The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About690365.tiffP L APPRAISAL OF GILBERT PROPERTY Former Sterling Hotel Site by Marion (Mike) Ovitanovich, Appraiser J 690365 Appraisal of GILBERT PROPERTY Former Sterling Hotel Site 9th Ave. at 10th St. Greeley, Colorado for WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1969 by Marion (Mike) Cvitanovich, Appraiser 811 - 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado Greeley, Colorado March 3, 1969 Weld County Commissioners 9th Ave. & 9th St. Greeley, Colorado Gentlemen: At your request, I have appraised the GILBERT PROPERTY (former Sterling Hotel Site) in Greeley, Colorado. The legal description appears at a later page in this report. I have carefully inspected said property, con- sidered all factors affecting the value thereof and submit herewith a report (original & 2 copies) which describes the methods of appraisal used, analysis of data and reasoning involved in deriving at my con- clusion. As a result of the study, it is my opinion that the Market Value of the Subject Property, as herein described, as as of February 20, 1969, is: Two Hundred Twelve Thousand and No/100 Dollars ( $212,000.00 ) Respectfully subm tted, /fi CL` n a - n svt 6GC Marion Cvitanoddich Appraiser TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Page TITLE PAGE i LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iii PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2 - 3 c,^SESSM;NT AND TAXES 4 AREA DATA 5 MAP OF GREELEY 6 NEIGHBORHC0' DATA 7 - 11 IsHOTOGRAPHII OF DOWNTOWN 12 PROPERTY LOCATION 13 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 14 PLOT PLAN 15 HIGHEST AND BEST USE 16 - 17 APPRAISAL APPROACHES 18 - 19 MARKET DATA APPROACH 20 - 22 COMPARABLE SALES MAP 23 COLOR KEY 24 COMPARABLE SALES DATA 25 - 27 COMPARABLE SALES ADJUSTMENT SWEET 2R - 30 COMPARABLE SALES ADJUSTMENT S}E ET ANALYSIS 31 - 33 CORRELATION AND CONCLUs7OP 34 CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 35 QUALIFICATIONS OF A: PRAISER 36 CERTIFICATION OF VALUE 37 PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the Market Value of the subject property, as herein described, as of February 20, 1969. Definition of Market Value "The highest price estimated in terms of money which a property will bring if exposed for sale on the open market, allowing a reasonable time to find a purchaser who buys with knowledge of all the uses to which it is adapted and for which it is capable of being used." Property rights appraised: Fee Simple Title 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The East Six (6) feet of the South One hundred twenty- eight (128) feet of Lot Twenty-one (21), in Block Sixty-five (65), in the City of Greeley, Weld County, Colorado, accord- ing to the recorded map or plat thereof; also all of Lot Twenty-two (22) , in said Block Sixty-five (65) , in the City of Greeley, excepting that part heretofore conveyed to The Sterling Realty Company by deed recorded in Book 325, at page 302, of the Weld County records, and excepting also all trans- fers by the said Sterling Realty Company affecting the alley- way agreement recorded in Book 315, page 501, of said Weld County records, together with ail rights appurtenant thereto under or created by said alleyway agreement. The hast Forty (h 40) feet of the North sixty-two (.N 62) feet of Lot Twenty-two (22) also described as ail that part of Lot Twenty-two (22) beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot Twenty-two (22), thence running south on the boundary line between said Lot Twenty-two (22) and Lot Twenty-three (23), a distance of sixty-two (62) feet; thence running westward par- allel to the north boundary line of said Lot Twenty-two (22) a distance of forty (40) feet; thence running north on a line parallel to said boundary line between said Lots Twenty-two (22) and Twenty-three (23), a distance of sixty-two (62) feet to the 2 north boundary line of said Lot Twenty-two (22); and thence eastward along the north boundary line of said Lot Twenty- two (22) a distance of forty (40) feet to the point of be- ginning. Also all of Lots Twenty-three (23) and Twenty-four (24), all in Block Sixty-five (65) in the City of Greeley, Weld County, Colorado, according to the recorded map or plat there- of; and together with all of Grantor's right, title, and in- terest, present or revrsionary, in and to, and subject to the burdens and benefits of the easements 2nd rights created under that certain alleyway agreement dated March 30, 1910, recorded April 2nd, 1910, in book 315, Page 501, vJold County records. ASSESSMENT AND TAXES The Subject Property is assessed by the Weld County Assessor as follows: KINNEY PROPERTY ---- Land - $ 8,690 Improvements - 4 14,740 Total - $V 23,430 1968 Mill Levy 101.99 Taxes STERLING PROPERTY -- Land - 4 34,11110 Improvements - $ 11,600 Total - $ 46,040 1968 Mill Levy 101.95 2,389.63 Taxes 4k 4,695.62 4 AREA DATA It is assumed that readers of this appraisal report are generally familiar