The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About940733 RESOLUTION RE: THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 1994, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PETITION OF: STARPAK INC 100 GARFIELD ST 11400 DENVER, CO 80206 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: PIN: R 3462186 PARCEL: 096117102002 - GR IP1-1 L1-2-10 TO 14 BLK1 GREELEY INDUSTRIAL PARK%237 22ND ST% WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, organized as the Board of Equalization for the purpose of adjusting, equalizing, raising or lowering the assessment and valuation of real and personal property within Weld County, fixed and made by the County Assessor for the year 1994, and WHEREAS, said petition has been heard before the County Assessor and due Notice of Determination thereon has been given to the taxpayer(s) , and WHEREAS, the taxpayer(s) presented a petition of appeal of the County Assessor's valuation for the year 1994, claiming that the property described in such petition was assessed too high, as more specifically stated in said petition, and WHEREAS, said petitioner not being present, and WHEREAS, the Board has made its findings on the evidence, testimony and remonstrances and is now fully informed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, acting as the Board of Equalization, that the evidence presented at the hearing clearly supported the value placed upon the Petitioner's property by the Weld County Assessor. Such evidence indicated the value was reasonable, equitable, and derived according to the methodologies, percentages, figures and formulas dictated to the Weld County Assessor by law. The assessment and valuation of the Weld County Assessor shall be, and hereby is, affirmed as follows: 940733 iG13O Page 2 RE: BOE - STARPAK INC ORIGINAL Land $ 172, 123 Improvements OR Personal Property 410,877 TOTAL ACTUAL VALUE $ 583,000 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a denial of a petition, in whole or in part, by the Board of Equalization may be appealed by selecting one of the following three options: 1. Board of Assessment Appeals: You have the right to appeal the County Board of Equalization's (CBOE's) decision to the Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA) . Such hearing is the final hearing at which testimony, exhibits, or any other evidence may be introduced. If the decision of the BAA is further appealed to the Court of Appeals, only the record created at the BAA hearing shall be the basis for the Court's decision. No new evidence can be introduced at the Court of Appeals. (Section 39-8-108(10) , CRS) Appeals to the BAA must be made on forms furnished by the BAA, and should be mailed or delivered within thirty (30) days of denial by the OBOE to: Board of Assessment Appeals 1313 Sherman Street, Room 523 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 866-5880 OR 2. District Court: You have the right to appeal the CBOE's decision to the District Court of the county wherein your property is located. New testimony, exhibits or any other evidence may be introduced at the District Court hearing. For filing requirements, please contact your attorney or the Clerk of the District Court. Further appeal of the District Court's decision is made to the Court of Appeals for a review of the record. (Section 39-8-108(1) , CRS) OR 940733 Page 3 RE: BOE - STARPAK INC 3. Binding Arbitration: You have the right to submit your case to arbitration. If you choose this option the arbitrator's decision is final and your right to appeal your current valuation ends. (Section 39-8-108.5, CRS) Selecting the Arbitrator: In order to pursue arbitration, you must notify the OBOE of your intent. You and the OBOE select an arbitrator from the official list of qualified people. If you cannot agree on an arbitrator, the District Court of the county in which the property is located will make the selection. Arbitration Hearing Procedure: Arbitration hearings are held within sixty days from the date the arbitrator is selected. Both you and the OBOE are entitled to participate. The hearings are informal. The arbitrator has the authority to issue subpoenas for witnesses, books, records, documents and other evidence. He also has the power to administer oaths, and all questions of law and fact shall be determined by him. The arbitration hearing may be confidential and closed to the public, upon mutual agreement. The arbitrator's written decision must be delivered to both parties personally or by registered mail within ten (10) days of the hearing. Such decision is final and not subject to review. Fees and Expenses: The arbitrator's fees and expenses are agreed upon by you and the OBOE. In the case of residential real property, such fees and expenses cannot exceed $150.00 per case. The arbitrator's fees and expenses, not including counsel fees, are to be paid as provided in the decision. 940733 Page 4 RE: BOE - STARPAK INC The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 28th day of July, A.D. , 1994. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: /// la WELD COUNTY, C J,ORADO � I .� {'1 Weld County Clerk to the Board / , J &' ' ptk) ' ��/�/ W. Webster, C a'rma BY: �/1�LL$--f' /7 �71_--C.aleVc Deputy Clerk to the Boar Dale K. Hall, Pr Tern / i APPRO AS TO FORM: / A / eorr e/h. Baxter f J � unty Attorney onstance L. Harbert icarbara J. Kirkme er 940733 BOE DECISION SHEET PIN #: R 3462186 PARCEL /t: 096117102002 STARPAK INC 100 GARFIELD ST #400 DENVER, CO 80206 HEARING DATE: July 28, 1994 TIME: 10:00 A.M. HEARING ATTENDED? (Y / ) ! NAME: ..y AGENT NAME: APPRAISER NAME: 6P__14 ��/ Z ck C DECISION: DECREASE IN VALUATION INCREASE IN VALUATION NO CHANGE IN VALUATION ASSESSMENT RATIO ACTUAL VALUATION ORIGINAL SET BY BOARD Land $ 172, 123 $ Improvements OR Personal Property 410,877 Total Actual Value $ 583, 000 $ COMMENTS: MOTION BY hi ! TO 23,49L: SECONDED BY Tit< Baxter -- { N) Hall N) Failed to prove appropriate value - Harbert -- (Y/N) ;,G, No comparables given Kirkmeyer - N) Other: Webster - Y'N) RESOLUTION NO. 940733 TIiL i L DA -.= f r `I I- r lltr] E t CULtJ ' gSSl . „r r., .�y I¢UO Y. C0 i 17th AVE N+7[ I GE CIE DEN I AL GREELEY. !fl-U-ADO 80Est DTIOUL vt,ELDCou,+ IY�R It's- 1 Lt-2--10 13 14 aLK1 GREELEY INDUSTRIAL -' PARK:237 22ND sit COLORAI ?, 5 A"3 0. 23 CLERK T011-17. 