HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESPONSE - RFP - 20450 P947 SLEEPY WILLOW CAPITOL IMPROVEMENTS (2)ORIGINAL
City of Fort Collins
Request For Proposal
P947 Sleepy Willow Capital Improvements
And
Rental Strategy Report
Signet Partners
July 9, 2004
transactions on behalf of HUD, from projects generated by multiple Participating Administrative
Entities ("PAE's") across the country.
• As Manager for the Resolution Trust Corporation, Mr. Anderson has conducted due diligence tasks
on mortgage loans, servicing rights and diverse financial assets for most of his career. As a former
loan officer for thrifts and banks in the 80's, he became Manager of Asset Management for the
Resolution Trust Corporation in Denver from 1991 to 1996. In that capacity, Mr. Anderson directed a
staff of 32 in due diligence tasks for over $2.0 Billion in mortgage loans, servicing rights and real
estate owned (1,600) assets.
• Stratified and organized various loan sales and securitizations over a five-year period with projects
for the RTC.
• Created an electronic tracking system for all categories of assets managed by the Denver Office of the
RTC.
Employment History
• Executive Vice President, Signet Partners (1996-present)
• Department Head, Resolution Trust Corporation (1989 — 1996)
• Executive Vice President, American Federal Savings (1983 — 1989)
Education and
• Continuing Education in Business and Real Estate, Metropolitan State College
• AA, Business Administration, Arapahoe Community College
CHRISTOPHER MUHLE
1Jh.\`t i
Signet Partners, Vice President -
Experience Summary
Christopher Muhle, Vice President for Signet Partners, has over 6 years of financial services
experience with Signet including due diligence, financial modeling and analysis, valuation, third
party management and stakeholder relations. Over $500 million in Section 8 HAP funds have been
restructured and/or renewed under his supervision and $908 million in government assets have been
sold with his support.
As supervisor for Signet's contract in the HUD Mark to Market Program, Mr. Muhle provides
quality control in several areas including due diligence, underwriting and project submissions.
Mr. Muhle ensures that Signet's underwriting staff obtains the best information available on each
property and that the third party reports meet the scope of services required. Mr. Muhle also
reviews each submission for quality and consistency.
Mr. Muhle guides asset managers in the restructure of Section 8 affordable housing projects
nationwide. His skills with financial modeling, project management and valuation have been
instrumental in Signet's success in the program. He initiated and manages the timely contracting
of third party Appraisers and Physical Condition Assessment Inspectors. Mr. Muhle facilitates
negotiations between OMHAR/HUD, property owners, property managers, purchasers and other
interested parties including tenant organizations, local city and county governments and other
community representatives. He has coordinated the successful completion of over 300 Mark -to -
Market restructures from asset assignment through to closing; and in certain instances transfer of
assets.
Mr. Muhle assisted in the due diligence and sale of servicing rights and loans for the FDIC Sale
'98 contract, including participation in asset due diligence, financial analysis, valuation,
transaction management and closings for under/non-performing, secured/unsecured FDIC assets.
He performed data collection from loan files and servicer files/systems and analyzed servicer data
and status by loan type (conventional/government insured, delinquencies, WAC/WAM,
PSA/CPR) for asset valuation. In Signet's engagement with the HUD Mark -to -Market Program,
Mr. Muhle is responsible for asset due diligence, loan due diligence, historical and trending
analysis of audited and un-audited financial statements, and financing alternatives for numerous
Section 8 properties.
For the FDIC Sale '98 contract, Mr. Muhle assisted, through stratification and modeling, in
determining the value of nearly 9,000 financial assets, which included whole loans, servicing
rights, residual pieces and I/O streams. He assisted the marketing team in the preparation of
investor CD -based due diligence packages. During the bid period, he provided investors with due
diligence packages and responded to investor's inquiries via investor hotlines.
Relevant
ect
HUD OMHAR Mark to Market Program
US Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Office of Multi -Family Housing Asset
Restructure (OMHAR), Washington, D.C.
Comprehensive financial, market and physical
evaluation, loan restructure, and transaction
management for 300+ multifamily mortgages for
Section 8 subsidized multifamily housing projects.
1999 — Continuing.
FDIC Sale `98 Provided evaluation, transaction advisory and
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, closing functions as part of the sale of nearly 9,000
Washington, D.C. financial assets, including mortgage loans (2,845
assets, $35.8 million), servicing rights (4,930
assets, $682 million) and mortgaged backed
securities (60 transactions, 1,766 assets, $190.4
million). 1998-2000.
Employment History
a Vice President, Signet Partners (1998-present)
a Accouting Intern, HD Golf (September 1997 — May 1998)
Education and
a BS, Finance, Metropolitan State College of Denver
RICHARD G. BURD Qualifications
Colorado Certified General Appraiser
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
SIGNET PARTNERS, Greenwood Village, Colorado 2004 to Present
Real Estate Appraiser, Appraisal Reviewer & Consultant
RICHARD BURD APPRAISAL SERVICES, Broomfield, Colorado 1996-2003
Real Estate Appraiser, Appraisal Reviewer & Consultant
RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, Denver, Colorado 1990-1995
Senior Review Appraiser
Developed, managed and supervised the Asset Valuation and Appraisal Department for the
Denver Office of the RTC. The Denver Office had eventual responsibility for the assets of 43
failed thrifts with a total intervention book value of over $36 billion. Responsible for managing
the appraisal process conducted internally by the RTC, by the failed thrifts' conservatorship/
receivership and by over 30 asset management firms contracted to manage and dispose of
receivership assets.
• Chaired the RTC National Appraisal Policy Committee which provided authoritative
appraisal policy and procedure recommendations to the RTC for nationwide adoption.
Regarded as expert in hotel and resort appraisals. The Washington DC and other
Regional Offices specifically requested my involvement in the review of appraisals and
other valuations for high profile and/or complex hotel and resort properties.
• Served on the Derived Investment Value (DIV) task force. Provided authoritative
advice in final drafting of the hotel/resort properties portion of the model. The DIV has
since been adopted as the model for many private sector bulk asset disposition
events.
• Reviewed due diligence contracts for several the RTC's largest sales initiatives.
• Managed the Denver Office's Environmental Department through the period of
consolidation of the Phoenix and Denver Regional Offices into the Denver Office.
Oversaw the process of procurement of Environmental Site Assessments and Special
Resource Studies and regulatorily mandated environmental and special resource
reporting.
FEDERAL ASSET DISPOSITION ASSOCIATION 1989-1990
Denver Regional Office
Senior Review Appraiser/Regional Appraisal Manager
Formed, developed and had full management responsibility for the Appraisal Division of the
Denver Office of the FADA. Directed the assembly and maintenance of a qualified appraiser
panel and the procurement of appraisals of commercial real estate and collateral from 18 failed
thrifts in ten states with a total book value approximating $2 billion. Performed or managed
the reviews of all appraisals. Quality appraisals and reviews were central to the management
and disposition of the assets.
LAVENTHOL & HORWATH, Denver, Colorado 1985-1989
Associate Appraiser
Responsible for performing a full range of commercial real estate appraisals for the five state
region served by the Denver Office. Specialized in the appraisal of complex mixed use resort
and hotel properties due to combination of appraisal and lodging property management
experience. Served as Lead Hotel and Resort Appraiser.
BURD APPRAISAL SERVICES 1982-1985
Vice President
Appraised commercial real estate for clients including financial institutions, investors,
developers and attorneys.
D.B. MOTELS, INC., Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona 1978-1982
General Manager/Director of Operations
Managed and oversaw management of lodging and restaurant properties in Phoenix and
Tucson, Arizona including hiring and supervision of staff, advertising and marketing,
purchasing, budgeting and scheduling.
PINKERTON AND LAWS COMPANY, Phoenix, Arizona
General Manager
1974-1978
General Manager of newly constructed lodging and restaurant property. Achieved exceptional
net operating income results.
EDUCATION
Colorado State University
Bachelor of Science, 1973
VA
Pricing Schedule:
• Determine Capital needs
• Develop inventory of competitive projects with analysis
• Review Property management
• Perform rent structure analysis
• Perform financial analysis
• Explore alternative improvements to attract tenants
• Perform tenant surveys
Total
$29000.00
$29000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$29000.00
$19500.00
$1,500.00
$129000.00
This quotation is good for 90 days from date stated above (July 8, 2004).
Rehabilitation Needs for:
Sample Apartment
PAE Name: Signet Partners
Rehab Escrow Requirements (not Incl. Signif. Additions)
Cost of Rehabilitation
Engineering Study for Cracked Walls
Install weatherproof covers & GFI's @ roof outlets
$3,400
Remove evaporative coolers, install central air
Repair parapet walls
$10,000
Replace/upgrade windows
$0
Install timber retaining walls
$10,000
Rebuild parking lot
$52,000
Roof, older poly foam roof, incl rigid insulation (4)
$17,600
Forced air gas furnaces(only 5 units have originals)
$0
Other
$0
Other
$0
Other
$0
Other
$0
Other
$0
Other
$0
Other
$0
Other
$0
Other
$0
Other
$0
Other
$0
Other
$0
Other
$0
Other
$0
TOTAL OTHER REHABILITATION COSTS
$93,000
Describe Significant Additions
Cost of Sig. Additions
Other
$0
Other
$0
Other
$0
TOTAL SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONS COSTS
$Q
Current Model Progress/Stage Date: 2/1/2002
Property Age (Approximate Years): 35
Total 12 Month Rehabilitation Needs : I $93,C
Total Significant Additions: I $0
Rehabilitation Escrow Contingency %:
10.0%
Rehabilitation Escrow Contingency $ Amount:
$9,300
Total Rehab Escrow (All Needs + Reasonable Contingency):
$102,300
Significant Additions incl. Contingency (Cale Owner's S.A. Share (typ. 3%) on this):
$0
Rehab including Contingency (Calculate Owner's Rehab Share (typ. 20%) on this):
$102,300
" Owner's Share of Rehab Escrow: typically 3_/ of Significant Additions plus 20% of Other Rehab
" Owner's % Share of Rehab for Significant Additions: 3.0%
" Owner's % Share of Other Rehab; NOT incL Significant Addition 20.0%
"Owner's $ Amount Contribution to Rehab Escrow: $20,460
and Significant Addition Comments:
Is this classisfted as Substantial Rehabilitation? NO
Rehab Escrow Needs 7/8/2004 9:00 AM Kachina Rev 42 4.2I-03
?CA Needs 20 Ym Schedule
7/N200e 9:00 AM Kuching Rev 42 42143
PCA Needs 20 Year Sdc&lc 7M0909A0 AM ieu RevJ 2421-03
2ceserves tur xeplacemenr bcneaule
Sample Apartment
PAE Name: Signet Partners
Current Model Progress/Stage Date: 2/I/2002
Data:
Ctarem Replal= Reserve Baloinw
$8,705
Mticipated Reservo at Closing:
SI.001
Anticipated R4R Deposits (Pre Closing):
so
Anticipated Residual Receilas at Clueing:
SO
Mticipated R411. Withmawals (Pre -Closing):
$7,705
Mticipeted Surplus AccowNa at Closing:
SO
Mticipated'Exisd g R4R Balance at Closing:
SI,000.53
Ownees% Share ofStaplus Accmwta(up w 10%):
Owrrefs S Anaxwt Share of Surplus Accaars:
EO
Initial Deposit to Rrylacrnant Reserve (IDRR):
5487,000
First Year Reserve Deposit
S26,500
Reserve Accamt Int rat Raw: I.SOX
Reser.e Balance Fwa:
SIS 720
(Flom a Ix Deposit Q PAE Assi®urcnt Date)
Year I Y.ar3 year Y..r4 v...<
Year 9 Year 10
2011
2012
S49,63701
$52 0
$192,1904go
$177,848
$32,541
$33 87
so
$52,001
S2,755
S2,52897
$161,762
Reserves 20 Year Schedule 7/8/2004 9:00 AM Kachina Rev 42 4-21-03
Signet Partners:
Signet Partners is a Small Business that has operated in the federal and state
contracting arena since 1988. We have been contractors for RTC, FDIC, GSA, OPIC,
State of Colorado — Division of Housing, and HUD and currently are working as a
non-public PAE (Participating Administrative Entity) on the restructuring of the
Section 8 multifamily loans in the Mark to Market Program under HUD/OMHAR. In
this national program, we have teams working in 26 states.
