Turner Drake Blog

Just how important is proper fire safety planning?  In addition to potential loss of life and property damage, lack of proper Fire Safety Plans can land you with a hefty fine…or even potential jail time!

Section 2.8 of the National Fire Code of Canada states that any building required by the National Building Code to have a fire alarm must also have an approved Fire Safety Plan. Halifax Regional Municipality By-law F100 also states that, “Every person who contravenes or fails to comply with these regulations or fails to carry out an order made under these regulations, is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $5000, or in default of payment of the fine, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months”.

Concerned? Turner Drake’s Lasercad® Division can prepare two types of Fire Plans to help manage your properties’ fire safety concerns: Fire Emergency Plans and Fire Exit Plans.

Pictured below are examples of both types of plans prepared for a local client. Fire Emergency Plans provide a detailed layout of each floor in a building, showing the location of all demising walls, doors, windows, plumbing fixtures, etc. In addition to providing a detailed layout of the space, Fire Emergency Plans indicate the precise location of all implements relevant to fire safety. The lower ground floor of a Halifax Heritage Building pictured below illustrates the exact location of all fire safety devices on the floor, such as Fire Extinguishers, Smoke Detectors, Exit Signs, Pull Stations, etc.

Fire Exit Plans are prepared to show the general layout of a floor’s common area accessible to the general public, and indicate key features necessary to ensure a safe evacuation in the event of a fire. Pictured below is a Fire Exit plan prepared for the ground floor of the same building.  The plan clearly indicates the location of the Fire Exit Plan, marked “You Are Here”.  Additionally, it shows readers the location of all Pull Stations in the event these must be activated to trigger the building’s fire alarm. Most importantly, Fire Exit Plans guide readers to safety via proper evacuation routes while also highlighting all emergency exits, and applicable Muster Points for the assembly of building occupants at a safe distance from the building.

If your building exceeds 3 storeys and does not currently have Fire Emergency or Fire Exit Plans please give us a call. Our Lasercad® team would be happy to discuss how we can help improve your building’s Fire Safety while also answering any questions you may have regarding local safety requirements.

As a child I imagined what it would be like to score a goal for the home team in a sold out stadium.  The deafening sound of tens of thousands of fans celebrating my efforts was amazing.  I still have a passion for sport, but by day, my passion is property tax so I read with interest some recent reports on how a handful of pro sports franchises significantly reduced their property tax bills.  The Montreal Canadians, San Francisco 49ers and Carolina Panthers had their property tax bills slashed by 40%, 50% and 56% respectively.  Chances are your business doesn’t occupy a stadium, but there are tax lessons to be learned for any businesses that owns or occupies a Special Purpose Property.      

Special Purpose Properties are properties that are designed in a way that makes them good for a single use.  Some uses (like hotels) appeal to a broad array of investors, but others appeal to a very limited market making them difficult to value.  Stadiums obviously fall in this category but so do churches, schools, power plants, hospitals, and most purpose built manufacturing facilities.

The most common method for estimating the tax assessment of a limited market, special purpose property is the cost approach.  You start by estimating how much it would cost to construct the improvements, deduct allowances for all forms of depreciation and then you add the land value.  Simple enough.  So how is it possible that Bank of America Stadium (the home of the Carolina Panthers) can have estimates of its value ranging from $87m to $472m? 

It’s because valuation experts will differ in how they account for “all forms of depreciation”.  Physical depreciation is readily understood, however properties can also suffer from functional and/or external depreciation. Although a stadium, pulp mill, food processing plant, church or hospital may have been meticulously maintained, it may be subject to significant amounts of functional and external depreciation if its configuration is sub-optimal, if it is poorly located, or if the economic prospects for which it was built have deteriorated in some way- all of which are grounds for a reduction in its assessed value.

The Bell Centre in Montreal opened in 1996.  It cost roughly $240m to construct (roughly $485m today).  The land is currently assessed at just over $50m and the total assessment now stands at $167m.  This implies a total depreciation from all causes of approximately 75%. Only a small amount (+/-1/3^rd) of this relates to physical depreciation as stadiums can have very long physical lives.  Anfield, Old Trafford, Fenway Park, and Wrigley Field are all more than 100 years old so the key to accurately estimating the total depreciation in a stadium (or any other special purpose property) is in identifying and quantifying functional and external depreciation. Unfortunately there aren’t any tables an assessor can use to estimate these forms of depreciation.  It requires an understanding of why the property was configured the way it is, how it would be configured were it to be re-built from scratch, and an understanding of the location and economic factors that apply to the use it was designed for.

During my career, consulting on behalf of taxpayers I’ve often heard the argument from assessing authorities “the owner is using it for the purpose in which it was built” and/or “the business is very successful” which leads to the question “how can there be significant functional and/or external depreciation.” In the Panthers case it’s true the stadium was being used for the purpose in which it was built.  It’s true that the business is viable (David Tepper acquired the Panthers including the stadium for $2.2b in 2018) but those are the wrong questions.  The right question is “would the business be worth more if it had the right stadium in the right location?”

The right stadium might have more seats, more private boxes, more places to sell advertising and might cost less to operate.  It might also be built in a location to make commuting easier so more fans buy tickets and spend more on concessions while they are at the game.  The same concepts hold true for any special purpose property.  A church located distant from its parishioners, a school with declining enrolment, a power plant compelled to use high priced coal, and a poorly configured manufacturing plant located too distant from its markets or its raw materials can all suffer from functional and/or economic depreciation.    

2020 property assessment notices are rolling out across Canada (New Brunswick is up next!).  If you own or occupy a special purpose property, make sure you ask the right questions when you decide if it’s time to request a review this year.  

Andre Pouliot is Vice President of our New Brunswick operations and Senior Manager of our Property Tax Division. For more information about our property tax services, feel free to contact Andre at (902) 429-1811 or apouliot@turnerdrake.com

CMHC has just released its annual rental market survey data, and the results are concerning for the Halifax Regional Municipality. After 2018’s record low vacancy, we’ve been eagerly waiting to see whether supply or demand would win the race this past year as both construction and population growth continue their fevered pace. Unfortunately for renters, it looks like demand has again won. With new supply undershooting by 280 units over the year, the overall vacancy rate has now plummeted from 1.6% to a new record low of 1.0% in 2019.

