The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About901475.tiff RESOLUTION RE: THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 1990, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PETITION OF: COLONIAL ARMS ASSOCIATES LTD %DEPT OF HOUSING/URBAN DEVELOPMENT FHA 101-35076 MULTIFAMILY PO BOX 44804 WASHINGTON, DC 20026 - 4804 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: PIN: R 1746386 PARCEL: 095901317003 - GR KM-22 L5 TO 22 KAUFMANN-MC PHERSON SUB $3101-3321 W 7TH ST% WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, organized as a Board of Equalization for the purpose of adjusting, equalizing, raising or lowering the assessment and valuation of real and personal property within this County, fixed and made by the County Assessor for the year 1990, and WHEREAS, said petition has been heard before the County Assessor and due notice of adjustment thereon has been given to the taxpayer(s) , and WHEREAS, the taxpayer(s) presented a petition of appeal to the County Assessor's valuation for the year 1990, claiming grounds for relief thereunder stating the property described in such petition was assessed too high, as more specifically stated in said petition, and WHEREAS, said petitioner being represented by Tom Fenton, and WHEREAS, the Board has made its findings on the evidence, testimony and remonstrances and is now fully informed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, acting as the Board of Equalization, that the evidence presented at the hearing clearly supported the value placed upon the Petitioner's property by the Weld County Assessor. Such evidence indicated the value was reasonable, equitable, and derived according to the methodologies, percentages, figures and formulas dictated to the Weld County Assessor by law. As such, this Board finds that the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proving that the Assessor's valuation was incorrect. The assessment and valuation of the Weld County Assessor shall be, and hereby is, affirmed. 901475 Page 2 RE: BOE - COLONIAL ARMS ASSOCIATES LTD BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a denial of a petition, in whole or in part, by the Board of Equalization may be appealed by selecting one of the following three options: 1. Board of Assessment Appeals: You have the right to appeal the County Board of Equalization's (CBOE's) decision to the Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA) . Such hearing is the final hearing at which testimony, exhibits or any other evidence may be introduced. If the decision of the BAA is further appealed to the Court of Appeals, only the record created at the BAA hearing shall be the basis for the Court' s decision. No new evidence can be introduced at the Court of Appeals. (39-8-108 (1) , CRS) Appeals to the BAA must be made on forms furnished by the BAA, and should be mailed or delivered within thirty (30) days of denial by the CBOE to: Board of Assessment Appeals 1313 Sherman Street, Room 523 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 866-5880 OR 2 . District Court: You have the right to appeal the CBOE' s decision to the District Court of the county wherein your property is located. New testimony, exhibits or any other evidence may be introduced at the District Court hearing. For filing requirements please contact your attorney or the Clerk of the District Court. Further appeal of the District Court's decision is made to the Court of Appeals for a review of the record. (39-8-108 (1) , CRS) OR 3 . Binding Arbitration: You have the right to submit your case to arbitration. If you choose this option the arbitrator's decision is final and your right to appeal your current valuation ends. (39-8-108. 5, CRS) Selecting the Arbitrator - In order to pursue arbitration, you must notify the CBOE of your intent. You and the CBOE select an arbitrator from the official list of qualified people. If you cannot agree on an arbitrator, the District Court of the county in which the property is located will make the selection. Arbitration Hearing Procedure - Arbitration hearings are held within sixty days from the date the arbitrator is selected. Both you and the CBOE are entitled to participate. The hearings are informal. The arbitrator has the authority Page 3 RE: BOE - COLONIAL ARMS ASSOCIATES LTD to issue subpoenas for witnesses, books, records, documents and other evidence. He also has the power to administer oaths, and all questions of law and fact shall be determined by him. The arbitration hearing may be confidential and closed to the public, upon mutual agreement. The arbitrator's written decision must be delivered to both parties personally or by registered mail within ten (10) days of the hearing. Such decision is final and not subject to review. Fees and Expenses - The arbitrator's fees and expenses are agreed upon by you and the CBOE. In the case of residential real property, such fees and expenses cannot exceed $150. 00 per case. The arbitrator's fees and expenses, not including counsel fees, are to be paid as provided in the decision. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 31st day of J y, A.D. �19 0. ATTEST: %I /°/"7 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD UNTY, CO ORADO Weld County Clerk to the Board Gene R. Brantner, Chairman �eputy Clerk to he Board Gege Kennedy, Pro-Tem APPRAYED AS TO FORM ��z,/e ��w eirt `.. �_ / onstance L. Har rt , ��/�,�� ., I , � c l 9. ,County Attorne C. W. IS � w7 G E. OI�F7CE UI' COLA'..Y AJJLnot).'. 915 10th STREET ON ELEY,COLORADO EXT. 2 NOTICE OF DENIAL PHONE(303)356�OOQ EXT.4256 'lige x3101-22 5WTO 225KAUFMANN-MC PHERSON SUB COLORADO 3101-3321 W 7TH ST OWNER COLONIAL ARMS ASSOCIATES LTD PARCEL 095901317003 TOM F'ENTUN PIN R 1746380 YEAR 1990 BITTERSWEET STATION 3175 LOO 00II02 GREELEY CO 80533 06/12/1990 The appraised value of property is based on the appropriate consideration of the approaches to value required by law.The Assessor has determined that your property should be included in the following category(ies): Residential property is valued by considering the cost and market approaches. Agricultural land value is determined solely by the earning or production capacity of the land,capitalized at a rate set by law. Producing mines are assessed at 25%of the gross proceeds or 100%of the net proceeds,whichever is greater. Oil and gas leaseholds and lands are assessed at 87.5% of the gross value of the oil and/or gas sold or transported from the premises on primary production;secondary production is valued at 75%. 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: YOUR PROPERTY HAS BEEN UNIFORMLY ASSESSED FOLLOWING COLORADO LAW ANU INSTRUCTIONS PUBLISHED BY THE STATE DIVISION OF PROPERTY TAXATION. COMPARISONS WITH OTHER SIMILAR PROPERTIES INDICATES YOUR VALUE IS PROPER AT THE 1988 VALUE LEVEL REQUIRED 8Y LAW; PETITIONER'S ASSESSOR'S VALUATION PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION ESTIMATE ACTUAL VALUE ACTUAL VALUE OF VALUE PRIOR TO REVIEW AFTER REVIEW 290; 895 290 ; 695 LAND 1 ; 979; 187 1 ; 979; 167 IMPS TOTALS $ $ 2; 270; 082 $ 2; 270; 082 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. RICHARD W. KEIRNES c7/31/90 By; DATE 4 WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR 15-DPT-A0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE Form PR-207 87/90 YOU HAVE HE RiGH T TO APPEAL THE ASSESSOR'S DECISION Egeeli731Aer i ,rs11 •ret t s'ci4'.ii;':;?l pretis beginning July 1 and:.eennuirie through August 10 for real property . eeie and oceldieez nd personal property (furnishings, machinery, and eq€.ipment). 