Signet has successfully processed nearly 400 multifamily restructured assets through
the Mark to Market Program. Through this process, we have become extremely
familiar with the Section 8 voucher program and the public housing authorities across
the country. As part of these Mark to Market projects, Signet has reviewed tenant
qualifications, property management operations, inspected tenant units, applied
project physical needs to property reserve requirements, reviewed wait list
administration and selection as well as the special needs process. We have analyzed
project financials, have acted as a Rehab. escrow agent and fiduciary, are familiar
with agency regulations and compliance issues and have made corrective action
recommendations to HUD as a result of the project and management reviews. We
have worked with PHAs, owners and managers to implement these corrective
measures and have completed follow up compliance visits on behalf of HUD. We are
familiar and experienced in REAC, REMS, Owner Eligibility Certification as well as
SEMAP scoring.
Signet has completed studies for State of Colorado Division of Housing on a project
in Denver, Colorado which is experiencing vacancy problems and rents above
market. Signet analyzed the project and provided both management and financial
analysis and recommendations as to the debt the project was financially capable of
supporting. In addition, Signet worked with the current lender and tax credit
authority to determine future needs of the project.
We have experience with Enforcement Center guidelines and with troubled and near -
troubled PHAs. We have worked in all areas of compliance in developing corrective
action plans for PHAs and are skilled in review of Management Reports, Section 8
Administration, HAPs, and Management, Owner and Tenant Certifications.
Reserves for Replacement Schedule
Sample Apartment
PAE Name: Signet Partners
Current Model Progress/Stage Date: 2/l/2002
Year 11 Yeo 12 Year 11 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 11 ).,a, is Year 19 Year 20
Year of Re u[rement
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Totals IAvera
es
Inflated Annual PCA Needs
$48,715
$32,792
$38,897
$39.869ZS37,958
462
S42,415
S20,816
$111.328
S121,657
$1,212,524
S60,616
Be innin• Batance(e uah IDRR in Year1)
$161,762
$149,619
S154,235
$153689,215
S141,880
$141533
$163988
$96,663
N/A
$215745
Annual Reserve(R4R) Deposit from Pro .v Cash Flow
$34,255
$35,145
$36.059
$36,997
S39,958
$40997
$42,063
S43,156
$693789
$34,189
IRP &/or Out -Year S8 Foods for AddBional De sit to R4R
$0
$0
$0
$00
ES38,945
$0
SO
SO
SO
$0
SO
withdrewals(E seal to[united Annual PCA Needs[
S48,715
$32792
$38,897
$39869462
$42415
$20,816
$111,326
$121,657
S1,212 21
$60,626Interest
loco.,
$2,318
$2,262
$2,292
$2,28482
$2,110
S2,274
$1,940
$861
$60758
S3038Endin
Balance
S149,619
$154,235
$153.689
S153,100,880
S141,533
S163,988
$96,663
S19,024
N/A
$192,346
fndicitoreur Reserve Dude use
N/A
N/A
Reserves are Adequate in each Year
Yur II Ynr 11 Ynr 11 Y. 16 Year IS Ynr 16 Y r 12 Year la Yen 19 V., 20 AVERAGE
Inflated Nteds perUnit perAnuam $937 $631 S748 1 $767 $810 S970 $816 $400 $2141 1 $2340 1 $1166
Reserve Deposit perUdt perAsau. $659 $676 1 $693 1 $711 $730 S749 $768 $788 it $809 1 $830 1 $657
Reserves 20 Year Schedule 7/8/2004 9:00 AM Kachina Rev 42 4-21-03
Best Compatibles
auk)ed Preteens,
Compeortable 1
Conaparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Lake Park Towers
Crystal Toes
Forest to Park
Uni WSKY Commma
Eris Seuns Apartments
7621 Emcee Avarws, Cleveland, OII
13855 Superior Street Cleveland
16000 Terrace Road, Cleveland
13995 Superior Street Cleveland
1900 East 30M Street, Cleveland
Darla
OwrcM1
PAS
PAE
Fop'
OSVa
Dwale
Poe
PAE
Fool
OwesM1
OemsM1
PAE
PAE
Foot
O.wleYa
Omura
PAE
PAE
Fool
Unit Type I
Smefsd
ApprwNa
Apgar
Apprer
Apes
Fee
mN
Appeiaars
Appar
Apprar
PAE
mN
Appals
APpeor
Appries
Apra
PAE
rob
Appara
Appa
Appear
Appe
PAE
rib
Appeaser
Despite.
1 BedrpORl ( t Bath
Daamveon
Dewipfon
AjdaM
Desmp
AjdaM
ReeondNe
a
Drwiya.
Nostra
Ajdene
Remrdwd
a
Desmpim
Aldaera
Desm0.
Aiertra
ReconoW
a
Deserve.
Ajoewe
Desmp
AjMme
Rsmrdwe
a
LM Rera lRsatdedi
w
523
70
93
95
1
m
95
54M
i
550
SOD
Sw
Dale Lest Neas0
-00
A 3
.N-00
d0
A -03
A -00
A 3
Rm Cpreaaeiors
No
N
No
N
No
N
No
Y
2
2
MUratT
97%
96%
99%
5
100%
2
w%
5
S6K
2
99%
91%
Efeciw Rera/Rera s5 Ft.
5 0.78
.86
0.79
2
.83
Sburllae/Stories
ENvotorM
27
M7
12
E124
a
Eat
7
w
Yew Bull/Renovated
1912/INO-1.
INS
w
letwi 9
1
1964
20
1sel
3
IBIS
10
imw19aWF
IBIS
to
INS
CreloryStM eel
Fear
Avid
a 'w
10
20
2
Far
75
SenaW
4
Far
n
Sir1iW
a
Av438
T
simW
w
1
Nor w d
Average
Aversa
Avert a
Senator
Awn a
Show
Good
75
Srnelr
1
Same /AepeRIMW aS 'era
1'7t
Number M Bedrooms
1
1
Hber of Boma
1
1%Unit
interior . Ft.
4N
650
5
60
50
3
M
65
571
m
2
5
630
0
630
0
6w
i
6w
30
0
2
Balms atio
No
Yes
10
IN
4
Y
10
N
6
No
N
No
N
Ai Corhdtio : CMn"Mal
No
No
5
Yes
C
f0
10
7
Yes
N
3
No
N
3
R siRa ' valor
Yee
Yea
Yea
RF
Yes
w
Yes
RF
No
No
No
D
5
a
No
N
No
N
DI osal
Yes
No
2
6
No
2
9
No
2
4
No
2
4
Washer/D r
Ls Fadaes
No
No
L
No
L
N
L
Flop mverimmos
e1
sl
C I
Ca d
C
P Carpet
C
Come
w
Window coveraurs
No
Dr es
B
5)
($51
7
Drapes
B
S
5
10
Draous it
N
P
Drop.
B
S
5
Cabla/Salellae/Nternat
Cebu ereosnenr.Ns
Cl
rA
a
C
Special features
No
N
N
N
N
Parki ($ Fee)
LoMo Clare.
Yes
25
IA GRO
a
Yes
3251
I.M.WS
11
No
1./0 DOS
Year
W. G40
$S
$5
Eldra Storage
No
Adeowle
Y
5
5
Adequol.
N
Ad.,.'.
Y
5
5
Ade le
Y
5
Se
Yes
Y
Y
Y
Y
Clubhouse/eaeetir Rooms,
Meador Room
N
$5
$5
9
N
35
$5
12
N
$5
$5
5
N
5
5
Pou9Recrealim fiveas
Rs.Ane rNe mum
Yes
3
PR
5
10
10
Yes
3
PR
5
10
13
Na
N
15
$5
5
Yes
3
N
5
5
6
Busness CeMerMbad Network
No
N
N
N
Service Coordination
NO
N
11
N
N
6IMS42
J
Non-shaaer Services
No
N
N
14
N
/in ranl7a a
Yas/Ges
Gesn'es
Y/G
Hd Water/Y
Y/G
Ges/Y.
Yn
n in rent7a a
WA
12
lea:
15
.in in rent7t $
Ye I.c do
Doom.
$
SS
13
Geowe
10
NE
S5
$5
16
Gou A10
10
Y/E
7
5
S
a
Hol Water In rent7R a
Yu .
Yes
Yu
Y/G
Yes
Yea
Other Eletlric
Yea
No
10
13
No
26
N
10
$10
16
No
25
Y
710
/0
8
Cold Waler/Sewer
Yea
Yes
n
Yes
Y
Yes
Y
TasfyRecYtlbg
Yee
YY
Total Atl'usbnents
5]0
510
35
535
E63
$35E52
72Atl'uatetl
Rem
E455
E460
5460
5460
E513
5155
E460SNB
562E
er's Appraisers enl
5460
Footnotes
- Reconciliation
Footnotes
- Recondlalion
Footrwtes
- RMonncifation
Footnotes
- Recandfalion
PAE's raiser's Rent
5470
1. The owners stud✓s adlusmreM is mm�shlaml weh its
statemeM,'Soma obsolasewoo and deterioration is
asweialed wind older properties howaysr the diReranos
beMean me subject and comparables is negligible and
1. Rent apparently inaeased since Me owners study, The
more recent rant was used as the basis for analysis.
