Bending The Cost Curve On Affordable Rental Development
Bending the Cost Curve onAffordable Rental DevelopmentUnderstanding the Drivers of CostBendingCostCurve2013.indd 110/18/13 2:43 PM
Bending the Cost Curve onAffordable Rental DevelopmentUnderstanding the Drivers of CostBendingCostCurve2013.indd 110/18/13 2:43 PM
About EnterpriseEnterprise Community Partners works with partners nationwide to build opportunity. We create and advocate for affordablehomes in thriving communities linked to jobs, good schools, health care services, and transportation. We lend funds, financedevelopment, and manage and build affordable housing while shaping new strategies, solutions, and policy. Over more than 30years, Enterprise has created 300,000 homes, invested nearly 14 billion, and touched millions of lives.About Enterprise PolicyThe Enterprise Public Policy team works with members of the U.S. Congress, the Obama administration, communitydevelopment organizations, and other stakeholders to safeguard, expand, and improve housing and community developmentinitiatives that support low- and moderate-income households. The Policy Development and Research division provides thoughtleadership and data-backed recommendations to influence housing and community development policy, addressing bothemerging policy issues and long-term needs.About ULIThe mission of the Urban Land Institute is to provide leadership in the responsible use of land and in creating andsustaining thriving communities worldwide. Established in 1936, the Institute today has nearly 30,000 members worldwide,representing the entire spectrum of the land use and development disciplines. ULI relies heavily on the experience of itsmembers. It is through member involvement and information resources that ULI has been able to set standards of excellencein development practice. The Institute has long been recognized as one of the world’s most respected and widely quotedsources of objective information on urban planning, growth, and development.About the Terwilliger CenterThe mission of the ULI Terwilliger Center for Housing is to expand housing opportunity by leveraging the private sector and otherpartners to create and sustain mixed-income, mixed-use urban and suburban neighborhoods that incorporate a full spectrum ofhousing choices, including workforce housing, compact design, and connections to jobs, transit, services, and education. TheCenter achieves its mission through a multifaceted program of work that includes conducting research, publishing, conveningthought leaders on housing issues, and recognizing best practices that support the mission of the Center.AcknowledgmentsProject SponsorsThe project team appreciates the input and participationof the more than 100 individuals interviewed as part ofthis research. We also acknowledge the ongoing efforts ofthe ULI District Councils and Enterprise Market Offices tosupport this project.Enterprise and the Terwilliger Center acknowledge thegenerous funding for the research provided by DouglasAbbey, chairman, Swift Real Estate Partners, and RonMoelis, cofounder, L M Development Partners.The team also thanks the members of the project advisoryboard for their insights: Douglas Abbey, chairman, SwiftReal Estate Partners; Dara Kovel, chief housing officer,Connecticut Housing Finance Authority; Chuck Laven,president, Forsyth Street Advisors; Ron Moelis, cofounder,L M Development Partners; Cynthia Parker, presidentand CEO, BRIDGE Housing Corporation; Nancy Rase,president, Homes for America; and J. Ronald Terwilliger,chairman emeritus, Trammell Crow Residential, andchairman of Enterprise Community Partners and the ULITerwilliger Center for Housing. 2013 by the Urban Land InstituteCover: Fire Clay Lofts, Denver, Colorado.2Project TeamAllison CharetteResearch AnalystEnterprise CommunityPartnersLynn M. RossExecutive DirectorULI Terwilliger Center forHousingJohn GriffithSenior AnalystEnterprise CommunityPartnersMolly SimpsonProgram ManagerULI Terwilliger Center forHousingAndrew JakabovicsSenior Director, PolicyDevelopment and ResearchEnterprise CommunityPartnersMichael A. SpottsSenior Policy AnalystEnterprise CommunityPartners
Understanding the Drivers of CostTHE NEED FOR MORE AFFORDABLE rental housing ison the rise, but so are the costs to develop that housing.In September 2012, Enterprise Community Partners andthe Urban Land Institute’s Terwilliger Center for Housinglaunched a joint research effort to examine the variousfactors affecting the cost of developing affordable rentalhousing.The research team convened roundtable discussionsin five cities—Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, NewYork City, and San Francisco—to explore the issue ofcost. Additional interviews were held with an array ofpractitioners, developers, financiers, and policy makersin five additional markets: Boston, Houston, Minneapolis,Pittsburgh, and Seattle. In total, these discussions allowedthe research team to engage with more than 100 keystakeholders representing weak and strong markets,different population sizes and geographies, and a range of political and policy environments.Development costs may be dictated by site constraints,design elements, local land use and zoning