Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Ordinance 3633
FILED FCR RECORD 092 AUG 14 W10 55 WASHINGTON CO AR ORDINANCE NO . ':613 A . KOLLMEYER AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CITY TO OBTAIN b APPROXIMATELY 2 . 15 ACRES , TRACTS 75 , 76 , 77 , t=4 OWNED BY MR . AND MRS . MELVIN FRANCIS , WHICH IS PART OF THE AIRPORT FEDERAL LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT AREA . BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE , ARKANSAS : Section 1 . That the Board of Directors authorizes and directs the city attorney of the City of Fayetteville , Arkansas to initiate legal action , in order to obtain property needed for the airport federal land acquisition project , on the property described below : A A ) Tracts No , 75 , 76 and 77 , containing approximately 2 . 15 acres , owned by Mr . and Mrs . Melvin Francis , as more fully set forth in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit "A" . Section 2 , The Board of Directors hereby determines that the immediate acquisition of the above-described property for the Airport Federal Land Acquisition Project is necessary for runway approach and transitional area protection/obstruction removal and is essential for the public health , safety and welfare . Therefore , an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this ordinance being necessary for the public health , safety and welfare shall be in full force and effect from and after it ' s passage and approval . PASSED AND APPROVED this 4th day of August 1992 , APPROVED : By : Mayo ATTEST : "• Byy� City . Cle& 92 41406 I , . CERTW KATE OF RECOR9 State of Arlhansas SS C.lty of Taya!teville L, sherry thojnaa, City Clerk and Ex- L4 recorder for the City of Esy�ttevt!le, do hereby certify that the annexed or foregoing is of record in my o `ftce and the same appears In i^at•dinence & Resolution book XX Witnlu 'less my �n� and rgga 02 s qday of C" Nm s a-O(('fcio (tewcder th EXHIBIT "A" A part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33 in Township 16 North of Range 30 West , described as follows : Beginning at a point which is 505 . 9 feet North of the South line of said 40 acre tract , and running thence East 127 feet to a point on the West line of U . S . Highway Number 71 ; said point being Northeast corner of a tract of land heretofore conveyed to Ben Thomas and wife ; thence North running with the West line of said Highway , 120 feet ; thence West 66 feet ; thence in a Southwest direction 62 feet more or less to a point which is 83 feet due North of the point of beginning , and thence South 83 feet to the place of beginning , said being more particularly described as follows , to-wit : Beginning at the Southwest corner of Section 33 , Township 16 North , Range 30 West , and running thence East 883 . 88 feet , thence North 297 . 18 feet , thence North 3 ° 12151 " East 130 . 14 feet , thence North 8908118 " E 162 . 2 feet , thence North 100 feet , thence North 8908 ' 18 " East 22 feet , for the point of beginning of the property herein conveyed , thence continuing North 89008118 " East 130 . 89 feet to the West Right-of-way line of U . S . Highway No . 71 , thence North 1032135 " East 120 feet , thence South 89 ` 08118 " West 66 feet , thence South 60 ` 53118 " West 66 feet , thence South 60053113 " West 77 . 96 feet to a point which is 83 feet due north of the point of beginning , thence South 83 feet to the point of beginning . 92 41407 ORDINANCE NO. 1633 - -- STATEofARKANSAS 1 AN ORDINANCE AUTHOR- too feet, thence NorthJy ss. IZING EMINENT DOMAIN 89.8.18" East 22 feet, for PROCEEDINGS FOR THE the point of beginning of County cl Washington CITY.rTO OBTAIN APPROXI- the property herein con- MATELY 2 . 15 ACRES. °eyed, thence continuing TRACTS 75 . 76 . 77 , North eet to t3 " East \ . � SI �"/lC/o/� herebycert' that 130.89 feat to the Wast I, l JJJ l i , OWNED ' BY MR. & MRS. MELVIN FRANCIS. WHICH Right-of-way line of U.S. am the publisher of THE NORTHWEST ARKANSAS TIMES, a daily newspaper IS PART OF THE AIRPORT Highway - No. 7E thence ' FEDERAL LAND ACOUI51- North 1 '32'35" East 12e having a second class mailing privilege, and being not less than foto pages of five TION PROJECT AREA. feet , thence South columns each, published at a feed place of business and at a feed (daily) intervals BE IT ORDAINED BY thence te" west 66, teat, continuous[ in the Ci of Fayetteville, Com of Washin mn, Arkansas for more . THE BOARD OF DIREC- theses South 80.53' 18" Y City Y tY Washing um, oR THE cm of Wast 66 feet, the South than a period of twelve months, oculated and distributed from an established place 60.53'13"- West 77:98 feat I p, A, v E T T E V I � LIE , of business to subscribers and readers generally of all classes N the City and County ARKANSAS: to a point which it feat Section 1 . That the dt,a north of the' point m for a definite price for each copy, or a fixed price per annum, which price was fixed Board of Directors author- beginning, thence South B:: at what is considered the value of the publication, based upon the news value and ser- ines and directs the city at- feet to the point of torney. of the City of Fayet- beginning. vice value it contains, that az least fifty percent of the subscribers thereto have paid teville, Arkansas to mieate _ _ - cash for their subscriptions to the newspaper or its agents or through recognized news legal action in order to ob- dealers over a period of a least six months; and that the said newspaper publishes an tarn property needed for cq the average of more than forty percent news matter. airport project. o land property tion project. to the property described below: AI Tracts No. 75, 76 and I further certify that the legal notice hereto attached in the matter of 77, containing approxi- mately pproxi- 2.15 acres. owned by Mr. ra & Mrs. Melvin Faun- cis. Mc i cis. as more fully set form , I in the legal description at- was published in the regular daily issue of said newspaper for tached hereto as Exhibit "A" consecutive insertions as follows: Section 2. The Board of Di rectors hereby determines The first insertion on the J$_ day of (LADIAAA 19 that the immediate amineF U tion of the above described , property for the Airport the second insertion on the day of 19 Federal Land Acquisition I Project is necessary for run- way approach and transi- the third insertion on the day of 19 tional area protection/ obstruction removal and is essential for the public and the fourth insertion on the day of 19 health, safety and welfare. Therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this ordinance being necessary for the public Publishe / General Manager health, safety and welfare shall be in full force and of- , fact from and after Its pas- sago and approval. Sworn to and subscribed before me on this / 38 da of PASSED AND AP - Y PROVED this 4th day of August. 1992. APPROVED: .(�1 Old 19 By: Fred S. Vorsanger ATTEST: By: Sherry L. Thomas City Clerk EXHIBIT 'A' Notary Public A pert Of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33 in Township 16 North of Range 30 . West. described My Commission Expires: as follows: Beginning at e point which is 505.9 feet '? -0 / � _D / _ O / 'Orth of the South line of said 40 acre tract. and run- ning thence East 127 feet to a point on the West line of U:'S. Highway Number 71 : said point being t I2jO _OV east Cosner of a traccOf t of Fees for Printing $ land heretofore conveyed Banc Thomas and wife; thence running with Cost of Proof $ the Wastt line of said High- ///111 way. et: feet: thence West 1 ,total $ e 66 feet: thence in a Sounh west direction a fit Leet more or lass to a point which 'i r 83 feat data North of the point of beginning, and thence South 83 feet to the place of beginning. and bo- ; scr more particularly tle- ' scribed as follows, to-wit: ' Beginning at the Southwest ' corner of Section. 33. Town- ship 16 North, Range 30 West, and running thence l East 883.88 feet. thence , North 297.10 feet, thence North 3.12'51 " East 130.14 ' feet. thence North 89'8'18" E 162.2 feet, thence Northi &,..e ¢ CLQ%4 JItC. TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page........................................1 Letter of Transmittal................................2-3 PART I - INTRODUCTION Table of Contents....................................4 Photographs..........................................5-13 Certificate..........................................14 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions ..................15-16 Summary of Important Conclusions ..................... 17-18 Qualification of Tom Reed............................19-20 PART II - FACTUAL DESCRIPTION Identification of Property...........................21-22 Purpose of the Appraisal .............................22 Definition of Market Value ...........................23 Property Rights Appraised ............................23 Scope of the Appraisal...............................24-25 Ownership of the Appraised Property..................25 I1 ` v r\ �t Date of the Appraisal................................25 Area Map.............................................26 Area Data ............................................ 27-33 U q2 f33 Location Map.........................................34 Neighborhood Data....................................35-36 Parcel Map...........................................37 Description of Site..................................38-42 Zoning..............................................42 Building Sketches....................................43-44 Assessment and Tax...................................45 Zoning Map...........................................46 History..............................................47 PART III - ANALYSIS OF DATA AND OPINIONS OF THE APPRAISAL \� Highest and Best Use.................................48-49 Cost Approach.......................................50-59 Sales Comparison Approach .... .......................60-74 Income Capitalization Approach .......................75-86 Reconciliation.......................................87-89 PART IV - ADDENDA Notice of Contract for sale of Real Estate and Escrow Agreement.................................90-92 0 Warranty Deed........................................93 Location Maps........................................94-99 Flood Plain Map......................................100 Property Cards....................................101-107 Mobile Home Inspection Report ........................109-123 Appraisal Request Letter.............................124-129 0 i 4 ;i F, k '��'��,����r�l��y'rrj1� 4 �.�M��'�"(C�xtYi?.�Y�'��.l�lsOn��arn��,iufgr•SG"yS.,. ,�'• .��„In a r�-.5- .,:, ?y1 Photographs Cont'd 6- Ji'4u: LWCLLING - REAR & SOUTH SIDE 11 ` et�� UNOCCUPIED DWELLING - FRONT & NORTH SIDE 0 � t ` p .. � ♦ � � � eta �")yr8 � � !. %�� rd r 1r \ FY LINE �OPERTY Photographs, Cont'd. &124 GRAVEL DRIVE FROM 71 INTO PARK `lvm'J1z nUML UNITS 6, 7 & a 11 •�.,'� V�� t, � ` :TM ���!I�y�` ��' i i � Iil ,.y �, "1�I�N LMUR„ x$FF N 4 �W>•J� 1 Sri': ♦ 1'4, r � � ' r �„ �.r7ti �7y: i^:.� i • 4 � L,f., �, ,�f{�11 'oaf, r� ; �',y��{f�'�' •� �`it�,�, .,; 1 � " r' ed d �aaoci�c(ea. 'izc. CERTIFICATE I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: - The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. - The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. - I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. - 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. The appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan. - My analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. I, Tom Reed, have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. - No one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this report. I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional \ Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. I certify that the use of this report is subject to the O requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. - As of the date of this report, I. Tom Reed, have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. © :Wfu )Wubmitted, Tom Reed, MAI REED & ASSOCIATES, INC. 14 0 0 IV 11 Wo ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITION d.�laaocuilea"�"C. This appraisal report has been made with the following general assumptions: 1• No responsibility is assumed for the legal description or for matters including legal or title considerations. Title to the property is assumed to be good and merchantable unless otherwise stated. 2. The property is appraised free and clear of any or all liens or encumbrances unless otherwise stated. 3. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed. 4. The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable. However, no warranty is given for its accuracy. 5. All engineering is assumed to be correct. The plot plans and illustrative material in this report are included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property. 6• It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover them. 7. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state and local environmental regulations and laws unless noncompliance is stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report. 8. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless a nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report. 9. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates Of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in this report is based. 15 �Im .Jay ' '!h Cl Is V r' Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Cont'd Reed �4"' 10. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted in the report. 11. "Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous materials which may or may not be present on the property was not observed by the appraiser. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions or any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert if desired." This appraisal report has been made with the following Igeneral limiting conditions. 1. The distribution, if any, of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate allocations for land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 2. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser, and in any event only with proper written qualification and only in its entirety. 3. The appraiser herein by reason of this appraisal is not required to give further consultation, testimony, or be in attendance in court with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been previously made. 4. Neither all nor an y part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the O appraiser, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. I O EE �I 16 1b 0 10 A � d �aaocialed, �4nc. SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT CONCLUSIONS Client: W.D. Schock Company, Greenland, Arkansas Property Location: Approximately 182.67'+/- southerly from the Bailey Drive/U.S. 71 Highway intersection on the west side of U.S. 71, Greenland, Arkansas; Washington County; Property known as Airport Trailer Park Purpose of the Appraisal: Market Value Estimate Property Rights Appraised: Leased Fee Estate Scope of the Appraisal: The "Appraisal Process" was followed in estimating the market value of the subject property. Ownership of the Appraised Property:. Melvin F. & Lola N. Francis Date of Value Estimate: March 12, 1992 Description of Site: 2.10+/- acres of commercial zoned property; Undulating to gently sloping topography; Typical public utilities are available; Property is \ \ traversed by a drainage ditch; 15 space mobile home park (1 1/2+/- spaces may lie on adjoining property). _Description of Improvements: 2106+/- SF concrete block building formerly utilized for 12 residential rental units; 1271+/- SF frame (vinyl siding) duplex; 717+/- SF frame r- (vinyl siding) dwelling; 606+/- SF frame dwelling; frame storage building; metal storage building; 15 on -site 1 mobile homes; Park appears older and only in fair i p condition. O Highest and Best Use: Mobile Home Park Estimated Site Value: $ 35,000 Indicated Value By © Cost Approach: $133,500 17 ,.0 0 10 Summary of Important Conclusions Cont,d G 14444c';a�, Ac. ! Indicated Value By Sales Comparison Approach- $136,000 Indicated Value By Income Capitalization Approach: $137,500 Final Value Estimate• Real Property = $ 81,000 Contributory Value of Mobile Homes in place & Ready for Rental = 56,500 Total = $137,500 The preceding value represents terms equivalent to cash to the owners. I It should be noted that subject property is traversed by a drainage ditch. The limit of the flood zone study is just east of subject. A survey is needed to make an exact determination if subject property is located in the 100 year flood zone. I hereby certify that this appraisal report conforms to Federal Aviation Administration Guidelines, to the best of my understanding. Only the interior of one trailer, number fourteen, was examined. The preceding mobile home value is based on the assumption that the interior of each mobile home is in at least fair condition with the continued* potential for rental. The preceding value is also contingent upon income/expense data furnished by the client being correct. i i O ; i --J 18 r s s 0 o 7c v V L CO V Summary of Important Conclusions Cont'd Indicated Value By Sales Comparison Approach- $136,000 Indicated Value By Income Capitalization A221oach• $137,500 Final Value Estimate: Real Property = $ 81,000 Contributory Value of i Mobile Homes in place & Ready for Rental = 56,500 Total = $137,500 The preceding value represents terms equivalent to cash to f the owners. e It should be noted that subject property is traversed by a drainage ditch. The limit of the flood zone study is just east of subject. A survey is needed to make an exact determination if s»bject property is located in the 100 year flood zone. I hereby certify that this appraisal orms to Federal Aviation Administration Guidelines, to the rt f best of my understanding. Y' i Only the interior of one trailer, number fourteen, was 1 examined. The preceding mobile home value is based on the \ assumption that the interior of each mobile home is in at least fair condition with the continued* potential for rental. The preceding value is also contingent upon income/expense data furnished by the client being correct. i' 0 , O ©1 i a 18� i e r n 0 QUALIFICATIONS OF TOM REED � w. Educational Background and Training B.S.B.A. in Finance/Real Estate -University of Arkansas, May 1973 Masters in Business Administration -University of Arkansas, May, 1978 State Certified General Appraiser - CG0217 The following courses and/or exams given by The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers have been successfully completed: Exam 8 (Residential Valuation)-1976 Exam IA (Real Estate Appraisal Principles and Basic Valuation Procedures)-1977 Exam 2-3 (Standards of Professional Practice)-1982 & 1991 Exams 1B-A & 1B-B (Capitalization Theory and Techniques)- 1984 Exam 2-1 (Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation)-1984 Course 2-2 (Valuation Analysis and Report Writing)-1987 Exam IA-1 (Real Estate Appraisal Principles)-1988 Exam 1A-2 (Basic Valuation Procedures)-1988 Additional appraisal courses successfully completed include: Farm Manager and Rural Appraisal Course sponsored by The American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers-1976 Professional Experience Associate Appraiser with Adams Appraisal Co., Harrison, AR, from January, 1974, through December, 1977 Chief Appraiser and owner of Adams Appraisal Co., Springdale, AR, from December, 1977 to present Adams Appraisal Company renamed "REED & ASSOCIATES" as of July 1979, and Incorporated as of October, 1982 Professional Affiliations Arkansas Real Estate Salesperson's License-1972 Arkansas Real Estate Broker's License-1979 National Association of Realtors Arkansas Realtors Association-GRI District 3 Vice -President (1985) Board of Directors (1987-1989) Board of Realtors Springdale (President-1984) Fayetteville -Affiliate Membership Rogers -Affiliate Membership Member of the Appraisal Institute - #M7987 Arkansas Assessors Association -Senior Appraiser Level IV designation given by the Arkansas Assessment Coordination Div. Conventional Fee Appraiser -FNMA #1024389 19 rol A N 0 Qualifications, Cont'd. 