HomeMy WebLinkAbout20132107August 8, 2013
CLERK TO THE BOARD
PHONE (970) 336-7215, EXT 4226
FAX (970) 352-0242
WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us
1150 O STREET
P.O. BOX 758
GREELEY CO 80632
LITTLE MIGHT LLLP
C/O ARTHUR R STAPP LONGMONT TOYOTA
P O BOX 688
LONGMONT, CO 80502
RE: THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 2013, WELD COUNTY COLORADO
APPROVAL OF STIPULATION BETWEEN PETITIONER AND ASSESSOR
ACCOUNT NO.: R4571806
Dear Petitioner:
On August 01, 2013, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County Colorado
convened and acting as the Board of Equalization, pursuant to C.R.S. Section 39-8-101 et seq.,
considered your request to approve and adopt 'a valuation of your property arrived at by a
Stipulation between you and the Weld County Assessor, for the year 2013.
The Board of Equalization found that the evidence presented at the hearing supported the
stipulated value placed upon the above -described property as set forth below. Such evidence
indicated the value was reasonable, equitable, and derived according to the methodologies,
percentages, figures and formulas dictated by law.
ACTUAL VALUE AS STIPULATED VALUE
DETERMINED BY ASSESSOR APPROVED BY BOARD
$6,782,625.00 $6,026,718.00
The above 'Stipulated Value' is the value which will be used in the calculation of your property
taxes for 2013. This value is not appealable.
If you have questions concerning the above information, please call me at (970) 336-7215,
Ext. 4226.
Very truly yours,
uIJ�D at/�
Esther E. Gesick, Deputy Clerk
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
Cc: Christopher Woodruff, Weld County Assessor
CC; ME 41
2013-2107
AS0085
COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
WELD COUNTY
Single County Schedule Number R4571806
STIPULATION (As To Tax Year_2013_ Actual Value)
RE PETITION OF :
NAME: LITTLE MIGHT LLLP
ADDRESS: 8019 Raspberry Way
Frederick, CO
Petitioner (s) and the Weld County Assessor hereby enter into this Stipulation
regarding the tax year 2013 valuation of the subject property, and jointly move the Board
of Equalization to enter its order based on this Stipulation.
Petitioner (s) and Assessor agree and stipulate as follows:
1. The property subject to this Stipulation is described as:
L7A RASPBERRY HILL BUSINESS PARK RPLT A
2. The subject property is classified as Commercial property.
3. The County Assessor originally assigned the following actual value to the
subject property for the tax year 2013:
Total $6,782,625.00
4. After further review and negotiation, Petitioner (s) and Weld County Assessor
agree to the following tax year 2013 actual value for the subject property:
Total $6,026,718.00
5. The valuation, as established above, shall be binding only with respect to tax
year 2013.
6. Brief narrative as to why the reduction was made:
A review of cost characteristics revealed an adjustment.
7. Both parties agree that:
❑The hearing scheduled before the Board of Equalization on (Date) at
(Time) be vacated.
NA hearing has not yet been scheduled before the Board of Equalization.
R4571806
1
2013-2107
gatentph4aislainofJuuly^^, 2013.
Petitioner(s)Agent or Attorney
Address:
P.O. Box £tt'
snt) iCounty Attorney for
Respondent, Weld County Board of
Commissioners
Address:
1150 "O" Street
wr.l m. c944; CO, 8&roi P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Telephone: 303-17& -n0
Docket Number n/a
Stip-1.Frm
R4571806
Telephone:(970) 336-7235
caa
ounty As¶ ssor
Address:
1400 N.17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Telephone: (970) 353-3845 ext. 3697
2
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
Christopher M. Woodruff
Weld County Assessor
1400 N 17th Ave
Greeley, CO 80631
ACCOUNT Na
TAX YEAR
TAX AREA
LEGAL DESCRIPTION/ PHYSICAL LOCATION
R4571806
2013
1459
FRE RHBPA L7A RASPBERRY HILL BUSINESS
PARK RPLT A
8019 RASPBERRY WAY
FREDERICK, CO 000000000
PROPERTY OWNER
LITTLE MIGHT LLLP
CIO ARTHUR R STAPP LONGMONT TOYOTA
PO BOX 688
LONGMONT, CO 80502
PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION
ASSESSOR'S VALUATION
ACTUAL VALUE PRIOR TO
REVIEW
ACTUAL VALUE AFTER
REVIEW
COMMERCIAL
7,053,930
6,782,625
TOTAL
$7,053,930
$6,782,625
The Assessor has carefully studied all available information, giving particular attention to the
specifics included on your protest. The Assessor's determination of value after review is based on
the following:
Date of Notice: 6/27/2013
Telephone: (970) 353-3845
Fax: (970) 304-6433
Office Hours: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM
CM03 - After review of your property, we have made adjustments. This was done because of
additional information obtained, or provided thru the appeal process.
