The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About930754.tiff RESOLUTION RE: THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 1993, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PETITION OF: BACK TO SCHOOL LTD 1/2 INT & GREELEY CITY OF CITATION MANAGEMENT CORP /S. SYMES 1601 NW EXPRESSWAY #500 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: PIN: R 6768386 PARCEL: 096105317006 - GR 46-A W2 BLK46 9710 11 AVE% 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 1993, 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 1993, claiming that the property described in such petition was assessed too high, as more specifically stated in said petition, and WHEREAS, in lieu of the hearing scheduled before the Board of Equalization a Stipulation was agreed upon by the Assessor and said petitioner(s) , and WHEREAS, the petitioner(s) and the Weld County Assessor agree that the assessment and valuation of the Weld County Assessor shall be, and hereby is, stipulated as follows: ORIGINAL ADJUSTED Land $ 137,500 $ 137, 500 Improvements OR Personal Property 1,062,500 587,500 TOTAL ACTUAL VALUE $ 1,200,000 $ 725,000 WHEREAS, said Stipulation shall resolve all issues to have been determined by the Weld County Board of Equalization. 930754 gsooa`7 4_5 (70 Page 2 RE: BOE - BACK TO SCHOOL LTD 1/2 INT & NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, acting as the Board of Equalization, that the Stipulation agreed to by the Weld County Assessor and the above-named petitioner(s) be, and hereby is, accepted by the Board. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by////�the Afollowing vote on the 5th day of August, A.D. , 1993. ATTEST: A / �p�6�' " % / BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ""`+O � �/�� WEL COUNTY, COLORADO �� Weld County Clerk to the Board _....—'4 Constance L. Farber hairman BY: / k I1 L' 1 la N/ Deputy Cle k o the W. H. ebster, Pro —� APPROVED S TO FORM: ' C, -- Aeor e . Baxter _______.-- EXCUSED County to ney Dale K.pp Hall Barbara S. Kirkmeyer ,�" � 930754 WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR ECEIVE. 1993 COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 14Ub C 4 199j WELD COUNTY GREELEY,COLO. ASSESSOR' S PIN NUMBER 6768386 STIPULATION (As To Tax Year 1993 Actual Value) RE PETITION OF NAME: BACK TO SCHOOL 1/2 INT. & GREELEY CITY OF 1/2 INT. ADDRESS: % BRIDGE & ASSOCIATES/GREG EVANS 216 SIXTEENTH STREET MALL SUITE 950 DENVER, CO 80202-5123 Petitioner(s) , BACK TO SCHOOL & CITY OF GREELEY and the Weld County Assessor, hereby enter into this Stipulation regarding the tax year 1993 valuation of the subject property, and jointly move that the Board of Equalization to enter its order based on this Stipulation. Petitioner(s) and the Assessor agree and stipulate as follows : 1 . The property subject to this Stipulation is described as : GR46-A W2 BLK 46 A.K.A. 710 11TH AVENUE, GREELEY, CO . 2 . The subject property is classified as COMMERCIAL property (what type) . 3 . The County Assessor originally assigned the following actual value to the subject property for tax year _1993 : Land $ 137,500 Improvements $ 1,062,500 Total $ 1,200, 000 4 . After further review and negotiation, the petitioner(s) and Weld County Assessor agree to the following tax year 1993 actual value for the subject property. Land $ 137 , 500 Improvements $ 587,500 Total $ 725, 000 5 . The valuations, as established above, shall be binding only with respect to tax year 1993 . c:;c7t4 6 . Brief narrative as to why the reduction was made: REDUCTION IS BASED ON A FOSTER VALUATION APPRAISAL DATED 04/15/92 . 7 . Both parties agree that the hearing scheduled before the Board of Equalization on JULY 30, 1993 (date) at 8 : 30 A.M. (time) be vacated; or, a hearing has not yet been scheduled before the Board of Equalization (check if appropriate) . DA this 29 day of JULY , 1993 . io er s{ or Attorn ey Petitioner(s) or Attorney Address : Address : 42- C0 "�CJ`c) Telephone(X'3);ji.�- rno Telephone: Co nt Asse so Address : 1400 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Telephone: (303)353-3845 ext. 3656 tarsi OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR 1400 NORTH 17th AVE. NOTICE OF DENIAL GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 PHONE (303) 353-3845, EXT. 3656 OR 46-A 142 BLK46 #710 11 AVE% RECEIVED COLORADO BRIDJ N R 71993 GE v ,1oU 701 N II AV GREELEY OWNER BACK TO SCHOOL LTD 1/2 INT £ GREG EVANS PARCEL 096105317006 BRIDGE £ ASSOCIATES PIN R 6768386 216 16TH ST *950 YEAR 1993 DENVER CO 8O2O2-5123 LOG 02373 05/28/1993 The ap praised value of property is based don the appropriate ategon (ies):tion of the approaches to value required by law. The Asse$sgr has determined that your property should be included in the following category(7891: RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS VALUED BY CONSIDERING THE MARKET APPROACH. AGRICULTURAL LAND VALUE IS DETERMINED SOLELY BY THE EARNING OR PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF THE LAND, CAPITALIZED AT A RATE SET BY LAW. ALL OTHER PROPERTY, INCLUDING VACANT LAND, IS VALUED BY CONSIDERING THE COST, MARKET, 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 all available information, giving particular attention to the specifics included on your protest and has deter- mined the valuation(s) assigned to your property. The reasons for this determination of value are: THE ASSESSORS STAFF HAVE REQUESTED INFORMATION WHICH IS PERTINENT AND CRITICAL TO PROPER EVALUATION OF YOUR PROPERTIES VALUE. BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THIS INFORMATION WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO DENY ANY ADJUSTMENTS ON THIS PROPERTY UNTIL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION IS RECEIVED. PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION PETITIONER'S ASSESSOR'S VALUATION ESTIMATE ACTUAL VALUE ACTUAL VALUE OF VALUE PRIOR TO REVIEW AFTER REVIEW LAND 137, 500 137,500 IMPS 1,062, 500 1 ,062,500 • TOTALS $ $ 1,200.000 $ t vaOO,OOO If you disagree with the Assessor's decision,you have the right to appeal to the County Board of Equalization for further consideration, 39-8-106(1)(a),C.R.S. Please see the back of this form for detailed information on filing your appeal. By: WARREN L. LASELL 06/02/93 WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR L �'/-�1 DATE 930754 3 15-DPT AR ' • 7 / �� Form PR-207-87/93 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL T 1 ASSESSQ S-' DECISION The County Board of Equalization will sit to.h@arAppeaIksibeginning .July 1 jan9i continuing through August 10 for real property (land and buildings) and personal property (furnishings,' machinery, and ecii0ment). 39-8-104 and 39-8-107(2)„C.R.S, • APPEAL PROCEDURES: If you choose to appeal the Assessor's decision, mail or deliver one copy of this ompleted form to the County Board of Equailiat on.To preserve ur right to appeal, Our appeal must be POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED ON OR BEFORE JULY 15 FOR REAL PR PEF TY, AND a JLY,2�p FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY . WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ) i.,4915 10th Street, P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Telephone (303) 356 4000, Ext. 42.25 -. , i .., NOTIFICATION OF F t41# r ING: • `,::Y *i' : f t You will ha notified of the time and place set for the hearing of your appeal. COUNTY 8OAgD OF EOUP LIZATION'Sttl'ItltRM)NATION: The County Board of Equalization must make a decision on your appeal and mail you a determination wirhitl fie business days. The County Board must conclude their hearings by August 10. TAXPAYER RIGHT'S'FOR` RTHEWAPPEALSO 30 I c A UD Y* 1 Y T TJL .._ L4I S.Aa 1; J:s DC 1A ">• �7JG ?I U V '(. J-. - 1 1JIJ:, } If you are not satisfied with'the Co�t t oar of tq �iza o " c�eeisi u fist me yv+.thtn. 'Arty a• y.S,at fhe _ r] t� �(Q 1 .. tt .. CoLinty Board of,Et ualiEition's_wOffera gcig.�r�•n_ its Ri of h o tchvin v:. F+V , JI J �: • V" a: [i Li J�� . � Y T Board of Assessment Appeals (RAM,,),Al)t, D!r 1 ,c: ,T > - Contact the BAA at 1313 Sherman, Room 315, Denver, Colorado 80203, (303) 8665880. District Court: 9th Avenue and 9th Street, P.O. Box C Greeley, Colorado 80632 a Teleolhoj' �3t)3} 356;4040,:E E . 4520 T a T . t 'Z. 1 i9; 1 Ho r' e 1 Y: u. a :. UY i C. E.C r`_ .. r:.j' ]. k.)15;.: • ;%.0 MArbitftstioVUITAI.•JA1i _ S+ .:r'. 1 .t1 J T ;'D 'jVt Y r..,.C ::t r a,;'.' '31RitiVIJYtottiCrti, IiCtlA'tj dit tdili �LtIZ5A;C�'Ct10 " :3" T,1�. �t.a r• . i I vtel ' r!'r...ay : Y�Ae 91`&i iTStr'f'EtT,` ."CSto s ZANY t/ T Greeley, Colorado 80632 . ' au t :J - Telephone (303) 356-4000, Ext. 4225 If you do riot receive a determination from the County Board of Equalization,you must file an appeal with the Board of AGSGSSilie;ii Appeaia b;. September 20. Gc s'4..'•!r`' APPEAL RIGHTS, YOU MUST PROVE YOU HAVE. FILED A TIMELY APPEAL; THEREFORE, WE RECOMMEND ALL CORRESPONDENCE BE MAI€_ED WITH PROOF; Of' MAILING. PETITION TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION In the space below, please explain why you di;,ac ee with the Assessor's valuation. IN .°,.c:. . ORi")ANC _INITH .;,j; - `t a6(1.5). F ,Si CYLQU MUST STATE YOUR OPINION OF VALUE IN TERMS OF .A ti.FE IFi=.i.QQLLAR AMOUNT. Attach additional documery6sa, necessary.. • 1 3 1 I .' 1 a� �:Nt s �.f _ si .r r • y i CLERK TO THE BOARD P.O. BOX 758 ' - GREELEY,COLORADO 80632 C (303)35&1000 EXT.4225 I. i COLORADO July 15, 1993 Parcel No. : 096105317006 PIN No. : R 6768386 BACK TO SCHOOL LTD 1/2 INT & GREELEY CITY OF % CITATION MANAGEMENT CORP /S. SYMES 1601 NW EXPRESSWAY #500 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118 Dear Petitioner(s) : The Weld County Board of Equalization has set a date of Friday, July 30, 1993, at or about the hour of 8:30 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 10, 1992, and mailed to you on or before August 16, 1992. 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. 930754 BACK TO SCHOOL LTD 1/2 INT & - R 6768386 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, BOARD OF EQUALIZATION oaf.': r7 onald Warden, Clerk to the Board BY: arol A. Harding, Deputy cc: Warren Lasell, Assessor GREG EVANS, 930754 i� pProperty IIII Tax BRIDGE ■ Services & ASSOCIATES 216 Sixteenth Street Mall • Suite 950 • Denver,Colorado 80202-5123 (303)573-7000 • FAX: (303)573-7050 • (800) 842-2335 July 11, 1993 Weld County Board of Equalization 915 10th Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Re : Notice of protest FDIC %Bridge & Associates 216 16th Street Mall Suite 950 Denver, CO 80202 Schedule Number: 6768386 Property Address : 710 11th Ave . , Greeley All Interested Parties : The subject was appraised for $725, 000 April 15, 1992 in order to sell the property. Further, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes ( "C.R. S . " ) Section 39-8-107 (3) , Bridge & Associates respectfully requests that the respondent county provide all documentation and data supporting the assessor' s valuation of the above referenced property to the undersigned three (3) days prior to the above referenced BOE hearing. Your prompt attention to this request is appreciated. Sincerely, Greg ?vans Bridge & Associates enclosure ke • Nationwide Property Tax Services • 930754 i . . Properly � Tax BRIDGE ■ Services & ASSOCIATES 216 Sixteenth Street Mall • Suite 950 ■ Denver,Colorado 80202-512t7 003)573-7000M FAX: (303)573-7050 M.000).842-2335 July 11, 1993 Weld County Board of Equalization 915 10th Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Re: County Board of Equalization (BOE) Hearing To All Interested Parties : We are requesting a Board of Equalization hearing for the following property: FDIC Schedule Number: 6768386 Property Address : 710 11th Ave . , Greeley Sincerely, c deg E ns Brid e & Associates ke • Nationwide Property Tax Services ■ 930754 Appraisal of the GREELEY OFFICE BUILDING LAMIS NUMBER 003564611 710 11th Avenue Greeley, Colorado For Sharlene D. Raat Liquidation Assistant Asset Information Management Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 707 17th Street, Suite 3300 Denver, Colorado 80202 Date of Value: April 15, 1992 Date of Report: April 15, 199 II @ EH OW M JAN 12932 By Sue Anne Foster, MAI, RM Foster Valuation Company Cottonwood Commons Offices 1750 25th Avenue, Suite 303 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Federal Tax ID# 84-1157920 930754 FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY April 15, 1992 Ms. Sharlene D. Raat Liquidation Assistant Asset Information Management Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 707 17 Street, Suite 3300 Denver, Colorado 80202 RE: Greeley Office Building; Lamis Number 003564611 Dear Ms. Raat: As requested, I have prepared four copies (one unbound) of an appraisal of the Greeley Office Building located at 710 11th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. A copy of the engagement letter is included as Exhibit A, along with the FDIC Uniform Appraisal Instructions to Appraisers and Environmental Risk Checklist. The appraisal contains a total of 98 pages and is subject to the assumptions and limiting conditions set forth on pages 96 and 97. Property rights appraised are both fee simple and leasehold interests in the property. Date of value is April 15, 1992, the date of last inspection. The purpose of the appraisal is to estimate Market Value, which is defined on page 3 of this report. I have inspected the property and have endeavored to consider all factors that affect value. The narrative report that follows describes the methods of valuation used and sets forth the analysis of data and reasoning involved in deriving my con- clusions. It is brought to the reader's attention that 1989 and 1990 real estate taxes are delinquent, along with the payment of a special improvement district assessment. County records indicate that $123,837.68 is required to redeem the subject property through April 30, 1992. Ann\ W. West Foster, MM. CRE Sue Anne Foster, MAI, RM Real Estate Appraisers&Counselors Cottonwood Commons Offices • 1750 25th Avenue, Suite 303 •Greeley, Colorado 80631 (303) 352-1117 930754 Ms. Sharlene D. Raat Page 2 April 15, 1992 Based on the inspection of the property and the investigation and analysis undertaken, I estimate the Market Value of the subject property, as of April 15, 1992, subject to payment of the delinquent taxes, interest, and penalties, to be as follows: SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($725,000.00) Respectfully submitted, Sue Anne Foster, MAI, RM 930754 TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page Letter of Transmittal Table of Contents Page Photographs Summary of Salient Facts and Conclusions 1 Identification of the Property 2 Legal Description 2 Purpose of the Appraisal 3 Property Rights Appraised 4 Scope of the Appraisal 4 Use of the Appraisal 5 Date of Value 5 Ownership 5 Property History 5 Regional and City Data 7 Neighborhood Data 17 Zoning 19 Assessed Value and Taxes 20 Site Description 22 Description of the Improvements 24 Highest and Best Use 30 Appraisal Procedure 32 Land Value Estimate 34 Cost Approach 43 Sales Comparison Approach 49 Income Approach 74 Reconciliation and Final Valuation 92 Marketing Time 94 Certification of Value 95 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 96 Qualifications of Sue Anne Foster 98 Addendum Exhibit A - Engagement Letter, Uniform Appraisal Instructions to Appraisers, and Environment Risk Checklist Exhibit B - Long-Term Leasehold Agreement and Assignment of Lessee's Interest in Lease Exhibit C - Assessment Schedule for Subject - Special Improvement District 428 Exhibit D - Rent Roll as of February 1992, Provided by Management Exhibit E - Owner's Income and Expense Statements for 1990 and 1991 930754 SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS Property Description: Two and one-half story, plus garden level basement, office building that is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Originally a school, the building was renovated in 1983 for office use. Location: 710 11th Avenue, Greeley, CO. Property Rights Appraised: Undivided one-half fee simple interest and all long-term leasehold interest Ownership: Back to School, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership, has fee title to an undivided one-half interest and title to the leasehold estate. (Note: Fee title to the remaining undivided one-half fee simple interest is vested in the City of Greeley, Colorado, a Municipal Corporation.) Zoning: C-4 (Commercial) Highest and Best Use: As improved Land Area: 50,381 square feet Improvements: momptioNNEEMINERESSMGross Usable: Btutclt A#ea fYT$$I Sq. Ft. Above Grade 34,195 20,436 Sq. Ft. of Garden Level Bsm't 14,779 4,861 Total 48,974 25,297 *Defined as space the tenant actually occupies Date of Value: April 15, 1992 Date of Report: April 15, 1992 Estimated Marketing Time: Two years Estimated Land Value: $175,000 Value Indications Cost Approach: $1,595,000 Sales Comparison Approach: $810,000 Income Approach: $635,000 Market Value Estimate "As Is": $725,000, subject to payment of delinquent taxes, interest and penalties totaling $123,837.68. \`• FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY J - l - �y .9307ry 54 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY The property being appraised is a 48,974 square foot, multi-tenant, office complex containing 25,297 square feet of usable area. It is a two and one-half story, solid masonry building situated in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of 11th Avenue and 8th Street. Property address is 710 11th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The property is further identified by the Weld County assessor's office as Parcel Number 0961-05-3-17-006. LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property is legally described as follows: An undivided one-half fee simple interest and all leasehold interest as created by instrument recorded August 26, 1981, in Book 945 under Reception No. 1867449, Weld County Records, in and to the West One-Half (W 1/2) of Block Forty-Six (46), City of Greeley, Weld County, Colorado. • • FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY 93O754 PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the Market Value of a multi-tenant office complex known as The Greeley Building. Property rights appraised include both fee simple and leasehold interests in the property. The remaining term of the lease that establishes the leasehold interest is 44 years; the lease expires August 25, 2036. The length of the remaining term, combined with the fact that the lease has been pre-paid, results in the value of the property rights appraised being equivalent to the value of the entire fee simple estate. In accordance with the instructions supplied to the appraiser, the value reported is on an "as is" basis. Pursuant to Title XI of the Federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, the report is being prepared in conformance with the provisions of FDIC's Regulation on Real Estate Appraisals, 12 CRF Part 323. Market Value is defined as follows: The most probable price that 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, knowl- edgeably, 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 are well informed or well advised and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; 3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; 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. `‘ FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY l� 930754 PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED The property rights appraised are (1) those of an undivided one-half interest in a fee simple estate, defined as "absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate; subject only to the four powers of government"' and (2) those of an interest in a pre-paid, long-term leasehold as created by instrument recorded August 26, 1981, in Book 945 at Reception Number 1867449 and Assignment of Lessee's Interest in Lease recorded October 11, 1984, in Book 1046 at Reception Number 1984781. Copies of these documents can be seen as Exhibit B. SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL This assignment is to prepare a full narrative real estate appraisal and report the findings and analysis to support the Market Value estimate. The scope of the appraisal has not been limited in any manner nor has any departure been made from the Appraisal Foundation's Standards of Professional Practice. The methodology involved an inspection of the subject property and consid- eration of all relevant market influences in order to develop the Market Value estimate. On the basis of this research, the Highest and Best Use was determined, which formed the basis of the value estimate. A thorough investigation and analysis of comparable market data has taken place, and all appropriate valuation techniques were employed. In the reconciliation, their relative significance was analyzed; and a final estimate of value was presented. 'American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal. (Chicago: American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1989), p. 120. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 4 - 930754 �i - USE OF THE APPRAISAL This report has been prepared for FDIC officials to assist as a support document for internal purposes. DATE OF VALUE Date of value is April 15, 1992. This date corresponds with the final property inspection. OWNERSHIP According to the public records of Weld County, Colorado, the ownership of the property rights being appraised is held by Back to School, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership. PROPERTY HISTORY The Greeley Building is a unique office building in downtown Greeley. The building served as a high school for 57 years, until 1951 when School District Six of Weld County conveyed the property to the City of Greeley via a warranty deed recorded in Book 1304 at Page 486. The City of Greeley subsequently converted the building to serve as a Senior Citizens' Center. The above warranty deed specified that the property only be used for community or public purposes. In 1981, School District Six, via a quit claim deed, recorded in Book 945 at Reception Number 1867447, released this demand. \> FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY 'l 5 9330754 This action cleared the way for the city to convey an undivided one-half interest in the property to the Greeley Downtown Development Corporation, a corporation created under the auspices of the City of Greeley for the purpose of participating in the improvement and redevelopment of the downtown area. This transaction was recorded on August 26, 1981, in Book 945 at Reception Number 1867450. The intent was for the Greeley Downtown Development Corporation to, in turn, convey its one-half interest in the property to a private developer. This was accomplished via a warranty deed recorded on August 26, 1981, in Book 945 at Reception Number 1867451, at which time one-half interest in the fee simple was conveyed to Horace Greeley Phase II, a joint venture, for $145,000. The City of Greeley leased the remaining one-half interest in the property to the joint venture for a single rental payment of $55,000 for a 55-year term, with options to purchase the property upon termination of the leasehold. The terms of the lease agreement are created by instrument recorded August 26, 1981, in Book 945 at Reception Number 1867449. The city has an option to purchase the joint venture's one-half interest in the property at market value upon termination of the lease. If the city fails to purchase, then the joint venture has an option to purchase the one-half interest in the property that is the subject of the lease under the same terms. Renovation commenced, and office conversion was completed in early 1984. On December 30, 1983, Horace Greeley Phase II, a joint venture, conveyed its fee simple and leasehold interest in the subject property via a quit claim deed to Back to School, Ltd., a Colorado Limited Partnership. The deed was recorded on October 11, 1984, in Book 1046 at Reception Number 1984774. An additional instrument, Assignment of Lessee's Interest in Lease, was at this time executed and recorded in Book 1046 at Reception Number 1984781. On September 27, 1984, a loan having a maturity date of September 26, 1989, secured by a first deed of trust, was obtained by the partnership from Silverado Banking, Savings and Loan Association. The loan amount was $2,200,000. A loan modification agreement dated January 15, 1988, and recorded November 8, 1988, at Reception Number 02161339, increased the loan to a maximum amount of $2,730,579. The property is managed by Nancy Varner of Greeley. She is self-employed; and the subject property is the only building that she manages. Having worked with the property since renovation, she appears to take great pride in the building and its history. The property appears to be managed in a competent manner. The leasing program, on the other hand, could be improved. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY i - 6 - 930754 li 11 1 y —_ L,tl Htl �- — {y •,` - 1 1 ` 7 - I1 f f - r ,t. _ _ J.•j _ a I i. 6 m• �i v ®• 8 I No 8 kl III ° a a - - o �— I f s I ' i 3 i ; ^ ml t -1 ' �. ;j{' + V �o W. T ' xR. � t - nom I8. Q — ) t 1r aka ` .,;.^ I r� f 8 N K__,1 a . I! - 0 _ t 5E- t� at I , 'ii PP , so. 4 .i Li ji.I., .tta,, *Ili Li_:=a, - fli a y f as y - �ii £ -, _ -� W 423 e • -t r.' � o )z, i 58 z1 F• E �/ £ . gf t.: 11' rIr 1� yap I LL I^' r. ] r f ' �®r a fr I o g W x kph Y ` . _ l 1' 7 ® ' 8 J 1 �j 9 _ = E g ei , _ 1 . .- 15 . 6, 2 t` e C 6 w w,- nQv o v. a O I o to f R3l 6/ 1 _ ``1�� J U• • Htl1Y1 LI Copying is Prohibited by Law. 930754 li - REGIONAL AND CITY DATA The property being appraised is located in northeastern Colorado in the City of Greeley, which has an estimated population of 60,536. Greeley is the county seat and principal city in Weld County, a relatively large county of 4,100 square miles. Greeley is located in the west central part of the county and contains about 43 percent of the county's population. Most of the remaining population resides within a 20 to 30 mile radius of Greeley. The county is situated on the plains, approximately 30 miles from the foothills of the Colorado Rocky Mountains. The western portion of the county has rolling prairies and low hills, while the land surface in the eastern portion is fairly level. Elevations vary from approximately 4,400 to 5,000 feet above sea level. The county's economy consists primarily of agriculture, food processing, and oil and gas production, as well as manufacturing and service industries. It ranks among the top ten in the United States for many types of agricultural production. When compared with non-citrus producing counties throughout the nation, it consistently ranks number one because of its cattle and other types of livestock feeding enterprises. Environmental Factors Geographic Location and Climate - Greeley is favorably situated approximately 52 miles north of Denver, the capital city of Colorado, and 51 miles south of Cheyenne, the capital city of Wyoming. The facing area map provides a visual representation of the area. At an elevation of approximately 4,637, Greeley lies just west of the confluence of the Cache la Poudre and South Platte Rivers. Topography throughout the area is primarily gently rolling, with a moderate easterly slope. Greeley is located in a semi-arid region; and although the average annual rainfall is only 11.12 inches, snow accumulations in the mountains provide an abundant supply of irrigation and domestic water through an extensive system of reservoirs, canals, and irrigation ditches. The growing season is approximately 141 days, with an average annual temperature of 50 degrees. Transportation - The City of Greeley is situated within a good network of transportation facilities. A four-lane, limited access highway (U.S. 85) connects Greeley with Denver and Cheyenne. East-west U.S. Highway 34, comprised of a business and bypass route, extends through Greeley, providing easy access westward \‘ FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 7 - 930754 to the Loveland-Fort Collins-Rocky Mountain National Park area and eastward to Fort Morgan and Eastern Colorado. Currently, the railroad depot in Greeley is not staffed; but the Amtrak train stops at the depot seven days a week. The Union Pacific Railroad stops in La Salle, approximately five miles south of Greeley, seven days a week for pick-up and delivery of freight. Other non-passenger rail service is provided by Burlington Northern and Great Western. Daily bus service is provided to Denver, Cheyenne, and other neighboring towns. Public transportation is available throughout the city by "The Bus," which operates Monday through Saturday. In addition, elderly and disabled bus service is offered on a demand basis. The Greeley Municipal Airport lies on approximately 475 acres two miles east of the city. Ranked third among Colorado general aviation airports in number of based aircraft, the airport has a 7,000 foot paved runway, full-maintenance facilities, and hangar space for corporate and company aircraft. It is primarily used by private and corporate aircraft, flying schools, and crop dusting firms. Stapleton International Airport in Denver, with approximately 12 major carriers that operate scheduled passenger service, is a one-hour drive from Greeley and easily reached via regularly scheduled limousine service. Social Factors The population of Greeley has been increasing at a rate commensurate with that of Weld County. Census figures indicate the following rates of population growth for Greeley and Weld County: ,. )Pt�PC3LATTC)N �R�!'pt''1 H R�eli Cttuaty Qtley year Popo.tattoo L Annual Change Population Annual Change 1950 67,504 20254 1960 72,344 0.69% 26,314 2.65% 1970 89,297 2.13% 38,902 3.99% 1980 123,438 3.29% 53,006 3.14% 1990 131,821 0.66% 60,536 1.34% FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 930754 ii T The preceding table shows the strongest growth during the 1960's. During that time, two national firms, State Farm Insurance and Eastman Kodak, located regional headquarters in Weld County. In the last decade, the rate of growth has slowed due to the lack of new base sector employment opportunities. G1tEELEY BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY (VALUE IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) Commercial.Coustruetion Single Family Residences 3Ylultifamily Residertce30� Valuation Year Additions & Ulm value Units Value': New Remodels 1973 316 $6,274 408 $4,002 $12,738 n/a 1974 265 $6,437 368 $3,553 $4,179 n/a 1975 333 $6,246 60 $1,139 $4,650 n/a 1976 235 $6,334 292 $3,488 $2,439 n/a 1977 479 $13,240 270 $4,238 $6,379 n/a 1978 511 $16,123 262 $4,658 $7,302 n/a 1979 367 $13,148 300 $6,475 $6,954 n/a 1980 165 $7,930 103 $3,162 $4,957 n/a 1981 49 $3,048 111 $3,070 $5,137 n/a 1982 56 $3,323 38 $1,426 $12,535 n/a 1983 208 $13,493 73 $3,007 $8,179 n/a 1984 172 $10,298 64 $2,277 $3,879 n/a 1985 166 $9,477 384 $9,941 $6,485 n/a 1986 124 $7,324 456 $11,278 $16,975 n/a 1987 142 $11,301 148 $4,672 $8,081 n/a 1988 126 $9,914 28 $1,304 $3,833 n/a 1989 118 $9,895 18 $767 $4,647 n/a 1990 118 $9,194 26 $1,126 $6,335 $5,922 1991 125 $10,507 26 $2,093 $2,959 $4,848 "Includes duplexes, 4-plexes, etc. \` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY i f 930754 / - 1 The preceding figures for building permit activity in Greeley show that single family construction has been at relatively modest but stable levels from 1986 through 1991 . The large increase seen in multifamily residences during 1985 and 1986 is a result of a 288-unit apartment complex in the west central part of Greeley that was completed in late 1985; a 102-unit senior citizens' housing complex near the central business district that was completed in mid-I986; and a 210-unit, multifamily project in southwestern Greeley that was begun in October, 1986. In 1986 there were significant increases in the number of retail businesses in the area. This construction includes renovation of the Greeley Mall, the new Greeley Tribune building, the new Wal-Mart store, and several neighborhood shopping centers. Two projects in downtown Greeley, a new auditorium and a hotel/convention center, add to the 1986 and 1987 commercial construction activity. The rate of unemployment for the Greeley area from 1980 through 1991 ranged from a high of 12.9 percent in 1987 to a low of 4.0 percent in 1991. Comparative unemployment statistics, as of February 1992, can be seen in the following table. These figures do not include seasonal or cyclical variations, thus the national figure will not match that usually quoted in the news media. LABOR AREMAJNEMPLOYMENT Sl'ATISTICS AS OF FEBRU Y . IiiiMENMEMEN United States` ColoradoWeld f o unty t"sz ley . .............. Labor Force 125,385,000 1,742,138 69,557 30,427 Employment 115,224,000 1,626,586 65,259 28,209 Unemployment 10,161,000 115,552 4,298 2,218 Unemployed 8.1% 6.6% 6.2% 7.3% Source: Employment Services of Weld County, Greeley Job Service Center The educational facilities in Greeley are exceptional and significant to both the community and the area. The University of Northern Colorado, which is centrally located within the city, is the state's fifth-largest college. With an enrollment of approximately 10,500 students, it is a major factor in the local economy. Aims Community College, with campuses in Greeley, Fort Lupton, and Loveland, is the largest two-year college in the state. It is oriented toward education in occupational and vocational fields. Established in 1967, it has the highest growth rate among community colleges in Colorado. Enrollment on the Greeley campus is approx- imately I4,500 students, which is 82 percent of the 17,500 students on all three \‘ FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY './ - 10 - 9.3O754 campuses. The public school district consists of two high schools, three junior high schools, four middle schools, and thirteen elementary schools. In addition, there are several private schools. Two major state universities are located within 50 miles of Greeley. Colorado State University, located in Fort Collins, has an enrollment of about 21,000 students; and the University of Colorado, located in Boulder, has an approximate enrollment of 25,000 students. Additionally, there are numerous institutions of higher learning in Denver. Health care is exceptional for a community the size of Greeley. North Colorado Medical Center, considered a regional medical center, has a 326-bed capacity and a flight-for-life helicopter. It is the most modem hospital in northern Colorado. In addition, there is a 22-bed, mental health facility owned by North Colorado Medical Center, which is called PsychCare. Nursing homes and medical clinics are also located in the area. Recreational facilities include an extensive city park system, public swimming pools, a recreational center, public and private golf courses, and tennis courts. These, combined with a new civic center, contribute toward a desired quality of lifestyle. In general, the community facilities are in excellent condition. