Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout239-18 RESOLUTION113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Resolution: 239-18 File Number: 2018-0623 HALSELL HOLDINGS, LLC: A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SEEK CONDEMNATION AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN LANDS OWNED BY HALSELL HOLDINGS, LLC NEEDED FOR THE EXTENSION OF A 12 -INCH WATERLINE FROM HOTZ DRIVE TO MAPLE STREET WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville and Halsell Holdings, LLC has been unable to agree on a fair price for approximately 1,780 square feet of property which is needed as a permanent easement for the construction of a new 12 -inch waterline from Hotz Drive to Maple Street; and WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville needs to gain possession of these needed properties promptly to begin work on this public improvement. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council for the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby authorizes the City Attorney to file suit to seek court-ordered possession of property located on or near the planned 12 - inch waterline project from Hotz Drive to Maple Street and owned by Halsell Holdings, LLC, that is needed for right-of-way or other easements for the Project, and to pay into the registry of the Circuit Court just compensation in the amount of $21,900.00. PASSED and APPROVED on 11/20/2018 Page 1 Printed on 11121118 File Number: 2018-0623 Resolution: 239-18 Attest: Page 2 Printed on 11/21/18 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Text File File Number: 2018-0623 Agenda Date: 11/20/2018 Version: 1 Status: Agenda Ready In Control: City Council Meeting File Type: Resolution Agenda Number: C. 1 HALSELL HOLDINGS, LLC: A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SEEK CONDEMNATION AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN LANDS OWNED BY HALSELL HOLDINGS, LLC NEEDED FOR THE EXTENSION OF A 12 -INCH WATERLINE FROM HOTZ DRIVE TO MAPLE STREET WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville and Halsell Holdings, LLC has been unable to agree on a fair price for approximately 1,780 square feet of property which is needed as a permanent easement for the construction of a new 12 -inch waterline from Hotz Drive to Maple Street; and WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville needs to gain possession of these needed properties promptly to begin work on this public improvement. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council for the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby authorizes the City Attorney to file suit to seek court-ordered possession of property located on or near the planned 12 -inch waterline project from Hotz Drive to Maple Street and owned by Halsell Holdings, LLC, that is needed for right-of-way or other easements for the Project, and to pay into the registry of the Circuit Court just compensation in the amount of $21,900.00. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 1112012018 Tim Nyander City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2018-0623 Legistar File ID 11/20/2018 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item 10/31/2018 Submitted By Submitted Date Action Recommendation: WATER SEWER (720) Division / Department Staff recommends approval of a Resolution authorizing the City Attorney to seek condemnation and orders of possession of certain lands owned by Halsell Holdings, LLC necessary for the construction of the 12" waterline project from Hotz to Maple. 5400.720.5600.5805.00 Account Number 12009.1 Project Number Budgeted Item? Yes Does item have a cost? Yes Budget Adjustment Attached? No Budget Impact: Water and Sewer Fund Water System Rehabilitation/Replacement Current Budget Funds Obligated Current Balance Item Cost Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget Project Title $ 6,603,704.00 $ 3,129,961.13 $ 3,473,742.87 $ 21, 900.00 3,451,842.87 V20180321 Purchase Order Number: Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Change Order Number: Original Contract Number: Comments: Approval Date: CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ' ARKANSAS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Don Marr, Chief of Staff Tim Nyander, Utilities Director Chris Brown, City Engineer FROM: Matt Casey, Engineering Design Manager DATE: October 30, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEMO SUBJECT: Approval of a Resolution authorizing the City Attorney to seek condemnation and orders of possession of certain lands owned by Halsell Holdings, LLC necessary for the construction of the 12" waterline project from Hotz to Maple. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Resolution authorizing the City Attorney to seek possession by condemnation of a utility easement along the east property line of 1521 W. Halsell Road. BACKGROUND: The City of Fayetteville Engineering Division has prepared the design for this 12" waterline project that runs west of Razorback Rd. along Thomas Ave., Hornsby Dr., Halsell Rd. and Oliver Avenue. The design is complete and the project is ready to be bid for construction. DISCUSSION: The owners of this property have refused to grant the easement necessary for this water line. The City hired Reed and Associates to provide an appraisal for this easement. The City has offered the appraised amount of $21,900.00 as compensation for this easement and the impact of the water line construction. Despite multiple conversations and negotiations with the owners, they still have not granted this easement. Staff will continue to negotiate with the owners to avoid condemnation if possible. However, it is imperative that the utility easement be acquired in a timely manner so as not to delay the construction of the project. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: The design, land acquisition and construction of this project are funded by the Water and Sewer Fund. The staff review form indicates $21,900.00 as the cost of this request. It should be noted that this is an estimate based on the appraised value of the property, and the final cost is subject to negotiation with the property owners or by court order. The appraised value will be deposited into the Registry of the Circuit Court as just compensation when the condemnation complaint is filed. Attachments: Easement Exhibits and Appraisal Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 Graham Waterline Improvement Project Parcel No. 765-14506-000 WATER/SEWER EASEMENT BE IT KNOWN BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT Halsell Holdings, LLC, an Arkansas limited liability company, hereinafter called GRANTOR, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other goad and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby GRANT, SELL and CONVEY unto the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called GRANTEE, and unto Grantee's successors and assigns, a permanent easement to construct, lay, remove, relay, inspect, enlarge and/or operate a water and/or sanitary sewer pipe fine or lines, manholes, and appurtenances thereto, on, over, across, and under the following described land situated in the County of Washington, State of Arkansas, to -wit: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Doc Ref: 2013-15594 A part of the S1/2 of the NW1/4 of the NE1/4 of Section 17, Township 16 North of Range 30 West of the 511' P.M., Washington County, Arkansas and bring more particularly described as beginning at a point 462 feet West of the NE corner of said 20 acre tract, thence South 330 feet, thence West 200 feet, thence North 330 feet, thence East 200 feet to the place of beginning. Subject to easements, rights-of-way, and protective covenants record, if any. Subject to all prior mineral reservations and oil and gas leases. PERMANENT EASEMENT DESCRIPTION: A part of the S1/2 of the NW1/4 of the NEI/4 of Section 17, T -16-N, R -30-W described as commencing at a point which is N86052'20"W 348.00 feet, N87017'48"W 121.10 feet and S03°23'36"W 20.00 feet from the NE corner of said 20 acre tract, said corner being a set cotton spindle, to the true Point of Beginning; thence S03023'36"W 310.43 feet; thence N87014'40"W 15.35 feet; thence 1\103°00'47`E 41.20 feet N48029'22"E 18.57 feet; thence NO2042'20"E 256.24 feet; thence S87017'48"E 5.54 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 1,780 square feet, more or less. Together with the rights, easements, and privileges in or to said lands which may be required for the full enjoyment of the rights herein granted. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns, so long as such pipe line or lines, manholes and/or appurtenances thereto shall be maintained, together with free ingress to and egress from the real estate first hereinabove described for the uses and purposes hereinabove set forth. The said Grantor is to fully use and enjoy the said premises except for the purposes hereinbefore granted to the said Grantee, which hereby agrees to bury all pipes, where feasible, to a sufficient depth so as not to interfere with cultivation of soil, and that manholes will be constructed flush with the surface of the ground except in bottom lands where they shall be at a height above high water. The Grantor agrees not to erect any buildings or structures in said permanent easement. The Grantee shall have the right to construct additional pipe lines upon the above described easement at any time in the future and agrees to pay any damages as a result of such future construction as set out in this easement. The consideration first above recited as being paid to Grantor by Grantee is in full satisfaction of every right hereby granted. All covenants and agreements herein contained shall extend to and be binding upon the respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. It is hereby understood and agreed that the party securing this document in behalf of the Grantee is without authority to make any covenant or agreement not herein expressed WATER/SEWER EASEMENT Page 2 of 2 WITNESS the execution hereof on this the day of 2017. By: ATTEST: Halsell Holdings, LLC, an Arkansas limited liability company [Please print or type Name and Title] [Please print or type Name and Title] [SEAL] ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON BE IT REMEMBERED, that on this date, before the undersigned, a duly commissioned and acting Notary Public vvithin and for said County and State, personally appeared and , to me well known as the persons who executed the foregoing document, and who stated and acknowledged that they are the and respectively, of Halsell Holdings, LLC, an Arkansas limited liability company, and are duly authorized in their respective capacities to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said corporation, and further stated and acknowledged that they had so signed, executed and delivered said instrument for the consideration, uses and purposes therein mentioned and set forth. WITNESS my hand and seal on this day of 2017. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Notary Public RNV R/W RNJ R/W RNJ S 03°23'36" W HALSELL RD, 20.00' RIW t?n': b N 'a w w 2 o � N 87°1748" W 121.10' S 87017'48" E 5.54' Exist. 10' Per Book Wide 520, Utility Easement— Pg. 439 RNV RNV— RNV RNJ RM 1�-R" Rr RIWJ P.O.B. 765-14506-000 Halsell Holdings, LLC Warranty Deed M Inst. No. 2013-15594 765-14492-000 Harold & Helen Mckinney NRevocable Trust O N Property Line W 0 N N a c0 ( Oh P'M Z ;v M O N 48029'22" E 18.57' I N 03°00'47" E 41.20' N 87014'40" W 15.35' N 86°52'20" W 348.00' P.O.C. Cotton Spindte Northeast Comer S1I2.NW1/4.NE1/4 Section 17 T -16-N, R -30-W 3 �JJ 1 Scale: 1" = 50' 765-14499-000 John S. Latour EXHIBIT NOV. 2017 UTILITY EASEMENT FOR HALSELL HOLDINGS, LLC Proposed — 1,780 Utility Sq. Ft. Easement Exist. 10' Per Book Wide 520, Utility Easement— Pg. 439 N 86°52'20" W 348.00' P.O.C. Cotton Spindte Northeast Comer S1I2.NW1/4.NE1/4 Section 17 T -16-N, R -30-W 3 �JJ 1 Scale: 1" = 50' 765-14499-000 John S. Latour EXHIBIT NOV. 2017 UTILITY EASEMENT FOR HALSELL HOLDINGS, LLC APPRAISAL REPORT 1110 THE HALSELL HOLDINGS, LLC PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1521 W. HALSELL ROAD, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS WASHINGTON COUNTY FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE C/O HOLLY JONES LAND AGENT, ENGINEERING DIVISION 125 W. MOUNTAIN STREET FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 BY REED & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3739 N. STEELE BLVD., SUITE 322 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 FILE NO. 6138-1 AS OF JULY 23, 2018 V 11 111111 1111M 111111111,4W fg- - N � F ONO RE', pell E, 0 0 0, I_q ', � Real Estate Appraisers — Consultants 3 73 9 Al Sleek f A.W. .Suiu, 3'2. Frrvrlleyillx.:lk 72703 ' 479-321-6313 " rea- 479-_i"l �3la � 1ss3�4.LeeCltu71)17i1� I Katie Hamplon • Jordan Karnes, HAI • Brian KenwordIv, AW • Shannon Mueller • Tom Reed AW August 15, 2018 Holly Jones City of Fayetteville Land Agent, Engineering Division 125 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: The Halsell Holdings, LLC Property; 1.43± Acres And Residential Improvements Located At 1521 W. Halsell Road, Fayetteville, Arkansas; Washington County Dear Ms. Jones: In compliance with your request and for the purpose of estimating the market value of the above captioned property, we hereby certify that we have examined the subject property and made a survey of the matters pertinent to the estimation of its value. We further certify that we have no interest, present or contemplated, in the property appraised, and that our fee was not contingent upon the value estimate reported. The following real property appraisal report contains data gathered in our investigation, information from our files, and shows the method of appraisal in detail. This report is presented under the Appraisal Report Option. This report addresses: the market value of the Whole Property Land Only prior to the City of Fayetteville acquiring 1,780± SF in permanent easement, for the Graham Waterline Improvement Project, as of July 23, 2018; and, the market value of the Remainder Property Land Only after the City of Fayetteville has acquired the 1,780± SF permanent easement, for the Graham Waterline Improvement Project, as of July 23, 2018. Based on an analysis of relevant data, and contingent on the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions which follow and appear in the Addenda Section of this report, it is our opinion the market value of the fee simple estate of the subject property, as of July 23, 2018, is as follows: WHOLE PROPERTY (LAND ONLY) _ $609,900 REMAINDER PROPERTY (LAND ONLY) — $5883000 DAMAGE TO MARKET VALUE — $ 21,900 The preceding values reflect terms equivalent to cash to the owners and represent that for real property only. The following Extraordinary Assumptions are utilized in this report: 1. Subject land size is approximately as indicated in this report. 2. The land area located within the permanent easement will be put back to as near original condition as possible, by the City of Fayetteville. If either, or both, of these Extraordinary Assumptions prove to be untrue, one or both of the preceding value estimates could be influenced. The reader is referred to additional Assumptions and Limiting Conditions presented in the Addenda Section of this report. A Hypothetical Condition of this appraisal is that the Graham Waterline Improvement Project is complete and in place as of the effective date of this report in estimating the market value of the Remainder Property Land Only. In reality, the Graham Waterline Project was not complete and in place as of July 23, 2018. If this Hypothetical Condition is not considered, the estimated market value of the Remainder Property Land Only could be influenced. The appraisers are invoking the Jurisdictional Exception Rule in this appraisal. The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) requires, under Standards Rule 1-2 (c) (iv), "When reasonable exposure time is a component of the definition for the value opinion being developed, the appraiser must also develop an opinion of reasonable exposure time linked to that value opinion." However, the Uniform Appraisal Standards For Federal Land Acquisitions, under Section 1.2.4, states "Appraisers should not link opinions of value under these Standards to a specific opinion of exposure time, unlike appraisal assignments for other purposes under USPAP Standards Rule 1-2 (c)." USPAP states the following under Standards Rule 1-4 (f): "When analyzing anticipated public or private improvements, located on or off the site, an appraiser must analyze the effect on value, if any, of such anticipated improvements to the extent they are reflected in market actions." This appraisal is prepared in conformity to the provisions of the "Uniform Act" and its implementing regulation 49 CFR Part 24. The 49 CFR Part 24 regulation requires appraisers to disregard any decrease or increase in the market value of the property that has been caused directly by the project in the "Before Acquisition Value" appraisal. This is considered a Jurisdictional Exception. In addition, General Benefits as a result of the project have not been considered in the valuation of the Remainder Property based on 49 CFR Part 24. Considering USPAP Standards Rule 1-4 (f), this is also considered a Jurisdictional Exception. Sincerely. e�e ��* Katie Reed Hampton, SR 3642 REED & ASSOCIATES, INC. ,1Li 91ISI �.k. 1}p� w • STATE ;� 31 SR3042 �r Shannon Reed Mueller, CG2302 REED & ASSOCIATES, INC. I1n11u>11r1.l, 11F1CAr111 frrrrr rO SPL Gp2 •�'%. A NNf]tt rrrrr WIP1111011I5� TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page - - - - - - Letter Of Transmittal - - - - - Table Of Contents - - - - - Certificate - - - - - - Summary Of Salient Facts And Conclusions - Scope Of Work - - - - - General Data - - - - - - Summary Of The Appraisal Problem - - - Neighborhood - - - - - - Legal Description - - - - - Narrative Description - - - - - Zoning Regulations And Restrictions- - - Assessment And Tax Data - - - - Highest And Best Use- - - - - Appraisal Process - - - - - Sales Comparison Approach — Whole Property Land Only & Remainder Property Land Only - - Reconciliation Of Approaches - - - ADDENDA Definitions Area Map Area Data Aerial Photograph Subject Photographs Flood Zone Location Map Assessment Records Secretary of State Records City Of Fayetteville Zoning Documents Legal Description — Acquisition Construction Plans Comparable Land Sales Map Comparable Land Sales Concept Plan Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Qualifications of the Appraisers 5 - - - - 1 - - - - 2-4 - - - - 5 - - - - 6-8 - 9 - 10 - 12 - 12 - - - 13 - 13-14 - - 14-15 - - - - 15 - - 16-19 - - - 19-20 21-23 - - - 24 CERTIFICATE • The statements of fact contained in the report are true and correct. • The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions, limiting conditions, and legal instructions, and are the personal, unbiased professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions of the appraisers. • The appraisers have no present or prospective interest in the property appraised and no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. • The compensation received by the appraisers for the appraisal is not contingent on the analyses, Opinions, or conclusions reached or reported. • The appraisal was made and the appraisal report prepared in conformity with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally -Assisted Programs; Final Rule. • The appraisal was made and the appraisal report prepared in conformity with the Appraisal Foundation's Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, except to the extent that the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions required invocation of USPAP's Jurisdictional Exception Rule, as described in Section 1.2.7.2 of the Uniform Appraisal Standards For Federal Land Acquisitions. • I, Shannon Mueller, have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. • 1, Katie Hampton, have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. • The property owner was given the opportunity to accompany the appraisers on the property inspection. • Tom Reed provided significant professional assistance to the appraisers. • We, certify that, to the best of our 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. • The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. • As of the date of this report, I, Katie Hampton, have completed the Standards and Ethics Education Requirement for Practicing Affiliates of the Appraisal Institute. • As of the date of this report, I, Shannon Mueller, have completed the Standards and Ethics Education Requirement for Candidates of the Appraisal Institute. • We have performed no services, as appraisers or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. • Based upon analysis of relevant data and contingent upon the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions which follow and appear later in this report, it is our opinion the market value of the fee simple interest in the subject property, as of July 23, 2018, was as follows: WHOLE PROPERTY (LAND ONLY) _ $609,900 REMAINDER PROPERTY (LAND ONLY) _ $588,000 DAMAGE TO MARKET VALUE _ $ 21,900 The preceding values reflect terms equivalent to cash to the owners and represent that for real property. The following Extraordinary Assumptions are utilized in this report: 1. Subject land size is approximately as indicated in this report. 