'Weed d �oaocialea, Inc. Clientele FAA Dept. of Transportation -Southwest Region -Ft. Worth, TX Federal Housing Administration -Little Rock, AR Farmers Home Administration -Harrison, Yellville, & Mountain Home, AR Veteran's Administration -Little Rock, AR Corps of Engineers -Little Rock & Vicksburg Districts Cities of: Pea Ridge, Springdale, Fayetteville, Harrison, Bentonville, Mountain Home, Gravette First National Bank -Springdale, AR First State Bank -Springdale, AR Springdale Bank & Trust -Springdale, AR United Federal Savings Bank -Springdale, AR First National Bank -Rogers, AR McILroy Bank -Fayetteville, AR First National Bank -Fayetteville, AR One National Mortgage -Fayetteville, AR Collateral Mortgage -Fayetteville, AR First Financial Mortgage -Fayetteville, AR Other Mortgage Companies, Banks, & Savings & Loans Individuals & Attorneys Relocation Companies -Employee Transfer Company, Homequity, Realty Relocation Service Corp., Merrill Lynch Relocation Management, Equitable Relocation Service Mass Appraisal for Property Tax Purposes: Crawford County, Baxter County, Boone County, Carroll County Court Testimony Circuit Court -Harrison, Fayetteville, Bentonvile, Berryville, Eureka Springs, Mt. Home, & Fort Smith Federal Court -Harrison, Fayetteville, & Fort Smith Chancery Court -Harrison & Fayetteville Appraisal Seminars, 1990 Hotel/Motel Valuation -Deer Valley, Utah, January, 1990 HUD Single -Family Review Seminar -Hot Springs, AR April 9-10, 1990 VA Single -Family Review Seminar - North Little Rock, AR, August 3, 1990 Appraisal Seminars, 1991 VA Single -Family Review Seminar - North August, 1991 Landfills and Their Effect Upon Value - August, 1991 The Technical Inspection of Real Estate Washington, August, 1991 Residential St. Certification/Licensing Rock, AR, October 18, 1991 Gene_ 1 Little Rock, AR, Seattle, Washington, - Seattle, Review - Little a St. Certification/Licensing Review - Little Rock, AR, October 19, 1991 20 10 n PART II FACTUAL DESCRIPTIONS 14 1: I 14 e r 1 0 0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY 6.eci d ov 6, ` nc. TRACT 1: A part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, in Township 16 North of Range 30 West, described as follows: Beginning at a point which is 505.9 feet North of the South line of said 40 acre tract, and running thence East 127 feet to a point on the West line Of U.S. Highway Number 71; said point being the Northeast corner of a tract of land heretofore conveyed to Ben Thomas and wife; thence north running with the West line of said Highway, 120 feet, thence West 66 feet, thence in a Southwest direction 62 feet more or less to a point which is 83 feet due North of the point of beginning, and thence South 83 feet to the place of beginning, said lands having been surveyed and are more particularly described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Section 33, Township 16 North, Range 30 West, and running thence East 883.88 feet, thence North 297.18 feet, thence North 3 degrees 12 minutes 51 seconds East 130.14 feet, thence North 89 degrees 8 minutes 18 seconds East 162.2 feet, thence North 100 feet, thence North 89 degrees 8 minutes 18 seconds East 22 feet, for the point of beginning of the property herein conveyed, thence continuing North 89 degrees 8 minutes 18 seconds East 130.89 feet to the West right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 71, thence North 1 degree 32 minutes 35 seconds East 120 feet, thence South 89 degrees 8 minutes 18 seconds West 66 feet, thence South 60 degrees 53 minutes 13 seconds West 77.96 feet to a point which is 83 feet due north of the point of beginning, thence South 83 feet to the point of beginning. TRACT 2: Part of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section thirty-three (33) in Township Sixteen (16) North of Range Thirty (30) West, described as follows: Beginning at a point which is eight hundred ninety and five -tenths (890.5) feet East and North 3 degrees East two hundred seventy-six (276) feet from the Southwest corner of said forty -acre tract, and running, thence North 3 degrees East one hundred thirty (130) feet, thence East one hundred sixty-two and two -tenths (162.2) feet, thence North one hundred (100) feet, thence East one hundred fifty (150) feet to the West line of Highway No. 71, thence Southerly with the West line of said Highway two hundred thirty (230) feet to a point three hundred thirteen and three -tenths (313.3) feet East of the beginning point, thence West three hundred thirteen and three -tenths (313.3) feet to the point of beginning, which lands have been surveyed and are more particularly described as surveyed, to -wit: Beginning 883.88 feet East and 297.18 feet North of the Southwest Corner of Section 33, Township 16 North, Range 30 West, and running thence North 89 degrees 8 minutes 18 seconds East 317.19 feet, thence North 1 degree 32 minutes n 21 X 01 • e- I �.al d �aaocialea, Inc. Identification of Property. Cont'd 35 seconds East 230 feet, thence South 89 degrees 8 minutes 18 seconds West 152.89 feet, thence South 100 feet, thence South 89 degrees 8 minutes 18 seconds West 162.2 feet, thence South 3 degrees 12 minutes 51 seconds West 130.14 feet to the point of beginning. AND Part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 16 North, Range 30 West, described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at a point which is East 890.5 feet and North 3 degrees East 276 feet from the southwest corner of said 40 acre tract, and running thence North 130 feet, thence West to the East right of way of the Frisco Railroad, thence South bearing East with said railroad right of way line to a point due West of the point of beginning, I thence East to the point of beginning. Surveys which appear later, indicate somewhat different site dimensions. The dimensions, indicated on the surveys will be utilized in this report. PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of the subject property as of March 12, 1992. The client's intended use of this report is as a basis for acquisition of the property in connection with the Fayetteville Municipal Airport Land Acquisition Program. 11 i f 22 V& I* L DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE G d � a'&W. "The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicitly in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: a. buyer and seller are typically motivated; b. both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; C. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; d. payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in term so financial arrangements comparable thereto, and; e. 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."' PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED This appraisal is concerned with the valuation of the leased fee estate of the subject property. Leased fee estate is defined as follows: "An ownership interest held by a landlord with the right of use and occupancy conveyed* by lease to others; usually consists of the right to receive rent and the right to repossession at the termination of lease." 2 Subject current rental rates appear to lie within the market range for properties of this nature. Therefore, the value of the leased fee and fee simple estates, in 0 equal. my opinion, is j 'American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, (Chicago: American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1984), P. 194. American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, The © Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, (Chicago: American Institute of Real Estate Appraiser, 1984), P. 123. J 'American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, (Chicago: American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1984), P. 152 'Ibid, P. 152. 23 0 0 wed d.444oc4a&4, Jnc. SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL The scope of this appraisal involves the application of the "Appraisal Process" in estimating the market value of the subject property. 92. Subject site was last inspected on March 12, 19th obtained at e th Pertinent locational and physical data was property inspection. The manager of the mobile home park was present at the inspection. Some photographs were taken at the inspection as well as the exterior of the mobile homes examined. The interior of the manager's unit, #14, was also examined. The legal description was furnished by the client. Also, a surveys on the property were furnished by the client. Applicable property tax data was obtained at the Washington county Courthouse. The highest and of the property characteristics,�a zoni g ctexisting based upon location, physical and past usage, etc. Each of the three accepted valuation met o sVals bare utilized in this report. The "Approaches described later in the report. Service, National o st e, was Marshall Valuation the reproductioncost new S of icsubject used to project improvements. ed \ Subject improvements are not new aLifend o Method was suffer m usedto ( depreciation. The Economic Ag estimate the accrued depreciation percentage'roductionindicated cost i O percentage depreciation was multiplied by p t testimate new to arrive able land comparable were examined depreciation. Finally, p ur oses to the subject site. and analyzed for comparison p P The estimated value of the subject site was added to the depreciated improvement value to arrive at the indicated © value by the Cost App 24 0 0 to to it c d .1Vaaoc44te6, Jnc. Scope of Appraisal Cont'd In the Sales Comparison Approach, sales of mobile home parks were examined and analyzed for comparison purposes to the subject property. There was not an abundance of mobile home park sales, especially recent transactions. The sales utilized were considered the best available. The sales were compared to the subject property on a per space basis and adjustments made for differences to arrive at the indicated per space value for subject. The per space value was then multiplied by the number of spaces in subject park. This provided an estimate of value for the subject property, excluding the mobile homes. Four of the mobile home park sales also included mobile homes. Insufficient data was available on these mobile homes, however, an attempt was made to utilize the sales, including the mobile homes, to arrive at a total value of the subject property by the Sales Comparison Approach. Sales four and five were the primary comparables relied on. An effective gross income multiplier was developed from these sales and multiplied by subject's projected effective gross annual income to arrive at an indicated value. In the Income Capitalization Approach, mobile home parks in the Fayetteville -Springdale area were examined for comparable rentals and expense data. Annual -net operating income for subject was projected at stabilized occupancy. An applicable capitalization rate was projected by the Band of Investment method. Annual net operating income was divided by the selected overall capitalization rate to arrive at the indicated value by the Income Capitalization Approach. In conclusion, the value indications by- each of the approaches were reconciled into a final estimate of defined value. l OWNERSHIP OF THE APPRAISED PROPERTY I i 0 Subject property is presently under the ownership.of Melvin F. & Lola N. Francis. DATE OF THE APPRAISAL 01 The effective date of this report is March 12, 1992. The date this appraisal report was prepared was March 13, 1992. I. i i 25 I' 0 0 7 VP V 11. ` I G � �aaocialra, Inc. AREA DATA The trade area includes Washington County and Benton County. The two counties are located in the extreme northwestern part of Arkansas. This area is bordered by the Oklahoma state line on the west, the Missouri State line on the north, Carroll and Madison Counties on the east, and Crawford County on the south. The total area of Benton County is 886+/- square miles and Washington County is 963+/- square miles. The value of real property reflects and is influenced by the interaction of basic forces that motivate human activity. These forces are divided into four major categories: social trends; economic circumstances; governmental controls and regulations; and, environmental conditions. These forces exert pressure on human activities and are also affected by these activities. The interaction of all the forces influences the value of every parcel of real estate in the market. wv vs SOCIAL FORCES: Social forces are exerted primarily through population characteristics. The demographic composition of the population reveals the potential, basic demand for real estate services. IThe population of Benton County in 1960, according to census figures, was 36,272. Washington County showed a population of 55,797 for the same year. The combined population in I 1960 was 92,069. The 1980 census showed population figures of 78,115 and 100,494, respectively, for the two counties. This totals 178,607 for the two counties in 1980. The growth rate between 1960 and 1980 is computed to be 94+/-%, or 4.7%/year. The population of Benton County in 1990 was \ 97,499 and Washington County was 113,409. The combined population of the two counties in '1990 was 210,908, representing a 18.1% increase over 1980 or 1.81% year. Bentonville is the county seat of Benton County. This city is located in the north part of the county. Bentonville had \I a population of 8,756 in 1980, a 140% increase since 1960. The 1984 population of Bentonville was approximately 9,918. The 1990 population of Bentonville was approximately 11,257. 0 Rogers is the largest city in the county. Its 1980 population of 17,429 showed a 206% increase in the last two decades. The 1984 population of Rogers was approximately 19,810 and the 1990 population was 24,692. Siloam Springs, located on the Oklahoma line in the southwest part of the county, is the third major city in the county. It grew from a population of 3,953 in 1960 to 8,151 in 1990, a 106% 0 it increase. 27 0 0 I INC E IArea Data, Cont'd. Reed d J�OOocia�eb, qw. Some of the smaller cities and towns in Benton County include Gentry, Gravette, Pea Ridge, Lowell, Decatur, Cave Springs, Bella Vista (a large-scale planned unit development), etc. Within the county, there are a total of 18 incorporated towns and cities. Fayetteville is the county seat of Washington County. This city is located in the north central part of the county. Fayetteville had a population of 36,604 in 1980. This represented a 19.1% increase since 1970. The 1990 population of Fayetteville was approximately 42,099. Fayetteville is also the largest city in the county. Springdale is the second largest city in Washington County. Its 1980 population of 23,458 showed a 39.8% increase in the last 10 years. The 1990 population of Springdale was approximately 29,941. Some of the smaller cities in Washington County include Prairie Grove, Lincoln, Farmington, West Fork, Johnson, Elm Springs, etc. There are a total of 13 incorporated cities and towns within Washington County. The increased population trend is expected to continue in the Benton -Washington County area. This should at least sustain real property values and, in all probability, will have a positive effect. ECONOMIC FORCES: Economic forces are also significant to s: real property values. It is necessary to analyze the fundamental relationships between current and anticipated supply and demand and the economic ability of the population F� to satisfy its wants, needs, and demands through its purchasing power. ., The estimated per capita personal income of Benton and Washington Counties in 1989 was $14,770 and $13,775, respectively. This compares to an estimated figure of $13,000 in 1989 for the State of Arkansas. r� Some 14% of the population of Arkansas are considered to have an annual income below the poverty level. The civilian labor force in Benton County numbered 53,450 in December, 1991. Washington County totaled 63,700 for the same time period. Benton and Washington Counties had unemployment rates in December, 1991, of 3.6% and 4.0%, �. respectively. The unemployment rates for the two counties 28 is M Area Data, Cont'd G d d4", ,k4, have remained relatively stable over the last four years. The unemployment rates for the State of Arkansas and the United States in December, 1991, were 7.2% and 7.1%, respectively. Regional building permits for 1991 reached a total value of $197,251,966, an increase of 20% from 1990. Individual permit categories for 1991 show residential up 45%, commercial down 2%, industrial down 95%, additions up 59%, and others down 1%. The number of residential building permits issued for new dwelling units appears to be up 48%. Statistics obtained from Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission indicated the following figures with respect to value of building permits issued for 1991 compared to 1990: a Bentonville + 53% Fayetteville + 5% Rogers + 41% Siloam Springs - 38% Springdale + 45% County development indicators for the two counties for activity outside incorporated areas are as follows (Source - Northwest Arkansas Planning Commission): Benton County Washington County 1991 1990 1991 1990 \ Elec. Meters Placed 1240 1266 302 937 Septic Tank Permits 407 828 314 964 The percent change in electric meters placed for the region appears to be 30% downward while the number of septic tank % \ permits issued decreased 59.8%. The economic base of the region consists of four basic O areas: First, agricultural production with the primary commodities being beef cattle, dairy cattle, and poultry. The general offices of Tyson's Industries, the leader in the chicken industry, is located in Springdale in Washington I County. Benton and Washington Counties are primarily rural in nature and, therefore, it would stand to reason that agriculture would be important to the area. There is also © some cropland in the area, primarily green bean and orchard production. Second, influence from the University of Arkansas located in Fayetteville. Enrollment in the University ranges from 13,000+ to 15,000+ on an annual basis. The University provides considerable employment opportunities for area residents. It is not uncommon for 29 n I& l► e Area Data Cont'd. ,Weed d �4aocialea, J residents of outlying areas of Benton and Washington Counties to work at the University. Third, recreational usage primarily in the northeast part of Washington County, and the southeast, east and northeast parts of Benton County. This recreational usage is primarily provided by Beaver Lake, a Corps of Engineer reservoir on the White River. Fourth, the large number of manufacturing businesses and small industries located within the two counties. Again, residents of outlying areas of the two counties will commute to Fayetteville, Springdale, Rogers, Bentonville, etc. to work at these facilities. The general offices of Walmarts, a retail chain, are located in Bentonville. Most of the major industries are located in the larger cities in the counties, however, there are exceptions. McKee Baking is located in the small community of Gentry in the southwest part of Benton County. There are several financial institutions in Benton and Washington Counties. These institutions provide an adequate supply of funds for residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural growth. The maj loan assocor commercial banks and savings and associations are located in Bentonville, Fayetteville, Rogers, Siloam Springs, and" Springdale, with smaller banks and branches situated in many of the smaller communities. Currently, interest rates on long-term (15-30 years) residential first mortgages are in the 8 1/4% - 9% range. The maximum rate that can be charged on agricultural, commercial, industrial, and second mortgage residential loans in Arkansas is five points above the Federal Discount Rate. At the present time, the Federal Discount Rate is 3 1/2%, making the maximum allowable rate 8 1/2%. Real estate development in the area has primarily been centered in the major cities. However, rural development is also occurring with small acreage homesites visible throughout the two counties. Agricultural land values in the area generally followed the downward trend prevalent throughout the Midwest in the early and mid 1980's. However, falling land prices in the two counties primarily occurred between 1984 and 1986. The last few years have seen more of a stabilization in land values. Also, Benton and Washington Counties have not suffered as severely as other areas of the Midwest due to a lesser amount of low cropland. Economic data, for the most part, appears encouraging in the area and should also have a positive effect on real property values. 