroom sizes listed below for the subject site are the minimum size recommended. ONE-BEDROOM COMPARISON-TABLE 1 UNIT SIZE BEDROOM NUMBER OF RENT PER PROJECT SIZE BATHS RENT SQUARE FOOT Arbor Lofts ,282* 92** 149** 149** $1,207 $1,497 $1,547 $1,747 $1.98 $1.69 $1.69 $1.36 Donley Hall $850*** $1.37 South Housing $713**** $1.25 Reuss Hall Unit Type Not Offered Subject Site $1,200 $1.85 *Includes an office **Estimated ***Adjusted monthly rent, based on a per-semester rate of $3,400 ****Adjusted monthly rent, based on a per-semester rate of $2,850 ONE-BEDROOM COMPARISON-TABLE 2 CLOSET/STORAGE SPACE PROJECT CLOTHES CLOSET (LINEAL FEET) GUEST CLOSET BEDROOM CLOSET EXTRA STORAGE ENTRY Arbor Lofts No No No Yes Wall Wall Wall Walk-in No No No No Poor Poor Poor Good Donley Hall 4.0 No Wardrobe No Good South Housing 8.5 Yes Wall No Good Reuss Hall Unit Type Not Offered Subject Site (Recommended) 13.0 Yes Walk-In Yes Good TWO-BEDROOM COMPARISON-TABLE 1 UNIT BEDROOM SIZE NUMBER RENT PER SQUARE PROJECT SIZE MASTER SECOND OF BATHS RENT FOOT Arbor Lofts * 107* 2.0 $1,796 $2.17 Donley Hall $1,625** $1.66 South Housing $1,000*** $1.59 Reuss Hall Unit Type Not Offered Subject Site 925**** 120**** 120**** 2.0**** $1,650**** $1.78**** *Estimated **Adjusted monthly rent, based on a per-semester rate of $3,250 and assuming single-occupied bedrooms ***Adjusted monthly rent, based on a per-semester rate of $2,000 and assuming single-occupied bedrooms ****Based on Danter Company, LLC recommendations III-56

64 PROJECT CLOTHES CLOSET (LINEAL FEET) TWO-BEDROOM COMPARISON-TABLE 2 GUEST CLOSET CLOSET/STORAGE SPACE MASTER BEDROOM CLOSET SECOND BEDROOM CLOSET EXTRA STORAGE ENTRY Arbor Lofts 6.0 No Wall Wall No Fair Donley Hall 8.0 No Wardrobe Wardrobe No Good South Housing 22.5 Yes Wall Wall No Good Reuss Hall Unit Type Not Offered Subject Site 20.0* Yes* Walk-In* Walk-In* Yes* Good* *Based on Danter Company, LLC recommendations FOUR-BEDROOM COMPARISON-TABLE 1 UNIT BEDROOM SIZE NUMBER RENT PER PROJECT SIZE MASTER SECOND THIRD FOURTH OF BATHS RENT SQUARE FOOT Arbor Lofts 1,603 1,605 1,711 Donley Hall South Housing Reuss Hall $3,018 $3,098 $3,113 $1.88 $1.93 $1.82 Unit Type Not Offered Unit Type Not Offered Unit Type Not Offered Subject Site 1,400* 120* 120* 120* 120* 4.0* $2,800 $2.00 *Based on Danter Company, LLC recommendations CLOTHES CLOSET (LINEAL PROJECT FEET) Arbor Lofts Donley Hall South Housing GUEST CLOSET No No No FOUR-BEDROOM COMPARISON-TABLE 2 MASTER BEDROOM CLOSET Wall Wall Wall CLOSET/STORAGE SPACE SECOND BEDROOM CLOSET Wall Wall Wall THIRD BEDROOM CLOSET Wall Wall Wall FOURTH BEDROOM CLOSET Wall Wall Wall EXTRA STORAGE No No No ENTRY Poor Poor Poor Unit Type Not Offered Unit Type Not Offered Reuss Hall Unit Type Not Offered Subject Site 30.0* Yes* Wall* Wall* Wall* Wall* Yes* Good* *Based on Danter Company, LLC recommendations The floorplans for the recommended student housing units should feature competitive unit design, square footage, bedroom sizes, and closet/storage space. Any compromise in unit design could adversely affect the rent potential that can be achieved at the proposed site. This is especially true, given the fact that we recommend that both unit types offer 1:1 bedroom-to-bath ratios, which is presently not offered in the market. III-57

65 It is important to note that the rents among the competitive properties represent current rents, while the rents for the proposed site are rents at opening (fall 2018). Based on the expected rent increases between now and the project s anticipated opening date, the rents-per-square-foot at the site will be very competitive in the market area. 6. PLANNED/PROPOSED/UNDER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Based on interviews with city and county planning officials, as well as local real estate professionals, there are no competitive purpose-built properties planned or proposed in the Effective Market Area. 7. DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR STUDENT APARTMENTS There were 4,161 (undergraduate and graduate) students enrolled for the 2015 fall semester Lawrence Technological University. Currently, the university has a housing capacity for approximately 697 students. Historically, the housing system has operated at or near full capacity during the fall semester. The LTU student body reflects typical housing characteristics of other universities. Students live at home with their families, in apartments, in on-campus residence halls, or in other rental alternatives (i.e. duplexes/triplexes, single-family homes, etc.). Approximately 80.5% of the university s total students currently must reside in offcampus accommodations. These housing alternatives encompass the majority of living arrangements for students. Based on the proposed product type, we anticipate that the site will attract undergraduate and graduate students. For the purpose of this analysis, we have analyzed the feasibility of the subject project to house both undergraduate and graduate students. In addition, we do not anticipate the proposed project to negatively impact existing oncampus housing. Therefore, we have deducted these 697 beds from the total enrollment figures, as we anticipate that these beds will continue to be used by students. This is especially true among those students who are required to live oncampus. According to LTU s housing policy those students with 59 credits or less and live more than 30 minutes from campus are expected to reside in on-campus housing. Due to the close proximity of the site to the Southfield campus of Oakland Community College, and the fact that OCC currently offers no on-campus housing, its students are included in the potential resident pool for the subject site. OCC does not report its enrollment by campus so the exact number of students is unavailable; however, considering previous headcounts at the campus and OCC s enrollment projections, a conservative estimate would be approximately 4,000 students. Since OCC does not offer housing all of these students must reside off-campus. III-58

66 Based on interviews, case studies of college student housing characteristics, and our evaluation of the Southfield rental market, there is a current potential resident pool of 7,464 LTU and OCC students for the subject student housing project. The following table summarizes this estimate: STUDENT HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS 2015 Fall Enrollment (LTU and OCC-Southfield) 8,161 Less On-Campus Housing 697 Potential Resident Base 7,464 Total Purpose-Built Beds In EMA 174 Beds At Subject Site 304 Total Purpose-Built Beds Including Subject Site 478 Total Purpose-Built Beds As A Percent Of Potential Resident Base 6.4% There are currently no purpose-built student housing projects in the Site EMA; however, Arbor Lofts (Map Code) does offer some units that have individual leases with rents based per bedroom or per person. Further, according to management at Arbor Lofts, an estimated 90% of their units are occupied by a student or students. Because this project consists primarily of LTU students we will include all 62 units (174 beds) in this demand analysis. These 174 beds, combined with the 304 beds recommended for the subject site, would bring the total purpose-built beds in the EMA to 478. This represents 6.4% of the potential resident base, an excellent penetration rate. Based on case studies of student housing markets throughout the US, an average ratio of 30% to 40% off campus beds to potential resident base is considered achievable when comparing units to the potential support base. However, the ratio of support that we consider achievable is influenced by overall market conditions, school enrollment trends, school policies/procedures, on campus housing, undergraduate and graduate ratios, as well as, subject site location, amenities, and rents. Many schools, especially those in the south/southeast achieve even higher ratios, while maintaining a healthy rental market. III-59

67 8. EXISTING STUDENT HOUSING ALTERNATIVES For the purpose of this analysis, we surveyed and evaluated the 3 most common housing alternatives that exist for students, i.e., conventional market-rate apartments, single-family/double/duplex rentals, and on-campus housing. There are currently no purpose-built student housing properties in the Site EMA. The following is a summary of our findings of the 3 existing rental alternatives currently offered in the Site EMA. FIELD SURVEY OF CONVENTIONAL APARTMENTS There are a total of 15,446 conventional apartment units in 99 projects included within the Site EMA. A total of 14,150 units are within 90 market-rate and Tax Credit projects, while the 1,296 remaining units are within 9 government subsidized properties. There are an additional 102 units currently under construction at 2 existing market-rate developments. Following is a distribution of market-rate and Tax Credit units surveyed by unit type and vacancy rate: DISTRIBUTION OF CONVENTIONAL MARKET-RATE AND TAX CREDIT APARTMENTS AND VACANCY RATE SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MARKET-RATE AND TAX CREDIT UNITS VACANCY UNIT TYPE NUMBER PERCENT RATE Studio % 3.2% One-Bedroom 5, % 2.9% Two-Bedroom 7, % 2.7% Three-Bedroom % 1.5% Four-Bedroom 7 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL 14, % 2.7% The overall vacancy rate of 2.7% is considered extremely low and would indicate that the market is limited by a lack of supply, rather than lacking demand. The Site EMA apartment base contains a disproportionately high percentage of one-bedroom units, around 40% of the total. Despite the high percentage, these units are adequately absorbed, as evidenced by the low vacancy rate among the one-bedroom units of only 2.9%. III-60

68 Based on previous studies conducted by the Danter Company, LLC, it was determined that rents in the Site EMA have increased at an established annual rate of 2.8% over the past several years. A comparison of median and upper-quartile rents and vacancies by each unit type follows: MEDIAN AND UPPER-QUARTILE RENTS AND VACANCIES SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MEDIAN OVERALL VACANCY UPPER-QUARTILE NUMBER VACANCY UNIT TYPE RENTS RATE RENT RANGE OF UNITS RATE Studio $ % $807 - $1, % One-Bedroom $ % $1,034 - $2,532 1, % Two-Bedroom $1, % $1,317 - $3,092 1, % Three-Bedroom $1, % $1,802 - $3, % Four-Bedroom $2, % $3,098 - $3, % III-61

69 Following is a distribution of units and vacancies in market-rate and Tax Credit properties by year of construction: DISTRIBUTION OF UNIT AND VACANCIES BY YEAR BUILT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 PERIOD PROJECTS BUILT UNITS BUILT CURRENT VACANCY RATE Before , % , % , % % % % % * % TOTAL 90 14, % *Through May 2016 It is significant that over 85% of the market-rate units surveyed were constructed and opened before 1980, including 10,656 units that opened prior to The high vacancy rate of 10.9% for the properties built in 2016 is due to the fact these properties (Eight55, Map Code 86, and 42 West, Map Code 43) opened in March of 2016 and are still in initial lease-up at the time of this field survey. The other properties that have opened in the EMA since 2000 have extremely low vacancy rates; at time of survey there were zero vacancies in these properties. III-62

70 The Site EMA contains a wide range of apartment product, based on the number of units being offered. Properties in the market area range in size from 8 units at Chestnut Oaks (Map Code 26) to 723 units at The Loop on Greenfield (Map Code 18), for an overall average property size of 157 units. The following table provides a distribution of units by the size of the project: DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS AND PROJECTS BY PROJECT SIZE SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 TOTAL UNITS PROJECTS UNITS VACANCY IN PROJECTS NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT RATE Less than % % 0.0% 25 to % % 2.6% 50 to % 1, % 1.4% 100 to % 3, % 2.7% 200 to % 2, % 3.1% 300 or Greater % 5, % 3.0% TOTAL % 14, % 2.7% Previous research conducted by Danter Company, LLC indicates that all other factors being equal, larger properties must be a better value in the marketplace than smaller properties due to the higher number of units that must be rented each month. To generate a sufficient number of potential renters, larger properties typically need to set rents below comparable market rent. III-63

71 The area apartment market has been evaluated by the comparability rating of each property. Comparability ratings are based on a rating system that awards points to each project based on its unit amenities, project amenities, and aesthetic amenities (curbside appeal). The median overall comparability rating in the Site EMA of 17.0 is below average for a typical conventional apartment property. The following table identifies units and vacancies by comparability rating: DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS AND PROJECTS BY COMPARABILITY RATING SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 COMPARABILITY RATING RANGE NUMBER OF PROJECTS NUMBER OF UNITS VACANCY RATE Less Than , % 15.0 to , % 18.0 to , % 21.0 to , % 24.0 to , % 26.0 to % 29.0 and Over TOTAL 90 14, % Nearly 75% of the apartment properties surveyed have comparability ratings below 21.0, including 48 properties that have overall comparability ratings below The highest-rated conventional apartment in the Site EMA is 42 West, which has an overall rating of Once developed, the proposed project is anticipated to have the highest overall comparability rating, with an anticipated rating of Not only does the Site EMA lack quality, modern apartment product, but the market area is dominated by lower-quality properties offering limited amenities. A distribution of amenities for market-rate and Tax Credit projects follows. III-64

72 AMENITY DISTRIBUTION OF AMENITIES BY PROJECT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 INCLUDED AT SUBJECT TOTAL NUMBER OF PROJECTS* (OUT OF 90) SHARE OF PROJECTS WITH AMENITY Range X % Refrigerator X % Window Coverings X % Air Conditioning X % Disposal X % Carpet X % Laundry Facility % Dishwasher X % On-Site Management X % Balcony/Patio X % Pool X % Intercom Security X % Carport % Common Building/Common Room X % Exercise Room X % Washer/dryer Hookups X % Ceiling Fan % Elevator % Microwave X % Washer/dryer X % Security Gate % Business/Computer Center X % Vaulted/9 Ceiling X % Garage % Picnic Area X % Basement % Playground 6 6.7% Security Patrol X 5 5.6% Security System X 4 4.4% Sports Court 4 4.4% Tennis 4 4.4% Hot Tub/Spa Pool X 3 3.3% Fireplace 2 2.2% Lake 2 2.2% Sauna 1 1.1% *Includes properties in which some or all of the units contain the amenity The standard amenities featured in at least 60% of the apartments in the Site EMA include a refrigerator, range, carpeting, air conditioning, disposal, window coverings, dishwasher, laundry facility and on-site management. Washer and dryer and/or hookups are relatively uncommon, which explains the high number of developments with a laundry. With the exception of a laundry facility, the subject site has all of the amenities common to over 60% of the total properties in the EMA. III-65

73 9. SINGLE-FALY/DUPLEX RENTALS There are several areas near Lawrence Technological University that have housing for students. The following is a sampling of properties representing this housing alternative: GENERAL PROPERTY/ LOCATION/ADDRESS NUMBER OF BEDROOMS NUMBER OF BATHROOMS COLLECTED RENT NOTES Oakfield Avenue 2 1 $580 Single-family home; 4.0 miles to campus; 752 sq ft.; renovated Cloverlawn Street 2 1 $850 Duplex; 3.7miles to campus; 850 sq ft.; no appliances; large fenced yard West 10 Mile Road at Telegraph Road 2 1 $1,000 Single-family home; ~1.9 miles to campus; 800 sq ft.; washer/dryer; 2-acre property with pond & fruit trees; detached garage; Gould Road 2 2 $2,100 Single-family home; 4.7 miles to campus; 1,299 sq ft.; renovated bath; loft; den; sun room; large private fenced yard; dishwasher; detached garage; washer/dryer hookups Westhampton Street 3 2 $1,000 Single-family home; 3.9 miles to campus; 1,500 sq ft.; microwave; partially finished basement Gardner Street 3 1 $1,100 Single-family home; 3.5 miles to campus; 1,200 sq ft.; remodeled; detached garage Goldwin Place $1,250 Single-family home; 2.9 miles to campus; 1,600 sq ft.; remodeled; attached garage; washer/dryer Berg Road $1,399 Single-family home; 2.7 miles to campus; 1,400 sq ft.; remodeled kitchen; dishwasher; 2-car attached garage; washer/dryer hookups; walk-out basement 7415 Wing Lake Road 4 3 $2,900 Single-family home; 5.5 miles to campus; 2,960 sq ft.; remodeled kitchen with granite countertops & stainless appliances; master suite with jetted tub; 2 fireplaces; 2 back decks; washer/dryer; attached garage Most of these homes do not include any landlord-paid utilities, and typically include the following amenities: range, refrigerator, hardwood floors or carpet, air conditioning, basement, yard, off-street parking, and washer and dryer hookups. Some homes have a washer/dryer and dishwasher. Most leases are 1 year in duration and landlords typically require a security deposit equaling one month s rent. III-66

74 10. ON-CAMPUS HOUSING Lawrence Technological University Lawrence Technological University (LTU) currently has 3 residence halls that have a capacity for 697 students. Any student with 59 credits or less who lives more than 30 minutes away is expected to live on campus. The following is a summary of the Lawrence Technological University residence halls: RESIDENCE HALL YEAR BUILT STUDENT CAPACITY RENT/FEE PER SEMESTER NOTES Reuss Hall $3,250 First year students; 5-pod style housing, each pod has living area & kitchenette; Double occupancy; Shared bath; Conference space; Game room South Housing $2,850 (1-Bedroom) $2,000 (2-Bedroom) Upperclass; Apartment-style suites with living area, full kitchen, & private bath; Donley Hall $3,400 (1-Bedroom) $3,250 (2-Bedroom) TOTAL 697 Double occupancy Upperclass; Apartment-style suites with living area, full kitchen with dishwasher & microwave, private bath, & in-suite washer/dryer; Double occupancy In addition to the residence halls, Lawrence Technological University holds a master lease for 60 spaces at the nearby Arbor Lofts apartments (Map Code 61). Fees for the upcoming academic year are $4,425 per semester. In 2015 the university leased a total of 31 units from Arbor Lofts, 11 three-bedroom units and 20 four-bedroom units, for a total of 113 beds. III-67

75 Students living in the residence halls are required to choose a meal plan option offered by the Lawrence Technological University. Students living in the Arbor Lofts apartments are not required to purchase a meal plan; however, do have the option of purchasing a residential or commuter plan. There are 4 meal plans for residents to choose from and are summarized as follows: FEES MEAL PLAN (PER SEMESTER) 9 Meals/Week (Plus $250 Flex Dollars per Semester) $1, Meals/Week (Plus $200 Flex Dollars per Semester) $1, Meals/Week (Plus $150 Flex Dollars per Semester)* $1, Meals/Week (Plus $125 Flex Dollars per Semester)* $1,351 * Mandatory for Freshman Meals can be used at the campus all-you-can-eat dining facility, the RFoC (Real Food on Campus). Flex Dollars can also be used at the RFoC if the student runs out of meals, or can be used at Einstein Bros. Bagels, the POD Express, and Jets Pizza. The following are the typical features and amenities offered in most of the residence halls: Single bed, mattress Desk and chair for each student Bookshelf Closets Chest of drawers Window blinds Cable TV access Individual telephone lines Internet access Room controlled heating and air conditioning units All utilities Lounges Recycling Mail and package services Information Desk services Common laundry facility or in-suite washer/dryer III-68

76 Oakland Community College - Southfield Campus Oakland Community College does not offer on-campus housing in Southfield. 11. FRATERNITY/SORORITY HOUSING Lawrence Technological University There are 4 sororities and 6 fraternities offered at LTU; however, none of these offer residential chapter homes for students on or near campus. Oakland Community College Oakland Community College has several Greek student organizations, particularly for honors students; however, none of these offer residential chapter homes for students on or near the Southfield campus. 12. UNIVERSITY PROFILES LAWRENCE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY A. General Lawrence Technical University is a private university founded in 1932 in the City of Highland Park, Michigan, in a building leased from Henry Ford that lies adjacent to the manufacturing facility where he built the Model T and perfected the moving assembly line. The need for more space became apparent as enrollment grew, and in 1955, the university moved to the current 102-acre campus in Southfield. This campus has more than doubled in size since The university offers more than 60 undergraduate degrees, 25 graduate programs, 4 doctoral programs, and 23 certificates. The school s academic calendar year is based on a fall semester (August through December), and a spring semester (January through May), and a summer term (May through July). The campus lies roughly 15 minutes northwest of Detroit; 75 miles east of Lansing, the state capital; and 275 miles northeast of Chicago. III-69

77 B. Enrollment The following table is a summary of undergraduate and graduate enrollment for the fall semesters at Lawrence Technical University (LTU) between 2008 and 2015: CLASSIFICATION Undergraduate 2,878 3,171 3,188 3, ,033 2,798 2,779 First Professional/ 1,374 1,317 1,301 1,201 1, ,217 1,382 Graduate TOTAL 4,252 4,488 4,489 4,257 4,154 4,002 4,015 4,161 Enrollment at LTU has fluctuated over the past several fall semesters. Enrollment increased from 2008 to 2009, did not change from 2009 to 2010, declined each year from 2011 to 2013, and has increased from 2014 to fall Most recently, enrollment at LTU increased by 146 students between fall 2014 and the current fall semester, an increase of 3.6%. The following is a summary of fall 2015 student enrollment on a full-time and part-time basis: DEGREE CLASSIFICATION TOTAL PERCENT OF GRADUATE/ STUDENTS STUDENTS UNDERGRADUATES PROFESSIONAL Full-Time 1, % 1, Part-Time 2, % 1,122 1,315 TOTAL 4, % 2,779 1,382 According to information provided by LTU officials, 84% of the total enrollment consists of those students from within the State of Michigan; the remaining 16% of the enrollment are students from out of state, including 1.0% international students. C. Student Profiles/Demographics The following table shows the fall 2015 total number of both undergraduate and graduate students by gender: DEGREE CLASSIFICATION TOTAL PERCENT OF GRADUATE/ STUDENTS STUDENTS UNDERGRADUATES PROFESSIONAL Female % Male 3, % 2,156 1,042 TOTAL 4, % 2,779 1,382 The university has a higher than typical percentage of male students. III-70

78 D. Tuition and Fees Undergraduate tuition for the academic year will range from $825-$1,090 per credit hour, and graduate student tuition is $1,090 per credit hour. Additional fees include application and registration fees of $30 and $135, respectively, IT service and maintenance fee of $50, a student activity fee of $175, and a graduation fee of $100. International students are charged an additional $225, and special programs and circumstances also dictate additional fees. E. Transportation Neither LTU nor the City of Southfield offers free public transit for students. Therefore, most students drive or walk to class. Parking is free on the LTU campus; however, all students, staff, and faculty must register for a parking permit. For transportation around the city and to other regional destinations, the Detroit-based SMART Bus (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation) offers 8 fixed routes that service the City of Southfield. There are 3 stops conveniently located within 0.2 of the site; a one-way fare costs $2 and a monthly pass is $66 for fixed routes. Ondemand service is also available for an extra fee. Additionally, there is a Greyhound bus station less than 1 mile from campus, and an Amtrak station 5 miles from campus. The Detroit Metropolitan Airport is located just over 20 miles southwest. OAKLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE - SOUTHFIELD A. General The Southfield campus of Oakland Community College was established in OCC was established in 1964, and has 5 campuses including the one in Southfield. Oakland Community College is a two-year institution offering around 100 certificates and programs, as well as 5 associates degrees (Applied Sciences, Arts, Business Administration, General Studies, and Science). The school s academic calendar year is based on a fall semester (August through December), a winter semester (January through May), and two summer sessions (May through June and July through August). The campus is located at Rutland Drive, approximately 0.3 miles northwest of the subject site. III-71

79 B. Enrollment Oakland Community College reports its enrollment to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) as a whole, including all 5 campuses, because many students attend classes at more than one of the campuses each semester. Therefore, data on the enrollment for the Southfield campus specifically is limited. The following table is a summary of enrollment for the fall semesters at the Southfield campus of Oakland Community College between 2009 and 2014 based on headcount estimates from OCC s Department of Institutional Research. Figures for 2015 were not available ENROLLMENT 4,213 4,374 4,624 4,385 4,312 4,233 The following table is a summary of enrollment for the fall semesters at Oakland Community College, including all 5 campuses, between 2008 and ENROLLMENT 24,084 26,296 29,044 28,577 27,535 26,662 23,792 20,898 The Southfield campus, like OCC as a whole, saw increasing enrollment through 2011 followed by a gradual decline. This has been the case for Michigan s community colleges in general, and the trend has been linked to the state s economic recovery of recent years. As more jobs are available, the perceived need for career-focused education decreases, leading to lower enrollment rates. The Department of Institutional Research at OCC expects this trend to continue. C. Tuition and Fees Tuition for in-district residents is $88 per credit hour, and tuition for out-of-district residents is $171 per credit hour. Full-time tuition and fees for in-district residents for the academic year costs a total of $2,490. III-72

80 E. SENIOR HOUSING 1. INTRODUCTION This study component evaluates the market potential for a senior living property consisting of assisted-living and memory care (Alzheimer s/dementia) units for the site located Northwestern Highway in Southfield, Michigan, as well as the market potential for an independent-living property. Our conclusions for the market potential of these senior housing development opportunities are based on identification and analysis of an Effective Market Area (EMA), demographic and economic characteristics, and a field survey of senior housing facilities. The EMA principle is a concept developed by The Danter Company to delineate the support that can be expected for a proposed development. A Site EMA is the smallest specific geographic area expected to generate 60% to 70% of the support for that development. This methodology has significant advantages because it considers existing natural and manmade boundaries and socioeconomic conditions. The Site EMA has been established in part based upon an analysis of mobility patterns, existing hard boundaries (i.e., rivers and freeways), and changes in neighborhood demographic composition, as well as an analysis of existing assisted-living facilities. The Site EMA for senior housing is bounded by Twelve Mile Road to the north; Interstate 75 to the east; State Route 8 and Interstate 96 to the south and U.S. Route 24 to the west. III-73

81 2. BACKGROUND AND DEFINITIONS Recently, the changing economy, especially that component impacting the single-family resale market, created a downturn in independent-living (sometimes called congregate care) and to some degree, assisted-living demand. As would be expected, a primary factor inhibiting new retirement housing has been the inability to sell existing homes at an acceptable price. Alzheimer s/dementia and nursing home housing have not seen the same level of decline due to the need-driven nature of these components. Independent-living facilities have typically been impacted at a higher level. Most senior housing facilities in the nation suffered losses in occupancy during the recent recession. It should also be noted that future market trends created by an aging population must be evaluated within the context of the proposed development, as well as the long-term impact on senior housing. An anticipated increase in senior population not only creates an accelerating senior lifestyle and service-based opportunity, but conversely, the consumers of alternative housing are also sellers of existing homes. Within a very short time frame, the ratio of buyers-to-sellers will shift dramatically, creating a buyer s market as more and more seniors are attempting to sell homes to fewer and fewer buyers. In many markets, this will create a new dynamic for senior housing providers, as home values may not rebound to pre-established levels. This, coupled with increased services assisting seniors in their own homes and recent (past 20 years) design criteria (firstfloor master bedroom) enabling seniors to remain in their home for a longer period of time, will also impact future demand criteria for alternative housing. These conditions have been considered in our recommendations. Assisted-living consists of senior-specific housing that meets the following criteria: Fees include assistance with two or more activities of daily living (ADLs), which may include dressing, bathing, grooming, eating, hygiene, or using the bathroom. Additional assisted-living services may include medication management/ reminders. Services are usually operated on a tiered basis, and as the number of ADLs requiring assistance increases, so does the fee. Fees include three daily meals, typically in the formal dining area. In facilities with both assisted- and independent-living, assisted-living residents typically have a separate dining area. May contain a partial kitchen or kitchenette, typically consisting of a microwave oven, sink and a small or full-sized refrigerator. Provides round-the-clock aide/nurse availability. III-74

82 Provides a variety of community amenities for residents, such as common areas, social activities, fitness center, wellness/health center, and transportation. Fees include all maintenance (indoor and outdoor) as well as all major utilities (heat, air conditioning, water heating, water/sewer, trash). Fees may also cover basic cable and/or local telephone service. Additional services typically include weekly housekeeping and linen service, emergency call system. Memory care (Alzheimer s/dementia) services include all of the services included in assisted-living care with additional resident supervision, direction, stimulation and security. 3. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ASSISTED LIVING/MEMORY CARE Based on the results of the demand analysis, there appears to be a deficit or unmet demand for a total of up to 734 assisted-living units and 438 memory care units in the Southfield EMA submarket. SUMMARY Assisted-living Site EMA Distribution of Units Site EMA Facilities 3 Sleeping Room 68 Units 325 Studio 207 Beds 345 One-Bedroom 30 Beds Over $3,500 (base) 104 Two-Bedroom 20 Deficit 734 Total 325 Memory Care Site EMA Year Opened Site EMA Facilities 1 Prior to Units Beds Beds Over $4,500 (base) 29 After Deficit 438 Total 3 Households age 75 and older, with income of $50,000 and greater, are expected to increase 32.3% in Site EMA area between 2016 and This compares with 38.2% for the state of Michigan and 26.9% nationwide. III-75

83 4. ASSISTED-LIVING/MEMORY CARE DEMAND ANALYSIS The demand analysis includes 7 key sections: 1. Population requiring assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) 2. Population with Alzheimer s/dementia 3. Age- and Income-appropriate households 4. Age- and Asset-appropriate households 5. Total Income- and Asset-appropriate households 6. Income- and Asset-appropriate persons requiring assistance with ADLs 7. Surplus/deficit analysis 1. POPULATION REQUIRING ASSISTANCE SITE EMA Total 2016 Population (Age 75+) 23,309 Affliction Rate X 9.5% Total Afflicted Population 2, POPULATION WITH ALZHEIMER S/DEMENTIA SITE EMA Total 2016 Population (Age 65 74) 33,967 Affliction Rate X 2.8% Afflicted Population (Age 65 74) 951 Total 2016 Population (Age 75 84) 16,004, Affliction Rate X 15.6% Afflicted Population (Age 75 84) 2,497 Total 2016 Population (Age 85+) 7,305 Affliction Rate X 34.5% Afflicted Population (Age 85+) 2,520 Total 2016 Alzheimer s/dementia 5,968 Institutionalization Rate X 25% Total Alzheimer s/dementia persons requiring specialized housing 1,492 III-76

84 3. INCOME-APPROPRIATE HOUSEHOLDS ASSISTED-LIVING (Age 75+) SITE EMA Total Households (Age 75+) 16,746 Average Private Monthly A/L Rate $4,000 Minimum Rent/Income Ratio 80% Minimum Income $60,000 Total Income-Appropriate Households (Age 75+) 2,832 ALZHEIMER S/DEMENTIA SITE EMA Average Private Monthly Alzheimer s Rate $5,000 Minimum Rent/Income Ratio 90% Minimum Income (Rounded Up) $67,000 Total Income-Appropriate Households (Age 75+) 2, ASSET-QUALIFIED HOUSEHOLDS ASSISTED-LIVING (Age 75+) SITE EMA Minimum Rent/Asset Ratio 80% Minimum Term (Years) 3 Minimum Assets Needed $180,000 Asset-Appropriate Households (Age 75+) 7,722 Percent of Asset-Appropriate Households NOT Income-Qualified X 40% Estimated Asset-Appropriate Households 3,089 ALZHEIMER S/DEMENTIA (Age 75+) SITE EMA Minimum Rent/Asset Ratio 80% Minimum Term (Years) 3 Minimum Assets Needed (Rounded) $225,000 Asset-Appropriate Households (Age 75+) 6,454 Percent of Asset-Appropriate Households NOT Income-Qualified X 40% Estimated Asset-Appropriate Households 2, INCOME- AND ASSET-QUALIFIED HOUSEHOLDS ASSISTED-LIVING SITE EMA Total Income-/Asset-Qualified Households 5,921 Share Of Households Age % ALZHEIMER S/DEMENTIA SITE EMA Total Income-/Asset-Qualified Households 4,900 Share Of Households Age % III-77

85 6. INCOME- AND ASSET-QUALIFIED HOUSEHOLDS REQUIRING ASSISTANCE ASSISTED-LIVING SITE EMA Afflicted Population (Age 75+) 2,214 Share Age-/Income-/Asset-Qualified Households 35.4% Total Target Assisted-Living Market 783 ALZHEIMER S/DEMENTIA SITE EMA Population with Alzheimer s/dementia 1,492 Share Age-/Income-/Asset-Qualified Households 29.3% Total Target Memory Care Market SURPLUS/DEFICIT ANALYSIS DEMAND ASSISTED- LIVING SITE EMA MEMORY CARE Target Population Base Vacancy Factor + 7.0% + 7.0% Total Demand SUPPLY Total Inventory (beds) Total Beds at or Above Target Rent (Competitive Supply) DEFICIT III-78

86 5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS INDEPENDENT LIVING Independent-living Site Distribution of Site EMA EMA Units Facilities 6 Studio 0 Units 795 One-Bedroom 50 Age-/health-/income-qualified persons 4,222 Two-Bedroom 423 Ratio of comp. units to support 18.8% Three-Bedroom 322 Ratio of comp. units plus site (100 units) 21.2% Total 795 Year Opened Site EMA Prior to After * Total 6 *MC 1 under construction for fall 2016 opening Our analysis indicates that the existing/under construction independent-living market (795 units) has a ratio of units to health-/age-/income-qualified persons of 18.8% at a base rent of $2,000. This is an excellent ratio of existing units to support base. Adding 100 units at the subject site would increase this ratio to 21.2%. This is a good ratio of product to qualified support. The following table illustrates our independent-living rating scale: RATIO OF UNITS TO SUPPORT RATING Less than 15.0% Excellent 15.0% to 19.9% Very Good 20.0% to 24.9% Good 25.0% to 29.9% Fair 30.0% or Greater Poor III-79

87 Our rating scale typically produces a higher ratio than many analysis systems. Following are some reasons why: We analyze only households age 75+, as they are the most likely demographic to enter independent-living. Other systems analyze a larger 65+ population. We qualify households not only by age and income but also by health. Persons with Alzheimer s/dementia or who need assistance with acts of daily living (ADLs) are better served in a long-term care environment and we have excluded them from the IL support pool. Many analyses do not make this adjustment. Although we consider the EMA to provide up to 70% of support, in order to be conservative we have not adjusted our support component to include out-of-ema support. It is also worth noting that we do not include asset-qualified households in our demand ratios. Our source of net worth data (ESRI) does not distribute net worth by source. While net worth often includes a home, which may be sold prior to IL occupancy, it also includes stocks, bonds, pensions, and other investments which may be generating household income. In order to provide the most conservative analysis, we have based our demand figures on income-qualified households only. One property is currently under construction. Hartford Village is scheduled to open in September 2016 and is the first property to open since It is 62.2% preleased 2 months before opening. We have also conducted an analysis of the demographics of the Site EMA comparing key age ranges to the US averages using an index system where the US overall ratio equals 100. The following chart illustrates the distribution of households by age relative to the US. III-80

88 Distribution of Households by Age Indexed (USA =100) < EMA Index 2021 EMA Index As the above graph indicates, the Site EMA has a concentration of age 75+ households higher than the US average. Although, the Site EMA has more seniors than the US average, a lower percentage of age 75+ households in the Site EMA have income greater than the US average Age 75+ Households with Income Over $50K (Indexed) USA EMA III-81

89 The concentration of affluent age 75+ households will increase relative to the US over the next 5 years. We also conducted an analysis of the 45 to 54 age group. Households in this age group are often making or influencing the housing decisions of senior parents, sometimes bringing their parents to live nearby and/or providing financial support. The following table illustrates our findings: SEGMENT US EMA INDEX (US=100) HHs Age 45 to 54 as a percent of all HHs % 17.9% 94 HHs Age 45 to 54 earning $100,000 or greater as a 6.4% 3.9% 62 percent of all HHs 2016 HHs Age 45 to 54 as a percent of all HHs % 16.8% 98 HHs Age 45 to 54 earning $100,000 or greater as a percent of all HHs % 4.5% Age Households with Income Over $100K (Indexed) USA 40 EMA The subject EMA has a slightly below average prevalence of influencer households in 2015 relative to the US and a below average ratio of these households is affluent. However, given the high population of the Site EMA, these age influencer households represent a substantial base of potential support for bringing seniors from outside the EMA to live in the Site EMA. III-82

90 F. PLANNED/PROPOSED/UNDER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Based on interviews with city and county planning officials, as well as internet research, the following projects are planned, proposed, or under development in the Effective Market Area. Butler Properties, LLC plans to build a 10,000-square-foot retail center to be located at Southfield Road. This plan was approved in March Southfield CHD MED, LLC plans to construct a 12,656-square-foot medical office building on the west side of Greenfield Road between Judson and Albert Streets. The tenant of the office will be affiliated with Beaumont Hospital. Nolan Real Estate Interests plans the demolition of an office building at Southfield Road for the construction of a new 114,000-square-foot self-storage and retail center. Ferndale9Living, LLC and Arbor Investment Group are developing a four-story, 90-unit apartment project in Ferndale near the intersection of West 9 Mile Road and Planavon Street. The project, Ferndalehaus Lofts, will also include retail/office space. Construction is expected to be complete in late Developer Bob Wolfson has a 75-unit luxury apartment project called the Harrison Residences currently under construction at 1210 Morse Avenue in Royal Oak. The project is summarized in the table below. UNIT TYPE NUMBER OF UNITS SQUARE FEET RENT One-bedroom $1,695 - $1,795 Two-bedroom 15 1,220-1,655 $2,095 - $2,595 Three-bedroom 10 1,730-1,780 $2,695 - $2,795 Project amenities at The Harrison Residences are expected to include a fitness center, rooftop lounge, and concierge services. Unit amenities include upgraded fixtures, ceilings, oversized windows, stainless steel appliances, fireplaces, and skylights in some units. The project is opening in stages starting in September. All units are expected to be on line by December Kiwi Hospitality Detroit, LLC is developing a hotel project at Telegraph Road in Southfield on the site of the former Holiday Inn. This is a redevelopment of the existing hotel with some additions including a new lobby, dining room and bar area. The former hotel is being developed into three separate projects. The first, a Best Western Premier, is expected to open in late 2016 or early 2017 and will include three banquet halls, a convention floor, 186 king suites, and a night club. The second, a 64-suite extended-stay hotel under the Executive Regency by Best Western flag, is expected to open in the first quarter of The third phase of the project, a 100-room La Quinta Inn and Suites, is expected to open in III-83

91 Trailhead RO, LLC is developing a mixed-use project at 400 Main Street in Royal Oak that will include a 120-room Hyatt hotel, 82 apartment units, retail, office space, and a 300-space parking deck. The project is expected to open in G. EMA RENTAL BASE Detailed data regarding the Southfield, Michigan Site Effective Market Area's rental base are provided by Esri, Incorporated, the 2010 Census and the 2000 Census. In 2010, there were 102,155 occupied housing units within the Southfield Site EMA. This is a decrease from the 108,804 units identified in the 2000 Census. By 2021, the number of occupied area housing units is projected to increase 2.7% from 2010 to 104,958. Distributions of housing units for 2000 and 2010 are as follows: 2000 CENSUS 2010 CENSUS NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Occupied 108, % 102, % By Owner 75, % 66, % By Renter 33, % 35, % Vacant 4, % 10, % Total 113, % 113, % The above data are a distribution of all rental units (e.g., duplexes, conversions, units above storefronts, single-family homes, mobile homes, and conventional apartments) regardless of age or condition. The 2010 Census marked a significant change in information gathering procedures. The information formerly gathered on the long form (income, rents, and mortgage details) is no longer being collected for the decennial Census. Instead, everyone received a short form. This information is being collected on the much less sampled American Community Survey and being released as five-year rolling averages, limiting its usefulness for small area demographics. When available, we have presented 2010 Census data along with 2016 estimates and 2021 projections. When 2010 Census data are not available, we have presented 2000 Census data. In 2000, there were approximately 33,468 renter-occupied housing units in the EMA. This includes all housing units (e.g., duplexes, single-family homes, mobile homes) regardless of age or condition. III-84

92 A summary of the existing rental units in the market by type follows: DISTRIBUTION OF RENTED UNITS BY UNIT TYPE SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2000 UNIT TYPE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS SHARE OF HOUSING UNITS Single, Detached 9, % Single, Attached 2, % 2 to 4 4, % 5 to 9 4, % 10 to 19 3, % 20 to 49 2, % 50+ 7, % Mobile Home or Trailer % Other 0 0.0% Total 33, % Of the 33,468 renter-occupied housing units in the EMA in 2000, 11,346 (33.9%) were within single-family detached and attached, and mobile homes or trailers. This is a moderate share of renter-occupied units in non-conventional alternatives. Following is a summary of the renter households in the Site EMA by household size: DISTRIBUTION OF RENTER HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2010 CENSUS HOUSEHOLD SIZE NUMBER PERCENT One Person 35, % Two Persons 32, % Three Persons 15, % Four Persons 10, % Five or More Persons 7, % Total 102, % Sources: 2010 Census Esri, Incorporated III-85

