1

The Ramona



Cassandra Dobson, Kate Rogers & Kate Washington
USP523 Real Estate Development I
Winter 2014

2

Developer Profile
Ed McNamara currently serves as a policy director for Mayor Charlie Hales, but has been actively
involved in Portlands development community for several years. Most recently, he has served on the
board of 1,000 Friends of Oregon and as a director of revitalization for Home Forward.
1
McNamara,
owner of Turtle Island Development, LLC, has a particular commitment to affordable housing for
families and has a reputation as a responsible landlord.

The Sitka is a low-income, family housing, mixed-use development in the North Pearl. The project
served as a sort of prototype for The Ramona. With families in mind, the development includes two-
bedroom units in addition to the Pearls customary studios and one-bedrooms. The building was
designed to be energy efficient, lowering utility bills and conserving resources. McNamara worked
on this project with Walsh Construction and Ankrom Moisan Architects. The Sitka was completed in
late 2005.
2


Project Initiation
In 2003, McNamara was deeply entrenched in The Sitka. That same year, Nancy Davis started Pearl
District Families. Both foresaw a new trend for the Pearl: families. Davis son was born in the Pearl
District and she noticed that, though many children are born in the Pearl, most families move away
before the child starts school. McNamara was noticing, similarly, at The Sitka, that families needed
different accommodation.

Table 1: Births in Census Tract 51, 2000-2010
2000 2010 Percent Change Total births 2000-2010
# of births 14 45 221% 341
Source: U.S. Census Data, 2000-2010. Data provided by Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, and compiled by
Portland Public Schools.

After The Sitka, McNamara began working on a plan for a smaller Pearl District site. At the time, the
Portland Development Commission (PDC) was emphasizing market rate condos, so his low-income
family housing focus was not strongly supported. In search of evidence to support his family theory,
McNamara and the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) compiled data on Central City birth
rates, which are high in the Pearl and mostly to low-income households (Table 1). Compared to the
Portland Public Schools (PPS) enrollment data, it confirmed that most families move out of the
3

neighborhood when children are school-aged. McNamara took the data to PPS, determined to
provide a building for families. Pearl District Families, now Central Portland Families, the
Zimmerman Community Center (ZCC) and Isobels Clubhouse partnered with him.
3


His final proposal was for a six-story, mixed-use building. The building would have 138 units, 136 of
which were reserved for low-income households, and 51% of the units would have three bedrooms.
Instead of retail on the ground floor, McNamara proposed a six-classroom public school extension
for younger grades and a home for ZCC. The Ramona, at times called Pearl Family Housing and the
less institutional sounding Quimby, was approved in 2009 by BPS with the support of PDC and the
local community.
4


Site Selection, Acquisition & Control
McNamara acquired The Ramona site in 2007. Located at NW 14
th
Ave and Quimby St, the site is a
40,000 square foot city block that, before construction, was occupied by a one-story warehouse. The
location falls under the jurisdiction of the Central City Plan, West Quadrant Plan, River District
Urban Renewal Area design overlay, the River District Housing Implementation Strategy, the Pearl
District Development Plan and the North Pearl Plan.
5



The Ramona site is located in Census Tract
51, which includes both the Pearl District
and Old Town Chinatown and one block of
the NW District, is a Low Income Housing
Tax Credit (LIHTC) qualified tract, which
is why McNamara chose it for The Sitka
and, subsequently, The Ramona. A qualified
tract has at least 50% of households at or
below the median household income and
qualifies the development for 30% more
equity, which requires less subsidy from the
City.

Source: Pearl District Business Association

4

McNamara had already demonstrated with The Sitka that he was not afraid of building beyond the
northern boundary of the Pearl Districts development. When The Sitka finished, it was still a few
blocks away from most Pearl District amenities and the site for The Ramona is even further north.
But, confident in the plan to develop the North Pearl, he knew those blocks would eventually fill in
around The Ramona.