30 J Area Data, Cont'd. R""l d �aaocialro, qizc. GOVERNMENTAL FORCES: Governmental, political, and legal actions at all levels have a great impact on property values. The county seats of Benton and Washington Counties, as previously discussed, are Bentonville and Fayetteville, respectively. These two cities are some 30 minutes apart via U.S. Highway 71 Bypass. County government in each county is under the direction of the county judge and quorum court. Other elected county officials include the county clerk, circuit clerk, collector, and assessor. Property taxes in Arkansas are collected at the county level and distributed to the county, cities, and school districts. In Arkansas, all real property, except agricultural land, is appraised at market value. Agricultural land is valued based upon soil class productivity. The appraised value is multiplied by a 20% assessment ratio to arrive at the assessed value. The assessed value is then multiplied by the appropriate millage rate to arrive at the annual property tax. The tax is due by October loth in the year after it is levied. Property taxes in Benton and Washington Counties are not out of line with what is experienced in other counties in the state. Benton and Washington Counties do not have county zoning at the present time. The major cities in the area do have zoning regulations. There are no adverse legislative restrictions on the use and development of real property in the area. Public utilities available in the rural areas of Benton and Washington Counties include electricity and telephone service. Natural gas and public water are also available in certain areas. Public sewer is available in the major cities and some of the small communities. r 0 Overall, governmental forces in the area provide a positive effect on real property values. Lack of public water and sewer in certain rural areas, however, is a drawback. ENVIRONMENTAL FORCES: Both natural and man-made environmental forces influence real property values. Environmental forces include climatic conditions, topography 0 and soil, natural barriers to future development, primary transportation systems, and the nature and desirability of the immediate area surrounding a property. The two county area has relatively warm summers and mild winters. High temperatures in summer are often accompanied 31 1* OWE Area Data, Cont'd O by high humidity. The average daily temperature is about 57 degrees. Each year there are about 58 days when temperatures go above 90 degrees and only a few days when temperatures drop to freezing or below. The area has an average of 6 to 12 inches of snow annually. Rainfall averages around 46 inches annually. The area is part of the Ozark Highlands. In Benton County, topography ranges from broad plains and rolling hills in the western and central parts to rocky, rough, steeper hills in the east. Much of the eastern one-third of the county is covered by Beaver Reservoir. The elevation increases from west to east and ranges from 1,000 to 1,700 feet above sea level. The elevation of Washington County also varies from 1,000 to 1,700 feet. In general, the topography is rough along the western, eastern, and northwestern boundaries. a Extending through the heart of the county, from the Oklahoma line to the city of Springdale, is a plateau -like area consisting of rolling, reasonably level land. The city of Fayetteville, located in the edge of the Boston Mountain Range, is quite hilly. Soil and subsoil conditions within the two counties range from fair to good for agricultural purposes. There are natural barriers to real property development in the area. These consist primarily of mountainous regions, rivers, etc. However, many of these barriers have a positive effect on agricultural usage. The primary transportation routes in the two counties are U.S. 71 (North -South) and U.S. 412 (East-West). There are also numerous state highways and county roads providing adequate access throughout the area. Also, U.S. Highway 62 provides east -west access. Both U.S. 71 and U.S. 412 are very heavily traveled traffic arteries. U.S. 71 traverses Fayetteville, Springdale, Rogers, and Bentonville. U.S. 412 traverses Springdale and Siloam Springs. I The two county area is reasonably well located and is within 0 relatively short driving times of major metropolitan areas. Driving time to Tulsa is 2+/- hours, to Little Rock is 3- 4+/- hours, and to Kansas City is 4-5+/- hours. Environmental forces, for the most part, are considered favorable for real property development in the area. 0 i 32 0 0 0 M Area Data Cont' d . �� 'f CONCLUSIONS Each of the major forces affecting real property values has been discussed in this section. The conclusion is that these forces appear to favorably influence real property values in the area. The trend in Benton and Washington Counties has been upward and the outlook for the future is good. Population growth is occurring at a fairly rapid pace_ ' spurring real estate development. Periodic downturns in the economy may take place, however, the strong economic base of the area should prevent a major recession. r $0 4 D, NEIGHBORHOOD DATA g,eew �aaocc a' ` ". Neighborhood is defined as: "A group of complementary land uses.1-' Geographic Boundaries: The subject neighborhood is located in Greenland, Arkansas, along U.S. Hwy 71 and vicinity. The Highway 71 Bypass appears to be the North neighborhood boundary and the South Greenland City Limits are considered the southern boundary. Arterial Roadways: The major roadway within the neighborhood is U.S. 71. This is a heavily traveled North -South thoroughfare with four lanes and a center turning lane. The 1988 Arkansas transportation Map indicates an average daily traffic count on 71 in the neighborhood ranging from 15,560 in the south to 18,000 in the North. The 1991 count is expected to be higher. Built Up: The neighborhood appears to be over 75% developed, considering the Fayetteville Municipal Airport. The overall occupancy rate is -in the 85 to 95% range. summary/Conclusions: Subject property is located on the West side of U.S. 71, approximately 182.67'+/- southerly from the intersection of Bailey Drive with said 71. This location is in the North central part of the neighborhood. Property uses in close proximity to subject include: The Arkansas -Missouri Railroad to the west; A mobile home park to the north; Fayetteville Municipal Airport property to the east, across U.S. 71; And, a residence to the south. The Fayetteville Municipal Airport is located on the East side G of U.S. 71 in the immediate subject neighborhood. Subject is located West, across 71 from the North end of the runway. The majority of the subject neighborhood is the small community of Greenland. Commercial and industrial property comprise the majority of neighborhood © i property use. The breakdown of property uses is estimated to be 15% single-family, 20% commercial, 30% industrial, and 35% vacant/airport. Utilities available. in the neighborhood include public water & li sewer, natural gas, electricity, and telephone service. 35 to 10 to 15 0 0 I Al 0 Neiahhnvhn^,4 Data -Rnt• d- Reed d add,"4&6, Subject neighborhood appears to be in the stability to declining stage of its life cycle. No new construction was observed. Marketing time for properties in the neighborhood appears to be over six months. 36 0 Ib .0 11 0 OR 1b .0 2 PC 4rT- 71, tr 4 Parcel A(ap --!Parcel No. 75 .74 ACM: ,V— or I.- 01PINLIve OF RECOR19 O'lIvi'A Francis Lola N. Francis • Book 1093 Pogo 690 f Haut j N 88 6 w 71. -C STIA, 755.27 MOBILE HC.0 TYPICAL In 0 176.85'—'- (..,n) 0.ILn m 1Z3 — S 8809'26" E CoW co� a' 0 �:C23 pa Irn Z OHC STORY FRAME OLDO C.m c 'oK S 88'09'26" E D 88'09'26" E 147.58' MOBILE Hour TYPICAL 1— — — 6O — — oum LrM /a=c � I z ?#cord Point e sip See A T"I"e, C (RECORD SOUTH LW( Of 40 ACAC " !C 'I)loyrll C-P 37 cc) 1*1 u DESCRIPTION OF SITE Dimensions & Shape: Please see the facing page for the dimensions of the subject site. The shape is irregular. Area: 2.10+/- acres; 91,476+/- SF; 350.04'+/- of frontage on the west right-of-way of U.S. 71 Highway; 132.43'+/- of frontage on the east right-of- way of the Arkansas -Missouri Railroad. It appears the east boundary of the site extends 10'+/- on to the 71 right-of-way. Topography: Undulating to gently sloping topography; U.S. 71 frontage is slightly below road grade; Also, a drainage ditch intersects U.S. 71 near the northeast corner of subject. Soil and subsoil conditions are not believed adverse to building construction, however, a soil survey has not been examined. Street Improvements: Utilities: Sidewalks _Yes x No water system: X public _Comm indiv curbs 71 Yes _No sewer system: street paving XL -public indiv _comm _Concrete x Asphalt On -site Parking - Gravel gas x Yes No electric x PSC Rea Off -site Parking - None Discussion of Economic Inadequacies, if any: Airport is nearby, however, this is not considered adverse to the site's highest and best use. In addition, the Arkansas - Missouri Railroad right-of-way borders the site, " however, this, too, is not considered adverse to the \ site's highest and best use. i Easements or Encroachments on site, if any: According to O the survey, it appears three trailers encroach on the adjoining mobile home park to the north, one completely. The owner of the property to the north indicated that subject property used 1 1/2 spaces of his park. He said he was paid $1200 annually for this encroachment, however, the Payment(s) were delinquent. O , No adverse easements were noted, however, the survey does not depict the location of utility easements. The flood zone map appearing in the "Addenda" of this report does not indicate subject to be located within the 100 year flood zone. However, the map indicates the 38 Is s ME Description of Site Cont•d d ldaaacia.�, Inc. actual limit of the study to be just east of subject. Considering that the north and west parts of subject are traversed by a drainage ditch, it would appear logical that during times of heavy water flow in the ditch, a flooding problem for the north and west parts of the site might be created. Howevermanagement, this has not been a problem, according to Site Improvements: Subject site is presently utilized for a mobile home park. There are 15 usable spaces (actually, possibly only 13-14, considering the encroachments). Utilities are underground except electricity. The manager indicated the spaces were individually metered s except for water. Apparently, there is only one water meter. The layout and set-up of the park is considered low quality. Access from 71 through the park is by gravel drives. Landscaping is very minimal and no amenities were noted. park Some concrete walk was noted near one of the buildings, however, no concrete walk was observed through the park. At the time of my inspection there were 15 on -site mobile homes, spaces 1-15. Following are the approximate sizes of the units: Space 1 - 14' x 46' Space 2 - 14' x 48' Space 3 - 12' x 40' Space 4 - 12' x 46' r� \ Space 6 - 12' x 46' 14' x 48' Space 7 - 14' x 52' Space 8 - 14' x 52' O Space 9 - 14' x 52' j Space 10 - 14' x 56' Space 11 - 12' x 56' Space 12 _ 14' x 66' I Space 13 12' x 46' Space 14 - 14' x 66' Space 15 - © 12' x 52' Each of the mobile homes has a small deck except number eight. Also, unit 14 has a small deck and a large deck. J,, Unit 14 is occupied by the manager of the park. T the only mobile home that I had an o his is Inspect the interior. PPortunity to 39 Is a C C Is a N u Description of Site Cont'd The only mobile homes that have air units 1, 6, 9, 12, and 14. conditioning are All of the mobile homes appear to be older units except number 14 which is probably a 1985 or 1986 unit. The mobile homes appeared to be in only fair condition, at best. A mobile home inspection report on each unit appears in the "Addenda" of this report. The re orts were Prepared by Don 's Mobile Home p of Fayetteville. The reports indicated compliances with code requirements and any repair work needed to the units. Also, the cost to prepare the unit for moving is indicated. Each unit requires repairs. Please see the inspection reports for a detailed description of needed repairs. The estimated cost to make the mobile homes ready to move, not including the needed repair work, was $500/unit. The repairs generally ranged from a low of $125+/- to a high of around $880+/_. According to the manager, the mobile homes are rented by the week. The rents are as follows: Unit 3, 4, 5 & 13 Units 11 & 15 $ 75/week Units 1 & 6 - $100/week Units 2, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 _ $105/week $110/week The property owner pays all utilities. stated, the manager occupies Unit 14. on this unit. As previously No rent is paid Tenants are to pay their rent every Friday. At the time a unit is occupied, a $50 to $80 deposit is required. Units 1-9, 12, and 13 have two bedrooms and one bath. Unit 10 has two bedrooms and one and one-half baths. Units 11 and 15 have three bedrooms and one bath. Finally, unit 14 has three bedrooms and one and one-half baths. The mobile homes are only partially furnished. Typically, tenants have their own furniture. At the time of my inspection, only unit four was vacant. 40 1% s 1b .0 0 0 Description of Site Cont'd Geed d OVaOocialea, Inc. Other improvements on the subject site include the following: 1. 2106+/- SF concrete block building with a 420+/- SF open porch on the front and a 228+/- SF open porch on the rear. This structure has a concrete foundation and composition shingle roof covering. At one time this building was used as a motel with six units along the front and six units along rear. Actually, the units were kitchenettes. the It appears that it has been some time since the building was occupied. Considerable deferred maintenance was observed including torn screens, dryrot, deteriorated porch posts. Also, the manager indicated there was a severe water leak that would require breaking up the concrete floor to repair. The manager indicated the building could not be occupied. 2• 1271+/- SF frame duplex with a 32+/- SF front porch and a 16+/- SF rear porch. This structure has vinyl siding, a concrete foundation, and composition shingle roof covering. Storm windows were noted, however, four are broken and one is missing. This building is only 2111" from the north wall of the concrete block building. Both the front and rear doors are deteriorated. One of the units has one bedroom and one bath and is rented for $75/week. The other unit has two bedrooms and one bath and is rented for $95/week. Again, the property owner pays utilities. This structure appears only in fair condition. 3. 717+/- SF frame dwelling with a 15+/- SF front porch and a 48+/- SF rear porch. This structure has vinyl siding, concrete block foundation walls, and composition shingle roof covering. The dwelling has insulated windows, however, three were noted to be broken. Also, deteriorated doors were noted. This structure, too, is only in fair condition. This is a two bedroom, one bath dwelling. The rent is $95/week. The property owner pays the utilities. 4. 606+/- SF frame dwelling with a 9+/- SF front porch and a 16+/- SF side porch. Also, the dwelling has an attached 195+/- SF carport. This structure has two bedrooms and one bath. Considerable deferred maintenance was noted including dryrot, cracked foundation walls, peeling paint, etc. The manager 41 0 14 14 i Description of Site Cont'd Reed d`�6bo a� indicated this building could not be rented because of a water leak. 5. 269+/- SF frame storage building in poor condition. Also, a small metal storage building was noted. Conclusions 10 Overall, subject improvements appear older and only in fair condition. The mobile home park suffers from functional obsolescence in layout and construction when compared to a new facility of this nature. The effective age is estimated to be 14+/- years and the remaining economic life is projected to be 6+/- years. The concrete block building provides contributory value for a potential park office and for storage. The small frame dwelling provides contributory value for storage only. The duplex and frame rental dwelling also suffer from functional obsolescence in layout. The effective ages of these structures are estimated to be 28+/- years and the \ \ remaining economic lives are projected to be 12+/- years. Subject site is still considered adequate for its present use. r ZONING 1 ! i O Subject site is zoned C, General Commercial. The existing improvements and use appear to be legal and permissible. y to Sil ASSESSMENT AND TAX c w d a44,,�• jrw• The following data was obtained from the Washington County Assessor's Office: Assessed Value Tax Land $ 5,080 Buildings 17,810 $192.02 Total $22,890 673.22 $865.24 The 1991 tax is due October 10, 1992. Subject property was appraised for property tax purposes at $114,493. The assessment ratio is 20% and the 1991 millage rate is .0378. The appraisal for property tax purposes includes the land (indicated to be 1.70+/- acres), the concrete block building, the small frame dwelling, the duplex, and a 13 space mobile home park. The other dwellings and the mobile homes are not included. In my opinion, if these additional improvements are considered, the annual property tax will increase approximately $415, assuming no change in the present millage rate. No special assessment were noted. 45 0 1 i @ i I I �(D ,I Zoning ' Map J U i. R-2 ------ --- 1 Ai T DRiVE C i---- )1 ]I , ' , • C 1 is,♦ R-1 s110RT Dix , . ♦ rArerrrviar. 1 . c rlrL0 1 R-1 D1 M TAIN 1 R-1 W R-I W M1 1 . R-1 uN /nosy i i i ' ° ��� 1 3 O t R-I ------ HORN AV R-Z R-1g C NAa,, " CI R. PIER W , . �4. -2 i e� a U , 4 R-1 51 t j NWlpl DR. 1... f C s R 1 71 0 IT ..A . AGRICULTU r R=1• LOW, DENS iQ1 i R-2 MEDIUM DE 1' a� C GENERAL C INDUSTRIAL $0 4 'Weed d'44""4&4, HISTORY Subject property was acquired in two transactions: I. J.D. Hudson and Pauline V. Hudson to Melvin F. and Lola N. Francis; Escrow contract dated October 21, 1983; This involved the majority of the subject tract. 