93 In 2010, the owner- and renter-occupied households within the Southfield Site Effective Market area were distributed as follows: DISTRIBUTION OF TENURE BY AGE SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2010 CENSUS OWNER-OCCUPIED RENTER-OCCUPIED TENURE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Householder 15 to 24 Years % 2, % Householder 25 to 34 Years 7, % 8, % Householder 35 to 44 Years 11, % 7, % Householder 45 to 54 Years 14, % 5, % Householder 55 to 64 Years 15, % 4, % Householder 65 to 74 Years 8, % 2, % Householder 75 to 84 Years 5, % 2, % Householder 85 Years and Over 2, % 1, % Total 66, % 35, % In 2000, existing gross rents in the Effective Market Area were distributed as follows: DISTRIBUTION OF RENTAL UNITS BY GROSS RENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2000 CENSUS NUMBER PERCENT No Cash Rent % Under $250 2, % $250 - $349 1, % $350 - $449 2, % $450 - $549 4, % $550 - $649 6, % $650 - $749 4, % $750 - $899 6, % $900 - $999 2, % $1,000 - $1,499 2, % $1,500 and Over % Total 33, % Median Gross Rent $647 Source: 2000 Census III-86

94 The following table provides a summary of gross rent as a percentage of household income for the renter households in the Southfield Site EMA: GROSS RENT AS A PERCENT OF INCOME SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2000 CENSUS RENTER HOUSEHOLDS PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENT Less than 20% 12, % 20% to 24% 4, % 25% to 29% 3, % 30% to 34% 2, % 35% or More 9, % Not Computed 1, % Total 33, % A total of 11,915 renter households, 35.6% of the total, paid over 30% of their annual household income for rental housing costs in A total of 9,505 renter households paid 35% or more of their income for rental housing costs, a significant number of rent burdened households. III-87

95 H. EMA DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS The following tables provide key information on Site EMA demographics, including population trends, household trends, and household income trends. POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA YEAR POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD , , , , Change % 0.4% Census 236, , Change % -6.1% (Estimated) 236, , (Projected) 239, , Change % 1.7% - Sources: Danter Company, LLC 2000 Census Esri, Incorporated As the above table illustrates, the total population within the Southfield Site EMA decreased between 1990 and During this time period, the total population decreased 5.6% from 279,733 in 1990 to 264,012 in During this same time period, households increased 0.4% from 108,342 in 1990 to 108,804 in Both the total population and households are expected to increase slightly through The population is expected to increase by 2,990 (1.3%) between 2016 and 2021 while households are expected to increase by 1,787 (1.7%) from 103,171 in 2016 to 104,958 in III-88

96 The median population age in the 2010 Census was 39.2 years old, 1.8 years older than reported in the 2000 Census. By 2021, the median population age is expected to be 41.5 years old. The following tables detail the area population by age groups: DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY AGE SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2000 CENSUS, 2010 CENSUS TOTAL POPULATION BY AGE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Under 5 Years 16, % 13, % 5 to 9 Years 18, % 13, % 10 to 14 Years 18, % 14, % 15 to 19 Years 16, % 15, % 20 to 24 Years 15, % 13, % 25 to 34 Years 42, % 34, % 35 to 44 Years 42, % 33, % 45 to 54 Years 37, % 34, % 55 to 64 Years 22, % 31, % 65 to 74 Years 17, % 16, % 75 to 84 Years 13, % 11, % 85 Years and Over 4, % 5, % Total 264, % 236, % Median Age Sources: Danter Company, LLC 2000 Census, 2010 Census Esri, Incorporated III-89

97 DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY AGE SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2016 (ESTIMATED), AND 2021 (PROJECTED) TOTAL POPULATION 2016 (ESTIMATED) 2021 (PROJECTED) BY AGE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Under 5 Years 12, % 12, % 5 to 9 Years 12, % 12, % 10 to 14 Years 13, % 13, % 15 to 19 Years 13, % 13, % 20 to 24 Years 14, % 13, % 25 to 34 Years 33, % 34, % 35 to 44 Years 31, % 31, % 45 to 54 Years 31, % 30, % 55 to 64 Years 33, % 32, % 65 to 74 Years 22, % 26, % 75 to 84 Years 10, % 13, % 85 Years and Over 5, % 5, % Total 236, % 239, % Median Age Sources: Danter Company, LLC Esri, Incorporated The following table illustrates the households by age in the Site EMA in 2000, 2016 (estimated), and 2021 (projected): HOUSEHOLDS BY AGE SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2000 CENSUS, 2016 (ESTIMATED), AND 2021 (PROJECTED) (ESTIMATED) 2021 (PROJECTED) HOUSEHOLD AGE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Under 25 Years 3, % 2, % 2, % 25 to 34 Years 20, % 15, % 15, % 35 to 44 Years 23, % 18, % 17, % 45 to 54 Years 23, % 18, % 17, % 55 to 64 Years 13, % 20, % 20, % 65 to 74 Years 11, % 15, % 17, % 75 and Older 12, % 12, % 13, % Total 108, % 103, % 104, % Sources: Danter Company, LLC 2000 Census Esri, Incorporated III-90

98 The following table illustrates the distribution of income among all households in the Site EMA in 2000, 2016 (estimated), and 2021 (projected). Again, it is worth remembering that income data were not collected for the 2010 Census. DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2000 CENSUS, 2016 (ESTIMATED), AND 2021 (PROJECTED) (ESTIMATED) 2021 (PROJECTED) HOUSEHOLD INCOME NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Less than $15,000 14, % 13, % 12, % $15,000 to $24,999 11, % 10, % 10, % $25,000 to $34,999 12, % 11, % 11, % $35,000 to $49,999 17, % 13, % 7, % $50,000 to $74,999 22, % 18, % 19, % $75,000 to $99,999 14, % 13, % 14, % $100,000 to $149,999 11, % 13, % 17, % $150,000 to $199,999 2, % 4, % 6, % $200,000 or More 2, % 3, % 4, % Total 108, % 103, % 104, % Median Income $49,203 $52,946 $59,750 The following tables illustrate the distribution of income by age in 2000, 2016 (estimated), and 2021 (projected), the most recent available: DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY AGE SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2000 CENSUS 2000 HOUSEHOLD AGE GROUP INCOME UNDER Less than $10, ,260 1,115 1, ,430 1,893 $10,000-$14, ,754 $15,000-$24, ,932 1,874 1,522 1,188 1,857 2,802 $25,000-$34, ,310 2,467 1,915 1,354 1,626 1,830 $35,000-$49, ,822 4,009 3,483 1,921 1,868 1,843 $50,000-$74, ,250 6,048 5,328 2,860 1,811 1,161 $75,000-$99, ,045 3,748 3,691 1, $100,000-$149, ,121 2,704 3,575 1, $150,000-$199, $200,000 or More Total 3,264 20,999 23,719 23,066 13,818 11,533 12,621 III-91

99 DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY AGE SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2016 ESTIMATED 2016 HOUSEHOLD AGE GROUP INCOME UNDER Less than $15, ,822 1,793 1,892 2,753 1,854 2,482 $15,000-$24, ,303 1,283 1,231 1,742 2,058 2,634 $25,000-$34, ,666 1,679 1,500 1,803 2,133 1,836 $35,000-$49, ,265 2,260 1,954 2,229 2,540 1,862 $50,000-$74, ,309 3,274 3,418 3,942 2,877 1,545 $75,000-$99, ,232 2,748 2,869 3,077 1, $100,000-$149, ,214 3,227 3,252 3,137 1, $150,000-$199, ,264 1, $200,000 or More , Total 2,637 15,731 18,002 18,438 20,893 15,451 12,019 Median Income $31,453 $54,316 $62,839 $67,532 $59,749 $43,742 $29,070 Average Income $41,257 $66,373 $79,174 $85,676 $77,963 $62,100 $43,051 DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY AGE SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2021 PROJECTED 2021 HOUSEHOLD AGE GROUP INCOME UNDER Less than $15, ,828 1,657 1,675 2,391 2,141 2,688 $15,000-$24, ,198 1, ,527 2,215 2,865 $25,000-$34, ,739 1,665 1,375 1,756 2,591 2,153 $35,000-$49, ,327 1,162 1,050 1,222 1,694 1,245 $50,000-$74, ,430 3,348 3,241 3,871 3,629 1,889 $75,000-$99, ,503 3,011 2,977 3,200 2, $100,000-$149, ,674 3,816 3,648 3,692 2, $150,000-$199, ,199 1,527 1, $200,000 or More ,126 1, Total 2,368 15,848 17,804 17,602 20,175 17,886 13,275 Median Income $30,608 $60,745 $74,723 $78,005 $69,096 $51,369 $29,217 Average Income $43,986 $73,504 $88,457 $95,656 $86,919 $69,534 $48,823 III-92

100 I. LODGING 1. INTRODUCTION This component of the report will identify the market potential for additional lodging facilities in Southfield, Michigan. Lodging would be one component of the integrated-use redevelopment of the Northland Center site. COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA (CMA) The CMA is defined by the existing facility configurations relative to a potential site or market, location of population, density of support components, and highway patterns. This methodology has significant advantages in that it considers existing natural and manmade boundaries and socioeconomic conditions. It also enables us to make market share calculations and estimates. This is especially useful in the lodging evaluation since the origin of lodging customers is generated from a national or international basis. The Competitive Market Area enables the analyst to evaluate the competitive market and identify support versus supply along with potential voids in the market. The Southfield lodging Competitive Market Area is bounded by 12 Mile Road to the north, the Walter P. Ruether Freeway corridor connecting to Rosewood Street to the east, 8 Mile Road to the south, and Inkster Road to the west. III-93

101 Based on the characteristics of the Site CMA, a field survey of lodging development, an analysis of the appropriateness of the site for the proposed development, and a demographic analysis of the CMA, support levels can be established for additional lodging development. The following analyses have been conducted to identify market potential for lodging development at the site: Analysis of the overall CMA lodging market Historical development and support trends An analysis of traffic patterns Interviews with major area businesses Current market conditions based on 100% field survey of modern lodging facilities Appropriateness of the site for the subject development Current and expected economic and household growth conditions Area lodging demand factors, including: Commercial support Transient support SMERF (Social, Military, Educational, Religion, Fraternal) A trend line analysis, based on a "room rate by comparability rating" evaluation of all lodging facilities within the CMA, is used to evaluate room rates and potential flags for the proposed development. An analysis of the existing distribution of flags and room rates as compared with typical lodging markets. 2. PROJECT CONCEPT There is the potential for two hotel concepts to be developed at the subject site: A Midscale (such as a Sleep Inn or Wingate) lodging facility with at least 100 rooms and 20,000 to 25,000 square feet of conference and meeting space. Room rates would be in the $125 to $150 range. This facility should be integrated into the residential/office components of the development. The second facility would be an Upper Midscale facility (such as a Wyndham Garden Inn or Hyatt House). We would anticipate up to 108 rooms with an average rate of $150 to $160. III-94

102 It should be noted that while our recommendations are based on established deficits in the market by class of facility, there is a strong likelihood that a major chain could opt for a facility in the proposed development due to the strength and character of the development. Such a decision is often based on market share and competitive site advantage. Further, given the age of existing facilities, there is the potential to reflag existing facilities and locate in an emerging area with a stronger brand. UPPER DSCALE HOTEL Based on this analysis, it is our opinion that up to a 96- to 110-room Upper Midscale property can be supported within the proposed development. The development is recommended as follows: AVERAGE WEEKDAY RATE AVERAGE WEEKEND RATE ROOMS NUMBER* SIZE Standard King Square Feet $140 $150 Queen/Queen Square Feet $150 $160 Junior Suite Square Feet $165 $175 Total *Distribution of rooms is approximate and will reflect the overall geometry of the building The overall average rate will be $ AMENITIES AND FEATURES Interior corridors Secured access and security features Lobby with extended lounge area Free Wi-Fi Dining area with complimentary breakfast Extended Cable TV Business center 42 flat screen TV Vending Microwave Guest laundry Mini fridge Pet friendly Iron and ironing board Fitness center Desk Indoor pool Closet or wardrobe III-95

103 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Projected Occupancy Levels Occupancies have been projected for a new midscale hotel at the site for its first five years of operation, assumed to commence in 2018 (first full year) and extend through The projections of occupancy are based on market penetration analyses of the existing and projected future lodging demand. The proposed hotel is expected to average 55% to 60% occupancy for the initial startup period. Occupancies are projected to stabilize in the fourth to fifth full year of operation at 69% to 71%. These occupancy projections are summarized as follows: DSCALE HOTEL PROJECTED OCCUPANCY LEVELS UPPER DSCALE LODGING FACILITY AT SUBJECT SITE YEAR PROJECTED OCCUPANCY First (2018) 55% Second (2019) 63% Third (2020) 67% Fourth (2021) 70% Fifth (2022) 71% Based on this analysis, it is our opinion that up to a 90- to 110-room Midscale property can be supported within the proposed development. The development is recommended as follows: AVERAGE WEEKDAY RATE AVERAGE WEEKEND RATE ROOMS NUMBER* SIZE King Square Feet $120 $140 Queen/Queen Square Feet $130 $150 King Suite Square Feet $150 $165 Total *Distribution of rooms is approximate and will reflect the overall geometry of the building The overall average rate will be $ III-96

104 AMENITIES AND FEATURES Interior corridors Secured access and security features Lobby with extended lounge area Free Wi-Fi Dining area with complimentary breakfast Cable TV Business center 42 flat screen TV Vending Microwave Guest laundry Iron and ironing board Pet friendly Desk Fitness center Closet or wardrobe Indoor pool OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Projected Occupancy Levels Occupancies have been projected for a new midscale hotel at the site for its first five years of operation, assumed to commence in 2018 (first full year) and extend through The projections of occupancy are based on market penetration analyses of the existing and projected future lodging demand. The proposed hotel is expected to average 55% to 60% occupancy for the initial startup period. Occupancies are projected to stabilize in the fourth to fifth full year of operation at 69% to 71%. These occupancy projections are summarized as follows: PROJECTED OCCUPANCY LEVELS DSCALE LODGING FACILITY AT SUBJECT SITE YEAR PROJECTED OCCUPANCY First (2018) 57% Second (2019) 64% Third (2020) 67% Fourth (2021) 69% Fifth (2022) 71% Occupancy levels vary between seasons in the area, relative to the seasonal tourist segment activity and weekday/weekend patterns. Growth of occupancy between the first and fifth years of operation reflects the increased market penetration by the proposed property as well as the growth rates associated with each of the major market segments. III-97

105 The occupancy projections are based on the following: The location of the proposed facilities within a vibrant integrated use development containing restaurants, entertainment, office and residential uses. The development of the area as an employment center. Historical and projected levels of area wide lodging demand Proximity to major room generators such as the St. John Providence Hospital The strength of the site with relation to the surrounding population support and their related events. Availability of traveler services to the site area Area commercial growth potential Consideration of competitive lodging facilities in the area, including their physical condition, rate structure, facilities, and amenities offered. The strength and image of a branded hotel and its ability to develop a referral/reservation system. The quality of the proposed lodging facilit Competent management, which will maintain an active and effective marketing program prior to opening and throughout the analysis period. This will include a program of direct calls to local industries, and attendance/weekend packages for major events. In the CMA occupancy is relatively consistent by month. The lowest occupancy is in January and December with 51.6% and 52.8% respectively. Peak months are June and July with 71.9% and 71.7%. Following are month by month occupancies. MONTH OCCUPANCY January 51.6% February 59.7% March 61.8% April 62.1% May 66.0% June 71.9% July 71.7% August 70.3% September 68.7% October 68.4% November 64.2% December 52.8% III-98

106 Occupancy in the CMA by day of week is as follows: DAY OF WEEK OCCUPANCY Monday through Thursday 67.2% Friday and Saturday 67.6% Sunday 51.1% Total 64.0% The CMA currently has an above average ratio of occupancy for Friday and Saturday nights, a reflection of the tourist-based support in the market. The Monday through Friday support is also slightly above average reflecting commercial support. RevPAR (Revenue Per Available Room) in the EMA/CMA has been increasing 10.8% per year over the past 5 years. It should be noted that this increase is without the benefit of new hotels being added to the market and dragging the average up as opposed to actual increases. Given that, 10.8% is a very respectable gain in RevPAR. Nevertheless, we would recommend a more conservative 6.0% gain per year. 3. VOID ANALYSIS There are numerous flags not represented in the CMA. Following is the most significant list base on hotel class. HOTEL FLAG Residence Inn Drury Inn Drury Inn & Suites Fairfield Inn & Suites Sleep Inn Wingate By Wyndham Clarion Comfort Inn Aloft Hotels Drury Suites Hyatt House Hyatt Place Park Inn Wyndham Garden Hotels CLASS OF FACILITLY Midscale Midscale Midscale Midscale Midscale Midscale Upper Midscale Upper Midscale Upper Midscale Upper Midscale Upper Midscale Upper Midscale Upper Midscale Upper Midscale III-99

107 4. LODGING MARKET There are 22 lodging facilities in the CMA with most being in the Economy or the Upper Upscale categories. It should be noted that many of the facilities in the Economy category are of dubious business practice and are not considered part of the overall hotel demand. Following is a distribution of the hotels by class of service followed by a graph showing class of service. The 22 hotels are as follows: MAP CODE HOTEL ROOMS CLASS 1 Cranbrook House Motel 102 Economy Class 2 Crystal House Motel 72 Economy Class 3 Embassy Motel 76 Economy Class 4 Extended Stay America Southfield I Economy Class 5 Extended Stay America Southfield NW Highway 134 Economy Class 6 E-Z Rest Motel 60 Economy Class 7 Murray Hill Motel 54 Economy Class 8 Red Roof Inn Southfield 113 Economy Class 9 Royal Inn Motel 350 Economy Class 10 A Victory Hotel Southfield 65 Midscale Class 11 Baymont Inn & Suite Southfield 153 Midscale Class 12 Candlewood Suites Detroit Southfield 121 Midscale Class 13 Hawthorn Suites By Wyndham Southfield 144 Midscale Class 14 Quality Inn Southfield 105 Midscale Class 15 Comfort Suites Detroit Southfield 81 Upper Midscale Class 16 Holiday Inn Express & Suites Southfield Detroit 91 Upper Midscale Class 17 Courtyard Detroit Southfield 239 Upscale Class 18 Hilton Garden Inn Detroit Southfield 226 Upscale Class 19 Springhill Suites Detroit Southfield 388 Upscale Class 20 Embassy Suites Detroit Southfield 147 Upper Upscale Class 21 Marriott Detroit Southfield 194 Upper Upscale Class 22 Westin Southfield Detroit 84 Upper Upscale Class Total Rooms 3,121 III-100

108 Following are the occupancy trends for the CMA: OCCUPANCY TRENDS SOUTHFIELD CMA There were 633,664 occupied rooms in 2010 increasing to 730,241 in 2015, a 15.2% increase (3.1% per year). Based on interviews with area economic development authorities and meeting, conference, and event specialists, we believe the established growth in occupied rooms will continue. (Year-to-date for 2016 is 3.0% ahead of 2015.) Assuming a more modest increase of 2.8% per year would yield support for 3,340 rooms (at 65% occupancy). There are currently 3,121 rooms in the market indicating a 219 room deficit. However, this does not consider deficits by class of facility. III-101

109 Following is the distribution of CMA hotels by class compared with the typical distribution for a suburban highway/commercial location: There is a significant void in Midscale and Upper Midscale facilities in the CMA. In most well-balanced markets this category accounts for 26% and 25% of total rooms, respectively, however, in the Southfield CMA the account for only 20% and 6% respectively. There is a high ratio of Economy Class rooms, although, as previously noted, these are of a dubious quality and practice. There are significant room deficits in the Midscale and Upper Midscale categories. CURRENT ROOM DISTRIBUTION ROOM DEFICIT (SURPLUS) TYPICAL ROOM CLASS OF FACILITY DISTRIBUTION Luxury Upper Upscale (572) Upscale Upper Midscale Midscale Economy (459) Total 3,121 3,121 1,156 III-102

110 Class categories vary by room rate from market-to-market; however, the typical examples, by brand, do not generally change. Following are examples of hotels reflective of each class category. Economy Motel 6, Knights Inn, most independents Midscale Best Western, some Comfort Inns Upper Midscale Hampton Inn, Fairfield Inn & Suites Upscale Hilton Garden, Doubletree, Residence Inn Upper Upscale Marriott, Embassy Suites, Luxury Luxury branded by chains such as Hilton or Marriott Naturally, there may be some crossover, especially in the mid ranges. For example, there may be Holiday Inn hotels in specific markets that are Upper Midscale facilities. Hotels by class, average room rate and occupancy are as follows: CLASS OF FACILITY NUMBER OF HOTELS NUMBER OF ROOMS AVERAGE ROOM RATE AVERAGE OCCUPANCY Luxury Upper Upscale $147 58% Upscale $141 69% Upper Midscale $124 70% Midscale $92 72% Economy 9 1,083 $54 53% Total 22 3,121 $94 64% Overall occupancy is only moderate; however, the average occupancy deducting the Economy Class facilities is 67%. Room rates are obviously reflective of the class of facility; however, the gap between the Upscale and Upper Upscale reflects abundance of Upper Upscale product. III-103

111 The following graph displays the rooms added to the market by year. 3,000 2,500 HOTEL ROOMS ADDED TO CMA 2,488 2,000 1,500 1, Before to Present The CMA hotel room base is relatively old with a total of 79.7% of all rooms opened prior to Many of the facilities are functionally obsolete, especially in the Economy and Midscale Class. Further, there have been many new concepts and flags emerging in the market place since 1990, none of which are represented in the Southfield CMA. The overall performance of the lodging market in the CMA has increased significantly since 2010: Occupancy has increased from 53.1% to 64.0%, an increase of 20.5%. Average Daily Rate (ADR) has increased from $65.66 to $84.14, an increase of 28.1%. While this is considered quite low, it is the result of too many marginal facilities in the Economy Class. RevPAR has increased 54.4% from $34.86 to $ Occupied rooms have increased 20.6%. Gross revenue has increased 48.6%. The actual supply of room has increased only 0.1%. III-104

112 Based on preliminary data, it is expected that 2016 will meet or exceed the previous 5- year trend. LODGING PERFORMANCE SUMMARY SOUTHFIELD CMA ROOM SUPPLY 0% GROSS REVENUE 55% OCCUPIED ROOMS 21% RevPAR 54% ADR 28% OCCUPANCY 21% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% With an overabundance of functionally obsolete dubious rooms in the Economy Class, both RevPAR and ADR are relatively low in the CMA. The existing motels in the CMA have been charted by room rate and marketability rating in the trend line analysis that follows. This marketability rating reflects the following factors: Amenities Curbside appeal Accessibility Visibility Proximity to population backup Proximity to traveler services Proximity to room generators Transient potential Referral and reservation system Market acceptability III-105

113 This analysis has been used as guidelines to evaluate an appropriate room rate and/or flag. CMA Hotels by Room Rate, Class and Competitive Rating $180 $160 $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $- Midscale Economy Upper Midscale Upper Upscale Upscale Most rooms in the market are functioning at about the national flag rates, although the Upper Upscale facilities are somewhat lower that national averages. This is due, in part, to the individual hotels being rated by their flag label rather than by personal observation of the facility. In reality, these hotels should most likely be rated as Upscale rather than Upper Upscale. III-106

114 The following chart displays the Southfield CMA rooms by room rate. As can be seen, there is an abundance of rooms under $75 and over $125. There is a significant gap from $75 to $124. Because of the difficulty of providing rooms under $100, we are recommending development in the $100 to $124 range. Further, because of the lack of contemporary flags in the Upper Midscale range we are also recommending rooms in the $140 to $160 range DISTRIBUTION OF CMA ROOMS BY ROOM RATE $150 and Over $125 - $149 $100 - $124 $75 - $99 Under $ , MARKET SUPPORT AND SEGMENTATION Three market segments (commercial, leisure, and meeting and group) provide support for lodging facilities in the area. Following is our estimate of support for the proposed hotel by market segment for the first 5 years of operation. Estimates of market penetration were developed for each market segment by comparing the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed hotel to those of each property within the CMA. Such factors as location and proximity to room generators, access, visibility, chain affiliation, age, management, number of rooms, room rates, amenities, quality of proposed facility compared to existing area properties, decor and physical appearance were considered. III-107

115 Based on The Danter Company survey of area lodging facilities, the following distribution of support has been identified for the subject site CMA lodging market: MARKET SEGMENTATION OF CMA ANTICIPATED MARKET SEGMENTATION SOUTHFIELD CMA MARKET SEGMENT Commercial 72% 74% Leisure 18% 16% Meeting and Group 10% 10% Total 100% 100% Naturally, the commercial component is stronger on weekdays while the leisure component has a higher weekend impact. The meeting and group component remains somewhat constant; however, weekday functions tend to be commercial-oriented while weekend functions are typically social in nature. Commercial Based on our evaluation, commercial support currently comprises 72% of the total room support in the lodging market. Given the expected quality of the proposed facilities, as well as the recommended outreach marketing program, commercial support is expected to represent 74% of the total support. The estimated commercial support figure is a function of the anticipated number of room/night reservations made directly and indirectly by businesses and industry located in the area. We recommend partnering with local businesses. Complimentary guest packages featuring gifts from the hotel and/or reservations partner would be available. The integrated-use character of the proposed development will attract corporate travelers visiting the over 5 million square feet of office space in the immediate neighborhood of the subject site. The daytime population of these 5 million square feet is nearly 17,000. Total employment in the EMA is 140,382. The commercial projection is based on the following: The recommended properties will offer a wide range of room rate and concept choices ranging from $100 to $160 per night and from Midscale through Upper Midscale alternatives. The functional guest rooms are anticipated to be attractive to commercial travelers in the area. Amenities and features preferred by major support generators specifically the Providence Park Hospital and the adjacent 5 million square feet of office space. Proximity to commercial demand generators. Outreach marketing program to area businesses and institutions. III-108

116 Leisure The leisure segment is accounts for approximately 18% of the total market support. We expect this to be 16% at the proposed development. We have projected penetration of the leisure segment of the market to be generally comparable to the overall market: Although the value will be perceived by all guests, the leisure segment tends to be attracted to lower-priced rooms. The proposed price categories will offer both moderate and higher-quality rooms at room rates comparable to existing alternatives. Peak leisure support occurs during the summer and fall months. Direct population support in the area. This component includes support generated from weddings, funerals, graduation, etc. Proximity to State Route 10 and its access to downtown Detroit will be a distinct advantage. Being in a safe integrated use development with restaurant and entertainment venues, but with ready access to downtown Detroit will be a distinct advantage. The population of the Southfield EMA, while declining, still had over one-quarter of a million people in 2010 (236,561). Meeting and Groups Meetings and groups make up 10% of the CMA lodging market. This is primarily due to the general lack of in-house meeting facilities in most of the existing market. The proposed facility will capture a more-than-proportionate share of the meeting/group segment. This is based on the following: Limited meeting/group facilities in CMA coupled with an increasing corporate and SMERF demand. Size of the property along with the integrated mixed-use property conducive to attracting two- to three-night stay meeting participants. Property is expected to be marketed heavily as a meeting center. III-109

117 6. SOUTHFIELD CMA AS A DESTINATION MARKET Southfield and the greater Detroit area host numerous events, meetings and conventions. Following is an overview of Southfield s meeting and event facilities. St. George Cathedral Cultural Center: 2 banquet rooms, able to accommodate up to 500 people Silver Garden Event Center: 8,000-square-foot Mystic Ballroom 4,550-square-foot Grande Ballroom 900-square-foot Garden Room Total capacity for 1,200 people Regency Manor & Banquet Center: 7,000-square-foot facility Total capacity for 500 seated guests Tapestry Banquets: Total capacity for 225 guests Aries Colony Hall: Total capacity for 160 guests Skyline Club: Total capacity for 225 standing guests (150 seated) Pi Banquet Hall: 2 banquet rooms Total capacity for 600 standing guests (350 seated) Plum Hollow Country Club: Total capacity for around 500 guests III-110

118 St. John s Banquet and Conference Center: Museum and ballroom Total capacity for 300+ guests City of Southfield Event Spaces: Southfield Pavilion (2,000+ capacity) Parks and Recreation Building (200+ capacity) 4 park shelters Southfield Town Center: Garden Atrium (capacity for 500 standing guests, 250 seated) Conference rooms (total capacity 140 people) Westin Detroit Southfield: 2 Ballrooms Auditorium Executive Meeting Center 8 Board Rooms Total facility capacity of 1,600+ people Courtyard Detroit Southfield: 2 event rooms, total capacity 90 guests Embassy Suites Southfield: 3,000-square-foot Woodward Ballroom (maximum capacity 450 guests) Meeting rooms (maximum capacity 270 guests) Detroit Marriott Southfield: Ballroom (maximum capacity 300 guests) 7 Meeting Rooms (total maximum capacity 414 guests) Hilton Garden Inn Detroit Southfield: Ballroom (maximum capacity 500 guests) Meeting Rooms (total maximum capacity 350 guests) III-111

119 Southfield and the greater Detroit area feature a variety of cultural events, festivals, athletic and entertainment activities, and attractions including the following. ATTRACTIONS: Southfield Sports Arena Detroit Zoo Bastone Brewery Berkeley Ice Arena Oak Park Ice Arena Hurley Field Birmingham Bloomfield Art Center Monk Beer Abbey National Railway Historical Society Royal Oak Brewery Birmingham Historical Museum & Park B. Nektar Meadery Marvin's Marvelous Mechanical Museum Detroit Institute of Art Comerica Park Henry Ford Estate Motown Museum Charles H. Wright Museum of African-American History The Henry Ford Museum & Greenfield Village Detroit Historical Museum Detroit Public Library Belle Isle Conservatory Gospel Music Hall of Fame and Museum Quicken Loans Sports Zone Fox Theatre Ford Field Adams Field Keyworth Stadium Fisher Theatre Motor City Casino Greektown Casino EVENTS: Southfield Festival of Hope 116th U.S. Amateur Championship Detroit Jazz Festival III-112

120 America's Thanksgiving Parade Detroit Tigers Home Games Eastern Market Bike Tour Rhythm & Stage Summer Theatre Series Totems Festival African World Festival 2016 Prep Kickoff Classic Detroit Design Festival City Sculpture Jamboree The Wright Gala The All Star Comedy Festival The Festival Of Praise Tour The Legends Of Southern Hip Hop Tour Wish Ball Southeast Michigan Cirque Dreams Holidaze Cranbrook Institute of Science Summer Events Detroit Doll Show The Ultimate Michigan Bridal Expo Global Automotive Lightweight Materials Conference The Tuskegee Airmen National Museum's 28th Annual Salute Reception North American International Auto Show Autorama ACEC Engineering & Surveying Excellence Awards Gala Science & Engineering Fair of Metro Detroit Michigan Association for Computer Users in Learning 2017 Conference Motor City Nationals SAE World Congress 2017 Great Lakes Green Infrastructure Conference Community Transportation Association of America - EXPO 2017 Detroit Motorcycle City Youmacon Midwest Media Expo Shell Eco-marathon ConFusion Tour de Troit Ride Convergence Expo Detroit Seniors & Caregivers Expos North American International Auto Show Michigan Construction & Design Tradeshow Detroit Boat Show Motor City Tattoo Expo III-113

121 J. OFFICE 1. INTRODUCTION This component of our report evaluates the market potential for new multi-tenant office development as part of an integrated-use development within the redeveloped Southfield Mall in Southfield, Michigan. Additional uses being considered include upscale market-rate apartments, student housing, condominium, lodging, and retail space. Based on the characteristics of the Site EMA, a 100% field survey of existing office development, an analysis of the appropriateness of the site for the proposed development, and an analysis of the Site EMA, support levels can be established for additional office development on the subject property. The following analyses have been conducted to identify market potential for additional office space. A field survey of all office developments in the EMA to establish: Overall rent and vacancy trends Distribution of space by class of space Absorption trends Office demand factors, including: Current and expected economic and household growth conditions Support from existing area office tenants (internal mobility) New business formations Businesses moving to the Site EMA from outside the area (external mobility) Analysis of area economics/demographics, including: Population and household trends Employment growth Analysis of the site to establish: Site characteristics, strengths and weaknesses Appropriateness of the site for development type This analysis is based on the establishment of a Site Effective Market Area (EMA) for the proposed project. EMA refers to a methodology developed by the Danter Company, LLC to describe areas of similar economic and demographic characteristics. The EMA is defined as the smallest geographic area that is expected to generate 65% to 70% of support. EMAs are bounded by both "hard" and "soft" boundaries. Hard boundaries are marked by rivers, freeways, railroad rights of way, and other physical boundaries. Soft boundaries are changes in the socioeconomic makeup of neighborhoods. III-114

122 The Site EMA for office development is bounded by 12 Mile Road to the north, the Walter P. Ruether Freeway corridor connecting to Rosewood Street to the east, 8 Mile Road to the south, and Inkster Road to the west. The following map illustrates the office EMA. A larger EMA map can be found in Section IV of this report. III-115

123 2. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our analysis of the office market, site attributes, and economic conditions of the EMA, it is our opinion that a market exists for up to 200,000 square feet of office space at the subject site assuming the project is developed as detailed in this report. The proposed project will be available in Changes in the project s site, rent, unit mix, amenities, floor plans, or opening date may invalidate these findings. The project is proposed as follows: We recommend three categories of office space, all Class B. Class B space integrated into the retail area of the center. This would be secondand third-floor space. As with residential, office tenants are responding to the integrated-use developments as a vibrant work environment. Class B space adjacent to the retail center. Class B space remote from the retail area but in a campus environment. We recommend the campus setting contain walkways, seating areas and outdoor meeting rooms. While remote, there is the potential that a Class A signature building could also locate in this area. SPACE CATEGORY SQUARE FEET LEASE RATE (FULL SERVICE) Integrated into Retail 40,000 $22.00 Adjacent to Retail 90,000 $20.00 Office Campus 70,000 $18.00 Total 200,000 $ ABSORPTION Absorption of space at the proposed site is a function of capture factors relative to the 3 major support components. Following is a summary of support potential for new office space at the site, based on the anticipated capture factors of each component: COMPONENT TYPICAL SHARE ANTICIPATED AT SITE Internal Mobility - Site EMA 65.0% 70.0% External Mobility - Outside Site EMA 30.0% 25.0% New Business Formations 5.0% 5.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% III-116

124 Because of the large existing office base in the EMA and the lack of a competitive concept, we anticipate a significant share of the absorption to originate from within the existing EMA base. We anticipate that the 200,000 square feet of office space would be absorbed over a 5- year period. The initial 40,000 square feet of integrated space would be preleased during the early marketing and construction of the site. The office space adjacent to the retail center would require a 24-month lease-up (with considerable pre-leasing). The remainder of the space in the office campus would be released over the remaining 5 years. 4. MULTI-TENANT OFFICE DEMAND FACTOR ANALYSIS The support for leasable office space is affected by: Expansion from tenants occupying existing space in the Site EMA (internal mobility from net gain). Firms moving to the Site EMA from outside the area. New business formations Internal Mobility The first component represents the greatest source of support for any new office development. Previous studies performed by The Danter Company indicate that firms generally move because they require additional space that is not readily available in their existing building. Tenants typically remain in the same area or follow mobility patterns similar to residential mobility. Furthermore, in addition to moving into larger quarters, tenants generally move into newer, higher-quality space. Each time a tenant's lease is scheduled for renewal, potential exists for that tenant to consider moving to another office. Further, the integrated-use concept as recommended for the subject site will be unique in the EMA. This concept has gained significant acceptance from office tenants responding to the vibrancy of such development. It should be noted, however, that tenants in such developments tend to be entrepreneurial rather institutional occupants. Therefore, spaces tend to be somewhat smaller than found in conventional Class A and B space. We expect significant support to originate from businesses currently located in the area that are occupying conventional big box space and paying rents at or below those anticipated at the site. This represents step-up support potential. Based on previous office studies conducted by The Danter Company, we determined that tenants are typically willing to incur a rental increase of up to 15% for a different rental alternative when it is perceived as a value. III-117

125 With most of the office space in the EMA being Class B or C space, it will be important for the subject site to offer rents that are within reasonable step-up of existing space. The 100% database field survey methodology allows us to accurately measure potential support from conventional existing office tenants. Step-up support is a critical factor in projecting absorption because it directly measures the depth of potential support from the businesses most likely to move to the subject site. Step-up support is best expressed as a ratio of proposed space 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 firms in order to achieve successful initial absorption. A higher ratio indicates a lower level of potential support from firms and that the subject site will have to attract a higher level of support from outside this group, potentially slowing absorption. As such, we recommend the subject property offer full service rates at $18.00 to $22.00 per square foot. The step-up range would include space currently renting for $15.30 to $18.70 per square foot. Within the Site EMA, there is a total of 753,200 square feet of space currently occupied by tenants paying rents within the appropriate step-up range. The majority of the lease terms among the existing office space extend 3 to 5 years. Assuming an average 4-year lease term, there is approximately 188,300 total square feet of office space that is potentially available each year. It should be noted that support from internal mobility is generated not only from the total existing, occupied square footage within the step-up range, but also from net gain from those tenants requiring larger quarters. We expect approximately 70% of this support for new office development to be generated from the existing office space as well as the net gain within the Site EMA. External Mobility The second component includes firms new to the EMA. We expect the external mobility component will contribute approximately 25% of the total market support potential. New Business Formations The third component of support includes new businesses forming within the area. Most new firms are rent-conscious, and therefore gravitate to older, less- expensive facilities. We anticipate that this component would contribute only 5% of the total market support potential. III-118

126 Summary When considering past and current absorption trends and turnover rate in the Site EMA, support from the net gain (expiring leases) of existing, occupied office space, as well as external support, we anticipate up to 295,900 square feet of space available as support at the proposed lease rates. A summary of potential annual support potential for newly formed office space in the Site EMA follows: Internal Mobility- Site EMA Relocation Net Gain (10%) ANNUAL EMA OFFICE POTENTIAL COMPONENT OFFICE TOTAL 188,300 18, , % External Mobility from Outside the EMA 74, % New Business Formations 14, % Total 295, % Based on our analysis, the Site EMA has the potential to compete for up to 295,900 square feet of office space on an annual basis. Notably, this potential could only be realized in a situation in which none of the tenants re-sign their lease agreements, an unlikely scenario. Absorption of space at the proposed site is a function of capture factors relative to the 3 outlined support components. Following is a summary of support potential for new office space at the site, based on the anticipated capture factors of each component: ANNUAL ABSORPTION POTENTIAL AT THE SITE ANNUAL COMPONENT CAPTURE FACTOR ABSORPTION POTENTIAL* Internal Mobility- Site EMA 12.0% 24,900 External Mobility from Outside the EMA 15.0% 11,100 New Business Formations 10.0% 1,500 Total 37,500 *Square feet Our analysis indicates that the recommended development of 200,000 could reach a stabilized occupancy (90%) within a five-year period. III-119

127 5. FIELD SURVEY OF EMA OFFICE DEVELOPMENTS A total of 5,246,980 square feet of multi-tenant office space in 58 properties was surveyed in the EMA. There is a relatively even distribution of lease plans in the EMA with 21 of the 58 properties offering full service plans and 12 offering NNN leases. The remaining properties have some form of modified lease with the landlord paying some of the expenses. The rents recommended at the subject property are full service rents. As such, the rents among the market-rate properties (when necessary) have been adjusted to represent similar rents. The various rent alternatives are defined as: Full service - All utilities, janitorial, taxes, etc., paid by landlord. Same as Gross lease. Triple Net (NNN) - Tenant pays all utilities, taxes, insurance and maintenance and cleaning. Modified Lease - This is a negotiated lease that may contain some, or most, of the utilities and does not fall into either of the above categories. There are numerous additional lease types quoted in the market and not all are consistent from region to region. These may be referred to as double net or single net leases but all come under our category of Modified Leases. Also, leases within a building may be negotiated differently for each tenant. Following is a distribution of space by rent and vacancy. DISTRIBUTION OF VACANT SQUARE FEET BY ADJUSTED RENTS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 ADJUSTED GROSS VACANT PERCENT OF RENT RANGE SQUARE FEET SQUARE FEET PERCENT VACANT $18.00 and over 702, % 14.3% $ $ , % 21.3% $ $ ,214, % 20.2% Below $ ,542, % 21.7% Total 5,246, % 20.0% Median $14.98 III-120