2. The land area located within the permanent easement will be put back to as near original condition as possible, by the City of Fayetteville. If either, or both, of these Extraordinary Assumptions prove to be untrue, one or both of the preceding value estimates could be influenced. The reader is referred to additional Assumptions and Limiting Conditions presented in the Addenda Section of this report. A Hypothetical Condition of this appraisal is that the Graham Waterline Improvement Project is complete and in place as of the effective date of this report in estimating the market value of the Remainder Property Land Only. In reality, the Graham Waterline Project was not complete and in place as of July 23, 2018. If this Hypothetical Condition is not considered, the estimated market value of the Remainder Property Land Only could be influenced. The appraisers are invoking the Jurisdictional Exception Rule in this appraisal. The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) requires, under Standards Rule 1-2 (c) (iv), "When reasonable exposure time is a component of the definition for the value opinion being developed, the appraiser must also develop an opinion of reasonable exposure time linked to that value opinion." However, the Uniform Appraisal Standards For Federal Land Acquisitions, under Section 1.2.4, states "Appraisers should not link opinions of value under these Standards to a specific opinion of exposure time, unlike appraisal assignments for other purposes under USPAP Standards Rule 1-2 (c)." USPAP states the following under Standards Rule 1-4 (f): "When analyzing anticipated public or private improvements, located on or off the site, an appraiser must analyze the effect on value, if any, of such anticipated improvements to the extent they are reflected in market actions." This appraisal is prepared in conformity to the provisions of the "Uniform Act" and its implementing regulation 49 CFR Part 24. The 49 CFR Part 24 regulation requires appraisers to disregard any decrease or increase in the market value of the property,that has been caused directly by the project in the "Before Acquisition Value" appraisal. This is considered a Jurisdictional Exception. In addition, General Benefits as a result of the project have not been considered in the valuation of the Remainder Property based on 49 CFR Part 24. Considering USPAP Standards Rule 1-4 (f), this is also considered a Jurisdictional Exception. Sincerely, Katie Reed Hampton, SR3642 REED & ASSOCIATES, INC. tIfICAr���,�- STATE "P REOISTERED : e 3143542 .�y ]y� FiAlll�a i4 Shannon Reed Mueller, CG2302 REED & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ ,�5t'RpPRR 8E frH+r ye� . Sj��F��, �o•. - M C's op� .srr'yiysyAi4 H QN �a �,,+� f!/IllFllll4«t1 SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS FILE NO.: 6138 PROJECT: GRAHAM WATERLINE COUNTY: WASHINGTON LOCATION: 1521 W. Halsell Road, Fayetteville, Arkansas CLIENT: City of Fayetteville FEE OWNER: Halsell Holdings, LLC ADDRESS: 1521 W. Halsell Road, Fayetteville, AR 72701 Area Of The Whole: 62,086±SF Temporary Easement: NA Area Of Remainder: 62,086±SF Permanent Easement: 1,780±SF Area Of Acquisition: NA HIGHEST AND BEST USE: Whole Property Residential development, as demand dictates, and in conformity to RSF-4 zoning requirements and the Market Area. Remainder Property Residential development, as demand dictates, and in conformity to RSF-4 zoning requirements and the Market Area. ESTIMATED FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY Before Land: 62,086± SF $ 605,400 Improvements: Landscaping (Trees) $ 4,500 Total: $ After Land: 62,086± SF $ 588,000 Improvements: NA $ Total: $ FAIR MARKET VALUE OF ACQUISITION: $ Total Compensation as of: July 23, 2018 $ ACQUISITION COMPENSATION: Permanent Easement: 1,780± SF @ $9.75/SF (Rounded) Temporary Construction Easement: NA Fee Title: NA Value Of Improvements Acquired: Landscaping (Trees) Cost To Cure Items: NA Damage To Remaining Property: NA Total Compensation: As Of July 23, 2018 +a+, innrtr.pr• •m STATE sQ Katie Reed Hampton, SR3642mm REG I3T;RE 'n Reed & Associates, Inc. Date Of Report: August 15, 2018 9 i Shannon Reed Mueller, CG2302 Reed & Associates, Inc. 609,900 588JAW 21,900 21,900 17,400 4,500 21,900 P�q �PYI SCF 1 H•`f r'''i SCOPE OF WORK The "Valuation Process" was applied in estimating the market value of the Whole Property Land Only and the market value of the Remainder Property Land Only. Katie Hampton and Tom Reed inspected the subject property on July 23, 2018. Photographs of the property were taken on July 23, 2018, by Katie Hampton. Shannon Mueller inspected the property at a later date. The legal description of the property was obtained from Deed Records. The land size of the property was estimated based on the legal description and the easement exhibit provided by the client. The legal description indicates the subject site is 200' x 330'; however, does not reflect a 20' right-of-way for Halsell Road along the north boundary of the site. The easement exhibit reflects the 20' right-of-way, which reduces the east and west boundaries of the site to 310.43'. Applicable property tax data was obtained from Washington County Assessment Records. The history of the property was also researched through Washington County Assessment Records, and from data provided by the property owner. The highest and best use of the Whole Property was determined based upon location, physical characteristics, zoning, etc. The highest and best use of the Remainder Property was also determined based upon location, physical characteristics, and zoning. Each of three accepted valuation methods has been addressed in this report; however, only the Sales Comparison Approach has been applied. The improvements are not adversely affected by the acquisition area; therefore, the improvements are not valued in this report. As a result of not having improvements which are adversely affected by the acquisition area, and considering that land rentals are not typically the basis on which properties of the subject nature are purchased and sold in this Market Area, the Cost and Income Capitalization Approaches are not utilized in this valuation assignment. Application of the Cost and Income Capitalization Approaches was not considered necessary to produce credible appraisal results for the subject property. In the Sales Comparison Approach, comparable sales were presented and analyzed for comparison purposes to the subject property. The unit of comparison was price per square foot (SF) of land area. The sales were compared to the subject property land only, and adjustments made for differences. The per SF value of subject was estimated from within the adjusted range of the comparables, and was multiplied by the subject land square footage to arrive at the indicated market value of the subject property by the Sales Comparison Approach. The Sales Comparison Approach was applied to both the Whole Property Land Only and the Remainder Property Land Only. The estimated Damage To Market Value as a result of the acquisition was determined by subtracting the market value of the Remainder Property Land Only from the market value of the Whole Property, Land Only And Affected Improvements. 10 GENERAL DATA MARKET VALUE CONCEPT Market Value is the amount in cash, or on terms reasonably equivalent to cash, for which in all probability the property would have sold on the effective date of value, after a reasonable exposure time on the open competitive market, from a willing and reasonably knowledgeable seller to a willing and reasonably knowledgeable buyer, with neither acting under any compulsion to buy or sell, giving due consideration to all available economic uses of the property."' PURPOSE OF APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the Market Value of the within described property including all damages and/or benefits, if any, to the extent that benefits are allowed under State Law, to the remaining property as just compensation for the property taken, as of the effective date. INTENDED USE OF APPRAISAL The intended use of the appraisal report is to assist the client in the determination of the amount paid for the property rights acquired or conveyed. There is the potential that this appraisal report could also be utilized in litigation proceedings. INTENDED USERS OF APPRAISAL REPORT The intended users of the appraisal report are the City of Fayetteville, Halsell Holdings, LLC, and potentially the Washington County Circuit Court System. PREMISE AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This appraisal is predicated on the premise that: 1. The sketch map, construction plans, and/or tract descriptions furnished the appraisers by the client are correct. 2. The attached public records are correct and reflect the fee owner and all holders of less than fee interests in the property. 3. Information, date, estimates and opinions contained in this report were obtained from sources considered reliable; however, no liability for them can be assumed or guaranteed by these appraisers. Additional Assumptions and Limiting Conditions are presented in the Addenda Section of this report. Also, please see the Extraordinary Assumptions, Hypothetical Condition, and Jurisdictional Exceptions. Interagency Land Acquisition Conference. Unii in -m Appraisal Standards For Federal Land Acquisitions (Chicago: Appraisal Institute. 1016) P 11 SUMMARY OF APPRAISAL PROBLEM The appraisal problem in this valuation assignment is to: estimate the market value of the Whole Property, Land Only And Affected Improvements, prior to the acquisition of 1,780± square feet (SF) in permanent easement, and to estimate the market value of the Remainder Property, Land Only, after the acquisition of the 1,780±SF in permanent easement. The acquisition is by the City of Fayetteville in connection Graham Waterline Project. The effective date of value in both scenarios is July 23, 2018. This date represents the date of inspection of the subject property. Permanent Easement exhibits, construction plans, and the legal description of the acquisition are included in the Addenda Section of this report. In arriving at the market value of the Whole Property Land Only and the market value of the Remainder Property Land Only, the Sales Comparison Approach is applied. The Cost and Income Capitalization Approaches are not applied for reasons previously discussed. Application of the Cost and Income Capitalization Approaches is not considered necessary to produce credible appraisal results for the subject property. Comparable sales are presented in the Addenda Section of this report. In addition, a summary of Capitalization Rates and Discount Rates in connection with various types of land leases are presented in the Addenda Section of this report. NEIGHBORHOOD A neighborhood is defined as follows: "1. A group of complementary land uses; a congruous grouping of inhabitants, buildings, or business enterprises. 2. A developed residential super pad ivithin a master planned community usually having a distinguished name and entrance. "2 The subject project is positioned along Halsell Road, in the City Limits of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The project area, in general, is primarily characterized by residential and special-purpose uses. The University of Arkansas is located within the neighborhood. Numerous single-family residential and multi -family uses are located in this area to accommodate student housing for the University of Arkansas. The immediate neighborhood (project area) is near 75%± built-up. The area appears to be in the growth stage of its life cycle and is considered to have good market appeal. 2 Appraisal h+stilute, TiTir tlir++o+zr++ ofRerrt lislrrrc aunn�s —Sixth Edition. (Chicago: Appraisallnslintle. 2015). P. 156. 12 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The legal description of the subject property is presented in the Addenda Section of this report. The legal description indicates the subject site is 200' x 330'; however, does not reflect a 20' right- of-way for Halsell Road along the north boundary of the site. The easement exhibit reflects the 20' right-of-way, which reduces the east and west boundaries of the site to 310.43'. The legal description of the permanent easement is also presented in the Addenda Section of this report. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION Whole Property Subject property is located in the central/south central part of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Washington County. The physical address of the subject property is 1521 W. Halsell Road. Subject Whole Property is rectangular in shape and includes approximately 1.43E acres, or 62,086±SF. The subject property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single -Family — Four Units Per Acre. The property has approximately 200± feet of frontage along the south right-of-way of Halsell Road. The east and west boundaries of the site are indicated to be approximately 310.43± feet. The subject site is not indicated to be located within flood zone area and the topography is considered adequate for development. Please see the flood zone map presented in the Addenda of the report. The subject site is primarily cleared, with the exception of some scattered trees. Access is developed to the subject property, along the north boundary of the site. The subject site is improved with a 3,026±SF dwelling that has been converted into a triplex. The site is also improved with a 304± single-family dwelling and a detached garage. Based on Assessment Records, the subject improvements were constructed in 1948. An interior inspection was not made. The exterior of the improvements appeared to be in near average condition. The triplex includes a 2 bedroom/] bathroom unit rented for $950 per month; 2 bedroom/1 bathroom unit rented for $900 per month; and, a 2 bedroom/1 bathroom unit rented for $650 per month. The 304 SF single-family dwelling unit is considered a 1 bedroom studio unit and is rented for $600 per month. The detached garage is rented for $500 per month. The units are not separately metered; therefore, the property owner pays the water and electricity. Utilities and services available include telephone, electricity, public water, gas, public sewer, and trash pickup, as well as police and fire protection. There is a 10± foot wide existing utility easement indicated on the City of Fayetteville exhibit located along the east boundary of the subject site. 13 Acquisition The permanent easement acquisition is indicated to be 1,780±SF. This acquisition is located along the west boundary of the existing 10' utility easement. The easement is typically 5' in width; however, widens to 15.35' in the south part of the site. The permanent easement acquisition is not located within the Flood Zone, and represents part of the subject acreage that has adequate topography for development. The proposed permanent easement acquisition area is located outside the side setback of the RSF- 4 zoning district. The acquisition area encompasses land area and 5 trees. Remainder Property Subject Remainder Property is rectangular in shape and includes approximately 1.43± acres, or 62,086±SF. The Remainder Property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single -Family — Four Units Per Acre. The property has approximately 200± feet of frontage along the south right-of-way of Halsell Road. The east and west boundaries of the site are indicated to be 310.43± feet. The Remainder Property is not located within flood zone area and the topography is considered adequate for development. The Remainder Property is mainly cleared; with the exception of some scattered trees. The Remainder Property is improved with the previously mentioned improvements, with the exception of 5 trees. The Remainder Property includes the same utilities as the Whole Property. ZONING REGULATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS Subject property is indicated by public records to be located inside the City Limits of Springdale, Arkansas. Zoning data reflects that the subject property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single -Family — 4 Units Per Acre. The City of Fayetteville RSF-4 zoning documents state: "The RSF-4 Residential district is designated to permit and encourage the development of low density detached dwellings in suitable environments, as well as to protect existing development of these types." Permitted uses in the RSF-4 zoning district include: city-wide uses by right; single-family dwellings; and, accessory dwellings. Conditional uses include: city-wide uses by conditional use permit; public protection and utility facilities; cultural and recreational facilities; government facilities; two-family dwellings; limited business; home occupations; wireless communications facilities; and, cluster housing development. The side setback in the RSF-4 zoning district is indicated to be 5'. The rear setback in the RSF-4 zoning district is indicated to be 15'. 14 No private Deed Restrictions were noted. Based on discussions with the property owner, the subject property has the possibility, under conditional use permit, to be developed into a cluster housing development. The City of Fayetteville Cluster Housing Development documents state: "The purpose of the cluster housing development ordinance is to encourage innovation and variety in housing while ensuring compatibility with established neighborhoods, and to provide housing opportunities for population diverse in age, income and household size." The setbacks from the exterior property lines of the original parent tract shall be set by the underlying zoning district. ASSESSMENT AND TAX DATA (Infornzationfi•ona the Washington County Assessor's Records) 'f,5-145(16-000 Appraised Value $302,250 (2017) Assessed Value $60,450 (2017) Taxable Value $60,450 (2017) School District 011 Millage Rate .05745 Taxes $3472.85 School District Name Fayetteville The 2017 property tax is due by October 15, 2018. 15 HIGHEST AND BEST USE Highest and Best Use is defined as: "The highest and most profitable use for which the property is adaptable and needed or likely to be needed in the reasonably near future.113 First, the appraiser should form an opinion of the highest and best use of the land, as if vacant. If the land is improved, the appraiser also forms an opinion of the highest and best use of the property, as improved. In estimating Highest and Best Use, the appraiser goes through essentially four stages of analysis: 1. Physical Possibility - To what uses is it physically possible to put the site in question? 2. Legal Permissibility - What uses are permitted by zoning and deed restrictions on the site in question? 3. Financial Feasibility - Which possible and permissible uses will produce any net return to the owner of the site? 4. Maximum Productivity - Among the feasible uses, which use will produce the highest net return or the highest present worth? "In practice, the test of physical possibility and legal permissibility can be applied in either order, but they both must be applied before the test of financial feasibility and maximum productivity. A use may be financially feasible but this is irrelevant if it is legally prohibited or physically impossible."Q "In the analysis of highest and best use of land as through vacant, the appraiser seeks the answers to several questions: ■ Should the land be developed or left vacant? • If left vacant, when would future development be financially feasible? • If developed, what kind of improvements should be built? In the analysis of the highest and best use of the property as improved, additional questions must be answered: Should the existing improvements on the property be maintained in their current state, should they be altered in some manner to make them more functionally efficient, or should they be demolished to create a vacant site for a different use? If renovation or redevelopment is warranted, when should the new improvements be built?" 5 31meragency Land Acquisition Conference. Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions — (Chicago: Appraisal Inslilule, 2016) P.10 `IAppraisal lnslitule. The Join-atsal tf Beal E uie — Fourteenlh Edition. (Chicago: Appraisallnstilute. 2013), P. 335. 5Appraisal Inslilule. 77re ,surra+gal ofkeol Estok — Fourleenllr Edition. (Chicago: Appraisal Ltstilute. 2013). P. 337. 