2. The owners studs adryamment slakes no Sense, a
vacancy is high, it wove Wooly be becoiss roves are toe
1. Rent apparently increased since Me owner's study. The
more recent rent was used as the bash for analyst.
2. slaeasing vacancy on i dicapr Mat rent Is too high.
3. PAE appraiser indicated Were is no AC.
1. Owner's stud✓s adjustments we too sWame. The photo. and
very high rant per square fact relative to the other imps,
provide Strong indications tat afoot 2*41trrents we
appropriate.
PAE', Adjusted Here Range
Sa28460
PAE'. Markel Rent 0.1ornainatiam
Comments:
/. The owners study had an effective date of April 14,
therefore mark a minkral adjusbneM.' $20 Is not a mineral
high. M umeand adjustment of SS. w8hout erplanalen, makes
4. See comment as for Comp 01.
2. Lester adsamlerd considered mot nasonable.
2000
adlusbreM and Me study did not kim* env ease related
two smwe. f anvtlnd, a downward adlustwma wild be
S. Small testaments art approprhb.
3. Adrsbs,nt forAC s samopnate.
2. The PAE appraiser repMed di ferinp information
ftnctonel or daleriara8m issues Mat world afferi rent.
appropriate. The PAE appraiser reported that the as p y is
6. The PAE appraises failed to provide a description Mote
4. Sao comment 06 for Comp at,
re aardwan rromr of Me axs,aablas'traits, c aracadstics.
2. This also oansiders vary ape wedW =.fiilon 6Rererlra.
SM.
'service 000rdnabW or support for any modest based
S. Srro1 ads surrona wo emanated.
and cortdetcre from tlese reported an the owners study.
3. The PAE soprshor reported that the square facials,
3. Ssa oamwM at for Comp a1.
a*nbnKVL
6. The PAE appeaser disputed the weds mWa reported
3. Correa a5 of it* owner's studywes Axdndld as Me
reported in Me owners shadywes vrrwan. The adarsmant Is
4. The o~s stud✓s adasmant does not make sense
7. PAE appraiser indicated that all utilities re Included.
randlbrt.
PAE appraiser ndcated it had tax credit and
based w the PAE waxers sin but the result Should be
Mvan this prcoerNs rant par square font relative to the other
8. The photo and rent par arguer, foot do not support an
7. The PAE appria failed to provide a description of the
Section 8 Subsidy teas.
tended to, the nearest 55. Market partidpares do not
imps. it anld not command s of the hiphest mares PSF If
adlustraK partio larlY ons of msorYpde.
'service 000rdnalm' or supportfpr wry market based
4.TM PAE appraiser selected market rent by using the
recoonin S1 increments.
leas in lesser pprmdtion.
aduebTem
sedan indicated rent This Is Sawed felwdCsw
4. PAE appraiser irhdtated Orly Me torpor units (2 A 3 BR)
S. PAE appraiser indicated the owner's study used the rise
S. The owner's shady applied the same adjusmwd to the
strpplantq masmnp with famlaic SOPNSVY.
in this propene haw balconies.
unit sin for this imp. AEkntreM should be mrgnded to the
1 BR urAs as to the 2 cod 313R units. Makes no same.
S. hoopNably. the PAE appraiser ind pled Comp S.
5. PAE appraiser indicated mils propeM has ou trel air.
newest $5.
Lives considered appropriate we used based on slbiect's
a pipped, tat it said was -not deenrd acceptable by
6. S a disposal is worth so Side in Me market Mat a 92
6. PAE appraiser indosd that only the low 2 SR and the
actual levels (common tea 6 ncreass, maiderad).
it, appeaser.' No adantneMs were made but an
anlusmmerd is made, Awanards no a*nwwe. Renters do
3 SR units have bakoniss.
Mao" rent Me son as Ind actual rent) was
not make such anal, $1 not rearat lnctkns. The
7. The owls s1W✓s adantmsawas based on its estimate
reported, it Is obvious Mat its borgw ndcele r rant
punned WUD 92273 form does not even include disposals as
of the doors I d value ofthe AC unis bed on m EGIM M
wan ioladed amply m the appose could Way
an adusbmnt category.
S.D. This is absurd and does not erodes the raasamie M
the memodology ofselectina the renew at the
7. Small adlustrnsM for widow coverings is appmcdate.
tersest,.
market nerd. This is mrnlved and makes no $Mass.
8. This adarmnentwould be appropriate orgy If weraps
8. /gain, to PAE appraiser reported the owls study info
pariing was included In the rork
to be Maned.
9. Small alfnwbrcM is appropriate.
9. Sao Comment a6 for Cam a1.
10. Pod adusmlre West than 93 or Is is appropriate. The
10. Small adbe m ant for window mverinOs is appropriate.
owners sews adusmant was based on is aawnsto M
11. This aduss ant would be appropriate only if as"
the depredated value of the meal dsbiubtl nand* over the
pwknas vas mole ed in the rent
units based on an EGM M 5. This is absurd and does not
12. Small adwmlyd Is appropriate.
inlet the torxie processes ofrerNan. They are not
13 Sae constant 010 for Cam at. Also. the PAE appraisers
bw V Me pad but assign a rent value to it es on amenity.
admmwe of SS Is too fog.
11. The PAE appraiser failed m provide a description of me
14, The PAE appraiser failed to provides a description More
'servics coordination' a support for wed market based
"service mord adW or support for any market based
adsebym*
12. AdaataM is appropriate as this tlWy cast is nduded
admts,nt.
15. Adrrahnsnt is appropriate as Me lily cost is inducted
in me rant
in the ant.
13. The oenah study aooied the son adusbneras Ma
16. The watNs shady applied tlhe wars, adwtrant o the
1 BR txMs at to the 2 W 3 BR nits. Makes no senss.
1 SR teals as to the 2 and 3 SR use. Makes no see.
Levels Lwnadered appropriate as used based on sblect's
Levels considered appropriate are used based on subject's
actual sues foommon wea 6 increases considered).
actor eves (caaron was a Morwases ccrsseredl.
Best Compara6les
n ma me
t wt ums ss m ma i ana a r>R urem. maaas n sane.
73. The o ees study appied the sm adlufbrrM m the
Levels cnasiduW appropriate are ned eased m submers
1 BR units as tp do 2 and 3 BR unb. Makes rm sane.
acbM levels (pprmmn area a invaasas considered).
Levels emsk red acp rifts are used based m subiscro
actua( levels (cammn area a nmtases wnsidered).
Best Comparables
subject Property
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Lake Park Texan
Crystal Towns
Forest HE Park
University Caravans
Erie Sewn Aparfinente
7621 Euetd Avenue, Cleveland, OH
13855 Superior Street Cleveland
16000 Terror Road. Cleveland
13995 Superior Street Cleveland
19M East 30th Street Cleveland
Cwwrs
OswM1
PAE
PAE
Foot
Ores
Omar.
PM
PAE
Foos
Carina
Omar*
PM
PAE
Fool
Dwwrf
Owwra
PM
PAE
Fool
Unit Type 3
Sulam
Appraises
Appear
Appraiser
Apgar
PM
nse
Appeg"
Apper
Aplpreiser
Appear
PAE
role
ApprNe
App r
Appraiser
Apprsr
PAE
tame
Apprah
Apgar
Appraiser
Appm
PAE
role
3 Bedroom / 1 Bath
Dsaipam
Deampaon
Aliases!
Dswip.
steams
Ramseed
a
Deempim
Aldawo
Dsvit.
Always
Reconciled
a
Desension
Ajoided
Dsaalp.
AtMd
Remrciled
a
Dimension
Pissarro
Damp.
AjrNe
Recessive
a
LMRrelli andedt
750
mo
a00
05
740
740
1
650
1
7se
700
700
1
Dale Loss! eased
r-00
Feb01
JddO
Men-01
A oo
r-00
Men01
Rena Cwwwipr
No-
N
No
No
No
N
fp.WIT
ales
97%
09%
95%
2
90X
5
RE
10
2
99%
95%
ReatRM r5 FL
03a
14 0.65
2
7 .a3
9A
Struchve! Slofias
EwwaN
27
FI2)
12
ER4
a
]
Fll
Yew Bull I Remarnmed
191211950.1.
INS
20
Wall
1
less
20
INS
3
INS
3
IBIS
10
INS
Fair
Ay d
Suwhor
10
20
2
Fair
75
Simylar
4
Fair
75
10
Av d
fS751
Simian
20
2
Noolaterrotid
Awns
Avera a
Similar
Amore
sims,
Average
Sirriler
Good
fS751,
61mir
IS201
2
Same Marko /Mbs to Smd
No!
N5
IDs
Wi
Number of Sedroo s
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
50
Number of Baths
1
1
2
15
20
3
1
2
11205
1
L5
10
1
4
t
1
Unit nteriorS. Ft.
743
137)
125
1 71
108
tID
4
1135
60
1135
56
1100
55
i/W
8
50
5
750
10
NO
0Balcon
/Patio
No
Ys
t0
N
10
5
Ys
10
N
7
No
N
No
N
Adr Conditime : CentralWati
No
No
C
10
20
6
Yes
C
10A
Ys
N
No
W
10
1
3
R e/Re ' eratr
Ys
Yes
RF
Ys
RF
Yee
RF
Ys
RF
Mittowave/Dishwasher
No
No
N
No
D
9
No
N
No
N
Disposal
Ys
No
2
7
No
$2
No
t2
No
1 S2
Washer/Dryer
La,ndryFmr1.
No
L
No
L
No
L
No
L
Floor coverin s
Ciowi
I Camel
C
Carrot
C
Carpel
C
Comes
C
Window coverinqs
No
On ,
B
5)
($151
8
Draws
B
5
15
10
Dap.
N
Drop.
It
5
fo
4
Cabl"atelHe/hlemet
C.., Isemet wiwbia
Cl
a
Cl
d
Special features
No
N
N
N
N
Parkino(S Fee)
Yes
LA. Gn_0
Yu
LA.G/10-25
No
LA. ri25
Y.
IA GNO
EAra Slora a
No
Ads,..
N
Adeµwhe
N
Ad,,I,
N
Ad.le
N
qiactirty
Ys
Y
v
Y
V
ClubhouseuMeating Room
MbeEno Room
N
$5
5
9
N
$5
5
11
N
$5
5
6
N
5
PooMReelealion Pleats
Wc.wnlW 1
Vee
31
PR
$5
15
10jj
PR
$51
15
12
No
N
$5
$0
]
Vs
3
N
S
$0
5
Business Center/Nbad Network
No
N
N
N
N
Service Coordination
No
N
$5
11
N
N
$5
8
N
5
6
Non shah., Cervices
No
N
N
$5
13
N
N
',at (in rent? par
ys/Gr
GuNs.
M
Y/G
Galas
YIG
NW Weler/1'
YA?
sin tin lenl7A !
