<p>The deal was closed June 16th; Michigan will be increasing its research space by 10%, adding 30 (!) buildings and another 174 acres to its North Campus...the biggest land purchase since 1950. </p>
<p>It looks like the facility will be mostly used for medical research, possibly pushing its research spending to >$1 billion annually. They'll be hiring 2000 faculty and staff.
UROP anyone? :)</p>
<p>Coolbreeze. Do a hybrid search of the area. Just north of and east of the main part of the north campus. Most all of the buildings south of Plympouth Rd. on either side of Huron Parkway.</p>
<p>How are they paying for the $108M? Where does the revenue come from to pay off that kind of loan? Is there really $108M in the medical department reserves as stated in the article…something fishy here.</p>
<p>Also, this purchase does NOT create 2000 new jobs. The Pfizer campus had private sector labs with private sector jobs. Now the jobs, same number of jobs, will be paid for by the university and ultimately by the taxpayers. Transferring private sector jobs to the public sector is not an increase, just of transfer.</p>
<p>Ann Arbor will see a huge amount of private facility real estate taxes disappear from the tax roles. Vanished - because educational facilities, particularly public ones, are exempt for RE taxes. Phizer was probably paying close to $1.6m in taxes a year to the town of Ann Arbor. Exactly how is the town suppose to absorb a mega hit like that? As the governement grows larger and larger, there are fewer and fewer folks to pay the taxes to support it all.</p>
<p>Moving productive economic engines from the private sector to the public sector will have huge long-term pitfalls. Proceed with care.</p>
<p>toadstool, the $108M will come entirely from a UM medical research fund that was created for situations like these. I doubt the University would take a loan for it.</p>
<p>Sure it doesn’t create 2000 new jobs if you consider Pfizer in that way, but what’s the alternative? Pfizer is no longer in the area and those jobs would have been lost if UM hadn’t stepped in. And these jobs will NOT be paid for by taxpayers; although UM is a public university, it receives less than 10% of its yearly operating budget from the state. The rest comes from research grants and its own endowment.</p>
<p>I agree with you in that Ann Arbor has lost a major local taxpayer. But again, what is the alternative? At least the University is a stable landowner and employer - and their reasearch will certainly allow for more local entrepreneurship opportunities than Pfizer’s. Ann Arbor certainly knows this.</p>
<p>There is nothing really fishy here to me. Although the health system does not produce separately stated financial statements, a review of the UM statements shows that as of 6/30/08 the university had an unrestricted fund balance (reserves) of $2.9 billion dollars. The purchase of this property represents a depletion of the fund by 3.7% which does not seem like an undue hardship. Additionally, UM sold its MCARE health insurance unit for $258 million which more than covers the purchase price of the property.</p>
<p>Also, while I agree that creating private sector jobs would be preferable to public sector jobs, it’s important to remember that only 8% of UM’s total revenues come from state appropriations and I would suspect that the percentage is even lower when the health system is isolated. Therefore, these jobs are quasi-public at most. Given the fact that no private sector companies were jumping at the chance to purchase the property and replace the Pfizer operations, I think that 2,000 quasi-public jobs are preferable to no jobs at all.</p>
<p>There is no question that UM’s purchase will remove the property from the property tax roles, however I think we need to consider the impact of the loss of 2,000 jobs on home values and, therefore, overall property tax revenues in the Ann Arbor area.</p>
<p>Although not perfect, given the absence of better options this seems like an excellent move for the Ann Arbor community.</p>
<p>wow…seriously… the biomed field gets a bailout too…</p>
<p>way overpaying…considering the facility is worthless from a valuation perspective… Who else is gonna buy it and move in? Seriously… U of M had all the bargaining chip here.</p>
<p>You’re right bearcats, I’m sure the school could have gotten it cheaper if it could. But I think it was still a steal; $108M for 30 buildings and 174 acres? That comes our to <$3.5 million per builiding and a nice chunk of prime Ann Arbor real estate. It would cost lot more than that if they were to buy land and build new. Also, a majority are research buildings equipped with labs, not just administration sites. I know you lean more towards business, but as a chem/chemE major I’m drooling. Med bailout indeed. =P</p>
<p>The general impression I’m getting is that they closed quickly so that they could get the site renovated and operational ASAP.</p>
<p>Interestingly enough, UM sold 55 acres of the vacant land to Pfizer in 2002 for $27MM. If the property appreciated only 3%, it would be worth $33MM today, or $600k per acre. At that price, the remaining 122 acres would be worth $73MM making the total value of the land $106MM with the remaing $2MM of the purchase price allocable to the 30 buildings and land improvements.</p>
<p>"Interestingly enough, UM sold 55 acres of the vacant land to Pfizer in 2002 for $27MM. If the property appreciated only 3%, it would be worth $33MM today, or $600k per acre. At that price, the remaining 122 acres would be worth $73MM making the total value of the land $106MM with the remaing $2MM of the purchase price allocable to the 30 buildings and land improvements.</p>
<p>Seems like a good deal to me."</p>
<p>I dont know why you’d think that property appreciated in the state of Michigan since 2002. Even a 3% depreciation per year would be a favorable estimation. Also, have you ever seen the location? You cant just assume the price is the same per arce.</p>
<p>And now from the demand’s point of view, U of M is the only hope for Pfizer to liquidate that unused property realistically, not to mention the unloading of fixed cost burden. To be honest, what other companies do you think would gladly inherit that property in the dying state of Michigan, in this economic climate? On michigan’s side, it’s not like they need the property desperately. So all the bargaining chips are on U of M’s hands.</p>