with the area and, therefore, an exhaustive narrative report about the area is omitted. The subject property is located in the "downtown district" of the City of Greeley, which is the County seat of Weld County, in the State of Colorado. Greeley, the hub of a rich agricultural area, has an estimated population of 35,000 people. Contributing to the stability of the community is Colorado State College with an enrollment of about 8,000 students. Major employ- ers in Greeley are firms such as State Farm Insurance, Mon- fort Packing Plant, Bayly Manufacturing, Dura Business Machines, Farmhand, Central Industries, Noffzinger Manu- facturing and other small plants are located in the In- dustrial Park in Southeast Greeley. A major future im- pact on the community will occur when Eastman Kodak be- gins operations in the neighboring town of Windsor -- 10 miles west of Greeley. 5 'ROHAU(R MINK nmmns- NUN uMrr�� .(<O COUNTY PULL/C NOSP/rAL 'Y7TREEE`E 1III1 NEST I�1 TRREAT TEEr r ROAD. Par SCHOOL MET E EEI SNARLEY SCNOOL EVE NE cc w r� 5W .( RAN FORD � PLACA' miss NEEk(R /3 TM((r WU4 YllffMMP iNJII!IIP IIU II/jillwllll Alllede�91 6"IVIIi it MR INN lin Mil MAP o£ GREELEY, COLORADO Shaded area represents DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT ['OGLES( 7 NEIGHBORHOOD DATA The subject property is located near the center of the downtown business district in Greeley, Colorado. The business district is comprised of some 20 blocks --- bounded on the north by Sixth Street, on the east by Seventh Avenue, on the south by Eleventh Street and on the west by Eleventh Avenue. The center of this area is considered to be the inter- section of 8th Avenue and 8th Street (100% corner). The center is anchored by a bank on the northwest corner, and three major department stores on each of the remaining three corners. The largest amount of pedestrian traffic probably occurs at this intersection, whereas the largest amount of vehicular traffic occurs one block south -- at the inter- section of 9th Street and 8th Avenue. The single block that has the greatest amount of commercial -retail sales volume is Block 57 --- bounded by 8th Street on the north, 8th Avenue on the east, 9th Street on the south, and 9th Avenue on the west. Stores such as J. C. Tenney, Woolworth's and Fashion Bar are the major stores in this block which generate a con- siderable amount of foot traffic. There are over a dozen other stores in this block that add a degree of stability to the central business district. 7 The central business district, h;)wever, appears to be shifting toward the southwest inside the 20 block area. There are several factors that prevent growth in any other direction: (1) The City, itself, is expanding in a west and southwest direction. Hence, the greatest traffic volume, entering down- town, comes from the south or west end of the city. (2) Natural boundaries, such as the Cache La Poudre river, define the extreme north boundary with a manufacturing zone be- tween the river and the business district. (3) The east is cut-off from expansion by railroad tracks and manufacturing zoning. (4) Expansion to the south is generally along 8th Avenue -- which is considered to be the main business Street in Greeley. Business on either 7th Avenue or 9th Avenue is not recognizable as being business streets at this time. (5) The greatest amount of new construction, land acqui- sition and remodeling has occured, in recent years, in the south- west portion of the business district -- such as the new Weld County Bank (south side of 10th Street between 10th and 11th Avenues), The First National Bank acquired parking land on the north side of 11th Street between 9th and 10th Avenues, The Telephone Company remodeled their building on the southeast corner of the intersection of 10th Street and 10th Avenue, a new Restaurant opened on the northeast corner of the inter- section of 9th Avenue and 11th Street. 8 (6) The buildings in the southwest corner of the business district have better physical appearance and facilities with regard to the particular business activity they are engaged in. A Downtown Improvement Association is presently being or- ganized for the purpose of revitalizing the district. The im- pact of the organization on the downtown can not be measured adequately, at this time, except that downtown businesses are concerned about the effect a major shopping center will have on downtown if such a shopping center locates outside the business district. The trend appears to be moving in the direction of the sub- ject property as far as the 100% business corner is concerned. However, the movement cannot be identified as being caused by expansion of the "retail department store" type of activity. The trend is more along the line of professional services want- ing to be near the governmental and financial activity of the Greeley and County area. It should be noted that two major Banks, two Savings and Loan Firms, the United States Post Office, two Churches and a