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

Prepared For: Mr. James M. Houk, ASLA, AICP OHM Advisors 580 N. Fourth St., Suite 610 Columbus, Ohio 43215

Project Number D2113KDMB August 22, 2016

Danter Company, LLC National Leaders in Real Estate Research 2760 Airport Drive | Suite 135 Columbus, OH 43219 614.221.9096 http://www.danter.com TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

A. INTRODUCTION ...... III-1 B. RETAIL ...... III-2 C. MARKET-RATE APARTMENTS ...... III-10 D. STUDENT HOUSING ...... III-40 E. SENIOR HOUSING ...... III-73 F. PLANNED/PROPOSED/UNDER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ...... III-83 G. EMA RENTAL BASE ...... III-84 H. EMA DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS ...... III-88 I. LODGING ...... III-93 J. OFFICE ...... III-114 K. CONDOMINIUM ...... III-123

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

A. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ...... IV-1 B. SITE EVALUATION ...... IV-2 C. EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA (EMA) ...... IV-5 RETAIL EMA MAP ...... IV-6 MARKET-RATE APARTMENT/CONDOMINIUM EMA MAP ...... IV-7 SENIOR HOUSING EMA MAP ...... IV-8 LODGING CMA/OFFICE EMA MAP ...... IV-9 D. COMMUNITY SERVICES ...... IV-10

ii

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

NEIGHBORHOOD MAP ...... V-2 SITE LOCATION MAP ...... V-3 COMMUNITY SERVICES MAP ...... V-4 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ...... V-5

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

VII. FIELD SURVEY OF MODERN APARTMENTS (STUDENT HOUSING) ...... VII-1

VIII. LOCATION MAPS AND PHOTOGRAPHS ...... VIII-1

APARTMENT LOCATIONS MAPS ...... VIII-2 ASSISTED-LIVING LOCATIONS MAP ...... VIII-8 INDEPENDENT-LIVING LOCATIONS MAP ...... VIII-9 CONDOMINIUM LOCATIONS MAP ...... VIII-10 LODGING LOCATIONS MAP ...... VIII-11 OFFICE LOCATIONS MAPS ...... VIII-12 APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS ...... VIII-14

IX. AREA ECONOMY ...... IX-1 A. EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS ...... IX-1 B. HOUSING STARTS ...... IX-4

DEMOGRAPHICS

GLOSSARY ...... G-1

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

iii

I. INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND

This report identifies the level of market support and redevelopment potential of the existing, but closed, Northland Center Mall located in Southfield, Michigan. The mall is located at the intersection of Northwestern Highway and Greenfield Road, north of 8 Mile Road, in the City of Southfield, Michigan.

Initial construction began in 1952 and was completed in March, 2954. Designed by Victor Gruen and developed by the J.L. Hudson Company, the mall was a leader in regional shopping centers. It originally was anchored by a four-level Hudson’s Department store. The mall contains 1,449,719 square feet on 125 acres. There is parking for 8,700 vehicles.

The mall was enclosed in the 1970’s and expanded several times thereafter to include over 100 stores. Macy’s, the last anchor, closed in 2015 and was subsequently purchased by the City of Southfield.

B. OBJECTIVES

This report identifies the level of market support and redevelopment potential of the existing, but closed, Northland Center Mall located in Southfield, Michigan. Uses considered include:

1. Market-rate apartments (upscale and senior) 2. Office 3. Retail/commercial 4. Lodging 5. Condominiums 6. Senior assisted housing

Conclusions and recommendations are predicated on the development of a mixed use property containing, at the least, residential, office and sufficient retail to establish the mixed use “branding” of the property. Such mixed use creates a synergy that maximizes the marketability and rents that can be achieved.

I-1 C. METHODOLOGY

The methodology we use in our studies is centered on four analytical techniques: the Effective Market Area (EMA) principle, Competitive Market Area (CMA) principle, a 100% data base, and the application of data generated from supplemental proprietary research.

The Effective Market Area (EMA)—Our residential conclusions for the market potential of the subject project are based on a thorough analysis of the Effective Market Area (EMA). EMA refers to a methodology developed by The Danter Company to describe areas of similar economic and demographic characteristics. The EMA is the smallest area expected to contain the greatest concentration (60% to 70%) of support for the proposed project. EMA boundaries have been determined based on interviews with area real estate, planning, and housing professionals, analysis of area mobility patterns, and past surveys conducted by The Danter Company. The EMA may differ between land uses. For example, the EMA for apartments may be different than a retail EMA. The EMA will be defined in each of the following component recommendations.

A 100% data base provides substantial advantages over looking at only a selected comparables. A 100% data base allows consideration of the proposed project in the context of the whole area market, establishing a relationship to other area properties. Further, it allows us to identify potential product and pricing niches not previously considered, as well as the potential for identifying replacement support. The EMA is defined by the existing facility configurations relative to the proposed site, location of population, density of support components, and highway patterns. This methodology has significant advantages in that it considers existing natural and manmade boundaries and socioeconomic conditions. It also enables us to make market share calculations and estimates.

In the case of lodging analysis, the EMA in not practical given that the end consumer comes from a wide, national or even international, area. In the lodging analysis a Competitive Market Area (CMA) is defined. The CMA is defined by the site proximity to lodging generators and the relative location of competitive facilityes.

Survey Data Base—Our surveys employ a l00% data base. In the course of a study, our field analysts survey not only the developments within a given range of price, amenities, or facilities, but all modern developments within the EMA.

Proprietary Research—In addition to site-specific analyses, The Danter Company, Incorporated conducts a number of ongoing studies, the results of which are used as support data for our conclusions.

I-2 D. DATA ANALYSIS

This study represents a compilation of data gathered from various sources, including the properties surveyed, local records, and interviews with local officials, real estate professionals, and major employers, as well as secondary demographic material. Although we judge these sources to be reliable, it is impossible to authenticate all data. The analyst does not guarantee the data and assumes no liability for any errors in fact, analysis, or judgment.

The secondary data used in this study are the most recent available at the time of the report preparation. This report can be updated based on any new information, with the cost contingent on the amount of data impacting the report and the proportionate production costs.

In the Field Survey components of our report, we have attempted to survey l00% of all competitive development. All properties included in the study are personally inspected by a field analyst directly employed by The Danter Company, Incorporated.

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

The analysis of specific development alternatives is presented independently. However, our conclusions reflect the synergistic impact of the totality of the development. Each component adds to the value of the entire concept.

I-3 II. SCOPE OF SURVEY

A complete analysis of a residential and commercial market requires several considerations: field surveys of retail centers and freestanding retail, for-sale condominiums, area lodging facilities, market rate and student apartments, office space and assisted living facilities; an analysis of the area economy; a demographic analysis; and recommendations for development.

Field Survey—To analyze the redevelopment potential of the site, six field surveys were completed:

 Survey of retail facilities including total square feet, year built, type of establishment, and vacancy rates.  Survey of apartments (including student apartments), including rent, amenities, occupancy and comparative index.  Survey of office space by class, price and vacancy rate.  Survey of lodging facilities.  Survey of for-sale condominiums. This survey includes sales prices, unit and project amenities, and sales rates.  Survey of senior housing alternatives, including independent- and assisted- living.

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

Economic Analysis—Major employers, utilities, banks, savings and loans, and media that serve the area are listed in the study. The information gathered has been used to create a Community Services map showing school, shopping, and employment areas in relation to the proposed site.

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

Recommendations—This section of the study considers project development and includes support by total square feet, price range, number of supportable units, and unit mix. Recommendations are made based on the analysis of these factors.

II-1 III. CONCLUSIONS

A. INTRODUCTION

This report evaluates the potential to revitalize the existing Northland Center mall in Southfield, Michigan as an integrated-use development.

The Northland Center Mall, located at 21500 Northwestern Highway, was originally developed by JL Hudson Company and opened in 1954. The mall encompassed approximately 2,000,000 square feet of retail floor space. The mall was open air until the 1970s, when expansion and enclosure of the mall created an indoor locale. Eventually most retailers and anchors moved out and the last anchor tenant, Macy’s, closed in March 2015. Northland Center was a local landmark and major shopping destination for over five decades.

Recommendations are based on the premise that the integrated-use “branding” of the development will contain, at a minimum, the market-rate apartment, retail/commercial and office components. The synergistic impact of such an integrated development creates increased demand, as well as the potential for premium product pricing. It will be important to generate enough retail, commercial and entertainment uses as possible in order to create a true integrated concept. We anticipate that the development will reflect an urban mixed-use lifestyle with a walkable site plan. Office space will provide a wide range of options from institutional style development to smaller, entrepreneurial, space reflecting a “live/work” lifestyle. Such mixed-use development optimizes lease rates, investment and employment on the site.

It is also essential that the revitalized development appear as an exciting new development rather than simply as “an old mall with some apartments attached.”

Seven development alternatives were evaluated:

1. Retail/commercial 2. Market-rate apartments 3. Student housing 4. Senior housing 5. Lodging 6. Office 7. Condominiums

III-1 The recommendations for each will be fully evaluated and defined within this of the report.

This analysis is based on the establishment of a Site Effective Market Area (EMA) for the proposed project. EMA refers to a methodology developed by the Dander Company, LLC to describe areas of similar economic and demographic characteristics. The EMA is defined as the smallest geographic area that is expected to generate 65% to 70% of support. In the case of lodging (in which customers originate from well outside the market, a Competitive Market Area (CMA) is defined). EMAs are bounded by both "hard" and "soft" boundaries. Hard boundaries are marked by rivers, freeways, railroad rights of way, and other physical boundaries. Soft boundaries are changes in the socioeconomic makeup of neighborhoods. EMAs may differ based on the type of development. For example the office EMA may not be the same and the retail or residential EMA. The EMA specific to each use in this report will be defined in the introduction portion of each component.

B. RETAIL

1. INTRODUCTION

This component of our report evaluates the market potential for retail development as part of an integrated-use redevelopment of the Northland Center Mall in Southfield, Michigan. Additional uses recommended for the site include upscale market-rate apartments, student housing, assisted living, lodging and office.

This analysis is based on the establishment of a Site Effective Market Area (EMA) for the proposed project. EMA refers to a methodology developed by the Danter Company, LLC to describe areas of similar economic and demographic characteristics. The EMA is defined as the smallest geographic area that is expected to generate 65% to 70% of support. EMAs are bounded by both "hard" and "soft" boundaries. Hard boundaries are marked by rivers, freeways, railroad rights of way, and other physical boundaries. Soft boundaries are changes in the socioeconomic makeup of neighborhoods. EMAs may differ based on the type of development. For example the Lodging EMA will not be the same as the Retail or Residential EMA. The EMA specific to each use in this report will be defined in the introduction portion of each component.

The retail Effective Market Area for the subject site has been defined as a relatively small area because of the impact of surrounding larger retail centers. The area is bounded by West 13 Mile Road to the north, West 7 Mile Road to the south, Coolidge Highway to the east and Evergreen Road to the west.

III-2 The following map illustrates the retail EMA.

Based on the characteristics of the Site EMA, a field survey of existing neighborhood retail development, an analysis of the appropriateness of the site for the proposed development, and an analysis of the Site EMA, support levels can be established for additional retail development on the subject property.

Retail development potential at the site is based on:

 A field survey of shopping centers and districts in the region  Interviews with area commercial leasing agents, business owners, and shopping center managers  Site characteristics, strengths and weaknesses  Appropriateness of the site for development  An analysis of competition, retail mobility patterns, area demographics, and consumer spending patterns  A “void” analysis of existing retail establishments  A thorough analysis of Effective Market Area (EMA) including  Population and household trends  Consumer spending patterns  A sales and spending comparison

III-3 2. RECOMMENDATIONS

With the closing of the Northland Center Mall, the Effective Market Area experienced significant voids among many retail categories. Nevertheless, the revitalized development will not be defined by its retail presence in the market, but by branding the property as an integrated-use development.

It is anticipated that the retail component would require 100,000 to 125,000 square feet, including restaurant and entertainment categories. It is important to have sufficient retail space to give the development the credibility of being an integrated-use development.

It is also noteworthy that 30% to 40% of the “retail” space will be occupied by office, service and/or medical tenants.

The preceding does not include out-parcel “big box” development anticipated along 8 Mile Road at the south edge of the site.

The Effective Market Area of the subject site is well-developed with scattered retail uses, however, there is little in the way of branded retail centers.

Because of the regional nature of the area anchored by a large employment base and major thoroughfares, retail sales among selected categories exceed the expenditures. However, we should also point out that, with the strength of the site there is always the possibility to attract retailers or restaurants seeking market share within the area.

3. RETAIL ANALYSIS

Based on the inventory of EMA retail establishments, the EMA has a very well- developed retail base. This area includes a wide range of retailers and few vacant storefronts.

Overall, the EMA has a wide range of retail choices. In a comparison with peer city and neighborhood retail districts, the EMA fares above average in the distribution of retailers by category. The most notable voids in the market were limited more by specific store offerings rather than by retail categories.

Following is a summary of the retail facilities identified in the Southfield EMA.

III-4 NUMBER OF RETAIL SUMMARY BUSINESSES Total Retail Trade and Food & Drink 891 Total Retail Trade 675 Total Food & Drink 217 Retail Group

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

III-5 According to ESRI, in 2015 there were 891 retail businesses in the retail EMA.

Among the various different categories, food service and drinking places account for the most retail stores, with a total of 217. One hundred and sixteen (116) of the restaurants are full service and 80 are limited-service restaurants. A full service restaurant offers a wide range of food and beverages. Customers at a full service restaurant order and are served while seated. Generally, bakeries, pubs & bars and diners are subsets of the full service category but offer a somewhat different dining experience. These restaurants are generally categorized as limited service.

Clothing stores account for 144 stores and the overall clothing and accessories stores account for 255. Stores in the miscellaneous store retailers category include discount stores, antique stores, pet supplies, shoe repair, video rental, tobacco stores, art stores, florists, office supplies, used merchandise, and seasonal stores.

4. EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA EXPENDITURES AND SALES

The following table compares expenditures in the EMA with total sales and the resulting drain, in which expenditures exceed the total sales or, conversely, a “capture” in which sales exceed expenditures. The expenditures represent the dollars spent by residents within the EMA and sales represent the sales by the EMA retail stores.

In a situation where the EMA has a net capture, the EMA is functioning as a regional attraction, attracting more dollars into the market than are expended.

III-6

EXPENDITURES CAPTURE AS A PERCENT RETAIL SUMMARY EXPENDITURES SALES (DRAIN) OF SALES Total Retail Trade and Food & Drink $1,164,032,760 $1,057,351,734 ($106,681,026) 110.1% Total Retail Trade $1,056,362,629 $939,731,247 ($116,631,382) 112.4% Total Food & Drink $107,670,131 $117,620,487 $9,950,356 91.5% Retail Group

Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers $236,076,963 $41,414,970 ($194,661,993) 570.0% Automobile Dealers $194,497,011 $31,265,390 ($163,231,621) 622.1% Other Motor Vehicle Dealers $23,660,228 $1,912,641 ($21,747,587) 1237.0% Auto Parts, Accessories & Tire Stores $17,919,723 $8,236,939 ($9,682,784) 217.6% Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores $30,181,798 $45,470,636 $15,288,838 66.4% Furniture Stores $19,671,116 $19,878,523 $207,407 99.0% Home Furnishings Stores $10,510,681 $25,592,113 $15,081,432 41.1% Electronics & Appliance Stores $58,270,452 $148,495,060 $90,224,608 39.2% Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply $48,956,225 $30,310,448 ($18,645,777) 161.5% Bldg Material & Supplies Dealers $40,470,476 $28,589,553 ($11,880,923) 141.6% Lawn & Garden Equip & Supply Stores $8,485,749 $1,720,895 ($6,764,854) 493.1% Food & Beverage Stores $196,007,674 $93,989,818 ($102,017,856) 208.5% Grocery Stores $172,465,595 $74,788,919 ($97,676,676) 230.6% Specialty Food Stores $12,075,616 $5,929,345 ($6,146,271) 203.7% Beer, Wine & Liquor Stores $11,466,463 $13,271,554 $1,805,091 86.4% Health & Personal Care Stores $73,569,873 $131,167,259 $57,597,386 56.1% Gasoline Stations $72,508,229 $69,456,699 ($3,051,530) 104.4% Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores $53,823,522 $126,112,585 $72,289,063 42.7% Clothing Stores $35,489,387 $62,398,518 $26,909,131 56.9% Shoe Stores $7,050,624 $30,652,452 $23,601,828 23.0% Jewelry, Luggage & Leather Goods $11,283,512 $33,061,615 $21,778,103 34.1% Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book & Music $30,414,230 $24,307,934 ($6,106,296) 125.1% Sporting Goods/Hobby/Musical Instr $23,977,147 $20,455,071 ($3,522,076) 117.2% Book, Periodical & Music Stores $6,437,083 $3,852,863 ($2,584,220) 167.1% General Merchandise Stores $188,807,244 $144,611,894 ($44,195,350) 130.6% Department Stores Exc. Leased Depts. $136,273,487 $128,736,293 ($7,537,194) 105.9% Other General Merchandise Stores $52,533,757 $15,875,601 ($36,658,156) 330.9% Miscellaneous Store Retailers $48,228,826 $36,669,411 ($11,559,415) 131.5% Florists $2,122,976 $1,207,611 ($915,365) 175.8% Office Supplies, Stationery & Gift Stores $9,429,020 $9,170,493 ($258,527) 102.8% Used Merchandise Stores $5,573,698 $5,500,509 ($73,189) 101.3% Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers $31,103,132 $20,790,799 ($10,312,333) 149.6% Food Services & Drinking Places $107,670,131 $117,620,487 $9,950,356 91.5% Full-Service Restaurants $54,903,164 $53,143,919 ($1,759,245) 103.3% Limited-Service Eating Places $43,960,570 $56,412,139 $12,451,569 77.9% Drinking Places - Alcoholic Beverages $6,239,397 $2,732,655 ($3,506,742) 228.3%

III-7 Expenditures exceed sales in most categories. Overall, total retail sales are $1.1 billion while expenditures are $1.2 billion, yielding a net drain of retail expenditures of $100 million.

The largest categories of drain are:

Auto Dealers $163.2 million Grocery Stores $97.7 million General merchandise Stores $44.2 million

The total Food and Drink category deserves special mention with a net capture of $10.0 million over EMA expenditures. This is the result of the high traffic created by major thoroughfares serving the EMA, as well as the proximity of over 5,000,000 square feet of office space in the immediate area.

5. FIELD SURVEY OF NEIGHBORHOOL RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS

In the Danter Company field survey of retailers in the EMA we identified 668 retailers. A total of 63 (9.4%) were vacant, excluding the stores at Northland Center Mall. While there are numerous shopping plazas and strip centers in the area, there are no defined malls.

The Danter Company identified 16 neighborhood and strip centers in the EMA with a total of 1,347,777 square feet and an overall vacancy rate of 20.4%. The average non- anchor rent was $15.55 (NNN). The average rent for anchor space was $10.84 (NNN). Non-anchor space accounted for 51.6% of the total space.

Following is a distribution of space by rent and vacancy rate:

RENT RANGE SQUARE FEET VACANCY RATE $20.00 - $24,99 230,948 1.60% $17.50 - $19.99 195,544 9.40% $15.00 - $17.49 171,955 41.30% Under $15.00 749,330 24.40% Total 1,347,777 20.40%

Clearly, vacancies are higher among neighborhood centers at the lower end of the rate spectrum.

III-8 The 16 shopping/strip centers surveyed include 270 occupied spaces distributed as follows:

BUSINESS TYPE PERCENT OF TOTAL Restaurant 21.2% Clothing Store 15.3% Personal Grooming 12.3% Financial Office 11.9% Medical Office 6.4% Grocery & Convenience Store 6.3% General Merchandise 5.1% Cell Phone & Electronics 4.7% Pharmacy 3.8% Insurance & Real Estate Office 3.4% Cell Phone Store 3.4% All Other 6.2% Total 100.0%

Restaurants and eating establishments are the largest commercial group (21.2%) followed by clothing stores (15.3%). Personal grooming (12.3%), including barber and beauty shops, was dominated by nail salons.

Grocery stores, convenience and specialty food stores account for 6.3% of businesses.

III-9 C. MARKET-RATE APARTMENTS

1. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

It is our opinion that a market exists for multiple development alternatives within the integrated-use development.

Conclusions for the development of a rental housing project are based on analyses of the area including the existing and anticipated rental housing market, demographics, the economy, the appropriateness of the site for the proposed development, and housing demand. The study will evaluate past, current, and future trends in the area; the impact of those trends on rental housing alternatives; current rental housing alternatives; need and market support for additional rental housing; and any proposed additions to the area rental base.

The analysis of the existing rental housing market is based on the establishment and analysis of a Site Effective Market Area (EMA) for the proposed project. EMA refers to a methodology developed by the Danter Company, LLC to describe areas of similar economic and demographic characteristics. EMAs are bounded by both "hard" and "soft" boundaries. Hard boundaries are marked by rivers, freeways, railroad rights of way, and other physical boundaries. Soft boundaries are changes in the socioeconomic makeup of neighborhoods.

The apartment EMA is bounded by West 13 Mile Road to the north, Interstate 75 to the east, West 7 Mile Road to the south, and U.S. Route 24 to the west.

III-10 Based on the characteristics of the Site EMA, a field survey of existing rental housing development, an analysis of the appropriateness of the site for the proposed development, and a demographic analysis of the Site EMA, support levels can be established for additional multifamily rental development.

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

 Analysis of the overall EMA rental housing market  Historical housing trends  Current market conditions based on 100% field survey of modern apartments  Appropriateness of the site for the subject development  Current and expected economic and household growth conditions  Area apartment demand factors, including  Income-appropriate households  Support from existing multifamily renters (step-up/down support)  A trend line analysis, based on a "rent by comparability rating" evaluation of all conventional developments within the Site EMA, is used to evaluate rents for the proposed development.  Floor plan analysis and comparison with comparable product

Most of the apartment projects in the subject Site EMA include landlord-paid water, sewer, and trash collection in the rents, while tenants are typically responsible for the remaining utilities (gas, electricity, cable television, and high-speed Internet). Half of the market-rate properties that have gas utilities have landlords paying for gas; however, those properties are predominately older, constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. Most new properties have tenant-paid gas. The rents at the subject property will include water, sewer and trash removal. As such, the rents among the market-rate properties (when necessary) have been adjusted to represent a utility package similar to what will be included at the site in order to complete an even rent comparison. These will be referred to as collected rents throughout this analysis.

MARKET-RATE PROJECTS TENANT LANDLORD Gas 41 41 Electric 90 0 Water/Sewer 28 62 Trash 15 75 Cable TV 90 0 Internet 88 2

III-11 Residential development is critical to the success of an integrated-use development. It is attractive equally to both employees and employers. There are multiple types of rental housing recommended for the subject site and each add to the concept of integrated use. The number of units presented below represents the total units recommended. We understand that the final site plan may contain a more appropriate mix. Size of units is intended to be guidelines. A final site plan may yield a somewhat different mix of products. Rental housing recommendations include the following:

 Three- and four-story elevator building over storefronts – this component is critical to “branding” the integrated-use concept. It is not necessarily immersed into the core of the development and may be mixed with adjacent retail/commercial space.  Free-standing three-plus story buildings adjacent to retail/commercial  Townhouse streetscapes walkable to retail/commercial. These may be in a freestanding neighborhood or used to “clad” parking structures.  A gated luxury development with large units and expanded personal amenities

We anticipate that the residential development will be distributed over a relatively wide area. Therefore we recommend a master community facility with the following project amenities:

The following project amenities would be provided:

PROJECT AMENITIES

 Swimming pool  Pet park  Community building  On-site management  Business/computer center  Elevator, where applicable  Fitness center  Security patrol  TV lounge  Library  Jog/bike path (serving entire development)  Car wash area  Theatre/media center  Spa area with steam room and  Pet friendly with pet park and pet washing sauna, room for visiting masseuse.  Concierge  Spa pool

In addition, there will likely be a state-of-the-art fitness center associated with the development. While every effort should be made to secure special benefits for residents (as well as employees), this would not replace a dedicated fitness center in the common community facility.

III-12 Some project amenities would relate to specific buildings or neighborhoods. These would include the following:

 BBQ areas  Fireplace pavilions  Bicycle storage  Additional storage

It should also be noted that there will be additional benefits associated with the proposed development relating to the relationship with an integrated-use development.

 Development security patrol  Priority relationship with restaurants  Discounts from merchants where possible  VIP access to events  Door-to-door security  Concierge services

It is also expected that the architectural and landscaping elements will be consistent with standards established throughout the development. We anticipate that residential development will meet, or exceed, competitive properties in all aspects of development.

In addition, the gated luxury development would include the following:

 Climate controlled wine storage vault  Demonstration kitchen (may be part of the retail development)  Steam room  Sauna

We expect approximately 30% to 40% of the residents to be empty nesters. Approximately 12% of residents will be home employed. There will be very few school age children.

III-13 UNIT AMENITIES

Typical unit amenities will include the following:

 Range  Security system  Frost-free refrigerator with icemaker  Balcony/patio  Dishwasher  Secured entry  Disposal  Garage (some)  Central air conditioning  Ceiling fan  Washer/dryer  Vaulted and/or nine-foot ceilings in  Carpet and/or wood flooring some units  Additional storage (patio, garage, remote)  Window covering  Some granite or similar countertops  Pet friendly

In addition, townhome and luxury units would have upscale treatments including stainless steel (or similar) appliances, upgraded cabinetry, carpet, granite countertops, tray ceilings, etc.

Competitive features such as room sizes, closets and storage, and entryways are addressed in Section III, Page III-27 (Competitive Analysis).

Residential over Retail/Commercial

SQUARE RENTS AT UNIT DESCRIPTION NUMBER FEET OPENING* Studio 16 425 $850 One-Bedroom/1.0 Bath Garden 40 725 $1,250 One-Bedroom/1.0 Bath Garden 36 825 $1,375 Two-Bedroom/2.0 Bath Garden 36 1,000 $1,600 Two-Bedroom/2.0 Bath Garden 36 1,100 $1,750 Three-Bedroom/2.0 Bath Garden 16 1,200 $2,000 Total 180 *2018

Rent includes water, sewer and trash removal. Tenants will pay all other utilities. This would include surface parking with an attached parking structure available at an additional rent ($75).

III-14 Freestanding Market-Rate Apartments (Single-Story Units in a Multifloor Building)

These units will be in multiple buildings generally adjacent to the retail commercial district.

SQUARE RENTS AT UNIT DESCRIPTION NUMBER FEET OPENING* Studio 24 425 $775 One-Bedroom/1.0 Bath Garden 44 750 $1,125 One-Bedroom/1.0 Bath Garden 32 860 $1,300 Two-Bedroom/2.0 Bath Garden 48 1,000 $1,450 Two-Bedroom/2.0 Bath Garden 40 1,150 $1,550 Two-Bedroom/2.0 Bath Garden 20 1,250 $1,600 Three-Bedroom/2.5 Bath Garden 24 1,400 $1,850 Total 232 *2018

Rent includes water, sewer and trash removal. Tenants will pay all other utilities. These would be in a midrise (three to five stories) structure with internal garage parking adjacent or below. Covered parking would be an additional $75.

It is anticipated that the 312 units would be developed in two phases.

Townhome Apartments

These units will be in a townhome streetscape with raised front entries (to have first floor windows above eye level from the street). One- and two-car garages would occupy ground level. Access to this neighborhood would be through a gated entry adjacent to the commercial/retail portion of the property.

SQUARE RENTS AT UNIT DESCRIPTION NUMBER FEET OPENING* Two-Bedroom/2.5 Bath/One-Car Garage 60 1,200 $1,800 Two-Bedroom/2.5 Bath/Two-Car Garage 24 1,280 $1,950 Three-Bedroom/2.5 Bath/One-Car Garage 16 1,350 $2,250 Three-Bedroom/2.5 Bath/Two-Car Garage 12 1,450 $2,400 Total 102 *2018

Rent includes water, sewer and trash removal. Tenants will pay all other utilities.

III-15 Luxury Apartments in a Gated Community

These units will be in a gated community in two- to three-story elevator buildings, generally adjacent to the retail commercial district.

SQUARE RENTS AT UNIT DESCRIPTION NUMBER FEET OPENING* One-Bedroom/1.0 Bath Garden 16 850 $1,400 Two-Bedroom/2.0 Bath Garden 24 1,200 $2,000 Two-Bedroom/2.0 Bath Garden 24 1,300 $2,200 Three-Bedroom/2.5 Bath Garden 8 1,500 $2,800 Total 72 *2018

Rent includes water, sewer and trash removal. Tenants will pay all other utilities. These would be in a two- to three-story structure with internal garage parking adjacent or below. Parking for one vehicle is included in rent with additional spots available at $75.

SUMMARY

UNIT TYPE UNITS MODELS RENT RANGE Apartments Over 180 Studio, One-, Two-, & Three-Bedroom $850 - $2,000 Retail/Commercial Stand Alone Midrise 232 Studio, One-, Two-, & Three-Bedroom $775 - $1,850 Townhouse 102 Two- & Three-Bedroom $1,800 - $2,400 Gated Luxury 72 One-, Two-, & Three-Bedroom $1,400 - $2,800 Total 586

2. ABSORPTION

Each of the product recommendations has been sized to reflect a 12 to 15 month absorption period, commencing with the release of the first units for occupancy. It is, however, unlikely that all of the product choices will become available at the same time which could extend the overall absorption over a longer period. It is further anticipated that there will be a significant pre-marketing program starting with the start of construction of the development. We anticipate 18% to 20% of the units to be preleased during that period.

Prior studies have shown that absorption tends to be seasonal, with up to 64% of annual absorption taking place in the peak summer months (May through August). The shoulder season (the two months on either side of the peak season) generally accounts

III-16 for approximately 24% of annual absorption. The off season, November through February, typically accounts for the remaining 12% of absorption. While these percentages do not hold true in all markets, they give a good indication of the potential seasonal variations in absorption.

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

The anticipated spring opening date will be important in achieving the targeted absorption period. The 15 months absorption thus reflects two prime marketing seasons. A later release may extend absorption through the slower winter months.

3. COMPARABLE MARKET RENT ANALYSIS

Comparable market rent analysis establishes the rent potential renters would expect to pay for the subject unit in the open market. Comparable market rent is based on a trend line analysis for the area apartment market. For each unit type, the trend line analysis compares net rent by comparability rating for all market-rate developments. Comparability ratings have been established for all developments in the Site EMA based on unit amenities, project amenities, overall aesthetic appeal, and location. The comparability ratings for each property are listed in the Field Survey section in this report. The trend line is a function of a scatter plot showing each apartment community created by plotting the comparability rating on the horizontal axis and the rent on the vertical axis. This evaluation provides a comparison of existing market rents to those at the proposed project. Additional factors also influence a property’s ability to actually achieve the comparable market rent, including the number of units at that comparable market rent, the step-up support base at that rent range, and the age and condition of the subject property and competitive units.

Following are the Comparability Ratings for each of the recommended apartment product concepts at the subject site.

TOTAL UNIT PROJECT ASTHETIC COMPARABILITY PROJECT CONCEPT AMENITIES AMENITIES APPEAL RATING Apartments over 10.5 12.0 9.0 31.5 Retail/Commercial Stand Alone Midrise 8.5 12.0 9.0 29.5 Townhouse 11.5 13.0 9.5 34.0 Gated Luxury 13.0 13.0 9.5 35.5

III-17 Considering the proposed unit and project amenities and an appealing aesthetic quality, the recommended developments are anticipated to have an overall comparability ratings ranging from 29.5 to 35.5.

Based on prior studies conducted by The Danter Company, rents in the Site EMA have increased at an established rate of 2.8% per year over the past several years.

The following tables compare the recommended rents with the market driven trend line rents for each of the product types. Market driven rents have been trended forward to 2018, the anticipated time of opening.

APARTMENTS OVER RETAIL/COMMERCIAL MARKET RENT AT OPENING AT 31.5 PROPOSED PROPOSED RENT COMPARABILITY OPENING AVERAGE AS A PERCENT OF UNIT TYPE RATING RENT MARKET RENT Studio $1,140 $850 74.6% One-Bedroom $1,481 $1,309 88.4% Two-Bedroom $1,865 $1,675 89.8% Three-Bedroom $2,486 $2,000 80.4%

STAND ALONE MIDRISE MARKET RENT AT OPENING AT 29.5 PROPOSED PROPOSED RENT AS COMPARABILITY OPENING A PERCENT OF UNIT TYPE RATING AVERAGE RENT MARKET RENT Studio $1,036 $775 74.8% One-Bedroom $1,481 $1,199 81.0% Two-Bedroom $1,730 $1,515 87.6% Three-Bedroom $2,310 $1,850 80.1%

TOWNHOUSE MARKET RENT AT OPENING AT 34.0 PROPOSED PROPOSED RENT AS COMPARABILITY OPENING A PERCENT OF UNIT TYPE RATING AVERAGE RENT MARKET RENT Two-Bedroom $2,020 $1,843 91.2% Three-Bedroom $2,766 $2,314 83.7%

III-18 GATED LUXURY MARKET RENT AT OPENING AT 35.5 PROPOSED PROPOSED RENT AS COMPARABILITY OPENING A PERCENT OF UNIT TYPE RATING AVERAGE RENT MARKET RENT One-Bedroom $1,580 $1,400 88.6% Two-Bedroom $2,124 $2,100 98.9% Three-Bedroom $2,849 $2,800 98.3%

With the proposed rents ranging from 74.6% to 98.9% of market-driven rents, the proposed units will be perceived as a significant value within the market. Such a value is recommended due the overall size on the development and the required absorption rate. Because of the value, the properties are expected to outperform rent and occupancy trends for the EMA.

The number of units proposed at the site must be considered relative to the project’s ability to achieve a given rent level. Previous research conducted by Danter Company, LLC indicates that all other factors being equal, larger properties must be a better value in the marketplace than smaller properties due to the higher number of units that must be rented each month. To generate a sufficient number of potential renters, larger properties typically need to set rents below comparable market rent.

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

III-19 STUDIO UNITS BY COLLECTED RENT

AND COMPARABILITY INDEX

$1,200.00

$1,100.00

$1,000.00

$900.00

$800.00 COLLECTED COLLECTED RENT

$700.00

$600.00

$500.00

$400.00 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 COMPARABILITY RATING

Legend: Site - Apartments over Retail/Commercial

Site - Stand Alone Midrise

Market-Rate Properties Tax Credit Properties Market-Driven Rent

III-20

ONE-BEDROOM UNITS BY COLLECTED RENT

AND COMPARABILITY INDEX

$2,100.00

$2,000.00

$1,900.00

$1,800.00

$1,700.00

$1,600.00

$1,500.00

$1,400.00

$1,300.00 D D RENT $1,200.00

$1,100.00 COLLECTE $1,000.00

$900.00

$800.00

$700.00

$600.00

$500.00

$400.00

$300.00 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 COMPARABILITY RATING

Legend: Site - Apartments over Retail/Commercial Townhome Site - Stand Alone Midrise Gated Luxury Market -Rate Properties

Tax Credit Properties Market-Driven Rent

III-21

TWO-BEDROOM UNITS BY COLLECTED RENT

AND COMPARABILITY INDEX

$2,700.00 $2,600.00 $2,500.00 $2,400.00 $2,300.00 $2,200.00 $2,100.00 $2,000.00 $1,900.00 $1,800.00 $1,700.00

$1,600.00 D RENT $1,500.00 $1,400.00 COLLECTE $1,300.00 $1,200.00 $1,100.00 $1,000.00 $900.00 $800.00 $700.00 $600.00 $500.00 $400.00 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 COMPARABILITY RATING

Legend: Site - Apartments over Retail/Commercial Townhome Site - Stand Alone Midrise Gated Luxury Market -Rate Properties

Tax Credit Properties Market-Driven Rent

III-22

THREE-BEDROOM UNITS BY COLLECTED RENT

AND COMPARABILITY INDEX

$3,000.00 $2,900.00 $2,800.00 $2,700.00 $2,600.00 $2,500.00 $2,400.00 $2,300.00 $2,200.00 $2,100.00 $2,000.00 $1,900.00

$1,800.00 D RENT $1,700.00 $1,600.00 COLLECTE $1,500.00 $1,400.00 $1,300.00 $1,200.00 $1,100.00 $1,000.00 $900.00 $800.00 $700.00 $600.00 $500.00 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 COMPARABILITY RATING

Legend: Site - Apartments over Retail/Commercial Townhome Site - Stand Alone Midrise Gated Luxury Market -Rate Properties

Tax Credit Properties Market-Driven Rent

III-23

4. STEP-UP/DOWN SUPPORT

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

The 100% database field survey methodology allows us to accurately measure potential support from conventional renters. Our studies indicate that, at the proposed rent range, tenants are willing to incur rental increases of up to 15% per month for a rental alternative when it is perceived as a value. This is the step-up support base.

In addition, the existing units in the market with rents higher than those proposed at the subject site and with project comparability ratings equal to or lower than the proposed project represent potential step-down support for the subject site.

Step-up/down support is a critical factor in projecting absorption because it directly measures the depth of potential support from the households most likely to move to the subject site. Step-up/down support is best expressed as a ratio of proposed units to potential support. A lower ratio indicates a deeper level of market support and that the subject site will have to capture fewer of these households in order to achieve successful initial absorption. A higher ratio indicates a lower level of potential support from conventional renters and that the subject site will have to attract a higher level of support from outside this group, potentially slowing absorption.

Step-down support represents existing renters within the Site EMA who should perceive the proposed development as offering a greater value at a rent lower than or equivalent to their current rent. Typically, this value results from renters who would perceive the subject site as a higher-quality project at an equal or lower rent, or as a project of quality similar to their current unit but at a lower rent.

III-24 The step-down base includes all units with higher rents than the subject site, but lower or equivalent comparability ratings within the Site EMA. At the proposed rent levels, the step-up/down support base for each product type is as follows.

DISTRIBUTION OF STEP-UP/DOWN SUPPORT STAND APARTMENTS OVER ALONE GATED RETAIL/COMMERCIAL MIDRISE TOWNHOME LUXURY Step-Up Support 625 1,791 95 88 Step-Down Support 307 649 137 167 Total 932 2,440 232 255 Units Proposed 180 232 102 72 Share from EMA 108 139 61 43 Ratio of Proposed Units to Potential 11.6% 5.7% 26.2% 16.9% Step-Up/Down Support Base

The proposed development concepts represent 5.7% to 26.2% of the total step-up/step-down support base, a very good ratio.

5. GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN OF SUPPORT

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

TYPICAL SUPPORT ANTICIPATED SUPPORT Internal Mobility Apartment 50% 55% Other 20% 20% External Mobility 30% 35% Total 100% 100%

Geographic support at the subject site is expected to be typical of most upscale developments.

III-25 6. RENT GAP

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

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

In the Effective Market Area, the rent gaps between unit types for each product type are as follows:

DISTRIBUTION OF RENT GAP BY PRODUCT TYPE APARTMENTS STAND OVER RETAIL/ ALONE GATED COMMERCIAL MIDRISE TOWNHOUSE LUXURY Studio/One-bedroom $400 $350 N/A N/A One-Bedroom/Two-Bedroom $225 $150 N/A $600 Two-Bedroom/Three-Bedroom $250 $250 $300 $600

The recommended rents yield rent gaps appropriate for the number of units in each unit and project concept.

III-26 7. COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS

There are two sets of criteria which can be used to identify comparable properties. A project can be conceptually and/or economically comparable.

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

Economically Comparable Properties are those properties with similar net rent levels to the proposed project. These properties may or may not have a similar comparability rating.

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

TOTAL TWO- MAP NUMBER YEAR BEDROOM COMPARABILITY CODE PROJECT OF UNITS OPENED RENT RATING - Subject Site* Apartments over Retail 180 2018 $1,600 - $1,750 31.5 Freestanding Midrise 232 2018 $1,450 - $1,600 29.5 Townhouse 102 2018 $1,800 - $1,950 34.0 Gated Luxury 72 2018 $2,000 - $2,200 35.5 6 North Park Towers 313 1967 $1,208 - $1,459 26.0 (r. 2000) 43 42 West 44** 2016 $1,556 - $1,771 27.5 85 Station 3 Lofts 45 2009 $1,900 - $2,450 24.5 86 Eight55 48 2016 $2,465 - $2,815 23.0 88 Amber Crossing 43 2010 $1,175 - $2,425 20.5 *Recommended for subject site **Plus an additional 70 units under construction opening Summer 2016

The two-bedroom rents listed for the competitive properties above are net rents, adjusted to match the utilities to be included in rent at the subject site.

III-27 A comparison of unit amenities at these projects and the proposed project is as follows:

/SECURED ENTRY/SECURED

PROJECT RANGE REFRIGERATOR MICROWAVE DISHWASHER DISPOSAL AIR CONDITIONING WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS WASHER/DRYER CARPET COVERINGS WINDOW INTERCOM BALCONY/PATIO GARAGE FAN CEILING VAULTED/9’ CEILINGS Subject Site X I X X X C X X X X X X S X S North Park Towers X X X X X C X B X X X 42 West X I X X X C X X X B X X X X X Station 3 Lofts X I X X X C X X B X X X Eight55 X I X X C X X B X X X X Amber Crossing X I X X X C X X B X X X S S I – Ice maker C – Central air conditioning B – Blinds S – Some

Project amenities are listed as follows:

SITE MANAGEMENT -

PROJECT POOL COMMUNITY BUILDING SAUNA SPA POL FITNESS CENTER TRAIL JOG/BIKE PICNIC AREA LAUNDRY ON ELEVATOR CENTER BUSINESS PATROL SECURITY Subject Site X X X X X X X X X X X North Park Towers X X X X X X X 42 West X X X X X Station 3 Lofts X X Eight55 X X Amber Crossing X

The amenities comparison shows the proposed project to be very competitive on a feature-for-feature basis.

III-28 A distribution of competitive properties by units offered follows:

UNITS OFFERED MAP TOTAL ONE- TWO- THREE- FOUR- CODE PROJECT UNITS STUDIO BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM - Subject Site Apartments over Retail 180 16 76 72 16 - Freestanding Midrise 232 24 76 180 24 - Townhouse 102 - - 84 28 - Gated Luxury 72 - 16 48 8 - 6 North Park Towers 313 - 179 128 6 - 43 42 West 44* - 14 30 0 - 85 Station 3 Lofts 45 - 15 29 1 - 86 Eight55 48 - 20 28 - - 88 Amber Crossing 43 8 19 15 1 - *Plus 70 Units under construction: (22) 1-bedroom, (28) 2-bedroom, (20) 3-bedroom

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

 Perception of space often based on the entry into the unit  Bedroom size  Closets are especially important. Large closets are immediately noticed by prospective tenants. Further, having the largest closets in the market facilitate rent increases since it is virtually impossible for a tenant to move into another unit with less storage than they already have.

A total of 30 competitive one-, two- and three-bedroom floorplans from the properties listed above were evaluated and compared to the floorplans recommended for the subject site.

III-29 The charts on the following pages summarize the average rent and features of the competitive units.

AVERAGE RENT BY UNIT TYPE $3,000 $2,800 $2,600 $2,400 $2,200 $2,000 Comparable Unit Average $1,800 $1,600 Subject Site - Over Retail $1,400 Subject Site - Stand Alone Midrise $1,200 Subject Site - Townhouse $1,000 Subject Site - Gated Luxury $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three-Bedroom

Overall the subject site will offer rents slightly lower than the average comparable unit, the notable exceptions being the three-bedroom townhome units and the two- and three-bedroom gated luxury units. There are two reasons for that, the first being that those units at the subject site will have a significantly higher Comparable Rating than the units at the comparable properties, and the second being that there are very few three-bedroom units at the comparable properties, which skews the comparison somewhat.

III-30 The following chart shows the average total square feet of the recommended floorplans at the subject site compared to the average total square feet of the competitive floorplans.

AVERAGE SQUARE FEET BY UNIT TYPE 1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000 Comparable Unit Average Subject Site - Over Retail 800 Subject Site - Stand Alone Midrise 600 Subject Site - Townhouse Subject Site - Gated Luxury 400

200

0 One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three-Bedroom

The floorplans recommended for the subject site are comparable in unit size to the average competitive unit.

The following table summarizes the average master bedroom sizes at the competitive units compared to the average recommended for the subject site.

MASTER BEDROOMS IN SQUARE FEET BY UNIT TYPE

One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three-Bedroom Comparable Unit Average 154 180 206 Subject Site - Over Retail 150 160 170 Subject Site - Stand Alone Midrise 150 160 170 Subject Site - Townhome - 170 180 Subject Site - Gated Luxury 160 170 180

III-31 As the following charts illustrate, the majority of competitive units have layouts lacking quality entries. A significant number of competitive units have entries classified as “Poor”, meaning that upon entry to the unit, there is an impression of a small, closed-off space. A poor entry, for example, would be an entrance that leads into a long hallway, with no direct view of windows and/or no straight path into an open living room area.

Competitive One-Bedroom Unit Entry Ratings

7.7%

15.3% 38.5% Poor Fair Good Very Good

38.5%

Competitive Two-Bedroom Unit Entry Ratings

7.1% 14.3%

21.4% Poor Fair Good Very Good

57.1%

The three-bedroom unit floorplans were evenly split between “Poor” and “Fair” entries. Very few of the competitive units have floorplans with entries rated “Very Good,” which describes the sort of open, airy entry that is recommended for the subject site.

III-32 8. INCOME-APPROPRIATE HOUSEHOLDS

Based on findings from the Danter Company's nationwide telephone survey, we anticipate that the proposed studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units will predominantly house one- and two-person households. Leasing industry standards for market-rate projects typically require households to have net rent-to-income ratios of 25%. The net rents (includes water, sewer, and trash pickup) at the site range from $725 to $2,300 per month. With the lowest net monthly rent of $725, the minimum annual housing cost is $8,700. Applying the 25% rent-to-income ratios requires a minimum annual household income of $34,800.

There are no income restrictions for market-rate units. Further, more and more households are “renters by choice”, often not opting for home ownership until their family status changes. Therefore, household incomes are not limited.

All Income-Qualified Households

The 2014 Census reported that 31.3% of the EMA households were renters. However, the reality is that this percentage varies depending on the income levels of the households. For example, at lower income levels, a higher ratio of renters is likely compared to the higher income levels.

Considering the renter to total households’ ratio established for households with higher incomes, the estimated number of renter households within the Site EMA that are income-appropriate for the proposed subject project (above $34,800) is estimated at 11,800 households in 2016. Approximately 60% of the total support will be generated from within the EMA or 352 of the 586 proposed units. This would represent 3.0% of their potential income-appropriate renter base. This is an excellent ratio of proposed units to potential income-appropriate renter households.

III-33 9. EMA APARTMENT FIELD SURVEY OVERVIEW (MARKET-RATE)

A total of 15,446 conventional apartment units in 99 projects were surveyed in the EMA. A total of 14,150 of these units are in 89 market-rate developments and 1 Tax Credit development. There are 1,296 units located in 9 government-subsidized developments. An additional 102 units are under construction at 2 existing market-rate developments.

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

DISTRIBUTION OF CONVENTIONAL MARKET-RATE APARTMENTS AND VACANCY RATE SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MARKET-RATE UNITS VACANCY UNIT TYPE NUMBER PERCENT RATE Studio 380 2.7% 3.2% One-Bedroom 5,907 41.7% 2.9% Two-Bedroom 7,102 50.2% 2.7% Three-Bedroom 754 5.3% 1.5% Four-Bedroom 7 0.0% 0.0% Total 14,150 100.0% 2.7%

Among market-rate and Tax Credit projects, 41.1% are 100.0% occupied, accounting for 21.4% of the total units. The overall vacancy rate is extremely low at 2.7% and would indicate that the market is limited by a lack of supply, rather than lacking demand

The Site EMA apartment base contains a disproportionately high percentage of one- bedroom units, over 40% of the total. Despite the high percentage, these units are adequately absorbed, as evidenced by the low vacancy rate among the one-bedroom units of only 2.9%.

III-34 A comparison of median and upper-quartile rents and vacancies by each unit type follows:

MEDIAN AND UPPER-QUARTILE RENTS AND VACANCIES SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

OVERALL UPPER-QUARTILE MEDIAN VACANCY NUMBER VACANCY UNIT TYPE RENTS RATE RENT RANGE OF UNITS RATE Studio $610 3.2% $646 - $1,180 95 1.1% One-Bedroom $744 2.9% $835 - $2,297 1,477 2.0% Two-Bedroom $951 2.7% $1,097 - $2,815 1,776 3.0% Three-Bedroom $1,319 1.5% $1,563 - $2,900 189 1.1% Four-Bedroom $2,049 0.0% $2,811 - $2,826 2 0.0%

Based on previous studies conducted by the Danter Company, LLC, it was determined that rents in the Site EMA have increased at an established annual rate of 2.8% over the past several years.

III-35 Following is a distribution of units and vacancies by year of construction:

DISTRIBUTION OF UNIT AND VACANCIES BY YEAR BUILT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

PROJECTS CURRENT PERIOD BUILT UNITS BUILT VACANCY RATE Before 1970 49 7,495 3.4% 1970-1979 26 4,639 2.0% 1980-1989 8 1,514 1.7% 1990-1999 1 106 3.8% 2000-2009 1 45 0.0% 2010 1 43 0.0% 2011 0 - - 2012 0 - - 2013 2 216 0.0% 2014 0 - - 2015 0 - - 2016* 1 92 10.9% Total 90 14,150 2.7% *Through May

The Site EMA is overwhelmingly categorized by older product, with more than 50% of the total units constructed before 1970. The majority of these older units may be classified as older, with few amenities, and functionally obsolete.

Another good illustration of how the Site EMA is limited with supply is the fact that there have been only 5 new apartment projects that have opened in the area since 2000. Two of these, Eight55 and $2 West, opened in 2016 and are still in lease-up, which accounts for the unusually high vacancy rate.

III-36 Projects in the area range in size from 8 to 723 units. The average area project includes 157 units. The following table provides a distribution of units by the size of the project. Two existing projects, McNichols, Map Code 75, and 42 West, Map Code 43, have units under construction. The units under construction were not included in each project’s unit total for the following table. When those units open the average area project will include 158 units.

DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS AND PROJECTS BY PROJECT SIZE SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

TOTAL UNITS PROJECTS UNITS VACANCY IN PROJECTS NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT RATE Less Than 25 6 6.7% 113 0.8% 0.0% 25 To 49 16 17.8% 646 4.6% 2.6% 50 To 99 17 18.9% 1,329 9.4% 1.4% 100 To 199 26 28.9% 3,573 25.3% 2.7% 200 To 299 11 12.2% 2,513 17.8% 3.1% 300 Or Greater 14 15.6% 5,976 42.2% 3.0% Total 90 100.0% 14,150 100.0% 2.7%

III-37 The area apartment market has been evaluated by the comparability rating of each property. Comparability ratings are based on a rating system that awards points to each project based on its unit amenities, project amenities, and aesthetic amenities (curbside appeal). Comparability ratings for projects in the Site Effective Market Area range from 11.0 to 27.5. The average comparability rating in the EMA is 17.8. The following table identifies units and vacancies by comparability rating:

DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS AND PROJECTS BY COMPARABILITY RATING SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

COMPARABILITY NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VACANCY RATING RANGE PROJECTS UNITS RATE Less Than 15.0 25 2,062 2.2% 15.0 To 17.5 23 2,746 3.3% 18.0 To 20.5 19 3,831 3.3% 21.0 To 22.5 9 1,846 2.5% 23.0 To 25.5 10 2,937 1.8% 26.0 To 28.5 4 728 3.3% 29.0 Or Greater 0 0 - Total 90 14,150 2.7%

None of the properties had a Comparability Rating of 29.0 or higher. Even newer properties have unusually low overall Comparability Ratings, despite the fact that some have luxury unit amenities such as stainless steel appliances, vaulted ceilings, and granite counters. The reason for the lower than expected overall rating is that several of these newer properties are lacking in project amenities.

The highest-rated conventional project in the area is 42 West (Map Code 43), which opened in 2016 and has a rating of 27.5. The proposed project is anticipated to have the highest overall Comparability Rating in the market with ratings ranging from 29.5 to 35.5.

The standard amenities featured in at least 60% of the apartments in the Site EMA include a refrigerator, range, carpeting, air conditioning, disposal, window coverings, dishwasher, laundry facility and on-site management. Washer and dryer and/or hookups are relatively uncommon, which explains the high number of developments with a laundry. With the exception of a laundry facility, the subject site has all of the amenities common to over 60% of the total properties in the EMA.

III-38 A distribution of amenities at market-rate and Tax Credit projects follows:

DISTRIBUTION OF AMENITIES BY PROJECT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

TOTAL NUMBER SHARE OF INCLUDED OF PROJECTS* PROJECTS AMENITY AT SUBJECT (OUT OF 90) WITH AMENITY Range X 90 100.0% Refrigerator X 90 100.0% Window Coverings X 89 98.9% Air Conditioning X 88 97.8% Disposal X 84 93.3% Carpet X 77 85.6% Laundry Facility 65 72.2% Dishwasher X 63 70.0% On-Site Management X 63 70.0% Balcony/Patio X 47 52.2% Pool X 44 48.9% Intercom Security X 42 46.7% Carport 36 40.0% Common Building/Common Room X 32 35.6% Exercise Room X 24 26.7% Washer/dryer Hookups X 24 26.7% Ceiling Fan X 23 25.6% Elevator X 16 17.8% Microwave X 15 16.7% Washer/dryer X 15 16.7% Security Gate 14 15.6% Business/Computer Center X 12 13.3% Vaulted/9’ Ceiling 11 12.2% Garage X 10 11.1% Picnic Area X 10 11.1% Basement 9 10.0% Playground 6 6.7% Security Patrol X 5 5.6% Security System 4 4.4% Sports Court 4 4.4% Tennis 4 4.4% Hot Tub 3 3.3% Fireplace 2 2.2% Lake 2 2.2% Sauna X 1 1.1% *Includes properties in which some or all of the units contain the amenity

III-39 D. STUDENT HOUSING

1. INTRODUCTION

This report evaluates the potential to develop a 100-unit (304 beds) student housing development in Southfield, Michigan (Oakland County). The site is 0.3 mile from the Oakland Community College - Southfield campus. In addition, the site is 2.6 miles from the academic center of the Lawrence Technological University campus.

Conclusions for the development of a rental housing project for students are based on analyses of the area including the existing and anticipated rental housing market, demographics, the economy, and housing demand. The study will evaluate past, current, and future trends of student enrollment in the area; the impact of those trends on student housing alternatives; current rental housing alternatives; need and market support for additional student housing; and any proposed additions to the area rental base. The analysis of the existing rental housing market is based on the establishment and analysis of a Site Effective Market Area (EMA) for the proposed project.

EMA refers to a methodology developed by the Danter Company, LLC to describe areas of similar economic and demographic characteristics. EMAs are bounded by both "hard" and "soft" boundaries. Hard boundaries are marked by rivers, freeways, railroad rights of way, and other physical boundaries. Soft boundaries are changes in the socioeconomic makeup of neighborhoods.

The EMA for student housing is bounded by West 13 Mile Road to the north, Interstate 75 to the east, West 7 Mile Road to the south, and U.S. Route 24 to the west.

III-40 Based on the characteristics of the Site EMA, a field survey of existing rental housing development of the Site EMA, and a student enrollment and demographic analysis of the subject school, support levels can be established for additional rental development.

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

 Analysis of the overall EMA student rental housing market  Historical housing trends  Current market conditions based on 100% field survey of modern apartments  Appropriateness of the site for the subject development  Current and expected economic and household growth conditions  Area apartment demand factors, including:  Local trends in student housing  Support from existing multifamily renters (step-up/down support)  A trend line analysis, based on a "rent by comparability rating" evaluation of all conventional developments within the Site EMA, is used to evaluate rents for the proposed development.  Floor plan analysis and comparison with comparable product

Most of the apartment projects in the subject Site EMA include landlord-paid water, sewer, and trash collection in the rents, while tenants are typically responsible for the remaining utilities (gas, electricity, cable television, and high-speed Internet). Half of the market-rate properties that have gas utilities have landlords paying for gas; however, those properties are predominately older, constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. Most new properties have tenant-paid gas.

MARKET-RATE PROJECTS TENANT LANDLORD Gas 41 41 Electric 90 0 Water/Sewer 28 62 Trash 15 75 Cable TV 90 0 Internet 88 2

There are currently no purpose-built student housing projects in the subject Site EMA. It is typical for new purpose-built student housing rents to be all-inclusive, therefore the rents at the subject property will include all utilities, trash removal, high-speed Internet, and cable TV. As such, the rents among the market-rate properties (when necessary) have been adjusted to represent a utility package similar to what will be included at the site in order to complete and even rent comparison. These will be referred to as collected rents throughout this analysis.

III-41 2. RECOMMENDATIONS

PROJECT CONCEPT

Plans for the proposed project include the development of 100 units (304 private beds) in a newly-constructed student housing development 2.6 miles from the Lawrence Technological campus in the city of Southfield. This recommendation is based on a spring/summer prior to the start of fall 2018 classes. It also assumes that the redeveloped Northland Center site would also be at least partially open.

Based on our analysis of the Southfield Site Effective Market Area, interviews with area realtors and school representatives, analysis of school enrollment trends, and current market conditions, it is our opinion that a market exists for a student housing development as proposed in this report.

The project is summarized as follows:

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN PURPOSE-BUILT STUDENT HOUSING

NUMBER NUMBER SQUARE RENT RENT PER UNIT TYPE OF UNITS OF BEDS FEET PER BED UNIT One-Bedroom, 1.0 Bath Garden 16 16 650 $1,200 $1,200 Two-Bedroom, 2.0 Bath Garden 24 48 925 $825 $1,650 Four-Bedroom, 4.0 Bath Garden 60 240 1,400 $700 $2,800 Total 100 304

Collected rent includes all utilities, trash removal, high-speed Internet, and cable TV. Tenants will be responsible for all other utilities.

