bae urban economics
Northern California Southern California Pacific Northwest Mid-Atlantic Southeast www.bae1.com
Final Memorandum
To: Brad Raulston, Town Manager, Town of Yountville
From: Matt Kowta, MCP, Managing Principal
Date: February 13, 2026
Re: Yountville Town Commons Pro-Forma Financial Analysis Introduction
This memo supports the continuing development of Yountville Commons workforce housing project concept. To do so, this memo provides a brief profile of the Yountville workforce, explores existing housing conditions and needs, and then utilizes the information to support a preliminary financial feasibility analysis for the construction and operation of the Yountville Commons project. Going forward, the financial feasibility pro-forma model is a tool that the development team (Town staff and consultants) can use to understand the Town’s capacity to develop and operate workforce housing at the former Yountville Elementary school site based on the annual Measure S revenues, General Fund resources, and the operating revenues that the project can sustain over time.
Work completed by BAE to date has included:
- Site visit and review of project concepts
- Review of background materials
o recordings of Town Council meetings
o Town/Chamber Housing Survey
o American Community Survey Data
o Town and Napa County Housing Elements
- Meetings with Town staff and consultants
- Review of Town/Chamber Survey
- Meetings with Design-Build teams
- Focus group session and individual meetings with local business representatives - Compilation and review of data specific to the Town of Yountville and its workforce - Preparation and refinement of pro-forma model
Profile of Existing Yountville Workers
The U.S. Census Bureau released the American Community Survey 2020-2024 Five-Year data in January, 2026. The survey results include a tabulation of data by workplace geography, meaning the data represent workers who are employed in a given place, as opposed to employed residents who live in the place. As shown in Table 1, the average number of people 2 working in Yountville during the 2020-2024 five-year American Community Survey (ACS) period was 3,095. Because the estimate is based on a sample of workers during the period and the overall small size of the Yountville community, the estimate has a significant margin of error.
This means that this number (and other ACS data points referenced below) should be interpreted with caution. The table also indicates that traveling alone via car, truck, or van was, by far, the most common means for Yountville workers to commute to work. Similar caution should also be used in interpreting the figures in other tables with data sourced to the 2020- 2024 ACS five-year survey. Nevertheless, these data provide important objective information to help understand the housing needs of Yountville workers.
Table 1: Yountville Workers by Means of Travel to Work
Source: American Community Survey, 2020-2024.
In terms of industry of employment, the survey results summarized in Table 2 indicate that Yountville workers are employed across a range of industries, with the Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and Accommodation and Food Services group being most prevalent, reflecting the Town’s status as a tourism destination. The next largest grouping is Educational Services and Healthcare, followed by Professional, Scientific, and Management and Waste Management Services. No other groupings were estimated to have more than the 7.8 percent share attributed to Manufacturing. It is likely that much of the Manufacturing employment is in winemaking.
Estimate Margin of Error
Total 3,095 ±1,211
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone 2,200 ±471
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled 350 ±142
Public transportation 26 ±40
Worked from home 274 ±544
3 Table 2: Yountville Workers by Industry
Source: American Community Survey, 2020-2024.
As shown on Table 3, the Yountville workforce is primarily people in the range of 25 to 54 years old, with a median age of 42.3 years. These data indicate that Yountville’s workforce includes people spanning a range of life stages, who can be expected to have diverse lifestyles and housing needs.
Estimate Margin of
Error
Workers 16 years and over 3,095 ±1,211
INDUSTRY
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and
hunting, and mining 3.20% ±2.6
Construction 2.80% ±2.2
Manufacturing 7.80% ±3.5
Wholesale trade 1.20% ±2.1
Retail trade 3.20% ±1.9
Transportation and w arehousing, and
utilities 0.60% ±0.8
Information and finance and insurance,
and real estate and rental and leasing 6.30% ±2.8
Professional, scientific, and
management, and administrative and
w aste management services 17.10% ±7.9
Educational services, and health care
and social assistance 22.70% ±6.4
Arts, entertainment, and recreation,
and accommodation and food services 28.20% ±6.6
Other services (except public
administration) 2.10% ±1.9
Public administration 5.00% ±3.1
Armed forces 0.00% ±1.3
4 Table 3: Yountville Workers by Age
Source: American Community Survey, 2020-2024.
The date in Table 4 are consistent with local perceptions that the vast majority of the Yountville workforce commute into town for work from residences in other locations. Given the limited geographic size of Yountville, combined with the data from Table 1 indicating that over 80 percent of local workers travel to work by car, truck, or van, it is likely that most workers whose travel time to work is 15 minutes or more (76.6 percent) are commuting in from outside of Yountville.
Table 4: Yountville Workers by Travel Time to Work
Source: American Community Survey, 2020-2024.
Yountville workers are distributed across a range of wage levels, with a high concentration of workers earning between $25,000 and $64,999 per year (41.3 percent) and another concentration (36.5 percent of total) of workers that earns $75,000 or more. These data Estimate Margin of Error
Workers 16 years and over 3,095 ±1,211
AGE
16 to 19 years 4.80% ±2.5
20 to 24 years 6.80% ±3.4
25 to 44 years 43.40% ±8.4
45 to 54 years 23.90% ±6.8
55 to 59 years 9.30% ±4.6
60 years and over 11.80% ±4.1
Median age (years) 42.3 ±4.1
Estimate Margin of Error
Workers 16 years and over 3,095 ±1,211
TRAVEL TIME TO WORK
Less than 10 minutes 14.60% ±10.2
10 to 14 minutes 8.80% ±4.5
15 to 19 minutes 21.30% ±8.0
20 to 24 minutes 8.90% ±4.3
25 to 29 minutes 3.00% ±1.8
30 to 34 minutes 14.30% ±4.7
35 to 44 minutes 4.60% ±2.3
45 to 59 minutes 14.60% ±5.6
60 or more minutes 10.00% ±5.2
Mean travel time to w ork (minutes) n. avail. n. avail. 5 indicate that a significant proportion of Yountville’s workers earn relatively modest incomes.
For example, almost half (48 percent) of the local workers earn $49,999 or less per year.
