1

The Ramona

Cassandra Dobson, Kate Rogers & Kate Washington

USP523 – Real Estate Development I

Winter 2014

2

Developer Profile

Ed McNamara currently serves as a policy director for Mayor Charlie Hales, but has been actively

involved in Portland’s development community for several years. Most recently, he has served on the

board of 1,000 Friends of Oregon and as a director of revitalization for Home Forward.1 McNamara,

owner of Turtle Island Development, LLC, has a particular commitment to affordable housing for

families and has a reputation as a responsible landlord.

The Sitka is a low-income, family housing, mixed-use development in the North Pearl. The project

served as a sort of prototype for The Ramona. With families in mind, the development includes two-

bedroom units in addition to the Pearl’s customary studios and one-bedrooms. The building was

designed to be energy efficient, lowering utility bills and conserving resources. McNamara worked

on this project with Walsh Construction and Ankrom Moisan Architects. The Sitka was completed in

late 2005.2

Project Initiation

In 2003, McNamara was deeply entrenched in The Sitka. That same year, Nancy Davis started Pearl

District Families. Both foresaw a new trend for the Pearl: families. Davis’ son was born in the Pearl

District and she noticed that, though many children are born in the Pearl, most families move away

before the child starts school. McNamara was noticing, similarly, at The Sitka, that families needed

different accommodation.

Table 1: Births in Census Tract 51, 2000-2010

2000 2010 Percent Change Total births 2000-2010

# of births 14 45 221% 341

Source: U.S. Census Data, 2000-2010. Data provided by Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, and compiled by

Portland Public Schools.

After The Sitka, McNamara began working on a plan for a smaller Pearl District site. At the time, the

Portland Development Commission (PDC) was emphasizing market rate condos, so his low-income

family housing focus was not strongly supported. In search of evidence to support his family theory,

McNamara and the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) compiled data on Central City birth

rates, which are high in the Pearl and mostly to low-income households (Table 1). Compared to the

Portland Public Schools (PPS) enrollment data, it confirmed that most families move out of the

3

neighborhood when children are school-aged. McNamara took the data to PPS, determined to

provide a building for families. Pearl District Families, now Central Portland Families, the

Zimmerman Community Center (ZCC) and Isobel’s Clubhouse partnered with him.3

His final proposal was for a six-story, mixed-use building. The building would have 138 units, 136 of

which were reserved for low-income households, and 51% of the units would have three bedrooms.

Instead of retail on the ground floor, McNamara proposed a six-classroom public school extension

for younger grades and a home for ZCC. The Ramona, at times called Pearl Family Housing and the

less institutional sounding Quimby, was approved in 2009 by BPS with the support of PDC and the

local community.4

Site Selection, Acquisition & Control

McNamara acquired The Ramona site in 2007. Located at NW 14th Ave and Quimby St, the site is a

40,000 square foot city block that, before construction, was occupied by a one-story warehouse. The

location falls under the jurisdiction of the Central City Plan, West Quadrant Plan, River District

Urban Renewal Area design overlay, the River District Housing Implementation Strategy, the Pearl

District Development Plan and the North Pearl Plan.5

The Ramona site is located in Census Tract

51, which includes both the Pearl District

and Old Town Chinatown and one block of

the NW District, is a Low Income Housing

Tax Credit (LIHTC) qualified tract, which

is why McNamara chose it for The Sitka

and, subsequently, The Ramona. A qualified

tract has at least 50% of households at or

below the median household income and

qualifies the development for 30% more

equity, which requires less subsidy from the

City.

Source: Pearl District Business Association

4

McNamara had already demonstrated with The Sitka that he was not afraid of building beyond the

northern boundary of the Pearl District’s development. When The Sitka finished, it was still a few

blocks away from most Pearl District amenities and the site for The Ramona is even further north.

But, confident in the plan to develop the North Pearl, he knew those blocks would eventually fill in

around The Ramona.

