The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About971370.tiffRESOLUTION RE: THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 1997, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO - ADJUST VALUE IN PART PETITION OF: ANDERSON CRAIG 19532 WCR 43 LA SALLE, CO 80645 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: PIN: R4077686 PARCEL: 096135000047 - 13535 E2SE4 35 5 65 EXC BEG S1047.18' FROM NE COR OF SE4 N89D56'W 272.25 S180' S89D56'E 272.25' N180' TO BEG 1.125A A/K/A LOT B MINOR SUB #0961 -35 -4 -MS -21 (1.875R) WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, convened 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 1997, 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 1997, claiming that the property described in such petition was assessed too high, as more specifically stated in said petition, and WHEREAS, said petitioner not being present or represented, 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 supported, in part, the value placed upon the property by the petitioner. The assessment and valuation of the Weld County Assessor shall be, and hereby is, adjusted as follows: Land Improvements OR Personal Property TOTAL ACTUAL VALUE ACTUAL VALUE AS DETERMINED ADJUSTED BY ASSESSOR ACTUAL VALUE $ 15,337 $ 15,337 118.801 111.319 $ 134.138 $ 126.656 971370 AS0038 RE: BOE - ANDERSON CRAIG Page 2 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; however, said appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of this resolution: 1. Board of Assessment Appeals: You have the right to appeal the County Board of Equalization's (CBOE's) decision to the Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA). Such hearing is the final hearing at which testimony, exhibits, or any other evidence may be introduced. If the decision of the BAA is further appealed to the Court of Appeals only the record created at the BAA hearing shall be the basis for the Court's decision. No new evidence can be introduced at the Court of Appeals. (Section 39-8-108(10), CRS) Appeals to the BAA must be made on forms furnished by the BAA, and should be mailed or delivered within thirty (30) days of denial by the 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. (Section 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. (Section 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. 971370 AS0038 RE: BOE - ANDERSON CRAIG Page 3 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 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 18th day of July, A.D., 1997. eputy Clerk o he Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD ONTY, 7ORADO Geory�s-. Baxter, Chair ��✓ Pro - e Constance L. Harbert, Pro- em EXCUSED Dale K. Hall EXCUSED Barbara J. Kirkmeyer W. H. Webster 971370 AS0038 ANDERSON CRAIG 19532 WCR 43 LA SALLE, CO 80645 HEARING DAT L./FEARING ATTE AGENT NAME: APPRAISER NAME DECISION: Land BOE SUMMARY SHEET Improvements OR Personal Property Total Actual Value PIN #: R4077686 PARCEL #: 096135000047 TIME: 8:30 a.m. NAME ACTUAL VALUATION ORIGINAL SET BY BOARD /x 3 118,801 ///, 3/9_ $ 15,337 $134,138 COMMENTS: MOTION BY e____742- TO 476, l/di/ /4 SECONDED BY SO Failed to prove appropriate value No comparables given Increase/Decrease in Valuation Assessment Ratio Other: RESOLUTION NC Hall --.HJ) Kirkmeyer Webster - ) Harbert - ) / Baxter 1 / 971370 July 11, 1997 ANDERSON CRAIG 19532 WCR 43 LA SALLE, CO 80645 Dear Petitioner(s): CLERK TO THE BOARD PHONE (970) 356-4000 EXT.4218 FAX: (970) 352-0242 915 10TH STREET P.O. BOX 758 GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 Parcel No.: 096135000047 PIN No.: R4077686 The Weld County Board of Equalization has set a date of Friday, July 18, 1997, 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. A number of hearings have been scheduled at this time; peitioners will be asked to sign in with the Clerk upon arrival, and cases will be heard on a first come / first heard basis. You have a right to attend this hearing and present evidence to the Board in support of your petition. The Weld County Assessor or his representative will be present. The Board will make its decision on the basis of the record made at said hearing, as well as your petition, so it would be in your interest to have a representative present. If you plan to be represented by an agent or an attorney at your hearing, prior to the hearing you shall provide, in writing to the Clerk to the Board's Office, an authorization for the agent or attorney to represent you. If you do not choose to attend this hearing, a decision will still be made by the Board by the close of business on August 5, 1997, and mailed to you on or before August 10, 1997. Because of the volume of cases before the Board of Equalization, all cases shall be limited to 15 minutes, of which you will be allowed 10 minutes for your presentation. 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. ANDERSON CRAIG - R4077686 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 Clerk to the Board BY: arol A. Harding Deputy Clerk to the Board cc: Warren Lasell, Assessor WILD C. COLORADO ANDERSON CRAIG 19532 WCR 43 LA SALLE, CO 80645 NOTICE OF DENIAL 13535 E2SE4 35 5 65 EXC BEG S1047.18' FROM NE COR OF SE4 N89D56'W 272.25' S180' S89D56'E 272.25' N180' TO BEG 1.125A A/K/A LOT B MINOR SUB #0961 -35 -4 -MS -2S (1.875R) OWNER: ANDERSON CRAIG 06/30/1997 LOG PARCEL ACCOUNT YEAR 4750 096135000047 R4077686 1997 OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR 1400 NORTH 17th AVE. GREELEY, CO 80631 PHONE (970) 353-3845, EXT. 3650 The appraisal 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): AGRICULTURAL LAND VALUE IS DETERMINED SOLEY BY THE EARNING OR PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF THE LAND, CAPITALIZED AT A RATE SET BY LAW. 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 determined the valuation(s) assigned to your property. The reasons for this defemination of value are: YOUR PROPERTY HAS BEEN UNIFORMLY VALUED FOLLOWING COLORADO LAW AND INSTRUCTIONS PUBLISHED BY THE STATE DIVISION OF PROPERTY TAXATION. YOUR PROTEST OF VALUE HAS BEEN DENIED DUE TO COMPARISON OF OTHER SIMILAR PROPERTIES WHICH SOLD DURING THE 1995/1996 TIME PERIOD. THIS COMPARISON SHOWS YOUR ACTUAL PROPERTY VALUE TO BE CORRECT FOR THAT PERIOD. PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION PETITIONER'S ESTIMATE OF VALUE ASSESSOR'S VALUATION ACTUAL VALUE PRIOR TO REVIEW ACTUAL VALUE AFTER REVIEW LAND IMPS 15337 118801 15337 118801 TOTALS $ $ $ 11411 Lli1' 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- 06(1)(a), C.R.S. Please see the back of this form for detailed information on filing your appeal. By: I5-DPT-AR Form PR -207-87/94 WARREN L. LASELL WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR 06/n/1997 DATE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE &! X15 YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE ASSESSOR'S DECISION The County Board of Equalization will sit to hear appeals beginning July 1 and continuing through August 5 for real property (land and buildings) and personal property (furnishings, machinery, and equipment) 39-8-104 and 39-8- 107(2), C.R.S. APPEAL PROCEDURES: If you choose to appeal the Assessor's decision you must appeal to the County Board of Equalization. To preserve your right to appeal, your appeal must be POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED ON OR BEFORE JULY 15 FOR REAL PROPERTY, AND JULY 21 FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY. WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 915 10th Street, P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Telephone (970)356-4000 Ext. 4225 NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: You will be notified of the time and place set for the hearing of your appeal. COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION'S DETERMINATION: The County Board of Equalization must make a decision on your appeal and mail you a determination within five business days. The County Board must conclude their hearings by August 5. TAXPAYER RIGHTS FOR FURTHER APPEALS: If you are not satisfied with the County Board of Equalization's decision you must file within thirty days of the County Board of Equalization's written decision with ONE of the following: Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA): Contact the BAA at 1313 Sherman, Room 315, Denver, Colorado 80203, (303)866-5880. District Court: 9th Avenue and 9th Street, P.O. Box C Greeley, Colorado 80632 Telephone (970) 356-4000, Ext. 4520 Arbitration: WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 915 10th Street, P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Telephone (970) 356-4000, Ext. 4225 If you do not receive a determination from the County Board of Equalization, you must file an appeal with the Board of Assessment Appeals by September 11. TO PRESERVE YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS, YOU MUST PROVE YOU HAVE FILED A TIMELY APPEAL; THEREFORE, WE RECOMMEND ALL CORRESPONDENCE BE MAILED WITH PROOF OF MAILING. PETITION TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION In the space below, please explain why you disagree with the Assessor's valuation. IN ACCORDANCE WITH 39- 8-106(1.5), C.R.S., YOU MUST STATE YOUR OPINION OF VALUE IN TERMS OF A SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNT. Attach additional documents as necessary. r,. I O Z Op (, 0OO � See. A0130® w\ O,5\3:Lk.�� SIGNAL UNE OF PEItNi,IONER J DA I V.. N yoov- c\G �S Appraisal of Esther Ferguson Estate Weld County, Colorado for William E. Bohlender Attorney at Law 1327 10 Avenue Greeley CO 80631 970/356-6666 Date of Value: October 27, 1995 Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA 800 8th Avenue, Suite 219 Greeley CO 80631 BUD CLEMONS ARA, SRA O Z a 7 Ill 0 im w ad Lo EN m�a IL CrZ 0LLa - m w�a fuai BR to 7¢ U O¢ Cc a z a a U 7 W January 19, 1996 U Q U _U U L O 00 cu . > O ¢ U E O T co I- U — V i U r.2 Statement for Professional Services Rendered: Esther Ferguson Estate 800 8th Avenue, Suite 219, Greeley CO 80631 - 970-356-5633 Appraisal of Esther Ferguson Estate Weld County, Colorado for William E. Bohlender Attorney at Law 1327 10 Avenue Greeley CO 80631 970/356-6666 Date of Value: October 27, 1995 Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA 800 8th Avenue, Suite 219 Greeley CO 80631 BUD CLEMONS, ARA, SRA MEMBER OF AMERICAN SOCIETY FARM MANAGERS AND RURAL APPRAISERS MEMBER OF APPRAISAL INSTITUTE January 19, 1996 William E. Bohlender Attorney at Law 1327 10 Avenue Greeley CO 80631 gad (Cprtctt 4beaurer and Consultant RE: Appraisal of Esther Ferguson Estate located at 24393 WCR 47 in Weld County Dear Mr. Bohlender: As requested, I have inspected the above referenced property located in Weld County, Colorado for the purpose of estimating the Market Value of the real property, excluding minerals, on an "As Is" and cash, or cash equivalent, basis. This is a summary appraisal report of a complete appraisal performed on the subject property and the process of estimating value was performed without invoking the Departure Provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). I have made a thorough study of the property and the information contained in this report. All data used in the compilation of the report was obtained by myself and is assumed to be correct. As you read through this report, it is important to remember that many of the numbers have been rounded. The appraiser's assignment was not based on a required minimum valuation, a specific valuation or the approval of a loan. At this time I do not feel the property is affected by recent ADA legislation. There are no public buildings on the subject property and the farm work is generally done by family members, or by someone having the demanding physical qualifications such work requires. After careful consideration of all the data reviewed, and its relationship to the value of the real property being appraised it is my considered judgment that the Fee Simple Estate of the subject property, on an "As Is" basis, as of October 27, 1995 is properly expressed as follows: TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($233,000) 800 8TH AVENUE -SUITE 219 GREELEY. COLORADO 80631 PH. 303-356-5633 I have not examined, and do not pass upon title to, nor make any representations concerning liabilities against the property appraised. The supporting data and conclusions upon which this value is based are contained in the following report. I trust you will find the report complete and comprehensive. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, (b 11_ .—•.tom Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA Colorado General Certified Appraiser #CG01313862 BC/Ijc Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA it TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter of Transmittal Table of Contents iii Summary of Salient Facts iv Limiting Conditions and Assumptions v FACTUAL DATA Introduction 1 Scope of the Appraisal 1 Objective of the Appraisal 2 Purpose of the Appraisal 2 Function of the Appraisal 3 Date of Value 3 Property Rights Appraised 3 Minerals 3 Definition of "Market Value" 3 Statement of Disclosure 4 Competency of the Appraiser 4 GENERAL AND ECONOMIC BACKGROUND 5 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION 6 SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 7 HIGHEST AND BEST USE 13 APPRAISAL PROCESS 16 COST APPROACH 29 INCOME APPROACH 33 DIRECT SALES COMPARISON APPROACH 39 RECONCILIATION AND FINAL ESTIMATE OF VALUE 42 APPRAISERS' CERTIFICATION 43 QUALIFICATIONS OF BUD CLEMONS 44 Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons. ARA, SRA iii Owner of Record: Location: Legal Description: Size: Zoning: Highest & Best Use: SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS Esther Ferguson Four miles east of LaSalle 24393 WCR 47 EfhSEf/a, Section 35, T5N, R65W 78.875+ acres Agricultural Rural homesite/hobby farm Estimates of Value: Cost Approach $233,000 Income Approach $208,000 Direct Sales Comparison Approach $259,000 Conclusion of Value: $233,000 Date of Value: October 27, 1995 Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Demons, ARA, SRA iv LIMITING CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS By this notice, all persons and firms reviewing, utilizing or relying on this report in any manner bind themselves to accept these assumptions and limiting conditions. Do not use this report if you do not so accept. These conditions are a part of the appraisal report, they are a preface to any certification, definition, fact or analysis, and are intended to establish as a matter of record that the appraiser's function is to provide a present market value indication for the subject property based upon the appraiser's observations as to the subject property and real estate market. This appraisal report is an economic study to estimate value as defined in it. It is not an engineering, construction, legal or architectural study nor survey and expertise in these areas, among others, is not implied. 