EXHIBIT (c)(1)
COMPLETE APPRAISAL OF
REAL PROPERTY
Chandler Villas
101 South Yucca Street
Chandler, Maricopa County, Arizona 85224
IN A SELF-CONTAINED
APPRAISAL REPORT
As of 10/23/03
Prepared For:
ARV Assisted Living, Inc.
245 Fischer Avenue, D-1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Prepared By:
Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc.
Senior Housing/Healthcare Industry Group
Valuation Services, Advisory Group
601 S. Figueroa Street, 47th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
C&W File ID: 03-41002-9342
VALUATION SERVICES | ADVISORY GROUP | |
![]() |
![]() | ||
Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc. | ||
601 S. Figueroa Street, 47th Floor | ||
Los Angeles, CA 90017 | ||
213-627-4044 Tel | ||
213-627-4044 Fax | ||
WWW.CWVAS.COM |
October 28, 2003
Mr. Douglas Armstrong
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
ARV Assisted Living, Inc.
245 Fischer Avenue, D-1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Re: | Complete Appraisal of Real Property | |
In a Self-Contained Report | ||
Chandler Villas | ||
101 South Yucca Street | ||
Chandler, Maricopa County, Arizona 85224 | ||
C&W File ID: 03-41002-9342 |
Dear Mr. Armstrong:
In fulfillment of our agreement as outlined in the Letter of Engagement, we are pleased to transmit our complete appraisal report (the “Appraisal”) on the property referenced above.
The value opinion reported below is qualified by certain assumptions, limiting conditions, certifications, and definitions, which are set forth in the Appraisal. We particularly call your attention to the following extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions:
Extraordinary Assumptions: | This Appraisal assumes that the property continues to meet the licensing requirements of the State of Arizona as a supervisory care facility and continues to remain in compliance with applicable life safety codes. | |
This Appraisal employs no other Extraordinary Assumptions. | ||
Hypothetical Conditions: | This Appraisal employs no Hypothetical Conditions. |
This Appraisal was prepared for ARV Assisted Living, Inc. and is intended for use in connection with the proxy solicitation/tender offer filed with the SEC and distributed to the holders of limited partnership interests in American Retirement Villas Properties III, L.P. (the “Partnership”). Unless we otherwise consent in writing, the Appraisal cannot be used other than in the material related to proxy solicitation/tender offer referred to above for any purpose. If the Appraisal is submitted to a lender or investor with the prior approval of C&W, Inc., such party should consider this Appraisal as only one factor together with its independent investment considerations and underwriting criteria, in its overall investment decision. Such lender or investor is specifically cautioned to understand all Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions and the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions incorporated in the Appraisal.
Mr. Douglas Armstrong
ARV Assisted Living, Inc.
October 28, 2003
Page 2
This Appraisal has been prepared in accordance with our interpretation of FIRREA, the regulations of OCC, and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) including the competency provision, as promulgated by the Appraisal Institute.
The property consists of a existing 164-unit assisted living facility known as Chandler Villas. The facility is licensed for 164 beds. The facility contains 119,506± square feet of gross floor area and is situated on an 8.26 acres site. The facility was 99 percent occupied at the time of inspection.
The property has been appraised as a going concern which assumes a fair sale, which includes the transfer of a valid operating license, adequate working capital, an assembled workforce, and the transfer of all business assets necessary for the operation of a licensed supervisory care facility.
The property was inspected by and the Appraisal was prepared by Sally U. Haft, MAI. This appraisal employs all three typical approaches to value: the Cost Approach, the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Capitalization Approach. Based on our analysis and knowledge of the subject property type and relevant investor profiles, it is our opinion that all approaches would be considered meaningful and applicable in developing a credible value conclusion.
Based on our Complete Appraisal as defined by theUniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice,we have developed an opinion that the going concern market value of the fee simple estate of the referenced property, subject to the assumptions and limiting conditions, certifications, Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions, if any, and definitions, “as-is” on October 23, 2003 is:
SEVEN MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
$6,750,000
The above value estimate is inclusive of $200,000 in personal property and $0 in business value as an integral part of the going concern.
Based on recent market transactions, as well as discussions with market participants, a sale of the subject property at the above-stated opinion of market value would have required an exposure time of approximately twelve (12) months. Furthermore, a marketing period of approximately twelve (12) months is currently warranted for the subject property.
VALUATION SERVICES | ADVISORY GROUP | |
![]() |
Mr. Douglas Armstrong
ARV Assisted Living, Inc.
October 28, 2003
Page 3
This letter is invalid as an opinion of value if detached from the Appraisal, which contains the text, exhibits, and Addenda.
Respectfully submitted,
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
Sally U. Haft, MAI
Director
Senior Housing/Healthcare Industry Group
Arizona Certified General Appraiser
License No. 30995
sally_haft@cushwake.com
213-955-5130 Office Direct
213-477-2046 Fax
VALUATION SERVICES | ADVISORY GROUP | |
![]() |
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS
Common Property Name: | Chandler Villas | |
Location: | 101 South Yucca Street | |
Chandler, Maricopa County, Arizona 85224 | ||
The subject site is located on the south side of Yucca Street and is bordered by Commonwealth Avenue to the north and Butler Street to the south. | ||
Property Description: | The property consists of a 17-building, one- and two- story supervisory care facility containing 164 units on an 8.26-acre parcel of land. | |
Assessor’s Parcel Number: | 303-23-003H | |
Interest Appraised: | Fee Simple Estate | |
Date of Value: | October 23, 2003 | |
Date of Inspection: | October 23, 2003 | |
Ownership: | ARV Chandler Villas, L.P. | |
Occupancy: | Current physical occupancy is 99 percent | |
Current Property Taxes | ||
Total Assessment: | $6,157,084 | |
2003 Property Taxes: | $706,121 | |
Highest and Best Use | ||
If Vacant: | Multi-family residential property developed to the highest density possible | |
As Improved: | As it is currently utilized as a supervisory care living facility. | |
Site & Improvements | ||
Zoning: | PAD | |
Land Area: | 8.26 acres or 359,631± square feet | |
Number of Units: | 164 | |
Number of Licensed Beds: | 164 | |
Number of Stories: | One- and two | |
Number of Buildings: | 17 | |
Year Built: | 1986 | |
Type of Construction: | Wood Frame | |
Gross Building Area: | 119,506 square feet | |
Parking: | 113 spaces (0.69 per unit) |
VALUATION SERVICES | ADVISORY GROUP | |
![]() |
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS
VALUE INDICATORS | ||
Cost Approach: | ||
Indicated Value: | $9,000,000 | |
Sales Comparison Approach: | ||
Indicated Value: | $6,800,000 | |
Income Capitalization Approach | ||
Direct Capitalization | ||
Net Operating Income: | $774,367 | |
Capitalization Rate: | 11.50% | |
Indicated Value: | $6,700,000 | |
FINAL VALUE CONCLUSION | ||
Going Concern Market Value As-ls | $6,750,000 | |
Fee Simple : | ||
Exposure Time: | Under 12 months | |
Marketing Time: | Under 12 months |
VALUATION SERVICES | ADVISORY GROUP | |
![]() |
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS
Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions
Extraordinary Assumptions
An extraordinary assumption is defined by theUniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice(2001 Edition, The Appraisal Foundation, page 2) as “an assumption, directly related to a specific assignment, which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions. Extraordinary assumptions presume as fact otherwise uncertain information about physical, legal or economic characteristics of the subject property; or about conditions external to the property, such as market conditions or trends; or about the integrity of data used in an analysis.”
This appraisal assumes that the property continues to meet the licensing requirements of the State of Arizona as a supervisory care facility and continues to remain in compliance with applicable life safety codes.
This Appraisal employs no other Extraordinary Assumptions.
Hypothetical Conditions
A hypothetical condition is defined by theUniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice(2001 Edition, The Appraisal Foundation, page 3) as “that which is contrary to what exists but is supposed for the purpose of analysis. Hypothetical conditions assume conditions contrary to known facts about physical, legal, or economic characteristics of the subject property; or about conditions external to the property, such as market conditions or trends; or about the integrity of data used in an analysis.”
This Appraisal employs no Hypothetical Conditions.
VALUATION SERVICES | ADVISORY GROUP | |
![]() |
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
Front View of Common Building
Chandler Villas
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
Activities Room
Dining Room
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
Kitchen of Typical Unit
Putting Green
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
Interior Courtyard
Yucca Street
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION | 1 | |||
REGIONAL ANALYSIS | 2 | |||
LOCAL AREA ANALYSIS | 18 | |||
SENIOR LIVING INDUSTRY OVERVIEW | 20 | |||
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS OVERVIEW | 26 | |||
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS | 29 | |||
SITE DESCRIPTION | 47 | |||
IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIPTION | 49 | |||
REAL PROPERTY TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS | 53 | |||
ZONING | 55 | |||
HIGHEST AND BEST USE | 56 | |||
VALUATION PROCESS | 58 | |||
LAND VALUATION | 60 | |||
COST APPROACH | 66 | |||
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH | 70 | |||
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH | 78 | |||
RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE OPINION | 98 | |||
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS | 100 | |||
CERTIFICATION OF APPRAISAL | 103 | |||
ADDENDA | 104 |
VALUATION SERVICES | ADVISORY GROUP | |
![]() |
INTRODUCTION
Identification of Property | ||
Common Property Name: | Chandler Villas | |
Location: | 101 South Yucca Street | |
Chandler, Maricopa County, Arizona 85224 | ||
The subject site is located on the south side of Yucca Street and is bordered by Commonwealth Avenue to the north and Butler Street to the south. | ||
Property Description: | The property consists of a 17-building, one- and two-story assisted living facility containing 164 units and licensed for 164 beds situated on an 8.26-acre site. | |
Assessor’s Parcel Number: | 303-23-003H | |
Property Ownership and Recent History | ||
Current Ownership: | ARV Chandler Villas, L.P. a wholly owned subsidiary of American Retirement Villas Properties III, L.P. | |
Sale History: | The property has not transferred within the past three years to the best of our knowledge. | |
Current Disposition: | American Retirement Villas Properties III, L.P. is involved in a proxy/solicitation offer filed with the SEC that involves this property. |
Intended Use and Users of the Appraisal
This Appraisal is intended to provide an opinion of the going concern market value of the fee simple interest in the property for the use of ARV Assisted Living, Inc. in connection with the proxy solicitation/tender offer filed with the SEC and distributed to the holders of the limited partnership interests in the Partnership. All other uses and users are unintended.
Dates of Inspection and Valuation
The value conclusion reported herein is as of October 23, 2003. The property was inspected on October 23, 2003 by Sally U. Haft, MAI.
Property Rights Appraised
Fee simple interest
Scope of the Appraisal
This is a Complete Appraisal presented in a self-contained report, intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under theUniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice(USPAP) for a Self-Contained Appraisal Report. In addition, the report was also prepared to conform to the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics of the Appraisal Institute and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), Title XI Regulations.
VALUATION SERVICES | 1 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INTRODUCTION
In preparation of this Appraisal, we investigated a wide array of vacant land sales in the subject’s submarket, improved sales from a local, regional or national basis, analyzed rental data, and considered the input of buyers, sellers, brokers, property developers and public officials. Additionally, we investigated the general regional economy as well as the specifics of the local area of the subject.
The scope of this Appraisal required collecting primary and secondary data relative to the subject property. The depth of the analysis is intended to be appropriate in relation to the significance of the appraisal issues as presented herein. The data has been analyzed and confirmed with sources believed to be reliable, whenever possible, leading to the value conclusions set forth in this report. In the context of completing this report, we have made a physical inspection of the subject property and the comparables. The valuation process involved utilizing market-derived and supported techniques and procedures considered appropriate to the assignment.
The scope of this analysis, and the analysis contained herein, is reflective of “the amount and type of information researched and the analysis applied in an assignment” (2001 USPAP, page 4). This appraisal employs all three typical approaches to value: the Cost Approach, the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Capitalization Approach. Based on our analysis and knowledge of the subject property type and relevant investor profiles, it is our opinion that all approaches would be considered meaningful and applicable in developing a credible value conclusion.
Definitions of Value, Interest Appraised and Other Terms
The following definitions of pertinent terms are taken from theDictionary of Real Estate Appraisal,Third Edition (1993), published by the Appraisal Institute, as well as other sources.
Market Value
Market value is one of the central concepts of the appraisal practice. Market value is differentiated from other types of value in that it is created by the collective patterns of the market. A current economic definition agreed upon by agencies that regulate federal financial institutions in the United States of America follows, taken from the glossary of theUniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practiceof The Appraisal Foundation: | ||
The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: |
1. | Buyer and seller are typically motivated; | ||
2. | Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests; | ||
3. | A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; | ||
4. | Payment is made in terms of cash in US dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and | ||
5. | The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. |
VALUATION SERVICES | 2 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INTRODUCTION
Fee Simple Estate
Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat. |
Going Concern Value
The value created by a proven property operation; considered as a separate entity to be valued with a specific business establishment. Common going-concern appraisals are conducted for assisted living facilities, nursing homes, hotels and motels, restaurants, bowling alleys, industrial enterprises, retail stores, and similar property uses. For these property types, the physical real estate assets are integral parts of an ongoing business such that the market values from the land and building are difficult, if not impossible, to segregate from the total value of the ongoing business. |
Market Rent
The rental income that a property would most probably command on the open market, indicated by the current rents paid and asked for comparable space as of the date of appraisal. |
Cash Equivalent
A price expressed in terms of cash, as distinguished from a price expressed totally or partly in terms of the face amounts of notes or other securities that cannot be sold at their face amounts. |
Market Value As Is on Appraisal Date
The value of specific ownership rights to an identified parcel of real estate as of the effective date of the appraisal; related to what physically exists and is legally permissible and excludes all assumptions concerning hypothetical market conditions or possible rezoning. |
Exposure Time and Marketing Time
Exposure Time
Under Paragraph 3 of the Definition of Market Value, the value opinion presumes that “A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market”. Exposure time is defined as the length of time the property interest being appraised would have been offered on the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale at the market value on the effective date of the appraisal. Exposure time is presumed to precede the effective date of the appraisal.
The reasonable exposure period is a function of price, time and use. It is not an isolated opinion of time alone. Exposure time is different for various types of real estate and under various market conditions. As noted above, exposure time is always presumed to precede the effective date of appraisal. It is the length of time the property would have been offered prior to a hypothetical market value sale on the effective date of appraisal. It is a retrospective opinion based on an analysis of recent past events, assuming a competitive and open market. It assumes not only adequate, sufficient and reasonable time but adequate, sufficient and a reasonable marketing effort. Exposure time and conclusion of value are therefore interrelated.
VALUATION SERVICES | 3 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INTRODUCTION
Based on discussions with market participants and information gathered during the sales verification process, a reasonable exposure time for the subject property at the value concluded within this report would have been approximately twelve (12) months. This assumes an active and professional marketing plan would have been employed by the current owner.
Marketing Time
Marketing time is an opinion of the time that might be required to sell a real property interest at the appraised value. Marketing time is presumed to start on the effective date of the appraisal. (Marketing time is subsequent to the effective date of the appraisal and exposure time is presumed to precede the effective date of the appraisal). The opinion of marketing time uses some of the same data analyzed in the process of estimating reasonable exposure time and it is not intended to be a prediction of a date of sale.
We believe, based on the assumptions employed in our analysis, as well as our selection of investment parameters for the subject, that our value conclusion represents a price achievable within twelve (12) months.
Legal Description
The subject site is identified by the Maricopa County assessor as Assessor’s Parcel Number 303-23-003H. A complete legal description is located in the Addenda to this report.
VALUATION SERVICES | 4 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
REGIONAL MAP
REGIONAL MAP
VALUATION SERVICES | 1 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
Introduction
The short- and long-term value of real estate is influenced by a variety of factors and forces that interact within a given region. Regional analysis serves to identify those forces that affect property value, and the role they play within the region. The four primary forces that influence real property value include environmental characteristics, governmental forces, social factors, and economic trends. These forces determine the supply and demand for real property, which, in turn, affect market value.
The subject property is located in Chandler within the central portion of Maricopa County, which is in the south central portion of Arizona. The subject is located approximately twenty miles southeast of downtown Phoenix, Arizona.
Regional Economic and Demographic Analysis
Regional Area Overview
The Phoenix-Mesa Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), located in south central Arizona, encompasses nearly 14,600 square miles and includes Maricopa and Pinal counties. With a population of nearly 3.5 million, the market is the twelfth largest metropolitan area in the nation. The city of Phoenix, located in Maricopa County, is the largest incorporated area within the Phoenix-Mesa MSA, encompassing nearly 477 square miles and having a population of over 1.3 million.
PHOENIX-MESA METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA (MSA)
Source: Cushman & Wakefield Analytics
Largely due to its central location in the rapidly growing southwestern region of the United States, Phoenix has evolved into a commercial and manufacturing center. During the past three decades, the area’s low business costs and proximity to major southern California markets such as Los Angeles and San Diego made it an appealing location for back-office operations. More recently, however, the market’s appeal has broadened, and it now ranks near the top among major markets nationally in corporate expansions and relocations.
VALUATION SERVICES | 2 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
Demographic Profile
Historically, Phoenix has been known as a retirement haven. Over the years, however, the area has become increasingly popular with young families and upwardly mobile professionals. The market is now much younger than one might expect, with a median age of only 33.5 years compared to the nation’s Top 100 largest metropolitan areas (Top 100) and national medians of 35.1 and 35.6 years, respectively. Although the Phoenix market lags the Top 100 in educational attainment and affluence, it tops the U.S. average. Twenty-two percent of Phoenix’s population has a Bachelor degree or better, and 15.7 percent of its households have annual incomes of greater than $100,000.
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Phoenix-Mesa MSA vs. Top 100 Metro Areas and U.S.
2002 Estimates
Top 100 | |||||||||||||
Phoenix-Mesa | Metro | ||||||||||||
Characteristic | MSA | Areas* | U.S. | ||||||||||
Median Age (years) | 33.5 | 35.1 | 35.6 | ||||||||||
Average Annual Household Income | $ | 67,400 | $ | 72,700 | $ | 64,300 | |||||||
Median Annual Household Income | $ | 49,800 | $ | 54,700 | $ | 47,500 | |||||||
Households by Annual Income Level: | |||||||||||||
<$25,000 | 21.8 | % | 21.0 | % | 25.3 | % | |||||||
$25,000 to $49,999 | 28.4 | % | 25.1 | % | 27.3 | % | |||||||
$50,000 to $74,999 | 21.6 | % | 20.8 | % | 20.2 | % | |||||||
$75,000 to $99,999 | 12.5 | % | 13.4 | % | 11.8 | % | |||||||
$100,000 plus | 15.7 | % | 19.7 | % | 15.5 | % | |||||||
Education Breakdown: | |||||||||||||
< High School | 18.9 | % | 21.8 | % | 24.1 | % | |||||||
High School Graduate | 25.6 | % | 27.8 | % | 29.8 | % | |||||||
College < Bachelor Degree | 33.4 | % | 26.5 | % | 25.4 | % | |||||||
Bachelor Degree | 14.9 | % | 15.5 | % | 13.5 | % | |||||||
Advanced Degree | 7.1 | % | 8.4 | % | 7.3 | % |
* | The Top 100 Metro Areas are comprised of the 100 largest metropolitan statistical areas within the U.S. in terms of total employment as of 2002. |
Population
The Phoenix-Mesa MSA, with a current population of just over 3.5 million, has been one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the nation over the past 30 years. During the last ten years between 1992 and 2002, the two-county area grew at an average annual rate of 3.9 percent, roughly triple the Top 100 rate of 1.3 percent. Notably, Phoenix’s annual population growth peaked in the mid 1990s at roughly four times the national growth rate. Since that time, however, its growth rate has steadily trended downward. Looking forward through 2007, although its pace is expected to slow, Phoenix’s population is projected to grow at an average
VALUATION SERVICES | 3 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
annual rate of 2.9 percent – again nearly three times faster than the forecasted Top 100 average.
POPULATION GROWTH BY YEAR
Phoenix MSA vs. Top 100
1990 – 2007
Source: Economy.com, Cushman & Wakefield Analytics
NOTE: | In this Exhibit and all subsequent time-series graphs, the shaded bars indicate the periods of a U.S. economic recession. |
Between 1992 and 2002, the larger, more-established Maricopa County, which accounts for 94 percent of the area’s population, experienced a slower pace of average annual population growth than the smaller Pinal County, at 3.8 and 4.5 percent, respectively. Going forward, this trend is expected to continue, as Maricopa County is forecast grow at 2.8 percent and Pinal County at 3.5 percent annually through 2007.
ANNUALIZED POPULATION GROWTH BY COUNTY
Phoenix-Mesa MSA
1990 – 2007
2007 | Annual Growth | Annual Growth | ||||||||||||||||||||
Population | 1992 | 2002 | Forecast | 92-02 | 02-07 | |||||||||||||||||
U.S. | 256,943.8 | 288,659.5 | 301,310.2 | 1.2 | % | 0.9 | % | |||||||||||||||
Top 100 | 160,017.2 | 181,966.8 | 191,688.3 | 1.3 | % | 1.0 | % | |||||||||||||||
Phoenix-Mesa MSA | 2,398.8 | 2,491.8 | 2,613.5 | 3.9 | % | 2.9 | % | |||||||||||||||
Maricopa County | 2,272.6 | 2,359.9 | 2,475.2 | 3.8 | % | 2.8 | % | |||||||||||||||
Pinal County | 126.2 | 131.9 | 138.3 | 4.5 | % | 3.5 | % |
Source: Economy.com, Cushman & Wakefield Analytics
Phoenix’s residential population is centered within the metro area and is concentrated within the City of Phoenix, Paradise Valley and Scottsdale in the north and within the cities of Tempe, Mesa and Chandler in the southeast. The direction of recent population growth has generally been northwest toward Peoria and southeast to Chandler.
VALUATION SERVICES | 4 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE BY ZIP CODE
Phoenix-Mesa MSA
2002
Source: Claritas, Inc., Cushman & Wakefield Analytics
Households
Like its population growth, Phoenix’s household formation rate has been incredibly strong over the years and has consistently outpaced national averages. Between 1992 and 2002, household growth in the Phoenix-Mesa MSA averaged 3.7 percent annually; again nearly triple the Top 100 rate of 1.3 percent. Going forward, the metro area’s growth in the number of households is expected to easily outpace the Top 100 average. Through 2007, growth in household formations the Phoenix-Mesa MSA is forecast to average 3.1 percent annually.
VALUATION SERVICES | 5 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
HOUSEHOLD GROWTH BY YEAR
Phoenix MSA vs. Top 100
1990-2007
Source: Economy.com, Cushman & Wakefield Analytics
Income
The Phoenix area lags the Top 100 averages in income and affluence, yet tops the U.S. overall. The MSA’s median household income of $49,800 is roughly 9.1 percent below the Top 100 median of $54,700, yet 4.8 percent above the U.S. median of $47,500. Between 1992 and 2002, the MSA’s median household income grew at an impressive average annual rate of 5.1 percent, far exceeding that of both the Top 100 and U.S. Looking forward through 2007, this income growth trend is expected to end, as the Phoenix area’s anticipated average annual growth in median household income of 2.6 percent is expected to fall more in line with that projected for the Top 100.
Phoenix’s more affluent areas are located predominantly within the metro area’s north and northeast regions. Households with annual incomes of $100,000 or greater are concentrated in the cities of Scottsdale and Paradise Valley and part of Chandler. Maricopa County’s median household income is 20 percent higher than that of Pinal County.
VALUATION SERVICES | 6 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION BY ZIP CODE
Phoenix-Mesa MSA
2002
Source: Claritas, Inc., Cushman & Wakefield Analytics
Regional Economic Overview
The Phoenix economy expanded rapidly over the past several decades and, in the process, became much more diverse in terms of industry sectors. In recent years, Phoenix leveraged its popularity and appeal as a location for back-office operations, gained primarily for its comparatively low business costs and proximity to major west coast markets, to become a regional hub for transportation, distribution, and manufacturing (including high-tech). Phoenix has become the financial and commercial center of the desert southwest.
Following the economic recession of the early 2000s, Phoenix’s current economy is staging a mild recovery with strength in the retail trade and population-based industries driving the local economy. Especially encouraging is a firming in Professional and Business Services payrolls, which often serves as a leading indicator of business activity. While Professional and Business Services employment dropped by 2.4 percent in 2002, it is forecast to increase by 1.7 percent during 2003 and then jump by 5.5 percent in 2004. Education and Health Services was Phoenix’s largest growth area in 2002, as it increased by 6.3 percent.
VALUATION SERVICES | 7 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
Personal bankruptcy filings per household have hit an all-time high in Phoenix, and home foreclosures are also rising at an alarming pace. However, bankruptcy filings will peak over the next few quarters as job growth picks up.
While Tourism suffered dramatically in 2002, it recovered nicely during the first half of 2003, and Phoenix has moved from one of the worst performing tourist destinations to one of the best. In 2002, hotel occupancy and revenue per available room in Phoenix declined by more than the national average. Coincidentally, airport passenger traffic was down over three percent through September 2002 at Sky Harbor airport. Yet, the Tourism industry has made a recovery and employment in Phoenix’s leisure and hospitality industry is expected to increase by 2.2 percent in 2003.
Although the Phoenix economy took a clear hit in the aftermath of the high-tech downturn, the impact on Phoenix of the tech contraction has been milder than in markets such as San Jose. Compared to metro areas that also focus on chip production, Phoenix’s manufacturing contraction has been longer but shallower on average. While other major tech centers saw a rapid decline in the months immediately following the manufacturing peak, Phoenix’s decline has been more gradual and drawn out. This could be ascribed to Phoenix’s smaller chip manufacturing base and the dominance of Intel in the market, which has been more reluctant to enact layoffs than others.
While Construction is slowing in many areas, it has been an area of continued growth for Phoenix. From 1992 to 2002, Phoenix’s Construction industry grew at an average annual rate of 8.5 percent. Through 2007, it is expected to increase by 3.6 percent annually. Part of the rise in construction employment is due to the commercial construction industry and robust construction spending in the healthcare industry. Phoenix area hospitals are currently undergoing nearly $1 billion worth of new construction and expansion initiatives, as local and national hospital chains come to realize the potential in Phoenix’s explosive demographic growth over the past decade. Across the metro area, various hospital groups have announced programs that will bolster construction spending for the next few years. In addition, Arizona State University has received approval for a new $80 million business school complex in Phoenix. The Salt River Indian community is also considering new office and retail developments across the river from Scottsdale, which will also benefit the metro area’s construction industry.
Over the years, Phoenix’s Gross Metro Product (GMP) growth has consistently, by a large margin, outpaced that of the Top 100’s GMP growth. Between 1992 and 2002, the metro area’s GMP averaged a staggering 7.9 percent annual growth, compared to the Top 100’s 3.8 percent rate. Phoenix’s GMP remained well above that of the Top 100 throughout the recession in the early 2000s. Through 2007, Phoenix’s GMP is forecast to grow at an average annual rate of 4.4 percent, again easily outpacing the 3.0 percent annual growth forecast for the Top 100.
VALUATION SERVICES | 8 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
REAL GROSS PRODUCT GROWTH BY YEAR
Phoenix MSA vs. Top 100
1990 – 2007
Source: Economy.com, Cushman & Wakefield Analytics
Employment Trends
Phoenix’s employment base is relatively diverse, and the metro area’s employment composition is highly reflective of the Top 100. While more heavily weighted in the Construction and Professional and Business Services sectors, Phoenix is somewhat under weighted in Manufacturing and Education and Health Services sectors than the Top 100.
EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR
Phoenix MSA vs. Top 100
1990 – 2007
Source: Economy.com, Cushman & Wakefield Analytics
VALUATION SERVICES | 9 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
Notably, Final County accounts for a small fraction of the metro area’s total employment, with Maricopa County comprising nearly all (i.e., 98 percent) of the metro area’s employment. From 1992 to 2002, Final County’s average annual employment growth rate was 1.3 percent while Maricopa County’s was 4.6 percent. Through 2007, Final County’s employment growth is expected to grow to an average annual rate of 2.2 percent while Maricopa County’s is forecast to fall to 3.1 percent.
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT BY COUNTY
Phoenix MSA
2002
Source: Economy.com, Cushman & Wakefield Analytics
Throughout recent decades, the Phoenix-Mesa MSA has consistently ranked among the nation’s top metro areas in total employment growth. Between 1992 and 2002, Phoenix experienced a phenomenal 4.5 percent annualized growth, far more than double the 1.9 percent annualized growth rate of the Top 100. In 2002, the metro area’s employment base actually declined marginally by 0.4 percent.
Given current economic conditions, Phoenix’s short-term employment outlook between 2002 and 2007 is, compared to its last ten years, relatively tempered. Total employment growth in the Phoenix MSA is forecast to slow, yet still post an annualized rate of 3.1 percent, far outpacing the 1.6 percent annual pace forecasted for the Top 100.
VALUATION SERVICES | 10 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT GROWTH AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATE BY YEAR
Phoenix MSA vs. Top 100
1990 – 2007
Source: Economy.com, Cushman & Wakefield Analytics
Due to its strong employment growth over the past ten years, Phoenix has also outperformed the Top 100 average with regards to unemployment. However, during 2001 and 2002, the metro area’s unemployment rate rose and is expected to remain on par with that of the Top 100 through 2007.
Phoenix’s strong employment growth over the years has fueled a steady influx of skilled labor, which has benefited metro area businesses and made Phoenix a top candidate for companies looking to expand or relocate. Phoenix is headquarters to three of the 2002Fortune 500companies: Avnet Inc, Phelps Dodge Corporation and Allied Waste Industries. Phoenix’s largest employers are a diverse group of multi-national and regional corporations spanning a multitude of industries including defense, technology, healthcare, banking, and finance.
VALUATION SERVICES | 11 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
TOP NON-GOVERNMENT EMPLOYERS
Phoenix-Mesa MSA
2002
Number of MSA | ||||
Employer | Employees | |||
Banner Health Systems (Good Samaritan) | 14,900 | |||
Honeywell Inc. | 14,100 | |||
Intel Corporation | 10,000 | |||
Motorola, Inc. | 9.800 | |||
Arizona State University | 8,900 | |||
Luke Air Force Base | 8,000 | |||
Qwest Communications International, Inc. | 7,200 | |||
American Express Company | 7,200 | |||
Bank One Corporation | 6,800 | |||
The Boeing Company | 4,300 | |||
Discover Financial Services | 4,100 | |||
Microage, Inc. | 3,800 | |||
Mayo Clinic | 3,500 | |||
Scottsdale Healthcare | 3,300 | |||
AT&T Corporation | 2,500 | |||
St. Joseph’s Hospital | 2,200 | |||
Banknorth Group, Inc. | 2,000 | |||
Chase Bankcard Services | 2,000 | |||
Sheraton | 1,800 | |||
Sun Healthcare Group | 1,600 |
Not surprisingly, like its total employment trends, Phoenix’s office-using employment growth consistently outpaced national averages over the past decade by wide margins. With the recent economic downturn, however, the Phoenix-Mesa MSA posted a decline of 0.8 percent in office-using employment for 2002. Between 2002 and 2007, Phoenix is expected to post an annualized office-using employment growth rate of 4.4 percent, more than twice the 2.1 percent annual pace forecasted for the Top 100. High concentrations of office-using employment are dispersed through the central region of the Phoenix MSA.
VALUATION SERVICES | 12 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
TOTAL OFFICE-USING EMPLOYMENT GROWTH BY YEAR
Phoenix MSA vs. Top 100
1990 – 2007
Source: Economy.com., Cushman & Wakefield Analytics
OFFICE-USING EMPLOYMENT PER SQUARE MILE BY ZIP CODE
Phoenix-Mesa MSA
2002
Source: Claritas, Inc., Cushman & Wakefield Analytics
VALUATION SERVICES | 13 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
Transportation Network
Phoenix’s transportation network has certainly played a key role in the area’s growth over the past thirty years, given what otherwise could have remained an isolated location. The Phoenix area offers a strong network of passenger and air cargo service, good rail access, and an expanding highway system, which often struggles to keep pace with the metro area’s rapid growth.
Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport as of 2001 was the sixth busiest airport in the U.S. and is an integral part of the area’s economy. While the long-term health and viability of Phoenix-based America West Airlines is a concern, the Phoenix market is likely to emerge relatively unscathed should the company ultimately file for bankruptcy.
The public transportation needs of Phoenix area residents are served by the City of Phoenix, the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA), and Valley Metro. The area’s comprehensive public transportation network encompasses bus and shuttle service, as well as the planned Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Transit Project, scheduled to open in late 2006.
Quality of Life/Amenities
Major Attractions and Amenities
The Phoenix area abounds with unique natural features and provides a plethora of recreational amenities. Within a few hours drive from the metro area is the Grand Canyon, one of the world’s truly most spectacular sites, that each year attracts millions of visitors from around the globe. Phoenix has an enviable quality of life, as its residents enjoy a high standard of living at a fraction of the cost of most other large metropolitan areas. Its desert location provides exceptional weather for year-round outdoor activities such as golf, tennis, hiking, rock climbing, and mountain biking. In addition, snow skiing options abound around Flagstaff, less than a three-hour drive from downtown Phoenix.
The Phoenix area also offers a wealth of cultural amenities such as the Arizona Theatre Company, the Phoenix Symphony, the Arizona Opera, and more than twenty museums including the Phoenix Art Museum, the Arizona Science Center, and the internationally renowned Heard Museum of Anthropology and Primitive Arts.
A full complement of major league sports franchises can be found in the Phoenix area including the Cardinals of the National Football League, the Suns of the National Basketball Association, the Diamondbacks of Major League Baseball, and the Coyotes of the National Hockey League. Phoenix’s collegiate sports offerings include the Arizona State University (ASU) Sun Devils and the Fiesta Bowl, played annually in ASU’s Sun Devil Stadium.
Known as a golfer’s paradise, the Phoenix area offers nearly 200 golf courses accommodating all skill levels.
Education
The Phoenix area’s 42 area colleges and universities educate a student population in excess of 204,000. Nationally recognized programs in business administration, international business, and engineering can be found throughout Phoenix at universities such as Arizona State University, University of Phoenix, and the American Graduate School of International Management (Thunderbird).
VALUATION SERVICES | 14 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
MAJOR COLLEGES/UNIVERSITIES
Phoenix-Mesa MSA
2001
Full/Part Time | ||||
College/University | Enrollment | |||
Arizona State University | 45,700 | |||
Mesa Community College | 21,100 | |||
University of Phoenix | 18,000 | |||
Glendale Community College | 17,900 | |||
Phoenix College | 13,400 | |||
Scottsdale Community College | 10,400 |
Source: Cushman & Wakefield Analytics
Medical Facilities
The Phoenix area has a comprehensive healthcare network, including 39 accredited hospitals, two of which are highly regarded nationally. Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center and St. Joseph’s Hospital & Medical Center both made the 14th annual report byU.S. Newsin 2003, which lists the best hospitals in the nation. Only 203 hospitals made the final rankings with regards to hospital care in 17 specialties. In addition, Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, a specialty outpatient clinic, is part of Mayo’s integrated, multi-campus system that includes the 178-bed Mayo Clinic Hospital located in northeast Phoenix, four primary care centers located throughout the Valley, and the Mayo Center for Women’s Health.
Regional Summary
The Phoenix region, which has experienced tremendous growth over the past twenty years in both population and employment, continues to improve its economic diversity and move beyond its reputation as simply a “back-office” market.
Given current U.S. economic conditions, Phoenix’s phenomenal economic growth of the past has slowed considerably, due in large part to dramatic declines in high-tech manufacturing. Although high-tech manufacturing companies like Motorola and Intel are seeing stabilization in revenues, particularly internationally, this has not translated into any real gains. Yet, Phoenix suffered less of a contraction than most other high-tech intensive areas, which bodes well for the future of the sector. The Construction sector, however, continues to buoy the local economy and is expected to remain an economic driver well into the future, supporting Phoenix’s strong demographic trends.
As the national economy moves through its recovery phase, most of Phoenix’s employment sectors, with the exception of Manufacturing, are expected to experience slow but steady growth through 2007. Professional and Business Services and Tourism sectors are expected to provide the greatest increase in employment over the forecast period.
Longer term, Phoenix will need to compete with more tech-heavy areas, in California and Texas in particular, to attract more of the higher-end research and development work from chip makers, which are expected to be the primary divisions that will remain in the U.S. while most production lines are moved offshore. However, Phoenix still does not have the reputation or intellectual capital base to compete with the likes of Austin or Silicon Valley.
VALUATION SERVICES | 15 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
Growth in Phoenix is expected to pick up in concert with the national economy and a resurgence in demand for computer equipment. Healthy population growth and renewed defense spending will benefit the Phoenix economy in the medium term. Longer term, Phoenix will likely re-emerge as one of the top-performing metros in the nation. Its economy is well diversified with a strong base of high-tech manufacturers to support healthy income and job growth. Healthcare and other personal service providers will add to payrolls as Phoenix remains a popular retirement destination. Phoenix is expected to outperform the nation over the forecast horizon.
VALUATION SERVICES | 16 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
LOCAL AREA MAP
VALUATION SERVICES | 17 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
LOCAL AREA ANALYSIS
Location
The subject is located within the City of Chandler in Mariposa County, Arizona. Chandler is located approximately 20 miles southeast of downtown Phoenix, Arizona.
The Greater Phoenix area is known for its lack of an extensive freeway system. Access to and around Chandler is also hampered by its limited freeways. Chandler is accessed by Interstate 10 (Pima Freeway) which travels north/south and forms the western boundary of a portion of the city of Chandler. Arizona Highway 360, the Superstition Freeway through Temp/Mesa is located approximately two miles south of the City. Major east to west thoroughfares in and out of Chandler include Elliot, Warner, Chandler and Pecos. Major north and south thoroughfares include Cooper, McQueen, Arizona, Alma School, Dobson and Price.
Residents of Chandler must go to Phoenix for major rail and bus connections. Chandler Municipal Airport is located in southeastern Chandler, which provides only air charter freight and package delivery service. Sky Harbor International Airport is locate approximately 15 miles northwest of Chandler.
The boundaries defining the subject neighborhood is Chandler Boulevard to the north, Price Street to the west, Pescos Road to the south and Alma School Road to the east. The subject site is an irregularly shaped parcel located on the east side of Yucca Street. Yucca Street is a two-lane secondary north-south connector street that is two blocks long. Commonwealth Avenue and Butler Street represent the north and south boundaries of the site. Both of these roads are also two-lane secondary connector streets.
Secondary streets in the immediate area are neighborhood collector streets. All surface streets are in good condition and have sidewalks and attractive landscaping. There is local bus service available in the city. All of the streets are improved with sidewalks, curbs and gutters in the subject’s vicinity.
The immediate area surrounding the subject is characterized primarily by one and two story single and multi-family residential development. The subject improvements are compatible with the neighborhood. Senior housing and medical uses are secondary land uses in the vicinity. South of the subject site, is located Desert Cove Skilled Nursing Home followed by Chandler Regional Hospital. Numerous medically related buildings surround the hospital. To the north of the subject, along Commonwealth Avenue, medical office buildings are under construction. A Cigna Healthcare Clinic is located one block north of the subject on Pennington Street. Several vacant lots are located adjacent north of the subject site along Commonwealth Boulevard.
Commercial development is located along Chandler Boulevard, which is located one block north of the subject site. Chandler Boulevard is a major commercial east/west thoroughfare that travels through Chandler.
Special Hazards or Adverse Influences
There are no detrimental uses in the local area that would impact the subject’s use. The general area is located within an area inundated by 500-year flooding as identified on the FEMA maps. No unusual noise pollution was noted. No noxious odors were noted at or near the subject and none were reported.
Land Use Changes
No known land use changes were reported or observed. No demolition or closing of senior housing was known.
VALUATION SERVICES | 18 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
LOCAL AREA ANALYSIS
Demographics
Population
The area’s demographic characteristics within the Chandler region were reviewed. Claritas, Inc. provides historical, current and forecasted population estimates for the area.
The population of the City of Chandler was 192,208 in 2002. Between 2000 and 2002, the population within Chandler increased by an annual rate of 4.33 percent. The rate of growth is projected to increase during the next five years. By the year 2007, the population of Chandler is expected to increase to 230,6936 persons, representing annual average growth of 3.72 percent between 2002 and 2007.
The 2002 population within a 5-mile radius surrounding the subject site is 255,117. Between 2000 and 2002, the population within this radius increased by an annual rate of 3.83 percent. The rate of growth is projected to increase during the next five years. By the year 2007, the population within this radius will have increased to 300,882 persons, representing annual average growth of 3.35 percent between 2002 and 2007.
Households
A household consists of all the people occupying a single housing unit. According to Claritas, Inc., the persons per household in Chandler averaged 2.82 people and averaged 2.84 people within a 5-mile radius in 2002. The areas average household size is greater than the county and state as a whole at 2.69 and 2.64 persons per household, respectively.
Income
Income levels, either on a per capita, per family or household basis, of the residents of the market area form an important component of this total analysis. According to Claritas, Inc., the average household within Chandler has an average income of $75,395 per capita and $80,802 per household within a 5-mile radius. The average household income for the county and state was $69,203 and $60,458, respectively for 2002.
Conclusions
In summary, the subject site is located in an established residential area. The trends for the local area appear stable. A moderate supply of vacant land is available for development. No known land use changes were reported or observed. No demolition or closing of senior housing facilities was identified. We anticipate the neighborhood will achieve moderate growth in property values into the foreseeable future.
VALUATION SERVICES | 19 | ADVISORY GROUP |
![(CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD LOGO)](https://capedge.com/proxy/SC 13E3/0000950150-04-000087/a95684e3a9504701.gif)
SENIOR LIVING INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
Independent Living
Congregate care or independent living units are designed for seniors who pay for some congregate services (i.e. housekeeping, transportation, meals, etc.) as part of the monthly fee or rental rate, and who require little, if any, assistance with activities of daily living. Residents of congregate/independent living units may have some health care-type services provided to them by in-house staff or an outside agency. Congregate units may be part of a congregate residence, a property that provides congregate and assisted living services, or a continuing care retirement community.
The retirement housing industry overall has matured considerably over the past two decades as the elderly population has increased and seniors have come to accept and seek alternatives to remaining in their homes. Retirement housing has expanded beyond the early dominance of life care and continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs). These communities, which typically included independent living and nursing care on a single campus, typically charged residents an entrance fee and a monthly fee. Rental retirement communities represented a major area of growth in the 1980s, fueled in part by the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 221(d)(4) Retirement Service Center mortgage insurance program. Although the program no longer exists, the rental model is still a popular option for newly developed retirement communities. In addition, a small but definite increase in the number of cooperatives and condominiums has taken place, particularly among communities targeting a more affluent segment of the elderly population.
The retirement community of today is a smaller complex consisting of 100 to 200 independent living units versus the 200 to 300 independent living units that characterized the early CCRCs. In some cases, the communities are being developed in stages to avoid some of the up front risk associated with initial lease-up and to allow the facility to be more responsive to the market needs and preferences.
The rental retirement communities of the early 1980s typically offered no nursing care or assistance with daily living. These facilities were designed to provide hospitality services such as meals, housekeeping, transportation, and activities. These facilities met with slow lease-up rates and exceedingly high turnover due to their inability to meet changing resident needs.
Independent living communities, particularly rental communities, are least heavily monitored and governed by state regulations. In some states, this has resulted in a fair degree of flexibility in providing additional services.
It has become quite clear over the past ten years that the retirement communities are attracting an older and somewhat frailer population than originally anticipated. The average age of entrance into independent living units is between the late 70’s and early 80’s, rather than the late 60’s and early 70’s originally anticipated. As a result of the change in resident profile as well as the experience gained in the 1980s, it is clear that some form of health care or supportive services for the frail elderly is a necessary component of a retirement community.
Assisted Living
The emergence of assisted living as an option in the long-term care continuum for elders in the 1990’s represented the convergence of social, political, economic and treatment trends. Prior to this, most dependent seniors had only two long-term care options: be cared for by a family member or enter a nursing home. Today, as the number of elders and their frailty increases, these options have proven inadequate for seniors, their families and society. For many elderly, nursing homes are overly intensive and expensive. Therefore, for the segment of seniors with
VALUATION SERVICES | 20 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
SENIOR LIVING INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
moderate to intermediate care needs, assisted living has become a favored form of long-term care.
The Assisted Living Facilities Association of America(ALFAA) defines assisted living asa special combination of housing, personalized supportive services and health care designed to respond to the individual needs of those who require help in activities of daily living, but do not need the skilled medical care provided in a nursing home. Assisted living care promotes the maximum independence of dignity for each resident and encourages the involvement of a resident’s family, neighbors and friends.
Although industry proponents are clear as to the general characteristics and philosophy of an assisted living community, there is no national agreement on the details and legal definition of assisted living. As the assisted living industry becomes increasingly standardized, and as the industry expands, it can expect to acquire a defined legal status with respect to licensure, reimbursement and financing.
Some states have enacted laws using the termassisted living, however, in most jurisdictions licensure statutes combine a variety of terms and programs. In referring to residential housing and services, most state licensing laws use terms such as: rest homes, homes for the aged, supportive living facilities, residential care facilities, board and care homes, elderly group homes, congregate care housing and senior housing.
Assisted living programs are located in a variety of environments. They may be housed in newly constructed freestanding facilities, retrofitted buildings such as former hotels, units attached to nursing homes, senior apartments with services, units within CCRC developments and congregate care units. Whatever the environment, there must be private, or at a minimum companion suite residential living space.
Typically, a resident will have a compact studio or efficiency apartment. Living space will almost always include a private bathroom. The living space may or may not include a kitchen or kitchenette, washer and dryer, a living room or storage space. Economics generally dictate the size of the private living space, which can range from a small one-room efficiency of less than 300 square feet to a large one-bedroom apartment of 750 square feet.
Assisted living residences also provide for a considerable amount of common space for the residents to share. Newer assisted living facilities generally allocate from 30 percent to 40 percent of all gross square footage of the building to common area. Such space includes dining rooms, libraries, lounges, activity centers, kitchens and laundry rooms. The size of an assisted living facility depends on many variables including market forces and site constraints. Most newer freestanding facilities typically fall into the range of 40 to 80 units.
The level of service in assisted living facilities varies. However, within a broad range, there are certain basic services offered:
• | 24-hour a day on-site supervision or access to an emergency call system; | |
• | Two or three meals and regular snacks are available; | |
• | Light housekeeping and laundry services are available; | |
• | Residents are entitled to some level of personal care each day from the facility staff; | |
• | A personalized health care plan delineates how health care needs may be addressed; and; | |
• | Activity, social service and transportation resources are made available. |
Because it is a goal of assisted living to enable residents toage- in- place,the level of personal care, food services or health care may be adjusted upwards as needed. However, arranging
VALUATION SERVICES | 21 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
SENIOR LIVING INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
services to allowaging- in- placecan be difficult if residents need increasing amounts of nursing care and the states limit or prohibit skilled nursing care in assisted living facilities. With this in mind, it should be noted that there is a growing trend by states to extend the scope of assisted living services far into the long-term care continuum.
The typical resident of assisted living is 83 years old, is a woman and is single or widowed. Today’s assisted living residents have care needs and characteristics that were associated with patients in intermediate care facility nursing homes in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Senior care needs are gauged by the extent to which an individual requires regular assistance with ongoing activities of daily living (ADLs) such as bathing, eating, walking, toileting and dressing. In order to determine that there is anADL dependency, aclinician must determine that an individual cannot safely or routinely perform a specific activity unless he or she has help. Unless such help is provided, the individual is at risk of not meeting an essential daily need.
While the number of ADLs with which a person needs help is used clinically as a measure of dependency, having such dependency does not mean that medical care is required. In assisted living facilities, residents generally have at least one ADL dependency, and it is not uncommon that they have as many as three or four.
Assisted living fees are typically structured around a fixed monthly amount that covers both housing and services. The monthly amount generally includes a base level of personal care with additional personal care charged separately. There also may be entrance fees, typically equivalent to the first and last month’s rent. Assisted living facilities do not require the large endowment type entrance fees required in some CCRCs.
Occupancy Patterns
Occupancy data compiled by the American Seniors Housing Association for the various senior housing community types (congregate, assisted and CCRCs) has been summarized in the following table.
Median Occupancy Rates
For Profit Senior Housing Facilities
Property Type | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Independent | 95.0 | % | 98.0 | % | 96.0 | % | 98.0 | % | 95.0 | % | 95.0 | % | 94.5 | % | 93.1 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Assisted Living | 97.0 | % | 95.0 | % | 95.0 | % | 92.0 | % | 94.0 | % | 90.0 | % | 93.8 | % | 94.2 | % | ||||||||||||||||
CCRCs | 95.0 | % | 95.0 | % | 94.0 | % | 95.0 | % | 93.2 | % | 93.2 | % | 93.1 | % | 92.4 | % | ||||||||||||||||
All Communities | 95.0 | % | 96.0 | % | 95.0 | % | 95.0 | % | 93.7 | % | 93.7 | % | 94.0 | % | 93.5 | % |
Source: American Seniors Housing Association
As seen, assisted living facilities in 2002 exhibited the highest occupancy rate of any of the property types. This was in contrast to the other property types that saw median occupancy rates decline slightly over 2001.
VALUATION SERVICES | 22 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
SENIOR LIVING INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
The average length of stay in a senior facility also varies as to the property type. In the following table is average length of stay data compiled by the American Seniors Housing Association.
Average Resident Length of Stay
(Stated In Months)
Property Type | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | ||||||||||||||||
Independent | 45.5 | 43.4 | 38.1 | 43.1 | 33.4 | ||||||||||||||||
Assisted Living | 24.8 | 18.5 | 20.5 | 28.0 | 17.7 | ||||||||||||||||
All CCRCs | |||||||||||||||||||||
Independent | 61.0 | 45.4 | 59.8 | 37.3 | 37.0 | ||||||||||||||||
Assisted Living | 16.0 | 18.2 | 16.8 | 12.8 | 12.0 | ||||||||||||||||
Nursing | 20.0 | 23.2 | 18.6 | 9.0 | 9.0 |
Source: American Seniors Housing Association
As shown, the average length of stay in an assisted living facility in 2002 was 17.7 months and which reflected a notable decline over the length of stay average for 2001. Both assisted and independent living facilities showed declines, while CCRCs maintained generally similar occupancies over 2001. Much of the reasoning for the decline is from increased lateral movement of residents between existing facilities caused by such factors as facility operations (management, staffing, etc.), as well as foreclosures and closings of poorly operated facilities.
Absorption Trends
Net absorption data compiled by theAmerican Seniors Housing Association(ASHA) for senior housing facilities is summarized in the following table.
2001 National Average Net Absorption Rates
Senior Housing Facilities
1st | Months | Months | 2nd | 3rd | ||||||||||||||||
Property Type | Month | 2 - 6 | 7 - 12 | Year | Year | |||||||||||||||
Independent | 25.5 | 6.7 | 3.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 | |||||||||||||||
Assisted Living | 11.7 | 5.2 | 2.9 | 2.2 | 5.3 | |||||||||||||||
CCRCs | 37.4 | 18.9 | 9.0 | 5.5 | 4.1 | |||||||||||||||
All Communities | 28.4 | 10.3 | 5.2 | 3.5 | 4.1 |
Figures based on number of residents
Source: American Seniors Housing Association
As seen, initial absorption of new residents for all facility types is strong in the first month, then it tapers off during the following months.
VALUATION SERVICES | 23 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
SENIOR LIVING INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
Arizona Assisted Living Environment
Arizona, through the Department of Health Services, Home and Community Based Licensure, licenses and supervises assisted living facilities. Prior to November 1, 1998, there were six licensure categories for residential care institutions (adult care homes, adult foster care homes, supportive residential living centers, supervisory care homes, and unclassified residential care institutions).
We note that the subject recently lost its assisted living license and is now licensed as asupervisory carehome.
Definition
The definition of anassisted living facilitymeansresidential care institutions, including adult foster care, that provide or contract to provide supervisory care services, personal care services, or directed care services.
General Requirements
The following is an outline of the basic requirements for residential care facilities in the state of California:
Scope of Care
Facilities may provide personal care services, including assistance with activities of daily living that can be performed by persons without professional skills or professional training. Facilities may also provide or coordinate intermittent nursing services and the administration of medications and treatment by a licensed nurse.
Admission/Discharge Requirements
A facility must not accept or retain a resident who requires physical or chemical restraints; behavioral health residential services; services that the assisted living facility is not licensed or able to provide.
Medication Management
Medication administration is permitted by licensed nurses.
Physical Plant Requirements
• | Facilities must comply with all local building codes, ordinances, fire codes, and zoning requirements. | ||
• | Private resident units must provide a minimum of 60 squire feet per resident. | ||
• | A maximum of two residents is allowed per resident unit. | ||
• | Shared bathroom for every eight residents. |
Staffing Requirements
The regulations require that supervisory care services, personal care services, or directed care services consistent with the level of service for which the facility is licensed are to be provided.
Administrator Education
Managers must be at least 21 years of age and be certified as assisted living facility managers.
VALUATION SERVICES | 24 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
SENIOR LIVING INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
Staff Education
All staff must be trained in first aid specific to adults. Caregivers must be at least 18 years of age, trained at the level of service the facility is licensed to provide, and have a minimum of three months of health-related experience. Assistant caregivers must be at least 16 years of age.
Continuing Education
All staff must complete a minimum of 12 hours of continuing education per year in areas related to: promotion of resident dignity, independence, self-determination, privacy, choice, and resident rights; fire, safety, and emergency procedures; infection control; and abuse, neglect, and exploitation prevention and reporting requirements.
Regulations and Health Matters
The subject is licensed for 264 personal care beds and is regulated by the State of Arizona Department of Public Health and Environment. A copy of the Regulations are posted in a conspicuous place in the facility and the residents will acknowledge at the time of entry that the operation of this facility is governed by these regulations. Furthermore, if the Department amends these regulations, the resident and the provider must obey by the amended regulations.
The subject facility requires all potential residents to undergo a health evaluation by a physician before entrance into the facility.
At the time of admission, a needs assessment is conducted by staff to determine the level of care a resident will be assigned. This initial service plan will remain in effect for 30 days and a reassessment will be conducted to ensure that the resident has been placed in the appropriate level of care. A needs assessment will be conducted at quarterly intervals for the remainder of the resident residency.
The operator may seek appropriate evaluation and assistance and may arrange for the transfer of a resident to an appropriate and safe location, prior to termination of an admission agreement for the following reasons:
• | When a resident fails to pay the monthly rent 14 days prior to written notice of such absence; | ||
• | When the owner feel that the residents mental or physical needs cannot be adequately met by the facility; | ||
• | In the event a resident’s behavior poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury to himself/herself or to others; | ||
• | Breach of contract for any reason by the resident or owner; | ||
• | Any prolonged health-related or other absence. |
VALUATION SERVICES | 25 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS OVERVIEW
Management Overview
The subject is managed by ARV Assisted Living, Inc. (ARV). Chandler Villas was constructed in 1986. The facility was renovated in 2002 to reposition the facility in the marketplace. Revenues have been increasing over the last three years, while expenses have also been increasing. Revenues have increased in annualized year-to-date 2003 figures. The facility’s occupancy was in the mid-to-high 90 percent in 2000, 2001 and for year-to-date 2003. Average occupancy, however, was 89 percent during 2002. Overall, based on the historical performance of the facility, it appears that ARV is competent to manage the facility.
Operations Overview
Services
Chandler Villas was designed for assisted living and offers all the services typical of these types of facilities with the exception of personal care. The facility was originally constructed for assisted living, however, the lack of fire sprinklers in the building resulted in their license having been removed. Sprinklers were added in 2002 to the common areas, but not any of the room. As such, the facility is not able to secure an assisted living license.
