March 4, 2010 : Louis Hunt report
(please see note at end regarding availability of pictures mentioned in report)

Reference: Tile Roof Survey
Villages Two
Scottsdale, Arizona

PRM Project #3405-10008

1.00 ABSTRACT
1.01 A survey of the tile roofs was conducted on the above referenced facility on
March 1 and 2, 2010. Six buildings were selected by the HOA Roof Committee
to be inspected:

9115 (Units 101 thru 206)
9115 (units 115 thru 220)
9125 (Units 107 thru 214)
9460 (Units 101 thru 206)
9460 (Units 115 thru 220)
9465 (Units 115 thru 220)

The survey was performed with the primary focus to:
• Assess the current roof assembly’s general overall condition.
• Identify deficient roof conditions impacting the waterproofing performance
of the roofing system.
• Develop recommendations for corrective measures to address deficient
conditions to bring the roofing assembly into a maintainable watertight
condition and/or for roof replacement.
1.02 This survey is based on visual observations of the tile roof conditions and does not include any structural, stucco or flat roof evaluations. The observations made during this survey are documented in this report, including an assessment of the existing tile roofs general condition.
1.03 Deficient roof conditions are discussed within the narrative text of this report as well as captioned photographs illustrating typical conditions observed.
1.05 During this survey test samples were taken from the tile roof underlayment.


2.00 PROJECT INFORMATION
No. of Stories: 2 story
No. of Buildings: 6
Building Type: Residential
Roof Access: Ladder
Structure Age: Approximately 25 years
Building Configuration:
Buildings are two story residential construction on concrete slab foundations.
Walls are wood framed with exterior stucco finish. Roof assembly is wood truss
with plywood decking, single layer underlayment, and clay “s” profile tile roof
manufactured by US Tile.

Roof Systems Description:
Tile Roof:
High profile clay tile is installed with two different underlayment plies
found: 30 lb asphalt roofing felt and asphalt base sheet. Tile was found
nailed primarily every other row and in some locations every three rows.

3.00 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/SPECIFIC FIELD OBSERVATIONS
3.01 Each building was inspected for tile underlayment and condition of tile
installation. Three inspections were conducted of the underlayment and wood
deck within the field area of each building. Data was recorded as to type and
condition of underlayment and to identify if any wood deck deterioration was
visible (Example: Photo 17). The underlayment found at the majority of the
inspections was a 30 lb asphalt saturated roofing ply. At buildings inspected at
9115 the underlayment was an asphalt saturated roofing base sheet.

The underlayment was found to range from poor to bad condition. Multiple
conditions were found where tile coverage was poor or non existent leaving the
underlayment exposed to ultraviolet (UV) degradation and exposed to the
weather (Example: Photo 53). There was no wood deck deterioration found at
any of the field areas inspected at the six buildings. However, there was
deteriorated wood deck found where tile was missing and the underlayment had
disintegrated from being exposed to the weather (Example: Photo 170). As a
result the obvious deck deterioration no tile was removed for further inspection
because of concerns to be able to reinstall the tile to a weather tight condition.
The primary concern was for the deteriorated deck’s ability to retain a tile
fastener. Based on conditions observed at areas similar in detail it can be
expected that wood deck replacement will be necessary. Locations were mostly
at the ridge and perimeter sections of the roof.
The majority of deficiencies observed were voids in mortar due to deterioration
and tile coverage between top field tile courses and ridge cap tile (Example:
Photos 125, 127). This condition was extensive and occurred at every building
inspected. Such open areas allow water to enter and exposing underlayment to
UV degradation. These conditions have existed for several years.
Many field areas tile was found “Over-exposed” or “Stretched”. These are terms
used when tile has less than the three inch overlap of the adjacent tile. When
not properly lapped nail holes for securing the tile are exposed. An example of a
proper tile overlap is seen in Photo 152. The top of the tile has a three inch wide
brownish area caused by the overlapping tile. Less than three inches of overlap
exposed the nail holes and does not provide an adequate overlap necessary to
shed water. When installed in this manner (Stretched) it allows water to enter
between tiles and possibly manifest into a roof leak. A common cause for
stretched tile is not laying the tile in straight horizontal lines (Example: Photo
121).

