Target Market Analysis Marquette County Michigan 2016

Prepared by: Prepared for: Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1b

Michigan State Housing Development Authority Acknowledgements

Michigan State Housing Development Authority

Partners | Michigan Prosperity Region 1

Erik Powers | Western Upper Peninsula Planning & Development Region | WUPPDR | 1a

Emilie Schada | Central Upper Peninsula Planning and Development | CUPPAD | 1b

Jeff Hagan | Eastern Upper Peninsula Regional Planning & Development | EUPRPD | 1c

Prepared by: TMA Consultant

Sharon M. Woods, CRE Counselor of Real Estate www.LandUseUSA.com Marquette County | Residential TMA Table of Contents

Table of Contents Page

Executive Summary 1

Report Outline 7

The Target Markets 9

Prevalent Lifestyle Clusters 13

Conservative Scenario 16

Aggressive Scenario 16

“Slide” by Building Format 18

The Cities and Rings 19

Non-Residents and Seasonality 21

Rents and Square Feet 22

Comparison to Supply 24

Market Assessments – Introduction 27

Marquette County – Overview 27

The City of Marquette Advantage 28

The City of Ishpeming Advantage 32

The City of Negaunee Advantage 33

Analysis of PlaceScoresTM 34

Contact Information 35

1 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Executive Summary

Through a collaborative effort among public and private stakeholders, LandUse|USA has been engaged to conduct this Residential Target Market Analysis (TMA) for the Upper Peninsula Prosperity Regions 1a, 1b, and 1c. The West Region 1a includes six counties; the Central Region 1b includes Marquette County with five other counties; and East Region 1c has three counties (for a total of fifteen counties).

Together with regional contributions, this study has also been funded by a matching grant under the state’s Place-based Planning Program. The program is funded by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA), and has also has the support of the Community Development division and the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC). Regional Community Assistance Team (CATeam) specialists are available to help places become redevelopment ready.

This study has involved rigorous data analysis and modeling, and is based on in-migration into Marquette County and each of its cities and census designated places (CDPs). It is also based on internal migration within those places, movership rates by tenure and lifestyle cluster, and housing preferences among target market households. This Executive Summary highlights the results and is followed by a more complete explanation of the market potential under conservative (minimum) and aggressive (maximum) scenarios.

Maximum Market Potential – Based on the Target Market Analysis results for an aggressive scenario, there is a maximum annual market potential for up to 3,350 attached units throughout Marquette County, plus 1,888 detached houses (for a total of 5,418 units). Of the market potential for 3,350 attached units, the majority will be captured by the City of Marquette (2,157 attached units annually). In addition, 109 attached units will be captured by the City of Ishpeming, and 158 attached units will be captured by the City of Negaunee each year.

There will also be a significant number of households migrating into and with Marquette County and seeking attached units in locations other than the three largest cities. Some will choose places that are bedroom communities to the City of Marquette, including Trowbridge Park (118 attached units annually); K. I. Sawyer (349 attached units); Gwinn (20 attached units), and Harvey (9 attached units). Migrating households will likely find more attainable housing prices in these places, so may choose them even if it means commuting to Marquette for job more job choices.

1 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Households seeking water access to inland lakes will also be attracted to lakefront communities. The most notable examples in Marquette County include Lake Independence (which boosts the market for seasonal non-residents for the Big Bay CDP), and Lake Michigamme (which boosts the market potential for the Michigamee CDP). Other cities like Ishpeming might not have the same waterfront amenities, but they have other locational advantages, small traditional downtowns, and employers that could be leveraged to attract new households.

(Note: the recently announced closure of Empire Mines could negatively impact the annual market potential for the Cities of Ishpeming and Negaunee – unless its loss of 400 jobs can be offset by gains in other industries).

Summary Table A Annual Market Potential – Attached and Detached Units Renters and Owners – Aggressive (Maximum) Scenario Marquette County – Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b – 2016

Attached . Annual Market Potential Detached Duplex Other Total Aggressive Scenario Houses Triplex Formats Potential The City of Marquette 669 278 1,879 2,826 1.0MileRing|Marquette 367 146 1,011 1,524 0.5MileRing|Marquette 149 60 399 608 Trowbridge Park CDP 91 9 109 209 Harvey CDP 12 1 8 21 The City of Ishpeming 169 32 126 327 The City of Negaunee 149 22 87 258 K. I. Sawyer CDP 218 77 272 567 Gwinn CDP 37 1 19 57 All Other Places 543 116 494 1,153 Marquette County Total 1,888 536 2,994 5,418 Format as a Share of Total 35% 10% 55% 100%

2 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Missing Middle Typologies – Each county, city, and place within the Upper Peninsula is unique with varying degrees of market potential across a range of building sizes and formats. Results of the analysis are intended to help communities and developers focus on Missing Middle Housing choices (the types are online at www.MissingMiddleHousing.com for building typologies), which include triplexes and fourplexes; townhouses and row houses; and other multiplexes like courtyard apartments, and flats/lofts above street-front retail.

Implementation Strategies – Depending on the unique attributes and size of each place, a variety of strategies can be used to introduce new housing formats.

Missing Middle Housing Formats – Recommended Strategies 1. Conversion of high-quality, vacant buildings (such as schools, city halls, hospitals, hotels, theaters, and/or warehouses) into new flats and lofts. 2. New-builds among townhouses and row houses, particularly in infill locations near rivers and lakes (including inland lakes) to leverage waterfront amenities. 3. Rehab of upper level space above street-front retail within downtown districts. 4. New-builds with flats and lofts in mixed-use projects, above new merchant space with frontage along main street corridors. 5. New-builds among detached houses arranged around cottage courtyards, and within established residential neighborhoods. 6. The addition of accessory dwelling units like flats above garages, expansions to existing houses with attached or detached cottages, or other carriage-style formats.

Lifestyle Clusters and Target Markets – The magnitude of market potential among new housing formats is based on a study of 71 household lifestyle clusters across the nation, including 16 target markets that are most likely to choose attached units among new housing formats in the downtowns and urban places. Again, the target markets have been selected based on their propensity to choose a) attached building formats rather than detached houses; and b) urban places over relatively more suburban and rural settings.

Within any group of households sharing similar lifestyles, there are variances in their preferences across building sizes and formats. For example, 52% of the “Bohemian Grooves” households, but only 11% of the “Digital Dependent” households are inclined to choose attached housing formats. Both groups are among the top target markets for Michigan and the Upper Peninsula.

3 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

In general, moderate-income renters tend to have higher movership rates, are more likely to live in compact urban places, and are more likely to choose attached units. However, there are many exceptions, and better-income households and owners are also showing renewed interest in attached products. Across the nation, single householders now represent the majority, albeit by a narrow margin. Households comprised of unrelated members, and multi-generational households are also gaining shares. These diverse householders span all ages, incomes, and tenures; and many are seeking urban alternatives to detached houses.

The market potential for Marquette County is generally proportionate to its total size, composition of target markets, and popularity among transient households. As shown in the following summary table, 31% of its annual market potential will be generated by Upscale Target Markets, and 67% will be generated by Moderate Target Markets.

The small balance of 2% will be generated by other households that are more prevalent in the market. Those more prevalent households also tend to be settled and more likely to choose a detached house – if they move at all.

There are a few interesting observations that can be made from the data in Summary Table B, which is shown on the following page. Relative to the region’s other large counties (i.e., Houghton and Chippewa Counties), Marquette is doing a good job of attracting both the upscale and moderate target markets. Chippewa County is the only county in the region doing a better job of attracting the upscale target market households.

4 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Summary Table B Annual Market Potential – Attached Units Only Renters and Owners – Aggressive Scenario Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1 – 2016

Renters and Owners Upscale Moderate Most All 71 Aggressive Scenario Target Target Prevalent Lifestyle Attached Units Only Markets Markets Clusters Clusters 1a | Houghton County 374 1,366 58 1,798 Share of County Total 21% 76% 3% 100%

1b | Marquette County 1,094 2,354 82 3,530 Share of County Total 31% 67% 2% 100%

1c | Chippewa County 581 916 41 1,538 Share of County Total 37% 60% 3% 100%

Others | West Region 1a Gogebic County 35 131 20 186 Baraga County 2 64 12 78 Iron County 14 29 16 59 Ontonagon County 1 8 2 11 Keweenaw County . . 1 1

Others | Central Region 1b Delta County 74 681 57 812 Dickinson County 60 364 42 466 Menominee County 86 249 24 359 Schoolcraft County 5 71 19 95 Alger County 5 41 11 57

Others | East Region 1c Mackinac County 25 38 2 65 Luce County 2 0 8 10

5 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Largest Places and Unique Targets – The following list shows the counties and places that will capture the largest share of market potential across the region. Among sixteen target markets (lifestyle clusters) for the region, the “Colleges and Cafes” households are only residing in Marquette, Houghton, and Chippewa Counties. Marquette is also the only county with households in the “Full Pockets, Empty Nests”, “Wired for Success”, and “Hope for Tomorrow” groups.

Similarly, the “Humble Beginnings” are only living in Delta County, and the “Urban Ambition” households are only living in Chippewa and Mackinac Counties. Other target markets like “Bohemian Groove” and “Digital Dependents” households are living in nearly every county across the region (including Marquette County), with varying degrees of prevalence.

Summary Table C Counties and Cities with the Largest Market Potential Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1 – 2016

Target Markets that are County Name Largest Places Unique to the County

6 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

These observations are only intended as an overview and to provide some regional perspective. The detailed market potential results for the cities, villages, and places within each county are provided within their respective Market Strategy Report, independent from this document. The remainder of this document focuses on details for Marquette County, the Cities of Marquette, Ishpeming and Negaunee, and its largest census designated places (CDPs).

Report Outline

This draft narrative accompanies the Market Strategy Report with results of a Residential Target Market Analysis (TMA) for Marquette County, Michigan. The outline and structure of this report are intentionally replicated for each of the fifteen counties in the Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Regions 1a (west), 1b (central), and 1c (east). This leverages work economies, helps keep the reports succinct, and enables easy comparisons between counties in the region.

Results of the TMA and study are presented by lifestyle cluster (71 clusters across the nation), and target markets (8 upscale and 8 moderate), scenario (conservative and aggressive), tenure (renter and owner), building format (detached and missing middle housing), place (city and census designated place), price point (rent and value), and unit sizes (square feet). These topics are also shown in the following list and supported by attachments with tables and exhibits that detail the quantitative results:

Variable General Description Target Markets Upscale and Moderate Lifestyle Clusters 71 Total and Most Prevalent Scenario Conservative and Aggressive Tenure Renter and Owner Occupied Building Sizes Number of Units per Building Building Formats Missing Middle Housing, Attached and Detached Places Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP) Seasonality Seasonal Non-Resident Households Prices Monthly Rents, Rent per Square Foot, Home Values Unit Sizes Square Feet and Number of Bedrooms

7 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

This Market Strategy Report also includes a series of attached exhibits in Section A through Section H, and an outline is provided in the following Table 1.

Table 1 TMA Market Strategy Report – Outline Marquette County – Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b

The Market Strategy Report Geography Narrative Executive Summary County and Places Narrative Technical Report County and Places Narrative Market Assessment County and Places Section A Investment Opportunities Places Section B Summary Tables and Charts County Section C Conservative Scenario County Section D Aggressive Scenario County Section E Aggressive Scenario Places

Section F1 Contract Rents County and Places

Section F2 Home Values County and Places Section G Existing Households County and Places Section H Market Assessment County and Places

This Market Strategy Report is designed to focus on data results from the target market analysis. It does not include detailed explanations of the analytic methodology and approach, determination of the target markets, derivation of migration and movership rates, Missing Middle Housing typologies, or related terminology. Each of those topics is fully explained in the Methods Book, which is part of the Regional Workbook.

The Regional Workbook is intended to be shared among all counties in the Upper Peninsula region, and it includes the following: a) advisory report of recommended next-steps, b) methods book with terminology and work approach; and c) demographic profiles of the target markets. An outline is provided in the following Table 2.

8 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Table 2 TMA Regional Workbook – Outline Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1

The Regional Workbook Narrative The Advisory Report Narrative The Methods Book

Target Market Profiles Section J Formats by Target Market Section K Building Typologies Section L Lifestyle Clusters Section M Narrative Descriptions

The Regional Workbook (including the Methods Book) is more than a supporting and companion document to this Market Strategy Report. Rather, it is essential for an accurate interpretation of the target market analysis and results, and should be carefully reviewed by every reader and interested stakeholder.

The Target Markets

To complete the market potential, 8 upscale and 8 moderate target markets were selected based on their propensity to a) migrate throughout the State of Michigan; b) choose a place in the Upper Peninsula; and c) choose attached housing formats in small and large urban places. Among the 8 upscale markets, those moving into and within Marquette County include the Full Pockets Empty Nests, Wired for Success, Bohemian Groove, Full Steam Ahead, Digital Dependents, and Striving Single households.

Similarly, the moderate target markets moving into and within the county include Colleges and Cafes (grad students, alumni, staff, and faculty), Family Troopers, Senior Discounts, Dare to Dream, Hope for Tomorrow, Tight Money, and Tough Times. There are only two target market in the Upper Peninsula that are not currently moving into or within Marquette County, including Urban Ambition (these households are more inclined to choose the Chippewa and Mackinac Counties); and Humble Beginnings (they are more inclined to choose Delta County).

9 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

The following Table 3 provides an overview of the target market inclinations for attached units, renter tenure, and average movership rate. Detailed profiles are included in Section B attached to this report and in the Regional Workbook.

Table 3 Preference of Upscale and Moderate Target Markets Marquette County – Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b – Year 2016

Share in Renters Average Attached as a Share Movership Group Lifestyle Cluster Name Units of Total Rate

Upscale E19 Full Pockets Empty Nest 33% 22% 8% Upscale K37 Wired for Success 76% 80% 40% Upscale K40 Bohemian Groove 52% 91% 17% Upscale O50 Full Steam Ahead 100% 98% 54% Upscale O51 Digital Dependents 11% 34% 36% Upscale O54 Striving Single Scene 98% 96% 50%

Moderate O53 Colleges and Cafes 49% 83% 25% Moderate O55 Family Troopers 64% 99% 40% Moderate Q65 Senior Discounts 100% 71% 13% Moderate R66 Dare to Dream 37% 98% 26% Moderate R67 Hope for Tomorrow 37% 99% 30% Moderate S70 Tight Money 92% 100% 36% Moderate S71 Tough Times 86% 95% 19%

Upscale Target Markets for Marquette County

E19 Full Pockets, Empty Nests – These households are found in some of the nation’s most popular recreational playgrounds, including sprawling cities of all sizes. Housing formats vary from beachfront bungalows to hillside townhouses and older mansion-style houses. Many of the neighborhoods are sought-after addresses where the residents don’t want to leave. However, an above-average share will also choose a second vacation home. Head of householder’s age: 78% are 51 year or more, including 54% who are between 51 and 65 years.

10 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Upscale Target Markets for Marquette County (continued)

K37 Wired for Success – About 80% of these households rent apartments in buildings that tend to be relatively new and that have at least 10 units. They are found in small cities that offer good-paying tech jobs and leisure-intensive lifestyles. These are upwardly mobile households, so they are highly transient. Head of householder’s age: 60% are 45 year or less, including 34% who are between 36 and 45 years.

K40 Bohemian Groove – Nearly eighty percent are renting units in low-rise multiplexes, garden apartments, and row houses of varying vintage. They are scattered across the nation and tend to live unassuming lifestyles in unassuming neighborhoods. Just in case they get the urge to move on, they don’t like to accumulate possessions - including houses. Head of householder’s age: 48% are between 51 and 65 years.

O50 Full Steam Ahead – Vertical lifestyles with 97% living in rental apartments, including garden-style complexes with at least 50 units in the building. These are young residents in second-tier cities, living in buildings that were built over recent decades to accommodate fast-growing economies in technology and communications industries. Today, their apartments are still magnets for transient singles who are drawn to good paying jobs. Head of householder’s age: 67% are 45 years or less, including 42% who are between 36 and 45 years.

O51 Digital Dependents – Widely scattered across the country, these households are found in a mix of urban and second-tier cities, and usually in transient neighborhoods. Many have purchased a house, townhouse, flat, or loft as soon as they could; and a high percent are first-time homeowners. Two-thirds are child-free; they are independent and upwardly mobile; and over two-thirds will move within the next three years. Head of householder’s age: 90% are 19 to 35 years.

O54 Striving Single Scene – Young, unattached singles living in city apartments across the country, usually in relatively large cities and close to the urban action. They are living in compact apartments and older low-rise and mid-rise buildings that were built between 1960 and 1990 – some of which are beginning to decline. These are diverse households and most hope that they are just passing through on the way to better jobs and larger flats or lofts. Head of householder’s age: 53% are 35 years or younger.

11 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Moderate Target Markets for Marquette County

O53 Colleges and Cafes – Recent college grads and alums, graduate students, faculty, and staff workers living in small transient college towns. Most are in older, inexpensive rental units, including houses and apartments. Those who have landed decent tech jobs might purchase a house in neighborhoods favored by young professors. However, most choose to live among a diversity of lifestyles. Head of householder’s age: 70% are 45 years or less; and 44% are 35 years or less.

O55 Family Troopers – Families living in small cities and villages, and many have jobs linked to national and state security, or to the military. In some markets they may even be living in barracks or older duplexes, ranches, and low-rise multiplexes located near military bases, airports, and water ports. They are among the most transient populations in the nation and may have routine deployments and reassignments – so renting makes smart sense. Head of householder’s age: 85% are 35 years or younger.

Q65 Senior Discounts – Seniors living throughout the country and particularly in metro communities, big cities, and inner-ring suburbs. They tend to live in large multiplexes geared for seniors, and prefer that security over living on their own. Many of them reside in independent and assisted living facilities. Head of householder’s age: 98% are over 51 years, including 84% who are over 66 years.

R66 Dare to Dream – Young households scattered in mid-sized cities across the country, particularly in the Midwest, and within older transient city neighborhoods. They are sharing crowded attached units to make ends meet; and in buildings built before 1925 that offer few amenities. Some are growing families living in older ranch-style houses and duplexes. Head of householder’s age: 71% are younger than 45 years, and 32% are younger than 30 years.

R67 Hope for Tomorrow – Concentrated in smaller cities throughout the Midwest, and crowded into rental apartment complexes, duplexes, and a variety of ranch houses on tiny lots. Three-quarters of the units were built before 1950, and half were built before 1925. These are transient neighborhoods where economic challenges can be overwhelming. They regard their housing as only a temporary stopping place on the road to something better. Head of householder’s age: 73% are 45 years or younger.

12 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Moderate Target Markets for Marquette County (continued)

S70 Tight Money – Centered in the Midwest and located in exurban and small cities and villages, including bedroom communities to larger metro areas, and in transitioning and challenging neighborhoods. They are living in low-rises and some in duplexes, but few can afford to own a house. Head of householder’s age: 53% are between 36 and 50 years.

S71 Tough Times – Living east of the Mississippi River and in aging city neighborhoods. They tend to live in multiplexes built in the urban renewal era of the 1960’s to 1980’s, when tenement row houses in downtowns were being bulldozed to create new housing for low income and disadvantaged households. Many of their buildings are declining and the tenants are intent on finding alternatives. Head of householder’s age: 68% are between 51 and 65 years.

Prevalent Lifestyle Clusters

While upscale and moderate target markets represent most of the annual market potential for Marquette County, the model also measures the potential among other and more prevalent lifestyle clusters. The most prevalent lifestyle clusters for Marquette County are documented in Section G of this report, and for each city (Marquette, Ishpeming, and Negaunee) and census designated place.

As shown in Exhibit G.1, the most prevalent lifestyle clusters in Marquette County include Unspoiled Splendor, Colleges and Cafes (which is also a Moderate Target Market for the county), Town Elders, True Grit Americans, Aging in Place, and No Place Like Home. Through their large numbers, households in these clusters collectively generate additional market potential for attached units in the county. (Note: The Colleges and Cafes cluster also reduces the average absorption rate among attached rental units, with a turn-over of every three years instead of seven years. This is addressed again later in this report.)

13 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

The following Table 4 provides a summary of Marquette County’s prevalent lifestyle clusters with their propensity to choose attached units, renter tenure, and renter movership rates. For example, about 9% of the True Grit American households are likely to be renters and 11% are inclined to move each year. However, only 4% of these households will choose an attached housing format over a detached house. Therefore, building attached housing formats for these households is not likely to be very effective. Instead, developers should design new formats for the upscale and moderate targets that are more inclined to choose them.

Table 4 Most Prevalent Lifestyle Clusters Marquette County – Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b – Year 2016

Share in Renters Average Marquette Attached as a Share Movership County Lifestyle Cluster Name Units of Total Rate Hhlds.

E21 Unspoiled Splendor 2% 2% 2% 3,202 O53 Colleges, Cafes 49% 83% 25% 2,418 Q64 Town Elders 3% 4% 2% 2,002 N46 True Grit Americans 4% 9% 11% 1,962 J34 Aging in Place 1% 1% 1% 1,943 E20 No Place Like Home 2% 3% 7% 1,474 I30 Stockcars, State Parks 3% 3% 5% 1,085

Prevalent Lifestyle Clusters – Marquette County

E21 Unspoiled Splendor – Scattered locations across small remote rural communities in the Midwest. Most live in detached houses that are relatively new and built since 1980, on sprawling properties with at least 2 acres. Head of householder’s age: 87% are between 51 and 65 years.

14 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Prevalent Lifestyle Clusters – Marquette County

Q64 Town Elders – Seniors living in small and rural communities; in detached ranch houses and bungalows typically situated on small lots and built more than half a century ago. Head of householder’s age: 98% are over 66 years.

N46 True Grit Americans – Typically in scenic settings and small cities throughout the Midwest, and in remote rural areas. Living in older houses and cottages, mainly ranch or craftsman-style houses built before 1970. Head of householder’s age: diverse, with 36% between 36 and 50 years.

J34 Aging in Place – Scattered throughout the country and living in older suburban neighborhoods near metropolitan, second-tier cities. Many moved in to detached houses as part of a flight to suburbia during the 1950s and 1960s, and the houses are now showing signs of wear. Half have lived at the same residence for more than 25 years, and most resist moving into retirement communities. Head of householder’s age: 82% are over 65 years, and 37% are over 75 years.

E20 No Place Like Home – Living in older, comfortable neihborhoods, typically in small cities and towns of the Midwest. They are living in detached houses built between 1950 and 1980, which are spacious enough to accommodate several generations. They are slow to move and most have lived at the same address for more than 15 years. Compared to average residents, they are twice as likely to own a vacation or weekend home, such as a cottage, cabin, or small townhouse. Head of householder’s age: 58% are over 50 years and no more than 65 years.

I30 Stockcars and State Parks – Scattered locations across the country and Midwest states, mostly in small cities and exurban suburbs. Neighborhoods are stable with settled residents that have put down roots. Houses are usually recently built on large lots with carefully tended gardens. Head of householder’s age: 80% are between 36 and 65 years; and 22% are between 46 to 50 years.

15 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Conservative Scenario

The TMA model for Marquette County has been conducted for two scenarios, including a conservative (minimum) and aggressive (maximum) scenario. The conservative scenario is based on in-migration into the county and each of its cities and places, and is unadjusted for out-migration. It does not include households that are already living in and moving within the county and its places.

Results of the conservative scenario are presented in three exhibits in Section C attached to this report, with a focus on county totals. Exhibit C.1 is a summary table showing the county-wide, annual market potential for all 71 lifestyle clusters, the 8 upscale target markets, and the 8 moderate target markets. The 71 lifestyle clusters include all existing households currently living in Marquette County, whether they are prevalent or represent a small share of the total.

Under the conservative scenario, Marquette County has an annual market potential for at least 1,076 attached units (i.e., excluding detached houses), across a range of building sizes and formats. Of these 1,076 attached units, 360 will be occupied by households among the upscale target markets, and 699 will be occupied by moderate target market households. The small remainder of just 17 units will be occupied by other lifestyle clusters that are prevalent in the county – with much slower movership rates and low propensity to choose attached housing formats.

Exhibit C.1 shows these same figures for Marquette County’s conservative scenario, including totals for all 71 lifestyle clusters, and the upscale and moderate target markets; and split between owners and renters. Detailed results are also provided for each of the upscale (Exhibit C.2) and moderate (Exhibit C.3) target markets, with owners at the top of each table and renters at the bottom.

Aggressive Scenario

The aggressive scenario represents a maximum or not-to-exceed threshold based on current migration patterns within and into Marquette County, and unadjusted for out-migration. It also assumes that every household moving into and within the county would prefer to trade-up into a refurbished or new unit, rather than occupy a unit that needs a lot of work.

Attached Section D of this report includes a series of tables that detail the market potential under the aggressive (maximum) scenario. The following Table 5 provides a summary and comparison between the aggressive and conservative scenarios, with a focus on attached units only.

16 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

In general, the aggressive scenario for Marquette County is more than three times the size of the conservative scenario (+328%, or 3,530 v. 1,076 attached units annually).