While the challenge of finding an apartment is stressful enough, unfortunately for renters the bad news doesn’t stop there. Vacancy rates are a leading indicator for rental rates, and this year’s results show the first hard evidence that tight market conditions are translating into price increases within the existing rental stock. Once the competition for limited available units heats up, price increases kick in as the market begins rationing too little supply among too much demand. While the statistics of overall average or median rents have been on the rise for a number of years, this has largely been driven by the addition of new, more expensive buildings to the rental pool. Yearly increases in existing buildings were muted, proceeding at around 2% per year even in record-setting 2018. However, thanks to the knock-on effects of that year’s diminutive vacancy rate, same-building rents in 2019 show an increase of 3.8%. This is nearly double the historical average, and the largest single-year increase on record. The 2019 vacancy rate of 1.0% therefore does not bode well for renters in this year to come. Things are going to get worse before they have a chance to get better!

On that note, what is it going to take for things to get better? Despite record-levels of construction in the purpose-built rental sector, the market supply is not growing fast enough to meet demand (hence the reduction in vacancy). Based on average figures for the last 3 years, the period where population growth has driven vacancy below its typical range, the calculations are humbling. HRM would need to increase the supply growth rate by about 13%, delivering an extra 230 units per year, just to stabilise the vacancy rate and keep up with the growth in demand. Of course, holding vacancy at 1% won’t help with prices. In order to return the market to a reasonable 3% vacancy rate, there would have to be a further increase of 23%, another 410 units per year, and this would have to be sustained for the next 3 years in order to get back to balanced market territory.

Multiunit starts were up in 2019, but only by 15%. This is an industry already at record activity levels and it strains to push the pace further. Additionally, provincial level data is suggesting HRM’s population growth may still be accelerating. As a result, odds are that a sufficient increase in the growth of rental supply is not about to materialise in the short term to provide relief.

So what solace can we offer? Well, it’s not much to take to the bank, but we may be seeing the start of demand-side trends that could help blow off some pressure. Much of the population growth pressure is driven by new people arriving in the city from elsewhere in the province, county, and world. Having a few years under their belt now, not-quite-so-recent migrants and non-permanent residents could start to flow out of the rental sector. Having found their feet, these groups may look to transition into the homeownership market as they seek to become more established (or, in the case of international students, simply move away as their studies conclude). Of course, there are also domestic trends to consider as well, and while rental demand growth from downsizing boomers is unlikely to relent, an increasing number of millennials are aging into their prime home buying years.

Often lost in the rental housing conversation is the fact that despite the frenzy of apartment construction, HRM has actually not built very much housing in the last few years overall. Unlike other Canadian cities where a surge of rental construction has come only after owner-occupied markets launched out of financial reach, HRM’s rental supply is the first preference for many. This means rental housing has been voraciously consumed at the same time that homebuilders have struggled to find demand for their available lots. As a result, the explosion of apartment construction has been largely offset by a drop in subdivision development.

Perhaps things are turning around, however. This past year may have heralded disappointment for renters, but it provided encouragement for owners; price action in the resale market showed strength that we haven’t seen since the early 2010s, and with it came an uptick in new construction activity as well. Is this evidence that some of HRM’s recent population growth is starting to flow from the rental sector into ownership?

This would certainly be good news for the homebuilding industry, which has been a shadow of itself for several years. It would also be good news for those still in the rental market, as a revived owner-occupied market would ease pressure on rentals by siphoning off some of the housing demand. Further, reactivating the idle resources in the homebuilding sector is an easier means of increasing the growth rate in total housing supply than hoping for the multiunit sector to conjure up a significant escalation in their maxed out production levels. 

Turner Drake is engaged in Housing Needs Analyses from coast to coast. To see how your community can benefit from the unique expertise of our Planning and Economic Intelligence team, call Vice President Neil Lovitt at (902) 429-1811 or nlovitt@turnerdrake.com.

I recently read an article by the CBC entitled “From sacred to secular: Canada set to lose 9,000 churches, warns national heritage group.”  The article discusses shrinking congregations as member’s age, move away or switch to new spiritual practices.  The article notes that in Eastern New Brunswick alone the Roman Catholic Archdiocese for example predicts that 20 of its 53 parishes will likely close if the congregations can’t find a way to generate more money.  With less money coming in and higher maintenance and operating costs churches face a challenging future.  

This article resonated with me on a professional level and personally as a member of a local church.  In the past few years our firm has been contacted by a number of churches, in particular church committees made up of congregation members.  These committees are assigned the unenvious task of exploring what to do with their beloved church as it faces the challenges of a shrinking congregation.

The common questions asked by committee members to aid in their decision making include:

• Scenario #1: What is the value of the church as it currently operates?
• Scenario #2: What is the value of the underlying land as a redevelopment?
• Scenario #3: What if the church were sold for an adaptive re-use, what would it be worth?

Essentially the committees want to determine the Highest and Best Use of their property, with values determined for each scenario so they can be make an informed decision, and ultimately present it to their congregation. 

Churches serve a number of roles for their community.  Outside of Sunday church services and funerals they are used as polling stations, a place of refuge after disasters, a place for private and not-for-profit groups to meet, a venue for concerts, fundraiser dinners and suppers and a place for performing arts to operate out of.  While church layout and design elements vary between denominations the fundamental church layout is fairly consistent.  Typically it includes a large entrance lobby, a sanctuary, parlour, large multi-use hall together with a kitchen and a number of smaller rooms used for meetings and general storage.  They tend to have several large, wide-open areas with high ceilings together with a large number of smaller classrooms.  As a result of their special purpose design they are challenging to value.

Scenario #1 - determining the Market Value of a church as it currently operates may not be as hard as it sounds.  There are numerous examples of church properties that have sold to other congregations for continued use as a church. 

