Market Study for Full-Service Hotels

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Market Study for Full-Service Hotels FEASIBILITY STUDY Proposed Extended-Stay Hotel MARICOPA, ARIZONA SUBMITTED TO:PR OPOSED PREPARED BY: Ms. Denyse Airheart HVS Consulting & Valuation 39700 W Civic Center Plaza Division of TS Worldwide, LLC Maricopa, Arizona, 85239 221 East Indianola Avenue Phoenix, Arizona, 85012 +1 (520) 316-6992 +1 (608) 658-0587 February-2018 March 2, 2018 Ms. Denyse Airheart 39700 W Civic Center Plaza Maricopa, Arizona, 85239 HVS PHOENIX - LOS ANGELES OFFICE Re: Proposed Extended-Stay Hotel 221 East Indianaola Avenue Maricopa, Arizona Phoenix, Arizona, 85012 +1 (608) 658-0587 HVS Reference: 2017022183 +1 (415) 896-0516 FAX www.hvs.com Dear Ms. Airheart: Pursuant to your request, we herewith submit our feasibility study pertaining to the above-captioned property. We have inspected the real estate and analyzed the hotel market conditions in the Maricopa, Arizona area. We have studied the proposed project, and the results of our fieldwork and analysis are presented in this report. We have also reviewed the proposed improvements for this site. Our report was prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), as provided by the Appraisal Foundation. We hereby certify that we have no undisclosed interest in the property, and our employment and compensation are not contingent upon our findings. This study is subject to the comments made throughout this report and to all assumptions and limiting conditions set forth herein. Sincerely, TS Worldwide, LLC Ryan Wall, Director [email protected], +1 (608) 658-0587 State Appraiser License (AZ) 32100 Superior results through unrivaled hospitality intelligence. Everywhere. Table of Contents SECTION TITLE PAGE 1. Executive Summary 1 Ownership, Franchise, and Management Assumptions 1 Summary of Hotel Market Trends 2 Summary of Forecast Occupancy and Average Rate 6 Summary of Forecast Income and Expense Statement 6 Feasibility Conclusion 9 2. Description of the Site and Neighborhood 12 Physical Characteristics 12 Access and Visibility 13 Airport Access 15 Neighborhood 15 Flood Zone 17 Zoning 19 3. Market Area Analysis 20 Workforce Characteristics 24 Radial Demographic Snapshot 28 Unemployment Statistics 30 Major Business and Industry 31 Office Space Statistics 34 Convention Activity 34 Airport Traffic 37 Tourist Attractions 39 4. Supply and Demand Analysis 46 Definition of Subject Hotel Market 46 National Trends Overview 46 Historical Supply and Demand Data 50 Seasonality 53 Patterns of Demand 56 Primary Competition 59 Secondary Competitors 68 Supply Changes 70 Demand Analysis Using Market Segmentation 71 Base Demand Growth Rates 73 Latent Demand 74 Accommodated Demand and Market-wide Occupancy 76 5. Description of the Proposed Improvements 78 Project Overview 78 Summary of the Facilities 81 Site Improvements and Hotel Structure 82 Public Areas 83 Guestrooms 85 Construction Budget 88 Conclusion 88 6. Projection of Occupancy and Average Rate 89 Historical Penetration Rates by Market Segment 89 Forecast of Subject Property’s Occupancy 90 Average Rate Analysis 93 Competitive Position 93 7. Projection of Income and Expense 99 Comparable Operating Statements 99 Forecast of Revenue and Expense 103 Rooms Revenue 106 Other Operated Departments Revenue 106 Miscellaneous Income 106 Rooms Expense 107 Other Operated Departments Expense 107 Administrative and General Expense 108 Information and Telecommunications Systems Expense 108 Marketing Expense 108 Franchise Fee 109 Property Operations and Maintenance 109 Utilities Expense 110 Management Fee 111 Property Taxes 111 Insurance Expense 115 Reserve for Replacement 115 Forecast of Revenue and Expense Conclusion 116 8. Feasibility Analysis 117 Construction Cost Estimate 117 Mortgage Component 118 Equity Component 120 Terminal Capitalization Rate 123 Mortgage-Equity Method 125 Conclusion 127 9. Statement of Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 129 10. Certification 132 Addenda Qualifications Copy of Appraisal License(s) Flood Zone Map with Base Flood Elevation Determinations 1. Executive Summary Subject of the We have analyzed the potential performance for a nationally branded, extended- Feasibility Study stay hotel that is anticipated to be located along the State Route 347 corridor in Maricopa, Arizona. The property, which is expected to open on July 1, 2020, is recommended to feature 100 rooms, a breakfast dining area, 450 square feet of meeting space, an outdoor pool and whirlpool, a fitness room, a lobby workstation, a market pantry, a guest laundry room, and an outdoor patio and barbecue area. The hotel should also contain the appropriate parking capacity (surface) and all necessary back-of-the-house space. The Maricopa market area does not contain any non-casino, overnight lodging accommodations. Although primarily a residential community, greater Maricopa is home to automotive proving grounds, a USDA research facility, a first-class event center, top recreational facilities, and a growing retail/restaurant sector, including the soon-to-be-completed Edison Pointe