1. Limit of Liability: The liability of Clemons Appraisal Service and employees and affiliated independent contractors is limited to the client only and to the fee actually received by appraiser (total per appraisal). Further, there is no accountability, obligation, or liability to any third party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone other than client, the client shall make such party aware of all limiting conditions and assumptions of the assignment and related discussions. The Appraiser is in no way to be responsible for any costs incurred to discover or correct any deficiencies of any type present in the property; physically, financially, and/or legally. In the case of limited partnerships or syndication offerings or stock offerings in real estate, client agrees that in case of lawsuit (brought by lender, partner or part owner in any form of ownership, tenant, or any other party), any and all awards, settlements of any type in such suit regardless of outcome, client will hold Appraiser completely harmless in any such action. 2 Copies, Publication, Distribution, Use of Report: Possession of this report or any copy thereof does not carry with it the right of publication, nor may it be used for other than its intended use; the physical report(s) remain the property of the Appraiser for the use of the client, the fee being for the analytical services only. The Bylaws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute and the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers require each Member and Candidate to control the use and distribution of each appraisal report signed by such Member or Candidate; except as hereinafter provided, the client may distribute copies of this appraisal report in its entirety to such third parties as he may select; however, selected portions of this appraisal report shall not be given to third parties without the prior written consent of the signatories of this appraisal. However, as a member of the Appraisal Institute and the ASFMRA, the appraiser may be required to submit a copy of this report to certain committees of those organizations for peer review purposes. Further this report may be required for other legal uses such as a court or other legal proceeding. Copies of this report shall not be disseminated to the general public by the use of advertising media, public relations, news, sales or other media for public communication without the prior written consent of appraiser. (See last item following this list for client agreement/consent.) 3. Confidentiality: This appraisal is to be used in its entirety and no part is to be used without the whole report. All conclusions and opinions concerning the analysis as set forth in the report were prepared by the Appraiser(s) whose signature(s) appear on the appraisal report, unless indicated as "Review Appraiser". No change of any item in the report shall be made by anyone other than the Appraiser. The Appraiser and firm shall have no responsibility if any such unauthorized change is made. The Appraiser may not divulge the material (evaluation) contents of the report, analytical findings or conclusions, or give a copy of the report to anyone other than the client or his designee as specified in writing except as may be required by the Appraisal Institute in confidence for ethics enforcement, or by a court of law or body with the power of subpoena. 4. Trade Secrets: This appraisal was obtained from Clemons Appraisal Service and/or its individuals or related independent contractors and consists of "trade secrets and commercial or financial information" which is privileged and confidential and exempted from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Notify the Appraiser(s) signing the report of any request to reproduce this appraisal in whole or part. 5. Information Used: No responsibility is assumed for accuracy of information furnished by work of or work by others, the client, his designee, or public records. I am not liable for such information or the work, of possible subcontractors. Be advised that some of the people associated with Clemons Appraisal Service and possibly signing the report are independent contractors. The comparable data relied upon in this report has been confirmed with one or more parties familiar with the transaction or from affidavit or other source thought reasonable; all are considered appropriate for inclusion to the best of our factual judgment and knowledge. An impractical and uneconomic expenditure of time would be required in attempting to furnish unimpeachable verification in all instances, particularly as to engineering the market - related information. it is suggested that the client consider independent verification as a prerequisite to any transaction involving sale, lease, or other significant commitment of funds or subject property. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA. SRA v 6. Testimony, Consultation, Completion of Contract for Appraisal Service: The contract for appraisal, consultation or analytical service is fulfilled, and the total fee is payable upon completion of the report. The Appraiser(s), or those assisting in preparation of the report, will not be asked or required to give testimony in court or hearing because of having made the appraisal in full or in part, nor engage in post appraisal consultation with client or third parties except under separate and special arrangement and at additional fee. if testimony or deposition is required because of any subpoena, the client shall be responsible for any additional time, fees, and charges regardless of issuing party. 7. Exhibits: The sketches and maps in this report are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property and are not necessarily to crate. Various photos, if any, are included for the same purpose as of the date of the photos. Site plans are not surveys unless shown from separate surveyor. 8. Legal, Engineering, Financial, Structural, or Mechanical Nature Hidden Components, Soil: The appraiser and/or firm has no responsibility for matters legal in character or nature, nor of any architectural, structural, mechanical, or engineering nature. No opinion is rendered as to the title, which is presumed to be good and merchantable. The property is appraised as if free and clear, unless otherwise stated in particular parts of the report. The legal description is assumed to be correct as used in this report as furnished by the client, his designee, or as derived by the Appraiser. Please note that no advise is given regarding mechanical equipment or structural integrity or adequacy, nor soils and potential for settlement, drainage, and such (seek assistance from qualified architect and/or engineer) nor matters concerning liens, title status, and legal marketability (seek legal assistance), and such. The lender and owner should inspect the property before any disbursement of funds; further it is likely that the lender or owner may wish to require mechanical or structural inspections by qualified and license contractor, civil or structural engineer, architect, or other expert. The appraiser has inspected, as far as possible, by observation, the land and the improvements; however, it was not possible to personally observe conditions beneath the soil or hidden structural, or other components. We have not critically inspected mechanical components with the improvements and no representations are made herein as to these matters unless specifically stated and considered in the report. The value estimate considers there being no such conditions that would cause a loss of value. The land or the soil of the area being appraised appears from, however, subsidence in the area is unknown. The Appraiser(s) do not warrant against this condition or occurrence of problems arising from soil conditions. Varying types and amounts of agricultural chemicals may have been applied to the soil of the subject property. The Appraiser(s) have no knowledge as to the amounts or types of agricultural chemicals that may have been applied to the soils of the subject property and therefore accept no responsibility for the same. The appraisal is based on there being no hidden, unapparent, or apparent conditions of the property site, subsoil, or structures of toxic materials which would render it more or less valuable. The appraiser and firm have no responsibility for any such conditions or for any expertise or engineering to discover them. All mechanical components are assumed to be in operable condition and status standard for properties of the subject type. Conditions of heating, cooling, ventilating, electrical and plumbing equipment is considered to be commensurate with the condition of the balance of the improvements unless otherwise stated. No judgment may be made by us as to adequacy of insulation, type of insulation, or energy efficiency of the improvements or equipment which is assumed standard for subject age and type. If the Appraiser has not been supplied with a termite inspection, survey or occupancy permit, no responsibility or representation is assumed or made for any costs associated with obtaining same or for any deficiencies discovered before or after they are obtained. No representation or warranties are made concerning obtaining the above mentioned items. The Appraiser has no responsibility for any costs or consequences arising due to the need, or the lack of need for flood hazard insurance. An Agent for the Federal Flood Insurance Program should be contacted to determine the actual need for Flood Hazard Insurance. 9. Legality of Use: The appraisal is based on the premise that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state and local environmental regulations and laws unless otherwise stated in the report; further, that all applicable zoning, building, use regulations and restrictions of all types have been complied with unless otherwise stated in the report; further, it is assumed that all require licenses, consents, permits, or other legislative or administrative authority, local, state, federal and/or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use considered in the value estimate. 10. Component Values: The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the existing program of utilization. The separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA vi I I. Auxiliary and Related Studies: No environmental or impact studies, special market study or analysis, highest and best used analysis study or feasibility study has been requested or made unless otherwise specified in an agreement for services or in the report. 12. Dollar Values, Purchasing Power: The market value estimated, and the costs used, are as of the date of the estimate of value. All dollar amounts are based on the purchasing power and price of the dollar as of the date of the value estimate. 13. Inclusions: Furnishings and equipment or personal property or business operations, except as specifically indicated, and typically considered as a part of real estate, have been disregarded with only the real estate being considered in the value estimate unless otherwise stated. In some property types, business and real estate interests and values are combined. 14. Proposed Improvements, Conditioned Value: Improvements proposed, if any, on or off -site, as well as any repairs required are considered, for purposes of this appraisal to be completed in good and workmanlike manner according to information submitted and/or considered by the appraisers. In cases of proposed construction, the appraisal is subject to change upon inspection of property after construction is completed. This estimate of market value is as of the date shown, as proposed, as if completed and operating at levels shown and projected. 15. Value Change, Dynamic Market, Influences, Alteration of Estimate by Appraiser: The estimated market value, which is defined in the report, is subject to change with market changes over time; value is highly related to exposure, time, promotional effort, terms, motivation, and conditions surrounding the offering. The value estimate considers the productivity and relative attractiveness of the property physically and economically in the marketplace. In cases of appraisals involving the capitalization of income benefits, the estimate of market value or investment value or value in use is a reflection of such benefits and Appraiser's interpretation of income and yields and other factors derived from general and specific client and market information. Such estimates are as of the date of the estimate of value; they are thus subject to change as the market and value is naturally dynamic. The "Estimate of Market Value" in the appraisal report is not based in whole or in part upon the race, color or national origin of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the property appraised. Appraisal report and value estimate subject to change if physical or legal entity or financing different than that envisioned in this report. 16. Management of the Property: It is assumed that the property which is the subject of this report will be under prudent and competent ownership and management; neither inefficient nor super -efficient. 17. Continuing Education Current: The Appraisal Institute and The American Society of Farm Manager and Rural Appraisers conduct a voluntary program of continuing education for its designated members. SRA and ARA Designates who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic educational certification. As of the date of this report, I, Bud Clemons, SRA have completed the requirements under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. 18. Fee: The fee for this appraisal or study is for the service rendered and not for the time spent on the physical report or the physical report itself. Amount or payment of fee for services is not contingent on any result, approval amount or other estimates or statements. 