Even if combined in a household with another working member, these households would earn $100,000 per year or less. As discussed below, a two-person household with income at or below $102,550 in 2025 would be considered low-income.
Table 5: Yountville Workers by Annual Wages (2024$)
Source: American Community Survey, 2020-2024.
Existing Housing Market Conditions
According to data shown on Table 6, approximately 1,822 housing units comprise the Yountville housing market, the majority of which are single-family attached and detached homes. A much smaller proportion of homes are in multifamily buildings that contain two or more housing units, in which housing units tend to be smaller, more affordable, and offered for-rent rather than for-sale. These data indicate that a relatively small portion of the existing Yountville housing stock is likely to be accessible to much of the Yountville workers who are employed in the lodging, restaurant, and retail sectors, where many workers have relatively low incomes. The table also shows that a significant proportion of the Yountville housing stock is vacant. Although in some markets, a high residential vacancy rate indicates relatively weak demand for available housing, this is not the case in Yountville, as illustrated by data in Table
7. Estimate Margin of Error
Workers 16 years and over w ith
earnings 3,095 ±1,211
$1 to $9,999 or loss 8.40% ±2.8
$10,000 to $14,999 3.20% ±2.1
$15,000 to $24,999 6.80% ±2.7
$25,000 to $34,999 10.00% ±6.0
$35,000 to $49,999 19.60% ±7.7
$50,000 to $64,999 11.70% ±3.8
$65,000 to $74,999 3.70% ±2.5
$75,000 or more 36.50% ±7.2
Median earnings (dollars) $51,221 ±9,253
6 Table 6: Yountville Housing Units by Occupancy Status and Type of Structure
Source: American Community Survey, 2020-2024.
Table 7 shows the status of vacant housing units in Yountville, indicating that of the estimated 333 vacant housing units, only 49 units are offered for sale and zero housing units are offered for rent, with over two-thirds of the vacant housing units held vacant for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use (e.g., second home/vacation home use). Although persons seeking housing in Yountville would find some options for purchase a home if their income is sufficient to afford local home prices, persons seeking rental housing would find little to no housing options in Yountville, at any price. This means only Yountville workers who have substantial incomes and are interested in purchasing a home will find housing options in town, while workers with more modest incomes seeking to buy, or renters of any income level will most likely need to find housing outside of Yountville and commute to their jobs in town.
Typically, smaller housing units are more affordable than larger units; however, according to the Town of Yountville 2023-2031 General Plan Housing Element, only 15 percent of homes in Yountville are one-bedroom or studio units. This means that single workers or workers who live with only one other person may face particular difficulty in finding suitable housing in Yountville, at any price. Within the Town’s affordable housing stock, data from the Napa Housing Authority indicate that studio units in particular are in short supply, representing only about 2.7 percent of the affordable rental units and 2.0 percent of all affordable units, as summarized on Table 8.
Further, Yountville’s 2023-2031 General Plan Housing Element indicates that only about 15 percent of Yountville’s total housing units are studio or one-bedroom units, meaning that Estimate Margin of Error
Total Housing Units: 1,822 ±3,865
Occupied Units 1,489 ±3,901
1-unit, detached 700 ±1,665
1-unit, attached 193 ±481
2-9 units 143 ±266
10 or more units 127 ±400
Mobile home, Boat, RV, Van,
etc. 326 ±1,119
Vacant Units 333 ±109
1-unit, detached 192 ±100
1-unit, attached 27 ±24
2-9 units 62 ±58
10 or more units 37 ±40
Mobile home 15 ±13
7 single people living alone or couples seeking relatively small, affordable housing units will be particularly challenged in finding housing in Yountville. As shown on Table 8, studio units are even more scarce within the inventory of affordable housing units in Yountville, where only two percent of the total affordable housing units, and 2.7 percent of the rental units are studios.
Table 7: Vacant Housing Units by Status
Source: American Community Survey, 2020-2024.
Table 8: Town of Yountville Affordable Housing Units by Unit Type
Source: Napa Housing Authority, 2026
Estimate Margin of Error
Total: 333 ±109
For rent 0 ±14
Rented, not occupied 0 ±14
For sale only 49 ±40
Sold, not occupied 0 ±14
For seasonal, recreational, or
occasional use 230 ±107
For migrant w orkers 0 ±14
Other vacant 54 ±55
Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Totals
Rental Units Address
Mount Avenue Cottages 1932 Mount Avenue 4 1 5
Oak Leaf Court 6572 Oak Leaf Ct. 1 1
Oak Leaf Court 6631 Oak Leaf Ct. 1 1
Ghirardi Place 2 & 4 Ghirardi Place 2 2
Hopper Creek Apts 6462 Washington Street 20 5 25
Yount Street Apts 6776 Yount Street 4 4 8
Hotel Luca/North Block 6774 Washington Street 2 2
Arroyo Grande Villas 1899-1911 Finnell Road 10 7 8 25
Lande Way 27 Lande Way 2 2
Vineyard Oaks Yountville Crossroads 1 2 3
Sub-Total Rentals 2 41 21 10 74
2.7% 55.4% 28.4% 13.5% 100.0%
Ownership Units
Washington Park 13 13
Yountville Square 6 6
Oak Leaf Court 5 5
Sub-Total Ownership 0 0 19 5 24
0.0% 0.0% 25.7% 6.8% 32.4%
TOTAL AFFORDABLE UNITS 2 41 40 15 98
2.0% 41.8% 40.8% 15.3% 100.0%
8 Housing that is available in Yountville is very costly. Yountville’s 2023-2031 General Plan Housing Element, identified that a household income $435,000 per year was necessary to afford the median-priced home and that the household incomes necessary to afford apartments ranged between $108,000 and $220,000 per year to afford one-bedroom and three-bedroom apartments, respectively. Housing costs can fluctuate somewhat over time in a small jurisdiction such as Yountville, where relatively few housing units are on the market at a given time. Consistent with the data in Table 6, a scan of online housing listings in February, of 2026 indicated few housing units offered for rent in Yountville. As a result, it is not possible to characterize the current average rent levels within this limited market. However, data from the larger market in the City of Napa, where many Yountville workers are likely to find housing indicates that rent levels are quite high. As shown on Table 9, average rent levels in the Napa range between about $1,700 to $1,900 for a studio unit to about $3,300 to $3,400 per month for a three-bedroom unit. It should be noted that these figures represent average rents, reflecting rents for all units offered, including older as well as newer apartment units. The average rents for newer apartments are likely to be higher than these figures.
