Updated financial estimate

The Reef
, ,
4

Thanks a lot Lie for this! A couple of questions:

There is no link :slight_smile:

if it is indeed not included, any idea what the extra cost would amount to for every household?

In this estimate, it is for 90m2 brut right? (D58 is 90* the estimate, which is given by m2 brut). Which would mean it is for 72m2 net.
Also, can we consider a parking spot as extra? Are we confident that all communes do not make it compulsory to have one per appartments?

5

I added it now

I have no idea, but I can do a back-of-the-envelope calculation: let’s take 200 m² at a price of 500 euro per square meter (which is way more than it will be in my view). That makes 100.000 euro, which would come down to 4000 euro per household, if all units were the same size

Yes

The parking spots are indeed a point of uncertainty, but I wouldn’t worry too much about it. The key concern that should be on Team Finance’s radar is whether we’ll manage to sell the spots before we start building (because who else is going to front the money?), and more importantly what will happen in the worst case scenario where the market price of a parking spot is lower than the building cost. In that case I’m afraid we’ll have to share that financial burden, which will hopefully be not much more than 65.000 euro.

2 Likes
6

Julien had a detailed conversation with the architects about the updated financial estimates. It can be found in the common mailbox, dated 4 July 2023. Here are the essentials that we want to retain:

  • There is a misunderstanding about whether the finishings of the common spaces are included yes or no. I believe that this is because there is a misunderstanding about the term “common spaces”. When the architects say that the cost of the finishings of the common spaces is included, they refer to stair cases, hallways etc. From the excel sheet however it can be seen that finishings of the common spaces in the sense of common living room, guest room etc is not included. As said above this should not make a big difference though.

  • The prices of the options (parking, storage space in the basement, terraces) need to be set by the group. The numbers in the architects’ file are just an indication. The prices in the estimation include VAT and fees etc. The probable reason for this - which is something my dad noted - is for example that the revenues from the options in the basement (about 700k) does not match the cost (about 900k). I believe that this because there is a certain amount of costs related to the underground that need to be shared by all, but I guess we’ll discuss the details of this at a later stage.

  • The price per m² is for the net surface, because this is what is used by the notary, surveyor (“géometre”) etc.

  • VAT 6%:

  • “Taxe sur la batisse” (stedenbouwkundige lasten): this is a communal tax that is added on top, and is different for every commune (but not all communes have them). The architects gave us the link for the tax sur la batisse in Jette: it’s a couple of euros per square meter for renovated buildings and around 250 euro / m² for newly built. This matches out with the story they told us, where they said that they divided the total cost equally among them, in solidarity with those who bought the units that were newly built: see Visit to The Spiegel - #3 by JolanWuyts

The next steps I believe will be a new, more detailed financial estimate with the feasibility studies. I propose that @reef-finance takes ownership of studying these.

3 Likes
7

@team-building
it’s maybe a detail but just want to point it out clearly, and maybe it is something that was discussed in the past.
I was relooking at the calculation of the price per m2 for the jet-14 FS, and what i’ve noticed and i don’t find completely fair is the following:

  • to come to the price per m2, every cost is added giving a total, at the end the tva travaux is added based on this total , also % for the Etudes and tva on the Etudes.
  • what i noticed that in this total, certain options are included (terrasses, caves ,…). The terrasses are calculated at 1500 euro/m2, the caves at 1250 euro/m2.
  • in the end these options are subtracted before calculating the price per m2, but for this subtractions, the terrasses are calculated at 1500 euro/m2 and the caves at 1350 euro/m2. => this leads to an underpricing of these options (maybe less so for the caves as the price is 100 euro more per m2 in the subtracting part). Why an underpricing? because in the substracting part you don’t take into account the tva travaux, % for the Edutes, tva on the Etudes.
  • If i understood well, these are pure options (not like parking spots, which might be obligated by the commune) => is this fact known?
    It might not come down to a huge difference but personally don’t find it fair that people not going for the options (maybe for financial reasons) will need to contribute to paying the tva,… for the options others have chosen. The architects pointed out that for brutopia allmost every one would take a terrasse, so if that is the case, there is no issue.

So my question: should this be discussed , and if yes, where?