III-42 UNIT AMENITIES

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

 Fully furnished  Carpet  Range (stainless steel or similar)  Central air conditioning  Refrigerator (stainless steel or similar)  USB charging ports (in each bedroom)  Dishwasher  State-of-the-art keyless entry  Microwave oven  Window coverings  Disposal  Ceiling fans  Washer/dryer  Vaulted and/or 9-foot ceilings  Washer/dryer hookup  Surface parking (1:1 bedroom ratio)  Built-in tech shelving and USB ports  Granite or similar counter tops

PROJECT AMENITIES

Project amenities will include the following:

 Individual leases  Pet care stations  Roommate matching  Elevators  Campus transportation  Picnic/BBQ area  Community building/room  Computer room/business center  Swimming pool  On-site management  Fitness center  Tanning bed  Secured entry  WiFi in common areas  Cyber café  Conference room TV and  Bike storage teleconferencing capabilities  Spa pool  Additional storage options

Bedrooms

Bedrooms should be at least 120 square feet and all bedrooms should be the same approximate size.

Closets

The following lineal feet of closet space should be achieved:

One-Bedroom 12 Lineal Feet Two-Bedroom 18 Lineal Feet Four-Bedroom 30 Lineal Feet

III-43 Entry

The entry into the units should be open and airy. Entry should be directly into the great room with a view of the opposing windows if possible.

ABSORPTION

Marketing and advertising for the proposed student housing project is expected to begin concurrent with the start of construction, well in advance of the start of fall semester at Lawrence Technological University (LTU) and OCC-Southfield. A later opening date, after classes have begun, will have a slowing effect on absorption, as many potential residents will have already secured living arrangements by the time the fall semester begins. In fact, reaching a stabilized occupancy will be difficult if the property opens following the start of the expected 2018-2019 academic year at LTU.

Due to the lack of support from the conventional apartment base, we recommend that the proposed project be marketed directly towards Lawrence Technological University through student services to inform potential student residents of the site.

An aggressive advertising program should be implemented, with marketing materials outlining the comprehensive amenity package to be offered; an emphasis should be placed on popular amenities such as the fully furnished units, all-inclusive rents, in-unit washer/dryers, and the many project amenities catering to the student population.

Assuming that this marketing plan and preleasing schedule is followed, it is our opinion that the 304-bed subject site will be 80% to 90% preleased by mid-summer 2018 and will reach 92% occupancy by late August/early September 2018.

3. COMPARABLE MARKET RENT ANALYSIS

Comparable market rent analysis establishes the rent that potential renters would expect to pay for the subject units in the open market. Comparable market rent is based on a trend line analysis for the area apartment market. For each unit type, the trend line analysis compares gross rent by comparability rating for all market-rate developments.

Comparability ratings have been established for all developments in the Site EMA based on unit amenities, project amenities, overall aesthetic appeal, and location. The comparability ratings for each property are listed in the Student Housing Field Survey section in this report (Section VII). The trend line is a function of a scatter plot showing each apartment community created by plotting the comparability rating on the horizontal axis and the rent on the vertical axis. This evaluation provides a comparison of existing market rents to those at the proposed project.

III-44 Additional factors also influence a property’s ability to actually achieve the comparable market rent, including the number of units at that comparable market rent, the step-up support base at that rent range, and the age and condition of the subject property and competitive units.

The comparability rating methodology is based on 30 years of research performed by the Danter Company, LLC. The value assigned for each unit and project amenity, and locational and aesthetic evaluation, is based on our research that includes over 17,000 multifamily market studies in markets in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. The Danter Company, LLC has also performed over 10,000 consumer surveys and several hundred student surveys indicating preferences and premiums for features (amenities, proximity to campus, furnishings, etc.), as well as case studies of student housing markets around the nation to refine this system.

Considering the proposed unit and project amenities and an appealing aesthetic quality, the proposed student housing development is anticipated to have an overall comparability rating of 32.0. The overall rating is based on ratings of 11.0 for unit amenities, 12.0 for project amenities, and 9.0 for aesthetic quality.

Based on previous studies conducted by the Danter Company, LLC, it was determined that rents in the Site EMA have increased at an established annual rate of 2.8% in the last several years.

There are 5,907 one-bedroom units within the Site EMA. Collected rents for these units range from $552 to $2,532. Based on the current rent structure of one-bedroom units, present-day rent for a development comparable to the one proposed is $1,650 per month. Based on the established rate of increase (2.8%), probable one-bedroom rent is $1,742 at the anticipated opening in fall 2018.

There are 7,102 two-bedroom units within the Site EMA. Collected rents for these units range from $668 to $3,092. Based on the current rent structure of two-bedroom units, present-day rent for a development comparable to the one proposed is $2,050 per month. Based on the established rate of increase (2.8%), probable two-bedroom rent is $2,165 at the anticipated opening in fall 2018.

There are only 7 four-bedroom units within the Site EMA. Due to the lack of four- bedroom units in the Site EMA, three-bedroom units have been used and an appropriate rent gap has been applied in order to determine comparable market rents for the proposed four-bedroom units at the site.

There are 754 three-bedroom units within the Site EMA. Collected rents for these units range from $1,162 to $3,129. Based on the current rent structure of three-bedroom units, present-day rent for a development comparable to the one proposed is $2,650 per month.

III-45 Previous research conducted by the Danter Company, LLC in numerous student housing markets has determined that typical rents gaps between three- and four- bedroom units range from $450 to $550 per unit.

When applying an average typical three- to four-bedroom rent gap of $500 yields a present-day rent of $3,150 for a comparable four-bedroom unit. Applying the estimated annual rent increase in the Site EMA (2.8%) yields a projected four-bedroom rent of $3,326 at the projected fall 2018 opening.

The following table illustrates the comparable market rent at opening at the subject site for one-, two- and four-bedroom units. Tenants will be responsible for all utilities at the site, including water, sewer, and trash removal services.

PROPOSED PROPOSED RENT MARKET RENTS PROJECT RENTS AS A PERCENT OF UNIT TYPE AT OPENING AT OPENING MARKET RENT One-Bedroom, 1.0 Bath Garden $1,742 $1,200 68.9% Two-Bedroom, 2.0 Bath Garden $2,165 $1,650 76.2% Four-Bedroom, 4.0 Bath Garden $3,326 $2,800 84.2%

The proposed rents will range from 68.9% to 84.2% of market-driven rents. However, it should be noted that the proposed rents are average for the development. Some units may rent for considerably less while others, with special features and premiums, will rent for more.

While the proposed rents will be perceived as a significant value in the market, it is also important that rents not be significantly higher than existing product in order to facilitate step-up support.

Based on this factor, the extensive amenity package expected to be offered, the size of the proposed units, unique concept of the site, and the amount of step-up/step-down support potential in the market, it is our opinion that the proposed rents can be achieved.

The determination of market-driven rents is illustrated by the following trend line analyses.

III-46 ONE-BEDROOM UNITS BY COLLECTED RENT

AND COMPARABILITY INDEX

$2,400.00

$2,300.00

$2,200.00

$2,100.00

$2,000.00

$1,900.00

$1,800.00

$1,700.00

$1,600.00

$1,500.00

$1,400.00

$1,300.00 COLLECTED RENT

$1,200.00

$1,100.00

$1,000.00

$900.00

$800.00

$700.00

$600.00

$500.00 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 COMPARABILITY RATING

Legend:

Site Market -Rate Properties Tax Credit Properties Market-Driven Rent

III-47

TWO-BEDROOM UNITS BY COLLECTED RENT

AND COMPARABILITY INDEX

$3,000.00 $2,900.00 $2,800.00 $2,700.00 $2,600.00 $2,500.00 $2,400.00 $2,300.00 $2,200.00 $2,100.00

$2,000.00 $1,900.00 $1,800.00 $1,700.00

$1,600.00 COLLECTED RENT $1,500.00 $1,400.00 $1,300.00 $1,200.00 $1,100.00 $1,000.00 $900.00 $800.00 $700.00 $600.00 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 COMPARABILITY RATING

Legend:

Site Market -Rate Properties Tax Credit Properties Market-Driven Rent

III-48

THREE-BEDROOM UNITS BY COLLECTED RENT

AND COMPARABILITY INDEX

$3,200.00 $3,100.00 $3,000.00 $2,900.00 $2,800.00 $2,700.00 $2,600.00 $2,500.00 $2,400.00 $2,300.00

$2,200.00 $2,100.00 $2,000.00 $1,900.00

$1,800.00 COLLECTED RENT $1,700.00 $1,600.00 $1,500.00 $1,400.00 $1,300.00 $1,200.00 $1,100.00 $1,000.00 $900.00 $800.00 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 COMPARABILITY RATING

Legend: Market-Rate Properties Tax Credit Properties Market-Driven Rent

III-49

4. STEP-UP/DOWN SUPPORT

Previous student housing studies performed by the Danter Company, LLC indicate that 50% to 60% of the support for new apartment development will typically be generated from the existing students occupying apartment units in the Site EMA, especially from those students paying rent within an appropriate step of the proposed rents.

Based on surveys of residents, most students moving into a new property move out of an existing property and step-up their rents within a predictable level. At the proposed rent, most residents do not step-up rents more than $60 per month (per bedroom). The step-down support is from units with higher rents but lower or equivalent comparability rating.

The 100% database field survey methodology allows us to accurately measure potential support from conventional renters.

Step-up/down support is a critical factor in projecting absorption because it directly measures the depth of potential support from the students most likely to move to the subject site. Step-up/down support is best expressed as a ratio of proposed units to potential support. A lower ratio indicates a deeper level of market support and that the subject site will have to capture fewer of these students in order to achieve successful initial absorption. A higher ratio indicates a lower level of potential support from students occupying conventional off-campus apartment units and that the subject site will have to attract a higher level of support from other sources including students who currently live (or are required to live) in on-campus housing and new students transferring to the school.

On-campus housing also contributes to the step-up/down support.

The step-up base for the proposed student housing project totals 370 beds, and step- down support totals 460 beds. This total represents units whose residents should perceive the proposed development as offering a greater value than the community in which they currently reside, while allowing them to reduce their current rent levels.

In addition, the majority of the housing on the Lawrence Technological University (LTU) campus has rates that are within the appropriate step-up/step-down range for the rents proposed at the site. Double-occupied room rates for the on-campus housing are from $2,800 to $3,350 per semester, or adjusted rates of $700.00 to $837.50 per month.

Only the two-bedroom units of $1,950 per semester or $487.50 per month at the South Housing residence hall have room rates below the appropriate step-up base.

Therefore, there will be approximately 697 on-campus beds that have room rates within the appropriate step-up/step-down base for the proposed site.

III-50 The total step-up/step-down support base (in beds) is distributed as follows:

DISTRIBUTION OF STEP-UP/DOWN SUPPORT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN (IN BEDS)

PROPOSED SITE STEP-UP STEP-DOWN UNIT TYPE SUPPORT SUPPORT One-bedroom 22 0 Two-Bedroom 7 12 Four-Bedroom 4 88 On-Campus Housing at LTU 337 360 TOTAL 370 460 TOTAL STEP-UP/DOWN SUPPORT 830 TOTAL BEDS 304 RATIO OF TOTAL BEDS TO POTENTIAL 36.6% STEP-UP/STEP-DOWN SUPPORT BASE

When considering the existing and proposed beds at the site, the 304 total beds would represent 36.6% of the total step-up/down base, which is a modest ratio of support and with such a large portion of the support expected from those students currently living in the on-campus housing, we recommend that the marketing materials for the site emphasize the extensive amenity package, spaciousness of the proposed units, freedom and privacy, and the 1:1 bedroom-to-bath ratio to be offered at the proposed units at the site.

An aggressive advertising program should be implemented, with marketing materials outlining the comprehensive amenity package to be offered; an emphasis should be placed on popular amenities such as the fully furnished units, bed-bath parity, individual leases, all-inclusive rents, in-unit washer/dryers, and the many project amenities catering to the student population.

III-51 5. COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS

According to area apartment managers, slightly less than 2% of the occupied conventional market-rate units within the Site EMA are occupied by a student or students attending Lawrence Technological University (LTU).

There are currently no purpose-built student housing projects in the market area; however, there is one project reporting 90% student-occupied units. Arbor Lofts (Map Code 61) is the only project that has over 5% student-occupied units in the Site EMA.

Because there is only one off-campus apartment property reporting more than 5% student-occupied units, we will include the 3 existing on-campus housing options in this competitive analysis.

The following is a summary of these 4 competitive properties in the area:

MAP YEAR NUMBER NUMBER OCCUPANCY DISTANCE FROM CODE PROJECT OPENED OF UNITS OF BEDS RATE THE LTU CAMPUS* 61 Arbor Lofts 2013 62** 174 100.0% 0.7 Mile - Donley Hall 2002 71 210 100.0% Adjacent - South Housing 1977 128 337 100.0% Adjacent - Reuss Hall 2015 80 150**** 100.0% Adjacent - Subject Site 2018*** 100 304 - 2.6 Miles *Academic center of campus **There are currently 31 units being leased by the LTU Housing Department ***Anticipated ****There are 160 beds total in Reuss Hall, but only 150 are for student occupation, the others are for resident advisors.

III-52 A comparison of unit amenities at these projects and the proposed project is as follows:

UNIT AMENITIES ARBOR LOFTS DONLEY HALL SOUTH HOUSING REUSS HALL SUBJECT SITE Fully Furnished S X X X X Refrigerator X X X X Range X X X X Microwave Oven X X X X Dishwasher X X X Disposal X X Central Air Conditioning X X X X X Carpet/Faux-wood Flooring X X X X X Ceiling Fans Vaulted/9-Foot+ Ceilings X X Window Blinds X X X X X Balcony/Patio X Garage Carport O* Intercom/Keyless Entry X X Washer/Dryer Hookup X X X Washer/Dryer X X X Granite Countertops X X Stainless Steel Appliances X X Fireplace X S – Some O – Optional *$35

III-53 Project amenities are listed as follows:

PROJECT AMENITIES ARBOR LOFTS DONLEY HALL SOUTH HOUSING REUSS HALL SUBJECT SITE Individual Leases O X X X X Roommate Matching X X X X X Swimming Pool X Community Building/Room X X X X X Fitness Center X X Picnic/BBQ Area X Central Laundry Facility X X X On-Site Management/Staff X X X X X Study Area X X X X X Tanning Salon Tennis Court Game Room X X Elevator X X X Computer Room/Business Center X X Pavilion with Fire Pit X Movie Theater/Media Room Social Activities X X X X Sports Court Gated Community On-Site Retail X X Car Wash Area DVD Library Security Patrol X X X X Campus Transportation X Pet Walking Area O – Optional

Both the unit and project amenities comparisons illustrate that the site will compete well on a feature-for-feature basis.

III-54 A distribution of competitive properties by units offered follows:

UNITS OFFERED MAP TOTAL ONE- TWO- THREE- FOUR- CODE PROJECT UNITS STUDIO BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM - Subject Site 100 - 16 24 - 60 61 Arbor Lofts 62 7 7 7 18 23 - Donley Hall 71 - 23 48 - - - Reuss Hall 80 80 - - - - - South Housing 128 - 64 64 - -

Each unit in Reuss Hall is double occupancy.

Following is a list of comparability ratings for the competitive properties:

FACTORS MAP UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC COMPARABILITY CODE PROJECT AMENITIES AMENITIES AMENITIES RATING - Subject Site 11.0 12.0 9.0 32.0 61 Arbor Lofts 10.5 9.0 7.0 26.5 - Donley Hall 12.0 3.5 7.5 23.0 - South Housing 9.0 4.5 6.5 20.0 - Reuss Hall 12.0 2.5 8.5 23.0

While it is important to compare the total square feet in a unit, it is more important to understand how a unit functions. Prospective residents respond to three principal factors when selecting specific units, the amount of total square feet may not be as critical as the following factors:

 Perception of space often based on the entry into the unit  Bedroom size  Closets are especially important. Large closets are immediately noticed by prospective tenants. Further, having the largest closets in the market facilitate rent increases since it is virtually impossible for a tenant to move into another unit with less storage than they already have.

III-55 Unit and bedroom sizes (in square feet), net rent, and features of these projects are listed as follows. Bedroom sizes listed below for the subject site are the minimum size recommended.

ONE-BEDROOM COMPARISON-TABLE 1

UNIT SIZE BEDROOM NUMBER OF RENT PER PROJECT SIZE BATHS RENT SQUARE FOOT Arbor Lofts 609 92** 1.0 $1,207 $1.98 886 149** 1.0 $1,497 $1.69 913 149** 1.0 $1,547 $1.69 1,282* 238 1.5 $1,747 $1.36 Donley Hall 620 233 1.0 $850*** $1.37 South Housing 570 137 1.0 $713**** $1.25 Reuss Hall Unit Type Not Offered Subject Site 650 120 1.0 $1,200 $1.85 *Includes an office **Estimated ***Adjusted monthly rent, based on a per-semester rate of $3,400 ****Adjusted monthly rent, based on a per-semester rate of $2,850

ONE-BEDROOM COMPARISON-TABLE 2

CLOSET/STORAGE SPACE CLOTHES CLOSET GUEST BEDROOM EXTRA PROJECT (LINEAL FEET) CLOSET CLOSET STORAGE ENTRY Arbor Lofts 4.0 No Wall No Poor 3.0 No Wall No Poor 3.0 No Wall No Poor 13.5 Yes Walk-in No Good Donley Hall 4.0 No Wardrobe No Good South Housing 8.5 Yes Wall No Good Reuss Hall Unit Type Not Offered Subject Site (Recommended) 13.0 Yes Walk-In Yes Good

TWO-BEDROOM COMPARISON-TABLE 1

RENT PER UNIT BEDROOM SIZE NUMBER SQUARE PROJECT SIZE MASTER SECOND OF BATHS RENT FOOT Arbor Lofts 827 126* 107* 2.0 $1,796 $2.17 Donley Hall 980 233 233 2.0 $1,625** $1.66 South Housing 630 92 90 1.0 $1,000*** $1.59 Reuss Hall Unit Type Not Offered Subject Site 925**** 120**** 120**** 2.0**** $1,650**** $1.78**** *Estimated **Adjusted monthly rent, based on a per-semester rate of $3,250 and assuming single-occupied bedrooms ***Adjusted monthly rent, based on a per-semester rate of $2,000 and assuming single-occupied bedrooms ****Based on Danter Company, LLC recommendations

III-56 TWO-BEDROOM COMPARISON-TABLE 2

CLOSET/STORAGE SPACE CLOTHES CLOSET MASTER SECOND (LINEAL GUEST BEDROOM BEDROOM EXTRA PROJECT FEET) CLOSET CLOSET CLOSET STORAGE ENTRY Arbor Lofts 6.0 No Wall Wall No Fair Donley Hall 8.0 No Wardrobe Wardrobe No Good South Housing 22.5 Yes Wall Wall No Good Reuss Hall Unit Type Not Offered Subject Site 20.0* Yes* Walk-In* Walk-In* Yes* Good* *Based on Danter Company, LLC recommendations

FOUR-BEDROOM COMPARISON-TABLE 1

UNIT BEDROOM SIZE NUMBER RENT PER PROJECT SIZE MASTER SECOND THIRD FOURTH OF BATHS RENT SQUARE FOOT Arbor Lofts 1,603 173 154 134 97 3.0 $3,018 $1.88 1,605 173 154 122 77 3.0 $3,098 $1.93 1,711 135 134 130 102 3.0 $3,113 $1.82 Donley Hall Unit Type Not Offered South Housing Unit Type Not Offered Reuss Hall Unit Type Not Offered Subject Site 1,400* 120* 120* 120* 120* 4.0* $2,800 $2.00 *Based on Danter Company, LLC recommendations

FOUR-BEDROOM COMPARISON-TABLE 2

CLOSET/STORAGE SPACE CLOTHES CLOSET MASTER SECOND THIRD FOURTH (LINEAL GUEST BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM EXTRA PROJECT FEET) CLOSET CLOSET CLOSET CLOSET CLOSET STORAGE ENTRY Arbor Lofts 19.0 No Wall Wall Wall Wall No Poor 19.0 No Wall Wall Wall Wall No Poor 19.0 No Wall Wall Wall Wall No Poor Donley Hall Unit Type Not Offered South Housing Unit Type Not Offered Reuss Hall Unit Type Not Offered Subject Site 30.0* Yes* Wall* Wall* Wall* Wall* Yes* Good* *Based on Danter Company, LLC recommendations

The floorplans for the recommended student housing units should feature competitive unit design, square footage, bedroom sizes, and closet/storage space.

Any compromise in unit design could adversely affect the rent potential that can be achieved at the proposed site. This is especially true, given the fact that we recommend that both unit types offer 1:1 bedroom-to-bath ratios, which is presently not offered in the market.

III-57 It is important to note that the rents among the competitive properties represent current rents, while the rents for the proposed site are rents at opening (fall 2018). Based on the expected rent increases between now and the project’s anticipated opening date, the rents-per-square-foot at the site will be very competitive in the market area.

6. PLANNED/PROPOSED/UNDER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Based on interviews with city and county planning officials, as well as local real estate professionals, there are no competitive purpose-built properties planned or proposed in the Effective Market Area.

7. DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR STUDENT APARTMENTS

There were 4,161 (undergraduate and graduate) students enrolled for the 2015 fall semester Lawrence Technological University. Currently, the university has a housing capacity for approximately 697 students. Historically, the housing system has operated at or near full capacity during the fall semester.

The LTU student body reflects typical housing characteristics of other universities. Students live at home with their families, in apartments, in on-campus residence halls, or in other rental alternatives (i.e. duplexes/triplexes, single-family homes, etc.). Approximately 80.5% of the university’s total students currently must reside in off- campus accommodations. These housing alternatives encompass the majority of living arrangements for students.

Based on the proposed product type, we anticipate that the site will attract undergraduate and graduate students. For the purpose of this analysis, we have analyzed the feasibility of the subject project to house both undergraduate and graduate students.

In addition, we do not anticipate the proposed project to negatively impact existing on- campus housing. Therefore, we have deducted these 697 beds from the total enrollment figures, as we anticipate that these beds will continue to be used by students. This is especially true among those students who are required to live on- campus. According to LTU’s housing policy those students with 59 credits or less and live more than 30 minutes from campus are expected to reside in on-campus housing.

Due to the close proximity of the site to the Southfield campus of Oakland Community College, and the fact that OCC currently offers no on-campus housing, its students are included in the potential resident pool for the subject site. OCC does not report its enrollment by campus so the exact number of students is unavailable; however, considering previous headcounts at the campus and OCC’s enrollment projections, a conservative estimate would be approximately 4,000 students. Since OCC does not offer housing all of these students must reside off-campus.

III-58 Based on interviews, case studies of college student housing characteristics, and our evaluation of the Southfield rental market, there is a current potential resident pool of 7,464 LTU and OCC students for the subject student housing project.

The following table summarizes this estimate:

STUDENT HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS 2015 Fall Enrollment (LTU and OCC-Southfield) 8,161 Less On-Campus Housing 697 Potential Resident Base 7,464 Total Purpose-Built Beds In EMA 174 Beds At Subject Site 304 Total Purpose-Built Beds Including Subject Site 478 Total Purpose-Built Beds As A Percent Of Potential Resident Base 6.4%

There are currently no purpose-built student housing projects in the Site EMA; however, Arbor Lofts (Map Code) does offer some units that have individual leases with rents based per bedroom or per person. Further, according to management at Arbor Lofts, an estimated 90% of their units are occupied by a student or students. Because this project consists primarily of LTU students we will include all 62 units (174 beds) in this demand analysis.

These 174 beds, combined with the 304 beds recommended for the subject site, would bring the total purpose-built beds in the EMA to 478. This represents 6.4% of the potential resident base, an excellent penetration rate.

Based on case studies of student housing markets throughout the US, an average ratio of 30% to 40% off campus beds to potential resident base is considered achievable when comparing units to the potential support base. However, the ratio of support that we consider achievable is influenced by overall market conditions, school enrollment trends, school policies/procedures, on campus housing, undergraduate and graduate ratios, as well as, subject site location, amenities, and rents. Many schools, especially those in the south/southeast achieve even higher ratios, while maintaining a healthy rental market.

III-59 8. EXISTING STUDENT HOUSING ALTERNATIVES

For the purpose of this analysis, we surveyed and evaluated the 3 most common housing alternatives that exist for students, i.e., conventional market-rate apartments, single-family/double/duplex rentals, and on-campus housing. There are currently no purpose-built student housing properties in the Site EMA.

The following is a summary of our findings of the 3 existing rental alternatives currently offered in the Site EMA.

FIELD SURVEY OF CONVENTIONAL APARTMENTS

There are a total of 15,446 conventional apartment units in 99 projects included within the Site EMA. A total of 14,150 units are within 90 market-rate and Tax Credit projects, while the 1,296 remaining units are within 9 government subsidized properties.

There are an additional 102 units currently under construction at 2 existing market-rate developments.

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

DISTRIBUTION OF CONVENTIONAL MARKET-RATE AND TAX CREDIT APARTMENTS AND VACANCY RATE SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MARKET-RATE AND TAX CREDIT UNITS VACANCY UNIT TYPE NUMBER PERCENT RATE Studio 380 2.7% 3.2% One-Bedroom 5,907 41.7% 2.9% Two-Bedroom 7,102 50.2% 2.7% Three-Bedroom 754 5.3% 1.5% Four-Bedroom 7 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL 14,150 100.0% 2.7%

The overall vacancy rate of 2.7% is considered extremely low and would indicate that the market is limited by a lack of supply, rather than lacking demand. The Site EMA apartment base contains a disproportionately high percentage of one-bedroom units, around 40% of the total. Despite the high percentage, these units are adequately absorbed, as evidenced by the low vacancy rate among the one-bedroom units of only 2.9%.

III-60 Based on previous studies conducted by the Danter Company, LLC, it was determined that rents in the Site EMA have increased at an established annual rate of 2.8% over the past several years.

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

MEDIAN AND UPPER-QUARTILE RENTS AND VACANCIES SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

OVERALL UPPER-QUARTILE MEDIAN VACANCY NUMBER VACANCY UNIT TYPE RENTS RATE RENT RANGE OF UNITS RATE Studio $787 3.2% $807 - $1,341 95 1.1% One-Bedroom $937 2.9% $1,034 - $2,532 1,477 2.0% Two-Bedroom $1,164 2.7% $1,317 - $3,092 1,776 3.0% Three-Bedroom $1,558 1.5% $1,802 - $3,129 189 1.1% Four-Bedroom $2,336 0.0% $3,098 - $3,113 2 0.0%

III-61 Following is a distribution of units and vacancies in market-rate and Tax Credit properties by year of construction:

DISTRIBUTION OF UNIT AND VACANCIES BY YEAR BUILT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

PROJECTS CURRENT PERIOD BUILT UNITS BUILT VACANCY RATE Before 1970 49 7,495 3.4% 1970-1979 26 4,639 2.0% 1980-1989 8 1,514 1.7% 1990-1999 1 106 3.8% 2000-2009 1 45 0.0% 2010 1 43 0.0% 2011 0 0 - 2012 0 0 - 2013 2 216 0.0% 2014 0 0 - 2015 0 0 - 2016* 2 92 10.9% TOTAL 90 14,150 2.7% *Through May 2016

It is significant that over 85% of the market-rate units surveyed were constructed and opened before 1980, including 10,656 units that opened prior to 1975.

The high vacancy rate of 10.9% for the properties built in 2016 is due to the fact these properties (Eight55, Map Code 86, and 42 West, Map Code 43) opened in March of 2016 and are still in initial lease-up at the time of this field survey. The other properties that have opened in the EMA since 2000 have extremely low vacancy rates; at time of survey there were zero vacancies in these properties.

III-62 The Site EMA contains a wide range of apartment product, based on the number of units being offered. Properties in the market area range in size from 8 units at Chestnut Oaks (Map Code 26) to 723 units at The Loop on Greenfield (Map Code 18), for an overall average property size of 157 units. The following table provides a distribution of units by the size of the project:

DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS AND PROJECTS BY PROJECT SIZE SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

TOTAL UNITS PROJECTS UNITS VACANCY IN PROJECTS NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT RATE Less than 25 6 6.7% 113 0.8% 0.0% 25 to 49 16 17.8% 646 4.6% 2.6% 50 to 99 17 18.9% 1,329 9.4% 1.4% 100 to 199 26 28.9% 3,573 25.3% 2.7% 200 to 299 11 12.2% 2,513 17.8% 3.1% 300 or Greater 14 15.6% 5,976 42.2% 3.0% TOTAL 90 100.0% 14,150 100.0% 2.7%

Previous research conducted by Danter Company, LLC indicates that all other factors being equal, larger properties must be a better value in the marketplace than smaller properties due to the higher number of units that must be rented each month. To generate a sufficient number of potential renters, larger properties typically need to set rents below comparable market rent.

III-63 The area apartment market has been evaluated by the comparability rating of each property. Comparability ratings are based on a rating system that awards points to each project based on its unit amenities, project amenities, and aesthetic amenities (curbside appeal).

The median overall comparability rating in the Site EMA of 17.0 is below average for a typical conventional apartment property. The following table identifies units and vacancies by comparability rating:

DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS AND PROJECTS BY COMPARABILITY RATING SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

COMPARABILITY NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VACANCY RATING RANGE PROJECTS UNITS RATE Less Than 15.0 25 2,062 2.2% 15.0 to 17.5 23 2,746 3.3% 18.0 to 20.5 19 3,831 3.3% 21.0 to 23.5 14 3,432 2.3% 24.0 to 25.5 5 1,351 1.5% 26.0 to 28.5 4 728 3.3% 29.0 and Over 0 0 - TOTAL 90 14,150 2.7%

Nearly 75% of the apartment properties surveyed have comparability ratings below 21.0, including 48 properties that have overall comparability ratings below 18.0.

The highest-rated conventional apartment in the Site EMA is 42 West, which has an overall rating of 27.5.

Once developed, the proposed project is anticipated to have the highest overall comparability rating, with an anticipated rating of 32.0.

Not only does the Site EMA lack quality, modern apartment product, but the market area is dominated by lower-quality properties offering limited amenities.

A distribution of amenities for market-rate and Tax Credit projects follows.

III-64 DISTRIBUTION OF AMENITIES BY PROJECT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

TOTAL NUMBER SHARE OF INCLUDED OF PROJECTS* PROJECTS AMENITY AT SUBJECT (OUT OF 90) WITH AMENITY Range X 90 100.0% Refrigerator X 90 100.0% Window Coverings X 89 98.9% Air Conditioning X 88 97.8% Disposal X 84 93.3% Carpet X 77 85.6% Laundry Facility 65 72.2% Dishwasher X 63 70.0% On-Site Management X 63 70.0% Balcony/Patio X 47 52.2% Pool X 44 48.9% Intercom Security X 42 46.7% Carport 36 40.0% Common Building/Common Room X 32 35.6% Exercise Room X 24 26.7% Washer/dryer Hookups X 24 26.7% Ceiling Fan 23 25.6% Elevator 16 17.8% Microwave X 15 16.7% Washer/dryer X 15 16.7% Security Gate 14 15.6% Business/Computer Center X 12 13.3% Vaulted/9’ Ceiling X 11 12.2% Garage 10 11.1% Picnic Area X 10 11.1% Basement 9 10.0% Playground 6 6.7% Security Patrol X 5 5.6% Security System X 4 4.4% Sports Court 4 4.4% Tennis 4 4.4% Hot Tub/Spa Pool X 3 3.3% Fireplace 2 2.2% Lake 2 2.2% Sauna 1 1.1% *Includes properties in which some or all of the units contain the amenity

The standard amenities featured in at least 60% of the apartments in the Site EMA include a refrigerator, range, carpeting, air conditioning, disposal, window coverings, dishwasher, laundry facility and on-site management. Washer and dryer and/or hookups are relatively uncommon, which explains the high number of developments with a laundry. With the exception of a laundry facility, the subject site has all of the amenities common to over 60% of the total properties in the EMA.

III-65 9. SINGLE-FAMILY/DUPLEX RENTALS

There are several areas near Lawrence Technological University that have housing for students. The following is a sampling of properties representing this housing alternative:

GENERAL PROPERTY/ NUMBER OF NUMBER OF COLLECTED LOCATION/ADDRESS BEDROOMS BATHROOMS RENT NOTES 19781 Oakfield Avenue 2 1 $580 Single-family home; 4.0 miles to campus; 752 sq ft.; renovated 24612 Cloverlawn Street 2 1 $850 Duplex; 3.7miles to campus; 850 sq ft.; no appliances; large fenced yard West 10 Mile Road at 2 1 $1,000 Single-family home; ~1.9 miles to Telegraph Road campus; 800 sq ft.; washer/dryer; 2-acre property with pond & fruit trees; detached garage; 18199 Gould Road 2 2 $2,100 Single-family home; 4.7 miles to campus; 1,299 sq ft.; renovated bath; loft; den; sun room; large private fenced yard; dishwasher; detached garage; washer/dryer hookups 24275 Westhampton Street 3 2 $1,000 Single-family home; 3.9 miles to campus; 1,500 sq ft.; microwave; partially finished basement 24730 Gardner Street 3 1 $1,100 Single-family home; 3.5 miles to campus; 1,200 sq ft.; remodeled; detached garage 15631 Goldwin Place 3 1.5 $1,250 Single-family home; 2.9 miles to campus; 1,600 sq ft.; remodeled; attached garage; washer/dryer 23275 Berg Road 3 2.5 $1,399 Single-family home; 2.7 miles to campus; 1,400 sq ft.; remodeled kitchen; dishwasher; 2-car attached garage; washer/dryer hookups; walk-out basement 7415 Wing Lake Road 4 3 $2,900 Single-family home; 5.5 miles to campus; 2,960 sq ft.; remodeled kitchen with granite countertops & stainless appliances; master suite with jetted tub; 2 fireplaces; 2 back decks; washer/dryer; attached garage

Most of these homes do not include any landlord-paid utilities, and typically include the following amenities: range, refrigerator, hardwood floors or carpet, air conditioning, basement, yard, off-street parking, and washer and dryer hookups. Some homes have a washer/dryer and dishwasher. Most leases are 1 year in duration and landlords typically require a security deposit equaling one month’s rent.

III-66 10. ON-CAMPUS HOUSING

Lawrence Technological University

Lawrence Technological University (LTU) currently has 3 residence halls that have a capacity for 697 students.

Any student with 59 credits or less who lives more than 30 minutes away is expected to live on campus.

The following is a summary of the Lawrence Technological University residence halls:

YEAR STUDENT 2016-17 RENT/FEE RESIDENCE HALL BUILT CAPACITY PER SEMESTER NOTES Reuss Hall 2015 150 $3,250 First year students; 5-pod style housing, each pod has living area & kitchenette; Double occupancy; Shared bath; Conference space; Game room South Housing 1977 337 $2,850 (1-Bedroom) Upperclass; Apartment-style suites with $2,000 (2-Bedroom) living area, full kitchen, & private bath; Double occupancy Donley Hall 2002 210 $3,400 (1-Bedroom) Upperclass; Apartment-style suites with $3,250 (2-Bedroom) living area, full kitchen with dishwasher & microwave, private bath, & in-suite washer/dryer; Double occupancy TOTAL 697

In addition to the residence halls, Lawrence Technological University holds a master lease for 60 spaces at the nearby Arbor Lofts apartments (Map Code 61). Fees for the upcoming 2016-2017 academic year are $4,425 per semester.

In 2015 the university leased a total of 31 units from Arbor Lofts, 11 three-bedroom units and 20 four-bedroom units, for a total of 113 beds.

III-67 Students living in the residence halls are required to choose a meal plan option offered by the Lawrence Technological University. Students living in the Arbor Lofts apartments are not required to purchase a meal plan; however, do have the option of purchasing a residential or commuter plan. There are 4 meal plans for residents to choose from and are summarized as follows:

FEES MEAL PLAN (PER SEMESTER) 9 Meals/Week (Plus $250 Flex Dollars per Semester) $1,351 11 Meals/Week (Plus $200 Flex Dollars per Semester) $1,351 15 Meals/Week (Plus $150 Flex Dollars per Semester)* $1,351 19 Meals/Week (Plus $125 Flex Dollars per Semester)* $1,351 * Mandatory for Freshman

Meals can be used at the campus all-you-can-eat dining facility, the RFoC (Real Food on Campus). Flex Dollars can also be used at the RFoC if the student runs out of meals, or can be used at Einstein Bros. Bagels, the POD Express, and Jets Pizza.

The following are the typical features and amenities offered in most of the residence halls:

 Single bed, mattress  Desk and chair for each student  Bookshelf  Closets  Chest of drawers  Window blinds  Cable TV access  Individual telephone lines  Internet access  Room controlled heating and air conditioning units  All utilities  Lounges  Recycling  Mail and package services  Information Desk services  Common laundry facility or in-suite washer/dryer

III-68 Oakland Community College - Southfield Campus

Oakland Community College does not offer on-campus housing in Southfield.

11. FRATERNITY/SORORITY HOUSING

Lawrence Technological University

There are 4 sororities and 6 fraternities offered at LTU; however, none of these offer residential chapter homes for students on or near campus.

Oakland Community College

Oakland Community College has several Greek student organizations, particularly for honors students; however, none of these offer residential chapter homes for students on or near the Southfield campus.

12. UNIVERSITY PROFILES

LAWRENCE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

A. General

Lawrence Technical University is a private university founded in 1932 in the City of Highland Park, Michigan, in a building leased from Henry Ford that lies adjacent to the manufacturing facility where he built the Model T and perfected the moving assembly line. The need for more space became apparent as enrollment grew, and in 1955, the university moved to the current 102-acre campus in Southfield. This campus has more than doubled in size since 1981.

The university offers more than 60 undergraduate degrees, 25 graduate programs, 4 doctoral programs, and 23 certificates. The school’s academic calendar year is based on a fall semester (August through December), and a spring semester (January through May), and a summer term (May through July).

The campus lies roughly 15 minutes northwest of Detroit; 75 miles east of Lansing, the state capital; and 275 miles northeast of Chicago.

III-69 B. Enrollment

The following table is a summary of undergraduate and graduate enrollment for the fall semesters at Lawrence Technical University (LTU) between 2008 and 2015:

CLASSIFICATION 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Undergraduate 2,878 3,171 3,188 3,056 3.065 3,033 2,798 2,779 First Professional/ 1,374 1,317 1,301 1,201 1,089 969 1,217 1,382 Graduate TOTAL 4,252 4,488 4,489 4,257 4,154 4,002 4,015 4,161

Enrollment at LTU has fluctuated over the past several fall semesters. Enrollment increased from 2008 to 2009, did not change from 2009 to 2010, declined each year from 2011 to 2013, and has increased from 2014 to fall 2015. Most recently, enrollment at LTU increased by 146 students between fall 2014 and the current fall semester, an increase of 3.6%.

The following is a summary of fall 2015 student enrollment on a full-time and part-time basis:

DEGREE CLASSIFICATION TOTAL PERCENT OF GRADUATE/ STUDENTS STUDENTS UNDERGRADUATES PROFESSIONAL Full-Time 1,724 41.4% 1,657 67 Part-Time 2,437 58.6% 1,122 1,315 TOTAL 4,161 100.0% 2,779 1,382

According to information provided by LTU officials, 84% of the total enrollment consists of those students from within the State of Michigan; the remaining 16% of the enrollment are students from out of state, including 1.0% international students.

C. Student Profiles/Demographics

The following table shows the fall 2015 total number of both undergraduate and graduate students by gender:

DEGREE CLASSIFICATION TOTAL PERCENT OF GRADUATE/ STUDENTS STUDENTS UNDERGRADUATES PROFESSIONAL Female 963 23.1% 623 340 Male 3,198 76.9% 2,156 1,042 TOTAL 4,161 100.0% 2,779 1,382

The university has a higher than typical percentage of male students.

III-70 D. Tuition and Fees

Undergraduate tuition for the 2016-2017 academic year will range from $825-$1,090 per credit hour, and graduate student tuition is $1,090 per credit hour. Additional fees include application and registration fees of $30 and $135, respectively, IT service and maintenance fee of $50, a student activity fee of $175, and a graduation fee of $100. International students are charged an additional $225, and special programs and circumstances also dictate additional fees.

E. Transportation

Neither LTU nor the City of Southfield offers free public transit for students. Therefore, most students drive or walk to class. Parking is free on the LTU campus; however, all students, staff, and faculty must register for a parking permit.

For transportation around the city and to other regional destinations, the Detroit-based SMART Bus (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation) offers 8 fixed routes that service the City of Southfield. There are 3 stops conveniently located within 0.2 of the site; a one-way fare costs $2 and a monthly pass is $66 for fixed routes. On- demand service is also available for an extra fee. Additionally, there is a Greyhound bus station less than 1 mile from campus, and an Amtrak station 5 miles from campus. The Detroit Metropolitan Airport is located just over 20 miles southwest.

OAKLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE - SOUTHFIELD

A. General

The Southfield campus of Oakland Community College was established in 1980. OCC was established in 1964, and has 5 campuses including the one in Southfield.

Oakland Community College is a two-year institution offering around 100 certificates and programs, as well as 5 associates’ degrees (Applied Sciences, Arts, Business Administration, General Studies, and Science). The school’s academic calendar year is based on a fall semester (August through December), a winter semester (January through May), and two summer sessions (May through June and July through August).

The campus is located at 22322 Rutland Drive, approximately 0.3 miles northwest of the subject site.

III-71 B. Enrollment

Oakland Community College reports its enrollment to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) as a whole, including all 5 campuses, because many students attend classes at more than one of the campuses each semester. Therefore, data on the enrollment for the Southfield campus specifically is limited.

The following table is a summary of enrollment for the fall semesters at the Southfield campus of Oakland Community College between 2009 and 2014 based on headcount estimates from OCC’s Department of Institutional Research. Figures for 2015 were not available.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 ENROLLMENT 4,213 4,374 4,624 4,385 4,312 4,233

The following table is a summary of enrollment for the fall semesters at Oakland Community College, including all 5 campuses, between 2008 and 2015.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 ENROLLMENT 24,084 26,296 29,044 28,577 27,535 26,662 23,792 20,898

The Southfield campus, like OCC as a whole, saw increasing enrollment through 2011 followed by a gradual decline. This has been the case for Michigan’s community colleges in general, and the trend has been linked to the state’s economic recovery of recent years. As more jobs are available, the perceived need for career-focused education decreases, leading to lower enrollment rates. The Department of Institutional Research at OCC expects this trend to continue.

C. Tuition and Fees

Tuition for in-district residents is $88 per credit hour, and tuition for out-of-district residents is $171 per credit hour. Full-time tuition and fees for in-district residents for the 2016-2017 academic year costs a total of $2,490.

III-72 E. SENIOR HOUSING

1. INTRODUCTION

This study component evaluates the market potential for a senior living property consisting of assisted-living and memory care (Alzheimer’s/dementia) units for the site located 21500 Northwestern Highway in Southfield, Michigan, as well as the market potential for an independent-living property.

Our conclusions for the market potential of these senior housing development opportunities are based on identification and analysis of an Effective Market Area (EMA), demographic and economic characteristics, and a field survey of senior housing facilities. The EMA principle is a concept developed by The Danter Company to delineate the support that can be expected for a proposed development. A Site EMA is the smallest specific geographic area expected to generate 60% to 70% of the support for that development. This methodology has significant advantages because it considers existing natural and manmade boundaries and socioeconomic conditions. The Site EMA has been established in part based upon an analysis of mobility patterns, existing hard boundaries (i.e., rivers and freeways), and changes in neighborhood demographic composition, as well as an analysis of existing assisted-living facilities.

The Site EMA for senior housing is bounded by Twelve Mile Road to the north; Interstate 75 to the east; State Route 8 and Interstate 96 to the south and U.S. Route 24 to the west.

III-73 2. BACKGROUND AND DEFINITIONS

Recently, the changing economy, especially that component impacting the single-family resale market, created a downturn in independent-living (sometimes called congregate care) and to some degree, assisted-living demand. As would be expected, a primary factor inhibiting new retirement housing has been the inability to sell existing homes at an acceptable price. Alzheimer’s/dementia and nursing home housing have not seen the same level of decline due to the “need-driven” nature of these components. Independent-living facilities have typically been impacted at a higher level.

Most senior housing facilities in the nation suffered losses in occupancy during the recent recession. It should also be noted that future market trends created by an aging population must be evaluated within the context of the proposed development, as well as the long-term impact on senior housing.

An anticipated increase in senior population not only creates an accelerating senior lifestyle and service-based opportunity, but conversely, the consumers of alternative housing are also sellers of existing homes. Within a very short time frame, the ratio of buyers-to-sellers will shift dramatically, creating a buyer’s market as more and more seniors are attempting to sell homes to fewer and fewer buyers.

In many markets, this will create a new dynamic for senior housing providers, as home values may not rebound to pre-established levels. This, coupled with increased services assisting seniors in their own homes and recent (past 20 years) design criteria (first- floor master bedroom) enabling seniors to remain in their home for a longer period of time, will also impact future demand criteria for alternative housing.

These conditions have been considered in our recommendations.

Assisted-living consists of senior-specific housing that meets the following criteria:

 Fees include assistance with two or more activities of daily living (ADLs), which may include dressing, bathing, grooming, eating, hygiene, or using the bathroom. Additional assisted-living services may include medication management/ reminders. Services are usually operated on a tiered basis, and as the number of ADLs requiring assistance increases, so does the fee.

 Fees include three daily meals, typically in the formal dining area. In facilities with both assisted- and independent-living, assisted-living residents typically have a separate dining area.

 May contain a partial kitchen or kitchenette, typically consisting of a microwave oven, sink and a small or full-sized refrigerator.

 Provides round-the-clock aide/nurse availability.

III-74  Provides a variety of community amenities for residents, such as common areas, social activities, fitness center, wellness/health center, and transportation.

 Fees include all maintenance (indoor and outdoor) as well as all major utilities (heat, air conditioning, water heating, water/sewer, trash). Fees may also cover basic cable and/or local telephone service.

 Additional services typically include weekly housekeeping and linen service, emergency call system.

Memory care (Alzheimer’s/dementia) services include all of the services included in assisted-living care with additional resident supervision, direction, stimulation and security.

3. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – ASSISTED LIVING/MEMORY CARE

Based on the results of the demand analysis, there appears to be a deficit or unmet demand for a total of up to 734 assisted-living units and 438 memory care units in the Southfield EMA submarket.

SUMMARY

Assisted-living Site EMA Distribution of Units Site EMA Facilities 3 Sleeping Room 68 Units 325 Studio 207 Beds 345 One-Bedroom 30 Beds Over $3,500 (base) 104 Two-Bedroom 20 Deficit 734 Total 325

Memory Care Site EMA Year Opened Site EMA Facilities 1 Prior to 1990 2 Units 79 1990 – 1999 1 Beds 79 2000 – 2009 0 Beds Over $4,500 (base) 29 After 2009 0 Deficit 438 Total 3

Households age 75 and older, with income of $50,000 and greater, are expected to increase 32.3% in Site EMA area between 2016 and 2021. This compares with 38.2% for the state of Michigan and 26.9% nationwide.

III-75 4. ASSISTED-LIVING/MEMORY CARE DEMAND ANALYSIS

The demand analysis includes 7 key sections:

1. Population requiring assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) 2. Population with Alzheimer’s/Dementia 3. Age- and Income-appropriate households 4. Age- and Asset-appropriate households 5. Total Income- and Asset-appropriate households 6. Income- and Asset-appropriate persons requiring assistance with ADLs 7. Surplus/deficit analysis

1. POPULATION REQUIRING ASSISTANCE

SITE EMA Total 2016 Population (Age 75+) 23,309 Affliction Rate X 9.5% Total Afflicted Population 2,214

2. POPULATION WITH ALZHEIMER’S/DEMENTIA

SITE EMA Total 2016 Population (Age 65 – 74) 33,967 Affliction Rate X 2.8% Afflicted Population (Age 65 – 74) 951

Total 2016 Population (Age 75 – 84) 16,004, Affliction Rate X 15.6% Afflicted Population (Age 75 – 84) 2,497

Total 2016 Population (Age 85+) 7,305 Affliction Rate X 34.5% Afflicted Population (Age 85+) 2,520

Total 2016 Alzheimer’s/Dementia 5,968 Institutionalization Rate X 25% Total Alzheimer’s/Dementia persons requiring specialized housing 1,492

III-76 3. INCOME-APPROPRIATE HOUSEHOLDS

ASSISTED-LIVING (Age 75+) SITE EMA Total Households (Age 75+) 16,746 Average Private Monthly A/L Rate $4,000 Minimum Rent/Income Ratio 80% Minimum Income $60,000 Total Income-Appropriate Households (Age 75+) 2,832

ALZHEIMER’S/DEMENTIA SITE EMA Average Private Monthly Alzheimer’s Rate $5,000 Minimum Rent/Income Ratio 90% Minimum Income (Rounded Up) $67,000 Total Income-Appropriate Households (Age 75+) 2,319

4. ASSET-QUALIFIED HOUSEHOLDS

ASSISTED-LIVING (Age 75+) SITE EMA Minimum Rent/Asset Ratio 80% Minimum Term (Years) 3 Minimum Assets Needed $180,000 Asset-Appropriate Households (Age 75+) 7,722 Percent of Asset-Appropriate Households NOT Income-Qualified X 40% Estimated Asset-Appropriate Households 3,089

ALZHEIMER’S/DEMENTIA (Age 75+) SITE EMA Minimum Rent/Asset Ratio 80% Minimum Term (Years) 3 Minimum Assets Needed (Rounded) $225,000 Asset-Appropriate Households (Age 75+) 6,454 Percent of Asset-Appropriate Households NOT Income-Qualified X 40% Estimated Asset-Appropriate Households 2,581

5. INCOME- AND ASSET-QUALIFIED HOUSEHOLDS

ASSISTED-LIVING SITE EMA Total Income-/Asset-Qualified Households 5,921 Share Of Households Age 75+ 35.4%

ALZHEIMER’S/DEMENTIA SITE EMA Total Income-/Asset-Qualified Households 4,900 Share Of Households Age 75+ 29.3%

III-77 6. INCOME- AND ASSET-QUALIFIED HOUSEHOLDS REQUIRING ASSISTANCE

ASSISTED-LIVING SITE EMA Afflicted Population (Age 75+) 2,214 Share Age-/Income-/Asset-Qualified Households 35.4% Total Target Assisted-Living Market 783

ALZHEIMER’S/DEMENTIA SITE EMA Population with Alzheimer’s/Dementia 1,492 Share Age-/Income-/Asset-Qualified Households 29.3% Total Target Memory Care Market 437

7. SURPLUS/DEFICIT ANALYSIS

SITE EMA ASSISTED- MEMORY DEMAND LIVING CARE Target Population Base 783 437 Vacancy Factor + 7.0% + 7.0% Total Demand 838 467

SUPPLY Total Inventory (beds) 345 79 Total Beds at or Above Target Rent (Competitive Supply) 104 29 DEFICIT 734 438

III-78 5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – INDEPENDENT LIVING

Independent-living Site Distribution of Site EMA EMA Units Facilities 6 Studio 0 Units 795 One-Bedroom 50 Age-/health-/income-qualified persons 4,222 Two-Bedroom 423 Ratio of comp. units to support 18.8% Three-Bedroom 322 Ratio of comp. units plus site (100 units) 21.2% Total 795

Year Opened Site EMA Prior to 1990 3 1990-1999 1 2000-2009 1 After 2009 1* Total 6 *MC 1 under construction for fall 2016 opening

Our analysis indicates that the existing/under construction independent-living market (795 units) has a ratio of units to health-/age-/income-qualified persons of 18.8% at a base rent of $2,000.

This is an excellent ratio of existing units to support base. Adding 100 units at the subject site would increase this ratio to 21.2%. This is a good ratio of product to qualified support.

The following table illustrates our independent-living rating scale:

RATIO OF UNITS TO SUPPORT RATING Less than 15.0% Excellent 15.0% to 19.9% Very Good 20.0% to 24.9% Good 25.0% to 29.9% Fair 30.0% or Greater Poor

III-79 Our rating scale typically produces a higher ratio than many analysis systems. Following are some reasons why:

 We analyze only households age 75+, as they are the most likely demographic to enter independent-living. Other systems analyze a larger 65+ population.

 We qualify households not only by age and income but also by health. Persons with Alzheimer’s/dementia or who need assistance with acts of daily living (ADLs) are better served in a long-term care environment and we have excluded them from the IL support pool. Many analyses do not make this adjustment.

 Although we consider the EMA to provide up to 70% of support, in order to be conservative we have not adjusted our support component to include out-of-EMA support.

 It is also worth noting that we do not include asset-qualified households in our demand ratios. Our source of net worth data (ESRI) does not distribute net worth by source. While net worth often includes a home, which may be sold prior to IL occupancy, it also includes stocks, bonds, pensions, and other investments which may be generating household income. In order to provide the most conservative analysis, we have based our demand figures on income-qualified households only.

One property is currently under construction. Hartford Village is scheduled to open in September 2016 and is the first property to open since 2000. It is 62.2% preleased 2 months before opening.

We have also conducted an analysis of the demographics of the Site EMA comparing key age ranges to the US averages using an index system where the US overall ratio equals 100. The following chart illustrates the distribution of households by age relative to the US.

III-80 Distribution of Households by Age Indexed (USA =100)

120 113112 107104 106107 99 98 100 93 94 95 94

80 64 59 60

40

20

0 <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

2016 EMA Index 2021 EMA Index

As the above graph indicates, the Site EMA has a concentration of age 75+ households higher than the US average. Although, the Site EMA has more seniors than the US average, a lower percentage of age 75+ households in the Site EMA have income greater than the US average.

Age 75+ Households with Income Over $50K (Indexed) 120 100 100 100 83 76 80

60 USA EMA 40

20

0 2016 2021

III-81 The concentration of affluent age 75+ households will increase relative to the US over the next 5 years.

We also conducted an analysis of the 45 to 54 age group. Households in this age group are often making or influencing the housing decisions of senior parents, sometimes bringing their parents to live nearby and/or providing financial support. The following table illustrates our findings:

INDEX SEGMENT US EMA (US=100) HHs Age 45 to 54 as a percent of all HHs - 2016 19.0% 17.9% 94 HHs Age 45 to 54 earning $100,000 or greater as a 6.4% 3.9% 62 percent of all HHs – 2016 HHs Age 45 to 54 as a percent of all HHs – 2021 17.1% 16.8% 98 HHs Age 45 to 54 earning $100,000 or greater as a 6.6% 4.5% 69 percent of all HHs – 2021

Age 45-54 Households with Income Over $100K (Indexed) 120 100 100 100

80 69 62 60 USA EMA 40

20

0 2016 2021

The subject EMA has a slightly below average prevalence of “influencer” households in 2015 relative to the US and a below average ratio of these households is affluent. However, given the high population of the Site EMA, these age 45-54 influencer households represent a substantial base of potential support for bringing seniors from outside the EMA to live in the Site EMA.

III-82 F. PLANNED/PROPOSED/UNDER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Based on interviews with city and county planning officials, as well as internet research, the following projects are planned, proposed, or under development in the Effective Market Area.

 Butler Properties, LLC plans to build a 10,000-square-foot retail center to be located at 29630 Southfield Road. This plan was approved in March 2016.  Southfield CHD MED, LLC plans to construct a 12,656-square-foot medical office building on the west side of Greenfield Road between Judson and Albert Streets. The tenant of the office will be affiliated with Beaumont Hospital.  Nolan Real Estate Interests plans the demolition of an office building at 30215 Southfield Road for the construction of a new 114,000-square-foot self-storage and retail center.  Ferndale9Living, LLC and Arbor Investment Group are developing a four-story, 90-unit apartment project in Ferndale near the intersection of West 9 Mile Road and Planavon Street. The project, Ferndalehaus Lofts, will also include retail/office space. Construction is expected to be complete in late 2017.  Developer Bob Wolfson has a 75-unit luxury apartment project called the Harrison Residences currently under construction at 1210 Morse Avenue in Royal Oak. The project is summarized in the table below.

NUMBER SQUARE UNIT TYPE OF UNITS FEET RENT One-bedroom 50 730 - 760 $1,695 - $1,795 Two-bedroom 15 1,220 - 1,655 $2,095 - $2,595 Three-bedroom 10 1,730 - 1,780 $2,695 - $2,795

Project amenities at The Harrison Residences are expected to include a fitness center, rooftop lounge, and concierge services. Unit amenities include upgraded fixtures, 16’-20’ ceilings, oversized windows, stainless steel appliances, fireplaces, and skylights in some units. The project is opening in stages starting in September. All units are expected to be on line by December 2016.  Kiwi Hospitality Detroit, LLC is developing a hotel project at 26555 Telegraph Road in Southfield on the site of the former Holiday Inn. This is a redevelopment of the existing hotel with some additions including a new lobby, dining room and bar area. The former hotel is being developed into three separate projects. The first, a Best Western Premier, is expected to open in late 2016 or early 2017 and will include three banquet halls, a convention floor, 186 king suites, and a night club. The second, a 64-suite extended-stay hotel under the Executive Regency by Best Western flag, is expected to open in the first quarter of 2017. The third phase of the project, a 100-room La Quinta Inn and Suites, is expected to open in 2018.

III-83  Trailhead RO, LLC is developing a mixed-use project at 400 Main Street in Royal Oak that will include a 120-room Hyatt hotel, 82 apartment units, retail, office space, and a 300-space parking deck. The project is expected to open in 2017.

G. EMA RENTAL BASE

Detailed data regarding the Southfield, Michigan Site Effective Market Area's rental base are provided by Esri, Incorporated, the 2010 Census and the 2000 Census.

In 2010, there were 102,155 occupied housing units within the Southfield Site EMA. This is a decrease from the 108,804 units identified in the 2000 Census. By 2021, the number of occupied area housing units is projected to increase 2.7% from 2010 to 104,958.

Distributions of housing units for 2000 and 2010 are as follows:

2000 CENSUS 2010 CENSUS NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Occupied 108,804 96.3% 102,155 90.3% By Owner 75,336 69.2% 66,782 65.4% By Renter 33,468 30.8% 35,373 34.6% Vacant 4,224 3.7% 10,916 9.7% Total 113,028 100.0% 113,071 100.0%

The above data are a distribution of all rental units (e.g., duplexes, conversions, units above storefronts, single-family homes, mobile homes, and conventional apartments) regardless of age or condition.