If you disagree with the Assessor's decision, you have the right to appeal to the County
Board of Equalization for further consideration, § 39-8-106(1)(a), C.R.S.
The deadline for filing real property appeals is July 15.
The Assessor establishes property values. The local taxing authorities (county, school district, city,
fire protection, and other special districts) set mill levies. The mill levy requested by each taxing
authority is based on a projected budget and the property tax revenue required to adequately fund
the services it provides to its taxpayers. The local taxing authorities hold budget hearings in the fall.
If you are concerned about mill levies, we recommend that you attend these budget hearings.
Please refer to last year's tax bill or ask your Assessor for a listing of the local taxing authorities.
Please refer to the reverse side of this notice for additional information.
RECEWED
JUL 082013
WELD COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
15-DPT-AR
PR 207-08/13
R4571806 17377
APPEAL PROCEDURES
County Board of Equalization Hearings will be held from
July 1 through August 5 at 1400 N 17 AVE.
To appeal the Assessor's decision, complete the Petition to the County Board of Equalization shown
below, and mail or deliver a copy of both sides of this form to:
Weld County Board of Equalization
1150 O Street, P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80631
Telephone: (970) 356-4000 ext, 4225
To preserve your appeal rights, your Petition to the County Board of Equalization must be
postmarked or delivered on or before July 15 for real property — after such date, your right to
appeal is lost. You may be required to prove that you filed a timely appeal; therefore, we
recommend that all correspondence be mailed with proof of mailing.
You will be notified of the date and time scheduled for your hearing. The County Board of
Equalization must mail a written decision to you within five business days following the date of the
decision. The County Board of Equalization must conclude hearings and render decisions by August
5, § 39-8-107(2), C.R.S. If you do not receive a decision from the County Board of Equalization and
you wish to continue your appeal, you must file an appeal with the Board of Assessment Appeals by
September 12, § 39-2-125(1)(e), C.R.S.
If you are dissatisfied with the County Board of Equalization's decision and you wish to continue your
appeal, you must appeal within 30 days of the date of the County Board's written decision to ONE of
the following:
Board of Assessment Appeals District Court
1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 Contact the District Court in the County
Denver, CO 80203 where the property is located. See your
(303) 866-5880 local telephone book for the address and
www.dola.colorado.gov/baa telephone number.
Binding Arbitration
For a list of arbitrators, contact the County Commissioners at the address listed for the County Board
of Equalization.
If the date for filing any report, schedule, claim, tax return, statement, remittance, or other document
falls upon a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, it shall be deemed to have been timely filed if filed
on the next business day, § 39-1-120(3), C.R.S.
PETITION TO COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
What is your estimate of the property's value as of June 30, 2012? (Your opinion of value in terms of a
specific dollar amouptis required for real property pursuant to § 39-8-106(1.5), C.R.S.)
$ S3041000,
What is the basis for your estimate of value or your reason for requesting a review? (Please attach
additional sheets as necessary and any supporting documentation, i.e., comparable sales, rent roll, original
installed cost, appraisal, etcA rA.a soul +D�r-p ratWet !t9 w re- v;ew if 4hac' when. arply iN�
+Lt; a,cca/ d s`I'wwpc(tw(.Q, me--l-r o .r m4' wet1 tro e ly oorQisdl R 11 shown. �++
-)-fry at1&c,Li,ew+s 441.e rca.l ree ew-f. oge+er n:n,sa vita oAe-err .t='poen e
ATTESTATION va t u. a Cex Ca bed a. -d b fh 8- A-eters or,
I, the undersigned owner or agent124b of the property identified above, affirm that the statements contained
herein and on any attachments hereto are true and complete.