16 In general, if the value of a property as improved is greater than the value of the land as though vacant, the highest and best use is the use of the property as improved. However, a property's existing use may represent an interim use, which begins with the land value for the new highest and best use and adds the contributory value of the current improvements until the new highest and best use can be achieved. In practice, a property owner who is redeveloping a parcel of land may remove an improvement even when the value of the property as improved exceeds the value of the vacant land. The costs of demolition and any remaining improvement value are taken into consideration in the test of financial feasibility for redevelopment of the land. Likewise, if an improved property has value but may have greater value if modified in some way, the cost of modifying the improvements and the value gained in that modification are accounted for in the determination of highest and best use. Whole Property As vacant - Subject property is located in the central/south central part of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Washington County. The physical address of the subject property is 1521 W. Halsell Road. Subject Whole Property is rectangular in shape and includes approximately 1.43± acres, or 62,086±SF. The subject property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single -Family — Four Units Per Acre. The property has approximately 200± feet of frontage along the south right-of-way of Halsell Road. The east and west boundaries of the site are indicated to be approximately 310.43± feet. The subject site is not indicated to be located within flood zone area and the topography is considered adequate for development. Please see the flood zone map presented in the Addenda of the report. The subject site is primarily cleared, with the exception of some scattered trees. Access is developed to the subject property, along the north boundary of the site. Physically possible uses of the site are numerous and include those within size limitations. Utilities and services available include telephone, electricity, public water, gas, public sewer, and trash pickup, as well as police and fire protection. There is a 10± foot wide existing utility easement indicated on the City of Fayetteville exhibit located along the east boundary of the subject site. The site is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single -Family — Four Units Per Acre. Uses permitted within the RSF-4 zoning district include: city-wide uses by right; single-family dwellings; and, accessory dwellings. The property owner provided a concept plan by Jorgensen & Associates which reflects the subject site has the potential to be split into 5 single-family lots. The property owner also indicated the possibility of developing the site under the conditional use permit for cluster housing. The density for cluster housing development is indicated by the City of Fayetteville zoning documents to be as follows: "cluster housing development permitted as a use by right shall be allowed a density in 17 conformance with the underlying zoning district. Zoning districts that allow cluster housing developments as a conditional use shall be allowed a density not to exceed two times the maximum density allowed in the underlying zoning district." No private Deed Restrictions were found. The physically possible and legally permissible uses of the subject site are those within size limitations, and that comply with RSF-4 zoning requirements. Property uses in the neighborhood are mainly single -family, multi-family, and special-purpose in nature. The immediate neighborhood is considered to be in the growth stage of its life cycle. The physically possible and legally permissible use of the subject site, that is also considered to be financially feasible is residential development, subject to size limitations and in conformity to RSF-4 zoning requirements. In our opinion, the highest and best use of the subject property as vacant is to develop the property into single -family lots, subject to size limitations, as demand dictates, and in conformity to RSF-4 zoning requirements. The cluster housing development could also be given consideration under a conditional use permit. As improved - The subject site is improved with a 3,026±SF dwelling that has been converted into a triplex. The site is also improved with a 304± single -family dwelling and a detached garage. The triplex includes a 2 bedroom/1 bathroom unit rented for $950 per month; 2 bedroom/1 bathroom unit rented for $900 per month; and, a 2 bedroom/1 bathroom unit rented for $650 per month. The 304 SF single -family dwelling-unit is considered a 1 bedroom studio unit and is rented for $600 per month. The detached garage is rented for $500 per month. The units are not separately metered; therefore, the property owner pays the water and electricity. Based on Assessment Records, the subject improvements were constructed in 1948. An interior inspection of the improvements was not made; however, the exterior of the improvements appeared to be in near average condition. In our opinion, the highest and best use of the subject property as improved is to development the property into single -family lots, subject to size limitations, as demand dictates, and in conformity to RSF-4 zoning requirements. The cluster housing development could also be given consideration under a conditional use permit. The residential improvements appear to provide interim value until the site is ready for development. Any rental income derived from the lease of the improvements is considered to be offset by demolition costs. Remainder Property Subject Remainder Property is rectangular in shape and includes approximately 1.43± acres, or 62,086±SF. The Remainder Property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single -Family — Four Units Per Acre. The property has approximately 200± feet of frontage along the south right-of-way ofHalsell Road. The east and west boundaries of the site are indicated to be 310.43± feet. 18 The Remainder Property is not located within flood zone area and the topography is considered adequate for development. The Remainder Property is mainly cleared; with the exception of some scattered trees. The Remainder Property is improved with the previously mentioned improvements, with the exception of 5 trees. The Remainder Property includes the same utilities as the Whole Property. In our opinion, the highest and best use of the Remainder Property as vacant and as improved is the same as in the Whole Property. APPRAISAL PROCESS When preparing a detailed appraisal for a given property, it is customary appraisal practice to assemble as much information from the market as seems prudent and to utilize this information in three different approaches to the value: the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison (Market) Approach, and the Income Capitalization Approach. If an appraisal problem is such that it can be adequately and reliably addressed without resorting to a traditional three approach appraisal, then in the interest of economy, only the reliable and relevant valuation technique(s) should be used. Often the appraisal problem can be fully addressed with the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Cost Approach, an estimate of the site value is first derived by a comparison of other similar sites which have sold to the subject site by the Sales Comparison Approach. An estimate is then made of the cost of reproducing or replacing the subject improvements at today's costs. From this is deducted the estimated loss of value as a result of Accrued Depreciation, including physical deterioration, functional obsolescence, and external obsolescence. All such estimates of loss of value through Accrued Depreciation are taken from market evidence. The indicated value from this approach is the sum of the site value plus the Depreciated Replacement or Reproduction Cost New of the improvements. The Sales Comparison Approach utilizes the sales of similar properties as the basis for an indication of value for the subject. Direct comparisons are made between the sale properties and the subject on an item -by -item basis in such areas as property rights, financing, conditions of sale, expenditures made immediately after purchase, market conditions, location, physical characteristics, economic characteristics, legal characteristics, and non -realty components of value. Adjustments are made to the sales price of the comparative property to arrive at an indication of what that property would have sold for had it been essentially similar to the subject property. These adjusted sale prices are correlated into an indication of value by this approach. In the Income Capitalization Approach, an estimate is made of the market rent which the subject property might command based on the rental of competitive space. Estimates are also made of the appropriate vacancy/credit loss and expense ratios for the subject based on information developed from similar properties in the market. Thus, an indication of the Net Operating Income which the 19 subject property is capable of producing is developed. An applicable capitalization method and appropriate capitalization rate are developed for use in computations that lead to an indication of value by the Income Capitalization Approach. To arrive at a final value estimate, the three approaches are correlated into a single conclusion of value, based on the approach which has the highest quantity and/or quality of data available, and the one in which the market participant typically has the greatest confidence. EXPLANATION OF APPROACHES: The Sales Comparison Approach was applied in this report in estimating the market value of the Whole Property and the market value of the Remainder Property. The Cost Approach was not applied in this report as the subject property includes no improvements which are adversely affected by the acquisition area. The Income Capitalization Approach was not applied in this report due to the subject property including no improvements which are adversely affected by the acquisition area, and as a result land rentals not typically being the basis on which properties of the subject nature are purchased and sold in this Market Area. Application of the Cost Approach and Income Capitalization Approach was not considered necessary to produce credible appraisal results for the subject property. ESTATE APPRAISED: Fee Simple Estate; Permanent Easement. These terms are defined in the Addenda Section of this report. HISTORY: Our examination of Washington County Assessment Records revealed no recorded sales of the subject property within the five-year time period preceding the effective date of value in this report. The subject property sold to the current ownership on May 8, 2013, for an indicated $325,000. The transaction was recorded in the Washington County Assessment Records as Instrument No. 2013-15594. The subject property was not listed for sale, or under contract to sell, to our knowledge, as of the effective date of this report. At the date of the property inspection, subject property was tenant -occupied. The triplex includes a 2 bedroom/1 bathroom unit rented for $950 per month; 2 bedroom/1 bathroom unit rented for $900 per month; and, a 2 bedroom/1 bathroom unit rented for $650 per month. The 304 SF single- family dwelling unit is considered a 1 bedroom studio unit and is rented for $600 per month. The detached garage is rented for $500 per month. The units are not separately metered; therefore, the property owner pays the water and electricity. CHANGES IN PROPERTY SINCE DATE OF PURCHASE: Changes in the property since the date of purchase were not available to the appraisers. PERSONAL PROPERTY: No personal property is valued in this appraisal report. REAL ESTATE: The real estate valued in this report includes the subject land and 5 trees. COMMENTS: On July 23, 2018, the subject property was inspected by the appraisers. The property owner was present on the inspection. 20 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (Whole & Remainder Property) COMPARISON WITH SUBJECT PROPERTY Sale narratives appear in the Addenda Section of this report. SALE 1 2 3 4 Date of Sale 01/02/2007 08/21/2017 10/20/2016 06/20/2016 Sales Price $500,000 $325,000 $300,000 $307,500 Size t SF 60,060 29,649 27,443 26,400 Unit Price/SF $8.33 $10.96 $10.93 $11.65 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Property Rights $0 $0 $0 $0 Financing $0 $0 $0 $0 Conditions of Sale $0 $0 $0 $0 Improvement (s) $0 $0 -$1.46 -$3.79 Market Conditions +$1.67 $0 +$1.42 +$1.18 ADJUSTED SALES PRICE $10.00 $10.96 $10.89 $9.04 Location/Appeal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Physical Characteristics Size $0 -$1.10 -$1.20 -$1.08 INDICATED UNIT VALUE $10.00 $9.86 $9.69 $7.96 EXPLANATION OF ADJUSTMENTS: The unit of comparison is price per square foot of land area. The necessary categories of adjustment are for improvements, market conditions, and physical characteristics (size). Each of the sales is considered reasonably similar to subject with respect to property rights, financing, conditions of sale, and location/appeal. Improvements: Comparable Sales Three and Four included residential improvements that provided contributory value for interim residential use. The contributory value of the residential improvements was estimated utilizing Marshall Valuation Residential Cost Handbook. The respective land value of each comparable was then extracted. Comparable Sale Three included a 2610± SF single-family dwelling constructed in 1956. Comparable Sale Four included a 2374E SF single-family dwelling constructed in 2003. Consider the following: 21 Sales Price $300,000 $307,500 ,Contributory Value of Improvements WAR)() 'IOU 0[}0 Extracted Land Value $260,000 S207,500 Indicated Land Value/SF $9.47 $7.86 The necessary adjustment to Comparable Sale Three and Four for the contributory value of the improvements is as follows: -$1.49 to Sale Three ($10.96 - $9.47 = $1.46); and, -$3.79 to Sale Four ($11.65 - $7.86 = $3.79). Market Conditions: The date of sale of the comparable sales is presented in the table on the preceding page. Comparable Sale Two is considered to have occurred during a period of time similar to the effective date of the appraisal report. Comparable Sales One, Three, and Four are considered to have occurred during a period of time considered inferior to that as of the effective date of this appraisal report. Based on Paired Sales Analysis utilizing Sale Two with each of Sales One, Three, and Four reflects the following adjustments: +20% to Sale One and +15% to each of Sales Three and Four. No adjustment is given to Sale Two. Physical Characteristics: With respect to physical characteristics, the necessary category of adjustment is land size. Land Size: The subject is larger than each of Sales Two, Three, and Four and reasonably similar in size to Sale One. The tendency in the market is that as land area increases, price per SF decreases, and vice versa; this is for otherwise -similar properties. Sales Analysis supports that as a property's land area approximates doubling, its price/SF decreases about 10%±. Based on this premise, the following downward adjustments are indicated: 10% to Sale Two; 11 % to Sale Three; and, 12% to Sale Four. No adjustment is given to Sale One. CORRELATION OF INDICATED VALUES: The range of adjusted per square foot values is $7.96 to $10.00; the mean of the sales is indicated to be $9.38/SF, while the median is indicated to be $9.78/SF. Sale Two is the most recent transaction, and received the lowest net adjustment along with Sale Three. Sale One is the oldest transaction. Each of the sales is located within very close proximity to subject. Each of the sales is given consideration; however, Sale Four distorts the mean. Most weight is placed on Sales One, Two, and Three. Also given consideration is the sale of approximately 0.76± acre located at 1623 W Maple Street in Fayetteville. This site is improved with a 3564± SF single-family dwelling. Based on information provided by the listing agent, the buyer intends on utilizing the structure; however, expects to remodel the entire dwelling. The listing agent indicated the structure was given some value by the buyer. The property sold on August 13, 2018, for $340,000 or $10.30/SF of land area. The estimated contributory value of the improvements at the time of sale was $20,000, this reflects an indicated land value/SF of $9.70 ($340,000 Sales Price - $20,000 Contributory Value of Improvements = $320,000 Extracted Land Value; $320,000 - 33,000 SF = $9.70). 22 ESTIMATED LAND VALUE: Based on the preceding analysis, the indicated per square foot value of subject Whole Property Land Only, in our opinion, is $9.75. Therefore: WHOLE PROPERTY LAND ONLY: 62,086± SF @ $9.75 = $605,339 Say $605,400 PLUS: Contributory Value of Landscaping (Trees) in Acquisition Area = S #,500 TOTAL = $609,900 *COMMENTS: The proposed acquisition area encompasses 5 trees. The estimated contributory value of the trees $4500. Marshall Valuation Service and landscaping consultants is utilized as a guide to determine the contributory value of the trees. REMAINDER PROPERTY: The Remainder Property consists of approximately 62,086± SF; however, approximately 1,780E SF of this are encumbered by a Permanent Easement. The damages to the land due to the imposition of an easement can range from 0% to 100% of the easement area's fee value. The full impact of an easement acquisition cannot be estimated until the appraiser determines: 1) the loss of present utility; 2) the loss of future utility; 3) the accessory rights to be acquired; and, 4) the obligations of the parties. The location of the Permanent Easement is in the east part of the subject property, located outside side setback area. The side setback for the subject property is 5'. Structures cannot be built on the land within the easement. In our opinion, all of the property owner's bundle of rights of ownership will be lost with respect to the land within the new permanent easement. Damage is considered at 100% to the fee simple value of the land within the easement. Therefore: Remainder Property (Land) 60,306± SF @ $9.75 1,780± SF @ $0.00 62,086± SF @ $9.71 SUMMARY OF ACQUISITION: 1,780± SF PE Landscaping (Trees) Total $587,984 $ 0 $587,984 Say $588,000 1,780± SF @ $9.75 = $ 17,400 - — S 4500 -- $ 21,900 23 RECONCILIATION OF APPROACHES Estimated Value of Whole Tract Before Taking: Cost Approach Not Utilized Income Capitalization Approach Not Utilized Sales Comparison Approach $609,900 Estimated Value $609,900 EXPLANATION: The Sales Comparison Approach is relied upon in arriving at the final value conclusion for the Whole Property Land Only. In the comparison process with subject, the sales required adjustments; however, the adjustments are believed market supported. The overall reliability of the Sales Comparison Approach is considered good. Application of the Cost and Income Capitalization Approaches was not considered necessary to produce credible appraisal results for the Whole Property Land Only. Estimated Value of Remainder After Taking: Cost Approach Not Utilized Income Capitalization Approach Not Utilized Sales Comparison Approach $588,000 Estimated Value $588,000 EXPLANATION: The Sales Comparison Approach is relied upon in arriving at the final value conclusion for the Remainder Property. In the comparison process with subject, the sales required adjustments; however, the adjustments are believed market supported. The overall reliability of the Sales Comparison Approach is considered to be good. Application of the Cost and Income Capitalization Approaches was not considered necessary to produce credible appraisal results for the Remainder Property Land Only. ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE OF PART SOUGHT INCLUDING ALL DAMAGES: Whole Property = $ 609,900 Remainder Property = $ 588,000 Damage To Market Value = $ 21,900 Please see the Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Condition previously presented. 24 ADDENDA 1. Definitions 2. Area Map 3. Area Data 4. Aerial Photograph 5. Subject Photographs 6. Flood Zone Location Map 7. Assessment Records 8. Secretary of State Records 9. City of Fayetteville Zoning Documents 10. Legal Description — Acquisition 11. Construction Plans 12. Comparable Land Sales 13. Comparable Land Sales Map 14. Concept Plan 15. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 16. Qualifications of the Appraisers 25 r - r-- Y i l . i RETROSPECTIVE VALUE OPINION: "A value opinion effective as of a specified historical date. The term r•elrospective does not define a type of value. Instead, it identifies a value opinion as being effective at some specific prior date. Value as of a historical date is frequently sought in connection with properly tax appeals, damage models, lease renegotiation, deficiency judgements, estate tax, and condemnation. Inclusion of the type of value with this term is appropriate, e.g., "retrospective market value opinion. "t FEE SIMPLE ESTATE: "Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat. "z EASEMENT: "The right to use another's land for a stated purpose. ` PERPETUAL EASEMENT: "An easement that lasts forever. "' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT: "An easement granted for a specific purpose and applicable for a specific time period. A construction easement, for example, is terminated after the construction of the improvement and the unencumbered fee interest in the land reverts to the owner. "' MARKET AREA: "The geographic area in which a pr•operly's most direct competitors are located; a subset of the market area. "6 NEIGHBORHOOD: "1. A group of complementary land uses; a congruous grouping of inhabitants, buildings, or business enterprises. 2. A developed residential super pad within a master planned community usually having a distinguished name and entrance. "7 I Appraisallnslitule. T + i riarun7, rrTltcul Estole_; tp rerl_,w__!- Sixth Edition. (Chicago: Appraisal Lrstilute, 2015), P. 201. 2 Appraisal Institute. The f]icr ar a rReal Csrnre a J�Irris l - Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisallnslilute. 2015), P. 90. 3 Appraisal lnstilule, The Uicrinr+an° ofRenl -.vale . t M rl'eds I - Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015). P. 71. 4 Appraisal Inslinue, The bictionerr +e I;eel_ ls1are: irrtrrcusrll - Sixth Edition. (Chicago: Appraisal Inslilute. 2015). P. 176 5 Appraisal nslilule. the tlkuunrr nflieat hcrate':1?lzr r� - Sixth Edition. (Chicago: Appraisal lnstilule. 2015). P. 231. 6 Appraisal nslilule, The Dicinrnern• afiieal hsrate Aprrrgwrl - Sixth Edition. (Chicago: Appraisal Inslilute, 2015). P. 43. 7 Appraisal /nslilule. The Diewnrarr c r Ear ire . 10J2raisaf - Sixth Edi ion. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015). P. 156 HIGHEST AND BEST USE: 1. "The reasonably probable use of property that results in the highest value. The four criteria that the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and maximum productivity. 