Scenario #2 – determining the value of the underlying land for redevelopment is more challenging.  Often times the property has an institutional zone assigned to it, reflecting its current use.  However, this doesn’t necessarily limit the property to its current use.  It can often be re-zoned and redeveloped for a more intensive use.  Exploring this scenario involves discussions with the local planning authority, and in the end professional judgement is needed.  In addition to re-zoning, heritage designation issues, service and utility easements on the parcel and demolition costs for the existing building must be explored and considered under this scenario.     

Scenario #3 considers the value of the church for an adaptive re-use.  This can certainly be the most challenging scenario to consider when determining value.  The question here is “does the existing building actually provide additional, measurable value?”  Older buildings often have a lot of character and heritage value.  However, the cost for repairs and maintenance for these older buildings can be substantial.  They typically have masonry exterior walls with decorative features that require a lot of maintenance.  Their walls are often load bearing, meaning they cannot be easily reconfigured for another type of use without substantial structural work.  In addition they typically sit on expensive land, located in more central downtown locations with increasing pressure on land values.  All of these things can point to demolition of the existing church to make way for a new development.  However, that’s not always the case.

Recently I completed an assignment for a registered heritage property in Halifax.  The Centre Plan envisioned a low-density residential use for the property.  However, Package A contained significant implications for the property as it contains policy applicable to registered heritage properties.  This general policy allows for consideration of new development via discretionary approval processes (a “Development Agreement”) rather than zoning.  The overarching goal of the municipality is to encourage the rehabilitation and retention of heritage buildings. In order to do this, they will support a significant amount of new development intensity on sites containing a heritage building, using this as a tool to create sufficient value that the required conservation measures can be accommodated within an economically feasible project. This opens the possibility for significant building height and floor area ratios, as well as consideration of other cost-savings, such as lower parking requirements.

In that instance, the cost involved with demolishing the existing building coupled with only low-density anticipated for the site meant that demolition of the building was not the best option.  Alternatively, retaining the existing structure, or a substantial portion of it under policy contained within Package A of the Centre Plan opened up the possibility for significant building height and floor area ratios, as well as consideration of other cost-savings, such as lower parking requirements.  This second option meant a higher value for the property.  In that instance the best option was retaining the existing building for an adaptive re-use as part of a larger development.

The take-away here is that valuing churches or special purpose properties is not a straightforward exercise.  With shrinking congregations and higher operating costs these types of assignments are becoming increasingly more common.  They can be complicated and require a team approach to valuing the property with assistance from planners with a solid understanding of the Centre Plan.

For more information on the valuation services we provide visit our Valuation and Advisory Services site https://www.turnerdrake.org.

On Wednesday September 4^th, I had the pleasure of presenting before the Standing Committee on Law Amendments regarding the assessment and taxation of heavy industry in New Brunswick.  I was pleased to see such a high level of interest from Committee members in understanding how property tax assessments (which are based on market value) are calculated. 

Fair assessments start with accurate estimates of a property’s value.  In a market value assessment system, there are no “breaks” or “deals” for property owners.   Assessment professionals take their cues from the market and adjust their models so all assessments approximate market value.

Understanding the assessment system means understanding market value and the factors that influence it.  Most of us have a reasonable understanding of the factors that influence the value of our homes.  We understand that a strong housing market drives higher values for all houses.  We understand that a property with features that purchasers desire (e.g. great kitchen; open concept design; a finished basement) will have a higher value than one that lacks these features or is in a state of disrepair.   We understand “location, location, location”, and the benefit of being close to amenities like parks and schools, and the disadvantage of being located next to negative influences like landfills or flood zones.  

Although the market for heavy industrial properties is global as opposed to local, the factors that influence their value are not dissimilar.  When markets are strong (i.e. there is a balance between the number of buyers and sellers), values can be stable.  When markets are weak (there are more sellers than buyers), values will fall.  Individual facilities can become less appealing to buyers as they get older, or if the building design and layout will not accommodate the most efficient technology or process.  Location also applies.  Instead of proximity to parks and schools, ask if the facility is located close to its raw material, or close to where it sells its final product?  Does the location offer a competitive advantage or disadvantage in terms of the cost of inputs to production?

The 2013/2014 re-assessment of pulp and paper mills in New Brunswick generated questions from the Committee and provides an excellent case study for the factors that impact the market value of heavy industrial properties generally.  If you understand the factors that impact housing values, consider the following scenario. Imagine an older neighborhood with houses built up over a period of 100 years.  The market is poor, and there are significantly more sellers than buyers.  When you look up and down the streets, approximately 1/3^rd of the houses are vacant and boarded up while they wait to be demolished.  Demand is weak generally, but the houses in this neighborhood are especially less appealing than newer houses because they are older and are lacking in amenities that purchasers require.  The purchasers themselves have concluded that it would be much less expensive to build a new house than to modernize the older structures. In fact, the houses are so functionally obsolete, there are builders constructing houses across town with all of the amenities purchasers demand for less than half the cost of reconstructing replicas of the homes in the older neighborhood.  

This was the state of the market for pulp and paper mills at the time of the reassessment.  Maritimers will recall closure of mills in Bathurst, Dalhousie, Miramichi, Brooklyn, and Port Hawkesbury; all but one were subsequently demolished.  Assessors and Appeal Boards in assessment jurisdictions across the country were tasked with coming up with an estimate of the market value of these assets. Many experts provided testimony, and Appeal Boards in contested hearings in Ontario ordered assessment reductions ranging from 60% to 75%.  It shouldn’t be surprising that experts tasked with determining the values of mills in our region came to similar conclusions. 

To be clear, the assessment process is about ensuring that assessments reflect market value, not about providing a “break” or a “deal” on property taxes.   

André Pouliot is a Senior Manager in the Property Tax Division at Turner Drake & Partners Ltd.  André holds professional designations in Valuation with the Appraisal Institute of Canada, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and has more than 20 years of experience in the assessment and valuation of heavy industrial, commercial, and investment properties. 

What is building efficiency? and why is it becoming increasingly important for landlords, purchasers and tenants alike?

Building efficiency stems from a variety of factors, some of which are tied to the building envelope or overall operating systems (HVAC, lighting, etc.), while others are tied to design and layout.  Our Lasercad® team focuses on the latter and partners with building owners and managers to help analyse and optimise their building efficiency using the BOMA Standard Methods of Measurement.