f.,4{It? MCcrt,.I. LL4P eb`/
ems. 303.776-/7'f3 j"u,ly a, &013
Sfc nattfre 7/0 Telephone Number Date
4. R. Start
arfrfa;ri niersfc iet'oyedit. Lom Email
1246 Attach letter of authorization signed by property owner.
Address
15-DPT-AR
PR 207-08/13
R4571806 17377
July 2, 2013
Weld County Board of Equalization
1150 O Street, P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80631
To Whom It May Concern:
Assessor's Decision Appeal
Account #R4571806
Owner: Little Might LLLP
P.O. Box 688
Longmont, CO. 80502
The pertinent data relating to this Account was initially presented on May 22, 2013, and
said data is attached to this Appeal for your reading, inspection, perusal, and
consideration. All of this stated data is still correct, substantiated, and relevant to the
subject period of time used for this valuation, "information from 2011 and the first 6
months of 2012 for values set for 2013 and 2014," as stated in the Weld County
Assessor's website.
In this particular situation, as was stated in the Valuation Protest, the Cost Approach very
concisely and accurately determines a value. When there is similar vacant land located
directly next to the property in question and the owner, Harvey Yoakum, says he would
sell the property for the same price as the property in question was sold for originally,
and the architect, SEM, Bruce McLennan, and builder, Calcon, say they would have built
the same building for the same price it was built for in 2007 it would seem unreasonable
to value the property in question that is four years old at a higher price than what the
owner could reproduce the property for brand new. The Cost Approach even if
inappropriate for a property is known and recognized to serve as a "check against the
value indications by the other approaches (the cost "new" plus the land value is typically
an indication of the upper limit of value); it is also known to be an indication as to
whether there is any value to the improvements and whether the property is developed to
its highest and best use." There have been no improvements made to the said property
and it is four years old. The Weld County Assessor's Office originally valued the
property in 2008 at $5,928,116.00. The re -assessed Assessor's value of $5,616,014.00
used for the tax years 2011 and 2012 was based on a slightly depreciated value from the
original $5,928,116.00. The current Cost Approach conclusion is simply based on taking
the original value and subtracting a percentage for the depreciation for the four years
based on a 39 year building life; the property still remains in very good condition. In
conclusion, the Cost Approach value is $5,928,116.00 minus depreciation of $608,012.00
= $5,320,104.00.
In many real property valuation determinations the Sales Comparison Approach or the
Income Approach is the method of choice to determine a value. Economic factors such
as inflation, etc. can certainly be causes of not using a Cost Approach in some valuation
instances. In this case with the factual data submitted it is readily determinable that the
Cost Approach is the approach with the least factors of ambiguity, the least amount of
conjecture, and therefore should be the primary method to employ to achieve the
objective of determining the value of the real property in question. Interestingly enough
in this particular instance as stated in the attached May 22, 2013 Valuation Protest the
derived value using the Sales Comparison or Income Approach is very similar to the
value derived from the Cost Approach as long as similar properties with similar
characteristics in similar locations are used for the comparison. Even though there is not
normally a large number of auto dealership facilities sold, it was fortunate that in this
particular case there were very similar properties very nearby that were sold during the
relevant valuation period. These values are all noted in the original Protest dated May
22, 2013. Upon presentation of the Protest to Mr. Wade Melies at the Weld County
Assessor's Office he was courteous enough to share with me a copy of 12 possible
properties that may have been used in the Weld County Assessor's determination. I am
not privy to which properties were used in said determination. A copy of these
properties, each which property is numbered, is attached and labeled Exhibit A; following
is a discussion of each property and its relationship to the subject property valuation
determination:
1.) This property is not applicable for comparison to the subject property. The stated
sale date of 10/22/2010 is out of the valuation period.
2.) This property is questionable for comparison purposes. A multi property in Fort
Collins; dissimilar geographical characteristics and an exercise of an option, purchase by
tenant; it is vaguely similar but even if included its resultant price of $107.00/sq.ft. would
have little effect on the final price estimate.