398 104 and 39-8-107(2), C.R.S. REAL PROPERTY APPEAL PROCEDURES.RES. ..rarer; and Buildings) . . j' ...I C'' "'�peeti the Assessor:, dece a tt � Y l � cer? ! form . ;�ri C:oU.,,.: �<> :, t: >. r� _ ,�,ii t's� deliver one copy o this tz.lctc,cf to the County Board of eualizatioo F.!..3 t--=: your right to at:peee yOlir appeal must be POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED ON OR BEFORE •1•..,1.. • ?0. PROPk.:.F'TY APPEAL. PROCEDURES: (Furnishings, Machinery, and Equipment) choose re.) eoneal the A5sessor's decision,.mail or deliver one copy of this completed form to the County Board of : 4u. "za`ion, rc, preserve your right to appeal, your appeal must be POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED ON OR BEFORE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION . 915 10th Street, P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Telephone (303) 356.4000, Ext. 4225 ` t3[IFIC;ATI NN OF HEARING: .--(uu will he notified of the time and place set for the hearing of your appeal. COUNTY BOARD DETERMNATCON: r e County Board et Lg'eatizati n rnust make a decision on your appeal and mail you a determination within five business days. The County Board rnu t conclude their hearings by August 10. i rS, BAYER Ri HTS FOR FURTHER APPEALS: you are not satisfied with the County Board of Equalization's decision. you must file within thirty days of the County Beard of Equeliezelon's decision to ONE of the following: Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA): :o :t,ict the BAA at 1313 Sherman, Room 523, Denver, Colorado 80203, (303) 866-5880. District Court: 9th Avenue and 9th Street, P.O, Box C Greeley, Colorado 80632 Telephone (303) 356 4000, Ext. 4520 Arbitration: WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION • • 915 1Oth Street, P.O. Box 758 ' Greeley, Colorado 80832 • • ' • Telephone (303) 356.4000, Ext. 422E eo : f:•::i1::; rs cieter•rnination 'From the County Board of Equalization by August 25, you must file an appeal with r' .Absess+i ent Appeals by September 24. TO PRESERVE YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS, YOU MUST PROVE YOU HAVE FILED A TIMELY APPEAL, THEREFORE, WE RECOMMEND ALL CORRESPONDENCE BE MAILED WITH `'ROOF OF MAILING. PETITION TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION the space belc:;>;, please explain why you disagree with the Assessors valuation, Attach ar :iiticlnal documents as necessary. J• 44 PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS �Lc'_ rG 1 r r r t'Ct'.^-p 9 July 1990 FENTON GREINER YATES INCORPORATED To the.Honorable Board of Equalization- Weld County: Pl^ a tt a _ r Assessor's a ,.. .,aSC find uu�rlC.li.,u Giia Y:.uuCia`i i07 appeal of the aSSi�ucu "vaivay.uI'i for the parcel(s) identified as parcel number: R 1746386 (We have not received a Notice of Determination on this parcel.) We have submitted an appraisal analysis to the Assessor, and will provide additional documentation in support of our contention that the above referenced property is overvalued with respect to the applicable approaches to value as defined by Colorado statute. Please schedule a hearing for us between July 15 and August 15. We expect to make a presentation of approximately 45 minutes in duration. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Should there be any questions, please contact me at (303) 353-6952. >a Sincerely, Fe on, Greiner Bz Yates, Inc. Thomas R. Fenton Bear Valley Station No. 36003 Senior Partner Denver,Colorado 80236 Adams 303-654-0436 • Arapahoe Boulder Bittersweet Station No. 3175 yy Denver Greeley,Colorado 80633 Eo Peso as 303-353-6952 Jefferson Larimer Facsimile Pueblo 303-353-6838 MEMBER. INSTITUTE OF PROPERTY raxnrloN weld 101111,.111YY: • `.., ► , ,k0,41,..t i.s . I'!i11 --a Ci :4•: C•✓ . '�'i j r f J i i 1/1 .rte 0 t W `l.. -� fJ .l Z ,. / t R y • V) ... rl Z a O P9 O H4 ►a ri W Q O LL ti J0 cr Q 1- o W O W 1.4.--Z' .. �, z ).0 w w U W E = W O N x co H •R C9 77 1, . I 0 • i � . 7))1 Q _ . tvi m r u_ * i • u- . O .t 2Ffl 01 6• C,',1-,-,T'l�� G ; ' 3-10 :; - :1,` L�1 C 1 La I -'ifAse ZS9O8 OOdkiO• : .1_ — 991 XOS O d OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PHONE(303) 358-4000. Err. 4200 P.O. Box 758 ' GREELEY, COLORADO 80532 C. COLORADO July 25, 1990 TOM FENTON BITTERSWEET STATION 3175 GREELEY, CO 80633 The Weld County Board of Equalization has scheduled your hearing for Tuesday, July 31, 1990, at or about 1:00 P.M. regarding your tax assessment for property in Weld County, Colorado, described as: GR KM-22 L5 TO 22 KAUFMANN-MC PHERSON SUB 83101-3321 W 7TH ST% The public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board, Weld County Centennial Center, First Floor, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, at the above specified time. Procedure for hearings before the Weld County Board of Equalization will be as follows: Assessor: - 1) The Assessor shall present his case first. He shall present evidence concerning the manner in which the property was assessed, both orally and in written form. (15 minutes) Taxpayer: 1) The taxpayer will present his case second. 2) Taxpayer may present all evidence, orally and/or in written form as exhibits. 3) Evidence presented will be limited to actual or assessed values of like properties or sales of like properties from January 1, 1987 through June 30, 1988. Testimony concerning tax amounts and their usage by law are not applicable at this hearing. (15 minutes) Page 2 RE: BOE - R1746386 Decision of County Board of Equalization: 1) By law, the valuation of property for taxation as determined by the Assessor is presumed to be right. The taxpayer is therefore required to present sufficient evidence to prove his case. 2) The decision of the County Board of Equalization shall be based only on the testimony produced and exhibits introduced at the hearing. 3) The decision of the County Board of Equalization shall include a statement of findings and conclusions upon all the material issues of fact and law presented and shall either affirm the Assessor's assessment or shall amend it as stated. If you are unable to attend at the time scheduled above, please contact this office immediately. Our phone number is (303) 356-4000, ext. 4225. Sincerely, Donald D. Warden Weld County Clerk to the Board eputy Clerk to tae Board 61111 • o OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PHONE(303) 356-4000. Ext. 4200 P.O.. Box 758 758 lige GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 III COLORADO July 25, 1990 COLONIAL ARMS ASSOCIATES LTD %DEPT OF HOUSING/URBAN DEVELOPMENT FHA 101-35076 MULTIFAMILY PO BOX 44804 WASHINGTON, DC 20026 - 4804 The Weld County Board of Equalization has scheduled your hearing for Tuesday, July 31, 1990, at or about 1:00 P.M. regarding your tax assessment for property in Weld County, Colorado, described as: GR KM-22 L5 TO 22 KAUFMANN-MC PHERSON SUB %3101-3321 W 7TH ST% The public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board, Weld County Centennial Center, First Floor, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, at the above specified time. Procedure for hearings before the Weld County Board of Equalization will be as follows: Assessor: 1) The Assessor shall present his case first. He shall present evidence concerning the manner in which the property was assessed, both orally and in written form. (15 minutes) Taxpayer: 1) The taxpayer will present his case second. 2) Taxpayer may present all evidence, orally and/or in written form as exhibits. 