shopping complex. While a particular brand has yet to be determined for the proposed subject property, our study assumes that the proposed subject hotel will operate as a nationally branded, upper- midscale to upscale, extended-stay hotel. This hotel is expected to enjoy a location along State Route 347, a major thoroughfare connecting Maricopa to the greater Phoenix region and Pinal County. The subject site’s location is anticipated to be along the State Route 347 corridor in Maricopa, Arizona. Pertinent Dates The effective date of the report is March 2, 2018. The subject market and select prospective sites were inspected by Ryan M. Wall on November 30, 2017. Ownership, Franchise, We note that a specific site for hotel development in the City of Maricopa has not and Management been selected at this time. Several available sites exist along State Route 347 and are Assumptions considered suitable for hotel development, including a city-owned site next to the Copper Sky Recreational Complex. The forecast and assumptions outlined in this report assume that the proposed hotel will be located favorably within the State Route 347 corridor, which offers easy access to transportation linkages, ancillary commercial uses (retail, restaurant, and entertainment), and demand generators in/around the City of Maricopa. Any deviation from these site assumptions could potentially alter the feasibility of this project; however, additional analysis would be required to confirm. Details pertaining to management terms were not yet determined at the time of this report; however, we assume that the proposed hotel will be managed by a professional hotel-operating company, with fees deducted at rates consistent with February-2018 Executive Summary Proposed Extended-Stay Hotel – Maricopa, Arizona 1 current market standards. We have assumed a market-appropriate total management fee of 3.0% of total revenues in our study. We recommend that the proposed subject property operate as an upper-midscale to upscale, extended-stay hotel. While we have placed heavy consideration on the Home2 Suites by Hilton, Staybridge Suites, and TownePlace Suites by Marriott brands, a specific franchise affiliation and/or brand has yet to be finalized. Our projections reflect a nationally branded, upper-midscale to upscale, extended-stay hotel. Based on our review of the agreement’s terms or expected terms, a typical franchise fee for the aforementioned brands is reflected in our forecasts with a royalty fee of 5.0% of rooms revenue, and a marketing assessment of 3.0% of rooms revenue. Summary of Hotel Following the Great Recession, RevPAR rose 18.0% in 2011, as increased economic Market Trends activity along Chandler's nearby Price Road Corridor allowed the greater Chandler submarket to recover at a quicker pace than the rest of region that year. Nonetheless, the majority of the selected competitive set is located along the Interstate 10 Corridor in Chandler, set back from the main concentration of commercial demand in the Price Road Corridor. We note that hotels along the Interstate 10 Corridor in Chandler have historically received compression-related room nights during peak periods of demand given the proximity. However, increased commercial demand along the Price Road Corridor from 2012 through 2014 led to increases in new, non-competitive hotel supply that limited the number of compression-related room nights received for the competitive set. This dynamic led to minimal overall RevPAR growth from 2012 through 2014 for the competitive hotels. In 2015, increased demand associated with Super Bowl XLIX in Phoenix helped area hotels to achieve strong average rate (ADR) growth. However, stronger demand growth, coinciding with improvements in the local and state economies, was not enough to offset the modest post-Super Bowl ADR correction and the openings of the Home2 Suites by Hilton and Best Western Plus in 2016. Strong demand growth continued in the year-to-date 2017 period, with the market realizing a 5.6% increase in overall RevPAR. We note that several of the competitive hotels along the Interstate 10 Corridor in Chandler are older structures that feature dated interiors in some instances. Therefore, these hotels have realized modest ADR erosion in the year-to-date period as they seek to provide a more cost-effective alternative to newer hotels opening in the greater Chandler market. The outlook for this market is cautiously optimistic, despite a large amount of new supply, given major office developments and
Recommended publications
  • SATS Final Transit Element Report
