The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20061280.tiff Certified Article Number 7160 3901 98140 0107 9078 SENDERS RECORD PETITION TO STATE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS For OBice Use Only 1313 Sherman Street,Room 315 Phone: (303)866-5880 Denver, Colorado 80203 Fax: (303)866-4485 DOCketND. Fee: Y N Check/Credit Card S Date: 512/2006 P F H Property Owner: Diamond Shamrock Stations,Inc. Subject Property: 2720 35th Avenue,Greeley CO,80631 Street Address City Schedule Number(s): 2398786 Attach separate sheet it necessary ❑Board of Equalization Weld Appeals the decision of the 0 Board of Commissioners Dated: 413/2006 County ❑State Property Tax Administrator This Appeal concerns: DValuation ©Refund/Abatement ❑E_xemption 0 State Assessed Tax Year: 2003 The subject property is currently classified as: Real Estate ❑Agricuffural 0 Commercial CI Exempt ❑Industrial ❑Mixed Use ❑Natural Resources Don&Gas ❑Personal O Possessory ❑Producing ❑Residential ❑State Assessed ❑Vacant Land Interest Mines Actual Value assigned to subject property: 5550,000 Petitioner's estimate of value: $250,000 Estimated time for Petitioner to present the appeal: minutes or 4,00 hours. Not less than 30 minutes. Board wilt allow equal time to County or Property Tax Administrator. Appearance: - Petitioner will be present at the hearing ❑Petitioner will appear by telephone ❑Petitioner will be represented by an agent Petitioner is responsible for railing the Board at 303.666-5880 0 Petitioner will be represented by an attorney on the scheduled date and lime of hearing(Mountain Time Zone) Except as provided in§13.1-127(2)and(2.5)C.R.S. 2000,a corporation must appear under the representation of a licensed attorney. See BOP industries v. State Board of Equalization,694 P.2d 337(Cob.App- 1984). Filing Fee: ❑ None Petitioner is appearing pro se(self-represented)end has not filed more than two Petitions with the Board of Assessment Appeals during this fiscal year(July 1 —June 30), ❑ $ 33/6 Petitioner is appearing pro se(self-represented)and has filed more than two Petitions with the Board of Assessment Appeals during this fiscal year(July 1 —June 30). ❑+ $101.25 Petitioner will be represented by an agent or by an attorney. In the space below,please explain why you disagree with the value assigned to the subject property • Please see attached. CrdNse7O- 46,0404 r<}59— Required attachments to this form: ❑ Assessor's Or Property Tax Administrator's Notice of Valuation or Notice of Denial ❑ Decision of County Board of Equalization,County Board of Commissioners or Property Tax Administrator Attachments required under certain circumstances: ❑ A notarized Letter of Authorization if an agent will be representing Petitioner ❑ A list of names, last known addresses and telephone numbers of co-owners or parties directly interested in the subject property If applicable. Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true end correct copy of the foregoing Petition to the State Board of Assessment Appeals and attachments were mailed,faxed or hand delivered to: ❑Board of Equalization Weld a/Boerd of Commissioners County ['State Property Tax Administrator at the following address: 915 Tenth Street.Greeley,CO 80632 on / Dale I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition to the State Board of Assessment Appeals and attachments were mailed,faxed or hand delivered to all co-owners or parties directly interested in the subject property on Dale I hereby certify that four(4)true and correct copies of the foregoing Petition to the State Board of Assessment Appeals and attachments were mailed or hand delivered to the Board of Assessment Appeals at 1313 Sherman Street, Room 315,Denver, CO 80203on 11-!:cy 9 _';'( r, date (One copy maybe faxed to the Board but the original and two additional copies must be mailed or hand delivered.) Petitioner's Mailing Address is Required Even if Petitioner is Represented by An Agent or Attorney leer C.R.S. 39-8-109) aiir j��s ��L�1 -I r� l � ��P Signature of ent_or Attorney ✓ Signature of Petitioner Christoper C.Rosas Diamond Shamrock Stations, Inc.cro John Aranda Printed Name Printed Name 3200 Southwest Freeway,tt3400 P.O.Sox 690110 Mailing Address Mailing Address Houston,TX 77027 San Antonio,TX 78260-0110 City,State,Zip Code City,State,Zip Code Telephone: 713/552-9595 Telephone: 2101345.2297 Daytime number E-Mail: christoper.rosas®phillipsakemourn E-Mail:john.aranda®valero.00m Attorney Reg. No.: 33018 It is the Petitioner's responsibility to notify the BAA of any change of address. Petitioners are strongly encouraged to read the Instructions and Rules of the Board of Assessment Appeals prior to completing this Petition Form. The Instructions and Rules are available on the Web at www.dola.Colorado.goviaa or may be requested by phone at 303-866-5880. COYLE, LYNCH & COMPANY Page A-1 VALUATION ADVISORY SERVICES 950 CALCON HOOK ROAD POST OFFICE BOX 157 SHARON HILL. PENNSYLVANIA 19079-1889 VOX 610-461-5000 FAX 610-461-7284 W W W-COYLELYNCH.COM JOHN J.COYLE.3RD.MAI,CRE+0 0• +PA STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL APPRAISER JOHN ANTHONY EGAN.MAI.SRA+ O NJ STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL APPRAISER DENNIS M.KELLY+ ODE STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL APPRAISER JOHN J.MUIR+ •NY STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL APPRAISER BRADFORD J.NOUPT+ March 8,2006 Mr.Roy Martin,Jr. Director,Ad Valorem Tax Valero Energy Corporation 6000 North Loop 1640 W San Antonio,Texas 78249-1112 RE: SUMMARY APPRAISAL REPORT LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS COMPRISING THE TAXABLE REAL ESTATE OF THE CONVENIENCE STORE FACILITY LOCATED AT 2720 35TH AVENUE CITY OF GREELEY,WELD COUNTY GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 TAX ACCOUNT NO.R2396786 STORE NO. 641 Mr. Martin: This is a summary appraisal report resulting from the development of a complete analysis of the subject property. Characterizing this report as a"summary appraisal report"is intended to mean that not every element researched in developing this appraisal and this report is included within the covers of the report. The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice("USPAP")Standards Rule 2-2 identifies the minimum requirements of a summary appraisal report,and it is our opinion that the content of this report meets the requirements. USPAP Standard 1(including Standards Rule 1-1 through Standards Rule 1-5)sets forth the requirements to follow in the appraisal development process and the building requirements from which departure is not permitted. To the best of our knowledge we have adhered to the binding requirements of the Standards and have not invoked any departure provision. It is our opinion that we have followed the requirements to qualify our analysis as"complete." We have made an investigation of the land and improvements comprising the subject property, the subject neighborhood,current assessment and real estate tax factors,zoning, and prevailing market trends for the purpose of estimating the market value of the above captioned property. We estimate the market value of the subject fee simple interest as of January 1,2003 to be: - TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS- ($250,000) Page A-2 We have reflected in our valuation the actual conditions existing at the subject property on the valuation date. Our value estimate applies to the land as physically constituted and to the improvements actually in existence; and the estimate reflects prevailing trends in the commercial real estate market. We have made a careful inspection,study,and analysis of the property,and have considered all factors which,in our opinion, would tend to influence the market value of the subject on the date of valuation. Our findings and conclusions can be summarized as: Report Option Summary report. Appraisal Development Complete analysis. Intended Use of the Report This report has been prepared in connection with a pending appeal of the subject real estate tax assessment. Intended User of the Report Valero Energy Corporation. Hypothetical Conditions None. Extraordinary Assumptions None. Property Rights Appraised Fee simple interest. Owner Diamond Shamrock Stations,Inc. Occupant Diamond Shamrock Corner Store. Land Data 39,852 square foot(0.915 acre) irregularly shaped corner tract with 182.4'frontage on the east side of 35th Avenue and 211.7' frontage on the north side of W.28th Street. Building Data 1,155 square foot one story retail building of brick with block backup and glass panel exterior walls; ornamental terra cotta shingle roof pent under a precast concrete canopy erected in 1983. Additional items of real estate include a concrete frame fuel service canopy totaling 4,000 square feet. Real Estate Assessment $159,500 Implied Value of Assessment $550,000 Zoning PUD—Planned Unit Development Potential Environmental While there are no apparent negative environmental factors Concerns affecting the subject,this report should not be relied upon as an environmental audit of the subject. Concerns about environmental issues should be resolved through the services of a professional qualified to make such a determination. Highest and Best Use Single occupant commercial utilization. 