Market Analysis

McNamara did most of his market research by talking to people, not necessarily through a formal

market analysis. Through his attendance at Sitka social events he was able to connect with families

living there and talk to them about what they need and expect in order to raise a family in the Pearl

District. His access to the demographics of The Sitka also helped him see trends in both low-income

and family households. McNamara gathered data from other affordable housing buildings, such as

Kearney House, to learn how their larger units were doing in the market. At Kearney House, the

three-bedrooms were difficult to fill at first, so McNamara had shied away from them in The Sitka;

however, the feedback from all his sources for The Ramona was positive, indicating to him that there

was a strong need for affordable family housing in the Pearl District.6

Economic Analysis & Profitability

While building properties that generate income is the goal of any developer, profit is not what drove

McNamara in developing The Ramona. Rather, he was driven by a commitment to meeting the

growing need for affordable family housing in the Pearl District.7 Though his company, Turtle Island

Development, is a for-profit corporation, McNamara essentially treated the Ramona as a non-profit

development. He of course conducted the usual economic analysis to determine that the project

would be feasible, but in the end he was left with a very small profit.8 It is highly unusual for private

firms such as his to develop low-income housing because of its associated risks, but it’s a testament

to McNamara’s commitment that he was able to accomplish the project.

Development Program

McNamara had already worked out a basic plan for The Ramona’s development program when he

began working with his design team. He’d determined the number of floors for the building, the basic

mix and quantity of apartment types, and the ground floor uses (Table 2). McNamara’s biggest

priority for the building was providing ample two- and three-bedroom apartments to accommodate

families. Given McNamara’s guidelines, architect Ankrom Moisan developed a design that would

5

make the basic program work.9 The completed building has six stories, occupies an entire city block,

with a footprint of about 30,700 SF. and the entire building totals 230,762 SF.10

Table 2: Overall Program for The Ramona

Residential 174,162 SF

Community Facilities (ZCC and PPS)

14,444 SF

Parking Garage 42,156 SF

Gross Floor Area 230,762 SF

Source: City of Portland Green Investment Fund, Grantee Final Report, Ramona Apartments.

Ground Floor Program:

The ground floor contains the lobby and leasing office, a community room for the residents, two one-

bedroom apartment units, a 7,560 SF courtyard playground, and bicycle storage. In addition, the

ground floor houses ZCC as well as PPS classrooms, and contains a parking area used by both

organizations. ZCC moved into the building soon after it was built in spring 2011, and the PPS

classrooms followed in fall 2011.11

2nd – 6th Floor Program:

The upper floors are occupied by 136 apartment units, plus a laundry room and lounge on each floor,

and a fitness room on the second floor. The apartments are a mix of three-bedroom (70 units), two-

bedroom (60 units), one-bedroom (2 units) and studio (4 units) apartments.12

Basement Program:

The basement houses a garage with 116 parking spaces for residents.13

6

Ground Floor Layout

Second Floor Layout

Source: Ankrom Moisan Architects.

Public-Private Agreements & Project Financing

McNamara worked with a number of public entities in developing The Ramona. Because he was

working to provide affordable housing—a valuable service to the community—a number of public

organizations were willing to help fund the project. From the project’s inception, McNamara worked

with PDC.14 The City of Portland has a commitment to set aside at least 30% of Tax Increment

Financing generated in each Urban Renewal Area for funding affordable housing.15 Thus,

McNamara’s commitment to providing affordable family housing in the Pearl District aligned nicely

with PDC’s priorities for the area. Another local partner was the Portland Housing Bureau (PHB),

which facilitated a 15-year property tax exemption for the building. Under its New Multiple-Unit

Housing Limited Tax Exemption program, PHB encourages the development of housing in core

areas with access to transit and employment.16

McNamara also worked with partners at the state level, including Oregon Housing and Community

Services (OHCS). OHCS provided a loan under its Community Incentive Fund program, which is

intended to promote affordable housing and revitalize downtown areas.17 OHCS also provided a

Weatherization loan, which supports implementation of energy-efficient building measures. The

building’s energy-efficiency measures also allowed eligibility for Business Energy Tax Credits from

the Oregon Department of Energy. Furthermore, because of The Ramona’s planned energy-

7

efficiency and other ‘green’ features, McNamara was able to secure grants from the Green

Investment Fund—supported by the City of Portland and Energy Trust of Oregon—and the Bureau

of Environmental Services’ Ecoroof Program.18

Finally, McNamara partnered with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to

acquire LIHTC credits, which were administered by the OHCS. McNamara acquired 4% LIHTC

credits because his use of tax-exempt bonds precluded acquisition of 9% credits, and because 4%

credits are more abundant than 9% credits. McNamara sold the LIHTC credits to raise equity for the

development. US Bank provided the construction loan.19

Exact figures for each of these funding sources are provided below:

The debt for the project consisted of the following:

$19,000,000 low-interest, 60 year pre-development loan from PDC

$14,595,000 in tax-exempt bonds from PHB, for which U.S. Bank acted as the credit

enhancer

$1,000,000 loan from OHCS’ Community Incentive Fund program

$700,000 loan from OHCS for weatherization of the building

Debt Total: $35,295,000

The equity for the project came from the following sources:

$12,886,654 in 4% LIHTC credits, for which US Bank provided equity

$805,575 in greenbuilding and energy grants from the Green Investment Fund and The

Bureau of Environmental Services’ Ecoroof Program

$1,000 in general partner equity

Equity Total: $13,693,229

(see Appendix C)

Beginning development for The Ramona in 2007 posed a considerable challenge for McNamara. By

2008 and 2009, when he was trying to acquire funding, the real estate bubble had burst and the

United States was facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Needless to say, banks

were extremely hesitant to back any real estate venture—especially one with affordable housing’s

8

low return on investment. McNamara again showed his tenacity and commitment to this project by

working hard to secure funding during this time. This is also a testament to the respected position

that McNamara holds in the real estate community. In fact, The Ramona was one of the few projects

to be built in Portland in 2009/2010.

Public Approvals

Because The Ramona was largely seen as a community asset in the Pearl District, the public approval

process went smoothly.20 The building had to meet guidelines of the Central City Plan District as

well as Zoning Ordinance requirements for zone EXd. Due to its location, The Ramona was subject

to two different Design Review criteria: the Central City Fundamental Design Guidelines, and the

River District Design Guidelines. The City largely supported the project throughout the Land Use

and Design Review process and had only minor aesthetic critiques. The Ramona passed review by

Portland’s Building and Development Services Design Review Commission on April 16, 2009. 21 It

also passed review by the Pearl District Neighborhood Association, which showed strong support for

the project.22

Design Development

Design Concept

McNamara has a longstanding relationship with local architects Ankrom Moisan, and they joined the

project early in its development. As mentioned above, McNamara already had an idea for the basic

design and development program for the building before he consulted the design team: a six-story

wood frame building with a brick façade. The wood frame was chosen because it’s the least

expensive structural building material—a cost savings that was critical to the affordable housing

development—and the six-story height was determined to be the maximum possible height for that

material. Other building materials were chosen for their durability. A primary task for the architects

was to configure the building in order to reach the right number and mix of apartment units.23

The other driver for the building’s design and layout was McNamara’s determination to maximize

energy efficiency. This drove the massing study conducted by Ankrom Moisan, which examined

eight possible configurations for the building (see Appendix A), ultimately settling on the U-shape of

the final design. The building was oriented with the ‘U’ facing eastward, creating a sort of ‘front

yard’ along 13th Avenue; the road determined to be the primary corridor for pedestrian traffic. The

goal for the overall look of The Ramona was to design an attractive building that contributed to the

9

fabric and character of the neighborhood while remaining a “background building.” McNamara and

the design team wanted to avoid creating a showpiece that might appear dated in the future.24

Green Features

In order to maximize energy efficiency, The Ramona was designed with an extremely tight envelope,

allowing minimal air leakage. Energy efficiency also motivated many of the choices in building

materials, including insulation, super-efficient windows and fixtures, efficient heating, and a special

“direct ducted” fresh air ventilation system. Additionally, plumbing fixtures were chosen for their

efficient use of water, and a sophisticated monitoring system was installed to measure water usage.

The Ramona is also equipped with an ecoroof and a rooftop solar panel array. The solar panels

provide a portion of the building’s electricity and water heating, and the ecoroof serves to collect

rainwater, as well as boosting the efficiency of the solar panels.25 The building’s combined

stormwater features—ecoroof, permeable courtyard surface, and street swale—manage 100% of the

stormwater produced onsite. These green features allowed The Ramona to surpass the Architecture

2030 Challenge for energy efficiency—McNamara’s chosen benchmark—by achieving energy use of

60% below that of comparable buildings. This also earned the building LEED Gold status.26

The Ramona Ecoroof

Source: Ankrom Moisan Architects

Source: Oregonon.org

10

Construction Plan & Capital Budget

The third arm of McNamara’s long-established development team is Walsh Construction Co. Like

Ankrom Moisan, Walsh was brought in at the beginning of The Ramona’s development and provided

input throughout the process on what was feasible for construction given the budget. A key role for

Walsh was value engineering—the process of analyzing construction and making changes in

materials to reduce costs. Given McNamara’s high standards for quality, the value engineering

process was often aimed at improving quality and performance for equal price, rather than reducing

costs. Walsh was also instrumental in supporting and carrying out the energy efficiency goals. For

example, they conducted infrared testing on the building after it was constructed to locate and repair

any air leakages.27

The construction contract established for The Ramona included the cost of work with a Guaranteed

Maximum Price (GMP). The GMP calculated by Walsh was $28,254,088 (for cost breakdown, see

Appendix B). Because of the level of trust established over their long working relationship,

McNamara was able to collaborate with Walsh for a full year during the design process before any

payment was made—highly unusual for a developer-contractor relationship. Construction began in

November 2009 and was completed in March 2011.28

Management Plan and Operations Budget

McNamara hired Pinnacle Property Management to act as property manager of The Ramona.