2. Elmer E. and Betty F. Omohundro to Melvin and Lola Francis; Warranty deed dated July 28, 1986; Revenue stamps indicate a sale price of $6000. Subject property has been used as a mobile home park for several years. Also, at one time a building on the property was used for a motel. There is also a dwelling and duplex on the property that are used for rental purposes. Past income/expense history on the property was not available.is AI I is 4 I I Reed d �baocialra, �izc. i i I i I; I PART III - ANALYSIS OF DATA AND OPINIONS OF THE APPRAISER e HIGHEST AND BEST USE AND �`bd�� �• The definition of highesIMPR� andNbestAuseIis as follows: 1• The reasonable and probable use that supports the highest present value of vacant land or improved Property, as defined, as of the date of the appraisal. " 2• The reasonably probable and legal use of land or sites as though vacant, found to be appropriate) supported, Physically possible, Y pported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest present land value. 3. The most profitable use. Implied in these definitions is that the determination of highest and best use takes into account the contribution of a specific use to the community and community development e goals as well as the benefits of that use to property owners. Hence, individual in certain situations the highest and besti uSe o of lan ion y be for parks, green belts, like. "a wildlife habitats, and the The four tests that must be met to determine best use are as follows: highest and 1) Physically possible; 2 permissible; 3) Financially feasible; And 4 ) Legally productive. ) Maximally Subject site consists of approximately 2.10+/- acres of improved commercial property. The site Commercial. is zoned C, General The location of the site is on the Highway, west side of U.S. 71 approximately 182.67 intersection of U.S. 71 and Bailey Drive. This location tis in the north part of the Greenland City Limits. Fayetteville Municipal Airport property is located to the East across U.S. 71. Commercial/Industrial uses make up the ' )ulk of the neighborhood .esidential uses are also property use. use. However, older O 'ieighborhood is static at the Development in the present time. 1 'he physical characteristics of the site are considered seasonably conducive to commercial development. The site routs the west right-of-way of U.S. 71 for approximately 50.04+/-, The frontage is slightly below 71 road grade. rawbacks are the irregular shape of the site and the © rainage ditch which traverses the north and west parts of he property. The north and west 1 the 100 year flood zone, however, site ith utrts taesurve may lie npossible to determine. The topography of the site is is railableg to gently sloping. Typical public utilities are 48 s 10 s IM Highest and Best Use. Cont'd In my opinion, based on the preceding analysis, the highest and best use of the site as vacant is for the construction of commercial service or warehouse improvements that are in compliance with existing zoning regulations and that do not suffer from any form of accrued depreciation. Subject site is presently improved with a 15+/- space (14+/- on property) mobile home park. There are fifteen existing on -site mobile homes, a concrete block building, two dwellings, and a duplex. The mobile home park and improvements are older and only in fair condition. At the time of my inspection, fourteen mobile homes, the duplex, and one of the dwellings were occupied. The mobile home park and improvements suffer physically and functionally and only have a fair appearance. However, demand appears to be present for rental purposes. Occupancy, according to management, has been high. I seriously doubt that any other use of the site would produce greater net operating income than the present use. The mobile home park and usable improvements still have remaining economic life. In my opinion, the highest and best use of the subject site as improved is for the present use, a mobile home park. In summary, the highest and best use of the subject site is that indicated "as improved". 0 49 0 As 8 E Mil eed COST APPROACH G �. JW In the cost approach, an estimated reproduction or replacement cost of the building and land improvements as of the date of the appraisal is developed, together with the losses in value that have taken place due to wear and tear, design and plan, or neighborhood influences. To the depreciated building cost estimate is added the estimated value of the land. The total represents the indicated value by the cost approach. The following terms utilized in the cost approach require defining: "Reproduction Cost is the estimated cost to construct, at current price, an exact duplicate or replica of the building being appraised, using the same materials, construction standards, design, layout, and quality of workmanship, and embodying all the deficiencies, superadequacies, and obsolescence of the subject building.ir5 "Replacement Cost is the estimated cost to construct, at current prices, a building with utility equivalent to the building being appraised, using modern materials and current standards, design, and layout.', 6 "Accrued Depreciation is the difference between the reproduction or replacement cost of the improvements on the effective date of the appraisal and the market value of the improvements on the same date. Depreciation is caused by deterioration or obsolescence in the property. Deterioration is evidenced by the wear and tear on the structure. Functional obsolescence is caused by property characteristics such as poor floor plan, internal in mechanical equipment, adequate or functional inadequacy or superadequacy due to size or other characteristics. External obsolescence is caused by conditions outside the property such as a lack of economic demand, property uses in the area, changing or national economic conditions. 5American Institute of Real Estate A of Real Estate Institute O o: Appraisers, The ARPraisal t American Institute of Real; Estate Appraisers, Ninth Edition, 1987), P. 351. Ibid, P. 352. 'Ibid, P. 353. 50 0 1b E V. i 4 ! I i Cost Approach Cont'd LAND VALUE ESTIMATE Comp #1 Comp #2 Comp #3 Location :East side of NEC of 71B & W side of U.S. S. 71, South 26th Street 71,N of Branch 71 BP Inter. Bank & across from airport Sale Date 6-17-90 1-18-90 Listing Proximity 1+/- mile 1.5+/- miles .2+/- mile to Subject North North South Zoning Appears to be Appears to be C C-2 Size 1.66+/- Acres 1.09+/- Acres 2.23+/- Acres Appears Appears Appears Shape Irregular Irregular Irregular Gently Sloping Undulating to Undulating to Topography Gently Sloping Gtly. Sloping Sale Price $15,000 $40,000 $69,500 Price Per $ 9,036 $36,697 $31,166 Acre Comments: O Sale No. One Grantor: Pearl Thurlby Grantee: Kenneth Shepard Date of Sale: June 17, 1990 Recorded: Book 1349, Page 784 Legal Desc.: Part of Lots 3 and 6, Block 7, Sheltons O Addition to Fayetteville Consideration: $15,000 i Size: 1.66+/- Acres i Price Per Acre: $9036 lb M U 0 0 C Cost Approach cont'd 'd �aaocialea, J". Remarks: Approximately 125' of frontage on U.S. 71, South of Skelton Street. Speculation is that the seller was motivated to sell and, as a result, sold below market. Comparison to Sub.: Requires upward adjustment for conditions of sale; Reasonably similar in location; Requires downward adjustment for size & shape; Requires upward adjustment for a lesser amount of 71 frontage per acre. Overall upward adjustment of 50%; Indicated per acre value for subject of $13,554 ($ 9,036 x 1.50). Sale No. Two Grantor: Roy Teckell Grantee: Frank Shuler Date of Sale: January 18, 1990 Recorded: Legal Description: Book 1350, Pages 257 and 258 Lots 4, 5, and 6, Grandview Place Subdivision to Fayetteville. Consideration: $40,000 Size: 1.09+/- Acres Price Per Acre: $36,697 Remarks: Approximately 300'+/- of frontage on the east side of U.S. 71B •across from Mexican Original. Site is level at road grade. Property was part of a trade, however, indications are that it was fully arms -length. Comparison to Sub.: Reasonably similar in location; Requires downward adjustment for smaller size, for shape, and for more 71 frontage per acre; Overall downward adjustment of 55%; Indicated per acre value for subject of $16,514 ($36,697 x .45). Listing The third comparable utilized is a listing located on the west side of U.S. 71B, approximately .2+/- mile south of subject. The property is situated in the S 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of 4-15-30. The location is in the Greenland City Limits. Lindsey & Associates Realtors presently has the property listed for sale at a price of $69,500. The property has 0 52 0 io i I* W, i Cost Approach Cont' d ` `��0a. �• been listed for a long period of time with little market activity. The price has been reduced at least two times recently. The property has approximately 528.06' of frontage on U.S. 71 and also fronts the Arkansas -Missouri Railroad right-of-way. In comparison to subject, this property is reasonably �• similar in size, however, requires a downward adjustment for 71 frontage per acre and for shape. Assuming the property sells for list price, the overall downward adjustment is 45%; Indicated per acre value for subject is $17,141 ($31,166 x .55). Conclusions I The land comparables utilized indicate a per acre value for ' subject ranging from $13,554 to $17,141. Sales one and two indicate $13,554/acre and $16,514/acre, respectively, while the listing indicates the upper end. It would appear logical to give more weight to the sales: f Indicated Per Acre Value For Subject = $16,500 2.10+/- Acres at $16,500 = $34,650 \ Say = $35,000 I 53 n ly 1 all / m�.•,�,�Comparable~•� �� IN �Q�Z7��iI�i1914fir�= '." -e� ;�rl"11r9!!�1!••��"'na,I�+�#�' ` '!�'' r i `p�t4 / � m• ♦r ,� - � ' Y�=ti+, `• .;"`� ::ysw fit`•, y. •vt ^'. Y�. .y-r'•��� -yti0.?ao7V1�'�^; 'al -� tir F'.ii'Y J(t:rl�t�ri},: :'': �lti "r.''��"�I•.. :r: rr +r11 f'g• � ) ,.. Qg �, � J �,e. •6 r�,l7iy'Y��, { •. n 1. t' �i1 �I. y _ _._.. —._.. I 'Y�•it>' + I � .,2 r C 14 d rr'�t Y�' .+j 4ti.RL �•c � �r� �'"�L` tC'� i '�i.% J r- �'':t4:'Y.'t•: I � �. R 1 L:w a# 4 .cC= Tr4.. Ji �p,f���.1p�• +; � T. .-.. "',I �'♦ eti��'' � r{'r�, ii •+ ��.�r ' `t' 6•.�;liCli �T r 'jI � \ �tl7��yt ..'�� t+ r• I , ` S I I� i r.; "'! 1 '"Y•.y° S �lMk�wu n.en�.wo � ;�i,'11...�1.•. `tf.� ��;,rt,•i�� � °' :'�y Yr r '� y t '1 r i .rn,cr wocw Y t� it .1.. � .+ .s r� r r "`�". ` �""� ..t..•. t t sy,�'2 ''Sr',',4YC �; �. �� r�nrtevlt ■-'' I S' •'t,:i-t';F- , _.�' ��' � '�� Iv. ' OIIAK[q[ ��!• ;)�` ,r1 (,'' , �� P+.Q'a•�l.a.e, �'�'.`.. �) 'a'• � t.L •. -�'��1 0 L4 C' : +;:.; } iV%!. • 't �i ,,zr',F;'•�, ' S•`"r r� : ,uSi ti ...., • 4��ti , T.1?:9•, 'r �:S'.^t±r,,�.!� r.r��{•°s. rl�l >• rlla."J'.:' ' _ tt ^ �•..�s11� .�., t a�.S r f r• .r tiT{S. t. rod �'r�'f ird�\: �'^ti'�r •.j y t.:L' !!�,��•�����MS8` r. t :� . r � .� i ..J ly��.l �,�', .i; � 1 �(' 1 ._ �SZ C: :.. •tx1� , r �.' �� 4� 1 II ' Jr r. r t jr j• Rt �•%r!,n i•t V'e N4pJ:• .. � , r �.+ t � L.•� t'�( r• f� iY l 1 •. � p J!,ti.y�•;:i �.: IGRFFNLi�Nd+'• �:: ��'L.. i '' ..S!r•/�• `•'• ; �'�,y.tt.r 't•J „� � 1 �'f .i;'/n'til�}{{�K,v,, /{{/J,,: ;J r, �r,.j.''^ti}%jj '�i ,t �'{/ {� V. .. .r. ..• ,iar ,:.dal: —;=�, 'i? Fw`-i� y''�.t''Y'(rrl�i�. w'>t'+ '.Y '�i::'k�7% S� S 7d. j r t �. .�i�,'• !'• •�1S' ,t ••'t' �tll•r w'f�,j' y'ra,."'•."�",C,�, ;j ��• r 1•iN4 1 I r r 1L S ` S r�'' 'f I ^ 1 ti '`i,}� „t t.•,•"w•.! ,t•1 '�T,�•;a vf�{AR rfM1�"1%yr���c�G. �'i �" r ��� I`,�t�� �H./7�vr:J �j [`w .Vf•..� .t �) /.,'� ' tv�i7t7 � � ^ ':1 .'•' � j� t'I r i • I4Ga \-�j.h l:l t `t;f ,j. J +..• ., ��.,. l j�" ; ��' a,151� 'a;:jd' .1•il": r.e . �. � � K ( e��, 'tit R'i?,�'{J.tit�:�1`�j � t �7.�,.' fS,.sz ,�'.''`K':'i� t#l1Yf'Y�'. t•''''.' I .,�: r, '' •:. / r;ltalr, r.;4 r,,•r•SII4, r.+ L, `•.•. o. •.!{ ;..L�:: ' i' r•r. t • %• , ., t'I r, I i }jt .,r • : ;� ,Yr.,1... , � i ♦+.•: r r i.;y� Irr• , t?4 ihjfS. SFul,'' r 1' :; . j '+ i; ^!i «;q • :S r' � •r . is Si •t4 .•r J :r.=✓Yl::n ail..\\ 1 � i r: y 1� 1�5rJ � '•.'y r �. 11,, tr �: a •p �+' Cost A roach Cont'd, W Marshall Valuation reproduction cost new Service is utilized to the subject mobile estimate the home park: Mobile Home Park (Section 63 The following costs are based deviation where subject is lacking n low qualit y with some P Engineering er Space Grading Street Paving (Gravel) Patios $ 300 225 & Walks (Minimal) Sewer 75 Water 115 Gas 3 75 Electrical 310 Miscellaneous 215 (Landscapin 9, etc.) 375 Indicated Cost Per Square 220 Multipliers $ 21110 Number of Spaces (Interpolated) 1.16 Gross Area Per Space 1.12 Cost Area •99 .84 Adjusted Cost Per Square 1 08 x 14 Spaces Spaces(at least _ $ 2,279 on one full adjoining Property) space _ Plus: 8% Entrepreneurial $31'906 Profit Reproduction Cost New = ?.552 0 Less: 70% A Accrued Depreciation (14 _ $34,458 yr. EA V . 20 yr. Ec. Life) L2 L2II Depreciated Reproduction Cost New _ $10,337 O SAY $10, 500 �J f i, I 1 i 55 1 o� 0 t© 0 ` ' . Qiiaa { t Cost Approach Contd.Reed d ���cialea,'nc. OTHER IMPROVEMENTS Reproduction Cost New for the other concrete block structure improvements, except & north dwelling, A-5 of Marshall & Swift Residential Cost derived from Page Handbook: Duplex Base Price Per Square Foot = $31.26 Floor Cover Heat = +1.07 Plumbing -1.31 _ +1.29 Total = $32.31 Multipliers Cost .99 Area .84 = .832 Adjusted Price Per Square Foot = $26.88 x 1271+/- SF = $34,164 Plus: Porches = 48+/- SF @ $7.10 = 341 Subtotal = $34,505 Plus: 8% Entrepreneurial Profit = 2,760 Reproduction Cost New = $37,265 Less: 70% Accrued Depreciation (28 Yr. Eff, Age •/, 40 Yr. Ec. Life) = 126 0861 Depreciated Reproduction Cost New = $11,179 SAY $11,000 Dwelling Base Price Per Square Foot - Floor Cover $35.39 Heat +1.07 Total -1.31 _ $35.15 56 R 9. i r i i '�eutl � �aaocia/ea, �izc. Cost Approach. Cont'd. Multipliers Cost .99 Area .84 .832 Adjusted Price Per Square Foot = $29.24 x 771+/- SF = $22,544 Plus: Porches - 63+/- SF @ $7.10 = 447 Subtotal $22,991 Plus: 8% Entrepreneurial Profit = 1,839 �. Reproduction Cost New = $24,830 Less: 70% Accrued Depreciation {. (28+/- Yr. Eff. Age •/. 40 Yr. Ec. Life) _ (17,381) Depreciated Reproduction Cost New = $ 7,449 SAY $ 7,500 Concrete Block Structure t \ North Dwelling \ These buildings cannot be rented because of severe water leaks. Both structures suffer from substantial physical deterioration. The concrete block building could be used for a park office and for storage while the dwelling appears to have contributory value only for storage. In my opinion, r the following values are indicated: 0 ��2 Concrete Block Building = $2.50/SF 0 2100+/- SF @ $2.50 = $5250 is SAY $5000 0 '� Dwelling = $2.50/SF 0 606+/- SF @ $2.50 $1515 J SAY I $1500 I \ "° C 57 C , 1 0 .0 11; I . . .0 t Geed d ,so'laaocialea Ac. i Cost Approach, Cont'd. Total Of Other Improvements i Duplex = >1 $11,000 j Dwelling = 7,500 Concrete Block Building = 5,000 North Dwelling = 1,500 TOTAL = $25,000 Cost Approach Summary #' Mobile Home Park = $10,500 I Other Improvements = 25,000 Land = 35,000 f Total (excluding mobile homes) _ $70,500 ! M 0 I r 0 Cost Approach Cont'd �' .ecl � �aaocialea, Inc. Marshall & Swift Residential Cost Handbook indicates the following reproduction Pages A-107): cost new for manufactured homes (See 12' x 40' Unit = $22.95 12' x 46, Unit = $22.30 12' x 52, Unit = $21.72 12' x 56, Unit = $21.39 14' x 46' Unit = $20.53 14' x 48, Unit = $20.32 14' x 52' Unit = $19.95 14' x 56' Unit = $19.62 14' x 66, Unit = $18.90 Floor Cover = $ 1.19 Heat/Air = $ 1.38 i Multipliers = $ .84 Area These costs can be applied to subject units as follows: Unit 3 = 480+/- SF @ $20.28 = $ 9,734 Units 4, 5 & 13 = 1656+/- SF @ $19.73 = Unit 15 = 624+/- SF @ $19.24 = 32,12,003 f Unit 11 = 672+/- SF @ $18.97 = 748 12,494 Unit 1 - 644+/- SF @ $19.40 = 12,94 Units 7 Units 2 &86& y _ 1344+/- SF @ $18,65 25 066 2184+/- SF @ $18.15 = 39,640 Unit 10 = 784+/- SF @ $17.48 = � Units 12 & 14 = 1848+/- SF @ $18.03 = 13704 Decks = 520+/- SF @ $ 5.60 = 33,319 2,912 Subtotal \ Plus: 8% Entrepreneurial Profit = $194,296 _15.544 Reproduction Cost New $209,840 j Less: 70% Accrued Depreciation (14+/- Yr. Avg. Eff. Age •/• 20+/- Yr. Ec. Life) _ 1146,88g) i Depreciation Reproduction Cost New = $ 62,952 SAY $ 63,000 Considering the mobile homes, the following value is Indicated by the Cost Approach: Total Excluding Mobile Homes - Mobile Homes - $ 70,500 © = 63,000 Indicated Value By Cost .� Approach = $133,500 �1 59 i' OR i n 0 0 I* WI V r Re,e d 'd"'a , eYYIC. SALES COMPARISON APPROACH In the sales comparison approach, the subject property is compared to similar properties that have been sold recently or for which listing prices or offering figures are known. Data for generally comparable sale properties are used, and comparisons are made to demonstrate a probable price at which the subject property would sell if offered on the market. "To apply the sales comparison approach, an appraiser follows a systematic procedure: 1. Research the market to obtain information on sales transactions, listings, and offerings to purchase properties similar to the subject property. 2. Verify the information by confirming that the data a obtained are factually accurate and that the transactions reflect arms -length market considerations. 3. Select relevant units of comparison (e.g., dollars per acre, per square foot, or per income multipliers) and develop a comparative analysis for each unit. 4. Compare the subject property and comparable sales properties using the elements of comparison and adjust the sale price of each comparable appropriately or eliminate the property as a comparable. 5. Reconcile the various value indications produced from \ the analysis of comparables into a single value indication or range of values. An imprecise market may indicate a range of values."' '�. The sales utilized in estimating the market value of the subject property are as follows: O: 01 BAmerican Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, The Appraisal of Real Estate (Chicago: American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, Ninth Edition, 1987), P. 315. 60 -- _ _.....__..,........_,...... ... ... _..,...,.._.... _.__........ _..._..,_ 0 0 � R© C s Ell Sales Comparison Approach Cont'd 6 'Reed d'aaaci;a�' Inc. Sale No. 1 Grantor: Edwin H. & June Riis Grantee: Bobby D. & Beverly J. Anderson, and Harold McKissack & Bobby D. Anderson, Trustees for the McKissack Family Trust Date of Sale: June 13, 1986 Recorded: Book 1182, Page 267, Washington County Courthouse Legal Description: Part of the Frl. S 1/2 of the Frl. NW 1/4 of Section 6, township 17 North, Range 29 West, described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at the SE corner of said Frl. 80 acre tract, thence N 660.001, thence W 1329.65, to the center line of the Old Missouri Road, thence along said center line S 09 degrees 46' W 535.761, thence departing said center line E 397.65' thence S 132.001, thence E 1023.00, to the point of beginning, and containing 19.768 acres, more or less. Consideration: $477,000 Financing: Conventional Loan Adjustment to Cash: None Verified: Buyers Land Size: 19.768 acres Mobile Home Spaces: 79 (17 are RV spaces) Price/Space: $6,038 Gross Income, 1985: $85,800 Operating Expenses, 1985: $24,050, 28% Net Operating Income, 1985: $61,750 Capitalization Rate: 12.9% ($61,750 '/. $477,000) 61 0 ,b 0 v An 0 9 Sale Comparison Approach Cont'd. Reed d`44004,&6, q,,. Description: This sale is located on the east side of State Highway 265, east of the airport, in Springdale, Arkansas. The property fronts State Highway 265 which is a heavily traveled, asphalt paved, four lane road. At the time of sale, the property consisted of Whisler Mobile Home Park situated on 19.77+/- acres. The park consisted of 62 mobile home spaces, and 17 recreational vehicle spaces. The park was 16 years in age and was considered to be in good condition. Improvements included: Asphalt roadways and streets; storage buildings; a fenced area for resident's boats, recreational vehicles, etc.; And, a manager's living quarters. This mobile home is a Budger double wide, 20' x 561. It was approximately 18 years in age and in good condition. The mobile home had central heat and air, and an attached carport. The room count was 5-2-2. Water, sewer, natural gas, and electricity to mobile home spaces. Sewer, water (hydrant at each 2 spaces), and electricity to RV spaces. 