This facility has been designed as a rental community and provides most services under a fixed monthly rate. All resident contracts are for the term of stay. According to the terms of the agreement, a thirty (30) day written notice is required prior to any increase in fees for additional charges or for increases due to increased cost of operations. Included in the monthly rates are:
• | Three meals daily and snacks; | |
• | All utilities except for personal telephone | |
• | Scheduled Transportation; | |
• | Twenty-four (24) hour security and numerous safety features throughout the apartments; | |
• | Weekly housekeeping services; | |
• | Linen services; | |
• | Organized individual and group activities |
In addition to the monthly fee there are optional services available at an additional charge. These services include guest meals, beauty shop fees and additional transportation fees.
Assisted living services available under the supervisory license include:
• | Medication assistance; | |
• | Morning greeting and evening tuck-in service; | |
• | Escort to meals and activities | |
• | Home health services; | |
• | Laundry service |
Under the supervisory license, any or all personal care has to be done by a licensed home health care provider.
There are regularly scheduled health assessments that help determine which level of services each individual patient receives.
VALUATION SERVICES | 26 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS OVERVIEW
Regulations and Health Matters
The facility has a license for a capacity of 164 supervisory care beds and is regulated by the State of Arizona Department of Health Services. A copy of the Regulations is posted in a conspicuous place in the facility and the residents acknowledge at the time of entry that the operation of this facility is governed by these regulations. Furthermore, if the licensing entity amends these regulations, the resident and the provider must obey by the amended regulations.
State Monitoring
The State of Arizona conducts annual surveys of licensed assisted living and supervisory care facilities. The most recent survey for the subject was conducted in February 2002. The survey reported that the facility met all requirements with no deficiencies. A new license, dated February 24, 2003 was issued for the facility.
Admission Policies
Chandler Villas requires all potential residents to undergo a health evaluation by a physician before entrance into the facility. As noted earlier, the subject does not have an assisted living license, hence, it cannot provide individual personal care to the residents.
The operator has the right to terminate the agreement at any time when they feel that the resident’s personal care needs cannot be adequately served by the home health providers.
Under an assisted living license, the requirements are such that there is to be a chart for each resident in assisted living. At the time of admission, a dated and signed medical evaluation, which conforms to the licensing regulations, must be on file. Thereafter, a medical evaluation, which also conforms to licensing regulations, must be made at least every twelve (12) months.
The operator may seek appropriate evaluation and assistance and may arrange for the transfer of a resident to an appropriate and safe location, prior to termination of an admission agreement and without ninety (90) days notice or court review for the following reasons:
• | When a resident fails to pay the monthly rent 30 days prior to written notice of such absence; | |
• | When the operator feels that the residents mental or physical needs cannot be adequately met by the facility; | |
• | In the event a resident’s behavior poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury to himself/herself or to others; | |
• | Breach of contract for any reason by the resident or operator; | |
• | Any prolonged health-related or other absence. |
Chandler Villas caters to the needs of seniors requiring basic assisted living services under a supervisory care license. The facility develops and maintains a personalized service plan, which is amended if necessary. Furthermore, the aging-in-place and out-placement policies appear to be reasonable and well implemented. Services at the facility are standard for this type of complex and are in keeping with the residential make-up at the subject.
VALUATION SERVICES | 27 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS OVERVIEW
Marketing
Chandler Villas has a full time marketing director. Marketing personnel are actively involved in the community, as well as with discharge planners for area hospitals. They do not do any telemarketing. Direct mailings, scheduled community events, and networking, on the other hand are a routine part of marketing efforts.
Overall, given the history of the subject, it appears that the marketing efforts are adequate. The subject’s reputation and marketing campaign are considered to be part of the reason behind the current performance at the subject facility.
Conclusion
Overall, based on our inspection of the facility, discussions with some of the personnel and our review of the Policies and Procedures, it is our opinion that the facility is being operated in an competent manner. The facility has been adequately maintained and the residents appear to be content.
VALUATION SERVICES | 28 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS
Primary Market Area
The first step in analyzing the competitive market for the subject is delineating its primary market area (PMA). The primary market area is typically described as either a defined radius around the subject, zip codes, or the subject’s county. In order to delineate the subject’s primary market area, we have interviewed the subject’s Executive Director as well as the competitive properties we have used in our analysis.
Our discussions indicated that approximately 70 percent of the subject’s residents come from the primary market area. This encompasses an area of approximately seven miles. The remaining 30 percent emanate from the surrounding area. Residents relocate to Chandler to either retire or be near their adult children that work in the area. The following chart details the competitors primary market areas (PMA), as well as the estimated percentage that comes from their PMA.
% of Residents | ||||||||
Name | PMA | from PMA | ||||||
Park Regency | 7.0 | Miles | 70 | % | ||||
Merrill Gardens | 7.0 | Miles | 75 | % | ||||
Pines at the Park | 5.0 | Miles | 75-80 | % | ||||
Renaissance | 10.0 | Miles | 70 | % | ||||
SUBJECT | 7.0 | Miles | 70 | % |
In the case of the subject, we have determined the primary market area to encompass an area of approximately seven miles with 70 percent of the residents emanating from this PMA. Although a project like the subject may also attract residents from outside of the area, the geographic market area within a radius of seven miles of the subject is considered to represent the primary draw for the subject. As indicated on the chart, the subject’s primary market area of seven miles is similar to the comparables.
Most of the marketing directors we interviewed also indicated that adult children in this market are the driving forces in the decision making process for their parents.
VALUATION SERVICES | 29 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS
Supply/New Construction
Existing Facilities
The following charts detail the number of independent and assisted living units in the subject’s market area that pose direct and indirect competition to the subject. Due to the subject’s lack of an assisted living license, we have included both independent and assisted living facilities in our survey as the subject serves a senior population that essentially falls between these two distinctions. We note that the table includes facilities located in both the subject’s primary and secondary market area in Chandler.
MARKET AREA SUPPLY
Total AL | ||||||||
Name | Units | PMA/SMA* | ||||||
Park Regency | 162 | PMA | ||||||
Merrill Gardens | 88 | PMA | ||||||
Pines at the Park | 415 | SMA | ||||||
Renaissance | 180 | PMA | ||||||
SUBJECT | 164 | |||||||
Totals | 1,009 |
* PMA - - Primary Market Area; SMA-Secondary Market Area
Park Regency is a sister facility to the subject as it is also operated by ARV. Merrill Gardens is owned and operated by Merrill Gardens, while Pines at the Park is a Leisure Care facility. Park Regency is considered similar to the subject in terms of age, condition, appeal and amenities. Renaissance represents the lower end of the range as it is an independent living facility and does not offer in-house or supervisory assisted living care.
Proposed Units
Regarding planned or pending projects in the subject’s primary market area, discussions with local providers and planning departments indicated that there are no facilities planned at this time. However, because of the large retirement draw of the market area, it would be reasonable to assume that the primary market area could possibly see some new development through the mid-term.
Occupancy Patterns
Industry Statistics
Assisted living facilities generally exhibit the lowest overall occupancy patterns of any of the senior housing community types (congregate, assisted and CCRCs). As was noted in theSenior Housing Industry Overviewpresented earlier, assisted living facilities indicated an average occupancy rate of 94.2 percent in 2002, which represented an increase from 93.8 percent in 2001. Assisted living facilities in 2002, according to the survey, indicated the highest occupancies of the senior housing property types (independent, assisted and CCRCs).
Competitive Market Area
The senior living facilities we surveyed for our analysis totaled approximately 1009 units and the current available occupancy of those properties, which were not in lease-up was from 66 to 93 percent. Chandler Villas is noted as having been at 99 percent occupancy at the time of
VALUATION SERVICES | 30 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS
inspection. The subject appears to have an good reputation in the market and should continue based on its living options. A summary showing the competitive properties and their overall average occupancy levels is shown below. Please note that not all of these properties may fall within the defined market area of the subject, however, in the Elderly Demographics section we have defined the total supply in the competitive market area.
DEFINED COMPETITIVE FACILITIES
Total AL | ||||||||||||
Name | Units | Occupancy Level | ||||||||||
Park Regency | * | 162 | 86 | % | ||||||||
Merrill Gardens | * | 88 | 93 | % | ||||||||
Pines at the Park | 415 | 66 | % | |||||||||
Renaissance | * | 180 | 86 | % | ||||||||
SUBJECT | 164 | 99 | % |
* Denotes facilities located in subject’s primary market area.
Park Regency, Merrill Gardens and Renaissance are located within the subject’s PMA. Pines at the Park are located in the secondary market area.
Rental Rates
Current rental rates for assisted living units in the Chandler area begin at around $1,465 per month for a one-bedroom unit and go up to around $2,700 for a two-bedroom unit. For the most part, assisted living facilities provide three meals per day, weekly to bi-weekly housekeeping, weekly laundry, all utilities including cable TV except telephone, activities, transportation, as well as a base level of assisted living or personal care services.
Rent Increases
Most assisted living facilities in the Chandler market area have been instigating annual rent increases over the last several years. Although no specific data was available, discussions with several providers indicated that they have been routinely increasing rents between three and five percent per year. Discussions with the subject’s Executive Director indicated that the facility has also been increasing rents annually over the last several years.
Concessions
Rent concessions, or incentives, provide a good indication of the condition, or strength of current market conditions. Rent concessions are generally found in markets exhibiting high vacancy and diminished absorption levels, as well as being used by new projects as a part of their overall marketing programs. At the time of our investigation of the Chandler market area, no specific concessions were noted. Similar to the market, Chandler Villas reported that they are not offering concessions for leasing vacant units. Concession will not likely be part of the market and used only to stimulate any unforeseen vacancies. They should, however, not be of any major significance to a property like the subject.
Absorption Trends
An assisted living facility generally exhibits lower initial absorption patterns during the first year of any of the senior housing community types (independent, assisted and CCRCs). Occupancy data compiled by theAmerican Seniors Housing Association(ASHA) was previously
VALUATION SERVICES | 31 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS
summarized in the Assisted Living Industry Overview. The industry data indicated that initial absorption of new residents for all facility types is strong in the first month, then it tapers off dramatically during the following months. Specifically, net absorption averaged 11.7 residents for the Month 1, 5.2 residents for Months 2 – 6, 2.9 residents for Months 7 – 12, and 2.2 residents during Year 2.
Chandler Villas opened in 1986. Its occupancy levels have been fairly consistent over the last few years. Occupancy was in the mid-to-high 90’s percent range in 2000, 2001 and YTD 2003 and 89 percent 2002. At the time of our inspection, the subject was 99 percent occupied.
Senior Demographics
We have evaluated the current and future market potential by analyzing demographic trends and the supply of elderly housing in the facility’s market area. Most market areas for assisted living are considered to comprise up to five miles for the primary area and up to 10 to 20 miles for the secondary area. As was discussed earlier, the primary market area for the subject is considered to effectively encompass a radii of approximately seven miles, with the secondary market area encompassing approximately ten miles. This assumption was based on our review of the demographics of the area, trends on where most of the competition is being constructed, as well as from discussions with facility’s Executive Director regarding its primary market area.
The demographic data used in our analysis was compiled by Claritas, Inc. The data includes figures for the most recent census year in 2002 estimates and projections for the year 2007. For purposes of this analysis, we have relied upon the 2002 estimates for current demographic information. Additional state and national information has also been obtained fromA Profile of Older Americans: 2001,prepared by the American Association of Retired Persons and the Administration on Aging and based on data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Senior Population/Growth Rates
Population and growth statistics for the subject’s primary and secondary market area is shown in the following chart.
Population Statistics
PMA | SMA | |||||||||||||||
7 Miles | 10 Miles | |||||||||||||||
Population | % | Population | % | |||||||||||||
2000 | ||||||||||||||||
Total* | 411,698 | 748,440 | ||||||||||||||
65+ | 31,071 | 7.5 | % | 55,491 | 7.4 | % | ||||||||||
75+ | 13,296 | 3.2 | % | 24,424 | 3.3 | % | ||||||||||
85+ | 3,050 | 0.7 | % | 5,611 | 0.7 | % | ||||||||||
2002 | Estimate | |||||||||||||||
Total* | 441,209 | 797,425 | ||||||||||||||
65+ | 32,641 | 7.4 | % | 58,421 | 7.3 | % | ||||||||||
75+ | 14,184 | 3.2 | % | 26,234 | 3.3 | % | ||||||||||
85+ | 3,417 | 0.8 | % | 6,307 | 0.8 | % | ||||||||||
2007 | Projection | |||||||||||||||
Total* | 514,510 | 919,611 | ||||||||||||||
65+ | 39,805 | 7.7 | % | 66,255 | 7.2 | % | ||||||||||
75+ | 15,718 | 3.1 | % | 29,128 | 3.2 | % | ||||||||||
85+ | 4,077 | 0.8 | % | 7,539 | 0.8 | % |
* Total population unadjusted for age
Source: Claritas, Inc.
Growth Rates
PMA | SMA | |||||||||||||||
7 Miles | 10 Miles | |||||||||||||||
Total | Annual | Total | Annual | |||||||||||||
2000-2007 | ||||||||||||||||
Total* | 25.0 | % | 3.2 | % | 22.9 | % | 3.0 | % | ||||||||
65+ | 28.1 | % | 3.6 | % | 19.4 | % | 2.6 | % | ||||||||
75+ | 18.2 | % | 2.4 | % | 19.3 | % | 2.5 | % | ||||||||
85+ | 33.7 | % | 4.2 | % | 34.4 | % | 4.3 | % | ||||||||
2000-2002 | ||||||||||||||||
Total* | 7.2 | % | 3.5 | % | 6.5 | % | 3.2 | % | ||||||||
65+ | 5.1 | % | 2.5 | % | 5.3 | % | 2.6 | % | ||||||||
75+ | 6.7 | % | 3.3 | % | 7.4 | % | 3.6 | % | ||||||||
85+ | 12.0 | % | 5.8 | % | 12.4 | % | 6.0 | % | ||||||||
2002-2007 | ||||||||||||||||
Total* | 16.6 | % | 3.1 | % | 15.3 | % | 2.9 | % | ||||||||
65+ | 21.9 | % | 4.0 | % | 13.4 | % | 2.5 | % | ||||||||
75+ | 10.8 | % | 2.1 | % | 11.0 | % | 2.1 | % | ||||||||
85+ | 19.3 | % | 3.6 | % | 19.5 | % | 3.6 | % |
* Total population unadjusted for age
Source: Claritas,Inc.
VALUATION SERVICES | 32 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS
The population in the subject’s market area indicates a moderate level of demand for senior housing. As seen from the data, the elderly population is growing in terms of absolute numbers and as a percentage of total population. Comparatively, the national average of residents age 65+ constituted 13.0 percent of the total population in 2000 according to Claritas, Inc. The subject’s primary market area indicates a smaller ratio of similar aged older population to the national average.
Adult Children Population/Growth Rates
We have also analyzed population trends for what the industry refers to as “adult children”. This segment of the population generally plays a significant role in the placement of a senior in a senior housing facility. This is especially true as many seniors or elderly will relocate to be near their adult children or relatives. This fact is widely recognized by senior housing operators who indicate that market areas exhibiting a higher concentration of adults between the age of 45 and 65 can generally support a much larger supply of senior housing than would be shown through analyzing only the percentage of seniors currently residing in the market area. This situation is more prevalent with regard to higher levels of care such as assisted living and nursing. Population and growth statistics for the subject’s primary market (PMA), as well as the secondary market (SMA) areas for these age groups are shown below.
Population Statistics - Adult Children
PMA | SMA | |||||||||||||||
Population | % | Population | % | |||||||||||||
2000 | ||||||||||||||||
Total* | 411,698 | 748,440 | ||||||||||||||
45 - 54 | 51,869 | 12.6 | % | 96,289 | 12.9 | % | ||||||||||
55 - 59 | 16,543 | 4.0 | % | 32,168 | 4.3 | % | ||||||||||
60 - 64 | 11,723 | 2.8 | % | 22,210 | 3.0 | % | ||||||||||
2002 | 2002 | |||||||||||||||
Total* | 441,209 | 797,425 | ||||||||||||||
45 - 54 | 57,475 | 13.0 | % | 117,627 | 14.8 | % | ||||||||||
55 - 59 | 19,246 | 4.4 | % | 42,650 | 5.3 | % | ||||||||||
60 - 64 | 13,067 | 3.0 | % | 30,801 | 3.9 | % | ||||||||||
2007 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||
Total* | 514,510 | 919,611 | ||||||||||||||
45 - 54 | 70,542 | 13.7 | % | 117,627 | 12.8 | % | ||||||||||
55 - 59 | 25,613 | 5.0 | % | 42,650 | 4.6 | % | ||||||||||
60 - 64 | 18,202 | 3.5 | % | 30,801 | 3.3 | % |
* Total population unadjusted for age
Source: Claritas, Inc.
Growth Rates - Adult Children
PMA | SMA | |||||||||||||||
Total | Annual | Total | Annual | |||||||||||||
2000 - - 2007 | ||||||||||||||||
Total* | 25.0 | % | 3.2 | % | 22.9 | % | 3.0 | % | ||||||||
45 - 54 | 36.0 | % | 4.5 | % | 22.2 | % | 2.9 | % | ||||||||
55 - 59 | 54.8 | % | 6.4 | % | 32.6 | % | 4.1 | % | ||||||||
60 - 64 | 55.3 | % | 6.5 | % | 38.7 | % | 4.8 | % | ||||||||
2000 - 2002 | ||||||||||||||||
Total* | 7.2 | % | 3.5 | % | 6.5 | % | 3.2 | % | ||||||||
45 - 54 | 10.8 | % | 5.3 | % | 22.2 | % | 10.5 | % | ||||||||
55 - 59 | 16.3 | % | 7.9 | % | 32.6 | % | 15.1 | % | ||||||||
60 - 64 | 11.5 | % | 5.6 | % | 38.7 | % | 17.8 | % | ||||||||
2002 - 2007 | ||||||||||||||||
Total* | 16.6 | % | 3.1 | % | 15.3 | % | 2.9 | % | ||||||||
45 - 54 | 22.7 | % | 4.2 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | ||||||||
55 - 59 | 33.1 | % | 5.9 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | ||||||||
60 - 64 | 39.3 | % | 6.9 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % |
* Total population unadjusted for age
Source: Claritas, Inc.
As shown, the 45 to 64 age group showed strong growth between 2000 and 2002 in both the primary and secondary market area. Going forward, this age group is forecast to grow at higher rates. Overall, adult children are expected to contribute positively towards living options for the subject and its market area.
Income and Households
In addition to the absolute number and growth of the elderly population, the number of households with appropriate income levels will dictate the actual population available to support the subject, Statistics on income levels are typically presented by the household. We note that in the case of the elderly, most households include at least a single adult. For comparison
VALUATION SERVICES | 33 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS
purposes it is therefore reasonable to utilize the household statistics. Furthermore, the housing cost and income requirements for a second person are significantly less than the primary occupant.
Compared with the local competition, the subject has monthly rates in the middle portion of the range. To afford the various accommodations at the subject, it is estimated that an average annual income of $23,800 would be necessary. We have utilized the average projected revenue per resident of approximately $20,220 as calculated in the Income Capitalization Approach to value. We have assumed that a resident would spend approximately 85 percent of their income on housing, meals and utilities. The balance of the income is required for taxes, insurance, and personal needs. By dividing the $20,220 by 85 percent we arrive at an average income of $23,800, rounded.
Assuming no child subsidy, it is estimated that most residents would require an annual income of $23,800 or more to afford the majority of the accommodations at the subject. We note that this is a conservative assumption given that there are a significant number of elderly who are receiving some form of child subsidy. Furthermore, these indicators are somewhat skewed given that there are recent findings suggesting that the elderly are indeed spending down their assets other than income from their house while residing in senior living facilities. Given the relatively short term of stay anticipated in these facilities, it is reasonable to assume that there would be a greater spend-down of assets. Reference is made to the findings in the Stateof Seniors Housing Report,2002 published by the Americans Senior Housing Association, which cites the average length of stay in an assisted living facility to be 18 months.
We also note that the indicated income level does not account for child subsidies or a sale of a home. According to the Claritas report, 70.3 percent of the 65+-householder population owns their own residences in the primary market area and the median housing value was reported to be $166,559 in 2002. Given that the elderly population typically own their residence free and clear, it is reasonable to assume that there would be additional income available from the sale of a residence which could be amortized over the length of stay. Given the average price of a house and that the majority of the elderly own their houses free and clear, we have assumed that this cash would provide for additional income of say $9,994 annually or a safe rate of return of 6.0 percent of the investment (6.0 percent x $166,559).
After accounting for this ($23,800 - $9,994 = $13,800), we have considered still considered an income qualifier of $15,000 to be a reasonable threshold for entrance to the subject facility due to the rent structure at the property. Reference is made to the table below for a summary of household income for the income qualifiers in the $15,000+ range.
VALUATION SERVICES | 34 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS
Income Statistics
Households With Incomes Greater Than $15,000
PMA | SMA | |||||||||||||||
7 Miles | 10 Miles | |||||||||||||||
Total | % | Total | % | |||||||||||||
2002 | ||||||||||||||||
*Total 65+ | 19,318 | — | 35,415 | — | ||||||||||||
65+ | 16,287 | 84.3 | % | 29,546 | 83.4 | % | ||||||||||
75+ | 6,784 | 35.1 | % | 12,577 | 35.5 | % | ||||||||||
85+ | 1,496 | 7.7 | % | 2,804 | 7.9 | % | ||||||||||
2007 | ||||||||||||||||
*Total 65+ | 21,932 | — | 39,802 | — | ||||||||||||
65+ | 19,702 | 89.8 | % | 33,182 | 83.4 | % | ||||||||||
75+ | 8,029 | 36.6 | % | 14,965 | 37.6 | % | ||||||||||
85+ | 1,921 | 8.8 | % | 3,617 | 9.1 | % |
*Unadjusted for Income
Source: Claritas, Inc.
Income Statistics - Growth Rates
Households With Incomes Greater Than $15,000
PMA | SMA | |||||||||||||||
7 Miles | 10 Miles | |||||||||||||||
2002-2007 | Total | Annual | Total | Annual | ||||||||||||
*Total 65+ | 13.5 | % | 2.6 | % | 12.4 | % | 2.4 | % | ||||||||
65+ | 21.0 | % | 3.9 | % | 12.3 | % | 2.3 | % | ||||||||
75+ | 18.4 | % | 3.4 | % | 19.0 | % | 3.5 | % | ||||||||
85+ | 28.4 | % | 5.1 | % | 29.0 | % | 5.2 | % |
* Unadjusted for Income
Source: Claritas, Inc.
We have found that for households over $15,000 within our primary market area in 2002 (7-mile radius), there were 16,287 for the 65+ age group, 6,784 for the 75+ age group and 1,496 for the 85+ age group. The number of households earning $15,000 or more in the primary market area is anticipated to increase over the next five years at an annual average rate of 3.88 percent for age 65+ households, 3.43 percent per year for age 75+ and 5.13 percent for the age 85+ households. Overall, these figures appear to be consistent with the population trends.
Penetration Rates
A market penetration analysis provides insight into project feasibility. It indicates the ability of a project to lease-up or maintain stabilized operation based on a ratio analysis of other geographic areas (units to population) applied to the subject’s market area. The applicability of the penetration analysis is dependent on the similarities of the area analysis to the subject area. Other factors may cause variations in the penetration rates in an individual market such as competition from similar property types (assisted versus independent living) and unique market demand characteristics (urban versus rural). Given the relatively small number of units and population in an individual area, some divergence from the macro ratio is not unlikely.
In this analysis we have defined the penetration rate to be the percentage of primary market assisted living units to age and income-qualified residents. The 2002 penetration rate is compared to that projected for 2007 based on a supply increase of 25 percent. While there are no firm industry standards for penetration rates, studies across the country suggest that assisted living penetration rates up to 7.0 percent reflect good markets or markets in equilibrium. These percentages have been provided by the MDS Research Company, Inc., who specializes in the market and feasibility analysis of senior housing facilities. Furthermore, a Cushman & Wakefield survey of over 120 senior housing markets across the nation supports acceptable penetration rates of 7.0 percent or below.
Through a review of senior demographics, industry surveys noted above and local market characteristics; we have utilized the following criteria to determine the subject’s market area characteristics.
VALUATION SERVICES | 35 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS
MARKET CLASSIFICATIONS
Market Wide | Market Penetration | Rent | ||||
Type of Market | Occupancy | Rate | Concessions | |||
Good | 90%+ | Up to 3.9% | None | |||
Equilibrium | 80 – 89% | 4.0% - 6.9% | Nominal | |||
Saturation | 70 – 79% | 7.0% - 9.9% | Moderate | |||
Saturated (Over Built) | 69% and Below | 10% and Above | Substantial |
Nationally, it is generally anticipated that 60 to 70 percent of residents will come from the primary market area and an additional 15 to 20 percent will be from the secondary market area. The remainder of the residents will generally be from other areas and have relocated to be closer to family members. Primary market residents lost to other market areas generally offset residents coming from the secondary market.
The demand for elderly housing is determined by analyzing the relationship between the supply of senior housing units and the number of qualified residents with adequate income to afford the units. In general, a higher ratio of qualified residents, coupled with a high overall occupancy in the area indicates a strong demand for senior housing. At the same time, a low ratio of units to available households coupled with a high occupancy also indicates a high demand. A low occupancy for the area always indicates a low demand. In other words, the ratio of qualified residents is only one component.
We have calculated the market wide occupancy as of the date of inspection for the subject’s primary market area. The primary competing facilities in the PMA, including the subject, are shown in the following table. We acknowledge that the following summary of properties may not represent all of the facilities in the market area, but are what we believe to be the most competitive to the subject.
MARKET OCCUPANCY CHARACTERISTICS
Primary Market Area
Name | No. Units | Occupancy | Occupied Units | |||||||||
Park Regency | 162 | 100 | % | 159 | ||||||||
Merrill Gardens | 88 | 93 | % | 82 | ||||||||
Renaissance | 180 | 92 | % | 166 | ||||||||
SUBJECT | 164 | 99 | % | 162 | ||||||||
Totals | 594 | 96 | % | 569 |
These, along with the previous factors shown will be used in our age and income qualified penetration analysis that follows.
Age and Income Qualified Penetration Analysis
In our analysis we have assumed that 70 percent of the residents will come from the primary market area. We note that the population in the area is moderate and that the general population is increasing and the elderly population is on the rise. This suggests that the subject facility will have to place greater weight on attracting residents to move to be close to family members. We note that areas where the younger population is expanding would be more apt to attract residents from outside the community to move to be closer to their children.
VALUATION SERVICES | 36 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS
Based on the population and income data presented earlier, the following chart shows our market penetration analysis for the subject.
Market Penetration Analysis
Primary Market Area
7 Miles
2002 | 2007 | |||||||
65+ Income Qualified Households | 16,287 | 19,702 | ||||||
Average Household Size* | 1.69 | 1.81 | ||||||
Available Persons | 27,520 | 35,758 | ||||||
Total Supply** | 594 | 743 | ||||||
Required Resident % From PMA | 70 | % | 70 | % | ||||
Required Residents | 416 | 520 | ||||||
Available Persons | 27,520 | 35,758 | ||||||
Indicated Penetration Rate*** | 1.51 | % | 1.45 | % |
*Total65+Population Divided by Total 65+ Households
**No. of assisted living units (includes dementia) in primary market area.
2007 figure accounts for 25 percent new or forecast competition
***Required Residents divided by Available Persons
Source: Claritas, Inc.
Based on the data, the indicated penetration rate for the subject in 2002 is 1.51 percent. The projected growth of 25 percent in the unit supply in the next five years indicates a penetration rate of 1.45 percent in 2007.
Based on the market classification chart presented earlier, penetration rates of up to 3.9 percent were classified forgood markets, 4.0 to 6.9 percent signifies the market is atequilibrium,7.0 to 9.9 percent indicates a market isnearing saturationand rates above 10 percent signify the market issaturated.
The subject’s indicated penetration rate for 2002 signifies that there is good demand in the primary market area. Even assuming a 25 percent increase in supply over the next five years indicates good demand in the primary market area.
Conclusion
Overall, these findings suggest that there appears to be good demand for the subject facility in the primary market area from both the general population base and the project specific targeting. Based on the current inventory, the subject’s primary market area is not close to reaching a saturation point. Also, the lack of rent concessions is positive. Further, current statistics appear to be leaning towards a greater spend down of assets by the elderly and that traditional income levels may be conservative. With this in mind, and based on the indicated penetration rate of 1.51 percent for the general population, there appears to be an adequate marketplace for the subject facility.
VALUATION SERVICES | 37 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS
Market Rate Comparisons
On the following pages are data sheets of the facilities we have compared with the subject. A map showing their location follows these pages. Exclusive of Pines at the Park, all of the facilities are noted as being located in the subject’s primary market area (PMA). Pines of the Park is located within the secondary market area (SMA).
VALUATION SERVICES | 38 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS
Senior Housing Rent No. | 1 | |
Park Regency | ||
2555 North Price Road | ||
Chandler, AZ | ||
Property Type: | IL/AL | |
Verification: | Marketing Director | |
480-345-7171 | ||
10/23/03 |
No. Units | Unit Types | Occupancy | ||||||
162 | Assisted Living Units | 100 | % | |||||
0 | Alzheimer Units/Beds | 0 | % | |||||
162 | Total Units/Beds | 100 | % |
Rent Schedule
Assisted Living | Unit Size | Dementia | Unit Size | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Unit Description | Monthly Rent Range | Range | Monthly Rent Range | Range | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Semi-Private | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Studio | $ | 2,080 | to | $ | 2,080 | 346 | to | 378 | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Studio Alcove | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
One-Bedroom | $ | 1,560 | to | $ | 2,500 | 456 | to | 456 | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Two-Bedroom | $ | 2,088 | to | $ | 2,700 | 950 | to | 950 | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cottage/Villa | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2nd Occupant Rent | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional Personal Care | $ | 300 | to | $ | 900 | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Fee | $ | 350 | to | $ | 350 |
Basic Service Care Package: | Additional Care: | |||||||||||
Meals: | 3 | Care Hours Included in Base Rate: | 0.5 | |||||||||
Utilities: | Water/Sewer | X | Additional Personal Care Charges | Levels | ||||||||
Electricity | X | |||||||||||
Cable TV | X | |||||||||||
Telephone | X | Incontinence Care: | Yes | |||||||||
Housekeeping: | Weekly | X | Dressing Assistance: | Yes | ||||||||
Activities: | Daily | X | Bathing Assistance: | Yes | ||||||||
Transportation: | Bus | X | Medication Assistance: | Yes | ||||||||
Security (Hrs): | 24 | X | Alzheimer Dementia Area: | No | ||||||||
Nursing Staff: | CAN, RN | X |
Improvement Description
Year Opened | 1997 | Common Area | Lobby | X | Dining Room | X | ||||||
Construction Type | Wood Frame | Activity | X | Salon | X | |||||||
Floors | 2 | Library | X | Laundry | X | |||||||
Site Suitability | Good | |||||||||||
Construction Quality | Average | Unit Amenities | Call System | X | Fire Detectors | X | ||||||
Exterior Siding | Stucco | Pvt Bath | X | Shared Bath | X | |||||||
Roofing | Shingles | Kitchenettes | Yes | |||||||||
Building Area (Sq.Ft.) | N/A | |||||||||||
Condition | Average | HVAC System | Central/Wall Units | |||||||||
Effective Age (Yrs): | N/A | Covered Parki | yes |
Remarks: | Park Regency is located approximate two miles west of the subject. This facility is a sister facility of the subject and offers three levels of care- independent, assisted living and skilled nursing. The assisted living facility is located in a separate building. The site is suitable for senior housing development. Visibility is and access is good. |
VALUATION SERVICES | 39 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS
Senior Housing Rent No. | 2 | |
Merrill Gardens | ||
750 South Pennington | ||
Chandler, AZ 85224 | ||
Property Type: | IL/AL | |
Verification: | Sales Manager | |
408-814-8298 | ||
10/23/03 |
No. Units | Unit Types | Occupancy | ||||||
88 | Assisted Living Units | 93 | % | |||||
0 | Alzheimer Units/Beds | 0 | % | |||||
88 | Total Units/Beds | 93 | % |
Rent Schedule
Assisted Living | Unit Size | Dementia | Unit Size | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Unit Description | Monthly Rent Range | Range | Monthly Rent Range | Range | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Semi-Private | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Studio | $ | 1,375 | to | $ | 1,575 | 318 | to | 318 | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Studio Alcove | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
One-Bedroom | $ | 1,875 | to | $ | 2,075 | 561 | to | 561 | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Two-Bedroom | $ | 2,400 | to | $ | 2,475 | 950 | to | 1220 | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cottage/Villa | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2nd Occupant Rent | $ | 500 | to | $ | 500 | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional Personal Care | $ | 525 | to | $ | 1,200 | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Fee | $ | 1,000 | to | $ | 1,000 |
Basic Service Care Package: | Additional Care: | |||||||||
Meals: | 3 | Care Hours Included in Base Rate: | 0.5 | |||||||
Utilities: | Water/Sewer | X | Additional Personal Care Charges | Leves | ||||||
Electricity | X | |||||||||
Cable TV | X | |||||||||
Telephone | X | Incontinence Care: | Yes | |||||||
Housekeeping: | Weekly | \ | Dressing Assistance: | Yes | ||||||
Activities: | Daily | X | Bathing Assistance: | Yes | ||||||
Transportation: | Bus | X | Medication Assistance: | Yes | ||||||
Security (Hrs): | 24 | X | Alzheimer Dementia Area: | No | ||||||
Nursing Staff: | CAN, RN | X |
Improvement Description
Year Opened | 1999 | Common Area | Lobby | X | Dining Room | X | ||||||
Construction Type | Wood Frame | Activity | X | Salon | X | |||||||
Floors | 2 | Library | X | Laundry | X | |||||||
Site Suitability | Good | |||||||||||
Construction Quality | Good | Unit Amenities | Call System | X | Fire Detectors | X | ||||||
Exterior Siding | Stucco | Pvt Bath | X | Shared Bath | No | |||||||
Roofing | Shingles | Kitchenettes | Yes | |||||||||
Building Area (Sq.Ft.) | N/A | |||||||||||
Condition | Good | HVAC System | Central/Wall Units | |||||||||
Effective Age (Yrs): | N/A | Covered Parki | Yes |
Remarks: | Merrill Gardens is located approximately 1 miles north of the subject. The site is suitable for senior housing development. Visibility and access is good. Adjacent development is complimentary. |
VALUATION SERVICES | 40 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS |
Senior Housing Rent No. | 3 | |
Pines at the Park | ||
35 West Brown Road | ||
Mesa, AZ 85201 | ||
Property Type: | IL/AL | |
Verification: | Marketing Director | |
480-834-0600 | ||
10/23/03 |
No. Units | Unit Types | Occupancy | ||||
415 | Assisted Living Units | 66 | % | |||
0 | Alzheimer Units/Beds | 0 | % | |||
415 | Total Units/Beds | 66 | % |
Rent Schedule
Assisted Living | Unit Size | Dementia | Unit Size | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Unit Description | Monthly Rent Range | Range | Monthly Rent Range | Range | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Semi-Private | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Studio | $ | 1,120 | to | $ | 1,200 | 430 | to | 455 | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Studio Alcove | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
One-Bedroom | $ | 1,465 | to | $ | 1,630 | 633 | to | 810 | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Two-Bedroom | $ | 1,730 | to | $ | 2,020 | 768 | to | 1013 | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cottage/Villa | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2nd Occupant Rent | $ | 300 | to | $ | 300 | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional Personal Care | N/A | to | N/A | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Fee | $ | 500 | to | $ | 500 |
Basic Service Care Package: | Additional Care: | |||||||
Meals: | 2 | Care Hours Included in Base Rate: | N/A | |||||
Utilities: | Water/Sewer | X | Additional Personal Care Charges | N/A | ||||
Electricity | X | |||||||
Cable TV | X | |||||||
Telephone | X | Incontinence Care: | No | |||||
Housekeeping: | Weekly | X | Dressing Assistance: | No | ||||
Activities: | Daily | X | Bathing Assistance: | No | ||||
Transportation: | Bus | X | Medication Assistance: | No | ||||
Security (Hrs): | 24 | X | Alzheimer Dementia Area: | No | ||||
Nursing Staff: | N/A | X |
Improvement Description
Year Opened | 1980 | Common Area | Lobby | X | Dining Room | X | ||||||
Construction Type | Wood Frame | Activity | X | Salon | X | |||||||
Floors | 2 | Library | X | Laundry | X | |||||||
Site Suitability | Average | |||||||||||
Construction Quality | Average | Unit Amenities | Call System | X | Fire Detectors | X | ||||||
Exterior Siding | Stucco | Pvt Bath | X | Shared Bath | No | |||||||
Roofing | Shingles | Kitchenettes | No | |||||||||
Building Area (Sq.Ft.) | N/A | |||||||||||
Condition | Average | HVAC System | Central/Wall Units | |||||||||
Effective Age (Yrs): | N/A | Covered Parki | No |
Remarks: | Pines at the Park is located approximately 10 miles north of the subject. This facility is owned and operated by Leisure Care. This is primarilly an independent living facility, but does offer assisted living services through a home health care provider. The site is suitable for senior housing development. Visibility and access is good. Adjacent development is complimentary. |
VALUATION SERVICES | 41 | ADVISORYGROUP | ||||
![]() |
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS
Senior Housing Rent No. | 4 | |
Renaissance | ||
9508 East Riggs Road | ||
Sun Lakes, AZ 85248 | ||
Property Type: | IL | |
Verification: | Marketing Director | |
480-833-2000 | ||
10/23/03 |
No. Units | Unit Types | Occupancy | ||||||
180 | Assisted Living Units | 92 | % | |||||
0 | Alzheimer Units/Beds | 0 | % | |||||
180 | Total Units/Beds | 92 | % |
Rent Schedule
Assisted Living | Unit Size | Dementia | Unit Size | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Unit Description | Monthly Rent Range | Range | Monthly Rent Range | Range | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Semi-Private | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Studio | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Studio Alcove | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
One-Bedroom | $ | 1,675 | to | $ | 1,895 | 763 | to | 763 | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Two-Bedroom | $ | 2,349 | to | $ | 2,049 | 1182 | to | 1182 | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cottage/Villa | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2nd Occupant Rent | $ | 200 | to | $ | 200 | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional Personal Care | N/A | to | N/A | — | to | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Fee | $ | 150 | to | $ | 150 |
Basic Service Care Package: | Additional Care: | |||||||
Meals: | 3 | Care Hours Included in Base Rate: | N/A | |||||
Utilities: | Water/Sewer | X | Additional Personal Care Charges | N/A | ||||
Electricity | X | |||||||
Cable TV | X | |||||||
Telephone | Incontinence Care: | No | ||||||
Housekeeping: | Weekly | X | Dressing Assistance: | No | ||||
Activities: | Daily | X | Bathing Assistance: | No | ||||
Transportation: | Bus | X | Medication Assistance: | No | ||||
Security (Hrs): | 24 | X | Alzheimer Dementia Area: | No | ||||
Nursing Staff: | CAN, RN | X |
Improvement Description
Year Opened | 1999 | Common Area | Lobby | X | Dining Room | X | ||||||
Construction Type | Wood Frame | Activity | X | Salon | X | |||||||
Floors | 3 | Library | X | Laundry | X | |||||||
Site Suitability | Good | |||||||||||
Construction Quality | Good | Unit Amenities | Call System | X | Fire Detectors | X | ||||||
Exterior Siding | Stucco | Pvt Bath | X | Shared Bath | No | |||||||
Roofing | Shingles | Kitchenettes | Yes | |||||||||
Building Area (Sq.Ft.) | N/A | |||||||||||
Condition | Good | HVAC System | Central/Wall Units | |||||||||
Effective Age (Yrs): | N/A | Covered Parki | Yes |
Remarks: | Renaissance is located approximately 6 miles south of the subject. This facility is an independent living facility only. No assisted living care is offered. Meals are alacarte at a charge of $300 per month. This amount has been added to the base rents indicated above. The site is suitable for senior housing development. Visibility and access is good. Adjacent development is complimentary. |
VALUATION SERVICES | 42 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS
RENT COMPARABLE MAP
VALUATION SERVICES | 43 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS
VALUATION SERVICES | 44 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS
Direct Comparisons
As a basis for comparing the subject’s asking rental rates to the comparables shown in the previous summary, we have classified each comparable in relation to the subject as either similar, inferior, or superior. The overall classification was based on the five primary factors (aside from pricing) used by potential residents in choosing an assisted living facility. These factors are based on our discussions with hundreds of marketing directors and administrators across the nation. The five main factors in order of importance are as follows: reputation for quality care or social status of the facility; age and condition of the building; unit sizes; amenities and planned activities; and location.
Based on our physical inspection of the comparables and the subject, discussion with local market participants, and interviews with marketing directors, we have classified the comparables as follows:
Rental No. | Comparison To Subject | |
1 2 3 4 | Similar Similar Inferior Superior |
Rental Rate Analysis
The monthly rates at Chandler Villas include three meals per day, weekly housekeeping/laundry, utilities (except for telephone), activities and scheduled transportation.
A summary of the asking or street rents for the subject, as well as the rates for the competitive properties are shown below.
One-Bedroom Units
The following chart indicates the asking rates for one-bedroom units at the subject, as well as the comparables:
One-Bedroom Units
Facility Name | Unit Size (SF) | Rental Range | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Park Regency | 456 | — | 456 | $ | 1,560 | — | $ | 2,500 | ||||||||||||||||
Merrill Gardens | 561 | — | 561 | $ | 1,875 | — | $ | 2,075 | ||||||||||||||||
Pines at the Park | 633 | — | 810 | $ | 1,465 | — | $ | 1,630 | ||||||||||||||||
Renaissance | 763 | — | 763 | $ | 1,675 | — | $ | 1,895 | ||||||||||||||||
SUBJECT | 430 | — | 680 | $ | 1,300 | — | $ | 2,240 | ||||||||||||||||
Range (Excluding Subject) | 456 | — | 810 | $ | 1,465 | — | $ | 2,500 |
The comparables indicate a range of asking rents from $1,465 to $2,500 per month, with the subject’s asking rent of $1,300 to $2,240 per month falling within the indicated range. The comparables are similar in that the rates shown are base rates with personal care charged additionally.
According to the rent roll, actual rents being paid for an one-bedroom apartment at the subject ranges from $1,000 to $2,150 with an average rate of $1,490 per month. The current average
VALUATION SERVICES | 45 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS
asking rent at the subject is $1,733 per month. Based on the subject’s historical performance as well local market conditions, a monthly rent of $1,500 per month has been used in our analysis for one-bedroom apartments.
Two-Bedroom Units
The following chart indicates the asking rates for two-bedroom units at the subject, as well as the comparables:
Two-Bedroom Units
Facility Name | Unit Size (SF) | Rental Range | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Park Regency | 950 | — | 950 | $ | 2,088 | — | $ | 2,700 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Merrill Gardens | 950 | — | 1,220 | $ | 2,400 | — | $ | 2,475 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Pines at the Park | 768 | — | 1,013 | $ | 1,730 | — | $ | 2,020 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Renaissance | 1,182 | — | 1,182 | $ | 2,349 | — | $ | 2,049 | ||||||||||||||||||||
SUBJECT | 829 | — | 900 | $ | 1,980 | — | $ | 2,500 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Range (Excluding Subject) | 768 | — | 1,220 | $ | 1,730 | — | $ | 2,700 |
The comparables indicate a range of asking rents from $1,730 to $2,700 per month, with the subject’s asking rent of $1,980 to $2,500 per month falling within the indicated range. The comparables are similar in that the rates shown are base rates with personal care charged additionally.
According to the rent roll, actual rents being paid for a two-bedroom apartment at the subject ranges from $950 to $2,300 with an average rate of $1,894 per month. The current average asking rent at the subject is $2,263 per month. Based on the subject’s historical performance as well local market conditions, a monthly rent of $1,900 per month has been used in our analysis for two-bedroom apartments.
Summary/Conclusion
The subject is one of several competing facilities in the marketplace and offers lower level assisted living under a supervisory care licensing. The subject’s occupancy level over the last several years has been inconsistent. The subject rates are generally at the lower end of the range indicated by the competition along with its sister facilities although they appear to be reflective of market rates. Concessions are not prevalent in the marketplace. The subject’s current high occupancy of 99 percent reflects its ability to continue to attract, as well as retain residents and suggests that there is a good marketplace for this type of facility and which should continue into the foreseeable future.
VALUATION SERVICES | 46 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
SITE DESCRIPTION
Location: | 101 South Yucca Street | |
Chandler, Maricopa County, Arizona 85224 | ||
The subject site is located on the south side of Yucca Street and is bordered by Commonwealth Avenue to the north and Butler Street to the south. | ||
Shape: | Irregular | |
Topography: | Level | |
Land Area: | 8.2600 gross acres (8.2600 net acres) | |
359,631 gross square feet (359,631 net square feet) | ||
Frontage, Access, Visibility: | The subject site has approximately 1,955 feet of front along the east side of Yucca Street, 327 feet of frontage along Bulter Street to the south and 250 feet of frontage along Commonwealth Avenue to the north. Access is provided via curb cuts on Yucca Street. Visibility and access is considered good. | |
Soil Conditions: | We did not receive nor review a soil report. However, we assume that the soil’s load-bearing capacity is sufficient to support existing and/or proposed structure(s). We did not observe any evidence to the contrary during our physical inspection of the property. Drainage appears to be adequate. | |
Utilities | ||
Water: | City of Chandler | |
Sewer: | City of Chandler | |
Electricity: | Salt River Project | |
Gas: | Southwest Gas Company | |
Telephone: | Mountain Bell Telephone | |
Site Improvements: | The site improvements include asphalt paved parking areas, concrete walkways, landscaping, swimming pool, spa, yard lighting, concrete block fencing and drainage. | |
Land Use Restrictions: | We were not given a title report to review. We do not know of any easements, encroachments, or restrictions that would adversely affect the site’s use. However, we recommend a title search to determine whether any adverse conditions exist. | |
Flood Map: | National Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Map 040040 2665F, effective date July 19, 2001. | |
Flood Zone: | Flood Zone X500-Areas inundated by 500-year flooding | |
Wetlands: | We were not given a Wetlands survey. If subsequent engineering data reveal the presence of regulated wetlands, it could materially affect property value. We did not note any presence of wetlands during our inspection We recommend a wetlands survey by a competent engineering firm. | |
Seismic Hazard: | The site is not located in a Special Study Zone as established by California’s Alquist-Priolo Geological Hazards Act. |
VALUATION SERVICES | 47 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
SITE DESCRIPTION
Hazardous Substances: | We observed no evidence of toxic or hazardous substances during our inspection of the site. However, we are not trained to perform technical environmental inspections and recommend the services of a professional engineer for this purpose. | |
Overall Functionality: | The subject site is functional for the current use. |
VALUATION SERVICES | 48 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIPTION
The following description of improvements is based upon our physical inspection of the improvements along with our discussions with the Executive Director. Please refer to the development plan and floor plans in the Addenda.
The facility was constructed in 1986 and contains 119,506 square feet of gross building area within 17, one- and two-story buildings. The facility contains 164 units and is licensed (supervisory care) for 164 beds. The unit mix for the development is as follows.
Chandler Villas
Ave. | ||||||||||||||||
No. | Unit | Unit | Total | |||||||||||||
Description | Units | Size | Sq. Ft. | Sq. Ft. | ||||||||||||
Assisted Living | ||||||||||||||||
Small One-Bedrooms | 35 | 430 | 430 | 15,050 | ||||||||||||
Large One-Bedrooms | 94 | 640-717 | 680 | 63,920 | ||||||||||||
Two-Bedrooms | 35 | 829-900 | 865 | 30.275 | ||||||||||||
Total Living Area/Ave. | 164 | 666 | 109,245 | |||||||||||||
Central Commons Building | 7,800 | |||||||||||||||
Recreation Area | 2,400 | |||||||||||||||
Pool/Restroom Building | 61 | |||||||||||||||
Total | 119,506 |
We note that the subject units are located in 15 one- and two-story buildings. The two-story buildings are connected by catwalks on the upper floors. Numerous stairwells and four elevators also provide access to the second floor resident units. All the units on the first floor have access to the outdoors.
The Central Commons building and Recreation building are sprinklered, however, the resident units are not sprinklered. Due to the lack of fire sprinklers in the resident units, the subject facility is licensed only for supervisory care. In order to be eligible for a personal care or assisted living license, all of the resident units would need to be sprinklered. The ownership is currently evaluating the possibility of sprinklering all buildings.
The central commons building contains the main entrance to the facility, receptionist, lobby, administrative offices, general dining room, kitchen, private dining room, beauty salon, activity room, three public restrooms, library staff lounge and card room.
The Recreation Building contains a kitchen, billiard room, storage room, activities room and public restroom.
General Description
Year Built: | 1986 | ||
Number of Buildings: | 17 | ||
Number of Stories: | One- and two | ||
Gross Building Area: | 119,506 square feet |
VALUATION SERVICES | 49 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIPTION
Number of Units: | 164 | ||||
Number of Licensed Beds: | 164 | ||||
Design and Functionality: | The building is of average quality construction. The improvements have good appeal to prospective residents. | ||||
Amenities: | Dining Room, Private Dining Room, Living Room, Library, Billiard Room, Sitting Areas, Administrative Offices, Activity Rooms, Resident Laundry, Kitchen, Beauty Salon, Library. | ||||
Construction Detail | |||||
Basic Construction: | Wood frame | ||||
Foundation: | Poured concrete slab | ||||
Framing: | Wood wall construction. | ||||
Floors: | Reinforced concrete poured over gravel. The upper floor is bridged by wood stud floor beams. | ||||
Exterior Walls: | The exterior facade of the building consists of stucco. | ||||
Roof Cover: | Wood truss roofing system covered with a composition shingle cover. | ||||
Windows: | Units have thermal windows in vinyl frames. The windows are single pane with sliders. | ||||
Mechanical Detail | |||||
Heating: | The common areas of the building is heated and cooled by common gas fired HVAC systems. All of the units have HVAC units | ||||
Plumbing: | The plumbing system is assumed to be adequate for existing use and in compliance with local law and building codes. The plumbing system is typical of other assisted living type properties in the area with a combination of copper supply lines and plastic or cast iron waste and vent lines throughout the improvements. | ||||
Electrical Service: | Electricity for the building is obtained through low voltage underground power lines. Electrical service appears adequate. | ||||
Emergency Power: | The building’s electrical system is backed by one emergency natural gas generator serving all building safety and support systems. | ||||
Elevator Service: | The buildings contain a total of four elevators. | ||||
Fire Protection: | The common and recreation buildings are fire sprinklered. The resident units, however, are not fire sprinklered. Each apartment has electric smoke detectors in compliance with local code. | ||||
Security: | Resident call systems in all of the resident living areas and bathrooms. |
VALUATION SERVICES | 50 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIPTION
Interior Detail | ||||
Layout: | The resident units are located in 15 separate buildings. The resident living units are one and two-bedroom which have kitchen. The kitchens contain a full size refrigerator, stove/oven, double sinks, countertops and cabinets. Some units also contain dishwashers. All units have baths with a sink, toilet and prefabricated shower stalls. | |||
Overall, the unit sizes and layouts are typical for assisted living. Reference is made to the unit and floor plans in the Addenda. | ||||
Floor Covering: | Carpet in the unit with sheet vinyl tile in the bathroom. | |||
Walls: | Painted and textured gypsum board. | |||
Ceilings: | Acoustical tile. | |||
Bathrooms: | Each resident unit is equipped with a full bathroom. All bathrooms consist of a walk-in shower with wall-mounted showerhead, toilet and sink and sheet vinyl floor covering, and a combination wall papered gypsum board walls. | |||
Kitchen Facilities: | All meals for the residents are prepared in a central kitchen in the Central Commons Building. Equipment includes a gas range, steel hood with fire suppression system, dishwashers, stainless steel preparation tables, walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. | |||
Site Improvements | ||||
Parking: | 111 spaces (0.68: Unit). | |||
Onsite Landscaping: | A variety of trees, shrubbery and grass. | |||
Other: | Other site improvements include paved asphalt parking areas, concrete walkways, landscaping, yard lighting, swimming pool, spa, and drainage as well as fencing. | |||
Summary | ||||
Condition: | The subject improvements are in average condition. The improvements have been well maintained and provides a good appearance relative to competing buildings within its market. We note that the improvements were renovated in 2002. | |||
We did not inspect the roof of the building or make a detailed inspection of the mechanical systems. The appraisers, however, are not qualified to render an opinion as to the adequacy or condition of these components. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field if detailed information is needed about the adequacy and condition of mechanical systems. | ||||
Quality: | The overall quality of the improvements is rated as average and is consistent with the competition in the market area. |
VALUATION SERVICES | 51 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIPTION
Layout & Functional Plan: | Average. The facility is considered to be moderately functional for its current use. There are limited common areas, while the units are considered to be comparable too most competing projects within the area. The furnishings and fixtures appear to be of average quality. The living area of the facility equates to around 91 percent of the total area. This equates to around 8 percent of the facility being designated common area. This is very different from today’s design of around 40 percent to 60 percent common area. Also, the units are not sprinklered which prohibits the facility from offering assisted living care. | |||
Year Built: | 1986 | |||
Effective Age: | 15 years | |||
Expected Economic Life: | 50 years | |||
Remaining Economic Life: | 35 years |
Americans With Disabilities Act
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992. We have not made, nor are we qualified by training to make, a specific compliance survey and analysis of this property to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the various detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey and a detailed analysis of the requirements of the ADA could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the Act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect upon the value of the property. Since we have not been provided with the results of a survey, we did not analyze the results of possible non-compliance.
Hazardous Substances
We are not aware of any potentially hazardous materials (such as formaldehyde foam insulation, asbestos insulation, radon gas emitting materials, or other potentially hazardous materials), which may have been used in the construction of the improvements. However, we are not qualified to detect such materials and urge the client to employ an expert in the field to determine if such hazardous materials are thought to exist.
VALUATION SERVICES | 52 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
REAL PROPERTY TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS
Taxes are levied against all real property in this locale for the purpose of providing funding for the various municipalities. The amount of ad valorem taxes is determined by the current assessed value for the property in conjunction with the total combined tax rate for the municipalities. The property is subject to the taxing jurisdiction of Maricopa County. The assessors’ parcel identification number is 303-23-003H.
The 2003 fiscal tax year is the most recent year for both assessed value and tax information for the subject. This data is shown below.
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT/TAX DATA
2003 | |||||
Assessor’s Market Value: | |||||
Land | $ | 719,262 | |||
Improvements | 5,427,822 | ||||
Personal Property | 10,000 | ||||
Assessor’s Market Value: | $ | 6,157,084 | |||
Equalization/Assessment Ratio | 100.00 | % | |||
Assessed Value | $ | 6,157,084 | |||
Tax Rate ($/$1,000 AV) | 11.6162 | ||||
Total Property Taxes | $ | 71,521.82 | |||
Building Area | 119,506 | ||||
Property Taxes per Square Foot | $ | 0.60 | |||
No. of Units | 164 | ||||
Property Taxes per Unit | $ | 436.11 |
The definition of market value used in this report assumes a sale of the property. If the property were sold, it would be reassessed according to the county assessor’s opinion of its market value, which is typically the sale price. The current assessment of the property of $6,157,084 is considered low based on our market value estimates determined herein.
VALUATION SERVICES | 53 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
REAL PROPERTY TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS
Assuming that the real estate new has a value of around $8,400,000 based on the Cost Approach (after deducting for any going concern value), the indicated base taxes for the facility would be approximately $100,000. The increased taxes of $100,000 rounded will be reflected in our proforma model in the Income Capitalization Approach. The above calculations are presented in the following table.