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - I I - 930754 Economic Factors The area's economic base is well diversified, so an economic setback in any one industry would not affect the overall economic security of the city. The table below shows the major Greeley area employers, and following that is a table showing the composition of the civilian labor force. TEN LARGEST EMPLOYERS IN GREELEY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA IN 1991 Firm/Agency Product/service Employment Location ConAgra Agriculture 3,800 Weld (26 subsidiaries of which County include the following) Berger & Co.* Bean Packaging (56) LaSalle Loveland Industries* Ag. Chemicals (30) Greeley United Agri Products* Ag. Chemicals (80) Greeley Country General Farm/Ranch Store (75) Greeley Red Meat Co.'s Monfort of Colorado* Packing Plant (2,250) Greeley Monfort Portion Foods* Food Processing (217) Greeley Eastman Kodak* Sensitized Photo Processing 2,600 Windsor University of Northern Colorado State University 1,550 Greeley North Colorado Medical Center Health Care 1,500 Greeley School District #6 Public Education 1,350 Greeley Weld County Government 900 Greeley Aims Community College - Vocational Education/ 900 Greeley, Arts Sr Sciences Ft. Lupton, & Loveland Hewlett-Packard* Electronic Components and 850 Greeley Computer Memory Peripherals State Farm Insurance Regional Office 750 Evans City of Greeley Government 550 Greeley *Denotes manufacturer 1 FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 12 - 930754 (, EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY (FARM AND NON-FARM) Percent Weld County Category (Greeley MSA) Percent Colorado Agriculture 33.0% 9.7% Mining 0.7% 1.2% Construction 4.1% 4.1% Manufacturing 14.2% 11.9% Trans., Comm., and Utilities 3.6% 6.6% Wholesale/Retail Trade 15.7% 22.9% Finance, Insurance, and R.E. 2.9% 5.9% Services 21.9% 31.6% Government 3.6% 5.8% Source: Colorado Department of Labor & Employment, Labor Market Information Section Annual Planning Information Report, Program Year 1990 Greeley's economy is predominantly agriculturally oriented, and the agricultural sector is of vital importance. However, over the past three decades, the city has seen its economic base diversify considerably. Manufacturing has increased significantly and, today, represents 14 percent of employment and 21 percent of wage income. Additionally, the petroleum industry has also had a positive impact on the local economy. Weld County is Colorado's leading energy producer because of the Denver-Julesburg Basin that runs through the area. Although oil and gas exploration has declined since its peak in the mid-1980's, there continues to be a limited amount of drilling taking place in the county. City sales receipts can be seen in the following table. Based on conversations with the economic development manager of the Greeley Area Chamber of Commerce and on information obtained from the Rand-McNally Business Atlas, the Greeley trade area currently has a population base of approximately 145,124. Thus, the facilities in the Greeley area draw from much of Weld County. The addition of a sales tax on food in 1990 makes recent annual comparisons somewhat difficult. •.` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 13 - 930754 'l CITY OF GREELEY'SUMMARY OF SALES AND USE TAX REPORT Growth Date Taxable Sales Sales Tax Collected in Taxable Sales 1980 $253,272,298 $5,468,243 1981 $275,679,076 $5,888,491 8.8% 1982 $299,968,081 $8,643,231 8.8% 1983 $337,880,574 $9,267,945 12.6% 1984 $312,071,968 $10,412,437 -7.6% 1985 $301,675,154 $10,208,216 -3.3% 1986 $301,383,795 $10,629,801 -.09% 1987 $314,988,602 $11,485,520 4.5% 1988 $333,577,727 $11,511,262 5.9% 1989 $348,396,740 $12,462,334 4.4% 1990* $465,266,724 $14,044,107 33.5% 1991 $509,738,800 $15,292,164 9.6% Source: City of Greeley, Finance Department *In 1990, Greeley began collecting a 1% sales tax on food. Figures for 1990 and thereafter include this additional tax. As previously discussed, the rate of population growth slowed significantly during the 1980's. However, there were some significant additions to the city's economic base during this time period. The Hewlett-Packard plant opened in mid 1983. Plans were formulated in 1990 for a 70,000 square foot expansion; these plans are currently on hold. In 1986, a $6.4 million expansion project at the State Farm Insurance regional office in Evans was announced. This project was completed in late 1988. In 1988, a $1.6 million manufacturing facility for Electronic Fab Technology Corporation, which added over 200 jobs, was constructed. Additionally, in 1988, Monfort of Colorado (ConAgra) constructed a $1.6 million office building to house Swift personnel recently merged with Monfort. This merger added 60 to 75 local jobs. Monfort completed construction in early 1989 of a new lamb slaughter plant in Greeley. This facility has the capacity to process up \.` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - - 14 - 930754 - to 4,000 lambs per day and provides jobs for 150 people. It was announced on January 3, 1990, that Pioneer Tele Technologies would open a facility in Greeley. This facility is now open and employs approximately 400 people. Although the majority of the wages are at the $5.00 per hour level, this provides a substantial boost to the local economy. Several smaller firms have established facilities in recent years, and there continues to be numerous requests by firms for economic base information from the Greeley Area Chamber of Commerce. Some of these firms may also choose to locate here. They offer mainly base sector job opportunities ranging from 25 to 200 employees. As a result, the growth trends that are forecasted for the city and county suggest a continued moderate expansion of the population and economic base. Fortunately, the City of Greeley did not experience the volume of speculative commercial construction during the early 1980's that is observed in some of the nearby Front Range cities. As a result, office and retail occupancies, with the exception of the downtown area, are close to acceptable levels. Downtown vacancy is typically seen in older, inferior retail space. This space is not highly competitive with the newer, more desirable neighborhood centers. From an industrial standpoint, there is an oversupply of vacant, industrially zoned land. However, occupancy rates in industrial buildings are acceptable. Political Factors City government has taken a positive stand toward growth and industrial development. Through an annexation program, which included the Hewlett-Packard site and the "Golden Triangle" area further west, Greeley has considerable land available for development. The city area currently covers approximately 26 square miles; nearly one-third of this was annexed during the past eight years, and a sub- stantial part of that has been zoned for industrial/commercial development. Much of this annexed land has not been developed; however, it has been brought into the city in anticipation of industrial development. The city's residential growth has been primarily toward the west. Industrial development has taken place mainly around the eastern edge of Greeley, with the exception of the Hewlett-Packard plant northwest of the city. Commercial activity has occurred throughout the city but is primarily concentrated in the central business district, in the northwest quadrant of the city along the U.S. Highway 34 business route, and in the south central portion of the city along the U.S. Highway 34 bypass. Greeley has water rights sufficient to ensure an ample supply of good quality domestic water. It is transported from mountain reservoirs to the city via an FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY i - IS - 930754 extensive pipeline system. In 1989 the Boyd Lake water treatment plant was extensively renovated, improving the quality of water treatment and adding new pumping stations, all of which increased the treatment capacity to 40 million gallons per day. Coupling that with the 20 million per day Bellvue plant provides Greeley with an adequate water capacity well into the foreseeable future. The city sewage treatment plant was renovated in 1986 to handle the anticipated city growth through 2010. Natural gas, electricity, and coal are in adequate supply, available from well established utility companies. Real estate and city sales taxes are the major source of funds for the local government. In 1991, property was assessed at 29 percent of the 1988 actual value for commercial/industrial properties and at 14.34 percent for residential properties. The individual property taxes are then determined by mill levies that are set annually. The state of Colorado imposes a 3 percent sales tax on gross receipts from retail sales, while the City of Greeley levies a 3 percent sales and use tax on gross receipts from retail sales. Greeley and Weld County taxes appear reasonable and compare favorably with surrounding communities. Summary From the standpoint of real estate investment, the Greeley area is desirable. It has a good location, adequate transportation, and a pleasant climate. Greeley's proximity to the Rocky Mountains, 45-minutes driving time, provides easy access to mountain recreational activities. The area has experienced steady growth in the past, although the rate has slowed in recent years. Its economy, historically, has been dominated by agriculturally oriented activities; and agriculture continues to play an important role. However, during recent years, the economy has grown and diver- sified as a result of manufacturing and commercial developments. Today, Greeley has a relatively broad based economy. The area's expanding economic base helps to minimize the adverse impact of recessionary influences, thus assuring reasonable job stability. The Greeley government is pro growth and pro- industrial development, and the city has the abundance of water and adequate sewer services to provide for future development. Combining these factors suggests that growth will continue in a fairly steady and orderly fashion and that there will continue to be a demand for residential and commercial real estate. The long-term outlook for real estate investment appears good, in general, which affects the property being appraised in a positive manner. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY • - 16 - 93O'754 f-c NEIGHBORHOOD DATA The subject has a central business district location within the City of Greeley. The central business district encompasses a 24 block area, 6 of which are occupied by public parks, a community building, county court house and administrative offices, and the city municipal complex. The north boundary of the central business district is considered to be 5th Street; the southern boundary, 12th Street; the eastern boundary, the Union Pacific Railroad tracks; and the western boundary, 11th Avenue. These boundaries form a cohesive commercial area. The uses within are compatible and homogeneous, with the exception of a few scattered residential properties on the north, south and west fringes. Building sizes typically range from 1,000 to 9,500 square feet, with a few much larger outside that range. The older buildings have one or two stories. Often the second story is an office or residence. Most of the newer structures have three stories, with the exception of the Affiliated National Bank, which has seven, and the Holiday Inn, which has ten. The neighborhood is practically 100 percent built up. Exceptions are a few parking lots and older, deteriorated properties that have the potential for building sites. Most of the downtown commercial buildings were constructed in the late 1800's and early 1900's. A few have been razed to make way for more modern structures. Expansion of financial and city and county government facilities has been the primary reason for razing existing commercial buildings. In recent years the downtown has increasingly emerged as a financial and governmental center. At one time it also had the status of being the retail center of the community. However, its reputation relative to retail activity has not been good in recent years. All of the major anchors, such as Fashion Bar, Joslins, J.C. Penney Company and Montgomery Ward and Company, have moved their businesses to the Greeley Mall, a 650,232 square foot regional center located on the southern edge of the city. In order to abate decline before it reached uncontrollable proportions, a July 1978 "Downtown Development Study" was conducted by the City of Greeley Planning Department. On April 21, 1981, the Greeley City Council approved and adopted the Greeley Downtown Urban Renewal Plan. The purpose of the plan was to "...establish a framework for implementation of projects which meet the established goals and policies of the city of Greeley for the long range redevelopment of the Downtown Area." A companion document, the Greeley Downtown Urban Design Plan, provided a conceptual format for the revitalization of Greeley's central business district. A 19-block General Improvement District and FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY 17 930754 a 21-block Special Improvement District were formed; and through issuing bonds, two pedestrian plazas were built, which were completed in mid-1984. Since April 1981, a significant amount of development and renovation have taken place in the downtown area. One example is in Block 43. The entire block was acquired by the city; and all of the existing structures were razed, with the exception of the vacant Denver Dry Goods building. City officials came to an agreement with a developer to build a hotel and convention complex on the site. Construction was completed in the summer of 1987. The most recent new addition to downtown is an 8 to 9.5 million dollar civic center and auditorium. It opened in mid-1988 and is located to the immediate east of the subject. The majority of the downtown property owners are local residents who are considered to take pride in their community, but they have seen few economic rewards for the incentive to remodel their central business district properties. Rents are currently below the level of the newer outlying centers and vacancy is higher. Much of this relates to the condition of the properties. In general, many of the smaller retail shops have been permitted to deteriorate; but the trend appears to be slowly reversing. There continue to be positive signs in the difficult and slow down- town revitalization process. However, one major setback occurred in November 1991 when the county voters approved the move of county offices to a proposed new complex in north Greeley. The existing downtown county office space in the Weld Courthouse Complex will be remodeled into jail facilities. Lack of adequate parking was cited as one of the main reasons for the move out of downtown. Transportation to and from the central business district is good. East-west U.S. Highway 34 Business route is carried in-bound by 10th Street and out-bound by 9th Street. The principal north-south arterial is U.S. Highway 85, also known as 8th Avenue. The municipal bus system services downtown. The system has eight routes in operation, of which six provide downtown access. The central transfer station is located downtown in Lincoln Park. In summary, the central business district is the financial and governmental center of the city. However, it has lost its status as a major retail center and is looked upon with skepticism regarding investment capital. There has been significant capital expended since 1981 to improve the downtown. Even with all the efforts, the long-term economic future of the neighborhood is only one of modest optimism. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 18 - 930754 ZONING The site being appraised is zoned C-4 (Service Business) by the City of Greeley. Generally, the C-4 district allows the full spectrum of retail and wholesale type activities. Industrial uses are excluded. Uses by right include office uses; banks and financial institutions; hospitals; mortuaries; medical and dental offices; schools; houses of worship; community buildings; theaters; public recreational facilities; utility service facilities; police and fire stations; stores and shops for the furnishing of personal and retail services; restaurants and night clubs; hotels and motels; newspaper plants and printing shops; parking structures; ambulance, taxi, and bus service; gasoline service stations, repair garages and car washes; establishments for the sale of new and used vehicles; lumber yards; establishments for the rental of tools, equipment, and vehicles; commercial storage facilities; and establishments for the sale of merchandise at the wholesale level. Uses by special review include horseback riding stables and drive-in theaters. In addition to being in a C-4 zoning district, the subject property is in General Improvement District No. 1. Properties in this Improvement District are not subject to any on-site parking or set back restrictions. In a C-4 district, the maximum permitted building height, without special review, is 60 feet. Landscaping is not required. The subject property is in compliance with current zoning regulations. There are no known private restrictions. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 19 - 930754 r, ASSESSEDVALUE AND TAXES Ad Valorem Taxes According to the records of the Weld County assessor's office, the subject property is identified as Parcel Number 0961-05-3-17-006 and PIN Number 6768386. It has been assessed over the past three years as follows: Year Actual.Value Assessed Value Mill Levy Tax 1989 Land $137,517 $39,880 Improvements $1,212,517 $351,630 Total $1,350,034 $391,510 100.956 $39,525.28 1990 Land $137,517 $39,880 Improvements $1,062,517 $308,130 Total $1,200,034 $348,010 102.566 $35,694.00 1991 Land $137,517 $39,880 Improvements $1,062,517 $308,130 Total $1,200,034 $348,010 104.149 $36,244.90 The amount of ad valorem tax is determined by the product of the mill levy (dollars of tax per $1,000 of assessed valuation) and the assessed valuation of the property. The county assessor determines assessed value for commercial property by multiplying the actual value by 29 percent. Mill levies are set in December of the calendar year for which they apply. Based on appraised value, the subject's assessed value appears high. However, it is known that taxes have been protested in the past. There appears to be substantial reluctance on the part of the assessor's office to fairly assess the property. Taxes are delinquent for 1989 and 1990. Through April 30, 1992, the balance due, including interest accruing at 16 percent and penalties, amounts to $93,618.73. Additionally, the 1991 taxes, which are due on or before April 30, 1992, have not been paid. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 20 - 930754 Special Improvement District Assessment The subject property is located in Special Improvement District 428, formed to fund construction of the downtown pedestrian malls. Assessment is based upon the property's land area and the zone within which the property is located. The subject is in Zone 5, therefore incurring a slightly lower assessment per square foot of land area than zones located closer to the malls. The table below shows a schedule of the assessments according to zone. Additionally, the assessment schedule for the subject property can be found in the Addendum as Exhibit C. ASSESSMT FOR EN SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 428 PER Q[UARE FOOT OF I AN ? Zane 1 Zane 2 Zane 3 Zoos 4 Zane 5 `Total x.3227 2 582 2,17p2 L0$Q1 IJ 7876 *1984 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.04 0.03 1985 0.52 0.40 0.32 0.17 0.12 1986 0.50 0.39 0.31 0.16 0.12 1987 0.48 0.37 0.30 0.16 0.11 1988 0.46 0.35 0.29 0.15 0.11 1989 0.44 0.34 0.27 0.14 0.10 1990 0.42 0.32 0.26 0.14 0.10 1991 0.40 0.31 0.25 0.13 0.09 1992 0.38 0.29 0.23 0.12 0.09 1993 0.36 0.27 0.22 0.12 0.08 1994 0.34 0.26 0.21 0.11 0.08 1995 0.31 0.24 0.20 0.10 0.07 1996 0.29 0.23 0.18 0.10 0.07 1997 0.27 0.21 0.17 0.09 0.06 1998 0.27 0.19 0.16 0.08 0.06 Average 0.37 0.29 i0,23 0.12 0.09 *Interest Only - One month at 10.58% and 4.5 months at 8.7% on total $4,125,000 principal. •, - FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY ', - 21 - 930754 In addition to the delinquent ad valorem real estate taxes, the special improvement district assessment is also delinquent. Failure of the subject owner to pay the assessment when due resulted in the entire unpaid principal becoming due and payable. Reportedly, the current balance of the special assessment, including interest accruing at 16 percent and penalties, through April 30, 1992, is $30,218.95. Summary County records indicate that $123,837.68 ($93,618.73 + $30,218.95) is required to redeem the subject property through April 30, 1992. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is situated at the northeast corner of 11th Avenue and 8th Street at the western fringe of the downtown area. Eleventh Avenue is an asphalt paved, north-south arterial that provides two travel lanes in each direction and two parking lanes. Eighth Street is an asphalt paved, east-west street that provides one travel lane in each direction and two parking lanes. Both streets have curbs, sidewalks, and overhead street lighting. The intersection is controlled with stop signs on 8th Street. The site is rectangular in shape, with approximately 251 lineal feet of frontage o❑ 11th Avenue and 201 lineal feet of frontage on 8th Street. Total area is 50,381 square feet. A copy of the plan can be seen on the facing page. At one time, 7th Street bordered the subject site to the north. An ordinance vacating 7th Street between 10th and 11th Avenues was approved in January, 1984. The ordinance was recorded in Weld County records on February 2, 1984, in Book 1020 at Reception Number 1955083. The site is at sidewalk grade and is relatively level, with a slight crown toward the center. Surface drainage appears to be adequate. There is a curb cut along 11th Avenue and one along 8th Street to allow vehicle access onto the subject site. According to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Flood Map of Community Panel Number 080184-0002-B, effective date July 16, 1979, the subject is not located in a HUD-identified special flood hazard area. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 22 - 930754 All normal municipal utilities are in service and include city water (metered) and sewer, plus service for electricity, gas, and telephone. The subject is within the Greeley Water and Sanitation District. Natural gas is supplied by the Greeley Gas Company; electricity is provided by Public Service Company of Colorado; and telephone is provided by U.S. West Communications, AT&T, and others. Rubbish removal is a privately contracted service and available through several firms. Electric and telephone lines are overhead. A geotechnical investigation report was not available for review. This appraisal report assumes that the soils are suitable for the type of construction in place. Soils in the downtown Greeley area are typically of the Otero sandy loam classification and have adequate load bearing capacity. The soils historically have been suitable for the support of foundations. The plot plan facing the previous page is a reproduction of the survey prepared by McRae and Short, Inc., dated August 29, 1984, as Project Number 84079. It shows an encroachment by the subject property of the basement entry upon the property adjoining to the east. Because the property to the east is owned by the City of Greeley and because the City of Greeley has an ownership interest in the subject property, it is estimated that this encroachment will not become an issue and does not negatively affect property value. No adverse easements were observed. The 58,000 square foot Union Colony Civic Center, along with the city recreation building, is located to the immediate north and east of the subject property. Both facilities are relatively new and architecturally attractive. Older construction of fair to average quality, such as a one-story office building, a fast food drive-in, and a two-story apartment complex is located across 11th Avenue to the west; and a church, older houses converted to office use, and a residential duplex are located across 8th Street to the south. With the exception of the city buildings, the surrounding properties do not enhance the subject property in regard to creating a professional environment. The subject site is typical of those in the downtown area. Some are smaller and some larger, but usage is similar. It has adequate exposure and access from 11th Avenue. The site is suited for commercial use; however, due to its proximity to city buildings, it is estimated to be best suited for some type of public use, such as a library, city or county offices, or the like. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY 23 930754 ' DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS The building being appraised was originally two school buildings, a grade school on the west wing, constructed in 1885, and a high school on the east wing, constructed in 1902. The building was completely renovated in 1981 to 1983. New mechanical systems, interior finish, and roof cover were installed. The exterior brick and masonry areas were sand blasted. The interior staircases and window frames were refurbished. Original window glass was replaced with double pane glass. A four-stop hydraulic elevator and two wheelchair lifts were installed. A certificate of occupancy reportedly was granted in February 1984. Floor plans can be seen on the following pages. They are faced with a rent schedule allowing the reader to identify the location of tenants within the building. The building, with the exception of suites L-75 and L-90, is entirely handicapped accessible via a concrete wheelchair ramp at the west lower level entry; two wheelchair lifts located in the lower level, which accommodate differing floor elevations; and a four-stop elevator servicing all floors. Because it is necessary for someone who can not negotiate steps to use both lifts in order to reach the elevator, the procedure is somewhat awkward. Inside the building, hallways on the lower, first, and second levels are extremely wide, reminiscent of an older school building. During renovation, as much of the original construction as possible was retained. The result is a building that appeals highly to a select group of people who cherish the past and preservation of it. The building, on the other hand, holds limited appeal as an office complex to those who are more functionally and contemporary oriented. • \` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY 'J - 24 - 930754 TI IE GREELEY BUILDING ,:` i E - - 'w"-- a- -a- I Elio Psi— west 106 106 109 103 100 east west east pr mec. i.� _ __.. �J �� 1 .. r 110 108 107 [ -. .J fa— — 105 — I First Floor Plan N i ra fit ir.imi b Iding toragi L45 L45 mec . RR's < work rea ' L 15 east west .111M•11* Ell ill=lii I a =gal.'," i 14Tt storwesi4T90 * w _ w L75 liwawwww I owcr Floor Plan 930754 THE GREELEY BUILDING ! I. f jirp.. EXEC. CENTER I , r 300 301 ft E-301 KIT E-302 OPEN TO BELOW E-309 '-1 L J L J E-303 E-308 L CONE. E-304 E-305 E-306 E-307 RM.ill Third Floor Plan N i LI II 215 ILI 202 200 201 m 71� ! et iii ii ir \; ;lf , _Firt I 210 208 l 200 �. stor. 205 i - 1 1 r r Second Floor Plan 930754 Layout AREAS ml SQUARE FEET' (APPROXIMATE) Usable Area Common Gross Level Finished Unfinished Total Area Area* Garden Level Basement 4,861 0 4,861 (33%) 9,918 (67%) 14,779 (100%) First 8,664 0 8,664 (62%) 5,215 (38%) 13,879 (100%) Second 7,654 1,173 8,827 (62%) 5,335 (38%) 14,162 (100%) Third 2,945 0 2,945 (48%) 3,209 (52%) 6,154 (100%) Totals 24,124 1,173 25,297 (52%) 23,489 (48%) 48,974 (100%) *Figures per appraiser's measurements At time of inspection, 70 percent of the basement was occupied; the first level had an occupancy of 53 percent; the second level was 90 percent occupied; and the third level, 80 percent occupied. The overall building occupancy stood at 72 percent. Basement Level - Hallway; tenant spaces; elevator; two wheelchair lifts; one staircase; mechanical rooms containing boiler and water cooling tower, plus original coal boiler (non-operational); men's lavatory with one stall and one urinal; women's lavatory with two stalls; a "work area" consisting of unfinished space that is not deemed suitable for tenant occupancy. First Level- Hallway; tenant spaces; elevator; three staircases; mechanical room containing electrical and telephone equipment; men's lavatory with one stall and one urinal; women's lavatory with two stalls. Second Level - Hallway; tenant spaces; elevator; three staircases; mechanical room containing electrical and telephone equipment; men's lavatory with one stall and one urinal; women's lavatory with two stalls. Third Level - Originally attic space, the third level has been converted into two tenant spaces with a south facing deck, plus an executive center. While the executive center is physically laid out to operate with a central reception and secretarial area, it is not currently being utilized as such. Instead, nine small office cubicles are individually leased with no additional services offered. Additionally; C- FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY Cl - 25 - 930754 --- there is a tenant conference room and small kitchen in this area. A men's lavatory with one stall and one urinal and a women's lavatory with two stalls service the third floor, as does the elevator and three staircases. Construction Features Building Exterior - The exterior of the building is finished in red face brick and native stone. Windows extend around the perimeter of the building. The main building entrance is at the middle of the south elevation. There are two additional entries to the first level at the west end of the building and two at the east end of the building. The garden level basement has street access from the west and an emergency exit on the east elevation. The building features a hip roof covered with composition shingles. Foundation - Native stone, brick, and poured concrete. Exterior Walls - Solid, double brick construction. Windows - Double-pane glass set in a fixed sash in the original wood frames. Roof- Composition shingle roof cover installed at time of renovation. Building Interior - Interior quality is considered to be good. The building hallways have 60 ounce, forest green carpet; white Italian marble flooring is in place off of the main entry door. Interior trim is oak that matches the ornate staircases. Solid oak interior doors with brass hardware gives an appearance of quality. Ceilings are high, approximately 11 feet on the first and second levels. The lower level ceilings are 9 feet, and third level ceilings are 8 feet. Heat is provided by heat pumps and controlled individually in each suite. Lavatories have quarry tile floors. Sub-Flooring - Floors are particle board over the original sub-flooring. Exposed floors above the basement are 2-inch by 12-inch wood joists, 12 inches on center, with wood decking. Interior Walls - Partition walls between the tenant spaces typically are drywall over wood or steel studs. Some original interior brick walls exist. These have been furred and covered with drywall. Also, some original plaster walls, primarily in the hallway areas, exist. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 26 - 930754 Ceilings - Hallway and office ceilings are suspended, with 2-foot by 4-foot acoustical tile panels and recessed florescent lighting set into a metal grid system. Hallway lighting is by flood lights in recessed fixtures. Electric System - Tenant spaces are not separately metered. Hallway lighting is on a timer, and an electronic fire alarm system has been installed. A panel near the main entrance identifies the affected area. The heat pumps are also connected to an alarm system in the event of a malfunction. NVAC - Heating and air conditioning are provided by a total of 41 water source heat pumps utilizing a gas fired boiler. Each suite has its own unit, and every unit has its own fire alarm detector. In the winter months the water being circulated to the heat pumps is hot. This procedure is reversed during the summer months when water being circulated to the heat pumps is cooled by a cooling tower and blower. The air handling units are mounted in the suspended ceilings in the various suites. Plumbing - A men's and women's restroom is located on each of the levels. A ten-gallon electric hot water heater, located on each floor, provides hot water to the restrooms. Elevator - One hydraulic lift, four-stop, Otis elevator with a 2,500 pound capacity services the building. Tenant Space - Interior finishes in the individual suites are at tenant specifications. Site Improvements There are approximately 14,500 square feet of asphalt paved parking, providing 44 striped parking spaces, on the north side of the building and 11,225 square feet of asphalt paved parking, providing 44 striped parking spaces, on the south side, for a total of 88 parking spaces. This calculates to a ratio of one parking space per every 290 square feet of usable floor area, or every 556 square feet of gross floor area. Prior to the vacating of 7th Street, the subject's north parking lot extended onto the street right-of-way. Nineteen parking spaces were lost when the street was vacated to enable construction of the Union Colony Civic Center. The local acceptable standard, per zoning code, is one space for each 300 square feet of gross office floor area. Because the subject building's efficiency is less than the typical • office complex, the preceding figures, on a gross basis, are slightly distorted. Nevertheless, on-site parking for the subject is somewhat limited. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 27 - 930754 �c Management policy is to assign one parking space for every 350 square feet of leased area. (Management typically calculates leased, or rentable, area with a 15 percent load factor.) Under this scenario, if the building were at 100 percent occupancy, all spaces would be assigned and there would be no on-site visitor spaces. It is estimated that curbside parking along 11th Avenue and 8th Street helps to alleviate the problem to a degree. It is further estimated that, as a result of the historically high subject vacancy rate, parking has not been a vocal tenant concern. In addition to the paved parking, a minimal amount of grassed and landscaped area, irrigated by an automatic sprinkler system, extends along the south side of the building and in the street right-of-way between the curb and sidewalk. There are two brick signage structures erected by a major tenant, Prudential-Bache. No other signage exists. The directory is inside the main entry. Historical Designation The Greeley Building was approved for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under the name of "The Old Greeley High School Building." This designation allowed the partnership that owned the building to apply for an investment tax credit on the rehabilitation that took place during the building's conversion into an office building. Regulations established by the Secretary of the Interior concerning the rehabilitation tax credit can be seen in some of the unusual characteristics of the building. One of the regulations forbids radical alteration of the floor plan. This has resulted in the retention of the original, approximate 16-foot wide hallways, one of the remaining vestiges of the high school. Also affected were the stairways, which were not allowed to be altered or moved, only repaired. Thus, the access between floors of the building is not highly efficient. The current lack of adequate signage on and around the building has been blamed on the rehabilitation regulations, yet no such signage regulation was found in the guidelines reviewed from the Colorado Historical Society. There is no limit to the number of times that the building can be rehabilitated and receive the investment tax credit, which at time of renovation was at 25 percent. It is currently at 20 percent. In addition to the aforementioned structural guidelines that must be met to receive the credit, the rehabilitation must also exceed the assessed value of the building less the cost of the land. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY 'i - 28 - 930754 6 s` It is important to note that although the building was subject to strict guidelines during its rehabilitation, those guidelines were only for investment tax credit purposes. There are no restrictions concerning what future alterations can be done on the building. Reportedly, the guidelines must be followed only if a tax credit is being claimed for the work. Age and Condition Renovation of the subject improvement commenced in 1981 and was essentially completed in 1983. The building has been well maintained. The exterior, with the exception of the roof cover, is fairly maintenance free. On the interior, most items are in good condition, particularly considering they have been in use for eight years. There are approximately 2,589 square feet of vacant, usable tenant space that is estimated to require some remodeling before it is released, and there are an additional 1,173 square feet of vacant, usable tenant space that has never had any tenant finish installed. The roof was recovered when the building was renovated. The property manager reports that there has been some periodic roof leakage. The majority of the roof repairs have been a result of the flat roof deck off of the third level and the skylights. Continual repairs for such construction items are not highly unusual. Twenty-year shingles were installed, and the roof is estimated to have a five-year minimum remaining life, with possibly twelve years remaining. Report- edly, the roof valleys have created some problems. A roof design such as the subject's would not be installed on a modern building. Because of the combination of old and new, the effective age of the property is difficult to estimate. Effective age depicts the years of age indicated by the condition and utility of a structure in comparison to new buildings. This is discussed in more detail in the depreciation section of the report. Functional Utility The most noticeable deficiency in terms of building design is the large amount of hallway area. Ideally, the ratio of usable area to gross building area should be less; and as previously mentioned, parking is slightly inadequate. It is also estimated that additional exterior and interior signage would benefit the property. \` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 29 - 930754 External Influences No negative influences from outside the property were observed other than weak market conditions. HIGHEST AND BEST USE The concept of Highest and Best Use is fundamental to the analysis and valuation of any real property. As used here for purposes of this appraisal report, it is defined as follows: "The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value."2 An opinion of the Highest and Best, or Most Probable, Use applies specifically to land and is premised upon, among other things, the site being vacant and ready for development. The Highest and Best Use is the use that fully develops the land's potential. The criteria for estimating Highest and Best Use are that the use must be physically possible, legally permissible, financially feasible, and maximally productive; and these criteria must usually be considered sequentially. This analysis must address the type of use that will produce the greatest future benefit to the owner and that will have a strong probability of achievement. There are two steps in the Highest and Best Use analysis. First, the Highest and Best Use of the site as if vacant is determined; then, the property is analyzed considering the existing improvements. When a site is improved, the existing use will continue until land value in its Highest and Best Use exceeds the total value of the property in its existing use. 'American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 9th ed. (Chicago: American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1987), p. 269. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 30 - 9 30754 Highest and Best Use "As If Vacant" Physically Possible Uses - Site dimensions and level topography allow for efficient land utilization. There are no known soil problems that would limit construction. Access and visibility are adequate. Physically, the site is suitable for a variety of types of construction. Legally Permissible Uses - Any use the site might be put to must be legally permissible. Present zoning permits a fairly broad spectrum of commercial uses. Therefore, there are legally many types of commercial uses to consider. Financially Feasible and Maximally Productive Uses - The principle of conformity must be considered. It holds that maximum value is realized when a reasonable degree of economic homogeneity is present. This also implies a reasonable degree of homogeneity in building sizes and types of businesses. With this in mind, the most obvious use of the subject site would be for a city, or perhaps county, building. With the recreation center, senior center, and city complex close- by, it would be a highly desirable site for a library or a government office annex. Because the site is sandwiched between government buildings to the east and north and the beginning of a residential area to the west, plus residences converted to offices to the south, the site is not highly desirable for private office or retail use. Highest and Best Use As Improved The site being appraised is improved with a 48,974 square foot, multi-tenant, office building that contributes considerable value to the total property. However, the building does not have a particularly good rental history. Historically, the subject's occupancy has been slightly lower than that experienced by the downtown office market in general. It is estimated that the lack of aggressive leasing and sufficient advertising have contributed to the relatively low occupancy rate seen. The building suffers from an unusually large amount of common area, creating an efficiency of 52 percent, while most multi-tenant office complexes have a minimum efficiency of about 80 percent. Building efficiency will be discussed in more detail in the Cost Approach. While a historical designation adds value to some buildings, this is not estimated to be the case with the subject property. However, when analyzing the building in terms of feasibility of the initial renovation, the tax credit received clouds the issue and possibly made an otherwise unfeasible project feasible. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 31 - 930754 /f • Analysis of the property does not reveal any remodeling or repair that would increase value by more than the associated cost. Therefore, the Highest and Best Use of the site is as presently improved, subject to the deficiencies noted. APPRAISAL PROCEDURE Estimation of the Market Value of the property being appraised is accomplished by comparison and analysis, employing as many procedures as are appropriate. Three approaches are generally utilized in estimating the value of real property. These are the Cost, Sales Comparison, and Income Approaches. Cost Approach The value indication developed by the Cost Approach is accomplished by estimating the reproduction or replacement cost new of the improvements, less accrued depreciation from all causes. To this is added the value of the land as though vacant, previously estimated by sales comparison. This approach is based on the principle of substitution, in that no prudent purchaser would pay more for a property than the amount for which he can obtain, by purchase of the site and construction of a building without undue delay, a property of equal desirability and utility. The Cost Approach is particularly applicable when the property being appraised involves relatively new improvements that represent the Highest and Best Use of the land or when relatively unique or specialized improvements are located on the site. Sales Comparison Approach The application of this approach produces an estimate of value of a property by comparing it with similar properties of the same type and class that have been sold recently or are currently offered for sale in the same or competing areas. The comparative processes utilized in determining the degree of comparability between two properties involve judgment as to their similarity with respect to many elements of comparison, such as property rights conveyed, financing terms, conditions of sale, market conditions (time), income characteristics, location, and physical character- istics. The sale prices of those properties deemed most comparable are adjusted to FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 32 - 930754 i, the subject to reflect differences between the sale property and the property being appraised. For property types that are frequently bought and sold, this approach usually produces a reliable indication of value. Income Approach This approach is especially significant when appraising income producing properties. In the Income Approach, the value estimate relates to the present worth of potential future benefits. This is generally measured by the net operating income that a prudent investor is warranted in assuming the property will produce during its remaining useful life. After comparison with investments of a similar type, this net income is capitalized into a value estimate, utilizing direct capitalization or dis- counted cash flow techniques. Reconciliation and Final Estimate of Value The strengths and weaknesses of each approach are weighed in the final analysis. The approach, or approaches, developed with the most reliable data is typically given the greatest emphasis in concluding the final estimate of value. • FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 33 - 930754 LAND VALUE ESTIMATE There are three generally accepted methods to estimate site value of a property. They are the sales comparison method, the allocation method, and the extraction method. The most desirable means of estimating market value of the vacant site is by the sales comparison method. Therefore, in order to develop the subject land value estimate, sales and offerings of similar unimproved sites have been analyzed, compared, and adjusted to derive an indication of value for the site being appraised. The comparability between two properties involves adjusting each sale or com- parable property with respect to differences in such elements of comparison as financing terms, conditions of sale, market conditions (time), location, and physical characteristics. Physical characteristics requiring adjustment for comparability include, but are not limited to, items such as size and shape, corner influence, plottage, excess land, topography, utilities, and site improvements. These adjusted sales prices yield an indication of value for the site being appraised. A summary of the downtown Greeley sales over the past several years, along with a map showing their location, has been included in order to give the reader some background on downtown land sales activity. Sales to the General Improve- ment District Number 1 are typically higher and are not good comparables. In many instances, the property was condemned and price set by the court. Of the sales in the summary, Numbers 3, 4, 5, 7, and 25, which are some of the most recent transactions, are considered to be indicative of the subject's land value. Detailed write-ups pertaining to these sales follow the sales summary. Commercial land sales are normally reduced to a unit of comparison such as price per square foot or front foot for analysis. Price per square foot has been selected as the preferable unit. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 34 - 930754 1 LAND SALES SUMMARY SHEET The Greeley Building April 1992 Foster Valuation'Company Sale Contrib. Land Sales Date of Sales Value of Area Price/ No. c3rantor/Granter~ Sale Prim Impcov. in SF SF Land Zoning 1 GNB Trustee/U-Tote'M 3/11/81 $70,000 None 16,100 $4.35 C-4 2 GNB/Clark 1/10/80 $102,000 None 28,500 $3.58 I-1 2a Clark/Yerbic, et al 1/26/81 $180,000 None 28,500 $6.32 I-1 3 Davis, et al/Big D Prop. 5/26/87 $65,000 None 19,000 $3.42 CA 4 Greeley Urban Renewal/ 1/28/86 $250,000 None 76,000 $3.29 CA Colson Construction 5 Bairco Enterprises/SL 4/13/84 $60,000 None 19,000 $3.16 CA Mary's Housing Comm. 6 GNB/La Meres Estate 6/8/84 $102,200 None 20,330 $5.03 C-4 7 Agland, Inc./ 12/2/88 $38,988 None 11,400 $3.42 C-4 Gablehouse & Grauberger 8 Mitchell, et al/ 1/14/80 $242,000 None 42,875 $5.64 C-4 Whitney, et al 8a Witney, et al/Noffsinger 12/2/83 $175,000 None 14,375 $12.17 C-4 9 Romero/Noffsinger 12/8/83 $75,000 None 7,187 $10.43 C-4 10 Tomey, et al/Noffsinger 12/8/83 $40,000 None 2,875 $13.91 C-4 11 Amesse/GGID#1* 11/12/82 $52,500 None 2,012 $26.09 C-4 12 Monroe Corp./GGID#1* 3/4/83 $88,810 None 4,255 $20.87 C-4 I2a GGID#1/Mid-B1k Prtrnshp 10/21/83 $10,400 None 1,380 $7.54 CA 13 Eaton, et al/GGID#1* 2/11/83 $70,000 None 5,750 $12.17 C-4 14 Ramsey/City of Greeley 6/1/78 $50,000 $4,000 8,625 $5.33 I-1; C-4 15 Downes/First United 11/18/80 $75,000 None 9,500 $7.89 C-4 Methodist Church 16 Herdm<an/GGID#1* 8/27/82 $101,200 None 5,000 $20.24 C-4 17 Cinnamon/Willard 1/10/79 $30,000 $10,750 2,500 $7.70 C-4 17a A.S.& W./Lepenoitis 1/8/81 $42,500 $12,500 5,000 $6.00 C-4 _ 17b Lepenoitis/GGID#1 6/22/82 $62,000 None 5,000 $12.40 C-4 FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 35 930754 LAND SALES SUMMARY SHEET The Greeley Building April 1992 foster Ual>>atIon Compazly tturU Land Sys Sale Dale of Sales Value of Area Price/ F Ia. Grantor/Grantee • Sale. Price Itnproa in Sl SF 7 artd Zoning 18 Opdyke/A.S.& W. 2/1/79 $87,500 None 11,500 $7.61 C-4 18a A.S.& W./F.S.Y. 3/4/82 $65,000 None 9,000 $7.22 C-4 19 Eaton, et al/GGID#1 2/18/83 $71,400 $24,150 6,750 $7.00 C-4 20 Mitchell/Dean 9/22/78 $40,000 None 9,500 $4.21 C-4 21 Hicks/Dean 7/4/81 $82,500 None 9,500 $8.68 C-4 20a Dean/Asmus 8/31/82 $150,000 None 19,000 $7.89 C-4 21a 22 Delbridge/Asmus 8/30/82 $149,300 None 19,000 $7.86 CA 23 Haefeli/Mtudock Corp. 11/15/81 $132,500 None 9,500 $13.95 C-4 23a Murdock Corp./Asmus 8/31/82 $145,000 None 9,500 $15.26 C-4 24 World S&L/F.S.Y. 10/4/83 $129,000 None 5,250 $24.57 CA Partnership 25 Davis and Davis/ 5/2/88 $250,000 None 57,000 $4.39 C-4 North Central Food Sys. *GGID#1 = Greeley General Improvement District#1 N. - FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY — - J - 36 - 930754 SALE. NUMBER 3 S •;',..$141;11'1k4 g4s R • a. .,SIT J`�r#'1/� .c 1 ■ r; 1:•‘ l v Taken in February 1992 SALE DATE: May 26, 1987 GRANTOR: Frank S. Davis, Muriel B. Davis, and Charles M. Kurtz GRANTEE: Big D Properties, a Co-Partnership RECORDING INFORMATION: Warranty Deed at Rec. #02102083 SALES PRICE: $65,000 TOTAL CONSIDERATION: $95,826 LOCATION: NE Quadrant of 8th Avenue and 6th Street, Greeley, CO ADDRESS: Not assigned LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 9 and 10, Block 23, City of Greeley ZONING: C-4 UTILITIES: Available IMPROVEMENTS: Commercial buildings razed TOPOGRAPHY: Relatively level at curb grade DIMENSIONS: 190.00 feet by 100.00 feet FRONTAGE: 190 feet along 8th Avenue: 100 feet along 6th Street AREA: 19,000 square feet SALES PRICE/SF: $3.42 TOTAL CONSIDERATION/SF: $5.04 TERMS: Seller financed $50,0(X)at 9.5% interest: $19,750 due 5/26/88: balance due 5/26/89. REMARKS: Total consideration includes demolition and fill costs of approximately • $18.000 and special assessment in the amount of $12,826 that was assumed. Site subsequently unproved for a new and used car display area. �\ — --- FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 37 - 930754 SALE NUMBER 4 a? {Zt fr 4 4fi.: rip 4� s •:, ./'.;''0.4 a ' YT '! 7' \ • Taken in February 1992 SALE DATE: January 28, 1986 GRANTOR: Greeley Urban Renewal GRANTEE: Colson Construction RECORDING INFORMATION: Warranty Deed at Rec. #02040730 SALES PRICE: $250,000 TOTAL CONSIDERATION: $250,000 LOCATION: NE Quadrant of 11th Avenue and 6th Street, Greele CO ADDRESS: 1051 6th Street y' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 9 through 16, Block 26, City of Greeley ZONING: C-4 UTILITIES: Available IMPROVEMENTS: Older, single family residences razed TOPOGRAPHY: Relatively level at curb grade DIMENSIONS: 400.00 feet by 190.00 feet FRONTAGE: 400 feet along 6th Street; 190 feet along 11th Avenue AREA: 76,000 square feet SALES PRICE/SF: $3.29 TOTAL CONSIDERATION/SF: $3.29 TERMS: Cash REMARKS: Property is not located within Special Improvement District 428. Therefore, it is not subject to this district's special assessment. One of the potential weaknesses of this sale is that the seller is the Greeley Urban Renewal Authority; and there may have been undue stimulus to sell to encourage the buyer to develop the elderly housing project known as The Greeley Place that is currently occupying the site. The sales price, however, does not suggest that this is the case. Improvements on the site were razed prior to sale; therefore, no demolition costs were incurred by the purchaser. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY J - 38 - 930754 SALT'. NII\1I 5 • tdslr1 • • I F Y. w. Ii at' Taken in February 1992 SALE DATE: April 13, 1984 GRANTOR: Bairco Enterprises, a co-partnership GRANTEE: St. Mary's Housing Committee, Inc. RECORDING INFORMATION: Warranty Deed at Rec. #01963011 SALES PRICE: 360,000 TOTAL CONSIDERATION: $72,000 LOCATION: Quadrant of 10th Avenue and 6th Street, Greeley, CO ADDRESS: 530 10th Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 9 and 10, Block 25, City of Greeley ZONING: C-4 UTILITIES: Available IMPROVEMENTS: Older, single family residences razed TOPOGRAPHY: Relatively level at curb grade DIMENSIONS: 100.00 feet by 190.00 feet FRONTAGE: 100 feet along 6th Street; 190 feet along 10th Avenue AREA: 19,000 square feet SALES PRICE/SF: 33.16 TOTAL CONSIDERATION/SF: 33.79 TERMS: Cash REMARKS: Property is not located within Special Improvement District 428. There- fore. it is not subject to this district's special atssesstnent. Site was subsequently improved with to elderly housing project known as 1mm:umlaut Plaza. Existing residential improvements were razed from the site subsequent to sale at an estimated cost of 512 (1011. - - FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - - - -- -- . - �� 3y 930754 SALE: NUMBER 7 mot. tl1 7 sS o t �_ Taken in February 1992 SALE DATE: December 2, 1988 GRANTOR: Agland, Inc., a Colorado corporation GRANTEE: Darrel Gablehouse and David H. Grauberger RECORDING INFORMATION: Warranty Deed at Rec. #02164091 SALES PRICE: $38,988 TOTAL CONSIDERATION: $45,401 LOCATION: East side of 8th Avenue, 54 feet south of 6th Street, Greeley, CO ADDRESS: 612 8th Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N 76 feet of the S 136 feet of Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 38, City of Greeley ZONING: C-4 UTILITIES: Available IMPROVEMENTS: Old Agland retread plant TOPOGRAPHY: Relatively level at curb grade DIMENSIONS: 76.00 feet by 150.00 feet FRONTAGE: 76 feet along 8th Avenue; 150 foot depth AREA: 11,400 square feet SALES PRICE/SF: $3.42 TOTAL CONSIDERATION/SF: $3.98 TERMS: Cash REMARKS: Total consideration includes the assumption of a special assessment in the amount of$6,413. No value is given to the improvement. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY -- - 40 - 930754 SALE NUMBER 25 • • Taken in February 1992 SALE DATE: May 2, 1988 GRANTOR: Davis and Davis, a co-partnership GRANTEE: North Central Food Systems, Inc. RECORDING INFORMATION: Warranty Deed at Rec. #02139789 SALES PRICE: $250,000 TOTAL CONSIDERATION: $300,000 LOCATION: SW Quadrant of 10th Street and 7th Avenue, Greeley, CO ADDRESS: 702-718 10th Street LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1-6, Block 78, City of Greeley ZONING: C-4 UTILITIES: Available IMPROVEMENTS: Three commercial buildings razed TOPOGRAPHY: Relatively level at curb grade DIMENSIONS: 300.00 feet by 190.00 feet FRONTAGE: 300 feet along 10th Street: 190 feet along 7th Avenue AREA: 57,000 square feet SALES PRICE/SF: 54.39 TOTAL CONSIDERATION/SF: $5.26 TERMS: Cash REMARKS: Total consideration includes demolition and till costs of approximately 550,1)00. Special assessment was paid off by sellers at time of stile. Site . subsequently improved with a 4201) square loot Hardee's restaurant — —..._-.-. - FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY 930754 Land Sales Comparison Grid The Greeley Building April 1992 Foster Valuation Company Element Subject Sale3 Consideration` 5 sale? Sale;x5 Total Co $95,826 $250,000 $72,000 Financing Market Market Market $45,401 $300,000 Comparison Market Market Market Similar Similar Similar dustment Similar Similar A Conditions $0 $0 $0 $0 $U of sale Arms-Len th Arms-Len tlt Comparison Arms-Len th Arms-Len tit Arms-Len th Arms-Len w Similar Similar Similar Ad'ustment Similar similar Ad'usted' $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Date of sale $95'826 $250,000 $72,000 $45 401 Apr-92 5si mos.a o 95 mos.a o 74 mos.a o $300,000 Comparison Similar 40 mos.a o 46 mos.a o Acrustment Similar Similar Similar Similar Muster $0 $0 $0 $0 $95,826 $250,000 $0 Size,sq.ft. 50,381 $72,,00 $11,40 $30 7, 00 Unit price 19,000 76,000 19,000 11,400 57,000 per sq,ft. Location $5.04 $3'28 $3.79 $3.98 Frin a/Cor. Central/Cor. Frin e/Cor. Frin e/Cor. CentraVlnt. Central/Cor. Comparison Su riot Ad'ustrnenl Pe Similar Similar Superior Superior (25.0%) 0.0% 0.0% (10.0%) (25.0%) Size,sq.h. 50,381 19,000 76,000 19,000 Comparison Smaller 11,400 57,000 Ad'ustment Lar er Smaller Smaller Similar Net ad'ustment to (7.0%) (70%) 0.0% adjusted sale (7.0%0%% 7 (32.0 . price* 32.0 ) $.0% ) (17.0%) (25.0%) Ad'usted sale ($0.27) ($0.68) ($1.32) price" $5.04 Final adjusted $3'29 $3.79 $3.98 $5.26 sale rice $3.43 $3.52 $3.52 $3.31 $3.95 'Sale price adjusted for financin and conditions of sale "Sale price further ad'usted for market conditions 930754 . mss Analysis of the five sales suggests the following: Financing - No financing adjustments are indicated for the transactions that were cash to the seller. Sale Number 3 was owner financed; however, because of the short term and market rate, no adjustment is being considered. Conditions of Sale - All the sales were arms-length transactions. Because the seller of Sale Number 4 is the Greeley Urban Renewal Authority, this transaction is subject to close scrutiny in terms of motivation. The sales price, however, does not suggest that any concession in price was given. Market Conditions (Time) - Based upon available sales of vacant, commercial sites throughout Greeley, it appears that no measurable appreciation or depreciation has occurred over the past eight years. Marketing time for vacant commercial land is fairly long and sales are typically to users. Price is not estimated to be a deterrent in most cases; the deterrent is finding a suitable user. Location - Sales 3, 7, and 25 are centrally situated in the downtown area. Their value is enhanced by proximity to 8th Avenue, which is the primary north-south downtown street. On the other hand, Sales 4 and 5 are located on the fringe of the downtown area. Size - All other things being equal, a smaller site typically sells at a higher price per square foot than a larger, but similar, site. This normally can be demonstrated with an exponential or power curve because the increase typically is non-linear. Additionally, when two sites are of a similar area in square feet, the sale with the greater frontage normally has a higher sales price, providing both have similar utility. Four of the sales are being adjusted for size. A Land Sales Comparison Grid, showing the adjustments discussed previously, is located on the facing page. The adjusted sales form a range from $3.31 to $3.95 per square foot. Most weight is placed on Sales 4 and 5, which locationally are most similar to the subject. After analysis, the Market Value of the site being appraised is estimated to be $3.52 per square foot, or as follows: 50,381 square feet @ $3.52/sq. ft. = $177,341 Rounded to: $175,000 FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 42 - --- 930754 COST APPROACH In the Cost Approach an indication of value is obtained by adding the estimated land value to an estimate of the depreciated replacement cost of the buildings and other improvements. Replacement cost, as opposed to reproduction cost, will be utilized to estimate the cost of the subject building. Replacement cost is the cost of creating a new structure with similar utility as the subject but using current designs and building techniques. Reproduction cost is the cost of creating an exact replica, using the same or nearly the same materials. Replacement Cost New There are three generally accepted methods of estimating replacement costs: quantity survey, unit in place, and comparative. The quantity survey method is the most comprehensive and most accurate. It is the method contractors use in determining the quantity and quality of each type of material used, estimating labor hours required, and applying unit costs to the material and labor in addition to all other direct and indirect costs. Unit in place method, also known as the segregated cost method, is based upon the unit prices of various building components, such as roofing, floors, plumbing and heating, excavating, plastering, et cetera. Unit costs are then assembled to estimate the entire cost of the improvement. The comparative method is utilized by comparing costs of recently constructed, similar buildings to the building being appraised after reducing them to a common unit of comparison, such as square foot or cubic foot. The unit cost must be properly adjusted to reflect variables, such as size, shape, finish, equipment, and all other attributes of the building. Cost level changes from date of construction to date of value must be reflected. In this report, the unit in place method will be employed. The Marshall and Swift computer cost service was utilized to estimate the construction cost of the improvements. This source is commonly utilized by appraisers and cost estimators in the market and is considered to be reliable. These data are updated continually and utilize local multipliers in order to adjust costs to reflect conditions in the specific area in which the property being appraised is located. The costs contain normal construction interest, sales taxes on materials, contractors' overhead and profit including job supervision, builders' insurance, etc. They are intended to be the final costs to the owner. Replacement cost new utilizing the Marshall and Swift computer cost service results in an estimate of $3,011,449, as can be seen on the following pages. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 43 - 930754 Ic COST ESTIMATE FOR: The Greeley Building ADDRESS: 710 11th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado SURVEYED BY: Foster Valuation Company DATE OF SURVEY: April 9, 1992 OCCUPANCY: OFFICE BUILDING CLASS: D Frame COST RANK: 2.5 Average/Above Average EFFECTIVE AGE: 0 YEARS CONDITION: 6.0 Excellent NUMBER OF STORIES: 3.5 AVERAGE STORY HEIGHT: 12.0 FLOOR AREA: 48,974 Sq. Pt. COST AS OF: 4/92 COMPONENT REPLACEMENT COST UNITS COST NEW DEPR EXCAVATION & SITE PREPARATION: Excavation 88,674 0.21 18,622 FOUNDATION: 18,622 Concrete, Bearing walls 48,974 1.32 64,646 FLOOR STRUCTURE: 64, 646 Concrete on Ground 14,779 2.47 Steel Joists & Deck, Concrete 34,195 36,504 36,504 SUBTOTAL 6.99 239,023 239,023 FLOOR COVER: 275,527 275,527 Carpet and Pad 44,785 Marble 2.55 114,202 114,202 Tile, Ceramic 150 15.41 2,311 2,311 SUBTOTAL 1,000 6.81 6,810 6,810 CEILING: 123,323 123,323 Acoustical, Organic Fiber 22,466 1.15 Gypsum Board, Taped & Paint 23,489 25,836 25,836 Suspended Ceiling 1.08 25,368 25,368 Ceiling Insulation 22,466 1.02 22.518 22,915 SUBTOTAL 45.955 0.49 22,518 22,518 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION: 96,637 96,637 Interior Construction, Framed. 48,974 13.99 685,146 685,146 PLUMBING: Plumbing 48,974 3.40 166,512 166,512 FIRE PROTECTION: Fire Alarm Control Panel 2 603 Smoke Detector, Wired 40 1,206 1,206 SUBTOTAL 272 10,880 10,880 HEATING AND COOLING: 12,086 12,086 Hot and Chilled Water 48,974 11.36 556,345 556,345 ELECTRICAL: Electrical 48,974 5.82 EXTERIOR WALL: 285,029 285,029 Face Brick Veneer 24,552 13.86 340,291 Sheathing 340,291 Insulation 24,552 0.60 14,731 14,731 SUBTOTAL 24,552 0.43 10,557 10,557 ROOF STRUCTURE: 365,579 365,579 Steel Joists, Composition Deck 13,879 ROOF COVER: 4.00 55,516 55,516 Composition Shingle 13,879 Insulation 1.13 15,683 15,683 SUBTOTAL 13, 879 0.74 10,270 10,270 ELEVATORS: 25,953 25,953 Elevator ( 4 Stops) . . 1 53,291 53,291 53,291 SUBTOTAL SUPERSTRUCTURE 48,974 56.85 2,784,212 2,784,212 • FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY "J - 44 930754 YARD IMPROVEMENTS: High Intensity Light 3 817 Paving, Asphalt 2,451 2,451 Lawn 2 25,725 1.59 40,903 40,903 Sprinklers 2,176176 0.29 631 631 SUBTOTAL 2,176 0.36 783 783 44,768 44,768 TOTAL ARCHITECT'S FEES 2,828,980 2,828,980 6.4% 182,469 182,469 REPLACEMENT COST NEW 48,974 61.49 3,011,449 DEPRECIATED COST 3,011,449 Cost Data by MARSHALL & SWIFT An entrepreneurial profit is not being added to the replacement cost new estimates. The difference between the cost of development and the value of a property after completion is the entrepreneurial profit or loss. Whether a profit is realized depends on how successful the developers have been in selecting a site, constructing the improvements, and analyzing market rents and demand. In regard to downtown office construction in Greeley at the present time, it is estimated that current rent levels do not support construction costs; therefore, entrepreneurial profits do not exist. Accrued Depreciation All types of accrued depreciation affecting the subject improvements were considered. "Accrued depreciation is the difference between an improvement's reproduction or replacement cost and its market value as of the date of the appraisal."3 Depreciation is an effect caused by deterioration or obsolescence. Deterioration is evidenced by wear and tear, decay, dry rot, cracks, encrustation, or structural defects. Obsolescence is divisible into two parts, functional and external. Functional obsolescence may be due to poor plan, mechanical inadequacy or super adequacy, functional inadequacy or over adequacy due to size, style, age, etc. It is evidenced by conditions within the property. External obsolescence is the result of the diminished utility of the structure due to negative influences from outside the site. Depreciation is being estimated by the modified economic age-life method. To apply the method, the cost to cure all curable items of physical deterioration due to deferred maintenance and functional obsolescence is first estimated. This sum is 'American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 9th ed. (Chicago: American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1987), p. 378. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 45 - 930754 deducted from the current cost of the improvements. Depreciation of all incurable elements is then estimated by applying the ratio of effective age to total economic life to the current cost of improvements minus the estimate of curable physical obsolescence. Physical Deterioration - Physical deterioration is divided into two categories, curable and incurable. Curable Physical Deterioration - Curable physical deterioration is also referred to as deferred maintenance. It is represented by items in need of immediate replacement or repair. The standard is whether the typical purchaser would consider the repair necessary and justified upon purchase. Inspection of the property indicated that the improvements are being well maintained. No significant items of deferred maintenance were observed. Incurable Physical Deterioration - Incurable physical deterioration involves an estimate of deterioration that is not practical or currently feasible to correct. Because the subject building is a combination of new and old, overall physical deterioration is difficult to measure. Typical life expectancy of new downtown buildings with construction features similar to the subject is approximately 75 years, assuming no major remodeling. Therefore, depreciation typically is occurring at a rate of 1.33 percent per year. However, structurally the subject is already 100 years old. It is the appraiser's opinion that architecturally it is not an exceptional building and does not merit, from the private sector, another rehabilitation. Tax credits and other incentives, obviously, could alter such a decision. In all likelihood, the property will return to the city at the end of the land lease, which is August 31, 2036, or in 44 years. Therefore, the total physical and economic life of the subject is estimated to be 55 years; and the remaining physical and economic life is estimated to be 44 years. With a 55-year life, depreciation is occurring on an overall basis of 1.82 percent per year (100% - 55 years = 1.82% per year). Therefore, with an effective age of 10 years, the subject is estimated to have incurred an approximate 18.18 percent loss in value due to physical deterioration. Estimated Replacement Cost New $3,011,449 Effective Age (10 years) Total Estimated Economic Life (55 Years) 18.18% x 0.1818 Total Physical Deterioration $ 547,481 FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 46 - 930754 �j Functional Obsolescence - Functional obsolescence is divided into two cate- gories, curable and incurable. To be curable, the cost of replacing the outmoded or unacceptable component must be offset by the anticipated increase in value. Otherwise, the obsolescence is considered incurable. The subject property is observed to have a functional deficiency based on a floor plan that features excess hallway area. This results in a rental loss arising from space allocated to the corridors in lieu of the space being usable area. Additionally, operating costs (taxes, insurance, utilities, etc.) directly related to the excess hallway area burden the property. The building has an efficiency ratio of 52 percent (usable area to gross building area) compared to the 80 percent ratio more typically seen in competing properties. An analysis of the income data in the Income Approach indicates a net rental loss of $109,628 per year, calculated as follows: Current Potential 25,297 sq. ft. 39,179 sq. ft. Usable Area Usable Area* Potential Gross Income $260,556 $403,544 Less Vacancy (15%) 39,083 60,532 Effective Gross Income $221,473 $343,012 Less Expenses Fixed $ 44,325 $ 44,325 Variable 101,388 108,681 Leasing Fees 8,416 13,034 Reserves 3,188 157,317 3,188 169,228 Net Operating Income $ 64,156 $173,784 *48,974 square feet x 0.80 = 39,179 square feet of potential usable area. Considering the above, the estimated loss in value due to the deficiency, which is not deemed curable, is as follows: Estimated Net Operating Income Loss Due to Deficiency $109,628 Building Capitalization Rate 10.50% Estimated Loss in Value Due to Deficiency $1,044,076 (Net Operating Income Loss of $109,628 Divided by the Building Capitalization Rate of 0.105) C` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY l/ - 47 - 930754 External Obsolescence - No negative forces from outside the site were identified other than a generally weak office market in the downtown area. The degree of obsolescence attributable to this form of depreciation is difficult to measure. Typically, total accrued depreciation is extracted from comparable sales by subtracting the sales price, less the land value, from the estimated cost new. This figure is a combination of physical, functional, and external obsolescence. When physical deterioration and functional obsolescence are subtracted, the remainder is external obsolescence. In this report, while the presence of external obsolescence is recognized, it is not being measured as such. Total Estimate of Accrued Depreciation Physical Deterioration $547,481 Functional Obsolescence $1,044,076 External Obsolescence Not Measured Total Accrued Depreciation $1,591,557 Summary - Cost Approach The total amount of accrued depreciation caused by physical deterioration, functional obsolescence, and external obsolescence is deducted from the replacement cost new of the improvements, then the value of the site is added. The result is an indication of the value of the subject property by the Cost Approach. Replacement Cost New Estimate $3,011,449 Less Estimated Accrued Depreciation 1,591,557 Depreciated Replacement Cost New Estimate $1,419,892 Add Land Value (Previously Estimated) 175,000 TOTAL ESTIMATE OF VALUE BY THE COST APPROACH $1,594,892 Rounded to: $1,595,000 FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 48 - 930754 / SALES COMPARISON APPROACH The Sales Comparison or Market Data Approach is predicated on the principle of substitution, which implies that a prudent purchaser would not pay more for a property than it would cost to purchase a reasonably similar substitute. The applica- tion of this approach yields an estimate of value for the property being appraised by comparing it with similar properties that have recently sold, or are currently offered for sale in the same or competing neighborhoods. With a building such as the subject, sales are most frequently analyzed on the basis of the sales price per square foot of gross building area and per square foot of rentable or usable area. Gross income multipliers are also utilized. For comparative purposes, in this report, sales are being reported on the basis of price per square foot of gross and usable area. Because of the variations in the market in terms of landlord versus tenant expenses, extraction of a gross income multiplier is not considered reliable. The Sales Comparison Approach is probably the most easily understood by the general public, since purchasers typically familiarize themselves with the market place and make informal comparisons of relative values and amenities. The com- parability between two properties involves adjusting each sale or comparable property with respect to differences in such elements of comparison as property rights conveyed, financing terms, conditions of sale, market conditions (time), location, and physical characteristics. Physical characteristics include, but are not limited to, differences in building size, quality of construction, age, condition, architectural style, contributory value of the site, desirability of site or view, or any other potential physical difference. These adjusted sales prices, thus, yield an indication of market value for the property being appraised. The Sales Comparison Approach is applicable when there is sufficient data on recent market transactions to indicate value patterns; it is less useful when data is scarce. Abrupt changes in economic conditions also limit the reliability of the approach. The comparables used essentially represent all of the Greeley transactions over the past three to four years involving buildings, more or less, similar to the subject. Sales are practically non-existent; and the few sales that have occurred have been, in most instances, to an existing tenant or for owner occupancy in a single- tenant building. Motivation, therefore, becomes a factor when analyzing these sales. Greeley does not stimulate much real estate interest in terms of outside investors. The large majority of rental properties are bought and sold locally, which tends to limit the potential market. Additionally, there is not a large turn-over in the ownership of properties. \` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 49 - 33O754 Pertinent sales information is summarized below and faced with a map showing the location of the comparables with respect to each other and to the subject property. Following the tabulation are write-ups on each comparable. SALES INFORMATION COMPARISON SUMMARY Cash Equiv. Comp. Date of Sales Overall Equity Price/SF Price/SF of No Sate Price GIM Rate Rate of GBA Usable Area 1 8/88 $568,000 n/a n/a n/a $28.98 $28.98 2 1/92 $818,000 8.35 6.90% n/a $84.57 $94.44 3 11/89 $226,500 n/a n/a n/a $37.22 $40.66 4 4/91 $356,000 8.73 6.57% (49.57%) $111.25 $111.25 5 8/89 $165,000 4.76 13.8% n/a $31.91 $34.61 6 current $575,000 n/a n/a n/a $68.10 $68.10 listing 7 9/86 $720,000 7.36 9.08% 3.26% $68.57 $80.01 8 12/87 $1,475,000 rt/a n/a n/a $56.32 $56.32 9 10/91 $575,000 n/a n/a n/a $36.51 $36.51 10 7/90 $245,000 1.77 3.49%t' n/a $12.06 $15.87 21.07%(2) '°Based on actual income prior to sale (2)Based on potential income \` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY 'J 50 930754 COMPARABLE NUNIBEIR } (• 41. Y tp r ul . - Taken in 1990 NAME: Former NHPQ office building LOCATION: 2021 54th Avenue, Greeley, CO DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 1966 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Frame with wood siding exterior QUALITY/CONDITION: Good/Fair to poor TENANTS: Single tenant office building LAND AREA: 48,000± square feet GROSS BUILDING AREA: 19,600 square feet USABLE AREA: 19,600 square feet (100%) LAND TO BUILDING RATIO: 2.45:1 GRANTOR: Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk, Engineering GRANTEE: William Kunzman and Kay Kunzman RECEPTION NUMBER: 02153571 DATE OF SALE: August 30, 1988 SALES PRICE: ¶600.000 CASH EQUIVALENT PRICE: $568,000: adjusted for beneficial financing TERMS: Cash_ ¶30,0(X) 1st TD_ Seller financed $570,000 at 8.5% interest; 15-year amort- ization: 9-year tens: annual payments of ¶68.639.66. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY __— -- -- --- — �� 930754 -,\ Comparable Number 1 Page 2 ANALYSIS: INCOME: No income information available;property was owner occupied and was purchased by an owner occupant. POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME MULTIPLIER: n/a OVERALL RATE: n/a EQUITY CAPITALIZATION RATE: n/a SALES PRICE PER SF OF GBA: $568,800 - 19,600 square feet = $28.98 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $568,000 _ 19,600 square feet = $28.98 AVERAGE SCHEDULED RENT PER SF OF GBA: n/a PER SF OF USABLE AREA: n/a AVERAGE NET INCOME PER SF OF GBA: n/a PER SF OF USABLE AREA: n/a REMARKS: Property is situated in the western part of the city overlooking the municipal golf course. It was owner occupied by an engineering firm. The firm dissolved and the building sat vacant for approximately three years while being marketed for sale. The original asking price was $1,000,000. The mechanical systems reportedly were in good condition; but otherwise, the building was completely remodeled by the purchasers, including replacing window panes throughout the building with insulated glass. It is estimated that remodel costs ranged as high as $18 to$20 per square foot. The purchasers occupied the building a short time before declaring bankruptcy. The property is currently in foreclosure. ` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY C' - 52 - 930754 COMPARABLE NUMBER 2 1'.t Taken in 1992 NAME: Park Place LOCATION: 3535 West 12th Street, Greeley, CO DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 1985 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Frame with face brick veneer QUALITY/CONDITION: Good/Good TENANTS: Multi-tenant office building LAND AREA: 39,804 square feet GROSS BUILDING AREA: 9,672 square feet, plus 961 square foot unfinished basement USABLE AREA: 8,662 square feet (90%) LAND TO BUILDING RATIO: 4.12:1 GRANTOR: Thomas Fabricius GRANTEE: Mark Brown and R. O. !Cron RECEPTION NUMBER: Not recorded DATE OF SALE: January 1992 SALES PRICE: $818,000 ($368,100 for 45% interest) CASH EQUIVALENT PRICE: $818,000 ($368,100 for 45% interest) TERMS: Cash: $89,100 1st TD: Assume 45%of$620,000 principal balance at 11±% (note was wrapped) FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 53 - 930754 Comparable Number 2 Page 2 ANALYSIS: INCOME: Potential Gross Annual Scheduled Rent $97,926 Less Vacancy (7%) 6,855 Effective Gross Income $91,072 Less Expenses (38%) 34 648 Net Operating Income $56,424 Less Debt Service unknown Equity Cash Flow unknown POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME MULTIPLIER: $818,000 + $97,926 = 8.35 OVERALL RATE: $56,424 + $818,000 = 6.90% EQUITY CAPITALIZATION RATE: n/a SALES PRICE PER SF OF GBA: $818,000 + 9,672 square feet = $84.57 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $818,000 + 8,662 square feet = $94.44 AVERAGE SCHEDULED RENT PER SF OF GBA: $97,926 _ 9,672 square feet = $10.12 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $97,926 - 8,662 square feet= $11.31 AVERAGE NET INCOME PER SF OF GBA: $56,424 + 9,672 square feet= $5.83 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $56,424 + 8,662 square feet = $6.51 REMARKS: One of the buyers was a tenant in the building, and the other intends to locate there. The building was constructed in 1985 at a reported cost of$836,000, which includes the land acquisition. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 54 - 930754 COMPARABLE NUMBER 3 .. . • • • I y • r A ICE lin bril lir :L;) ,.' r rr Taken in 1990 NAME: n/a LOCATION: 2918 West 10th Street, Greeley, CO DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 1960/1965 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Solid masonry with face brick QUALITY/CONDITION: Average/Average TENANTS: Multi-tenant LAND AREA: 18,700 square feet GROSS BUILDING AREA: 6,086 square feet USABLE AREA: 5,570 square feet (92%) LAND TO BUILDING RATIO: 3.07:1 GRANTOR: Hillenkamp & Murphy, a partnership GRANTEE: Maureen T. Abbot RECEPTION NUMBER: 02197043 DATE OF SALE: November 8, 1989 SALES PRICE: $235,000 CASH EQUIVALENT PRICE: $226,500 TERMS: Cash: $25,000 1st TD: Seller financed $210,000 @ 9%,25-year amortization, 10-year term = $21,148 annually \.` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 55 - 930754 Comparable Number 3 Page 2 ANALYSIS: INCOME: n/a; primary motivation for purchase was owner occupancy POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME MULTIPLIER: n/a OVERALL RATE: n/a EQUITY CAPITALIZATION RATE: n/a SALES PRICE PER SF OF GBA: $226,500 ± 6,086 square feet = $37.22 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $226,500 - 5,570 square feet = $40.66 AVERAGE SCHEDULED RENT PER SF OF GBA: n/a PER SF OF USABLE AREA: n/a AVERAGE NET INCOME PER SF OF GBA: n/a PER SF OF USABLE AREA: n/a REMARKS: Prior sale of this property occurred in June, 1988, for a price of$233,600. Building is finished for dental and medical use. Purchaser, a medical doctor, bought the property in order to occupy 2,392 square feet that were vacant at time of sale. The remainder of the building is under lease to medical-type tenants. Purchase was analyzed by the buyer on the basis of the benefits of ownership versus renting space. \`. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY • - 56 - 930754 COMPARABLE NUMBER 4 <-` ' ti yi r mat r � eR BAN---K PLAINS INS 4 REAL ESTATE, INC. 41.61i L0� s = I 1, • • Taken in 1991 NAME: Plains Real Estate Building LOCATION: 3700 West 10th Street, Greeley, CO DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 1980 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Frame with moss rock QUALITY/CONDITION: Above Average/Above Average TENANTS: Single tenant office building LAND AREA: 43,561 square feet GROSS BUILDING AREA: 3,200 square feet USABLE AREA: 3,200 square feet (100%) LAND TO BUILDING RATIO: 13.61:1 GRANTOR: HSC Investments GRANTEE: Daniel L. and Mary E. White RECEPTION NUMBER: 02248761 DATE OF SALE: April 29, 1991 SALES PRICE: $356,000 CASH EQUIVALENT PRICE: $356,000 TERMS: Cash: $49,441 1st TD: Assume $306,559 principal balance at 10.875% (adjustable annually); 11 years remaining; $47,897 annual debt service FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - s7 930754 Comparable Number 4 Page 2 ANALYSIS: INCOME: Actual Gross Annual Scheduled Rent $40,800 Less Vacancy (7%) 2,856 Effective Gross Income $37,944 Less Expenses (38%) 14,555 Net Operating Income $ 23,389 Less Debt Service 47,897 Equity Cash Flow ($24,508) POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME MULTIPLIER: $356,000 _ $40,800 = 8.73 OVERALL RATE: $23,389 + $356,000 = 6.57% EQUITY CAPITALIZATION RATE: ($24,508) - $49,441 = (49.57%) SALES PRICE PER SF OF GBA: $356,000 - 3,200 square feet = $111.25 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $356,000 ± 3,200 square feet = $111.25 AVERAGE SCHEDULED RENT PER SF OF GBA: $40,800 - 3,200 square feet= $12.75 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $40,800 _ 3,200 square feet = $12.75 AVERAGE NET INCOME PER SF OF GBA: $23,389 - 3200 square feet = $7.31 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $23,389 + 3200 square feet= $7.31 REMARKS: The building was originally constructed as a branch office for a locally owned savings and loan association. It was sold to HSC Investments in September 1986 at a price of$325,000; and the purchasers, who were part owners of a real estate company, extensively remodeled the interior of the building, and leased it back to the real estate company. The current buyer purchased the building subject to an existing 5-year lease that was about to expire. The above income information is based upon the existing lease at time of sale. There is a substantial amount of excess land involved in this sale. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 5 8 - 920754 COMPARABLE NUMBER 5 r ili`" '' > may, 3 'n «,.w .'4i • ' Oi• • �anr • Taken in 1991 NAME: n/a LOCATION: 907 30th Avenue, Greeley, CO DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 1985 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Solid brick masonry and wood frame QUALITY/CONDITION: Average/Good TENANTS: Six tenant spaces LAND AREA: 12375 square feet GROSS BUILDING AREA: 5,170 square feet USABLE AREA: 4,768 square feet (92%) LAND TO BUILDING RATIO: 2.39:1 GRANTOR: United Bank of Greeley GRANTEE: Robert D. Lucy RECEPTION NUMBER: 02189621 DATE OF SALE: August 24, 1989 SALES PRICE: $165,000 CASH EQUIVALENT PRICE: $165,000 TERMS: Cash: 516,500 1st TD: Seller financed $148,500, terms unknown. \` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 59 - 930754 Comparable Number 5 Page 2 ANALYSIS: INCOME: Potential Gross Annual Scheduled Rent $34,680 Less Vacancy (10%) 3.468 Effective Gross Income $31,212 Less Expenses (31%) 8,450 Net Operating Income $22,762 Less Debt Service unknown Equity Cash Flow unknown POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME MULTIPLIER: $165,000 _ $34,680 = 4.76 OVERALL RATE: $22,762 - $165,000 = 13.80% EQUITY CAPITALIZATION RATE: n/a SALES PRICE PER SF OF GBA: $165,000 _ 5,170 square feet = $31.91 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $165,000 - 4,768 square feet = $34.61 AVERAGE SCHEDULED RENT PER SF OF GBA: $34,680 - 5,170 square feet= $6.71 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $34,680 - 4,768 square feet= $7.27 AVERAGE NET INCOME PER SF OF GBA: $22,762 : 5,170 square feet= $4.40 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $22,762 - 4,768 square feet= $4.77 REMARKS: Prior sale of this property occurred in November, 1986, for $250,000. The property was foreclosed upon in June, 1989,and subsequently sold as reported in the above sales write-up. It is estimated that the conditions of sale resulted in a sales price slightly below market. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 60 - 93O754 COMPARABLE NUMBER 6 (Listing) ' t %V 1��.:`‘ a mot: n V� f`_. 4,,,,....2".412.0:-,, a,,�,i''�je � F 1 q� E pplgfc , ,, �. C4,:?a i 1{i l t ' T a-1 .1' e, Ie 4� r . I ::t ii d t l ,. r r i 1 1 a, I ., • -- - Taken in 1991 NAME: Former National Board of Chiropractic Examiners Building LOCATION: 1610 29th Avenue Place, Greeley, CO DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 1978 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Masonry with face brick QUALITY/CONDITION: Good/Average TENANTS: Single tenant office building LAND AREA: 22,586 square feet GROSS BUILDING AREA: 8,444 square feet USABLE AREA: 8,444 square feet (100%) LAND TO BUILDING RATIO: 2.67:1 GRANTOR: National Board of Chiropractic Examiners GRANTEE: n/a RECEPTION NUMBER: n/a DATE OF SALE: Current listing ASKING PRICE: $575,000 CASH EQUIVALENT PRICE: $575,000 TERMS: Cash t` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY Cd - 61 - 930754 - -- Comparable Number 6 Page 2 ANALYSIS: INCOME: No income information available; property was owner occupied and is currently vacant. POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME MULTIPLIER: n/a OVERALL RATE: n/a EQUITY CAPITALIZATION RATE: n/a SALES PRICE PER SF OF GBA: $575,000 - 8,444 square feet = $68.10 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $575,000 _ 8,444 square feet = $68.10 AVERAGE SCHEDULED RENT PER SF OF GBA: n/a PER SF OF USABLE AREA: n/a AVERAGE NET INCOME PER SF OF GBA: n/a PER SF OF USABLE AREA: n/a REMARKS: The National Board of Chiropractic Examiners constructed a new,larger office building at the western edge of Greeley and,as a result, vacated this building. It was originally on the market for approximately six months at a price of$650,000. The price was then reduced to $575,000. Altogether, the building has been on the market for slightly over one year. • FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY 62 930754 COMPARABLE NUMBER 7 r R TM .. e> S r 1 'L. 6vW1A 1r 'F... ••Taken in 1991 NAME: Cottonwood Commons LOCATION: 1770 25th Avenue, Greeley, CO DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 1979 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Solid masonry, brick veneer, and cedar siding exterior QUALITY/CONDITION: Good/Good TENANTS: Multi-tenant office building LAND AREA: 31,630 square feet GROSS BUILDING AREA: 10,500 square feet USABLE AREA: 8,999 square feet (86%) LAND TO BUILDING RATIO: 3.01:1 GRANTOR: W. West Foster (undivided 1/3 interest) GRANTEE: Masoud S. Shirazi (undivided 1/3 interest) RECEPTION NUMBER: 02071424 DATE OF SALE: September 30, 1986 SALES PRICE: $720,000 ($240,000 for 1/3 interest) CASH EQUIVALENT PRICE: $720,000 ($240,000 for 1/3 interest) TERMS: Cash: $99,381 1st TD: Assume 1/3 of$421,857 principal balance at 12.5% (adjustable every three years); 23 years, 9 months remaining; $55,641 annual debt service. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 63 - 930754 Comparable Number 7 Page 2 ANALYSIS: INCOME: Actual Gross Annual Scheduled Rent $97,778 Less Vacancy (5%) 4,889 Effective Gross Income $92,889 Less Expenses (30%) 27,531 Net Operating Income $65,358 Less Debt Service 55,641 Equity Cash Flow $ 9,717 POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME MULTIPLIER: $720,000_ $97,778 = 7.36 OVERALL RATE: $720,000± $65,358 = 9.08% EQUITY CAPITALIZATION RATE: ($9,717 - 3) - $99,381 = 3.26% SALES PRICE PER SF OF GBA: $720,000 _ 10,500 square feet = $68.57 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $720,000 _ 8,999 square feet = $80.01 AVERAGE SCHEDULED RENT PER SF OF GBA: $92,889 _ 10,500 square feet = $8.85 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $92,889 _ 8,999 square feet= $10.32 AVERAGE NET INCOME PER SF OF GBA: $65,358 _ 10,550 square feet = $6.22 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $65,358 _ 8,999 square feet = $7.26 REMARKS: An undivided 1/3 interest in the building for$240,000 was conveyed. There was a previous sale for a 1/3 interest in the same building in June, 1983, for$250,000,and in March, 1984, for$258,333. This three-level, suburban, office building has a good rental history. Rents are structured with tenants paying their own utility costs. There is no elevator in the building. Sufficient on-site parking is available. Purchaser was a building tenant. \.` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 64 - 930754 COMPARABLE NUMBER 8 • • r l ` f rtxpy T a ": _ .. 1 • :,is e 'I if Taken in 1991 NAME: Former United Bank of Greeley Building LOCATION: 1000 10th Street, Greeley, CO DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 1968 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Steel frame with concrete exterior QUALITY/CONDITION: Good/Average TENANTS: Single tenant office building LAND AREA: 76,000 square feet GROSS BUILDING AREA: 26,190 square feet (includes 9,325 sq. ft. finished basement) USABLE AREA: 26,190 square feet (100%) LAND TO BUILDING RATIO: 2.90:1 GRANTOR: United Bank of Greeley GRANTEE: City of Greeley RECEPTION NUMBER: 02123804 DATE OF SALE: December 7, 1987 SALES PRICE: $1,475,000; excludes $100,000 allocated to furniture CASH EQUIVALENT PRICE: $1,475,000 TERMS: Cash: $1,475,000 FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 65 - 930754 Comparable Number 8 Page 2 ANALYSIS: INCOME: Building was owner occupied prior to sale and purchased for owner occupancy. POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME MULTIPLIER: n/a OVERALL RATE: n/a EQUITY CAPITALIZATION RATE: n/a SALES PRICE PER SF OF GBA: $1,475,000 + 26,190 square feet = $56.32 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $1,475,000 + 26,190 square feet = $56.32 AVERAGE SCHEDULED RENT PER SF OF GBA: n/a PER SF OF USABLE AREA: n/a AVERAGE NET INCOME PER SF OF GBA: n/a PER SF OF USABLE AREA: n/a REMARKS: City of Greeley purchased vacant bank building to expand city offices. Building has good location in downtown Greeley. Three floors are serviced by an elevator. Adequate on-site parking is available. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY 'i - 66 - 930754 COMPARABLE NUMBER 9 se L jai; • Taken in 1992 NAME: Pinon Plata LOCATION: 1001 9th Avenue, Greeley, CO DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 1955/remodeled in 1985 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Stucco over concrete QUALITY/CONDITION: Average/Average TENANTS: Multi-tenant office building LAND AREA: 19,387 square feet GROSS BUILDING AREA: 15,750 square feet (includes finished basement) USABLE AREA: 15,750 square feet (100%) LAND TO BUILDING RATIO: 1.23:1 GRANTOR: Donald E. Ruth GRANTEE: 1001 Investors Ltd. Liability Co.,a Colorado limited liability company RECEPTION NUMBER: 02268808 DATE OF SALE: October 25, 1991 SALES PRICE: $575,000 ($287,500 for one-half interest) CASH EQUIVALENT PRICE: $575,000 ($287,500 for one-half interest) TERMS: Assumed existing loan l.` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 67 - 930754 Comparable Number 9 Page 2 ANALYSIS: INCOME: n/a; primary motivation for purchase was owner occupancy POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME MULTIPLIER: n/a OVERALL RATE: n/a EQUITY CAPITALIZATION RATE: n/a SALES PRICE PER SF OF GBA: $575,000 _ 15,750 square feet = $36.51 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $575,000 - 15,750 square feet = $36.51 AVERAGE SCHEDULED RENT PER SF OF GBA: n/a PER SF OF USABLE AREA: n/a AVERAGE NET INCOME PER SF OF GBA: n/a PER SF OF USABLE AREA: n/a REMARKS: Purchasers already owned a one-half interest in the building. Therefore,the remaining undivided one- half interest in the building for $287,500 was conveyed. Subsequent to above purchase, the buyers gutted the basement and first floor and remodeled at a cost estimated to be approximately $250,000. They are moving their accounting firm into this space. The third floor of the building is occupied by a law firm, which is renting the entire floor on the basis of$9.52 per square foot, fully serviced except for janitorial. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 68 - 930754 COMPARABLE NUMBER 10 t A*" 'P£ In ,+a,,. • 41 a � r tar'' 'eS3, pr, kO to • Tt lir Taken in 1992 NAME: Madison and Main Building LOCATION: 801 8th Street, Greeley, CO DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: Renovated in 1983 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Masonry (brick) QUALITY/CONDITION: Good/Good TENANTS: Retail and office LAND AREA: 8,929 square feet GROSS BUILDING AREA: 20,307 square feet (includes 5,725 sq. ft. basement) USABLE AREA: 15,440 square feet (76%) LAND TO BUILDING RATIO: 0.44:1 GRANTOR: First Federal Savings Bank of Colorado GRANTEE: Winton Limited, a Joint Venture RECEPTION NUMBER: 02220459 DATE OF SALE: July 16, 1990 SALES PRICE: $245,000, includes $20,000 special improvement district assumption CASH EQUIVALENT PRICE: $245,000 TERMS: Cash FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 69 - 930754 Sale Number 10 Page 2 ANALYSIS: INCOME: Actual Potential Gross Annual Scheduled Rent $138,034 Less Vacancy (20%) 27,607 Effective Gross Income $67,370 $110,427 Less Expenses 58,808 58,808 Net Operating Income $ 8,562 $ 51,619 Less Debt Service n/a n/a Equity Cash Flow n/a n/a POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME MULTIPLIER: $245,000 _ $138,034 = 1.77 OVERALL RATE: $8,562 + $245,000 = 3.49% (actual) $51,619 _ $245,000 = 21.07% (potential) EQUITY CAPITALIZATION RATE: n/a SALES PRICE PER SF OF GBA: $245,000 + 20,307 square feet = $12.06 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $245,000 - 15,440 square feet = $15.87 AVERAGE SCHEDULED RENT Potential PER SF OF GBA: $6.80 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $8.94 AVERAGE NET INCOME Actual Potential PER SF OF GBA: $0.28 $2.54 PER SF OF USABLE AREA: $0.33 $334 REMARKS: The property was subject to a foreclosure sale in December, 1988, at which time the holder of the second deed of trust acquired the property. Building has good location in center of downtown. Originally constructed approximately 100 years ago, the building was completely renovated in 1983. Developers invested approximately$1,100,000 in the building. The street level is retail in nature; the second level of the building is finished for office use. Highest vacancies have been in street level retail space. Prior to sale, the building office space had a 22 percent vacancy; main level retail had a 61 percent vacancy, and the 3,500 usable square feet in basement were vacant. A credit bureau was the previous basement tenant. The building has an elevator. There is no on-site parking. \` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 70 - 930754 �i - - -..- ----- --. Th• Analysis of Sales The five sales considered to be most similar to The Greeley Building have been selected for further analysis. Sales price per square foot of usable area has been selected as the best unit of comparison. By using this unit of comparison, an adjustment for rental loss resulting from the subject's relatively poor building efficiency is not necessary. An Improved Sales Comparison Grid can be seen on the facing page. Discussion of the adjustments being made to the five sales follows. Property Rights Conveyed - This adjustment takes into account differences in legal estate between the subject property and the comparable properties. The subject and two of the comparables are essentially multi-tenant rental properties. On the other hand, Sales 3 and 9 are primarily owner occupied; however, both buildings also have tenants. This is in contrast to Sale 8, which was purchased for total owner occupancy. It is estimated that a slight premium is being paid for buildings sold for owner occupancy, versus rental. However, lack of sufficient sales information makes this difficult to quantify. As a result, an adjustment is not being made per se. Financing Terms - All the sales are being analyzed for the possibility of beneficial financing. Beneficial financing is considered to be present if the financing terms offered are advantageous when compared to the typical terms offered in the marketplace at the time of the sale. Adjustments for atypical financing have been calculated by discounting the cash flows created by the mortgage contract at market interest rates. Comparable Number 3 is the only selected sale that has beneficial financing terms. The potential effect on the sales price has been analyzed based on a mortgage holding period of five years. Conditions of Sale - Adjustments for conditions of sale usually reflect the motivations of the buyer and the seller. Interviews with the parties involved in these transactions indicate that the comparable sales were bona fide "arms-length" transactions that fit the definition of Market Value as stated at the beginning of this report. The exception is Comparable Number 10, a lender-held property. It is estimated that conditions surrounding this sale resulted in a below market sales price. Market Conditions (Time) - It appears that values have fallen by approximately 30 percent since Sale Number 8 was sold. An appropriate adjustment is being made. Location - Locational adjustments are required when the locational characteristics of a comparable property are different from those of the subject property. The downtown area is slightly inferior when compared to well located 1/4` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 71 - 930754 suburban sites. Generally speaking, suburban office buildings are commanding higher rents and are selling at higher prices than similar downtown office properties. Age/Condition - The age and condition of the comparable properties are being considered together. This adjustment takes into consideration all forms of physical deterioration. Land to Building Ratio - When studying the subject and comparable sales, significant variations are seen in the proportion of land area to gross building area. The contributory value of additional land is being estimated and adjusted accordingly. The subject's land value was estimated to be $3.50 per square foot in the Land Valuation section of this report. Therefore, when comparing the subject to Sale Number 1, for example, a difference of 3.09 in the land to building ratios exists. This amounts to an additional $10.82 per square foot of land value (3.09 x $3.50) included in Sale Number is sales price per square foot of usable building when comparing it to the subject. This represents 11 percent of Sale Number's price per square foot ($10.82 - $97.44 = 11%), which indicates that a downward adjustment of 11 percent is required for this particular differing land to building ratio. This same type of analysis is being used for the remaining sales when considering land to building ratios. Quality of Construction - The quality adjustments reflect estimated differences in cost and contributory value of construction. Interior Finish - This adjustment considers the quality and condition of the interior finish. On-Site Parking- The adequacy of on-site parking varies among the subject and comparables. As discussed previously in this report, the subject's on-site parking is limited, which is estimated to negatively affect the property to a slight degree. Functional Obsolescence - While utilizing usable area as the unit of comparison adjusts for rental loss in the subject building resulting from poor efficiency, it does not satisfy the adjustment necessary for the additional operating expense incurred. When comparing the subject's operating expenses to two other downtown multi- tenant office buildings, as seen on pages 82 and 83 of this report, it is observed that the subject's operating expenses per square foot of usable area are approximately $1.00 higher. This dollar figure is being capitalized at the building capitalization rate of 10.5 percent to determine the subject's loss in value due to this factor. Dividing the excess expense of $1.00 per square foot of usable area by 0.105 calculates to an estimated loss in value of $9.52 per square foot of usable area. As \` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 72 - 930754 r a result, a lump sum downward adjustment of $9.52 is being made to each of the comparables to account for the subject's relatively high operating expenses. Summary If Sale Number 10 is excluded, the remaining sales form a fairly tight range from $31.09 to $34.29 per square foot. Sale Number 10 is physically the most comparable to the subject. However, its low occupancy at time of sale is estimated to have negatively affected its sales price. As a result, it is not being weighted heavily. The other sales, after adjustment, suggest a value of $32.00 per square foot of usable area for The Greeley Building, or as follows: 25,297 square feet usable area @ $32.00/square foot = $809,504 Rounded to: $810,000 FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 73 - 930754 INCOME APPROACH The Income Approach reflects the subject's income-producing capabilities. This method of valuation entails capitalizing the anticipated future benefits from ownership of the subject property, i.e., net operating income, into an indication of value. The gross annual income potential of the subject at full capacity is first projected. This requires estimating the economic or market rent structure of the subject and applying it to the net rentable area. An allowance for vacancy and collection loss is then deducted to arrive at an estimate of the effective gross income that the subject is capable of producing. The fixed and variable expenditures normally borne in the operation of this type of investment property are stabilized and deducted from effective gross income to arrive at net operating income. This net income stream is then capitalized into an indication of value by use of a capitalization rate commensurate with the return requirements found to exist in the market place. In this report, three methods of capitalization will be employed. The first will be direct capitalization utilizing an overall capitalization rate extracted from the comparable sales data; the second will be yield capitalization utilizing an overall rate derived from an Ellwood formula according to the J-factor presumption; and the third will be discounted cash flow analysis (DCF). This will utilize net operating income streams for 10 years, discounting them to present value, and will assume a sale at the end of the period, also discounted to present value. Pro Forma Income Statement Potential Gross Income - In order to estimate the gross income potential of the subject, it is necessary to examine competitive rent levels in the Greeley area and, more specifically, the downtown area. The type and quality of construction, as well as architectural design, and locational attributes are important considerations, as well as the effective age of the improvements. The rental tabulation on the following page sets forth the rent levels in Greeley, multi-tenant, office buildings. Photographs follow. This is a fairly all-inclusive rental survey. It does not, however, include the small, typically one to four-tenant, office complexes scattered throughout the city. Following the photographs are more detailed write-ups on the most current rentals within selected downtown complexes. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 74 - 930754 COMPARABLE OFFICE RENTAL DATA The Greeley Building April 1992 Foster Valuation Company Net 4 Bldg. Most Rentable! Floors Rate per SF/ Recent Rental Building Name Area m Vacancy Above Year Net Rentable Lease Services No. and Location Sq_Ft. Rate Grade Const Area Date Provided") Subj. The Greeley Bldg. 25,297 28% 3"z) 1984 $7.32-$14.48 1992 All 710 11th Avenue 7,045 sf remod. $7.8013) 1 ARIX Building 58,911 9% 3"n 1983 $4.25-$12.00 1992 All 8th Si & 8th Ave. 5,290 sf remod. $7.00°> 2 United Plaza 24,462 0 4"n 1983 $10.50-$17.37 1989 All 10th St. & 11th Ave. $10.71°> 3 Affil. National Bank 58,986 25% 7m 1973 $7.00-$12.00 1990 All (limited 8th St & 9th Ave. 15,000 sf $11.00°) parking available 4 Madison & Main 15,440 5% 2"n 1983 $3.00-$10.89 1992 All (Gold Suite) 801-805 8th St 716 remod. $8.40°1 T,I,H,M,W (Others) 5 United Bank 8,000"° 36% 3rn 1978 & $9.50°t 1990 All 1025 9th Ave. 2,800 older 6 Kinkade Prof. Bldg. 10,000 13% 1'14 1983 $8.50-$13.50 1991 T,I,J,R,M,W,P 2525 16th SL 1,250 sf $12.50°1 7 Cottonwood Commons 18,000 9% 2 1979 $11.50-512.00 1992 T,I,J,R,M,W,P 1750-1770 25th Ave. 1,632 sf $11.50° 8 Bittersweet Square 34,793 4% 1 1975 & 512.25-$14.00 1991 T,I,R,M,W,P 3400 16th Si 1,400 sf 1987 512.25"n 9 Central Bank 3,600"° 0 2"n 1981 $9.50°7 1990 All except I 3690 10th Si 10 Courtside Square 18,120 21% 2 1980 $6.00-$10.00 1991 T,I,R,M,W,P 1015 37th Ave. Ct. 3,800 sf $9.00°' 11 Park Place 9,125 0 1 1985 $12.00-$12.50 1990 T,I,R,M,W,P 3535 W. 12th Si $12.00P1 12 Lake Plaza 6,536 0 2 1985 $10.76-$12.73 1991 T,I,M,W,P 3545 W. 12th Si $11.60°1 13 Eisenman Building 26,400 18% 2") 1983 $13.00 1991 All 4687 W. 18th Si 5,000 sf $13.00"n 14 Columbia West 12,027 0 2 1986 $8.00"" 1991 T,I,R,M,W,P 1812 56th Ave. 15 JRC Plaza 10,000 0 2rn 1983 $7.46-$7.85 1989 All, except I 5401 W. 10th St $7.85"n Totals 339,697 43,933 sf (100%) (13%) orr =Taxes; I= Insurance; H = Heating and Cooling; J = Janitorial; R = Rubbish Removal; M = Maintenance; . W = Water and Sewer; P =Off-Street Parking ")Elevator °"Most recent rental (4)Pertains to leased space; other areas owner occupied 75 930754 Photographs of COMPARABLE OFFICE RENTALS l O iii I Up�t` „ Rental Number 1 i ^ "aniiriisi!*t _` � 1 The ARIX Building �. -, uw ieu�� „ �}K�. }` E'►.. tr. 8th Street and 8th Avenue R Greeley, CO ., t.. _ ,. ,,,, •I ”... t. ,,,.1 - zi,,V CI ',.. .--,- )i-. '''-'.. ' - --- • • 74:- i 1-r yeti < +' - ,,,ate _ `1 Rental Number 2 • r.'.• -A United Plaza tie.,.. ,,,. 10th Street & 11th Avenue Greeley, CO . ` - Saar c•—.77- -t 930754 001 of rrr ' 1 / ' . Rental Number 3 Affiliated National Bank 8th Street & 9th Avenue • _ illGreeley, CO 111 sae iim- i i I 1 , r . 2 a y Rental Number 4 3„ : lk ; ., , 11 Madison & Main Building u� �_ ` ,r 801-805 8th Street -� 1,_____.I.r _A, Greeley, CO 930754 y n Pit ✓ Rental Number 5 �{{ United Bank Building 1025 9th Avenue L t z r s ' s • i' Greeley, CO Rental Number 6 Kinkade Professional Bldg. 2525 16th Street it= Greeley, CO - ay y rte- 930754 11. The account officer is requested to supply the appraiser with a copy of the property's legal description, the survey, leases for income-producing properties, and a three (3) year sales history including offers, listings and options if known. 12. The appraiser should provide the amount of annual property taxes and any past due- taxes in the appraisal report and comment as to their reasonableness. If high, explain the impact on appraised value. 13. The appraisal may be used for multiple purposes, such as bids at foreclosure sales, large protective advances, operating budgets, and sale of the property. 14. The appraiser should note any potential environmental hazards such as underground storage tanks, drums of known or unknown contents, evidence of waste disposal such as sledges, paints, chemical residues, oil spillage, asbestos, etc. 15. A copy of these instructions should be made a part of the appraisal report. • VI-C-8 330754 INITIAL SELECTION PORN Instructions: pQ pot complete this form for single family residences unless a significant environmental issue is known or suspected to be present, suet as for lead-based paint or historic buildings . Complete this selection form for all other properties based on any available information . Following completion, identify the appropriate checklists to be completed during an on-site review. All checklists will be reviewed by the DOL Account Officer (or Environmental Coordinat=r to determine any appropriate and applicable follow-up a"tivity at the property. If YES or UNKNOWN, Checklist to be OTUITION rnaver (circle one) Completer 1. Is there any evidence of YES HO UNKNOWN A the presence of current or former service stations, or of commercial or industrial activities that suggest that underground storage tanks may be located on the property? 2 . Is there any evidence that YES O = aboveground storage tanks may be located on the property? 3 . Is there any evidence that YES t) UNKNOWN a landfill, dump, wastepile, wastewater lagoon, or other land disposal activity is currently present on the property? 4 . Is there any evidence that ' YES \NO hazardous substances such as paints, solvents, acids, bases, flammables, compressed gases, poisons, or other chemical materials are currently used on the property, (other than normal household use) ? — Fr" „/25/11 sewn, - 3 -2 - 930754 If YES or c K.! ATr', Checklist to be OUESTION Answer (circle one) Completed 5 . Is there any evidence that YES (NO) F radiological materials or radiological equipment such as found in research laboratories, medical equip- ment, or industrial operations may be used on the property? 6. Is there any evidence that YES 050 UNKNOWN F past operatioi:.0 located on the property used hazardous substances or radiological materials that may have been released into the environment, or that the property may have been used for dumping, landfilling, or disposing of hazardous or radiological materials in the past? 7 . Is there any evidence that of—ES) NO c electrical equipment, such as transformers, capacitors, and light ballasts or hydraulic. equipment (found in machinery and elevators) is present on the property? 8 . Is there any evidence of YES NO UNKNOWN H insulation or fire retardant materials such as pipe wrap and ceiling spray within the buildings on the property? 9 . Is there any evidence that YES NO pesticides (including insecticides, fungicides, and rodenticides) have been manufactured or used on the property (other than normal household use) ? e.e.i&.eaten Fr. 1125/0 I ..-a..�R.... -3 -3- 930754 If YES , Checkl _sr to be OU!STION Answer (circle one) c p1 eted 10 . If any building on the property YES (1O) UNKNOWN was built before 1978 --- 1) could a buyer be applying for a FHA loan to purchase the building OR 2) are any tenant(s) of the building receiving Housing Assistance payments from a Public Housing Authority. 11. Are there any coastal areas, YES qNO) x rivers, streams, springs, lakes ponds, swamps, marshes, or other bodies of water on or immediately adjacent to the property? Do not include stormwater collection ponds, swimming pools, and other similar bodies of water. 12 . Does the property contain an YES NO L undeveloped area or areas greater than one acre in size that exhibit natural vegetation? r. Include woodlots, brush areas, fields and other overgrown areas, and areas that are subject to irfrequent or irregular maintenance such as pastures and golf course roughs. 13a. Is the property located YES NO within 1, 000 feet of a coastal shoreline? 13b. Is the property substantially YES `NO undeveloped, larger than 50 acres in size, and adjacent to or contiguous with lands managed by a governmental agency primarily for wildlife, refuge, sanctuary, open space, recreational, historical, cultural, or natural resource conservation purposes? Seiscoen Farm I1/a/i?.MiaL1, - 3 -4 - 930754 If YES , Checklist to be QUESTION Answer Lcircl• one) Completed 14a . Does this property contain YES 6.4i) ,y archeological resources, including fossils, or is it close to or similar to property containing such resources? 14b. Is the property a designated YES C O) N natural landmark? 14c. Does the property contain YES NO N buildings or structures that are more than 50 years old? 14d. If the property contains `YES NO N buildings or structures that are less than 50 years old, can they be considered exceptionally significant The building is listed in in American history, the National Register of architecture, engineering Historic Places. or culture OR can the property be considered an historic site or part of an historic district? q- i5- �� Signature f Preparer Date — a,F I I/Z/01 ..-cresnn -3 -5- 9030754 5 CBECILIST G P0LYCffi.0RIBATED BIPIDDITIS ao.a oca iv ant 930754 CHECKLIST a POLYCHLORINATED BIPHEDTYLS ;ntroductiotl Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS) belong to a broad family of organic chemicals known as chlorinated hydrocarbons. Virtually all PCBs in existence today have been synthetically manufactured . PCBs have been primarily used in electrical equipment but were also included in hydraulic systems and oil-filled heat transfer systems. PCBs are deleterious because once released into the environment, they do not break down into harmless chemical substances. It is known that PCBs cause chloracne, a painful , disfiguring skin illness. Animal studies also indicate that PCSs may be carcinogenic and teratogenic (fetus damaging) , ard the EPA has determined that PCB contamination may pose a public healt.^. concern. Regulatory Context In 1976, Congress enacted the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that directed EPA to regulate PCBS. By 1978, EPA had developed labeling rules and disposal regulations. In 1979, EPA implemented rules governing the manufacture, use, and disposal of PCBs . Disposal of PCBS can be costly as they can only be disposed cf at a hazardous waste facility. Use of PCB-containing equipment be phased out by. 1993. O-a.0 PCB. 'mn. -3-G- 1- 930754 CHEC LIST POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL (for Initial Screening) This checklist does not apply to single family residences unless a significant environmental issue is known or suspected to be present. Instructions: If the property is occupied, ask the maintenance supervisor or the building manager to assist yc : in answering these questions. 1. Has a survey been conducted for PCBs on the property? Check One: Yes No Unknown If YES, obtain a copy of any survey reports, then proceed __ Question 2. If NO or UNKNOWN, proceed to Question 2. 2. Are any of the following locates on the property? Do not include items that have "non-PCB" labels (a blue circle wit.`. white lettering) . Check one for each item: 2a. OIL-FILLED ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS - A device which converts current and voltage from a .primary circuit : : a secondary circuit. Transformers may be located :n electrical substations outside a building, mounted :- poles (cylindrical metal objects) , or located in a building's electrical rooms (small to large metal tc .es with or without cooling fans) . Oil-filled transfer:e- s without a PCB or non-PCB label, must be considered F : contaminated: Yes No 17 Unknown 2b. OIL-FILLED ELECTRICAL CAPACITORS - A device that s: : - - ; electricity and is used for multiple purposes, including reducing voltage fluctuations and transmitting pulsed signals. Capacitors are found . - electrical rooms and numerous types of industrial equipment. Capacitors are generally square or rectangular in shape and larger than a typewriter They may not have PCB or non-PCB labels: Yes No V Unknown o.v.a gals - 3 -G-2- 930754 2c. HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS - Machinery that contains hydrau '_ _c oil such as elevators, lifts, cranes, or industrial machinery: Yes No Unknown 2e. WASTE OIL TANKS:Yes No / Unknown 2f. OTHER OIL-FILLED INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT: . Yes No vie Unknown If iES to any of the above items, proceed to Question 3 . If NO to all of the above items, proceed to CHECKLIST OUTCOME, Item A. If UNKNOWN, proceed to CHECKLIST OUTCOME, Item B. 3. Is there any evidence of spills or leaks around or from the equipment identified in Question 2, or have there been any fires involving this equipment? Check One: Yes No Unknown Proceed to Question 4 . 4 . Based on discussions with onsite personnel, has any equipment or spilled material containing PCBs ever been removed or cleaned up at the property? Check One: Yes No ✓ Unknown If YES, proceed to CHECKLIST OUTCOME, Item B. If NO or UNKNOWN, proceed to CHECKLIST OUTCOME, Item C. a.mr.a P®. non+.aww.^ow^ -3 -G-3- 930'754 CEECELIBT OPTCOns A. Property is not recommended for further study No equipment that may contain PCBs is present onsite. This property is not recommended for further study in regards to PCBs. B. Property recommended for a Phase I ESA • PCB equipment is or may be present onsite, but there is no evidence of contamination from the equipment. A Phase I ESA should be conducted to determine if PCB equipment is present onsite. See Exhibit C for guidance on Phase I ESAs. C. Property is recommended for an immediate Phase I ESA Equipment that may potentially contain PCBs is present onsite and may have caused contamination. A Phase I ESA should be initiated as soon as possible to obtain background information concerning PCB equipment. A Phase II ESA may be required to determine the presence and extent of any contamination. See Exhibit C for guidance on Phase I ESAs and your Environmental Response Attorney for guidance on Phase II ESAs. /5--9a-- • Signature of Preparer Date Notes If a PCB survey was conducted on the property, .t should be reviewed by an environmental professional to verify its adequacy or use as background information in developing the scope of work for a Phase II ESA. The survey should be placed in the asset file. 0-o Pte. /22491 onsoltrfem - 3 -G-4 - 93©754 Comparable Rental 1 - ARIX Building Tenant: UNC Research Corp. Space: 1st floor Area: 5,078 square feet Condition: New carpet and paint; new tenant Lease Date: February 1, 1992 through January 30, 1997 Rent: $7.00 per square foot; fully serviced; no escalators Tenant: Addiction Recovery Space: 2nd floor Area: 1,836 square feet Condition: Leased "as is"; new tenant Lease Date: May 1, 1991 through April 30, 1993 Rent: $4.25 per square foot, increasing to $4.58 per square foot as of May 1, 1992; fully serviced Tenant: Connell and Blundell (attorneys) Space: 2nd floor Area: 2,243 square feet Condition: Leased "as is"; new tenant Lease Date: May 1, 1991 through April 30, 1993 Rent: $4.82 per square foot, stepped to $5.08 as of January 1, 1992 and to $5.35 as of September 1, 1992; fully serviced except for janitorial Remarks: Building was constructed in 1954 and extensively remodeled in 1983. A city parking lot is located adjacent to the property, which provides adequate and convenient parking for the building tenants and clients. Building quality is inferior to the subject. Comparable Rental 2 - United Plaza Tenant: Colorado Public Defenders Office Space: 2nd floor Area: 4,019 square feet Condition: Unknown Lease Date: June 1, 1989 through June 30, 1992 Rent: $10.71 per square foot; fully serviced; no escalators Remarks: This is considered to be one of the higher quality office buildings in the downtown area. Sufficient on-site parking is available. • FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 76 - 930754 Comparable Rental 3 - Affiliated National Bank-Greeley Tenant: Pillsbury Company Space: 1st floor Area: 720 square feet Condition: Landlord amortized tenant improvements, which increased rent by $1.00 per square foot over the base rate. Lease Date: Commenced September 1991; 3-year term Rent: $7.50 per square foot; fully serviced; no escalators Remarks: Due to the varying types of space in the building, rental rates cover a fairly wide range. The least desirable space is in the $6.50 to $7.00 asking range, while the most desirable 7th floor suites with good views command rent at approximately $12.00 per square foot. Comparable Rental 4 - Madison and Main Building Tenant: Under contract Space: 1st floor Area: 1,200 to 1,300 square feet Condition: Landlord is installing new carpet, painting and moving partition walls at his expense. Lease Date: 3-year term Rent: $8.40 per square foot; tenant pays own electricity and janitorial (heat and cooling provided by landlord) Tenant: Brawner & Brawner Advertising Space: Basement Area: 3,500 square feet Condition: Landlord extensively remodeled the space at his expense. Lease Date: 3-year term Rent: $3.00 per square foot, increasing to $4.00 per square foot over the term of the lease; tenant pays own electricity and janitorial (heating and cooling provided by landlord) Remarks: Building recently sold. See Improved Sale Number 10. \` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 77 - 930754 Comparable Rental 5 - United Bank Tenant: Western Temporary Services, Inc. Space: 4th floor Area: 1,600 square feet Condition: Leased "as is" Lease Date: June 1, 1989 through May 31, 1992 Rent: $9.50 per square foot; fully serviced lease; no escalators Remarks: Building currently has 800 square feet of available vacant office space. However, 2,000 square feet of space that was owner occupied has been vacated and is coming onto the market. This increases the building's vacancy from 5 to 35 percent. Current asking rates are $9.50 per square foot. Office rental rates in the downtown area are depressed. This is reflected by what recently occurred in the ARIX Building. First Northern Savings and Loan vacated space on the first floor, which they had been leasing for $11.50 per square foot. This space has been subsequently leased to the University of Northern Colorado Research Corporation for $7.00 per square foot, which is estimated to be slightly below market. This same trend is seen in most of the downtown buildings studied. On the other hand, office buildings in the western part of Greeley appear to be, more or less, retaining rent levels. When analyzing the rental rates, services provided by the landlord must be taken into consideration. Also, availability of parking and floor level must be analyzed. Leases typically are gross, or modified gross with the tenant paying his own utility costs and janitorial service. Utilities can vary substantially but, normally, will cost approximately $1.25 to $1.75 per square foot. Five-day a week janitorial service costs approximately $0.65 per square foot. In the Greeley area, the customary method of measurement for office space is net rentable (usable) area. This does not include space occupied by exterior walls, stairwells, common hallways, restrooms, etc. Agents for the subject building have been successful in leasing some suites in The Greeley Building by adding 15 percent to the usable area to derive the rentable area. However, in order to achieve consis- tency for comparison purposes, the property is being analyzed on the basis of usable area. The lower level space in the subject building is not considered to be as desirable as the other levels. When analyzing the comparable rents, along with current subject rent levels, it is estimated that, when fully serviced, market rent for the subject's FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY JJ - 78 - 930754 garden level suites is $9.50 per square foot of usable area. The first, second, and third floors are capable of commanding $10.50 per square foot, with the exception of the executive offices. The nine executive offices are being analyzed on a per office basis, rather than a per square foot basis. Seven of the offices range from 110 to 132 square feet in size, plus a pro rata share of secretarial area, conference room, and kitchen, and are capable of obtaining $100 per office per month. Two offices are larger and have an estimated market rent of $150 each per month. The executive center area is not well laid out to function as a "gold suite," with secretarial service included, and can probably maintain higher occupancy operating on the current basis of leasing an individual office with no secretarial or telephone amenities. There appears to be some demand for this small, affordable office space. Overall, market rent is lower than the current total contract rent being collected, as can be seen in The Greeley Building Contract and Market Rent Summary on the facing page. This is reflective of current market conditions and the downward pressures being placed on downtown office rents. Subject contract rent shown on the facing page has been compiled from information in the rent roll provided by management, which can be seen as Exhibit D, and updated through conversations with the property manager. There is some value created by the existing subject leases. However, because the terms are relatively short, the additional value created is not of significant consequence and is not being considered in this appraisal. When analyzing the existing leases, it is noted that Greeley Orthodontic Center, at a contract rate of $17.95 per square foot for Suite 105, is also getting 468 square feet of storage space in the building, which is not included in the square footage given. Additionally, Blue Chip Oil is paying a rate of $16.67 per square foot for Suite 301. However, they are leasing Suite E-302 at no charge. These circumstances explain, to some degree, their relatively high rental rates. Potential gross income for the subject property is broken down by suite in the rent summary on the facing page. It is estimated to be as follows: Gross Potential Income $260,556 Average Gross Potential Income Per Square Foot of Usable Area $10.30 Vacancy and Collection Loss- The potential gross annual rental income forecast for the subject building should be reduced to recognize normal vacancy and possible nonpayment of rent by tenants. It is, therefore, necessary to establish an allowance for this eventual loss of potential income so as to more accurately project actual • FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 79 - 930754 income receipts. The subject historically has had rather high vacancy, which is estimated to be a result of a less than desirable leasing program. Vacancy, as of appraisal date, stands at 28 percent. At competitive rents, the building should be getting a larger