WA
Y/G
$101
151
12
YIG
10
10
14
WE
.kin inrent7m a
Yese:lecinc
Gaemo
$to
NE
35
$5
13
NVE
5
5
15
Gaemo
$to
M
9
Gawp
$to
NE
$5
$5
7
Hot Water in renl7lT a
vWGs
Yes
YM
Y/G
Ys
M
Yes
M
Other Electric
Yes
No
S25
N
$10
S%
13
N
$to
$s5
15
No
925
Y
9
w
sm
N
10
$45
7
Cold Wale!/Sewer
yes
Yu
Y
v
Yee
Y
Ys
Y
Trash/Recyding
vs.
Y
V
V
Y
Total Ad'usbnants
E121
5138
b165
S80
5105
ESB
543
E70
$116
S15
S20
Adjusted Rent
5628
$662
Sfi35
$660
Sfi35
5658
$607
5580
$634
5715
5720
Owners APpr... ... s enI
$680
F..tnoles-Reconmiati.n
Footnotes
- Reconciliation
Footnotes
- Reconciliation
Footnotes-
Recondlialbn
PAE's Aopaiser's Rent
5612
1. The owners studys adiwtment is inconsistent with its
Statement 'So. obsolescence and deterioration b
associated wilt older properties however the difference
between the subject and com parables is neolmble and
1. Hlphsr rent re0oned by the PAE appraiser. The more recent
rent was used n this analysis.
2. The owners studyadjustment makes no sense. ff
vacancy is high, it would logically be because rents we ten
1. Higher rent reported by the PPE apPraiser. The more recant
ran was used in this analysis.
2. Increasing vacancy is an indicator that rant is too high.
3. Owners study, made an adikabnuM for this to the other
1. Rent apparently, deceased since to oversee study. The
more record rent was wed as the basis for analysis.
1. Owners studyadjusmwnts we too oarame. The photo, and
very Nqh ram per spume fool relative to the other ramps,
PAE's Miusled Rent Range
580 720
PAE'S Market Rent Determination
E580
Comments:
1. The owners study had an effective dale of A0d 14,
therefore mart a nrnimal adiusOnenl.' S20 is not a minimal
hiph. M upward adiush si nt of $5. without explanation, makes
unit types but not hare. What chanoed7
provide strong indratias that s®ble adarMwds are
2000
adjustment and the Study did not i lore fy any age related
no sense. If anything, a downward adiusbrwa would be
4. PAE appraiser indicated there are 1.5 baths. A former
appropriate.
2. The PAE appraiser reported diftenp information
functional or deterioration home, that would affect rent.
appropriate. The PAE appraiser reported that the occupancy is
ad'Nstrem should be applied than to the 2 OR uu type.
3. Adlusbnunt for AC is appropriate. It should be Iwger
regardng many of the comparables'taka, clureclariStin,
2. This also considers any age related condition difforenn.
95%.
5. PAE appraisers a?IusMenl Is considered more reasonable
tan the adiwtwld made W the 1 OR unit type.
and conditions from those reported in the owners study.
3. PAE appraiser reported that this prWerNs 3 OR un8s
3. Sea continental for Comp at.
but should be rounded to to nearest $5.
4. A4wbnent for window wymnow is appropriate. t should be
3. Comp 05 of the owners study was excluded as the
have 2 bathrooms. M sera bathroom is worth more tun the
4. The m neys shdy's 8dju4trment does not make sense
6. Small ad mbront is appropriate.
targor than to adwtrmrt made to Use 113R unittype.
PPE appraiser indnted it had lax credit and
$15 a4wbronl made In the 2 BR unit type.
given Me properlys rare par same foot relative to to other
7. Adaswent is appropriate and should be lager than that
S. Ad wbront for tit lack of recreational amnmides should
Section 8 subsidy units.
4. PAE appraisers Masers nt is more reasonable but
comma. S Count nor connand ma etthe hW.A rents PSF ff
made to the 2 OR unit type.
be larger then that made a the, 1 OR unit type.
4.The PAE appraiser selected market rent by mind the
shard be rounded N the nearest S5.
itwas in fellow condition.
S. The PAE appraiser hied to provide a description of the
6. The PPE appraiser failed to provide a dasription of tha
median indicated rent This Is flawed methodabpy
5. The PAE appraiser noted that this prooWs 3 OR units
5. PAE appraiser reported that this props mars 3 OR units
'service Coadwtion' or support for any market based
'service raor6raton' or support for any market based
supplanting roasonnp with formulaic sophistry
have bakanin but aid not report it on the 92273 form or
have 2 badvooms. M slate, bathrocq is wont more than to
adMsbrmt
adastrmant.
5. Inexplicably, the PPE aconler included Come, S,
a4ust for this (ease.
S15 adNathent made m the 2 OR unit two.
9. PAE appraiser indicated that as wli ies are khtllded.
7. The owpers wry applied the same adusurm t N the
a property Nat it said vyas'not deemed accept" by
6. AC adasssunt should be preater than tpsa made to the
6. PAE appraisers sedglethe t is considered more reasonable.
10. The photo and rent pa sown foot do not support an
1 OR units as 10 the 2 and 3 BR units. Makes no sense.
the appraiser.' No ad'wse rent Were made bar an
1 BR and 2 BR unit types.
7. The PAE appraiser noted that this property's 3 OR nits
adanbrent particularly one of this magnitude. This
Lavers considered appropriate pea used based on sbierYs
ndtatad rem the same as the aced rare) was -
7. Market participads do rot rerarin $2 adualmants.
have balconies but deed not report it on the 02273 farm Pr
cramp's 3 OR War have the hylhmt rent per sure foot of
aced levers (common tea a increased, considered).
reported. t is obvious that its bows Tndpated'rent
8. ACasua d for window coverings is appropriate bar a
adast for this lease.
am of lee carps.
was included simply, so the appraiser could totes,
should be lamer than td made to the 1 Is 2 OR rsa types.
8. AC adiusbronl shoal be laeaser than those made to the
Ithe nrtlpdologY of selecting the median as ON
9. Adasnent Is appropriate.
1 OR and 2 OR unit types.
inarnt rent. This Is contrived and makes M sere.
10. Pod Is Imre important to 3 OR unit tanwnts than i OR
9. Man. the PAE appraiser reported to owners study nle
(Both appraisers nckwled Como, 04 from Ind Unit Two 2
and 2 OR tenants.
h be incortect Adishwasher commands more than $10 in a
.analysis avert t osph it"a the same 2 BR tee used in
11. The PAE woraisor failed to provide a description of the
3 OR unit.
the 2 BR ardysis. it was not co nskWed nleywd for
'service mc6uton' or suppm for wry market based
10. ASasbT*M for window coverings is appropriate but it
,hMosas of this analysis when 3 OR War an available.
adhad mrnt.
should be larger than that made to the 1 a 2 OR unit time.
it produced to Nphesl indicated mat of env comparable
12, Adaamwnt is. appropriate as dos utility met is included
11. Small adlutmrd is appropriate.
(5794) in tit PAE appnleses analysis rd second
in the rant. t should be tester then the miksbmrd made to
12. Pool is more, important to 3 OR we tends Nan 1 OR
hidaet rere (5704) in the comes shdy.
to 2 OR unit We.
and 2 BR tenses.
13. The owweee she* applied the sm adjwfinent to the
13. The PAE anpraleer fMod to provide a description of the
1 OR units as to this 2 and 3 OR lab. Makes m senue.
'saMca cpprdnatlon'r support for any market based
Levels considered appropriate we wit bash on subjects
ackonrd.
actual levels (common arse 6 increases ecuMwed).
14. Adi smanl Is aooreriete as Via hasty coal is included
in the rub
15. The owners sedy applied to set adust rd to the
1 OR Lines as to to 2 and 3 OR wits. Makes rat Manua.
Levels considered appropriate we wad based on stblecCs
acid levels (common area a nrnasm considered).
Income and Expense Input Assumptions
Current Model Progress/Stage Date: 2/1/2002
Sample Apartment
PAE: Signet Partners
Trending should begin at the start of the most recent historical financial audit.
Historic Income and Expense Assumptions
Rental Income Trending Rate: 2.60%
Commercial Ltcome Trending Rale: 2.60%
First of Three Audited Years: 1999
YTD Thru End ofMonlh #: 9
Typical Historical Data Reflect the Year Beginning: 1/1/2001 (Start Trending)
Other Income Trending Rate: 2.60%
Proposed
Closing Date. 5/30/2003 (Cease Trending)
Real Estate Tax Trending Rate: 2.60%
Approximate Months Trended. 29
Operating Expense Trending Rate: 2.60%
Projected Income and Expense Assumptions
M2M Mininum Rates: Residential Vacancy, 5%. Residential Bad Debt, 2%. Comm'[ Vacancy, 10%. Comm'l Bad Debt, 5%.
Apartment Vacancy Rate (project based): 10.00%
Apartment Vacancy Rate (tenant based): 10.00%
Apt. Bad Debt Rate (project based): 8.00% Annual Management Fee $ (project based):
ApG Bad Debt Rate (tenant based): 8.00% Annual Management Fee $ (tenant based):
$19,500
$19,500
Pre -Rest. Average Apartment Vacancy %: 7.16%
Pre -Rest. Average Apartment Bad Debt %: 4.39% Pre -Restructure Average Management Fee:
$22,950
Commercial Vacancy Rate (project based): 10.00%
Comm [ Bad Debt Rate (project based): 5.00% Annual Project
Based Mgmt Fee as % of EGL•
9.06%
Commercial Vacancy Rate (tenant based): 10.00%
Comm 7 Bad Debt Rate (tenant based): 5.00% Annual Tenant Based Mgmt Fee as % of EGL•
9.06%
Pre-Restr. Average Comm 7 Vacancy %: 0.00%
Pre-Resir. Average Comm ! Bad Debt %: 0.00% Ist Year of Pro Forma (after Restructuring):
2003
PCA/2nd Pro Forma Inflation Rates and 2nd Pro Forma Cash Flow Split:
Current Year OCAF: 1 2.60%
Capital Needs Inflation Rate: 2.50%
Likely longterm future OCAF: 1 2.60%
Other Income Inflation Rate: 2.60%
Likely Long Term Future OCAF must be entered
Expense Inflation Rate: 1 2.60% 1 Inflation rates are not consistent with LLTF OCAF.
2nd Mortgage Split % to HUD: 75%
Please discuss rate variance(s).
Statute Requires at least 75%
Comments: Enter here.
Input Assumptions 7/8/2004 9:00 AM Kachina Rev 42 4-21-03
Historic Income and Expenses for:
Sample Apartment
PAE: Signet Partners
Use Audited Information as Provided in Cite Audited Financial Statements. Use the Historic CapRepairs Deduction page for such expense tracking.
