Free Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS NORTH STAR ALASKA HOUSING CORPORATION Plaintiff, No. 98-168C (Judge Allegra) THE UNITED STATES Defendant

DECLARATIONOF CONNIE J.

KISER

1. I, ConnieJ. Kiser, amthe 801 HousingManagerfor Ft. WainwrightAlaska. I have served in that position fi'om 2000to the present. Prior to serving as the 801 Housing Manager have workedin various positions within the housing department since 1989 I and have participated in the administration of the Birchwood Property since Marchof 1989. I makethis Affidavit in support of Defendant'sOppositionto Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. I am one of the custodians of the records for the Departmentof the Army records relating to Birchwood for Estates, the property that is the subject of the above-styled litigation, located on Ft. Wainwright, Alaska.

2. I have reviewed the Affidavit of Richard Fischer dated 26 March2003. In paragraph 12, Mr. Fischer stated, "For the first nine years that the lease wasin effect, changeof occupancymaintenance on housing units was performed and evaluated based on the exampleset forth in Section D.5.(a) of the Lease Agreement'smaintenanceAnnex. When multiple units were released simultaneously, turnaround time was calculated by totaling the number released units and multiplying that total by three workingdays in of

15

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA Declaration Connie of Kiser No. 98-168C

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 2 of 20 2

order to arrive at the total workingdays to performthe work." Mr. Fischer seemsto be arguing that whenmultiple units are turned over at the sametime, the turnarounddate for the group of apartmentsis calculated as a single date for the entire groupof apartments by adding the allowable time for each consecutively. For example, under Mr. Fischer's formulaif five units were turned over on the first of the month,North Star wouldhave fifteen working days to return all five units. This has never beenthe practice of the parties. In myexperiencewith the administration of the lease and review of the records I knowof no instance in which North Star was permitted to run allowable down-timedays consecutively. Additionally, this interpretation wouldviolate Section [pg. 39 of the lease, section D] Completionof Work, which states "(1) All change of occupancywork must be completedwithin three workingdays after the unit becomes available whichshall be determinedfrom the date the unit is turned over to the Developerby the Government for change of occupancywork. (2) The downtimeperiod will be determined as follows: the unit becomes available prior to 12:00 noon, the period will begin at 1:00 p.m. that day. If the unit becomes available at 12:00 noonor later, the maintenance period will begin at the start of the following workday."There is no separate provision providing a different start date for a unit that is turned over simultaneously with other units. We followedthe lease definition for the start date in calculating allowable down time throughoutthe administration of the contract. 3. Wefrequently chose to forbear enforcementof this provision and allow North Star additional time on a case-by case basis but never because we adopted Mr. Fischer's interpretation of the contract. I amnot awareof a single instance in whichthe Army agreed to a consecutive downtime calculation.

16

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA
Declarationof Connie Kiser No. 98-168C

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 3 of 20

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is tree and correct. Executed this _~day of May 2004.

CONNIE J. ~q~ER 801 Housing Manager Ft. Wainwright, Alaska

17

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 4 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS NORTH STAR ALASKA HOUSING CORPORATION Plaintiff, No. 98-168C (Judge Allegra) THE UNITED STATES Defendant

DECLARATION OF THOMAS PETERSEN 1. I, Thomas Petersen, amthe former HousingDepartmentChief for Public Works, US Army,Alaska and makethis Affidavit in support of Defendant's Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motionfor Summary Judgment.I served in this position from January 1990

through October, 2002. I presently world as a project managerfor S&K Technologiesin Master Planning, Public Worksfor Ft. Richardson, Alaska. I continue to be and wasat the time of mytenure as the HousingDepartment Chief one of the custodians of the records for the Department the Army records relating to Birchwood of for Estates, the property that is the subject of the above-styledlitigation, located on Ft. Wainwright, Alaska.

2. I have reviewedthe affidavit of Richard Fischer dated March16, 2003. Paragraph 11 of Mr. Fischer's affidavit states, "The Govermnent awardeda $56,943.50incentive fee to North Star for its performance in 1995. This anmuntis $10,675.15 below the maximum award [potential] for that year. Attached as Exhibit 12 is a memo from Colonel Kraus to

I8

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA Declaration Thomas of Petersen No. 98-168C

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 5 of 20 2

North Star dated January 10, 1996 stating that the 1995 incentive fee award wasreduced due to the refuse collection and downtime issues." (emphasisadded).