Under the aggressive scenario, only 2% of the annual market potential (82 units) will be generated by other households that are prevalent in Marquette County (i.e., they are the “Prevalent Lifestyle Clusters”). Although they are prevalent in the county, they have low movership rates and are more inclined to choose houses – if they move at all.

The vast majority (nearly 98%) of market potential for Marquette County will be generated by households that have a higher propensity to choose attached units (thus, they are the “Target Markets”). They are living in the county in relatively fewer numbers, but they have high movership rates and are good targets for new housing formats.

Table 5 Annual and Five-Year Market Potential – Attached Units Only 71 Lifestyle Clusters by Scenario Marquette County – Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b – 2016

Conservative Scenario Aggressive Scenario (Minimum) (Maximum) Renters and Owners Annual 5 Years Annual 5 Years Attached Units Only #Units #Units #Units #Units

Upscale Targets 360 1,800 1,094 5,470 Moderate Targets 699 3,495 2,354 11,770 Other Prevalent Clusters 17 85 82 410 71 Lifestyle Clusters 1,076 5,380 3,530 17,650

All figures for the five-year timeline assume that the annual potential is fully captured in each year through the rehabilitation of existing units, plus conversions of vacant buildings (such as vacant warehouses or schools), and some new-builds. If the market potential is not captured in each year, then the balance does not roll-over to the next year. Instead, the market potential will dissipate into outlying areas or be intercepted by competing counties in the region.

Note: Additional narrative is included in the Methods Book within the Regional Workbook, with explanations of the conservative and aggressive scenarios, upscale and moderate target markets, and the annual and 5-year timelines.

17 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

“Slide” by Building Format

All exhibits in the attached Section B through Section F show the model results before any adjustments are made for the magnitude of market potential relative to building size. For example, under the aggressive scenario, the City of Ishpeming has an annual market potential for up to 20 units among buildings with 100 or more units each. This is not enough to support development of a 100+ unit building. However, the units can “slide” down into smaller formats, and the following Table 7 demonstrates the adjusted results (note: Table 7 is preceded by Table 6 to show countywide results with negligible adjustments).

Table 6 Annual Market Potential – “Slide” along Formats (in Units) 71 Lifestyle Clusters – Conservative and Aggressive Scenarios Marquette County – Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b – 2016

Conservative Scenario Aggressive Scenario Number of Units by Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted Building Format/Size w/out Slide with Slide w/out Slide with Slide

1 | Detached Houses 529 529 1,888 1,888

Note: Additional explanations for “sliding” the market potential along building formats are provided in the Methods Book within the Regional Workbook. Significant narrative in the Methods Book is also dedicated to explanations of building formats, Missing Middle Housing typologies, and recommended branding strategies for developers and builders.

18 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

The Cities and Rings

Section E attached to this Market Strategy Report details the annual market potential and model results for each city (Marquette, Ishpeming, and Negaunee) and census designated place within Marquette County. Results are shown for the aggressive scenario only, which is based on both in- migration and internal movership within each city and place.

Table 7 on the following page shows the annual results for each place, including a) unadjusted model results for the aggressive scenario, and b) adjustments with a “slide” along building sizes. The conservative scenario (reflecting in-migration only) is not provided for the local places, but it can be safely assumed that results would be about 30% of the aggressive scenario.

Intercepting Migrating Households – The market potential for each city and place is based on the known inclination for households to move into and within that place. When few if any households are moving into or within a given place, then the market potential will be similarly low. To experience population growth, Marquette County’s smallest communities (like Harvey and Gwinn) must do a better job of competing with other communities in the region and intercepting migrating households. This can best be accomplished with a combination of job creation, placemaking processes, and real estate investment.

As demonstrated in the prior section of this report, there is an annual market potential for 3,530 attached units throughout Marquette County under the aggressive scenario. The Cities of Marquette, Ishpeming, and Negaunee are best positioned to compete for households that are migrating into and within the county and seeking those choices. Some (albeit not all) of these households will be seeking townhouses and waterfront lofts/flats with balconies and vista views of the Lake Superior, downtown Marquette, Teal Lake, and downtown Negaunee.

The Three Cities – Based on the magnitude and profile of households already moving into and within the City of Marquette, it has an annual market potential for 2,157 attached units through the year 2020, and representing over 60% of the county’s annual market potential. Within the city, 459 attached units will be supportable within 0.5 mile (half a mile) of the downtown core. For additional perspective, details for 0.5 mile and 1.0 mile rings around the downtown are also provided in the attached Exhibit E.3.

19 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Table 7 Annual Market Potential – “Slide” along Formats (in Units) 71 Lifestyle Clusters – Aggressive Scenario Marquette County – Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b – 2016

TheCity 0.5Mile TheCity TheCity Marquette Number of Units of Ring of of County Unadjusted Model Results Marquette Marquette Ishpeming Negaunee Totals

1 | Detached Houses 669 149 169 149 1,888

TheCity 0.5Mile TheCity TheCity Marquette Number of Units of Ring of of County Adjusted for “Slide” Marquette Marquette Ishpeming Negaunee Totals

1 | Detached Houses 669 149 169 149 1,888

20 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

The Cities of Ishpeming and Negaunee – Based on the magnitude and profile of households already moving into and within Ishpeming and Negaunee, they share an annual market potential for 267 attached units through the year 2020 (158 units for Ishpeming plus 109 for Negaunee). The two cities must also share this aggregate market potential, and may compete with each other for migrating households while also competing with the City of Marquette.

(Note: the recent announcement that Empire Mines will be closing could have a negative impact on Ishpeming, Negaunee, and the economic region – unless the loss of 400 jobs can be offset with gains in other industries.)

Non-Residents and Seasonality

In many of Michigan’s counties, seasonal residents and non-residents comprise a significant share of total households. Seasonal residents are captured in the market potential, but seasonal non- residents are not. So, in some unique markets with exceptionally high seasonality, even the aggressive scenario can be viewed as being more than reasonable.

In some unique markets, local developers may be particularly interested in understanding the upside market potential for new housing units that could be specifically designed for seasonal non- resident households. To provide some perspective, LandUse|USA has calculated an adjustment factor for each place in Marquette County and based on data and assumptions that are described in the Methods Book (see narrative within the Regional Workbook).

Market Potential Seasonal Non-Residents “Premium” Marquette County +9% Big Bay CDP +53% Michigamme CDP +28% Gwinn CDP +5% Harvey CDP +2% K. I. Sawyer CDP +1% The City of Marquette +1% The City of Ishpeming +0% The City of Negaunee +0%

21 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

A premium of +1% can be applied to the market potential for the City of Marquette, which is moderate and indicates that students are already captured elsewhere in the data. The upside is relatively large for Big Bay and Michigamme CDP, reflecting their unique attributes as lake communities with seasonal cottages.

Rents and Square Feet

This section of the report focuses on contract rents and unit sizes, and stakeholders are encouraged to review the materials in Section F1 for information on rents (see Section F2 for home values).

Section F1 includes tables showing the general tolerance of the upscale and moderate target markets to pay across contract rent brackets, with averages for the State of Michigan.

The exhibits also show the allocation of annual market potential across rent brackets for Marquette County. Results are also shown in the following Table 8, with a summary for the upscale and moderate target markets under the aggressive scenario.

Table 8 Annual Market Potential by Contract Rent Bracket 71 Lifestyle Clusters – Aggressive Scenario Marquette County – Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b (2016 Constant Dollars)

Renter-Occupied Contract (Cash) Rent Brackets RenterOccupiedUnits $0 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,500- Total Attached and Detached $600 $800 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000+ Potential

Upscale Targets 430 438 339 141 99 1,447 Moderate Targets 995 790 553 235 148 2,721 Other Clusters 188 122 70 25 9 414 Marquette County 1,613 1,350 962 401 256 4,582

Note: Figures in Table 8 are for renter-occupied units only, and might not perfectly match the figures in prior tables due to data splicing and rounding within the market potential model.

22 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Section F1 also includes tables showing the median contract rents for Marquette County’s cities and places, which can be used to make local level adjustments as needed. Also included is a table showing the relationships between contract rent (also known as cash rent) and gross rent (with utilities, deposits, and extra fees). For general reference, there is also a scatter plot showing the direct relationship between contract rents and median household incomes among all 71 lifestyle clusters.

Forecast rents per square foot are based on existing choices throughout the Upper Peninsula region and used to estimate the typical unit size within each rent bracket. Existing choices are documented in Section F1, including a scatter plot with the relationships between rents and square feet. The following Table 9 summarizes the results for the entire region, with typical unit sizes by contract rent bracket.

Table 9 Typical Unit Sizes by Contract Rent Bracket Attached Units Only Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1 (2016 Constant Dollars)

Renter-Occupied Contract (Cash) Rent Brackets ContractRentBrackets $ 0- $600- $700- $800- $ 900- (AttachedUnitsOnly) $600 $700 $800 $900 $1,000+

The City of Marquette Minimum Square Feet . 450 550 600 800 sq. ft. Maximum Square Feet 500 600 700 900 1,300 sq. ft.

All Other Places Minimum Square Feet 450 500 700 900 1,200 sq. ft. Maximum Square Feet 600 800 1,000 1,300 1,600 sq. ft.

The analysis is also conducted for owner-occupied choices, and stakeholders are encouraged to review the materials in Section F1 for those results. Again, additional explanations of the methodology and approach are also provided within the Methods Book included in the Regional Workbook.

23 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

(Note: Marquette is the only city in the region with rents and square feet that consistently exceed averages for the Upper Peninsula region. See Section F1 of the Marquette County Market Strategy for results of that real estate analysis and unique market).

Comparison to Supply

This last step of the TMA compares the market potential to the existing supply of housing by building format, and for all 71 lifestyle clusters. To complete the comparison, it is first determined that among all renters and owners in Michigan, a weighted average of about 14% will move each year. Theoretically, this suggests that it will take roughly seven years for 100% of the housing stock to turn-over. Therefore, the annual market potential is usually multiplied by seven before comparing it to the existing housing stock.

A significantly lower factor of three years is applied to college towns like the City of Marquette (and also the City of Houghton). Students enrolled at Northern Michigan University have exceptionally high movership rates and are turning over the city’s supply of attached units every three years, instead of every seven years (said another way, all existing rental units in the market will have a three-year absorption rate).

Results are provided for Marquette County’s three largest cities, as displayed in the attached Exhibit B.2 (the City of Marquette), Exhibit B.3 (Ishpeming), and Exhibit B.4 (Negaunee). Based on the results, there is no need to build more detached houses in any of these cities. Up to 2,007 households will be seeking detached houses throughout the City of Marquette over the span of three years – and it is assumed that most would prefer a house that has been refurbished or significantly remodeled. Meanwhile, the results reveal a net surplus of houses in the city (4,845 existing units v. 2,007 migrating households) over that three-year span.

(Note: Theoretically, it will take at least 7 years for all of Marquette’s existing detached houses to turn over and before a new market gap emerges for that product.)

Although there is a net surplus of detached houses, 1,428 of the city’s migrating households will be seeking townhouses, row houses, or similar formats over the span of three years, which exceeds the current supply (727 existing units v. 1,428 migrating households). In addition, there are 1,505 existing units among multiplexes and midrise formats, which is insufficient to meet the needs of the 3,804 households seeking those options over the span of three years. These figures are detailed in the following Table 10.

24 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Table 10 Three-Year Cumulative Market Potential v. Existing Units 71 Lifestyle Clusters – Aggressive Scenario The City of Marquette – Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b Years 2016 – 2018

Number of Units Potential Existing Implied Gap by Building Format 3-Year Total Housing Units for New-Builds

1 | Detached Houses 2,007 4,845 --

2 | Duplex, Subdivided House 243 1,019 -776 3-4 | Side-by-Side, Stacked 996 463 533 SubtotalDuplex–Fourplex 1,239 1,482 -243

5-9 | Townhouse, Live-Work 1,428 727 701

10-19 | Multiplex: Small 927 700 227 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 909 399 510 50+ | Midrise: Small 1,968 406 1,562 Subtotal Multiplex & Midrise 3,804 1,505 2,299

Total Attached Units 6,471 3,714 2,757

The histograms comparing the 7-year (and 3-year) market potential to existing housing units is intended only to provide a general sense of magnitude. Direct comparisons will be imperfect for a number reasons described in the following list.

25 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Exhibit B.1 – Some Cautionary Observations

1. The market potential has not been refined to account for the magnitude of market potential among building sizes, and is not adjusted for a “slide” along building formats.

2. The histogram relies on data for existing housing units as reported by the American Community Survey (ACS) and based on five-year estimates through 2014. The data and year for the market potential is different, so comparisons will be imperfect.

3. The number of existing housing units is not adjusted for vacancies, including units difficult to sell or lease because they do not meet household needs and preferences. Within the cities and villages, a small share may be reported vacant because they are seasonally occupied by non-residents. Seasonal occupancy rates tend to be significantly higher in the rural areas.

4. On average, the existing housing stock should be expected to turnover every seven years, with variations by tenure and lifestyle cluster. However, owner-occupied units have a slower turn-over rate (about 15 years), whereas renter occupied units tend to turn-over at least every three years. Again, these differences mean that direct comparisons between building formats will be imperfect.

5. The 7-year (and 3-year) market potential assumes that the market potential is fully met within each consecutive year. However, if Marquette County cannot meet the market potential in any given year, then that opportunity will dissipate and not roll-over.

26 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Market Assessment – Introduction

The following sections of this report provide a qualitative market assessment for Marquette County and the Cites of Ishpeming, Marquette, and Negaunee. It begins with an overview of countywide economic advantages, followed by a market assessment for Ishpeming, Marquette, and Negaunee. The last section provides results of a PlaceScoreTM analysis for Ishpeming and Marquette, based on placemaking attributes relative to other cities and villages throughout the State of Michigan.

Materials attached to this report include Section A with downtown aerials, photo collages, and investment opportunities. All lists with sites, addresses, and buildings include information that local stakeholders reported and have not been field-verified by the consultants. In contrast, the photo collages document what the consultants observed during independent market tours and field research.

Collages of Downtown Photos – Observations by the consultants during independent field work. Lists of Investment Opportunities – Information that stakeholders provided to the consultants.

In addition, Section H includes demographic profiles, a table of traffic counts, and the comparative analysis of PlaceScoresTM. The following narrative provides a summary of some key observations, and stakeholders are encouraged to study the attachments for additional information.

Marquette County – Overview

Marquette County is located in the central Upper Peninsula of Michigan and benefits from over 80 miles of shoreline along Lake Superior. It shares borders with Baraga and Iron counties to the west; Dickinson and Menominee counties to the south; and Delta and Alger counties to the east.

Highways 41, 28, and 95 connect Marquette County with its economic region. Highway 41 links west to Highway 141, which in turn connect north to the Cities of Houghton and Hancock, and south to the City of Green Bay, Wisconsin. Highway 41 also has the highest traffic volumes with 33,400 vehicles daily, which is unmatched by any other state highway in the Upper Peninsula (the second largest volume is 26,600 vehicles in Houghton County, also along Highway 41).

27 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Highway 28 connects Marquette County west to the City of Ironwood and east to the City of Sault Sainte Marie; and Highway 95 links southwest to Iron Mountain. The Canadian National Railway provides freight transportation west to Baraga County, and south to Delta County. Marquette County’s economy also benefits from Sawyer International Airport, which is located in Gwinn and supports regional commercial service and general aviation uses.

Economic Profile – Marquette County’s early economy was catalyzed by the iron ore mining, forestry, and related industries. However, the economy has since diversified and today the education, health, and social services industries comprise nearly 30% of all jobs. Arts, entertainment, recreation, hospitality, and retail trade share nearly 24% of employment. In comparison, manufacturing generates just 5% of all jobs; and government administration supports another 6 percent.

Many of the county’s largest employers are located in Marquette, Negaunee, and Ispheming, and are listed in the following sections of this report. Some are located in other places and listed below. (Note: The lists exclude local public schools and local government, but usually include other anchor institutions like hospitals, colleges, county seats, and airports).

Marquette County – Employers and Anchor Institutions  Cliff’s Natural Resources-Eagle Mine (Palmer) | Iron Ore Mining  Cliff’s Natural Resources-Tilden Mine (Tilden Twp.) | Iron Ore Mining  Ojibwa Casino-Marquette (Harvey) | Entertainment

Gwinn CDP – Employers and Anchor Institutions  Superior Extrusion | Metal Manufacturing  Sawyer International Airport | Transportation  Potlatch Corporation | Forestry, Sawmill  American Eagle Airlines | Transportation

28 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

The City of Marquette Advantage

Geographic Setting – The City of Marquette is located on the Marquette Bay of Lake Superior and is the largest city in the Upper Peninsula. Highways 41, 28 and 553 all help link the City of Marquette with its economic region and connects Highway 41 connects west to Negaunee and Ishpeming, and south to Escanaba. Highway 28 connects east to the City of Sault Sainte Marie; and Highway 553 links south to the Gwinn CDP and K.I. Sawyer.

Economic Profile – The City of Marquette has historically leveraged its waterfront access for a variety of material trades, and its harbor became a major shipping port for iron ore, lumber, and fish. Iron ore docks, mills, rail yards, factories, and a huge coal yard were once located along its lower harbor. Railroad tracks and trains loaded with iron ore once dissected the downtown, and its lakefront was industrial in character.

Most of the nearby mines have long since closed, and Marquette’s Lower Harbor Ore Dock was eventually recognized as a valuable resource and converted into waterfront amenities. The deep- water Port of Marquette continues to serve as a major shipping center for the Upper Peninsula and generates considerable traffic in marine-related industries. Meanwhile, economic shifts have also led to a transformation and redevelopment of the lakefront.

The city has been successful at diversifying its economy into other industry sectors, particularly in education, and health care (see the following list of employers). Waterfront and downtown restoration projects have been carefully implemented to create a shopping, entertainment, and

Today, the city’s economy has since diversified, and education, health, and social services now comprise nearly 34% all jobs. Arts, entertainment, recreation, hospitality, and retail trade comprise another 30% of total employment, which is high relative to the average for Marquette County (24%). Northern Michigan University (NMU) and the UP Health System’s Marquette General Hospital are two important anchor institutions for the region.

The City of Marquette is also the county seat and government functions provide good paying jobs while supporting local businesses in diverse professions like finance, insurance, real estate (mortgage, title, and property surveying), legal (attorneys and lawyers), and related industries. Some of the city’s large employers and anchor institutions are shown in the following lists.

29 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

The City of Marquette | Health Care Employers  UP Health System – Marquette | Duke LifePoint Hospital  Upper Peninsula Medical Center  Pathways Community Mental Health  D.J. Jacobetti Home for Veterans  Norlite Nursing Center

Advanced Education – The City of Marquette is home to Northern Michigan University (NMU), with 8,400 students and 100 academic programs. Student enrollment is currently declining and the university is striving for new growth that could increase enrollment to 9,000 students. The university’s Superior Dome holds claim to being the world’s largest wood dome.

Job Creation in Health Care – The UP Health System is currently planning development of a new hospital and medical office building facilities, which are anticipated for completion in late 2018. Meanwhile, the current hospital campus, buildings, and properties are being studied and will be repurposed into complementary and supporting uses.

Downtown Setting – West Washington Street is the city’s principal downtown corridor, which also spans several blocks to the north and south. Building scale and massing have helped create a cohesive and well-knit district. This has been made possible in part by the absence of minimum parking requirements within the city’s zoning ordinance. North Third Street corridor links the downtown to the NMU campus with a secondary commercial district.

30 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Downtown Reinvestment – Recent reinvestment has been transformative for the downtown and is expected to continue with additional building restorations and rehabs. The city has become known for its historic districts; exemplary preservation of historic buildings (like the former Northland Hotel and Rosewood Inn); and successful implementation of form based codes in the downtown and south waterfront districts.

Marquette has set new standards for communities striving to be livable, walkable winter cities. Marquette received technical assistance from the Michigan Municipal League (MML) and Michigan State University School of Planning to undergo a downtown placemaking process in 2014.

Investment Opportunities – Based on stakeholder input, two properties adjacent to the Founder’s Landing development on Marquette’s waterfront are vacant and are suited for development of small multiplexes including lofts or flats. Three vacant properties on the 1200 block of Third Street are a 5-minute walk from the NMU campus and could be infilled with development including lofts or flats above retail.

Additional investment opportunities are listed in Section A attached to this report. Photo collages are intended to reinforce reinvestment opportunities located in downtown districts, and primarily reflect independent observations by the consultants.

31 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

The City of Ishpeming Advantage

Geographic Setting – The City of Ishpeming is centrally located within Marquette County and is economically linked with the City of Negaunee, which is located a few miles to the northeast. The announced closure of Empire Mine in the nearby Palmer community (in late 2016) will have an impact on the city and its surrounding region, with a regional loss of about 400 jobs.

Employers – Aside from Empire Mine, other large employers and anchor institutions include Bell Hospital (a LifePoint Hospital); TruNorth Federal Credit Union (finance); and PCBM Management / County Village (traveler accommodations), which have helped diversify the local economy.

Economic Profile – Today, education, health care, and social services already represent Ishpeming’s largest industry sector, providing over 29% of all local jobs. Arts, entertainment, recreation, hospitality, and retail trade collectively account for about 23% of total employment, followed by manufacturing with about 5 percent; and forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining at about 5 percent.

Downtown Setting – Downtown Ishpeming is located less than one mile south of the Highway 41 corridor and spans Highway 28 (Main Street), which connects northeast to the City of Negaunee, Trowbridge Park, and the City of Marquette. Marquette County and the City of Ishpeming are currently collaborating on downtown façade improvements to seven buildings, and the Downtown Development Authority recently expanded its Facade Improvement Grant Program.

Investment Opportunities – Based on stakeholder input, a gateway location on Highway 28 Business Loop is owned by the city and located along Lake Bancroft. The property could incorporate community gathering and activity space into a mixed-use development. Four buildings on Main Street are for sale with the opportunity to develop upper story flats or lofts over retail.

32 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

The City of Negaunee Advantage

Geographic Setting – The City of Negaunee is centrally located within Marquette County and located along the south and east shores of Teal Lake, which offers relatively attainable lakefront alternatives to Lake Superior. Highway 41 links Negaunee east to Trowbridge Park and the City of Marquette and west to nearby Ishpeming. Highway 41 also links west to Highway 95, which continues south to the Cities of Iron Mountain and Menominee. It also links west to Highway 141, which continues north to the Cities of Houghton and Hancock.

Economic Profile – The discovery of iron ore near Teal Lake drew early industry and jobs to the City of Negaunee. In more recent years the city has diversified its economy from mining-related industries to education, healthcare, and social assistance. Its largest employers include the Eastwood Nursing Center; and education, health, and social services collectively comprise 24% of the city’s total employment.

Arts, entertainment, recreation, hospitality, and retail trade collectively represent about 22% of total employment; trailed by manufacturing at about 6 percent. Forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining represent nearly 10% of all jobs, which is high relative to the county average (5%) but surpassed by the nearby Palmer CDP (17%). The anticipated closure of Empire Mine in the Palmer CDP will have an impact on workers commuting from Negaunee, Ishpeming, and other places throughout the region.

Investment Opportunities – Negaunee’s downtown is located about half a mile south of the Highway 41 corridor and is aligned along Iron Street. There are a few opportunities for renovations within the downtown, including mixed-use projects with upper level rehabs for lofts and flats. Based on stakeholder input, the Kirkwood building is currently slated for demolition but might be recoverable for a mixed-use project.

In addition, a three-level building at the corner of Iron and Silver Streets is available and has good visibility to traffic along Silver Street / Highway 28. Other re-investment opportunities are listed in Section A attached to this report, and generally reflect stakeholder input. Photo collages are intended to reinforce reinvestment opportunities located in downtown districts and reflect independent field observations by the consultants.

33 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Analysis of PlaceScoresTM

Introduction – Placemaking is a key ingredient for achieving Marquette County’s full residential market potential, particularly under the aggressive or maximum scenario. Extensive Internet research was conducted to evaluate the success of the Cities of Marquette and Ishpeming relative to other communities throughout Michigan. PlaceScoreTM criteria are tallied for a possible 30 total points, and based on an approach that is explained in the Methods Book (see the Regional Workbook). Results are summarized in Table 11, and detailed in Section H of this report.

Table 11 Summary of PlaceScores Places in Marquette County, Michigan – 2016

2014 PlaceScore Place Names Population (30 Points) Ishpeming 6,514 17 Marquette 21,430 22

Note: PlaceScore is a term, methodology, and analysis trademarked by LandUse|USA. The 2014 population is based on the ACS with 5-year estimates (2009-2014).

Summary of the PlaceScores – The City of Marquette is the county’s largest community and also has the highest PlaceScore (22 points out of 30 possible). Ishpeming scores lower in PlaceScore with 17 points out of 30 possible.

PlaceScore v. Market Size – There tends to be a correlation between PlaceScore and the market size in population. If the scores are adjusted for the market size (or calculated based on the score per 1,000 residents), then the results reveal an inverse logarithmic relationship.

