How Epex Consulting ran owner-side draw administration across an eight-unit townhome development in Houston. Each was a legally separate project sharing one jobsite.
On paper the project looked like one development. In reality it was eight. Eight adjacent townhome units, each owned by a separate single-purpose Texas LLC, each carrying its own construction loan personally guaranteed by its principal, each with its own schedule of values and its own draw sequence. All eight were built by one builder on one shared jobsite with shared drives, utilities, and subcontractor mobilizations.
That combination is where multi-owner developments quietly bleed money. A subcontractor invoice covers work on three units at once. A shared utility tie-in benefits all eight. A deposit lands referencing only a first name that belongs to two different lots. Without airtight per-lot discipline, dollars get co-mingled, one owner ends up subsidizing another, and the lender loses confidence in every draw that follows. The owners needed to see their own numbers, cleanly separated from everyone else’s, while the lender needed draw packages it could fund without a second look.
Epex Consulting served as the owner-side representative across all eight lots. We did not hold the construction contract and we took no builder margin. Our only job was to protect each owner’s budget, verify each draw, and keep every dollar attributable to the lot that spent it. That independence is the point: the party checking the draw has no incentive hiding behind the recommendation.
Each unit got its own schedule of values (an identical 37-line template across all eight units), its own draw counter, its own lien-release sequence, and its own reconciliation workbook. No shared summaries, ever.
Every dollar in and out was matched to a lot, a cost category, and a source deposit before it aged. Ambiguous deposits, such as a Zelle memo with only a first name or a bank reference with no lot, were resolved against the draw schedule and construction phase before allocation, never guessed.
For each lot we prepared the advance request in AIA G702/G703 format, collected and tracked the conditional and unconditional lien waivers, and reconciled percent-complete against actual field progress for each lot and each draw. Each package was submitted to Hancock Whitney independently.
No draw was submitted until its package was complete and internally reconciled. Funds moved against verified work, not against invoices alone.
Each owner received access to the project portal, where they could log in to check construction updates, budget information, draw status, and current project documentation for their lot. We also provided a weekly written report for each lot and an executive summary to the developer and lender across the whole site.
“Multi-owner projects fail on cross-lot misallocation. Daily ledger discipline is what eliminates it. It is the difference between owners who can see their numbers and owners who are hoping.”
That’s a problem worth fixing this week. A 20-minute call tells you whether your draws and ledgers are actually clean.
Book a Project Review