Pinnacle specializes in managing affordable housing, and has more than 20 years’ experience

working with LIHTC properties. Pinnacle joined the development in December 2010, a month before

pre-leasing began. In that month, McNamara worked with Pinnacle to set rules for the building,

including occupancy requirements. While it is not a requirement to have children to live in The

Ramona, the occupancy requirements are set to encourage families to move into the building. For

example, at The Sitka, a two-bedroom unit could house one person, but at The Ramona, two-

bedroom units are reserved for households of two or more people.29

Management focuses on upkeep of the building to combat negative perceptions held about low-

income housing. Additionally, with an increased number of children come different management

concerns, such as a higher amount of noise complaints and more wear and tear on the property.

Through meticulous maintenance of the building, as well as hosting events for residents, the

11

management has instilled a sense of pride and community in the residents of The Ramona. Crystal

Haight, the property manager, feels that this is responsible for the relatively low turnover rate in the

building. While affordable housing turnover is typically around 40% in metro area, turnover at The

Ramona in 2012, their first stabilized year, was 20%, or 17% if transfers within the building are not

included. These numbers dropped even more in 2013 to 19%, or 16% without transfers. This lower

turnover reduces the building’s flipping costs, and thus reduces expenses.30

The operations budget for The Ramona is $583,273 annually. With an annual income of $1,770,712,

this leaves the building with a $1,187,438 Net Operating Income (see Appendix D).

Marketing and Leasing

Lease up of The Ramona started in January 2011 with very little marketing for the building. While

there were the typical write-ups on the development before it opened, many of the tenants were found

through an interest list that McNamara generated while he was conducting his market research. The

families on this list were contacted during pre-leasing. Pinnacle made daily postings on Craigslist, as

well as advertising on free apartment rental websites, such as housingconnections.org, which

specializes in affordable housing. However, most of interest came from word of mouth and referrals.

The Ramona does not currently use any marketing for the building. Instead they choose to focus on

facilitating a waitlist. There are currently 245 households on this list. Applicants must fill out a

waitlist sign up form before being able to apply for the apartment. When an apartment becomes

available, applicants are put through the screening process, which includes credit history, rental

history, criminal history, and income verification.31

As an affordable housing unit, The Ramona only rents to residents that make 60% of the median

family income for the Portland metro area. For 2014, the income requirements are as follows:

12

Table 3: Income Requirements for The Ramona

Household Size 60% MFI

1 $30,660

2 $35,040

3 $39,420

4 $43,800

5 $47,340

6 $50,820

Source: Ramona Apartments website. Retrieved from http://www.theramona.com/eligibility_faq/.

Market Capture and Absorption Time

The buzz that was generated during construction of The Ramona led to a great deal of interest in the

property. As McNamara had anticipated, there was a high demand for affordable family housing in

the Pearl District and The Ramona was one of only two buildings offering three-bedroom units.

There were an estimated thirty applicants per week during the lease up; however, the denial rate was

fairly high due to income restrictions in the rental criteria. Despite this, most of the units in The

Ramona were filled during the lease-up, with the few remaining units leased shortly after the

building opened.32

Socioeconomic Analysis

The addition of The Ramona to the Pearl District underscores the intent to create a mixed-income

community in the neighborhood. While the Pearl District has a reputation as being wealthy, in fact

25% of its housing is reserved for low-income households. Not all jobs in the neighborhood are

highly skilled, therefore, it is advantageous to create workforce housing for people who work in the

central city rather than have them commute from the suburbs. Further, a healthy community is home

to all ages; therefore, it is advantageous to create housing that can accommodate families in the

central city. McNamara is sensitive to the contrast in incomes in the neighborhood and to avoid

singling out low-income buildings, he insists upon creating high quality developments.33 In both the

construction and management of the building, The Ramona offers a sense of pride and dignity to

neighbors who might otherwise feel out of place in the Pearl District. Additionally, The Ramona

provides for the Pearl District a community center and several classrooms for young children.