01.00 Objective(Function)of the Appraisal The objective(function)of this report is to estimate the market value of the subject property rights as of January 1,2003. Market value,as defined in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice formulated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation,is: Page A-3 The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale,the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably,and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller are typically motivated: (2) both parties area well informed or well advised,and acting in what they consider their best interests; (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; (4) payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto;and (5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. This definition was developed by the Ad Hoc Committee on Uniform Standards of The Appraisal Foundation on April 27, 1987; and was approved and adopted by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation on January 30, 1989. The definition also appears in Advisory Opinion 22(AO-22)of the 2003 edition of USPAP on Page 211 and in the Glossary of USPAP on Page 220. This example definition is from regulations published by federal regulatory agencies pursuant to Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform,Recovery,and Enforcement Act (FIRREA)of 1989 between July 5, 1990,and August 24, 1990,by the Federal Reserve System(FRS),National Credit Union Administration(NCUA),Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation(FDIC),the Office of Thrift Supervision(OTS),and the Office of Comptroller of the Currency(OCC). This definition is also referenced in regulations jointly published by the OCC,OTS,FRS,and FDIC on June 7, 1994,and the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines,dated October 27, 1994. This definition also appears,as an example, in the Glossary to USPAP. As indicated on Page 24 of the 12`h Edition of the Appraisal of Real Estate and on Page 23 and Page 24 of the 11`"Edition of the Appraisal of Real Estate,the Appraisal Institute in 1993 adopted the following definition of market value,which was developed by the Appraisal Institute Special Task Force on Value Definitions to clarify distinctions among market value,disposition value,and liquidation value. Market value,as defined by the Task Force, is: The most probable price which a specified interest in real property is likely to bring under all the following conditions: (1) Consummation of a sale occurs as of a specified date. (2) An open and competitive market exists for the property interest appraised. (3) The buyer and seller are each acting prudently and knowledgeably. (4) The price is not affected by undue stimulus. (5) The buyer and seller are typically motivated. (6) Both parties are acting in what they consider their best interest. (7) Marketing efforts were adequate and a reasonable time was allowed for exposure in the open market. Page A-4 (8) Payment was made in cash in U.S.dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto. (9) The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold,unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. 02.00 Scope of Work in Development of the Analysis of the Subject Property. The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice define scope of work as the amount and type of information researched and the analysis applied in an assignment. Scope of work includes,but is not limited to: • The degree to which the property is identified or inspected; • The extent of research into the physical or economic factors that could affect the property; • The extent of the data research; and • The type and extent of analysis applied to arrive at opinions and conclusions. The scope of work is acceptable for an assignment when it is consistent with: • The expectations of participants in the market for the same or similar appraisal services;and • What the appraiser's peers' actions would be in performing the same or similar assignment in compliance with USPAP. The data presented in the sections below describe and explain the scope of work we have completed in the development of our analysis of the subject property. In accordance with your request,we have made both an interior and an exterior inspection of the subject but have not prepared a detailed report. We have,however, accumulated sufficient data to prepare this report,and have retained additional data in our files for future reference. Substantive data about the property and its market follow. 03.00 Property Rights Appraised The subject has been appraised as a whole,and free of all liens and encumbrances except those specifically identified in the body of the report. We have appraised the fee simple interest in the subject. 04.00 Ownership and Occupancy Ownership is recorded in the name Diamond Shamrock Stations, Inc. a holding company of Valero Energy Corporation. The subject was acquired through the acquisition of Total Petroleum by Diamond Shamrock and by merger with Valero Energy Corporation. The subject is occupied as a Diamond Shamrock Corner Store, which is a trade name of Valero Energy Corporation. 05.00 Real Estate Assessment and Taxes The subject is identified as Weld County Assessment Account No.R2396786 and is assessed for$159,500. Based on the current 5.9586%tax rate,annual real estate taxes are$9,677. Dividing the current assessment of$159,500 by the 29%Assessment Rate indicates an implied market value for local property taxation purposes of$550,000 for the subject real estate. 06.00 Locational Overview The subject property is situated on the northeast corner of 35th Avenue and W. 28`h Street in the central portion of the City of Greeley,Weld County,Colorado. The immediate subject neighborhood can be characterized as a mix of commercial and residential uses. Surrounding development is mature and the area has little inventory of developable land. 07.00 Market Overview Direct competition for the subject consists of similarly located convenience store/retail/gasoline properties in the Greeley area. Included in the addenda of this report are data on the population,income and economic factors affecting the subject vicinity. We rate the overall market appeal of the subject property to be average. Page A-5 08.00 Zoning and Other Property Use Controls The subject land is zoned PUD—Planned Unit Development under the City of Greeley zoning ordinance. The site and the existing improvements appear to conform to applicable regulations. Utilization of the improvements as a convenience store/gas retail appears to be legal under the code. 09.00 Land Description The subject is a 39,852 square foot(0.915 acre), irregularly shaped corner parcel. The tract has a mildly sloping topography and elevation of the tract is generally at the grade of both street. Road frontage consists of 211.7'on the north side of W. 28th Street and 182.4'frontage on the east side of 35th Avenue. The subject is not situated in a flood plain according to recently published flood plain maps. (Community- Panel#0801840004 B;Zone X; no effective date specified). We are not qualified to make a specific compliance survey or analysis in connection with the American With Disabilities Act(ADA). In the absence of evidence relating to this issue,we have not reflected possible noncompliance with the requirements of ADA in estimating the value of the subject. 10.00 Site Improvements Utility services connected to the tract and in service on the date of valuation include public water, sanitary sewer,natural gas,electric and telecommunication lines. Site improvements include a fuel service canopy totaling 4,000 square feet;macadam and concrete paving; underground utilities;steel bollards; fencing around dumpsters;and underground storm water drainage. 