19. Insulation and Toxic Materials: Unless otherwise stated in this report, the Appraiser(s) signing this report have no knowledge concerning the presence or absence of toxic materials and/or urea -formaldehyde foam insulation in existing improvements; if such is present, the value of the property may be adversely affected and re -appraisal at additional cost necessary to estimate the effects of such. 20. Unless otherwise noted herein, named review Appraiser of/from Clemons Appraisal Service has reviewed the report only as to general appropriateness of technique and subject or market comparable properties. 21. Changes, Modifications: The Appraisers of Clemons Appraisal Service reserve the right to alter statements, analysis, conclusion or any value estimate in the appraisal if there becomes known to us facts pertinent to the appraisal process which were unknown to us when the report was finished. 22. Acceptance of, and/or use of, this appraisal report by client or any third party constitutes acceptance of the above conditions. Appraiser liability extends only to stated client, not subsequent parties or users of any type, and the total liability of appraiser and firm is limited to the amount of fee received by Appraiser. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons. ARA. SRA vii FACTUAL DATA INTRODUCTION This is the written report of an appraisal of the property located west of LaSalle, Colorado performed as authorized by the attorney for the estate of Esther Ferguson, William Bohlender. The report will be presented in the following manner. Factual data regarding information basic to an appraisal is presented in this first section, including a brief description of the area and the neighborhood of the subject, as well as a description of the subject property itself. The second section, Valuation, will be an explanation of the appraisal process and a presentation of comparable properties which have recently sold in the area. These sales will be used in the analysis of the land. Three approaches to the value of the subject property will be developed in this section. The last section, Reconciliation and Final Estimate of Value, will summarize the values developed and a final estimate of value will be concluded. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION This is a summary appraisal report of a complete appraisal performed on the subject property and the process of estimating value was performed without invoking the Departure Provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The Departure Provision permits limited departures to specific guidelines of USPAP, however, it has not been invoked in this appraisal. The appraisal process is an orderly procedure wherein the data utilized in estimating the value of the subject is acquired, classified, analyzed and presented. The first step in this process involves defining the appraisal problem concerning the identification of the real estate, the effective date of valuation, the identification of the property rights being appraised, and the type of value being sought. Once this has been accomplished, the appraiser embarks upon data collection and analysis program of factors which affect the market value of the subject property, including area and neighborhood analysis, land and improvement analysis, highest and best use analysis, and the application of the available approaches to value generally utilized; that being the Cost Approach, the Income Approach, and the Direct Sales Comparison Approach. The scope of the investigation reported herein has included all of the procedures normally undertaken in the preparation of a narrative appraisal report relating to a parcel of agricultural real estate. The scope was not limited in any way by either instructions received from the Client, or by the nature of the property. The available data permitted a complete analysis of the Highest and Best Use of the property. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Demons, ARA, SRA Investigation into several areas was required to give a full report of the conditions contributing to, or detracting from, the value of the subject property. The extent of the investigation involved: Site Inspection and Analysis: I inspected the subject property with my associate, Linda Cannon, on December 16, 1995 in the presence of Betty Anderson, the niece of Esther Ferguson. During this inspection, information regarding the property was noted for use in comparing the property to comparable sales. Photos of the property were also taken at this time. Area and Neighborhood Analysis: Pertinent economic trends and current business events, as reported in local newspapers and periodicals, were researched. Economic forecasts and statistics compiled by banks and governmental agencies were analyzed. Real estate market reports published by various major real estate firms operating in the general area were studied, and various lenders were interviewed. Market Data Description and Analysis: Data relating to recent sales of comparable properties were obtained from the Public Records of Weld County. In each comparable transaction, the deed was examined, and terms of the sale were confirmed with either the buyer, seller or a third party knowledgeable of the transaction. Various brokers operating in the area were interviewed regarding sales and pricing trends of property in the neighborhood. OBJECTIVE OF THE APPRAISAL The objective of this appraisal is to assist the reader in arriving at a "Market Value" of the subject property located four miles east of LaSalle, Colorado. PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL To arrive at a supportable estimate of the "Market Value" of the unencumbered fee simple title of real property, identified in this report, excluding minerals, on a cash or cash equivalent basis. Market Value is defined below. This analysis considers the property to include all the rights that may be lawfully held under fee simple estate and exclude any encumbrances, liens, or any additional restrictions upon the ownership of the property, and as noted in the definition of value, assume typical financing. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA FUNCTION OF THE APPRAISAL The function of this appraisal is to be used by the executor of the estate of Esther Ferguson as an aid in making financial decisions pertaining to the real property under appraisement. DATE OF VALUE The effective date of the appraisal is October 27, 1995, the date of Mrs. Esther Ferguson's death. PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED The subject is being appraised in "fee simple" estate defined as follows: A fee simple estate implies absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate. This analysis considers the property to include all the rights that may be lawfully held under fee simple estate and excludes any encumbrances, liens, or any additional restrictions upon the ownership of the property, and, as noted in the definition of value, assumes typical financing. MINERAL RIGHTS Mineral rights are normally included as a part of the "fee simple" estate, however in regard to this appraisal assignment, it should be noted that the client has not provided the appraiser with information regarding mineral rights on either of the subject properties and it is not known if any exist, or to what degree. Therefore, the appraiser has not considered any valuation regarding mineral rights, except to the degree that this value may be reflected in the comparable sales. It has not been determined to what degree, if any, the comparable sales may have in regard to mineral rights. This would require an expensive, in-depth search by a title company. Therefore, I have not considered any mineral rights that may or may not exist on the subject properties. It is noted that upon visual inspection of the subject property, there is active mineral production and/or exploration currently on the subject property. DEFINITION OF "MARKET VALUE" Market Value as defined by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, is defined as "The most probable price which a property should be in a competitive and open market under all conditions Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Demons. ARA. SRA 3 requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: a. Buyer and seller are typically motivated; b. Both parties are well informed, are well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interest; c. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; d. Payment is made in term of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; e. Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the community at a specified date and typical of the property type in its locale; f. 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." STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE In accordance with USPAP guidelines, disclose to the reader that I have had no previous contact with the owners of this property and have no previous knowledge of the subject property. COMPETENCY OF THE APPRAISER I have earned the SRA designation from the Appraisal Institute and the ARA designation from the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers through education, experience and testing. These designations acknowledge that I am a competent residential and rural appraiser. Further, the appraiser has acquired licensing by the State of Colorado as a General Certified Appraiser which indicates he has both the experience and education to competently appraise commercial property as well. The appraiser performing this appraisal has been appraising residential, commercial, and agricultural properties in Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, and Nebraska for over 20 years. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA. SRA 4 GENERAL AND ECONOMIC BACKGROUND WELD COUNTY Weld County is one of the largest counties in Colorado and stretched from north of Denver to the Wyoming border. Greeley, the county seat, is located 50 miles north of Denver, the state capital, via Highway 85. Other major cities in the area are; Fort Collins (29 miles northwest), Loveland (19 miles west), and Cheyenne, Wyoming (50 miles north). A map showing the location of Greeley relative to Denver and Colorado is included in this report. The county contains approximately 2,600,000 acres; 4,077 square miles, of which 81.7% is privately owned. The balance of 18.3% is owned by the state and federal governments. It is estimated there are 2,211 farms in the county, of which 420,000 acres are irrigated. Over 96% (2.5 million acres) of the county is devoted to farming and livestock production. It is estimated (1990) agricultural gross income in the county totaled about 829 million dollars. Con -Agra, a nationally known diversified agricultural company is located in Greeley (Monfort of Colorado) with two 100,000 head feedlots; one located at Gilcrest and the other near Kersey at Kuner. National Farms recently developed one of the largest confined hog operations in the nation just east of Greeley. There are several large livestock feeding operations located in Weld County as well as numerous dairy operations. There is a large amount of livestock feed produced locally, making the area ideal for various livestock operations, such as dairies and/or feedlots. Weld County also has a sizeable poultry production, mainly turkeys. Weld County population in 1990 was estimated to have been 131,821, nearly a 7% increase in 10 years. Total taxable retail sales in the county in 1990 were estimated to be $1.349 billion, a 6% increase from the previous year. The per capita income in 1992 for Weld County was $17,094 and $20,124 for Colorado residents. Personal services, retail shopping, and medical services are available at Greeley and many of the smaller communities within the county. Higher education is available from University of Northern Colorado and Aims Community College in Greeley, or, Colorado State University in Fort Collins. In conclusion, Weld County is a strong agricultural community with increasing influence both from the metropolitan Denver area, and from industry being developed in the county. The economic outlook for Weld County continues to be strong. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Demons, ARA, SRA 5 ay 4 4 Reno,�4r+. Livermore • The Forks 4 _ gu9t 4 Po dre 4,a Wel lln gton 444 Teds Place `-C rle National Belles. _Forest— ' Maaowme 1. I - o- cr den Haven °1 .o I aa i t'e` �Re4 -.:..rake Loveland 4 % rEstes .,e .:.',...e'er..--. '.. ,-1'_ Parma•'.-.. S!`.. Campion e� i ! c Berthoud�.T Pinewood 's1� '1O a 4 ings . + a 1 w.. "Meeker Park ` R la ad w4 i•`vLyonst eBf am a. fan en r 4 T l P Warch !f aaevelt Y t BOULDER Itional orest Eldora-_ider: dloe 45i n. prier e . , try -',"Black It H wk c°w°"•" 1 \Carr L. Rockport • DLLINS Grover , Pawnee National Grassland Purcell4 4.. Briggsdale 99 E GC Yuma', mnath Severance s�Eaton Galeton i Lan• O Hygene l__®Jy !'g•aho Pnngs El Rancho -- kc'echo J Lake LA Shawnee 4. Bailey" <. 4. 4 Pike lational,_ Forest 1 • . a"4c OLDE • Kessler 6orou` •9 „ r""2 'kw; 'oaton Ro bo gh edalia Windsor is w 3 GR EELEY&, Dacono,0 Lupion a L.B HTONI ommerce Pine e.�' L. - .Buffalo Creek 4, _ 4le 4 'r 4 4 c.Deckers 4 — 4 7 4 'c"""`" ?<\• Westcreek was L. T.,.:b—.. -Palmer .__ 4- 4 e Lake'' o B7 Monument, d II larkspur Lf __ r U.S. Air Pores r Pawnee i -t National Grassland Y loa 6 71 r Pawnee 6 ( sae c Creek Ge-s eota 9 0 sown e x 'Stoneham Buckingham �6 Ott care c.. fere Rayner .� rl t __... ere _.. wG ..— . Barnsville eG 11 - Orchard toadrich Weldonaes I •tee+ Snyder aru, og Lane . 