2. The use of an asset that maximizes its potential and that is possible, legally permissible, and financially feasible. The highest and best use may be for continuation of an asset's existing use or for some alternative use. This is determined by the use that a market participant would have in mind for the asset when formulating the price that. it would be willing to bid. (IVS) 3. [The] highest and most profitable use for which the property is adaptable and needed or likely to be needed in the reasonably near future. (Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions). "" SEVERANCE DAMAGES: "In condemnation, the loss in value to the remainder in a partial taking of property. Generally, the difference between the value of the whole property before the taking and the value of the remainder after the taking is the measure of the value of the part taken and the damages to the remainder. Note that different regions of the country and different courts may use terms such as consequential damages and severance damages differently. "9 JUST COMPENSATION: "In condemnation, the amount of loss for which a property owner is compensated when his or her property is taken. Just compensation should put the owner in as good a position pecuniarily as he or she would have been if the property had not been taken. "r" COST APPROACH: "A set of procedures through which a value indication is derived for the fee simple estate by estimating the current cost to construct a reproduction of (or replacement for) the existing structure, including an entrepreneurial incentive or profit; deducting depreciation from the total cost; and adding the estimated land value. Adjustments may then be made to the indicated value of the fee simple estate in the subject property to reflect the value of the property interest being appraised. "" SALES COMPARISON APPROACH: "The process of deriving a value indication for the subject property by comparing sales of similar properties to the property being appraised, identifying appropriate units of comparison, and making adjustments to the sale prices (or unit prices, as appropriate) of the comparable properties based on relevant, marker -derived elements of comparison. The sales comparison approach may be used to value improved properties, vacant land, or land being considered as though vacant when an adequate supply of comparable sales is available. "12 S Appraisal Institute. 7lie Diairnrar-ir l)I!{tat lislrrie r&Fajpd - Sixth Edition. (Chicago: Appraisal lnslilule. 2015). P. 109. 9 Appraisal hrslilule. Tile Dicdarnitr Of tie at Esuac�r r1 miszrl — Sixth Edilion. (Chicago: Appraisal lnstilarte. 2015), P. 59. 10 Appraisal lnslinrle, ifi�w_f?Isrirnxrl�^of l?eal, lislaw : mrairal— Sixth Edition. (Chicago: Appraisal lnslilule, 2015). P. 122. 11 Appraisal lnstilule. The Vicrianaly of Real, Islare Argwairal — Sixth Edition. (Chicago: Appraisal lnslinrle. 2015). P. 54. 12 Appraisal lnslilule. Tht, Diefiemar • a Real Eslale : f urvisal - Sixth Edilion. (Chicago: Appraisal Inslilute. 2015). P. 207. INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH: "Specific appraisal techniques applied to develop a value indication for a property based on its earning capability and calculated by the capitalization of property income. "13 RECONCILIATION: "A phase of a valuation assignment in which two or more value indications are processed into a value opinion, which may be a range of value, a single point estimate, or a reference to a benchmark value "14 13 Appraisal Institute. The ❑irlt jwijS of Real listtr e : lnpCoisal — Sixth Edition. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute. 1015), P. 115, 14 Appraisal Institute, The birfioua , ol'Rfal EYturc . i j a +sal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute. 1015), P. 190. � � � m 0) L 4 E 4W r_ J /EES E SOAP J U- CO CO ƒ } � � £ � _ � £ } § � d J ] § U-0 ID �� ® £ \ \UA ±_ )> E o = \ E § § U- i & E I \ U } K § 0 \ - U k � i } c � � U } � \ 2 } I U U ƒ } �/ CL E j k Q o R § m 2> k { ) � E } � § § a f \ g _\ \ � co _m U © $ CL - 2 � ° - 22 ! c Ja. ® to j o ] § § \ ( �� m = _ § n U-0 ID �� ® £ \ \UA ±_ )> E o = \ E § § U- i & E I \ U } K § 0 \ - U k � i } c � IL, AREA DATA The Trade Area includes Washington and Benton Counties in Arkansas, as well as Madison County, Arkansas, and McDonald County, Missouri. The four counties are located in the extreme northwestern part of Arkansas and extreme southwestern part of Missouri, respectively, and make up the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). This area is bordered by the Oklahoma State line on the west, Newton County (Missouri) on the north, Carroll, Newton and Barry (Missouri) Counties on the east, and Crawford, Franklin and Johnson Counties on the south. The total land area of Benton County is indicated to be 847.36± square miles, Washington County 941.97± square miles, Madison County 834.26± square miles, and McDonald County 539.48± square miles. It should be noted that over 92.5%± of the population of the MSA is located in Washington and Benton Counties. As a result, this Area Data analysis primarily pertains to Washington and Benton Counties in Arkansas. 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. Social Forces:. Social lorces etre exerted primarily through papulation characteristics.. The demographic composition ot'the population reveals the potential, basic demand fbr real estate. services. Based on data released by the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2000 Census indicated populations for Benton and Washington Counties of 153,406 and 157,715, respectively; the total for the two counties was 311,121. The population of the two -county area as of 2010 was 424,404, with Benton County reflecting a total of 221,339 and Washington County a total of 203,065. The growth between 2000 and 2010 is indicated to be 36.4%±, or 3.64%± per year. The estimated 2016 populations of Benton and Washington Counties, based on State & County QuickFacts published by the U.S. Census Bureau, were 258,291± and 228,049±, respectively, or a total of 486,340±. The growth between 2010 and 2016 is estimated to be 14.60/0±, or 2.431/0± per year The U.S. Census Bureau data reflected the population of the MSA as of 2010 to be 463,204. The estimated 2016 population of the MSA, based on State & County QuickFacts, was 525,032±; this reflects an estimated growth of 13.3%±, or 2.23%± per year, for the MSA between 2010 and 2016. The estimated 2015 population of the MSA was reported to be 513,449; this reflects a 2.3% growth in population between 2015 and 2016. According to the U.S. Census Bureau data, the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA represents the 22nd fastest growing metropolitan area in the United States. The following is a summary of population data for Benton County, Washington County, and the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA: The following chart reflects the population trend in the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA since 1990: Fqyetteville-Springdale-Rogers MSA Population 525,000 475,000 NEW 425,000 375,000 325,000 275,000 225,0 O O O O O p�j p�j O O O O Source. U.S. Censers Within Benton County, there are a total of 18± incorporated towns and cities. Bentonville is the County Seat of Benton County. This city is located in the northern part of the county. Bentonville had a population of 19,730 in 2000, a 75.3%± increase since 1990. The 2010 population was indicated to be 35,301, a 78.9%± increase from 2000. The 2016± population estimate was indicated to be 47,093±. The growth between 2010 and 2016 (estimate) was indicated to be 33.4%±, or 5.6%± per year. Rogers is the largest city in Benton County, and is located to the south and east of Bentonville. Its 2000 population of 38,829 reflects a 57.20/0± increase since 1990. The 2010 population was indicated to be 55,964, a 44.1%± increase from 2000. The 2016 population estimate was indicated to be 65,021±. The growth between 2010 and 2016 (estimate) was indicated to be 16.2%±, or 2.7%± per year. Siloam Springs, located on the Oklahoma line in the southwestern part of the county, is the third major city in Benton County. It grew from a population of 10,843 in 2000 to 15,039 in 2010, a 38.7%± increase. The 2016 population estimate was indicated to be 16,448±; this would reflect population growth of 9.4%± since 2010. Some of the smaller cities and towns in Benton County include Gentry, Gravette, Pea Ridge, Lowell, Centerton, Decatur, Cave Springs, Bella Vista, etc. The City of Centerton is located west of Bentonville, and is considered a "bedroom" community. The 2000, 2010, and estimated 2016 populations of Centerton were reported to be 2,146, 9,515, and 12,861, respectively. This would indicate population growth of 343.4°/x± between 2000 and 2010, and 35.2%1 between 2010 and 2016 (estimate). The City of Lowell is located in the Southern part of Benton County, 2.000-711111 n/4) 1111} 20163 2016-2016 Location _ 2000 2010 Increase Es011iate Iuereose Benton County 153,406 221,339 44.3% 258,291 16.7% Washington County 157,715 203,065 28.8%, 228,049 12.30/ F -S -R MSA 349,562 463,204 32.5% 525,032 13.3% The following chart reflects the population trend in the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA since 1990: Fqyetteville-Springdale-Rogers MSA Population 525,000 475,000 NEW 425,000 375,000 325,000 275,000 225,0 O O O O O p�j p�j O O O O Source. U.S. Censers Within Benton County, there are a total of 18± incorporated towns and cities. Bentonville is the County Seat of Benton County. This city is located in the northern part of the county. Bentonville had a population of 19,730 in 2000, a 75.3%± increase since 1990. The 2010 population was indicated to be 35,301, a 78.9%± increase from 2000. The 2016± population estimate was indicated to be 47,093±. The growth between 2010 and 2016 (estimate) was indicated to be 33.4%±, or 5.6%± per year. Rogers is the largest city in Benton County, and is located to the south and east of Bentonville. Its 2000 population of 38,829 reflects a 57.20/0± increase since 1990. The 2010 population was indicated to be 55,964, a 44.1%± increase from 2000. The 2016 population estimate was indicated to be 65,021±. The growth between 2010 and 2016 (estimate) was indicated to be 16.2%±, or 2.7%± per year. Siloam Springs, located on the Oklahoma line in the southwestern part of the county, is the third major city in Benton County. It grew from a population of 10,843 in 2000 to 15,039 in 2010, a 38.7%± increase. The 2016 population estimate was indicated to be 16,448±; this would reflect population growth of 9.4%± since 2010. Some of the smaller cities and towns in Benton County include Gentry, Gravette, Pea Ridge, Lowell, Centerton, Decatur, Cave Springs, Bella Vista, etc. The City of Centerton is located west of Bentonville, and is considered a "bedroom" community. The 2000, 2010, and estimated 2016 populations of Centerton were reported to be 2,146, 9,515, and 12,861, respectively. This would indicate population growth of 343.4°/x± between 2000 and 2010, and 35.2%1 between 2010 and 2016 (estimate). The City of Lowell is located in the Southern part of Benton County, just south of Rogers. The 2000, 2010, and estimated 2016 populations of Lowell were reported to be 5,013, 7,327, and 8,922, respectively. This would indicate population growth of 46.2%± between 2000 and 2010, and 21.8%± between 2010 and 2016 (estimate). There are a total of 13± incorporated cities and towns within Washington County. 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 58,047 in 2000. This represented a 37.9%± increase since 1990. The 2010 population was indicated to be 73,580, an increase of 26.8%± from 2000. The 2016 population estimate was indicated to be 83,826±. The growth between 2010 and 2016 (estimate) was indicated to be 13.9%±, or 2.3%± per year. Fayetteville is also the largest city in Washington County. Springdale is the second largest city in Washington County, and is located north of Fayetteville. The northern part of Springdale actually extends into Benton County. Springdale had a population of 45,798 in 2000. This represented a 53.0%± increase since 1990. The 2010 population was indicated to be 69,797, an increase of 52.4%± from 2000. The 2016 population estimate was indicated to be 78,557±. The growth between 2010 and 2016 (estimate) was indicated to be 12.6%±, or 2.1 %± per year. Some of the smaller cities in Washington County include Prairie Grove, Lincoln, Farmington, West Fork, Johnson, Elm Springs, etc. A small part of Elm Springs is also located in Benton County. The following illustration displays the estimated 2016 population concentrations in the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA: source: lvorlinvesl.-lrkansas Council The following table reflects population changes for the major cities in the Fayetteville - Springdale -Rogers MSA since 2000: n Wyandotte 1 iv 4 "Id r o ikonean Wcol n :r.,.� r•� I1, -n U ieQ r1. lJ :Lrn K :d. 1S PoPulaUon (2016) Pny,daC!on •Value "• I. 29 - 6,720 Uerryv�lle 6,120 -16K +e.r••r Fs �•r. - 16K -21K T w•�` .a .*•iD o'�4 29K. 32K _ . rr Harrison 32K -90K '✓alloy SP. 0 411K -49K _•, -19K- 57K r' � Ar5lionalRivel li,) LF ��' + Orensy n:,rad — source: lvorlinvesl.-lrkansas Council The following table reflects population changes for the major cities in the Fayetteville - Springdale -Rogers MSA since 2000: Source: U.S. Census As previously indicated, the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA is reported to be the 22nd fastest growing MSA in the county. Population growth in the Benton -Washington County area is considered to be moderately to rapidly increasing. This trend is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. The major cities in Benton County have typically experienced higher population growth rates than the major cities in Washington County. It should be noted that the rate of growth has declined from what appears to have been the peak period in the early/mid 2000-2010+ time period. The rate of population growth declined during the mid/late 2000- 2010± time period; however, still continued to increase at a moderate pace. The declining population growth rate was likely the result of the recent "Great Recession". Oversupply issues in the real estate market that became highly visible in the mid part of the past decade, as well as deterioration in overall economic conditions, had an adverse impact on population growth. The country officially went into a recession in December 2007. The recession officially ended in June 2009; however, consumer sentiment did not necessarily support this. Economic conditions have improved since 2010+, and the real estate market has follows with significant improvement since 2012+. Social forces, particularly area population growth, are considered to have a positive effect on real property values in Benton and Washington Counties. Economic Forces: Economic forces are also significant to real property values. It is necessary to analyze the lundameutal relationships between current and anticipated supply and demand and the economic ability or the population to satisfy its wants, needs, and demands through its purcha$ing power. The following chart represents Non -Farm Employment Growth (not seasonally adjusted) for the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA since 2000: 2(1(1(1 2005 211110-21)W; ",'v In�re,�sc 241117-2111(1 `A Es:rreuse .1uly 2016 E;sflm;itc 2010-2016%6 Inc.rcisse Fayetteville 58,047 66,656 14.8% 73,580 10.4% 83,826 13.9% Springdale 45,798 62,459 36.4% 69,797 11.7% 78,557 12.6% Rogers 38,829 48,353 24.5% 55,954 15.7% 65,021 16.2% Bentonville 19,730 29,530 49.7% 35,301 19.5% 47,093 33.4% Lowell 5,013 7,042 40.5% 7,327 4.0% 8,922 21.8%2 Ccnterton 2,146 5,477 155.0%. 9,515 73.7% 12,861 35.2% Siloam Springs 10,843 13,604 25.5% 15,039 10.5% 16.448 9.4% Source: U.S. Census As previously indicated, the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA is reported to be the 22nd fastest growing MSA in the county. Population growth in the Benton -Washington County area is considered to be moderately to rapidly increasing. This trend is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. The major cities in Benton County have typically experienced higher population growth rates than the major cities in Washington County. It should be noted that the rate of growth has declined from what appears to have been the peak period in the early/mid 2000-2010+ time period. The rate of population growth declined during the mid/late 2000- 2010± time period; however, still continued to increase at a moderate pace. The declining population growth rate was likely the result of the recent "Great Recession". Oversupply issues in the real estate market that became highly visible in the mid part of the past decade, as well as deterioration in overall economic conditions, had an adverse impact on population growth. The country officially went into a recession in December 2007. The recession officially ended in June 2009; however, consumer sentiment did not necessarily support this. Economic conditions have improved since 2010+, and the real estate market has follows with significant improvement since 2012+. Social forces, particularly area population growth, are considered to have a positive effect on real property values in Benton and Washington Counties. Economic Forces: Economic forces are also significant to real property values. It is necessary to analyze the lundameutal relationships between current and anticipated supply and demand and the economic ability or the population to satisfy its wants, needs, and demands through its purcha$ing power. The following chart represents Non -Farm Employment Growth (not seasonally adjusted) for the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA since 2000: NON MM .... 1011010.0 M M M.M,�.�`,1001110:�;.■MMWMERMINAIMMMMMMM ....ULMLELOL Source: United States Department of Labor- Bureau of Labor Statistics As previously indicated, the country was officially in a recession between December 2007 and June 2009. This recession, referred to as the "Great Recession", lasted 18 months. The previous longest recorded recessions since the Great Depression, the 1973-75 recession and the 1981-82 recession, each lasted 16 months. The Great Depression lasted 43 months. The recessions in 1991 and 2001 each lasted 8 months. The recession obviously impacted the rate of job growth in the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA. While the United States experienced negative year-on-year non-farm employment growth through all of 2008, the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA remained positive through the first half of the year. However, non-farm employment numbers (year-on-year) turned negative in the MSA in mid -2008±, and remained negative throughout 2009. The unemployment rate in the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA peaked in 2010, with an annual average of 6.5%. In May 2010, non-farm employment numbers (year-on-year) turned positive and have remained positive through the latest recorded data researched, which was August 2017. Non-farm employment numbers in August 2017 are approximately 22.0%± greater than in August 2007 and 2008. The civilian labor force in Benton County averaged 126,311 for the year 2016. Washington County averaged 119,518 for the same time period. The civilian labor force for August 2017 was reported at 133,179 for Benton County and 125,671 for Washington County. In 2016, Benton County's unemployment rate averaged 2.9%, while Washington County's rate averaged 2.7%. The August 2017 unemployment rates for Benton and Washington Counties were indicated to be 2.9% and 2.4%, respectively. The August 2017 unemployment rates for the United States, State of Arkansas, and the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA were 4.4%, 3.5%, and 2.7%, respectively. All of the preceding rates represent non -seasonally adjusted rates. The following illustration displays the estimated 2016 labor force concentrations in the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA: Source: Northwest Arkansas Council The Northwest Arkansas Area has been recognized by national publications, economists, and researchers for its economy, businesses, and quality of life. The following reflects several recent recognitions: • U.S. News and World Report ranked Northwest Arkansas 5th nationally on its 2017 ranking of the "Best Places to Live" list (ranked 3rd in 2016); • The Milken Institute, which published a new report in December 2016, put the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers Metropolitan Statistical Area's economy at No. 30 among 200 large metropolitan areas; the region was especially strong in job and wage growth, while its weaknesses were mostly related to growth in high-tech components; ■ U.S. News and World Report ranked Northwest Arkansas l st nationally in its May 2016 ranking of the "20 Best Affordable Places to Live"; • Forbes ranked Northwest Arkansas at No. 2 on its list of Best Midsize Cities for Jobs in May 2016; midsize cities were classified by having 150,000 to 450,000 nonfarm jobs in their metropolitan area; • Forbes and NewGeorgraphy.com ranked Northwest Arkansas at No. 3 among the nation's medium-sized cities for white-collar job growth in July 2016; the region ranked 16th among all U.S. metropolitan statistical areas; • In March 2016, Fast Company and Nerd Wallet ranked Northwest Arkansas 2nd nationally on its list of "Best Places for Minority -Owned Businesses"; ■ Lonely Planet, the world's largest publisher of travel -related books and guides, in February 2016 ranked Northwest Arkansas at No. 7 on its list of "Best in the U.S."; • Researchers at Chapman University's Center for Demographics and Policy in California determined in a report that Northwest Arkansas ranked No. 1 in the nation in family friendliness; the report, called `Building Cities for People" and made public in January _" "' F.,��.1 • , ieNrLnLng �k[ e: urs-.