62 C O 1L lb it J CO: Sales co arison A roach °- � �a Sale N°_2 Grantor: Paul E. and Phyllis D. Cornett Grantee: Kenneth M. and JoAnn R. Bergley Date of Sale: January 12, 1988 Recorded: _ Book 682, Page 578, Benton County Legal Description: Part of the NE 1/4 of the 12-19-30 NW 1/4 of Consideration: $398,000 Description: This is the Idle Wheel Mobile Park on West Olive Street in Rogers. There were and 24 park owned mobile homes. 30 spaces residence, garage, and outbuilding were In addition, a sale. The mobile homes had a included in the $4000-$5000 per unit. contributory value of spaces, residence This leaves a value for the acreage size was approximately,garage, etc. of $278,000. site does lie withthe1002 acres and a The 1989 year flood zone, part p the this park had 27 park owned mobile In April, , each rented by the week ($75-$85 homes Spaces were rented for The three remaining the park. $8aimonth with the water paid by Gas is also paid by the park on the weekly rentals. Electricity metered. This is the only utility individually With the space allocation Previously sold in 19B7 to Cornett The sale appears to allocation g $120,000 for 28 spaces. transaction. unusual considering the econd Price/Space: $9267 Financing; Conventional Loan 63 010 0 010 0 „. 1 �, .b 4 0; l.' Sales Comparison Approach Cont'd 'f oocialeo, J'W. Sale No. 3 Grantor: Nancy E. Powell Grantee: Earl J. Hanaway Date of Sale: June 19, 1986 Recorded: Book 1182, Page 539; Escrow Contract Legal Description: Part of the N 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of 34-18-30 and Part of the S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of 27-17- 30. Consideration: $630,000 Description: Springbrook Mobile Home Park on 6.37 acres located at Appleby and Gregg in Fayetteville. This park supposedly had 45 spaces, however, an earlier listing indicated 37 spaces. Seven mobile homes were included. This sale also involved Countrylane Mobile Home Park on 5.94 acres located on Appleby Road in Fayetteville. This park supposedly had 65 spaces, however, an earlier listing indicated 42. Eleven mobile homes were included. The total contributory value of the mobile homes was estimated to be $45,000, leaving $585,000 for the spaces. Price Per Space: $5318 Financing: Not known 65 0 �i ram �i FN .e, A 0 ROW 1, ^ n ,... �... , .� � h Sales Comparison Approach Cont' d 6epd J �� �{�, 'j"". Sale No. 4 Grantor: Dae Joon Park Grantee: BCR Properties, Inc. y Date of Sale: December 31, 1986 Verified: Luther Black of BCR Properties Legal Description: Part of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of 23-19-30 Consideration: $470,000 Description: New Hope Mobile Home Park located on New Hope Road in Rogers. This park consisted of 92 spaces on 9+/- acres. Some 32 mobile homes were included in the sale. They had an estimated contributory value of $96,000. This left $374,000 to the spaces. The 1987 net operating income was $57,928.05, indicating an overall cap rate of 12.33%. The 1987 operating expense ratio was 52.8%. The 1988 operating expense ratio was 49.6%. In 1983 this park sold for $520,000. Price/Space: $4065 Financing: $70,000 downpayment and assumption of $400,000 loan. 0 67 *a Ir Sales Comparison Approach Cont'd 'Weed d'V4d"'4&6, J". IMPROVED SALES SUMMARY Mobile Home Parks Sale No. Date/ Sale Space Spaces Price/ Consid. +/- Space Location 1 06-13-86 $477,000 79 $6038 Whisler-Springdale 2 01-12-88 $278,000 30 $9267 Idle Wheel -Rogers 3 06-19-86 $585,000 110 $5318 Springbrook&Country Lane - Fayetteville 4 12-31-86 $374,000 92 $4065 New Hope - Rogers Analysis of Sales The unit of comparison is price per space. The elements of comparison are property rights, conditions of sale, market conditions, location, and physical characteristics. Mobile Home Park Pro ert Ri hts. No adjustments are necessar sales involved the transfer of the leased fee states, however, the rental rates appear to have been at market. Conditions of Sale: Each of the sales appear to have been arms -length transactions and financing did not appear to have substantially affected sales prices. Sales one and two involved conventional financing, financing on sale three was not available, and sale four involved an assumption of an existing mortgage. The details on this assumption could not be obtained. Sale two appears above market, however, the buyer is of the opinion he paid market value. The property had been listed at $495,000. Sale four appears below market considering the earlier sale, however, this was not a forced sale. Due to a lack of market support, no adjustments are made for conditions of sale. 0 69 C N sales Comnarison Anoroa-h Cont'd R.edoocialea, dnc. Market Conditions: The sales are older, however, my investigation indicates they are the best available in the area. Small, recent mobile home park sales were found, however, generally they were very low quality set-ups in rural areas. ,p. It would seem logical that mobile home parks have increased in value since the 1986-1988 period, however, I have no market support for this. Therefore, no adjustments are made for market conditions. ,V Location: Sale one is located on Highway 265 in Springdale, sale two on West Olive in Rogers, sale three on Appleby Road in Fayetteville, and sale four on New Hope Road in Rogers. Sales two, three, and four are primarily situated in residential neighborhoods while sale one is located in an industrial neighborhood near the Springdale Municipal Airport. Subject is located in a mixed -use neighborhood. Sale one has good visibility to traffic flow, as does subject, however, this is not necessarily more important to a mobile home park. Also, sale one does not face the traffic flow' that subject does. Sale one is situated near central shopping and employment areas. Subject neighborhood is in the stability to declining stage of its life cycle. In my opinion, each of the sales has a superior location. A downward adjustment of 20% is indicated. Physical Characteristics• The primary adjustments here are for land value, park size (spaces), and quality, except for sale two which also included a residence, garage, etc. Typically, the tendency in the market is for small parks to bring a higher per space price than similar larger parks. Although, this is not exemplified by sale four. The adjustment for size is estimated by matching sales two and three, after adjusting for land contribution O The indicated aadjustment h is $40/ pace. e residence, etc. Asthe numberwof spaces increases, the price per space decreases. 111 70 r_ C C w Sales Comparison Approach Cont 'd Reed Each of the sales is considered to have inferior land value per space to subject, except sale one which has a similar value per space. An attempt was made to abstract the land contribution from each sale in order that this adjustment could be made accurately. The following adjustments are indicated for land: Sale 1 0%, sale 2 + 5%, sale 3 +15%, and sale 4 +30%. Subject's land value contribution per space is estimated to be $2500. ($35,000 '/. 14 spaces). Each of the comparables is of much superior quality to subject and each has superior amenities. A downward adjustment of 55% is indicated to each sale. Sales one, two, and three included some outbuildings, however, subject has two dwellings, a duplex, and a concrete block building. An upward adjustment of $1700 per space is indicated to each of these sales. Comparable two included a residence and garage. No adjustment is necessary to this sale. Conclusions: Based on the preceding analysis, the following adjustment grid is indicated:• Sale 1 2 3 4 Price/Space $6038 $9267 $5318 $4065 Property Rts. 0 0 0 0 Cond. of Sale 0 0 0 0 Market Cond. 0 0 0 0 Location -1208 -1853 -1064 - 813 Physical Characteristics Size +2600 + 640 +3840 +3120 Land 0 + 463 + 798 +1220 Quality -3321 -5097 -2925 -2236 Other +1700 0 +1700 +1700 Indicated Value Per Space $5809 $3420 $7667 $7056 11 110 e X J wed d �aaoci�clea, g c. Sales Comparison Approach, Cont'd. A wide value range is indicated. The mean is $5988/space and the median is $6433/space. Sale one is probably the best overall comparable. In my opinion, based on the preceding analysis, the indicated per space value for subject is: $5800 *14+/- spaces @ $5800 = $ 81,200 Say $ 81,000 *14 spaces are used in that the 15th space appears to be on another ownership. As for the contributory value of subject mobile homes, little conclusive sales evidence could be found to form an accurate opinion. Sale two included 24 mobile homes with a contributory value of $4000 to $5000/unit. However, the sizes of the units and actual condition at the time of sale are unknown. The rental rates of the units was $75- $85/week. My investigation indicated sale three also included mobile homes. Some eleven units were involved in the sale. Their contributory value was estimated to be $45,000, or $4091/unit. Again, the actual sizes of the units and the condition at the time of sale are unknown. In addition, sale four included 32 mobile homes with an estimated contributory value of $96,000, or $3000/unit. Sizes and condition of these units at the time of sale were also unknown. Finally, one additional sale was considered: Sale No. 5 Grantor: Dallas & Charlotte O'Neal Grantee: Timothy & Vicki White Date of Sale: January 12, 1990 i 0 72 M .— 1b Sales Com arison APProach Cont'd. �accalea,iec. Location: West of Road Elm Springs on Brush Creek Consideration: $90,000 Financing: $20,000 down with owner $70,000 at 10% for 15 years carrying r� Verified: ThrSpringdale, the sellingoagent Collins Real Estate in Remarks: 12 single -wide mobile on 3.34+/- acres. Age of the units ranged from homes1966 to 1976 and condition from fair to average. Gross income for 9 months of 1988 was $22,780. Land value estimated at $13,500, leaving $76,500 for mobile homes or $6375/unit. JThe mobile homes included in this sale have an inferior location to subject, however, were in superior condition at the time of sale. 73 'l C) sales Comparison ADDreach -Contd. �dr`�oaoc a JW'. a. Vll � Conclusions Considering the preceding mobile home analysis, it was felt the best method to utilize in the Sales Comparison Approach to value the total subject property (from which the contributory value of the mobile homes could be abstracted) was the effective gross income multiplier. Sales four and five were the only comparables, which included mobile homes, included in this report from which effective gross income multipliers could be abstracted. Sale four, based on 1987 data, indicates an effective gross income multiplier (EGIM) of 3.83 ($470,000 -/. $122,729). Effective gross annual income for sale five was not available, however, income for nine months was. If it is assumed that monthly income remains constant for the last three months of 1988 for this sale, an EGIM of 2.96 ($90,000 V. $30,373) is indicated. This is a 1990 sale, however, income is for 1988. Based on these two sales, a range in effective gross income multipliers of 2.96 to 3.83 is indicated. Both sales appear superior to subject in condition and both, in my opinion, have stabilized income flow and less tenant turnover. Subject operation would appear to involve more risk. In my Opinion, an EGIM below the sales range is indicated for subject. An EGIM of 2 is considered appropriate: $68,055* @ 2 = $136,110 Say $136,000 *Projected effective gross income for subject - see Income Capitalization Approach. The contributory value of subject mobile homes is estimated as follows: Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach = $136,000 Less: Estimated Value of Property Excluding V Mobile Homes Q Contributory Value of Mobile Homes = 81.000 _ $ 55,000 This computes to $3667/unit. This lies within the mobile home range indicated by the sales, $3000 - $6375. O 74 0 e 101 INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH 6&ed d 04a,JW. In the Income Capitalization Approach, the current rental income is shown with deductions for vacancy and credit losss and operating expenses. A conclusion about the prospective net operating income of the property is developed. In support of this net operating income estimate, operating statements for the previous years may be reviewed, together with available operating -cost estimates. An capitalization method and appropriate capitaliza ion cable are developed for use in computations that lead to an indication of value by the income capitalization approach. The following definitions are necessary before applying the income capitalization approach to the subject property: "Potential Gross Income (PGI) is the total potential income attributable to the real property at full occupancy before operating expenses are deducted. Potential gross income may refer to the level of rental income prevailing on the date Of the appraisal or expected during the first full month or year of operating, or to the periodic income anticipated during a holding period.ii9 "Effective Gross Income (EGI) is the anticipated income from f all operations othe real property adjusted for vacancy and collection losses. This adjustment includes losses incurred due to noonoccupancy, turnover, and nonpayment of rent by tenants. "Net Operating Income (NOI) is the actual or anticipated r. Income remaining after all operating expenses are deduct from effective gross income, but before mortgage de service and book depreciation are deducted."1' "Overall capitalization Rate (RO) is an income rate for total property that reflects the relationship between single year's net operating income expectancy or an annul average of several years' income expectancies and totj price or value; it is used to convert net operating incor into an indication of overall property value.ii12 t © !'American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, The A raisa of Real Estate (Chicago: American Institute of Real Estate APPraisers, Ninth Edition, 1987), P. 411. to Ibid, P. 411. u Ibid, P. 412. 12Ibid, P. 412. Wi Z 75 10 9 M 0 INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH G �`�a� ��• In the Income Capitalization Approach, the current rental Income is shown with deductions for vacancy and credit losss and operating expenses. A conclusion about the prospective net operating income of the property is developed. support of this net operating income In estimate, operating statements for the previous years may be reviewed, together with available ope revs capitalization g-cost estimates. An applicable method and appropriate capitalization rate are developed for use in computations that lead to an indication of value by the income capitalization approach. The following definitions are necessary before applying the income capitalization approach to the subject property: "Potential Gross Income (PGI) is the total potential income attributable to the real property at full occupancy before operating expenses are deducted. Potential gross income may refer to the level of rental income prevailing on the date Of the appraisal or expected during the first full month or Year of operating, or to the periodic income anticipated during a holding period.ii9 "Effective Gross Income (EGI) is the anticipated income from all operations of the real property adjusted for vacancy and collection losses. This adjustment includes losses incurred due to nonoccupancy, turnover, and nonpayment of rent by tenants. to , "Net Operating Income (NOI) is the actual or anticipated net Income remaining after all operating expenses are deducted from effective gross income, but before mortgage debt service and book depreciation are deducted."11 "Overall capitalization Rate (RO) is an income rate for a total property that reflects the relationship between a single year's net operating income expectancy or an annual average of several years' income expectancies and total price or value; it is used to convert net operating income into an indication of overall property value.,,12 9American Institute of Real Estate A �of Real Estate (Chica o: Appraisers The Appraisal Appraisers, Ninth Edition,American Institute of Real Estate 10Ibid, P. 411.1987), P. 411. 11Ibid, P. 412. 