THE KIRKWOODCONSORTIUMPut KC on a workstream
← Proof Hub

Work sample 02 · Operating underwriting

15-Year OHFA
Cash Flow & DSCR

A sanitized hard-debt coverage schedule that tests annual performance, separates mechanical deferred-fee capacity from a proven waterfall, and exposes the post-abatement cliff.

Download Excel modelApply this to a transaction
Selected permanent debt$3,389,040Below Year-1 debt ceiling
Year-1 hard DSCR1.34xFormula-linked test
15-year average DSCR1.38xPeak approximately 1.40x
Mechanical DDF reachYear 11Waterfall evidence still open
Year-16 post-abatement0.43xFail cliff

What the model does

Test coverage without overstating cash availability.

The schedule preserves the distinction between hard-debt DSCR and cash actually available to repay deferred developer fee. It can show mechanical capacity while withholding a final DDF conclusion until the partnership and soft-debt waterfall is documented.

  • Applies 2% income and 3% expense growth assumptions
  • Links all DSCR controls back to the assumptions sheet
  • Calculates annual, minimum, average, and maximum hard DSCR
  • Keeps the DDF conclusion open until waterfall inputs exist
15-Year Cash Flow tab showing NOI, debt service, DSCR, and deferred fee capacity
15-Year Cash Flow tab · annual hard-debt coverage and cash-capacity controls

Headline findings

Passing years can still conceal a structural cliff.

The selected permanent debt remains within the modeled hard-debt controls for the 15-year period. The independent Year-16 test shows why the abatement expiration belongs in the decision, not in a footnote.

Hard-debt screenPASS

Year-1, annual minimum, and 15-year average controls are satisfied.

DDF capacityMECHANICAL ONLY

$1,265,622 of cumulative modeled capacity versus $883,500 of DDF; actual waterfall remains open.

Post-abatementFAIL CLIFF

Modeled Year-16 NOI is approximately $96,393 and hard DSCR approximately 0.43x.

Assumptions tab showing formula-linked underwriting assumptions and source notes
Assumptions tab · inputs, governing controls, sources, and evidence gate
YEAR 15~1.40xAbatement benefit modeled
YEAR 16~0.43xPost-abatement stress

Live-deal application

Where this becomes useful to a developer.

The model can sit behind debt sizing, investor and lender review, funding applications, and closing updates while preserving the difference between a screening conclusion and a documented transaction conclusion.

  • Reconcile underwriting assumptions across lender, investor, and agency models
  • Maintain annual DSCR and downside tests as terms change
  • Add soft-debt and partnership waterfall inputs
  • Frame mitigants for abatement expiration and long-tail operating risk
Propose this workstream
Work-sample boundary

Independent, sanitized predevelopment analysis prepared by John Kirkwood Jr. This model is a screening and demonstration tool, not an agency approval, lender underwriting, investor commitment, or representation of a closed transaction.