37 22 Sr T ) �R eL�r OWNER 9i ARP INC S 7 ARP AK INC PARCEL 096117102001 PIN R 3402186 100 GAME IELJ ST 4400 YEAR 1994 DENVER CO eiO2Uo LUG O032v u B/3 Lis 994 --- The appraised value of property is based on the appropriate consideration of the approaches to value required by law, The Assessor has cir!er r,,.rred that your property should be included in the following category(ies): vr -I. Ur<G, I lnl_ I ciP r_'RT , aS unr_utu by CUNSI DER I NG [HE MARKET APPROACH" AGRICULTURAL LAND VALUE IS DEIERM[NED SOLELY e.Y THE EARNING OR PRUQUCT IDE CAPACITY OF THE LAND, CAPITALIZED AT A RAIL St1 by LAW. ALL OTHD.R PROPERTY, INCLUDING VACANT LAND, IS VALUE.; BY CONSIDERING Tilt Ct7,ST,, MARKtf , AND INCOME APPROACHES. If your concern is the amount of your property tax, local taxing authorities (county, city, fire protection, and other special districts) hold budget hearings in the fall. Please refer to your tax bill or ask your Assessor for a listing of these districts,and plan to attend these budget hearings. The Assessor has carefully studied ail available information, giving particular attention to the specifics included on your protest and has dater mined the valuation(^) assigned to your property, The reasons for this determination of value are: NO CHANGE HAS flt_EN MADE TO THE ACTUAL VALUATION OF THIS PROPERTY, COLORADO LAW REQUIRES US 10 StND THIS N(TLCt-. OF DENIAL FOR ALL PROPEPT ICS ON WHICH WE DO NOT ADJUST THE VALUE, F_ a, YL Aratp- ‘rok_kt&e. a5 of 5cro PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION PETITIONER'S ASSESSOR'S VA VALUATION ESTIMATE ACTUAL VALUE ACTUAL VALUE l- — OF VALUE _ PRIOR TO REVIEW AFTER REVIEW 1 LAND 172, 12.3 172, 1"'.4 IMPS I 410, 677 410, 41/1 TOTALS $ S Bay, 000 3 5 A S DUO it you disagree with the Assessor's decision -._..l ---_.Co , you haw: the de - foearmation mto the County Board a peal. ation for further conSrdnr aftcn. 3g-8-10R(7)(a), C.R.S. Please see the back of this (o,,. der iorntation on filing your appeal. By.` WARREN L. LASELL 06/29/94 'MTV ASSESSOR 15 oPl"-�. DATE-...-- 9 ( 733 rOr n Pt Afirir� , "��, .. .. . �P/' /q-� rt / /l, T�+/ �� rrJJ Assessor has overstate the value of property. Our estimated value is $ 940n3 ri O N O 0 w ,c?, O y 000 r. O - O �J u r- e 11 ` O dr CO °o L) N eO- CO •.1 Ll .1 Cu at w � m w O d .A O U1 > - > L Q PIA I r N 6' u c W I. a o u w o a 5 t CC rg O O O>to U 7. N 0 0 O i v b O al a z O Sc) '-I - m z - U fi ' f I' o >- 114011 I saw 0 U A03N C O LLI co EH O O d o a MD 2 V) o Z v L 0 U Is 5 U Y re o c u > Q .0 o - 0 Q ,.., ^r#' 1 i 940733 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION r4t PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4218 TTT P.O.BOX 758 GREELEY,COLORADO 80632 1111 COLORADO July 19, 1994 Parcel No. : 096117102002 PIN No. : R 3462186 STARPAK INC 100 GARFIELD ST #400 DENVER, CO 80206 Dear Petitioner(s) : The Weld County Board of Equalization has set a date of Thursday, July 28, 1994, at or about the hour of 10:00 A.M. , to hold a hearing on your valuation for assessment. This hearing will be held at the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, in the First Floor Hearing Room. You have a right to attend this hearing and present evidence in support of your petition. The Weld County Assessor will be present before the Board. The Board will make their decision on the basis of the record made at the aforementioned hearing, as well as your petition, so it would be in your interest to have a representative present. If you plan to be represented by an agent or an attorney at your hearing, prior to the hearing you shall provide, in writing to the Clerk to the Board's Office, an authorization for the agent or attorney to represent you. If you do not choose to attend this hearing, a decision will still be made by the Board by the close of business on August 5, 1994, and mailed to you on or before August 10, 1994. Because of the volume of cases before the Board of Equalization, all cases shall be limited to 15 minutes. Also due to volume, cases cannot be rescheduled. It is imperative that you provide evidence to support your position. This may include evidence that similar homes in your area are valued less than yours or you are being assessed on improvements you do not have. Please note: The fact that your valuation has increased cannot be your sole basis of appeal. Without documented evidence as indicated above, the Board will have no choice but to deny your appeal. 940733 STARPAK INC - R 3462186 Page 2 At least two (2) working days prior to your hearing the Assessor will have available, at your request, the data supporting his valuation of your property. Please advise me if you decide not to keep your appointment as scheduled. If you need any additional information, please call me at your convenience. Very truly yours, BOARDD OF EQUALIZATION t hraa'teDonald D. Warden, Clerk to the Board //�/ BY: _ / did:, 777 Ki erlee A. Schuett, Deputy cc: Warren Lasell, Assessor 9407 ,3 WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR 1400 N 17th AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO, 80631 HEARING DATE: July 28, 1994 1994 Property Valuation SUBJECT PROPERTY: Starpak/is a large manufacturing building 237 22nd Street, Greeley, CO Owner: Starpak International Corp. Parcel Number: 0961-17-1-02-002 Pin Number: 3462186 Appraisal Date as of: June 30, 1992 940733 Protest Tracking of the Subject Property Parcel li: 0961-17-1-02-002 Subject Property: Starpak International 237 22nd Street Greeley, CO 80631 1993 Notice of Valuation: Land Value $172, 123 Improvement Value $127,877 Total Value $300, 000 May 1993 Appeal Period with the Weld County Assessor's Office: Agent for owner of record requests a value of $256,500. This request was denied due to market/income/and cost approaches to value supported a much higher value. Further appeal taken to the Weld County Board of Equalization: Land Value $172, 123 Improvement Value $410, 877 Total Value $583, 000* * Subject property value was corrected (raised) to promote equalization by the Weld County Board of Commissioners. Further appeal taken to the State Board of Assessment Appeals: Petition was denied. The B.A.A. supports property value set by the Weld County Board of Commissioners. (See order on following pages) 1994 Notice of Valuation - (based- on the unchanged base year) : Land Value $172, 123 Improvement Value . $410,877 Total Value $583, 000 May, 1994 Appeal period with the Weld County Office: Agent for owner of record request a value of $256,500. This request was denied due too the previous 1993 appeal decisions make by the C.B.O.E. and B.A.A. 2 940733 BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS RECEIVED STATE OF COLORADO Docket Number 26O23 JUL 1 1 1994 WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR ORDER Greele ,o STARPAK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs . WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Respondent . THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Assessment Appeals on June 8 , 1994, Don Clifton and Kenneth Bennett presiding. Petitioner was represented by James E. Heiser, Esq. Respondent was represented by Cyndy Giauque, Esq. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 . Subject property is described as follows : LOTS 1 & 2, 10 THRU 14 BLK 1 GREELEY IND PARK (Weld County Schedule Number 0961-17-1-02-002) 2 . Petitioner is protesting the 1993 actual value of the subject property, a warehouse/manufacturing building containing 94 , 669 square feet of gross space, including approximately 5, 876 square feet of office space and 5, 000 square feet of pole-shed storage . The original portion of the building was constructed in 1965 with additions through 1971 and a minor addition in 1981 . The improvements are situated on a 266, 858 square foot fenced site which is partially paved. 3 . Petitioner presented the following indicator of value : Market : $256, 500 . 00 4 . Petitioner presented one comparable sale which was the 1991 sale of the subject for $256, 500 .O0 . 5 940733 5 . Petitioner' s witness testified that the sale was an arm' s-length transaction, which was verified with Starpak, the purchaser. 6 . When questioned by the Respondent, the witness testified that he had not considered any other comparable sales, nor had he presented an income or cost approach. 7 . Under further questioning, the witness testified that the purchaser, Starpak, had the subject under lease when the purchase was made . -' 8 . Petitioner contends that the 1993 actual value of the subject property should be $256 , 000 . 00 . 9 . Respondent presented the following indicators of value :. Market : $662 , 600 . 00 Cost : $661, 000 . 00 Income : $503 , 000 . 00 10 . Respondent presented six comparable sales ranging in sales price from $225 , 000 . 00 to $1, 300 , 000 . 00 and in size from 13 , 152 to 105, 942 square feet to derive a market approach value for the subject property. 11 . Respondent' s market approach indicated a range of value of $7 . 95 to $17 . 11 per square foot . 12 . Respondent used a state-approved cost estimating service to derive a market-adjusted cost value for the subject property of $661, 000 . 00 . 13 . Respondent made use of the Marshall and Swift computer cost service for the cost analysis, using the light manufacturing classification with 6% of the space assigned to office use . Depreciation was estimated to be 67% . Land value, derived from the market, was estimated to be' 65 per square foot, or $172 , 173 . 00 . 14 . Respondent used the income approach to derive a value of $503 , 000 . 00 for the subject property. 15 . In the income approach, Respondent estimated the rental rate (from market information) to be $1 . 00 per square foot, vacancy and collection loss 10% and operating costs 20% . The market developed capitalization rate was estimated to be 13 . 5% . 16 . When questioned as to why the $300 , 000 . 00 .value was assigned to the subject by the Assessor, the Respondent' s witness testified that someone in the Assessor' s Office had lowered the actual value of the subject because of the sale of the subject for $256 , 500 . 00 during the base period. TZ/B26023 4 940733 17 . When further questioned, the Respondent' s witness testified and presented evidence that the sale was not an arm' s- length transaction as the sellers (owners/note holders) were under pressure from federal regulators to reduce the drain on reserves and cut losses . 18 . Respondent assigned an actual value of $583 , 000 . 00 to the subject property for tax year 1993 . - CONCLUSIONS: 1 . Respondent presented sufficient probative evidence and testimony to prove that the subject property was correctly valued for tax year 1993 . 2 . The Board determined that the applicable state statutes were used in valuing the subject property for tax year 1993 . 3 . The Board carefully reviewed all testimony and evidence presented and concluded that the three approaches to value presented by the Respondent supported the value of $583 , 000 . 00 set by the County Board of Equalization. 4 . The Board further concluded that the only evidence of value presented by the Petitioner, the sale of the subject itself, was invalidated, as the Board determined that the sale was not an arm' s-length transaction. - ORDER: The petition is denied. • APPEAL: Petitioner may petition the Court of Appeals for judicial review within 45 days from the date of this decision. If Respondent alleges procedural errors or errors of law by this Board, Respondent may petition the Court of Appeals for judicial review within 30 days from the date of this decision. TZ/B26023 5 940733 DATED this 71. day of July, 1994 . BOARD OF A SSMENT APPEALS ¢u.ti Ken th Bennett Don Clifton This decision was put on the record M fi 1994 • TZ/B2 6 023 .\EUF C040i` • I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the decision of m the Board of Assessment Appeals . 09 • qo• pit j jY n / -II?79o4ssEsSus'.s h22 Mary orris 6 940733 SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS Property Description: Large, average quality, open steel building with some fair quality wood frame office space containing a total of 94, 669 square feet. Location: 237 22nd Street, Greeley, CO Property Rights Appraised: Fee Simple Ownership: Starpak International Corporation Zoning: Industrial/Medium manufacturing (I-2) Highest and Best Use: As improved. Land Area: 266,858 square feet Improvements: Gross Usable Building Area Area Total Square Feet 94, 669 94, 669 Other On-Site Improvements: Asphalt paving, perimeter chain link fencing, one large pole shed. Date of Value: June 30, 1992 Date of Report: July 28, 1994 Estimated Land Value: $172, 123 Value Indications Cost Approach: $661, 000 Sales Comparison Approach: $662, 600 Income Approach: $503, 000 Market Value Estimate "As Is": $583, 000 7 940733 • • Starpak International Corp. ^� 237 22nd Street • Greeley, CO 80631 .t oa ya � 4 ry .� . - k`iA�„ ' 4."`.zi,i. ':•z-., ..e../..t.,.. to. 1y� X• ""�• qs, 'r ••{ ' n ; : (,••.S A4�r , �,�• I ,. 't. '�fit' • Y �. 'Z�i�`•tr�jr y r,.74 `pcµ�31;ti -'t- ''4 t,"....," _ a .4,,........,.....4-.4`.7 •• r T • �i��'' ar4_,rs 4aL %t '` '4 , � � F. '1''''''''. �' ,- 1 Looking northwest toward the ; �Y �t" , � ax - � rs, h` 0� �s� `:7 `' subject's south and east k�cy ��,, „.:, 1.,,. '.kt%- ,, y s�Y,� elevations fronting 22nd Street " �» �►,* "�` �•.-. ,: z a 47_k t ' v k, , in '' ,i ,. �; � .. and easterly railroad spur. v..'. k-tfY 'o'"tk 1�' .'-4.•1:... � ..t 9 '^Y:: .. _ •w. ten„ `=.i•' •:.t. M? 4.R r•.G'.'"'f4- n .. `*4.:e.yr i.u'''..f.'. .4..'•;5.:',.. w �;;• .t .'- • .r.•••1 - • 1.- {ham. Y Wit•.T!' T��.C''.-' .f,�.:'.�- .; .r •..`i-,tixj' 6 :;•1 . - -K'Stttyr-•T1.1';. r.7 ti �f•�.- ..,�=:i`r::•.:!^ • .. .'.P'. IJI..•y..1 rte ..4,•., n..V'£'•'.�i44::;:..;'....v.•=4;,...4 • µ .. . ... i Looking northeast towarc r.