restrictions,building codes, delays in the development process, effortsto reduce long-term operating costs, and the affordablehousing finance system. Most affordable developmentsrely on multiple funding streams, both equity and debt,each of which carries its own set of requirements andcompliance costs. While there may be some alignment ofaffordable housing land use regulations, financing tools, orprograms, far too often developers must seek a complexseries of approvals or obtain waivers to bring a project toThe Kalahari, New York,New York.As a result of these conversations and other analysis,Enterprise and the Terwilliger Center have identifiedseveral elements as common drivers of costs in thedevelopment of affordable rental housing. In additionto exploring cost drivers, this research highlightsrecommended actions that may bend the cost curve andfacilitate movement toward a more efficient and lower-costaffordable rental housing delivery system.Why does lowering costs matter?Tackling the question of how to lower the cost ofdeveloping long-term affordable rental housing hasimportant financial and political implications. As publicfunding sources come under threat—in efforts to reducegovernment expenditures or simplify the tax code—itbecomes increasingly necessary to identify opportunitiesto lower the cost of providing affordable homes. Thisresearch is of interest to both the development communityand policy makers at all levels of government. In particular,this research will be useful for local and state governmentofficials seeking the most efficient use of scarce resources.Affordable housing delivery is shaped by a numberof procedures, regulations, and policies instituted atall levels of the system—each with associated costs.3BendingCostCurve2013.indd 310/18/13 2:43 PM
fruition. This process alone can introduce costs throughdelays to the development timeline as well as introduceadditional uncertainty and risk, which, in addition toregulatory barriers, can also increase costs.method of achieving greater cost-effectiveness may be todevelop more units on a given site through increased lotcoverage, greater building height, or the construction ofsmaller units.A rich literature on regulatory barriers to affordabilityexists. Much of that literature focuses on specific elementsof constraint related to land use and zoning, processdelays, and building codes. However, relatively little workhas been done to examine how all of these issues, alongwith financing, interact with and affect affordable housingdevelopment. Our research is designed to fill this gap. Inorder to build a more cost-effective affordable housingdelivery system, it is important to identify the factors thatmake housing development more expensive. Conversationswith practitioners throughout the country yielded asignificant list of cost drivers. These elements vary bymarket, project type, and funding source. While somecost drivers are unique to the affordable housing sector,others are experienced by all developers trying to workin a given jurisdiction. This discussion paper, the first ina series, identifies the most commonly cited cost drivers,provides a brief overview of their impact and applicability,and includes high-level recommendations to promote amore efficient delivery system. Future installments of thisseries will include a full report with detailed, actionablerecommendations as well as market-based analyses andcase studies.However, oftentimes there exist significant barriers toincreasing the number of units built on a given site,including the following: a lack of demand for additionalunits; inadequate funding to cover the incrementalincrease in total development costs; and requirementson density, size, amenity, or design features imposedby governments or funders. It should also be noted thatadditional density does not necessarily lead to lowercosts. For example, larger projects may require a shiftfrom wood-frame to more expensive steel construction.Alternatively, a project might be built in phases, thusincreasing soft costs.What drives cost and why?Project ScaleWhile a significant portion of the cost of a project is directlyrelated to its size and scale, many costs—such as land,legal expenses, and funding application fees—are fixedor otherwise not directly correlated to the number of unitsin a project. These fixed costs make smaller projectsless economical on a per-unit basis. Therefore, in somecircumstances, per-unit project costs could be reduced byremoving the barriers to larger projects.To create additional units, a developer could build on alarger lot or develop an existing site more intensely. Whilethe former method can bring some economies of scale,land and soft costs may increase as a result. A betterProject Design and ConstructionWhile the cost of affordable housing is a significantconcern, it is important to recognize that savings shouldnot come at the expense of quality. When affordablehousing is poorly designed, unattractive, and unsafe, itwill fail to meet the primary social goal of providing decentshelter for lower-income households.The importance of design and construction quality hasbeen proved over the years, both through failures (suchas the high-rise public