Tax Calculation
Total Hard Costs | $ | 7,031,733 | ||
Plus Land | $ | 1,400,000 | ||
Subtotal | $ | 8,431,733 | ||
Assessment Ratio | 100 | % | ||
Assessed Value | $ | 8,431,733 | ||
Tax Rate | 11.6161839 | |||
Per | $ | 1,000 | ||
R.P. Taxes | $ | 97,945 | ||
Estimated Taxes PSF | $ | 0.82 | ||
Taxes per Bed | $ | 597.22 |
VALUATION SERVICES | 54 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
ZONING
The property is zoned PAD (Planned Area Development) by the City of Chandler. The intended use of this zoning district is to provide mixed-use land development. Development densities in the PAD district are determined using the Chandler Comprehensive Plan as a guideline. The subject is a legal conforming use.
We are not experts in the interpretation of complex zoning ordinances but the property appears to be a conforming use based on our review of public information. The determination of compliance is beyond the scope of a real estate appraisal.
We know of no deed restrictions, private or public, that further limit the subject property’s use. The research required to determine whether or not such restrictions exist, however, is beyond the scope of this appraisal assignment. Deed restrictions are a legal matter and only a title examination by an attorney or title company can usually uncover such restrictive covenants. Thus, we recommend a title search to determine if any such restrictions do exist.
VALUATION SERVICES | 55 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
HIGHEST AND BEST USE
Definition Of Highest And Best Use
According toThe Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Third Edition (1993), a publication of the Appraisal Institute, the highest and best use is defined as:
The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and maximum profitability. |
Highest And Best Use Criteria
We evaluated the site’s highest and best use both as currently improved and as if vacant. In both cases, the property’s highest and best use must meet four criteria described above.
Legally Permissible
The first test concerns permitted uses. According to our understanding of the zoning ordinance, noted earlier in this report, the site may legally be improved with structures that accommodate residential and medically related uses. Aside from the site’s zoning and regulations, we are not aware of any legal restrictions that limit the potential uses of the subject.
Physically Possible
The second test is what is physically possible. As discussed in the “Property Description,” the site’s size, soil, topography, etc. do not physically limit its use. The subject site is of adequate shape and size to accommodate almost all urban land uses.
Financial Feasibility and Maximal Productivity
The third and fourth tests are, respectively, what is feasible and what will produce the highest net return. After analyzing the physically possible and legally permissible uses of the property, the highest and best use must be considered in light of financial feasibility and maximum productivity. For a potential use to be seriously considered, it must have the potential to provide a sufficient return to attract investment capital over alternative forms of investment. A positive net income or acceptable rate of return would indicate that a use is financially feasible.
As stated in theCompetitive Market Analysissection, population, income and age statistics would indicate that demand for senior living options in the subject area is considered moderate. This relates to the economic feasibility of developing a property similar to the subject. The stabilized facilities in the subject’s market area are exhibiting occupancies generally above 90 percent. As such, market conditions for senior living in the subject’s primary market area is considered adequate.
Highest and Best Use of Site As Though Vacant
Considering the subject site’s size, configuration and topography, location among other senior housing properties and state of the local senior housing market, it is our opinion that the Highest and Best Use of the subject site as though vacant is multi-family residential property developed to the highest density possible.
VALUATION SERVICES | 56 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
HIGHEST AND BEST USE
Highest and Best Use of Property As Improved
According to the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, highest and best use of the property as improved is defined as:
The use that should be made of a property as it exists. An existing property should be renovated or retained as is so long as it continues to contribute to the total market value of the property, or until the return from a new improvement would more than offset the cost of demolishing the existing building and constructing a new one. |
As discussed, an senior housing facility exists on the site. The design, layout, as well as average unit size of the facility is good and there is no functional obsolescence in the improvements. As will be demonstrated in the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Capitalization Approach, the operating characteristics of an assisted living facility represents a viable facility from a revenue-producing standpoint.
Alternative uses for the existing improvements, however, would be limited due to the overall design (smaller rooms and no individual cooking facilities). As a result, any conversion to an alternative use would be costly.
It is our opinion that the existing complex adds value to the site as if vacant, and rent levels of existing leases encumbering the subject property would dictate a continuation of the current use. As has been noted, the lack of fire sprinklers in the resident units does not allow the facility to provide assisted living care to residents. Therefore, it is our opinion that the Highest and Best Use of the subject property as improved is as it is currently utilized as a supervisory care living facility.
VALUATION SERVICES | 57 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
VALUATION PROCESS
Methodology
There are three generally accepted approaches available in developing an opinion of value: the Cost, Sales Comparison and Income Capitalization approaches. We have considered and analyzed each in this appraisal to develop an opinion of the market value of the subject property, because this is a complete appraisal. In appraisal practice, an approach to value is included or eliminated based on its applicability to the property type being valued and the quality of information available. Each approach is discussed below, and applicability to the subject property is briefly addressed in the following summary.
Land Value
Developing an opinion of land value is typically accomplished via the Sales Comparison Approach by analyzing sites of comparable utility adjusted for differences, to indicate a value for the subject parcel. Valuation is typically accomplished using a unit of comparison such as price per square foot or acre. Adjustments are applied to the units of comparison from an analysis of comparable sales, and the adjusted unit of comparison is then used to derive a total value.
The reliability of this approach is dependent upon (a) the availability of comparable sales data; (b) the verification of the sales data; (c) the degree of comparability; (d) the absence of non typical conditions affecting the sales price.
Cost Approach
The Cost Approach is based upon the proposition that an informed purchaser would pay no more for the subject than the cost to produce a substitute property with equivalent utility. This approach is particularly applicable when the property being appraised involves relatively new improvements, which represent the highest and best use of the land; or when relatively unique or specialized improvements are located on the site, for which there exist few sales or leases of comparable properties.
In the Cost Approach, the appraiser forms an opinion of the cost of all improvements, depreciating them to reflect value loss from physical, functional and external causes. Land value, entrepreneurial profit and depreciated improvement costs are then added for a total value.
Sales Comparison Approach
The Sales Comparison Approach utilizes sales of comparable properties, adjusted for differences, to indicate a value for the subject property. Valuation is typically accomplished using a unit of comparison such as price per square foot, effective gross income multiplier or net income multiplier. Adjustments are applied to the units of comparison from an analysis of comparable sales, and the adjusted unit of comparison is then used to derive a total value.
The reliability of this approach is dependent upon (a) the availability of comparable sales data; (b) the verification of the sales data; (c) the degree of comparability; (d) the absence of non typical conditions affecting the sales price.
Income Capitalization Approach
This approach first determines the income-producing capacity of a property by utilizing contract rents on leases in place and by estimating market rent from rental activity at competing properties. Deductions then are made for vacancy and collection loss and operating expenses. The resulting net operating income is capitalized at an overall capitalization rate to derive an
VALUATION SERVICES | 58 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
VALUATION PROCESS
opinion of value. The capitalization rate represents the relationship between net operating income and value.
Related to the Direct Capitalization Method is the Discounted Cash Flow Method. In this method, periodic cash flows (which consist of net operating income less capital costs) and a reversionary value are developed and discounted to a present value using an internal rate of return that is determined by analyzing current investor yield requirements for similar investments.
The reliability of the Income Capitalization Approach depends upon whether investors actively purchase the subject property type for income potential, as well as the quality and quantity of available income and expense data from comparable investments.
Summary
This appraisal employs all three typical approaches to value: the Cost Approach, the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Capitalization Approach. Based on our analysis and knowledge of the subject property type and relevant investor profiles, it is our opinion that all approaches would be considered meaningful and applicable in developing a credible value conclusion.
The valuation process is concluded by analyzing each approach to value used in the appraisal. When more than one approach is used, each approach is judged based on its applicability, reliability, and the quantity and quality of its data. A final value opinion is chosen that either corresponds to one of the approaches to value, or is a correlation of all the approaches used in the appraisal.
VALUATION SERVICES | 59 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
LAND VALUATION
We used the Sales Comparison Approach to develop an opinion of land value. In this method, we analyzed prices buyers have recently paid for similar sites in this area, as well as examined current offerings. In making comparisons, we adjusted the sale prices for differences between this site and the comparable sites. We present on the following pages a summary of pertinent details of sites recently sold that we compared to the site appraised.
In the valuation of the subject’s fee simple interest, the Sales Comparison Approach has been used to establish prices being paid for comparably zoned land. The most widely used and market oriented unit of comparison for properties with characteristics similar to those of the subject is the sale price per square foot of land area. All transactions utilized in this analysis are computed on this basis.
Real estate developers make qualitative and quantitative judgments in the acquisition of a site with development potential such as the subject property. Subjectively, a developer considers the nature of surrounding land uses and proximity to complimentary services to a potential project. Objectively, the physical and functional attributes of the site, and the cost of preparing it for construction must be calculated. Lying between these two considerations are the many aesthetic and economic factors, which come to influence the final product.
The major elements of comparison for analysis of this type include the property rights conveyed, the financial terms incorporated into a particular transaction, the conditions or motivations surrounding the sale, changes in market conditions since the sale, the location of the real estate, its utility and the physical characteristics of the property.
VALUATION SERVICES | 60 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
LAND VALUATION
LAND SALES MAP
VALUATION SERVICES | 61 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
LAND VALUATION
SUMMARY OF LAND SALES
Price | Site SqFt | Zoning | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No. | Location | Date | Site Acres | Utility* | Public Utilities | $/SqFt | COMMENTS | ||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | SWC Knox Rd & McQueen Rd. | $ | 1,094,446 | 379,408 | SF | PAD | Yes | $ | 2.88 | To hold for development of | |||||||||||||||||||
Chandler, AZ | 4/03 | 8.7100 | Ac | Good | a clusterhome community. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | SE of Octtillo & Dobson Road | $ | 1,040,000 | 147,668 | SF | PAD | Yes | $ | 7.04 | Intended use to construct | |||||||||||||||||||
Chandler, AZ | 6/03 | 3.3900 | Ac | Good | 8 single family homes. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | SW Germann Road & Comanche | $ | 364,800 | 167,445 | SF | PAD | Yes | $ | 2.18 | Hold for development. | |||||||||||||||||||
Chandler, AZ | 6/03 | 3.8440 | Ac | Good | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | NE Germann Road & Alma School Road | $ | 290,000 | 218,889 | SF | AG-1 | Yes | $ | 1.32 | Intended use unknown. Zoning | |||||||||||||||||||
Chandler, AZ | 8/02 | 5.0250 | Ac | Good | permits 1 acre minimum lot size. |
Price | Site SqFt | Zoning | Utilities | $/SqFt | |||||||||||||||||
Date | Site Acres | Utility* | |||||||||||||||||||
Survey Low | $ | 290,000 | 147,668 | SF | N/A | N/A | $ | 1.32 | |||||||||||||
Survey High | $ | 1,094,446 | 379,408 | SF | N/A | N/A | $ | 7.04 | |||||||||||||
Average | $ | 697,312 | 228,353 | SF | N/A | N/A | $ | 3.36 | |||||||||||||
Survey Low | 8/02 | 3.3900 | Ac | N/A | 0 | $ | 0 | ||||||||||||||
Survey High | 6/03 | 8.7100 | Ac | N/A | 0 | $ | 0 | ||||||||||||||
Average | 3/03 | 5.2423 | Ac | N/A | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||||||||||||||
Subject Property | 359,631 | PAD | Yes | N/A | |||||||||||||||||
8.2560 | Good | N/A |
* | Utility includes shape, access, frontage and visibility. |
VALUATION SERVICES | 62 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
LAND VALUATION
Adjustment Process
Property Rights Conveyed
All of the sales utilized in this analysis involved the transfer of the fee simple interest. No adjustments were required.
Financial Terms
To the best of our knowledge, all of the sales utilized in this analysis were accomplished with cash and/or cash and market-oriented financing. Therefore, no adjustment for financial terms is required for the comparables.
Conditions of Sale
Adjustments for conditions of sale usually reflect the motivations of the buyer and the seller. In many situations the conditions of sale may significantly affect transaction prices. However, all sales used in this analysis are considered to be “arms-length” market transactions between both knowledgeable buyers and sellers on the open market. Therefore, no adjustments for conditions of sale are required for the comparables.
Market Conditions
The sales included in this analysis date between August 20, 2002 and June 25, 2003. The market has changed over this time period. The appropriate adjustment was made to each comparable.
Location
An adjustment for location is required when the locational characteristics of a comparable property are different from those of the subject property. A senior housing location is dependent on its visibility and access, as well as proximity to transportation and support services. The subject property is considered to exhibit a good location and visibility and it has average access. We have made a negative adjustment to those comparables considered superior in location versus the subject. Conversely, a positive adjustment was made to those comparables considered inferior. Each comparable was adjusted accordingly.
Size
The size adjustment generally reflects the inverse relationship expressed between unit price and lot size. Smaller lots tend to sell for higher unit prices than larger lots, and vice versa. Hence, positive adjustments were made to larger land parcels, and negative adjustments were made to smaller land parcels. Each comparable was adjusted accordingly.
Public Utilities
All of the sales, like the subject, had full access to public utilities at the time of sale; therefore, no adjustments for this characteristic were required.
Utility
The subject property has good utility. The parcel is adequately shaped to accommodate a typical building, and it has good access, frontage and visibility. When a comparable is considered to have superior or inferior utility, an adjustment was made.
VALUATION SERVICES | 63 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
LAND VALUATION
Other
In some cases, other variables will impact the price of a transaction. Some examples would include soil or slope conditions, restrictive zoning, easements, wetlands or external influences. In our analysis of the comparables we found that no unusual conditions existed at the time of sale. As a result, no adjustments were required.
Comparable Sale No. 1
This is the April 2003 sale of a multi-family site located in Chandler, Arizona. The parcel contains 8.71 acres. At the time of sale, this comparable was considered inferior to the subject. No adjustments for property rights conveyed, financing or conditions of sale were necessary. Market conditions have not changed in the period since the sale. The comparable exhibits an inferior location to the subject. The comparable is of a similar size to the subject. The comparable has inferior utility in relation to the subject. Positive adjustments for location and utility were warranted. Negative adjustments were not warranted.
Comparable Sale No. 2
This is the June 2003 sale of a residential site located in Chandler, Arizona. The parcel contains 3.39 acres. At the time of sale, this comparable was considered superior to the subject. No adjustments for property rights conveyed, financing or conditions of sale were necessary. Market conditions have not changed in the period since the sale. The comparable exhibits a inferior location to the subject. The comparable is of a similar size to the subject. The comparable has superior utility in relation to the subject. Positive adjustments for location were warranted. Negative adjustments for utility were warranted.
Comparable Sale No. 3
This is the June 2003 sale of a residential site located in Chandler, Arizona. The parcel contains 3.844 acres. At the time of sale, this comparable was considered inferior to the subject. No adjustments for property rights conveyed, financing or conditions of sale were necessary. Market conditions have not changed in the period since the sale. The comparable exhibits an inferior location to the subject. The comparable is of a similar size to the subject. The comparable has inferior utility in relation to the subject. Positive adjustments for location and utility were warranted. Negative adjustments were not warranted.
Comparable Sale No. 4
This is the August 2002 sale of a residential site located in Chandler, Arizona. The parcel contains 5.025 acres. At the time of sale, this comparable was considered inferior to the subject. No adjustments for property rights conveyed, financing or conditions of sale were necessary. Market conditions have not changed in the period since the sale. The comparable exhibits an inferior location to the subject. The comparable is of a similar size to the subject. The comparable has inferior utility in relation to the subject. Positive adjustments for location and utility were warranted. Negative adjustments were not warranted.
VALUATION SERVICES | 64 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
LAND VALUATION
The results of our adjustments are presented on the following table.
LAND SALE ADJUSTMENT GRID
Economic Adjustments (Cumulative) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
$/SqFt | Property | Financing & | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Rights | Conditions | Exp. After | Market* | |||||||||||||||||||||
No. | Date | Conveyed | of Sale | Purchase | Conditions | Subtotal | ||||||||||||||||||
1 | $ | 2.88 | Fee Simple/Mkt. | Arms-Length | None | Similar | $ | 2.88 | ||||||||||||||||
4/03 | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | ||||||||||||||
2 | $ | 7.04 | Fee Simple/Mkt. | Arms-Length | None | Similar | $ | 7.04 | ||||||||||||||||
6/03 | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | ||||||||||||||
3 | $ | 2.18 | Fee Simple/Mkt. | Arms-Length | None | Similar | $ | 2.18 | ||||||||||||||||
6/03 | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | ||||||||||||||
4 | $ | 1.32 | Fee Simple/Mkt. | Arms-Length | None | Similar | $ | 1.32 | ||||||||||||||||
8/02 | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % |
[Additional columns below]
[Continued from above table, first column(s) repeated]
Property Characteristic Adjustments (Additive) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
$/SqFt | Public | Adj. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No. | Date | Location | Size | Utilities | Utility** | Other | $/SqFt | Overall | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | $ | 2.88 | Inferior | Similar | Similar | Inferior | Similar | $ | 3.89 | Inferior | ||||||||||||||||||||||
4/03 | 15.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 20.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 35.0 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
2 | $ | 7.04 | Inferior | Similar | Similar | Inferior | Similar | $ | 9.16 | Inferior | ||||||||||||||||||||||
6/03 | 10.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 20.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 30.0 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
3 | $ | 2.18 | Inferior | Similar | Similar | Inferior | Similar | $ | 2.94 | Inferior | ||||||||||||||||||||||
6/03 | 15.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 20.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 35.0 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
4 | $ | 1.32 | Inferior | Similar | Similar | Inferior | Similar | $ | 1.79 | Inferior | ||||||||||||||||||||||
8/02 | 15.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 20.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 35.0 | % |
** | Utility includes shape, access, frontage and visibility. |
SUMMARY | Unadjusted | Adjusted | ||||||||||
Price Range | $/SF Land | $/SF Land | ||||||||||
Low | $ | 1.32 | $ | 1.79 | ||||||||
High | $ | 7.04 | $ | 9.16 | ||||||||
Average | $ | 3.36 | $ | 4.44 |
Net Adjustment Range(Additive Property Characteristics)
Low | 30.0 | % | ||
High | 35.0 | % | ||
Average | 33.8 | % |
Summary of Sales and Opinion of Site Value
After considering the differences between each comparable and the subject, the adjusted sales price range is $1.79 to $6.34 per square foot of site area. We have elected to conclude within this range and our opinion of land value indicated by the Sales Comparison Approach is:
Sq.Ft. | ||||||||
Sq.Ft.: | 359,631 | |||||||
Opinion of Value: | X | $ | 4.00 | |||||
Indicated Land Value: | $ | 1,438,524 | ||||||
Rounded Land Value: | $ | 1,400,000 |
VALUATION SERVICES | 65 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COST APPROACH
Methodology
The Cost Approach is based on the principle of substitution, which states that no prudent person will pay more for a property than the cost of acquiring a site and constructing, without undue delay, an equally desirable and useful property. The steps have been outlined under the Valuation Process section of this report. We have previously developed an opinion of land value at $1,400,000.
Replacement Cost New (RCN)
In this section, we will estimate the replacement cost of the existing improvements. Generally, there are three methods of estimating replacement cost; 1) review of the actual/proposed costs of the subject, 2) review of construction costs of other similar type properties, and 3) estimating costs from published cost data sources. In the case of the subject, we were were not provided with actual construction costs for the improvements.
Marshall Valuation Service
As a check towards the above comparisons, we have estimated the replacement cost for the improvements from the Calculator Section in theMarshall Valuation Service,a nationally recognized publication containing construction costs for all types of improvements. Base costs in theMarshall Valuation Serviceare revised monthly and adjustment factors are provided to reflect regional and local cost variations.
Base Building Costs
The published costs include all direct costs for the base structure and tenant improvements, and the following indirect costs:
1. | Plans, specifications, and building permits, including engineer’s and architect’s fees; | |
2. | Interest on construction funds during the construction period; | |
3. | Sales taxes on materials; and | |
4. | Contractor’s overhead and profit, including worker’s compensation, fire and liability insurance, unemployment insurance, etc. |
These base building costs, adjusted for any unique building characteristics and cost multipliers, are presented in the cost summary chart following this section.
Base Construction Costs
In referencing theMarshall Valuation Servicecost manual, we have used base costs for a average quality Class D Multiple Residence – Elderly Assisted Living in Section 12/Page 16. The indicated base cost for the improvements is $ 56.84 per square. Based on the construction quality of the subject, we have concluded to a cost of $56.84 per square foot. Adjustments include $2.00 per square foot for sprinklers. Multiplier adjustments include 1.03 for current conditions, .98 for location, 1.00 for story height and .94 for perimeter.
Personal Property (Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment)
Based on theMarshall Valuation Servicecost manual, the cost of furnishings, fixtures and equipment is estimated to be $3,500 per unit/bed or $574,000 for the 164 units.
VALUATION SERVICES | 66 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COST APPROACH
Site Improvement Costs
Site improvement costs are not included in our Base Building Cost opinion. These include landscaping, asphalt paving, walkways, etc. Site improvement costs are estimated to be $719,262.
Other Indirect Costs
Other indirect costs not included in the RCN of building and site improvements are developer overhead, property taxes, permanent loan fees, legal costs, developer fees, contingencies, and lease-up and marketing costs.
Research into these costs leads to the conclusion that an average property requires an allowance for other indirect costs of between 8.00 percent and 12.00 percent of RCN of building improvements plus site improvements. We have chosen to use 10.00 percent in our analysis.
Pre-Marketing/Stabilization Costs
Total costs to bring the property into production to a stabilized occupancy level include marketing and pre-marketing expenses, operating losses incurred during fill-up, promotional and public relations expenses, marketing consultants, and professional advertising through the various media. Based upon our knowledge of these expenses for similar facilities, and discussions with marketing specialists and consultants, we estimated the total costs to bring the property into production at stabilized occupancy to be approximately $902,000 or $5,500 per unit. We note that this estimate presumes a healthy market and a competent marketing/management team.
Entrepreneurial Profit
Entrepreneurial profit represents the return to the developer for taking the construction and lease-up risk. Market conditions can influence entrepreneurial profit. Based upon our discussions with developers in the local market, this figure tends to range between 10.00 percent to 20.00 percent of total direct and indirect costs. We chose to use 15.00 percent.
VALUATION SERVICES | 67 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COST APPROACH
Accrued Depreciation
There are three sources of accrued depreciation:
Physical Deterioration: | The subject improvements were built in 1986. We have used the economic age-life method to develop an opinion of physical deterioration. In the Improvements Description section of this report, we developed an opinion that the effective age of the subject to be 15 years and the economic life to be 50 years. This results in a physical deterioration of 30.00 percent (effective age divided by economic life). The furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E). We have concluded that the effective age of the FF&E to be 10 years and the economic life to be 5 years. This results in a physical deterioration of 50.00 percent (effective age divided by economic life). | |
Functional Obsolescence: | Due to the fact that our RCN opinion considers the construction of the subject improvements utilizing modern materials and current standards, design and layout, functional obsolescence is not applicable. Therefore, functional obsolescence is zero percent. | |
External Obsolescence: | Based upon a review of the specific location of the subject as well as the local senior housing market, external obsolescence is zero percent. | |
Total Depreciation: | The sum of these elements of accrued depreciation is 30.00 percent for the improvements and 50.00 percent for the FF&E. |
Conclusion
Please refer to the following page for our Cost Approach summary that concludes to a market value opinion as follows:
VALUE | |||||
Cost Approach Conclusion | $ | 9,028,440 | |||
Rounded | $ | 9,000,000 | |||
Per Unit | $ | 54,878 |
VALUATION SERVICES | 68 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
COST APPROACH
COST APPROACH SUMMARY
Total | ||||||||||||||||||||||
REPLACEMENT COST NEW (RCN) | SqFt | $/SqFt | Total | Cost | ||||||||||||||||||
Building Base Cost | 119,506 | $ | 56.84 | $ | 6,792,721 | |||||||||||||||||
Sprinklers | 119,506 | $ | 2.00 | 239,012 | ||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal (GBA) | 119,506 | $ | 58.84 | $ | 7,031,733 | |||||||||||||||||
Subtotal of Building Costs | $ | 7,031,733 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Multipliers | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Current Cost | 1.030 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Local Area | 0.980 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Perimeter (approximate; blended) | 0.937 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Building Height | 1.000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Product of Multipliers | x 0.946 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Adjusted Base Cost | $ | 6,650,668 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Furnishings, Fixtures & Equipment FF&E | $ | 3,500 | $/Unit | $ | 574,000 | |||||||||||||||||
Total Furnishings, Fixtures & Equipment | $ | 574,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Site Improvements | $ | 2.00 | $/SqFt | $ | 719,262 | |||||||||||||||||
Total Direct Costs | $ | 7,943,930 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Plus: Indirect Costs (% of Direct Costs) | 10.0 | % | $ | 794,393 | ||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal Replacement Cost New ( RCN ) | $ | 8,738,323 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Pre-Marketing/Stabilization Costs | $ | 5,500 | $/Unit | $ | 902,000 | |||||||||||||||||
Subtotal | $ | 9,640,323 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Plus: Entrepreneurial Profit (% of RCN) | 15.0 | % | 1,446,048 | |||||||||||||||||||
Total Replacement Cost New ( RCN ) | $ | 11,086,371 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Per Square Foot | $ | 119,506.00 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Per Unit | $ | 67,600 | ||||||||||||||||||||
ACCRUED DEPRECIATION | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Physical Deterioration | Improvements | FF&E | ||||||||||||||||||||
Effective Age (Years): | 15 Years | 5 Years | ||||||||||||||||||||
Total Expected Economic Life | 50 Years | 10 Years | ||||||||||||||||||||
Total Physical Depreciation: | 30.0 | % | $ | 3,127,881 | 50.0 | % | $ | 330,050 | ||||||||||||||
Functional Obsolescence | 0.0 | % | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||
External Obsolescence | 0.0 | % | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||
Total | 30.0 | % | $ | 3,127,881 | 50.0 | % | $ | 330,050 | $ | 3,457,931 | ||||||||||||
Depreciated Value of the Improvements | $ | 7,628,440 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Per Square Foot GBA | $ | 91.16 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Per Unit | $ | 108,746 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Plus Land Value | $ | 1,400,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Indicated Value | $ | 9,028,440 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Rounded to nearest $100,000 | $ | 9,000,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Per Unit | $ | 54,878 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Per Square Foot | $ | 75.31 |
Source: Marshall Valuation Service | Section: 12 | Quality: Average | ||
Section: 16 | Class: D | |||
Date: 8/02 | Type: Multiple Residences - Elderly Assisted Living |
VALUATION SERVICES | 69 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
Methodology
In the Sales Comparison Approach, we developed an opinion of value by comparing this property with similar, recently sold properties in the surrounding or competing area. Inherent in this approach is the principle of substitution, which states that when a property is replaceable in the market, its value tends to be set at the cost of acquiring an equally desirable substitute property, assuming that no costly delay is encountered in making the substitution.
By analyzing sales that qualify as arm’s-length transactions between willing and knowledgeable buyers and sellers, we can identify value and price trends. The basic steps of this approach are:
1. | Research recent, relevant property sales and current offerings throughout the competitive area; | |
2. | Select and analyze properties that are similar to the property appraised, analyzing changes in economic conditions that may have occurred between the sale date and the date of value, and other physical, functional, or locational factors; | |
3. | Identify sales that include favorable financing and calculate the cash equivalent price; | |
4. | Reduce the sale prices to a common unit of comparison such as price per square foot, price per unit or effective gross income multiplier; | |
5. | Make appropriate comparative adjustments to the prices of the comparable properties to relate them to the property being appraised; and | |
6. | Interpret the adjusted sales data and draw a logical value conclusion. |
The most widely used and market-oriented unit of comparison for properties such as the subject is the sales price per unit basis. All comparable sales were analyzed on this basis.
On the following pages we present a summary of the improved properties that we compared to the subject property, a map showing their locations, and an adjustment grid. Detail sheets describing these sales can be found in the Addenda.
Due to the nature of the subject property and the level of detail available for the comparable data, we have elected to analyze the comparables through application of:
• | A cash flow multiplier (CFM) analysis; | |
• | An effective gross income multiplier (EGIM) analysis; | |
• | A traditional adjustment grid utilizing percentage adjustments. |
VALUATION SERVICES | 70 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
SENIOR HOUSING SALES
No .of | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sale | Year | Units | Size | Sale | Net | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No. | Facility Name/Location | Date | Built | (SF/Unit) | Occ. | (SF) | Price | Revenues | Income | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Carmel Village | 01/03 | 1986 | 189 | 97 | % | 117,666 | $ | 23,125,000 | $ | 5,450,000 | $ | 2,575,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
17077 San Mateo Street | 623 | $ | 28,836 | $ | 13,624 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fountain Valley, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Emerald Hills | 09/02 | 1999 | 89 | 100 | % | 61,677 | $ | 8,800,000 | $ | 2,475,000 | $ | 985,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
11550 Education Street | 693 | $ | 27,809 | $ | 11,067 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Auburn, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Woodmark at Summit | 02/02 | 1998 | 92 | 60 | % | 77,445 | $ | 9,500,000 | $ | 3,300,000 | $ | 1,200,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
5165 Summit Ridge Court | 842 | $ | 35,870 | $ | 13,043 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reno, NV | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Mapleridge of Laguna Creek | 01/02 | 1999 | 84 | 76 | % | 50,476 | $ | 8,055,600 | $ | 2,550,000 | $ | 850,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
6727 Laguna Park Drive | 601 | $ | 30,357 | $ | 10,119 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Elk Grove, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Atria Redding | 07/01 | 1997 | 60 | 95 | % | 44,328 | $ | 5,000,000 | $ | 1,950,000 | $ | 625,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
101 Quartz Hill Road | 739 | $ | 32,500 | $ | 10,417 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Redding, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Aegis of Napa | 06/01 | 1999 | 43 | N/A | 34,030 | $ | 7,200,000 | $ | 2,100,000 | $ | 775,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2100 Redwood Road | 791 | $ | 48,837 | $ | 18,023 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Napa, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subj. | Chandler Villas | 1986 | 164 | 93 | % | 119,506 | $ | 3,279,545 | $ | 774,367 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
101 South Yucca Street | 729 | $ | 21,502 | $ | 5,077 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chandler | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Data | Low | 1997 | 43 | 60 | % | 44,328 | $ | 5,000,000 | $ | 14,789 | $ | 10,417 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Range | High | 1999 | 96 | 100 | % | 77,445 | $ | 9,500,000 | $ | 48,547 | $ | 20,390 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mean | 1998 | 82 | 83 | % | 58,482 | $ | 7,838,900 | $ | 503,420 | $ | 162,278 |
[Additional columns below]
[Continued from above table, first column(s) repeated]
Units of Comparison | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expense | Price | Price | Cap | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
No. | Facility Name/Location | Ratio | Per Unit | Per SF | EGIM | CFM | Rate | |||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Carmel Village | 52.8 | % | $ | 122,354 | $ | 197 | 4.24 | 8.98 | 11.14 | % | |||||||||||||||||
17077 San Mateo Street | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fountain Valley, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Emerald Hills | 60.2 | % | $ | 98,876 | $ | 143 | 3.56 | 8.93 | 11.19 | % | |||||||||||||||||
11550 Education Street | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Auburn, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Woodmark at Summit | 63.6 | % | $ | 103,261 | $ | 123 | 2.88 | 7.92 | 12.63 | % | |||||||||||||||||
5165 Summit Ridge Court | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reno, NV | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Mapleridge of Laguna Creek | 66.7 | % | $ | 95,900 | $ | 160 | 3.16 | 9.48 | 10.55 | % | |||||||||||||||||
6727 Laguna Park Drive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Elk Grove, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Atria Redding | 67.9 | % | $ | 83,333 | $ | 113 | 2.56 | 8.00 | 12.50 | % | |||||||||||||||||
101 Quartz Hill Road | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Redding, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Aegis of Napa | 63.1 | % | $ | 167,442 | $ | 212 | 3.43 | 9.29 | 10.76 | % | |||||||||||||||||
2100 Redwood Road | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Napa, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subj. | Chandler Villas | 76.4 | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
101 South Yucca Street | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chandler | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Data | Low | 63.6 | % | $ | 83,333 | $ | 113 | 2.56 | 7.92 | 10.55 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Range | High | 67.9 | % | $ | 103,261 | $ | 160 | 3.56 | 9.48 | 12.63 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Mean | 62.8 | % | $ | 95,343 | $ | 134 | 3.04 | 8.58 | 11.72 | % |
VALUATION SERVICES | 71 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
IMPROVED SALES COMPARABLE MAP
VALUATION SERVICES | 72 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
Cash Flow Multiplier
The cash flow multiple (CFM) is considered a reliable indicator of value. This is because the CFM considers both the income and the expenses of a facility, whereas the EGIM and the price per unit do not. The CFMs of the comparables range from 7.92x to 9.48x cash flow, with an average of 8.66x. The properties are newer facilities in good condition. The financial indicators are all based on stabilized operating levels.
The subject is an senior housing facility of average quality that is located in a good senior demographic market area in Arizona. We note that the forecast subject expense ratio, inclusive of management fees and replacement reserves, is 76.39 percent, which falls at the upper portion of the range of the comparables. In addition, the subject’s cash flow is low relative to the comparables. We have utilized a cash flow multiplier in the middle portion of the range of 8.50x, which when applied to the subject’s projected stabilized cash flow (net operating income) arrives at a market value for the subject as follows:
Subject | Indicated | |||||||||||||||
Range | CFM | NOI | Value | $/Unit | ||||||||||||
Low | 7.92 | $ | 774,367 | $ | 6,130,408 | $ | 37,381 | |||||||||
High | 9.48 | $ | 774,367 | $ | 7,338,816 | $ | 44,749 | |||||||||
Median | 8.93 | $ | 774,367 | $ | 6,918,206 | $ | 42,184 | |||||||||
Average | 8.66 | $ | 774,367 | $ | 6,707,328 | $ | 40,898 |
CONCLUSIONS
Indicated CFM | 8.50 | ||||||||
Net Operating Income | x $ | 774,367 | |||||||
Indicated Stabilized Value | $ | 6,582,122 | |||||||
Rounded to nearest $100,000 | $ | 6,600,000 | |||||||
Per Unit | $ | 40,244 | |||||||
Per Square Foot | $ | 55.23 |
Therefore, the indicated value for the subject the CFM analysis is$6,600,000.
Effective Gross Income Multiplier
The effective gross income multiplier serves as an indicator of market value as expressed by the relationship between the sales price of a property and its effective gross income. This unit of comparison is commonly utilized by participants active in the real estate market. A significant strength of this analytical technique is that it represents a direct factor of income as reflected by the market and, therefore, requires no adjustment. Furthermore, the effective gross income is more easily verified and more reliable than net operating income since the figure is not distorted by management fees, capital costs or accounting conventions.
The effective gross income multipliers for the comparable sales indicate a range of 2.56x to 4.24x effective gross income with an average of 3.28x. InThe Senior Care Acquisition Report, 2003, published by Irving Levin Associates, EGIMs for 2002 were analyzed. In general, the average EGIM for assisted living facilities in 2002 was 2.4x. This represented a strong decline over the EGIM of 3.2x reported in 2001. The decline was reported as being reflective of the excessive development in the 1990s, as well as several corporate bankruptcies during 2001.
VALUATION SERVICES | 73 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
Furthermore, our findings are that multipliers decline as the age of the facility increases. We have utilized an EGIM of 2.25x for the subject, which falls at the lower portion of the range for the comparables. This rate is considered reasonable for the subject given the subject’s projected expense ratio. This is applied to the subject’s projected effective gross income as follows:
Subject | Indicated | |||||||||||||||
Range | EGIM | EGI | Value | $/Unit | ||||||||||||
Low | 2.56 | $ | 3,279,545 | $ | 8,409,089 | $ | 51,275 | |||||||||
High | 4.24 | $ | 3,279,545 | $ | 13,915,499 | $ | 84,851 | |||||||||
Median | 3.16 | $ | 3,279,545 | $ | 10,360,274 | $ | 63,172 | |||||||||
Average | 3.28 | $ | 3,279,545 | $ | 10,757,316 | $ | 65,593 |
CONCLUSIONS
Indicated EGIM | 2.25 | ||||||||
Effective Gross Income | x $ | 3,279,545 | |||||||
Indicated Stabilized Value | $ | 7,378,975 | |||||||
Rounded to nearest $100,000 | $ | 7,400,000 | |||||||
Per Unit | $ | 45,122 | |||||||
Per Square Foot | $ | 61.92 |
Therefore, the indicated value for the subject by the EGIM analysis is$7,400,000.
Price Per Unit
The price per unit is the most frequently quoted unit of comparison. This is despite the fact he fact that the calculation ignores variations in rates or operating margins and, therefore, is indifferent to the income generating potential of an investment property. Nonetheless, the price per unit provides some indication of prices. Although our income estimates maybe based on a per resident basis due to the possible inclusion of shared units, the basis of the comparables has been analyzed on a per unit situation. We believe that comparing the subject on a per unit basis is the most reasonable method and would not provide a misleading value estimate for the property.
The following is a discussion of the sales that have been compared with the subject. Again, the sales have been analyzed on a price per unit basis with all necessary adjustments. Reference is made to sales summary shown previously.
Percentage Adjustment Method
Adjustment Process
The sales that we have utilized represent the best available information that could be compared to the subject property. The major elements of comparison for an analysis of this type include the property rights conveyed, the financial terms incorporated into a particular transaction, the conditions or motivations surrounding the sale, changes in market conditions since the sale, the location of the real estate, its physical traits and the economic characteristics of the property.
The first adjustment made to the market data takes into account differences between the subject property and the comparable property sales with regard to the legal interest transferred.
VALUATION SERVICES | 74 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
Advantageous financing terms or peculiar conditions of sale are then adjusted to reflect a normal market transaction. Next, changes in market condition must be accounted for, thereby creating a time adjusted normal unit of comparison. Lastly, adjustments for location, the physical traits and the economic characteristics of the market data are made in order to generate the final adjusted unit rate, which is appropriate for the subject property.
Property Rights Conveyed
All of the sales utilized in this analysis involved the transfer of the fee simple interest. Since we are appraising the fee simple interest of the subject property, no adjustments were required.
Financial Terms
To the best of our knowledge, all of the sales utilized in this analysis were accomplished with cash and/or cash and market-oriented financing. Therefore, no adjustment for financial terms is required for the comparables.
Conditions of Sale
Adjustments for conditions of sale usually reflect the motivations of the buyer and the seller. In many situations the conditions of sale may significantly affect transaction prices. However, all sales used in this analysis are considered to be “arms-length” market transactions between both knowledgeable buyers and sellers on the open market. Therefore, no adjustments for conditions of sale are required for the comparables.
Market Conditions
The sales included in this analysis date between January 1, 2002 and January 1, 2003. The market has not changed over this time period. The appropriate adjustment was made to each comparable.
Location
An adjustment for location is required when the locational characteristics of a comparable property are different from those of the subject property. The subject property is considered to exhibit good location and has good access and visibility. We have made a negative adjustment to those comparables considered superior in location versus the subject. Conversely, a positive adjustment was made to those comparables considered inferior. Each comparable was adjusted accordingly.
Physical Traits
Various physical factors were analyzed including size, age, condition, quality, amenities, unit mix, utility, etc. When an item was determined to be inferior to the subject, a positive adjustment was applied. When an item was determined to be superior to the subject, a negative adjustment was applied.
Economic Characteristics
This adjustment is used to reflect differences in rent levels, operating expense ratios, occupancy levels, and other items that would have an economic impact on the transaction. Each comparable was adjusted accordingly.
VALUATION SERVICES | 75 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
Discussion of Comparable Sales
In our analysis of the market for comparable assisted living type properties, we have compared the subject to assisted living properties from throughout the regional area. We note that although the subject is licensed only for supervisory care, the best comparisons are believed to be assisted living facilities. These are discussed below.
Comparable Sale No. 1
At the time of sale, this comparable was considered superior to the subject. No adjustments for property rights conveyed, financing or conditions of sale were necessary. Market conditions have have not changed in the period since the sale. The comparable is of a similar age and condition to the subject. Revenue characteristics were superior. Negative adjustments were made to the revenue characteristics.
Comparable Sale No. 2
At the time of sale, this comparable was considered superior to the subject. No adjustments for property rights conveyed, financing or conditions of sale were necessary. Market conditions have have not changed in the period since the sale. The comparable is of a superior age and condition to the subject. Revenue characteristics were superior. Negative adjustments were made to the revenue characteristics.
Comparable Sale No.
At the time of sale, this comparable was considered superior to the subject. No adjustments for property rights conveyed, financing or conditions of sale were necessary. Market conditions have have not changed in the period since the sale. The comparable is of a superior age and condition to the subject. Revenue characteristics were superior. Negative adjustments were made to the revenue characteristics.
Comparable Sale No. 4
At the time of sale, this comparable was considered superior to the subject. No adjustments for property rights conveyed, financing or conditions of sale were necessary. Market conditions have have not changed in the period since the sale. The comparable is of a superior age and condition to the subject. Revenue characteristics were superior. Negative adjustments were made to the revenue characteristics.
Comparable Sale No. 5
At the time of sale, this comparable was considered superior to the subject. No adjustments for property rights conveyed, financing or conditions of sale were necessary. Market conditions have have not changed in the period since the sale. The comparable is of a superior age and condition to the subject. Revenue characteristics were superior. Negative adjustments were made to the revenue characteristics.
Comparable Sale No. 6
At the time of sale, this comparable was considered superior to the subject. No adjustments for property rights conveyed, financing or conditions of sale were necessary. Market conditions have have not changed in the period since the sale. The comparable is of a superior age and condition to the subject. Revenue characteristics were superior. Negative adjustments were made to the revenue characteristics.
VALUATION SERVICES | 76 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
A summary of our adjustments is shown in the following table.
IMPROVED COMPARABLE SALE ADJUSTMENT GRID
Comp. | Sale | Year | No .of | Price/ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No. | Facility/Location | Date | Built | Units | Occup. | SF/Unit | Unit | Time | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Carmel Village | 01/03 | 1986 | 189 | 97 | % | 623 | $ | 122,354 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Fountain Valley, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Emerald Hills | 09/02 | 1999 | 89 | 0.6 | 693 | $ | 98,876 | 1.00 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Auburn, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Woodmark at Summit | 02/02 | 1998 | 92 | 0.76 | 842 | $ | 103,261 | 1.00 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Reno, NV | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Mapleridge of Laguna Creek | 01/02 | 1999 | 84 | 76 | % | 601 | $ | 95,900 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Elk Grove, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Atria Redding | 07/01 | 1997 | 60 | 95 | % | 739 | $ | 83,333 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Redding, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Aegis of Napa | 06/01 | 1999 | 43 | N/A | 791 | $ | 167,442 | 1.00 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Napa, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subj. | Chandler Villas | 1986 | 164 | 93 | % | 588 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chandler | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Averages | 1996 | 93 | 81 | % | 715 | $ | 111,861 |
[Additional columns below]
Building | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comp. | Time | Unit Size/ | Income | Total | Adjusted | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No. | Facility/Location | Adjusted | Age/Design | Character | Occ. | Location | Adjust. | Price / Unit | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Carmel Village | $ | 122,354 | 0 | % | -63 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | -63 | % | $ | 45,596 | |||||||||||||||||
Fountain Valley, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Emerald Hills | $ | 98,876 | 0 | % | -54 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | -54 | % | $ | 45,359 | |||||||||||||||||
Auburn, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Woodmark at Summit | $ | 103,261 | 0 | % | -61 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | -61 | % | $ | 40,194 | |||||||||||||||||
Reno, NV | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Mapleridge of Laguna Creek | $ | 95,900 | 0 | % | -50 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | -50 | % | $ | 48,117 | |||||||||||||||||
Elk Grove, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Atria Redding | $ | 83,333 | 0 | % | -51 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | -51 | % | $ | 40,617 | |||||||||||||||||
Redding, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Aegis of Napa | $ | 167,442 | 0 | % | -72 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | -72 | % | $ | 47,168 | |||||||||||||||||
Napa, CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subj. | Chandler Villas | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chandler | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Averages | $ | 44,509 |
Summary of Price Per Unit Analysis
After adjusting each comparable sale for differences with the subject property, the adjusted sale price range is $40,194 to $48,117 per unit. Based on the data, we believe that due to the subject’s level of construction quality, resident targeting and location, a price per unit towards the lower portion of the adjusted range is warranted. From this, we have correlated to a price of $42,000 per unit.
Price Per Unit Conclusion
Number of Units | Price Per Unit | Indicated Value | ||||||||||||||
164 | X | $ | 42,000 | = | $ | 6,888,000 | ||||||||||
Rounded To: | $ | 6,900,000 |
The Sales Comparison Approach results in a range of values for the subject property of $6,600,000 to $7,400,000. This value range equates to a price per square foot of building area of $55.23 to $61.92, which is at the lower end of the range of the unadjusted comparables, yet is considered reasonable based on the economic and physical characteristics of the subject.
Based on our analysis of competitive transactions, we conclude that the indicated value by the Sales Comparison Approach on October 23, 2003 was:
Units | Indicated Value | |||
164 | $6,800,000 |
VALUATION SERVICES | 77 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
Methodology
The Income Capitalization Approach is a method of converting the anticipated economic benefits of owning property into a value through the capitalization process. The principle of “anticipation” underlies this approach in that investors recognize the relationship between an asset’s income and its value. In order to value the anticipated economic benefits of a particular property, potential income and expenses must be projected, and the most appropriate capitalization method must be selected.
The two most common methods of converting net income into value are Direct Capitalization and Discounted Cash Flow. In direct capitalization, net operating income is divided by an overall capitalization rate to indicate an opinion of market value. In the discounted cash flow method, anticipated future cash flows and a reversionary value are discounted to an opinion of net present value at a chosen yield rate (internal rate of return).
In our opinion, the direct capitalization analysis method is most appropriate method to value the subject property.
Historical Financial Performance of the Subject Property
The subject is an existing supervisory care facility. We were provided with financial statements for 2000, 2001, 2002, and year-to-date 2003. The financial statements have been summarized on a following chart.
Potential Gross Income
There is only one type of payment source at the subject for services; private pay residents. This type of payor is generally considered the most desirable since private pay rates allow for greater profitability than any fixed government rate plans. Therefore, revenue for the subject is received from the monthly rentals of the living units, as well as from other sources such as second person (double occupancy) fees, move-in or processing fees, as well as other miscellaneous revenue.
VALUATION SERVICES | 78 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
Chandler Villas
INCOME AND OPERATING EXPENSE SUMMARY
2000 | 2001 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(January - December) | (January - December) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amount | $/Resident | PRD | % of EGI | Amount | $/Resident | PRD | % of EGI | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
REVENUES | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rental Income | $ | 2,459,909 | $ | 15,400 | $ | 42.19 | 91.02 | % | $ | 2,580,923 | $ | 16,444 | $ | 45.05 | 88.64 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Additional Personal Care | $ | 177,552 | $ | 1,112 | $ | 3.05 | 6.57 | % | $ | 236,367 | $ | 1,506 | $ | 4.13 | 8.12 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Second Occupant | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | 0.00 | % | $ | — | $ | — | 0.00 | % | |||||||||||||||||||
New Resident Fees | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | 0.00 | % | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | 0.00 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Other Income | $ | 65,220 | $ | 408 | $ | 1.12 | 2.41 | % | $ | 94,339 | $ | 601 | $ | 1.65 | 3.24 | % | |||||||||||||||||
GROSS POTENTIAL REV. | $ | 2,702,681 | $ | 16,920 | $ | 46.36 | 100.00 | % | $ | 2,911,629 | $ | 18,552 | $ | 50.83 | 100.00 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Vacancy/Collection Loss | Inc. Above | Inc. Above | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TOTAL NET REVENUE | $ | 2,702,681 | $ | 16,920 | $ | 46.36 | 100.00 | % | $ | 2,911,629 | $ | 18,552 | $ | 50.83 | 100.00 | % | |||||||||||||||||
OPERATING EXPENSES | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Departmental | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General/Administrative | $ | 146,136 | $ | 915 | $ | 2.51 | 5.41 | % | $ | 289,824 | $ | 1,847 | $ | 5.06 | 9.95 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Payroll (Wages) | $ | 918,082 | $ | 5,747 | $ | 15.75 | 33.97 | % | $ | 1,092,035 | $ | 6,958 | $ | 19.06 | 37.51 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Payroll Taxes & Benefits | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | 0.00 | % | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | 0.00 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Resident Care | $ | 2,192 | $ | 14 | $ | 0.04 | 0.08 | % | $ | 1,749 | $ | 11 | $ | 0.03 | 0.06 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Food Services | $ | 185,144 | $ | 1,159 | $ | 3.18 | 6.85 | % | $ | 246,308 | $ | 1,569 | $ | 4.30 | 8.46 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Activities | $ | 17,197 | $ | 108 | $ | 0.29 | 0.64 | % | $ | 15,581 | $ | 99 | $ | 0.27 | 0.54 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Housekeeping/Laundry | $ | 15,700 | $ | 98 | $ | 0.27 | 0.58 | % | $ | 17,069 | $ | 109 | $ | 0.30 | 0.59 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Plant Operations | $ | 171,166 | $ | 1,072 | $ | 2.94 | 6.33 | % | $ | 178,167 | $ | 1,135 | $ | 3.11 | 6.12 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Utilities | $ | 214,790 | $ | 1,345 | $ | 3.68 | 7.95 | % | $ | 210,210 | $ | 1,339 | $ | 3.67 | 7.22 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Marketing/Promotions | $ | 30,565 | $ | 191 | $ | 0.52 | 1.13 | % | $ | 30,354 | $ | 193 | $ | 0.53 | 1.04 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Non-Departmental | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Real Estate Taxes | $ | 63,402 | $ | 397 | $ | 1.09 | 2.35 | % | $ | 67,351 | $ | 429 | $ | 1.18 | 2.31 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Insurance | $ | 18,617 | $ | 117 | $ | 0.32 | 0.69 | % | $ | 45,245 | $ | 288 | $ | 0.79 | 1.55 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Management Fees (5% of EGI) | $ | 135,134 | $ | 846 | $ | 2.32 | 5.00 | % | $ | 145,581 | $ | 928 | $ | 2.54 | 5.00 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Replacement Reserves ($/Unit) | $ | 49,200 | $ | 308 | $ | 0.84 | 1.82 | % | $ | 49,200 | $ | 313 | $ | 0.86 | 1.69 | % | |||||||||||||||||
TOTAL ALL EXPENSES | $ | 1,967,325 | $ | 12,316 | $ | 33.74 | 72.79 | % | $ | 2,388,674 | $ | 15,220 | $ | 41.70 | 82.04 | % | |||||||||||||||||
EXPENSE RATIO | 72.8 | % | 82.0 | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NET OPERATING INCOME | $ | 735,356 | $ | 4,604 | $ | 12.61 | 27.21 | % | $ | 522,955 | $ | 3,332 | $ | 9.13 | 17.96 | % | |||||||||||||||||
OCCUPANCY | 97.4 | % | 95.7 | % |
[Additional columns below]
[Continued from above table, first column(s) repeated]
2002 | Annualized 2003 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(January - December) | (January - August) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amount | $/Resident | PRD | % of EGI | Amount | $/Resident | PRD | % of EGI | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
REVENUES | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rental Income | $ | 2,738,357 | $ | 18,824 | $ | 51.57 | 93.84 | % | $ | 2,979,075 | $ | 19,366 | $ | 53.06 | 94.89 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Additional Personal Care | $ | 124,292 | $ | 854 | $ | 2.34 | 4.26 | % | $ | 102,903 | $ | 669 | $ | 1.83 | 3.28 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Second Occupant | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | 0.00 | % | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | 0.00 | % | |||||||||||||||||
New Resident Fees | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | 0.00 | % | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | 0.00 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Other Income | $ | 55,476 | $ | 381 | $ | 1.04 | 1.90 | % | $ | 57,399 | $ | 373 | $ | 1.02 | 1.83 | % | |||||||||||||||||
GROSS POTENTIAL REV. | $ | 2,918,125 | $ | 20,060 | $ | 54.96 | 100.00 | % | $ | 3,139,377 | $ | 20,408 | $ | 55.91 | 100.00 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Vacancy/Collection Loss | Inc. Above | Inc. Above | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TOTAL NET REVENUE | $ | 2,918,125 | $ | 20,060 | $ | 54.96 | 100.00 | % | $ | 3,139,377 | $ | 20,408 | $ | 55.91 | 100.00 | % | |||||||||||||||||
OPERATING EXPENSES | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Departmental | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General/Administrative | $ | 129,621 | $ | 891 | $ | 2.44 | 4.44 | % | $ | 138,494 | $ | 900 | $ | 2.47 | 4.41 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Payroll (Wages) | $ | 1,041,218 | $ | 7,158 | $ | 19.61 | 35.68 | % | $ | 1,050,291 | $ | 6,828 | $ | 18.71 | 33.46 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Payroll Taxes & Benefits | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | 0.00 | % | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | 0.00 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Resident Care | $ | 1,175 | $ | 8 | $ | 0.02 | 0.04 | % | $ | 227 | $ | 1 | $ | 0.00 | 0.01 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Food Services | $ | 219,184 | $ | 1,507 | $ | 4.13 | 7.51 | % | $ | 287,192 | $ | 1,867 | $ | 5.11 | 9.15 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Activities | $ | 15,447 | $ | 106 | $ | 0.29 | 0.53 | % | $ | 14,754 | $ | 96 | $ | 0.26 | 0.47 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Housekeeping/Laundry | $ | 16,133 | $ | 111 | $ | 0.30 | 0.55 | % | $ | 18,258 | $ | 119 | $ | 0.33 | 0.58 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Plant Operations | $ | 192,509 | $ | 1,323 | $ | 3.63 | 6.60 | % | $ | 184,422 | $ | 1,199 | $ | 3.28 | 5.87 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Utilities | $ | 216,731 | $ | 1,490 | $ | 4.08 | 7.43 | % | $ | 221,082 | $ | 1,437 | $ | 3.94 | 7.04 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Marketing/Promotions | $ | 36,921 | $ | 254 | $ | 0.70 | 1.27 | % | $ | 32,765 | $ | 213 | $ | 0.58 | 1.04 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Non-Departmental | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Real Estate Taxes | $ | 70,112 | $ | 482 | $ | 1.32 | 2.40 | % | $ | 82,508 | $ | 536 | $ | 1.47 | 2.63 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Insurance | $ | 84,452 | $ | 581 | $ | 1.59 | 2.89 | % | $ | 78,885 | $ | 513 | $ | 1.40 | 2.51 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Management Fees (5% of EGI) | $ | 145,906 | $ | 1,003 | $ | 2.75 | 5.00 | % | $ | 156,969 | $ | 1,020 | $ | 2.80 | 5.00 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Replacement Reserves ($/Unit) | $ | 49,200 | $ | 338 | $ | 0.93 | 1.69 | % | $ | 49,200 | $ | 320 | $ | 0.88 | 1.57 | % | |||||||||||||||||
TOTAL ALL EXPENSES | $ | 2,218,609 | $ | 15,252 | $ | 41.79 | 76.03 | % | $ | 2,315,044 | $ | 15,049 | $ | 41.23 | 73.74 | % | |||||||||||||||||
EXPENSE RATIO | 76.0 | % | 73.7 | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NET OPERATING INCOME | $ | 699,516 | $ | 4,809 | $ | 13.17 | 23.97 | % | $ | 824,333 | $ | 5,359 | $ | 14.68 | 26.26 | % | |||||||||||||||||
OCCUPANCY | 88.7 | % | 93.8 | % |
[Additional columns below]
[Continued from above table, first column(s) repeated]
C&W Forecast | |||||||||||||
Stabilized Year | |||||||||||||
Amount | $/Resident | PRD | |||||||||||
REVENUES | |||||||||||||
Rental Income | $ | 3,316,800 | $ | 20,224 | $ | 56.93 | |||||||
Additional Personal Care | $ | 125,952 | $ | 768 | $ | 2.16 | |||||||
Second Occupant | $ | 59,040 | $ | 360 | $ | 1.01 | |||||||
New Resident Fees | $ | 24,600 | $ | 150 | $ | 0.42 | |||||||
Other Income | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | |||||||
GROSS POTENTIAL REV. | $ | 3,526,392 | $ | 21,502 | $ | 62.80 | |||||||
Vacancy/Collection Loss | $ | (246,847 | ) | ||||||||||
TOTAL NET REVENUE | $ | 3,279,545 | $ | 20,547 | $ | 56.29 | |||||||
OPERATING EXPENSES | |||||||||||||
Departmental | |||||||||||||
General/Administrative | $ | 145,000 | $ | 908 | $ | 2.49 | |||||||
Payroll (Wages) | $ | 1,150,000 | $ | 7,205 | $ | 19.74 | |||||||
Payroll Taxes & Benefits | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | |||||||
Resident Care | $ | 10,000 | $ | 63 | $ | 0.17 | |||||||
Food Services | $ | 280,000 | $ | 1,754 | $ | 4.81 | |||||||
Activities | $ | 17,000 | $ | 107 | $ | 0.29 | |||||||
Housekeeping/Laundry | $ | 20,000 | $ | 125 | $ | 0.34 | |||||||
Plant Operations | $ | 200,000 | $ | 1,253 | $ | 3.43 | |||||||
Utilities | $ | 230,000 | $ | 1,441 | $ | 3.95 | |||||||
Marketing/Promotions | $ | 40,000 | $ | 251 | $ | 0.69 | |||||||
Non-Departmental | |||||||||||||
Real Estate Taxes | $ | 100,000 | $ | 627 | $ | 1.72 | |||||||
Insurance | $ | 100,000 | $ | 627 | $ | 1.72 | |||||||
Management Fees (5% of EGI) | $ | 163,977 | $ | 1,027 | $ | 2.81 | |||||||
Replacement Reserves ($/Unit) | $ | 49,200 | $ | 308 | $ | 0.84 | |||||||
TOTAL ALL EXPENSES | $ | 2,505,177 | $ | 15,695 | $ | 43.00 | |||||||
EXPENSE RATIO | 76.4 | % | |||||||||||
NET OPERATING INCOME | $ | 774,367 | $ | 4,852 | $ | 13.29 | |||||||
OCCUPANCY | 93.0 | % |
VALUATION SERVICES | 79 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
Assisted Living Rate Analysis
The subject contains 164 one and two-bedroom units. The facility is of average quality construction with the units located in 15 buildings. The following is a description of the types of accommodations that are available at the subject.