3) Evidence presented will be limited to actual or assessed values of like properties or sales of like properties from January 1, 1987 through June 30, 1988. Testimony concerning tax amounts and their usage by law are not applicable at this hearing. (15 minutes) Page 2 RE: BOE - R1746386 Decision of County Board of Equalization=1) By law, the valuation of property for taxation as determined by the Assessor is presumed to be right. The taxpayer is therefore required to present sufficient evidence to prove his case. 2) The decision of the County Board of Equalization shall be based only on the testimony goduced and exhibits introduced at the hearing. 3) The decision of the County Board of Equalization shall include a statement of findings and conclusions upon all the material issues of fact and law presented and shall either affirm the Assessor's assessment or shall amend it as stated. If you are unable to attend at the time scheduled above, please contact this office immediately. Our phone number is (303) 356-4000, ext. 4225. Sincerely, Donald D. Warden Weld County Clerk to the Board 7 i \ L 4/w'sr �a� c.ri Deputy Clerk to th Board P 556 982 E11 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIF 'tl NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PP NOT FOR INTERNATIONA' (See Rever in iSent to d Street and No. m ^y P O_ State and 7 ,�1' cd Postage �" �4fv'47 Certified Qr W 4.• 42 0 Spoil, ,t � ,G 4/ h 1 40 4/ delivered v Ate .owing to whom. ass of Delivery 0I V 3 .age and Fees o Postmark or bate a, r7 7/ i//901 LL N • a 2 ---O `� J o ✓f kr £ ,n) � d iI Ana o M 3 '' ,r j � � _ a • Ali V) I- (--1/2- -a- � o ..--FL- GC . 0'7 el :: -.2. � cA � __--- -9 s \/` d T . ' a 4 , '_LI .It --- 1-1� r' 2 t'' 3 2 *I — k ii 0} 2- - - - `� �el 1a ` CV 21 __ 2 , R CO CO 8 �s 8 NI o 0 88a o0 i . r., f < . _ * e� y ,, It I .T %. I� �m, , Aall; ;, �ti �H < 1. g. P "r .0.. III r , 4- C ,ply .� //� .�. NI�7`. i� k r I, ey 1 ;' , F '� 1 . , ;_ - ' �. - a �i , . i ' -110i r, II . 4, F ■ ' ' IP . . . i. . ,,- . . , ti \ dolt\ ' —�� ,R. . r . S tI • • i' q, ;', < V $ i I ' • . y P , ,: i ... r 3 •k - .4 iv 4 G ! t.. �� • 13 4 ,T - {- i yN c r� - 0 k;- s s, ! .V ,l, it \ k�l I3 4 • s :O �; 4. 1 . I 4 t tity } 'I k 7 c� \•••:',...,'‘ f'^ i ,, d 10 e i. E. r '•+ -S l �Sf T�... ' i+ ti.,�. • l 'is,� '.:' I` • - r -s, �Ir dill' , w i a .,,'F:';'` at I 1 Itipm-Air -- fr1 1 _. ... I 1 11 c 1d ■sue ' . • 1.. LI Q u7 rl .4",, ,.. ..0 N -O T 11 ,, 1Aa = = 11 •r 11 r'S p•• I.T. N CC 11 .r N O- 11 K M M M II OMMMOMMIDI • W W It M,) c.II WI O N I- ^7 L.1 CO II 0 CC cc G ... II 1-4C; 0: 0:... et W 0. It K II CA M y► *op I.L. QWI"' O /y WQ Z Q i 11 ❑ 1+ W U W V/ w a •.-• ; Cr + yr Cr) W L~L. II m n o a d. IP CJ m II m 11 CV O• [V Q J Qu. W = N > mQ W II � I.) Cy Irl ' . CO >• XCCI .13 CW O- QO 24 ¢ I co JFS- X-� g " JI- LOUJ2 1- 00I-- w a W�7 • it- 0 J 11 co CO CO CD CO "Z � a O 0 � Z Z CU II a '`� Q `''c W Q Lt. Q LL "U M Q W F- O a 1.18.1.0.3m II ? � M o �W. � W wl- Eo w2 2 11 O � M M CO I W 2 ❑ 2 L W N CC N VJ Q w ~ o II EE JWQF- U4 ,-, 3tD0 GC I-- II F. i1W 02 o in ...., — ,--..a O O w —I 4-i CO N + ►Z•r O LY Q W W II +a N4a- c.l r..) I- E0. ,U �afaLLL W I-- WU3CIa 2 [�If 11 Off. P•. Ci N P�n Z CZ E Q li. N '1. w it n' O O � WWUDU IN. ES COW N 20 w 11 ^ r � In In. PM. _ "" Q LU �I M � o: b: �' CIF- F- LL Q SW ZCnnI. IX U1 CC w , a III I F- 3w GZWQOS WI- W W s � u • Q U WCMIXl .. I... WL-MEZNI4Q. Qw Ln W I'i it v « ca'n ii C•1J "W > w 1- 2CN tXECIMW U } -- n a.• JNLX r.r1- J MEQF" wQU a • o o U J I- IL IX Q co 4-r ix to Ul 3 .-4 LL W N JZ W WI-swUlwd COC0 X O CU PI CO aWO QU3WZ 4701- 0, 4J W « II o UE W J J WGU) Z IS N W /M MIXED WC U4 4 WO Q > IVi '0 II U1 > N 11 a. Z Ul 2 w a N N J0OCJ SGWO � ~ p CL' 2WL f7U~1 � W W o o r--. C4 Q. O JJOJ ¢ 1-- E = O ►O». i O II l".41-+ 3 Ua0 > ~ U W "2 r) 2 ¢ ii CO 307 U � � 44 � r0•� 1~i UWI � s u n. ii 1- CC 2 L1. 4-4 CO 2 i In r•. mc, m LLW U1WOr12 W0` WCCW �t 2p ••r (>7 a u Cr. C. I-'421- Q } 221- w 2 "4 � Wz • W IXW a II __ 3F- UJ O2F- UJH4 I- 42F- O 2 O. CO "' ii c°v am- ^' rtrNIL y� q0 2 W � W 4U NW NO * wQ II M 2 Q a II Z1- OSZJ Z E = WMF-• 34 "} �wwu� `' JQW 2F- © CLZw Caw1- = m ¢ W � Cf1F- 4C7E OOHUl1-, •• WU F- Q� II ht .C. 2ZW ►-+ F- Q1.- "O . ZCIW U) W IX +-+ UJ 1- CL IZ•I0 U1wU W wW 4F- } JAW aLl, t7g0 u o000 , �' Qa zou nw W wzu.. zol- ma SU r. .W.1LWs i �aaNL.M a J J W LUX • Z J J ►'r 0V) LL U a ¢ ci9ca ri ' om � �w • EEwd. awac4 .-IOW • a ¢ w CL. u o• �� r� .a OW J4. E W tAWW1- Wd QH C13 C W M ior i In UI IZ S o. W Ul m S • can . z ] U r•. 3 OOOO w2tlt 2QQ ¢ 3 `GL7 W ¢ dfa0 Ul II o00o JEEZPICK M1-- 0 M J V II 11 O G o 0 C1. U I.4 U J = Z 0` wa acn ¢ 1- raa � acncn � ouW. wwa cacco o o Mm mum OME O2 XMOF- � oim It �► w = r�. oc o Z 2 a II go II SOH- CLOZwIXW "4 ZWEaWJ 200 J '+� Loa � � J � pca U aF- " 1- Oli OJWCtF- a 3hLL. QUJ U QL•�GOIL UW U) > p W 11 W W W W W C N .-.. O U • F- a .•1 U .LEO Cr)Ul O > ./. W Q I.iM V 11 W W W W W 4'r . �..1 IX 0 = LY OC CC LY CH M w i it CD 6O CO M tO . LC CD W LL w L7 11 M au~i � CCcn ¢ zWOO WIEOQ • . aoZ u c.s CI W W o • ': I- a � "i F2Hw2 H f91- wF- U > �+ _¢ o cLr. II ¢ r J. J. L' F- W F- I U1 W Q �) • 1' "W 1- 0. CC H -4..1 m � � � cn= COW •-• cn1- o W W ►-+ x ►+ a' ?- Or-4LflI7l el = QU -- .B 11 a o � ... m .-. _ = OUM 2 CrI EWU F- WO an F- Uw :c o z oG `I '" L`I W = Q U4 F- . OZF- JW UJJ "O Wto WIZ m =col 11 0 CIM ... o = � � � W aE0 fLiC WNZ �X 1- tl: al Y = 11 J C M O _J Q a: ac "= n U CJr .-; � •� J' + WdZ 4H OOCEft WWmwUW ¢ c7. F- MX = WCCWE00W =' CCI� IXW2 2WO WL� « u m mmmw � Q W 1" U47 U. G4-+ aELUG] h 'V lA t� G1 F- F- C! Z = , —z a 11 r7 v +q h h. t— WI- 0 4. 11 � -0 ^ 0- 1,1 A Z • ' • • ,Tali S'4 a NP". ►P M r4 w .•, I N ti U = U 11 0 II 1— —.. N M .w F.1 r ow w .11. .m .u. o.. Z, i i 11 W 11 N m = = = = II OOOO Lt. 11 CIf La L] CJ U I • . I iI, J e w ui 4 4 a Q Q In N E ,. E L k414 L Q Q 70 m ,c,�. C - .� ' _ ° ° o mi U U sa I I kmil W U GI 0 .g i in J D-4 Q al co O U N M , . - w N ++ N Q 4 in w •N i illwiml JiWIYS E ` N 4 Q mnml yy Q O ,N P.M. ... • E C I. o a r;.naim r� .in 4 N 0 U 43 pi C U ♦ iimiim+ 0 w U -- - - .L t z al m` V_ x-; M _ Wj (f Ik y . � � ; ii 1 v / .. tv m i a t a •W .•y A I A H C A M N c U . * A f • a 0 1 d E U -1'-'81 ,ME _ i 0 3 i U i y �,, • O ' .. nll. I 1j n ars11 1 -___ - � � „ , ` .•;.��;,r. � '. w c _ ++ ' E L - +.I L Q likeSI" a w a o •M Y L INN T Ia OJ a U Q .y * N a ^ 0 0 U ta 1 �. , AN APPRAISAL ANALYSIS OF COLONIAL ARMS APARTMENTS 3207 WEST 7TH STREET GREELEY, COLORADO PREPARED FOR MR. GEORGE BLAU COLONIAL ARMS ASSOCIATES 1656 ZENOBIA STREET DENVER, COLORADO AS OF JUNE 30, 1988 PREPARED BY FENTON, GREINER & YA1'ES, INC. BI1'1'ERSWEET STATION NO. 3175 GREELEY, COLORADO 80634 ;4t atifajd Mkt f1 9 `�71, PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS 15 July 1990 F EN T O N Mr. George Blau Colonial Arms Associates GREINER 1656 Zenobia Street -_4 ceird YATES Denver, Colorado 80214 INCORPOR NTEDD Dear Mr. Blau: As requested, we have inspected the property located at 3207 West 7th Street in Greeley, Colorado. The purpose of this inspection and subsequent analysis is to establish a supportable estimate of market value of the subject property as of June 30, 1988. Market Value as used herein is defined as follows: "Reasonable market value" means the fair, actual, cash market value of the property. It is the price the property could have been sold for on the open market under the usual and ordinary circumstances, that is, under those circumstances where the owner was willing to sell and the purchaser was willing to buy, but neither was under an obligation to do so. (Source: Colorado Jury Instructions - 2nd No. 33:3) The subject property is identified by the Weld County Assessor with the following schedule number: R 1746386 A further purpose of this analysis is to estimate the fee simple market value of the subject parcels for real estate tax appeal. All of the pertinent data utilized in the valuation analysis and the methodology of estimating values are included