3.) This property is not applicable for comparison. It is a multi property located on a
main thoroughfare of Boulder, Colorado. This is not a valid comparison because of the
dissimilar "city" characteristics of the area, and it is located in Boulder, Co. where very
little prime commercial property is still available, and is many times bought for
redevelopment reasons or investment purposes which then set an inordinate price.
4.) This property is not applicable for comparison. This is a location that has totally
different characteristics than the subject property. It is on 104th Ave. in Denver, Co. on
"Auto Row." This is an established location in a prime area where virtually no vacant
land exists, on a major thoroughfare in a metropolitan area, and is undoubtedly going to
be worth more than a Frederick, Co. location.
5.) This property is not applicable because its sales date is out of the acceptable
period. In addition, the property is on the same avenue as Property #4; it exhibits the
same characteristics as Property #4.
6.) This property is applicable and meets all of the same characteristics of location,
use, and population density, as the subject property. It is applicable and yielded a
$95.00/sq. ft. value.
7.) This property is applicable meeting all characteristics of the subject property and
yields a value of $128.00 /sq.ft.
8.) This property is applicable meeting all characteristics of the subject property and
yields a value of $98.00 /sq.ft.
9.) This property is not applicable. It is located in Ft. Collin, Co. on a major city
thoroughfare and exhibits the price and characteristics of prime commercial retail
property in an established multi retail area.
10.) This property is not applicable. This property is located in the same area on the
same avenue in Ft. Collins as property #9 is located and so exhibits the same
characteristics.
11.) This property is applicable having similar characteristics of the subject property
and yields a value of $112.00/sq.ft.
12.) This property is not applicable. It possesses the same characteristics as the two
other Ft. Collins properties, #9 and #10.
An additional comparable sale not on Exhibit A will be termed property #13. The sale
was a 2011 sale of a previous Chevrolet dealership facility built in 2006 and located in
Weld County. (This property is shown in the May 22, 2013 Valuation Protest previously
submitted.) The sale was a 39,607 sq.ft building on 9.575 acres and sold for
$2,000,000.00 yielding a value of $50.00/sq.ft.
In conclusion, even though the Sales Comparison method should not be the prime chosen
method of valuation in this individual instance by using the above applicable properties,
#6, #7, #8, #11, and #13 and the respective sales results of $95.00/sq.ft., $128.00/sq.ft.,
$98.00/sq.ft., $112.00/sq.ft., and $50.00/sq. ft. a mean value of $97.00/sq. ft. is produced,
and with the subject property building measuring 54,261 sq.ft. the resultant value of
$5,263,317.00 produced by the Sales Comparison method is very similar to the result of
the Cost Approach Method. (This value is slightly different than the original Valuation of
Property Protest due to minute discrepancies as to exact building dimensions existing on
Public Records and the dimensions shown on Exhibit A; Exhibit A's dimensions have
been used in the above calculations.)
Even though the Income Approach method should also not be the prime chosen method
of valuation in this instance, Mr. Dan Hendrick of Irwin and Hendrick, a local developer
and lessor of many commercial properties in this area for over twenty years, estimated
that during the valuation period, 2011 and the first six months of 2012, commercial rents
decreased approximately 20%. The previously submitted Protest utilized rental data
provided us by the Weld County Assessor's Office on May 4, 2011 in a previous
valuation analysis. As stated in the May 22"d Valuation Protest the Income Approach
yields a similar approximate result of $5,521,180.00.
RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE
1.) The Cost Approach —$5,320,104.00
2.) The Sales Comparison Approach=$5,263,317.00
3.) The Income Approach —$5,521,180.00
With the mean value of the above three approaches being $5,368,200.00 and relying on
the Cost Approach since it has the least ambiguity the property should be valued at
$5,300,000.00.
Thank you for your consideration.
Re bitter*
-tficaliLLP
By Arthur R. Stapp
Co -Manager
303-776-1743
May 22, 2013
WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR
1400 N 17th AVE.
GREELEY, CO 80631
2013 REAL PROPERTY NOTICE OF VALUATION PROTEST
ACCOUNT#R4571806
OWNER: LITTLE MIGHT LLLP
P.O. BOX 688
LONGMONT, CO. 80502
The primary objective is to calculate the value of the property in the most accurate method within the
scope of the applicable laws. The value of property is determined by comparisons and analyses and the
employing of the appraisal procedure that is most appropriate. The available appraisal procedures are the
Cost Approach, the Sales Comparison (Market) Approach, and the Income Approach.