All of the units feature private bathrooms, kitchens and adequate closet areas. All of the residents are provided with three daily meals, weekly housekeeping, utilities (except telephone), activities, and scheduled transportation included in their monthly rent.
The subject’s actual rental rates (rent roll) were tested for reasonableness against similar facilities in the subject’s market area. In the Competitive Market Analysis section, we identified several existing facilities considered to provide competition for the subject. Data sheets were provided in the Competitive Market Analysis section presented previously. The complexes we surveyed are all considered comparable given that they all provide independent and assisted living/supervisory units. We note that the facilities are all adequately maintained and they all have a similar amenity package. All of the competing facilities have been discussed in detail in the Competitive Market Analysis section of the report.
The table below summarizes the subject’s unit types and the actual and asking monthly rents.
Chandler Villas
In House Rents | Asking Rents | |||||||||||||||||||||||
No. | Occ. | Monthly | $/Unit | Monthly | $/Unit | |||||||||||||||||||
Unit | Units | Units | Revenue | Per Mo. | Revenue | Per Mo. | ||||||||||||||||||
Assisted Living | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
One-Bedrooms | 129 | 127 | $ | 189,230 | $ | 1,490 | $ | 223,570 | $ | 1,733 | ||||||||||||||
Two-Bedrooms | 35 | 35 | $ | 66,285 | $ | 1,894 | $ | 76,925 | $ | 2,263 | ||||||||||||||
Totals | 164 | 162 | $ | 255,515 | $ | 1,577 | $ | 300,495 | $ | 1,832 |
The current in-house average rates generally falls below the asking rates at the subject. This is because the rents of the existing tenants have not increased as rapidly as the asking rates. Overall, the average actual rate is $1,577 per month, which is approximately 16 percent below the average asking rate of $1,832. In the Competitive Market Analysis section of this report, we concluded on a market rate of $1,500 per month for the one-bedroom units and $1,900 per month for the two-bedroom apartments and which equates to an average rate of $1,685 per month. Therefore, we believe that only a slight increase for the in-house rates is warranted due to the competitive market conditions.
VALUATION SERVICES | 80 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
Base Rental Rates
The following chart details our reconciled base rental rates for all unit types at the subject. These rates were concluded to in the Competitive Market Analysis section of the report.
Chandler Villas
Reconciled Market Rental Rates
Resident | No. | Market | ||||||||||
Unit Type | Type | Units | Rent | |||||||||
One-Bedroom | AL | 129 | $ | 1,500 | ||||||||
Two-Bedroom | AL | 35 | $ | 1,900 | ||||||||
Totals | 164 |
Other Revenues
In addition to room revenues, the subject receives additional income from additional personal care, new resident fees (entrance fees), second person fees, as well as miscellaneous revenue from such items as barber/beauty income, laundry services, cable TV revenue, meal and guest fees, food catering, health supplies, parking, etc.
Additional Personal Care
This relates to the additional costs for personal care to those residents who require additional care. The historical, current and forecast revenue from this source is shown below.
Year | Total | $/Resident | PRD | ||||||||||
2000 | $ | 177,552 | $ | 1,112 | $ | 3.05 | |||||||
2001 | $ | 236,367 | $ | 1,506 | $ | 4.13 | |||||||
2002 | $ | 124,292 | $ | 854 | $ | 2.34 | |||||||
Annualized 2003 | $ | 102,903 | $ | 669 | $ | 1.83 | |||||||
C&W Forecast | $ | 125,952 | $ | 768 | $ | 2.16 |
According to the rent roll, additional care revenue resulted in $10,775 per month. Review of the rent roll showed that approximately 40 percent of the existing residents were receiving some type of additional personal care services. This equated to an average charge of approximately $165.00 per month. Assuming similar acuity going into the future, we have forecast that 40 percent of the resident mix will pay an average of $160 per month for personal care services. This equates to Year 1 revenue of $125,952, which is consistent with the recent pattern at the subject.
New Resident Fees
The historical revenue data for the subject did not include any line item breakdown for this category. New resident fees at the subject are $1,800 per resident, which is at the upper end of
VALUATION SERVICES | 81 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
the range indicated by the comparables ($1,000 to $1,800). This amount is considered high in relationship to its market rates. The executive director indicated that a comment fee of $500 is typical.
The typical turnover in a assisted living facility is between 20 and 28 months with a midrange of two years. This is equivalent to 35 to 50 percent of the census turning over each year. For the subject, we are estimating that 30 percent of the residents will pay entry or new resident fees of $500. Based on the data, we have forecast Year 1 new resident fees at $24,600.
Second Person Fees
The subject charges a fee of $600 per month for a double occupant in the same unit. This would be applicable to a spouse or sibling. The historical revenue data for the subject did not include any line item breakdown for this category. At the time of inspection, there were 7 double occupancies at the subject. We have forecast Year 1 second person occupancy of 5 percent to the residents at $600 per month. This equates to $59,040 on an annual basis.
Other Income
The historical revenue for Other Income includes Second Person Fees and New Resident Fees as well as revenue received from the subject’s barber/beauty income, cable TV revenue, meal and guest fees. No revenue has been attributed to this category as the revenue was considered in the categories above.
Concessions/Rental Allowances
At the time of inspection, the subject was not offering any rent concessions other than a reduction in the new resident fee if necessary. Although concessions will not likely be seen consistently in the market going forward, newer product will likely use them to stimulate any unforeseen vacancies, while older properties may use concessions more frequently. Nonetheless, no allowance for rent concessions will be applied to the subject as we have accounted for this potential through a lower occupancy rate and rental rate forecast.
Vacancy and Collection Loss
Both the investor and the appraiser are primarily interested in the annual revenue an income property is likely to produce over a specified period of time, rather than the income it could produce if it were always 100 percent occupied and all tenants were paying their rent in full and on time. A normally prudent practice is to expect some income loss as tenants vacate, fail to pay rent, or pay their rent late. Model units or other rent loss, if necessary, is addressed separately.
The subject, as of the most current rent roll provided, was 99 percent occupied. This is higher than than current average occupancy levels for the market area overall. Rent comparable occupancies range from 66 to 100 percent. Historical occupancy at the subject is presented below:
VALUATION SERVICES | 82 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
Historical Occupancy
Current | ||||||||||||||||||||
Annualized | Rent Roll | |||||||||||||||||||
Year | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | Annualized | |||||||||||||||
Occupancy | 97.4 | % | 95.7 | % | 88.7 | % | 93.8 | % | 97.0 | % |
Historical occupancy was in the mid and high 90 percentile range in 2000, 2001 and for YTD 2003. Occupancy decreased in 2002 and was 99 percent occupied at the time of our inspection. Based on the subject’s historical occupancy pattern, yet tempered by the competitive market conditions in the area, we have forecasted a lower stabilized vacancy and collection loss of 7.0 percent for the subject.
Effective Gross Income
The following table summarizes the projected estimate of stabilized income based on the above findings. The stabilized revenues reflect what we believe would be anticipated by a purchaser of the subject and are based on current market rents and trends.
Chandler Villas
STABILIZED OPERATING INCOME
PER | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
RESIDENT | NO. | NO. | MONTHLY | ACTUAL | ||||||||||||||||||||
UNIT TYPE | TYPE | UNITS | BEDS | RATE | INCOME | RESIDENT | ||||||||||||||||||
One-Bedrooms | AL | 129 | 129 | $ | 1,600 | $ | 2,476,800 | |||||||||||||||||
Two-Bedrooms | AL | 35 | 35 | $ | 2,000 | $ | 840,000 | |||||||||||||||||
Total | 164 | 164 | $ | 3,316,800 | $ | 20,224 | ||||||||||||||||||
Additional Personal Care | 40 | % | $ | 160 | $ | 125,952 | $ | 768 | ||||||||||||||||
Second Person | 5 | % | $ | 600 | $ | 59,040 | $ | 360 | ||||||||||||||||
New Resident Fees | 30 | % | $ | 500 | $ | 24,600 | $ | 150 | ||||||||||||||||
Other | $ | — | $ | — | ||||||||||||||||||||
TOTAL POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME | $ | 3,526,392 | $ | 21,502 | ||||||||||||||||||||
LESS: VACANCY @ | 7.0 | % | $ | (246,847 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||
EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME | $ | 3,279,545 | $ | 21,502 |
Opinion of Expenses
We have developed an opinion of the property’s annual operating expenses after reviewing its historical performance and reviewing the operating statements of similar senior living properties. We were provided with operating statements for 2000, 2001, 2002, and year-to-date 2003. This information was previously summarized.
VALUATION SERVICES | 83 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
We were not provided with the staffing requirements for the facility and we were not able to analyze the expenses on this basis. Furthermore, we have supported our estimate of projected expenses with other senior living facilities in the region, as well as from overall industry statistics. We also note that the reader is cautioned when reviewing the comparable expenses for individual facilities, in that the reporting of expenses varies by property and that different congregate living facilities offer different services. All comparisons will be made on anactual residentbasis.
Expense Comparables
The expense comparables have been summarized on the following page.
VALUATION SERVICES | 84 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
SUMMARY OF COMPARABLE OPERATING EXPENSES
ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES
Facility | Confidential | Confidential | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting Period | 2002 | 2002 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Year Built | 1999 | 2001 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No. of IL Units | 0 | 42 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No. of AL Units | 89 | 72 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No. of ALZ Units | 13 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Units | 102 | 114 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Occupancy | 83 | % | 85 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Resident Days | 30,901 | 35,493 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Per | % of | Per | % of | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Resident | $/RD | EGI | Resident | $/RD | EGI | |||||||||||||||||||||||
TOTAL NET REVENUES | $ | 37,505 | $ | 102.75 | $ | 25,443 | $ | 69.71 | ||||||||||||||||||||
EXPENSES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General & Administrative | $ | 756 | $ | 2.07 | 2.02 | % | $ | 1,110 | $ | 3.04 | 3.25 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Payroll (Wages/Salaries) | $ | 11,593 | $ | 31.76 | 30.91 | % | $ | 8,553 | $ | 23.43 | 23.52 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Payroll Taxes & Benefits | $ | 3,815 | $ | 10.45 | 10.17 | % | $ | 2,144 | $ | 5.88 | 8.62 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Resident Care | $ | 219 | $ | 0.60 | 0.59 | % | $ | 609 | $ | 1.67 | 0.82 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Food Services | $ | 1,786 | $ | 4.89 | 4.76 | % | $ | 1,207 | $ | 3.31 | 6.32 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Activities | $ | 58 | $ | 0.16 | 0.16 | % | $ | 58 | $ | 0.16 | 0.53 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Housekeeping | $ | 119 | $ | 0.32 | 0.32 | % | $ | 101 | $ | 0.28 | 0.86 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Plant Operations | $ | 644 | $ | 1.77 | 1.72 | % | $ | 510 | $ | 1.40 | 4.05 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Utilities | $ | 1,536 | $ | 4.21 | 4.09 | % | $ | 1,180 | $ | 3.23 | 5.19 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Marketing/Promotions | $ | 527 | $ | 1.44 | 1.41 | % | $ | 439 | $ | 1.20 | 1.57 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Real Estate Taxes | $ | 705 | $ | 1.93 | 1.88 | % | $ | 520 | $ | 1.43 | 3.62 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Insurance | $ | 611 | $ | 1.67 | 1.63 | % | $ | 400 | $ | 1.10 | 3.32 | % | ||||||||||||||||
ADJUSTED OPERATING EXPENSES | $ | 22,369 | $ | 73.84 | 59.64 | % | $ | 16,832 | $ | 55.56 | 61.66 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Management Fee | $ | 1,875 | $ | 5.14 | 5.00 | % | $ | 1,272 | $ | 3.49 | 5.00 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Expense Ratio Before Reserves | 65 | % | 71 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reserves | — | — | — | — | — | — |
[Additional columns below]
[Continued from above table, first column(s) repeated]
ASHA | ASHA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lower | ASHA | Upper | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Facility | Confidential | Quartile | Median | Quartile | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting Period | 2002 | 2002 | 2002 | 2002 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Year Built | 1990 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
No. of IL Units | 176 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
No. of AL Units | 11 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
No. of ALZ Units | 0 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Units | 187 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Occupancy | 98 | % | N/A | N/A | N/A | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Resident Days | 66,890 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Per | % of | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Resident | $/RD | EGI | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TOTAL NET REVENUES | $ | 34,768 | $ | 95.26 | $ | 29,046 | $ | 34,264 | $ | 38,878 | ||||||||||||||||||
EXPENSES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General & Administrative | $ | 1,129 | $ | 3.09 | 3.25 | % | $ | 1,115 | $ | 1,433 | $ | 1,889 | ||||||||||||||||
Payroll (Wages/Salaries) | $ | 8,179 | $ | 22.41 | 23.52 | % | N/A | N/A | N/A | |||||||||||||||||||
Payroll Taxes & Benefits | $ | 2,996 | $ | 8.21 | 8.62 | % | $ | 1,575 | $ | 2,068 | $ | 3,003 | ||||||||||||||||
Resident Care | $ | 286 | $ | 0.78 | 0.82 | % | $ | 4,253 | $ | 6,123 | $ | 7,259 | ||||||||||||||||
Food Services | $ | 2,196 | $ | 6.02 | 6.32 | % | $ | 2,704 | $ | 3,529 | $ | 4,892 | ||||||||||||||||
Activities | $ | 184 | $ | 0.50 | 0.53 | % | N/A | N/A | N/A | |||||||||||||||||||
Housekeeping | $ | 299 | $ | 0.82 | 0.86 | % | $ | 532 | $ | 815 | $ | 1,130 | ||||||||||||||||
Plant Operations | $ | 1,409 | $ | 3.86 | 4.05 | % | $ | 580 | $ | 916 | $ | 1,356 | ||||||||||||||||
Utilities | $ | 1,805 | $ | 4.94 | 5.19 | % | $ | 1,086 | $ | 1,306 | $ | 1,526 | ||||||||||||||||
Marketing/Promotions | $ | 546 | $ | 1.49 | 1.57 | % | $ | 858 | $ | 1,349 | $ | 2,008 | ||||||||||||||||
Real Estate Taxes | $ | 1,257 | $ | 3.45 | 3.62 | % | $ | 648 | $ | 1,011 | $ | 1,597 | ||||||||||||||||
Insurance | $ | 1,154 | $ | 3.16 | 3.32 | % | $ | 278 | $ | 463 | $ | 726 | ||||||||||||||||
ADJUSTED OPERATING EXPENSES | $ | 21,439 | $ | 70.77 | 61.66 | % | $ | 20,959 | $ | 24,058 | $ | 29,438 | ||||||||||||||||
Management Fee | $ | 1,738 | $ | 0.00 | 5.00 | % | $ | 1,249 | $ | 1,713 | $ | 2,082 | ||||||||||||||||
Expense Ratio Before Reserves | 67 | % | 76 | % | 75 | % | 81 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Reserves | — | — | — | $ | 181 | $ | 326 | $ | 525 |
Source: The State of Seniors Housing, 2002, ASHA. (Data is for Assisted Living Facilities) | ||
Note: Each line expense for ASHA derived from separately sorted data columns and may not add up under totals. | ||
* | All comparable categories based on Actual Unit (Per Resident) |
VALUATION SERVICES | 85 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
General & Administrative
These costs, for the basis of the subject analysis, include office supplies, licenses/permits, dues/subscriptions, travel/meals, communications/telephone, resident activities, transportation, as well as the payroll costs for the administrative staff. The historical costs, as well as our forecast for this category are shown below.
Year | Total | $/Resident | PRD | % of EGI | |||||||||||||
2000 | $ | 146,136 | $ | 915 | $ | 2.51 | 5.41 | % | |||||||||
2001 | $ | 289,824 | $ | 1,847 | $ | 5.06 | 9.95 | % | |||||||||
2002 | $ | 129,621 | $ | 891 | $ | 2.44 | 4.44 | % | |||||||||
Annualized 2003 | $ | 138,494 | $ | 900 | $ | 2.47 | 4.41 | % | |||||||||
C&W Forecast | $ | 145,000 | $ | 908 | $ | 2.49 | 4.42 | % |
The expense comparables showed expenses for this category from $ 756 to $1,129 per resident (average of $ 999 per resident), while the industry data showed a range from $1,115 to $1,889 per resident (median of $1,433 per resident). The subject’s actual expenses are less than that of the comparable properties. This is because the subject’s accounting format posts payroll and benefits in a separate expense category. Our projection is consistent with historical trends. We have forecast Year 1 general and administrative costs at $145,000 or $ 908 per resident.
Payroll (Wages and Salaries)
These costs, for the basis of the subject analysis, include all wage and salary costs for the employees, as well as benefits and taxes. The historical costs, as well as our forecast for this category are shown below.
Year | Total | $/Resident | PRD | % of EGI | |||||||||||||
2000 | $ | 918,082 | $ | 5,747 | $ | 15.75 | 33.97 | % | |||||||||
2001 | $ | 1,092,035 | $ | 6,958 | $ | 19.06 | 37.51 | % | |||||||||
2002 | $ | 1,041,218 | $ | 7,158 | $ | 19.61 | 35.68 | % | |||||||||
Annualized 2003 | $ | 1,050,291 | $ | 6,828 | $ | 18.71 | 33.46 | % | |||||||||
C&W Forecast | $ | 1,150,000 | $ | 7,205 | $ | 19.74 | 35.07 | % |
The expense comparables showed expenses for this category from $8,179 to $11,593 per resident (average of $9,442 per resident), while the industry data showed a range from $1,575 to $3,003 per resident (median of $2,289 per resident). The subject’s actual expenses are greater than that of the comparable properties. This is because the subject’s accounting format posts payroll and benefits in a separate expense category. Our projection is consistent with
VALUATION SERVICES | 86 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
historical trends. We have forecast Year 1 wages and salary costs at $1,150,000 or $7,205 per resident.
Resident Care
This expense is for the costs associated with the personal or assisted living services for the assisted living residents. These include all health care and special needs supplies and related activities, as well as payroll. The historical costs, as well as our forecast for this category are shown below.
Year | Total | $/Resident | PRD | % of EGI | |||||||||||||
2000 | $ | 2,192 | $ | 14 | $ | 0.04 | 0.08 | % | |||||||||
2001 | $ | 1,749 | $ | 11 | $ | 0.03 | 0.06 | % | |||||||||
2002 | $ | 1,175 | $ | 8 | $ | 0.02 | 0.04 | % | |||||||||
Annualized 2003 | $ | 227 | $ | 1 | $ | 0.00 | 0.01 | % | |||||||||
C&W Forecast | $ | 10,000 | $ | 63 | $ | 0.17 | 0.30 | % |
The expense comparables showed expenses for this category from $ 219 to $ 609 per resident (average of $ 371 per resident), while the industry data showed a range from $1,575 to $3,003 per resident (median of $2,068 per resident). Our projection is consistent with historical trends. We have forecast Year 1 resident care costs at $10,000 or $ 63 per resident.
Food Services
These costs include raw food costs, as well as kitchen supplies and all payroll costs for the food service staff. The residents at the subject are provided with three complete meals per day. The historical costs, as well as our forecast for this category are shown below.
Year | Total | $/Resident | PRD | % of EGI | |||||||||||||
2000 | $ | 185,144 | $ | 1,159 | $ | 3.18 | 6.85 | % | |||||||||
2001 | $ | 246,308 | $ | 1,569 | $ | 4.30 | 8.46 | % | |||||||||
2002 | $ | 219,184 | $ | 1,507 | $ | 4.13 | 7.51 | % | |||||||||
Annualized 2003 | $ | 287,192 | $ | 1,867 | $ | 5.11 | 9.15 | % | |||||||||
C&W Forecast | $ | 275,000 | $ | 1,723 | $ | 4.72 | 8.38 | % |
The expense comparables showed expenses for this category from $1,207 to $2,196 per resident (average of $1,729 per resident), while the industry data showed a range from $4,253 to $7,259 per resident (median of $6,123 per resident). Our projection is consistent with historical trends. We have forecast Year 1 food services costs at $280,000 or $1,754 per resident.
VALUATION SERVICES | 87 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
Activities
This category is for the activities and recreation costs, as well as transportation costs and the payroll costs for the activities staff. The historical costs, as well as our forecast for this category are shown below.
Year | Total | $/Resident | PRD | % of EGI | |||||||||||||
2000 | $ | 17,197 | $ | 108 | $ | 0.29 | 0.64 | % | |||||||||
2001 | $ | 15,581 | $ | 99 | $ | 0.27 | 0.54 | % | |||||||||
2002 | $ | 15,447 | $ | 111 | $ | 0.30 | 0.55 | % | |||||||||
Annualized 2003 | $ | 14,754 | $ | 96 | $ | 0.26 | 0.47 | % | |||||||||
C&W Forecast | $ | 17,000 | $ | 107 | $ | 0.29 | 0.52 | % |
The expense comparables showed expenses for this category from $ 58 to $ 184 per resident (average of $ 100 per resident), while no data was provided by the ASHA industry data. Our projection is consistent with historical trends. We have forecast Year 1 activities costs at $17,000 or $ 107 per resident.
Housekeeping/Laundry
This category is for all housekeeping costs, including all supplies requisite to housekeeping and laundry services, as well as the payroll costs for the housekeeping/laundry staff. The historical costs, as well as our forecast for this category are shown below.
Year | Total | $/Resident | PRD | % of EGI | |||||||||||||
2000 | $ | 15,700 | $ | 98 | $ | 0.27 | 0.58 | % | |||||||||
2001 | $ | 17,069 | $ | 109 | $ | 0.30 | 0.59 | % | |||||||||
2002 | $ | 16,133 | $ | 111 | $ | 0.30 | 0.55 | % | |||||||||
Annualized 2003 | $ | 18,258 | $ | 119 | $ | 0.33 | 0.58 | % | |||||||||
C&W Forecast | $ | 20,000 | $ | 125 | $ | 0.34 | 0.61 | % |
The expense comparables showed expenses for this category from $ 101 to $ 299 per resident (average of $ 173 per resident), while the industry data showed a range from N/A to N/A per resident (median of N/A per resident). Our projection is consistent with historical trends. We have forecast Year 1 housekeeping costs at $20,000 or $ 125 per resident.
VALUATION SERVICES | 88 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
Plant Operations
These costs include general repairs and maintenance, elevator contracts, supplies and equipment purchases for the facility, as well as the payroll costs for the maintenance staff. The historical costs, as well as our forecast for this category are shown below.
Year | Total | $/Resident | PRD | % of EGI | |||||||||||||
2000 | $ | 171,166 | $ | 1,072 | $ | 2.94 | 6.33 | % | |||||||||
2001 | $ | 178,167 | $ | 1,135 | $ | 3.11 | 6.12 | % | |||||||||
2002 | $ | 192,509 | $ | 1,323 | $ | 3.63 | 6.60 | % | |||||||||
Annualized 2003 | $ | 184,422 | $ | 1,199 | $ | 3.28 | 5.87 | % | |||||||||
C&W Forecast | $ | 200,000 | $ | 1,253 | $ | 3.43 | 6.10 | % |
The expense comparables showed expenses for this category from $ 510 to $1,409 per resident (average of $ 854 per resident), while the industry data showed a range from $ 532 to $1,130 per resident (median of $ 815 per resident). The subject’s actual expenses are supported by the comparable properties. We have forecast Year 1 plant operations costs at $200,000 or $1,253 per resident.
Utilities
This expense is for the annual cost for natural gas, electricity, water/sewer, cable TV and trash removal. The historical costs, as well as our forecast for this category are shown below.
Year | Total | $/Resident | PRD | % of EGI | |||||||||||||
2000 | $ | 214,790 | $ | 1,345 | $ | 3.68 | 7.95 | % | |||||||||
2001 | $ | 210,210 | $ | 1,339 | $ | 3.67 | 7.22 | % | |||||||||
2002 | $ | 216,731 | $ | 1,490 | $ | 4.08 | 7.43 | % | |||||||||
Annualized 2003 | $ | 221,082 | $ | 1,437 | $ | 3.94 | 7.04 | % | |||||||||
C&W Forecast | $ | 230,000 | $ | 1,441 | $ | 3.95 | 7.01 | % |
The expense comparables showed expenses for this category from $1,180 to $1,805 per resident (average of $1,507 per resident), while the industry data showed a range from $ 580 to $1,356 per resident (median of $ 916 per resident). Our projection is consistent with historical trends. We have forecast Year 1 utility costs at $230,000 or $1,441 per resident.
VALUATION SERVICES | 89 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
Marketing/Promotions
This expense is directly connected to the advertising and marketing of the complex for such things as newspapers and brochures, resident retention, etc. These costs also include the payroll costs of the marketing staff. The historical costs, as well as our forecast for this category are shown below.
Year | Total | $/Resident | PRD | % of EGI | |||||||||||||
2000 | $ | 30,565 | $ | 191 | $ | 0.52 | 1.13 | % | |||||||||
2001 | $ | 30,354 | $ | 193 | $ | 0.53 | 1.04 | % | |||||||||
2002 | $ | 36,921 | $ | 254 | $ | 0.70 | 1.27 | % | |||||||||
Annualized 2003 | $ | 32,765 | $ | 213 | $ | 0.58 | 1.04 | % | |||||||||
C&W Forecast | $ | 40,000 | $ | 251 | $ | 0.69 | 1.22 | % |
The expense comparables showed expenses for this category from $ 439 to $ 546 per resident (average of $ 504 per resident), while the industry data showed a range from $1,086 to $1,526 per resident (median of $1,306 per resident). Our projection is consistent with historical trends. We have forecast Year 1 marketing costs at $40,000 or $ 251 per resident.
Real Estate Taxes
This cost is for the annual real and personal property tax liability for the subject. The historical costs, as well as our forecast for this category are shown below.
Year | Total | $/Resident | PRD | % of EGI | |||||||||||||
2000 | $ | 63,402 | $ | 397 | $ | 1.09 | 2.35 | % | |||||||||
2001 | $ | 67,351 | $ | 429 | $ | 1.18 | 2.31 | % | |||||||||
2002 | $ | 70,112 | $ | 482 | $ | 1.32 | 2.40 | % | |||||||||
Annualized 2003 | $ | 82,508 | $ | 536 | $ | 1.47 | 2.63 | % | |||||||||
C&W Forecast | $ | 100,000 | $ | 627 | $ | 1.72 | 3.05 | % |
The expense comparables showed expenses for this category from $ 520 to $1,257 per resident (average of $ 828 per resident), while the industry data showed a range from $ 858 to $2,008 per resident (median of $1,349 per resident). Please refer to the Real Estate Taxes and Assessments section of the report for a discussion on how the Year 1 taxes were estimated. We have forecast the Year 1 real estate tax expense at $100,000 or $627 per resident.
VALUATION SERVICES | 90 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
Insurance
This cost is for the annual liability insurance for the property. The historical costs, as well as our forecast for this category are shown below.
Year | Total | $/Resident | PRD | % of EGI | |||||||||||||
2000 | $ | 18,617 | $ | 117 | $ | 0.32 | 0.69 | % | |||||||||
2001 | $ | 45,245 | $ | 288 | $ | 0.79 | 1.55 | % | |||||||||
2002 | $ | 84,452 | $ | 581 | $ | 1.59 | 2.89 | % | |||||||||
Annualized 2003 | $ | 78,885 | $ | 513 | $ | 1.40 | 2.51 | % | |||||||||
C&W Forecast | $ | 100,000 | $ | 627 | $ | 1.72 | 3.05 | % |
The expense comparables showed expenses for this category from $ 400 to $1,154 per resident (average of $ 722 per resident), while the industry data showed a range from $ 648 to $1,597 per resident (median of $1,011 per resident). Insurance costs for senior living properties have increased significantly over the last one to two years. The subject’s actual expenses are supported by the comparable properties. We have forecast Year 1 insurance costs at $100,000 or $ 627 per resident.
Management Fee
The subject is managed by ARV at a rate equal to 5.0 percent of effective gross income. According to data byThe 2002 State of Senior Housing Report, the median management fee for congregate living facilities is 5.0 percent, with a general range from 5.0 to 7.0 percent. We have concluded to a 5.0 percent management fee.
Replacement Reserves
Replacement reserves are necessary for replacement of roof covering, mechanical systems, furnishings, appliances, etc. For a facility such as the subject, it is reasonable to deduct one to two percent of net resident revenues for replacement reserves. The ASHA industry data shows a range of reserve unit allowances from $ 181 to $ 525 per unit with a median of $ 326 per unit. In the case of the subject and its date of construction, we have deducted an amount equal to $300 per unit and which equates to a total cost of $49,200 or $ 308 per resident, which is well supported by the industry data.
Expense Summary
Overall, the first year expenses for the subject (including management fees and reserves) are projected at $2,505,177 ($15,695 per resident) and 76.39 percent of effective gross income. The expense comparables indicated expense ratios from 67.00 to 77.00 percent (average of 70.00 percent), while the industry data showed a range from EMPTY to EMPTY percent (median of EMPTY percent). Additionally, the subject has operated at expense ratios ranging from 80.6 to 113 percent.
We note that, according toThe Senior Care Acquisition Report 2003, that the average expense ratio for assisted living facilities was 75.8 percent in 2002 and which represented an
VALUATION SERVICES | 91 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
approximately eight percent increase from 70.4 percent in 2001. The survey noted, however, that many of the properties used in the sampling were troubled which resulted in a higher reported operating expense basis.
Furthermore, operating margins for assisted living facilities were reported at 30.8 percent for the median, 18.4 percent for the lower quartile and 34.7 percent for the upper quartile according to theState of Senior Housing Report 2002.
Although our net operating income estimate is lower than the historical amounts, our estimate equates to a net operating income per resident of $4,852 which is above the most recent operating year of $4,809 per resident. The difference, however, is directly related to our stabilized market occupancy that is lower than that recently witnessed, as well as having increased some expense levels to market levels. As such, our expense and resultant net operating income estimate is considered reasonable in light of the historical data. A summary of our Year 1 proforma is presented below.
Chandler Villas
STABILIZED OPERATING STATEMENT
Total | PR | PRD | % of EGI | ||||||||||||||||||||||
EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME | $ | 3,279,545 | $ | 21,502 | $ | 56.29 | |||||||||||||||||||
EXPENSES | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
General/Administrative | $ | 145,000 | $ | 908 | $ | 2.49 | 4.42 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Payroll (Wages) | $ | 1,150,000 | $ | 7,205 | $ | 19.74 | 35.07 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Payroll Taxes & Benefits | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | 0.00 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Resident Care | $ | 10,000 | $ | 63 | $ | 0.17 | 0.30 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Food Services | $ | 280,000 | $ | 1,754 | $ | 4.81 | 8.54 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Activities | $ | 17,000 | $ | 107 | $ | 0.29 | 0.52 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Housekeeping/Laundry | $ | 20,000 | $ | 125 | $ | 0.34 | 0.61 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Plant Operations | $ | 200,000 | $ | 1,253 | $ | 3.43 | 6.10 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Utilities | $ | 230,000 | $ | 1,441 | $ | 3.95 | 7.01 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Marketing/Promotions | $ | 40,000 | $ | 251 | $ | 0.69 | 1.22 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Real Estate Taxes | $ | 100,000 | $ | 627 | $ | 1.72 | 3.05 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Insurance | $ | 100,000 | $ | 627 | $ | 1.72 | 3.05 | % | |||||||||||||||||
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES | 69.9 | % | $ | 2,292,000 | $ | 14,360 | $ | 39.34 | 69.89 | % | |||||||||||||||
Management Fees | 5.0 | % | $ | 163,977 | $ | 1,027 | $ | 2.81 | 5.00 | % | |||||||||||||||
Replacement Reserves | $ | 300 | $ | 49,200 | $ | 308 | $ | 0.84 | 1.50 | % | |||||||||||||||
TOTAL EXPENSES | $ | 2,505,177 | $ | 15,695 | $ | 43.00 | 76.39 | % | |||||||||||||||||
NET OPERATING INCOME | $ | 774,367 | $ | 4,852 | $ | 13.29 | 23.61 | % |
(*) Per Actual Resident |
Direct Capitalization Rate Analysis
In determining an appropriate capitalization rate, the rates of return have been derived by applying three different methods: market extraction from the sales comparables, our findings reported inThe Senior Care Acquisition Report, 2003,published by Irving Levin Associates, Inc., findings from theSenior Care Participants Surveycompleted by Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., and from Band-of-Investment.
VALUATION SERVICES | 92 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
The capitalization rate was determined by analyzing investment rates of return acceptable to buyers. The rate of return on an investment is determined by analyzing several aspects of that investment and then assigning a risk associated with those aspects. Elements usually considered are:
• | Reliability of the gross income prediction. How certain is it that the income will be forthcoming? Income is more dependable when the property is leased on a long-term basis to financially responsible tenants than when rented on a month-to-month basis to less reliable tenants. | |
• | Reliability of the expense prediction. Is there great danger of having expenses increase materially, or is there a fair chance that they will remain about the same or even decrease? | |
• | Expense ratio. If the expenses are low in relation to gross income, the quality of the net income may be better, because a moderate reduction in gross income or a moderate increase in expenses does not affect the net income substantially. | |
• | Burden of management. Even when real estate management is employed, a property that requires constant attention, because of either maintenance or rent collection problems, is less desirable than one that needs minimal management. A long-term lease that requires a tenant to take care of all repairs and to pay taxes and insurance presents a situation that is relatively free from this burden of management. | |
• | Marketability of the property. An investment that has marketability and liquidity appeals to a wider group of investors than one lacking those attributes. | |
• | Stability of value. The value or market price of a piece of real property tends to remain within a narrower range for longer periods of time than do most other commodities. |
As described previously, the gross income projected for the property is subject to such uncertainties as competition from other facilities and fluctuations in demand for the subject’s services. Moreover, the subject property has limited marketability and liquidity because a purchaser must have the appropriate operating license from the applicable state regulatory agencies, which limit the number of potential investors and would, in any potential sale of the property, create impediments and delays.
Going-In Capitalization Rate
The first method used to derive the capitalization rate was a review of comparable sales that have occurred in the subject’s regional area. The overall capitalization rates derived from the assisted living facility sales used in the Sales Comparison Approach are summarized below:
VALUATION SERVICES | 93 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
CAPITALIZATION RATE SUMMARY
Date | Year | Capitalization | |||||||||||||||||||
No. | Property Name | of Sale | Built | Occupancy | Rate | ||||||||||||||||
1 | Carmel Village | 01/03 | 1986 | 97 | % | 11.14 | % | ||||||||||||||
2 | Emerald Hills | 09/02 | 1999 | 100 | % | 11.19 | % | ||||||||||||||
3 | Woodmark at Summit | 02/02 | 1998 | 60 | % | 12.63 | % | ||||||||||||||
4 | Mapleridge of Laguna Creek | 01/02 | 1999 | 76 | % | 10.55 | % | ||||||||||||||
5 | Atria Redding | 07/01 | 1997 | 95 | % | 12.50 | % | ||||||||||||||
6 | Aegis of Napa | 06/01 | 1999 | N/A | 10.76 | % | |||||||||||||||
Low | 1986 | 60 | % | 10.55 | % | ||||||||||||||||
High | 1999 | 100 | % | 12.63 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Median | 1999 | 95 | % | 11.16 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Average | 1996 | 86 | % | 11.46 | % |
The overall capitalization rates of the comparable sales range from 10.55 to 12.63 percent, with an average indicated of 11.46 percent. These rates are reported to be after management fee and reserves. The capitalization rates reflect actual buyer expectations of existing facilities and are directly applicable to the subject and the spread in the capitalization rates is 208 basis points. As such, the sales are felt to provide a good comparison of estimating a market capitalization rate.
Industry Findings
To further test the capitalization rates, data on assisted living acquisition trends inThe Senior Care Acquisition Report, Eighth Edition, 2003,was consulted. The report indicated that after two years of declining capitalization rates for assisted living properties, 2002 saw an increase in rates to a reported average of 12.20 percent. This information is summarized in the graph below.
VALUATION SERVICES | 94 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
In addition, Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. has surveyed senior care participants regarding their investment parameters for senior housing properties. This recent information has been summarized in the following table.
2003 Participants Survey
Change From 2002 | Change From 2001 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Survey | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Property Type | Survey Range | Average | Basis Point | % | Basis Point | % | ||||||||||||||||||
Capitalization Rates | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
55+ Senior Apartments | 7.00% - 10.25 | % | 8.15 | % | - 7 | 0.9 | % | -68 | -7.6 | % | ||||||||||||||
Independent Living | 9.00% - 10.50 | % | 9.55 | % | - 5 | 0.5 | % | -30 | -3.0 | % | ||||||||||||||
Assisted Living | 10.00% - 12.25 | % | 10.85 | % | -17 | 1.6 | % | - 8 | -7.2 | % | ||||||||||||||
Skilled Nursing | 11.50% - 18.00 | % | 14.15 | % | 16 | -1.1 | % | -61 | -4.2 | % | ||||||||||||||
Continuing Care Retirement Community | 9.00% - 11.50 | % | 10.40 | % | -35 | 3.4 | % | -15 | -1.4 | % | ||||||||||||||
Internal Rates of Return | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
55+ Senior Apartments | 9.50% - 15.00 | % | 10.60 | % | -15 | 1.4 | % | -20 | -1.8 | % | ||||||||||||||
Independent Living | 10.00% - 15.00 | % | 11.90 | % | -25 | 2.1 | % | -65 | -5.7 | % | ||||||||||||||
Assisted Living | 12.00% - 17.00 | % | 15.30 | % | 42 | -2.7 | % | -22 | -1.5 | % | ||||||||||||||
Skilled Nursing | 13.00% - 20.00 | % | 16.30 | % | -25 | 1.5 | % | -165 | -9.1 | % | ||||||||||||||
Continuing Care Retirement Community | 9.00% - 17.00 | % | 13.00 | % | -25 | 1.9 | % | -135 | -9.2 | % |
Source: Senior Care Participants Survey, 2003 by Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. |
In reviewing the 2003 survey, capitalization rates for assisted living facilities ranged from 10.00 to 12.25 percent with an average indication of 10.85 percent. This data is seen as being nearly 135 basis points below that reported previously inThe Senior Care Acquisition Report, Eighth Edition, 2003.The 2003 C&W survey also shows that capitalization rates have declined slightly over those reported in 2002 and 2001.
In choosing the appropriate capitalization rate for the subject, we have considered its location, occupancy, as well as the overall condition and utility of the property. The subject is a mid-sized assisted living facility located in a favorable demographic area in Arizona. The market area is considered to be at an equilibrium basis at this time. Based on the data and characteristics of the subject and marketplace, we believe a capitalization rate of between 11.0 to 12.0 percent to be appropriate for the property.
Band of Investment
The Band of Investment technique accounts for the combination of equity and prevailing financing which are banded together to finance this type of real estate. The rate developed is a weighted average, the weights being percentages of the total value, which are occupied by the mortgage and equity positions.
After surveying several commercial mortgage lenders and consulting the most recentSenior Care Participants Survey, published by Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. and theSenior Care Acquisition Report, published by Irving Levin Associates, it is our opinion that a typical creditworthy owner could obtain financing from a lending source in an amount equal to 75 percent of value at an annual interest rate of 8.50 percent. A typical loan period for this type of real estate ranges from 20 to 30 years. Utilizing a 25-year amortization period at an 8.50 percent interest rate (payable monthly) yields a mortgage constant of 0.0966273.
For a review of investor rates of return, reference is made to the previous table, which showed investment parameters for assisted living properties.
VALUATION SERVICES | 95 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
As shown in the table, internal rates of return or equity dividend rates for senior housing properties ranged from 9.50 to 20.00 percent. Independent living facilities fall within the lower to middle portion of the range from 10.00 to 15.0 percent with an average indicated rate of 11.90 percent. Assisted living facilities fall within the middle portion at 12.00 to 17.0 percent with an average indicated rate of 15.30 percent.
Based on the data, we believe a prudent investor in a senior housing property like the subject would accept an initial annual return of between 10 percent and 15 percent of an equity investment in anticipation of a stable income flow and property appreciation over time. From this, and based on the subject’s physical, locational and competitive structure, a rate from within the middle portion of the latter range, or 14.0 percent would be reasonable.
It should be emphasized that the equity dividend rate is not necessarily the same as an equity yield rate or true rate of return on equity capital. The equity dividend rate is an equity capitalization that reflects all benefits that can be recognized by the equity investor as of the date of purchase. The overall capitalization rate is developed as follows:
Band OF Investment Technique
75.0 | % | MORTGAGE | X | 0.0966273 Mortgage Constant | = | 0.0724 | ||||||||||||||
25.0 | % | Equity | X | 0.1400 Equity Dividend | = | 0.0350 | ||||||||||||||
100.0 | % | Total | 0.1074 | |||||||||||||||||
OAR = 10.74% |
VALUATION SERVICES | 96 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
Direct Capitalization Method Conclusion
We estimated a capitalization rate of 10.55 to 12.63 percent through our direct comparison analysis, while the band-of-investment technique correlated to 10.74 percent. Utilizing both methods to develop a capitalization rate, tempered with investor criteria and the specific attributes of the subject, we feel a rate of 11.50 percent is warranted for the property based on the subject age and condition. We note that this rate is applied after reserves. Our conclusion via the Direct Capitalization Method is as follows:
DIRECT CAPITALIZATION METHOD | ||
Net Operating Income | $774,367 |
Sensitivity Analysis (0.25% OAR Spread) | Value | $/Unit | ||||||
Based on Low-Range of 11.25% | $ | 6,883,265 | $ | 41,971 | ||||
Based on Most Probable Range of 11.50% | $ | 6,733,629 | $ | 41,059 | ||||
Based on High-Range of 11.75% | $ | 6,590,360 | $ | 40,185 | ||||
Reconciled Value | $ | 6,733,629 | $ | 41,059 | ||||
Rounded to nearest $100,000 | $ | 6,700,000 | $ | 40,854 |
VALUATION SERVICES | 97 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE OPINION
Valuation Methodology Review and Reconciliation
This appraisal employs all three typical approaches to value: the Cost Approach, the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Capitalization Approach. Based on our analysis and knowledge of the subject property type and relevant investor profiles, it is our opinion that all approaches would be considered meaningful and applicable in developing a credible value conclusion.
The approaches indicated the following values:
Cost Approach: | $ | 9,000,000 | ||
Sales Comparison Approach: | $ | 6,800,000 | ||
Income Capitalization Approach: | $ | 6,700,000 |
Due to the fact that the subject is an income producing property, investors are primarily concerned with their return on equity. Therefore, the Income Capitalization Approach was given most weight in our final value conclusion. The Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches provide a reasonable check on the value derived via the Income Capitalization Approach.
The Cost Approach provides a reliable estimate of value for proposed or newly constructed improvements. However, as the property ages and obsolescence occurs, it is increasingly difficult to quantify the resultant depreciation. Nonetheless, as the subject represents older construction, the degree of depreciation was moderate, yet was considered reasonable based on the market data. This approach, however, falls above the indications provided by the Sales Comparison and Income Capitalization Approaches which indicates that the subject is not currently an economically feasible operation. As such, this approach has been given only limited support for our findings via the other two approaches to value.
The Sales Comparison Approach reflects an estimate of value as indicated by the actual sales of assisted living facilities. In this approach, we searched the state for transactions of similar property types. Given that these types of properties are typically purchased based on their income producing capabilities, this approach was useful in providing support for our findings in the Income Capitalization Approach.
The Income Capitalization Approach is typically considered the most appropriate approach to utilize when valuing going concerns such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. This approach considers the income potential of the property. In our Income Capitalization Approach to value, the anticipated monetary benefits of ownership were converted into a value estimate. Within the Income Capitalization Approach, direct capitalization was used as it is the most common method used by investors and purchasers in acquiring existing and stabilized properties of this nature.
Based on our Complete Appraisal as defined by theUniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, we have developed an opinion that the “as-is” going concern market value of the fee simple estate of the referenced property, subject to the assumptions, limiting conditions, certifications, and definitions, on October 23, 2003 was:
SEVEN MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
$6,750,000
VALUATION SERVICES | 98 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE OPINION
Personal Property Allocation
Included in the above estimate of market value is the contributing value of the personal property at the subject property, or the furnishings, fixtures and equipment (FF&E). FF&E is generally considered to be part of the assisted living facility and is typically sold with the building. It is therefore considered to be a part of the property’s total value. FF&E includes the unit and public area furnishings, kitchen equipment, service/maintenance equipment and other machinery. Based on previous analysis of the subject, we estimated the value of the FF&E as new to be $660,100, including a 15.00 percent factor for entrepreneurial profit.
Physical deterioration (depreciation) must be deducted for the FF&E. The subject opened in 1986. Based on our physical inspection of the property, we are of the opinion that the property is currently in fair average good physical condition. We have estimated that the subject’s FF&E has a useful life of 10 years and we have estimated the current effective age at 5 years. This equates to a 50 percent depreciation factor, as summarized in the following table.
Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment
Total Value of FF&E As New | $ | 377,200 | ||
Physical Life (Yrs) | 10 | |||
Effective Age (Yrs) | 5 | |||
Percent Depreciated (%) | 50 | |||
Percent Value Remaining (%) | 50 | |||
Depreciated Value | $ | 188,600 | ||
Rounded | $ | 200,000 |
The contributing value of the FF&E is believed to be the cost of the FF&E less its accrued depreciation. This equates to $200,000 rounded.
Business Value (Going Concern)
Assisted living facilities are undisputedly a combination of business and real estate; the day-to-date operation of an assisted living/supervisory care facility represents a business over and above the real estate value. Numerous theories have been developed over time in an attempt to isolate the business component of a senior housing facility.
In our analysis, we have determined the value of the real estate in the Cost Approach to be $9,000,000. As the value of the going concern (Income Capitalization and Sales Comparison Approaches) was determined to be $6,750,000 (which includes the $200,000 in FF&E), this indicates that there is $0 in business value.
VALUATION SERVICES | 99 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
“Report” means the appraisal or consulting report and conclusions stated therein, or a letter opinion, to which these Assumptions and Limiting Conditions are annexed.
“Property” means the subject of the Report
“C&W” means Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. or its subsidiary that issued the Report.
“Appraiser(s)” means the employee(s) of C&W who prepared and signed the Report.
The Report has been made subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions:
1. | No opinion is intended to be expressed and no responsibility is assumed for the legal description or for any matters that are legal in nature or require legal expertise or specialized knowledge beyond that of a real estate appraiser. Title to the Property is assumed to be good and marketable and the Property is assumed to be free and clear of all liens unless otherwise stated. No survey of the Property was undertaken. | |
2. | The information contained in the Report or upon which the Report is based has been gathered from sources the Appraiser assumes to be reliable and accurate. The owner of the Property may have provided some of such information. Neither the Appraiser nor C&W shall be responsible for the accuracy or completeness of such information, including the correctness of estimates, opinions, dimensions, sketches, exhibits and factual matters. Any authorized user of the Report is obligated to bring to the attention of C&W any inaccuracies or errors that it believes are contained in the Report. | |
3. | The opinions are only as of the date stated in the Report. Changes since that date in external and market factors or in the Property itself can significantly affect the conclusions. | |
4. | The Report is to be used in whole and not in part. No part of the Report shall be used in conjunction with any other analyses. Publication of the Report or any portion thereof without the prior written consent of C&W is prohibited. Reference to the Appraisal Institute or to the MAI designation is prohibited. Except as may be otherwise stated in the letter of engagement, the Report may not be used by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed or for purposes other than that for which it was prepared. No part of the Report shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, or used in any sales or promotional or offering or SEC material without C&W’s prior written consent. | |
Any authorized user of this Report who provides a copy to, or permits reliance thereon by, any person or entity not authorized by C&W in writing to use or rely thereon, hereby agrees to indemnify and hold C&W, its affiliates and their respective shareholders, directors, officers and employees, harmless from and against all damages, expenses, claims and costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in investigating and defending any claim arising from or in any way connected to the use of, or reliance upon, the Report by any such unauthorized person or entity. | ||
5. | Except as may be otherwise stated in the letter of engagement, the Appraiser shall not be required to give testimony in any court or administrative proceeding relating to the Property or the Appraisal. | |
6. | The Report assumes (a) responsible ownership and competent management of the Property; (b) there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the Property, subsoil or structures that render the Property more or less valuable (no responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to |
VALUATION SERVICES | 100 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
discover them); (c) full compliance with all applicable federal, state and local zoning and environmental regulations and laws, unless noncompliance is stated, defined and considered in the Report; and (d) all required licenses, certificates of occupancy and other governmental consents have been or can be obtained and renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in the Report is based. | ||
7. | The physical condition of the improvements considered by the Report is based on visual inspection by the Appraiser or other person identified in the Report. C&W assumes no responsibility for the soundness of structural members nor for the condition of mechanical equipment, plumbing or electrical components. | |
8. | The forecasted potential gross income referred to in the Report may be based on lease summaries provided by the owner or third parties. The Report assumes no responsibility for the authenticity or completeness of lease information provided by others. C&W recommends that legal advice be obtained regarding the interpretation of lease provisions and the contractual rights of parties. | |
9. | The forecasts of income and expenses are not predictions of the future. Rather, they are the Appraiser’s best estimates of current market thinking on future income and expenses. The Appraiser and C&W make no warranty or representation that these forecasts will materialize. The real estate market is constantly fluctuating and changing. It is not the Appraiser’s task to predict or in any way warrant the conditions of a future real estate market; the Appraiser can only reflect what the investment community, as of the date of the Report, envisages for the future in terms of rental rates, expenses, and supply and demand. | |
10. | Unless otherwise stated in the Report, the existence of potentially hazardous or toxic materials that may have been used in the construction or maintenance of the improvements or may be located at or about the Property was not considered in arriving at the opinion of value. These materials (such as formaldehyde foam insulation, asbestos insulation and other potentially hazardous materials) may adversely affect the value of the Property. The Appraisers are not qualified to detect such substances. C&W recommends that an environmental expert be employed to determine the impact of these matters on the opinion of value. | |
11. | Unless otherwise stated in the Report, compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) has not been considered in arriving at the opinion of value. Failure to comply with the requirements of the ADA may adversely affect the value of the Property. C&W recommends that an expert in this field be employed. | |
12. | If the Report is submitted to a lender or investor with the prior approval of C&W, such party should consider this Report as only one factor together with its independent investment considerations and underwriting criteria, in its overall investment decision. Such lender or investor is specifically cautioned to understand all Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions and the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions incorporated in this Report. | |
13. | In the event of a claim against C&W or its affiliates or their respective officers or employees or the Appraisers in connection with or in any way relating to this Report or this engagement, the maximum damages recoverable shall be the amount of the monies |
VALUATION SERVICES | 101 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
actually collected by C&W or its affiliates for this Report and under no circumstances shall any claim for consequential damages be made. | ||
14. | If the Report is referred to or included in any offering material or prospectus, the Report shall be deemed referred to or included for informational purposes only and C&W, its employees and the Appraiser have no liability to such recipients. C&W disclaims any and all liability to any party other than the party which retained C&W to prepare the Report. | |
15. | By use of this Report each party that uses this Report agrees to be bound by all of the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions stated herein. |
Extraordinary Assumptions
An extraordinary assumption is defined as “an assumption, directly related to a specific assignment, which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions. Extraordinary assumptions presume as fact otherwise uncertain information about physical, legal or economic characteristics of the subject property or about conditions external to the property, such as market conditions or trends, or the integrity of data used in an analysis.” (USPAP 2001 Edition, ASB of The Appraisal Foundation, 1/1/2001, page 2).
This appraisal assumes that the property meets the licensing requirements of the State of Arizona as a supervisory care facility and continues to remain in compliance with applicable life safety codes.
This Appraisal employs no other Extraordinary Assumptions.
Hypothetical Conditions
A hypothetical condition is defined as “that which is contrary to what exists, but is supposed for the purpose of analysis. Hypothetical conditions assume conditions contrary to known facts about physical, legal, or economic characteristics of the subject property or about conditions external to the property, such as market conditions or trends, or the integrity of data used in an analysis.” (USPAP2001 Edition, ASB of The Appraisal Foundation, 1/1/2001, page 3).
This Appraisal employs no Hypothetical Conditions.
VALUATION SERVICES | 102 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
CERTIFICATION OF APPRAISAL
We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:
1. | The Statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. | |
2. | The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and is our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. | |
3. | We have no present of prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. | |
4. | We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. | |
5. | Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. | |
6. | Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. | |
7. | Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with theUniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Foundation and the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. | |
8. | Sally U. Haft, MAI made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. | |
9. | No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the persons signing this report. | |
10. | The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. | |
11. | As of the date of this report, Appraisal Institute continuing education for Sally U. Haft, MAI is current. | |
![]() |
Managing Director
Senior Housing/Healthcare Industry Group
Arizona Certified General Appraiser
License No. 30995
VALUATION SERVICES | 102 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||||
![]() |
ADDENDA
Addenda Contents | ||
ADDENDUM A: | Letter of Engagement/Legal Description | |
ADDENDUM B: | Demographics | |
ADDENDUM C: | Property Exhibits | |
ADDENDUM D: | Financial Data | |
ADDENDUM E: | Comparable Land Sale Data Sheets | |
ADDENDUM F: | Comparable Improved Sale Data Sheets | |
ADDENDUM G: | Qualifications of the Appraiser |
VALUATION SERVICES | 103 | ADVISORY GROUP | ||
![]() |
ADDENDUM A: Letter of Engagement/Legal Description
![]() |
Cushman & Wakefield of Georgia, Inc. | ||
3300 One Atlantic Center | ||
1201 West Peachtree Street | ||
Atlanta, GA 30309 | ||
404-853-5351 Tel | ||
404-874-8046 Fax | ||
Norman_LeZolta@Cushwake.com |
September 30, 2003
Mr. Douglas Armstrong
General Counsel
ARV Assisted Living, Inc.