Smaller places may have lower scores, but their points per 1,000 residents tend to be higher. Larger markets have higher scores, but their points per 1,000 residents tend to be lower. Although the Cities of Marquette and Ishpeming’s adjusted PlaceScores for market size are lower than their unadjusted PlaceScores, they still score within a range that is typical for cities of similar size.

34 | P a g e Marquette County – Upper Peninsula Region 1b Residential TMA

Contact Information

This concludes the Draft Market Strategy Report for the Marquette County Target Market Analysis. Questions regarding economic growth, downtown development initiatives, and implementation of these recommendations can be addressed to the following project managers.

West Region 1a Central Region 1b East Region 1c Erik Powers Emilie Schada Jeff Hagan Regional Planner Regional Planner Executive Director WUPPDR CUPPAD EUPRP 393 E. Lakeshore Drive 2950 College Avenue 1118 E. Easterday Avenue Marquette, MI 49931 Escanaba, MI 49829 Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783 (906) 482-7205 x315 (906) 786-9234 x508 (906) 635-1752 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Questions regarding the work approach, methodology, TMA terminology, analytic results, strategy recommendations, and planning implications should be directed to Sharon Woods at LandUse|USA.

Sharon M. Woods, CRE Principal, TMA Team Leader LandUse|USA, LLC www.LandUseUSA.com [email protected] (517) 290-5531 direct

35 | P a g e Marquette County

Prepared by: Prepared for: Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1b

Michigan State Housing Development Authority Table of Contents

Investment Opportunities A Summary Tables and Charts B Conservative Scenario | County C Prepared by: Aggressive Scenario | County D Aggressive Scenario | Places E

Contract Rents | County and Places F1

Home Values | County and Places F2 Existing Households | County and Places G Market Assessment | County and Places H Investment Opportunities

Prepared by: Prepared for: Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1

Michigan State Housing Development Authority Exhibit A.1

Scale 1 : 400,000 0 ½ 1 1½ 2 mi km 0 1 2 3 4 1" = 1.40 mi Exhibit A.2

Scale 1 : 400,000 0 ½ 1 1½ 2 mi km 0 1 2 3 4 1" = 1.40 mi Aerial Photo - Urban and Downtown Perspective Exhibit A.3 The City of Marquette | Marquette Co. | UP Prosperity Region 1b

Source: Underlying aerial provided to Google Earth and licensed to LandUse|USA through Sites|USA. Exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016 ©. Scenes Conveying the Overall High Quality and Character of the Downtown District Exhibit A.4 The City of Marquette | Marquette County | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b

Photo credits (above): All original photos by LandUse|USA; 2016 © with all rights reserved. Examples of Buildings with Scale and Critical Mass in Downtown Marquette Exhibit A.5 The City of Marquette | Marquette County | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b

Photo credits (above): All original photos by LandUse|USA; 2016 © with all rights reserved. Examples of the Few Remaining Opportunities for Restoration of Existing Buildings Exhibit A.6 The City of Marquette | Marquette County | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b

- Left Opportunity for vertical expansion above existing space.

Photo credits (above): All original photos by LandUse|USA; 2016 © with all rights reserved. Exhibit A.7 Potential Expansion Opportunities among Various Parking Lots on Prime Retail Corners The City of Marquette | Marquette County | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b

Photo credit (above): Google Earth licensed through Regis and Sites|USA; 2016. List of Investment Opportunities for Missing Middle Housing Formats Exhibit A.8 The City of Marquette | Marquette County, Michigan | Year 2016

Water Down Existing Conditions/Current Use Investment Opp./Future Use Place Name Front Town Notes and Comments Notes and Comments 1 The City of Marquette No No University campus properties, existing Northern Michigan University is evaluating the residence halls. possibility of a public-private partnership for a replacement of 200-400 apartment beds and 1,200 residence hall beds on campus.

2 The City of Marquette No Yes 1301 N. Third Street, "The Beacon House" Medical hospitality house will be relocated in Currently used as a medical hospitality the next two years, has potential as mixed-use, house. lofts, or flats. 3 The City of Marquette No Yes 1202, 1208 and 1210 N. Third Street. Potential infill development of mixed-use Currently vacant, redevelopment ready. condos and lofts. 4 The City of Marquette No Yes 1212 N. Third Street. Currently used - Available for purchase. “Johnson’s Shoes/Hockey World.” 5 The City of Marquette Yes Yes 119 Lakeshore Boulevard. Vacant, Potential for mixed-use development with development ready, lakefront property. internal parking. 6 The City of Marquette No Yes 130 W. Main Street. Project is underway and anticipated to include some attached housing units. 7 The City of Marquette No Yes 335-337 W. Washington Street. Mixed-use, retail first floor, 6 “upscale” apartments second floor; project is underway. 8 The City of Marquette No Yes Holy Family Orphan’s Home/Grandview Slated to be finished by March 2017, and will Marquette. Overlooks Marquette Harbor, include a public space for events. Awarded for on the National Register of Historic Places. LIHTC, anticipated to include 56 new units. Assumed to be an adaptive reuse project.

Notes: This investment list focuses on the region's largest projects that only include a residential component. The information has been provided by local stakeholders and internet research, and every project has not been field verified. Source: Interviews with stakeholders and market research conducted by LandUse|USA, 2016. List of Investment Opportunities for Missing Middle Housing Formats Exhibit A.9 The City of Marquette | Marquette County, Michigan | Year 2016

Water Down Existing Conditions/Current Use Investment Opp./Future Use Place Name Front Town Notes and Comments Notes and Comments 9 The City of Marquette No Yes 139 W. Washington St. Delft Theatre. City was awarded 481K in CDBG money for restoration.

10 The City of Marquette Yes No 2001 Lakeshore Boulevard, 20 acres on Potential for upscale condos or lofts. former Cliff Dow Site. Razed, development 11 The City of Marquette Yes Adjacentready. 955 Lakeshore Boulevard, 3 acres Potential for upscale condos or lofts. abandoned warehouse. 12 The City of Marquette No Yes 231 W. Washington Street, Multi-level Potential for mixed-use with upper level building. condos or lofts. 13 The City of Marquette No Yes 200 N. Third Street, Multi-level building. Potential for mixed-use with upper level condos or lofts. 14 The City of Marquette No Yes 128 W. Washington Street, Multi-level Potential for mixed-use with upper level building. condos or lofts. 15 The City of Marquette Yes Adjacent 800 S. Lakeshore Boulevard, 4.5 acre vacant Potential for upscale condos or lofts. property south of Founders Landing. 16 The City of Marquette Yes Adjacent 601 S. Lakeshore Boulevard, 1 acre vacant Potential for upscale condos or lofts. property south of Founders Landing. 17 The City of Marquette Yes No 1880 S. Highway 41, 14 acre vacant former Potential for upscale condos or lofts. hotel property

18 The City of Marquette No Yes 231 W. Washington. 6,660 sq. ft. 3-level Potential for a rehab for mixed-use and upper building. For sale. level condos or lofts.

Notes: This investment list focuses on the region's largest projects that only include a residential component. The information has been provided by local stakeholders and internet research, and every project has not been field verified. Source: Interviews with stakeholders and market research conducted by LandUse|USA, 2016. List of Investment Opportunities for Missing Middle Housing Formats Exhibit A.10 The City of Marquette | Marquette County, Michigan | Year 2016

Water Down Existing Conditions/Current Use Investment Opp./Future Use Place Name Front Town Notes and Comments Notes and Comments 19 The City of Marquette No Adjacent 420 W. Magnetic Street, currently the Plans for the current site are unknown at this Marquette General Hospital. 17 acres. One time. Potential for mixed-use, lofts, or flats. portion (former St. Luke’s Hospital, 1915) is historic. Adjacent to Northern Michigan University and the Village shopping district. 20 The City of Marquette No Yes Old Town. Former Caving Grounds Donated Potential for senior housing, and/or to city by Cliffs Natural Resources. Adjacent townhouses. to City Park, vacant, development ready.

21 The City of Marquette No Yes 231 W. Washington. 6,660 sq. ft. 3-level Potential for a rehab for mixed-use and upper building. For sale. level condos or lofts. 22 The City of Marquette Yes Yes 1100 S. Front Street Single level building, Shorefront location makes this an ideal 5,393 sq. ft. For sale. location for a raze and rebuild of mixed-use, condos or lofts. 23 The City of Marquette Yes Yes 115 S Third Street. Corner 2-level building, Potential for a rehab for mixed-use and upper built in 1880. 3,892 sq. ft. For sale. level condos or lofts. 24 The City of Marquette Views Yes 315 S. Front Street. Built in 1890, 3-level Potential for a façade restoration, rehab for building, 8,100 sq. ft. For sale. mixed-use and upper level condos or lofts. 25 The City of Marquette No Yes Existing Wells Fargo building at SEQ of Fair Bank is selling the building to accommodate Avenue and 3rd Street. the need for more housing choices near the university. Notes: This investment list focuses on the region's largest projects that only include a residential component. The information has been provided by local stakeholders and internet research, and every project has not been field verified. Source: Interviews with stakeholders and market research conducted by LandUse|USA, 2016. Aerial Photo - Urban and Downtown Perspective Exhibit A.11 Trowbridge Park CDP | Marquette Co. | UP Prosperity Region 1b

Source: Underlying aerial provided to Google Earth and licensed to LandUse|USA through Sites|USA. Exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016 ©. Aerial Photo - Urban and Downtown Perspective Exhibit A.12 The City of Ishpeming | Marquette Co. | UP Prosperity Region 1b

Source: Underlying aerial provided to Google Earth and licensed to LandUse|USA through Sites|USA. Exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016 ©. Selected Images Conveying General Community Character and Scale Exhibit A.13 The City of Ishpeming | Marquette County | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b

Photo credits: The City of Ishpeming and the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) - online. Selected Images Conveying General Community Character and Scale Exhibit A.14 The City of Ishpeming | Marquette County | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b

Photo credit (above): Original photos by LandUse|USA; 2009 and 2016 © with all rights reserved. Selected Images Conveying General Community Character and Scale Exhibit A.15 The City of Ishpeming | Marquette County | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b

Credit above): Main Street Antique Mall Credit (above): Jackson's Do It Hardware Credit (above): www.EOFP.net

Credit (above): WaterWinterWonderland.com Credit (above): www.EOFP.net

Credit (above): ItiBitiSmart.com Credit (above): ItiBitiSmart.com List of Investment Opportunities for Missing Middle Housing Formats Exhibit A.16 The City of Ishpeming | Marquette County, Michigan | Year 2016

Water Down Existing Conditions/Current Use Investment Opp./Future Use Place Name Front Town Notes and Comments Notes and Comments 1 The City of Ishpeming No Yes Historic 1888 3-level building. Nardi Ready for redevelopment, mixed-use or Building, 203 S. Main Street. 12,726 sq. ft. condos. Vacant, for sale. 2 The City of Ishpeming No Yes 207/209 Division. Zoned CBD, all utilities Known interested parties: Owner of Rumorz available. Owned by the city; 80 X 120 sq Bar. Could become part of a larger mixed-use ft., fronts onto Highway 28. development project, including nearby parcels, such as the parcel on the other side of the bar, which the city also owns. 3 The City of Ishpeming No Yes Former Bell Hospital, vacant. 6.5 acres Potential mixed-use or townhouses. The donated to Great Lakes Recovery Center. owners have indicated that they have an Zoned General Commercial, all utilities obligation to maximize the benefit to the GLRC avail. Fronts BR-28, Adjacent to TIF District organization and its clients. and the Historic Ishpeming High School. Development ready. 4 The City of Ishpeming No Yes First Street and Cleveland. Vacant land, Potential for mixed-use with upper level zoned CBD, all utilities available. Owner: condos or lofts. Frank Andriacci. 100 X 300 square feet, covered in gravel. Fronts onto First Street. 5 The City of Ishpeming No Yes The Brownstones, corner of 7th Street & One of the buildings in the back will be Division. City owned industrial site, demolished and removed by the Marquette potential contaminiation. Brick buildings County Land Bank. are part of early iron ore mining heritage. Property is located along the Iron Ore Heritage Trail.

Notes: This investment list focuses on the region's largest projects that only include a residential component. The information has been provided by local stakeholders and internet research, and every project has not been field verified. Source: Interviews with stakeholders and market research conducted by LandUse|USA, 2016. List of Investment Opportunities for Missing Middle Housing Formats Exhibit A.17 The City of Ishpeming | Marquette County, Michigan | Year 2016

Water Down Existing Conditions/Current Use Investment Opp./Future Use Place Name Front Town Notes and Comments Notes and Comments 6 The City of Ishpeming Yes - Adjacent Cliffs Shaft Heritage Theme Park, corner of Location is desireable for community gathering Lake Euclid and Lakeshore. Underdeveloped and and is also . Potential for mixed-use, condos, Bancroft vacant 13 acres, city-owned. Within the and lofts. Could be combined with the DDA District. The adjacent Lake Bancroft adjacent city-owned vacant lot of 2.6 acres on Park is also one of the Iron Ore Heritage the northeast corner of the Cliffs Shaft Trail trailheads. property. 7 The City of Ishpeming No Yes Malton Road Corridor. 600 acres. Zoned The Planning Commission has recommended Deferred Development (offers options). development in stages with phase one as small Not all utilities avail. Owners: the city, residential development adjacent to existing Malton Electric, Heritage Hills Recreational residential neighborhoods of Wabash Heights Riding Stables, jointly owned landfill, and and New York Street. others. 8 The City of Ishpeming No Adjacent Vacant buildings on Highway 41 and 2nd Potential for mixed-use with upper level Street. (new roundabout area). Multiple condos or lofts. lots, all available parcels are in private ownership. Redevelopemnt ready, all utilities available. 9 The City of Ishpeming No Unclear Creekside Condos Donation Site. City- Potential for mixed-use with upper level owned, and overgrown. condos or lofts. 10 The City of Ishpeming No Adjacent City property, Division and Greenwood The City intended to build a new Fire and Streets. 6 acres, three different zoning Police Department Facility on site. Unclear districts, all utilities available. whether this project is underway.

Notes: This investment list focuses on the region's largest projects that only include a residential component. The information has been provided by local stakeholders and internet research, and every project has not been field verified. Source: Interviews with stakeholders and market research conducted by LandUse|USA, 2016. List of Investment Opportunities for Missing Middle Housing Formats Exhibit A.18 The City of Ishpeming | Marquette County, Michigan | Year 2016

Water Down Existing Conditions/Current Use Investment Opp./Future Use Place Name Front Town Notes and Comments Notes and Comments 11 The City of Ishpeming No Yes City owned. Senior Center: Greater The Council is exploring to build a new Senior Ishpeming Council on Aging. Zoned General Center on this site due to condition of the Business and Residential. existing building. 12 The City of Ishpeming No Yes 101 S. Main Street. 11,227 sq. ft. Single building's size and downtown location make it level, for sale. ideal for a vertical expansion to include upper level condos or lofts. 13 The City of Ishpeming No Yes Historic, built in 1888. 114 S. Main Street. 2- Potential for a historical rehab for mixed-use level masonry building, 5,250 sq. ft. For and upper level condos or lofts. sale. 14 The City of Ishpeming No Yes 120 S. Main Street. 4,000 sq. ft. Single level, building's size and downtown location make it for sale. ideal for a vertical expansion to include upper level condos or lofts. 15 The City of Ishpeming No Yes 216 S. Main Street. 1,100 sq. ft. Single level, building's downtown location make it ideal for for sale. a vertical expansion to include upper level condos or lofts.

1 West Ishpeming CDP No Adjacent City owned and used for parking and snow Could be combined with the adjacent parcel, a stock piling. Corner of Lake and Division vacant blighted building. Streets. Zoned for General Business Development, all utilities available. Notes: This investment list focuses on the region's largest projects that only include a residential component. The information has been provided by local stakeholders and internet research, and every project has not been field verified. Source: Interviews with stakeholders and market research conducted by LandUse|USA, 2016. Aerial Photo - Urban and Downtown Perspective Exhibit A.19 The City of Negaunee| Marquette Co. | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b

Source: Underlying aerial provided to Google Earth and licensed to LandUse|USA through Sites|USA. Exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016 ©. Exhibit A.20 Selected Images Conveying General Community Character and Scale The City of Negaunee | Marquette County | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b

Photo credit (above): Original photos by LandUse|USA; 2009 © with all rights reserved. Exhibit A.21 List of Investment Opportunities for Missing Middle Housing Formats The City of Negaunee and Selected CDPs | Marquette County, Michigan | Year 2016

Water Down Existing Conditions/Current Use Investment Opp./Future Use Place Name Front Town Notes and Comments Notes and Comments 1 The City of Negaunee No Yes 324 Iron Street. Building is vacant, with Potential for historical renovation for a mixed- failing roof. use building with condos and lofts. 2 The City of Negaunee No Yes Kirkwood Building - 211 Iron Street. Recent property assessment suggested the Building is vacant and scheduled for building could be redeveloped in spite of a demolition. failed roof. Potential for historical renovation for a mixed-use building with condos and lofts, or a new build mixed-use project. 3 The City of Negaunee No Yes 415 Iron Street. Built in 1900, 2,704 sq. ft. Potential for historical renovation for a mixed- First floor is used as a laundromat, with use building with condos and lofts. upper apartments. 3-levels, for sale. 4 The City of Negaunee No Yes 212 Iron Street. 2-level building, 4,179 sq. Potential for rental rehab. ft. First level bar with 3-bedroom upper apartment.

1 Gwinn CDP No Yes 120 N. Pine. 1,457 sq. ft. Single level building's downtown location is ideal for a building, used as restaurant. For sale. verticle expansion, or a raze and rebuild for mixed-use, condos or lofts.

1 Michigamme CDP No Yes 217 W. Main. 1900 Church building. 1,456 Potential adaptive reuse for condos or lofts. sq. ft. For sale.

Notes: This investment list focuses on the region's largest projects that only include a residential component. The information has been provided by local stakeholders and internet research, and every project has not been field verified. Source: Interviews with stakeholders and market research conducted by LandUse|USA, 2016. Aerial Photo - Urban and Downtown Perspective Exhibit A.22 Gwinn CDP | Marquette Co. | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b

Source: Underlying aerial provided to Google Earth and licensed to LandUse|USA through Sites|USA. Exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016 ©. Summary Tables and Charts

Prepared by: Prepared for: Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1

Michigan State Housing Development Authority Exhibit B.1 3-Year Market Potential v. Total Existing Housing Units All 71 Lifestyle Clusters - Aggressive Scenario Marquette County | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1c | 2016 - 2018

2,748 Midrise: Small, Large 599 1,383 Multiplex: Large 706 1,350 Multiplex: Small 1,089 2,799 Townhse., Live-Work 1,540 1,800 Triplex, Fourplex 1,176 3-Year Market Potential Total Existing Housing Units 510 Subdivided Houses 2,537 5,664 26,784 Detached Houses

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 Number of Housing Units

Source: Based on analysis and target market analysis modelling conducted exclusively by LandUse|USA; 2016 (c) with all rights reserved. Unadjusted for seasonal, non-resident households. Exhibit B.2 3-Year Market Potential v. Total Existing Housing Units All 71 Lifestyle Clusters - Aggressive Scenario The City of Marquette | Marquette County, Michigan | 2016 - 2018

1,968 Midrise: Small, Large 406 909 Multiplex: Large 399 927 Multiplex: Small 700 1,428 Townhse., Live-Work 727 996 Triplex, Fourplex 463 3-Year Market Potential Total Existing Housing Units 243 Subdivided Houses 1,019 2,007 Detached Houses 4,845

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Number of Housing Units

Source: Based on analysis and target market analysis modelling conducted exclusively by LandUse|USA; 2016 (c) with all rights reserved. Unadjusted for seasonal, non-resident households. Exhibit B.3 7-Year Market Potential v. Total Existing Housing Units All 71 Lifestyle Clusters - Aggressive Scenario The City of Ishpeming | Marquette County, Michigan | 2016 - 2022

224 Midrise: Small, Large 99 112 Multiplex: Large 35 105 Multiplex: Small 101 364 Townhse., Live-Work 83 231 Triplex, Fourplex 245 7-Year Market Potential Total Existing Housing Units 70 Subdivided Houses 334 1,183 Detached Houses 2,154

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Number of Housing Units

Source: Based on analysis and target market analysis modelling conducted exclusively by LandUse|USA; 2016 (c) with all rights reserved. Unadjusted for seasonal, non-resident households. Exhibit B.4 7-Year Market Potential v. Total Existing Housing Units All 71 Lifestyle Clusters - Aggressive Scenario The City of Negaunee | Marquette County, Michigan | 2016 - 2022

161 Midrise: Small, Large 67 84 Multiplex: Large 6 63 Multiplex: Small 55 245 Townhse., Live-Work 178 147 Triplex, Fourplex 49 7-Year Market Potential Total Existing Housing Units 63 Subdivided Houses 164 1,043 Detached Houses 1,563

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Number of Housing Units

Source: Based on analysis and target market analysis modelling conducted exclusively by LandUse|USA; 2016 (c) with all rights reserved. Unadjusted for seasonal, non-resident households. Missing Middle Housing Formats v. Detached Houses Exhibit B.5 Preferences of Most Prevalent Lifestyle Clusters Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1 | Year 2016

100% Legend

S 90% h ar e

o 80% f A l l

O 70% w n e r 60% an d

R 50% e n t e r 40% O c c u

p 30% i e d

U 20% n i t s 10%

0% Unspoiled Rural Escape Booming Homemade Red White True Grit Town Elders Small Town Splendor J35 and Happiness and Americans Q64 Shallow E21 Consuming L43 Bluegrass N46 Pockets L41 M44 S68 Source: Underlying Mosaic|USA data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and licensed to LandUse|USA through SItes|USA. Michigan estimates, analysis, and exhibit prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016; all rights reserved. Exhibit B.6 Residential Market Parameters for Lifestyle Clusters For Missing Middle Housing - Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1 With Averages for the State of Michigan - 2015

Duplex Blended Detached Triplex Townhse., Renters Owners Mover- House Fourplex Live-Work Midplex Share of Share of ship Lifestyle Cluster | Code 1 Unit 2-4 Units 6+ Units 20+ Units Total Total Rate

MOST PREVALENT CLUSTERS Unspoiled Splendor | E21 97.9% 0.9% 1.1% 0.1% 2.0% 98.0% 1.8% Rural Escape | J35 97.3% 1.2% 1.5% 0.0% 3.2% 96.8% 3.9% Booming and Consuming | L41 91.2% 2.6% 4.8% 1.4% 17.3% 82.7% 14.5% Homemade Happiness | L43 97.0% 1.2% 1.6% 0.2% 4.9% 95.1% 5.8% Red White and Bluegrass | M44 95.3% 1.8% 2.6% 0.3% 11.3% 88.7% 5.6% True Grit Americans | N46 95.5% 1.2% 2.6% 0.6% 9.3% 90.7% 11.4% Town Elders | Q64 96.7% 1.4% 1.7% 0.2% 4.4% 95.6% 2.4% Small Town Shallow Pockets | S68 92.8% 2.7% 3.8% 0.7% 34.5% 65.5% 14.9%

INTERMITTENTLY PREVALENT Sports Utility Families | D15 97.7% 0.7% 1.5% 0.1% 2.8% 97.2% 2.3% No Place Like Home | E20 97.9% 0.7% 1.3% 0.1% 2.9% 97.1% 7.2% Stockcars and State Parks | I30 97.1% 1.1% 1.7% 0.1% 3.3% 96.7% 4.6% Aging in Place | J34 99.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.6% 99.4% 1.3% Settled and Sensible | J36 97.8% 1.0% 1.2% 0.1% 2.7% 97.3% 4.4% Infants and Debit Cards | M45 95.0% 2.0% 2.6% 0.3% 29.7% 70.3% 15.5% Touch of Tradition | N49 97.6% 1.2% 1.1% 0.1% 5.7% 94.3% 9.8%

Source: Underlying data represents Mosaic|USA data provided by Experian and Powered by Regis/Sites|USA. Analysis and exhibit prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA; 2016 © with all rights reserved. Missing Middle Housing Formats v. Houses Exhibit B.7 Preferences of Upscale Target Markets Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1 | Year 2016

100% Legend

S 90% h ar e

o 80% f A l l

O 70% w n e r 60% an d

R 50% e n t e r 40% O c c u

p 30% i e d

U 20% n i t s 10%

0% Full Pocket Status Wired for Bohemian Full Steam Digital Urban Striving Empty Nest Seeking Success Groove Ahead Dependents Ambition Single Scene E19 Singles K37 K40 O50 O51 O52 O54 G24 Source: Underlying Mosaic|USA data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and licensed to LandUse|USA through SItes|USA. Michigan estimates, analysis, and exhibit prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016; all rights reserved. Missing Middle Housing Formats v. Houses Exhibit B.8 Preferences of Moderate Target Markets Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1 | Year 2016

