Document begins
Capital Stack — Indicative Scaffold & Gap Analysis
Status: INTERNAL scaffold. Not a model, not a forecast, not a target. Every figure is ASSUMPTION-level from the draft Funding Strategy (Luzern Property Advisory, Jun 2026) until professional costings land. Source figures cross-checked against internal/finance_assumptions_book.md and internal/feasibility/draft_feasibility_study_2026-06.md.
Reading instruction: this exists to show where the money has to come from and how big the gap is, so the working group can size each fundraising segment. It is not a commitment to raise any amount.
1. The requirement (base case) — from the Funding Strategy
| Item | Figure | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Purchase price (modelled) | $1.65M | ASSUMPTION (agent guide $1.2–1.3M; FS models $1.65M to exceed expected bids) |
| Stamp duty / purchasing costs | $85k | ASSUMPTION (FS) — note: stamp duty alone is ~$62–65k on ~$1.5M / higher on $1.65M per finance_assumptions_book.md; the $85k bundles duty + conveyancing/other acquisition costs |
| Refurbishment | $800k–$1.1M | ASSUMPTION (pre-surveyor) |
| Operational startup (stock, staff, insurances, licensing, IT/POS) | $300k–$500k | ASSUMPTION |
| Co-op startup costs | $50k | ASSUMPTION |
| Contingency | $300k | ASSUMPTION |
| Estimated base cost | ~$3.15M–$3.7M | ASSUMPTION (FS-stated total; the line items above sum to ≈$3.19M–$3.69M — the range is rounded, not a precise total) |
| Aspirational add-ons (kitchen extension, car park, etc.) | $1M–$1.9M | ASSUMPTION — out of base case; may be grant-offset/deferred |
Cross-check note: the feasibility study independently put “upper end could exceed $3M” as an illustrative sensitivity, and flagged refurbishment scope as the single largest unknown (heritage 20–30% contingency). The FS base range is consistent with that. None of it is verified — see
dd_open_questions.md(valuation + building assessment are the unlocks).
2. The funding segments (the “stack”) — what each must deliver
Indicative, illustrative splits for discussion only. Totals are deliberately shown as ranges; the point is the gap, not precision.
| Segment | Indicative contribution | Status / gate | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Philanthropic deposit (returnable, in trust) | $800k–$1M | GATED — lawyer Topic G; donor (#83) | Buys time/exclusivity; not permanent capital unless converted |
| Community pledges → shares | (portion of ~$1M pledge intent) | Non-binding intent today; legally-gated conversion | ”Approaching $1M” pledged intent [REPORTED]; mostly $500–$1,000/person |
| Community debentures (loans) | part of community capital | GATED — returns compliance (#84), CNL disclosure | Under consideration: below-bank-rate interest only, subject to legal compliance; no profit-linked returns |
| Grants | $0 pre-acquisition for most | Built Heritage (post-ownership), Tas Community Fund (NFP, closes 21 Aug), Growing Regions | Most assume an entity / ownership; Stage-2+ |
| Business / values-aligned donations (via NFP) | unknown | GATED — NFP + DGR status (#84) | Tax-offset attraction; needs NFP entity |
| Bank / impact debt | up to ~65–70% LVR on valuation | Stage 2 — no lender approached | ~$1.07M–$1.16M on the $1.65M modelled price at 65–70% LVR (feasibility study used a $1.5M worked example) — ESTIMATE |
3. The gap, framed honestly
- In the 8-day window: the only segment that can realistically move the transaction is the philanthropic deposit (to win time), backed by community pledge intent as evidence of seriousness. Everything else is Phase 2.
- For the full base cost: even at the optimistic end, community capital (pledges + debentures) plausibly covers a fraction of $3.15M–$3.7M; the stack must be multi-faceted (philanthropy + grants + business donations + debt), exactly as the Funding Strategy argues. There is a large unfilled gap until valuation, grants eligibility, and debt capacity are known.
- Biggest swing factors: the real purchase price (guide $1.2–1.3M vs modelled $1.65M), refurbishment scope (minimum-viable vs full heritage restoration), and grant access (which hinges on the distributing-vs-non-distributing structure decision).
4. What would turn this scaffold into a model (Stage 2)
Independent valuation · building-condition + heritage-works assessment · lender engagement · grant eligibility confirmation · the structure decision (#84) → then a costed P&L/cash-flow per feasibility study §12. Do not present any of these ranges publicly as a forecast or target (human sign-off gate for financial models).