The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About841161.tiff RESOLUTION RE: DENY APPLICATION OF JLB CONSTRUCTION , INC. FOR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS WHEREAS , the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 19th day of September , 1984 , at the hour of 10 : 30 o' clock a.m. in the Chambers of the Board for the purpose of considering the application from JLB Construction, Inc . for Weld County to issue $10 , 388 ,516 in Multi-Family Housing Development Revenue Bonds , and WHEREAS , said hearing was conducted in accordance with the 1967 County and Municipality Development Revenue Bond Act, Sec- tion 29-3-101 , et. seq. , CRS, as amended, and WHEREAS , the Board of County Commissioners , having heard all of the testimony and statements of those present, and having studied the request of the applicant and all of the exhibits and evidence presented in this matter, deemed it advisable to con- tinue said hearing for further consideration, and WHEREAS , on September 24 , 1984 , after further study and review, and having been fully informed, the Board finds that this request shall be denied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Com- missioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the application from JLB Construction, Inc. for Weld County to issue $10 , 388 , 516 in Multi-Family Housing Development Revenue Bonds be, and hereby is , denied. FTpep5 841161 Page 2 RE: DENY BONDS - JLB CONSTRUCTION , INC . The above and foregoing Resolution was , on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 24th day of September, A.D. , WELD " BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: .¢/�y�/ WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Weld County Clerk and Recorder l.Gr�r'� INAY) and Clerk to the Bo d Norman Carlson, Chairman B : j \� (AYE) puty County erk J- •u ine J.h son, Pro-Tem APPROVED AS TO FORM: pJL2ka (AYE) Gene R. Brantnt C a ,. (AYE) County Atto ney uck Carlson .?-141.24..., % )21(111y L (AYE) hn T. Martin ATTENDANCE RECORD DATE: September 19 , 1984 TODAY' S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: IDRB, Kinder-Care Learing Centers, Inc. Multi-Family Housing Development Bonds, Bittersweet Place Associates Multi-Family Housing Development Revenue Bonds, JLB Construction, Inc. PLEASE write or print legibly your name, address and the DOCKET # (as listed above) or the applicant' s name of the hearing you are attending . NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING ill.f-Li - /tii. wcn awv, 1 U 1 1 0 ` 7-' dti t Av ..,i___-- ,,,,,,, ,„,, d-c..... .3.,&44_41„---• 7--•'4.---7°- c t,C rn \ 100 I -1/3 r C ue , 2-:i 7-- / 6 id tab ) Le i 4-\ _.a tatY1 :17 e 6. L7),..,F7 �.�.• ...7C.17 C.) .",,,-"..-f.'—,r,,,,, 6"-c ? -‘71-7,<, c�;Z r �\i`4Urcitil il, 6 3 /7 ill Sl` t.4-. -7 (/fit? /4,(h/ y /1/-----f/Ls�u /n g?) l Of'lUt_= _Cc<<p‘. j! IPe c v E 7e/ c e 6—i,4 y '7 f/' PJ--t, C;r"../ ' . .-7--y7A, 99/:_ tit 5 ) -41,6, -YV ,/Z 4 s-- O t 4 (,4_,X( -__J\i\ ,4_,X( ►v\F N ,,ll d1J 1 l///i • /co ) - 6t,-Z Ai-2/ / - /'` ALOC-'e b2e,&:4-e WV I S.'i6‘ r ,C 1 ,V e e.).--r,--dej Mr:/I I)/ 4, -e`y._, K. . !-`-a -a.O . l ti. / -) ,.'^/ '1 L / I.JZ. `.r `I.J� • /T/ .jf�\/ .Z 1J�J��/" J/�,� �/v 7..�T1/7 ��/ L`� Jiteev • 1 �/ 1 1J NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS FOR JLB CONSTRUCTION, INC Docket 84-55 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, on the 19th day of September 1984 at the hour of 10:30 A.M. in the Weld County Commissioners hearing room, first floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, for the purpose of considering the application from JLB Construction, Inc. for Weld County to issue $10,3888,516 in Multi-Family Housing Development Revenue Bonds. The proposed bond issue is to construct an apartment complex at 11th Street and 53rd Avenue in Greeley, Colorado. This procedure is in accordance with the 1967 County and Municipality Development Revenue Bond Act, Section 29-3-101, et. seq. , CRS 1973 as amended. Copies of the application for Multi-Family Housing Development Revenue Bonds are on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of- County Commissioners located on the 3rd floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado and may be inspected during regular business hours. Following the close of the public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners will consider whether or not to proceed with the issuance of Multi-Family Housing Development Revenue Bonds. All interested parties under the law will be afforded an opportunity to be heard at said hearing. This notice given and published by order of the Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado. DATED: August 22, 1984 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY: Tommie Antuna, Deputy PUBLISHED: August 23, 1984 in the LaSalle Leader LEGAL Isl 77€E +9 ' NOTICE Affidavit of Publication paaBLICNEARING- .. 4 EYLTY-PAMSLY NDusass MB erieva9µI8 STATE Cr CCLCRADO. 1NOS POR J1.8, w. .c. CONSTRUCTION,INC County d Weld. F= . .. Decker ar•ss • Paul Massey of � E � ermvewga L CMrmissiaaers ot wwed hnaly said County of Weld. being duly sworn. say that g ptM en fAe tMa" of I am eub4uter of Meat 1W bswK 0,:v3.3. i 70 A.M./s Inane a• roam,Salle Leader !"0 CoMt4 Centennial first bow, .leth Str li Cater,Cis drat the same is e weekly newspapr of general if.. Prpaue of cpgsiWrIng the cdrxianon and punted and published in the Militicattantram JLeit!rgtim aim town of La Salle int. for WOW sleaaa all apes+' to i ag Div pMin tieosi in said county and state: that the notice or adver. ervpred bind tuna k-peeCons 79N Iisameni. of which the annexed is a true copy, an -@partisans'cemplax Construct has been published in said weekly newspaper Street mask*Avenue in Oreesey,Celereae. This procedure N .le tot one aanseawive accordant'with rev No Ceynty municipality Demaip-3Mt Re- weeds: Met the notice was published to the venwlauedAet,seilen 2asen I- regulaar and entire issue of every number of said "CRS Mg n reen1 • newspaper during the period and time of publf. CCW eS St 1W WlleatNe ler Mimi- cation of said notice and in and the newspaper ItwD EISYNepmaal Re. Vela"SOds proper not in a supplement that the of faie Byti Meat tl h first publication of said names was contained In floor ee the Sid the issue of said, newspaper bearing dale the tot,Ms 1 CIA• 30 OreeNT,Cale• day of August A 7.. 19 84 roan gel s hell du" and the last pubii-mnen thereof. in tqy,issue at NOssrlosaid newspaper bearing date, the _.35L day el a eM et the Wbtk RR�� lei Mire r AUEl1St l9 Si4; that the said Char or n wenlasieners Rpr«eed with the i oar q Meliteami y NrsWap DeegNsealig ammo Rands _La_ Sa]l e Teapr has been published continuously and =interrupt- wlt aM 4dpertNe older M1e1vlee • ed!y during the period of at least fifty-two can- Od..if .y m14.r1,1atgeb,:. serutw.weeks next prior to the first issue thereof This notice�ivwj eadpygished by on*.M the containing said mdse r adverdsemem above r�M:..y1pl ,.rr�wypd getup, referred tar and that said newspaper was at the °•._... time of east of the publications of said notice. DATED, Apallet at 11N duly quaffffed tor that purpose within the mean• ing of an act entitled. "An Act Concerning Legal WAROOp(COUNTY Nativa. Advertisements and Publications, and Yy8LDCO a��LaDME s the Fees of Printers end Publishers thereof. and BriMARY,RyNRBuayRS78tN to Reveal all Acts and Parts of Acts in Conflict RECORDBCDaq ANp�tia pt with the Provisions d this Act?approved April 7. THEitKSWARD 1921. and all amendments Memel. end partieu• !arty ca amended by an c t approved. March 37. .arc T'emmleAnluna,oep 1923. and an act approved M 19. 19331, publlahea m tM u sells Leaser rhwMat,August 50, 79$4. _... _ e7.----;-s,r1---- 3@Sr' �� usher subscribed k:'nd s.roo „„ttto,,bbefore me this o!� ... 'SJ A.D. 19 ' _.4.001-L At) eS7 A/^-i-re ( s‹.-d My con 'stnn espies /I-9 ke - --- Notary Public ROCKY . MOUNTAIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE 2703 east louisiana avenue.denver,colorado 80210.(303)744-3468 August 13, 1984 Don Warden Director of Finance and Administration Weld County 915 10th Street, Room 319 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Mr. Warden: We are responding to the request for proposal for a multi-family housing feasibility study for the city of Greeley. THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is to determine the marketing and economic feasibility of building and absorbing multi-family rental housing in the Greeley area over the next 5-year period, 1984-1989. THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY INCLUDE: 1 . To determine the current vacancy rate for each size and type of multi-family rental housing within the Greeley study area. 2. To identify the nature and the extent of rental apartment complexes within the trade area isolating size of units, model mix, rent, rent per square foot ratios, amenity packages, building types, and tenant income levels. 3. To define who the target lifestyles would be for the proposed rental developments. . . and determine the design features, community characteristics, and location preferences they will be seeking on their next move. 4. To define the extent of new rental competition that is underway or is being considered for the study area, and to indicate the impact to rent-up rates and to locations within the study area. 5. Recommend the type(s) of rental communities to be built on the study locations that will create the best long-run return to the developer-owners and address the city's goal of sufficient housing supply at a sufficient rent level . The recommendation identifies the size of developments initially, phased construction feasibility as it relates to market absorption, the size of units, floorplan types, internal plan features, rent levels per model , model mix, and rents per square foot per plan. 6. Specify the type of recreational facilities that target lifestyles will expect for recommended rent schedules. marketing, real estate, and economic consultants 7. Discuss the feasibility of the supply and cost of conventional financing alternatives for the proposed developments. Examine the impacts on projected market rent rates using conventional financing compared to the multi-family industrial revenue bond concept. Show also a 5-year cash flow projection before debt service for the proposed projects using both financing assumptions. 8. Show the probable income levels of expected target renters and their housing expense for the proposed developments. Compare these levels to Greeley area residents for the years 1984-1989. 9. Review the two proposed two apartment developments requesting the multi-family IRB financing. Determine their absorption rates and compatibility with the rental market projections made for the Greeley area from 1984 through 1989. Make recommendations that could insure or help to improve the absorption projections for the proposed developments. 10.Prepare a written procedure for updating the study results on a semi- annual basis that could also serve as an administrative monitoring method to insure that new projects comply with the study findings and recommendations. Time and Cost Parameters The request for proposal allows a period from August 21 to September 11 , 1984 to prepare a Draft of the study findings. This is only 14 business days from start to finish. The Institute usually requires 6 to 8 weeks to complete a study with such broad-reaching impacts. However, if your time schedule is this tight, The research tasks can get done by working through the weekends. The charge for the study would be $ 8,500 and would include up to 10 copies of the bound report plus two Client Presentation meetings. Additional meetings, if requested, would be billed at a consulting rate of $ 100 per hour including travel time and costs. Billing Procedure Customary business practice for a study of this scope and timeframe would require a 70 % retainer to initiate the work. The remaining balance would be payable upon completion of the study. Standard Contract Provisions The Institute agrees to the contract provisions as outlined in the RFP. Apartment Research Background of the Institute The Institute has conducted studies of apartment demand, lifestyles, and absorption for Colorado builders, developers, and lending institutions -2- Rocky Mountain Research Institute since 1972 in Colorado Springs, the Denver area, Fort Collins, and in the ski areas. The Institute maintains an extensive computer-based inventory of apartment buildings, vacancy histories, and tenant profiles plus we are continually involved in the design and evaluation of new rental developments. The Institute would be using its computer economic feasibility model for the Greeley study. This tool allows us to make mortgage rate and rent level comparisons by unit and development size, to evaluate market feasibility concerns, and to make community design recommendations. The accuracy and reliability of Institute data and study methodologies has been accepted by the Colorado Housing Finance Authority for benchmarking their low-income bond programs and by the U.S.Treasury. We would appreciate the opportunity to work with the City of Greeley and Weld County in defining future demand for rental housing in the Greeley area. If you have any questions regarding the proposal , please call . Sincerely, 7514O/66 William B. Veio Director SFR/gb _3 Rocky Mountain Research Institute TEN YEARS AT ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE 1 . Only firm to specialize solely in Real Estate Research in the state. 2. First real estate data base computer system in commercial , industrial , and residential property. 3. First to computerize all land and commercial property sales transactions in the metropolitan Denver market. 4. Only firm that reports single family, condominium, and conversion sales for every development in the 6-County Denver market. 5. Only firm that has a 10-year quarterly index on home prices in Colorado by type of product and by market area. 6. Pioneered the use of housing and development panels in the design of real estate developments. 7. Only firm to measure real estate advertising effectiveness in the Denver market by type of media. 8. Only firm that maintains buyer profiles on selected residential developments. 9. Pioneered the ANNUAL CONSUMER HOUSING ATTITUDE SEMINAR for residential developments. 10. Only firm to annually interview 1 ,000 housing shoppers and profile their attitudes and demographics. 11 . Only firm to develop Lifestyle demand segments for housing in this industry. 12. Only firm to offer quarterly Product Positioning Tables and Reports for the building industry. 13. Pioneered the use of full-color newspaper advertising for a residential builder. 14. Pioneered the use of mixed-media advertising techniques in newspaper advertising for builders. 15. Pioneered the use of photographs of housing products in the development industry. 16. Responsible for introducing the shared appreciation mortgage concept nationally. 17. Previewed the concept of 5-7-10 fully amortizing mortgages to Denver builders and lenders in 1980. Rocky Mountain Research Institute 18. First firm to present the concept of merchandising model interiors rather than interior decorating. 19. First firm to prove the consumer desire to purchase on-site built-ins. 20. First firm to run an on-site Design Center in this market staffed by a professional merchandiser. 21 . First firm to preview solar window treatments in nine different techniques in the U.S. . 22. First firm to merchandise a solar model home. 23. First firm to merchandise an office condominium. 24. Only firm that is a retailing expert on demand, absorption, store types, and design trends in the Colorado market. 25. Only firm to define the magnitude of the Second Mortgage market and to show volume by lending institution. 26. First firm to iintoduce. the use of the Personal Computer into the Marketing functions of homebuilders in meeting and greeting customers. 27. Originators of The. Selling Envelope as a concept in sales office design for builders and Realtors. 28. First firm to develop FUTURE, a comprehensive 36-month supply and demand forecasting model for homebuilders. Rocky Mountain Research Institute J SUMMARY OF MR. VEIO'S EXPERIENCE IN REAL ESTATE AND DEVELOPMENT Bill is the Founder and Director of Rocky Mountain Research Institute which began in 1972 afterhe finished his doctorate at the University of Colorado in the fields of Urban Sociology, Marketing, and Management Science. However, Bill is not your typical theoretical thinker. He has been referred to by some of his clients as the "Real Estate Expert's Expert". He has worked in nearly every capacity within the real estate industry. . . • He started back in 1960 as a real estate salesman in Lakewood. . . and later graduated with honors with the first real estate major offered at the University of Colorado. * The National Association of Homebuilders awarded him a scholarship for his graduate work on Assessment Bond Financing for community and subdivision development. * He has served as Director of Marketing Research for a well-established housing and commercial development firm. . .served as consultant for Montgomery Wards on apartment dweller attitudes and their lifestyles. . met challenges and deadlines as an Advertising Manager and as Merchandising Manager for a Colorado-based retailing and national direct mail firm. * For 3 years Bill wrote the monthly real estate column for Colorado Business magazine. He has ?Mthored two books: How To Buy Land(1974) and The Selling Envelope (1983) . Today as Director of Rocky Mountain Research Institute, Bill ' s work focuses on: * Knowing where the opportunities exist in Colorado real estate * Making those opportunities happen through product and community design, marketing, merchandising, and advertising programs * And in this economy, finding creative financing approaches such as the Equity Mortgage concept for homebuilders and commercial developers The types of development which Bill has been responsible for as a consultant include the following: * Writer Square in downtown Denver * The soon-to-be-built Riverfront, a mixed-use center in Littleton * The Ken Caryl Ranch property * The Mission Viejo properties * Genesee and Soda Creek * The Colorado Heritage Ranch in Grand County * The Aurora City Center Rocky Mountain Research Institute * The Pinery near Parker * The Gates Land Company property in Colorado Springs * Luxury in-fill housing in Cherry Creek: Cook Street and Harrison Street Townhomes * Gleneagle, a mixed-use community underway in Golden * plus numerous office buildings and office condominium developments and shopping centers in the Denver area including work for the leading real estate, developers, and building firms in Colorado. . . Sanford Homes, PWP, The Walden Companies, Van Schaack & Company, Medema Homes, Pinecrest Homes, Aberdeen Land Company, Great Western United, Percy-Wilson Mortgage Company, Mellon Mortgage Company, The Writer Corporation, The Alpert Corporation, Witkin Homes, U. S. Home, and many others. Bill and his associates are specialists in aiding developers and builders alike and look forward to continuing in that role for the next 10 years. Rocky Mountain Research Institute WEBER WE BHAN, REAL ESTATE WCL CORP CONSTRUCTION LAND DEVELOPMENT September 10, IOU- nr n ^•ems SEP 1 1 1984 Honorable Board of Weld County Commissioners C.7 Centennial Building GREELEY. COW. Greeley, Colorado Dear Sirs and Madam: Attached is pertinent information regarding the bond letter of inducement by J.L.B. Construction Company of Arlington, Texas, who propose to build apartment complexes on 14.53 acres in Country Club West in Greeley. 1. J.L.B. does not propose to use Weld County Bond money. They only need your letter of inducement for their established lenders. The project already has the underwriting from lenders. 2. Greeley and Weld County is in dire need of major developers, such as Mr. Bosler and his company, who are developers nationwide. They have a very strong financial backing by major banks and insurance companies. A firm such as J.L.B. Construction has the capability of performance, where smaller builders could not meet the stringent re- quirements of lenders. 3. With new industry looking at the Greeley area they have a concern because of the lack of good middle end apartments in the Greeley area, with less than 1% vacancy at this time. 4. Again, I want to stress that J.L.B. Construction only needs your approval in your letter of inducement, not Weld County Bond money. I sincerely recommend you approve their request. Sincerely, WEBER REALTY, INC. Age,�ur /t. re,/ Glenn K. Billings Economic Development Manager *See attachment 3835 WEST 10TH STREET GREELEY, COLORADO 80634-1599 PHONE (303) 353-1153 b KASIRER, WOLFSON & FRANKEL ATTORNEYS AT LAW I ROBERT A.KASIRER 11355 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD,SUITE 700 ADDITIONAL OFFICES. M[MeER Ncw Yonx Ban LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90064 NEW YORK,NEW YORK BARRY M.WOLFSON - DALLAS,TEXAS MLMBEP ARIZONA S ILtINDIS BAR (213) 477-JSJJ PHOENIX,ARIZONA MARTIN S.FRANKEL September 6, 1984 Mr. Glenn Billings Weber Real Estate 3835 W. 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80634 Re: Inducement Issues Relating to the Multifamily "Loan-to-Lenders" Tax-Exempt Bond Financing Program Dear Glenn: I will summarize those aspects of the Program, as we discussed, which may be helpful to the Board in addressing developer requirements for the inducement of rental project. My comments will focus on two areas, as follows: 1. Legislative Issues 2. Availability of Lower Income Units 3. Public Purpose and Uses of Developer Contributions 4. Summary 1. LEGISLATIVE ISSUES The Legislation was enacted to provide rental housing to individuals seeking market rate and affordable housing. These individuals, it is believed, cannot purchase homes and cannot find an adequate supply of rental housing. Legislators have focused this financing program on market rate and affordable units, in response to the nation's continuing demand for rental housing. The extremely low vacancy rates for rental multifamily units are a result of the unwillingness of developers to build such units. Consequently, as a result of little new construction and many condominium conversions, there is a tremendous demand for rental units. This financing program provides developers the incentive to develop multifamily rental housing because the lower interest rates will assist developers in meeting debt service payments. Without lower interest rates, projects would not be built due to high conventional interest rates, increasing operational costs and rent control issues. The Legislation provides also for "public purpose" issues by requiring that 20 percent of all units be reserved for households with incomes not to exceed 80 percent of the city's/area's household median income, a group of renters who also do not qualify to buy and do not qualify for assistance or subsidies. KASIRER, WOLFSON & FRANKE In summary, the Legislation has targeted middle income and moderate income residents who do not have an opportunity to purchase homes, have no public assistance available to them, and are seeking quality rental units in a market with between zero and three percent vacancy rates. 2. AVAILABILITY OF LOWER INCOME UNITS A very important aspect to the market rate financing program is that it creates a new housing supply, funded by persons in the private sector who purchase tax-free bonds. The newly constructed units provide a rental housing alternative, although requiring higher rents, for persons with median incomes. Consistent with Legislative requirements, some of these units are rented to persons with moderate incomes, an income category also benefiting from the Program. Essentially, these individuals move from older units with somewhat lower rents, to newer market rate housing units. This results in the vacating of those units which have lower and more affordable rents. Like those median income persons moving to the market rate units, the less than median income persons (moderate or 80 percent category) experience the same opportunity, thus vacating units which are available to persons with lower incomes. This "trickling" effect serves to upgrade housing for many renters who wish to improve their living standards. This is possible because like many Americans, renters and home owners, they are willing to increase their housing budgets for better living units. The third section of this report addresses those individuals whose housing budgets cannot be increased to upgrade their living environments. 3. PUBLIC PURPOSE AND USES OF DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS Local municipalities have experienced substantial cutbacks in government and state funding for Section 8, HUD and other public assistance programs to subsidize housing for very low and low income individuals and families. In an effort to address this sector of the population, some issuers have looked for assistance to those developers who are obtaining tax-exempt financing for market/moderate rate rental units. There are a number of methods to effectively assist the low income sector and by requesting developer assistance, an issuer can succeed and not severely impact the developer's ability to build and operate a project. Suggested Program An issuer can require that a developer reserve a portion of the bond proceeds for a contribution to the local housing assistance program. This can be accomplished, for example, by reserving approximately one-half point of the total bond issue amount as the developer's contribution. Issuers have designed various programs dependent upon the developer's ability to reserve such funds and certain public assistance needs. The funds can also be obtained annually at the rate of one-eight to one-quarter point to continually replenish the fund for other uses, such as operations of projects, etc. Uses of Funds Allocation of these funds is best achieved by determining how to maximize the funds and reach the greatest number of persons requiring assistance. The previously described "trickling" effect does not reach those individuals who are on fixed incomes or simply cannot exceed their current housing budget. KASIRER, WOLFSON & FRANKE Developer contributions can serve to assist local government in assisting these groups. This can be accomplished by one of the following examples" Assistance Programs 1. Subsidize those persons on waiting lists who currently qualify for public assistance (Section 8, etc.). 2. Subsidize rents to provide persons in substandard housing the opportunity move-up to standard housing (now available through the "trickle effect") In both previous categories, the handicapped can be assisted, as well as other needy groups dependent upon locale. New Construction Programs In an effort to provide newly constructed elderly and non-elderly rental and owner- occupied housing to lower income individuals and families, the funds can be used to assist developers by: 1. Soliciting proposals to construct and operate owner and renter occupied housing units by: - utilizing funds to purchase land - subsidizing mortgage or rental payments - joint venturing projects and committing adequate funds for equity contributions to buy down the mortgage or rental payments Currently, municipalities, school districts and religious organizations are seeking joint venture opportunities with developers to provide quality and aesthetic residential environments to the lower income, disabled, elderly and generally disadvantaged groups. Terms can include land contributions and a share in profits. Municipalities can utilize developer contributions to accomplish similar programs. 4. SUMMARY These programs which direct the issuer's share of the developer's tax-exempt bond issue, can serve to maximize funds by reaching a far greater number of households than the 20 percent moderate income earners from which the Legislation intended to subsidize. Very truly yours, LORI S. ZITO LSZ/em WELD C„,,,T, POINTS REGARDING I SEP 2 4 1984 INDUCEMENT OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING BONDS 1 . The County regularly approves the use of I.D.R.B. for Business and Industry, including office buildings such as: a. Dean Building b. Arix c. Eisenman 2. The County has regularly supported the use of Bond Financing to finance Single-Family Housing Projects. 