within this report. The attached report contains definitions of terminology, descriptions of Bear Valley Station No. 36003 Denver, Colorado 80236 Adams ms Arana ine ms sou der Bittersweet Station No. 3175 Denver Greeley, Colorado 80633 Dot teas 303-353-6952 El Paso Jefferson Facsimile Latimer Puebla 303-353-6838 EM3FR. INSTITUTE OF RHOPFNT'/ TAXATION M Weld subject property and surrounding area, data base analysis and conclusions. All pertinent data gathered in this study has been summarized in this report. The report contains 28 numbered pages and appendix items. This assignment has been completed in conformity with the Professional Ethics and Standards of the Society of Real Estate Appraisers. The report is subject to the limiting conditions and certifications contained herein. Based on this appraisal analysis, it is concluded that the value of the subject property, as of June 30, 1988, is: ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,500,000) Sincerely, Fenton, Greiner & Yates, Inc. Thomas R. Fenton Senior Partner F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYSTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Title Page i Letter of Transmittal Table of Contents iv Description, Analysis and Conclusions Report Summary 1 Purpose of the Analysis 2 Date of Valuation 2 Property Rights Analyzed 3 Identifiction of the Property 3 Neighborhood Description 5 Neighborhood Summary 5 Site Analysis 6 Highest and Best Use 7 Highest and Best Use Analysis 9 Valuation Procedures and Methodology 10 Land Valuation Analysis it Improvement Cost 12 Marshall & Swift Cost Approach 13 Economic Obsolescence Quantification 16 Market Approach Analysis 17 Base Year Trending Analysis 18 Market Approach Base Year Market Transactions 19 Market Approach Adjustment Matrix 21 Correlation and Final Estimate of Value 22 Final Estimate of Value 24 Contingent and Limiting Conditions 25 Certification 27 Qualifications of Thomas R. Fenton 28 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYSTS REPORT SUMMARY Purpose of the Analysis: To establish a supportable estimate of market value for 41 the subject property. Function of the Analysis: Property tax appeal. Property Rights Analyzed: Fee simple. Date of Value: June 30, 1988. Gross Land Area 4.36 acres. Gross Building Area: 68,520 square feet. Improvement Use. Apartment Building. Highest and Best Use: As Improved. Final Estimate of Value: $1,500,000 Page - 1 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYSTS PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS The purpose of this analysis is to establish a supportable estimate of market value of an office building previously identified, which is located in Weld County Colorado. "Market Value", as used in this study, is defined as follas: "Reasonable market value" means the fair, actual, cash market value of the property. It is the price the property could have been sold for on the open market under the usual and ordinary circumstances, that is, under those circumstances where the owner was willing to sell and the purchaser was willing to buy, but neither was under an obligation to do so. (Source: Colorado Jury Instructions - 2nd No. 33:3) Implicit in this definition are the following assumptions: - buyer and seller are typically motivated; - both parties are well-informed or well-advised, and each is acting in what he considers his own best interest; - a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; - payments are made in terms of cash or its equivalent; - financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the community for property of this type at the specified date; and - the price represents a normal consideration for the property sold, unaffected by special financing amount and/or terms, services, fees, costs, or credits incurred in the transactions. DATE OF VALUATION The effective date of the analysis is June 30, 1988. The value estimate contained in this report is based on market data from the period January 1, 1987 through June 30, 1988. Any pre-base year data is specifically noted as such, and has been trended with respect to the directives of the State Property Tax Administrator. Page - 2 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYSTS PROPERTY RIGHTS ANALYZED The property rights appraised in this study are those of the unencumbered fee simple estate. No further consideration has been given to any division of interest, fractional interests, or partial interests unless otherwise noted. The definitions of "fee simple" is as follows: "An absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations of eminent domain,escheat,police power and taxation." (Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, AIREA, 1984, Page 123 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY Type of Property: The subject property is an apartment consisting of 68,520 square feet, all situated on - a site of 4.36 acres. Street Address: 3207 West 7th Street, Greeley, Colorado. Tax Identification: The property is identified in the records of the Weld County Assessor as parcel R1746386. Page - 3 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYSTS Legal Description: The property is legally described in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Weld County, State of Colorado, as follows: Lot 5 Kaufmann-McPherson Subdivision Page - 4 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPR AISERS / ANALYSTS NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION The subject property is located in Greeley, Colorado. The boundaries of the subject neighborhood are 4th Street on the north, 35th Avenue on the west, Franklin School on the south, and a municipal park on the east. A diversity of uses predominate in the area, with primary uses being small multi- family and single family residential. The character of the neighborhood is stable as a result of the somewhat built-out nature of the residential uses. Strong local control over development area clear indication that future growth will be homogeneous with current uses. The economic malaise which has impacted the entire front range, and caused a general cessation to substantial new development has severely impacted the subject neighborhood. The weakness of the apartment/multi-family market in Greeley is very similar to the situation in Fort Collins and metropolitan Denver. NEIGHBORHOOD SUMMARY The subject neighborhood is well located overall, and exhibits some stability with respect to future development. Consideration for the abundance of multi-family vacancies, couples with a decline in rental income, creates an intensely chaotic market imbalance,which has impacted overall value. The subject neighborhood will undoubtedly recover in four to five years as the decline in new construction starts causes an equilibrium between supply and demand. Page - 5 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYSTS SITE ANALYSIS Location: The subject property is located at 3207 West 7th Street in Greeley, Colorado, on a site of 4.36 acres. Topography: The site is reasonably level and at grade with adjacent streets and other improved sites. Some open water drainage exists, but does not substantively impact the subject. Surface Conditions: No soil survey or engineer's report has been made available for review. To the best of the appraiser's knowledge, there are no known soil or sub-soil conditions, potentially hazardous materials or toxic waste problems which adversely effect economic use of the property. It is assumed that the site may be developed to its highest and best use providing proper planning, engineering and construction practices are observed. Summary: The subject site is well located with respect to residential uses, with immediate access to major collector/arterial streets. The relationship of frontage to depth is typical for parcels of this size. There are no nuisances or hazards present which adversely impact the site, and none are expected in the future. Access and exposure are good. Utilities are available to the site. Topography is level. Overall, the site is a good developmental site. Page - 6 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYSTS HIGHEST AND BEST USE • The highest and best use of a property is defined as: 1. The reasonable and probable use that supports the highest present value of vacant land or improved property,as of the date of the appraisal. 