Using a typical office building as an example, the ratio of a building’s Occupant Area to its Rentable Area will yield a gross-up or efficiency factor, where higher factors equal lower efficiency.  In other words—the larger the percentage of common area to tenant occupied area, the larger the gross-up, and thus less efficient the building.

Since common areas are proportionately allocated (“grossed up”) back to each tenant, they are a primary contributor to determining building efficiency.  Large common areas in a multi-tenant office or industrial building increase a tenant’s overall rent as a result of higher gross-up factors.  It’s a double whammy because tenants are also subjected to higher Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges which are needed to service those common areas.  The results manifest themselves in a variety of ways—higher vacancy rates, lower net rents, reduced marketability.  The list goes on.  An inefficient building is less attractive to potential tenants as well as to buyers.

Optimising building efficiency is becoming more crucial as development restrictions evolve and building owners, managers and shareholders look to maximise their returns.  Whether it’s new construction, or the renovation of an existing building, the BOMA Standard Methods of Measurement have become an increasingly important input of the initial design phase, and more and more developers are seeking guidance and expertise from our knowledgeable staff.    

Below is an overview of two buildings we recently measured with common areas highlighted in blue.  123 Jones Drive has an excessive amount of common area, including a large lobby, washrooms and extensive hallways.  By contrast, 125 Jones Drive has approximately twice the footprint, yet has far less space taken up by common areas.  Our BOMA analysis revealed the impact of the vastly different layouts: 123 Jones Drive has a gross-up of approximately 30%, meaning their rent is based on 30% more space than they physically occupy (i.e. Floor Allocation Ratio: 1.30).  By contrast, 125 Jones Drive has a gross-up of only 9% (i.e. Floor Allocation Ratio: 1.09) therefore staking claim as the more efficient building.

If you’re interested in optimising your building’s efficiency using BOMA standards, please don’t hesitate to contact one of our analysts to discuss a few of our key strategies. Whether you’re in the preliminary design stages of new construction, or renovating an older building, optimising your space to yield the most efficient solution is our primary focus.

Patrick Mitchell is the Senior Manager of our Lasercad® Division and also highly involved in our Valuation Division.  For further information on how to maximise your property’s value through space certification please don’t hesitate to reach out. Patrick can be reached at pmitchell@turnerdrake.comor by phone at 902-429-1811. 

Who’s Going to Live In All Those Houses? – A common refrain when there’s a lot of residential development, whether houses, apartments, or condos.  Demographic trends can help to answer the question after the fact, but more importantly, attention to demographic patterns ahead of developing can ensure that housing supply meets demand.  After all, once it’s built, housing supply is here for the long haul.  At the recent NSPDA and LPPANS conference, Turner Drake led a workshop examining how individual decisions feed into patterns in housing supply and demand.  Here’s a brief recap (granted, a Nova Scotia‑oriented recap, but many of the principles apply across Atlantic Canada).
 
The Life Cycle of Housing
A typical person will move around a bit in their lives, starting out in their parents’ house (or houses: if we can infer Canadian behaviours from American stats, the average person owns 4.5 to 5.5 houses in their lifetime), moving to a rental apartment before buying their own home(s).  Later in life, they may downsize back to an apartment (possibly a more luxurious one this time) or condo, and finally make their way to a seniors’ residence. 
 
In-demand housing stock is heavily dependent on the dominant age groups in any given area.  The primary drivers of rental apartment demand are 20-29 year-olds, and the 65-and-older cohort, though the latter is increasingly shifting to a 75-year-plus bracket, and the former arguably extends to above age 35.      

Source: Statistics Canada 2016 Census

The inverse is demand for owned housing, and the primary buyers are ages 25 through 45.  The 25-29/34 year-old age bracket falls into each of the renter and buyer categories: this is the first-time homebuyer age range, where we see the steepest increase in home-ownership rates.  The inference is that by age 45, buyers have bought their first home, possibly sold it and upsized to a larger family home, and here they stay for a prolonged period of time.

The graph above shows shrinkage in the brackets that include ages 20 through 45, but growth in the 65+ brackets.  Growth in the 55-64 year old bracket means that the latter will continue to expand as Baby Boomers age.  A 2018 Royal LePage survey of home buying intentions found that 42% of Atlantic Canadian Baby Boomers plan to downsize in retirement, with 23% intending to sell their homes and move to their secondary properties, i.e. to the cottage.  Thirty-two percent would consider buying a cottage in which to live in retirement.  The answer is probably no, but all this moving to the cottage raises the question of whether the province will see population ruralisation over the next few censuses, or whether the urbanisation of younger generations will continue in numbers sufficient to offset it?  The map below shows population change at the Dissemination Area level in Nova Scotia between the last two censuses: the concentration of purple (growth) in urban areas, in contrast with the pink and red (shrinkage) of the rural areas, indicates urbanisation.

Turner Drake started in 1976 with the mission to “provide solutions to real estate problems”. Initially we focused on valuation practice, but as real estate and its challenges have become more diverse, so too have we. Over the decades we’ve added complementary practice areas, expanding our perspective and deepening the expertise we could bring to the aid of our clients. Not long ago we once again ventured into new territory, adding a Planning Division. Rooted in the economic perspective that all our divisions share, our planning practice is unlike any other in Atlantic Canada.

Often we are called in to lend a hand on other Turner Drake assignments; bolstering property tax appeals, identifying implications for property valuation, or accurately reviewing development potential for brokerage clients. But we work most closely with our Economic Intelligence Unit, where our combination of GIS resources and expertise in the analysis of demographic, economic, and real estate market data have led us to some truly interesting planning assignments.  Working with a variety of both private and public sector clients, we’ve been involved in some of the largest planning and development projects in the Region. And some of the smallest. We’ve even picked up a few awards along the way. The challenges and outcomes are varied, but one thing is always common; an approach grounded in real estate economics.

Now, having just crossed the five-year milestone, we celebrate another; our first staff expansion. We put out the call shortly before the New Year: thanks to the many that applied, we are humbled by your interest in what we are trying to bring to the planning profession. So who is the new recruit ready to help us continue our success?    