2 Likes
8

Hi Els,

Thanks for spotting that! I am not following the full detail of what you are describing (out of laziness, I am happy to admit :sweat_smile:), but I am wondering whether your observation matches with the second bullet point in the post on the updated financial estimate, where it says “the prices of the options need to be set by the group”: Updated financial estimate - #6 by Lee.

If it is that, then my guess is that the architects’ note “prix à préciser par le groupe” indicates that this is something we need to do once we have the final plan and the final budget, and we need to break down who is going to pay how much for what.

Does that make sense?

1 Like
9

thanks @Lee , i think that covers it indeed. I just wonder if the time has not come for the group to tackle that question. We’ve seen how fast JET-14 took off and as money is a limiting factor , maybe best to start to know these ‘details’?

2 Likes
10

If you would like to start studying it and thinking about it, that’s never lost of course. At the same time I think this will be easier once we have the final budget, and also that we need to invest our energy into finding a site first. But up to you of course.

1 Like
11

@Lee ,
I think -for me- i would need to have more clarity on those prices to be able to vote on a site.
There are a couple of things that are for me personnally not negociable, so if i don’t have the money for it, i will vote ‘no’.
Also the lack of clarity on what is in the finition (maybe you and others have, but i saw a question for the architects so i am not sure), will not allow me to know

  • how much will I need to do myself, to obtain the level of finishing I want
  • can i maybe lower this price personally, because i don’t need that level of finishing, and thus use the money elsewhere

But on the other hand i know there is a lot to do and people are doing a lot allready. So I will try to put some time in this myself…

2 Likes
12

This part is not clear to me. Can you please add some further details and maybe an example?

13

E.g. Discovering that the real cost of a parking was not 30 000 but a lot more (a quickly calculation gave me an extra 12 500 if i remember well), didn’t feel comfortable at all. If I would have discovered this after i would have voted yes, i would have felt very frustrated.
I would be feeling bad if ‘my’ parking spot would be a burden to the community, so for me the only acceptable way is to pay the real price, and that is a not negligeable extra cost that i didn’t count on. (i am aware that being one of the latest members, this might only ‘not be clear to me’, or it might not interest the others as they are not choosing a parking).
So now i am asking myself the same question for the optional terrace and cellar space: what is the real price there? Same feeling: if i take one i would not like this to be a burden to the ones who choose not to take one.
So now i ask myself: what can I afford, because what i filled in for the ‘Programme’ will be probably sth i cannot afford.
Also having a view on the price of the finishing/what it represents, would give me an insight where i can still play a bit , to make some things affordable. I’ve did a very big part of the inside renovation of the house i am living in now, so i could do that again (are the architects ok with that?). Personally i have the impression 750 is not a lot, but i confide in the architects that will lead to a comfortable/nice appartment. If to live up to my ‘standards’ i would need to put more down than that 750, i would like to know that as well. (e.g. they said floor heathing would not be included, which is something i would like to have…)
I don’t say that i would vote right away ‘no’, i maybe could live without a terrace and/or cellar/floor heathing. But a definite ‘no’ for me is e.g. a ‘one bedroom appartement’.
It’s the feeling that ‘i don’t know what i will get’, that i feel not comfortable with. And when putting down 500 000, i would be more relieved if i have some clarity on this.
Again, maybe this clarity exists with the other members.

2 Likes
14

Hello @els, there is a bit of a mistery on the taxe sur la batisse. Back in July, Lie wrote this:

But:

  • the sum of 250 EUR/m2 is nowhere to be seen in the document on that link. The taxe sûr la batisse is levied on cubic meters or on unités. Using the numbers in that link, and with a ceiling of 3 meters, this tax would be around 10 EUR/m2.
  • In all feasibility studies, the architects used a figure of 65 EUR/m2 for the taxe sur la batisse. This is the same number they used for MOL-26, with a different commune.

My hypothesis: Lie’s post is wrong. The solidarity mechanism in Spiegel was due to the VAT, not to the taxe sûr la batisse: people who live in renovated volumes paid 6%, those that lived in newly built volumes paid 21%, and then the former compensated the latter so that everybody paid ~15%. For now, the taxe sûr la batisse is indeed at 65 EUR per square meter (this is confirmed by this document). However, this is currently being reviewed.