128 Office properties are also defined by class, being A, B, or C. Following are the standard industry class definitions. Class A Highest-quality buildings in the market. Generally the best looking with multiple floors, high-quality fixtures, atrium entry with high ceilings and wellmaintained landscaping. Usually professionally managed. Class B Generally older buildings but with quality management and tenants. Usually smaller than Class A and may be single story. Generally lower rent. Class C Older buildings often in less desirable neighborhoods. May need repairs or renovations. Because of the proliferation of office parks and office space in the EMA there is a large share of Class A and B space. However, it should be noted that much of the Class B space in the EMA was originally developed as Class A but has been reclassified as Class B as the properties age and as new building have expanded the expectations of Class A space. Similarly, much of the Class C space was originally developed as Class B. The following table details the area office market by building class. DISTRIBUTION OF SPACE BY CLASS OF SPACE SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 OFFICE SPACE SQUARE FEET PERCENT DISTRIBUTION AVERAGE LEASE RATE VACANCY RATE Class A 1,422, % $ % Class B 2,541, % $ % Class C 1,282, % $ % Total 5,246, % $ % Class A space represents 27.1% of the office space in the EMA. Vacancies are lowest among Class A buildings at only 14.3% compared with the overall average of 21.0% III-121

129 A distribution of office space and available space by year opened is as follows: DISTRIBUTION OF SPACE AND VACANCIES BY YEAR BUILT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 TOTAL SQUARE FEET PERCENT YEAR DISTRIBUTION VACANT 2010 to , % 51.1% to , % 23.9% to to ,666, % 15.6% to ,574, % 16.5% 24 Before , % 39.6% 23 Total 5,246, % 20.0% 58 NUMBER OF COMPLEXES Older properties developed before 1970 clearly carry the highest vacancy rate (39.6%). These properties account for 29.0% of all vacancies in the EMA. III-122

130 K. CONDONIUM Our conclusions for the market potential of the subject project are based on a thorough analysis of the Effective Market Area (EMA). EMA refers to a methodology developed by the Danter Company, LLC to describe areas of similar economic and demographic characteristics. The EMA is the smallest area expected to contain the greatest concentration (60% to 70%) of support for the proposed project. The condominium EMA for the subject site is bounded by West 13 Mile Road to the north, Interstate 75 to the east, West 7 Mile Road to the south, and U.S. Route 24 to the west. The condominium market inside the city of Southfield is dominated by older product (constructed from the 1950s through the 1980s) selling for under $70,000 on average. Outside Southfield, but still within the condominium site effective market area, there are a number of newer condominium developments. For the purpose of this analysis condominium projects active from 2005 and later have been surveyed. One additional property, Park Place at Town Center (Map Code 1) was included for reference despite having opened in 2000 because it is the only modern condominium property inside the city of Southfield. III-123

131 The following tables summarize the condominiums surveyed and current listing prices. CONDONIUM DEVELOPMENTS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE DEVELOPMENT YEAR BUILT NUMBER OF UNITS 1 Park Place at Town Center 255 Central Park Blvd., Southfield Sherman Oaks 832 West 11 Mile Rd., Royal Oak Lofts on East 9 Mile Rd Ferndale, The Fifth 432 S. Washington Ave Royal Oak, North Main 350 North Main St Royal Oak, West 11 Mile Rd Royal Oak, Metro Lofts 322 East Harrison Ave Royal Oak, Troy Street Lofts 614 South Troy St Royal Oak, Center Street Lofts 100 North Center St Royal Oak, Main Street Lofts 111 North Main St Royal Oak, Skylofts Market Square 101 Curry Ave. Royal Oak, III-124

132 CURRENT CONDONIUM LISTINGS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 DEVELOPMENT BEDROOMS BATHS SQUARE FEET PRICE Park Place at Town Center ,078 $139,000 Sherman Oaks ,499 1,499 $268,990 $273,990 Lofts on 9 The Fifth North Main 11 Metro Lofts Troy Street Lofts Center Street Lofts Main Street Lofts Skylofts Market Square ,488 1,911 1,056 1,004 1,201 1,842 1,563 1,110 1,135 1,112 $229,000 $349,999 $499,900 $336,900 $339,900 $349,900 $688,000 $580,000 $325,000 $369,900 $334, $225, ,129 $288, ,791 1,674 2,267 1,194 1,330 1,081 1,768 $459,900 $331,000 $480,000 $329,000 $362,500 $309,000 $530, ,243 $334,900 III-125

133 IV. THE SITE A. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The site is the 125-acre former Northland Center mall, located at Northwestern Highway in Southfield, Michigan. The mall is closed, as is an adjacent freestanding Target store. Presently, the Southfield police sub-station and central Smartbus bus stop are open on the site. The site is bounded by JL Hudson Drive to the north, Greenfield Road to the east, Northland Drive to the south, and John C. Lodge Highway to the west. NORTH JL Hudson Drive, a four-lane road that has a green space area in the middle, is directly north of the site. JL Hudson Drive intersects with Greenfield Road along the northeastern border of the site and Northwestern Highway to the northwest. Immediately following is the St. John Providence Health System, including the main hospital, outpatient pharmacy, Providence Occupational Health. The complex extends 0.6 mile to West 9 Mile Road. Continuing north are the Metropolitan and Providence Place apartments. EAST Greenfield Road is directly east of the site. Greenfield road is a six-lane major north and south thoroughfare through Southfield. Immediately following is the Forgotten Harvest food bank and Greenfield Plaza. Continuing east, older, established residential development and an elementary school extend 1.0 mile to Coolidge Highway. SOUTH Northland Drive is directly south of the site. Northland Drive is four lanes with a green space in the center; it intersects with Greenfield Road at the southeast border of the site and Northwestern Highway at the southwest border of the site. Immediately following Northland Drive is the Northland Tower office complex. Continuing south 0.6 mile is West 8 Mile Road and the city limit of Detroit. WEST A service road is directly west of the site; immediately following is the John C. Lodge Highway. Continuing west of the John C. Lodge Highway is older, established residential development. IV-1

134 IN GENERAL The site is located in an older area of Southfield, and surrounding development includes medical, office, residential and retail. The site has excellent access to major thoroughfares. B. SITE EVALUATION The attributes of a site s location are primarily a function of three main characteristics: Access Visibility Community Services Following is a summary of these site characteristics: ACCESS Our evaluation of site access characteristics is most concerned with the ease of access to the site for potential residents. Therefore, we evaluate ingress and egress to the site, proximity to thoroughfares, and site location relative to public transportation. ASSESSMENT RATING CRITERIA POOR FAIR/AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT Ingress X Egress X Proximity to X Thoroughfare(s) Proximity and Access to X Public Transportation Overall X Access to the site is considered excellent; the site fronts major thoroughfare Greenfield Road. Greenfield Road is six-lane and has several traffic signals for ingress and egress to the site area. The site also fronts Northwestern Highway to the west, there are several on and exit ramps to the John C. Lodge Freeway (Michigan 10). Proximity to public transportation is considered excellent; the Smartbus has a central bus station on the southern portion of the site. Overall, access to the site is considered excellent. IV-2

135 VISIBILITY Our research has determined that a significant percent of traffic at any multifamily development is generated from drive-by traffic. The key to generating drive-by traffic is visibility from well-traveled arteries. Site Visibility Traffic Volume Overall ASSESSMENT RATING POOR FAIR/AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT X X X The site visibility is considered excellent; the site has excellent visibility and signage along major thoroughfares. Traffic volume is considered excellent; the traffic volume is consistent along Greenfield Road and heavy during peak travel times along John C. Lodge Highway (Michigan 10). Overall, visibility of the site is considered excellent. COMMUNITY SERVICES In evaluating a site s environment, it is critical to assess the curb appeal of surrounding views and land usage, as well as the site s proximity to everyday community services. ASSESSMENT RATING COMMUNITY SERVICE POOR FAIR/AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT Grocery Store X Convenience Shopping X Retail Center X Employment Center X Bank(s) X Park(s) X Schools X Area Appeal X Overall X Grocery shopping is considered good; the closest to the site is a Kroger, 1.1 miles north of the site. IV-3

136 Convenience shopping is considered good; there are several fuel marts with limited convenience shopping located along Greenfield Road, however, most local residents shop at Kroger, 1.1 miles north. Retail shopping is considered average; retail in close proximity is limited to smaller stores, most are specialized (men s or women s clothing only, not both). Larger box retail is located outside the market area at larger shopping centers. Banking is considered excellent; the closest banking opportunity is 0.1 mile south at Citizens Bank. Employment is considered good; most employment is located southeast of the site in Detroit, however, directly north of the site is the St John Providence Health System complex with many opportunities for medical employment. Recreation is considered average; there are several parks located in close proximity, however most recreation is located throughout the Detroit area. Schools are considered good; all schools are represented within the area including daycare, primary and secondary education. Overall, access to the community services is considered good. SUMMARY Based on our evaluation of the site s surrounding land usage, convenience to employment, and convenience to shopping, we rate the environment of the site for multifamily residential usage as good. ASSESSMENT RATING SITE DEMAND FACTOR POOR FAIR/AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT Access X Visibility X Community Services X Overall X IV-4

137 C. EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA (EMA) Basic to this study is the application of the Effective Market Area (EMA) approach to area analysis and development. The EMA is the smallest geographic area that is expected to generate between 60% and 70% of the support for the proposed project. Each EMA is separated from adjacent market areas by natural and manmade barriers such as rivers, freeways, railroads, major arteries, or a marked difference in the socioeconomic makeup of a neighborhood or area. This methodology has a significant advantage over radial analyses that often do not consider these boundaries. The EMA of the proposed site has been determined by: Interviews conducted with area apartment managers, real estate agents, planners, city officials, and area developers A demographic analysis An analysis of mobility patterns Personal observations of the field analyst The retail Effective Market Area (EMA) includes the City of Southfield and portions of Oak Park, Lathrup Village, Royal Oak, and the extreme northwestern portion of Detroit. The EMA is bounded by West 13 Mile Road to the north, Coolidge Highway to the east, West 7 Mile Road to the south, and Evergreen Road to the west. The primary residential EMA (market-rate apartments, condminiums, and student housing) is bounded by West 13 Mile Road to the north, Interstate 75 to the east, West 7 Mile Road to the south, and U.S. Route 24 to the west. The senior housing EMA is bounded by by Twelve Mile Road to the north; Interstate 75 to the east; State Route 8 and Interstate 96 to the south and U.S. Route 24 to the west. The CMA for lodging and the EMA for office development are bounded by 12 Mile Road to the north, the Walter P. Ruether Freeway corridor connecting to Rosewood Street to the east, 8 Mile Road to the south, and Inkster Road to the west. See the following pages for detailed maps of each EMA/CMA. IV-5

138 RETAIL EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA IV-6

139 APARTMENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAP IV-7

140 SENIOR HOUSING EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAP IV-8

141 LODGING COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA/ OFFICE SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAP IV-9

142 D. COMMUNITY SERVICES The following table provides a listing of the community services that impact the proposed site: FACILITY/SERVICE NAME/DESCRIPTION DISTANCE FROM SITE DIRECTION Public Bus Smartbus Within Within Major Highway John C. Lodge Freeway Interstate 696 Interstate 275 Directly 2.2 miles 11.2 miles West North West Police Southfield Police South Southfield Police On site 3.1 miles On site Northwest Fire Southfield Fire 3.1 miles Northwest Convenience Store Kroger 1.1 miles North Grocery/Supermarket Kroger Save-a-Lot 1.1 miles 1.4 miles North Northeast Shopping Mall/Center Tel Twelve Mall 5.4 miles Northwest Employment Centers/ Major Employers St Johns Providence Health System City of Southfield Southfield Public Schools 0.3 mile 3.1 miles scattered North Northwest varies Recreational Facilities William A. Comstock Playfield Southfield Civic Center 1.9 miles 3.1 miles Southeast Northwest Hospital/Medical Facility St Johns Providence Health System 0.3 mile North Banks Citizens Bank Comerica Bank 0.1 Mile 0.5 Mile Southeast North Post Office USPS 2.1 miles Southeast Library Southfield Public Library 3.1 miles Northwest MAJOR EMPLOYERS Major employers in the Southfield area are: St Johns Providence Hospital Credit Acceptance Blue Cross/Blue Shield RL Polk Company Blue Care Network Plante Moran CRESA Federal Mogul Corporation DTE Energy DENSO BASF Verizon Wireless Fifth Third bank Metropolitan Life Insurance General Motors, Corp Comcast Ford Motor Car IV-10

143 RELIGION AND SCHOOLS Most major denominations are represented. School facilities in the Southfield Public School District include 8 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, and 4 senior high schools. There are 4 private schools in the area. The Lawrence Technological University is in Southfield. UTILITIES Electric service is provided by DTE Energy. Gas service is provided by Consumers Energy. Water and sewer services are provided by City of Southfield. Telephone service is provided by AT&T. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS Several banks and credit unions serve the area. MEDIA Newspapers Circulated in the Site Area FREQUENCY OF NEWSPAPER CITY OF ORIGIN PUBLICATION Detroit Free press Detroit Daily Television: All major affiliates are represented. Cable television is available. Radio: Several broadcast locally. IV-11

144 V. SITE AREA MAPS AND PHOTOGRAPHS The following section contains maps and photographs of the subject site area. Maps illustrating the following are included: The specific neighborhood of the site. A close-in aerial view of the site parcel. The locations of community (resident) services relative to the site. Typical of community services included in the map would be shopping, parks/recreation, and the locations of fire and police services. Following the maps are site area photographs. V-1

145 NEIGHBORHOOD MAP V-2

146 SITE MAP V-3

147 COMMUNITY SERVICES MAP Bank Fire Department Grocery Store Hospital Library Park Post Office Recreation Site Shopping University V-4

148 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS MAY ) NORTHLAND CENTER MALL (SITE) 2.) SITE (VIEW FROM NORTHWESTERN HWY.) 3.) SITE (VIEW FROM GREENFIELD RD.) 4.) SITE (VIEW FROM GREENFIELD RD.) 5.) AERIAL VIEW OF SITE 6.) AERIAL VIEW OF SITE V-5

149 VI. FIELD SURVEY OF MODERN APARTMENTS The following analyses represent data from a field survey of the modern apartments in the Site EMA. Each development was surveyed by unit and project amenities, year opened, unit mix, vacancies, rents, and aesthetic quality. The collected data have been analyzed as follows: A distribution of both market-rate and government subsidized modern apartment units. The units are distributed by mix and vacancy. An analysis of multifamily construction trends, which includes number of units, number of projects, percent distribution, cumulative units, and vacancy rate by year built. A rent and vacancy analysis, which contains distributions of units and vacancies by net rent range. A separate distribution appears for units by number of bedrooms. A project information analysis listing the name and address of each development, its occupancy, and year opened. Any unique features are noted by the analyst. A street rent comparison listing rents by unit size for all market-rate developments. A comparability rating, assigning point values for unit amenities, project amenities, and overall aesthetic appeal/curbside marketability. Amenity analyses, including the following: A unit amenity analyses listing the unit amenities for each property. A project amenity analysis listing the project amenities for each development. A distribution of amenities by number of units and properties offering that amenity. A unit type/utility detail analysis with units offered and utilities available, including responsibility for payment. Rent/square foot. A map showing the location of each apartment complex included in this analysis is in Section VIII Modern Apartment Locations and Photographs. VI-1

150 DISTRIBUTION OF MODERN APARTMENT UNITS AND VACANCIES SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MARKET RATE UNITS UNIT TYPE STUDIO ONE-BEDROOM TWO-BEDROOM THREE-BEDROOM FOUR-BEDROOM + UNITS NUMBER PERCENT 380 5,907 7, % 41.7% 50.2% 5.3% 0.0% VACANCIES NUMBER PERCENT % % % % 0 0.0% TOTAL 14, % % TOTAL DOES NOT INCLUDE 102 UNITS UNDER CONSTRUCTION SUBSIDIZED UNIT TYPE STUDIO ONE-BEDROOM TWO-BEDROOM THREE-BEDROOM UNITS NUMBER PERCENT 92 1, % 83.1% 7.5% 2.3% VACANCIES NUMBER PERCENT 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% TOTAL 1, % 0 0.0% VI-2

151 MARKET RATE MULTIFALY CONSTRUCTION TRENDS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 YEAR OF PROJECT OPENING NUMBER OF PROJECTS NUMBER OF UNITS PERCENT DISTRIBUTION CUMULATIVE UNITS MAY 2016 VACANCY RATE Before , % 7, % , % 10, % , % 12, % % 12, % , % 13, % % 13, % 13, % % 13, % 13, % 13, % 13, % 13, % 13, % 13, % 13, % 13, % 14, % 14, % 14, * % 14, % TOTAL: 90 14, % 14, % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% AVERAGE ANNUAL RELEASE OF UNITS : 43.2 * THROUGH MAY 2016 VI-3

152 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS STUDIO UNITS MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $621 - $ % 7 9.7% $ % 2 3.4% $544 - $ % 0 0.0% $500 - $ % 3 2.7% $425 - $ % 0 0.0% TOTAL % % Median Collected Rent: $610 VI-4

153 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS ONE BEDROOM UNITS MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 2 4.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 3 3.1% $ $ % 6 5.9% $ $ % 0 0.0% $980 - $ % 0 0.0% $945 - $ % 4 4.2% $915 - $ % 0 0.0% $874 - $ % 9 1.4% $841 - $ % 8 4.0% $814 - $ % % $789 - $ % % $760 - $ % 3 1.2% VI-5

154 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS ONE BEDROOM UNITS MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $730 - $ % % $700 - $ % 8 3.6% $669 - $ % % $635 - $ % % $618 - $ % 6 3.4% $584 - $ % % $549 - $ % % $524 - $ % 2 0.9% $474 - $ % 1 1.4% $ % 5 3.8% $ % 0 0.0% TOTAL 5, % % Median Collected Rent: $744 VI-6

155 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS TWO BEDROOM UNITS MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $ % % $ $ % % $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ % 1 6.7% $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ % 1 6.7% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 1 1.6% $ $ % 7 5.5% $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 2 2.7% $ $ % 9 3.5% $ $ % 3 2.8% $ $ % 1 1.4% $ $ % % $ % 1 6.3% VI-7

156 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS TWO BEDROOM UNITS MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $ $ % 2 1.2% $ $ % % $ $ % % $ $ % 0 0.0% $970 - $ % 3 2.4% $940 - $ % % $913 - $ % % $886 - $ % 3 1.3% $865 - $ % 5 2.3% $829 - $ % 6 2.6% $805 - $ % 4 4.1% $778 - $ % 5 1.8% $738 - $ % 6 1.8% $712 - $ % 8 2.5% $688 - $ % 1 0.5% $663 - $ % 3 1.4% $625 - $ % 5 5.4% $576 - $ % 1 0.9% $513 - $ % 4 2.7% $ % 0 0.0% VI-8

157 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS TWO BEDROOM UNITS MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $ % 0 0.0% TOTAL 7, % % Median Collected Rent: $951 VI-9

158 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS THREE BEDROOM UNITS MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 3 2.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 3 4.3% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 3 3.1% $ % 1 8.3% $977 - $ % 1 1.4% $926 - $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% VI-10

159 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS THREE BEDROOM UNITS MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL % % Median Collected Rent: $1,319 VI-11

160 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS FOUR+ BEDROOM UNITS MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $ $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% TOTAL % 0 0.0% Median Collected Rent: $2,049 Rents at all properties have been adjusted to collected rent. Collected rent is defined as the utility payor details (landlord or tenant) of the subject property. For specific details on which utilities are included, please see the project conclusions. VI-12

161 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 1 TOWNE SQUARE JAMES COOZENS FRWY. DETROIT % 2 LLER GREENS LLER ST. OAK PARK (248) % HARDWOOD FLOORS IN SELECT UNITS ONLY 3 OAK PARK GARDENS JAMES ST. OAK PARK (248) % 4 STRATFORD VILLA STRATFORD CT. OAK PARK (248) % TOWNHOME UNITS HAVE BASEMENTS 5 CHATEAU RIVIERA LA SEINE ST. SOUTHFIELD (248) % WALK-IN CLOSETS 6 NORTH PARK TOWERS NORTH PARK DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % 1ST FLOOR RESTAURANT & BOUTIQUE; SELECT UNITS HAVE HARDWOOD FLOORS &/OR MARBLE FOYER; LIBRARY; COURTYARD; 24- HOUR DOORMAN; PHARMACY; POSTAL CENTER; VALET DRY VI-13

162 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME 7 NORTH PARK PLACE NORTH PARK DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 99.6% GARAGE AVAILABLE $35- $50/MO.; PET FEE $25/MO.; HARDWOOD FLOORS; STAINLESS APPLIANCES IN SELECT UNITS 8 LEGACY PLACE SARATOGA ST. SOUTHFIELD (248) % 61 ADDITIONAL UNITS OWNER- OCCUPIED; DETACHED 1 CAR GARAGE; PET FEE $20/MO. 9 THE ATRIUM W. 9 LE RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % NO STUDENTS; BLACK APPLIANCES; UPDATED KITCHENS, BATHROOMS, & FLOORS; SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CHART 10 PROVIDENCE TOWER W. 9 LE RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % CARPORT AVAILABLE $20/MO.; PET FEE $25/MO. PER PET; MONTHLY WATER/SEWER/TRASH FEE, 0BR $40/MO., 1BR $50/MO., 2BR $60/MO. 11 PROVIDENCE PLACE CUMBERLAND RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % 1 CARPORT PER UNIT INCLUDED IN RENT; PET FEE $25/MO. PER PET 12 CARLYLE TOWER PROVIDENCE DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % VI-14

163 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 13 COACH HOUSE LAMPLIGHTER DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % SELECT UNITS HAVE WASHER/DRYER HOOKUP, WASHER/DRYER, AND/OR CARPORT; WAITING LIST 2-3 NAMES 14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT PROVIDENCE DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % SENIORS (55+) ONLY; 1 UNDERGROUND GARAGE SPACE/UNIT 15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ E. RUE VERSAILLES DR. OAK PARK (248) % HIGHER-PRICED UNITS HAVE UNFINISHED BASEMENT; TENANTS PAY 1/3 OF WATER BILL 16 RUE VERSAILLES W. RUE VERSAILLES DR. OAK PARK (248) % HARDWOOD FLOORING 17 HIGHLAND TOWERS GREENFIELD RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % SENIORS (55+) ONLY 18 THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD GREENFIELD RD. OAK PARK (248) % PANTRY; PET FEE $25/MO.; SELECT UNITS HAVE BEEN RENOVATED VI-15

164 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 19 COUNTRY COURT GREENFIELD RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % 20 LINCOLN TOWERS LINCOLN ST. OAK PARK (248) % 1ST FLOOR RETAIL; WALK-IN CLOSETS; PANTRY 21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN BRIAR DR. OAK PARK (248) % 22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS WYONG ST. FERNDALE (248) % GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED; ELDERLY SANDSTONE W. 9 LE ROAD OAK PARK (248) % 24 OAK PARK MANOR KENWOOD ST. OAK PARK (248) % DISHWASHERS IN UPGRADED UNITS ONLY; TOWNHOMES HAVE BASEMENTS & WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS; CROWAVES IN GARDEN UNITS ONLY VI-16

165 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME 25 VILLAGE GREEN TOWNHOMES OF OAK PAR W. 10 LE ROAD OAK PARK (248) YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 96.3% HARDWOOD FLOORING; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; VOLLEYBALL COURT; PET FEE $20/MO. PET PET 26 CHESTNUT OAKS W. 11 LE RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % 27 HIDDEN OAKS W. 11 LE RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % 28 TANGLEWOOD W. 11 LE RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % NON-SMOKING 29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE GREENFIELD RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % CAT FEE $25/MO.; DOG FEE $35/MO.; 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT 30 KENSWICK MANOR W. 11 LE RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % NO STUDENTS; 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT; PET FEE $20/MO. PER PET VI-17

166 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS 2345 OXFORD RD. BERKLEY (248) % SENIOR APARTMENTS 55+; CHAPEL; LIBRARY; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; TRANSPORTATION; STORAGE AVAILABLE; DAILY LUNCH PROGRAM AVAILABLE FOR ADDITIONAL FEE 32 NORTH ROYAL OAK 1215 W. FARNUM RD. ROYAL OAK (248) % CERAC TILE; GRANITE COUNTERTOPS; WATER FEE 1- BR $25/MO., 2-BR $35/MO. 33 WOODWARD COURT WOODWARD AVE. ROYAL OAK (248) % BUILT IN 3 PHASES, HIGHER- PRICED UNITS ARE IN PHASES2+3 AND HAVE BEEN RENOVATED; CERAC TILE; SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CHART 34 AMBER COURT 2319 COOLIDGE HWY. ROYAL OAK (248) % STORAGE 35 BEAUMONT 2816 COOLIDGE HWY. ROYAL OAK (248) % EXPOSED CONCRETE BLOCK WALLS; RECENTLY RENOVATED 36 ARLINGTON 3115 EVERGREEN DR. ROYAL OAK (248) % HARDWOOD FLOORING; ICEMAKERS; STAINLESS APPLIANCES; SKYLIGHTS IN SELECT UNITS VI-18

167 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME 37 WOODWARD NORTH 3009 W. THIRTEEN LE RD. ROYAL OAK (248) YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 97.6% GRANITE COUNTERTOPS AND MAPLE CABINETS IN SELECT UNITS; SELECT UNITS HAVE BEEN RECENTLY RENOVATED 38 CAMELOT 3134 GREENFIELD RD. ROYAL OAK (248) % WALK-IN CLOSETS; HARDWOOD FLOORING IN SELECT UNITS; SKYLIGHTS IN TOP-FLOOR UNITS ONLY 39 PHILAMER 3272 GREENFIELD RD. ROYAL OAK (248) % CERAC TILE FLOORING; GRANITE COUNTERTOPS; HARDWOOD FLOORING; RECENTLY RENOVATED; WATER FEE $25/MO. FOR 1-BR UNITS, $35/MO. FOR 2-BR UNITS 40 THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY HILLS W. THIRTEEN LE RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % BUILT-IN SHELVES; STAINLESS APPLIANCES; WALK-IN CLOSETS; DOG PARK; FAX & COPY SERVICES; INDOOR VOLLEYBALL COURT; RECENTLY RENOVATED 41 COUNTRY CORNER SOUTHFIELD RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % 42 CRANBROOK CENTRE SOUTH DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % WALK-IN CLOSETS; PET FEE $25/MO. PER PET VI-19

168 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME WEST W. TWELVE LE RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) FRANKLIN RIVER FRANKLIN RIVER DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 95.5% 44 UNITS OPENED MARCH 2016, ADDITIONAL 70 UNITS TO OPEN MAY/JUNE 2016; SELECT UNITS HAVE ATTACHED GARAGE; DETACHED GARAGE AVAILABLE $50/MO.; SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 99.7% SELECT UNITS HAVE BREAKFAST BAR &/OR CROWAVE; GAME ROOM; SOCIAL EVENTS; CORPORATE FURNISHED UNITS AVAILABLE 45 LAUREL WOODS LAUREL WOODS CT. SOUTHFIELD (248) % 46 LANCASTER HILLS LANCASTER DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % HIGHER-PRICED UNITS ARE ON 1ST FLOOR; 1 CARPORT SPACE PER UNIT 47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY W. 12 LE RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % LEASING OFFICE AT COLONY PARK (MAP CODE 24); 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT 48 CHATSFORD MANOR LAHSER RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % WALK-IN CLOSETS; GRANITE COUNTERTOPS IN SELECT UNITS; 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT; PET FEE $20/MO. VI-20

169 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME 49 COLONY PARK COLONY PARK CIR. SOUTHFIELD (248) YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 99.0% WALK-IN CLOSETS; 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT 50 RIVER PARK PLACE CIVIC CENTER DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED, SECTION 8; FALY 51 OAK RIDGE BERG RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % CAT FEE $20/MO. 52 SOUTHFIELD BERG RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % ICEMAKER; SELECT UNITS HAVE KITCHEN ISLAND AND/OR FIREPLACE; POND HAS FOUNTAIN; CARPORT OPTIONAL $25/MO.; CAT FEE $15/MO.; DOG FEE $25/MO 53 MCDONNEL TOWER CIVIC CENTER DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % GOVERNMENT SUBSIZIDED, SECTION 8; ELDERLY (62+)/HANDICAP 54 WOODCREST CIVIC CENTER DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % SELECT UNITS HAVE VAULTED CEILING; WAITING LIST 5-6 NAMES FOR EACH UNIT TYPE VI-21

170 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 55 PARK LANE PARK PLACE DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % SELECT UNITS HAVE BREAKFAST BAR, CROWAVE, &/OR VAULTED CEILING; CAT FEE $25/MO. 56 MONTICELLO CIVIC CENTER DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % HIGHER-PRICED UNITS ARE ON UPPER FLOOR; SELECT UNITS HAVE VAULTED CEILING; PET FEE $25/MO.; 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT 57 WILLOW TREE CIVIC CENTER DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % NON-SMOKING; BIRDS AND FISH ONLY PETS ALLOWED; 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT 58 SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD POND RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % TOWNHOMES HAVE FINISHED BASEMENTS WITH WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS; 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT 59 SUTTON PLACE RIVERSIDE DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS IN TOWNHOMES ONLY; SELECT UNITS HAVE WASHER/DRYER &/OR ATTACHED GARAGE; CABANAS AT POOL 60 EVERGREEN PLACE EVERGREEN RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % VI-22

171 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 61 ARBOR LOFTS CIVIC CENTER DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % 90% STUDENTS; ADDITIONAL 31 UNITS BEING LEASED BY LTU (11 3-BR, 20 4-BR): SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CHART 62 KNOB IN THE WOODS KNOB WOODS DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % CERAC TILE FLOORING; GRANITE COUNTERTOPS; 3-BR UNITS HAVE WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS; CARPORT $15/MO.; PET RENT $20/MO. 63 CRYSTAL COURT W. 8 LE RD. DETROIT (313) % 64 WOODLAND ARMS W. 8 LE RD. DETROIT (313) % 65 TERRACE COURT LAHSER DETROIT % 66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD LAHSER RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % VI-23

172 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 67 WELLINGTON PLACE LAHSER RD. SOUTHFIELD (284) % HIGHER-PRICE UNITS HAVE BEEN RENOVATED 68 HIDDEN PINES TELEGRAPH RD. DETROIT (313) % HARDWOOD FLOORING; WALK- IN CLOSETS; RECENTLY RENOVATED 69 CRESCENT HOUSE TELEGRAPH RD. DETROIT (313) % HARDWOOD FLOORING; WALK- IN CLOSETS 70 KAREN WEST 7-LE ROAD DETROIT (313) % 71 IMPERIAL MANOR APPLETON ST. DETROIT (313) % 72 RIVER PARK BERG RD. DETROIT (313) % VI-24

173 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 73 FAIRWAY MANOR LAHSER DETROIT % 74 CHAPEL COURT WEST 7-LE ROAD DETROIT % 75 MCNICHOLS SEVEN LE RD. DETROIT % 32 UNITS BOARDED UP, NO PLANS TO RENOVATE UNTIL JAN CREST W. 7 LE ROAD DETROIT (313) % 77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS EVERGREEN DETROIT (313) % GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED, HUD SECTION 8; ELDERLY, HANDICAPPED; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES 78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE VOTROBECK CT. DETROIT % ORIGINALLY BUILT 1964, TOTAL RENOVATION AND REHAB TO TAX CREDIT IN 2013; GAZEBO; SPLASH PAD; PET FEE $20/MO. PER PET VI-25

174 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 79 GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE GREENFIELD DETROIT % 80 BOWIN PLACE SEVEN LE RD. DETROIT % GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED, HUD SECTION 8; LIBRARY; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES 81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS 8805 KINGSWOOD ST. DETROIT (313) % 82 FERNWOOD MANOR 900 LAPRAIRIE FERNDALE (248) % 83 AUTUMN HOUSE 500 E. 9 LE RD. FERNDALE (248) % GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED; ELDERLY/DISABLED 84 DEVON SQUARE 1225 ORCHARD ST. FERNDALE (248) % GOVERNMENT SUBSDIZED; PROJECT BASED SECTION 8; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; 48 1-BR UNITS ARE ELDERLY 62+ ONLY; 12 2-BR UNITS ARE FALY ONLY VI-26

175 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME 85 STATION 3 LOFTS 333 E. PARENT AVE. ROYAL OAK (248) EIGHT S. MAIN ST. ROYAL OAK (248) ROYAL OAK MANOR 606 WILLIAMS ST. ROYAL OAK (248) AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS N. SHERMAN DR. ROYAL OAK (248) YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 100.0% PHASE 1 SOLD AS CONDOS, PHASE 2 IS APARTMENTS; GARAGE PARKING $175/MO.; FURNISHED CORPORATE UNITS AVAILABLE; SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CHART 83.3% OPENED MARCH 2016, STILL IN LEASE-UP; HARDWOOD FLOORS; ICEMAKERS; QUARTZ COUNTERTOPS; STAINLESS APPLIANCES; BREAKFAST BARS AND KITCHEN ISLANDS IN SELECT UNITS 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED; ELDERLY 62+; GAME ROOM; GIFT SHOP; OUTDOOR LOUNGE ON EACH FLOOR; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; TRANSPORTATION; VENDING MACHINES 100.0% EXPOSED DUCTWORK; HARDWOOD AND CERAC TILE FLOORING; STAINLESS APPLIANCES 89 METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE 203 N. LAFAYETTE RD. ROYAL OAK (248) % BLACK APPLIANCES IN SELECT UNITS; STAINLESS APPLIANCES IN SELECT UNITS; WALK-IN CLOSETS; RECENTLY RENOVATED 90 WAGON WHEEL 605 E. 11 LE RD. ROYAL OAK (248) % FAUX-WOOD FLOORING; CAT FEE $15 PER MONTH, $5 MORE FOR EACH ADDITIONAL CAT VI-27

176 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME 91 FARNUM 214 W. FARNUM AVE. ROYAL OAK (248) VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS 1132 N. CAMPBELL RD. ROYAL OAK (248) ROYAL OAK ESTATES 905 N. STEPHENSON HWY. ROYAL OAK (248) ELMSLEIGH 1880 ROCHESTER RD. ROYAL OAK (248) YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 100.0% BRUSHED ALUNUM CABINETS; EXPOSED CONCRETE BLOCK WALLS; FRENCH DOORS; HARDWOOD FLOORS; STORAGE; RECENTLY RENOVATED; 1 BR UNITS HAVE BALCONLY/PATIO 95.9% PANTRY; WALK-IN CLOSETS; CONFERENCE ROOM; OUTDOOR FIREPLACE; SAND VOLLEYBALL; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; FURNISHED UNITS AVAILABLE; PET FEE $20/MO./PET; RECENTLY 100.0% CERAC TILE FLOORS (SELECT UNITS); EXPOSED BRICK; GRANITE COUNTERTOPS; SPIRAL STAIRCASES; STAINLESS APPLIANCES; RECENTLY RENOVATED 100.0% TOWNHOME UNITS HAVE CENTRAL AIR, PATIOS, BASEMENTS & WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS 95 AMBER'S RED RUN 2330 ROCHESTER RD. ROYAL OAK (248) % FLOOR-TO-CEILING WINDOWS; STORAGE 96 ROCHESTER HOUSE 2450 ROCHESTER RD. ROYAL OAK (248) % VI-28

177 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN W. 10 LE RD. OAK PARK (248) % GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED; ELDERLY 62+; JEWISH COMMUNITY CAMPUS; BEAUTY SHOP; LIBRARY; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; SERVICE COORDINATOR; KOSHER MEALS AVAILABLE 98 BONNIEVIEW EIGHT LE RD. DETROIT % 99 APPLEWOOD SHERMAN AVE. SOUTHFIELD (248) % VI-29

178 STREET RENT COMPARISON SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO ONE BEDROOM TWO BEDROOM THREE BEDROOM FOUR+ BEDROOM 1 TOWNE SQUARE $619 $727 2 LLER GREENS $720 - $850 3 OAK PARK GARDENS $630 $725 - $835 4 STRATFORD VILLA $825 - $950 $ CHATEAU RIVIERA $730 $885 $ NORTH PARK TOWERS $879 - $1079 $ $1450 $ NORTH PARK PLACE $889 - $1100 $990 - $ LEGACY PLACE $ $1424 $1449 $ THE ATRIUM $700 - $800 $900 - $ PROVIDENCE TOWER $575 $700 - $820 $795 - $ PROVIDENCE PLACE $808 - $838 $880 - $919 $ CARLYLE TOWER $800 - $850 $999 - $ COACH HOUSE $599 - $730 $790 - $ SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT $610 $799 $ $1400 $ VERSAILLES BIARRITZ $645 - $695 $715 - $ RUE VERSAILLES $650 - $685 $740 - $ HIGHLAND TOWERS $575 $ THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD $600 $755 - $765 $880 - $890 SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED VI-30

179 STREET RENT COMPARISON SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO ONE BEDROOM TWO BEDROOM THREE BEDROOM FOUR+ BEDROOM 19 COUNTRY COURT $700 - $725 $735 - $ LINCOLN TOWERS $540 $655 - $720 $840 - $ THE OAKS ON LINCOLN $935 - $1085 $ ROYAL OAK TOWERS SUB. SUB. 23 SANDSTONE $635 $ OAK PARK MANOR $610 - $855 $860 - $995 $ $ VILLAGE GREEN TOWNHOMES OF OAK PARK $990 - $ CHESTNUT OAKS $660 $ HIDDEN OAKS $655 $ TANGLEWOOD $ CAMBRIDGE SQUARE $825 $865 - $ KENSWICK MANOR $ OXFORD PARK TOWERS $795 - $805 $ NORTH ROYAL OAK $550 $850 - $975 $ $ WOODWARD COURT $825 - $1050 $900 - $ AMBER COURT $825 - $835 $885 - $ BEAUMONT $650 - $680 SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED VI-31

180 STREET RENT COMPARISON SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO ONE BEDROOM TWO BEDROOM THREE BEDROOM FOUR+ BEDROOM 36 ARLINGTON $760 $840 - $1325 $ WOODWARD NORTH $680 $770 - $ CAMELOT $850 $950 - $ PHILAMER $725 - $875 $800 - $ THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY HILLS $819 - $1025 $919 - $ COUNTRY CORNER $855 - $875 $985 - $1525 $ CRANBROOK CENTRE $890 - $930 $ $ WEST U N D E R C O N S T R U C T I O N 44 FRANKLIN RIVER $840 $945 - $ LAUREL WOODS $ $ LANCASTER HILLS $ $1085 $ $ TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY $770 $ CHATSFORD MANOR $735 - $ COLONY PARK $944 $ RIVER PARK PLACE SUB. SUB. SUB. 51 OAK RIDGE $560 $649 $749 - $ SOUTHFIELD $729 - $839 $ MCDONNEL TOWER SUB. SUB. SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED VI-32

181 STREET RENT COMPARISON SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO ONE BEDROOM TWO BEDROOM THREE BEDROOM FOUR+ BEDROOM 54 WOODCREST $865 $ PARK LANE $980 - $990 $ $ MONTICELLO $910 $ $ WILLOW TREE $800 - $825 $900 - $ SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD $779 $995 - $1275 $ SUTTON PLACE $989 - $1459 $ $ EVERGREEN PLACE $685 - $ ARBOR LOFTS $940 - $1100 $960 - $1500 $ $1545 $ $1975 $ $ KNOB IN THE WOODS $765 $875 $ CRYSTAL COURT $425 $495 $585 - $ WOODLAND ARMS $500 $ TERRACE COURT $410 $ TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD $699 $739 - $ WELLINGTON PLACE $715 - $ HIDDEN PINES $669 $ CRESCENT HOUSE $550 $650 $ KAREN $525 $650 SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED VI-33

182 STREET RENT COMPARISON SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO ONE BEDROOM TWO BEDROOM THREE BEDROOM FOUR+ BEDROOM 71 IMPERIAL MANOR $625 $ RIVER PARK $625 $ FAIRWAY MANOR $475 $525 $ CHAPEL COURT $500 $ MCNICHOLS U N D E R C O N S T R U C T I O N 76 CREST $ CAMBRIDGE TOWERS SUB. SUB. 78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE $575 - $638 $699 - $ GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE $650 $ BOWIN PLACE SUB. SUB. 81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS $635 - $655 $750 - $ FERNWOOD MANOR $675 - $ AUTUMN HOUSE SUB. SUB. 84 DEVON SQUARE SUB. SUB. 85 STATION 3 LOFTS $1800 $ $2450 $ EIGHT55 $ $2297 $ $ ROYAL OAK MANOR SUB. SUB. SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED VI-34