Say Hello to the Newbie – Andrew Scanlan Dickie

Hello world, I’m Andrew – Turner Drake’s self-declared Newbie – here to share the story that is me; a story of adventure, intrigue, and spreadsheets. Yes, I’m that guy – the one who likes numbers just a little too much. I’m no mathematician, just a fanboy hoping to put my interests to use. I suppose that’s how I ended up here, but that will come.

My last names may throw you off, but I’m a born and bred Montrealer (I can feel the maritime Bruins and Leafs fans cringing). I decided to stay local for my first university degree, receiving a Bachelor of Commerce from McGill. I was young, inspired, and ready to take on the world. What does the mean? You got it – I went back to school, but this time away from home (sorry mom).

In Spring 2017, I graduated from Dalhousie University with a Masters of Planning degree. My short two years in Nova Scotia were nothing short of amazing; I met my soon to be wife, made amazing friends, and embraced the culture and lifestyle. But like many before me, I left to seek opportunities elsewhere.

Over the last two years I worked for a small-town municipal government in Ontario, wearing the many hats allotted to me and expanding my knowledge of planning policy. Don’t get me wrong, I loved it – but two things kept nagging at me: (1) Ontario’s got nothing on the Maritimes (there’s just something about the air here) and (2) my professional life was number deficient (ahem, nerd).

At the time, my partner and I were nestled in the suburbs. We had adopted a dog and enlisted the help of a real estate agent – we were getting pretty darn serious about putting down roots. So, one might say it was an 11th hour moment when the Planning Division opportunity for Turner Drake came up. I would say it was more an aligning of the stars; a chance to return to the place my partner and I hoped to call home and the lifestyle that comes with it, and an opportunity for me to develop both my business and planning expertise.

So here I am, ready to take on the world yet again and use my skills to contribute to the well-oiled machine that is Turner Drake. I’m chomping at the bit, so if you or your organisation are wondering how our expertise in development economics and real estate market analysis can enhance your planning process, just give us a call! Hint, hint, nudge, nudge – mandatory municipal planning strategies as part of the Nova Scotia Municipal Government Act are becoming a thing, so feel free to reach out about how that may affect you or how to explore that process. Alternatively, if you’re in Ontario and require some help navigating Ontario’s Planning Act, let me know!

To see how your project can benefit from our unique planning expertise, call Senior Manager Neil Lovitt at (902) 429-1811 or nlovitt@turnerdrake.com. We’ve got more horsepower than ever.

You are a tenant looking for commercial space to lease. You start your search by checking the local Kijiji ads and maybe check with a few colleagues when you realise that perhaps you are in over your head. One ad is asking for $14/ft.² net plus operating and taxes, while another is asking $3,500 per month gross. How do you compare these two rents?  

Or perhaps you are a new landlord, eager to fill up your new investment property and start making a return. You are not sure what to charge for rent, but you want to ensure that all of your operating expenses are recovered at the end of each operating year and you are not out of pocket for any expenses.

First, let’s summarise the rental terminology:

Net Rent: Often called “Base Rent”.  This is what you pay for the right to occupy a given space

Additional Rent: Often called “Common Area Maintenance (CAM) and Realty Taxes” or “Service Rent”:  This is the cost of operating a given space or property.  It includes such things as electricity, heat, garbage removal, snow clearing, etc.  It is typically paid for by the landlord and then recharged to the tenant on a per square foot basis.

Gross Rent: This is the sum of all rent paid (Net and Additional Rent).

In order to compare a net and gross lease, the rents must be converted to the same basis (ie: both must be compared on a per square foot basis, or both on a monthly rental basis).  For example: let’s say that a particular unit is 1,500 ft.² and it is being offered at a Net Rent of $14/ft.² and CAM and Taxes of $11/ft.².  Converting this to a monthly rent is as follows:

($14/ft.² + $11/ft.²) X 1,500 ft.² = $37,500 annual or $3,125 per month.

Alternatively, if you are provided with a rental rate of $3,500 per month gross for a 1,500 ft.² space, converting this to a per square foot rent is as follows:

$3,500 per month X 12 = $42,000 per annum / 1,500 ft.² = $28.00/ft.²

Now that you know how to calculate and compare net and gross rental rates…which one is better?  A net lease or a gross lease?...well it depends which side of the lease you are standing on.  The main difference between a net and gross lease, comes down to who shoulders the risk of increasing operating costs.  Under a gross lease, a tenant has committed to a set amount of rent for the lease term.  If the operating costs increase during the term of that lease term, the landlord “eats” those costs, thereby cutting into his/her effective rent.  Under a net lease however, the Additional Rent charged for operating costs fluctuates throughout the term of the lease.  Since landlords are recharging the tenants for common area costs, any increases are simply passed on to the tenant.  Tenants may prefer a gross lease since it represents a steady and guaranteed rent, and no risk of increasing common area costs during the length of the lease.  Landlords on the other hand tend to prefer a net lease where there is a steady and guaranteed base rent, and any risk of increased expenses is simply passed along to the tenant.

Ashley Urquhart is the Senior Manager of our Brokerage Division.  She has a vast network of contacts and would be happy to assist you with all your leasing needs.  Feel free to contact Ashley at (902) 429-1811 or aurquhart@turnerdrake.com.

Happy GIS Week! 

We were working recently on an assignment in the Annapolis Valley, the land of orchards and sloping vineyards…and that got us thinking about the impact of elevation on land area.  Ultimately, the question is one of land value: inherent in the value of agricultural land is potential crop yield.  More land area equals more growing potential equals more value.  Where slopes are acceptable or even advantageous, they may serve double duty in that sloped land is larger than it seems.

Our Valuation Division’s MO is to maximise your property value…this is an Economic Intelligence Unit blog post, and this is GIS Week, so we’re going to geek out on how to ensure you’re counting all your land, using a GIS, a little high school math, and a fair bit of Pythagoras[i]. 

Pythagoras’ Theorem defines the relationship between the sides of a right triangle with the equation a² + b² = c².  Side “c” is the hypotenuse, and is always the longest of the three sides. 