The 2010 Census marked a significant change in information gathering procedures. The information formerly gathered on the long form (income, rents, and mortgage details) is no longer being collected for the decennial Census. Instead, everyone received a short form. This information is being collected on the much less sampled American Community Survey and being released as five-year rolling averages, limiting its usefulness for small area demographics.

When available, we have presented 2010 Census data along with 2016 estimates and 2021 projections. When 2010 Census data are not available, we have presented 2000 Census data.

In 2000, there were approximately 33,468 renter-occupied housing units in the EMA. This includes all housing units (e.g., duplexes, single-family homes, mobile homes) regardless of age or condition.

III-84 A summary of the existing rental units in the market by type follows:

DISTRIBUTION OF RENTED UNITS BY UNIT TYPE SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2000

TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARE OF UNIT TYPE HOUSING UNITS HOUSING UNITS Single, Detached 9,036 27.0% Single, Attached 2,042 6.1% 2 to 4 4,719 14.1% 5 to 9 4,451 13.3% 10 to 19 3,113 9.3% 20 to 49 2,744 8.2% 50+ 7,129 21.3% Mobile Home or Trailer 268 0.8% Other 0 0.0% Total 33,468 100.0%

Of the 33,468 renter-occupied housing units in the EMA in 2000, 11,346 (33.9%) were within single-family detached and attached, and mobile homes or trailers. This is a moderate share of renter-occupied units in non-conventional alternatives.

Following is a summary of the renter households in the Site EMA by household size:

DISTRIBUTION OF RENTER HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2010 CENSUS

HOUSEHOLD SIZE NUMBER PERCENT One Person 35,770 35.0% Two Persons 32,264 31.6% Three Persons 15,607 15.3% Four Persons 10,748 10.5% Five or More Persons 7,768 7.6% Total 102,157 100.0% Sources: 2010 Census Esri, Incorporated

III-85 In 2010, the owner- and renter-occupied households within the Southfield Site Effective Market area were distributed as follows:

DISTRIBUTION OF TENURE BY AGE SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2010 CENSUS

OWNER-OCCUPIED RENTER-OCCUPIED TENURE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Householder 15 to 24 Years 546 0.8% 2,330 6.6% Householder 25 to 34 Years 7,690 11.5% 8,685 24.6% Householder 35 to 44 Years 11,891 17.8% 7,041 19.9% Householder 45 to 54 Years 14,079 21.1% 5,912 16.7% Householder 55 to 64 Years 15,226 22.8% 4,917 13.9% Householder 65 to 74 Years 8,837 13.2% 2,800 7.9% Householder 75 to 84 Years 5,862 8.8% 2,225 6.3% Householder 85 Years and Over 2,651 4.0% 1,462 4.1% Total 66,782 100.0% 35,372 100.0%

In 2000, existing gross rents in the Effective Market Area were distributed as follows:

DISTRIBUTION OF RENTAL UNITS BY GROSS RENT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2000 CENSUS

NUMBER PERCENT No Cash Rent 905 2.7% Under $250 2,074 6.2% $250 - $349 1,167 3.5% $350 - $449 2,242 6.7% $450 - $549 4,739 14.2% $550 - $649 6,158 18.4% $650 - $749 4,724 14.1% $750 - $899 6,096 18.2% $900 - $999 2,265 6.8% $1,000 - $1,499 2,488 7.4% $1,500 and Over 595 1.8% Total 33,468 100.0% Median Gross Rent $647 Source: 2000 Census

III-86 The following table provides a summary of gross rent as a percentage of household income for the renter households in the Southfield Site EMA:

GROSS RENT AS A PERCENT OF INCOME SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2000 CENSUS

RENTER HOUSEHOLDS PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENT Less than 20% 12,249 36.6% 20% to 24% 4,250 12.7% 25% to 29% 3,481 10.4% 30% to 34% 2,410 7.2% 35% or More 9,505 28.4% Not Computed 1,606 4.8% Total 33,468 100.0%

A total of 11,915 renter households, 35.6% of the total, paid over 30% of their annual household income for rental housing costs in 2000. A total of 9,505 renter households paid 35% or more of their income for rental housing costs, a significant number of rent burdened households.

III-87 H. EMA DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS

The following tables provide key information on Site EMA demographics, including population trends, household trends, and household income trends.

POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

POPULATION YEAR POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS PER HOUSEHOLD 1990 279,733 108,342 2.58 2000 264,012 108,804 2.43 Change 1990-2000 -5.6% 0.4% - 2010 Census 236,561 102,155 2.32 Change 2000-2010 -10.4% -6.1% - 2016 (Estimated) 236,639 103,171 2.29 2021 (Projected) 239,629 104,958 2.28 Change 2016-2021 1.3% 1.7% - Sources: Danter Company, LLC 2000 Census Esri, Incorporated

As the above table illustrates, the total population within the Southfield Site EMA decreased between 1990 and 2000. During this time period, the total population decreased 5.6% from 279,733 in 1990 to 264,012 in 2000. During this same time period, households increased 0.4% from 108,342 in 1990 to 108,804 in 2000. Both the total population and households are expected to increase slightly through 2021. The population is expected to increase by 2,990 (1.3%) between 2016 and 2021 while households are expected to increase by 1,787 (1.7%) from 103,171 in 2016 to 104,958 in 2021.

III-88 The median population age in the 2010 Census was 39.2 years old, 1.8 years older than reported in the 2000 Census. By 2021, the median population age is expected to be 41.5 years old. The following tables detail the area population by age groups:

DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY AGE SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2000 CENSUS, 2010 CENSUS

TOTAL POPULATION 2000 2010 BY AGE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Under 5 Years 16,047 6.1% 13,382 5.7% 5 to 9 Years 18,024 6.8% 13,075 5.5% 10 to 14 Years 18,316 6.9% 14,180 6.0% 15 to 19 Years 16,251 6.2% 15,482 6.5% 20 to 24 Years 15,000 5.7% 13,844 5.9% 25 to 34 Years 42,773 16.2% 34,214 14.5% 35 to 44 Years 42,227 16.0% 33,220 14.0% 45 to 54 Years 37,664 14.3% 34,075 14.4% 55 to 64 Years 22,223 8.4% 31,485 13.3% 65 to 74 Years 17,370 6.6% 16,887 7.1% 75 to 84 Years 13,150 5.0% 11,159 4.7% 85 Years and Over 4,968 1.9% 5,555 2.3% Total 264,012 100.0% 236,561 100.0% Median Age 37.4 39.2 Sources: Danter Company, LLC 2000 Census, 2010 Census Esri, Incorporated

III-89 DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY AGE SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2016 (ESTIMATED), AND 2021 (PROJECTED)

TOTAL POPULATION 2016 (ESTIMATED) 2021 (PROJECTED) BY AGE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Under 5 Years 12,620 5.3% 12,459 5.2% 5 to 9 Years 12,970 5.5% 12,590 5.3% 10 to 14 Years 13,442 5.7% 13,514 5.6% 15 to 19 Years 13,506 5.7% 13,026 5.4% 20 to 24 Years 14,731 6.2% 13,220 5.5% 25 to 34 Years 33,373 14.1% 34,241 14.3% 35 to 44 Years 31,725 13.4% 31,756 13.3% 45 to 54 Years 31,791 13.4% 30,783 12.8% 55 to 64 Years 33,034 14.0% 32,421 13.5% 65 to 74 Years 22,774 9.6% 26,864 11.2% 75 to 84 Years 10,883 4.6% 13,062 5.5% 85 Years and Over 5,790 2.4% 5,692 2.4% Total 236,639 100.0% 239,629 100.0% Median Age 40.6 41.5 Sources: Danter Company, LLC Esri, Incorporated

The following table illustrates the households by age in the Site EMA in 2000, 2016 (estimated), and 2021 (projected):

HOUSEHOLDS BY AGE SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2000 CENSUS, 2016 (ESTIMATED), AND 2021 (PROJECTED)

2000 2016 (ESTIMATED) 2021 (PROJECTED) HOUSEHOLD AGE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Under 25 Years 3,264 3.0% 2,637 2.6% 2,368 2.3% 25 to 34 Years 20,999 19.3% 15,731 15.2% 15,848 15.1% 35 to 44 Years 23,719 21.8% 18,002 17.4% 17,804 17.0% 45 to 54 Years 23,066 21.2% 18,438 17.9% 17,602 16.8% 55 to 64 Years 13,818 12.7% 20,893 20.3% 20,175 19.2% 65 to 74 Years 11,533 10.6% 15,451 15.0% 17,886 17.0% 75 and Older 12,621 11.6% 12,019 11.6% 13,275 12.6% Total 108,804 100.0% 103,171 100.0% 104,958 100.0% Sources: Danter Company, LLC 2000 Census Esri, Incorporated

III-90 The following table illustrates the distribution of income among all households in the Site EMA in 2000, 2016 (estimated), and 2021 (projected). Again, it is worth remembering that income data were not collected for the 2010 Census.

DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2000 CENSUS, 2016 (ESTIMATED), AND 2021 (PROJECTED)

2000 2016 (ESTIMATED) 2021 (PROJECTED) HOUSEHOLD INCOME NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Less than $15,000 14,145 13.0% 13,166 12.8% 12,927 12.3% $15,000 to $24,999 11,751 10.8% 10,697 10.4% 10,264 9.8% $25,000 to $34,999 12,077 11.1% 11,038 10.7% 11,679 11.1% $35,000 to $49,999 17,409 16.0% 13,523 13.1% 7,945 7.6% $50,000 to $74,999 22,958 21.1% 18,820 18.2% 19,845 18.9% $75,000 to $99,999 14,036 12.9% 13,384 13.0% 14,944 14.2% $100,000 to $149,999 11,424 10.5% 13,987 13.6% 17,014 16.2% $150,000 to $199,999 2,829 2.6% 4,876 4.7% 6,172 5.9% $200,000 or More 2,285 2.1% 3,679 3.6% 4,167 4.0% Total 108,804 100.0% 103,171 100.0% 104,958 100.0% Median Income $49,203 $52,946 $59,750

The following tables illustrate the distribution of income by age in 2000, 2016 (estimated), and 2021 (projected), the most recent available:

DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY AGE SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2000 CENSUS

2000 HOUSEHOLD AGE GROUP INCOME UNDER 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Less than $10,000 542 1,260 1,115 1,292 981 1,430 1,893 $10,000-$14,999 291 651 688 646 594 992 1,754 $15,000-$24,999 623 1,932 1,874 1,522 1,188 1,857 2,802 $25,000-$34,999 526 2,310 2,467 1,915 1,354 1,626 1,830 $35,000-$49,999 483 3,822 4,009 3,483 1,921 1,868 1,843 $50,000-$74,999 512 5,250 6,048 5,328 2,860 1,811 1,161 $75,000-$99,999 173 3,045 3,748 3,691 1,962 784 593 $100,000-$149,999 82 2,121 2,704 3,575 1,962 692 379 $150,000-$199,999 13 378 593 992 511 242 114 $200,000 or More 13 210 522 623 428 219 240 Total 3,264 20,999 23,719 23,066 13,818 11,533 12,621

III-91 DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY AGE SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2016 ESTIMATED

2016 HOUSEHOLD AGE GROUP INCOME UNDER 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Less than $15,000 571 1,822 1,793 1,892 2,753 1,854 2,482 $15,000-$24,999 446 1,303 1,283 1,231 1,742 2,058 2,634 $25,000-$34,999 422 1,666 1,679 1,500 1,803 2,133 1,836 $35,000-$49,999 413 2,265 2,260 1,954 2,229 2,540 1,862 $50,000-$74,999 455 3,309 3,274 3,418 3,942 2,877 1,545 $75,000-$99,999 175 2,232 2,748 2,869 3,077 1,543 740 $100,000-$149,999 121 2,214 3,227 3,252 3,137 1,458 578 $150,000-$199,999 24 641 976 1,264 1,222 536 214 $200,000 or More 10 281 763 1,058 987 451 128 Total 2,637 15,731 18,002 18,438 20,893 15,451 12,019 Median Income $31,453 $54,316 $62,839 $67,532 $59,749 $43,742 $29,070 Average Income $41,257 $66,373 $79,174 $85,676 $77,963 $62,100 $43,051

DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY AGE SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA 2021 PROJECTED

2021 HOUSEHOLD AGE GROUP INCOME UNDER 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Less than $15,000 548 1,828 1,657 1,675 2,391 2,141 2,688 $15,000-$24,999 380 1,198 1,096 982 1,527 2,215 2,865 $25,000-$34,999 400 1,739 1,665 1,375 1,756 2,591 2,153 $35,000-$49,999 245 1,327 1,162 1,050 1,222 1,694 1,245 $50,000-$74,999 438 3,430 3,348 3,241 3,871 3,629 1,889 $75,000-$99,999 180 2,503 3,011 2,977 3,200 2,074 998 $100,000-$149,999 138 2,674 3,816 3,648 3,692 2,144 902 $150,000-$199,999 30 820 1,199 1,527 1,460 787 351 $200,000 or More 9 329 850 1,126 1,057 611 185 Total 2,368 15,848 17,804 17,602 20,175 17,886 13,275 Median Income $30,608 $60,745 $74,723 $78,005 $69,096 $51,369 $29,217 Average Income $43,986 $73,504 $88,457 $95,656 $86,919 $69,534 $48,823

III-92 I. LODGING

1. INTRODUCTION

This component of the report will identify the market potential for additional lodging facilities in Southfield, Michigan. Lodging would be one component of the integrated-use redevelopment of the Northland Center site.

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA (CMA)

The CMA is defined by the existing facility configurations relative to a potential site or market, location of population, density of support components, and highway patterns. This methodology has significant advantages in that it considers existing natural and manmade boundaries and socioeconomic conditions. It also enables us to make market share calculations and estimates. This is especially useful in the lodging evaluation since the origin of lodging customers is generated from a national or international basis. The Competitive Market Area enables the analyst to evaluate the competitive market and identify support versus supply along with potential voids in the market.

The Southfield lodging Competitive Market Area is bounded by 12 Mile Road to the north, the Walter P. Ruether Freeway corridor connecting to Rosewood Street to the east, 8 Mile Road to the south, and Inkster Road to the west.

III-93 Based on the characteristics of the Site CMA, a field survey of lodging development, an analysis of the appropriateness of the site for the proposed development, and a demographic analysis of the CMA, support levels can be established for additional lodging development.

The following analyses have been conducted to identify market potential for lodging development at the site:

 Analysis of the overall CMA lodging market  Historical development and support trends  An analysis of traffic patterns  Interviews with major area businesses  Current market conditions based on 100% field survey of modern lodging facilities  Appropriateness of the site for the subject development  Current and expected economic and household growth conditions  Area lodging demand factors, including:  Commercial support  Transient support  SMERF (Social, Military, Educational, Religion, Fraternal)  A trend line analysis, based on a "room rate by comparability rating" evaluation of all lodging facilities within the CMA, is used to evaluate room rates and potential flags for the proposed development.  An analysis of the existing distribution of “flags” and room rates as compared with typical lodging markets.

2. PROJECT CONCEPT

There is the potential for two hotel concepts to be developed at the subject site:

 A Midscale (such as a Sleep Inn or Wingate) lodging facility with at least 100 rooms and 20,000 to 25,000 square feet of conference and meeting space. Room rates would be in the $125 to $150 range. This facility should be integrated into the residential/office components of the development.  The second facility would be an Upper Midscale facility (such as a Wyndham Garden Inn or Hyatt House). We would anticipate up to 108 rooms with an average rate of $150 to $160.

III-94 It should be noted that while our recommendations are based on established deficits in the market by class of facility, there is a strong likelihood that a major chain could opt for a facility in the proposed development due to the strength and character of the development. Such a decision is often based on market share and competitive site advantage. Further, given the age of existing facilities, there is the potential to “reflag” existing facilities and locate in an emerging area with a stronger brand.

UPPER MIDSCALE HOTEL

Based on this analysis, it is our opinion that up to a 96- to 110-room Upper Midscale property can be supported within the proposed development.

The development is recommended as follows:

AVERAGE WEEKDAY AVERAGE ROOMS NUMBER* SIZE RATE WEEKEND RATE Standard King 32 - 36 290 Square Feet $140 $150 Queen/Queen 42 - 46 330 Square Feet $150 $160 Junior Suite 22 - 28 360 Square Feet $165 $175 Total 96 - 110 *Distribution of rooms is approximate and will reflect the overall geometry of the building

The overall average rate will be $153.41.

AMENITIES AND FEATURES

 Interior corridors  Secured access and security features  Lobby with extended lounge area  Free Wi-Fi  Dining area with complimentary breakfast  Extended Cable TV  Business center  42” flat screen TV  Vending  Microwave  Guest laundry  Mini fridge  Pet friendly  Iron and ironing board  Fitness center  Desk  Indoor pool  Closet or wardrobe

III-95 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS

Projected Occupancy Levels

Occupancies have been projected for a new midscale hotel at the site for its first five years of operation, assumed to commence in 2018 (first full year) and extend through 2022. The projections of occupancy are based on market penetration analyses of the existing and projected future lodging demand.

The proposed hotel is expected to average 55% to 60% occupancy for the initial start- up period. Occupancies are projected to stabilize in the fourth to fifth full year of operation at 69% to 71%.

These occupancy projections are summarized as follows:

PROJECTED OCCUPANCY LEVELS UPPER MIDSCALE LODGING FACILITY AT SUBJECT SITE SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

YEAR PROJECTED OCCUPANCY First (2018) 55% Second (2019) 63% Third (2020) 67% Fourth (2021) 70% Fifth (2022) 71%

MIDSCALE HOTEL

Based on this analysis, it is our opinion that up to a 90- to 110-room Midscale property can be supported within the proposed development.

The development is recommended as follows:

AVERAGE AVERAGE WEEKDAY WEEKEND ROOMS NUMBER* SIZE RATE RATE King 32 – 38 270 Square Feet $120 $140 Queen/Queen 36 – 46 320 Square Feet $130 $150 King Suite 22 – 26 380 Square Feet $150 $165 Total 90 - 110 *Distribution of rooms is approximate and will reflect the overall geometry of the building

The overall average rate will be $137.20.

III-96 AMENITIES AND FEATURES

 Interior corridors  Secured access and security features  Lobby with extended lounge area  Free Wi-Fi  Dining area with complimentary breakfast  Cable TV  Business center  42” flat screen TV  Vending  Microwave  Guest laundry  Iron and ironing board  Pet friendly  Desk  Fitness center  Closet or wardrobe  Indoor pool

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS

Projected Occupancy Levels

Occupancies have been projected for a new midscale hotel at the site for its first five years of operation, assumed to commence in 2018 (first full year) and extend through 2022. The projections of occupancy are based on market penetration analyses of the existing and projected future lodging demand.

The proposed hotel is expected to average 55% to 60% occupancy for the initial start- up period. Occupancies are projected to stabilize in the fourth to fifth full year of operation at 69% to 71%.

These occupancy projections are summarized as follows:

PROJECTED OCCUPANCY LEVELS MIDSCALE LODGING FACILITY AT SUBJECT SITE SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

YEAR PROJECTED OCCUPANCY First (2018) 57% Second (2019) 64% Third (2020) 67% Fourth (2021) 69% Fifth (2022) 71%

Occupancy levels vary between seasons in the area, relative to the seasonal tourist segment activity and weekday/weekend patterns.

Growth of occupancy between the first and fifth years of operation reflects the increased market penetration by the proposed property as well as the growth rates associated with each of the major market segments.

III-97 The occupancy projections are based on the following:

 The location of the proposed facilities within a vibrant integrated use development containing restaurants, entertainment, office and residential uses.  The development of the area as an employment center.  Historical and projected levels of area wide lodging demand  Proximity to major room generators such as the St. John Providence Hospital  The strength of the site with relation to the surrounding population support and their related events.  Availability of traveler services to the site area  Area commercial growth potential  Consideration of competitive lodging facilities in the area, including their physical condition, rate structure, facilities, and amenities offered.  The strength and image of a branded hotel and its ability to develop a referral/reservation system.  The quality of the proposed lodging facilit  Competent management, which will maintain an active and effective marketing program prior to opening and throughout the analysis period. This will include a program of direct calls to local industries, and attendance/weekend packages for major events.

In the CMA occupancy is relatively consistent by month. The lowest occupancy is in January and December with 51.6% and 52.8% respectively. Peak months are June and July with 71.9% and 71.7%. Following are month by month occupancies.

MONTH OCCUPANCY January 51.6% February 59.7% March 61.8% April 62.1% May 66.0% June 71.9% July 71.7% August 70.3% September 68.7% October 68.4% November 64.2% December 52.8%

III-98 Occupancy in the CMA by day of week is as follows:

DAY OF WEEK OCCUPANCY Monday through Thursday 67.2% Friday and Saturday 67.6% Sunday 51.1% Total 64.0%

The CMA currently has an above average ratio of occupancy for Friday and Saturday nights, a reflection of the tourist-based support in the market. The Monday through Friday support is also slightly above average reflecting commercial support.

RevPAR (Revenue Per Available Room) in the EMA/CMA has been increasing 10.8% per year over the past 5 years. It should be noted that this increase is without the benefit of new hotels being added to the market and “dragging” the average up as opposed to actual increases. Given that, 10.8% is a very respectable gain in RevPAR. Nevertheless, we would recommend a more conservative 6.0% gain per year.

3. VOID ANALYSIS

There are numerous “flags” not represented in the CMA. Following is the most significant list base on hotel class.

HOTEL “FLAG” CLASS OF FACILITLY Residence Inn Midscale Drury Inn Midscale Drury Inn & Suites Midscale Fairfield Inn & Suites Midscale Sleep Inn Midscale Wingate By Wyndham Midscale Clarion Upper Midscale Comfort Inn Upper Midscale Aloft Hotels Upper Midscale Drury Suites Upper Midscale Hyatt House Upper Midscale Hyatt Place Upper Midscale Park Inn Upper Midscale Wyndham Garden Hotels Upper Midscale

III-99 4. LODGING MARKET

There are 22 lodging facilities in the CMA with most being in the Economy or the Upper Upscale categories. It should be noted that many of the facilities in the Economy category are of “dubious business” practice and are not considered part of the overall hotel demand. Following is a distribution of the hotels by class of service followed by a graph showing class of service.

The 22 hotels are as follows:

MAP CODE HOTEL ROOMS CLASS 1 Cranbrook House Motel 102 Economy Class 2 Crystal House Motel 72 Economy Class 3 Embassy Motel 76 Economy Class 4 Extended Stay America Southfield I-696 122 Economy Class 5 Extended Stay America Southfield NW Highway 134 Economy Class 6 E-Z Rest Motel 60 Economy Class 7 Murray Hill Motel 54 Economy Class 8 Red Roof Inn Southfield 113 Economy Class 9 Royal Inn Motel 350 Economy Class 10 A Victory Hotel Southfield 65 Midscale Class 11 Baymont Inn & Suite Southfield 153 Midscale Class 12 Candlewood Suites Detroit Southfield 121 Midscale Class 13 Hawthorn Suites By Wyndham Southfield 144 Midscale Class 14 Quality Inn Southfield 105 Midscale Class 15 Comfort Suites Detroit Southfield 81 Upper Midscale Class 16 Holiday Inn Express & Suites Southfield Detroit 91 Upper Midscale Class 17 Courtyard Detroit Southfield 239 Upscale Class 18 Hilton Garden Inn Detroit Southfield 226 Upscale Class 19 Springhill Suites Detroit Southfield 388 Upscale Class 20 Embassy Suites Detroit Southfield 147 Upper Upscale Class 21 Marriott Detroit Southfield 194 Upper Upscale Class 22 Westin Southfield Detroit 84 Upper Upscale Class Total Rooms 3,121

III-100 Following are the occupancy trends for the CMA:

OCCUPANCY TRENDS SOUTHFIELD CMA 2010 - 2015 68.0 66.0 64.6 63.7 64.1 64.0 62.8 62.1 62.0

60.0 58.0 55.7 56.0 54.0 52.0 50.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

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

III-101 Following is the distribution of CMA hotels by class compared with the typical distribution for a suburban highway/commercial location:

There is a significant void in Midscale and Upper Midscale facilities in the CMA. In most well-balanced markets this category accounts for 26% and 25% of total rooms, respectively, however, in the Southfield CMA the account for only 20% and 6% respectively.

There is a high ratio of Economy Class rooms, although, as previously noted, these are of a dubious quality and practice. There are significant room deficits in the Midscale and Upper Midscale categories.

CURRENT ROOM ROOM TYPICAL ROOM DEFICIT CLASS OF FACILITY DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION (SURPLUS) Luxury 0 94 95 Upper Upscale 853 281 (572) Upscale 425 531 106 Upper Midscale 172 780 608 Midscale 588 811 233 Economy 1083 624 (459) Total 3,121 3,121 1,156

III-102

Class categories vary by room rate from market-to-market; however, the typical examples, by brand, do not generally change. Following are examples of hotels reflective of each class category.

 Economy – Motel 6, Knights Inn, most independents  Midscale – Best Western, some Comfort Inns  Upper Midscale –Hampton Inn, Fairfield Inn & Suites  Upscale – Hilton Garden, Doubletree, Residence Inn  Upper Upscale – Marriott, Embassy Suites,  Luxury – Luxury “branded” by chains such as Hilton or Marriott Naturally, there may be some crossover, especially in the mid ranges. For example, there may be Holiday Inn hotels in specific markets that are Upper Midscale facilities.

Hotels by class, average room rate and occupancy are as follows:

NUMBER OF NUMBER AVERAGE AVERAGE CLASS OF FACILITY HOTELS OF ROOMS ROOM RATE OCCUPANCY Luxury 0 0 - - Upper Upscale 3 853 $147 58% Upscale 3 425 $141 69% Upper Midscale 2 172 $124 70% Midscale 5 588 $92 72% Economy 9 1,083 $54 53% Total 22 3,121 $94 64%

Overall occupancy is only moderate; however, the average occupancy deducting the Economy Class facilities is 67%. Room rates are obviously reflective of the class of facility; however, the gap between the Upscale and Upper Upscale reflects abundance of Upper Upscale product.

III-103 The following graph displays the rooms added to the market by year.

HOTEL ROOMS ADDED TO CMA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN 3,000 2,488 2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000 378 500 255 0 0 0 0 Before 1990 - 1995 - 2000 - 2005 - 2010 to 1990 1994 1999 2004 2009 Present

The CMA hotel room base is relatively old with a total of 79.7% of all rooms opened prior to 1990. Many of the facilities are functionally obsolete, especially in the Economy and Midscale Class. Further, there have been many new concepts and flags emerging in the market place since 1990, none of which are represented in the Southfield CMA.

The overall performance of the lodging market in the CMA has increased significantly since 2010:

 Occupancy has increased from 53.1% to 64.0%, an increase of 20.5%.  Average Daily Rate (ADR) has increased from $65.66 to $84.14, an increase of 28.1%. While this is considered quite low, it is the result of too many marginal facilities in the Economy Class.  RevPAR has increased 54.4% from $34.86 to $53.82.  Occupied rooms have increased 20.6%.  Gross revenue has increased 48.6%.  The actual supply of room has increased only 0.1%.

III-104 Based on preliminary data, it is expected that 2016 will meet or exceed the previous 5- year trend.

LODGING PERFORMANCE SUMMARY SOUTHFIELD CMA 2010 - 2015

ROOM SUPPLY 0%

GROSS REVENUE 55%

OCCUPIED ROOMS 21%

RevPAR 54%

ADR 28%

OCCUPANCY 21%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

With an overabundance of functionally obsolete “dubious” rooms in the Economy Class, both RevPAR and ADR are relatively low in the CMA.

The existing motels in the CMA have been charted by room rate and marketability rating in the trend line analysis that follows. This marketability rating reflects the following factors:

 Amenities  Curbside appeal  Accessibility  Visibility  Proximity to population backup  Proximity to traveler services  Proximity to room generators  Transient potential  Referral and reservation system  Market acceptability

III-105 This analysis has been used as guidelines to evaluate an appropriate room rate and/or flag.

CMA Hotels by Room Rate, Class and Competitive Rating

$180

$160

$140

$120

$100 Midscale $80 Economy $60 Upper Midscale $40 Upper Upscale $20 Upscale

$- 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Most rooms in the market are functioning at about the national “flag” rates, although the Upper Upscale facilities are somewhat lower that national averages. This is due, in part, to the individual hotels being rated by their “flag” label rather than by personal observation of the facility. In reality, these hotels should most likely be rated as Upscale rather than Upper Upscale.

III-106 The following chart displays the Southfield CMA rooms by room rate. As can be seen, there is an abundance of rooms under $75 and over $125. There is a significant gap from $75 to $124. Because of the difficulty of providing rooms under $100, we are recommending development in the $100 to $124 range. Further, because of the lack of contemporary “flags” in the Upper Midscale range we are also recommending rooms in the $140 to $160 range

DISTRIBUTION OF CMA ROOMS BY ROOM RATE

$150 and Over

$125 - $149

$100 - $124

$75 - $99

Under $75

- 200 400 600 800 1,000

5. MARKET SUPPORT AND SEGMENTATION

Three market segments (commercial, leisure, and meeting and group) provide support for lodging facilities in the area. Following is our estimate of support for the proposed hotel by market segment for the first 5 years of operation.

Estimates of market penetration were developed for each market segment by comparing the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed hotel to those of each property within the CMA. Such factors as location and proximity to room generators, access, visibility, chain affiliation, age, management, number of rooms, room rates, amenities, quality of proposed facility compared to existing area properties, decor and physical appearance were considered.

III-107 Based on The Danter Company survey of area lodging facilities, the following distribution of support has been identified for the subject site CMA lodging market:

MARKET ANTICIPATED MARKET SEGMENTATION OF SEGMENTATION MARKET SEGMENT CMA SOUTHFIELD CMA Commercial 72% 74% Leisure 18% 16% Meeting and Group 10% 10% Total 100% 100%

Naturally, the commercial component is stronger on weekdays while the leisure component has a higher weekend impact. The meeting and group component remains somewhat constant; however, weekday functions tend to be commercial-oriented while weekend functions are typically social in nature.

Commercial

Based on our evaluation, commercial support currently comprises 72% of the total room support in the lodging market. Given the expected quality of the proposed facilities, as well as the recommended outreach marketing program, commercial support is expected to represent 74% of the total support.

The estimated commercial support figure is a function of the anticipated number of room/night reservations made directly and indirectly by businesses and industry located in the area. We recommend “partnering” with local businesses. Complimentary guest packages featuring gifts from the hotel and/or reservations partner would be available. The integrated-use character of the proposed development will attract corporate travelers visiting the over 5 million square feet of office space in the immediate neighborhood of the subject site. The daytime population of these 5 million square feet is nearly 17,000. Total employment in the EMA is 140,382.

The commercial projection is based on the following:

 The recommended properties will offer a wide range of room rate and concept choices ranging from $100 to $160 per night and from Midscale through Upper Midscale alternatives. The functional guest rooms are anticipated to be attractive to commercial travelers in the area.  Amenities and features preferred by major support generators specifically the Providence Park Hospital and the adjacent 5 million square feet of office space.  Proximity to commercial demand generators.  Outreach marketing program to area businesses and institutions.

III-108 Leisure

The leisure segment is accounts for approximately 18% of the total market support. We expect this to be 16% at the proposed development. We have projected penetration of the leisure segment of the market to be generally comparable to the overall market:

 Although the value will be perceived by all guests, the leisure segment tends to be attracted to lower-priced rooms. The proposed price categories will offer both moderate and higher-quality rooms at room rates comparable to existing alternatives.  Peak leisure support occurs during the summer and fall months.  Direct population support in the area. This component includes support generated from weddings, funerals, graduation, etc.  Proximity to State Route 10 and its access to downtown Detroit will be a distinct advantage. Being in a safe integrated use development with restaurant and entertainment venues, but with ready access to downtown Detroit will be a distinct advantage.

The population of the Southfield EMA, while declining, still had over one-quarter of a million people in 2010 (236,561).

Meeting and Groups

Meetings and groups make up 10% of the CMA lodging market. This is primarily due to the general lack of “in-house” meeting facilities in most of the existing market. The proposed facility will capture a more-than-proportionate share of the meeting/group segment. This is based on the following:

 Limited meeting/group facilities in CMA coupled with an increasing corporate and SMERF demand.  Size of the property along with the integrated mixed-use property conducive to attracting two- to three-night stay meeting participants.  Property is expected to be marketed heavily as a meeting center.

III-109 6. SOUTHFIELD CMA AS A DESTINATION MARKET

Southfield and the greater Detroit area host numerous events, meetings and conventions.

Following is an overview of Southfield’s meeting and event facilities.

St. George Cathedral Cultural Center:

 2 banquet rooms, able to accommodate up to 500 people

Silver Garden Event Center:

 8,000-square-foot Mystic Ballroom  4,550-square-foot Grande Ballroom  900-square-foot Garden Room  Total capacity for 1,200 people

Regency Manor & Banquet Center:

 7,000-square-foot facility  Total capacity for 500 seated guests

Tapestry Banquets:

 Total capacity for 225 guests

Aries Colony Hall:

 Total capacity for 160 guests

Skyline Club:

 Total capacity for 225 standing guests (150 seated)

Pi Banquet Hall:

 2 banquet rooms  Total capacity for 600 standing guests (350 seated)

Plum Hollow Country Club:

 Total capacity for around 500 guests

III-110 St. John’s Banquet and Conference Center:

 Museum and ballroom  Total capacity for 300+ guests

City of Southfield Event Spaces:

 Southfield Pavilion (2,000+ capacity)  Parks and Recreation Building (200+ capacity)  4 park shelters

Southfield Town Center:

 Garden Atrium (capacity for 500 standing guests, 250 seated)  Conference rooms (total capacity 140 people)

Westin Detroit Southfield:

 2 Ballrooms  Auditorium  Executive Meeting Center  8 Board Rooms  Total facility capacity of 1,600+ people

Courtyard Detroit Southfield:

 2 event rooms, total capacity 90 guests

Embassy Suites Southfield:

 3,000-square-foot Woodward Ballroom (maximum capacity 450 guests)  Meeting rooms (maximum capacity 270 guests)

Detroit Marriott Southfield:

 Ballroom (maximum capacity 300 guests)  7 Meeting Rooms (total maximum capacity 414 guests)

Hilton Garden Inn Detroit Southfield:

 Ballroom (maximum capacity 500 guests)  Meeting Rooms (total maximum capacity 350 guests)

III-111 Southfield and the greater Detroit area feature a variety of cultural events, festivals, athletic and entertainment activities, and attractions including the following.

ATTRACTIONS:

 Southfield Sports Arena  Detroit Zoo  Bastone Brewery  Berkeley Ice Arena  Oak Park Ice Arena  Hurley Field  Birmingham Bloomfield Art Center  Monk Beer Abbey  National Railway Historical Society  Royal Oak Brewery  Birmingham Historical Museum & Park  B. Nektar Meadery  Marvin's Marvelous Mechanical Museum  Detroit Institute of Art  Comerica Park  Henry Ford Estate  Motown Museum  Charles H. Wright Museum of African-American History  The Henry Ford Museum & Greenfield Village  Detroit Historical Museum  Detroit Public Library  Belle Isle Conservatory  Gospel Music Hall of Fame and Museum  Quicken Loans Sports Zone  Fox Theatre  Ford Field  Adams Field  Keyworth Stadium  Fisher Theatre  Motor City Casino  Greektown Casino

EVENTS:

 Southfield Festival of Hope  116th U.S. Amateur Championship  Detroit Jazz Festival

III-112  America's Thanksgiving Parade  Detroit Tigers Home Games  Eastern Market Bike Tour  Rhythm & Stage Summer Theatre Series  Totems Festival  African World Festival  2016 Prep Kickoff Classic  Detroit Design Festival  City Sculpture Jamboree  The Wright Gala  The All Star Comedy Festival  The Festival Of Praise Tour  The Legends Of Southern Hip Hop Tour  Wish Ball Southeast Michigan  Cirque Dreams Holidaze  Cranbrook Institute of Science Summer Events  Detroit Doll Show  The Ultimate Michigan Bridal Expo  Global Automotive Lightweight Materials Conference  The Tuskegee Airmen National Museum's 28th Annual Salute Reception  North American International Auto Show  Autorama  ACEC Engineering & Surveying Excellence Awards Gala  Science & Engineering Fair of Metro Detroit  Michigan Association for Computer Users in Learning 2017 Conference  Motor City Nationals  SAE World Congress 2017  Great Lakes Green Infrastructure Conference  Community Transportation Association of America - EXPO 2017  Detroit Motorcycle City  Youmacon  Midwest Media Expo  Shell Eco-marathon  ConFusion  Tour de Troit Ride  Convergence Expo  Detroit Seniors & Caregivers Expos  North American International Auto Show  Michigan Construction & Design Tradeshow  Detroit Boat Show  Motor City Tattoo Expo

III-113 J. OFFICE

1. INTRODUCTION

This component of our report evaluates the market potential for new multi-tenant office development as part of an integrated-use development within the redeveloped Southfield Mall in Southfield, Michigan. Additional uses being considered include upscale market-rate apartments, student housing, condominium, lodging, and retail space.

Based on the characteristics of the Site EMA, a 100% field survey of existing office development, an analysis of the appropriateness of the site for the proposed development, and an analysis of the Site EMA, support levels can be established for additional office development on the subject property.

The following analyses have been conducted to identify market potential for additional office space.

A field survey of all office developments in the EMA to establish:  Overall rent and vacancy trends  Distribution of space by class of space  Absorption trends  Office demand factors, including:  Current and expected economic and household growth conditions  Support from existing area office tenants (internal mobility)  New business formations  Businesses moving to the Site EMA from outside the area (external mobility)

Analysis of area economics/demographics, including:  Population and household trends  Employment growth

Analysis of the site to establish:  Site characteristics, strengths and weaknesses  Appropriateness of the site for development type

This analysis is based on the establishment of a Site Effective Market Area (EMA) for the proposed project. EMA refers to a methodology developed by the Danter Company, LLC to describe areas of similar economic and demographic characteristics. The EMA is defined as the smallest geographic area that is expected to generate 65% to 70% of support. EMAs are bounded by both "hard" and "soft" boundaries. Hard boundaries are marked by rivers, freeways, railroad rights of way, and other physical boundaries. Soft boundaries are changes in the socioeconomic makeup of neighborhoods.

III-114 The Site EMA for office development is bounded by 12 Mile Road to the north, the Walter P. Ruether Freeway corridor connecting to Rosewood Street to the east, 8 Mile Road to the south, and Inkster Road to the west.

The following map illustrates the office EMA. A larger EMA map can be found in Section IV of this report.

III-115 2. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on our analysis of the office market, site attributes, and economic conditions of the EMA, it is our opinion that a market exists for up to 200,000 square feet of office space at the subject site assuming the project is developed as detailed in this report. The proposed project will be available in 2018. Changes in the project’s site, rent, unit mix, amenities, floor plans, or opening date may invalidate these findings. The project is proposed as follows:

We recommend three categories of office space, all Class B.

 Class B space integrated into the retail area of the center. This would be second- and third-floor space. As with residential, office tenants are responding to the integrated-use developments as a vibrant work environment.  Class B space adjacent to the retail center.  Class B space remote from the retail area but in a campus environment. We recommend the campus setting contain walkways, seating areas and outdoor meeting “rooms.” While remote, there is the potential that a Class A “signature” building could also locate in this area.

SPACE CATEGORY SQUARE FEET LEASE RATE (FULL SERVICE) Integrated into Retail 40,000 $22.00 Adjacent to Retail 90,000 $20.00 Office Campus 70,000 $18.00 Total 200,000 $21.62

3. ABSORPTION

Absorption of space at the proposed site is a function of capture factors relative to the 3 major support components. Following is a summary of support potential for new office space at the site, based on the anticipated capture factors of each component:

TYPICAL ANTICIPATED COMPONENT SHARE AT SITE Internal Mobility - Site EMA 65.0% 70.0% External Mobility - Outside Site EMA 30.0% 25.0% New Business Formations 5.0% 5.0% Total 100.0% 100.0%

III-116 Because of the large existing office base in the EMA and the lack of a competitive concept, we anticipate a significant share of the absorption to originate from within the existing EMA base.

We anticipate that the 200,000 square feet of office space would be absorbed over a 5- year period. The initial 40,000 square feet of integrated space would be preleased during the early marketing and construction of the site. The office space adjacent to the retail center would require a 24-month lease-up (with considerable pre-leasing). The remainder of the space in the office campus would be released over the remaining 5 years.

4. MULTI-TENANT OFFICE DEMAND FACTOR ANALYSIS

The support for leasable office space is affected by:

 Expansion from tenants occupying existing space in the Site EMA (internal mobility from net gain).  Firms moving to the Site EMA from outside the area.  New business formations

Internal Mobility

The first component represents the greatest source of support for any new office development. Previous studies performed by The Danter Company indicate that firms generally move because they require additional space that is not readily available in their existing building. Tenants typically remain in the same area or follow mobility patterns similar to residential mobility. Furthermore, in addition to moving into larger quarters, tenants generally move into newer, higher-quality space. Each time a tenant's lease is scheduled for renewal, potential exists for that tenant to consider moving to another office.

Further, the integrated-use concept as recommended for the subject site will be unique in the EMA. This concept has gained significant acceptance from office tenants responding to the vibrancy of such development. It should be noted, however, that tenants in such developments tend to be “entrepreneurial” rather institutional occupants. Therefore, spaces tend to be somewhat smaller than found in conventional Class A and B space.

We expect significant support to originate from businesses currently located in the area that are occupying conventional “big box” space and paying rents at or below those anticipated at the site. This represents “step-up” support potential. Based on previous office studies conducted by The Danter Company, we determined that tenants are typically willing to incur a rental increase of up to 15% for a different rental alternative when it is perceived as a value.

III-117 With most of the office space in the EMA being Class B or C space, it will be important for the subject site to offer rents that are within reasonable step-up of existing space.

The 100% database field survey methodology allows us to accurately measure potential support from conventional existing office tenants. Step-up support is a critical factor in projecting absorption because it directly measures the depth of potential support from the businesses most likely to move to the subject site.

Step-up support is best expressed as a ratio of proposed space to potential support. A lower ratio indicates a deeper level of market support and that the subject site will have to capture fewer of these firms in order to achieve successful initial absorption. A higher ratio indicates a lower level of potential support from firms and that the subject site will have to attract a higher level of support from outside this group, potentially slowing absorption.

As such, we recommend the subject property offer full service rates at $18.00 to $22.00 per square foot. The step-up range would include space currently renting for $15.30 to $18.70 per square foot.

Within the Site EMA, there is a total of 753,200 square feet of space currently occupied by tenants paying rents within the appropriate “step-up” range.

The majority of the lease terms among the existing office space extend 3 to 5 years. Assuming an average 4-year lease term, there is approximately 188,300 total square feet of office space that is potentially available each year. It should be noted that support from internal mobility is generated not only from the total existing, occupied square footage within the “step-up” range, but also from net gain from those tenants requiring larger quarters.

We expect approximately 70% of this support for new office development to be generated from the existing office space as well as the net gain within the Site EMA.

External Mobility

The second component includes firms new to the EMA. We expect the external mobility component will contribute approximately 25% of the total market support potential.

New Business Formations

The third component of support includes new businesses forming within the area. Most new firms are rent-conscious, and therefore gravitate to older, less- expensive facilities. We anticipate that this component would contribute only 5% of the total market support potential.

III-118 Summary

When considering past and current absorption trends and turnover rate in the Site EMA, support from the net gain (expiring leases) of existing, occupied office space, as well as external support, we anticipate up to 295,900 square feet of space available as support at the proposed lease rates.

A summary of potential annual support potential for newly formed office space in the Site EMA follows:

ANNUAL EMA OFFICE POTENTIAL COMPONENT OFFICE TOTAL Internal Mobility- Site EMA 188,300 70.0% Relocation 18,800 Net Gain (10%) 207,100 External Mobility from Outside the EMA 74,000 25.0% New Business Formations 14,800 5.0% Total 295,900 100.0%

Based on our analysis, the Site EMA has the potential to compete for up to 295,900 square feet of office space on an annual basis. Notably, this potential could only be realized in a situation in which none of the tenants re-sign their lease agreements, an unlikely scenario.

Absorption of space at the proposed site is a function of capture factors relative to the 3 outlined support components. Following is a summary of support potential for new office space at the site, based on the anticipated capture factors of each component:

ANNUAL ABSORPTION POTENTIAL AT THE SITE ANNUAL CAPTURE ABSORPTION COMPONENT FACTOR POTENTIAL* Internal Mobility- Site EMA 12.0% 24,900 External Mobility from Outside the EMA 15.0% 11,100 New Business Formations 10.0% 1,500 Total 37,500 *Square feet

Our analysis indicates that the recommended development of 200,000 could reach a stabilized occupancy (90%) within a five-year period.

III-119 5. FIELD SURVEY OF EMA OFFICE DEVELOPMENTS

A total of 5,246,980 square feet of multi-tenant office space in 58 properties was surveyed in the EMA.

There is a relatively even distribution of lease plans in the EMA with 21 of the 58 properties offering full service plans and 12 offering NNN leases. The remaining properties have some form of modified lease with the landlord paying some of the expenses. The rents recommended at the subject property are full service rents. As such, the rents among the market-rate properties (when necessary) have been adjusted to represent similar rents.

The various rent alternatives are defined as:

 Full service - All utilities, janitorial, taxes, etc., paid by landlord. Same as “Gross lease”.  Triple Net (NNN) - Tenant pays all utilities, taxes, insurance and maintenance and cleaning.  Modified Lease - This is a negotiated lease that may contain some, or most, of the utilities and does not fall into either of the above categories. There are numerous additional lease types quoted in the market and not all are consistent from region to region. These may be referred to as “double net” or “single net” leases but all come under our category of “Modified Leases”. Also, leases within a building may be negotiated differently for each tenant. Following is a distribution of space by rent and vacancy.

DISTRIBUTION OF VACANT SQUARE FEET BY ADJUSTED RENTS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

ADJUSTED GROSS VACANT PERCENT OF RENT RANGE SQUARE FEET SQUARE FEET PERCENT VACANT $18.00 and over 702,724 13.4% 14.3% $16.00 - $17.99 786,941 15.0% 21.3% $14.00 - $15.99 2,214,485 42.2% 20.2% Below $14.00 1,542,830 29.4% 21.7% Total 5,246,980 100.0% 20.0% Median $14.98

III-120 Office properties are also defined by class, being A, B, or C. Following are the standard industry class definitions.

 Class A – Highest-quality buildings in the market. Generally the best looking with multiple floors, high-quality fixtures, atrium entry with high ceilings and well- maintained landscaping. Usually professionally managed.  Class B – Generally older buildings but with quality management and tenants. Usually smaller than Class A and may be single story. Generally lower rent.  Class C – Older buildings often in less desirable neighborhoods. May need repairs or renovations. Because of the proliferation of office parks and office space in the EMA there is a large share of Class A and B space. However, it should be noted that much of the Class B space in the EMA was originally developed as Class A but has been reclassified as Class B as the properties age and as new building have expanded the expectations of Class A space. Similarly, much of the Class C space was originally developed as Class B.

The following table details the area office market by building class.

DISTRIBUTION OF SPACE BY CLASS OF SPACE SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

AVERAGE OFFICE SQUARE PERCENT LEASE VACANCY SPACE FEET DISTRIBUTION RATE RATE Class A 1,422,730 27.1% $17.86 14.3% Class B 2,541,640 48.4% $15.38 21.4% Class C 1,282,610 24.4% $13.05 23.6% Total 5,246,980 100.0% $14.16 21.0%

Class A space represents 27.1% of the office space in the EMA. Vacancies are lowest among Class A buildings at only 14.3% compared with the overall average of 21.0%

III-121 A distribution of office space and available space by year opened is as follows:

DISTRIBUTION OF SPACE AND VACANCIES BY YEAR BUILT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

TOTAL SQUARE PERCENT NUMBER OF YEAR FEET DISTRIBUTION VACANT COMPLEXES 2010 to 2016 23,500 0.4% 51.1% 1 2000 to 2009 213,493 4.1% 23.9% 3 1990 to 1999 - - - - 1980 to 1989 1,666,844 31.8% 15.6% 7 1970 to 1979 2,574,558 49.1% 16.5% 24 Before 1970 768,585 14.6% 39.6% 23 Total 5,246,980 100.0% 20.0% 58

Older properties developed before 1970 clearly carry the highest vacancy rate (39.6%). These properties account for 29.0% of all vacancies in the EMA.

III-122 K. CONDOMINIUM

Our conclusions for the market potential of the subject project are based on a thorough analysis of the Effective Market Area (EMA). EMA refers to a methodology developed by the Danter Company, LLC to describe areas of similar economic and demographic characteristics. The EMA is the smallest area expected to contain the greatest concentration (60% to 70%) of support for the proposed project. The condominium EMA for the subject site is bounded by West 13 Mile Road to the north, Interstate 75 to the east, West 7 Mile Road to the south, and U.S. Route 24 to the west.

The condominium market inside the city of Southfield is dominated by older product (constructed from the 1950s through the 1980s) selling for under $70,000 on average. Outside Southfield, but still within the condominium site effective market area, there are a number of newer condominium developments. For the purpose of this analysis condominium projects active from 2005 and later have been surveyed. One additional property, Park Place at Town Center (Map Code 1) was included for reference despite having opened in 2000 because it is the only modern condominium property inside the city of Southfield.

III-123 The following tables summarize the condominiums surveyed and current listing prices.

CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENTS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP NUMBER OF CODE DEVELOPMENT YEAR BUILT UNITS Park Place at Town Center 1 255 Central Park Blvd., 2000 286 Southfield MI 48933 Sherman Oaks 2 832 West 11 Mile Rd., 2015 37 Royal Oak MI 48067 Lofts on 9 3 211 East 9 Mile Rd. 2008 32 Ferndale, MI 48220 The Fifth 4 432 S. Washington Ave. 2007 78 Royal Oak, MI 48067 North Main 5 350 North Main St. 2006 94 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Lofts @ 11 6 680 West 11 Mile Rd. 2006 24 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Metro Lofts 7 322 East Harrison Ave. 2005 30 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Troy Street Lofts 8 614 South Troy St. 2005 18 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Center Street Lofts 9 100 North Center St. 2006 19 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Main Street Lofts 10 111 North Main St. 2005 23 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Skylofts Market Square 11 101 Curry Ave. 2006 88 Royal Oak, MI 48067

III-124

CURRENT CONDOMINIUM LISTINGS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

SQUARE DEVELOPMENT BEDROOMS BATHS FEET PRICE Park Place at Town Center 2.0 2.0 1,078 $139,000 Sherman Oaks 2.0 2.5 1,499 $268,990 3.0 2.5 1,499 $273,990 Lofts on 9 1.0 1.0 773 $229,000 2.0 2.0 1,488 $349,999 2.0 2.0 1,911 $499,900 The Fifth 1.0 1.5 1,056 $336,900 1.0 1.5 1,004 $339,900 2.0 2.0 1,201 $349,900 2.0 2.0 1,842 $688,000 2.0 2.0 1,563 $580,000 North Main 2.0 2.0 1,110 $325,000 2.0 2.0 1,135 $369,900 2.0 2.0 1,112 $334,900 Lofts @ 11 1.0 1.5 804 $225,000 Metro Lofts 2.0 2.0 1,129 $288,888 Troy Street Lofts 2.0 3.0 1,791 $459,900 2.0 3.0 1,674 $331,000 Center Street Lofts 1.0 2.0 2,267 $480,000 2.0 2.0 1,194 $329,000 2.0 2.0 1,330 $362,500 Main Street Lofts 2.0 2.0 1,081 $309,000 2.0 3.0 1,768 $530,000 Skylofts Market Square 2.0 2.0 1,243 $334,900

III-125 IV. THE SITE

A. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

The site is the 125-acre former Northland Center mall, located at 21500 Northwestern Highway in Southfield, Michigan. The mall is closed, as is an adjacent freestanding Target store. Presently, the Southfield police sub-station and central Smartbus bus stop are open on the site. The site is bounded by JL Hudson Drive to the north, Greenfield Road to the east, Northland Drive to the south, and John C. Lodge Highway to the west.

NORTH

JL Hudson Drive, a four-lane road that has a green space area in the middle, is directly north of the site. JL Hudson Drive intersects with Greenfield Road along the northeastern border of the site and Northwestern Highway to the northwest. Immediately following is the St. John Providence Health System, including the main hospital, outpatient pharmacy, Providence Occupational Health. The complex extends 0.6 mile to West 9 Mile Road. Continuing north are the Metropolitan and Providence Place apartments.

EAST

Greenfield Road is directly east of the site. Greenfield road is a six-lane major north and south thoroughfare through Southfield. Immediately following is the Forgotten Harvest food bank and Greenfield Plaza. Continuing east, older, established residential development and an elementary school extend 1.0 mile to Coolidge Highway.

SOUTH

Northland Drive is directly south of the site. Northland Drive is four lanes with a green space in the center; it intersects with Greenfield Road at the southeast border of the site and Northwestern Highway at the southwest border of the site. Immediately following Northland Drive is the Northland Tower office complex. Continuing south 0.6 mile is West 8 Mile Road and the city limit of Detroit.

WEST

A service road is directly west of the site; immediately following is the John C. Lodge Highway. Continuing west of the John C. Lodge Highway is older, established residential development.

IV-1 IN GENERAL

The site is located in an older area of Southfield, and surrounding development includes medical, office, residential and retail. The site has excellent access to major thoroughfares.

B. SITE EVALUATION

The attributes of a site’s location are primarily a function of three main characteristics:

 Access  Visibility  Community Services

Following is a summary of these site characteristics:

ACCESS

Our evaluation of site access characteristics is most concerned with the ease of access to the site for potential residents. Therefore, we evaluate ingress and egress to the site, proximity to thoroughfares, and site location relative to public transportation.

ASSESSMENT RATING CRITERIA POOR FAIR/AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT Ingress X Egress X Proximity to X Thoroughfare(s) Proximity and Access to X Public Transportation Overall X

Access to the site is considered excellent; the site fronts major thoroughfare Greenfield Road. Greenfield Road is six-lane and has several traffic signals for ingress and egress to the site area. The site also fronts Northwestern Highway to the west, there are several on and exit ramps to the John C. Lodge Freeway (Michigan 10).

Proximity to public transportation is considered excellent; the Smartbus has a central bus station on the southern portion of the site.

Overall, access to the site is considered excellent.

IV-2 VISIBILITY

Our research has determined that a significant percent of traffic at any multifamily development is generated from drive-by traffic. The key to generating drive-by traffic is visibility from well-traveled arteries.

ASSESSMENT RATING POOR FAIR/AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT Site Visibility X Traffic Volume X Overall X

The site visibility is considered excellent; the site has excellent visibility and signage along major thoroughfares.

Traffic volume is considered excellent; the traffic volume is consistent along Greenfield Road and heavy during peak travel times along John C. Lodge Highway (Michigan 10).

Overall, visibility of the site is considered excellent.

COMMUNITY SERVICES

In evaluating a site’s environment, it is critical to assess the curb appeal of surrounding views and land usage, as well as the site’s proximity to everyday community services.

ASSESSMENT RATING COMMUNITY SERVICE POOR FAIR/AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT Grocery Store X Convenience Shopping X Retail Center X Employment Center X Bank(s) X Park(s) X Schools X Area Appeal X Overall X

Grocery shopping is considered good; the closest to the site is a Kroger, 1.1 miles north of the site.

IV-3 Convenience shopping is considered good; there are several fuel marts with limited convenience shopping located along Greenfield Road, however, most local residents shop at Kroger, 1.1 miles north.

Retail shopping is considered average; retail in close proximity is limited to smaller stores, most are specialized (men’s or women’s clothing only, not both). Larger box retail is located outside the market area at larger shopping centers.

Banking is considered excellent; the closest banking opportunity is 0.1 mile south at Citizens Bank.

Employment is considered good; most employment is located southeast of the site in Detroit, however, directly north of the site is the St John Providence Health System complex with many opportunities for medical employment.

Recreation is considered average; there are several parks located in close proximity, however most recreation is located throughout the Detroit area.

Schools are considered good; all schools are represented within the area including daycare, primary and secondary education.

Overall, access to the community services is considered good.

SUMMARY

Based on our evaluation of the site’s surrounding land usage, convenience to employment, and convenience to shopping, we rate the environment of the site for multifamily residential usage as good.

ASSESSMENT RATING SITE DEMAND FACTOR POOR FAIR/AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT Access X Visibility X Community Services X Overall X

IV-4 C. EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA (EMA)

Basic to this study is the application of the Effective Market Area (EMA) approach to area analysis and development. The EMA is the smallest geographic area that is expected to generate between 60% and 70% of the support for the proposed project.

Each EMA is separated from adjacent market areas by natural and manmade barriers such as rivers, freeways, railroads, major arteries, or a marked difference in the socioeconomic makeup of a neighborhood or area. This methodology has a significant advantage over radial analyses that often do not consider these boundaries.

The EMA of the proposed site has been determined by:

 Interviews conducted with area apartment managers, real estate agents, planners, city officials, and area developers  A demographic analysis  An analysis of mobility patterns  Personal observations of the field analyst

The retail Effective Market Area (EMA) includes the City of Southfield and portions of Oak Park, Lathrup Village, Royal Oak, and the extreme northwestern portion of Detroit. The EMA is bounded by West 13 Mile Road to the north, Coolidge Highway to the east, West 7 Mile Road to the south, and Evergreen Road to the west.

The primary residential EMA (market-rate apartments, condminiums, and student housing) is bounded by West 13 Mile Road to the north, Interstate 75 to the east, West 7 Mile Road to the south, and U.S. Route 24 to the west.

The senior housing EMA is bounded by by Twelve Mile Road to the north; Interstate 75 to the east; State Route 8 and Interstate 96 to the south and U.S. Route 24 to the west.

The CMA for lodging and the EMA for office development are bounded by 12 Mile Road to the north, the Walter P. Ruether Freeway corridor connecting to Rosewood Street to the east, 8 Mile Road to the south, and Inkster Road to the west.