�, . , _ :. I °irf •, � . ,r.,'11$. �' • , : i . _-. ". is-�:." Labor Force Btatu; .ah,: For re (2016) M > Q Diamond Cdy Lend Hill ( 9 - 3,713 do*yn+ln 3,913 - 7,817 ya Crron F-1 C. r" 7,817-12K ., Alpcnn E (: C 81 12K-J6K Ix KARss!• `3 Hornson F� �l 16N-20K f� Valley Springs 20K-23K r 23K. 27K �. r.". �nnca .. Olz:p IS Fapp{ Jaaner iV.11ivnae l'on7771!" _._-. rely'• Ner.4ldl Cet• f`D � Artist pr 1 Ore}q ilm' nlrena Shir � Source: Northwest Arkansas Council The Northwest Arkansas Area has been recognized by national publications, economists, and researchers for its economy, businesses, and quality of life. The following reflects several recent recognitions: • U.S. News and World Report ranked Northwest Arkansas 5th nationally on its 2017 ranking of the "Best Places to Live" list (ranked 3rd in 2016); • The Milken Institute, which published a new report in December 2016, put the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers Metropolitan Statistical Area's economy at No. 30 among 200 large metropolitan areas; the region was especially strong in job and wage growth, while its weaknesses were mostly related to growth in high-tech components; ■ U.S. News and World Report ranked Northwest Arkansas l st nationally in its May 2016 ranking of the "20 Best Affordable Places to Live"; • Forbes ranked Northwest Arkansas at No. 2 on its list of Best Midsize Cities for Jobs in May 2016; midsize cities were classified by having 150,000 to 450,000 nonfarm jobs in their metropolitan area; • Forbes and NewGeorgraphy.com ranked Northwest Arkansas at No. 3 among the nation's medium-sized cities for white-collar job growth in July 2016; the region ranked 16th among all U.S. metropolitan statistical areas; • In March 2016, Fast Company and Nerd Wallet ranked Northwest Arkansas 2nd nationally on its list of "Best Places for Minority -Owned Businesses"; ■ Lonely Planet, the world's largest publisher of travel -related books and guides, in February 2016 ranked Northwest Arkansas at No. 7 on its list of "Best in the U.S."; • Researchers at Chapman University's Center for Demographics and Policy in California determined in a report that Northwest Arkansas ranked No. 1 in the nation in family friendliness; the report, called `Building Cities for People" and made public in January 2016, measured metropolitan areas in categories such as commute times, housing costs, income, and migration; • Forbes ranked Northwest Arkansas at No. 24 on its list of "Best Places for Business and Careers" in 2016; criteria included labor supply, quality of life, college attainment, crime statistics, local college quality, and cultural and recreational opportunities; the same report ranked Northwest Arkansas No. 11 in job growth;. ■ Money Magazine included Northwest Arkansas on its 2015 list of the "25 Best Places to Retire"; this was primarily based on the wealth of year-round outdoor outlets Northwest Arkansas provides; • New Geography placed Northwest Arkansas 10th on its list of "Best Cities for Job Growth" in 2014; this was for medium sized cities and the rankings were based on recent growth trends, mid-term growth and long-term growth, momentum, and current year growth. The Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA economy, according to a report delivered to the U.S. Conference of Mayors in 2014, grew 3.8% in 2013. It is projected to grow at 4.2% annually between 2013-20, making it one of the top MSA's in the nation. The regions gross metropolitan product ranked 3rd for the 2013-20 projection. Northwest Arkansas is No. 7 among 18 regions that will see the most economic growth in 2016, according to research by the U.S. Conference of Mayors in June 2015. U.S. Census data reflect the following income figures for the Benton -Washington County area: The single-family residential sector of the Northwest Arkansas real estate market appears to have frilly rebounded from the recent "Great Recession." Population growth and non-farm employment growth are strong in Washington and Benton Counties. This has resulted in increased overall demand for residential housing. As of the Second Quarter of 2016, Benton County totaled approximately 4,907 empty, single-family and duplex lots with Final Plat filed and/or receiving final approval. The total for Washington County was approximately 3,902. Based on lot sales to end users in the 2nd Quarter 2016 in the two -county area, the total empty lot supply could constitute near a 3.5=L year inventory. Housing starts and residential construction activity in both Benton and Washington Counties have increased significantly since 2011. Interest rates remain low, which is a positive for the housing market. Rates are expected to slowly move upward in the near future. However, rates are still projected to remain in an affordable range. This, along with continued improvement in non-farm employment, should sustain the downward movement in the number of empty residential lots in the two -county area. NJCdia« 110LISQII01d I1101Me $54,592 $56,239 3.0% i'er Cup i la Inemiie $24,912 $27,934 12.1% The single-family residential sector of the Northwest Arkansas real estate market appears to have frilly rebounded from the recent "Great Recession." Population growth and non-farm employment growth are strong in Washington and Benton Counties. This has resulted in increased overall demand for residential housing. As of the Second Quarter of 2016, Benton County totaled approximately 4,907 empty, single-family and duplex lots with Final Plat filed and/or receiving final approval. The total for Washington County was approximately 3,902. Based on lot sales to end users in the 2nd Quarter 2016 in the two -county area, the total empty lot supply could constitute near a 3.5=L year inventory. Housing starts and residential construction activity in both Benton and Washington Counties have increased significantly since 2011. Interest rates remain low, which is a positive for the housing market. Rates are expected to slowly move upward in the near future. However, rates are still projected to remain in an affordable range. This, along with continued improvement in non-farm employment, should sustain the downward movement in the number of empty residential lots in the two -county area. In Benton County, Multiple Listing Service (MLS) data reflects the median home price for the First Quarter of 2016 to be $164,000, as compared to $185,000 for the First Quarter of 2017. This indicates a 12.8% increase. In Washington County, the median home price for the First Quarter of 2016 was indicated by MLS data to be $160,000. This compares to $172,250 for the First Quarter of 2017. The increase calculates to 7.7%. New construction of single-family residential dwellings has occurred at a rapid pace in recent years. The number of residential building permits for Benton and Washington Counties is displayed in the following exhibit: Residential Building Permits 1,800 1,600 1,400 r 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 ' I 200 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 8 Benton County ■ Washington County Source: Streetsmart Residential Market Insight Report It should be noted that the data presented for 2016 in the preceding exhibit is only for the first half of 2016. The multi -family residential sector of the real estate market in Benton and Washington Counties was the first sector to rebound from the recent "Great Recession". In the multi -family sector, the two -county area indicated an overall vacancy rate of 1.45% in the Third Quarter of 2016. The Fayetteville multi -family market has a good history of strength, due to the University of Arkansas, and reflected a Third Quarter 2016 vacancy rate of 1.37%. The Rogers/Lowell, Bentonville, Siloam Springs, and Springdale multi -family markets also appear to be healthy with vacancy rates of 1.22%, 1.28%, 1.24%, and 2.00%, respectively. The multi -family residential sector has maintained low vacancy rates despite adding a significant number of new units in recent years. The majority of the new units constructed in recent years are located in Fayetteville. The Bentonville and Rogers/Lowell markets have also experienced substantial construction of new units, while Springdale has experienced very little new construction since the 2009-2010-L time period. The number of multi -family building permits by units for Bentonville, Fayetteville, Rogers/Lowell, and Springdale is displayed in the following exhibit: Multi -Family Permits (units) 1,000 900 800 700 600 --- 500 _ 400 300 200 -- - 100 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 R Bentonville N Fayetteville R Rogers/Lowell a Springdale Source: Streetsmart Multi -Family Market Insight Report It should be noted that the most recent Streetsmart report indicates that approximately 2,5791 units in the Northwest Arkansas market are currently in the pipeline. This includes units very recently completed, under construction, or approved by planning commission with no building permits currently issued. With respect to the commercial sector of the real estate market in Benton and Washington Counties, the overall vacancy rate for Class "A" and "B" professional office space for the First/Second Quarter of 2016 was indicated to be 12.46%. The vacancy rate for Class "A" space alone was reported at 12.7%. These rates are for investment grade, non -owner occupied space. Obviously, job creation is critical to the absorption of office space. It should be noted that the overall professional office vacancy rate was thought to have peaked in mid/late 2010, with vacancy slowly decreasing since that time. The overall vacancy rate for retail space has also slowly declined since 2010, and was indicated to be 8.38% (Class "A" and `B" combined) in the First/Second Quarter of 2016. This, too, is for investment grade, non -owner occupied space. It should be noted that the reported vacancy rate for Class "A" retail space in the First/Second Quarter of 2016 was 6.6%. Sales and leasing activity in the commercial sector began to significantly improve in mid -2013, and are currently considered to be at healthy levels. Commercial development land must also be considered. There remains a considerable amount of potential commercial development land in the two -county area; however, absorption is occurring as prime development land has been purchased in recent years for new development. A significant amount of construction activity has recently been completed, is on-going, and is planned in the Northwest Arkansas Area. New development projects include: Class "A" professional office buildings; strip, neighborhood, and community shopping centers; convenience stores; quick -service and full-service restaurants; hotels/motels, special-purpose properties; etc. The dollar values (in 1,000's) of commercial building permits in Northwest Arkansas are presented in the following exhibit: Source: The Skyline Report — 2nd Half 2016 Commercial Real Estate Market Summary With respect to hotels/motels/restaurants, the following increases/decreases in tax receipts collected between Quarter Two 2015 and Quarter Two 2016 were indicated: Bentonville NNVA Commercial Permit Values (in 1,000's) Fayetteville +8.6%t Rogers 343,733 35 0, 000 +3.6°/al 300,000 250,000 231,664 200,000 150,000 96,680 98,239 100,000 62.006 79,418 ------- 50,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: The Skyline Report — 2nd Half 2016 Commercial Real Estate Market Summary With respect to hotels/motels/restaurants, the following increases/decreases in tax receipts collected between Quarter Two 2015 and Quarter Two 2016 were indicated: Bentonville +5.9/o=L Fayetteville +8.6%t Rogers -0.98%L Springdale +3.6°/al Springdale and Rogers do not collect restaurant tax receipts. The economic base of the region consists of four basic areas: First, agricultural production with the primary commodities being beef cattle, dairy cattle, and poultry. The general offices of Tyson Foods, Inc., the largest poultry processor in the world, are located in Springdale in Washington County. Benton and Washington Counties have a considerable amount of rural acreage 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 (grapes). According to the USDA, Benton and Washington counties had total agricultural sales in 2012 of $529,128,000 and 443,025,000, respectively. Second, influence from the University of Arkansas located in Fayetteville. Total enrollment for Fall 2016 at the University was 27,065, an increase of 3.2% since Fall 2013. A second public academic institution, the Northwest Arkansas Community College, is located in Bentonville. Fall 2016 enrollment for the school was indicated to be 7,761, a slight increase from Fall 2015. In addition to the main campus, the NWACC also has branch campuses located in Springdale, Rogers, and Farmington. A Washington County Campus is proposed in the southwest part of Springdale. Construction of the facility should begin in the near future. 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 Engineers Reservoir on the White River. Beaver Lake affords typical fresh water sports such as boating, fishing, skiing, swimming, etc. Each of the major cities in the two -county area also has recreational amenities. It should be noted that Arvest Baseball Park opened in the Spring of 2008 in the southwest part of Springdale. This baseball park is the home of the Northwest Arkansas Naturals (Minor League AA Affiliate of the Kansas City Royals). The location is at the southwest corner of Watkins Avenue and 56`x' Street, just west of I- 49. Fourth, the large number of manufacturing businesses and industries located within the two counties. The general offices of Wal-Mart, Inc., the world's largest retailer, are located in Bentonville. Wal-Mart has had a tremendous impact on the area, particularly Benton County. The general offices of J.B. Hunt, Inc., a major trucking company, are located in Lowell. As previously indicated, the general offices of Tyson Foods, Inc., the world's largest poultry processor, are located in Springdale. Wal-Mart, J.B. Hunt, and Tyson Foods are each Fortune 500 Companies. The presence of these companies drives demand for attorneys, accountants, architects, hotels, restaurants, retailers, etc. Most of the major industries are located in the larger cities in the counties. According to the 2012 Economic Census, total value of shipments by manufacturers in Arkansas was $67,213,000. According to State & County QuickFacts, total value of shipments by manufacturers in Washington County in 2012 was $3,487,047. Retail sales estimates for Benton and Washington Counties for 2012, based on State & County QuickFacts, were $2,905,967 and $2,925,758, respectively. The following table represents major employers in the MSA (as of 2016) Wal-Mart Stores (Home Office, DC's & Stores) 28,000+ Retail Bentonville Tyson Foods 12,000+ Protein Processin /Marketin Springdale University of Arkansas 4,000+ Education Fayetteville Simmons Foods, Inc. 3,900+ Poultry Processing Siloam Springs J.B. Hunt Transport Services 2,600+ Transportation Lowell Washin on Regional 2,750+ Health Fayetteville George's Inc. 2,500+ Poultry Springdale Northwest Health Systems 1,900+ Health Bentonville/Springdale Mercy Health Systems 1,500+ Health Multiple Arvest Bank 1,500+ Finance Bentonville Source: Employers; Local Chambers of Commerce, M.B.A. Today In addition, Northwest Arkansas is the home of several satellite offices of Fortune 500 companies supplying products to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. These Fortune 500 companies with a presence in Northwest Arkansas include: IBM, Coca-Cola, Proctor & Gamble, Pfizer, Gillette, Mattel, Hershey, Sara Lee, Kimberly Clark, Heinz, Colgate, Clorox, Ball Corp., Disney, General Mills, Kellogg, Hormel, Newell Rubbermaid, Johnson & Johnson, Pepsico, Philip Morris, etc. Construction of the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville has been a plus for the Northwest Arkansas economy, particularly the City of Bentonville. This museum opened in November 2011, and was a project of the Walton family. Crystal Bridges is located near the Central Business District of Bentonville, and, along with the "Downtown Bentonville' program, has been instrumental in the revitalization of the Central Business District. Near 3,000,000± people total have visited Crystal Bridges Museum since its opening. The "Scott Family Amazeum" opened in mid -2015±, just to the east of Crystal Bridges. The "Amazeum" is a hands-on, interactive museurn for children and families with a foundation in the arts and sciences. There are many financial institutions in Benton and Washington Counties. These institutions have typically provided an adequate supply of fiends for residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural growth. It should be noted that credit conditions tightened in 2008 as financial institutions dealt with problem real estate loans, and deteriorating economic conditions. The Federal Government infused funds into the financial market in an attempt to provide liquidity and ease credit. The major financial institutions in the area 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 typically in the 3.25% - 4.00% range. Interest rates on commercial mortgages are typically in the 4.00% to 6.00% range. The amortization period may be 15 to 25 years; however, the interest rate is likely to be fixed for only a 5 to 10 year period. Interest rates have begun to increase slightly due, in part, to Federal Reserve policy; however remain in an affordable range. Federal Deposit insurance Corporation (FDIC) data indicate there are a total of 40 financial institutions in the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA. Deposits as of Q4 2016 totaled $9,610,000± based on the FDIC data. Real estate development in the area has primarily been centered in the major cities, and in smaller communities such as Centerton, Farmington, Lowell, and Prairie Grove. However, rural development is also occurring with small acreage homesites visible throughout the two counties. Economic conditions are continuing to improve in the two -county area. The local economy has rebounded from the recent "Great Recession." A plus for the area has been continued year over year increases in non-farm employment numbers. Continued growth in non-farm employment is crucial to the health of the Northwest Arkansas real estate market. The long-term outlook is that economic forces will have a positive effect on real property values in Benton and Washington Counties. 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 20± minutes apart via 1-49. 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, Assessor, Treasurer, Sheriff, Coroner, etc. Property taxes in Arkansas are collected at the county level and distributed to the counties, cities, and school districts. in Arkansas, all real property, except agricultural land, is to be 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. However, in 2001, a tax relief act was passed in Arkansas, which limits the annual increase in property tax from the base year. A new term was created, called Taxable Value. Taxable Value is now multiplied by the applicable millage rate to arrive at the annual real estate tax. The annual property tax is due by October 15th in the year after it is levied. Individual property taxes in Benton and Washington Counties have generally increased over the last several years due to continuing reappraisal; however, it should be noted that both Benton and Washington Counties made adjustments in real estate appraised values for property tax purposes due to the recent "Great Recession." Benton County does not have county zoning at the present time. Washington County, however, passed an ordinance introducing zoning regulations to unincorporated parts of the county. This zoning ordinance became effective in December of 2007. This zoning is enforced by the Washington County Planning Board. The major cities in the area also have zoning regulations. There are no adverse legislative restrictions on the use and development of real property in the area. However, it should be noted that some of the cities in Benton and Washington Counties have established Overlay Districts which place limitations on development of lands within the established districts. Benton and Washington Counties are considered to have adequate medical, school, lodging, and religious facilities to service the Trade Area. In August 2015, Arkansas Children's, Inc. announced plans to build a freestanding children's hospital in Springdale, Arkansas. Construction of the new facility is proposed to be complete by January 2018. The building is to include 233,613± square feet of inpatient beds, emergency care, diagnostic service, and clinical space. The building will also include a helipad. The hospital will employ over 250 employees. The following table reflects area schools' enrollments for the previous years: rezi 'Seho(0 �•.11ndiniciii Fayetteville Public Schools I s!!" 203 a! 1014 alt 2011 , 9,652 f• �l 9,321 9,525 9,421 9,503 S rin dale Public Schools 20,547 21,120 21,260 21,527 21,958 Rogers ers Public Schools 14,757 15,027 15,077 15,486 15,857 Bentonville Public Schools 15,114 15,497 16,060 16,896 17,217 University of Arkansas - Fayetteville 24,537 26,237 26,754 27,194 Not Available Northwest Arkansas Community College - Rogers/Bentonville 8,020 8,098 7,962 7,973 Not Available John Brown University - Siloam Springs 2,183 2,850 2,126 2,126 Not Available source: �cnools Ftum�n�stratuill Uihces There are also private church schools in operation in the two -county area, as well as charter schools. There are a total of five charter schools in Benton and Washington Counties, with additional schools planned. Fall 2016 enrollment at the area charter schools was reported at 2,161. Utilities available in the rural areas of Benton and Washington Counties include electricity and telephone service. Natural gas and rural water are also available in many areas. Public water and sewer are available in the major cities, as well as in most of the smaller communities. Overall, governmental forces in the area provide a positive effect on real property values in Benton and Washington Counties. Lack of public water and sewer in certain areas is a drawback. However, the Two Ton Water Project and Benton -Washington County Water Authorities have addressed much of the rural water needs in the two -county area. Environmental Forces: 13oth nawral and man-made environmental farces inlluence real propo,rty values. Environmental J'orces include climatic conditions, topography and soil, natural barriers to future development, prinru•y transportation systems, and the nature and desirability ofthe immediate area surrounding.a ro ert . The two -county area has relatively warm summers and mild winters. High temperatures in summer are often accompanied 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 typically only a few days when temperatures drop to freezing or below; however, the past few years have seen cold extremes where the temperature has dropped below freezing on several days. The area has an average of 4 to 5± inches of snow annually, although there have been recent years where this has been exceeded. Rainfall averages around 45± inches annually. The following map illustrates the relationship between the cities and counties of the MSA (the four -county MSA is outlined in black): ' 14w1 pni Ir.