-' .- the subject's south and : _ • :; west elevations . • • µ _ 0. tit:w fi F • &at : ti ' .. l r..G.-r rm .�T ��.. .r...- •w ... ! --. . . ....M...-.yyip,�:�� to.-se:", ,:. �.¢• r- ^':` - +•gin t:hGY:::'"'' .61., Sri. iCi• :_; 8 940733 Starpak International Corp. 237 22nd Street ( Greeley, CO 8063]r// I !1 WVY1.� T y�1 11 �' 1 .y..y l:�S�.�a I O '.� HUX1 i 1:.+ ;g'I J7i .y h ':-1 ' 4-- r'4 i _,•r .�flu1. -' ".'CSt 'y�,yy,a z ,.. ±-i —J _ "I '.i 4/141: y -w. r---�j,,. .v�ti7 + h^ ;W.� . i `Y .y. v i,-,s kogi L' �f av .ks `e` • ','�e'r [ 3}4 u� ZF '�x> "yp' .t5t" x Looking northeast Looking northwest toward the \ subject's office area. , q .1IPAPa°1-idi # Ji ' IIHII ii4 -a I r f i i. R.`"' Y 9 o - Starpak international Corp. 237 22nd Street Greeley, CO 80631 • ..;,-;•4,.•Y. eri "ni 1 ,Iy 7 .-,,,;470.7.,77,777.7i.7.7-7,77•71 .r t' .. - .;.. t.,4?: t• h�cL �. k +3`x,,..;I .' :.v.,;,.,1: t n�yk�-.0,;.&-:,.%?, Looking Southeast toward the '•;';t: Y.•. h �:;scI:}�e_ f�'�yyk,tt{ ,� :"- Yv�„z ,;.05, F�l:.� -Y �. subject 's north anG west `'rr•.::, .;42 7t•.,,r-`.-4-',':,;%;,•^::6;1-V".:,":1/::* `kF tir.4r w, N.+r4+l't.. .. 'i.•-, (t 1 A",'317'' .'G6,t ; ::6;1- ". I a r ,'�,'ck�.-:f).: 5, 4•..f� elevations. .f .�:• •:' .....-,1.;-1.1.“ t N,1 �.: r a ; n% ! a t p.r. �,:• .��!'•.r-T, • .1:4,..,..,• ',4-1 nor 1. S�' •`. Y,..- 'IlCfi(•r* ,_ 'r k• 4�IY� a1J � 4 a 1';..'� itilk • Looking at the interior of the _ __ __ . manufacturing portion of the subject as of 6/22/90 (undated �" .4%,,,,,,...--..........‘ � f { photo' s were not allowed by owner on the recent inspection on �— i 03/02/94) .7 r: Win. ? 1 • • • 10 • 940733 Scarpak International Corp. 237 22nd Screec Creeley, CO 80631 ..yy..cm[ t?yh y, ,ys t t K 3 6"•,,‘",,A-J44",ryn rLJ''� �1 r Y�' }Yt+h'Ii r � : "41' giY az z 2 a a r ' t tt a • r a�,. 'ice. 3,1" S s '+ ',spa r' ›.' - Looking at the interior of the �• to ! -' manufacturing area . Yy am+ mr �ua -yAir � r 6`T ft__ int 1 a r +2 } a .as. < �r f—eCki-LI t _ 0' am_ i ,�•. � °'� I Looking at the typical partitionec office spaces in the warehouse/ manufacturing area. N j ty( '` __ __.. __- __._--____' Starpak International Corp. 237 22nd Street Greeley, CO 80631 " -c .^1 J ..,•,.:c ' -.';cFa S.y 2+'.:•• rat •q ri. t ,'gt Y?itt .. =s °R� s • Looking at the open pole shed ftrPt_ii.V.....,.... *'�.',''►, �y,�,,_ { ocated on the north end of '• s$' r�..,�.I� '• +Krl�6ur c.. '''4t�Rc�" �IAs,5`.�'••F:•'f7f•-a '+ y ,2 _ �. ,•� he subject parcel p,J.i . -<vnn_ app _ • t L f."lv .:ti'a f F'.Yi,h•YT 'fi_ I^ y9tAO,.:: �; 1. s ate'�,t.6...:•tJ-..,": :a { T .y .� r4 ti `... t,1s''CS`y‘� r �. 1{�° ,�(' 'Y �i,...V fJY v�S ) �7 y', ;s�-f• .i Vll . Ewa,.i�..4" :..,. v�1.11:..S til2: =;�iA'f : `. ' k'- y`x.C 940733 a . qtr• ;S:k, 1TI Fe x • �:.,, _ per ' r iY 4 5�1 ,{ r }tc t t+• hfl, I � ''`.%.,... .�--.�.�{.�,j."<+F i 'Cr .�L�f. , f � ...`A - T•..:5a a i ! -----.t.,2';.4.-, Ir zn,,, V"" ice, !yi :: • � { ,. !_' is � htgi '�; u r r t r.<,-ri ..v.rq.','.iif1V�8 �' R f". CO RR r 1:+ ITC r-. 4 { , 4 fir ar { "��• i EOM t • I. •it 1 F r»�4 ^ ^\.. .+�:. l• • M r- T ;1 . e.nati ,::11- s. .e.e. :'tr �. qh .,,,,,:it .i 1 iv 4 'i`5, F yT 1yy f _ z, let 1 . Z l t(t T .. " ' /4 - 4 1St i1' �`4 rtr S L n„tier '� , }}t ( •'di, R,� y P f I\' ' - c 1 . ..li RRl ._,..;7;i2,43-,.,...,,,y•...i1,7-1.,--a. aj� - wp��4 T s `..• 4-7 -,i',,,,•,4:....� { yer �. r ^ i ,fit 441 , }`d[i.F: • ,r: �'J tip a L >4..,f,2_ 1 Y r U• 4 , 7 4 ,+£` • 'Vc,CI TVS u' f n r ' F�,.rgb.+ p yi r - s lLi >;y' i y 333} sa. l� �lEf n 1: W. 3 its ' r> jyi, ,i,....,,,,..$4.k s? 1 ,I[ (h' r'� Z r:..� jt ' i �. ti Tn" f r — Cam' . 1 I Vr'.i itig it 'l 17.,ifik,;:.T4i,fr„•; t4, • ,....•_ • , rip . a}, E FEFFF FF -ht El lIE � A,. L ;�� F f taw 4, ''',:,/ f' , li . / x n l}, S i 3 - fY^• .4 .....f aAM 'l C 1': M,1r N . . : sn .' .a X y ttt .4j fk'.S�. :yy .cam :t F •t- 'fs,„-i I J Yr., 4 p,• >>f� ! TYr JX 2'QC� a S„. - 4Z • � ,�� —_ - LIYrR,."- :• :s3.. 5:‘r.l,^• I I W \R '•(.M 0 TI W a 6;),,• ,:,,,.....;;W.1 pp I n. _ r .4 Ire - w— I WN52 �. r: • . I '4Ag 3wS.e_ I I . m w **- .t i ditot- n I I w a'r'-\Y i I II r t� '- ••• I I I - W a� ri 1 1 I I :f 2Ti r▪ .1 I . . oT,"; E : • I • .,1-e—In . . iIr Ea- ‘ NtRWilFi • gat <z d t� I rim. S . �' I 5: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - � ,1 4 T" .4. .,. Nom. ,o ";: . : : . : ark-;� • 44,•.1.1d‘.1'.44 y: . . . . . . .. . . _ .5_ti 2• - - . - - 9407.33- VALUATION PREVIOUS SALE OF SUBJECT A special warranty deed, recorded August 12, 1991 at reception no. 02259320 in the Weld County records, indicates that 1st Interstate Bank of Denver (93 . 6; interest) and United Bank of Greeley, formerly Intrawest Bank of Greeley (6. 47) transferred the subject land and improvements to Starpak International Corporation. The state documentary fee on that deed reports a sale price was $256,500. Interviewing a representative of United Bank of Greeley on 11/23/93, It was learned that the subject property was sold under Grantor undue stimulus and duress. The subject proeprty was creating a drain on reserves due to federal regulations and a recent bank merger. The representative stated the subject property "was unloaded at a discounted price in order for the bank to cut their losses and solve and internal problem" . Approximately the same accounting of the sale was obtained from the representatives of the listing brokers ; Scott Realty and Austin and Austin. Therefore, this transaction was not considered a indication of market value. 15 LAND VALUE ESTIMATE A current investigation was made regarding sales activity of recent industrial land in Greeley and Evans during the prior five years from the appraisal date. Emphasis was placed on those areas along industrial East Greeley and Evans with close proximity to the subject and access to Hwy 85. The sales vary in size from 43, 645 square ft to 445, 601 square feet and unit prices form . 42 cents to $1. 