See the following pages for detailed maps of each EMA/CMA.

IV-5 RETAIL EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

IV-6 APARTMENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAP

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

IV-7 SENIOR HOUSING EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAP

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

IV-8 LODGING COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA/ OFFICE SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAP

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

IV-9 D. COMMUNITY SERVICES

The following table provides a listing of the community services that impact the proposed site:

DISTANCE FACILITY/SERVICE NAME/DESCRIPTION FROM SITE DIRECTION Public Bus Smartbus Within Within Major Highway John C. Lodge Freeway Directly West Interstate 696 2.2 miles North Interstate 275 11.2 miles West Police Southfield Police South On site On site Southfield Police 3.1 miles Northwest Fire Southfield Fire 3.1 miles Northwest Convenience Store Kroger 1.1 miles North Grocery/Supermarket Kroger 1.1 miles North Save-a-Lot 1.4 miles Northeast Shopping Mall/Center Tel Twelve Mall 5.4 miles Northwest Employment Centers/ St Johns Providence Health System 0.3 mile North Major Employers City of Southfield Southfield Public Schools 3.1 miles Northwest scattered varies Recreational Facilities William A. Comstock Playfield 1.9 miles Southeast Southfield Civic Center 3.1 miles Northwest Hospital/Medical Facility St Johns Providence Health System 0.3 mile North Banks Citizens Bank 0.1 Mile Southeast Comerica Bank 0.5 Mile North Post Office USPS 2.1 miles Southeast Library Southfield Public Library 3.1 miles Northwest

MAJOR EMPLOYERS

Major employers in the Southfield area are:

 St Johns Providence Hospital  Credit Acceptance  Blue Cross/Blue Shield  RL Polk Company  Blue Care Network  Plante Moran CRESA  Federal Mogul Corporation  DTE Energy  DENSO  BASF  Verizon Wireless  Fifth Third bank  Metropolitan Life Insurance  General Motors, Corp  Comcast  Ford Motor Car

IV-10 RELIGION AND SCHOOLS

Most major denominations are represented. School facilities in the Southfield Public School District include 8 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, and 4 senior high schools. There are 4 private schools in the area. The Lawrence Technological University is in Southfield.

UTILITIES

Electric service is provided by DTE Energy. Gas service is provided by Consumers Energy. Water and sewer services are provided by City of Southfield. Telephone service is provided by AT&T.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Several banks and credit unions serve the area.

MEDIA

Newspapers Circulated in the Site Area

FREQUENCY OF NEWSPAPER CITY OF ORIGIN PUBLICATION Detroit Free press Detroit Daily

Television: All major affiliates are represented. Cable television is available.

Radio: Several broadcast locally.

IV-11 V. SITE AREA MAPS AND PHOTOGRAPHS

The following section contains maps and photographs of the subject site area. Maps illustrating the following are included:

 The specific neighborhood of the site.

 A close-in aerial view of the site parcel.

 The locations of community (resident) services relative to the site. Typical of community services included in the map would be shopping, parks/recreation, and the locations of fire and police services.

Following the maps are site area photographs.

V-1 NEIGHBORHOOD MAP

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

V-2 SITE MAP

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

V-3 COMMUNITY SERVICES MAP

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

Bank Park University Fire Department Post Office Grocery Store Recreation Hospital Site Library Shopping

V-4 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016

1.) NORTHLAND CENTER MALL (SITE) 2.) SITE (VIEW FROM NORTHWESTERN HWY.)

3.) SITE (VIEW FROM GREENFIELD RD.) 4.) SITE (VIEW FROM GREENFIELD RD.)

5.) AERIAL VIEW OF SITE 6.) AERIAL VIEW OF SITE

V-5 VI. FIELD SURVEY OF MODERN APARTMENTS

The following analyses represent data from a field survey of the modern apartments in the Site EMA. Each development was surveyed by unit and project amenities, year opened, unit mix, vacancies, rents, and aesthetic quality. The collected data have been analyzed as follows:

 A distribution of both market-rate and government subsidized modern apartment units. The units are distributed by mix and vacancy.

 An analysis of multifamily construction trends, which includes number of units, number of projects, percent distribution, cumulative units, and vacancy rate by year built.

 A rent and vacancy analysis, which contains distributions of units and vacancies by net rent range. A separate distribution appears for units by number of bedrooms.

 A project information analysis listing the name and address of each development, its occupancy, and year opened. Any unique features are noted by the analyst.

 A street rent comparison listing rents by unit size for all market-rate developments.

 A comparability rating, assigning point values for unit amenities, project amenities, and overall aesthetic appeal/curbside marketability.

 Amenity analyses, including the following:  A unit amenity analyses listing the unit amenities for each property.  A project amenity analysis listing the project amenities for each development.  A distribution of amenities by number of units and properties offering that amenity.

 A unit type/utility detail analysis with units offered and utilities available, including responsibility for payment.

 Rent/square foot.

A map showing the location of each apartment complex included in this analysis is in Section VIII – Modern Apartment Locations and Photographs.

VI -1 DISTRIBUTION OF MODERN APARTMENT UNITS AND VACANCIES SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MARKET RATE UNITS

UNIT TYPE UNITS VACANCIES NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT STUDIO 380 2.7% 12 3.2% ONE-BEDROOM 5,907 41.7% 174 2.9% TWO-BEDROOM 7,102 50.2% 192 2.7% THREE-BEDROOM 754 5.3% 11 1.5% FOUR-BEDROOM + 7 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 14,150 100.0% 389 2.7%

TOTAL DOES NOT INCLUDE 102 UNITS UNDER CONSTRUCTION

SUBSIDIZED

UNIT TYPE UNITS VACANCIES NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT STUDIO 92 7.1% 0 0.0% ONE-BEDROOM 1,077 83.1% 0 0.0% TWO-BEDROOM 97 7.5% 0 0.0% THREE-BEDROOM 30 2.3% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 1,296 100.0% 0 0.0%

VI-2 MARKET RATE MULTIFAMILY CONSTRUCTION TRENDS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAY 2016 YEAR OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF PERCENT CUMULATIVE VACANCY PROJECT OPENING PROJECTS UNITS DISTRIBUTION UNITS RATE

Before 1970 49 7,495 53.0% 7,495 3.4% 1970 - 1974 15 3,161 22.3% 10,656 2.0% 1975 - 1979 11 1,478 10.4% 12,134 2.0% 1980 - 1984 4 478 3.4% 12,612 3.1% 1985 - 1989 4 1,036 7.3% 13,648 1.0% 1990 - 1994 0 0 0.0% 13,648 0.0% 1995 - 1999 1 106 0.7% 13,754 3.8% 2000 - 2004 0 0 0.0% 13,754 0.0% 2005 0 0 0.0% 13,754 0.0% 2006 0 0 0.0% 13,754 0.0% 2007 0 0 0.0% 13,754 0.0% 2008 0 0 0.0% 13,754 0.0% 2009 1 45 0.3% 13,799 0.0% 2010 1 43 0.3% 13,842 0.0% 2011 0 0 0.0% 13,842 0.0% 2012 0 0 0.0% 13,842 0.0% 2013 2 216 1.5% 14,058 0.0% 2014 0 0 0.0% 14,058 0.0% 2015 0 0 0.0% 14,058 0.0% 2016* 2 92 0.7% 14,150 10.9% TOTAL: 90 14,150 100.0 % 14,150 2.7%

AVERAGE ANNUAL RELEASE OF UNITS 2011 - 2015: 43.2

* THROUGH MAY 2016

VI-3 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS STUDIO UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $1180 4 1.1% 0 0.0%

$1146 2 0.5% 0 0.0%

$1075 4 1.1% 0 0.0%

$1026 - $1046 4 1.1% 0 0.0%

$986 1 0.3% 0 0.0%

$749 32 8.4% 0 0.0%

$709 32 8.4% 0 0.0%

$621 - $646 72 18.9% 7 9.7%

$610 58 15.3% 2 3.4%

$544 - $560 33 8.7% 0 0.0%

$500 - $510 110 28.9% 3 2.7%

$425 - $435 28 7.4% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 380 100.0% 12 3.2%

Median Collected Rent: $610

VI-4 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS ONE BEDROOM UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $2297 10 0.2% 0 0.0%

$1800 - $1807 25 0.4% 0 0.0%

$1745 7 0.1% 0 0.0%

$1554 1 0.0% 0 0.0%

$1489 7 0.1% 0 0.0%

$1354 - $1379 10 0.2% 0 0.0%

$1304 2 0.0% 0 0.0%

$1195 50 0.8% 2 4.0%

$1125 6 0.1% 0 0.0%

$1082 - $1099 98 1.7% 3 3.1%

$1035 - $1055 102 1.7% 6 5.9%

$1014 - $1025 47 0.8% 0 0.0%

$980 - $998 72 1.2% 0 0.0%

$945 - $966 96 1.6% 4 4.2%

$915 - $930 77 1.3% 0 0.0%

$874 - $899 646 10.9% 9 1.4%

$841 - $866 201 3.4% 8 4.0%

$814 - $835 366 6.2% 14 3.8%

$789 - $809 640 10.8% 21 3.3%

$760 - $783 243 4.1% 3 1.2%

VI-5 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS ONE BEDROOM UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $730 - $754 486 8.2% 16 3.3%

$700 - $722 224 3.8% 8 3.6%

$669 - $686 282 4.8% 10 3.5%

$635 - $660 724 12.3% 33 4.6%

$618 - $634 179 3.0% 6 3.4%

$584 - $604 453 7.7% 10 2.2%

$549 - $574 376 6.4% 13 3.5%

$524 - $539 218 3.7% 2 0.9%

$474 - $495 71 1.2% 1 1.4%

$449 132 2.2% 5 3.8%

$359 56 0.9% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 5,907 100.0% 174 2.9%

Median Collected Rent: $744

VI-6 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS TWO BEDROOM UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $2815 14 0.2% 4 28.6%

$2450 - $2465 29 0.4% 4 13.8%

$2425 7 0.1% 0 0.0%

$2200 2 0.0% 0 0.0%

$2150 10 0.1% 0 0.0%

$1895 - $1900 9 0.1% 0 0.0%

$1771 15 0.2% 1 6.7%

$1616 1 0.0% 0 0.0%

$1559 - $1584 17 0.2% 0 0.0%

$1556 15 0.2% 1 6.7%

$1518 38 0.5% 0 0.0%

$1459 64 0.9% 1 1.6%

$1400 - $1424 128 1.8% 7 5.5%

$1386 12 0.2% 0 0.0%

$1321 - $1346 75 1.1% 2 2.7%

$1290 - $1314 256 3.6% 9 3.5%

$1235 - $1260 108 1.5% 3 2.8%

$1208 - $1233 71 1.0% 1 1.4%

$1175 - $1199 415 5.8% 14 3.4%

$1171 16 0.2% 1 6.3%

VI-7 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS TWO BEDROOM UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $1120 - $1144 167 2.4% 2 1.2%

$1085 - $1101 588 8.3% 12 2.0%

$1044 - $1066 551 7.8% 22 4.0%

$1015 - $1030 385 5.4% 0 0.0%

$970 - $994 126 1.8% 3 2.4%

$940 - $965 754 10.6% 31 4.1%

$913 - $938 707 10.0% 23 3.3%

$886 - $911 237 3.3% 3 1.3%

$865 - $885 215 3.0% 5 2.3%

$829 - $854 227 3.2% 6 2.6%

$805 - $827 98 1.4% 4 4.1%

$778 - $797 278 3.9% 5 1.8%

$738 - $763 340 4.8% 6 1.8%

$712 - $737 315 4.4% 8 2.5%

$688 - $707 202 2.8% 1 0.5%

$663 - $678 214 3.0% 3 1.4%

$625 - $638 92 1.3% 5 5.4%

$576 - $588 116 1.6% 1 0.9%

$513 - $538 148 2.1% 4 2.7%

$503 24 0.3% 0 0.0%

VI-8 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS TWO BEDROOM UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $448 16 0.2% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 7,102 100.0% 192 2.7%

Median Collected Rent: $951

VI-9 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS THREE BEDROOM UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $2900 1 0.1% 0 0.0%

$2175 1 0.1% 0 0.0%

$2071 4 0.5% 0 0.0%

$2011 3 0.4% 0 0.0%

$1753 18 2.4% 0 0.0%

$1673 6 0.8% 0 0.0%

$1611 - $1625 69 9.2% 0 0.0%

$1559 - $1571 153 20.3% 3 2.0%

$1499 2 0.3% 0 0.0%

$1449 42 5.6% 0 0.0%

$1359 - $1379 66 8.8% 0 0.0%

$1299 - $1319 70 9.3% 3 4.3%

$1259 - $1280 22 2.9% 0 0.0%

$1240 8 1.1% 0 0.0%

$1189 - $1204 96 12.7% 3 3.1%

$1045 12 1.6% 1 8.3%

$977 - $1001 74 9.8% 1 1.4%

$926 - $942 32 4.2% 0 0.0%

$654 8 1.1% 0 0.0%

$626 67 8.9% 0 0.0%

VI-10 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS THREE BEDROOM UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT

TOTAL 754 100.0% 11 1.5%

Median Collected Rent: $1,319

VI-11 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS FOUR+ BEDROOM UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $2811 - $2826 2 28.6% 0 0.0%

$2731 1 14.3% 0 0.0%

$2049 4 57.1% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 7 100.0% 0 0.0%

Median Collected Rent: $2,049

Rents at all properties have been adjusted to collected rent. Collected rent is defined as the utility payor details (landlord or tenant) of the subject property. For specific details on which utilities are included, please see the project conclusions.

VI-12 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 1 TOWNE SQUARE 1979 126 93.7% 20555 JAMES COOZENS FRWY. DETROIT MI 313 836-2568

2 MILLER GREENS 1954 21 100.0% HARDWOOD FLOORS IN 15100 MILLER ST. SELECT UNITS ONLY OAK PARK MI (248) 348-5226

3 OAK PARK GARDENS 1954 105 96.2% 14521 JAMES ST. OAK PARK MI (248) 967-0284

4 STRATFORD VILLA 1957 110 97.3% TOWNHOME UNITS HAVE 21629 STRATFORD CT. BASEMENTS OAK PARK MI (248) 967-0515

5 CHATEAU RIVIERA 1967 200 98.5% WALK-IN CLOSETS 22316 LA SEINE ST. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 569-4070

6 NORTH PARK TOWERS 1967 313 97.4% 1ST FLOOR RESTAURANT & 16500 NORTH PARK DR. BOUTIQUE; SELECT UNITS SOUTHFIELD MI HAVE HARDWOOD FLOORS (248) 559-1110 &/OR MARBLE FOYER; LIBRARY; COURTYARD; 24- HOUR DOORMAN; PHARMACY; POSTAL CENTER; VALET DRY

VI-13 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 7 NORTH PARK PLACE 1972 250 99.6% GARAGE AVAILABLE $35- 16300-16400 NORTH PARK DR. $50/MO.; PET FEE $25/MO.; SOUTHFIELD MI HARDWOOD FLOORS; (248) 430-8906 STAINLESS APPLIANCES IN SELECT UNITS

8 LEGACY PLACE 1979 112 96.4% 61 ADDITIONAL UNITS OWNER- 22490 SARATOGA ST. OCCUPIED; DETACHED 1 CAR SOUTHFIELD MI GARAGE; PET FEE $20/MO. (248) 424-2121

9 THE ATRIUM 1967 97 94.8% NO STUDENTS; BLACK 16200 W. 9 MILE RD. APPLIANCES; UPDATED SOUTHFIELD MI KITCHENS, BATHROOMS, & (248) 809-2865 FLOORS; SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CHART

10 PROVIDENCE TOWER 1968 241 90.9% CARPORT AVAILABLE $20/MO.; 16300 W. 9 MILE RD. PET FEE $25/MO. PER PET; SOUTHFIELD MI MONTHLY (248) 557-8100 WATER/SEWER/TRASH FEE, 0BR $40/MO., 1BR $50/MO., 2BR $60/MO.

11 PROVIDENCE PLACE 1958 348 98.9% 1 CARPORT PER UNIT 16176 CUMBERLAND RD. INCLUDED IN RENT; PET FEE SOUTHFIELD MI $25/MO. PER PET (248) 557-5338

12 CARLYLE TOWER 1977 180 97.2% 23300 PROVIDENCE DR. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 559-2111

VI-14 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 13 COACH HOUSE 1970 500 100.0% SELECT UNITS HAVE 23600 LAMPLIGHTER DR. WASHER/DRYER HOOKUP, SOUTHFIELD MI WASHER/DRYER, AND/OR (248) 557-0810 CARPORT; WAITING LIST 2-3 NAMES

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT 1970 382 96.3% SENIORS (55+) ONLY; 1 15700-15800 PROVIDENCE DR. UNDERGROUND GARAGE SOUTHFIELD MI SPACE/UNIT (248) 559-1605

15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ 1957 111 97.3% HIGHER-PRICED UNITS HAVE 25026 E. RUE VERSAILLES DR. UNFINISHED BASEMENT; OAK PARK MI TENANTS PAY 1/3 OF WATER (248) 967-2907 BILL

16 RUE VERSAILLES 1957 84 100.0% HARDWOOD FLOORING 25108 W. RUE VERSAILLES DR. OAK PARK MI (248) 967-1794

17 HIGHLAND TOWERS 1970 265 100.0% SENIORS (55+) ONLY 25225 GREENFIELD RD. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 569-7077

18 THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD 1964 723 93.5% PANTRY; PET FEE $25/MO.; 25500 GREENFIELD RD. SELECT UNITS HAVE BEEN OAK PARK MI RENOVATED (248) 967-9966

VI-15 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 19 COUNTRY COURT 1960 175 96.6% 25603 GREENFIELD RD. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 557-3832

20 LINCOLN TOWERS 1973 476 95.8% 1ST FLOOR RETAIL; WALK-IN 15075 LINCOLN ST. CLOSETS; PANTRY OAK PARK MI (248) 968-0011

21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN 1964 120 96.7% 25600 BRIAR DR. OAK PARK MI (248) 968-4792

22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS 1976 200 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED; 20800 WYOMING ST. ELDERLY 55+ FERNDALE MI (248) 542-0882

23 SANDSTONE 1964 46 100.0% 12800 W. 9 MILE ROAD OAK PARK MI (248) 973-7870

24 OAK PARK MANOR 1950 298 95.6% DISHWASHERS IN UPGRADED 13600 KENWOOD ST. UNITS ONLY; TOWNHOMES OAK PARK MI HAVE BASEMENTS & (248) 541-8455 WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS; MICROWAVES IN GARDEN UNITS ONLY

VI-16 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 25 VILLAGE GREEN TOWNHOMES OF OAK PAR 1951 374 96.3% HARDWOOD FLOORING; 10811 W. 10 MILE ROAD SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; OAK PARK MI VOLLEYBALL COURT; PET FEE (248) 547-9393 $20/MO. PET PET

26 CHESTNUT OAKS 1980 8 100.0% 15925-15929 W. 11 MILE RD. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 268-8700

27 HIDDEN OAKS 1975 96 100.0% 15833 W. 11 MILE RD. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 557-4520

28 TANGLEWOOD 1976 56 100.0% NON-SMOKING 15799 W. 11 MILE RD. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 395-0311

29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE 1969 104 100.0% CAT FEE $25/MO.; DOG FEE 27435 GREENFIELD RD. $35/MO.; 1 CARPORT SOUTHFIELD MI SPACE/UNIT (248) 230-4034

30 KENSWICK MANOR 1974 50 98.0% NO STUDENTS; 1 CARPORT 15633 W. 11 MILE RD. SPACE/UNIT; PET FEE $20/MO. SOUTHFIELD MI PER PET (248) 354-3295

VI-17 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS 1974 214 94.4% SENIOR APARTMENTS 55+; 2345 OXFORD RD. CHAPEL; LIBRARY; SOCIAL BERKLEY MI ACTIVITIES; (248) 399-9300 TRANSPORTATION; STORAGE AVAILABLE; DAILY LUNCH PROGRAM AVAILABLE FOR ADDITIONAL FEE 32 NORTH ROYAL OAK 1962 119 95.8% CERAMIC TILE; GRANITE 1215 W. FARNUM RD. COUNTERTOPS; WATER FEE 1- ROYAL OAK MI BR $25/MO., 2-BR $35/MO. (248) 336-9106

33 WOODWARD COURT 1963 102 93.1% BUILT IN 3 PHASES, HIGHER- 29350 WOODWARD AVE. PRICED UNITS ARE IN ROYAL OAK MI PHASES2+3 AND HAVE BEEN (248) 677-3600 RENOVATED; CERAMIC TILE; SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CHART

34 AMBER COURT 1960 93 98.9% STORAGE 2319 COOLIDGE HWY. ROYAL OAK MI (248) 280-1700

35 BEAUMONT 1972 32 100.0% EXPOSED CONCRETE BLOCK 2816 COOLIDGE HWY. WALLS; RECENTLY ROYAL OAK MI RENOVATED (248) 649-5437

36 ARLINGTON 1957 148 96.6% HARDWOOD FLOORING; 3115 EVERGREEN DR. ICEMAKERS; STAINLESS ROYAL OAK MI APPLIANCES; SKYLIGHTS IN (248) 288-3710 SELECT UNITS

VI-18 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 37 WOODWARD NORTH 1964 208 97.6% GRANITE COUNTERTOPS AND 3009 W. THIRTEEN MILE RD. MAPLE CABINETS IN SELECT ROYAL OAK MI UNITS; SELECT UNITS HAVE (248) 549-7762 BEEN RECENTLY RENOVATED

38 CAMELOT 1964 40 100.0% WALK-IN CLOSETS; 3134 GREENFIELD RD. HARDWOOD FLOORING IN ROYAL OAK MI SELECT UNITS; SKYLIGHTS IN (248) 288-1544 TOP-FLOOR UNITS ONLY

39 PHILAMER 1962 118 90.7% CERAMIC TILE FLOORING; 3272 GREENFIELD RD. GRANITE COUNTERTOPS; ROYAL OAK MI HARDWOOD FLOORING; (248) 288-6115 RECENTLY RENOVATED; WATER FEE $25/MO. FOR 1-BR UNITS, $35/MO. FOR 2-BR UNITS

40 THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY HILLS 1974 208 99.5% BUILT-IN SHELVES; STAINLESS 18335 W. THIRTEEN MILE RD. APPLIANCES; WALK-IN SOUTHFIELD MI CLOSETS; DOG PARK; FAX & (248) 644-0059 COPY SERVICES; INDOOR VOLLEYBALL COURT; RECENTLY RENOVATED

41 COUNTRY CORNER 1970 211 97.6% 30300 SOUTHFIELD RD. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 647-6100

42 CRANBROOK CENTRE 1969 132 100.0% WALK-IN CLOSETS; PET FEE 18333 SOUTH DR. $25/MO. PER PET SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 642-2500

VI-19 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 43 42 WEST 2016 44 95.5% 44 UNITS OPENED MARCH 18248 W. TWELVE MILE RD. 2016, ADDITIONAL 70 UNITS TO SOUTHFIELD MI OPEN MAY/JUNE 2016; SELECT (248) 593-6200 UNITS HAVE ATTACHED GARAGE; DETACHED GARAGE AVAILABLE $50/MO.; SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 44 FRANKLIN RIVER 1985 328 99.7% SELECT UNITS HAVE 28733 FRANKLIN RIVER DR. BREAKFAST BAR &/OR SOUTHFIELD MI MICROWAVE; GAME ROOM; (248) 356-0400 SOCIAL EVENTS; CORPORATE FURNISHED UNITS AVAILABLE

45 LAUREL WOODS 1979 149 100.0% 22200 LAUREL WOODS CT. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 357-3174

46 LANCASTER HILLS 1968 156 100.0% HIGHER-PRICED UNITS ARE 28235 LANCASTER DR. ON 1ST FLOOR; 1 CARPORT SOUTHFIELD MI SPACE PER UNIT (248) 352-2554

47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY 1974 40 100.0% LEASING OFFICE AT COLONY 22277 W. 12 MILE RD. PARK (MAP CODE 24); 1 SOUTHFIELD MI CARPORT SPACE/UNIT (248) 355-2047

48 CHATSFORD MANOR 1970 40 100.0% WALK-IN CLOSETS; GRANITE 28845 LAHSER RD. COUNTERTOPS IN SELECT SOUTHFIELD MI UNITS; 1 CARPORT (248) 354-3295 SPACE/UNIT; PET FEE $20/MO.

VI-20 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 49 COLONY PARK 1976 96 99.0% WALK-IN CLOSETS; 1 21890 COLONY PARK CIR. CARPORT SPACE/UNIT SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 355-2047

50 RIVER PARK PLACE 1978 62 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED, 24300 CIVIC CENTER DR. SECTION 8; FAMILY SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 355-2810

51 OAK RIDGE 1982 208 97.6% CAT FEE $20/MO. 26717 BERG RD. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 239-1199

52 SOUTHFIELD 1989 396 98.7% ICEMAKER; SELECT UNITS 26300 BERG RD. HAVE KITCHEN ISLAND AND/OR SOUTHFIELD MI FIREPLACE; POND HAS (248) 419-4767 FOUNTAIN; CARPORT OPTIONAL $25/MO.; CAT FEE $15/MO.; DOG FEE $25/MO

53 MCDONNEL TOWER 1978 183 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSIZIDED, 24400 CIVIC CENTER DR. SECTION 8; ELDERLY SOUTHFIELD MI (62+)/HANDICAP (248) 355-2810

54 WOODCREST 1986 128 100.0% SELECT UNITS HAVE VAULTED 23638 CIVIC CENTER DR. CEILING; WAITING LIST 5-6 SOUTHFIELD MI NAMES FOR EACH UNIT TYPE (248) 946-8825

VI-21 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 55 PARK LANE 1986 184 97.8% SELECT UNITS HAVE 23344 PARK PLACE DR. BREAKFAST BAR, MICROWAVE, SOUTHFIELD MI &/OR VAULTED CEILING; CAT (248) 355-0770 FEE $25/MO.

56 MONTICELLO 1996 106 96.2% HIGHER-PRICED UNITS ARE ON 22700 CIVIC CENTER DR. UPPER FLOOR; SELECT UNITS SOUTHFIELD MI HAVE VAULTED CEILING; PET (248) 352-4220 FEE $25/MO.; 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT

57 WILLOW TREE 1978 78 100.0% NON-SMOKING; BIRDS AND 22266 CIVIC CENTER DR. FISH ONLY PETS ALLOWED; 1 SOUTHFIELD MI CARPORT SPACE/UNIT (248) 354-2199

58 SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD 1982 210 95.2% TOWNHOMES HAVE FINISHED 23741 POND RD. BASEMENTS WITH SOUTHFIELD MI WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS; 1 (248) 270-9317 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT

59 SUTTON PLACE 1978 516 97.9% WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS IN 23275 RIVERSIDE DR. TOWNHOMES ONLY; SELECT SOUTHFIELD MI UNITS HAVE WASHER/DRYER (248) 319-0894 &/OR ATTACHED GARAGE; CABANAS AT POOL

60 EVERGREEN PLACE 1924 90 100.0% 24000 EVERGREEN RD. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 356-8444

VI-22 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 61 ARBOR LOFTS 2013 31 100.0% 90% STUDENTS; ADDITIONAL 20300 CIVIC CENTER DR. 31 UNITS BEING LEASED BY SOUTHFIELD MI LTU (11 3-BR, 20 4-BR): SEE (248) 979-8971 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CHART

62 KNOB IN THE WOODS 1953 588 98.5% CERAMIC TILE FLOORING; 20800 KNOB WOODS DR. GRANITE COUNTERTOPS; 3-BR SOUTHFIELD MI UNITS HAVE WASHER/DRYER (248) 353-0586 HOOKUPS; CARPORT $15/MO.; PET RENT $20/MO.

63 CRYSTAL COURT 1962 125 97.6% 22325 W. 8 MILE RD. DETROIT MI (313) 538-5266

64 WOODLAND ARMS 1965 164 98.8% 22045 W. 8 MILE RD. DETROIT MI (313) 538-4733

65 TERRACE COURT 1966 72 100.0% 20555 LAHSER DETROIT MI 313 535-9547

66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD 1972 381 97.9% 20875 LAHSER RD. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 356-3650

VI-23 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 67 WELLINGTON PLACE 1973 64 100.0% HIGHER-PRICE UNITS HAVE 21210 LAHSER RD. BEEN RENOVATED SOUTHFIELD MI (284) 355-1069

68 HIDDEN PINES 1969 174 94.3% HARDWOOD FLOORING; WALK- 19800 TELEGRAPH RD. IN CLOSETS; RECENTLY DETROIT MI RENOVATED (313) 538-2530

69 CRESCENT HOUSE 1968 120 98.3% HARDWOOD FLOORING; WALK- 19248 TELEGRAPH RD. IN CLOSETS DETROIT MI (313) 531-2334

70 KAREN 1967 24 100.0% 23750 WEST 7-MILE ROAD DETROIT MI (313) 977-9935

71 IMPERIAL MANOR 1965 164 98.8% 19132 APPLETON ST. DETROIT MI (313) 533-0718

72 RIVER PARK 1963 40 100.0% 19143 BERG RD. DETROIT MI (313) 989-0303

VI-24 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 73 FAIRWAY MANOR 1968 20 100.0% 19131 LAHSER DETROIT MI 313 255-1916

74 CHAPEL COURT 1968 80 91.3% 21455 WEST 7-MILE ROAD DETROIT MI 313 532-2651

75 MCNICHOLS 1959 32 81.3% 32 UNITS BOARDED UP, NO 21456 SEVEN MILE RD. PLANS TO RENOVATE UNTIL DETROIT MI JAN. 2017 313 532-2651

76 CREST 1962 24 100.0% 21180 W. 7 MILE ROAD DETROIT MI (313) 538-4910

77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS 1964 128 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED, 19101 EVERGREEN HUD SECTION 8; ELDERLY, DETROIT MI HANDICAPPED; SOCIAL (313) 513-6333 ACTIVITIES

78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE 2013 185 100.0% ORIGINALLY BUILT 1964, TOTAL 19311 VOTROBECK CT. RENOVATION AND REHAB TO DETROIT MI TAX CREDIT IN 2013; GAZEBO; 313 255-5548 SPLASH PAD; PET FEE $20/MO. PER PET

VI-25 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 79 GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE 1968 74 100.0% 19320 GREENFIELD DETROIT MI 313 345-6325

80 BOWIN PLACE 1967 220 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED, 15400 SEVEN MILE RD. HUD SECTION 8; LIBRARY; DETROIT MI SOCIAL ACTIVITIES 313 345-4249

81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS 1960 311 91.3% 8805 KINGSWOOD ST. DETROIT MI (313) 341-0725

82 FERNWOOD MANOR 1979 29 100.0% 900 LAPRAIRIE FERNDALE MI (248) 398-5350

83 AUTUMN HOUSE 1974 55 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED; 500 E. 9 MILE RD. ELDERLY/DISABLED FERNDALE MI (248) 547-9500

84 DEVON SQUARE 1982 60 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSDIZED; 1225 ORCHARD ST. PROJECT BASED SECTION 8; FERNDALE MI SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; 48 1-BR (248) 541-7128 UNITS ARE ELDERLY 62+ ONLY; 12 2-BR UNITS ARE FAMILY ONLY

VI-26 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 85 STATION 3 LOFTS 2009 45 100.0% PHASE 1 SOLD AS CONDOS, 333 E. PARENT AVE. PHASE 2 IS APARTMENTS; ROYAL OAK MI GARAGE PARKING $175/MO.; (248) 548-5959 FURNISHED CORPORATE UNITS AVAILABLE; SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CHART 86 EIGHT55 2016 48 83.3% OPENED MARCH 2016, STILL IN 855 S. MAIN ST. LEASE-UP; HARDWOOD ROYAL OAK MI FLOORS; ICEMAKERS; QUARTZ (248) 855-0855 COUNTERTOPS; STAINLESS APPLIANCES; BREAKFAST BARS AND KITCHEN ISLANDS IN SELECT UNITS 87 ROYAL OAK MANOR 1973 240 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED; 606 WILLIAMS ST. ELDERLY 62+; GAME ROOM; ROYAL OAK MI GIFT SHOP; OUTDOOR (248) 541-2131 LOUNGE ON EACH FLOOR; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; TRANSPORTATION; VENDING MACHINES 88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS 2010 43 100.0% EXPOSED DUCTWORK; 538-594 N. SHERMAN DR. HARDWOOD AND CERAMIC ROYAL OAK MI TILE FLOORING; STAINLESS (248) 280-1700 APPLIANCES

89 METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE 1975 40 100.0% BLACK APPLIANCES IN SELECT 203 N. LAFAYETTE RD. UNITS; STAINLESS ROYAL OAK MI APPLIANCES IN SELECT UNITS; (248) 251-0326 WALK-IN CLOSETS; RECENTLY RENOVATED

90 WAGON WHEEL 1964 48 100.0% FAUX-WOOD FLOORING; CAT 605 E. 11 MILE RD. FEE $15 PER MONTH, $5 MORE ROYAL OAK MI FOR EACH ADDITIONAL CAT (248) 545-1883

VI-27 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 91 FARNUM 1959 16 100.0% BRUSHED ALUMINUM 214 W. FARNUM AVE. CABINETS; EXPOSED ROYAL OAK MI CONCRETE BLOCK WALLS; (248) 234-2769 FRENCH DOORS; HARDWOOD FLOORS; STORAGE; RECENTLY RENOVATED; 1 BR UNITS HAVE BALCONLY/PATIO 92 VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS 1965 340 95.9% PANTRY; WALK-IN CLOSETS; 1132 N. CAMPBELL RD. CONFERENCE ROOM; ROYAL OAK MI OUTDOOR FIREPLACE; SAND (248) 547-5989 VOLLEYBALL; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; FURNISHED UNITS AVAILABLE; PET FEE $20/MO./PET; RECENTLY 93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES 1965 87 100.0% CERAMIC TILE FLOORS 905 N. STEPHENSON HWY. (SELECT UNITS); EXPOSED ROYAL OAK MI BRICK; GRANITE (248) 399-1292 COUNTERTOPS; SPIRAL STAIRCASES; STAINLESS APPLIANCES; RECENTLY RENOVATED 94 ELMSLEIGH 1957 76 100.0% TOWNHOME UNITS HAVE 1880 ROCHESTER RD. CENTRAL AIR, PATIOS, ROYAL OAK MI BASEMENTS & (248) 547-2672 WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS

95 AMBER'S RED RUN 1970 48 97.9% FLOOR-TO-CEILING WINDOWS; 2330 ROCHESTER RD. STORAGE ROYAL OAK MI (248) 280-1700

96 ROCHESTER HOUSE 1963 84 96.4% 2450 ROCHESTER RD. ROYAL OAK MI (248) 398-5350

VI-28 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN 1988 148 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED; 15106 W. 10 MILE RD. ELDERLY 62+; JEWISH OAK PARK MI COMMUNITY CAMPUS; BEAUTY (248) 967-4240 SHOP; LIBRARY; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; SERVICE COORDINATOR; KOSHER MEALS AVAILABLE 98 BONNIEVIEW 1967 156 98.1% 23411 EIGHT MILE RD. DETROIT MI 313 538-5339

99 APPLEWOOD 1981 52 100.0% 20912 SHERMAN AVE. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 356-0026

VI-29 STREET RENT COMPARISON SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP ONE TWO THREE FOUR+ CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 1 TOWNE SQUARE $619 $727

2 MILLER GREENS $720 - $850

3 OAK PARK GARDENS $630 $725 - $835

4 STRATFORD VILLA $825 - $950 $1050

5 CHATEAU RIVIERA $730 $885 $1115

6 NORTH PARK TOWERS $879 - $1079 $1199 - $1450 $1650

7 NORTH PARK PLACE $889 - $1100 $990 - $1600

8 LEGACY PLACE $1314 - $1424 $1449 $2049

9 THE ATRIUM $700 - $800 $900 - $1000

10 PROVIDENCE TOWER $575 $700 - $820 $795 - $855

11 PROVIDENCE PLACE $808 - $838 $880 - $919 $1108

12 CARLYLE TOWER $800 - $850 $999 - $1015

13 COACH HOUSE $599 - $730 $790 - $1120

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT $610 $799 $1199 - $1400 $1499

15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ $645 - $695 $715 - $830

16 RUE VERSAILLES $650 - $685 $740 - $760

17 HIGHLAND TOWERS $575 $785

18 THE LOOP ON $600 $755 - $765 $880 - $890 GREENFIELD

SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED

VI-30 STREET RENT COMPARISON SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP ONE TWO THREE FOUR+ CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 19 COUNTRY COURT $700 - $725 $735 - $775

20 LINCOLN TOWERS $540 $655 - $720 $840 - $885

21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN $935 - $1085 $1235

22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS SUB. SUB.

23 SANDSTONE $635 $765

24 OAK PARK MANOR $610 - $855 $860 - $995 $1105 - $1295

25 VILLAGE GREEN $990 - $1110 TOWNHOMES OF OAK PARK

26 CHESTNUT OAKS $660 $760

27 HIDDEN OAKS $655 $755

28 TANGLEWOOD $700

29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE $825 $865 - $940

30 KENSWICK MANOR $835

31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS $795 - $805 $940

32 NORTH ROYAL OAK $550 $850 - $975 $1050 - $1200

33 WOODWARD COURT $825 - $1050 $900 - $1200

34 AMBER COURT $825 - $835 $885 - $895

35 BEAUMONT $650 - $680

SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED

VI-31 STREET RENT COMPARISON SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP ONE TWO THREE FOUR+ CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 36 ARLINGTON $760 $840 - $1325 $1045

37 WOODWARD NORTH $680 $770 - $795

38 CAMELOT $850 $950 - $975

39 PHILAMER $725 - $875 $800 - $1025

40 THE KENSINGTON AT $819 - $1025 $919 - $1245 BEVERLY HILLS

41 COUNTRY CORNER $855 - $875 $985 - $1525 $1475

42 CRANBROOK CENTRE $890 - $930 $1100 - $1120

43 42 WEST U N D E R C O N S T R U C T I O N

44 FRANKLIN RIVER $840 $945 - $1105

45 LAUREL WOODS $1015 - $1220

46 LANCASTER HILLS $1015 - $1085 $1240 - $1280

47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY $770 $880

48 CHATSFORD MANOR $735 - $755

49 COLONY PARK $944 $1030

50 RIVER PARK PLACE SUB. SUB. SUB.

51 OAK RIDGE $560 $649 $749 - $779

52 SOUTHFIELD $729 - $839 $1020

53 MCDONNEL TOWER SUB. SUB.

SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED

VI-32 STREET RENT COMPARISON SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP ONE TWO THREE FOUR+ CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 54 WOODCREST $865 $965

55 PARK LANE $980 - $990 $1190 - $1235

56 MONTICELLO $910 $1050 - $1315

57 WILLOW TREE $800 - $825 $900 - $950

58 SILVER OAKS OF $779 $995 - $1275 $1475 SOUTHFIELD

59 SUTTON PLACE $989 - $1459 $1479 - $1669

60 EVERGREEN PLACE $685 - $730

61 ARBOR LOFTS $940 - $1100 $960 - $1500 $1505 - $1545 $1915 - $1975 $2610 - $2705

62 KNOB IN THE WOODS $765 $875 $1275

63 CRYSTAL COURT $425 $495 $585 - $625

64 WOODLAND ARMS $500 $650

65 TERRACE COURT $410 $510

66 TOWERS OF $699 $739 - $809 SOUTHFIELD

67 WELLINGTON PLACE $715 - $755

68 HIDDEN PINES $669 $799

69 CRESCENT HOUSE $550 $650 $750

70 KAREN $525 $650

SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED

VI-33 STREET RENT COMPARISON SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP ONE TWO THREE FOUR+ CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 71 IMPERIAL MANOR $625 $725

72 RIVER PARK $625 $725

73 FAIRWAY MANOR $475 $525 $600

74 CHAPEL COURT $500 $580

75 MCNICHOLS U N D E R C O N S T R U C T I O N

76 CREST $565

77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS SUB. SUB.

78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE $575 - $638 $699 - $727

79 GREENFIELD $650 $775 PENTHOUSE

80 BOWIN PLACE SUB. SUB.

81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS $635 - $655 $750 - $915

82 FERNWOOD MANOR $675 - $725

83 AUTUMN HOUSE SUB. SUB.

84 DEVON SQUARE SUB. SUB.

85 STATION 3 LOFTS $1800 $1900 - $2450 $2900

86 EIGHT55 $1807 - $2297 $2465 - $2815

87 ROYAL OAK MANOR SUB. SUB.

SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED

VI-34 STREET RENT COMPARISON SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP ONE TWO THREE FOUR+ CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 88 AMBER CROSSING $1075 - $1180 $895 - $1745 $1175 - $2425 $2175 TOWNHOMES & LOFTS

89 METROPOLITAN $1095 $1300 LAFAYETTE

90 WAGON WHEEL $710 $850

91 FARNUM $930 - $1010 $1235

92 VILLAGE PARK OF $1035 - $1195 $1290 - $1405 $1570 - $1625 ROYAL OAKS

93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES $950 - $1150 $995 - $1295

94 ELMSLEIGH $675 $725 - $850

95 AMBER'S RED RUN $925 $1245

96 ROCHESTER HOUSE $700 $800

97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN SUB.

98 BONNIEVIEW $600 $700

99 APPLEWOOD $570 $695

NOTE: Rents listed are those quoted to our field analyst for new leases. Residents on older leases or renting month-to-month may be paying more or less, depending on changes in quoted rent. Rent specials and concessions are noted in the project information section of this field survey.

SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED

VI-35 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 1 TOWNE SQUARE 9.0 4.5 5.0 18.5

2 MILLER GREENS 7.5 0.0 4.5 12.0

3 OAK PARK GARDENS 7.5 1.5 5.0 14.0

4 STRATFORD VILLA 8.5 2.5 5.5 16.5

5 CHATEAU RIVIERA 9.5 4.5 5.5 19.5

6 NORTH PARK TOWERS 10.0 10.5 5.5 26.0

7 NORTH PARK PLACE 10.0 6.5 6.5 23.0

8 LEGACY PLACE 10.0 4.5 6.5 21.0

9 THE ATRIUM 8.5 4.0 5.5 18.0

10 PROVIDENCE TOWER 9.0 6.0 5.0 20.0

11 PROVIDENCE PLACE 8.5 7.0 5.5 21.0

12 CARLYLE TOWER 9.0 5.5 5.0 19.5

13 COACH HOUSE 9.5 5.5 5.5 20.5

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT 9.5 3.5 6.0 19.0

15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ 8.5 1.5 5.5 15.5

VI-36 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 16 RUE VERSAILLES 7.5 1.0 5.0 13.5

17 HIGHLAND TOWERS 9.0 6.0 5.5 20.5

18 THE LOOP ON 7.5 6.0 6.0 19.5 GREENFIELD

19 COUNTRY COURT 9.0 1.5 5.5 16.0

20 LINCOLN TOWERS 9.5 7.0 5.5 22.0

21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN 6.0 2.5 5.5 14.0

22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS 6.0 5.0 5.5 16.5

23 SANDSTONE 8.5 1.0 5.0 14.5

24 OAK PARK MANOR 8.0 1.5 5.0 14.5

25 VILLAGE GREEN 12.5 7.5 5.5 25.5 TOWNHOMES OF OAK PARK 26 CHESTNUT OAKS 10.5 0.0 5.0 15.5

27 HIDDEN OAKS 8.5 1.5 5.5 15.5

28 TANGLEWOOD 9.5 0.5 5.5 15.5

29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE 9.0 2.5 5.5 17.0

VI-37 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 30 KENSWICK MANOR 10.0 3.0 5.0 18.0

31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS 7.5 7.5 5.5 20.5

32 NORTH ROYAL OAK 8.0 4.5 5.5 18.0

33 WOODWARD COURT 7.0 3.5 5.5 16.0

34 AMBER COURT 10.0 1.0 5.0 16.0

35 BEAUMONT 6.0 1.0 5.0 12.0

36 ARLINGTON 10.0 1.5 5.0 16.5

37 WOODWARD NORTH 7.5 2.5 5.5 15.5

38 CAMELOT 8.0 1.0 5.0 14.0

39 PHILAMER 8.0 3.0 5.0 16.0

40 THE KENSINGTON AT 10.5 8.5 6.5 25.5 BEVERLY HILLS

41 COUNTRY CORNER 9.0 5.5 6.5 21.0

42 CRANBROOK CENTRE 9.5 5.0 5.0 19.5

43 42 WEST 15.0 5.0 7.5 27.5

44 FRANKLIN RIVER 9.0 8.5 6.5 24.0

VI-38 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 45 LAUREL WOODS 11.0 3.5 6.5 21.0

46 LANCASTER HILLS 10.0 5.5 6.5 22.0

47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY 9.5 1.0 6.5 17.0

48 CHATSFORD MANOR 9.0 4.5 5.5 19.0

49 COLONY PARK 9.5 3.5 6.5 19.5

50 RIVER PARK PLACE 7.0 1.5 5.5 14.0

51 OAK RIDGE 9.0 3.5 6.5 19.0

52 SOUTHFIELD 11.5 6.0 7.5 25.0

53 MCDONNEL TOWER 6.5 4.0 5.5 16.0

54 WOODCREST 10.0 2.5 7.0 19.5

55 PARK LANE 11.0 5.0 7.0 23.0

56 MONTICELLO 10.5 5.0 6.5 22.0

57 WILLOW TREE 10.0 4.5 6.5 21.0

58 SILVER OAKS OF 10.0 5.0 7.0 22.0 SOUTHFIELD

59 SUTTON PLACE 10.5 6.5 6.5 23.5

VI-39 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 60 EVERGREEN PLACE 9.0 1.5 6.0 16.5

61 ARBOR LOFTS 11.0 9.0 6.0 26.0

62 KNOB IN THE WOODS 9.0 7.5 6.5 23.0

63 CRYSTAL COURT 6.5 1.5 4.5 12.5

64 WOODLAND ARMS 7.0 1.5 4.5 13.0

65 TERRACE COURT 6.5 3.5 4.5 14.5

66 TOWERS OF 7.0 5.5 4.5 17.0 SOUTHFIELD

67 WELLINGTON PLACE 7.5 1.5 5.0 14.0

68 HIDDEN PINES 8.0 2.0 5.0 15.0

69 CRESCENT HOUSE 7.0 2.0 5.5 14.5

70 KAREN 6.5 1.0 4.5 12.0

71 IMPERIAL MANOR 5.0 4.0 4.5 13.5

72 RIVER PARK 5.0 1.5 5.0 11.5

73 FAIRWAY MANOR 7.0 1.0 4.5 12.5

74 CHAPEL COURT 6.5 3.0 4.5 14.0

VI-40 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 75 MCNICHOLS 5.5 1.0 4.5 11.0

76 CREST 6.5 1.0 5.0 12.5

77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS 6.0 5.0 5.0 16.0

78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE 7.0 5.0 5.5 17.5

79 GREENFIELD 8.0 1.0 4.5 13.5 PENTHOUSE

80 BOWIN PLACE 8.0 4.5 4.5 17.0

81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS 7.5 2.5 5.0 15.0

82 FERNWOOD MANOR 6.5 1.0 5.5 13.0

83 AUTUMN HOUSE 6.5 0.0 5.0 11.5

84 DEVON SQUARE 5.0 3.0 5.0 13.0

85 STATION 3 LOFTS 14.5 2.5 7.5 24.5

86 EIGHT55 13.5 1.5 8.0 23.0

87 ROYAL OAK MANOR 7.5 8.5 5.5 21.5

88 AMBER CROSSING 12.0 1.0 7.5 20.5 TOWNHOMES & LOFTS

89 METROPOLITAN 8.0 1.5 5.5 15.0 LAFAYETTE

VI-41 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 90 WAGON WHEEL 8.5 1.5 5.5 15.5

91 FARNUM 8.5 1.5 5.0 15.0

92 VILLAGE PARK OF 10.0 11.0 5.5 26.5 ROYAL OAKS

93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES 10.0 3.5 5.5 19.0

94 ELMSLEIGH 7.0 1.0 5.5 13.5

95 AMBER'S RED RUN 9.5 0.0 5.5 15.0

96 ROCHESTER HOUSE 8.0 3.5 5.5 17.0

97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN 6.0 5.5 5.5 17.0

98 BONNIEVIEW 6.5 2.5 4.5 13.5

99 APPLEWOOD 7.5 1.0 5.0 13.5

Point values have been assigned for unit and project amenities. Aesthetic amenities are based on general appearance, upkeep, landscaping, etc. and are based on the judgment of the field representative.

VI-42 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

1 TOWNE SQUARE X XXXX

2 MILLER GREENS

3 OAK PARK GARDENS XX

4 STRATFORD VILLA X X

5 CHATEAU RIVIERA XX XX

6 NORTH PARK TOWERS XXX XX X X CONVENIENCE STORE

7 NORTH PARK PLACE XXXX X X

8 LEGACY PLACE XXX X

9 THE ATRIUM XX XX X

10 PROVIDENCE TOWER XXX XX X ON-SITE CONVENIENCE

11 PROVIDENCE PLACE XXXX XX X

12 CARLYLE TOWER XX XX X

SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL

VI-43 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

13 COACH HOUSE XX XXXX

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT X XX X

15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ XX

16 RUE VERSAILLES X

17 HIGHLAND TOWERS XX XX X VENDING MACHINES

18 THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD XXX XXX

19 COUNTRY COURT XX

20 LINCOLN TOWERS XXX XX X COURTYARD

21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN X X

22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS XX XX X X

23 SANDSTONE X

24 OAK PARK MANOR XX

SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL

VI-44 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

25 VILLAGE GREEN XXXR X X CONFERENCE ROOM TOWNHOMES OF OAK

26 CHESTNUT OAKS

27 HIDDEN OAKS XX

28 TANGLEWOOD X

29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE X XX COURTYARD

30 KENSWICK MANOR X X

31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS XX XXX X BEAUTY SALON

32 NORTH ROYAL OAK X XXX SOCIAL ACTIVITIES

33 WOODWARD COURT X XX

34 AMBER COURT X

35 BEAUMONT X

36 ARLINGTON XX

SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL

VI-45 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

37 WOODWARD NORTH XX X

38 CAMELOT X

39 PHILAMER X X

40 THE KENSINGTON AT XXXXR XX X BILLIARDS BEVERLY HILLS

41 COUNTRY CORNER XXX XX X

42 CRANBROOK CENTRE XX XX X

43 42 WEST XXX X X

44 FRANKLIN RIVER XXXX XX X COURTESY PATROL

45 LAUREL WOODS XX X

46 LANCASTER HILLS XXX XX

47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY X

48 CHATSFORD MANOR X X XXX

SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL

VI-46 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

49 COLONY PARK XX X

50 RIVER PARK PLACE X X

51 OAK RIDGE X XX

52 SOUTHFIELD XXXX XXX

53 MCDONNEL TOWER X XX X LIBRARY

54 WOODCREST X X

55 PARK LANE XX X X X

56 MONTICELLO XXX X X

57 WILLOW TREE X XX X ATRIUM ENTRY

58 SILVER OAKS OF XX XXX SOUTHFIELD

59 SUTTON PLACE XXX XX BILLIARDS

60 EVERGREEN PLACE XX

SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL

VI-47 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

61 ARBOR LOFTS XX XX X X X COFFEE BAR

62 KNOB IN THE WOODS XXXXVXXX

63 CRYSTAL COURT XX

64 WOODLAND ARMS XX

65 TERRACE COURT X XX

66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD XXX XX X

67 WELLINGTON PLACE XX

68 HIDDEN PINES XXX

69 CRESCENT HOUSE XXX

70 KAREN X

71 IMPERIAL MANOR X X XX

72 RIVER PARK XX

SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL

VI-48 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

73 FAIRWAY MANOR X

74 CHAPEL COURT X X

75 MCNICHOLS X

76 CREST X

77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS XX X X LIBRARY

78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE XXX XX X X AMPITHEATER

79 GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE X

80 BOWIN PLACE X XX X BEAUTY SALON

81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS XXXX

82 FERNWOOD MANOR X

83 AUTUMN HOUSE

84 DEVON SQUARE X X SERVICE COORDINATOR

SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL

VI-49 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

85 STATION 3 LOFTS X X COURTYARD

86 EIGHT55 X X 1ST FLOOR RETAIL

87 ROYAL OAK MANOR X XXX X BEAUTY SALON

88 AMBER CROSSING X TOWNHOMES & LOFTS

89 METROPOLITAN X COMMUNITY WIFI LAFAYETTE

90 WAGON WHEEL XX

91 FARNUM X COMMUNITY WIFI

92 VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL XXXXRXXX X BILLIARDS/GAME OAKS ROOM

93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES X XX BIKE RACKS

94 ELMSLEIGH X

95 AMBER'S RED RUN

96 ROCHESTER HOUSE X XX

SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL

VI-50 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN XX X X CONVENIENCE STORE

98 BONNIEVIEW X X

99 APPLEWOOD X

SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL

VI-51 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

1 TOWNE SQUARE XXXXW XBXX X

2 MILLER GREENS XXXC XXB S HARDWOOD FLOORING

3 OAK PARK GARDENS XXXC XB STORAGE

4 STRATFORD VILLA XXXXC XBXS CERAMIC TILE FLOORING

5 CHATEAU RIVIERA XXXXC XBXX STORAGE

6 NORTH PARK TOWERS X X X XX C XBXXU

7 NORTH PARK PLACE X X X XX C XBXXO BREAKFAST BARS

8 LEGACY PLACE XXXXC XXB XD X

9 THE ATRIUM XXXXC XBXO CARPORT $25/MO.

10 PROVIDENCE TOWER XXXXC XBXXD WALK-IN CLOSETS

11 PROVIDENCE PLACE XXXXC XBSX WALK-IN CLOSETS

REFRIGERATOR AIR CONDITIONING WINDOW COVERINGS GARAGE BASEMENT S - SOME I -ICEMAKER C - CENTRAL AIR B - BLINDS A - ATTACHED U - UNFINISHED O - OPTIONAL F - FROSTFREE W - WINDOW UNIT D - DRAPES D - DETACHED F - FINISHED U - UNDERGROUND

VI-52 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

12 CARLYLE TOWER XXXXC XBXX WALK-IN CLOSETS

13 COACH HOUSE XXXXC SSXB XXD X

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE XXXXC XB XX X ADULT

15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ XXXXW XBXOS STORAGE

16 RUE VERSAILLES XXSXW XBX STORAGE

17 HIGHLAND TOWERS XXXXC XBXX

18 THE LOOP ON XXXXW XB FAUX-WOOD GREENFIELD FLOORING

19 COUNTRY COURT XXXXC XBXX 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT

20 LINCOLN TOWERS XXXXC XBXX STORAGE

21 THE OAKS ON XXXX BXX LINCOLN

22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS X X XX C BS BREAKFAST BARS

REFRIGERATOR AIR CONDITIONING WINDOW COVERINGS GARAGE BASEMENT S - SOME I -ICEMAKER C - CENTRAL AIR B - BLINDS A - ATTACHED U - UNFINISHED O - OPTIONAL F - FROSTFREE W - WINDOW UNIT D - DRAPES D - DETACHED F - FINISHED U - UNDERGROUND

VI-53 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

23 SANDSTONE XXXW XXBX HARDWOOD FLOORING

24 OAK PARK MANOR X X S XS C SXB XS X

25 VILLAGE GREEN X X X XX C XXXB XX X X CROWN MOLDING TOWNHOMES OF OAK PARK 26 CHESTNUT OAKS XXXXC XXXBX STORAGE

27 HIDDEN OAKS XXXXC XBXD

28 TANGLEWOOD X X X XX C XB XD X CARPORT $25/MO.

29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE XXXXC XBXD STORAGE

30 KENSWICK MANOR XXXXC XB XXD X STORAGE

31 OXFORD PARK XX C XBXX TOWERS

32 NORTH ROYAL OAK XXXC BX HARDWOOD FLOORING

33 WOODWARD COURT X X XSW XBO STORAGE

REFRIGERATOR AIR CONDITIONING WINDOW COVERINGS GARAGE BASEMENT S - SOME I -ICEMAKER C - CENTRAL AIR B - BLINDS A - ATTACHED U - UNFINISHED O - OPTIONAL F - FROSTFREE W - WINDOW UNIT D - DRAPES D - DETACHED F - FINISHED U - UNDERGROUND

VI-54 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

34 AMBER COURT XXXXC XB XX HARDWOOD FLOORING

35 BEAUMONT XXW XBS CERAMIC TILE

36 ARLINGTON XXXXC XBX S GRANITE COUNTERTOPS

37 WOODWARD NORTH XXSXC XBXO CERAMIC TILE FLOORING

38 CAMELOT XXXXW XBX CERAMIC TILE FLOORING

39 PHILAMER XXXC B STORAGE

40 THE KENSINGTON AT XXXXC XXBXXODS HARDWOOD BEVERLY HILLS FLOORING

41 COUNTRY CORNER XXXXC XBXX

42 CRANBROOK CENTRE XXXXC XBXX STORAGE

43 42 WEST X X X XX C XXXB XXA X 9'-11' CEILINGS

44 FRANKLIN RIVER X X X XS C XBXX

REFRIGERATOR AIR CONDITIONING WINDOW COVERINGS GARAGE BASEMENT S - SOME I -ICEMAKER C - CENTRAL AIR B - BLINDS A - ATTACHED U - UNFINISHED O - OPTIONAL F - FROSTFREE W - WINDOW UNIT D - DRAPES D - DETACHED F - FINISHED U - UNDERGROUND

VI-55 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

45 LAUREL WOODS XXXXC XXXB XX X 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT

46 LANCASTER HILLS XXXXC XBXXX STORAGE

47 TWYCKINGHAM XXXXC XBXX STORAGE VALLEY

48 CHATSFORD MANOR XXXXC XB XD X 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT

49 COLONY PARK XXXXC XBX X STORAGE

50 RIVER PARK PLACE XX C XBX

51 OAK RIDGE XXXXC XB XX 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT

52 SOUTHFIELD XXXXC XXXBS XO X STORAGE

53 MCDONNEL TOWER XXX XBXX

54 WOODCREST XXXXC XXXBX S

55 PARK LANE X X X XS C XXXB XX X S 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT

REFRIGERATOR AIR CONDITIONING WINDOW COVERINGS GARAGE BASEMENT S - SOME I -ICEMAKER C - CENTRAL AIR B - BLINDS A - ATTACHED U - UNFINISHED O - OPTIONAL F - FROSTFREE W - WINDOW UNIT D - DRAPES D - DETACHED F - FINISHED U - UNDERGROUND