For illustrative purposes, we created a convenient, perfectly rectangular, parcel.  It measures 500 x 1,150 m, for a total area of 575,000 m² (57.5 hectares).

That is: 

But the land comprising this parcel is sloped.  The contour lines added to the image below demonstrate the degree of the slope; on average, there is an elevation differential between the highest and lowest elevations of 140 m.  

Thus, the 500 m parcel dimension is effectively 519.2 m:

and the effective land area is 597,080 m² (59.7 ha.), a difference of 22,080 m² – over 2 hectares of extra space for crops! 

 

This is a highly simplified example of the impact of slope on land area.  There are many other factors to take into account, such as the tipping point between beneficial slopes and unusable inclines.  But in a world where “land: they’re not making any more of it,” holds true, the most informed decisions are the best ones.  Where a precise figure is required, you’ll need to call in a professional land surveyor.  But when an area scaled from a map is fit for purpose, using a GIS and a little high school math can yield a more useful number than you’d get from a regular map. 

 

P.S. a related fun fact was shared at Wednesday night’s Geomatics on the Town event (part of the 2018 Geomatics Atlantic Conference): tree planters space their seedlings at a certain distance from each other.  For one tree planter, this was the equivalent of 3 steps on flat ground, but on sloped terrain, it was 12 steps in order to leave sufficient room between trees! 

---

[i] Mainly for defining the relationship between the sides of a right triangle, but a little bit for first floating the idea that the Earth is a sphere...it comes into play in measuring distance.  There are two methods of measurement in a GIS, Cartesian and Spherical.  The Cartesian method calculates distance and areas based on data as projected onto a flat surface (like scaling from a paper map), while the Spherical method accounts for the curved surface of the Earth (like scaling on a globe).  The distances in this example were measured in MapInfo using the Spherical method.   

 Why Hire a Commercial Broker? How a Commercial Broker Adds Value in Real Estate Transactions

There are ample online and offline resources available at your fingertips to help you purchase or sell a commercial property on your own – so why hire a broker? If you have the time, negotiating skills, real estate market information, and understand your target market and how to reach them, you don’t!

However, unless you can say yes to all of the above, here is how a commercial Broker adds value to your transaction:

1. Your time is valuable.  Letting a Broker do the heavy lifting and deal with “tire kickers” allows you to focus on your business.

2. Brokers have the contacts and resources to market your listing or find you a suitable property, ensuring all opportunities are uncovered.

3. Brokers understand your target market and how to reach them.

4. Brokers do not have an emotional attachment to the property or transaction.

5. Brokers are often members of local real estate associations, which can provide you with access/exposure to the MLS system in addition to their own websites, social media platforms, and databases.

6. Brokers have the inside track on market data, sales transactions, planning considerations and players in the market who are looking to purchase or sell commercial properties. They can help you determine a reasonable price and can help maximise market exposure.

7. Brokers know how to properly measure a building and collect the property information required, such as any material latent defects that must be disclosed in a transaction, which can avoid future lawsuits.

8. Brokers prepare Purchase & Sale Agreements, Counter Offers, etc. on your behalf, saving you from hiring a lawyer to assist with these items.

So, once you’ve decided to hire a commercial broker, how do you choose which broker/brokerage to represent you? The short answer is to simply hire the broker with whom you feel most comfortable. There are many excellent commercial brokers locally, so meet with a few, ask them questions, and choose the broker you feel will best represent you, and who understands your wants and needs. Each commercial broker has their own strengths; it is up to you to determine which one is the best fit for your organisation. 

October 7^th through 13^th is Fire Prevention Week in Canada.  With firefighters in Nova Scotia responding to over 1,400 fire related incidents in 2016/2017, it is important to ensure that you have the resources in place to help tenants safely clear a property in the event of a fire.

The theme of this year’s Fire Prevention Week is “Look. Listen. Learn. Be aware. Fire can happen anywhere.”  The “learn” component of this year’s them refers to the need for everyone to learn two ways out of every room.  We can help.

Our LaserCAD® team is able to assist with “learning” by creating fire escape diagrams for your building.  We can add additional crucial details to your fire escape diagrams by including the locations of fire extinguishers, pull stations, hose cabinets, and emergency lighting, as well as clearly indicating escape routes.  These maps allow tenants to quickly identify an escape route and the location of fire safety equipment in the event of an emergency.  We can also customise the diagrams as needed, showing separate escape routes for each individual tenant space and noting any other relevant details, such as muster locations.

You may not be able to predict when a fire will occur, but you CAN plan for it.

For further information feel free to reach out to any one of our Lasercad® space measurement experts at (902)-429-1811 or toll free at 1-800-567-3033. 

It is a common misconception that a piece of real estate has a single value.  This is simply not true.  Determining which value is appropriate likely has the biggest impact on property value.

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ Global Valuation Standards, specify six types of real estate value (Market, Rental, Equitable, Investment, Synergistic, and Liquidation). The Appraisal Institute (of America) has identified ten distinct, and valid, property valuation bases in common use in North America. Legislation, case law, and the purpose of the real estate assignment, result in many variations of these property valuation bases. Any conversation about valuing your property has to start therefore with an understanding of the purpose of the valuation assignment or you can end up with a conclusion which is worthless at best, or seriously misleading at worst.

Let’s discuss the two most common types of value.

Market Value (Highest and Best Use) is typically quoted and understood by many (including appraisers) to be the only type of value.  It is the highest price you would get for your property on a specific date, if it was offered for sale, properly marketed, and exposed for a sufficient period of time to alert and allow all potential purchasers to submit offers.  It assumes that both seller and buyer are knowledgeable of property values, that neither are under pressure to sell or buy, are typically motivated, and are each acting in their best interest. It assumes a cash purchase, or typical mortgage financing, in Canadian dollars. It also anticipates that the purchaser will be able to put the property to its “Highest and Best” use, which may for example, include redevelopment, if this will create a higher value than the existing use of the property.