3. The City of Greeley is in strong support of the Bittersweet Place Apartment Project. 4. Apartments in Greeley are at an all time high in terms of percent of occupancy. Rents have escalated in quality apartments projects such as the Longmeadows, enjoying the highest rent per square foot in Northern Colorado. 5. The County has approved in concept the use of Bond Financing for this project in a council worksession. The Commissioners asked that the developers provide an additional survey of the rental market. The results of that study showed without question that the report shows a need for more units. 6. The Weld County Apartment Association records indicated a 98% occupancy. 7. The economic activity generated by this project is important for the county. 8. Insufficient housing is a deterrent to recruiting additional industry to the County. 9. Although State inducement is available, it is preferred to keep the control at the local level. DENNIS L. KOHAN 9(:'7 W. 14TH STREET ROAD ITC r''" i- •... . .., GF:EELEY. COLORADO 30,371C-Th. ^. _ ..,.__ GEF'TEMLER 21 . 1984 :.� SEP 2 5 1984 htf:S. , AO. 3E JOHNSON r . BOARD OF WELD COUNTY COMMESION�ERS EM I'1 � �k:tE-� CENTENNIAL CENTER i. GREELE't . COLORADO EicAsT1 DEAR MR. C:AR:LSON: I AM AWARE TWAT YOU FARE STILL CONSIDERING THE SIGNING OF A RESOLUTION THAT WOULD PERMIT THE FUNDING OF BONDS FOR A RENTAL HOUSING carLEX: TO EE CONSTRUCTED IN THE COUNTRY CLUB WEST AREA OF G EE LEY. I AM ALSO AWARE THAT SOME COMMISSIONERS SEEM TO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT SIGNING THE RESOLUTION. I WOULD LIFE TO T AF;E THIS OPPORTUNITY TO Ej:[VE. SOME FACTS TO YOU THAT MAY HELP YOU DECIDE IN FAVOR OF THE ISSUE FOR THE COUNTRY CLUB WEST PROJECT B JLD CONSTRUCTION INC. FIRST OF ALL, I AM TOLD THAT SOME COMMISSIONERS ARE AGAINST AN ISSUE SUCH AS THIS BECAUSE THE CONSIDER IT TO BE AN ABUSE. OF TAX E XE.MPT FONDS. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, HAS AFF'ROVED OF THE '..1wE OF THESE BONDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RENTAL PROPERTIES FOR LOW AHD MODERATE INCOME RENTERS. WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DECIDED TO ISSUES OF THIS NATURE FOR RENTAL PROJECTS, THEY WERE ALSO DEL_ET:[0G MOST OF THE SECTION B AND OTHER GOVERNMENT FUNDS FROM THE RENTAL HOUSING SUBSIDY PROGRAMS. IT WAS THE FEELING OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT THESE ISSUES WOULD BETTER ALLOW PRIVATE INVESTORS TO COMPLETE NEW PROJECTS WITHOUT THE HUD AND GOVERNMENTAL I NTERMEDDL I NO THAT HAD BEEN PRESENT IN THE PAST. THESE ISSUES ARE ALLOWED BECAUSE THEY ARE DESIGNED FOR PRIVATE ENTERPRISE TO BE ABLE: TO PROVIDE LARGE APARTMENT UNITS. THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD USED HUD FUNDS FOR IN THE FAST. IF WE GO BEYOND THE GOVERNMENT' S STANCE. AND DECIDE TO ALSO NOT FUND APARTMENT UNITS THROUGH BOND ISSUES SUCH AS THESE. THEN WE ARE PROBABLY HURTING OUR AREA' S FUTURE ECONOMIC GROWTH. WITI-i THE STRUCTURE OF THESE BONDS TO MEET OUR NEEDS. WE CAN HAVE THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS DY ALLOWING PRIVATE ENTERPRISE TO FUNCTION TO MEET THE HOUSING NEED'= OF OUR CITIZENS, WHILE STILL GIVING THE NECESSARY TAX INCENTIVES TO MAKE SUCH PROJECTS POSSIBLE IN TODAY' S HIGH INTEREST RATE TIMES. WITHOUT SUCH GOVERNMENT TAX AID. THE REASONABLE MAN WITH A GOOD ACCOUNTANT WOULD NOT PUT FUNDS INTO RENTAL HOUSING PROJECTS. WITH A REOUIRED 45-50 DOWNPAYMENT TO REACH BREHF-::E.VEN AT CONVENTIONAL INTEREST RATES. SUCH UNITS WOULD BE DISCOURAGED BY MOST ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AHD PRINCIPLES. THE BOND PROJECTS BEFORE YOU NOW WOULD PROVIDE .15,0012, OOO.O0 PLUS IN CONSTRUCTION JOBS FOR THE PEOPLE OF WELD COUNTY IN THE SHORT RUN, AHD A LONG CASH FLOW STREAM FROM REAL ESTATE TAXES AND BUILDING MAINTENANCE IN THE LONG RUN. THE INFUSION OF THAT SORT OF CAPITAL INTO A MARKET IS HIGHLY SOUGHT AFTER IN MOST AREAS. SUCH A STIMULI TO THIS ECONOMY, PARTICULARLY 1 �. �� WITH OUTSIDE MONEY BEING PU':FED INTO GREELEY, IS WHAT WE ALWAYS SA V WE SEEM TO WANT FOR THE GOOD OF OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. NON:! THAT SUCH AN OF ROR-i UN I Tf' IS HERE, HOWEVER, WE SEEM TO FIND GREAT CONCERN. I TOLD r AS S WHETHER HER i ARE AM : OLi� THERE ARE QUESTIONS r-ic� TO d�t�ETF-;Y.�, OR NOT THESE r13•i,= RENTAL UNITS THAT SHOULD QUALIFY FOR MODERATE AND LOW INCOME HOUSING. I AM SURPRISED TO HEAR THIS QUESTION, BUT I THINK THAT A MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS CAN CLARIFY THIS ISSUE. THERE IS A STANDARD I ..r R Y.. THAT ! E S, r.`� ••}S•J I• Y. — S NATIONAL ..: (r=:I.F�r-lrtil STATES i=iT�.;.� THAT i ABOUT ._�ti�. OF A FAMILY' S 5 I:a��:t''Li.. MONTHLY INCOME SHOULD BE USED FOR HOSING EXPENSES. WITH THAT FIGURE WE SEE THE FOLLOWING: , 320. 00 t:0 PER MONTH RENT/ 2S •_ $1142. 86 GROSS MONTHLY INCOME 1112, 06• X 12 MONTHS $13. 714. 29 ANNUAL. FAMILY INCOME FOR THE $400.00 PER MONTH RENTS, WE SEE: $400.00 PER MONTH RENT/ 29% = $1429.57 GROSS MONTHLY INCOME $1428.57 X 12 MONTHS = $17. 142. 86 ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME EVEN AT AT PAYMENT OF $450. 00 PER MONTH, WE SEE: t450. 00 PER MONTH FRENT. ....2% $1607. 14 CROSS MONTHLY :INCOME $1607. .L.1 X 12 MONTHS - $19, 295.71 ANNUAL. FAMILY INCOME COMPARING THAT WITH WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME FOR PEOPLE OBTAINING BOND ISSUES TO BUY THEIR HOME WITH, WE SEE THAT THE BONDS ALLOW PEOPLE TO MAKE $36,000 PLUS FAMILY ANNUAL INCOME. THE VALUE OF THE NEW HOUSE CAN BE IN THE $80, 000 - $90, 000. 00 PRICE RANGE. TO BE CONSISTENT, THEREFORE, IT WOULD SEEM REASONABLE THAT YOUNG PROFESSIONALS WHO CANNOT BUY THEIR FIRST HOUSE AND OLDER ADULTS WHO ARE CONSIDERED TO BE EMPTY NESTERS AND HAVE SOLD THEIR HOUSE, OR ANYONE ELSE WHO MAKES UNDER $20, 000 PER YEAR FOR THEIR TOTAL FAMILY INCOME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME CLASSIFICATION AS WELL, I SEE NOTHING IN THIS BOND ISSUE THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE FEDERAL LAW REGARDING THIS TYPE OF ISSUE» AND, IN FACT, OTHER ISSUES WITH HOUSING PAYMENTS GREALTY IN EXCESS OF THESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN FUNDED IN THE PAST. WE ARE ASKING FOR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR PERFORMING ARTS CENTERS AND RECREATION CENTERS THAT WILL MAKE GREELEY A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE, AND THAT WILL AID IN OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENDEAVORS; BUT WE ALLOW AN ACTUAL HOUSING SHORTAGE TO EXIST IN THE AREA. WE ASK THAT PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS SPEND LARGE AMOUNTS OF THEIR FUNDS TO SUPPORT THESE NEEDS FOR THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY, BUT WE FIND THAT THE COMMUNITY IS HESITANT TO MERELY SIGN A F::ES OLUTI0N THAT WILL DO MORE TO INFUSE FUNDS FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES INTO GREELEY AND WELD COUNTY THAN BOTH OF THE CITY PROJECTS COMBINED. THAT A HOUSING SHORTAGE DOES EXIST, Arm HA-;S BEEN ALLOWED TO EXIST BY OUR LOCAL LANDLORDS, IS EVIDENCED BY YOUR OWN FEASIBILITY STUDY. I AM TOLD THAT YOUR STUDY COST $12,000.00 AND WAS PAID FOR BY THE TWO DEVELOPERS REQUESTING THE BONDS. THEY HAD ALREADY COMPLETED ED FEASIBILITY STUDIES OF THEIR OWN THAT SHOWED NEED BEFORE THEY CONSIDERED I.DERED PUTTING SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS INTO WELD COUNTY' S ECONOMY.. THE COMMISSIONERS ASKED FOR AN " INDEPENDENT STUDY" .. THIS THIRD STUDY ALSO INDICATED NEED, BUT NOW, AFTER $12, 000. 0-:) WAS SPENT,, OUESTIONS I ON'S STILL SEEM TO EXIST. THAT THIS LETTER HELPED ANSWER SOME OF THOSE I HOPE F r,r�FT s H.. HAS k•i::_,_.—'b a3 TO M'it�l�_sl�,�E�-� SOME C,,SEE.- .I _. 4 ^ ' { i.:�Fc: (' C:f ..., AND I WOULD SINCERELY t'•ii:;�._F° ".L�� HOPE THAT i-C YOU WILL ACT FAVORABLY C=:F{Fi l.._Y WHEN .. E— •—9 - BOND ISSUE HE N �-r F .,.T,�..i� r)"�:� BOND RESOLUTION 1 Ut'.e FOR THE JLB "�F_.it�{ WHEN I T COMES BEF_ .E YOU FOR CONSIDERATION. .� F i•_ t:�'�:� F-1_�r: FINAL L:L:1•y;�i L'E.F�:i�'FT VERY TRULY YE-QRS. ts.--- DENNIS C. F..Oi-1 N OCTOBER 1, i?St 1 `!t' P,.... _ COMMISSIONER NORMAN CARL.SON, CHAIRMAN ( i BOARDOF WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 0CT 91984 CENTENNIAL CENTER L4PL_.L i�LMP'!i tOI,ER� GREELEY, F•E COLORADO i.J I. .J COMMISSIONER: GREELEY. CCLO. DEAR I il i: WAI,,E THAT YOU 14-r + DOOM FE AGAIN IIIH ,_ DECISION ' i`-.:.f--_ NOT TO �.t_ .q—I _ 1 INDUCEMENT r .__, !r_r. r.., RESOLUTION I�.IrN L:i- v HET HER t r. i•u I t_; ,'.. F I �\_;-_ r:3', r'•i sl_t1Lf1. . , F�;F:. PERMIT ERM T S PURPOSE s—,S i rlrs WOULD i`L�•,t r T .,__�s••,L%�~+ FOR THE OF PROVIDING i:.- 2S.:z FOR MULTI—FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RENTAL HOUSING FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME F Y1P. LIES. RECENTLY JLB CONSTRUCTION CAME TO YOU FOP SIMILAR APPROVAL. THAT RESOLUTION WAS DENIED WITH REASONS LD.,.vEN THAT SOME MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DO NOT BELIEVE REVENUE BONDS SHOULD BE APPROVED FOR SUCH A PURPOSE. OTHER COMMISSIONERS WERE AGAINST THE USE OF FUNDS BECAUSE THEY QUESTIONED THAT THE UNITS WERE FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING, EVEN THOUGH STATISTICALLY THE RENTS ARE DESIGNED TO ACCOMODATE PEOPLE WITH FAMILY INCOME'S OF BETWEEN $13, 000. 00 AND $20, 000.00 PER YEAR. OTHER FACTORS THAT LED TO ADVERSE DECISIONS, I AM TOLD, WERE BASED ON QUESTIONING OF THE ACCURACY OF THE INDEPENDENT STUDY THAT WAS USED TO INDICATE NEED. THOSE QUESTIONS AROSE WHEN MEMBERS OF THE WELD COUNTY CHAPTER OF THE COLORADO APARTMENT ASSOCIATION GAVE TESTIMONY CHALLENGING THE 2% VACANCY FACTOR THAT WAS DETERMINED BY YOUR INDEPENDENT STUDY. I WOULD ASSUME THAT PROJECTS COMING TO YOU FOR BOND FUNDS IN THE NEAR FUTURE WOULD BE AIMED AT THE SAME ECONOMIC TARGETS AS THE JLB CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. WITH THAT IN MIND, I WOULD ASK THAT, IF FURTHER POINTS ARE PRESENTED TO YOU THAT WOULD SWAY YOUR FUNDAMENTAL ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS FOR PROJECTS SUCH AS THIS ONE. YOU RE-CONSIDER YOUR POSITION UN THE JLB DOr.DS AT THE SAME TIME YOU CONSIDER THE OTHER PROJECTS. I KNOW THAT JLB STANDS READY, WILLING, AND ABLE TO BEGIN SUCH A PROJECT. FINANCING REQUIREMENTS AND ALL OTHER ASPECTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY JLB, SUBJECT TO ISSUANCE OF THESE BONDS. JL5 CONSTRUCTION HAS ERECTED OVER 12,000 SUCH UNITS NATIONWIDE, SO THE COMPANY HAS A PROVEN AND RESPECTED TRACK RECORD. JLB STANDS READY, UPON BOND APPROVAL, TO TAKE SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF RISK TO PRODUCE THESE UNITS TO SHOW THEIR BELIEF THAT THERE I5 A NEED FOR HOUSING OF THIS TYPE IN WEST GREELEY. THE SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS JLB PLANS TO SPEND IS MONEY THAT WILL. BE PUT INTO THE LOCAL ECONOMY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, AND THAT OUTSIDE MONEY COMING INTO GREELEY IS CLEARLY GOOD FOR THE GREELEY-WELD COUNTY ECONOMY AND FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. I AM ALSO AWARE THAT, SUBSEQUENT TO YOUR ORIGINAL HEARINGS, MEMBERS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ADVISORY BOARD HAVE MADE THEIR FEELINGS i:::FJOWN TO YOU ABOUT THE POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS THAT COULD ARISE FORM THIS PROJECT. THE HOMEDU I LDEF:'S ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN COLORADO HAS ALSO TALJ..:ED TO SOME OF YOU. OTHERS IN THE ,_OMMUNIT•`r' HAVE TALKED TO YOU TO RE-ENFORCE THE NEED FOR NT : 1 • ' / f L. ., HOUSING SUCH AS THIS. ANOTHER REASON THAT I THINK THE MATTER SHOULD BE RE-OPENED IS BECAUSE IT IS NOW OBVIOUS THAT CERTAIN INFORMATION GIVEN TO YOU IN THE HEARING AHD DECISION MAKING PROCESS WAS FALSE, AND WAS KNOWN TO BE FALSE AT THE TIME BY THE PRESENTERS. I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE t":TTAC::} !EF' COPY OF THE SEPTEMBER 1984 WEL.D COUNTY CHAPTER OF THE E ?'s._.O :ADO APARTMENT ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTER THAT T `_..ATE RIGHT AT THE E TOP OF FAG= i THAT THE OCCUPANCY FACTOR IS ,-..... T Ir', k.t;_.•.._°:._D ALF ! ►-t:TAi-? THAT THEIR PUBLICATION WAS SAYING THE VACANCY FACTOR IS ::`.•w, JUST AS YOUR CHALLENGED INDEPENDENT STUDY CLAIMED. 17 SHOULD SE NOTED THAT IF THERE IS A YEAR LEASE AND THEN AT THE END OF THAT YEAR PEOPLE MOVE OUT AND IT TAKES TWO WEEKS TO t THE AND RE-.RENT IT WE WOULD SEE THAT THAI i•:E__.1�::_S CLEAN PROPERTY TWO WEEK VACANCY?C'y FACTOR ALONE WOULD ACCOUNT FOR A 3. 7% VACANCY Y FACTOR. WITH THAT IN MIND, IT IS NOT HARD TO SEE WHY NATIONAL. STANDARDS INDICATE THAT ANY VACANCY FACTOR IN THE 2% RANGE AND UNDER REALLY MEANS THAT THERE IS A HOUSING SHORTAGE. IT IS ALSO INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, IN THEIR OWN SEPTEMBER 1984 PUBLICATION ALSO HAS AN ARTICLE PREPARED BY THE JOINT CENTER FOR URBAN STUDIES THAT STATES IN PART, . . . . "THE STUDY FINDS THAT HOME OWNERSHIP HAS BECOME TOO COSTLY FOR MANY FAMILIES, ESPECIALLY THOSE OF THE BABYBOOM GENERATION WHO ARE NOW INTERESTED `,t H N E THE EXPECTED RESULT IS A!'1 INCREASED I I'�l J'r T tug+ HONES.��_.,�. DEMAND FOR APARTMENTS. . . . " SINCE THAT STUDY IS DEALING WITH THE NEED FOR APARTMENTS NATIONWIDE, AND THE STUDY CALLS FOR INCREASED DEMAND, IMAGINE THE INCREASED DEMAND IN A DYNAMIC GROWTH AREA SUCH AS GREE LEY DURING THAT SAME PERIOD. IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTION'S RELATING TO MY FEELINGS ABOUT SUCH A RESOLUTION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME. IF NOT, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO PLEASE RE-CONSIDER THE JLB BOND PROJECT WITH ANY OTHER PROJECT OF A SIMILAR TYPE THAT COMES BEFORE YOU IN THE NEAR FUTURE. VERY TRULY Yfy S.. ,------- DENNIS L. } OHAId II rid Counly Chapter t. -�:7- Colorado Apartment c E P T Ell BE R-] 984 _ Association ' • Bo. 1950 I i, Greeley.Colorado 806]2 Occupancy.Facbor98% ;M I'. "LEAS I FIG " THERE IS MORE TO TT THAN MEETS THE EYE!!! CAROL LEVEY HAS AGREED TO SHARE hER EXPERTISE IN LEASING WITH THE WELD OCUNTY CHAPTER CAA MEMBERS. MS. LEVET HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE MULTI-HOUSING INDUSTRY FOR APPROXI- MATELY 16 YEARS AND IS CURRENTLY VICE PRESIDENT-MAAKETIRG WITH DENVER APARTMENT GUIDE, INC. CAROL HAS BEEN WITH APARTMENT GUIDE FOR 21 YEARS. SHE HAS SERVED ON-SITE IN BOTH MANAGEMENT AND LEASING AND AS OFF-SITE PROPERTY MANAGER OF MORE THAT 900 UNITS, SO SHE IS WELL QUALIFIED ON THIS SUBJECT. FOR 11 YEARS SHE HAS BEEN GIVING MOTTVATIONAL AND SALES SKILL PRESENTATIONS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES. SHE IS. A TRUE BELIEVER IN, AND PRACTIONER OF, THE POSITIVE AT- TITUDE PRINCIPLES OF SUCCESS. CAROL WILL HELP US LEARN - - HOW TO CLOSE - WHICH SOUNDS LIRE SELLING!! - WHICH IS - I _ -. . EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE DOING WHEN WE HAVE RENTALS. SHE WILL l - ALSO HELP US PREPARE FOR ANY CORNING VACANCY.INCREASES.. ., ... II WE WILL ALL BENEFIT FROM THIS MEETING AND WE ENCOURAGE _.'. , ALL OUR MEMBERS TO BB PRESENT!! _ ._ -- ill pp�77{{ ! ��1 � V/ l - , MEETING S E PT.25- EBONY ROOM - 6:30 P.M. i 12.50 PER PERSON 1'' CALL STEAMWAY FOR RESERVATIONS BEFORE C 1 NOON MONDAY k S E PT.24 AT 353-0133 PLEASE COME FOR THE MEETING t IF YOU CANNOT MAKE THE DINNER V .1 r WI J , i >> • OFFICERS 1984.1985 Jlm Boyle President Market briefs Carol Mack President-Elect President McKain Past President Home costs reviving Donald Elliott Treasurer Richard Hazen Secretary interest in rentals Ron Chubbuck Director Al len Rhoadarmer Director W.R. Erwin Director THE DEMAND FOR RESIDENTIAL RENTALS Avis Deane Director SHOULD INCREASE GRADUALLY OVER THE NEXT FEW HEARS. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE OF A REPORT BY THE JOINT CENTER FOR URBAN STUDIES OF MIT AND HARVARD UNIVERSITY. 1984 CALENDAR THE STUDY FINDS THAT HOME OWNERSHIP HAS BECOME TOO COSTLY FOR MANY FAMI- SEPT. 25 - VELD CITTR. CAA LIES, ESPECIALLY THOSE OF THE BABY- DINNER MEETING AT BOOM GENERATION WHO ARE NOW INTER- • ' 6,30 p.m. - EBONY ROOM ESTED IN BUYING HOMES. THE EXPECTED RESULT IS AN INCREASED DEMAND FOR OCTOBER 7-11 NAA 43rd ANNUAL APARTMENTS. C0:1VCs'MTION and EIFDSITION OTHER FACTORS THAT WERE DETERMINED MGM GRAND HOTEL TO HAVE IP COSTS SED AAB HICNER I.NTEREST RCOF ON E OWNER- RATES, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA - - INFLATION OF HOME PRICES, AND THE . OCTOBER 18-20 and 25-27 ESCALATING COSTS TO BUILDERS OF ARM COURSE COMPLYING WITH GOVERMENT REGULATIONS. QUALITY INN - DENYER,CO. THE JOINT CENTER CONCLUDES THAT, 8170 a.■. to 5,30 p.m. Condominium units have been NOVEMBER 5-9 IRFIt ANNUAL CONY. gaining in popularity in recent HONOLULU, HAWAII years, as Americans are buying less - - • single family detached homes. In 1977 wilS pA� {{ FOA CRUISE5a'1k -- single-family homes represented three-fourths of all private CALL THE UNC OFF CAMPUS RENTERS housing starts. But five years later, this percentage dropped to INFORMATION SERVICE TO LIST YOUR 62.7 percent. VACANCIES - A FREE LISTING SERVICE Unless measures are under- taken to reduce the federal deficit, interest rates will rise over the i 351-2172 MONDAY - FRIDAY Bum-$Pm' next several years. i EIWAITLIT Home costs are beginning to • • IT significantly outpace inflation. prices for both new and existinghones are rising at a rate of 10 percent per year. EES reprinted In part fro■ ARM NE115 mation.C Istment - - page 2 5 - REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL CLIENT/PAYMENT Weld County and the City of Greeley shall be considered the client for the study. All reports will be directed to the County of Weld and City of Greeley. County contact person shall be Don Warden, Director of Finance and Administration, and the City contact person shall be Sam Sasaki, Assistant City Manager. Fees shall be paid for by Wheeler Realty and JLB Construction on a 50/50% basis. SCOPE OF WORK This is a request for a proposal to provide a housing feasibility study for multi-family housing units in Weld County, specifically the Greeley area. REQUIREMENTS The proposal for the housing feasibility study must address the following tasks to be performed by the Contractor: 1. All data should cover current situation and any projections should be for a five year period (1984-89) . 2. Determination of the need for multi-family housing in Weld County (specifically Greeley area) . A. Type of units (studio, 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, etc.) B. Rent and corresponding income levels (low, moderate, etc.) with a breakdown of rent by unit type. C. Suggested areas of project (location) . 3. Assess rental market and housing needs keeping in mind that the County and City's goal is to have sufficient supply at sufficient rent level. A. Analyze the vacancy rate and project vacancy rates. B. Will projects suppress rent if all are built? C. Estimate true market rental rate for new projects as described in applications. D. Five year cash flow of projects proposed before debt service. 4. Assess feasibility of conventional financing market satisfying need. 5. Recommend to Board/Council: A. Projected units needed in area. -1- B. Type of units needed. C. Rent level of unit needed and corresponding income levels. 6. Assess the proposed projects as to their compatibility to the satisfaction of the multi-family housing needs in Weld County (specific to Greeley area) . 7. Recommend an administrative monitoring system to insure compliance of project with agreed upon unit type, rent and income levels. 8. A fixed fee for the study to include all out-of-pocket expenses should be quoted in the proposal. BIDDER QUALIFICATIONS The County/City must have evidence of the bidder's ability to provide the services described in this request for proposal. Bidder must answer questions regarding qualifications specified in the request for proposal during the selection interview. PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL All proposals should be submitted to the Director of Finance and Administration on or before Monday, August 20, 1984 at 8:30 a.m. in the Finance Office located at 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, Room 319. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS Upon receipt of all proposals, an evaluation team shall evaluate the firms' proposal and then may interview the firms that, in the County's opinion, can accomplish the tasks outlined in the request for proposal. After evaluating the proposals, the Board shall take one of two courses of action: 1. Request the firm to perform the tasks outlined in the request for proposal. 2. Notify all parties submitting proposals that the constraints identified in the interview process or in the evaluation of the proposals makes it impossible to select any of the firms. If the Board does not make a selection, it may request additional proposals from other sources or determine that the restraints identified in the evaluation process disallow the selection of any firm to perform the task outlined in the proposal. ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS/INFORMATION It is understood that the Board of County Commissioners reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive any informalities in the proposal process, and to accept the proposal that, in the opinion of the Board, is in the best interest of the Board and of the County of Weld, State of Colorado. -2- The successful firm shall indemnify and hold harmless Weld County against all claims for royalties, patents, or for suits for infringement thereon, which may be involved in providing the services requested. Cost will not be the determining factor. The County reserves the right to refuse the lowest bid, and select the overall best qualified bidder. All factors relating to the bid will be carefully weighed. The proposal shall be sent in a sealed envelope. Six copies of the proposal must be submitted. In submitting the proposal, the proposer agrees that the acceptance of any or all of the bid by the County within a reasonable time or period constitutes a contract. No delivery of service or payment for service shall take place unless a contract has first been issued by the Purchasing Director of Weld County, Colorado, or the Board of County Commissioners. Weld County reserves the right to request additional information from all bidders in the evaluation process if clarification of proposal is necessary. Proposer must be willing to agree to the following standard contract provisions unless specified in writing as an exception in the proposal submitted. 1. Contractor agrees that it is an independent contractor and that its officers and employees do not become employees of County, nor are they entitled to any employee benefits as County employees as the result of the execution of this agreement. 2. Contractor shall indemnify County, its officers and employees against liability for injury or damage caused by any negligent act or omission of any of its employees or volunteers or agents in the performance of the approved agreement and shall hold County harmless from any loss occasioned as a result of the performance of the contract by Contractor. The Contractor shall provide necessary workers' compensation insurance at Contractor's own cost and expense. 3. No officer, member or employee of County and no member or their governing bodies shall have any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in the approved agreement or the proceeds thereof. No employee of Contractor nor any member of an employee's family shall serve on a County board, committee or hold any such position which either by rule, practice or action nominates, recommends, supervises Contractor's operations, or authorizes funding of Contractor. 4. Contractor may not assign or transfer the approved agreement, any interest therein or claim thereunder without the prior written approval of County. 5. Time is of the essence in each and all the provisions of the approved agreement. -3- 6 No alteration or variation of the terms of the approved agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto. 7. Contractor shall not be allowed or paid travel expenses unless set forth in the approved agreement. 8. Contractor assures that it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that no person shall, on the grounds of race, creed, color, sex or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under the approved agreement. 