housing projects that have requiredexpensive redevelopment) and successes (including mixedincome developments and Low Income Housing Tax Creditprojects). Furthermore, many developers intend to own andoperate an affordable housing development in perpetuity,whereas comparable market-rate developers might operateunder a shorter time horizon. Therefore, higher upfront costsmay be justified if the measures improve the long-termviability of the project; some developers have begun todesign and build with life-cycle costs in mind.That being said, policy, financial, and regulatory barriers tocontrolling design and construction costs also exist:n Community concerns. Project designs may need toincorporate certain elements to comply with regulatoryrequirements, address community opposition, or meetother policy goals.4BendingCostCurve2013.indd 410/18/13 2:43 PM
n Site selection. Given limited financial resources anda more drawn-out development time frame, manydevelopers have difficulty locating appropriate sitesfor affordable housing development. In some cases,affordable developers secure sites from the publicsector, often redeveloping disinvested infill sites as partof a comprehensive redevelopment plan. As a result,affordable projects are often built on more challengingsites than market-rate projects. When these projectsuse public resources, developers are often also held tohigher standards for environmental remediation.n Price of construction labor. Construction costsare highly market-specific, based on factors includingthe strength of the market, the level of workforceunionization, and the types of projects being built.n State and local regulations. Regulations may prohibitinnovative building techniques. Significant interest existsin construction models that incorporate manufactured,modular, and panelized housing. Factory-based workcan yield savings based on economies of scale inmaterial purchases and the ability to work in a controlledenvironment, among other factors. Prefabrication can beused in both the single- and multifamily sectors.Finally, certain industry practices influence costs. Manydevelopers use customized designs for each project, whichcan be expensive and time-intensive. Developers can oftenachieve economies of scale by using standardized designsand products throughout the portfolio. Furthermore, therepetition of standardized design and construction couldhelp identify inefficiencies in the process, which couldpotentially lead to lower costs.Finance and UnderwritingReal estate development is fundamentally shaped by thesources of capital available. For market-rate residentialand commercial projects, both investors and developersgenerally share the common and (comparatively) simplegoal of profit maximization. The financing process is morecomplicated for affordable housing deals. By targetinglower-income households, the developer is reducing oreliminating opportunities for the same level of profit as in amarket-rate project to provide a social good. The reducedability to earn a profit has several implications:n Investors who are purely yield-driven are lesslikely to participate in this market. While this lossof capital availability is partially offset by public andmission-driven institutions, the decrease in overallcompetition in the marketplace gives the remaininginvestors more power to dictate terms.n The deals will likely be much more complicated.While some lending institutions will provide conventionalfinancing for affordable deals, developers must balancethese sources with lower-cost capital from investorswho have motivations beyond profits. As a result,developers may be forced to structure the deal aroundthe terms and goals of the funder, rather than the needsof the marketplace. Since affordable housing capital islimited, developers must often assemble multiple layersof funding for a given deal.The following sections address the various cost-relatedimplications of the affordable housing finance system inmore detail.Capital AvailabilityIn general, market-rate deals are much more flexible thanaffordable housing deals. Market-rate developers can raisecapital for the overall company or a portfolio of propertiesand then deploy it quickly. Investors are taking risk basedon the overall financial health of the company or a pool ofdeals, rather than each individual deal. This gives investorsand developers more flexibility to adapt to changing marketdemands and cost pressures.Affordable housing projects, on the other hand, generallyare financed with a mix of public and private capital tied tothe specific development or jurisdiction. The requirements ofpublic programs and the investors who participate in theminfluence the types of projects that get built. The affordablehousing community has adapted its development model tofit the standard requirements and structures of these typesof deals. It is difficult to change the framework in whichaffordable housing developers operate, since doing sorequires changes to laws, regulations, developer practices,and investor expectations.The lack of capital availability prevents developers fromundertaking certain financing structures and project types,5BendingCostCurve2013.indd 510/18/13 2:43 PM