11.00 Building and Other Improvements The subject is improved with a 1,155 square foot one story retail building constructed of: brick with block backup and glass panel exterior walls with a terra cotta shingle roof pent; flat metal deck with single membrane cover;and load bearing perimeter wall frame situated under a reinforced concrete frame canopy. Interior finish consists of quarry tile floors;acoustic tile ceilings with recessed fluorescent lighting fixtures;painted gypsum board interior partitioning;and one restroom facility accessed from the exterior of the store. 12.00 Summary of Building Calculations The subject building contains a gross building area of 1,155 square feet distributed as follows: Convenience Store 1,155 SF Car Wash 0 SF Total 1,155 SF 13.00.Physical Age of the Improvements The physical age of an improvement is the period of time between the date that construction of the improvement was completed and the date of appraisal. The subject was erected 1983. Because of the constant use of the improvements(open seven days a week and at least 18 hours a day)we estimate the composite physical age of the subject improvements to be 14 years on average.. Our calculation of the component physical age is detailed in the Cost Approach,and our estimates of the ages of the various components range from 3 years to 20 years. 14.00 Useful Life of the Improvements The total useful life of an improvement or component of an improvement is the estimated period of time over which the improvement or component can be expected to survive or endure(whether or not there is a market demand for the improvement)in the context of safe habitation. The remaining useful life of an improvement is the estimated future period of time as of the date of appraisal over which an improvement can reasonably be expected to survive or endure in the context of safe habitation. Our estimate of the total useful life of each component of the subject improvements is detailed in the Cost Approach,and our estimates of the total useful lives of the various components range from 5 years to 40 years. 15.00 Potential Environmental Concerns The subject is presently utilized as a convenience store, which dispenses petroleum products. The current occupancy of the subject would not suggest any particular Page A-6 environmental concern beyond the obvious concerns over the potential spill of petroleum products from the dispensers above ground and the potential leaks of petroleum products from tanks and pipes below ground. Our inspection of the subject does not suggest any specifically visible environmental problem. However, this report should not be relied upon as the basis for an evaluation of the environmental risks associated with the property. Only a detailed report completed by a competent environmental engineer can directly and completely address the total range of environmental issues actually impacting upon the subject property. 16.00 Quality of the Improvements Quality of construction is reflected by the extent to which materials utilized in the subject improvements conform to code requirements,and the extent to which architectural features,design,and ornamentation are present in the workmanship of the improvements. We rate the overall quality of the subject construction to be average. 17.00 Maintenance of the Improvements Taking into account the pattern of routine maintenance of the interior and exterior building components and site improvements and the consistency with which capital improvements have been completed,we rate the overall level of maintenance to be average,and the appearance of the property is on par with current standards. 18.00 Condition of the Improvements Taking into account the quality of construction,the level of maintenance,and the observed condition of the major components of the subject improvements,we rate the overall physical condition of the subject as average. 19.00 Functional Characteristics of the Improvements The term functional utility refers to the ability of a facility to be useful and to meet perceived needs at a given time. Utility and adaptability must be judged in light of the standards of users who make-up the market for facilities like the subject. Elements of construction that detract from the functional utility of a facility originate from the absence of a component which users normally expect to be present;from the presence of a deficient, inefficient,or outdated component; from the presence of a superadequate component;and/or from an inharmonious blending of components within a facility. The features of a functional convenience store are continually evolving,however,a convenience store should have at least one restroom facility;a discreet area for employees to work and break;ample room for retail display and retail services; and a canopy over at least the fuel dispensing areas. Based upon these standards,we rate the subject to be less than adequate due to the access to the restroom on the exterior of the building. 20.00 Effective Economic Age and Remaining Economic Life of the Improvements The estimate of total economic life of a facility reflects not only the period of time over which the subject facility will only physically endure,but also incorporates the period of time over which it can reasonably be expected to compete for users and takes into account functional considerations and market conditions,not just physical characteristics of the improvements. A total economic life of 20 years can be expected for facilities like the subject in its locale. We estimate the remaining economic life of the subject improvements to be 6 years, indicating an effective economic age of the subject improvements of 14 years. 21.00 Highest and Best Use After considering all of the potential uses to which the subject is legally and physically adaptable,it is our opinion that if the subject were a vacant tract of land as of the date of appraisal,commercial development in accordance with the prevailing land use controls would represent its highest and best use. As presently improved,commercial utilization represents the most profitable, likely,and available use to which the property can be put. 22.00 Method of Valuation In this analysis the traditional approaches to value have been considered and the Cost Approach has been given the greatest weight. 23.00 Sales Comparison Approach Most operating convenience stores sell as a business enterprise; and the price includes value attributable not only to the real estate,but to the personal property and intangible asserts as well. While allocations are in some instance made by either party to the transaction,the allocations seldom result in a reliable indication of the value of the real estate. Page A-7 A further problem associated with convenience store transactions is they frequently occur in bulk transactions. The price for the bulk transfer is normally attributable to the entire transaction. While allocations to the transaction are possible,the fact that neither party agrees to a specific price to any one of the discrete properties in the transaction limits the applicability of the transaction as a whole. 24.00 Income Approach The Income Approach is affected by the same limitations as the Sales Comparison Approach. Because we are not aware of any transactions involving the lease of land,building and site improvements exclusive of the pumps and the revenues developed by the gallonage charges,we have not developed a value conclusion by the Income Approach. 25.00 Cost Approach The Cost Approach provides a value indication by adding the value of the land to the depreciated cost of the improvements. The initial step in the Cost Approach is to estimate the market value of the land assumed to be vacant. The analysis of sales of reasonably similar land parcels provides empirical data on which observations and conclusions about the subject land can be made. The commonly accepted unit of comparison in the valuation of commercial land is the selling price per acre of land or the selling price per square foot of land. The sales selected for direct comparison to the subject contain some features that are not identical to the subject. Adjustments have been made leading to an indication.of the price at which the subject land could be expected to sell. In this analysis,all relevant adjustment factors were considered,including: 1. Property rights conveyed. 2. Financing terms and/or the cash equivalency of the price attributable to the land. 3. Conditions of sale. 4. The effect of the passage of time on selling prices and upon the relative availability of competing properties. 5. Nature of surrounding development. 6. Physical features such as frontage,shape,depth,access,topography, availability of public utilities, etc. 7. Uses permitted by zoning and other property use controls. 