But beware, Market Value is not the price you could expect to get if the purchaser (1) was an adjoining owner, (2) was undertaking a land assembly, (3) was a relative or business associate, (4) knew something that the vendor should have known but did not, (5) did not know something known to the vendor of which the purchaser should have been aware, (6) wanted a “vendor take back” mortgage, (7) intended to lease back the property to the vendor, (8) enjoyed a negotiating advantage because, for example, the vendor was in dire financial straits, … and so on.

I was recently contacted by an existing client looking to secure financing for their property located on the Halifax Peninsula.  Their property was improved with an older, single storey commercial building.  The underlying land was worth considerably more than the building and property under its current use.  After discussing the purpose of the assignment with the client and their bank, it became clear that the bank was interested in more than just the Market Value (Highest and Best Use) of the property in this instance.  The bank’s goal was to determine if the income generated by the property, under its current use, was sufficient to keep the lights on and pay the existing mortgage.  However, the bank also wanted to know what they could expect to sell the property for if they ended up taking possession of it and selling it on the open market. Effectively, the bank had two different goals which gave rise to two different values.

We completed a thorough analysis of the property and provided the owner, and their bank with two values (1) Market Value (Highest and Best Use), which in this case was for redevelopment of the property, and (2) Market Value (Value in Use) as it currently exists without regard to redevelopment potential.  Market Value (Value in Use) is similar to Market Value (Highest and Best Use) but is based on the assumption that your property could only be utilised for its existing purpose.   

Difference in Value

In this instance the difference in value was significant: $1.5 million (Market Value - Value in Use) versus $2.3 million (Market Value – Highest and Best Use).  Both values were included and supported in the report, allowing the bank to make an informed decision on lending.

 

Nigel Turner, Vice President of our Valuation Division, can be reached at nigelturner@turnerdrake.com

The Halifax Regional Municipality is in the throes of moving its long awaited Centre Plan from draft to reality.  With the first package of draft policy and regulation released in late February, it’s come a long way from the high-level guiding document that Turner Drake assisted with in 2016. However, there is still a ways to go. As one might imagine, when replacing multiple planning policy and development regulation documents for the most dynamic and complex urban environment in Atlantic Canada, the devil is truly in the details.

One of the biggest details being grappled with is the deployment of density bonusing, which is principally designed as an affordable housing tool. Depending on what you read, the current framework may actually backfire by delivering no affordable housing and even drive up market-rate housing prices by suppressing supply, or it may be perfectly fine and a good replacement for present ad hoc negotiations which are falling short of the Centre Plan’s achievable outcomes. Either way it provides an opportunity to highlight the perks and pitfalls of this increasingly common strategy.

What is Density Bonusing?

Density bonusing is a planning policy tool whereby new development projects can access higher regulatory limits on built area in return for provision of some public benefit. In other words, trade height for amenities. It is sound in concept. The value of urban land (but not the buildings on it) is primarily driven by where it is located, and what can be done on it. Thus, it is value created by our collective society through the infrastructure and services provided to it, the legal framework that governs it, and the surrounding public and private activities which would make one desire a particular location over another. When local governments “add density” by increasing regulatory limits over what is currently anticipated by the market (i.e. already reflected in its price), they literally create additional land value out of thin air. In requiring a developer to provide public benefits for this added density, local governments are recapturing the value they created in the first place.

There is an obvious tension here in terms of why this ‘bonus’ density was not permitted in the first place, but in the messy world of city-building, ideological purity will always lose to practicality. Density bonusing thus becomes something akin to racketeering: nice development application you’ve got there… what say you give us some art and affordable housing, and maybe that shadow ain’t so bad anymore.

How Does it Work?

While it’s a clear win-win in concept, it can be complex in practice. There are four important factors that determine whether or not density bonusing works on a given site:

·         the value of the property as it exists today

·         the value of the land if purchased for redevelopment

·         the value created by adding bonus density

·         the value captured through required public benefits

It is important to note that all but the last factor on this list are determined by the real estate market. The value captured is set by the municipality, and is typically based on an estimation of the value of the bonus density. In HRM, the tradeoff of density for benefits is structured under a predefined framework. Other municipalities negotiate these arrangements on a case-specific basis, but this approach it generally used in far larger centres due to the complexity and sophistication involved.

Roughly speaking, development projects are feasible in areas where the market price for land exceeds the value of properties as currently developed.  Adding a density bonusing program to the mix will increase the redevelopment value, but also add a new cost in the form of requisite public benefits. On net, this is usually a positive value; these programs are designed to recapture only a portion of the value they create.

It should be apparent that density bonusing is not, in principle, a drag on development. In fact, a properly designed program should improve the feasibility of existing projects and even increase the total pool of viable projects where the net positive addition of value (bonus density minus benefit cost) actually tips the balance of feasibility. For all intents and purposes, this is indistinguishable from a basic upzoning.

Where Can It Go Wrong?

There are plenty of opportunities for density bonusing programs to go awry, but most are the usual pitfalls of any public policy. There needs to be a logical and efficient administration process. The program needs to be supported by accurate data so that its function lives up to its intent. Appropriate buffers needs to be left to account for secondary costs and added overhead created by the program itself. There needs to be additional mechanisms in place to deal with the outputs (this is an important topic of conversation in the Centre Plan context, in which the majority of benefit is supposed to be in the form of affordable housing while the municipality has no formal jurisdiction or established programming).

However, the fundamental issue of whether a density bonusing program works is the value relationship between what is proposed, and what exists today. Most of the debate and discussion in HRM has been focussed on aspects of the former: what is the best value capture rate to use, what is the right threshold for triggering the bonus requirements, what are the correct value assumptions? Important questions, but their answers are all derived from the latter issue, not determined in a vacuum.

At the scale of a city, form follows finance. Whether density bonusing is implemented or ignored by the private sector will ultimately depend on whether the total value of entitled and bonus density, less the cost of delivering it (development costs plus public benefit), is a sweeter deal than exists today. If a profit incentive exists, a badly designed program will still deliver. If a perfectly designed program equates to a downzoning, don’t count on anything happening until prices rise, or losses are written off.

How to Get it Right?