Market Analysis
McNamara did most of his market research by talking to people, not necessarily through a formal
market analysis. Through his attendance at Sitka social events he was able to connect with families
living there and talk to them about what they need and expect in order to raise a family in the Pearl
District. His access to the demographics of The Sitka also helped him see trends in both low-income
and family households. McNamara gathered data from other affordable housing buildings, such as
Kearney House, to learn how their larger units were doing in the market. At Kearney House, the
three-bedrooms were difficult to fill at first, so McNamara had shied away from them in The Sitka;
however, the feedback from all his sources for The Ramona was positive, indicating to him that there
was a strong need for affordable family housing in the Pearl District.
6


Economic Analysis & Profitability
While building properties that generate income is the goal of any developer, profit is not what drove
McNamara in developing The Ramona. Rather, he was driven by a commitment to meeting the
growing need for affordable family housing in the Pearl District.
7
Though his company, Turtle Island
Development, is a for-profit corporation, McNamara essentially treated the Ramona as a non-profit
development. He of course conducted the usual economic analysis to determine that the project
would be feasible, but in the end he was left with a very small profit.
8
It is highly unusual for private
firms such as his to develop low-income housing because of its associated risks, but its a testament
to McNamaras commitment that he was able to accomplish the project.

Development Program
McNamara had already worked out a basic plan for The Ramonas development program when he
began working with his design team. Hed determined the number of floors for the building, the basic
mix and quantity of apartment types, and the ground floor uses (Table 2). McNamaras biggest
priority for the building was providing ample two- and three-bedroom apartments to accommodate
families. Given McNamaras guidelines, architect Ankrom Moisan developed a design that would
5

make the basic program work.
9
The completed building has six stories, occupies an entire city block,
with a footprint of about 30,700 SF. and the entire building totals 230,762 SF.
10


Table 2: Overall Program for The Ramona
Residential 174,162 SF
Community Facilities
(ZCC and PPS)
14,444 SF
Parking Garage 42,156 SF
Gross Floor Area 230,762 SF
Source: City of Portland Green Investment Fund, Grantee Final Report, Ramona Apartments.

Ground Floor Program:
The ground floor contains the lobby and leasing office, a community room for the residents, two one-
bedroom apartment units, a 7,560 SF courtyard playground, and bicycle storage. In addition, the
ground floor houses ZCC as well as PPS classrooms, and contains a parking area used by both
organizations. ZCC moved into the building soon after it was built in spring 2011, and the PPS
classrooms followed in fall 2011.
11


2
nd
6
th
Floor Program:
The upper floors are occupied by 136 apartment units, plus a laundry room and lounge on each floor,
and a fitness room on the second floor. The apartments are a mix of three-bedroom (70 units), two-
bedroom (60 units), one-bedroom (2 units) and studio (4 units) apartments.
12


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








6

Ground Floor Layout

Second Floor Layout

Source: Ankrom Moisan Architects.

Public-Private Agreements & Project Financing
McNamara worked with a number of public entities in developing The Ramona. Because he was
working to provide affordable housinga valuable service to the communitya number of public
organizations were willing to help fund the project. From the projects inception, McNamara worked
with PDC.
14
The City of Portland has a commitment to set aside at least 30% of Tax Increment
Financing generated in each Urban Renewal Area for funding affordable housing.
15
Thus,
McNamaras commitment to providing affordable family housing in the Pearl District aligned nicely
with PDCs priorities for the area. Another local partner was the Portland Housing Bureau (PHB),
which facilitated a 15-year property tax exemption for the building. Under its New Multiple-Unit
Housing Limited Tax Exemption program, PHB encourages the development of housing in core
areas with access to transit and employment.
16


McNamara also worked with partners at the state level, including Oregon Housing and Community
Services (OHCS). OHCS provided a loan under its Community Incentive Fund program, which is
intended to promote affordable housing and revitalize downtown areas.
17
OHCS also provided a
Weatherization loan, which supports implementation of energy-efficient building measures. The
buildings energy-efficiency measures also allowed eligibility for Business Energy Tax Credits from
the Oregon Department of Energy. Furthermore, because of The Ramonas planned energy-
7

efficiency and other green features, McNamara was able to secure grants from the Green
Investment Fundsupported by the City of Portland and Energy Trust of Oregonand the Bureau
of Environmental Services Ecoroof Program.
18