245 Fischer Avenue, D-1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Re: | 12 Assisted Living Facilities In California and Arizona |
Dear Mr. Armstrong:
Thank you for requesting our proposal for appraisal services. This proposal letter, with its attachments, will become, upon your acceptance, our letter of engagement to provide the services outlined herein.
THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT:Cushman & Wakefield of Georgia, Inc., Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc., and Cushman & Wakefield of Arizona, Inc. will prepare the appraisals. We understand that ARV Assisted Living, Inc., (“ARV”) and its affiliates are the clients in this assignment and will be referred to herein, collectively, at times as the “Client” and the report will be addressed to ARV and/or one or more of its affiliates as requested by ARV.
The appraisal will be prepared and submitted to the Client for use only in connection with the proxy solicitation/tender offers filed with the SEC and distributed to the holders of limited partnership interests in American Retirement Villas Properties II and American Retirement Villas Properties III, L.P. (the “Partnerships”). Unless we otherwise consent in writing, the appraisal cannot be used (other than in the material related to the proxy solicitation/tender offer referred to above) for any purpose. If the Appraisal is submitted to a lender or investor with the prior approval of C&W, such party should consider this Appraisal as only one factor together with its independent investment considerations and underwriting criteria, in its overall investment decision. Such lender or investor is specifically cautioned to understand all Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions and the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions incorporated in the Appraisal.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:We have agreed to prepare a Complete Appraisal in a Self-Contained format. The market value of the Fee Simple or Leasehold interest will be presented As Is. You have also requested that we include the Going Concern Value as of the specified date of value. The valuation methods utilized in these reports will include the income Approach, Sale Comparison Approach, and Cost Approach if all deemed applicable in producing a credible value estimate. The appraisal reports will be signed by an Appraisal Institute member holding the title of MAI (Member Appraisal Institute). Any appraisal report will
VALUATION SERVICES | ADVISORY GROUP | |||||
![]() |
Mr. Douglas Armstrong
ARV Assisted Living, Inc.
September 30, 2003
Page 2
contain reliance language to the effect that the report is for the use and benefit of ARV, any of its affiliates, agents, and advisors and that the report and references to the report may be included and quoted in any tender offer or solicitation document (whether electronic or hard copy format) in connection with the transactions involving the Partnership referred to above.
PROPERTY INFORMATION:The twelve subject properties are:
ARV PORTFOLIO
Property | Units | City | State | YR Built | Appraisal fee | |||||||||||||||
Covina Villa | 63 | Covina | CA | 1977 | $ | 5,500 | ||||||||||||||
Montego Heights Lodge | 163 | Walnut Creek | CA | 1978 | $ | 4,500 | ||||||||||||||
R.I. Of Burlingame | 67 | Burlingame | CA | 1977 | $ | 4,500 | ||||||||||||||
R.I. Of Campbell | 71 | Campbell | CA | 1977 | $ | 4,500 | ||||||||||||||
R.I. Of Daly City | 95 | Daly City | CA | 1975 | $ | 4,500 | ||||||||||||||
R.I. Of Fremont | 68 | Fremont | CA | 1977 | $ | 4,500 | ||||||||||||||
R.I. Of Fullerton | 68 | Fullerton | CA | 1974 | $ | 4,500 | ||||||||||||||
R.I. Of Sunnyvale | 120 | Sunnyvale | CA | 1977 | $ | 4,500 | ||||||||||||||
Valley View Lodge | 125 | Walnut Creek | CA | 1986 | $ | 4,500 | ||||||||||||||
Inn @ Willow Glen | 83 | San Jose | CA | 1977 | $ | 5,000 | ||||||||||||||
Chandler Villas | 164 | Chandler | AZ | 1988 | $ | 5,500 | ||||||||||||||
Villa Las Posas | 123 | Camarillo | CA | 1997 | $ | 5,500 | ||||||||||||||
1,210 | $ | 57,500 |
The entire fee is inclusive of any travel expenses and is a net fee to ARV or its Designated Affiliates
REGULATIONS OF FEDERAL AGENCIES:Federal banking regulations require banks and savings and loan associations to employ appraisers where a FIRREA compliant appraisal must be used in connection with mortgage loans or other transactions involving federally regulated lending institutions, including mortgage bankers/brokers. The appraisal being prepared would comply with the requirements of FIRREA if it were being delivered for use by a federally regulated institution. This appraisal will be prepared in accordance with theUniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of The Appraisal Foundation, theStandards of Professional Practice and the Code of Ethics of the Appraisal Institute.
STANDARD ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS:Our report will be subject to our standard Assumptions and Limiting Conditions, which will be incorporated into the appraisal. The appraisal report may also be subject to any Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions.
CONSENT:We understand that you Intend to include, in the tender offer/proxy solicitation materials referred to above, a copy of our appraisal report, a description of the report and a summary of the procedures we followed in preparing our report, and our basis for, and the
VALUATION SERVICES | ADVISORY GROUP | |||||
![]() |
Mr. Douglas Armstrong
ARV Assisted Living, Inc.
September 30, 2003
Page 3
methods we used in arriving at, the conclusions reflected in our report. We agree to assist in the preparation of such description and summary and consent to your inclusion in the tender officer/proxy solicitation material of a copy of the appraisal report and a description and summary reasonably acceptable to us. Furthermore, you agree to pay the reasonable fees of our legal counsel for the review of any such description and summary to be included in such material which is the subject of the requested consent.
In the event the Client provides a copy of this appraisal to, or permits reliance thereon by, any person or entity not authorized by C&W in writing to use or rely thereon, ARV hereby agrees to indemnify and hold C&W, its affiliates and their respective shareholders, directors, officers and employees, harmless from and against all damages, expenses, claims and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred in investigating and defending any claim arising from the use of, or reliance upon, the appraisal by any such unauthorized person or entity. ARV also hereby agrees to indemnify and hold C&W, its affiliates and their respective shareholders, directors, officers, and employees harmless from and/against all damages, expenses, claims, costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred in investigating and defending any claim arising from the reliance upon the appraisal by any limited partner of the Partnerships or in connection with the tender offer/proxy solicitation material described herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither ARV nor any of its affiliates shall be required to indemnify or hold harmless C&W, its affiliates or any of their respective shareholders, directors, officers or employees for or against any losses, damages, expenses, claims or costs resulting from the gross negligence, willful misconduct or bad faith of C&W, its affiliates or any of their respective shareholders, directors, officers, or employees. This indemnification shall be binding on ARV, its successors and assigns.
If the Appraisal is referred to or included in any offering material or prospectus, (other than the proxy solicitation/tender offer material referred to above), the Appraisal shall be deemed referred to or included for informational purposes only and C&W, its employees and the Appraiser have no liability to such recipients. C&W disclaims any end all liability to any party other than the party which retained C&W to prepare the Appraisal.
INFORMATION NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSIGNMENT:We understand that you will provide the following information for our review, if available.
• | Plot Plan/Survey and Legal Description | |
• | Building plans | |
• | Original construction and site acquisition costs | |
• | Cost of any major expansions, modifications or repairs incurred over the past three years/Capital Expense Budget | |
• | Operating Statements for three previous years plus year-to-date | |
• | Most recent real estate tax bill or statement | |
• | Operating Budgets |
VALUATION SERVICES | ADVISORY GROUP | |||||
![]() |
Mr. Douglas Armstrong
ARV Assisted Living, Inc.
September 30, 2003
Page 4
• | Sales history of the subject property over the past three years at a minimum | |
• | Rent roll | |
• | On Site Contact – Name and Phone # |
When appropriate, we will include graphics such as maps, photographs and charts to assist in visualizing our findings. The final reports will be delivered electronically. We will provide hard copies upon request.
Fee and Schedule of Payment: The fee for this assignment shall be $57,500 in total (please see previous chart for Individual fees), payable at the time of transmission of the report electronically or in three (3) bound copies. A retainer equal to fifty percent ($28,750) of the fee shall be paid when you return this engagement letter signed by you below authorizing the assignment to us. The balance of the fee will be due upon delivery of the report. Payment of the fee is not contingent on the appraised value, outcome of the consultation report, a loan closing, or any other prearranged condition.
Additional fees will be charged on an hourly basis for any work which exceeds the scope of this proposal, including performing additional valuation scenarios, additional research and conference calls or meetings with any party which exceed the time allotted for an assignment of this nature. If we are requested to stop working on this assignment, for any reason, prior to our completion of the appraisal, we will be entitled to bill you for the time put in to date at our hourly rates.
Response to Review: We agree to respond to your review of our report within five (5) business days of your communication to us, Correspondingly, you will have twenty-one (21) days from receipt of our report to communicate your review. We reserve the right to bill you for responding to your review beyond this time period.
Authorizing the Assignment and Report Delivery: We agree to complete the assignment within (21) days of receipt of your written authorization to proceed. You may authorize the assignment by signing this letter and returning it to us with the requested retainer.
Responding to Subpoena or Other Judicial Command to Produce Documents: If we receive a subpoena or other judicial command to produce documents or to provide testimony involving this assignment in connection with a lawsuit or proceeding, we will use reasonable efforts to notify you of our receipt of same. However, if we are not a party to these proceedings, you agree to reimburse us for the reasonable out-of-pocket expenses that we incur in responding to any subpoena or judicial command, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, if any, as they are incurred. We will be compensated at the then prevailing hourly rates of the personnel responding to the subpoena or command for testimony.
Limitation on Liability: By signing this agreement, except as may be prohibited by applicable law, Client expressly agrees that its sole and exclusive remedy for any and all losses or damages relating to this agreement shall be limited to the amount of the appraisal fee paid by the Client. In the event that the Client, or any other party entitled to do so, makes a claim against C&W or any of its affiliates or any of their respective officers or employees in connection with or in any way relating to this engagement or the appraisal, the maximum damages recoverable from C&W or any of its affiliates or their respective officers or employees shall be
VALUATION SERVICES | ADVISORY GROUP | |||||
![]() |
Mr. Douglas Armstrong
ARV Assisted Living, Inc.
September 30, 2003
Page 5
the amount of the monies actually collected by us for this assignment and under no circumstances shall any claim for consequential damages be made.
You acknowledge that any opinions and conclusions expressed by the Cushman & Wakefield professionals during this assignment are representations made as employees and not as individuals. C&W’s responsibility is limited to the client.
Thank you for calling on us to render these services and we look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
VALUATION SERVICES | ADVISORY GROUP | |||||
![]() |
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
“Appraisal” means the appraisal report and opinion of value stated therein, to which these Assumptions and Limiting Conditions are annexed.
“Property” means the subject of the Appraisal.
“C&W” means Cushman & Wakefield inc. or its subsidiary which issued the Appraisal.
“Appraiser” or “Appraisers” means the employee(s) of C&W who prepared and signed the Appraisal.
General Assumptions
This appraisal is made subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions:
1. | No opinion is Intended to be expressed and no responsibility is assumed for the legal description or for any matters which are legal in nature or require legal expertise or specialized knowledge beyond that of a real estate appraiser. Title to the Property is assumed to be good and marketable and the Property is assumed to be free and clear of all liens unless otherwise stated. No survey of the Property was undertaken. | |
2. | The information contained in the Appraisal or upon which the Appraisal is based has bean gathered from sources the Appraiser assumes to be reliable and accurate. Some of such information may have been provided by the owner of the Property. Neither the Appraiser nor C&W shall be responsible for the accuracy or completeness of such information, including the correctness of opinions, dimensions, sketches, exhibits and factual matters. | |
3. | The opinion of value is only as of the date stated in the Appraisal. Changes since that date in external and market factors or in the Property itself can significantly affect property value. | |
4. | The Appraisal is to be used in whole and not in part. No part of the Appraisal shall be used in conjunction with any other appraisal. Publication of the Appraisal or any portion thereof without the prior written consent of C&W is prohibited. Except as may be otherwise stated in the letter of engagement, the Appraisal may not be used by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed or for purposes other than that for which it was prepared. No part of the Appraisal shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, or used in any sales or promotional material without C&W’s prior written consent. Reference to the Appraisal Institute or to the MAI designation is prohibited, except as it relates to the collaboration between C&W and the Appraisal Institute relative to theReal Estate Outlook publication. | |
5. | Except as may be otherwise stated in the letter of engagement, the Appraiser shall not be required to give testimony in any court or administrative proceeding relating to the Property or the Appraisal. | |
6. | The Appraisal assumes (a) responsible ownership and competent management of the Property: (b) there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the Property, subsoil or structures that render the Property more or less valuable (no responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover them); (c) full compliance with all applicable federal, state and local zoning and environmental regulations and laws, unless noncompliance is stated, defined and analyzed in the Appraisal; and (d) all required licenses, certificates of occupancy and other governmental consents have been or can be obtained and renewed for any use on which the value opinion contained in the Appraisal is based. | |
7. | The physical condition of the improvements analyzed within the Appraisal is based on visual inspection by the Appraiser or other person identified in the Appraisal, C&W assumes no |
VALUATION SERVICES | ![]() |
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
responsibility for the soundness of structural members nor for the condition of mechanical equipment, plumbing or electrical components. | ||
8. | The projected potential gross income referred to in the Appraisal may be based on lease summaries provided by the owner or third parties. The Appraiser has not reviewed lease documents and assumes no responsibility for the authenticity or completeness of lease information provided by others, C&W recommends that legal advice be obtained regarding the interpretation of lease provisions and the contractual rights of parties. | |
9. | The projections of income and expenses are not predictions of the future, Rather, they are the Appraiser’s opinion of current market thinking on future Income and expenses. The Appraiser and C&W make no warranty or representation that these projections will materialize. The real estate market is constantly fluctuating and changing. It is not the Appraiser’s task to predict or in any way warrant the conditions of a future real estate market; the Appraiser can only reflect what the investment community, as of the date of the Appraisal, envisages for the future in terms of rental rates, expenses, supply and demand. | |
10. | Unless otherwise stated in the Appraisal, the existence of potentially hazardous or toxic materials which may have been used in the construction or maintenance of the improvements or may be located at or about the Property was not analyzed in arriving at the opinion of value. These materials (such as formaldehyde foam insulation, asbestos insulation and other potentially hazardous materials) may adversely affect the value of the Property. The Appraisers are not qualified to detect such substances. C&W recommends that an environmental expert be employed to determine the impact of these matters on the opinion of value. | |
11. | Unless otherwise stated in the Appraisal, compliance with the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) has not been analyzed in arriving at the opinion of value. Failure to comply with the requirements of the ADA may adversely affect the value of the property. C&W recommends that an expert in this field be employed. | |
12. | Additional work requested by the client beyond the scope of this assignment will be billed at our prevailing hourly rate. Preparation for court testimony, update valuations, additional research, depositions, travel or other proceedings will be billed at our prevailing hourly rate, plus reimbursement of expenses. | |
13. | The reader acknowledges that Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc. has been retained hereunder as an independent contractor to perform the services described herein and nothing in this agreement shall be deemed to create any other relationship between us. This assignment shall be deemed concluded and the services hereunder completed upon delivery to you of the appraisal report discussed herein. | |
14. | This study has not been prepared for use in connection with litigation and this document is not suitable for use in a litigation action. Accordingly, no rights to expert testimony, pretrial or other conferences, deposition, or related services are Included with this appraisal. If, as a result of this undertaking, C&W or any of its principals, its appraisers or consultants are requested or required to provide any litigation services, such shall be subject to the provisions of the C&W engagement letter or, if not specified therein, subject to the reasonable availability of C&W and/or said principals or appraisers at the time and shall further be subject to the party or parties requesting or requiring such services paying the then-applicable professional fees and expenses of C&W either in accordance with the provisions of the engagement letter or arrangements at the time, as the case may be. |
VALUATION SERVICES | ![]() |
EXHIBIT “A”
That part of the West half of the Northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 1 South, Range 5 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Southeast corner of the West half of the said Northwest quarter, said point bears North 89 degrees 48 minutes 23 seconds East, 1320.58 feet from the Southwest corner of the Northwest quarter of said Section 32; THENCE North 0 degrees 09 minutes 00 seconds West along the East line of said West half, 531.48 feet to the point of beginning;
THENCE continuing North 0 degrees 09 minutes 00 seconds West, 1399.96 feet to a point 60.0 feet South of the North line of the South half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 32;
THENCE South 89 degrees 54 minutes 41 seconds West, parallel with the said North line, 176.90 feet to a point on the arc of a circle, the center of which bears South 0 degrees 05 minutes 19 seconds East, 30.0 feet;
THENCE Southwesterly along the arc of said circle, 47.15 feet to the point of tangency;
THENCE South 0 degrees 08 minutes 10 seconds East, 528.95 feet to a point on the arc of a circle, the center of which bears South 89 degrees 51 minutes 50 seconds West, 630.00 feet ;
THENCE Southwesterly along the arc of said circle, 159.43 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE South 14 degrees 21 minutes 50 seconds West, 372.34 feet to a point on the arc of a circle, the center of which bears South 75 degrees 38 minutes 10 seconds East, 1170.0 feet;
THENCE Southwesterly along the arc of said circle, 296.09 feet to a point on the arc of a second circle, the center of which bears North 89 degrees 51 minutes 50 seconds East, 30.0 feet;
THENCE Southeasterly along the arc of said second circle, 47.12 feet;
THENCE North 89 degrees 51 minutes 50 seconds East, 327.82 feet to the point of beginning;
EXCEPT all oil, minerals and gas in said Southwest quarter * as reserved unto KAREN ANDERSEN by Deed recorded March 24, 1952 in Docket 896, page 54.
* of the Northwest quarter,
ADDENDUM B: Demographics
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 7.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
1990* | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Household Income by Age of Householder | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Householder Age 65 - 69 | 3,991 | 6,003 | 7,421 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Income less than $15,000 | 802 | 20.11 | % | 647 | 10.78 | % | 586 | 7.90 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $15,000 - $24,999 | 835 | 20.92 | % | 648 | 10.79 | % | 600 | 8.08 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $25,000 - $34,999 | 770 | 19.31 | % | 807 | 13.44 | % | 792 | 10.67 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $35,000 - $49,999 | 716 | 17.94 | % | 1,240 | 20.66 | % | 1,222 | 16.46 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $50,000 - $74,999 | 429 | 10.74 | % | 1,313 | 21.87 | % | 1,771 | 23.86 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $75,000 - $99,999 | 139 | 3.48 | % | 701 | 11.68 | % | 1,111 | 14.98 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $100,000 - $149,999 | 54 | 1.34 | % | 462 | 7.70 | % | 863 | 11.63 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $150,000 - $249,999 | 18 | 0.45 | % | 146 | 2.43 | % | 349 | 4.71 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $250,000 - $499,999 | 7 | 0.17 | % | 25 | 0.42 | % | 103 | 1.38 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $500,000 and more | 0 | 0.00 | % | 14 | 0.23 | % | 24 | 0.32 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Median Household Income | 28,197 | 45,872 | 57,206 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Householder Age 70 - 74 | 2,888 | 4,905 | 5,208 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Income less than $15,000 | 638 | 22.10 | % | 488 | 9.95 | % | 371 | 7.12 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $15,000 - $24,999 | 683 | 23.64 | % | 521 | 10.63 | % | 423 | 8.13 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $25,000 - $34,999 | 622 | 21.55 | % | 631 | 12.87 | % | 552 | 10.60 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $35,000 - $49,999 | 542 | 18.75 | % | 1,020 | 20.80 | % | 869 | 16.69 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $50,000 - $74,999 | 313 | 10.83 | % | 1,183 | 24.13 | % | 1,288 | 24.73 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $75,000 - $99,999 | 105 | 3.62 | % | 552 | 11.24 | % | 813 | 15.60 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $100,000 - $149,999 | 57 | 1.97 | % | 364 | 7.42 | % | 583 | 11.19 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $150,000 - $249,999 | 17 | 0.58 | % | 127 | 2.59 | % | 234 | 4.50 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $250,000 - $499,999 | 4 | 0.14 | % | 15 | 0.30 | % | 68 | 1.30 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $500,000 and more | 0 | 0.00 | % | 4 | 0.08 | % | 8 | 0.16 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Median Household Income | 27,697 | 46,922 | 57,554 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Householder Age 75 -79 | 1,820 | 3,922 | 4,136 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Income lass than $15,000 | 773 | 42.49 | % | 725 | 18.47 | % | 530 | 12.81 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $15,000 - $24,999 | 393 | 21.58 | % | 688 | 17.54 | % | 565 | 13.66 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $25,000 - $34,999 | 298 | 16.39 | % | 566 | 14.44 | % | 561 | 13.55 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $35,000 - $49,999 | 188 | 10.32 | % | 763 | 19.46 | % | 776 | 18.76 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $50,000 - $74,999 | 106 | 5.81 | % | 605 | 15.42 | % | 788 | 19.05 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $75,000 - $99,999 | 26 | 1.43 | % | 317 | 8.09 | % | 427 | 10.33 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $100,000 - $149,999 | 18 | 1.01 | % | 180 | 4.60 | % | 321 | 7.76 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $150,000 - $249,999 | 7 | 0.37 | % | 64 | 1.62 | % | 118 | 2.85 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $250,000 - $499,999 | 3 | 0.19 | % | 11 | 0.28 | % | 45 | 1.09 | % |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 17 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s):Radius 7.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
Income $500,000 and more | 0 | 0.00 | % | 3 | 0.07 | % | 6 | 0.14 | % | |||||||||||||||
Median Household Income | 18,346 | 34,656 | 42,964 |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 18 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 7.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
1990* | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Household Income by Age of Householder | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Householder Age 80-84 | 996 | 2,587 | 2,894 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Income less than $15,000 | 450 | 45.14 | % | 497 | 19.19 | % | 393 | 13.59 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $15,000 - $24,999 | 194 | �� | 19.48 | % | 479 | 18.51 | % | 431 | 14.90 | % | |||||||||||||||
Income $25,000 - $34,999 | 170 | 17.03 | % | 364 | 14.06 | % | 406 | 14.03 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $35,000 - $49,999 | 107 | 10.76 | % | 487 | 18.81 | % | 526 | 18.18 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $50,000 - $74,999 | 71 | 7.10 | % | 390 | 15.07 | % | 519 | 17.93 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $75,000 - $99,999 | 14 | 1.41 | % | 194 | 7.50 | % | 290 | 10.03 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $100,000 - $149,999 | 14 | 1.39 | % | 110 | 4.26 | % | 203 | 7.01 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $150,000 - $249,999 | 3 | 0.29 | % | 50 | 1.95 | % | 83 | 2.87 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $250,000 - $499,999 | 1 | 0.10 | % | 10 | 0.38 | % | 30 | 1.02 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $500,000 and more | 1 | 0.10 | % | 7 | 0.27 | % | 13 | 0.43 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Median Household Income | 18,154 | 33,723 | 41,148 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Householder Age 85 and over | 723 | 1,901 | 2,273 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Income less than $15,000 | 325 | 44.91 | % | 405 | 21.32 | % | 352 | 15.49 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $15,000 - $24,999 | 147 | 20.26 | % | 394 | 20.71 | % | 367 | 16.14 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $25,000 - $34,999 | 97 | 13.37 | % | 282 | 14.85 | % | 357 | 15.71 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $35,000 - $49,999 | 59 | 8.11 | % | 308 | 16.21 | % | 392 | 17.26 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $50,000 - $74,999 | 43 | 6.01 | % | 247 | 12.97 | % | 339 | 14.89 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $75,000 - $99,999 | 11 | 1.58 | % | 139 | 7.32 | % | 215 | 9.45 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $100,000 - $149,999 | 10 | 1.36 | % | 70 | 3.68 | % | 149 | 6.55 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $150,000 - $249,999 | 3 | 0.41 | % | 27 | 1.42 | % | 51 | 2.25 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $250,000 - $499,999 | 2 | 0.28 | % | 27 | 1.41 | % | 28 | 1.23 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $500,000 and more | 0 | 0.00 | % | 2 | 0.11 | % | 23 | 1.02 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Median Household Income | 16,531 | 30,336 | 37,290 |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 19 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 7.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
1990* | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Households by Household Income | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Total Households | 93,234 | 163,146 | 189,971 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Income less than $15,000 | 12,235 | 13.12 | % | 9,892 | 6.06 | % | 8,073 | 4.25 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $15,000 - $24,999 | 13,962 | 14.98 | % | 11,935 | 7.32 | % | 9,854 | 5.19 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $25,000 - $34,999 | 15,669 | 16.81 | % | 15,189 | 9.31 | % | 15,119 | 7.96 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $35,000 - $49,999 | 21,091 | 22.62 | % | 25,061 | 15.36 | % | 22,889 | 12.05 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $50,000 - $74,999 | 19,539 | 20.96 | % | 41,110 | 25.20 | % | 40,349 | 21.24 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $75,000 - $99,999 | 6,733 | 7.22 | % | 26,827 | 16.44 | % | 34,718 | 18.28 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $100,000 - $149,999 | 2,971 | 3.19 | % | 21,469 | 13.16 | % | 33,952 | 17.87 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $150,000 - $249,999 | 806 | 0.86 | % | 9,975 | 6.11 | % | 17,511 | 9.22 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $250,000 - $499,999 | 268 | 0.29 | % | 1,330 | 0.82 | % | 6,550 | 3.45 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $500,000 and more | 64 | 0.07 | % | 357 | 0.22 | % | 956 | 0.50 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Average Household Income | $ | 43,814 | $ | 74,813 | $ | 92,146 | |||||||||||||||||||
Median Household Income | $ | 38,416 | $ | 61,856 | $ | 74,195 | |||||||||||||||||||
Per Capita Income | $ | 16,053 | $ | 27,953 | $ | 34,382 |
1990* | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Specified Owner-Occupied Housing Unit Values | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Total Specified Owner-Occupied Housing Unit Values | 52,482 | 95,235 | 111,112 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Value less than $25,000 | 303 | 0.58 | % | 410 | 0.43 | % | 421 | 0.38 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Value $25,000 - $49.999 | 1,466 | 2.79 | % | 514 | 0.54 | % | 423 | 0.38 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Value $50,000 - $74,999 | 8,919 | 16.99 | % | 1,994 | 2.09 | % | 1,280 | l.15 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Value $75,000 - $99,999 | 19,488 | 37.13 | % | 6,535 | 6.86 | % | 4,304 | 3.87 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Value $100,000 - $149,999 | 15,859 | 30.22 | % | 32,391 | 34.01 | % | 21,250 | 19.12 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Value $150,000 - $199,999 | 4,274 | 8.14 | % | 26,692 | 28.03 | % | 32,467 | 29.22 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Value $200,000 - $299,999 | 1,635 | 3.12 | % | 19,432 | 20.40 | % | 33,715 | 30.34 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Value $300,000 - $399,999 | 330 | 0.63 | % | 4,323 | 4.54 | % | 10,034 | 9.03 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Value $400,000 - $499,999 | 98 | 0.19 | % | 1,426 | 1.50 | % | 3,818 | 3.44 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Value $500,000 Or More | 110 | 0.21 | % | 1,517 | 1.59 | % | 3,400 | 3.06 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Median Specified Owner-Occupied Housing Unit Value | 94,950 | 160,815 | 192,934 |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 20 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 7.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
2000 | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Group Quarters by Population Type | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Institutionalized: | 1,045 | 1,045 | 1,051 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Correctional Institutions | 0 | 0.00 | % | 1 | 0.10 | % | 4 | 0.38 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Nursing Homes | 911 | 87.17 | % | 908 | 86.89 | % | 908 | 86.39 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Other institutions | 134 | 12.83 | % | 136 | 13.02 | % | 139 | 13.23 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Noninstitutionalized | 624 | 627 | 633 |
2000 | 2002 | 2007 | ||||||||||
Tenure of Occupied Housing Units | Census | Estimate | Projection | |||||||||
Owner Occupied | 106,335 | 114,634 | 134,794 | |||||||||
Renter Occupied | 45,771 | 48,512 | 55,177 |
Pop 65 | ||||||||||
1990* Census Household Type and Relationship | and Over | Pct. | ||||||||
Total | 17,365 | |||||||||
In Family Households | 12,704 | 73.16 | % | |||||||
Householder | 6,502 | 37.45 | % | |||||||
Spouse | 4,730 | 27.24 | % | |||||||
Other relative | 1,410 | 8.12 | % | |||||||
Non-Relative | 62 | 0.36 | % | |||||||
In Group Quarters | 731 | 4.21 | % | |||||||
Institutionalized | 731 | 4.21 | % | |||||||
Other | 0 | 0.00 | % | |||||||
In Non-Family Households | 3,930 | 22.63 | % | |||||||
Male Householder | 733 | 4.22 | % | |||||||
Living Alone | 713 | 4.11 | % | |||||||
Not Living Alone | 20 | 0.12 | % | |||||||
Female Householder | 3,025 | 17.42 | % | |||||||
Living Alone | 2,922 | 16.82 | % | |||||||
Not Living Alone | 104 | 0.60 | % | |||||||
Non-Relative | 171 | 0.98 | % |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 21 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 7.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
1990* Census Household Income - Monthly Owner | 65 Yrs | ||||||||||||||||
Costs as a Percent of 1989 Household Income | Total Units | Pct. | and Over | Pct. | |||||||||||||
Total Specified Owner-Occupied Housing Units | 53,371 | 6,474 | |||||||||||||||
Less than 20% | 22,113 | 41.43 | % | 3,870 | 59.78 | % | |||||||||||
20 to 24% | 10,424 | 19.53 | % | 711 | 10.98 | % | |||||||||||
25 to 29% | 7,951 | 14.90 | % | 476 | 7.35 | % | |||||||||||
30 to 34% | 4,303 | 8.06 | % | 364 | 5.63 | % | |||||||||||
35% or more | 8,341 | 15.63 | % | 1,018 | 15.72 | % | |||||||||||
Not Computed | 238 | 0.45 | % | 35 | 0.54 | % |
1990* Census Household Income | 65 Yrs | ||||||||||||||||
Gross Rent as a Percent of 1989 Household Income | Total Units | Pct. | and Over | Pct. | |||||||||||||
Total Specified Owner-Occupied Housing Units | 33,876 | 2,569 | |||||||||||||||
Less than 20% | 10,071 | 29.73 | % | 388 | 15.11 | % | |||||||||||
20 to 24% | 5,898 | 17.41 | % | 212 | 8.24 | % | |||||||||||
25 to 29% | 4,204 | 12.41 | % | 262 | 10.19 | % | |||||||||||
30 to 34% | 3,122 | 9.22 | % | 176 | 6.84 | % | |||||||||||
35% or more | 9,407 | 27.77 | % | 1,377 | 53.58 | % | |||||||||||
Not Computed | 1,174 | 3.47 | % | 155 | 6.03 | % |
65 Yrs | ||||||||||||||||
1990* Census Occupied Housing Units | Total Units | Pct. | and Over | Pct. | ||||||||||||
Owner Occupied Units | 59,264 | 63.56 | % | 7,999 | 75.59 | % | ||||||||||
Renter Occupied Units | 33,979 | 36.44 | % | 2,583 | 24.41 | % | ||||||||||
Complete Plumbing Facilities | 92,977 | 99.71 | % | 10,560 | 99.79 | % | ||||||||||
Lacking Plumbing facilities | 266 | 0.29 | % | 30 | 0.28 | % | ||||||||||
With Telephone | 90,369 | 96.92 | % | 10,447 | 98.72 | % | ||||||||||
No Telephone | 2,875 | 3.08 | % | 145 | 1.37 | % | ||||||||||
One or more Vehicles | 89,646 | 96.14 | % | 9,177 | 86.73 | % | ||||||||||
No Vehicles Available | 3,596 | 3.86 | % | 1,417 | 13.39 | % |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 22 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 7.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
1990* Census Poverty Status | 75 Yrs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
By Household Type By Age of Householder | Total | Pct. | Age 65 -74 | Pct. | and Over | Pct. | ||||||||||||||||||||
Total Households | 93,338 | 6,744 | 3,525 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Married Couple Family | 55,593 | 59.56 | % | 4,503 | 66.78 | % | 1,438 | 40.79 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Other Family | 11,522 | 12.34 | % | 416 | 6.17 | % | 158 | 4.49 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Male Householder | 2,947 | 3.16 | % | 87 | 1.29 | % | 77 | 2.18 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Female Householder | 8,576 | 9.19 | % | 329 | 4.88 | % | 81 | 2.31 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Non-Family | 26,222 | 28.09 | % | 1,824 | 27.05 | % | 1,929 | 54.72 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Householder Living Alone | 18,980 | 20.34 | % | 1,746 | 25.88 | % | 1,883 | 53.43 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Householder not Living Alone | 7,242 | 7.76 | % | 79 | 1.16 | % | 46 | 1.30 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Above Poverty | 86,619 | 92.80 | % | 6,275 | 93.05 | % | 3,067 | 87.00 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Married Couple Family | 53,802 | 57.64 | % | 4,401 | 65.26 | % | 1,368 | 38.80 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Other Family | 9,449 | 10.12 | % | 368 | 5.46 | % | 137 | 3.89 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Male Householder | 2,6l9 | 2.81 | % | 70 | 1.04 | % | 66 | 1.87 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Female Householder | 6,830 | 7.32 | % | 298 | 4.41 | % | 71 | 2.01 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Non-Family | 23,368 | 25.04 | % | 1,506 | 22.33 | % | 1,562 | 44.32 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Householder Living Alone | 17,046 | 18.26 | % | 1,429 | 21.20 | % | 1,530 | 43.40 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Householder not Living Alone | 6,321 | 6.77 | % | 77 | 1.14 | % | 32 | 0.92 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Below Poverty | 6,719 | 7.20 | % | 469 | 6.95 | % | 458 | 13.00 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Married Couple Family | 1,791 | 1.92 | % | 103 | 1.52 | % | 70 | 1.99 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Other Family | 2,074 | 2.22 | % | 48 | 0.72 | % | 21 | 0.60 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Male Householder | 328 | 0.35 | % | 17 | 0.25 | % | 11 | 0.31 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Female Householder | 1,746 | 1.87 | % | 31 | 0.46 | % | 10 | 2.80 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Non-Family | 2,855 | 3.06 | % | 318 | 4.71 | % | 367 | 10.40 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Householder Living Alone | 1,934 | 2.07 | % | 316 | 4.69 | % | 354 | 10.03 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Householder not Living Alone | 921 | 0.99 | % | 2 | 0.03 | % | 13 | 0.37 | % |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 23 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 7.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
1990* Census Mobility and Disability | 65 Yrs | 75 Yrs | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Civilian Noninstitutionalized Persons Age 16 and Over | Total | Pct. | and Over | Pct. | and Over | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Persons | 187,581 | 16,639 | 5,424 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
With Mblty or Care Limits | 6,622 | 3.53 | % | 2,511 | 15.09 | % | 1,550 | 28.58 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Mobility Limits Only | 2,425 | 1.29 | % | 1,283 | 7.71 | % | 847 | 15.62 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Self Care Limits Only | 2,466 | 1.31 | % | 341 | 2.05 | % | 173 | 3.19 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Both Limits | 1,730 | 0.92 | % | 887 | 5.33 | % | 530 | 9.76 | % | ||||||||||||||||
No Mblty or Care Limits | 180,959 | 96.47 | % | 14,128 | 84.91 | % | 3,874 | 71.42 | % | ||||||||||||||||
With Work Disability | 13,627 | 7.26 | % | 4,873 | 29.29 | % | |||||||||||||||||||
In Labor Force | 4,775 | 2.55 | % | 249 | 1.49 | % | |||||||||||||||||||
Employed | 4,384 | 2.34 | % | 228 | 1.37 | % | |||||||||||||||||||
Unemployed | 392 | 0.21 | % | 21 | 0.13 | % | |||||||||||||||||||
Not in Labor Force | 8,851 | 4.72 | % | 4,624 | 27.79 | % | |||||||||||||||||||
Prevented from Working | 7,311 | 3.90 | % | 3,923 | 23.58 | % | |||||||||||||||||||
Not Prevented from Wrk | 1,541 | 0.82 | % | 701 | 4.22 | % | |||||||||||||||||||
No Work Disability | 173,954 | 92.74 | % | 11,774 | 70.76 | % | |||||||||||||||||||
In Labor Force | 137,241 | 73.16 | % | 1,543 | 9.28 | % | |||||||||||||||||||
Employed | 131,291 | 69.99 | % | 1,497 | 9.00 | % | |||||||||||||||||||
Unemployed | 5,950 | 3.17 | % | 46 | 0.28 | % | |||||||||||||||||||
Not in Labor Force | 36,713 | 19.57 | % | 10,231 | 61.49 | % |
*Census 2000 SF3 (long form) data is not yet available. Data Items [ILLEGIBLE] 1990 Census figures converted to Census 2000 geographics.
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 24 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 7.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
2000 | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Population by Age | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Total Population | 411,698 | 441,209 | 514,510 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 45 -54 | 51,869 | 12.60 | % | 57,475 | 13.03 | % | 70,542 | 13.71 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 55-59 | 16,543 | 4.02 | % | 19,246 | 4.36 | % | 25,613 | 4.98 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 60 -64 | 11,723 | 2.85 | % | 13,067 | 2.96 | % | 18,202 | 3.54 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 65-69 | 9,660 | 2.35 | % | 10,142 | 2.30 | % | 12,527 | 2.43 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 70 -74 | 8,115 | 1.97 | % | 8,315 | 1.88 | % | 8,830 | 1.72 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 75 -79 | 6,257 | 1.52 | % | 6,452 | 1.46 | % | 6,827 | 1.33 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 80 -84 | 3,898 | 0.95 | % | 4,315 | 0.98 | % | 4,814 | 0.94 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 85 and over | 3,050 | 0.74 | % | 3,417 | 0.77 | % | 4,077 | 0.79 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 55 and over | 59,246 | 14.39 | % | 64,955 | 14.72 | % | 80,891 | 15.72 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 30,980 | 7.53 | % | 32,642 | 7.40 | % | 37,076 | 7.21 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Total Population, Male | 205,140 | 219,716 | 256,022 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 45-54 | 25,024 | 12.20 | % | 27,725 | 12.62 | % | 34,088 | 13.31 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 55 -59 | 7,949 | 3.87 | % | 9,262 | 4.22 | % | 12,330 | 4.82 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 60 -64 | 5,665 | 2.76 | % | 6,304 | 2.87 | % | 8,806 | 3.44 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 65 -69 | 4,638 | 2.26 | % | 4,867 | 2.22 | % | 6,056 | 2.37 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 70 -74 | 3,643 | 1.78 | % | 3,751 | 1.71 | % | 3,985 | 1.56 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 75- 79 | 2,658 | 1.30 | % | 2,749 | 1.25 | % | 2,905 | 1.13 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 80 -84 | 1,586 | 0.77 | % | 1,732 | 0.79 | % | 1,946 | 0.76 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 85 and over | 932 | 0.45 | % | 1,045 | 0.48 | % | 1,244 | 0.49 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 55 and over | 27,072 | 13.20 | % | 29,711 | 13.52 | % | 37,271 | 14.56 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 13,457 | 6.56 | % | 14,145 | 6.44 | % | 16,135 | 6.30 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Total Population, Female | 206,558 | 221,493 | 258,488 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 45 -54 | 26,844 | 13.00 | % | 29,750 | 13.43 | % | 36,454 | 14.10 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 55 -59 | 8,594 | 4.16 | % | 9,984 | 4.51 | % | 13,282 | 5.14 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 60 -64 | 6,057 | 2.93 | % | 6,763 | 3.05 | % | 9,396 | 3.63 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 65 -69 | 5,023 | 2.43 | % | 5,275 | 2.38 | % | 6,471 | 2.50 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 70 -74 | 4,472 | 2.17 | % | 4,564 | 2.06 | % | 4,846 | 1.87 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 75 -79 | 3,598 | 1.74 | % | 3,702 | 1.67 | % | 3,923 | 1.52 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 80 -84 | 2,312 | 1.12 | % | 2,584 | 1.17 | % | 2,868 | 1.11 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 85 and over | 2,118 | 1.03 | % | 2,372 | 1.07 | % | 2,833 | 1.10 | % |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 13 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 7.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
2000 | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Population by Age | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Age 55 and over | 32,174 | 15.58 | % | 35,244 | 15.91 | % | 43,619 | 16.87 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 17,523 | 8.48 | % | 18,497 | 8.35 | % | 8.35 | 8.10 | % |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 14 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 7.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
2000 | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Population by Single Race Classification | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
White Alone | 326,662 | 347,158 | 397,466 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 28,537 | 8.74 | % | 30,027 | 8.65 | % | 33,699 | 8.48 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Black or African American Alone | 14,030 | 15,549 | 19,236 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 558 | 3.97 | % | 600 | 3.86 | % | 748 | 3.89 | % | ||||||||||||||||
American Indian and Alaska Native Alone | 7,181 | 7,927 | 9,735 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 157 | 2.18 | % | 162 | 2.05 | % | 208 | 2.13 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Aslan Alone | 16,287 | 18,156 | 22,715 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 735 | 4.51 | % | 786 | 4.33 | % | 1,018 | 4.48 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Native [ILLEGIBLE] and Other Pacific Islander Alone | 618 | 670 | 835 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 16 | 2.54 | % | 16 | 2.34 | % | 22 | 2.62 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Some Other Race Alone | 34,470 | 38,183 | 47,269 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 705 | 2.05 | % | 761 | 1.99 | % | 997 | 2.11 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Two or More Races | 12,450 | 13,567 | 17,255 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and ever | 273 | 2.19 | % | 290 | 2.14 | % | 383 | 2.22 | % |
2000 | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Population by Hispanic or Latino | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Hispanic or latino | 72,773 | 80,163 | 98,762 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 2,057 | 2.83 | % | 2,134 | 2.66 | % | 2,792 | 2.83 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Not Hispanic or Latino | 338,925 | 361,046 | 415,748 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 28,923 | 8.53 | % | 30,508 | 8.45 | % | 34,284 | 8.25 | % |
1990* | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Household Income by Age of Householder | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Householder Age 55-64 | 8,681 | 18,840 | 25,462 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Income less than $15,000 | 1,161 | 13.38 | % | 1,185 | 6.29 | % | 1,090 | 4.28 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $15,000 - $24,999 | 1,294 | 14.91 | % | 1,322 | 7.02 | % | 1,248 | 4.90 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $25,000 - $34,999 | 1,346 | 15.50 | % | 1,655 | 8.78 | % | 1,966 | 7.72 | % | ||||||||||||||||
income $35,000 - $49,999 | 1,570 | 18.08 | % | 2,909 | 15.44 | % | 2,934 | 11.52 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $50,000 - $74,999 | 2,057 | 23.69 | % | 4,331 | 22.99 | % | 5,236 | 20.56 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $75,000 - $99,999 | 638 | 7.35 | % | 3,042 | 16.14 | % | 4,546 | 17.86 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $100,000 - $149,999 | 379 | 4.37 | % | 2,909 | 15.44 | % | 4,800 | 18.85 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $150,000 - $249,999 | 104 | 1.20 | % | 1,245 | 6.61 | % | 2,598 | 10.20 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $250,000 - $499,999 | 38 | 0.44 | % | 203 | 1.08 | % | 906 | 3.56 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $500,000 and more | 6 | 0.07 | % | 41 | 0.22 | % | 138 | 0.54 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Median Household Income | 39,725 | 63,562 | 76,419 |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 15 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 7.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 16 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 10.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
2000 | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Population by Age | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Total Population | 748,440 | 797,425 | 919,611 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 45 - 54 | 87,107 | 11.64 | % | 96,289 | 12.08 | % | 117,627 | 12.79 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 55 - 59 | 27,676 | 3.70 | % | 32,168 | 4.03 | % | 42,650 | 4.64 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 60 - 64 | 19,977 | 2.67 | % | 22,210 | 2.79 | % | 30,801 | 3.35 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 65 - 69 | 16,662 | 2.23 | % | 17,456 | 2.19 | % | 21,515 | 2.34 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 70 - 74 | 14,405 | 1.92 | % | 14,731 | 1.85 | % | 15,612 | 1.70 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 75 - 79 | 11,503 | 1.54 | % | 11,844 | 1.49 | % | 12,552 | 1.36 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 80 - 84 | 7,310 | 0.98 | % | 8,083 | 1.01 | % | 9,037 | 0.98 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 85 and over | 5,611 | 0.75 | % | 6,307 | 0.79 | % | 7,539 | 0.82 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 55 and over | 103,144 | 13.78 | % | 112,799 | 14.15 | % | 139,706 | 15.19 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 55,490 | 7.41 | % | 58,421 | 7.33 | % | 66,256 | 7.20 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Total Population, Male | 377,169 | 401,469 | 462,430 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 45 - 54 | 42,750 | 11.33 | % | 47,271 | 11.77 | % | 57,781 | 12.50 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 55 - 59 | 13,336 | 3.54 | % | 15,501 | 3.86 | % | 20,598 | 4.45 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 60 - 64 | 9,578 | 2.54 | % | 10,643 | 2.65 | % | 14,767 | 3.20 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 65 - 69 | 7,821 | 2.07 | % | 8,181 | 2.04 | % | 10,134 | 2.19 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 70 - 74 | 6,399 | 1.70 | % | 6,579 | 1.64 | % | 6,954 | 1.50 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 75 - 79 | 4,810 | 1.28 | % | 4,955 | 1.23 | % | 5,247 | 1.13 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 80 - 84 | 2,919 | 0.77 | % | 3,180 | 0.79 | % | 3,562 | 0.77 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 85 and over | 1,750 | 0.46 | % | 1,962 | 0.49 | % | 2,358 | 0.51 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 55 and over | 46,612 | 12.36 | % | 51,001 | 12.70 | % | 63,641 | 13.76 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 23,698 | 6.28 | % | 24,856 | 6.19 | % | 28,256 | 6.11 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Total Population, Female | 371,270 | 395,956 | 457,181 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 45 - 54 | 44,356 | 11.95 | % | 49,018 | 12.38 | % | 59,846 | 13.09 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 55 - 59 | 14,341 | 3.86 | % | 16,666 | 4.21 | % | 22,051 | 4.82 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 60 - 64 | 10,399 | 2.80 | % | 11,567 | 2.92 | % | 16,014 | 3.50 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 65 - 69 | 8,841 | 2.38 | % | 9,275 | 2.34 | % | 11,381 | 2.49 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 70 - 74 | 8,006 | 2.16 | % | 8,153 | 2.06 | % | 8,658 | 1.89 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 75 - 79 | 6,693 | 1.80 | % | 6,889 | 1.74 | % | 7,305 | 1.60 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 80 - 84 | 4,392 | 1.18 | % | 4,903 | 1.24 | % | 5,475 | 1.20 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 85 and over | 3,860 | 1.04 | % | 4,345 | 1.10 | % | 5,181 | 1.13 | % |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 25 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 10.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
2000 | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Population by Age | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Age 55 and over | 56,532 | 15.23 | % | 61,799 | 15.61 | % | 76,066 | 16.64 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 31,792 | 8.56 | % | 33,565 | 8.48 | % | 8.48 | 8.31 | % |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 26 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 10.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
2000 | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Population by Single Race Classification | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
White Alone | 579,442 | 610,775 | 688,120 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 51,097 | 8.82 | % | 53,736 | 8.80 | % | 60,187 | 8.75 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Black or African American Alone | 27,066 | 29,672 | 35,967 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 1,005 | 3.71 | % | 1,071 | 3.61 | % | 1,317 | 3.66 | % | ||||||||||||||||
American Indian and Alaska Native Alone | 14,915 | 16,391 | 20,004 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 351 | 2.35 | % | 363 | 2.22 | % | 464 | 2.32 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Asian Alone | 25,511 | 28,205 | 34,764 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 1,054 | 4.13 | % | 1,127 | 4.00 | % | 1,452 | 4.18 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone | 1,651 | 1,778 | 2,168 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 36 | 2.20 | % | 35 | 1.99 | % | 54 | 2.47 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Some Other Race Alone | 76,456 | 85,208 | 106,524 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 1,428 | l.87 | % | 1,541 | 1.81 | % | 2,045 | 1.92 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Two or More Races | 23,400 | 25,396 | 32,064 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 519 | 2.22 | % | 546 | 2.15 | % | 737 | 2.30 | % |
2000 | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Population by Hispanic or Latino | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Hispanic or Latino | 155,299 | 172,187 | 214,213 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 4,138 | 2.66 | % | 4,230 | 2.46 | % | 5,601 | 2.61 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Not Hispanic or Latino | 593,140 | 625,238 | 705,398 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Age 65 and over | 51,352 | 8.66 | % | 54,191 | 8.67 | % | 60,654 | 8.60 | % |
1990* | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Household Income by Age of Householder | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Householder Age 55 -64 | 16,883 | 31,887 | 42,663 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Income less than $15,000 | 2,649 | 15.69 | % | 2,321 | 7.28 | % | 2,158 | 5.06 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $15,000 - $24,999 | 2,733 | 16.19 | % | 2,538 | 7.96 | % | 2,529 | 5.93 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $25,000 - $34,999 | 2,523 | 14.95 | % | 3,108 | 9.75 | % | 3,592 | 8.42 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $35,000 - $49,999 | 3,129 | 18.53 | % | 5,099 | 15.99 | % | 5,344 | 12.53 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income 150,000 - $74,999 | 3,470 | 20.56 | % | 7,099 | 22.26 | % | 8,804 | 20.64 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $75,000 - $99,999 | 1,199 | 7.10 | % | 4,907 | 15.39 | % | 7,134 | 16.72 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $100,000 - $149,999 | 636 | 3.77 | % | 4,378 | 13.73 | % | 7,447 | 17.46 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $150,000 - $249,999 | 161 | 0.95 | % | 2,055 | 6.45 | % | 3,960 | 9.28 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $250,000 - $499,999 | 56 | 0.33 | % | 311 | 0.97 | % | 1,476 | 3.46 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $500,000 and more | 12 | 0.07 | % | 71 | 0.22 | % | 220 | 0.52 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Median Household Income | 36,814 | 60,132 | 71,890 |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 27 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 10.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 28 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 10.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
1990* | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Household Income by Age of Householder | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Householder Age 65 -69 | 7,925 | 10,482 | 12,832 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Income less than $15,000 | 2,019 | 25.47 | % | 1,271 | 12.12 | % | 1,105 | 8.61 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $15,000 - $24,999 | 1,730 | 21.82 | % | 1,396 | 13.32 | % | 1,330 | 10.37 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $25,000 - $34,999 | 1,417 | 17.88 | % | 1,453 | 13.86 | % | 1,497 | 11.67 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $35,000 - $49,999 | 1,264 | 15.95 | % | 2,240 | 21.37 | % | 2,189 | 17.06 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $50,000 - $74,999 | 756 | 9.54 | % | 2,047 | 19.53 | % | 3,017 | 23.51 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $75,000 - $99,999 | 204 | 2.57 | % | 1,053 | 10.05 | % | 1,615 | 12.59 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $100,000 - $149,999 | 107 | 1.35 | % | 688 | 6.57 | % | 1,311 | 10.22 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $150,000 - $249,999 | 22 | 0.27 | % | 267 | 2.54 | % | 545 | 4.25 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $250,000 - $499,999 | 9 | 0.12 | % | 50 | 0.48 | % | 180 | 1.41 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $500,000 and more | 0 | 0.00 | % | 17 | 0.16 | % | 42 | 0.33 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Median Household Income | 25,106 | 42,507 | 52,448 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Householder Age 70 -74 | 6,129 | 8,814 | 9,277 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Income less than $15,000 | 1,827 | 29.82 | % | 1,056 | 11.98 | % | 784 | 8.45 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $15,000 - $24,999 | 1,537 | 25.08 | % | 1,168 | 13.25 | % | 979 | 10.56 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $25,000 - $34,999 | 1,179 | 19.24 | % | 1,200 | 13.62 | % | 1,100 | 11.86 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $35,000 - $49,999 | 1,022 | 16.67 | % | 1,909 | 21.66 | % | 1,613 | 17.39 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $50,000 - $74,999 | 569 | 9.29 | % | 1,853 | 21.02 | % | 2,229 | 24.03 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $75,000 - $99,999 | 158 | 2.57 | % | 851 | 9.65 | % | 1,201 | 12.95 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $100,000 - $ 149,999 | 94 | 1.53 | % | 525 | 5.96 | % | 886 | 9.55 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $150,000 - $249,999 | 22 | 0.35 | % | 216 | 2.45 | % | 354 | 3.82 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $250,000 - $499,999 | 7 | 0.11 | % | 28 | 0.32 | % | 110 | 1.19 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $500,000 and more | 0 | 0.00 | % | 8 | 0.09 | % | 19 | 0.20 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Median Housahold Income | 23,963 | 42,716 | 51,800 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Householder Age 75 - 79 | 4,305 | 7,433 | 7,791 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Income less than $15,000 | 1,976 | 45.90 | % | 1,575 | 21.19 | % | 1,155 | 14.82 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $15,000 - $24,999 | 942 | 21.87 | % | 1,471 | 19.79 | % | 1,287 | 16.52 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $25,000 - $34,999 | 629 | 14.61 | % | 1,059 | 14.25 | % | 1,159 | 14.87 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $35,000 - $49,999 | 374 | 8.68 | % | 1,298 | 17.46 | % | 1,337 | 17.16 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $50,000 - $74,999 | 226 | 5.25 | % | 1,059 | 14.24 | % | 1,292 | 16.58 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $75,000 - $99,999 | 58 | 1.34 | % | 534 | 7.19 | % | 708 | 9.09 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $100,000 - $149,999 | 36 | 0.84 | % | 302 | 4.06 | % | 548 | 7.03 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $150,000 - $249,999 | 13 | 0.30 | % | 107 | 1.44 | % | 218 | 2.80 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $250,000 - $499,999 | 5 | 0.12 | % | 18 | 0.24 | % | 72 | 0.92 | % |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 29 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 10.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
1990* | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Household Income by Age of Householder | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Income $500.000 and more | 0 | 0.00 | % | 9 | 0.12 | % | 15 | 0.19 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Median Household Income | 16,614 | 31,321 | 38,307 |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 30 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 10.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
1990* | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Household Income by Age of Householder | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Householder Age 80 -84 | 2,530 | 5,036 | 5,574 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Income less than $15,000 | 1,273 | 50.19 | % | 1,119 | 22.22 | % | 861 | 15.44 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $15,000 - $24,999 | 558 | 22.00 | % | 1,034 | 20.53 | % | 974 | 17.48 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $25,000 - $34,999 | 373 | 14.69 | % | 731 | 14.52 | % | 866 | 15.53 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $35,000 - $49,999 | 218 | 8.59 | % | 869 | 17.27 | % | 967 | 17.36 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $50,000 - $74,999 | 136 | 5.35 | % | 697 | 13.84 | % | 904 | 16.22 | % | ||||||||||||||||
income $75,000 - $99,999 | 35 | 1.37 | % | 304 | 6.03 | % | 474 | 8.50 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $100,000 - $149,999 | 21 | 0.83 | % | 173 | 3.44 | % | 323 | 5.80 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $150,000 - $249,999 | 7 | 0.28 | % | 75 | 1.49 | % | 131 | 2.35 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $250,000 - $499,999 | 2 | 0.08 | % | 19 | 0.38 | % | 49 | 0.88 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $500,000 and more | 2 | 0.08 | % | 14 | 0.28 | % | 24 | 0.43 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Median Household Income | 15,68l | 29,993 | 36,340 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Householder Age 85 and over | 1,800 | 3,650 | 4,328 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Income less than $15,000 | 882 | 49.02 | % | 846 | 23.17 | % | 709 | 16.39 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $15,000 - $24,999 | 383 | 21.29 | % | 801 | 21.94 | % | 798 | 18.44 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $25,000 - $34,999 | 225 | 12.52 | % | 550 | 15.08 | % | 706 | 16.31 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $35,000 - $49,999 | 134 | 7.43 | % | 589 | 16.12 | % | 744 | 17.20 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $50,000 - $74,999 | 83 | 4.61 | % | 465 | 12.74 | % | 624 | 14.43 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $75,000 - $99,999 | 24 | 1.32 | % | 204 | 5.59 | % | 361 | 8.34 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $100,000 - $149,999 | 15 | 0.84 | % | 114 | 3.13 | % | 225 | 5.21 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $150,000 - $249,999 | 8 | 0.44 | % | 46 | 1.26 | % | 92 | 2.13 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $250,000 - $499,999 | 2 | 0.11 | % | 33 | 0.90 | % | 41 | 0.96 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $500,000 and more | 0 | 0.00 | % | 2 | 0.05 | % | 26 | 0.60 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Median Household Income | 14,898 | 28,240 | 34,292 |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 31 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 10.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
1990* | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Households by Household Income | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Total Households | 186,363 | 290,958 | 333,534 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Income less than $15,000 | 34,013 | 18.25 | % | 24,032 | 8.26 | % | 19,474 | 5.84 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $15,000 - $24,999 | 32,500 | 17.44 | % | 26,424 | 9.08 | % | 23,349 | 7.00 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $25,000 - $34,999 | 31,553 | 16.93 | % | 30,436 | 10.46 | % | 30,089 | 9.02 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $35,000 - $49,999 | 39,036 | 20.95 | % | 46,924 | 16.13 | % | 44,888 | 13.46 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $50,000 - $74,999 | 32,595 | 17.49 | % | 68,365 | 23.50 | % | 68,921 | 20.66 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $75,000 - $99,999 | 10,701 | 5.74 | % | 42,324 | 14.55 | % | 54,716 | 16.40 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $100,000 - $149,999 | 4,660 | 2.50 | % | 33,835 | 11.63 | % | 52,969 | 15.88 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $150,000 - $249,999 | 1,221 | 0.66 | % | 15,868 | 5.45 | % | 27,268 | 8.18 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $250,000 - $499,999 | 412 | 0.22 | % | 2,154 | 0.74 | % | 10,285 | 3.08 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Income $500,000 and more | 112 | 0.06 | % | 595 | 0.20 | % | 1,575 | 0.47 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Average Household Income | $ | 39,333 | $ | 69,811 | $ | 86,078 | |||||||||||||||||||
Median Household Income | $ | 33,521 | $ | 56,459 | $ | 67,762 | |||||||||||||||||||
Per Capita Income | $ | 14,615 | $ | 25,640 | $ | 31,367 |
1990* | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Specified Owner-Occupied Housing Unit Values | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Total Specified Owner-Occupied Housing Unit Values | 92,759 | 155,743 | 180,240 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Value less then $25,000 | 595 | 0.64 | % | 625 | 0.40 | % | 621 | 0.34 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Value $25,000 - $49,999 | 3,757 | 4.05 | % | 906 | 0.58 | % | 692 | 0.38 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Value $50,000 - $74,999 | 22,595 | 24.36 | % | 4,284 | 2.75 | % | 2,550 | 1.41 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Value $75,000 - $99,999 | 32,184 | 34.70 | % | 15,583 | 10.01 | % | 9,901 | 5.49 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Value $100,000 - $149,999 | 23,200 | 25.01 | % | 54,380 | 34.92 | % | 41,167 | 22.84 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Value $150,000 - $199,999 | 6,611 | 7.13 | % | 37,561 | 24.12 | % | 47,566 | 26.39 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Value $200,000 - $299,999 | 2,786 | 3.00 | % | 29,910 | 19.21 | % | 49,575 | 27.50 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Value $300,000 - $399,999 | 643 | 0.69 | % | 7,200 | 4.62 | % | 15,906 | 8.83 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Value $400,000 - $499,999 | 189 | 0.20 | % | 2,726 | 1.75 | % | 6,356 | 3.53 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Value $500,000 Or More | 199 | 0.21 | % | 2,568 | 1.65 | % | 5,906 | 3.28 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Median Specified Owner-Occupied Housing Unit Value | 90,094 | 152,788 | 186,989 |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 32 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 10.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
2000 | 2002 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Group Quarters by Population Type | Census | Pct. | Estimate | Pct. | Projection | Pct. | |||||||||||||||||||
Institutionalized: | 1,611 | 1,613 | 1,618 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Correctional Institution | 0 | 0.00 | % | 1 | 0.08 | % | 4 | 0.28 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Nursing Homes | 1,333 | 82.73 | % | 1,331 | 82.54 | % | 1,330 | 82.20 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Other Institutions | 278 | 17.27 | % | 280 | 17.39 | % | 284 | 17.52 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Noninstitutionalized | 6,501 | 6,514 | 6,552 |
2000 | 2002 | 2007 | ||||||||||
Tenure of Occupied Housing Units | Census | Estimate | Projection | |||||||||
Owner Occupied | 174,188 | 186,617 | 216,877 | |||||||||
Renter Occupied | 99,329 | 104,340 | 116,657 |
Pop 65 | ||||||||||
1990* Census Household Type and Relationship | and Over | Pct. | ||||||||
Total | 36,306 | |||||||||
In Family Households | 25,471 | 70.16 | % | |||||||
Householder | 13,239 | 36.46 | % | |||||||
Spouse | 9,370 | 25.81 | % | |||||||
Other relative | 2,652 | 7.30 | % | |||||||
Non-Relative | 210 | 0.53 | % | |||||||
In Group Quarters | 1,214 | 3.34 | % | |||||||
Institutionalized | 1,177 | 3.24 | % | |||||||
Other | 37 | 0.10 | % | |||||||
In Non-Family Households | 9,622 | 26.50 | % | |||||||
Male Householder | 1,927 | 5.31 | % | |||||||
Living Alone | 1,839 | 5.06 | % | |||||||
Not Living Alone | 89 | 0.24 | % | |||||||
Female Householder | 7,392 | 20.36 | % | |||||||
Living Alone | 7,207 | 19.85 | % | |||||||
Not Living Alone | 185 | 0.51 | % | |||||||
Non-Relative | 302 | 0.83 | % |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 33 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 10.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
1990* Census Household Income - Monthly Owner | 65 Yrs | ||||||||||||||||
Costs as a Percent of 1989 Household Income | Total Units | Pct. | and Over | Pct. | |||||||||||||
Total Specified Owner-Occupied Housing Units | 94,139 | 12,777 | |||||||||||||||
Less than 20% | 39,718 | 42.19 | % | 7,799 | 61.04 | % | |||||||||||
20 to 24% | 17,728 | 18.83 | % | 1,331 | 10.42 | % | |||||||||||
25 to 29% | 13,605 | 14.45 | % | 884 | 6.92 | % | |||||||||||
30 to 34% | 7,698 | 8.18 | % | 683 | 5.35 | % | |||||||||||
35% or more | 14,889 | 15.82 | % | 1,966 | 15.39 | % | |||||||||||
Not Computed | 501 | 0.53 | % | 114 | 0.89 | % |
1990* Census Household Income | 65 Yrs | ||||||||||||||||
Gross Rent as a Percent of 1989 Household Income | Total Units | Pct. | and Over | Pct. | |||||||||||||
Total Specified Owner - Occupied Housing Units | 78,173 | 5,251 | |||||||||||||||
Less than 20% | 21,390 | 27.36 | % | 733 | 13.95 | % | |||||||||||
10 to 24% | 12,238 | 15.65 | % | 406 | 7.73 | % | |||||||||||
25 to 29% | 9,551 | 12.22 | % | 601 | 11.44 | % | |||||||||||
30 to 34% | 6,876 | 8.80 | % | 459 | 8.74 | % | |||||||||||
35% or more | 25,288 | 32.35 | % | 2,655 | 50.57 | % | |||||||||||
Not Computed | 2,831 | 3.62 | % | 398 | 7.57 | % |
65 Yrs | ||||||||||||||||
1990* Census Occupied Housing Units | Total Units | Pct. | and Over | Pct. | ||||||||||||
Owner Occupied Units | 108,176 | 57.98 | % | 17,356 | 76.63 | % | ||||||||||
Renter Occupied Units | 78,384 | 42.02 | % | 5,292 | 23.37 | % | ||||||||||
Complete Plumbing Facilities | 186,047 | 99.73 | % | 22,588 | 99.74 | % | ||||||||||
Lacking Plumbing Facilities | 512 | 0.27 | % | 70 | 0.31 | % | ||||||||||
With Telephone | 178,214 | 95.53 | % | 22,263 | 98.30 | % | ||||||||||
No Telephone | 8,348 | 4.47 | % | 402 | 1.78 | % | ||||||||||
One or more Vehicles | 176,206 | 94.45 | % | 19,341 | 85.40 | % | ||||||||||
No Vehicles Available | 10,353 | 5.55 | % | 3,321 | 14.66 | % |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 34 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 10.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
1990* Census Poverty Status | 75 Yrs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
By Household Type By Age of Householder | Total | Pct. | Age 65 -74 | Pct. | and Over | Pct. | ||||||||||||||||||||
Total Households | 186,802 | 13,933 | 8,624 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Married Couple Family | 101,308 | 54.23 | % | 8,410 | 60.36 | % | 3,196 | 37.05 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Other Family | 24,104 | 12.90 | % | 1,086 | 7.80 | % | 560 | 6.50 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Male Householder | 6,495 | 3.48 | % | 191 | 1.37 | % | 200 | 2.32 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Female Householder | 17,608 | 9.43 | % | 895 | 6.42 | % | 360 | 4.17 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Non-Family | 61,390 | 32.86 | % | 4,436 | 31.84 | % | 4,868 | 56.45 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Householder Living Alone | 42,690 | 22.85 | % | 4,285 | 30.75 | % | 4,746 | 55.04 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Householder not Living Alone | 18,699 | 10.01 | % | 151 | 1.09 | % | 122 | 1.41 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Above Poverty | 167,696 | 89.77 | % | 12,788 | 91.78 | % | 7,449 | 86.38 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Married Couple Family | 96,998 | 51.93 | % | 8,218 | 58.99 | % | 3,059 | 35.47 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Other Family | 19,335 | 10.35 | % | 938 | 6.73 | % | 497 | 5.76 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Male Householder | 5,677 | 3.04 | % | 153 | 1.10 | % | 184 | 2.13 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Female Householder | 13,658 | 7.31 | % | 785 | 5.63 | % | 313 | 3.63 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Non-Family | 51,363 | 27.50 | % | 3,631 | 26.06 | % | 3,893 | 45.14 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Householder Living Alone | 36,998 | 19.81 | % | 3,500 | 25.12 | % | 3,785 | 43.89 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Householder not Living Alone | 14,364 | 7.69 | % | 131 | 0.94 | % | 108 | 1.25 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Below Poverty | 19,105 | 10.23 | % | 1,145 | 8.22 | % | 1,175 | 13.62 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Married Couple Family | 4,310 | 2.31 | % | 192 | 1.38 | % | 136 | 1.58 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Other Family | 4,769 | 2.55 | % | 148 | 1.06 | % | 63 | 0.73 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Male Householder | 818 | 0.44 | % | 38 | 0.27 | % | 17 | 0.19 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Female Householder | 3,950 | 2.11 | % | 110 | 0.79 | % | 46 | 4.76 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Non-Family | 10,027 | 5.37 | % | 805 | 5.78 | % | 975 | 11.31 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Householder Living Alone | 5,692 | 3.05 | % | 785 | 5.63 | % | 961 | 11.15 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Householder not Living Alone | 4,335 | 2.32 | % | 20 | 0.14 | % | 14 | 0.16 | % |
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 35 of 36 | |
Senior Life Report | ||||
Area(s): Radius 10.0 | ||||
101 S YUCCA ST | Latitude: | 33.301918 | ||
CHANDLER, AZ 85224-8149 | Longitude: | -111.872490 |
1990* Census Mobility and Disability | 65 Yrs | 75 Yrs | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Civilian Noninstitutionalized Persons Age 16 and Over | Total | Pct. | and Over | Pct. | and Over | Pct. | ||||||||||||||||||||
Persons | 374,599 | 35,163 | 12,759 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
With Mblty or Care Lmts | 14,803 | 3.95 | % | 5,798 | 16.49 | % | 3,588 | 28.12 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Mobility Limits Only | 5,323 | 1.42 | % | 2,671 | 7.60 | % | 1,773 | 13.90 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Self Care Limits Only | 5,509 | 1.47 | % | 984 | 2.80 | % | 435 | 3.41 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Both Limits | 3,970 | 1.06 | % | 2,143 | 6.10 | % | 1,380 | 10.82 | % | |||||||||||||||||
No Mblty or Care Limits | 359,796 | 96.05 | % | 29,365 | 83.51 | % | 9,171 | 71.88 | % | |||||||||||||||||
With a Work Disability | 30,802 | 8.22 | % | 11,132 | 31.66 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
In Labor Force | 10,236 | 2.73 | % | 488 | 1.39 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Employed | 9,129 | 2.44 | % | 420 | 1.19 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Unemployed | 1,107 | 0.30 | % | 68 | 0.19 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Not in Labor Force | 20,565 | 5.49 | % | 10,644 | 30.27 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Prevented from Working | 17,059 | 4.55 | % | 9,148 | 26.02 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Not Prevented from Wrk | 3,506 | 0.94 | % | 1,497 | 4.26 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
No Work Disability | 343,797 | 91.78 | % | 24,046 | 68.38 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
In Labor Force | 267,593 | 71.43 | % | 3,470 | 9.87 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Employed | 254,504 | 67.94 | % | 3,296 | 9.37 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Unemployed | 13,090 | 3.49 | % | 174 | 0.49 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Not in Labor force | 76,204 | 20.34 | % | 20,576 | 58.52 | % |
* Census 2000 SF3 (long form) data is not yet available. Data Items [ILLEGIBLE] 1990 Census figures converted to Census 2000 geographics.