As municipal planning increasingly makes use of economic and market-based tools (and it should) it also needs to expand its understanding of the principles and systems that underpin them. Weight does need to be placed on the market conditions of the present given their influence on the future (to say nothing of the municipality’s complicity in forming them).

The traditional approach would state planning policies cannot be captive to past practices and existing conditions, otherwise change would never be possible. While this is true, it is not justification for being willfully ignorant either. Understanding the basic value relationship between today's conditions and those proposed under new policy is the key to understanding whether density bonusing, or any planning policy for that matter, will deliver on its promise.

Neil Lovitt, our Senior Manager of Planning & Economic Intelligence can be reached at 429-1811 ext. 349 (HRM), 1 (800) 567-3033 (toll free), or nlovitt@turnerdrake.com.

The Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) publishes measurement standards for office, industrial, retail, and mixed use spaces.  These measurement standards provide guidelines for measuring the area occupied by each tenant within a building and, when appropriate, allocating common spaces.

BOMA states that if a building contains a single occupancy type comprising 51% or more of the total building area, the corresponding standard should be used.  In other words, the building owner does not have the right to simply choose the standard that best serves their interests. Given the ubiquity of commercial buildings that can be used for both office and retail uses, particularly in suburban and rural areas, it is critical to understand the differences between these standards.

Boundary Condition

Where does my measure line extend to? One of the most important differences between the Retail and Office Standards is how the measure line differs for exterior enclosures.  The Gross Leasable Area of a retail building is measured to the outside face of the exterior walls.  Under the Office Standard the measure line for the exterior enclosure is the dominant portion of the inside finished surface. The dominant portion is the finished surface that comprises over 50% of the vertical height, measured from floor to ceiling (not exceeding 8 ft.).  This difference can be significant.  The illustration below shows how a unit measured to the Retail Standard (right) captures more area than a unit measured to the Office Standard (left) based on this condition:

    

Of Heaven and Sea and Earth 

(Image via Global News)

Symptoms of an Election
In the run up to the now transpiring Nova Scotia provincial election, our governing party engaged in the time-honoured tradition of the spending announcement roadshow. A few million for a community centre here, a few million more for an overpass there, culminating finally in the double whammy of a new outpatient facility in suburban Halifax, and toll-free twinning of several sections of highway.

Unlike most spending announcements, the outpatient facility drew immediate criticism. While the highway twinning has started to attract some rightful critique, the patently foolish choice of locating a medical facility in the retail backlands of a dysfunctional industrial park was apparent to many; not the least of which being senior municipal staff who’d advised the Province of these issues months prior. Embarrassingly, the location is a miserable failure when measured against the Province’s own aging population action plan, Shift, which it had announced along with nearly $14 million in funding mere weeks before.

As an aside: of the opportunities for criticism of the outpatient location, and there are many, the purchase price of the land is not a fruitful one. Without the benefit of knowing the particular details of the deal, the $12.00/ft² paid by the Province for the raw land includes the cost to bring the site to a state of development-readiness. Land in this condition elsewhere in Bayers Lake has sold in the neighbourhood of $11.50/ft², so this is hardly the 12,000% markup insinuated by some reporters and rival politicians. (For future reference, comparing purchase price to assessed values for development land – or any real estate for that matter – can be extremely misleading. Media Types: if you’re looking for a real estate angle on a story, give me a call… I know some people.)

A Bad Prognosis if Left Untreated
So here’s the rub. Atlantic Canada, as we’ve described many times, is facing a serious demographic crunch that will constrain income tax revenue to the provinces, and property tax revenue to municipalities (in Nova Scotia, see Canso, Springhill, Hantsport, and Parrsboro for a preview). Given the scale of these trends, immigration is not likely to alleviate this difficulty. This means public investment utilises increasingly precious dollars; long gone is the time where we could rely on growth to overcome poor decisions.

Yet, public capital spending is and will remain one of the most significant factors in the trajectory of our communities. The provision and location of these facilities influences development trends for decades. A new medical facility is not just a site for convenient patient care. It is also a major employer, and consumer of both public and private services. It generates broader impacts; spinoffs that if harnessed properly can enhance the benefits of other facilities, strengthen neighbourhoods and local business, and mitigate future infrastructure costs. A newly twinned highway is not just a safety improvement for the travelling public, it is a half-billion dollars no longer available to be spent on other priorities. We’ve got to get serious, we’ve got to be scrappy, and we have to be careful to maximise the benefits our public spending generates. Opportunities of an equivalent scale from private-sector activity are few and far between.

By narrowly constraining their site selection study (I presume, as this information is also not publicly available), the government has perhaps saved money on the land for the outpatient facility, only to create far greater costs in the form of municipal servicing expenses, diminished economic spinoff, and foregone social benefits. This short-sightedness is not resigned only to our provincial overlords, municipalities large and small consistently miss opportunities to strengthen and improve neighbourhoods or commercial main streets. At best, we have a habit of placing community facilities in a location that only performs well on measures of land price and vehicular accessibility. At worst, it is directed by decades of parochial bickering and ends up in a location agreed to be equally terrible for everyone.


Nice wellness centre you have there, shame about the sidewalk.
(Image via Pictometry ©2015)

Prescription
As the highway twinning issue has shown, no “overwhelming public consensus” is going to emerge on any policy or funding choice other than those promising a free lunch. It is going to take political guts to lead the way: the decisions we need to make are pound-wise at the risk of appearing penny-foolish. Better analysis can help identify the optimal site selection and communicate the wisdom of that choice. A paltry million saved in cheap land will pale in comparison to full lifecycle costs of poorly located public infrastructure. The property taxes generated by that good natured economic development project might never recoup its initial cost. And increasingly, methods are available to help quantify and communicate the broad community and economy strengthening effects that government undertakings can create. A complete approach to site selection and capital project analysis in a time where each dollar counts is the difference between spending decisions that achieve lasting public value instead of fleeting public relations.


Remember, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and we have the skills required to evaluate your options in the context they deserve. Neil Lovitt, our Senior Manager of Planning & Economic Intelligence can be reached at 429-1811 ext. 349 (HRM), 1 (800) 567-3033 (toll free), or nlovitt@turnerdrake.com.