Due to its proximity, the rent levels in the City of Napa are likely to be generally indicative of the rents for comparable rental units in Yountville; however, because of the scarcity of rental units in Yountville, Yountville apartments may command a rent premium relative to comparable units in Napa.
Table 9: Average Rent Levels, Napa, CA
Sources: Rentcafe.com; ApartmentHomeLiving.com; 2026.
Given the scarcity and expense of housing in Yountville, it is not surprising that the Housing Element estimated that 55 percent of all Yountville renter households are overpaying for housing, including 98 percent of Extremely Low-Income Households, 94 percent of LowIncome Households, and 79 percent of Low-Income Households. Overpayment occurs when a household spends 30 percent or more of their household income on housing costs (e.g., rent and utilities for renters). Household income levels are defined based on the countywide median household income and adjusted by household size. This information indicates that Average Rent Estimates
Unit Size Rentcafe
Apartment
Home Living
Studio $1,668 $1,907
1 Bed $2,337 $2,345
2 Beds $2,724 $2,776
3 Beds $3,340 $3,396
All Rentals $2,606 n.a.
9 there is likely to be substantial unmet demand for affordable housing from people who currently live in Yountville but struggle to afford their current housing. Further evidence of strong demand for affordable housing in Yountville comes from the fact that the Hopper Creek Apartments, which includes 25 affordable units reserved for households with incomes between 50 percent and 120 of area median income, has long waiting list.
For perspective, Table 10 summarizes the 2025 Napa County household income categories.
Typically, most affordable rental housing programs offer housing to households at the low income level or below. The limits for low-income range between just under $90,000 per year for a single person living alone, to just over $128,000 per year for a household of four persons. For larger households, the income limits increase. These data show that in the Yountville and Napa County context, even households with substantial incomes qualify for some affordable housing programs. Recalling the Housing Element estimates of household income needed to afford local market rate housing discussed previously, these data show that most households at the low-income level and below will not be able to afford rental housing in Yountville and the income level needed to afford to purchase median-priced housing is two to three times the income limit for moderate-income households.
Table 10: Napa County Household Income Categories, 2025 Source: Napa County Housing Authority, 2025.
While wage levels such as those found in Table 5 are helpful in understanding the earnings of different workers, overall household income is a function of the number of employed household members and their respective earnings.
Table 11 is a compilation of data from the ACS Public Use Microdata Series (PUMS) from the 2019-2023 five-year survey (most recent PUMS data currently available) along with the Napa County income categories that organizes Napa County worker households by sector and by household income level. As Yountville is a part of the larger Napa County labor market, these figures can be considered generally representative of the distribution of workers household income levels commonly found in Napa County, in different sectors.
As shown in the table, only in the Wine/Beverage Production sector are the majority of worker households categorized as having incomes above 120 percent of AMI, or above moderate. In the Restaurant and Hotel sectors in particular, nearly two-thirds of worker households are in Household Size Acutely Low
(15% AMI)
Extremely Low
(30% AMI)
Very Low
(50% AMI)
Low Income
(80% AMI)
Median Income
(100% AMI)
Moderate
Income
(120% AMI)
1 Person $15,400 $33,700 $56,100 $89,750 $102,700 $123,250 2 Persons $17,600 $38,500 $64,100 $102,550 $117,350 $140,850 3 Persons $19,800 $43,300 $72,150 $115,350 $132,050 $158,450 4 Persons $22,000 $48,100 $80,150 $128,150 $146,700 $176,050 10 the moderate income levels and below. In the Retail sector, about 32 percent of worker households have household incomes at or below the low-income level. These households will generally not be able to afford any kind of market rate housing in the local area. In the both the Restaurant and Hotel sectors, about 39 percent of workers are at the low-income level or below. These data confirm that a large proportion of the workers in the business sectors that are the primary targets for the Yountville Commons workforce housing project are not able to afford market rate housing, signaling strong existing unmet demand for affordable housing.
Table 11: Napa County Worker Household Income Categories by Sector Notes:
(a) Based on household income limits for Napa County published by HCD. (b) Based on a cross tabulation of Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data from the 2019-2023 American Community Survey. Worker household incomes were compared to household income limits published by HCD to determine the percentage of households falling into each income category. The analysis controlled for household size, to address the varying income limits for each household size. Figures for each land use are based on a combination of NAICS sectors deemed likely to be found in each land use.
(c) Total number of jobs per 1,000 SF of each land use, multiplied by the proportion of jobs in each income category. (d) Estimated number of jobs divided by the average number of workers per household in each income category. (e) Average number of workers per worker household by income category calculated based on PUMS data from the 2019- 2023 American Community Survey.
Sources: American Community Survey, 2019-2023 Public Use Microdata Sample; CA Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD); BAE, 2025.
Town of Yountville/Yountville Chamber of Commerce Survey (2024) In October of 2024, the Town of Yountville collaborated with the Yountville Chamber of Commerce to conduct an online employer survey, to explore local workforce housing needs.
Fourteen businesses employing up to about 600 to 650 employees in the high season and 450 to 500 employees in the low season submitted responses to the survey. A broad range of businesses responded, including hospitality, restaurants, wineries, retail, finance and real estate. The respondents indicated that relatively few of their employees live in Yountville, with Worker Household Income as a Percent of AMI (a)
Up to 15% to 30% to 50% to 80% to Over
Sector Total 15% AMI 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI 120% AMI 120% AMI Retail/General Commercial
Proportion of Total Jobs (b) 100.0% 2.9% 4.4% 9.4% 15.4% 20.9% 47.0% Restaurant
Proportion of Total Jobs (b) 100.0% 2.4% 2.8% 14.2% 19.6% 24.5% 36.5% Hotel
Proportion of Total Jobs (b) 100.0% 2.5% 2.8% 13.8% 19.6% 24.6% 36.8% Wine/Beverage Production
Proportion of Total Jobs (b) 100.0% 1.0% 0.3% 10.5% 8.0% 22.4% 57.8% Avg. Number of Workers per Household (e) 1.30 1.05 1.35 1.72 1.87 1.98 11 individual responses ranging from zero to 20 percent of employees living in town. Only four of the 14 respondents indicated ten percent or more of their employees live in Yountville. Given the large percentage of employees who live outside of Yountville, it is not surprising that survey respondents indicated that the vast majority of their employees drive alone to work, with typical responses ranging from 90 to 100 percent of employees driving alone.