2. The reasonably probable and legal use of land or sites as though vacant, found to be physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest present land value. 3. The most probable use. Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, AIREA, Page 152 The definition of highest and best use applies to the use of a site as though vacant, as well as to the total property as improved. When a site contains improvements, the highest and best use may be determined to be different from the existing value. The existing use will typically continue unless and until the land value in its highest and best use exceeds the sum of the value of the entire property in its existing use plus the cost to remove the improvements. Implicit in this definition, is that the determination of the highest and best use of a property takes into account the contribution of a specific use to the community and community development goals as well as the benefits of that use to individual property owners. The determination of highest and best use and best use is based upon the appraiser's judgement and analytical skill because the use determined from " analysis is representative of opinion, not a fact to be found. In appraisal practice, the concept of highest and best use represents the premise upon which value is based. Page - 7 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANAL YSTS The analysis to determine a property's highest and best use of land as though vacant and as improved would include the following: Physically Possible: The size, shape and topography affect the uses to which land may be developed. The utility of a parcel is dependent on its frontage and depth. Sites with irregular shapes may be more expensive to develop, and topography or subsoil conditions may make utilization too costly or restrictive. Highest and best use as improved also depends on physical characteristics such as condition and utility. Legally Permissible: A legally permissible use is determined primarily by current zoning regulations. However, other considerations such as long-term leases, deed restrictions, and environmental regulations may preclude some possible highest and best uses. Financially Feasible: The use of the property is analyzed to make a determination as to the likelihood that the property is capable of producing a return which is greater than the combined income needed to satisfy operating expenses, debt service and capital amortization. Any use that is expected to produce a positive return is classified as financially feasible. Maximally Productive: The use that provides the highest rate of return among financially feasible uses, is the highest and best use. The use of the land must yield a profitable net return, and the quantity of land devoted to any specific use must be limited to that quantity which will yield a maximum return to each owner within a specific area. The use producing the highest rate of return to the land as though vacant, and to the property as improved are considered separately in this evaluation analysis. Page - 8 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYSTS Highest and Best Use Analysis As Though Vacant: 4 The subject site could accommodate various uses under the existing zoning. All of these uses would be physically possible, legally permissible and financially feasible. Varying degrees of maximally productive uses would be dependent on the use selected. The question of profitable demand at the subject site sufficient to attain a maximally productive status restricts the probable uses due to the location of the site. Immediately adjacent land is developed with multi-family/single family uses, and it would seem probable to expect residential uses, for example, to be successful. After analyzing all relevant factors, the highest and best use of the subject site as though vacant would be as a medium density multi-family development. As Improved: The subject improvement is an apartment structure. Though there is considerable weakness in the office market, the existing use will remain the highest and best use until land value exceeds the total value of the property in its existing use, including the cost to remove the improvements. Conclusion: After a review of surrounding uses, the potential for the site as though vacant, and as improved, the most appropriate conclusion for highest and best use is as currently improved, an apartment structure. Page - 9 F E N T 0 N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYSTS VALUATION PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY Current appraisal standards recognize three basic approaches to real estate value. These are identified as the Cost, Direct Sales Comparison and Income Capitalization approaches. - 1 The Cost Approach: The Cost Approach to value is developed by two fundamental opinions; value of the land and value of the improvements to the land. Initially, the current fair market value of the land is estimated as if unimproved and capable of being put to its highest and best use. The reproduction or replacement cost new of the improvements, less and accrued depreciation, is then added along with any contributory value of the site improvements. The validity of the resulting value estimate is impacted to varying degrees by the accuracy of the cost estimates and depreciation estimation. The Direct Sales Comparison Approach: The Direct Sales Comparison Approach is based on comparison between the subject property and similar properties which sold within the applicable period (January 1, 1987 - June 30, 1988). Unites of comparison are examined and developed and after making the appropriate adjustment, are applied to the subject to derive an indication of value. Critical in this valuation methodology, is the availability of sufficient market comparables with which to make valid comparisons. The Income Approach: The Income Capitalization Approach measures value by capitalization of the net income from the real estate. The potential gross income is first estimated based on data derived directly from the market. Deductions are then made for vacancy and collection loss, and normal operation expenses. The resulting net income figure is then converted to a value estimate by any one of several capitalization methods. This approach is not permitted under statute for department uses. Page - 10 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALL YSTS LAND VALUATION ANALYSIS Five methodologies may be employed in the valuation of vacant land. These methods are: Direct Sales Comparison'Method: This is the technique most frequently utilized and requires the comparing, weighing and relating of sales data to the land being valued. This technique is most appropriate when there exists a data base sufficient to make meaningful analysis and comparisons. Allocation Method: This technique provides for a distribution between land and building values where the total price paid for the property is known and the price corresponds