<p>Well I think it was a great purchase. Michigan gets badly need state of the art research laboratories that would have cost the university far greater than the money it took to purchase these buildings and land. I have seen the location and buildings many times. It is a steal.</p>
<p>“I have seen the location and buildings many times. It is a steal.”</p>
<p>I dont doubt that the property value U of M receive is > the 108M that U of M is paying. </p>
<p>I just think that U of M could slowplay Pfizer more and force Pfizer’s hand to fire-sell the property due to fixed cost, depreciation and liquidation needs considering that I do not believe there’d be other suiters for the property anyway due to the fact that
current economic climate does not encourage investment, specially a large scale one
Michigan is a dying state, it makes no sense to start a new sector here for any private companies
It is a very skewed buyer market in the property sector</p>
<p>Therefore, it is most likely U of M or bust for Pfizer, which gives U of M all the bargaining power to squeeze the most out of Pfizer, especially considering that the longer it takes for Pfizer to close the deal, the more cost they have to fork out, making them more and more desperate. Maybe by then, U of M could force Pfizer to accept a low-ball offer.</p>
<p>I mean what’s the only bad outcome that can come holding Pfizer out to dry in the liquidation? It’s not a crucial developmental project for U of M anyway, so if someone actually steps in and buy the property which is highly unlikely, U of M is just missing out on a decent deal… but from Pfizer’s point of view, if the process is dragged out, they are losing a lot more. </p>
<p>It makes sense for Pfizer to close the deal ASAP, and it makes sense for U of M to drag out the deal, incur additional cost on Pfizer on a vacant property, make them get desperate and then low-ball them. Considering the fact that this deal closed relatively fast from the start of discussion, Pfizer won this battle IMO.</p>
<p>Although I don’t agree that anyone holding commercial real estate in Ann Arbor would sell it today for what they paid for it in 2002, let’s just say that’s the case. So the 55 acres is worth $27MM.</p>
<p>Yes, I have seen the land. The land sold by UM was unimproved, while the land owned by Pfizer prior to that sale was improved - making it more valuable. But again, let’s say its worth the same per acre, which makes the value of that land $60MM for a total land value of $87MM. That means they paid $15 million for 30 buildings. Still a good deal.</p>
<p>I also think you overestimate the importance of Pfizer maximizing the value of this sale. Pfizer’s total assets exceed $100 biilion dollars. With the closing of the facility, they took a one-time charge to right off all costs associated with the facility. Anything they get on the sale is pure gravy and quite inconsequential in the scope of their worldwide operations. I do not believe that the minor carrying costs of this property makes Pfizer “desperate” in any way.</p>
<p>If you are saying that UM paid more because they are a stupid governmental unit (probably should look at their Board of Trustees) dealing with a smart private sector company (whose minor miscalculation caused them to shutter a large research operation), then I’m not sure how to deal with that bias.</p>
<p>However, if you think the data supports the fact that UM paid too much I would welcome looking at the data.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>2 million square feet of laboratory and administrative space in 30 buildings for $108 million works out to $54/SF, which is way below replacement cost, even without putting any value on the 174 acres.</p></li>
<li><p>Pfizer closed this facility some time ago.</p></li>
<li><p>I presume that the U of Michigan makes PILOT payments to the City of Ann Arbor. I will check to confirm.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>This situation is very reminiscient of the purchase by Yale of the Bayer facility in West Haven/Orange, CT. They bought research and lab space for pennies on the dollar v. replacment cost.</p>
<p>U of M does not make PILOT, at least to a large degree they do not.</p>
<p>They pay some city costs, but very little relative to their real property holdings, for instance:</p>
<p>“Among the payments, U-M covers up to 50 percent of the cost to resurface roads next to campus and contributes cash if the university needs to close streets or sidewalks, such as during construction. In fiscal year 2007, that added up to $1.3 million. U-M also spends the equivalent of $220,000 a year on rent and utilities of a city fire station on North Campus that also covers off-campus areas. And it pays $113,000 a year to off-set the costs of educating the children of its older students in local schools.”</p>
<p>There is little doubt that Michigan did not get one hell of a good deal. The Pfizer facilities were easily worth three times as much. The Ann Arbor Campus was Pfizer’s Worldwide Research HQ. We are talking about some of the world’s most advanced research labs. Close to 200 acres, 30 buildings and 2 million square feet of the world’s most advanced research labs to be exact.</p>
<p>Not only was this a great deal, but Michigan had no choice if it wants to keep up with the Harvards and Yales of the world. Medical and Scientific research is what will keep universities on top in the coming decades and those with the faculties and facilities to conduct the highest level research will come out on top. Michigan has significantly improved its position with this purchase.</p>
<p>If you compare the $108 million price tag for Pfizer’s 174 acres and 30 buildings (2 million sq. ft of space) with the $1.66 billion UM is spending to build 9 major new buildings (3 million sq. ft of space), I think you would come to the conclusion that UM got quite a bargain from Pfizer. The $1.66 billion is on top of the $836 million spent in the last couple years to add 10 new buildings/1.7 million sq. ft of space. </p>