Yountville Employer Focus Group Session
The Town of Yountville and BAE collaborated to host a focus group session of local employers, to learn more about the local workforce and their housing situations. Five business representatives participated in the session, including Michael Minnillo, General Manager of French Laundry, Alain Negueloua, General Manager, Remington Hotels (Hotel Bardessono and Hotel Yountville, Hopper Creek Apartments), Arik Housley, Owner, Ranch Market, Thomas Bunker, Director of Operations, Bistro Jeanty, and David O’Malley, Director of Operations, Bottega Restaurant. Combined, these businesses employ approximately 500 to 550 employees across the lodging, restaurant, and retail sectors. In addition, BAE had brief conversations with two additional local business representatives: Jay Caldwell, Owner, Petit Logis, and Gary Jabara, Owner, The Estate.
The discussions highlighted ongoing challenges with employee recruitment and retention, largely driven by limited housing options and affordability. Participants confirmed that very few of their staff live in Yountville, and that housing proximity to work plays a major role in workforce stability.
Business representatives confirmed that it is very difficult for local employees to find suitable, affordable housing in Yountville because of the mismatch between wage levels and housing costs. Thus, many employees commute to Yountville from the City of Napa; however, others commute from more distant locations such as Sonoma County and Solano County.
Participants felt that workforce housing availability and affordability can be a constraint to business growth and success because of the difficulty in recruiting and retaining employees.
Business representatives indicated that if workers can find housing in Yountville, they will be likely to want to also work in Yountville because of the potential to save on commuting expenses and time. For these reasons, participants generally supported the idea of provision of workforce housing at Yountville Commons, indicating that they would expect strong worker interest if apartment units are offered at Yountville Commons at the rent levels currently being considered for the project, as discussed below.
When asked about the typical living situations of their employees, business representatives indicated that many employees live in shared housing arrangements, combining with others in order to share rent costs. While this can indicate demand for housing units with two or more bedrooms, it is also typical of high-cost markets where people share housing with others in order to address affordability challenges.
12 These insights help frame current conditions and provide useful context as the Town continues exploring practical and financially feasible housing options at the Yountville Commons. These qualitative insights are consistent with workforce housing data collected via the Town/Chamber employer survey in October 2024 that also support the conclusion that most employees commute from outside the community via personal vehicles.
As follow-up to the employer focus group session, Gary Jabara of The Estate and Thomas Keller of Thomas Keller Restaurant Group have indicated that they will survey their employees regarding housing needs and share the results with the Town of Yountville for consideration as part of the continuing development of the Yountville Commons project concept. In addition, BAE and Town staff envision conducting additional research on worker housing needs and preferences, which may include one or more employee focus group sessions. The outreach todate and anticipated future outreach do not represent a statistically representative sample of Yountville workers. Such an effort is not practical, given the diversity of employee types and challenges inherent in reaching a workforce that for the most part does not reside in Yountville; however, these additional sources of information will provide valuable insights to combine with other available data, such as the ACS data discussed herein, help guide continued refinement of the Yountville Commons project in the coming months.
Preliminary Rent Assumptions and Affordability Levels
Targeted rents have not been finalized for the housing that is proposed to be built in the Yountville Commons project; however, for financial feasibility modeling purposes, it is useful to establish initial rent assumptions, which can be refined over time as project details are further developed and more information is gathered regarding the targeted workforce.
Table 12 summarizes two affordability tiers for potential rents for housing units in Yountville Commons , with rents ranging from $1,500 per month for studio units up to $2,000 per month for junior two-bedroom units in the most affordable tier (WF1). The second tier (WF2) assumes rents that are somewhat higher, but still likely to provide below market rents, ranging from $2,000 per month for a studio to $2,800 per month for a junior two-bedroom unit. The table evaluates the affordability of the rents, assuming that total renter costs, including utility expenses, should not exceed 30 percent of household income. Based on the assumption that household size will be one person more than the number of bedrooms, Table 12 estimates that rents within both tiers would be affordable to households at the low-income level. In the case of the WF2 rents, households would need to have income at the upper end of the income for the low income category to afford the rent. The WF1 and WF2 rent levels align with the findings from Table 11 that substantial portions of local workers in the Hospitality, Restaurant, and Retail sectors are likely to fall into the low-income category. In refining the Yountville Commons concept and marketing strategy, the Town could consider increasing the WF2 levels somewhat, to encompass worker households that fall into the moderate-income range and broaden the base of demand for the units from income-qualified households; however, this may bring rents close to market rates for comparable units within the larger area. 13 Alternatively, the Town could consider not imposing income restrictions on WF2 units, but simply requiring that at least one household member be employed locally.
Table 12: Preliminary Yountville Commons Rents and Affordability Note:
(a) Assumes rent plus utility allowance is no more than 30 percent of monthly income.
Sources: Town of Yountville, 2026; Napa Housing Authority, 2026; BAE, 2026.
Housing Needs Conclusions
Yountville has a limited supply of housing available for the local workforce, which is exacerbated by the fact that around 13 percent of the existing housing stock is held vacant for second home/vacation home use. Prevailing market conditions are such that the cost of housing units that are available for-rent or for-sale are very expensive. Combined with the fact that large proportions of workers in key local business sectors, including hotels, restaurants, and retail earn relatively modest wages, the result of these conditions is that many local workers commute into Yountville from more affordable locations and among those households living in Yountville, large proportions are overly cost-burdened. These conditions, along with feedback from the 2024 employer survey and more recent employer focus group and business owner interviews provide strong evidence that there is substantial unmet demand for affordable housing from existing lower-income households who live in Yountville and also from Yountville workers who currently commute in from other locations.