VI-56 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

56 MONTICELLO XXXXC XXXB XDS STORAGE

57 WILLOW TREE XXXXC XBXXX STORAGE

58 SILVER OAKS OF XXXXC SXXXXX STORAGE SOUTHFIELD

59 SUTTON PLACE XXXXC SSXB XXA X

60 EVERGREEN PLACE XXXXC XBXD STORAGE

61 ARBOR LOFTS X X X XX C SSXBXO 10'-12' CEILINGS

62 KNOB IN THE WOODS XXXXC SXBD STORAGE

63 CRYSTAL COURT XXXW XB

64 WOODLAND ARMS XXXW XBX

65 TERRACE COURT XXXW XB

66 TOWERS OF XXXW XBX SOUTHFIELD

REFRIGERATOR AIR CONDITIONING WINDOW COVERINGS GARAGE BASEMENT S - SOME I -ICEMAKER C - CENTRAL AIR B - BLINDS A - ATTACHED U - UNFINISHED O - OPTIONAL F - FROSTFREE W - WINDOW UNIT D - DRAPES D - DETACHED F - FINISHED U - UNDERGROUND

VI-57 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

67 WELLINGTON PLACE XXXW XBX X

68 HIDDEN PINES XXXXW XBXO CERAMIC TILE

69 CRESCENT HOUSE XXXW XB STORAGE

70 KAREN XXW XBX

71 IMPERIAL MANOR XXW B STORAGE

72 RIVER PARK XXW BX

73 FAIRWAY MANOR XXXW XBX

74 CHAPEL COURT XXXW XB

75 MCNICHOLS XXX XB

76 CREST XXXW XB

77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS XXW XB

REFRIGERATOR AIR CONDITIONING WINDOW COVERINGS GARAGE BASEMENT S - SOME I -ICEMAKER C - CENTRAL AIR B - BLINDS A - ATTACHED U - UNFINISHED O - OPTIONAL F - FROSTFREE W - WINDOW UNIT D - DRAPES D - DETACHED F - FINISHED U - UNDERGROUND

VI-58 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

78 RENAISSANCE XXXW XBX BREAKFAST BARS VILLAGE

79 GREENFIELD XXXW XB XX X PENTHOUSE

80 BOWIN PLACE XXXC XBXX

81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS XXXXW XBXXO WALK-IN CLOSETS

82 FERNWOOD MANOR XX C XB CERAMIC TILE FLOORING

83 AUTUMN HOUSE XXW XBX

84 DEVON SQUARE XX C B

85 STATION 3 LOFTS X X X XX C XXBXA 11'-24' CEILINGS

86 EIGHT55 XXXXC XXB XA X 9' CEILINGS

87 ROYAL OAK MANOR XXXC XBX

88 AMBER CROSSING X X X XX C XXB XXOSS ICEMAKERS TOWNHOMES & LOFTS

REFRIGERATOR AIR CONDITIONING WINDOW COVERINGS GARAGE BASEMENT S - SOME I -ICEMAKER C - CENTRAL AIR B - BLINDS A - ATTACHED U - UNFINISHED O - OPTIONAL F - FROSTFREE W - WINDOW UNIT D - DRAPES D - DETACHED F - FINISHED U - UNDERGROUND

VI-59 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

89 METROPOLITAN XXXXW XBX HARDWOOD LAFAYETTE FLOORING

90 WAGON WHEEL XXXXW XB X STORAGE

91 FARNUM XXXXW XBS BLACK APPLIANCES

92 VILLAGE PARK OF X X X XX C XB XXD X HARDWOOD ROYAL OAKS FLOORING

93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES X X X XXW BS X X S HARDWOOD FLOORING

94 ELMSLEIGH XXXW SXB SS X

95 AMBER'S RED RUN X X X XXW BXD HARDWOOD FLOORING

96 ROCHESTER HOUSE XXXXW XB STORAGE

97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN XXW XB

98 BONNIEVIEW XXXW XB

99 APPLEWOOD XXXC XBXD CARPORT $20/MO.

REFRIGERATOR AIR CONDITIONING WINDOW COVERINGS GARAGE BASEMENT S - SOME I -ICEMAKER C - CENTRAL AIR B - BLINDS A - ATTACHED U - UNFINISHED O - OPTIONAL F - FROSTFREE W - WINDOW UNIT D - DRAPES D - DETACHED F - FINISHED U - UNDERGROUND

VI-60 DISTRIBUTION OF UNIT AND PROJECT AMENITIES MARKET RATE UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

PROJECTS SOME UNITS PERCENTAGE UNIT AMENITIES ALL UNITS OR OPTIONAL TOTAL OF PROJECTS REFRIGERATOR 90 0 90 100.0% RANGE 90 0 90 100.0% MICROWAVE 11 4 15 16.7% DISHWASHER 60 3 63 70.0% DISPOSAL 84 0 84 93.3% AIR CONDITIONING 88 0 88 97.8% WASHER / DRYER 12 3 15 16.7% WASH / DRY HOOKUP 17 7 24 26.7% CARPET 77 0 77 85.6% WINDOW COVERINGS 89 0 89 98.9% FIREPLACE 0 2 2 2.2% INTERCOM SECURITY 42 0 42 46.7% BALCONY / PATIO 43 4 47 52.2% CAR PORT 27 9 36 40.0% GARAGE 8 2 10 11.1% BASEMENT 4 5 9 10.0% CEILING FAN 22 1 23 25.6% VAULTED CEILING 0 7 7 7.8% SECURITY SYSTEM 4 0 4 4.4% PROJECT AMENITIES POOL 44 44 48.9% COMMON BUILDING 32 32 35.6% SAUNA 1 1 1.1% HOT TUB 3 3 3.3% EXERCISE ROOM 24 24 26.7% TENNIS 4 4 4.4% PLAYGROUND 6 6 6.7% SPORTS COURT 4 4 4.4% JOG / BIKE TRAIL 0 0 0.0% LAKE 2 2 2.2% PICNIC AREA 10 10 11.1% LAUNDRY FACILITY 65 65 72.2% SECURITY GATE 14 14 15.6% ON SITE MANAGEMENT 63 63 70.0% ELEVATOR 16 16 17.8%

VI-61 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

NUMBER MAP PROJECT GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF CODE NAME S 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ FLOORS 1 TOWNE SQUARE X X 2.5 G L G L E T L CLT TT

2 MILLER GREENS X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

3 OAK PARK GARDENS X X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

4 STRATFORD VILLA X X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

5 CHATEAU RIVIERA X XX 2 G T G T E T T CLT TT

6 NORTH PARK TOWERS X XX 18 G L G L E T T CTT TT

7 NORTH PARK PLACE XX 14 G L G L E T T CLT TT

8 LEGACY PLACE XX X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

9 THE ATRIUM X X 4 G L G L E T L CLT TT

10 PROVIDENCE TOWER XX X 10 G T G T E T T CTT TT

11 PROVIDENCE PLACE X XX 2,3 G T G T E T T CTT TT

12 CARLYLE TOWER XX 10 G L G L E T L CLT TT

13 COACH HOUSE X X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT XX XX 10 E T E T E T L CLT TT

15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ X X 2 G L G L E T T CLT TT

16 RUE VERSAILLES X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD E - ELECTRIC C - COAXIAL T - TENANT G - GAS S - SATELLITE S - STEAM O - OTHER

VI-62 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

NUMBER MAP PROJECT GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF CODE NAME S 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ FLOORS 17 HIGHLAND TOWERS X X 12 G L G L E T L CLT TT

18 THE LOOP ON XX X 2.5 G T G T G T T CTT TT GREENFIELD 19 COUNTRY COURT X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

20 LINCOLN TOWERS XX X 10 G L G L E T L CLT TT

21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN X X 2 G T G T E T T CLT TT

22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS X X 11 G L G L E L L CLL TT

23 SANDSTONE X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

24 OAK PARK MANOR X X X X X 2 G T G T G T T CLT TT

25 VILLAGE GREEN X 2 G T G T G T T CTT TT TOWNHOMES OF OAK 26 CHESTNUT OAKS X X 2 E T E T E T L CLT TT

27 HIDDEN OAKS X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

28 TANGLEWOOD X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

30 KENSWICK MANOR X 2 G T G T E T T CTT TT

31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS X X 8 G L G L E T L CLT TT

32 NORTH ROYAL OAK XX X 2.5 G L G L E T T CLT TT

PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD E - ELECTRIC C - COAXIAL T - TENANT G - GAS S - SATELLITE S - STEAM O - OTHER

VI-63 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

NUMBER MAP PROJECT GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF CODE NAME S 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ FLOORS 33 WOODWARD COURT X X 2.5 G L G L E T T CLT TT

34 AMBER COURT X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

35 BEAUMONT X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

36 ARLINGTON X X X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

37 WOODWARD NORTH X X 4 G T G T E T T CLT TT

38 CAMELOT X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

39 PHILAMER X X 2 G L G L E T T CLT TT

40 THE KENSINGTON AT X X 2 E T E T E T L CLT TT BEVERLY HILLS 41 COUNTRY CORNER X XX X 2 G T G T E T T CLT TT

42 CRANBROOK CENTRE X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

43 42 WEST X X 3 G T G T E T T CTT TT UNDER CONSTRUCTION 44 FRANKLIN RIVER X X 3 G T G T E T T CTT TT

45 LAUREL WOODS X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

46 LANCASTER HILLS XX 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY X X 2 G L E T E T T CLT TT

48 CHATSFORD MANOR X 2 G T G T E T T CTT TT

PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD E - ELECTRIC C - COAXIAL T - TENANT G - GAS S - SATELLITE S - STEAM O - OTHER

VI-64 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

NUMBER MAP PROJECT GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF CODE NAME S 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ FLOORS 49 COLONY PARK X X 2 G T G T E T T CTT TT

50 RIVER PARK PLACE X X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

51 OAK RIDGE XX X 3 G T G T E T L CLT TT

52 SOUTHFIELD X X 2,3 G T G T E T T CTT TT

53 MCDONNEL TOWER X X 14 G L G L E T L CLT TT

54 WOODCREST X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

55 PARK LANE X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

56 MONTICELLO X X 2 G T G T E T T CTT TT

57 WILLOW TREE X X 3 G T G L E T L CLT TT

58 SILVER OAKS OF X X X X 2 G T G T E T T CTT TT SOUTHFIELD 59 SUTTON PLACE X X X 2 G T G T E T T CLT TT

60 EVERGREEN PLACE X 2.5 G T G T E T L CLT TT

61 ARBOR LOFTS XX XXX 4 G T G T E T T CTT TT

62 KNOB IN THE WOODS X XX 2 G T G T E T T CLT TT

63 CRYSTAL COURT XX X 3 E T E T E T L CLT TT

64 WOODLAND ARMS X X 2.5 G L G L E T L CLT TT

PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD E - ELECTRIC C - COAXIAL T - TENANT G - GAS S - SATELLITE S - STEAM O - OTHER

VI-65 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

NUMBER MAP PROJECT GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF CODE NAME S 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ FLOORS 65 TERRACE COURT X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

66 TOWERS OF X X 8 G L G L E T L CLT TT SOUTHFIELD 67 WELLINGTON PLACE X 2 G L G L E T T CLT TT

68 HIDDEN PINES X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

69 CRESCENT HOUSE XX X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

70 KAREN X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

71 IMPERIAL MANOR X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

72 RIVER PARK X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

73 FAIRWAY MANOR XX X 2,3 G L G L E T L CLT TT

74 CHAPEL COURT X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

75 MCNICHOLS X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT UNDER CONSTRUCTION 76 CREST X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS XX 14 G L G L E L L CLL TT

78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE XX X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

79 GREENFIELD X X 3 G L G L E T L CLT TT PENTHOUSE 80 BOWIN PLACE X X 11 G L G L E L L CLL TT

PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD E - ELECTRIC C - COAXIAL T - TENANT G - GAS S - SATELLITE S - STEAM O - OTHER

VI-66 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

NUMBER MAP PROJECT GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF CODE NAME S 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ FLOORS 81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS X X 2,2.5 G T G T E T L CLT TT

82 FERNWOOD MANOR X 3 G L G L E T L CLT TT

83 AUTUMN HOUSE X X 5 G L G L E L L CLL TT

84 DEVON SQUARE X X 3 G T G T G T L CLT TT

85 STATION 3 LOFTS X X X X 4 G T G T G T L CLT TT

86 EIGHT55 X X 5 E T E T E T L CLT TT

87 ROYAL OAK MANOR XX 11 G L G L G L L CLL TT

88 AMBER CROSSING X XXXX 5 G T G T G T L CLT TT TOWNHOMES & LOFTS 89 METROPOLITAN X X 2,2.5 E T E T E T L CLT TL LAFAYETTE 90 WAGON WHEEL X X 2.5 G L G L E T L CLT TT

91 FARNUM X X 2 G L G L G T L CLL TL

92 VILLAGE PARK OF X XX 3 E T E T E T L CLT TT ROYAL OAKS 93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES X X XX 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

94 ELMSLEIGH X X X 2 G T G T G T L CLT TT

95 AMBER'S RED RUN X X 2 G L G L E T L CTT TT

96 ROCHESTER HOUSE X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD E - ELECTRIC C - COAXIAL T - TENANT G - GAS S - SATELLITE S - STEAM O - OTHER

VI-67 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

NUMBER MAP PROJECT GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF CODE NAME S 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ FLOORS 97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN X 5,10 G L G L E L L CLL TT

98 BONNIEVIEW X X 3 G L G L E T L CLT TT

99 APPLEWOOD X X 2 E T E T E T L CLT TT

PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD E - ELECTRIC C - COAXIAL T - TENANT G - GAS S - SATELLITE S - STEAM O - OTHER

VI-68 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON STUDIO UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 10 PROVIDENCE TOWER 320 320 $621 $621 $1.94 $1.94

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT 680 680 $610 $610 $0.90 $0.90

18 THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD 400 400 $646 $646 $1.62 $1.62

20 LINCOLN TOWERS 454 454 $500 $500 $1.10 $1.10

32 NORTH ROYAL OAK 450 450 $544 $544 $1.21 $1.21

51 OAK RIDGE 440 440 $560 $560 $1.27 $1.27

61 ARBOR LOFTS 671 850 $986 $1,146 $1.35 $1.47

63 CRYSTAL COURT 309 309 $425 $425 $1.38 $1.38

67 WELLINGTON PLACE 770 770 $709 $749 $0.92 $0.97

69 CRESCENT HOUSE 476 476 $510 $510 $1.07 $1.07

73 FAIRWAY MANOR N.A. N.A. $435 $435 N.A. N.A.

88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & 535 535 $1,075 $1,180 $2.01 $2.21 LOFTS

VI-69 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON ONE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 1 TOWNE SQUARE 680 680 $568 $568 $0.84 $0.84

3 OAK PARK GARDENS 700 700 $630 $630 $0.90 $0.90

5 CHATEAU RIVIERA 1,000 1,000 $772 $772 $0.77 $0.77

6 NORTH PARK TOWERS 1,000 1,155 $882 $1,082 $0.88 $0.94

9 THE ATRIUM 600 950 $649 $749 $0.79 $1.08

10 PROVIDENCE TOWER 750 1,000 $754 $874 $0.87 $1.01

11 PROVIDENCE PLACE 1,425 1,425 $862 $892 $0.60 $0.63

13 COACH HOUSE 853 945 $599 $730 $0.70 $0.77

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT 750 750 $799 $799 $1.07 $1.07

15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ 800 800 $636 $686 $0.80 $0.86

16 RUE VERSAILLES 800 800 $599 $634 $0.75 $0.79

17 HIGHLAND TOWERS 650 650 $524 $524 $0.81 $0.81

18 THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD 685 685 $809 $819 $1.18 $1.20

19 COUNTRY COURT 600 600 $649 $674 $1.08 $1.12

20 LINCOLN TOWERS 687 750 $604 $669 $0.88 $0.89

23 SANDSTONE 655 655 $584 $584 $0.89 $0.89

24 OAK PARK MANOR 591 840 $652 $897 $1.07 $1.10

26 CHESTNUT OAKS 600 600 $660 $660 $1.10 $1.10

27 HIDDEN OAKS 801 801 $655 $655 $0.82 $0.82

28 TANGLEWOOD 840 840 $700 $700 $0.83 $0.83

29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE 900 900 $825 $825 $0.92 $0.92

30 KENSWICK MANOR 830 830 $889 $889 $1.07 $1.07

31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS 520 520 $744 $754 $1.43 $1.45

32 NORTH ROYAL OAK 750 750 $841 $966 $1.12 $1.29

VI-70 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON ONE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 33 WOODWARD COURT 700 700 $816 $1,041 $1.17 $1.49

34 AMBER COURT 574 574 $825 $835 $1.44 $1.45

35 BEAUMONT 505 505 $599 $629 $1.19 $1.25

36 ARLINGTON 780 780 $760 $760 $0.97 $0.97

37 WOODWARD NORTH 565 565 $722 $722 $1.28 $1.28

38 CAMELOT 780 780 $799 $799 $1.02 $1.02

39 PHILAMER 740 740 $716 $866 $0.97 $1.17

40 THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY 800 980 $819 $1,025 $1.02 $1.05 HILLS

41 COUNTRY CORNER 1,100 1,200 $897 $917 $0.76 $0.82

42 CRANBROOK CENTRE 863 927 $890 $930 $1.00 $1.03

43 42 WEST 810 843 $1,379 $1,489 $1.70 $1.77

44 FRANKLIN RIVER 960 960 $894 $894 $0.93 $0.93

47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY 850 850 $772 $772 $0.91 $0.91

48 CHATSFORD MANOR 830 830 $789 $809 $0.95 $0.97

49 COLONY PARK 1,000 1,000 $998 $998 $1.00 $1.00

51 OAK RIDGE 840 840 $649 $649 $0.77 $0.77

52 SOUTHFIELD 750 850 $783 $893 $1.04 $1.05

54 WOODCREST 830 860 $865 $865 $1.01 $1.04

55 PARK LANE 862 900 $980 $990 $1.10 $1.14

56 MONTICELLO 850 850 $964 $964 $1.13 $1.13

57 WILLOW TREE 900 900 $789 $814 $0.88 $0.90

58 SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD 1,062 1,062 $833 $833 $0.78 $0.78

60 EVERGREEN PLACE 800 800 $685 $730 $0.86 $0.91

61 ARBOR LOFTS 609 1,282 $1,014 $1,554 $1.21 $1.67

VI-71 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON ONE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 62 KNOB IN THE WOODS 1,050 1,050 $807 $807 $0.77 $0.77

63 CRYSTAL COURT 720 720 $495 $495 $0.69 $0.69

64 WOODLAND ARMS 750 750 $449 $449 $0.60 $0.60

65 TERRACE COURT N.A. N.A. $359 $359 N.A. N.A.

66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD 800 800 $648 $648 $0.81 $0.81

68 HIDDEN PINES N.A. N.A. $618 $618 N.A. N.A.

69 CRESCENT HOUSE 660 660 $599 $599 $0.91 $0.91

70 KAREN 600 600 $474 $474 $0.79 $0.79

71 IMPERIAL MANOR 850 850 $574 $574 $0.68 $0.68

72 RIVER PARK N.A. N.A. $574 $574 N.A. N.A.

73 FAIRWAY MANOR N.A. N.A. $474 $474 N.A. N.A.

74 CHAPEL COURT N.A. N.A. $449 $449 N.A. N.A.

75 MCNICHOLS N.A. N.A. $539 $539 N.A. N.A.

79 GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE 750 750 $599 $599 $0.80 $0.80

81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS 811 811 $635 $655 $0.78 $0.81

82 FERNWOOD MANOR 650 650 $624 $674 $0.96 $1.04

85 STATION 3 LOFTS 917 948 $1,800 $1,800 $1.90 $1.96

86 EIGHT55 837 1,003 $1,807 $2,297 $2.16 $2.29

88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & 602 890 $895 $1,745 $1.49 $1.96 LOFTS

89 METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE 650 650 $1,055 $1,055 $1.62 $1.62

90 WAGON WHEEL 800 800 $659 $659 $0.82 $0.82

91 FARNUM 580 780 $835 $915 $1.17 $1.44

92 VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS 750 925 $1,035 $1,195 $1.29 $1.38

93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES 750 1,000 $899 $1,099 $1.10 $1.20

VI-72 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON ONE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 94 ELMSLEIGH 800 800 $675 $675 $0.84 $0.84

95 AMBER'S RED RUN 630 733 $886 $886 $1.21 $1.41

96 ROCHESTER HOUSE 750 750 $649 $649 $0.87 $0.87

98 BONNIEVIEW N.A. N.A. $549 $549 N.A. N.A.

99 APPLEWOOD N.A. N.A. $570 $570 N.A. N.A.

VI-73 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON TWO BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 1 TOWNE SQUARE 850 850 $665 $665 $0.78 $0.78

2 MILLER GREENS 900 1,100 $720 $850 $0.77 $0.80

3 OAK PARK GARDENS 850 950 $725 $835 $0.85 $0.88

4 STRATFORD VILLA 900 1,000 $763 $888 $0.85 $0.89

5 CHATEAU RIVIERA 1,300 1,300 $944 $944 $0.73 $0.73

6 NORTH PARK TOWERS 1,350 1,700 $1,208 $1,459 $0.86 $0.89

7 NORTH PARK PLACE 1,250 1,250 $886 $1,097 $0.71 $0.88

8 LEGACY PLACE 1,600 1,600 $1,314 $1,424 $0.82 $0.89

9 THE ATRIUM 1,100 1,200 $838 $938 $0.76 $0.78

10 PROVIDENCE TOWER 1,000 1,000 $866 $926 $0.87 $0.93

11 PROVIDENCE PLACE 1,450 1,475 $951 $990 $0.66 $0.67

12 CARLYLE TOWER 1,174 1,379 $738 $788 $0.57 $0.63

13 COACH HOUSE 988 1,312 $790 $1,120 $0.80 $0.85

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT 1,100 1,600 $1,199 $1,400 $0.88 $1.09

15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ 840 1,065 $712 $827 $0.78 $0.85

16 RUE VERSAILLES 840 840 $678 $698 $0.81 $0.83

17 HIGHLAND TOWERS 850 850 $723 $723 $0.85 $0.85

18 THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD 865 875 $951 $961 $1.10 $1.10

19 COUNTRY COURT 900 900 $673 $713 $0.75 $0.79

20 LINCOLN TOWERS 1,039 1,039 $778 $823 $0.75 $0.79

21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN 1,010 1,165 $994 $1,144 $0.98 $0.98

23 SANDSTONE 850 850 $703 $703 $0.83 $0.83

24 OAK PARK MANOR 950 950 $919 $1,054 $0.97 $1.11

25 VILLAGE GREEN TOWNHOMES OF 950 950 $1,061 $1,181 $1.12 $1.24 OAK PARK

VI-74 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON TWO BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 26 CHESTNUT OAKS 750 750 $760 $760 $1.01 $1.01

27 HIDDEN OAKS 1,010 1,010 $755 $755 $0.75 $0.75

29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE 1,200 1,200 $865 $940 $0.72 $0.78

31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS 720 720 $878 $878 $1.22 $1.22

32 NORTH ROYAL OAK 850 850 $1,047 $1,197 $1.23 $1.41

33 WOODWARD COURT 925 925 $897 $1,197 $0.97 $1.29

34 AMBER COURT 902 902 $885 $895 $0.98 $0.99

36 ARLINGTON 880 1,100 $840 $1,325 $0.95 $1.20

37 WOODWARD NORTH 865 895 $829 $854 $0.95 $0.96

38 CAMELOT 1,025 1,100 $888 $913 $0.83 $0.87

39 PHILAMER 850 850 $797 $1,022 $0.94 $1.20

40 THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY 980 1,050 $919 $1,245 $0.94 $1.19 HILLS

41 COUNTRY CORNER 1,300 1,800 $1,044 $1,584 $0.80 $0.88

42 CRANBROOK CENTRE 1,161 1,161 $1,100 $1,120 $0.95 $0.96

43 42 WEST 982 1,004 $1,556 $1,771 $1.58 $1.76

44 FRANKLIN RIVER 1,100 1,200 $1,016 $1,176 $0.92 $0.98

45 LAUREL WOODS 1,500 1,800 $1,015 $1,220 $0.68 $0.68

46 LANCASTER HILLS 1,300 1,500 $1,015 $1,085 $0.72 $0.78

47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY 1,000 1,000 $891 $891 $0.89 $0.89

49 COLONY PARK 1,250 1,310 $1,101 $1,101 $0.84 $0.88

51 OAK RIDGE 1,050 1,150 $749 $779 $0.68 $0.71

52 SOUTHFIELD 1,000 1,000 $1,091 $1,091 $1.09 $1.09

54 WOODCREST 1,110 1,135 $965 $965 $0.85 $0.87

55 PARK LANE 1,162 1,200 $1,190 $1,235 $1.02 $1.03

VI-75 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON TWO BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 56 MONTICELLO 1,080 1,200 $1,121 $1,386 $1.04 $1.15

57 WILLOW TREE 1,050 1,200 $886 $936 $0.78 $0.84

58 SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD 1,317 1,766 $1,066 $1,346 $0.76 $0.81

59 SUTTON PLACE 1,575 2,003 $1,048 $1,518 $0.67 $0.76

61 ARBOR LOFTS 827 1,000 $1,576 $1,616 $1.62 $1.91

62 KNOB IN THE WOODS 1,400 1,400 $934 $934 $0.67 $0.67

63 CRYSTAL COURT 864 921 $585 $625 $0.68 $0.68

64 WOODLAND ARMS 1,300 1,300 $588 $588 $0.45 $0.45

65 TERRACE COURT N.A. N.A. $448 $448 N.A. N.A.

66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD 1,100 1,200 $677 $747 $0.62 $0.62

68 HIDDEN PINES N.A. N.A. $737 $737 N.A. N.A.

69 CRESCENT HOUSE 925 925 $688 $688 $0.74 $0.74

70 KAREN 750 750 $588 $588 $0.78 $0.78

71 IMPERIAL MANOR 1,200 1,200 $663 $663 $0.55 $0.55

72 RIVER PARK N.A. N.A. $663 $663 N.A. N.A.

73 FAIRWAY MANOR N.A. N.A. $538 $538 N.A. N.A.

74 CHAPEL COURT N.A. N.A. $518 $518 N.A. N.A.

75 MCNICHOLS N.A. N.A. $628 $628 N.A. N.A.

76 CREST N.A. N.A. $503 $503 N.A. N.A.

78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE 752 778 $513 $576 $0.68 $0.74

79 GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE 1,100 1,100 $713 $713 $0.65 $0.65

81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS 918 1,200 $750 $915 $0.76 $0.82

85 STATION 3 LOFTS 900 2,453 $1,900 $2,450 $1.00 $2.11

86 EIGHT55 1,150 1,214 $2,465 $2,815 $2.14 $2.32

VI-76 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON TWO BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & 1,023 1,569 $1,175 $2,425 $1.15 $1.55 LOFTS

89 METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE 820 820 $1,260 $1,260 $1.54 $1.54

90 WAGON WHEEL 1,000 1,000 $788 $788 $0.79 $0.79

91 FARNUM 780 780 $1,127 $1,127 $1.44 $1.44

92 VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS 950 1,100 $1,290 $1,405 $1.28 $1.36

93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES 900 1,400 $933 $1,233 $0.88 $1.04

94 ELMSLEIGH 900 1,000 $725 $850 $0.81 $0.85

95 AMBER'S RED RUN 896 1,000 $1,195 $1,195 $1.20 $1.33

96 ROCHESTER HOUSE 900 900 $738 $738 $0.82 $0.82

98 BONNIEVIEW N.A. N.A. $638 $638 N.A. N.A.

99 APPLEWOOD N.A. N.A. $695 $695 N.A. N.A.

VI-77 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON THREE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 4 STRATFORD VILLA 1,100 1,100 $977 $977 $0.89 $0.89

5 CHATEAU RIVIERA 1,800 1,800 $1,199 $1,199 $0.67 $0.67

6 NORTH PARK TOWERS 2,000 2,000 $1,673 $1,673 $0.84 $0.84

7 NORTH PARK PLACE 1,600 1,600 $1,001 $1,611 $0.63 $1.01

8 LEGACY PLACE 1,870 1,870 $1,449 $1,449 $0.77 $0.77

11 PROVIDENCE PLACE 1,475 1,475 $1,204 $1,204 $0.82 $0.82

12 CARLYLE TOWER 1,510 1,510 $926 $942 $0.61 $0.62

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT 1,600 1,600 $1,499 $1,499 $0.94 $0.94

21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN 1,460 1,460 $1,319 $1,319 $0.90 $0.90

24 OAK PARK MANOR 1,060 1,300 $1,189 $1,379 $1.06 $1.12

36 ARLINGTON 1,200 1,200 $1,045 $1,045 $0.87 $0.87

41 COUNTRY CORNER 1,800 1,800 $1,559 $1,559 $0.87 $0.87

43 42 WEST 1,433 1,435 $2,271 $2,271 $1.58 $1.58

46 LANCASTER HILLS 1,800 1,800 $1,240 $1,280 $0.69 $0.71

58 SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD 2,106 2,106 $1,571 $1,571 $0.75 $0.75

59 SUTTON PLACE 2,225 2,600 $1,563 $1,753 $0.67 $0.70

61 ARBOR LOFTS 1,282 1,282 $2,011 $2,071 $1.57 $1.62

62 KNOB IN THE WOODS 2,200 2,200 $1,359 $1,359 $0.62 $0.62

78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE 1,140 1,447 $626 $654 $0.45 $0.55

85 STATION 3 LOFTS 1,500 1,500 $2,900 $2,900 $1.93 $1.93

88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & 922 922 $2,175 $2,175 $2.36 $2.36 LOFTS

92 VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS 1,300 1,300 $1,570 $1,625 $1.21 $1.25

VI-78 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON FOUR+ BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 8 LEGACY PLACE 3,425 3,425 $2,049 $2,049 $0.60 $0.60

61 ARBOR LOFTS 1,601 1,605 $2,731 $2,826 $1.71 $1.76

VI-79 VII. FIELD SURVEY OF MODERN APARTMENTS (STUDENT HOUSING)

The following analyses represent data from a field survey of the modern apartments in the Site EMA, with rents adjusted for student housing analysis purposes. Rents have been adjusted to reflect landlord-paid utilities. Each development was surveyed by unit and project amenities, year opened, unit mix, vacancies, rents, and aesthetic quality. The collected data have been analyzed as follows:

 A distribution of both market-rate and government subsidized modern apartment units. The units are distributed by mix and vacancy.

 An analysis of multifamily construction trends, which includes number of units, number of projects, percent distribution, cumulative units, and vacancy rate by year built.

 A rent and vacancy analysis, which contains distributions of units and vacancies by net rent range. A separate distribution appears for units by number of bedrooms.

 A project information analysis listing the name and address of each development, its occupancy, and year opened. Any unique features are noted by the analyst.

 A street rent comparison listing rents by unit size for all market-rate developments.

 A comparability rating, assigning point values for unit amenities, project amenities, and overall aesthetic appeal/curbside marketability.

 Amenity analyses, including the following:  A unit amenity analyses listing the unit amenities for each property.  A project amenity analysis listing the project amenities for each development.  A distribution of amenities by number of units and properties offering that amenity.

 A unit type/utility detail analysis with units offered and utilities available, including responsibility for payment.

 Rent/square foot.

A map showing the location of each apartment complex included in this analysis is in Section VIII – Modern Apartment Locations and Photographs.

VII-1 DISTRIBUTION OF MODERN APARTMENT UNITS AND VACANCIES SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MARKET RATE UNITS

UNIT TYPE UNITS VACANCIES NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT STUDIO 380 2.7% 12 3.2% ONE-BEDROOM 5,907 41.7% 174 2.9% TWO-BEDROOM 7,102 50.2% 192 2.7% THREE-BEDROOM 754 5.3% 11 1.5% FOUR-BEDROOM + 7 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 14,150 100.0% 389 2.7%

TOTAL DOES NOT INCLUDE 102 UNITS UNDER CONSTRUCTION

SUBSIDIZED

UNIT TYPE UNITS VACANCIES NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT STUDIO 92 7.1% 0 0.0% ONE-BEDROOM 1,077 83.1% 0 0.0% TWO-BEDROOM 97 7.5% 0 0.0% THREE-BEDROOM 30 2.3% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 1,296 100.0% 0 0.0%

VII-2 MARKET RATE MULTIFAMILY CONSTRUCTION TRENDS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAY 2016 YEAR OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF PERCENT CUMULATIVE VACANCY PROJECT OPENING PROJECTS UNITS DISTRIBUTION UNITS RATE

Before 1970 49 7,495 53.0% 7,495 3.4% 1970 - 1974 15 3,161 22.3% 10,656 2.0% 1975 - 1979 11 1,478 10.4% 12,134 2.0% 1980 - 1984 4 478 3.4% 12,612 3.1% 1985 - 1989 4 1,036 7.3% 13,648 1.0% 1990 - 1994 0 0 0.0% 13,648 0.0% 1995 - 1999 1 106 0.7% 13,754 3.8% 2000 - 2004 0 0 0.0% 13,754 0.0% 2005 0 0 0.0% 13,754 0.0% 2006 0 0 0.0% 13,754 0.0% 2007 0 0 0.0% 13,754 0.0% 2008 0 0 0.0% 13,754 0.0% 2009 1 45 0.3% 13,799 0.0% 2010 1 43 0.3% 13,842 0.0% 2011 0 0 0.0% 13,842 0.0% 2012 0 0 0.0% 13,842 0.0% 2013 2 216 1.5% 14,058 0.0% 2014 0 0 0.0% 14,058 0.0% 2015 0 0 0.0% 14,058 0.0% 2016* 2 92 0.7% 14,150 10.9% TOTAL: 90 14,150 100.0 % 14,150 2.7%

AVERAGE ANNUAL RELEASE OF UNITS 2011 - 2015: 43.2

* THROUGH MAY 2016

VII-3 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS STUDIO UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $1341 4 1.1% 0 0.0%

$1312 2 0.5% 0 0.0%

$1212 - $1236 6 1.6% 0 0.0%

$1192 2 0.5% 0 0.0%

$1152 1 0.3% 0 0.0%

$915 32 8.4% 0 0.0%

$875 32 8.4% 0 0.0%

$787 - $807 130 34.2% 9 6.9%

$710 - $726 33 8.7% 0 0.0%

$666 - $676 110 28.9% 3 2.7%

$601 - $621 28 7.4% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 380 100.0% 12 3.2%

Median Collected Rent: $787

VII-4 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS ONE BEDROOM UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $2532 10 0.2% 0 0.0%

$2042 10 0.2% 0 0.0%

$1986 15 0.3% 0 0.0%

$1931 7 0.1% 0 0.0%

$1747 1 0.0% 0 0.0%

$1682 7 0.1% 0 0.0%

$1547 - $1572 10 0.2% 0 0.0%

$1497 2 0.0% 0 0.0%

$1430 50 0.8% 2 4.0%

$1290 - $1311 30 0.5% 0 0.0%

$1260 - $1275 186 3.1% 5 2.7%

$1234 36 0.6% 4 11.1%

$1183 - $1207 53 0.9% 0 0.0%

$1157 - $1173 113 1.9% 4 3.5%

$1110 - $1131 76 1.3% 0 0.0%

$1079 - $1101 558 9.4% 3 0.5%

$1054 - $1075 296 5.0% 12 4.1%

$1009 - $1034 429 7.3% 17 4.0%

$982 - $1007 610 10.3% 20 3.3%

$953 - $976 207 3.5% 3 1.4%

VII-5 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS ONE BEDROOM UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $923 - $947 486 8.2% 16 3.3%

$893 - $915 228 3.9% 8 3.5%

$861 - $879 282 4.8% 10 3.5%

$827 - $852 740 12.5% 33 4.5%

$805 - $823 179 3.0% 6 3.4%

$777 - $797 453 7.7% 10 2.2%

$742 - $767 356 6.0% 13 3.7%

$717 - $732 269 4.6% 3 1.1%

$642 - $667 152 2.6% 5 3.3%

$552 56 0.9% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 5,907 100.0% 174 2.9%

Median Collected Rent: $937

VII-6 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS TWO BEDROOM UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $3092 14 0.2% 4 28.6%

$2742 14 0.2% 4 28.6%

$2637 - $2662 22 0.3% 0 0.0%

$2412 2 0.0% 0 0.0%

$2362 10 0.1% 0 0.0%

$2107 - $2112 9 0.1% 0 0.0%

$1991 15 0.2% 1 6.7%

$1836 1 0.0% 0 0.0%

$1779 - $1804 17 0.2% 0 0.0%

$1776 15 0.2% 1 6.7%

$1738 38 0.5% 0 0.0%

$1677 - $1682 159 2.2% 6 3.8%

$1644 33 0.5% 2 6.1%

$1606 12 0.2% 0 0.0%

$1545 - $1567 154 2.2% 7 4.5%

$1522 - $1541 213 3.0% 5 2.3%

$1453 - $1476 162 2.3% 5 3.1%

$1415 - $1440 109 1.5% 2 1.8%

$1387 - $1410 349 4.9% 11 3.2%

$1339 - $1364 121 1.7% 2 1.7%

VII-7 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS TWO BEDROOM UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $1305 - $1321 600 8.4% 12 2.0%

$1264 - $1286 551 7.8% 22 4.0%

$1235 - $1242 373 5.3% 0 0.0%

$1190 - $1214 172 2.4% 3 1.7%

$1160 - $1185 754 10.6% 31 4.1%

$1133 - $1158 585 8.2% 19 3.2%

$1106 - $1131 313 4.4% 7 2.2%

$1085 - $1105 215 3.0% 5 2.3%

$1049 - $1074 227 3.2% 6 2.6%

$1025 - $1047 102 1.4% 4 3.9%

$998 - $1017 278 3.9% 5 1.8%

$958 - $983 368 5.2% 6 1.6%

$932 - $957 315 4.4% 8 2.5%

$902 - $927 198 2.8% 2 1.0%

$883 - $898 214 3.0% 3 1.4%

$848 - $862 92 1.3% 5 5.4%

$796 - $808 88 1.2% 0 0.0%

$733 - $758 148 2.1% 4 2.7%

$723 24 0.3% 0 0.0%

$668 16 0.2% 0 0.0%

VII-8 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS TWO BEDROOM UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT

TOTAL 7,102 100.0% 192 2.7%

Median Collected Rent: $1,164

VII-9 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS THREE BEDROOM UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $3129 1 0.1% 0 0.0%

$2401 1 0.1% 0 0.0%

$2307 4 0.5% 0 0.0%

$2247 3 0.4% 0 0.0%

$1992 18 2.4% 0 0.0%

$1909 - $1934 35 4.6% 0 0.0%

$1879 29 3.8% 0 0.0%

$1847 40 5.3% 0 0.0%

$1795 - $1810 126 16.7% 3 2.4%

$1685 42 5.6% 0 0.0%

$1595 - $1608 66 8.8% 0 0.0%

$1558 64 8.5% 3 4.7%

$1516 - $1528 14 1.9% 0 0.0%

$1476 - $1485 22 2.9% 0 0.0%

$1418 - $1440 96 12.7% 3 3.1%

$1284 12 1.6% 1 8.3%

$1213 - $1237 74 9.8% 1 1.4%

$1162 - $1178 32 4.2% 0 0.0%

$890 8 1.1% 0 0.0%

$862 67 8.9% 0 0.0%

VII-10 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS THREE BEDROOM UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT

TOTAL 754 100.0% 11 1.5%

Median Collected Rent: $1,558

VII-11 RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS FOUR+ BEDROOM UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN MAY 2016 SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TOTAL UNITS VACANCIES COLLECTED RENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT $3098 - $3113 2 28.6% 0 0.0%

$3018 1 14.3% 0 0.0%

$2336 4 57.1% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 7 100.0% 0 0.0%

Median Collected Rent: $2,336

Rents at all properties have been adjusted to collected rent. Collected rent is defined as the utility payor details (landlord or tenant) of the subject property. For specific details on which utilities are included, please see the project conclusions.

VII-12 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 1 TOWNE SQUARE 1979 126 93.7% 20555 JAMES COOZENS FRWY. DETROIT MI 313 836-2568

2 MILLER GREENS 1954 21 100.0% HARDWOOD FLOORS IN 15100 MILLER ST. SELECT UNITS ONLY OAK PARK MI (248) 348-5226

3 OAK PARK GARDENS 1954 105 96.2% 14521 JAMES ST. OAK PARK MI (248) 967-0284

4 STRATFORD VILLA 1957 110 97.3% TOWNHOME UNITS HAVE 21629 STRATFORD CT. BASEMENTS OAK PARK MI (248) 967-0515

5 CHATEAU RIVIERA 1967 200 98.5% WALK-IN CLOSETS 22316 LA SEINE ST. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 569-4070

6 NORTH PARK TOWERS 1967 313 97.4% 1ST FLOOR RESTAURANT & 16500 NORTH PARK DR. BOUTIQUE; SELECT UNITS SOUTHFIELD MI HAVE HARDWOOD FLOORS (248) 559-1110 &/OR MARBLE FOYER; LIBRARY; COURTYARD; 24- HOUR DOORMAN; PHARMACY; POSTAL CENTER; VALET DRY

VII-13 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 7 NORTH PARK PLACE 1972 250 99.6% GARAGE AVAILABLE $35- 16300-16400 NORTH PARK DR. $50/MO.; PET FEE $25/MO.; SOUTHFIELD MI HARDWOOD FLOORS; (248) 430-8906 STAINLESS APPLIANCES IN SELECT UNITS

8 LEGACY PLACE 1979 112 96.4% 61 ADDITIONAL UNITS OWNER- 22490 SARATOGA ST. OCCUPIED; DETACHED 1 CAR SOUTHFIELD MI GARAGE; PET FEE $20/MO. (248) 424-2121

9 THE ATRIUM 1967 97 94.8% NO STUDENTS; BLACK 16200 W. 9 MILE RD. APPLIANCES; UPDATED SOUTHFIELD MI KITCHENS, BATHROOMS, & (248) 809-2865 FLOORS; SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CHART

10 PROVIDENCE TOWER 1968 241 90.9% CARPORT AVAILABLE $20/MO.; 16300 W. 9 MILE RD. PET FEE $25/MO. PER PET; SOUTHFIELD MI MONTHLY (248) 557-8100 WATER/SEWER/TRASH FEE, 0BR $40/MO., 1BR $50/MO., 2BR $60/MO.

11 PROVIDENCE PLACE 1958 348 98.9% 1 CARPORT PER UNIT 16176 CUMBERLAND RD. INCLUDED IN RENT; PET FEE SOUTHFIELD MI $25/MO. PER PET (248) 557-5338

12 CARLYLE TOWER 1977 180 97.2% 23300 PROVIDENCE DR. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 559-2111

VII-14 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 13 COACH HOUSE 1970 500 100.0% SELECT UNITS HAVE 23600 LAMPLIGHTER DR. WASHER/DRYER HOOKUP, SOUTHFIELD MI WASHER/DRYER, AND/OR (248) 557-0810 CARPORT; WAITING LIST 2-3 NAMES

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT 1970 382 96.3% SENIORS (55+) ONLY; 1 15700-15800 PROVIDENCE DR. UNDERGROUND GARAGE SOUTHFIELD MI SPACE/UNIT (248) 559-1605

15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ 1957 111 97.3% HIGHER-PRICED UNITS HAVE 25026 E. RUE VERSAILLES DR. UNFINISHED BASEMENT; OAK PARK MI TENANTS PAY 1/3 OF WATER (248) 967-2907 BILL

16 RUE VERSAILLES 1957 84 100.0% HARDWOOD FLOORING 25108 W. RUE VERSAILLES DR. OAK PARK MI (248) 967-1794

17 HIGHLAND TOWERS 1970 265 100.0% SENIORS (55+) ONLY 25225 GREENFIELD RD. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 569-7077

18 THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD 1964 723 93.5% PANTRY; PET FEE $25/MO.; 25500 GREENFIELD RD. SELECT UNITS HAVE BEEN OAK PARK MI RENOVATED (248) 967-9966

VII-15 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 19 COUNTRY COURT 1960 175 96.6% 25603 GREENFIELD RD. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 557-3832

20 LINCOLN TOWERS 1973 476 95.8% 1ST FLOOR RETAIL; WALK-IN 15075 LINCOLN ST. CLOSETS; PANTRY OAK PARK MI (248) 968-0011

21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN 1964 120 96.7% 25600 BRIAR DR. OAK PARK MI (248) 968-4792

22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS 1976 200 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED; 20800 WYOMING ST. ELDERLY 55+ FERNDALE MI (248) 542-0882

23 SANDSTONE 1964 46 100.0% 12800 W. 9 MILE ROAD OAK PARK MI (248) 973-7870

24 OAK PARK MANOR 1950 298 95.6% DISHWASHERS IN UPGRADED 13600 KENWOOD ST. UNITS ONLY; TOWNHOMES OAK PARK MI HAVE BASEMENTS & (248) 541-8455 WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS; MICROWAVES IN GARDEN UNITS ONLY

VII-16 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 25 VILLAGE GREEN TOWNHOMES OF OAK PAR 1951 374 96.3% HARDWOOD FLOORING; 10811 W. 10 MILE ROAD SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; OAK PARK MI VOLLEYBALL COURT; PET FEE (248) 547-9393 $20/MO. PET PET

26 CHESTNUT OAKS 1980 8 100.0% 15925-15929 W. 11 MILE RD. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 268-8700

27 HIDDEN OAKS 1975 96 100.0% 15833 W. 11 MILE RD. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 557-4520

28 TANGLEWOOD 1976 56 100.0% NON-SMOKING 15799 W. 11 MILE RD. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 395-0311

29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE 1969 104 100.0% CAT FEE $25/MO.; DOG FEE 27435 GREENFIELD RD. $35/MO.; 1 CARPORT SOUTHFIELD MI SPACE/UNIT (248) 230-4034

30 KENSWICK MANOR 1974 50 98.0% NO STUDENTS; 1 CARPORT 15633 W. 11 MILE RD. SPACE/UNIT; PET FEE $20/MO. SOUTHFIELD MI PER PET (248) 354-3295

VII-17 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS 1974 214 94.4% SENIOR APARTMENTS 55+; 2345 OXFORD RD. CHAPEL; LIBRARY; SOCIAL BERKLEY MI ACTIVITIES; (248) 399-9300 TRANSPORTATION; STORAGE AVAILABLE; DAILY LUNCH PROGRAM AVAILABLE FOR ADDITIONAL FEE 32 NORTH ROYAL OAK 1962 119 95.8% CERAMIC TILE; GRANITE 1215 W. FARNUM RD. COUNTERTOPS; WATER FEE 1- ROYAL OAK MI BR $25/MO., 2-BR $35/MO. (248) 336-9106

33 WOODWARD COURT 1963 102 93.1% BUILT IN 3 PHASES, HIGHER- 29350 WOODWARD AVE. PRICED UNITS ARE IN ROYAL OAK MI PHASES2+3 AND HAVE BEEN (248) 677-3600 RENOVATED; CERAMIC TILE; SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CHART

34 AMBER COURT 1960 93 98.9% STORAGE 2319 COOLIDGE HWY. ROYAL OAK MI (248) 280-1700

35 BEAUMONT 1972 32 100.0% EXPOSED CONCRETE BLOCK 2816 COOLIDGE HWY. WALLS; RECENTLY ROYAL OAK MI RENOVATED (248) 649-5437

36 ARLINGTON 1957 148 96.6% HARDWOOD FLOORING; 3115 EVERGREEN DR. ICEMAKERS; STAINLESS ROYAL OAK MI APPLIANCES; SKYLIGHTS IN (248) 288-3710 SELECT UNITS

VII-18 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 37 WOODWARD NORTH 1964 208 97.6% GRANITE COUNTERTOPS AND 3009 W. THIRTEEN MILE RD. MAPLE CABINETS IN SELECT ROYAL OAK MI UNITS; SELECT UNITS HAVE (248) 549-7762 BEEN RECENTLY RENOVATED

38 CAMELOT 1964 40 100.0% WALK-IN CLOSETS; 3134 GREENFIELD RD. HARDWOOD FLOORING IN ROYAL OAK MI SELECT UNITS; SKYLIGHTS IN (248) 288-1544 TOP-FLOOR UNITS ONLY

39 PHILAMER 1962 118 90.7% CERAMIC TILE FLOORING; 3272 GREENFIELD RD. GRANITE COUNTERTOPS; ROYAL OAK MI HARDWOOD FLOORING; (248) 288-6115 RECENTLY RENOVATED; WATER FEE $25/MO. FOR 1-BR UNITS, $35/MO. FOR 2-BR UNITS

40 THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY HILLS 1974 208 99.5% BUILT-IN SHELVES; STAINLESS 18335 W. THIRTEEN MILE RD. APPLIANCES; WALK-IN SOUTHFIELD MI CLOSETS; DOG PARK; FAX & (248) 644-0059 COPY SERVICES; INDOOR VOLLEYBALL COURT; RECENTLY RENOVATED

41 COUNTRY CORNER 1970 211 97.6% 30300 SOUTHFIELD RD. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 647-6100

42 CRANBROOK CENTRE 1969 132 100.0% WALK-IN CLOSETS; PET FEE 18333 SOUTH DR. $25/MO. PER PET SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 642-2500

VII-19 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 43 42 WEST 2016 44 95.5% 44 UNITS OPENED MARCH 18248 W. TWELVE MILE RD. 2016, ADDITIONAL 70 UNITS TO SOUTHFIELD MI OPEN MAY/JUNE 2016; SELECT (248) 593-6200 UNITS HAVE ATTACHED GARAGE; DETACHED GARAGE AVAILABLE $50/MO.; SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 44 FRANKLIN RIVER 1985 328 99.7% SELECT UNITS HAVE 28733 FRANKLIN RIVER DR. BREAKFAST BAR &/OR SOUTHFIELD MI MICROWAVE; GAME ROOM; (248) 356-0400 SOCIAL EVENTS; CORPORATE FURNISHED UNITS AVAILABLE

45 LAUREL WOODS 1979 149 100.0% 22200 LAUREL WOODS CT. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 357-3174

46 LANCASTER HILLS 1968 156 100.0% HIGHER-PRICED UNITS ARE 28235 LANCASTER DR. ON 1ST FLOOR; 1 CARPORT SOUTHFIELD MI SPACE PER UNIT (248) 352-2554

47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY 1974 40 100.0% LEASING OFFICE AT COLONY 22277 W. 12 MILE RD. PARK (MAP CODE 24); 1 SOUTHFIELD MI CARPORT SPACE/UNIT (248) 355-2047

48 CHATSFORD MANOR 1970 40 100.0% WALK-IN CLOSETS; GRANITE 28845 LAHSER RD. COUNTERTOPS IN SELECT SOUTHFIELD MI UNITS; 1 CARPORT (248) 354-3295 SPACE/UNIT; PET FEE $20/MO.

VII-20 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 49 COLONY PARK 1976 96 99.0% WALK-IN CLOSETS; 1 21890 COLONY PARK CIR. CARPORT SPACE/UNIT SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 355-2047

50 RIVER PARK PLACE 1978 62 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED, 24300 CIVIC CENTER DR. SECTION 8; FAMILY SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 355-2810

51 OAK RIDGE 1982 208 97.6% CAT FEE $20/MO. 26717 BERG RD. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 239-1199

52 SOUTHFIELD 1989 396 98.7% ICEMAKER; SELECT UNITS 26300 BERG RD. HAVE KITCHEN ISLAND AND/OR SOUTHFIELD MI FIREPLACE; POND HAS (248) 419-4767 FOUNTAIN; CARPORT OPTIONAL $25/MO.; CAT FEE $15/MO.; DOG FEE $25/MO

53 MCDONNEL TOWER 1978 183 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSIZIDED, 24400 CIVIC CENTER DR. SECTION 8; ELDERLY SOUTHFIELD MI (62+)/HANDICAP (248) 355-2810

54 WOODCREST 1986 128 100.0% SELECT UNITS HAVE VAULTED 23638 CIVIC CENTER DR. CEILING; WAITING LIST 5-6 SOUTHFIELD MI NAMES FOR EACH UNIT TYPE (248) 946-8825

VII-21 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 55 PARK LANE 1986 184 97.8% SELECT UNITS HAVE 23344 PARK PLACE DR. BREAKFAST BAR, MICROWAVE, SOUTHFIELD MI &/OR VAULTED CEILING; CAT (248) 355-0770 FEE $25/MO.

56 MONTICELLO 1996 106 96.2% HIGHER-PRICED UNITS ARE ON 22700 CIVIC CENTER DR. UPPER FLOOR; SELECT UNITS SOUTHFIELD MI HAVE VAULTED CEILING; PET (248) 352-4220 FEE $25/MO.; 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT

57 WILLOW TREE 1978 78 100.0% NON-SMOKING; BIRDS AND 22266 CIVIC CENTER DR. FISH ONLY PETS ALLOWED; 1 SOUTHFIELD MI CARPORT SPACE/UNIT (248) 354-2199

58 SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD 1982 210 95.2% TOWNHOMES HAVE FINISHED 23741 POND RD. BASEMENTS WITH SOUTHFIELD MI WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS; 1 (248) 270-9317 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT

59 SUTTON PLACE 1978 516 97.9% WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS IN 23275 RIVERSIDE DR. TOWNHOMES ONLY; SELECT SOUTHFIELD MI UNITS HAVE WASHER/DRYER (248) 319-0894 &/OR ATTACHED GARAGE; CABANAS AT POOL

60 EVERGREEN PLACE 1924 90 100.0% 24000 EVERGREEN RD. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 356-8444

VII-22 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 61 ARBOR LOFTS 2013 31 100.0% 90% STUDENTS; ADDITIONAL 20300 CIVIC CENTER DR. 31 UNITS BEING LEASED BY SOUTHFIELD MI LTU (11 3-BR, 20 4-BR): SEE (248) 979-8971 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CHART

62 KNOB IN THE WOODS 1953 588 98.5% CERAMIC TILE FLOORING; 20800 KNOB WOODS DR. GRANITE COUNTERTOPS; 3-BR SOUTHFIELD MI UNITS HAVE WASHER/DRYER (248) 353-0586 HOOKUPS; CARPORT $15/MO.; PET RENT $20/MO.