which has significant implications for cost control. Forexample:nA ffordable housing finance is mostly projectbased. Developers must identify properties, beginscoping out a deal, and then start to assemblefinancing. This creates delays and increases costs.Entity- or portfolio-level capital is rare, but if suchfinancing were available, developers could quickly andstrategically deploy this capital when opportunitiesarise.n F inancing for the acquisition of multifamilyprojects needing little to no rehabilitation isscarce. Affordable housing developers withoutflexible capital are at a disadvantage in competingfor these properties, especially in hot markets. Inaddition, funders—both public and private—can addrequirements and regulations that decrease the costeffectiveness of these investments.n F inancing is often unavailable or more costly forsmaller multifamily projects. Small-scale deals canresult in lower yields for investors. Also, transaction andsoft costs generally account for a proportionally higherpercentage of costs in these deals, making them lessfeasible for developers.nC apital is often unavailable or difficult to use fordeals that incorporate innovative building typesor construction methods. This includes accessorydwelling units and prefabricated structures.nM ixed-income projects often struggle to obtainfinancing. Mixed-income projects can contribute toeconomic diversity and community revitalization, and,in some scenarios, rents from market-rate units cancross-subsidize affordable units. However, financingthese deals can be difficult, as many investors eitherdeal exclusively with market-rate projects or affordableprojects. Within the same financial institution, somelenders separate their affordable and market-ratelending into different departments that may notbe accustomed to coordinating, which could addcomplexity, uncertainty, and risk to the deal.Deal StructureThe structure of an affordable housing deal is oftendictated by the primary funding sources. Many of thecharacteristics of the deal directly or indirectly lead toincreased costs, including:n Type of contract. Many affordable housing deals arefinanced on a “cost-plus” basis, in which a developersubmits a funding application with a proposed budgetthat enumerates project costs, plus a developer fee.Successful applications will receive a funding allocationbased on this budget, which reduces the directincentive to lower costs.n Fees. Many project fees—including developer fees,architecture fees, legal fees, etc.—are based on apercentage of total development costs. This structurecreates an incentive to increase, rather than lower,project costs.n Tax credit allocations. Housing credit allocations aremade early in a process that can take several years tocomplete. When projecting the budget, developers havean incentive to hedge against the risk of cost inflationand overruns by increasing their upfront figures, sinceopportunities for a revised allocation are limited. Oncethe allocations are made, there is little incentive fordevelopers to use less than the full allocation. Equityinvestors base decisions on the expectation thatthey will use the full allocation, and therefore savingsgenerally come out of the developer fee.n Risk. Since profit margins are lower for affordabledeals, lenders and equity investors have an increasedincentive to minimize their risk profile, leading to tighterunderwriting standards. Risk aversion can also lead toa preference for a narrow range of standardized deals.While in some cases this financial conservatism canlead to better project financial performance, it can alsoincrease soft costs and limit project flexibility.n Capital reserves. Developers must set aside aportion of funding for reserves, which are usedto cover construction cost overruns, shortfalls inoperations funding, a loss of public subsidy, or ongoingmaintenance needs. Adequate reserves are necessary,as developers and project managers often make use6BendingCostCurve2013.indd 610/18/13 2:43 PM
of a portion of those funds. However, investor riskaversion has led to stricter reserve requirements,driving upfront capital costs higher. This is exacerbatedby macroeconomic conditions; operating expenses arerising at a faster rate than the income levels on whichproject rents are based.Despite their influence on deal structure and projectcosts, equity investors rarely provide enough capital tofinance the entire project, especially for deals that reachhouseholds with incomes below housing credit eligibilitylimits. Therefore, developers must seek out other sourcesof financing to complete the deal. Furthermore, regulationsgoverning some public funding sources mandate orprovide incentives for obtaining additional or “matching”sources of financing, resulting in a “layered finance”structure that has a significant influence on costs,including:n Additional paperwork, fees, and due diligenceexpenses. Incorporating multiple sources of fundingrequires specialized consultants and duplicativeprofessionals (such as attorneys and accountants).n Reduced competition. Deal complexity can narrowthe range of developers and professionals to those withthe capacity and experience to balance multiple fundingsources. This can lead