8. Relative size. 9. Special considerations such as wetlands,tidal lands,steep slope considerations,etc. Numerous sales of vacant land were investigated,and the sales considered to be the most significant transactions follow. Page A-8 LAND SALE NO. 1 255 WEAVER PARK ROAD CITY OF LONGMONT BOULDER COUNTY,CO DATE OF SALE: November 21,2001 IDENTIFICATION: 1315023-26-001 DEED BOOK: 222 PAGE: 2058 CONSIDERATION: $257,200 GRANTOR: Weibel Family LLP GRANTEE: Coyote Run at Silver Creek LLC LAND AREA: 57,064 square feet BUILDING AREA: None. ZONING: M-1 USE AFTER SALE: Hold for commercial development. LAND FEATURES: This irregularly shaped corner parcel has 181'frontage on the southeast side of Weaver Park Road and approximately 333'frontage on the northeast side of E. Rogers Road. Frontage of the tract is generally at the grade of both streets.and the topography of the parcel is flat. Public water, sanitary sewer,storm sewer, electric,and gas lines were available for connection at the time of sale. UNADJUSTED BASE PRICE: $4.51 per square foot. INITIAL ADJUSTMENTS: Property Rights 1.00 factor Financing/Cash Equivalency 1.00 factor Conditions of Sale 1.00 factor Market Conditions 1.00 factor Total Initial Adjustment: 1.00 factor ADJUSTED BASE PRICE: $4.51 per square foot. FINAL ADJUSTMENTS: Location -20%adjustment Relative Size +5%adjustment Physical Features 0%adjustment Utility Service 0%adjustment Zoning -5%adjustment Other Features 0%adjustment Total Final Adjustment: -20%adjustment ADJUSTED BASE PRICE: $3.60 per square foot. Page A-9 LAND SALE NO.2 421 S.PIERCE AVENUE CITY OF LOUISVILLE BOULDER COUNTY,CO DATE OF SALE: May 2,2002 IDENTIFICATION: 1575160-03-017 DEED BOOK: 228 PAGE: 3584 CONSIDERATION: $245,000 GRANTOR: Robert Leman GRANTEE: Scott A. Knuth LAND AREA: 49,632 square feet BUILDING AREA: None. ZONING: I USE AFTER SALE: Planned for development of an 8,600 square foot industriaUservice building. LAND FEATURES: This irregularly shaped interior parcel has 176'frontage on the west side of S. Pierce Avenue. Frontage of the tract is generally at street grade,and the topography of the parcel is flat. Public water,sanitary sewer,storm sewer, • electric,and gas lines were available for connection at the time of sale. UNADJUSTED BASE PRICE: $4.94 per square foot. INITIAL ADJUSTMENTS: Property Rights 1.00 factor Financing/Cash Equivalency 1.00 factor Conditions of Sale 1.00 factor Market Conditions 1.00 factor Total Initial Adjustment: 1.00 factor ADJUSTED BASE PRICE: $4.94 per square foot. FINAL ADJUSTMENTS: Location -25%adjustment Relative Size 0%adjustment Physical Features +5%adjustment Utility Service 0%adjustment Zoning -10%adjustment Other Features 0%adjustment Total Final Adjustment: -30%adjustment ADJUSTED BASE PRICE: $3.47 per square foot. Page A-10 LAND SALE NO.3 1401 HORIZON AVENUE CITY OF LAFAYETTE BOULDER COUNTY,CO DATE OF SALE: December 6, 2000 IDENTIFICATION: 1575120-06-005 DEED BOOK: 210 PAGE: 1292 CONSIDERATION: $247,000 GRANTOR: Vista Business Park,LLC GRANTEE: D&C Colorado,LLC LAND AREA: 72,676 square feet BUILDING AREA: None. ZONING: M-1 USE AFTER SALE: Developed with an industrial building. LAND FEATURES:. This irregularly shaped corner parcel has frontage on the southwest side of Horizon Avenue and frontage on the southeast side of Panorama Point. Frontage of the tract is generally at the grade of both streets,and the topography of the parcel is mildly sloping. Public water,sanitary sewer, storm sewer,electric,and gas lines were available for connection at the time of sale. UNADJUSTED BASE PRICE: $3.40 per square foot. INITIAL ADJUSTMENTS: Property Rights 1.00 factor Financing/Cash Equivalency 1.00 factor Conditions of Sale 0.90 factor Market Conditions 1.05 factor Total Initial Adjustment: 0.95 factor ADJUSTED BASE PRICE: $3.23 per square foot. FINAL ADJUSTMENTS: Location -5%adjustment Relative Size +15%adjustment Physical Features +5%adjustment Utility Service 0%adjustment Zoning -5%adjustment Other Features 0%adjustment Total Final Adjustment: +10%adjustment ADJUSTED BASE PRICE: $3.55 per square foot. Page A-II To account for the relevant differences that exist between the subject and each of the sales,appropriate adjustments have been made. In this analysis, adjustments have been made to each sale in two phases. First,each sale has been adjusted as applicable for property rights conveyed, for financing and/or cash equivalency considerations,for any unusual conditions of sale affecting price,and for the effect of time, if any, on selling prices and upon the relative availability of competing properties. These adjustments are cumulative in nature,have been expressed on a factor basis,and have been multiplied by one another to arrive at an adjusted base price for each sale. The second phase of the adjustment process is to deal with property characteristics that are different between the subject property and each sale. These adjustments are serial in nature, and have been summed. Subsequent to adjustment,unit selling prices of the sales range from$3.47 per square foot to $3.60 per square foot. TRANSACTION ADJUSTED UNIT SELLING PRICE Land Sale No. 1 $3.60 per square foot Land Sale No. 2 $3.47 per square foot Land Sale No. 3 $3.55 per square foot After taking into consideration all of the dissimilar features between the sales analyzed and the subject property, it is our opinion that the indicated value of the subject land by this approach is$3.50 per square foot. Multiplying the subject's 39,852 square feet of land area by$3.50 per square foot reflects a value of$139,482, which we have rounded upward to$140,000. Estimate of Cost New The next step in the Cost Approach is to estimate the cost new to rebuild the subject improvements;and the traditional techniques are either to estimate the cost to reproduce the improvements or to estimate the cost to replace the improvements. Reproduction cost is the estimated cost to construct,as of the date of the appraisal, an exact duplicate or replica of the improvements being appraised using the same materials,construction standards,design layout,and quality of workmanship,and embodying all the subject deficiencies,superadequacies,and obsolescence. Replacement cost,on the other hand, is the estimated cost to construct,as of the date of the appraisal, improve- ments with utility equivalent to the improvements being appraised using modem materials and current standards, design,and layout. The replacement cost technique traditionally requires that the structure be redesigned or reconfigured to correct some or all elements of functional obsolescence. In essence,this technique assumes hypothetical physical improvements which may be substantially different from the actual subject improvements. In the strictest sense a pure replacement cost study entails the designing of improvements to replace the subject that do not contain the same features of inadequacy,superadequacy,irregularity,etc. present in the subject improvements. Furthermore,the replacement model is not intended to look like the subject and does not necessarily have to be constructed of the same components as the subject. Buyers,sellers,lenders,assessors,and appraisers infrequently resolve the question of estimating the cost of reconstruction by resorting to detailed,time consuming,expensive, unit price studies or replacement facility studies. Ironically,the replacement facility must be costed by estimating the reproduction cost new of the replacement facility. Further,a reproduction cost estimate involves an impractical inventory of every minute component installed at the subject,a price for every hour of labor, etc. Accordingly,we have elected to utilize what we will refer to as a reconstruction cost study. The costs new that we have estimated allow for certain latitude commonplace in appraisal practice and are based upon a standardized market oriented cost data base. We have carefully estimated the cost to rebuild the subject improvements reflecting as closely as possible the same materials utilized in the subject,and in the same shape and configuration as the existing improvements. Our estimate reflects costs to install existing components that Page A-12 may be inadequate or superadequate by current standards,and existing features that may be inefficient or unde- sirable in the current marketplace; and it therefore more closely resembles a reproduction cost estimate than a replacement cost estimate. To estimate the cost new of the subject improvements,we have made reference to RS Means Assembly Cost Data for 2003 and RS Means Building Construction Cost Data for 2003 published by RS Means