++~ Ai�s��_ 1111 �,n�• n �•• 1 ..� - .. Kansnn .A lx �.uuel ka.,i �-., i i�l• Alal. 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 of Washington County is rough along the western, eastern, southern, and northwestern boundaries. 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 I-49 and U.S. Highway 71B (north - south), and U.S. Highway 412 (east -west). From Fayetteville north to Bella Vista, I-49 provides divided highway access. South from Fayetteville, I-49 provides divided highway access to Interstate 40 at Alma. U.S. Highway 71 south from Fayetteville was made a Scenic Byway in 1998. Divided highway access is now available from the region to Fort Smith to the south via I- 49/40, and to Little Rock to the southeast via I-49/40. Also, U.S. Highway 412 provides divided highway access from Tontitown westerly to Siloam Springs near the Oklahoma State Line. Divided highway access is available westerly from the region to Tulsa, Oklahoma via U.S. 412 to the Cherokee Turnpike. U.S. Highway 71B, I-49, and U.S. Highway 412 are each heavily traveled traffic arteries. U.S. Highway 7113 traverses Fayetteville, Springdale, Lowell, Rogers, Bentonville, and Bella Vista. U.S. Highway 412 traverses Springdale, Tontitown, and Siloam Springs. Construction on a divided highway phase of U.S. Highway 412 east of Springdale to near Hindsville was completed in 2001. Construction of an extension of the U.S. Highway 412 divided highway to near Huntsville was completed in 2014. U.S. Highway 62 and State Highway 16 in Washington County also provide east -west access, as do State Highways 12, 102, and 264 in Benton County. In addition, there are other state highways as well as county roads providing adequate access throughout the area. There is a significant number of secondary roadways traversing the Northwest Arkansas Area. New major highway construction in the two - county area includes the Bella Vista Bypass and the northern Springdale Bypass. With respect to the northern Springdale Bypass, the segment of the highway west of I-49 (between I-49 & U.S. 412) will be constructed prior to the segment east of I-49. Construction of the west segment of the Northern Bypass began in 2015. Part of the Bella Vista Bypass has recently been completed; however, additional phases remain. The timing of completion is uncertain at the present time. The State of Missouri has not announced the proposed construction timing/schedule for their part of the Bella Vista Bypass. It should be noted that construction of additional lanes to 1-49 in Benton and Washington Counties is being completed in phases. Some sections of the widening project have already been completed, while some sections are currently being completed. Certain sections are also proposed to be widened in the near future. Finally, several of the cities in the region are in the process of improving/constructing new transportation routes within their municipalities. It should be noted that a new Interchange opened in 2014 along I49 in Springdale. The location is at 1-49/Don Tyson Parkway in the southwest part of Springdale, and has improved access from I-49, via Don Tyson parkway, to the Tyson Foods, Inc. General Offices. Another Interchange along 1-49 is proposed in Bentonville. The location is at I-49/SE 81" Street in .the east part of Bentonville. This will allow good access from I-49, via 8th Street, to the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. General Offices. The Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport (XNA), which opened in November 1998, is located near the small community of Highfill in the northwest part of the region. Total construction cost was estimated near $109± million. Some 2,185± acres were involved. There are two runways, both 8,800± feet in length by 150± feet in width. There is also a 75' x 8,800'± taxiway. The terminal building was indicated initially near 69,000± square feet in size; however, has been expanded adding a new terminal. The new terminal reportedly cost $20-25 million, and allowed parking space for twelve additional planes. The addition reportedly added 51,000± square feet of building area. Direct flights are now available to many of the major MSA's across the country. In 2015, the airport served some 1,290,850± passengers, while in 2016, the airport served a reported 1,338,042± passengers. Construction of a four -level parking deck began in January of 2017. The new garage will provide for an additional 1,400± parking spaces, and is proposed to be complete in August 2018. A 20 -Year Master Plan for the airport includes the addition of a second runway. A new transportation route to the airport is also proposed to be constructed in the near future. This new route is to run northwesterly from the west segment of the Northern Springdale Bypass. The new route will likely intersect the Northern Springdale Bypass a short distance west of State Highway 112 (north -south route). State Highway 264 currently provides access to the south entrance to the airport, while State Highway 12 provides access to the north entrance. Growth has occurred toward the airport, especially along State Highway 12 from Bentonville. The airport has exceeded initial projections on the number of people utilizing the facility. The two -county area is reasonably well located and is within relatively short driving times of major metropolitan areas. Driving time to Tulsa is less than 2± hours, to Little Rock is 2.5-3± hours, and to Kansas City is 3-4± hours. Environmental forces, for the most part, are considered favorable for real estate development in the area, and provide a positive effect on real property values in Benton and Washington Counties. CONCLUSIONS Each of the major forces affecting real property values has been addressed in this section of the report. The conclusion is that each of the forces has a positive effect on value. Between July 2015 and July 2016, the estimated population growth in Benton and Washington Counties combined was 11,191± people. This calculates to near 31± persons per day (11,191 365 days). This represents net growth, including births, deaths, out -migration, and in -migration. This is lower than at the peak time in the mid part of the past decade; however, is still significant. This population growth is occurring in part due to the job market in Northwest Arkansas. The continued strong growth in non-farm employment in the two -county area not only increases in - migration numbers, but also reduces out -migration numbers. The population growth results in demand for residential housing, both single and multi -family, which, in turn, creates demand for commercial real estate development to provide services for the area residents. Availability of favorable financing terms continues to be an enhancement for both residential and commercial development. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Tyson Foods, Inc., and the University of Arkansas are the major drivers of the Northwest Arkansas economy, and this is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., has impacted development through -out the two -county area, particularly in Bentonville. The poultry industry continues to lead the Agricultural Sector of the local real estate market, with Tyson Foods, Inc., Simmons Foods, Inc., and George's, Inc., being the primary players. Tyson Foods, Inc., is also instrumental in the revitalization of the Springdale Central Business District by undertaking new development. The University of Arkansas remains the focal point of Fayetteville. Student growth is creating demand for new residential (multi- family in particular) development. The trucking industry, led by J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., also represents a plus for the local economy and brings national recognition to the area. The medical community in Benton and Washington Counties also creates demand for real estate development in the area. Washington Regional, Northwest Health systems, and Mercy Health Systems are the major employers. A new Arkansas Children's Hospital is currently under construction in the southwest part of Springdale. This should create demand for residential and commercial development in that area. In summary, the Benton -Washington County Area appears to have the foundation and composition for continued strong growth. This reflects positively on real estate development and real property values in the area. ,i.lr YiR.r4 ���. ��^, ' ' � •:Yj 6+�YLY�fd�iiAF'15f�� �'a z�,'- =}rY•..'r rr,�,' ,'x '+r0�ih �..'�t:.y•�� -AW ¢, 'y �_ •fn Ile - .. ... _ ..! ami _ _f �.f� 6 n +-y _ �- H ¢, 'y �_ •fn Ile - .. ... _ ..! ami _ _f �.f� 6 n +-y _ �- H • i.. �1�• 'ice -�° :'� •yip � ".r i�������%�y�'. ` � r Fl V e 5 '�`%iIiiFj r� h ii :��ji !:I!y. - Ki>i:.vi.';('47��.•�jy..., ' f •two-VISM Pal .; • ti'-• -,r, .d: �� �'» �:�; r .``;�! 'fes^'�wi r'3.•S_;�'y�,�."'i;',. ,�; �� .�"'`•. �;it.'{: t n•oc �. •tit": ' �:��; ,� �`%rn., ,�` �..�. r�� r ..M1T r5. ��- ' .�i .. +,s' 1•ry� .. i, -; 4-;: ".. N' y'� �, 1� :ring. V'� F .i tml Lr pm LL LA 7 • r� `�.�: • �.- ;fir ; r.:".. - r:- _��£ � � �:1�. it _ _,�.,;� • :�.�:�{:=¢.i-�:'•'•. i'-•� 'r''F Lf•. - .'Ani .. - _ ^i ?- —•�.R _ ^W�r "4P.4l : k'•' ' �G-:T. --.ate . �,.-.��� `* 4} - :.v:• : y yN E•'+SiT •'`:, }'A'. .x,�?�r f �l t Ti[tiS om. , '! �{. fie; "+i. •�'n i"'�..��•p�, �-S.• �+ f ia. :� `fir •r. �* «+. •4tirI'r Ailk qm _ �24 1 ,�� •r�i-.. i -�i _.-tib- ,*',?•77" •°,.�''_?=ti;. fir.. .�.r -:�_ y,. w ?�r• �•� - .- : ���� !!'...(�L. � 5+Y*� . .. . Am low r� :��' s•-�Y :: i.'r ♦:, �•• r ' _,.•'sir; i�.1. r=�iJG+l_'' -4�✓�� �'• r.ir � yyr: +•. ' �rF�9 ! �•~ r'O �.L'�',,'Y..' ..Yr�+. +.! :�: 1` - Edi, :J� •ti .�. �� S _,� � i �`.�= "• ti .. 'k^ TIP �•- ''��►-moi. - • •, - ._..- .'• ;� - d W w N a N _ L�_. -- OE E w � N R 9 E ° > ti v ci z- E o R m R N y m xto ~ y �' N J -2 N '� ° 6 r L N R 0 3 C C R 0 ° K aD3R �x 3 N o 0 c m u° 3R �ovm oNdEa oo°c v ry R o E- Q c c m =oE o¢9i-^mv�a� o Q N o �. 3 o J T v ° m L..n '°^ �.w cp m 0� W >. aI c 2e v Ci Yio n m U m o .1 R v N N o c o o y> o `m R ° a m y a >, m X' ai `m"E - ° °' 'M °� m `-° ¢ n'" maw E ai o E m o m a; `w W of W v a>> 'o v c Ii > R vu� ov��oE dmo�c N •R O _ R :. -p O G E d ° C U N W L m N U Q 16 R yI W 9 L N d :• p R p> y G py N d z c c v v'- E E •� 16 R V w C R N L r O a C w >> O N R y N U N E p o d R w d u- R y m •m O. N 3 6 a'i N p Y d '� W E Q> R NOD rp Y N .i N , L ` N d ` w W L O R RO N E� p 9. m O C O. O r ai R R N i N 5 0 0-0 R W U Q J Q Q W Q U J U �i U m J U d x O z 7 W= N O E W L.. m` w .0 W E N N a c I r I c o° of E da o O M ° p I I ❑�® w=3N c��pmv� >aEE � aE � 1 � � a WOE Q Qw WW J paR2 _> wuZ. Ea°mcRn 0 111 n a w ¢ M x x Z M.2 d >, v m `o L N N a nl x W O 8 O R N u o= a p L m m m a o U - .a wQ Q z� o� a mR.2 w >< .17E Evva;� <W.7 7 d N !j N U R L p N R U N E a=i E w. E R t m m¢ c m Iii Q W O f" 1% F- a H R H R 3 T. a F R 01 li Li x J O vi s o w 94'70'38.33"W 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 LO N O Parcel: 765-14506-000 Washington County Report ID: 50567 Prev. Parcel: 147614-000-00 As of: 6/25/2018 Property Owner Property Information Name: HALSELL HOLDINGS LLC Physical Address: 1521 W HALSELL RD Mailing Address: PO BOX 10073 Subdivision: 17-16-30 FAYETTEVILLE OUTLOTS FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 Block / Lot: N/A / N/A Type: (RI) Res. Improv. S -T -R: 17-16-30 Tax Dist: (011) FAYETTEVILLE SCH, FAY Size (Acres): Millage Rate: 57.45 Extended Legal: PT S/2 NW NE 1.52A FURTHER DESCRIBED FROM 2013-15594 AS: Part of the S 1/2 of the NWI/4 of the NEI/4 of Section 17 in Township 16 North of Range 30 West of the 5th P.M., Washington County, Arkansas and being more particularly described as beginning at a point 462 feet West of the NE corner of said 20 acre tract, thence South 330 feet, thence West 200 feet, thence North 330 feet, thence East 200 feet to the place of beginning. Market and Assessed Values Taxes Estimated Full Assessed Taxable Estimated $3,473 Market Value (20% Mkt Value) Value Taxes: Land: $115,600 $23,120 $23,120 Homestead $0 Note: Tax amounts are estiniatesonly. Contact Credit: the county/parish tax collector forexact amounts. Building: 186650 37330 37330 Total: $302,250 $60,450 $60,450 Land Land Use Total Deed Transfers Size Units 1.000 House Lot 0.520 Acres 1.520 Date Book Page Deed Type Stamps Est. Sale 5/8/2013 2013 15594 Warr. Deed 1072.50 $325,000 10/8/2001 2001 147198 Quit Claim 0.00 $0 9/26/2001 2001 119125 Quit Claim 0.00 $0 9/26/2001 2001 119123 ExecDeed 0.00 $0 7/31/2001 2001 92749 Warr. Deed 528.00 $160,000 6/6/1990 1370 423 Warr. Deed 123.20 $56,000 1/1/1985 1024 848 N/A 0.00 $0 Reappraisal Value History Grantee Code Type HALSELL HOLDINGS LLC Unval. Improved C Y N LLC N/A N/A MALSTROM, ERIC M & N/A Improved KATHLEEN K MALSTROM, ERIC M & N/A Improved KATHLEEN K C Y N LLC Valid Improved MALSTROM, ERIC M & N/A Improved KATHLEEN K ANDERSON, ROBBIN C & N/A Improved MARGARET B Tax Year Total Value Total Assessed 2015 $302,250.00 $53,801.00 2016 $302,250.00 $58,692.00 2017 $302,250.00 $60,450.00 abject to terms and conditiL wvwv.actDataSCour_eom Page 1 Parcel: 765-14506-000 Washington County Report ID: 50567 Prev. Parcel: 147614-000-00 As of: 6/25/2018 Details for Residential Card 1 Occupancy Story Construction Total Liv Grade Year Built Age Condition Beds Multi. Family ONE+ Frame Siding Std. 3,026 4 1948 67 Average Exterior Wall: FS Plumbing: Full: 3 Half: 1 Foundation: Closed Piers Fireplace: N/A Floor Struct: Wood with subfloor Heat / Cool: Central Floor Cover: Softwood Basement: Unfin Insulation: Ceilings Basement Area: 1050 Roof Cover: Fiberglass Shingle Year Remodeled: 2002 Roof Type: Gable Style: DataScout, LLC 16 MN P a y� t✓e�,sr i i r= + FIEe ° o 50r^5. Base Structure Item Label Description Area A MN Main Living Area 2146 B PS Patio slab 128 C FEP Frame enclosed porch 246 D WD Wood deck 126 E OP Porch, open 12 F OP Porch, open 12 G 1+ 1+, Upper Level 880 Not a Legal Document. Subject to tenns and conditions. wvw -a tDa[aScout. Page 2 Parcel: 765-14506-000 Washington County Report ID: 50567 Prev. Parcel: 147614-000-00 As of: 6/25/2018 Outbuildings and Yard Improvements Item Garage - frame unfinished, detach Patio cover, built-up Fence, chain link 4' Asphalt Driveway Asphalt Driveway Asphalt Driveway Asphalt Driveway Asphalt Driveway Asphalt Driveway Asphalt Driveway Details for Residential Card 2 Occupancy Story Single Family ONE Type Size/Dim 28x30 6x8 960 18x25 20x40 40x40 10x46 10x60 10x95 28x60 Construction Total Liv Frame Siding Std. 304 Unit Multi. Quality Age 2007 Grade Year Built Age Condition Beds 5 1960 55 Average Exterior Wall: STANDARD Plumbing: Full: 1 Foundation: Slab Fireplace: N/A Floor Struct: ElevSlab Heat / Cool: HotAir/F Floor Cover: Carpet & Tile Basement: N/A Insulation: N/A Basement Area: Roof Cover: Fiberglass Shingle Year Remodeled: Roof Type: Gable Style: DataScout, LLC �y ,. i FUA i MN 119u1 T3041 ]D 16 f]F` 4 Not a Legal Document. Subject to teens and conditions. www.actDalaSr,out.com Page 3 Parcel: 765-14506-000 Washington County Report ID: 50567 Prev. Parcel: 147614-000-00 As of: 6/25/2018 Base Structure Item Label Description Area A MN Main Living Area 304 B FUA Garage - frame 190 unfinished, att C OP Porch, open 12 Map '" •'.�3`� iii. . ku Not a Legal Document. Subject to teens and conditions. www,actDataScoui m Page 4 Arkansas Secretary of State Pale 1 of l Search InCorporiltions, Cooperatives, Banks and Insurance Companies P61MI r f ii_rra�Vjy Vgr31L0. LLC Member information is now confidential per Act 865 of 2007 Use your browser's back button to return to the Search Results 9 in New For service of process contact the ,$Qcrgtmy_C $ rr :5 orrice, Corporation Name HALSELL HOLDINGS, LLC Fictitious Names Filing # 811033374 Filing Type Limited Liability Company Filed under Act Domestic LLC; 1003 of 1993 Status Good Standing Principal Address Reg. Agent MONROE CAPITAL LLC Agent Address 300 N COLLEGE SUITE 305 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701 Date Filed 05/06/2013 Officers JOHN DAVIDSON, Manager JOHN H DAVIDSON , Incorporator/Organtzer Foreign Name N/A Foreign Address State of Origin NIA pumoa SLB- P CoF-1ih0te_of9po0 P ay Franchise T'ax for this cqrpnration Standlnpfor ttll@,€gly, https://www.sos.arkansas.gov/corps/search_corps.php?Dl "TAIL=403246&cor•p_type_id=... 4/18/2018 Arkansas Secretary of State 0001 Search Incorporations, Cooperatives, Banks and Insurance Companies t?rinlcrl;r:.yndly, Version, LLC Member information is now confidential per Act 865 of 2007 Use your browser's back button to return to the Search Results Beecin N,=%-, Se ii.ch For service of process contact the 3ecrr:tgfy�r f ��tis nfr Corporation Name STADIUM AND RAILROAD, LLC Fictitious Names Filing # 811033871 Filing Type Limited Liability Company Filed under Act Domestic LLC; 1003 of 1993 Status Good Standing Principal Address Reg. Agent MONROE CAPITAL LLC Agent Address 300 N COLLEGE SUITE 305 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701 Date Filed 05/1512013 Officers JOHN DAVIDSON, Manager JOHN H DAVIDSON , Incorporator/Organizer Foreign Name N/A Foreign Address State of Origin NIA Purcl,nsu a Certificate ol•G3aotl PaV r'allcllt5e Tax _for tI11s corVratlon Stw1dlns! for! Is A1i1+ Page 1 of 1 https://www.sos.at•kaj)sas.gov/corps/scarch_corps.php?DE'T'AIL=403719&corp_type_id=... 4/18/2018 Arkansas Secretary of State Search Incorporations, Cooperatives, Banks and Insurance Companies Primer f�ridnfllg Vc� s: ,n LLC Member information is now confidential per Act 865 of 2007 Use your browser's back button to return to the Search Results Begin IVew,Search For service of process contact the $ tar ai,¢js nfr Corporation Name MONROE CAPITAL, LLC Fictitious Names Filing # 811038147 Filing Type Limited Liability Company Filed under Act Domestic LLC; 1003 of 1993 Status Good Standing Principal Address P.O. BOX 394 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702 Reg. Agent MONROE ARENA LLC Agent Address 300 N COLLEGE SUITE 305 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701 Date Filed 08/12/2013 Officers RYAN FOWLER, Manager RYAN FOWLER , Incorporator/Organizer Foreign Name N/A Foreign Address State of Origin N/A Purchase a ce In rlcgte ofagog P3 Franchise Tax for t] # or n flan P ndfr-q for th�Entlty, Page 1 of l https://www.sos.arkansas.gov/corps/searcli_coi-ps.php?DETAIL=407744&corp_type id=... 4/18/2018 Arkansas Secretary of State Search Incorporations, Cooperatives. Banks ttnd Insurance Companies I„([er f nv!tgfy yt rsioil. LLC Member information is now confidential per Act 865 of 2007 Use your browser's back button to return to the Search Results gegin New Searrh For service of process contact the Sgpr_riAry_gff Srsrtr;s 7ffiria_ Corporation Name MONROE ARENA, LLC Fictitious Names Filing # 811069120 Filing Type Limited Liability Company Filed under Act Domestic LLC; 1003 of 1993 Status Good Standing Principal Address 2961 N POINT CIRCLE FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 Reg. Agent MONROE CAPITAL LLC Agent Address 300 N COLLEGE SUITE 305 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701 Date Filed 11/04/2015 Officers JOHN DAVIDSON, Manager STEVE FOWLER , Incorporator/Organizer Foreign Name N/A Foreign Address Stale of Origin NIA pyrchaseq CgLiffjea a of Good Pay_Fra 11chIso Tax for this corporation Stapoln9 [er this Enter Page 1 of 1 littps://www.sos. ai-kaiisas.gov/corps/seai-ch_corps.php?DETAIL=448434&corp_type_id=... 