17Ibid, P. 412. i 75 0 ..... s Income Capitalization Approach Cont'd. dui "Direct Capitalization is a method used to convert an estimate of a single year's income expectancy, or an annual average of several years' income expectancies, into an indication of value in one direct step --either by dividing the income estimate by an appropriate income rate or by multiplying the income estimate by an appropriate factor."13 s r • j • t O I; l; 'American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, Appraisal of Real Estate (Chicago: Americn Institute The Real Estate Appraisers, Ninth Edition, 1987), P. 417 76 709 ■i O EN it C WE �- d �aaocitclea, Inc. Income Capitalization Approach, Cont'd. MOBILE HOME PARK RENT COMPARABLES Comparable #1 - City View Park Estates, 2201 South Powell, Springdale, AR - Spaces Available - 143 - Monthly Rent Per Space - $150 - Utilities Available - All City - up to $30 for gas, up to $30 for electric, and up to $15 for water included in monthly rent. - Vacancies - 19 (5 spaces & 14 mobile homes) - Park Owns 112+/- mobile homes which are rented weekly in the $60 - $110 range (includes space). The average rental rate for the park mobile homes is $85 - $90 per week. There is also a small frame house on one of the spaces that is rented for $70 per week. - There is an on -site managers office. - Rent survey date was 7-24-91. Comparable #2 - Razorback Mobile Home Park, 55 E. 15th, Fayetteville - Spaces Available - 24 - Monthly Rent Per Space - $95 - Utilities Available - All City - None included in monthly rent. - Vacancies - 1 - park does not own any units - only rent the spaces; $50 deposit - Rent survey date was 3-92 Comparable #3 - Southgate Village, 2331 S. School, Fayetteville - Spaces Available - 21, 9 trailers, 6 cottages, & 1 apartment - Monthly Rent Per Space - $75, $150-$175/month for trailer - Utilities Available - All City- Water included in monthly rent - Vacancies - 1 Trailer - $100 deposit on trailers - Rent survey date was 3-92 rol 14 S Income Capitalization Approach Cont'd �.d d �ocialeb, �izc. Comparable #4 - Western Hills Mobile Home Estates, 2757 W. 6th, Fayetteville - Spaces Available - 110; There are 40 park owned mobile homes - Monthly rent for trailers - $200 to $325 - Utilities Available - All City - None included in y, monthly rent $135 deposit on trailers Rent survey date was 3-92 Comparable #5 Trailwood Mobile Home Park, Mt. Comfort Road, Fayetteville - Spaces Available for rent - 70 Monthly rent per space - $75 Utilities Available - All City - None included in monthly rent Vacancies - 3 Rent survey date was 3-92 Summary The comparables indicate a range in space rentals from $75 to $150. The high end is City View in Springdale. City View pays a good part of the tenant's utilities. It appears the typical range, where utilities are not included in the monthly rent, is $75-$95. Comparables one, three, and four also include trailer rentals. Comparables three and four indicate a monthly rental range of $150-$325. Water is included in the rent on comparable three. Comparable one indicates weekly rental rates for mobile homes. The typical rate computes to $340 to $360 per month and includes Futilities up to $30 for gas, up to $30 for electric, and up to $15 for water. This comparable is the most similar to the subject operation. O A recap of subject rental rates is as follows: Units 3, 4, 5 & 13 - $ 75/week Units 11 & 15 - $100/week Units 1 & 6 - $105/week Units 2, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 - $110/week © Duplex - $170/week Dwelling - $ 95/week k11 rents include utilities. Unit 14 is occupied by the tanager. If this unit were available for rental, I would estimate a rate of $110 per week. 78 to I If y { 0 �.d d �ocialea, �iac. Income Capitalization Approach Cont'd Subject rental rates are considered market rates with utilities included. Potential annual gross income is estimated as follow: 4 Units @ $ 75/week x 52 weeks = $15,600 2 Units @ $100/week x 52 weeks = 10,400 2 Units @ $105/week x 52 weeks = 10,920 7 Units @ $110/month x 52 months = 40,040 1 Unit @ $170/week x 52 weeks = 8,840 1 Unit @ $ 95/week x 52 weeks = 4,940 Potential Gross Income = $90,740 Vacancy/Credit Loss The comparables indicate a vacancy range of 4% to 13.3%. Comparable one is the most similar to subject and indicated 13.3%, however, this park does not experience the credit loss that subject does. The manager at the subject park indicated that they average losing near $400 per month in unpaid rent. I would expect that even higher losses occur. Tenant turnover at the park is heavy. The manager said that the electricity is turned off if rent is not paid, however, usually considerable time \ elapses before this is done. In my opinion, a vacancy/credit loss rate of 25% is realistic for subject on an annual basis, with credit loss making up a good part of the rate. Annual vacancy/credit loss is estimated as follows: 90,740 @ .25 I �! $ _ $22,685 Annual Vacancy/Credit Loss O `;Effective gross income is indicated to be: V $90,740 - $22,685 = $68,055 � I 11 I* 1 �E r lE i ! I \ I 79 r. 1 f r r• I r I 1� r y �I r on t;`l I'* 0 � 'k 0 mi M.. Reed �aaocictlea, Jnc. Income Capitalization Approach, Cont'd. Operating Expenses City View Park Estates in Springdale indicated a 54.8% operating expense ratio in 1990, including a replacement reserve and salaries for management. City View pays the majority of the tenant's utilities. I would expect subject to experience a somewhat higher expense ratio than City View due to heavy maintenance expense and less on -site expense ,. control by owners. In talking with management at the subject park, it appears considerable amounts are spent annually on repair work. �F. In my opinion, an annual operating expense ratio of 60% is appropriate, including reserves for replacement and management. The management expense could take the form of furnishing one of the $110/week units to an on -site manager +� r: at no charge plus payment of a small salary. Further support for the projected operating expense ratio j " comes from New Hope Mobile Home Park in Rogers that experienced a 49.6% operating expense ratio in 1988. New Hope consisted of 92 spaces and included mobile home rentals. In 1987, New Hope experienced a 5.2.8% operating i expense ratio. New Hope is a superior park to subject. Annual operating expenses are estimated as follows: d: $68,055 @ .60 = $40,833 Net Operating Income r Net operating income is computed as follows: ` Effective Gross Income = $68,055 1 Less: Operating Expense = (40,8331 O ;: Net Operating Income = $27,222 N❑ 81 le PHOTOGRAPHS COMPARABLE RENTAL #1 - CITY VIEW PARK ESTATES COMPARABLE RENTAL #2 - RAZORBACK MOBILE HOME PARK 82 1 171 1 1. f_!l 11 -11 rl i t 1,_..l l I 1 Ll Ll Ll , 1 I_l 1_1 %1 _l. ' � 1 ,1 r . � � i - ��� �, � � ,. ' 0 Income Capitalization ADproach Cont'd Capitalization Rate Rp Because most properties are purchased with debt and equity capital, the return on investment component of the overall capitalization rate must satisfy the market return requirements of each investment position. Lenders must anticipate receiving a competitive interest rate commensurate with the perceived risk or they will not make funds available. Similarly, equity investors must anticipate receiving a competitive equity yield commensurate with the perceived risk or they will divert their investment funds elsewhere. The capitalization rate for debt is called the mortgage constant (RM). It is the ratio of the annual debt service to the principle amount of the mortgage loan. The equity investor also seeks a return on and a return of the equity investment. The rate used to capitalize equity income is called the equity dividend rate (RE). The equity dividend rate is the ratio of equity dividend to the amount of equity. For appraisal purposes, the equity capitalization rate for the subject property is the anticipated return to the investor, usually for the first year of the holding period. The following terms are currently indicated for commercial loans in the subject market on properties of the subject nature: 8.5% Interest Rate (not fixed for full term) 75% Loan to Value Ratio 6 Year Amortization .2133406 Annual Constant The equity dividend rate for the subject property is estimated to be 15%. Due to the risk involved with the subject project, low quality, mobile home park, mobile homes in only fair condition, high tenant turnover, etc., a high equity dividend rate is indicated. O 85 101 14 F u 4 r' - C l � �4bociale4, �ixc. Income Capitalization Approach Cont'd t• The band of investment or weighted average formula for deriving an overall rate when the mortgage constant and equity dividend rates are known is: RO = M x RM + (1-M) x RE t ?; Therefore: Rp = (.75 x .2133406) + (.25 x .15) Rp = .16 + .038 Rp = 19.8% a=' :e , Value Computations Value = Net Operating Income / Cap Rate i u<: Value = $27,222 '/. .198 ' Value = $137,485 J Say $137,500 The contributory value of subject mobile homes can be ' estimated by subtracting the indicated value of the land and spaces derived in the Sales Comparison Approach: Overall Value = $137,500 Less: Land/Spaces/etc. From Sales Comparison Approach = ( 81,000) n R!i Contributory Value of Mobile Homes in Place & Ready for Rental = $56,500 86 '0 �,d � �aaocia-lea, RECONCILIATION Inc. Reconciliation is the part of the valuation process in which the appraiser attempts to resolve differences among the value indications derived from the application of the approaches. The conclusion drawn in the reconciliation is based on the appropriateness, the accuracy, and the quantity of the evidence in the entire appraisal. Cost Approach = $133,500 Sales Comparison Approach = $136,000 Income Capitalization Approach = $137,500 The Cost Approach is based, in part, upon the principle of substitution. This principle is basic to the Cost Approach and holds that no prudent investor would pay more for an existing property than the cost to acquire the site and construct improvements of equal desirability and utility without undue delay. Other appraisal principles that relate to the cost approach are: Supply and demand; balance; externalities; and, highest and best use. The strength of the Cost Approach is the availability of good supporting cost data through Marshall Valuation Service. The weaknesses are that subject improvements are older and do suffer substantially from accrued depreciation and, also, there is a lack of good recent land sales in the neighborhood. Certain principles are also basic to the Sales Comparison Approach: Substitution; supply and demand; balance; and, \ externalities. Again, the principle of substitution is very important. This principle states that the value of a specific property generally is set by the price necessary to acquire a substitute property of equivalent utility. The strength of the Sales Comparison Approach is in the valuation of the subject property, excluding the mobile homes. Four mobile home park sales were examined and have been included in this report. The sales are older, however, were considered the best sales available. The sales were 0 compared to subject and adjustments made for differences. Numerous adjustments were required, however, are believed to be market supported. There was limited data to utilize in applying the Sales Comparison' Approach to value the total subject property. However, an additional sale was examined and, along with sale four, was utilized to develop an appropriate EGIM for subject. This multiplier was applied 0 to subject's projected effective gross income to arrive at a total value of subject by the Sales Comparison Approach. The estimated property value, excluding the mobile homes was then subtracted to arrive at an estimated contributory value of the mobile homes. 87 0 0 E'l Reconciliation. Cont'd �' i'eed � �aaocuclea, Inc. The application of the Income Capitalization Approach is based on the operation of value influences and appraisal �. principles. The appraisal principles considered are: Anticipation and change; supply and demand; substitution; balance; and, externalities. Anticipation and change are very important. The principle of anticipation states that value is created by the expectation of benefits to be derived in the future. Income Capitalization methods attempt to forecast future benefits and estimate their rz: present value. The Income Capitalization Approach also 1 focuses on how change affects the value of income -producing properties. tRf I The strength of the Income Capitalization Approach is the r availability of current rental data on subject and the availability of reasonably good comparable rentals. The projected net operating income is believed to be realistic �. for the subject property. Band of Investment was relied on y,s in arriving at an appropriate overall cap rate. The Income Capitalization Approach, in my opinion, produced a supportable value conclusion for the total subject property. Final Value In the final value analysis, each of the valuation methods was given consideration with most weight placed on the Sales Comparison and Income Capitalization Approaches: Real Property = $ 81,000 Contributory Value of Mobile Homes = 56.500 ! In Place & Ready for Rental Total = $137,500 The preceding value represents terms equivalent to cash to the owners. i O It should be noted that property subject subj p y is traversed by a drainage ditch. The limit of the flood zone study is just east of subject. A survey is needed to make an exact determination if subject property is located in the 100 year flood zone. Q i I hereby certify that this appraisal report conforms to Federal Aviation Administration Guidelines, to the best of my understanding. 88 1% 40 L 40 Reconciliation, Cont'd Only the interior of one trailer, number fourteen, was examined. The preceding mobile home value is based on the assumption that the interior of each mobile home is in at least fair condition with the continued potential for rental. The preceding value is also contingent upon income/expense data furnished by the property manager being correct. 89 f i 1 � „ n ��' `A Y;. I 1 'n c 8' n k� J ILED F03 NOTICE OF CONTRACT FOR SALY• OP '83 VC1 25 �,II 19 3'1 REAL ESTATE AND ESCRO%J AGREEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THFse PRESENTS& cli-culr CI.[RK This in notice that there is an Escrow Sales Contract dated October 21, 1983, executed by Melvin F. Francis and Lola N. Francis, as Buyers, in favor of J. D. Hudson and Pauline V. Hudoon, as Sellers. Said Contract for Sale of Real Eotate and Escrow Agreement affects the following land situate in Washington County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows, to -wits . TRACT It A part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33 in Township 16 North of Range 30 West, described as followes Beginning at a point which is 505.9 feet North of the South line of said 40 acre tract, and running thence East 127 feet to a point on the West line of U. S. Highway Number 711 Raid point being Northeast corner of a tract of land heretofore conveyed to Ben ThomaL and wifes thence north running with the West line of said Highway, 120 feets thence West 66 feed thence in a Southwest direction 62 feet more or lens to a point which is 83 feet .due North of the point of beginning, and thence South 83 feet to the place of beginnings said lands having been surveyed and are more particularly described as follows, to -wilt Beginning at the Southwest corner of Section 33, Township 16 North, Range 30 West, and running thence East 883.88 feet, thence North 297.18 feet, thence North 3 degrees 12 minutes 51 seconds East 130.14 feet, thence North 89 degrees 8 minutes 18 seconds Ecat 162.2 feet, thence North 100 feet, thence North 89 degrees 8 minutes 18 seconds East 22 feet, for the poinL of beginning of the property herein conveyed, thence continuing North 89 degrees 8 minutes 18 seconds East 130.89 feet to the West right-of-way line of U. S. Highway No. 71, thence North 1 degree 32 minutes 35 seconds East 120 feet, thence South 89 degrees 8 minutes 18 seconds West 66 feet, thence South 60 degrees 53 minutes 13 seconds West 77.96 feet to a point which is 83 feet due north of the point of beginning, thence South 83 feet to the point of beginning. TRACT 2: Part of the Southwest Quarter (SWk) of the Souttwest Quarter (SWk) of Section thirty-three (33) in Township Sixteen (16) North of Range Thirty (30) West, described as followss Beginning at a point which in eight hundred ninety and five -tenths (890.5) feuL Fast and North 3 degrees Fast two hundred seventy-six (276) feet from the Southwest corner of said forty -acre tract, and running, thence North 3 degrees East one hundred thirty (130) feet, thence East one hundred sixty-two and two-tentho (162.2) feet, thence North one hundred (100) feet, thence East one hundred fifty (1501 !-et-W-th the io 90 =.'T93 GOO 0 0 a a O - 2 - West lane of Highway No. 711 thence Southerly with the West line of ea1,11119h.ay two hundred thirty (230) feet to a point three hundred thirteen and three-tenthn (313.3) feet Past of the beginning point) thence (lest three hundred thirteen and three -tenths (313.3) feet to the point of beginning, which lands have been purveyed and are more particularly described as surveyed, to -wit, beginning 883.80 feet Eaet and 297.18 feet North Of the Southwest Corner of Section 33, Township 16 North, Range 30 West, and running thence North 89 degrees 0 minutes 18 seconds East 317.19 feet, thence North 1 degree 32 minutes 35 seconds East 230 feet, thence South 69 degrees 8 minutes 18 seconds West 152.89 feet, thence South 100 feet, thence South 89 degrees 8 minutes 18 ceconds West 162.2 feet, thence South 3 degrees 12 min- utes 51 seconds West 130.14 feet to the point of beginning. Said Contract for Sale of Real Estate and Escrow Agreement is deposited with McIlroy Bank G Trout of Fayetteville, Arkansas, as Escrow Agent. ' Melvin F. Francis, Buyer Franc s, Buyer J. D. Hudson, Seller Pauline V. Hu eon, Seller ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS )SS COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) BE IT REMEMBERED that on this date, before me, a Notary Public, within and for Washington County, Arkansas, duly commissioned and acting, personally appeared Melvin F. Francis and Lola N. Francis, Buyers, to me well known as the persons who signed and executed the foregoing Notice of Contract for Sale of Real Estate and Escrow Agreement, and further that the said Melvin F. Francis and Lola N. Francis stated that the above Notice of Contract for Sale of Real Estate and Escrow Agreement was executed for the purposes therein mentioned and net forth. WITNESS my hand and neal on this 21st day of October, ly83, .+. •�+rp,;,i;''K,+�� �! Notary Public My C J, , 7 �K 1i ii •+ 91 Wa1033 601 V, i O 1 i • OR Pf Dn.— i A R NOTICE OF CONTRACT POR SALE Or �83 CC[ 25 6)119 311 HEAL ESTATE _AND ESCROW AGREEriENT j Iy :. L!.1 1. .•. :...� 1•: i ?' KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, CII•CUIi CLEAT, This Is notice that there is an Escrow Sales Contract dated October 21, 1983, executed by Melvin F. Francis and Lola N. Francis, as Buyers, in favor of J. D. y„ ri pr Hudson and Pauline V. Hudson, as Sellers. Said Contract for ,I3:; 3-' ) Sale of Real Estate and Escrow Agreement affects the following land situate in Washington County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows, to -wit: TRACT 1: A part of the Southwest Quarter of the Sout wwest Quarter of Section 33 in Township 16 North of Range 30 West, described as follows: Beginning at a i' point which is 505.9 feet North of the South line of s said 40 acre tract, and running thence East 127 feet to ;!! a point on the West line of U. S. Highway Number 718, said point being Northeast corner of a tract of land - heretofore conveyed to Ben Thomas• and wifel thence north running with the West line of said Ilighway, 120 feet: -r` thence West 66 feet: thence in a Southwest direction 62 *' feet more or less to a point which is 83 feet due North M1a of the point of beginning, and thence South 83 feet to Y the place of beginning: said lands having been surveyed =' and are more particularly described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Section 33, Township 16 North, Rance 30 West, and running thence a= East 883.88 feet, thence North 297.18 feet, thence North tip?' 3 degrees 12 minutes 51 seconds East 130.14 feet, thence 'S North 89 degrees 8 minutes 18 seconds Etst 162.2 feet, \ thence North 100 feet, thence North 89 degrees 8 minutes of 18 seconds East 22 feet, for the point of beginning the property herein conveyed, thence continuing North 89 degrees 8 minutes 18 seconds East 130.89 feet to the West right-of-way line of U. S. Highway No. 71, thence ?t North 1 degree 32 minutes 35 seconds East 120 feet, thence South 89 degrees 8 minutes 18 seconds West 66 feet, thence South 60 degrees 53 minutes 13 seconds West due of the 77.96 feet to a point which is 83 feet north point of beginning, thence South 83 feet to the point of }N. beginning. O j TRACT 2s Part of the Southwest Quarter (SWh) of the Southwest Quarter (Swy) of Section thirty-three (33) in Township Sixteen (16; North of Range Thirty (30) Went, described as follows: Beginning at a point which in eight hundred ninety and five-tentho (890.5) feet Fast and North 3 degrees East two hundred seventy-oix (276) feet from the Southwest corner of said forty -acre tract, K and running, thence North 3 degrees East one hundred © thirty (130) feet, thence East one hundred oixty-two and two-tentho (162.2) feet, thence North one hundred (100) feet, thence East one hundred fifty (1501 !-et with the 92 0 =a.093 690 Ic IV 17 g© Is IV NUSBANO•ANO WISE CONVEYING AS TENANTS b1' THE ENTIRETY. JOINTLY OR IN COMa•eON KI/OW ALL M[M BY THES[ ►aE1IwTe: ThN we. Elner i. Goohursdro and Betty F. Ormhtnt'o ht•abohd and rift, ne•Nnalter polyp Grewtrtr■, for r" In oomtorr tbn of the urns of on,, oatar t11.001 tube airy, a� a•.a •stwbw oerr,Cerathn as us wt nero Paid try Flelvin Francis raid Lola Francis, hosband arid wife,------------ hw*lnafter caltad Grant". Oo nereoy grant, barpatn and Pall unto Ina Gr said antee ana GranIM'e hairs ertd a",gM• the foltowtng Oeealbed Iand, thump aM1Lu�1�n�L Courtly bt.la of Arha.ta", to•wtt: FoR - WED B6.i•,, FCn. --r1,•• ' r/ 4Z4,,q �' C1%v 1 yY c, ^ r. r� of EsP , D2OM ' c� v Part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Twaship 16 North, Range 30 West, described as follows, to -wit: Beginning y, ac a point which is East 890.5 feet and North 3 degrees lest 276 feet from the Southwest corner of said 40 acre tract. and running thence Forth 130 feet, thence West to the East right of way of the Frisco Railroad, thence tJ South bearing East with said railroad right of way line to a point due West , , of the point of beginning, thence East to the point of beginning. I "Or atdar /atedth/ of Iahe matUll that d host the bpaly corral Eminl of delamenb Stomps ka►t `If1 TC HAVE AND TO HOLD the Uld Lan*$ and aoDurftnan-j" thereunto belonging unto the Paid Grantee and Grant.', heirs and "signs, forayer, And wt• the "Id Grantors, hereby to,"m ant that Iq are lawfully seized of said pralnma 11". that the sae unlncumosrod, and that we will for&"r warrant and *Hand land sad fan title the said hn*e al atnal all heal Claims whelle■et• A.