Finally, McNamara partnered with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to
acquire LIHTC credits, which were administered by the OHCS. McNamara acquired 4% LIHTC
credits because his use of tax-exempt bonds precluded acquisition of 9% credits, and because 4%
credits are more abundant than 9% credits. McNamara sold the LIHTC credits to raise equity for the
development. US Bank provided the construction loan.
19


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

The debt for the project consisted of the following:
$19,000,000 low-interest, 60 year pre-development loan from PDC
$14,595,000 in tax-exempt bonds from PHB, for which U.S. Bank acted as the credit
enhancer
$1,000,000 loan from OHCS Community Incentive Fund program
$700,000 loan from OHCS for weatherization of the building
Debt Total: $35,295,000

The equity for the project came from the following sources:
$12,886,654 in 4% LIHTC credits, for which US Bank provided equity
$805,575 in greenbuilding and energy grants from the Green Investment Fund and The
Bureau of Environmental Services Ecoroof Program
$1,000 in general partner equity
Equity Total: $13,693,229
(see Appendix C)

Beginning development for The Ramona in 2007 posed a considerable challenge for McNamara. By
2008 and 2009, when he was trying to acquire funding, the real estate bubble had burst and the
United States was facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Needless to say, banks
were extremely hesitant to back any real estate ventureespecially one with affordable housings
8

low return on investment. McNamara again showed his tenacity and commitment to this project by
working hard to secure funding during this time. This is also a testament to the respected position
that McNamara holds in the real estate community. In fact, The Ramona was one of the few projects
to be built in Portland in 2009/2010.

Public Approvals
Because The Ramona was largely seen as a community asset in the Pearl District, the public approval
process went smoothly.
20
The building had to meet guidelines of the Central City Plan District as
well as Zoning Ordinance requirements for zone EXd. Due to its location, The Ramona was subject
to two different Design Review criteria: the Central City Fundamental Design Guidelines, and the
River District Design Guidelines. The City largely supported the project throughout the Land Use
and Design Review process and had only minor aesthetic critiques. The Ramona passed review by
Portlands Building and Development Services Design Review Commission on April 16, 2009.
21
It
also passed review by the Pearl District Neighborhood Association, which showed strong support for
the project.
22


Design Development
Design Concept
McNamara has a longstanding relationship with local architects Ankrom Moisan, and they joined the
project early in its development. As mentioned above, McNamara already had an idea for the basic
design and development program for the building before he consulted the design team: a six-story
wood frame building with a brick faade. The wood frame was chosen because its the least
expensive structural building materiala cost savings that was critical to the affordable housing
developmentand the six-story height was determined to be the maximum possible height for that
material. Other building materials were chosen for their durability. A primary task for the architects
was to configure the building in order to reach the right number and mix of apartment units.
23


The other driver for the buildings design and layout was McNamaras determination to maximize
energy efficiency. This drove the massing study conducted by Ankrom Moisan, which examined
eight possible configurations for the building (see Appendix A), ultimately settling on the U-shape of
the final design. The building was oriented with the U facing eastward, creating a sort of front
yard along 13
th
Avenue; the road determined to be the primary corridor for pedestrian traffic. The
goal for the overall look of The Ramona was to design an attractive building that contributed to the
9

fabric and character of the neighborhood while remaining a background building. McNamara and
the design team wanted to avoid creating a showpiece that might appear dated in the future.
24


Green Features
In order to maximize energy efficiency, The Ramona was designed with an extremely tight envelope,
allowing minimal air leakage. Energy efficiency also motivated many of the choices in building
materials, including insulation, super-efficient windows and fixtures, efficient heating, and a special
direct ducted fresh air ventilation system. Additionally, plumbing fixtures were chosen for their
efficient use of water, and a sophisticated monitoring system was installed to measure water usage.