Current Model Progress/Stage Date: 2/1/2002
1999 Audh 2000 Audit 2001 Audit 2002 YTD Annuaized
Actual Actual Actual 9Month Annualized
Year Ends:
Typical
SAnd
1/l/2002
Historical
LUuit/Yr
Year Ends:
TYP. Hittoricd
SAnI
5/28/2004
Trended
5/Udt/Yr
PAE Line It.. Speriffe Cormorant
Rental Income
Ruidential.
Swim 8 Project -Based
Toom Ponion
Unassisted
St. &courrnci.l-
Pik, F&E, Fla Sub., Misty
Total Rental Income:
$292,419
$89,661
s0
$0
s0
$382,080
$258,030
$124,050
$0
so
$0
$382080
$233,044
$127,636
so
so
$0
$360,680
$106,887
$110,425
s0
$0
$0
$217}312
$142,516
$147,233
$0
$0
$0
$289,749
$142,516
$147,233
$0
so
$0
$289,749
$2,741
$2,831
s0
$0
so
$5572
$151,439
$156,452
s0
so
so
$307 91
$2,912
S3,009
$0
so
$0
$5.921
For estimating historic trended
For estimating historic trended
For estimating historic trended
In November of 2001 there was a decrease in rents due HUD approved rent
adustmems.
Vacancies: Enter as Negative
Aparimnts-
Funiine&Fquiprrani-
Stour & Commercial-
Garage & Parking Spaces.
Mu¢llanmut Concessions.
Total Vacancies.
($12,531)
$0
$0
so
so
$12,531
($31,992)
$0
so
$0
so
$31,992
($35,476)
SO
so
so
$0
$35,476
($41,890)
SO
so
so
so
$41,890
($55,853)
SO
$0
$o
$0
$55,853
($35,476)
$0
so
$0
so
$35,476
($682
$0
so
$0
so
$682
($37,6
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$37,697
($7
$Q
$0
so
$0
so
$725
Vacancies increased in 2UUU and 2OU I due to higher eviction rate coupled with
a change in policy at the Human Resources Office in Winslow limiting rental
assistance to one time per year. The vacancies at that time required substantial
rehabililation which takes longer to accomplish in this remote area (venders are
not readily available). Also limited funds in the replacement resmes delay
rehabililation and occupancy. Cutrently there are 5 snits that are not rentable
due in limited funds. These units will be brought back to tenable units through
the Rehabilitation Ecsrow.
NO Rental lncenrr.
her Income & Bad Debt
Laundry &Vending.
Decreases & Cleaning Fee-
Apanmmt Bad Debt -Enter as Net.
Camrrncid Bad Debt- Enter as Neg.
NSF &lase Charges, Otte-
etal Other lnrome:
$369,549
$0
so
($13,970)
SO
$13,09'
$878
$350,088
$o
s0
($6,440)
$0
S3,569
f$2.871
$325,204
so
$0
($28,207)
SO
$17,328
$10879
$175,422
$0
so
($14,170)
SO
$0
$14,170
$233,896
s0
$0
($18,894)
$0
s0
$18,894
$2549273
$o
so
(S28,207)
$0
$8,000
$20,207
$4,890
so
s0
($542)
$0
$154
$389
S270,194
$0
$0
($29,973)
$0
$8,501
$21,472
$5,196
s0
$0
(S576)
$0
$163
$413
As indicated above (vacancies), a new policy at the Human Resources Office
in Winslow causes mote turnover appartme ns. Therefore, bad debt has
increased.
The combination of less bad debt and a decreased amount of NSF & Late
Charges accounted for the decrease in Other Income in 2000. The PAE
decreased the 2001 charges as it is not stable income and to be more
conservative.
FFECTIVE GROSS INCOME
$368,671
$347,217
S314,325
$161,252
$215,003
$234,066
$4,501
$248,722
$4,783
Historiclnc&Exp 7/8/2004 9:00 AM Kachina Rev 42 4-21-03
19"Audit
Aetuvl
$65
$0
s0
S46
$6,627
s0
S25,229
$14,973
$7,848
$4,145
s4,180
$3,120
s0
s0
$1,427
$42,431
$67660 1
$0
$0
$18,440
$3,829
$14,457
$9,444
$0
$46,170
$35,654
$52,704
$8,321
So
$0
$13,902
$0
SO
so
$0
so
so
so
20H Audi(
Actual
$C
$o
$0
s0
$6,355
So
$23,249
$19,275
$7,848
$3,527
$4.850
$3,120
s0
SO
$1,042
$46,017
$69,266
$0
$0
$22,176
$3,904
$15,601
$8,319
$0
$507000
$35,236
S50,100
$10,795
$0
so
S14,086
$0
s0
$o
so
$0
so
so
t 2001 AudR
2002VTDAnnualised
Typkal
Historical
yUniVYr
Tv. Htoried
5Amt
Trended
yUnit/yr
rk Comments
-1
Actual
S35
$0
$0
$0
$7,969
s0
$20,371
$22,101
$7,420
$7,561
$4,500
S3,120
s0
SO
$1,472
S54,178
$74,549
$0
s0
$22,176
$2,956
$21,220
$9,664
so
$56,016
$24,275
$46,680
$7,998
$0
so
$14,062
so
$0
$0
$0
$0
so
so
9Momth
$31
$0
so
$303
$5,576
$0
$11,906
$17,110
$4,174
$4,059
S 1,500
$2,340
s0
s0
$3,461
$38,553
$50,459
$0
s0
$18,477
$2,140
$20,378
$7,203
$0
$48,198
$0
SO
so
$0
So
$0
$0
SO
so
so
S0
$0
so
Annualized
=S7
$35
so
so
$0
$7,969
s0
$20,371
S22,101
$7,420
$7,561
$4,500
$3,120
s0
$0
$1,472
$54,178
$74,549
$0
SO
$25,000
$2,956
$27,500
$9,664
so
$65,120
$24,275
$46,680
$7,998
$0
so
$14,062
so
SO
so
$o
$0
$0
so
drain. Exps
Adeertising•
Section 8 Admix Exps:
Other Admin. Exps:
Ones: salaries.
OHieesupplies-
ORcemblodel Apl.Rent.
Management Feu
Management or sup.. Sal.-
Mgmt. or Sup.. Free Rent Unit-
Legal Expema(Pmjw)-
Auditing Exps. (Project).
anukkeping FeestArn. Services-
Telephone& A., S..
Employee Training-
Miseellmevm Admin. Exps-
Total Admin. Les Management Far:
Total Admin. Ex :
Utilities Expense
Fud OiVCoal-
Fur( for Domestic Ha Water.
Electricity (Light & Mist. Pow.)-
Wain-
Gas-
�^<*-
Other Gtils.
At M ExpeUtffitks Expanses Exins.,
Jailor& Clean Payton-
Janitor&pees Supplies-
Jm oe&Clean contra.-
Extamin. Payroll/Conw.-
Ext.mumting Sspplies-
Garbage & Truth Renrovd•
security PayrolVConaaa-
Grounds Payroll-
Grounds supplies-
Grounds Coma-
Repairs Payroll-
Repairs Material-
Repdts Construct-
$41
$0
$o
S403
$7,434
$0
$15,875
$22,813
$5,565
$5,412
$2,000
$3,120
$0
$0
$4,615
$51,405
$67,279
so
$0
$24,636
$2,853
S27,171
$9,604
SO
$64.263
$0
$O
$0
SO
$0
$o
so
$0
so
$o
$0
so
so
$1
$0
$0
$0
$153
s0
$392
$425
$143
$145
$87
$60
$0
$0
$28
$1,042
$1.434
s0
$0
S481
$57
$529
$186
$0
$1.252
S467
$898
$154
so
$0
$270
$0
SO
$0
$0
$0
$o
$0
$37
$o
so
$0
$8,468
s0
$21,647
$23,485
$7,885
$8,034
$4,782
$3,315
$0
$0
$1,564
$57,570
$79,217
s0
$0
$26,565
$3,141
$29,222
$10,269
soTotal
$69.197 1
$25,795
S49,603
$8,499
$0
$0
$14,942
$o
$0
so
so
$0
so
so
$1
$0
so
$0
$163
$0
$416
$452
$152
$155
$92
$64
$0
s0
$30
$1,107
$1.523
$0
$0
$511
$60
$562
$197
$0
$1.331
$496
$954
$163
$0
so
$287
so
$0
so
$o
so
so
so
Majority of advertsing is handled through flyers sent to local agencies and free
advertisement in the Reminder (community paper). The owner indicated there
are some cost to send the flyers average of $35 per year. Therefore the PAE
selected 2001 as the typical year.
In 1999, $46 was paid for additional office help. The year-to-date also
indicates $303 for office help. The owner indicated the $303 was to help with
the M2M program and the account is not a te-occuring expense. Therefore, the
PAE did not include this expense.
Changes in regulations (HUD and Management) and increased compliance &
repporting. A large expample is Income Targeting, caused additional forms and
supplies to be used in 2001. Therefor, the PAE used 2001 as the typical year.
As indicated above the property experienced a higher vacancy rate causing
additional legal expenses. Therefore, the PAE selected Year 2001 as the
typical year.
The owner indicated there were additional cost related to the electronic
submission of the audited financials. The cost issue was resloved in 2001,
therefore, the PAE used 2001 as the typical year.
Arizona Public Service indicated there was an increase in July 1 ,2002 of 1.5%.
Therefore, the PAE used $25,000 to cover this incense.
Arizona Public Service indicated there was an increase in July I ,2002 of 1.5%.
Therefore, the PAE used $27,500 to cover this incense.
The owner indicated, a change in staRallowed the management company to
hire a new maintentance person at a lower rate and uses the employee 3
bedroom a artment. Therefore, the PAE selected the 2001 as the ical
The owner indicated fewer supplies were ordered in 2001 due to less rental
income. The owner also indicated the property can financially tun at the lower
rate. Therefore, the PAE selected 2001 as the typical
The owner indicated the reduction in 2001 was due to less rental income. The
owner also indicated the property can financially run at the lower rate.
Therefore, the PAE selected 2001 as the typical year.
Historiclne&Exp 7/8/2004 9:00 AM Kachina Rev 42 4-21-03
1999 Audit
2000 Audit
ActualActual]9Montd
2901 Audit
2002 VTD Annudired
Annualtud
Tv Ical
$Amt
Historicd
StUo1Wr
T . Historical
SAnd
Treaded
S/UnittYr
PAE Line Item SPnifk ContinuantsActual
Elevnor Mainicnacer/Contraci-
HVACR&M.