Prepared on: October 15, 2003 01:23 PM | Page 36 of 36 | |
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
101 SOUTH YUCCA STREET
CHANDLER, ARIZONA
1.0 MILE | 3.0 MILES | 5.0 MILES | CHANDLER | MARICOPA, COUNTY, AZ | ARIZONA | |||||||||||||||||||
Population | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2000 Population | 13389 | 106944 | 236627 | 176581 | 3072149 | 5130632 | ||||||||||||||||||
2002 Population | 14901 | 115584 | 255117 | 192208 | 3258313 | 5413118 | ||||||||||||||||||
2007 Population | 18596 | 136941 | 300882 | 230693 | 3724531 | 6121814 | ||||||||||||||||||
% Change 2000 to 2002 | 0.0549 | 0.0396 | 0.0383 | 0.0433 | 0.0299 | 0.0272 | ||||||||||||||||||
% Change 2002 to 2007 | 0.0453 | 0.0345 | 0.0335 | 0,0372 | 0.0271 | 0.0249 | ||||||||||||||||||
Per Capita Personal Income | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
1990 Per Capita Personal Income | 13260 | 14043 | 16417 | 14606 | 14942 | 13439 | ||||||||||||||||||
2002 Per Capita Personal Income | 21817 | 24786 | 28772 | 26970 | 25483 | 22667 | ||||||||||||||||||
2007 Per Capita Personal Income | 26316 | 30686 | 35434 | 33512 | 30895 | 27351 | ||||||||||||||||||
% Change 1990 to 2002 | 0.0424 | 0.0485 | 0.0479 | 0.0524 | 0.0455 | 0.0445 | ||||||||||||||||||
% Change 2002 to 2007 | 0.0382 | 0.0436 | 0.0425 | 0.0444 | 0.0393 | 0.0383 | ||||||||||||||||||
Households | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2000 No. Households | 4092 | 36507 | 82760 | 62377 | 1132886 | 1901,327 | ||||||||||||||||||
2002 No. Households | 5200 | 39366 | 89430 | 67963 | 1196768 | 2005250 | ||||||||||||||||||
2007 No. Household | 6453 | 46324 | 105617 | 81471 | 1354126 | 2264618 | ||||||||||||||||||
% Chang 2000 to 2002 | 0.0528 | 0.0384 | 0.0395 | 0.0438 | 0.0278 | 0.027 | ||||||||||||||||||
% Change 2002 to 2007 | 0.0441 | 0.0331 | 0.0338 | 0.0369 | 0.025 | 0.0246 | ||||||||||||||||||
Persons Per Household | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2000 Persons Per Household | 2.76 | 2.91 | 2.85 | 2.82 | 2,67 | 2.64 | ||||||||||||||||||
2002 Persons Per Household | 2.78 | 2.92 | 2.84 | 2.82 | 2,69 | 2.64 | ||||||||||||||||||
2007 Persons Per Household | 2.81 | 2.94 | 2.84 | 2.82 | 2.72 | 2.65 | ||||||||||||||||||
% Change 2000 to 2002 | 0.0038 | 0.0014 | -0.001 | -0.0003 | 0.0024 | 0.0007 | ||||||||||||||||||
% Change 2002 to 2007 | 0.0024 | 0.0015 | -0.0002 | 0.0004 | 0.0024 | 0.0007 | ||||||||||||||||||
Average Household Income | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
1990 Avg Household Income | 36170 | 40969 | 48037 | 42154 | 39016 | 35497 | ||||||||||||||||||
2002 Avg Household Income | 70319 | 72113 | 80802 | 75395 | 69203 | 60458 | ||||||||||||||||||
2007 Avg Household Income | 86256 | 89807 | 99420 | 93827 | 85014 | 73240 | ||||||||||||||||||
% Change 1990 to 2002 | 0.057 | 0.0482 | 0.0443 | 0.0496 | 0.0489 | 0.0454 | ||||||||||||||||||
% Change 2002 to 2007 | 0.0417 | 0.0449 | 0.0423 | 0.0447 | 0.042 | 0.0391 | ||||||||||||||||||
Income Ranges | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Median Income | 60723 | 59456 | 66747 | 63243 | 51769 | 44424 | ||||||||||||||||||
$150,000 or more | 0.0821 | 0.0725 | 0.0865 | 0.0708 | 0,0672 | 0.051 | ||||||||||||||||||
$100,000 to $149,000 | 0.0967 | 0.1091 | 0.1448 | 0.1227 | 0.0974 | 0.0768 | ||||||||||||||||||
$75,000 to $99,999 | 0.1457 | 0.1567 | 0.1844 | 0.1828 | 0.1297 | 0.1083 | ||||||||||||||||||
$50,000 to $74,999 | 0.3071 | 0.2602 | 0.2553 | 0,2632 | 0.2214 | 0.2022 | ||||||||||||||||||
$35,000 to $49,999 | 0.1382 | 0.1505 | 0.1356 | 0.1514 | 0.1639 | 0.1662 | ||||||||||||||||||
$25,000 to $34,999 | 0.0892 | 0.1021 | 0.0807 | 0.0845 | 0.1165 | 0.1306 | ||||||||||||||||||
$15,000 to $24,999 | 0.0837 | 0.0827 | 0.0641 | 0.0737 | 0.106 | 0.1312 | ||||||||||||||||||
Under $15,000 | 0.0573 | 0.0663 | 0.0485 | 0.0509 | 0.0979 | 0.1337 | ||||||||||||||||||
1990 Median Income | 31719 | 36191 | 42348 | 38199 | 31068 | 27945 | ||||||||||||||||||
2007 Median Income | 74044 | 72812 | 81242 | 76868 | 62240 | 51440 | ||||||||||||||||||
Occupancy | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2000 Occupied Housing Units | 4992 | 38621 | 86912 | 66592 | 1250231 | 2189189 | ||||||||||||||||||
Owner Occupied | 0.5465 | 0.6515 | 0.7327 | 0.6894 | 0.6115 | 0.5909 | ||||||||||||||||||
Renter Occupied | 0.3934 | 0.2937 | 0.2195 | 0.2473 | 0.2946 | 0.2776 | ||||||||||||||||||
2000 Population 25+ by Education Level | 3640 | 35288 | 80234 | 53564 | 1339324 | 2291429 | ||||||||||||||||||
Bachelors Degree Only | 0.1385 | 0.1729 | 0.2168 | 0.1887 | 0.1504 | 0.1338 | ||||||||||||||||||
Graduate Degree | 0.0642 | 0,0729 | 0.095 | 0.0724 | 0.0718 | 0.0699 | ||||||||||||||||||
Retail Trade Potential 2002 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Retail Sales | 175816205 | 1327097265 | 3038580430 | 2300513536 | 39458320384 | 6.4073E+10 | ||||||||||||||||||
Apparel Accessory | 6165484 | 46722290 | 107655416 | 81160104 | 1374064768 | 2260118784 | ||||||||||||||||||
Automotive Dealers | 47056389 | 355023028 | 8l9226910 | 617927744 | 10556694528 | 1.516E+10 | ||||||||||||||||||
Automotive & Home Supply Stores | 2852527 | 21605064 | 48859844 | 37256004 | 651692288 | 1137373696 | ||||||||||||||||||
Drug & Proprietary Stores | 7598208 | 57528528 | 132058896 | 99945688 | 1756177920 | 2744957696 | ||||||||||||||||||
Eating & Drinking Places | 18193158 | 137603732 | 315056383 | 238551840 | 4033278208 | 6463648256 | ||||||||||||||||||
Food Stores | 27502009 | 207987912 | 475940433 | 360354080 | 6284740096 | 1.0638E+10 | ||||||||||||||||||
Furniture Home Furnishing Stores | 4358247 | 32934524 | 76105603 | 57366564 | 975727296 | 1472459776 | ||||||||||||||||||
Home Appliance, Radio, & T.V Stores | 4572176 | 34615575 | 80155259 | 60208836 | 997271296 | 1460188416 | ||||||||||||||||||
Gasoline Service Stations | 10285679 | 77888876 | 175719653 | 134042336 | 2358562816 | 4607394816 | ||||||||||||||||||
General Merchandise | 22556894 | 170813234 | 391667329 | 295918272 | 5021002240 | 8378152448 | ||||||||||||||||||
Department Store | 17983641 | 136305321 | 311612773 | 236000304 | 4048151296 | 6604729344 | ||||||||||||||||||
Hardware, Lumber & Garden Stores | 8265281 | 62374940 | 141282325 | 107652592 | 1879580160 | 3313700864 |
Source: Claritas Inc.
ADDENDUM C: Property Exhibits
County Parcels
Assessor Residential Parcel Information | Page 1 of 1 |
About Us Office Locations Jobs FAQs Contract Assessor
New Search
Property Information | View GIS Maps | |||||
Parcel#: | 303-23-003-H | |||||
Property | 101 S YUCCA ST | Subdivision Name: | ||||
Address | CHANDLER, AZ 85224 | Lot#: | MCR#: |
Property Description: | PT W2 NW4 DAF COM AT SE COR WZ NW4 N 531.481 FTO TPOB CONT N 1399.96F TO A PT 60F S OF N LN S2 NW4 | |||
Section Township Range: | 32 1S 5E | Associated Parcel: |
Owner Information | View Tax Statement | |||||||
Owner: | ARV CHANDLER VILLAS L P | |||||||
Mailing | 245 FISCHER AVE STE D.. | Deed#: 010061846 | Sales Price: | $0 | ||||
Address | COSTA MESA, CA 92626 | Deed Date: 1/29/2001 | Sales Date: | n/a* |
Valuation Information
Tax Year: | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | |||||||||
Full Cash Value: | $ | 6,157,084 | $ | 6,157,084 | $ | 5,830,797 | ||||||
Limited Property Value: | $ | 6,157,084 | $ | 6,135,868 | $ | 5,578,062 | ||||||
Legal Class: | 4 | 4 | 4 | |||||||||
Assessment Ratio: | 10 | % | 10 | % | 10 | % | ||||||
Assessed FCV | $ | 615,708 | $ | 615,708 | $ | 583,080 | ||||||
Assessed LPV | $ | 615,708 | $ | 613,587 | $ | 557,806 | ||||||
Property Use Code: | 1940 | 1940 | ||||||||||
Tax Area Code: | 800308 | 800308 | 800306 |
Additional Component Information ( for this parcel )
Valuation Characteristics
New Search
Helpful Information:
recorder glossary forms
Disclaimer | ||
The data contained in this database is deemed reliable but not guaranteed. This Information should be used for informational use only and ‘does not constitute a legal document for the description of these properties. Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of this data; however, this material may be slightly dated which would have an impact on its accuracy. The Maricopa County Assessor’s Office disclaims any responsibility or liability for any direct or indirect damages resulting from the use of this data. |
Site Map What’s New
Legal Information Privacy/Security Policy
Maricopa County Tax Statements | Page 1 of 3 |
2003 Property Tax Statement
Maricopa County Treasurer | Doug Todd, Treasurer | |
301 W. Jefferson St.- RM 100 | Phone:(602)506-8511 | |
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2199 | http://treasurer.maricopa.gov |
Tax Bill | Tax Summary | Pay Online! | Valuations | Home | ||||
Tax Stub | Address | Activities | Tax Receipt | New Parcel |
Tax Bill Summary
Parcel Number | 303-23-003H 7 | |||||||
2003 Assessed Value | Totals | 2003 Tax Amount | ||||||
$613,587 | Primary (limited) | $ | 47,211.84 | |||||
$615,708 | Secondary (full cash) | $ | 23,709.04 | |||||
Special Districts | $ | 600.94 | ||||||
No delinquent prior year taxes | Full Year Amount* | $ | 71,521.82 | |||||
$35,760.91 | <1st Due each half 2nd> | $ | 35,760.91 | |||||
Area Code: 800308 | Total Payments Made | $ | 0.00 |
*The Full Year Amount is for the current tax year only. It does NOT include late payment interest charges or delinquent prior year taxes, The statement is for 2003 only. To view the Total Amount Due including interest and penalties Click Here. The first half payment is due 1 Oct 2003, and the second half is due 1 Mar 2004. Please call (602) 506-8511 for any questions concerning the Statement or Amount Due. Include a Tax Stub with your check.
Tax History | New Parcel | Treasurer’s Home Page | Current Assessed Value | Parcel Map |
Property Information
Legal Description
Section/Lot | Township/Block | Range/Tract | ||
32 | 1S | 5E |
PT W2 NW4 DAF COM AT SE COR W2 NW4 N 531.48F TO
TPOB CONT N 1399.96F TO A PT 60F S OF N LN S2
NW4 NW4 TH W 176.90F TH SWLY 47.15F S 528.95F TH
SWLY 159.43F TH S 14D W 372.34F TH SWLY ALG ARC
296.09F TH SELY ALG ARC 47.12F TH E 327.82F TO
TPOB
*A complete legal description is available from the Maricopa County Assessor at (602)506-3406.
Current Mailing Name & Address
ARV CHANDLER VILLAS LP
Maricopa County Tax Statements | Page 2 of 3 |
245 FISCHER AVE STE Dl
COSTA MESA CA 926264539
Request Name/Mailing Address Changes
or call the Treasurer at (602)506-8511.
Top
Parcel 303-23-003H 2003 Primary (Limited) Assessed Values
Assessment Type | Limited Value | Assessment Ratio | Assessed Value | |||||||||
Land/Bldg/Improvements | $ | 6,135,868 | 10 | % | $ | 613,587 | ||||||
Primary Total | $ | 6,135,868 | $ | 613,587 |
2003 Primary (limited) Tax Amounts
Tax District | Phone | Rate/100 | 2003 Tax | 2002 Tax | ||||||||||||
County | 602-506-8511 | 1.2108 | $ | 7,429.31 | $ | 6,753.92 | ||||||||||
Educ. Equal | 602-506-8511 | 0.4717 | $ | 2,894.29 | $ | 2,727.11 | ||||||||||
CITY OF CHANDLER | 480-782-2220 | 0.3800 | $ | 2,331.63 | $ | 2,119.66 | ||||||||||
CHANDLER UNIFIED | 480-812-7000 | 4.6909 | $ | 28.782.76 | $ | 28,325.95 | ||||||||||
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DIST. | 480-731-8621 | 0.9410 | $ | 5,773.815 | $ | 5,373.90 | ||||||||||
State Aid Credit | $ | 0.00 | $ | 0.00 | ||||||||||||
Primary Totals | 7.6944 | $ | 47,211.84 | $ | 45,300.54 |
Top
Parcel 303-23-003H 2003 Secondary (Full Cash) Assessed Values
Assessment Type | Full Cash Value | Assessment Ratio | Assessed Value | ||||||||||
Land/Bldg/Improvements | $ | 6,157,084 | 10 | % | $ | 615,708 | |||||||
Secondary Total | $ | 6,157,084 | $ | 615,708 |
2003 Secondary (Full Cash) Tax Amounts
Tax District | Phone | Rate/100 | 2003 Tax | 2002 Tax | ||||||||||||
Flood | 602-506-1501 | 0.2119 | $ | 1,304.68 | $ | 1,235.54 | ||||||||||
CAWCD | 623-869-2333 | 0.1200 | $ | 738.84 | $ | 758.00 | ||||||||||
Overrides | 0.7511 | $ | 4,624.58 | $ | 4,804.58 | |||||||||||
Fire | 602-506-8511 | 0.0070 | $ | 43.10 | $ | 44.32 | ||||||||||
Library | 602-506-85ll | 0.0521 | $ | 320.78 | $ | 245.48 | ||||||||||
BONDS | ||||||||||||||||
County Bond | 0.0700 | $ | 431.01 | $ | 466.45 |
Maricopa County Tax Statements | Page 3 of 3 |
City Bond | 0.9000 | $ | 5,541.37 | $ | 5,247.72 | |||||||||||
School Bond | 1.6011 | $ | 9,858.09 | $ | 10,986.99 | |||||||||||
Comm Col Bond | 0.1375 | $ | 846.59 | $ | 870.54 | |||||||||||
Secondary Totals | 3.8507 | $ | 23,709.04 | $ | 24,659.62 |
Top
Parcel 303-23-003H 2003 Special District Detail
Assessed Value | Dist# | Tax District | Phone | Rate | 2003 Tax | 2002 Tax | ||||||||||||||||||||
615708 | 10546 | HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO 1 | 602-506-8511 | .0000 | $ | 0.00 | $ | 0.00 | ||||||||||||||||||
615708 | 30001 | EAST VALLEY INSTITUTE TECH | 480-461-4173 | .0976 | $ | 600.94 | $ | 651.30 | ||||||||||||||||||
Special Districts Total | $ | 600.94 | $ | 651.30 |
Top New Parcel Home
Flood Insights test results for :
101 S YUCCA ST, CHANDLER,AZ 85224
Geocoding Accuracy: S5 - Exact Point Match
Flood Zone Determinations What’s This? SFHA (Flood Zone) Within 250 feet of multiple flood zones ? Out No |
Community | Community Name | Zone | Panel | Panel Date | ||||
040040 | CHANDLER, CITY OF | X500 | 2665F | July 19, 2001 |
FIPS Code | Census Tract | |||
04013 | 5231.03 |
Copyright 2000,Transamerica Flood Hazard Certification, Inc... All rights reserved.
http://www.floodinsights.com/XsiteScripts/hsrun.hse/Floodinsights/FloodLookups/StateId/... 11/6/2003
ADDENDUM D: Financial Data
PIII - ITEM A-5
Database: | POLAPSVR | |||
Cube: | Financial Data | |||
Page: | Year | 2002 | ||
Version | AA | |||
Community | Chandler Villas | |||
Department | Total Department | |||
Month | Along Columns | |||
GLAccount | Along Rows |
OLAPTable | JAN | FEB | MAR | APR | MAY | JUN | JUL | |||||||||||||||||||||
40005 Revenue-Rental | 236,112 | 223,635 | 221,276 | 215,175 | 225,378 | 226,048 | 231,002 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40010 Revenue-Rent Refunds/Proration | (1,900 | ) | (880 | ) | (2,488 | ) | — | — | — | (507 | ) | |||||||||||||||||
Total Rental Revenue | 234,212 | 222,755 | 218,788 | 215,175 | 225,378 | 226,048 | 230,496 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40110 Revenue-AL Level 1 | 5,363 | 4,483 | 3,950 | 4,750 | 3,600 | 3,200 | 4,550 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40115 Revenue-AL Level 2 | 5,140 | 3,600 | 3,575 | 3,600 | 5,500 | 4,700 | 4,750 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40120 Revenue-AL Level 3 | 3,800 | 4,000 | 3,000 | 1,808 | — | 800 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
40125 Revenue-AL Level 4 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 1,000 | 400 | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
40130 Revenue-AL Level 5 | 1,200 | 1,200 | 1,200 | 1,200 | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
40135 Revenue-AL Level 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
40140 Revenue-AL Level 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total AL Services Revenue | 17,503 | 15,283 | 12,725 | 11,758 | 9,100 | 8,700 | 9,300 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40515 Revenue-Other | 534 | 366 | 530 | 1,106 | 939 | 1,095 | 1,505 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40525 Revenue-Processing/App Fees | 1,333 | 150 | 150 | 150 | 3,150 | 3,150 | 4,150 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Other Revenue | 1,867 | 516 | 680 | 1,256 | 4,089 | 4,245 | 5,655 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40575 Rev-Process Fee Concessions | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
40015 Rev-Rent Concessions | — | (100 | ) | — | — | — | (1,200 | ) | — | |||||||||||||||||||
Total Concessions | — | (100 | ) | — | — | — | (1,200 | ) | — | |||||||||||||||||||
Total Revenue | 253,582 | 238,455 | 232,193 | 228,190 | 238,568 | 237,794 | 245,451 | |||||||||||||||||||||
50005 Payroll Expense-Regular | 70,595 | 63,705 | 71,554 | 66,375 | 59,837 | 61,657 | 62,103 | |||||||||||||||||||||
50405 Payroll Expense-Overtime | 1,397 | 1,456 | 763 | 448 | 1,751 | 1,236 | 1,781 | |||||||||||||||||||||
50705 Payroll Expense-Doubletime | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
51005 Bonuses | 4,803 | 3,253 | 3,003 | 3,153 | 3,903 | 3,253 | 2,553 | |||||||||||||||||||||
51505 Vacation, Sick, Holiday | 5,572 | 5,545 | 5,937 | 5,309 | 4,995 | 4,685 | 4,675 | |||||||||||||||||||||
51805 Employee Recognition | — | — | — | 25 | 20 | 150 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
52005 Payroll Taxes | 7,110 | 6,389 | 6,442 | 6,341 | 5,474 | 5,740 | 5,490 | |||||||||||||||||||||
52505 401K/401A | 241 | 527 | 221 | 230 | 495 | 262 | 263 | |||||||||||||||||||||
52805 Group Insurance | 3,690 | 4,629 | 4,597 | 3,920 | 3,891 | 3,842 | 3,019 | |||||||||||||||||||||
53005 Worker’s Comp Insurance | 1,240 | 1,173 | 1,809 | 1,512 | 1,368 | 1,463 | 1,394 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Payroll Expenses | 94,648 | 86,677 | 94,325 | 87,312 | 81,735 | 82,287 | 81,276 | |||||||||||||||||||||
53305 Outside Service - Medical | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
53505 Temporary Services | — | 708 | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
53510 Temporary Services - AL | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
54005 Payroll Service | 282 | 241 | 577 | 314 | 256 | 161 | 329 | |||||||||||||||||||||
55005 Outside Service Other | — | 36 | — | — | — | — | 22 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Purchase Services | 282 | 985 | 577 | 314 | 258 | 161 | 351 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Payroll Related | 94,930 | 87,663 | 94,902 | 87,626 | 81,992 | 82,449 | 81,627 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Payroll Related % Total Revenue | 37 | % | 37 | % | 41 | % | 38 | % | 34 | % | 35 | % | 33 | % | ||||||||||||||
56505 Food | 19,809 | 16,292 | 16,710 | 16,333 | 21,007 | 12,501 | 18,466 | |||||||||||||||||||||
57005 Housekeeping | 897 | 182 | 377 | 941 | 753 | 1,549 | 306 | |||||||||||||||||||||
57505 Kitchen Supplies | 1,459 | 1,014 | 1,675 | 866 | 1,169 | 879 | 1,489 | |||||||||||||||||||||
58005 Assisted Living Supplies | 573 | 37 | 113 | — | — | 150 | 85 | |||||||||||||||||||||
59005 Laundry & Linen/Uniforms | 309 | 113 | 422 | 77 | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
59010 Laun/Lin/Unif Kitchen | 164 | 89 | 325 | 192 | 343 | 117 | 439 | |||||||||||||||||||||
59015 Laund/Lin/Unif Housekeeping | — | — | 317 | 360 | 232 | 350 | 258 | |||||||||||||||||||||
59505 Activities-Asst Lving | 2,509 | 1,936 | 1,303 | 1,003 | 756 | 1,505 | 1,147 | |||||||||||||||||||||
59510 Banquet Expense | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Variable Expense | 26,220 | 20,162 | 21,743 | 20,272 | 24,760 | 17,551 | 22,691 | |||||||||||||||||||||
60005 Office Supplies | 769 | 838 | 674 | 2,073 | 548 | 880 | 1,028 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61015 Repairs - Electrical | 479 | 270 | 654 | 190 | — | 372 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
61020 Repairs - Plumbing | 302 | 792 | — | 70 | 523 | — | 70 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61025 Repairs - Fire Systems | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
61030 Repairs - HVAC | 388 | 270 | 562 | 1,042 | 306 | 384 | 2,133 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61035 Repairs - Gen. Supplies | 2,482 | 1,070 | 1,531 | 1,232 | 1,823 | 1,322 | 1,583 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61040 Repairs - Equipment | — | 96 | 545 | 81 | 1,926 | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
61045 Repairs - Other Interior | — | 2,706 | 347 | 277 | 54 | 8,334 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
61055 Repairs - Other Exterior | 85 | — | — | — | — | — | 728 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61100 Loss on Early Retirement Asset | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Repair & Maintenance | 3,737 | 5,204 | 3,639 | 2,892 | 4,631 | 10,412 | 4,514 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61505 Contracts - Elevator | 537 | 537 | 537 | 537 | 537 | 537 | 537 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61510 Contracts - Floor Maint | 687 | 173 | 365 | 404 | 135 | 520 | 322 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61515 Contracts - Alarm/Fire | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
61520 Contracts - HVAC | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
61525 Contracts - Pest Control | 280 | 285 | 320 | 200 | 240 | 240 | 185 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61535 Contracts - Other | — | — | — | 44 | 219 | 44 | 44 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Service Contracts | 1,504 | 995 | 1,222 | 1,184 | 1,130 | 1,340 | 1,087 | |||||||||||||||||||||
62005 Land Maintenance | 4,451 | 2,814 | 2,868 | 3,611 | 1,301 | 4,800 | 3,780 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Land Maintenance | 4,451 | 2,814 | 2,868 | 3,611 | 1,301 | 4,800 | 3,780 | |||||||||||||||||||||
62505 Rental/Lease - Cable | 3,721 | 3,721 | 3,721 | 3,721 | 3,721 | 3,721 | 3,721 | |||||||||||||||||||||
62510 Rental/Lease - Security | 92 | 46 | 46 | 46 | — | 207 | 109 | |||||||||||||||||||||
62535 Rental/Lease - Equipment | 928 | 400 | 310 | (626 | ) | 536 | 133 | 133 | ||||||||||||||||||||
62540 Rental/Lease - Auto | 1,969 | 2,003 | 2,003 | 2,003 | 2,004 | 2,003 | 2,003 | |||||||||||||||||||||
62555 Rental/Lease - Other | 45 | — | — | — | 308 | 693 | 305 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Rental and Leases | 6,755 | 6,170 | 6,080 | 5,144 | 6,569 | 6,756 | 6,271 | |||||||||||||||||||||
63010 Utilities - Electricity | 9,556 | 7,511 | 6,921 | 8,819 | 8,124 | 13,572 | 16,216 | |||||||||||||||||||||
63015 Utilities - Water | 3,826 | 3,181 | 2,810 | 3,568 | 4,333 | 4,622 | 4,986 | |||||||||||||||||||||
63020 Utilities - Gas | 2,282 | 191 | 59 | 465 | 526 | 391 | 445 | |||||||||||||||||||||
63025 Utilities - Telephone | 2,589 | 1,638 | 1,891 | 2,380 | 2,416 | 2,652 | 2,307 | |||||||||||||||||||||
63030 Utilities - Trash | 533 | 533 | 533 | 613 | 1,023 | 1,023 | 1,023 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Utilities | 18,785 | 13,054 | 12,214 | 13,844 | 16,422 | 22,260 | 24,976 | |||||||||||||||||||||
63505 Marketing and Advertising | 502 | 925 | 844 | 233 | 241 | 336 | 219 | |||||||||||||||||||||
63510 Printed Materials | 2,298 | 58 | 1,664 | 277 | 2,765 | 449 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
63515 Special Events | 700 | 254 | — | 1,311 | 423 | 351 | 139 | |||||||||||||||||||||
63520 Yellow Pages | 703 | 779 | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
63525 Newspaper and Magazine | 2,115 | 1,895 | — | 1,295 | — | 1,295 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
63530 Advertising | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
64005 Referral Fees - Residents | 500 | 2,000 | 300 | 40 | 500 | 500 | 500 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Marketing and Advertising | 6,817 | 5,912 | 2,808 | 3,156 | 3,930 | 2,931 | 858 | |||||||||||||||||||||
64505 Computers/Peripherals/Software | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
65005 Gas | 145 | 243 | 183 | 199 | 216 | 299 | 333 | |||||||||||||||||||||
65010 Auto Service And Repair | 164 | 14 | — | 43 | — | 2,726 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
65015 Other Automobile | 305 | 302 | — | 511 | 70 | 12 | 16 | |||||||||||||||||||||
65505 Travel & Lodging | 57 | 334 | 889 | 54 | 212 | 16 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||
66005 Mileage | 71 | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
66505 Meals & Entertainment | 213 | 81 | — | 200 | 40 | 30 | 53 | |||||||||||||||||||||
67005 License and Fingerprints | 605 | 222 | 472 | 453 | 1,111 | 764 | 1,153 | |||||||||||||||||||||
68005 Dues and Subscriptions | 40 | — | 43 | 173 | 43 | 208 | 188 | |||||||||||||||||||||
68505 Seminars and Training | 158 | 229 | 233 | 114 | 242 | 134 | 119 | |||||||||||||||||||||
69005 Employee Recruiting | 1,377 | 247 | 374 | 504 | 1,210 | 1,237 | 1,677 | |||||||||||||||||||||
69505 Other | 149 | 9 | — | 582 | 34 | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
69805 Discounts Lost | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
69610 Discounts Taken | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
69525 Sales & Use Tax Due | 3,139 | 3,514 | 3,090 | 3,033 | 3,182 | 3,137 | 3,127 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Misc. Expenses | 6,421 | 5,194 | 5,283 | 5,867 | 6,359 | 8,563 | 6,673 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Operating Expense | 170,389 | 148,005 | 151,433 | 145,669 | 147,642 | 157,941 | 153,503 | |||||||||||||||||||||
[Additional columns below]
[Continued from above table, first column(s) repeated]
AUG | SEP | OCT | NOV | DEC | DEC YTD | |||||||||||||||||||
40005 Revenue-Rental | 227,783 | 227,245 | 238,656 | 244,039 | 246,588 | 2,762,937 | ||||||||||||||||||
40010 Revenue-Rent Refunds/Proration | (1,000 | ) | (1,446 | ) | — | 1,300 | (910 | ) | (7,830 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Total Rental Revenue | 226,783 | 225,799 | 238,656 | 245,339 | 245,678 | 2,755,107 | ||||||||||||||||||
40110 Revenue-AL Level 1 | 3,200 | 3,443 | 2,845 | 4,004 | 4,375 | 47,764 | ||||||||||||||||||
40115 Revenue-AL Level 2 | 4,750 | 4,680 | 4,200 | 4,200 | 4,225 | 52,920 | ||||||||||||||||||
40120 Revenue-AL Level 3 | — | — | — | — | — | 13,408 | ||||||||||||||||||
40125 Revenue-AL Level 4 | — | — | — | — | — | 5,400 | ||||||||||||||||||
40130 Revenue-AL Level 5 | — | — | — | — | — | 4,800 | ||||||||||||||||||
40135 Revenue-AL Level 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
40140 Revenue-AL Level 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
Total AL Services Revenue | 7,950 | 8,123 | 7,045 | 8,204 | 8,600 | 124,292 | ||||||||||||||||||
40515 Revenue-Other | 1,444 | 1,917 | 2,352 | 1,605 | 2,099 | 15,492 | ||||||||||||||||||
40525 Revenue-Processing/App Fees | 6,150 | 3,150 | 3,650 | 7,150 | 7,650 | 39,983 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Other Revenue | 7,594 | 5,067 | 6,002 | 8,755 | 9,749 | 55,476 | ||||||||||||||||||
40575 Rev-Process Fee Concessions | — | — | (500 | ) | — | — | (500 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
40015 Rev-Rent Concessions | — | (1,700 | ) | (4,800 | ) | (7,300 | ) | (1,150 | ) | (16,250 | ) | |||||||||||||
Total Concessions | — | (1,700 | ) | (5,300 | ) | (7,300 | ) | (1,150 | ) | (16,750 | ) | |||||||||||||
Total Revenue | 242,327 | 237,289 | 246,403 | 254,998 | 262,876 | 2,918,124 | ||||||||||||||||||
50005 Payroll Expense-Regular | 63,946 | 60,883 | 66,036 | 63,000 | 64,286 | 773,978 | ||||||||||||||||||
50405 Payroll Expense-Overtime | 740 | 1,381 | 891 | 1,634 | 1,011 | 14,488 | ||||||||||||||||||
50705 Payroll Expense-Doubletime | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
51005 Bonuses | (3,049 | ) | (2,049 | ) | (1,199 | ) | (2,114 | ) | 21,636 | 37,145 | ||||||||||||||
51505 Vacation, Sick, Holiday | 2,180 | 4,450 | 5,095 | 5,268 | 4,991 | 58,702 | ||||||||||||||||||
51805 Employee Recognition | 20 | — | — | 200 | 55 | 470 | ||||||||||||||||||
52005 Payroll Taxes | 5,601 | 5,399 | 5,611 | 5,360 | 5,730 | 70,687 | ||||||||||||||||||
52505 401K/401A | 260 | 270 | 256 | 275 | 234 | 3,534 | ||||||||||||||||||
52805 Group Insurance | 4,007 | 3,952 | 2,057 | 3,609 | 3,615 | 44,829 | ||||||||||||||||||
53005 Worker’s Comp Insurance | 1,470 | 12,123 | 3,114 | 3,127 | 3,113 | 32,907 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Payroll Expenses | 75,176 | 86,409 | 81,863 | 80,359 | 104,671 | 1,036,740 | ||||||||||||||||||
53305 Outside Service - Medical | 190 | 165 | — | — | — | 355 | ||||||||||||||||||
53505 Temporary Services | — | — | — | — | — | 708 | ||||||||||||||||||
53510 Temporary Services - AL | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
54005 Payroll Service | 286 | 186 | 325 | 317 | 32 | 3,308 | ||||||||||||||||||
55005 Outside Service Other | — | — | 49 | — | — | 107 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Purchase Services | 476 | 351 | 374 | 317 | 32 | 4,478 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Payroll Related | 75,652 | 86,761 | 82,237 | 80,677 | 104,704 | 1,041,218 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Payroll Related % Total Revenue | 31 | % | 37 | % | 33 | % | 32 | % | 40 | % | 36 | % | ||||||||||||
56505 Food | 15,232 | 15,394 | 15,894 | 19,918 | 13,469 | 201,025 | ||||||||||||||||||
57005 Housekeeping | 866 | 653 | 780 | 874 | 854 | 9,032 | ||||||||||||||||||
57505 Kitchen Supplies | 889 | 2,754 | 920 | 1,149 | 1,900 | 16,164 | ||||||||||||||||||
58005 Assisted Living Supplies | 38 | 66 | — | — | 114 | 1,175 | ||||||||||||||||||
59005 Laundry & Linen/Uniforms | 123 | 604 | — | — | — | 1,648 | ||||||||||||||||||
59010 Laun/Lin/Unif Kitchen | 120 | — | 304 | 460 | 297 | 2,849 | ||||||||||||||||||
59015 Laund/Lin/Unif Housekeeping | 372 | — | 155 | 407 | 151 | 2,604 | ||||||||||||||||||
59505 Activities-Asst Lving | 834 | 987 | 2,064 | 884 | 519 | 15,447 | ||||||||||||||||||
59510 Banquet Expense | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | (3,505 | ) | 1,995 | |||||||||||||||||
Total Variable Expense | 18,973 | 20,958 | 20,618 | 24,192 | 13,801 | 251,939 | ||||||||||||||||||
60005 Office Supplies | 561 | 1,061 | 1,027 | 1,042 | 774 | 11,275 | ||||||||||||||||||
61015 Repairs - Electrical | — | — | 126 | 619 | 1,295 | 4,006 | ||||||||||||||||||
61020 Repairs - Plumbing | 388 | 527 | 849 | 1,190 | 54 | 4,765 | ||||||||||||||||||
61025 Repairs - Fire Systems | — | 285 | 685 | 593 | — | 1,563 | ||||||||||||||||||
61030 Repairs - HVAC | 2,678 | — | 1,780 | 480 | 199 | 10,221 | ||||||||||||||||||
61035 Repairs - Gen. Supplies | 492 | 1,635 | 1,149 | 1,018 | 402 | 15,740 | ||||||||||||||||||
61040 Repairs - Equipment | 2,152 | 289 | 578 | 251 | — | 5,918 | ||||||||||||||||||
61045 Repairs - Other Interior | 1,386 | — | 3,004 | 2,095 | (19 | ) | 18,184 | |||||||||||||||||
61055 Repairs - Other Exterior | 332 | — | 354 | 266 | — | 1,765 | ||||||||||||||||||
61100 Loss on Early Retirement Asset | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Repair & Maintenance | 7,428 | 2,736 | 8,525 | 6,513 | 1,932 | 62,161 | ||||||||||||||||||
61505 Contracts - Elevator | 557 | 557 | 557 | 557 | 557 | 6,543 | ||||||||||||||||||
61510 Contracts - Floor Maint | 511 | 218 | 291 | 129 | (120 | ) | 3,635 | |||||||||||||||||
61515 Contracts - Alarm/Fire | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
61520 Contracts - HVAC | — | 240 | 240 | (480 | ) | — | — | |||||||||||||||||
61525 Contracts - Pest Control | 240 | 440 | 240 | 280 | 360 | 3,310 | ||||||||||||||||||
61535 Contracts - Other | 107 | 44 | 44 | 660 | 570 | 1,773 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Service Contracts | 1,414 | 1,499 | 1,372 | 1,145 | 1,367 | 15,261 | ||||||||||||||||||
62005 Land Maintenance | 3,250 | 3,209 | 3,191 | 3,984 | 4,071 | 41,330 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Land Maintenance | 3,250 | 3,209 | 3,191 | 3,984 | 4,071 | 41,330 | ||||||||||||||||||
62505 Rental/Lease - Cable | 3,721 | 3,721 | 3,721 | 3,721 | 3,669 | 44,601 | ||||||||||||||||||
62510 Rental/Lease - Security | 54 | 54 | 57 | 57 | 57 | 826 | ||||||||||||||||||
62535 Rental/Lease - Equipment | 133 | 239 | 239 | 344 | 322 | 3,089 | ||||||||||||||||||
62540 Rental/Lease - Auto | 2,003 | 2,003 | 2,004 | 4,541 | (2,021 | ) | 22,517 | |||||||||||||||||
62555 Rental/Lease - Other | 305 | 307 | 307 | 307 | 147 | 2,725 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Rental and Leases | 6,216 | 6,324 | 6,328 | 8,970 | 2,175 | 73,757 | ||||||||||||||||||
63010 Utilities - Electricity | 18,767 | 9,746 | 13,266 | 9,080 | 4,269 | 123,847 | ||||||||||||||||||
63015 Utilities - Water | 4,432 | 3,979 | 4,631 | 2,532 | 3,612 | 46,511 | ||||||||||||||||||
63020 Utilities - Gas | 421 | 412 | 1,217 | 1,017 | 1,771 | 9,197 | ||||||||||||||||||
63025 Utilities - Telephone | 2,417 | 2,107 | 1,376 | 1,839 | 2,020 | 25,632 | ||||||||||||||||||
63030 Utilities - Trash | 410 | 773 | 2,143 | 1,636 | 1,301 | 11,543 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Utilities | 26,447 | 17,017 | 22,633 | 16,104 | 12,973 | 216,731 | ||||||||||||||||||
63505 Marketing and Advertising | 214 | 685 | 318 | 407 | 212 | 5,134 | ||||||||||||||||||
63510 Printed Materials | 275 | 72 | 52 | 114 | 86 | 8,111 | ||||||||||||||||||
63515 Special Events | 12 | — | 17 | 427 | 200 | 3,834 | ||||||||||||||||||
63520 Yellow Pages | — | 134 | 134 | 134 | 134 | 2,017 | ||||||||||||||||||
63525 Newspaper and Magazine | 3,190 | 695 | — | — | — | 10,485 | ||||||||||||||||||
63530 Advertising | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
64005 Referral Fees - Residents | — | — | 1,500 | — | 1,500 | 7,340 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Marketing and Advertising | 3,691 | 1,586 | 2,021 | 1,081 | 2,132 | 36,921 | ||||||||||||||||||
64505 Computers/Peripherals/Software | — | — | — | 72 | — | 72 | ||||||||||||||||||
65005 Gas | 304 | 281 | 31 | 348 | 10 | 2,592 | ||||||||||||||||||
65010 Auto Service And Repair | — | 1,520 | 274 | 440 | 160 | 5,341 | ||||||||||||||||||
65015 Other Automobile | 637 | — | 233 | — | 441 | 2,526 | ||||||||||||||||||
65505 Travel & Lodging | — | — | — | — | 137 | 1,705 | ||||||||||||||||||
66005 Mileage | 44 | — | — | — | — | 115 | ||||||||||||||||||
66505 Meals & Entertainment | 136 | (41 | ) | 118 | 84 | 33 | 947 | |||||||||||||||||
67005 License and Fingerprints | 403 | 628 | 203 | 203 | 568 | 6,785 | ||||||||||||||||||
68005 Dues and Subscriptions | 43 | 93 | 93 | 93 | 93 | 1,111 | ||||||||||||||||||
68505 Seminars and Training | 114 | 114 | 114 | 114 | 114 | 1,797 | ||||||||||||||||||
69005 Employee Recruiting | — | 893 | — | — | — | 7,520 | ||||||||||||||||||
69505 Other | 117 | — | 174 | 199 | 717 | 1,981 | ||||||||||||||||||
69805 Discounts Lost | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
69610 Discounts Taken | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
69525 Sales & Use Tax Due | 3,222 | 3,163 | 3,126 | 3,279 | 4,421 | 39,431 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Misc. Expenses | 5,019 | 6,651 | 4,366 | 4,833 | 6,695 | 71,923 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Operating Expense | 148,651 | 147,801 | 152,319 | 148,541 | 150,622 | 1,822,517 | ||||||||||||||||||
PIII — ITEM A-5
Database: Cube: Page: | POLAPSVR Financial Year Version Community Department Month GLAccount | 2002 AA Chandler Villas Total Department Along Columns Along Rows |
OLAPTable | JAN | FEB | MAR | APR | MAY | JUN | JUL | AUG | SEP | OCT | NOV | DEC | DEC YTD | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross Margin | 83,193 | 90,450 | 80,760 | 82,520 | 90,925 | 79,852 | 91,948 | 93,675 | 89,488 | 94,084 | 106,457 | 112,254 | 1,095,607 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross Margin Percent | 33 | % | 38 | % | 35 | % | 36 | % | 38 | % | 34 | % | 37 | % | 39 | % | 38 | % | 38 | % | 42 | % | 43 | % | 38 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69705 Casualty Loss | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69805 Bad Debt Expense | (1,406 | ) | — | (800 | ) | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 946 | (1,260 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
70005 Corporate Allocation | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72305 Property Taxes | 5,593 | 5,593 | 5,593 | 5,593 | 5,593 | 5,593 | 5,817 | 5,817 | 6,230 | 6,230 | 6,230 | 6,230 | 70,112 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72405 Insurance-Liability & Hazard | 4,342 | 4,342 | 4,342 | 7,247 | 7,247 | 7,247 | 7,247 | 11,776 | 6,833 | 8,848 | 8,929 | 6,053 | 84,452 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Other Fees | 8,529 | 9,935 | 9,135 | 12,839 | 12,839 | 12,839 | 13,063 | 17,593 | 13,064 | 15,079 | 15,160 | 13,229 | 153,303 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72505 Accounting | 4,600 | 917 | 2,758 | 2,758 | 4,358 | 3,678 | 3,001 | 2,758 | 4,358 | 3,818 | 4,661 | 808 | 38,475 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73005 Legal | 743 | 358 | 361 | 673 | 400 | 1,286 | 863 | 350 | 412 | 1,092 | 429 | 392 | 7,381 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73510 Donations & Contributions | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74005 Consulting Fees | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 250 | — | — | 250 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74015 Professional Fees - Other | — | — | — | 37 | 120 | — | — | — | 550 | (510 | ) | — | 120 | 317 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75005 Property Management Fees | 12,737 | 11,858 | 11,617 | 11,409 | 11,928 | 11,890 | 12,273 | 12,116 | 11,915 | 11,872 | 13,148 | 13,144 | 145,906 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75105 Partnership Admin Fees | 298 | 140 | (438 | ) | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 636 | 636 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75510 Other Penalties/Fin. Fee | — | — | — | 20 | — | — | — | — | 16 | 9 | — | — | 45 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75515 Licenses & Fees Legal | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75505 Bank Charges | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 480 | — | 480 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75520 Franchise Tax Filing Fee | — | — | — | 800 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 800 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Professional Fees | 18,377 | 13,273 | 14,319 | 15,699 | 16,807 | 16,854 | 16,137 | 15,225 | 17,251 | 16,531 | 18,717 | 15,101 | 194,291 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBITDAR | 56,287 | 67,242 | 57,306 | 53,982 | 61,279 | 50,159 | 62,747 | 60,858 | 59,173 | 62,475 | 72,580 | 83,925 | 748,013 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBITDAR Percent | 22 | % | 28 | % | 25 | % | 24 | % | 26 | % | 21 | % | 26 | % | 25 | % | 25 | % | 25 | % | 28 | % | 32 | % | 26 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
80005 Interest Income | 4,469 | (7,012 | ) | (1,221 | ) | (723 | ) | (713 | ) | (237 | ) | (578 | ) | (156 | ) | (489 | ) | (286 | ) | 1,617 | (103 | ) | (5,432 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
80505 Other Non-Operating Income | — | — | — | (52,000 | ) | — | 52,000 | — | — | — | — | (214 | ) | — | 214 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
87010 Extraordinary Items — Net Tax | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Non-Operating Income/Expense | 4,469 | (7,012 | ) | (1,221 | ) | (52,723 | ) | (713 | ) | 51,763 | (578 | ) | (156 | ) | (489 | ) | (286 | ) | 1,402 | (103 | ) | (5,646 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83005 Interest Expense | 38,670 | 38,670 | 38,652 | 38,634 | 38,544 | 38,579 | 38,561 | 38,542 | 38,524 | 38,505 | 38,542 | 39,488 | 463,911 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83025 Int Exp MIP | 2,410 | 395 | 2,752 | 2,752 | 2,752 | 2,752 | 2,752 | 2,752 | 2,752 | 2,752 | 2,752 | 2,752 | 30,322 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Interest Expense | 41,079 | 39,065 | 41,404 | 41,386 | 41,296 | 41,331 | 41,313 | 41,294 | 41,275 | 41,257 | 41,294 | 42,240 | 494,233 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBTDA | 10,739 | 35,189 | 17,124 | 65,319 | 20,696 | (42,935 | ) | 22,012 | 19,720 | 18,386 | 21,504 | 29,884 | 41,789 | 259,426 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBTDA Percent | 4 | % | 15 | % | 7 | % | 29 | % | 9 | % | -18 | % | 9 | % | 8 | % | 8 | % | 9 | % | 12 | % | 16 | % | 9 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
77505 Depreciation | 16,110 | 16,569 | 16,623 | 16,683 | 16,987 | 17,133 | 17,091 | 17,242 | 17,196 | 17,338 | 18,260 | 21,582 | 208,812 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
78005 Amortization | 685 | 677 | 677 | 677 | 677 | 677 | 677 | 677 | 677 | 677 | 677 | 677 | 8,135 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
78015 Amortization - Start Up | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Depreciation & Amortization | 16,795 | 17,246 | 17,300 | 17,360 | 17,664 | 17,810 | 17,768 | 17,919 | 17,873 | 18,015 | 18,937 | 22,259 | 216,947 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net Income (Loss) | (6,056 | ) | 17,942 | (176 | ) | 47,959 | 3,032 | (60,744 | ) | 4,244 | 1,801 | 513 | 3,489 | 10,946 | 19,529 | 42,479 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PIII - ITEM A-5
Database: | POLAPSVR | |||
Cube: | Financial Data | |||
Page: | Year | 2001 | ||
Version | AA | |||
Community | Chandler Villas | |||
Department | Total Department | |||
Month | Along Columns | |||
GLAccount | Along Rows |
OLAPTable | JAN | FEB | MAR | APR | MAY | JUN | JUL | |||||||||||||||||||||
4005 Revenue - Rental | 213,100 | 209,426 | 204,884 | 217,504 | 216,299 | 218,321 | 211,247 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40010 Revenue - Rent Refunds/ Proration | — | (2,463 | ) | — | — | (686 | ) | (500 | ) | — | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Rental Revenue | 213,100 | 206,963 | 204,884 | 217,504 | 215,613 | 217,821 | 211,247 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40110 Revenue - AL Level 1 | 5,692 | 7,012 | 8,311 | 6,574 | 8,059 | 8,375 | 7,185 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40115 Revenue - AL Level 2 | 4,315 | 2,150 | 5,450 | 5,722 | 3,650 | 3,000 | 5,180 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40120 Revenue - AL Level 3 | 5,842 | 7,165 | 5,850 | 2,775 | 5,612 | 5,400 | 7,838 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40125 Revenue - AL Level 4 | 2,132 | 2,925 | 2,200 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 4,000 | 4,150 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40130 Revenue - AL Level 5 | — | 525 | 1,200 | 1,200 | 1,200 | 1,200 | 1,200 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40135 Revenue - AL Level 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
40140 Revenue - AL Level 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total AL Services Revenue | 17,981 | 19,777 | 23,011 | 18,271 | 20,521 | 21,975 | 25,553 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40515 Revenue - Other | 1,217 | 1,035 | 1,154 | 1,153 | 975 | 972 | 1,325 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40525 Revenue - Processing/ App Fees | 2,661 | 2,075 | 11,526 | 6,000 | 3,318 | 8,808 | 11,237 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Other Revenue | 3,878 | 3,110 | 12,679 | 7,153 | 4,293 | 9,780 | 12,562 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40575 Rev - Process Fee Concessions | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
40015 Rev - Rent Concessions | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Concessions | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Revenue | 234,959 | 229,850 | 240,574 | 242,927 | 240,427 | 249,576 | 249,362 | |||||||||||||||||||||
50005 Payroll Expense - Regular | 58,528 | 61,385 | 65,948 | 58,933 | 64,497 | 61,112 | 63,690 | |||||||||||||||||||||
50405 Payroll Expense - Overtime | 2,094 | 1,741 | 1,559 | 1,868 | 1,490 | 2,618 | 3,559 | |||||||||||||||||||||
50705 Payroll Expense - Doubletime | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
51005 Bonuses | 2,931 | 3,581 | 6,919 | 3,161 | 165 | 3,031 | 11,963 | |||||||||||||||||||||
51505 Vacation, Sick, Holiday | 5,336 | 6,351 | 3,632 | 4,565 | 3,613 | 6,016 | 2,994 | |||||||||||||||||||||
51805 Employee Recognition | — | 134 | 293 | — | — | 100 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
52005 Payroll Taxes | 6,414 | 5,665 | 5,988 | 5,939 | 5,643 | 5,679 | 6,011 | |||||||||||||||||||||
52505 401K/ 401A | 286 | 242 | 217 | 270 | 225 | 240 | 222 | |||||||||||||||||||||
52805 Group Insurance | 2,434 | 3,364 | 3,458 | 3,239 | 3,765 | 476 | 3,124 | |||||||||||||||||||||
53005 Worker’s Comp Insurance | 1,016 | 1,081 | 975 | 4,505 | 4,517 | 5,361 | 5,239 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Payroll Expenses | 79,039 | 83,544 | 88,989 | 82,480 | 83,914 | 84,633 | 96,803 | |||||||||||||||||||||
53305 Outside Service - Medical | 1,275 | 741 | 370 | 95 | 95 | 95 | (95 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
53505 Temporary Services | 5,519 | 639 | 2,078 | 431 | — | 780 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
53510 Temporary Services - AL | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
54005 Payroll Service | 143 | 145 | 147 | 176 | 147 | 149 | 149 | |||||||||||||||||||||
55005 Outside Service Other | 264 | — | — | — | — | — | (22 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Total Purchase Services | 7,202 | 1,525 | 2,594 | 701 | 242 | 1,024 | 33 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Payroll Related | 86,241 | 85,069 | 91,583 | 83,181 | 84,156 | 85,657 | 96,835 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Payroll Related % Total Revenue | 37 | % | 37 | % | 38 | % | 34 | % | 35 | % | 34 | % | 39 | % | ||||||||||||||
56505 Food | 15,037 | 16,476 | 17,472 | 21,690 | 18,840 | 14,986 | 20,953 | |||||||||||||||||||||
57005 Housekeeping | 335 | 74 | 750 | 1,047 | 562 | 810 | 634 | |||||||||||||||||||||
57505 Kitchen Supplies | 1,625 | 4,238 | 2,194 | 1,529 | 767 | 1,988 | 1,211 | |||||||||||||||||||||
58005 Assisted Living Supplies | 142 | 107 | 1,417 | 103 | 158 | 876 | (682 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
59005 Laundry & Linen/ Uniforms | 747 | 369 | 861 | 1,353 | 517 | 511 | 485 | |||||||||||||||||||||
59010 Laun/ Lin/ Unif Kitchen | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
59015 Laund/ Lin/ Unif Housekeeping | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
59505 Activities - Asst Living | 1,917 | 1,488 | 1,120 | 388 | 395 | 634 | 946 | |||||||||||||||||||||
59510 Banquet Expense | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Variable Expense | 20,305 | 23,253 | 24,314 | 26,610 | 21,739 | 20,306 | 24,047 | |||||||||||||||||||||