Company and are of the opinion that the existing improvements could be constructed as of the appraisal date for$356,500,or the equivalent of 1,155 square feet of gross building area at$308.66 per square foot of building area. This estimate includes all site improvements such as parking areas,landscaping,walkways,building appurtenances and features,etc.;and all costs have been adjusted to the date of valuation. Estimate of Depreciation Accrued depreciation is the loss in utility,as of the appraisal date, experienced by the improvements in comparison with the utility they would have had as new improvements that represent the highest and best use of the site,that possess no elements of functional obsolescence,and that are not impacted by external obsolescence. Utility is an economic concept,and the amount of diminished utility measured represents the deduction from cost new that a prudent, informed purchaser would make in arriving at the price to be paid for the subject as of the appraisal date. Depreciation is normally classified into the categories of physical deterioration,functional obsolescence,and external obsolescence;and the factors creating the loss in value are also sometimes classified as being either curable or incurable. External obsolescence is generally classified as being incurable only, because the cure is normally beyond the control of the property owner. While most elements of deterioration or inadequacy can technologically be corrected,the test of curability is whether the cost of fixing or curing of the condition will result in an equal or greater value increase. Physical deterioration is the undesirable condition that results from the natural processes of aging, use,stress, and exposure to the elements;and can be classified as curable or incurable. Items of deferred maintenance are generally classified as curable physical deterioration. The measure of this element of deterioration is the cost of restoring each item to new or reasonably new condition. Functional obsolescence is the adverse effect on(the value of)an asset resulting from shortcomings in design or changes in standards over time that make some aspect of the structure,material,or design unacceptable by current standards. Functional obsolescence is classified into three potential groups(each of which may be either curable or incurable): a deficiency requiring an addition;a deficiency requiring substitution or modernization; and/or a superadequacy. External obsolescence is the negative influence on value caused by locational and/or economic circumstances which adversely affect the market demand for the property. The techniques for measuring accrued depreciation are: (1)the observed condition-breakdown technique; (2) the overall age-life technique; and(3)the market extraction technique. We have selected the observed condition-breakdown technique and the overall age-life basis technique. The overall age-life technique involves estimating the effective economic age of the improvements by deducting remaining economic life from total economic life. Effective economic age is then expressed as a percentage of total economic life. This percentage is then applied to the cost new estimate to obtain a figure representing the lump sum deduction for accrued depreciation. While this method does not provide for an individual breakdown of physical deterioration,functional obsolescence,or external obsolescence,it nonetheless provides a summary estimate of total depreciation affecting the improvements under analysis. On the following two pages are summations of our calculations and assumptions utilized in the development of our conclusion by the Cost Approach by the observed condition-breakdown technique. We have not made any deductions for functional obsolescence or external obsolescence, and our sole deduction for depreciation of the improvements is physical deterioration. 2003 AGE-LIFE WORKSHEET Page A-13 State CO Cost New $356,500 $308.66/sf County WELD Accrued Depreciation $249,100 $215.67/sf Municipality CITY OF GREELEY Depreciated Cost New $107,400 $92.99/sf Street 2720 35TH AVENUE Improvement Assessment $410,517 $355.43/sf Tax ID Number R2396786 Percent Good 30% Store No. 641 Percent Depreciated 70% Total Building Area 1,155 sf Total Economic Life 20 years Year of Construction 1983 Remaining Economic Life 6 years Year of Renovation 1994 Effective Age 14 years Tax Year 2003 Observed Useful Observed Useful COST COMPONENTS Age Life COST COMPONENTS Age Life 1.0 FOUNDATION 10.0 FIRE PROTECTION Standard Foundations r` s r el. 40 Sprinklersrs' 20 2.0 SUBSTRUCTURE 11.0 ELECTRICAL Concrete Slab on Grade ,J,„,„,,___;..0 40 Electrical Service/Distribution tip; 25 Lighting&Branch Wiring ' 20 3.0 SUPERSTRUCTURE Communications&Security ,,tt.,,,.. 20 Columns&Beams Structural Walls 12.00 SITE WORK Roof Construction = `e 40 Clearing the Site . We:e: 40 Excavation . ifyr 40 4.0 EXTERIOR CLOSURE Utilities Exterior Walls '.ar a.,: 40 Excavation - ati 40 Exterior Doors ;g 15 Water Distribution 40 Exterior Windows 20 Sewer i �, 40 Gas gar;, 40 5.0 ROOFING Electric r 4, 40 Roof Coverings *'"icy 15 Paving 20 Site Drainage 6.0 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION Excavation a. 40 Partitions 'e �-" 15 Piping :�.1;iY 40 Interior Doors €s"" 15 Bollards Y0 Wall Finishes c 5 Fencing - r4 20 Floor Finishes t.,. 15 Ceiling Finish .:t 15 13.0 CANOPY 7.0 CONVEYING Foundation/Footings Cs 40 Columnar Frame 'c 25 8.0 PLUMBING Canopy Structure % 25 Plumbing Fixtures �j 20 Canopy Cover .` 15 Domestic Water Distribution '"4i 20 Electric Service fr 15 Rain Water Drainage 20 Lighting '¢ 15 Drains -al 15 9.0 HVAC Canopy Decoration 'f 3 - 10 Energy Supply Columnar Decoration > i 25 Heat Generating Systems Cooling Generating Systems ,'„v If 20 14.0 CARWASH :x secs 20 Terminal&Package Units Other HVAC Sys.&Equipment COST ANALYSIS Page A-14 AS OF JANUARY 1, 2003 STORE NUMBER 641 2720 35TH AVENUE CITY OF GREELEY WELD COUNTY, CO TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER R2396786 PERCENT ACCRUED DEPRECIATED COST NEW DEPRECIATION DEPRECIATION COST COST COMPONENTS 1.0 FOUNDATION $1,600 50.00% $800 $800 2.0 SUBSTRUCTURE $5,200 50.00% $2,600 $2,600 3.0 SUPERSTRUCTURE $6,900 50.00% $3,500 $3,400 4.0 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $46,500 58.56% $27,200 $19,300 5.0 ROOFING $8,000 66.67% $5,300 $2,700 6.0 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $24,600 65.39% $16,100 $8,500 7.0 CONVEYING $0 0.00% $0 $0 8.0 PLUMBING $8,800 75.00% $6,600 $2,200 9.0 HVAC $9,300 75.00% $7,000 $2,300 10.0 FIRE PROTECTION $0 0.00% $0 $0 11.0 ELECTRICAL $17,900 75.77% $13,600 $4,300 12.0 SITEWORK $109,200 69.72% $76,100 $33,100 13.0 CANOPY $118,500 76.17% $90,300 $28,200 14.0 CAR WASH $0 0.00% $0 $0 TOTAL $356,500 $249,100 $107,400 Percent Good 30% Percent Depreciated 70% Total Economic Life 20 years Remaining Economic Life 6 years Effective Age 14 years Page A-15 As summarized above,physical deterioration has been deducted from each component. Based upon our personal inspection of the property we observed the age,quality and condition of each component and estimated an effective physical age and physical life of each component. The age and life of each component is identified on our worksheet. The reproduction cost new is estimated to be$356,500,the accrued depreciation is estimated to be$249,100 and the physically depreciated cost new is estimated to be$107,400 by the observed condition- breakdown technique. A second method to estimate depreciation is the overall age-life basis technique. A facility of the subject's size, quality of construction,and mode of utilization could be expected to have a total economic life of 20 years when new if it were to represent the optimum utilization of the land it occupied(and if impacted by no functional obsolescence or external obsolescence). We estimate the subject improvements to have a remaining economic life of 6 years. By subtracting the estimated 6 year remaining economic life of the subject improvements from the potential total economic life,an effective economic age of 14 years is indicated for the subject improvements. Dividing a 14 year effective economic age by a 20 year total economic life indicates total accrued depreciation of 70%,or$249,550. Subtracting accrued depreciation from cost new results in a depreciated cost new of the improvements of$106,950,which we have rounded to$110,000. To restate,the estimate of accrued depreciation reflects not only the physical deterioration resulting from use and exposure to the elements but also loss in value due to functional and external factors(which are nominal at the