considerable amount of office space comprise most of the land use in the two blocks south and west of the sub- ject property. Ample parking is available in the area --- street parking and off street parking. Availability of Land in the Area: There are two major unimproved sites available in the down- town district. One is located at the site of the former Camfield 9 Hotel -- at the northeast corner of the intersection of 8th Avenue and Seventh Street. It is a rectangular piece of ground measuring 150 feet along the north side of Seventh Street and 190 feet along the east side of Eighth Avenue. The area has 28,500 square feet --- nearly the same size as the subject. The site was acquired in 1963 for less than §4.00 per square foot --- q¢l10,000.00. The second vacant site is one block east of the subject property at the northwest corner of the intersection of 8th Avenue and 10th Street. This is the former site of a Conoco Service Station and is now owned by The First Industrial Bank. The site measures 100 feet along the north side of 10th Street and 115 feet along the west side of 8th Avenue. The site was acquired in 1967 for less than 4P7.00 per square foot -- 75,000. The area has 11,500 square feet -- less than half the size of the subject. Another parcel of land being offered for sale in Block 66 having 175 foot frontage on 9th Street between 10th and 11th Avenue. The land area has 33,250 square feet and is priced at 463.33 per square foot or 4111, 000.00. A 75' x 75' corner in the same block -- the southeast corner of the intersection of 9th Street and 11th Avenue -- is on the market for 4.2,000.00 or V7.)46 per square foot. Another parcel of land in Block 68 having 47,500 500 square feet of land area is on the market for 451.69 per square foot or O0,500.00. 10 The agent, who has the listing, claims that no concrete offers have been received and the land is still available. The indication is that there are over 125,000 square feet of land available in the downtown business district, and within 3 blocks of the subject property. Sales of land in the down- town business district have been fairly inactive during 1968 except for the acquisition of land 5 blocks south of the sub- ject which is unimproved and occurred in August, 1968 (School District #6 to Gordon Rissler). Total land area was 106,800 square feet at '01.60 per square foot. The last major acti- vity of sales occurred downtown in 1966 and in 1963. It ap- pears that the supply of land is greater than demand --- hence, values are probably lower now than they were several years ago. Parking: There is ample parking within one block of the subject property and most of it is immediately west of the subject and in the same block (city owned property). More parking is found on the Weld County Bank site and The First National Bank site --- both about a block southwest of the subject. Other large parking areas are concentrated at the site of The Greeley National Bank, at the new City Complex and behind the Denver Dry Department Store. In addition to off street park- ing is the availability of metered parking on all the streets downtown. The parking problem does not appear to be as acute as it was several years ago. 11 PROPERTY LOCATION The subject property is located in the southeast corner of Block 65, in the City of Greeley. It has 190' frontage along the west side of 9th Avenue and 156' front- age along the north side of 10th Street. It is in the northwest corner of the intersection of 9th Avenue and 10th Street. It's historical address has been at the site of the Sterling Hotel Court House. OND across the alley south of the County 13 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY The site comprises an area of 29,268 square feet -- (Sterl- ing Site has 21,480 Sq. Ft. and the Kinney Site has 7,788 Sq. Ft.). The Sterling Site is unimproved and the Kinney Site has a building on it which covers a ground area of 4,832 Sq. Ft. The building on the Kinney Site does not represent the highest and best use of the underlying land, and it is assumed that a prospective purchaser would consider tearing it down and attri- bute value to the underlying land only. Assuming that the building would be torn down -- a des- cription of the improvements is not deemed as pertinent to this appraisal. By the same token, no consideration was given in determining the income attributed to the building in order to develop or estimate value by the Income Approach. The combined site (Kinney & Sterling) is bounded on the north by an alley, by Ninth Avenue on the east side and by 10th Street on the south side. A city owned parking lot is adjacent to the west side of the property. The Sterling site is covered by brick & concrete debris resulting from the wrecking of the old Sterling Hotel. It is a level site, but will require other dirt fill depending on its future use. All city utilities are available to the site and a concrete sidewalk borders the site on the east (9th Avenue) and south (10th Street). The side- walk has been damaged by the hcav7 equipment used in demolish- ing the hotel. On the following sheet is a plot plan of the subject pro- perty. 