183 STREET RENT COMPARISON SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO ONE BEDROOM TWO BEDROOM THREE BEDROOM FOUR+ BEDROOM 88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS $ $1180 $895 - $1745 $ $2425 $ METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE $1095 $ WAGON WHEEL $710 $ FARNUM $930 - $1010 $ VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS $ $1195 $ $1405 $ $ ROYAL OAK ESTATES $950 - $1150 $995 - $ ELMSLEIGH $675 $725 - $ AMBER'S RED RUN $925 $ ROCHESTER HOUSE $700 $ A. ALFRED TAUBMAN SUB. 98 BONNIEVIEW $600 $ APPLEWOOD $570 $695 NOTE: Rents listed are those quoted to our field analyst for new leases. Residents on older leases or renting month-to-month may be paying more or less, depending on changes in quoted rent. Rent specials and concessions are noted in the project information section of this field survey. SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED VI-35

184 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 1 TOWNE SQUARE LLER GREENS OAK PARK GARDENS STRATFORD VILLA CHATEAU RIVIERA NORTH PARK TOWERS NORTH PARK PLACE LEGACY PLACE THE ATRIUM PROVIDENCE TOWER PROVIDENCE PLACE CARLYLE TOWER COACH HOUSE SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT VERSAILLES BIARRITZ VI-36

185 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 16 RUE VERSAILLES HIGHLAND TOWERS THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD COUNTRY COURT LINCOLN TOWERS THE OAKS ON LINCOLN ROYAL OAK TOWERS SANDSTONE OAK PARK MANOR VILLAGE GREEN TOWNHOMES OF OAK PARK CHESTNUT OAKS HIDDEN OAKS TANGLEWOOD CAMBRIDGE SQUARE VI-37

186 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 30 KENSWICK MANOR OXFORD PARK TOWERS NORTH ROYAL OAK WOODWARD COURT AMBER COURT BEAUMONT ARLINGTON WOODWARD NORTH CAMELOT PHILAMER THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY HILLS COUNTRY CORNER CRANBROOK CENTRE WEST FRANKLIN RIVER VI-38

187 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 45 LAUREL WOODS LANCASTER HILLS TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY CHATSFORD MANOR COLONY PARK RIVER PARK PLACE OAK RIDGE SOUTHFIELD MCDONNEL TOWER WOODCREST PARK LANE MONTICELLO WILLOW TREE SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD SUTTON PLACE VI-39

188 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 60 EVERGREEN PLACE ARBOR LOFTS KNOB IN THE WOODS CRYSTAL COURT WOODLAND ARMS TERRACE COURT TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD WELLINGTON PLACE HIDDEN PINES CRESCENT HOUSE KAREN IMPERIAL MANOR RIVER PARK FAIRWAY MANOR CHAPEL COURT VI-40

189 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 75 MCNICHOLS CREST CAMBRIDGE TOWERS RENAISSANCE VILLAGE GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE BOWIN PLACE SHERWOOD HEIGHTS FERNWOOD MANOR AUTUMN HOUSE DEVON SQUARE STATION 3 LOFTS EIGHT ROYAL OAK MANOR AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS 89 METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE VI-41

190 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 90 WAGON WHEEL FARNUM VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS ROYAL OAK ESTATES ELMSLEIGH AMBER'S RED RUN ROCHESTER HOUSE A. ALFRED TAUBMAN BONNIEVIEW APPLEWOOD Point values have been assigned for unit and project amenities. Aesthetic amenities are based on general appearance, upkeep, landscaping, etc. and are based on the judgment of the field representative. VI-42

191 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 1 TOWNE SQUARE X X X X X 2 LLER GREENS 3 OAK PARK GARDENS X X 4 STRATFORD VILLA X X 5 CHATEAU RIVIERA X X X X 6 NORTH PARK TOWERS X X X X X X X CONVENIENCE STORE 7 NORTH PARK PLACE X X X X X X 8 LEGACY PLACE X X X X 9 THE ATRIUM X X X X X 10 PROVIDENCE TOWER X X X X X X ON-SITE CONVENIENCE 11 PROVIDENCE PLACE X X X X X X X 12 CARLYLE TOWER X X X X X SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL VI-43

192 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 13 COACH HOUSE X X X X X X 14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT X X X X 15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ X X 16 RUE VERSAILLES X 17 HIGHLAND TOWERS X X X X X VENDING MACHINES 18 THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD X X X X X X 19 COUNTRY COURT X X 20 LINCOLN TOWERS X X X X X X COURTYARD 21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN X X 22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS X X X X X X 23 SANDSTONE X 24 OAK PARK MANOR X X SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL VI-44

193 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 25 VILLAGE GREEN TOWNHOMES OF OAK X X X R X X CONFERENCE ROOM 26 CHESTNUT OAKS 27 HIDDEN OAKS X X 28 TANGLEWOOD X 29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE X X X COURTYARD 30 KENSWICK MANOR X X 31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS X X X X X X BEAUTY SALON 32 NORTH ROYAL OAK X X X X SOCIAL ACTIVITIES 33 WOODWARD COURT X X X 34 AMBER COURT X 35 BEAUMONT X 36 ARLINGTON X X SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL VI-45

194 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 37 WOODWARD NORTH X X X 38 CAMELOT X 39 PHILAMER X X 40 THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY HILLS X X X X R X X X BILLIARDS 41 COUNTRY CORNER X X X X X X 42 CRANBROOK CENTRE X X X X X WEST X X X X X 44 FRANKLIN RIVER X X X X X X X COURTESY PATROL 45 LAUREL WOODS X X X 46 LANCASTER HILLS X X X X X 47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY X 48 CHATSFORD MANOR X X X X X SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL VI-46

195 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 49 COLONY PARK X X X 50 RIVER PARK PLACE X X 51 OAK RIDGE X X X 52 SOUTHFIELD X X X X X X X 53 MCDONNEL TOWER X X X X LIBRARY 54 WOODCREST X X 55 PARK LANE X X X X X 56 MONTICELLO X X X X X 57 WILLOW TREE X X X X ATRIUM ENTRY 58 SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD X X X X X 59 SUTTON PLACE X X X X X BILLIARDS 60 EVERGREEN PLACE X X SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL VI-47

196 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 61 ARBOR LOFTS X X X X X X X COFFEE BAR 62 KNOB IN THE WOODS X X X X V X X X 63 CRYSTAL COURT X X 64 WOODLAND ARMS X X 65 TERRACE COURT X X X 66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD X X X X X X 67 WELLINGTON PLACE X X 68 HIDDEN PINES X X X 69 CRESCENT HOUSE X X X 70 KAREN X 71 IMPERIAL MANOR X X X X 72 RIVER PARK X X SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL VI-48

197 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 73 FAIRWAY MANOR X 74 CHAPEL COURT X X 75 MCNICHOLS X 76 CREST X 77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS X X X X LIBRARY 78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE X X X X X X X AMPITHEATER 79 GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE X 80 BOWIN PLACE X X X X BEAUTY SALON 81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS X X X X 82 FERNWOOD MANOR X 83 AUTUMN HOUSE 84 DEVON SQUARE X X SERVICE COORDINATOR SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL VI-49

198 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 85 STATION 3 LOFTS X X COURTYARD 86 EIGHT55 X X 1ST FLOOR RETAIL 87 ROYAL OAK MANOR X X X X X BEAUTY SALON 88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS X 89 METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE X COMMUNITY WIFI 90 WAGON WHEEL X X 91 FARNUM X COMMUNITY WIFI 92 VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS 93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES X X X X R X X X X BILLIARDS/GAME ROOM X X X BIKE RACKS 94 ELMSLEIGH X 95 AMBER'S RED RUN 96 ROCHESTER HOUSE X X X SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL VI-50

199 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN X X X X CONVENIENCE STORE 98 BONNIEVIEW X X 99 APPLEWOOD X SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL VI-51

200 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 1 TOWNE SQUARE X X X X W X B X X X 2 LLER GREENS X X X C X X B S HARDWOOD FLOORING 3 OAK PARK GARDENS X X X C X B STORAGE 4 STRATFORD VILLA X X X X C X B X S CERAC TILE FLOORING 5 CHATEAU RIVIERA X X X X C X B X X STORAGE 6 NORTH PARK TOWERS X X X X X C X B X X U 7 NORTH PARK PLACE X X X X X C X B X X O BREAKFAST BARS 8 LEGACY PLACE X X X X C X X B X D X 9 THE ATRIUM X X X X C X B X O CARPORT $25/MO. 10 PROVIDENCE TOWER X X X X C X B X X D WALK-IN CLOSETS 11 PROVIDENCE PLACE X X X X C X B S X WALK-IN CLOSETS S - SOME O - OPTIONAL REFRIGERATOR I -ICEMAKER F - FROSTFREE AIR CONDITIONING C - CENTRAL AIR W - WINDOW UNIT WINDOW COVERINGS B - BLINDS D - DRAPES GARAGE A - ATTACHED D - DETACHED U - UNDERGROUND BASEMENT U - UNFINISHED F - FINISHED VI-52

201 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 12 CARLYLE TOWER X X X X C X B X X WALK-IN CLOSETS 13 COACH HOUSE X X X X C S S X B X X D X 14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT X X X X C X B X X X 15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ X X X X W X B X O S STORAGE 16 RUE VERSAILLES X X S X W X B X STORAGE 17 HIGHLAND TOWERS X X X X C X B X X 18 THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD X X X X W X B FAUX-WOOD FLOORING 19 COUNTRY COURT X X X X C X B X X 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT 20 LINCOLN TOWERS X X X X C X B X X STORAGE 21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN X X X X B X X 22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS X X X X C B S BREAKFAST BARS S - SOME O - OPTIONAL REFRIGERATOR I -ICEMAKER F - FROSTFREE AIR CONDITIONING C - CENTRAL AIR W - WINDOW UNIT WINDOW COVERINGS B - BLINDS D - DRAPES GARAGE A - ATTACHED D - DETACHED U - UNDERGROUND BASEMENT U - UNFINISHED F - FINISHED VI-53

202 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 23 SANDSTONE X X X W X X B X HARDWOOD FLOORING 24 OAK PARK MANOR X X S S X C S X B X S X 25 VILLAGE GREEN TOWNHOMES OF OAK PARK X X X X X C X X X B X X X X CROWN MOLDING 26 CHESTNUT OAKS X X X X C X X X B X STORAGE 27 HIDDEN OAKS X X X X C X B X D 28 TANGLEWOOD X X X X X C X B X D X CARPORT $25/MO. 29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE X X X X C X B X D STORAGE 30 KENSWICK MANOR X X X X C X B X X D X STORAGE 31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS X X C X B X X 32 NORTH ROYAL OAK X X X C B X HARDWOOD FLOORING 33 WOODWARD COURT X X S X W X B O STORAGE S - SOME O - OPTIONAL REFRIGERATOR I -ICEMAKER F - FROSTFREE AIR CONDITIONING C - CENTRAL AIR W - WINDOW UNIT WINDOW COVERINGS B - BLINDS D - DRAPES GARAGE A - ATTACHED D - DETACHED U - UNDERGROUND BASEMENT U - UNFINISHED F - FINISHED VI-54

203 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME 34 AMBER COURT X X X X C X B X X OTHER HARDWOOD FLOORING 35 BEAUMONT X X W X B S CERAC TILE 36 ARLINGTON X X X X C X B X S GRANITE COUNTERTOPS 37 WOODWARD NORTH X X S X C X B X O CERAC TILE FLOORING 38 CAMELOT X X X X W X B X CERAC TILE FLOORING 39 PHILAMER X X X C B STORAGE 40 THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY HILLS X X X X C X X B X X O D S HARDWOOD FLOORING 41 COUNTRY CORNER X X X X C X B X X 42 CRANBROOK CENTRE X X X X C X B X X STORAGE WEST X X X X X C X X X B X X A X 9'-11' CEILINGS 44 FRANKLIN RIVER X X S X X C X B X X S - SOME O - OPTIONAL REFRIGERATOR I -ICEMAKER F - FROSTFREE AIR CONDITIONING C - CENTRAL AIR W - WINDOW UNIT WINDOW COVERINGS B - BLINDS D - DRAPES GARAGE A - ATTACHED D - DETACHED U - UNDERGROUND BASEMENT U - UNFINISHED F - FINISHED VI-55

204 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 45 LAUREL WOODS X X X X C X X X B X X X 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT 46 LANCASTER HILLS X X X X C X B X X X STORAGE 47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY X X X X C X B X X STORAGE 48 CHATSFORD MANOR X X X X C X B X D X 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT 49 COLONY PARK X X X X C X B X X STORAGE 50 RIVER PARK PLACE X X C X B X 51 OAK RIDGE X X X X C X B X X 52 SOUTHFIELD X X X X C X X X B S X O X 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT STORAGE 53 MCDONNEL TOWER X X X X B X X 54 WOODCREST X X X X C X X X B X S 55 PARK LANE X X S X X C X X X B X X X S 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT S - SOME O - OPTIONAL REFRIGERATOR I -ICEMAKER F - FROSTFREE AIR CONDITIONING C - CENTRAL AIR W - WINDOW UNIT WINDOW COVERINGS B - BLINDS D - DRAPES GARAGE A - ATTACHED D - DETACHED U - UNDERGROUND BASEMENT U - UNFINISHED F - FINISHED VI-56

205 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 56 MONTICELLO X X X X C X X X B D X S STORAGE 57 WILLOW TREE X X X X C X B X X X STORAGE 58 SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD X X X X C S X X X X X STORAGE 59 SUTTON PLACE X X X X C S S X B X X A X 60 EVERGREEN PLACE X X X X C X B X D STORAGE 61 ARBOR LOFTS X X X X X C S S X B X O 10'-12' CEILINGS 62 KNOB IN THE WOODS X X X X C S X B D STORAGE 63 CRYSTAL COURT X X X W X B 64 WOODLAND ARMS X X X W X B X 65 TERRACE COURT X X X W X B 66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD X X X W X B X S - SOME O - OPTIONAL REFRIGERATOR I -ICEMAKER F - FROSTFREE AIR CONDITIONING C - CENTRAL AIR W - WINDOW UNIT WINDOW COVERINGS B - BLINDS D - DRAPES GARAGE A - ATTACHED D - DETACHED U - UNDERGROUND BASEMENT U - UNFINISHED F - FINISHED VI-57

206 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 67 WELLINGTON PLACE X X X W X B X X 68 HIDDEN PINES X X X X W X B X O CERAC TILE 69 CRESCENT HOUSE X X X W X B STORAGE 70 KAREN X X W X B X 71 IMPERIAL MANOR X X W B STORAGE 72 RIVER PARK X X W B X 73 FAIRWAY MANOR X X X W X B X 74 CHAPEL COURT X X X W X B 75 MCNICHOLS X X X X B 76 CREST X X X W X B 77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS X X W X B S - SOME O - OPTIONAL REFRIGERATOR I -ICEMAKER F - FROSTFREE AIR CONDITIONING C - CENTRAL AIR W - WINDOW UNIT WINDOW COVERINGS B - BLINDS D - DRAPES GARAGE A - ATTACHED D - DETACHED U - UNDERGROUND BASEMENT U - UNFINISHED F - FINISHED VI-58

207 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME 78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE 79 GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE OTHER X X X W X B X BREAKFAST BARS X X X W X B X X X 80 BOWIN PLACE X X X C X B X X 81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS X X X X W X B X X O WALK-IN CLOSETS 82 FERNWOOD MANOR X X C X B CERAC TILE FLOORING 83 AUTUMN HOUSE X X W X B X 84 DEVON SQUARE X X C B 85 STATION 3 LOFTS X X X X X C X X B X A 11'-24' CEILINGS 86 EIGHT55 X X X X C X X B X A X 9' CEILINGS 87 ROYAL OAK MANOR X X X C X B X 88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS X X X X X C X X B X X O S S ICEMAKERS S - SOME O - OPTIONAL REFRIGERATOR I -ICEMAKER F - FROSTFREE AIR CONDITIONING C - CENTRAL AIR W - WINDOW UNIT WINDOW COVERINGS B - BLINDS D - DRAPES GARAGE A - ATTACHED D - DETACHED U - UNDERGROUND BASEMENT U - UNFINISHED F - FINISHED VI-59

208 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME 89 METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE OTHER X X X X W X B X HARDWOOD FLOORING 90 WAGON WHEEL X X X X W X B X STORAGE 91 FARNUM X X X X W X B S BLACK APPLIANCES 92 VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS X X X X X C X B X X D X HARDWOOD FLOORING 93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES X X X X X W B S X X S HARDWOOD FLOORING 94 ELMSLEIGH X X X W S X B S S X 95 AMBER'S RED RUN X X X X X W B X D HARDWOOD FLOORING 96 ROCHESTER HOUSE X X X X W X B STORAGE 97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN X X W X B 98 BONNIEVIEW X X X W X B 99 APPLEWOOD X X X C X B X D CARPORT $20/MO. S - SOME O - OPTIONAL REFRIGERATOR I -ICEMAKER F - FROSTFREE AIR CONDITIONING C - CENTRAL AIR W - WINDOW UNIT WINDOW COVERINGS B - BLINDS D - DRAPES GARAGE A - ATTACHED D - DETACHED U - UNDERGROUND BASEMENT U - UNFINISHED F - FINISHED VI-60

209 DISTRIBUTION OF UNIT AND PROJECT AMENITIES MARKET RATE UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 UNIT AMENITIES REFRIGERATOR % RANGE % CROWAVE % DISHWASHER % DISPOSAL % AIR CONDITIONING % WASHER / DRYER % WASH / DRY HOOKUP % CARPET % WINDOW COVERINGS % FIREPLACE % INTERCOM SECURITY % BALCONY / PATIO % CAR PORT % GARAGE % BASEMENT % CEILING FAN % VAULTED CEILING % SECURITY SYSTEM % PROJECT AMENITIES ALL UNITS PROJECTS SOME UNITS OR OPTIONAL TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF PROJECTS POOL % COMMON BUILDING % SAUNA % HOT TUB % EXERCISE ROOM % TENNIS % PLAYGROUND % SPORTS COURT % JOG / BIKE TRAIL % LAKE % PICNIC AREA % LAUNDRY FACILITY % SECURITY GATE % ON SITE MANAGEMENT % ELEVATOR % VI-61

210 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME NUMBER GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF S FLOORS 1 TOWNE SQUARE X X 2.5 G L G L E T T L L C T T 2 LLER GREENS X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 3 OAK PARK GARDENS X X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 4 STRATFORD VILLA X X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 5 CHATEAU RIVIERA X X X 2 G T G T E T T T L C T T 6 NORTH PARK TOWERS X X X 18 G L G L E T T T T C T T 7 NORTH PARK PLACE X X 14 G L G L E T T T L C T T 8 LEGACY PLACE X X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 9 THE ATRIUM X X 4 G L G L E T T L L C T T 10 PROVIDENCE TOWER X X X 10 G T G T E T T T T C T T 11 PROVIDENCE PLACE X X X 2,3 G T G T E T T T T C T T 12 CARLYLE TOWER X X 10 G L G L E T T L L C T T 13 COACH HOUSE X X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT X X X X 10 E T E T E T T L L C T T 15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ X X 2 G L G L E T T T L C T T 16 RUE VERSAILLES X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD T - TENANT VI-62 E G S O - ELECTRIC - GAS - STEAM - OTHER C S - COAXIAL - SATELLITE

211 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME NUMBER GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF S FLOORS 17 HIGHLAND TOWERS X X 12 G L G L E T T L L C T T 18 THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD X X X 2.5 G T G T G T T T T C T T 19 COUNTRY COURT X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 20 LINCOLN TOWERS X X X 10 G L G L E T T L L C T T 21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN X X 2 G T G T E T T T L C T T 22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS X X 11 G L G L E L L L L C T T 23 SANDSTONE X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 24 OAK PARK MANOR X X X X X 2 G T G T G T T T L C T T 25 VILLAGE GREEN TOWNHOMES OF OAK X 2 G T G T G T T T T C T T 26 CHESTNUT OAKS X X 2 E T E T E T T L L C T T 27 HIDDEN OAKS X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 28 TANGLEWOOD X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 30 KENSWICK MANOR X 2 G T G T E T T T T C T T 31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS X X 8 G L G L E T T L L C T T 32 NORTH ROYAL OAK X X X 2.5 G L G L E T T T L C T T PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD T - TENANT VI-63 E G S O - ELECTRIC - GAS - STEAM - OTHER C S - COAXIAL - SATELLITE

212 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME NUMBER GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF S FLOORS 33 WOODWARD COURT X X 2.5 G L G L E T T T L C T T 34 AMBER COURT X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 35 BEAUMONT X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 36 ARLINGTON X X X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 37 WOODWARD NORTH X X 4 G T G T E T T T L C T T 38 CAMELOT X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 39 PHILAMER X X 2 G L G L E T T T L C T T 40 THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY HILLS X X 2 E T E T E T T L L C T T 41 COUNTRY CORNER X X X X 2 G T G T E T T T L C T T 42 CRANBROOK CENTRE X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T WEST X X 3 G T G T E T T T T C T T UNDER CONSTRUCTION 44 FRANKLIN RIVER X X 3 G T G T E T T T T C T T 45 LAUREL WOODS X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 46 LANCASTER HILLS X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY X X 2 G L E T E T T T L C T T 48 CHATSFORD MANOR X 2 G T G T E T T T T C T T PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD T - TENANT VI-64 E G S O - ELECTRIC - GAS - STEAM - OTHER C S - COAXIAL - SATELLITE

213 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME NUMBER GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF S FLOORS 49 COLONY PARK X X 2 G T G T E T T T T C T T 50 RIVER PARK PLACE X X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 51 OAK RIDGE X X X 3 G T G T E T T L L C T T 52 SOUTHFIELD X X 2,3 G T G T E T T T T C T T 53 MCDONNEL TOWER X X 14 G L G L E T T L L C T T 54 WOODCREST X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 55 PARK LANE X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 56 MONTICELLO X X 2 G T G T E T T T T C T T 57 WILLOW TREE X X 3 G T G L E T T L L C T T 58 SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD X X X X 2 G T G T E T T T T C T T 59 SUTTON PLACE X X X 2 G T G T E T T T L C T T 60 EVERGREEN PLACE X 2.5 G T G T E T T L L C T T 61 ARBOR LOFTS X X X X X 4 G T G T E T T T T C T T 62 KNOB IN THE WOODS X X X 2 G T G T E T T T L C T T 63 CRYSTAL COURT X X X 3 E T E T E T T L L C T T 64 WOODLAND ARMS X X 2.5 G L G L E T T L L C T T PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD T - TENANT VI-65 E G S O - ELECTRIC - GAS - STEAM - OTHER C S - COAXIAL - SATELLITE

214 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME NUMBER GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF S FLOORS 65 TERRACE COURT X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD X X 8 G L G L E T T L L C T T 67 WELLINGTON PLACE X 2 G L G L E T T T L C T T 68 HIDDEN PINES X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 69 CRESCENT HOUSE X X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 70 KAREN X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 71 IMPERIAL MANOR X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 72 RIVER PARK X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 73 FAIRWAY MANOR X X X 2,3 G L G L E T T L L C T T 74 CHAPEL COURT X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 75 MCNICHOLS X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T UNDER CONSTRUCTION 76 CREST X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS X X 14 G L G L E L L L L C T T 78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE X X X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 79 GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE X X 3 G L G L E T T L L C T T 80 BOWIN PLACE X X 11 G L G L E L L L L C T T PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD T - TENANT VI-66 E G S O - ELECTRIC - GAS - STEAM - OTHER C S - COAXIAL - SATELLITE

215 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME NUMBER GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF S FLOORS 81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS X X 2,2.5 G T G T E T T L L C T T 82 FERNWOOD MANOR X 3 G L G L E T T L L C T T 83 AUTUMN HOUSE X X 5 G L G L E L L L L C T T 84 DEVON SQUARE X X 3 G T G T G T T L L C T T 85 STATION 3 LOFTS X X X X 4 G T G T G T T L L C T T 86 EIGHT55 X X 5 E T E T E T T L L C T T 87 ROYAL OAK MANOR X X 11 G L G L G L L L L C T T 88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS 89 METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE X X X X X 5 G T G T G T T L L C T T X X 2,2.5 E T E T E T T L L C T L 90 WAGON WHEEL X X 2.5 G L G L E T T L L C T T 91 FARNUM X X 2 G L G L G L T L L C T L 92 VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS X X X 3 E T E T E T T L L C T T 93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES X X X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 94 ELMSLEIGH X X X 2 G T G T G T T L L C T T 95 AMBER'S RED RUN X X 2 G L G L E T T L T C T T 96 ROCHESTER HOUSE X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD T - TENANT VI-67 E G S O - ELECTRIC - GAS - STEAM - OTHER C S - COAXIAL - SATELLITE

216 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME NUMBER GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF S FLOORS 97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN X 5,10 G L G L E L L L L C T T 98 BONNIEVIEW X X 3 G L G L E T T L L C T T 99 APPLEWOOD X X 2 E T E T E T T L L C T T PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD T - TENANT VI-68 E G S O - ELECTRIC - GAS - STEAM - OTHER C S - COAXIAL - SATELLITE

217 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON STUDIO UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA Map UNIT SIZE NET RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 10 PROVIDENCE TOWER $621 $621 $1.94 $ SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT $610 $610 $0.90 $ THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD $646 $646 $1.62 $ LINCOLN TOWERS $500 $500 $1.10 $ NORTH ROYAL OAK $544 $544 $1.21 $ OAK RIDGE $560 $560 $1.27 $ ARBOR LOFTS $986 $1,146 $1.35 $ CRYSTAL COURT $425 $425 $1.38 $ WELLINGTON PLACE $709 $749 $0.92 $ CRESCENT HOUSE $510 $510 $1.07 $ FAIRWAY MANOR N.A. N.A. $435 $435 N.A. N.A. 88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS $1,075 $1,180 $2.01 $2.21 VI-69

218 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON ONE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 1 TOWNE SQUARE $568 $568 $0.84 $ OAK PARK GARDENS $630 $630 $0.90 $ CHATEAU RIVIERA 1,000 1,000 $772 $772 $0.77 $ NORTH PARK TOWERS 1,000 1,155 $882 $1,082 $0.88 $ THE ATRIUM $649 $749 $0.79 $ PROVIDENCE TOWER 750 1,000 $754 $874 $0.87 $ PROVIDENCE PLACE 1,425 1,425 $862 $892 $0.60 $ COACH HOUSE $599 $730 $0.70 $ SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT $799 $799 $1.07 $ VERSAILLES BIARRITZ $636 $686 $0.80 $ RUE VERSAILLES $599 $634 $0.75 $ HIGHLAND TOWERS $524 $524 $0.81 $ THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD $809 $819 $1.18 $ COUNTRY COURT $649 $674 $1.08 $ LINCOLN TOWERS $604 $669 $0.88 $ SANDSTONE $584 $584 $0.89 $ OAK PARK MANOR $652 $897 $1.07 $ CHESTNUT OAKS $660 $660 $1.10 $ HIDDEN OAKS $655 $655 $0.82 $ TANGLEWOOD $700 $700 $0.83 $ CAMBRIDGE SQUARE $825 $825 $0.92 $ KENSWICK MANOR $889 $889 $1.07 $ OXFORD PARK TOWERS $744 $754 $1.43 $ NORTH ROYAL OAK $841 $966 $1.12 $1.29 VI-70

219 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON ONE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 33 WOODWARD COURT $816 $1,041 $1.17 $ AMBER COURT $825 $835 $1.44 $ BEAUMONT $599 $629 $1.19 $ ARLINGTON $760 $760 $0.97 $ WOODWARD NORTH $722 $722 $1.28 $ CAMELOT $799 $799 $1.02 $ PHILAMER $716 $866 $0.97 $ THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY HILLS $819 $1,025 $1.02 $ COUNTRY CORNER 1,100 1,200 $897 $917 $0.76 $ CRANBROOK CENTRE $890 $930 $1.00 $ WEST $1,379 $1,489 $1.70 $ FRANKLIN RIVER $894 $894 $0.93 $ TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY $772 $772 $0.91 $ CHATSFORD MANOR $789 $809 $0.95 $ COLONY PARK 1,000 1,000 $998 $998 $1.00 $ OAK RIDGE $649 $649 $0.77 $ SOUTHFIELD $783 $893 $1.04 $ WOODCREST $865 $865 $1.01 $ PARK LANE $980 $990 $1.10 $ MONTICELLO $964 $964 $1.13 $ WILLOW TREE $789 $814 $0.88 $ SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD 1,062 1,062 $833 $833 $0.78 $ EVERGREEN PLACE $685 $730 $0.86 $ ARBOR LOFTS 609 1,282 $1,014 $1,554 $1.21 $1.67 VI-71

220 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON ONE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA Map UNIT SIZE NET RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 62 KNOB IN THE WOODS 1,050 1,050 $807 $807 $0.77 $ CRYSTAL COURT $495 $495 $0.69 $ WOODLAND ARMS $449 $449 $0.60 $ TERRACE COURT N.A. N.A. $359 $359 N.A. N.A. 66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD $648 $648 $0.81 $ HIDDEN PINES N.A. N.A. $618 $618 N.A. N.A. 69 CRESCENT HOUSE $599 $599 $0.91 $ KAREN $474 $474 $0.79 $ IMPERIAL MANOR $574 $574 $0.68 $ RIVER PARK N.A. N.A. $574 $574 N.A. N.A. 73 FAIRWAY MANOR N.A. N.A. $474 $474 N.A. N.A. 74 CHAPEL COURT N.A. N.A. $449 $449 N.A. N.A. 75 MCNICHOLS N.A. N.A. $539 $539 N.A. N.A. 79 GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE $599 $599 $0.80 $ SHERWOOD HEIGHTS $635 $655 $0.78 $ FERNWOOD MANOR $624 $674 $0.96 $ STATION 3 LOFTS $1,800 $1,800 $1.90 $ EIGHT ,003 $1,807 $2,297 $2.16 $ AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS $895 $1,745 $1.49 $ METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE $1,055 $1,055 $1.62 $ WAGON WHEEL $659 $659 $0.82 $ FARNUM $835 $915 $1.17 $ VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS $1,035 $1,195 $1.29 $ ROYAL OAK ESTATES 750 1,000 $899 $1,099 $1.10 $1.20 VI-72

221 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON ONE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA Map UNIT SIZE NET RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 94 ELMSLEIGH $675 $675 $0.84 $ AMBER'S RED RUN $886 $886 $1.21 $ ROCHESTER HOUSE $649 $649 $0.87 $ BONNIEVIEW N.A. N.A. $549 $549 N.A. N.A. 99 APPLEWOOD N.A. N.A. $570 $570 N.A. N.A. VI-73

222 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON TWO BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 1 TOWNE SQUARE $665 $665 $0.78 $ LLER GREENS 900 1,100 $720 $850 $0.77 $ OAK PARK GARDENS $725 $835 $0.85 $ STRATFORD VILLA 900 1,000 $763 $888 $0.85 $ CHATEAU RIVIERA 1,300 1,300 $944 $944 $0.73 $ NORTH PARK TOWERS 1,350 1,700 $1,208 $1,459 $0.86 $ NORTH PARK PLACE 1,250 1,250 $886 $1,097 $0.71 $ LEGACY PLACE 1,600 1,600 $1,314 $1,424 $0.82 $ THE ATRIUM 1,100 1,200 $838 $938 $0.76 $ PROVIDENCE TOWER 1,000 1,000 $866 $926 $0.87 $ PROVIDENCE PLACE 1,450 1,475 $951 $990 $0.66 $ CARLYLE TOWER 1,174 1,379 $738 $788 $0.57 $ COACH HOUSE 988 1,312 $790 $1,120 $0.80 $ SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT 1,100 1,600 $1,199 $1,400 $0.88 $ VERSAILLES BIARRITZ 840 1,065 $712 $827 $0.78 $ RUE VERSAILLES $678 $698 $0.81 $ HIGHLAND TOWERS $723 $723 $0.85 $ THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD $951 $961 $1.10 $ COUNTRY COURT $673 $713 $0.75 $ LINCOLN TOWERS 1,039 1,039 $778 $823 $0.75 $ THE OAKS ON LINCOLN 1,010 1,165 $994 $1,144 $0.98 $ SANDSTONE $703 $703 $0.83 $ OAK PARK MANOR $919 $1,054 $0.97 $ VILLAGE GREEN TOWNHOMES OF OAK PARK $1,061 $1,181 $1.12 $1.24 VI-74

223 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON TWO BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 26 CHESTNUT OAKS $760 $760 $1.01 $ HIDDEN OAKS 1,010 1,010 $755 $755 $0.75 $ CAMBRIDGE SQUARE 1,200 1,200 $865 $940 $0.72 $ OXFORD PARK TOWERS $878 $878 $1.22 $ NORTH ROYAL OAK $1,047 $1,197 $1.23 $ WOODWARD COURT $897 $1,197 $0.97 $ AMBER COURT $885 $895 $0.98 $ ARLINGTON 880 1,100 $840 $1,325 $0.95 $ WOODWARD NORTH $829 $854 $0.95 $ CAMELOT 1,025 1,100 $888 $913 $0.83 $ PHILAMER $797 $1,022 $0.94 $ THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY HILLS 980 1,050 $919 $1,245 $0.94 $ COUNTRY CORNER 1,300 1,800 $1,044 $1,584 $0.80 $ CRANBROOK CENTRE 1,161 1,161 $1,100 $1,120 $0.95 $ WEST 982 1,004 $1,556 $1,771 $1.58 $ FRANKLIN RIVER 1,100 1,200 $1,016 $1,176 $0.92 $ LAUREL WOODS 1,500 1,800 $1,015 $1,220 $0.68 $ LANCASTER HILLS 1,300 1,500 $1,015 $1,085 $0.72 $ TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY 1,000 1,000 $891 $891 $0.89 $ COLONY PARK 1,250 1,310 $1,101 $1,101 $0.84 $ OAK RIDGE 1,050 1,150 $749 $779 $0.68 $ SOUTHFIELD 1,000 1,000 $1,091 $1,091 $1.09 $ WOODCREST 1,110 1,135 $965 $965 $0.85 $ PARK LANE 1,162 1,200 $1,190 $1,235 $1.02 $1.03 VI-75

224 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON TWO BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA Map UNIT SIZE NET RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 56 MONTICELLO 1,080 1,200 $1,121 $1,386 $1.04 $ WILLOW TREE 1,050 1,200 $886 $936 $0.78 $ SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD 1,317 1,766 $1,066 $1,346 $0.76 $ SUTTON PLACE 1,575 2,003 $1,048 $1,518 $0.67 $ ARBOR LOFTS 827 1,000 $1,576 $1,616 $1.62 $ KNOB IN THE WOODS 1,400 1,400 $934 $934 $0.67 $ CRYSTAL COURT $585 $625 $0.68 $ WOODLAND ARMS 1,300 1,300 $588 $588 $0.45 $ TERRACE COURT N.A. N.A. $448 $448 N.A. N.A. 66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD 1,100 1,200 $677 $747 $0.62 $ HIDDEN PINES N.A. N.A. $737 $737 N.A. N.A. 69 CRESCENT HOUSE $688 $688 $0.74 $ KAREN $588 $588 $0.78 $ IMPERIAL MANOR 1,200 1,200 $663 $663 $0.55 $ RIVER PARK N.A. N.A. $663 $663 N.A. N.A. 73 FAIRWAY MANOR N.A. N.A. $538 $538 N.A. N.A. 74 CHAPEL COURT N.A. N.A. $518 $518 N.A. N.A. 75 MCNICHOLS N.A. N.A. $628 $628 N.A. N.A. 76 CREST N.A. N.A. $503 $503 N.A. N.A. 78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE $513 $576 $0.68 $ GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE 1,100 1,100 $713 $713 $0.65 $ SHERWOOD HEIGHTS 918 1,200 $750 $915 $0.76 $ STATION 3 LOFTS 900 2,453 $1,900 $2,450 $1.00 $ EIGHT55 1,150 1,214 $2,465 $2,815 $2.14 $2.32 VI-76

225 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON TWO BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA Map UNIT SIZE NET RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS 1,023 1,569 $1,175 $2,425 $1.15 $ METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE $1,260 $1,260 $1.54 $ WAGON WHEEL 1,000 1,000 $788 $788 $0.79 $ FARNUM $1,127 $1,127 $1.44 $ VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS 950 1,100 $1,290 $1,405 $1.28 $ ROYAL OAK ESTATES 900 1,400 $933 $1,233 $0.88 $ ELMSLEIGH 900 1,000 $725 $850 $0.81 $ AMBER'S RED RUN 896 1,000 $1,195 $1,195 $1.20 $ ROCHESTER HOUSE $738 $738 $0.82 $ BONNIEVIEW N.A. N.A. $638 $638 N.A. N.A. 99 APPLEWOOD N.A. N.A. $695 $695 N.A. N.A. VI-77

226 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON THREE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 4 STRATFORD VILLA 1,100 1,100 $977 $977 $0.89 $ CHATEAU RIVIERA 1,800 1,800 $1,199 $1,199 $0.67 $ NORTH PARK TOWERS 2,000 2,000 $1,673 $1,673 $0.84 $ NORTH PARK PLACE 1,600 1,600 $1,001 $1,611 $0.63 $ LEGACY PLACE 1,870 1,870 $1,449 $1,449 $0.77 $ PROVIDENCE PLACE 1,475 1,475 $1,204 $1,204 $0.82 $ CARLYLE TOWER 1,510 1,510 $926 $942 $0.61 $ SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT 1,600 1,600 $1,499 $1,499 $0.94 $ THE OAKS ON LINCOLN 1,460 1,460 $1,319 $1,319 $0.90 $ OAK PARK MANOR 1,060 1,300 $1,189 $1,379 $1.06 $ ARLINGTON 1,200 1,200 $1,045 $1,045 $0.87 $ COUNTRY CORNER 1,800 1,800 $1,559 $1,559 $0.87 $ WEST 1,433 1,435 $2,271 $2,271 $1.58 $ LANCASTER HILLS 1,800 1,800 $1,240 $1,280 $0.69 $ SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD 2,106 2,106 $1,571 $1,571 $0.75 $ SUTTON PLACE 2,225 2,600 $1,563 $1,753 $0.67 $ ARBOR LOFTS 1,282 1,282 $2,011 $2,071 $1.57 $ KNOB IN THE WOODS 2,200 2,200 $1,359 $1,359 $0.62 $ RENAISSANCE VILLAGE 1,140 1,447 $626 $654 $0.45 $ STATION 3 LOFTS 1,500 1,500 $2,900 $2,900 $1.93 $ AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS $2,175 $2,175 $2.36 $ VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS 1,300 1,300 $1,570 $1,625 $1.21 $1.25 VI-78

227 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON FOUR+ BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 8 LEGACY PLACE 3,425 3,425 $2,049 $2,049 $0.60 $ ARBOR LOFTS 1,601 1,605 $2,731 $2,826 $1.71 $1.76 VI-79

228 VII. FIELD SURVEY OF MODERN APARTMENTS (STUDENT HOUSING) The following analyses represent data from a field survey of the modern apartments in the Site EMA, with rents adjusted for student housing analysis purposes. Rents have been adjusted to reflect landlord-paid utilities. Each development was surveyed by unit and project amenities, year opened, unit mix, vacancies, rents, and aesthetic quality. The collected data have been analyzed as follows: A distribution of both market-rate and government subsidized modern apartment units. The units are distributed by mix and vacancy. An analysis of multifamily construction trends, which includes number of units, number of projects, percent distribution, cumulative units, and vacancy rate by year built. A rent and vacancy analysis, which contains distributions of units and vacancies by net rent range. A separate distribution appears for units by number of bedrooms. A project information analysis listing the name and address of each development, its occupancy, and year opened. Any unique features are noted by the analyst. A street rent comparison listing rents by unit size for all market-rate developments. A comparability rating, assigning point values for unit amenities, project amenities, and overall aesthetic appeal/curbside marketability. Amenity analyses, including the following: A unit amenity analyses listing the unit amenities for each property. A project amenity analysis listing the project amenities for each development. A distribution of amenities by number of units and properties offering that amenity. A unit type/utility detail analysis with units offered and utilities available, including responsibility for payment. Rent/square foot. A map showing the location of each apartment complex included in this analysis is in Section VIII Modern Apartment Locations and Photographs. VII-1