to value. Land Lease Capitalization Method: This technique relies upon leases for vacant land, and after a complete analysis of the lease information, capitalization of the income stream provides an indication of the land value. Anticipated Use or Development Method: This technique, most generally applicable to vacant and undeveloped land, provides for the estimation of the total property value as if the land were subdivided and sold, less the cost of development. Land Residual Method: This technique provides for the capitalization into value of a residual income stream imputable to the land, as derived from an overall property income less the construction cost of the structure. The resulting residual income can then be capitalized to provide an indication of value. The selection of those techniques most applicable to the valuation on hand is based on the quality and quantity of the data available. Each valuation technique was considered in the valuation of the subject property, and after determining the applicable strengths and weaknesses of each, it was determined that the clearest indication of value would be provided by the Direct Sales Comparison Method. An analysis of sales data indicated an overall value of$290,000 for the subject site. Page - 11 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANAL YSTS IMPROVEMENT COST The cost approach is one method of measuring the market value of real property. Its premise is that the value of the property may be measured by the cost of producing a substitute, competing propertyoof equivalent utility to the property being appraised. Two elements are necessary to determine the cost of producing a substitute property of equivalent utility: 1) the cost of obtaining an equivalent building site; 2) the cost of creating a building with equivalent utility to the building under appraisal (replacement cost new). An indication of market value results when accrued depreciation, if present, is deducted from the replacement cost new, and this figure is added to the land value. The current construction cost estimate of the subject improvements is based on the replacement cost, i.e., the total cost of construction required to replace the subject improvement with a substitute of like quality. These costs include labor, materials, supervision, contractor's profit and overhead, architect's plans and specifications, sales taxes and insurance. In estimating the replacement cost new of the subject improvements, the Marshall and Swift commercial/industrial cost system was utilized. This system was refined to reflect the Denver/Boulder market based on actual reported construction costs during the applicable base period. Refinements were made to reflect actual construction costs. A strong positive correlation exists between Marshall and Swift and actual construction costs. The key is proper identification of building use and type. Accrued depreciation has been analyzed extensively using in excess of four hundred commercial sales during the applicable period. Each building represented yielded an indication of value loss from its replacement cost new, and in turn Marshall and Swift depreciation schedules were refined to reflect the pattern loss occurring in the Denver/Boulder market. Market value as measured by the cost approach is demonstrated on the following pages. Page - 12 Property Owner : Colonial, Arms Associates, Ltd Address : 3207 W 7th Street City, State, ZIP: Greeley, Colorado orado 60634 Surveyed by : -7 RF Date of Survey : 2-23-90 Occupancy: Multiple Residence r loor'- Area: 68, 520 square feet Number of storms: 2.0 Class: Frame Average story height: 8.0 feet Comet rank : Average Effective aye: 17 years Cast as n F : 6/88 Heating and Cooling : Hot Water" 100Z Other features: Sprinklers serving 68, `_20 square feet ------ - __.._.._.. ..,.... . .....w_.,._, Units Cost Total ,. _. •••• Ilasic structure cost 68, 520 -- -- e,.9.44 2,017,228 Site Improvements 15,000 Swimming Fool 16,599 Asphalt Paving „ • • • 21,055 Clubhouse 75,58* Subtotal 128,239 keplacement Cast New 2, 145,467 Less Depreciation : Physical _ <20.07.> <429,093> L.ocationa 1. <15.07.> <321 ,820> 1 ot.arl Depreciation , . . . . . . . . . . . <35.4%; <750,913> Depreciated Cost 1 ,394, 554 Miscellaneous: Lark! 7ot��l 290,900 Cost data by MARSHALL and SWIFT F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYSTS Depreciation Analysis: Accrued depreciation is defined as the difference between the cost of replacement new, as of the date of the appraisal, and the value assigned to the improvements. Accrued depreciation occurs in three forms: physical deterioration, functional obsolescence, and economic obsolescence. The fast two categories can be either curable or incurable, while the latter is extemal to the property. Physical Deterioration: This type of depreciation is treated in two classes. A curable depreciation item is one of rehabilitation which, if immediately accomplished, would place the buildings in optimum condition. The balance of physical deterioration is treated as incurable because it is not economically feasible or profitable to replace or cure the condition on the date of the appraisal. The subject building has physical deterioration which has been recognized in the Marshall and Swift depreciation application as 20% of the replacement cost new. Functional Obsolescence: This type of depreciation involves impairment of function, capacity or efficiency and reflects the loss in value brought about by deficiencies or overcapacity. No curable or incurable functional obsolescence was noted by the appraiser. Economic Obsolescence: Economic obsolescence is usually classified as incurable over the short-term, since it is caused by factors external to the property. Market comparisons can be utilized to measure economic obsolescence through the determination of market-related valuation loss as a result of any number of economic factors. Page - 14 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPR AISERS / ANALYSTS Since economic obsolescence affects the total property, the obsolescence attributable to the building must be isolat-d. With specific regard to the subject, a substantial glut of existing apartment space, as well as new construction, has caused a diminution in market value for the following reasons: 1. Absorption of available space has declined due to the increased availability of competitive facilities. 2. Increased competition has caused a decline in overall occupancy. 3. Operational expenses, primarily marketing costs, have increased as facilities attempt to tap the limited tenant pool. 4. Overall rental rates have declined as a direct result of the competition, prevalent in the market, as owners attempt to minimize variance in rates and rely on amenities to sway consumer choices. Page - 15 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYSTS Overall economic obsolescence is estimated at 15%, based on comparisons in rental rate decline, vacancy increases, absorption declines, and subsequent market value diminution. This impact must be reflected in the cost approach analysis, and as such, excess depreciation as a result of economic obsolescence is indicated as appropriate and equitable. A quantification and summary of the cost approach follow: 41 ECONOMIC OBSOLESCENCE QUANTIFICATION Estimated Annual Net Operating Income If Not Subject To Economic Obsolescence: $ 453,600 Estimated Annual Net Operating Income Based On Economic Rent: $ 406,274 Annual Net Income Loss Due To External Obsolescence: • $ 47,326 Capitalized Net Income Loss ($47,326 Divided By 12.5%) $ 378,612 Portion Attributable To Building: 85/0 Amount Of Economic Obsolescence Attributable