+d We the raeaectrw Grenlore, Welty set"" and relinquish unto the mid Gr1tM" our r"PWI*N 00-OrfCun"y and hatiotlaa! In and to said land$. %VITNESS out hands end wit 0.. this day of -hay T_ ta- 86 THIS INSTRUMENT• PREPARED BY:I, Z.-7 A ZIt�i wd7>sT�t -_�~rC 16u11 I / ■ n1 IS"I I 't'"�t"•. ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE a n � �. as Uiee I !f rtQS�"tp i i I ., �j' �: On Inh IM_W.111.y of V WON Ian. a Rotary OubliC, parsonally stoppered �s,_ F,L>Yir E• 0170bi ldro .n* Bettis F. Owhuniko _ alla+m,ltOx,ltf O/ Wlalaelorlly Orovan) to be the PareoM who" names an subscribed Oil the foregoing Innrumsm and aEyeaa�r�dgwiiM:An@ had executed the game tY the PurOw" Ohm *In Mfawlh�. Iy1.,y;AM i��NNo• I haraunl0 W my hand and ofllela C\ My Commission Excirs, 0, •�. `�_' /� Ne•ary uCIK ®WDtta w A 0 93 n t I i i i i /� 0 0 V.6 V 11 aarcel No. 76 Parcel Slav .�rvia�io f` 1.19 ,acres DRAXE FIELD Afore or Less F- . V. ?\ PARC£L Ala n OWNER OF RECORD 'Orrn MelvinF. FrancisuND � & ► Lola N. Francis e q: I �, Book 1093 —.Page 690 i— — — CRANUC 3Curc / • �w.ra I 75 t � II u, 7y S 88'09'26" E Mi it y MOBILE HONE M 0 I 7I ( TYPICAL) \ 0 N ( C'um 0 I L I / ONE STORY Z FRANC OLO'C. S 88'09'26" E cwc reo mvn \_,Poo W1 iwol O) / / 0 J � m M N i 77 f O�p E u.Vn) ro / amour -noel ci awc PAD l� . ra+c ONE STORY �"a FRAME OLD' °i I �� � ;-� —, — �--e S 88'09'26" E _ '0N" war n/I 4001LE HOME ( TYPICAL) 1 W '• F er al I Imo'. Record Point L - I souls £wf o/ SoWAuwrf Comir Se' f(I J6'ir f/I • S�Nlan J ' • I f • (-R000RO SOUTH LWf LY 10 ACRC 7RAC! J wo 11 Caw y.. 91 I,.. �ry I* n ,b In w. ;f. Parcel AIaa L,Barcel No. 75 W. 0. s4 Acres •"• �•' Mom or Lass ro)vtts.010 Ltttle Rock war C...i. aro ...A.. ` ONNER OF RECORD I I Melvin F. Francis A. F' & I I I Lola N. Francis I �Q Book 1093 — Page 690 CD a MOBILE HOME I rralCAL) N 88'09'26" W I i1bIL0 FRAME Q t R �`�'' • I our-BIO,C. FRAME HOUSE I V) �cr , -:- P ',4 1 o I v t , o 2J.0• CAa.r C. I S 88'09 26- E - 132.27' _ I I 1„• � � MOBILE HOME I ( r/PlCAL ) a, W O a Frsia7J0 p , . DRAKE FIELD �� : •1 } • PWAYTL Na lJ LWD LrNZS P (RECORD SOUTH LIRC Qr �0 ACRL rRACI ) — L x ' r '• ` Parcel Alap .LI'arcel No. 77 fY9127Jo .: 0. Acres DRAKE FIELD , Wore ne or Less Sews : /• eo OWNER OF RECORD PARCEL N0.CD AMPZ"Ss ----- 4 j Melvin Francis 1.6vo caves — • • — • • — ri & Lola Francis ' oXA?+C SC= Book 1/87 -.Page 242 1 II 7I + 78 /1-176.85 y,> : • I In,w n w I ( ry pI �[t N 76 HCMC / � I O O W 1� TYPrCA[) ' (w1 M} m �1 '�• r 1 o I r - b 147.58' N Bo 1,0 '< 1 N 1 W • 1 OI O i?'i ,•'i �' I Z I u.0 w.nl SW Gbrner 1 •• bepwlN Sr //4 , Sir 1/4 1 Section ,9S I ra)VIISVO/O Utile Ro k 7�-/6-N , R 30 A" I sere K oee. ►ro a wu.. •"' N 03'29'47' E - 11.4' 95 S 88'09'26' E890.5'_ 0 A 0 Eol x IMMI ', ` 1 °, _ , � � 1% WO m 1% A& IOD *0 ' 1 � �� I' � � 1 � , ' !! e 0 • • . . . . . . . m g • . . . . . • L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • p \ U ::.:.. :.......... •.o�. .. ... .. �•o=op �0 Y • • . • • • • • . . P x Y - tin • 0 Y O •J� �- ¢ l g.l y I 0 Y . . . . . . . . . ° • p p W q . . . . . . . . • . . F O p0a o L < _ <� W j Y tSo( u a p i N s 3 0 ° I d3 j W3 p O n yl 2 �} x } ul i If �, p N •J .'I. V N pp• Q73 Y uN . N N N M C p J� N 6 QF •I � I � < �;� � .' v •. p L L � T yl0 2 2 2 "O W :. Ng 9W fl C� O D iA IV m1 O i� Oo CIv N 0 ° v m 3 s �g3a NS b3m� e� I • o `o ° . . . . . i= LD 3 W g ................ N v x +. _ 4 m m . . . . . . . . . . . � � �• W 4,� i � W m W ?. h, H fix. 4 � x ,O N F ♦• 3 �. W T �• y 4 f � O� W •M•. �`J� O � W°/ Y C.{'} � 11G4 � �Vy� S 3 1 i i � � � � Q1� S °O .y i w � " Z � W i • � � w S Z u W m W w 3 8 H u uN 8 yo w• duV W u� ••' Y ppj W U; 6 6 0 � U U P- n a T i o l PROPERTY DESCRIPTION !ssM Name: kcupancy: City:71/ g Class: A— B C D r_ 'c- 1% e Age: Overall Quality I — 2 4 =: 5� � — umber of Stories: Condition: r Floor Area: 'L,-t-- —_Effective Age: I n ^ = E Average Perimeter. __ -2 (Q r--3wevi I STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS 1ATIONol . . T EMUCT MIFRAYL t� O STEEL. PIE PlUltII31Np .- j/ 0 ASBESTOS SHINGLE 0 NONE I R CONC,CLASSB A"IIANTiti:`9 Con j -PAMRON I CLAY TILE I CONC. BLOCK, CLASSC I BATHTUB 3 OVEN f COMPOSITION SHINGLE I DRINK FOU J w000, CLASSD NTAIN,EL LT a RADIO INTERCOM f :ittI�TIOK 7 CONRETE CTILE J VATORY • MASONRY PILASTERS • COflRUGED METAL ATLE 7 RANGETO, B REFRIGERATOR IE - ! RKjID FRAME • SHOWER $TALL ! METAL SHINGLE - CRETEA. ! SINK a ROLLED ROOFING a SOLAR HOi WATER I CRETE BLOCKS T SLATE 7 tNstrtJ►Tlor� ,�.; $, MASONRY URINAL Ion a WOOD SHAKES D OADBEARINO a RCLOSET 0 NONE '1 S. YADD 1 NON LLE D QAO.BEARING WOOD SHINGLE YATER NEATER t FLOORS I BRICK. SOLID I WALL ' R AiTI.1{Jt•"1"(� J ICINGS J K VENEER + ROOF - $'.. :•• WATIW AND + CONCRETEBLOCK COOLIN4 ' NONE _. ! 0 NONE ! CONC BLOCK/BAICK 0 ENERGYSAVING CONST 'TED SUB I ACCOUSTIGL I COOLING ONLY a CONC BLOCK/STUCCO • LAB ONGRADE I FIBERBOARD i CONC BLOCK/WOOD I ELECTHICHEAT 0 GUNITEONSR J a MISCELLgNEotm JOIST,CONCRETE CONCRETE. REIN FORCEDAI1 9 GLASS • ME • HEAT PUMP D DOORS METAL CLAD JOIST, SHEATSRNG 3 AINTED DRY WALL t 10 PIUSTER$ 3 SOU HEAT OVERHEAD JOIST SHEATHING I1 a PUSTER I PRE FINISHED METAL a SPENDED HEATERS FUiE GU55 I T PLYWOOD i M WFLOOR FURNACE J 17 STONE VENEER ESGUTORS a FURRING • 13 TILT•UP PANEL a MMRUA COOL AIR FREIGHT ELEVATOR i 'I PlO t:0'UEAI ' = SUSPENSION SYSTEM I+ ! MOOD SIDING GUTTERSL DOWNSPOUTS , a, IS KITCHEN AgEA t r TILEMOOO/STUCCO 7 Et EMRIM ., PASSENGER ELEVATOR } I MORTAR .' , • lAn ERIORFINMH B -• 0 NONE PLATEGU55 9 O NONE I HIGH DUALITY A . SIGNS TILEROOFBTRUCTURE 1 DRY WALL I A GE B IO 0 SLOPE SPRINKLER ER FLOOR I GYPSUMBOARD I I CONC JOIST 01$1 a SUB 7 MINIMUM O I TV SECURITY IOR KTD 0 NRY + UNFIN I $TEE 1ST, COMP + PANELING AREAS D \ 00 ON CONCRETE 3 LJOIST. SLAB 3 OLIALITY I -I 3 PLASTERED + WOOD JOISTS A DECK a PREFINISHED METAL O J TILE 7 STEEL FRAME -. .,•;440 u DES -_ ". a WOOD FRAME WALL HSIOFip• -. :OR SHEET 0 ONE 0 1 COMBINATI OVENITOP TOTAL HEIGHT i 1 STATE OF ARKANSAS I DISHWASHER NO OF FLOORS J FREEZER ASSESSMENT COORDINATION DIVISION I AyG FLOORHEIGHT + GARBAGE DISPOSAL, ! LUMP SUM ADJUSTGIENT9:�,'1 0 es: 11 I ' jf ' 8 Escalators: ; I Ovements: I Total Lump Sum Adjustments: 106 Ili lb E so U PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ,ness Name: 5 Al` . •` Z. a 5tion: -71 City: B Occupancy: i i ____ <r a^ a r f ding Class: A— B C D Overall Quality I— 2 4 Number of Stories: j tall Age: Y Condition: Effective Age: _ 'age Floor Area: C13 Average Perimeter: -7 -(0 co STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS e,_ ?_ v WM WORK STRUCTURU FRAME ROOF COVERING " PLUwUNQ . APPLIANCES(Cont) E1K'AwT10N O STEEL CLASS A•C•O 01 1 ASBESTOS SHINGLE 0 11ONE 5 OVEN R 1 R CONIC. CLASSB 1 1 CLAY TILE 1 BATHTUB 6 RAOIOINTERCOLI 4PREPARATION 2 CONIC. BLOCK. CLASS C 7 1 COMPOSITION SHINGLE 2 DRINK FOUNTAIN.EL CT 7 RANGE TOP ] WOOD. CLASS ] CONCRETE TILE ] VATORY 6 REFRIGERATOR K MASONRY PILASTERS 4 CORRUGATED METAL K SHOWER STALL FOUN001011ill ' 5 RIGIOFRAME 5 METAL SHINGLE 5 SINK NONE 6 ROLLED ROOFING 6 SOLAR HOT WATER INSULATWA4 FETE A• I SLATE 7 URINAL 01 1 NONE CONCRETE BLOCKS EUERMWA.11Z 6 WOOD SHAKES 9 ViA RCLOSET 1 F100R5 PIERS. MASONRY 0 ow-eEARING 9 WOOD SHINGLE 9 VATER HEATER 2 YALL I PIERS W000 1 NON LOAD• (FARING '1r ] ILINGS I 2 BRK:K,SOLID A ROOF ] RICK VEIIEER ••. CELLlNtiti •. -. HEATING AND COOUNG •. 5 ENERGY SAVING CONST FLOORSTRUCTURE A CONCRETE BLOCK 01 INONE O INONE 5 CONIC BLOCK/BRICK 1 ACCOUSTICAL 1 COOLING ONLY 'Lr TEO SUB 6 CONC BLOCK/S7UCCO 21 1 FIBERBOARD 2 ELECTRIC HEAT mist LLAHEOUS' UFT SLAB 71 1 CONC BLOCK/W000 31 1 GUNITE PHSR 0 FORCEOAIR 01 1 DOORS. METAL CUD SLABONGRADE B CONCRETE. REIN 41 1 ME s HEAT PUMP 1 OVERHEAD STEEL JOIST. CONCRETE 9 GLASS 5 14&KAINTFO DRY WALL 5 SOU.0 HEAT 2 RATE GLASS STEEL JOIST. SHEATHING 10 PILASTERS 5 RASTER 6 SPENDEO HEATERS ] ESCALATORS HOOD JOIST I SHEATHING 11 PREFINISHED ME TAL 1 PIYWi%70 7 YALL/FLOOR FURNACE 4 FREIGHT ELEVATOR 12 STONE VENEER a FURRING B WARM A COOL AIR 5 GUTTERS I DOWNSPOUTS 13 TILT•UPPANEL 9 SUSPENSION SYSTEM 6 KITCHEN AREA FU)MI covERtka IK w000 SIDING 7 PASSENGE R ELEVA70R NONE 15 WOOD/STUCCO• ELEL'1'RICAI: `- ~ B RATE GLASS ASPHALT TIME INTERIOR FINIM ''t' 0 NONE 9 SIGNS B IN MORTAR 0 NONE 1 HIGH OIIALITYA 10 SPRINKLER SYSTUM GPIPET R00FSTRUCiURf2• 11 1 DRYWALL 2 APRAGE B II TV. SECURITY CERAMIC TILE O SLOPEAJ]L 21 IGYPSUM BOARD ] MINIMUM C COMPUTER FLOOR 1 CONC JOIST SUB ] 1 MASONRY UNFIN AREAS GYMFLOOR 2 STEELJOIST.COMP I PANELING 5 DUALITY I.2 HARDWOOD ] ST,.,. 5 PLASTEREDHARDWOOOON CONCRETE WOOOJOISTS&DECK 6 PREFINISHED METAL "ROLE / STEEL FRAME 'AWLJANCES .' I: WALL HCI{tPff''-•` .; TERRAZZO 6 VY000 FRAME 0 ONE O TOTAL HEIGHT VINYL ASB TILE 1 COMBINATI OVEN/TOP 1 NO OF FLOOR$ VINYL TILE OR SHEET STATE OF ARKANSAS ASSESSMENT COORDINATION DIVISION 2 DISHWASHER 2 AVG FLOOR HEIGHT 0 FREEZER . GARBAGEOISrosAL i 1 O l j 1 ! O 107 �/ MutJgM '...W.YJ2W YHA.iMYii.,1..nLJ117r«alW.i...a'AJI. ,.AwM �./ '� In O 0 ��„ LUMP SUM ADJUSTMENTS...I O l j 1 ! O 107 �/ MutJgM '...W.YJ2W YHA.iMYii.,1..nLJ117r«alW.i...a'AJI. ,.AwM �./ '� In O 0 ��„ LUMP SUM ADJUSTMENTS...I II Y- 111 Appliances: Elevators & Escalators: Plumbing: Yard Improvements: I Miscellaneous: l n G S s /Z3 o 0180 Z 8 � Total Lump Sum Adjustments: .0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION I "ness Name: 1"f XAtlon: /� �p City r r type Occupancy' A/A 1,6J / /-- jlriding Class: A — B — C — D Overall Quality — 2 — 3 — 4 Number umber Stories Ittual Age: � ?� Condition: �l�Q— Effective A Age: � Mirage Floor Area: Average Perimeter. �A STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS G •G1. J- 7 tIrmwoWK: ._ — BTRIJCTUmR mw EXCAVATION 0 STEEL. CUSS A•C-D NOOPCOVERIM 0 ASSESTOSSHINGLE •PLUMIUNG 0 NONE APPLIANCES Conti 1 FILL 1 REIN CONC, CLASS 1 CLAY TILE I BATHrus it I PREMMnONCO{C BLOCK. CLASSC 2 COMPOSITION SHINGLE 2 DRINK FOUNTAIRELECT 3 WOOO,CLASSD 3 CONCRETE TILE 3 LAVATORY MO�T.N { MASONRYPILASTERS { CORRUGATED METAL 4 SHOWER STALL '. 3 RIGID FRAME 5 METAL SHINGLE 5 SINK 17 NOUNDATIQy ONE a ROLLED ROOFING B SOLAR NOT 1MTER • •.J 1 CONCRETE A-BC-0 1 SLATE 7 URINAL 0 NONE 17 CONCRETE BLOCKS .,• EXnUWRWALL$ '� B WOOD SNAKES B LNTERCLOSET 1 FLOORS 7 PIERS. AM 0 LOA6BFARING p WOOD SHINGLE 9 LMTER HEATER 2 WALLS � ID RERS. WOOD 1 NON LOAD -BEARING 3 CEILINGS 2 BRICK, SOLID A ROOF 3 BRICK VENEER • ••1 :•.. •;u.� •.+ tj!ATtt4G AND COOLING.—� 5 ENERGY SAVING CONST. I FLOOR ALIT ,'� { CONCRETE BLOCK 0 NONE 101 1 NONE 3 NO//EI CONC BLOCKIBACX 1 ACCOUSTIGL 1 COOLING ONLY I ELEVATED SLABCONC BLOCK/STUCCO 2 FIBERBOARD 2 ELECTRIC HEAT M13`EI L AKEOUS -. 1 UFT SLABCONC BLOCK/W000 7 GUNITE ON SR. 7 FORCEDAIR 0 DOORS. METALCLAD 3 N GRADECONCRETE, REIN. METAL HEAT FVM1OVERHEADOIST•COLASS y PAINTED CRY WALL 5 SOLAR HEAT 2 PLATE GLASS OIST. SHLASTERS B RASTER 6 SUSPEN"HEATERSESCALATORS OIST{SHREFINISHED L METAL 7 PlY0 7 YMLUFLFREIGHTELEVATOR TONE VENEER B FURRING B V1ARMA GUTTERS { DOWNSPOUTSLT•UP 9 SUSPENSION SYSTEM KITCHENAREA FLWR COWW000SIDING PASSENGER ELEVATOR i NONE15�L�VMUCTURr.— Y.00DISTUCCO "�'•FLATEGUSS ASPHALT TILE citirTERIorIF{NIt3t1 ''0 HONESIGNS I BRKJf IN MORUR 0 NONE 1 HIGH Ol1 SPRINKLER SYSTEM I CAPLET �'•..' I I DRYWALL 2 1 IAvERAGrz B if TV. SECURITY I CERAMIC TILE PE A-04 2 GYPSUM BOARD 7 MINIMUM C I COMPUTERFLOOR JOIST{SUB 3 MASONRY UNFIN. AREASD L JOIST. COMP { PANELING S aLLAUrY 1.2.34 HARDWOOD WICONC. LJOIST•SLAB 5 MSTERED HARDWOODON CONCRETE D JOISTS{DECK B PREFINISHED METAL • MARBLE 7 STEELFRAME �•'.\I•'APPUANCES .' WALL HEIGRT 1 TERRAZZO B WOOD FRAME 0 NONE 0 TOTALHEIGHT MNYLASB. TILE I COMBINATION OVENiTOP I NO OF FLOORS I VINYL TILE OR SHE ET STATE OF ARKANSAS ASSESSMENT COORDINATION DIVISION 1 DISHWASHER 2 AV6 FLOOR HEIGHT 7 FREEZER 4 GARBAGE DISPOSAL M■ :-'•;` ,"`7. LUMP SUM ADJUSTMENTS• Appliances: Elevators 6 Escalators: Plumbing: Yard Improvements: Miscellaneous: Total Lump Sum Adjustments: 107 0 C 7G v MOBILE HOME INSPECTION REPORT FAYETTEVILLE LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT Date of Inspection: ,?- G-9/ Name of Family: i rc Address: A . � ?r Telephone: Telephone: f'h-�)�tC`L-�S1_�e� �LSCanfEG1�- T- W� Is there sufficient space (s ft. q• .) for the number of family CIRCLE ONE members to meet the codes requirements? (Federal Requirements for the first occupant and 70 sq. f t. for each additional © N Occupant..). Adequate kitchen or food preparation area? Adequate Water supply? N Adequate Heating System N Adequate Electrical System? v N Adequate Bathroom facilities?. Q N Is the Mobile Home structurally sound? Q N Can the Mobile Home be moved? Q N \ List repairs, if necessary, to meet local code requirements: Ne as %� Fr © N - C'P2 r e^InnCe t`P�I•eZ�Qd o� — S Soo = '.n the opinion of the inspector this Mobile Home meets or complies with 1 p , cal WA YETTEVILLE') Codes Requirements and is safe, decent and sanitary. p ---------------45�. _ �+t��o �_---------- ------------------- Title: bawy 800 W. )lth Date: Fayetteville, Ark. 7270 iTi: IN co R MOBILE HOME INSPECTION REPORT FAYETTEVILLE LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT 1. Date of Inspection: P_d h e e, 2. Name of Family: w1 �''/� I - //��� ,L 3. Address: �'r D/r� 11{d r A, s� e. P -K �— Z 4. Telephone: ----------J� °-- � (------------------------------------------------------------------ CIRCLE ONE S. Is there sufficient space (sq. ft.) for the number of family members to meet the codes requirements? (Federal Requirements - 150 5q. ft. for O N the first occupant and 70 sq. ft. for each additional occupant.) '6. Adequate kitchen or food preparation area? N 7. Adequate Water supply? N S. Adequate Heating System N 9. Adequate Electrical System? N 10. Adequate Bathroom facilities?. N 11. Is the Mobile Home structurally sound? Y N 12. Can the Mobile [tome be moved? ® N 13. List repairs, if necessary, to meet local code requirements: NEP_ds 3Ixy ' area A. _�Ienr eP1n1PCPd kA:.AA�_. 14. In the opinion of the inspector this Mobile Home meets or cAplies with Local WAYE;TTEVILLL ) Codes Requirements and is safe, decent and sanitary. Y© N T u.� - - -------- �/eds- Needsroof re- coeie-d s. fA ®�3oI-Yo YiS� cLs -� V'n SCe6laCKwwU C S ,r oa `�• Signed: CM Title: IAN'S MOBILL HUML SLKVIL.! 800 W. llth Date s Fayetteville, Ark. 7270 k 0 Wil 1% -V rR MOBILE HOME INSPECTION REPORT FAYETTEVILLE LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT Date of Inspection: Name of Family: .n ' n Address: 3 Telephone: -----------a--{-------------------------------------------------------------- CIRCLE ONE Is there sufficient space (sq. ft.) for the number of family members to meet the codes requirements? (Federal Requirements - 150 5q. ft. for 0 N ' the first occupant and 70 sq. ft. for each additional occupant.) 8 arel Adequate kitchen or food preparation area? N Adequate Water supply? N Adequate Heating System ©y N Adequate Electrical System? y Adequate Bathroom facilities? y Is the Mobile Home structurally sound? Q N Can the Mobile Home be moved? GY N List repairs, if necessary, to meet local code requirements: Yx of FIecl'rlcA C,v—culls are dezd — < ' + I t- d ' ' r r e 1 — 0 0 �- In the opinion of the inspector this Mobile Home meets or complies with i O Local (FAYETTEVILLE,) Codes Requirements and is safe, decent and sanitary. Y O Qp LL -�+ 1 r 1_0--��--�1,--�rhg-n---------------------------- DON' ed: ��_ Title: MOBILE HOME © -PAR -s11 � TLC Foyettev 11l Date: 21 i� MOBILE SOME INSPECTION REPORT FAYETTEVILLE LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT Date of Inspection: - Name of Family: filej'sS 2 -re aJe 1 Address: rllir�Irrbr•�C /Yin�� ��rK'�l'T Telephone: -----------N --R� C--------------------------------------------------------------- CIRCLE ONE Is there sufficient space (sq. ft.) for the number of family members to meet the codes requirements? (Federal Requirements - 150 5q. ft. for Q N the first occupant and 70 sq. ft. for each additional occupant.) Adequate kitchen or food preparation area? N Adequate Water supply? ® N Adequate Heating System Y Q Adequate Electrical System? �Y N Adequate Bathroom facilities? �Y N Is the Mobile Home structurally sound? N Can the Mobile Home be moved? ® N List repairs, if necessary, to meet local code requirements: In the opinion of the inspector this Mobile Home meets or complies with Local (FAYETTEVILLE ) Codes Requirements and is safe, docent and ta�ri 7.�Y ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ no no Title : DON' S ''' g00 W. 1)th Data: ( -IU ^ 1 ceyetteville, Ack. 7270 312 ?` MOBILE HOME INSPECTION REPORT FAYETTEVILLE LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT Jr, 4; 1. Date of Inspection: 2. Name of Family: K (m � @. 3. Address: /yjr�r f lr}d�i �eme �JrK``� j: 4. Telephone: -----------J= I n� A --(----------------------------------------------------------------- CIRCLE ONE 5. Is there sufficient space (sq. ft.) for the number of family members to meet the codes requirements? (Federal Requirements - 150 5q. ft. for �Y N � j S - the first occupant and 70 sq. ft. for each additional occupant.) '6. Adequate kitchen or food preparation area? N 4. ?% 7. — Adequate Water supply? �C N i 8. Adequate Heating System Y c? 9. Adequate Electrical System? Y N ^.10. Adequate Bathroom facilities? Y N .. ea 11. Is the Mobile Home structurally sound? © N 12. Can the Mobile Home be moved? © N \ 13. List repairs, if necessary, to meet local code requirements: has �zVn ) mac. cg ck C1- e y. v.�T c ofV 7 Rtidecs, br -� Q it a ee .2S mikQS—( IoeK4- re kva. — SdO0 14. In the opinion of the inspector this Mobile Home meets or complies with 0 Local (FAYETTEVILLE') Codes Requirements and is safe, decent and spRitary. Y N �o Co a 1 1 ed_ / �r- ®=30----!80--- _� L__�e _ ------(°-d-� �f a DON'S Signed: L, Title: �'(}j_?T)_[ HOME Sr-' Fny•: tev0h- Ark. 7°70 Date: )� -�.0-9 133 n 00 5X Vs oil MOBILE HOME INSPECTION REPORT FAYETTEVILLE LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT Date of Inspection: Name of Family: 1 Address: Telephone: ��1 l�sLrL _D3 lan _ �lci� �as_beg,-,_a;scehreaTe�i Is there sufficient space (s CIRCLE ONE q. ft.) for the number of family members to meet the codes requirements? (Federal Requirements the first occupant and 70 sq. ft. for each additional occupantf) for U-) N Adequate kitchen or food preparation area? Adequate water supply.? y N Adequate Heating System N Adequate Electrical System? ('yl N Adequate Bathroom facilities?. y 0 Is the Mobile Home structurally sound? Qy) N Can the Mobile Home be moved? 0 N List repairs, if necessary, to meet local code requirements: © N ULZIc ed T O' / \I La n:L� 1CC JZLa t � d- IPA �a � c 1700 rn the opinion of the inspector this Mobile Home meets or complies with i O .ocal IFAYETTEVILLE. ) Codes Requirements and is #tfe, de�t and sani y, y --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © Title: D0N' S Dato: I FoYe'l te�viille, Arlo 727r 114 14 e ❑c 0 r MOBILE HOME INSPECTION RE FAYETTEVILLE LAND ACQUISITIOr Date of Inspection: Name of Family: Address: Telephone: -----------j=O---------------------------------------------------------------- CIRCLE ONE Is there sufficient space (sq. ft.) for the number of family members to meet the codes requirements? (Federal Requirements - 150 eq. ft. for i �y N the first occupant and 70 sq. ft. for each additional occupant.) VV'' �' Adequate kitchen or food preparation area? N Adequate Water :.upply? ® N Adequate 1lentlu' ;,' y.!