14 NORTH Alley 150' 6' CC N 10, 140' 40' Kinney Bldg. Site 7,788 Sq. Ft. Sterling Hotel Site 21,480 Sq. Ft. 56' 100' 156' Scale: 1" - 32' TENTH STREET Total Area in both sites ---- 29,268 Sq. Ft. *** PLOT PLAN *** 15 HIGHEST AND BEST USE Highest and Best Use may be defined at that use which may reasonably be expected to produce the great- est net return to land over a given period of time. The Subject Property is located within the "B -l" Business District Zoning area which permits use groups such as: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENCE GROUP RESIDENCE TRAVEL TRAILER PARK COMMUNITY FACILITIES -NON COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES -OPEN AREA COMMUNITY FACILITIES -SEMI-PUBLIC AMUSEMENT, COMMERCIAL TREATMENT OF HUMANS, UNRESTRAINED TREATMENT OF HUMANS, RESTRAINED COMMERCIAL RESIDENCES PERSONAL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS OFFICE AND FINANCIAL USES RETAIL USES, EXTENSIVE OFF-STREET PARKING LOTS SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, PUBLIC REPAIR SHOPS RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS, INTENSIVE More than 75% of the block, in which the Subject Property is located, is used by the County (Courthouse, Sheriff's offices and jail, County Services building) and by the City (parking lot). As a result of this high concentration of governmental agencies, it would indicate that a complimentary use to this activity would be tht highest and best use for the Subject Property. Not to be disregarded is the possibility for the site to be used by an intensive retail establishment. 16 However, this type of concentration is located two two or more blocks north and east of the subject property and it is doubtful that a large retail store would attempt to divert the downtown shoppers to the subject's location without help from neighboring stores of near equal shopping facilities. Office and Financial use also deserves considera- tion as the possible highest and best use. There is a concentration of office space in the area also but the demand for office space is not particularly acute at this time. There is a marked trend that the finan- cial seat of the County is shifting to the subject's area. This is caused by two banks in the area having ample facilties for banking and parking. Two Savings and Loan Institutions are nearby and so are the only two brokerage houses. By contrast, there are only two retail store outlets near by (Joslin's & Gambles). Needless to say, the county government is firmly entrenched in the subject property's block. Therefore, the Highest and Best Use of the Subject Property is estimated to be that use which will be com- plimentary to the governmental and financial uses in the area. It is particularly significant to note that govern- mental and financial interests generally acquire land at higher prices than Market Value indicates, primarily because of the requirement to satisfy "need" rather than an "economic use." 17 APPRAISAL APPROACHES In estimating the value of real estate, three approaches to value are normally used: (1) Cost Approach (2) Income Approach (3) Market Data Approach The Cost Approach is applicable when the property is improved --- that is, when a building is on the land. An estimate is made of what it would cost to reproduce the building new and estimate its present the underlying land. then the building is depreciated to value to which is added the value of Since sidered as being unimproved the Subject Property is con - (no value given to existing Kinney Bldg.), the Cost Approach is this appraisal report. ,The Income Approach which the anticipated net the capital amount of the not applicable in is an appraisal technique in income is processed to indicate investment which produces the net income. When a highest and best use can be adequately supported, a hypotetical building is placed on the land and an income stream is developed and analyzed. However, because the highest and best use of the Subject Property is of a speculative nature, the Income Approach does not seem to be a practical method of estimating the value of the Subject Property. 