The property address under discussion, 8019 Raspberry Way, Frederick, Colorado, was built as a Toyota
Auto Dealership and was first occupied on October 29, 2007. Auto dealership facilities are considered
special use or special purpose properties, which mean that they cannot typically be assigned other uses;
they are typically constructed for a specific use and are not readily adaptable to alternative uses. As a
special purpose property, the sale, acquisition, and rental of these facilities are not typically governed by
the same market circumstances as other commercial/ industrial properties. Auto dealership facility
transactions are slower, with less variation in market responses. Often, the sale of an auto dealership
facility (the real estate) means the concurrent sale of the franchise and the business. To achieve the most
correct appraised value, it can be concluded that an individualized analysis of only the most pertinent
factors regarding the said property combined together will result in the best conclusion.
The Cost Approach
The Cost Approach is based on the premise that the value of a property can be indicated by the current
cost to construct a reproduction or replacement for the improvements minus the amount of depreciation
evident in the structures. This approach to value is particularly useful for appraising new or nearly new
improvements. This approach is based on the principle that no prudent purchaser would pay more for a
property than the amount for which he or she can obtain, by purchase of the site and construction of a
building, property of equal desirability and utility. The previous value placed on the said Property by the
Assessor was $5,616,014.00 and this value was used for tax years 2011 and 2012. This was a slightly
depreciated value from the original value of $5,928,116.00 used for tax year 2008.
Only sales and other market information from 2011 and the first six months of 2012 can be considered to
determine the values for 2013 and 2014. During this period of time the property was only four years old.
The Cost Approach is factual; it takes all of the ambiguities that surround a property such as this and
erases them. Mr. Bruce McClellan of SEM Architects, the original architect, was spoken to on May 6,
2013 and he stated you could still build this building for what it was done for in 2007; Mr. Harvey
Yoakum, the original land owner, was also spoken to that same day and affirmed he would have sold the
land for the same price that it was purchased for. There have been no improvements made to the property
since when it was built. This method is clear, it is concise, and it is factual. The conclusion is simply
taking the original value and subtracting a percentage for the depreciation for the four years based on a 39
year building life. The property still remains in very good condition.
The Cost Approach determined value is $5,928,116.00 minus $608,012.00=$5,320,104.00.
The Sales Comparison Approach
Using the Sales Comparison Approach for valuing an automobile dealership has its uncertainties.
Usually there are very few automobile dealership transactions available. Location, size, neighborhood,
product sold, manufacturer requirements, and many other various factors are individual to each property.
This particular period though provides us with an opportunity. There actually occurred several sales of
automobile dealerships in auto parks relatively close by that could be said to be very similar. In Weld
County in 2011 a sale of a previous Chevrolet dealership built in 2006 in an auto park was consummated:
a 39,607 sq. ft. building on 9.575 acres sold for $2,000,000.00 or $50/sq.ft. In the same auto park a
previous Mazda dealership sold in 2011: a 17,635 sq. ft. building on 6.942 acres for $1,835,000.00 or
$104/sq.ft. In the Centerra area near Loveland, along I-25 in Larimer County a sale of a previous
Chrysler dealership built in 2006 was consummated in June, 2012: a 27,330 sq. ft. building along with
6.08 acres sold for $3,5000,000.00.or $128/sq.ft. Also sold in the Centerra Auto Park in April, 2012 was
a Lithia auto dealership built in 2007 with a 26,614 sq.ft. building and 7.00acres for $2,499,000.00 or
$93/sq. ft. The mean of these sales is $93/sq.ft. The subject building being valued is 54,261 sq. ft.
{54,261 sq. ft. X $93/sq.ft.=$5,046,273.] This Sales Comparison Approach is able to factually determine
a value of the subject property and that value is $5,046,273.00.
