Running a DCF to get a NPV on a 5Y real estate investment seems a bit excessive.

Yes, looking over the laws for KS, it just mentions some items that fall under ordinary wear and tear and excessive damage and filth.

When it is time to distribute money from the excess cash flow, it works like this:$400 to distribute$200 goes to your partner$200 is allocated as having gone to you (for tax purposes) but the check is actually written to your partner. 

When we flip there we usually have to tear up the floors from the top side to do whatever repairs are necessary to get a clean termite/moisture inspection, then pray we get it sold before the letter expires.  

I'm not trying to be a slum lord but I am trying to buy properties that need a little bit of work to get up and running, but to be mandated by the city to put an additional $10-15K into repairs for a $60K house inside of a year of owning it seems a bit excessive.  

My agent said it would most likely be in excess of 100K to repair which may not even include desired cosmetic changes.I guess the point of this post, while it has no direct question, is to vent a little and just get some advice to maintain my motivation.

This is never a useless excessive but a necessary one.

In other words, at what point does a typical GP to determine there is "excess" cash flow that should be distributed accordingly?

I've since decided that the cost of buying an MFR in the Seattle neighbourhoods i'm interested is just not feasible at this time (with this impending market crash, pouring excessive amounts of capital into something that might exponentially depreciate in a couple years sounds risky).

Best bet might be to negotiate with the city and settle on 1 year of back-billing vs 10 years.  10 years seems very excessive.