9. Payment requests, divided evenly, should be sent to Wheeler Realty and JLB Construction with copies to the City of Greeley and County of Weld. -4- TIME SCHEDULE Request for Proposals Released August 10, 1984 Proposal Due August 20, 1984 8:30 a.m. Interview Proposers (if necessary) August 21, 1984 Notice to Proceed to Successful Proposer August 21, 1984 Draft Copy of Study Due to City of Greeley and County of Weld September 11, 1984 Final Study Due to City of Greeley and County of Weld September 17, 1984 Public Hearing on Multi-Family Mortgage Bond Applications September 19, 1984 Laventhol &Horvath 1800 Emerson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 Certified Public Accountants (303) 861-2700 August 20 , 1984 Mr. Don Warden Director of Finance and Administration Weld County 915 Tenth Street Room 319 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Warden: Laventhol & Horwath is pleased to submit this proposal to assist Weld County and the City of Greeley is assessing the feasibility of two proposed multi-family housing projects to be located in Greeley, Colorado. This letter presents a detailed outline of the services we propose to provide to you and an estimate of our professional fees . This letter is divided into six sections : - our understanding of the background of the project; - our recommended approach and scope of services; - our qualifications to perform the engagement; - the timing and fees required for the anticipated scope; - the terms and conditions of our engagement with you; and - acceptance procedures . Each of these sections is presented below. I . BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT Additional rental housing has been proposed for the west side of Greeley. Weld County and the City of Greeley would like a feasibility study to be completed which would provide them with certain information. The objectives of this study will be to: - determine the need for multi-family housing in Greeley; - assess the rental market and housing needs as they relate to the City' s desire to have a sufficient supply of rental housing at appropriate rent levels; - assess the feasibility of conventional financing to meet the need for rental housing ; - recommend to the Board/Council : A member of Horwath& Horwath international with affiliated offices worldwide_ Mr. Don Warden August 20 , 1984 Page two the projected number of units needed in the area; the types of units needed ; and appropriate rent levels and corresponding income levels; - assess the ability of the proposed project to meet Greeley' s multi-family housing needs; - recommend an administrative monitoring system that en- sures that the proposed project complies with agreed upon unit types , rent and income levels Accordingly , we have developed a work plan for this engagement which will provide the information necessary to meet the above objectives. II . APPROACH AND SCOPE OF SERVICES In order to provide you with the necessary information on a timely basis , we propose to divide this engagement into three phases . The initial phase will focus on Greeley' s rental housing needs and the market support for additional rental housing . The second phase will involve the preparation of financial projec- tions for this proposed project' s first five years of operation. The third phase will consist of a written report discussing our work. PHASE I MARKET ANALYSIS During Phase I we will assess the present supply of , and demand for, multi-family rental housing in Greeley. We will also project the future needs of the City for multi-family housing and determine the ability of the proposed project to meet those needs . In addition we will recommend the number and type of units to be built and appropriate rent levels . The following specific tasks will be completed during Phase I . ( 1 ) Review the General Characteristics of the Greeley Market Area. The objective of this task will be to assess the basic character- istics and trends in the Greeley market area. Economic and demographic trends will be analyzed by examination of published data , physical inspection of competitive properties , interviews with selected local real estate- sources and governmental agencies and review of Laventhol & Horwath' s existing information. Our analysis will focus on identifying the particular strengths and weaknesses of the area relative to the residential real estate market . The trends in the general economy in the Greeley area will be evaluated to assess the overall focus and direction of growth, in addition to determining the likely role of the market area in that growth. Mr . Don Warden August 20, 1984 Page three ( 2 ) Determine the Current Market Area Multi-Family Resi- dential Supply and Demand Characteristics We will visit and interview the management of existing rental housing in the market area. We will focus on: - Characteristics of the properties Location Rent levels Age of facilities Size Amenities offered - Absorption rates - Vacancy factors - Tenant mix Based on the above, we will provide you with data illustrating the present supply of and demand for rental housing in Greeley , including information on unit types and rent levels . (3 ) Projections of Residential Demand Over the Next Five Years Our projections will be developed based on an analysis of : - growth trends in sales and rental absorption; - evaluation of trends in demand factors relating to shifts in locational preferences or facility configuration; - transient and permanent population demand characteristics - employment , income and other economic and demographic factors in the target market area; and - changes in consumer preferences demonstrated in the market area. ( 4 ) Evaluate Proposed or Potential Projects in the Market Area Current development activity will be reviewed to identify any proposed residential projects . . These projects will be identi- fied through our existing knowledge of the area and interviews with key developers , lenders , brokers , and building managers in the area. The identified projects will be assessed to determine their impact on the market and the proposed projects . Mr. Don Warden August 20, 1984 Page four ( 5 ) Site Evaluation In this step the charactersistics of the sites for the two pro- jects and their surroundings will be examined. We will evaluate the suitability of the sites for multi-housing . Surrounding land uses can enhance or detract from the suitability of a site for development . All of the existing uses in the surrounding area will be evaluated, and any positive or negative impacts on the development potential of the sites determined . This review will also include an assessment of the effect of the proposed development on the surrounding land uses. We will also evaluate the transportation network surrounding each site to determine its suitability for the proposed projects. (6 ) Project the Market Potential for Multi-Family Housing Development on the Sites The conclusions on future demand will be applied to the proposed project The market capture rate potential , ( i .e . , the fraction of the market area growth which can be "captured" at each project site) will be projected through: - Judgements of the public perception of the site and its proposed characteristics , relative to other competitive projects in the marketplace . - The capture rate of other competitive projects. A major factor in this capture analysis will be the projection of achievable lease rates given the market appeal of the proposed development and the location of the site . ( 7 ) Recommend the Optimal Size and Type of Development at the Sites This task will provide overall parameters of the total project , based on the market potential at the site as previously determined . Recommendations will be made for: - the number of residential units . - the size and type of residential units; and - the facilities and amenities to be included in the project . Mr . Don Warden August 20, 1984 Page five (8 ) Assess the Effect of the Proposed Project on the Greeley Rental Housing Market Our projections of future supply and demand , along with our esti- mates of the proportion of rental housing demand the projects can capture , will enable us to assess the extent to which the pro- posed projects may effect existing rent levels in Greeley. We will also assess the extent to which the proposed projects will meet Greeley' s housing needs . ( 9 ) Recommend an Administrative Monitoring System to Ensure the Compliance of the Proposed Projects with Agreed Upon Unit Type , Rent and Income Levels The proposed projects will have an established unit configuration and rent and income guildlines for its future residents . We will provide you with a methodology for assuring that the planned unit configuration and rent and income levels area achieved during the projects' operation. At the conclusion of Phase I we will prepare an outline report summarizing our conclusions and meet with you to verbally present our results . Following our discussions , and based on your autho- rization , we will then proceed with Phase II , the financial projections . PHASE II FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS At your request, we will prepare projections of cash flow available for debt service , income taxes , replacement reserves and fixed charges for each of the two projects . The projections will be expressed in constant 1984 dollars and will incorporate an appro- priate range of income and expense categories for multi- family housing projects of this type. The projections will be based upon the experiences of similair projects , industry wide standards and L&H ' s data from comparable projects . As part of this phase we will assess the ability of the conven- tional financing market to finance the proposed multi-family housing. Our assessment will be based on our knowledge of the lending community and the recent experience of similar projects in obtaining conventional financing . The results of Phase II will be presented in our written report on the project . Mr. Don Warden August 20, 1984 Page six PHASE III WRITTEN REPORT At the conclusion of Phases I and II , we will organize the rele- vant information and prepare a written report discussing our recommendations concerning the proposed projects . This report can take one of two forms , depending upon your needs . We will prepare either a summary report ( 10-15 pages) outlining our major findings and conclusions and the bases for our finan- cial projections, or a more detailed report ( 35-45 pages) which will more extensively describe the results for our research and the condition of Greeley' s mulit-family housing market . In addition to our report , we will be available to verbally present the findings of the market study at the public hearing on Multi-Family Mortgage Bond Applications on September 19 . III . Qualifications of Laventhol & Horwath Laventhol & Horwath is qualified to provide Weld County and the City of Greeley with the required market analysis and financial projections for three reasons: 1 ) the firm' s recognized expertise in conducting residential market studies , 2) the firm' s expertise in providing real estate financial advisory services , and 3) the firm' s familiarity with market conditions in the City of Greeley. L&H is a reecognized leader in providing residential market studies to public and private sector clients throughtout the Front Range . Recent engagements have included the development of the desired housing type , unit configuration and suggested sales price for a proposed condominium project in Frisco, Colorado; assessment of the demand for apartments and condominiums as part of a $150 million mixed use development in Phoenix, Arizona: and a market assessment of a proposed multi-family housing development for a Colorado-based pension fund. In addition to our residential market analysis skills , L&H provides a full range of market feasibility, finaincial and deal-structuring services to public and private sector clients . Our recent experience has included the preparation of market feasi- bility studies for major mixed use projects in Boulder , Grand Junction, Denver and Colorado Springs, Colorado. The firm also is widely recognized for its expertise in the development of inno- vative financing for large scale projects , and can bring this wealth of experience to the present engagement . Finally, L&H has had the advantage of recently completing two market feasibility projects in Greeley -- one for a mixed use project in downtown , the other for a hotel. As a result , we are familiar with local data sources and have already collected a Mr . Don Warden August 20, 1984 Page seven substantial portion of the secondary data required for the engage- ment . This will permit our project consultants to quickly col- lect and organize the data needed for preparation of the market study and financial projections and will help ensure that the report can be completed under the compressed time frame for the engagement. Additional information outlining L&H' s qualifications to perform this engagement is enclosed. IV . TIMING AND FEES The scope of services outlined in the preceding sections would require aproximately four weeks to complete , as follows: Phase I 2 weeks Phase II 1 week Phase III 1 week A draft copy of the results to be included in the final report will be available by September 11 , and a final report will be submitted by September 17 . This timetable is contingent upon your prompt review of the preliminary data at the end of Phases I and II . The fees for our services will be based upon the actual amount of time spent in the performance of the engagement , and include our out-of-pocket expenses . For the services we have outlined in this proposal , the charges for our professional time and expenses will be as follows : Professional Fees Retainer Phase I $ 9 ,000 $ 2 ,250 Phase II 3, 500 875 Phase III - summary report 2, 500 625 - full report 4 ,300 1 ,075 Total $ 15, 000-16 , 800 Mr . Don Warden August 20 , 1984 Page eight If our time and expense charges do not reach these maximum figures , we will bill you only for the actual time expended. Should you require additional work which goes beyond the original scope of our engagement , we will bill you based on our hourly rate sche- dules and the actual time spent . Our fees include time for one meeting with you and attendance at the public hearing. V. TERMS AND CONDITIONS Our submitted report will be based on estimates , assumptions , and other information developed from research of the market , our knowledge of the real estate industry, and information provided by you. The sources of information and bases of the estimates and assumptions will be stated in the appropriate sections of our report . The terms of this engagement are such that we will have no obligation to revise the final report or the projected financial results to reflect events or conditions which occur subsequent to the last day of our fieldwork. However , we will be available to discuss the necessity for revisions in view of changes in the economic or market factors affecting the proposed project . We will not ascertain the legal and regulatory requirements ap- plicable to this project . Further, no effort will be made to determine the possible effect on the projects of present or future federal , state , or local legislation including any environ- mental or ecological matters , or interpretations thereof . With respect to market demand analysis , our work will not include an analysis of the potential impact of possible energy shortages . Since the absorption and financial projections will be based on estimates and assumptions which are inherently subject to varia- tion depending upon evolving events , we will not represent them as results that will actually be achieved. Our report and projections are intended solely for the information of the developers, Weld County and the City of Greeley. Neither the report nor its contents may be referred to or quoted in any registration statement , prospectus , loan or other agreement or document. It is our firm' s policy to require retainers in this type of en- gagement , which will be applied against the final billings for each phase. Fees will be billed every four weeks as the work progresses. Invoices are payable upon presentation. Mr. Don Warden August 20 , 1984 Page nine VI . ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL If our proposal meets with your approval , please sign the enclosed copy of this letter and return it to us , together with the retainer. We will schedule our starting date as soon as we receive authoriza- tion. We thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to working with you on this project . Very truly yours , LAVENTHOL & HORWATH A. ry S. Schettl , Senior Principal Kenneth D. Bleak M ager Management Advisory Services Real Estate Advisory ervices Enclosure ti Laventhol &Horwath 1800 Emerson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 Certified Public Accountants (303) 861-2500 A DESCRIPTION OF THE REAL ESTATE ADVISORY SERVICES OFFERED BY THE DENVER OFFICE OF LAVENTHOL & HOR%7ATH To serve the diverse needs of the rapidly expanding Front Range real estate industry, the Denver office of Laventhol & Horwath offers an equally wide range of real estate consulting services . Coordinated through the Real Estate Advisory Services group of the firm' s Management Advisory Services Department , the goal of the real estate consulting practice is to offer a highly profes- sional and comprehensive range of services to clients requiring assistance in the conceptualization , planning , financing , and management of real estate projects . With a staff of five full- time professionals , the Real Estate Advisory Services group encom- passes a broad range of experience and knowledge of the real estate industry. The professional staff are drawn from the fields of real estate finance , urban planning, property management , and lending. This diverse experience allows the Denver office of L&H to target our consulting services to the specific needs of our clients and to assure that these needs are met efficiently and effectively. The specific capabilities of the Real Estate Advisory Services group in the Denver office of L&H include the following: - Real estate feasibility studies for retail , office , hotel , industrial, and residential projects . - Feasibility analysis and market studies for large , mixed- use projects . - Feasibility analysis for leisure time-related projects . A member of Horwath 6i Horwath International with affiliated offices worldwide. - market surveys for innovative development projects . - economic and demographic projections . - development planning. - highest and best use studies . - fiscal cost-revenue projections for new developments . - municipal revenue projections . - financial modeling for real estate projects . - housing needs studies . - large public facility impact studies . - location analyses . - site evaluations . - evaluations of public program performance . - development of innovative financing plans and other deal- structuring activities . - studies of special submarket demand ( the elderly, specific ethnic groups etc . ) . - preparation of financial projections for SEC registrations and public offerings . - valuation and appraisal services . L&H provides its clients with the advantages of a national and international information network combined with a strong local presence . The Denver office has established itself as a leader in the provision of economic feasibility analyses to Front Range firms . These analyses have generally included: an in-depth analysis of the market in terms of present and future supply and demand as it applies to the proposed project ; an examination of key economic indicators which may point to growth within a particular industry or area ; an evaluation of the proposed site -2- in terms of access , visibility , surrounding environment , and other relevant factors which affect the suitability of the site for the proposed use; an analysis of the likely competition for the proposed project and projections of the ability of the proposed project to capture a share of market demand; recommended facili- ties ; and financial projections of the proposed project ' s perfor- mance during its initial years of operation. In addition , in accordance with our philosophy of providing pragmatic advice to our clients , we often determine possible sources of funds and alternative financing schemes , and bring together the team neces- sary to implement the proposed project . Thus , we view the goal of the feasibility analysis as not the generation of a paper report , but rather the provision of hands-on advice to the client that will be meaningful for their project . With the rapid expansion of the Real Estate Advisory Services group over the past year , the number and range of the firm ' s real estate engagements has grown significantly. Recent engage- ments peformed have included: - The analysis of major downtown mixed-use projects involv- ing hotel , retail , and office development in Denver , Greeley, Boulder , and Englewood, Colorado. - The feasibility and market assessments for the development of hotel/convention center facilities in Denver , Grand Junction , Boulder , Colorado Springs , Longmont , and Greeley , Colorado. - A market analysis for a design industry showroom in Denver. - Development of tax revenue projections for a tax increment financing bond issue to support a $ 50 million development in Englewood , Colorado. -3- - Financial analysis and SEC registration for major condo- hotel developments in Winter Park , Vail , and Summit County , Colorado and for a resort property in Utah. - Market assessment and facility requirements for elderly housing projects in Colorado and New Mexico. - Market analysis and facility recommendations for a major downtown residential project including a full-service athletic club. - Projections of return to the investors in a syndication of a residential project . - Provided documentation to support a loan request for a major downtown Denver office building. Documentation in- cluded a review of the physical plant , current tenant leases and projections at future space absorption, and achievable base rents . -4- D C2417 ' %%eh' County Chapter 1. 4 '-eiN'T41 .'''c Colorado kpadtnnent 8 E P T E N BCE R1984 - Association v e..1950 n I a to:. y' �� ° G eeley,Colorado 80632 + 3lt�iu�'1 4^adL .y � F -414 0ccupancy c,bc T98% ,. ; te >.0 �." �, :ifxn xy9�> . SO 4a44"'•444A • A ^ fl^' 9.'I'F >n $Fij .Pa 4.*'hr't+ra, ° 9 <x1.arr4 1'4 �'F tr ` "L E R ' _ V " ..� M� a w x...`.t�iLA-.F x3'e'iPtJ'f ° t°�' ° r.,'o, ., "`:14L •L k,"et3at M ° ° g' 4 S tz. x i, w vi - �� THERE I^u MONE'TO+TT THAN.MEETS THE EYE2I! CAROL LEVEZ �a �W �k� x15X,p + �.4 HAS AGREED TO.SHARE HER EXPERTISE IN LEASING WITH THEntu..nsan innyth4My.„1,4 - WELD COUNTY CHAPTER CAA NF7iBERS. ' MS LEVEY HAS fN r 'a` it P, - -. ASSOCIATED WITH THE MULTI-HOUSING INDUSTRY FUR•APPBOXI Td'"P. r a t . �.p .. ,s•173+s m"fiv+A` 1 tt . MATELY 16 YEARS AND IS.CURRENTLY VICE PRESIDENT-MARKETING `,e ��WITH DENVER APARTMENT CUIDF INC. CAROL HAS BEEN WITH rk "• """'l-z' APARTMENT.GUIDE FOR :,YEARS. SHE HAS SERVED,OH SITE Ii w a q r 9, SV 'r+ BOTH MANAGEMENT AND LEASING AND AS OFF-SITE PROPERTY Lrak,r . ;ti r, F,tx '9 o-. :.: MANAGER OF MORE THAT 900 UNITS, SO SHE IS WFJJ QUALIFIED" r :k r5 ON THIS SUBJECT + 'tv-°[ fi i rs •u.".e ¢7 f '<y, Il' - FOR 1a YEARS SHE HAS BEEN GIVING MOTIVATIONAL AND SALES. ' SKILL.PRESENTATIONS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES. SHE IS A „ - TRUE BELIEVER IN, AND PRACTIONER OF, THE POSITIVE AT-4: �'. . TITUDE PRINCIPLES OF SUCCESS. CAROL WILL HELP US LEARN a 3 HOW TO CLOSE - WHICH SOUNDS LIKE SELLING!! WHICH IS,c?: s ap , • ., . - t EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE DOING WHEN WE HAVE RENTALS SHE xILL ` ,, y.,, Lh. . "-- ALSO YELP US PREPARE FOR ANY CONNING VACANCY INCREASES. x' ',age ae,1,`. sx '+`° —at t+ >va. ,. WE WILL ALL BENEFIT FROM THIS MEETING AND WE ENCOURAGE, >t`"' i ALL OUR MEMBERS TO BE PRESENT!! '•44,- s t ;.,•r- x+V ty,"' s, 5: V ,Fb rOmY ` FJ'a° „`4„,", - r .e M`b ?.. 4 •, '44'4'4' ,Y•44`1,rf " /JO+ * � Yf ��A- �4 (.,+ � S S L!^'l' C flfltLflrLa MEETINGS PT.25- EBONY ROOM 6:30 P MA '• 12.50 PER PERSON 'R` F',r ., ,• , '• CALL STEAMWAY FOR RESERVATIONS BEFORE NOON MONDAY ' � U S E PT.24 AT 353-0133. ;a PLEASE COME FOR THE MEETING iF YOU CANNOT MAKE THE DINNER 1 OFFICERS 1984-1985 Jim Boyle - President Market briefs - J Carol Mack President-Elect Rozie McKain Past President Home costs reviving Donald Elliott Treasurer Richard Hazen Secretary interest in rentals Ron Chubbuck Director Allen Iihoadarmer Director W.R. Erwin Director THE DEMAND FOR RESIDENTIAL RENTALS Avis Deane Director SHOULD INCREASE GRADUALLY OVER THE NEXT FEW HEARS. THAT IS THE BOTTOM • -, FOR URBAN STUDIES OF MIT AND HARVARD 1984 CALENDAR UNIVERSITY. THE STUDY FINDS THAT HOME OWNERSHIP HAS BECOME TOO COSTLY FOR MANY EMIT- SEPT. 25 - WELD CHPTR. GA LIES, ESPECIALLY THOSE OF THE DAM- DINNER MEETING AT BOOM GENERATION WHO ARE NOW INTER- 6:30 p.m. - EBONY ROOM ESTED IN BUYING HOMES. THE EXPECTED RESULT IS AN INCREASED DEMAND FOR OCTOBER 7-11 NAA 43td ANNUAL APARTMENTS. CONVENTION and EXPOSITION - MGM GRAND HOTEL OTHER FACTORS THAT WERE DETERMINED LAS VEGAS, NEVADA TO HAVE RAISED THE ROOF ON HOME OWNER- SHIP COSTS ARE HIGHER INTEREST RATES, OCTOBER 18-20 and 25-27 INFLATION OF HOME PRICES, AND THE AIM COURSE ESCALATING COSTS TO BUILDERS OF QUALITY INN - DENVER,CO. COMPLYING WITH GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. THE JOINT CENTER CONCLUDES THAT: NOVEMBER 5-9 'REM ANNUAL CONY. Condominium units have been HONOLULU, HAWAII . gaining in popularity in recent , . .,. .,,..years, as Americans are buying less '"SEE PAGE 11. FOR CRUISES.' single family detached homes. In 1977 single-family homes represented three-fourths of all private CALL THE UNC OFF CAMPUS RENTERS housing starts. But five years INFORMATION SERVICE TO LIST YOUR 62L7rFer, entPerce"toga dropped to VACANCIES - A FREE LISTING SERVICE ➢nless measures are under- ` taken to reduce the federal deficit, _ 351-2172 MONDAY- FRIDAY Bam- $pm' interest rates will rise over the . . ..._ next several years.. .. W.L �tT�n Home costs are beginning to aI y EDI significantly outpace inflation. `!`/ ,i„Y (, 1�� 11 Prices for both new and existing ��T� homes are rising at a rate of 10 NEW 1IL liEBERS percent per year. 1V L1LP._11y j reprinted in part from ARM NEWS For Memu.Ahiy Information,Call Two Rivers Investment 352-1025 page 2 • • • • Mainllllllllll _ PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE A HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR MULTIFAMILY RENTAL UNITS IN WELD COUNTY AND THE CITY OF GREELEY AUGUST 16, 1984 Mai �-_ -Iurdman Certified Public Accountants 1800 Great West Plaza,1675 Broadway,Denver,CO 80202,Telephone:303/820-2000 August 16 , 1984 Mr . Don Warden Director of Finance and Administration Weld County 915 10th Street , Room 319 Greeley, CO 80681 Dear Mr . Warden: We are pleased to submit this proposal for a housing feasibility study for multifamily housing in the City of Greeley and surrounding area . We understand Weld County and the City of Greeley are considering the issuance of tax exempt Mortgage Revenue Bonds to provide financing for multifamily rental housing. Because of the importance we place on this engagement , we are prepared to assign our most qualified professional staff members for this Project. Our engagement team will be under the overall direction of Mr . Robert Abresch, Director of Consulting Services and Mr . William Kyle , Manager , will serve as client service executive for this engagement. Mr . Frank Vezzi will provide project supervision throughout the engagement. Additional qualified staff members will be supplied as needed. This proposal outlines our understanding of the study, engagement objectives and the approach we will utilize in preparing a feasibility study for the proposed program. The proposal is divided into the following topic areas : Our Understanding of the Project Objectives of the Engagement Approach to the Study Engagement Team Timing, Fees and Expenses Main Hurdman Qualifications Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Program KMG Klynveld Main Goerdeler-International firm Mai L 'Iurdman Certified Public Accountants 2 We are enthusiastic about the possibility of performing this study. We combine professional competence with a strong personal concern for your success and a desire to do all we can to assist in the attainment of your goals and objectives. We recognize that professional services such as ours depend not only on the skills and knowledge of those working with each client , but also upon the personal relationships between the members of our respective organizations . Main Hurdman is prepared to agree to the requirements put forth in the Request for Proposal including: • Indemnification of Weld County against all royalties, patents or for suits for infringement thereon, which may be involved in providing the described services . • Fixed fee contract for services as presented in our proposal . • Guaranteeing the independence of all Main Hurdman partners and employees as it concerns this contract . • Indemnification of County, its officers and employees against liability for injury or damages caused by Main Hurdman employees in the performance of this engagement. • Completion of the study within the time schedule presented in the Request for Proposal . We look forward to your favorable decision in being selected as your feasibility consultants . If you have any questions , please contact Mr. William Kyle at ( 303) 820-2000. Very truly yours, PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE A HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR MULTIFAMILY RENTAL UNITS IN WELD COUNTY AND THE CITY OF GREELEY AUGUST 16 , 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Our Understanding of the Project 1 Objectives of the Engagement 3 Approach to the Study 4 Engagement Team B Timing, Fees and Expenses 10 Main Hurdman Qualifications 11 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Program 12 Exhibit A - Sample Workplan OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT Main Hurdman understands that Weld County (the "County" ) intends to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds ( the "Bonds" ) pursuant to the "loans-to-lenders" multifamily mortgage revenue bond program ( the "Program" ) in accordance with current legislation. Legislative Requirements The Bonds will provide for the construction and permanent financing of multifamily rental housing projects in the County and specifically in the City of Greeley ( the "City" ) which are eligible under the Program and thereby meet all legislative requirements . The requirements specify that 20 percent of the rental units in a multifamily rental project financed with the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds , must be affordable and rented to persons with low to moderate incomes for at least ten years . The income levels of individuals renting this category of units should not exceed 80 percent of the median household income for the County and/or City. Study Requirements The County and City have requested that a housing feasibility study (the "Study" ) be provided to: • Determine the current and projected need for multifamily rental housing; • Determine the mix of units and rent levels needed; • Assess proposed projects as to their compatability with the identified needs; • Assess feasibility of conventional financing as an alternative to tax exempt financing; and • Recommend an administrative monitoring system to insure compliance with agreed upon mix of unit types, rent and income levels . -1- All information and projections provided in