Preliminary Financial Feasibility Analysis
BAE and Town staff collaborated to develop a pro-forma financial feasibility analysis for the Yountville Commons project. To illustrate choices the Town Council may make regarding commitment of financial resources to the project, the pro-forma breaks the overall project into WF1 Tier Rents
Utility Income Household Affordability
Rent Allowance Needed (a) Size Category
Studio $1,500 $115 $64,600 1 Low
1-Bedroom $1,700 $135 $73,400 2 Low
Jr. 2-Bedroom $2,000 $177 $87,080 3 Low
WF2 Tier Rents
Utility Income Household Affordability
Rent Allowance Needed (a) Size Category
Studio $2,000 $115 $84,600 1 Low
1-Bedroom $2,400 $135 $101,400 2 Low
Jr. 2-Bedroom $2,800 $177 $119,080 3 Low
14 several components that seek to align initial development at the site with potentially available financial resources, as follows:
Phase 1 Baseline is sized to approximate the development that the Town could fund using a combination of approximately $5 million in cash on hand and net bond proceeds of approximately $16 million. The $16 million bond proceeds assume the Town would issue bonds that could be supported by a combination of approximately $700,000 per year in Measure S revenues and approximately $300,000 per year in funds that would be re-directed from the repayment of the 2020 Lease Financing bonds once those bonds are retired. This phase would include Buildings 10, 12B, 13, 14, and 15 (see buildings labeled on Figure 1 at the end of this memo).
Add Alt 1 would add building 12B (Village Center) costing approximately $11 million.
Add Alt 2 would include the construction of the proposed Yountville Fit swimming pool costing approximately $3 million.
Phase 2+ would add all of the remainder of the proposed Yountville Commons buildings and site amenities.
Further, to test the impact of changes in the mix of studio units, one-bedroom units, and twobedroom units, there are two different scenarios that configure the Phase 1 buildings differently. In Scenario 1, the buildings are configured with 24 studio and 16 one-bedroom units. In Scenario 2, the buildings are configured with eight studios, 10 one-bedroom units, and 12 two-bedroom units, as shown on Table 13.
Table 13: Comparison Between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 Unit Mixes _____________________________________________________________________________ Sources: BAE, Town of Yountville, 2026.
Scenario 1 Bldg. Bldg. Bldg. Bldg. Bldg.
Total 10 12B 13 14 15
Studios 24 8 4 4 4 4
1-Bedrooms 16 4 3 3 3 3
2-Bedrooms 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Units 40 12 7 7 7 7
Scenario 2 Bldg. Bldg. Bldg. Bldg. Bldg.
Total 10 12B 13 14 15
Studios 8 0 2 2 2 2
1-Bedrooms 10 2 3 1 3 1
2-Bedrooms 12 4 1 3 1 3
Total Units 30 6 6 6 6 6
15 Key printouts from the pro-forma model for the preliminary financial feasibility analysis for Yountville Commons are included as Attachment 1 (Scenario 1) and Attachment 2 (Scenario 2) to this memo. The following describes the main components and the key findings from the pro-forma modeling.
Development Program
The preliminary financial feasibility analysis utilizes a static pro-forma model to evaluate the financial feasibility of the Yountville Commons development concepts that have been analyzed to-date, including up to 121 housing units spread across buildings on 18 different parcels.
Additional development includes common spaces targeted primarily to Commons residents (e.g., Village Center, Commons House), ancillary commercial uses that would serve not only Commons residents, but all Yountville residents and visitors (e.g., Yountville Fit), and extensive public park and plaza areas that will be accessible to all.
Phasing
As previously mentioned, based on the initial development cost estimates as well as design considerations and the desire to create an initial phase of new development at Yountville Commons that provides a “complete” community, including housing and supporting amenities and public spaces that will benefit the entire community, the Town’s development team has refined a preliminary phasing plan that is “right-sized” to approximate the amount of development that could be financed using available Town resources and maintained and operated on an ongoing basis without the requirement for the Town to contribute additional annual operating subsidies. This initial phasing assumes that Phase 1 Baseline would include development of horizontal infrastructure (e.g., utilities, public spaces, parking, etc.) on Parcel 1, as well as horizontal and vertical infrastructure (utilities and buildings) on Parcels 10, 12B, 13, 14, and 15. Add Alt 1 would include parcel 12B, while Add Alt 2 would include the proposed Yountville Fit swimming pool. Phase 2+ would include all the remaining development to build out the complete Yountville Commons site plan. See Figure 1.
Development Costs and Other Key Assumptions
The pro-forma model incorporates preliminary development cost and operating cost estimates that were derived from a variety of sources, including the Town development team’s estimates, initial cost information shared by Design Build Entity (DBE) teams, and information based on BAE’s experience analyzing development costs and operating costs for affordable housing in Napa County and other similar areas. Development costs for Yountville Commons are relatively high, due to the need to account for prevailing wage requirements as well as the high quality of design and the high level of public spaces and amenities that the project incorporates. The monthly unit rents paid by residential tenants will represent the primary project income. As previously mentioned, the preliminary feasibility analysis assumes that apartments at Yountville Commons would be offered at rent levels that would be affordable to 16 households within the lower-income range. Smaller amounts of ongoing revenues will be collected from tenants of non-residential spaces, parking, and other sources.
Sources and Uses of Capital Funding
The total project costs are currently estimated in the range of $91 million for full buildout. The pro-forma will be updated as discussions with the DBEs continue and project design and costs are refined.
At this time, the feasibility analysis assumes that the Town will have accumulated approximately $5 million in cash on hand including, but not limited to, Measure S funds that can be dedicated to the Yountville Commons construction costs. The Town Council may elect to dedicate additional resources to the project by re-directing monies that are currently used to pay the debt service on the 2020 Lease Financing bonds, which will mature in 2027. The Town Council may also elect to commit additional General Fund revenues for annual debt service, which would support a larger bond issuance.