    PPPINAL CCCOUNTY small area transportation study FINAL Transit Element Report PPPREPARED FFFOROROR ::: PPPINAL CCCOUNTY DDDEVELOPMENT SSSERVICES DDDEPARTMENT OF PPPUBLIC WWWORKS PPPREPARED BBBYYY::: KKKIRKHAM MMMICHAEL CCCONSULTING EEENGINEERS IIININ AAASSOCIATIONASSOCIATION WITH LLLIMA &&& AAASSOCIATES August 2006 KM Project # 0504900 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXISTING TRANSIT CONDITIONS ..............................................................1 1.1 Existing Transit Characteristics ................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Demographics ....................................................................................................................1 1.1.2 Current Mode to Work .......................................................................................................2 1.2 Existing Transit Services ............................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Coolidge Cotton Express....................................................................................................2 1.2.2 Inter-city Bus Service..........................................................................................................3 1.2.3 Special Needs Transit Services ...........................................................................................4 1.2.4 Amtrak Passenger Rail Service ...........................................................................................4 1.2.5 Regional Airport Shuttle .....................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • SR 347 Final Environmental Assessment
    Intentional blank page Intentional blank page Intentional blank page Table of Contents List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... iii I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 A. Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 1 B. Summary of the Environmental Assessment .......................................................................................... 1 C. Selected Alternative ................................................................................................................................ 1 II. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................. 3 III. Errata From Draft Environmental Assessment ...................................................................................... 10 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................................... 10 O. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................... 12 IV. Public Comments ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona State Rail Plan March 2011
    Arizona State Rail Plan March 2011 Arizona Department of Transportation This page intentionally left blank Acknowledgements The State Rail Plan was made possible by the cooperative efforts of the following individuals and organizations who contributed significantly to the successful completion of the project: Rail Technical Advisory Team Cathy Norris, BNSF Railway Chris Watson, Arizona Corporation Commission Bonnie Allin, Tucson Airport Authority Reuben Teran, Arizona Game and Fish Department Zoe Richmond, Union Pacific Railroad David Jacobs, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office Jane Morris, City of Phoenix – Sky Harbor Airport Gordon Taylor, Arizona State Land Department Patrick Loftus, TTX Company Cathy Norris, BNSF Railway Angela Mogel, Bureau of Land Management ADOT Project Team Jack Tomasik, Central Arizona Association of Governments Sara Allred, Project Manager Paul Johnson, City of Yuma Kristen Keener Busby, Sustainability Program Manager Jermaine Hannon, Federal Highway Administration John Halikowski, Director Katai Nakosha, Governor’s Office John McGee, Executive Director for Planning and Policy James Chessum, Greater Yuma Port Authority Mike Normand, Director of Transit Programs Kevin Wallace, Maricopa Association of Governments Shannon Scutari, Esq. Director, Rail & Sustainability Marc Pearsall, Maricopa Association of Governments Services Gabe Thum, Pima Association of Governments Jennifer Toth, Director, Multi-Modal Planning Division Robert Bohannan, RH Bohannan & Associates Robert Travis, State Railroad Liaison Jay
    [Show full text]
  • Area Transportation Plan Transportation Master Plan & Regional Connectivity Plan December 2015
    Area Transportation Plan Transportation Master Plan & Regional Connectivity Plan December 2015 FINAL REPORT Prepared by : AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN Transportation Master Plan & Regional Connectivity Plan Prepared by Engineers & Architects December, 2015 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Area Transportation Plan (ATP), comprised of a Transportation Master Plan and Regional Connectivity Plan, was developed with the extensive participation of City officials, staff, stakeholders, and the public. A special thanks is extended to the following individuals for their participation and insight that lead to the approval of the Plan by Maricopa’s City Council on December 15, 2015. City Council City Staff Mayor Christian Price City Manager Gregory Rose Vice Mayor Marvin L. Brown Dana Burkhardt, General Plan Update Project Councilmember Peggy Chapados Manager Councilmember Bridger Kimball Bill Faye, Director of Public Works Councilmember Vincent Manfredi David R. Maestas, ATP Project Manager Councilmember Nancy Smith Kazi Neaz-E-Haque, Zoning Administrator Councilmember Henry Wade Rodolofo Lopez, Senior Planner Joshua Plumb, Engineering/Floodplain Manager Transportation Advisory Committee Rob Dolson, Engineering Inspector Committee Chair Joel Saurey Committee Member Brian Hoffman ATP Technical Advisory Group Committee Member Christopher Labye Tim Strow, Maricopa Association of Committee Member Glen Chern Governments Committee Member Harold Cole Doug Hansen, Pinal County Committee Member James Jordan Travis Ashbaugh, Pinal County Committee Member Ken Austin Charla