subject). Taking into account both techniques of estimating depreciation,we have added land value as estimated above to the depreciated cost of the improvements as follows: Land Value $140,000 Cost New of the Improvements $356,500 Less: Accumulated Depreciation $246,500 Depreciated Cost of the Improvements $110,000 'Total Value Indication Via the $250,000 Overall Age-Life Technique 26.00 Final Estimate of Market Value After considering all of the facts and circumstances in connection with the subject property,we estimate its market value as of January 1,2003 to be: -TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS- ($250,000) The property has been valued as a whole,but if an allocation between the land and improvements is desired,the following is suggested: Land $140,000 (Equivalent to 39,852 square feet at an average of$3.51 per square foot). Improvements $110,000 (Equivalent to 1,155 square feet of gross building area at$95.24 per square foot). Total $250,000 (Equivalent to 1,155 square feet of gross building area including the land at$216.45 per square foot). Page A-16 The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999,known as The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,has been interpreted to include real estate appraisers as financial institutions in certain instances. Accordingly,it is necessary for us to disclose our policies and practices regarding nonpublic personal and financial information. While we may be provided with or we may collect various personal information or various financial information in the course of providing appraisal services,we treat this information as confidential. We do not share, sell, publish,refer,communicate,transfer or disclose any information about our customers or clients to any related entities of Coyle,Lynch&Company or to any unrelated entities of Coyle,Lynch&Company. We have prepared the report subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions: Information,estimates,and data have been obtained from sources considered reliable,and are believed to be true and correct. Possession of the report does not carry with it the right of publication. No part of the report shall be disseminated to the public without our prior approval. The report is to be used in whole and not in part. No part of it shall be used in conjunction with any other report. No responsibility is assumed for matters which are of a technical engineering,or of a legal nature. Good title is assumed,and management is presumed to be competent. Except as specifically disclosed in the body of the report,we have not been requested to make an investigation of,nor have we been supplied with specific information conceming the presence, if any, of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances used or stored during the construction,maintenance, operation,or occupancy of the subject by the current and/or former occupants and/or owners of the subject. Unless specifically disclosed to us,and discussed in the body of the report,our value estimate is based on the premise that the subject is free of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances;or if affected by hazardous or potentially hazardous substances those substances have been or will be removed by the current owner and/or occupant,and an approved cleanup plan has resulted or will result in a correction of the deficiencies. Sketches,exhibits,and photographs in this report are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property only. No survey of the property has been made by the appraiser. This report represents the independent opinion of the appraiser with the sole compensation to the appraiser and to the firm being a professional fee. We certify to the best of our knowledge and belief that: The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses,opinions,and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions,and are our personal,professional analyses,opinions,and conclusions. We have no present or prospective interest in the subject,and we have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. Our compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client,the amount of the value estimate,the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. Page A-17 As of the date of this report,John J.Coyle 3rd,MAI,CRE has completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to peer review by its duly authorized representatives. We have made a personal inspection of the subject,and have personally prepared the analyses and formed the opinions presented in this report without significant professional assistance from any other person. The acceptance of this assignment was not conditioned upon our reporting a specific(dictated)value; nor was the acceptance of the assignment conditioned upon our concluding a requested minimum value or maximum value;nor was the acceptance of the assignment predicated in any way upon the approval, extension,or modification of an existing or pending loan for which the subject real estate is or may be pledged as collateral. As part of our inspection it was not possible to personally observe conditions beneath the soil,hidden structural components,and mechanical components within the walls and under the floors of the improvements. Unless specifically identified to the contrary in the body of the report,all mechanical components are assumed to be in operating condition and commensurate with the condition of the balance of the improvements. This appraisal report has been prepared for your exclusive use. Possession of the report by any party does not obligate us to present testimony concerning the information,analysis,or conclusions contained in the report without our prior written consent. The information,analysis,and conclusions contained herein may not be used by or relied upon by any other party in whole or in part without our prior written consent; and you are not authorized to provide our original report or copies of our report to any other party in whole or in part without our prior written consent. Cordially, John J. e 3'd, AI,CRE President PA General Appraiser#GA-000397-L JOB NO.05-431 OWNER: Diamond Shamrock Stations Inc C2 Page B-1 ADDENDUM Page B-2 F-S i61' Y,dd S R ` ,s" Y t 5 � si4 ii' y.,v. 7 i •� 1 LOOKING SOUTHEAST AT THE SUBJECT IMPROVEMENTS—STORE NO.641. Ilill r di/'tawa a, Nom , k, 4 ia, LOOKING NORTHEAST AT THE SUBJECT IMPROVEMENTS—STORE NO. 641. Page B-3 y. ' t ' b ,e. I WI i * " 'vim f., �.:. Itt {p . 1 .`#' 4.4 t- Y °fir ' 1,►. e"'# 1 le., N. m x, #� m or- `' i ,iiis # it 4# lii ! i r ' tz tiiii3 . 7 . 4 • i At` i \II k's r i! +. I My , • - . , 's•'" ,{ s+ M MP in arInif o'" 1 .,.#0. ;r . e • r a "T '- a _ �._ "' 43RD AVE n, I21HSTREET RD ST W 12TH STREET RD W 12TH STREET RD \N 12TH a '., Wt2TH STREET DR ni -, x A O Z a 13TH ST q > W T Wia y+'y m 14THS '^ 747WST RST YP `3 c•1 in D z L. }' y m J j 9 F in 1 a n 40TH AVE . ^ f( ' c. ,- > a 3:. h`1�e sCapYaa° a z '�p� 1fiTH S �4 •� Yv m G a a t /*/), u fi9m , ��4pr 44.. S$.' PADD4i �2)43RD AVE v +� y 2J 5t c m S+. PJ �4 Rr N c. 42ND PVE7NEC7 m WiOTH ST y?Q1'ft� F n •V•C`t•PJ�&to mar' 16TH ST o W 16TH STREET RD W 16TH STREET LN FRONTIER RD '?tif A 19 20TH AVE , p�P m m R9N OP- R' m �� y 19TH ST a PINECREST LN 44TH AVENUE CT GEWEW �' ' 5 3 Z < m 19THSTW For 39TH AVE RD a 19TH ST a �NtNS z �URINSTw Q W19TH STREET LN ^� 5 l' ,,A W20TH STREET RD �A _ tPc,� N 20TH ST IST Y �TM A� ��--pp 20TH STREET RD 'r# y '� \St S( W21ST ST AA-ni s `�, .--; 0Ve15 SS 215151 tr ES.z' `N1 W23RD ST i �'�` < a� 21ST AVE F� R ` <9TH '( a a W7jSTST m z .