4/18/2018 Real Property Print Friendly Page l of 4 Prfnt Parcel: 765-14506-000 ID: 50567 Previous Parcel: 147614-000-00 As of: 6/25/2018 9:12:12 PM Washington County Report Property Owner Name: HALSELL HOLDINGS LLC Mailing Address: PO BOX 10073 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 Type: (RI) Res. Improv. Tax District: (011) FAYETTEVILLE SCH, FAY Millage Rate: 57.45 Extended Legal Property Information Physical Address: 1521 W HALSELL RD Subdivision: 17-16.30 FAYETTEVILLE OUTLOTS Block/Lot: N/A / N/A S -T -R: 17-16-30 Size (Acres): 60,450 Legal: See Extended Legal PT S/2 NW NE 1.52A FURTHER DESCRIBED FROM 2013-15594 AS: Part of the S 1/2 of the NWI/4 of the NEI/4 of Section 17 in Township 16 North of Range 30 West of the 5th P.M., Washington County, Arkansas and being more particularly described as beginning at a point 462 feet West of the NE corner of said 20 acre tract, thence South 330 feet, thence West 200 feet, thence North 330 feet, thence East 7.00 feet to the place of beginning. Market and Assessed Values Estimated Market Value Land 115,600 Building 186,650 Totals 302,250 Land Full Assessed Taxable (20% Market Value) Value 23,120 23,120 37,330 37,330 60,450 60,450 Taxes Estimated 3,473 Taxes: Note: Tax amounts are Homestead 0 estimates only. Contact the credit: county/parish tax collector for exact amounts. Land Use Size Units 1.000 House Lot 0.520 Acres Total 1.52 Deed Transfers Document Images brought to you by your County Circuit Clerk, Kyle Sylvester littps://www.actdatascoLit.coni/Rea]Property/Pai-celView 6/26/2018 Real Property Print Friendly Grade Age Year Built Condition Beds Multi. Family ONE+ Frame Siding Std. 3026 4 10 G7 1948 Page 2 of 4 View Date Book Page Deed Type : Stamps Est. Sale i Grantee Code Type Image Floor Cover: Softwood Basement: Unfin Insulation: Ceilings Basement Area: 1050 Roof Cover: Fiberglass Shingle - 5/8/2013 2013 15594 Warr, Deed 1072.50 $325,000 HALSELL HOLDINGS LLC Unval. Improved 10/8/2001 2001 147198 Quit Claim 0.00 $0 C Y N LLC 9/26/2001 2001 119125 Quit Claim 0.00 $0 MALSTROM, ERIC M & KATHLEEN K Improved 9/26/2001 2001 119123 ExecDeed 0.00 $.0 MALSTROM, ERIC M & KATHLEEN K Improved 7/31/2001 2001 92749 Warr. Deed 528.00 $160,000 CYN LLC Valid Improved 6/6/1990 1370 423 Warr. Deed 123.20 $56,000 MALSTROM, ERIC M & KATHLEEN K Improved 1/1/1985 1024 848 0.00 $0 ANDERSON, ROBBIN C & MARGARET B Improved Details for Residential Card 1 Occupancy Story Construction Total Liv Grade Age Year Built Condition Beds Multi. Family ONE+ Frame Siding Std. 3026 4 10 G7 1948 Average N/A Exterior Wall: ; FS Plumbing: Full: 3 Half: 1 Foundation: Closed Piers Fireplace: qty: 0 Floor Strutt: ; Wood with subfloor Heat/Choi: Central Floor Cover: Softwood Basement: Unfin Insulation: Ceilings Basement Area: 1050 Roof Cover: Fiberglass Shingle - Year Remodeled: 2002 i Rooftype: < Gable Style:, N/A Data -court,, LLC rrr•r � a r' 1 F£ P �. ' - Base Structure Item Label Description littps://www.actdatascout. com/Rea]Prol)ei-ty/Pai-ceiV iew Area 6/26/2018 Real Property Print Friendly Page 3 o174 Item LaVei Description Area A AAN Main Living Area 2146 B PS Patio slab 128 C FEP Frame enclosed porch 246 D vt'17 Wood deck 126 E OP Porch, open 12 F OP ; Porch, open 12 G 1+ 1+, Upper Level 880 Outbuildings and Yard Improvements Item Type size 1 Aim Unit Multi. Garage - frame unfinished, detach 28x30 Patio cover, built-up 6x8 Fence, chain link 4' 960 Asphalt Driveway 18x25 Asphalt Driveway 20x40 Asphalt Driveway 40x40 Asphalt Driveway 10x46 Asphalt Driveway 10V Asphalt Driveway 10x95 Asphalt Driveway 28x60 Quality Age 2007 Details for Residential Card 2 Occupancy Story Construction Total Liv Grade Are Year Built Condition Beds Single Family ONE Frame Siding Std. 304 5 ';-5 1960 Average N/A Exterior Wall: STANDARD Plumbing: Full: 1 Foundation: Slab Fireplace: Qty:0 Floor Strutt: ElevSlab Heat/Cool: HotAlr/F Floor Cover: Carpet & The Basement:: N/A Insulation: N/A Basement Area: N/A Roof Cover: Fiberglass Shingle Year Remodeled: N/A Roof type: Gable Style: N/A littps://www.actdatascout.com/RealPi-operty/ParcelView 6/26/2018 Real Property Print Friendly DataS.cout, LLC Base Structure Item Label : Description A MN Main living Area 3 FUA : Garage - frame unfinished, att C OP Porch, open Reappraisal Value History Tax Year Total Value Total Assessed 2017 302,250.00 60,450.00 2016 : 302,250.00 58,692.00 2015 302,250.00 53,801.00 Not a Legal Document Subject to terms and conditions www, ac tD ata Scout. co m Page 4 of 4 Area 304 190 12 littps://www.actdatascout.com/Realllroperty/ParcelView 6/26/2018 After recording please return to: Waco Title Company 6815 Isaac's Orchard Rd; Ste D Springdale, AR 72762 W,kR2RANTX DEED (LLC) >' ilc #: 1303219-954 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: Type: REAL ESTATE Kind: WARRANTY DEED Recorded: 5/10/2013 10:24:32 AM Fee Amt: $20.00 Page 1 of 2 Washington County, AR Kyle Sylvester Circuit Clerk File# 2013-00015594 J` That, C.X.N., LLC, an Arkansas limited liability company, hereinafter called GRANTOR(S), for and in V) consideration of the sum of ---ONE AND 00/100--- DOLLAR---($1.00)---and other good and valuable I consideration, in hand paid by Halsell Holdings, LLC, an Arkansas limited liability company, the receipt of <5 -which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto Halsell Holdings, LLC, an Arlalnsas limited liability company, hereinafter called GRANTEE(S), and unto its successors and assigns forever, Mthe following described lands' lying in Washington County, Arkansas to -wit: O Part of the S 1/2 of the NW1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 17 in Township 16 North of Range 30 West of the 5th P.M., Washington County, Arkansas and being more particularly descAbed as beginning at a point 462 feet vWest of the NE corner of said 20' acre tract, thence South 330 feet, thence West 200 feet, thence North 330 Q feet, thence East 200 feet to the place of beginning. Subject to easements, rights-of-way, and protective covenants of record, if any. Subject to all prior mineral reservations and oil and gas leases. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said Grantee(s) and unto its successors toad assigns forever, with all appurtenances thereunto belonging. And the Ghrantor(s) hereby covenants with said Grantee(s) that it will forever warrant and defend the title to the said lands against all claims whatsoever. AHKAhSAS AkKAN,SnS AMANSP3 ..'Rk{:ANSR.S (,�,�Ikl!i: 1TARY f DCWME1:[AAY D9CU fFwrAk IK 1L M15,&N +7 q. p\ 20 167.79 G i s75 1 616759 588821 Prepared under the supervision of Katy M. Sager, Attorney 1 164 East Joyce Blvd Fayetteville, Alt 72703 File Number: 2013.00015594 Page 1 of 2 WITNESS our hands and soils aS such GRANTOR(S), this day of � Fc�J 320 � 3 I certify under lie nnity of false sa•usrinr thnl documentary slaonfas or a documentary symbol in the lcgaiiy coo reet amount iaas beau C.Y.N., LLC; placed on this in9trulumt. GRAN'1EFtAGED _ ,�yy�3p L � 1 0j2—S— GRANTEE'S ADDRESS:� _#. B tt I►irl 1). Nielsen, 3-anager 1 Yt Y ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF, ) SS. COUNTY OF G ) On this day before i ie undersigned, a Notary Public, duly commissioned, qualified and acting, within and for the said County and State, appeared in person the within named Cynthia D. Nielsen to me personally known, who stated that she is the authorized Manager of C.Y.N., LLC, an Arkansas limited liability company, and is duly authorized in her capacity to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said company, and further stated and acknowledged that she had so signed, executed and delivered said instrument for the consideration, uses and purposes therein mentioned and set forth. M TESTIMONY WHERE,OF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this day of 20. Nkryt 4 Public My commission expire.. OFFlCfAl.. S;rFi<l. ail LYNN H. CLi=MONS V udASe "NINON CC1UN I.V, NOTARY PU%IC - AitfCf N6AS MY CL7MMIS51GN EXP. JUNE 22, PWIO Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 5110/2013 10:24:32 AM and recorded in REAL ESTATE File# 2013-00015594 Kyle Sylvester - Circuit Clerk C File Number: 2013-00015594 Page 2 of 2 161.07 - District RSF-4, Residential Single -Family - Four (4) Units Per Acre (A) Purpose. The RSF-4 Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the development of low density detached dwellings in suitable environments, as well as to protect existing development of these types. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted Uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 41 Accessory dwellings (2) Conditional Uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Limited business Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 5 Unit 44 Government facilities Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 12a Limited business Unit 24 i Home occupations Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities Unit 44 Cluster Housing Development (C) Density. Unitsp er acre Single-family dwellings ` �4 or less (D) Bulk and Area Regulations. .- ........... -.... ................ _ ..... ... ........ ._..._... - - Single-family dwellings Lot minimum width 70 feet Lot area minimum 8,000 square feet Land area per 8,000 square feet Cdwelling unit I Hillside Overlay 1 60 feet District Lot i minimum width j Hillside Overlay 8,000 square feet District Lot area minimum Land area per 1 8,000 square feet dwelling unit Two (2) family dwellings 7 or less Two (2) family dwellings 80 feet _ I - 12,000 square feet 6,000 square feet eet )00 square feet o,uJO square feet Front 15 feet (E) Setback Requirements. Side Rear 5 feet 15 feet (F) Building Height Regulations, I Building Height Maximum 3 stories (G) Building Area. On any lot the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total area of such lot. (Code 1991, §160.031; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4178, 8-31-99; Ord, No. 4858, 4-18-06; Ord, No. 5028, 6-19-07; Ord. No. 5128, 4-15-08; Ord. No. 5224, 3-3-09; Ord. No. 5312, 4-20-10; Ord. No. 5462, 12- 6-11; Ord. No. 5921 , §1, 11-1-16; Ord. No. 5945, §8,1-17-17; Ord. No. 6015, §1(Exh. A), 11-21-17) 164.22 - Cluster Housing Development (A) Purpose. The purpose of the cluster housing development ordinance is to encourage innovation and variety in housing while ensuring compatibility with established neighborhoods, and to provide housing opportunities for a population diverse in age, income and household size. (B) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to proposed cluster housing development proposals, as defined in Chapter 162, Use Units, and authorized by Chapter 161, Zoning Regulations of the Unified Development Code, however zoning and development regulations such as density, bulk and area, building area, street frontage requirements, lot splits and other standards for cluster housing development are enforced subject to the criteria adopted in this chapter. (C) Development Review Process. For the purpose of development review, cluster housing developments less than one (1) acre shall be processed as a site improvement plan. Cluster housing development on lots one (1) acre or larger shall be processed as a large scale development. If individual cluster housing unit lots are created the cluster housing development shall be processed through the subdivision platting process. (D) Dwellings Permitted. (1) Number of Cluster Housing Units Permitted. A cluster housing development shall contain a maximum of twelve (12) dwelling units. In multi -family zones where the proposed cluster housing development exceeds the minimum open space requirements of 164.22(G)(3)(a) by at least 20%, and In which at least 75% of the planned units are attached dwellings, there shall be no maximum number of dwelling units, except to conform to the density limitations herein. (2) Existing Nonconforming Structures. On a lot to be used for a cluster housing development, existing detached single-family residential structures, which may be nonconforming with respect to the standards of this section, shall be permitted to remain, but the extent of the nonconformity may not be increased. Such nonconforming dwelling units shall be included in the maximum permitted cluster density. (E) Zoning Regulations. The parent tract prior to development shall conform to the zoning criteria of the underlying zoning district. (1) Permitted and Conditional Use. Cluster housing development is permitted as identified in Chapter 161, Zoning Regulations, as a permitted or conditional use. (2) Density. Cluster housing development permitted as a use by right shall be allowed a density in conformance with the underlying zoning district. Zoning districts that allow cluster housing developments as a conditional use shall be allowed a density not to exceed two (2) times the maximum density allowed in the underlying zoning district. (3) Bulk and Area Regulations. (a) Lot Width Minimum. There is no lot width requirement for individual cluster housing lots. (b) Lot Area Minimum. The lot area minimum for cluster housing lots is 750 square feet. (c) Land Area per Dwelling Unit. The land area per dwelling unit requirement is 750 square feet. (4) Setback Requirements. All structures shall meet setback and separation requirements of the International Building Code, as applicable. For zoning purposes: (a) In single family districts, all cluster housing units shall have a minimum separation from one another of ten feet measured from exterior wall to exterior wall, not counting eaves or other architectural projections. (b) In multi -family districts, there are no separation requirements from one cluster housing structure to another. (c) The setbacks from the exterior property lines of the original parent tract shall be set by the underlying zoning district. (5) Budding Height Regulations. The height for all structures in a cluster housing development shall not exceed the p requirement of the underlying zoning district. (6) Budding Area. None. (7) Accessory Dwelling Units. Accessory dwelling units are not permitted in cluster housing developments. (F) Common Property Maintenance. Community buildings, parking areas and common open space shall be owned and maintained commonly by the cluster housing development residents, through a condominium association, a homeowners' association or a similar mechanism, and shall not be dedicated to the city unless accepted by the City Council. (G) Development Standards. All cluster housing developments are subject to the following standards: (1) Floor Area. The total conditioned floor area of any individual cluster housing unit shall not exceed 2,500 square feet. (2) Budding Orientation. A minimum of 75% of dwelling units in a cluster housing development shall be oriented around and face the common open space, a public trail or towards the street, having pedestrian access to the common open space and the street. Where a cluster housing unit fronts onto a public trail, the fa4ade facing the public trail shall be considered a principal fagade for the purposes of meeting design standards. (3) Open Space. (a) For units up to 1,500 square feet, a minimum of 250 square feet of common open space shall be provided per unit. For units exceeding 1,500 square feet and up to 2,000 square feet, 500 square feet of common open space shall be required per unit. For units exceeding 2,000 square feet, 750 square feet of common open space shall be required per unit. Common open space is subject to the following performance criteria: (i) No dimension of a common open space area used to satisfy the minimum square footage requirement shall be less than ten feet. (ii) Required common open space shall be divided into no more than two (2) separate areas per cluster of dwelling units. (iii) Common open space shall be improved for passive or active recreational use, garden/food production, social gathering spaces or landscaped areas. Examples may include but are not limited to courtyards, orchards, landscaped picnic areas, plazas or gardens. A detailed site plan of the common open space depicting the design and amenities of the space shall be reviewed with the site plan for approval. (iv) Amenities such as permanent or movable seating, landscaping, trails and paths, barbeque or eating facilities, covered shelters or water features shall be included within the common open space. Low Impact Development stormwater management facilities may be placed within the common open space when they are integrated with the amenities listed above. (b) Each cluster housing unit shall be provided with a private open space of 250 square feet with no dimension of less than ten feet. Private open space should be contiguous to each dwelling unit, for the exclusive use of each respective resident. In multi -family zones in which at least 75% of the planned units are attached dwellings, private open space shall not be required where the development exceeds the minimum open space requirements of (G)(3)(a) by at least 20% and it can be demonstrated that each unit has easily available access to open space amenities. (c) Parking areas and driveways shall not be counted as open space. (4) Fences. Fencing located between a cluster housing unit and a public street or trail or the common open space shall not exceed 48 inches in height. (5) Parking Requirements and Standards. Parking areas should be located within the cluster housing development in such a way as to maintain the character along the public street and to minimize the noise and light impacts on private residences and public spaces. Reductions in parking space allowances are permitted in cluster housing developments as described in Chapter 172, Parking and Loading. Permitted on -street parking spaces adjacent to a project's frontage may count towards the parking requirements of the development. Parking standards for cluster housing developments shall be as follows: (a) The owner/developer may choose to supply one (1) parking space per bedroom for his or her entire cluster housing development. Otherwise, the required number of parking spaces shall be determined according to the square footage of the cluster housing unit as described below: (i) Dwelling units less than 1,000 square feet shall have one and one-half (1.5) parking spaces provided. (ii) Dwelling units over 1,000 square feet shall have two (2) parking spaces provided. (b) Shared covered parking shall be designed to be similar and compatible to the design, materials and roof pitches used for the cluster housing units. (6) Cluster housing developments shall provide at least one (1) bicycle parking rack per cluster housing unit. (7) Fire Department Access. Fire Department access shall be determined at the time of development review. (8) Pedestrian Connectivity. All buildings and common spaces shall be served by a pedestrian circulation system that connects to an existing or planned sidewalk or trail system. (9) Utilities. Individual cluster housing lots shall have a unique connection to the main water and sewer lines. Main water and sewer lines on private property servicing cluster housing unit developments shall be located in a dedicated easement. (10) Community Bu ldings. Indoor or covered common areas less than 2,000 square feet are permitted by right in cluster housing development. These structures shall be architecturally integrated with the architectural style of the cluster housing development. (11) Recycling and Trash Collection Service. For the purposes of recycling and trash collection cluster housing developments are considered a residential use and should receive residential recycling and trash collection service (individual carts and recycling bins) where possible. In certain instances, it may be necessary to service cluster housing developments with commercial trash collection equipment (dumpsters). This may occur when a project is located in a predominately commercial area serviced by commercial trash pickup. It is incumbent on the developer to design recycling and trash collection facilities into the cluster housing development plan early in the process. The final determination of recycling and trash collection service and pick-up areas will be made at the time of development review by the city. Specific requirements for residential and commercial trash and recycling pick-up shall be as follows: (a) Residential trash and recycling collection service requires a designated location near the street curb for trash carts and recycling bins. This location shall be kept clear of obstructions on the designated pick-up day. If this location is also used for on -street parking it shall be clearly marked and a sign posted restricting use for the designated pick-up day. An appropriate linear distance is required to accommodate each cluster housing unit's trash cart and recycling bin, subject to city approval. (b) Commercial trash collection service requires a dumpster location that is freely accessible for front end loading and screened from public view. (c) Recycling and trash facilities shall be located behind the front building setback line and shall be screened from the right-of-way and adjacent property owners by either architectural treatments or vegetative screening. (H) Building Design Standards. (1) Variety in Detached Cluster Housing Units Floor Plans and Architectural Treatments. These standards are intended to avoid the overly repetitive use of the same building design, structural features, detailing or finishes among detached units within the cluster housing development. In cluster housing developments no two (2) structures shall be identical in terms of exterior finishes. All cluster housing units shall differ from each other by utilizing at least two (2) of the following options; (a) Variations in building material finishes such as clapboard, shake shingles, stone, brick, etc., and building color; (b) Variations