3. To the extent that the "refuse collection" issue refers to the sameissue asserted in the Plaintiff's 2nd Amended Complaintin paragaphs15-28, i.e. the frequency of the refuse collection, Mr. Fischer's statement is lacking appropriate detail to makethe statement fully representative of the events.

4. As stated in the January10, 1996letter, NorthStar issued a unilateral notification to the residents of its "intention to eliminate required trash collection services" and instead, create "a central trash collection point (whichis specifically not allowedtrader the lease,)." North Star's announcement caused great alarm and discord among residents the of Birchwood. The Incentive AwardBoard unanimously concluded that, separate from light of NorthStar's contractual dispute, this unilateral decision wasunsatisfactory and reflected a departure from previously high levels of customerservice. The Gover~m~ent's wasto discourage North Star from taking similar actions in the future. goal

5. Contrary to Mr. Fischer's assertion, Colonel Kraus's January 10, 1996 memo does not cite "downtimeissues" as a basis for awarding less thm~the maximum award. The memo states "The summer 1995period performancerating reflects a cooperative effort to of mitigate the recorded excessive an~ount of bet~veen occupancydowntimethrough coordination and prioritization of work, and scheduling additional resources." It wasthe

19

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA Declaration Thomas of Petersen No. 98-168C

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 6 of 20 3

consensus opinion of the Incentive AwardsBoard that North Star had madea successful effort to mitigate the excessive betweenoccupancydowntime through coordination, prioritization and scheduling of work. The incentive awardedin 1996 for the 1995 year wascalculated to reward, not punish, North Star for coordination on this issue. Thegoal of the Incentive AwardsBoard, in makingthis award, was to encouragefurther mitigationefforts in the future.

6. In paragraph12, Mr. Fischer stated, "For the first nine years that the lease wasin effect, change of occupancymaintenanceon housing units ~vas performedand evaluated based on the exampleset forth in Section D.5.(a) of the Lease Agreement'smaintenance Annex. When multiple units were released simultaneously, turnaround time was calculated by totaling the number released units and multiplyingthat total by three of workingdays in order to arrive at the total workingdays to performthe work." Mr. Fischer seemsto be arguing that whenmultiple units are turned over at the sametime, the turnarounddate for the groupof apartmentsis calculated as a single for date for the entire group of apartments by adding the allowable time for each consecutively. For example, under Mr. Fischer's formulaif five units wereturned over on the first of the month,North Star wouldhaveuntil the 15th to return all five units. This has never been the practice of the parties. In myexperience with the administration of the lease and review of the records I knowof no instance in which North Star's downtimewas computed consecutivelyor collectively. Additionally, this interpretation wouldviolate Section [pg. 39 of the lease, section D] Completion Work,which states "(1) All change of occupancyworkmust be completed within three working days after the unit becomes

2O

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA Declaration Thomas of Petersen No. 98-168C

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 7 of 20 4

available whichshall be determinedfrom the date the unit is turned over to the Developer by the Government for change of occupancywork. (2) The downtimeperiod will determinedas follows: If the unit becomes available prior to 12:00 noon, the period will begin at 1:00 p.m. that day. If the unit becomes available at 12:00 noonor later, the maintenance period will begin at the start of the following workday."There is no separate provision providinga different start date for a unit that is turued over simultaneously with other units. The Government consistently tracked downtimeby individual units, ne,~er collectively. This interpretation wasthe interpretation followed throughoutthe administration of the contract.

7. As noted above, the Government, occasion, chose to forbear enforcementof this on provision and allow North Star additional time on a case-by case basis but never because we adoptedMr. Fischer's interpretation of the contract.