to funding being directed to thehighest-capacity developers and professionals, butcan have the perverse effect of creating heightenedbarriers to entry for new market participants, reducingcompetition, and stifling innovation.n Longer timelines. More complex deals take longerto assemble, which increases both soft costs and landholding costs.n Compliance issues. Developers must generallycomply with multiple (sometimes conflicting) standardsand regulations, which drives up complexity and costs.In some circumstances, a developer may be required toconduct the same appraisals, reviews, and inspectionsseparately for each funding source.Another consequence of insufficient funding is thatdevelopers may choose to develop larger projects in phasesas separate deals. While phasing may be necessary insome circumstances given developer capacity, numerouscosts are associated with project phasing, including softcosts (developer fees, application fees, legal fees, andother professional fees) that are incurred at each phase.In addition, the more extensive timeline increases landholding costs. That being said, phased development canhave important benefits in some circumstances, such asminimizing displacement.Program and Investor RequirementsInvestors and public funding programs can also influencecosts based on the specific terms under which fundingis made available, including regulations, programrequirements, and timing.First, funder requirements can increase hard costs byimposing specific design and construction standards,though these requirements are more commonly associatedwith municipal zoning requirements. For example, somefunding programs and investors institute rehabilitationminimums for acquisition deals. The rationale behind theseminimums is that investors want to mitigate risk, andwould prefer to invest more money in a project to ensurethat the property is of high quality and will last. If theproperty deteriorates, they are at greater risk of not beingrepaid. While these minimums may serve as a barrier tomore cost-effective development, they could constitutemoney well spent if they extend the useful life of thebuilding. Other examples of specific investor requirementsaffecting hard costs are parking minimums and feestructures, unit size minimums, storage standards, andamenity requirements.Investors and funders also influence costs by the timingand methods in which funds are distributed. A notableexample is the process through which housing credits areallocated. State housing finance agencies (HFAs) holdannual competitions for housing credits, then developerswho receive an award sell those credits to investorsthrough a process called syndication. HFAs determinewhich projects get funded through their qualified allocationplans (QAPs), which set minimum standards and providepoint-based criteria for meeting state priorities. HFAsmust balance multiple priorities from a large number ofapplicants, and the evaluation process can be lengthy.7BendingCostCurve2013.indd 710/18/13 2:43 PM
These time delays can have significant cost implications,most notably in securing sites and contractor services.Since most affordable housing projects rely on thedeveloper’s ability to obtain housing credits, manydevelopers do not complete the site purchase until theyreceive the allocation. As a result, purchase prices mustbe inflated to compensate the seller for the uncertaintyand the extended length of time to close the deal. Incircumstances when developers do have full site control/ownership prior to the allocation process, they incurholding costs while the housing credit application is underreview. The same principle applies to identifying therest of the development team—contractors and otherprofessionals require a premium to compensate for theuncertain timing.Incentives to Meet Other Social Policy GoalsHFAs also frequently revise the standards and incentivesin their QAPs. While examination and improvement areimportant, they often create a steeper learning curve asdevelopers must adapt to frequent changes. A lack of QAPconsistency can also narrow the field of developers, asthose who are less experienced with the program may notbe able to react as swiftly and effectively to QAP changes.Developers must also comply with other funding timelines.The funding application cycles for secondary financing donot always align with the QAP review timing, further addingto time and costs.n Site-specific incentives. Some state HFAs offerlocation-specific incentives for projects near transit, ininfill locations, or in targeted community revitalizationareas, among others. In some cases, these sites can bemore expensive, such as price premiums for transitserved properties. In others—such as infill locations—the site requires significant demolition, remediation, orpreparatory work. In addition, the incentives themselvescan increase the cost of the property—knowing thatthe QAP is creating demand for a certain site type,sellers/brokers often increase their asking price.Many research participants stated that significantchallenges exist to using tax-exempt private activitybonds, which provide the debt financing for deals thatuse 4 percent housing credits. First, the interest rateson bond