The Ramona is also equipped with an ecoroof and a rooftop solar panel array. The solar panels
provide a portion of the buildings electricity and water heating, and the ecoroof serves to collect
rainwater, as well as boosting the efficiency of the solar panels.
25
The buildings combined
stormwater featuresecoroof, permeable courtyard surface, and street swalemanage 100% of the
stormwater produced onsite. These green features allowed The Ramona to surpass the Architecture
2030 Challenge for energy efficiencyMcNamaras chosen benchmarkby achieving energy use of
60% below that of comparable buildings. This also earned the building LEED Gold status.
26


The Ramona Ecoroof

Source: Ankrom Moisan Architects

Source: Oregonon.org




10

Construction Plan & Capital Budget
The third arm of McNamaras long-established development team is Walsh Construction Co. Like
Ankrom Moisan, Walsh was brought in at the beginning of The Ramonas development and provided
input throughout the process on what was feasible for construction given the budget. A key role for
Walsh was value engineeringthe process of analyzing construction and making changes in
materials to reduce costs. Given McNamaras high standards for quality, the value engineering
process was often aimed at improving quality and performance for equal price, rather than reducing
costs. Walsh was also instrumental in supporting and carrying out the energy efficiency goals. For
example, they conducted infrared testing on the building after it was constructed to locate and repair
any air leakages.
27


The construction contract established for The Ramona included the cost of work with a Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP). The GMP calculated by Walsh was $28,254,088 (for cost breakdown, see
Appendix B). Because of the level of trust established over their long working relationship,
McNamara was able to collaborate with Walsh for a full year during the design process before any
payment was madehighly unusual for a developer-contractor relationship. Construction began in
November 2009 and was completed in March 2011.
28


Management Plan and Operations Budget
McNamara hired Pinnacle Property Management to act as property manager of The Ramona.
Pinnacle specializes in managing affordable housing, and has more than 20 years experience
working with LIHTC properties. Pinnacle joined the development in December 2010, a month before
pre-leasing began. In that month, McNamara worked with Pinnacle to set rules for the building,
including occupancy requirements. While it is not a requirement to have children to live in The
Ramona, the occupancy requirements are set to encourage families to move into the building. For
example, at The Sitka, a two-bedroom unit could house one person, but at The Ramona, two-
bedroom units are reserved for households of two or more people.
29


Management focuses on upkeep of the building to combat negative perceptions held about low-
income housing. Additionally, with an increased number of children come different management
concerns, such as a higher amount of noise complaints and more wear and tear on the property.
Through meticulous maintenance of the building, as well as hosting events for residents, the
11

management has instilled a sense of pride and community in the residents of The Ramona. Crystal
Haight, the property manager, feels that this is responsible for the relatively low turnover rate in the
building. While affordable housing turnover is typically around 40% in metro area, turnover at The
Ramona in 2012, their first stabilized year, was 20%, or 17% if transfers within the building are not
included. These numbers dropped even more in 2013 to 19%, or 16% without transfers. This lower
turnover reduces the buildings flipping costs, and thus reduces expenses.
30


The operations budget for The Ramona is $583,273 annually. With an annual income of $1,770,712,
this leaves the building with a $1,187,438 Net Operating Income (see Appendix D).

Marketing and Leasing
Lease up of The Ramona started in January 2011 with very little marketing for the building. While
there were the typical write-ups on the development before it opened, many of the tenants were found
through an interest list that McNamara generated while he was conducting his market research. The
families on this list were contacted during pre-leasing. Pinnacle made daily postings on Craigslist, as
well as advertising on free apartment rental websites, such as housingconnections.org, which
specializes in affordable housing. However, most of interest came from word of mouth and referrals.

The Ramona does not currently use any marketing for the building. Instead they choose to focus on
facilitating a waitlist. There are currently 245 households on this list. Applicants must fill out a
waitlist sign up form before being able to apply for the apartment. When an apartment becomes
available, applicants are put through the screening process, which includes credit history, rental
history, criminal history, and income verification.
31


As an affordable housing unit, The Ramona only rents to residents that make 60% of the median
family income for the Portland metro area. For 2014, the income requirements are as follows:






12

Table 3: Income Requirements for The Ramona
Household Size 60% MFI
1 $30,660
2 $35,040
3 $39,420
4 $43,800
5 $47,340
6 $50,820
Source: Ramona Apartments website. Retrieved from http://www.theramona.com/eligibility_faq/.