18 The Market Data Approach appears to be the most reliable appraisal technique to use. In this aprroach, the market value estimate is predicated upon prices paid in actual transactions involving similar recently sold properties. The reliability of this technique is dependent upon, (a) the degree of comparability of each property with the property under appraisal, (b) the time of the sale, (c) the verification of the sale data, and (d) the absence of unusual conditions affecting; the sale. 19 MARKET DATA APPROACH Although the Market Data Approach is essential in almost every appraisal of the value of real property and has wide application as a method of estimating value, there are factors which do or can limit its usefulness. In the case of this appraisal, the factor of amenities, being intangible qualities, are difficult to compare. Likewise, there are many motivations which lead to the transfer of real property at figures unrelated to the property's market value. The income tax situation of either seller or buyer may be reflected in the sales price. Owners sometimes sell who could not wait for an "informed buyer" and accept a price not indicative of the property's market value. By the same token, owners sometime sell property for prices that are not indicative of the property's market value because the owner is not ar "informed seller". The basic assumption in this appraisal is that both buyer and seller are fully informed as to the property and state of the market for this type of proper- ty and neither will act under abnormal pressure. It is further assumed that the buyer and seller are termed as being representative of the typical buyers and sellers rather than buyers willing to pay a premium for owner- ship and a seller recognizing the willingness the buyer displays. On the following three pages are listed the 40 sales �0 that were considered to be comparable to the subject property. These sales were investigated and appear to be sufficient in numberA7o give basis for estimating the value of the subject property. Sales prices are reflected on a sq. ft. price basis in order to have a common denominator in estimating the value of the sub- ject property's square footage value. The 40 sales are identified on the Comparable Sales Data Sheet and on the Comparable Sales Map by number and color. A "color key" sheet is included to show the various price ranges that the sales fall into. It is significant to note that the Sales Map reveals a "trend" in activity in the direction of the subject property from the 100% downtown business corner. The intensity of the trend can not be measured accurately at this time except that the area near the subject is attracting financial interests primarily and the area will anchor downtown and significantly affect the 100% business cor- ner. Reference is herewith made to the Comparable Sales Map and the "color key". All sales colored in yellow fall in the price range of 49.31 to 426.09 per square foot. There were 9 sales in this category. All sales colored in orange fall in the price range of 47.00 to 4$.I0 per square foot. There were 4 sales in this cate- gory. All sales colored in blue fall in the price range of 45.00 to :;p6.50 per square foot. There were 9 sales in this category. All sales colored in pink fall in the 21 price range of §3.07 to 44.74 per square foot. There were 13 sales in this category. All sales colored in green fall in the price range of 4¢1.60 to §2.1}.6 per square foot. There were 5 sales in this category. Each of these sales has been analyzed and compared with the subject. The results of the comparison is shown on the Comparable Sales Adjustment Sheet. Each sale Brice is adjusted and compared with the subject property as to: Date of Sale Location Land size (sq. ft.) Corner influence Use (present or intended) Following this procedure, a tabulation is made of the sales that required the least amount of adjustment to provide a basis for estimating the sq. ft. price applicable to the subject' property. Then by a process of elimination, a square foot price that is most indica- tive of the subject's value is estimated. Averaging sales prices with land areas are avoided because too many factors influence value. However, it should be noted that the Weld County Bank assembled its land holding at a cost of about §4.60 per square foot over a 3 year period whereas the First National bank assembled its land holding at a cost of about 47.50 per square foot over a 13 year period. 22 /00 - i 00 /Go 4r CO 0 FIFTH • /( , (AU 14 - ' 00 4- /00 j'sa .,I - j 4 Q i s,7", TWELFTH 4 87 , (00 Jail 9'4 203 COMMUNITY CENTER 'D>4V4£2Sr s '00 Y SIXTH 36%CITY !-"HALL ;a,—fr, rrr�-�, IT a - ;24_____,_' a °k 77-77 77 • SEVENTH 8 36 21 LINCOLN PARK SIGH TH LINCOLN 4 TE,. ,"H II c 14 iii ryu" _ 31 F 2q 1 1 i E 5" _ ''`' c N7N 815 ) _ ou 00 TWELFTH 6 95 1-zr(r T .n ( s (,g; I F >> I n 26 I I 64:.;;. I RJEC T Sc ! . T.. -r, f 1 THIRTEENTH I T I J, Meeker 1 Museum , *J9 40 N'1 MEEKER /53 SCHOOL 403 i rrT rr ST, 2 cp fT T1 so V I(( =T 8 STREE�TI 0 K 'I 7- '00 STREET tr /00 '00 S TREE -T 0 J ;STREtT "-, .--- 77,1" T 42 y,7 I; r, STRE ET r 1 T 59 c h. 3 - rI-7' S r/4- r 1 f , Ts Di I„o L.TOO Hog "C I—.. 7 • - A 35 K T P .� SC i ,. /oC sin f COLOR "KEY" TO COMPARABLE SALES MAP Sale Sale Price Sale Sale Price No. Date per S.F. No. Date per S.F. 36 11/67 $26.09 1 1956 $ 9.65 9 9/60 15.43 26 2/65 9.56 8 9/60 15.35 27 6/65 9.31 7 8/60 12.56 12 11/61 12.84 25 3/64 10.67 4 9/59 $ 7.21 31 7/66 7.02 34 12/66 7.00 28 7/66 $ 5.79 18 11/62 5.78 33 12/66 5.56 29 7/66 5.26 30 7/66 5.26 38 7/67 5.00 14 7/62 $ 8.40 19 10/63 $ 6.50 35 1/67 6.52 32 8/66 6;32 10 10/60 $ 3.87 5 2/59 $ 4.74 17 9/62 3.68 37 1/67 4.55 20 6/63 3.50 2 24 2 9/63 5 4.06 21 7/63 3.30 22 5/63 4.00 16 5/62 3.20 15 5/62 3.07 23 6/63 3.07 11 2/61 $ 1.98 39 12/67 $ 2.46 40 8/68 1.60 13 4/62 2.42 6 9/60 2.40 24 a) +) i. [x, ul '0 N .