03 dollars psf as shown below and on the following pages. LAND SIES LEGAL SALE DATE SALE PRICE SIZE PRICE/SF GRANTOR/GRANTEE LOCATION SUBJECT: ASSESSORS 0961-17-1-02-002 VALUE 237 22ND ST STARPAK GREELEY $172,123 266,858 SF $0.65 C01'SARABLES: COMP #1 04/09/91 $150,000 217,800 SF $0.69 RAS ASSOC\ 2435 2ND AVE 0961-17-4-02-018 WASTE GREELEY SERVICES CORP COMP #2 04/10/90 $ 85,000 103,534 SF $0.82 TOM 222 22ND ST 0961-17-1-13-002 SCHEIRMAN\ GREELEY LOIS WARREN COMP #3 12/22/88 $195,900 195,898 SF $1.00 CONNEMARA 725 30TH ST 0961-20-2-08-005 LAND CO\ EVANS STATE FARM COMP #4 08/07/87 $ 62,500 60,760 SF $1.03 NORDELL\ 406 E 18TH 0961-08-4-08-002 BALCOM ST CHEMICALS GREELEY COMP #5 04/01/91 $ 45,000 43,645 SF $1.03 DICKSON\ 1900 2ND AVE 0961-08-4-08-021 DIRKS GREELEY COMP #6 10/07/88 $185,000 445,601 SF .42 FARR FARMS\ 2901 1ST AVE 0961-20-1-01-016 MILLARD GREELEY REFRIG 16 940733 ' L AND VAL UA T I OT A NAL P S I S Subject Site Subject has 266, 858 square foot of a mostly rectangular, level, industrial zoned site with good accessibility (300 L. f. of frontage) off 22nd street, just west of Highway 85 in southeast Greeley. Comp 1 217, 800 square foot, Industrial zoned site, sold 4/91 for $150, 000. Comp. site is rectangular shape wit 320 L. f. of frontage off the highway 85 service road. Comp 1 has similar access and visibility form Highway 85, located I mile directly south of subject. Sales price was $0.69 per square foot. Comp 2 103, 534 square foot, Industrial zoned site, sold 4/90 for $85, 000. Comp site is mostly rectangular in shape on the corner of Hwy 85 and 22nd Street. Access and visibility from Hwy 85 is slightly superior located approximately 2/10 mile east of subject. Sales price was $0.82 per square foot. Comp 3 195, 898 square foot, Industrial zoned site, sold 12/22/88 sold for $195, 900. Comp site has an inferior location due to lack of access and visibility from Hwy 85 but is still similar in proximity from 85. Sales price was $1.00 psf. Comp 4 & 5 Are smaller and would require a downward adjustment for size but are similar in location, access, zoning and visibility in relationship to Hwy 85. Sales price for both was $1. 03 psf. Comp 6 Is a much larger parcel and requires an upward adjustment for size, but again similar proximity to Hwy 85. Sales price wa $. 042 psf. As a result of the study, with major emphasis on comps #1 and 2, a value of $0. 65 per square foot is adopted as being applicable to the subjects land area or $172, 123. 17 940733 51. O St C ________7_,,,„. ___a_ a ComparaNNe Land Sales Z. ,_ . 'END t Z. Co ] 1.1 S 1 = \ a Schools 19.Norm Colorado Medical Center 1.Pheasant Run Park 20.Mom view Park \ I 2.Epple Park 21.UNC Dorms \ .� 1,F:ankl(n Park 22.Gienmere Park La;.7.—:::"..a ''p a.aaraadview Park'1 J� .;,,ark ..r •_ 85 _ 21.Universll'r ofi Northern Colorado i ,••' ' �! a, l 1 a S.Luther Park e .. >, of r > > 2i,Jackson Wield i ': >� �! a 6.ail tersweet Park a 29.4Vildllle Park a 7.SAer+rood Park �•N •D>' I `� I I 26-University Canter p S $, 8.aims Community College st A I //6,,,,..4. - -I �' 5! <+I c i5 V.UNC West Campus i /S,„.. U - -] C s t I Q' s t� 9. ttk 8•Farr Park, 2 ts Rd Cv Rd-'SS =t tt l-Hhland Hllls Glunicipal p 2 I A _� _ _I S f • °1! ++ I sit-In Sit 1 I sn,,, 12.Gateway Park U >f>i N , ..f J I 13.Weld Ca.Library 2nd , St s. al at I z� —i 2nd St 85 pt 14.8renrwaodPark t N h !4t- ;2 _ 3 w -.I I I 15.Island Grove Park '1,.)~4, y c t''� 1 I r_ S t 1 16.C,ty Complex • S t i� K� 1 I I I • ct 17-Lincoln Park +f Ja 18-Sunrise Park 5nd S1 >• I�^ S Afm Q a 0 I " i St i < a •s Ic-J m �/ �V I <18 <: I I . ` Mf - ° th a =I- I ISt 127 I _ I . Bih 9tihn' St 1 �I9th I �lI" 't ° J R . a / I..J IS/ s i dtA I I I St `�!i al St Ibih Sti t �1 _I I„th I I f SI 1 I I r3 r�°udre !.4I2U1St� a — a 1112th I I I $t I I y 118 I - .0 La . ��riTit • K —, 13 11 I I I Sc1 I f 1 r 74th C St S1 1 I I I J I • ISI , ' I4t't Si Rd�siI Ad q- -4 t' _ e 1,4th:7, 45.6Sto' 1._tt - S11al I - J'� > i9 - T c TlI rQ f ! l^. < si °tell e In al i -1 St I I 16th J----... ,4a lM -�I I St 17tH St lk C c \ y' I�qI o •31:31en-F₹I 0 31 . Ilinni d PI 23 .. �_ I f _ .1Ch afiTil r n -r. gl ; ka IdYI m SALE < _fo s ` I dal• to 14 f: Rd t22 r 79th ° St lnrN.'In �S tN ,c •,; *- o 1 tf If !I i S t1 ml S t Rdrtk mI< — I '�G p a ' St d SA 1a 25 I I > a S t _' ;lid .:I, 2, sl ,...t-..,:�� 126 ` 21st 5t GV�� H a. �'to1r, s1 Rd- D • .. -' —'` n Sind Slr . 4♦: 27 t 2 nd �— St •� �� 22nd m St ai r Naa s - 23rd St .sic (.3 34 • • m Or r I\ I. I z '. x Sc a 2elh c5' J '4•h / Sc ;.• A• d ?4 I_ R ol�'. i aV a._ m SALE' I • 1 . ,'� ?J _o- rt 25 h S dtl�S7a 1� c ° t >t A • ,t • � i aSI 1-ITI SIIlath St c -y„✓.f - a > 2:t, 61t � .-River.• E re St 17 u N N N w 28 11 2�t2g S t2�.t. 1 113 7o Kersey r-1 St - -;- 8th St 6% 28th Std 291h 5 • tQ,hsLjt < 0911h S14 d^q , SALE 6 Q13� .i• ^o �< asl ° ^ St Rd 0•rt -,;, l°te s, ,- • Sheet Desigrations • ;Jtst > • Is St • d • 30th ..rx y � a 'I o = — Streets No Streets ' ,,s 1 r J SALE 3 _ Designated Labels Designated N <(:" // + r.• a of aff^^o� `I fil5 . do�� ,4....,i-r... 1-.:c`•�;«, i:�..°•�'_. _-. ,;. .. .- ..':i=f;..' _.•'ra_-;:yr:'. -... ..'".:-........in.,4,.:..:,..:,. .._ ._ . ..._ .. �� ' 8 940733 • C O S T A P P R O A C Subject: Starpak 237 22nd Street Greeley, CO 8063i ITEM 5 SQUARE FOOT BASE COST PSF TOTAL Light Manufacturing $15.50 (includes 6% office) Wall Height Multiplier 1.041 Size/Shape Multiplier .905 Refined Base Cost Psf 94,669 14.60 1,382,167 Less Accrued Depreciation (67%) (926,052) (from market/see pg 4 ) Replacement Cost New Less Depreciation $456,115 Site Improvements (Contributing Value) Open pole shed (5,840 sf x $3.00) 17,520 fencing; asphalt; concrete 15,392 Total Depreciated Value of Improvements 489,027 Plus Land Value (from Market) 172,123 Value Indicated by the Cost Approach 661,150 Rounded to $661,000 940733 Accrued Depreciation The improved industrial sales utilized in the market data approach were analyzed and the allocated building sales prices were deducted from current estimated reproduction cost new. This yielded an indication of accrued depreciation (physical deterioration and obsolescence) as follows : FromSale Comparable Improvements Allocated Imp Depreciation a RCN Value ➢epreciation 1 2, 452,238 934, 320 1, 517, 918 62% 2 803,880 290,368 513,512 64% 3 853, 870 436, 825 417, 045 49% 4 734, 771 320, 708 414, 063 56% 5 480, 074 295, 728 184, 346 38% The subject building is in poorer physical condition then comparable 1 (the most similar) and thus accrued depreciation for the subject was estimated to be 67%. 20 94. 0' 33 Market Approach The six improved transactions tabulated on the following pages range in total building area form 13, 152 square feet to 105, 942 square feet, as compared to the subject total improvement area of 94, 669 square feet, and they range in sale date from July/1987 to Jan/1991. Unit price for sale prices per square foot of building - overall, including land range from $7. 95 to $17. 