229 DISTRIBUTION OF MODERN APARTMENT UNITS AND VACANCIES SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MARKET RATE UNITS UNIT TYPE STUDIO ONE-BEDROOM TWO-BEDROOM THREE-BEDROOM FOUR-BEDROOM + UNITS NUMBER PERCENT 380 5,907 7, % 41.7% 50.2% 5.3% 0.0% VACANCIES NUMBER PERCENT % % % % 0 0.0% TOTAL 14, % % TOTAL DOES NOT INCLUDE 102 UNITS UNDER CONSTRUCTION SUBSIDIZED UNIT TYPE STUDIO ONE-BEDROOM TWO-BEDROOM THREE-BEDROOM UNITS NUMBER PERCENT 92 1, % 83.1% 7.5% 2.3% VACANCIES NUMBER PERCENT 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% TOTAL 1, % 0 0.0% VII-2

230 MARKET RATE MULTIFALY CONSTRUCTION TRENDS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 YEAR OF PROJECT OPENING NUMBER OF PROJECTS NUMBER OF UNITS PERCENT DISTRIBUTION CUMULATIVE UNITS MAY 2016 VACANCY RATE Before , % 7, % , % 10, % , % 12, % % 12, % , % 13, % % 13, % 13, % % 13, % 13, % 13, % 13, % 13, % 13, % 13, % 13, % 13, % 14, % 14, % 14, * % 14, % TOTAL: 90 14, % 14, % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% AVERAGE ANNUAL RELEASE OF UNITS : 43.2 * THROUGH MAY 2016 VII-3

231 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS STUDIO UNITS MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $787 - $ % 9 6.9% $710 - $ % 0 0.0% $666 - $ % 3 2.7% $601 - $ % 0 0.0% TOTAL % % Median Collected Rent: $787 VII-4

232 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS ONE BEDROOM UNITS MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 2 4.0% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 5 2.7% $ % % $ $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 4 3.5% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 3 0.5% $ $ % % $ $ % % $982 - $ % % $953 - $ % 3 1.4% VII-5

233 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS ONE BEDROOM UNITS MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $923 - $ % % $893 - $ % 8 3.5% $861 - $ % % $827 - $ % % $805 - $ % 6 3.4% $777 - $ % % $742 - $ % % $717 - $ % 3 1.1% $642 - $ % 5 3.3% $ % 0 0.0% TOTAL 5, % % Median Collected Rent: $937 VII-6

234 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS TWO BEDROOM UNITS MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $ % % $ % % $ $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ % 1 6.7% $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ % 1 6.7% $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 6 3.8% $ % 2 6.1% $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 7 4.5% $ $ % 5 2.3% $ $ % 5 3.1% $ $ % 2 1.8% $ $ % % $ $ % 2 1.7% VII-7

235 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS TWO BEDROOM UNITS MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $ $ % % $ $ % % $ $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 3 1.7% $ $ % % $ $ % % $ $ % 7 2.2% $ $ % 5 2.3% $ $ % 6 2.6% $ $ % 4 3.9% $998 - $ % 5 1.8% $958 - $ % 6 1.6% $932 - $ % 8 2.5% $902 - $ % 2 1.0% $883 - $ % 3 1.4% $848 - $ % 5 5.4% $796 - $ % 0 0.0% $733 - $ % 4 2.7% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% VII-8

236 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS TWO BEDROOM UNITS MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL 7, % % Median Collected Rent: $1,164 VII-9

237 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS THREE BEDROOM UNITS MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 3 2.4% $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ % 3 4.7% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ $ % 3 3.1% $ % 1 8.3% $ $ % 1 1.4% $ $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% VII-10

238 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS THREE BEDROOM UNITS MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL % % Median Collected Rent: $1,558 VII-11

239 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS FOUR+ BEDROOM UNITS MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $ $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% $ % 0 0.0% TOTAL % 0 0.0% Median Collected Rent: $2,336 Rents at all properties have been adjusted to collected rent. Collected rent is defined as the utility payor details (landlord or tenant) of the subject property. For specific details on which utilities are included, please see the project conclusions. VII-12

240 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 1 TOWNE SQUARE JAMES COOZENS FRWY. DETROIT % 2 LLER GREENS LLER ST. OAK PARK (248) % HARDWOOD FLOORS IN SELECT UNITS ONLY 3 OAK PARK GARDENS JAMES ST. OAK PARK (248) % 4 STRATFORD VILLA STRATFORD CT. OAK PARK (248) % TOWNHOME UNITS HAVE BASEMENTS 5 CHATEAU RIVIERA LA SEINE ST. SOUTHFIELD (248) % WALK-IN CLOSETS 6 NORTH PARK TOWERS NORTH PARK DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % 1ST FLOOR RESTAURANT & BOUTIQUE; SELECT UNITS HAVE HARDWOOD FLOORS &/OR MARBLE FOYER; LIBRARY; COURTYARD; 24- HOUR DOORMAN; PHARMACY; POSTAL CENTER; VALET DRY VII-13

241 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME 7 NORTH PARK PLACE NORTH PARK DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 99.6% GARAGE AVAILABLE $35- $50/MO.; PET FEE $25/MO.; HARDWOOD FLOORS; STAINLESS APPLIANCES IN SELECT UNITS 8 LEGACY PLACE SARATOGA ST. SOUTHFIELD (248) % 61 ADDITIONAL UNITS OWNER- OCCUPIED; DETACHED 1 CAR GARAGE; PET FEE $20/MO. 9 THE ATRIUM W. 9 LE RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % NO STUDENTS; BLACK APPLIANCES; UPDATED KITCHENS, BATHROOMS, & FLOORS; SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CHART 10 PROVIDENCE TOWER W. 9 LE RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % CARPORT AVAILABLE $20/MO.; PET FEE $25/MO. PER PET; MONTHLY WATER/SEWER/TRASH FEE, 0BR $40/MO., 1BR $50/MO., 2BR $60/MO. 11 PROVIDENCE PLACE CUMBERLAND RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % 1 CARPORT PER UNIT INCLUDED IN RENT; PET FEE $25/MO. PER PET 12 CARLYLE TOWER PROVIDENCE DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % VII-14

242 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 13 COACH HOUSE LAMPLIGHTER DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % SELECT UNITS HAVE WASHER/DRYER HOOKUP, WASHER/DRYER, AND/OR CARPORT; WAITING LIST 2-3 NAMES 14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT PROVIDENCE DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % SENIORS (55+) ONLY; 1 UNDERGROUND GARAGE SPACE/UNIT 15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ E. RUE VERSAILLES DR. OAK PARK (248) % HIGHER-PRICED UNITS HAVE UNFINISHED BASEMENT; TENANTS PAY 1/3 OF WATER BILL 16 RUE VERSAILLES W. RUE VERSAILLES DR. OAK PARK (248) % HARDWOOD FLOORING 17 HIGHLAND TOWERS GREENFIELD RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % SENIORS (55+) ONLY 18 THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD GREENFIELD RD. OAK PARK (248) % PANTRY; PET FEE $25/MO.; SELECT UNITS HAVE BEEN RENOVATED VII-15

243 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 19 COUNTRY COURT GREENFIELD RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % 20 LINCOLN TOWERS LINCOLN ST. OAK PARK (248) % 1ST FLOOR RETAIL; WALK-IN CLOSETS; PANTRY 21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN BRIAR DR. OAK PARK (248) % 22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS WYONG ST. FERNDALE (248) % GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED; ELDERLY SANDSTONE W. 9 LE ROAD OAK PARK (248) % 24 OAK PARK MANOR KENWOOD ST. OAK PARK (248) % DISHWASHERS IN UPGRADED UNITS ONLY; TOWNHOMES HAVE BASEMENTS & WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS; CROWAVES IN GARDEN UNITS ONLY VII-16

244 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME 25 VILLAGE GREEN TOWNHOMES OF OAK PAR W. 10 LE ROAD OAK PARK (248) YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 96.3% HARDWOOD FLOORING; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; VOLLEYBALL COURT; PET FEE $20/MO. PET PET 26 CHESTNUT OAKS W. 11 LE RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % 27 HIDDEN OAKS W. 11 LE RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % 28 TANGLEWOOD W. 11 LE RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % NON-SMOKING 29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE GREENFIELD RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % CAT FEE $25/MO.; DOG FEE $35/MO.; 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT 30 KENSWICK MANOR W. 11 LE RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % NO STUDENTS; 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT; PET FEE $20/MO. PER PET VII-17

245 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS 2345 OXFORD RD. BERKLEY (248) % SENIOR APARTMENTS 55+; CHAPEL; LIBRARY; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; TRANSPORTATION; STORAGE AVAILABLE; DAILY LUNCH PROGRAM AVAILABLE FOR ADDITIONAL FEE 32 NORTH ROYAL OAK 1215 W. FARNUM RD. ROYAL OAK (248) % CERAC TILE; GRANITE COUNTERTOPS; WATER FEE 1- BR $25/MO., 2-BR $35/MO. 33 WOODWARD COURT WOODWARD AVE. ROYAL OAK (248) % BUILT IN 3 PHASES, HIGHER- PRICED UNITS ARE IN PHASES2+3 AND HAVE BEEN RENOVATED; CERAC TILE; SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CHART 34 AMBER COURT 2319 COOLIDGE HWY. ROYAL OAK (248) % STORAGE 35 BEAUMONT 2816 COOLIDGE HWY. ROYAL OAK (248) % EXPOSED CONCRETE BLOCK WALLS; RECENTLY RENOVATED 36 ARLINGTON 3115 EVERGREEN DR. ROYAL OAK (248) % HARDWOOD FLOORING; ICEMAKERS; STAINLESS APPLIANCES; SKYLIGHTS IN SELECT UNITS VII-18

246 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME 37 WOODWARD NORTH 3009 W. THIRTEEN LE RD. ROYAL OAK (248) YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 97.6% GRANITE COUNTERTOPS AND MAPLE CABINETS IN SELECT UNITS; SELECT UNITS HAVE BEEN RECENTLY RENOVATED 38 CAMELOT 3134 GREENFIELD RD. ROYAL OAK (248) % WALK-IN CLOSETS; HARDWOOD FLOORING IN SELECT UNITS; SKYLIGHTS IN TOP-FLOOR UNITS ONLY 39 PHILAMER 3272 GREENFIELD RD. ROYAL OAK (248) % CERAC TILE FLOORING; GRANITE COUNTERTOPS; HARDWOOD FLOORING; RECENTLY RENOVATED; WATER FEE $25/MO. FOR 1-BR UNITS, $35/MO. FOR 2-BR UNITS 40 THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY HILLS W. THIRTEEN LE RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % BUILT-IN SHELVES; STAINLESS APPLIANCES; WALK-IN CLOSETS; DOG PARK; FAX & COPY SERVICES; INDOOR VOLLEYBALL COURT; RECENTLY RENOVATED 41 COUNTRY CORNER SOUTHFIELD RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % 42 CRANBROOK CENTRE SOUTH DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % WALK-IN CLOSETS; PET FEE $25/MO. PER PET VII-19

247 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME WEST W. TWELVE LE RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) FRANKLIN RIVER FRANKLIN RIVER DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 95.5% 44 UNITS OPENED MARCH 2016, ADDITIONAL 70 UNITS TO OPEN MAY/JUNE 2016; SELECT UNITS HAVE ATTACHED GARAGE; DETACHED GARAGE AVAILABLE $50/MO.; SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 99.7% SELECT UNITS HAVE BREAKFAST BAR &/OR CROWAVE; GAME ROOM; SOCIAL EVENTS; CORPORATE FURNISHED UNITS AVAILABLE 45 LAUREL WOODS LAUREL WOODS CT. SOUTHFIELD (248) % 46 LANCASTER HILLS LANCASTER DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % HIGHER-PRICED UNITS ARE ON 1ST FLOOR; 1 CARPORT SPACE PER UNIT 47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY W. 12 LE RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % LEASING OFFICE AT COLONY PARK (MAP CODE 24); 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT 48 CHATSFORD MANOR LAHSER RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % WALK-IN CLOSETS; GRANITE COUNTERTOPS IN SELECT UNITS; 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT; PET FEE $20/MO. VII-20

248 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME 49 COLONY PARK COLONY PARK CIR. SOUTHFIELD (248) YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 99.0% WALK-IN CLOSETS; 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT 50 RIVER PARK PLACE CIVIC CENTER DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED, SECTION 8; FALY 51 OAK RIDGE BERG RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % CAT FEE $20/MO. 52 SOUTHFIELD BERG RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % ICEMAKER; SELECT UNITS HAVE KITCHEN ISLAND AND/OR FIREPLACE; POND HAS FOUNTAIN; CARPORT OPTIONAL $25/MO.; CAT FEE $15/MO.; DOG FEE $25/MO 53 MCDONNEL TOWER CIVIC CENTER DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % GOVERNMENT SUBSIZIDED, SECTION 8; ELDERLY (62+)/HANDICAP 54 WOODCREST CIVIC CENTER DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % SELECT UNITS HAVE VAULTED CEILING; WAITING LIST 5-6 NAMES FOR EACH UNIT TYPE VII-21

249 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 55 PARK LANE PARK PLACE DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % SELECT UNITS HAVE BREAKFAST BAR, CROWAVE, &/OR VAULTED CEILING; CAT FEE $25/MO. 56 MONTICELLO CIVIC CENTER DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % HIGHER-PRICED UNITS ARE ON UPPER FLOOR; SELECT UNITS HAVE VAULTED CEILING; PET FEE $25/MO.; 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT 57 WILLOW TREE CIVIC CENTER DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % NON-SMOKING; BIRDS AND FISH ONLY PETS ALLOWED; 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT 58 SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD POND RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % TOWNHOMES HAVE FINISHED BASEMENTS WITH WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS; 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT 59 SUTTON PLACE RIVERSIDE DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS IN TOWNHOMES ONLY; SELECT UNITS HAVE WASHER/DRYER &/OR ATTACHED GARAGE; CABANAS AT POOL 60 EVERGREEN PLACE EVERGREEN RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % VII-22

250 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 61 ARBOR LOFTS CIVIC CENTER DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % 90% STUDENTS; ADDITIONAL 31 UNITS BEING LEASED BY LTU (11 3-BR, 20 4-BR): SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CHART 62 KNOB IN THE WOODS KNOB WOODS DR. SOUTHFIELD (248) % CERAC TILE FLOORING; GRANITE COUNTERTOPS; 3-BR UNITS HAVE WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS; CARPORT $15/MO.; PET RENT $20/MO. 63 CRYSTAL COURT W. 8 LE RD. DETROIT (313) % 64 WOODLAND ARMS W. 8 LE RD. DETROIT (313) % 65 TERRACE COURT LAHSER DETROIT % 66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD LAHSER RD. SOUTHFIELD (248) % VII-23

251 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 67 WELLINGTON PLACE LAHSER RD. SOUTHFIELD (284) % HIGHER-PRICE UNITS HAVE BEEN RENOVATED 68 HIDDEN PINES TELEGRAPH RD. DETROIT (313) % HARDWOOD FLOORING; WALK- IN CLOSETS; RECENTLY RENOVATED 69 CRESCENT HOUSE TELEGRAPH RD. DETROIT (313) % HARDWOOD FLOORING; WALK- IN CLOSETS 70 KAREN WEST 7-LE ROAD DETROIT (313) % 71 IMPERIAL MANOR APPLETON ST. DETROIT (313) % 72 RIVER PARK BERG RD. DETROIT (313) % VII-24

252 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 73 FAIRWAY MANOR LAHSER DETROIT % 74 CHAPEL COURT WEST 7-LE ROAD DETROIT % 75 MCNICHOLS SEVEN LE RD. DETROIT % 32 UNITS BOARDED UP, NO PLANS TO RENOVATE UNTIL JAN CREST W. 7 LE ROAD DETROIT (313) % 77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS EVERGREEN DETROIT (313) % GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED, HUD SECTION 8; ELDERLY, HANDICAPPED; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES 78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE VOTROBECK CT. DETROIT % ORIGINALLY BUILT 1964, TOTAL RENOVATION AND REHAB TO TAX CREDIT IN 2013; GAZEBO; SPLASH PAD; PET FEE $20/MO. PER PET VII-25

253 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 79 GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE GREENFIELD DETROIT % 80 BOWIN PLACE SEVEN LE RD. DETROIT % GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED, HUD SECTION 8; LIBRARY; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES 81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS 8805 KINGSWOOD ST. DETROIT (313) % 82 FERNWOOD MANOR 900 LAPRAIRIE FERNDALE (248) % 83 AUTUMN HOUSE 500 E. 9 LE RD. FERNDALE (248) % GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED; ELDERLY/DISABLED 84 DEVON SQUARE 1225 ORCHARD ST. FERNDALE (248) % GOVERNMENT SUBSDIZED; PROJECT BASED SECTION 8; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; 48 1-BR UNITS ARE ELDERLY 62+ ONLY; 12 2-BR UNITS ARE FALY ONLY VII-26

254 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME 85 STATION 3 LOFTS 333 E. PARENT AVE. ROYAL OAK (248) EIGHT S. MAIN ST. ROYAL OAK (248) ROYAL OAK MANOR 606 WILLIAMS ST. ROYAL OAK (248) AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS N. SHERMAN DR. ROYAL OAK (248) YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 100.0% PHASE 1 SOLD AS CONDOS, PHASE 2 IS APARTMENTS; GARAGE PARKING $175/MO.; FURNISHED CORPORATE UNITS AVAILABLE; SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CHART 83.3% OPENED MARCH 2016, STILL IN LEASE-UP; HARDWOOD FLOORS; ICEMAKERS; QUARTZ COUNTERTOPS; STAINLESS APPLIANCES; BREAKFAST BARS AND KITCHEN ISLANDS IN SELECT UNITS 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED; ELDERLY 62+; GAME ROOM; GIFT SHOP; OUTDOOR LOUNGE ON EACH FLOOR; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; TRANSPORTATION; VENDING MACHINES 100.0% EXPOSED DUCTWORK; HARDWOOD AND CERAC TILE FLOORING; STAINLESS APPLIANCES 89 METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE 203 N. LAFAYETTE RD. ROYAL OAK (248) % BLACK APPLIANCES IN SELECT UNITS; STAINLESS APPLIANCES IN SELECT UNITS; WALK-IN CLOSETS; RECENTLY RENOVATED 90 WAGON WHEEL 605 E. 11 LE RD. ROYAL OAK (248) % FAUX-WOOD FLOORING; CAT FEE $15 PER MONTH, $5 MORE FOR EACH ADDITIONAL CAT VII-27

255 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME 91 FARNUM 214 W. FARNUM AVE. ROYAL OAK (248) VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS 1132 N. CAMPBELL RD. ROYAL OAK (248) ROYAL OAK ESTATES 905 N. STEPHENSON HWY. ROYAL OAK (248) ELMSLEIGH 1880 ROCHESTER RD. ROYAL OAK (248) YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 100.0% BRUSHED ALUNUM CABINETS; EXPOSED CONCRETE BLOCK WALLS; FRENCH DOORS; HARDWOOD FLOORS; STORAGE; RECENTLY RENOVATED; 1 BR UNITS HAVE BALCONLY/PATIO 95.9% PANTRY; WALK-IN CLOSETS; CONFERENCE ROOM; OUTDOOR FIREPLACE; SAND VOLLEYBALL; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; FURNISHED UNITS AVAILABLE; PET FEE $20/MO./PET; RECENTLY 100.0% CERAC TILE FLOORS (SELECT UNITS); EXPOSED BRICK; GRANITE COUNTERTOPS; SPIRAL STAIRCASES; STAINLESS APPLIANCES; RECENTLY RENOVATED 100.0% TOWNHOME UNITS HAVE CENTRAL AIR, PATIOS, BASEMENTS & WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS 95 AMBER'S RED RUN 2330 ROCHESTER RD. ROYAL OAK (248) % FLOOR-TO-CEILING WINDOWS; STORAGE 96 ROCHESTER HOUSE 2450 ROCHESTER RD. ROYAL OAK (248) % VII-28

256 PROJECT INFORMATION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME YEAR BUILT TOTAL UNITS PERCENT OCCUPIED COMMENTS 97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN W. 10 LE RD. OAK PARK (248) % GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED; ELDERLY 62+; JEWISH COMMUNITY CAMPUS; BEAUTY SHOP; LIBRARY; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; SERVICE COORDINATOR; KOSHER MEALS AVAILABLE 98 BONNIEVIEW EIGHT LE RD. DETROIT % 99 APPLEWOOD SHERMAN AVE. SOUTHFIELD (248) % VII-29

257 STREET RENT COMPARISON SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO ONE BEDROOM TWO BEDROOM THREE BEDROOM FOUR+ BEDROOM 1 TOWNE SQUARE $619 $727 2 LLER GREENS $720 - $850 3 OAK PARK GARDENS $630 $725 - $835 4 STRATFORD VILLA $825 - $950 $ CHATEAU RIVIERA $730 $885 $ NORTH PARK TOWERS $879 - $1079 $ $1450 $ NORTH PARK PLACE $889 - $1100 $990 - $ LEGACY PLACE $ $1424 $1449 $ THE ATRIUM $700 - $800 $900 - $ PROVIDENCE TOWER $575 $700 - $820 $795 - $ PROVIDENCE PLACE $808 - $838 $880 - $919 $ CARLYLE TOWER $800 - $850 $999 - $ COACH HOUSE $599 - $730 $790 - $ SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT $610 $799 $ $1400 $ VERSAILLES BIARRITZ $645 - $695 $715 - $ RUE VERSAILLES $650 - $685 $740 - $ HIGHLAND TOWERS $575 $ THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD $600 $755 - $765 $880 - $890 SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED VII-30

258 STREET RENT COMPARISON SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO ONE BEDROOM TWO BEDROOM THREE BEDROOM FOUR+ BEDROOM 19 COUNTRY COURT $700 - $725 $735 - $ LINCOLN TOWERS $540 $655 - $720 $840 - $ THE OAKS ON LINCOLN $935 - $1085 $ ROYAL OAK TOWERS SUB. SUB. 23 SANDSTONE $635 $ OAK PARK MANOR $610 - $855 $860 - $995 $ $ VILLAGE GREEN TOWNHOMES OF OAK PARK $990 - $ CHESTNUT OAKS $660 $ HIDDEN OAKS $655 $ TANGLEWOOD $ CAMBRIDGE SQUARE $825 $865 - $ KENSWICK MANOR $ OXFORD PARK TOWERS $795 - $805 $ NORTH ROYAL OAK $550 $850 - $975 $ $ WOODWARD COURT $825 - $1050 $900 - $ AMBER COURT $825 - $835 $885 - $ BEAUMONT $650 - $680 SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED VII-31

259 STREET RENT COMPARISON SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO ONE BEDROOM TWO BEDROOM THREE BEDROOM FOUR+ BEDROOM 36 ARLINGTON $760 $840 - $1325 $ WOODWARD NORTH $680 $770 - $ CAMELOT $850 $950 - $ PHILAMER $725 - $875 $800 - $ THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY HILLS $819 - $1025 $919 - $ COUNTRY CORNER $855 - $875 $985 - $1525 $ CRANBROOK CENTRE $890 - $930 $ $ WEST U N D E R C O N S T R U C T I O N 44 FRANKLIN RIVER $840 $945 - $ LAUREL WOODS $ $ LANCASTER HILLS $ $1085 $ $ TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY $770 $ CHATSFORD MANOR $735 - $ COLONY PARK $944 $ RIVER PARK PLACE SUB. SUB. SUB. 51 OAK RIDGE $560 $649 $749 - $ SOUTHFIELD $729 - $839 $ MCDONNEL TOWER SUB. SUB. SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED VII-32

260 STREET RENT COMPARISON SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO ONE BEDROOM TWO BEDROOM THREE BEDROOM FOUR+ BEDROOM 54 WOODCREST $865 $ PARK LANE $980 - $990 $ $ MONTICELLO $910 $ $ WILLOW TREE $800 - $825 $900 - $ SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD $779 $995 - $1275 $ SUTTON PLACE $989 - $1459 $ $ EVERGREEN PLACE $685 - $ ARBOR LOFTS $940 - $1100 $960 - $1500 $ $1545 $ $1975 $ $ KNOB IN THE WOODS $765 $875 $ CRYSTAL COURT $425 $495 $585 - $ WOODLAND ARMS $500 $ TERRACE COURT $410 $ TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD $699 $739 - $ WELLINGTON PLACE $715 - $ HIDDEN PINES $669 $ CRESCENT HOUSE $550 $650 $ KAREN $525 $650 SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED VII-33

261 STREET RENT COMPARISON SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO ONE BEDROOM TWO BEDROOM THREE BEDROOM FOUR+ BEDROOM 71 IMPERIAL MANOR $625 $ RIVER PARK $625 $ FAIRWAY MANOR $475 $525 $ CHAPEL COURT $500 $ MCNICHOLS U N D E R C O N S T R U C T I O N 76 CREST $ CAMBRIDGE TOWERS SUB. SUB. 78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE $575 - $638 $699 - $ GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE $650 $ BOWIN PLACE SUB. SUB. 81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS $635 - $655 $750 - $ FERNWOOD MANOR $675 - $ AUTUMN HOUSE SUB. SUB. 84 DEVON SQUARE SUB. SUB. 85 STATION 3 LOFTS $1800 $ $2450 $ EIGHT55 $ $2297 $ $ ROYAL OAK MANOR SUB. SUB. SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED VII-34

262 STREET RENT COMPARISON SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO ONE BEDROOM TWO BEDROOM THREE BEDROOM FOUR+ BEDROOM 88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS $ $1180 $895 - $1745 $ $2425 $ METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE $1095 $ WAGON WHEEL $710 $ FARNUM $930 - $1010 $ VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS $ $1195 $ $1405 $ $ ROYAL OAK ESTATES $950 - $1150 $995 - $ ELMSLEIGH $675 $725 - $ AMBER'S RED RUN $925 $ ROCHESTER HOUSE $700 $ A. ALFRED TAUBMAN SUB. 98 BONNIEVIEW $600 $ APPLEWOOD $570 $695 NOTE: Rents listed are those quoted to our field analyst for new leases. Residents on older leases or renting month-to-month may be paying more or less, depending on changes in quoted rent. Rent specials and concessions are noted in the project information section of this field survey. SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED VII-35

263 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 1 TOWNE SQUARE LLER GREENS OAK PARK GARDENS STRATFORD VILLA CHATEAU RIVIERA NORTH PARK TOWERS NORTH PARK PLACE LEGACY PLACE THE ATRIUM PROVIDENCE TOWER PROVIDENCE PLACE CARLYLE TOWER COACH HOUSE SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT VERSAILLES BIARRITZ VII-36

264 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 16 RUE VERSAILLES HIGHLAND TOWERS THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD COUNTRY COURT LINCOLN TOWERS THE OAKS ON LINCOLN ROYAL OAK TOWERS SANDSTONE OAK PARK MANOR VILLAGE GREEN TOWNHOMES OF OAK PARK CHESTNUT OAKS HIDDEN OAKS TANGLEWOOD CAMBRIDGE SQUARE VII-37

265 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 30 KENSWICK MANOR OXFORD PARK TOWERS NORTH ROYAL OAK WOODWARD COURT AMBER COURT BEAUMONT ARLINGTON WOODWARD NORTH CAMELOT PHILAMER THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY HILLS COUNTRY CORNER CRANBROOK CENTRE WEST FRANKLIN RIVER VII-38

266 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 45 LAUREL WOODS LANCASTER HILLS TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY CHATSFORD MANOR COLONY PARK RIVER PARK PLACE OAK RIDGE SOUTHFIELD MCDONNEL TOWER WOODCREST PARK LANE MONTICELLO WILLOW TREE SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD SUTTON PLACE VII-39

267 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 60 EVERGREEN PLACE ARBOR LOFTS KNOB IN THE WOODS CRYSTAL COURT WOODLAND ARMS TERRACE COURT TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD WELLINGTON PLACE HIDDEN PINES CRESCENT HOUSE KAREN IMPERIAL MANOR RIVER PARK FAIRWAY MANOR CHAPEL COURT VII-40

268 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 75 MCNICHOLS CREST CAMBRIDGE TOWERS RENAISSANCE VILLAGE GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE BOWIN PLACE SHERWOOD HEIGHTS FERNWOOD MANOR AUTUMN HOUSE DEVON SQUARE STATION 3 LOFTS EIGHT ROYAL OAK MANOR AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS 89 METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE VII-41

269 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 90 WAGON WHEEL FARNUM VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS ROYAL OAK ESTATES ELMSLEIGH AMBER'S RED RUN ROCHESTER HOUSE A. ALFRED TAUBMAN BONNIEVIEW APPLEWOOD Point values have been assigned for unit and project amenities. Aesthetic amenities are based on general appearance, upkeep, landscaping, etc. and are based on the judgment of the field representative. VII-42

270 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 1 TOWNE SQUARE X X X X X 2 LLER GREENS 3 OAK PARK GARDENS X X 4 STRATFORD VILLA X X 5 CHATEAU RIVIERA X X X X 6 NORTH PARK TOWERS X X X X X X X CONVENIENCE STORE 7 NORTH PARK PLACE X X X X X X 8 LEGACY PLACE X X X X 9 THE ATRIUM X X X X X 10 PROVIDENCE TOWER X X X X X X ON-SITE CONVENIENCE 11 PROVIDENCE PLACE X X X X X X X 12 CARLYLE TOWER X X X X X SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL VII-43

271 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 13 COACH HOUSE X X X X X X 14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT X X X X 15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ X X 16 RUE VERSAILLES X 17 HIGHLAND TOWERS X X X X X VENDING MACHINES 18 THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD X X X X X X 19 COUNTRY COURT X X 20 LINCOLN TOWERS X X X X X X COURTYARD 21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN X X 22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS X X X X X X 23 SANDSTONE X 24 OAK PARK MANOR X X SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL VII-44

272 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 25 VILLAGE GREEN TOWNHOMES OF OAK X X X R X X CONFERENCE ROOM 26 CHESTNUT OAKS 27 HIDDEN OAKS X X 28 TANGLEWOOD X 29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE X X X COURTYARD 30 KENSWICK MANOR X X 31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS X X X X X X BEAUTY SALON 32 NORTH ROYAL OAK X X X X SOCIAL ACTIVITIES 33 WOODWARD COURT X X X 34 AMBER COURT X 35 BEAUMONT X 36 ARLINGTON X X SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL VII-45

273 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 37 WOODWARD NORTH X X X 38 CAMELOT X 39 PHILAMER X X 40 THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY HILLS X X X X R X X X BILLIARDS 41 COUNTRY CORNER X X X X X X 42 CRANBROOK CENTRE X X X X X WEST X X X X X 44 FRANKLIN RIVER X X X X X X X COURTESY PATROL 45 LAUREL WOODS X X X 46 LANCASTER HILLS X X X X X 47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY X 48 CHATSFORD MANOR X X X X X SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL VII-46

274 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 49 COLONY PARK X X X 50 RIVER PARK PLACE X X 51 OAK RIDGE X X X 52 SOUTHFIELD X X X X X X X 53 MCDONNEL TOWER X X X X LIBRARY 54 WOODCREST X X 55 PARK LANE X X X X X 56 MONTICELLO X X X X X 57 WILLOW TREE X X X X ATRIUM ENTRY 58 SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD X X X X X 59 SUTTON PLACE X X X X X BILLIARDS 60 EVERGREEN PLACE X X SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL VII-47

275 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 61 ARBOR LOFTS X X X X X X X COFFEE BAR 62 KNOB IN THE WOODS X X X X V X X X 63 CRYSTAL COURT X X 64 WOODLAND ARMS X X 65 TERRACE COURT X X X 66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD X X X X X X 67 WELLINGTON PLACE X X 68 HIDDEN PINES X X X 69 CRESCENT HOUSE X X X 70 KAREN X 71 IMPERIAL MANOR X X X X 72 RIVER PARK X X SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL VII-48

276 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 73 FAIRWAY MANOR X 74 CHAPEL COURT X X 75 MCNICHOLS X 76 CREST X 77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS X X X X LIBRARY 78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE X X X X X X X AMPITHEATER 79 GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE X 80 BOWIN PLACE X X X X BEAUTY SALON 81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS X X X X 82 FERNWOOD MANOR X 83 AUTUMN HOUSE 84 DEVON SQUARE X X SERVICE COORDINATOR SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL VII-49

277 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 85 STATION 3 LOFTS X X COURTYARD 86 EIGHT55 X X 1ST FLOOR RETAIL 87 ROYAL OAK MANOR X X X X X BEAUTY SALON 88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS X 89 METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE X COMMUNITY WIFI 90 WAGON WHEEL X X 91 FARNUM X COMMUNITY WIFI 92 VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS 93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES X X X X R X X X X BILLIARDS/GAME ROOM X X X BIKE RACKS 94 ELMSLEIGH X 95 AMBER'S RED RUN 96 ROCHESTER HOUSE X X X SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL VII-50

278 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN X X X X CONVENIENCE STORE 98 BONNIEVIEW X X 99 APPLEWOOD X SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL VII-51

279 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 1 TOWNE SQUARE X X X X W X B X X X 2 LLER GREENS X X X C X X B S HARDWOOD FLOORING 3 OAK PARK GARDENS X X X C X B STORAGE 4 STRATFORD VILLA X X X X C X B X S CERAC TILE FLOORING 5 CHATEAU RIVIERA X X X X C X B X X STORAGE 6 NORTH PARK TOWERS X X X X X C X B X X U 7 NORTH PARK PLACE X X X X X C X B X X O BREAKFAST BARS 8 LEGACY PLACE X X X X C X X B X D X 9 THE ATRIUM X X X X C X B X O CARPORT $25/MO. 10 PROVIDENCE TOWER X X X X C X B X X D WALK-IN CLOSETS 11 PROVIDENCE PLACE X X X X C X B S X WALK-IN CLOSETS S - SOME O - OPTIONAL REFRIGERATOR I -ICEMAKER F - FROSTFREE AIR CONDITIONING C - CENTRAL AIR W - WINDOW UNIT WINDOW COVERINGS B - BLINDS D - DRAPES GARAGE A - ATTACHED D - DETACHED U - UNDERGROUND BASEMENT U - UNFINISHED F - FINISHED VII-52

280 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 12 CARLYLE TOWER X X X X C X B X X WALK-IN CLOSETS 13 COACH HOUSE X X X X C S S X B X X D X 14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT X X X X C X B X X X 15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ X X X X W X B X O S STORAGE 16 RUE VERSAILLES X X S X W X B X STORAGE 17 HIGHLAND TOWERS X X X X C X B X X 18 THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD X X X X W X B FAUX-WOOD FLOORING 19 COUNTRY COURT X X X X C X B X X 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT 20 LINCOLN TOWERS X X X X C X B X X STORAGE 21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN X X X X B X X 22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS X X X X C B S BREAKFAST BARS S - SOME O - OPTIONAL REFRIGERATOR I -ICEMAKER F - FROSTFREE AIR CONDITIONING C - CENTRAL AIR W - WINDOW UNIT WINDOW COVERINGS B - BLINDS D - DRAPES GARAGE A - ATTACHED D - DETACHED U - UNDERGROUND BASEMENT U - UNFINISHED F - FINISHED VII-53

281 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 23 SANDSTONE X X X W X X B X HARDWOOD FLOORING 24 OAK PARK MANOR X X S S X C S X B X S X 25 VILLAGE GREEN TOWNHOMES OF OAK PARK X X X X X C X X X B X X X X CROWN MOLDING 26 CHESTNUT OAKS X X X X C X X X B X STORAGE 27 HIDDEN OAKS X X X X C X B X D 28 TANGLEWOOD X X X X X C X B X D X CARPORT $25/MO. 29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE X X X X C X B X D STORAGE 30 KENSWICK MANOR X X X X C X B X X D X STORAGE 31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS X X C X B X X 32 NORTH ROYAL OAK X X X C B X HARDWOOD FLOORING 33 WOODWARD COURT X X S X W X B O STORAGE S - SOME O - OPTIONAL REFRIGERATOR I -ICEMAKER F - FROSTFREE AIR CONDITIONING C - CENTRAL AIR W - WINDOW UNIT WINDOW COVERINGS B - BLINDS D - DRAPES GARAGE A - ATTACHED D - DETACHED U - UNDERGROUND BASEMENT U - UNFINISHED F - FINISHED VII-54

282 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME 34 AMBER COURT X X X X C X B X X OTHER HARDWOOD FLOORING 35 BEAUMONT X X W X B S CERAC TILE 36 ARLINGTON X X X X C X B X S GRANITE COUNTERTOPS 37 WOODWARD NORTH X X S X C X B X O CERAC TILE FLOORING 38 CAMELOT X X X X W X B X CERAC TILE FLOORING 39 PHILAMER X X X C B STORAGE 40 THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY HILLS X X X X C X X B X X O D S HARDWOOD FLOORING 41 COUNTRY CORNER X X X X C X B X X 42 CRANBROOK CENTRE X X X X C X B X X STORAGE WEST X X X X X C X X X B X X A X 9'-11' CEILINGS 44 FRANKLIN RIVER X X S X X C X B X X S - SOME O - OPTIONAL REFRIGERATOR I -ICEMAKER F - FROSTFREE AIR CONDITIONING C - CENTRAL AIR W - WINDOW UNIT WINDOW COVERINGS B - BLINDS D - DRAPES GARAGE A - ATTACHED D - DETACHED U - UNDERGROUND BASEMENT U - UNFINISHED F - FINISHED VII-55

283 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 45 LAUREL WOODS X X X X C X X X B X X X 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT 46 LANCASTER HILLS X X X X C X B X X X STORAGE 47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY X X X X C X B X X STORAGE 48 CHATSFORD MANOR X X X X C X B X D X 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT 49 COLONY PARK X X X X C X B X X STORAGE 50 RIVER PARK PLACE X X C X B X 51 OAK RIDGE X X X X C X B X X 52 SOUTHFIELD X X X X C X X X B S X O X 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT STORAGE 53 MCDONNEL TOWER X X X X B X X 54 WOODCREST X X X X C X X X B X S 55 PARK LANE X X S X X C X X X B X X X S 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT S - SOME O - OPTIONAL REFRIGERATOR I -ICEMAKER F - FROSTFREE AIR CONDITIONING C - CENTRAL AIR W - WINDOW UNIT WINDOW COVERINGS B - BLINDS D - DRAPES GARAGE A - ATTACHED D - DETACHED U - UNDERGROUND BASEMENT U - UNFINISHED F - FINISHED VII-56

284 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 56 MONTICELLO X X X X C X X X B D X S STORAGE 57 WILLOW TREE X X X X C X B X X X STORAGE 58 SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD X X X X C S X X X X X STORAGE 59 SUTTON PLACE X X X X C S S X B X X A X 60 EVERGREEN PLACE X X X X C X B X D STORAGE 61 ARBOR LOFTS X X X X X C S S X B X O 10'-12' CEILINGS 62 KNOB IN THE WOODS X X X X C S X B D STORAGE 63 CRYSTAL COURT X X X W X B 64 WOODLAND ARMS X X X W X B X 65 TERRACE COURT X X X W X B 66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD X X X W X B X S - SOME O - OPTIONAL REFRIGERATOR I -ICEMAKER F - FROSTFREE AIR CONDITIONING C - CENTRAL AIR W - WINDOW UNIT WINDOW COVERINGS B - BLINDS D - DRAPES GARAGE A - ATTACHED D - DETACHED U - UNDERGROUND BASEMENT U - UNFINISHED F - FINISHED VII-57

285 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME OTHER 67 WELLINGTON PLACE X X X W X B X X 68 HIDDEN PINES X X X X W X B X O CERAC TILE 69 CRESCENT HOUSE X X X W X B STORAGE 70 KAREN X X W X B X 71 IMPERIAL MANOR X X W B STORAGE 72 RIVER PARK X X W B X 73 FAIRWAY MANOR X X X W X B X 74 CHAPEL COURT X X X W X B 75 MCNICHOLS X X X X B 76 CREST X X X W X B 77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS X X W X B S - SOME O - OPTIONAL REFRIGERATOR I -ICEMAKER F - FROSTFREE AIR CONDITIONING C - CENTRAL AIR W - WINDOW UNIT WINDOW COVERINGS B - BLINDS D - DRAPES GARAGE A - ATTACHED D - DETACHED U - UNDERGROUND BASEMENT U - UNFINISHED F - FINISHED VII-58