To Building: $ 321,820 Cost Approach Economic Obsolescence Quantification: $ 321,820 It is important to note that until this year, the Assessor has also applied 15% economic obsolescence to this property. Page - 16 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANAL YSTS MARKET APPROACH ANALYSIS The market approach to value involves direct comparisons of the property being appraised to sitnilar properties which transacted in the same or similar market in order to derive a market value indication for the property being appraised. The comparative sales Jroach rests on the principle of substitution, which states that no commodity has a value greater than that for which a similar commodity- offering similar uses, similar utility, and similar function- can be purchased within reasonable time limits that the buyer demands. In other words, the market value of a property is set by the price of acquiring a substitute property which could provide the owner with similar and competitive utility characteristics. The use of units of comparison is an effective device to adjust for differences in physical characteristics, and allows for analysis of the impact of other property variables when sales are reduced to a common denominator. Sales comparables utilized in this analysis have been adjusted to the date of the appraisal, and only those sales which are indicative of arms-length, market transaction have been utilized. After having reduced each sale to a comparable price per unit, the appraiser then evaluates the relative utility of each comparable in relation to the subject and arrives at a probable sales price for the subject property by sales comparison. Current analysis provides a variety of market data as a basis for the comparison process. The factors to be considered in a direct sales comparison are referred to as elements of comparison. These four major adjustment factors include the following: Time of Sale Location of Sale Property Physical Characteristics Conditions of Sale The appraiser has obtained information regarding sales of similar property types which have been acquired by investors in the Front Range. Each of the sales has been analyzed in order to develop units of comparison for estimating the value of the subject. Comparison of the sale properties to the subject involved various adjustments for time, location, physical characteristics, and terms of sale. Page - 17 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANAL YSTS BASE YEAR TRENDING ANALYSIS With the advent of the 1986 federal tax reform legislation which effectively diminished most investor tax benefits for apartment buildings, market value declines have been the rule. Market trending by Coldwell Banker Real Estate Group for the northern Colorado area (including Greley) has demonstrated total apartment value declines exceeding 35% between 1984 and 1988. This rate of decline is pervasive throughout the front range, where average sales prices per unit have declined between 29% and 38%. Discussions with investors, brokers and developers have portrayed the market has largely inert, with declines continuing through 1990. The overall decline can be measured in a straight-line fashion, and it is critical that all pre-base year data be adjusted in accordance with the directives of the state property tax administrator, and trended to June 30, 1988. Economic obsolescence as measured by this market decline, must be reflected in the final value assignment for the subject parcel. The following sales have been selected as most appropriate, providing an insight into the valuation of the subject. It is relevant to note that the subject sold on May 1983 at $21,990 per unit. After application of appropriate measures of market decline (35%), the time adjusted sale price of the subject coincides with the comparable sale analysis at $14,000 per unit. Page - 18 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYSTS MARKET APPROACH BASE YEAR MARKET TRANSACTIONS Comparable #1 Address: "A01 2nd Street Number of Units: 112 Sale Date: 6/84 Sale Price: $1,700,000 Sale Price/Unit: $15,179 Comparable #2 Address: 1900 11th Avenue Number of Units: 30 Sale Date: 9/85 Sale Price: $522,500 Sale Price/Unit: $17,417 Comparable #3 Address: 1200 29th Street Number of Units: 36 Sale Date: 8/84 Sale Price: $750,000 Sale Price/Unit: $20,833 Comparable #4 Address: 2215 West 8th Ave Number of Units: 31 Sale Date: 10/87 Sale Price: $600,000 Sale Price/Unit: $19,354 Comparable #5 Address: Cedaridge Number of Units: 342 Sale Date: 12/85 Sale Price: $6,000,000 Sale Price/Unit: $17,543 Page - 19 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYSTS Comparable #6 Address: 1200 28th Avenue Number of Units: 82 Sale Date: 8/84 Sale Price: $1,875,000 Sale Price/Unit: $22,866 --$ Comparable #7 Address: 1906 11th Avenue Number of Units: 18 Sale Date: 9/85 Sale Price: $192,500 Sale Price/Unit: $10,694 Comparable #8 Address: 1931 11th Avenue Number of Units: 34 Sale Date: 9/85 Sale Price: $660,000 Sale Price/Unit: $19,411 Page - 20 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYSTS MARKET APPROACH ADJUSTMENT MATRIX Sale Adj Price/ Location Time Quality Sale Pr/ "I Unit Adj Adj Adj Unit Comp #1 $15,179 -35% -5% $9,107 Comp #2 $17,417 +5% -24% +5% $14,979 Comp #3 $20,833 -5% -34% +10% $14,791 Comp #4 $19,354 -5% -6% +10% $19,160 Comp #5 $17,543 -22% -10% $11,929 Comp #6 $22,866 +10% -34% +10% $19,665 Comp #7 $10,694 +5% -24% +5% $9,197 Comp #8 $19,411 +5% -24% +5% $16,693 Adjusted Range Per Unit: $9,107 - $19,665 Mean Per Unit: $14,440 Median Per Unit: $14,885 Based on an analysis of all applicable physical and locational characteristics, as well as a comparative analysis of the comparables vis-a-vis the subject, an overall rate per unit of$14,000 is determined to be an appropriate measure of market value. TOTAL INDICATED VALUE BY THE MARKET APPROACH:-> $1,512,000 ($14,000 * 108 Units) Page - 21 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYSTS CORRELATION AND FINAL ESTIMATE OF VALUE The three approaches to value have been extensively detailed in this appraisal analysis. A summary of the conclusions of each of these individual approaches indicates the following: Cost Approach: $1,685,400 The cost of reproducing or replacing the subject property, less depreciation from all sources, plus the land value as determined through market comparison. Income Approach: N /A The value which can be supported by the property's net earning capacity, based upon a capitalization of the net income. Market Approach: $1,512,000 The value as indicated by recent sales of comparable properties, as adjusted to account for all differences in physical, locational and financial characteristics. The final step in the appraisal process is the correlation of the three approaches in such a way as to detail the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. In evaluating these approaches, the appraiser has taken into account the purpose of the appraisal, the quality and quantity of the appraisal data, and the type of property. These considerations have provided indications of the weight given to each approach. Page - 22 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYST' S Cost Approach • The value indication from the cost approach is based on construction data which has been extensively adjusted to provide a high degree of reliability with specific regard for the Denver market. Additionally, all applicable forms of depreciation have been deducted based on market data, to adequately portray the relative position of the subject property within the market. The subject property is an income producing property, and as such, the cost approach tends to set the