Market Capture and Absorption Time
The buzz that was generated during construction of The Ramona led to a great deal of interest in the
property. As McNamara had anticipated, there was a high demand for affordable family housing in
the Pearl District and The Ramona was one of only two buildings offering three-bedroom units.
There were an estimated thirty applicants per week during the lease up; however, the denial rate was
fairly high due to income restrictions in the rental criteria. Despite this, most of the units in The
Ramona were filled during the lease-up, with the few remaining units leased shortly after the
building opened.
32


Socioeconomic Analysis
The addition of The Ramona to the Pearl District underscores the intent to create a mixed-income
community in the neighborhood. While the Pearl District has a reputation as being wealthy, in fact
25% of its housing is reserved for low-income households. Not all jobs in the neighborhood are
highly skilled, therefore, it is advantageous to create workforce housing for people who work in the
central city rather than have them commute from the suburbs. Further, a healthy community is home
to all ages; therefore, it is advantageous to create housing that can accommodate families in the
central city. McNamara is sensitive to the contrast in incomes in the neighborhood and to avoid
singling out low-income buildings, he insists upon creating high quality developments.
33
In both the
construction and management of the building, The Ramona offers a sense of pride and dignity to
neighbors who might otherwise feel out of place in the Pearl District. Additionally, The Ramona
provides for the Pearl District a community center and several classrooms for young children.
13

Finally, The Ramona proves to the City the value of providing family housing in the central city. In
fact, The Abigail, modeled after The Ramona but owned by a different developer, will soon be a
neighbor on the same block.

Evaluation of Success
There are many ways to evaluate the success of a development. I will use the Triple Bottom Line
(TBL) to discuss the success of The Ramona. Instead of evaluating only economic success, the TBL
measures two additional bottom lines in order to assess sustainability: environment and social
impact. TBL is often referred to as people, profit, and planet.
Environmentally, the building is a great success because it incorporates several energy saving
innovations. The attention to detail with creating an airtight envelope, combined with the
sophisticated ventilation system means the building uses fewer resources to heat and cool. The solar
array on the roof makes enough energy to run the common areas of the building and the ecoroof not
only helps cool the roof, but also treats stormwater that would otherwise be lost to the sewer system.
Further, it brings a workforce closer to the lower wage jobs in the Pearl, reducing those workers
commutes and their automobile impact on the environment.
Economically, The Ramona is a success in that the project stayed on budget. McNamara was able to
assemble enough funding to cover the expenses and due to his close working relationship with
Ankrom Moison and Walsh Construction, their estimates were accurate at the beginning and there
were no overages. The building makes a small profit for McNamara, which is a bonus, but not
necessarily his goal. It could also be said that The Ramona is an economic success because its energy
efficiency saves its tenants a great deal of money on their utility bills.
Socially, The Ramona is a resounding success because it contributes to the neighborhoods mixed-
income goals and brings low-income people to a high-opportunity area. It also provides an affordable
high quality home for many families. Pinnacles goal of creating community through building-wide
events helps residents have a sense of ownership and connection to The Ramona and the neighbors
with whom they share the building. The high quality of the building also increases the esteem and
status of low-income residents, easing the contrast in incomes in the Pearl. Additionally, The
Ramona proved McNamaras theory about families in the Central City and proved to the City of
Portland that low-income family housing in the Central City could be a success. The Ramona paved
the way for similar developments.
14

Finally, The Ramona is a success because it survived the Great Recession. McNamara and his team
were already committed to the building when the market crashed and, despite the economic
uncertainty, they persevered, secured their funding, and built The Ramona. That sites construction
crane was one of very few in the City for a few years, but now The Ramona stands in the North
Pearl, welcoming the neighborhood as it continues to develop the last several blocks.

15

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

Option 1 Option 2
16

Option 3 Option 4
Option 5 Option 6
Option 7 Option 8

17

Appendix B: Construction Guaranteed Maximum Price (Source: Walsh Construction Co.)
Construction Category Cost
General Requirements $1,263,137
Existing Conditions $116,575
Concrete $3,813,255
Masonry $1,665,940
Metals $943,799
Wood & Plastics $3,936,890
Thermal & Moisture Protection $1,834,853
Doors & Windows $979,140
Finishes $3,433,539
Specialties $145,455
Equipment $336,550
Furnishings $431,552
Conveying Systems $348,004
Fire Suppression $517,549
Plumbing $1,675,627
HVAC $770,857
Electrical $2,356,224
Earthwork $1,394,811
Exterior Improvements $601,520
Other $266,790
Overhead & Profit (3%) $804,962
Liability Insurance (1.65%) $456,011
Performance Bond $161,048
Total $28,254,088