Can you ask the architects if I am right?

1 Like
15

Hi @reef-full ,
I am coming back to the confusion I created last night in the full members meeting.
I reread the above post from Lie and i find it confusing. It mentions:

  • the options are with vat and fees included => not correct AND
  • with revenues from the options in the basement do not match with the cost of them , difference of 200k => i arrive at a difference between revenue and cost of about 200k, but that’s not only basement options, also terraces

So right now in the estimation, a total cost of vat and fee of all options together is not included in the selling price (which amounts to 205 568,87 euro in total, based on the FS of JET-14 presented on friday).
For the parking spots i don’t think we have much choice as the market price for a parking in jette will be around 30.000
If I exclude the parkings from the calculation, this means an extra cost in the price per m2 of 62,82 euro.
So if we would include the taxes and fees in the selling price , this would lead to the following estimated prices

  • for a private terrace : 2089,07 euro per m2 (and not 1500 euro/m2)
  • for a private cellar : 1740,89 euro per m2 (and not 1350 euro/m2)

=> this would mean that the price per m2 they presented on friday is not 4370 but a bit more then 4300 (4307,18)

and i insist on paying the full price of my parking, so 1 of the 5 parkings will be sold at 47181,06 euro (and not 30. 000) (which would mean another 8,8 euro/m2 we save so we end up at less than 4300 euro/m2)

(Taking into account a finishing cost of 650 euro/m2 instead of 750, you arrive at a price of 4180 euro/m2, so that is about the price we focussed on)

link to the calculations : Login – Nextcloud

3 Likes
16

hi alberto,

what is it exactly you want to know:

  • where the leveling out played on in Spiegel: on the vat, or on the tax sur la batisse
    and/or
  • confirmation that the tax sur la batisse they used in the excell should be 65 for jette, even though it’s a new construction (but might be changing in the future as it is currently being reviewed)
17

Hi Els, after some digging: both VAT and TSLB played out in Spiegel. I think levelling out was only applied to VAT.

This is what I would like to confirm. It checks out with the amount charged to Spiegel, but that was then and this is now.

1 Like
18

Hi @els, I would like to understand this better. Would it be much effort to create annotate your findings in a separate document? Could be as simple as a copy/paste of the budget estimate with a couple of cells highlighted plus two sentences of explanation.

1 Like
19

hi @Lee : i made this document: https://c301.nl.tabdigital.eu/f/134872
Let me know if it’s any clearer (or not)…

1 Like
20

Very clear to me now, thanks a million!

Could you please add this to the list of questions to the architects, preferably framed as a “why” question: why is it the way it is?

Along the same lines, can you please check my comment very high up, where doing a similar analysis I seemed to have found that the 750 euro of finishings per m² is not counted for the 200 m² of common spaces? If this is correct, can you also ask why this is done like this?

Many thanks!

21

@Lee : yes, was wondering that same question today about the finishing of the commons: the answer is yes, the finishing of 190 m2 of commons is included

1 Like
22

@Lee , mentioning this above, realising this creates a kind of ‘underestimation’ (or overestimation) in the simulation file i created.
There is now 1 zone to introduce a finishing cost, that goes for the finishing of the personal appartment and the finishing of the common spaces.
So if people - in the simulation file- lower the finishing of their apartment to 600, they will also lower the finishing of the common spaces to 600.
For me this is a detail, as we haven’t yet discussed what finishing we want for the common spaces. This finishing is a cost carried by all members so the possible underestimation will be quite small.
To conclude: i don’t plan to integrate that level of detail in the simulation file, as for my feeling the possible underestimation will be very limited.

1 Like
23

Hi @alberto ,
asked the question yesterday evening. They confirm: it is 65 euro/m2 , also for a new construction.
There seems to be some (minor) unclarity though. The architects received all the data/figures from the matexi permit, and there they had an amount of about 100.000 euro for this taxe de batisse, when taking into account matexi’s m2 of logements, they arrived at less than 65 euro. So maybe less m2 to be taken into account than on the current estimation.

2 Likes