13

Finally, The Ramona proves to the City the value of providing family housing in the central city. In

fact, The Abigail, modeled after The Ramona but owned by a different developer, will soon be a

neighbor on the same block.

Evaluation of Success

There are many ways to evaluate the success of a development. I will use the Triple Bottom Line

(TBL) to discuss the success of The Ramona. Instead of evaluating only economic success, the TBL

measures two additional bottom lines in order to assess sustainability: environment and social

impact. TBL is often referred to as “people, profit, and planet.”

Environmentally, the building is a great success because it incorporates several energy saving

innovations. The attention to detail with creating an airtight envelope, combined with the

sophisticated ventilation system means the building uses fewer resources to heat and cool. The solar

array on the roof makes enough energy to run the common areas of the building and the ecoroof not

only helps cool the roof, but also treats stormwater that would otherwise be lost to the sewer system.

Further, it brings a workforce closer to the lower wage jobs in the Pearl, reducing those workers’

commutes and their automobile impact on the environment.

Economically, The Ramona is a success in that the project stayed on budget. McNamara was able to

assemble enough funding to cover the expenses and due to his close working relationship with

Ankrom Moison and Walsh Construction, their estimates were accurate at the beginning and there

were no overages. The building makes a small profit for McNamara, which is a bonus, but not

necessarily his goal. It could also be said that The Ramona is an economic success because its energy

efficiency saves its tenants a great deal of money on their utility bills.

Socially, The Ramona is a resounding success because it contributes to the neighborhood’s mixed-

income goals and brings low-income people to a high-opportunity area. It also provides an affordable

high quality home for many families. Pinnacle’s goal of creating community through building-wide

events helps residents have a sense of ownership and connection to The Ramona and the neighbors

with whom they share the building. The high quality of the building also increases the esteem and

status of low-income residents, easing the contrast in incomes in the Pearl. Additionally, The

Ramona proved McNamara’s theory about families in the Central City and proved to the City of

Portland that low-income family housing in the Central City could be a success. The Ramona paved

the way for similar developments.

14

Finally, The Ramona is a success because it survived the Great Recession. McNamara and his team

were already committed to the building when the market crashed and, despite the economic

uncertainty, they persevered, secured their funding, and built The Ramona. That site’s construction

crane was one of very few in the City for a few years, but now The Ramona stands in the North

Pearl, welcoming the neighborhood as it continues to develop the last several blocks.

15

APPENDIX

Appendix A: Ramona Apartments Massing Study (Source: Ankrom Moisan Architects)

Option 1 Option 2

16

Option 3 Option 4

Option 5 Option 6

Option 7 Option 8

17

Appendix B: Construction Guaranteed Maximum Price (Source: Walsh Construction Co.)

Construction Category Cost

General Requirements $1,263,137

Existing Conditions $116,575

Concrete $3,813,255

Masonry $1,665,940

Metals $943,799

Wood & Plastics $3,936,890

Thermal & Moisture Protection $1,834,853

Doors & Windows $979,140

Finishes $3,433,539

Specialties $145,455

Equipment $336,550

Furnishings $431,552

Conveying Systems $348,004

Fire Suppression $517,549

Plumbing $1,675,627

HVAC $770,857

Electrical $2,356,224

Earthwork $1,394,811

Exterior Improvements $601,520

Other $266,790

Overhead & Profit (3%) $804,962

Liability Insurance (1.65%) $456,011

Performance Bond $161,048

Total $28,254,088

18

Appendix C: Summary Pro Forma for The Ramona (source: Ed McNamara)

Sources and Uses Summary

Use of Funds Amount Land $6,8000,000 Other Acquisition Costs $343,936 Construction Costs $29,517,880 Demolition $122,753 Construction Contingency $1,406,567 Tenant Improvement Costs $983,066 Soft Costs $6,424,179 Bond and LIHTC related costs $582,409 Subtotal Development Costs $46,180,790 Reserves/Pre-paid Fees $2,821,492

Total Uses Including Reserves $49,002,282 Sources of Funds Amount Debt Tax-exempt Bonds $14,595,000 Portland Development Commission Loan $19,000,000 OHCS – Community Investment Fund $1,000,000 OHCS – Weatherization $700,000

Subtotal Debt $32,295,000 Equity LIHTC Equity $12,886,654 Energy/Greenbuilding $805,575 General Partner Equity $1,000