'flag .5a09 • .5 -FT • •W Wiggins. - MORGAN Roggen des I O esburg I i a Prospect Valley l -, ochbuie_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J Moyi.,_ atkins x = Fran tn oa Elizabeth CASTLE L� 1 --c. . i KIOWA ROCK:' _„_. Black Forest- Elbert -VByers —v. 51 F Deer Trai Calhan - - ,Peytongi- Simla Renab CO9999 ' I Last Limon atheson row,. Area Map NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION The general neighborhood is bounded by Greeley on the north and Fort Lupton on the south. The area is primarily agricultural in nature, although there are commercial and light industrial enterprises located along U.S. Highway 85 around the towns of Platteville, Gilcrest, LaSalle, and Fort Lupton. The general area consists of good quality irrigated cropland which is conducive to vegetable production, principally onions, potatoes, and carrots, along with corn, pinto beans and sugar beets. Area cropland is primarily irrigated with most of the croplands being flood irrigated however, there is an intermingling of self-propelled circular sprinkling systems are located primarily to the south and east of the subject property. There are also some limited subirrigated, or irrigated pastures as well as some native pastures. Irrigation ditches in this area generally obtain water either from direct flow from the South Platte River or from a series of reservoirs which store the mountain snow melt to be utilized during the irrigation season. A few area farms have irrigation wells which are used to supplement the ditch rights during periods of need. There is a fairly large feedlot located at the intersection of County Roads 44 and 49 which is the Timmerman Feedlot. East of Kersey on U.S. Highway 34 is the Monfort Feedlot. These feedlots, together with several dairies that are located throughout the area do provide a ready market for all of the livestock feed that is produced throughout the neighborhood. The Monfort - Gilcrest feedlot is located just west of Gilcrest. There are several smaller feedlots and poultry facilities in the neighborhood. Both U.S. Highway 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad bisect the area in a north -south direction. The area has long been noted as one of Weld County's finest producing areas. CONCLUSION OF NEIGHBORHOOD DATA This is a good, agriculturally oriented area that does receive some enhancements from its "front range" location. In conclusion, this neighborhood will remain a good producing area due to excellent soils, good irrigation water, and its close proximity to markets. Property in this area has been, and will continue to be. in some demand as the front range continues to grow. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA 6 HIGHEST AND BEST USE Highest and Best Use is defined as "that use which will yield the greatest net return to the land in the foreseeable future, or that legal use which will yield to the land the highest present value." The 9th Edition of Real Estate Appraisal more specifically defines Highest and Best Use as: "that reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, resulting in the highest value." Determination of the highest and best use is based upon present use of the subject property, present use of properties within the area, alternative uses of the subject, and market demand for the alternative uses of the property in the foreseeable future. Both present use and alternative use is based upon government regulation such as zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, and deed restrictions. The analysis of the highest and best use of the land is a requirement in the appraisal process, both "as if vacant" and "as improved." The highest and best use of land as though vacant or improved is generally consistent with, and similar to surrounding land usage. Land usage typically falls under certain development patterns and can be generally classified as either residential, commercial, industrial, recreational or agricultural. Often a property may have multiple uses, special purpose use, or speculative use. In some instances, the present use might be termed "interim use," indicating present use may change within a short time frame to a different use. Conclusion "As if Vacant" - The subject is in a good agricultural area, but is also in an area which is in high demand for rural homesites. Due to the demand for rural homesites and the excellent view of this property, the Highest and Best Use for the subject property "as vacant" would be for use as a rural homesite or hobby farm. This property is not considered to be an economic "stand-alone" unit, as reflected by this Highest and Best Use. "As Improved" - As noted, the subject is in a good agricultural area, but is also in high demand for rural homesites. The existing improvements comply with the Highest and Best Use as that of a rural homesite/hobby farm. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons. ARA. SRA 13 VALUATION SUBJECT PROPERTY OVERALL DESCRIPTION The subject property is a 78.875 acre parcel of land located four miles east of LaSalle, Colorado along Weld County Road 47. The street address for the property is 24393 WCR 47. The west side of the property faces the Lower Latham Reservoir, although it does not adjoin the reservoir. The property is accessed via WCR 47, a gravel road which is maintained by the county. The improvement site on the property lies approximately in the center of the property along WCR 47. A site map is included in this report. There are two single family residences, a metal shed, a one -car garage, a small wooden shed. One residence (#1) is currently used as a rental property and is adjacent to WCR 47. The main residence (#2) is located off the road to the west of the first residence. This home has an excellent view of the pasture, reservoir, and front range of the mountains. According to Betty Anderson, the home has been unoccupied for a number of years. The balance of the property (62 acres) is used for hay production with a small area (15 acres) of pasture. OWNERSHIP TENURE According to the Weld County Assessor's records, the property is currently held under the name of Esther Ferguson and was so recorded on July 5, 1983 under reception number 01932432. LEGAL DESCRIPTION The East half (E'/z) of the southeast quarter (SE'A) of Section thirty-five (35), Township Five (5) North, Range Sixty -Five (65) West of the 6th P.M. LOCATION The subject property is located four miles east of LaSalle, Colorado or three miles east and five miles south of Greeley. The property is accessed by WCR 47, a county maintained gravel road. LAND USE According to the Weld County Assessor's office, the property has 62 acres of irrigated cropland, 15 acres of pasture, and 1.987 acres of roads. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA. SRA 7 LA SALLE QUADRANGLE uN11 U SCALES COLORADO -WELD CO. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTE: 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ro u s 3• I 12 240 000 FEET 104°37'30';32„„ E 533 -oo - 36 TOPOGRAPHY The property has an even slope to the west. SOILS 38 -Nelson fine sandy loam 3-9% slopes. This is a moderately deep well drained soil on plains at elevations of 4,800 to 5,050 feet. Permeability is moderately rapid. Available water capacity is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 20" - 40". Surface runoff is medium to rapid, and the erosion hazard is moderate. This soil is suited to limited cropping. Intensive cropping is hazardous because of erosion. The cropping system should be limited to such close grown crops as alfalfa, wheat and barley. This soil is also suited to irrigated pasture. The underlying sandstone is the most limiting feature of the soil. Neither septic tank absorption fields nor sewage lagoons operate properly. Site preparation for dwellings is more costly. 47 - Olney fine sandy loam 1-3% slopes. This is a deep well drained soil on smooth plains at elevations of 4,600 to 5,200 feet. Permeability and available water capacity are moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60" or more. Surface runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is low. In irrigated areas, this soil is suited to all crops commonly grown in the area including corn, sugar beets, beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, and onions. Rapid expansion of Greeley and the surrounding area has resulted in urbanization of much of this Olney soil. This soil has good potential for urban and recreational development. The only limiting feature is the moderately rapid permeability in the substratum, which causes a hazard of ground water contamination from sewage lagoons. Lawns, shrubs and trees grow well. Capability subclass Ile irrigated, lye nonirrigated. Sandy Plains range site. 72 - Vona loamy sand, 0-3% slopes. This is a deep, somewhat excessively drained soil on plains and high terraces at elevations of 4,600 to 5,200 feet. Permeability is moderately rapid. Available water capacity is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60" or more. Surface runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is low. In irrigated areas this soil is suited to the crops commonly grown in the area. Perennial grasses and alfalfa or close grown crops should be grown at least 50% of the time. Contour ditches and corrugations can be used in irrigating close grown crops and pasture. Keeping tillage to a minimum and utilizing crop residue help to control erosion. Maintaining fertility is important. The soil has good potential for urban development. The chief limiting soil features are the rapid permeability in the substratum which causes a hazard of ground water contamination from sewage Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons. ARA. SRA 8 Soils Map lagoons. Once established, lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. In places recreational development is limited by the susceptibility to soil blowing. Capability subclass Ilse irrigated, IVe nonirrigated, Sandy Plains range site. 73 - Vona loam sand 3-5% slopes. This is a deep, somewhat excessively drained soil on plains and high terraces at elevations of 4,600 to 5,200 feet. Permeability is moderately rapid. Available water capacity is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60" or more. Surface runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is low. This soil is suited to limited cropping. Intensive cropping is hazardous because of soil blowing. The cropping system should be limited to such close grown crops as alfalfa, wheat, and barley. The soil is also suited to irrigated pasture. Capability subclass IVe irrigated, Vie nonirrigated; Sandy Plains range site. WATER According to the information provided by the client, the property has 11.5 shares of the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company, #6121. The 1995 assessment for FRICO water was $40 per share for a total annual assessment of $460.00. Normal delivery for FRICO water under the Milton Reservoir is 10 acre feet per share for a total of 115 acre feet of water, or 1.45 acre feet per acre. This amount is water is sufficient to irrigate the types of crops that would normally be grown on this farm, i.e., corn, alfalfa and beans. ASSESSED VALUATION AND TAXES 1994 Assessed Value Mill Levy Taxes Improvements 9340 .068863 643.18 Land 4110 .068863 283.02 Total 13,450 926.20 ZONING AND PLANNING The property is zoned Agricultural and, in my opinion, will stay that way for sometime to come. It is unlikely that the Weld County Commissioners would approve any use that was not agricultural in nature. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Demons. ARA. SRA 9 HAZARDS The only known hazards are occasional hail storms and flooding caused by spring runoff and excessive rain. There were no underground fuel storage tanks noted from a visual inspection. The appraiser has no expertise or knowledge to determine any potential underground pollution; however, from a cursory inspection there are no potential sources of pollution other than the standard farm usage of the property. The appraiser accepts no responsibility of any type regarding sources of unnoticed, unobserved or any other type of possible pollution. Many agricultural properties use varying amounts and types of agricultural chemicals including fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides and livestock chemicals. The appraiser has no knowledge regarding the amounts, types, or the application of these chemicals and therefore accepts no responsibility for the same. Environmental considerations are becoming more prominent in the analysis of land. An environmental audit has not been performed on the property; an audit would be necessary to verify the presence and/or impact of any hazardous materials. EASEMENTS There are no known easements that would adversely affect the property. Normal public utility easements may exist. MINERALS The mineral estate has not been included or considered in the total valuation of the subject property. Valuation of mineral interests requires the input of a competent petroleum landman and a qualified geologist. The visual inspection of the property did show evidence of current mineral production/exploration on the property. IMPROVEMENTS The property is located at 24393 WCR 47. There are two single family residences, a metal shed, a one -car garage, a small wooden shed. The residence referred to as Residence #1 is currently used as a rental property and is adjacent to WCR 47. The second residence, referred to as Residence #2, is the main house of the property and is located off the road to the west of the first residence. This Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons. ARA. SRA 10 i brewing not to SCele Esther Ferguson Estate home has an excellent view of the pasture, reservoir, and front range of the mountains. A more detailed description of each improvement is offered here. Residence #1 - This is a one-story home with 1,016 square feet built in 1915. It has wood siding and a wood shingle roof with a poured concrete foundation and aluminum windows with aluminum storms. There is a partial basement which houses the propane forced air furnace and electric hot water heater. The home has its own water tap for domestic water and septic system. The living room/dining room is carpeted with painted baseboard molding. The walls throughout the house are painted plaster. There are two bedrooms off the living/dining area, both of which are carpeted. The kitchen has a carpeted floor, ceramic tile counter top and back splash. The walls are wallpapered. The bathroom is located in the back of the house off the kitchen. It has a wood vanity with a tub/shower enclosed by a curtain; the flooring is vinyl. The bathroom also contains the clothes washer and dryer. There is an enclosed back porch off the kitchen as well. This home is currently rented for $375 per month with the renters paying utilities. The home is in average condition. The home has an effective age of 42 years. Residence #2 - This residence is reported to have been built in 1970 and contains 1,271 square feet with a 247 square foot former one -car garage that has been enclosed and finished as a family room/work area. Although this room is attached to the house it has access only from the outside. The main residence is located directly west of Residence #1 and has an unobstructed view of the pasture, reservoir, and front range of the mountains to the west. There is a covered porch on the west side of the house and a covered patio on the east side. This patio is 22' x 38'. According to Mrs. Ferguson's niece the home has been unoccupied for several years. The house has wood shingle siding and a composition shingle roof. A sprinkling system is in place for part of the yard. The living/dining area has carpeted floors, wood paneled walls, a vaulted ceiling, and has a wood burning fireplace. There is a large west facing window in the living room looking out over the reservoir and mountains; this window does not have a storm window. The kitchen has wood painted cabinets and linoleum flooring. The utility room is located behind the kitchen and has a back door which opens to the covered patio. There are two small bedrooms, both of which are carpeted and have wood paneled walls. One bedroom, considered the master bedroom, has access to a half -bathroom. This bathroom has plastic 4" tiled walls, laminated countertop, and an enameled cast iron sink in a vanity cabinet. The main bathroom of the home is a '/a bathroom with merlite walls, a wall -hung lavatory, plastic tiled walls and tiled flooring. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons. ARA. SRA II The home has a forced air propane furnace and an electric water heater. This home has its own domestic water tap and septic system. There is no basement, it is built over a crawlspace. The home is in average condition. This residence has an effective age of 25 years. There is a small wood shed located behind Residence #1 which is estimated be less that 100 square feet in size. There is also a wood frame one -car garage located behind Residence #1. Neither of these buildings contribute any value. A metal utility shed is located north of Residence #1 across the driveway. This building is 24' x 40', or approximately 960 square feet in size, and is separated into two rooms. The larger side is accessed through two double sliding doors and is used as a garage/work shed. The other room is accessed through a small door and is used as a small storage room. This shed has an effective age of 10 years. At this time it does not appear that the property is affected by recent ADA legislation. There are no public buildings on the subject property and the farm work is generally done by family members, or by someone having the demanding physical qualifications such work requires. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons. ARA. SRA 12 FERGUSON ESTATE PHOTOGRAPHS ABOVE: View to north from single family residence #I along WCR 47. BELOW: View to west from northeast corner of property. FERGUSON ESTATE PHOTOGRAPHS ABOVE: Single family residence #l(rented house), main entrance on WCR 47. BELOW: Single family residence #L, street view from WCR 47. FERGUSON ESTATE PHOTOGRAPHS ABOVE: Single family residence #2, view from east side. BELOW: Single family residence #2, view from west side. FERGUSON ESTATE PHOTOGRAPHS ABOVE: View to west from southeast corner of property. BELOW: View to northwest from southeast corner of property. APPRAISAL PROCESS Customary appraisal practice requires the analysis of any property being appraised from three points of view and the subsequent development of three separate estimates of value. The first method is known as the Cost Approach, and involves estimates of the current replacement cost of the improvements at the property, together with further estimates of the physical, functional, and economic depreciation attributable to the improvements. The value of the land, as determined by comparison with known sales of similar vacant properties, is added to the improvements value to yield an indication of the value of the property. This method of valuation is generally conceded to establish the upper limit of the value of the property. A second method of analysis is known as the Income Approach. This involves an estimate and analysis of the annual income which the property may reasonably be expected to generate. Further estimates of operating expenses, when deducted from the projected annual operating income, yield an estimate of the annual net income attributable to the property. This annual net income may then be capitalized at a rate indicated by activity in the marketplace to yield a second indication of the value of the property. The third method of valuation, known as the Direct Sales Comparison Approach, is based on the principle of substitution. This principle states that when a property is replaceable, its value tends to be set at the cost of acquisition of an equally desirable and valuable substitute property, assuming that no costly delay is encountered in making the substitution. The method involves an analysis of all recent sales of similar properties in the area and a comparison of these properties with the subject property to yield the third indication of value. Consideration of these three preliminary estimates of value and their relative validity leads to a final conclusion as to the value of the property. Land Valuation The estimated value of agricultural land is normally developed by means of an analysis of sales of similar parcels in the same general area of the property being appraised. In the search for market data which would be meaningful to the estimate of value of the subject property, I have reviewed sales data in Weld County in the area bounded by U.S Highway 34 on the north, WCR 59 on the east, WCR 38 on the south, and WCR 23 on the west. Following is a brief description of each sale and a summary of sales data. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA, SILO 14 Comparable Sales COMPARABLE SALE #1 Grantor: Barron & Nicholson Grantee: Bruce Sandau County: Weld Document: WD Rec #1416-02363212 Date of Sale: December 1993 Total Sale Price: $197,500 Description: SW'% of SE'% and SE'% of SW'/ of Section 21, T4N, R66W Total Acres: 75.5 Sales Analysis: Location: Access: Topography: Water: North side of Gilcrest Paved County Road #42 Level 1 well, 8' shares capitol stock of Farmer's Independent Ditch Company (a !Oafish). Improvements: Older frame home with 832 sq ft built in 1917, pole shed built in 1975 with 1,536 sq ft. - Property is just north and adjacent to Gilcrest. INDICATED VALUE: 75.5 acres irr Improvements ® $2,165/ac SALE PRICE Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA. SRA $163,500 = 34,000 $197,500 15 COMPARABLE SALE #2 Grantor: Schmidt Grantee: Hickman County: Weld Document: WD Date of Sale: March, 1993 Total Sale Price: $195,000 Description: Pt NWSG, Section 23, T4N, R66W Total Acres: 97.35 Sales Analysis: Location: Access: Topography: Water: South of Peckham County Roads 33 and 44 Level 1 Irrigation well; 17 shares stock in Western Mutual Ditch Company (@ 20af/sh). Improvements: None INDICATED VALUE: 97.35 acres @ $2003.08 = $195,000 SALE PRICE = $195,000 Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Demons. ARA. SRA 16 COMPARABLE SALE #3 Grantor: Volk Grantee: Greiman County: Weld Document: WD Rec #1434-02381244 Date of Sale: March, 1994 Total Sale Price: $245,000 Description: Et SWlb, Section 27, T4N, R66W Total Acres: 79 acres Sales Analysis: Location: 1 mile southeast of Gilcrest Access: County Road 40 Topography: Level Water: 3 wells: 2 shares Platte Valley Irrigation Co. (@95af/sh). Improvements: Single family residence with 1,184 sq feet built in 1910; barn with 1,500 sq feet built in 1918; several small older outbuildings. INDICATED VALUE: 79 ac irr Improvements ® $2,342 = $185,000 = 60,000 SALE PRICE = $245,000 Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA 17 COMPARABLE SALE #4 Grantor: Moritzen Grantee: Schaefer County: Weld Document: WD Rec #02317596 Date of Sale: January 1993 Total Sale Price: $200,000 Description: W1/2NE Section 18, T4N, R65W Total Acres: 78.8 acres Sales Analysis: Location: 2 miles south, tk mile west of LaSalle, CO Access: Gravel county road Topography: Level Water: 1 irrigation well Improvements: Single family residence with attached garage, misc outbuildings. INDICATED VALUE: 78.8 ac irrigated cropland Improvements I@ $1,643 = $129,468 70,532 SALE PRICE _ $200,000 Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA 18 COMPARABLE SALE #5 Grantor: Donald Caldwell Grantee: Lonnie & Denise Johnson County: Weld Document: WD Rec #2384664 Date of Sale: April 21, 1994 Total Sale Price: $245,500 Description: SEtk Section 27, T4N, R65W Total Acres: 160 acres Sales Analysis: Location: Access: Topography: Water: Improvements: INDICATED VALUE: 94 ac irrigated 62 ac pasture 4 ac roads & waste 160 acres TOTAL Improvements 21601 WCR 40 County Road undulating 2 shares Platte Valley Irrig (@ 95af/sh), 1 irrigation well 2064 sf residence built in 1979, shed, and 1024 sf dairy barn built in 1948. ® $1410/ac = $132,600 l� $450/ac = 27,900 @ -0- -0- 85,000 SALE PRICE = $245,500 Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA. SRA 19 COMPARABLE SALE #6 Grantor: Esther Bohlender estate Grantee: Paul & Betty Anderson County: Weld Document: WD Rec #1418-02365225 Date of Sale: 12-21-93 Total Sale Price: $190,500 Description: pan of Section 27, T4N, R65W Total Acres: 117 acres Sales Analysis: Location: 6.5 miles west of Gilcrest on WCR 42. Access: County Road Topography: undulating Water: 3 shares Platte Valley Irrigation (@ 95af/sh) Improvements: Two houses, one 1328 sf built in 1898, other single family residence 832 sf built in 1949) INDICATED VALUE: 77 acres irrigated 31 ac subirrigated pasture 9 ac roads and waste 117 ac TOTAL Improvements $1545/ac = $118,950 @ 450/ac = 13,950 @ -0- _ -0- 57,600 SALE PRICE = $190,500 Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA 20 COMPARABLE SALE #7 Grantor: Gladys Sitzman Estate Grantee: Michael Grenemyer County: Weld Document: WD Rec #2429341 Date of Sale: 3-5-95 Total Sale Price: $330,000 Description: NE14, Section 4, T4N, R64W Total Acres: 160 acres Sales Analysis: Location: Access: Topography: Water: Improvements: INDICATED VALUE: 145.5 ac irrigated cropland 14.5 ac pasture 160 acres TOTAL Improvements Eight miles east of LaSalle County Road undulating 20.5 shares FRICO (@ 10af/sh) 1.5 story single family residence built in 1925, 2 car detached garage, 4000 sf machine shed. pa $1520/ac 400/ac SALE PRICE Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA = $221,200 = 5,800 = 103,000 = $330,000 21 COMPARABLE SALE #8 Grantor: Kersey Farms LLC Grantee: Warren & Sandra Thompson County: Weld Document: WD Rec #2429344 Date of Sale: 03-20-95 Total Sale Price: $117,500 Description: Part of SEW', Section 32, T5N, R64W Total Acres: 74.45 acres Sales Analysis: Location: 2 miles south of Kersey Access: County Road Topography: undulating Water: 8 sh FRICO ((p@ 10af/sh) Improvements: Vacant Comments: INDICATED VALUE: 60.00 acres irrigated 12.10 acres pasture 2.35 acres roads & waste 74.45 Total @ $1,858 $ 500 @ -0- SALE PRICE Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons. ARA. SRA = $111,500 = $6,000 = -0- = $117,500 2? COMPARABLE SALE #9 Grantor: Grantee: County: Document: Date of Sale: Total Sale Price: Description: Total Acres: Walso Clark Weld WD Rec #2341990 07-93 $130,000 Pan of NIhNWt/a, Section 36, T5N, R65W 73 acres Sales Analysis: Location: 2 miles south, 2.5 miles west of Kersey Access: Gravel county Road Topography: Slightly undulating Water: 10 sh FRICO (Q 10af/sh) (Milton) Improvements: Vacant Comments: INDICATED VALUE: 65 acres irrigated 8 acres pasture 73 acres Total @ $1,950 • $ 406 = $126,750 $3,250 SALE PRICE = $130,000 Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA 23 SUMMARY OF COMPARABLE SALES SALE PRICE/ACRE LAND ONLY In coO - N in O• ` N $2,342 M1 1` N $1410-irr $450 pasture a L v •^ CO . in 6 v O N in w w v L L N y JO N 4 in a p -.1. 03 V\ m_ w L. H a a o p $1950-irr $406- ast LAND VALUE O O 1n M 0 w o o 0 in P p $185,000 T 'O •t P N N O O in O .C p O O P N ^ 17, $227,000 $117,500 0 0 O M p IMPROVEMENT VALUE 0 d w O p 0 0 O N In O w 0 0 V\ 0 d A w O O 0 w O p O w W0.1 h L 97.35 79 03 ,C1 a a 74.45 SALE PRICE (PRICE/ACRE) o" O `° i„.: L- P'0 p N w o O 0 V• a p '° � O C N w o O o in V p u '° Om M w o o o O p CU 03 M inin N w $245,500 $1,534/ac $190,500 $1,628/ac $330,000 $2,062/ac o LI' A » m CO CO w $130,000 $1,781/ac DATE OF SALE O' P M a M P ,_ a aM 1,1 P P In M P A W W 2 < ce 0 CC O z < K 0 J F N= C O i_ co m C Y V 0 E ..= U N Volk/Greiman Mori tzen/Schaefer Caldwell/Johnson Bohtender/Anderson Sitzman/Grenemyer Kersey LLC/Thompson Y C 0 0 N m i W 'I a m N M a in L3 N. m a Each of these sales has been analyzed, together with its relationship to the value of the subject site in order to reach a conclusion regarding the value of the subject property. In order to facilitate the analysis, key attributes of each property have been compared to those of the subject property. Appropriate adjustments have been applied to explain differences which affect value. The first five of these factors are common to any typical sales analysis. They are: • Real Property Rights Conveyed • Financing Terms • Land Mix • Conditions of Sale • Date of Sale The remaining factors concern the physical characteristics of each property. These include: • Location • Size of Parcel • Topography • Soils • Water In the sales analysis, adjustments have been applied to the unit price of each property sold in order to reflect our estimate of the probable effect which that factor would have on the price paid for the property if the subject property had been substituted in the transaction. The mechanics of this analysis are shown on the following page, and a brief explanation of the reasoning for the various adjustments follows. PROPERTY RIGHTS CONVEYED: Each transaction conveyed the fee simple rights to the property described, with the exception of some mineral rights. The subject property is being valued net of any mineral rights; accordingly, no adjustments are required for any of the sales analyzed. FINANCING TERMS: All sales were considered to have been sold for cash or cash equivalency and no adjustments have been made. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA 25 LAND MIX: The sales were considered to have similar enough mix of land uses to not require any adjustments. CONDITIONS OF SALE: Review of the deeds filed with each sale, and information obtained from the buyers and sellers, indicates that all sales were all arms' -length transactions. DATE OF SALE: The date of the sales ranged from January 1993 to March 1995. To determine the effect of time upon the value of properties, Sale 2 which sold in March 1993 for $2,003 per acre, was compared to Sale 3, which sold in March 1994 for $2,342 per acre. These two sales were comparable except for the date at which they sold. An analysis of these two sales indicate a difference of 16% for the one-year period. In my opinion and knowledge of the market, I believe that a smaller adjustment of 12% per year is appropriate. Sales of agricultural properties generally occur October - March, and properties which sell in this time frame are generally considered to have sold in the same season. Evidence of this is seen in the sales presented here, which all but one sold in the October -March season. Thus sales which sold within the same season have been adjusted the same amount. For example, Sales 2 and 4, which are older sales (January and March 1993) and are considered to have sold in the same season, have each been adjusted 30%. Sales 1, 3, 5, and 6, which sold in December 1993, and March and April 1994, have each been adjusted 18% because they all sold in the same season. Sale 9, which sold in between season, has been adjusted 12%. Finally, Sales 7, 8, and 9, which all sold in March 1995, were each adjusted 7%. LOCATION: It is evident from an analysis of the map and corresponding values, that properties along the U.S. Highway 85 corridor have been selling at a higher value than those just a few miles east of Highway 85. Comparing Sale 8 to Sale 1 indicates a 22% difference, Sale 8 compared to Sale 2 indicates a 24% difference, and Sale 8 compared to Sale 3 indicates a 28% adjustment. Although these are high percentages, it does give evidence to the need for some adjustment. Sale 8 is located three miles east of the subject therefore I have elected a smaller adjustment of 20% which will be applied to Sales 1, 2, and 3. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA. SRA 26 SIZE: The sizes of the comparable sales ranged from 74.45 acre to 160 acres. The size of irrigated portions of these sales ranged from 74.45 acres to 145.5 acres. Sale 7 which had over 100 acres of irrigated land and sold for a value of $1,626 per acre was compared to Sale 8 which had 60 irrigated acres and sold for $1,988 per acre. This is a difference of 20% and Sale 7 was adjusted accordingly. Although Sale 5 has 160 total acres, only 94 acres were irrigable, therefore no adjustment was warranted. The remaining sales all had irrigated acres under 100 acres and were not adjusted. TOPOGRAPHY: No adjustments were deemed necessary for topography/productivity. SOILS: The soils of the sales are different in type, but similar in their production capabilities and no adjustments were made. WATER: The sales were analyzed for the quantity of water available on a per acre basis and were adjusted accordingly. This is an adjustment that is not easily proven from the market and must be made based on the experience and judgment of the appraiser. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA 27 COMPARABLE SALES ADJUSTMENT GRID IRRIGATED LAND Total adjusted Sales Price d P M o-, a N $2,072 v N N N m in N O N n a N co a .4'.4-1 $2,184 ADJUSTMENTS L H to 3 N Jr, 1(' 1/1 1!1 O o O o O. O r O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O Location N N CO 0 0 0 O 0 0 41 N O 0 0 0 0 0 at N 0 0 N N O 4.1 cola u L < n $2,555 4 c • N 1- N 10 M N �O N Pel ru co M .0 At 'O M � M C1 M 6 co O M so co O M co CO �x[ A �x(ao A Al SALE PRICE/ACRE LAND ONLY L 1/, 'O M M O N L L N M N L L o 'O M L Y L N to O d a d M L y L y CO in 6 N a . .N}} M p L .... OP p 2 1N1� a O v tli W $1,858-irr $500 -past H L y oa 'O 6 P `O J M M w in in yyt 97.35 79 m W a d I- ^ O ‘43 v n r SALE PRICE O0 U., inO w CO O U M P O w p $245,000 $3,101/ac O O O o O CO w p $245,500 $1,534/ac $190,500 $1,628/ac U O O O N M O M w a $117,500 $1,578/ac O U O CO PA w p w w Q I- EA C O 12-93 P M P M £6-L P d M �' CO P M P M P N- GRANTOR/GRANTEE Barron/Sandau Schmidt/Hickman C m e to CD Y O Nor itzen/Schaefer Caldwell/Johnson Bohlender/Anderson Sitzman/G renemyer Kersey LLC/Thompson Walso/Clark w C CO N M J N d n 0 P Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA COST APPROACH The value of the improvements presented in this portion of the report is obtained through the Cost Approach, however the value of the land is derived from the marketplace. Then, the depreciated value of the improvements is added to the land value for a combined total property value estimate. This method of valuation is most reliable when building improvements are fairly new and there is little depreciation which exists. The Cost Approach is based on the sum of the present market value of the land and the replacement cost of all the improvements, minus overall depreciation of the improvements. Overall depreciation of the improvements is measured by the depreciation indicated by sales of similar type properties, when known, otherwise it is estimated from an age/life analysis. Replacement cost of the improvements can be estimated by actual current cost and/or using published cost estimators. ESTIMATED VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS The following table indicates the replacement cost new (RCN) of the subject's improvements, accrued depreciation, and the depreciated replacement cost new of the improvements. The effective age of the improvements is the actual or observed age if the improvements have been well maintained. The depreciation figures used on the improvements of the subject were derived from analyzing the depreciated value of similar improvements on other properties which have recently sold. Generally, improvements depreciate at a rate ranging from 0.75% - 1.0% per year. Some types of improvements will depreciate at a faster or slower rate depending upon maintenance, repair, and the specific type of improvement. Depreciation rates were derived from the sale of comparable improvements, some of which were located on properties not included in this report, but which I have analyzed in other appraisals. For example, I appraised Sale 7 in 1994, which then sold 1995. The improvements on this sale consisted of a 1,248 square foot single family residence built in 1925 which was extensively remodeled in 1980. There was also a 40' x 100' metal machine shed, also built in 1980 and a small garage. The improvements on this sale had an effective age of 15 years, a total RCN of $118,880 and a contributory value of $103,000 for the improvements. This yields an overall depreciation rate of 13% for the 15 years of effective age, of .86% per year. This, in essence, is I % depreciation per year of effective age. Similarly, I have appraised two other properties within the past six months which evidenced a similar rate of depreciation. This rate of depreciation continues to be validated by other sales in the region and is a common depreciation rate. The information regarding depreciation rates applied to the subject's improvements is in my files. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA. SRA 29 Other types of depreciation which affect the overall depreciation rate are functional and external depreciation. Functional depreciation is that which lies in the design of an improvement as an inadequacy in its functionality or a super -adequacy (over built). External depreciation is a lowering of value caused by external factors which cannot be fixed or changed by the owner. It has been my observation that metal sheds are affected by external depreciation more than other types of improvements. For example, the only improvement on a property located two miles north of Gilcrest was a metal building. The RCN for this building was $36,000, yet the sale indicated a value for the building of $10,000, which is 73% depreciation for the building which had an effective age of only 8 years. This would be 9% depreciation per year. Applying this rate to the metal machine shed on the subject, which has an effective age of 10 years, would be 90% depreciation. Certainly all of this depreciation is not physical, since the shed is in good repair. The building does not suffer from functional depreciation, so external factors have influenced the value of the building causing additional depreciation. However, it is my opinion that this rate of depreciation is too high and I have selected a rate of 50% depreciation as appropriate for the subject machine shed. An analysis of the building cost estimate for the improvements is presented to determine Replacement Cost New. The estimated replacement costs new were obtained from national building manuals (Marshall & Swift and Boeck), plus known costs of similar types of buildings which have been recently constructed for which I have actual costs. NOTE: These figures are for the improvements only and do not take into account the value of the land. SUBJECT BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS Residence #1 Residence #2 Garage Metal shed TOTAL 1016 $60.00 1271 $60.00 247 $30 960 9.00 Total Depreciated eviction Value $60,960 42% $25,603 $76,260 25% $19,065 $7,410 25% $1,852 $8,640 50%* $4,320 $153,270 $50,840 $35,357 $57,195 $5,558 $4,320 $102,430 *Includes physical, and external depreciation According to the figures developed above, the depreciated value of the improvements are $102,430. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons. ARA, SRA 30 VALUE OF IRRIGATED CROPLAND The comparable sales of irrigated land ranged in size from 60 - 97.35 acres and ranged in value from $1,581 - $2,243 per acre. Sales 5 and 6, which represent the low end of the range, are not considered to be representative of the market and will not be considered further. Sales 7, 8, 9 are all in same irrigation district as the subject property (FRICO) which gives them comparable water delivery. Sales 8 is comparable in size and in the same general location. Sale 9, however gives a good indication of value in that it is located less than one-half mile from the subject, it has the same topography and productivity as the subject, the same water delivery, the same view of the reservoir and front range, and the same access (they are both located along WCR 47). This property was vacant at the time of sale but had the same Highest and Best Use as the subject property, that of a rural homesite-hobby farm. A single family residence has been built on that site since it was sold in 1993. These three sales, 7, 8, and 9, indicate adjusted values of $1,951, $1,988 and $2,184 per acre respectively, for the subject. I have selected a value of $2,000 per acre for the subject. 62 acres irrigated cropland @ $2,000 = $124,000 VALUE OF PASTURE Sales 5, 6, 7, and 8 all consisted of a combination of irrigated and pasture land. These sales will be used in determining the value of the 15 acres of pasture on the subject property. An examination of the sales does not indicate that value of the pasture land should be adjusted for date of sale. Pasture land for Sales 5 and 6 which sold in April 1994 and December 1993, respectively, for $450 per acre, while Sales 7 and 8, which sold in March of 1995, sold for $400 and $500 per acre. These sales are summarized below. COMPARABLE PASTURE SALES SALE # Date of Sale Pasture Acres Value per acre 5 4-94 6 12-93 7 3-95 8 3-95 62 31 14.5 12.1 $450 $450 $400 $500 Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons. ARA. SPA 31 These sales indicate that a value of $450 per acre is appropriate for the pasture land on the subject property. 15 acres pasture land a $450/acre = $6,750 CONCLUSION OF VALUE Value have been developed for each component of the subject property: improvements, irrigated land, and pasture. When combined, these values will give one indication of the value of the subject property. Land 62 acres irrigated cropland 15 acres pasture land TOTAL LAND VALUE Improvements $2,000 C)a $450/acre TOTAL TOTAL ROUNDED TO: $124,000 _ $ 6,750 THE INDICATED VALUE OF THE ESTHER FERGUSON PROPERTY ACCORDING TO THE COST APPROACH AS OF OCTOBER 27, 1995 IS: TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS $233,000 Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA. SRA $130,750 $102,430 $233,180 $233,000 32 INCOME APPROACH As described in the Appraisal Process section of this report, the Income Approach to value is based upon estimating the income and expenses of a property to determine the net operating income (NOI). This projected income and expense results in a capitalization rate for each of the comparable sales that then will be applied to the projected net income of the subject property for a value indication. The overall capitalization rate indicated is the rate of return a buyer is willing, or anticipating, to receive as a return on and to his investment. Income/Expense projections for selected comparable sales have been used to determine a capitalization rate to calculate the value of the subject property. On the following pages I have developed pro -forma income/expense estimates for three sales. These estimates help provide market evidence for the extraction of an overall capitalization rate, which is then applied to the estimated net income of the appraised property. The projected yields and prices for the various crops were obtained from the Colorado Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. IMPROVEMENTS Two things should be noted here. First, there is no income attributable to the buildings with the exception of a second residence that could be rented. This will distort the Income/Expense projection because, on the expense side, real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance, and repair of the buildings becomes a major factor and are not offset by any income. The rationale here is that the owner -operator or the tenant would require the buildings for their utility. Second, the smaller a parcel of land is, more particularly the smaller the number of irrigated acres, and the larger the percentage the building improvements contribute to the overall value, the less reliable the value indicated becomes. This is due primarily to the fact that the buildings do not contribute any income. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Demons, ARA, SRA 33 ESTIMATED ANNUAL FARM INCOME - SALE 6 CROP ACRES YIELD TOTAL PRICE/ TOTAL OWNER'S SHARE /AC YIELD UNIT GROSS 1993 INCOME • $ Corn 41 142 5,822 bu $2.35 $13,681 33% $4,515 Alfalfa 18 4 T 72 T $78 T $5,616 50% $2,808 Beans 18 20 cwt 360 cwt $19.00 $6,840 33% $2,257 Pasture, 40 * -- Roads & Waste 2nd 0 $400/mo less 10% vacancy & rent loss 100% $4,320 Residence I17 $13,900 * The amount of pasture on this sale is considered to be waste land, however if the farm operator put cattle on the harvested fields, he may receive some benefit from allowing the livestock to also graze this land. NOTE: no income is attributable to the primary residence. ESTIMATED ANNUAL FARM EXPENSES Real estate Taxes Insurance Repair & Maintenance Seed, Spray, Fertilizer Water Electricity for well Baling $13/ton on 50% Management (10%) $1064 350 1500 1910 400 600 468 1390 TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $7,682 TOTAL NET INCOME $6,218 $6,218 _ $190,500 (sale price) yields a capitalization rate of 3.26% Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA. SRA 34 ESTIMATED ANNUAL FARM INCOME - SALE 7 CROP ACRES YIELD/ TOTAL PRICE/ TOTAL OWNER'S SHARE AC YIELD UNIT GROSS 1995 INCOME % $ Corn 76 142 bu 10,792 bu $2.75 $29,678 33% $9,793 Alfalfa 35 5T 175 T $90/T $15,750 50% $7,875 Beans 34.5 22 cwt 759 cwt $17.50 $13,282 33% $4,383 Pasture, 14.5 * Roads & Waste 160 $22,051 * The amount of pasture on this sale is considered to be waste land, however if the farm operator put cattle on the harvested fields, he may receive some benefit from allowing the livestock to also graze this land. NOTE: no income is attributable to the improvements. ESTIMATED ANNUAL FARM EXPENSES Real estate Taxes Insurance Repair & Maintenance Seed, Spray, Fertilizer Water Baling $14/ton on 50% Management (10%) $1722 618 500 3557 820 1225 2205 TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $10,647 TOTAL NET INCOME $11,404 $11,404 _ $330,000 (sale price) yields a capitalization rate of 3.46% Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA 35 ESTIMATED ANNUAL FARM INCOME - SALE 9 CROP ACRES YIELD/ TOTAL PRICE/ TOTAL OWNER'S SHARE AC YIELD UNIT GROSS 1993 INCOME % $ Corn 43 142 bu 6106 bu $2.35 $14,349 33% $4,782 Alfalfa 22 5T 110 T $78/T $8,580 50% $4,290 Pasture, 8 * Roads & Waste 73 $9,072 * The amount of pasture on this sale is considered to be waste land, however if the farm operator put cattle on the harvested fields, he may receive some benefit from allowing the livestock to also graze this land. NOTE: no income is attributable to the improvements. ESTIMATED ANNUAL FARM EXPENSES Real estate Taxes Insurance Repair & Maintenance Seed, Spray, Fertilizer Water Baling $14/ton on 50% Management (10%) $311 0 0 1,720 400 507 907 TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $ 3,845 TOTAL NET INCOME $ 5,227 $ 5,227 _ $130,000 (sale price) yields a capitalization rate of 4.02% Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Demons, ARA, SRA 36 For analysis purposes, an estimated Income/Expense projection has been developed for the subject property. This pro -forma is based on a landlord/tenant relationship, whereby the land owner receives a percentage of the crops and pays the same percentage of fertilizer, insecticides, herbicides, etc., plus paying real estate taxes, irrigation water and normal repair/maintenance. The tenant pays all labor costs plus his proportional share of the above. This type of presentation is a normal and acceptable appraisal technique. The method developed in this report assumes typical management under normal climatic conditions, with no regard to deal structure, etc. The alternative is to project the actual owner -operator relationship, which then is dependent on personal management abilities, actual income, and expenses. SUBJECT PROPERTY ESTIMATED ANNUAL FARM INCOME CROP ACRES YIELD/ TOTAL PRICE/ TOTAL OWNER'S SHARE AC YIELD UNIT GROSS 1995 INCOME % $ Corn 42 142 bu 5964 bu $2.75 $16,401 33% $5,466 Alfalfa 20 5 T 100 T $90 $9,000 50% $4,500 Pasture 16.88 Roads & Waste 2nd $375/mo x 12 months less 10% rent loss & $4,050 Residence vacancy 78.88 14,016.00 * The amount of pasture on the subject is considered to be waste land, however if the farm operator put cattle on the harvested fields, he may receive some benefit from allowing the livestock to also graze this land. NOTE: no income is attributable to the primary residence. ESTIMATED ANNUAL FARM EXPENSES Real estate Taxes Insurance Repair & Maintenance Seed, Spray, Fertilizer Water Baling $14/ton on 50% Management (10%) TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $923 600 0 1680 460 630 1401 $5,694 TOTAL NET INCOME $8,322 Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA 37 ANALYSIS OF CAPITALIZATION RATES Sale No. Irrigated Acres Net Income Per Acre Total Net Income Sales Price % Return On Investment 6 77 $80 $6,218 $190,500 3.26% 7 145.5 $78 $11,404 $330,000 3.46% 9 65 $80 $5,227 $130,000 4.02% These sales indicate capitalization rates ranging between 3.26% - 4.02%. Sale 9, which is located very near the subject and which is very similar in size, topography, productivity, etc. is the most representative of the appropriate capitalization rate for the subject. Therefore, I have selected 4.0% as the capitalization rate to be applied to the net income of the subject. SELECTED CAPITALIZATION RATE 4.0% CONCLUSION OF VALUE Net income $8,322 capitalized at 4.0% $208,050 (R) $208,000 THE INDICATED VALUE OF THE ESTHER FERGUSON PROPERTY ACCORDING TO THE INCOME APPROACH AS OF OCTOBER 27, 1995 IS: TWO HUNDRED EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS ($208,000) Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA 38 DIRECT SALES COMPARISON APPROACH In this approach, as previously mentioned, the appraised property is compared to other properties in their entirety, including land, water, location, building improvements, etc. The subject property has 78.87 total acres and two single family residences. None of the sales had comparable improvements, although many of the sales were comparable in terms of size and land mix. Only one sale had two homes (Sale 6), however these homes were considerably older and this sale is one of the oldest and lowest sales. Five other sales were improved, but the improvements were not comparable. Due to the unavailability of truly comparable sales, this approach to value is not deemed to be a reliable indication for the appraised property. ANALYSIS OF COMPARABLE SALES Sales 3 , 6 and 7 were considered to have improvements which are somewhat comparable. Sale 3 had one single family residence with 1,184 sf which was built in 1910, a barn with 1,500 sf built in 1918 and several smaller older outbuildings. Sale 6 has two residences, like the subject, although the larger home is older than the subject, it does provide some degree of similarity. The second home was rented for $400 per month, similar to the subject's second home being rented for $375. Sale 7 had a 11/2 story single family residence built in 1925, a 2 -car detached garage, and a 4,000 sf machine shed. The Summary of Comparable Sales table indicated overall value per acre of each sale. The overall value per acre of Sale 3 was $3,101; Sale 6 was $1,628; and Sale 7 was $2,062. This value includes land and improvements. These values must also be adjusted for date of sale or any other factors, such as location, water, productivity, etc. The adjustments were presented in the Adjustment of Comparable Sales Table. The table below shows the overall value per acre, the adjustments made, and the adjusted overall value per acre. Sale # Price per acre Date of Sale (Time) % Adj for Time Value after time adj. Other Adjustments (from P 63) Adjusted Overall value per acre Sale 3 $3,101 3-94 18% $3,659 -25% $2,744 Sale 6 $1,628 12-93 18% $1,921 -10% $1,729 Sale 7 $2,062 3-95 7% $2,206 +20% $2,647 Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons. ARA. SRA 39 ADJUSTMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS In order to determine what portion of this overall adjusted value per acre is attributable to improvements the value of the improvements is divided by the number of acres. For example, the improvements of the subject property were determined by the Cost Approach to be valued at $102,430 78.87 acres = $1,299 per acre for improvements. CONTRIBUTION VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS Sate # Overall 8/acre Number of Acres Value of Improvements Value of imps/acre Adjustment per acre for subject Subject ** 78.87 8102,430 $1,299 ** Sale 7 $2,744 79 $60,000 8759 +$540 Sale 6 81,729 117 857,600 $492 +$807 Sale 8 82,647 160 $103,000 $644 +8655 The overall value per acre for each of the sales now needs to be adjusted for improvements according to the amounts indicated in the previous table. Development of Indicated Value for Subject Sale 3 Sale 6 Sale 7 Overall adjusted value per acre $2,744 $1,729 $2,647 Improvement adjustment + 540 + 807 + 355 Indicated value per acre $3,284 $2,536 $3,302 multiplied by # acres of subject 78.87 78.87 78.87 Indicated value of subject $259,009 $200,014 $260,429 Rounded $259,000 $200,000 $260,000 Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Demons, ARA, SRA 40 CONCLUSION OF VALUE Three sales which are comparable to the subject have been analyzed to determine a value for the subject property. None of the three sales are truly comparable to the subject in the overall view of land, water, topography and building improvements. THE INDICATED VALUE OF ESTHER FERGUSON PROPERTY ACCORDING TO THE DIRECT SALES COMPARISON APPROACH AS OF OCTOBER 27, 1995 IS: TWO HUNDRED FIFTY NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($259,000) Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons. ARA, SRA 41 RECONCILIATION & FINAL ESTIMATE OF VALUE RECONCILIATION AND FINAL ESTIMATE OF VALUE Three indications of value of the real estate at the subject property have been developed. These three indications are as follows: Cost Approach Income Approach Direct Sales Comparison Approach $233,000 $208,000 $259,000 As mentioned earlier, the Direct Sales Comparison Approach is not deemed to be a reliable indicator of value in regard to this appraisal assignment, as none of the sales were truly comparable from an overall viewpoint. The Income Approach to value is a indication of the "agricultural value" of a property, and the market has paid a premium over and above the agricultural values for several years. In this instance, there is a 12% spread between "market value" (the Cost Approach) and the agricultural value as developed in the Income Approach. In respect to this property, the Cost Approach is considered the best indicator of value. The land values are well supported, the depreciation on the buildings has been market derived through good evidence from the comparable sales, and is the best supported indication of value for the Ferguson property. Thus, the final conclusion of value is as follows: THE INDICATED VALUE OF THE FERGUSON PROPERTY as of October 27, 1995 is: TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($233,000) Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA 42 CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISER I, Donald "Bud" Clemons, do hereby certify: I. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. I have no present or contemplated future interest in the real estate that is the subject of this appraisal report and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this appraisal report or the parties involved. 3. 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. 4. The appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, specific valuation or the approval of a loan. 5. I have personally inspected the property. 6. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements of fact contained in this appraisal report, upon which the analyses, opinions and conclusions expressed herein are based, are true and correct. 7. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 8. No one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning the real estate set forth in the appraisal report. 9. This appraisal report has been made in conformity with and is subject to the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice adopted by the Appraisal Foundation. 10. The undersigned hereby acknowledges that he has the appropriate education and experience to complete the assignment in a competent manner. The reader is referred to the appraisers Statement of Qualifications. The American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers conducts a compulsory program of continuing education; I am current with those requirements through December 31, 1995. 11. The Appraisal Institute conducts a voluntary program of continuing education; I am currently certified under this program through December 31, 1996. 12. As of October 27, 1995, I hereby certify that the property located at: 24393 WCR 47, has a Market Value of: TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($233,000) r Donald "Bud" Clemons, A.R.A., S.R.A. Certified General Appraiser Colorado License ACG01313862 Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA. SRA 43 QUALIFICATIONS OF BUD CLEMONS EDUCATION B.S. Degree, General Agriculture, Colorado State University, 1960 Appraisal Institute Course I Course II Course V Course VIII Course A-28 American Society of Course 201 Real Estate Appraisals Urban Properties Grazing Lands and Cattle Ranches Residential Properties Income Capitalization Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers Principles of Income Property Appraising Various Agricultural and Appraisal Seminars 1995 Fair Lending and the Appraiser 1994 Income Capitalization Leveraged 1994 USPAP - Limited Appraisals 1993 Highest and Best Use Seminar 1992 Sales Analysis & Grain Elevator Seminar 1992 USPAP 1991 HP -12-C Calculator Workshop 1990 UAAR Seminar 1990 Sales Comparison Approach Seminar 1990 Reviewing Appraisals Seminar 1987 Mathematics of Finance Seminar 1987 Cost Approach Seminar 1987 Sales Analysis Seminar LICENSES Licensed/Certified General Real Estate Appraiser - State of Colorado, CG013 13862 Certified "General" Real Estate Appraiser - State of Wyoming, Permit #72 MEMBERSHIPS Member of the Appraisal Institute, SRA Designation American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, ARA Designation Colorado Chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1960-1964 Agricultural Supervisor of the Great Western Sugar Company 1964-1970 Real Estate Appraiser for Prudential Life Insurance Company 1970 -Present General Real Estate Appraisals ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Past President of the Colorado Chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers. Past Vice President - District IV of the American Society of Farm Mangers and Rural Appraisers. Has served on various committees for both ASFMRA and Appraisal Institute including Appraisal Review, Continuing Education, Ethics, Education, and Membership. Estate of Esther Ferguson - by Bud Clemons, ARA, SRA 44 C. B. 0. E. ANDERSON, CRAIG PIN # 4077686 PARCEL # 0961-35-0-00-047 Friday, July 18th, 1997 8:30 AM 07/17/97 1 atatatiamay `aria AA,%maananatn �® aOOO"liia., OabO ��Oaal�Jsr.F�'av � ryr�i ' r c.� �•r,�r � � t aaai y.-.: am �a100ot I ODIEEi1OO1'6Oa0OMMOMI IOD i.