Poal MaintttuncdConaad-
S. Renovul.
lkcorating PaymlOContnct-
Decorating Supplies-
Out"Expemes-
Misc. 0& M Expcurea-
Neighbmhtwd Network-
otal0&ME ran:
s0
$5,711
so
$0
$0
$0
SO
$0
SO
SI16,292
$0
$15,238
$0
$0
$o
$0
s0
so
s0
5125,455
$0
$19,026
s0
$0
$o
SO
s0
$0
$0
S112,041
so
SO
s0
$o
$O
SO
$0
$o
$45,931
$45,831
$0
SO
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$61,108
$61,108
s0
$5,000
$0
$0
so
$0
$0
so
$0
$98,015
$0
$96
s0
$0
$0
SO
so
$0
s0
$1,885
s0
$5,313
$0
s0
so
s0
SO
so
$0
5104,152
s0
$102
SO
$0
so
s0
s0
so
$0
$2,003
The owner indicated in 2000 and 2001 a significant amount of duck work
replacement was required (Aprox. $12,000 in 2001). The replacement of the
duck work will be done through the Replacement Reserve. Therefore, the PAE
used$S000 astypical.
The year-to-date expenses for O&M can not be put in the same chart of
accounts for the audited, thereforethe PAE indicated the total amount
Historiclne&Exp 7/8/2004 9:00 AM Kachina Rev 42 4-21-03
Actud
$6,377
$4,875
$16,508
$5,224
$3,468
$4,129
SO
$0
$0
$0
so
$40,581
-•----'-'
Acual
$5,719
$5,031
$16,461
$5,107
$323
$3,279
$4,713
$0
$0
so
$o
$40,633
----------
Actual
$5,520
$4,438
$9,084
$5,780
$117
$3,018
$5,782
$o
$0
so
$0
$33,739
n ......^nmmazoa
9 Mo.
$8,550
$4,052
$5,492
$7,650
$0
$711
$7,366
SO
$0
s0
$o
$33,820
I Annualized
$11,400
$5,402
$7,323
$10,200
$0
$948
$9,821
$0
$0
so
so
$45,094
It typical
SAmI
$8,280
$4,438
$9,084
$5,780
$117
53,018
$5,782
$0
So
s0
so
$36,4919
HbtorWl
S/Udt/Yr
$159
$85
$175
$111
$2
$58
$111
$0
$0
So
so
$702
I� iyp. Firm
SAmt
$8,798
$4,716
$9,653
$6,142
$124
$3,207
$6,144
$0
$0
so
$0
$38,784
aI Trended
5/Ueit/Yr
$169
$91
$186
$118
$2
$62
5118
$0
SO
$0
$0
$746
PAE Line Item Speelrfe Comments
To. A,Imuruee
Real Estate Tax.-
Payroll Tax. (FICA)-
Misc Taxes, Limner,&Parrots-
Property& Liability huuran.
Fidelity Bond hnuraneo-
worlmirn•s Compensation.
Health ins.& Otber Emp.Benefas.
Fire/Hazard (raw ind in Prop&Liab)-
Flood (no, already ind in Prop&Liab).
Boil. (not already inel in Prop&Liab)-
GwerwnrmeN
mal Taxea&Imanna:
e PAE contact avalo ounty Treasurers Ice, ( . 24.41 ), t Ie
indicated the taxes have remained stable of the past three years. They indicate
that timing of when the taxes are due effect the audited. They indicated
$8,279.50 in property taxes from November 1, 2001 to May 1, 2002.
Therefore, the PAE used $8,279.50 for the typical year. Please find property
tax coupon in supporting documents, for review.
Elderly & Congregate Service Expenses
Total Servim Expenses.
ohlElderN&Can .Sere. Ea emea
$0
$0
$o
$0
$0
$0
$0
$o
$0
SO
$O
SO
$0
SO
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES:
NET OPERATING INCOME:
Replacement Reserver
ADJUSTED NET OPERATING INCOME
$2�7�0.7033
597968
$18,720
$79 48
$� 285�
S 1,863
$I8,720
$43,143
S�'34�
S 7980
$18,720
519,260
5178,306
(517,056)
SI8,720
$35776
$237744
($22,741)
$24,960
547,701
$274183
$40117
$18,720
$58,837
$5 73
$771
$360
$1131
$291 50
$42,628
$19,892
$62 20
$5,603
$820
5383
$1202
DEBT SERVICE
FIRST MORTGAGE DEBT SERVICE:
IST MORT. INS. PREMIUM(MIP):
IRP TO IST DEBT SERV.(Enter ns Neg.):
SECOND MORTGAGE DEBT SERVICE:
THIRD MORTGAGE DEBT SERVICE:
TOTAL MORTGAGE DEBT SERVICE:
ld Mortgage DSCR:
$34,320
$0
$0
SO
$o
$34,320
231
$34,320
51,236
$0
$0
$O
$35,556
1.21
$34,320
$1,136
$0
$0
$0
$35,456
0.54
$25,740
$1,665
$0
SO
SO
$27,405
-1.31
$34,320
$2,220
SO
$0
SO
$36,540
-1.31
$34,320
$1,136
$0
$0
SO
$35,456
-1.66
$660
$22
So
s0
SO
$682
NAP
$34,320
$1,136
SO
SO
$0
$35,456
-1.761
$660
$22
SO
$0
$0
$682
NAP
Histmiclnc&Exp 7/8/2004 9:00 AM Kachina Rev 42 4-2 t-03
Surplus Cash Calculations
CASH
Cash Accounts 1110,1120,1191,1192
$0
$0
$0
$p
Tenant subsidy vouchers due for period
covered by financial statement
$0
$0
$0
$0
Other Describe
$0
$0
SO
$0
TOTAL CASH
I $0
I $0
$0
$0
OBLIGATIONS
Accrued Mortgage Interest
$0
$0
$0
$0
Deficient Tax / Insurance / MIP Escrow
$0
$0
I $0
$0
Delinquent Reserve Deposits
$0
$0
SO
$0
Accounts Payable due within 30 days)
$o
$0
SO
$0
Loans and Notes Payable (due within 30
days)
$0
$0
$0
$0
Prepaid Revenue
$0
$0
$0
$0
Utility Allowances able to tenants
$o
$0
$0
$0
Capital Recovery Pa is Accrued
$0
$0
$0
$p
Accrued Expenses not escrowed
$0
$0
$0
s0
Tenant Security Deposits Liability
Account2191
$0
$0
$0
So
Prepaid Rents Account 2210
$0
$0
$0
$o
Insurance Proceeds
$0
$0
$0
$0
Other Describe
$o
$0
$0
$0
Other Describe
$0
$0
$o
$u
Omer Describe
$o
$o
$0
$o
Omer Describe
$0
$0
SO
$o
TOTAL OBLIGATIONS
$o
$0 I
$0 I
$0
SURPLUS CASH (DEFICIENCY)
$0
$0 1
$0 1
$0
Historiclnc&Exp
7/8/2004 9:00 AM Kachim Rev 42 4-21-03
Relevant Experience:
HUD OMHAR Mark to Market
Program
US Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Office of Multi -Family Housing
Assistance Restructure (OMHAR),
Washington, D.C.
Contact: Mr. Van Vincent
(312) 886-4133 ext. 2501
Kittyhawk/Canterbury Apartments
Colorado Division of Housing
1313 Sherman Street, Room 518
Denver, CO 80203
Contact: Mr. Pat Coyle
(303)866-4123
Gateway Village Apartments
Recapitalization Project
Rocky Mountain Mutual Housing
Authority
Denver, Colorado
Contact: Mr. Dennis Malone
(303)863-8651
Description
Comprehensive fmancial, market and
physical evaluation of apartment properties
under the Section 8, subsidized housing
Mark to Market Program. Technical
assistance to OMHAR in the development
of an analytical model, methods, processes
and procedures for properties with
complex restructuring issues. To date,
nearly 400 properties have been served.
Provide market assessment for evaluating
rental rates, vacancy and neighborhood
trends. Provide a physical needs review to
determine life/safety issues and gross
magnitude of repairs that may be needed.
Review historical and current operating
and financial statements. Provided
financial modeling to assess the
restructuring viability of the project to
assist the Colorado Division of Housing in
assessment of future funding actions and
recommendations. Make site visit(s) as
necessary for evaluation.
Technical Assistance to a public Housing
authority to enable it to make needed
capital improvements, improve cash flow,
and facilitate acquisition of a property by
a not -for -profit housing foundation
Projected Income and Expenses for:
Sample Apartment
PAE: Signet Partners
Current Model Progress/Stage Date: 2/l/2002
Renld
A
Adud
rolul
5/UnIWr
Other
Anud
S/Unit/Yr
Tv .nktorkal
SAmt
Trended
S/Unit(Yr
MIM ProIert
SAmI
Based
$11).WYr
N12M Tenenl
SAmf
sued
S/UnItA'r
PAE Una It.. Speciffe Commenh
lacome
Residential-
Stetion8Pmimt-Bowl
Tenant Portion
uneawted
Stm,&Cmmnnci.l-
Prk, F&E, Flu Sub, Misc-
Total Rental loeame:
so
$o
$0
SO
$0
s0
s0
$0
$o
$0
$0
s0
$0
so
$o
$0
so
$0
so
$0
$0
SO
$o
SO
$151,439
$156,452
SO
$0
so
$307,891
$2,912
$3,009
$o
$0
$0
$5921
$246,960
$0
$5,280
$0
$0
$252,240
$4,749
$o
$102
so
SO
$4851
$0
$0
$252,240
$0
$0
$252,240
s0
so
$4,851
$0
SO
S4,851
auncks: Eager as Negaglve
Apanmems.
Funitum&E4uiptnmt-
St. &Conuneeci.l-
Genge &Parking Spaces-
Mi=llatxmu Concession-
Total Vacancies:
Net Rental I...
r Income & Bad Debt
lAundry & Vending.
Damage° & Cleaning Fees-
Apartment Bad Debt. Eater as Neg.
CottunaeW Bad Debt- Eager as Neg.
NSF &Late CLAW, Ocoee-
Total Otbar I...:
$0
$0
$0
so
so
$0
So
$0
so
So
$0
So
so 1
$0
$0
$0
so
$o
$0
$0
$0
so
SO
SO
$0
$0
$0
so
so
$0
SO
$0
SO
so
so
SO
$0
so
SO
$0
$0
$0
so
$0
1 $0
$0
$0
so
SO
so
$0
$0
($37,697)
$0
$o
$0
so
$37,697
$270,194
$0
so
(S29,973)
$0
$8,501
$21,472
($725)
s0
$0
$0
$0
5725
$5,196
$0
$o
(S576)
SO
$163
$413
($25,224)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$25,224
$227,016
so
$o
(S20,179)
$0
$8,458
S11,721
($485)
$0
SO
so
$o
S485
$4,366
$o
$0
($388)
s0
$163
$225
($25,224)
s0
So
so
$0
$25,224
$227,016
so
s0
(S20,179)
So
$8,458
$11,721
($485)
$0
$O
$0
$0
S485
S4,366
So
$o
(S388)
SO
S163
5225
EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME
$O
SO
$0
So
$248,722
S4,783
$215,295
$4,140
S215,295
$4,140
Pmjectedinc&Exp
7/8/2004 9:00 AM Kachina Rev 42 4-21-03
Acmd
LUNt/Yr
Aotud
S/Unn/Yr
iProleet
SAmt
S/UNNYr
$Ann
Based
SfUdt(Yr
II M2M Tenant
$And
Hued
S/UnR/Yr
�� PAE Line It.. SDedllo Commenb
dmix. Exps
Ad�misins-
Senim, 8 Admin. Exps
�r Adnua Exps
Omce Salaries-
Omni Supplies-
Omce or Model Apt. Rent-
Managvnent Fee-
Management or Super. Sal.-
Mgmt. m Super. Froe Rest Unit.