•,tcm � ®N Adequate Electrical System? �I Adequate Bathroom facilities? Y i .. O N Is the Mobile home structurally sound? N I Can the Mobile home be moved? � N List repairs, i'f necessary, to meet local code requirements: \ 1 cj� — 70 .f�. o 2 "" ]51Vi @I@C�C'�Sal I Tt i�nY 11 OCIc [`e� N or 141 C r �j In the opinion of the inspector this Mobile Nome meets or complies with j Local (FAYETTEVILLE ) Codes Requirements and is safe, decent and sanitary. Y N y ps �° nc ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ' ed:_ �,.Title: DQN'S K is TO W. 11th Dates -0-9 :w;,i;,ville, Ark. 72701 b � _ 1L5 i I ' 1 . ..._ R._ ...._... ,,..ter �. 0 - o f _ _ _-----,,-G .1 n C N - OW MOBILE HOME INSPECTION REPORT FAYETTEVILLE LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT t C 0i Date of Inspection: 0, 40-91 Name of Family: ' Address: Mh A :'le snag o g Telephone: C----------------------------------------------------------------- CIRCLE ONE T. these suffirirnt spnce (sq. ft.) for the number of family members to meet the codes requirements? (Federal Requirements - 150 sq. ft. for GY N the first occupant and 70 sq. ft. for each additional occupant.) Adequate kitchen or food preparation area? Q N Adequate Water supply? Adequate Heating System Y C Adequate Electrical System? 16 Adequate Bathroom facilities?. © N Is the Mobile Home structurally sound? Cam' N Can the Mobile Home be moved? N List repairs, IC 1necessary, to meet local code requirements: RAT-Mnn' r`1 1-AA<-9- no eXnnceJ jjiricQ _--- 0 _t 1 _ _ U _ _ _ _ 1 _ - - -_ -4,.' - _ _ -17n1 so. -4. n . 2n j4k2 21 0� D-uruo,c,e JOQI.& 1,4�i,nr/C �Li'ecli %i/���r 171o�ar rt_%"�errr�ns}a %s' Orads 2—3ux-27 .6tl;no�aws t^F��dGer%=�S'e°� Z 1Yi lk In the opinion of the inspector this Mobile Home meets or complies with Local (FAYETTEV I LLE ) Codes Requirements and is safe, deceont and sanitary. Y �N . V %�Pmoue si�irf ►ny-%ns}z[I fires+ wh404- rove hawQ nu;44:n =--------------------------------------- med: Title: ^ T nG�srf".'%T rL Foy�;to llle, Ark.7270 Date: J �.-IU -91 ll6 it X C it X C it IV n MOBILE HOME INSPECTION REPORT FAYETTEVILLE LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT Date of Inspection: /Z Name of Family: ,L I Address: /lj�Jmr 1 MIT %>nvNa 6 A • --,If 2_ Telephone: _.R_ — _ ---- --- CTRCTAF, ONF i, Is there sufficient space (sq. f t.) for the number of family members to meet the codes requirements? (Federal Requirements - 150 5q. ft. for N the first occupant and 70 sq. f t. for each additional occupant.) i. Adequate kitchen or food preparation area? 0 N Adequate Water supply? N Adequate Heating System N Adequate Electrical System? Q N Adequate Bathroom facilities?. Q N Is the Mobile home structurally. sound? N • Can the Mobile liome be moved? Q N , List repairs, if necessary, to meet local code requirements: I Q. Tedc Iet+� CCn+ eht oars V)a(ed--.ZGO4:'eacj .09 In the opinion of the inspector this Mobile Home meets or complies with Local (FAYETUVlLLL ) Codes Requirements and is safe, decent and sanitary. Y N y es rio :n o rued: :7. 1, nQME ;S,.c VICIE Title: ,,(�Q�� 00 W. I 1 i• Dates 2 13 -9 1 Ark. 7270' 117 0 U WKS MOBILE HOME INSPECTION REPORT FAYETTEVILLE LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT 1. Date of Inspection: 1.2 - /3 91 2. Name of Family: 3. Address: 4. Telephone: -----------1°---i�c _ �'_.�r 'o ------------------------------------------------ CIRCLE ONE S. Is there sufficient space (sq. ft.) for the number of family members to meet the codes requirements? (Federal Requirements - 150 5q. ft. for N the first occupant and 70 sq. f t. for each additional occupant.) '6. Adequate kitchen or food preparation area? N 7. Adequate Water supply? ® N 8. Adequate Heating System N 9. Adequate Electrical System? N 10. Adequate Bathroom facilities? QY N 11. Is the Mobile home structurally sound? y N 12. Can the Mobile home be moved? QY N 11. List repairs, it necessary, to meet local code requirements: �td_S_—_l—_�O X W ' v,A�t w ce of e c L _ -, h as n,i ie� ' - 3 ei�4c� d- r-!. - v - Soo°= I. In the opinion of the inspector this Mobile Home meets or complies with Local (FAY ETTEVIL LE ) Codes Requirements and is safe, decent and sanitary.(9 N ------------------------ -- - P��'S .gned: Title: -.�.Z.. �;rt�ec �.r�.t„r�• Date: I •' 1 -� 1 �.�Al)e, Ark. 7270 I Ir ' IE 118 0 MOBILE HOME INSPECTION REPORT FAYETTEVILLE LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT 1. Date of Inspection: 9 2. Name of Family: --i 3. Address:r�er phi%��o►yl(�_ fN�1��� 4. Telephone: CIRCLE ONE 5. Is there sufficient space (sq. f t.) for the number of family members to meet the codes requirements? (Federal Requirements - 150 5q. £t. for N the first occupant and 70 sq. f t. for each additional occupant.) 6. Adequate kitchen or food preparation area? © N 7. Adequate Water supply? N 9. Adequate Heating System © N 9. Adequate Electrical System? 0. Adequate Bathroom facilities?. N 1. Is the Mobile Home structurally sound? N 2. Can the Mobile Home be moved? © N \ 3. List repairs, 11 necessary, to meet local code requirements: eCcis ; rter Jb8rs r-ta1 aced ;h I 1. In the opinion of the inspector this Mobile Home meets or complies with Local (FAYETTEVILLE ) Codes Requirements and is safe, decent and sanitary. Y N I •--�Q2f _ �4'z.I,�-=-r Ce�s__s2_400Ti r_--=-�� -��- ----------------------------- © '.9ned: LTitle: Doti IS 0W. IIC. , Date: I --- 3 -9' I Ark. 319 1b it 1b it I •❑ MOBILE HOME INSPECTION REPORT FAYETTEVILLE LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT L. Date of Inspection: - �- 2. Name of Family: l. Address: �. Telephone: --- ---------- L-q--! ---------------------------------------------------------------- CIRCLE ONE 5. Is there sufficient space (sq. ft.) for the number of family members to meet the codes requirements? (Federal Requirements - 150 5q. ft. for N the first occupant and 70 sq. ft. for each additional occupant.) 6. Adequate kitchen or food preparation areal 7. Adequate Water supply? ® N N 8. Adequate Heating System 9. Adequate Electrical System? © N 0. Adequate Bathroom facilities?. �' N 1. Is the Mobile Home structurally sound? N 2. Can the Mobile !tome be moved? Y N 3. List repairs, if necessary, to meet local code requirements: O0. In the opinion of the inspector this Mobile Home meets or complies with � Local ,p(FAYETTEVILLE') Codes Requirements and is 1safe, decent and sanitary.( N ------ --- © I igned: Title:�Mir J11, Date: ?0.2 '/ille, Ark. 7270 i i . i F A ' I i © I �' "b 10 lb 10 I I MOBILE HOME INSPECTION REPORT FAYETTEVILLE LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT 1. Date of Inspection: //•-3I6 � I 2. Name of Family: bon p O e 3. Address: E r-o,rl' No me Qa�l� 13 4. Telephone: 5. Is there sufficient space (sq. ft.) for the number of family members to meet the codes requirements? (Federal Requirements - 150 5q. ft. for the first occupant and 70 sq. ft. for each additional occupant.) 6. Adequate kitchen or food preparation area? 7. Adequate Water supply? 8. Adequate Heating System 9. Adequate Electrical System? 10. Adequate Bathroom facilities? 11. Is the Mobile }come structurally sound? 12. Can the Mobile home be moved? 13. List repairs, if necessary, to meet local code requirements: c-2�I136'in, Fvdv,A ee -�JOo" e-m 0Q �,�c� — Goo L J: CIRCLE ONE QN ON N Q N © N QY N N �N VolCk d- /c'Ue JSoo 14. In the opinion of the inspector this Mobile Home meets or complies with ( ( Local (FAY'ETTEVILLE:) Codes Requirements and is safe, decent and sanitary N ------------------------------ — Signed: Gw CMS Title: aYr,�r::vllle, Ark. /270 it 2n..Qt 10 r] MOBILE HOME INSPECTION REPORT FAYETTEVILLE LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT Date of Inspection: Name of Family: Vi �. Address: r c 10 I, Telephone: 11 \\ -------------- CIRCLE ONE S. Is there sufficient space (sq. ft.) for the number of family members to meet the codes requirements? (Federal Requirements - 150 5q. ft. for N the first occupant and 70 sq. ft. for each additional occupant.) G. Adequate kitchen or food preparation area? Y N 1. Adequate water supply? — N 9. Adequate Heating System Y N 9. Adequate Electrical System? — N 0. Adequate Bathroom facilities?. — N .1. Is the Mobile Home structurally sound? ® N .2. Can the Mobile home be moved? O N \\.�. List repairs, if necessary, to meet local• code requirements: i4-cad .30 0j"hd0 � fyP. Cf�ir�lnZ �a t 11 _ L4. In the opinion of the inspector this Mobile Home meets or complies with Local (FA YETTEVILLE ) Codes Requirements and is safe, decent and sanitary. Y N 'b C ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ © ! ned: �q`^ Title: „• r •La�c•,:_�_,*.-r O g Date: � �� I: R� MOBILE HOME INSPECTION REPORT Y Y s FAYETTEVILLE LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT i Z, y '1. Date of Inspection: 2. Name of Family: ler 3. Address: f�� r tf� I 1 14. Telephone: ------------- �o A_c -------------------------------------------------------------- CIRCLE ONE S. Is there sufficient space (sq. ft.) for the number of family members to meet the codes requirements? (Federal Requirements - 150 sq. ft. for N the first occupant and 70 sq. ft. for each additional occupant.) /'� 1. Adequate kitchen or food preparation area? l•:! N N 7. Adequate Water supply? Y Q 8. Adequate Heating System N 9. Adequate Electrical System? U) 10. Adequate Bathroom facilities?. © N 11. Is the Mobile home structurally sound? © N 12. Can the Mobile home be moved? Y N 13. List repairs, if necessary, to meet local code requirements: \ co'CY00n ur wl�ic� as e c i� �e%n+ v -cc I Nei -A f -S j s, e�kf '- , c �1 as r\ 1 u� r o a �,•. a s- r ��� C VVN^ U 14. In the opinion of the inspector this Mobile Home meets or complies with 0 Local IFAYETT EVILLE:) Codes Requirements and is safe, decent and sanitary- Y N \ \ 1 • yes .. a ---------------------------- • HON`� Signed: Title: MOBILE HOME SERVICt p,yetteville, Ark. 7270 Date: >-4- IU L W 0 It 0 W. D. Schock Company Aviation Management Consultants October 29, 1991 Mr. and Mrs. Melvin Francis CERTIFIED - RETURN P. O. Box 83363 RECEIPT REQUESTED Oklahoma City, OK 73148 RE: Fayetteville Municipal Airport Land Acquisition Program Parcel No. 775-17980-000 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Francis: The City of Fayetteville and the Fayetteville Municipal Airport will be acquiring your property in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration regulations pursuant to an approved program under FAR Part 77 "Objects Affecting Navigable Air Space." This program as approved is necessary for the runway protection zones and other transitional zones off the end of each runway. \ Preliminary title work indicates that the Parcel referenced above is owned by you and as such, has been included in our Land Acquisition Program. The City of Fayetteville has contracted with the W. D. Schock Company, Inc. as the Consultant to perform the acquisition and relocation portions of this program. The Consultant's representatives are Mr. William D. Schock, Officer in Charge, Mr. Ralph White, Program Director, and Mr. John T. Baugh, Project Manager. I The purpose of this letter is to give you advance notification of the Fayetteville Municipal Airport's interest in acquiring your o property. In giving this notice, we wish to acquaint you with the 1 various steps that will be taken. i 1. The property will be appraised by an independent appraiser appointed by W. D. Schock Company. The appraiser's name, address and telephone number is given for reference at the end of this letter. Please contact © the appraiser or the appraiser will contact you for the opportunity to accompany the appraiser as he completes his work with respect to the appraisal on your property. Land Acquisition • Relocation • Part 150 Implementation onelson Pike • Building III Suite B-2 Nashville, Tennessee a 37217 615/399.0585 • FAX 615/366-1 164 12A 0 0 ya 10 Mr. and Mrs. Melvin Francis October 29, 1991 Page Two 2. Following completion of the appraisal, you will receive a separate letter offer from W. D. Schock Company advising you of the established fair market value by the 9* appraiser and the review appraiser. Further, you will subsequently be contacted by a representative of W. D. Schock Company, who will be in a position to discuss the offer and negotiate the purchase price of your property with you. 3. If the negotiated purchase of your property is not possible, and you are not willing to sell your property 01 at the fair market value established by the appraiser, W. D. Schock Company, in conjunction with the City of Fayetteville, would take into consideration the right of acquiring your property under eminent domain. 4. At the time an offer is made, if you have a business on the property, or a tenant who may have a business on the property, will be contacted by the W. D. Schock Company's Relocation Advisor to explain relocation eligibility and benefits available for businesses. Any business that is impacted by the acquisition program does not have to move immediately and will have ninety (90) days from the date of purchase to relocate to other areas or facilities. \ Relocation is a separate issue and will be handled by the \ Relocation Advisor with the business itself and will be conducted under the rules and regulations that apply under the "Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1970," 49 CFR Part 24. 5. Please note that prior to a site visit from the 101! appraiser, we will need to complete preliminary title work and field surveys. McClelland Engineering will be ` contacting you shortly to prepare site survey on your property. The City of Fayetteville is committed to accommodating the acquisition of your property as quickly and fairly as possible. Listed below is the appraiser assigned to prepare the appraisal on your property. Please contact © ' him directly to schedule an appointment as soon as M $4 e 9 Mr. and Mrs. Melvin Francis October 29, 1991 Page Three possible. We encourage you to accompany the appraiser on the inspection of the property. Following receipt of this letter, if you have any questions regarding the land acquisition and relocation program for acquiring your property, please contact the W. D. Schock Company at (501) 521-6852. We will get back with you as soon as possible. Very truly yours, W. D. Schock President, W. D. Schock Company, Inc. cc: Ralph White, Program Director John Baugh, Project Manager Tom Reed, Appraiser Carl Grimes, TRW Title Company Wayne Jones, McClelland'Engineering (surveys) appraiser: Mr. Tom Reed Reed & Associates, Inc. 210 S. Thompson, Suite 1 Springdale, AR 72765-1102 (501) 756-6313 326 V ■i O W. D. Schock Company Aviation Management Consultants I. ® October 29, 1991 Mr. and Mrs. Lola Francis 2932 S. West 11 CERTIFIED - RETURN Oklahoma City, OK 73108 RECEIPT REQUESTED V RE: Fayetteville Municipal Airport Land Acquisition Program Parcel'No. 775-17980-000 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Francis: The City of Fayetteville and the Fayetteville Municipal Airport will be acquiring your property in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration regulations pursuant to an approved program under FAR Part 77 "Objects Affecting Navigable Air Space." This program as approved is necessary for ,the runway protection zones and other transitional zones off the end of each runway. Preliminary title work indicates that the Parcel referenced above is owned by you and as such, has been included in our Land Acquisition Program. The City of Fayetteville has contracted with the W. D. Schock Company, Inc. as the Consultant to perform the acquisition and relocation portions of this program. The Consultant's representatives are Mr. William D. Schock, Officer in Charge, Mr. Ralph White, Program Director, and Mr. John T. Baugh, Project Manager. The purpose of this letter is to give you advance notification of j 0 the Fayetteville Municipal Airport"s interest in acquiring your property. in giving this notice, we wish to acquaint you with the various steps that will be taken. 1. The property will be appraised by an independent appraiser appointed by W. D. Schock Company. The © appraiser's name, address and telephone number is given for reference at the end of this letter. Please contact the appraiser or the appraiser will contact you for the opportunity to accompany the appraiser as he completes his work with respect to the appraisal on your property. Land Acquisition • Relocation • Part 150 Implementation Donelson Pike • Building III Suite B-2 Nashville, Tennessee • 37217 615/399.0585 • FAX 615/366-1184 127 14 IV Mr. and Mrs. Lola Francis October 29, 1991 Page Two 2. Following completion of the appraisal, you will receive a separate letter offer from W. D. Schock Company 14 advising you of the established fair market value by the appraiser and the review appraiser. Further, you will subsequently be contacted by a representative of W. D. Schock Company, who will be in a position to discuss the offer and negotiate the purchase price of your property with you. 3. If the negotiated purchase of your property is not possible, and you are not willing to sell your property at the fair market value established by the appraiser, W. D. Schock Company, in conjunction with the City of Fayetteville, would take into consideration the right of acquiring your property under eminent domain. 4. At the time an offer is made, if you have a business on the property, or a tenant who may have a business on the property, will be contacted by the W. D. Schock Company's - Relocation Advisor to explain relocation eligibility and benefits available for businesses. Any business that is impacted by the acquisition program does not have to move immediately and will have ninety (90) days from the date of purchase to relocate to other areas or facilities. \ Relocation is a separate issue and will be handled by the Relocation Advisor with the business itself and will be conducted under the rules and regulations that apply under the "Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1970," 49 CFR Part 24. 5. Please note that prior to a site visit from the title appraiser, we will need to complete preliminary work and field surveys. McClelland Engineering will be i 0 contacting you shortly to prepare site survey on your property. The City of Fayetteville is committed to accommodating the acquisition of your property as quickly and fairly © as possible. Listed below is the appraiser assigned to prepare the appraisal on your property. Please contact him directly to schedule an appointment as soon as WL 0 0 0. e I I O 5 0 Mr. and Mrs. Lola Francis ` October 29, 1991 Page Three possible. We encourage you to accompany the appraiser on the inspection of the property. Following receipt of this letter, if you have any questions regarding the land acquisition and relocation program for acquiring your property, please contact the W. D. Schock Company at (501) 521-6852. We will get back with you as soon as possible. Very truly yours, W. D. Schock President, W. D. Schock Company, Inc. cc: Ralph White, Program Director John Baugh, Project Manager Tom Reed, Appraiser Carl Grimes, TRW Title Company Wayne Jones, McClelland Engineering (surveys) appraiser: Mr. Tom Reed Reed & Associates, Inc. 210 S. Thompson, Suite 1 Springdale, AR 72765-1102 (501) 756-6313 0 ■1 O