60005 Office Supplies | 1,017 | 1,256 | 1,594 | 635 | 659 | 1,086 | 990 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61015 Repairs - Electrical | — | 257 | 657 | 210 | — | 212 | 1,177 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61020 Repairs - Plumbing | 376 | 66 | 544 | 577 | 388 | 622 | 9 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61025 Repairs - Fire Systems | 111 | — | — | — | — | — | 96 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61030 Repairs - HVAC | 175 | 5 | 170 | 190 | 458 | 177 | 173 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61035 Repairs - Gen. Supplies | 1,244 | 1,238 | 1,520 | 1,397 | 350 | 1,835 | 987 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61040 Repairs - Equipment | 476 | 70 | 1,102 | 975 | 118 | 261 | 77 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61045 Repairs - Other Interior | 1,944 | 551 | 86 | 2,193 | 501 | 1,897 | (932 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
61055 Repairs - Other Exterior | — | 345 | 970 | 1,664 | 643 | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
61100 Loss on Early Retirement Asset | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Repair & Maintenance | 4,326 | 2,533 | 5,049 | 7,206 | 2,457 | 5,005 | 1,587 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61505 Contracts - Elevator | 515 | 515 | 515 | 515 | 515 | 517 | 515 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61510 Contracts - Floor Maint | 598 | 413 | 149 | 561 | 475 | 318 | 192 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61515 Contracts - Alarm/Fire | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
61520 Contracts - HVAC | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
61525 Contracts - Pest Control | 120 | 160 | 120 | 160 | 200 | 160 | 580 | |||||||||||||||||||||
61535 Contracts - Other | 189 | 50 | — | — | 216 | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Service Contracts | 1,422 | 1,138 | 784 | 1,236 | 1,406 | 995 | 1,287 | |||||||||||||||||||||
62005 Land Maintenance | 3,960 | 4,012 | 4,324 | 2,812 | 4,716 | 3,745 | 4,329 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Land Maintenance | 3,960 | 4,012 | 4,324 | 2,812 | 4,716 | 3,745 | 4,329 | |||||||||||||||||||||
62505 Rental/Lease - Cable | 3,509 | 3,508 | 3,506 | 3,506 | 3,508 | 3,506 | 3,506 | |||||||||||||||||||||
62510 Rental/Lease - Security | 44 | 44 | 87 | 44 | 44 | 44 | 44 | |||||||||||||||||||||
62535 Rental/Lease - Equipment | 344 | 226 | 285 | 285 | 649 | 465 | 466 | |||||||||||||||||||||
62540 Rental/Lease - Auto | 632 | 632 | 1,997 | 632 | 632 | 1,997 | 3,331 | |||||||||||||||||||||
62555 Rental/Lease - Other | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Rental and Leases | 4,528 | 4,409 | 5,874 | 4,466 | 4,832 | 6,011 | 7,346 | |||||||||||||||||||||
63010 Utilities - Electricity | 9,715 | 7,940 | 9,496 | 8,744 | 5,131 | 18,455 | 17,408 | |||||||||||||||||||||
63015 Utilities - Water | 1,830 | 4,014 | 4,553 | 963 | 2,653 | 4,579 | 4,195 | |||||||||||||||||||||
63020 Utilities - Gas | 571 | 575 | 119 | 934 | 781 | 380 | 311 | |||||||||||||||||||||
63025 Utilities - Telephone | 1,059 | 1,109 | 1,202 | 1,079 | 1,022 | 2,154 | 1,530 | |||||||||||||||||||||
63030 Utilities - Trash | 955 | 955 | 955 | 955 | 520 | 520 | 533 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Utilities | 14,132 | 14,594 | 16,426 | 12,675 | 10,107 | 26,087 | 23,977 | |||||||||||||||||||||
63505 Marketing and Advertising | 291 | 598 | 1,132 | 353 | 368 | 304 | 318 | |||||||||||||||||||||
63510 Printed Materials | 154 | — | 1,824 | — | 18 | 70 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
83515 Special Events | 786 | 200 | (4 | ) | 699 | — | 2,212 | 23 | ||||||||||||||||||||
63520 Yellow Pages | 1,240 | 1,240 | 1,240 | (2,315 | ) | 703 | 703 | 1,007 | ||||||||||||||||||||
63525 Newspaper and Magazine | — | 31 | 550 | 9 | 1,483 | 999 | 10 | |||||||||||||||||||||
63530 Advertising | — | 100 | — | 180 | — | — | 31 | |||||||||||||||||||||
64005 Referral Fees - Residents | — | — | 400 | 200 | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Marketing and Advertising | 2,471 | 2,170 | 5,142 | (874 | ) | 2,571 | 4,288 | 1,390 | ||||||||||||||||||||
64505 Computers/Peripherals/Software | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
65005 Gas | 258 | 122 | 233 | 75 | 137 | 317 | 886 | |||||||||||||||||||||
65010 Auto Service And Repair | 38 | — | — | 141 | 47 | 54 | 70 | |||||||||||||||||||||
65015 Other Automobile | 29 | — | 77 | (115 | ) | — | 533 | — | ||||||||||||||||||||
65505 Travel & Lodging | 374 | 254 | 86 | 12 | 300 | 263 | 172 | |||||||||||||||||||||
66005 Mileage | — | — | 42 | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
66505 Meals & Entertainment | 154 | 40 | 134 | 202 | 100 | 66 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
67005 License and Fingerprints | 49 | 142 | 566 | 658 | 317 | 1,133 | 426 | |||||||||||||||||||||
68005 Dues and Subscriptions | — | — | 525 | — | — | 140 | (92 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
68505 Seminars and Training | — | 421 | 433 | 1,025 | 154 | 75 | 607 | |||||||||||||||||||||
69005 Employee Recruiting | 1,178 | 1,168 | 240 | 2,388 | 526 | 286 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
69505 Other | 312 | 200 | 57 | 50 | — | 413 | 302 | |||||||||||||||||||||
69605 Discounts Lost | 41 | — | 31 | 27 | 17 | 51 | 39 | |||||||||||||||||||||
69610 Discounts Taken | (79 | ) | (71 | ) | (171 | ) | (145 | ) | (39 | ) | (51 | ) | (39 | ) | ||||||||||||||
69525 Sales & Use Tax Due | 3,063 | 3,210 | 3,112 | 3,139 | 3,268 | 3,236 | 3,272 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Misc. Expenses | 5,416 | 5,485 | 5,365 | 7,458 | 4,827 | 6,515 | 5,644 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Operating Expense | 143,818 | 143,918 | 160,455 | 145,404 | 137,471 | 159,695 | 167,431 | |||||||||||||||||||||
AUG | SEP | OCT | NOV | DEC | DEC YTD | |||||||||||||||||||
4005 Revenue - Rental | 217,428 | 222,017 | 220,939 | 224,413 | 209,186 | 2,584,764 | ||||||||||||||||||
40010 Revenue - Rent Refunds/ Proration | (192 | ) | 500 | — | (500 | ) | — | (3,840 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Total Rental Revenue | 217,237 | 222,517 | 220,939 | 223,913 | 209,186 | 2,580,923 | ||||||||||||||||||
40110 Revenue - AL Level 1 | 6,990 | 4,995 | 5,675 | 4,117 | 3,975 | 76,958 | ||||||||||||||||||
40115 Revenue - AL Level 2 | 2,800 | 4,400 | 4,750 | 6,370 | 4,507 | 52,294 | ||||||||||||||||||
40120 Revenue - AL Level 3 | 5,900 | 4,000 | 5,600 | 3,200 | 1,200 | 60,382 | ||||||||||||||||||
40125 Revenue - AL Level 4 | 3,600 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 27,007 | ||||||||||||||||||
40130 Revenue - AL Level 5 | — | 3,600 | 3,600 | 3,600 | 2,400 | 19,725 | ||||||||||||||||||
40135 Revenue - AL Level 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
40140 Revenue - AL Level 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
Total AL Services Revenue | 19,290 | 17,995 | 20,625 | 18,287 | 13,082 | 236,367 | ||||||||||||||||||
40515 Revenue - Other | 443 | 932 | 792 | 432 | 2,899 | 13,328 | ||||||||||||||||||
40525 Revenue - Processing/ App Fees | 8,198 | 3,000 | 7,970 | 5,450 | 10,767 | 81,010 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Other Revenue | 8,641 | 3,932 | 8,864 | 5,780 | 13,666 | 94,339 | ||||||||||||||||||
40575 Rev - Process Fee Concessions | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
40015 Rev - Rent Concessions | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Concessions | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Revenue | 245,168 | 244,444 | 250,428 | 247,980 | 235,934 | 2,911,629 | ||||||||||||||||||
50005 Payroll Expense - Regular | 66,146 | 65,389 | 69,954 | 68,766 | 68,842 | 773,190 | ||||||||||||||||||
50405 Payroll Expense - Overtime | 2,019 | 2,976 | 1,669 | 1,686 | 2,731 | 26,010 | ||||||||||||||||||
50705 Payroll Expense - Doubletime | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
51005 Bonuses | 16,330 | 16,595 | 14,505 | (16,862 | ) | (8,958 | ) | 53,360 | ||||||||||||||||
51505 Vacation, Sick, Holiday | 7,181 | 5,072 | 4,962 | (4,906 | ) | (5,890 | ) | 60,518 | ||||||||||||||||
51805 Employee Recognition | 50 | — | 25 | — | — | 601 | ||||||||||||||||||
52005 Payroll Taxes | 6,042 | 5,549 | 5,771 | 5,922 | 6,048 | 70,671 | ||||||||||||||||||
52505 401K/ 401A | 256 | 247 | 196 | 336 | 222 | 2,960 | ||||||||||||||||||
52805 Group Insurance | 5,589 | 7,486 | 5,246 | 3,949 | 3,768 | 45,899 | ||||||||||||||||||
53005 Worker’s Comp Insurance | 5,386 | 4,036 | 4,064 | 4,064 | 4,223 | 44,467 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Payroll Expenses | 108,999 | 107,349 | 106,392 | 72,767 | 82,767 | 1,077,676 | ||||||||||||||||||
53305 Outside Service - Medical | — | — | — | — | — | 2,575 | ||||||||||||||||||
53505 Temporary Services | — | — | — | — | 2 | 9,450 | ||||||||||||||||||
53510 Temporary Services - AL | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
54005 Payroll Service | 149 | 149 | 235 | 217 | 258 | 2,064 | ||||||||||||||||||
55005 Outside Service Other | — | — | 27 | — | — | 270 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Purchase Services | 149 | 149 | 262 | 217 | 260 | 14,359 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Payroll Related | 109,148 | 107,499 | 106,655 | 72,985 | 83,027 | 1,092,035 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Payroll Related % Total Revenue | 45 | % | 44 | % | 43 | % | 29 | % | 35 | % | 38 | % | ||||||||||||
56505 Food | 17,740 | 17,679 | 18,667 | 21,606 | 17,521 | 218,667 | ||||||||||||||||||
57005 Housekeeping | 967 | 805 | 533 | 753 | 1,437 | 8,708 | ||||||||||||||||||
57505 Kitchen Supplies | 1,024 | 1,116 | 1,723 | 2,270 | 2,517 | 22,204 | ||||||||||||||||||
58005 Assisted Living Supplies | 36 | 280 | 15 | (27 | ) | (677 | ) | 1,749 | ||||||||||||||||
59005 Laundry & Linen/ Uniforms | 802 | 641 | 753 | 346 | 976 | 8,363 | ||||||||||||||||||
59010 Laun/ Lin/ Unif Kitchen | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
59015 Laund/ Lin/ Unif Housekeeping | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
59505 Activities - Asst Living | 1,375 | 1,013 | 1,531 | 943 | 3,829 | 15,581 | ||||||||||||||||||
59510 Banquet Expense | 500 | 500 | 500 | 536 | (99 | ) | 5,437 | |||||||||||||||||
Total Variable Expense | 22,444 | 22,035 | 23,721 | 26,427 | 25,505 | 280,706 | ||||||||||||||||||
60005 Office Supplies | 877 | 887 | 1,848 | 791 | 717 | 12,358 | ||||||||||||||||||
61015 Repairs - Electrical | 440 | — | — | 723 | 240 | 3,916 | ||||||||||||||||||
61020 Repairs - Plumbing | 369 | 1,091 | 1,255 | 90 | 494 | 5,880 | ||||||||||||||||||
61025 Repairs - Fire Systems | — | — | 155 | — | 898 | 1,261 | ||||||||||||||||||
61030 Repairs - HVAC | 60 | 928 | (355 | ) | 453 | — | 2,433 | |||||||||||||||||
61035 Repairs - Gen. Supplies | 650 | 1,578 | 595 | 255 | 2,506 | 14,156 | ||||||||||||||||||
61040 Repairs - Equipment | — | 434 | 270 | 816 | (149 | ) | 4,450 | |||||||||||||||||
61045 Repairs - Other Interior | 379 | (173 | ) | 86 | 88 | 1,430 | 8,048 | |||||||||||||||||
61055 Repairs - Other Exterior | — | — | — | — | 80 | 3,702 | ||||||||||||||||||
61100 Loss on Early Retirement Asset | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Repair & Maintenance | 1,899 | 3,857 | 2,006 | 2,423 | 5,497 | 43,844 | ||||||||||||||||||
61505 Contracts - Elevator | 537 | 537 | 537 | 537 | 537 | 6,292 | ||||||||||||||||||
61510 Contracts - Floor Maint | 475 | 457 | 256 | 350 | 516 | 4,760 | ||||||||||||||||||
61515 Contracts - Alarm/Fire | — | — | 525 | — | — | 525 | ||||||||||||||||||
61520 Contracts - HVAC | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
61525 Contracts - Pest Control | 170 | 200 | 360 | 200 | 360 | 2,790 | ||||||||||||||||||
61535 Contracts - Other | — | — | 422 | 174 | — | 1,502 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Service Contracts | 1,182 | 1,194 | 2,100 | 1,261 | 1,413 | 15,419 | ||||||||||||||||||
62005 Land Maintenance | 3,575 | 4,256 | 3,575 | 5,674 | 5,221 | 50,198 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Land Maintenance | 3,575 | 4,256 | 3,575 | 5,674 | 5,221 | 50,198 | ||||||||||||||||||
62505 Rental/Lease - Cable | 3,508 | 3,508 | 3,506 | 3,936 | 3,721 | 42,725 | ||||||||||||||||||
62510 Rental/Lease - Security | 44 | 44 | 46 | 46 | — | 528 | ||||||||||||||||||
62535 Rental/Lease - Equipment | 586 | 564 | 452 | 627 | 290 | 5,237 | ||||||||||||||||||
62540 Rental/Lease - Auto | 2,004 | 2,004 | 2,004 | 2,004 | 2,034 | 19,901 | ||||||||||||||||||
62555 Rental/Lease - Other | — | — | 247 | 22 | 45 | 314 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Rental and Leases | 6,142 | 6,118 | 6,255 | 6,636 | 6,090 | 68,706 | ||||||||||||||||||
63010 Utilities - Electricity | 15,484 | 11,986 | 11,955 | 11,878 | 3,154 | 131,346 | ||||||||||||||||||
63015 Utilities - Water | 4,957 | 3,508 | 4,498 | 4,308 | 3,064 | 43,223 | ||||||||||||||||||
63020 Utilities - Gas | 356 | 453 | 691 | 1,104 | 1,592 | 7,867 | ||||||||||||||||||
63025 Utilities - Telephone | 2,011 | 1,379 | 2,135 | 2,563 | 2,311 | 19,555 | ||||||||||||||||||
63030 Utilities - Trash | 533 | 1,300 | (99 | ) | 533 | 558 | 8,220 | |||||||||||||||||
Total Utilities | 23,341 | 18,627 | 19,179 | 20,387 | 10,679 | 210,210 | ||||||||||||||||||
63505 Marketing and Advertising | 233 | 275 | 1,405 | 314 | 208 | 5,798 | ||||||||||||||||||
63510 Printed Materials | 993 | 189 | 760 | 204 | 456 | 4,670 | ||||||||||||||||||
83515 Special Events | 238 | 110 | 867 | — | 56 | 5,188 | ||||||||||||||||||
63520 Yellow Pages | 703 | 703 | 703 | 708 | 703 | 7,336 | ||||||||||||||||||
63525 Newspaper and Magazine | 359 | (5 | ) | — | — | 1,295 | 4,731 | |||||||||||||||||
63530 Advertising | 600 | — | 63 | 31 | 27 | 1,032 | ||||||||||||||||||
64005 Referral Fees - Residents | 200 | — | (200 | ) | — | 1,000 | 1,600 | |||||||||||||||||
Total Marketing and Advertising | 3,326 | 1,271 | 3,597 | 1,257 | 3,745 | 30,354 | ||||||||||||||||||
64505 Computers/Peripherals/Software | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
65005 Gas | 298 | — | — | 193 | 275 | 2,794 | ||||||||||||||||||
65010 Auto Service And Repair | 4,524 | 1,021 | 89 | — | 576 | 6,559 | ||||||||||||||||||
65015 Other Automobile | 933 | 1,276 | 345 | 296 | 319 | 3,693 | ||||||||||||||||||
65505 Travel & Lodging | 147 | 198 | 293 | 113 | 167 | 2,379 | ||||||||||||||||||
66005 Mileage | — | — | — | 84 | (42 | ) | 84 | |||||||||||||||||
66505 Meals & Entertainment | 186 | 24 | 74 | 161 | 139 | 1,280 | ||||||||||||||||||
67005 License and Fingerprints | 744 | 1,195 | 1,054 | 228 | 647 | 7,158 | ||||||||||||||||||
68005 Dues and Subscriptions | — | — | 12 | (12 | ) | — | 573 | |||||||||||||||||
68505 Seminars and Training | (24 | ) | 417 | 387 | — | — | 3,495 | |||||||||||||||||
69005 Employee Recruiting | 708 | 590 | 55 | 18 | 946 | 8,104 | ||||||||||||||||||
69505 Other | 58 | 20 | 88 | — | 25 | 1,526 | ||||||||||||||||||
69605 Discounts Lost | — | — | — | — | — | 205 | ||||||||||||||||||
69610 Discounts Taken | — | — | — | — | — | (596 | ) | |||||||||||||||||
69525 Sales & Use Tax Due | 3,171 | 3,261 | 3,339 | 3,316 | 3,360 | 38,745 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Misc. Expenses | 10,744 | 8,002 | 5,737 | 4,396 | 6,412 | 76,000 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Operating Expense | 182,678 | 173,745 | 174,673 | 142,236 | 148,305 | 1,879,830 | ||||||||||||||||||
Database: Cube: Page: | POLAPSVR Financial Data Year Version Community Department Month GLAccount | 2001 AA Chandler Villas Total Department Along Columns Along Rows |
OLAPTable | JAN | FEB | MAR | APR | MAY | JUN | JUL | AUG | SEP | OCT | NOV | DEC | DEC YTD | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross Margin | 91,141 | 85,932 | 80,119 | 97,523 | 102,955 | 89,881 | 81,831 | 62,490 | 70,699 | 75,755 | 105,744 | 87,629 | 1,031,799 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross Margin Percent | 39 | % | 37 | % | 33 | % | 40 | % | 43 | % | 36 | % | 33 | % | 25 | % | 29 | % | 30 | % | 43 | % | 37 | % | 35 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69705 Casualty Loss | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69805 Bad Debt Expense | 19,501 | (21,268 | ) | 1,105 | 25 | (25 | ) | 1,105 | 15 | (1,862 | ) | 11 | 110 | (1,202 | ) | 3,609 | 1,124 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
70005 Corporate Allocation | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72305 Property Taxes | 5,613 | 5,613 | 5,613 | 5,613 | 5,613 | 5,613 | 5,613 | 5,613 | 5,613 | 5,613 | 5,613 | 5,613 | 67,351 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72405 Insurance-Liability & Hazard | 2,011 | 2,011 | 2,010 | 4,342 | 4,342 | 4,342 | 4,105 | 4,579 | 4,342 | 4,477 | 4,342 | 4,342 | 45,245 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Other Fees | 27,125 | (13,644 | ) | 8,727 | 9,980 | 9,930 | 11,060 | 9,732 | 8,330 | 9,966 | 10,200 | 8,753 | 13,563 | 113,720 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72505 Accounting | 1,151 | 4,201 | 1,023 | 1,750 | 2,309 | 2,310 | 2,585 | 2,668 | 2,626 | 3,126 | 4,926 | 6,526 | 35,200 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73005 Legal | 5,728 | 4,892 | 1,535 | 426 | 559 | 355 | 451 | 548 | 4,789 | 723 | 155,378 | 341 | 165,941 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73510 Donations & Contributions | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74005 Consulting Fees | — | — | 157 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 140 | — | 297 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74015 Professional Fees – Other | — | — | — | — | — | — | 28 | — | — | — | — | — | 28 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75005 Property Management Fees | 11,748 | 11,493 | 12,029 | 12,146 | 12,071 | 12,429 | 13,665 | 11,062 | 12,172 | 12,571 | 12,404 | 11,789 | 145,579 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75105 Partnership Admin Fees | 654 | 6,041 | 6,211 | 5,838 | 7,518 | (15,547 | ) | 584 | (1,012 | ) | (628 | ) | (164 | ) | (9,494 | ) | — | (0 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75510 Other Penalties Fin. Fee | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 68 | 34 | 12 | 114 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75515 Licenses & Fees Legal | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75505 Bank Charges | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 20 | 3 | 8 | — | — | 31 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75520 Franchise Tax Filing Fee | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Professional Fees | 19,281 | 16,842 | 20,954 | 20,160 | 22,457 | (454 | ) | 17,313 | 13,285 | 18,962 | 16,332 | 163,388 | 18,668 | 347,189 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBITDAR | 44,736 | 82,734 | 50,437 | 67,383 | 70,569 | 79,275 | 54,886 | 40,875 | 41,771 | 49,223 | (66,397 | ) | 55,398 | 570,890 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBITDAR Percent | 19 | % | 36 | % | 21 | % | 28 | % | 29 | % | 32 | % | 22 | % | 17 | % | 17 | % | 20 | % | -27 | % | 23 | % | 20 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
80005 Interest Income | — | (837 | ) | (392 | ) | (2,509 | ) | (1,263 | ) | 1,297 | (1,237 | ) | (1,218 | ) | (1,346 | ) | (1,145 | ) | (1,376 | ) | (1,329 | ) | (11,355 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
80505 Other Non-Operating, Income | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
87010 Extraordinary Items - Net Tax | — | — | 66,421 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 66,421 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Non-Operating Income/Expense | — | (837 | ) | 66,030 | (2,509 | ) | (1,263 | ) | 1,297 | (1,237 | ) | (1,218 | ) | (1,346 | ) | (1,145 | ) | (1,376 | ) | (1,329 | ) | 55,067 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83005 Interest Expense | 38,857 | 37,100 | 38,842 | 38,825 | 38,808 | 38,791 | 38,774 | 38,757 | 38,740 | 38,723 | 38,705 | 38,688 | 463,611 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83025 Int Exp MIP | — | 2,410 | 2,410 | 2,410 | 2,410 | 2,410 | 2,410 | 2,410 | 2,410 | 2,410 | 2,410 | 2,410 | 26,505 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Interest Expense | 38,857 | 39,510 | 41,251 | 41,235 | 41,218 | 41,201 | 41,184 | 41,167 | 41,150 | 41,132 | 41,115 | 41,097 | 490,116 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBTDA | 5,879 | 44,061 | (56,844 | ) | 28,658 | 30,614 | 36,777 | 14,939 | 926 | 1,967 | 9,236 | (106,136 | ) | 15,630 | 25,707 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBTDA Percent | 3 | % | 19 | % | -24 | % | 12 | % | 13 | % | 15 | % | 6 | % | 0 | % | 1 | % | 4 | % | -43 | % | 7 | % | 1 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
77505 Depreciation | 13,302 | 13,324 | 13,710 | 13,713 | 13,650 | 15,616 | 15,610 | 15,835 | 15,852 | 15,856 | 15,865 | 15,793 | 178,126 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
78005 Amortization | 325 | 639 | 709 | 688 | 688 | 688 | 688 | 550 | 673 | 670 | 670 | 670 | 7,658 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
78015 Amortization - Start Up | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Depreciation & Amortization | 13,628 | 13,963 | 14,419 | 14,400 | 14,337 | 16,304 | 16,298 | 16,385 | 16,525 | 16,526 | 16,536 | 16,464 | 185,784 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net Income (Loss) | (7,749 | ) | 30,098 | (71,263 | ) | 14,257 | 16,276 | 20,473 | (1,358 | ) | (15,459 | ) | (14,557 | ) | (7,290 | ) | (122,671 | ) | (834 | ) | (160,077 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PIII - ITEM A-5
Database: | POLAPSVR | |||
Cube: | Financial Data | |||
Page: | Year | 2000 | ||
Version | AA | |||
Community | CHANDLER VILLAS | |||
Department | Total Department | |||
Month | Along Columns | |||
GLAccount | Along Rows | |||
OLAPTable |
JAN | FEB | MAR | APR | MAY | JUN | JUL | AUG | SEP | OCT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40005 Revenue-Rental | 216,660 | 201,009 | 204,752 | 199,644 | 197,727 | 191,199 | 208,532 | 206,817 | 206,737 | 198,948 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40010 Revenue-Rent Refunds/Proration | (2,110 | ) | (683 | ) | — | (835 | ) | 2,110 | (1,000 | ) | (500 | ) | — | 1,000 | (135 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Rental Revenue | 214,550 | 200,326 | 204,752 | 198,809 | 199,837 | 190,199 | 208,032 | 206,817 | 207,737 | 198,813 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40110 Revenue-AL Level 1 | 5,325 | 5,100 | 6,501 | 5,805 | 6,095 | 6,453 | 3,950 | 5,102 | 7,720 | 6,500 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40115 Revenue-AL Level 2 | 4,025 | 4,504 | 1,821 | 3,450 | 2,875 | 1,790 | 3,423 | 2,070 | 2,300 | 2,300 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40120 Revenue-AL Level 3 | 5,129 | 3,371 | 1,550 | 1,725 | 2,325 | 3,875 | 4,649 | 3,475 | 3,500 | 4,075 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40125 Revenue-AL Level 4 | 1,950 | 3,335 | 3,700 | 3,250 | 2,150 | 975 | 975 | 1,375 | 1,950 | 1,950 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40130 Revenue-AL Level 5 | 1,175 | — | 2,350 | 1,175 | 1,175 | (1,175 | ) | (400 | ) | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40135 Revenue-AL Level 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40140 Revenue-AL Level 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total AL Services Revenue | 17,604 | 16,310 | 15,922 | 15,405 | 14,620 | 11,918 | 12,597 | 12,022 | 15,470 | 14,825 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40515 Revenue-Other | 1,638 | 1,732 | 1,139 | 853 | 1,388 | 2,254 | 383 | 1,215 | 4,702 | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40525 Revenue- Processing/App Fees | 20,500 | 3,000 | 7,000 | 5,000 | 2,500 | — | — | 2,400 | 500 | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Other Revenue | 22,138 | 4,732 | 8,139 | 5,853 | 3,888 | 2,254 | 383 | 3,615 | 5,202 | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40575 Rev-Process Fee Concessions | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40015 Rev-Rent Concessions | (100 | ) | (100 | ) | — | — | — | — | (368 | ) | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Concessions | (100) | (100) | — | — | — | — | (368) | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Revenue | 254,192 | 221,268 | 228,812 | 220,067 | 218,345 | 204,370 | 220,643 | 222,454 | 228,409 | 213,638 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
50005 Payroll Expense- Regular | 54,637 | 52,087 | 59,926 | 52,353 | 50,596 | 49,899 | 53,318 | 59,359 | 53,951 | 58,259 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
50405 Payroll Expense- Overtime | 2,763 | 1,956 | 1,791 | 2,171 | 727 | 1,878 | 2,749 | 2,573 | 3,771 | 2,972 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
50705 Payroll Expense- Doubletime | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
51005 Bonuses | 1,400 | 500 | 1,700 | 1,400 | 3,000 | 1,200 | 1,550 | 1,550 | 1,750 | 500 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
51505 Vacation, Sick, Holiday | 5,023 | 5,151 | 1,978 | 3,841 | 1,465 | 3,904 | 1,383 | 5,296 | 4,272 | 4,802 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
51805 Employee Recognition | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
52005 Payroll Taxes | 5,757 | 5,149 | 5,612 | 4,958 | 4,531 | 3,421 | 4,678 | 5,360 | 4,823 | 5,047 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
52505 401K/401A | 290 | 253 | 237 | 252 | 299 | 280 | 275 | 326 | 300 | 267 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
52805 Group Insurance | 1,227 | 2,017 | 3,554 | 2,357 | 3,102 | 2,576 | 3,313 | 759 | 3,801 | 2,205 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
53005 Worker’s Comp Insurance | 625 | 625 | 948 | 911 | 812 | 877 | 859 | 998 | 967 | 917 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Payroll Expenses | 71,724 | 67,739 | 75,745 | 68,244 | 64,532 | 64,036 | 68,125 | 76,220 | 73,635 | 74,968 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
53305 Outside Service- Medical | 190 | — | 400 | — | — | 70 | 285 | 215 | 80 | 355 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
53505 Temporary Services | 1,596 | 4,195 | 4,238 | 949 | 5,115 | 6,195 | 5,347 | 958 | 150 | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
53510 Temporary Services - AL | 210 | — | 3,322 | 1,842 | 8,097 | 729 | 4,968 | 3,109 | 3,684 | 1,777 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
54005 Payroll Service | — | 366 | 187 | 136 | 133 | 147 | 143 | 151 | 154 | 150 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
55005 Outside Service Other | — | 14 | 3 | — | — | — | — | 122 | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Purchase Services | 1,996 | 4,575 | 8,149 | 2,927 | 13,345 | 7,140 | 10,743 | 4,555 | 4,068 | 2,282 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Payroll Related | 73,720 | 72,314 | 83,894 | 71,171 | 77,877 | 71,176 | 78,868 | 80,775 | 77,702 | 77,250 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Payroll Related % Total Revenue | 29 | % | 33 | % | 37 | % | 32 | % | 36 | % | 35 | % | 36 | % | 36 | % | 34 | % | 36 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
56505 Food | 20,080 | 9,084 | 16,726 | 17,166 | 10,473 | 13,349 | 11,139 | 13,637 | 12,623 | 11,806 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
57005 Housekeeping | 183 | 417 | 532 | 529 | 396 | 571 | 466 | 328 | 638 | 473 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
57505 Kitchen Supplies | 993 | 589 | 1,226 | 1,035 | 1,157 | 1,908 | 1,977 | 1,705 | 1,416 | 708 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
58005 Assisted Living Supplies | (51 | ) | 538 | 159 | 242 | 81 | 343 | (119 | ) | 581 | 155 | 34 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59005 Laundry & Linen/Uniforms | 145 | 1,526 | 1,431 | 319 | 1,054 | 466 | 1,124 | 623 | 571 | 1,339 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59010 Laun/Lin/Unif Kitchen | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59015 Laund/Lin/Unif Housekeeping | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59505 Activities-Asst Lving | 1,373 | 1,112 | 1,629 | 1,308 | 1,828 | 983 | 1,178 | 1,056 | 1,466 | 1,362 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59510 Banquet Expense | 221 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 911 | 1,014 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Variable Expense | 22,943 | 13,766 | 22,203 | 21,099 | 15,488 | 18,121 | 16,266 | 18,430 | 17,780 | 16,735 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
60005 Office Supplies | 450 | 1,107 | 720 | 1,475 | 1,639 | 241 | 2,509 | (297) | 663 | 1,588 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61015 Repairs - Electrical | 1,374 | — | 844 | (1,320 | ) | 150 | — | 210 | 547 | — | 274 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61020 Repairs - Plumbing | — | 1,103 | 305 | 202 | 849 | 796 | 155 | — | — | 500 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61025 Repairs - Fire Systems | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ��� | 664 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61030 Repairs - HVAC | 76 | — | 469 | (15 | ) | 466 | 821 | 1,340 | 311 | 45 | 327 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61035 Repairs - Gen. Supplies | 271 | 696 | 910 | 649 | 1,150 | 760 | 734 | 616 | 733 | 1,073 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61040 Repairs - Equipment | — | 230 | — | 1,509 | 189 | 892 | 316 | — | — | 221 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61045 Repairs - Other Interior | (851 | ) | 311 | 2,294 | 434 | 1,374 | 4,239 | 1,749 | 77 | 395 | 1,894 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61055 Repairs - Other Exterior | — | — | — | 343 | — | — | — | — | — | 76 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61100 Loss on Early Retirement Asset | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Repair & Maintenance | 870 | 2,340 | 4,822 | 1,801 | 4,179 | 7,508 | 4,504 | 1,551 | 1,173 | 5,029 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61505 Contracts - Elevator | 454 | 454 | 986 | 474 | 496 | 474 | 496 | 515 | 515 | 515 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61510 Contracts - Floor Maint | 135 | 804 | 170 | 565 | 244 | 338 | 569 | 86 | 505 | 252 |
[Additional columns below]
[Continued from above table, first column(s) repeated]
NOV | DEC | DEC YTD | ||||||||||
40005 Revenue-Rental | 226,661 | 204,446 | 2,463,130 | |||||||||
40010 Revenue-Rent Refunds/Proration | — | (500 | ) | (2,653 | ) | |||||||
Total Rental Revenue | 226,661 | 203,946 | 2,460,477 | |||||||||
40110 Revenue-AL Level 1 | 5,462 | 5,825 | 69,837 | |||||||||
40115 Revenue-AL Level 2 | 1,975 | 2,875 | 33,407 | |||||||||
40120 Revenue-AL Level 3 | 6,142 | 3,975 | 43,791 | |||||||||
40125 Revenue-AL Level 4 | 1,882 | 2,725 | 26,217 | |||||||||
40130 Revenue-AL Level 5 | — | — | 4,300 | |||||||||
40135 Revenue-AL Level 6 | — | — | — | |||||||||
40140 Revenue-AL Level 7 | — | — | — | |||||||||
Total AL Services Revenue | 15,461 | 15,400 | 177,552 | |||||||||
40515 Revenue-Other | 2,215 | 802 | 18,320 | |||||||||
40525 Revenue- Processing/App Fees | 6,000 | — | 46,900 | |||||||||
Total Other Revenue | 8,215 | 802 | 65,220 | |||||||||
40575 Rev-Process Fee Concessions | — | — | — | |||||||||
40015 Rev-Rent Concessions | — | — | (568 | ) | ||||||||
Total Concessions | — | — | (568) | |||||||||
Total Revenue | 250,336 | 220,148 | 2,702,681 | |||||||||
50005 Payroll Expense- Regular | 58,551 | 57,176 | 660,112 | |||||||||
50405 Payroll Expense- Overtime | 1,941 | 2,154 | 27,446 | |||||||||
50705 Payroll Expense- Doubletime | — | — | — | |||||||||
51005 Bonuses | 3,050 | 2,000 | 19,600 | |||||||||
51505 Vacation, Sick, Holiday | 4,033 | 3,712 | 44,859 | |||||||||
51805 Employee Recognition | — | — | — | |||||||||
52005 Payroll Taxes | 5,026 | 5,052 | 59,414 | |||||||||
52505 401K/401A | 314 | 506 | 3,600 | |||||||||
52805 Group Insurance | 2,656 | 2,606 | 30,174 | |||||||||
53005 Worker’s Comp Insurance | 992 | 933 | 10,465 | |||||||||
Total Payroll Expenses | 76,563 | 74,139 | 855,670 | |||||||||
53305 Outside Service - Medical | — | — | 1,595 | |||||||||
53505 Temporary Services | — | 1,360 | 30,102 | |||||||||
53510 Temporary Services - AL | 468 | — | 28,204 | |||||||||
54005 Payroll Service | 154 | 149 | 1,871 | |||||||||
55005 Outside Service Other | — | 501 | 640 | |||||||||
Total Purchase Services | 622 | 2,010 | 62,412 | |||||||||
Total Payroll Related | 77,185 | 76,149 | 918,082 | |||||||||
Total Payroll Related % Total Revenue | 31 | % | 35 | % | 34 | % | ||||||
56505 Food | 16,363 | 12,407 | 164,852 | |||||||||
57005 Housekeeping | 594 | 741 | 5,869 | |||||||||
57505 Kitchen Supplies | 1,827 | 1,133 | 15,673 | |||||||||
58005 Assisted Living Supplies | 143 | 87 | 2,192 | |||||||||
59005 Laundry & Linen/Uniforms | 847 | 385 | 9,831 | |||||||||
59010 Laun/Lin/Unif Kitchen | — | — | — | |||||||||
59015 Laund/Lin/Unif Housekeeping | — | — | — | |||||||||
59505 Activities-Asst Lving | 2,480 | 1,422 | 17,197 | |||||||||
59510 Banquet Expense | 500 | (1,528 | ) | 4,619 | ||||||||
Total Variable Expense | 22,755 | 14,646 | 220,232 | |||||||||
60005 Office Supplies | 2,075 | 1,041 | 13,211 | |||||||||
61015 Repairs - Electrical | 325 | 276 | 2,679 | |||||||||
61020 Repairs - Plumbing | 321 | — | 4,231 | |||||||||
61025 Repairs - Fire Systems | — | — | 664 | |||||||||
61030 Repairs - HVAC | 817 | (160 | ) | 4,497 | ||||||||
61035 Repairs - Gen. Supplies | 798 | 906 | 9,298 | |||||||||
61040 Repairs - Equipment | 246 | 205 | 3,808 | |||||||||
61045 Repairs - Other Interior | — | 1,256 | 13,172 | |||||||||
61055 Repairs - Other Exterior | — | — | 419 | |||||||||
61100 Loss on Early Retirement Asset | — | — | — | |||||||||
Total Repair & Maintenance | 2,508 | 2,483 | 38,767 | |||||||||
61505 Contracts - Elevator | 515 | 515 | 6,410 | |||||||||
61510 Contracts - Floor Maint | 526 | 434 | 4,627 |
[Table continues on next page]
[Table continues from previous page]
JAN | FEB | MAR | APR | MAY | JUN | JUL | AUG | SEP | OCT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61515 Contracts - Alarm/Fire | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61520 Contracts - HVAC | — | — | — | — | — | 45 | — | — | (45 | ) | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61525 Contracts - Pest Control | 285 | 120 | 420 | 90 | 120 | 125 | 1,600 | 361 | (156 | ) | 160 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61535 Contracts - Other | 804 | (651 | ) | 49 | 118 | (140 | ) | — | (337 | ) | 25 | — | 356 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Service Contracts | 1,678 | 728 | 1,625 | 1,247 | 720 | 982 | 2,328 | 987 | 819 | 1,284 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62005 Land Maintenance | 2,700 | 4,580 | 3,025 | 4,325 | 2,709 | 3,470 | 3,146 | 6,131 | 5,028 | 4,099 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Land Maintenance | 2,700 | 4,580 | 3,025 | 4,325 | 2,709 | 3,470 | 3,146 | 6,131 | 5,028 | 4,099 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62505 Rental/Lease - Cable | 3,547 | 3,547 | 3,547 | 3,553 | 3,547 | 3,549 | 3,547 | 3,549 | 3,547 | 3,511 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62510 Rental/Lease - Security | 515 | 41 | 41 | 41 | 41 | 83 | 41 | 41 | 41 | 44 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62535 Rental/Lease - Equipment | 325 | 474 | 385 | 333 | 313 | 717 | 353 | 76 | 298 | 367 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62540 Rental/Lease - Auto | 1,363 | 1,365 | 1,365 | 1,362 | 1,365 | 1,365 | 1,365 | 1,365 | 2,644 | 1,997 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62555 Rental/Lease - Other | 22 | 44 | 22 | 22 | 20 | 22 | 65 | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Rental and Leases | 5,772 | 5,471 | 5,360 | 5,311 | 5,286 | 5,735 | 5,371 | 5,031 | 6,530 | 5,919 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63010 Utilities - Electricity | 12,388 | 7,338 | 7,831 | 10,535 | 6,823 | 10,563 | 17,024 | 15,003 | 16,018 | 12,518 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63015 Utilities - Water | 3,257 | 3,815 | 3,895 | 2,251 | 3,147 | 6,691 | 4,751 | 5,618 | 4,964 | 3,720 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63020 Utilities - Gas | 543 | 601 | 228 | 818 | 739 | 352 | 524 | 269 | 147 | 769 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63025 Utilities - Telephone | 1,300 | 1,478 | 1,680 | 1,058 | 1,138 | 1,149 | 2,119 | 1,150 | 941 | 1,407 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63030 Utilities - Trash | 804 | 1,608 | — | 873 | 873 | 873 | 873 | 873 | 873 | 873 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Utilities | 18,293 | 14,841 | 13,635 | 15,535 | 12,720 | 19,627 | 25,290 | 22,913 | 22,942 | 19,286 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63505 Marketing and Advertising | 206 | 826 | 8,675 | 344 | 279 | 893 | 438 | 337 | 236 | 492 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63510 Printed Materials | 83 | 62 | — | 163 | 123 | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63515 Special Events | 528 | 738 | 158 | 193 | 334 | 2,471 | 225 | 2,766 | 25 | 59 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63520 Yellow Pages | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 4,521 | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63525 Newspaper and Magazine | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 31 | 181 | 31 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63530 Advertising | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
64005 Referral Fees - Residents | 200 | — | — | 400 | — | — | 200 | 600 | 500 | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Marketing and Advertising | 1,016 | 1,626 | 8,833 | 1,101 | 736 | 3,364 | 863 | 3,734 | 5,464 | 582 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
64505 Computers/Peripherals/ Software | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65005 Gas | 70 | 68 | 134 | 186 | 276 | 285 | 128 | 352 | 216 | 234 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65010 Auto Service And Repair | 474 | — | 28 | 138 | — | 29 | — | 1,455 | — | 69 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65015 Other Automobile | 49 | 10 | — | — | — | 159 | — | — | 282 | 447 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65505 Travel & Lodging | 252 | 643 | 956 | (56 | ) | 621 | 1,570 | 606 | 336 | 374 | 294 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
66005 Mileage | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
66505 Meals & Entertainment | 23 | 14 | 118 | 197 | 62 | 196 | 24 | 113 | 97 | 80 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
67005 License and Fingerprints | 656 | 163 | 221 | 798 | 1,239 | 368 | 173 | 168 | 178 | 332 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68005 Dues and Subscriptions | 415 | 240 | 403 | — | — | 476 | 70 | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68505 Seminars and Training | 35 | 126 | 73 | — | 456 | 49 | 1,225 | 106 | 137 | 163 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69005 Employee Recruiting | — | 4,809 | 3,001 | 2,650 | 4,590 | 1,673 | 1,799 | 3,304 | 4,210 | 1,695 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69505 Other | — | 102 | 261 | 59 | 123 | 21 | 10 | 44 | 155 | 183 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69605 Discounts Lost | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69610 Discounts Taken | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69525 Sales & Use Tax Due | 2,928 | 3,070 | 3,007 | 3,484 | 3,452 | 3,005 | 2,859 | 3,122 | 3,228 | 3,126 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Misc. Expenses | 4,901 | 9,246 | 8,202 | 7,456 | 10,819 | 7,831 | 6,896 | 9,000 | 8,876 | 6,623 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Operating Expense | 132,344 | 126,019 | 152,319 | 130,519 | 132,172 | 138,055 | 146,040 | 148,255 | 146,976 | 138,394 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Additional columns below]
[Continued from above table, first column(s) repeated]
NOV | DEC | DEC YTD | ||||||||||
61515 Contracts - Alarm/Fire | — | — | — | |||||||||
61520 Contracts - HVAC | — | — | — | |||||||||
61525 Contracts - Pest Control | 810 | 160 | 4,095 | |||||||||
61535 Contracts - Other | 0 | (0 | ) | 225 | ||||||||
Total Service Contracts | 1,851 | 1,109 | 15,357 | |||||||||
62005 Land Maintenance | 3,960 | 5,568 | 48,740 | |||||||||
Total Land Maintenance | 3,960 | 5,568 | 48,740 | |||||||||
62505 Rental/Lease - Cable | 3,509 | 3,509 | 42,459 | |||||||||
62510 Rental/Lease - Security | — | 44 | 975 | |||||||||
62535 Rental/Lease - Equipment | 344 | 487 | 4,471 | |||||||||
62540 Rental/Lease - Auto | 2,628 | 1,997 | 20,181 | |||||||||
62555 Rental/Lease - Other | — | — | 216 | |||||||||
Total Rental and Leases | 6,481 | 6,037 | 68,302 | |||||||||
63010 Utilities - Electricity | 7,864 | 8,433 | 132,337 | |||||||||
63015 Utilities - Water | 3,874 | 4,122 | 50,106 | |||||||||
63020 Utilities - Gas | 946 | 660 | 6,597 | |||||||||
63025 Utilities - Telephone | 946 | 1,036 | 15,402 | |||||||||
63030 Utilities - Trash | 873 | 955 | 10,348 | |||||||||
Total Utilities | 14,503 | 15,206 | 214,790 | |||||||||
63505 Marketing and Advertising | 661 | 954 | 14,341 | |||||||||
63510 Printed Materials | 17 | 57 | 505 | |||||||||
63515 Special Events | 935 | (77 | ) | 8,354 | ||||||||
63520 Yellow Pages | — | — | 4,521 | |||||||||
63525 Newspaper and Magazine | — | — | 244 | |||||||||
63530 Advertising | — | — | — | |||||||||
64005 Referral Fees - Residents | 600 | 100 | 2,600 | |||||||||
Total Marketing and Advertising | 2,212 | 1,034 | 30,565 | |||||||||
64505 Computers/Peripherals/ Software | — | — | — | |||||||||
65005 Gas | 134 | 198 | 2,280 | |||||||||
65010 Auto Service And Repair | — | — | 2,193 | |||||||||
65015 Other Automobile | 87 | 40 | 1,074 | |||||||||
65505 Travel & Lodging | 99 | 619 | 6,314 | |||||||||
66005 Mileage | — | — | — | |||||||||
66505 Meals & Entertainment | 70 | 727 | 1,722 | |||||||||
67005 License and Fingerprints | 358 | 631 | 5,284 | |||||||||
68005 Dues and Subscriptions | — | — | 1,604 | |||||||||
68505 Seminars and Training | 251 | 50 | 2,671 | |||||||||
69005 Employee Recruiting | 3,969 | 4,591 | 36,291 | |||||||||
69505 Other | — | 140 | 1,099 | |||||||||
69605 Discounts Lost | — | — | — | |||||||||
69610 Discounts Taken | — | (14 | ) | (14 | ) | |||||||
69525 Sales & Use Tax Due | 2,988 | 6,716 | 40,985 | |||||||||
Total Misc. Expenses | 7,954 | 13,699 | 101,503 | |||||||||
Total Operating Expense | 141,484 | 136,972 | 1,669,549 | |||||||||
PIII - ITEM A-5
Database: | POLAPSVR | |||
Cube: | Financial Data | |||
Page: | Year | 2000 | ||
Version | AA | |||
Community | CHANDLER VILLAS | |||
Department | Total Departments | |||
Month | Along Columns | |||
GLAccount | Along Rows |
OLAPTable | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JAN | FEB | MAR | APR | MAY | JUN | JUL | AUG | SEP | OCT | NOV | DEC | DEC YTD | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross Margin | 121,848 | 95,249 | 76,494 | 89,547 | 86,172 | 66,315 | 74,604 | 74,199 | 81,433 | 75,244 | 108,853 | 83,176 | 1,033,133 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross Margin Percent | 48% | 43% | 33% | 41% | 39% | 32% | 34% | 33% | 36% | 35% | 43% | 38% | 38% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69705 Casualty Loss | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69805 Bad Debt Expense | (1,340 | ) | 3,809 | 3,422 | 90 | 1,235 | (1,790 | ) | (200 | ) | 1,475 | 5 | 134 | (87 | ) | 73 | 6,826 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
70005 Corporate Allocation | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72305 Property Taxes | 5,525 | 5,262 | 5,262 | 5,262 | 5,262 | 5,262 | 5,262 | 5,262 | 5,262 | 5,262 | 5,262 | 5,262 | 63,402 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72405 Insurance- Liability & Hazard | 1,013 | 1,013 | 1,013 | 1,727 | 1,727 | 1,732 | 1,732 | 1,732 | 1,732 | 1,732 | 1,732 | 1,732 | 18,617 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Other Fees | 5,198 | 10,084 | 9,697 | 7,079 | 8,224 | 5,203 | 6,793 | 8,468 | 6,998 | 7,127 | 6,906 | 7,067 | 88,845 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72505 Accounting | 1,226 | 1,226 | 1,226 | 1,226 | 1,226 | 417 | 417 | 1,519 | 968 | 968 | 968 | 6,241 | 17,632 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73005 Legal | 702 | 568 | 164 | 1,775 | 584 | 784 | 1,590 | 1,377 | 4,006 | 737 | 348 | 1,041 | 13,674 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73510 Donations & Contributions | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74005 Consulting Fees | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 116 | 116 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74015 Professional Fees - Other | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75005 Property Management Fees | 11,360 | 11,167 | 12,687 | 11,003 | 10,917 | 10,218 | 11,032 | 11,123 | 11,420 | 10,682 | 12,517 | 11,007 | 135,134 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75105 Partnership Admin Fees | 4,522 | 9,227 | (2,646 | ) | 2,861 | 2,875 | 906 | 5,277 | 1,447 | 1,829 | 1,255 | 5,432 | 1,930 | 34,915 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75510 Other Penalties/Fin. Fee | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75515 Licenses & Fees Legal | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75505 Bank Charges | 138 | 138 | 138 | 144 | 138 | 388 | 138 | (138 | ) | — | — | — | — | 1,083 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75520 Franchise Tax Filing Fee | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Professional Fees | 17,948 | 22,327 | 11,569 | 17,009 | 15,740 | 12,714 | 18,454 | 15,328 | 18,224 | 13,642 | 19,266 | 20,335 | 202,554 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBITDAR | 98,702 | 62,838 | 55,228 | 65,460 | 62,209 | 48,397 | 49,356 | 50,403 | 56,211 | 54,474 | 82,681 | 55,774 | 741,734 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBITDAR Percent | 39% | 28% | 24% | 30% | 28% | 24% | 22% | 23% | 25% | 25% | 33% | 25% | 27% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
80005 Interest Income | (282 | ) | (283 | ) | (284 | ) | (379 | ) | (316 | ) | (375 | ) | (716 | ) | (391 | ) | (455 | ) | (433 | ) | (432 | ) | (451 | ) | (4,798 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