8. In paragraph 13 of his Affidavit, Mr. Fischer cites the April 16, 1997Colonel Brown Letter to North Star "attributing the reducedamount[of the incentive award] to between occupancyvacancy rates." It was the consensus decision of the Incentive AwardsBoard that the betweenoccupancy vacancyrates represented a very serious issue for the Government. Additionally, the Army policy is to maintain its family housing at a 98% occupancyrate, a goal acknowledged North Star in a formal 30 October 1996 by partnering workshopbetween the parties. The Incentive AwardsBoard was trying to encourage the Plaintiff to improveperformance by reducing the betweenoccupancy downtime. Whileit is true that the Plaintiff disputes the Defendant'scalculation for

21

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA
Declaration of Thomas Petersen No. 98-168C

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 8 of 20
5

assessment of liquidated damagesfor bet~veen-occupancydowntime, the Government still has in an interest in encouragingreduced occupancydown time regardless of whetherit maycollect liquidated damages excessive down for time.

9. Mr. Fischer states in paragraph13 that he has attached a letter he wrote to Dermis Klein, Chief of the Real Estate division, dated May 1997, "that for many 6, years there wasno dispute about calculating downtime, and that the Amay's interpretation is contrary to its prior interpretation." Although Fischer asserts in this letter that the Mr. Army adopted a "newinterpretation," I amawareof no evidence to support this statement. The Plaintiff's motionfor summaryjudgnaent has attached to it a also contractingofficer's final decision rejecting this interpretation. Plaintiff's appendix,p. 84. To nay knowledge, there is not a single instance in whichthe parties agreed to a consecutive-computation. To myknowledge, every instance in which this becamea contested issue, the Government calculated the down time on a per-unit basis begirming on the date the unit wasturned over to the Plaintiff. 10. Paragraph 16 of Mr. Fischer's affidavit cites a January 29, 1998 memorandum explaining an incentive award $38,699.35 below the maximum "due to as replacement/depreciation issues." The letter actually states, "As we pass the mid-point in our lease, the execution of management replacementplans will continue to take on and a geater significance to the Government, particularly whenmanagement indicators presented by your staff showa significant deviation from your original proposed replacement cycle. The achievementof excellence in this area of your performancewill continue to take on a moresignificant role than in the past." AlthoughMr. Fischer

22

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA Declaration Thomas of Petersen No. 98-168C

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 9 of 20 6

characterizes this remarkas an extension of the depreciation dispute, in actuality, the two are separate issues. North Star's commitment its proposed Replacement in Schedule regarding replacementcycles included major appliances such as refrigerators, dishwashers and ovens, and building componentswhich require periodic maintenanceor replacement,such as sheet vinyl, exterior painting, water heaters, and carpet, uponwhich the Government relied in makingits contract award, is separate from the depreciation issue. The"depreciation issue" relates only to whether the Government discount its may reimbursement North Star for carpet that was destroyed by an occupant on a ten-year to depreciation schedule. Regardlessof the outcome that issue, North Star retains its of replacement-cycle duties undertaken in its proposal. The Incentive AwardsBoard believed that the Government an important interest in encouragingNorth Star to had adhere, even exceed, its proposedreplacementcycle schedules. At the time this letter waswritten, the units had aged to ten years and the replacementcycle concernshad becomevery important to the Amay the Incentive AwardsBoard (as it wouldbe to and any tenant).

11. In paragraph19 of Mr. Fischer's affidavit, he cites Exhibit 22, a letter from the Army,dated May12, 1999, ganting an incentive fee award for 1998 of"only $3,730, due to supposedexcessive downtime." letter actually cites several reasons for the The $3,720 award. Onthe positive side, "worker response time and post-maintenanceclean up...[showed] improvement."On the negative side, the Incentive AwardBoard noted a high turnover in site managers("three different site managers during the four-month summer peak period...") mayhave had a disruptive impact on operations and contributed

23

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA Declaration Thomas of Petersen No. 98-168C

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 10 of 20 7

to excessive downtime.The excessive downtime during the period of high turnover was also cited. The Incentive Award Boardalso noted that resident survey response averages fell in most areas from the previous year and that, according to the survey responses, Birchwood seemedto be losing its appeal as a desirable housing location. The Incentive Award Board also noted tbe absence of quality control and replacement plans. The Incentive Award Board took each of these issues seriously and sincerely wished to motivate North Star to improveits performance.