100% Legend

S 90% h ar e

o 80% f A l l

O 70% w n e r 60% an d

R 50% e n t e r 40% O c c u

p 30% i e d

U 20% n i t s 10%

0% Colleges and Family Humble Senior Dare to Hope for Tight Tough Cafes Troopers Beginnings Discounts Dream Tomorrow Money Times O53 O55 P61 Q65 R66 R67 S70 S71

Source: Underlying Mosaic|USA data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and licensed to LandUse|USA through SItes|USA. Michigan estimates, analysis, and exhibit prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016; all rights reserved. Exhibit B.9 Residential Market Parameters for Upscale and Moderate Target Markets For Missing Middle Housing - Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1 With Averages for the State of Michigan - 2015

Duplex Blended Detached Triplex Townhse., Renters Owners Mover- House Fourplex Live-Work Midplex Share of Share of ship Lifestyle Cluster | Code 1 Unit 2-4 Units 6+ Units 20+ Units Total Total Rate

UPSCALE TARGET MARKETS Full Pockets - Empty Nests | E19 67.2% 9.1% 8.6% 15.1% 21.8% 78.2% 8.2% Status Seeking Singles | G24 87.3% 5.3% 6.2% 1.2% 29.9% 70.1% 16.9% Wired for Success | K37 23.7% 12.1% 15.6% 48.6% 80.2% 19.8% 39.7% Bohemian Groove | K40 48.3% 16.8% 17.4% 17.5% 91.4% 8.6% 17.3% Full Steam Ahead | O50 0.3% 0.8% 1.4% 97.5% 97.6% 2.4% 53.8% Digital Dependents | O51 89.2% 4.4% 5.6% 0.9% 34.1% 65.9% 36.3% Urban Ambition | O52 52.0% 17.3% 20.2% 10.5% 95.2% 4.8% 34.4% Striving Single Scene | O54 2.4% 5.4% 6.7% 85.4% 96.0% 4.0% 50.2%

MODERATE TARGET MARKETS Colleges and Cafes | O53 51.3% 10.8% 9.6% 28.3% 83.1% 16.9% 25.1% Family Troopers | O55 36.3% 17.6% 19.2% 26.9% 98.9% 1.1% 39.5% Humble Beginnings | P61 0.1% 0.6% 0.7% 98.5% 97.3% 2.7% 38.1% Senior Discounts | Q65 0.1% 1.9% 2.4% 95.6% 70.9% 29.1% 12.9% Dare to Dream | R66 62.8% 20.3% 15.7% 1.1% 97.7% 2.3% 26.3% Hope for Tomorrow | R67 62.9% 19.5% 16.7% 0.8% 99.3% 0.7% 29.7% Tight Money | S70 8.2% 15.7% 20.4% 55.7% 99.6% 0.4% 35.5% Tough Times | S71 14.0% 6.2% 6.2% 73.6% 95.4% 4.6% 18.9%

Prepared by: Prepared for: Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1

Michigan State Housing Development Authority Exhibit C.1 Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - CONSERVATIVE SCENARIO Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020

Marquette COUNTY Marquette COUNTY Marquette COUNTY CONSERVATIVE 71 Lifestyle Clusters Upscale Target Markets Moderate Target Markets SCENARIO Total Owners Renters Total Owners Renters Total Owners Renters

Total Housing Units 1,605 203 1,402 509 41 468 826 13 813 1 | Detached Houses 529 200 329 149 41 108 127 10 117 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 48 0 48 15 0 15 32 0 32 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 110 0 110 31 0 31 76 0 76 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 71 0 71 22 0 22 49 0 49 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 279 0 279 88 0 88 178 0 178 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 141 0 141 55 0 55 86 0 86 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 143 1 142 48 0 48 95 1 94 50-99 | Midrise: Small 93 1 92 28 0 28 65 1 64 100+ | Midrise: Large 191 1 190 73 0 73 118 1 117

Total Units 1,605 203 1,402 509 41 468 826 13 813 Detached Houses 529 200 329 149 41 108 127 10 117 Duplexes & Triplexes 158 0 158 46 0 46 108 0 108 Other Attached Formats 918 3 915 314 0 314 591 3 588

Prepared by: Prepared for: Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1

Michigan State Housing Development Authority Exhibit D.1 Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020

Marquette COUNTY Marquette COUNTY Marquette COUNTY AGGRESSIVE 71 Lifestyle Clusters Upscale Target Markets Moderate Target Markets SCENARIO Total Owners Renters Total Owners Renters Total Owners Renters

Total Housing Units 5,418 827 4,591 1,617 166 1,451 2,784 63 2,721 1 | Detached Houses 1,888 800 1,088 523 161 362 430 41 389 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 170 3 167 50 2 48 113 1 112 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 366 1 365 102 0 102 251 1 250 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 234 0 234 67 0 67 163 0 163 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 933 2 931 288 1 287 596 1 595 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 450 2 448 157 0 157 291 2 289 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 461 5 456 141 1 140 317 4 313 50-99 | Midrise: Small 305 6 299 83 0 83 221 6 215 100+ | Midrise: Large 611 8 603 206 1 205 402 7 395

Total Units 5,418 827 4,591 1,617 166 1,451 2,784 63 2,721 Detached Houses 1,888 800 1,088 523 161 362 430 41 389 Duplexes & Triplexes 536 4 532 152 2 150 364 2 362 Other Attached Formats 2,994 23 2,971 942 3 939 1,990 20 1,970

Prepared by: Prepared for: Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1

Michigan State Housing Development Authority Exhibit E.1 Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Places in Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020

Big Bay CDP Gwinn CDP Harvey CDP AGGRESSIVE 71 Lifestyle Clusters 71 Lifestyle Clusters 71 Lifestyle Clusters SCENARIO Total Owners Renters Total Owners Renters Total Owners Renters

Total Units 14 12 2 57 23 34 21 10 11 Detached Houses 14 12 2 37 23 14 12 10 2 Duplexes & Triplexes 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 Other Attached Formats 0 0 0 19 0 19 8 0 8

City of Ishpeming K. I. Sawyer CDP AGGRESSIVE 71 Lifestyle Clusters 71 Lifestyle Clusters SCENARIO Total Owners Renters Total Owners Renters

Total Units 327 93 234 567 86 481 Detached Houses 169 91 78 218 86 132 Duplexes & Triplexes 32 0 32 77 0 77 Other Attached Formats 126 2 124 272 0 272

City of Marquette Marquette 0.5 Mi. Ring Marquette 1.0 Mi. Ring AGGRESSIVE 71 Lifestyle Clusters 71 Lifestyle Clusters 71 Lifestyle Clusters SCENARIO Total Owners Renters Total Owners Renters Total Owners Renters

Total Housing Units 2,826 238 2,588 608 48 560 1,524 133 1,391 1 | Detached Houses 669 220 449 149 46 103 367 126 241 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 81 1 80 17 0 17 42 1 41 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 197 1 196 43 0 43 104 0 104 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 135 0 135 31 0 31 70 0 70 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 476 1 475 105 0 105 252 0 252 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 309 2 307 64 0 64 168 0 168 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 303 3 300 61 0 61 164 1 163 50-99 | Midrise: Small 210 4 206 46 1 45 112 1 111 100+ | Midrise: Large 446 6 440 92 1 91 245 4 241

Total Units 2,826 238 2,588 608 48 560 1,524 133 1,391 Detached Houses 669 220 449 149 46 103 367 126 241 Duplexes & Triplexes 278 2 276 60 0 60 146 1 145 Other Attached Formats 1,879 16 1,863 399 2 397 1,011 6 1,005

City of Marquette City of Marquette City of Marquette AGGRESSIVE 71 Lifestyle Clusters Upscale Target Markets Moderate Target Markets SCENARIO Total Owners Renters Total Owners Renters Total Owners Renters

Total Housing Units 2,826 238 2,588 857 48 809 1,783 59 1,724 1 | Detached Houses 669 220 449 179 47 132 310 42 268 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 81 1 80 25 0 25 56 1 55 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 197 1 196 62 0 62 134 1 133 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 135 0 135 42 0 42 93 0 93 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 476 1 475 162 0 162 309 1 308 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 309 2 307 103 0 103 206 2 204 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 303 3 300 92 0 92 211 3 208 50-99 | Midrise: Small 210 4 206 55 0 55 155 4 151 100+ | Midrise: Large 446 6 440 137 1 136 309 5 304

Total Units 2,826 238 2,588 857 48 809 1,783 59 1,724 Detached Houses 669 220 449 179 47 132 310 42 268 Duplexes & Triplexes 278 2 276 87 0 87 190 2 188 Other Attached Formats 1,879 16 1,863 591 1 590 1,283 15 1,268

Michigamme CDP City of Negaunee Palmer CDP AGGRESSIVE 71 Lifestyle Clusters 71 Lifestyle Clusters 71 Lifestyle Clusters SCENARIO Total Owners Renters Total Owners Renters Total Owners Renters

Total Housing Units 1 1 0 258 92 166 3 2 1 1 | Detached Houses 1 1 0 149 89 60 3 2 1 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 9 1 8 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 13 0 13 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 35 0 35 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 9 1 8 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 14 1 13 0 0 0

Total Units 1 1 0 258 92 166 3 2 1 Detached Houses 1 1 0 149 89 60 3 2 1 Duplexes & Triplexes 0 0 0 22 1 21 0 0 0 Other Attached Formats 0 0 0 87 2 85 0 0 0

Republic CDP Trowbridge Park CDP West Ishpeming CDP AGGRESSIVE 71 Lifestyle Clusters 71 Lifestyle Clusters 71 Lifestyle Clusters SCENARIO Total Owners Renters Total Owners Renters Total Owners Renters

Total Housing Units 6 2 4 209 61 148 32 26 6 1 | Detached Houses 6 2 4 91 61 30 31 26 5 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 21 0 21 1 0 1 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 22 0 22 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 19 0 19 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 31 0 31 0 0 0

Total Units 6 2 4 209 61 148 32 26 6 Detached Houses 6 2 4 91 61 30 31 26 5 Duplexes & Triplexes 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 Other Attached Formats 0 0 0 109 0 109 1 0 1

Source: Target Market Analysis and exhibit prepared exclusively by LandUses|USA © 2016, all rights reserved. Notes: Not intended to imply absolutes or exclusive building formats, and may be qualified for unique projects. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.7 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Big Bay CDP | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Full Status Wired Bohem- Full Digital Urban Striving Total 71 Upscale Pockets Seeking for ian Steam Depend- Ambit- Single AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Empty Nest Singles Success Groove Ahead ents ion Scene (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | E19 | G24 | K37 | K40 | O50 | O51 | O52 | O54 Target Market - Level All 71 Upscale U U U U U U U U Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Big Bay CDP - Total 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Big Bay CDP - Owners 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Big Bay CDP - Renters 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.8 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Big Bay CDP | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Humble Dare Hope for Total 71 Moderate Colleges Family Begin- Senior to Tomor- Tight Tough AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Cafes Troopers nings Discount Dream row Money Times (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | O53 | O55 | P61 | Q65 | R66 | R67 | S70 | S71 Target Market - Level All 71 Moderate M M M M M M M M Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Big Bay CDP - Total 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Big Bay CDP - Owners 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Big Bay CDP - Renters 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.9 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Gwinn CDP | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Full Status Wired Bohem- Full Digital Urban Striving Total 71 Upscale Pockets Seeking for ian Steam Depend- Ambit- Single AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Empty Nest Singles Success Groove Ahead ents ion Scene (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | E19 | G24 | K37 | K40 | O50 | O51 | O52 | O54 Target Market - Level All 71 Upscale U U U U U U U U Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Gwinn CDP - Total 57 6 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 Gwinn CDP - Owners 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gwinn CDP - Renters 34 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.10 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Gwinn CDP | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Humble Dare Hope for Total 71 Moderate Colleges Family Begin- Senior to Tomor- Tight Tough AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Cafes Troopers nings Discount Dream row Money Times (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | O53 | O55 | P61 | Q65 | R66 | R67 | S70 | S71 Target Market - Level All 71 Moderate M M M M M M M M Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Gwinn CDP - Total 57 19 0 9 0 4 2 0 5 0 Gwinn CDP - Owners 23 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gwinn CDP - Renters 34 19 0 9 0 3 2 0 5 0 1 | Detached Houses 14 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 8 5 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 3 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 3 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.11 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Harvey CDP | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Full Status Wired Bohem- Full Digital Urban Striving Total 71 Upscale Pockets Seeking for ian Steam Depend- Ambit- Single AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Empty Nest Singles Success Groove Ahead ents ion Scene (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | E19 | G24 | K37 | K40 | O50 | O51 | O52 | O54 Target Market - Level All 71 Upscale U U U U U U U U Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Harvey CDP - Total 21 5 0 0 2 0 2 4 0 0 Harvey CDP - Owners 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harvey CDP - Renters 11 3 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.12 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Harvey CDP | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Humble Dare Hope for Total 71 Moderate Colleges Family Begin- Senior to Tomor- Tight Tough AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Cafes Troopers nings Discount Dream row Money Times (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | O53 | O55 | P61 | Q65 | R66 | R67 | S70 | S71 Target Market - Level All 71 Moderate M M M M M M M M Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Harvey CDP - Total 21 8 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 Harvey CDP - Owners 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harvey CDP - Renters 11 8 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 3 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.13 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form City of Ishpeming | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Full Status Wired Bohem- Full Digital Urban Striving Total 71 Upscale Pockets Seeking for ian Steam Depend- Ambit- Single AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Empty Nest Singles Success Groove Ahead ents ion Scene (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | E19 | G24 | K37 | K40 | O50 | O51 | O52 | O54 Target Market - Level All 71 Upscale U U U U U U U U Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 City of Ishpeming - Total 327 99 0 0 0 41 3 51 0 6 City of Ishpeming - Owners 93 20 0 0 0 1 0 20 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 91 20 0 0 0 1 0 19 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Ishpeming - Renters 234 79 0 0 0 40 3 31 0 6 1 | Detached Houses 78 27 0 0 0 7 0 20 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 10 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 22 7 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 11 4 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 52 18 0 0 0 12 0 6 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 15 6 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 16 5 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 50-99 | Midrise: Small 11 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 100+ | Midrise: Large 19 6 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.14 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form City of Ishpeming | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Humble Dare Hope for Total 71 Moderate Colleges Family Begin- Senior to Tomor- Tight Tough AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Cafes Troopers nings Discount Dream row Money Times (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | O53 | O55 | P61 | Q65 | R66 | R67 | S70 | S71 Target Market - Level All 71 Moderate M M M M M M M M Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 City of Ishpeming - Total 327 117 0 58 0 19 39 0 4 0 City of Ishpeming - Owners 93 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 City of Ishpeming - Renters 234 115 0 58 0 17 39 0 4 0 1 | Detached Houses 78 17 0 6 0 0 11 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 10 6 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 22 14 0 6 0 0 8 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 11 7 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 52 30 0 16 0 0 13 0 1 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 15 9 0 6 0 2 0 0 1 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 16 11 0 6 0 4 0 0 1 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 11 8 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 19 13 0 7 0 6 0 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.15 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form K. I. Sawyer CDP | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Full Status Wired Bohem- Full Digital Urban Striving Total 71 Upscale Pockets Seeking for ian Steam Depend- Ambit- Single AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Empty Nest Singles Success Groove Ahead ents ion Scene (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | E19 | G24 | K37 | K40 | O50 | O51 | O52 | O54 Target Market - Level All 71 Upscale U U U U U U U U Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 K. I. Sawyer CDP - Total 567 46 0 0 0 13 0 31 0 0 K. I. Sawyer CDP - Owners 86 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 86 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K. I. Sawyer CDP - Renters 481 33 0 0 0 13 0 18 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 132 14 0 0 0 2 0 12 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 24 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 53 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 31 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 128 8 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 31 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 31 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 18 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 33 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.16 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form K. I. Sawyer CDP | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Humble Dare Hope for Total 71 Moderate Colleges Family Begin- Senior to Tomor- Tight Tough AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Cafes Troopers nings Discount Dream row Money Times (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | O53 | O55 | P61 | Q65 | R66 | R67 | S70 | S71 Target Market - Level All 71 Moderate M M M M M M M M Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 K. I. Sawyer CDP - Total 567 374 0 280 0 0 96 0 0 0 K. I. Sawyer CDP - Owners 86 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 86 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K. I. Sawyer CDP - Renters 481 372 0 279 0 0 95 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 132 56 0 30 0 0 26 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 24 21 0 13 0 0 8 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 53 47 0 29 0 0 18 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 31 28 0 20 0 0 8 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 128 111 0 79 0 0 32 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 31 30 0 29 0 0 1 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 31 30 0 29 0 0 1 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 18 17 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 33 32 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.17 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form City of Marquette - Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Full Status Wired Bohem- Full Digital Urban Striving Total 71 Upscale Pockets Seeking for ian Steam Depend- Ambit- Single AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Empty Nest Singles Success Groove Ahead ents ion Scene (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | E19 | G24 | K37 | K40 | O50 | O51 | O52 | O54 Target Market - Level All 71 Upscale U U U U U U U U Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 City of Marquette - Total 2,826 857 13 0 27 400 0 133 0 289 City of Marquette - Owners 238 48 5 0 1 7 0 36 0 3 1 | Detached Houses 220 47 5 0 1 6 0 35 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 City of Marquette - Renters 2,588 809 8 0 26 393 0 97 0 286 1 | Detached Houses 449 132 2 0 2 65 0 62 0 1 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 80 25 0 0 1 18 0 4 0 2 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 196 62 1 0 2 47 0 5 0 7 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 135 42 0 0 1 33 0 3 0 5 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 475 162 2 0 5 116 0 19 0 20 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 307 103 1 0 4 35 0 1 0 62 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 300 92 1 0 4 29 0 1 0 57 50-99 | Midrise: Small 206 55 1 0 2 19 0 0 0 33 100+ | Midrise: Large 440 136 1 0 5 31 0 1 0 98 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.18 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form City of Marquette - Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Humble Dare Hope for Total 71 Moderate Colleges Family Begin- Senior to Tomor- Tight Tough AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Cafes Troopers nings Discount Dream row Money Times (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | O53 | O55 | P61 | Q65 | R66 | R67 | S70 | S71 Target Market - Level All 71 Moderate M M M M M M M M Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 City of Marquette - Total 2,826 1,783 1,346 289 0 127 2 0 9 10 City of Marquette - Owners 238 59 48 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 220 42 41 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 3 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 4 4 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 6 5 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 City of Marquette - Renters 2,588 1,724 1,298 288 0 118 2 0 9 10 1 | Detached Houses 449 268 236 31 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 80 55 41 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 196 133 102 29 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 135 93 71 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 475 308 220 81 0 3 1 0 2 1 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 307 204 155 30 0 16 0 0 1 2 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 300 208 145 30 0 29 0 0 2 2 50-99 | Midrise: Small 206 151 101 18 0 29 0 0 1 2 100+ | Midrise: Large 440 304 228 33 0 39 0 0 1 3 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.19 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Marquette 0.5 Mi. Ring | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Full Status Wired Bohem- Full Digital Urban Striving Total 71 Upscale Pockets Seeking for ian Steam Depend- Ambit- Single AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Empty Nest Singles Success Groove Ahead ents ion Scene (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | E19 | G24 | K37 | K40 | O50 | O51 | O52 | O54 Target Market - Level All 71 Upscale U U U U U U U U Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Marquette 0.5 Mi. Ring - Total 608 200 3 0 0 136 0 24 0 37 Marquette 0.5 Mi. Ring - Owners 48 9 1 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 46 9 1 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marquette 0.5 Mi. Ring - Renters 560 191 2 0 0 134 0 18 0 37 1 | Detached Houses 103 35 1 0 0 22 0 12 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 17 7 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 43 18 0 0 0 16 0 1 0 1 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 31 13 0 0 0 11 0 1 0 1 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 105 47 0 0 0 40 0 4 0 3 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 64 20 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 8 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 61 17 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 7 50-99 | Midrise: Small 45 11 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 4 100+ | Midrise: Large 91 23 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 13 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.20 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Marquette 0.5 Mi. Ring | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Humble Dare Hope for Total 71 Moderate Colleges Family Begin- Senior to Tomor- Tight Tough AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Cafes Troopers nings Discount Dream row Money Times (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | O53 | O55 | P61 | Q65 | R66 | R67 | S70 | S71 Target Market - Level All 71 Moderate M M M M M M M M Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Marquette 0.5 Mi. Ring - Total 608 368 320 9 0 32 0 0 0 10 Marquette 0.5 Mi. Ring - Owners 48 11 11 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 46 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Marquette 0.5 Mi. Ring - Renters 560 357 309 9 0 30 0 0 0 10 1 | Detached Houses 103 57 56 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 17 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 43 25 24 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 31 18 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 105 57 52 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 64 44 37 1 0 4 0 0 0 2 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 61 44 34 1 0 7 0 0 0 2 50-99 | Midrise: Small 45 34 24 1 0 7 0 0 0 2 100+ | Midrise: Large 91 68 54 1 0 10 0 0 0 3 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.21 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Marquette 1.0 Mi. Ring | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Full Status Wired Bohem- Full Digital Urban Striving Total 71 Upscale Pockets Seeking for ian Steam Depend- Ambit- Single AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Empty Nest Singles Success Groove Ahead ents ion Scene (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | E19 | G24 | K37 | K40 | O50 | O51 | O52 | O54 Target Market - Level All 71 Upscale U U U U U U U U Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Marquette 1.0 Mi. Ring - Total 1,524 642 12 0 12 297 0 101 0 223 Marquette 1.0 Mi. Ring - Owners 133 37 5 0 1 5 0 27 0 2 1 | Detached Houses 126 36 5 0 1 4 0 26 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Marquette 1.0 Mi. Ring - Renters 1,391 605 7 0 11 292 0 74 0 221 1 | Detached Houses 241 100 2 0 1 48 0 48 0 1 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 41 18 0 0 0 13 0 3 0 2 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 104 46 1 0 1 35 0 4 0 5 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 70 30 0 0 0 24 0 2 0 4 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 252 120 1 0 2 86 0 15 0 16 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 168 77 0 0 2 26 0 1 0 48 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 163 70 1 0 2 22 0 1 0 44 50-99 | Midrise: Small 111 41 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 26 100+ | Midrise: Large 241 103 1 0 2 23 0 1 0 76 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.22 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Marquette 1.0 Mi. Ring | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Humble Dare Hope for Total 71 Moderate Colleges Family Begin- Senior to Tomor- Tight Tough AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Cafes Troopers nings Discount Dream row Money Times (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | O53 | O55 | P61 | Q65 | R66 | R67 | S70 | S71 Target Market - Level All 71 Moderate M M M M M M M M Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Marquette 1.0 Mi. Ring - Total 1,524 783 599 103 0 72 0 0 0 10 Marquette 1.0 Mi. Ring - Owners 133 24 21 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 126 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 4 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Marquette 1.0 Mi. Ring - Renters 1,391 759 578 103 0 67 0 0 0 10 1 | Detached Houses 241 116 105 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 41 23 18 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 104 58 46 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 70 40 32 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 252 130 98 29 0 2 0 0 0 1 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 168 91 69 11 0 9 0 0 0 2 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 163 93 64 11 0 16 0 0 0 2 50-99 | Midrise: Small 111 70 45 6 0 17 0 0 0 2 100+ | Midrise: Large 241 138 101 12 0 22 0 0 0 3 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.23 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Michigamme CDP | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Full Status Wired Bohem- Full Digital Urban Striving Total 71 Upscale Pockets Seeking for ian Steam Depend- Ambit- Single AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Empty Nest Singles Success Groove Ahead ents ion Scene (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | E19 | G24 | K37 | K40 | O50 | O51 | O52 | O54 Target Market - Level All 71 Upscale U U U U U U U U Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Michigamme CDP - Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Michigamme CDP - Owners 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Michigamme CDP - Renters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.24 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Michigamme CDP | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Humble Dare Hope for Total 71 Moderate Colleges Family Begin- Senior to Tomor- Tight Tough AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Cafes Troopers nings Discount Dream row Money Times (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | O53 | O55 | P61 | Q65 | R66 | R67 | S70 | S71 Target Market - Level All 71 Moderate M M M M M M M M Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Michigamme CDP - Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Michigamme CDP - Owners 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Michigamme CDP - Renters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.25 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form City of Negaunee | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Full Status Wired Bohem- Full Digital Urban Striving Total 71 Upscale Pockets Seeking for ian Steam Depend- Ambit- Single AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Empty Nest Singles Success Groove Ahead ents ion Scene (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | E19 | G24 | K37 | K40 | O50 | O51 | O52 | O54 Target Market - Level All 71 Upscale U U U U U U U U Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 City of Negaunee - Total 258 119 0 0 0 14 0 105 0 0 City of Negaunee - Owners 92 44 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 89 43 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Negaunee - Renters 166 75 0 0 0 14 0 61 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 60 41 0 0 0 2 0 39 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 8 4 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 13 5 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 8 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 35 16 0 0 0 4 0 12 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 9 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 12 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 13 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.26 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form City of Negaunee | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Humble Dare Hope for Total 71 Moderate Colleges Family Begin- Senior to Tomor- Tight Tough AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Cafes Troopers nings Discount Dream row Money Times (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | O53 | O55 | P61 | Q65 | R66 | R67 | S70 | S71 Target Market - Level All 71 Moderate M M M M M M M M Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 City of Negaunee - Total 258 82 0 56 0 17 8 0 0 0 City of Negaunee - Owners 92 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 City of Negaunee - Renters 166 80 0 56 0 15 8 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 60 8 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 8 4 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 13 8 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 8 5 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 35 19 0 16 0 0 3 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 9 8 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 12 10 0 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 8 7 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 13 11 0 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.27 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Palmer CDP | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Full Status Wired Bohem- Full Digital Urban Striving Total 71 Upscale Pockets Seeking for ian Steam Depend- Ambit- Single AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Empty Nest Singles Success Groove Ahead ents ion Scene (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | E19 | G24 | K37 | K40 | O50 | O51 | O52 | O54 Target Market - Level All 71 Upscale U U U U U U U U Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Palmer CDP - Total 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Palmer CDP - Owners 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Palmer CDP - Renters 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.28 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Palmer CDP | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Humble Dare Hope for Total 71 Moderate Colleges Family Begin- Senior to Tomor- Tight Tough AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Cafes Troopers nings Discount Dream row Money Times (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | O53 | O55 | P61 | Q65 | R66 | R67 | S70 | S71 Target Market - Level All 71 Moderate M M M M M M M M Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Palmer CDP - Total 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Palmer CDP - Owners 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Palmer CDP - Renters 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.29 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Republic CDP | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Full Status Wired Bohem- Full Digital Urban Striving Total 71 Upscale Pockets Seeking for ian Steam Depend- Ambit- Single AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Empty Nest Singles Success Groove Ahead ents ion Scene (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | E19 | G24 | K37 | K40 | O50 | O51 | O52 | O54 Target Market - Level All 71 Upscale U U U U U U U U Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Republic CDP - Total 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Republic CDP - Owners 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Republic CDP - Renters 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.30 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Republic CDP | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Humble Dare Hope for Total 71 Moderate Colleges Family Begin- Senior to Tomor- Tight Tough AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Cafes Troopers nings Discount Dream row Money Times (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | O53 | O55 | P61 | Q65 | R66 | R67 | S70 | S71 Target Market - Level All 71 Moderate M M M M M M M M Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Republic CDP - Total 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Republic CDP - Owners 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Republic CDP - Renters 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 | Detached Houses 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.31 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Trowbridge Park CDP | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Full Status Wired Bohem- Full Digital Urban Striving Total 71 Upscale Pockets Seeking for ian Steam Depend- Ambit- Single AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Empty Nest Singles Success Groove Ahead ents ion Scene (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | E19 | G24 | K37 | K40 | O50 | O51 | O52 | O54 Target Market - Level All 71 Upscale U U U U U U U U Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Trowbridge Park CDP - Total 209 132 0 0 2 19 15 44 0 59 Trowbridge Park CDP - Owners 61 18 0 0 0 1 0 17 0 1 1 | Detached Houses 61 18 0 0 0 1 0 17 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trowbridge Park CDP - Renters 148 114 0 0 2 18 15 27 0 58 1 | Detached Houses 30 20 0 0 0 3 0 17 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 6 4 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 4 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 21 14 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 4 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 22 19 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 13 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 19 15 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 11 50-99 | Midrise: Small 12 10 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 7 100+ | Midrise: Large 31 27 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 20 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.32 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form Trowbridge Park CDP | Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Humble Dare Hope for Total 71 Moderate Colleges Family Begin- Senior to Tomor- Tight Tough AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Cafes Troopers nings Discount Dream row Money Times (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | O53 | O55 | P61 | Q65 | R66 | R67 | S70 | S71 Target Market - Level All 71 Moderate M M M M M M M M Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Trowbridge Park CDP - Total 209 26 5 19 0 3 0 0 0 0 Trowbridge Park CDP - Owners 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trowbridge Park CDP - Renters 148 26 5 19 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 30 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 6 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 21 6 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 22 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 19 4 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 12 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 31 4 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.33 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form West Ishpeming CDP - Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Full Status Wired Bohem- Full Digital Urban Striving Total 71 Upscale Pockets Seeking for ian Steam Depend- Ambit- Single AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Empty Nest Singles Success Groove Ahead ents ion Scene (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | E19 | G24 | K37 | K40 | O50 | O51 | O52 | O54 Target Market - Level All 71 Upscale U U U U U U U U Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 West Ishpeming CDP - Total 32 9 0 0 0 1 0 9 0 0 West Ishpeming CDP - Owners 26 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 26 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West Ishpeming CDP - Renters 6 4 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit E.34 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Tenure and Building Form West Ishpeming CDP - Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Humble Dare Hope for Total 71 Moderate Colleges Family Begin- Senior to Tomor- Tight Tough AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Cafes Troopers nings Discount Dream row Money Times (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | O53 | O55 | P61 | Q65 | R66 | R67 | S70 | S71 Target Market - Level All 71 Moderate M M M M M M M M Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 West Ishpeming CDP - Total 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West Ishpeming CDP - Owners 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West Ishpeming CDP - Renters 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 | Detached Houses 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 | Side-by-Side & Stacked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-9 | Townhse., Live-Work 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-19 | Multiplex: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-49 | Multiplex: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-99 | Midrise: Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100+ | Midrise: Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Qualifiers: Houses may include rehabs of existing mansion-style houses, carriage-style expansions, and accessory dwelling units. Duplexes (2), triplexes (3), and fourplexes (4) may include units that are either stacked or side-by-side, and may be subdivided houses. Townhouses may include row houses and brownstones; and multiplexes may include bungalow courts and courtyard "apartments". 1 Contract Rents County and Places