63 CRYSTAL COURT 1962 125 97.6% 22325 W. 8 MILE RD. DETROIT MI (313) 538-5266

64 WOODLAND ARMS 1965 164 98.8% 22045 W. 8 MILE RD. DETROIT MI (313) 538-4733

65 TERRACE COURT 1966 72 100.0% 20555 LAHSER DETROIT MI 313 535-9547

66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD 1972 381 97.9% 20875 LAHSER RD. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 356-3650

VII-23 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 67 WELLINGTON PLACE 1973 64 100.0% HIGHER-PRICE UNITS HAVE 21210 LAHSER RD. BEEN RENOVATED SOUTHFIELD MI (284) 355-1069

68 HIDDEN PINES 1969 174 94.3% HARDWOOD FLOORING; WALK- 19800 TELEGRAPH RD. IN CLOSETS; RECENTLY DETROIT MI RENOVATED (313) 538-2530

69 CRESCENT HOUSE 1968 120 98.3% HARDWOOD FLOORING; WALK- 19248 TELEGRAPH RD. IN CLOSETS DETROIT MI (313) 531-2334

70 KAREN 1967 24 100.0% 23750 WEST 7-MILE ROAD DETROIT MI (313) 977-9935

71 IMPERIAL MANOR 1965 164 98.8% 19132 APPLETON ST. DETROIT MI (313) 533-0718

72 RIVER PARK 1963 40 100.0% 19143 BERG RD. DETROIT MI (313) 989-0303

VII-24 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 73 FAIRWAY MANOR 1968 20 100.0% 19131 LAHSER DETROIT MI 313 255-1916

74 CHAPEL COURT 1968 80 91.3% 21455 WEST 7-MILE ROAD DETROIT MI 313 532-2651

75 MCNICHOLS 1959 32 81.3% 32 UNITS BOARDED UP, NO 21456 SEVEN MILE RD. PLANS TO RENOVATE UNTIL DETROIT MI JAN. 2017 313 532-2651

76 CREST 1962 24 100.0% 21180 W. 7 MILE ROAD DETROIT MI (313) 538-4910

77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS 1964 128 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED, 19101 EVERGREEN HUD SECTION 8; ELDERLY, DETROIT MI HANDICAPPED; SOCIAL (313) 513-6333 ACTIVITIES

78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE 2013 185 100.0% ORIGINALLY BUILT 1964, TOTAL 19311 VOTROBECK CT. RENOVATION AND REHAB TO DETROIT MI TAX CREDIT IN 2013; GAZEBO; 313 255-5548 SPLASH PAD; PET FEE $20/MO. PER PET

VII-25 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 79 GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE 1968 74 100.0% 19320 GREENFIELD DETROIT MI 313 345-6325

80 BOWIN PLACE 1967 220 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED, 15400 SEVEN MILE RD. HUD SECTION 8; LIBRARY; DETROIT MI SOCIAL ACTIVITIES 313 345-4249

81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS 1960 311 91.3% 8805 KINGSWOOD ST. DETROIT MI (313) 341-0725

82 FERNWOOD MANOR 1979 29 100.0% 900 LAPRAIRIE FERNDALE MI (248) 398-5350

83 AUTUMN HOUSE 1974 55 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED; 500 E. 9 MILE RD. ELDERLY/DISABLED FERNDALE MI (248) 547-9500

84 DEVON SQUARE 1982 60 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSDIZED; 1225 ORCHARD ST. PROJECT BASED SECTION 8; FERNDALE MI SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; 48 1-BR (248) 541-7128 UNITS ARE ELDERLY 62+ ONLY; 12 2-BR UNITS ARE FAMILY ONLY

VII-26 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 85 STATION 3 LOFTS 2009 45 100.0% PHASE 1 SOLD AS CONDOS, 333 E. PARENT AVE. PHASE 2 IS APARTMENTS; ROYAL OAK MI GARAGE PARKING $175/MO.; (248) 548-5959 FURNISHED CORPORATE UNITS AVAILABLE; SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CHART 86 EIGHT55 2016 48 83.3% OPENED MARCH 2016, STILL IN 855 S. MAIN ST. LEASE-UP; HARDWOOD ROYAL OAK MI FLOORS; ICEMAKERS; QUARTZ (248) 855-0855 COUNTERTOPS; STAINLESS APPLIANCES; BREAKFAST BARS AND KITCHEN ISLANDS IN SELECT UNITS 87 ROYAL OAK MANOR 1973 240 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED; 606 WILLIAMS ST. ELDERLY 62+; GAME ROOM; ROYAL OAK MI GIFT SHOP; OUTDOOR (248) 541-2131 LOUNGE ON EACH FLOOR; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; TRANSPORTATION; VENDING MACHINES 88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFTS 2010 43 100.0% EXPOSED DUCTWORK; 538-594 N. SHERMAN DR. HARDWOOD AND CERAMIC ROYAL OAK MI TILE FLOORING; STAINLESS (248) 280-1700 APPLIANCES

89 METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE 1975 40 100.0% BLACK APPLIANCES IN SELECT 203 N. LAFAYETTE RD. UNITS; STAINLESS ROYAL OAK MI APPLIANCES IN SELECT UNITS; (248) 251-0326 WALK-IN CLOSETS; RECENTLY RENOVATED

90 WAGON WHEEL 1964 48 100.0% FAUX-WOOD FLOORING; CAT 605 E. 11 MILE RD. FEE $15 PER MONTH, $5 MORE ROYAL OAK MI FOR EACH ADDITIONAL CAT (248) 545-1883

VII-27 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 91 FARNUM 1959 16 100.0% BRUSHED ALUMINUM 214 W. FARNUM AVE. CABINETS; EXPOSED ROYAL OAK MI CONCRETE BLOCK WALLS; (248) 234-2769 FRENCH DOORS; HARDWOOD FLOORS; STORAGE; RECENTLY RENOVATED; 1 BR UNITS HAVE BALCONLY/PATIO 92 VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS 1965 340 95.9% PANTRY; WALK-IN CLOSETS; 1132 N. CAMPBELL RD. CONFERENCE ROOM; ROYAL OAK MI OUTDOOR FIREPLACE; SAND (248) 547-5989 VOLLEYBALL; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; FURNISHED UNITS AVAILABLE; PET FEE $20/MO./PET; RECENTLY 93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES 1965 87 100.0% CERAMIC TILE FLOORS 905 N. STEPHENSON HWY. (SELECT UNITS); EXPOSED ROYAL OAK MI BRICK; GRANITE (248) 399-1292 COUNTERTOPS; SPIRAL STAIRCASES; STAINLESS APPLIANCES; RECENTLY RENOVATED 94 ELMSLEIGH 1957 76 100.0% TOWNHOME UNITS HAVE 1880 ROCHESTER RD. CENTRAL AIR, PATIOS, ROYAL OAK MI BASEMENTS & (248) 547-2672 WASHER/DRYER HOOKUPS

95 AMBER'S RED RUN 1970 48 97.9% FLOOR-TO-CEILING WINDOWS; 2330 ROCHESTER RD. STORAGE ROYAL OAK MI (248) 280-1700

96 ROCHESTER HOUSE 1963 84 96.4% 2450 ROCHESTER RD. ROYAL OAK MI (248) 398-5350

VII-28 PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT YEAR TOTAL PERCENT CODE NAME BUILT UNITS OCCUPIED COMMENTS 97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN 1988 148 100.0% GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED; 15106 W. 10 MILE RD. ELDERLY 62+; JEWISH OAK PARK MI COMMUNITY CAMPUS; BEAUTY (248) 967-4240 SHOP; LIBRARY; SOCIAL ACTIVITIES; SERVICE COORDINATOR; KOSHER MEALS AVAILABLE 98 BONNIEVIEW 1967 156 98.1% 23411 EIGHT MILE RD. DETROIT MI 313 538-5339

99 APPLEWOOD 1981 52 100.0% 20912 SHERMAN AVE. SOUTHFIELD MI (248) 356-0026

VII-29 STREET RENT COMPARISON SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP ONE TWO THREE FOUR+ CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 1 TOWNE SQUARE $619 $727

2 MILLER GREENS $720 - $850

3 OAK PARK GARDENS $630 $725 - $835

4 STRATFORD VILLA $825 - $950 $1050

5 CHATEAU RIVIERA $730 $885 $1115

6 NORTH PARK TOWERS $879 - $1079 $1199 - $1450 $1650

7 NORTH PARK PLACE $889 - $1100 $990 - $1600

8 LEGACY PLACE $1314 - $1424 $1449 $2049

9 THE ATRIUM $700 - $800 $900 - $1000

10 PROVIDENCE TOWER $575 $700 - $820 $795 - $855

11 PROVIDENCE PLACE $808 - $838 $880 - $919 $1108

12 CARLYLE TOWER $800 - $850 $999 - $1015

13 COACH HOUSE $599 - $730 $790 - $1120

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT $610 $799 $1199 - $1400 $1499

15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ $645 - $695 $715 - $830

16 RUE VERSAILLES $650 - $685 $740 - $760

17 HIGHLAND TOWERS $575 $785

18 THE LOOP ON $600 $755 - $765 $880 - $890 GREENFIELD

SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED

VII-30 STREET RENT COMPARISON SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP ONE TWO THREE FOUR+ CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 19 COUNTRY COURT $700 - $725 $735 - $775

20 LINCOLN TOWERS $540 $655 - $720 $840 - $885

21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN $935 - $1085 $1235

22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS SUB. SUB.

23 SANDSTONE $635 $765

24 OAK PARK MANOR $610 - $855 $860 - $995 $1105 - $1295

25 VILLAGE GREEN $990 - $1110 TOWNHOMES OF OAK PARK

26 CHESTNUT OAKS $660 $760

27 HIDDEN OAKS $655 $755

28 TANGLEWOOD $700

29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE $825 $865 - $940

30 KENSWICK MANOR $835

31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS $795 - $805 $940

32 NORTH ROYAL OAK $550 $850 - $975 $1050 - $1200

33 WOODWARD COURT $825 - $1050 $900 - $1200

34 AMBER COURT $825 - $835 $885 - $895

35 BEAUMONT $650 - $680

SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED

VII-31 STREET RENT COMPARISON SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP ONE TWO THREE FOUR+ CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 36 ARLINGTON $760 $840 - $1325 $1045

37 WOODWARD NORTH $680 $770 - $795

38 CAMELOT $850 $950 - $975

39 PHILAMER $725 - $875 $800 - $1025

40 THE KENSINGTON AT $819 - $1025 $919 - $1245 BEVERLY HILLS

41 COUNTRY CORNER $855 - $875 $985 - $1525 $1475

42 CRANBROOK CENTRE $890 - $930 $1100 - $1120

43 42 WEST U N D E R C O N S T R U C T I O N

44 FRANKLIN RIVER $840 $945 - $1105

45 LAUREL WOODS $1015 - $1220

46 LANCASTER HILLS $1015 - $1085 $1240 - $1280

47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY $770 $880

48 CHATSFORD MANOR $735 - $755

49 COLONY PARK $944 $1030

50 RIVER PARK PLACE SUB. SUB. SUB.

51 OAK RIDGE $560 $649 $749 - $779

52 SOUTHFIELD $729 - $839 $1020

53 MCDONNEL TOWER SUB. SUB.

SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED

VII-32 STREET RENT COMPARISON SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP ONE TWO THREE FOUR+ CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 54 WOODCREST $865 $965

55 PARK LANE $980 - $990 $1190 - $1235

56 MONTICELLO $910 $1050 - $1315

57 WILLOW TREE $800 - $825 $900 - $950

58 SILVER OAKS OF $779 $995 - $1275 $1475 SOUTHFIELD

59 SUTTON PLACE $989 - $1459 $1479 - $1669

60 EVERGREEN PLACE $685 - $730

61 ARBOR LOFTS $940 - $1100 $960 - $1500 $1505 - $1545 $1915 - $1975 $2610 - $2705

62 KNOB IN THE WOODS $765 $875 $1275

63 CRYSTAL COURT $425 $495 $585 - $625

64 WOODLAND ARMS $500 $650

65 TERRACE COURT $410 $510

66 TOWERS OF $699 $739 - $809 SOUTHFIELD

67 WELLINGTON PLACE $715 - $755

68 HIDDEN PINES $669 $799

69 CRESCENT HOUSE $550 $650 $750

70 KAREN $525 $650

SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED

VII-33 STREET RENT COMPARISON SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP ONE TWO THREE FOUR+ CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 71 IMPERIAL MANOR $625 $725

72 RIVER PARK $625 $725

73 FAIRWAY MANOR $475 $525 $600

74 CHAPEL COURT $500 $580

75 MCNICHOLS U N D E R C O N S T R U C T I O N

76 CREST $565

77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS SUB. SUB.

78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE $575 - $638 $699 - $727

79 GREENFIELD $650 $775 PENTHOUSE

80 BOWIN PLACE SUB. SUB.

81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS $635 - $655 $750 - $915

82 FERNWOOD MANOR $675 - $725

83 AUTUMN HOUSE SUB. SUB.

84 DEVON SQUARE SUB. SUB.

85 STATION 3 LOFTS $1800 $1900 - $2450 $2900

86 EIGHT55 $1807 - $2297 $2465 - $2815

87 ROYAL OAK MANOR SUB. SUB.

SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED

VII-34 STREET RENT COMPARISON SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP ONE TWO THREE FOUR+ CODE PROJECT NAME STUDIO BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 88 AMBER CROSSING $1075 - $1180 $895 - $1745 $1175 - $2425 $2175 TOWNHOMES & LOFTS

89 METROPOLITAN $1095 $1300 LAFAYETTE

90 WAGON WHEEL $710 $850

91 FARNUM $930 - $1010 $1235

92 VILLAGE PARK OF $1035 - $1195 $1290 - $1405 $1570 - $1625 ROYAL OAKS

93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES $950 - $1150 $995 - $1295

94 ELMSLEIGH $675 $725 - $850

95 AMBER'S RED RUN $925 $1245

96 ROCHESTER HOUSE $700 $800

97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN SUB.

98 BONNIEVIEW $600 $700

99 APPLEWOOD $570 $695

NOTE: Rents listed are those quoted to our field analyst for new leases. Residents on older leases or renting month-to-month may be paying more or less, depending on changes in quoted rent. Rent specials and concessions are noted in the project information section of this field survey.

SUB. = GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED

VII-35 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 1 TOWNE SQUARE 9.0 4.5 5.0 18.5

2 MILLER GREENS 7.5 0.0 4.5 12.0

3 OAK PARK GARDENS 7.5 1.5 5.0 14.0

4 STRATFORD VILLA 8.5 2.5 5.5 16.5

5 CHATEAU RIVIERA 9.5 4.5 5.5 19.5

6 NORTH PARK TOWERS 10.0 10.5 5.5 26.0

7 NORTH PARK PLACE 10.0 6.5 6.5 23.0

8 LEGACY PLACE 10.0 4.5 6.5 21.0

9 THE ATRIUM 8.5 4.0 5.5 18.0

10 PROVIDENCE TOWER 9.0 6.0 5.0 20.0

11 PROVIDENCE PLACE 8.5 7.0 5.5 21.0

12 CARLYLE TOWER 9.0 5.5 5.0 19.5

13 COACH HOUSE 9.5 5.5 5.5 20.5

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT 9.5 3.5 6.0 19.0

15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ 8.5 1.5 5.5 15.5

VII-36 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 16 RUE VERSAILLES 7.5 1.0 5.0 13.5

17 HIGHLAND TOWERS 9.0 6.0 5.5 20.5

18 THE LOOP ON 7.5 6.0 6.0 19.5 GREENFIELD

19 COUNTRY COURT 9.0 1.5 5.5 16.0

20 LINCOLN TOWERS 9.5 7.0 5.5 22.0

21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN 6.0 2.5 5.5 14.0

22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS 6.0 5.0 5.5 16.5

23 SANDSTONE 8.5 1.0 5.0 14.5

24 OAK PARK MANOR 8.0 1.5 5.0 14.5

25 VILLAGE GREEN 12.5 7.5 5.5 25.5 TOWNHOMES OF OAK PARK 26 CHESTNUT OAKS 10.5 0.0 5.0 15.5

27 HIDDEN OAKS 8.5 1.5 5.5 15.5

28 TANGLEWOOD 9.5 0.5 5.5 15.5

29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE 9.0 2.5 5.5 17.0

VII-37 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 30 KENSWICK MANOR 10.0 3.0 5.0 18.0

31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS 7.5 7.5 5.5 20.5

32 NORTH ROYAL OAK 8.0 4.5 5.5 18.0

33 WOODWARD COURT 7.0 3.5 5.5 16.0

34 AMBER COURT 10.0 1.0 5.0 16.0

35 BEAUMONT 6.0 1.0 5.0 12.0

36 ARLINGTON 10.0 1.5 5.0 16.5

37 WOODWARD NORTH 7.5 2.5 5.5 15.5

38 CAMELOT 8.0 1.0 5.0 14.0

39 PHILAMER 8.0 3.0 5.0 16.0

40 THE KENSINGTON AT 10.5 8.5 6.5 25.5 BEVERLY HILLS

41 COUNTRY CORNER 9.0 5.5 6.5 21.0

42 CRANBROOK CENTRE 9.5 5.0 5.0 19.5

43 42 WEST 15.0 5.0 7.5 27.5

44 FRANKLIN RIVER 9.0 8.5 6.5 24.0

VII-38 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 45 LAUREL WOODS 11.0 3.5 6.5 21.0

46 LANCASTER HILLS 10.0 5.5 6.5 22.0

47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY 9.5 1.0 6.5 17.0

48 CHATSFORD MANOR 9.0 4.5 5.5 19.0

49 COLONY PARK 9.5 3.5 6.5 19.5

50 RIVER PARK PLACE 7.0 1.5 5.5 14.0

51 OAK RIDGE 9.0 3.5 6.5 19.0

52 SOUTHFIELD 11.5 6.0 7.5 25.0

53 MCDONNEL TOWER 6.5 4.0 5.5 16.0

54 WOODCREST 10.0 2.5 7.0 19.5

55 PARK LANE 11.0 5.0 7.0 23.0

56 MONTICELLO 10.5 5.0 6.5 22.0

57 WILLOW TREE 10.0 4.5 6.5 21.0

58 SILVER OAKS OF 10.0 5.0 7.0 22.0 SOUTHFIELD

59 SUTTON PLACE 10.5 6.5 6.5 23.5

VII-39 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 60 EVERGREEN PLACE 9.0 1.5 6.0 16.5

61 ARBOR LOFTS 11.0 9.0 6.0 26.0

62 KNOB IN THE WOODS 9.0 7.5 6.5 23.0

63 CRYSTAL COURT 6.5 1.5 4.5 12.5

64 WOODLAND ARMS 7.0 1.5 4.5 13.0

65 TERRACE COURT 6.5 3.5 4.5 14.5

66 TOWERS OF 7.0 5.5 4.5 17.0 SOUTHFIELD

67 WELLINGTON PLACE 7.5 1.5 5.0 14.0

68 HIDDEN PINES 8.0 2.0 5.0 15.0

69 CRESCENT HOUSE 7.0 2.0 5.5 14.5

70 KAREN 6.5 1.0 4.5 12.0

71 IMPERIAL MANOR 5.0 4.0 4.5 13.5

72 RIVER PARK 5.0 1.5 5.0 11.5

73 FAIRWAY MANOR 7.0 1.0 4.5 12.5

74 CHAPEL COURT 6.5 3.0 4.5 14.0

VII-40 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 75 MCNICHOLS 5.5 1.0 4.5 11.0

76 CREST 6.5 1.0 5.0 12.5

77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS 6.0 5.0 5.0 16.0

78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE 7.0 5.0 5.5 17.5

79 GREENFIELD 8.0 1.0 4.5 13.5 PENTHOUSE

80 BOWIN PLACE 8.0 4.5 4.5 17.0

81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS 7.5 2.5 5.0 15.0

82 FERNWOOD MANOR 6.5 1.0 5.5 13.0

83 AUTUMN HOUSE 6.5 0.0 5.0 11.5

84 DEVON SQUARE 5.0 3.0 5.0 13.0

85 STATION 3 LOFTS 14.5 2.5 7.5 24.5

86 EIGHT55 13.5 1.5 8.0 23.0

87 ROYAL OAK MANOR 7.5 8.5 5.5 21.5

88 AMBER CROSSING 12.0 1.0 7.5 20.5 TOWNHOMES & LOFTS

89 METROPOLITAN 8.0 1.5 5.5 15.0 LAFAYETTE

VII-41 COMPARABILITY RATING MODERN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

COMPARABILITY FACTOR MAP CODE PROJECT UNIT PROJECT AESTHETIC TOTAL 90 WAGON WHEEL 8.5 1.5 5.5 15.5

91 FARNUM 8.5 1.5 5.0 15.0

92 VILLAGE PARK OF 10.0 11.0 5.5 26.5 ROYAL OAKS

93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES 10.0 3.5 5.5 19.0

94 ELMSLEIGH 7.0 1.0 5.5 13.5

95 AMBER'S RED RUN 9.5 0.0 5.5 15.0

96 ROCHESTER HOUSE 8.0 3.5 5.5 17.0

97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN 6.0 5.5 5.5 17.0

98 BONNIEVIEW 6.5 2.5 4.5 13.5

99 APPLEWOOD 7.5 1.0 5.0 13.5

Point values have been assigned for unit and project amenities. Aesthetic amenities are based on general appearance, upkeep, landscaping, etc. and are based on the judgment of the field representative.

VII-42 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

1 TOWNE SQUARE X XXXX

2 MILLER GREENS

3 OAK PARK GARDENS XX

4 STRATFORD VILLA X X

5 CHATEAU RIVIERA XX XX

6 NORTH PARK TOWERS XXX XX X X CONVENIENCE STORE

7 NORTH PARK PLACE XXXX X X

8 LEGACY PLACE XXX X

9 THE ATRIUM XX XX X

10 PROVIDENCE TOWER XXX XX X ON-SITE CONVENIENCE

11 PROVIDENCE PLACE XXXX XX X

12 CARLYLE TOWER XX XX X

SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL

VII-43 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

13 COACH HOUSE XX XXXX

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT X XX X

15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ XX

16 RUE VERSAILLES X

17 HIGHLAND TOWERS XX XX X VENDING MACHINES

18 THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD XXX XXX

19 COUNTRY COURT XX

20 LINCOLN TOWERS XXX XX X COURTYARD

21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN X X

22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS XX XX X X

23 SANDSTONE X

24 OAK PARK MANOR XX

SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL

VII-44 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

25 VILLAGE GREEN XXXR X X CONFERENCE ROOM TOWNHOMES OF OAK

26 CHESTNUT OAKS

27 HIDDEN OAKS XX

28 TANGLEWOOD X

29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE X XX COURTYARD

30 KENSWICK MANOR X X

31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS XX XXX X BEAUTY SALON

32 NORTH ROYAL OAK X XXX SOCIAL ACTIVITIES

33 WOODWARD COURT X XX

34 AMBER COURT X

35 BEAUMONT X

36 ARLINGTON XX

SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL

VII-45 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

37 WOODWARD NORTH XX X

38 CAMELOT X

39 PHILAMER X X

40 THE KENSINGTON AT XXXXR XX X BILLIARDS BEVERLY HILLS

41 COUNTRY CORNER XXX XX X

42 CRANBROOK CENTRE XX XX X

43 42 WEST XXX X X

44 FRANKLIN RIVER XXXX XX X COURTESY PATROL

45 LAUREL WOODS XX X

46 LANCASTER HILLS XXX XX

47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY X

48 CHATSFORD MANOR X X XXX

SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL

VII-46 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

49 COLONY PARK XX X

50 RIVER PARK PLACE X X

51 OAK RIDGE X XX

52 SOUTHFIELD XXXX XXX

53 MCDONNEL TOWER X XX X LIBRARY

54 WOODCREST X X

55 PARK LANE XX X X X

56 MONTICELLO XXX X X

57 WILLOW TREE X XX X ATRIUM ENTRY

58 SILVER OAKS OF XX XXX SOUTHFIELD

59 SUTTON PLACE XXX XX BILLIARDS

60 EVERGREEN PLACE XX

SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL

VII-47 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

61 ARBOR LOFTS XX XX X X X COFFEE BAR

62 KNOB IN THE WOODS XXXXVXXX

63 CRYSTAL COURT XX

64 WOODLAND ARMS XX

65 TERRACE COURT X XX

66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD XXX XX X

67 WELLINGTON PLACE XX

68 HIDDEN PINES XXX

69 CRESCENT HOUSE XXX

70 KAREN X

71 IMPERIAL MANOR X X XX

72 RIVER PARK XX

SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL

VII-48 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

73 FAIRWAY MANOR X

74 CHAPEL COURT X X

75 MCNICHOLS X

76 CREST X

77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS XX X X LIBRARY

78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE XXX XX X X AMPITHEATER

79 GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE X

80 BOWIN PLACE X XX X BEAUTY SALON

81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS XXXX

82 FERNWOOD MANOR X

83 AUTUMN HOUSE

84 DEVON SQUARE X X SERVICE COORDINATOR

SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL

VII-49 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

85 STATION 3 LOFTS X X COURTYARD

86 EIGHT55 X X 1ST FLOOR RETAIL

87 ROYAL OAK MANOR X XXX X BEAUTY SALON

88 AMBER CROSSING X TOWNHOMES & LOFTS

89 METROPOLITAN X COMMUNITY WIFI LAFAYETTE

90 WAGON WHEEL XX

91 FARNUM X COMMUNITY WIFI

92 VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL XXXXRXXX X BILLIARDS/GAME OAKS ROOM

93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES X XX BIKE RACKS

94 ELMSLEIGH X

95 AMBER'S RED RUN

96 ROCHESTER HOUSE X XX

SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL

VII-50 PROJECT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN XX X X CONVENIENCE STORE

98 BONNIEVIEW X X

99 APPLEWOOD X

SPORTS COURT V - VOLLEYBALL B - BASKETBALL R - RACQUETBALL

VII-51 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

1 TOWNE SQUARE XXXXW XBXX X

2 MILLER GREENS XXXC XXB S HARDWOOD FLOORING

3 OAK PARK GARDENS XXXC XB STORAGE

4 STRATFORD VILLA XXXXC XBXS CERAMIC TILE FLOORING

5 CHATEAU RIVIERA XXXXC XBXX STORAGE

6 NORTH PARK TOWERS X X X XX C XBXXU

7 NORTH PARK PLACE X X X XX C XBXXO BREAKFAST BARS

8 LEGACY PLACE XXXXC XXB XD X

9 THE ATRIUM XXXXC XBXO CARPORT $25/MO.

10 PROVIDENCE TOWER XXXXC XBXXD WALK-IN CLOSETS

11 PROVIDENCE PLACE XXXXC XBSX WALK-IN CLOSETS

REFRIGERATOR AIR CONDITIONING WINDOW COVERINGS GARAGE BASEMENT S - SOME I -ICEMAKER C - CENTRAL AIR B - BLINDS A - ATTACHED U - UNFINISHED O - OPTIONAL F - FROSTFREE W - WINDOW UNIT D - DRAPES D - DETACHED F - FINISHED U - UNDERGROUND

VII-52 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

12 CARLYLE TOWER XXXXC XBXX WALK-IN CLOSETS

13 COACH HOUSE XXXXC SSXB XXD X

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE XXXXC XB XX X ADULT

15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ XXXXW XBXOS STORAGE

16 RUE VERSAILLES XXSXW XBX STORAGE

17 HIGHLAND TOWERS XXXXC XBXX

18 THE LOOP ON XXXXW XB FAUX-WOOD GREENFIELD FLOORING

19 COUNTRY COURT XXXXC XBXX 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT

20 LINCOLN TOWERS XXXXC XBXX STORAGE

21 THE OAKS ON XXXX BXX LINCOLN

22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS X X XX C BS BREAKFAST BARS

REFRIGERATOR AIR CONDITIONING WINDOW COVERINGS GARAGE BASEMENT S - SOME I -ICEMAKER C - CENTRAL AIR B - BLINDS A - ATTACHED U - UNFINISHED O - OPTIONAL F - FROSTFREE W - WINDOW UNIT D - DRAPES D - DETACHED F - FINISHED U - UNDERGROUND

VII-53 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

23 SANDSTONE XXXW XXBX HARDWOOD FLOORING

24 OAK PARK MANOR X X S XS C SXB XS X

25 VILLAGE GREEN X X X XX C XXXB XX X X CROWN MOLDING TOWNHOMES OF OAK PARK 26 CHESTNUT OAKS XXXXC XXXBX STORAGE

27 HIDDEN OAKS XXXXC XBXD

28 TANGLEWOOD X X X XX C XB XD X CARPORT $25/MO.

29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE XXXXC XBXD STORAGE

30 KENSWICK MANOR XXXXC XB XXD X STORAGE

31 OXFORD PARK XX C XBXX TOWERS

32 NORTH ROYAL OAK XXXC BX HARDWOOD FLOORING

33 WOODWARD COURT X X XSW XBO STORAGE

REFRIGERATOR AIR CONDITIONING WINDOW COVERINGS GARAGE BASEMENT S - SOME I -ICEMAKER C - CENTRAL AIR B - BLINDS A - ATTACHED U - UNFINISHED O - OPTIONAL F - FROSTFREE W - WINDOW UNIT D - DRAPES D - DETACHED F - FINISHED U - UNDERGROUND

VII-54 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

34 AMBER COURT XXXXC XB XX HARDWOOD FLOORING

35 BEAUMONT XXW XBS CERAMIC TILE

36 ARLINGTON XXXXC XBX S GRANITE COUNTERTOPS

37 WOODWARD NORTH XXSXC XBXO CERAMIC TILE FLOORING

38 CAMELOT XXXXW XBX CERAMIC TILE FLOORING

39 PHILAMER XXXC B STORAGE

40 THE KENSINGTON AT XXXXC XXBXXODS HARDWOOD BEVERLY HILLS FLOORING

41 COUNTRY CORNER XXXXC XBXX

42 CRANBROOK CENTRE XXXXC XBXX STORAGE

43 42 WEST X X X XX C XXXB XXA X 9'-11' CEILINGS

44 FRANKLIN RIVER X X X XS C XBXX

REFRIGERATOR AIR CONDITIONING WINDOW COVERINGS GARAGE BASEMENT S - SOME I -ICEMAKER C - CENTRAL AIR B - BLINDS A - ATTACHED U - UNFINISHED O - OPTIONAL F - FROSTFREE W - WINDOW UNIT D - DRAPES D - DETACHED F - FINISHED U - UNDERGROUND

VII-55 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

45 LAUREL WOODS XXXXC XXXB XX X 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT

46 LANCASTER HILLS XXXXC XBXXX STORAGE

47 TWYCKINGHAM XXXXC XBXX STORAGE VALLEY

48 CHATSFORD MANOR XXXXC XB XD X 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT

49 COLONY PARK XXXXC XBX X STORAGE

50 RIVER PARK PLACE XX C XBX

51 OAK RIDGE XXXXC XB XX 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT

52 SOUTHFIELD XXXXC XXXBS XO X STORAGE

53 MCDONNEL TOWER XXX XBXX

54 WOODCREST XXXXC XXXBX S

55 PARK LANE X X X XS C XXXB XX X S 1 CARPORT SPACE/UNIT

REFRIGERATOR AIR CONDITIONING WINDOW COVERINGS GARAGE BASEMENT S - SOME I -ICEMAKER C - CENTRAL AIR B - BLINDS A - ATTACHED U - UNFINISHED O - OPTIONAL F - FROSTFREE W - WINDOW UNIT D - DRAPES D - DETACHED F - FINISHED U - UNDERGROUND

VII-56 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

56 MONTICELLO XXXXC XXXB XDS STORAGE

57 WILLOW TREE XXXXC XBXXX STORAGE

58 SILVER OAKS OF XXXXC SXXXXX STORAGE SOUTHFIELD

59 SUTTON PLACE XXXXC SSXB XXA X

60 EVERGREEN PLACE XXXXC XBXD STORAGE

61 ARBOR LOFTS X X X XX C SSXBXO 10'-12' CEILINGS

62 KNOB IN THE WOODS XXXXC SXBD STORAGE

63 CRYSTAL COURT XXXW XB

64 WOODLAND ARMS XXXW XBX

65 TERRACE COURT XXXW XB

66 TOWERS OF XXXW XBX SOUTHFIELD

REFRIGERATOR AIR CONDITIONING WINDOW COVERINGS GARAGE BASEMENT S - SOME I -ICEMAKER C - CENTRAL AIR B - BLINDS A - ATTACHED U - UNFINISHED O - OPTIONAL F - FROSTFREE W - WINDOW UNIT D - DRAPES D - DETACHED F - FINISHED U - UNDERGROUND

VII-57 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

67 WELLINGTON PLACE XXXW XBX X

68 HIDDEN PINES XXXXW XBXO CERAMIC TILE

69 CRESCENT HOUSE XXXW XB STORAGE

70 KAREN XXW XBX

71 IMPERIAL MANOR XXW B STORAGE

72 RIVER PARK XXW BX

73 FAIRWAY MANOR XXXW XBX

74 CHAPEL COURT XXXW XB

75 MCNICHOLS XXX XB

76 CREST XXXW XB

77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS XXW XB

REFRIGERATOR AIR CONDITIONING WINDOW COVERINGS GARAGE BASEMENT S - SOME I -ICEMAKER C - CENTRAL AIR B - BLINDS A - ATTACHED U - UNFINISHED O - OPTIONAL F - FROSTFREE W - WINDOW UNIT D - DRAPES D - DETACHED F - FINISHED U - UNDERGROUND

VII-58 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

78 RENAISSANCE XXXW XBX BREAKFAST BARS VILLAGE

79 GREENFIELD XXXW XB XX X PENTHOUSE

80 BOWIN PLACE XXXC XBXX

81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS XXXXW XBXXO WALK-IN CLOSETS

82 FERNWOOD MANOR XX C XB CERAMIC TILE FLOORING

83 AUTUMN HOUSE XXW XBX

84 DEVON SQUARE XX C B

85 STATION 3 LOFTS X X X XX C XXBXA 11'-24' CEILINGS

86 EIGHT55 XXXXC XXB XA X 9' CEILINGS

87 ROYAL OAK MANOR XXXC XBX

88 AMBER CROSSING X X X XX C XXB XXOSS ICEMAKERS TOWNHOMES & LOFTS

REFRIGERATOR AIR CONDITIONING WINDOW COVERINGS GARAGE BASEMENT S - SOME I -ICEMAKER C - CENTRAL AIR B - BLINDS A - ATTACHED U - UNFINISHED O - OPTIONAL F - FROSTFREE W - WINDOW UNIT D - DRAPES D - DETACHED F - FINISHED U - UNDERGROUND

VII-59 UNIT AMENITIES DESCRIPTION SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

MAP PROJECT CODE NAME OTHER

89 METROPOLITAN XXXXW XBX HARDWOOD LAFAYETTE FLOORING

90 WAGON WHEEL XXXXW XB X STORAGE

91 FARNUM XXXXW XBS BLACK APPLIANCES

92 VILLAGE PARK OF X X X XX C XB XXD X HARDWOOD ROYAL OAKS FLOORING

93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES X X X XXW BS X X S HARDWOOD FLOORING

94 ELMSLEIGH XXXW SXB SS X

95 AMBER'S RED RUN X X X XXW BXD HARDWOOD FLOORING

96 ROCHESTER HOUSE XXXXW XB STORAGE

97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN XXW XB

98 BONNIEVIEW XXXW XB

99 APPLEWOOD XXXC XBXD CARPORT $20/MO.

REFRIGERATOR AIR CONDITIONING WINDOW COVERINGS GARAGE BASEMENT S - SOME I -ICEMAKER C - CENTRAL AIR B - BLINDS A - ATTACHED U - UNFINISHED O - OPTIONAL F - FROSTFREE W - WINDOW UNIT D - DRAPES D - DETACHED F - FINISHED U - UNDERGROUND

VII-60 DISTRIBUTION OF UNIT AND PROJECT AMENITIES MARKET RATE UNITS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

PROJECTS SOME UNITS PERCENTAGE UNIT AMENITIES ALL UNITS OR OPTIONAL TOTAL OF PROJECTS REFRIGERATOR 90 0 90 100.0% RANGE 90 0 90 100.0% MICROWAVE 11 4 15 16.7% DISHWASHER 60 3 63 70.0% DISPOSAL 84 0 84 93.3% AIR CONDITIONING 88 0 88 97.8% WASHER / DRYER 12 3 15 16.7% WASH / DRY HOOKUP 17 7 24 26.7% CARPET 77 0 77 85.6% WINDOW COVERINGS 89 0 89 98.9% FIREPLACE 0 2 2 2.2% INTERCOM SECURITY 42 0 42 46.7% BALCONY / PATIO 43 4 47 52.2% CAR PORT 27 9 36 40.0% GARAGE 8 2 10 11.1% BASEMENT 4 5 9 10.0% CEILING FAN 22 1 23 25.6% VAULTED CEILING 0 7 7 7.8% SECURITY SYSTEM 4 0 4 4.4% PROJECT AMENITIES POOL 44 44 48.9% COMMON BUILDING 32 32 35.6% SAUNA 1 1 1.1% HOT TUB 3 3 3.3% EXERCISE ROOM 24 24 26.7% TENNIS 4 4 4.4% PLAYGROUND 6 6 6.7% SPORTS COURT 4 4 4.4% JOG / BIKE TRAIL 0 0 0.0% LAKE 2 2 2.2% PICNIC AREA 10 10 11.1% LAUNDRY FACILITY 65 65 72.2% SECURITY GATE 14 14 15.6% ON SITE MANAGEMENT 63 63 70.0% ELEVATOR 16 16 17.8%

VII-61 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

NUMBER MAP PROJECT GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF CODE NAME S 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ FLOORS 1 TOWNE SQUARE X X 2.5 G L G L E T L CLT TT

2 MILLER GREENS X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

3 OAK PARK GARDENS X X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

4 STRATFORD VILLA X X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

5 CHATEAU RIVIERA X XX 2 G T G T E T T CLT TT

6 NORTH PARK TOWERS X XX 18 G L G L E T T CTT TT

7 NORTH PARK PLACE XX 14 G L G L E T T CLT TT

8 LEGACY PLACE XX X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

9 THE ATRIUM X X 4 G L G L E T L CLT TT

10 PROVIDENCE TOWER XX X 10 G T G T E T T CTT TT

11 PROVIDENCE PLACE X XX 2,3 G T G T E T T CTT TT

12 CARLYLE TOWER XX 10 G L G L E T L CLT TT

13 COACH HOUSE X X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT XX XX 10 E T E T E T L CLT TT

15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ X X 2 G L G L E T T CLT TT

16 RUE VERSAILLES X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD E - ELECTRIC C - COAXIAL T - TENANT G - GAS S - SATELLITE S - STEAM O - OTHER

VII-62 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

NUMBER MAP PROJECT GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF CODE NAME S 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ FLOORS 17 HIGHLAND TOWERS X X 12 G L G L E T L CLT TT

18 THE LOOP ON XX X 2.5 G T G T G T T CTT TT GREENFIELD 19 COUNTRY COURT X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

20 LINCOLN TOWERS XX X 10 G L G L E T L CLT TT

21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN X X 2 G T G T E T T CLT TT

22 ROYAL OAK TOWERS X X 11 G L G L E L L CLL TT

23 SANDSTONE X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

24 OAK PARK MANOR X X X X X 2 G T G T G T T CLT TT

25 VILLAGE GREEN X 2 G T G T G T T CTT TT TOWNHOMES OF OAK 26 CHESTNUT OAKS X X 2 E T E T E T L CLT TT

27 HIDDEN OAKS X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

28 TANGLEWOOD X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

30 KENSWICK MANOR X 2 G T G T E T T CTT TT

31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS X X 8 G L G L E T L CLT TT

32 NORTH ROYAL OAK XX X 2.5 G L G L E T T CLT TT

PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD E - ELECTRIC C - COAXIAL T - TENANT G - GAS S - SATELLITE S - STEAM O - OTHER

VII-63 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

NUMBER MAP PROJECT GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF CODE NAME S 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ FLOORS 33 WOODWARD COURT X X 2.5 G L G L E T T CLT TT

34 AMBER COURT X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

35 BEAUMONT X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

36 ARLINGTON X X X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

37 WOODWARD NORTH X X 4 G T G T E T T CLT TT

38 CAMELOT X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

39 PHILAMER X X 2 G L G L E T T CLT TT

40 THE KENSINGTON AT X X 2 E T E T E T L CLT TT BEVERLY HILLS 41 COUNTRY CORNER X XX X 2 G T G T E T T CLT TT

42 CRANBROOK CENTRE X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

43 42 WEST X X 3 G T G T E T T CTT TT UNDER CONSTRUCTION 44 FRANKLIN RIVER X X 3 G T G T E T T CTT TT

45 LAUREL WOODS X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

46 LANCASTER HILLS XX 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY X X 2 G L E T E T T CLT TT

48 CHATSFORD MANOR X 2 G T G T E T T CTT TT

PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD E - ELECTRIC C - COAXIAL T - TENANT G - GAS S - SATELLITE S - STEAM O - OTHER

VII-64 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

NUMBER MAP PROJECT GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF CODE NAME S 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ FLOORS 49 COLONY PARK X X 2 G T G T E T T CTT TT

50 RIVER PARK PLACE X X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

51 OAK RIDGE XX X 3 G T G T E T L CLT TT

52 SOUTHFIELD X X 2,3 G T G T E T T CTT TT

53 MCDONNEL TOWER X X 14 G L G L E T L CLT TT

54 WOODCREST X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

55 PARK LANE X X 2 G T G T E T L CLT TT

56 MONTICELLO X X 2 G T G T E T T CTT TT

57 WILLOW TREE X X 3 G T G L E T L CLT TT

58 SILVER OAKS OF X X X X 2 G T G T E T T CTT TT SOUTHFIELD 59 SUTTON PLACE X X X 2 G T G T E T T CLT TT

60 EVERGREEN PLACE X 2.5 G T G T E T L CLT TT

61 ARBOR LOFTS XX XXX 4 G T G T E T T CTT TT

62 KNOB IN THE WOODS X XX 2 G T G T E T T CLT TT

63 CRYSTAL COURT XX X 3 E T E T E T L CLT TT

64 WOODLAND ARMS X X 2.5 G L G L E T L CLT TT

PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD E - ELECTRIC C - COAXIAL T - TENANT G - GAS S - SATELLITE S - STEAM O - OTHER

VII-65 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

NUMBER MAP PROJECT GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF CODE NAME S 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ FLOORS 65 TERRACE COURT X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

66 TOWERS OF X X 8 G L G L E T L CLT TT SOUTHFIELD 67 WELLINGTON PLACE X 2 G L G L E T T CLT TT

68 HIDDEN PINES X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

69 CRESCENT HOUSE XX X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

70 KAREN X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

71 IMPERIAL MANOR X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

72 RIVER PARK X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

73 FAIRWAY MANOR XX X 2,3 G L G L E T L CLT TT

74 CHAPEL COURT X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

75 MCNICHOLS X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT UNDER CONSTRUCTION 76 CREST X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

77 CAMBRIDGE TOWERS XX 14 G L G L E L L CLL TT

78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE XX X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

79 GREENFIELD X X 3 G L G L E T L CLT TT PENTHOUSE 80 BOWIN PLACE X X 11 G L G L E L L CLL TT

PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD E - ELECTRIC C - COAXIAL T - TENANT G - GAS S - SATELLITE S - STEAM O - OTHER

VII-66 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

NUMBER MAP PROJECT GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF CODE NAME S 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ FLOORS 81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS X X 2,2.5 G T G T E T L CLT TT

82 FERNWOOD MANOR X 3 G L G L E T L CLT TT

83 AUTUMN HOUSE X X 5 G L G L E L L CLL TT

84 DEVON SQUARE X X 3 G T G T G T L CLT TT

85 STATION 3 LOFTS X X X X 4 G T G T G T L CLT TT

86 EIGHT55 X X 5 E T E T E T L CLT TT

87 ROYAL OAK MANOR XX 11 G L G L G L L CLL TT

88 AMBER CROSSING X XXXX 5 G T G T G T L CLT TT TOWNHOMES & LOFTS 89 METROPOLITAN X X 2,2.5 E T E T E T L CLT TL LAFAYETTE 90 WAGON WHEEL X X 2.5 G L G L E T L CLT TT

91 FARNUM X X 2 G L G L G T L CLL TL

92 VILLAGE PARK OF X XX 3 E T E T E T L CLT TT ROYAL OAKS 93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES X X XX 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

94 ELMSLEIGH X X X 2 G T G T G T L CLT TT

95 AMBER'S RED RUN X X 2 G L G L E T L CTT TT

96 ROCHESTER HOUSE X X 2 G L G L E T L CLT TT

PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD E - ELECTRIC C - COAXIAL T - TENANT G - GAS S - SATELLITE S - STEAM O - OTHER

VII-67 UNIT TYPE / UTILITY DETAIL SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

NUMBER MAP PROJECT GARDEN TOWNHOUSE OF CODE NAME S 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ FLOORS 97 A. ALFRED TAUBMAN X 5,10 G L G L E L L CLL TT

98 BONNIEVIEW X X 3 G L G L E T L CLT TT

99 APPLEWOOD X X 2 E T E T E T L CLT TT

PAYOR UTILITIES CABLE TV L - LANDLORD E - ELECTRIC C - COAXIAL T - TENANT G - GAS S - SATELLITE S - STEAM O - OTHER

VII-68 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON STUDIO UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 10 PROVIDENCE TOWER 320 320 $787 $787 $2.46 $2.46

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT 680 680 $806 $806 $1.19 $1.19

18 THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD 400 400 $807 $807 $2.02 $2.02

20 LINCOLN TOWERS 454 454 $666 $666 $1.47 $1.47

32 NORTH ROYAL OAK 450 450 $710 $710 $1.58 $1.58

51 OAK RIDGE 440 440 $726 $726 $1.65 $1.65

61 ARBOR LOFTS 671 850 $1,152 $1,312 $1.54 $1.72

63 CRYSTAL COURT 309 309 $621 $621 $2.01 $2.01

67 WELLINGTON PLACE 770 770 $875 $915 $1.14 $1.19

69 CRESCENT HOUSE 476 476 $676 $676 $1.42 $1.42

73 FAIRWAY MANOR N.A. N.A. $601 $601 N.A. N.A.

88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & 535 535 $1,236 $1,341 $2.31 $2.51 LOFTS

VII-69 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON ONE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 1 TOWNE SQUARE 680 680 $761 $761 $1.12 $1.12

3 OAK PARK GARDENS 700 700 $823 $823 $1.18 $1.18

5 CHATEAU RIVIERA 1,000 1,000 $965 $965 $0.96 $0.96

6 NORTH PARK TOWERS 1,000 1,155 $1,075 $1,275 $1.08 $1.10

9 THE ATRIUM 600 950 $842 $942 $0.99 $1.40

10 PROVIDENCE TOWER 750 1,000 $947 $1,067 $1.07 $1.26

11 PROVIDENCE PLACE 1,425 1,425 $1,055 $1,085 $0.74 $0.76

13 COACH HOUSE 853 945 $792 $923 $0.93 $0.98

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT 750 750 $1,034 $1,034 $1.38 $1.38

15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ 800 800 $829 $879 $1.04 $1.10

16 RUE VERSAILLES 800 800 $792 $827 $0.99 $1.03

17 HIGHLAND TOWERS 650 650 $717 $717 $1.10 $1.10

18 THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD 685 685 $995 $1,005 $1.45 $1.47

19 COUNTRY COURT 600 600 $842 $867 $1.40 $1.45

20 LINCOLN TOWERS 687 750 $797 $862 $1.15 $1.16

23 SANDSTONE 655 655 $777 $777 $1.19 $1.19

24 OAK PARK MANOR 591 840 $838 $1,083 $1.29 $1.42

26 CHESTNUT OAKS 600 600 $895 $895 $1.49 $1.49

27 HIDDEN OAKS 801 801 $848 $848 $1.06 $1.06

28 TANGLEWOOD 840 840 $893 $893 $1.06 $1.06

29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE 900 900 $1,018 $1,018 $1.13 $1.13

30 KENSWICK MANOR 830 830 $1,082 $1,082 $1.30 $1.30

31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS 520 520 $937 $947 $1.80 $1.82

32 NORTH ROYAL OAK 750 750 $1,034 $1,159 $1.38 $1.55

VII-70 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON ONE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 33 WOODWARD COURT 700 700 $1,009 $1,234 $1.44 $1.76

34 AMBER COURT 574 574 $1,018 $1,028 $1.77 $1.79

35 BEAUMONT 505 505 $792 $822 $1.57 $1.63

36 ARLINGTON 780 780 $953 $953 $1.22 $1.22

37 WOODWARD NORTH 565 565 $915 $915 $1.62 $1.62

38 CAMELOT 780 780 $992 $992 $1.27 $1.27

39 PHILAMER 740 740 $909 $1,059 $1.23 $1.43

40 THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY 800 980 $1,054 $1,260 $1.29 $1.32 HILLS

41 COUNTRY CORNER 1,100 1,200 $1,090 $1,110 $0.93 $0.99

42 CRANBROOK CENTRE 863 927 $1,083 $1,123 $1.21 $1.25

43 42 WEST 810 843 $1,572 $1,682 $1.94 $2.00

44 FRANKLIN RIVER 960 960 $1,087 $1,087 $1.13 $1.13

47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY 850 850 $984 $984 $1.16 $1.16

48 CHATSFORD MANOR 830 830 $982 $1,002 $1.18 $1.21

49 COLONY PARK 1,000 1,000 $1,191 $1,191 $1.19 $1.19

51 OAK RIDGE 840 840 $842 $842 $1.00 $1.00

52 SOUTHFIELD 750 850 $976 $1,086 $1.28 $1.30

54 WOODCREST 830 860 $1,058 $1,058 $1.23 $1.27

55 PARK LANE 862 900 $1,173 $1,183 $1.31 $1.36

56 MONTICELLO 850 850 $1,157 $1,157 $1.36 $1.36

57 WILLOW TREE 900 900 $982 $1,007 $1.09 $1.12

58 SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD 1,062 1,062 $1,026 $1,026 $0.97 $0.97

60 EVERGREEN PLACE 800 800 $878 $923 $1.10 $1.15

61 ARBOR LOFTS 609 1,282 $1,207 $1,747 $1.36 $1.98

VII-71 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON ONE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 62 KNOB IN THE WOODS 1,050 1,050 $1,000 $1,000 $0.95 $0.95

63 CRYSTAL COURT 720 720 $730 $730 $1.01 $1.01

64 WOODLAND ARMS 750 750 $642 $642 $0.86 $0.86

65 TERRACE COURT N.A. N.A. $552 $552 N.A. N.A.

66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD 800 800 $841 $841 $1.05 $1.05

68 HIDDEN PINES N.A. N.A. $811 $811 N.A. N.A.

69 CRESCENT HOUSE 660 660 $792 $792 $1.20 $1.20

70 KAREN 600 600 $667 $667 $1.11 $1.11

71 IMPERIAL MANOR 850 850 $767 $767 $0.90 $0.90

72 RIVER PARK N.A. N.A. $767 $767 N.A. N.A.

73 FAIRWAY MANOR N.A. N.A. $667 $667 N.A. N.A.

74 CHAPEL COURT N.A. N.A. $642 $642 N.A. N.A.

75 MCNICHOLS N.A. N.A. $732 $732 N.A. N.A.

79 GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE 750 750 $792 $792 $1.06 $1.06

81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS 811 811 $828 $848 $1.02 $1.05

82 FERNWOOD MANOR 650 650 $817 $867 $1.26 $1.33

85 STATION 3 LOFTS 917 948 $1,986 $1,986 $2.09 $2.17

86 EIGHT55 837 1,003 $2,042 $2,532 $2.44 $2.52

88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & 602 890 $1,081 $1,931 $1.80 $2.17 LOFTS

89 METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE 650 650 $1,290 $1,290 $1.98 $1.98

90 WAGON WHEEL 800 800 $852 $852 $1.07 $1.07

91 FARNUM 580 780 $1,021 $1,101 $1.41 $1.76

92 VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS 750 925 $1,270 $1,430 $1.55 $1.69

93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES 750 1,000 $1,092 $1,292 $1.29 $1.46

VII-72 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON ONE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 94 ELMSLEIGH 800 800 $861 $861 $1.08 $1.08

95 AMBER'S RED RUN 630 733 $1,079 $1,079 $1.47 $1.71

96 ROCHESTER HOUSE 750 750 $842 $842 $1.12 $1.12

98 BONNIEVIEW N.A. N.A. $742 $742 N.A. N.A.

99 APPLEWOOD N.A. N.A. $805 $805 N.A. N.A.

VII-73 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON TWO BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 1 TOWNE SQUARE 850 850 $885 $885 $1.04 $1.04

2 MILLER GREENS 900 1,100 $940 $1,070 $0.97 $1.04

3 OAK PARK GARDENS 850 950 $945 $1,055 $1.11 $1.11

4 STRATFORD VILLA 900 1,000 $983 $1,108 $1.09 $1.11

5 CHATEAU RIVIERA 1,300 1,300 $1,164 $1,164 $0.90 $0.90

6 NORTH PARK TOWERS 1,350 1,700 $1,428 $1,679 $0.99 $1.06

7 NORTH PARK PLACE 1,250 1,250 $1,106 $1,317 $0.88 $1.05

8 LEGACY PLACE 1,600 1,600 $1,534 $1,644 $0.96 $1.03

9 THE ATRIUM 1,100 1,200 $1,058 $1,158 $0.96 $0.96

10 PROVIDENCE TOWER 1,000 1,000 $1,086 $1,146 $1.09 $1.15

11 PROVIDENCE PLACE 1,450 1,475 $1,171 $1,210 $0.81 $0.82

12 CARLYLE TOWER 1,174 1,379 $958 $1,008 $0.73 $0.82

13 COACH HOUSE 988 1,312 $1,010 $1,340 $1.02 $1.02

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT 1,100 1,600 $1,476 $1,677 $1.05 $1.34

15 VERSAILLES BIARRITZ 840 1,065 $932 $1,047 $0.98 $1.11

16 RUE VERSAILLES 840 840 $898 $918 $1.07 $1.09

17 HIGHLAND TOWERS 850 850 $943 $943 $1.11 $1.11

18 THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD 865 875 $1,163 $1,173 $1.34 $1.34

19 COUNTRY COURT 900 900 $893 $933 $0.99 $1.04

20 LINCOLN TOWERS 1,039 1,039 $998 $1,043 $0.96 $1.00

21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN 1,010 1,165 $1,214 $1,364 $1.17 $1.20

23 SANDSTONE 850 850 $923 $923 $1.09 $1.09

24 OAK PARK MANOR 950 950 $1,131 $1,266 $1.19 $1.33

25 VILLAGE GREEN TOWNHOMES OF 950 950 $1,273 $1,393 $1.34 $1.47 OAK PARK

VII-74 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON TWO BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 26 CHESTNUT OAKS 750 750 $1,037 $1,037 $1.38 $1.38

27 HIDDEN OAKS 1,010 1,010 $975 $975 $0.97 $0.97

29 CAMBRIDGE SQUARE 1,200 1,200 $1,085 $1,160 $0.90 $0.97

31 OXFORD PARK TOWERS 720 720 $1,098 $1,098 $1.52 $1.52

32 NORTH ROYAL OAK 850 850 $1,267 $1,417 $1.49 $1.67

33 WOODWARD COURT 925 925 $1,117 $1,417 $1.21 $1.53

34 AMBER COURT 902 902 $1,105 $1,115 $1.23 $1.24

36 ARLINGTON 880 1,100 $1,060 $1,545 $1.20 $1.40

37 WOODWARD NORTH 865 895 $1,049 $1,074 $1.20 $1.21

38 CAMELOT 1,025 1,100 $1,108 $1,133 $1.03 $1.08

39 PHILAMER 850 850 $1,017 $1,242 $1.20 $1.46

40 THE KENSINGTON AT BEVERLY 980 1,050 $1,196 $1,522 $1.22 $1.45 HILLS

41 COUNTRY CORNER 1,300 1,800 $1,264 $1,804 $0.97 $1.00

42 CRANBROOK CENTRE 1,161 1,161 $1,320 $1,340 $1.14 $1.15

43 42 WEST 982 1,004 $1,776 $1,991 $1.81 $1.98

44 FRANKLIN RIVER 1,100 1,200 $1,236 $1,396 $1.12 $1.16

45 LAUREL WOODS 1,500 1,800 $1,235 $1,440 $0.80 $0.82

46 LANCASTER HILLS 1,300 1,500 $1,235 $1,305 $0.87 $0.95

47 TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY 1,000 1,000 $1,136 $1,136 $1.14 $1.14

49 COLONY PARK 1,250 1,310 $1,321 $1,321 $1.01 $1.06

51 OAK RIDGE 1,050 1,150 $969 $999 $0.87 $0.92

52 SOUTHFIELD 1,000 1,000 $1,311 $1,311 $1.31 $1.31

54 WOODCREST 1,110 1,135 $1,185 $1,185 $1.04 $1.07

55 PARK LANE 1,162 1,200 $1,410 $1,455 $1.21 $1.21

VII-75 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON TWO BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 56 MONTICELLO 1,080 1,200 $1,341 $1,606 $1.24 $1.34

57 WILLOW TREE 1,050 1,200 $1,106 $1,156 $0.96 $1.05

58 SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD 1,317 1,766 $1,286 $1,566 $0.89 $0.98

59 SUTTON PLACE 1,575 2,003 $1,268 $1,738 $0.81 $0.87

61 ARBOR LOFTS 827 1,000 $1,796 $1,836 $1.84 $2.17

62 KNOB IN THE WOODS 1,400 1,400 $1,154 $1,154 $0.82 $0.82

63 CRYSTAL COURT 864 921 $862 $902 $0.98 $1.00

64 WOODLAND ARMS 1,300 1,300 $808 $808 $0.62 $0.62

65 TERRACE COURT N.A. N.A. $668 $668 N.A. N.A.

66 TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD 1,100 1,200 $897 $967 $0.81 $0.82

68 HIDDEN PINES N.A. N.A. $957 $957 N.A. N.A.

69 CRESCENT HOUSE 925 925 $908 $908 $0.98 $0.98

70 KAREN 750 750 $808 $808 $1.08 $1.08

71 IMPERIAL MANOR 1,200 1,200 $883 $883 $0.74 $0.74

72 RIVER PARK N.A. N.A. $883 $883 N.A. N.A.

73 FAIRWAY MANOR N.A. N.A. $758 $758 N.A. N.A.

74 CHAPEL COURT N.A. N.A. $738 $738 N.A. N.A.

75 MCNICHOLS N.A. N.A. $848 $848 N.A. N.A.

76 CREST N.A. N.A. $723 $723 N.A. N.A.

78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE 752 778 $733 $796 $0.97 $1.02

79 GREENFIELD PENTHOUSE 1,100 1,100 $933 $933 $0.85 $0.85

81 SHERWOOD HEIGHTS 918 1,200 $970 $1,135 $0.95 $1.06

85 STATION 3 LOFTS 900 2,453 $2,112 $2,662 $1.09 $2.35

86 EIGHT55 1,150 1,214 $2,742 $3,092 $2.38 $2.55

VII-76 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON TWO BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & 1,023 1,569 $1,387 $2,637 $1.36 $1.68 LOFTS

89 METROPOLITAN LAFAYETTE 820 820 $1,537 $1,537 $1.87 $1.87

90 WAGON WHEEL 1,000 1,000 $1,008 $1,008 $1.01 $1.01

91 FARNUM 780 780 $1,339 $1,339 $1.72 $1.72

92 VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS 950 1,100 $1,567 $1,682 $1.53 $1.65

93 ROYAL OAK ESTATES 900 1,400 $1,153 $1,453 $1.04 $1.28

94 ELMSLEIGH 900 1,000 $937 $1,062 $1.04 $1.06

95 AMBER'S RED RUN 896 1,000 $1,415 $1,415 $1.41 $1.58

96 ROCHESTER HOUSE 900 900 $958 $958 $1.06 $1.06

98 BONNIEVIEW N.A. N.A. $858 $858 N.A. N.A.

99 APPLEWOOD N.A. N.A. $972 $972 N.A. N.A.

VII-77 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON THREE BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 4 STRATFORD VILLA 1,100 1,100 $1,213 $1,213 $1.10 $1.10

5 CHATEAU RIVIERA 1,800 1,800 $1,435 $1,435 $0.80 $0.80

6 NORTH PARK TOWERS 2,000 2,000 $1,909 $1,909 $0.95 $0.95

7 NORTH PARK PLACE 1,600 1,600 $1,237 $1,847 $0.77 $1.15

8 LEGACY PLACE 1,870 1,870 $1,685 $1,685 $0.90 $0.90

11 PROVIDENCE PLACE 1,475 1,475 $1,440 $1,440 $0.98 $0.98

12 CARLYLE TOWER 1,510 1,510 $1,162 $1,178 $0.77 $0.78

14 SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT 1,600 1,600 $1,808 $1,808 $1.13 $1.13

21 THE OAKS ON LINCOLN 1,460 1,460 $1,558 $1,558 $1.07 $1.07

24 OAK PARK MANOR 1,060 1,300 $1,418 $1,608 $1.24 $1.34

36 ARLINGTON 1,200 1,200 $1,284 $1,284 $1.07 $1.07

41 COUNTRY CORNER 1,800 1,800 $1,795 $1,795 $1.00 $1.00

43 42 WEST 1,433 1,435 $2,507 $2,507 $1.75 $1.75

46 LANCASTER HILLS 1,800 1,800 $1,476 $1,516 $0.82 $0.84

58 SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD 2,106 2,106 $1,810 $1,810 $0.86 $0.86

59 SUTTON PLACE 2,225 2,600 $1,802 $1,992 $0.77 $0.81

61 ARBOR LOFTS 1,282 1,282 $2,247 $2,307 $1.75 $1.80

62 KNOB IN THE WOODS 2,200 2,200 $1,595 $1,595 $0.73 $0.73

78 RENAISSANCE VILLAGE 1,140 1,447 $862 $890 $0.62 $0.76

85 STATION 3 LOFTS 1,500 1,500 $3,129 $3,129 $2.09 $2.09

88 AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & 922 922 $2,401 $2,401 $2.60 $2.60 LOFTS

92 VILLAGE PARK OF ROYAL OAKS 1,300 1,300 $1,879 $1,934 $1.45 $1.49

VII-78 RENT PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON FOUR+ BEDROOM UNITS SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

NET Map UNIT SIZE RENT RENT PER SQ. FOOT Code Project Name Low High Low High Low High 8 LEGACY PLACE 3,425 3,425 $2,336 $2,336 $0.68 $0.68

61 ARBOR LOFTS 1,601 1,605 $3,018 $3,113 $1.89 $1.94

VII-79 VIII. LOCATION MAPS AND PHOTOGRAPHS

The following section contains a maps illustrating the locations of the modern apartments identified in the field survey (Section VI and VII), as well as the locations of the condominiums, assisted- and independent-living facilities, lodging facilities, and office facilities surveyed.