upper limit of value. Though given the least relative weight, the cost approach serves as a check on the value estimate provided by the market approach. Income Approach The most important concern to a potential investor is the quantity, quality and durability of the income stream for a given property. For income producing properties, the income approach provides a high degree of reliability, and thus this approach has been given the great weight in this appraisal analysis. This approach is not allowed by statute. Market Approach The market approach examines the historical nature of the market, and when there is sufficient data regarding a property's sale specifics, and the known physical and locational characteristics of any given property, adjustments can be made which provide conclusive evidence of a property's value. In this instance, the market approach to value has sufficient data to provide a strong indication of value, and as such has been given substantial weight in the final valuation conclusion, based on the appropriate sales trending of the pre-base year data. Summary Of the data available, the preponderance of supportable data was present in the market and cost approaches. After considering all available data, it is my conclusion that the fair market value of the subject property as of June 30, 1988 is as follows: Page - 23 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYSTS FINAL ESTIMATE OF VALUE Of the data available, the preponderance of supportable data was present in the market and cost approaches. After considering all available data, it is the conclusion of FENTON GREINER & YATES INC that the fair market value of the subject property as of June 30, 1988 is as follows: ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,550,000) BASED ON THE DATA, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS APPRAISAL ANALYSIS Page - 24 F E N T O N , GREINER & Y ATE S A PPRAISERS / ANALYSTS CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This appraisal analysis is subject to the following contingent and limiting conditions: 1. Fenton, Greiner & Yates Inc. has no present or contemplated future interest in the real estate that is the subject of this appraisal analysis. 2. To the best of our knowledge and belief, the statements of fact contained in this report, upon which the analyses, opinions and conclusions expressed herein are based, are true anc correct. 3. This appraisal analysis sets forth all of the limiting conditions affecting the analyses, opinions and conclusions of this report. 4. Sketches in the report are intended to be visual aids and should not be construed as surveys or engineering reports. 5. All information in this study has been obtained from reliable sources. The writers cannot, however, guarantee or be responsible for the accuracy of information furnished by others. 6. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not imply the right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the addressee, without the written consent of Fenton, Greiner & Yates Inc. Further, neither all nor any part of this report shall be disseminated to the general public by the use of advertising media, public relations media, news media, sales media or other media for public communications without the prior written consent of Fenton, Greiner & Yates Inc. 7. The staff of Fenton, Greiner & Yates Inc. shall not be required to give testimony or attendance in any hearing, legal tribunal or court by reason of this appraisal analysis unless prior arrangements have been made in writing. 8. This report may be distributed by the client for whom it was prepared, in ints entirety, to such third parties as may be selected by the client. However, neither the entire report or selected portions of the report may not be given by or to third parties without the prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. Page - 25 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYSTS 9. No opinion as to title is rendered. Data on ownership and legal description of the property being appraised were obtained from sources generally considered reliable. Title is assumed to be marketable and free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, easements, and restrictions except those specifically discussed in this report. No responsibility for legal matters is assumed. 10. No environmental or impact study, special market or feasibility study has been requested or made. The analyst reserves the unlimited right to alter, amend, revise, or rescind any of the statements, findings, opinions, values, estimates, or conclusions upon any subsequent such study or analysis which become available to the analyst. 11. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the analysts. The value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no potentially hazardous materials which may affect the value of the property. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. 12. The value estimate contained in this report is based on market data from the period January 1, 1987 through June 30, 1988. Any pre-base year data is specifically noted as such, and has been trended with respect to the directives of the State Property Tax Administrator. Page - 26 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANAL YSTS CERTIFICATION Fenton, Greiner & Yates, does hereby certify the following: y,y+ 1. The statements of fact contained within this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analysis, opinion, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are the personal, professional analyses, opinions and conclusions of Fenton, Greiner & Yates Inc. 3. Fenton, Greiner & Yates Inc. has no present or contemplated future interest in the real estate that is the subject of this appraisal analysis. 4. The compensation of Fenton, Greiner & Yates Inc. may be in part or total based upon potential savings that may result from a reduction in the subject assessment. 5. The analyses, opinion, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared in conformance with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Society of Real Estate Appraisers. FENTON, GREINER & YATES INC. THOMAS R. FENTON SENIOR PARTNER Page - 27 F E N T O N , GREINER & YATES APPRAISERS / ANALYSTS QUALIFICATIONS OF THOMAS R. FENTON PROPERTY TAX ANALYST AND REAL ESTATE CONSULTANT EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Bachelor of Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence KS, 1969 Master of Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, 1971. Doctor of Education, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley CO, 1974 TECHNICAL TRAINING American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers - Real Estate Appraisal Principles - Basic Valuation Procedures - Capitalization Theory and Technique, Part A - Capitalization Theory and Technique, Part B Society of Real Estate Appraisers - Professional Practice Seminar International Association of Assessing Officers - Fundamentals of Real Property Appraisal - Income Approach to Valuation - Development and Analysis of Narrative Appraisal Reports - Demonstration Appraisal Report -Residential - National Instructor Tract - Course 2 University of Colorado - 12 course sequence, GRI Designation Real Estate Broker Licenses (Colorado, Kansas and Wyoming) ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIPS Candidate Member, Society of Real Estate Appraisers (SRPA) Candidate Member, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers (MAI) Candidate Member, International Association of Assessing Officers (CAE) Member, National Association of Realtors (GRI) Member, Institute for Property Taxation Page - 28 Hello