Prepared by: Prepared for: Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1

Michigan State Housing Development Authority Exhibit F1.1 Upscale Target Markets for Missing Middle Housing Formats Stacked by Contract Rent Brackets Averages for the State of Michigan - 2016 Legend 100% $2,000+ 90% $1,500 - $1,999 80% S $1,250 - $1,499 h ar e 70% o $1,000 - $1,249 f A l l 60% R $900 - $999 e n t

e 50% r $800 - $899 H o

u 40% s e $700 - $799 h o 30% l d s $600 - $699 20% $500 - $599 10% <$500 0% Full Pocket Status Wired for Bohemian Full Steam Digital Urban Striving Empty Nest Seeking Success Groove Ahead Dependents Ambition Single Scene E19 Singles K37 K40 O50 O51 O52 O54 G24 Source: Underlying Mosaic|USA data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and powered by SItes|USA. Michigan estimates, analysis, and exhibit prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Exhibit F1.2

Current Contract Rent Brackets | Existing Households by Upscale Target Market Marquette County | Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1b | Year 2016

All 71 Status Mosaic Full Pocket Seeking Wired for Bohemian Full Steam Digital Urban Striving Contract Rent Lifestyle Empty Nest Singles Success Groove Ahead Dependents Ambition Single Scene Brackets Clusters E19 G24 K37 K40 O50 O51 O52 O54 <$500 7.1% 0.5% 0.9% 5.2% 7.6% 11.6% 6.1% 6.5% 7.7% $500 - $599 17.0% 4.7% 6.4% 12.9% 22.4% 32.4% 22.1% 28.9% 23.8% $600 - $699 9.2% 4.6% 5.6% 7.1% 14.2% 13.3% 15.0% 16.8% 13.0% $700 - $799 11.7% 9.7% 14.6% 12.3% 18.2% 12.9% 19.7% 18.5% 12.1% $800 - $899 11.0% 12.7% 19.6% 11.7% 13.6% 8.6% 15.4% 12.4% 9.7% $900 - $999 10.4% 13.1% 17.9% 11.9% 10.6% 5.9% 11.8% 8.3% 9.9% $1,000 - $1,249 3.9% 5.9% 6.2% 4.4% 2.9% 1.6% 3.0% 2.1% 2.8% $1,250 - $1,499 12.5% 21.0% 16.3% 15.0% 6.4% 4.2% 4.9% 3.9% 8.2% $1,500 - $1,999 8.5% 15.5% 8.6% 9.7% 2.5% 1.7% 1.6% 1.7% 4.6% $2,000+ 8.6% 12.1% 3.8% 9.9% 1.8% 7.9% 0.4% 0.8% 8.3% Summation 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Median $503 $708 $607 $614 $468 $464 $455 $435 $523

Source: Underlying data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and the American Community Survey (ACS) with 1-yr estimates through 2014. Analysis, forecasts, and exhibit prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA; 2016 © with all rights reserved. Figures are current rents paid by existing households in 2016, and have not been "boosted" for the market analysis or model. Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit F1.3 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Contract Rent Bracket Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Full Status Wired Bohem- Full Digital Urban Striving Total 71 Upscale Pockets Seeking for ian Steam Depend- Ambit- Single AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Empty Nest Singles Success Groove Ahead ents ion Scene (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | E19 | G24 | K37 | K40 | O50 | O51 | O52 | O54 Target Market All 71 Upscale U U U U U U U U Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Marquette COUNTY - Total 5,393 1,613 15 0 63 565 54 555 0 370 Marquette COUNTY - Renters 4,582 1,447 9 0 60 555 54 406 0 366 <$500 451 104 0 0 3 42 6 25 0 28 $500 - $599 1,162 326 0 0 8 124 17 90 0 87 $600 - $699 642 198 0 0 4 79 7 61 0 47 $700 - $799 708 240 1 0 7 101 7 80 0 44 $800 - $899 550 185 1 0 7 75 5 62 0 35 $900 - $999 412 154 1 0 7 59 3 48 0 36 $1,000 - $1,249 125 43 1 0 3 16 1 12 0 10 $1,250 - $1,499 276 98 2 0 9 35 2 20 0 30 $1,500 - $1,999 130 46 1 0 6 14 1 7 0 17 $2,000+ 126 53 1 0 6 10 4 2 0 30 Summation 4,582 1,447 8 0 60 555 53 407 0 364 Med. Contract Rent $743 -- $850 $729 $737 $561 $557 $546 $522 $628

Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Contract rent typically excludes some or all utilties and extra fees for deposits, parking, pets, security, memberships, etc. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Median Contract Rents include a +20% boost and assumes new-builds; quality rehabs; and housing market recovery. Exhibit F1.4 Moderate Target Markets for Missing Middle Housing Formats Stacked by Contract Rent Brackets Averages for the State of Michigan - 2016 Legend 100% $2,000+ 90% $1,500 - $1,999 80% S $1,250 - $1,499 h ar e 70% o $1,000 - $1,249 f A l l 60% R $900 - $999 e n t

e 50% r $800 - $899 H o

u 40% s e $700 - $799 h o 30% l d s $600 - $699 20% $500 - $599 10% <$500 0% Colleges Family Humble Senior Dare to Hope for Tight Tough Cafes Troopers Beginnings Discounts Dream Tomorrow Money Times O53 O55 P61 Q65 R66 R67 S70 S71

Source: Underlying Mosaic|USA data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and powered by SItes|USA. Michigan estimates, analysis, and exhibit prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Exhibit F1.5

Current Contract Rent Brackets | Existing Households by Moderate Target Market Marquette County | Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1b | Year 2016

All 71 Mosaic Colleges Family Humble Senior Dare to Hope for Tight Tough Contract Rent Lifestyle Cafes Troopers Beginnings Discounts Dream Tomorrow Money Times Brackets Clusters O53 O55 P61 Q65 R66 R67 S70 S71 <$500 7.1% 5.3% 10.9% 27.4% 19.8% 19.1% 25.4% 24.5% 18.2% $500 - $599 17.0% 20.0% 27.5% 26.6% 29.0% 41.7% 47.0% 28.1% 34.4% $600 - $699 9.2% 13.1% 15.2% 9.8% 11.7% 15.0% 14.1% 14.7% 12.8% $700 - $799 11.7% 17.1% 14.9% 6.6% 12.1% 10.9% 6.7% 10.3% 8.1% $800 - $899 11.0% 15.1% 11.5% 6.0% 8.3% 5.5% 2.9% 8.1% 6.4% $900 - $999 10.4% 10.2% 8.0% 4.2% 6.3% 4.0% 1.8% 6.1% 5.4% $1,000 - $1,249 3.9% 3.6% 2.5% 1.6% 1.9% 1.0% 0.5% 1.5% 1.6% $1,250 - $1,499 12.5% 8.5% 4.9% 4.6% 4.4% 1.8% 1.1% 2.9% 4.4% $1,500 - $1,999 8.5% 3.8% 2.6% 2.6% 2.2% 0.6% 0.4% 1.9% 2.5% $2,000+ 8.6% 3.3% 1.9% 10.5% 4.3% 0.3% 0.1% 2.1% 6.1% Summation 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Median $503 $503 $444 $458 $431 $363 $333 $397 $438

Source: Underlying data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and the American Community Survey (ACS) with 1-yr estimates through 2014. Analysis, forecasts, and exhibit prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA; 2016 © with all rights reserved. Figures are current rents paid by existing households in 2016, and have not been "boosted" for the market analysis or model. Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit F1.6 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Contract Rent Bracket Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Humble Dare Hope for Total 71 Moderate Colleges Family Begin- Senior to Tomor- Tight Tough AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Cafes Troopers nings Discount Dream row Money Times (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | O53 | O55 | P61 | Q65 | R66 | R67 | S70 | S71 Target Market All 71 Moderate M M M M M M M M Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Marquette COUNTY - Total 5,393 2,781 1,178 1,013 0 223 248 14 99 9 Marquette COUNTY - Renters 4,582 2,721 1,134 1,011 0 207 247 14 99 9 <$500 451 289 60 111 0 41 47 4 24 2 $500 - $599 1,162 706 227 278 0 60 103 7 28 3 $600 - $699 642 381 148 154 0 24 37 2 15 1 $700 - $799 708 409 194 151 0 25 27 1 10 1 $800 - $899 550 327 171 116 0 17 14 0 8 1 $900 - $999 412 226 116 81 0 13 10 0 6 0 $1,000 - $1,249 125 74 40 26 0 4 3 0 1 0 $1,250 - $1,499 276 161 96 49 0 9 4 0 3 0 $1,500 - $1,999 130 78 44 27 0 4 1 0 2 0 $2,000+ 126 70 38 19 0 9 1 0 2 1 Summation 4,582 2,721 1,134 1,012 0 206 247 14 99 9 Med. Contract Rent $743 -- $603 $532 $550 $517 $436 $400 $476 $525

Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Contract rent typically excludes some or all utilties and extra fees for deposits, parking, pets, security, memberships, etc. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Median Contract Rents include a +20% boost and assumes new-builds; quality rehabs; and housing market recovery. Exhibit F1.7 Market Parameters and Forecasts - Households in Renter-Occupied Units Fifteen Counties in the Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1

2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2020 Census ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr Forecast Forecast

Renter Renter Renter Renter Renter Renter Renter Renter Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Order Region 1a - West 1 Baraga Co. 785 853 834 728 709 688 775 775 2 Gogebic Co. 1,498 1,865 1,785 1,834 1,830 1,774 1,832 1,832 3 Houghton Co. 4,395 4,396 4,488 4,440 4,511 4,511 4,564 4,564 4 Iron Co. 1,018 850 848 859 870 858 922 1,124 5 Keweenaw Co. 103 138 138 137 151 147 146 153 6 Ontonagon Co. 457 521 514 502 492 477 508 508

Order Region 1b - Central 1 Alger Co. 670 706 670 622 578 560 544 529 2 Delta Co. 3,356 3,400 3,384 3,691 3,484 3,513 3,642 3,642 3 Dickinson Co. 2,241 2,344 2,421 2,248 2,273 2,204 2,264 2,264 4 Marquette Co. 8,546 7,190 7,672 8,094 8,330 8,539 8,907 9,540 5 Menominee Co. 2,161 2,134 2,262 2,297 2,191 2,143 2,184 2,184 6 Schoolcraft Co. 671 470 479 560 604 652 734 734

Order Region 1c - East 1 Chippewa Co. 4,189 4,429 4,255 4,518 4,584 4,469 4,534 4,534 2 Luce Co. 484 518 528 550 639 637 682 682 3 Mackinac Co. 1,087 970 1,044 1,205 1,226 1,250 1,316 1,451

Source: Underlying data provided by the U.S. Decennial Census and the American Community Survey for 2010 - 2014 (1- and 5-year estimates). Analysis, interpolations, and forecasts by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit F1.8 Market Parameters and Forecasts - Households in Renter-Occupied Units Marquette County and Selected Communities - Michigan Prosperity Region 1b

2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2020 Census ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr Forecast Forecast

Renter Renter Renter Renter Renter Renter Renter Renter Order County Name Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds.

Marquette Co. 8,546 7,190 7,672 8,094 8,330 8,539 8,907 9,540

1 Big Bay CDP -- 9 3 4 15 14 16 16 2 Gwinn CDP -- 110 139 190 207 203 205 219 3 Harvey CDP -- 98 119 157 175 250 372 598 4 Ishpeming City -- 699 728 795 786 834 915 1,054 5 K. I. Sawyer CDP -- 611 661 756 872 857 856 855 6 Marquette City -- 3,917 4,091 4,271 4,197 4,258 4,372 4,574 7 Michigamme CDP -- 10 12 9 8 8 15 41 8 Negaunee City -- 500 509 561 581 585 610 610 9 Palmer CDP -- 24 21 21 25 25 30 30 10 Republic CDP -- 47 51 56 68 77 84 87 11 Trowbridge Park CDP -- 246 320 260 326 316 339 339 12 West Ishpeming CDP -- 37 20 11 22 84 139 191

Source: Underlying data provided by the U.S. Decennial Census and the American Community Survey for 2010 - 2014 (1- and 5-year estimates). Analysis, interpolations, and forecasts by LandUse|USA; 2016. Owner- and renter-occupied households have been adjusted by LandUse|USA. Exhibit F1.9 Market Parameters and Forecasts - Median Contract Rent Fifteen Counties in the Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2020 ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr Forecast Forecast Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Rent Rent Rent Rent Rent Rent Rent Order Region 1a - West 1 Baraga Co. $328 $338 $347 $373 $420 $463 $552 2 Gogebic Co. $379 $392 $406 $406 $410 $418 $433 3 Houghton Co. $458 $475 $502 $506 $512 $524 $547 4 Iron Co. $372 $377 $389 $403 $428 $472 $563 5 Keweenaw Co. $267 $298 $350 $422 $422 $422 $422 6 Ontonagon Co. $335 $338 $332 $343 $343 $343 $343

Order Region 1b - Central 1 Alger Co. $392 $421 $439 $447 $478 $527 $628 2 Delta Co. $426 $429 $439 $442 $442 $442 $442 3 Dickinson Co. $400 $426 $429 $446 $468 $515 $613 4 Marquette Co. $478 $488 $505 $503 $503 $503 $503 5 Menominee Co. $365 $378 $400 $417 $438 $483 $577 6 Schoolcraft Co. $379 $399 $390 $428 $445 $481 $554

Order Region 1c - East 1 Chippewa Co. $413 $419 $439 $448 $475 $524 $625 2 Luce Co. $453 $460 $466 $476 $476 $476 $476 3 Mackinac Co. $457 $462 $466 $461 $467 $479 $502

Source: Underlying data provided by the U.S. Decennial Census and the American Community Survey for 2010 - 2014 (1- and 5-year estimates). Analysis, interpolations, and forecasts by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit F1.10 Market Parameters and Forecasts - Median Contract Rent Marquette County and Selected Communities - Michigan Prosperity Region 1b

Marquette Co. $478 $488 $505 $503 $503 $503 $503

1 Big Bay CDP $794 $794 $794 $794 $794 $794 $794 2 Gwinn CDP $451 $451 $451 $451 $451 $451 $451 3 Harvey CDP $575 $575 $575 $575 $575 $575 $575 4 Ishpeming City $369 $369 $394 $404 $409 $419 $438 5 K. I. Sawyer CDP $402 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 6 Marquette City $534 $544 $571 $588 $606 $644 $718 7 Michigamme CDP $660 $660 $665 $670 $670 $670 $670 8 Negaunee City $432 $445 $445 $445 $476 $525 $626 9 Palmer CDP $442 $443 $480 $480 $480 $480 $480 10 Republic CDP $300 $312 $333 $333 $333 $333 $333 11 Trowbridge Park CDP $759 $759 $759 $759 $812 $895 $1,068 12 West Ishpeming CDP $417 $448 $455 $460 $638 $703 $839

Source: Underlying data provided by the U.S. Decennial Census and the American Community Survey for 2010 - 2014 (1- and 5-year estimates). Analysis, interpolations, and forecasts by LandUse|USA; 2016. Contract rent excludes utilities and extra fees (security deposits, pets, storage, etc.) Median Contract Rent v. Median Household Income Exhibit F1.11 71 Lifestyle Clusters (Mosaic|USA) The State of Michigan - 2015 $2,500 $2,300 $2,100 $1,900 M e d

i $1,700 an

C $1,500 o n t r ac $1,300 t R

e $1,100 n t $900 $700 $500 $300 $100 y = 0.0139x + 35.618

-$100 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 $180,000 $200,000 Median Household Income

Source: Underlying Mosaic|USA data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and licensed to LandUse|USA through SItes|USA. Michigan estimates, analysis, and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA (c) 2016 with all rights reserved. Exhibit F1.12 Market Parameters - Contract and Gross Rents Counties in Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1 - Year 2016

Median Monthly Gross v. Monthly Fees as a Gross Rent Household Median Monthly Contract Utilities Share of as a Share of Income Contract Median Gross Rent and Gross Renter Geography (Renters) Rent Rent Index Fees Rent Income The State of Michigan $28,834 $658 $822 1.25 $164 20.0% 34.2% Prosperity Region 1a 1 Baraga County $23,500 $485 $572 1.18 $87 15.2% 29.2% 2 Gogebic County $20,128 $427 $634 1.49 $208 32.7% 37.8% 3 Houghton County $20,905 $543 $663 1.22 $119 18.0% 38.0% 4 Iron County $19,405 $469 $581 1.24 $111 19.2% 35.9% 5 Keweenaw County $30,089 $522 $995 1.91 $473 47.5% 39.7% 6 Ontonagon County $14,611 $427 $462 1.08 $35 7.7% 38.0% Prosperity Region 1b 1 Alger County $24,761 $524 $645 1.23 $122 18.8% 31.3% 2 Delta County $19,369 $456 $587 1.29 $131 22.3% 36.3% 3 Dickinson County $31,854 $503 $749 1.49 $246 32.9% 28.2% 4 Marquette County $22,330 $522 $663 1.27 $141 21.2% 35.6% 5 Menominee County $24,224 $486 $564 1.16 $78 13.8% 27.9% 6 Schoolcraft County $15,788 $482 $636 1.32 $154 24.2% 48.3% Prosperity Region 1c 1 Chippewa County $23,826 $520 $660 1.27 $139 21.1% 33.2% 2 Luce County $33,587 $492 $656 1.33 $164 25.0% 23.4% 3 Mackinac County $32,904 $482 $617 1.28 $136 22.0% 22.5%

Source: Underlying data provided by the U.S. Census and American Community Survey (ACS) through 2014. Analysis, forecasts, and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016 ©. Forecast Contract Rent per Square Foot v. Unit Size Exhibit F1.13 Attached Renter-Occupied Units Only Marquette County - Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1 - 2016 $2.50 All UP Counties

$2.25 Marquette County F o $2.00 r e c as

t $1.75 R e n t

p $1.50 e r S q $1.25 u ar e

F $1.00 o o t $0.75

$0.50

$0.25

$0.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 Estimated Unit Size (Square Feet) Source: Estimates and forecasts by LandUse|USA, 2016. Based on market observations, phone surveys, and assessors records. Excludes 2 outliers. Exhibit F1.14 Selected Inventory of Rental Housing Choices - Attached Units Only Marquette County - Michigan Prosperity Region 1 - Year 2016

Min. Units Forecast Building Sen- Stu- Lake Down Mo. in Yr. in Bed Bath Estimat. Forecast Rent per Name and Address Type HCV iors dents front town Lease Open Bldg. Room Room Sq. Ft. Rent Sq. Ft. 1 Founders Landing Townhse. ------1 1 12 -- 1 2 2 1,300 $2,300 $1.77 243 N. Lakeshore Blvd. 3 3.5 2,700 $3,500 $1.30 Marquette City 2 1008 W Bluff Street ------12 -- -- 3 1 -- $1,185 -- Marquette, MI 49855 3 1 $1,300 3 924 W Ridge St Apts. ------12 -- -- 2 1 1,200 $1,295 $1.08 Marquette City 4 2304 Wilkinson Townhse. ------12 -- -- 3 1 -- $1,275 -- Marquette City 5 752 Anderson Street ------12 -- -- 4 1.5 -- $1,200 -- Marquette City 6 107 W College Avenue ------12 -- -- 4 1 -- $1,200 -- Marquette City 7 W Michigan Street ------1 ------3 1 -- $1,125 -- Marquette City Source: Estimates and forecasts by LandUse|USA, 2016. Based on market observations, phone surveys, and assessors records. Under attributes, "1" is an affirmation. Numbers in the leftmost column list the number of observations by community name, alphabetically. HCV indicates that Housing Choice Vouchers are available for qualifying low-income tenants. Exhibit F1.15 Selected Inventory of Rental Housing Choices - Attached Units Only Marquette County - Michigan Prosperity Region 1 - Year 2016