-I 4 0 \O \N Cl N- CO 3 N 0 N- 0 CO P. 0 \0 0 \C N C- 4 u\ Cl -3 co C\ CO -3 4- 0 N O \ CRC CU rU O' C\ 3 Cl (` 3 N n' If\ IN Cl ti N N CC Cl M Cl -H fH .--i .....4 .--- r0 r+ W i. r -1 0 a) a) O. COrTARABLE SALES DATA Sales Price O 00 00 C 0 00 C 0 0 00 0 0 CC C 0 0 0 O 0 ul 0 0 0 0 O Cl ' l 0 0 O C ul in O ul O C' >f O 0 N 0 ri (`"1 u) C' vl N N um N- �0 1.:\ 0\ M ul Cl N N ti C 4- -3' N 10 Cl eci .-y — — C) o • 0 0 C) CO 0 0 0 0 0 ITN 0 0 0 CO 0 0 N 0 0 0 4- um co a 0 co O ul .-i 0 C ul c9 n: -3 O ul .-I 0' Cl CD O N- O N 0' tin ul • .-a .ti c'l N 0\ 0 InlD lO .. C c. C) a) In r -I rJ r. -I a' a' - a) 0 -P c7 0 a z a a)) z o i w o a, o C) a) CU -P C u �• a a y, .0 y. O 01 >•+ 0 +) .-I a) N a) (1) Ci 0 N CI Cx. C7 0 0 0 .-+ c 0 Greeley Nat'l Bank Greeley Nat'l Bank 9/60 O .+ .-I N N N NN l0 ACl '0 '0 v0 AO N \ \ \ \ \ \ O N - 4 C` U> Vl C1 U) U) t'10 FP >> C CO ,0 40 .rl CO _i O t• q cr) 0 CJ +) o f.-, C CO m • • .r 0 i m C. 0 2 C C CJ C 4 C 0 (r CJ C O .r to ID C C C C 0 a' Si -r 0 m 0 e ---4f. 0 ri X C 0 r-1 Cl) .r 0 .rI '� 'C d E. ,^ Cr CC x W G, xC cti Jackson-Heister C O +• p C^ CJ C a) a) r -P rte-! C CD C a) w .-r N Cl a ul l0 0- CC O0 0 .-I N Cl 3 Irk 0 '- N r -I01 .-� .--I ti .--i .-. ti .-4 25 a) 0 � 'C ri W Ct O O O O C`• M C,- \O .ti O` \0 NO N N 'C 0 N a C • L- vl vl M O O 4 ND In M N- N N O M Vl O 'fl tD HI Ce t vl )O M M -.T M 3 O O Cr‘ )/l vl ' l N- )O ' l L- 'C C I W L rl O C) e ---I O. a) cf) O O .rl O O O O C) O O O O O O O O O O O O O S-, O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0.. O O O O O O If) Oo. Vl Vl O O O O O O O O Cn O If) O )/1 CC )O Vl 0 h n In 0l O C' O O um v� a) Le-) )0., O 'f•. of CO C1 Vl M en O en N- - cc) a) a) • f. +) 'C O O N C) O O O Vl .-i O O O ul O O O O 't d G=, M O O N O C) Vl In N- CO O O O 0.- 111 O O O F' O'-. O um NC Ill O L- O --CO )O )11vl vl N O --O O In 0 ' Co. N O Cr '-C' ON CZ) vl en N A O) O-' O-' 3 4 co vl ri V) )1 cc) N .-a N .-) N — ti r1 H a cc) 2 N M M M C'l M M 3 vl )O )O 'C )O v, ' )0 )0 7:4C) .�--)i O � A VO CP. M N vO C- C� [- C- Cl N N .-. ri O x C' C C c Cc Cl ct O O C CD W W 0.l 0 W C) C) - rl r -I ri rl C) H H C q _ _ _ _ C > C C7 'C3 C C) ~ S -4 C0 m M M nt I i 1-4 t, ,C U) 0 z z z Z N c7 H C' a) i ri C > H C +> +) +) +) +) Hi b f. a) C' a) a a` a) a) N O O) N !n N u) a) a) C ci cY, `≥ Q Ia Z Z .-C — .-i .-, .-• 3 3 E f. E, C O C) +) •rl C +) Ct M 0 RR. > rl N Ct C. Cl) Kingsport Hotel Van Sickle f. CO O a-) U a) C N in 1) U. C7 Cf. O u) r'l -H •r4 f. C) Cr, +) a) a) > a) Ct ? U C C') 7; ,^C W 0 Davis -Chapman Davis-Vornholt 1st. Indus. Bank +) 0 O N C) C —I C '0 0 ch C) U O C CO CT O .-+ N en } Vl )O n C) O) O H N M 3 t{� ct •-+ .-) N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M en cf) 26 COMPARABLE SATFS DATA 0• +) $-;i C G' ON In 0 td • 0 In 0 •.a W N . O Ss e H N a) a vc Sales Price 0 (. 0 0 0 0 CD O 0 0 0 CD O 0 0 0 OD )Cl ul )Cl 3 O N N N N- •-1 -at3 of a) a) • w n 0 0 IOl CD Vl V\ 0 C` O7 b • a� N ONCy \ID 0 — .-i 0- N O -D- 40 N . • - •,-j 4) a) H 0 to N -P rl G) H C C) o u H co OS a) r-i 0 r -I Ca 0 ri •ri C C ? 0 0 a: '0 +> 0 •ri F. +) Fi CO O •ri C N C G1 ca H HI to c' ri F. a) a) •ri +) C) o -P N 4 F. a F. C F. Q .C N a) 0 C) C) PC Cn z v; 0 cn M cn ca 27 a) O -P C •i 0 O Lr a) 0 CO H .-1 \0 N N •-+ tll 0 '0 N- '.0 •0 .-t '.0 1 ..-I Q, •n N '0 •0 N .-+ 0., ON O' ON 0 VD N O`. to 0' [- 4-3 0 N . ' CO N 'A l- \0 3 '-0 \0 \0 \O Cl 0 N- 3 N \O O -PC/) H •.i C=. -Ea- -0 Iv C • 0 H CW Cn H at ul 0 to 0 ul ink ul ul tcl Ink 0 ul 0 0 0 'A -4-) .--i 4- Vl 0 Cl 0 4- All If) II-) OD N O H 'O CO t,.- O I + + + .-i I I I + + I 'HI + + + F + + a a o v o to to to to 0 to 0 o 0 0 0 N 1 .-+ .-I I .-+ N N H .- .-4 ++' .-cmCl N + I .+ N C COMPARABLE SALES ADJUSTMENT SHEET C O • 0 a) C O O ul ul tin 'A vl t!l O vl 0 O O .-. 0 1 + + I + N I 1 ~I I I N 1 + + + 1 O a) H a) cd N to O «l ul 0 Vl Vl to 0 um 'A Vl 0 (fl •rl I .-+ I N ri — •-+ .-1 I I N N U7 + + + + I I I + + + I + + c•1 C +-) C C O a) •ra O O to t(l Vl 0 ul in 0 0 v^, 0 0 0 • — +> cd I + + + + I I I + + + I + + + In 0 • O • • 0 ul trl Vl to UM to to to 'A t3 ul If) ul in N to Il . +) ca I + + + + + + + + + + I + + + + + v q vl 'O N .--i 4 0 '0 ul C\ t` CC -.1.N 0 N- O CJ O • O l0 N N- 4- >n Cl 4- co 0. co 4 -3 0 N •.0• Cam. •rl 0' 3 Cl C- .3 N N 0) Cl Cl Cl F, • '-1 • .-i C4 CS' FR U a F. 0 W q L▪ , U • a) 0 y, F, • C W 0 L. E a) H U A 0 C5 4 0 z 5 A R 0 a) c P H .Y HI 0. d -P CC�� +) H -P N a) pa 0.l 0 H L, U 0 a C (Y, cq C7 Hrl -H N S'. 2 2 0 Fn H<d O E 0 [5 .-I C7 U c7 0 H3 U 0 2 U 0 `.G C7 U C l U C 0 LO C +) >. P4 0 O L, I 0 y C 00 � CC 0 0 H 0 a) H U) E bC 1, 0 m -H +> C O H C •rlHH !ti N �^ C a; •rl .Y H F, .,-1 F, CD O aF ,• q2, 0 � H •r ^ 0 d I. C 0 c 0 0 0 H 7i 00 .-5 CH U ICI U 3 CO W x It) k. d ,-) "'n 3 U a Z 3 0 a) • N Cl . vl l0 N- CC 0\ 0 N C\ 4' vl '0 f` 28 C) 0 +' ti 0 Cl Cl } .