the Study are to cover the five-year period from 1984 through 1989. The Study is to be completed by September 17 , 1984 for a public hearing to be held on September 19, 1984. The timing for the Study is crucial because the County and City wish to provide "inducement resolutions" for projected new construction of multifamily rental projects based upon the number of units which can be absorbed. It is understood that applicants seeking tax-exempt financing are prepared to commence with construction immediately upon inducement , which may occur at the September 19, 1984 Public Hearing. Therefore, Main Hurdman recognizes and can address the urgency of the timely commencement and completion of this Study. Purpose of the Housing Feasibility Study The purpose of the Study is to assist the County and City in assessing the demand for multifamily rental housing in the City and surrounding area. Such a study is frequently included in the official statement or prospectus associated with the sale of tax-exempt revenues bonds and is also used to assist local issuers in determining the number of multifamily units to be induced, based upon projected absorption. If properly conducted, a feasibility study can provide substantial and valuable guidance for planning due to the numerous issues addressed in a comprehensive study. -2- Our report will provide recommendations with regard to the demand for rental multifamily housing units in the County and specifically in the City. The recommendations will also address the types of units needed, corresponding rent levels and the respective income levels for those units . Additional recommendations will be made regarding an administrative monitoring system. The full scope of the study is delineated under the "Objectives of the Engagement" and "Approach to the Study" subsections of this proposal . OBJECTIVES OF THE ENGAGEMENT We will provide the County and City with market and economic information to assist in determining the demand for the multifamily rental units . In performing the Study, we will assess the current and future demand for multifamily residential rental units . We will also provide a five-year cash flow projection to determine the rental income requirements to support vacancy and expenses, including management, maintenance, repairs, taxes and other operating costs . The cash flow analysis will provide the cash balances available prior to debt service. Since debt service costs reflect current market rates and debt structure is dependent upon unique lender criteria, the actual debt repayment terms are not available at this time. However, we will be able to provide preliminary debt service coverage based on current market conditions and assumptions provided by the County and City, underwriter and local bank personnel for bond and conventional financing. Upon issuance of the bond, Main Hurdman will provide a revised cash flow summary to include the actual bond debt service repayment schedule for the first five years . -3- APPROACH TO THE STUDY Main Hurdman designs a new workplan for each market feasibility study to ensure the particular needs of the client are met effectively and efficiently. Based on our experience, we design our workplans so the majority of our time is spent studying the key factors that are most likely to impact the results of the Study. Exhibit A presents a general workplan for Housing Market Feasibility studies . The general scope of each engagement includes a Project Initiation segment where the workplans and scope of services are agreed upon and working relationships are established. The second major segment includes the actual workplan for the engagement , which is the approach to be taken during the fieldwork portion of the Study. The final segment is the analysis of information and presentation of our findings, including any recommendations that may be appropriate. The following summarizes the approach we plan for this engagement, the type of documentation necessary to substantiate our conclusions and recommendations . Project Initiation Our management and staff will meet with the County and City officials upon commencement of the engagement. During this meeting, we plan to: • Request that the County and City select a contact individual with whom we can establish a close working relationship throughout the engagement. This person will perform a liaison service between the officials and the consulting team; • Determine factors within the County and City that would impact housing growth to include but not limited to availability of transportation, municipal services , educational and medical institutions , shopping and recreational areas; -4- • Evaluate the necessity for an alternative approach or deviation in the scope dependent upon unforeseen and/or external changes in the environment; • Schedule regular informal meetings , as needed, to evaluate the progress and direction of the Project, to discuss any potential problems and to ensure that our work and analysis remains relevant to current needs; • Schedule formal meetings at crucial stages during the engagement to review key assumptions and projections as well as to discuss changes in our contract should such action be warranted, as appropriate; and • Gather all necessary and relevant data with respect to the planned multifamily rental projects . In an effort to keep our fees to a minimum and to complete the Study in the most timely manner , we will place special emphasis on utilizing internal and external data and studies currently available and mutually acceptable . Study Approach The following tasks will be performed to include County and City data, consistent with the sample Main Hurdman Feasibility Study Workplan ( see Exhibit A) , County and City goals and applicable legislation: • Collect historical demographic, economic and current and planned housing data. • Identify major industries and sources of future employment for growth to anticipate the relationship between economic and population growth. • Project 1984-1989 demographic changes based upon historical data for population, income and household characteristics . We will utilize mutually acceptable projections if available. • Review the standard and substandard existing housing and projected residential statistics to analyze multifamily rental housing characteristics which will identify the present and projected rental housing needs. -5- • Evaluate current rental multifamily market demand in the County and specifically in the City to include: - unit types (studio, one bedroom, etc. ) - corresponding rents - respective income levels per unit - vacancy per unit type • Evaluate historical vacancy fluctuation caused by overbuilding and explain previous and current vacancy trends. • Analyze vacancy factors based upon demographic and economic changes and compute housing demand with current vacancy and a desired vacancy to achieve a healthy housing stock supply. • Profile the new units under construction and planned to determine their suitability and competitive standing within the market area. • Determine true market rental rates for new projects with unit types and amenities per current applicants . • Examine overall factors within the City that would determine the demand for multifamily residential rental units based upon previously described analysis and findings . • Determine the total number of market rate units that can be built (per current applications) before overbuilding occurs and rents are suppressed. • Analyze how below market rate ( i .e. , very low income and Section VIII ) needs will be addressed through the bond program which finances market rate units . • Determine suitable location within the City for newly constructed projects based upon planned growth areas consistent with City goals and location appropriate for multifamily rentals with respect to current and planned surrounding land uses , as well as the opportunity to create aesthetic and well planned residential communities. • Assess projected multifamily rental needs as they impact the County ' s and City 's goals to provide residents with a "fluid" or sufficient supply at respective rent levels . -6- • Prepare a financial analysis to determine the revenue requirements from the Project to support expected project vacancy, expenses and other operating costs to include reporting requirements to ensure compliance with applicable legislation. • Utilizing projected growth patterns and demand for projects comparable to those described in applications, provide a five-year cash flow summary of income and expenses before debt service. • Compare current interest rates and terms for conventional financing versus bond financing, utilizing projected cash flow after debt service , to determine if an adequate number of conventionally financed units would enter the market to satisfy demand with a fluid vacancy rate (per City goals) , if bond financing was not available . Presentation of Findings and Recommendations The market feasibility study prepared by Main Hurdman will provide recommendations addressing the following areas: • Total number of multifamily residential rental units needed in the City and surrounding area, including City 's anticipated vacancy rate; • Type of units needed; • Corresponding rent levels needed per unit and the respective income levels to achieve rental cost; • Compatibility of proposed projects (per current applications ) specifically to the City' s, as well as the County 's multifamily housing needs ; and • Administrative monitoring system (see following) . Administrative Monitoring System Main Hurdman is aware of the legislative requirement that 20 percent of the units be rented to persons with no greater than 80 percent of the median income and that those rents be fixed based upon formulas established by the County or City. -7- Although an administrative monitoring system to insure compliance is required, Main Hurdman has seen little evidence of multifamily bond issuers implementing such systems . After several meetings with the National Multifamily Housing Council, Washington D.C. , issuers, bond counsels, underwriters and other concerned parties, Main Hurdman is designing a program which will streamline the reporting requirements . A cost-effective and timely reporting program, consistent with AICPA guidelines and sound reporting principles, will be available in the near future which provides: • A simple format for easy and timely input on the part of project owners/managers to be submitted to independent auditors, such as Main Hurdman, who will test the data ' s validity and completeness. • A model that determines data input compliance with legislative requirements. • Flexibility within the model to update requirements as low to moderate rents fluctuate and/or retroactive legislative changes occur. • Documentation for the Trustee, issuer or other designated responsible agent as designated in bond documents. Main Hurdman recommends that such a system be implemented and utilized pursuant to requirements of the bond documents , to ensure compliance with program requirements. The cost of such a system should be absorbed by the developer (s) and added to the Project ' s annual operating expenses . ENGAGEMENT TEAM The successful completion of any engagement is directly dependent upon the quality of those professionals assigned to it. Aware of this, we have selected a local team whose experience and ability can best serve the County and City. The following will describe those persons assigned to the engagement team. -8- Engagement Partner - Robert Abresch, a Principal and Director of Management Consulting Services in the Denver Office, will have partnership responsibility for this engagement. He will be responsible for ensuring the adequate resources are assigned to the engagement and completion is timely. Mr . Abresch has over 18 years experience in various types of project management and 12 years in management consulting . He has been involved with numerous municipal bond issues, including mortgage revenue bond issues , over his career . Engagement Manager - William Kyle, Director of Financial Consulting Services in the Denver office, will have overall engagement management responsibility for this Study. He will be responsible for the completion of the Study and directing the assigned staff thus ensuring quality control . Mr . Kyle over 12 years of financial consulting experience and has directed and managed over 150 mortgage revenue bond studies , including one for Weld County. Prior to joining Main Hurdman, Mr . Kyle was a Principal with another national CPA firm with responsibility for all studies associated with mortgage revenue bonds nationwide. Independent Reviewer - Mr . Edward Keith, a Manager specializing in real estate/construction consulting will be responsible for providing an independent review of the Study prior to issuance . Mr . Keith has extensive experience in real estate and construction consulting, including market and financial feasibility studies for single and multifamily housing projects. He has prepared numerous feasibility studies for mortgage revenue bond issues . -9- Engagement Supervisor - Frank Vezzi will have day-to-day responsibility for completion of the specific tasks outlined in this proposal. Mr . Vezzi has over ten years of experience in areas of project management , financial and economic analysis and is responsible for coordinating the activities of Main Hurdman' s Denver office real estate/construction industry committee. Additional staff will be assigned as necessary and appropriate. TIMING, FEES AND EXPENSES Based upon our knowledge and understanding of the Project and our experience on similar engagements , our fees will be $10, 500 to include local travel and meals on a not to exceed basis . The above fee quotation is based upon preparation time for the Study under the original Request for Proposal and the approach presented in this proposal . If the engagement is reduced in scope or discontinued, we will charge only those fees related to the work actually performed. Should unforeseen events outside the control of Main Hurdman cause a major change in timing, the assumptions or the scope of work required, a fee revision may be necessary. In this event, we would discuss the situation with the County and City to obtain concurrence at the earliest possible time . We bill for professional time monthly, at the end of each month, and payment is due within ten days of the invoice date . -10- Within one day of the notification of acceptance, we will commence this engagement , per the following schedule : Time Schedule Notification of Acceptance August 21 , 1984 Commence Study August 22 , 1984 Submit draft copy of Study to County and City September 11 , 1984 Submit final Study to County and City September 17 , 1984 Attend Public Hearing September 19 , 1984 MAIN HURDMAN QUALIFICATIONS We believe there are many significant reasons why the County ' s and City ' s best interest would be served by selecting Main Hurdman. We have summarized several reasons : • We would assign to this engagement the most qualified members of our professional staff. As such, we are in a position to provide comprehensive market and financial consulting services for this project; • Our personnel have worked with issuers , cities and developers in many locations, including Weld County and with a wide range of investment bankers and financial institutions ; • Our studies are recognized and readily accepted by the major investment banking and lending firms and those organizations that issue credit ratings such as Standard & Poor 's Corporation and Moody ' s Investors Service, Inc. • We are committed to meeting your timetable for completion. We recognize the importance of meeting these deadlines to approve inducement and issue bonds, and are prepared to exert all our efforts to do so; • We will tailor our finalized workplan and planning guides to the particular circumstances of this engagement; • We are currently developing an administrative monitoring system that we beleive may well be applicable for the proposed bond program. -11- • Our real estate specialists have gained extensive experience from providing a wide range of consulting and financial services covering a broad spectrum of management areas , including mortgage revenue bond issues for both single and multifamily issues. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION Main Hurdman recognizes its responsibility to accomplish full and effective utilization of qualified persons regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age , veteran or irrelevant handicapped status. In furtherance of this responsibility, Main Hurdman is committed to an aggressive program of employment and personnel practices to ensure true equal opportunity for all qualified persons . Policy It is the policy of Main Hurdman to: • Recruit, hire, train and promote persons in all job classifications , without regard to race, color , religion, national origin, sex, age , veteran or irrelevant handicapped status; • Base decisions on employment so as to further the principle of merit and equal employment opportunity; • Ensure that promotion decisions are in accord with principles of merit and equal employment opportunity by imposing only valid requirements for promotional opportunities; and • Ensure that all personnel actions such as compensation, benefits, transfers, layoffs , firm-sponsored training, education, tuition assistance, social and recreational programs will be administered without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, veteran or irrelevant handicapped status . -12- EXHIBIT A MAIN HURDMAN FEASIBILITY/MARKET DEMAND STUDY WORKPLAN Purpose: The purpose of this study is to determine: (1 ) the demand for a given project at a specific site; or (2) the demand for residential single or multifamily housing in a specific area, city or county. Method: Analyze data in the following areas to determine the demographic trends, economic strength and market rate for residential units comparable to or competitive with the proposed project(s ) . If a project(s) is not specified, the study will provide market rates , rents and demand for specified areas and for the total area in general per Feasibility Contract. Categories: 1 . General Reviewer ' s Initial . Financing Program . Redevelopment Program Comments 2 . Site Description, if applicable . Location . Surrounding Neighborhoods Comments 3 . Description of Project and Development, if applicable . Project Design . Design of Units . Developer Profile Comments 4. Area Characteristics . Location . Market Area (adjacent cities ) . Transportation . Community Facilities . Environmental Factors Comments 5 . Demographic Factors . Population and Projections . Household Size . Age Distribution . Income Data Comments The following information should be collected for the most recent year , plus two to five previous selected years . A. Population: City County Market Area Cities Comments Sources: Bureau of the Census City/County Local Council of Governments Colorado Department of Local Affairs Chamber of Commerce/Community Profiles B. Household Size Comments Sources: Bureau of the Census Local Council of Governments HUD Colorado Department of Local Affairs Chamber of Commerce/Community Profiles C. Age Distribution Comments Sources: Sales and Marketing Management - S&MM Bureau of the Census D. Income Data Comments Source: Sales and Marketing Management - S&MM E. Economic Factors (1 ) Employment Statistics for SMSA & City/County for most recent and three previous years Sources: Bureau of the Census Local Council of Governments Department of Labor & Environment Chamber of Commerce/Community Profiles (2 ) Major Employers in: City/County Market Area Cities Source: Chamber of Commerce/Community Profiles (3) Taxable Sales (most recent and three to five previous years ) Sources: City/County S&MM Colorado Sales Tax Almanac (4) Assessed Valuation Source: County Assessor (5) Building Activity (most recent and five previous years) Source: Construction Trends urdman HOUSING MARKET STUDY FOR MULTIFAMILY RENTAL UNITS IN WELD COUNTY AND THE CITY OF GREELEY SEPTEMBER 11, 1984 Main Odurdman - Certified Public Accountants 1800 Great West Plaza,1675 Broadway,Denver,CO 80202,Telephone:303/820-2000 September 11 , 1984 Mr. Donald D. Warden Director of Finance and Administration Weld County 915 10th Street, Room 319 Greeley, CO 80681 Dear Mr. Warden: The accompanying study presents a market analysis for rental multifamily housing for Weld County and the City of Greeley for the period 1985 through 1990. The study was undertaken to evaluate potential demand for multifamily rental housing; to prepare a preliminary and partial projection of revenues, expenses and cash flow for current applications; and to evaluate the effect of bond financing versus conventional financing. The scope of our study included (1 ) an analysis of housing, income, economic and demographic trends and (2) projection of single and multifamily housing demand for the County and City for the period 1985 through 1990. The assumptions, rationale and conclusions presented in this study are based on: (1 ) data published by various governmental • agencies, (2) other information provided by government agencies and members of the real estate and lending industries, (3) a review of available information concerning the program, (4) information provided by developers, who have applied for funding under the proposed bond program and (5) other information available as of August 31 , 1984 that was considered appropriate for the purposes of the study. In conducting the study, we employed sampling and analysis techniques that we believe were appropriate under the circumstances.• • KMG Klynveld Main Guerdeler-international firm • Mairi 4= -mot Hardman s� Certified Public Accountants Mr. Donald D. Warden Director of Finance and Administration Weld County 2 Based upon the factors, assumptions and rationale utilized for the purpose of this study, we project that the Weld County and Greeley rental market demand during the period 1985 to 1990 will range from 3,000 to 3,500 units. Of these total units, we estimate approximately 50% or more are needed within the next two years in order to meet the vacancy and inventory goals. Because the demand for rental housing is met through several types of housing, including single family detached, small multifamily units (2 - 9 units per structure) , larger multifamily (10 or more units per structure) and manufactured housing. It is not reasonable to assume that the entire demand for rental housing will be met from large multifamily projects. Based on a 30% - 40% mix of large multifamily rental units for Greeley, we project that approximately 900 to 1 ,000 new larger multifamily rental units could be absorbed over the next five years, again approximately 50% or more should be built within the next two years to meet the City and County goals for rental units. The remainder would likely be single family detached rental homes and small multifamily units. The following critical areas should be considered in connection with this study. Data Sources - Data used in this study were obtained from sources we believe to be reliable for the purpose of the report. We did not verify such data and, accordingly, express no opinion as to their accuracy. The data should not necessarily be relied upon for an exact description of the current situation. Rather, trends in the data should be evaluated as indicators of changes taking place in the Weld County and Greeley market areas. Population Projections - The demand for housing is dependent upon the population growth and the average person per household. During the study, we identified various population projections prepared by various groups for both the City and County. We evaluated each projection and utilized those we and the appropriate government officials believed were most reasonable. However, a significant variation from these population projections may materially affect the actual rental housing demand. Persons Per Household - Based on current trends, there has been a decline in the number of persons per household. Yet, there are also some indications that the divorce rate is declining and the birthrate is increasing. Therefore, it was assumed that the average number of persons per household would remain constant from the 1984 level . Any variation from this assumption may materially affect the overall demand for housing. Mai urd an Certified Public Accountants Mr. Don Warden Director of Finance and Administration Weld County 3 We have compiled the projections in accordance with applicable guidelines established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A compilation of a financial projection does not include evaluation of the support for the assumptions underlying the projection. Because a compilation of a financial projection is limited as described above, we do not express a conclusion or any other form of assurance on the accompanying statements or assumptions. We have no responsibility to update this report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of this report. The accompanying partial projections and study were prepared for use by Weld County and City of Greeley for preliminary evaluation of proposed multifamily rental projects, and should not be relied on for any other purpose. Neither the report nor its contents may be referred to or quoted in any registration statement, prospectus, loan or other agreement or document, without prior written permission from Main Hurdman. 1 HOUSING MARKET STUDY FOR MULTIFAMILY RENTAL UNITS IN WELD COUNTY AND THE CITY OF GREELEY SEPTEMBER 11 , 1984 j El t'. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page GENERAL BACKGROUND 1 Description of Area 1 The Bond Program 2 Special Issues Affecting Weld County 3 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS 5 Population 5 Households 7 Person Per Household 9 ECONOMIC PROFILE 12 Civilian Labor Force and Employment 12 Major Employers 12 Distribution of Employment 13 Distribution of Income 14 Median Household Income 14 HOUSING FACTORS 18 Housing Stock 18 Building Activity 18 Rental Housing 19 Vacancy Rates 19 FINANCIAL FACTORS 22 Market Rental Rates 22 Operating Expenses 28 DEMAND ANALYSIS 32 Projected Multifamily Rental Demand 32 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 39 ADMINISTRATIVE MONITORING SYSTEM 40 APPENDIX - CASH FLOW COMPARISON Public transportation is provided through a local bus system, Greyhound and the Union Pacific Railroad. Air transportation is provided by the Greeley Commuter System and the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Civic facilities include over 125 churches, two regional shopping centers, 15 elementary schools, one junior high school , one high school , the University of Northern Colorado and Aims Community College. Recreational facilities include the multipurpose recreation facility, which is currently under construction, the Island Grove Park and Sports Facility, 30 parks, 17 playgrounds, one golf course and three swimming pools. Police protection is provided by 130 City officers. There are four fire stations and 68 fire protection employees. There are three local radio stations and two local newspapers. THE BOND PROGRAM The County anticipates implementing a tax-exempt revenue Bond Program (the "Program" ) and plans to issue bonds to provide financing for the construction of multifamily rental housing. The purpose of the Program is to increase the supply of rental housing in the City and in the County while maintaining adequate alternative housing opportunities within the area. The program requires that 20% of the units be rented by households qualifying for affordable housing and having low to moderate incomes, defined to be 80% of the area's median income. The Program utilizes tax-exempt revenue bonds issued by the County under Assembly Bill 665. The bonds do not involve any pledge of County revenues, taxes or assets. -2- Projects financed under this Program must meet Program requirements, as described previously, and have the necessary lender commitment for credit support. Loans will provide construction and/or permanent financing, and expected to be amortized over 30 years, with shorter term maturities (i.e. , 10 year renewable). The initial effective loan interest rate will depend on market conditions at the time of bond closing and are anticipated to float thereafter. It is currently anticipated that the rate will float from 8% to 10%, whereas conventional financing ranges from 13.5% to 14%. Project loans under the program are anticipated to be issued under normal lender underwriting criteria, such as 80% loan-to-value ratios, etc. SPECIAL ISSUES AFFECTING WELD COUNTY In the course of our work, certain factors, which may relate to the demand for housing during the study period, have come to our attention. These factors are summarized below. Factors Which May Have a Favorable Influence on the Demand for Rental Housin o Economic Develo ment Pro ram - The Greeley area Chamber of Commerce is Involve in an aggressive program to attract new business to Greeley and Weld County. The revised program strategies involve 1, national advertising and letters to businesses inviting them to visit Greeley and Weld County. The program is concentrating on high technology industries, agribusiness related national associations, oil and energy companies and service industries. The Chamber is optimistic about the program increasing the economic base of the county. • Ex ansion of Existing Businesses - During recent years, Greeley and Wet ounty ave attracte many new and prestigious companies. Many of those companies are currently planning significant expansion, such as Hewlett Packard. -3- Factors Which May Have a Unfavorable Influence on the Demand for Rental Housing s Agribusiness Cyclicality - Much of the economy of Weld County and Greeley remains dependent on various segments of agribusiness, which is very cyclical and has not evidenced the recent economic recovery of the rest of the economy. e Declining College Enrollment at University of Northern Colorado - Over the last few years, there has been a decline in student enrollment, which has some ripple effect throughout the community. There is some evidence, however, that enrollment may be stablizing. • -4- DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS This section of the report discusses population size, other descriptive attributes and some observations concerning trends which serve as a basis for projecting housing demand. POPULATION The City of Greeley and Weld County have both sustained growth since 1970. This growth is expected to continue, but at a somewhat lower pace, as the area attracts additional new industry and current industry expands. POPULATION Annual Growth Rate 1970(1 ) 1980(1 ) 1984 1970-1980 1980-1984 1970-1984 Weld County 89,297 123,438 134,460(2) 3.29% 2.16% 2.97% City of Greeley 38,902 53,006 55,977(3) 3.14% 1 .37% 2.63% (1 ) U.S. Census, 1970 and 1980 ( 2) Projection was extrapolated from projection of Colorado State Demographer (3) Estimated by City of Greeley Planning Department In order to estimate the demand for housing, population is stratified into two groups: total population and population in occupied housing. The difference represents the segment of the populating residing in institutions which utilize group quarters. The population in occupied housing is further stratified into two subgroups: owner occupied and renter occupied. The population and each group stratification is projected from the 1980 Census date to the end of the study period, 1990. The basis of projection is a combination of trend analysis between the 1970 and 1980 U.S. Census, and projections based upon surveys conducted by the U.S. Census, City of Greeley and the State Demographer. -5- r CD m o n O n in ,'CPomCr N. O • • . C1 POrCA t0NOP rn 0NOP ID10 mN E m co C0O OO10P O CI nOVb Otnh r� L. POr-N O?0000 1 Ct Or-m CO n Obn 9 DCD OI K1P PP U' rOnN 0 ^ q r r O 0. C L^.n r.....1/40 OaP©r L en 0 b 0 Cr m 0 in U) a OD V mC eNN CI r'= • Cu CO m Cr, CO t0 tf n N 0 T e PO CrCr L r r r 0) 0 i c.n en n tnba C n t0 O<t0 PONr- d NOOCt In Ln CLJ CV T N.CC n0C.u' ON LC)PN Y a PPOtal. to in eN L rr v a C In C�r�toN N 0,LO n r C in 0Nr-U CO aCO CI • tatpr OD Or mN T CC CO b Cr.bae COb n.- 01 O 01 m m PP to to en CV L ✓ r^ .) 0 N W_ 9 LL C • ✓ rfl Cu Cu O Pt,tN.o tO O r0 1.- CC V ninth. to bt0O NL 0C P m b: t0•:tn N 9 6 a,CO b n P n b n N r C C N U rroC Lel0mN L CO av Z ri a O = ^. s CJ N CO CI 3 r o o P LO r`N tO VD U In to 0 1/40 CI I.--N r.-P a o .-.... O P P Cu r Ot^r Of 1 q P 4,▪ m P r co CI in in N0 ON f. 0 nn OP bb mN O, 01 CO U ^ ^^ •-•.= W Y L 9 C C C ." CO CO CA Ot tor.O CO tO Z nO br- OOt 0101 in O .-- Pnrr O:r--m 9M ▪ 0 C C F- 00 nMO 0t nct POT L CJ Q ^ ^^(pn NPNr y J L 0- an A 0 6 0 0 a YCC) a .- ^ N U OI 0 C O N a in C n cr CO • C ^ CO m 0 m O 6 CO m T r a+ I U 0. 0)O CJ o n L O T s+ O C1r a+ C T ^ rCO C o 9 C 69 C C = CJ Cr- L 0.9 .0 O W 0. Cn 0 0 C C U W rcla L 6 An in al 0 CJ in 0 0 9 0J V O 9 O J L CC C O a. d C d..- 0CP 0 0 O. C T 9 00 a) 9 6J CI)4- 1..,4-.. a+ O mu L 4.0 = 0 y O O u u =r =a O tt.r =0 o N• 0 0 U.�-t U L I- O N O L Y C O CL 6 9 0 0 0J Y T 0 00.0 2 .Ca6 cc U 0Cs r- The following tables are included to provide some insight to the makeup of the population. Information presented is based upon 1980 Census information. AGE DISTRIBUTION 18 & under 19-64 64+ City of Greeley 1970 29% 59% 12% 1980 28% 62% 10% DEMOGRAPHICS OF TYPICAL RENTAL POPULATION Annual % Increase 20-34 yrs. % of total 1970-1980 City of Greeley 1970 10,693 28% 5.51% 1980 18,289 35% MEDIAN AGE OF POPULATION • 1970 1980 Weld County 24.6 26.7 City of Greeley 25.7 The distribution of population by age demonstrates a growth in the segment of the population containing the prime users of rental property, 20 - 34 year olds. This segment grew by 71% in the period 1970 to 1980 and increased as a percentage of total population from 28% to 35%. HOUSEHOLDS The number of households stratified by owner occupied and renter occupied households is provided by the 1980 Census. Total occupied units are the sum of owner and renter occupied units. -7- aC aC aF aG as ai 0 0 0 q CO p CU 1 I'I(7M qqq Y N� NNN NNN y N G L O U I- C Y IC I. 9 �� C NNN r-nc N T T I C•O •03 • VI•b•LO C CI C • NNN NNN i U 00 C CD a O. 0 d N c: O L O U w • U • g CO CQ C •O• 10 N 1 9 C Y -N V N. • O1 in tO O nNN IOOCV CU CV rb.- 01 CO t 0 q N Y Y CO LC)f7 N Ca .O T Y 9••- O U L CO O a a O un,-n r-mn P c CO .S CO 1.0 R0IO i° a T LC)C•3 N,r- Y C C CO .- O 4 U Y CO CV VD 0 0 O • OD b O b ^ d t 003 .-O F- ng10 O Y CanA 1'JNO LL N COr- N^.- 0.4-, a E VI O N MC O OJ N. One•a nab '9" 0 CO PON^O ben oc nv en 4) ac r 0 CV 1/1 LO(Om N.-,- C!O� CO • O 0 Y L q 0 L O N Y O LC)ON O X L LO m vii a.C CO tOCN N�OO Of Y • 9 • p0e0 NNO CeC0 .I N•-...- T C "a^ �I O. C E ,,PP n •PNN OMn CIY0. 9 LO Obq ' 0C frl N< Y CO e0 q i-a C eV qOn N^[T C'!�Y I' r- V- I C O 0 O u Yq Of 9 N Nn Ill 000 ' U^d OD CV in NON C.C Cr N CV LO Ql+n 90 non ^q C 10 v.7.-- H^ eO J L d C0 0 X o u r VI Y a 0•0 Ie o ... on CO L 0 n00 NeC 0€ 0N 0 t7 LOCO 44..- J Orr NNIO 01 Oq CYO <N r- + S O N L. L 0 0 0 N 0 N V- a I C C CI— N P 9 U C C n O O b NOq In I- N. O 0 r- C! to N..- n N a V- .-V- O W N 0 N L J C C CI NO 0.C 04 T C) C•r a y 0 Y Y q C V U U U L CI O O 0.- L CI V-.- L C! N n E 0 20C C O m y Y • P O L OE J�ti C C 0 1 6 0 O 2 y C O O CV el Z U �...-.•-• n -U- 1 ( PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD The number of persons per occupied housing unit is an additional statistic developed during the census process. A history and projection of the number of people per household is provided on the following table. There has been a relatively continuous decline in persons per household throughout the late 1960s, the 1970s and into the 1980s. However, City Planning personnel believe it may be appropriate to hold the number constant for the remainder of the 1980s. The County has a somewhat higher number of persons per household than does the City. This may be due to the agricultural influence in the County and possibly the age of County residents versus City residents. Renters typically have a much lower number of persons per household than homeowners. This is due to their age and economic position. -9- O I 4A NY LL b l. �r�. 0. . . N N N N N N P LO N Lel CO CO C....P e Q Q LO r N N N N N N • O N N Ln ^I rmQ er- N N N N N N r cari ltl N Ill • . . O r O Q Q I,N N NCO LC)N N N y 4O 42)N WO CO N b O. CO I....o,Q e CD i ON NNN NNN O1 e C e I a A M y CI `. 4O N 1() Jo 4 rrne v�• >) F = Cl I NNN NNN O N A A O L J ( cc _ O cc- W O I o. to N 41 _NCV rO•Q Qrb 4, N N N N N N O N O C O 4.-,,CC C A A . } O OI O1 1004 QMO NY O NOle LOON > 0) i N N N N N N J e CO CO Cl C e•- I O 4.- Y.▪ 0 O A O1 N r J C Ch M O A 4 O Y O. O O C co rn o as_c u , NC = J...- C O O A S.C ON G) t....CO L O4 P A 9 O C) 'O w ^O N A O O. J N~O. CC) _ .. U G J CS = V C C - >, yU v C) LII U CD W o Cr- OO L.0^ 0O UU0. J1- 1- L O A L C) t1 C L 0) Ln CPI.— O L C)a+ OS- C)4.) .- 0) ZC C C) C C 0 0 4 9OOCC 4CJ T)O0O: d �.^M..C) v . s jt 11 { 3 I 1p_ } The previous tables indicate that the population has grown and the number of households has increased at an even greater rate because the number of people per household has declined. For estimation purposes, we have retained the 1984 person per household density. City officials believe further declines are not warranted since the density is already at a historical low and there is some evidence that the divorce rate is declining and the birth rate may once again be increasing. -11- ECONOMIC PROFILE This section provides an economic profile and brief discussions of various economic factors for Weld County and the City of Greeley. Factors discussed include labor force, employment and income. CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT The civilian labor force has experienced moderate growth over the 1980 to 1984 pericd. The economic downturn of the early 1980s had a short-term detrimental offset on labor as refl ected in the unempl oyment figures. CIVILIAN LABOR Annual % Change 1980(1 ) 1982 1984(2) 1980-1984 Weld County 57,442 58,989 65,549 3.36% City of Greeley 27,007 26,944 28,264 1 .14% UNEMPLOYMENT 1980 1982(1 ) 1984(2) Weld County 4.5% 6.6% 4.8% City of Greeley 10. 1% 7.7% 5.7% Source: Weld County Social Services and U.S. Labor Department MAJOR EMPLOYERS The major employers in Weld County are identified. All current major employers are considered stable and will also contribute favorably to the area employment situation. -12- Alf MAJOR EMPLOYERS(1 ) Name Number of Employees Eastman Kodak 3,300 University of Northern Colorado 1 ,300 School District #6 1 ,200 Northern Colorado Medical Center State Farm Insurance 1 ,100 Monfort of Colorado 936 Weld County Gov. 850 Aims Community College 600 Hewlett Packard 541 City of Greeley 485 465 (1 ) Chamber of Commerce 1982 data DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT Employment of the labor force is distributed by major industry as follows: WELD COUNTY i PERCENTAGE EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY CATEGORY(1 ) Mining Construction 1 .0% Manufacturing 6.9% Transportation, communication, 15.9% utilities and sanitation - 4.9% Wholesale and retail • Finance and real estate 20.5% Services 4.2% Agriculture 12.0% Government 11 . 23.11% % (1 ) Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Government 1980 data -13- DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME r Distribution of income in the County by major industry is as follows: Industry % of Personal Income Agriculture 24.6% Mining .7% Construction 6.9% Manufacturing 20.5% Transportation and utilities 6.0% Wholesale and retail 12.7% Finance and real estate 4.2% Services 9.9% Government 14.5% (Derived from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce data) Weld County per capita income is estimated as follows: PER CAPITA INCOME Annual % Growth 1970 1980 1970-1980 Weld County 3,383 8,687 9.89% (Estimate from Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Commerce Department) MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME The median household income developed by the 1980 U.S. Census provides information concerning 1979 income stratified by owner anc renter household. The estimates are: Total Owner Renter Households . Occupied Occupied Weld County $15,768 $19,722 $10,151 City of Greeley $14,383 $20,706 $ 8,815 -14- rif The City median income reflects the inclusion of University students. „. Median household income developed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Economic Affairs, consolidates all household types and reports for the entire County. The HUD information represents the data used to develop housing assistance requirements. The median household income, which is based on a family of four persons, is presented in the following table. I I I I 15- Cr 0 m qtrn 0 1- 4,1 0. v c-r co an On C1 U, r. a+ m m ro N 0 Q) M/ Y 'F U C) ro O Y i O A U r N 15 M U Ili d Y9 L U N C �O r N TJ M C 0 O d O 0 V m N O N M O rob co w 00 7 1.4 co 0 0 = 4 1 O 41 = Y N N W N M V W d 0 0 • O J O O r W O � d = 6 �O O, G Of C41 4... M 1 In m 01 N F, N M Y N M E QJ E V O V L M - C O r Y F) 4/1 N S M ; 0 0 ut E 0 N i M W- .0 GJ Y 'O U) 01 7 tp V CO V CO M 0, ro O, 1 a) CO N 1� 7 0. O r .0 y E L C O q • a u a, r r f • 1 HUD provides additional guidance in the form of median income by size of household for households ranging in size from 1 to over 8. The following table provides this information. p HUD FAMILY INCOME GUIDELINES FOR WELD COUNTY 1984 LOW INCOME LIMITS Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+ $13,350 $15,250 $17,150 $19,050 $20,550 $21 ,450 $22,600 $23,800 Source: HUD Office of Economic Affairs, Economic and Market Analysis Division We believe that one person would occupy a studio or one bedroom, two people, a one bedroom, three to four people, a two bedroom, and over four people would opt for a duplex or single family rental unit. Therefore, it would seem appropriate that the demand rental units larger than two bedroom units would be met outside the large multifamily rental projects which generally consist of studio, one bedroom and two bedroom units. -17- HOUSING FACTORS This section presents information relating to housing trends and the demand for housing in the Weld County/Greeley area. HOUSING STOCK The following table presents a comparison of housing stock mix for Greeley, Weld County and Weld County other than Greeley. DWELLING UNITS 1970 1980 Outside Weld Outside Weld Greeley Greeley County Greeley Greeley County Single Family 7,822 12,603 20,425 12,804 19,312 32,116 Multifamily 5,299 2,313 7,612 7,917 6,006 13,923 Total units 13.121 14,916 28,037 20,721 25,318 46.039 Single family dwellings have increased at 5.05% annually in Greeley and 4.36% outside Greeley and multifamily units, two or more units per structure, represent 4. 10% and 10.01%, respectively. BUILDING ACTIVITY High interest rates and the recent economic recession have greatly slowed housing construction in recent years. This is not only true in Greeley and Weld County, but throughout the country. There is further evidence of this in the dramatic reduction in vacancy rates. The City Planning Department is currently estimating a .95% vacancy in single family housing, and vacancy studies for multifamily rental housing shows rates as low as 1 .9%. Since 1980, the number of building permits issued annually in the County is approximately one-half of what it was prior to 1980. During 1984, there has been some increased activity. The City of Greeley issued permits for 506 units in 1983 while only 129 in 1982. There is virtually no demand for multifamily housing outside of a very few incorporated areas within Weld County. -18- ' RENTAL HOUSING Rental housing is provided through a wide variety of units from single family to small multifamily (2 - 9 units) projects, large multifamily projects (more than 10 units per project) and mobile homes. According to the 1980 Census, the mix of rental housing in Weld County and Greeley was as follows: 1980 RENTAL UNIT MIX Urban Outside Greeley Greeley Greeley Weld County Single family 3,067 34.8% 3,523 35.5% 4,627 67.1% 7,694 49.0% 2 - 9 units 2,924 33.2 3,431 34.6 1 ,221 17.7 4,145 26.4 10 or more units 2,515 28.6 2,548 25.7 347 5.0 2,862 18.2 Mobile home 300 3.4 421 4.2 705 10.2 1 ,005 6.4 8,806 100.0% 9,923 100.0% 6,900 100.0% 15.706 100.0% As can be seen from the above table, there does not appear to be much demand for multifamily rental units outside Greeley and the immediate urban area. This is not surprising given the rural nature of the County. VACANCY RATES Vacancy rates for the City have decreased to 1 .9% for multifamily rental housing. -19- The following chart provides City-wide historical vacancy rates for multifamily rental units. CITY OF GREELEY HISTORICAL MULTIFAMILY VANANCY RATES 1984 1 .9% 1983 2.1 1982 5.4 1981 5.8 1980 4.0 1979 5.9 1978 5.4 1977 2.3 1976 2.3 1975 7.4 Source: University of Northern Colorado Greeley Housing Survey, February 1984 The history behind the fluctuation in vacancy has been explained by City and University officials. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, students moved off the University of Northern Colorado campus and began to absorb rental units in the City. The newly created demand, primarily from the student sector, encouraged developers to build additional rental units. By 1974 and 1975, the new units resulted in a higher vacancy rate because there was an excess of rental units. The current and future demand, unlike the school sector demand in the late 1960s, is expected to result from the increased business activity and the resulting private sector growth. The recent decline in vacancy rate indicates the demand for rental housing may be somewhat pent up due to the recent housing recession. -20- The June 1984 vacancy rates as summarized for nine apartment complexes support the available 1 .9% vacancy rate, as follows: JUNE 1984 MAJOR APARTMENT COMPLEXES VACANCY RATES Number Vacancy Complex No. Units Vacant Rate Longmeadow 235 2 1% The Willows 156 5 3 Brentwood Park 191 4 2 Greeley Mall Garden 124 4 3 Village Green 120 4 3 Cottonwood 96 0 0 Royal Gardens 69 0 0 Totals 991 19 1 .9% According to the University of Northern Colorado Greeley Housing Study, this 1 .9% vacancy factor ranges from a high of 2.8% for three bedroom units to a low of Od for four bedroom units. Since 1975, the lowest vacancy rate is in buffet and four bedroom units; the latter is due to the relatively lower number of units. Two and three bedroom units typically have the highest vacancy factor. Of the 4,794 units surveyed by the University of Northern Colorado, the mix of units is as follows for 1984: 1984 GREELEY MIX OF MULTIFAMILY RENTAL UNITS Type Number Percent Buffet 238 5.0% 1 Bedroom 1 ,700 38.5% 2 Bedroom 2,354 49.1% 3 Bedroom 428 8.9% 4 or more 74 1 .5% -21- • FINANCIAL FACTORS MARKET RENTAL RATES (' (.1 This section of the study analyzes market rents in the City that are comparable to the proposed projects. The information serves as a basis for determining the projected 1985 rents for the proposed projects. City of Greeley Growth Area F I, The City has designated certain areas within its boundaries for residential development. In terms of City goals and desirability for a residential environment, one of the growth areas extends west of the City Center along West 10th Street. This area is best suited because it not only meets with City goals, but the area currently includes newly developed and quality residential communities. The City has designated this area for residential development because developable land is available to accommodate growth. The area will be desirable for market rate quality housing units which lend toward creating aesthetic residential environments. Projects targeted for this area should be high quality and at market rates consistent with existing housing units. Low Income Rental Ceiling Calculations The upper limit for low income affordable housing is calculated by a formula provided by HUD. The formula permits use of between 24% - 30% of : low income household funds to be applied to rent. This upper limit must also be compared to three equivilent rental units in the surrounding area to determine reasonableness. By agreement, low income renters must have access to 20% of the total mix of unit types in a bond funded project. -22- Based on the 1984 HUD Low Income Guidelines, the affordable monthly rent per household can be determined as follows: 1984 AFFORDABLE RENT Low Income Household Size Limit 24% 30% 1 $13,350 $267 $334 2 $15,250 $305 $381 3 $17,150 $343 $429 4 $19,000 $381 $476 Survey of Comparable Rental Units The City has four apartment complexes that are comparable to the proposed projects because they are large complexes, are located in pleasant residential areas and have onsite management. Three other large projects are not comparable, with the remainder of rentals including projects under 50 units, singles, duplexes, etc. None of these are comparable in terms of newly constructed projects with full landscaping plans and common area and unit amenities. This is consistent with most areas in the County where newer complexes are more desirable and command higher rents. In an effort to determine current market rents for a newly constructed project, those complexes considered most comparable are analyzed on the following page. -23- I T U A • 44 en U Al17 N en A T L O d d ( L C C C I! 41 CD 4)4.CO i LE N 0 0 C'•C- 10 N 001 0 Cpl N Y 44.Y V C d CI.‘1.. 0.CD C LCNN Nd O. O..•-• Ed n >9 C 9 > p L C C E LarE oo 4-1 00oC cmEEEc 0 YLrr r L L\.x L OV NYrr Y 410 L d 41 0 ✓iii' cu ai« n aror 44 b4 N d L V • T9 • CU 10 411 T L W in Lr CL • 9LO1 s- in 0.d J 9 in C CO C d ▪ E � O O10 OC • T1 $ L N i1 fa rei 14 9 N N4- N - 0 CI 41 r V as i -13 2 d 43 0. •drd .- C.C Y 9LC 0 V1 4- N0 I1 IA p10+• C- r O E9 = Ny. 10r .0r-Vr C N C Y .C O 0 r $ C T 10 C! r S.. JO O ••N .c -d 2 01 •- QE C •pN o LNL .ONNN • r ii-- VI • C N11 d r 4.1 CD 0 4- V1 .- dN 41 r- N V drL ••9r 010rr Y N d 0 N Y 41 C U Y C p i Y r N •0 I--C N &J.— Z r N O •d.— 0 • 64C Lr2 •ryC0. 2 4 O. O N > ] O d V in O U L to N o in V N O 4- 00 .0 “...- 0 C C >r 0 10 p r N 69 41 44 0 0...4-9 01F• 0.09 11.0•-9 1- 2 W Y CC W • J 1 in W -W 1- • L- W Y COCO O O >, C C 0 9 0 6 r dr COI + CV CV LL S W a CA= Ul - r OI C O LL 2 CO O = a T •-J r 1- Y C 0 U < L 0011410 Io Orr OD W<f7 02 CV 1.0 C CU • CO1.0in •0 at C<f•J CV<< 401029 O rCt Y . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . •7 W MM 44 M NM MN 44 44 MN in 44 442 N N IIII MI I I I ) III ' • Y 9 20 N< � N^ r ft0(") InOln C 0 It in ICI en V1 C f7 el M 00 C 9 O1 in in C< 9 d N • • • . . . . . • • C . . . . 0 OC 4+444+44 44 4424n MM 44 M r 41 44414+ Y Y N L C Y G d Y t0 VI2 2 0 0 ill 0000 N 1O0 2 i s- >,▪ N 9'9X1(1 CV el.el MI en en a9 NNf7C r -C Y M = n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C d 0 0 0 N i 0 C 14CION 10001 COO199 X Ih r—•-N o— r en C XI X- N el M M N(Vole O1 CU Cu f7 C d 4144 44 M 40144 412 MMNM d . CO Y CD L LY 0000 0000 01.000 141000 0 IOd N<00 010 1111(1 0Nr1(1 NMNO Z O d r4mr9 1O CO 01.- 2200 <[0f-.0 Y NW •-r- r r r 2 in EU 2 O O Y CU I- r in a C▪ T N N r 1. N N r N 0 r r r U n 1- \\44-4. \\\\ \\\\ Y\\\ W I-NNfl rNNr'1 rrN17 Nrtan • C n L L 0 Y • r 4 d C IA in. i in t O Z Za L S F- O.C K 0 N 9 d N £V N . Y 9 Y. r 9 Y 0 N Y N Y V p^r r L r 0 414- T^r •• C� CE1 C _17 C_ Y Ce C d CO C yd J b+r O r7 N O O d 01 = L CrN d1'12 o0r-r C09 = 0Ox•1 2IOaO L 0O, Lr--N O JNN 1-•Nr m ea•—• a rr CO -2-*- • I As shown in the previous chart, the comparable complexes are between five and twelve years old. The Longmeadow project, considered most comparable to the proposed projects, has the highest monthly rents per unit type. Greeley Mall , is least comparable with smaller units and has the highest per square foot rents. This section projects the September 1984 market rents for a newly constructed project. The rents reflect a well managed, well maintained and newly landscaped project with full unit and common area amenities which are at least comparable to those surveyed. The following chart summarizes September 1984 rents for the Longmeadow project, which is considered most comparable to the proposed projects. Rents reflect a 5% premium for new units, as follows: COMPARABLE UNIT TYPE SUMMARY OF LONGMEADOW UNITS SEPTEMBER 1984 Estimated (1 ) • Unit Type Square Current Rent/SF Market (Bedroom/Bath) Feet Rents Average Average 1/1 720 $3804440 $.57 $.60 2/1 840 $465-$515 $. 57 3.60 2/2 1 ,100 $5304585 $.52 3.55 2/2/TH 1 ,100 $550-$625 3.53 $.56 3/2/TH 1 ,400 $5804600 $.42 $.44 TH = Townhouse (1 ) plus 5% premium for age of projects The above average rental rates will be applied to each proposed project and a market rate will be proposed. These rates will reflect the 5% premium for new units. Additionally, those units with fireplaces will have an additional $10 rental fee per month. The sunroom is compensated for by the increased square feet. _2c_ SEPTEMBER 1984 COUNTRY CLUB WEST PROPOSED RENTS Projected Square Fireplace Rent Monthly Unit Type(1 ) Feet Premium Sq. Ft. Rent 1/1 616 $- $.60 3370 1/1/FP 616 $10 $.60 $380 1/1/FP 705 $10 $.60 $430 1/1/SR(1 ) 782 $- $.60 $469 2/2/FP 965 $10 $.55 $540 2/2/SR(1 ) 1 ,045 $- $.53 $554 2/2/FP 999 $10 3.55 $560 2/2/SR(1 ) 1 ,121 $- $.53 $594 FP = fireplace, SR = sunroom (1 ) provides a den type area SEPTEMBER 1984 BITTERSWEET PROPOSED RENTS Projected Square Loft Fireplace Rent Monthly Unit Type(1 ) Feet Premium Premium Sq. Ft. Rent 1/1 714 $- $.60 $428 1/1/FP 714 $10 3.60 $438 2/1 924 - 3- 1 $.55 $508 2/1/FP 924 $10 3.55 $518 2/2 1 ,026 2/2/L/FP(1 ) 1 ,236 $40 $10 3.44 $594 FP = fireplace, L = loft (1 ) more comparable with a 3-bedroom I -2R- Rental rates provided by the developers of the two proposed projects is as follows. SEPTEMBER 1984 RENTAL SUMMARY COMPARISON Longmeadow Bittersweet Country Club 1/1 $380-$440 $428-$438 $370-$469 2/1 $465-$515 $508-$518 2/2 $550-$625 $545-$594 $540- $594 Rental Inflation The following chart summarizes City-wide rental increases for all units for the previous nine year period. The data was abstracted from a recent survey conducted by the University of Northern Colorado. The data reflects rental ranges for each unit type. For purposes of substantiating annual rental inflation, an unweighted average has been utilized, as follows: CITY OF GREELEY • HISTORICAL RENT TRENDS(1 ) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom • 1984 $273 $395 1983 245 398 1982 230 308 1981 203 330 1980 185 255 1979 155 294 1978 148 208 1977 133 210 1976 133 193 Compound Annual Percentage Charge: 1976-1984 9.41% 9.37% 1980-1984 10.21% 11 .56% (1 ) unweighted average Source: University of Northern Colorado, Greeley Housing Survey, February 1984 -27- OPERATING EXPENSES The projections presented in this Study are based upon historical trends in operating expenses for "garden" type apartment complexes in the Denver area. Expenses are reported as a percent of gross income for buildings constructed between 1970 and 1981 . The industry expresses apartment expenses in terms of an "expense ratio" which is calculated as follows: Operating Expenses = Expense Ratio Effective Gross Income Description of Expense Statistics Expense data has been collected by the Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM) , as presented in this section of the Study. IREM presents data that has been categorized in terms of building type, age of building and by expense category as follows: Category 1 Building Types: Garden Low Rise High Rise For purposes of this Study, the "Garden" type category will be utilized which is most comparable to the types of complexes planned for Greeley, with its more low density, residential and rural environment. Category 2 Age of Building: 1946 - 1959 1960 - 1970 1971 - 1981 -28- • Although the 1971 - 1981 category is utilized, it is projected that the upcoming 1981 to 1984 category, not yet available, will present lower / expense ratios. As the new and more cost effective projects come onto the market, it is anticipated that improved construction techniques will provide complexes with energy saving and lower maintenance equipment. Additionally, current landscape planning and building exteriors will result in lower maintenance costs. As an example, those categories tested for the planned Greeley projects show that operating expenses are 3.9% lower for complexes built between 1971 and 1981 compared to those built from 1960 to 1970. 