Legal Esp..(Pmjw).
Auditing Exps. (Pmjw0-
Hookkecping FmlAm. Services.
Teleph.At Answ. Ser.-
ErnpI.MTmining.
Miscellaneous Admin. Exps-
TomlAdmin.Gess Afouogemem Fee:
Total Admin. Ex
Utllltles Expense
Fuel OiVCoal-
Fuel for Domntic Hot Water-
Electricity(Light & Misc. Power}
woo.-
Ges-
S.-
otn:U,,Is-
.tell utlmin Ex a.:
& M Expeun
3anitm&Clan Payroll-
3adtm & Clean Supplies.
lanitw&clean Cooled.
Extemdn Prymlucnntrsst.
Extmnireting Supplies.$0
Garbage &Trish Removal-
Security PayroillCooinct.
G ..Ns Payroll-
Grounds ds Supplies-
emends contmer-
Reo,irspayroll-
Repair,Mmerial-
Repairs contract-
Elevator Maimnunce/c n m-
HVACR&M-
Poul Maintwna/Caraad-
S.lte trovat-
Decorating PaymlltConttact-
Derpreting Supplies-
Other Expetun-
Misc O & M Fapmnn-
Neighborhood Network.
Total O Air MExpenses:
$0
s0
$0
s0
SO
$0
SO
so
$0
$o
So
$0
so
$o
$0
$0
$0
s0
$0
So
$0
SO
$0
$0
$0
so
s0
So
so
$O
$0
SO
$0
so
so
so
so
$0
SO
SO
so
so
$0
so
so
So
s0 1
so
$0
$0
So
So
s0
s0
$o
$0
$0
$0
So
$0
so
$0
$0
$O
$0
$0
$0
SO
$0
$0
$o
$0
$0
$o
$0
so
$0
SO
SO
$0
SO
so
$0
so
$o
so
$0
so
so
So
s0
so
$o
$o
$0
$0
$0
s0
$0
$0
$o
$0
$0
$o
SO
SO
$o
SO
$o
$0
$o
$O
$0
$0
$o
$0
s0
So
so
$0
$0
$0
So
so
$0
SO
SO
$0
$o
$o
$o
$0
so
so
$0
so
so
so
$0
$o
so
$0
SO
$0
$0
$0
$o
$0
$0
$0
so
$0
$o
$0
$0
s0
so
$o
$0
$o
$0
so
$0
so
$0
$0
so
$0
so
$0
$0
$0
so
$0
$0
s0
$0
So
$0
so
so
$0
$0
so
so
So
$0
$0
so
$o
$0
$37
so
so
$0
$8,468
$0
$21,647
$23,485
57,885
$8,034
$4,782
$3,315
$0
so
$1,564
$57,570
$79,217
$o
$o
$26,565
$3,141
$29,222
$10,269
$o
$69,197
$25,795
$49,603
$8,499
so
$0
$14,942
$0
s0
$0
$o
so
$o
so
so
$5,313
so
so
$0
so
so
so
$0
5104,152 1
sl
$0
so
$o
$163
$0
$416
$452
$152
$ I92
$92
$64
$0
so
$30
$1,107
$1,523
$0
$o
$511
$60
$562
S 197
$0
$1,331
S496
$954
$163
$0
so
$287
SO
so
$o
s0
$0
so
so
so
$102
so
so
$0
s0
so
$o
so
$2,003 11
$37
s0
so
so
$8,425
$o
$19,500
$23,365
s7,844
$4,757
$4,757
$3,298
$0
so
$1,556
$57,275
576,775
so
$o
$26,430
53,125
529,073
$10,217
$O
$68,845
$25,664
$25,000
$8,455
$0
so
$14,866
$0
So
$0
so
so
$0
so
so
55,286
$0
$o
$0
s0
so
so
s0
579,271
sl
$0
so
$o
$162
$o
$375
5449
$151
$ 91
$91
$63
so
so
$30
$1,101
$1,476
$0
$o
$508
$60
$559
$196
so
$1,324
5494
5481
$163
so
$0
$286
$0
s0
$0
s0
so
$o
$0
$0
$102
$0
so
$0
So
$o
so
$0
51,524
$37
s0
s0
$0
$8,425
$0
$19,5()0
$23,365
$7,844
$4,757
$4,757
$3,298
$0
$0
$1,556
$57,275
$76,775
$0
$o
$26,430
$3,125
$29,073
$10,217
$0
$68,845
$25,664
$25,000
58,455
$0
so
$14,866
$0
$0
SO
so
so
$o
so
so
$5,286
$0
$0
SO
SO
so
$0
SO
579,271
$1
s0
$o
so
$162
s0
$375
$449
$151
54
$ 91
$91
$63
s0
$0
$30
$1,101
$1,476
$0
$o
$508
$60
$559
$196
so
$1,324
$494
S481
$163
so
so
$286
$0
So
SO
$o
so
$0
$0
$0
$102
so
so
s0
so
$o
$o
SO
SI524
Within the HUD Hub's range of $26-$38 unit r year.
Arizona Public Service indicated no expected char es for 2003.
Cityof Winslow indicated no expected changes for 2003.
Arizona Public Service indicated no expected changes for 2003.
Cityof Winslow indicated no expected changes for 2003.
The management company indicated there were capital improvements in 2001 of
approxamitly $24,000. Therefore the PAE reduced this amount.
City of Winslow indicated no expected changes for 2003.
Projectedlnc&Exp 7/8/2004 9:00 AM Kachina Rev 42 4-21-03
Actual
S/Unit(Yr
r
Actual
S/UaIWr
g I". HUI.Ral
SAnn
l rendea
S/U•B/Yr
it M2M Peeler!
SAmt
B•sed
S/UnN/Yr
Il HIM Tenant
SAmt
Bared
S/UniWr
PAE Line Item Speeifie Comment,
•xn & Imurance
Reel Estate Tana-
Pnymli Taxes (FICA).
Misc. Taxes, Lice..&Pemdu-
Property& Liability lmunnce.
Fidelity Bond hnmance
Worlonen's Compmsaticn-
Health lm.& other Emp.Bmefits.
FirdHamrd(not incl in Prop&Liab).
Flood (not already incl in Prop&Liab)-
Boiler (not already incl in Prop&Liab}
Other insunnco-
Total Taxes &Insurance:
$0
EO
SO
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SO
$0
$0
$0
E0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SO
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SO
$O
$0
1 $0
$8,798
$4,716
$9,653
$6,142
$124
$3,207
$6,144
$0
SO
$0
$0
$38,784
$169
$91
$186
$118
$2
$62
$118
$0
$O
$O
$0
1 $746
S8,753
$4,692
$9,604
$9,213
$124
$3,191
$6,113
SO
$O
$0
$0
$41,690
S168
S90
$185
$177
$2
$61
$118
EO
$0
$0
$0
S802
S8,753
$4,692
$9,604
$9,166
$124
$3,191
$6,113
$0
EO
$0
$O
$41,643
$168
$90
$185
$176
$2
$61
$118
SO
$0
$0
$0
$801
City Of Winslow- Taxation indicated no increase for 2003 and minimal increase
for 2004.
Elderly & Congregate Service Expenses
TutalSmice Expenses-
otal Elderly & Coast. Semler Ex"..:
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SO
$0
$0
SO
$0
$0
$0
SO
$0
EO
$0
$0
SO
$0
oTALOPERATINGEXPENSES:
Capital Recovery PmyEquitylteslrrn page):
SO
$0
$0
$0
SO
$0
$0
$0
$291,350
$0
$5,603
SO
S266,581
$0
$5,127
$0
$266,534
EO
$5,126
$0
NET OPERATING INCOME:
$0
1 $0
$0
$0
$42,628
$820
$51,286
S986
551239
S985
Rrydaeenaral Reserves
JADJUSTED NET OPERATING INCOME
DEBT SERVICE
FIRST MORTGAGE DEBT SERVICE:
IST MORT. INSURANCE PREMIUM(MIPI:
IRP.TO DEBT SERVICE (Eater as Neg.):
SECOND MORTGAGE DEBT SERVICE:
THIRD MORTGAGE DEBT SERVICE:
TOTAL MORTGAGE DEBT SERVICE:
Isl Mo • DSCR:
$0
SO
$34,320
SO
$0
$0
EO
$34,320
0.00
EO
$0
$660
EO
SO
SO
$0
$660
NAP
$0
SO
S34,320
SO
$0
SO
$0
$34,320
0.00
SO
SO
$19,892
$62,520
S383
$1202
$26,500
$77,786
$51011
SI496
S26,500
577739
S510
51495
$660
SO
SO
SO
$0
S660
NAP
S34,320
$1,136
EO
EO
$0
$35,456
-1.76
$660
$22
$0
SO
SO
$682
NAP
S34,320
$1,088
SO
$0
EO
S35,408
-2.20
$660
$21
SO
$0
SO
$681
NAP
S34,320
$1,088
SO
$0
$0
$35,408
-2.20
$660
$21
S0
SO
EO
$681
NAP
Pmjectedlnc&Exp 7/8/2004 9:00 AM Kachina Rev 42 4-21.03
Date of Resident Meeting(s):
Asset Manager(s):
Project Name/Project Location:
Number of Residents Attending:
Any Relevant Comments:
Owner in Attendance: Yes No
(or representative, i.e., property manager, on -site manager, etc.)
Any Relevant Comments:
Local Community Representatives in attendance: Yes No
Any Relevant Comments:
Introduction of OTAG if present and explain OTAG's purpose.
Name of OTAG:
Name of HUD Office:
2
QUESTIONS
1. What do the residents think of the physical condition of the subject property?
Poor Average Superior
2. What items are in need of rehabilitation and/or repair?
Individual Units
Interior
Exterior
3
3. What are the feelings of the residents concerning the quality of the current
management at the subject property?
Poor Average Superior
4. Explain Project -Based Assistance versus Tenant -Based Assistance. Which
type of assistance would the residents prefer?