12. Each of the incentive awards recommended the Incentive AwardBoard was by arrived at unanimously a result of deliberation over NorthStar's perfomaance the as for past year. At no time did the Boardever attempt to use the Incentive Award any for purpose other than to encourage better performanceby North Star. I amaware that Mr. Fischer believes that the Incentive AwardsBoard gave lower awards to "punish" North Star for filing claims and/or raising disputes about the lease. Mr. Fischer is mistakenin his belief. TheBoard always based its decisions on the performanceof North Star during the subject year. Before the awardsbecamefinal, the incumbentDirector of Public Works, USAmly,Alaska; a senior Army Officer in the rank of colonel reviewed and formally approvedeach Incentive Award Boarddecision cited in this affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoingis true and correct. Executed this (~-/~'~day of May 2004.

THOMAS PETERSEN Housing Department Chief for Public Works US Amly, Alaska

24

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 11 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLMMS NORTH STAR ALASKA HOUSING CORPORATION Plaintiff, No. 98-168C (Judge Allegra) THE UNITED STATES Defendant

DECLARATION OF KAREN GOODRICH 1. I, Karen Goodrich, amthe former Chief of HousingDivision for Fort Wainwright, Alaska and makethis Affidavit in support of Defendant'sReply to the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.

2. I have reviewedthe Affidavit of Mr. John SpencerStewart attached to the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary judgment. (Attachment 1) Mr. Stewart attached exhibit 1 to his affidavit, a November 1995 memorandum Karen Goodrich for the Director of 22, from

Public Works, Fort WainwMght, Alaska. I have also reviewed the Affidavit of Mr. Richard W. Fischer attached to the Plaintiff's Motionfor Summary judgment. (Excerpts

contained in Attachment Mr. Fischer attached exhibit 9 to his affidavit, the same 2). November 22, 1995 memorandum from Karen Goodrich for the Director of Public Works, Fort Wainwright, Alaska. I amthe author of that the November 1995 22, memorandum.

25

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA Declaration KarenGoodrich of No. 98-168C

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 12 of 20

3. In the memorandum,stated, "An out of court settlement wasreached to allow the I contractor to decrease pick-up from twice a weekto once a week." In makingthis statement, I was restating the representation Plaintiff's site manager,Mr. DennisWertz madeto me, that the settlement agreementdecreased the pick-up from twice a weekto once a week.

4. I did not participate in the settlement discussions. Beforeexecuting this 1995 memorandum, did not review the settlement agreement. (Exhibit 1 to Attachment2). I based mybelief that the Government agreed to reduce the requirement of the had frequency of refuse collection entirely on Mr. Dennis Wertz's communication me. My to 1995 memo attached to Mr. Stewart's affidavit merely repeats what Mr. Dennis Wertz represented to me.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoingis true and correct. Executed this tl~ 16 day of June 2004.

ICMREN GOODRICH

26

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA Deposition Richard of Fischer NorthStar Alaskavs. USA 1 2 3 4 5 Plaintiff, 6 7 THE 8 Defendant. 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 Taken 18 Case No. 98-168 C UNITED STATES, IN THE UNITED

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 13 of 20 Taken 21, 1999 July CaseNo.98-168 C CLAIMS

STATES

Page 1 DISTRICT

COURT

OF FEDERAL

NORTH STAR ALASKA CORPORATION,

HOUSING

DEPOSITION OF RICHARD W. FISCHER Taken Wednesday, July 21, 1999 From the hours of 8:06 a.m. to 4:04 p.m. Pages 1 through 218, inclusive Volume by Counsel at 1 for Defendant

19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 The Frontier Club Building 1044 Fort Wainwright, Alaska

Reported CAROL A. Heartland

by: McCUE, Court RMR Reporters 27 Phone:907-452-6727 Fax: 907488-7701

tEARTLAND COURT ~PORTERS 100Cushman Suite 308, Fai~anks,~aska99701 S~ee~

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA
Deposition of Richard Fischer Norfl~ Star Alaska vs. USA Page 68 I A. AIIfght. Letggoitagrdn. 2 Q. But close to g.

