Rose's Draft #1 for 141 Willoughby is built off a smaller asset (239 units vs Axel's 284) yet carries materially heavier payroll, gas, and water/sewer, a richer management fee structure, and no CAM recovery on $9.57M of retail income. The four issues below frame the conversation we need to have with Rose before Draft #2.
Two assets, normalized side by side.
Rose's Willoughby payroll (excluding leasing) is $708,293 heavier than the Axel budget — on a smaller asset, with overlapping union classifications that should align line-by-line. All leasing staffing (Leasing Rep, RXO, Centralized Desk) and fixed costs such as payroll processing have been stripped out of this analysis so the comparison is apples-to-apples on the residential ops team only.
Insight5 concierge on a 239-unit building is the headline number to challenge. Rose split residential vs commercial payroll, which obscures it. We should ask for the role-by-role wage build, PW vs 32BJ classification, and the coverage schedule that justifies 5 concierge FTE.
Willoughby carries 5 Concierge, 5 Porter and 2 Handyman FTE; Axel carries 1 Concierge, 4 Porter and 1 Handyman. The 6 incremental seats (shown below at $0 on the Axel column) represent roughly $651,000 of payroll that exists on 141W and does not exist on the comparable asset — the bulk of the $708K payroll variance.
| Role | 141 Willoughby | The Axel | Δ | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Superintendent | $199,521 | $184,091 | +$15,430 | May differ |
| Handyman (1) | $122,492 | $117,566 | +$4,926 | Should align |
| Handyman (2) | $122,492 | $0 | +$122,492 | Not staffed at Axel |
| Porter (1) | $113,836 | $0 | +$113,836 | Not staffed at Axel |
| Porter (2) | $102,409 | $99,681 | +$2,728 | Should align |
| Porter (3) | $102,409 | $99,681 | +$2,728 | Should align |
| Porter (4) | $113,779 | $110,621 | +$3,158 | Should align |
| Porter (5) | $102,360 | $99,681 | +$2,679 | Should align |
| Concierge (1) | $115,251 | $110,621 | +$4,630 | Should align |
| Concierge (2) | $103,611 | $0 | +$103,611 | Not staffed at Axel |
| Concierge (3) | $103,611 | $0 | +$103,611 | Not staffed at Axel |
| Concierge (4) | $103,611 | $0 | +$103,611 | Not staffed at Axel |
| Concierge (5) | $103,691 | $0 | +$103,691 | Not staffed at Axel |
| Resident Manager | $177,894 | $156,734 | +$21,160 | May differ |
| Total (all roles) | $1,686,968 | $978,675 | +$708,293 |
Reconciliation pointPorter, Handyman, and Concierge wages should be identical across both assets — they are not. Super and Resident Manager are allowed to differ. The Willoughby build also omits Porter bonuses (~$1K/employee, ~$5K total) which should be added. Either Rose mis-built the Willoughby budget or mis-built the Axel budget — reconcile before Draft #2.
Rose's budget normalized to 239 units (the correct Willoughby unit count — Rose's draft showed 227). Electric reads in line; Gas and W/S do not.
| Category | 141 Willoughby | The Axel | Axel Adj. 239 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resid. | Comm. | Total | Axel | Var. | Adj. | Var. | |
| Electric (gross) | $285,360 | $100,000 | $385,360 | $534,263 | +$148,903 | $449,609 | +$64,249 |
| Electric Reimbursement | $-190,680 | $-70,000 | $-260,680 | $-391,613 | ($130,933) | $-329,562 | ($68,882) |
| Electric (net) | $94,680 | $30,000 | $124,680 | $142,650 | +$17,970 | $120,047 | ($4,633) |
| Oil | $5,000 | $0 | $5,000 | $0 | ($5,000) | $0 | ($5,000) |
| Gas | $210,000 | $50,000 | $260,000 | $92,604 | ($167,396) | $77,931 | ($182,069) |
| Water & Sewer | $167,400 | $25,000 | $192,400 | $73,482 | ($118,918) | $61,839 | ($130,561) |
| Metering | $15,057 | $3,000 | $18,057 | $22,096 | +$4,039 | $18,595 | +$538 |
| Total | $492,137 | $108,000 | $600,137 | $330,832 | ($269,305) | $278,411 | ($321,726) |
↔ Scroll table horizontally
Insight$260K Gas and $192K W/S on a 239-unit building looks like an escalation off a placeholder, not a billing-actuals build. Ask Rose for the ConEd / NYC DEP backup. The electric reimbursement structure ($260K offset against $385K gross) is working — Gas and W/S should be re-pressure-tested against the same discipline.
Residential is 50 bps higher; commercial is a $125K flat versus Axel's $375/month reporting-only arrangement.
InsightThe 50 bps residential spread is contractual — confirm it. The bigger question is the commercial structure. A flat $125K commercial fee on retail leases that are largely passive (long-term, NNN, anchor-tenant) is hard to justify against Axel's $4.5K/year reporting fee. We should push for a percentage of collections with a floor, or align to Axel's model.
Standard NYC retail leases recover real estate taxes, insurance, CAM, and utilities. Rose's budget books gross rent only.
Commercial utility leakageOn a standard NNN retail structure, commercial utilities should be fully reimbursed by the tenants. The budget carries $178K of commercial utilities with only a $70K recovery — that is the $108K of straight leakage to NOI that should be passed through.
Ask Rose forRent roll with SF, base rent, free rent period, lease type (NNN / modified gross / gross), recovery basis, and a CAM reconciliation if already issued.
Eight items tied to the four call-outs above. Grouped by severity.
Per Rose's build-up (excluding leasing), 141W carries 1 Super + 2 Handymen + 3 Porters + 5 Concierge + 1 community manager at $1,686,968. Axel budget is $978,675. Variance of +$708,293. Same labor market, same union classifications — Porter / Handyman / Concierge wages should be identical across both assets. Either Rose mis-built Willoughby or mis-built Axel.
Total utilities at 141W: $600,137. Axel adjusted to 239 units: $278,411. Variance of ($321,726) is concentrated in Gas (($182,069)) and Water & Sewer (($130,561)). Electric reads in line. Confirm whether Gas/W&S are pulled from billing actuals or escalated from a placeholder.
Once the four items are addressed, the operating expense side of 141 Willoughby should tighten by an indicative $900K–$1.2M, and commercial income clarity will either confirm the $9.57M or expand it via recoveries. Either outcome materially sharpens the underwriting.