share of the rental market. While parking might not be sufficient for certain tenants, overall, it does not severely impact the property. For example, most former tenants interviewed reported parking to have been ample for their needs. The Greeley Building cannot, for instance, be compared to the Greeley National Bank building or the Madison and Main Building where parking is an obvious problem. It is estimated that if the subject is aggressively marketed, it should be able to achieve and maintain an occupancy level of at least 85 percent, which represents a 15 percent vacancy factor. Operating Expenses - Operating expenses can be subdivided into categories of fixed and variable costs. In forecasting stabilized expenses for the subject property, an analysis was made of the actual expenses incurred by the subject and by comparable projects. The itemized income and expenses for 1990 and 1991, prepared by the owners, were available for review. They can be seen as Exhibit E. It is noted that the income statements supplied show payment of real estate taxes and the special assessment. However, according to county records, these payments were not made. This tends to mitigate, to some degree, the reliability of the income and expense information submitted to the appraiser. Fixed Expenses - These are operating expenses that do not vary with occupancy. They must be paid whether or not the property is occupied, such as real estate taxes and fire and casualty insurance premiums. Real Estate Taxes - The 1991 ad valorem real estate taxes levied against the subject property were $36,245. Taxes (mill levies) have been increasing about 1.6 percent annually over the past two years. Therefore, the 1992 taxes are estimated to be $36,825 ($36,245 x 1.016). Special Assessment - As discussed previously in this report, there is a special assessment against the property. It is delinquent; and as a result, the entire unpaid principal balance, plus interest and penalties, is due and payable. Therefore, an allowance for the annual special assessment pay- ments is not being made in the pro forma. Insurance - From a review of the available past year's costs, it appears that the annual cost of fire and casualty insurance has ranged from $8,395 in 1990 to $11,337 in 1991, which calculates from $0.17 to $0.23 per square foot of gross building area, respectively. Information from comparable office buildings indicates that insurance normally costs FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY l� - - 930754 approximately $0.12 to $0.15 per square foot of gross building area. Based on this information, insurance for the subject is projected at $0.15 per square foot of gross building area, which calculates to $7,346 ($0.15 x 48,974 square feet), rounded to $7,500. Variable Expenses - These are operating expenses that usually vary with the level of occupancy or the intensity of property operation, such as management, utilities, and maintenance. Management - Property management expenses can be expected to accrue against the subject property's effective gross income. Professional property management fees for similar properties are currently about 5 to 7 percent of effective gross income. A fee of 6 percent appears reasonable. A legal and accounting allowance of $3,000 is being made. Advertising expenses, because the building is not at full occupancy, are projected to be $2,000. An allowance of $700 for miscellaneous items appears reasonable. Utilities - This category of expenses includes water and sewer, public electricity, and fuel necessary for the HVAC system. The most accurate utility information comes from the subject building itself. Total utility charges in 1991 were $41,375. This compares reasonably well with the $39,741 paid for utilities in 1990. As a result, utilities are estimated to be $41,500. This calculates to $0.85 per square foot of gross building area, thus representing a fairly energy efficient building. Maintenance - This includes maintenance and repair expense for the mechanical systems and building structure. According to the on-site property manager, a full-time maintenance/janitorial/grounds person is employed; and a janitorial assistant who works half days is also permanently employed. The repairs payroll amounted to $19,270 in 1991, compared to $19,482 in 1990. This appears reasonable and results in an allowance of $20,000 being made in the pro forma for this item. An additional allowance for general repairs is estimated to be $3,500. Rubbish removal is $650; and snow removal, based on past expenses, is $2,250. It is noted, however, that the cost for snow removal appears slightly high. Building supplies of $2,500 are estimated. There is an elevator service contract of approximately $4,000 annually. A stabilized allowance of $5,000 per year for decorating due to tenant turnover appears reasonable. In addition to the preceding itemized maintenance expenses, additional miscellaneous expenses of$3,000 are estimated. C- FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 81 - 930754 Leasing Fees - Conversations with real estate agents active in commercial leasing leads to the conclusion that leasing fees can vary substantially. However, it appears that commissions are in the range of 5 to 7 percent of the gross lease amount for short-term leases and negotiable for long-term leases. It is noted that the current property manager charges 4 percent for new leases and 2 percent for renewals. On the average, commissions on new leases are estimated to be 5 percent and renewals to be 2 percent. Assuming 40 percent of the leases written are to new tenants and 60 percent are renewals, a weighted average of 3.8 percent of effective gross income is estimated for leasing fees. Reserves - The replacement allowance provides for the periodic replacement of building components that wear out more rapidly than the building itself. The annual allowance is the anticipated cost of replacement prorated over the anticipated economic life of the component. Hallway carpet replacement will be a large expense to be incurred within the next several years. The only other major capital improve- ment in the near future will be replacement of the roof cover. Summary - The subject's projected building expenses are shown in the pro forma on page 84. Specific subject expenses have been compared to actual expenses in two other downtown office complexes to determine whether they are reasonable. Expenses compare as follows: Sttiaeet at$tabrizzed rJceapaney as gc rtes Tht*t 4F$`tluaie P er SitittsPopto BtitHtttgIrsa6te Awarmss 8tritg rhea Taxes $36,825 $1.46 $0.75 Insurance 7,500 0.30 0.15 Management 13,288 0.52 0.27 Legal & Accounting 3,000 0.12 0.06 Utilities 41,500 1.64 0.85 Repairs, Maintenance, & 55,204 2.18 1.13 Miscellaneous orals [ S 5t,317u� 5622 ;3.22 FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 82 - 930754 Comparable Builc1hi A Comparable Building B Expense Categories Total PSF PS? Total PS? PS? Building UA GBA Building. UA - * GBA Taxes $37,001 $1.51 $1.27 $63,554 $108 $0.89 Insurance 3,403 $0.14 $0.12 8,500 0.15 0.12 Management 12,000 $0.49 $0.41 24,320 0.41 0.34 Legal & Accounting 2,916 $0.12 $0.10 5,000 0.08 0.07 Utilities 29,490 1.21 1.01 80,000 1.36 1.12 Repairs, Maintenance, & 41,041 1.68 1.41 96,470 1.64 1.35 Miscellaneous ...That.,.....:. :.. : :..........-...:::,..... :...517.i,SS1 $S 1$ .:.........:t432.:: $277gm $4.72 S3>s9 Expenses incurred in the operation of the comparable office complexes indicate that those forecast for the subject property are reasonable. C. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY 'i - 8- - 930754 Summary - Pro Forma Income Statement Potential Gross Annual Income $260,556 Less Allowance for Vacancy and Collection Losses 15%) 39,083 Effective Gross Annual Income $221,473 (100%) Less Operating Expenses: Fixed Expenses: Real Estate Taxes $36,825 Insurance 7,500 $44,325 (20%) Variable Expenses: Management Professional (6% EGI) $13,288 Legal & Accounting 3,000 Advertising 2,000 Misc. Adm. 700 18,988 (8%) Utilities 41,500 (19%) Maintenance Payroll $20,000 Repairs 3,500 Rubbish Collection 650 Snow Removal 2,250 Supplies 2,500 Elevator Contract 4,000 Tenant Improvements 5,000 Miscellaneous 3,000 40,900 (19%) Leasing Fees (3.8% EGI) 8,416 (4%) Reserves for Replacement Hallway Carpet $21,430 ± 10 years $ 2,143 Roof Cover - $15,683 _ 15 years 1,045 3.188 (1%) Total Estimated Operating Expenses 157,317 (71%) Net Operating Income $ 64,156 (29%) 1` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 84 - 93O754 Direct Capitalization Direct capitalization is a method used to convert a single year's estimate of income into a value indication by the Income Approach. It is essential that the market comparables reflect risk, income, expenses, and physical and locational characteristics similar to those of the property being appraised. In direct capitalization, a precise allocation between return on and return of capital is not made because investor assumptions or forecasts concerning the holding period, pattern of income, or changes in value of the original investment are not simulated in the method. However, a satisfactory rate of return for the investor and the return of the capital invested is implicit in the rate used in direct capitalization because it is derived from similar investment properties. The rate used will be derived from the comparable sales. Of the ten sales analyzed in the Sales Comparison Approach, Numbers 2, 4, 5, 7, and 10 developed overall capitalization rates. SUMMARY OP OVERALL +CAPITALIZATION RAT +ES Sale 2; Sale°l Sale S Sale T alc I£l Date of Sale 1/92 4/91 8/89 9/86 7/90 Cash Equivalent Price $818,000 $356,000 $165,000 $720,000 $245,000 S/F of Building 9,672 3,200 5,170 10,500 20,307 Net Operating Income $56,424 $23,389 $22,762 $65,358 $8,562 Overall Rate 6.90% 6.57% 13.8% 9.08% 3.49% In analyzing the above overall rates, Sale Number 2 is estimated to reflect the lower return that an owner/occupant will accept, thus reducing its reliability as a good indicator. Sale Number 4 has an extremely large land to building ratio, which helps to explain this comparable's seemingly low overall rate. Sale Number 5 was sold purely for investment purposes and, as such, is a good comparable. However, the conditions of the sale are estimated to have resulted in a sales price slightly below market, which in turn inflates the overall rate. Sale Number 7 is an older sale and, therefore, is not weighted heavily; and Sale 10's low occupancy at time of sale explains its low overall rate. In conclusion, none of the sales have produced overall rates that are considered to be particularly reliable. As a result, the preceding information is being considered along with recent real estate investment criteria C- FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 85 - 9 30754 rt prepared by the Real Estate Research Corporation for four different types of property, which can be seen in the following table: REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT CRITERIA FOURTH QUARTER 19910, INDUSTRIAL ! RETAIL ! OFFICE APARTMENT Conunuaityl Property: Regional:` Neighborhood/ Type Centers Power Centers CED Suburban Pre-tax yield (IRR) Range(2) 11-13 10-12.5 11-13 11-14 12-15 11-14 Average 12.2 11.6 12.4 13 13 12.7 Going-in cap rate (%) 9.6 7.5 9.6 9.3 10.1 8.8 Terminal cap rate (%) 9.9 7.6 10 9.5 10.6 9.3 (”This survey was conducted in January 1992 and reflects ex ante returns for Fourth Quarter 1991 investments. (2)Ranges and other data reflect the central tendencies of respondents; high and low responses have generally been eliminated. In final analysis, a rate of 10.0 percent appears appropriate for the property being appraised. Applying this rate to the subject's stabilized net operating income develops the following indication of value. Net Operating Income Value Overall Capitalization Rate $64,156 - $641,560 0.1000 FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY 'J 86 930754 Since the subject's potential gross annual income was estimated as though all the usable area had tenant finish installed, finish costs must be deducted. Therefore, the final value indicated by this method is demonstrated as follows: Value $641,560 Less Tenant Finish Costs* 16,422 Final Value Indication by Direct Capitalization $625,138 Rounded to: $625,000 *1,173 unfinished square feet @ $14.00/sq. ft. = $16,422 Yield Capitalization Yield capitalization is the method an appraiser uses to convert future benefits to present value by applying an appropriate yield rate. Mortgage-Equity Analysis - The formula used to convert income to value in the following yield capitalization procedure is identical to the one use in direct capi- talization. However, overall rates used in yield capitalization are based on the inclusion of all investor assumptions about income flows and reversion value. The specification of the yield rate is the key ingredient in the development of an overall rate in yield capitalization. Assumptions are required regarding holding period, ultimate sales price at the end of the holding period, gross potential income trends, and operating expense trends. The unique feature of the mortgage-equity system of capitalization is the consideration of mortgage terms and equity yields as factors influencing the overall rate. This approach recognizes that the typical investor will seek the best mortgage financing available in order to get a maximum yield on a minimum down payment. Understanding the composition of the capitalization rate is the key to understanding and applying mortgage-equity capitalization. The holding period is estimated to be seven years for purposes of this analysis. An overall increase in income of 21 percent over the seven-year holding period is projected. It is reasonable to anticipate that, based on current Consumer Price Index statistics, some rent appreciation will occur. Due to the reduced leasehold term, however, overall property value is estimated to remain stable. Mortgage terms are 80 percent loan, 10.5 percent interest, and 25-year amortization, which is typical of current rates and terms. An appropriate yield rate is estimated to be 12 percent. Given alternative investments that are possible as of appraisal date, the rate chosen \` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 87 930754 Ir reflects the degree of risk involved in rental property ownership. This is discussed more thoroughly in the discounted cash flow analysis. Therefore, appraising the property to yield 12 percent on equity, using an Ellwood formula according to the J-Factor presumption develops as follows: R = YE - M(YE + P1/S„ - RM) - 4o1/S„ n 1 + AJ RO = 9.87% where: YE _ (equity yield rate) = 12% M = (ratio of mortgage of value) = 80% P = (ratio of mortgage paid off) = 0.0853 RM = (mortgage constant) = 0.1133 1/S„ = (sinking fund factor at the equity yield rate) = 0.0991 Do = (change in total property value) = 0% Al _ (total ratio change in income) = +21% J = (J-Factor) = 0.4409 Utilizing the preceding assumptions, the yield capitalization that is presented develops a valuation estimate by this approach as follows: Net Operating Income = Value Overall Capitalization Rate $64,156 = $650,010 0.0987 \` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 88 - 930754 c Value $650,010 Less Tenant Finish Costs* 16,422 Final Value Indication by Direct Capitalization $633,588 Rounded to: $635,000 Discounted Cash Flow Analysis Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis specifies the quantity, variability, timing, and duration of cash flows. First, each cash flow is discounted to present value, and then all present values are totaled to obtain the total value of the income to the real property being appraised. The future value of that interest, which is forecast at the end of the projection period (holding period) is also discounted as a cash flow. The cash flows that are discounted by means of a DCF formula may be net operating income for the entire property or the flows to specific interests, such as equity dividend or after-tax cash flow for the equity interest and debt service for the mortgage interest. In this appraisal, the net operating income (or loss) to the entire property for each year during the projection period will be discounted, together with the net proceeds anticipated from the sale at the end of the holding period, which is estimated to be 10 years. The discount rate chosen must reflect the competitive rate of return on an investment. Given alternative investments that are possible, the rate chosen must reflect both the degree of risk and the possible return of the investment. Current Money Rates Type of Rate Interest Rate Prime Rate (Monthly Average) 7.21 3-Month Certificates of Deposit 4.47 U.S. 10-Year Bonds 7.09 Corporate Bonds (Aaa) 8.31 Corporate Bonds (Baa) 9.26 Source: Wall Street Journal and Moody's Bond Survey, December 1991. \` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 89 - 93O754 �, 4 r C) 0 a, Nt6 � vw CD co . CO o CO f9 Oh SA +A U) � � 0 S U) N 0 0 N N CO O (7 O 0) CI N O N in 6-9. -OL0 CO N CO CO N C) (O o ff CO N i an I— P O N O) O 0) N OJ 0 .-. Z 0 co f 01 V f9 — EA to N N 0 N 69 W U) E9 M W f9 f9 N U 2 W N e NNN��,� m s CO O O CD N 0 .- c0 N W N O W ' N V O, (13 CD O) O N (p m P O • c) N (D co Ti- co co co (.) O) P O m. O r r C f9 N CO CV 0 f9 U) CO O O N co".— U _ Q f9 f9 f9 fA Yi O CO 04 A S W A • Q N o N O N N r N CO N C N. o O CD NP O N tD CO CO CO .- CO NI' 0) W r JI _ N O) OD N C) CO CO OJ O ``�l'+]�I OD (CV O J 14- r r ,ty) co� (CO C f9 r f9 (9 N NJ O CN T C U) ffftgl N4 (p y) 69 U)LO NI- � fffAAAIII CO N. U) Cr fA N o C N 0) O r r r N .C- N O P W O O N CO CD P C 0) C) 01 P r m OD J CV- N CO CO co- N O7 N N N r--- 0) Cl) N S 69 N 69 03 69 PM f9 CO r Z !9 l9 f9 W CC oriel a,N co CD 0,, .- N r .- c0 P CO N 0) N O N N P N N.- N O P c7 r 0) 0 N C O co N N-. C 0 P O . 433. O'l N a, a,- NJ C c7 N (A O c0 O) 0 —: VN r N O7 Ui r U) U) N P Uf r r Er Ui (9 U) S U) Ui W Z r e 0 .— N r co N N r (7 N ° A ACCS�'' r O Nt LC) N OD N N CO N P T Of0 D, _ c0 N N P.- O (p m or Lei CN W co P a) N 't 'trot tO'O.�9! N•Z M 03 di 69 P P di N CO(0 0 O U) Ui N ta di J r CO S _.: `C 4 CO o 0) o CO r N N 01 V)) 0 N LO 9 D N Q N r N mM CA U) 69 0 44 V O OM CD r IC N 0 69 S f9 .473 di 0 m o co N P N r O O (O W c7 0 r N W O) OO N r ^ N N CD P r N O O P- N m 0 NL coo N tp r r M O N Ui co- N co- - A O 04 r d� or CO 69N r 69U) NI'69 NI' U) fffAAAIII CON N r U) U a F. a O W - in O m N 0 NN O O O O O t0 o N_ N c N O P c0 in N O a I' N O) P in r _ t0 C O r t0 N C) C) N be r O co N CV NV 04 009 f9 1- U) (9 P P CS N COC U U) r U3 ` a • d) Cl) •O N ¢ ¢ o U 2 N N e e e a o e. e e r c� • Z e W ? 0 Z } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W co O 0 O 0 O O 0 oz, O N I— > O < ¢LLI m OO¢ riN r0t6 tD a7 vi Nino N Q Q m 4 Q m W W ¢ 0 11071 N t0 (O N 0) 0 0 r r O') (p� O) CD W y. (.) Or>) r W ¢ N O) N r N P m .lp4 a Q a lL O '—I OJ LEN in P N N r 0 0 c0 0 co N N O m < a O O O a O r p CD N a r m ¢ o ❑ f9 > N f9 r V! I- ¢ N 0 o e e o o° o° e o 0 0° o° . o° N V W CO o O W CO CO m (J N O N P r O NI- 0 ee CO N T O O o to U) O 11 N N o O m m CO N. C CO P 0 0 :(n ~i1 0 ¢ 0 co N w O CO cD N o o m co (� r 'C C7 O r N w _. Z Q 0 W Z W O IL (/) > :_� It O co O z m U'Z N O W C7 W Ui W W J O Z a W h N z o :W Q a W rn N _c co in O H e t0 m to c E m a U 'm Z c`°) JO O O m @.1 `c a @ w Z W w O ¢ ' 0 ¢ V- C a 41 N J Z co Cn MO Q N V p U Q Z co d W cc t0) E Q 0 m ry u y H Q t0 Q ? d W C 0,g) KS N Le N C a, N Z Q F- f NN d co., t= Z W O o O m '5 c m m N _ c ' m Q a to}:. a w w IL w LL co a c v v p J W J O '.Q W J Q F- )- F W O Z O 930754 Given alternative investments available, a 12 percent discount rate for the yearly cash flows for the subject building appears to be appropriate. This return reflects the higher risk and illiquidity of real estate investments when compared to the above alternative investments and is supported by information from the Real Estate Research Corporation study seen on page 86. In order to develop the DCF model, several assumptions are made. The assumptions are based on all of the historical data that are available. These historical trends are extrapolated into the future. This creates weaknesses, by virtue of the fact that forecasts rather than hard data are being employed. Nevertheless, the developer or purchaser is utilizing the same methodology, i.e., based on past and present observations regarding income and expenses, he is anticipating future trends when making his present investment decisions. Assumptions are required regarding holding period, ultimate sales price at the end of the holding period, gross potential income trends from the initial leasing period, and operating expense trends. The holding period is estimated to be 10 years for purposes of this report. With the current inflation rate below 5 percent, it is estimated that future rental increases within the Greeley market will be at a much slower rate than in the past. Therefore, rent increases of 3 percent per year for each of the 10 years, which will be applied to the potential gross income are projected. A vacancy rate, stabilized at 15 percent of potential gross income, will be deducted to arrive at a projected effective gross income for each year during the holding period. Operating expenses are expected to trend as seen on the discounted cash flow model. When determining the appropriate reversion at the end of the holding period, the net operating income in Year 10 has been capitalized at the overall rate of 12 percent. This is a terminal capitalization rate, which is slightly higher than the going-in rate due to the increased age of the property. The reduced remaining term of the land lease also suggests a higher capitalization rate. This will yield the value estimate of the property upon the sale. Selling costs of 5 percent are projected. This future value is then discounted to a present worth via a discount rate of 12 percent. The reversion value is then added to the previously calculated present worth of the yearly cash flows, which produces the present value estimate of the subject property. Utilizing the preceding assumptions, the discounted cash flow model that is presented on the foregoing pages, when discounted at a rate of 12 percent, develops a valuation estimate of $601,736. After subtracting tenant finish costs, the final value by this approach is $585,314 ($601,736 - $16,422 = $585,314), rounded to $585,000. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 90 - 930754 Correlation Application of the Income Approach using the various methods produced the following valuation estimates: Direct Capitalization (Market Sales) $625,000 Yield Capitalization (Mortgage-Equity) $635,000 Yield Capitalization (DCF) $585,000 When developed with sufficient data, the indication of value by direct capitalization, market sales, is considered to be the most reliable. Yield capitalization, on the other hand, is based on the inclusion of investor assumptions about income flows and reversion value. Moreover, the selection of the yield rate is the key ingredient. In the above analysis, yield capitalization, using an overall rate, utilizes mortgage information. The discounted cash flow model, on the other hand assumes a 100 percent equity contribution. Direct capitalization, market sales, is given the most weight, because it directly reflects the attitudes and expectations of the participants in the marketplace, including mortgage, yield, income and, appreciation assumptions. Therefore, the value of the subject property, as estimated by the Income Approach, is $635,000. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 91 - 330754 RECONCILIATION AND MARKET VALUE ESTIMATE The last step in the appraisal process is to conclude a final estimate of value for the subject property. This is done after analyzing the quantity, quality, and reliability of the data utilized, strengths and weaknesses of the different methods of valuation, and applicability of each approach to the type of property being appraised. The final estimate of value approximates that which an informed, rational investor would pay for the subject property if it were available for sale on the open market at the date of appraisal, given the data used in this report. A review of the value indications derived from the three approaches employed is as follows: COST APPROACH $1,595,000 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH $810,000 INCOME APPROACH $635,000 The Cost Approach is of limited use in this appraisal. The depreciation that has accrued to the structure is difficult to estimate because (1) the improvements have been renovated and (2) they do not represent the highest and best use of the land. As a result, in this report the Cost Approach is not a particularly effective method for estimating market value. The estimate of functional obsolescence resulting from the subject's lack of efficiency is the most useful information to be obtained from the Cost Approach. The severity of the problem is highlighted. Given sufficient market data, the Sales Comparison Approach tends to be a good reflection of the marketplace. In this report, however, it is weakened by lack of highly comparable sales and differences between complexes. The Income Approach was estimated by three different techniques. Reliable rental and expense data were used, and the direct capitalization rate and discount rate were derived from sale properties sharing similar investment characteristics. The greatest uncertainty relating to this approach pertains to the stabilized vacancy factor selected. Since the building is not currently estimated to be at stabilized occupancy due to a poor leasing program, the stabilized vacancy rate selected is based to a large degree on judgment. This weakens the Income Approach to some degree. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 92 - 930'754 Nevertheless, purchasers and sellers of the larger investment properties place a great deal of emphasis on the analysis of the net operating income that an investment property is expected to generate. The techniques used emulate the actions of the market participants and are, thus, regarded as appropriate in the valuation of the subject property. In conclusion, consideration is being given to both the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach, resulting in a final estimate of Market Value, as of April 15, 1992, as follows: SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($725,000.00) Value reported is subject to payment of delinquent taxes. Through April 30, 1992, the balance due, including interest and penalties, amounts to $123,837.68. \` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 93 - 930754 - - MARKETING TIME Typically, two variables have a significant bearing on the length of time a property is exposed for sale prior to culminating the transaction: price in relation to value and competent brokerage personnel who are marketing the property. If either is out of sync, the marketing period may be lengthy. For instance, a property might be on the market for an extended period of time at a price above market. The price is then reduced, and the property sells almost immediately. As a result, analyzing marketing time strictly on the basis of the time it took to consummate sales of similar properties is not necessarily accurate. There is not strong buyer participation in the current Greeley office market. On the other hand, there has not an abundance of office properties for sale over the past several years. Therefore, selection is limited. The sales utilized in the report are fairly representative of the activity that has taken place. It is noted that most of the purchasers planned to occupy a portion of the building they bought. Therefore, there were motivations involved that were not strictly related to income potential. In addition to owner-occupants looking to purchase office property, there are buyers in the general area searching for strictly investment property. In most cases, they are looking for a steal. They will purchase properties because they can be bought at a price significantly less than replacement cost. The sellers of these properties, in most cases the former lender, are extremely motivated to sell. Reportedly, obtaining new financing is one of the main hurdles to consummating these transactions. Were the subject building for sale, it could take a fairly long time to find a buyer. There is a large supply of office buildings on the market in the Fort Collins, Denver, and Colorado Springs areas. These would be competing with the subject property. As a result, a marketing period of two years would not be unrealistic for the property being appraised. \,` FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 94 - 930754 CERTIFICATION OF VALUE I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief,... 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct and no important facts have been withheld or overlooked, subject to the stated assumptions and limiting conditions contained in this report. 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. I have no undisclosed present or contemplated future interest in the property that is the subject of this report. Further, I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this appraisal report or the parties involved. 4. My 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. Furthermore, the appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan. 5. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Additionally, it has been prepared in conformity with the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. 6. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 7. As of the date of this report, I have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. 8. I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. 9. No one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this report. I have formed an opinion that the Market Value of the fee simple estate in the subject property, as of April 15, 1992, is estimated to be $725,000.00, subject to the payment of delinquent taxes. April 15, 1992 Date Sue Anne Foster, MAI, RM \‘' FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY 'J - 95 - 930754 Ii ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This appraisal report has been made with the following general assumptions: 1. No responsibility is assumed for the legal description or for matters including legal or title considerations. Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated. 2. The property is appraised free and clear of any or all liens or encumbrances unless otherwise stated. 3. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed. 4. The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable. However, no warranty is given for its accuracy. 5. All engineering is assumed to be correct. The plot plans and illustrative material in this report are included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property. 6. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover them. 7. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless noncompliance is stated, defined, and considered in this report. 8. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless a nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in the report. This appraisal report has been made with the following general limiting conditions: 1. The distribution, if any, of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate allocations for land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 2. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 96 - 930754 3. The appraiser, by reason of this appraisal, is not required to give further consultation, testimony, or be in attendance in court with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been previously made. 4. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser or the firm with which the appraiser is connected, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute, or to the MAI designation) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. 5. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous substances, including without limitation asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum leakage, or agricultural chemicals, which may or may not be present on the property, or other environmental conditions, was not called to the attention of nor did the appraiser become aware of such during the appraiser's inspection. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property unless otherwise stated. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to test such substances or conditions. If the presence of such substances, such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde, foam insulation, or other hazardous substances or environmental conditions, may affect the value of the property, the value estimated is predicated on the assumption that there is no such condition on or in the property or in such proximity thereto that it would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, nor for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in the field of environmental impacts upon real estate if so desired. \‘ FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY J./ - 97 - 9307S4 QUALIFICATIONS OF SUE ANNE FOSTER Education B.S. Degree, University of Wyoming, 1961. Certificate of Real Estate Achievement, University of Colorado, 1983. American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers: Course lA (Real Estate Appraisal Principles), University of Colorado, 1983; Course 1A-2 (Basic Valuation Procedures), University of Colorado, 1988; Course 8-2 (Residential Valuation), Stanford University, 1983; Course 1B-A (Capitalization Theory and Techniques, Part A), University of Colorado, 1984; Course 1B-B (Capitalization Theory and Techniques, Part B), University of Colorado, 1984; Course 2-3/8-3 (Standards of Professional Practice), Colorado Chapter 22, 1985; Course 2-1 (Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation), University of Colorado, 1986; Course 2-2 (Valuation Analysis and Report Writing), University of Colorado, 1986. Numerous Real Estate Seminars, including R41c, given by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. Real Estate Appraisal I, University of Colorado. Memberships and Designations Appraisal Institute (formerly American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers): Member, Appraisal Institute (MAI) and Residential Member (RM) 1989 to 1990 - Board of Examiners: Residential Appraisal Reports Subcommittee, co-vice-chairman 1987 to present - Board of Examiners: Residential Demonstration Report Grader 1987 to present - Regional Professional Standards Panel Member Colorado Chapter of the Appraisal Institute 1986 to present - Admissions Committee Greeley Board of Realtors, Colorado Association of Real Estate Boards, and National Association of Realtors. Certified Appraiser: State of Colorado, #AC01313586. Professional Experience Foster Valuation Company: Fee Appraiser, August 1984 to present. Wheeler Realty Company: Fee Appraiser, January 1983 through August 1984. • Licensed Real Estate Broker: State of Colorado. FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY - 98 - 93p7S4 FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 707 17th Street, Suite 3300, Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 296-4703 1-800-933-1856 (In State) Denver Consolidated January 17, 1992 Mr. W. West Foster, MAI Foster Valuation Company 1750 25th Avenue, #303 Greeley, CO 80631 Subject: 7590, Silverado Banking Denver, Colorado - In Receivership Lamis Number: 003564611 Asset Name: BACK TO SCHOOL, LTD./GREELEY OFFICE BUILDING Dear Mr. Foster: This will serve as your authorization and instruction to conduct an appraisal of the property located at 710 11th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado (see attached) . You may gain entrance to this property for appraisal purposes and/or obtain financial information by contacting Ron Cappello, telephone 938-1640. Per our conversation, your fee for this appraisal is to be $3,750.00 and should be completed by March 23, 1992. The appraisals are to be made on a cash basis with the buyer securing financing elsewhere at market rates and terms. The FDIC is not in a position to carry back any financing. All appraisals must clearly state the estimated marketing period in their analysis, based on comparable sales, or other market evidence such as listings and discussions with local brokers or other informed market participants. The FDIC expects the appraiser to provide an estimate of current market value as opposed to future market value. Please provide a separate value for land and improvements. The appraisal should be made on an "as is" basis. The appraisal is to be made in four originals, one of which is to be unbound, and should include photographs of the subject property as well as photographs of the comparables. Please make a note of our Lamis number on your report and provide the Tax Schedule number for the subject property. Your Federal Tax ID number should be included on all invoices. Enclosed is a copy of FDIC "Uniform Appraisal Instructions to Appraisers" and the FDIC "Environmental Risk Checklist" . These instructions should be reviewed carefully, complied with, and a copy made a part of the appraisal report. 930754 January 17, 1992 Page 2 The FDIC requires each appraisal to contain a signed certification that the confidentiality of the appraiser-client relationship will be protected and that the report conforms with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice as promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. If you encounter any circumstances which will require additional expenses, please contact me at the above number prior to incurring such costs. Sincerely, Sharlene D. Raat Liquidation Assistant Asset Information Management /sdr enclosures 930754 UNIFORM APPRAISAL INSTRUCTIONS To APPRAISERS FOR FDIC REAL ESTATE PROPERTIES (Not Required for Residential Single Family Properties) 1. Appraisals are to be made assuming a sale on a cash basis; however, if the appraiser is uncomfortable with supplying a valuation on a cash basis because of lack of comparable sales on a cash basis, a valuation based on typical terms, as provided for in item 2 below, may be used instead. If the appraiser prefers, he/she may also value the property on-both a cash basis and on a typical terms basis. The FDIC does not want fire sale or liquidation value appraisals. 2. Appraisals are expected to reflect values based on sales prospects considering existing economic conditions. 3. When an appraiser supplies a valuation on typical terms, these terms must be precisely defined and their contributions to or negative influence on market value must be described and estimated. 4. All appraisals are to be on an "as is" basis. S. Estimates to complete essential repairs and to cure violations should be provided, and the appraiser should specify whether those expenses (with a breakdown) have already been considered in estimating the property's appraised value. 6. To assist the FDIC in the marketing strategy, all appraisers must clearly state the estimated marketing period in their analysis, based on comparable sales, or other market evidence such as listings and discussions with local brokers or other informed market participants. 7. The FDIC expects the appraiser to provide an estimate of current market value as opposed to future market value. 8. All appraisals, including updated appraisals, must be in writing. 9. Generally, appraisals should be based on existing zoning; however, the appraiser may value the property based on both current zoning and any other zoning the appraiser feels is likely obtainable within a short period. This likelihood of the alternative zoning should be explained in the report for all cases in which the appraiser feels it is appropriate to supply both valuations. 10. When an appraiser is valuing distressed property solely on a land value basis that implies demolition or removal of improvements , the cost of demolition and/or removal should be netted against the land value with the estimated costs of removal so reflected. . VI-C-7 930754 , !3,45 18G7449 r.jG R rr v DATE TIMF )'02S�/ \ ., . . <42() ( . AGREEMENT FOk PURCHASE AND SALE OF REAL PROPERTY, AND AGREEMENT FOR CDNV :YANCE OF A LONG TERM LEAJEHOLD WITH A SINGLE RENT PAYMENT 1 . Introduction; Parties and Purposes. The parties o to this agreement are the CITY OF GREELEY, a Colorado muni- ciprl corporation (the City) ; the GREELEY DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Colorado nonprofit corporation (the Development Corporation) . and HORACE GREELEY PHASE II, a joint venture consisting of PIONEER INVESTMENTS, INC. , and SINCO INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS, INC. , both corporations ( the Joint Venture) . The City is the owner of certain property located in downtown Greeley, on which there is an abandoned school (the Property) . The Property is more particularly described as the West One-half of Block 46, in the City of Greeley, County of Weld, State of Colorado. The City and the Development Corporation are desirous of having the Property restored in an attractive fashion and reconstructed into a desirable employment center to assist in the restoration and maintenance of the economic health of the downtown area of the City for the benefit of the citizens of the Cite. To that end, the City and the Development Corporation wish to convey an undivided one-half interest in the Property, in fee simple, to the Joint Venture, and to lease tLe remaining one-half interest in the Property to the Joint Venture, for a sinole rental payment, lot a fifty-five ( 55 ) year tarm; and to establish options to purchase the one-half interests of the parties in the Property uper. 'arm.tratton c: the leasehold. The Joint Venti.' " :. 1^t . : , '.•" „t acquiring the Property upon the aforesaid -i , . .-moil , .rq anc rebuilding the Property lot office -I other tses . Therefore, the parties have agreed as follows. 2 . Agreement for Purcha:. . and -al)e of Real Property. 2 . 1 The City agrees to ccn'.ey to th- Cecelopment Corporation, and Cie Development corporation agrees to sell 930754 94-5 1867449 KOOK RECEP110N ____ 'o- 2 to the Joint Venture, an undivided one-half interest in the Property, and the Joint Venture agrees to purchase same from the Development Corporation. 2.2 The price to be paid by the Joint Venture to the Development Corporation for the undivided one-half interest is $145,000.00. 2 .3 The price shall be paid in full, in certif ed funds at closing. 2.4 The City shall convey to the Development Corporation by good and sufficient special warranty deed, ii. the form attached hereto, and the Development Corporation shall convey to the Joint Venture by good and sufficient special warranty deed, in the form attached hereto. Both deeds shall be delivered at closing. 2.5 Title shall be merchantable in the City at closing, subject to no encumbrances, restrictive covenants, possibilities of reverter, rights of reentry, leases, or other encumbrances whatsoever. There shall be no outstanding liens, agreements, or other encumbrances against the Development Corporation which would attach to or in anywise affect the Property in the hands of the Joint Venture. 2.6 On or before t ., . Sr / , ... _ day of Xiy , 1981, the Development Coif, •; a' lon shall deliver to the Joint Venture a standard ALT- tn ,ient for an owner's title insurance policy in the .11 amount of the purchase price, showing the requisite state of title in the City and also stating that conveyance to the Development Corporation and recocveyance to the Joint Venture will satisfy the title requirements herein stated. The Development Corporation shall pay the premium for the title insurance policy and cause same to be issued promptly after closing. 2 .7 if the title insurance commitment does not show title in the required state, there shall be an automatic ex- , tension of the closing date for a period of thirty (30) 930754 945 1867449 HOOK RECEPTION 10-3 days, during which period the City and the Development Cot proration shall use all reasonable efforts to correct the title. If et the end of the thirty-day period the defects in the title have not been corrected, the Joint Venture may either rescind the entire contract, or waive the defects and close. 2.8 Possession shall be delivered at closing free of all tenancies, licenses, and other rights to possession; except for the right of the State of Colorado to maintain an air pollution monitoring device on the Property until a date no later than fetcher 31, 1981. Both the City and the Develcpent Corpor.tc ion warrant, represent, and agree that the air pollution monitoring station will be removed on or before Ck:tober 31, 1991. However, neither the City nor the Development Corporation shall be liable to the Joint Venture for damages of any type for the continued presence of the station after October 31, 1981. 2.9 If the Property is destroyed or dazracyed by fire, windstorm, flood, earthquake, or other casualty prior to closing, then the Joint Venture, at its election, may rescind the entire contract. 2.10 The City and the Development Corporation warrant and represent that the Property is zoned C-4, and that office uses are permitted on the Property under the applicable zoning; that there are no offstreet parking requirement- applicable to the Property under suth zoning; and that there is no requirement for approval of a planned unit, planned develoment, use by special review, or other special revic+r piuu s before a building permit can be / ireconstruction sted forreconstructionfor office uses. The normal process for issuing a ` i/2.4 /VL 920754 `? 5 18G744” .YAK RECr PT ION. ...._ o ' t( building permit for reconstruction for office uses will be followed. ( It is understood by the Joint Venture that the published requirements of existing building codes and fire codes applicable to the property must be met unless a variance or other exception is granted. ) 3 . Agreement to Enter Into Lease, 3. 1 The City agrees to lease an undivided one-half interest in the Property to the Development Corporation, the lease to commence on the dosing date, and the Development Corporation agrees immediately to assign the lease to the Joint Venture, as Lessee, all on the following terms and conditions. The Development Corporation shall be relieved of any obligation and rights under the lease effective with the assignment, and thereafter the Joint Venture shall perform all obligations of the lessee under the lease. The City agrees to lease the Property to the Development Corpora- tion, under the terms hereinafter set forth, for the sum of $1.00. The Joint Venture agrees to pay to the Development Corporation, for the assignment, the sum of $55,000.00, payable in certified funds at closing. No further rent shall be due during the term of the lease. Assignment shall be made in customary form satisfactory to counsel for the Joint Venture. 3.2 The term of the lease shall commence at closing and end fifty-five ( 55 ) years thereafter, except that the Joint Venture shall he entitled to remain in possession during the pet , Dds al :c..eS toe exercise of the various options at the end or the term, which is more particularly provided for hereafter 3 .3 The City agrees to sutordiria..c its interests in the Property ( including its purchase Notions) tc any mortgage, • deed of trust. assignment. or other hypothecation reasonably or customarily required in. connection with the issuance and sale of industrial revenue bonds secured by a mortgage or deed of trust on the property, and to execute any additional 330734 { � - 18674,1 n(-101c .� RFC E'TiON_. . a -s— documents Indicating such subordination which may be required in connection therewith. It is agreed and anticipated by the parties taint c deed of tract or mortgage will be required in connection with Indust' ;.%'_ I evenue ponds to be Issued with respect to the property. The Joint Venture agrees that it will repay the bonds and discharge the mortgage or trust deed and hold the City and the Development corporation harmless from any loss on account of same. Neither the City nor the Development Corporation shall be &equrred to assume sty obligation with respect to the bonds, other than the risk of loss of the lessor's Interest under the lease and the City's option rights, in the event that a foreclosure should occur. 3.4 The Joint Venture shall have the right to alter, repair, remodel, and reconstruct the improvements on the Property from time to time in such manner as it sees fit, subject to applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior of the U.S. concerning Preservation of historic Buildings. 3.5 The Joint Venture shall have full right to assign, sublease, hypothecate, and otherwise deal with its interest in the leasehold estate, without the consent of the City or the Development Corp^ration. Such right of the Joint Venture shall include, but shall not be limited to, the right to divide the Property into condominium units and associated general common areas and limited common areas, and to take all cther actions associated with condominium development; all subject, however. to the reversion of the City upon termination of the lease and to the City's option. 3 .6 The Joint Venture shall have the right to use the Property for any lawful pirpoae, including any purpose which may be asserted to be unlawful , so long as the Joint Venture has not exhausted its legal remedies for determining that the particular activity rs lawful . 930754 94 5 18674.19 BOOK..._..._.. RECEPTION. 3.7 The Joint Venture shall have full right to use of the Property under tne t,_rms of the lease, and shall maintain and repair the Property in such manner as the Joint Venture sees fit, in its sole discretion. The City shall have no obligation to repair, maintain, or otherwise deal with the Property in any respect. The City shall have no right to terminate the lease before the end of the term dn account of asserted waste committed by the Joint Venture. 3 .8 Once the rent has been paid, the sole obligation of the Joint Venture to the City and the Development Corporation under the lease, shall be to name the City and the Development Corporation as additional insureds on public liability insurance policies carried by the Joint Venture with respect to the Property. The Joint Venture agrees to carry such a policy, with customary and reasonable limits, which shall initially be at least One Million Dollars (S1, 000,000) per injured person and 52,000,000 per accident. Chnuld the parties in future have a dispute as to the appropriate amount of public liability coverage, the dispute shall be resolved by arbitration pursuant to tle rules and procedures of the American Arbitration Association . The policies shall be in form customary in the insuranc' industry and shall be issued by companies authorized to do business in the State of Colorado. The Joint Venture shall have nc obligation to provide such policies if the same cease to be reasonably available. because of war. civil disorder or drastic change in availabrl.ty of such in lance on a routine commercial basis. Any d: -put o,.' .e the part:ea concesning the foregoing senten-* s.. ,. : Le resolved by ..tbitration pursuant to the rules and ,,;oced_. e: of the P_.,, r_fan Arbitration Association. 3 .9 In the event of damage - r destruction of the property by fire or other .-asualty vnich renders less than twenty-five percent ' 25%) of tne .n erior floor space of the 930754 (i5 1867449 BOON RECEPTION.___. . property unusable in the manner in which it had been used (or unusable for the purpose for which it was being offered to prospective tenants or buyers, if an area was not in use ) prior to the casualty, the Joint Venture shall repair or reconstruct the Property to a condition and appearance reasonably similar to that which existed prior to the casualty. ( It is recongnized that some of the materials and construction methods used in the existing structure cannot presently be practically duplicated, and only a reasonable similarity using customary modern construction methods and materials will be required. ) In the event of damage to or destruction of the property by fire or other casualty which renders more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the interior oor space of the Property unusable in the manner in which it had been used (or unusable for the purpose for which it was being offered to prospective tenants or buyers, if an area was not in use) prior to the casualty, the Joint Venture shall elect as to whether it will repair or reconstruct the Property under the standards set forth above. The election shall be made as follows. At any time within 180 days after the date of destruction, the City may deliver ' it. Joint Veno-.ure the City's signed written notice u: • ''.'.d that the Joint Venture elect. Within forty-fiv. • 4> i days aftet receipt of the City's notice, the Joint . enture shall deliver Co the City its signed written notice of election to rebuild or not to rebuild. ( Failure wt the Joint Venture to deliver its notice shall be deemed to be an election not to rebuild. ) (The Joint Venture may deliver its notice of election even if the Ctty has not made a demand for election) . If the Joint Venture elects to rebuild and, repair reconstruction shall proceed u..der the standards set forth above. If the Joint Venture elects not t, rebuild, the lease shall termi- nate within thirty ( 30 ) days after the last date on which 930754 1867449 X1OO✓.,, i RECEPTION the Joiht Venture could have delivered its notice of in- tention to elect to rebuild, and the options of the parties to purchase each other's interests in the property shall be exerciseable as elsewhere provided for upon termination of the lease. Any dispute under paragraph 3.9 shall be resolved by arbitration pursuant to the rules and procedures of the American Arbitration Association (Construction Industry Rules) . 3 . 10 In the event that alteration, repair, nt other change in the Property is required by governmental regulation, the obligation for complying with the regulation shall be solely that of the Joint Venture, and the Joint Venture shall hold the City and the Development Corporation harmless with respect thereto. The Joint Venture, however, reserves the right to contest the validity of any such government requirement in such manner as it deems fit. 3.11 . State of Title. Title shall be merchantable in the City at closing, subject to no encumbrances, restric- tive covenants, possibilities of reverter, rights of reentry, leases, or other encumbrances whatsoever. There shall be no outstanding liens, agreements, or other encumbrances against the lease from the City to the Development Corporation which would attach to or in any+ise affect the rights of the Joint Venture under the lease. 3 . 12 . Title Evidence. On or before the 20th day of August. 1981, the Development Corporation shall deliver to the Joint Venture a standard ALTA commiunent for an owner's title insurance policy in the full amount of the rent, showing the Joint venture as lessee under the lease and also stating that lease to the Development Corporation and sublease to the Joint Venture will satisfy the title requirements herein stated. The Development Corporation shall pay the premium for the - it1e insurance policy and cause same to be issued promptly after closing. 930754 !f45 1867419 BOOK..,___, RECEPTION_......... _._, 3 . 13 If the title insurance commitment does not show title in the required state, there shall be an automatic ex- tension of the closing date for a period of thirty (30 ) days, during which period the City and the Development Corporation shall use all reasonable efforts to correct the title. If at the end of the thirty-day period the defects in the title have not been corrected, the Joint Venture may either rescind the contract, or waive the defects and close. 3. 14 Property Tax Assessments . The Joint Venture will not claim or seek any reduction in assessed value, or exemption from property taxes, on account of the reversionary one-half interest owned DV the City (i .e. , the Joint Venture will pay property taxes as if it owned all of the Property in fee) . However, should any portion of this Agreement or documents executed pursuant to this Agreement be construed in a manner such that the Joint Venture is not required to pay property taxes as if it owned all of the Property in fee (i .e. if there is an exemption or reduction because of the City's ownership) , then the Joint Venture shall remit directly to the govern- mental body assessing the tax, the difference between what it is actually required to pay as a tax and what it would have been required to pay if it had been assessed as owning all of the Property in fee. 4. City's Option to Purchase the Joint Venture's Half Interest in the Property Upon Termination of the Lease. 4. 1 The Joint Venture grants to the City the option to purchase the half interest of the Joint Venture in the Property. upon termination of the lease, under the following terms and conditions. 4.2 The option shall be exercised, if at all, solely by delivery of the City's signed written notice of exercise of option to the Joint Venture (or its successor) within thirty (30) days after the date of termination of the lease. 9430754 . . ) _LOU/'1'1:1 .-i,r I.(LEI IICN C 4 .3 The price to be paid for the interest of the Joint. Venture shall be determined as follows: A) If the Joint Venture and the City agree rn writing upon the price within thirty ( 30) days after tte date of delivery of notice of exercise of option, the pr:(v. ;hall be that which is so agreed upon. B) ii the Joint Venture an. tt .. City do not agree upon the price within, thirty (3u) days after date of delivery of notice of exercise of option, but dc agree within that period upon a single appraiser tc be hired to value the interest of the Joint Venture in the manner hereafter provided, then such appraiser shall be hired for that purpose and the Joint Venture shall pay one-half the fee of the appraiser and the City shall pay the remaining one-half. C) If the Joint Venture and the city within thirty (30) days after date of delivery of notice of exercise cf option agree upon neither the price nor upon a single appraiser to be hired to value the interest of the Joint Venture, then the value of the interest of the Joint Venture (which is the price to be paid) shall be determined as follows. Either the Joint Venture or the City shall choose an appraiser, who shall be a member of the Master Appraiser' s Institute, or the Society of Real Estate Appraisers, or the American Institute of Appraisers and give written notice of the selection to the other party. The party receiving notice :f selection shall choose an appraiser and so notify the other party in writing within twenty (20) days after receipt of the notice, which appraiser shall be similarly qualified. IIf the receiving party fails to choose an appraiser and notify the sending pasty within the twenty (20 ) day period, then the appraiser chosen by the sending party shall act alone . ) The two appraisers so chosen shall, within twenty (20) days after delivery of notice of selection of the second of them, select a third appraiser who shall be similarly qualified. If the first two appraisers selected 330754 1),I5 1817449 BOOK......._... RECEPTION. 5a-T are unable to agree u 'on a thi-d within the time period above proved, the.i the . hird appraiser shall be appointed by aiuitrLcion under the rules and procedures of the American Arbitration Association. Each party shall pay the fee of the appraiser selected by that party, and the Joint venture and the City shall each pay one-half the fee of the third appraiser. The appraisers shall proceed to value the Joint Venture interest, under the following rules, arriving at their decision by majority vote. The value of the interest of the Joint Venture shall be the fair market value of the entire property, in fee simple, divided b„ two. Fair markr _ value shall be the value which would be paid by a willicy buyer to a willing seller. neither of them under any constraint, assuming the property to be subject to existing leases or subleases (other than the lease established herein) . Existing mortgages shall be treated, for valuation purposes, as if they could be assumed by a purchaser without change or charge. Valuation date shall be the close of business for the month during which notice of exercise of option is delivered. 4.4 For n period of thirty (30) day" after the z by the City of the written report of the appraisers, the City shall have the further right to elect as to whether it will purchase the Property. The City's right to elect to purchase shall be exercised only by delivery to the Joint Venture, within the thirty (30 ) day period, of the City's signed written notice of election to purchase. 7 S In the ev.nt that the City elects to purchase, the pric.- shall be paid in full at closing. Closing will occur aler than thirty (30 ) days after delivery of the City's notice of election to purchase at a time and place celected by the City. 4 From the time of delivery of the City's notice of election tc purchase (subsequent to a delivery of the report 930754 `34 5 1867445) BOOK RECEPTION._ of the appraisers) the risk of ! oss from fire or other casualty shall be upon the City, and damage from any such source shall not serve to relieve the C.ty of its obligation to purchase. ( It is understood that the City may place such insurance on the Property as it chooses, to protect Itself from loss to the Property. ) If, however, the Property Is materially damaged by fire or other casualty subsequent to the valuation date and prior to delivery of notice of election to purchase by the City, then the City, at its request, may have the valuation date changed to a time ten ( 10) days subsequent to the casualty and may require such reappraisal as is necessary, and make its e1ec..ion to purchase (or fail to do so) after receipt of a report of the appraisers which takes into account the damage to the Property. (The value stated in .uch subsequent report shall become the price to be paid. ) 4.7 Until closing, the Joint Venture shall stay in possession of the entire property, including the one-half interest therein which was leased by th( City to the Joint Venture, and collect and retain all the rents from the Property and bear al. the expenses thereof. 4.8 Title shall be merchantable in the Joint Venture, ..abject only to taxes not yet due and payable, 1 ier.s or e.. . imbrances to be discharged out of the pioceeds of sale, such matters es affected the title when the Joint venture acquired its interest in the Pr: er' y, and applicable govern- ment regulations, and existing . eases permitted by the terms hereof 4 .9 At closing, the Joint Venture shall deliver to the City a commitment for a standard ALTA title insurance policy showing title in the requisite state. Promptly after closing, the Joint Venture shall pay the premium for the policy and cause same to be issued to the City. 4.10 The Joint Venture shall convey by good and sufficient special warranty deed, subject only to the permitted exceptions. 93°754 ' 1967449 I'OOK' *" RECEPTION 3o"I� 4. 11 Possession shall be delivered at closing, subject only to leases permitted under the terms hereof. 4. 12 The City's option shall not be assignable except to a purchase of the City's reversionary interest in the Property; ( i .e. , the City's interest as lessor) and no assignee from the City or subsequent assignee shall have the right to assign the option except to a purchaser of said reversionary interest. 5. The Joint Venture's Cotton to Purchase the One-Half Interest in the Property which is the Subject of the Lease. 5.1 In the event that for any reason the City fails to purchase the undivided one-half interest of the Joint Venture in the Property, then the Joint Venture shall have th≥ option to purchase from the City the one-half interest in the Property which is the subject of the lease established herein. 5.2 The Joint Venture's option shall be exercised, if at all, only by delivery to the City of the Joint Venture's signed written notice of intent to exercise its option, on or before thirty (30) days after the last date when the City could have delivered its notice of exercise of option, or its notice of election to purchase, whichever later occurs. A notice of the Joint Venture shall not be void In account of being delivered too soon . That is, the notice of the Jc.nt Venture may be delivered prior to the last date when the City could deliver its notice of exercise of option or notice of election to purchase. whichever is applicable. 5 . 3 If a price for the Property was determined puisuant to delivery of the City' s notice of exercise of option, but the City elected not to purchase after receipt of the appraisers' report, then the price to be paid by the Joint Ver.'ture shall be such amount previously determined by the appraisers . If. however, the City did not deliver notice of exercise of option, and therefore no price was previously established. 9Jp7S4 :)45 1867449 BOOK` RECEPTION... '6 then the same procedures sha l_ he applicable as are set. forth for the determination of the price in connection with the City's exercise of its option to purchase. If no price was determined in connection with the City's delivery of its notice of exercise of option, then for a period of thirty (30) days after the delivery tic the Joint Venture of the written report of the appraisers, the Joint Venture shall have the further right to elect whether or not it will purchase at the price determined by the appraisers . Exercise of the Joint Venture's election to purchase shall be made, if at all, only by delivery to t`ie City of the Joint Venture's written notice of exercise of its election to purchase within the thirty (30) day period. 