The Income Approach
The Income Approach is mainly employed when properties are being valued to be bougjht and sold for
investment purposes, specifically income producing properties that have adequate income and expense
data available. Auto dealership facility rental comparables are difficult to find because they are typically
owner occupied or are built to suits. The data is difficult to obtain and even then if obtained would be
questionable. What a dealership pays does not necessarily reflect the property's rental value since
different auto makes and dealership operations would generate higher or lower sales volumes, and varying
income producing sources based on their specific operation —a reflection of that particular automotive
operation not of the real estate. A Harley Davidson Motorcycle Dealer, a Caterpillar Dealer, a Ferrari
Dealer, and an RV Dealer might all operate out of the exact same real estate but pay an entirely different
rent for the facility. With the factual data that the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach have
yielded I would not consider the Income Approach because of its many ambiguities and opinionated
judgments. Should we decide to pursue the exercise anyway with rents during the current valuation
period being even less due to the economic conditions at the time, the data provided us by the Weld
County Assessor on May 4, 2011 with the previous valuation period data would interestingly enough
indicate a value similar to those we have already established: 54,261sf building, rent decreased from
$16.00 NNN to $14.00 NNN yielding a resultant PGI of $759,654, a Vacancy of 21% resulting in
$159,527, and an EGI of $600,127; expense mngt of .05=$30,006 and a reserve at .03=$18,003.for a total
of $48,009 would yield a NOI of $552,118 and then using a capitalization value of 10.% would yield an
indicated Value of $5,521,180.00($101.75/sq.ft.) The Income Approach conclusion is $5,521,180.00.
RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE
1.) The Cost Approach —$5,320,104.00
2.) The Sales Comparison Approach=$5,046,273.00
3.) The Income Approach=$5,521,180.00
With a mean value of $5,295,852.00 and concluding with a specific individualized analysis the property
should be valued at $5,200,000.00 based on the more reliable Cost and Sales Approaches.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Little Might LLLP
By Arthur R. Stapp
Co -Manager
303-776-1743
x7
Multi Prope
`.
SOLD
" Pl erties in Greeley, CO.
# Properties: 2
s -
ate. 10122/210
Sale Price: $6,600,000 - Confirmed Total Site: -
Price/SF: - ` Total Land Area: 9.99 AC
�
x r to
-rti
Sale Conditions: Lease Option, Purchase By Tenant
Pro Forma Cap P
Rate -
n s
in._;�
__
omp ID:2000182
-esearch Status: Confirmed
2 "Multi -Property,
SOLD
.Buildings in Fort Collins having total size of 40,010 SF.
3/01!2012 *Properties: 3
Sale Price: $4,300,000 - Confirmed Total Size: 40,010 SF
Price/SF: - - Total Land Area: 4.88 AC
Pro Forma Cap - - ogle Conditions: Exercise of Option, Purchase By Tenant
Rate: —
t
S.,zYA F tl
'
Comp ID: 2273671
Research Status: Confirmed
3 Multi=Property -
SOLD
2 Retail buildings in Boulder, CO, having total size of 21,408 SF. -_ _ —
Sale Date: 0 3/1 21201 2 ' #Properties: 2
Sale Price: $4,259,000 -Confirmed Total Size: 21,408 SF
Price/SF: $198.94 Total Land Area: 3.50 AC - .
` Pro Forma Cap - - ` Sale Conditions: High Vacancy Property, Reds ey4e to nl. )
L ' _•-
&irk'
.. -
Rate: Project -
Comp ID: 2285936 - —
Research Status: Confirmed
477b9 W 104tf)Ave Autone tion �
SOLD.