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 14 of 20
Taken July 21, 1999 Case No. 98-168 C

Page 71 2 Mr.Fischers~s sayingat one p~inthe rcs~hed this, 3 and so he 4 TIlE WITNESS: but I don't think I havea I did, 5 file onit. It's a city ordinance theCiLv for of 6 Fairbanks.Anybody go dm~n find it. can and 7 MR.STEWART: find it thr youI can 8 THE WITNESS: Unlikemost military reservations, 9 thisisimidetheCityofFairbanks. Thafsa

14

MR. KINNER: right on schedule~ Wn're

19bit jumbled, 21last gomgmph Ihat page. In pam~ph the first on 27,

Page 69 3 munlclp:flity, weare doing bytheir roles. I just and it 5 it. 8 A.Tigs site is part o fthc municipality o~ 9 Fairbanks, city o f the Fairbanks, Fairbanks the and has

Page 72 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay.And :.~u ~we identifying rdmColonel 3 Ruff-

25

Q. lh~essIdon't fogowthaLHowca~yoube Page 70 Page 73 "I~IE WITNESS: SignedbyTom Pelcrsen. TheArmy 2 standardthr Army housing ~eklycurbsidetrash is 4 By MR~ KINNER:

7 Q.Is there some regulationin the mualclpallty

6 hadreceivedin formation Army from re~resenlative~ 7 concerning dissafis factor' pickup, plckar9 week? one a 8 A. l'm sure probablysawit th a memo. 9 Q. Okay. 10 MIL STEWART: he testified that he Itad a I think

15 propertyifyoudon't-~edon't~bidebyit.I'mnot

HEARTLAND COURT REPORTERS I00 Custtman Street, Suite 308, Fairbanks,

Alaska 99701

28

Phone: 907-452-6727 Fax: 907-488-7701

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA
Deposition of Richard Fischer NorthStar .,4, la~kavs. USA
Page 122

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 15 of 20
TakenJuly 21, 1999 Case No. 98-168 C

Page 125 2 3 4 5 6 7 9

4 Q, About eight years?

20 22 24 25 Page 123 Page 126

Page 124 1 A. You tmow, they Imcw much if as alx~ut it as ] do, 3 s~s~

HEARTLAND COURT REPORTERS 100 Cushman Slxeet, Suite 308, Fairbanks, Alaska 99-'"

Phone: 907-452-6727 Fax: 907-488-7701

29

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA
Deposition of Pdchard Fischer Norfn Star Alas -ka vs. USA Page

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 16 of 20
Taken July 21, 1999 Case No. 98-168 C

Page 137

15saying.

21 Q. o~y.

Page 135 I exclusivelyabuse? 2 A~No, not exclusively.

Page 138

Page 136 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And v&atis that? 3 A.That's revpome therequ.-:st. a to 4 Q. O~y.Iflcou]ddirectyourattentlontothe 5 I~t paragraph the firs1 pageof the let~. Which on is 6 theseconflpageofthecxba'~i~the first three And

Page 139

18

Q.- morethan oneparsonoccupying premise, a

24 carpet~uldbcshorter.

Didyvureallyn~iancxp~

24

A. Ot,.itrnayn~,.~dcleanth~itmayneedrepairs,

HEARTLAND COURT REPORTERS I00 Cushman Street, Suite 308, Fairbanks,

Alaska 99""'

Phone: 907-452-6727 Fax: 907-488-7701

3O

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA
Deposition of Pdchard Fischer North Star Alaska vs. USA
Page 140

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 17 of 20
TakenJuly 21, 1999 Case No. 98-168 C

Page ]43

4 indefinite~ 7 Q. I don't completely follow. Wouldn't that

4 Q. Okay.

Page 141 1 onthe~eside. Not the abuse side. Anddearly,u~ne 2 is abuse, A. Ye~ do think that pet urhle or htmlanuSne I 3

Page 144 3 carpet has only beenaround,yeu tm~w, rem_,.mber I I whm

9

Q.Capet a commercial i~ establishment treate~ is

Page 145

HEARTLAND COURT REPORTERS 100 Cushman Street, Suite 308, Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 31

Phone: 907-452-6727 Fax: 907-488-7701

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 18 of 20

Star Alaska HousingCo~'poration
P.O. DRAWER 73998 December 16, 1985 FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99707 907452-6676 Roy S. Carlson, Jr. Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers Acting District Engineer Department of the Army U.S. Army Engineer District A~aska P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, ~ 99506-0898 Re: 400 Units of Family Housing, Fort Wainwright