    [Show full text]
  • Pinal County Transit Governance Study Technical Working Group Meeting #1 October 30, 2019 Agenda
    Pinal County Transit Governance Study Technical Working Group Meeting #1 October 30, 2019 Agenda • Welcome and Introductions • Project Overview • Pinal County and Public Transit: Existing Conditions, Needs and Opportunities • Discussion: Pinal County Transit Service Goals and Opportunities • Peer Review • Next Steps Project Overview Develop structure and system to govern regional transit investments • Service goals • Service network and markets • Performance expectations • Sharing and allocating funds • Decision making and policy development • Flexibility to accommodate growth and change Schedule Fall 2019 Winter Spring Summer Fall Refined Scope of Work Existing Transit Service and Governance Structures Governance Peer Review Governance Assessment and Recommendations Governance Implementation Schedule Document Title VI Implementation Activities TWG Meetings – Proposed Schedule No. Meeting Topic / Goal Indicative Schedule 1 Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Needs October 30, 2019 Identify Peer Communities / Agencies 2 Draft Findings: Peer Review January, 2020 Discuss: Governance Options and Strategies 3 Stakeholder Workshop #1: March, 2020 Transit Service Design, Governance and Options 4 Draft Findings: Governance Assessment and Recommendations June, 2020 Discuss Implementation Schedule 5 Stakeholder Workshop #2: August, 2020 Draft Recommendations 6 Discuss: Draft Final Recommendations and Implementation October, 2020 Schedule Schedule Fall 2019 Winter Spring Summer Fall Refined Scope of Work Existing Transit Service and Governance
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Alternatives (TA) / CMAQ Application for FY 2021 and FY 2022 Projects
    MAR-21-01ModalApps__2021-2022 9/27/2017 Transportation Alternatives (TA) / CMAQ Application For FY 2021 and FY 2022 Projects Due: September 25, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. (LATE AND/OR INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED) TA Amount Available: $4,178,521, and $ 4,248,246 ($8,426,767 total) CMAQ Amount Available: $8,765,780, and $8,905,080 ($17,670,860 total) Title Page Page 1 of 33 MAR-21-01ModalApps__2021-2022 9/27/2017 INSTRUCTIONS AND SCHEDULE The due date and time for project applications to be submitted to MAG is Monday, September 25, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. General Instructions This Excel form is to be used to request federal Transportation Alternatives (TA) and CMAQ funding available through the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) for projects to be included in the FY2018-FY 2022 MAG Transportation Improvement Program. Funding is available for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2021 and 2022. This application form includes: - Instructions and Schedule - Cover Sheet - Part A - Contact and Project Description - Part B - Detailed Project Description - Part C - Required and Optional Attachments - Part D - Cost Estimate Spreadsheet - Part E - Total Project Budget and Schedule - Part F - Checklist and Signature Page - GIS Submittal Instructions - ADOT Fee Sheet - Transportation Alternatives Program and Map - Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program and Map Each part is a separate tab of this excel file. Please complete the Cover Sheet and Parts A - F. Alternative application forms are available upon request. Transmittal Instructions All applications are due on Monday, September 25, 2017 by 10:00 a.m. Both an electronic and printed copy of the application and all attachments are required.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Maricopa Small Area Transportation Study – Final Report
    CITY OF MARICOPA SMALL AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY FINAL REPORT JULY 22, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1 REPORT ORGANIZATION ............................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE....................................................................................................... 2 STUDY AREA................................................................................................. 2 STUDY PROCESS............................................................................................ 3 2. SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS................................... 5 CURRENT SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS ..................................................... 5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT............................................................................. 6 CURRENT TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS.................................................... 7 FUTURE POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT.................................................... 9 FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC DEMAND ................................................................10 3. VISION AND GOALS.....................................................................................12 VISION..........................................................................................................12 GOALS .........................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Assessment for Department