18

Appendix C: Summary Pro Forma for The Ramona (source: Ed McNamara)
Sources and Uses Summary
Use of Funds Amount
Land $6,8000,000
Other Acquisition Costs $343,936
Construction Costs $29,517,880
Demolition $122,753
Construction Contingency $1,406,567
Tenant Improvement Costs $983,066
Soft Costs $6,424,179
Bond and LIHTC related costs $582,409
Subtotal Development Costs $46,180,790
Reserves/Pre-paid Fees $2,821,492
Total Uses Including Reserves $49,002,282

Sources of Funds Amount
Debt
Tax-exempt Bonds $14,595,000
Portland Development Commission Loan $19,000,000
OHCS Community Investment Fund $1,000,000
OHCS Weatherization $700,000
Subtotal Debt $32,295,000
Equity
LIHTC Equity $12,886,654
Energy/Greenbuilding $805,575
General Partner Equity $1,000
Equity Subtotal $13,693,229
Other $14,053
Total Sources $49,002,282











19

Appendix D: Stabilized Income and Expenses, 2012 (source: Ed McNamara)
Stabilized Income and Expenses
First Full Year Stabilized 2012
Income Amount
Apartments $1,532,967
Miscellaneous $80,189
Residential Vacancy -7% ($112,921)
Subtotal Residential EGI $1,500,235
Community Service Facility - Rent $298,940
Community Service Facility NNN -
CSF Vacancy -9.52% ($28,463)
Subtotal CSF EGI $270,477
Total Effective Gross Income (EGI) $1,770,712

Operating Expenses ($583,273)
Net Operating Income $1,187,438
Interest from Reserves $25,000
$1,212,438
Debt Service
Tax-exempt Bonds $981,659
PDC Loan = Pmt starts in 6 yrs $43,005
Total Debt Service $1,024,664



1
Ed McNamara. (n.d.) LinkedIn [Profile page]. Retrieved
from http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ed-mcnamara/5/a78/7b5
2
E. McNamara & N. Davis. (2013, January 31). Personal interview.
3
Ibid.
4
Bureau of Development Services. (2009, April 24). Final Decision by the Design Commission for
Case File Number LU 08-191285 DZM, Pearl Family Housing. Portland, Oregon. Retrieved from
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/241884
5
Ibid.
6
E. McNamara & N. Davis. (2013, January 31). Personal interview.
7
Ibid.
8
McNamara was not willing to share the pro forma that he used in his initial economic analysis.
Instead, he shared a summary pro forma, which is discussed in the Public-Private Agreements
and Project Financing section of the report.
9
I. Johnson & M. Bonn. (2013, February 3). Personal interview.
10
City of Portland, OR. (n.d.). Green Investment Fund, Grantee Final Report, Ramona
Apartments. Portland, OR. Retrieved from
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/437423
11
C. Haight. (2013, January 29). Personal interview.
20


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















21


Evaluation

Cassandra Dobson and Kate Rogers were good classmates to work with. Kate R. is a first year
MURP like me and Cassandra is a post-bac student who I had a class with last quarter, so I knew
she would be a reliable group member. Both team mates were timely and responsive in their
feedback and inputs.

We divided the work evenly. I was responsible for scheduling interviews with Ed McNamara,
Nancy Davis, and Crystal Height because I have a personal connection with them. Cassandra
scheduled the interview with Walsh Construction and Kate R. scheduled our interview with
Ankrom Moisan. We all contributed to questions for each interview. Though Kate R. was unable
to attend the Walsh Construction interview due to work, we were all present at the rest of the
interviews. I recorded each and shared the files in our Google drive so we could all refer to
them.

For writing the paper, I was responsible for topics 1-4 & 15, Kate R. wrote topics 6-10, and
Cassandra wrote topics 5 & 11-14. Kate R. did the footnotes for the paper and I worked as
overall editor of the paper.

For the presentation, we each created slides for our sections and Cassandra was responsible for
creating the final formatting of our presentation and for getting the file to the professor by the
Wednesday noon deadline. We each presented on the sections we wrote.