Dear Lt. Co].. Carlson: Pursuant to the Department of the Army notice of December ii and 12, 1985 attached is the best and final cost proposal of proposer #FW0019003 to request for proposal #DACA85R0019. Although the best and final offer is not conditioned upon the following information, the proposer wishes to point out and request your con~]oerat~on of the following information. The proposer acknowledge s that the House Appropriation SubCommitte~" on Military Construction has directed that some action. be taken to reduce the cost of the solicited project. The SubCommittee did not however, authorized nor did it request any reduction in project quality. In all previous 801 projects the procuring service negotiated the final contract solely with the "successful" proposer. The second round of best and final offers is contrary to the procedure adopted for previous 801 projects and does not appear to be the result of any change in the requirements, criteria or needs of the service. In the case of the most recently contracted 801 project at Hanscom Air Force Base the Sub-Committee monitored the negotiations with the successful proposer and directed acceptance Of the original At Norfolk, Virginia the proposal with only a cost reduction. U.S. Navy is negotiating solely with the "successful" offeror in without order to obtain a cost reduction in its 801 project, suffering any other change in the proposal. The proposer brings these to your attention to insure interservice consistency and compliance with federal acquisition policy. The proposer suggests negotiating procedures 801 procurements. Sincerely, that the consistant contracting with D.O.D. officer utilize policy in section

Fred Frink Vice President

32

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA

Document 196-2

Filed 06/22/2004

Page 19 of 20

400 F~ILY HOUSING UNITS FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA PROPOSAL FW-0019003 Maintenance, a. Repair, and and Operational Administrative Services¯ Capabilities

9rganizational (i) Past

Experience

This proposer is a corporation engaged in the business of developing, managing, and maintaining properties on a long-term leaseback arrangement within and outside the State of Alaska. Principals of the corporation have been involved in the business of real estate development for the past 20 Years in a variety of property types, including but not limited to: Warehousing Office Buildings Student Facilities Multl-family Housing In the past 20 years of-real estate developme~It, we have never had a default or foreclosure on any of our projects. Most of our projects have been in the Alaska environment, and we are very sensitive to what it takes to build and maintain a project in Alaska¯ In the last five years we have following projects in Alaska: i00 units Anchorage, 900 units Anchorage, of family Alaska. housing completed the

in

downtown

of self-storage Alaska.

warehousing

in

The Fairbanks North Star Borough Administrative Center in downtown Fairbanks which is 44,000 square feet. Alaska Vocational Technical Center in Seward, Alaska, which is a student center for this technical school and is on a lease-back to the State of Alaska. At the present time we own and fully maintain four office buildings in the Anchorage, Alaska, area with a full-time maintenance department, providing janitorial and snow removal services.

1

33

Case 1:98-cv-00168-FMA Repair or 196-2 Document Replacement 06/22/2004 Components20 Filed of Major Page 20 of (6) Plans for
(a) Expected Replacement Schedule over 20-year Period

Roofs--expected life 20 years. Replacement only as needed during initial lease term. HVAC equipment--expected llfe 20 years. Replacement only as needed during initial lease term. Appliances: life I0 years. - Refrigerators--expected Replaced as needed but at least once during ~nitial lease term. - Range--expected life i0 years. Replaced as needed but at least once during initial lease term. life 7 years. - Dishwasher--expected Replaced~as needed but at least twice during initial lease term. Disposal--expected life 7 years. Replaced as needed but at least twice during initial lease term. Water Heater--expected life i0 years. Replaced as needed but at least once during initial lease term. Smoke Detector--expected life 20 years. Replaced as needed but at least once during initial lease term. Doors--Lifetime of building. No replacement expected except as damaged beyond practical repair. Carpet--expected l~fe 7 years. Replaced as needed but at least twice during initial lease term. Sheet vinyl--expected life i0 years. Replaced as needed but at least once during initial lease term. VAT--expected life 10 years. Replaced as needed but at least once during initial lease term. Windows--Lifetime of building. No replacement expected except as damaged beyond practical repair. Siding--30 years. No replacement expected except as damaged beyond practical repair. During the lease term we would expect no major replacement item that would take over 3 days to accomplish. If such an unlikely event should

27

34