Tile flashing at walls was found to be loose or open for water entry (Example:
Photos 38 and 39). Soil vent pipes have a lead roof jack that installed over the
PVC pipe and is indexed into the tile to create a weather tight installation. There
were pipes found on each building that lead jacks was not properly installed
allowing water to enter between the lead jack and the PVC pipe (Example: Photo
29). Scraps of tile were found buried under installed tile (Example: Photo 132).
These scrap pieces restricts water flow when water does enter under the tile
preventing it from gravity flowing freely off the roof.
Deficiencies found were uniform on each building inspected. No individual
building could be considered better or worse from another. Photographs
provided allow the deficiencies to be observed per building.


Reviewing the photographs it will be obvious as to the common conditions
occurring. Provided is an index to the building’s photographs:
Building 9125 (Units 107-204) Photos 1 thru 31
Building 9465 (Units 115-220) Photos 32 thru 61
Building 9460 (Units 115-220) Photos 63 thru 88
Building 9460 (Units 101-206) Photos 90 Thru 128
Building 9115 (Units 101-206) Photos 101 thru 206
Building 9115 (Units 115-220) Photos 158 thru 186

4.00 RECOMMENDATIONS / BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
An estimated life of a tile roof is primarily calculated on the quality of the
underlayment installed. When a high profile tile such as the “S” clay tile is
properly installed it is commonly considered that 80 percent of the water is shed
off the roof and 20 percent of the water breaches the tile reaching the
underlayment. The underlayment is the last measure of defense for shedding
water. Typically in the Arizona arid climate a 30 lb asphalt saturated roofing felt
underlayment will have a life expectancy of 20 to 22 years. Tile itself could have
a life expectancy of 50 years. It is common to replace tile underlayment prior to
the need to replace the roofing tile. Based on the current condition of the
underlayment it is at the end of its serviceable life. Deficiencies such as voids in
tile coverage, open areas at ridge tile lines allowing wind driven rain to enter
and, poor detail work at tile transitions can accelerate deterioration of whatever
water shedding capability the underlayment currently can provide. And, where
the underlayment is already excessively deteriorated can allow water to pass
beyond the underlayment and enter into the building. A reroofing program
should be implemented in a systematic process to address all buildings with
building/s scheduled first that present the most water intrusion problems.
Buildings not initially scheduled for reroofing should have conditions that allow
water to enter, such as poor sealing at pipe penetrations and open tile areas at
ridge lines, should be corrected to minimize the amount of water the
underlayment is required to shed. Buildings should not be considered water tight
until they have been reroofed.

4.02 BUDGET:
Removing and replacing tile with new underlayment can be estimated at $5.00
per square foot of roof area based on today’s market price. When designing for
reroofing it will be necessary to bring the exiting roofs up to current code
requirements. The current building code will need to be reviewed and applied to
the reroofing specifications. Buildings undergoing repairs and maintenance until
reroofed should have an initial budget of $8,500.00 per building allocated with
an annual expense of $2,000.00 per building per year for ongoing maintenance
until reroofed.

Preliminary budgets for reroofing:
Smaller footprint buildings: $55,000.00 each X 8 buildings = $440,000.00
Larger footprint buildings: $70,000.00 each X 4 buildings = $280,000.00
Total $720,000.00

It is our recommendation that a discussion regarding the contents of this report be held between the client and the author of this report if there are any questions. Our desire is that the recipient of our report has a thorough and complete understanding of the findings and recommendations prior to making any determination as to what action to take.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please do not
hesitate to contact us at your convenience (480) 926-2700.

Sincerely,
Louis Hunt, RCI, RRO
Principal

If you are interested in the pictures referred to in the report, please contact Management with your e-address, and they will be sent to you electronically.
ashleynps@aol.com or National Property Services at 480-443-5566