�. , QOOi�OOOO®1 alaOa0NDIMMID MODMIDDINCIMMEUMMUNIMMIN auma[aa OOmaannaOaaaa L oca$i o h s� rye+ , r i [ IIRIIIII tEIOIS IaOOa ��loftaL��1i1��'��Ei1laC[10I�E�E�Il00 ataQrl'J tva©►� lI „ 5�i0E>9 1at�0II IMMODEDDRIMMAINDIMONMIDIM OLJUODIDDRO OMMUMME7OOa anaaanuaoraDOINSICICA olt: C :0=74, E1ncalaaan, ow ah maaa[' umaaacaaam na aEl r'a. OIl MMOLIOOOM tt'ODOM 0 m"' ir�iO[�t�'7OE1cI r _ a�t�'0O O� GfV[o©arriniaa'aaaaar Oti a, ma..O , l :laUDINCID 1O 1�irOCI000OEEEIE,iOE.1`MMLI Di 71I I -r'L'1�'� Ir g reels®N, IDLIOOfa"r'�'•EDDE©OOO MIDDMICID� I MOW a► I s ' In�" a�'4'°'�:... Eel N_i'- abaft I, 'r1w�,�,j �.N�� MODINvooE>tIVEEl�oIMMI OOO @r�r1��14'i `'� awa;�, garaar�� OaaOOO0IRCIOD I �l c3 oOOOOOOOOOa0a1 �o'iS4E'7ar�4R,.1' aEata:ri7Et►� sob a L d t �"lwE'<I`ir7©0000OOOOEial ,.�.`�r 1k4C t aaaia��r��a'- , Leo at ?rakamabar.ti.�'i.�rIE�7ErIEraE�7E7anat I irrrr�4lQiw ��ti T , �A�ia t t Oirtil ©rCii�iO�i:IL .rralli r rI IS0,.i(E+9EELAMDE700Pri�IDIREs0&E,0arPai ` 7" P0. QODDIROlke1 ,}'. �11OO®M7EEE0Ca�lO0E70EaO[E�1(du[ah. ; aO r�iQannaa JEa anno' � . m b_a m r E��17IOE1p � %s- ,,, �.JOaOEIIIEEi1�i000OOOO►0d�„�►aC a"!►�©iP.•�1biOOErilr'li'IE/IQ .r.- - :� �n�0Qi00..��1aa anamoonav namoQW amamoomm BOO Y1r "'''�laaaaEE�1Aaum aamaa► '�� OOEEOaaaaaaaaoananao ,:vOma am s.l !al1IO0aamat 1 D OOOOOOOOOOODOMMOO iEt.r.r, laana�a aan anae raE7aOOOOOEVEaIaEraaaaaa©aaaaaaanatmQ s J,R'�1'�i ��s+1C�-rt�©1�ti"JQ1anamOOE>7OE7E'�O.i(OL�,E000►OE UDOOQlFJE2GUO r? 1•�maaa0moL.Il nano0a0EEE mo aaamoomm- Ylinamman ti O,ar.Ia1�►OElQOO�t7�Qti 7E7O0E7ElO0OoalOOaO®E�'IE P�iE7aOOllEE�000O0 r raaaaaaagsaaamar CIVIC I4s tIDODbDaa►�'OO MUDPO■a.. a�rr,aananuara a,aaar ■ r'. .ate.= --- o . �la��rr tir `'. laarlaw�l IEa_a al;'aa alilFr aaIaQ•41 0120011 Old urr `hSn.r l : ;. en '"DDIRE 7 �1�'Olllli'�iOL�'c�M�. a��9Qlaaa��ari1 mows O[FaOQI' I manauaaoorOl( ann anaaari MIDI 'L44MDOM?N1' IDaDIENIM ! CI I7E,1�° aOta�` n t g i 1E ''.�dF�'a' etioO©It1f�r11f r apnE1iE�'nanai7O►��mana01oo0oma Apr aaatrat' 'J OI;�"' r r OOOO ISOCR1�DrilaI J 6 7 N H 16 17 19 PI 83 .7 / 93 35 .19 41 9� �3 45 47 r, Jaa � �aE�E�E� EraEE��7 I 51 55 55 57 59 R 68W R 67W R 66W R 65W7 49 61 6 R 64W R 63W R 62W F Aeside.ree. #k .1. 0 a a 0 Sales Comparables C a. v 3 0 iv u N n a ? T o cc .o - f� Adjustment • Qca to S La` h {.{ VIC1 _, r _ •�{� ct4 QMM? „NC.- rZ `a +�, r(�cl V) 0D(3 0 t`< O O0T �— .. v cG vC(bo Vlta a a. ic � r Lilco aa� 45 �� ct 6� ci r(, -4-I M --- v)CC)z0 y on on a CJ o ' Z' O c4 d ao O c y g ic Bsmt Size Bsmt Fin icl N 1\i S a M > > \\ 41 � o " `o U 64 M a E M () \ N Sri ct, Ck a E -u. N o is- O' ei N b `"S r --.0) il� p, °O^1 r a°a, � rt O N cc v pro 1 — tt a 0 U b°' (/ N L e 0 4 \oM e �t N. U Style Year Built Quality r O -P r L` - V, a- ',a Q - c 1. i - tl-. t g c_i Oa L Land Size Land Value a z \ �o \M \ o ask oJa tjl a Sales Date Sales Price Adj Sales Price I\ io S q H o \ \Q �° iN. (-4, M \ tic, O a.i M V, Q Cr N 2t cn 9 C, `° , 1-- O p O A I M °' `. ? ti 'Cr. c1, bo M ?' M o O a QL r_ I rt My 0 a Cs. c'r a, JOVTA r p g r` Q U s� M v Mo Q �No AO M ao O O p '41 a n 15 44L. 1 "lam CCMo N. a ca QS O J b. M o bOlt N ail o Dic U c M Q r'6 M c E r �U 0 E U u v ctl CL C. tet 0 1 N6k1+o a% Sales Comparables Comp sheet r A O LL 70 a.vi J cn \ en (4 r 1- II im'et Oo 1 do cc Ci Adjustment II `c 0o -I . ct M o0 r' r Na)++I V) 0 r+ in 'boor cc — eo Moo ctcr N 0.164 Is o--D- n o e z meta- °o1 En 0 _ r V oq A b D U -5 c o v t = .0 e C5- ) Bsmt Size Bsmt Fin 2 oI o a, ' F-• � o � CO c 6 Y. '0 1L cc 4- -o 6' ct %o bo t cs ` cc Sq. Ft. Imps -� DCIAII g c6 0-.0 ik. o n n L M biliN it. Ct o N.C). tn Style Year Built Quality 0, 1 C4— N -I, — d H d` _ Li Land Size Land Value IC J M 6 r• q v O O r r,•-• �`^Th r 00 2 . a" 1‘ ` � a -4 Sales Date Sales Price Adj Sales Price N c I 0 ^ L $ �M av v 'a is - y .a r' `o O 1.- Di) Z' O O U 0 I 7 M 0. 1 U (� `o is cn M 1,3 O M O CC O 6' I O 7_ — _ I 1`� !- ion ( O MU `a Z' g v (T O (,)°°a - A M oho O .4-1 Oa rp. i p 1` 'O e/ M v a U O a — O b3i r (: rE 14 Mra "'U O n 41 4 - 0 ? c Q' Q O a wf ct aQ� 1 E I` o . v 7t a E 0 U 6-0 V Ct n. < C c Section V, Page 5.24 Land underlying structures which store equipment used in the planting, cultivation and harvesting of the plant material would be considered an integral part of the farm operation and, therefore, designated as agricultural land. The rest of the land within the nursery operation should be generally classified as commercial and valued accordingly. Forest Land Forest land can be classified into one of three categories: 1. The land may qualify as forest land, as defined under 39-1- 102(1.6)(a)(II), C.R.S., and receive the agricultural land designation. 2. The land may qualify as agricultural land if it meets the definition as stated in 39-1-102(1.6)(a)(I), C.R.S. 3. The land does not qualify as agricultural land under either category #1 or #2. In this instance, the land should be classified and valued based on the primary use of the land. Land containing trees which are cut or harvested for subsequent sale on a non -periodic or an incidental basis generally are not subject to agricultural land designation. The incidental or non -periodic nature of the operation would not fulfill the statutory requirement the land be used for the primary purpose of obtaining a monetary profit through agricultural use. However, the land could still be designated as agricultural land if it could be classified as a farm or ranch as listed in 39-1-102(1.6)(a)(I), C.R.S., or it met the definition of forest land as listed in 39-1- 102(1.6)(a)(II), C.R.S. Refer to FOREST LAND later in this section for further information on forested land. START CLASSIFICATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND A land classification system provides measures which result in equality of assessment. This goal is reached by using the statewide method of land classification developed by the Division of Property Taxation. This classification program was established to promote equalization in assessment between land classes and to reduce county line valuation differences. 15-DPT-AS PUB ARL VOL 3 1-89 Revised 1-95 Section V, Page 5.25 The following steps establish uniform techniques when classifying agricultural land: STEPS Welt; Ne7Y att 1. Establish soil classifications. 2. Establish production areas. 3. Establish the average commodity yields or carrying capacity in each soil class within each production area. 4. Analyze the information gathered from steps 1, 2, and 3, and classify the land. 5. Enter the appropriate classification on the individual appraisal records. Each step is described below. ESTABLISH SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS The objective of soil classification is to determine the value of land used for agricultural purposes -relative to the land's capability ,to produce agricultural products. Soil information, including soil maps and a variety* of yield ratings for soils, is important in estimating the agriculturally productive worth of the land. Modern soil mapping is necessary to ensure up to date classification and soil descriptions. The United States Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has researched and completed modern soil surveys in most of our Colorado counties. In some counties, the soil surveys are still.in the process of being completed, however, preliminary data may be available from the SCS. Soil maps assist in equitable assessment since the soil classification system used in mapping soils is applied uniformly throughout Colorado and in other states. For example, a specific type of loam has the same physical properties and profile (surface soil, subsoil, and parent material) no matter where it is mapped. The fact the uniform classification system allows for a reasonably accurate comparison of two parcels in the same county as well as across county and/or state lines. It is important to note the productive capability of the soil will vary from site to site, and climatic conditions, including growing season, rainfall, and temperatures, reflect directly upon the productive ability of land as well as the inherent soil qualities. When appraising agricultural land, the appraiser must consider conditions associated with typical management and normal climate for the location and must not be mislead by extreme variations in yields caused by non -typical management practices or adverse weather. 15-DPT-AS PUB ARL VOL 3 1-89 Revised 1-95 Section V, Page 5.27 Soil surveys have not been completed in all counties in the state. However, preliminary data may be available and older SCS soil association maps are available which would be useful. A copy of the National Range Handbook along with local Range Site Description sheets should also be obtained.. These two publications are strongly recommended for use in grazing land classification. To obtain further information on the use of SCS maps, contact the following organization. State Soil Scientist - Soil Conservation Service 655 Parfet, Room E 200 C Lakewood, CO 80215 State Soil Conservation Service (303) 236-2886 Soil Surveys (303) 236-2910 NOM- Yield data from soil survey publications should be evaluated. Develop a soil type table which shows which soil types and the corresponding yield capabilities which fall within each statewide land class as discussed below. the yield capabilities may have to be adjusted to account for typical management practices since the reported capabilities are often based on high level management. Confer with members of the Soil Conservation Service in the area to verify the need for or amount of adjustment to the reported yield capabilities. Plot the ownership boundaries on the soil survey maps and extract the acreage of each soil type using a planimeter. The soil types and acreage extracted should be entered into the appropriate land class. If soil surveys are not available, other sources of information must be used in the development of equitable classifications. Range site descriptions may be used in dry grazing land classification. These descriptions provide the total annual forage production for each range site. The forage production is adjusted for palatability, condition, and grazing losses before being converted to carrying capacity. Nor: 4. Obtain a copy of Colorado Agricultural Statistics, published by the Colorado Department of Agriculture. Copies of this publication may be obtained at no cost from the following organization. Colorado Agricultural Statistics Service (CASS) 645 Parfet, Room W 201 Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303) 236-2300 Cent- 15-DPT-AS PUB ARL VOL 3 1-89 Revised 1-95 Section V, Page 5.28 Norf.. NOTE' The statistics published in this book should be used as a general comparison with yields and acreages from soil surveys, local interviews, and other published reports. The yields used by the assessor must reflect the average for the ten years prior to the specified level of value. The average yields published by the CASS are based on the acres harvested. Jiowever, the average yields should be determined based on the acres planted for all cultivated crops. This is because the inherent productive capacity of the and is —being measured; because planted acres will allow accounting for crop osT ses prior to harvest; and because crop damage may be severe, even as to preclude an economically feasible harvest. Therefore, when using CASS data, the reported yields must be adjusted to account for all acres planted. For example, if calculating the county yield for dry farm wheat, the adjustment is as follows: Step 1 Step 2 Divide total acreage harvested, both irrigated and non -irrigated, by total acreage planted. This quotient equals the percent of acres planted which are harvested. Divide non -irrigated acres harvested by the answer in Step 1. This quotient equals the total non - irrigated acres planted. Step 3 Divide the total non -irrigated bushel production by the answer in Step 2. This quotient equals the planted acres yield. When using CASS statistics, preliminary data should not be used if revised data is available. If CASS data is unavailable, data may be obtained from university extension services and USDA publications. 5. Obtain a summary of climatological data which apply to your county. An annual study of climatological data is available from the following organization. National Climatic Center Cooperative Data Branch Federal Building Asheville, North Carolina 28801 (704) 271-4800 Information on rainfall, mean temperatures, length of growing season, hail conditions, and other climatic data can be obtained from the center. 15-DPT-AS PUB ARL VOL 3 1-89 Revised 1-95 Section V, Page 5.29 This information is necessary for the assessor to more accurately determine the productive ability of the soil. This information is also important in determining dry farm yield variations because of the annual precipitation. 6. Determine local patterns of farming and ranching practices from interviews with local farmers and ranchers. The local ASCS office may be helpful in identifying typical ranchers and farmers. The purpose of these interviews is to establish typical or average yields or carrying capacities along with related expenses. Management practices must be examined with the purpose of eliminating yields and expense amounts which result from poorer or better than average land management. Copies of sample interview/questionnaire forms may be found as Addenda V -C, V -D and V -E at the end of this section. Data received from the interviews should be plotted on a county map to enable identification of variations in practices and conditions which give rise to the need to create production area boundaries. The number of interviews needed may vary, but sufficient interviews should be obtained to determine cropping and ranching patterns. 7. Set up a committee of landowners to review the assessor's preliminary work and to provide assistance in developing accurate classifications. A cooperative and knowledgeable committee of landowners is an essential tool for creating production areas and the resulting land classifications. The committee should review the assessor's work on soil types, yield capabilities, and carrying capacities to be used in classifying the land. In addition, the committee can provide insight on the typical expenses incurred and landlord share arrangements prevalent in the county. Soil Classes The required purposes is These guidel through VIII agricultural land classification program for property taxation based on the Soil Conservation Service soil survey guidelines. ines include eight general land classifications (Class I )• 15-DPT-AS PUB ARL VOL 3 1-89 Revised 1-95 Hello