-4 0 0 a) O in Vl M 3 - i0 3 in in C P. •O N — .-• N Cl O\ 0 it) 4 4 a) CO Cl '0 O\ C\ nr1 • Ste- z Vl V0 \0 3 Vl CO h 0- I— \0 '0 t` '0 '0 N- cd 6.1 -(49- 0 O • O co LIABLE SALES ADJUSTMENT SHEET -) 0 H V\ CV i^ a7 In 4 Cl in o in in 04 N Cl Cl Cl In in h V\ N N + + + + + I I 1 + + + +- + + + co Vl Vl C O O O O ‘no 0 Vl in In V\ V\ Vl P.� + + N N + + + 1 1 I + + + + + + + re Vl In O O O O O In a Ul V\ 4(4V\ Vl Vl V) Vl HI N .-. .-� .-+ O I. + + + + + + + I 1 1 + + + 1 1 + -t n CJ 0) Vl V\ In 0 O Vl in O 0 in in In t1 V\ Vl Vl Vl H .2 + + + + N + + I 1 I + ± + -rI I + I 0 Cl) 0 4-I 0 C +, O C V\ V\ V\ 0 0 0 4•1-)V\ Vl O O 0 Vl In In In +' E IC + + + + + + + I + I + + T. + + + + +, 0 u) 0 a v • U) I \ In Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl in In In In in v1 V\ in In in • M + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + CO 0 0 O O N- Cl N- v0 .--I 0\ \O 40 N N 10 0 C) +) C,- V\ in cm O O 4 10 Vl M C` N N O cm V\ 0 0+ 40 Cl C\ 3 M C 0' C" Vl In 0 0- 10 Vl n Di P o +n v) t C C C n m P7 cP m rc w CWT-] H H H F.. C C) H Q Cl T1 co co 'CSC) C) H H a p H C +� +• +> +> +> +� b 0C) Ct 2-,-(-'. •l Z .N. .-Ni .-�-� .Ni .Ni .-N. •-z H ^a Cc' H O C) F H O H 0.. H 6] z N U) a'. 13 X �' U) V. a C.1 H x Cl) P. n W U) V1 C 0 0 E-4 re'> C') 0 C1. CC 0 CO a H I -I H Ca Z 0 .=I Z Z H R' Cl Q C '� CC L •'C �' H O L 6 --1: U &- M. P.0 c Ca c) U f-. • r01 O CO rn 0 .-4 N Cl 4- In 10 C` cT) O\ 0 Hi N Cr) 4- - - N N N N N N N N N N Cl C\ (n Cr) Cl v) 29 (I) U -P C •rl C.) •ri a CO � -* N -p . cd • t` {` w ir\ C1 U -Pti U] C • O H cr w C!) • • 4 ,- • � 4- N 0 • + + c. + (U!) I N .O -1 4- N- `-� I + + + COMPARABLE SALES ADJUSTMENT SHEET C O f-4 a) C O O O (1) r -1 cd a) vl O V1 O rl + It + + I C--i Cn O -P C C Q) C E •rl u1 O O O O cn cd + I + + + U • • • I I I I • cd + q a) +)Nr1 O W U C.- •ri \O \O -3 N .-•I f, • a o. t C! (1) • •rl W H U) a) E -I H a) r4 Z 't0 H U) d -P XI r -I H (t) 0 0 3 0 C4 H • UU 3 H 0 C H N c •.:r,) c. 00 W PO to a) • cc 2 cV1 c\Or1 t•-• 1 cam *'\ � C!) 30 COMPARABLE SALES ADJUSTMENT SHEET ANALYSIS Of the 40 Sales that were used and adjusted to indicate the estimated square foot price for the subject property, the sales that required the least amount of adjustment in order are: Sale Price % Indication No. GRANTOR GRANTEE Sq. Ft. Adjusted Sq. Ft. Price for Subject 4 STERLING Gilbert $ 7.21 0 . $ 7.21 31 DAVIS 1st N. Bank 7.02 + 5 . 7.36 32 GILBERT 1st N. Bank 6.32 + 5 6.64. 34 MADDOX Weld Inv. 7.00 + 5 . 7.35 14 LEWIN G.G.G. 8.40 -10 . 7.56 1 DAVIS 1st N. Bank 9.65 -15 8.20' 35 CON000 1st Indus. 6.52 +15 • 7.50 12 WELLINGTON Gilbert 12.84 -20 10.27- 26 HATCH Nelson 9.56 -20 7.65' 27 KRESS Monroe 9.31 -20 . 7.45 18 FARR G.G.G. 5.78 +25 . 7.23 19 SALVATION Weld. Inv. 6.50 +25 8.13• 33 CONNOR 1st N. Bank 5.56 +25 • 6.95 25 SWARTZ Levy 10.67 -25 8.00. 5 BLISS City 4.74 +30 6.16' 23 PHELPS 1st N. Bank 5.79 +30 . 7.43 29 DAVIS 1st N. Bank 5.26 +30 6.84- 30 DAVIS 1st N. Bank 5.26 +30 6.84- 31 The foregoing 18 sales indicate a sq. ft. price range applicable in estimating the value of the Subject Property to be from a low of $6.16 (#5) to a high of $10.27 (#12). By a process of elimination, the following develops: Sale #12 was adjusted downward 20% but does not take into account the improvements on the property at time of purchase. It is assumed that the improvements were considered to contribute some value -- hence, the value of the underlying land was lower than the sq. ft. price indi- cates. The next high sale was #1 at $8.20 per sq. ft. It required an adjustment of 15% downward. However, the sale took place nearly 13 years ago and the sale, therefore, required an adjustment that might he in error. The next high sale was #19 at $8.13 per sq. ft. The adjustment was 25% upward --- again the adjustment was severe. The same is true of the next high sale -- #25 at $8.00 per sq. ft. -- which required an adjustment downward of 25%. The indication thus far is that the value of the Subject Property is estimated to be less than $8.00 per sq. ft. but greater than the low sale of $6.16 (#5) which required an adjustment upward of 30%. The next low sale of $6.64 per sq. ft. (#32) required a minimal amount of adjustment -- up 5%. This process of eliminating 6 of the 18 sales applicable in esti- mating the value of the Subject Property indicates a range of $6.84 to $7.65. These are sales #29 & #30 through sale #26. These sales, however, required adjustments upward of 30% (#29 & #30) and 20% down- ward (#26). Therefore, any sales lower than $6.84 or higher than $7.65 per sq. ft. are eliminated. The sales that remain as applicable in estimating the value of the subject property are: 32 Amount of Adjustment High Sale # 14 --- $7.56 - 10% # 35 7.50 + 15% # 27 --- 7.45 - zo% # 28 7.43 + 30% # 31 7.36 + 5% # 34 7.35 + .5% # 18 7.23 + 25% # 4 7.21 0% # 33 6.95 + 25% The sale that required the least amount of adjustment is #4 which was the purchase price of the property in 1959. The next two sales which required adjustments of only 5% were