Min. Units Forecast Building Sen- Stu- Lake Down Mo. in Yr. in Bed Bath Estimat. Forecast Rent per Name and Address Type HCV iors dents front town Lease Open Bldg. Room Room Sq. Ft. Rent Sq. Ft. 8 Hargrave Apartments Duplex -- -- 1 -- 1 12 1960 25 2 1 850 $725 $0.85 515 N. Front St. Triplex 3 1 900 $1,000 $1.11 Marquette City Fouplex 9 2018-2305 Longyear Ave. Townhse. ------12 -- -- 3 1 -- $975 -- Marquette City 2 1 $600 2 1 $650 10 500 Harlow Street ------12 -- -- 3 1 -- $875 -- Marquette City 11 Ridgeview Apartments ------12 -- 4 2 1 900 $825 $0.92 308 Rublein Street 2 1 900 $875 $0.97 Marquette City 12 Ridgeview Apartments ------12 -- 4 2 1 900 $890 $0.99 1009-19 Hancock, Grant 2 1 950 Marquette City 3 1 1,150 $1,095 $0.95 3 1 1,200 Source: Estimates and forecasts by LandUse|USA, 2016. Based on market observations, phone surveys, and assessors records. Under attributes, "1" is an affirmation. Numbers in the leftmost column list the number of observations by community name, alphabetically. HCV indicates that Housing Choice Vouchers are available for qualifying low-income tenants. Exhibit F1.16 Selected Inventory of Rental Housing Choices - Attached Units Only Marquette County - Michigan Prosperity Region 1 - Year 2016

Min. Units Forecast Building Sen- Stu- Lake Down Mo. in Yr. in Bed Bath Estimat. Forecast Rent per Name and Address Type HCV iors dents front town Lease Open Bldg. Room Room Sq. Ft. Rent Sq. Ft. 13 Tourville West Apts. Apts. ------1 1 700 $645 $0.92 1542 W. Ridge St. 1 1 700 $670 $0.96 Marquette City 2 1 950 $760 $0.80 2 1 950 $795 $0.84 2 2 1,000 $850 $0.85 2 2 1,050 $945 $0.90 2 2 1,100 $975 $0.89 14 Tourville North Apts. Apts. ------1 1 725 $605 $0.83 910 Lincoln Ave 1 1 725 $630 $0.87 Marquette City 1 1 725 $640 $0.88 1 1 725 $655 $0.90 1 1 725 $665 $0.92 1 1 725 $675 $0.93 2 1 700 $710 $1.01 2 1 1,000 $720 $0.72 2 1 1,000 $755 $0.76 2 1 1,000 $765 $0.77 2 1 1,000 $795 $0.80 Source: Estimates and forecasts by LandUse|USA, 2016. Based on market observations, phone surveys, and assessors records. Under attributes, "1" is an affirmation. Numbers in the leftmost column list the number of observations by community name, alphabetically. HCV indicates that Housing Choice Vouchers are available for qualifying low-income tenants. Selected Inventory of Rental Housing Choices - Attached Units Only Exhibit F1.17 Marquette County - Michigan Prosperity Region 1 - Year 2016

Min. Units Forecast Building Sen- Stu- Lake Down Mo. in Yr. in Bed Bath Estimat. Forecast Rent per Name and Address Type HCV iors dents front town Lease Open Bldg. Room Room Sq. Ft. Rent Sq. Ft. 15 Lake Superior Village Townhse. 1 ------12 1971 2 1 589 $810 $1.38 125 Dobson Place Apts. 3 1 780 Marquette City 4 1 16 414 E. Arch St. Mansion ------1 -- -- 3 1 1 -- $575 -- Marquette City Style 2 1 -- $800 -- 17 3125 Wright ------2 1 -- $800 -- Marquette City 18 Glenwood Apartments Apts. -- -- 1 -- -- 12 1985 12 2 2 1,000 $725 $0.73 1005 Jefferson St. Marquette City 19 725 Grove Street ------12 2 1 900 $725 $0.81 Marquette City 20 1010 West Bluff Street ------2 1 850 $680 $0.80 Marquette City 21 427 E. Crescent St. ------1 12 -- -- 2 1 800 $625 $0.78 Marquette City 22 Preserve Orianna Ridge Townhse. 1 ------12 -- -- 2 1 996 -- -- 1906 Freedom Dr 2 1.5 1,112 Marquette City 3 2 1,319 Source: Estimates and forecasts by LandUse|USA, 2016. Based on market observations, phone surveys, and assessors records. Under attributes, "1" is an affirmation. Numbers in the leftmost column list the number of observations by community name, alphabetically. HCV indicates that Housing Choice Vouchers are available for qualifying low-income tenants. Selected Inventory of Rental Housing Choices - Attached Units Only Exhibit F1.18 Marquette County - Michigan Prosperity Region 1 - Year 2016

Min. Units Forecast Building Sen- Stu- Lake Down Mo. in Yr. in Bed Bath Estimat. Forecast Rent per Name and Address Type HCV iors dents front town Lease Open Bldg. Room Room Sq. Ft. Rent Sq. Ft. 23 Southwoods Apts. Apts. ------12 -- -- 2 1.5 1,200 -- -- 2440 Southwoods Dr. Marquette City 24 232 W Hewitt Ave Duplex ------12 -- 2 3 1 1,200 -- -- Marquette City 25 247 Fisher St Duplex ------12 -- 2 2 1 1,000 -- -- Marquette City 2 1.5 1,100 26 Northwoods Apts. Apts. ------2 1.5 1,025 -- -- 220 Northwoods Rd 2 1.5 1,100 Marquette City 27 1007 W Ridge ------12 2003 -- 2 1 900 -- -- Marquette City 28 Snowberry Heights 9 Levels -- 1 ------12 1979 -- 1 1 550 -- -- 222 S 5th St 2 1 720 Marquette City 29 Pine Ridge Apts. High-Rise ------1 12 1968 140 1 1 425 -- -- 316 Pine Street 9 Levels 2 1 Marquette City 3 1 Source: Estimates and forecasts by LandUse|USA, 2016. Based on market observations, phone surveys, and assessors records. Under attributes, "1" is an affirmation. Numbers in the leftmost column list the number of observations by community name, alphabetically. HCV indicates that Housing Choice Vouchers are available for qualifying low-income tenants. Selected Inventory of Rental Housing Choices - Attached Units Only Exhibit F1.19 Marquette County - Michigan Prosperity Region 1 - Year 2016 Min. Units Forecast Building Sen- Stu- Lake Down Mo. in Yr. in Bed Bath Estimat. Forecast Rent per Name and Address Type HCV iors dents front town Lease Open Bldg. Room Room Sq. Ft. Rent Sq. Ft. 1 Brookton Corners Apts. ------12 -- -- 1 1 728 $690 $0.95 2732 Scenic Drive 2 1 1,092 $900 $0.82 Trowbridge Park CDP 2 Streamside Townhomes Townhse. ------12 2010 2 1.5 1,024 $900 $0.88 1301 Ryan Trowbridge Park CDP 3 2445 Werner Street ------12 -- -- 2 2 1,000 $900 $0.90 Trowbridge Park CDP 4 Hillside at Cedarville Apts. ------12 2011 112 1 1 728 $670 $0.92 1520 Commerce Drive 2 1.5 1,092 $895 $0.82 Trowbridge Park CDP 5 Cedarville Townhomes Townhse. ------12 2 1.5 900 $875 $0.97 2882-2972 Cedarville Trowbridge Park CDP 6 Lost Creek -- -- 1 ------1999 -- 1 1 672 $693 $1.03 200 Lost Creek Drive 2 1 772 $831 $1.08 Trowbridge Park CDP 7 515 Ontario Ave ------2 1 950 $800 $0.84 Trowbridge Park CDP 8 Wedgewood Cedarville Townhse. ------12 2014 19 1 1 784 $725 $0.92 2747 Scenic Drive Trowbridge Park CDP 9 2682 US 41 W. Duplex -- -- 1 ------1980 2 2 1 -- $700 -- Trowbridge Park CDP Source: Estimates and forecasts by LandUse|USA, 2016. Based on market observations, phone surveys, and assessors records. Under attributes, "1" is an affirmation. Exhibit F1.20 Selected Inventory of Rental Housing Choices - Attached Units Only Marquette County - Michigan Prosperity Region 1 - Year 2016

Min. Units Forecast Building Sen- Stu- Lake Down Mo. in Yr. in Bed Bath Estimat. Forecast Rent per Name and Address Type HCV iors dents front town Lease Open Bldg. Room Room Sq. Ft. Rent Sq. Ft. 1 633 herculies Duplex ------2 3 1.5 1,500 $450 $0.30 Gwinn CDP 2 250 Voodoo Avenue -- 1 ------275 3 1.5 1,191 $415 $0.35 Gwinn CDP 4 2 1,249 $440 $0.35 4 2 1,290 $440 $0.34 3 116 Savage Street ------12 -- 2 2 1 1,200 $400 $0.33 Gwinn CDP 4 370 Commando Street Apts. 1 ------3 1 -- $400 -- Gwinn CDP

1 301 Nicholas ------1965 4 ------Palmer CDP Source: Estimates and forecasts by LandUse|USA, 2016. Based on market observations, phone surveys, and assessors records. Under attributes, "1" is an affirmation. Numbers in the leftmost column list the number of observations by community name, alphabetically. HCV indicates that Housing Choice Vouchers are available for qualifying low-income tenants. Exhibit F1.21 Selected Inventory of Rental Housing Choices - Attached Units Only Marquette County - Michigan Prosperity Region 1 - Year 2016

Min. Units Forecast Building Sen- Stu- Lake Down Mo. in Yr. in Bed Bath Estimat. Forecast Rent per Name and Address Type HCV iors dents front town Lease Open Bldg. Room Room Sq. Ft. Rent Sq. Ft. 1 Ishpeming Hills Townhse. Townhse. ------2 1 1,000 $780 $0.78 Ishpeming City 2 Mather Inn Mixed Use ------upscale -- 107 E. Canada St Historic Ishpeming City Rehab 3 Phelps Square -- 1 ------12 2015 -- 1 1 700-765 -- -- 700 E. North Street 2 2 1,360 Ishpeming City 2 2 1,520 2 1.5 1,100 2 1.5 1,162 4 808 E. North St. Fourplex ------1880 4 1 1 800 $425 $0.53 Ishpeming City 5 Lakeshore Heights Apts. Apts. 1 ------12 1989 24 1 1 600 -- -- 708 W. Empire St B-9 2 1 750 Ishpeming City Source: Estimates and forecasts by LandUse|USA, 2016. Based on market observations, phone surveys, and assessors records. Under attributes, "1" is an affirmation. Numbers in the leftmost column list the number of observations by community name, alphabetically. HCV indicates that Housing Choice Vouchers are available for qualifying low-income tenants. Exhibit F1.22 Selected Inventory of Rental Housing Choices - Attached Units Only Marquette County - Michigan Prosperity Region 1 - Year 2016

Min. Units Forecast Building Sen- Stu- Lake Down Mo. in Yr. in Bed Bath Estimat. Forecast Rent per Name and Address Type HCV iors dents front town Lease Open Bldg. Room Room Sq. Ft. Rent Sq. Ft. 1 Duplex Duplex ------2 3 1 1,200 $900 $0.75 Negaunee City 2 Downtown Negaunee Apts. ------1 ------2 1 750 $540 $0.72 Negaunee City 6 2 1 1,200 $750 $0.63 3 Teal Lake Ave at Case St ------2 1 1,200 $725 $0.60 Negaunee City 4 132 E Main Street -- 1 ------1 12 -- 10 1 1 -- $450 -- Negaunee City 1 1 $475 1 1 $500 2 1 -- 4 1.5 $675 5 Old Convent Building Offices ------225 North Pioneer Ave Historic Negaunee City Rehab 6 Valley View Apts. Apts. -- 1 ------1983 -- 1 1 ------151 Rail St Negaunee City Source: Estimates and forecasts by LandUse|USA, 2016. Based on market observations, phone surveys, and assessors records. Under attributes, "1" is an affirmation. Numbers in the leftmost column list the number of observations by community name, alphabetically. HCV indicates that Housing Choice Vouchers are available for qualifying low-income tenants. Exhibit F1.23

Cash or Contract Rents by Square Feet | Attached Units Only Forecast for New Formats | Townhouses, Row Houses, Lofts, and Flats Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1 | Year 2016

Upper Peninsula The City of Marquette Prosperity Region 1 (exclusively) Total Rent per Cash Total Rent per Cash Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Rent Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Rent 500 $1.21 $605 500 $1.46 $730 600 $1.11 $665 600 $1.33 $795 700 $1.03 $720 700 $1.22 $850 800 $0.96 $765 800 $1.12 $895 900 $0.90 $805 900 $1.03 $930 1,000 $0.84 $840 1,000 $0.96 $960 1,100 $0.79 $870 1,100 $0.89 $975 1,200 $0.74 $890 1,200 $0.83 $990 1,300 $0.70 $910 1,300 $0.77 $1,000 1,400 $0.66 $925 1,400 . $1,005 1,500 $0.63 $940 1,500 . $1,010 1,600 $0.59 $945 1,600 . $1,015 1,700 $0.56 $950 1,700 . $1,020 1,800 $0.53 $955 1,800 . $1,025 1,900 . $960 1,900 . $1,030 2,000 . $965 2,000 . $1,035

Source: Estimates and forecasts prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA; 2016 ©. Underlying data gathered by LandUse|USA; 2016. Underlying data is based on market observations, phone surveys, and assessor's records. Figures that are italicized with small fonts have highest variances in statistical reliability. 2 Home Values County and Places

Prepared by: Prepared for: Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1

Michigan State Housing Development Authority Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit F2.1 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Home Value Bracket Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Full Status Wired Bohem- Full Digital Urban Striving Total 71 Upscale Pockets Seeking for ian Steam Depend- Ambit- Single AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Empty Nest Singles Success Groove Ahead ents ion Scene (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | E19 | G24 | K37 | K40 | O50 | O51 | O52 | O54 Target Market All 71 Upscale U U U U U U U U Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Marquette COUNTY - Total 5,393 1,613 15 0 63 565 54 555 0 370 Marquette COUNTY - Owners 811 166 6 0 3 10 0 149 0 4 < $50,000 82 13 0 0 0 1 0 12 0 0 $50 - $74,999 122 24 0 0 0 1 0 22 0 1 $75 - $99,999 116 25 0 0 0 1 0 23 0 1 $100 - $149,999 112 27 0 0 0 2 0 25 0 0 $150 - $174,999 104 24 1 0 0 1 0 22 0 0 $175 - $199,999 113 24 1 0 0 1 0 22 0 0 $200 - $249,999 58 12 1 0 0 1 0 10 0 0 $250 - $299,999 53 9 1 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 $300 - $349,999 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 $350 - $399,999 15 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 $400 - $499,999 11 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 $500 - $749,999 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 $750,000+ 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Summation 811 166 6 0 0 9 0 149 0 2 Med. Home Value $134,914 -- $279,084 $214,621 $236,547 $138,981 $156,717 $126,669 $115,268 $188,968 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Median Home Values include a +20% boost and assumes new-builds; quality rehabs; and housing market recovery. Annual Market Potential for Selected Target Markets - AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Exhibit F2.2 Number of Units (New and/or Rehab) by Home Value Bracket Marquette COUNTY | Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Years 2016 - 2020 Humble Dare Hope for Total 71 Moderate Colleges Family Begin- Senior to Tomor- Tight Tough AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO Lifestyle Target Cafes Troopers nings Discount Dream row Money Times (Per In-Migration Only) Clusters Markets | O53 | O55 | P61 | Q65 | R66 | R67 | S70 | S71 Target Market All 71 Moderate M M M M M M M M Year of Data 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Marquette COUNTY - Total 5,393 2,781 1,178 1,013 0 223 248 14 99 9 Marquette COUNTY - Owners 811 60 44 2 0 16 1 0 0 0 < $50,000 82 7 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 $50 - $74,999 122 9 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 $75 - $99,999 116 8 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 $100 - $149,999 112 8 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 $150 - $174,999 104 7 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 $175 - $199,999 113 7 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 $200 - $249,999 58 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 $250 - $299,999 53 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 $300 - $349,999 17 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $350 - $399,999 15 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $400 - $499,999 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $500 - $749,999 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $750,000+ 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Summation 811 60 44 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 Med. Home Value $134,914 -- $162,441 $126,922 $165,448 $129,781 $73,349 $56,437 $105,871 $138,267 Source: Results of a Target Market Analysis prepared exclusively by LandUse|USA © 2016 with all rights reserved. Note: Due only to rounding, these figures might not sum exact and might not perfectly match summary tables in the narrative report. Median Home Values include a +20% boost and assumes new-builds; quality rehabs; and housing market recovery. Exhibit F2.3 Market Parameters and Forecasts - Households in Owner-Occupied Units Fifteen Counties in the Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1

2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2020 Census ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr Forecast Forecast

Owner Owner Owner Owner Owner Owner Owner Owner Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Order Region 1a - West 1 Baraga Co. 2,659 2,483 2,474 2,433 2,525 2,367 2,280 2,280 2 Gogebic Co. 5,539 5,437 5,483 5,400 5,240 5,142 5,084 5,084 3 Houghton Co. 9,837 9,595 9,528 9,690 9,518 9,430 9,377 9,377 4 Iron Co. 4,559 4,536 4,400 4,417 4,419 4,557 4,701 4,850 5 Keweenaw Co. 910 819 749 875 863 874 886 898 6 Ontonagon Co. 2,801 2,889 2,899 2,831 2,777 2,724 2,693 2,693

Order Region 1b - Central 1 Alger Co. 3,228 2,982 2,936 2,936 3,029 3,049 3,068 3,088 2 Delta Co. 12,636 12,939 12,654 12,380 12,401 12,182 12,053 12,053 3 Dickinson Co. 9,118 9,070 9,023 9,074 9,159 9,059 8,999 8,999 4 Marquette Co. 18,992 18,448 18,080 18,230 18,106 18,154 18,203 18,251 5 Menominee Co. 8,313 8,707 8,604 8,572 8,596 8,525 8,484 8,484 6 Schoolcraft Co. 3,088 3,151 3,194 3,091 2,986 2,843 2,761 2,761

Order Region 1c - East 1 Chippewa Co. 10,140 10,407 10,444 10,144 10,021 9,913 9,848 9,848 2 Luce Co. 1,928 1,955 1,919 1,854 1,788 1,708 1,663 1,663 3 Mackinac Co. 3,937 3,957 3,873 3,735 3,774 3,816 3,858 3,900

Source: Underlying data provided by the U.S. Decennial Census and the American Community Survey for 2010 - 2014 (1- and 5-year estimates). Analysis, interpolations, and forecasts by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit F2.4 Market Parameters and Forecasts - Households in Owner-Occupied Units Marquette County and Selected Communities - Michigan Prosperity Region 1b

2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2020 Census ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr Forecast Forecast

Owner Owner Owner Owner Owner Owner Owner Owner Order County Name Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds.

Marquette Co. 18,992 18,448 18,080 18,230 18,106 18,154 18,203 18,251

1 Big Bay CDP -- 85 75 99 98 96 94 94 2 Gwinn CDP -- 669 701 639 675 690 706 722 3 Harvey CDP -- 436 495 473 476 464 456 456 4 Ishpeming City -- 1,975 1,953 1,911 1,903 1,908 1,914 1,920 5 K. I. Sawyer CDP -- 218 223 188 191 191 192 193 6 Marquette City -- 4,077 3,755 3,703 3,614 3,638 3,662 3,686 7 Michigamme CDP -- 99 104 123 102 113 126 140 8 Negaunee City -- 1,295 1,334 1,396 1,367 1,324 1,299 1,299 9 Palmer CDP -- 190 196 182 176 166 161 161 10 Republic CDP -- 206 219 191 191 183 178 178 11 Trowbridge Park CDP -- 613 618 665 680 640 617 617 12 West Ishpeming CDP -- 1,079 1,089 1,061 1,074 1,031 1,007 1,007

Source: Underlying data provided by the U.S. Decennial Census and the American Community Survey for 2010 - 2014 (1- and 5-year estimates). Analysis, interpolations, and forecasts by LandUse|USA; 2016. Owner- and renter-occupied households have been adjusted by LandUse|USA. Exhibit F2.5 Market Parameters and Forecasts - Median Home Value Fifteen Counties in the Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2020 Census ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr Forecast Forecast Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Home Home Home Home Home Home Home Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Order Region 1a - West 1 Baraga Co. $86,500 $84,700 $83,100 $84,000 $86,500 $91,725 $99,611 2 Gogebic Co. $69,200 $67,900 $67,500 $66,800 $66,900 $67,100 $67,382 3 Houghton Co. $86,100 $86,200 $85,700 $88,400 $89,900 $92,977 $97,474 4 Iron Co. $75,700 $75,400 $75,100 $75,100 $75,800 $77,220 $79,255 5 Keweenaw Co. $81,800 $87,000 $99,500 $101,700 $101,400 $101,400 $101,400 6 Ontonagon Co. $75,300 $75,000 $73,100 $72,600 $69,300 $69,300 $69,300

Order Region 1b - Central 1 Alger Co. $111,500 $114,700 $113,600 $117,100 $117,200 $117,400 $117,681 2 Delta Co. $100,600 $102,900 $99,600 $100,200 $99,400 $99,400 $99,400 3 Dickinson Co. $87,800 $88,600 $87,000 $85,500 $86,800 $89,460 $93,329 4 Marquette Co. $125,100 $127,700 $126,300 $126,600 $127,200 $128,409 $130,121 5 Menominee Co. $97,300 $96,700 $96,700 $95,300 $94,400 $94,400 $94,400 6 Schoolcraft Co. $87,700 $85,100 $86,300 $86,200 $87,700 $90,779 $95,283

Order Region 1c - East 1 Chippewa Co. $103,100 $103,700 $102,400 $101,600 $101,500 $101,500 $101,500 2 Luce Co. $86,000 $84,200 $83,300 $79,400 $78,300 $78,300 $78,300 3 Mackinac Co. $126,100 $126,600 $121,500 $119,300 $119,100 $119,100 $119,100

Source: Underlying data provided by the U.S. Decennial Census and the American Community Survey for 2010 - 2014 (1- and 5-year estimates). Analysis, interpolations, and forecasts by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit F2.6 Market Parameters and Forecasts - Median Home Value Marquette County and Selected Communities - Michigan Prosperity Region 1b

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2020 Census ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr Forecast Forecast Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Home Home Home Home Home Home Home Order County Name Value Value Value Value Value Value Value

Marquette Co. $125,100 $127,700 $126,300 $126,600 $127,200 $128,409 $130,121

1 Big Bay CDP $167,700 $88,600 $99,400 $97,500 $93,600 $94,489 $95,749 2 Gwinn CDP $97,500 $95,900 $92,700 $94,900 $94,700 $95,600 $96,875 3 Harvey CDP $170,200 $152,200 $155,900 $138,200 $148,600 $150,012 $152,012 4 Ishpeming City $75,700 $76,600 $76,600 $73,500 $74,900 $75,612 $76,620 5 K. I. Sawyer CDP $63,900 $55,800 $46,700 $50,500 $46,100 $46,538 $47,159 6 Marquette City $160,800 $166,700 $162,800 $159,600 $157,900 $159,400 $161,526 7 Michigamme CDP $86,500 $84,500 $82,900 $84,700 $87,100 $87,928 $89,100 8 Negaunee City $105,200 $112,900 $100,900 $107,900 $103,500 $104,483 $105,877 9 Palmer CDP $55,400 $54,900 $58,800 $56,800 $59,000 $59,561 $60,355 10 Republic CDP $60,500 $61,800 $55,000 $53,800 $48,900 $49,365 $50,023 11 Trowbridge Park CDP $138,500 $141,800 $144,900 $142,700 $141,200 $142,542 $144,443 12 West Ishpeming CDP $97,000 $107,100 $101,300 $96,600 $109,900 $110,944 $112,424

Source: Underlying data provided by the U.S. Decennial Census and the American Community Survey for 2010 - 2014 (1- and 5-year estimates). Analysis, interpolations, and forecasts by LandUse|USA; 2016. Median Home Value v. Median Household Income Exhibit F2.7 71 Lifestyle Clusters (Mosaic|USA) The State of Michigan - 2015 $400,000

$360,000

$320,000

M $280,000 e d i an $240,000 H o m e $200,000 V al u e $160,000

$120,000

$80,000

$40,000 y = 1.8771x + 43905 $0 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 $180,000 $200,000 Median Household Income