    DOE/EA-1797 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE FOR THE AGUA CALIENTE SOLAR PROJECT IN YUMA COUNTY, ARIZONA U.S. Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program Office Washington, DC 20585 November 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Executive Summary .................................................................................................................ES-1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................ES-1 Purpose and Need ...............................................................................................................ES-1 Proposed Action and Alternatives........................................................................................ES-2 Summary of Environmental Effects......................................................................................ES-2 Chapter 1 Purpose and Need................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of and Need for Action ................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Background................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Scope of this Environmental Assessment .................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Public Participation ....................................................................................................... 1-3 1.5
    [Show full text]
  • Editorial President San Diego Improvements Post Pandemic Rail
    ISSN 2325-629X Jackson: Editorial President San Diego Improvements Post Pandemic Rail High Speed Rail Timetable Confusion Arizona Report LA-PHX Intercity Bi-Levels Solution? Amtrak at 50 Europe Night Trains Battery or Hydrogen? STEEL WHEELS / FIRST QUARTER 2021 1 A Happy New Year for All Rail Advocates Guest Editorial by Russ Jackson, RailPAC Editor Emeritus You’ve seen them... every writer is Jensen’s website, and every day the California Zephyr train 5 runs it saying the same thing: “Goodbye to shows riders getting on and off there. The same situation is happening 2020 and here’s hoping 2021 is better.” on the Empire Builder, the Coast Starlight, and the Sunset Limited/ It seems like the same thing is said at Texas Eagle from reports we’ve heard, and railroad timekeeping still the end of every year, but this time the delays trains unmercifully. So, what is Amtrak saving? Is it saving the reasons for saying fond farewell to an expenses of running the trains daily, or is it losing the revenue it would old year seemed to be more intense be having from daily service and broader allocation of expenses? Rail than ever. The same must be said not advocates have been saying that revenues will be hard hit because only because of the virus that is ripping 4/7 of the potential is not there. At least Amtrak did the right thing the world apart, but, for rail advocates it is because so many systems during the Holiday period by adding a Sleeping Car and a Coach to that we all have been working so hard to ensure their success, and to most consists, and probably could have added more.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinal County Transit Feasibility Study
    FINAL REPORT April 2011 Pinal County Transit Feasibility Study Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1-1 CHAPTER 2 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW RESULTS ...........................................................2-1 Stakeholder Interview Process .............................................................................................2-1 Overview of Interview Results ...............................................................................................2-2 CHAPTER 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................3-1 Community Profiles ..............................................................................................................3-1 Activity Centers and Major Employers ................................................................................ 3-15 Population and Employment Density .................................................................................. 3-17 Transit Propensity ............................................................................................................... 3-17 Travel Flows ....................................................................................................................... 3-18 Current Work Trip Modes ................................................................................................... 3-19 Implications for Transit Service ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]