Northglenn, CO 80234 Adams County - -
Sale Date: 01/06/2012 ldg Type: RetailAuto Sale Price: $5,762,500 - Confirmed Year BBuilt/Age: Built 1994 Age: 18
16
Price/SF: $155.22 RBA: 37,124 SF „
Pro Forma Cap - - Parcel No: 1719-10.3-07.034 -
Actual Cap Rate: -
Comp ID: 2243810 Sale Conditions:
Research Status:. Confirmed
vy� v tt3r" ,Y,
fi h ` �u ` -✓a
5, 2929=W'104tfi Ave-. "
' SOLD'
r
Westminster, CO 80234 Adams County
Sale Date: 07/16/2010 (192 days on mkt) Bldg Type: RetailAuto Dealership,.;
Sale Price: $1,400,000 - Confirmed Year Built/Age: Built 1983 Age: 27 _ -
Price/SF: $138.59 RBA: 10,102 SF
Pro'Forma Cap - Parcel No: 1719.08.405-007
ad,'r'�t-.•+�`+% -
Actual Cap Rate: -
Comp ID: 1948974 Sale Conditions: AssemblageResearch StatusConfirmed
,),
• 3870 -Byrd, Dr: L2Auto-Block4,:L 45
spLD
Loveland, CO 80538 -arimer County
Sale Date: 04/27/2012 (352 days on,mkt) - Bldg Type: RetailAuto Dealership I
Sale Price: $2,499,000 - Confirmed - Year Built/Age: Built. 2007 Age: 5 pJ
Price/SF: $95.02 RBA: 26,300 SF [
w �`
Pro Forma Cap - Parcel No: 85032.28-0052
Actual Cap Rate: -
Comp ID: 2308197 Sale Conditions: - - - -
Status: Confirmed
Research
(eovvi: tw e0�)
Byrd;Dr, tMereedes ienz,O
eye al
Loveland, CO 80538 Lorimer County :'
Sale Date: 06/2112012 (1,106 days on mkt) Bldg Type: RetailAuto Dealership
Sale Price: $3,500,000 - Confirmed Year Built/Age: Built. 2006 Age: 6
Price/SF: $128.19 V. RBA: 27,303 SF
Parcel No: 85032-21-002
Pro Forma Cap -
Actual Cap Rate: -
Comp ID: 2498036
Research Status: Confirmed
1015. Champion Dr -Mazda
Pro Forma Cap
Actual Cap Rate:
Comp ID:
Research Status: Confirmed
Sale Conditions: -
ndsor, CO 80550
Sale Date: 05111/2011.(558 days on mkt) Bldg Type:
Sale Price: $1,835,000 - Confirmed Year Built/Age:
Pdce/SF: $98.05 RBA:
Parcel No: 095708401003
2108036
Weld County
RetailAuto Dealership
Built 2007 Age: 4
18,714 SF
Sale Conditions: -
3325S College_Ave - Markley Motors GMC B111G
' Collins, CO 8052
Sale Date: /
Sale Price: $4,200,000 - Confirmed..
Price/SF: $211.09
Pro Forma Cap -
Actual Cap Rate: -
Comp ID: 1950763
Research Status: Confirmed
1v.:§1pVeg.etAV.
Fo a ollins, CO 80525
Sale Date: 06/06/2012 Sale Price: $2,700,000 - CoRTIrtnedL
Price/SF: $204.93
Pro Forma Cap -
Actual Cap Rate: -
Comp ID: 2488471
Research Status: Confirmed
.999E'Eisenhower Blvd-,Hentage;Ford
Bldg Type:
Year Built/Age:
RBA:
Z
Larimer County
RetailAuto Dealership
Built 1972 Renov 2000 Age: 38
19,897 SF
Parcel No: 97264-14-001 ,
Sale Conditions: Purchase By Tenant
Larimer County
Bldg Type: RetailAuto Dealer„ep
Year Built/Age: Built 1982 Renov 1997 Age: 3
RBA: 13,175 SF
Parcel No: 97351-19-005
- -Sale Conditions: >Purchpe By Tenant
Loveland, CO 80537
Sale Date: '05122/2012
Sale Price: $1,000,000 - Confirmed
Price/SF: $111.73 A.
'0 —
Pro Forma Cap s --"t
Actual Cap Rate: -
Comp ID: 2486936
Research Status: Confirmed
221-E Troutmali P;ky
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Sale Date: 09/13/2011 Sale Price: $1,645,000 - Confirmed
Price/SF: $167.46
Pro Forma Cap -
Actual Cap Rate: -
Comp ID: 2180931,
Research Status: Confirmed
Larimer County
Bldg Type: RetailAuto Dealership
Year Built/Age: Built 1965 Age: 47
RBA: 17,900 SF
Parcel No:. 95124-23-003, 95124-23-004
Sale Conditions: Partial Interest Transfer (50.00%)
0KK
Larimer County
!. -Bldg Type:.. RetailAuto.-Dealerships-
Year Built/Age _ Built 1988 Age: 23 '--'
RBA: 9,823 SF -_
This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Weld Coon tAssessors Office 611800
SOLD
SOLD::
5122(2013,':.
Hello