11 per square foot. Sale 01, is one of the most recent sales, selected to be most similar to the subject due to use, size, year ,built, type of construction, and location. Even so, Sale 111 is of a higher quality and condition then the subject therefore required a downward adjustments in these areas. Sale 112, the most recent sale, is also comparable in location as to access and visibility from Highway 85 and railroad, but requires a downward adjustment for quality, condition, and size. Sale 113 & #4, require a downward adjustment due to size, quality, and condition. Sale #5, is important to our study due to the fact it is the same quality and condition as the subject property requiring no adjustment in these areas, but does require a downward adjustment for size. Sale #6, requires a downward adjustment for size, quality and condition. Market Approach Summary Major emphasis was given to sale #1 due to sale date, size, age, and location, even though a downward adjustment was necessary for quality and condition. The other transactions analyzed would more than tend to support the indicated value developed by sales 1 & 2. As a result, the adjusted comparables form a range from $6. 50 to $10.50 per square foot, thus the market value of the subject property has been estimated to be $7. 00 per square foot or as follows: 94, 669 x $7.00 = 662, 683 rounded $662, 600 21 940733 ,- _, F p ` p- 0 3z6Ia. cC t71 rz C iG O 2 F F 00 0 in 3 w ` Z N Z ` Y .-1 [Fir 'Yen 00 ( ICH a8CC �e � o0 6 W o i Nam 0 (C8 22, O4 3 aN ya0 en a, C ON m O a co ,0 0� w 3 w w w w w a w 0 I � isN V1 b 0 um ma N N N y N 3 w w w w w a w N N N .--.. y 0 W W W 6 w W ^ CC kJ w co co 4 Oe w rn 0 H 00 b H On • H 0 h M .Ni N H ON � CE)H O CO• 40 N 4 N W - 4W 44 O in W fee ^_ a b 30 W H W N m T O -n 0 10 O N v 0 N 0 -i O N v O .. W b N 0 0 0 0 0 N N0 0 b O H 0- - O or V N N Q O N N W 00 O e EC co N 0 En to 2 m n 0 .y s. P y Co y co — W1 H < O 2 WD (C]J 00 EnN N 0 l 'r4 ..] N ul , en N co b N W O z 6 N N en N co J rp N 0 N N vccN En co en w w w w w to w CO rNi N um O` O O bEn N N En En LO O 0 en 'n N_ 0 .<, N 0' O NO - N N N / CC 0 0 0 a O) W N co NI 0 0 O N W O I 0 0 N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 C 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 03 a O 0 0 0 0 0 (COco W N > W 0 O h 0. Nm En 0 En N 6N N X w w w a w w O Z CO H C '041 Z En 0 (q 'Jal, Tj T [y (yum N O 6 6 O } N O Cn F a 00 0.4 O O03 HE N O O 6' p = 0 0 0 En `0X en 0r 0. F CO 0 2 pi 0 ',zy O O '" c" Lri F 0W N N - a fL N N m w ' O a 01 n in F x (C -7 O a 3 - O a Z o 6 '-r 2a' — on s W 0 W -+ —+ w m mow] 8 m w F v s .. o O 3 ON 0 N " N m 6 0 -5 0 a "336 0 0 6 O N m �' a .-� P �W-1 .. .O w cZi r0 (C N 0 E N 0 N W '0 0 CO CO 0 2 N 0 !/4] a OV 0 /7 44 O M b q co F1 L K K K O K N N O 10 1.1 Al aE O u'1 O OD � N - N r•4 ..-i M I N --.i i l..- U1 O, y g O• P^ N 1/1 W .9 •4 g ee 4. N `.:.';4iD'<: N 49 - 0✓ 00 N •:•! K W • O 49 h .�-, h � 10 I+ .-I H 0 W 0) ,-I ':'� :': P Q Q H :;;V r O N 40 O t` N >1 ... 'n L N 1+ N 1+ K •D N 0 N r` CO .--I .•1 .-i -' .� --. °� 0 ': O O ^ a' O0 .e., •.1 .1de I •.g1 I N -. O ..,.....40:::�' P ,+1 K N C •.d •9 •.i L .'{ N H K 49 O V! 49 O. L. ` a' N N y rsi O I'- N -.4 N /+ . 1 W O h•1 00 0 N N w '0 0 !., I+ ` W O O• O ., C C 1. K H 1+ K -M-. N V'1 O O N r --- 10 O O 10 ST 00 O. 0 01 ..1 N .--I .T '.',...•,i'," n In N I'. N ..4 y ..Et •.� ~ 49 V4 CD + I > O "' � m I+ ' 1n 00 00 d 1n :: .-I N94 'o O 1..1 6 .H CCU '.O C1 10 > E Q C/3 O .11 v1 "-I 0 O !.: r< i4 K K 1+ 14 r' N .N-. c-.4 N a ....... C ' O O 0 t0 .n n W ---. N Oo N .-I C1 . . ` N W b 1+ ••1 I '0 •--I07 00 .O ,-1 0 M O u 1C •E Yi 64 69 Ys r` a' -.AO If1 N •1I O (4 W 49 .T 11 7 O, 00 00 01 17 CO _ .;:. is N . C..y > E f .....: 2.:, C m . P v O N CO w r) O. O 11 CO V. ,O H i` K K H 1+ 04 N N —� -C. O .O r1 O Ir, O n1 O 10 O v N �. '1 C T-, O 0 4 fi O+ QI •E I 44 Vs {moo p VVV ' Vl ✓1 U O .77 ID .� O K K to .1 co Q, 00 10 01 01 V N L r1 1+ O] .--i O/ > 10 :::'C;,. 6 y 0 0 C `-' N O CO N N 07 a' N- N N O O .O t'1 I+ uI DO .f, N N 10 O1 n 44 V-.P O �D 0' K ...-I O O N. 49 (4 64 Ni 1h O. Cc: t1' ON .• 0 •10 CV >0 • 3- O b4 fA 0 '. N✓1 ::'•'Cx1'::� O 19 V1 P 00 C/) .O - 0p r/ , ] a O )41 >:. M .U::. O C. .O H -, 01 a f 1 ''..-r,' 00> „N' N N O` ., 4.) O N' � so.....F y1 v ., If1 t+ 00 .°\O -.C): C >, .0 ..I > -' .;•:W rn N 0' c1 0: Q -as' •-i01 -J.. N _ .--, k. 01 cn ^1 4 CV U 0 ••;:',.:F-'1::.'',..:.:::.....': -.1.: ,ca m v, Q. d1 � r ! EP ! Q gip' UL.-7:•••' .L.1 ;, � . —L_ �. 940733 ' �o..w• �.wrl - 5 t % Cnly Rd 64 I a 9 }o Poudre , • •; [ Comparable Building Sales 1END i -I i . 'p Schools 19.North Colorado Medical Canter l .r S I L I 1.Pheasant Run Park\\\\ l 27.:lontview Park '- Fpple Park 21.WIC Ocrms 3.Franklin Park 22.Gienmcrc?ark 85 Y eroativie:I P31 23.University at;4onhern Colorado La :,•Park P I a S.Luther Pk z e Park > 2<.Jackson Field .t1 a m' ..J 6.Bittersweet?ark 's./._15 •—\.,.1 j S <� 1 C ' 2 .UNCWestCamp�s r• a l `` C 1 9.Wocdbriar Park I o� U l_ ,. a S.. 1 29.Fa:r Park eS I e _) St^ > _IBC $�` 1 q '� IC.Catt4n:vacdPark r 31 iss ?a ^ntv Rd 2 ^I S: II II.Highland Rills:•riunicipat D- 3 < nl Govt Caursa I I _ _I ��‘..>' t2.Gateway Park S U ; > w "1�t -2 _I + e:a 13.Weld Co.Library I ifs' e .z,....31::: e lE.Sunrise Park >� 5nd St > Sch(m < >I 1 oi m S si 5 i� I 1 -14 h i I 7 S�I< _ 1 ��C, Lal . taa 1 13 I I I ISt( lath) a St Si 1! a,q I ; I5t r � - tat St Rd_St R. � I II 1 thy Slit St Jt 1-~. — 51 ` w • < ht mt:t � a - I I4 S1 `� < leth S. — • °t Q Li {{ + y —I. C p C q .e g17lIh<St S. .. m mgt SI 1Vtt' St JI�I-�'. 7 (> m • q e �E h St` a 1E'h� 1 21 , y < - a Tt.� .. wr TT St L �ralnto d PI 1i�th oq—'�� 18th ,� C 1 4,9. ' I 0 31 ' 23 c1 • �1> t ftda l e adleln-Fa MVn r g1.,.* k91 Idol — m S • 191h < Sl _ �rSabin c ttl'', > ' 22 N , 224 19 h° >, am t LL J� S t Rd�1> m m — Cf> Q`C BSI St Fid 1r 0t St 9^ h mo!¢ ��a' ^° . St ♦ 2$ > I ' • w _I> a 20th SS Rd LJ d a.,25t.. 25 < 21st 3t > < 5U9� ; _"a ((r i , 0 22nd — St -I 22n. S f/� \\a 27 7.2. st I> �ZC 4 °r23rd t f7 j' 0 r 1I7t•I a 2atlh_. i 1 >_ t •r' <r5±L5 11 24th St Rd :\ ea t.tr a ...,al m w ?S . U� >" .115ALE 3 st — IS 'd -f• r . � s >p �s a } cot1I SI 'Kit,. St • t Si1 i s 1 River E h .c 461? SI R tl m • .L { St ..•4 ►r ^28 N� 217th Sit J4} �h11 --j1 its Nersey•--- • N — a7 NN r28 h 2 th St �• 28th 55 28th St Rd A_ ___—.----- S t r e 29th g N.,—_-go s 00 • I. —^—.Z r1291h Sr< d � { ;Ih St3t St Rd U ^ n 90ttl 51 ,...../....' Stree Designations m • 37 st 1 r s S\ Ad 30th 4� mStreets No Streets at ° >!_ s 1 -x "-' o1a Designated Labels Designated <N N r -< rF C q i / S��C 7 �O, < . L o1/ 24 940733 ' '7 Y ❑ s r Y (D E Z U N LU > 4 W 9A y 1 S Z -.1cv soei . I:.7., osed 13 i • O." ....1 pap u i J J- 1 _ ,. cn o gang et .co � EJldW �— • I 'aa` CI> rn c7 U , 1. , 1S ejejg Je inog _ c1} I " •1 m '_ so / �I �1 I EJ � u90 0 G,c., a- 5 0 1S S { J n u b ' ` O 4co a J enueo �4 _. M ^ 4 1 i ,.. 'I seME1 ui a , in p �4EP l ' ep • Jo lasuns `a car • J o y I U) w uaJAl ' IS rte, � _ _ elluS w-i t n N d^ Ave v- .o _::,„_. uJt1ai� cl3 _ 1UM t,,3>'" AV e - � � u eon eG ` V Ave 1S uosJEa » 1 U0 e1 E,3 C' GAf to uouJ( EA-• 01 bl uow EA 1 luow e r ! n. enyj uopauriJng ��' 41S1 c any luoyleg `- _v `1 _!era 1 a^ . I `I s L I I I I� Rr' r� _ 'c-i� r�S I I I G.., 8 e ^b uo1 nl � sullll � �i+ " QU � t 1 e , • ° 1v mil IS Gil W w I. ' /oilt• • IS • I J e�10 .......J1:4/joio IJEw 8! r E• LiEO M au igwp Ha:,-•5M I any PJEZ Will; . 