Following the maps are photographs of selected apartment properties. Apartment photographs may be selected for inclusion due to comparability of the property to the site, the property’s proximity to the site, or because the property is representative of area apartments.

VIII-1 APARTMENT LOCATIONS REFERENCE MAP

MAP E MAP A

MAP C

MAP D

MAP B

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

VIII-2 APARTMENT LOCATIONS MAP A

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

VIII-3 APARTMENT LOCATIONS MAP B

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

VIII-4 APARTMENT LOCATIONS MAP C

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

VIII-5 APARTMENT LOCATIONS MAP D

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

VIII-6 APARTMENT LOCATIONS MAP E

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

VIII-7 ASSISTED-LIVING LOCATIONS MAP

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

VIII-8 INDEPENDENT-LIVING LOCATIONS MAP

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

VIII-9 CONDOMINIUM LOCATIONS MAP

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

VIII-10 LODGING LOCATIONS MAP

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

VIII-11 OFFICE LOCATIONS REFERENCE MAP

MAP A

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

VIII-12 OFFICE LOCATIONS MAP A

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

VIII-13 SELECTED APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

5) CHATEAU RIVIERA 6) NORTH PARK TOWERS

7) NORTH PARK PLACE 8) LEGACY PLACE

9) THE ATRIUM 10) PROVIDENCE TOWER

VIII-14 SELECTED APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

11) PROVIDENCE PLACE 12) CARLYLE TOWER

13) COACH HOUSE 14) SOLAIRE ACTIVE ADULT

17) HIGHLAND TOWERS 18) THE LOOP ON GREENFIELD

VIII-15 SELECTED APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

19) COUNTRY COURT 26) CHESTNUT OAKS

27) HIDDEN OAKS 28) TANGLEWOOD

29) CAMBRIDGE SQUARE 30) KENSWICK MANOR

VIII-16 SELECTED APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

43) 42 WEST 44) FRANKLIN RIVER

45) LAUREL WOODS 46) LANCASTER HILLS

47) TWYCKINGHAM VALLEY 48) CHATSFORD MANOR

VIII-17 SELECTED APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

49) COLONY PARK 50) RIVER PARK PLACE

51) OAK RIDGE 52) SOUTHFIELD

53) MCDONNEL TOWER 54) WOODCREST

VIII-18 SELECTED APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

55) PARK LANE 56) MONTICELLO

57) WILLOW TREE 58) SILVER OAKS OF SOUTHFIELD

59) SUTTON PLACE 60) EVERGREEN PLACE

VIII-19 SELECTED APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

61) ARBOR LOFTS 62) KNOB IN THE WOODS

63) CRYSTAL COURT 64) WOODLAND ARMS

66) TOWERS OF SOUTHFIELD 67) WELLINGTON PLACE

VIII-20 SELECTED APARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA MAY 2016

85) STATION 3 LOFTS 86) EIGHT55

88) AMBER CROSSING TOWNHOMES & LOFT 99) APPLEWOOD

VIII-21 IX. AREA ECONOMY

A. EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS

Employment in Oakland County showed a pre-recession high of 598,658 in 2006, then decreased 11.8% to 527,731 in 2009. Since then, employment has increased 15.4% to 609,037 in 2016, above the pre-recession high in 2006.

Unemployment in Oakland County was 5.0% in 2015, below the statewide average of 5.4%. It is significantly below the recession-era high of 13.0% in 2009.

For more detailed information, see the charts on page IX-2.

Major employers in the Southfield area are:

NUMBER OF EMPLOYER EMPLOYEES SECTOR St. John Providence Hospital 3,600 Health Care and Social Assistance Lear Corp. 1,450 Manufacturing DENSO 1,100 Manufacturing Blue Care Network 1,000 Health Care and Social Assistance Federal Mogul Corp. 800 Manufacturing Credit Acceptance Corp. 775 Finance and Insurance Comau 725 Manufacturing Metropolitan Life Insurance 675 Finance and Insurance Source: Southfield Economic Profile, City of Southfield, January 2016

Most area residents find employment within Southfield or commute within the greater Detroit area.

IX-1 EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATES OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN 2006-2016*

UNEMPLOYMENT RATES OAKLAND STATE OF YEAR EMPLOYMENT COUNTY MICHIGAN US 2006 598,658 5.7% 7.0% 4.6% 2007 589,416 5.8% 7.0% 4.6% 2008 569,123 6.6% 8.0% 5.8% 2009 527,731 13.0% 13.7% 9.3% 2010 548,699 11.8% 12.6% 9.6% 2011 552,660 9.5% 10.4% 8.9% 2012 563,502 8.2% 9.1% 8.1% 2013 574,432 7.9% 8.8% 7.4% 2014 583,531 6.6% 7.3% 6.2% 2015 593,961 5.0% 5.4% 5.3% 2016* 609,037 4.1% 4.9% 5.0% *Through April 2016 Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

IX-2 DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT BY CATEGORY OAKLAND COUNTY AND THE SOUTHFIELD APARTMENT EMA, 2016

OAKLAND COUNTY EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA TOTAL TOTAL EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION Forestry, Fishing, Hunting and 311 0.0% 15 0.0% Agricultural Support Mining 314 0.0% 8 0.0% Utilities 1,931 0.2% 115 0.1% Construction 31,514 4.0% 4,691 3.3% Manufacturing 99,932 12.8% 8,341 5.9% Wholesale Trade 36,707 4.7% 4,955 3.5% Retail Trade 107,571 13.7% 14,991 10.7% Transportation and Warehousing 9,615 1.2% 1,326 0.9% Information 19,026 2.4% 4,195 3.0% Finance and Insurance 47,036 6.0% 8,098 5.8% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 23,442 3.0% 4,378 3.1% Professional, Scientific and Technical 84,266 10.8% 15,917 11.3% Services Management of Companies and 433 0.1% 180 0.1% Enterprises Administrative Support, Waste 28,049 3.6% 7,652 5.5% Management, Remediation Services Educational Services 45,970 5.9% 7,585 5.4% Health Care and Social Assistance 93,028 11.9% 31,621 22.5% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 19,080 2.4% 2,282 1.6% Accommodation and Food Services 61,283 7.8% 10,562 7.5% Other Services (Except Public 44,482 5.7% 8,629 6.1% Administration) Public Administration 26,743 3.4% 4,291 3.1% Unclassified Establishments 1,608 0.2% 550 0.4% Total 782,341 100.0% 140,382 100.0% Source: ESRI, Incorporated

Employment within the Site Apartment EMA accounts for 17.9% of the total employment within Oakland County.

The highest shares of employment in Oakland County are within Retail Trade and Manufacturing (13.7% and 12.8% respectively). Health Care and Social Assistance ranks first in the Southfield EMA (22.5%), while Professional, Scientific and Technical Services is second (11.3%).

IX-3 The following projects and developments highlight Southfield’s recent economic growth and revitalization.

 In fall 2015, BASF opened a new plastics and coatings lab in Southfield, adding 300 new jobs to its existing campus.  Durr Systems, a Germany-based automotive parts manufacturer, made a $40 million investment in Southfield, moving 485 jobs to the city.  Hello World, a digital marketing company, relocated to Southfield, making a $6.5 million investment and bringing 350 jobs to the city.  In 2015 Southfield completed $34.7 million in road construction projects, more than any other Oakland County community. There are $41.6 million in improvement projects anticipated for 2016.  In February 2016 the automotive gasket manufacturer Elring/Klinger purchased the former Staples Office Supply warehouse located at 23300 Northwestern Highway. After making some improvements to the building, the company plans to relocate its Michigan operations to this new Southfield location. Initially, the building is anticipated to add around 30 new jobs to Southfield initially. Elring/Klinger plans to continue adding jobs at this location over a period of several years.

Sources: Southfield State of the City 2016, City of Southfield Planning Commission Minutes, Oakland County One-Fifteen News

B. HOUSING STARTS

In an analysis of housing starts by building permits in Oakland County, Michigan since 2006, the peak year was 2013 with 2,632 units; 15.1% of these were multifamily units. In 2014, there were 2,235 starts, and there were 2,448 in 2015.

Housing starts in the city of Southfield accounted for 1.2% of the total Oakland County starts between 2006 and 2015. Since 2006, there have been permits issued representing 192 units in Southfield, 27.1% of which have been multifamily units.

IX-4 HOUSING UNITS AUTHORIZED OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN 2006-2015*

SINGLE- YEAR FAMILY MULTIFAMILY TOTAL 2006 1,760 433 2,193 2007 986 59 1,045 2008 586 119 705 2009 367 4 371 2010 887 258 1,145 2011 1,215 0 1,215 2012 1,798 6 1,804 2013 2,235 397 2,632 2014 1,989 246 2,235 2015* 2,015 433 2,448 *Oakland County reports on an annual basis only.

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015*

SINGLE-FAMILY MULTIFAMILY

The Oakland County building permit system covers the entire county.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Commerce, C-40 Construction Reports Danter Company, LLC

IX-5 HOUSING UNITS AUTHORIZED SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN 2006-2016*

SINGLE- YEAR FAMILY MULTIFAMILY TOTAL 2006 45 28 73 2007 45 17 62 2008 11 7 18 2009 5 0 5 2010 11 0 11 2011 0 0 0 2012 2 0 2 2013 4 0 4 2014 5 0 5 2015 9 0 9 2016* 3 0 3 *Through May

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*

SINGLE-FAMILY MULTIFAMILY

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Commerce, C-40 Construction Reports Danter Company, LLC

IX-6 DEMOGRAPHICS

RETAIL SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

APARTMENT SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

OFFICE SITE EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

OAKLAND COUNTY

Retail Goods and Services Expenditures

D2113 Southfield, MI Retail EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 17.84 square miles

Top Tapestry Segments Percen Demographic Summary 2016 2021 Family Foundations (12A) 31.6% Population 83,341 84,401 Comfortable Empty Nesters (5A) 13.6% Households 34,471 35,090 Rustbelt Traditions (5D) 13.5% Families 21,404 21,587 Modest Income Homes (12D) 8.3% Median Age 41.5 42.6 Old and Newcomers (8F) 7.3% Median Household $50,628 $56,612 Spending Potential Average Amount Index Spent Total Apparel and Services 81 $1,630.40 $56,201,468 Men's 80 $321.21 $11,072,585 Women's 82 $562.96 $19,405,923 Children's 80 $256.49 $8,841,474 Footwear 80 $343.45 $11,838,909 Watches & Jewelry 82 $84.98 $2,929,385 Apparel Products and Services (1) 85 $61.30 $2,113,191 Computer Computers and Hardware for Home Use 82 $141.54 $4,878,995 Portable Memory 84 $3.94 $135,932 Computer Software 86 $11.11 $383,140 Computer Accessories 83 $14.77 $509,252 Entertainment & Recreation 82 $2,387.74 $82,307,915 Fees and Admissions 80 $461.56 $15,910,442 Membership Fees for Clubs (2) 80 $153.43 $5,288,984 Fees for Participant Sports, excl. Trips 83 $74.10 $2,554,152 Tickets to Theatre/Operas/Concerts 82 $43.05 $1,483,997 Tickets to Movies/Museums/Parks 79 $52.32 $1,803,598 Admission to Sporting Events, excl. Trips 85 $45.42 $1,565,616 Fees for Recreational Lessons 75 $92.58 $3,191,385 Dating Services 96 $0.66 $22,710 TV/Video/Audio 85 $1,024.57 $35,318,037 Cable and Satellite Television Services 86 $773.43 $26,660,912 Televisions 84 $92.49 $3,188,219 Satellite Dishes 79 $1.15 $39,724 VCRs, Video Cameras, and DVD Players 80 $6.49 $223,694 Miscellaneous Video Equipment 94 $7.20 $248,336 Video Cassettes and DVDs 80 $14.72 $507,414 Video Game Hardware/Accessories 83 $21.28 $733,705 Video Game Software 83 $11.42 $393,699 Streaming/Downloaded Video 78 $14.12 $486,781 Rental of Video Cassettes and DVDs 79 $12.90 $444,636 Installation of Televisions 101 $0.93 $32,179 Audio (3) 80 $65.45 $2,255,964 Rental and Repair of TV/Radio/Sound Equipment 76 $2.98 $102,773 Pets 81 $431.20 $14,864,052 Toys/Games/Crafts/Hobbies (4) 81 $92.35 $3,183,471 Recreational Vehicles and Fees (5) 79 $84.48 $2,912,068 Sports/Recreation/Exercise Equipment (6) 71 $117.95 $4,065,846 Photo Equipment and Supplies (7) 82 $45.18 $1,557,449 Reading (8) 84 $109.52 $3,775,412 Catered Affairs (9) 81 $20.92 $721,139 Food 83 $6,686.36 $230,485,562 Food at Home 83 $4,154.99 $143,226,789 Bakery and Cereal Products 84 $566.95 $19,543,279 Meats, Poultry, Fish, and Eggs 83 $927.04 $31,955,903 Dairy Products 82 $436.12 $15,033,412 Fruits and Vegetables 83 $792.75 $27,326,975 Snacks and Other Food at Home (10) 84 $1,432.14 $49,367,220 Food Away from Home 82 $2,531.37 $87,258,772 Alcoholic Beverages 82 $419.57 $14,462,902 Data Note: The Spending Potential Index (SPI) is household-based, and represents the amount spent for a product or service relative to a national average of 100. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. This report is not a comprehensive list of all consumer spending variables therefore the variables in each section may not sum to totals. Source: Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021; Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2013 and 2014 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics. August 11, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 1 of 3 Retail Goods and Services Expenditures

D2113 Southfield, MI Retail EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 17.84 square miles

Spending Potential Average Amount Index Spent Total Financial Value of Stocks/Bonds/Mutual Funds 91 $6,845.60 $235,974,593 Value of Retirement Plans 84 $22,017.98 $758,981,943 Value of Other Financial Assets 90 $1,015.97 $35,021,670 Vehicle Loan Amount excluding Interest 82 $2,007.06 $69,185,224 Value of Credit Card Debt 83 $477.17 $16,448,468 Health Nonprescription Drugs 83 $103.03 $3,551,667 Prescription Drugs 87 $364.36 $12,559,993 Eyeglasses and Contact Lenses 83 $74.07 $2,553,363 Home Mortgage Payment and Basics (11) 82 $7,033.68 $242,458,039 Maintenance and Remodeling Services 85 $1,487.73 $51,283,698 Maintenance and Remodeling Materials (12) 84 $305.76 $10,539,789 Utilities, Fuel, and Public Services 85 $4,148.08 $142,988,603 Household Furnishings and Equipment Household Textiles (13) 83 $72.23 $2,489,979 Furniture 84 $411.25 $14,176,253 Rugs 85 $20.64 $711,598 Major Appliances (14) 80 $225.89 $7,786,637 Housewares (15) 84 $70.00 $2,412,834 Small Appliances 82 $38.60 $1,330,521 Luggage 84 $7.73 $266,553 Telephones and Accessories 88 $62.74 $2,162,806 Household Operations Child Care 79 $335.50 $11,565,024 Lawn and Garden (16) 80 $327.33 $11,283,548 Moving/Storage/Freight Express 76 $48.36 $1,666,947 Housekeeping Supplies (17) 84 $588.96 $20,302,045 Insurance Owners and Renters Insurance 87 $401.90 $13,853,769 Vehicle Insurance 84 $938.35 $32,346,032 Life/Other Insurance 83 $344.02 $11,858,769 Health Insurance 85 $2,885.69 $99,472,457 Personal Care Products (18) 82 $355.52 $12,255,182 School Books and Supplies (19) 78 $128.29 $4,422,308 Smoking Products 86 $352.89 $12,164,584 Transportation Payments on Vehicles excluding Leases 82 $1,701.03 $58,636,304 Gasoline and Motor Oil 83 $2,547.26 $87,806,445 Vehicle Maintenance and Repairs 82 $852.83 $29,397,962 Travel Airline Fares 80 $363.81 $12,540,804 Lodging on Trips 82 $379.29 $13,074,494 Auto/Truck Rental on Trips 78 $18.76 $646,609 Food and Drink on Trips 81 $355.28 $12,246,971

Data Note: The Spending Potential Index (SPI) is household-based, and represents the amount spent for a product or service relative to a national average of 100. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. This report is not a comprehensive list of all consumer spending variables therefore the variables in each section may not sum to totals. Source: Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021; Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2013 and 2014 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics. August 11, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 2 of 3 Retail Goods and Services Expenditures

D2113 Southfield, MI Retail EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 17.84 square miles

(1) Apparel Products and Services includes material for making clothes, sewing patterns and notions, shoe repair and other shoe services, apparel laundry and dry cleaning, alteration, repair and tailoring of apparel, clothing rental and storage, and watch and jewelry repair.

(2) Membership Fees for Clubs includes membership fees for social, recreational, and civic clubs.

(3) Audio includes satellite radio service, sound components and systems, digital audio players, records, CDs, audio tapes, streaming/downloaded audio, tape recorders, radios, musical instruments and accessories, and rental and repair of musical instruments.

(4) Toys and Games includes toys, games, arts and crafts, tricycles, playground equipment, arcade games, and online entertainment and games.

(5) Recreational Vehicles & Fees includes docking and landing fees for boats and planes, purchase and rental of RVs or boats, and camp fees.

(6) Sports/Recreation/Exercise Equipment includes exercise equipment and gear, game tables, bicycles, camping equipment, hunting and fishing equipment, winter sports equipment, water sports equipment, other sports equipment, and rental/repair of sports/recreation/exercise equipment.

(7) Photo Equipment and Supplies includes film, film processing, photographic equipment, rental and repair of photo equipment, and photographer fees.

(8) Reading includes digital book readers, books, magazine and newspaper subscriptions, and single copies of magazines and newspapers..

(9) Catered Affairs includes expenses associated with live entertainment and rental of party supplies.

(10) Snacks and Other Food at Home includes candy, chewing gum, sugar, artificial sweeteners, jam, jelly, preserves, margarine, fat, oil, salad dressing, nondairy cream and milk, peanut butter, frozen prepared food, potato chips, nuts, salt, spices, seasonings, olives, pickles, relishes, sauces, gravy, other condiments, soup, prepared salad, prepared dessert, baby food, miscellaneous prepared food, and nonalcoholic beverages.

(11) Mortgage Payment and Basics includes mortgage interest, mortgage principal, property taxes, homeowners insurance, and ground rent.

(12) Maintenance and Remodeling Materials includes supplies/tools/equipment for painting and wallpapering, plumbing supplies and equipment, electrical/heating/AC supplies, materials for hard surface flooring, materials for roofing/gutters, materials for plaster/panel/siding, materials for patio/fence/brick work, landscaping materials, and insulation materials for owned homes.

(13) Household Textiles includes bathroom linens, bedroom linens, kitchen linens, dining room linens, other linens, curtains, draperies, slipcovers, decorative pillows, and materials for slipcovers and curtains.

(14) Major Appliances includes dishwashers, disposals, refrigerators, freezers, washers, dryers, stoves, ovens, microwaves, window air conditioners, electric floor cleaning equipment, sewing machines, and miscellaneous appliances.

(15) Housewares includes plastic dinnerware, china, flatware, glassware, serving pieces, nonelectric cookware, and tableware.

(16) Lawn and Garden includes lawn and garden supplies, equipment and care service, indoor plants, fresh flowers, and repair/rental of lawn and garden equipment.

(17) Housekeeping Supplies includes soaps and laundry detergents, cleaning products, toilet tissue, paper towels, napkins, paper/plastic/foil products, stationery, giftwrap supplies, postage, and delivery services.

(18) Personal Care Products includes hair care products, nonelectric articles for hair, wigs, hairpieces, oral hygiene products, shaving needs, perfume, cosmetics, skincare, bath products, nail products, deodorant, feminine hygiene products, adult diapers, and personal care appliances.

(19) School Books and Supplies includes school books and supplies for College, Elementary school, High school, Vocational/Technical School, Preschool/Other Schools, and Other School Supplies.

Data Note: The Spending Potential Index (SPI) is household-based, and represents the amount spent for a product or service relative to a national average of 100. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. This report is not a comprehensive list of all consumer spending variables therefore the variables in each section may not sum to totals. Source: Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021; Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2013 and 2014 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics. August 11, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 3 of 3 Retail MarketPlace Profile

D2113 Southfield, MI Retail EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 17.84 square miles

Summary Demographics 2016 Population 83,341 2016 Households 34,471 2016 Median Disposable Income $39,879 2016 Per Capita Income $26,501 NAICS Demand Supply Retail Gap Leakage/Surplu Number of Industry Summary (Retail Potential) (Retail Sales) Factor Businesses Total Retail Trade and Food & Drink 44- $1,164,032,760 $1,057,351,734 $106,681,026 4.8 891 Total Retail Trade 44-45 $1,056,362,629 $939,731,247 $116,631,382 5.8 675 Total Food & Drink 722 $107,670,131 $117,620,487 -$9,950,356 -4.4 217 NAICS Demand Supply Retail Gap Leakage/Surplu Number of Industry Group (Retail Potential) (Retail Sales) Factor Businesses Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers 441 $236,076,963 $41,414,970 $194,661,993 70.2 20 Automobile Dealers 4411 $194,497,011 $31,265,390 $163,231,621 72.3 8 Other Motor Vehicle Dealers 4412 $23,660,228 $1,912,641 $21,747,587 85.0 2 Auto Parts, Accessories & Tire Stores 4413 $17,919,723 $8,236,939 $9,682,784 37.0 10 Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores 442 $30,181,798 $45,470,636 -$15,288,838 -20.2 25 Furniture Stores 4421 $19,671,116 $19,878,523 -$207,407 -0.5 9 Home Furnishings Stores 4422 $10,510,681 $25,592,113 -$15,081,432 -41.8 16 Electronics & Appliance Stores 443 $58,270,452 $148,495,060 -$90,224,608 -43.6 37 Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply Stores 444 $48,956,225 $30,310,448 $18,645,777 23.5 22 Bldg Material & Supplies Dealers 4441 $40,470,476 $28,589,553 $11,880,923 17.2 17 Lawn & Garden Equip & Supply Stores 4442 $8,485,749 $1,720,895 $6,764,854 66.3 5 Food & Beverage Stores 445 $196,007,674 $93,989,818 $102,017,856 35.2 57 Grocery Stores 4451 $172,465,595 $74,788,919 $97,676,676 39.5 27 Specialty Food Stores 4452 $12,075,616 $5,929,345 $6,146,271 34.1 11 Beer, Wine & Liquor Stores 4453 $11,466,463 $13,271,554 -$1,805,091 -7.3 19 Health & Personal Care Stores 446,4461 $73,569,873 $131,167,259 -$57,597,386 -28.1 86 Gasoline Stations 447,4471 $72,508,229 $69,456,699 $3,051,530 2.1 31 Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores 448 $53,823,522 $126,112,585 -$72,289,063 -40.2 255 Clothing Stores 4481 $35,489,387 $62,398,518 -$26,909,131 -27.5 144 Shoe Stores 4482 $7,050,624 $30,652,452 -$23,601,828 -62.6 37 Jewelry, Luggage & Leather Goods Stores 4483 $11,283,512 $33,061,615 -$21,778,103 -49.1 74 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book & Music Stores 451 $30,414,230 $24,307,934 $6,106,296 11.2 34 Sporting Goods/Hobby/Musical Instr Stores 4511 $23,977,147 $20,455,071 $3,522,076 7.9 27 Book, Periodical & Music Stores 4512 $6,437,083 $3,852,863 $2,584,220 25.1 7 General Merchandise Stores 452 $188,807,244 $144,611,894 $44,195,350 13.3 29 Department Stores Excluding Leased Depts. 4521 $136,273,487 $128,736,293 $7,537,194 2.8 13 Other General Merchandise Stores 4529 $52,533,757 $15,875,601 $36,658,156 53.6 16 Miscellaneous Store Retailers 453 $48,228,826 $36,669,411 $11,559,415 13.6 66 Florists 4531 $2,122,976 $1,207,611 $915,365 27.5 9 Office Supplies, Stationery & Gift Stores 4532 $9,429,020 $9,170,493 $258,527 1.4 25 Used Merchandise Stores 4533 $5,573,698 $5,500,509 $73,189 0.7 14 Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers 4539 $31,103,132 $20,790,799 $10,312,333 19.9 18 Nonstore Retailers 454 $19,517,593 $47,724,532 -$28,206,939 -41.9 13 Electronic Shopping & Mail-Order Houses 4541 $15,435,589 $45,195,796 -$29,760,207 -49.1 7 Vending Machine Operators 4542 $828,304 $384,090 $444,214 36.6 2 Direct Selling Establishments 4543 $3,253,700 $2,144,646 $1,109,054 20.5 4 Food Services & Drinking Places 722 $107,670,131 $117,620,487 -$9,950,356 -4.4 217 Full-Service Restaurants 7221 $54,903,164 $53,143,919 $1,759,245 1.6 116 Limited-Service Eating Places 7222 $43,960,570 $56,412,139 -$12,451,569 -12.4 80 Special Food Services 7223 $2,567,000 $5,331,774 -$2,764,774 -35.0 15 Drinking Places - Alcoholic Beverages 7224 $6,239,397 $2,732,655 $3,506,742 39.1 6 Data Note: Supply (retail sales) estimates sales to consumers by establishments. Sales to businesses are excluded. Demand (retail potential) estimates the expected amount spent by consumers at retail establishments. Supply and demand estimates are in current dollars. The Leakage/Surplus Factor presents a snapshot of retail opportunity. This is a measure of the relationship between supply and demand that ranges from +100 (total leakage) to -100 (total surplus). A positive value represents 'leakage' of retail opportunity outside the trade area. A negative value represents a surplus of retail sales, a market where customers are drawn in from outside the trade area. The Retail Gap represents the difference between Retail Potential and Retail Sales. Esri uses the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to classify businesses by their primary type of economic activity. Retail establishments are classified into 27 industry groups in the Retail Trade sector, as well as four industry groups within the Food Services & Drinking Establishments subsector. For more information on the Retail MarketPlace data, please click the link below to view the Methodology Statement. http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/esri-data-retail-marketplace.pdf Source: Esri and Infogroup. Retail MarketPlace 2016 Release 1 (2015 data in 2016 geography) Copyright 2016 Infogroup, Inc. All rights reserved. August 11, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 1 of 2 Retail MarketPlace Profile

D2113 Southfield, MI Retail EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 17.84 square miles

Leakage/Surplus Factor by Industry Subsector Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores Electronics & Appliance Stores Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply Stores Food & Beverage Stores Health & Personal Care Stores Gasoline Stations Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores General Merchandise Stores Miscellaneous Store Retailers Nonstore Retailers Food Services & Drinking Places -40 -20 0 20 40 60 Leakage/Surplus Factor

Leakage/Surplus Factor by Industry Group Automobile Dealers Other Motor Vehicle Dealers Auto Parts, Accessories, and Tire Stores Furniture Stores Home Furnishings Stores Electronics & Appliance Stores Building Material and Supplies Dealers Lawn and Garden Equipment and Supplies Stores Grocery Stores Specialty Food Stores Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores Health & Personal Care Stores Gasoline Stations Clothing Stores Shoe Stores Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores Book, Periodical, and Music Stores Department Stores (Excluding Leased Depts.) Other General Merchandise Stores Florists Office Supplies, Stationery, and Gift Stores Used Merchandise Stores Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses Vending Machine Operators Direct Selling Establishments Full-Service Restaurants Limited-Service Eating Places Special Food Services Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages) Source: Esri and Infogroup. Retail MarketPlace 2016 Release-60 1 (2015 data-40 in 2016 geography)-20 Copyright0 2016 Infogroup,20 Inc. All rights40 reserved. 60 80 Leakage/Surplus Factor August 11, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 2 of 2 2010 Census Profile

D2113 Southfield, MI Apt. EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 53.44 square miles

2000-2010 2000 2010 Annual Rate Population 264,012 236,561 -1.09% Households 108,804 102,155 -0.63% Housing Units 113,028 113,071 0.00%

Population by Race Number Percent Total 236,562 100.0% Population Reporting One Race 231,134 97.7% White 111,596 47.2% Black 114,814 48.5% American Indian 594 0.3% Asian 3,145 1.3% Pacific Islander 76 0.0% Some Other Race 909 0.4% Population Reporting Two or More Races 5,428 2.3%

Total Hispanic Population 3,764 1.6%

Population by Sex Male 110,660 46.8% Female 125,901 53.2%

Population by Age Total 236,561 100.0% Age 0 - 4 13,382 5.7% Age 5 - 9 13,075 5.5% Age 10 - 14 14,180 6.0% Age 15 - 19 15,482 6.5% Age 20 - 24 13,844 5.9% Age 25 - 29 17,246 7.3% Age 30 - 34 16,968 7.2% Age 35 - 39 16,711 7.1% Age 40 - 44 16,509 7.0% Age 45 - 49 16,371 6.9% Age 50 - 54 17,704 7.5% Age 55 - 59 16,931 7.2% Age 60 - 64 14,554 6.2% Age 65 - 69 9,979 4.2% Age 70 - 74 6,908 2.9% Age 75 - 79 5,857 2.5% Age 80 - 84 5,302 2.2% Age 85+ 5,555 2.3%

Age 18+ 186,307 78.8% Age 65+ 33,601 14.2%

Data Note: Hispanic population can be of any race. Census 2010 medians are computed from reported data distributions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography.

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 1 of 4 2010 Census Profile

D2113 Southfield, MI Apt. EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 53.44 square miles

Households by Type Total 102,155 100.0% Households with 1 Person 35,770 35.0% Households with 2+ People 66,385 65.0% Family Households 59,079 57.8% Husband-wife Families 35,866 35.1% With Own Children 13,557 13.3% Other Family (No Spouse Present) 23,213 22.7% With Own Children 10,636 10.4% Nonfamily Households 7,306 7.2%

All Households with Children 27,857 27.3% Multigenerational Households 4,258 4.2% Unmarried Partner Households 6,262 6.1% Male-female 5,207 5.1% Same-sex 1,055 1.0% Average Household Size 2.29

Family Households by Size Total 59,079 100.0% 2 People 26,072 44.1% 3 People 14,819 25.1% 4 People 10,531 17.8% 5 People 4,595 7.8% 6 People 1,803 3.1% 7+ People 1,259 2.1% Average Family Size 3.01

Nonfamily Households by Size Total 43,076 100.0% 1 Person 35,770 83.0% 2 People 6,192 14.4% 3 People 788 1.8% 4 People 216 0.5% 5 People 72 0.2% 6 People 24 0.1% 7+ People 14 0.0% Average Nonfamily Size 1.21

Population by Relationship and Household Type Total 236,561 100.0% In Households 234,402 99.1% In Family Households 182,420 77.1% Householder 59,050 25.0% Spouse 35,839 15.2% Child 73,347 31.0% Other relative 9,669 4.1% Nonrelative 4,515 1.9% In Nonfamily Households 51,982 22.0% In Group Quarters 2,159 0.9% Institutionalized Population 905 0.4% Noninstitutionalized Population 1,254 0.5%

Data Note: Households with children include any households with people under age 18, related or not. Multigenerational households are families with 3 or more parent-child relationships. Unmarried partner households are usually classified as nonfamily households unless there is another member of the household related to the householder. Multigenerational and unmarried partner households are reported only to the tract level. Esri estimated block group data, which is used to estimate polygons or non-standard geography. Average family size excludes nonrelatives. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1.

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 2 of 4 2010 Census Profile

D2113 Southfield, MI Apt. EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 53.44 square miles

Family Households by Age of Householder Total 59,079 100.0% Householder Age 15 - 44 22,595 38.2% Householder Age 45 - 54 12,789 21.6% Householder Age 55 - 64 11,982 20.3% Householder Age 65 - 74 6,402 10.8% Householder Age 75+ 5,311 9.0%

Nonfamily Households by Age of Householder Total 43,076 100.0% Householder Age 15 - 44 15,590 36.2% Householder Age 45 - 54 7,201 16.7% Householder Age 55 - 64 8,162 18.9% Householder Age 65 - 74 5,235 12.2% Householder Age 75+ 6,888 16.0%

Households by Race of Householder Total 102,156 100.0% Householder is White Alone 51,923 50.8% Householder is Black Alone 46,804 45.8% Householder is American Indian Alone 261 0.3% Householder is Asian Alone 1,197 1.2% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 38 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 309 0.3% Householder is Two or More Races 1,624 1.6% Households with Hispanic Householder 1,279 1.3%

Husband-wife Families by Race of Householder Total 35,866 100.0% Householder is White Alone 21,284 59.3% Householder is Black Alone 13,476 37.6% Householder is American Indian Alone 72 0.2% Householder is Asian Alone 507 1.4% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 9 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 89 0.2% Householder is Two or More Races 429 1.2% Husband-wife Families with Hispanic Householder 384 1.1%

Other Families (No Spouse) by Race of Householder Total 23,212 100.0% Householder is White Alone 6,224 26.8% Householder is Black Alone 16,139 69.5% Householder is American Indian Alone 70 0.3% Householder is Asian Alone 153 0.7% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 14 0.1% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 88 0.4% Householder is Two or More Races 524 2.3% Other Families with Hispanic Householder 314 1.4%

Nonfamily Households by Race of Householder Total 43,075 100.0% Householder is White Alone 24,415 56.7% Householder is Black Alone 17,189 39.9% Householder is American Indian Alone 118 0.3% Householder is Asian Alone 537 1.2% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 15 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 131 0.3% Householder is Two or More Races 670 1.6% Nonfamily Households with Hispanic Householder 581 1.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1.

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 3 of 4 2010 Census Profile

D2113 Southfield, MI Apt. EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 53.44 square miles

Total Housing Units by Occupancy Total 113,066 100.0% Occupied Housing Units 102,155 90.3% Vacant Housing Units For Rent 4,183 3.7% Rented, not Occupied 116 0.1% For Sale Only 1,795 1.6% Sold, not Occupied 414 0.4% For Seasonal/Recreational/Occasional Use 224 0.2% For Migrant Workers 0 0.0% Other Vacant 4,179 3.7% Total Vacancy Rate 9.7%

Households by Tenure and Mortgage Status Total 102,155 100.0% Owner Occupied 66,782 65.4% Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 49,692 48.6% Owned Free and Clear 17,091 16.7% Average Household Size 2.38 Renter Occupied 35,373 34.6% Average Household Size 2.14

Owner-occupied Housing Units by Race of Householder Total 66,782 100.0% Householder is White Alone 38,685 57.9% Householder is Black Alone 26,173 39.2% Householder is American Indian Alone 140 0.2% Householder is Asian Alone 729 1.1% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 15 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 172 0.3% Householder is Two or More Races 868 1.3% Owner-occupied Housing Units with Hispanic Householder 777 1.2%

Renter-occupied Housing Units by Race of Householder Total 35,373 100.0% Householder is White Alone 13,238 37.4% Householder is Black Alone 20,631 58.3% Householder is American Indian Alone 121 0.3% Householder is Asian Alone 468 1.3% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 23 0.1% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 136 0.4% Householder is Two or More Races 756 2.1% Renter-occupied Housing Units with Hispanic Householder 503 1.4%

Average Household Size by Race/Hispanic Origin of Householder Householder is White Alone 2.17 Householder is Black Alone 2.43 Householder is American Indian Alone 2.32 Householder is Asian Alone 2.37 Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 2.26 Householder is Some Other Race Alone 2.43 Householder is Two or More Races 2.48 Householder is Hispanic 2.35

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1.

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 4 of 4 Business Summary

D2113 Southfield, MI Apt. EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 53.44 square miles

Data for all businesses in area Total Businesses: 12,075 Total Employees: 140,382 Total Residential Population: 236,639 Employee/Residential Population Ratio: 0.59:1

Businesses Employees by SIC Codes Number Percent Number Percent Agriculture & Mining 144 1.2% 1,725 1.2% Construction 603 5.0% 3,935 2.8% Manufacturing 366 3.0% 8,505 6.1% Transportation 226 1.9% 1,456 1.0% Communication 160 1.3% 2,235 1.6% Utility 19 0.2% 156 0.1% Wholesale Trade 416 3.4% 5,077 3.6%

Retail Trade Summary 2,301 19.1% 25,102 17.9% Home Improvement 107 0.9% 1,116 0.8% General Merchandise Stores 75 0.6% 953 0.7% Food Stores 169 1.4% 2,582 1.8% Auto Dealers, Gas Stations, Auto Aftermarket 241 2.0% 2,460 1.8% Apparel & Accessory Stores 256 2.1% 1,042 0.7% Furniture & Home Furnishings 191 1.6% 3,509 2.5% Eating & Drinking Places 625 5.2% 9,722 6.9% Miscellaneous Retail 638 5.3% 3,718 2.6%

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Summary 1,484 12.3% 12,347 8.8% Banks, Savings & Lending Institutions 434 3.6% 3,015 2.1% Securities Brokers 184 1.5% 1,253 0.9% Insurance Carriers & Agents 299 2.5% 3,779 2.7% Real Estate, Holding, Other Investment Offices 567 4.7% 4,301 3.1%

Services Summary 5,637 46.7% 75,015 53.4% Hotels & Lodging 33 0.3% 623 0.4% Automotive Services 269 2.2% 2,760 2.0% Motion Pictures & Amusements 246 2.0% 2,705 1.9% Health Services 1,002 8.3% 27,326 19.5% Legal Services 484 4.0% 3,657 2.6% Education Institutions & Libraries 248 2.1% 7,492 5.3% Other Services 3,355 27.8% 30,452 21.7%

Government 204 1.7% 4,279 3.0%

Unclassified Establishments 515 4.3% 550 0.4%

Totals 12,075 100.0% 140,382 100.0% Source: Copyright 2016 Infogroup, Inc. All rights reserved. Esri Total Residential Population forecasts for 2016. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 1 of 2 Business Summary

D2113 Southfield, MI Apt. EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 53.44 square miles

Businesses Employees by NAICS Codes Number Percent Number Percent Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 6 0.0% 15 0.0% Mining 2 0.0% 8 0.0% Utilities 9 0.1% 115 0.1% Construction 675 5.6% 4,691 3.3% Manufacturing 382 3.2% 8,341 5.9% Wholesale Trade 398 3.3% 4,955 3.5% Retail Trade 1,624 13.4% 14,991 10.7% Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers 140 1.2% 2,023 1.4% Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores 57 0.5% 557 0.4% Electronics & Appliance Stores 118 1.0% 2,923 2.1% Bldg Material & Garden Equipment & Supplies Dealers 107 0.9% 1,116 0.8% Food & Beverage Stores 166 1.4% 2,315 1.6% Health & Personal Care Stores 171 1.4% 1,602 1.1% Gasoline Stations 101 0.8% 437 0.3% Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores 331 2.7% 1,253 0.9% Sport Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores 80 0.7% 480 0.3% General Merchandise Stores 75 0.6% 953 0.7% Miscellaneous Store Retailers 249 2.1% 1,221 0.9% Nonstore Retailers 30 0.2% 110 0.1% Transportation & Warehousing 186 1.5% 1,326 0.9% Information 330 2.7% 4,195 3.0% Finance & Insurance 930 7.7% 8,098 5.8% Central Bank/Credit Intermediation & Related Activities 437 3.6% 2,682 1.9% Securities, Commodity Contracts & Other Financial 192 1.6% 1,630 1.2% Insurance Carriers & Related Activities; Funds, Trusts & 301 2.5% 3,787 2.7% Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 608 5.0% 4,378 3.1% Professional, Scientific & Tech Services 1,777 14.7% 15,917 11.3% Legal Services 510 4.2% 3,893 2.8% Management of Companies & Enterprises 10 0.1% 180 0.1% Administrative & Support & Waste Management & 528 4.4% 7,652 5.5% Educational Services 293 2.4% 7,585 5.4% Health Care & Social Assistance 1,335 11.1% 31,621 22.5% Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 174 1.4% 2,282 1.6% Accommodation & Food Services 675 5.6% 10,562 7.5% Accommodation 33 0.3% 623 0.4% Food Services & Drinking Places 642 5.3% 9,939 7.1% Other Services (except Public Administration) 1,412 11.7% 8,629 6.1% Automotive Repair & Maintenance 216 1.8% 2,262 1.6% Public Administration 206 1.7% 4,291 3.1%

Unclassified Establishments 515 4.3% 550 0.4%

Total 12,075 100.0% 140,382 100.0% Source: Copyright 2016 Infogroup, Inc. All rights reserved. Esri Total Residential Population forecasts for 2016. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 2 of 2 Demographic and Income Profile

D2113 Southfield, MI Apt. EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 53.44 square miles

Summary Census 2010 2016 2021 Population 236,561 236,639 239,629 Households 102,155 103,171 104,958 Families 59,079 58,650 59,115 Average Household Size 2.29 2.27 2.26 Owner Occupied Housing Units 66,782 66,196 67,168 Renter Occupied Housing Units 35,373 36,975 37,790 Median Age 39.2 40.6 41.5 Trends: 2016 - 2021 Annual Rate Area State National Population 0.25% 0.23% 0.84% Households 0.34% 0.28% 0.79% Families 0.16% 0.16% 0.72% Owner HHs 0.29% 0.27% 0.73% Median Household Income 2.45% 2.26% 1.86% 2016 2021 Households by Income Number Percent Number Percent <$15,000 13,166 12.8% 12,927 12.3% $15,000 - $24,999 10,697 10.4% 10,264 9.8% $25,000 - $34,999 11,038 10.7% 11,679 11.1% $35,000 - $49,999 13,523 13.1% 7,945 7.6% $50,000 - $74,999 18,820 18.2% 19,845 18.9% $75,000 - $99,999 13,384 13.0% 14,944 14.2% $100,000 - $149,999 13,987 13.6% 17,014 16.2% $150,000 - $199,999 4,876 4.7% 6,172 5.9% $200,000+ 3,679 3.6% 4,167 4.0%

Median Household Income $52,946 $59,750 Average Household Income $70,405 $77,870 Per Capita Income $30,906 $34,313 Census 2010 2016 2021 Population by Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 - 4 13,382 5.7% 12,620 5.3% 12,459 5.2% 5 - 9 13,075 5.5% 12,970 5.5% 12,590 5.3% 10 - 14 14,180 6.0% 13,442 5.7% 13,514 5.6% 15 - 19 15,482 6.5% 13,506 5.7% 13,026 5.4% 20 - 24 13,844 5.9% 14,731 6.2% 13,220 5.5% 25 - 34 34,214 14.5% 33,373 14.1% 34,241 14.3% 35 - 44 33,220 14.0% 31,725 13.4% 31,756 13.3% 45 - 54 34,075 14.4% 31,791 13.4% 30,783 12.8% 55 - 64 31,485 13.3% 33,034 14.0% 32,421 13.5% 65 - 74 16,887 7.1% 22,774 9.6% 26,864 11.2% 75 - 84 11,159 4.7% 10,883 4.6% 13,062 5.5% 85+ 5,555 2.3% 5,790 2.4% 5,692 2.4% Census 2010 2016 2021 Race and Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White Alone 111,596 47.2% 108,636 45.9% 107,021 44.7% Black Alone 114,814 48.5% 116,147 49.1% 119,177 49.7% American Indian Alone 594 0.3% 612 0.3% 625 0.3% Asian Alone 3,145 1.3% 3,888 1.6% 4,641 1.9% Pacific Islander Alone 76 0.0% 102 0.0% 113 0.0% Some Other Race Alone 909 0.4% 984 0.4% 1,056 0.4% Two or More Races 5,428 2.3% 6,270 2.6% 6,997 2.9%

Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 3,764 1.6% 4,350 1.8% 4,987 2.1% Data Note: Income is expressed in current dollars.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021.

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 1 of 2 Demographic and Income Profile

D2113 Southfield, MI Apt. EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 53.44 square miles

Trends 2016-2021 2.4 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 Area 0.4 State Annual Rate (in percent) Rate Annual 0.2 USA 0 Population Households Families Owner HHs Median HH Income

Population by Age 14

12

10

8

6 Percent

4 2016 2 2021

0 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+

2016 Household Income 2016 Population by Race

$25K - $34K 10.7% $15K - $24K 45 10.4% 40 $35K - $49K 13.1% <$15K 35 12.8% 30

25

$200K+ Percent 20 3.6% $50K - $74K $150K - $199K 15 18.2% 4.7% 10

$100K - $149K 5 13.6% $75K - $99K 0 13.0% White Black Am. Ind. Asian Pacific Other Two+

2016 Percent Hispanic Origin: 1.8%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021.

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 2 of 2 Household Income Profile

D2113 Southfield, MI Apt. EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 53.44 square miles

2016-2021 2016-2021 Summary 2016 2021 Change Annual Rate Population 236,639 239,629 2,990 0.25% Households 103,171 104,958 1,787 0.34% Median Age 40.6 41.5 0.9 0.44% Average Household Size 2.27 2.26 -0.01 -0.09%

2016 2021 Households by Income Number Percent Number Percent Household 103,171 100% 104,958 100% Income<$15,000 Base 13,166 12.8% 12,927 12.3% $15,000-$24,999 10,697 10.4% 10,264 9.8% $25,000-$34,999 11,038 10.7% 11,679 11.1% $35,000-$49,999 13,523 13.1% 7,945 7.6% $50,000-$74,999 18,820 18.2% 19,845 18.9% $75,000-$99,999 13,384 13.0% 14,944 14.2% $100,000-$149,999 13,987 13.6% 17,014 16.2% $150,000-$199,999 4,876 4.7% 6,172 5.9% $200,000+ 3,679 3.6% 4,167 4.0%

Median Household Income $52,946 $59,750 Average Household Income $70,405 $77,870 Per Capita Income $30,906 $34,313

Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 1 of 3 Household Income Profile

D2113 Southfield, MI Apt. EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 53.44 square miles

2016 Households by Income and Age of Householder <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 2,637 15,731 18,002 18,438 20,893 15,451 12,019

<$15,000 571 1,822 1,793 1,892 2,753 1,854 2,482 $15,000-$24,999 446 1,303 1,283 1,231 1,742 2,058 2,634 $25,000-$34,999 422 1,666 1,679 1,500 1,803 2,133 1,836 $35,000-$49,999 413 2,265 2,260 1,954 2,229 2,540 1,862 $50,000-$74,999 455 3,309 3,274 3,418 3,942 2,877 1,545 $75,000-$99,999 175 2,232 2,748 2,869 3,077 1,543 740 $100,000- 121 2,214 3,227 3,252 3,137 1,458 578 $150,000-$149,999 24 641 976 1,264 1,222 536 214 $200,000+$199,999 10 281 763 1,058 987 451 128

Median HH Income $31,453 $54,316 $62,839 $67,532 $59,749 $43,742 $29,070 Average HH $41,257 $66,373 $79,174 $85,676 $77,963 $62,100 $43,051 Income Percent Distribution <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

<$15,000 21.7% 11.6% 10.0% 10.3% 13.2% 12.0% 20.7% $15,000-$24,999 16.9% 8.3% 7.1% 6.7% 8.3% 13.3% 21.9% $25,000-$34,999 16.0% 10.6% 9.3% 8.1% 8.6% 13.8% 15.3% $35,000-$49,999 15.7% 14.4% 12.6% 10.6% 10.7% 16.4% 15.5% $50,000-$74,999 17.3% 21.0% 18.2% 18.5% 18.9% 18.6% 12.9% $75,000-$99,999 6.6% 14.2% 15.3% 15.6% 14.7% 10.0% 6.2% $100,000- 4.6% 14.1% 17.9% 17.6% 15.0% 9.4% 4.8% $150,000-$149,999 0.9% 4.1% 5.4% 6.9% 5.8% 3.5% 1.8% $200,000+$199,999 0.4% 1.8% 4.2% 5.7% 4.7% 2.9% 1.1%

Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 2 of 3 Household Income Profile

D2113 Southfield, MI Apt. EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 53.44 square miles

2021 Households by Income and Age of Householder <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 2,368 15,848 17,804 17,602 20,175 17,886 13,275

<$15,000 548 1,828 1,657 1,675 2,391 2,141 2,688 $15,000-$24,999 380 1,198 1,096 982 1,527 2,215 2,865 $25,000-$34,999 400 1,739 1,665 1,375 1,756 2,591 2,153 $35,000-$49,999 245 1,327 1,162 1,050 1,222 1,694 1,245 $50,000-$74,999 438 3,430 3,348 3,241 3,871 3,629 1,889 $75,000-$99,999 180 2,503 3,011 2,977 3,200 2,074 998 $100,000- 138 2,674 3,816 3,648 3,692 2,144 902 $150,000-$149,999 30 820 1,199 1,527 1,460 787 351 $200,000+$199,999 9 329 850 1,126 1,057 611 185

Median HH Income $30,608 $60,745 $74,723 $78,005 $69,096 $51,369 $29,217 Average HH $43,986 $73,504 $88,457 $95,656 $86,919 $69,534 $48,823 Income Percent Distribution <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

<$15,000 23.1% 11.5% 9.3% 9.5% 11.9% 12.0% 20.2% $15,000-$24,999 16.0% 7.6% 6.2% 5.6% 7.6% 12.4% 21.6% $25,000-$34,999 16.9% 11.0% 9.4% 7.8% 8.7% 14.5% 16.2% $35,000-$49,999 10.3% 8.4% 6.5% 6.0% 6.1% 9.5% 9.4% $50,000-$74,999 18.5% 21.6% 18.8% 18.4% 19.2% 20.3% 14.2% $75,000-$99,999 7.6% 15.8% 16.9% 16.9% 15.9% 11.6% 7.5% $100,000- 5.8% 16.9% 21.4% 20.7% 18.3% 12.0% 6.8% $150,000-$149,999 1.3% 5.2% 6.7% 8.7% 7.2% 4.4% 2.6% $200,000+$199,999 0.4% 2.1% 4.8% 6.4% 5.2% 3.4% 1.4%

Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 3 of 3 Housing Profile

D2113 Southfield, MI Apt. EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 53.44 square miles

Population Households 2010 Total Population 236,561 2016 Median Household Income $52,946 2016 Total Population 236,639 2021 Median Household Income $59,750 2021 Total Population 239,629 2016-2021 Annual Rate 2.45% 2016-2021 Annual Rate 0.25%

Census 2010 2016 2021 Housing Units by Occupancy Status and Tenure Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total Housing Units 113,071 100.0% 114,993 100.0% 117,616 100.0% Occupied 102,155 90.3% 103,171 89.7% 104,958 89.2% Owner 66,782 59.1% 66,196 57.6% 67,168 57.1% Renter 35,373 31.3% 36,975 32.2% 37,790 32.1% Vacant 10,916 9.7% 11,822 10.3% 12,658 10.8%

2016 2021 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Number Percent Number Percent Total 66,184 100.0% 67,157 100.0% <$50,000 9,201 13.9% 6,728 10.0% $50,000-$99,999 14,988 22.6% 11,835 17.6% $100,000-$149,999 13,980 21.1% 9,991 14.9% $150,000-$199,999 11,766 17.8% 16,030 23.9% $200,000-$249,999 6,792 10.3% 10,857 16.2% $250,000-$299,999 3,145 4.8% 4,656 6.9% $300,000-$399,999 3,196 4.8% 3,632 5.4% $400,000-$499,999 1,575 2.4% 1,735 2.6% $500,000-$749,999 1,165 1.8% 1,279 1.9% $750,000-$999,999 217 0.3% 271 0.4% $1,000,000+ 159 0.2% 143 0.2%

Median Value $131,842 $165,672 Average Value $158,616 $180,180

Census 2010 Housing Units Number Percent Total 113,071 100.0% In Urbanized Areas 113,071 100.0% In Urban Clusters 0 0.0% Rural Housing Units 0 0.0%

Data Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 1 of 2 Housing Profile

D2113 Southfield, MI Apt. EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 53.44 square miles

Census 2010 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Mortgage Status Number Percent Total 66,783 100.0% Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 49,692 74.4% Owned Free and Clear 17,091 25.6%

Census 2010 Vacant Housing Units by Status Number Percent Total 10,916 100.0% For Rent 4,183 38.3% Rented- Not Occupied 116 1.1% For Sale Only 1,795 16.4% Sold - Not Occupied 414 3.8% Seasonal/Recreational/Occasional Use 224 2.1% For Migrant Workers 0 0.0% Other Vacant 4,179 38.3%

Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Age of Householder and Home Ownership Owner Occupied Units Occupied Number % of Occupied Total 102,154 66,782 65.4% 15-24 2,876 546 19.0% 25-34 16,375 7,690 47.0% 35-44 18,932 11,891 62.8% 45-54 19,991 14,079 70.4% 55-64 20,143 15,226 75.6% 65-74 11,637 8,837 75.9% 75-84 8,087 5,862 72.5% 85+ 4,113 2,651 64.5%

Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Race/Ethnicity of Householder and Home Ownership Owner Occupied Units Occupied Number % of Occupied Total 102,155 66,782 65.4% White Alone 51,923 38,685 74.5% Black/African American 46,804 26,173 55.9% American 261 140 53.6% Asian Alone 1,197 729 60.9% Pacific Islander Alone 38 15 39.5% Other Race Alone 308 172 55.8% Two or More Races 1,624 868 53.4%

Hispanic Origin 1,280 777 60.7%

Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Size and Home Ownership Owner Occupied Units Occupied Number % of Occupied Total 102,157 66,783 65.4% 1-Person 35,770 20,163 56.4% 2-Person 32,264 22,844 70.8% 3-Person 15,607 10,849 69.5% 4-Person 10,748 7,805 72.6% 5-Person 4,667 3,145 67.4% 6-Person 1,827 1,174 64.3% 7+ Person 1,274 803 63.0%

Data Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 2 of 2 Site Map

D2113 Southfield, MI Apt. EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 53.44 square miles

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 1 of 1 Business Summary

D2113 Southfield, MI Office EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 29.74 square miles

Data for all businesses in area Total Businesses: 6,739 Total Employees: 92,723 Total Residential Population: 96,261 Employee/Residential Population Ratio: 0.96:1

Businesses Employees by SIC Codes Number Percent Number Percent Agriculture & Mining 53 0.8% 1,220 1.3% Construction 286 4.2% 2,130 2.3% Manufacturing 205 3.0% 8,434 9.1% Transportation 152 2.3% 1,254 1.4% Communication 123 1.8% 2,520 2.7% Utility 10 0.1% 71 0.1% Wholesale Trade 262 3.9% 4,494 4.8%

Retail Trade Summary 1,051 15.6% 12,943 14.0% Home Improvement 47 0.7% 609 0.7% General Merchandise Stores 41 0.6% 394 0.4% Food Stores 70 1.0% 914 1.0% Auto Dealers, Gas Stations, Auto Aftermarket 105 1.6% 1,913 2.1% Apparel & Accessory Stores 135 2.0% 569 0.6% Furniture & Home Furnishings 105 1.6% 2,873 3.1% Eating & Drinking Places 259 3.8% 3,633 3.9% Miscellaneous Retail 290 4.3% 2,037 2.2%

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Summary 984 14.6% 13,964 15.1% Banks, Savings & Lending Institutions 234 3.5% 3,018 3.3% Securities Brokers 148 2.2% 1,991 2.1% Insurance Carriers & Agents 206 3.1% 5,579 6.0% Real Estate, Holding, Other Investment Offices 395 5.9% 3,376 3.6%

Services Summary 3,213 47.7% 42,056 45.4% Hotels & Lodging 27 0.4% 810 0.9% Automotive Services 121 1.8% 1,887 2.0% Motion Pictures & Amusements 101 1.5% 1,234 1.3% Health Services 613 9.1% 7,530 8.1% Legal Services 325 4.8% 3,381 3.6% Education Institutions & Libraries 147 2.2% 4,313 4.7% Other Services 1,878 27.9% 22,900 24.7%

Government 117 1.7% 3,310 3.6%

Unclassified Establishments 283 4.2% 329 0.4%

Totals 6,739 100.0% 92,723 100.0% Source: Copyright 2016 Infogroup, Inc. All rights reserved. Esri Total Residential Population forecasts for 2016. August 11, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 1 of 2 Business Summary

D2113 Southfield, MI Office EMA Prepared by Esri Area: 29.74 square miles

Businesses Employees by NAICS Codes Number Percent Number Percent Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 4 0.1% 9 0.0% Mining 1 0.0% 2 0.0% Utilities 4 0.1% 35 0.0% Construction 337 5.0% 2,980 3.2% Manufacturing 212 3.1% 8,365 9.0% Wholesale Trade 259 3.8% 4,464 4.8% Retail Trade 767 11.4% 9,087 9.8% Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers 63 0.9% 1,704 1.8% Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores 26 0.4% 381 0.4% Electronics & Appliance Stores 75 1.1% 2,488 2.7% Bldg Material & Garden Equipment & Supplies Dealers 46 0.7% 607 0.7% Food & Beverage Stores 68 1.0% 777 0.8% Health & Personal Care Stores 79 1.2% 942 1.0% Gasoline Stations 42 0.6% 209 0.2% Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores 194 2.9% 720 0.8% Sport Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores 25 0.4% 233 0.3% General Merchandise Stores 41 0.6% 394 0.4% Miscellaneous Store Retailers 93 1.4% 569 0.6% Nonstore Retailers 15 0.2% 64 0.1% Transportation & Warehousing 114 1.7% 825 0.9% Information 203 3.0% 3,814 4.1% Finance & Insurance 596 8.8% 10,616 11.4% Central Bank/Credit Intermediation & Related Activities 235 3.5% 2,670 2.9% Securities, Commodity Contracts & Other Financial 153 2.3% 2,356 2.5% Insurance Carriers & Related Activities; Funds, Trusts & 208 3.1% 5,590 6.0% Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 418 6.2% 3,241 3.5% Professional, Scientific & Tech Services 1,071 15.9% 13,966 15.1% Legal Services 341 5.1% 3,527 3.8% Management of Companies & Enterprises 8 0.1% 152 0.2% Administrative & Support & Waste Management & 323 4.8% 5,865 6.3% Educational Services 161 2.4% 4,325 4.7% Health Care & Social Assistance 840 12.5% 10,748 11.6% Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 85 1.3% 1,042 1.1% Accommodation & Food Services 293 4.3% 4,546 4.9% Accommodation 27 0.4% 810 0.9% Food Services & Drinking Places 266 3.9% 3,736 4.0% Other Services (except Public Administration) 642 9.5% 5,004 5.4% Automotive Repair & Maintenance 85 1.3% 1,678 1.8% Public Administration 117 1.7% 3,310 3.6%

Unclassified Establishments 283 4.2% 329 0.4%

Total 6,739 100.0% 92,723 100.0% Source: Copyright 2016 Infogroup, Inc. All rights reserved. Esri Total Residential Population forecasts for 2016. August 11, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 2 of 2 2010 Census Profile

Southfield City, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: Place

2000-2010 2000 2010 Annual Rate Population 78,296 71,739 -0.87% Households 33,986 31,778 -0.67% Housing Units 35,698 35,986 0.08%

Population by Race Number Percent Total 71,739 100.0% Population Reporting One Race 70,023 97.6% White 17,876 24.9% Black 50,432 70.3% American Indian 143 0.2% Asian 1,233 1.7% Pacific Islander 17 0.0% Some Other Race 322 0.4% Population Reporting Two or More Races 1,716 2.4%

Total Hispanic Population 957 1.3%

Population by Sex Male 32,068 44.7% Female 39,671 55.3%

Population by Age Total 71,739 100.0% Age 0 - 4 3,479 4.8% Age 5 - 9 3,718 5.2% Age 10 - 14 4,499 6.3% Age 15 - 19 4,906 6.8% Age 20 - 24 4,255 5.9% Age 25 - 29 4,248 5.9% Age 30 - 34 4,111 5.7% Age 35 - 39 4,689 6.5% Age 40 - 44 4,708 6.6% Age 45 - 49 4,886 6.8% Age 50 - 54 5,464 7.6% Age 55 - 59 5,543 7.7% Age 60 - 64 5,082 7.1% Age 65 - 69 3,510 4.9% Age 70 - 74 2,330 3.2% Age 75 - 79 2,069 2.9% Age 80 - 84 1,873 2.6% Age 85+ 2,369 3.3%

Age 18+ 57,023 79.5% Age 65+ 12,151 16.9%

Data Note: Hispanic population can be of any race. Census 2010 medians are computed from reported data distributions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography.