286 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME 78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE 79 GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE OTHER X X X W X B X BREAKFAST BARS X X X W X B X X X 80 BOWIN PLACE X X X C X B X X 81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS X X X X W X B X X O WALK-IN CLOSETS 82 FERNWOOD MANOR X X C X B CERAC TILE FLOORING 83 AUTUMN HOUSE X X W X B X 84 DEVON SQUARE X X C B 85 STATION 3 LOFTS X X X X X C X X B X A 11'-24' CEILINGS 86 EIGHT55 X X X X C X X B X A X 9' CEILINGS 87 ROYAL OAK MANOR X X X C X B X 88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS X X X X X C X X B X X O S S ICEMAKERS S - SOME O - OPTIONAL REFRIGERATOR I -ICEMAKER F - FROSTFREE AIR CONDITIONING C - CENTRAL AIR W - WINDOW UNIT WINDOW COVERINGS B - BLINDS D - DRAPES GARAGE A - ATTACHED D - DETACHED U - UNDERGROUND BASEMENT U - UNFINISHED F - FINISHED VII-59

287 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME 89 METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE OTHER X X X X W X B X HARDWOOD FLOORING 90 WAGON WHEEL X X X X W X B X STORAGE 91 FARNUM X X X X W X B S BLACK APPLIANCES 92 VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS X X X X X C X B X X D X HARDWOOD FLOORING 93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES X X X X X W B S X X S HARDWOOD FLOORING 94 ELMSLEIGH X X X W S X B S S X 95 AMBER'S RED RUN X X X X X W B X D HARDWOOD FLOORING 96 ROCHESTER HOUSE X X X X W X B STORAGE 97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN X X W X B 98 BONNIEVIEW X X X W X B 99 APPLEWOOD X X X C X B X D CARPORT $20/MO. S - SOME O - OPTIONAL REFRIGERATOR I -ICEMAKER F - FROSTFREE AIR CONDITIONING C - CENTRAL AIR W - WINDOW UNIT WINDOW COVERINGS B - BLINDS D - DRAPES GARAGE A - ATTACHED D - DETACHED U - UNDERGROUND BASEMENT U - UNFINISHED F - FINISHED VII-60

288 DISTRIBUTION OF UNIT AND PROJECT AMENITIES MARKET RATE UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 UNIT AMENITIES REFRIGERATOR % RANGE % CROWAVE % DISHWASHER % DISPOSAL % AIR CONDITIONING % WASHER / DRYER % WASH / DRY HOOKUP % CARPET % WINDOW COVERINGS % FIREPLACE % INTERCOM SECURITY % BALCONY / PATIO % CAR PORT % GARAGE % BASEMENT % CEILING FAN % VAULTED CEILING % SECURITY SYSTEM % PROJECT AMENITIES ALL UNITS PROJECTS SOME UNITS OR OPTIONAL TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF PROJECTS POOL % COMMON BUILDING % SAUNA % HOT TUB % EXERCISE ROOM % TENNIS % PLAYGROUND % SPORTS COURT % JOG / BIKE TRAIL % LAKE % PICNIC AREA % LAUNDRY FACILITY % SECURITY GATE % ON SITE MANAGEMENT % ELEVATOR % VII-61

289 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME NUMBER GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF S FLOORS 1 TOWNE SQUARE X X 2.5 G L G L E T T L L C T T 2 LLER GREENS X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 3 OAK PARK GARDENS X X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 4 STRATFORD VILLA X X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 5 CHATEAU RIVIERA X X X 2 G T G T E T T T L C T T 6 NORTH PARK TOWERS X X X 18 G L G L E T T T T C T T 7 NORTH PARK PLACE X X 14 G L G L E T T T L C T T 8 LEGACY PLACE X X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 9 THE ATRIUM X X 4 G L G L E T T L L C T T 10 PROVIDENCE TOWER X X X 10 G T G T E T T T T C T T 11 PROVIDENCE PLACE X X X 2,3 G T G T E T T T T C T T 12 CARLYLE TOWER X X 10 G L G L E T T L L C T T 13 COACH HOUSE X X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT X X X X 10 E T E T E T T L L C T T 15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ X X 2 G L G L E T T T L C T T 16 RUE VERSAILLES X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD T - TENANT VII-62 E G S O - ELECTRIC - GAS - STEAM - OTHER C S - COAXIAL - SATELLITE

290 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME NUMBER GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF S FLOORS 17 HIGHLAND TOWERS X X 12 G L G L E T T L L C T T 18 THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD X X X 2.5 G T G T G T T T T C T T 19 COUNTRY COURT X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 20 LINCOLN TOWERS X X X 10 G L G L E T T L L C T T 21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN X X 2 G T G T E T T T L C T T 22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS X X 11 G L G L E L L L L C T T 23 SANDSTONE X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 24 OAK PARK MANOR X X X X X 2 G T G T G T T T L C T T 25 VILLAGE GREEN TOWNHOMES OF OAK X 2 G T G T G T T T T C T T 26 CHESTNUT OAKS X X 2 E T E T E T T L L C T T 27 HIDDEN OAKS X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 28 TANGLEWOOD X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 30 KENSWICK MANOR X 2 G T G T E T T T T C T T 31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS X X 8 G L G L E T T L L C T T 32 NORTH ROYAL OAK X X X 2.5 G L G L E T T T L C T T PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD T - TENANT VII-63 E G S O - ELECTRIC - GAS - STEAM - OTHER C S - COAXIAL - SATELLITE

291 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME NUMBER GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF S FLOORS 33 WOODWARD COURT X X 2.5 G L G L E T T T L C T T 34 AMBER COURT X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 35 BEAUMONT X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 36 ARLINGTON X X X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 37 WOODWARD NORTH X X 4 G T G T E T T T L C T T 38 CAMELOT X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 39 PHILAMER X X 2 G L G L E T T T L C T T 40 THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY HILLS X X 2 E T E T E T T L L C T T 41 COUNTRY CORNER X X X X 2 G T G T E T T T L C T T 42 CRANBROOK CENTRE X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T WEST X X 3 G T G T E T T T T C T T UNDER CONSTRUCTION 44 FRANKLIN RIVER X X 3 G T G T E T T T T C T T 45 LAUREL WOODS X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 46 LANCASTER HILLS X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY X X 2 G L E T E T T T L C T T 48 CHATSFORD MANOR X 2 G T G T E T T T T C T T PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD T - TENANT VII-64 E G S O - ELECTRIC - GAS - STEAM - OTHER C S - COAXIAL - SATELLITE

292 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME NUMBER GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF S FLOORS 49 COLONY PARK X X 2 G T G T E T T T T C T T 50 RIVER PARK PLACE X X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 51 OAK RIDGE X X X 3 G T G T E T T L L C T T 52 SOUTHFIELD X X 2,3 G T G T E T T T T C T T 53 MCDONNEL TOWER X X 14 G L G L E T T L L C T T 54 WOODCREST X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 55 PARK LANE X X 2 G T G T E T T L L C T T 56 MONTICELLO X X 2 G T G T E T T T T C T T 57 WILLOW TREE X X 3 G T G L E T T L L C T T 58 SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD X X X X 2 G T G T E T T T T C T T 59 SUTTON PLACE X X X 2 G T G T E T T T L C T T 60 EVERGREEN PLACE X 2.5 G T G T E T T L L C T T 61 ARBOR LOFTS X X X X X 4 G T G T E T T T T C T T 62 KNOB IN THE WOODS X X X 2 G T G T E T T T L C T T 63 CRYSTAL COURT X X X 3 E T E T E T T L L C T T 64 WOODLAND ARMS X X 2.5 G L G L E T T L L C T T PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD T - TENANT VII-65 E G S O - ELECTRIC - GAS - STEAM - OTHER C S - COAXIAL - SATELLITE

293 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME NUMBER GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF S FLOORS 65 TERRACE COURT X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD X X 8 G L G L E T T L L C T T 67 WELLINGTON PLACE X 2 G L G L E T T T L C T T 68 HIDDEN PINES X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 69 CRESCENT HOUSE X X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 70 KAREN X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 71 IMPERIAL MANOR X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 72 RIVER PARK X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 73 FAIRWAY MANOR X X X 2,3 G L G L E T T L L C T T 74 CHAPEL COURT X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 75 MCNICHOLS X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T UNDER CONSTRUCTION 76 CREST X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS X X 14 G L G L E L L L L C T T 78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE X X X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 79 GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE X X 3 G L G L E T T L L C T T 80 BOWIN PLACE X X 11 G L G L E L L L L C T T PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD T - TENANT VII-66 E G S O - ELECTRIC - GAS - STEAM - OTHER C S - COAXIAL - SATELLITE

294 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME NUMBER GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF S FLOORS 81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS X X 2,2.5 G T G T E T T L L C T T 82 FERNWOOD MANOR X 3 G L G L E T T L L C T T 83 AUTUMN HOUSE X X 5 G L G L E L L L L C T T 84 DEVON SQUARE X X 3 G T G T G T T L L C T T 85 STATION 3 LOFTS X X X X 4 G T G T G T T L L C T T 86 EIGHT55 X X 5 E T E T E T T L L C T T 87 ROYAL OAK MANOR X X 11 G L G L G L L L L C T T 88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS 89 METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE X X X X X 5 G T G T G T T L L C T T X X 2,2.5 E T E T E T T L L C T L 90 WAGON WHEEL X X 2.5 G L G L E T T L L C T T 91 FARNUM X X 2 G L G L G L T L L C T L 92 VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS X X X 3 E T E T E T T L L C T T 93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES X X X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T 94 ELMSLEIGH X X X 2 G T G T G T T L L C T T 95 AMBER'S RED RUN X X 2 G L G L E T T L T C T T 96 ROCHESTER HOUSE X X 2 G L G L E T T L L C T T PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD T - TENANT VII-67 E G S O - ELECTRIC - GAS - STEAM - OTHER C S - COAXIAL - SATELLITE

295 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016 MAP CODE PROJECT NAME NUMBER GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF S FLOORS 97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN X 5,10 G L G L E L L L L C T T 98 BONNIEVIEW X X 3 G L G L E T T L L C T T 99 APPLEWOOD X X 2 E T E T E T T L L C T T PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD T - TENANT VII-68 E G S O - ELECTRIC - GAS - STEAM - OTHER C S - COAXIAL - SATELLITE

296 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON STUDIO UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA Map UNIT SIZE NET RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 10 PROVIDENCE TOWER $787 $787 $2.46 $ SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT $806 $806 $1.19 $ THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD $807 $807 $2.02 $ LINCOLN TOWERS $666 $666 $1.47 $ NORTH ROYAL OAK $710 $710 $1.58 $ OAK RIDGE $726 $726 $1.65 $ ARBOR LOFTS $1,152 $1,312 $1.54 $ CRYSTAL COURT $621 $621 $2.01 $ WELLINGTON PLACE $875 $915 $1.14 $ CRESCENT HOUSE $676 $676 $1.42 $ FAIRWAY MANOR N.A. N.A. $601 $601 N.A. N.A. 88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS $1,236 $1,341 $2.31 $2.51 VII-69

297 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON ONE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 1 TOWNE SQUARE $761 $761 $1.12 $ OAK PARK GARDENS $823 $823 $1.18 $ CHATEAU RIVIERA 1,000 1,000 $965 $965 $0.96 $ NORTH PARK TOWERS 1,000 1,155 $1,075 $1,275 $1.08 $ THE ATRIUM $842 $942 $0.99 $ PROVIDENCE TOWER 750 1,000 $947 $1,067 $1.07 $ PROVIDENCE PLACE 1,425 1,425 $1,055 $1,085 $0.74 $ COACH HOUSE $792 $923 $0.93 $ SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT $1,034 $1,034 $1.38 $ VERSAILLES BIARRITZ $829 $879 $1.04 $ RUE VERSAILLES $792 $827 $0.99 $ HIGHLAND TOWERS $717 $717 $1.10 $ THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD $995 $1,005 $1.45 $ COUNTRY COURT $842 $867 $1.40 $ LINCOLN TOWERS $797 $862 $1.15 $ SANDSTONE $777 $777 $1.19 $ OAK PARK MANOR $838 $1,083 $1.29 $ CHESTNUT OAKS $895 $895 $1.49 $ HIDDEN OAKS $848 $848 $1.06 $ TANGLEWOOD $893 $893 $1.06 $ CAMBRIDGE SQUARE $1,018 $1,018 $1.13 $ KENSWICK MANOR $1,082 $1,082 $1.30 $ OXFORD PARK TOWERS $937 $947 $1.80 $ NORTH ROYAL OAK $1,034 $1,159 $1.38 $1.55 VII-70

298 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON ONE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 33 WOODWARD COURT $1,009 $1,234 $1.44 $ AMBER COURT $1,018 $1,028 $1.77 $ BEAUMONT $792 $822 $1.57 $ ARLINGTON $953 $953 $1.22 $ WOODWARD NORTH $915 $915 $1.62 $ CAMELOT $992 $992 $1.27 $ PHILAMER $909 $1,059 $1.23 $ THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY HILLS $1,054 $1,260 $1.29 $ COUNTRY CORNER 1,100 1,200 $1,090 $1,110 $0.93 $ CRANBROOK CENTRE $1,083 $1,123 $1.21 $ WEST $1,572 $1,682 $1.94 $ FRANKLIN RIVER $1,087 $1,087 $1.13 $ TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY $984 $984 $1.16 $ CHATSFORD MANOR $982 $1,002 $1.18 $ COLONY PARK 1,000 1,000 $1,191 $1,191 $1.19 $ OAK RIDGE $842 $842 $1.00 $ SOUTHFIELD $976 $1,086 $1.28 $ WOODCREST $1,058 $1,058 $1.23 $ PARK LANE $1,173 $1,183 $1.31 $ MONTICELLO $1,157 $1,157 $1.36 $ WILLOW TREE $982 $1,007 $1.09 $ SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD 1,062 1,062 $1,026 $1,026 $0.97 $ EVERGREEN PLACE $878 $923 $1.10 $ ARBOR LOFTS 609 1,282 $1,207 $1,747 $1.36 $1.98 VII-71

299 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON ONE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA Map UNIT SIZE NET RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 62 KNOB IN THE WOODS 1,050 1,050 $1,000 $1,000 $0.95 $ CRYSTAL COURT $730 $730 $1.01 $ WOODLAND ARMS $642 $642 $0.86 $ TERRACE COURT N.A. N.A. $552 $552 N.A. N.A. 66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD $841 $841 $1.05 $ HIDDEN PINES N.A. N.A. $811 $811 N.A. N.A. 69 CRESCENT HOUSE $792 $792 $1.20 $ KAREN $667 $667 $1.11 $ IMPERIAL MANOR $767 $767 $0.90 $ RIVER PARK N.A. N.A. $767 $767 N.A. N.A. 73 FAIRWAY MANOR N.A. N.A. $667 $667 N.A. N.A. 74 CHAPEL COURT N.A. N.A. $642 $642 N.A. N.A. 75 MCNICHOLS N.A. N.A. $732 $732 N.A. N.A. 79 GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE $792 $792 $1.06 $ SHERWOOD HEIGHTS $828 $848 $1.02 $ FERNWOOD MANOR $817 $867 $1.26 $ STATION 3 LOFTS $1,986 $1,986 $2.09 $ EIGHT ,003 $2,042 $2,532 $2.44 $ AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS $1,081 $1,931 $1.80 $ METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE $1,290 $1,290 $1.98 $ WAGON WHEEL $852 $852 $1.07 $ FARNUM $1,021 $1,101 $1.41 $ VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS $1,270 $1,430 $1.55 $ ROYAL OAK ESTATES 750 1,000 $1,092 $1,292 $1.29 $1.46 VII-72

300 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON ONE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA Map UNIT SIZE NET RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 94 ELMSLEIGH $861 $861 $1.08 $ AMBER'S RED RUN $1,079 $1,079 $1.47 $ ROCHESTER HOUSE $842 $842 $1.12 $ BONNIEVIEW N.A. N.A. $742 $742 N.A. N.A. 99 APPLEWOOD N.A. N.A. $805 $805 N.A. N.A. VII-73

301 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON TWO BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 1 TOWNE SQUARE $885 $885 $1.04 $ LLER GREENS 900 1,100 $940 $1,070 $0.97 $ OAK PARK GARDENS $945 $1,055 $1.11 $ STRATFORD VILLA 900 1,000 $983 $1,108 $1.09 $ CHATEAU RIVIERA 1,300 1,300 $1,164 $1,164 $0.90 $ NORTH PARK TOWERS 1,350 1,700 $1,428 $1,679 $0.99 $ NORTH PARK PLACE 1,250 1,250 $1,106 $1,317 $0.88 $ LEGACY PLACE 1,600 1,600 $1,534 $1,644 $0.96 $ THE ATRIUM 1,100 1,200 $1,058 $1,158 $0.96 $ PROVIDENCE TOWER 1,000 1,000 $1,086 $1,146 $1.09 $ PROVIDENCE PLACE 1,450 1,475 $1,171 $1,210 $0.81 $ CARLYLE TOWER 1,174 1,379 $958 $1,008 $0.73 $ COACH HOUSE 988 1,312 $1,010 $1,340 $1.02 $ SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT 1,100 1,600 $1,476 $1,677 $1.05 $ VERSAILLES BIARRITZ 840 1,065 $932 $1,047 $0.98 $ RUE VERSAILLES $898 $918 $1.07 $ HIGHLAND TOWERS $943 $943 $1.11 $ THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD $1,163 $1,173 $1.34 $ COUNTRY COURT $893 $933 $0.99 $ LINCOLN TOWERS 1,039 1,039 $998 $1,043 $0.96 $ THE OAKS ON LINCOLN 1,010 1,165 $1,214 $1,364 $1.17 $ SANDSTONE $923 $923 $1.09 $ OAK PARK MANOR $1,131 $1,266 $1.19 $ VILLAGE GREEN TOWNHOMES OF OAK PARK $1,273 $1,393 $1.34 $1.47 VII-74

302 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON TWO BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 26 CHESTNUT OAKS $1,037 $1,037 $1.38 $ HIDDEN OAKS 1,010 1,010 $975 $975 $0.97 $ CAMBRIDGE SQUARE 1,200 1,200 $1,085 $1,160 $0.90 $ OXFORD PARK TOWERS $1,098 $1,098 $1.52 $ NORTH ROYAL OAK $1,267 $1,417 $1.49 $ WOODWARD COURT $1,117 $1,417 $1.21 $ AMBER COURT $1,105 $1,115 $1.23 $ ARLINGTON 880 1,100 $1,060 $1,545 $1.20 $ WOODWARD NORTH $1,049 $1,074 $1.20 $ CAMELOT 1,025 1,100 $1,108 $1,133 $1.03 $ PHILAMER $1,017 $1,242 $1.20 $ THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY HILLS 980 1,050 $1,196 $1,522 $1.22 $ COUNTRY CORNER 1,300 1,800 $1,264 $1,804 $0.97 $ CRANBROOK CENTRE 1,161 1,161 $1,320 $1,340 $1.14 $ WEST 982 1,004 $1,776 $1,991 $1.81 $ FRANKLIN RIVER 1,100 1,200 $1,236 $1,396 $1.12 $ LAUREL WOODS 1,500 1,800 $1,235 $1,440 $0.80 $ LANCASTER HILLS 1,300 1,500 $1,235 $1,305 $0.87 $ TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY 1,000 1,000 $1,136 $1,136 $1.14 $ COLONY PARK 1,250 1,310 $1,321 $1,321 $1.01 $ OAK RIDGE 1,050 1,150 $969 $999 $0.87 $ SOUTHFIELD 1,000 1,000 $1,311 $1,311 $1.31 $ WOODCREST 1,110 1,135 $1,185 $1,185 $1.04 $ PARK LANE 1,162 1,200 $1,410 $1,455 $1.21 $1.21 VII-75

303 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON TWO BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA Map UNIT SIZE NET RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 56 MONTICELLO 1,080 1,200 $1,341 $1,606 $1.24 $ WILLOW TREE 1,050 1,200 $1,106 $1,156 $0.96 $ SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD 1,317 1,766 $1,286 $1,566 $0.89 $ SUTTON PLACE 1,575 2,003 $1,268 $1,738 $0.81 $ ARBOR LOFTS 827 1,000 $1,796 $1,836 $1.84 $ KNOB IN THE WOODS 1,400 1,400 $1,154 $1,154 $0.82 $ CRYSTAL COURT $862 $902 $0.98 $ WOODLAND ARMS 1,300 1,300 $808 $808 $0.62 $ TERRACE COURT N.A. N.A. $668 $668 N.A. N.A. 66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD 1,100 1,200 $897 $967 $0.81 $ HIDDEN PINES N.A. N.A. $957 $957 N.A. N.A. 69 CRESCENT HOUSE $908 $908 $0.98 $ KAREN $808 $808 $1.08 $ IMPERIAL MANOR 1,200 1,200 $883 $883 $0.74 $ RIVER PARK N.A. N.A. $883 $883 N.A. N.A. 73 FAIRWAY MANOR N.A. N.A. $758 $758 N.A. N.A. 74 CHAPEL COURT N.A. N.A. $738 $738 N.A. N.A. 75 MCNICHOLS N.A. N.A. $848 $848 N.A. N.A. 76 CREST N.A. N.A. $723 $723 N.A. N.A. 78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE $733 $796 $0.97 $ GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE 1,100 1,100 $933 $933 $0.85 $ SHERWOOD HEIGHTS 918 1,200 $970 $1,135 $0.95 $ STATION 3 LOFTS 900 2,453 $2,112 $2,662 $1.09 $ EIGHT55 1,150 1,214 $2,742 $3,092 $2.38 $2.55 VII-76

304 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON TWO BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA Map UNIT SIZE NET RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS 1,023 1,569 $1,387 $2,637 $1.36 $ METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE $1,537 $1,537 $1.87 $ WAGON WHEEL 1,000 1,000 $1,008 $1,008 $1.01 $ FARNUM $1,339 $1,339 $1.72 $ VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS 950 1,100 $1,567 $1,682 $1.53 $ ROYAL OAK ESTATES 900 1,400 $1,153 $1,453 $1.04 $ ELMSLEIGH 900 1,000 $937 $1,062 $1.04 $ AMBER'S RED RUN 896 1,000 $1,415 $1,415 $1.41 $ ROCHESTER HOUSE $958 $958 $1.06 $ BONNIEVIEW N.A. N.A. $858 $858 N.A. N.A. 99 APPLEWOOD N.A. N.A. $972 $972 N.A. N.A. VII-77

305 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON THREE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 4 STRATFORD VILLA 1,100 1,100 $1,213 $1,213 $1.10 $ CHATEAU RIVIERA 1,800 1,800 $1,435 $1,435 $0.80 $ NORTH PARK TOWERS 2,000 2,000 $1,909 $1,909 $0.95 $ NORTH PARK PLACE 1,600 1,600 $1,237 $1,847 $0.77 $ LEGACY PLACE 1,870 1,870 $1,685 $1,685 $0.90 $ PROVIDENCE PLACE 1,475 1,475 $1,440 $1,440 $0.98 $ CARLYLE TOWER 1,510 1,510 $1,162 $1,178 $0.77 $ SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT 1,600 1,600 $1,808 $1,808 $1.13 $ THE OAKS ON LINCOLN 1,460 1,460 $1,558 $1,558 $1.07 $ OAK PARK MANOR 1,060 1,300 $1,418 $1,608 $1.24 $ ARLINGTON 1,200 1,200 $1,284 $1,284 $1.07 $ COUNTRY CORNER 1,800 1,800 $1,795 $1,795 $1.00 $ WEST 1,433 1,435 $2,507 $2,507 $1.75 $ LANCASTER HILLS 1,800 1,800 $1,476 $1,516 $0.82 $ SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD 2,106 2,106 $1,810 $1,810 $0.86 $ SUTTON PLACE 2,225 2,600 $1,802 $1,992 $0.77 $ ARBOR LOFTS 1,282 1,282 $2,247 $2,307 $1.75 $ KNOB IN THE WOODS 2,200 2,200 $1,595 $1,595 $0.73 $ RENAISSANCE VILLAGE 1,140 1,447 $862 $890 $0.62 $ STATION 3 LOFTS 1,500 1,500 $3,129 $3,129 $2.09 $ AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS $2,401 $2,401 $2.60 $ VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS 1,300 1,300 $1,879 $1,934 $1.45 $1.49 VII-78

306 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON FOUR+ BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 8 LEGACY PLACE 3,425 3,425 $2,336 $2,336 $0.68 $ ARBOR LOFTS 1,601 1,605 $3,018 $3,113 $1.89 $1.94 VII-79

307 VIII. LOCATION MAPS AND PHOTOGRAPHS The following section contains a maps illustrating the locations of the modern apartments identified in the field survey (Section VI and VII), as well as the locations of the condominiums, assisted- and independent-living facilities, lodging facilities, and office facilities surveyed. Following the maps are photographs of selected apartment properties. Apartment photographs may be selected for inclusion due to comparability of the property to the site, the property s proximity to the site, or because the property is representative of area apartments. VIII-1

308 APARTMENT LOCATIONS REFERENCE MAP MAP E MAP A MAP C MAP D MAP B VIII-2

309 APARTMENT LOCATIONS MAP A VIII-3

310 APARTMENT LOCATIONS MAP B VIII-4

311 APARTMENT LOCATIONS MAP C VIII-5

312 APARTMENT LOCATIONS MAP D VIII-6

313 APARTMENT LOCATIONS MAP E VIII-7

314 ASSISTED-LIVING LOCATIONS MAP VIII-8

315 INDEPENDENT-LIVING LOCATIONS MAP VIII-9

316 CONDONIUM LOCATIONS MAP VIII-10

317 LODGING LOCATIONS MAP VIII-11

318 OFFICE LOCATIONS REFERENCE MAP MAP A VIII-12

319 OFFICE LOCATIONS MAP A VIII-13

320 SELECTED APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY ) CHATEAU RIVIERA 6) NORTH PARK TOWERS 7) NORTH PARK PLACE 8) LEGACY PLACE 9) THE ATRIUM 10) PROVIDENCE TOWER VIII-14

321 SELECTED APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY ) PROVIDENCE PLACE 12) CARLYLE TOWER 13) COACH HOUSE 14) SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT 17) HIGHLAND TOWERS 18) THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD VIII-15

322 SELECTED APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY ) COUNTRY COURT 26) CHESTNUT OAKS 27) HIDDEN OAKS 28) TANGLEWOOD 29) CAMBRIDGE SQUARE 30) KENSWICK MANOR VIII-16

323 SELECTED APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY ) 42 WEST 44) FRANKLIN RIVER 45) LAUREL WOODS 46) LANCASTER HILLS 47) TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY 48) CHATSFORD MANOR VIII-17

324 SELECTED APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY ) COLONY PARK 50) RIVER PARK PLACE 51) OAK RIDGE 52) SOUTHFIELD 53) MCDONNEL TOWER 54) WOODCREST VIII-18

325 SELECTED APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY ) PARK LANE 56) MONTICELLO 57) WILLOW TREE 58) SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD 59) SUTTON PLACE 60) EVERGREEN PLACE VIII-19

326 SELECTED APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY ) ARBOR LOFTS 62) KNOB IN THE WOODS 63) CRYSTAL COURT 64) WOODLAND ARMS 66) TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD 67) WELLINGTON PLACE VIII-20

327 SELECTED APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY ) STATION 3 LOFTS 86) EIGHT55 88) AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFT 99) APPLEWOOD VIII-21

328 IX. AREA ECONOMY A. EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS Employment in Oakland County showed a pre-recession high of 598,658 in 2006, then decreased 11.8% to 527,731 in Since then, employment has increased 15.4% to 609,037 in 2016, above the pre-recession high in Unemployment in Oakland County was 5.0% in 2015, below the statewide average of 5.4%. It is significantly below the recession-era high of 13.0% in For more detailed information, see the charts on page IX-2. Major employers in the Southfield area are: EMPLOYER NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES SECTOR St. John Providence Hospital 3,600 Health Care and Social Assistance Lear Corp. 1,450 Manufacturing DENSO 1,100 Manufacturing Blue Care Network 1,000 Health Care and Social Assistance Federal Mogul Corp. 800 Manufacturing Credit Acceptance Corp. 775 Finance and Insurance Comau 725 Manufacturing Metropolitan Life Insurance 675 Finance and Insurance Source: Southfield Economic Profile, City of Southfield, January 2016 Most area residents find employment within Southfield or commute within the greater Detroit area. IX-1

329 EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATES OAKLAND COUNTY, CHIGAN * UNEMPLOYMENT RATES OAKLAND STATE OF YEAR EMPLOYMENT COUNTY CHIGAN US , % 7.0% 4.6% , % 7.0% 4.6% , % 8.0% 5.8% , % 13.7% 9.3% , % 12.6% 9.6% , % 10.4% 8.9% , % 9.1% 8.1% , % 8.8% 7.4% , % 7.3% 6.2% , % 5.4% 5.3% 2016* 609, % 4.9% 5.0% *Through April 2016 Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics IX-2

330 DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT BY CATEGORY OAKLAND COUNTY AND THE SOUTHFIELD APARTMENT EMA, 2016 EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY OAKLAND COUNTY TOTAL EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION Forestry, Fishing, Hunting and Agricultural Support % % Mining % 8 0.0% Utilities 1, % % Construction 31, % 4, % Manufacturing 99, % 8, % Wholesale Trade 36, % 4, % Retail Trade 107, % 14, % Transportation and Warehousing 9, % 1, % Information 19, % 4, % Finance and Insurance 47, % 8, % Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 23, % 4, % Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 84, % 15, % Management of Companies and Enterprises % % Administrative Support, Waste Management, Remediation Services 28, % 7, % Educational Services 45, % 7, % Health Care and Social Assistance 93, % 31, % Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 19, % 2, % Accommodation and Food Services 61, % 10, % Other Services (Except Public Administration) 44, % 8, % Public Administration 26, % 4, % Unclassified Establishments 1, % % Total 782, % 140, % Source: ESRI, Incorporated Employment within the Site Apartment EMA accounts for 17.9% of the total employment within Oakland County. The highest shares of employment in Oakland County are within Retail Trade and Manufacturing (13.7% and 12.8% respectively). Health Care and Social Assistance ranks first in the Southfield EMA (22.5%), while Professional, Scientific and Technical Services is second (11.3%). IX-3

331 The following projects and developments highlight Southfield s recent economic growth and revitalization. In fall 2015, BASF opened a new plastics and coatings lab in Southfield, adding 300 new jobs to its existing campus. Durr Systems, a Germany-based automotive parts manufacturer, made a $40 million investment in Southfield, moving 485 jobs to the city. Hello World, a digital marketing company, relocated to Southfield, making a $6.5 million investment and bringing 350 jobs to the city. In 2015 Southfield completed $34.7 million in road construction projects, more than any other Oakland County community. There are $41.6 million in improvement projects anticipated for In February 2016 the automotive gasket manufacturer Elring/Klinger purchased the former Staples Office Supply warehouse located at Northwestern Highway. After making some improvements to the building, the company plans to relocate its Michigan operations to this new Southfield location. Initially, the building is anticipated to add around 30 new jobs to Southfield initially. Elring/Klinger plans to continue adding jobs at this location over a period of several years. Sources: Southfield State of the City 2016, City of Southfield Planning Commission Minutes, Oakland County One-Fifteen News B. HOUSING STARTS In an analysis of housing starts by building permits in Oakland County, Michigan since 2006, the peak year was 2013 with 2,632 units; 15.1% of these were multifamily units. In 2014, there were 2,235 starts, and there were 2,448 in Housing starts in the city of Southfield accounted for 1.2% of the total Oakland County starts between 2006 and Since 2006, there have been permits issued representing 192 units in Southfield, 27.1% of which have been multifamily units. IX-4

332 HOUSING UNITS AUTHORIZED OAKLAND COUNTY, CHIGAN * YEAR SINGLE- FALY MULTIFALY TOTAL , , , , , , , , , , , , * 2, ,448 *Oakland County reports on an annual basis only. 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, * SINGLE-FALY MULTIFALY The Oakland County building permit system covers the entire county. SOURCES: U.S. Department of Commerce, C-40 Construction Reports Danter Company, LLC IX-5

333 YEAR SINGLE- FALY MULTIFALY TOTAL * *Through May HOUSING UNITS AUTHORIZED * * SINGLE-FALY MULTIFALY SOURCES: U.S. Department of Commerce, C-40 Construction Reports Danter Company, LLC IX-6

334 DEMOGRAPHICS RETAIL SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA APARTMENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA OFFICE SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA CITY OF OAKLAND COUNTY

335 Retail Goods and Services Expenditures D2113 Southfield, Retail EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri Top Tapestry Segments Family Foundations (12A) Comfortable Empty Nesters (5A) Rustbelt Traditions (5D) Modest Income Homes (12D) Old and Newcomers (8F) Percen 31.6% 13.6% 13.5% 8.3% 7.3% Demographic Summary Population Households Families Median Age Median Household ,341 34,471 21, $50, ,401 35,090 21, $56,612 Spending Potential Average Amount Index Spent Total Apparel and Services 81 $1, $56,201,468 Men's 80 $ $11,072,585 Women's 82 $ $19,405,923 Children's 80 $ $8,841,474 Footwear 80 $ $11,838,909 Watches & Jewelry 82 $84.98 $2,929,385 Apparel Products and Services (1) 85 $61.30 $2,113,191 Computer Computers and Hardware for Home Use 82 $ $4,878,995 Portable Memory 84 $3.94 $135,932 Computer Software 86 $11.11 $383,140 Computer Accessories 83 $14.77 $509,252 Entertainment & Recreation 82 $2, $82,307,915 Fees and Admissions 80 $ $15,910,442 Membership Fees for Clubs (2) 80 $ $5,288,984 Fees for Participant Sports, excl. Trips 83 $74.10 $2,554,152 Tickets to Theatre/Operas/Concerts 82 $43.05 $1,483,997 Tickets to Movies/Museums/Parks 79 $52.32 $1,803,598 Admission to Sporting Events, excl. Trips 85 $45.42 $1,565,616 Fees for Recreational Lessons 75 $92.58 $3,191,385 Dating Services 96 $0.66 $22,710 TV/Video/Audio 85 $1, $35,318,037 Cable and Satellite Television Services 86 $ $26,660,912 Televisions 84 $92.49 $3,188,219 Satellite Dishes 79 $1.15 $39,724 VCRs, Video Cameras, and DVD Players 80 $6.49 $223,694 Miscellaneous Video Equipment 94 $7.20 $248,336 Video Cassettes and DVDs 80 $14.72 $507,414 Video Game Hardware/Accessories 83 $21.28 $733,705 Video Game Software 83 $11.42 $393,699 Streaming/Downloaded Video 78 $14.12 $486,781 Rental of Video Cassettes and DVDs 79 $12.90 $444,636 Installation of Televisions 101 $0.93 $32,179 Audio (3) 80 $65.45 $2,255,964 Rental and Repair of TV/Radio/Sound Equipment 76 $2.98 $102,773 Pets 81 $ $14,864,052 Toys/Games/Crafts/Hobbies (4) 81 $92.35 $3,183,471 Recreational Vehicles and Fees (5) 79 $84.48 $2,912,068 Sports/Recreation/Exercise Equipment (6) 71 $ $4,065,846 Photo Equipment and Supplies (7) 82 $45.18 $1,557,449 Reading (8) 84 $ $3,775,412 Catered Affairs (9) 81 $20.92 $721,139 Food 83 $6, $230,485,562 Food at Home 83 $4, $143,226,789 Bakery and Cereal Products 84 $ $19,543,279 Meats, Poultry, Fish, and Eggs 83 $ $31,955,903 Dairy Products 82 $ $15,033,412 Fruits and Vegetables 83 $ $27,326,975 Snacks and Other Food at Home (10) 84 $1, $49,367,220 Food Away from Home 82 $2, $87,258,772 Alcoholic Beverages 82 $ $14,462,902 Data Note: The Spending Potential Index (SPI) is household-based, and represents the amount spent for a product or service relative to a national average of 100. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. This report is not a comprehensive list of all consumer spending variables therefore the variables in each section may not sum to totals. Source: Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021; Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2013 and 2014 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics. August 11, Esri Page 1 of 3

336 Retail Goods and Services Expenditures D2113 Southfield, Retail EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri Spending Potential Average Amount Index Spent Total Financial Value of Stocks/Bonds/Mutual Funds 91 $6, $235,974,593 Value of Retirement Plans 84 $22, $758,981,943 Value of Other Financial Assets 90 $1, $35,021,670 Vehicle Loan Amount excluding Interest 82 $2, $69,185,224 Value of Credit Card Debt 83 $ $16,448,468 Health Nonprescription Drugs 83 $ $3,551,667 Prescription Drugs 87 $ $12,559,993 Eyeglasses and Contact Lenses 83 $74.07 $2,553,363 Home Mortgage Payment and Basics (11) 82 $7, $242,458,039 Maintenance and Remodeling Services 85 $1, $51,283,698 Maintenance and Remodeling Materials (12) 84 $ $10,539,789 Utilities, Fuel, and Public Services 85 $4, $142,988,603 Household Furnishings and Equipment Household Textiles (13) 83 $72.23 $2,489,979 Furniture 84 $ $14,176,253 Rugs 85 $20.64 $711,598 Major Appliances (14) 80 $ $7,786,637 Housewares (15) 84 $70.00 $2,412,834 Small Appliances 82 $38.60 $1,330,521 Luggage 84 $7.73 $266,553 Telephones and Accessories 88 $62.74 $2,162,806 Household Operations Child Care 79 $ $11,565,024 Lawn and Garden (16) 80 $ $11,283,548 Moving/Storage/Freight Express 76 $48.36 $1,666,947 Housekeeping Supplies (17) 84 $ $20,302,045 Insurance Owners and Renters Insurance 87 $ $13,853,769 Vehicle Insurance 84 $ $32,346,032 Life/Other Insurance 83 $ $11,858,769 Health Insurance 85 $2, $99,472,457 Personal Care Products (18) 82 $ $12,255,182 School Books and Supplies (19) 78 $ $4,422,308 Smoking Products 86 $ $12,164,584 Transportation Payments on Vehicles excluding Leases 82 $1, $58,636,304 Gasoline and Motor Oil 83 $2, $87,806,445 Vehicle Maintenance and Repairs 82 $ $29,397,962 Travel Airline Fares 80 $ $12,540,804 Lodging on Trips 82 $ $13,074,494 Auto/Truck Rental on Trips 78 $18.76 $646,609 Food and Drink on Trips 81 $ $12,246,971 Data Note: The Spending Potential Index (SPI) is household-based, and represents the amount spent for a product or service relative to a national average of 100. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. This report is not a comprehensive list of all consumer spending variables therefore the variables in each section may not sum to totals. Source: Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021; Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2013 and 2014 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics. August 11, Esri Page 2 of 3