� Q `n S j11•Ly05 c m n p Jf m d` sy 9 MDUNTAIR 9L` y !)P. } 45TH AVE -n. LV j PANORAMA DR N At PQ a' < 5- Ca 0 W CC a .P'Pe * & Ww a z 3 22ND ST e O m 5 rqa y & a W2aTH ST 1 tr. '15- Q" 24TH ST = D m n ' z ,- �, 24TH ST n q 97HAVE 1 -' W24THST a PARKELN 9Lm 7N Sr .pt ,yam 1-- 'A r x 9�Ry� �O 25TH ST W 26TH Si "� uci.. �JRJ.. <_' 757}7 ST W 2720 35Th Avenuel4 #' o W W277RF �_ " AT m < 26TH ST A S a sa r yu i 29TH ST*, < < <A z < �w a v !n O a vi p y m _J 30TH S7 h > MAVERICK LNU 1.a 51 i O 315i ST 31ST ST Vti ek O U K O�i q.O N _ a. v ;NN m Q < 0v� a 0 D z azz �[ n z t `5 0 z i i EEg4 c � A i, Lu TL T m mm �m a 2 0 0 T(.3)a o rfio,v �L U S" 4 c y9 -n. „, WA, o n'< < ym a HORSE CT <w Gto TA �P y �u mm m o mS A a ps n-+ MONTEREY BAY -Lip,ry W 9 0,1 �' " GOLD RUSH LT A CHESAPEAKE BAY ANCHOR DR t,- ,H2 O\ a MILAN ST 36TH ST to H NAPLES5T n ai ( Sa' m ,�ARUSO ST p�' r Np14TEG08AY 4'ET�rg v m z i 5 y ' m y , m UN RD ' 3 y UN RD A > No o 2mF P�q o ms w KIOWA DR P z HAWK DR - 2 A_ ( Location Map ..t P /IDLt) by"' / S�BoNLINE - The Site To Do Business V - -- - POWER U Page B-5 Date: 03/06/06 tat: 40.393986 Long: -104.734771 Current Geography Selection: (1 Selected) 1 mile radius: 2720 35TH AVE, GREELEY, CO City: Greeley city Pop: 91,601 80634 * County: Weld County Pop: 230,756 Current Index Base: Entire US Zip: 80634 Pop: 51,373 Demographic Detail Summary Report Population Demographics Percent Change 1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 to 2005 to Census Census Estimate Projection 2000 2010 Total Population 6,622 7,885 10,597 12,825 19.1% 21.0% Population Density 2,108.0 2,509.9 3,373.1 4,082.4 19.1% 21.0% (Pop/Sq Mi) Total Households 2,642 3,269 4,555 5,658 23.7% 24.2% Population by Gender: Male 3,144 47.5% 3,754 47.6°/o 5,111 48.2% 6,220 48.5% 19.4% 21.7% Female 3,478 52.5% 4,131 52.4% 5,486 51.8% 6,605 51.5% 18.8% 20.4% Population by Race/Ethnicity Percent Change 1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 to 2005 to Census Census Estimate Projection 2000 2010 White 6,259 94.5% 6,972 88..4% 9,328 88.0% 11,404 88.9% 11.4% 22.3% Black 29 0.4% 84 1.1% 108 1.0°/o 134 1.0% 186.9°k 23.6% American Indian or 16 0.3% 35 0.4% 48 0.5% 59 0.5% 115.9% 22.8% Alaska Native Asian 75 1.1% 113 1.4% 163 1.5% 205 1.6% 51.1% 25.5% Some Other Race 243 3.7% 467 5.9% 655 6.2% 718 5.6% 92.2% 9.5% Two or More Races 214 2.7% 295 2.8% 307 2.4% 4.1% Hispanic Ethnicity 579 8.7% 1,108 14.1% 1,839 17.4% 2,505 19.5% 91.3% 36.2% Not Hispanic or Latino 6,043 91.3°/o 6,777 86.0% 8,758 82.7% 10,321 80.5% 12.1% 17.8% Population by Age Percent Change 1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 to 2005 to Census Census Estimate Projection 2000 2010 0 to 4 411 6.2% 481 6.1% 678 6.4% 823 6.4% 16.8% 21.5% 5 to 14 1,084 16.4% 1,038 13.2% 1,340 12.6% 1,580 12.3% -4.2% 17.9% 15 to 19 483 7.3% 618 7.8% 742 7.0% 836 6.5°/o 28.0% 12.6% 20 to 24 702 10.6% 964 12.2% 1,289 12.2% 1,339 10.4% 37.3% 3.9% 25 to 34 1,013 15.3% 1,023 13.0% 1,663 15.7% 2,065 16.1% 0.9% 24.2°/o 35 to 44 1,242 18.8% 1,104 14.0% 1,368 12.9% 1,651 12.9% -11.1% 20.7% 45 to 54 655 9.9% 1,141 14.5°/o 1,543 14.6% 1,871 14.6% 74.2% 21.3% 55 to 64 438 6.6°k 532 8.0% 928 8.8% 1,304 10.2% 44.3% 40.5% 65 to 74 339 5.1% 460 5.8% 554 5.2°/o 770 6.0% 35.5% 38.9% 75 to 84 209 3.2% 340 4.3% 381 3.6% 464 3.6% 62.6% 22.0% 85t 45 0.7% 85 1.1% 112 1.1% 122 1.0% 87.1% 8.7% Median Age: Total Population 31.4 32.9 31.9 33.7 Households by Income rage u-o Percent Change 1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 to 2005 to Census Census Estimate Projection 2000 2010 $0 - $15,000 666 25.2% 478 14.6% 599 13.2% 674 11.9% -28.2% 12.4% $15,000 - $24,999 436 16.5% 393 12.0% 472 10.4% 484 8.6% -10.0% 2.7% $25,000 - $34,999 402 15.2% 426 13.0% 478 10.5% 546 9.7% 5.8% 14.3% $35,000 - $49,999 443 16.5% 681 20.8% 922 20.2% 951 16.8% 53.9% 3.1% $50,000 - $74,999 479 18.1% 655 20.0% 961 21.1% 1,180 20.8% 136.1% 22.7% $75,000 - $99,999 124 4.7°k 330 10.1% 539 11.8°/a 808 14.3% 165.1% 50.0% $100,000 - $149,999 70 2.6% 201 6.2% 373 8.2% 652 11.5% 189.3% 74.9% $150,000 + 21 0.8% 105 3.2% 212 4.6% 363 6.4% 390.8% 71.3% ,Average Hhld Income $35,299 $52,374 $63,397 $69,212 48.4% 9.2% -Median Hhld Income $30,577 $41,872 $46,725 $52,509 36.9% 12.4% Per Capita Income $13,959 $21,710 $27,427 $30,810 55.5% 12.3% Employment and Business Percent Change 1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 to 2005 to Census Census Estimate Projection 2000 2010 Age 16 + Population 5,032 6,260 - 6,018 7,330 24.4% 21.8% In Labor Force 3,852 . 76.5% 4,453 71.1% 6,018 71.1% 7,330 71.2% 15.6% 21.8% Employed 3,770 97.9% 4,255 95.6% 5,676 94.3% 6,904 94.2% 12.9% 21.6% Unemployed 79 2.0% 187 4.2% 322 5.3% 401 5.5% 138.4% 24.6% In Armed Forces 0 0.0% 11 0.2% 20 0.2% 25 0.2% N/A 22.2% Not In Labor Force 1,180 23.4% 1,807 28.9% 2,421 28.6% 2,934 28.5% 53.2% 21.2% Number of Employees. 3,088 (Daytime Pop) 'Number of 295 Establishments Emp in Blue Collar Occupations 1,518 35.7% Emp in White Collar 2,738 64.3% Occupations Housing Units Percent Change 1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 to 2005 to Census Census Estimate Projection 2000 2010 Total Housing Units 2,727 3,391 4,662 5,763 24.4% 23.6% Owner Occupied 1,468 53.8% 1,856 54.7% 2,685 57.6% 3,368 58.4% 26.4% 25.4% Renter Occupied 1,174 43.1% 1,412 41.6% 1,870 40.1% 2,290 39.7% 20.3% 22.4% Vacant 85 3.1% 123 3.6% 107 2.3% 106 1.8% 44.5% -1.2% Vehicles Available Percent Change 1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 to 2005 to Census Census Estimate Projection 2000 2010 Average Vehicles Per 1.80 1.80 2.00 2.50 -1.4% 28.8% Household 0 Vehicles Available 155 5.3% 213 6.5% 260 5.7% 290 5.1% 38.0% 11.5% 1 Vehicle Available 825 28.2% 946 29.0% 1,229 27.0% 1,475 26.1% 14.7% 20.0% 2+ Vehicles 1,951 66.6% 2,109 64.5% 3,066 67.30/0 3,892 68.8% 8.1% 27.0% Available rage is-i Marital Status Percent Change 1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 to 2005 to Census Census Estimate Projection 2000 2010 Age 15+ Population 5,128 6,367 8,579 10,422 24.2% 21.5% Married, Spouse 2,949 57,5% 3,413 53.6% 4,622 53.9% 5,440 52.2% 15.7% 17.7% Present Married, Spouse 56 1.1% 141 2.2% 218 2.6% 381 3.6% 151.7% 74.3% Absent Divorced 450 8.8% 664 10.4% 865 10.10/0 1,087 10.40/0 47.5% 25.7% Widowed 246 4.8% 289 4.50/0 359 4.2% 422 4.0% 17.5% 17.6% Never Married 1,426 27.8% 1,860 29.2% 2,510 29.3% 3,088 29.6% 30.4% 23.0% Educational Attainment Percent Change 1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 to 2005 to Census Census Estimate Projection 2000 2010 Age 25+ Population 3,943 4,784 6,548 8,253 21.3% 3.8% Grade K - 8 217 5.5% 131 2.7% 210 3.2% 264 3.2% -39.6% 25.8% Grade 9 - 12 264 6.7% 308 6.4% 432 6.6% 521 6.3% 16.4% 20.8% High School 693 17.6% 974 20.4% 1,285 19.6% 1,654 20.0% 40.6% 2-8.7% Graduate Some College, No 1,012 25.7% 1,277 26.7% 1,662. 25.4% 1,883 22.8% 26.1% 13.3%. Degree Associates Degree 294 7.5% 447 . 9.3% 594 9.1% 755 9.2% 52.1% 27.0% Bachelor's Degree 813 20.6% 982 20.50/0 1,345 20.5% 1,732 21.0% 20.7% 28.8% Graduate Degree 649 16.4% 637 13.3% 1,021 15.60/0 1,444 17.5% -1.8% 41.5% No Schooling Completed 29 0.6% .'I` Reports requiring summarization use only the largest Radius or Drive Time around each center point to calculate results. Current year data is for the year 2005, 5 year projected data is for the year 2010. Demographic data © 2005 by Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions. Crime data © 2005 by Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions. The retail centers data used in this site is licensed by National Research Bureau (NRB). Traffic Count data © 2005 by GDT. Properties data © 2005 by Property& Portfolio Research (PPR) Inc. and Dodge Pipeline All rights reserved. The information presented herein, while not guaranteed, was obtained from sources we believe to be reliable. Neither STDB, Inc. nor the CCIM Institute assumes any liability for errors or omissions. th ,�,STDBibNLINE sRC This site is brought to you by STDB, Inc.. Powered by SRC, LLC. © 2005 All Rights Reserved. Page B-ti • PROFESSIONAL PROFILE JOHN J.COYLE 3RD,MAI,CRE PRESENT POSITION: Director of Real Estate Valuation of Corporate Valuation Advisors; Director of the Regional Valuation Department and President of Coyle, Lynch&Company;President of Coyle Real Estate Company; and President of Delaware Valley Realty Advisors,Inc. CERTIFICATION: Mr. Coyle is a licensed Reai Estate Broker(RM-024731-A)in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;and a Certified General Appraiser in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania(#GA-397L); in the State of New Jersey(#RG-1630); in the State of Delaware(#X10000145); in the State of New York(#46000018883)and in the State of Texas(TX-1335204- G). In the recent past,Mr.Coyle has also received reciprocal practice certificates in Connecticut,Maryland,Virginia,North Carolina, Oklahoma,California,Georgia, and New Hampshire. Mr. Coyle has met the current educational requirements in each state in which he is certified. PAST EXPERIENCE: Mr. Coyle's previous positions include Vice President of Strategis Asset Valuation&Management Company(formerly Realty Appraisals Company);President of Northland Appraisal Company; and Staff Appraiser for Jackson Cross Company. PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES: Mr. Coyle is an MAI member and an SRA member of the Appraisal Institute(the merged entity of the former American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and the former Society of Real Estate Appraisers)and a member of the Counselors of Real Estate. Mr. Coyle is a Realtor Member of the Delaware Valley Association of Realtors. Mr. Coyle is a past President and Director of the Delaware County Association of