1983 Operating Expenses Year Built Ratio 1960 - 1970 38.6% 1971 - 1981 37.1 Source: Institute of Real Estate Management, Income and Expense Analysis for Apartments, 1982 and 1983 Category 3 Expense Categories: Administration Operating Maintenance Tax and Insurance Amenities Other Payroll The "administration" category provides two expense ratios. The first assumes that the developer/owner will hire outside management. The second, which was utilized to calculate the expenses for this Study, assumes that the project's owners will manage their respective projects. The trends for historical expenses indicate that the "administration" category is increasing, while the "operating" and "maintenance" categories are decreasing. As previously explained, these expenses are decreasing because of newer equipment and improved building techniques. -29- The category for "other payroll " is only applicable for buildings with amenity packages requiring additional employees, such as valet parking, fully staffed gymnasiums, etc. Consequently, this category is not utilized to calculate expenses for this Study. Denver Area Expense Ratios The historical expense ratios, as a percentage of gross income for garden apartments built between 1971 and 1981 , are presented for 1983. These ratios are believed to be representative of current expenses. The actual expenses utilized for final lender transactions can be calculated utilizing "per square foot" costs. At that time, the owner or manager must substantiate current expenses for comparable projects at comparable locations, per lender requirements. DENVER 1983 EXPENSE RATIOS Garden Buildings(1 ) Percent Expenses Gross Income Administration(2) 5.2% Operating 9.5 Maintenance 7.9 Insurance and Tax 9.0 Amenities Total Expenses 31 .9% (1 ) 261 buildings, 3,815 units, built 1971 to 1981 (2) assumes owner will manage Source: Institute of Real Estate Management, Income and Expense Analysis for Apartments, 1982 and 1983 -30- DENVER EXPENSE TRENDS Percentage 1983 1982 Change Administration 5.2% 4.7% 10.6 % Operating 9.5 13.6 (30.0) Maintenance 7.9 9.1 (13.2) Insurance and Tax 9.0 9.7 (7.2) Amenities .3 .6 (50.0) Total 31 .9% 37 7% (15.4)% Source: Institute of Real Estate Management, Income and Expense Analysis for Apartments, 1982 and 1983 As shown on the previous chart, the 1983 total expense ratio decreased approximately 15% from 1982. Although the administrative category increased somewhat, the 15% decrease resulted from decreases in all other categories. This Study utilizes a 32% expense ratio for the comparative cashflow projections. The decreasing trend was not projected for future years because a 32% expense ratio is believed to be representative of comparable projects for comparable areas, based upon the consultant' s analysis for other clients. Additionally, IREM has worked toward the standardization of reporting procedures, and it is believed that the 1983 statistics are most accurate when compared to previous years. _sl_ DEMAND ANALYSIS PROJECTED MULTIFAMILY RENTAL DEMAND The projected demand for multifamily rental housing is based on three key factors: (1 ) the projected population, (2) the persons per household and (3) the mix of rental and owner occupied housing. The population projections were extrapolated from information provided by the Greeley City Planning Department for Greeley and the State's Demographer for the County. The persons per household were kept constant at the 1984 levels overall as well as for owner occupied and renter occupied housing. The mix of renters and owners in the population was kept constant throughout the projections. This is necessary in order to hold the persons per household constant. The number of occupied units was projected based on the number of people within the renter or owner population categories and divided by the appropriate number of persons per household. In order to determine the number of units necessary, we divided the above projected number of units by the desired occupancy factors (97.5% for owner occupied and 95% for renter occupied) . In addition, we assumed that there is basically a fixed level of vacant units (such as vacation homes, part-time residents and homes which are not habitable) and a certain number that are rented or sold but not yet occupied. We kept this number constant over the period of the projections at approximately the 1980 level . We assumed that the estimated 1984 group quarters relationship would remain constant throughout the projection period. The following tables present the results of these projections. Demand was computed by adding the change in renter occupied units and dividing by 95%, the desired vacancy factor. Due to the unique factors involved, there are a couple of points to be made regarding the projected results. -32- WELD COUNTY PROJECTED NEW RENTAL HOUSING 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Total Greeley Occupied 117 248 13 16 2 253 312 48 23 23 116 445 445 2,248 Vacant 6 13 Total 123 261 266 328 450 468 468 2,364 Remaining Weld County Occupied 14010 10 193 197 151 8 45 42 42 51 819 Vacant 7 Total 147 203 207 159 47 44 54 861 Total Occupied 257 441 450 463 473 487 496 3,067 Vacant 13 23 23 24 24 25 26 158 Total 270 464 473 487 497 512 522 3,225 Greeley is currently well below the desired vacancy rates in both owner and renter occupied housing. Therefore, the model projects the need for 1 ,118 units, of which 858 are projected for vacancy, in 1984 in order to get to the desired vacancy rate by 1985. In reality, it would be more appropriate if the vacancy rate goals are gradually phased in, allowing additional housing units to be built over a period of time rather than in one year. The converse is true in the remainder of the County, where the actual vacancy rate is higher than desired. The County currently has a surplus of vacant units. The projections indicate 151 total housing units should be eliminated and 593 vacant units should be occupied or eliminated. -33- I 0. ru m «« « �n n -- -- ...a. c• « • 0. o o e 0. • — e • o0 « «r «„�� e • 4▪ s6 e o r u m? u g• O i F o _ U 6 u o =B '. • — o 0.0 � o fl —cc h *— LI o ea s n.— a• z ~ z 2 4_ o� om ora - - -0 -- o_ar --_ _ m— �� ti� - _ - a � a _� er_ .e �. erea ,. e _ e _ � _ a � _ m _ � oro z= - — - s- 2 -I2 �- �- � � - m — __ � 6 2 .22........ ro2 o _ _ a � ac o an o� ac _ o oo = EM _na a ao o 2 aim =6— o — o _ JJ o o - - - - - - - mt0. - - -- - r =o e `- - co- oa _ 0000 .4 Ca � � a. �_ -o W. - - i 0 o 0 _ 6 , - • Given the apparent imbalance of housing between Greeley and the rest of the County, it appears some adjustments are necessary. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate not to project additional rental housing units for the County outside Greeley for the next two to three years or until the apparent surplus is utilized. On the other hand, it is unlikely Greeley will be able to construct enough rental units to reach the desired vacancy rate levels by 1985. Therefore, it appears appropriate to increase the number of units over the next 2 to 3 year period. We arbitrarily raised the number of units in Greeley by 200 in 1985 and 300 in 1986 and reduced County demand by 100 units in 1984, 150 units each in 1985 and 1986 and 100 in 1987. The adjusted projected demand is presented on the following table. ADJUSTED PROJECTED NEW RENTAL HOUSING DEMAND 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Total Greeley 123 461 566 328 450 468 468 2,864 Remaining County 47 53 57 59 47 44 54 361 Total 170 514 623 387 497 512 522 3,225 It should also be noted that the projected 1984 demand for Greeley has not been met nor is it likely the County added the 1984 projected demand. The net effect of this is that from 1985 through 1990, Greeley should add 2,800 to 2,900 rental units, of which approximately 1 ,000 to 1 ,200 should be added from now through 1986. The total projected demand for the rest of the County is 300 to 400 units through 1990 with minimal units being added annually. In 1980, approximately 26% to 29% of the rental housing market consisted of large multifamily projects in Greeley, whereas in the County only had 5% of rental units in large multifamily projects. We believe 30% - 40% of future rental units in Greeley should be in large multifamily projects due to the availability of land and the changing nature of Greeley and the surrounding area. However, it is unlikely that there will be significant demand for large multifamily rental projects throughout the rest of the County in the near future. -37- Therefore, we estimate Greeley will be able to absorb 800 to 900 large multifamily rental units through 1990 and the County may be able to absorb up to 100 such units. As to the mix of units, we see no reason to build full three or more bedroom apartment units given the availability of single family housing for rent. Therefore, we believe the mix should consist of studio, one bedroom and two bedroom units. Given the 1980 Census mix and the current vacancy factors among the various units, we believe a similar mix would be approximate. This would then be as follows: County Greeley Total Studio 5 800-900 900-1 ,000 1 Bedroom 40 40- 45 45- 50 2 Bedroom 55 360-405 400- 445 Total units 100 400-450 455- 550 -38- SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS There are several critical assumptions affecting the demand for rental housing, including population, mix of owner and renter occupants and persons per household. Greeley appears to have virtually all the demand for multifamily housing through 1990. Therefore, the sensitivity addresses only Greeley demand. We received two population projections for Greeley. The study and projected demand is based on the lower projection which is lower than historical growth. The higher projection was approximately 12% higher. If everything else remained constant, the demand for rental housing through 1990 would also be approximately 12% greater or approximately 3,200 total rental units for Greeley versus the 2,800 to 2,900 units. There does not appear to be any basis for changing the renter/owner occupant mix, as we have no historic data or projections indicating any change is appropriate. However, a change of 5% (i.e. , from 39% renters to 44% renters or 34% in the opposite direction) would result in a 11% change assuming the same persons per rental household. This, of course, would change the overall average number of persons per household for the community. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, the number of households has been declining annually since 1965. Through the early 1960s, the average size of households remained relatively constant. Each .01 reduction in average persons per household would result in an increased demand for rental housing of 20 to 30 units annually over the period of the projections assuming the lower population projections. If the average decreased .01 annually from 1985 through 1990 and population and owner/renter mix remained constant, the projected demand for rental units in Greeley would be approximately 900 units greater. _1Q_ ADMINISTRATIVE MONITORING SYSTEM To date there has not been an effective way to monitor and insure compliance with the Federal laws and regulations and local requirements of a bond program such as the one currently proposed by Weld County. There is significant risk for the issuer and investors should the program be audited and found to be not in compliance. Therefore, we believe it is critical to implement an effective monitoring system. Based on our experience in developing such a monitoring system for other issuers, we believe the system should have the following characteristics: 1 . Independence - The issuer should be free to select who will fulfill the administrative monitoring role (generally an independent CPA).nitoring 2. bepborn by thee beneficiary hof the program (the e cost of such a odeveloper)systemshould as a cost of doing business. 3. Timely - The system should provide timely, accurate information. ct to 4. Flexible - The system legislative requirements must flexibility or economic changes (i .e. , median ai come) . 5. Prequalification Check - The system should have the capability to prequalify prospective residents. 6. Tracking - It is important to be able to track the HUD income guidelines (by family size) and the affordable rent levels by unit classification. 7. Equitable - The 20% set aside units should be spread across the entire unit mix of a given project. 8. Audit Trail - The system should provide an audit trail to insure reliability to the issuer. 9. Data Retrieval - The system should provide the ability to extract specific information upon request. -40- APPENDIX - CASH FLOW COMPARISON ITY OF EREELEY iTTERSU ET I$LTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT DEBT SERVICE PR;;JECTION USING 30 YEAR 8.625% BOND FUNDIN'o YEAR WING 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 NONTIRLY 68055 RENT (5% ESC.) $67,056 $70,409 $73,929 177,626 $8'.,507 GROSS AgNUAU RENT $,02,336 4844,906 $887,151 $931,508 $978,064 LAU.DRY I VENDING $5,160 $10,360 $20,736 $20,736 $20,736 LESS VACANCY (5%) $20,376 $42,763 $45,394 $47,612 $49,941 EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOE $387,140 $812,502 $862,493 1904,632 $348,879 OPERAIIN'E EXPENSE (6% ESC.) $107,250 $214,500 $227,370 $241,012 $255,473 NET OPERATING ICE $279,890 $598,002 1635,123 $663,620 $693,4^.E CAPITALIZED INTEREST $232,875 INTEREST ON RESERVE FUND $21,600 $43,200 $43,200 $43,200 $43,20:' CASH rLON AVAILABLE FOR DEFT SERVICE $534,365 $641,202 $678,323 $706,820 $736,606 DEBT SERVFICE AND ANWJRL FEES $465,750 $508,200 $508,200 $508,200 $508,200 CASH FLOW $68,615 $133,002 $170,123 $198,620 $226,406 DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE (AT 8.625% INTEREST) 1.15 1.26 1.33 1.39 1.45 EXPE?S= RATIC 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 ifi{ttfin44444f44HHf#f#/H##+t44t4ftf#ff f HHftttt4HHttttMt;ffHi#HNMfttfftfttttffttftffttH*Hfi* OPERATING EXPENSE (CkCU.ATED AT 32% CgGROSS) FROM 'REM $123,885 $260,001 $275,998 $289,482 $303,641 PET OPERATING INCOrE $263,255 $552,502 $586,495 $615,150 $645,233 CAPITALIZED INTEREST $232,675 INTEREST. ON RESERVE c $21,600 $43,200 $43,200 $43,200 $43,200 CASH FLU AVAILABLE FOR DEBT SERVICE $517,730 $595,702 $629,695 $653,350 $686,438 DEBT SERVFICE A:N➢ ANNA. FEES $465,750 $508,200 $508,200 $508,200 $508,200 COSH FLOW $51,980 $87,502 $121,495 $150,150 $180,238 DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE (AT 8.625% INTEREST) 1.11 1.17 1.24 1.30 1.35 EXPENSE RATIO 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 • TY IT GREELEY TTERSIEET ICU-FAMILY ICUSIIC PROJECT BT SERVICE PROJECTION USING 25 YER 14: C6\\_C:_rs1- RIMING AR ENDDG 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 )NT)LY GROSS RENT (5% ESC. 3 E',056 $70,409 $73,929 177,626 $81,507 LOSS ANNUAL RENT $CE,336 $844,906 $887,151 $931,508 1978,084 ii?C)RY 1 VENDING x,180 $10,360 $20,736 $20,736 $20,736 SS VACANCY (5%) get;376 $42,763 $45,394 $47,612 $43,941 "FECTIVE GROSS more T",140 $812,502 $862,493 $904,632 3348,879 )ERFITING EXPENSE (6% ESC. St 7,250 $214,500 $227,370 $241,012 $255,473 7 OPERATING INCOME 5n, 1598,002 $635,123 $663,620 $693,406 IPITALIIED INTEREST (TEREST ON RESERVE Ft?4) Sri FLOW AVAILABLE FOR DEBT SEERV::Z S:5,890 $598,002 $635,123 $663,620 1693,4% _BT EERFICE AND ANNA.. FEES .,500 $761,000 $761,000 1761,000 $761,000 SH RAW -":5:::•5•t,610) (3162,9%) ($125,877) ($97,380) ($67,594) ET SERVICE COVERAGE (AT 14% INTEREST) 0.74 0.79 0.83 0.87 0.91 IPENSE RATIO 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 F##H### ############i-!-###i4f ####-F####N######i###IHt###H#f##f############ AERATING EXPENSE (CA.CJJ_AT7) AT 321 CF GROSS) ROM IRES S: 885 $260,001 1275,998 $289,482 $303,641 ET OPERATING INCOME le-T-3,255 $552,502 $586,495 $615,150 $645,238 APITf✓ IIED INTEREST NTEREST ON RESERVE FUND AS.I FiDW AVAILABLE FOR DEFT SER.: s'=x,255 $552,502 $586,495 $615,150 $645,238 EBT SERVFICE AND ANNI&A` FEES s=�c40,500 $761,000 $761,000 $761,000 $761,00 ASH FLOW S=-=-7,2245) ($208,498) ($174,505) ($145,850) ($115,762) EBT SERVICE COVERAGE (AT 14% INTEREST) 0.69 0.73 0.77 0.81 0.85 IPE)SE RATIO 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 Y OF GREELEY AIRY CLUB WEST al-GAILY HOUSING PROJECT )EBT SERVICE PROJECTION USING 30 YEAR 8.625% BOND FUND'PC YEAR ENDING 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 *PIXY GROSS RENT (5% fSC.) $126,182 $132,491 $139,116 (146,071 $153,375 GROSS ANNUAL RENT $757,092 $1,589,893 $1,669,388 $1,752,857 $1,840,500 LAUNDRY I VENDING $10,386 *20,736 $20,736 $20,736 $20,736 LESS VACANCY (5%) $38,374 $80,531 $84,506 $88,680 $93,062 EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME $729,104 E,530,098 $1,605,618 $1,684,914 $1,768,174 OPERATING EXPENSE (6% ESC.) $148,542 $297,084 $314,909 $333,804 $353,632 *7 OPERATING INCOME $580,562 $1,233,014 $1,290,709 $1,351,110 $1,414,343 CAPIicoza INTEREST $457,125 INTEREST ON RESERVE FUND $42,400 $84,800 $84.800 $64,600 $84,800 FLOW AVAILABLE FOR DEBT SERVICE $1,080,087 $1,317,814 $1,375,509 $1,435,930 $1,499,143 DEBT SERVFICE AND ANNUAL FEES $9!4,250 $997,700 $997,700 $997,700 $997,700 CAST( FLOW $165,837 $320,114 $377,809 $438,210 $501,443 ( DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE (AT 8.625% INTEREST) 1.18 1.32 1.38 1.44 1.50 ElPea RATIO 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 fffffffffffff M444 444(44444 -ffffffifffffffffffffffffff44.44H444ttffffffffffffftffl+4444fffffffffftffffffff OPERATING EXPENSE (CiLC1LATED AT 32% CF GROSS) FROM IREM $233,313 $489,631 $513,798 $539,172 $565,8:6 PET OPERATING INCOME $495,791 $1,040,466 $1,091,820 $1,145,741 $1,202,359 CRP ITiLIZED INTEREST $457,125 IN(tRc5T ON RESERVE FUND - $42,400 $84,800 $84,800 $84,800 $84,800 CASri FLOW AVPILAI.E FOR DEBT SERVICE $995,316 $1,125,266 $1,176,620 $1,230,54: $1,287,159 DEBT SERVICE AND P*UAL FEES $914,250 $997,700 $997,700 $997,700 $997,7% CASH FLEW $81,066 $127,566 $178,920 $232,841 $289,459 DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE (AT 8.625% INTEREST) 1.09 1.13 1.18 1.23 1.29 EXPENSE RATIO 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 ) TTYCFGRr-FY • DNTRY CLUB WEST PILLTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT DEBT SERVICE PROJECTION USING 25 YEAR 14% CONVENTIONAL FUNDING YEAR ENDING 1986 1987 1988 1989 19% ( IDMTHLY GROSS RENT (5% ESC.) $126,182 $132,491 0139,116 $146,071 $153,375 GROSS ANNA_ RENT $757,092 $1,583,893 $1,669,368 $1,752,857 $1,840,500 LkMDPY & VENDING $10,386 $20,736 $20,736 $20,736 $20,736 LESS VRCANCY (5%1 $38,374 $80,531 $84,506 $88,680 $93,062 EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME $729,104 $1,530,098 $1,605,618 $1,684,914 $1,768,174 OPERATING EXPENSE (6% ESC.) $148,542 $297,084 $314,909 $333,804 $353,832 ET ODERATINS DOE $580,%2 $1,233,014 $1,290,709 $1,351,110 $1,414,343 CAPITALIZED INTEREST INTEREST 6N RESERVE FUND • CASH FLOW AVAILABLE FOR DEBT SERVICE $560,562 $1,233,014 $1,290,709 $1,351,110 $1,414,343 DEBT SERVFICE AND ANNUAL FEES $666,250 $1,376,500 $1,376,500 $1,376,500 $1,376,500 CASH FLOW ($107,688) ($143,486) ($85,7911 ($25,3901 $37,843 DEBT SERVICE CO/ERASE (AT 14% INTEREST) 0.84 0.90 0.94 0.98 1.03 EXPENSE RATIO 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 • 4441 4-1FHH 144444fftf44+1444H -11144t4fffff#f1MH/+f#fi#4ift+H-4fif+ffffiff4#fff#MHHi#f4lHfffftf#f1 OPERATING EXPENE (CA:CLFATED AT 32% CF CROSS) FROX IRE $233,313 $489,631 $513,798 $533,172 $565,816 GET OPERATING INCCC $495,791 $1,040,466 $1,091,820 $1,145,741 $1,202,359 CAPITf_IZID INTEREST INTEREST ON RESERVE FUND • CASH FU) AVAILABE FOR DEBT SERVICE $495,791 $1,040,466 $1,091,820 $1,145,741 $1,202,359 DEBT ERVFICE PhD ANSJ1_ FEES $668,250 $1,376,500 $1,376,500 $1,3376,500 $1,376,500 CASH FLOW ($192,459) ($336,034) ($264,6801 ($230,759) ($174,141) DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE (AT 14% IN'EREST) 0.72 0.76 0.79 0.63 0.67 EXPENSE RATIO 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 KASIRER, WOLFSON & FRANKEL ATTORNEYS AT LAW ROBERT A.KASIRER 11355 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD,SUITE 700 ADDITIONAL OFFICES NEmsER NE KERN BAR LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90064 NEW YORK,NEW YORK BARRY M.WOLFSON EXAS MEMBER ARIZONA B OI ILLINS BAR Iz131 an-7577Dn LAS,ARIZONA S.FRANKEL PHOENIX, July 25, 1984 Board of County Commissioners Weld County, Colorado Dear Commissioners: Pursuant to Title 29, Article 3 of the Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, a county may issue special obligation revenue bonds to finance residential facilities for low and middle income families or persons. Under this provision residential rental housing could be financed provided the low and middle income test is met. The determination that the test is met is made by the county or municipality, which determination is conclusive. Provided all legal requirements are met and all approvals and determinations are given by the county, tax exempt revenue bonds could be issued for the low and middle income rental property. Respectfu submitted Martin S. Frankel MSF/tjw fLL#csvtu JUL 2 1984 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TEAM June 20 , 1984 Item I , Page 1 I . REVIEW OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE COUNTRY CLUB WEST APARTMENT COMPLEX LOCATION: Southwest of 50th Avenue and the U . S. Highway 34 Business Represented by : Wayne Roberts Steve McMillan Boer & Roberts Architects Nelson Engineers 1125 8th Street GNB Plaza Greeley , CO 80631 Greeley , CO 80631 Jay Walker JLB Construction Company Box 5364 Arlington , TX 76015 Wayne Roberts introduced this item to the ART representatives and explained that the developer has requested this ART in order to coordinate any major concerns associated with the potential development of this property with 288 apartment units contained within 18 buildings on the site . These structures are proposed to be two story structures with a maximum buiding height of less than 30 feet . Total density on this 14 . 53 acre parcel is 19 . 32 units per acre . In addition to the apartment units , a clubhouse and office facility is proposed in the northeast corner of the site . Mr . Roberts further explained that approximately 21 percent of the -ite would be covered by buildings ; 26 percent covered by driveways , parking areas , and walkways ; and approximately 53 percent of the site would be in permeable open space . Steve Bagley , Administrative Engineer for Public Works , indicated that there is a drainage way shown on the Country Club West Subdivision plats flowing along the eastern most boundary of this property . That drainage way will have to be designed into the development of this property . Mr . Bagley further noted that a . 5 runoff coefficient was used to estimate the amount of drainage from this property upon development . He explained that this coefficient would probably be adequate to handle the runoff from the proposed project . However , he did note that the drainage report for Country Club West would need to be reviewed by the developer to determine whether it would suffice for the project he is proposing . Written documentation of the developer ' s engineer ' s opinion should be provided to the Engineering Department . Mark Rybus , Assistant Director of Water and Sewer , indicated that more detailed utility plans will be needed prior to determining Water and Sewer ' s comments with regard to the project . It was noted that service to this property is available to this property from 50th Avenue . It was further noted that development of water and sewer lines for this project will be required to be done in conformance with the water and sewer construction manual . Virtus Einsphar , Fire Department , doted that fire hydrants will be required to be placed in conformance with the Fire Code requirements and that a maximum 500 foot spacing is the criteria for placement . In addition , no building on the site should be any more than 250 feet from a hydrant . ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TEAM June 20 , 1984 Item I , Page 2 Dan Correll , Building Inspections , indicated that John Swallow had • discussed the handicapped requirements for this project with Katie Sorenson , the Handicap Representative to the City . It was Katie ' s determination that 16 handicap units would be required as a part of this project . Mr . Walker indicated that he felt this requirement was excesssive and that he would be more willing to provide better equipped handicap units if the total number of required units could be decreased . It was noted that Mr . Walker should work with John Swallow , Building Inspections Director , and Katie Sorenson to determine if this alternate plan could be utilized . Dan Correll further noted that adequate fire separations within the buildings will be required and that the buildings will be required to meet all standard Building and Fire Code requirements . It was further noted that John Swallow had approved the inspection of each building at each stage of construction in the development of this project as opposed to the inspection of each unit at each stage of construction . Bill Hange , Traffic Engineer , questioned who would be responsible for the construction of 11th Street adjacent to this project . Mr . Walker explained that Weber Realty will be responsible for that street construction . Mr . Hange further noted that he would like to see a traffic study for this development and outlined several things that he would like to see addressed within that traffic study : 1 . He would like to have the access to this property from 50th Avenue reviewed for its location and ability to handle the amount of traffic in and out . 2 . Mr . Hange wanted to have the study address the traffic impacts on 10th Street as a result of the proximity of the entrance to this property to the 10th Street/50th Avenue intersection . 3 . Mr . Hange wanted to have the traffic study address the distribution of traffic in and out all of the entrances to the property . Wally Jacobson , State Highway Department , indicated that the developer should be required to construct half of a typical 88 foot section through this area including center turn lanes , side turn lanes , curb and gutter , and complete street width . In addition , the developer should be required to accommodate drainage from the site within his development and that the traffic study should address the need for a potential traffic signal at 50th Avenue and 10th Street . Mr . Jacobson further noted that a noise evaluation had been done for this development at the time the Country Club West Subdivision was platted . This noise evaluation specified a minimum setback from the centerline of U . S. Highway 34 Business for structures in order to adequately address the noise abatement . Ann Jamison indicated that She would check the study to determine what this noise setback was required to be . Upon checking this item , it was determined that the setback was specified as 150 to 200 feet to residential structures . ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TEAM June 20 , 1984' Item I , Page 3 Stan Gengler , Parks and Recreation Director , and Bill Hargett , Director of Public Works , indicated that the entire development of the area will need to be reviewed in order to assure that the detention pond that is to be constructed in the park area to the south of this development is developed out prior to the need for that detention . Ann Jamison , Planning Department , indicated that the proposal is in general compliance with the Zoning requirements of the City of Greeley . She did express a concern associated with designation of full size and compact parking stalls . It was indicated that these should be specifically delineated on the final plans . Ms . Jamison explained that the setbacks , as per the Zoning Code , appeared to be in compliance since the structural building height is proposed to be less than 30 feet on the property . APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF WELD, COLORADO FOR THE INDUCEMENT OF $10,600,000 MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS GREELEY APARTMENTS COMPLEX SUBMITTED BY: MATTHEWS & WRIGHT, INC. 14 WALL STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK JULY 11, 1984 APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSONERS COUNTY OF WELD, COLORADO $10 ,600 ,000 MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS GREELEY APARTMENTS COMPLEX TABLE OF CONTENTS EXHIBITS A. Summary of Greeley Apartments Complex - Estimated Development Cost, Site Plan, Elevations B. Development and Financing Team C. Description of Operations and Resume of JLB Construction, Inc. and References D. Letter of Intent of People' s Heritage Federal Savings on the Project and Financial Reports E. Commitment Letter of Matthews & Wright, Inc. to purchase the Bonds F. Cash Flow/Pro-Forma Projections for the Greeley Apartments Complex, including Projected Bond Debt Service Schedule EXHIBIT 'A' • SUMMARY OF GREELEY APARTMENT COMPLEX PROJECT DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS SITE PLAN ELEVATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location: The proposed Greeley Apartment Complex is to be located at 11th Street and 53rd Avenue on a 14.53 acre site in the City of Greeley, Colorado. Description of Development: The Greeley Apartment Complex will consist of 18 buildings of 288 units (see below) with a club room, exercise room, swimming pool, and saunas. Units will be air conditioned, with dishwasher , drapes, carpeting, and garbage disposal units. Additionally, 77% of the units will have fireplaces or sunrooms. Unit Data: Unit No. of Square Monthly Type Units Footage Rent 1BR, 1BA 128 615. 5 $320 1BR, 1BA 32 705. 2 345 1BR, 1BA, w/sr 32 782.2 365 2BR, 2BA 32 965.3 395 2BR, 2BA, w/sr 32 1045. 3 420 2BR, 2BA 16 998.7 440 2BR, 2BA, w/sr 16 1120 .7 465 Twenty-percent of the units will be reserved for households with income below $19,040 per annum (80% of the median income for Weld County) . Parking: 456 spaces Zoning and Infrastructure: The proposed use of the Project Site complies with all governmental zoning and subdivision regulations. There is adequate capacity for utilties, sewerage, and drainage available to the site. GREELEY APT. SITE JOB COST Silt DEVELOPMENT 295,500.00 Slut UTILITIES 289,222.00 CONCRETE 783,900.00 MASONRY 248,365.00 ROUGH CARPENTRY 1,353,200.00 FINISH CARPENTRY 310,540.00 INSULATION 66,600.00 VENTING 27,300.00 CERAMIC TILE 41,620.00 HARDWARE 94,744.00 ROOFING 125,588.00 GLASS 80,930.00 DRYWALLS 299,264.00 FLOOR SING 249,140.00 PAINT & WALL OVERING 231,440.00 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT 37,700.00 FIREPLA'FS 36,910.00 CABINETS & TOPS 123,400.00 APPLIANCES 413,796.00 DRAPES & BLINDS 40,106.00 PLUMBING 440,853.00 HEAT & AIR 287,833.00 ELECTRICAL 377,520.00 T.V. SYSTEM 43,294.00 CLEAN-UP 65,090.00 LANDSCAPE 179,677.00 Sim IMPROVEMENTS 296,500.00 PORT-A-TOILETS 4,100.00 RENTAL EQUIPMENT 39,000.00 JOB PAYROLL 158,000.00 SECURITY 38,500.00 DIRECT OVERHEAD 61,464.00 DEVELOPMENT COSTS 122,000.00 THEFT--CUNT. COST 38,000.00 SALES TAX 97,280.00 FEES 859,215.00 ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING 160,499.00 BUILDERS OVERHEAD 364,426.00 INTEREST 1,100,000.00 LAND COST 506,000.00 2viAL JOB (TST $ 10,388,516.00 -- - =mss- _ N J / m m W W a � �i lV ~ N V. (� W a. ,lI o / r-•� 21Cz /1/ Z /!Hi Z o l �_/ O .� O i, .i W \\. 3- W a ','--I} ` o O.. ,—"I.Li.cp z .�. I :�i — Z ° H •- - W / J r m — Z L..1 .1 1 t a 111• `-•J iI-� Ij r' —]/`/ FI„�Ih it �14-'�I r :.� III .„ W I_l Imo.+ = ( II I 'r - . Z i / r-'_, I II / rI �' i1 ■ I p::1 r � , ` bI`1it �s'. _� � ' q IFr. I" r - �� I _ P� III R - :ii ofI lII L� II �1 m. 1 n mE< W W' C It W1L. IILJ Y ; I -it fIIIIJ IIJ �. O \ LJ IIQ = . 1... ifI ..� _. rHI g.I1L. O. II ._ p Itlli 11 m11 II rl 5-1 CIIli II'� .�.z !!� z • z zIII � � p X11 Ori z O O H.I ,. ~` Ir.. - WImo J fE J �I ' . W _ �..i _ LL /� I p- � LL Kin- i ..,. . < - ii ce_ - I _ . =. f li-� s ' �� , c , � r- i IT II t � � sr, 0Q ` ;fitCD _ 3143 ti,I �l 1` ' , F I tj -i \ I • •'r�.. Ica { \ \ 1 F1 l it; 3. r (1: 1 — Q •, fir_ i1 1111) ��r111 O-�\ ` �� a, 1 I I, U ! !� (3, j� D7tAVYR *sit •lam ; A ,i.ltl\.,,,,,,7 / v aa 1 I P 1 `7, 1 ►i� !j PVI r' ‘ I 11 PLL1 1 _vp re . II "1 r Arno *r� �o I I n✓ Nt r I - r6.3'- ' I 1i _ .,.iJpY -------1- ;1 DT i 11n1 ryu g o P D ' ~ y! ^ \n 1R6 1 {' 1 r. N 1 �` 1 '� I �� e1 re, 1I -' Ir SI IlT� r S 2: �: Y M.. ��z. �: 1, !Nrn rt Gtr 9 r„ p''ry., s �(} -•'11'\ .. ?it,., l 1. r. i Z !, `,,1 b i. 6rl� • �S1ry �'; X141 ,; '•.._6 C a� 1 1 t P 1 1 _ 1 le {. , u rp 44u ee U Jk " —/ f , 1 1 C Ij (ln ' >, �k 7hi �m III I; �, me - =„dirt_ s,tl�t II FFa I1' 1 le !i D 7a 1 1. -, I,it. ,-,1; :!•,1 11 tP �c ,`�' _y _- 11-•1 r9 tl ,t ..1 l)1 .'e4 Ji:,Y )I AI ��I stiff Aye r{. , -y' dF 1�I I\ ` ., ' 1. 1a d1 d1 ,I,' 4,4t ?',i 1 iy • 11 , • =' 11 I}I p,lu I .r. r111 y,b h' J� 1 1 LQ l AI .;1 1', 'II r.. 'i iy I t. yN 1 1 �Ir !j ,rjL ^0 N e1 , F I Jr F r, 4. A L. F I d. 'n i' 17 lY ,, Y I 1 r1 D -to a n -1. - ,p A' EXHIBIT 'B' DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCING TEAM DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCING TEAM Applicant/Developer: James L. Bosler, President JLB Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 5364 Arlington, TX 76015 (817) 640-1182 Investment Banker: Aaron M. Barman, Vice President Matthews & Wright, Inc. 14 Wall Street New York, NY 10005 (212) 267-4470 Bond Counsel: Robert A. Kasirer , Esq. Kasirer, Wolfson & Frankel 11355 West Olympic Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90064 (213) 477-7577 Credit Facility/Guarantor: Thomas A. Burger, Exec. Vice President Peoples Heritage Federal Savings P.O. Box 4600 1129 South West Wanamaker Road Topeka, KS 66604 (913) 272-4003 EXHIBIT 'C' DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS AND RESUME OF JLB CONSTRUCTION AND REFERENCES JLB CONSTRUCTION, INC. P.O. Box 5364 Arlington, Texas 76015 JAMES L. BOSLER GENERAL CONTRACTOR PRESIDENT 817-640-1182 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS June 1984 JIB Construction, Inc. was incorporated in 1981. The Corporation operates as a General Contractor primarily building apartment cavnunities. JLB Construction, Inc. employs over 50 people and currently has six (6) apartment crnwnities (a total of 1,020 units) under construction. The Cost Accounting, Estimating, Contracting and Job Costs are completely ccanputerized to allow up-to-date analysis of information on any project under contract. JLB Construction, Inc. is headed by James L. Bosler, President. Mr. Bosler has been in multi-family and single family development since the mid 1960's. He came to Texas in 1975 fran Shreveport, Louisiana and by 1979 had purchased land in areas that became prime sites in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area for major multi-family develop- ment. In that four years, six (6) apartment canmtnities totaling 1,244 units were constructed. In 1980, Mr. Bosler began working individually and has devel- oped and constructed thirteen (13) apartment caruunities totaling 2,662 units. JLB CONSTRUCTION, INC. P.O. Box 5364 Arlington, Texas 76015 JAMES L. BOSLER GENERAL CONTRACTOR • PRESIDENT 817-640-1182 INFORMATION SHEET NAME: JIB CCNSTRUCPI0N, INC. ADDRESS: P.O. Box 5364 Arlington, Texas 76015 (817) 640-1182 MIER: James L. Bosler Tax I.D. Number: 75-1767009 INSURANCE AGENT: Arvid Leick [Leta Newsan] Leick, Marshall, Neal & Assoc. P.O. Box 801407 5757 Alpha Road; Suite 130 pallwa, Texas 75380-1407 BONDING ACENr: Arvid Leick [Leta Newnan) Leick, Marshall, Neal & Assoc. P.O. Box 801407 5757 Alpha Road; Suite 130 Dallas, Texas 75380-1407 • CONSTRUCTION HISTORY James L. Boller MOilti-Family Apartment Projects: Chateau Deville - 1972 Hickory Hill - 1972 Alexandria, LA Alexandria, LA 196 Units 188 Units COST: 4,500,000.00 COST: 4,300,000.00 SOLD: 5,700,000.00 SOLD: 5,500,000.00 Pine Highland - 1973 Tiffany Apartments - 1975-1976 Pineville, LA Hurst, TX 368 Units 292 Units General Contractor: 7,360,000.00 COST: 6,000,000.00 SOLD: 8,000,000.00 Regency Apartments - 1977 River Ranch - 1978 Bedford, TX Fort Worth, TX 192 Units 292 Units COST: 4,000,000.00 COST: 6,000,000.00 SOLD: 5,500,000.00 SOLD: 8,000,000.00 Chimney Hills - 1978 Lake 0' The Woods - 1979 Fort Worth, TX Arlington, TX 242 Units 192 Units COST: 5,000,000.00 COST: 4,500,000.00 SOLD: 6,500,000.00 SOLD(90%) : 7,200,000.00 Holly Ridge I - 1981 Holly Ridge II - 1981 Arlington, TX Arlington, TX 290 Units 222 Units COST: 6,000,000.00 COST: 5,000,000.00 SOID(82%) : 7,200,000.00 SOID(82%) : 6,200,00.00 Eagle Crest I - 1982 Heather Ridge I - 1982 Irving, TX Arlington, TX 296 Units 180 Units General Contractor: 8,000,000.00 COST: 4,200,000.00 SOLD(90%) : 5,200,000.00 Heather Ridge II - 1983 Tz.eepoint Village Grand Prairie, TX Arlington, TX 72 Units 208 Units COST: 2,500,000.00 COST: 5,500,000.00 Ownership: (50%) 90ID(90%) : 6,800,000.00 James L. Hodes ' .1 Brookhollow Place - 1983 Tame Lake Village - 1984 Arlington, TX Irving, TX 376 Units 320 Units COST: 10,500,000.00 COST: 11,600,000.00 BOLD(90%) : 12,400,000.00 Wimbledon Oaks - 1984 Cottonwood - 1984 Arlington, TX Fort Worth, TX "248 Units 352 Units COST: 8,600,000.00 General Contractor: 9,400,000.00 Randol Crossing - 1984 Burney Oaks - 1984 Fort Worth, TX Arlington, TX 160 Units 240 Units • General Contractor: 3,850,000.00 COST: 8,400,000.00 Trinity A1artneits - 1984 Irving, TX 496 Units General Contractor: 12,500,000.00 OWNERS OF ORAL CONIRACIDR PROJECTS Name Address/Telephone Contact IVEST of Texas, Inc. 200 S. Hanley Rd.; Suite 300 John Porta St. Louis, Missouri 63105 (314) 863-6666 Dimension Development Co. 1910 Pacific Ave.; Suite 1700 Bill Ayers Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 922-0155 Westlake Dallas Property 17330 Preston Rd.; Suite 109D Dallas,Texas 75252 (214) 248-4496 Res BANK ACCOUNTS Account Name Branch JIB CONSTRUCTION, INC. Texas Ctnterce Bank-Hurst 620 W. Pipeline Pd. P.O. Box 337 Hurst, Texas 76053 Telephone: (817) 280-9111 Contact: Mr. Mark Wood JIB CONSTRUCTION, INC. Allied Bank-Irving 800 W. Airport Fwy. Irving, Texas 75061 Telephone: (214) 579-7911 Contact: Mr. Gary Green REFERENCES FINANCIAL 'Name Address/Telephone Contact Texas Commerce Bank-Hurst 620 W. Pipeline Rd. Mr. Mark Wood P.O. Box 337 Hurst, Texas 76053 (817) 280-9111 Allied Bank-Irving 800 W. Airport May. Mr. Gary Green Irving, Texas 75601 (214) 579-7911 Savings West-Arlington 200 E. Abram Shirley Watkins P.O. Box 869 Arlington, Texas 76010 (817) 261-1481 Peoples Financial Mortgage Corp. 1129 S.W. Wanamaker Rd. Mr. Tom Burger P.O. Box 4600 Topeka, Kansas 66604 (913) 272-4003 Balcor/American Express, Inc. Balcor Plaza Mr. Christopher Hashiokz 4849 Golf Road Skokie, Illinois 60077 (312) 676-6980 REFERENCES • PROFESSIONAL Name Address/Telephone Contact A-G Sod Farms, Inc. Rt. 2 Box 71W. • Pat Potter Aubrey, Texas 76227 (817) 365 9904 Acme Door & Mirror Rt. 2 Box 495 Pete Holler Aubrey, Texas 76227 (214) 248-0515 Adams Excavating/Construction P.O. Box 1627 Woody Lawson Grand Prairie, Texas 75051 (214) 263-8381 Allied Insulation 3214 Forest La. Rick Walker Garland, Texas 75042 All-Tel 1521 Central Park North Ann Alexander Fort Worth, Texas 76053 (817) 589-7019 B & H Antenna Systems 718 Lingco Richardson, Texas 75081 (214) 699-1947 Barrientos Paint Contractor, Inc. 2021 Reagan Mike Barrientos Carrollton, Texas (214) 242-6868 Bick's Stripping 2608 Townsend Gary Beckel Fort Worth, Texas 76110 (817) 429-6107 Boise Cascade P.O. Box 14469 Weldon Bell Halton City, Texas 76117 (817) 831-4331 Brown Steel Cczpaany 8016 Elizabeth Ln. Gary Braun Ft. Worth, Texas (817) 244-0249 A.C. Clmmings 2084 Jim Miller; Suite 109 Dallas, Texas 75217 (817) 398-1866 Custom Tile P.O. Box 780 Red Cedar Hill, TX 75104 (214) 299-6430 Davis Pipe & Supply 2404 Superior Dr. Arlington, Texas 76013 (817) 461-7212 REFERENCES PROFESSIONAL (Canted) • Name Address/Telephone Contact Delta Exterminator 910 Dugan St. John Rodden Arlington, Texas 76010 (817) 265-5021 The Doramus Ccnpany P.O. Box 55268 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 (501) 663-2414 Bill Dotson & Assoc. 6730 LBJ Freeway;Suite 2195 Sally Switzer Dallas, Texas 75240 (214) 387-4970 Duo-Fast P.O. Box 749009 Dallas, Texas 75374-9009 (214) 349-0090 Fannin Tree Farm 19440 Preston Rd. Mike Fannin Dallas, Texas 75252 (214) 867-6601 Farris Concrete P.O. Box 10504 Ft. Worth, Texas 76114 (817) 232-2511 Federal Door P.O. Box 5386 Ray Davis Arlington, Texas 76011 (817) 640-8422 First American Title 1550 Norwood; Suite 225 Sharman Brown Hurst, Texas 76053 (817) 282-9172 Fixture &change 3000 W. Pafford Gus Johnson Ft. Worth, Texas 76110 (817) 429-2496 Byron T. Folse & Associates 315 Westpark Way Byron T. Folse Euless, Texas 76039 4817) 267-3596 Fox Electric P.O. Box 13338 Jim Tanton Arlington, Texas 76013 (817) 461-2571 Gallaway Nursery 2010 Cooper Drive Irving, Texas 75061 (214) 556-0052 REFERENCES PROFESSIONAL (Cont'd) Name Address/Telephone Contact Gerry Curtis Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 9668 Gerry Curtis Ft. Wirth, Texas 76017 (817) 334-0381 Hall's Automatic Sprinklers P.O. Box 671 Ron Hall Mesquite, Texas 75149 • (214) 285-9088 Hill Design 12655 N. Central Expressway Melinda Tyler N. Central Plaza; Suite 505 Dallas, Texas 75243 (214) 233-6661 Hurst biter 104 E. Hurst Blvd.; Hwy.183 Harold Spradly Hurst, Texas 76053 (817) 282-2519 Ray Jambs 1444 Oak Lawn Plaza; Suite 517 Susanne Allen Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 387-8560 1-800-492-5188 Larry H. Jackson Construction, 5112 Laster Rd. Larry H. Jackson Inc. Ft. Worth, Texas 76119 (817) 572-3303 Keller Altmnintan Products P.O. Box 709 Betty Elliot Woodville, Texas 75979 (409) 283-2545 Lipton Staple Company P.O. Box 10085 Dallas, Texas 75207 (214) 263-7559 Masonry By Bradshaw 736 Springhill Dr. Hurst, Texas 76053 (817) 498-4704 Mc Clure Enterprises 520 Fountain Pkwy. Grand Prairie, Texas 75050 (214) 647-8010 MFC Construction 16200 Dallas, Parkway;Suite 140 Dick Dallas, Texas 75248 (214) 931-9898 MICA Corporation Contractors P.O. Box 14350 Fort Worth, Texas 76117 (817) 838-6738 REFERENCES PROFESSIONAL (Cont'd) Name Address/Telephone Contact Whrilpool Corporation 4501 Spring Valley Rd. nnl lac, Texas 75234 (214) 263-3466 Wier.& Associates 600 Matlock Centre Circle Ulys Lane Arlington,Texas 76015 (817) 265-2006 The Write Place 803 Lamar Blvd. E Charlotte Arlington, Texas (817) 277-1101 EXHIBIT "D" LETTER OF INTENT OF PEOPLES HERITAGE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND FINANCIAL REPORTS 1, vo Peoples Heritage Federal Savings CO. Box 4600 1129 South West Wanamaker Road Topeka, Kansas 66604/ (913) 272-4003 July 11, 1984 Board of County Commissioners Weld County, Colorado Re: $10 ,600 ,000 Letter of Credit to be issued in connection with the proposed Greeley Apartment Complex; City of Greeley, Weld County, Colorado Dear Commissioners: This letter of intent is to advise you the Peoples Heritage Federal Savings (the "PHFS") plans to issue a Letter of Credit (the "Credit Facility" ) or other suitable financial instrument to secure Bonds for the above proposed apartment (the "Complex") financing. This Credit Facility will secure the repayment of certain tax-exempt County Development Revenue Bonds (the "Bonds") to be issued by Weld County, Colorado pursuant to the County and Municipality Development Revenue Bond Act. The Credit Facility will be secured by a first lien indenture of mortgage and trust (the "Indenture") on the Complex. This commitment is subject to the following term and conditions: 1. The Letter of Credit will be issued in an amount equal to the face amount of the Bonds, plus up to six months interest, and will be a irrevocable, unconditional obligation to make all payments required by the lender loan agreement. 2. The Letter of Credit, our obligations thereunder, and the Owner ' s obligations to us in consideration thereof will be set forth in a Letter of Credit and Reimbursement Agreement satisfactory in form and substance to us. That Agreement will provide, among other things, that we shall have the right to approve any sale or transfer of the Project or of any substantial or controlling interest therein, or in the management of the Project. 3. The Bonds will be insured in accordance with the procedures of either American Municipal Bond Assurance Corporation or Industrial Indemnity Company (respectively the "Surety" ) or other July 10 , 1984 Page 2 acceptable Surety. The Owner will also have the responsibility to provide any cash or collateral debt service and other reserves required in connection with such program. Such amounts may, however, be included in the amounts financed hereunder. The terms and conditions of this letter of intent will be subject to amendment, if necessary, in order to comply with any requirements of such insuring entity. 4 . All costs in connection with this transaction, including all underwriting discounts and placement fees, all costs of issuance relating to the Bonds, the legal fees and disbursements of our attorneys, and all fees and disbursements in connection with the issuance of the bond counsel and underwriters' counsel opinions referred to herein, cost of mortgagee title insurance premium, survey, appraisal cost, recording charges and filing fees and any mortgage tax, revenue or documentary stamps shall be paid by the Owner. 5. The rate and repayment terms of the Bonds, and all material terms and conditions of the documentation executed in connection with the Bonds, will be subject to our review and approval. The selection of the Trustee will likewise be subject to our approval. 6 . Receipt from Matthews & Wright, Inc. (the "Investment Banker" ) of a commitment to purchase the Bonds on terms and condition acceptable to PHFS and in accordance with this commitment. 7 . All documents, title questions, designation as to applicable law and all other legal matters relating to or arising out of the loan will be subject in all respects to the approval of our attorneys. 8 . The issuance of the Letter of Credit will be subject to the receipt of a favorable legal opinion in form and substance satisfactory to us from a law firm acceptable to the purchasers of the Bonds stating, in addition to the usual matters covered by a bond opinion, that interest on the Bonds is exempt from Federal income taxation, and also a satisfactory opinion of underwriters' counsel concerning matters relating to the sale of the Bond. July 10 , 1984 Page 3 For your information, we are supplying with this letter a brief narrative on Peoples, Federal Home Loan Bank Board Financial (FHLBB) statements, and our internal quarterly statements. Respectfully submitted, PEOPLES HERITAGE FEDERAL SAVINGS By mas A. B rg;r Executive Vice •resident ti4 June 6, 1984 Peoples Heritage Federal Savings P.O. Box 4600 1129 South West Wanamaker Road Topeka,Kansas 66604/(913)272-4003 The year 1983 for Peoples Heritage Federal Savings and Loan Association was one of progressive change. Peoples Savings and Loan Association began the year as a state chartered institution with approximately $160 million in assets. Peoples had ten branches located in the north central and northeastern part of Kansas. On June 6, 1983, the sale of the capital stock was consummated. Concurrently with the change of ownership, a loan origination service corporation was established. Peoples Savings was granted their federal charter in August 1983. The federal charter allows more increased flexibility over the state charter institutions in the State of Kansas. The name was changed to Peoples Federal Savings and Loan Association. Another important date was November 1. This was the effective date of an acquisition and merger of Heritage Savings Association. This consummated several months of intensive effort by Peoples' new ownership. The merger jointed Peoples Federal (Assets of $212 Million, Deposits of $156 Million) with Heritage Savings (Assets $202 Million, Deposits of $185 Million) . The resulting institution was the fifth largest savings and loan in the state of Kansas. Name recognition of both institutions was retained by utilizing the new name of Peoples Heritage Federal Savings and Loan Association. Peoples Heritage Federal Savings has eighteen (18) branches throughout the northern one-third of Kansas. The savings deposits are a relatively stable base built upon rural markets. This has proven very beneficial in past several years of interest rate volatility and deposit mobility. The merger has provided the capital strength necessary for access to the capital markets and for asset growth. Peoples Heritage capital was $16.4 Million at December 31, 1983. This represented a strong 3.9% Capital/Asset ratio. The capital strength and asset size of Peoples Heritage has allowed the development of mortgage banking activities through the service corporation originations on a national basis. Seasoned mortgage loans have been securitized through the FHLMC Guarantor programs. These securities provide the funds for floating rate loans and to warehouse the mortgage banking activities between loan sales. The primary goals of Peoples Heritage under the new ownership are threefold. First, profitable growth is desired. A second goal is a good volume of mortgage banking activity through the subsidiary service corporation. The third goal is to provide good asset/liability management. This incorporates restructuring the older asset and deposit bases. The results of the threefold thrusts have been very successful to date. The following results are for Peoples Heritage on a combined basis since January 1, 1983. For the seven months that the service corporation was active, approximately $279 Million in loans were originated. This volume allowed for 30% asset growth and deposit growth of 16.6% to Peoples Heritage. The service corporation was completed approximately $87 Million in loan sales by year end. Mr. Thomas Dunn, Chairman of the Board, has previously been a director for a Kansas bank. His livelihood in business and real estate investments over the years provides a good management resource. Mr. James Cruce, Director, is a Certified Public Accountant. He previously was a partner with a regional CPA firm. Jim is currently a financial consultant. Their management direction has allowed Peoples Heritage, on a combined basis, to achieve a twelve month net income for 1983 of $5.0 Million. This provided a return on average assets of 1.33%. Peoples Heritage looks forward to 1984 with great anticipation of continued growth and mortgage banking activities. — 2 — ViaTi agar WAISI7 June 6, 1984 Peoples Heritage Federal Savings P.O. Box 4600 1129 South West Wanamaker Road Topeka, Kansas 66604/ (913) 272-4003 Mr. Rick Massey Matthews S Wright 14 Wall Street - 15th Floor New York, New York 10005 Dear Mr. Massey: The following information in enclosed as you requested: 1) 12-31-83 FHLBB semi-annual financial statements 2) Peoples' internal quarterly statement 3) 4-30-84 FHLBB monthly form 107 4) Brief narrative on Peoples Additional information regarding our mortgage loan servicing is listed below: Lender Approved By: Date: FHLMC 5-74 FNMA 11-76 FHA Prior to 1958 MGIC 9-59 The total amount of loans currently serviced is: FHLMC $ 92,000.000 FNMA $ 1,000,000 Others $140,000,000 The loans which we service for other institutions are primarily the apartment type loans which have been originated in the last twelve months. The service corporation has originated approximately $475,000,000 in loans in the last twelve months. Mr. Rick Massey June 6, 1984 Page 2 Should you need further information and would like to discuss Peoples Heritage for your narrative, please give me a call. Sincerely, PEOPLES HERITAGE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION RI William D. Williams Treasurer WDW:gf Enclosures cc: Mr. Thomas Burger Mr. Jim Cruce elerst Peoples Heritage Federal Savings PO.Box 4600 1129 South West Wanamaker Road Topeka, Kansas 66604/(913)272-4003 PEOPLES HERITAGE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION Financial Statement Quarter Ending March 31, 1984 (Unaudited) 3-31-84 12-31-83 (In 000's) ASSETS Cash and Marketable Securities $ 20,095 $ 17,711 Mortgage-Backed Securities 63,022 46,940 Mortgage Loan Receivable 491,391 436,364 Less Loans in Process (164,825) (112,108) Other Loan Receivable 12,588 12,127 Other Assets 17,316 $ 20,190 Total Assets $ 439,587 $ 421,224 LIABILITIES Deposits $ 361,668 $ 342,770 Advances from Federal Home Loan Bank 33,600 52,633 Other Borrowed Funds 18,648 2,311 Other Liabilities 7,629 7,066 Total Liabilities $ 421,545 $ 404,780 STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY $ 18,042 $ 16,444 Total Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity $ 439,587 $ 421,224 NET INCOME $ 1,598 $ 5,048 OMB NO. 3068-002 EXPIRES 12/31/84 ' DISTRICT/DOCKET NAME AND ADDRESS OF ASSOCIATION (Please use preprinted label) PCLERAL HOME LOAN BANE BOARD MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM 10/2587 Peoples Heritage Federal Savings SEMIANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT 800 Center 71 IT Marysville, Kansas 66508 SIATEMENT OF CONDITION PREPARED BY: PHONE N0. (Include Area Code) As OF December 31 . 1913 Dale E. Girard (913) 825-6701 SECTION A-ASSETS MORTGAGE LOANS AND CONTRACTS REPOSSESSED PROPERTY VA Foreclosed Real Estate (RIO) 134 378,466 Single-la.ily Ion 13,144,827 Real Estate in Judgment 135 147,276 Other ,101 124.021_ Other Repo.,.seed Property 136 -0- Depreciation Allowance 137 _1 PIA-MUD Valuation Allowance 138 142,500 Single-Fanlly 102 8,134,974 2-4 Dwelling Units 103 91,823 REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS Over 4 Dwelling Units 104 2,658,137 Held for Development/Investment 139 Other Improved Rea Estate 106 -Q- Other 140 Land Loans 107 -Q- Depreciation Allowance 141 Other Loans 104 _Q_ Valuation Allowance 142 CONVENTIONAL CASH Me INVESTMENT SECURITIES Single-Family 110 187,519,630 Eligible for Liquidity: 2-4 Dwelling Units 111 9.541.681 Cash and Demand Deposits 143 3,991,878 Over 4 Dwelling Units Iv 149.176.174 Investments 144 12,107.218 Other Improved Mal Estate 114 46.400,811 Accrued Interest Receivable 145 404,539 Developed Building Lots 115 7.679.010 Ineligible for Liquidity: Acquisition and Development of Land 116 145 916 Cash and Demand Deposits 146 -0- Unimproved Land 117 13,376,146 Investments 147 1,310,026 Nonconforming Lemma to Accrued Interest Receivable 148 7,508 Facilitate Sale of RIO 1118] 1.073.153 valuation Allowance 1150 110,000 I Nonconforming Contracts I FI%ED.Ag5EYS to Facilitate Sale of RIO 1119177,617 'a t • Office Building • (Land and Improvemert ) 151 Mortgages, Participations et 4,719_,533 Mortgage-backed Securities ° s Leasehold Improvements 152 49369__'. Insured or Guaranteed by an Fixe6 Asset Apprs1si3 increment 179 - -0- Agency or Instrument of the I. ?" United States 1171 I 46,338,710 Furnitur Fixt es, 1 • Equ1pslegt Aut apbi It,. EtS 153 1,815 296___ 1 o reciat ion Allowance 154 1,791,596 Accrued Interest Receivable ? 120 I �" 3,122,962 P u' w,w Va Nation A•ll ante,:,„„x 4 155 -0- M for Borrowers' ., _._" Taxes and Insurance 1121 I 54.998 OTHER ASSETS Stock in FNLBank 149 4,029,400 �i CONTRA-ASSETS TO MORTGAGE LOANS: Prepaid FSLIC Premium 156 186,428 I Loans in Process 105 1 • .4 ' Prepayment to FSLIC Unearned Discounts 109 8 823 Secondary Reserve 157 ! 218,215 Deferred Loan Pees 113 s Stock in ANNA 1701 10,149 Specific Reserves is 103,321 Prepaid Expenses 158 223,380 Valuation Allowance 122 118 842 Equity Investment in Service Corporations/Subsidiaries 1159 I 6,692.944 Ipgv1EGAGE LOANS Service Corporation - Loans on Savings Accounts 123 1,787,092 Appraisal Increment 180 I -Q- Nme Improvement Loan, 124 1,371,788 Deferred Losses on Loans Sold 161 47,484 Education Loans 167 2,065,716 Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets 174 Consumer Auto I.omis 168 _2.,747.635 Accounts Receivable Other Closed-end Consumer Loans 169 6.513.311 Secured by Pledged Savings 173 Credit Cards, Overdrafts I Other Assets 162 1.917 862 and other Open-End Credit Other Deferred Credits 1771 65.s1ConsumersExtended to Consumers 11351 21.901 1 Valuation Allowance 1631 209,000 Unsecured Construction Loans 126 -0- , Mobile Rem Loans: TOTAL ASSETS 1164 1 421.224,520 Wholesale 127 -1- — Retail. 