80505 Other Non-Operating Income | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Non-Operating Income/Expense | (282) | (283) | (284) | (379) | (316) | (375) | (716) | (391) | (455) | (433) | (432) | (451) | (4,798) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83005 Interest Expense | 39,265 | 39,229 | 39,193 | 39,157 | 39,120 | 39,084 | 2,580 | 39,009 | 38,972 | 38,934 | 38,896 | 38,857 | 432,295 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83025 Int Exp MIP | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Interest Expense | 39,265 | 39,229 | 39,193 | 39,157 | 39,120 | 39,084 | 2,580 | 39,009 | 38,972 | 38,934 | 38,896 | 38,857 | 432,295 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBTDA | 59,719 | 23,892 | 16,319 | 26,682 | 23,405 | 9,689 | 47,493 | 11,785 | 17,694 | 15,973 | 44,217 | 17,368 | 314,237 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBTDA Percent | 23% | 11% | 7% | 12% | 11% | 5% | 22% | 5% | 8% | 7% | 18% | 8% | 12% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
77505 Depreciation | 13,133 | 13,126 | 13,142 | 13,150 | 13,150 | 12,936 | 13,300 | 13,113 | 13,110 | 13,136 | 13,156 | 14,452 | 158,901 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
78005 Amortization | 9,392 | 9,392 | 8,001 | 9,216 | 9,392 | 9,392 | 9,392 | 15,403 | 11,395 | 11,395 | 11,395 | 11,395 | 125,161 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
78015 Amortization - Start Up | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Depreciation & Amortization | 22,525 | 22,518 | 21,143 | 22,366 | 22,542 | 22,328 | 22,692 | 28,515 | 24,505 | 24,531 | 24,552 | 25,848 | 284,063 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net Income (Loss) | 37,195 | 1,374 | (4,824) | 4,316 | 863 | (12,639) | 24,801 | (16,730) | (6,812) | (8,558) | 19,666 | (8,479) | 30,174 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PIII - ITEM A-6
Database: | POLAPSVR | |||
Cube: | Financial Data | |||
Page: | Year | 2003 | ||
Version | AA | |||
Community | Chandler Villas | |||
Department | Total Department | |||
Month | Along Columns | |||
GLAccount | Along Rows |
OLAPTable | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JAN | FEB | MAR | APR | MAY | JUN | JUL | AUG | Aug YTD | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40005 Revenue-Rental | 249,499 | 250,063 | 244,887 | 187,556 | 319,963 | 258,258 | 248,636 | 250,619 | 2,009,480 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40010 Revenue-Rent Refunds/Proration | — | — | (907 | ) | — | — | (3,497 | ) | (1,286 | ) | — | (5,690 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Rental Revenue | 249,499 | 250,063 | 243,980 | 187,556 | 319,963 | 254,760 | 247,350 | 250,619 | 2,003,790 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40110 Revenue-AL Level 1 | 4,100 | 4,325 | 4,875 | 3,325 | 5,376 | 5,024 | 4,470 | 6,000 | 37,495 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40115 Revenue-AL Level 2 | 3,700 | 3,207 | 3,700 | 3,795 | 3,655 | 1,875 | 1,875 | 1,875 | 23,682 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40120 Revenue-AL Level 3 | — | — | — | — | 825 | 2,475 | 2,475 | 1,650 | 7,425 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total AL Services Revenue | 7,800 | 7,532 | 8,575 | 7,120 | 9,856 | 9,374 | 8,820 | 9,525 | 68,602 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40515 Revenue-Other | 1,957 | 2,250 | 1,988 | 2,054 | 2,424 | 744 | 1,348 | 1,502 | 14,266 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40525 Revenue-Processing/App Fees | 4,000 | 6,500 | 9,000 | — | — | — | 1,000 | 3,500 | 24,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Other Revenue | 5,957 | 8,750 | 10,988 | 2,054 | 2,424 | 744 | 2,348 | 5,002 | 38,266 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40015 Rev-Rent Concessions | — | — | — | (153 | ) | (1,497 | ) | (11,885 | ) | (4,155 | ) | (50 | ) | (17,740 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Concessions | — | — | — | (153 | ) | (1,497 | ) | (11,885 | ) | (4,155 | ) | (50 | ) | (17,740 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total Revenue | 263,256 | 266,345 | 263,543 | 196,577 | 330,745 | 252,993 | 254,363 | 265,096 | 2,092,918 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
50005 Payroll Expense-Regular | 59,427 | 56,653 | 63,468 | 51,637 | 80,216 | 61,067 | 62,882 | 66,320 | 501,669 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
50405 Payroll Expense-Overtime | 2,186 | 3,467 | 2,009 | 2,886 | 2,960 | 2,939 | 2,314 | 2,269 | 21,029 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
51005 Bonuses | (8,574 | ) | 15,333 | 4,907 | 4,771 | 5,855 | 3,307 | 3,357 | 4,948 | 33,904 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
51505 Vacation, Sick, Holiday | 3,401 | 3,750 | 5,110 | 4,903 | 6,753 | 5,125 | 4,615 | 5,013 | 38,671 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
51805 Employee Recognition | — | — | — | — | 50 | 25 | — | 175 | 250 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
52005 Payroll Taxes | 6,461 | 6,044 | 5,924 | 5,043 | 6,992 | 5,695 | 5,652 | 5,530 | 47,341 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
52505 401K/401A | 254 | 615 | 205 | 255 | 303 | 243 | 235 | 317 | 2,429 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
52805 Group Insurance | 3,332 | 2,930 | 3,296 | 3,192 | 2,691 | 2,956 | 510 | 3,635 | 22,542 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
53005 Worker’s Comp Insurance | 1,867 | 1,867 | 1,902 | 11,879 | 1,939 | 5,075 | 1,806 | 3,527 | 29,861 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Payroll Expenses | 68,354 | 90,660 | 86,821 | 84,565 | 107,759 | 86,432 | 81,373 | 91,734 | 697,697 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
54005 Payroll Service | 276 | 656 | 278 | (8 | ) | 391 | 362 | 237 | 305 | 2,497 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Purchase Services | 276 | 656 | 278 | (8 | ) | 391 | 362 | 237 | 305 | 2,497 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Payroll Related | 68,631 | 91,316 | 87,099 | 84,558 | 108,150 | 86,793 | 81,609 | 92,039 | 700,194 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Payroll Related % Total Revenue | 26 | % | 34 | % | 33 | % | 43 | % | 33 | % | 34 | % | 32 | % | 35 | % | 33 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
56505 Food | 24,270 | 26,747 | 23,606 | 16,348 | 23,535 | 18,464 | 20,234 | 23,296 | 176,499 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
57005 Housekeeping | 721 | 496 | 1,125 | 949 | 567 | 1,030 | 30 | 651 | 5,569 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
57505 Kitchen Supplies | 1,790 | 1,471 | 1,163 | 1,359 | 1,392 | 1,122 | 1,085 | 1,581 | 10,962 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
58005 Assisted Living Supplies | 42 | 26 | 20 | — | 10 | 27 | 5 | 20 | 151 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59005 Laundry & Linen/Uniforms | — | — | 53 | (393 | ) | (508 | ) | 883 | 467 | (9 | ) | 493 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
59010 Laun/Lin/Unif Kitchen | 630 | 322 | 149 | 180 | 316 | 451 | 153 | 479 | 2,680 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59015 Laund/Lin/Unif Housekeeping | 468 | 297 | 602 | 545 | 501 | 306 | 297 | 414 | 3,430 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59505 Activities-Asst Lving | 1,244 | 1,215 | 1,537 | 673 | 819 | 2,098 | 772 | 1,478 | 9,836 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59510 Banquet Expense | 500 | 500 | 500 | 383 | 617 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 4,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Variable Expense | 29,664 | 31,074 | 28,755 | 20,044 | 27,249 | 24,881 | 23,543 | 28,410 | 213,620 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
60005 Office Supplies | 809 | 1,197 | 1,239 | 575 | 652 | 908 | 612 | 1,036 | 7,029 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61015 Repairs - Electrical | — | 541 | 222 | 1,058 | 1,586 | 2,831 | 1,112 | 130 | 7,479 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61020 Repairs - Plumbing | 359 | 551 | 309 | 2,813 | 677 | 634 | 1,022 | 1,252 | 7,615 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61030 Repairs - HVAC | 751 | — | 60 | 1,404 | 148 | 786 | 1,833 | 2,042 | 7,025 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61035 Repairs - Gen. Supplies | 841 | 567 | 2,618 | 1,413 | 740 | 922 | 587 | 1,148 | 8,836 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61040 Repairs - Equipment | 313 | 574 | 119 | 951 | 433 | 288 | 982 | 584 | 4,245 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61045 Repairs - Other Interior | 1 | 3,639 | (3,264 | ) | 1,702 | 155 | 300 | — | 136 | 2,670 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61055 Repairs - Other Exterior | — | — | — | 38 | — | — | — | — | 38 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61100 Loss on Early Retirement Asset | — | 238 | — | 1,247 | — | — | 168 | 399 | 2,053 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Repair & Maintenance | 2,266 | 6,110 | 64 | 10,626 | 3,738 | 5,760 | 5,704 | 5,691 | 39,959 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61505 Contracts - Elevator | 557 | 582 | 582 | 446 | 718 | 582 | 582 | 582 | 4,633 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61510 Contracts - Floor Maint | 220 | 100 | 135 | 210 | 150 | 590 | 164 | 306 | 1,875 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61515 Contracts - Alarm/Fire | — | 103 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 103 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61525 Contracts - Pest Control | 240 | 240 | 240 | 153 | 197 | 160 | 540 | 315 | 2,085 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61535 Contracts - Other | 440 | 348 | 44 | 36 | 42 | 134 | 46 | 296 | 1,386 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Service Contracts | 1,457 | 1,373 | 1,001 | 845 | 1,107 | 1,466 | 1,333 | 1,500 | 10,082 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62005 Land Maintenance | 3,966 | 3,670 | 3,734 | 2,845 | 4,007 | 3,976 | 4,101 | 4,490 | 30,789 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Land Maintenance | 3,966 | 3,670 | 3,734 | 2,845 | 4,007 | 3,976 | 4,101 | 4,490 | 30,789 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62505 Rental/Lease - Cable | 3,758 | 3,669 | 3,669 | 2,813 | 4,525 | 3,669 | 3,669 | 3,669 | 29,441 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62510 Rental/Lease - Security | 57 | 57 | 57 | 44 | 71 | 57 | 57 | 57 | 459 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62525 Rental/Lease - Furniture | — | — | — | — | — | — | 147 | — | 147 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62535 Rental/Lease - Equipment | 263 | 339 | 381 | 411 | 639 | 489 | 572 | 537 | 3,631 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62540 Rental/Lease - Auto | 1,958 | 1,958 | 632 | 484 | 779 | 632 | 632 | 632 | 7,704 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62555 Rental/Lease - Other | — | 147 | 294 | 113 | 34 | — | — | 147 | 736 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Rental and Leases | 6,035 | 6,170 | 5,033 | 3,865 | 6,048 | 4,847 | 5,077 | 5,042 | 42,118 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63010 Utilities - Electricity | 9,888 | 6,433 | 8,624 | 4,373 | 13,634 | 7,042 | 22,782 | 21,176 | 93,952 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63015 Utilities - Water | 3,098 | 3,171 | 3,372 | 2,712 | 5,311 | 4,306 | 5,386 | 5,089 | 32,446 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63020 Utilities - Gas | 1,144 | 1,099 | 1,473 | 705 | 1,017 | 341 | 259 | 388 | 6,424 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63025 Utilities - Telephone | 1,747 | 1,637 | 1,696 | 1,091 | 1,270 | 1,418 | 1,107 | 1,246 | 11,210 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63030 Utilities - Trash | 22 | 634 | 596 | 324 | 521 | 422 | 411 | 426 | 3,357 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Utilities | 15,898 | 12,974 | 15,759 | 9,204 | 21,753 | 13,530 | 29,945 | 28,325 | 147,388 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63505 Marketing and Advertising | 291 | 1,310 | 2,036 | 395 | 319 | 288 | 237 | 91 | 4,967 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63510 Printed Materials | 59 | 61 | 16 | 66 | 3 | 51 | — | 65 | 320 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63515 Special Events | 21 | 1,343 | 25 | 150 | 25 | 62 | — | — | 1,626 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63520 Yellow Pages | 134 | 134 | 673 | (311 | ) | 39 | 134 | 134 | 134 | 1,070 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63525 Newspaper and Magazine | 1,521 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 600 | 2,121 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63530 Advertising | 3,609 | 27 | — | — | 204 | — | — | — | 3,839 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
64005 Referral Fees - Residents | 1,000 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 3,500 | 1,400 | — | 500 | 7,900 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Marketing and Advertising | 6,635 | 3,374 | 3,249 | 801 | 4,089 | 1,934 | 371 | 1,390 | 21,843 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
64505 Computers/ Peripherals/ Software | — | — | — | — | — | 85 | — | — | 85 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65005 Gas | 326 | 289 | 297 | 428 | 389 | 762 | 537 | 409 | 3,437 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65010 Auto Service And Repair | 497 | 123 | 52 | 409 | 135 | 1,323 | — | 638 | 3,177 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65015 Other Automobile | — | 264 | 245 | — | 396 | 220 | 179 | 333 | 1,638 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65505 Travel & Lodging | 564 | 642 | 113 | — | — | — | 16 | 500 | 1,835 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
66505 Meals & Entertainment | 120 | 118 | 71 | 18 | 87 | — | 26 | 42 | 482 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
67005 License and Fingerprints | 590 | 1,064 | 949 | 957 | 1,550 | 833 | 693 | 530 | 7,164 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68005 Dues and Subscriptions | 93 | 93 | 93 | 33 | 53 | 108 | 43 | 43 | 560 |
2
PIII - ITEM A-6
Database: | POLAPSVR | |||
Cube: | Financial Data | |||
Page: | Year | 2003 | ||
Version | AA | |||
Community | Chandler Villas | |||
Department | Total Department | |||
Month | Along Columns | |||
GLAccount | Along Rows | |||
OLAPTable |
JAN | FEB | MAR | APR | MAY | JUN | JUL | AUG | Aug YTD | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68505 Seminars and Training | — | — | — | — | 45 | — | — | — | 45 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69005 Employee Recruiting | — | — | 931 | — | 478 | — | 443 | 412 | 2,264 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69505 Other | 607 | 696 | 124 | 28 | 252 | 124 | 56 | 114 | 1,999 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69525 Sales & Use Tax Due | 3,719 | 3,772 | 3,766 | 3,678 | 2,824 | 3,935 | 3,655 | 3,650 | 28,998 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Misc. Expenses | 6,517 | 7,060 | 6,641 | 5,550 | 6,208 | 7,389 | 5,648 | 6,672 | 51,685 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Operating Expense | 141,878 | 164,319 | 152,574 | 138,913 | 183,002 | 151,485 | 157,942 | 174,595 | 1,264,707 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross Margin | 121,377 | 102,026 | 110,969 | 57,664 | 147,743 | 101,509 | 96,421 | 90,501 | 828,211 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross Margin Percent | 46 | % | 38 | % | 42 | % | 29 | % | 45 | % | 40 | % | 38 | % | 34 | % | 40 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
69805 Bad Debt Expense | (500 | ) | — | — | (1,107 | ) | — | 446 | — | — | (1,162 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
72305 Property Taxes | 5,932 | 5,884 | 7,884 | 6,406 | 10,305 | 6,355 | 6,120 | 6,120 | 55,005 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72405 Insurance - Liability & Hazard | 8,997 | 8,885 | 7,885 | 6,243 | 7,973 | (1,741 | ) | 7,245 | 7,105 | 52,590 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Other Fees | 14,429 | 14,769 | 15,769 | 11,542 | 18,277 | 5,059 | 13,365 | 13,224 | 106,434 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72505 Accounting | 2,438 | 2,438 | 2,438 | 3,606 | 1,676 | 6,618 | 3,749 | 3,997 | 26,959 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73005 Legal | 511 | 380 | 459 | 343 | 1,133 | 1,907 | 664 | 403 | 5,799 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73510 Donations & Contributions | — | — | — | — | 857 | — | — | — | 857 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74005 Consulting Fees | — | — | — | 1,000 | 251 | 130 | — | — | 1,381 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74015 Professional Fees - Other | — | — | — | — | — | — | 128 | 151 | 278 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75005 Property Management Fees | 13,163 | 13,317 | 13,177 | 9,829 | 16,537 | 12,650 | 12,718 | 13,255 | 104,646 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75105 Partnership Admin Fees | 3,704 | 1,701 | 2,677 | (1,414 | ) | 4,583 | 1,738 | 1,471 | 658 | 15,119 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75510 Other Penalties/Fin. Fee | — | 2 | 5 | 25 | 5 | 3 | 9 | — | 48 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75515 Licenses & Fees Legal | — | — | — | — | 45 | — | — | — | 45 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75520 Franchise Tax Filing Fee | — | — | — | 800 | — | — | — | — | 800 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75525 Collection Fees | — | — | — | 221 | — | 89 | — | — | 310 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Professional Fees | 19,815 | 17,838 | 18,755 | 14,410 | 25,087 | 23,136 | 18,739 | 18,463 | 156,243 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBITDAR | 87,133 | 69,419 | 76,445 | 31,712 | 104,379 | 73,314 | 64,317 | 58,814 | 565,534 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBITDAR Percent | 33 | % | 26 | % | 29 | % | 16 | % | 32 | % | 29 | % | 25 | % | 22 | % | 27 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
80005 Interest Income | (84 | ) | (43 | ) | (40 | ) | (45 | ) | (64 | ) | — | (116 | ) | (33 | ) | (425 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||
80505 Other Non-Operating Income | (17 | ) | — | — | (0 | ) | — | — | — | — | (17 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Non-Operating Income/Expense | (101) | (43) | (40) | (45) | (64) | — | (116) | (33) | (442) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83005 Interest Expense | 38,542 | 37,370 | 38,542 | 30,226 | 47,363 | 40,427 | 38,310 | 38,289 | 309,070 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83025 Int Exp MIP | 2,752 | 2,752 | 2,375 | 1,821 | 2,929 | 2,375 | 2,375 | 2,375 | 19,751 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Interest Expense | 41,294 | 40,122 | 40,917 | 32,046 | 50,291 | 42,802 | 40,684 | 40,664 | 328,821 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBTDA | 45,940 | 29,341 | 35,567 | (289) | 54,152 | 30,512 | 23,749 | 18,183 | 237,155 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBTDA Percent | 17 | % | 11 | % | 13 | % | 0 | % | 16 | % | 12 | % | 9 | % | 7 | % | 11 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
77505 Depreciation | 18,794 | 18,850 | 19,118 | 17,025 | 27,421 | 22,239 | 22,374 | 23,126 | 168,947 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
78005 Amortization | 677 | 677 | 677 | 519 | 835 | 677 | 677 | 677 | 5,418 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Depreciation & Amortization | 19,471 | 19,527 | 19,795 | 17,544 | 28,256 | 22,916 | 23,051 | 23,804 | 174,365 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net Income (Loss) | 26,469 | 9,814 | 15,772 | (17,833) | 25,896 | 7,596 | 698 | (5,621) | 62,790 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ventura CA , 2003-2004 - 164-0-111-065, Sheet 1 of 1
ADDENDUM E: Comparable Land Sale Data Sheets
Land Sale 1
Property Identification | ||
Location | SWC Knox Rd. & McQueen Rd. | |
Address | Chandler, AZ 85225 | |
Parcel No or Legal Description | 302-38-005A | |
Document Number | 453645 | |
Sale Data | ||
Buyer | Venture Resources Consulting | |
LLC | ||
Seller | Century Life Church | |
Sale Date | 4/11/03 | |
Property Rights | Fee Simple | |
Financing | Cash to Seller | |
Conditions of Sale | None | |
Sale Price | $1,094,445 | |
Zoning | PAD | |
Physical Data | ||
Land Size | ||
Square Feet | 379,408 | |
Acre(s) | 8.71 | |
Shape | Irregular | |
Topography | Level | |
Indicators | ||
Sale Price/SF | $2.88 | |
Sale Price/Acre | $125,654 | |
Intended Use: | To hold for development of a clusterhome community. |
Land Sale 2
Property Identification | ||
Location | SE of Ocotillo & Dobson Rd. | |
Address | Chandler, AZ 85248 | |
Parcel No or Legal Description | 303-90- | |
25,037,038,040,421,44,46,049 | ||
Document Number | 841637 | |
Sale Data | ||
Buyer | T.W. Lewis Company | |
Seller | Taro Properties I LLC | |
Sate Date | 6/27/03 | |
Property Rights | Fee Simple | |
Financing | Cash to Seller | |
Conditions of Sale | None | |
Sale Price | $1,040,000 | |
Zoning | PAD | |
Physical Data | ||
Land Size | ||
Square Feet | 147,668 | |
Acre(s) | 3.39 | |
Shape | Irregular | |
Topography | Level | |
Indicators | ||
Sale Price/SF | $7.04 | |
Sale Price/Acre | $306,765 | |
Intended Use: | Intended use to construct 8 single family homes. |
Land Sale 3
Property Identification | ||
Location | SW Germann Rd. & Comanche | |
Address | Chandler, AZ 85248 | |
Parcel No or Legal Description | 303-35-006C | |
Document Number | 755327 | |
Sale Data | ||
Buyer | Magnum Chandler LLC | |
Seller | Charles Keith | |
Sale Date | 1/1/03 | |
Property Rights | Fee Simple | |
Financing | Cash to Seller | |
Conditions of Sale | None | |
Sale Price | $364,800 | |
Zoning | PAD | |
Physical Data | ||
Land Size | ||
Square Feet | 167,445 | |
Acre(s) | 3.84 | |
Shape | Regular | |
Topography | Level | |
Indicators | ||
Sale Price/SF | $2.18 | |
Sale Price/Acre | $94,901 | |
Intended Use: | Hold for development. |
Land Sale 4
Property Identification | ||
Location | NE Germann Rd. & Alma School | |
Address | Chandler, AZ 85248 | |
Parcel No or Legal Description | 303-27-031F | |
Document Number | 847302 | |
Sale Data | ||
Buyer | Mr. Tanner Development and | |
Construction | ||
Seller | James W. Hill | |
Sale Date | 8/20/02 | |
Property Rights | Fee Simple | |
Financing | Cash to Seller | |
Conditions of Sale | None | |
Sale Price | $290,000 | |
Zoning | AG-1 | |
Physical Data | ||
Land Size | ||
Square Feet | 218,889 | |
Acre(s) | 5.03 | |
Shape | Regular | |
Topography | Level | |
Indicators | ||
Sale Price/SF | $1.32 | |
Sale Price/Acre | $57,711 | |
Intended Use: | Intended use unknown. Zoning | |
permits 1 acre minimum lot size. |
ADDENDUM F: Comparable Improved Sale Data Sheets
Improved Comparable 1
![]() | Property Name: Carmel Village Property Type: Senior Housing Property Subtype: Assisted Living | 17077 San Mateo Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 County: Orange |
IMPROVEMENTS
Class: | B | |||
Est. Gross Building Area: | 117,666 | |||
Est. Net Building Area: | 117,666 | |||
Year Built: | 1986 | |||
Quality: | Good | |||
Condition: | Average | |||
Buildings: | 3 | |||
Stories: | 3 | |||
Fire Sprinklers: | Yes |
TRANSACTION INFO
Sale Status: Interest: | Recorded Sale Fee Simple | |
Sale Date: | 01/15/2003 |
Sale Price
Reported Price: | $ | 23,125,000 | |||
Cash Equivalent: | $ | 23,125,000 | |||
Adj. Sale Price: | $ | 23,125,000 | |||
$ Per SqFt: | $ | 196.53 | |||
$ Per Unit: | $ | 122,354 | |||
Cap Rate: | 11.14 | % | |||
EGIM: | 4.24 |
OCCUPANCY
Occupancy at Sale: Seniors | 97.00 % |
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Amount | Percent | |||||||
Potential Gross Income: | $ | 5,450,000 | ||||||
Effective Gross | $ | 5,450,000 | ||||||
Operating Expenses: | $ | 2,875,000 | 0.53 | % | ||||
Net Operating Income: | $ | 2,575,000 |
SITE ATTRIBUTES
Sq Ft | Acres | |||||||
Total Land Area: | 139,828 | 3.21 | ||||||
Net Usable Area: | 139,828 | 3.21 | ||||||
Percent Usable: | 100 | % | ||||||
Ground Leased: | No |
SENIOR HOUSING INFO
Number of AL Units: | 94 | |||
Number of IL Units: | 95 | |||
Number of Cottage Units: | 0 | |||
Number of ALZ Units: | 0 | |||
Total Number of Units: | 189 | |||
Average Unit Size: | 623 | |||
No. of Licensed Beds: | 200 | |||
Subsidized: | No |
VERIFICATION
Grantor: Carmel Village Retirement Residence, Inc.
Grantee: 625 Management Company LLC
Verification Contact:
Michelle Butts, 714.962.6667
REMARKS
This facility is licensed for 200 beds, but is operated at 189 units. Approximately one-half of the units are for independent living with the other half for assisted living. Assisted living residents pay from $350 to $1,400 per month in additional care fees. It was reported that over 70 percent of the residents are paying first level charges ($350 per month). It was reported that several of the buyer’s parties were stockholders of the selling entity, however, this was reported to be an arm’s length sale.
Improved Comparable 2
![]() | Property Name: Emerald Hills Property Type: Senior Housing Property Subtype: Assisted Living | 11550 Education Street Auburn, CA County: Placer |
IMPROVEMENTS
Class: | B | |||
Est. Gross Building Area: | 61,677 | |||
Est. Net Building Area: | 61,677 | |||
Exterior Walls: | Wood siding | |||
Year Built: | 1999 | |||
Quality: | Average | |||
Condition: | Average | |||
Buildings: | 1 | |||
Stories: | 3 |
TRANSACTION INFO
Sale Status: Interest: Financing: Sale Date: | Recorded Sale Fee Simple Cash To Seller 09/06/2002 |
Sale Price
Reported Price: | $ | 8,800,000 | |||
Cash Equivalent: | $ | 8,800,000 | |||
Adj. Sale Price: | $ | 8,800,000 | |||
$ Per SqFt: | $ | 142.68 | |||
$ Per Unit: | $ | 98,876 | |||
$ Per Eff Bed: | $ | 94,624 | |||
Cap Rate: | 11.00 | % | |||
EGIM: | 4.00 |
OCCUPANCY
Occupancy at Sale: Seniors | 100.00 % |
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Amount | Percent | |||||||
Potential Gross Income: | $ | 2,475,000 | ||||||
Effective Gross | $ | 2,475,000 | ||||||
Operating Expenses: | $ | 1,490,000 | 0.60 | % | ||||
Net Operating Income: | $ | 985,000 |
SITE ATTRIBUTES
Sq Ft | Acres | |||||||
Total Land Area: | 108,900 | 2.50 | ||||||
Net Usable Area: | 108,900 | 2.50 | ||||||
Percent Usable: | 100 | % | ||||||
Ground Leased: | No |
SENIOR HOUSING INFO
Number of AL Units: | 53 | ||||
Number of IL Units: | 20 | ||||
Number of Cottage Units: | 0 | ||||
Number of ALZ Units: | 16 | ||||
Total Number of Units: | 89 | ||||
Average Unit Size: | 693 | ||||
No. of Licensed Beds: | 97 | ||||
No. of Effective Beds: | 93 | ||||
Subsidized: | No | ||||
Amenities: | |||||
Common areas, dining room |
VERIFICATION
Grantor: ALCO IV, LLC
Grantee: Healthcare Property Investors, Inc.
Verification Contact:
Seller
REMARKS
This property is located 60 miles east of Sacramento in Auburn. Facility offers studio alcove units (346 – 568 SF), one-bedroom units (483 SF) and two-bedroom units (728 SF). This was a sale lease-back transaction where the buyer will lease the facility to Emeritus for 15 years with a 10-year option. Emeritus has managed the facility since it was completed. The lease rate is based on 11.50 percent of the purchase price with 3.0 percent annual escalations. Expense amount shown includes a 5.0 percent management fee and reserves allowance.
Improved Comparable 3
![]() | Property Name: Woodmark at Summit Property Type: Senior Housing Property Subtype: Assisted Living | 5165 Summit Ridge Court Reno, NV 89523 County: Washoe Parcels and/or Legal: 66563 |
IMPROVEMENTS
Class: | B | |||
Est. Gross Building Area: | 77,445 | |||
Est. Net Building Area: | 77,445 | |||
Exterior Walls: | Stucco | |||
Year Built: | 1998 | |||
Quality: | Good | |||
Condition: | Good | |||
Buildings: | 1 | |||
Stories: | 3 | |||
Fire Sprinklers: | Yes |
TRANSACTION INFO
Sale Status: Interest: Financing: Sale Date: | Recorded Sale Fee Simple Cash To Seller 02/21/2002 |
Sale Price
Reported Price: | $ | 9,500,000 | |||
Cash Equivalent: | $ | 8,500,000 | |||
Capital Costs: | $ | 1,000,000 | |||
Adj. Sale Price: | $ | 9,500,000 | |||
$ Per SqFt: | $ | 122.67 | |||
$ Per Unit: | $ | 103,261 | |||
Cap Rate: | 12.63 | % | |||
EGIM: | 3.00 |
OCCUPANCY
Occupancy at Sale: Seniors | 60.00 % |
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Amount | Percent | |||||||
Potential Gross Income: | $ | 3,300,000 | ||||||
Effective Gross | $ | 3,300,000 | ||||||
Operating Expenses: | $ | 2,100,000 | 0.64 | % | ||||
Net Operating Income: | $ | 1,200,000 |
SITE ATTRIBUTES
Sq Ft | Acres | |||||||
Total Land Area: | 182,299 | 4.19 | ||||||
Net Usable Area: | 182,299 | 4.19 | ||||||
Percent Usable: | 100 | % | ||||||
Ground Leased: | No |
SENIOR HOUSING INFO
Number of AL Units: | 92 | |||
Number of IL Units: | 0 | |||
Number of Cottage Units: | 0 | |||
Number of ALZ Units: | 0 | |||
Total Number of Units: | 92 | |||
Average Unit Size: | 842 | |||
Subsidized: | No |
VERIFICATION
Recording Reference: 11662-0240
Grantor: Woodmark At Summit Ridge LLC
Grantee: Emeritus
Verification Contact:
Buyer
REMARKS
Sale is an assisted living facility located in the northwest part of Reno, Nevada. The improvements are of good quality construction. Original developer was unable to attain stablized operation. Buyer is an experienced operator.
Improved Comparable 4
![]() | Property Name: Mapleridge of Laguna Property Type: Senior Housing Property Subtype: Assisted Living | 6727 Laguna Park Drive Elk Grove, CA County: Sacramento |
IMPROVEMENTS
Class: | B | |||
Est. Gross Building Area: | 50,476 | |||
Est. Net Building Area: | 50,476 | |||
Exterior Walls: | Wood siding | |||
Year Built: | 1999 | |||
Quality: | Good | |||
Condition: | Good | |||
Buildings: | 1 | |||
Stories: | 2 | |||
Fire Sprinklers: | Yes |
TRANSACTION INFO
Sale Status: Interest: Financing: Sale Date: | Recorded Sale Fee Simple Cash To Seller 01/24/2002 |
Sale Price
Reported Price: | $ | 8,055,600 | |||
Cash Equivalent: | $ | 8,055,600 | |||
Adj. Sale Price: | $ | 8,055,600 | |||
$ Per SqFt: | $ | 159.59 | |||
$ Per Unit: | $ | 95,900 | |||
Cap Rate: | 10.55 | % | |||
EGIM: | 3.16 |
OCCUPANCY
Occupancy at Sale: Seniors | 76.00 % |
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Amount | Percent | |||||||
Potential Gross Income: | $ | 2,550,000 | ||||||
Effective Gross | $ | 2,550,000 | ||||||
Operating Expenses: | $ | 1,700,000 | 0.67 | % | ||||
Net Operating Income: | $ | 850,000 |
SITE ATTRIBUTES
Sq Ft | Acres | |||||||
Total Land Area: | 186,437 | 4.28 | ||||||
Net Usable Area: | 186,437 | 4.28 | ||||||
Percent Usable: | 100 | % | ||||||
Ground Leased: | No |
SENIOR HOUSING INFO
Number of AL Units: | 84 | |||
Number of IL Units: | 0 | |||
Number of Cottage Units: | 0 | |||
Number of ALZ Units: | 0 | |||
Total Number of Units: | 84 | |||
Average Unit Size: | 601 | |||
Subsidized: | No |
VERIFICATION
Grantor: Marriott Senior Living Services
Grantee: CNL Retirement Properties
Verification Contact:
Buyer, CNL
REMARKS
This is a newer assisted living facility located in the south part of the Sacramento MSA in Elk Grove. Property was part of a five-facility joint venture transaction between CNL and Marriott. Marriott was to continue operating the property. Facility was in lease-up at time of sale. Income and expense data based on stabilized operating conditions.
Improved Comparable 5
![]() | Property Name: Atria Redding Property Type: Senior Housing Property Subtype: Assisted Living | 101 Quartz Hill Road Redding, CA 96003 County: Shasta Parcels and/or Legal: 112-090-18-00 |
IMPROVEMENTS
Est. Gross Building Area: | 44,328 | |||
Est. Net Building Area: | 44,328 | |||
Year Built: | 1997 | |||
Quality: | Poor | |||
Condition: | Good | |||
Stories: | 2 |
TRANSACTION INFO
Sale Status: Interest: Financing: Sale Date: | Recorded Sale Fee Simple Cash To Seller 07/01/2001 |
Sale Price
Reported Price: | $ | 5,000,000 | |||
Cash Equivalent: | $ | 5,000,000 | |||
Adj. Sale Price: | $ | 5,000,000 | |||
$ Per SqFt: | $ | 112.80 | |||
$ Per Unit: | $ | 83,333 | |||
Cap Rate: | 12.50 | % | |||
EGIM: | 3.00 |
OCCUPANCY
Occupancy at Sale: | 95.00 % |
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Amount | Percent | |||||||
Potential Gross Income: | $ | 1,950,000 | ||||||
Effective Gross | $ | 1,950,000 | ||||||
Operating Expenses: | $ | 1,325,000 | 0.68 | % | ||||
Net Operating Income: | $ | 625,000 |
SITE ATTRIBUTES
Sq Ft | Acres | |||||||
Total Land Area: | 133,294 | 3.06 | ||||||
Net Usable Area: | 133,294 | 3.06 | ||||||
Percent Usable: | 100 | % |
SENIOR HOUSING INFO
Number of AL Units: | 60 | |||
Total Number of Units: | 60 | |||
Average Unit Size: | 739 |
VERIFICATION
Recording Reference: N/A
Grantor: Atria Communities
Grantee: AMI Senior Living
REMARKS
This is the sale of a smaller assisted living facility located in northern California in Redding. The improvements are of above average quality construction. There are a total of 60 living units, consisting of 36 studio units, 20 one-bedroom units and four two-bedroom units. The property was not actively marketed and was purchased by a local senior housing provider. The income and expense data based on actuals at time of sale. The seller was motivated to sell and the price paid is considered below actual market value.
Improved Comparable 6
![]() | Property Name: Aegis of Napa Property Type: Senior Housing Property Subtype: Assisted Living | 2100 Redwood Road Napa, CA 94558 County: Napa Parcels and/or Legal: 007-321-009 |
IMPROVEMENTS
Class: | A | |||
Est. Gross Building Area: | 34,030 | |||
Est. Net Building Area: | 34,030 | |||
Exterior Walls: | Composite siding | |||
Year Built: | 1999 | |||
Quality: | Good | |||
Condition: | Good | |||
Parking Spaces: | 15 | |||
Fire Sprinklers: | Yes |
TRANSACTION INFO
Sale Status: Interest: Sale Date: | Recorded Sale Fee Simple 06/01/2001 |
Sale Price
Reported Price: | $ | 7,200,000 | |||
Cash Equivalent: | $ | 7,200,000 | |||
Adj. Sale Price: | $ | 7,200,000 | |||
$ Per SqFt: | $ | 211.58 | |||
$ Per Unit: | $ | 167,442 | |||
$ Per Eff Bed: | $ | 150,000 | |||
Cap Rate: | 10.76 | % | |||
EGIM: | 3.43 |
OCCUPANCY
Seniors
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Amount | Percent | |||||||
Potential Gross Income: | $ | 2,100,000 | ||||||
Effective Gross | $ | 2,100,000 | ||||||
Operating Expenses: | $ | 1,325,000 | 63.10 | % | ||||
Net Operating Income: | $ | 775,000 |
SITE ATTRIBUTES
Sq Ft | Acres | |||||||
Total Land Area: | 48,590 | 1.12 | ||||||
Net Usable Area: | 48,590 | 1.12 | ||||||
Percent Usable: | 100 | % | ||||||
Ground Leased: | No |
SENIOR HOUSING INFO
Number of AL Units: | 34 | |||
Number of IL Units: | 0 | |||
Number of Cottage Units: | 0 | |||
Number of ALZ Units: | 9 | |||
Total Number of Units: | 43 | |||
Average Unit Size: | 791 | |||
No. of Licensed Beds: | 48 | |||
No. of Effective Beds: | 48 | |||
Subsidized: | No |
VERIFICATION
Grantor: Aegis Assisted Living Properties LLC
Grantee: Francis & Shannon Connelly
Verification Contact:
Jeff Owen, Aegis Assisted Living
REMARKS
This is a smaller assisted living facility located in Napa. Contains 34 assisted living units and nine dementia units. Unit mix includes 20 studio units with 386 SF, 5 companion suites with 640 SF and 18 one-bedroom units with 640 SF. Facility opened in 9/1999 and achieved stabilized occupancy in 13 months. Aegis will continue to manage the property. Income and expense data based on actuals at time of sale.
ADDENDUM G: Qualifications of the Appraiser
QUALIFICATIONS OF SALLY U. HAFT, MAI
EMPLOYMENT
Cushman & Wakefield – 2002 To Present
Los Angeles, California (Healthcare Valuation Advisory Services – Senior Housing/Healthcare
Industry Group)
Director
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP – 1999 to 2002
Los Angeles, California (Healthcare & Retirement Valuation, Market Studies, and Feasibility
Reports)
Senior Valuation Consultant
Valuation Counselors – 1991 To 1999
Century City, California (National multi-disciplined appraisal company specializing in the
valuation of health care facilities)
Vice President and Manager of the Real Estate Appraisal Department
First Nationwide Bank – 1987 To 1991
Los Angeles, California (National lending institution)
District Appraisal Manager of the Major Commercial Loan Division
Marshall & Stevens, Inc. – 1981 to 1986
Los Angeles, California (National multi-disciplined appraisal company)
Income Property Staff Appraiser
EDUCATION
McMaster University, Ontario, Canada, Bachelor of Social Work/Sociology
Appraisal courses:
Standards of Professional Practice Ad Valorem Tax Assessment Appeal Appraising Single Family Residences Applied Residential Property Valuation Income Property Appraisals Appraising Income Property Valuations Techniques in Capitalization Market Extractions Developments in Income Property Valuation Analyzing Cash Flows Report Writing |
QUALIFICATIONS OF SALLY U. HAFT, MAI
SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS & AFFILIATIONS
Member Appraisal Institute: MAI Certificate #10267
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser,License 30995 (AZ)
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser,License AG003509 (CA)
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser,License CG01327505 (CO)
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser,License 03532 (NV)
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser,License 523 (WY)
SPECIALIZED EXPERTISE & EXPERIENCE
Ms. Haft is a real estate valuation appraiser with 18 years of experience, specializing in the appraisal of health care facilities for the last ten years. A diversified background has enabled Ms. Haft to serve both public and private sector clients. She has appraised most property interests and property types and has performed appraisal assignments in over 30 states. Ms. Haft’s appraisals have been performed for audit, development, financing, insurance, liquidation, sale/purchase, ad valorem tax, and leasing purposes. Complex property types she has valued include numerous assisted living and congregate care facilities, acute-care and psychiatric hospitals, hotels/motels, medical and commercial office buildings, retail centers, industrial development and unique properties such as the Great Western Forum sports complex and the Santa Anita Race Track.
QUALIFICATIONS OF SALLY U. HAFT, MAI
SENIOR HOUSING/HEALTHCARE VALUATION ASSIGNMENTS
Senior Housing/Assisted Living Facilities/Alzheimer Facilities
The Regency on Morganton, Southern Pines, NC
Port City Plantation, Wilmington, NC
Sunrise of La Jolla, La Jolla, CA
Alterra Wynwood of Pueblo, Pueblo, CO
Clare Bridge of Oro Valley, AZ
Sunrise of Hermosa Beach, Hermosa Beach, CA
Sunrise of Pacific Palisades, Pacific Palisades, CA
Sunrise of La Palma, La Palma, CA
Sunrise of Huntington Beach, Huntington Beach, CA
Sunrise of Seal Beach, Seal Beach, CA
Sunrise of Studio City, Studio City, CA
Sunrise of Newtown Square, Newtown, PA
Sunrise of Wilmington, Wilmington, DE
Sunrise of Dix Hills, Huntington, NY
Sterling House & Clare Bridge Cottage, Bakersfield, CA
Brighton Gardens of Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA
Brighton Gardens, San Juan Capistrano, CA
Brighton Gardens of San Dimas, San Dimas, CA
Brighton Gardens of Carmel Valley, Carmel Valley, CA
Orchard Park ALF, Clovis, CA
Alterra Wynwood and Clare Bridge Cottage, Fresno, CA
Plaza at Mill Pond, Park Ridge, NJ
Plaza at the Windrows, Princeton, NJ
The Heritage, Las Cruces, NM
Alterra Clare Bridge at Lake Park, Oceanside, CA
11 Alterra facilities in Michigan/1 Alterra facility in Ohio
Silverado Senior Living, Costa Mesa, CA
Alterra Wynwood and Clare Bridge, Greensboro, NC
Alterra Wynwood and Clare Bridge, Charlotte, NC
Clare Bridge, Mt. Pleasant, SC
Golden Creek Inn, Irvine, CA
Hillcrest Inn, Thousand Oaks, CA
Pomona Vista ALZ, Pomona, CA
Redwood Town Court, Escondido, CA
Windsor Assisted Living, Santa Rosa, CA
Sherwood Place, Odessa, TX
Alhambra Lodge, El Paso, TX
Sheltering Pines, Millbrae, CA
Rosewood Retirement, Bakersfield, CA
Margaret Rose Residential Care, Las Vegas, NV
La Casa Grande, New Porte Richey, FL
River Oaks, Englewood, FL
Golden Creek Inn, Irvine, CA
West Hills Retirement Center, West Hills, CA
Hoyt House, Sweetwater, TX
Potter House, Amarillo, TX
The Hearthstone, Moses Lake, WA
Mathis Ferry Plantation, Mt. Pleasant, SC
Cypress Pointe, Virginia Beach, VA
Alterra Wynwood of Colorado Springs, CO
Clare Bridge of Tempe, Tempe, AZ
Sunrise of Claremont, Claremont, CA
Sterling House & Clare Bridge Cottage, Bakersfield, CA
Alterra Wynwood and Clare Bridge Cottage, Fresno, CA
Chatfield Place, Denver, CO
Sunrise of Sunnyvale, Sunnyvale, CA
Atria San Marcos, San Marcos, CA
Sunrise of Boulder, Boulder, CO
Grandview Terrace, Sun City West, AZ
Brighton Gardens, Colorado Springs, CO
Sunrise of Bonita, San Diego, CA
Garden Villas of Escondido, Escondido, CA
Sabine House, Orange, TX
Lucas House, Beaumont, TX
Wheeler House, Gainesville, TX
Hickory House, Levelland, TX
Conner House, Canyon, TX
Millican House, Bryan, TX
Austin House, Nacogdoches, TX
Country Villa, Los Angeles, CA
Atria San Marcos, San Marcos, CA
Grandview Terrace, Sun City West, AZ
Aegis of Fremont, Fremont, CA
Aegis of Napa, Napa Valley, CA
Evergreen Valley Retirement Center, Spokane, CA
Seashell Communities, Morro Bay, CA
Huntington Terrace, Huntington Beach, CA
Montego Heights Lodge, Walnut Creek, CA
Retirement Inn of Fullerton, Fullerton, CA
Valley View Lodge, Walnut Creek, Ca
Retirement Inn of Daly City, Daly City, CA
Rosewood Court, Fullerton, CA
North Bay Retirement, Fairfield, CA
Oak Knoll, Paradise, CA
Country Villa, Los Angeles, CA
San Joaquin Gardens, Fresno, CA
Country Villa West, Culver City, CA
Stanford Center, Altamonte Springs, Fl
Juniper Meadows, Lewiston, ID
Woodbridge Health Care, Evansville, IN
Mesa Senior Village, Mesa, AZ
Sunrise of Alta Loma, Alta Loma, CA
Brighton Gardens of Lakewood, Lakewood, CO
Polo Ridge, Winston-Salem, NC
QUALIFICATIONS OF SALLY U. HAFT, MAI
Gardens of Kentlands, Kentlands, MD
Skilled Nursing Facilities
Plaza Regency at Mill Pond, Park Ridge, NJ
Plaza Regency at the Windrows, Princeton, NJ
Mercy Retirement & Care Center, Oakland, CA
Our Lady of Fatima Villa, Saratoga, CA
Siena Care Center, Auburn, CA
Westlake Village Healthcare Center, Thousand Oaks, CA
Canoga Care Center, Canoga Park, CA
Harbor Care Center, Torrance, CA
Mountain Shadows, Las Cruces, NM
Rose Convalescent Hospital, Baldwin Park, CA
Glendale Care Center, Glendale, AZ
Grancare, 28 SNF’s, USA
Mission de la Casa, Santa Cruz, CA
Coast Care Convalescent Center, Baldwin Park, CA
7 SNF’s, MA & FL
South Coast Senior Villa, Houston, TX
Port Bay Convalescent. Hospital, Costa Mesa, CA
Country Villa Wilshire, Los Angeles, CA
HCPI - 8 SNF’s, MO
Highland HCC, Highland, IL
Pine Lane HCC, Mountain Home, AK
Huntington Beach Convalescent., Huntington Beach, CA
Paramount Chateau, Paramount, CA
Emmanuel Convalescent Hospital, Bakersfield, CA
Riverside Nursing Home, Oconto, WI
Chilton Health & Rehab, Chilton, WI
Arbor East, Columbus, OH
West Valley Convalescent Hospital, West Hills, CA
Oceanview Convalescent Center, Santa Monica, CA
Lakewood Manor, Hendersonville, NC
Willowbrook Manor, Flint, MI
Frontier Extended Healthcare, Longview, WA
American Health & Rehab. Longview, WA
Silverbrook Manor, Niles, MI
Life Care Center of San Gabriel, San Gabriel, CA
Willow Wood, Salt Lake City, UT
Glenwood Care Center, Oxnard, CA
Citrus Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., Fontana, CA
Nationwide Properties - 23 SNF’s, USA
Franklin Care Center, Detroit, MI
Lincoln Care Center, Detroit, MI
Life Care Center, San Gabriel, CA
Rio Rancho Nursing Ctr., Rio Rancho, NM
Las Palomas Healthcare Center, Albuquerque, NM
Ladera Nursing & Rehab, Albuquerque, NM
Omega HC -32 Nursing Homes, USA
Ogden Care Center, Ogden, UT
Rosewood Terrace, Salt Lake City, UT
Foothill HCC & Rehab., Sylmar, CA
Westlake Convalescent Center., Los Angeles, CA
Glenoaks Convalescent Center., Glendale, CA
San Joaquin CC, Bakersfield, CA
Crestwood Manor, Stockton, CA
Crestwood Manor, Sacramento, CA
Crestwood Rehab Center, Sacramento, CA
West Mesa HCC, Albuquerque, NM
Belen Healthcare Ctr., Belen, NM
Community Care of America, Saratoga, WY
Western Village, Green Bay, WI
Highland Health Care, Green Bay, WI
Glendale Health & Rehab., Sheboygan, WI
Auburn Manor, Washington Ct., OH
Driftwood Healthcare, Hayward, CA
Almaden Health & Rehab, San Jose, CA
Driftwood Healthcare, Santa Cruz, CA
Centralia Convalescent Center, Centralia, WA
Evergreen Manor, Longview, WA
Fay Case, Salt Lake City, UT
Hospitals
Parkview Community Hospital, Riverside, CA
Queen Of Angels Hospital, Los Angeles, CA
Long Beach Doctors Hospital, Long Beach, CA
Malvern Institute, Malvern, PA
NW Institute Psychiatric Hospital, Ft. Washington, PA
Community Psychiatric Hospitals, 24 facilities
Washington Medical Center, Culver City, CA
Good Samaritan Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ
Warrack Medical Center, Santa Rosa, CA
Davis Hospital & MC, Layton, UT
Pioneer Valley Hosp., West Valley, UT
Pacifica Hospital, Huntington Beach, CA
Woodland Memorial Hospital, Woodland, CA
Parkview Regional Hospital, Mexia, TX
North Star Hospital, Anchorage, AK
Fountain Valley Hospital, Fountain Valley, CA
Central Calif. Rehab. Hosp., Modesto, Ca
Oak Crest Hospital, Shawnee, OK
QUALIFICATIONS OF SALLY U. HAFT, MAI
General Hospital, Eureka, CA
St. Luke’s Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ
Temple Hospital, Los Angeles, CA
Central Valley Gen. Hospital, Hanford, CA
Tenet Healthcare - 37 Hospitals, USA
Straub Hospital, Honolulu, HI
Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center, Bullhead City, AZ
Covina Valley Hospital, West Covina, CA
Newhall Community Hospital, Newhall, CA
French Hospital, San Luis Obispo, CA
Bay View Medical Center, San Diego, CA
Queen of Angeles, Los Angles, CA
Pacifica Hospital of Valley, Sun Valley, CA
Willow Crest Hospital, Miami, OK
Southwind Hospital, Oklahoma City, OK
Charter Hospital, Mission Viejo, CA
Lakeside Hospital, Perris, CA
Jo Ellen Smith Medical Center, New Orleans, LA
Hawthorne Hospital, Hawthorne, CA
Halstead Hospital, Halstead, KS
Baldwin Park Hospital, Baldwin Park, CA
Washington Medical Center, Culver City, CA
Pacifica Hospital of Long Beach, Long Beach, CA
Medical Office Buildings
Vista Community Clinic, Vista, CA
Mesquite Medical Office Building, Lake Havasu, AZ
Friendly Hills Medical Building, Los Angeles, CA
Westchester Medical Plaza, Los Angeles, CA
Sharp Mission Park, Vista, CA
St. John’s Medical Plaza, Santa Monica, CA
Wilshire Metro Medical Building, Los Angeles, CA