5.4 The price shall be paid in full, in certified funds at closing. Closing shall be held within thirty (30) days after delivery of the Joint Venture's notice of exercise of option, if the price had previously been determined; and if the price had not previously been determined, then within thirty (30) days after the delivery to the City of the Joint Venture's written notice of exercise of its election to purchase. The time and place of closing shall be reasonably selected by mutual agreement. 5.5 From the time of delivery of the Joint Venture's notice of exercise of option ( if the price has previously been determined) or the Joint Venture's delivery of notice of exercise ci ejection to purenase ( subsequent to a delivery of the report of the appraisers ) the risk of loss from fire or other casualty shall be upon the Joint Venture, and damage from any such sou:cc shall not serve to relieve the Joint Venture if its obligation to purchase. ( It is under- stood that the Joint Venture may place such insurance on the Property as :t chooses to protect itself crou loss to the Property. ) lf, however, the Property is materially damaged by fire or other casualty subsequent to the valuation date 930754 (t•r i 186741.9 L�K.. RECEPTION__... o -/ C and prior to delivery of notice of election to purchase (or notice of exercise of option) by the Joint Venture, then the Joint Venture, at its request, may have the valuation date changed to a time tell (10) days subsequent to thr casualty and may recuire such - .ap, raisal as is necessary and make its election to purchase (or fail to do so ) of'.er receip' or a report of the appralstrs which taxes into account the damage to the Property. (The value stated in such subsequent report shall become the price tD be paid) . 5.6 Title shall be merchantable in the City, subject only to taxes not yet due and payable, liens or encumbrances to be discharged out of the proceeds of sale, such matters as affected the title when the Joint Venture acquired its interest in the Property under the lease, and applicable government regulations, and existing leases permitted by the terms hereof. 5.7 At closing, the city shall deliver to the Joint. Venture a commitment for a standard ALTA title insurance policy showing title in the requisite state. Promptly alt.:. closing, the City shall pay the premium fox the pricy and cause same to be issued to the Joint Venture. 5.8 The City shall convey by go.ic and sufficient special warranty deed, subject only --, permitted excep- tions. 5.9 Possession shall be 1ellvered at closing, subject only to leases permitted unde: the terms hereof. 5. 10 The Join' Venture's option to purchase may be assigned only to o7 assignee or sublessee of th.. entire interest of the Joint Venture in the Property under the lease. 6. Price Reductions if Neither tpt:on is Exercised. 6 . 1 If the txa.e for both parties to exercise their respective rights to purch a..e under the foregoing options has elapsed, and neither party has chosen to purchase, then 9;30754 f;d! 186'7.119 P OOK________ RECEPTION ...... c2O-/[ the price shall be periodically reduced and each party shall have a renewed option to purchase, all on the following terms and conditions. Commencing with the expiration of the period when the Joint Venture could have delivered its notice of exercise of option or notice of election to pur- chase, whichever later occurred, there shall be a period of fifteen days during which the City may purchase at the price otherwise determined pursuant hereto, reduced ty two percent (2%) thereof. The City shall exercise its option, if at all, only by delivery during the fifteen (15) da: period to the Joint Venture of Its signed written notice of exercise of option. If the City fails to exercise such option during the fifteen (15) day period, then commencing with the end of the first fifteen (15 ) day period, the Joint Venture shall have a right, during a period of fifteen (15) days, to purchase the interest of the City (which was subject to the lease) at the price otherwise determined pursuant hereto, reduced by two percent (2%) thereof. The Joint Venture may exercise its option, if at all, only by delivery to the City during the fifteen (15) day period of its signed written notice of exerc ,:P of option. If the Joint Venture does not exercise its option du:ing the fifteen ;15) day period, then there shall be successive fifteen (15 ) day periods during which each party ( alternately, commencing with the City) shall b .ve the right to exercise an option to purchase, and for each two consecutive fifteen ( 15 ) day periods the original price shall be reduced by t-'o percent (2%) thereof. For example, for the second set of two consecutive fifteen (15) day periods, the price tc be paid t.y either party shall be ninety-six percent (96%) of the price ae originally estab- lished. All the other terms and conditions of the options, as above stated, shall be applicable. (The City's option shall be on the one-half interest in the Property owned by the Joint Venture, and the Joint Vencure's option shall be 930754 94 i 1867449 BOOK RECEPTION 2O -17 on the one-half interest in the Property o"ned by the Cit„ which was the subject of the ' ease. ) The price reduction shall continue until one party or the other has exercised its right to purchase. 7. Duration of Leases and Subleases Which may be Made by the Joint Venture. It is understood that the Joint Venture is acquiring the Property with the present intent of renting out the restored property for office space and other uses. It is also recognized that it will not be commercially practical for the Joint Venture to cause all or its leases on the Property to terminate at the time that the City may exercise its option to purchase. Therefore, the Joint Venture shall have the right to enter into subleases of its interest under the lease, and leases of its undivided one-half interest in the Property, which extend beyond the termination of the lease herein established. However, at the end of the fifty-five (55) year t_rm of this lease, the leases and subleases on at least one-third of the gross leaseabl . floor area shall expire no later than three (3 ) years after the end of the fifty-five (55) year term; and the leases and subleases on no more than one-third of the gross leaseable floor area may expire no later than seven (7) years after the end of the fifty-five (55) year terra; and the balance of the leases and subleases shall expire no later than five (5 ) years after the end of the fifty-five (551 year term. The City shall receive e 1 rents and bear all burdens of ownership accruing after closing date, if the City pur- chases. Any occupant or former owner of a condominium unit shall be obligated to vacate no later than 30 days after closing date. If the City purcnases. 8. City's Option to Purchase if Restoration Work is Not Completed within Two Years From September 1, 1981. In the event that a certificate of occupancy from the Building 3JO754 1867449 94 PooK".� RECEPTION___ a O Inspector (or other appropriate official ) of the city has not been issued on all of the Property, indicating that substantial reconstruction nas been performed and that same is now ready for occupancy, on or before September 1 , 1983, then for a period of thirty ( 1,1) days commencing September 1, 1983, the City shall have the option to terminate the lease and repurchase the undivided one-half interest of the Joint Venture in the Property, for the sun of $200,000.00 . However, the City may not exercise the aforesaid option if reconstruction has been prevented by war, civil_ disturbance, shortage of fuel or materials, strike or labor dispute, inability to obtain a government permit or permits, or other circumstance beyond the reasonable control of the Joint Venture, so long as the Joint Venture has made reasonable efforts to complete the reconstruction. Any dispute over this paragraph shall be resolved by arbitration pursuant to the rules and procedures of the American Arbitration Association (Construction Industry Rules) . The option shall be exercised, if at all, only by delivery of the City's signed written notice of exercise to the Joint Venture within the thirty (30) day period. Th.- Joint Venture shall convey by good and sufficient special warranty deed, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except those on the Property at time of purchase by the Joint Venture. 9. Assistance by the Development Corporation. The Development Corporation agrees that it will at all times assist the Joint Venture in persuading the City to make the Ad;acent Land ( the East One-half of Block 46) into a park and/or parking lot and promptly to raze the existing sports arena thereon. 10. Joint Venture' s Obligation to Commence Reconstruction. If prior to October 1 . 1961 , the Joint Venture has not commenced visible reconstruction activities on the property, then tor a period of thirty (30) days commencing October 1, 1981, the City may exercise the option granted to it in 930754 `)4 5 1867,1.19 HOOK RECEVI ION . . ..___ --Ty paragraph 8, and all the terms of paragraph 8 shall apply to this paragraph 10. Any one or more of the following shall constitute "visible recc.:atruction activities a) Structural repair to the roof b) Skylight repair c ) Installation of new roof d) Repair of gutters and eaves e ) window repair and trim painting f ) Cleanup of exterior masonry g) Landscaping and site beautification. 11. Memorandum for Recording. The p. 'ties agree to execute a Memorandum of the Lease and the options of the parties for recording, sufficient to give notice to pro- spective purchasers or encumbrancers of the Property under the Colorado statutes relating to recording of deeds and other instruments affecting title to real property. 12. Closing. Closing of the purchase by the Joint Venture of the undivided one-half interest in the Property, and commencement of the lease shall take placeon then c�) day of aft alle . 1981, at ��.J/ y (/JAft?//h unless otherwise mutually agreed in writing by the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed their signatures this rl i day of 1 ia` , 1981. CITY OF GREELEY, a Colorado municipal corporation 6Y_ ATTEST: • Mayor lakO Cli GRFE LEY DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT CO:.PCRATION, a Colorado nonprofit corporation By r' ;L .�_.Y t� 'BEST. resident . . ry...;�.� Secretary 90754 1867449 HOA RECEPTION _ HORACE GREELEY PHASE II , a Joint Venture By FIONEER I S1c7 INC a Col.ora'do c ocAtio '�:A ;;7„: BY .--�.CG /rife/ r ent/. I. Secretary d L O t By SINCO INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS, INC. , a Delaware corporation By . ..ATTEST: President ' S' ' C Secretary r—: ' S- 9.30754 ASSIt7•err Cr 1mSfl S IN.ra.. IN LEA6F This agtaw•ent, made and entered int' tr e• day '.f •f.7s••tr4Os . 1144 by and between Norm* .rr. Ley Phase If , • $nr.t cantors, aaegrised of Pioneer ln..etreta, let . . • _ninrad, corwnatIcn and haarOn s --. im_. an Clan• Corporation, hereenaf te( referred •o a• °Atteiguer,s sad Sect to School. Ltd. , a Colorado Limited Partrrersnf; . tarsitatlet t•tsrad lo • •Assi*ma.• Aaet7.ot. tat and to consideration of one Collar ($1.00) and over good and valuable asnsidatatlaae the sufficiency of trench are hereby aSrayaed. Yana, taste, sells, apes, tray ders, sets war and delivers WI lbw praaaate ants heanens all of Its rapt, title and ►nert as Lae MIS r Whet aortal. karat Par Ps.' a AS Sale d hurl Property. AS astamat PULP Ceawayansa a A Lane Ter. Leasehold With A liaise bent Pan fbaaaiaettar retorted td as the element•), dated durmast 25. 1141 ads the Clip d a day. s tetisRde 11eLtclgai f]oa}eratS. to the hence . the Crwlq ass ne M•slagasnt Corporatlos. • Colorado Pee-Prottt ellIntals, le U. ass ad ante Osadsy /aces II 1s tea Assess. Said La Islas laver rat.radad as alit n, at a Sea 145 • MmmapClom Mb. mauve at the toads of We. OMIIIIV et Oeaab/. Rene d Cslasrado. 7o hew as/ W. UMW MOM Terse pour tpteltiaally d..ertrad se: Am atdlalr/ la ad W. the Mist 1/I et Clara la. Tact d Osaaba, Otatdr et avid. Ma et ONwada. assttpar lend repremesiss a• -_ pea ad wssta awe •sera eft' Ameipas. is Puttsv ataeaas. adeareaers, r match a Spasms: A. eat She MS= to aare.rtly a till Inca err affect mid sea nest r tae�t/r, aWatrl et attired It air .Saar. f~ net rte stigma' um at the tans- salts ••••+•t 2*. ate and aIw w • pterielaa the mama- er anima anted. C wild lima w IMO opalaa to egad rah taaor mums. O. at mar ribs rflotoi I.r tr entire Laanm nerd tit arm MAILS ate Sail as hariq w geld at ua a-.eamues.d dace at is new. S. eat the knee w properly aasta.S A tae ara.le► aces e aewteipmdet Ohepw___ to Onaea O eolam Pause II den err in arm w tea .t the as aa nap dish Ws. atlas* Ift.4Ol.M1 . t. wr Ws oft giamen ad heal Itwo ass.ass s taea mw lei c has. Wh• Parr pats gat enahieelat et .n aa►Ot.a1 Lamm was S. net then• ate r offsets sr slates at rote • . ,J she•he the Mein del all earls hers a ateatd. S. vent la/par la ant M detatit ended the Laws air is l au aas se alai spledt w sebt/twtd me at. lam tar 4 est Sul te t Pet e•ere. and that mweldie hoe tae. deem Sidi upon the • seals el mains .. lama at time, et tsdl, wad wetltaia • defeat. Assignee hereby sapt►•sly accepts ntd assumes all of the tee .. aem.esta ad andluw to said urns te be two rut pattvreed ea tar Lasa'e 930'75n eLGC° 1: 46 LE6a ADDRESS: 1 I/701 BLOCK-LOIS IB THROUGH 14, BLOCK R6 IONE/5 IONE/4 TOTAL 1581 INT. PMT. PROPERTY OPNER: HORACE 6REELEY PHASE II, A301NT VENTOREIAON CAPPELLO _--- ONNER'S OGRESS: 1110 11711 STREET IOIAL 50/if 50000 0 50000 BWLOEp COLURA00 80101 IONE ASSESSMENT 0.7876 1_0801 101.9E PRINCIPAL 139,380.00 10.00 139,300.00 TERM: 20 22 PROPERTY AOORES5: PRINCIPAL PMT: 11 106.43 10.00 11,406.4131 631.97 PAY11EN7 NUMBER YEAR PAYMENT DATE CURRENT PRIME. PPDC.PIT, INTEREST IOW PSI TO1AyI11 30 RATE TEAR ANNUAL P11,_¢8/E1 PRI 1 1984 September 139,380.00 11,631.91 11,611.97 11,631.97 1984 11,631.91 $0.03 2 1985 Ruch 139y80_00 41.406.11 11,713 03 11.119.16 14,751 41 3 1985 September 137,973.57 11,406.13 11,631.83 11,058.28 97,809.71 1903 16,177.71 10.11 4 1986 Ruch 136,567.14 11,106.43 11,590.67 12,991.10 910,806.81 5 1986_ Sepleeher 35,160,j 11,406,13 11,529.49 12,933.92 113`12.73 1106 15,973.02 10.12 6 1987 larch 113,754.79 41,406.43 11,418.31 $2,874.74 116,617.47 7 1987 September 132,317.86 11,406.43 11,407.13 12,813.56 119,431.03 1987 15,688.30 10.11 01988 __ !larch 130,941.43 11,406.43__IL315,91 12,132.38__122,181.41 9 1988 September 121,535.00 11,406.43 11,281.11 12,691.20 124,874.61 1908 15,443.58 10.11 II 1989 March 128,120.51 11,406.41 11,223.59 12,630.01 121,504.63 111909 _ September 126,127.14 _ _ 11,406.43 }0,162.11__ 12.568,04 110,073.47 1989__ 15,118.86 10.10 12 1790 March 125,315.71 11,406.43 11,101.23 12,501.66 132,580.14 --_ 03 1990 Sepleuer 123,709.29 11,406.11 11,010.05 12,446.48 115,027.62 1990 14,554.14 10.10 --- 14 11'44. Marco _ 122,502,86 _.91,406,43 1978.81__02,385.30_____117,112.91_ .. 15 1551 Septuuar 121,096.43 11,406.41 1917.69 12,321.12 139,737.05 1991 14,709.43 10.09 --- — 16 1712 March 117,610.00 11,406.43 1156.51 11,262.94 141,099.19 __. __ __ __. J7._ _ 1502 _Sepluber__. 118,285,5E_.__11,4Q6.43.__1715.31 12,701,11__IllaalLn_ 1992 11,164.1_.._10,09_______ — 18 1913 March 116,177.14 11,406.11 1734.16 $2,040.58 146,242.21 19 _ ——- 1993 September 115,470.71 11,406.41 1671.98 12,077.40 148,421.74 1991 14,211.99 10.01 10 1994 March 114,064.19 11,406.43 1611.80 11,018.22 150,439.97 11 1994 Septeeber 111,657.86 11,406.43 1550.62 11,957.05 152,377.01 1994 13,915.21 10.01 22 1995 March 111,251.43 11,106.43 1481.14 11,193.87 154,292.88 23 1915 Septeeber 19,815.00 41,106.23 1479.16_ 11 234.69 156,127.56 1995 13,710.55 10.07 24 1996 larch 18,438.57 $1,406.43 1367.08 11,773.51 157,701.01 23 1996 September 11,032.14 11,406.43 1305.90 11,712.33 159,613.40 0996 11,485.03 10.0) 26 1997 March 15,625.11 ❑,406.41 1244.12 11,651.15 1611,261.54 __ 27 1997 Septeeber 14,219.19 11,406.13 1183.54 11,589.97 161,854.51 1997 13,241.11 10.06 28 1991 larch 12,812.86 11,406.43 1122.36 ❑,578.79 164,393.30 11 1990 September 11,406.13 1I406_43 161.18 11,467.61 165,850.91 1958 12,996.40 10.06 TOTALS 139,380.00 126,470.91 165,850.91 165,850.91 $0.09 0.7S A U C (n L C CO CC W \ CO an CO\ \ CM co \ \ \ LC) \ \ _ _ I— a. co O) a co in O) M 4-i LL L CD 0 C en N- 0 W O N V (1 I • Cr) 0 Oct I— • C co co t` co V O) L.) 4/2, e 4 t e te- e L 0- C 0 C O O O O C O 4-) C C 0 0 O O N O 'o V O CC G LC) O O O 0• ( N- W C m LLe) 0 0 0 v U NN n N N .- N- VT er £I 64 b9 a 64 M -) r--t CO •O' C LID -- O Ln d' CC LC - Ln Cn — LD a c0 COW to .--s CO Y N W N I� V CJ Q C) •.-1 CO C Li CC V) co I I C)C r J oO O L1') 0 to W In C V CO CO N a • r-- COW N On O — N r. .1- Y N O) 'or No cc W C li • CS N E L C N I— On On L t \ - a N Cl.) \ \ Y Y On O) O) ut CO 0 C C --s \ - IO N CO 0 0 CO O .-. ,-. O) C \ — £ £ CO CO Ce) N J N to I I N \ \\ \ I I 0 O d- CO CO N Y Y 4-) I I I I I C O) Cl I I to .-• V LO -, C \ \ L L CO CO WOO Cs L O Y Y \ \ \� �_, L \ —•G C •--• \ \ C \ 0 0 \ \ CT--. U 5.0 £ CS, LAO • N O C • O) L O s- --.. N N a a) G G N 4- CC C N .0 'O 'D I 0 4- 4-) •-• C - LI -0 .—• _ 'V L L 0 0 Cl) 0 C G Y C C C U 0 'O Li) --• V) .0 .0 .--- 3 V) co O O to 02 L L a2) 41 T Y Y Y JO C 10 > Y Cl) L E I I 0 C Cr) C) C V) C L C W N C C) C -c 05U U Y C 'O U 5- 0 5- O C) C •-. x .•-• CC C L C O 0 O £ C I- C O_ 0- 3 CL CD C C • C J w w _ 5- rU C 5- Y C LC) C Ln 0 LC) O LinO to In 0 C 3 coC to r\ a, a I O O I I I I f- N J J J J J J J J J '-"-' * * 4 3 > 930754 C N 43 t t CO CO C CO OJ CO \ . Cr) In In ,n C ��C F- CT O) O) Cr) .-. N en • YIU- ln� O .^. O O O CO ID L .CV .NV N CT 0 1- CT N 4,4 44 64 CL 64 64 64 64 a) Si L 1---- C1 V a 64 u a) 0 00 0 O 0 0 0 O O en o co O O O CC N If) in co O O In O CT In ^ 0 In 1n 1` O • N -. 0 I` M MN 1- O 6464 N 64 4+4 4:13-64 64 �I 64 - N in In CO al 4 N In M cr CO CT to C' In CT to 0 0 O N 1) V M C V o V N .-. O CO V cf a) N 0 CD G N N c} Ip O N I--- In IC V Q) J r--) N In CO CD en co in V in Y N V .-• N n to 0 0) ct C CO L.L. N In CS V) E L a F- V N CT If) 0) V ct CT \ CT Cr) W \C) CT \ O \ CT I/) —\ \ O en O 10 Cr) .-. M \ M CO a) —.M M \ \ N J N\ \ C \ I CO CO I I N Y 0 I I N CT N C C) N CT C) W CT .-. V \CT CC) - \ C) L \.-.. \ O .— 1I) M N\ 0 .-. N CT N .-. N en N C CT NM N CO C C C E N 0 Ip Ip "0 "0 ti • I L L L 0 VI O C) QI a) N C in Cr, .0 -0 ,--4. C O O 0 o0 (O V Y Y Y 4-' E .-• r0 4-3 L IO U- > C I co LL a m 3 >, C) CO C 0 0 0 N p - C 0 0 0 N E 0 H 0 U' C7 C7 in Cr) 0 a y.) C) LL VI 5- a) O C) 43 3 4-) N a) -. L O O In to co O) ca O en N r 0O 0 0 O o 0 o 0 F- V) li . .-. r. .--, r. * .- t 9.30754 C) V C In C CO CO CO CO CO CO Co \ \ \ \ \ \ C a) \ I— N N CO e M- n- • Is- o- In C115:�� OOO C)u') 1. N. M CO CO 11 N N M ct V ct 03 CV 0 0 C) 444 44 b4 64 64 bS U C- CV CO CO co Cl al 0i Qi 0) \\ \\ N N N CV a) I I I I C) 0 0 0 +' o r-. cn OaDLn cn O O O IC Ot0 CO GOON • CC - 0 0 0 O .-• c*) cn to O en LC: O In • � C)t0 M V t0 .-- 'he- C'') O NV MM co .-. b9 l M- V V 4.1.4.03-44 64 Ni 4 4443 n M NCO V V C) 0 cY M- D CO CO.-, CD in C) M .-. L C) CV CV 0) L Y ILs')U CO CO ¢ 10 3 C) IC N CC trt (1) I J O V V C) c'') in in • N --• 10 In M M N Y —. 0) In CV CO Cr) In 11 C — I — CO o' a) Cl) 0' co C- o E Y a) I— V V N c'') M C7 a) 0) 0) Cr) 0) Cr) C) In \ \ \ \ \ Co — .--. '-. .--. r+ .-. a) Cn M CO CO Cc) CO Y I I n C") M Ch C V 0 Cs) a) CO C) CO Cr) C) Cr) L S.- N : U CV .-. CO V V V CO 0 CV CT C) LA- C U CV 0 0 •_ In 0 C) C) Y in I V) In L Ce) in CO M- Q Z •—• C co Co ob IC a Y Y 3 O ~ Y C C O CV C C) a a) a CO V v Y In V CO C = = C O cC S.- Q a) L L S- co CV 0 0 0 N F- O CC C1 .7 0 U C1 a) Li a) L V O a) - C 4-' 0 a U 0 in CO 0 In N C a Cl) 0 0 0 0 p I— (n In N CV N (V CV N N 4 J 940754 V c +J C>, co C CC CC O - cn O 4; Li_ 0 ti) S.- a) M O 0- in o M +; U V+ 4- t.9 CL C7 O 0 N In O O '-D a) L Y O ^. Q) II (D LD C1 CC N LO 64 •• Cr, OI to N 0 • .--4 (0 01 0 69 (0 0 M 7 CO O O I 4-) Cr) V I IO U .-. > G IO 0 E +J O 77 4- O N V) CJ iH Id an W _ J n IN re • 7 +J 4-) Lo In 4-) 4- Lr_ — U ID • Cr 0- V) in Y N E 0 co L F— —. 0 I— I N L • U) Cn Y In N in \ C N cn 10 •-• 0 0 N M £ J \ i 4- M CC) 0 4- +J I F- 0 N C Cn N CO J= a I L \ y N 5- — C CT 7 . 0 N \ U Cn :a' I an E O O O L N .-+ N O — C 10 N T CO N i Y E O I in an (0 r0 7 0 L .C 0) •--. CT 0 C N n 47 £ £ I N "0 L 06 +J c0 C) L CI. C N V 7 IO Y Q) +J L 5.- CD C C 7 C C) 0 • C) 0 4) 4- T F— 5- £ CO C) C) 3 • d 0 V 7 N- IOCTCT MLDO 4-) 0 4) LID -- rr C N -- 1, --. --. 4- d) > .-. 00 .-. O N Li L +' 0 CD C) 77 7 --. N M V LntDI- 00 Cr, VI V L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ^. --. O --- C) MM MMM MMMM CO L 7 .C O O X I I I I I I I I I F- N F- M M Lu LLJ w W LJJ LL LJ Lil LLl L,J CI 930754 73 R rattiler — .1 : a 1 '; 7 1 2 4 ., - 1 _ ] n 2 517;.`:2:.:3 1:_.535 S3 123.3 1179.423.33 5173.431 Si- 17.3 5173,-2: 551..1.2 50 563 t.t. 54,19.3. 3219 S33_ _75.3 5 2 61,:,:_....,. $-_.7_; .c_ ....4 5:73.3..,:: s1-:.= ._ :72._ --- - .._...:I_a a7.,_ :(.-_.::3 dL.cn :2.:a 53..3 1:21 5131- 3.3 53.24 11,2:c $1,21- 2.3 1:,_._ :„F V`rr_ �.EE 12 5l 53 $,;3 t.t 51x..43 Su 51;3 t.. Si 51,223.23 51.113 Sa :a3 512,2.7-21..''.2 5!_2,213 13 ::a.2 51:. :3 := r'1_ r,4P17 EP. .EE $.=a.:,7 5::3 s:d3 E37.5 13.3:3.27 $1.:33 52..E61 241.7 51." _:... 1:3: 52.22 52 $3 0.3 52.313,15 53 $2,313 r,t 50 1:.=:19..3 ....;3 53 :1.0.3 S1;.-Z2.;,, 51-.430 Sd _;2.3 i-- 1: .Y:..J 223l:LC. 5215._5 563%' 173- 73.8 53,az.id 13,:24 Si-S3- 35.5 s3,=: ._ ', 7 f-C::c 5 r`,:3 i. 3ETt1-= 513.2? S2 SS 155.5 1153..`3 135 564 .56. Si; 115:. 4i,1:A. E::-:.:2=5 12..3 SJ sa a.a 111.18 sa 111 t,4 53 -:74;L c:.":Si, EX;E:13E3 522,723..3 52.724 143 131.3 133.._95.63 532,323 53.483 112.6 S.E. 3.? ,_...',1:.1,f $2.533.:7 53.233 1823- 32.4 523,233.43 135,335 13,313- 33.3 CS, -AT:: 1224._3 5143 575 .:L 5 51.22.5.63 11.7.:_ 523 ..1.: il.:.: c.`5 $353.55 5535 1195- 66.3 13,517.23 $7,3_3 53,1113- 53.1 57,232 =_„:i 5205.13 53 5255 t.t $1,332.._ $3 51,322 t.r 51 .:" _ '.,77.....77i.".: ES ,s3 53.632.35 13.737 524- 37.3 533.741.10 543.204 35.46 - 27.3 S-:.i:: 7.2,27: i :H.:1T. :.S-_i5:3 53.,3 311 $3 3.3 5252.52 $3 $:2:1 .,i .,.:1,-__-.',;:2 ..242_4(2T 557.:5 iJ 507 4-,r 557.13 53 56; 1,= ,- 2l 3.33. :371:;2 . P. _CnTP.::1 $3.333 53 id 3.3 $45..3 53 541 t,t ]e [-_u ..i._ii.._ St-.5.13 5=4 so : 3.3 55-48.44 5243 5::c- 32.7 -_ T-__ ..-.3 __: so.(. S2 Sd a.3 522.23 10 5,:.2 t,4 i2 :__:::2 ::.. 12.;2 'J S3 2.2 5632.:3 53 33.::. +,t :;5 ::3432 SI.3 2.:a 51,:.:,7 Si7- 34. 3 113,431.37 S:' 472 53:3 55.5 •.2 331.3_. -.� Si2i.:1 53 11_6 *.* 52,:36.=3 53 $2.:37 t.- .,- -41'] ::J7;C7 32.13 51, _41 $1. .=i 2.3 4 23 '.] - 1 .. 513,723 111,1.J9 13.3 i::. __i, . ....(1., V lvl 1384.43 S3.3 $14 1 iL4. l SJ. I •L 52531_ ).5_ .L1.,1 1,:. ._♦ -: 1:-d/C :_..1a i ._7;:n 5313.37 $3 5313 t.t 11,573.37 i3 51,373 +,I' .. :.._„ :.._,;t. 4433.:2 1_: 5-14 L _L__;41,. IJ c_--_:a 52.:2 53 33 2.3 $1,228.:1 33 51.E:3 .,t _:.:.::. -- 53;.:7, IC s-,0 ', 1 $174.;: C 5:7: +, t >', :3 :2 2.2 32.1.3.3 .2. 5,;, 21', ._ 5a._1; u_- h.; 5,:j,= s29, ._ >:,G::-- .r_,_ .s-r, _ _i: - i - i3 5,,_;_. , i+ ,.= 1,: - _ . - . - - __ _ _ .5311 __ Si;5'',J _ - _�c_ 547;..23 5.,.- 5,) 122.,. 55..; 3..5, if.-3 31.71. 31.2'3.2 i7.: 5.37 :53.3 53.73,.23 53,7:5 5-'J if.: f_. . . 930754 EACS .0 SGCOL :;A31 [CS i_EE iACL`E STATirFtNT-VVCLDI;EEi ,4 3LCLcT :A In\CE 12/31/id - Tni3 ,13N76 — YEA3 - TI - DATE 73:;i C;E Tir.3 EP $14,451.b! $14,37'- $532-- 95.3 $171,313.75 $179,354 $2,244- Sic.Y_ „ _.L.. E Si,1!.:.... S2.-'.; SC_d _:5.i Ss �r3. ,J Si-- $3,=-7 1:Lcco,/.L,;;:,.ec :A!CIL: 54.531._9 $3 $4,531 *. 548,535.73 O $43,555 r,} Tu`L Ci.;:r1-:= c:G=,SE3 $4,5:1.33 $3 f4 :3' r,r $48,535.73 f8+ ST3,-9i r,t :C3T 5r C;ci c 3 $3,387.; - 1522 f3,921- 63.5.6- 544,124.5i- $74- $33,931-c::; 7. i 37- CET i:.CC. ..E/'“:23 $3,X37.93- $5.'3 $3,321- 53:.6- f4d 2-24.33- 174- 51-.: i --- + $33,93. t.�a37.7 S-- • 930754 BACH TO 5O111 PC-C{ 1 TES 1FTC{R INCDE STAIcinHET-LNAIIDITED Wallin VARIANCE 12/31/91 THIS MONTH YEAR - TO - DATE ACRIi 6ULCE VAR I;cz X PCTL'6L SLEET ;PR I SNCI: 74 TT. INCOME OFFICE RENT 117,330.78 117,301 10— 109.0 1200,240.35 12'20 242 OTHER REVE,E 10.20 1032 27.2 Sc20,. 10 0.0 1647.37 1129 $5.31 5 587.2 : TOTAL RESOLE $17,;20.78 117,201 $0- 120.3 1200,320.4-2 5529 + 1223,351 120.3 12;."0., ARINIETRATIVE EXPENSES AD:ETISIN8 13.20 1101 1131- 0.0 $0.20 11,212 11,212- 0.0 f.OTTER Rt-4TIN6EXPENSE 10.00 S0 10 0.0 ,375.20 10 1375 t.E OFFICE SUPPLIES 1'..2.27 S0 $32 t.t 1288.67 $0 1289 t,t MANAEE'BT FEE $1,'300.00 $1.730 $0 1'00.0 $12330.'20 112,300 SO 120.3 E2 AL PARTNER FEE 1331.,32 1133 1198 248.9 $4,360.61 11,595 12,465 5 254.4 11,3 R2LTAL COMMISSIONS 148.00 sa 148 t,t 13,313.55 S0 13,311 t.* MANAGER SAL PIES f1,200.02 11,200 10 1 s':.0 $14,400.00 114,420 10 120.0 114,4 LEC-AL. EXPENSES 10.02 f0 se 0.0 1130.049 10 ACCGL9ITI`S SERVICES 1210.15 1292 182- 72.0 12,663.02 $3 E34 1143 6.t $ 13,3 TELEPHCfS 3 P1r W. SERVICE 113.69 18 16 171.1 1182.90 196 187 190.5 1 MISC. ADMIN. EXPENSES 1239.00 10 1239 *.t 1305.78 $0 $386 *.t TOTAL ADMIN. EXPENSES 13,074.13 12,734 1340 112.4 137,716.53 $32,208 $4,909 115.0 132,2 UTILITIES EXPENSE ELECTRICITY 12,924.73 13,033 1108- 96.4 134,405.03 136,396 11,991- 94.5 126,3'WATER 1269.'2 1149 1120 180.6 51,427.83 11,788 1350- 79.3 11,7.SAS 1473.40 1585 1112- 80.9 14,471.13 17,028 $2,549- 63.7 $7,3":SEAR $119.41 10 $119 *.* 11,071.02 10 11,371 t,t TOTAL UTILTiES EXPBSES 13,786.56 13,767 f20 100.5 141,375.01 $45,204 13,229- 91.5 $45 2: OPER & MINT. EXPENSES JANITOR/CLEANI% SUPPLIES 10.20 10 10 0.0 1133.06 JN1TCR/CLEANING CONTRACT 10.22 10 1137 t,t , 10 8 0.0 1525.E S0 1525 t,t 3PF? 8E/Td,SH REMOVAL $54.'0J $54 $0 100.0 5649.63 1648 GROUNDS 1 GLL YS 12 130.3 f6•, 13. 3 10 10 0.0 1675.00 S0 1675 t,t t GROUNDS SUPPLIES 10.20 13 10 0.0 $80 00 REPAIRS PAYROLL 11,626.00 11,700 $74- 95.6 119,273.50 120,428 11,130- 94.5 520,4'REPAIRS MATERIAL $457.63 10 $458 t.t 12,313.83 10 12,313 t.* s ELEVATOR NTRACT/CONTRACT 1119.52 11,144 11,024- 10.4 15,944.34 113,728 17,784- 43.3 113,72 1333.49 1313 120 106.6 $3,923.46 13,722 1233 10,5.5 $3.72 HEAT-PiC FFPAIRS 5 MINT $0.00 10 18 0.0 13,475. SNOW leDVAL43 10 13,475 t,+ : 1327.53 550 $278 655.3 12,242.33 $600 51,643 373.3 162 CECCb11TT.'.8 PR/CCNTRACT $0.22 $0 10 0.3 $3,194.12 10 13,194 *.+ 9 CECCFATIN6 SLPPLIES 13.20 10 13 !.t 1644,31 10 VEHICLE-HINT EQ.CPER/PEP 124,741124 t.t $ c� + F , $J 125 t.t $123.39 SJ 1$28 t,r 1 >Ii__.CPER 6/NINT. (, 12.O0 10 10 7.'J fa.- -- Sd SEJ t.* : TOTAL CPERi:flINT EXPE:EE 12,li3. 15 13,253 1315- 33.3 543,216.77 139,396 54, 121 112.5 133,23 930754 �S u,axn INCCPE STATEEENT-ANAUDITa W/BUT>GET VARIANCE 12/31/91 THIS MONTH YEAR - TO - DATE ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE % ACTUAL BUDGET VAR IFIttE % TOT TAXES CND INSURANCE REAL ESTATE TAXES 13,293.77 14,226 1712- 82 2 139,525.24 148,072 $8,547- 82.2 148,2 SPEC ASEEM2IT TAX $474.22 1474 SO 122.0 15,689.00 $5,688 1O 102.2 15 . MISC TAXES, LICENSES 10.20 fO 10 0.0 155.E0 fO t.t PROP d LIPS INSURANCE 1879.45 1733 1145 119.9 $11,336.72 $8,7796 12,541 128.9 13,7 TOTAL TAXES & 1,NSURPtCE 14,646.22 $5,213 1567- 89.1 156,604.94 162,556 15,951- 90.5 162,1' TOTAL OPERATING EXP $14,450.26 $14,972 $522- 96.5 1178,913.25 $179,564 $751- 99.6 1179.6: NET OPERATING INCCYE 12,8.`,3.72 $2,329 1522 122.4 $21,967.17 $22,687 $(,2E3 1x6.2 $23,5_ FINPNCIAL EXPENSES INTEREST/MORTGAGE PAYABLE $7,676.27 10 17,676 *.t $68,963.34 SO 168,953 *it TOTAL FINANCIAL EXPENSES $7,676.27 $0 $7,576 t,t 168,963.34 13 168,963 t,t S COST OF OPER BEF/CEPA 14,825.55- 12,329 17,155- 297.2- 146,996.17- 120,687 167,683- 227.2- 123,6: DEAR E PERT NET INCCtE/LCSS 14,225.55- 12,329 17,155- 207.2- $46,996.17- 122,637 167,683- 227.2- 128,68 930734 AS0027 930754 FILE CONTAINS PHOTOS - SEE ORIGINAL FILE 3' 1(i� p ' y, a 1•' G • {( 7 T �, •'„A�ifr r y et` `••,t,t• + >. ,' " ,'•4)jC2 1 ' p. �' ,1 ':1 • • .�.. �,rdP �, . x* c �� " ' s� ri ay , cv2Tt, � ' , / i� t , y 1 .1:0.11 1. to f. I/ r ///,,,• l ‘ kt'i r 1A IC ,, ' , .04 7 t• l'� Ctif t, ') ,..; ; _ i1 bbl/''154,.' ,r=. "i�t { ';t;�It � 'o'. F" ,,, fr t i t ' ,\ sti „' tk vi, t ' � i Vii: / 1 • •{/ ► <+ a04` •f, f i T. , �yii '{ 1 1 r is i 1.1 I / 4• r4 'ri , i , , lit1 , i .4 ; � . / is �� :1{ / �114 ��i \\4 ,1 �� to- • 1 , • , titre, Vt'i m. m, Vi , f 'r L' V '1cL rt ( • ; o 4,7.A in ; ',Tit,: (, 1, (1 1 � ,4, ai ) . A / � wt' 411: \l IiiiFY4 e ;It Gib f 1y � 4 ` ilk M $ ' • / Q PA. A ., P •C 1al w 2 • J 1 / '/s o a r1,1� { { =,j ,i .. , • 3 A ii"; ;-.> re. / t 4) 6 ft 1 r d arr C t, . CG �, ;. 4 �. I4; ;� - , o I 4' I i ?' i� • \. • "' t, r i' I ` ' • `' V', , t r � a�fill. pm 4 1, 1 , I • r y 1 r ,i u. !• i t 1 VI ff�� C •i Ili{ k , r/ . ' !'t• 1� 1 .•� • y • , I � " r / l �� ' '' '' t , Photographs of THE GREELEY BUILDING Taken in April 1992 - iiii .,,t' J1li II l;Ill IA% r tl, i 15e': .. \Z.. ix, View of the south elevation of The Greeley Building seen looking northeast from 11th Avenue. / L �l nj j j - � l I ` �, ,I ' I l i; I v . II' \J% x - 5 ` . Ern/ Main entrance to building located toward the middle of the south elevation. 930754 ?, T, al: b 1 to ,e/r .,a ve•C�I i .e:' .II 4 JO"! ' 4k7k _ Looking south from portico covering the main entrance. .rr I +...• � M - Js.. r. ._d"_ i ,_1)-F.',ill ft' ,f • r rr it - f .. f .r, ric' f �tit . Closer view of east wing of south elevation seen looking north. 930754 . rOst - " ' . . 4 71 I I I • 1 _ _! I s '^ k. Looking northwest toward the south and east elevations of The Greeley Building. Id ! .I. -a <-. - vY 0 ti I View of the east elevation seen looking directly west. 930754 \ 'QQ4l� j. 1 -all\ git III,,' ;-er I �j �, ; , \ . ; I I _ nT ii ice- ___ _. - . - _ _ �_ _ -_ -- View of the north and west elevations of the subject seen looking southeast from 11th Avenue. irk I ,j '� l 1 i- 1 , Wheelchair ramp providing entry on the west side of the subject building to the lower (garden) level. 930754 e , t 4,,,,. rir , ,__, , ,,. \ ‘,„ ,, , , o l ihl s i i } I 1 . ( .< Interior view of staircase inside main entry (1st floor) next to building directory. It is one of three staircases leading to the second floor. ..J ', ,' : A v I%%% i : , _.; __________.- _ _ ,.._ Lir: 7 I E •f V: a L nil c- View of first floor staircase at the west end of the building. 930754 m a Looking toward the east along first floor hallway toward the middle staircase. !r ak • NS . rirl 3, .. Second floor hallway seen looking east. 930754 i x'Vy5 Y >.i r 7. w* n r.1' r NS Elevator opening centrally located on the second floor. 114 Secretarial area on third floor in executive center. 934)754 • . • • • The individual executive center offices are on right side of hallway, while the area to the left is open to the second floor. 151 _ fix. is Lower (garden) level hallway and staircase leading to first floor seen looking east. 330754 Y. mod.. at IOU r,.iJf y i 1 y4 Looking across the two wheelchair lifts located on the lower (garden) level. 41 I Or • ', I N • • IZ tit View of women's restroom on the lower (garden) level. 930754 •• ,;„ i. 1 611 I 1., I 5 ii• I 41 1r 1 I ! • F 4j.1._1• I ,1 i 1 • a_ E r� 1 r W 1 1 � �_ i ' I iar _j!'',pl— _ j[� � I I t • a - • Boiler servicing the building. :� _ °^r, I N1 I IC . uJ 1 �i e Interior view of Suite 200 occupied by Prudential Bache. 930754 - - • / ;Or View from Suite 300 looking out onto the roof top deck. Suite is occupied by attorneys. II, , <..-.. , • • • Conference room in Suite 300. 930754 • • .� • Looking across the reception area in Suite 105 occupied by Greeley Orthodontic Center. t III r te View of the interior of Suite 109 occupied by a child psychologist. 93!)754 s, • • ' • i •r d p' S z Rental Number 7 .1 ✓ a.l. Cottonwood Commons 1750-1770 25th Avenue Greeley, CO g Rental Number 8 awic5 ., 1 A+, Bittersweet Square � s >n I _ _ I� I ' t. , ��• :/ • 3�A1 3400 16th Street �! •., Greeley, CO 330754 ,._,. Rental Number 9 '{ •--- Central Bank Building 3690 10th Street _ Greeley, CO s t'a. ' a 4....4!--• a 4'4.. s Rental Number 10 " s�. ; h, Courtside Square 1�. l L 1015 37th Avenue Court Greeley, CO sue= 930754 ,' ,. . Rental Number 11 Park Place I_ 3535 West 12th Street Greeley, CO i t „ . _.ham r - r,a 'y-a r,. r-,tS.(�.T - - -:; r fi- zY3 7-4 .`wa■■MMMM ,. _ f!Z�! � Rental Number 12 ` n ' .-s Lake Plaza , ' 3545 West 12th Street Greeley, CO asses 930754 rJI y O J; w •a O ��'� � r! • Rental Number 13 JJy Eisenman Building -,, 4687 West 18th Street Greeley, CO .'""„le —-------r--,pie ;-. .- .4y"'`. r'i'y II Rental Number 14 lll�l 9'"�,= Columbia West 1F A � F^ 1812 56th Avenue _ k > - • Greeley, CO h. 4 k - hy ac-rw. �'- rrPe 930754 {t ,.,` , •ribs$ • , fir. ' N� � Rental Number 15 JRC h �_. 5401 WestPlaza 10th Street • I r Greeley, CO 930754 Hello