128 g 588 MEMORANDUM ITEMS Other No.eonswr Loans 131 Nonconfortmg LTF's and Contracts Accrued Interest Receivable 132 on Other Than Re siden[iel Properties 1 165 1 CONTRA-ASSETS TO NOIODNTGAGE IOM&: Number of Wholly Owned (Type 1) Loans In Process 130 105.058 Service Corporations Invested In 11]51 4 Oneerned Discounts 160 900.721 Junior Mortgage Loans Included In Deferred Loan Fees 166 -Q- Mortgage Loans and Contracts Where Specific Reserves 172 1.152 Your Institution Does Not Hold the Valuation Allowance 133 _Q_ I First Lien 11761 FIO.BB Form 774e -1- REV. DECEMBER 1982 (2) (PREVIOUS EDITIONS OBSOLETE) ons 7D. 3068-0028 EXPIRES 12/31/84 DISTRICT/DM-SET NAME. AM) ADDRESS OF ASSOCIATION (Please use preprinted label) FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM 10/2587 Peoples Heritage Federal Savings SEMIANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT 800 Center Marysville, Kansas 66508 -il Fr STATEMENT OF CONDITION (Continued) as of OPremhPr 31 , 19 83 SECTION 8—LIABILITIES SECTION C— REGULATORY NET WORTH DEPOSITS AND SAVINGS ACCOUNTS Permanent, Reserve, or Guarantee Stock 100 804,010 Non-Interest-Earning Demand and NOW Accounts 11011 5,551.492 Paid-In Surplus 101 1,053,423 Qualifying Mutual Capital Certificates 117 Income Capital/Net Worth Certificates 124 Accounts Earning: _p_ Qualifying Subordinated Debentures 125 In Excess of Regular Rate; Appraised Equity Capital 126 In Certificates with Denominations _0_ of $100,000 or More 102 24,600,715 Reserves -105 11,303,099 In Other Accounts IQ 9a • p• Undivided Profits (Retained Earnings) 106 3,283,559 Net Undistributed Incase 107 At or below Regular Rate, NOW Accounts (Interest-Earning) 104 8.068.431 TOTAL REGULATORY NET WORTH 11081 16.444.091 Passbook and other 105 74 _999.72R TOTAL LIABILITIES AND OTHER LIABILITIES REGULATORY NET WORTH 11091421.224 520 PNLBank Advances Due in One (1) Year or Less 106 22,633,336 NOTE: Line C109 MIST Equal Line 1164. Due in More Than One (1) Year 107 29,999,988 REGULATORY NET WORTH RECONCILIATION Other Borrowed Money TOTAL REGULATORY NET WORTH Due in One (1) Year or Less: (Line 0108) Pram Previous Report 1114 I-.13,214 286 Commercial Bank Loans 108, -0- Reverse Repurchase Agreement' 109 :8R .2 Lees: Overdrafts in Demand Deposits,. 100 _:,,.1- ____ Undisttibuted Net Incow,e if Coemercial Paper Issued o 137 -0-., y I luded at Line C114'. I115r _0- Other E lIo1 7^94,909 --- Due in More Than One (1) Yeer 1111 1•Pa9,678 BEGINNING BEGULITORT NET YORT11 111-6-1-13,214,286 Mortsages w Association Premises :I111I 100 000 Additions: NRt Change in Permanent Stock 118 . -0- Subordinated Debentures S*an s7efs from riot Irec 119 4,229,805 Not Qualifying for Net Worth K 51113 .i'._0_ Gontribvted Capit l y„ 1 120 -0- Mortgage-Backed Bond Issues 1114 5 -0- Net Chang i Appral sed;:E9uity Capital. Qualifying Mutual Capital, Income Accrued Interest Payable 11151 33.180 Capital and Net Worth Certificates and Subordinated Debentures 121 1 _0_ I Dividends/Inter,,[ Accrued or I u61 1 Sifi.A75 Deductions: Declared on Savings Accounts Cash Dividends on Permanent Stock, Reserve for Bonus Mutual Capital Certificates, on Savings Accounts 11171 —0— Income Capital Certificates 11221 1,000,00I Dividends Payable on Permanent, end Net Worth Certificates Reserve, or Guaranty Stock 118 1,000,000 ' Accrued Federal Income Tax 119 1,330,953 ENDING REGULATORY NET WORTH Other Accrued Taxes 120 395,623 (Line 0108 This Report) 11231 16,444.091 Accounts Payable 121 258,455 Advance Payments by Borrowers for Taxes/Insurance: Date of Insurance of Accounts 1110 110 129 131 Earning _ (Show month, day and year numerically, Interest 125 1,143,521 e.g.• November 14, 1934 should be Mon-Earningshown a 11/14/34) Miscellaneous Other Liabilities 11261 295,418 Annual Closing Date III 12 131 Deferred Federal Income Taxes 11131 1,071,405 (Shw month and day numerically. e,g., December 31 should be Deferred State. Local and shown as 12/31) Other Income Taxaa 11381 -0- Shw by an 'IX" the accounting basis TOTAL LIABILITIES 11361404,780,429 on which this report was prepared Accrual 1112 X MEMORANDUM REM Cash 1131 I Pledged Deposits and Savings Included in Lines 8101 thru 8105 above 11391 FHLBB Form 774b6c REV. DECEMBER 1982 (2) (PREVIOUS EDITIONS OBSOLETE) OMB NO. 3065-0028 EXPIRES 12/31/84 DISTRICT/POCKET NAME AND ADDRI.6S OF AR.iOC1ATION (Please use preprinted label)• FEDERAL HOME LOAN BAN% BOARD 10/2587 Peoples Heritage Federal Savings & Loan Assn. MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM 800 Center SEMIANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT Marysville, Kansas 66508 11 I^ N 111E 6-MONTH PERIOD ENDING INCOME AND EXPENSE ITO December 31 , 1983 SECTION E-EXPENSE SECTION 0-INCOME OPF.RATIAL EXPENSE 100 14,025 OPERATING IN 1 toe I 17.487.306 Director. Fees Interest on Mororcpge Loans Otctcers and Employees Compensation 101 1,074,878 Pension Flan Costs 102 53.314 on pent{or Ma103 170.176 Grttcipaliona, rtga••' Other Employee Benefits 104 23,044 Sacked Securities Reported tzt I 1,552,724 Legal Expense at Lime 171 of Section A Directors, Officers and Employees greens* LIDS I 20.812 Interest on Real Estate Sold on Contract ]toll 4,744 Office Occupancy Expense 106 204.835 Furniture. Fixtures. Equipment Discounts on Mortgage 1021 24,540 and Automobile Expense 107 292,310 Itevs PurchasedOche 103 864,124 Advertising I108 146,276 Interese on other Loans Cmtsatons Paid teenea/Dtvtan Deposits on 104 1 • 5 92. for Savings Accounts 109 6.596 Le n Teel a and Insurance and Surety Bond Premiums uO 21 104 Loan Servicing 105 4 lit 132,221 106 {•. T+nerd Insurance Premium Loan BLaw lee Fan. 107 7 Independent Audit Expense 112 26,875 Other Pees and Ch tax and Accounting services 113 5,350 Gross IncI«non ism Real Supervisory Evmleattons 114 20.854 Estate Owned Operations Office lDa 51 26.160 Consultant o and Management re.. 115 WetBuilding Income iron Office 1109 I 14.915 Loan Lxpanup iii 48,542 Operations Contributions 117 3,495 Gross Income fret Real Estate 1110 I _Q_ Service Fees on Loans purchased 118 -0- Eeld for Investment Other Operating Expeuat:>'. 119 372,348 Net Incme from Service ,,11111 (34,262) Expense on R Estate Held Corporations/Subsidiaries Chargesand for Development/Investment nt/Investment 130 -0- Servlce thirsts and Fee 1122 :17fi.939 Rest Gcaa ou«e Expense lv 5,888 Income from Row Accounts DIVIDING/MEREST CRAWLS.: MS•ull•newa Operating Income 1113E 75fi.AA9 IIF Savings Accounts Easniaa: F •) In Excassi of Regular tat NONofit NGIPCof gross 122 13,115,489 Profit s Sale Owned Si Penaletei on Early Vttha vat 123 27,594 114 ,_.• Gal Guts Owed Net (Gress minus penalties) 124 13,087,895 scans uc Securities 115 32 577 6 932 577 At or Below Regular Rate: tans Na Accounts Its 261.817 OthMince A eou 117 4E- • Passbook and Other Accounts 126 1 3.051_629 Miser la Nonepentivs income 118 4 Accrued for Bonus Accounts 127 D TOTAL INCOAB 11191 28.019.648 Advance Payments by Borrowers for Taxes and Insurance 128 Advances Etna TI1LBank 129 1,796,471• En 'RCM (Income less Expense) 1120 4,229,805 Subordinated Debentures U0 ..0- Mortgage-Backed Bonds 131 -0- Other Borrowed Money 132. 732,028 Capitalised Interest 141 -0- ,ONOPERATING EXPENSE Provision for Losses and Losses on Sale of: Reel Estate Owed 133 5.275 Investment Securities 134 -Q- Loana • 135 6,930 Other Assets 136 807 -- Other Nonopereting Expenses 137 18.188 INCOME TAXES Federal I138I 1,722.400 Scare, Local end Other 139 387.100 TOTAL EXPENSE 11401 23,789,843 1. ,- v.. ..CT.. v: rs9.v^..a.a..'u0w. lrti�sefw+ • OMB NO. 3068-0028 EXPIRES 12/31/64 'DISTRICT/DOCKET NAME AND ADDRESS OF ASSOCIATION (Please use preprinted label) FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD Peoples Heritage Federal Savings 8 Loan Assn. MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM 10/2587 800 Center SEMIANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT Marysville, Kansas 66508 7 F SECTION F SLOW LOANS AND OTHEM SCHEDULED ITEMS CROSS AMOUNT ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS NET AMOR.T SLOW MORTGAGE LOANS AND CONTRACTS 1 TOTAL - VAIFRA-NMI IOC 63,372 107 _0_ 114 63,372 TOTAL - Conventional 101 1,682,070 NOB 1 9,753 116 1,672,317 OTHER SLOW LOANS TOTAL - Insured 102 36,575 109 _p_ 116 35.575 TOTAL - Other 103 _0_ 110 -0- 117 OTHER SCHEDULED ITEMS Nonconforming Loan. and Contracts 104 1,154,328 ill 85,532 118 1,068,796 Repo ausled Property 105 525,742 112 142,500 119 383,242 Investment Securities Past Due and Deposits in Closed Banks 106 _Q_ 113 _Q_ 120 FORECLOSURE DATA FOR SEMIANNUAL PERIOD NUMBER ANOINT Foreclosures. VA/FHA-HUD 700 2 204 66,508 Conventional201 ! $ 205 159,649 Deeds in Lieu of Foreclosure: VA/FHA-MUD +,.. 202 -Ow 206 -0- } 03 3 207 131,057 Conventional MEMORANDUM RENTS Amortization of Discount. Included in Line D102 Resulting From a Purchase Accounting Merger 121 -Q- Amortization of Discounts Included in Line 0102 Computed by Sum-of-the-Years Digits Method 122 5,708 Amortization of Goodwill and Other Intangibles Included in Line E119 Resulting From a Purchase Accounting Merger 123 -0- PHLBB Form 776 -4- REV. DECEMBER 1982 (PREVIOUS EDITIONS OBSOLETE) OMB NO. )068-0028 EXPIRES 12/31/8L DISTRICT/DOCKET NAME AND ADDRESS OF ASSOCIATION (Please use preprinted label) • FEDERAL HOME LOAN BAIA BOARD Peoples Heritage Federal Savings 8 Loan Assn, MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM 10/2587 SEMIANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT 800 Center Marysville, Kansas 66508 R SECTION G SUPPLEMENTAL DATA ACTIVITY DURING PERIOD WJ.NCE a CLOSE OP PERIOD N01mER AMOUNT BOMBER MOUNT Participations gold 100 34 toe 91.313.712 '116 7654 123 173,310,349 Pmrticip.tio.. Purchased 101 -0- 109 -0- 117 773 124 24.470.238 Whole Loss Sold 102 -0- 110 -0- Whole Loans Purchased 103 36 III 233,674,645 Loans Serviced for Other. 125 185,051.399 Loan. Serviced by Others 126 25.380,529 Broker-origin.t.d Savings [104I 156 11121 15.600.000 11181 37 I1221 3,700.000 Total somber of Cmeantimal Loans and Contracts • ,119 8,862 Total Maher of VA/PRA-ELM Loans and Contracts... 120 1,125 Balance of Leans in Process on Sys and other welling Unit. 128 98,860,468 GERM Pass-Through. Secured by Eisele-Family Dwelling 129 3,263,772 Whole Loge. Sold to?RUC P.rticip.tioa. Sold to Platt•,;_,_,• „ 106 2 114 660,527 - 121 262 130 67,984,388 Participation Sale Certificate -' Purchased from FSLIC 107 ' -0- 115 .-j7- 122 112 131 43,062.002 MEMORANDUM TTIMS Specified *Belt. (As defined by Insurance Regulation 561.17; Refer to Instructions for Calculation Worksheet) 132 324,187,511 Moldings of Conventional Adjustable Interest Rate Hortg.... Secured by 1-to-4 Family Some.: With a Limit on the Marian Rau Change Over the Life of the Loan of 5 Percentage Pointe or Le 139 17,005,754 With no Limit on the Nazism Rite Change Over the Life of the Loan or a Limit in Excess of 5 Parte to s of 140 23,644,631 Holdings of MSscellanaous Other Conventional Nonstandard Mortgage. Secured by 1-to-4 Pally Ram.. 135 2,820,509 Approximate Velum of Trust Assets Administered 136 -0- Amount of Contingency to Repurchase Loans 137 -0- Retail Repurchase Agreements Outstanding 138 880,629 Balance* in Tam-Ixampt "All Savers" Certificates 141 1,069 ntiS Form 777 REV. JUNI 1952 (PREVIOUS 101110115 OSSOIETI) SECTION H DEPOSITS AND SAVINGS ACCOUNT BALANCES AS OF THE CLOSE OF YOUR SEMIANNUAL PERIOD ENDING BETWEEN JULY 1 -DECEMBER 31 ACCOUNTS EMBER AMUNT With *slams. of $100,000 or Las. toe 61,132 toe 315,708,457 With Balance. in Emcee* d $100,000 107 158 109 27,062,002 GENIC TOTAL (Item 105 equals the eta of Items 105 and 109, and MUST squ.l the 61,290 342,770,459 on sum of Items 101, 102, 103, 104 and 105 of Secti 1 of this report) 102 105 PHIS, Form 778 -5- REV. JUNI 1982 (PREVIOUS EDITIONS o550ISR) 07m'913. 3068-001 EXPIRES 12/31/84 . . An amour/.w nerd"NON)"dnwld hr.r //r.,rush mnn DISTRICT/DOCKET N IF ASSOCIATION 4. Federal Hem.Lean Danl.Dosed - ' 10/2587 Icaples Heritage Federal) SBL Assn Mu,.pament Information System NAME AND 1111101111 AND STREET ... ADDRESS OF 800 Center MONTHLY REPORT ASSOCIATION , IPL1ASC USE CITY STATE TIP, (See Smarm Ininuctimd PREPRINTED (REPORT IN DOLLARS ONLY—NO CENTS) LABEL) Marysville Kansas .66508____ PREPARED BY PHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code) MONTH ENDED Dale E. Girard (913) 825-6201 April 30, 1984 SELECTED BALANCE SHEET ITEMS AT END OF MONTH ASSETS LIABILITIES AND REGULATORY NET WORTH Mortgage Loans Outstanding DOLLARS Savings in Accounts Earning I DOLLARS Construction OOII 285,101,956 In Excess of Regular Rate Paid on Passbook Accounts Other 0021 259,694,193 In Certificates with Minimum De- Mortgage Loans in Process 1010 168,624,859 1 nominations of $100,000 or More 101 42,836,033 Real Estate Acquired by Foreclosure or Deed in Lieu: In Other Accounts , 101 248;180,631 Sold on Contract and At or Below Regular Rate Patd on Loss to Facilitate 003 286,325 Passbook Savings 103 88 569,143 Unsold or in Judgment 004 1,484,591^ !MBank Advances l04 99 990 Mortgage Participations or Other Borrowed Money 105 ' Mortgage-Backed Securities Other Liabilities 107 10.957.453 Insured or Guaranteed by an Agency or Instrumentality of Total Regulatory Net Worth 1 108 I 1 81783.353 the U.S. 1005! 71,138,520 (including Net Undistributed Income) Improvement. Education. Retail Total Liabilities and Mobile Nome and Other Regulatory Net North 11501500;368,324 Non-Mortgage Consumer Loans 10061 13,489,477 (150 • 101 thru 105 + 107 + 108) Cash and Investment Securities MfM0 ITEMS I• Eligible for Liquidity 007 18 429 031 FNLBank Advances and Other Borrowed Ineligible for Liquidity 008 a 72 Money Due in One Year or Leas 1161 i 59,835,584 Other Assets 009 : 1•• a. Income Capital end Net Worth Total Assets 050 gg Certificates Included in Line 108 '1 162 1 —0- (050 - 001 thru 009 Minus 010) Appraised Equity Capital ' MORTGAGE ACTIVITY DURING MONTH Included in Line 108 1163 1 -D- _ Construction Loans Cloud Condominiums 201 _0_ MORTGAGE LOAN COMMITMENTS 1-4 Family RRmea 214 655.600 New Commitments Made During Month 5 or More Dwelling Unit Structures 704 _0_ To Originate Loans 3011 2.2_15.991 Nonresidential 205 -D_ Tu Purchase Loans from Others 302 '71.169+865 Loans Closed for Purchasing All Commitments Outstanding at End of Month Single-Family Homes To Originate Loans 303 a9 820 Newly-guilt Homes 2061 _0_ To Purchase Loans from Others 304 27 42• 200 Previously-Occupied Homes 202 1 171.439 - To Sell Loans to Others 305 28 951 500 2-4 Dwelling Unit Structures 208 _0_ _ Net Cash Expected to be Disbursed from Commitments S or More Dwelling Unit Structures 209 -n- (Line 303 + 304 - 305) Nonresidential 210 _(]- Within 3 Months of Reporting Month 3(161 17'667,430) Land Loans Closed 211 _0_ 4-6 Months After Reporting Month 3071 3,870,000 Refinancing Loans Closed 112 265,412 — More Than 6 Months After Reporting n Loans Closed for All Other Purposes 1 213, _0_ Month 1308 I 15,-480,000 Total Loans Closed (220 • 201 + 204 they 214) 1220! 7 04? 451 OTHER COMMITMENTS.FUTURES AND OPTIONS POSITIONS Short Put Options and Other Commitments Loans and Participations Purchased 2211 67 942 665 to Purchase 1401 I /,580,000 Loans d Participations Sold 222 k751 27(1 Short Call Options and Other Commitments Cash Repayment of Principal 223 2.608.499 to Sell 4031 ' an . -0— Debits Less Credits Other Thaw Long Futures and Long Call Options 404 —0— Cash Repayment of Principal I1241 1 620 R57 Short Futures and Long Put Options 405 Net Change in Mortgage Loan Portfolio Unrecognised Caine (Losses) from Open (250 - 220 + 221 - 222 - 223 + 224) 12501 55.244.204 Futures/Options Position 1406 1 -0- SAVING S ACTIVITY DURING MONTH SELECTED INCOME AND EXPENSE ITEMS(Fecal Ylrsr To Date I Interest/Dividends Credited 501 1,148 934 Interest on Mortgage Loansand Contracts 601 17+-148,454 New Savings Race: -eel - Snt 109 711 519 Interest on Investments 602 805,519 --. Savings Withdrawn 5011 97 943 197 Other Operating Income 603 1,253,969 Net Change in Savings Other Non-Operating Income 604 235,502 1 (550 • 501 +502 - 503) 15501 17,917.256 Total Income (620 - 601 through 604) B 620 1 19,443,444 MEMO ITEMS Operating Expense 621 1,958,889 Intereet/Divfdends on Savings 622 11 623 055 Previously Reported Combination Construction/Permanent Loons Where Interest on Advance.and Borrowed Money 63 2,384,5 Construction was Completed Thia Month 1 261] 175 000 Ncn-Operating Expense 624 4,300 Federal and State Income Taxes czs 1 14,300 Non-Cash Portion of Refinancing Total Expense (640 - 621 through 625) 640 7 04 172 ' Loans Reported This Month 17671 52,990 Mortgage Loans and ContractsNet Income (650 • 620 minus 640) 650 2 .39 272 Delinquent 60 Days or More 12631 3.468,684 The following NUMBER of months of income and expense data are Neil the ORIGINAL of this report to the Federal Noma Loan tank moire, included in the above FISCAL-YEAR-TO-DATE figures Information Syateas Division. wuhington, D.C. 20552. 1.661IVI " Nail ewe (2) copies to the Federal Nome Lean Bank in your District. MEMO ITEM For a new supply of thle form, cant[ the ICR Coordinator at your District sank. Check if you are including in your balance sheet Tor the first time meta,seta, etc., acquired as a result:of REPORT DUE IN WASHINGTON BY 10TH OF MONTH merger or similar type acquisition '701 I RHL9B Form 107 REV, JANUARY 1903 (PREVIOUS mamma mourn EXHIBIT `E' COMMITMENT LETTER OF MATTHEWS & WRIGHT, INC. MATTHEWS St WRIGHT, INC. AARON M.BARMAN 14 WALL STREET VICE PRESIDENT NEW YORE,N.Y.10005 212-267-4470 July 11, 1984 Mr. Donald Warden Director of Finance and Administration Weld County 915 Tenth Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: $10 ,600 ,000* Multi-Family Housing Development Revenue Bonds (Greeley Apartment Complex) Dear Mr. Warden: This is to advise you that Matthews & Wright, Inc. (the "Investment Banker") will purchase the multi-family housing revenue bonds (the "Bonds" ) that are anticipated to be issued for the above facility pursuant to the County and Municipal Development Revenue Bond Act. This commitment is subject to the following conditions: 1. An unqualified legal opinion from nationally recognized Bond Counsel acceptable to the Investment Banker that the Bonds issued will be exempt from taxation and the legality of the issuance thereof. 2. A rating on the Bonds of "A" or better by a nationally recognized bond rating agency. 3. Market conditions that prevail at the time of the offering of the Bonds by the Investment Banker. 4. A review and final determination by the Investment Banker that the financing of this transaction is economically feasible. 5. A determination by the Investment Banker' s Counsel as to the adequacy of the security on the bonds. *Preliminary; subject to change Sampling of issuers for which Matthews & Wright, Inc. served as manager Issuer Amount Type Mortgage Bonds Community Development Administration of Maryland $578,215,000 Home Mortgage Bonds State of New York Mortgage Agency 420,003,400 Idaho Housing Agency 353,630,000 Mortgage Bon s Loan Notes Community Development Administration of Maryland 219,390,000 Bon Maine Municipal Bond Bank 213,000,000 Bond Bank Puerto Rico Housing Finance Corporation 212,505,000 Mortgage Bonds Puerto Rico Housing Finance Corporation 206,800,000 Housi ev Loan Notes Delaware State Housing Authority 138,980,000 Housing Development Bonds New York City Housing Development Corporation 132,775,000 Construction Loan Atlantic County Improvement Authority,New Jersey 104,090,000 Public e Facilities m oud Refunding Bonds Puerto Rico Housing Bank&Finance Agency - 100,000,000 Single Family Housing Notes Puerto Rico Housing Bank&Finance Agency 100,000,000 Utility ng Family Housing Bonds City of Bradenton,Florida 69,320,000 Mortgage System Bond Anticipation Notes New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority 61,200,000 Single Family Mortgage or Bge Bonds Prince George's County Housing Authority,Maryland 35,090,000 Single Provo City, 22,400,000 Electric System Revenue Bonds Student Loan Utah hnd of Idaho 20,000,000 Student Loan Bonds City n Loan u Florida Ida 16,065,000 Sewer System Bonds Union ity0 Elderly KeyHousing Corporation,New York 14,570,000 wr 8 Bonds(Senior Citizens) Sewer Utility Bonds Secaucus Municipal Utilities Authority,New Jersey 13,350,000 Industrial Authority,St.Charles County,Missouri 13,030,000 Construction Loan Bonds City of Rolling Meadows,Illinois 12,270,000 Luxury Tax y Housing NotesDB(20%Subsidized) Atlantic County Improvement Authority,New Jersey 11,500,000 St.Luke's Revenue Revenue Idaho Health Facilities Authority 10,425,000 Shopping Center/Commercial Bonds New Jersey Economic Development Authority 10,100,000 Shopping Center Facility City of Middlesboro,Kentucky 10,000,000 cion Mortgage oag Bonds IDB Section 8 Bonds(Elderly) Augusta Housing Rehabilitation Agency,Georgia 8,460,000GreggCounty Housing Finance Corporation,Texas 8,290,000 County Guaranteed Housing IDAirportB Facility Subsidized)Bns Essex County Improvement Authority,New Jersey 7,320,000 Bond Anticipation Guara oes— nel Bonds Town of Secaucus,New Jersey 7,320,000 Bond Notes—General Obligation Centralia,Illinois 7,200,000 Shopping Center Project IDB Delaware Economic Development Authority 6,485,000 Grace Retail eCorporation Facility Industrial Authority of Moberly,Missouri 4,500,000 Intermediate Care Facility ng IDB City of Upland,California 4,165,000 Multi-FamilyOfficeiBBuIDB(20%Subsidized) Wichita County Industrial Corporation,Texas 4,090,000 Commercial coon 8 Mod Rehabe (Family ail IDB Spartanburg,South Carolina 3,495,000 Nursing rn 8 m Housing) 3,420,000 Home Project IDB Mercer County Industrial Authority,Pennsylvania Manufacturing Facility IDB Suffolk County Industrial Authority,New York 3,050,000 Educational Service District 89,State of Washington 1,950,000 Lease Purchase Certificates of Participation EXHIBIT 'F' CASH FLOW/PRO-FORMA PROJECTIONS AND PROJECTED BOND DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE • G1EF.LEY APARTMIN1S WELD COUNTY, COLORADO LOAN TO LENDER SURETY BACKED BONDS INITIAL INTEREST RATE 6.50% - VARIABLE RATE DEMAND BONDS - SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS SOURCES ------------ BOND PRINCIPAL. 1.00 $10,600,000 EQUITY 735,000 TOTAI. SOURCES OF FUNDS $11,39:,,000 USES CONSTRUCTION COSTS $9,288,516 GROSS ANNUAL FEES DURING CONSTRUCTION: BOND INTEREST $1,033,500 LENDER FEE 238,500 TRUSTEErLIOIDITY,RFMARKTING 95,400 TOTAL $1,367,400 LESS INTEREST EARNED ON UNDISBURSED FUNDS: CONSTRUCTION FUND 661,137 CAPITALIZED INTEREST FUND 140,538 DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND 162,774 - TOTAL 964,649 NET INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION 402,751 LENDER COMMITTMENT FEE 318.000 SURETY PREMIUM 170,626 BOND DISCOUNT 212,000 COSTS OF ISSUANCE 200,000 BERT SERVICE RESERVE FUND 790,175 ROUNDING AMOUNT 2,932 TOTAL. USES OF FUNDS $11,385,000 MATTI'EWS % WRIGHT, INC. 09-Jul-84 15.34 I W "J O O O O O O O O O O O O CJ Z O C O O O O O O O O O Z •-. O O O 0 0 0 O C O O O C C ' 2 0 C .fl 41 47 C Li ^ 47 47 4] CC G M-- 'C +3 41 - M C. OI P CO J 4'1 N 00000000. 00. 0. o a J O C c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 O 1- -O -O -O CJ 4'1 P P 0 P; -O n C Cl O H .'. -O P -O -J M er M .O M 4^ O .'. P Cr. P P P P P C- C. 4, M C.a PPP P P P P P P P 1.'! O .'. CJ K K a O W Y - Lb W H O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O V. 4: LLI 1-- Z 2 W c -O O OOP 4: 4] l Kl .L r. n .-. _ n Z - La al .- in C H LL C) `O -C -O O 4'1 P M CO O v+ C4 -O Cl W 0 .-. LJ M M M M Cl ... ... O P P O] C. - C C. 4 ' -- Y M -O -O V -O -O .C -O 47 47 4'1 N in ~ O cc Q N. C J Li: C J Z M Y Cl, 0 ..: G Z Z K S O C CO W I- O O 00 N 47 47 O 47 O 47 in 47 47 C [J Y W G W LJ C 47 0 O O Cl N. C. O N. 0 C. Cl Cl C. C 1- - - t = .,;1 o c O P. in C P] 4. N. .O Y C -O CU.! C Z C .L: Cr. . P ' -O < C] � P r\ 47 M •C. `' G cc CC t CC CC C .-. 47 4'1 47 47 41 47 49 47 T P Q P M : = U a it w 1- G -. Y U CO tai 0 lJ Z W CC • CC a - 4 1- Cy G Y Z t- C Cl, J O O O 47 47 47 O 47 O 47 in 47 47 C Z J 0-0CC H C 0 0 0 1. c4 CI O CI O CJ I. C. Cl I- COO O -O -.. M O] I. P .. r. )- 00 _.1 .-1 W O- P '� P M n -C P .-. M P O f m W00- G0 - M C 1' n I' C. N C - 0. 41 47 4 C -O -O:_. 2 H ... O` _ n n n n C\ C. 1` n N. ..l 47 W C .-+ L' Z. M ' w Cs .L C3 Z Cr 0 0 CO CO 3 J .-. J S a K M I- I.- 0 O O O Ill 47 4'1 O 47 O 47 (Al N 11] Cr C 47 O 0 0 C. Cl Cl O Cl 0 C P. n Cl La CC V O O O v -O .-1 M CO IN. P ..q P. O- W CO. PPM n .+ ? r CO P O P CO H O] C` CO CO C. C. -O 4i) P M M .• 47 Z -O -O -O -C -O -O -O .] -O J -O -C P w'. a • N. a I C O.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O — tU 47 C O '^ 47 N 47 C O 47 0 H a 47 0 -O w w CC Q6 P O —4 a C L 117 -O N. CO P 0 4+ Cl M ? 47 -C • IQ w=-. O] O] C C Cl P Cr. P P P P P 1 1 1 I • 1 Y Z j i 1n Y g m m .7 m 7 7 7 La C C C C C C C 7 .77777 C C C C 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N. • V In V I P Nt N 0. 1N O P N N , P •• ' m I n . N o N Y] 0 • • P ! Y= V . C.40 • N 11 • , P. 11 r pain r i a 0 i 0 0 a N f P . f 0 • T 0 Y] NUM N P ' CO a 1 r NI T 0 : V X r i r P X M I I N in No . .. V I n N N P I V O 1 V N 0 0.IV rf N 4iN •'CO n O 0 . 4V CF T• . C X O N y WI n ' N CO O PI N N 0 r I Y] T N •NICCI Oi . II'I 0' n N M N N • • 4. I N f T VI- I = f f P I PI O • n N f P .n O . 0 0 0 V . Y1 PONN n w r 0 . N f V . 0 V ! NI N • O CO . ^ V WI C ' f - ! N Y V 0 • N 0 n P ' f 11 N : V N I M P ' _ II • _ N • 0 1 r 1 • r . I N I•'• P N- , T w Y` 0 le 0 f u P P P r . co V f 0 fwl II N Ow N C . f f 0 POI n N T II ✓ n N r CO . P IV V. II r N 0 . P N N 0 . N P C• I V . N f i N P N 11 • Na a • •• N a r I r N N a - I Inc! P I N O I u] II T - P N N I Y] V I 0 T . K n I C 11 Cl w 0] 1 V Into V I n c no . P_ • • N i a n : cr. coon T 1 n II N r li a • N PI O , N P I IV N M 11 • I II •• 1 ~ i I N • N n I O N • N P I w 0 all V P (l V O V. • • O f . Ni P I1 O.w •• •01 •• _ 1 n V I O P C 11 r- c a I :n ' > Oi 1 0 n V ri C. N . T N I •C Cl w P C• II I] i f Ct ' P ••• N a. _ N • M i ' II N 0 O N I N NOV P I N 0 ! al N P C V i V WIC V i r 0. . N 11 ✓ C N N :9 ! •• 0 1 0 N 1 n Y r T ` N ' N _ 0.. • IC I1 I n • O ••• I •••• P I r I II O 11 M▪ I r 0 1 r I N P ^ Y]- 1 O T ' N P I V 0 • V II P CO Y] I 'V 0 ' n f . C Y'1 • WI II 0 CW O P I C 1 M '0I0 Y^ 1 f 11 • 1 • • . • • • II w P 0 . 0 n I f ' II N 'O : VI 1 O C0 V • T IV • n n • P ••• I c T IOlawN N w i I N x v coT .r a • I WI P I f P I n O • P.) N C0O f: f] 0 W . O. II O P • O Z 0 • Y. 1 N. P ' 0 V P• • •: II • O PI Y] I n ' Cl C 1. . ••• f ! IN N r y r w• r 1 II•..c -0 ti • I 1 N W M ` 0 0 n N 6• 0 0 C f i. n C • N ' 1 O O • O II 0 O N W a w 0 a . WI CI ,* V : P V I n It y1 H • W co a 4 is 4 W O CI 10 n ' r 0 1 P V ' n• II r lit tr. i U VIP 0 . P V 1 •N X Z C U) IN W } N. Cl 0 r ' P P N y I N 0 W IC I I • I N W W a W a • - W F ¢ Z. J 2 IC 0 V co i DI 10 N N O N ,I r 0 I .• X 0 J r W 6 w T N I J N I NON n 1 n 'OO ! ,-• I O• (.A > C O J J In ' T C ' L' N] f ' a r 1 T N r J W •¢n 6 S. Z N n 1 P f : ill. a N I N I V X C W. 0 2 •-• 0 PCPa r . N ' f T . Cr. P • P 1Y. i G .J O z a ` • r 1 I I III W 0 a a J I I N C W 0 2 2 X CI W a m 0 j Iwl La 0 W C x O a W la a VI 0 a O J J 0 W J W 4 ¢ N O W W CC La - ] - . . . W Z O C a N O la 01 J -I a X U N 2IJ W J C C N IM ✓ 0 a 0•2• a i ¢ - - >• x •2.. C W ya 2 co a yC W f W 0 W ow.� 0 o 2 U J Z WI r ti O Y' O W 2 C 6 I• Vl W L.J. -J 0 C W 7 r 0. C W a 0• a. ¢ C o VI W cc •• W L1 1cc j >• .0 J W 0 2 U r a 0 W W 'MI• KUTAK ROCK & HUIE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS THE OMAHA BUILDING ATLANTA 1650 FARNAM STREET DENVER OMAHA.NEBRASKA 68102 WASHINGTON (402) 346-6000 August 6, 1984 Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado Box "C" Greeley, Colorado 80632 Attention: Finance Director Dear Board: Mike Kaminski of First Interstate Bank asked me to respond to your question as to whether it is possible to finance multifamily housing in Colorado under the County and Municipal Development Revenue Bond Act. Section 29-3-101 et seq. permits any county within the State of Colorado to issue tax-exempt bonds for the purpose of financing "resi- dential facilities for low and middle income families or persons. " We have been involved with a number of multifamily issues in the State of Colorado and would be happy to discuss them with you. We look forward to working on any proposed financings you may have. Cordially, (b1enJ) Steve M. Skoumal cmd cc: Mr. Michael Kaminski Mr. Gary Premer Hello