For the purposes of the preliminary feasibility analysis, the pro-forma is structured to facilitate consideration of an initial Phase 1 Baseline project that could be funded by a combination of $5 million cash on hand plus $16 million in bond proceeds which would be supported by $700,000 in annual Measure S revenues plus an additional $300,000 in re-directed funds annually once the 2020 Lease Financing bonds are retired. In addition, in both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, the costs for the Phase 1 Baseline development would require additional funding to cover costs which are currently estimated at approximately $25.6 million for Scenario 1 or $25.1 million for Phase 2. For both Scenarios, approximately $11 million in additional funding would be required for Add Alt 1. Add Alt 2 would require approximately $3 million in additional funding. For simplicity, this preliminary analysis assumes that these additional costs would be financed by bank loans that would be repaid using net operating income from the project. However, the Town could also consider a larger bond issuance to cover at least some of the costs, which would likely carry a lower interest rate, reduce annual debt service payments, and enhance project cash flow. Additionally, the Town’s development team intends to work with the selected DBE team to refine the project designs to “value engineer” the project to obtain cost savings where possible while also maintaining project quality and design objectives. Based on Town Council direction, the financing details will be refined as the project costs and phasing approach are honed in the coming months.
Potential Approach for Financing Later Phases. The Town of Yountville is fortunate to be in a position to consider using Measure S and General Fund monies to support at least an initial phase of the Yountville Commons project. A significant benefit of financing development costs using only locally controlled funds is that the Town would preserve a great deal of flexibility in how it operates the project. Although there are other potential sources of funding, such as tax credits, and state and federal grant funding programs, these other funding sources come with various requirements that would limit the Town’s discretion in how tenants are selected, the 17 rents charged, and so forth. Typically, use of outside funding sources would require additional lead time to go through funding application processes and complete administrative procedures to access funds if applications are successful. Outside housing subsidy sources also typically come with significant ongoing monitoring and reporting requirements dictated by third parties. Nevertheless, absent substantial increases in the availability of General Fund money or creation of a new local revenue source which most likely would require voter approval, the Town may wish to consider a more traditional affordable housing funding model, as used by affordable housing developers, to fund development of Yountville Commons housing components that are not funded using locally issued bonds. Table 14, shows a hypothetical example of the funding stack for an affordable housing project financed using low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) and tax exempt bond financing. This example illustrates that approximately half of the project costs are funded using tax credit equity and other subsidy sources such as local, state, and federal grants and a deferred developer fee.
The other half of the project cost is funded with bond financing which is repaid using cash flow from the project.
Although various grant programs can be extremely competitive, and there is increasing competition for the four percent tax credit program and associated bond allocations, this illustration shows that affordable housing developers can leverage local contributions (e.g., land at Yountville Commons) to bring in a substantial amount of outside capital to support an affordable housing project. The restrictions and requirements of the various outside funding sources are the trade-off for the ability to access this additional capital; however, structuring some part of the Yountville Commons project as a LIHTC project could also create the opportunity to target some deeper levels of subsidy so that a portion of the project units could accommodate household income levels even below the WF1 rent levels assumed in the preliminary pro-formas.
Table 14: Phase 2 - Hypothetical Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Funding ___________________________________________________________ Source: BAE, 2026.
Operating Summary By Phase
With the ability to fund construction with available cash on hand balance plus bond proceeds and little to no external debt, the Phase 1 development would have significant net operating Sources of Funds Amount
Tax Exempt Bond Financing $17,500,000
4% LIHTC Tax Credit Investor Equity $10,500,000
Local Subsidy (land) $4,000,000
Local, State, Federal Grants $2,000,000
Deferred Developer Fee $1,000,000
Total $35,000,000
18 income, after accounting for building operating costs and capital replacement reserves. For Scenario 1, the net operating income (NOI) after accounting for building operating costs and property management fees would be approximately $686,000 per year. It is assumed that the bond debt service would be covered by a combination of Measure S revenues and other General Fund revenues made available by the retirement of the 2020 Lease Financing bonds.
It is assumed that the bank loan debt service would be paid from net operating income; thus, net revenue after debt service would be about $333,000 per year. The pro-forma analysis assumes that a capital reserve fund would be established to accumulate funds for the periodic replacement of major capital items such as roofing, flooring, appliances, etc. The capital replacement reserve assumption is equal to two percent of the initial hard construction costs and the Ori Systems costs annually. The model for Scenario 1 shows that the project income would fall slightly short of the full capital reserve target, resulting in an annual deficit of approximately $24,000 per year. This results shows that it would be necessary to reduce initial development costs, increase operating revenues, and/or decrease operating costs to a small degree to make the Phase 1 program viable. It is expected that the value engineering process will yield the necessary cost savings; however, if this is not possible, then the Phase 1 development program could be reduced in order to achieve a viable budget. The initial proforma results for Scenario 2 are similar, but with a slightly higher deficit than Scenario 1.
At present, the pro-forma indicates that the Add Alt 1, Add Alt 2, and Phase 2+ components would all have substantial deficits after accounting for operating costs, debt service, and capital replacement reserves, highlighting the need to bring in additional capital sources to support the long-term buildout of the Yountville Commons. These initial pro-forma results indicate that the Town will want to consider alternative strategies to fund and develop the project components after Phase 1. This could include consideration of partnerships with third parties who could help to bring in capital and subsidies, recognizing that this will add complexity to the project and will likely require the Town to give up some level of control and flexibility in how the project is operated.
Figure 1: Yountville Commons with Building/Parcel Labels ATTACHMENT 1: Scenario 1 Pro-Forma Printouts
Table 1: Key Assumptions
Development Cost Assumptions
Site Improvement Costs $15 per parcel square foot
Hard Construction Cost Village Houses $800 per gross square foot Hard Construction Cost for Village Center $1,000 per gross square foot Hard Construction Cost for Commons House $1,000 per gross square foot Ori Systems - Studios $25,000 per unit
Ori Systems - 1-Bedrooms $35,000 per unit
Ori Systems - 2-Bedrooms $35,000 per unit
Soft Costs 15% of site prep and hard costs
Permit Fees $1.00 per gross bldg. sq. ft.
Impact Fees $25,000 per residential unit
Impact Fees $2.00 per non-residential sq. ft.
Construction Management Fee 3% of site prep and hard costs Operating Revenue Assumptions
Parking Vacancy Rate 5% annual average
Residential and Commercial Unit Vacancy Rate 5% annual average Property Management Fee 6% of scheduled revenues
Capital Reserves Assumption (annual) 2% of Hard Construction and Ori Systems capital costs, annually % of Units WF 1 WF 2
Unit Types @ WF 1 Rent Rents/Mo. Rents/Mo.