940733 1 COMPARABLE SALE 1 >m y7-7-7,747n77- ` y l ', s, 'r Y, M . f - !-, fi 1 'µms' h'�. a.---r- F :=4t e^ Yap gRA �.�_��r—,kn —vii ' few..; ygwu iltt } � " L i.4 r r 4"*i71:::`F..""' Zi i"' ,,r 'r-.` 'z, yt e,+v, �e s * YuY '.-,L, .'. �' Y.,?( _`0-." `. v t to xr' <-h�₹..'4 .T ¢ .a.: "4� iG -::"4: ::: .M i r -I' rG � +wWT 4: i y '7-C;44-4., } "lQik d `L-- I I"ii.,:,.. ..--511.1.1634.4 ,,e1.,:: tix J.' �..\�rt"4�^_�� S'x Lv 1Y' i" A } qq q"t+ ° x '71t ...v I.w„ ---� Q, lW-: - i Yi x r Yo- 1 SAY PIN: 3561086 PARCEL # : 96117402001 OCCUPANCY: MANUFACTURING ADDRESS: 2401 2 AVE GREELEY PROJECT: 0 BOOK #:SALE DATE: 03/08/90 0 SALE PRICE: $1 , 300 , 000 RECEPTION # : 0 ADJ SALE PRICE: GRANTOR: E & M EISENMAN GRANTEE: PHELPS-TOINTON INC YEAR BLT: 1966 LAND/BLDG RATIO: 5. 54 BLDG SIZE: 105,942 IMPS PRICE/PSF: $8 . 82 CLASS: S SALE PRICE/PSF: $12 . 27 CONSTRUCTION-QUAL: AVG CASH DOWN: $0 WALL HEIGHT: 28 LOAN: 0 STORIES: 1 INTEREST RATE: 0 .0% BSMT SIZE: 0 LOAN TERM (YRS) : 0 LAND SIZE: 562 ,585 POINTS PAID: 0 LAND VALUE: 365,680 REMARKS: MFG 93 ,834 , OFFICE 6 ,060 , SER GAR 6 , 048. NET RENT $120,000 2G • • . Comparable # 1 2401 2nd Ave. Greeley, Co • • ..„\ t'i `''J"'�''�' w`.."`.s.�"'•' r -' i v'.`f'r,t'•J''is ,.y„tt.r. �. � t ! t ° , 1 �•"` L,4.5• 'tt1�K+•: ; 3 �.t t'�: htJx��•!�� pY,-Lt}7n. ^ ��::�5a• E,' `R7! keg", 1t f F.�t; .t �;! 1'i; ±(r�;1.4.y.;.•- t `; ►y 11 ar 4t•~�" p t�, x ?:"'a dd 7qC �• 2' 1e .,. t '1°ilt r+.�,..f•�:', t 4 t' .;tt r 1, i- j. ��1 ,'''t•,�.� k .l i t• -i'�;�4;cr ::� S?l�'L" ftsh• j��l a -l 5Z,.. ?.?[yet 7 .:tG.t;. >'�^,t r-�'Lt`! '' '""t t_ _ ``l ",(,i .�._+�g 1 �:! ; r• F tr. + h� tY, - e>j"y�'N ¢ ' 'Z' s:. „ w. f : S1� r' .t�, y .-1,•,, r a .a - �� :.p 'I .maiziA • �..n Y ��.r n. • •tl ,� ry. - aS:' {_ yS {�h k5o r. � .: 'pS ^4 "� ��~t��3'�t!u'•r t�` •K„ Jai,I � m�rtf. n� �+ 2�+• s ^Y . .. • ...,,...,.-,,,,-,....Are„,. i$_7.. ., •••- • • .ti. -,•••:;,-:•-.....::-.,-•t\:.tC �!4. l:Y4'E: `�Yf 7...-...,,,,,,Z.:::,-;::;;14.-..•.--;•;-•+F°• r •,:.f thpJ-r�{/.^}:1 • + '"u`.^+..� s.r -•{ ..;. : .ti p';;; w:- s ✓Lf ex iti ' :•• 1+ �..,-,�_ . .e l:. L ,j.seuC•FSiY'ry,t '+a, { —• • .•-,-' ;+.. t: .a •; ` ";...`<r:.i.-t. wZ" . !t :. M... 4l:�•LET`. ..." 3. • •- r a� •w r . .•�. ;•QiJs ��-vr. .tr., -a. 'ti 7 mss'.itc`-' .••.Pw,yy+v,9 �•�',a,-•{?.". � ::ipir tnsw• '- gi .-• • "'..y: ' ' •••,••:''''' :•41:-'4..4:•-•''''''''�'I{;Jr + 7't,••, ,A" .�s�`'�±..�ti1�� -r r., .r-n• ' �L'•44.• ;+. -YS•1�:'''"- +-•s•i;•_ .. • • :•,--ziv ' ••• •.at •::1.1r:d_''+, Qtn« yq..'}:4+�A E;•''Kt h x •�::?1'•.Jwf4;w.'• 2.,• - '- �w,�.. {Y,. _3 ; .yam.-•.. i•t :.°�••' r:,s•t` 7r:. ...._ti...:a.5a9Y`+r�s�nr.�'�=-+._..J�s:....,.... ..... . . .. .... _. ..._. .. ,'�+,...>...x�.=...taw t"- .�..•v.i_�� - :..,�t.M'�'�';,:..',..;.• .� Looking south toward comparable # 1 North- side elevations • PA •'a ..Jrr ''fit • �,aD-.•t a'1;4"141e;;if ..,,r.-5":••;••.:', K. T3t,,•.• t.,;•''.:•"14'....: f.. t 1C, r 1u A 1 Looking northwest toward r•�;< .ti)• ••:• coparable 7 1 south and 1 , , .list - : :_ ,T: r'''. east elevations t•: g 'r lilt i �� ' ' dlub,iiiiilloi ril ._ `.I. ,..vay; __ •- -•- v :'. `" +: ,r ,....,. . .'•'.•'•''+' "-Cal,'. �' .r.. ,f. ^,/. r •.Yr F.1_,P: .':1+ ,/.LtiA ./ Lyj 'r.i.- ,'t.„ • 's 3r.:••r.-ltM.:ki 3.1r,r 5 - r.9*` ; : i{ft�i'n�!7. 1 fl7Ir /!,.C.i•Ai"J^.4.4'...07.4,...'1'..4;11,1t44""•,••}1 a.. .i"'4r yF;-- -..:-,...--;;:es...,"I .4,,ti•- er- ,,-..TM. ;+mot•-ir •.. .4Pa f•J.. rye. 'xt .R1 J a .. ITh L• 7^ ___. 940' 33_. 4.- An try. '-t -.•- '"r < , k. Detached office and service z,u v garage r,k : «. S [� C ' ' a tim ii � .r s......_..., . ..v. .. .�_�. .. .�. t'_.>.mil ..�. ' • ' Ar Detached warehouse .ii • i �., aa'` ,i4ry"tix Coro -- \ \ - � F , f tfit{ . 1 � j9 s t� F2 yR�� F L.�!k1. ri.f'aJ.�J,i �' ,t �'-�.. Y )g � V Ke1 •4 , Aza a3 { to` }`yam � "•�2^ r y., t1,,, i y 28 __- 940'733 • s COMPARABLE SALE 2 l 1 ₹1 IX ,. 4 i t� S a� .,,� s^.p$ s 5 .r r f>�Hi,.u. ". fi^.• i 'Tf^ T~{ a]1 �^ ✓ } fir{tjdit PIN: 0124987 PARCEL 4 : 96120308009 OCCUPANCY: WHSE DISTR ADDRESS : 600 31 ST EVANS SALE DATE : 05/30/90 SALE PRICE: $350 , 000 GRANTOR: INTER PAPER LAMINATES GRANTEE : PAWNEE TRANSPORTATION INC CONSTRUCTION-QUAL: AVG PR/SF(IMPS) : $6 . 60 BLDG SIZE: 44 , 000 PR/SQ FT: $7 . 95 YEAR BLT: 1979 LAND SIZE: 79 , 509 CLASS : S LAND VALUE: $59 , 632 WALL HEIGHT: 20 LAND/BLDG RATIO: 1 . 81 BSMT SIZE: 0 REMARKS : OFFICE 2100 SF ( 5%) WHSE 41780 ( 950), COMPLETE INTERIOR REMODEL AFTER SALE 29 s4o _ __ U COMP=._3BLE SAL.: .- TN �1 x•L 4-'4' ' ''% !-.771-:- I - ._. T,,.. t ��'+. 'fi y""}s gyp ,r.p.wmRs{R• * r. ""1.43 ra..� ^'^'� et y.,3 1 F lr r dR ,r- '�••a 34r'i YtL r<fiW chi. is . 4.**^.''ei a .P� -,4 a s.....n -4gs,+rA r ,iii `ka, r T4; x.F 1 .3, +f Z ahi ,A N,Se e rp 2{{yy t��,Y5 ,I 'zv k .,t•�� • ',-ti - m kwq! "^w, 'Y�"M' i yw P*' "Y "`� A < !• +y r ., ,—.1, ,,pr, ♦ '.ry � vT , , t , 1 r' 1- ;, PIN: 3564486 PARCEL is 96117403004 OCCUPANCY : WHSE STOR ADDRESS : 2508 4 AV GREELEY SALE DATE: 07/30/87 SALE PRICE : $565 , 000 GRANTOR: BAYLY CORP GRANTEE: SCHOOL DIST 6 CONSTRUCTION-QUAL: AVG PR/SF(IMPS) : $9 . 79 BLDG SIZE : 44 , 600 PR/SQ FT: $12 . 67 YEAR ELT: 1958 LAND SIZE: 170 , 900 CLASS : C LAND VALUE: $128 , 175 WALL HEIGHT: 16 LAND/BLDG RATIO: 3 . 83 BSMT SIZE: 0 REMARKS : WOL 3564586 OFFICE 2112 SF ( 5%) ; MFG 24648 SF ( 55%) ; WHSE 17840 SF ( 40% ) . BLDG EXTENSIVELY REMODELED AFTER SALE INTO CENTRAL KITCHEN 30 940733 I- i COMPARABLE SALE JLi q n ‘, JJjj!. > � d1"�"', , x 4 %..°,,, Fti.il-b 4. ! -n >r rC ,� 5 +T'�^S. r iF' wux 3} S``` t i F. �'L 'S*N�f.Y!e +^.�, vzh'°n �,: a art+ ,4,9,454,,,,,...`� , y. S y. ", W. a p s it.:_,,,,,i.„=„1,/,----sz-,of t >•_ K 'T + v t` r a a p:7;-.71,4A- '')....e - '"(4cr2,44,1::`� se w • t t "Ii`-`;s: x < � +• y •s:SYe'2b - - � J '' .ktf ' at ,fit SPP3 T[ �Asisz S 7 (IIHI� s+xTM lama, w a ' f',.. S xS. .. ' i is at c t jn. a A 'w PIN: 3564686 PARCEL # : 96117403006 OCCUPANCY: WHSE STOR ADDRESS: 4 AV 2414 GREELEY SALE DATE: 10/12/88 SALE PRICE: $375 ,000 GRANTOR: WEICKER INVESTMENT CO GRANTEE: WARDE, TIMOTHY BLDG SIZE: 28 ,750 CONSTRUCTION-QUAL: AV G YEAR BLT: 1960 PR/SF(IMPS) : $11.16 CLASS: C PR/SQ FT: $13. 04 WALL HEIGHT: 19 FT LAND SIZE: 72,390 LAND VALUE: $54 , 292 LAND/BLDG RATIO: 2.52 REMARKS: 31 940733 COMPARABLE SALE 5 i -- $.,w fax r 4 • ��Ye` Y� �i .kal"'F .ial s. f Il° xs9.o- w r' ann+. -J.i .b N 4 fin. , X'_'^' t- A ,,, "y "4'. 