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 1 of 4 2010 Census Profile

Southfield City, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: Place

Households by Type Total 31,778 100.0% Households with 1 Person 12,039 37.9% Households with 2+ People 19,739 62.1% Family Households 18,178 57.2% Husband-wife Families 10,633 33.5% With Own Children 3,715 11.7% Other Family (No Spouse Present) 7,545 23.7% With Own Children 3,572 11.2% Nonfamily Households 1,561 4.9%

All Households with Children 8,488 26.7% Multigenerational Households 1,343 4.2% Unmarried Partner Households 1,432 4.5% Male-female 1,264 4.0% Same-sex 168 0.5% Average Household Size 2.22

Family Households by Size Total 18,178 100.0% 2 People 8,520 46.9% 3 People 4,575 25.2% 4 People 2,814 15.5% 5 People 1,351 7.4% 6 People 549 3.0% 7+ People 369 2.0% Average Family Size 2.96

Nonfamily Households by Size Total 13,600 100.0% 1 Person 12,039 88.5% 2 People 1,302 9.6% 3 People 149 1.1% 4 People 72 0.5% 5 People 23 0.2% 6 People 12 0.1% 7+ People 3 0.0% Average Nonfamily Size 1.15

Population by Relationship and Household Type Total 71,739 100.0% In Households 70,550 98.3% In Family Households 54,961 76.6% Householder 18,178 25.3% Spouse 10,633 14.8% Child 21,787 30.4% Other relative 3,235 4.5% Nonrelative 1,128 1.6% In Nonfamily Households 15,589 21.7% In Group Quarters 1,189 1.7% Institutionalized Population 453 0.6% Noninstitutionalized Population 736 1.0%

Data Note: Households with children include any households with people under age 18, related or not. Multigenerational households are families with 3 or more parent-child relationships. Unmarried partner households are usually classified as nonfamily households unless there is another member of the household related to the householder. Multigenerational and unmarried partner households are reported only to the tract level. Esri estimated block group data, which is used to estimate polygons or non-standard geography. Average family size excludes nonrelatives. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1.

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 2 of 4 2010 Census Profile

Southfield City, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: Place

Family Households by Age of Householder Total 18,178 100.0% Householder Age 15 - 44 6,361 35.0% Householder Age 45 - 54 3,959 21.8% Householder Age 55 - 64 3,986 21.9% Householder Age 65 - 74 2,161 11.9% Householder Age 75+ 1,711 9.4%

Nonfamily Households by Age of Householder Total 13,600 100.0% Householder Age 15 - 44 3,856 28.4% Householder Age 45 - 54 2,266 16.7% Householder Age 55 - 64 2,908 21.4% Householder Age 65 - 74 1,859 13.7% Householder Age 75+ 2,711 19.9%

Households by Race of Householder Total 31,778 100.0% Householder is White Alone 8,511 26.8% Householder is Black Alone 22,035 69.3% Householder is American Indian Alone 75 0.2% Householder is Asian Alone 474 1.5% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 9 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 108 0.3% Householder is Two or More Races 566 1.8% Households with Hispanic Householder 304 1.0%

Husband-wife Families by Race of Householder Total 10,633 100.0% Householder is White Alone 3,294 31.0% Householder is Black Alone 6,926 65.1% Householder is American Indian Alone 14 0.1% Householder is Asian Alone 222 2.1% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 3 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 31 0.3% Householder is Two or More Races 143 1.3% Husband-wife Families with Hispanic Householder 104 1.0%

Other Families (No Spouse) by Race of Householder Total 7,545 100.0% Householder is White Alone 1,010 13.4% Householder is Black Alone 6,255 82.9% Householder is American Indian Alone 20 0.3% Householder is Asian Alone 50 0.7% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 5 0.1% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 33 0.4% Householder is Two or More Races 172 2.3% Other Families with Hispanic Householder 82 1.1%

Nonfamily Households by Race of Householder Total 13,600 100.0% Householder is White Alone 4,207 30.9% Householder is Black Alone 8,854 65.1% Householder is American Indian Alone 41 0.3% Householder is Asian Alone 202 1.5% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 1 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 44 0.3% Householder is Two or More Races 251 1.8% Nonfamily Households with Hispanic Householder 118 0.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1.

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 3 of 4 2010 Census Profile

Southfield City, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: Place

Total Housing Units by Occupancy Total 35,986 100.0% Occupied Housing Units 31,778 88.3% Vacant Housing Units For Rent 2,106 5.9% Rented, not Occupied 46 0.1% For Sale Only 572 1.6% Sold, not Occupied 139 0.4% For Seasonal/Recreational/Occasional Use 69 0.2% For Migrant Workers 0 0.0% Other Vacant 1,276 3.5% Total Vacancy Rate 11.7%

Households by Tenure and Mortgage Status Total 31,778 100.0% Owner Occupied 17,060 53.7% Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 13,141 41.4% Owned Free and Clear 3,919 12.3% Average Household Size 2.44 Renter Occupied 14,718 46.3% Average Household Size 1.96

Owner-occupied Housing Units by Race of Householder Total 17,060 100.0% Householder is White Alone 5,730 33.6% Householder is Black Alone 10,721 62.8% Householder is American Indian Alone 32 0.2% Householder is Asian Alone 257 1.5% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 1 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 47 0.3% Householder is Two or More Races 272 1.6% Owner-occupied Housing Units with Hispanic Householder 170 1.0%

Renter-occupied Housing Units by Race of Householder Total 14,718 100.0% Householder is White Alone 2,781 18.9% Householder is Black Alone 11,314 76.9% Householder is American Indian Alone 43 0.3% Householder is Asian Alone 217 1.5% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 8 0.1% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 61 0.4% Householder is Two or More Races 294 2.0% Renter-occupied Housing Units with Hispanic Householder 134 0.9%

Average Household Size by Race/Hispanic Origin of Householder Householder is White Alone 2.05 Householder is Black Alone 2.28 Householder is American Indian Alone 2.05 Householder is Asian Alone 2.47 Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 2.67 Householder is Some Other Race Alone 2.45 Householder is Two or More Races 2.33 Householder is Hispanic 2.52

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1.

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 4 of 4 Demographic and Income Profile

Southfield City, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: Place

Summary Census 2010 2016 2021 Population 71,739 73,556 75,829 Households 31,778 32,829 33,988 Families 18,178 18,403 18,852 Average Household Size 2.22 2.20 2.20 Owner Occupied Housing Units 17,060 17,125 17,619 Renter Occupied Housing Units 14,718 15,704 16,369 Median Age 42.1 43.5 44.4 Trends: 2016 - 2021 Annual Rate Area State National Population 0.61% 0.23% 0.84% Households 0.70% 0.28% 0.79% Families 0.48% 0.16% 0.72% Owner HHs 0.57% 0.27% 0.73% Median Household Income 2.16% 2.26% 1.86% 2016 2021 Households by Income Number Percent Number Percent <$15,000 3,978 12.1% 4,074 12.0% $15,000 - $24,999 3,415 10.4% 3,411 10.0% $25,000 - $34,999 4,101 12.5% 4,306 12.7% $35,000 - $49,999 4,460 13.6% 2,709 8.0% $50,000 - $74,999 6,140 18.7% 6,712 19.7% $75,000 - $99,999 4,273 13.0% 4,888 14.4% $100,000 - $149,999 4,022 12.3% 4,917 14.5% $150,000 - $199,999 1,508 4.6% 1,907 5.6% $200,000+ 932 2.8% 1,064 3.1%

Median Household Income $51,256 $57,027 Average Household Income $66,594 $73,065 Per Capita Income $30,171 $33,185 Census 2010 2016 2021 Population by Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 - 4 3,479 4.8% 3,429 4.7% 3,509 4.6% 5 - 9 3,718 5.2% 3,589 4.9% 3,568 4.7% 10 - 14 4,499 6.3% 4,027 5.5% 3,929 5.2% 15 - 19 4,906 6.8% 4,445 6.0% 4,181 5.5% 20 - 24 4,255 5.9% 4,870 6.6% 4,689 6.2% 25 - 34 8,359 11.7% 8,946 12.2% 9,822 13.0% 35 - 44 9,397 13.1% 8,900 12.1% 8,776 11.6% 45 - 54 10,350 14.4% 9,666 13.1% 9,379 12.4% 55 - 64 10,625 14.8% 11,058 15.0% 10,755 14.2% 65 - 74 5,840 8.1% 8,128 11.1% 9,764 12.9% 75 - 84 3,942 5.5% 4,024 5.5% 4,935 6.5% 85+ 2,369 3.3% 2,474 3.4% 2,522 3.3% Census 2010 2016 2021 Race and Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White Alone 17,876 24.9% 16,037 21.8% 14,519 19.1% Black Alone 50,432 70.3% 53,681 73.0% 57,193 75.4% American Indian Alone 143 0.2% 144 0.2% 143 0.2% Asian Alone 1,233 1.7% 1,453 2.0% 1,633 2.2% Pacific Islander Alone 17 0.0% 21 0.0% 21 0.0% Some Other Race Alone 322 0.4% 332 0.5% 330 0.4% Two or More Races 1,716 2.4% 1,888 2.6% 1,990 2.6%

Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 957 1.3% 1,036 1.4% 1,104 1.5% Data Note: Income is expressed in current dollars.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021.

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 1 of 2 Demographic and Income Profile

Southfield City, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: Place

Trends 2016-2021 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 Area 0.4 State

Annual Rate (in percent) Rate Annual 0.2 USA 0 Population Households Families Owner HHs Median HH Income

Population by Age

14

12

10

8

Percent 6

4 2016 2 2021

0 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+

2016 Household Income 2016 Population by Race

$25K - $34K 70 12.5% $15K - $24K 10.4% 60 $35K - $49K 13.6% <$15K 50 12.1%

40

$200K+ Percent 30 2.8% $150K - $199K 4.6% 20 $50K - $74K 18.7% $100K - $149K 10 12.3% $75K - $99K 0 13.0% White Black Am. Ind. Asian Pacific Other Two+

2016 Percent Hispanic Origin: 1.4%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021.

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 2 of 2 Household Income Profile

Southfield City, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: Place

2016-2021 2016-2021 Summary 2016 2021 Change Annual Rate Population 73,556 75,829 2,273 0.61% Households 32,829 33,988 1,159 0.70% Median Age 43.5 44.4 0.9 0.41% Average Household Size 2.20 2.20 0.00 0.00%

2016 2021 Households by Income Number Percent Number Percent Household 32,829 100% 33,988 100% Income<$15,000 Base 3,978 12.1% 4,074 12.0% $15,000-$24,999 3,415 10.4% 3,411 10.0% $25,000-$34,999 4,101 12.5% 4,306 12.7% $35,000-$49,999 4,460 13.6% 2,709 8.0% $50,000-$74,999 6,140 18.7% 6,712 19.7% $75,000-$99,999 4,273 13.0% 4,888 14.4% $100,000-$149,999 4,022 12.3% 4,917 14.5% $150,000-$199,999 1,508 4.6% 1,907 5.6% $200,000+ 932 2.8% 1,064 3.1%

Median Household Income $51,256 $57,027 Average Household Income $66,594 $73,065 Per Capita Income $30,171 $33,185

Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 1 of 3 Household Income Profile

Southfield City, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: Place

2016 Households by Income and Age of Householder <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 835 4,142 5,107 5,723 7,072 5,482 4,468

<$15,000 178 466 454 493 839 603 945 $15,000-$24,999 171 400 367 365 524 698 890 $25,000-$34,999 151 524 559 552 708 841 766 $35,000-$49,999 131 642 697 644 774 845 727 $50,000-$74,999 134 902 991 1,110 1,378 1,051 574 $75,000-$99,999 42 561 788 914 1,125 583 260 $100,000- 22 449 809 987 1,041 540 174 $150,000-$149,999 3 143 257 391 425 196 93 $200,000+$199,999 3 55 185 267 258 125 39

Median HH Income $28,682 $50,683 $59,571 $66,139 $60,068 $44,569 $29,362 Average HH $37,273 $61,205 $75,013 $81,886 $74,967 $60,665 $41,883 Income Percent Distribution <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

<$15,000 21.3% 11.3% 8.9% 8.6% 11.9% 11.0% 21.2% $15,000-$24,999 20.5% 9.7% 7.2% 6.4% 7.4% 12.7% 19.9% $25,000-$34,999 18.1% 12.7% 10.9% 9.6% 10.0% 15.3% 17.1% $35,000-$49,999 15.7% 15.5% 13.6% 11.3% 10.9% 15.4% 16.3% $50,000-$74,999 16.0% 21.8% 19.4% 19.4% 19.5% 19.2% 12.8% $75,000-$99,999 5.0% 13.5% 15.4% 16.0% 15.9% 10.6% 5.8% $100,000- 2.6% 10.8% 15.8% 17.2% 14.7% 9.9% 3.9% $150,000-$149,999 0.4% 3.5% 5.0% 6.8% 6.0% 3.6% 2.1% $200,000+$199,999 0.4% 1.3% 3.6% 4.7% 3.6% 2.3% 0.9%

Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 2 of 3 Household Income Profile

Southfield City, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: Place

2021 Households by Income and Age of Householder <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 822 4,463 4,953 5,484 6,769 6,470 5,027

<$15,000 205 510 428 437 723 713 1,058 $15,000-$24,999 172 419 326 297 454 764 979 $25,000-$34,999 150 560 516 498 656 1,024 902 $35,000-$49,999 76 388 356 344 424 597 524 $50,000-$74,999 145 1,048 1,010 1,084 1,360 1,336 729 $75,000-$99,999 47 702 865 959 1,156 795 364 $100,000- 22 583 939 1,099 1,217 789 268 $150,000-$149,999 3 189 308 474 499 285 149 $200,000+$199,999 2 64 205 292 280 167 54

Median HH Income $26,680 $56,096 $69,608 $76,548 $69,203 $51,695 $29,416 Average HH $37,189 $67,143 $83,730 $91,505 $83,729 $67,158 $46,808 Income Percent Distribution <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

<$15,000 24.9% 11.4% 8.6% 8.0% 10.7% 11.0% 21.0% $15,000-$24,999 20.9% 9.4% 6.6% 5.4% 6.7% 11.8% 19.5% $25,000-$34,999 18.2% 12.5% 10.4% 9.1% 9.7% 15.8% 17.9% $35,000-$49,999 9.2% 8.7% 7.2% 6.3% 6.3% 9.2% 10.4% $50,000-$74,999 17.6% 23.5% 20.4% 19.8% 20.1% 20.6% 14.5% $75,000-$99,999 5.7% 15.7% 17.5% 17.5% 17.1% 12.3% 7.2% $100,000- 2.7% 13.1% 19.0% 20.0% 18.0% 12.2% 5.3% $150,000-$149,999 0.4% 4.2% 6.2% 8.6% 7.4% 4.4% 3.0% $200,000+$199,999 0.2% 1.4% 4.1% 5.3% 4.1% 2.6% 1.1%

Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 3 of 3 Housing Profile

Southfield City, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: Place

Population Households 2010 Total Population 71,739 2016 Median Household Income $51,256 2016 Total Population 73,556 2021 Median Household Income $57,027 2021 Total Population 75,829 2016-2021 Annual Rate 2.16% 2016-2021 Annual Rate 0.61%

Census 2010 2016 2021 Housing Units by Occupancy Status and Tenure Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total Housing Units 35,986 100.0% 37,114 100.0% 38,147 100.0% Occupied 31,778 88.3% 32,829 88.5% 33,988 89.1% Owner 17,060 47.4% 17,125 46.1% 17,619 46.2% Renter 14,718 40.9% 15,704 42.3% 16,369 42.9% Vacant 4,208 11.7% 4,285 11.5% 4,159 10.9%

2016 2021 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Number Percent Number Percent Total 17,103 100.0% 17,595 100.0% <$50,000 1,814 10.6% 1,055 6.0% $50,000-$99,999 4,096 23.9% 3,010 17.1% $100,000-$149,999 3,752 21.9% 2,975 16.9% $150,000-$199,999 3,407 19.9% 4,274 24.3% $200,000-$249,999 2,064 12.1% 3,263 18.5% $250,000-$299,999 957 5.6% 1,622 9.2% $300,000-$399,999 532 3.1% 723 4.1% $400,000-$499,999 180 1.1% 275 1.6% $500,000-$749,999 189 1.1% 258 1.5% $750,000-$999,999 25 0.1% 36 0.2% $1,000,000+ 87 0.5% 104 0.6%

Median Value $135,201 $170,560 Average Value $155,604 $184,810

Census 2010 Housing Units Number Percent Total 35,986 100.0% In Urbanized Areas 35,986 100.0% In Urban Clusters 0 0.0% Rural Housing Units 0 0.0%

Data Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 1 of 2 Housing Profile

Southfield City, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: Place

Census 2010 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Mortgage Status Number Percent Total 17,060 100.0% Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 13,141 77.0% Owned Free and Clear 3,919 23.0%

Census 2010 Vacant Housing Units by Status Number Percent Total 4,208 100.0% For Rent 2,106 50.0% Rented- Not Occupied 46 1.1% For Sale Only 572 13.6% Sold - Not Occupied 139 3.3% Seasonal/Recreational/Occasional Use 69 1.6% For Migrant Workers 0 0.0% Other Vacant 1,276 30.3%

Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Age of Householder and Home Ownership Owner Occupied Units Occupied Number % of Occupied Total 31,778 17,060 53.7% 15-24 817 104 12.7% 25-34 3,950 1,260 31.9% 35-44 5,450 2,619 48.1% 45-54 6,225 3,692 59.3% 55-64 6,894 4,494 65.2% 65-74 4,020 2,659 66.1% 75-84 2,754 1,554 56.4% 85+ 1,668 678 40.6%

Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Race/Ethnicity of Householder and Home Ownership Owner Occupied Units Occupied Number % of Occupied Total 31,778 17,060 53.7% White Alone 8,511 5,730 67.3% Black/African American 22,035 10,721 48.7% American 75 32 42.7% Asian Alone 474 257 54.2% Pacific Islander Alone 9 1 11.1% Other Race Alone 108 47 43.5% Two or More Races 566 272 48.1%

Hispanic Origin 304 170 55.9%

Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Size and Home Ownership Owner Occupied Units Occupied Number % of Occupied Total 31,778 17,060 53.7% 1-Person 12,039 4,921 40.9% 2-Person 9,822 5,797 59.0% 3-Person 4,724 2,872 60.8% 4-Person 2,886 1,924 66.7% 5-Person 1,374 911 66.3% 6-Person 561 372 66.3% 7+ Person 372 263 70.7%

Data Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 2 of 2 2010 Census Profile

Oakland County, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: County

2000-2010 2000 2010 Annual Rate Population 1,194,156 1,202,362 0.07% Households 471,115 483,698 0.26% Housing Units 492,006 527,255 0.69%

Population by Race Number Percent Total 1,202,362 100.0% Population Reporting One Race 1,176,032 97.8% White 928,912 77.3% Black 164,078 13.6% American Indian 3,376 0.3% Asian 67,828 5.6% Pacific Islander 254 0.0% Some Other Race 11,584 1.0% Population Reporting Two or More Races 26,330 2.2%

Total Hispanic Population 41,920 3.5%

Population by Sex Male 583,384 48.5% Female 618,978 51.5%

Population by Age Total 1,202,362 100.0% Age 0 - 4 68,506 5.7% Age 5 - 9 77,140 6.4% Age 10 - 14 83,450 6.9% Age 15 - 19 81,049 6.7% Age 20 - 24 63,344 5.3% Age 25 - 29 71,670 6.0% Age 30 - 34 71,717 6.0% Age 35 - 39 80,354 6.7% Age 40 - 44 89,478 7.4% Age 45 - 49 98,381 8.2% Age 50 - 54 99,877 8.3% Age 55 - 59 86,571 7.2% Age 60 - 64 71,701 6.0% Age 65 - 69 50,320 4.2% Age 70 - 74 33,783 2.8% Age 75 - 79 27,347 2.3% Age 80 - 84 23,917 2.0% Age 85+ 23,757 2.0%

Age 18+ 920,257 76.5% Age 65+ 159,124 13.2%

Data Note: Hispanic population can be of any race. Census 2010 medians are computed from reported data distributions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography.

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 1 of 4 2010 Census Profile

Oakland County, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: County

Households by Type Total 483,698 100.0% Households with 1 Person 138,388 28.6% Households with 2+ People 345,310 71.4% Family Households 318,152 65.8% Husband-wife Families 245,359 50.7% With Own Children 105,726 21.9% Other Family (No Spouse Present) 72,793 15.0% With Own Children 36,893 7.6% Nonfamily Households 27,158 5.6%

All Households with Children 153,639 31.8% Multigenerational Households 13,858 2.9% Unmarried Partner Households 25,521 5.3% Male-female 22,463 4.6% Same-sex 3,058 0.6% Average Household Size 2.46

Family Households by Size Total 318,152 100.0% 2 People 135,375 42.6% 3 People 74,571 23.4% 4 People 66,272 20.8% 5 People 27,923 8.8% 6 People 9,350 2.9% 7+ People 4,661 1.5% Average Family Size 3.06

Nonfamily Households by Size Total 165,546 100.0% 1 Person 138,388 83.6% 2 People 23,244 14.0% 3 People 2,639 1.6% 4 People 873 0.5% 5 People 257 0.2% 6 People 106 0.1% 7+ People 39 0.0% Average Nonfamily Size 1.20

Population by Relationship and Household Type Total 1,202,362 100.0% In Households 1,189,866 99.0% In Family Households 991,308 82.4% Householder 318,152 26.5% Spouse 245,359 20.4% Child 375,083 31.2% Other relative 34,612 2.9% Nonrelative 18,102 1.5% In Nonfamily Households 198,558 16.5% In Group Quarters 12,496 1.0% Institutionalized Population 6,064 0.5% Noninstitutionalized Population 6,432 0.5%

Data Note: Households with children include any households with people under age 18, related or not. Multigenerational households are families with 3 or more parent-child relationships. Unmarried partner households are usually classified as nonfamily households unless there is another member of the household related to the householder. Multigenerational and unmarried partner households are reported only to the tract level. Esri estimated block group data, which is used to estimate polygons or non-standard geography. Average family size excludes nonrelatives. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1.

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 2 of 4 2010 Census Profile

Oakland County, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: County

Family Households by Age of Householder Total 318,152 100.0% Householder Age 15 - 44 113,789 35.8% Householder Age 45 - 54 83,785 26.3% Householder Age 55 - 64 64,369 20.2% Householder Age 65 - 74 33,561 10.5% Householder Age 75+ 22,648 7.1%

Nonfamily Households by Age of Householder Total 165,546 100.0% Householder Age 15 - 44 56,223 34.0% Householder Age 45 - 54 28,938 17.5% Householder Age 55 - 64 30,735 18.6% Householder Age 65 - 74 20,453 12.4% Householder Age 75+ 29,197 17.6%

Households by Race of Householder Total 483,698 100.0% Householder is White Alone 383,646 79.3% Householder is Black Alone 66,740 13.8% Householder is American Indian Alone 1,268 0.3% Householder is Asian Alone 22,337 4.6% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 97 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 3,244 0.7% Householder is Two or More Races 6,366 1.3% Households with Hispanic Householder 11,735 2.4%

Husband-wife Families by Race of Householder Total 245,359 100.0% Householder is White Alone 204,184 83.2% Householder is Black Alone 20,287 8.3% Householder is American Indian Alone 481 0.2% Householder is Asian Alone 16,224 6.6% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 32 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 1,518 0.6% Householder is Two or More Races 2,633 1.1% Husband-wife Families with Hispanic Householder 5,656 2.3%

Other Families (No Spouse) by Race of Householder Total 72,793 100.0% Householder is White Alone 46,900 64.4% Householder is Black Alone 21,356 29.3% Householder is American Indian Alone 327 0.4% Householder is Asian Alone 1,660 2.3% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 28 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 896 1.2% Householder is Two or More Races 1,626 2.2% Other Families with Hispanic Householder 2,811 3.9%

Nonfamily Households by Race of Householder Total 165,546 100.0% Householder is White Alone 132,562 80.1% Householder is Black Alone 25,097 15.2% Householder is American Indian Alone 460 0.3% Householder is Asian Alone 4,453 2.7% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 37 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 830 0.5% Householder is Two or More Races 2,107 1.3% Nonfamily Households with Hispanic Householder 3,268 2.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1.

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 3 of 4 2010 Census Profile

Oakland County, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: County

Total Housing Units by Occupancy Total 527,255 100.0% Occupied Housing Units 483,698 91.7% Vacant Housing Units For Rent 17,915 3.4% Rented, not Occupied 733 0.1% For Sale Only 8,925 1.7% Sold, not Occupied 1,949 0.4% For Seasonal/Recreational/Occasional Use 4,112 0.8% For Migrant Workers 11 0.0% Other Vacant 9,912 1.9% Total Vacancy Rate 8.3%

Households by Tenure and Mortgage Status Total 483,698 100.0% Owner Occupied 350,988 72.6% Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 264,844 54.8% Owned Free and Clear 86,144 17.8% Average Household Size 2.59 Renter Occupied 132,710 27.4% Average Household Size 2.12

Owner-occupied Housing Units by Race of Householder Total 350,988 100.0% Householder is White Alone 302,375 86.1% Householder is Black Alone 28,909 8.2% Householder is American Indian Alone 749 0.2% Householder is Asian Alone 13,781 3.9% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 50 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 1,566 0.4% Householder is Two or More Races 3,558 1.0% Owner-occupied Housing Units with Hispanic Householder 6,745 1.9%

Renter-occupied Housing Units by Race of Householder Total 132,710 100.0% Householder is White Alone 81,271 61.2% Householder is Black Alone 37,831 28.5% Householder is American Indian Alone 519 0.4% Householder is Asian Alone 8,556 6.4% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 47 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 1,678 1.3% Householder is Two or More Races 2,808 2.1% Renter-occupied Housing Units with Hispanic Householder 4,990 3.8%

Average Household Size by Race/Hispanic Origin of Householder Householder is White Alone 2.43 Householder is Black Alone 2.41 Householder is American Indian Alone 2.49 Householder is Asian Alone 2.96 Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 2.39 Householder is Some Other Race Alone 3.30 Householder is Two or More Races 2.73 Householder is Hispanic 3.03

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1.

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 4 of 4 Business Summary

Oakland County, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: County

Data for all businesses in area Total Businesses: 59,506 Total Employees: 782,341 Total Residential Population: 1,234,680 Employee/Residential Population Ratio: 0.63:1

Businesses Employees by SIC Codes Number Percent Number Percent Agriculture & Mining 1,189 2.0% 9,596 1.2% Construction 4,125 6.9% 27,014 3.5% Manufacturing 2,563 4.3% 100,429 12.8% Transportation 1,047 1.8% 11,870 1.5% Communication 583 1.0% 10,368 1.3% Utility 165 0.3% 2,727 0.3% Wholesale Trade 2,679 4.5% 37,780 4.8%

Retail Trade Summary 11,548 19.4% 163,259 20.9% Home Improvement 775 1.3% 10,873 1.4% General Merchandise Stores 357 0.6% 12,892 1.6% Food Stores 857 1.4% 16,683 2.1% Auto Dealers, Gas Stations, Auto Aftermarket 1,213 2.0% 18,169 2.3% Apparel & Accessory Stores 1,007 1.7% 8,480 1.1% Furniture & Home Furnishings 1,263 2.1% 16,844 2.2% Eating & Drinking Places 3,050 5.1% 53,397 6.8% Miscellaneous Retail 3,026 5.1% 25,921 3.3%

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Summary 7,388 12.4% 69,418 8.9% Banks, Savings & Lending Institutions 2,231 3.7% 18,346 2.3% Securities Brokers 1,128 1.9% 10,578 1.4% Insurance Carriers & Agents 1,383 2.3% 17,809 2.3% Real Estate, Holding, Other Investment Offices 2,646 4.4% 22,685 2.9%

Services Summary 24,591 41.3% 321,524 41.1% Hotels & Lodging 231 0.4% 6,490 0.8% Automotive Services 1,378 2.3% 14,609 1.9% Motion Pictures & Amusements 1,418 2.4% 19,754 2.5% Health Services 4,235 7.1% 74,878 9.6% Legal Services 1,774 3.0% 15,381 2.0% Education Institutions & Libraries 1,173 2.0% 44,339 5.7% Other Services 14,382 24.2% 146,073 18.7%

Government 971 1.6% 26,731 3.4%

Unclassified Establishments 2,657 4.5% 1,625 0.2%

Totals 59,506 100.0% 782,341 100.0% Source: Copyright 2016 Infogroup, Inc. All rights reserved. Esri Total Residential Population forecasts for 2016. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 1 of 2 Business Summary

Oakland County, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: County

Businesses Employees by NAICS Codes Number Percent Number Percent Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 97 0.2% 311 0.0% Mining 23 0.0% 314 0.0% Utilities 50 0.1% 1,931 0.2% Construction 4,530 7.6% 31,514 4.0% Manufacturing 2,685 4.5% 99,932 12.8% Wholesale Trade 2,608 4.4% 36,707 4.7% Retail Trade 8,198 13.8% 107,571 13.7% Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers 814 1.4% 16,642 2.1% Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores 426 0.7% 4,699 0.6% Electronics & Appliance Stores 741 1.2% 11,746 1.5% Bldg Material & Garden Equipment & Supplies Dealers 766 1.3% 10,849 1.4% Food & Beverage Stores 717 1.2% 14,541 1.9% Health & Personal Care Stores 869 1.5% 9,440 1.2% Gasoline Stations 399 0.7% 1,527 0.2% Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores 1,278 2.1% 10,013 1.3% Sport Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores 492 0.8% 4,686 0.6% General Merchandise Stores 357 0.6% 12,892 1.6% Miscellaneous Store Retailers 1,155 1.9% 8,717 1.1% Nonstore Retailers 184 0.3% 1,819 0.2% Transportation & Warehousing 775 1.3% 9,615 1.2% Information 1,264 2.1% 19,026 2.4% Finance & Insurance 4,804 8.1% 47,036 6.0% Central Bank/Credit Intermediation & Related Activities 2,232 3.8% 17,972 2.3% Securities, Commodity Contracts & Other Financial 1,176 2.0% 11,130 1.4% Insurance Carriers & Related Activities; Funds, Trusts & 1,396 2.3% 17,934 2.3% Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 2,893 4.9% 23,442 3.0% Professional, Scientific & Tech Services 7,775 13.1% 84,266 10.8% Legal Services 1,930 3.2% 16,528 2.1% Management of Companies & Enterprises 67 0.1% 433 0.1% Administrative & Support & Waste Management & 2,803 4.7% 28,049 3.6% Educational Services 1,423 2.4% 45,970 5.9% Health Care & Social Assistance 5,467 9.2% 93,028 11.9% Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 1,032 1.7% 19,080 2.4% Accommodation & Food Services 3,388 5.7% 61,283 7.8% Accommodation 231 0.4% 6,490 0.8% Food Services & Drinking Places 3,157 5.3% 54,793 7.0% Other Services (except Public Administration) 5,999 10.1% 44,482 5.7% Automotive Repair & Maintenance 1,098 1.8% 11,615 1.5% Public Administration 973 1.6% 26,743 3.4%

Unclassified Establishments 2,652 4.5% 1,608 0.2%

Total 59,506 100.0% 782,341 100.0% Source: Copyright 2016 Infogroup, Inc. All rights reserved. Esri Total Residential Population forecasts for 2016. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 2 of 2 Demographic and Income Profile

Oakland County, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: County

Summary Census 2010 2016 2021 Population 1,202,362 1,234,680 1,274,041 Households 483,698 499,074 516,347 Families 318,152 324,357 333,541 Average Household Size 2.46 2.45 2.44 Owner Occupied Housing Units 350,988 357,730 369,674 Renter Occupied Housing Units 132,710 141,344 146,673 Median Age 40.2 41.4 42.4 Trends: 2016 - 2021 Annual Rate Area State National Population 0.63% 0.23% 0.84% Households 0.68% 0.28% 0.79% Families 0.56% 0.16% 0.72% Owner HHs 0.66% 0.27% 0.73% Median Household Income 2.58% 2.26% 1.86% 2016 2021 Households by Income Number Percent Number Percent <$15,000 42,226 8.5% 41,490 8.0% $15,000 - $24,999 39,428 7.9% 37,821 7.3% $25,000 - $34,999 42,229 8.5% 42,718 8.3% $35,000 - $49,999 56,678 11.4% 32,354 6.3% $50,000 - $74,999 83,127 16.7% 89,567 17.3% $75,000 - $99,999 66,778 13.4% 73,332 14.2% $100,000 - $149,999 85,739 17.2% 103,116 20.0% $150,000 - $199,999 38,418 7.7% 47,192 9.1% $200,000+ 44,451 8.9% 48,757 9.4%

Median Household Income $69,354 $78,782 Average Household Income $95,719 $104,637 Per Capita Income $38,946 $42,655 Census 2010 2016 2021 Population by Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 - 4 68,506 5.7% 65,499 5.3% 65,877 5.2% 5 - 9 77,140 6.4% 73,483 6.0% 71,054 5.6% 10 - 14 83,450 6.9% 81,453 6.6% 78,983 6.2% 15 - 19 81,049 6.7% 78,022 6.3% 76,950 6.0% 20 - 24 63,344 5.3% 70,607 5.7% 66,009 5.2% 25 - 34 143,387 11.9% 148,656 12.0% 156,796 12.3% 35 - 44 169,832 14.1% 158,705 12.9% 163,205 12.8% 45 - 54 198,258 16.5% 183,921 14.9% 172,659 13.6% 55 - 64 158,272 13.2% 180,228 14.6% 186,580 14.6% 65 - 74 84,103 7.0% 113,847 9.2% 140,861 11.1% 75 - 84 51,264 4.3% 53,400 4.3% 66,512 5.2% 85+ 23,757 2.0% 26,859 2.2% 28,555 2.2% Census 2010 2016 2021 Race and Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White Alone 928,912 77.3% 921,224 74.6% 918,993 72.1% Black Alone 164,078 13.6% 179,630 14.5% 197,707 15.5% American Indian Alone 3,376 0.3% 3,507 0.3% 3,639 0.3% Asian Alone 67,828 5.6% 85,612 6.9% 103,060 8.1% Pacific Islander Alone 254 0.0% 352 0.0% 420 0.0% Some Other Race Alone 11,584 1.0% 13,162 1.1% 14,622 1.1% Two or More Races 26,330 2.2% 31,193 2.5% 35,600 2.8%

Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 41,920 3.5% 48,677 3.9% 55,954 4.4% Data Note: Income is expressed in current dollars.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021.

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 1 of 2 Demographic and Income Profile

Oakland County, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: County

Trends 2016-2021 2.5

2

1.5

1

Area 0.5 State

Annual Rate (in percent) Rate Annual USA 0 Population Households Families Owner HHs Median HH Income

Population by Age

14

12

10

8

Percent 6

4 2016 2 2021

0 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+

2016 Household Income 2016 Population by Race

$35K - $49K $25K - $34K 70 11.4% 8.5% $15K - $24K 7.9% 60

$50K - $74K 50 16.7% <$15K 8.5% 40

Percent 30

$200K+ 8.9% 20 $75K - $99K 13.4% $150K - $199K 10 7.7% $100K - $149K 0 17.2% White Black Am. Ind. Asian Pacific Other Two+

2016 Percent Hispanic Origin: 3.9%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021.

July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 2 of 2 Household Income Profile

Oakland County, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: County

2016-2021 2016-2021 Summary 2016 2021 Change Annual Rate Population 1,234,680 1,274,041 39,361 0.63% Households 499,074 516,347 17,273 0.68% Median Age 41.4 42.4 1.0 0.48% Average Household Size 2.45 2.44 -0.01 -0.08%

2016 2021 Households by Income Number Percent Number Percent Household 499,074 100% 516,347 100% Income<$15,000 Base 42,226 8.5% 41,490 8.0% $15,000-$24,999 39,428 7.9% 37,821 7.3% $25,000-$34,999 42,229 8.5% 42,718 8.3% $35,000-$49,999 56,678 11.4% 32,354 6.3% $50,000-$74,999 83,127 16.7% 89,567 17.3% $75,000-$99,999 66,778 13.4% 73,332 14.2% $100,000-$149,999 85,739 17.2% 103,116 20.0% $150,000-$199,999 38,418 7.7% 47,192 9.1% $200,000+ 44,451 8.9% 48,757 9.4%

Median Household Income $69,354 $78,782 Average Household Income $95,719 $104,637 Per Capita Income $38,946 $42,655

Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 1 of 3 Household Income Profile

Oakland County, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: County

2016 Households by Income and Age of Householder <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 12,642 65,467 85,212 103,111 106,412 71,829 54,401

<$15,000 2,400 5,897 5,628 6,061 8,458 5,338 8,444 $15,000-$24,999 2,105 5,003 4,814 4,756 6,311 7,658 8,781 $25,000-$34,999 1,976 6,252 6,307 5,929 6,708 6,807 8,250 $35,000-$49,999 1,912 9,107 9,292 8,510 9,066 9,446 9,345 $50,000-$74,999 2,245 13,316 13,503 15,092 16,539 13,234 9,198 $75,000-$99,999 913 9,656 12,914 15,124 15,924 8,980 3,267 $100,000- 834 10,449 17,556 22,530 20,218 10,097 4,055 $150,000-$149,999 135 3,652 7,411 11,220 10,258 4,391 1,351 $200,000+$199,999 122 2,135 7,787 13,889 12,930 5,878 1,710

Median HH Income $33,931 $59,643 $79,643 $92,087 $82,912 $60,188 $37,024 Average HH $46,058 $75,382 $101,468 $119,001 $111,193 $89,499 $56,546 Income Percent Distribution <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

<$15,000 19.0% 9.0% 6.6% 5.9% 7.9% 7.4% 15.5% $15,000-$24,999 16.7% 7.6% 5.6% 4.6% 5.9% 10.7% 16.1% $25,000-$34,999 15.6% 9.5% 7.4% 5.8% 6.3% 9.5% 15.2% $35,000-$49,999 15.1% 13.9% 10.9% 8.3% 8.5% 13.2% 17.2% $50,000-$74,999 17.8% 20.3% 15.8% 14.6% 15.5% 18.4% 16.9% $75,000-$99,999 7.2% 14.7% 15.2% 14.7% 15.0% 12.5% 6.0% $100,000- 6.6% 16.0% 20.6% 21.9% 19.0% 14.1% 7.5% $150,000-$149,999 1.1% 5.6% 8.7% 10.9% 9.6% 6.1% 2.5% $200,000+$199,999 1.0% 3.3% 9.1% 13.5% 12.2% 8.2% 3.1%

Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 2 of 3 Household Income Profile

Oakland County, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: County

2021 Households by Income and Age of Householder <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 12,152 67,376 85,660 94,804 107,299 86,445 62,611

<$15,000 2,477 5,971 5,216 5,091 7,253 6,266 9,216 $15,000-$24,999 1,974 4,695 4,071 3,603 5,533 8,206 9,739 $25,000-$34,999 1,923 6,252 5,901 4,894 6,241 7,989 9,518 $35,000-$49,999 1,169 5,173 4,619 4,255 4,887 6,257 5,994 $50,000-$74,999 2,385 14,338 14,012 13,692 16,598 16,534 12,008 $75,000-$99,999 1,019 10,935 13,885 14,472 16,535 11,962 4,524 $100,000- 938 12,786 20,405 23,382 23,998 14,913 6,694 $150,000-$149,999 153 4,718 8,948 12,204 12,391 6,469 2,309 $200,000+$199,999 114 2,508 8,603 13,211 13,863 7,849 2,609

Median HH Income $32,998 $68,518 $89,451 $101,819 $93,598 $70,789 $41,073 Average HH $48,724 $83,947 $112,689 $128,809 $122,157 $99,818 $66,768 Income Percent Distribution <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

<$15,000 20.4% 8.9% 6.1% 5.4% 6.8% 7.2% 14.7% $15,000-$24,999 16.2% 7.0% 4.8% 3.8% 5.2% 9.5% 15.6% $25,000-$34,999 15.8% 9.3% 6.9% 5.2% 5.8% 9.2% 15.2% $35,000-$49,999 9.6% 7.7% 5.4% 4.5% 4.6% 7.2% 9.6% $50,000-$74,999 19.6% 21.3% 16.4% 14.4% 15.5% 19.1% 19.2% $75,000-$99,999 8.4% 16.2% 16.2% 15.3% 15.4% 13.8% 7.2% $100,000- 7.7% 19.0% 23.8% 24.7% 22.4% 17.3% 10.7% $150,000-$149,999 1.3% 7.0% 10.4% 12.9% 11.5% 7.5% 3.7% $200,000+$199,999 0.9% 3.7% 10.0% 13.9% 12.9% 9.1% 4.2%

Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 3 of 3 Housing Profile

Oakland County, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: County

Population Households 2010 Total Population 1,202,362 2016 Median Household Income $69,354 2016 Total Population 1,234,680 2021 Median Household Income $78,782 2021 Total Population 1,274,041 2016-2021 Annual Rate 2.58% 2016-2021 Annual Rate 0.63%

Census 2010 2016 2021 Housing Units by Occupancy Status and Tenure Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total Housing Units 527,255 100.0% 542,167 100.0% 559,593 100.0% Occupied 483,698 91.7% 499,074 92.1% 516,347 92.3% Owner 350,988 66.6% 357,730 66.0% 369,674 66.1% Renter 132,710 25.2% 141,344 26.1% 146,673 26.2% Vacant 43,557 8.3% 43,093 7.9% 43,246 7.7%

2016 2021 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Number Percent Number Percent Total 357,670 100.0% 369,611 100.0% <$50,000 31,568 8.8% 22,212 6.0% $50,000-$99,999 39,953 11.2% 27,850 7.5% $100,000-$149,999 45,315 12.7% 29,031 7.9% $150,000-$199,999 52,263 14.6% 64,116 17.3% $200,000-$249,999 47,055 13.2% 66,222 17.9% $250,000-$299,999 35,905 10.0% 49,116 13.3% $300,000-$399,999 47,109 13.2% 48,964 13.2% $400,000-$499,999 25,040 7.0% 26,637 7.2% $500,000-$749,999 24,140 6.7% 25,595 6.9% $750,000-$999,999 4,828 1.3% 5,935 1.6% $1,000,000+ 4,494 1.3% 3,933 1.1%

Median Value $210,345 $231,407 Average Value $256,502 $273,613

Census 2010 Housing Units Number Percent Total 527,255 100.0% In Urbanized Areas 500,707 95.0% In Urban Clusters 4,796 0.9% Rural Housing Units 21,752 4.1%

Data Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 1 of 2 Housing Profile

Oakland County, MI Prepared by Esri Geography: County

Census 2010 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Mortgage Status Number Percent Total 350,988 100.0% Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 264,844 75.5% Owned Free and Clear 86,144 24.5%

Census 2010 Vacant Housing Units by Status Number Percent Total 43,557 100.0% For Rent 17,915 41.1% Rented- Not Occupied 733 1.7% For Sale Only 8,925 20.5% Sold - Not Occupied 1,949 4.5% Seasonal/Recreational/Occasional Use 4,112 9.4% For Migrant Workers 11 0.0% Other Vacant 9,912 22.8%

Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Age of Householder and Home Ownership Owner Occupied Units Occupied Number % of Occupied Total 483,698 350,988 72.6% 15-24 13,036 2,693 20.7% 25-34 65,268 31,676 48.5% 35-44 91,708 64,170 70.0% 45-54 112,723 89,840 79.7% 55-64 95,104 79,244 83.3% 65-74 54,014 45,425 84.1% 75-84 35,064 27,517 78.5% 85+ 16,781 10,423 62.1%

Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Race/Ethnicity of Householder and Home Ownership Owner Occupied Units Occupied Number % of Occupied Total 483,698 350,988 72.6% White Alone 383,646 302,375 78.8% Black/African American 66,740 28,909 43.3% American 1,268 749 59.1% Asian Alone 22,337 13,781 61.7% Pacific Islander Alone 97 50 51.5% Other Race Alone 3,244 1,566 48.3% Two or More Races 6,366 3,558 55.9%

Hispanic Origin 11,735 6,745 57.5%

Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Size and Home Ownership Owner Occupied Units Occupied Number % of Occupied Total 483,698 350,988 72.6% 1-Person 138,388 80,222 58.0% 2-Person 158,619 123,274 77.7% 3-Person 77,210 58,983 76.4% 4-Person 67,145 54,794 81.6% 5-Person 28,180 22,886 81.2% 6-Person 9,456 7,351 77.7% 7+ Person 4,700 3,478 74.0%

Data Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. July 14, 2016

©2016 Esri Page 2 of 2 GLOSSARY

ABSORPTION PERIOD—The number of months necessary to rent a specific number of units. If over 12 months, the absorption period is adjusted to reflect replacement for turnover (see aggregate absorption and net absorption).

ABSORPTION RATE—The number of units expected to be rented per month.

AESTHETIC AMENITIES (CURBSIDE APPEAL)—Used as part of the comparability index, this factor assigns a point rating to a project's physical appeal to potential tenants. Included in this rating are an evaluation of grounds appearance and landscaping, quality of maintenance, and quality of architecture and design.

AGGREGATE ABSORPTION—The total number of units absorbed by a subject site without accounting for turnover.

CERTIFICATE—See HUD Section 8 Certificate.

COMPARABLE MARKET RENT—The amount a potential renter would expect to pay for the subject unit without income restrictions given current and projected market conditions. Comparable market rent is based on a regression analysis for the market area. Factors influencing a property’s potential to achieve the comparable market rent include the number of units at that rent, the step-up base at that rent level and the age and condition of the property and its competitors.

COMPARABILITY INDEX—A factor used to determine the relative competitiveness of any given multifamily project. This index is established based on a scale developed by the Danter Company, LLC that assigns point values to a project's unit amenities, project amenities, and overall aesthetic rating (curbside appeal).

CONTRACT RENT—See street rent.

CONVENTIONAL APARTMENT—Rental multifamily unit, typically in a building of four units or greater, that was purpose built as multifamily or converted to multifamily by adaptive reuse.

G-1 COOPERATIVE—a type of multifamily housing in which each household is part-owner of the community. A cooperative will usually involve a purchase or “buy-in” of the unit, and decisions affecting the community are typically made by majority votes of unit holders. Unit holders also share in the project’s equity. Government subsidized units typically involve very low cost buy-ins and low rents geared towards low-income households.

DENSITY—The number of units per acre.

ECONOMIC VACANCY—An existing unit that is not collecting book rent. Economic vacancies include manager's units, model units, units undergoing renovation, units being prepared for occupancy, and units being discounted. The Danter Company, LLC determines vacancies based on a market vacancy standard (see vacancy).

EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA (EMA)SM —The geographic area from which a proposed development is expected to draw between 60% and 70% of its support. Also the area from which an existing project actually draws 60% to 70% of its support. An EMA is determined based on the area's demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, mobility patterns, and existing geographic features (i.e. a river, mountain, or freeway).

EMPTY-NESTER—An older adult (age 55 or over). Typically, households in this age group contain no children under 18.

ENTRY IMPACT—A prospective tenant's perception of a unit's spaciousness on entering a unit; a first impression.

EXTERNAL MOBILITY—Households moving to an area from well outside a market area.

FAIR MARKET RENT—The maximum chargeable gross rent in an area for projects participating in the HUD Section 8 program. Determined by HUD.

FIELD SURVEY—The process of visiting existing developments as part of the information-gathering process. Each project listed in this survey has been visited on- site by an analyst employed by the Danter Company, LLC unless specified otherwise. Also the name of the section detailing information gathered during the field trip.

SM Service Mark of Danter Company, LLC

G-2 FmHA—Farmers Home Administration, former name for RECD. See RECD.

GARDEN UNIT—A multifamily unit with living and sleeping space all on a single floor. May be in a multistory building.

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED—Units for which all or part of the rent or operating expenses are paid for directly by a government agency. Government subsidy programs include HUD Sections 8 and 236, RECDS Section 515, and other programs sponsored by local housing authorities or agencies. Typically, tenants are charged a percentage of their income (usually 30%) as rent if they are unable to pay the full cost of a unit.

GROSS RENT—Rent paid for a unit adjusted to include all utilities.

HISTORIC TAX CREDIT—Program which gives income tax credits to investors who restore old or historic buildings in designated areas. This is a separate program from the low-income housing Tax Credit program (see Tax Credit).

HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS (HDA)SM —A statistical analysis of the relationship of an area's housing demand to its housing supply. This is provided at the county level. The purpose of this analysis is to place the overall housing market within the context of housing demand.

HUD—The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. The primary agency for sponsoring subsidized housing in the United States, particularly in urban areas.

HUD SECTION 8 CERTIFICATE—A government subsidized housing program administered by local public housing agencies through which low-income households qualify for rent subsidies. Qualified households must pay 30% of adjusted income, 10% of gross income, or the portion of welfare designated for housing, whichever is greatest. Rent subsidies paid to the housing unit owner compensate the owner for the difference in the payment made by the household and the area Fair Market Rent. Qualified housing units must meet HUD quality guidelines. Subsidies may be also project-based, in which a project earns the subsidy by renting the unit to qualified households

SM Service mark of Danter Company, LLC

G-3 HUD SECTION 8 VOUCHER—A government subsidized housing program administered by local public housing agencies through which income-qualified tenants can use government subsidies to reside at any project which meets certain qualifications. Qualified households pay 30% of adjusted income or 10% of gross income, whichever is greater. Government subsidies pay the housing unit owner the difference between what the qualified household pays and the area Payment Standard. Voucher holders may choose housing that rents for more than the area Payment Standard, but they will be responsible for paying the difference between the charged rent and the Payment Standard

INTERNAL MOBILITY—Households moving within the same market area.

MARKET-DRIVEN RENT—The rent for a unit with a given comparability index as determined by the regression analysis.

MARKET VACANCY—See vacancy.

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INCOME—The highest income a household can make and be eligible for the Tax Credit program. The maximum allowable income is set at 60% of the area's median household income unless otherwise noted.

MEDIAN RENT—The midpoint in the range of rents for a unit type at which exactly half of the units have higher rents and half have lower rents.

MSA—Metropolitan Statistical Area. Denotes an area associated with an urban area. MSA determinations are made by the Census Bureau based on population and interaction. Nonurban areas included in an MSA are marked by a high rate of commuting and interaction. MSA boundaries are particularly important in determining maximum allowable rents for Tax Credit development (see PMSA).

NET ABSORPTION—The total number of units absorbed when accounting for turnover.

NET RENT—The rent paid by a tenant adjusted to assume that the landlord pays for water/sewer service and trash removal and that the tenant pays all other utilities.

100% DATA BASE—When the Danter Company, LLC conducts a field survey, we gather data on all (100%) of the modern apartments in an EMA. This methodology allows us to examine the market at all price and amenity levels in order to determine step-up support and to use a regression analysis to determine market-driven rent for any given amenity level.

G-4 PMSA—Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area. Used for Metropolitan Statistical Areas that have been combined with other adjacent MSAs into a larger Consolidated MSA. Each PMSA is defined in the same manner as a standard MSA (see MSA).

PROJECT AMENITY—An amenity that is available for all residents of a community. Project amenities include laundry facilities, swimming pools, clubhouses, exercise rooms, playgrounds, etc.

RADIAL ANALYSIS—An analysis focusing on the area within a set distance of a site (usually 1, 3, 5, or 10 miles). Such analyses usually disregard mobility patterns, geographic boundaries, or differences in socioeconomic characteristics which separate one area from another.

RD—Rural Development. Formerly Farmers Home Administration. The primary agency of the federal government for overseeing government subsidized housing programs in rural areas, primarily through its Section 515 program.

RENT GAP—The difference in price between a unit type and the next-largest unit type. For example, at a project where one-bedroom units rent for $350 and two-bedroom units rent at $425, the rent gap is $75. May also be used to identify premium rents or special amenities.

REPLACEMENT ABSORPTION—The number of tenants necessary for a project to attract to counteract the number of tenants who chose to break or not renew their lease.

STEP-UP SUPPORT (OR STEP-UP BASE)—The number of multifamily units existing within the EMA with rents within a specified dollar amount below the proposed rents at a proposed multifamily site. Step-up support is calculated separately for each unit type proposed, and may include units of another, smaller unit type (for example, step-up support for proposed one-bedroom units may include not only one-bedroom units but also studio units).

STEP-DOWN SUPPORT—The number of units within a given unit type and comparability index level but with rents above the proposed rent. This total measures the number of tenants in a market who may be willing to move to a new project that provides a similar or higher level of quality at a lower rent.

STREET RENT—The rent quoted by a leasing agent or manager to a prospective tenant, regardless of the utilities included. Also called contract rent.

G-5 TAX CREDIT—Short for the low-income housing Tax Credit program (LIHTC) or IRS Section 42. This program gives investors the opportunity to gain tax credits for investing in multifamily housing for low- to moderate-income households meeting certain income restrictions. This designation does not refer to the historic Tax Credit program (see historic tax credit).

TOWNHOUSE UNIT—A multifamily unit with a floor plan of two or more floors. Typically, townhouse floor plans living areas and sleeping areas on different floors.

TREND LINE ANALYSIS—A mathematical analysis in which each project surveyed is plotted on a scatter diagram using rent by unit type and the project's comparability index. From this graph a trend line regression line is identified which identifies the market-driven rent at any given comparability index level.

TURNOVER—Units whose tenants choose to break or not renew their lease.

UNIT AMENITIES—Amenities available within an individual unit, or only to individual tenants. For example, a detached garage and external storage are considered unit amenities because they are generally available only to individual tenants.

UNIT TYPE—Based on the number of bedrooms: studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, etc.

UPPER-QUARTILE RENTS—The rent range including the 25% of units at the high end of the range scale.

UTILITY ALLOWANCE—Adjustment for utilities not included in the rent in the Tax Credit program. The adjustment is used to keep proposed rents within gross rent guidelines of the program. It is also used to adjust gross rents to compare with area net rents.

VACANCY—As used by the Danter Company, LLC, a vacancy is a multifamily unit available for immediate occupancy. Manager's units and model units are not counted as vacant units, nor are units that are unrentable due to excessive damage or renovation. This definition of vacancy is often referred to as a market vacancy and is different from an economic vacancy (see economic vacancy).

VOUCHER— See HUD Section 8 Voucher.

G-6 Qualifications and Services

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

Q-1

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

Apartment Mobility/Demographic Characteristics
Tax Credit Multifamily
Rural Development Tenant Profile
Older Adult Housing Surveys
Office Tenant Profiles
Downtown Resident Surveys
Shopping Habits
Health-Care Office and Consumer Surveys

Q-2

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

Q-3

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

Q-4

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

Q-5