337 Retail Goods and Services Expenditures D2113 Southfield, Retail EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri (1) Apparel Products and Services includes material for making clothes, sewing patterns and notions, shoe repair and other shoe services, apparel laundry and dry cleaning, alteration, repair and tailoring of apparel, clothing rental and storage, and watch and jewelry repair. (2) Membership Fees for Clubs includes membership fees for social, recreational, and civic clubs. (3) Audio includes satellite radio service, sound components and systems, digital audio players, records, CDs, audio tapes, streaming/downloaded audio, tape recorders, radios, musical instruments and accessories, and rental and repair of musical instruments. (4) Toys and Games includes toys, games, arts and crafts, tricycles, playground equipment, arcade games, and online entertainment and games. (5) Recreational Vehicles & Fees includes docking and landing fees for boats and planes, purchase and rental of RVs or boats, and camp fees. (6) Sports/Recreation/Exercise Equipment includes exercise equipment and gear, game tables, bicycles, camping equipment, hunting and fishing equipment, winter sports equipment, water sports equipment, other sports equipment, and rental/repair of sports/recreation/exercise equipment. (7) Photo Equipment and Supplies includes film, film processing, photographic equipment, rental and repair of photo equipment, and photographer fees. (8) Reading includes digital book readers, books, magazine and newspaper subscriptions, and single copies of magazines and newspapers.. (9) Catered Affairs includes expenses associated with live entertainment and rental of party supplies. (10) Snacks and Other Food at Home includes candy, chewing gum, sugar, artificial sweeteners, jam, jelly, preserves, margarine, fat, oil, salad dressing, nondairy cream and milk, peanut butter, frozen prepared food, potato chips, nuts, salt, spices, seasonings, olives, pickles, relishes, sauces, gravy, other condiments, soup, prepared salad, prepared dessert, baby food, miscellaneous prepared food, and nonalcoholic beverages. (11) Mortgage Payment and Basics includes mortgage interest, mortgage principal, property taxes, homeowners insurance, and ground rent. (12) Maintenance and Remodeling Materials includes supplies/tools/equipment for painting and wallpapering, plumbing supplies and equipment, electrical/heating/ac supplies, materials for hard surface flooring, materials for roofing/gutters, materials for plaster/panel/siding, materials for patio/fence/brick work, landscaping materials, and insulation materials for owned homes. (13) Household Textiles includes bathroom linens, bedroom linens, kitchen linens, dining room linens, other linens, curtains, draperies, slipcovers, decorative pillows, and materials for slipcovers and curtains. (14) Major Appliances includes dishwashers, disposals, refrigerators, freezers, washers, dryers, stoves, ovens, microwaves, window air conditioners, electric floor cleaning equipment, sewing machines, and miscellaneous appliances. (15) Housewares includes plastic dinnerware, china, flatware, glassware, serving pieces, nonelectric cookware, and tableware. (16) Lawn and Garden includes lawn and garden supplies, equipment and care service, indoor plants, fresh flowers, and repair/rental of lawn and garden equipment. (17) Housekeeping Supplies includes soaps and laundry detergents, cleaning products, toilet tissue, paper towels, napkins, paper/plastic/foil products, stationery, giftwrap supplies, postage, and delivery services. (18) Personal Care Products includes hair care products, nonelectric articles for hair, wigs, hairpieces, oral hygiene products, shaving needs, perfume, cosmetics, skincare, bath products, nail products, deodorant, feminine hygiene products, adult diapers, and personal care appliances. (19) School Books and Supplies includes school books and supplies for College, Elementary school, High school, Vocational/Technical School, Preschool/Other Schools, and Other School Supplies. Data Note: The Spending Potential Index (SPI) is household-based, and represents the amount spent for a product or service relative to a national average of 100. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. This report is not a comprehensive list of all consumer spending variables therefore the variables in each section may not sum to totals. Source: Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021; Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2013 and 2014 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics. August 11, Esri Page 3 of 3

338 Retail MarketPlace Profile D2113 Southfield, Retail EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri Summary Demographics 2016 Population 83, Households 34, Median Disposable Income $39, Per Capita Income $26,501 NAICS Demand Supply Retail Gap Leakage/Surplu Number of Industry Summary (Retail Potential) (Retail Sales) Factor Businesses Total Retail Trade and Food & Drink 44- $1,164,032,760 $1,057,351,734 $106,681, Total Retail Trade $1,056,362,629 $939,731,247 $116,631, Total Food & Drink 722 $107,670,131 $117,620,487 -$9,950, NAICS Demand Supply Retail Gap Leakage/Surplu Number of Industry Group (Retail Potential) (Retail Sales) Factor Businesses Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers 441 $236,076,963 $41,414,970 $194,661, Automobile Dealers 4411 $194,497,011 $31,265,390 $163,231, Other Motor Vehicle Dealers 4412 $23,660,228 $1,912,641 $21,747, Auto Parts, Accessories & Tire Stores 4413 $17,919,723 $8,236,939 $9,682, Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores 442 $30,181,798 $45,470,636 -$15,288, Furniture Stores 4421 $19,671,116 $19,878,523 -$207, Home Furnishings Stores 4422 $10,510,681 $25,592,113 -$15,081, Electronics & Appliance Stores 443 $58,270,452 $148,495,060 -$90,224, Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply Stores 444 $48,956,225 $30,310,448 $18,645, Bldg Material & Supplies Dealers 4441 $40,470,476 $28,589,553 $11,880, Lawn & Garden Equip & Supply Stores 4442 $8,485,749 $1,720,895 $6,764, Food & Beverage Stores 445 $196,007,674 $93,989,818 $102,017, Grocery Stores 4451 $172,465,595 $74,788,919 $97,676, Specialty Food Stores 4452 $12,075,616 $5,929,345 $6,146, Beer, Wine & Liquor Stores 4453 $11,466,463 $13,271,554 -$1,805, Health & Personal Care Stores 446,4461 $73,569,873 $131,167,259 -$57,597, Gasoline Stations 447,4471 $72,508,229 $69,456,699 $3,051, Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores 448 $53,823,522 $126,112,585 -$72,289, Clothing Stores 4481 $35,489,387 $62,398,518 -$26,909, Shoe Stores 4482 $7,050,624 $30,652,452 -$23,601, Jewelry, Luggage & Leather Goods Stores 4483 $11,283,512 $33,061,615 -$21,778, Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book & Music Stores 451 $30,414,230 $24,307,934 $6,106, Sporting Goods/Hobby/Musical Instr Stores 4511 $23,977,147 $20,455,071 $3,522, Book, Periodical & Music Stores 4512 $6,437,083 $3,852,863 $2,584, General Merchandise Stores 452 $188,807,244 $144,611,894 $44,195, Department Stores Excluding Leased Depts $136,273,487 $128,736,293 $7,537, Other General Merchandise Stores 4529 $52,533,757 $15,875,601 $36,658, Miscellaneous Store Retailers 453 $48,228,826 $36,669,411 $11,559, Florists 4531 $2,122,976 $1,207,611 $915, Office Supplies, Stationery & Gift Stores 4532 $9,429,020 $9,170,493 $258, Used Merchandise Stores 4533 $5,573,698 $5,500,509 $73, Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers 4539 $31,103,132 $20,790,799 $10,312, Nonstore Retailers 454 $19,517,593 $47,724,532 -$28,206, Electronic Shopping & Mail-Order Houses 4541 $15,435,589 $45,195,796 -$29,760, Vending Machine Operators 4542 $828,304 $384,090 $444, Direct Selling Establishments 4543 $3,253,700 $2,144,646 $1,109, Food Services & Drinking Places 722 $107,670,131 $117,620,487 -$9,950, Full-Service Restaurants 7221 $54,903,164 $53,143,919 $1,759, Limited-Service Eating Places 7222 $43,960,570 $56,412,139 -$12,451, Special Food Services 7223 $2,567,000 $5,331,774 -$2,764, Drinking Places - Alcoholic Beverages 7224 $6,239,397 $2,732,655 $3,506, Data Note: Supply (retail sales) estimates sales to consumers by establishments. Sales to businesses are excluded. Demand (retail potential) estimates the expected amount spent by consumers at retail establishments. Supply and demand estimates are in current dollars. The Leakage/Surplus Factor presents a snapshot of retail opportunity. This is a measure of the relationship between supply and demand that ranges from +100 (total leakage) to -100 (total surplus). A positive value represents 'leakage' of retail opportunity outside the trade area. A negative value represents a surplus of retail sales, a market where customers are drawn in from outside the trade area. The Retail Gap represents the difference between Retail Potential and Retail Sales. Esri uses the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to classify businesses by their primary type of economic activity. Retail establishments are classified into 27 industry groups in the Retail Trade sector, as well as four industry groups within the Food Services & Drinking Establishments subsector. For more information on the Retail MarketPlace data, please click the link below to view the Methodology Statement. Source: Esri and Infogroup. Retail MarketPlace 2016 Release 1 (2015 data in 2016 geography) Copyright 2016 Infogroup, Inc. All rights reserved. August 11, Esri Page 1 of 2

339 Retail MarketPlace Profile D2113 Southfield, Retail EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri Leakage/Surplus Factor by Industry Subsector Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores Electronics & Appliance Stores Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply Stores Food & Beverage Stores Health & Personal Care Stores Gasoline Stations Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores General Merchandise Stores Miscellaneous Store Retailers Nonstore Retailers Food Services & Drinking Places Leakage/Surplus Factor Leakage/Surplus Factor by Industry Group Automobile Dealers Other Motor Vehicle Dealers Auto Parts, Accessories, and Tire Stores Furniture Stores Home Furnishings Stores Electronics & Appliance Stores Building Material and Supplies Dealers Lawn and Garden Equipment and Supplies Stores Grocery Stores Specialty Food Stores Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores Health & Personal Care Stores Gasoline Stations Clothing Stores Shoe Stores Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores Book, Periodical, and Music Stores Department Stores (Excluding Leased Depts.) Other General Merchandise Stores Florists Office Supplies, Stationery, and Gift Stores Used Merchandise Stores Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses Vending Machine Operators Direct Selling Establishments Full-Service Restaurants Limited-Service Eating Places Special Food Services Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages) Source: Esri and Infogroup. Retail MarketPlace 2016 Release (2015 data -40 in 2016 geography) -20 Copyright Infogroup, 20 Inc. All rights 40 reserved. Leakage/Surplus Factor August 11, Esri Page 2 of 2

340 2010 Census Profile D2113 Southfield, Apt. EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri Annual Rate Population 264, , % Households 108, , % Housing Units 113, , % Population by Race Number Percent Total 236, % Population Reporting One Race 231, % White 111, % Black 114, % American Indian % Asian 3, % Pacific Islander % Some Other Race % Population Reporting Two or More Races 5, % Total Hispanic Population 3, % Population by Sex Male 110, % Female 125, % Population by Age Total 236, % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age 85+ 5, % Age , % Age , % Data Note: Hispanic population can be of any race. Census 2010 medians are computed from reported data distributions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. July 14, Esri Page 1 of 4

341 2010 Census Profile D2113 Southfield, Apt. EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri Households by Type Total 102, % Households with 1 Person 35, % Households with 2+ People 66, % Family Households 59, % Husband-wife Families 35, % With Own Children 13, % Other Family (No Spouse Present) 23, % With Own Children 10, % Nonfamily Households 7, % All Households with Children 27, % Multigenerational Households 4, % Unmarried Partner Households 6, % Male-female 5, % Same-sex 1, % Average Household Size 2.29 Family Households by Size Total 59, % 2 People 26, % 3 People 14, % 4 People 10, % 5 People 4, % 6 People 1, % 7+ People 1, % Average Family Size 3.01 Nonfamily Households by Size Total 43, % 1 Person 35, % 2 People 6, % 3 People % 4 People % 5 People % 6 People % 7+ People % Average Nonfamily Size 1.21 Population by Relationship and Household Type Total 236, % In Households 234, % In Family Households 182, % Householder 59, % Spouse 35, % Child 73, % Other relative 9, % Nonrelative 4, % In Nonfamily Households 51, % In Group Quarters 2, % Institutionalized Population % Noninstitutionalized Population 1, % Data Note: Households with children include any households with people under age 18, related or not. Multigenerational households are families with 3 or more parent-child relationships. Unmarried partner households are usually classified as nonfamily households unless there is another member of the household related to the householder. Multigenerational and unmarried partner households are reported only to the tract level. Esri estimated block group data, which is used to estimate polygons or non-standard geography. Average family size excludes nonrelatives. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, Esri Page 2 of 4

342 2010 Census Profile D2113 Southfield, Apt. EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri Family Households by Age of Householder Total 59, % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age 75+ 5, % Nonfamily Households by Age of Householder Total 43, % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age 75+ 6, % Households by Race of Householder Total 102, % Householder is White Alone 51, % Householder is Black Alone 46, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone 1, % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone % Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races 1, % Households with Hispanic Householder 1, % Husband-wife Families by Race of Householder Total 35, % Householder is White Alone 21, % Householder is Black Alone 13, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 9 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Husband-wife Families with Hispanic Householder % Other Families (No Spouse) by Race of Householder Total 23, % Householder is White Alone 6, % Householder is Black Alone 16, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone % Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Other Families with Hispanic Householder % Nonfamily Households by Race of Householder Total 43, % Householder is White Alone 24, % Householder is Black Alone 17, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone % Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Nonfamily Households with Hispanic Householder % Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, Esri Page 3 of 4

343 2010 Census Profile D2113 Southfield, Apt. EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri Total Housing Units by Occupancy Total 113, % Occupied Housing Units 102, % Vacant Housing Units For Rent 4, % Rented, not Occupied % For Sale Only 1, % Sold, not Occupied % For Seasonal/Recreational/Occasional Use % For Migrant Workers 0 0.0% Other Vacant 4, % Total Vacancy Rate 9.7% Households by Tenure and Mortgage Status Total 102, % Owner Occupied 66, % Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 49, % Owned Free and Clear 17, % Average Household Size 2.38 Renter Occupied 35, % Average Household Size 2.14 Owner-occupied Housing Units by Race of Householder Total 66, % Householder is White Alone 38, % Householder is Black Alone 26, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone % Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Owner-occupied Housing Units with Hispanic Householder % Renter-occupied Housing Units by Race of Householder Total 35, % Householder is White Alone 13, % Householder is Black Alone 20, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone % Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Renter-occupied Housing Units with Hispanic Householder % Average Household Size by Race/Hispanic Origin of Householder Householder is White Alone 2.17 Householder is Black Alone 2.43 Householder is American Indian Alone 2.32 Householder is Asian Alone 2.37 Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 2.26 Householder is Some Other Race Alone 2.43 Householder is Two or More Races 2.48 Householder is Hispanic 2.35 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, Esri Page 4 of 4

344 Business Summary D2113 Southfield, Apt. EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri Data for all businesses in area Total Businesses: 12,075 Total Employees: 140,382 Total Residential Population: 236,639 Employee/Residential Population Ratio: 0.59:1 Businesses Employees by SIC Codes Number Percent Number Percent Agriculture & Mining % 1, % Construction % 3, % Manufacturing % 8, % Transportation % 1, % Communication % 2, % Utility % % Wholesale Trade % 5, % Retail Trade Summary 2, % 25, % Home Improvement % 1, % General Merchandise Stores % % Food Stores % 2, % Auto Dealers, Gas Stations, Auto Aftermarket % 2, % Apparel & Accessory Stores % 1, % Furniture & Home Furnishings % 3, % Eating & Drinking Places % 9, % Miscellaneous Retail % 3, % Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Summary 1, % 12, % Banks, Savings & Lending Institutions % 3, % Securities Brokers % 1, % Insurance Carriers & Agents % 3, % Real Estate, Holding, Other Investment Offices % 4, % Services Summary 5, % 75, % Hotels & Lodging % % Automotive Services % 2, % Motion Pictures & Amusements % 2, % Health Services 1, % 27, % Legal Services % 3, % Education Institutions & Libraries % 7, % Other Services 3, % 30, % Government % 4, % Unclassified Establishments % % Totals 12, % 140, % Source: Copyright 2016 Infogroup, Inc. All rights reserved. Esri Total Residential Population forecasts for July 14, Esri Page 1 of 2

345 Business Summary D2113 Southfield, Apt. EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri Businesses Employees by NAICS Codes Number Percent Number Percent Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 6 0.0% % Mining 2 0.0% 8 0.0% Utilities 9 0.1% % Construction % 4, % Manufacturing % 8, % Wholesale Trade % 4, % Retail Trade 1, % 14, % Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers % 2, % Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores % % Electronics & Appliance Stores % 2, % Bldg Material & Garden Equipment & Supplies Dealers % 1, % Food & Beverage Stores % 2, % Health & Personal Care Stores % 1, % Gasoline Stations % % Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores % 1, % Sport Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores % % General Merchandise Stores % % Miscellaneous Store Retailers % 1, % Nonstore Retailers % % Transportation & Warehousing % 1, % Information % 4, % Finance & Insurance % 8, % Central Bank/Credit Intermediation & Related Activities % 2, % Securities, Commodity Contracts & Other Financial % 1, % Insurance Carriers & Related Activities; Funds, Trusts & % 3, % Real Estate, Rental & Leasing % 4, % Professional, Scientific & Tech Services 1, % 15, % Legal Services % 3, % Management of Companies & Enterprises % % Administrative & Support & Waste Management & % 7, % Educational Services % 7, % Health Care & Social Assistance 1, % 31, % Arts, Entertainment & Recreation % 2, % Accommodation & Food Services % 10, % Accommodation % % Food Services & Drinking Places % 9, % Other Services (except Public Administration) 1, % 8, % Automotive Repair & Maintenance % 2, % Public Administration % 4, % Unclassified Establishments Total Source: Copyright 2016 Infogroup, Inc. All rights reserved. Esri Total Residential Population forecasts for , % % 100.0% 140, % July 14, Esri Page 2 of 2

346 Demographic and Income Profile D2113 Southfield, Apt. EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri Summary Census Population 236, , ,629 Households 102, , ,958 Families 59,079 58,650 59,115 Average Household Size Owner Occupied Housing Units 66,782 66,196 67,168 Renter Occupied Housing Units 35,373 36,975 37,790 Median Age Trends: Annual Rate Area State National Population 0.25% 0.23% 0.84% Households 0.34% 0.28% 0.79% Families 0.16% 0.16% 0.72% Owner HHs 0.29% 0.27% 0.73% Median Household Income 2.45% 2.26% 1.86% Households by Income Number Percent Number <$15,000 13, % 12,927 $15,000 - $24,999 10, % 10,264 $25,000 - $34,999 11, % 11,679 $35,000 - $49,999 13, % 7,945 $50,000 - $74,999 18, % 19,845 $75,000 - $99,999 13, % 14,944 $100,000 - $149,999 13, % 17,014 $150,000 - $199,999 4, % 6,172 $200,000+ 3, % 4,167 Percent 12.3% 9.8% 11.1% 7.6% 18.9% 14.2% 16.2% 5.9% 4.0% Median Household Income $52,946 $59,750 Average Household Income $70,405 $77,870 Per Capita Income $30,906 $34,313 Census Population by Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent , % 12, % 12, % , % 12, % 12, % , % 13, % 13, % , % 13, % 13, % , % 14, % 13, % , % 33, % 34, % , % 31, % 31, % , % 31, % 30, % , % 33, % 32, % , % 22, % 26, % , % 10, % 13, % 85+ 5, % 5, % 5, % Census Race and Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White Alone 111, % 108, % 107, % Black Alone 114, % 116, % 119, % American Indian Alone % % % Asian Alone 3, % 3, % 4, % Pacific Islander Alone % % % Some Other Race Alone % % 1, % Two or More Races 5, % 6, % 6, % Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 3, % 4, % 4, % Data Note: Income is expressed in current dollars. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and July 14, Esri Page 1 of 2

347 Demographic and Income Profile D2113 Southfield, Apt. EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri Trends Annual Rate (in percent) Population Households Families Owner HHs Median HH Income Area State USA Population by Age Percent Household Income 2016 Population by Race $35K - $49K 13.1% $50K - $74K 18.2% $25K - $34K 10.7% $15K - $24K 10.4% <$15K 12.8% $200K+ 3.6% $150K - $199K 4.7% Percent $75K - $99K 13.0% $100K - $149K 13.6% 5 0 White Black Am. Ind. Asian Pacific Other Two Percent Hispanic Origin: 1.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and July 14, Esri Page 2 of 2

348 Household Income Profile D2113 Southfield, Apt. EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri Summary Change Annual Rate Population 236, ,629 2, % Households 103, ,958 1, % Median Age % Average Household Size % Households by Income Number Percent Number Percent Household Income <$15,000 Base 103,171 13, % 12.8% 104,958 12, % 12.3% $15,000-$24,999 10, % 10, % $25,000-$34,999 11, % 11, % $35,000-$49,999 13, % 7, % $50,000-$74,999 18, % 19, % $75,000-$99,999 13, % 14, % $100,000-$149,999 13, % 17, % $150,000-$199,999 4, % 6, % $200,000+ 3, % 4, % Median Household Income $52,946 $59,750 Average Household Income $70,405 $77,870 Per Capita Income $30,906 $34,313 Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. July 14, Esri Page 1 of 3

349 Household Income Profile D2113 Southfield, Apt. EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri 2016 Households by Income and Age of Householder < HH Income Base 2,637 15,731 18,002 18,438 20,893 15,451 12,019 Median HH Income $31,453 $54,316 $62,839 $67,532 $59,749 $43,742 $29,070 Average HH $41,257 $66,373 $79,174 $85,676 $77,963 $62,100 $43,051 Income Percent Distribution < HH Income Base 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% <$15, ,822 1,793 1,892 2,753 1,854 2,482 $15,000-$24, ,303 1,283 1,231 1,742 2,058 2,634 $25,000-$34, ,666 1,679 1,500 1,803 2,133 1,836 $35,000-$49, ,265 2,260 1,954 2,229 2,540 1,862 $50,000-$74, ,309 3,274 3,418 3,942 2,877 1,545 $75,000-$99, ,232 2,748 2,869 3,077 1, $100, ,214 3,227 3,252 3,137 1, $149,999 $150, ,264 1, $199,999 $200, , <$15, % 11.6% 10.0% 10.3% 13.2% 12.0% 20.7% $15,000-$24, % 8.3% 7.1% 6.7% 8.3% 13.3% 21.9% $25,000-$34, % 10.6% 9.3% 8.1% 8.6% 13.8% 15.3% $35,000-$49, % 14.4% 12.6% 10.6% 10.7% 16.4% 15.5% $50,000-$74, % 21.0% 18.2% 18.5% 18.9% 18.6% 12.9% $75,000-$99, % 14.2% 15.3% 15.6% 14.7% 10.0% 6.2% $100, % 14.1% 17.9% 17.6% 15.0% 9.4% 4.8% $149,999 $150, % 4.1% 5.4% 6.9% 5.8% 3.5% 1.8% $199,999 $200, % 1.8% 4.2% 5.7% 4.7% 2.9% 1.1% Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. July 14, Esri Page 2 of 3

350 Household Income Profile D2113 Southfield, Apt. EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri 2021 Households by Income and Age of Householder < HH Income Base 2,368 15,848 17,804 17,602 20,175 17,886 13,275 Median HH Income $30,608 $60,745 $74,723 $78,005 $69,096 $51,369 $29,217 Average HH $43,986 $73,504 $88,457 $95,656 $86,919 $69,534 $48,823 Income Percent Distribution < HH Income Base 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% <$15, ,828 1,657 1,675 2,391 2,141 2,688 $15,000-$24, ,198 1, ,527 2,215 2,865 $25,000-$34, ,739 1,665 1,375 1,756 2,591 2,153 $35,000-$49, ,327 1,162 1,050 1,222 1,694 1,245 $50,000-$74, ,430 3,348 3,241 3,871 3,629 1,889 $75,000-$99, ,503 3,011 2,977 3,200 2, $100, ,674 3,816 3,648 3,692 2, $149,999 $150, ,199 1,527 1, $199,999 $200, ,126 1, <$15, % 11.5% 9.3% 9.5% 11.9% 12.0% 20.2% $15,000-$24, % 7.6% 6.2% 5.6% 7.6% 12.4% 21.6% $25,000-$34, % 11.0% 9.4% 7.8% 8.7% 14.5% 16.2% $35,000-$49, % 8.4% 6.5% 6.0% 6.1% 9.5% 9.4% $50,000-$74, % 21.6% 18.8% 18.4% 19.2% 20.3% 14.2% $75,000-$99, % 15.8% 16.9% 16.9% 15.9% 11.6% 7.5% $100, % 16.9% 21.4% 20.7% 18.3% 12.0% 6.8% $149,999 $150, % 5.2% 6.7% 8.7% 7.2% 4.4% 2.6% $199,999 $200, % 2.1% 4.8% 6.4% 5.2% 3.4% 1.4% Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. July 14, Esri Page 3 of 3

351 Housing Profile D2113 Southfield, Apt. EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri Population Households 2010 Total Population 236, Median Household Income $52, Total Population 236, Median Household Income $59, Total Population 239, Annual Rate 2.45% Annual Rate 0.25% Census Housing Units by Occupancy Status and Tenure Number Percent Number Percent Number Total Housing Units 113, % 114, % 117,616 Occupied 102, % 103, % 104,958 Owner 66, % 66, % 67,168 Renter 35, % 36, % 37,790 Vacant 10, % 11, % 12,658 Percent 100.0% 89.2% 57.1% 32.1% 10.8% Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Number Percent Number Total 66, % 67,157 <$50,000 9, % 6,728 $50,000-$99,999 14, % 11,835 $100,000-$149,999 13, % 9,991 $150,000-$199,999 11, % 16,030 $200,000-$249,999 6, % 10,857 $250,000-$299,999 3, % 4,656 $300,000-$399,999 3, % 3,632 $400,000-$499,999 1, % 1,735 $500,000-$749,999 1, % 1,279 $750,000-$999, % 271 $1,000, % 143 Percent 100.0% 10.0% 17.6% 14.9% 23.9% 16.2% 6.9% 5.4% 2.6% 1.9% 0.4% 0.2% Median Value $131,842 $165,672 Average Value $158,616 $180,180 Census 2010 Housing Units Number Percent Total 113, % In Urbanized Areas 113, % In Urban Clusters 0 0.0% Rural Housing Units 0 0.0% Data Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, Esri Page 1 of 2

352 Housing Profile D2113 Southfield, Apt. EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri Census 2010 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Mortgage Status Number Percent Total 66, % Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 49, % Owned Free and Clear 17, % Census 2010 Vacant Housing Units by Status Number Percent Total 10, % For Rent 4, % Rented- Not Occupied % For Sale Only 1, % Sold - Not Occupied % Seasonal/Recreational/Occasional Use % For Migrant Workers 0 0.0% Other Vacant 4, % Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Age of Householder and Home Ownership Owner Occupied Units Occupied Number % of Occupied Total 102,154 66, % , % ,375 7, % ,932 11, % ,991 14, % ,143 15, % ,637 8, % ,087 5, % 85+ 4,113 2, % Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Race/Ethnicity of Householder and Home Ownership Owner Occupied Units Occupied Number % of Occupied Total 102,155 66, % White Alone 51,923 38, % Black/African American 46,804 26, % American % Asian Alone 1, % Pacific Islander Alone % Other Race Alone % Two or More Races 1, % Hispanic Origin 1, % Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Size and Home Ownership Total 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person 6-Person 7+ Person Owner Occupied Units Occupied Number % of Occupied 102,157 66, % 35,770 20, % 32,264 22, % 15,607 10, % 10,748 7, % 4,667 3, % 1,827 1, % 1, % Data Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, Esri Page 2 of 2

353 Site Map D2113 Southfield, Apt. EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri July 14, Esri Page 1 of 1

354 Business Summary D2113 Southfield, Office EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri Data for all businesses in area Total Businesses: 6,739 Total Employees: 92,723 Total Residential Population: 96,261 Employee/Residential Population Ratio: 0.96:1 Businesses Employees by SIC Codes Number Percent Number Percent Agriculture & Mining % 1, % Construction % 2, % Manufacturing % 8, % Transportation % 1, % Communication % 2, % Utility % % Wholesale Trade % 4, % Retail Trade Summary 1, % 12, % Home Improvement % % General Merchandise Stores % % Food Stores % % Auto Dealers, Gas Stations, Auto Aftermarket % 1, % Apparel & Accessory Stores % % Furniture & Home Furnishings % 2, % Eating & Drinking Places % 3, % Miscellaneous Retail % 2, % Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Summary % 13, % Banks, Savings & Lending Institutions % 3, % Securities Brokers % 1, % Insurance Carriers & Agents % 5, % Real Estate, Holding, Other Investment Offices % 3, % Services Summary 3, % 42, % Hotels & Lodging % % Automotive Services % 1, % Motion Pictures & Amusements % 1, % Health Services % 7, % Legal Services % 3, % Education Institutions & Libraries % 4, % Other Services 1, % 22, % Government % 3, % Unclassified Establishments % % Totals 6, % 92, % Source: Copyright 2016 Infogroup, Inc. All rights reserved. Esri Total Residential Population forecasts for August 11, Esri Page 1 of 2

355 Business Summary D2113 Southfield, Office EMA Area: square miles Prepared by Esri Businesses Employees by NAICS Codes Number Percent Number Percent Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 4 0.1% 9 0.0% Mining 1 0.0% 2 0.0% Utilities 4 0.1% % Construction % 2, % Manufacturing % 8, % Wholesale Trade % 4, % Retail Trade % 9, % Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers % 1, % Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores % % Electronics & Appliance Stores % 2, % Bldg Material & Garden Equipment & Supplies Dealers % % Food & Beverage Stores % % Health & Personal Care Stores % % Gasoline Stations % % Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores % % Sport Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores % % General Merchandise Stores % % Miscellaneous Store Retailers % % Nonstore Retailers % % Transportation & Warehousing % % Information % 3, % Finance & Insurance % 10, % Central Bank/Credit Intermediation & Related Activities % 2, % Securities, Commodity Contracts & Other Financial % 2, % Insurance Carriers & Related Activities; Funds, Trusts & % 5, % Real Estate, Rental & Leasing % 3, % Professional, Scientific & Tech Services 1, % 13, % Legal Services % 3, % Management of Companies & Enterprises 8 0.1% % Administrative & Support & Waste Management & % 5, % Educational Services % 4, % Health Care & Social Assistance % 10, % Arts, Entertainment & Recreation % 1, % Accommodation & Food Services % 4, % Accommodation % % Food Services & Drinking Places % 3, % Other Services (except Public Administration) % 5, % Automotive Repair & Maintenance % 1, % Public Administration % 3, % Unclassified Establishments Total Source: Copyright 2016 Infogroup, Inc. All rights reserved. Esri Total Residential Population forecasts for , % % 100.0% 92, % August 11, Esri Page 2 of 2

356 2010 Census Profile Southfield City, Geography: Place Prepared by Esri Annual Rate Population 78,296 71, % Households 33,986 31, % Housing Units 35,698 35, % Population by Race Number Percent Total 71, % Population Reporting One Race 70, % White 17, % Black 50, % American Indian % Asian 1, % Pacific Islander % Some Other Race % Population Reporting Two or More Races 1, % Total Hispanic Population % Population by Sex Male 32, % Female 39, % Population by Age Total 71, % Age 0-4 3, % Age 5-9 3, % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age 85+ 2, % Age , % Age , % Data Note: Hispanic population can be of any race. Census 2010 medians are computed from reported data distributions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. July 14, Esri Page 1 of 4

357 2010 Census Profile Southfield City, Geography: Place Prepared by Esri Households by Type Total 31, % Households with 1 Person 12, % Households with 2+ People 19, % Family Households 18, % Husband-wife Families 10, % With Own Children 3, % Other Family (No Spouse Present) 7, % With Own Children 3, % Nonfamily Households 1, % All Households with Children 8, % Multigenerational Households 1, % Unmarried Partner Households 1, % Male-female 1, % Same-sex % Average Household Size 2.22 Family Households by Size Total 18, % 2 People 8, % 3 People 4, % 4 People 2, % 5 People 1, % 6 People % 7+ People % Average Family Size 2.96 Nonfamily Households by Size Total 13, % 1 Person 12, % 2 People 1, % 3 People % 4 People % 5 People % 6 People % 7+ People 3 0.0% Average Nonfamily Size 1.15 Population by Relationship and Household Type Total 71, % In Households 70, % In Family Households 54, % Householder 18, % Spouse 10, % Child 21, % Other relative 3, % Nonrelative 1, % In Nonfamily Households 15, % In Group Quarters 1, % Institutionalized Population % Noninstitutionalized Population % Data Note: Households with children include any households with people under age 18, related or not. Multigenerational households are families with 3 or more parent-child relationships. Unmarried partner households are usually classified as nonfamily households unless there is another member of the household related to the householder. Multigenerational and unmarried partner households are reported only to the tract level. Esri estimated block group data, which is used to estimate polygons or non-standard geography. Average family size excludes nonrelatives. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, Esri Page 2 of 4

358 2010 Census Profile Southfield City, Geography: Place Prepared by Esri Family Households by Age of Householder Total 18, % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age 75+ 1, % Nonfamily Households by Age of Householder Total 13, % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age 75+ 2, % Households by Race of Householder Total 31, % Householder is White Alone 8, % Householder is Black Alone 22, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 9 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Households with Hispanic Householder % Husband-wife Families by Race of Householder Total 10, % Householder is White Alone 3, % Householder is Black Alone 6, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 3 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Husband-wife Families with Hispanic Householder % Other Families (No Spouse) by Race of Householder Total 7, % Householder is White Alone 1, % Householder is Black Alone 6, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 5 0.1% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Other Families with Hispanic Householder % Nonfamily Households by Race of Householder Total 13, % Householder is White Alone 4, % Householder is Black Alone 8, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 1 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Nonfamily Households with Hispanic Householder % Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, Esri Page 3 of 4

359 2010 Census Profile Southfield City, Geography: Place Prepared by Esri Total Housing Units by Occupancy Total 35, % Occupied Housing Units 31, % Vacant Housing Units For Rent 2, % Rented, not Occupied % For Sale Only % Sold, not Occupied % For Seasonal/Recreational/Occasional Use % For Migrant Workers 0 0.0% Other Vacant 1, % Total Vacancy Rate 11.7% Households by Tenure and Mortgage Status Total 31, % Owner Occupied 17, % Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 13, % Owned Free and Clear 3, % Average Household Size 2.44 Renter Occupied 14, % Average Household Size 1.96 Owner-occupied Housing Units by Race of Householder Total 17, % Householder is White Alone 5, % Householder is Black Alone 10, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 1 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Owner-occupied Housing Units with Hispanic Householder % Renter-occupied Housing Units by Race of Householder Total 14, % Householder is White Alone 2, % Householder is Black Alone 11, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 8 0.1% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Renter-occupied Housing Units with Hispanic Householder % Average Household Size by Race/Hispanic Origin of Householder Householder is White Alone 2.05 Householder is Black Alone 2.28 Householder is American Indian Alone 2.05 Householder is Asian Alone 2.47 Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 2.67 Householder is Some Other Race Alone 2.45 Householder is Two or More Races 2.33 Householder is Hispanic 2.52 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, Esri Page 4 of 4

360 Demographic and Income Profile Southfield City, Geography: Place Prepared by Esri Summary Census Population 71,739 73,556 75,829 Households 31,778 32,829 33,988 Families 18,178 18,403 18,852 Average Household Size Owner Occupied Housing Units 17,060 17,125 17,619 Renter Occupied Housing Units 14,718 15,704 16,369 Median Age Trends: Annual Rate Area State National Population 0.61% 0.23% 0.84% Households 0.70% 0.28% 0.79% Families 0.48% 0.16% 0.72% Owner HHs 0.57% 0.27% 0.73% Median Household Income 2.16% 2.26% 1.86% Households by Income Number Percent Number <$15,000 3, % 4,074 $15,000 - $24,999 3, % 3,411 $25,000 - $34,999 4, % 4,306 $35,000 - $49,999 4, % 2,709 $50,000 - $74,999 6, % 6,712 $75,000 - $99,999 4, % 4,888 $100,000 - $149,999 4, % 4,917 $150,000 - $199,999 1, % 1,907 $200, % 1,064 Percent 12.0% 10.0% 12.7% 8.0% 19.7% 14.4% 14.5% 5.6% 3.1% Median Household Income $51,256 $57,027 Average Household Income $66,594 $73,065 Per Capita Income $30,171 $33,185 Census Population by Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0-4 3, % 3, % 3, % 5-9 3, % 3, % 3, % , % 4, % 3, % , % 4, % 4, % , % 4, % 4, % , % 8, % 9, % , % 8, % 8, % , % 9, % 9, % , % 11, % 10, % , % 8, % 9, % , % 4, % 4, % 85+ 2, % 2, % 2, % Census Race and Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White Alone 17, % 16, % 14, % Black Alone 50, % 53, % 57, % American Indian Alone % % % Asian Alone 1, % 1, % 1, % Pacific Islander Alone % % % Some Other Race Alone % % % Two or More Races 1, % 1, % 1, % Hispanic Origin (Any Race) % 1, % 1, % Data Note: Income is expressed in current dollars. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and July 14, Esri Page 1 of 2

361 Demographic and Income Profile Southfield City, Geography: Place Prepared by Esri Trends Annual Rate (in percent) Population Households Families Owner HHs Median HH Income Area State USA Population by Age Percent Household Income $35K - $49K 13.6% $25K - $34K 12.5% $15K - $24K 10.4% <$15K 12.1% 2016 Population by Race $200K+ 2.8% Percent $50K - $74K 18.7% $75K - $99K 13.0% $150K - $199K 4.6% $100K - $149K 12.3% White Black Am. Ind. Asian Pacific Other Two Percent Hispanic Origin: 1.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and July 14, Esri Page 2 of 2

362 Household Income Profile Southfield City, Geography: Place Prepared by Esri Summary Change Annual Rate Population 73,556 75,829 2, % Households 32,829 33,988 1, % Median Age % Average Household Size % Households by Income Number Percent Number Percent Household Income <$15,000 Base 32,829 3, % 12.1% 33,988 4, % 12.0% $15,000-$24,999 3, % 3, % $25,000-$34,999 4, % 4, % $35,000-$49,999 4, % 2, % $50,000-$74,999 6, % 6, % $75,000-$99,999 4, % 4, % $100,000-$149,999 4, % 4, % $150,000-$199,999 1, % 1, % $200, % 1, % Median Household Income $51,256 $57,027 Average Household Income $66,594 $73,065 Per Capita Income $30,171 $33,185 Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. July 14, Esri Page 1 of 3

363 Household Income Profile Southfield City, Geography: Place Prepared by Esri 2016 Households by Income and Age of Householder < HH Income Base 835 4,142 5,107 5,723 7,072 5,482 4,468 Median HH Income $28,682 $50,683 $59,571 $66,139 $60,068 $44,569 $29,362 Average HH $37,273 $61,205 $75,013 $81,886 $74,967 $60,665 $41,883 Income Percent Distribution < HH Income Base 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% <$15, $15,000-$24, $25,000-$34, $35,000-$49, $50,000-$74, ,110 1,378 1, $75,000-$99, , $100, , $149,999 $150, $199,999 $200, <$15, % 11.3% 8.9% 8.6% 11.9% 11.0% 21.2% $15,000-$24, % 9.7% 7.2% 6.4% 7.4% 12.7% 19.9% $25,000-$34, % 12.7% 10.9% 9.6% 10.0% 15.3% 17.1% $35,000-$49, % 15.5% 13.6% 11.3% 10.9% 15.4% 16.3% $50,000-$74, % 21.8% 19.4% 19.4% 19.5% 19.2% 12.8% $75,000-$99, % 13.5% 15.4% 16.0% 15.9% 10.6% 5.8% $100, % 10.8% 15.8% 17.2% 14.7% 9.9% 3.9% $149,999 $150, % 3.5% 5.0% 6.8% 6.0% 3.6% 2.1% $199,999 $200, % 1.3% 3.6% 4.7% 3.6% 2.3% 0.9% Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. July 14, Esri Page 2 of 3

364 Household Income Profile Southfield City, Geography: Place Prepared by Esri 2021 Households by Income and Age of Householder < HH Income Base 822 4,463 4,953 5,484 6,769 6,470 5,027 Median HH Income $26,680 $56,096 $69,608 $76,548 $69,203 $51,695 $29,416 Average HH $37,189 $67,143 $83,730 $91,505 $83,729 $67,158 $46,808 Income Percent Distribution < HH Income Base 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% <$15, ,058 $15,000-$24, $25,000-$34, , $35,000-$49, $50,000-$74, ,048 1,010 1,084 1,360 1, $75,000-$99, , $100, ,099 1, $149,999 $150, $199,999 $200, <$15, % 11.4% 8.6% 8.0% 10.7% 11.0% 21.0% $15,000-$24, % 9.4% 6.6% 5.4% 6.7% 11.8% 19.5% $25,000-$34, % 12.5% 10.4% 9.1% 9.7% 15.8% 17.9% $35,000-$49, % 8.7% 7.2% 6.3% 6.3% 9.2% 10.4% $50,000-$74, % 23.5% 20.4% 19.8% 20.1% 20.6% 14.5% $75,000-$99, % 15.7% 17.5% 17.5% 17.1% 12.3% 7.2% $100, % 13.1% 19.0% 20.0% 18.0% 12.2% 5.3% $149,999 $150, % 4.2% 6.2% 8.6% 7.4% 4.4% 3.0% $199,999 $200, % 1.4% 4.1% 5.3% 4.1% 2.6% 1.1% Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. July 14, Esri Page 3 of 3