Realtors and the Philadelphia Chapter of the Society of Real Estate Appraisers;served as District Governor of the Society of Real Estate Appraisers;and serves on the national Board of Directors of the Appraisal Institute. Mr.Coyle presently serves as a Director of the Delaware County Industrial Development Authority. PROPERTY TYPES EVALUATED: Since 1972,Mr.Coyle has applied his expertise to a wide range of valuation problems. Property types appraised include improved real and personal property assets in the broad classifications of industrial, residential,institutional,commercial,agricultural, and special purpose properties,and a diverse array of undeveloped acreage and developed land. Improved industrial facilities appraised include light,medium,and rage 13-y heavy duty manufacturing plants; laboratory facilities;processing plants; chemical plants;pilot plants;warehouses;flex buildings;research and development facilities;transportation terminals;food processing plants; landfills;quarries;power generating facilities; and waterfront terminal facilities. Improved residential property types appraised include single family dwellings;garden,mid-rise,and high rise apartment buildings; congregate care facilities;nursing homes;and continuing care retirement communities. Improved institutional properties appraised include hospitals;schools; churches; and parsonages. Improved commercial property types appraised include shopping centers; hotels and motels; office buildings; service stations;operations centers;car washes; convenience stores;golf courses; marinas; mobile home parks; and department stores. Improved agricultural properties appraised include farms;fisheries; orchards;ranches;and commercially operated agribusiness facilities. Special purpose properties appraised include railroad rights of way;natural resource tracts consisting of timberlands; water rights;and peat,coal,and limestone reserves;amusement parks; cemeteries;automobile dealerships;restaurants;bowling alleys;parking garages;pipelines;water distribution systems;sewage treatment plants; and various forms of environmentally contaminated properties. Property interests appraised include fee simple estates,leasehold estates, reversionary interests, life estates,leased fee estates,air rights, subsurface rights,and easements. EDUCATION: Mr.Coyle is a graduate of The American University with an MS in Real Estate and Urban Development Planning;and a graduate of Saint Joseph's University with a BS in Business Administration. He has also completed coursework in valuation and related topics presented by the Appraisal Institute,the Society of Office and Industrial Realtors,the American Society of Appraisers,the Center for Business Intelligence, the RS Means Company,and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT'S: Mr.Coyle has participated in assignments in 31 of the continental United States for private individuals,corporations,governmental agencies,law firms,and lending institutions in connection with the sale and acquisition of real estate;corporate dissolutions;mortgage financing;ad valorem, income,and estate tax litigation;bankruptcy proceedings;security offerings;condemnation matters;risk control issues;and portfolio management. EXPERT TESTIMONY: Mr. Coyle has been qualified as an expert in the valuation of real and/or personal property in the Court of Common Pleas in 28 of the 67 counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; in the Supreme Court of the State of New York;in the Tax Court of the State of New Jersey;and in various quasi-judicial proceedings before boards and panels throughout the geographic area he has served. 08/05 • note! 4 CLERK TO THE. BOARD PHONE (970)336.7215. Ext 4225 FAX: (370)352-0242 P. O.BOX 756 e GREELEY, COLORADO B 80632 COLORADO April 25,2006 Diamond Shamrock Stations Inc Ad Valorem Tax Department PO Box 690110 San Antonio TX 7826&0110 RE:SCHEDULE NUMBER 2396786 0959^.3300008 Dear Property Owner: On April 3.2006,the Board of Weld County Commissioners considered your petition forabateraeni or refund of taxes and denied same. Pursuant to Section 332-125(1), C.R.S.. you have the right to appeal this decision to the Stale Board or Assessment Appeals within thirty days. You may oblain the appropriate forms and instructions from the Board of Assessment Appeals, Department of Local Affairs, 1313 Sherman Street, Room 420, Denver,Colorado 80203_ Very truly yours,Adaa" analWarden. Clenc to the Board • ,. //k1:-48.7 / RECEDE ._ li r, /�ir.f' E Deputy Clerk to the Board APp 2 d COOS 841 °Seipp. CC: Assessor ar Christopher Roses RESOLUTION RE: ACTION OF THE BOARD CONCERNING PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES•DIAMOND SHAMROCK STATIONS,INC. (2396716) WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,Colorado,pursuant to Colorado statute and the W01d County Home Rule Charter, is veiled with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County,Colorado,and WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,State of Colorado,at a duty and lawfully ealedregular meeting held on the 27th day of March,2006,atwhich meeting there were present the following members: Chair M. J. Geile,and Commissioners Wiliam H.Jerke, Robert D.Masden,and Glenn Wad.with Commissioner David E. Long being excused, and WHEREAS, at said meeting on March 77,2006,the Board of County Commissioners deemed it adviseble to continue said maner to April 3, 2006.at 700 a.m., and WHEREAS,at said meeting on April 3,2006, there were preeentthe following members: Chair M.J.Geile, and Commissioners Wiliam H.Jake,David E.Long,Robert D.Masden,and Glenn Vaad, and WHEREAS,notice of such meeting and an opportunity to be present has beengiven to the taxpayerard the Assessor of said County.and said Assessor,Stan Sessions,being represented by Mike Sampson, and taxpayer Diamond Shamrock Stations, Inc., not being present and WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners have carefulty considered the attached petition.and are fully advised in relation thereto. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of CountyCommiesioners of Weld County,Colorado,thatihe Hoard concurswiththe moontmendadOn of the aSsessorand the petition be and hereby is,denied,and an abatement or refund be allowed as follows: CORRECTION TO ASSESSED ABATEMENT TAX VALUATION OR REFUND YEAR $D.00 30.00 2003 • • • 2006-0961 AS0063 r6 - ner d✓ ti--c.7G TAX ABATEMENT PETITION -DIAMOND SHAMROCK STATIONS, INC. (2396786) PAGE 2 The above and foregoing Reaolut[on motion motionduly made and seconded,adopted by the following vote on the 3rd day of April,A.D., 2006. BOARD Or OUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD C TY COLORADO ATTEST: ^lIIL„Li_ M.J. le, Chelr V*.Id County Clerk to the Board CAA David E. Long,Pro-Tem putt'Clerk to the William H.Jerks APP AS TO /--I• Rob 0_Mind ounty Attorney AAR Glenn Vaad Date of signature: G(o • 2006-0963 A30063 CIIIIE • .• •. - .. i bSims i 9 .. a 00n b ea i •". at ttr ria l 'X0x . a ti w v m -NI aa co wg p co Q .r. fA ' a O In . • • ci .. Coj 0."*. JO J1 • p p N O . . . <.1':' , Vrna 7c o �- *an 0 K ' al. a i+.' a.. {ray • F d V I N . +� i • N • 4 lbu� : . i • i . wc i ao�-•n NO1Ef E. (1E S : 3 R 3604 phis Is 1-I?G.41. DESCRIPTION: 20560 ]- OR-17569B PT SW4SW4 13 5 66(WEST GRE ( } ( P' t ELEY 2ND ANNEX)BEG ON E LN OF RD FROM WHICH SW COR BEARS SO4D02'W 400.7'S89D 43'E 50'S82D22'E 161.7' NOD15'W 203.1' -- 5/01/03 HE `itR (, ') 4 6 VS: 05/01/03-06/02/03 1400 N 17th Avenue 3 ' I€ ttik 3 >: 8:30 430 DIAMOND SHAMROCK STATIONS INC#641 I t i.'E O.P N I ''ti 4)) , _z t ( tiitts ATTN AD VALOREM TAX DEPT i) P 0 BOX 696000 SAN ANTONIO TX 78269 - 2003 0600 t'.44° `-- ' E ltd: 095913300008 U . '7 E NO: R2396786 E'ROPLRIy ERION 1 EAR Li'.. iSt ' z CLASSIFICATION A( < l, ,I t [Di t3,' t tibir COMMERCIAL 550000 550000 0 ii TOTAL 550000 550000 0 Pared=095913300008 Accf)tml, _' R2396786 To apbtitti l7V t .ail list \ttui name. address, mai it � ' c „ J;tc' iittif toil or this S0.'fill and mail in accorda.,cc with instructions nil the RA. t Ct Weld i (;llllk' A S31'i l' ,t I4U:! N I 'ti, l#V cnuC An assessment pcicentit ac Agill he applied to i . rC ;A 'l ' , € }i ate calculated. The 3SSc s,m ni pe i -t: e fits losidoncct, is tit Generally, all other p,cperty. includini vacant Lind. . , m _ ' mitt ( 1 .54 C.1� 5.1. and S ctinn 3 . AttiL A UI the t ol0 assessmcnt 4c.cciia s ' t)t mina -_ 1 ,tl i}lot . 1;Ope1tl .l.l. }t , 't,tt �. , nit, ( (a 1.P.. 'J:`(t �t l :•!2::C!!\_ .h:Ft t "2E. i=Rt' . . ill t I i exemption i.. s ) - OCCUPANCYI Convenience Store TOTAL COMMERCIAL SQR FOOTAGE 1155 YEAR BUILT 1983 CLASS Masonry TOTAL BUILDING COUNT 1 Hello