sales #31 i #34. The range established is a low of $7.21 to a high of $7.36. The two highs reflect that the prices paid were high because they were requirements of completing a land assemblage program. Since they ocoured in a location that is estimated to be not as good as the subject property it is estimated that the difference in location is offset by the requirements of completing the land assemblage program. The price paid for the subject property (Sale #4) of $7.21 should he slightly higher in order to compensate for the 10 year period since the sale (which was high at the time) and the shift of interest in land values near the subject property. In consideration of the analysis --- it is estimated that the value of the Subject Property on a sr. ft. basis is $7.25..' • Land area of 29,268 sq. ft. times $7.25 per sq. ft. equals: $212,193.00 ---_. rounded to $212,000.00 33 CORRELATION AND CONCLUSION Only the Market Dc:ta Approach was used in esti- mating the Market Value of the Subject Property be- cause the assumption was made that the improvements on the land do not represent the Highest and Best Use of the land. Therefore, neither the Cost Approach or Income Approach were applicable in estimating value. As a result of the Market Data Approach, data and information assembled, the Market Value of the Subject Property is estimated to be, as of February 20, 1969: 212,000.00 34 CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This appraisal is subject to the following assump- tions and limiting conditions: 1. The maps, drawings and photographs are included with this report to assist the reader in visualizing the property. The legal description contained herein is approximate for identification purposes. No survey has been made by this appraiser. 2. I assume no responsibility for matters of a legal character nor do I render any opinion as to the title. 3. It is assumed that the title is merchantable, the property free and clear of liens and encumbrances, under responsible ownership and competent management. 4. The information furnished me by others is believed to be reliable, but I assume no responsibility for its accuracy. 5. This report is to be considered in its entirety, the distribution of value between land and improvements applies only under the existing program of utilization, it should not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and is invalid if so used. 6. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or ether media, without the written consent and approval of the author, parti- cularly as to valuation conclusions, the identity of the appraiser or firm with which he is associated. 35 QUALIFICATIONS OF MARION CVITANOVICH APPRAISER EDUCATION: 1950 Graduate of University of Colorado. B.A. Degree in Minor Degree in Economics Completed Appraisal Course I — of Real Estate Appraisers Completed Appraisal Course I - Extension Service. EXPERIENCE: Since fall of 1962 have assisted Thos. M. Welsh, Denver, Denver, Journalism & Geography American Institute - Boulder, Colo. University of Colo. M.A.I./S.R.A. on numerous appraisal assign- ments for: Attorneys and Individuals Several Colorado Communities Public Service Company of Colorado Several Banks and Mortgage Institutions Veterans Administration RELATED EXPERIENCE: Managed retail lumber yard operations for 12 years Built and/or supervised the construction of more than 200 homes and buildings Licensed Real Estate Salesman, State of Colorado since January, 1963 Licensed Real Estate Salesman -Broker, State of Colorado since August, 1968 Director, Secretary -Treasurer and President (1968) Greeley Board of Realtors Member of the Colorado and National Association of 36 CERTIFICATION OF VALUE I, the Undersigned, do hereby certify that I have personally inspected the property, which is the Subject of this appraisal, and that, according to my knowledge and belief, all statements and information in this re- port are true and correct, subject to the stated contin- gent limiting conditions contained herein. I further certify that I have no present or contem- plated future interest in the property appraised; further that neither the employment to make the appraisal, nor the compensation, is contingent upon the amount of value reported. After consideration of all the foregoing, I have formed an opinion of Market Value of the Subject Property, as of February 20, 1969 to be: Two Hundred Twelve Thousand and No/100 Dollars ( 0212,000.00 ) 7/Xlit V Marion Cvitanovich Appraiser Respectful si mitteAl 37 f W D Z W >. a EIGHTH. LINCOLN PARK NINTH WELD COUNTY OFFICES TENTH W D 2 W a STREET TOTAL AREA 14,37° ASSESSED VALUE °52,88 MARKET VALUE $I76,3C VALUE PER SQ.FT. $12.26 STREET TOTAL AREA 29,26 ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE 29,268 X$I221 = $358,85 STREET fALUE STUDY ON TWO DOWNTOWN GREELEY t 'TIES for BOB GILBERT: 4 SCALE NORTH I". 100' NELSON,HAL'EY,PATTERSON and QUIRK, C NEAL CARPENTER,AIA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTAN Hello