Equity Subtotal $13,693,229 Other $14,053

Total Sources $49,002,282

19

Appendix D: Stabilized Income and Expenses, 2012 (source: Ed McNamara)

Stabilized Income and Expenses – First Full Year Stabilized 2012

Income Amount Apartments $1,532,967 Miscellaneous $80,189 Residential Vacancy -7% ($112,921)

Subtotal Residential EGI $1,500,235 Community Service Facility - Rent $298,940 Community Service Facility – NNN - CSF Vacancy -9.52% ($28,463)

Subtotal CSF EGI $270,477 Total Effective Gross Income (EGI) $1,770,712

Operating Expenses ($583,273) Net Operating Income $1,187,438 Interest from Reserves $25,000

$1,212,438 Debt Service Tax-exempt Bonds $981,659 PDC Loan = Pmt starts in 6 yrs $43,005

Total Debt Service $1,024,664

1 Ed McNamara. (n.d.) LinkedIn [Profile page]. Retrieved from http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ed-mcnamara/5/a78/7b5 2 E. McNamara & N. Davis. (2013, January 31). Personal interview. 3 Ibid. 4 Bureau of Development Services. (2009, April 24). Final Decision by the Design Commission for Case File Number LU 08-191285 DZM, Pearl Family Housing. Portland, Oregon. Retrieved from http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/241884 5 Ibid. 6 E. McNamara & N. Davis. (2013, January 31). Personal interview. 7 Ibid. 8 McNamara was not willing to share the pro forma that he used in his initial economic analysis. Instead, he shared a summary pro forma, which is discussed in the Public-Private Agreements and Project Financing section of the report. 9 I. Johnson & M. Bonn. (2013, February 3). Personal interview. 10 City of Portland, OR. (n.d.). Green Investment Fund, Grantee Final Report, Ramona Apartments. Portland, OR. Retrieved from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/437423 11 C. Haight. (2013, January 29). Personal interview.

20

12 Ramona Apartments. (n.d.). Plans and Prices. Retrieved from http://www.theramona.com/plans_prices/ 13 C. Haight. (2013, January 29). Personal interview. 14 E. McNamara & N. Davis. (2013, January 31). Personal interview. 15Portland Housing Bureau. (n.d.). History of TIF Set-Aside Policy. Retrieved from http://www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/article/428250 16 Portland Housing Bureau. (n.d.). Multiple-Unit Limited Tax Exemption (MULTE). Retrieved from http://www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/61191 17 State of Oregon. (n.d.). Housing Preservation Community Incentive Fund Overview. Retrieved from http://library.state.or.us/repository/2009/200907220906543/index.pdf 18 E. McNamara & N. Davis. (2013, January 31). Personal interview. 19 Ibid. 20 I. Johnson & M. Bonn. (2013, February 3). Personal interview. 21 Bureau of Development Services. (2009, April 24). Final Decision by the Design Commission for Case File Number LU 08-191285 DZM, Pearl Family Housing. Portland, Oregon. Retrieved from http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/241884 22 I. Johnson & M. Bonn. (2013, February 3). Personal interview. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 M. Steffen. (2013, February 14). Personal interview. 26 I. Johnson & M. Bonn. (2013, February 3). Personal interview. 27 M. Steffen. (2013, February 14). Personal interview. 28 Ibid. 29 C. Haight. (2013, January 29). Personal interview. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 E. McNamara & N. Davis. (2013, January 31). Personal interview.

21

Evaluation Cassandra Dobson and Kate Rogers were good classmates to work with. Kate R. is a first year MURP like me and Cassandra is a post-bac student who I had a class with last quarter, so I knew she would be a reliable group member. Both team mates were timely and responsive in their feedback and inputs. We divided the work evenly. I was responsible for scheduling interviews with Ed McNamara, Nancy Davis, and Crystal Height because I have a personal connection with them. Cassandra scheduled the interview with Walsh Construction and Kate R. scheduled our interview with Ankrom Moisan. We all contributed to questions for each interview. Though Kate R. was unable to attend the Walsh Construction interview due to work, we were all present at the rest of the interviews. I recorded each and shared the files in our Google drive so we could all refer to them. For writing the paper, I was responsible for topics 1-4 & 15, Kate R. wrote topics 6-10, and Cassandra wrote topics 5 & 11-14. Kate R. did the footnotes for the paper and I worked as overall editor of the paper. For the presentation, we each created slides for our sections and Cassandra was responsible for creating the final formatting of our presentation and for getting the file to the professor by the Wednesday noon deadline. We each presented on the sections we wrote.