Source: Underlying Mosaic|USA data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and licensed to LandUse|USA through SItes|USA. Michigan estimates, analysis, and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA (c) 2016 with all rights reserved. Exhibit F2.8 Market Parameters and Forecasts - Median Household Income Fifteen Counties in the Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2020 2014 2014 ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr Forecast Forecast ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Owner Renter Household Household Household Household Household Household Household Household Household Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Order Region 1a - West 1 Baraga Co. $40,541 $40,541 $40,541 $41,189 $40,935 $40,935 $40,935 $44,493 $21,921 2 Gogebic Co. $33,673 $34,917 $34,917 $34,252 $34,021 $34,021 $34,021 $40,397 $18,671 3 Houghton Co. $34,174 $34,625 $34,625 $35,430 $36,443 $37,916 $40,086 $49,413 $18,581 4 Iron Co. $33,734 $35,390 $35,551 $34,685 $35,689 $37,150 $39,303 $39,480 $18,082 5 Keweenaw Co. $38,872 $39,821 $42,406 $39,038 $39,180 $39,380 $39,661 $42,805 $24,583 6 Ontonagon Co. $35,269 $35,269 $35,269 $34,620 $35,365 $36,438 $38,000 $38,271 $13,629

Order Region 1b - Central 1 Alger Co. $38,262 $38,262 $38,348 $37,586 $39,211 $41,620 $45,261 $43,477 $21,219 2 Delta Co. $41,951 $42,932 $42,932 $42,676 $42,070 $42,070 $42,070 $50,230 $17,713 3 Dickinson Co. $42,586 $43,651 $44,272 $44,136 $44,350 $44,652 $45,077 $49,577 $26,204 4 Marquette Co. $45,130 $45,495 $45,495 $45,622 $45,066 $45,066 $45,066 $57,713 $20,322 5 Menominee Co. $41,332 $42,014 $42,014 $41,739 $41,293 $41,293 $41,293 $47,221 $21,075 6 Schoolcraft Co. $36,925 $38,367 $38,367 $35,260 $35,955 $36,954 $38,402 $41,250 $14,727

Order Region 1c - East 1 Chippewa Co. $40,194 $41,108 $41,114 $41,637 $40,828 $40,828 $40,828 $50,771 $21,298 2 Luce Co. $40,041 $42,083 $42,414 $39,469 $36,398 $36,398 $36,398 $41,705 $27,602 3 Mackinac Co. $39,339 $39,339 $39,339 $38,704 $38,690 $38,690 $38,690 $43,654 $28,137

Source: Underlying data provided by the U.S. Decennial Census and the American Community Survey for 2010 - 2014 (1- and 5-year estimates). Analysis, interpolations, and forecasts by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit F2.9 Market Parameters and Forecasts - Median Household Income Marquette County and Selected Communities - Michigan Prosperity Region 1b

Marquette Co. $45,130 $45,495 $45,495 $45,622 $45,066 $45,066 $45,066 $57,713 $20,322

1 Big Bay CDP $63,750 $58,750 $55,139 $39,750 $37,273 $37,273 $37,273 $39,000 -- 2 Gwinn CDP $47,639 $47,917 $43,699 $46,452 $45,369 $45,369 $45,369 $48,590 $24,643 3 Harvey CDP $49,000 $45,746 $46,250 $46,725 $45,441 $45,441 $45,441 $54,158 $18,542 4 Ishpeming City $39,065 $39,826 $38,958 $36,536 $33,864 $33,864 $33,864 $45,964 $14,567 5 K. I. Sawyer CDP $29,202 $31,731 $29,591 $30,186 $28,051 $28,051 $28,051 $32,321 $26,029 6 Marquette City $36,797 $36,967 $37,355 $37,770 $35,719 $35,719 $35,719 $63,814 $17,790 7 Michigamme CDP $32,279 $32,333 $40,000 $40,833 $43,897 $43,897 $43,897 $43,529 -- 8 Negaunee City $43,915 $45,503 $45,150 $46,207 $45,856 $45,856 $45,856 $51,923 $30,038 9 Palmer CDP $34,583 $35,139 $33,125 $35,972 $39,375 $39,375 $39,375 $39,375 $31,250 10 Republic CDP $25,766 $26,029 $25,156 $24,327 $22,750 $22,750 $22,750 $27,361 $15,000 11 Trowbridge Park CDP $58,125 $53,500 $55,863 $55,893 $54,625 $54,625 $54,625 $65,368 $40,859 12 West Ishpeming CDP $44,576 $47,297 $49,429 $48,563 $57,697 $57,697 $57,697 $61,492 $22,000

Source: Underlying data provided by the U.S. Decennial Census and the American Community Survey for 2010 - 2014 (1- and 5-year estimates). Analysis, interpolations, and forecasts by LandUse|USA; 2016. Forecast Home Value per Square Foot v. Unit Size Exhibit F2.10 Attached Owner-Occupied Only Marquette County - Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1 - 2016 $500 All UP Counties $450 Marquette County

$400 F o r e c $350 as t P r i $300 c e p e r $250 S q u ar $200 e F o o t $150

$100

$50

$0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Estimated Unit Size (Square Feet)

Source: Estimates and forecasts by LandUse|USA, 2016. Based on market observations, phone surveys, and assessors records. Excludes 1 outlier. Exhibit F2.11 Selected Inventory of Attached Owner Housing Products Marquette County - Michigan Prosperity Region 1 - Year 2016

Units Forecast Building Water Down Yr. in Bed Bath Estimat. Forecast Value per Name and Address Type front town Built Bldg. Room Room Sq. Ft. Value Sq. Ft. 1 620-640 S Lakeshore Townhse. 1 1 2010 -- 3 2 1,801 $495,000 $275 Marquette City 3 2 3,032 $875,000 $289 2 The Landing Condos Mixed Use -- -- 2015 -- 1 1.5 930 $350,000 $376 Adams Building Condos 1 1.5 930 $355,000 $382 Marquette City 2 2 1,250 $399,000 $319 2 2 1,270 $429,000 $338 2 2 1,300 $449,000 $345 2 2 1,330 $400,000 $301 2 2 1,330 $439,000 $330 2 2 1,385 $469,000 $339 2 2 1,400 $449,000 $321 2 2 1,415 $469,000 $331 3 2 1,935 $629,000 $325 3 107 N. Lakeshore Blvd. Rehab 1 1 2007 -- 3 2.5 2,246 $529,900 $236 Marquette City Historic 3 2.5 1,950 $530,000 $272 (LS&I Building) 3 2.5 1,943 $549,900 $283 3 2.5 2,250 $550,000 $244

Source: Estimates and forecasts by LandUse|USA, 2016. Based on market observations, phone surveys, and assessors records. Under attributes, "1" is an affirmation. Numbers in the leftmost column list the number of observations by community name, alphabetically. Selected Inventory of Owner Housing Choices - Attached Units Only Exhibit F2.12 Marquette County - Michigan Prosperity Region 1 - Year 2016

Units Forecast Building Water Down Yr. in Bed Bath Estimat. Forecast Value per Name and Address Type front town Built Bldg. Room Room Sq. Ft. Value Sq. Ft. 4 The Landing Condos Mixed Use -- -- 2015 -- 2 2 1,280 $430,000 $336 Gaines Building Condos 1,370 $450,000 $328 520 S. Lakeshore Dr. 2 2 1,282 $429,000 $335 Marquette City 2 2 1,370 $449,000 $328

5 233-235 N. Lakeshore Townhse. 1 1 2004 -- 3 3 2,150 $395,000 $184 Marquette City 3 3 2,140 $395,000 $185 3 3 2,313 $399,000 $173 3 3 3,059 $435,000 $142 3 4 2,150 $400,000 $186 3 4 2,252 $435,000 $193 4 3 2,440 $395,000 $162 6 Lakeshore Park Place 1 1 2005 3 4 3,150 $365,000 $116 1251 Lakeshore Park Pl 3 4 3,053 $389,000 $127 Marquette City 7 Brookstone Cir, 2007 2 2 1,466 $239,900 $164 Marquette City 2002 3 2 1,466 $240,000 $164 3 2 1,466 $260,000 $177 3 2 1,466 $263,417 $180 2012 3 2 1,466 $263,700 $180 2015 2 2 1,330 $292,650 $220 8 351 W Main St, Townhse. 2009 2 3 1,390 $264,900 $191 Marquette City 9 1313 Northbay Ct 2-Car 2005 3 3 1,850 $234,900 $127 Marquette City Garage

Source: Estimates and forecasts by LandUse|USA, 2016. Exhibit F2.13 Selected Inventory of Owner Housing Choices - Attached Units Only Marquette County - Michigan Prosperity Region 1 - Year 2016

Units Forecast Building Water Down Yr. in Bed Bath Estimat. Forecast Value per Name and Address Type front town Built Bldg. Room Room Sq. Ft. Value Sq. Ft. 1 118 Caribou St, Townhse. -- -- 1964 -- 3 2 1,170 $50,000 $43 Gwinn CDP 2 Sun Valley Condos Condo -- -- 1965 -- 4 2 -- $48,000 -- 600 Hercules St # 602 Gwinn CDP 3 118 Caribou St, Townhse. -- -- 1968 -- 3 2 1,170 $33,000 $28 Gwinn CDP 4 Sun Valley Condos Condos -- -- 1965 -- 4 2 -- $48,000 -- 600 Hercules St. Gwinn CDP 1 415 Iron St Live/Work -- -- 1900 -- 2 -- -- $135,000 -- Negaunee City

Prepared by: Prepared for: Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1

Michigan State Housing Development Authority Exhibit G.1 Existing Households by Predominant Lifestyle Cluster Marquette COUNTY - Michigan UP Prosperity Region 1b | Year 2015

K37 Wired for Success 57 O50 Full Steam Ahead 60 G24 Status Seeking Singles 80 E19 Full Pockets - Empty Nests 103 S70 Tight Money 107 O54 Striving Single Scene 223 R66 Dare to Dream 544 O55 Family Troopers 654 Q65 Senior Discounts 1,037 I30 Stockcars and State Parks 1,085 K40 Bohemian Groove 1,192 O51 Digital Dependents 1,285 E20 No Place Like Home 1,474 J34 Aging in Place 1,943 N46 True Grit Americans 1,962 Q64 Town Elders 2,002 2,418 O53 Colleges and Cafes 3,202 E21 Unspoiled Splendor 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Number of Existing Households

Source: Underlying Mosaic|USA data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and powered by Sites|USA, with results through year-end 2015. Analysis and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit G.2 Existing Households by Predominant Lifestyle Cluster Gwinn CDP - Marquette County, Michigan | Year 2015

K40 Bohemian Groove 3 R66 Dare to Dream 12 O55 Family Troopers 16 S70 Tight Money 21 O51 Digital Dependents 30 J36 Settled and Sensible 31 M44 Red White and Bluegrass 39 L43 Homemade Happiness 41 J35 Rural Escape 43 Q65 Senior Discounts 47 S68 Small Town Shallow Pockets 68 N46 True Grit Americans 68 M45 Infants and Debit Cards 112 Q64 Town Elders 130 E21 Unspoiled Splendor 130

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 Existing Number of Households

Source: Underlying Mosaic|USA data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and powered by Sites|USA, with results through year-end 2015. Analysis and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit G.3 Existing Households by Predominant Lifestyle Cluster The City of Ishpeming - Marquette County, Michigan | Year 2015

O54 Striving Single Scene 3 O50 Full Steam Ahead 4 S70 Tight Money 7 O55 Family Troopers 57 E21 Unspoiled Splendor 106 I31 Blue Collar Comfort 112 Q65 Senior Discounts 133 O51 Digital Dependents 151 K40 Bohemian Groove 157 R66 Dare to Dream 161 L42 Rooted Flower Power 173 N46 True Grit Americans 188 M45 Infants and Debit Cards 310 Q64 Town Elders 338 J36 Settled and Sensible 678

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 Existing Number of Households

Source: Underlying Mosaic|USA data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and powered by Sites|USA, with results through year-end 2015. Analysis and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit G.4 Existing Households by Predominant Lifestyle Cluster The City of Marquette - Marquette County, Michigan | Year 2015

S70 Tight Money 8 K37 Wired for Success 26 G24 Status Seeking Singles 80 E19 Full Pockets - Empty Nests 102 O54 Striving Single Scene 174 O55 Family Troopers 184 O51 Digital Dependents 279 C11 Aging of Aquarius 325 B09 Family Fun-tastic 419 E20 No Place Like Home 566 Q65 Senior Discounts 601 J34 Aging in Place 604 K40 Bohemian Groove 863 963 N46 True Grit Americans 2,396 O53 Colleges and Cafes

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 Existing Number of Households

Source: Underlying Mosaic|USA data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and powered by Sites|USA, with results through year-end 2015. Analysis and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit G.5 Existing Households by Predominant Lifestyle Cluster 0.5 Mile Radius Around the Downtown The City of Marquette, Michigan | Year 2015

O55 Family Troopers 4 O54 Striving Single Scene 23 G24 Status Seeking Singles 26 E19 Full Pockets - Empty Nests 28 C11 Aging of Aquarius 44 O51 Digital Dependents 50 J34 Aging in Place 54 Q64 Town Elders 56 L42 Rooted Flower Power 64 E20 No Place Like Home 88 B09 Family Fun-tastic 91 Q65 Senior Discounts 151 N46 True Grit Americans 264 294 K40 Bohemian Groove 570 O53 Colleges and Cafes

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Existing Number of Households

Source: Underlying Mosaic|USA data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and powered by Sites|USA, with results through year-end 2015. Analysis and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016. Existing Households by Predominant Lifestyle Cluster Exhibit G.6 1.0 Mile Radius Around the Downtown The City of Marquette, Michigan | Year 2015

K37 Wired for Success 11 O55 Family Troopers 65 G24 Status Seeking Singles 79 E19 Full Pockets - Empty Nests 86 O54 Striving Single Scene 134 L42 Rooted Flower Power 192 C11 Aging of Aquarius 211 O51 Digital Dependents 212 J34 Aging in Place 275 Q65 Senior Discounts 286 B09 Family Fun-tastic 293 E20 No Place Like Home 406 N46 True Grit Americans 521 642 K40 Bohemian Groove 1,062 O53 Colleges and Cafes

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 Existing Number of Households

Source: Underlying Mosaic|USA data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and powered by Sites|USA, with results through year-end 2015. Analysis and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit G.7 Existing Households by Predominant Lifestyle Cluster The City of Neguanee - Marquette County, Michigan | Year 2015

R66 Dare to Dream 26 K40 Bohemian Groove 41 D15 Sports Utility Families 46 O55 Family Troopers 52 F23 Families Matter 53 J36 Settled and Sensible 58 N46 True Grit Americans 86 E21 Unspoiled Splendor 91 Q65 Senior Discounts 106 L42 Rooted Flower Power 129 I31 Blue Collar Comfort 162 E20 No Place Like Home 171 J34 Aging in Place 176 Q64 Town Elders 257 O51 Digital Dependents 330

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 Existing Number of Households

Source: Underlying Mosaic|USA data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and powered by Sites|USA, with results through year-end 2015. Analysis and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit G.8 Existing Households by Predominant Lifestyle Cluster Trowbridge Park CDP - Marquette County, Michigan | Year 2015

K37 Wired for Success 2 O53 Colleges and Cafes 6 O55 Family Troopers 12 Q65 Senior Discounts 17 O50 Full Steam Ahead 22 Q64 Town Elders 27 C11 Aging of Aquarius 33 K40 Bohemian Groove 38 E21 Unspoiled Splendor 40 O54 Striving Single Scene 42 B09 Family Fun-tastic 59 J34 Aging in Place 92 O51 Digital Dependents 101 E20 No Place Like Home 206 N46 True Grit Americans 234

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 Existing Number of Households

Source: Underlying Mosaic|USA data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and powered by Sites|USA, with results through year-end 2015. Analysis and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit G.9 Market Parameters and Forecasts - Population Fifteen Counties in the Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1

2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2020 2014 Census ACS 1-yr ACS 1-yr ACS 1-yr ACS 1-yr ACS 5-yr Forecast Forecast ACS 5-yr

Pop- Pop- Pop- Pop- Pop- Pop- Pop- Pop- Persons ulation ulation ulation ulation ulation ulation ulation ulation per Hhld. Order Region 1a - West 1 Baraga Co. 8,860 8,882 8,854 8,808 8,787 8,740 8,740 8,740 2.9 2 Gogebic Co. 16,427 16,471 16,422 16,297 16,179 16,042 16,042 16,042 2.3 3 Houghton Co. 36,628 36,192 36,366 36,519 36,494 36,739 37,234 38,244 2.6 4 Iron Co. 11,817 12,057 11,965 11,837 11,723 11,615 11,615 11,615 2.1 5 Keweenaw Co. 2,156 2,122 2,139 2,168 2,181 2,197 2,229 2,295 2.2 6 Ontonagon Co. 6,780 6,976 6,848 6,703 6,584 6,448 6,448 6,448 2.0

Order Region 1b - Central 1 Alger Co. 9,601 9,604 9,571 9,531 9,497 9,516 9,554 9,631 2.7 2 Delta Co. 37,069 37,403 37,248 37,075 36,967 36,841 36,841 36,841 2.3 3 Dickinson Co. 26,168 26,584 26,436 26,286 26,201 26,097 26,097 26,097 2.3 4 Marquette Co. 67,077 66,514 66,859 67,178 67,358 67,535 67,890 68,607 2.6 5 Menominee Co. 24,029 24,245 24,138 24,041 23,917 23,838 23,838 23,838 2.2 6 Schoolcraft Co. 8,485 8,640 8,552 8,455 8,407 8,345 8,345 8,345 2.3

Order Region 1c - East 1 Chippewa Co. 38,520 39,078 39,029 38,919 38,760 38,698 38,698 38,698 2.7 2 Luce Co. 6,631 6,685 6,657 6,590 6,550 6,512 6,512 6,512 2.7 3 Mackinac Co. 11,113 11,281 11,198 11,144 11,099 11,080 11,080 11,080 2.3

Source: Underlying data provided by the U.S. Decennial Census and the American Community Survey for 2010 - 2014 (1- and 5-year estimates). Analysis, interpolations, and forecasts by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit G.10 Market Parameters and Forecasts - Population Marquette County and Selected Communities - Michigan Prosperity Region 1b

2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2020 2014 Census ACS 1-yr ACS 1-yr ACS 1-yr ACS 1-yr ACS 5-yr Forecast Forecast ACS 5-yr

Pop- Pop- Pop- Pop- Pop- Pop- Pop- Pop- Persons Order County Name ulation ulation ulation ulation ulation ulation ulation ulation per Hhld.

Marquette Co. 67,077 66,514 66,859 67,178 67,358 67,535 67,890 68,607 2.6

1 Big Bay CDP ------183 -- -- 1.7 2 Gwinn CDP ------2,063 -- -- 2.3 3 Harvey CDP ------1,733 -- -- 2.4 4 Ishpeming City ------6,514 -- -- 2.4 5 K. I. Sawyer CDP ------2,933 -- -- 2.8 6 Marquette City ------21,430 -- -- 2.7 7 Michigamme CDP ------262 -- -- 2.2 8 Negaunee City ------4,608 -- -- 2.4 9 Palmer CDP ------525 -- -- 2.7 10 Republic CDP ------494 -- -- 1.9 11 Trowbridge Park CDP ------2,227 -- -- 2.3 12 West Ishpeming CDP ------2,687 -- -- 2.4

Source: Underlying data provided by the U.S. Decennial Census and the American Community Survey for 2010 - 2014 (1- and 5-year estimates). Analysis, interpolations, and forecasts by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit G.11 Market Parameters and Forecasts - Households Fifteen Counties in the Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1

2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 Census ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr Forecast Forecast

Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Order Region 1a - West 1 Baraga Co. 3,444 3,336 3,308 3,161 3,234 3,055 3,055 3,055 2 Gogebic Co. 7,037 7,302 7,268 7,234 7,070 6,916 6,916 6,916 3 Houghton Co. 14,232 13,991 14,016 14,130 14,029 13,941 13,941 13,941 4 Iron Co. 5,577 5,386 5,248 5,276 5,289 5,415 5,623 5,974 5 Keweenaw Co. 1,013 957 887 1,012 1,014 1,021 1,032 1,051 6 Ontonagon Co. 3,258 3,410 3,413 3,333 3,269 3,201 3,201 3,201

Order Region 1b - Central 1 Alger Co. 3,898 3,688 3,606 3,558 3,607 3,609 3,612 3,617 2 Delta Co. 15,992 16,339 16,038 16,071 15,885 15,695 15,695 15,695 3 Dickinson Co. 11,359 11,414 11,444 11,322 11,432 11,263 11,263 11,263 4 Marquette Co. 27,538 25,638 25,752 26,324 26,436 26,693 27,110 27,791 5 Menominee Co. 10,474 10,841 10,866 10,869 10,787 10,668 10,668 10,668 6 Schoolcraft Co. 3,759 3,621 3,673 3,651 3,590 3,495 3,495 3,495

Order Region 1c - East 1 Chippewa Co. 14,329 14,836 14,699 14,662 14,605 14,382 14,382 14,382 2 Luce Co. 2,412 2,473 2,447 2,404 2,427 2,345 2,345 2,345 3 Mackinac Co. 5,024 4,927 4,917 4,940 5,000 5,066 5,174 5,351

Source: Underlying data provided by the U.S. Decennial Census and the American Community Survey for 2010 - 2014 (1- and 5-year estimates). Analysis, interpolations, and forecasts by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit G.12 Market Parameters and Forecasts - Households Marquette County and Selected Communities - Michigan Prosperity Region 1b

2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 Census ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr Forecast Forecast

Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Order County Name Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds. Hhlds.