Project -Based Assistance Tenant -Based Assistance
5. Are there adequate comparable subsidized properties of the same occupancy
type (elderly/family) or other comparable housing choices (single family
homes, mobile homes, etc.) available in the local market if the resident chooses
to move from the subject property?
Yes No
4
6. What are the comparable rents in the local market area?
0 BR $ 2 BR S 4 BR S
1 BR $ 3 BR $ 5 BR S
7. Are the residents aware of a proposed sale or transfer of physical assets in
process for the subject property?
Yes No
8. Are the residents aware of any outside resources, such as local community
organizations, that can assist them in making alternative decisions about
where to live?
Yes No
5
9. Have the residents ever considering moving from the subject property and if
so, why didn't they move?
Yes No
10. Are there any new properties being built or existing properties that are no
longer part of the assisted housing market?
New Properties:
Properties no longer part of the assisted housing market:
11. What are the residents' opinions of the quality of the immediate neighborhood
in which'the subject property is located? Explain your observations of the
quality of the immediate neighborhood?
12. Any additional questions or comments from the residents?
Yes No
Scope of Work:
A. Determine the capital improvement needs for Sleepy Willow over the next
five years. Identify cost effective improvements that could immediately
increase the curb appeal, marketability and occupancy levels for Sleepy
Willow to place it on par with other similar projects. Provide an itemized list
of these improvements in priority ranking. The consultant will complete this
task first, and provide the City a separate report on the findings.
Signet Partners has extensive experience with project physical needs. Through
the HUDIOMHAR Mark to Market program, we have reviewed over 400
Physical Condition Assessment reports and have made recommendations and
caused implementation of improvements to projects. Although curb appeal is
one area of concern, it is important to review the competition for the project to
understand what they may be offering for tenants and insure the subject project
is competitive. Signet Partners has the ability to accomplish a needs assessment
and also has a national contractor that can perform a formal report which
would establish a replacement reserve schedule over the next twenty (20) years
to insure adequacy of the annual deposit to meet the needs of the project. We
have included a sample of our report of immediate and 20 year needs under
"Attachment "A ""to this proposal.
It should be noted that in addition to the physical needs of the project, it is
important to understand how the project is viewed by the community. If the
project has a bad reputation, action must be taken to change the perception
from negative to positive. Signet Partners has experience in dealing with this
process and can assist in the remedy.
B. Develop an inventory of seven or eight competitive projects that compete
with Sleepy Willow and evaluate Sleepy Willow in relation to these projects,
in terms of rent structures, deposit requirements, services and amenities on
site, location to transit, shopping and elementary and secondary schools,
occupancy levels and other factors that might give a project the competitive
edge in attracting and retaining tenants.
Signet Partners has experience with reviewing comps., rent structures, deposit
requirements, etc. We have developed a process that entails a comparison of
many factors. We have attached our comparable spreadsheet under
"Attachment"B"" to this proposal for your review. In addition to the
spreadsheet, we provide narrative explanations for areas of concern or areas
where improvements could me made for the subject project to become more
competitive. Signet Partners has an appraiser on staff that has many years
experience with multifamily projects. Please see the "Resume" portion of this
proposal for his experience and qualifications.
C. The consultant should include a review of property management and
marketing/operations and make recommendations, if appropriate, that could
improve the occupancy levels of the project.
Signet Partners has reviewed property managers and management companies
as part of the Mark to Market program for HUDIOMHAR. We have worked
closely with HUD offices to determine the effectiveness of managers and
management companies. Through our evaluation, we look at the screening
process of potential tenants, record keeping, organization, activities programs,
vacancy history, and management's ability to work effectively with few dollars
for project functions. We look to the projects reviews by HUD or other
supervisory agencies to assist in determining management's effectiveness. We
talk to tenants to determine threads or patterns of concern. We have had to
recommend changes in management on several occasions where the
management was not meeting standards conducive to a successful project. Our
process is to interview management, management employees, tenants and
responsible agencies to understand any deficiencies or to determine that
management is in fact doing a good job of managing the project.
D. The consultant will perform rent structure analysis as compared to other
competing projects and make recommendations to the City and Housing
Authority. Should additional analysis be needed, with the approval of the
Housing Authority, the consultant will assemble a thorough report on the
income, debt service, operating cost, cash flow, and break even point
necessary for Sleepy Willow to be financially successful. The consultant will
make recommendations that could improve the financial performance of the
project.
Signet Partners, as part of `B" above will perform a rent structure analysis for
the subject project and make recommendations to the City and Housing
Authority pursuant to it findings. If downward adjustments to the rents are
recommended, Signet is prepared to accomplish a thorough financial analysis
of the project. This analysis would entail the past three years audited
financials, current YTD financials and the replacement reserve analysis. We
have included "Attachment "C"" which is an example of our financial analysis.
It is important to note that we contact all utilities, insurance agencies and
taxing authorities to recognize any changes anticipated in the near future for
the project. In addition, we trend expenses and acknowledge one time expense
items so they do not impact future expense analysis. We would question any
items we would feel are "out of line" with projects of like size and complexity
(examples of this may be the employments of 3 maintenance personnel when
like projects operate with 2). In addition, we review the O & M portion of the
expenses to determine if "Capital" improvements are being made from
Operations rather than through the Replacement Reserve for the project. After
we are satisfied that the financials are representative of the project, we can
determine the adequacy of NOI (Net Operating Income) for debt service
purposes. We have the ability, through our financial model, to determine
appropriate debt service and amount of debt the project can support so we
achieve a financially strong property going forward. Please note that Signet
stays current with the market for loans on projects since we are closing over 5
deals per month for HUD/OMHAR where new financing is being placed on
projects nationwide.
E. Explore other creative approaches that would give Sleepy Willow the
competitive edge over similar projects, such as converting one apartment
unit for on -site day care, or community room with internet access and
computers for tenants, or for on -site in -take and management or consider the
construction of a 1500 square foot additional community room for tenant
activities (the Housing Authority will provide cost estimates for the addition).
The consultant will perform a cost -benefit analysis of each option and make
recommendations for the option that could have the most impact on
improving occupancy levels for Sleepy Willow.
Signet Partners, through the analysis of the market and competitive projects
can make recommendations concerning the addition of a community room or
the establishment of a Neighborhood Network for the project. We would
investigate the possibility of receiving funds from outside sources for the
Neighborhood Network or even the potential for sharing facilities with other
surrounding projects. Signet has the ability of performing the cost benefit
analysis for the options including the addition of a community room.
F. Explore the need for resident social services on site, such as case
management and life skill activities.
Signet has performed analysis of potential social services for projects to
improve standards of living for tenants and provide for services that could be of
benefit for job placement or skills training. We would investigate various
services that are available and potential funding sources for such services.
G. Research and provide national information on tenant preferences,
specifically for affordable housing projects. Also, hold focus group meetings
with Sleepy Willow residents and other tenants that declined this apartment
complex, in order to get a better understanding of tenant preferences at
Sleepy Willow. (Housing Authority will provide tenant lists). The consultant
will evaluate tenant preferences at Sleepy Willow and make
recommendations for a course of action.
Signet Partners currently works for HUD/OMHAR on a national level and has
held tenant meeting at over 400 projects nationwide. We would work with the
City and Housing Authority to develop a meaningful survey so meeting could be
conducted in a manner that is not only informative but productive. A copy of
our tenant meeting outline is included as "Attachment "D"" for your review.
Please note that this outline serves a different purpose than the outline that
would be used for this project but indicates our ability to conduct meeting with
tenants and tenantgroups for thepurpose ofgathering information.
Schedule of Events:
The timeframe expressed in the RFP of 3045 days is aggressive for the scope of
work required. It is our opinion that 60-75 days would be necessary in order to
accomplish a thorough and accurate scope.
1. Determine Capital needs — 30 Days
2. Develop inventory of competitive projects with analysis — 45 days
3. Review Property management — 30 days
4. Perform rent structure analysis — 45 days
5. Perform financial analysis — 30 days
6. Explore alternative improvements to attract tenants — 60 days
7. Perform tenant surveys — 60 days
The above timeframes are to complete analysis, 15 to 30 days should be added for
the "Draft" presentation to the City and Housing Authority and appropriate
changes for the "Final' report.
JERRY R. ANDERSON
Signet Partners, Executive Vice President 0
Experience Summary
Jerry R. Anderson is Executive Vice President for Signet Partners. He has extensive multi -family real
estate, subsidiary and FHA insured loan experience to include asset management, evaluation, financial
analysis, sales, due diligence, valuation, workout/restructure and training/redevelopment skills. He has
over twenty years experience with complex projects nationwide; thorough understanding of market
dynamics, supply/demand forecasting, financial modeling, negotiations analysis of
policies/procedures/guidelines and the legal aspects of the transaction.
Mr. Anderson is National Program Manager for HUD/OMHAR Mark -to -Market program that entails
project site inspections, tenant meetings with local tenant organizations and government officials, market
analysis, physical condition assessments, an analysis of the financial performance, and closing the
restructures that involve new financing (FHA insured, conventional, bonds, grants and tax credits). In
addition, a review of management and ownership via HUD files, tenant comments and updated "Previous
Participation Certificates" form HUD 2530. Has assisted in the development of policies and procedures as
well as training throughout the program existence. Mr. Anderson has held senior positions with both
private and public sector entities and has experience with developing organizational structures.
Mr. Anderson was Program Manager for FDIC loan sale requiring research via due diligence and
evaluated FDIC procedures for sale of assets. In addition, Program Manager for HUD/OMHAR Mark -to -
Market program requiring project evaluation of third party reports, financial analysis and project based vs.
tenant based subsidy analysis.
As Manager of the Asset Management Division for the Resolution Trust Corporation, Mr. Anderson was
involved with regulatory and administrative guidelines for national program, audit and contracting
functions. With the HUD/OMHAR Mark -to -Market program, Mr. Anderson has reviewed and insured
compliance with the Statutory requirements of not only Mark -to -Market but also Section 8 subsidy
requirements.
Mr. Anderson managed the due diligence process for FDIC and RTC loan/servicing sales to include file
review, procurement of financial documents, credit reports, title searches, loan histories and appraisals.
In addition, through the HUD/OMHAR Mark -to -Market program has developed procedures for
appropriate documentation retrieval for due diligence for loan restructure for Section 8 subsidy. This
includes appraisals, Physical Condition Assessment (PCA) reports, project financials, HUD file review
for REAC inspections, management certifications and inspection reports, existing HAP contract(s) and
correspondence.
Relevant
• Program Manager on a comprehensive, national, financial, market and physical evaluation, loan
restructure, and transaction management project for over 400 multifamily mortgages for Section 8
subsidized multifamily housing projects with HUD OMHAR.
• Project Managert for the National Centralized Closing portion of the Mark to Market Program. Mr.
Anderson has been responsible for coordinating legal counsel and transaction closing on over 300