financing are not always competitive with othertypes of debt, particularly FHA loans. However, unlike the9 percent housing credit program, developers do not havethe flexibility to use more competitive sources, and mustuse bonds to access housing credits. To comply with thisrequirement while obtaining more competitive long-termfinancing, developers sometimes use tax-exempt bonds(incurring all the associated costs), only to repay thosebonds after one year when a better source of takeoutfinancing is available. In the meantime, negative arbitrageon the bonds drives up costs further.n Commercial space. In an effort to promote mixeduse development and broader economic growth ina neighborhood, some QAPs include incentives forincluding on-site commercial space. Developers canhave trouble filling these spaces, especially in “up-andcoming” neighborhoods. When commercial activitydoes eventually improve, subsequent private marketparticipants stand to benefit from the initial investmentand risk taking.While market-rate projects are primarily assessed accordingto financial viability, affordable housing projects—particularlythose funded through the housing credit program—mustcompete for funds and are assessed against a variety ofsocial policy standards. The amount of financing availablefor affordable housing is insufficient to meet demand.Therefore, minimum standards and scoring incentives inQAPs (as well as other funding programs) drive what getsbuilt, as developers compete to meet these standards anddesign better-scoring projects. While many of these goalsare desirable, meeting them can increase hard, soft, andongoing compliance costs. Research participants cited thefollowing standards and incentives as having a notable effecton development costs:n Community engagement. Some HFAs give priorityto projects that can demonstrate community support.This puts projects that are facing not-in-my-backyard(NIMBY) opposition at a significant disadvantage,without regard to the quality of and need for the project.In these circumstances, the developer may be forced toadopt project densities or make design changes that arenot optimal for the project, thereby increasing costs.8BendingCostCurve2013.indd 810/18/13 2:43 PM
n Match and leverage requirements. Many QAPsinclude a minimum match, a leverage requirement,or additional incentive points for exceeding a givenstandard. To improve competitiveness, some developersmay add project features in order to pursue additionalfunds and enhance the leverage score.n Other incentives or requirements. These includehistoric preservation rules and mandatory projectamenities such as community rooms, computer labs,and green space.Green building and energy efficiency requirements andincentives constituted the most widely discussed socialpolicy goals throughout the research process. Many HFAshave incorporated environmental sustainability into theirminimum requirements or added incentive points formeeting performance standards or obtaining a third-partygreen certification. While many elements related to greenbuilding and energy efficiency can add cost, Enterprise’sresearch has shown that these costs can be offset bylong-term utility savings.1 Thus, these measures may infact be more cost-effective overall. Unfortunately, severalbarriers to achieving the full potential of green building–related cost savings exist, including:n Underwriting. The financial community does notalways accept these savings when underwritingthe deal as a result of a number of factors, amongthem unfamiliarity with green building practices anduncertainty over utility rates and payback periods.n Waivers. Developers sometimes have difficulty gettingagency waivers or adjustments to utility allowances (orother regulations) necessary to recoup costs.n Other requirements. HFAs, governments, and funderssometim
THE NEED FOR MORE AFFORDABLE rental housing is on the rise, but so are the costs to develop that housing. In September 2012, Enterprise Community Partners and the Urban Land Institute's Terwilliger Center for Housing launched a joint research effort to examine the various factors affecting the cost of developing affordable rental housing.
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
behringer ultra-curve pro dsp 24 a/d- d/a dsp ultra-curve pro ultra- curve pro 1.1 behringer ultra-curve pro 24 ad/da 24 dsp ultra-curve pro dsp8024 smd (surface mounted device) iso9000 ultra-curve pro 1.2 ultra-curve pro ultra-curve pro 19 2u 10 ultra-curve pro ultra-curve pro iec . 7 ultra-curve pro dsp8024 .
pipe bending springs no. 2450 pipe bending pliers no. 241-242 manual pipe bender - draw bending operation manual bending tool sets no. 243 manual bending tool sets no. 244 manual bending tool sets no. 278 manual bending tool sets no. 240 universal manual pipe bender no. 276 manual pipe bender - pushing bending operation no. 2454-2456 pipe .
Pipe Bending Systems Useful information How do I find the right bending tool Pipe bending pliers no. 242 Manual pipe bender - Draw bending operation Manual bending tool sets no. 243 Manual bending tool sets no. 244 Manual bending tool sets no. 278 Universal manual pipe bender no. 276 Manual pipe bender - Pushing bending operation no. 2456