0, 44) a '�,,,, Y .rs. ,Xa. uF % 4 ya —G$x4„ a . • 4C''1 1' 10.1 4 Y Y,,in.t�d9 '4)* 'i . `-:',:.4.41.174.1. -, F .1 ST'Itr 49'i [W Y..a }.3-'5;-ft. ;cur r ,?rr�, Fitt � •/3, +'1 74q 3i, Vir uS xi ' , + i': PIN: 3312886 PARCEL #: 96108403002 OCCUPANCY: MANUFACTURING ADDRESS: 401 17 ST GREELEY BOOK # : 0 SALE DATE: 09/07/89 RECEPTION # : 0 SALE PRICE: $370 , 000 ADJ SALE PRICE: GRANTOR: INTRAWEST BANK OF GREELEY GRANTEE: R & R CUSTOM WOODWORKING CONSTRUCTION-QUAL: 0 BLDG SIZE: 29, 025 PR/SF(IMPS) : $10.20 YEAR BLT: 1973 PR/SQ FT: $12 .75 CLASS: S LAND SIZE: 239, 580 WALL HEIGHT: 14 LAND VALUE: $74,272 STORIES: 1 LAND/BLDG RATIO: 8. 25 BSMT SIZE: 0 REMARKS: OFFICE MEZZANINE 2250 SF(7. 8%) . FIRE SPRINKLER 29025 SF. STORAGE LEAN-TO 3200 SF ADDN'L ER AFTER SALE $110, 000 INTERIOR REMODEL. SELL FINANCED BUT AT NORMAL TERMS AND RATES. 32 940733 . • COMPARABLE SALE !9 ` a e ,1 - y 4C-- 4-514';`-, '' may'CA 3 3i w "4i 'x .Cc:1� ``�'� r Vx j kl'' .w y. rlji ,�r,,� i",,.w''�,��£isr.c a '.. �r 3C i ti :141 'r3 Jae 1 rj:,. a�. ]r q�t�l&`x"441#440,04; +$. ��3` h� t x 1 § �S�7 �✓ �r �'in-� zt a '{�'i ihM"Pa � 'k �°k xi p ""tE .kr rr a t + - ` p r?.r 'r+n# �L x. v re 'r.y ' lk z *s-- a"W's m^4 k p• ��{G"��x i a.�t r ;¢�'t l'A r� i.'ar+"t� • i � -. x E tilt _ � ��T'.'-Zi°.i�i ��.Jz^ rt 4 <nwr.s x kfi a 'vq�aAa'r "` c'^�� : ; ax '� kS s - � �' i' ,.,.�. a "f J' `A t m tyua i `j°i,�f'Y. r"`Jr .� fah' x"1:11 - r � " �� '�•+^ - r ,M'�,.4`v-i f r .c'ryr'' �) . 4] tjuat PIN: 0139391 PARCEL 4 : 96120315009 OCCUPANCY: MANUFACTURE ADDRESS : 3565 W SERVICE RD EVANS BOOK # : 1288 SALE DATE: 01/22/91 RECEPTION # : 2239219 SALE PRICE: $225 , 000 ADS SALE PRICE : GRANTOR: PRESTON MICHAEL GRANTEE: SIGN-ON INC CONSTRUCTION-QUAL: AVG PR/SF(IMPS) : $12 . 88 BLDG SIZE: 13 , 152 PR/SQ FT: $17 . 11 YEAR BLT: 1970 LAND SIZE: 79 , 483 CLASS: S LAND VALUE: $55 , 638 WALL HEIGHT: 24 LAND/BLDG RATIO: 6 . 04 BSMT SIZE: 0 REMARKS: OFFICE 1 , 152 SF-YOC 1960-8 'W.H. MANUF 4 , 000 SF-YOC-1970-20 ' W.H. MANUF 8 ,000SF-YOC 1978-30 'W.H. 33 940733 • Income Approach The rental market date was researched and a tabulation of Industrial rentals is included on the following pages. Only one from this tabulation of 5 rentals is near the same size as the subject, rental comparable :'S1, which is also sale //l in the market approach study. This comparable rented for 1. 13 per square foot triple net. This comparable would be a good indicator of the subject rents, though it is of a higher quality and condition. Other industrial rentals listed, which are smaller than the subject, range from $1.55 to $3. 00 per square foot gross or $1. 08 to $2 . 29 per square foot net. It would be necessary to adjust these rentals that are smaller in size downward when compared to the larger subject. Economic Income CCteARAELE A➢tSf.ESS SQUARE YEAR YEAR.OF GROSS EXPENSES NET FOOT HUTLT LEASE :- RENT INULUDT.NG ?kENT PROP TAX #1 MONFORT FAB 105,942 1966 1989 pure net 1.13 2401 2 AV GREELEY, CO #2 COUNTRY CRISP 38,827 1955 1990 1.55 30% 1.08 2626 8 AV GARDEN CITY, CO #3 DAVIS WHSE 17,474 1984 1992 2.70 30% 1.90 2647 8 AV GREELEY, CO #4 SEVEN-UP 18,380 1953 1987 3.00 25% 2.29 610 5 AV GREELEY, CO #5 PLUSWDOD INC 44,000 1978 1992 1.80 20% 1.44 600 31 STREET EVANS, CO After taking all apparent factors into consideration it is estimated that the subject facility could be rented for $1.00 per square foot gross, or as summarized on page II *properties of the subjects size are not frequently rented, most are owner occupied. Vacancy There are few vancancies throughout the Industrial sector of east Greeley and reportedly short vancancy terms between tenants in industrial buildings, however, considering the relatively large size of the subject, the anticipated vancancy and credit losses are estimated to be 10%. .34 94073; Expenses The majority of negotiated leases during the base year period show the owner usually responsible for taxes, insurance, and major structual maintenance. Utilities have shown to be paid by the tenant. Therefore these expenses will be treated as such in this analysis. (Taxes will be included in the capitalizaiton rate) . Management fees for properties of this nature, which are usually lower than those for more intensively managed properties, typically are 3% per cent of effective gross income. Maintenance and repairs for this type of property is typically 1% to 2% of effective gross. • 35� 944733-___ Reconstructed Income Statement PGI 1.00 x 94, 669 $94, 669 less for Vacancy & Loss (10%) (9, 467) EGI 85, 202 Less Operating Expenses: Fixed Expenses: Insurance (.11 psf) $10, 414 Variable Expenses: Prof mgmt (3%) 2, 556 Maintenance (5%) 4, 260 Total Estimated Operating Expenses (17,230) (20%) Net Operating Income $67, 972 Cap Rate Developed from Market 13.5 Indicated Value per Income Approach 503, 496 Rounded 503,000 36' 940733 Reconciliation and Final Valuation The Cost Approach was given the least consideration due to the age of the improvements and the fact that the cost approach typically sets the upper limit of value. The Sales Comparison Approach is generally considered the best indicator of value. Sufficient quantities of data were found supporting the value reported by this approach, even though heavy adjustments were necessary for quality condition, and size. The Income Approach, which typically set the low end of value, also must be given consideration due to the 01 rental comparable is very similar in characteristics, though superior in quality and condition. Even so, properties of the subjects size are seldom purchased as income producing properties thus difficult to determine present worth of potential future benefits. The sales comparison approach indicates a value of $7. 00 psf and the Income Approach to value indicates a value of $5.30 psf. With equal consideration of both the Sales and Income Approaches, a mean of $6. 15 per sf was chosen for the subject property. Therefore, the value of the subject property including land, building, and site improvements is estimated to be as follows: 94, 669 sq ft @ $6.15 psf = 582,214 Rounded to $583,000 37 CORRELATION AND FINAL ESTIMATE OF VALUE COST APPROACH S 661, 000 SALES COMPARISON $ 662, 600 INCOME APPROACH $ 503, 000 ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE of the SUBJECT PROPERTY: $583 ,000 38 940733 The Assessor's Office has obtained two copies of fee appraisals on the subject property, prepared by Robert Mitchell, MAI dated May 1st, 1988 and August 1st 1990. The conclusion of the appraisal dated May 1st 1988, a result of the three approaches to value, are as follows : Cost Approach. . . $614, 000 Sales Approach. . $650, 000 Income Approach. $613, 000 The final estimate of value was estimated to be $625, 00 The conclusion of the appraisal dated August 1st 1990, are as follows : Cost Approach . . $540, 000 Sales Approach. . $565, 000 Income Approach. . $544, 000 The final estimate of value was estimated to be $550, 000. 39 940733 Hello