Marquette Co. 27,538 25,638 25,752 26,324 26,436 26,693 27,110 27,791

1 Big Bay CDP -- 94 78 103 113 110 110 110 2 Gwinn CDP -- 779 840 829 882 893 911 940 3 Harvey CDP -- 534 614 630 651 714 829 1,054 4 Ishpeming City -- 2,674 2,681 2,706 2,689 2,742 2,829 2,975 5 K. I. Sawyer CDP -- 829 884 944 1,063 1,048 1,048 1,048 6 Marquette City -- 7,994 7,846 7,974 7,811 7,896 8,034 8,260 7 Michigamme CDP -- 109 116 132 110 121 141 181 8 Negaunee City -- 1,795 1,843 1,957 1,948 1,909 1,909 1,909 9 Palmer CDP -- 214 217 203 201 191 191 191 10 Republic CDP -- 253 270 247 259 260 262 264 11 Trowbridge Park CDP -- 859 938 925 1,006 956 956 956 12 West Ishpeming CDP -- 1,116 1,109 1,072 1,096 1,115 1,146 1,198

Source: Underlying data provided by the U.S. Decennial Census and the American Community Survey for 2010 - 2014 (1- and 5-year estimates). Analysis, interpolations, and forecasts by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit G.13 Market Parameters and Forecasts - Total Housing Units, Including Vacancies Fifteen Counties in the Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2020 Census ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr ACS 5-yr Forecast Forecast Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Housing Housing Housing Housing Housing Housing Housing Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Order Region 1a - West 1 Baraga Co. 5,250 5,360 5,246 5,243 5,183 5,183 5,183 2 Gogebic Co. 10,849 10,813 10,807 10,741 10,763 10,798 10,848 3 Houghton Co. 18,575 18,602 18,618 18,608 18,624 18,646 18,678 4 Iron Co. 9,154 9,186 9,204 9,197 9,226 9,273 9,338 5 Keweenaw Co. 2,397 2,344 2,462 2,472 2,475 2,479 2,483 6 Ontonagon Co. 5,666 5,653 5,670 5,653 5,650 5,650 5,650

Order Region 1b - Central 1 Alger Co. 6,538 6,535 6,559 6,574 6,580 6,590 6,603 2 Delta Co. 20,198 20,186 20,212 20,155 20,212 20,304 20,432 3 Dickinson Co. 13,990 13,980 13,995 13,982 14,010 14,055 14,118 4 Marquette Co. 34,292 34,321 34,355 34,328 34,431 34,596 34,830 5 Menominee Co. 14,238 14,234 14,235 14,181 14,202 14,236 14,283 6 Schoolcraft Co. 6,244 6,279 6,297 6,302 6,317 6,341 6,375

Order Region 1c - East 1 Chippewa Co. 21,145 21,211 21,234 21,206 21,249 21,318 21,415 2 Luce Co. 4,346 4,335 4,352 4,333 4,339 4,349 4,362 3 Mackinac Co. 10,831 10,921 10,969 10,973 11,007 11,062 11,139

Source: Underlying data provided by the U.S. Decennial Census and the American Community Survey for 2010 - 2014 (1- and 5-year estimates). Analysis, interpolations, and forecasts by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit G.14 Market Parameters and Forecasts - Total Housing Units, Including Vacancies Marquette County and Selected Communities - Michigan Prosperity Region 1b

Marquette Co. 34,292 34,321 34,355 34,328 34,431 34,596 34,830

1 Big Bay CDP 347 277 332 317 367 369 371 2 Gwinn CDP 946 926 946 1,001 1,062 1,067 1,074 3 Harvey CDP 602 643 653 651 739 743 748 4 Ishpeming City 3,209 3,211 3,190 3,063 3,051 3,066 3,086 5 K. I. Sawyer CDP 1,662 1,616 1,574 1,641 1,630 1,638 1,649 6 Marquette City 9,335 9,106 8,997 8,777 8,559 8,600 8,658 7 Michigamme CDP 239 255 274 246 263 264 266 8 Negaunee City 1,958 2,041 2,131 2,061 2,082 2,092 2,106 9 Palmer CDP 214 226 212 209 199 200 201 10 Republic CDP 343 350 342 316 307 308 311 11 Trowbridge Park CDP 864 944 931 1,011 940 945 951 12 West Ishpeming CDP 1,169 1,171 1,204 1,214 1,243 1,249 1,257

Prepared by: Prepared for: Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1

Michigan State Housing Development Authority Exhibit H.1 Demographic Profiles - Population and Employment Marquette County, Michigan with Selected Communities - 2010 - 2015

The Marquette CDP CDP CDP City of County Big Bay Gwinn Harvey Ishpeming Households Census (2010) 27,538 171 838 627 2,824 Households ACS (2014) 26,693 110 893 714 2,742 Population Census (2010) 67,077 319 1,917 1,393 6,470 Population ACS (2014) 67,535 183 2,063 1,733 6,514 Group Quarters Population (2014) 4,659 0 0 13 148 Correctional Facilities 1,350 0 0 0 0 Nursing/Mental Health Facilities 649 0 0 0 125 College/University Housing 2,435 0 0 0 0 Military Quarters 0 0 0 0 0 Other 225 0 0 13 23 Daytime Employees Ages 16+ (2015) 34,310 31 676 824 3,299 Unemployment Rate (2015) 4.0% 4.8% 5.2% 3.4% 3.0% Employment by Industry Sector (2014) 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Agric., Forest, Fish, Hunt, Mine 5.4% 16.2% 5.3% 0.5% 5.4% Arts, Ent. Rec., Accom., Food Service 11.8% 5.9% 7.1% 24.0% 8.8% Construction 5.5% 11.8% 1.7% 0.6% 8.0% Educ. Service, Health Care, Soc. Asst. 29.6% 30.9% 18.3% 31.7% 29.1% Finance, Ins., Real Estate 4.2% 7.4% 1.6% 0.0% 5.3% Information 1.6% 0.0% 5.5% 2.7% 2.5% Manufacturing 5.4% 8.8% 11.9% 2.4% 4.7% Other Services, excl. Public Admin. 5.3% 0.0% 6.8% 2.7% 7.0% Profess. Sci. Mngmt. Admin. Waste 6.5% 5.9% 7.5% 8.6% 5.0% Public Administration 5.8% 4.4% 7.4% 6.2% 6.1% Retail Trade 12.1% 8.8% 18.2% 11.9% 14.0% Transpo., Wrhse., Utilities 5.0% 0.0% 6.9% 2.9% 2.2% Wholesale Trade 1.7% 0.0% 1.8% 5.9% 2.0%

Source: U.S. Census 2010; American Community Survey (ACS) 2009 - 2014; and Applied Geographic Solutions (AGS) for 2015. Analysis and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit H.2 Demographic Profiles - Population and Employment Marquette County, Michigan with Selected Communities - 2010 - 2015

The The Marquette CDP City of CDP City of County K.I. Sawyer Marquette Michigamme Negaunee Households Census (2010) 27,538 966 8,321 125 1,940 Households ACS (2014) 26,693 1,048 7,896 121 1,909 Population Census (2010) 67,077 2,624 21,355 271 4,568 Population ACS (2014) 67,535 2,933 21,430 262 4,608 Group Quarters Population (2014) 4,659 2 4,135 0 102 Correctional Facilities 1,350 0 1,297 0 0 Nursing/Mental Health Facilities 649 0 321 0 102 College/University Housing 2,435 0 2,393 0 0 Military Quarters 0 0 0 0 0 Other 225 0 124 0 0 Daytime Employees Ages 16+ (2015) 34,310 898 18,366 45 1,562 Unemployment Rate (2015) 4.0% 9.6% 3.6% 8.3% 3.9% Employment by Industry Sector (2014) 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Agric., Forest, Fish, Hunt, Mine 5.4% 1.9% 1.6% 11.3% 9.9% Arts, Ent. Rec., Accom., Food Service 11.8% 13.4% 18.1% 4.2% 10.8% Construction 5.5% 6.4% 4.0% 18.3% 5.7% Educ. Service, Health Care, Soc. Asst. 29.6% 21.0% 33.8% 11.3% 24.0% Finance, Ins., Real Estate 4.2% 4.7% 4.0% 4.2% 5.6% Information 1.6% 1.4% 1.5% 2.8% 0.8% Manufacturing 5.4% 12.0% 4.6% 8.5% 6.3% Other Services, excl. Public Admin. 5.3% 0.5% 4.8% 8.5% 4.0% Profess. Sci. Mngmt. Admin. Waste 6.5% 8.5% 6.0% 4.2% 3.3% Public Administration 5.8% 3.1% 4.5% 12.7% 8.9% Retail Trade 12.1% 16.0% 12.3% 9.9% 11.0% Transpo., Wrhse., Utilities 5.0% 10.0% 3.8% 1.4% 8.1% Wholesale Trade 1.7% 1.1% 1.1% 2.8% 1.6%

Source: U.S. Census 2010; American Community Survey (ACS) 2009 - 2014; and Applied Geographic Solutions (AGS) for 2015. Analysis and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit H.3 Demographic Profiles - Population and Employment Marquette County, Michigan with Selected Communities - 2010 - 2015

CDP CDP Marquette CDP CDP Trowbridge West County Palmer Republic Park Ishpeming Households Census (2010) 27,538 171 271 931 1,032 Households ACS (2014) 26,693 185 260 936 1,115 Population Census (2010) 67,077 418 570 2,176 2,662 Population ACS (2014) 67,535 525 494 2,227 2,687 Group Quarters Population (2014) 4,659 51 0 19 107 Correctional Facilities 1,350 0 0 0 0 Nursing/Mental Health Facilities 649 0 0 0 100 College/University Housing 2,435 0 0 0 0 Military Quarters 0 0 0 0 0 Other 225 51 0 19 7 Daytime Employees Ages 16+ (2015) 34,310 21 77 981 1,003 Unemployment Rate (2015) 4.0% 3.1% 4.6% 0.9% 2.4% Employment by Industry Sector (2014) 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Agric., Forest, Fish, Hunt, Mine 5.4% 17.0% 12.1% 6.6% 12.1% Arts, Ent. Rec., Accom., Food Service 11.8% 7.2% 8.3% 12.5% 3.6% Construction 5.5% 3.3% 3.0% 6.7% 6.0% Educ. Service, Health Care, Soc. Asst. 29.6% 26.1% 16.7% 30.9% 32.4% Finance, Ins., Real Estate 4.2% 5.2% 5.3% 3.5% 6.2% Information 1.6% 5.2% 6.1% 0.0% 1.1% Manufacturing 5.4% 1.3% 17.4% 6.9% 2.6% Other Services, excl. Public Admin. 5.3% 3.9% 3.0% 2.5% 5.7% Profess. Sci. Mngmt. Admin. Waste 6.5% 5.9% 9.8% 3.8% 5.8% Public Administration 5.8% 5.9% 7.6% 8.2% 5.7% Retail Trade 12.1% 14.4% 1.5% 9.1% 11.8% Transpo., Wrhse., Utilities 5.0% 3.3% 9.1% 4.7% 4.9% Wholesale Trade 1.7% 1.3% 0.0% 4.5% 2.1%

Source: U.S. Census 2010; American Community Survey (ACS) 2009 - 2014; and Applied Geographic Solutions (AGS) for 2015. Analysis and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016. Demographic Profiles - Total and Vacant Housing Units Marquette County, Michigan with Selected Communities - 2014 Exhibit H.4 The Marquette CDP CDP CDP City of County Big Bay Gwinn Harvey Ishpeming Total Housing Units (2014) 34,431 367 1,062 739 3,051 1, mobile, other 26,784 367 909 592 2,154 1 attached, 2 2,537 0 100 69 334 3 or 4 1,176 0 11 15 245 5 to 9 1,540 0 16 10 83 10 to 19 1,089 0 17 7 101 20 to 49 706 0 9 46 35 50 or more 599 0 0 0 99 Premium for Seasonal Households 9% 53% 5% 2% 0% Vacant (incl. Seasonal, Rented, Sold) 7,738 257 169 25 309 1, mobile, other 6,523 257 169 25 136 1 attached, 2 370 0 0 0 51 3 or 4 207 0 0 0 72 5 to 9 389 0 0 0 36 10 to 19 177 0 0 0 14 20 to 49 34 0 0 0 0 50 or more 38 0 0 0 0 Avail. (excl. Seasonal, Rented, Sold) 2,119 4 70 0 219 1, mobile, other 1,786 4 70 0 96 1 attached, 2 101 0 0 0 36 3 or 4 57 0 0 0 51 5 to 9 107 0 0 0 26 10 to 19 48 0 0 0 10 20 to 49 9 0 0 0 0 50 or more 10 0 0 0 0 Total by Reason for Vacancy (2014) 7,738 257 169 25 309 Available, For Rent 615 0 38 0 53 Available, For Sale 272 0 0 0 33 Available, Not Listed 1,232 4 32 0 133 Total Available 2,119 4 70 0 219 Seasonal, Recreation 5,433 253 99 25 30 Migrant Workers 0 0 0 0 0 Rented, Not Occupied 72 0 0 0 0 Sold, Not Occupied 114 0 0 0 60 Not Yet Occupied 186 0 0 0 60 Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2009 - 2014. Analysis and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016. Demographic Profiles - Total and Vacant Housing Units Marquette County, Michigan with Selected Communities - 2014 Exhibit H.5 The The Marquette CDP City of CDP City of County K.I. Sawyer Marquette Michigamme Negaunee Total Housing Units (2014) 34,431 1,630 8,559 263 2,082 1, mobile, other 26,784 366 4,845 261 1,563 1 attached, 2 2,537 558 1,019 0 164 3 or 4 1,176 265 463 0 49 5 to 9 1,540 405 727 2 178 10 to 19 1,089 20 700 0 55 20 to 49 706 2 399 0 6 50 or more 599 14 406 0 67 Premium for Seasonal Households 9% 1% 1% 28% 0% Vacant (incl. Seasonal, Rented, Sold) 7,738 582 663 142 173 1, mobile, other 6,523 56 241 142 142 1 attached, 2 370 165 120 0 15 3 or 4 207 108 11 0 16 5 to 9 389 243 89 0 0 10 to 19 177 10 130 0 0 20 to 49 34 0 34 0 0 50 or more 38 0 38 0 0 Avail. (excl. Seasonal, Rented, Sold) 2,119 525 454 27 145 1, mobile, other 1,786 51 165 27 119 1 attached, 2 101 149 82 0 13 3 or 4 57 97 8 0 13 5 to 9 107 219 61 0 0 10 to 19 48 9 89 0 0 20 to 49 9 0 23 0 0 50 or more 10 0 26 0 0 Total by Reason for Vacancy (2014) 7,738 582 663 142 173 Available, For Rent 615 162 256 0 30 Available, For Sale 272 0 14 17 26 Available, Not Listed 1,232 363 184 10 89 Total Available 2,119 525 454 27 145 Seasonal, Recreation 5,433 20 174 115 5 Migrant Workers 0 0 0 0 0 Rented, Not Occupied 72 21 35 0 16 Sold, Not Occupied 114 16 0 0 7 Not Yet Occupied 186 37 35 0 23 Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2009 - 2014. Analysis and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016. Demographic Profiles - Total and Vacant Housing Units Marquette County, Michigan with Selected Communities - 2014 Exhibit H.6 CDP CDP Marquette CDP CDP Trowbridge West County Palmer Republic Park Ishpeming Total Housing Units (2014) 34,431 199 307 940 1,243 1, mobile, other 26,784 191 268 727 1,115 1 attached, 2 2,537 6 11 51 86 3 or 4 1,176 2 8 68 0 5 to 9 1,540 0 1 16 21 10 to 19 1,089 0 8 0 21 20 to 49 706 0 11 78 0 50 or more 599 0 0 0 0 Premium for Seasonal Households 9% 4% 5% 0% 1% Vacant (incl. Seasonal, Rented, Sold) 7,738 14 47 4 128 1, mobile, other 6,523 8 47 4 107 1 attached, 2 370 6 0 0 0 3 or 4 207 0 0 0 0 5 to 9 389 0 0 0 21 10 to 19 177 0 0 0 0 20 to 49 34 0 0 0 0 50 or more 38 0 0 0 0 Avail. (excl. Seasonal, Rented, Sold) 2,119 0 17 0 72 1, mobile, other 1,786 0 17 0 60 1 attached, 2 101 0 0 0 0 3 or 4 57 0 0 0 0 5 to 9 107 0 0 0 12 10 to 19 48 0 0 0 0 20 to 49 9 0 0 0 0 50 or more 10 0 0 0 0 Total by Reason for Vacancy (2014) 7,738 14 47 4 128 Available, For Rent 615 0 0 0 0 Available, For Sale 272 0 7 0 18 Available, Not Listed 1,232 0 10 0 54 Total Available 2,119 0 17 0 72 Seasonal, Recreation 5,433 14 30 4 34 Migrant Workers 0 0 0 0 0 Rented, Not Occupied 72 0 0 0 0 Sold, Not Occupied 114 0 0 0 22 Not Yet Occupied 186 0 0 0 22 Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2009 - 2014. Analysis and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; 2016. Exhibit H.7 Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts and Connectivity Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1b | Year 2014

Highway Annual Avg. Number Daily Traffic Highway Directionals and Links Other Major Cities on Route Alger County M-28 9,500 East to I-75 | West to Marquette Munising | Marquette M-94 4,400 East to Manistique | West to US-41 Manistique US-41 2,200 North to Marquette | South to Escanaba Marquette | Green Bay, WI M-67 1,400 North to Chatham | South to US-41 -- Delta County US-41 23,100 North to Marquette | South to Wisconsin Marquette | Green Bay, WI US-2 19,600 East to Manistique | West to Iron Mountain St. Ignace | Duluth, MN M-35 8,700 North to Escanaba | South to Menominee Escanaba M-69 1,200 East to US-41 | West to US-2 -- Dickinson County US-2 19,500 East to Escanaba | West to Iron River St. Ignace | Duluth, MN M-95 14,400 North to US-41 | South to US-2 -- US-8 3,400 North to Norway | South to Wisconsin -- M-69 1,600 East to US-41 | West to US-2 -- Marquette County US-41 33,400 North to Baraga | South to Escanaba Marquette | Green Bay, WI M-28 8,300 East to I-75 | West to Marquette Munising | Marquette M-553 8,300 North to Marquette | South to KI Sawyer AFB -- M-95 3,100 North to US-41 | South to US-2 -- M-35 2,800 North to US-41 | South to Gwinn -- Menominee County US-41 19,500 North to Escanaba | South to Wisconsin Marquette | Green Bay, WI M-35 6,000 North to Escanaba | South to Menominee -- US-2 5,400 East to Escanaba | West to Iron Mountain St. Ignace| Duluth, MN Schoolcraft County M-94 7,600 North to M-28 | South to Manistique -- US-2 6,300 East to St. Ignace | West to Escanaba St. Ignace| Duluth, MN M-28 2,000 East to I-75 | West to Munising -- M-77 1,000 North to Grand Marais | South to US-2 -- Source: Michigan Department of Transportation 2014 Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts (AADT). Exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA, 2016. Exhibit H.8 Total PlaceScoreTM v. Total Population Places in Marquette County v. Others in Michigan Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1b 30 28 26 T o

t 24 a l P 22 Marquette l a c e

S 20 c o r 18 e Ishpeming ( 3

0 16 p o

i 14 n t s

p 12 o s s 10 i b l e

) 8 6

4 Other Places in Michigan 2 Places in Marquette Co. 0 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 27,500 30,000 Community's Population (2014)

Source: Based on a subjective analysis of 30 Placemaking criteria using internet research only, and have not been field-verified. Analysis by LandUse|USA, 2016. Population is ACS 5-year estimates for 2010 - 2014. The PlaceScore term and methodology is trademarked by LandUse|USA as‐of January 2014, with all rights reserved. Exhibit H.9 Total PlaceScoreTM per 1,000 Population Places in Marquette County v. Others in Michigan Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1b 60 Other Places in Michigan 55 Places in Marquette Co. T o 50 t a l P

l 45 a c e

S 40 c o r e 35 p e r

1 30 , 0 0 0

P 25 o p u

l 20 a t i o n 15

5 Ishpeming Marquette 0 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 27,500 30,000 Community's Population (2014)

Source: Based on a subjective analysis of 30 Placemaking criteria using internet research only, and have not been field-verified. Analysis by LandUse|USA, 2016. Population is ACS 5-year estimates for 2010 - 2014. The PlaceScore term and methodology is trademarked by LandUse|USA as‐of January 2014, with all rights reserved. Exhibit H.10 PlaceScoresTM - Local Placemaking Initiatives and Amenities (As Evident Through Internet Research and Search Engines) Selected Places | Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1b

Primary County Marquette Marquette Menominee Schoolcraft City of City of City of Menomine City of Jurisdiction Name Ishpeming Marquette e Manistique 2010 Population (Decennial Census) 6,470 21,355 8,599 3,097 2014 Population (5-yr ACS 2010-2014) 6,514 21,430 8,516 3,043 City/Village-Wide Planning Documents 1 City-Wide Master Plan (not county) 1 1 1 0 2 Has a Zoning Ordinance Online 1 1 1 1 3 Considering a Form Based Code 0 1 0 0 4 Parks & Rec. Plan or Commission 1 1 1 1 Downtown Planning Documents 5 Established DDA, BID, or Similar 1 1 1 1 6 DT Master Plan, Subarea Plan 0 1 0 0 7 Streetscape, Transp. Improv. Plan 1 1 0 1 8 Retail Market Study or Strategy 0 0 0 0 9 Residential Market Study, Strategy 0 0 0 0 10 Façade Improvement Program 1 1 0 1 Downtown Organization and Marketing 11 Designation: Michigan Cool City 1 1 0 0 12 Member of Michigan Main Street 0 0 0 0 13 Main Street 4-Point Approach 0 0 0 0 14 Facebook Page 1 1 1 1 Listing or Map of Merchants and Amenities 15 City/Village Main Website 0 0 0 0 16 DDA, BID, or Main Street Website 0 1 1 0 17 Chamber or CVB Website 1 0 1 1 Subtotal Place Score (17 points possible) 9 11 7 7 This PlaceScore assessment is based only on internet research, and has not been field-verified. Analysis and assessment by LandUse|USA; © 2016. If a community's amenities and resources are not listed, then the challenge is to improve marking efforts and ensure that the resources are available and easy to find through mainstream online search engines. The PlaceScore term and methodology is trademarked by LandUse|USA with all rights reserved. Exhibit H.11 PlaceScoresTM - Local Placemaking Initiatives and Amenities (As evident through Online Search Engines) Selected Places | Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1b

Primary County Marquette Marquette Menominee Schoolcraft City of City of City of Menomine City of Jurisdiction Name Ishpeming Marquette e Manistique 2010 Population (Decennial Census) 6,470 21,355 8,599 3,097 2014 Population (5-yr ACS 2010-2014) 6,514 21,430 8,516 3,043 Unique Downtown Amenities 1 Cinema/Theater, Playhouse 1 1 1 1 2 Waterfront Access/Parks 0 1 1 1 3 Established Farmer's Market 1 1 1 1 4 Summer Music in the Park 1 1 1 1 5 National or Other Major Festival 0 0 0 0 Downtown Street and Environment 6 Angle Parking (not parallel) 0 1 1 1 7 Reported Walk Score is 50+ 1 1 1 1 8 Walk Score/1,000 Pop is 40+ 0 0 0 0 9 Off Street Parking is Evident 1 1 1 1 10 2-Level Scale of Historic Buildings 1 1 1 1 11 Balanced Scale 2 Sides of Street 1 1 0 1 12 Pedestrian Crosswalks, Signaled 0 1 0 0 13 Two-way Traffic Flow 1 1 1 1 Subtotal Place Score (13 points possible) 8 11 9 10 Total Place Score (30 Points Possible) 17 22 16 17 Total Place Score per 1,000 Population 3 1 2 6 Reported Walk Score (avg. = 42) 73 88 63 50 Walk Score per 1,000 Population 11 4 7 16 This PlaceScore assessment is based only on internet research, and has not been field-verified. Analysis and assessment by LandUse|USA; © 2016. If a community's amenities and resources are not listed, then the challenge is to improve marking efforts and ensure that the resources are available and easy to find through mainstream online search engines. The PlaceScore term and methodology is trademarked by LandUse|USA with all rights reserved. Exhibit H.12 PlaceScoresTM - Local Placemaking Initiatives and Amenities (As Evident Through Internet Research and Search Engines) Selected Places | Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1b

Primary County Alger Delta Delta Dickinson

City of City of City of City of Iron Jurisdiction Name Munising Escanaba Gladstone Mountain 2010 Population (Decennial Census) 2,355 12,616 4,973 7,624 2014 Population (5-yr ACS 2010-2014) 2,116 12,529 4,920 7,593 City/Village-Wide Planning Documents 1 City-Wide Master Plan (not county) 1 1 1 1 2 Has a Zoning Ordinance Online 1 1 1 1 3 Considering a Form Based Code 0 0 0 0 4 Parks & Rec. Plan or Commission 0 1 1 0 Downtown Planning Documents 5 Established DDA, BID, or Similar 1 1 1 1 6 DT Master Plan, Subarea Plan 1 0 0 0 7 Streetscape, Transp. Improv. Plan 1 1 1 0 8 Retail Market Study or Strategy 0 1 0 0 9 Residential Market Study, Strategy 0 0 0 0 10 Façade Improvement Program 1 1 1 1 Downtown Organization and Marketing 11 Designation: Michigan Cool City 0 0 0 0 12 Member of Michigan Main Street 0 0 0 1 13 Main Street 4-Point Approach 0 0 0 1 14 Facebook Page 1 1 1 1 Listing or Map of Merchants and Amenities 15 City/Village Main Website 1 0 0 0 16 DDA, BID, or Main Street Website 1 1 0 0 17 Chamber or CVB Website 1 1 1 1 Subtotal Place Score (17 points possible) 10 10 8 8 This PlaceScore assessment is based only on internet research, and has not been field-verified. Analysis and assessment by LandUse|USA; © 2016. If a community's amenities and resources are not listed, then the challenge is to improve marking efforts and ensure that the resources are available and easy to find through mainstream online search engines. The PlaceScore term and methodology is trademarked by LandUse|USA with all rights reserved. Exhibit H.13 PlaceScoresTM - Local Placemaking Initiatives and Amenities (As evident through Online Search Engines) Selected Places | Michigan Upper Peninsula Prosperity Region 1b

Primary County Alger Delta Delta Dickinson

City of City of City of City of Iron Jurisdiction Name Munising Escanaba Gladstone Mountain 2010 Population (Decennial Census) 2,355 12,616 4,973 7,624 2014 Population (5-yr ACS 2010-2014) 2,116 12,529 4,920 7,593 Unique Downtown Amenities 1 Cinema/Theater, Playhouse 0 1 0 1 2 Waterfront Access/Parks 1 1 1 0 3 Established Farmer's Market 1 1 1 1 4 Summer Music in the Park 1 1 1 0 5 National or Other Major Festival 0 1 0 0 Downtown Street and Environment 6 Angle Parking (not parallel) 1 1 1 1 7 Reported Walk Score is 50+ 1 1 1 1 8 Walk Score/1,000 Pop is 40+ 1 0 0 0 9 Off Street Parking is Evident 1 1 0 1 10 2-Level Scale of Historic Buildings 1 1 0 1 11 Balanced Scale 2 Sides of Street 1 1 0 1 12 Pedestrian Crosswalks, Signaled 0 0 0 0 13 Two-way Traffic Flow 1 1 0 1 Subtotal Place Score (13 points possible) 10 11 5 8 Total Place Score (30 Points Possible) 20 21 13 16 Total Place Score per 1,000 Population 9 2 3 2 Reported Walk Score (avg. = 42) 67 75 63 73 Walk Score per 1,000 Population 64 6 13 10 This PlaceScore assessment is based only on internet research, and has not been field-verified. Analysis and assessment by LandUse|USA; © 2016. If a community's amenities and resources are not listed, then the challenge is to improve marking efforts and ensure that the resources are available and easy to find through mainstream online search engines. The PlaceScore term and methodology is trademarked by LandUse|USA with all rights reserved.