Studio 50% $1,500 $2,000
Rooftop Apartment 0% $2,200 $2,800
Jr. 1-Br. 0% $1,700 $2,400
1-Br. 50% $1,800 $2,400
Jr. 2-Br. 50% $2,000 $2,800
2-Br. 0% $2,200 $3,000
Operating Costs/Unit (not incl. prop. mgmt. fee) $6,000 per year; assumes property tax exempt Commercial Rents $1.50 per square foot per month NNN
Bond Financing Assumptions
$16 million bond proceeds requires $997,353 annual debt service $30 million bond proceeds requires $1,867,078 annual debt service Bank Loan Assumptions
Bank Loan Term 30 years
Bank Loan Interest 6.50% per year
Table 2: Capital Sources and Uses of Funds
Project Total
Phase 1 SubTotalAdd Alt 1
Sub-Total
Add Alt 2
Sub-Total
Phase 2+
Sub-Total
Sources of Funds
Cash on Hand $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 $0 $0
Bond Proceeds $16,000,000 $16,000,000 $0 $0 $0
Other - Bank Loan $70,522,543 $4,603,433 $10,851,444 $3,000,000 $52,067,667 Total Sources $91,522,543 $25,603,433 $10,851,444 $3,000,000 $52,067,667 Uses of Funds
Site Acquisition (already owned) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Infrastructure Development (including utilities and parking) $11,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $3,000,000 $5,000,000 Public Area Improvements (included above above) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Site Improvement Cost (individual parcels) $1,574,694 $441,176 $192,622 $0 $940,896 Hard Construction Cost (buildings) $60,787,374 $16,687,736 $8,267,560 $0 $35,832,078 Soft Costs $9,354,310 $2,569,337 $1,269,027 $0 $5,515,946 DBE Sub-total $82,716,378 $22,698,248 $9,729,210 $3,000,000 $47,288,920 Ori Systems Costs $3,535,000 $1,160,000 $490,000 $0 $1,885,000 Permit Fees $70,211 $20,860 $8,268 $0 $41,084
Res. Impact Fees $3,025,000 $1,000,000 $350,000 $0 $1,675,000 Non-Res. Impact Fees $199,042 $175,657 $5,461 $0 $17,923 Construction Management Fees $1,976,912 $548,667 $268,505 $0 $1,159,739 Total Uses $91,522,543 $25,603,433 $10,851,444 $3,000,000 $52,067,667 Table 3: Yountville Commons Operating Summary by Phase
Development Summary Phase 1 Add Alt 1 Add Alt 2 Phase 2+ Total Parcel Area 3.71 0.29 0.00 1.44 5.44
Parking Spaces 60 0 0 0 60
Gross Bldg. Area 20,860 8,268 0 41,084 70,211
WF1 Units 22 7 0 37 66
WF2 Units 18 7 0 30 55
Total Units 40 14 0 67 121
Net. Bldg. Sq. Ft. 18,383 7,150 0 35,884 61,417
Rentable Res. Sq. Ft. 17,972 4,419 0 26,922 49,314
Parcel Development Costs (one-time)
Site Improvement Cost $441,176 $192,622 $0 $940,896 $1,574,694 Hard Const. Cost $16,687,736 $8,267,560 $0 $35,832,078 $60,787,374 Ori Systems Costs $1,160,000 $490,000 $0 $1,885,000 $3,535,000 Soft Costs $2,569,337 $1,269,027 $0 $5,515,946 $9,354,310 Permit Fees $20,860 $8,268 $0 $41,084 $70,211
Res. Impact Fees $1,000,000 $350,000 $0 $1,675,000 $3,025,000 Non-Res. Impact Fees $175,657 $5,461 $0 $17,923 $199,042 Construction Management Fees $548,667 $268,505 $0 $1,159,739 $1,976,912 Total Parcel Development Costs $22,603,433 $10,851,444 $0 $47,067,667 $80,522,543 Operating Income (annual)
Potential Gross Revenue $1,036,800 $270,000 $0 $1,555,084 $2,861,884 Vacancy ($51,840) ($13,500) $0 ($77,754) ($143,094)
Building Operating Costs ($240,000) ($84,000) $0 ($402,000) ($726,000) NOI $744,960 $172,500 $0 $1,075,330 $1,992,790
Project-Wide Operating Expenses (annual)
Public Grounds Maintenance (Building Operating Costs reflected in NOI from individual parcelsI) Property Management Fee ($59,098) ($15,390) $0 ($88,640) ($163,127) Adjusted Net Operating Income $685,862 $157,110 $0 $986,690 $1,829,662 Debt Service and Funding (ongoing annually until debt is paid off) Bond Debt Service ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000)
Other Debt Service ($352,519) ($830,976) ($229,732) ($3,987,209) ($5,400,436) General Fund Allocation (re-allocation of 2020 Lease Financing bond payments at maturity in 2027) $300,000 $300,000 Measure S Allocation $700,000 $700,000
General Fund Commitment $600,000 $600,000
Net Revenue After Debt Service, Measure S Allocation and GF Commitment $333,343 ($73,866) ($229,732) ($3,000,519) ($2,970,774) Capital Replacement Reserves (annual) ($356,955) ($175,151) $0 ($754,342) ($1,286,447) Surplus After Debt and Capital Replacement Reserves (annual) ($23,611) ($249,017) ($229,732) ($3,754,860) ($4,257,221) Cummulative Annual Surplus/(Deficit) ($272,628) ($502,361) ($4,257,221) 21 ATTACHMENT 2: Scenario 2 Pro-Forma Printouts
Table 1: Key Assumptions
Development Cost Assumptions
Site Improvement Costs $15 per parcel square foot
Hard Construction Cost Village Houses $800 per gross square foot Hard Construction Cost for Village Center $1,000 per gross square foot Hard Construction Cost for Commons House $1,000 per gross square foot Ori Systems - Studios $25,000 per unit
Ori Systems - 1-Bedrooms $35,000 per unit
Ori Systems - 2-Bedrooms $35,000 per unit
Soft Costs 15% of site prep and hard costs
Permit Fees $1.00 per gross bldg. sq. ft.