365 Housing Profile Southfield City, Geography: Place Prepared by Esri Population Households 2010 Total Population 71, Median Household Income $51, Total Population 73, Median Household Income $57, Total Population 75, Annual Rate 2.16% Annual Rate 0.61% Census Housing Units by Occupancy Status and Tenure Number Percent Number Percent Number Total Housing Units 35, % 37, % 38,147 Occupied 31, % 32, % 33,988 Owner 17, % 17, % 17,619 Renter 14, % 15, % 16,369 Vacant 4, % 4, % 4,159 Percent 100.0% 89.1% 46.2% 42.9% 10.9% Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Number Percent Number Total 17, % 17,595 <$50,000 1, % 1,055 $50,000-$99,999 4, % 3,010 $100,000-$149,999 3, % 2,975 $150,000-$199,999 3, % 4,274 $200,000-$249,999 2, % 3,263 $250,000-$299, % 1,622 $300,000-$399, % 723 $400,000-$499, % 275 $500,000-$749, % 258 $750,000-$999, % 36 $1,000, % 104 Percent 100.0% 6.0% 17.1% 16.9% 24.3% 18.5% 9.2% 4.1% 1.6% 1.5% 0.2% 0.6% Median Value $135,201 $170,560 Average Value $155,604 $184,810 Census 2010 Housing Units Number Percent Total 35, % In Urbanized Areas 35, % In Urban Clusters 0 0.0% Rural Housing Units 0 0.0% Data Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, Esri Page 1 of 2

366 Housing Profile Southfield City, Geography: Place Prepared by Esri Census 2010 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Mortgage Status Number Percent Total 17, % Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 13, % Owned Free and Clear 3, % Census 2010 Vacant Housing Units by Status Number Percent Total 4, % For Rent 2, % Rented- Not Occupied % For Sale Only % Sold - Not Occupied % Seasonal/Recreational/Occasional Use % For Migrant Workers 0 0.0% Other Vacant 1, % Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Age of Householder and Home Ownership Owner Occupied Units Occupied Number % of Occupied Total 31,778 17, % % ,950 1, % ,450 2, % ,225 3, % ,894 4, % ,020 2, % ,754 1, % 85+ 1, % Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Race/Ethnicity of Householder and Home Ownership Owner Occupied Units Occupied Number % of Occupied Total 31,778 17, % White Alone 8,511 5, % Black/African American 22,035 10, % American % Asian Alone % Pacific Islander Alone % Other Race Alone % Two or More Races % Hispanic Origin % Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Size and Home Ownership Total 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person 6-Person 7+ Person Owner Occupied Units Occupied Number % of Occupied 31,778 17, % 12,039 4, % 9,822 5, % 4,724 2, % 2,886 1, % 1, % % % Data Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, Esri Page 2 of 2

367 2010 Census Profile Oakland County, Geography: County Prepared by Esri Annual Rate Population 1,194,156 1,202, % Households 471, , % Housing Units 492, , % Population by Race Number Percent Total 1,202, % Population Reporting One Race 1,176, % White 928, % Black 164, % American Indian 3, % Asian 67, % Pacific Islander % Some Other Race 11, % Population Reporting Two or More Races 26, % Total Hispanic Population 41, % Population by Sex Male 583, % Female 618, % Population by Age Total 1,202, % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Data Note: Hispanic population can be of any race. Census 2010 medians are computed from reported data distributions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. July 14, Esri Page 1 of 4

368 2010 Census Profile Oakland County, Geography: County Prepared by Esri Households by Type Total 483, % Households with 1 Person 138, % Households with 2+ People 345, % Family Households 318, % Husband-wife Families 245, % With Own Children 105, % Other Family (No Spouse Present) 72, % With Own Children 36, % Nonfamily Households 27, % All Households with Children 153, % Multigenerational Households 13, % Unmarried Partner Households 25, % Male-female 22, % Same-sex 3, % Average Household Size 2.46 Family Households by Size Total 318, % 2 People 135, % 3 People 74, % 4 People 66, % 5 People 27, % 6 People 9, % 7+ People 4, % Average Family Size 3.06 Nonfamily Households by Size Total 165, % 1 Person 138, % 2 People 23, % 3 People 2, % 4 People % 5 People % 6 People % 7+ People % Average Nonfamily Size 1.20 Population by Relationship and Household Type Total 1,202, % In Households 1,189, % In Family Households 991, % Householder 318, % Spouse 245, % Child 375, % Other relative 34, % Nonrelative 18, % In Nonfamily Households 198, % In Group Quarters 12, % Institutionalized Population 6, % Noninstitutionalized Population 6, % Data Note: Households with children include any households with people under age 18, related or not. Multigenerational households are families with 3 or more parent-child relationships. Unmarried partner households are usually classified as nonfamily households unless there is another member of the household related to the householder. Multigenerational and unmarried partner households are reported only to the tract level. Esri estimated block group data, which is used to estimate polygons or non-standard geography. Average family size excludes nonrelatives. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, Esri Page 2 of 4

369 2010 Census Profile Oakland County, Geography: County Prepared by Esri Family Households by Age of Householder Total 318, % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Nonfamily Households by Age of Householder Total 165, % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Households by Race of Householder Total 483, % Householder is White Alone 383, % Householder is Black Alone 66, % Householder is American Indian Alone 1, % Householder is Asian Alone 22, % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone % Householder is Some Other Race Alone 3, % Householder is Two or More Races 6, % Households with Hispanic Householder 11, % Husband-wife Families by Race of Householder Total 245, % Householder is White Alone 204, % Householder is Black Alone 20, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone 16, % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone % Householder is Some Other Race Alone 1, % Householder is Two or More Races 2, % Husband-wife Families with Hispanic Householder 5, % Other Families (No Spouse) by Race of Householder Total 72, % Householder is White Alone 46, % Householder is Black Alone 21, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone 1, % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone % Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races 1, % Other Families with Hispanic Householder 2, % Nonfamily Households by Race of Householder Total 165, % Householder is White Alone 132, % Householder is Black Alone 25, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone 4, % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone % Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races 2, % Nonfamily Households with Hispanic Householder 3, % Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, Esri Page 3 of 4

370 2010 Census Profile Oakland County, Geography: County Prepared by Esri Total Housing Units by Occupancy Total 527, % Occupied Housing Units 483, % Vacant Housing Units For Rent 17, % Rented, not Occupied % For Sale Only 8, % Sold, not Occupied 1, % For Seasonal/Recreational/Occasional Use 4, % For Migrant Workers % Other Vacant 9, % Total Vacancy Rate 8.3% Households by Tenure and Mortgage Status Total 483, % Owner Occupied 350, % Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 264, % Owned Free and Clear 86, % Average Household Size 2.59 Renter Occupied 132, % Average Household Size 2.12 Owner-occupied Housing Units by Race of Householder Total 350, % Householder is White Alone 302, % Householder is Black Alone 28, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone 13, % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone % Householder is Some Other Race Alone 1, % Householder is Two or More Races 3, % Owner-occupied Housing Units with Hispanic Householder 6, % Renter-occupied Housing Units by Race of Householder Total 132, % Householder is White Alone 81, % Householder is Black Alone 37, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone 8, % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone % Householder is Some Other Race Alone 1, % Householder is Two or More Races 2, % Renter-occupied Housing Units with Hispanic Householder 4, % Average Household Size by Race/Hispanic Origin of Householder Householder is White Alone 2.43 Householder is Black Alone 2.41 Householder is American Indian Alone 2.49 Householder is Asian Alone 2.96 Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 2.39 Householder is Some Other Race Alone 3.30 Householder is Two or More Races 2.73 Householder is Hispanic 3.03 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, Esri Page 4 of 4

371 Business Summary Oakland County, Geography: County Prepared by Esri Data for all businesses in area Total Businesses: 59,506 Total Employees: 782,341 Total Residential Population: 1,234,680 Employee/Residential Population Ratio: 0.63:1 Businesses Employees by SIC Codes Number Percent Number Percent Agriculture & Mining 1, % 9, % Construction 4, % 27, % Manufacturing 2, % 100, % Transportation 1, % 11, % Communication % 10, % Utility % 2, % Wholesale Trade 2, % 37, % Retail Trade Summary 11, % 163, % Home Improvement % 10, % General Merchandise Stores % 12, % Food Stores % 16, % Auto Dealers, Gas Stations, Auto Aftermarket 1, % 18, % Apparel & Accessory Stores 1, % 8, % Furniture & Home Furnishings 1, % 16, % Eating & Drinking Places 3, % 53, % Miscellaneous Retail 3, % 25, % Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Summary 7, % 69, % Banks, Savings & Lending Institutions 2, % 18, % Securities Brokers 1, % 10, % Insurance Carriers & Agents 1, % 17, % Real Estate, Holding, Other Investment Offices 2, % 22, % Services Summary 24, % 321, % Hotels & Lodging % 6, % Automotive Services 1, % 14, % Motion Pictures & Amusements 1, % 19, % Health Services 4, % 74, % Legal Services 1, % 15, % Education Institutions & Libraries 1, % 44, % Other Services 14, % 146, % Government % 26, % Unclassified Establishments 2, % 1, % Totals 59, % 782, % Source: Copyright 2016 Infogroup, Inc. All rights reserved. Esri Total Residential Population forecasts for July 14, Esri Page 1 of 2

372 Business Summary Oakland County, Geography: County Prepared by Esri Businesses Employees by NAICS Codes Number Percent Number Percent Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting % % Mining % % Utilities % 1, % Construction 4, % 31, % Manufacturing 2, % 99, % Wholesale Trade 2, % 36, % Retail Trade 8, % 107, % Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers % 16, % Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores % 4, % Electronics & Appliance Stores % 11, % Bldg Material & Garden Equipment & Supplies Dealers % 10, % Food & Beverage Stores % 14, % Health & Personal Care Stores % 9, % Gasoline Stations % 1, % Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores 1, % 10, % Sport Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores % 4, % General Merchandise Stores % 12, % Miscellaneous Store Retailers 1, % 8, % Nonstore Retailers % 1, % Transportation & Warehousing % 9, % Information 1, % 19, % Finance & Insurance 4, % 47, % Central Bank/Credit Intermediation & Related Activities 2, % 17, % Securities, Commodity Contracts & Other Financial 1, % 11, % Insurance Carriers & Related Activities; Funds, Trusts & 1, % 17, % Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 2, % 23, % Professional, Scientific & Tech Services 7, % 84, % Legal Services 1, % 16, % Management of Companies & Enterprises % % Administrative & Support & Waste Management & 2, % 28, % Educational Services 1, % 45, % Health Care & Social Assistance 5, % 93, % Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 1, % 19, % Accommodation & Food Services 3, % 61, % Accommodation % 6, % Food Services & Drinking Places 3, % 54, % Other Services (except Public Administration) 5, % 44, % Automotive Repair & Maintenance 1, % 11, % Public Administration % 26, % Unclassified Establishments Total Source: Copyright 2016 Infogroup, Inc. All rights reserved. Esri Total Residential Population forecasts for ,652 59, % 1, % 100.0% 782, % July 14, Esri Page 2 of 2

373 Demographic and Income Profile Oakland County, Geography: County Prepared by Esri Summary Census Population 1,202,362 1,234,680 1,274,041 Households 483, , ,347 Families 318, , ,541 Average Household Size Owner Occupied Housing Units 350, , ,674 Renter Occupied Housing Units 132, , ,673 Median Age Trends: Annual Rate Area State National Population 0.63% 0.23% 0.84% Households 0.68% 0.28% 0.79% Families 0.56% 0.16% 0.72% Owner HHs 0.66% 0.27% 0.73% Median Household Income 2.58% 2.26% 1.86% Households by Income Number Percent Number <$15,000 42, % 41,490 $15,000 - $24,999 39, % 37,821 $25,000 - $34,999 42, % 42,718 $35,000 - $49,999 56, % 32,354 $50,000 - $74,999 83, % 89,567 $75,000 - $99,999 66, % 73,332 $100,000 - $149,999 85, % 103,116 $150,000 - $199,999 38, % 47,192 $200, , % 48,757 Percent 8.0% 7.3% 8.3% 6.3% 17.3% 14.2% 20.0% 9.1% 9.4% Median Household Income $69,354 $78,782 Average Household Income $95,719 $104,637 Per Capita Income $38,946 $42,655 Census Population by Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent , % 65, % 65, % , % 73, % 71, % , % 81, % 78, % , % 78, % 76, % , % 70, % 66, % , % 148, % 156, % , % 158, % 163, % , % 183, % 172, % , % 180, % 186, % , % 113, % 140, % , % 53, % 66, % , % 26, % 28, % Census Race and Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White Alone 928, % 921, % 918, % Black Alone 164, % 179, % 197, % American Indian Alone 3, % 3, % 3, % Asian Alone 67, % 85, % 103, % Pacific Islander Alone % % % Some Other Race Alone 11, % 13, % 14, % Two or More Races 26, % 31, % 35, % Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 41, % 48, % 55, % Data Note: Income is expressed in current dollars. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and July 14, Esri Page 1 of 2

374 Demographic and Income Profile Oakland County, Geography: County Prepared by Esri Trends Annual Rate (in percent) Population Households Families Owner HHs Median HH Income Area State USA Population by Age Percent Household Income $35K - $49K 11.4% $25K - $34K 8.5% $15K - $24K 7.9% 2016 Population by Race $50K - $74K 16.7% $75K - $99K 13.4% $100K - $149K 17.2% <$15K 8.5% $200K+ 8.9% $150K - $199K 7.7% Percent White Black Am. Ind. Asian Pacific Other Two Percent Hispanic Origin: 3.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and July 14, Esri Page 2 of 2

375 Household Income Profile Oakland County, Geography: County Prepared by Esri Summary Change Annual Rate Population 1,234,680 1,274,041 39, % Households 499, ,347 17, % Median Age % Average Household Size % Households by Income Number Percent Number Percent Household Income <$15,000 Base 499,074 42, % 8.5% 516,347 41, % 8.0% $15,000-$24,999 39, % 37, % $25,000-$34,999 42, % 42, % $35,000-$49,999 56, % 32, % $50,000-$74,999 83, % 89, % $75,000-$99,999 66, % 73, % $100,000-$149,999 85, % 103, % $150,000-$199,999 38, % 47, % $200, , % 48, % Median Household Income $69,354 $78,782 Average Household Income $95,719 $104,637 Per Capita Income $38,946 $42,655 Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. July 14, Esri Page 1 of 3

376 Household Income Profile Oakland County, Geography: County Prepared by Esri 2016 Households by Income and Age of Householder < HH Income Base 12,642 65,467 85, , ,412 71,829 54,401 Median HH Income $33,931 $59,643 $79,643 $92,087 $82,912 $60,188 $37,024 Average HH $46,058 $75,382 $101,468 $119,001 $111,193 $89,499 $56,546 Income Percent Distribution < HH Income Base 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% <$15,000 2,400 5,897 5,628 6,061 8,458 5,338 8,444 $15,000-$24,999 2,105 5,003 4,814 4,756 6,311 7,658 8,781 $25,000-$34,999 1,976 6,252 6,307 5,929 6,708 6,807 8,250 $35,000-$49,999 1,912 9,107 9,292 8,510 9,066 9,446 9,345 $50,000-$74,999 2,245 13,316 13,503 15,092 16,539 13,234 9,198 $75,000-$99, ,656 12,914 15,124 15,924 8,980 3,267 $100, ,449 17,556 22,530 20,218 10,097 4,055 $149,999 $150, ,652 7,411 11,220 10,258 4,391 1,351 $199,999 $200, ,135 7,787 13,889 12,930 5,878 1,710 <$15, % 9.0% 6.6% 5.9% 7.9% 7.4% 15.5% $15,000-$24, % 7.6% 5.6% 4.6% 5.9% 10.7% 16.1% $25,000-$34, % 9.5% 7.4% 5.8% 6.3% 9.5% 15.2% $35,000-$49, % 13.9% 10.9% 8.3% 8.5% 13.2% 17.2% $50,000-$74, % 20.3% 15.8% 14.6% 15.5% 18.4% 16.9% $75,000-$99, % 14.7% 15.2% 14.7% 15.0% 12.5% 6.0% $100, % 16.0% 20.6% 21.9% 19.0% 14.1% 7.5% $149,999 $150, % 5.6% 8.7% 10.9% 9.6% 6.1% 2.5% $199,999 $200, % 3.3% 9.1% 13.5% 12.2% 8.2% 3.1% Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. July 14, Esri Page 2 of 3

377 Household Income Profile Oakland County, Geography: County Prepared by Esri 2021 Households by Income and Age of Householder < HH Income Base 12,152 67,376 85,660 94, ,299 86,445 62,611 Median HH Income $32,998 $68,518 $89,451 $101,819 $93,598 $70,789 $41,073 Average HH $48,724 $83,947 $112,689 $128,809 $122,157 $99,818 $66,768 Income Percent Distribution < HH Income Base 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% <$15,000 2,477 5,971 5,216 5,091 7,253 6,266 9,216 $15,000-$24,999 1,974 4,695 4,071 3,603 5,533 8,206 9,739 $25,000-$34,999 1,923 6,252 5,901 4,894 6,241 7,989 9,518 $35,000-$49,999 1,169 5,173 4,619 4,255 4,887 6,257 5,994 $50,000-$74,999 2,385 14,338 14,012 13,692 16,598 16,534 12,008 $75,000-$99,999 1,019 10,935 13,885 14,472 16,535 11,962 4,524 $100, ,786 20,405 23,382 23,998 14,913 6,694 $149,999 $150, ,718 8,948 12,204 12,391 6,469 2,309 $199,999 $200, ,508 8,603 13,211 13,863 7,849 2,609 <$15, % 8.9% 6.1% 5.4% 6.8% 7.2% 14.7% $15,000-$24, % 7.0% 4.8% 3.8% 5.2% 9.5% 15.6% $25,000-$34, % 9.3% 6.9% 5.2% 5.8% 9.2% 15.2% $35,000-$49, % 7.7% 5.4% 4.5% 4.6% 7.2% 9.6% $50,000-$74, % 21.3% 16.4% 14.4% 15.5% 19.1% 19.2% $75,000-$99, % 16.2% 16.2% 15.3% 15.4% 13.8% 7.2% $100, % 19.0% 23.8% 24.7% 22.4% 17.3% 10.7% $149,999 $150, % 7.0% 10.4% 12.9% 11.5% 7.5% 3.7% $199,999 $200, % 3.7% 10.0% 13.9% 12.9% 9.1% 4.2% Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. July 14, Esri Page 3 of 3

378 Housing Profile Oakland County, Geography: County Prepared by Esri Population Households 2010 Total Population 1,202, Median Household Income $69, Total Population 1,234, Median Household Income $78, Total Population 1,274, Annual Rate 2.58% Annual Rate 0.63% Census Housing Units by Occupancy Status and Tenure Number Percent Number Percent Number Total Housing Units 527, % 542, % 559,593 Occupied 483, % 499, % 516,347 Owner 350, % 357, % 369,674 Renter 132, % 141, % 146,673 Vacant 43, % 43, % 43,246 Percent 100.0% 92.3% 66.1% 26.2% 7.7% Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Number Percent Number Total 357, % 369,611 <$50,000 31, % 22,212 $50,000-$99,999 39, % 27,850 $100,000-$149,999 45, % 29,031 $150,000-$199,999 52, % 64,116 $200,000-$249,999 47, % 66,222 $250,000-$299,999 35, % 49,116 $300,000-$399,999 47, % 48,964 $400,000-$499,999 25, % 26,637 $500,000-$749,999 24, % 25,595 $750,000-$999,999 4, % 5,935 $1,000,000+ 4, % 3,933 Percent 100.0% 6.0% 7.5% 7.9% 17.3% 17.9% 13.3% 13.2% 7.2% 6.9% 1.6% 1.1% Median Value $210,345 $231,407 Average Value $256,502 $273,613 Census 2010 Housing Units Number Percent Total 527, % In Urbanized Areas 500, % In Urban Clusters 4, % Rural Housing Units 21, % Data Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, Esri Page 1 of 2

379 Housing Profile Oakland County, Geography: County Prepared by Esri Census 2010 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Mortgage Status Number Percent Total 350, % Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 264, % Owned Free and Clear 86, % Census 2010 Vacant Housing Units by Status Number Percent Total 43, % For Rent 17, % Rented- Not Occupied % For Sale Only 8, % Sold - Not Occupied 1, % Seasonal/Recreational/Occasional Use 4, % For Migrant Workers % Other Vacant 9, % Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Age of Householder and Home Ownership Owner Occupied Units Occupied Number % of Occupied Total 483, , % ,036 2, % ,268 31, % ,708 64, % ,723 89, % ,104 79, % ,014 45, % ,064 27, % ,781 10, % Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Race/Ethnicity of Householder and Home Ownership Owner Occupied Units Occupied Number % of Occupied Total 483, , % White Alone 383, , % Black/African American 66,740 28, % American 1, % Asian Alone 22,337 13, % Pacific Islander Alone % Other Race Alone 3,244 1, % Two or More Races 6,366 3, % Hispanic Origin 11,735 6, % Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Size and Home Ownership Total 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person 6-Person 7+ Person Owner Occupied Units Occupied Number % of Occupied 483, , % 138,388 80, % 158, , % 77,210 58, % 67,145 54, % 28,180 22, % 9,456 7, % 4,700 3, % Data Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, Esri Page 2 of 2

380 GLOSSARY ABSORPTION PERIOD The number of months necessary to rent a specific number of units. If over 12 months, the absorption period is adjusted to reflect replacement for turnover (see aggregate absorption and net absorption). ABSORPTION RATE The number of units expected to be rented per month. AESTHETIC AMENITIES (CURBSIDE APPEAL) Used as part of the comparability index, this factor assigns a point rating to a project's physical appeal to potential tenants. Included in this rating are an evaluation of grounds appearance and landscaping, quality of maintenance, and quality of architecture and design. AGGREGATE ABSORPTION The total number of units absorbed by a subject site without accounting for turnover. CERTIFICATE See HUD Section 8 Certificate. COMPARABLE MARKET RENT The amount a potential renter would expect to pay for the subject unit without income restrictions given current and projected market conditions. Comparable market rent is based on a regression analysis for the market area. Factors influencing a property s potential to achieve the comparable market rent include the number of units at that rent, the step-up base at that rent level and the age and condition of the property and its competitors. COMPARABILITY INDEX A factor used to determine the relative competitiveness of any given multifamily project. This index is established based on a scale developed by the Danter Company, LLC that assigns point values to a project's unit amenities, project amenities, and overall aesthetic rating (curbside appeal). CONTRACT RENT See street rent. CONVENTIONAL APARTMENT Rental multifamily unit, typically in a building of four units or greater, that was purpose built as multifamily or converted to multifamily by adaptive reuse. G-1

381 COOPERATIVE a type of multifamily housing in which each household is part-owner of the community. A cooperative will usually involve a purchase or buy-in of the unit, and decisions affecting the community are typically made by majority votes of unit holders. Unit holders also share in the project s equity. Government subsidized units typically involve very low cost buy-ins and low rents geared towards low-income households. DENSITY The number of units per acre. ECONOC VACANCY An existing unit that is not collecting book rent. Economic vacancies include manager's units, model units, units undergoing renovation, units being prepared for occupancy, and units being discounted. The Danter Company, LLC determines vacancies based on a market vacancy standard (see vacancy). EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA (EMA) SM The geographic area from which a proposed development is expected to draw between 60% and 70% of its support. Also the area from which an existing project actually draws 60% to 70% of its support. An EMA is determined based on the area's demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, mobility patterns, and existing geographic features (i.e. a river, mountain, or freeway). EMPTY-NESTER An older adult (age 55 or over). Typically, households in this age group contain no children under 18. ENTRY IMPACT A prospective tenant's perception of a unit's spaciousness on entering a unit; a first impression. EXTERNAL MOBILITY Households moving to an area from well outside a market area. FAIR MARKET RENT The maximum chargeable gross rent in an area for projects participating in the HUD Section 8 program. Determined by HUD. FIELD SURVEY The process of visiting existing developments as part of the information-gathering process. Each project listed in this survey has been visited onsite by an analyst employed by the Danter Company, LLC unless specified otherwise. Also the name of the section detailing information gathered during the field trip. SM Service Mark of Danter Company, LLC G-2

382 FmHA Farmers Home Administration, former name for RECD. See RECD. GARDEN UNIT A multifamily unit with living and sleeping space all on a single floor. May be in a multistory building. GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED Units for which all or part of the rent or operating expenses are paid for directly by a government agency. Government subsidy programs include HUD Sections 8 and 236, RECDS Section 515, and other programs sponsored by local housing authorities or agencies. Typically, tenants are charged a percentage of their income (usually 30%) as rent if they are unable to pay the full cost of a unit. GROSS RENT Rent paid for a unit adjusted to include all utilities. HISTORIC TAX CREDIT Program which gives income tax credits to investors who restore old or historic buildings in designated areas. This is a separate program from the low-income housing Tax Credit program (see Tax Credit). HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS (HDA) SM A statistical analysis of the relationship of an area's housing demand to its housing supply. This is provided at the county level. The purpose of this analysis is to place the overall housing market within the context of housing demand. HUD The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. The primary agency for sponsoring subsidized housing in the United States, particularly in urban areas. HUD SECTION 8 CERTIFICATE A government subsidized housing program administered by local public housing agencies through which low-income households qualify for rent subsidies. Qualified households must pay 30% of adjusted income, 10% of gross income, or the portion of welfare designated for housing, whichever is greatest. Rent subsidies paid to the housing unit owner compensate the owner for the difference in the payment made by the household and the area Fair Market Rent. Qualified housing units must meet HUD quality guidelines. Subsidies may be also project-based, in which a project earns the subsidy by renting the unit to qualified households SM Service mark of Danter Company, LLC G-3

383 HUD SECTION 8 VOUCHER A government subsidized housing program administered by local public housing agencies through which income-qualified tenants can use government subsidies to reside at any project which meets certain qualifications. Qualified households pay 30% of adjusted income or 10% of gross income, whichever is greater. Government subsidies pay the housing unit owner the difference between what the qualified household pays and the area Payment Standard. Voucher holders may choose housing that rents for more than the area Payment Standard, but they will be responsible for paying the difference between the charged rent and the Payment Standard INTERNAL MOBILITY Households moving within the same market area. MARKET-DRIVEN RENT The rent for a unit with a given comparability index as determined by the regression analysis. MARKET VACANCY See vacancy. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INCOME The highest income a household can make and be eligible for the Tax Credit program. The maximum allowable income is set at 60% of the area's median household income unless otherwise noted. MEDIAN RENT The midpoint in the range of rents for a unit type at which exactly half of the units have higher rents and half have lower rents. MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area. Denotes an area associated with an urban area. MSA determinations are made by the Census Bureau based on population and interaction. Nonurban areas included in an MSA are marked by a high rate of commuting and interaction. MSA boundaries are particularly important in determining maximum allowable rents for Tax Credit development (see PMSA). NET ABSORPTION The total number of units absorbed when accounting for turnover. NET RENT The rent paid by a tenant adjusted to assume that the landlord pays for water/sewer service and trash removal and that the tenant pays all other utilities. 100% DATA BASE When the Danter Company, LLC conducts a field survey, we gather data on all (100%) of the modern apartments in an EMA. This methodology allows us to examine the market at all price and amenity levels in order to determine step-up support and to use a regression analysis to determine market-driven rent for any given amenity level. G-4

384 PMSA Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area. Used for Metropolitan Statistical Areas that have been combined with other adjacent MSAs into a larger Consolidated MSA. Each PMSA is defined in the same manner as a standard MSA (see MSA). PROJECT AMENITY An amenity that is available for all residents of a community. Project amenities include laundry facilities, swimming pools, clubhouses, exercise rooms, playgrounds, etc. RADIAL ANALYSIS An analysis focusing on the area within a set distance of a site (usually 1, 3, 5, or 10 miles). Such analyses usually disregard mobility patterns, geographic boundaries, or differences in socioeconomic characteristics which separate one area from another. RD Rural Development. Formerly Farmers Home Administration. The primary agency of the federal government for overseeing government subsidized housing programs in rural areas, primarily through its Section 515 program. RENT GAP The difference in price between a unit type and the next-largest unit type. For example, at a project where one-bedroom units rent for $350 and two-bedroom units rent at $425, the rent gap is $75. May also be used to identify premium rents or special amenities. REPLACEMENT ABSORPTION The number of tenants necessary for a project to attract to counteract the number of tenants who chose to break or not renew their lease. STEP-UP SUPPORT (OR STEP-UP BASE) The number of multifamily units existing within the EMA with rents within a specified dollar amount below the proposed rents at a proposed multifamily site. Step-up support is calculated separately for each unit type proposed, and may include units of another, smaller unit type (for example, step-up support for proposed one-bedroom units may include not only one-bedroom units but also studio units). STEP-DOWN SUPPORT The number of units within a given unit type and comparability index level but with rents above the proposed rent. This total measures the number of tenants in a market who may be willing to move to a new project that provides a similar or higher level of quality at a lower rent. STREET RENT The rent quoted by a leasing agent or manager to a prospective tenant, regardless of the utilities included. Also called contract rent. G-5

385 TAX CREDIT Short for the low-income housing Tax Credit program (LIHTC) or IRS Section 42. This program gives investors the opportunity to gain tax credits for investing in multifamily housing for low- to moderate-income households meeting certain income restrictions. This designation does not refer to the historic Tax Credit program (see historic tax credit). TOWNHOUSE UNIT A multifamily unit with a floor plan of two or more floors. Typically, townhouse floor plans living areas and sleeping areas on different floors. TREND LINE ANALYSIS A mathematical analysis in which each project surveyed is plotted on a scatter diagram using rent by unit type and the project's comparability index. From this graph a trend line regression line is identified which identifies the market-driven rent at any given comparability index level. TURNOVER Units whose tenants choose to break or not renew their lease. UNIT AMENITIES Amenities available within an individual unit, or only to individual tenants. For example, a detached garage and external storage are considered unit amenities because they are generally available only to individual tenants. UNIT TYPE Based on the number of bedrooms: studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, etc. UPPER-QUARTILE RENTS The rent range including the 25% of units at the high end of the range scale. UTILITY ALLOWANCE Adjustment for utilities not included in the rent in the Tax Credit program. The adjustment is used to keep proposed rents within gross rent guidelines of the program. It is also used to adjust gross rents to compare with area net rents. VACANCY As used by the Danter Company, LLC, a vacancy is a multifamily unit available for immediate occupancy. Manager's units and model units are not counted as vacant units, nor are units that are unrentable due to excessive damage or renovation. This definition of vacancy is often referred to as a market vacancy and is different from an economic vacancy (see economic vacancy). VOUCHER See HUD Section 8 Voucher. G-6

386 Qualifications and Services About Danter Company, LLC Danter Company, LLC is a national real estate research firm providing market and demographic information for builders, lenders, and developers in a variety of commercial markets. Danter Company, LLC has completed over 17,000 studies in all 50 states, Canada, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Mexico. The Danter Company was founded in 1970 by Kenneth Danter and was one of the first firms in the country to specialize in real estate research. Danter Company, LLC differs from most firms providing real estate research services in two key ways: real estate research is our only area of specialization, and we hold no financial interest in any of the properties for which we do our research. These principles guarantee that our recommendations are based on the existing and expected market conditions, not on any underlying interests or an effort to sell any of our other services. Housing-related studies, including multifamily, single-family, condominium, and elderly (assistedliving and congregate care), account for about two-thirds of our assignments. We also conduct evaluations for site-specific developments (hotels, office buildings, historic reuse, resorts, commercial, and recreational projects) and major market overviews (downtown revitalization, highrise housing, and industrial/economic development). All our site-specific research is enhanced by over 40 years of extensive proprietary research on housing trends and buyer/renter profiles. Results of this research have been widely quoted in The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, USA Today, Builder Magazine, Multi-Housing News, Professional Builder, and publications produced by The Urban Land Institute and American Demographics. Based on this research, The Danter Company was named 6 consecutive years to American Demographics Best 100 Sources for Marketing Information. Danter Company, LLC s combination of primary site-specific research with our proprietary research into market trends has led us to pioneer significant market evaluation methodologies, particularly the use of the 100% Data Base for all market analyses. This Danter concept is of primary importance to real estate analyses because new developments interact with market-area projects throughout the rent/price continuum not just with those normally considered comparable. Other pioneer methodologies include Effective Market Area (EMA) SM analysis, the Housing Demand Analysis (HDA) SM, and the Comparable Rent Analysis. Overview About Our Methodology Our process begins where it happens: the marketplace. We build the most complete market profile through exhaustive primary research. This information is viewed through the concept of the Effective Market Area (EMA), which identifies the smallest area from which a project is likely to draw the most significant amount of support. We also establish a 100% data base from all development within each project s EMA. We then fine-tune our primary research with the highestquality, most recent and relevant secondary research for maximum validity. Q-1

387 The 100% Data Base and Other Research Methodologies Every study conducted by the Danter Company, LLC is based on one simple methodological principle: The 100% Data Base. We believe that the only way to determine market strength is to examine the market at every level, so we gather data on all market area properties, not just selected properties that are comparable. A report based on selected comparables can determine how the market is performing at one price or quality level: the 100% data base determines how the market is performing at all price and quality levels, allowing our analysts to make recommendations that maximize potential support and give the subject property the best opportunity to perform within the overall continuum of housing within the market. From the 100% Data Base methodology, we have developed significant research methodologies specific to real estate market feasibility analysis. Because we gather rent and amenity data for all market area properties, we can empirically analyze the relationship between rent/price and level of quality/service. For our multifamily market studies, we have developed a proprietary rating system which allows us to determine a project s Comparability Rating, which includes separate ratings for unit amenities, project amenities, and aesthetic amenities/curbside appeal. By plotting the rents and comparability ratings for an area s properties on a scatter graph, we can use regression analysis to determine market-driven rent at any comparability rating level. The 100% Data Base also allows us to measure the depth of market support. Our research indicates that most of the support for a new multifamily development typically comes from other apartment renters already within the Effective Market Area. Our previous research has identified the amount of money that renters will typically step-up their rent for a new apartment option that they perceive to be a value within the market. By analyzing this base of step-up support, we can quantify the depth of support for new product within the market, as well as offer constructive recommendations to maximize absorption potential. Proprietary Research and Analytical Support Once our analysts have obtained the 100% data base in a market area for their project, this information is added to our primary data base on that development type. Our apartment data base alone, for example, contains information on over 12 million units across the US. Data on housing units, condominiums, resorts, offices, and motels is available for recall. In addition, analysts are regularly assigned to update this material in major metropolitan markets. Currently, we have apartment information on 75% of the cities with populations of 250,000 or more. This includes rents, vacancies, year opened, amenities, and quality evaluation. In addition to our existing data base by unit type, we also maintain a significant base of proprietary research conducted by the Danter Company, LLC over the last 25+ years. These data, provided to our project directors as background information for their recommendations, are collected as ongoing proprietary research due to their cost which is usually prohibitively high for developers on a perstudy basis. Several different surveys have been conducted, among which are the following: Apartment Mobility/Demographic Characteristics Tax Credit Multifamily Rural Development Tenant Profile Older Adult Housing Surveys Office Tenant Profiles Downtown Resident Surveys Shopping Habits Health-Care Office and Consumer Surveys Q-2

388 Every project surveyed by the Danter Company. LLC analysts are photographed for inclusion in our photographic data base. This data base provides a statistical justification of our findings and a visual representation of the entire market. It is used to train our field analysts to evaluate the aesthetic ratings of projects in the field, and for demonstration purposes when consulting with clients. These extensive data bases, combined with our other ongoing research, allow the Danter Company to develop criteria for present and future development alternatives, and provide our analysts background data to help determine both short and long-range potential for any development type. Personnel and Training Our field analysts have completed an in-house training program on data gathering procedures and have completed several studies supervised by senior field analysts before working solo on field assignments. In addition, all field analysts are supervised throughout the data gathering process by the project director for that study. All project directors, in addition to training in advanced real estate analysis techniques, have spent time serving as a field analyst in order to better understand the data gathering process, and to better supervise the field analysts in obtaining accurate market information. In addition, our project directors regularly conduct field research in order to stay current or to personally analyze particularly complicated markets. Danter Company, LLC has a highly-skilled production support staff, including demographics retrieval specialists, professional editors, a graphics/mapping specialist, a geographical information systems specialist and secretarial support. Danter Company, LLC has experienced a great deal of stability and continuity, beginning with Mr. Danter s 40+ years in real estate analysis. Many of our senior project directors and support staff team members have worked for the company for over 10 years. This experience gives the Danter Company the historical perspective necessary to understanding how real estate developments can best survive the market s ups and downs. Our Product and Services We conduct several types of real estate research at the Danter Company, LLC: site-specific market studies, in-house research designed either for publication or as public-service media information, proprietary research provided as supplementary data for our Project Directors, real estate marketing and marketing analysis, and real estate market consulting services. Client-Specified Market Studies Market Feasibility Analyses Market feasibility studies are based on an Effective Market Area (EMA) SM analysis of a 100% data base. The EMA methodology was developed by the Danter Company, LLC to determine the smallest geographic area from which a project can expect most of its support. All analyses include a complete area demographic profile. Some of the commercial development analyses we specialize in include the following: Q-3

389 Market-rate/Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Apartments These studies include the complete 100% data base field survey of existing and proposed area apartments at all rental levels, determination of appropriate unit mix, rent, unit size, and level of amenities, for the proposed development, and expected absorption rate. If necessary, we will also suggest ways to make the proposed community more marketable. We have worked with state housing agencies and national syndicators across the country to ensure that our LIHTC studies comply with their requirements. Government Subsidized Apartments Includes all of the above, plus additional demand calculations as required by the presiding government agency Apartment Repositioning This study is designed to identify market strategies for underperforming apartment projects. We identify the Effective Market Area based on existing tenants previous addresses, survey the existing apartment market, shop the project, and evaluate the existing marketing and pricing methods to identify strategies to maximize project performance. Single-Family Housing Includes a 100% data base field survey of existing and proposed singlefamily developments at all price levels, plus a calculation of area demand by price range and an estimated sales rate. We can also identify optimal lot sizes and critique site plans from a marketability standpoint. We also have extensive experience with integrating single-family residential and golf course development. Hotel/Lodging Includes a 100% data base field survey of all lodging facilities in the Competitive Market Area, plus area lodging demand calculations, estimated occupancy projections by traveler category, and an analysis of projected room rates. Condominium Development Includes a 100% data base field survey of area condominium developments, a demand analysis by price range, an analysis of optimum pricing strategies, and expected sales rate for the proposed development or conversion. We can also identify a project s potential for mixed for-sale/for-rent marketing if requested. Senior Housing Development We complete studies for all types of housing designed for seniors, including congregate care, assisted-living, nursing home, and independent-living options. These studies include an estimate of area demand based on a 100% data base field study of the area s existing configuration of elderly-appropriate housing options, an analysis of optimum pricing strategies, and a projected absorption or sales rate. Recreation We can conduct analyses for a variety of recreation options, including recreation centers and golf courses. Analyses include 100% data base field survey of comparable development, calculation of demand for additional facilities, and optimal amenity package and pricing. Resort Development Resort development studies can include a variety of options as well as integrated lodging or for-sale/for-rent housing development. Analyses will identify demand, sales/absorption/occupancy rate, optimal pricing, and competitive amenity packages. Conference Center Conference center feasibility studies typically include a 100% data base field study of existing area meeting space, calculation of demand for additional meeting space, projected occupancy, and optimal amenity package and meeting rental rates. Office Development Includes 100% data base field survey of existing and proposed office development, calculation of demand for additional space, projected absorption rate, and optimal pricing strategies. Q-4

390 Retail/Shopping Center Includes a 100% data base field survey of area retail development, calculation of demand for additional retail development by NAISC Code, and optimal rental rate Other Analyses Available Economic-Impact Studies Economic-impact analysis can determine the dollar effect an industry or organization can have on a community. Our analyses incorporate the Bureau of Economic Analysis RIMS II methodology for maximum accuracy in determining economic impact. Survey Research Although the Danter Company, LLC conducts ongoing in-house surveys (detailed below), we also conduct surveys on a per-project basis for developers who need to know very specific characteristics of their market. Our staff of survey administrators and analysts can develop, conduct, and produce survey results on any subject, providing general data and detailed crosstabs of any survey subject. Consulting In addition to market feasibility study, we are also available for consulting. Whether you need help identifying the best development alternative for your site, need to determine the which markets have development or acquisition opportunities, need help identifying why a property is not performing as expected, or need another real estate-related problem solved, our analysts are available at for consultation, in our offices and at your sites. Semi-Annual Apartment Reports The Danter Company conducts an annual or semi-annual analyses of numerous apartment markets throughout the U.S. These special studies enable The Danter Company to continually evaluate trends in multifamily development and/or support. Further, The Danter Company routinely surveys over 5,000 properties (with nearly 400,000 units) annually nationwide. Q-5