Impact Fees $25,000 per residential unit
Impact Fees $2.00 per non-residential sq. ft.
Construction Management Fee 3% of site prep and hard costs Operating Revenue Assumptions
Parking Vacancy Rate 5% annual average
Residential and Commercial Unit Vacancy Rate 5% annual average Property Management Fee 6% of scheduled revenues
Capital Reserves Assumption (annual) 2% of Hard Construction and Ori Systems capital costs, annually % of Units WF 1 WF 2
Unit Types @ WF 1 Rent Rents/Mo. Rents/Mo.
Studio 50% $1,500 $2,000
Rooftop Apartment 0% $2,200 $2,800
Jr. 1-Br. 0% $1,700 $2,400 not used
1-Br. 50% $1,800 $2,400
Jr. 2-Br. 50% $2,000 $2,800
2-Br. 50% $2,200 $3,000 not used
Operating Costs/Unit (not incl. prop. mgmt. fee) $6,000 per year; assumes property tax exempt Commercial Rents $1.50 per square foot per month NNN
Bond Financing Assumptions
$16 million bond proceeds requires $997,353 annual debt service $30 million bond proceeds requires $1,867,078 annual debt service Bank Loan Assumptions
Bank Loan Term 30 years
Bank Loan Interest 6.50% per year
Table 2: Capital Sources and Uses of Funds
Project Total
Phase 1 SubTotalAdd Alt 1
Sub-Total
Add Alt 2
Sub-Total
Phase 2+
Sub-Total
Sources of Funds
Cash on Hand $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 $0 $0
Bond Proceeds $16,000,000 $16,000,000 $0 $0 $0
Other - Bank Loan $70,051,843 $4,132,733 $10,851,444 $3,000,000 $52,067,667 Total Sources $91,051,843 $25,132,733 $10,851,444 $3,000,000 $52,067,667 Uses of Funds
Site Acquisition (already owned) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Infrastructure Development (including utilities and parking) $11,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $3,000,000 $5,000,000 Public Area Improvements (included above above) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Site Improvement Cost (individual parcels) $1,574,694 $441,176 $192,622 $0 $940,896 Hard Construction Cost (buildings) $60,787,374 $16,687,736 $8,267,560 $0 $35,832,078 Soft Costs $9,354,310 $2,569,337 $1,269,027 $0 $5,515,946 DBE Sub-total $82,716,378 $22,698,248 $9,729,210 $3,000,000 $47,288,920 Ori Systems Costs $3,345,000 $970,000 $490,000 $0 $1,885,000 Permit Fees $70,211 $20,860 $8,268 $0 $41,084
Res. Impact Fees $2,775,000 $750,000 $350,000 $0 $1,675,000 Non-Res. Impact Fees $174,042 $150,657 $5,461 $0 $17,923 Construction Management Fees $1,971,212 $542,967 $268,505 $0 $1,159,739 Total Uses $91,051,843 $25,132,733 $10,851,444 $3,000,000 $52,067,667 Table 3: Yountville Commons Operating Summary by Phase
Development Summary Phase 1 Add Alt 1 Add Alt 2 Phase 2+ Total Parcel Area 3.71 0.29 0.00 1.44 5.44
Parking Spaces 40 0 0 0 40
Gross Bldg. Area 20,860 8,268 0 41,084 70,211
WF1 Units 18 7 0 37 62
WF2 Units 12 7 0 30 49
Total Units 30 14 0 67 111
Net. Bldg. Sq. Ft. 17,571 7,150 0 35,884 60,604
Rentable Res. Sq. Ft. 17,160 4,419 0 26,922 48,501
Parcel Development Costs (one-time)
Site Improvement Cost $441,176 $192,622 $0 $940,896 $1,574,694 Hard Const. Cost $16,687,736 $8,267,560 $0 $35,832,078 $60,787,374 Ori Systems Costs $970,000 $490,000 $0 $1,885,000 $3,345,000 Soft Costs $2,569,337 $1,269,027 $0 $5,515,946 $9,354,310 Permit Fees $20,860 $8,268 $0 $41,084 $70,211
Res. Impact Fees $750,000 $350,000 $0 $1,675,000 $2,775,000 Non-Res. Impact Fees $150,657 $5,461 $0 $17,923 $174,042 Construction Management Fees $542,967 $268,505 $0 $1,159,739 $1,971,212 Total Parcel Development Costs $22,132,733 $10,851,444 $0 $47,067,667 $80,051,843 Operating Income (annual)
Potential Gross Revenue $866,400 $270,000 $0 $1,555,084 $2,691,484 Vacancy ($43,320) ($13,500) $0 ($77,754) ($134,574)
Building Operating Costs ($180,000) ($84,000) $0 ($402,000) ($666,000) NOI $643,080 $172,500 $0 $1,075,330 $1,890,910
Project-Wide Operating Expenses (annual)
Public Grounds Maintenance (Building Operating Costs reflected in NOI from individual parcelsI) Property Management Fee ($49,385) ($15,390) $0 ($88,640) ($153,415) Adjusted Net Operating Income $593,695 $157,110 $0 $986,690 $1,737,495 Debt Service and Funding (ongoing annually until debt is paid off) Bond Debt Service ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000)
Other Debt Service ($316,474) ($830,976) ($229,732) ($3,987,209) ($5,364,391) General Fund Allocation (re-allocation of 2020 Lease Financing bond payments at maturity in 2027) $300,000 $300,000 Measure S Allocation $700,000 $700,000
General Fund Commitment $600,000 $600,000
Net Revenue After Debt Service, Measure S Allocation and GF Commitment $277,221 ($73,866) ($229,732) ($3,000,519) ($3,026,896) Capital Replacement Reserves (annual) ($353,155) ($175,151) $0 ($754,342) ($1,282,647) Surplus After Debt and Capital Replacement Reserves (annual) ($75,934) ($249,017) ($229,732) ($3,754,860) ($4,309,543) Cummulative Annual Surplus/(Deficit) ($324,951) ($554,683) ($4,309,543)