in adjacent cluster housing unit floor plans that alter the location of exterior windows and doors; (c) Variations in the size of main floor area and/or building height of adjacent structures; or (d) A front porch with a minimum width no less than 50% of the front building fa4ade. Front porches shall have a minimum depth of six feet. No structurally identical front porches shall be located on adjacent cluster housing units. (e) Variations in roof shapes or gables between adjacent structures. (f) Other variations as approved by the Zoning and Development Administrator. (2) All attached cluster housing units shall comply with -§1 .66.23• Urban Residential Design Standards. Where a cluster housing unit fronts onto a public trail or open space, the fa4ade facing the public trail or open space shall be considered a principal fagade, for the purposes of meeting this section. (1) Variances From the Minimum Cluster Housing Development Requirements. Variances of this section, Cluster Housing Development, shall be administered as normal development regulations for variances of General Design Standards, except that (E) Zoning Regulations shall be administered as zoning regulations for variance purposes. (Ord. No. 5921 , §5(Exh. A), 11-1-16) Editor's note— Ord. No. 5921 , §5(Exh. A), adopted Nov. 1, 2016, repealed -§164.22 and added a new section as set out herein. The former §164.22 pertained to cottage housing development and derived from Ord. No. 5462, adopted Dec. 6, 2011. Graham Waterline Improvement Project Parcel No. 765-14506-000 WATER/SEWER EASEMENT BE IT KNOWN BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT Halsell Holdings, LLC, an Arkansas limited liability company, hereinafter called GRANTOR, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby GRANT. SELL and CONVEY unto the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called GRANTEE, and unto Grantee's successors and assigns, a permanent easement to construct, lay, remove, relay, inspect, enlarge and/or operate a water and/or sanitary sewer pipe line or lines, manholes, and appurtenances thereto, on, over, across, and under the following described land situated in the County of Washington, State of Arkansas, to -wit: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Doc Ref: 2013-15594 A part of the S1/2 of the NW1/4 of the NE1/4 of Section 17, Township 16 North of Range 30 West of the 511 P.M., Washington County, Arkansas and bring more particularly described as beginning at a point 462 feet West of the NE corner of said 20 acre tract, thence South 330 feet, thence West 200 feet, thence North 330 feet, thence East 200 feet to the place of beginning. Subject to easements, rights-of-way, and protective covenants record, if any. Subject to all prior mineral reservations and oil and gas leases. PERMANENT EASEMENT DESCRIPTION: A part of the S1/2 of the NW1/4 of the NE1/4 of Section 17, T -16-N, R -30-W described as commencing at a point which is N86°52'20"W 348.00 feet, N87°17'48"W 121.10 feet and S03023'36"W 20.00 feet from the NE corner of said 20 acre tract, said corner being a set cotton spindle, to the true Point of Beginning; thence S03°23'36"W 310.43 feet; thence N87°14'40"W 15.35 feet; thence NO3°00'47"E 41.20 feet N48"29'22"E 18.57 feet; thence NO2°42'20"E 256.24 feet; thence S87°17'48"E 5.54 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 1,780 square feet, more or less. Together with the rights, easements, and privileges in or to said lands which may be required for the full enjoyment of the rights herein granted. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns, so long as such pipe line or lines, manholes and/or appurtenances thereto shall be maintained, together with free ingress to and egress from the real estate first hereinabove described for the uses and purposes hereinabove set forth. The said Grantor is to fully use and enjoy the said premises except for the purposes hereinbefore granted to the said Grantee, which hereby agrees to bury all pipes, where feasible, to a sufficient depth so as not to interfere with cultivation of soil, and that manholes will be constructed flush with the surface of the ground except in bottom lands where they shall be at a height above high water. The Grantor agrees not to erect any buildings or structures in said permanent easement. The Grantee shall have the right to construct additional pipe lines upon the above described easement at any time in the future and agrees to pay any damages as a result of such future construction as set out in this easement. The consideration first above recited as being paid to Grantor by Grantee is in full satisfaction of every right hereby granted. All covenants and agreements herein contained shall extend to and be binding upon the respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. It is hereby understood and agreed that the party securing this document in behalf of the Grantee is without authority to make any covenant or agreement not herein expressed WATER/SEWER EASEMENT Page 2 of 2 WITNESS the execution hereof on this the day of 2017. By: ATTEST: Halsell Holdings, LLC, an Arkansas limited liability company [Please print or type Name and Title] [Please print or type Name and Title] [SEAL] ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON BE IT REMEMBERED, that on this date, before the undersigned, a duly commissioned and acting Notary Public within and for said County and State, personally appeared and , to me well known as the persons who executed the foregoing document, and who stated and acknowledged that they are the and , respectively, of Halsell Holdings, LLC, an Arkansas limited liability company, and are duly authorized in their respective capacities to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said corporation, and further stated and acknowledged that they had so signed, executed and delivered said instrument for the consideration, uses and purposes therein mentioned and set forth. WITNESS my hand and seal on this day of _ 2017. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Notary Public iU1 w J 3 � o a R/W RNV RM WW WW RM— S M S 03°23'36" W b' N 87°17'48" W HALSELL RD 20.00' N 121.10' S 87017'48" E-5 54' ff R W RM— RNV RNV Rr,V R1 V FtIVt RAN } P.O.B. 765-14506-000 Halsell Holdings, LLC Warranty Deed Inst. No. 2013-15594 N to N W O N N co N M O c7 N 48°29'22" E 18.57' a N 03000'47" E 41.20' N 87014'40" W 15.35' 1141 M O 10' 765-14492-000 Harold & Helen Mcklnney Revocable Trust Property Line N 86°52'20" W 348.00' P.O.C. Cotton Spindle Northeast Comer S1/2.NW1/4,NE114 Section 17 T -16-N, R -30-W 765-14499-000 John S. Latour EXHIBIT NOV. 20171 UTILITY EASEMENT FOR HALSELL HOLDINGS, LLC Proposed — 1,780 Utility Sq. Ft. Easement ® Exist. 10' Per Book Wide 520, Utility Easement— Pg. 439 N 86°52'20" W 348.00' P.O.C. Cotton Spindle Northeast Comer S1/2.NW1/4,NE114 Section 17 T -16-N, R -30-W 765-14499-000 John S. Latour EXHIBIT NOV. 20171 UTILITY EASEMENT FOR HALSELL HOLDINGS, LLC i 1 10400 VA'ellL N R SHEET PP5 wQ¢ wj mw. 7awo z i '"•wm >mia9 I; 030QOmwuS IE . z h��w4za � xwa�m i w�on0 o3i;iaLxi W o a&� } rfi W z �z0$ 3 amoLLR lI :. low I [ or ue ._ nw.Lr ewanun xi'p OO+O L VIS Ol OS+L VIS 133 AS N�dld f W a 133NIS 3ldVLN Ol 3AINI 133HIS NivimnOW 'M [1l NOISIAM ONIMNION3 k ' S1NgfigA08dMil gNildE IZ10H I r :a i 1 10400 VA'ellL N R SHEET PP5 wQ¢ wj mw. 7awo z i '"•wm >mia9 I; 030QOmwuS IE . z h��w4za � xwa�m i w�on0 o3i;iaLxi W o a&� } rfi W z �z0$ 3 amoLLR lI :. low I [ or ue ._ nw.Lr ewanun xi'p AS N�dld f W `' 133HIS NivimnOW 'M [1l NOISIAM ONIMNION3 to o IZ10H �� r :a SVSNVN2JV ' N o a a i lvm "G �; 3-11IA3113AVJ JO Allam 'o p _ ..... ... — ? �_........ i 1 10400 VA'ellL N R SHEET PP5 wQ¢ wj mw. 7awo z i '"•wm >mia9 I; 030QOmwuS IE . z h��w4za � xwa�m i w�on0 o3i;iaLxi W o a&� } rfi W z �z0$ 3 amoLLR lI :. low I [ or ue ._ nw.Lr ewanun xi'p f W H"���gx�gx3 qq - MArcHLINe • SHEET PP3 I 4] � I = o pc�rrl p t -I -- RI -Y, F41 + L 1,.. S 6._ + I !4'FlLI t 1� O C.` O O O O LL'fAYI p+ V t•1 N I � I n N I 1R51 1,.. S 6._ + I !4'FlLI t 1� O C.` O O O O LL'fAYI p+ V t•1 N v 09+U VIS Ol 00+06 VIS 133HS NVId 133211S 31d`dW Ol 3ARIa Z10H S1N3W3/1OHMI 3NIR131VM „Z6 133Mls NIVIN0oM •M C1l NOISIAI4 ONId33NION3 sdsNv>Iad ,*` 3�-IIn3113Adm n Z Lc) a o ' x n I• a $ ? N+ ri ..... .. �..}_ o: croi ane z n m a Ili 4x. w. � � :. 1.:yr.0 •-^I c I m � . I ._.. .w• rn,n —k a� 1 ';��s. - .._fit.._..._. .. � j.. p Er i i I +' Q iii �� .��� 1 R �� h7��n• i �a 7 �•i] • ' = Gai W rya l O 12.00 0 uN r n N+ ` s ` 1.-.d' U -F- w I�q .... W �� - 10 1a11trt - i_ I � I I i 3 I w I q S u f �H za I ► � ��� o x �a w� w I �ZG .. T.JI. W 0 f0 I ESQ xa� iu� I w mwNZ� M ayp��o Y I I o _ a'°ww3�� • ��F ur> ¢Orc ¢wv U¢,nZZ � � i l � a pN�jOZUU OwjVWvlw � TI F qu �poN ;OF aJU a Z Ml 'z aw� 7� l m�w' -•i ( zrca��Wwz ir�wa oro I I r?'ur Ie [cp yFL .zam33� �r Z10 NZ-�F I •9['0:'1 0 s�oZ www = z.=waa _zu_ ° L 10.00 usrr;rlaIN'r . I 1 SHEET PP6 "r. LAND SALE 1 GENERAL INFORMATION General/Specific Type: Residential Record #: 2325 Location: North side of W. Markham Road, west of Razorback Road Book/Page: 2007-586 City: Fayetteville County: Washington State: AR Pa rcel(s): 765-14507-000 S -T -R: 17-16-30 Lot/Block: NA Subdivision: NA Legal: PT SW NE NE 1.38 A. SALE INFORMATION Sale Date: January 02, 2007 Financing: Believed to be Market Terms Sale Price: $500,000 Conditions of Sale: Arm's -Length Adjusted Sale Price: $500,000 Exposure Time: Unknown Grantor: James Vawter, Successor Trustee Rights Conveyed: Fee Simple Grantee: MG Holdings, LLC Verification: Washington County Assessor's/Circuit Clerk's Office PROPERTY INFORMATION Gross Land Size: 1.379± Acres, or 60,060± SF Indicators Total Frontage: Markham Road Sale Price/Gross Acre: $362,637± Zoning: RSF-4, Residential Single -Family- 4 units Sale Price/Gross SF: $8.33± per a Topography: Gently to Moderately Sloping Adjusted Sale Price/Gross Acre: $362,637± Utilities: Typical City Adjusted Sale Price/Gross SF: $8.33± Highest &Best Use: Residential Development W _ �- Remarks: This represents the sale of approximately 1.38± acres located along the north side of W. Markham Road in Fayetteville. Reported consideration was $500,000 or $8.33/SF. The site is located on the University of Arkansas campus. LAND SALE 2 GENERAL INFORMATION General/Specific Type: Residential Record #: 2326 Location: NEC of Garvin Drive and W. Center Street Book/Page: 2017-25720 City: Fayetteville County: Washington State: AR Parcel(s): 765-02169-000 & 765-02168-000 S -T -R: 17-16-30 Lot/Block: Part of Lot 4 & Subdivision: Aces Acres Lot 5 Legal: Aces Acres Subdivision, -Lot 5 Block 1; Aces Acres Subdivision, Lot 4 excluding the N. 12 Ft) SALE INFORMATION W W Sale Date: August 21, 2017 Financing: Believed to be Market Terms Sale Price: $325,000 Conditions of Sale: Arm's -Length Adjusted Sale Price: $325,000 Exposure Time: Unknown Grantor: Halsell Holdings, LLC Rights Conveyed: Fee Simple Grantee: Matthew Wolfe and Heather Wolfe Verification: Washington County Assessor's/Circuit Clerk's Office .........................._.. -. _ ..__....._..._... PROPERTY INFORMATION Gross Land Size: 0.681± Acres, or 29,649± SF Indicators Total Frontage: Garvin & Center Sale Price/Gross Acre: $477,487± Zoning: RSF-4, Residential Single -Family- 4 units Sale Price/Gross SF: $10.96± per a Topography: Gently Sloping Adjusted Sale Price/Gross Acre: $477,487± Utilities: Typical City Adjusted Sale Price/Gross SF: $10.96± Highest & Best Use: Residential Development - _ - _ Remarks: This represents the sale of approximately 0.68± acre located at the northeast corner of Garvin Drive and Center Street in Fayetteville. Reported consideration was $325,000 or $10.96/SF. The site previously sold in January 2015 for $205,000. It appears that the site was improved with a single-family dwelling when the property sold in 2015. Based on information provided on the Multiple Listing Service, the dwelling was in poor condition. It is believed that the dwelling was razed prior to the 2017 sale. LAND SALE 3 GENERAL INFORMATION General/Specific Type: Residential Record #: 2327 Location: South side of Halsell Road, west of Razorback Road Book/Page: 2016-31737 City: Fayetteville County: Washington State: AR Pa rcel(s): 765-14466-000 S -T -R: 17-16-30 Lot/Block: NA Subdivision: NA Leal: PT NW NE 132 x 186 1/2 Further Described From 2016-31737 SALE INFORMATION Sale Date: October 20, 2016 Financing: Believed to be Market Terms Sale Price: $300,000 Conditions of Sale: Arm's -Length Adjusted Sale Price: $300,000 Exposure Time: 16± Days Grantor: Ahmed A. Kattan & Ann Kattan Family Rights Conveyed: Fee Simple Trust Grantee: Orton Properties 2 LLC Verification: Washington County Assessor's/Circuit Clerk's Office PROPERTY INFORMATION Gross Land Size: 0.630± Acres, or 27,443± SF Indicators Total Frontage: Halsell Road Sale Price/Gross Acre: $476,190± Zoning: RSF-4, Residential Single -Family- 4 units Sale Price/Gross SF: $10.93± per a Topography: Gently Sloping Adjusted Sale Price/Gross Acre: $476,190± Utilities: Typical City Adjusted Sale Price/Gross SF: $10.93± Highest & Best Use: Residential Use Remarks: This represents the sale of approximately 0.63± acre located along the south side of Halsell Road, west of Razorback Road in Fayetteville. Reported consideration was $300,000 or $10.93/SF. The site is improved with a 2610± SF single-family dwelling constructed in 1956±. As of the effective date of this report, the property was being marketed for lease at $2500 per month. The property was previously leased in 2017 for $2200 per month. The improvements are estimated to have contributed approximately $40,000 to the purchase price. LAND SALE 4 GENERAL INFORMATION General/Specific Type: Residential Record #: 2328 Location: South side of Halsell Road, west of Razorback Road Book/Page: 2016-17609 City: Fayetteville County: Washington State: AR Parcel(s): 765-14467-000 S -T -R: 17-16-30 Lot/Block: NA Subdivision: NA Le$ al• PT NW NE 132 x 200 . SALE INFORMATION Sale Date: June 20, 2016 Financing: Believed to be Market Terms Sale Price: $307,500 Conditions of Sale: Arm's -Length Adjusted Sale Price: $307,500 Exposure Time: 76± Days Grantor: Richard Darin & Jessica A. Phelan Rights Conveyed: Fee Simple Grantee: Kevin D. Sparks Verification: Washington County Assessor's/Circuit Clerk's Office w._-- - — - — _....._. ........_....T-------- ---- - -- - - PROPERTY INFORMATION Gross Land Size: 0.606± Acres, or 26,400± SF Indicators Total Frontage: Halsell Road Sale Price/Gross Acre: $507,375± Zoning: RSF-4, Residential Single -Family- 4 units Sale Price/Gross SF: $11.65± per a Topography: Gently Sloping Adjusted Sale Price/Gross Acre: $507,375± Utilities: Typical City Adjusted Sale Price/Gross SF: $11.65± Highest & Best Use: Residential Use Remarks: This represents the sale of approximately 0.31± acre located along the south side of Halsell Road, west of Razorback Road in Fayetteville. Reported consideration was $307,500 or $11.65/SF. The site is improved with a 2374± SF single-family dwelling constructed in 2003±. The improvements are estimated to have contributed approximately $100,000 to the purchase price. Stadium Dr N 0 T a= E 00. c OJ Ci �e V m c o d �y CI Z o � Q C C iLn N ._ t-pAy JOwl9d N � Ate,, W ^ V N = � Y V CL E tY `0 V PH . aAV SSOJO z a m❑ N 0 E Q Q 4 a N ca a- O 0 P2i �1 E'c�1r,z C n *- N oc 0 o J U :E ^ N M S3 aAV g31wS N 3 L > f- w w N 0 T a= E 00. c OJ Ci �e V U c o n �y CI Z o � ilii C C iLn N ._ t-pAy JOwl9d N � Ate,, W ^ V N = � Y V CL E tY `0 V PH . aAV SSOJO ia.(J fyV c C�A�l SOu+a41 J(I-A"uJOH N O 0 - Ci �e o`e LU LU o n �y CI Z r ilii C C iLn N ._ t-pAy JOwl9d N � g O C Y V tY PH . any 6UPS N N s 0Ay ),-•Ll, Ci �e o`e o n �y 3 0 Ni i N ._ t-pAy JOwl9d N � C Y Pa regiozeb N PH . z a 0 E h o 4 a O L N d C C N z aAV uewiJQH N J U I` O`J (U E U Q L > f- w w g c D ;z�d v) LLJ M0 O , OJ � U J(J u�nJnD 0 J �Q�att�t E 0 M r i Z any 6UPS N N s 0Ay ),-•Ll, �e o`e o n �y 3 0 Ni i ._ t-pAy JOwl9d N Y z a E 4 a U z aAV uewiJQH N E L w g = i v) LLJ M0 O , OJ � U J(J u�nJnD v z �Q�att�t E M r i any 6UPS N N s 0Ay ),-•Ll, JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS 124 ' WF -,ST SUNBRIDGE, SUITE. 5 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 • (479) 442-9127 • FAX (479) 5824807 SCALE: P=50' DATE REVISED CHECKED BY: I DRAWN BY. - DA TE. :DATE. Z: ILOTS120130591DWG CONCEPT PLAN FOR .JOHN DAVIDSON ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This Appraisal Report has been made with the following general assumptions: No responsibility is assumed for the legal description or for matters including legal or title consideration. 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. 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. 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. 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 general limiting conditions: 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. 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 any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. 5. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992. I (we) have not made a specific compliance survey and analysis of this property to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the various detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey of the property together with a detailed analysis of the requirements of the ADA could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect upon the value of the property. Since I (we) have no direct evidence relating to this issue, I (we) did not consider possible noncompliance with the requirements of ADA in estimating the value of the property. QUALIFICATIONS OF KATIE REED HAMPTON EDUCATION B.S.B.A. in Finance/Real Estate, Minor in Marketing -University of Arkansas, December 2006 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE°p May 2008 -May 2011 — Research Assistant for REED & ASSOCIATES, INC., Fayetteville, ArkansasM May 2011—Present — Appraiser Trainee for REED & ASSOCIATES, INC., Fayetteville, Arkansas Colliers International Branch Office — Commercial Real Estate/Development, 3739 N. Steele Blvd., Suite 322, Fayetteville, Arkansas — Sales Associate/Property Manager January 2007 -May 2011 — Commercial Coordinator for Streetsmart NWA, LLC, Fayetteville, Arkansas PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AND DESIGNATIONS Real Estate Salespersons License -Arkansas State Registered Appraiser — Arkansas — SR3642 Arkansas Chapter of the Appraisal Institute Member of the Northwest Arkansas Appraisal Section PROFESSIONAL COURSES COMPLETED Real Estate Principles — UA — 2005 Real Estate Investment & Appraisal — UA — 2006 Real Estate Finance — UA — 2006 Appraisal Institute — Chicago Chapter — Course OL -401 G — General Appraiser Sales Comparison Approach — December 2011 National Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) — 15 Hours — Russellville, AR Appraisal Institute — Chicago Chapter — Business Practice & Ethics - 2012 Appraisal Institute — Chicago Chapter — Basic Appraisal Principles - 2013 Appraisal Institute — Chicago Chapter — General Appraiser Site Valuation & Cost Approach — 2013 Appraisal Institute — Chicago Chapter — General Appraiser Report Writing — 2013 Appraisal Institute — Chicago Chapter — General Appraiser Income Capitalization Approach I — 2013 Appraisal Institute — Chicago Chapter — General Appraiser Income Capitalization Approach 11 — 2014 16 -Hour Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions — Arkansas Chapter of the Appraisal Institute; Little Rock, Arkansas Appraisal Institute — Chicago Chapter — General Appraiser Market Analysis & Highest & Best Use — 2015 Appraisal Institute — Chicago Chapter — Eminent Domain and Condemnation — 2016 National Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) — 7 Hour Update — 2016 Appraisal Institute — Green Country and Ozark Mountain Chapter — Advanced Income Capitalization Approach - 2017 CLIENTELE Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department O.R. Colan Associates Universal Field Services Cities of. Springdale, Fayetteville, Rogers, Lowell, Bentonville, Prairie Grove, Siloam Springs Carroll Electric Cooperative Corporation Various Water Authorities, Attorneys, Corporations, and Individuals Financial Institutions — Arvest Bank, Legacy National Bank, First Security Bank, Centennial Bank, Bear State Bank, United Bank, First Western Bank, IberiaBank, Bancorp South, Signature Bank, Cornerstone Bank, and others. RELEVANT COLLEGE COURSES Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, Principles of Marketing, Business Statistics, Real Estate Principles, Real Estate Investment & Appraisal, Real Estate Finance, International Finance, Financial Markets & Institutions, Financial Analysis & Valuation, Business Strategy & Planning, International Marketing, Market Research QUALIFICATIONS OF SHANNON REED MUELLER EDUCATION B.S.B.A. in Finance/Real Estate -University of Arkansas, 5-94 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE May 2006 -Present — Certified General Appraiser for REED & ASSOCIATES, INC., Fayetteville, Arkansas May 2005—May 2006 — State Licensed Appraiser for REED & ASSOCIATES, INC., Fayetteville, Arkansas April 2003 -May 2005 — Appraiser Trainee for REED & ASSOCIATES, INC., Fayetteville, Arkansas 1994 -April 2003 -Commercial Credit Analyst and Appraisal Review for First National Bank of Springdale, Springdale, Arkansas & First Tennessee Bank `PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AND DESIGNATIONS Ozark Chapter of the Appraisal Institute Member of the Northwest Arkansas Appraisal Section State Certified General Appraiser — Arkansas — CG2302 Candidate for Designation, Appraisal Institute Arkansas Appraisal Licensing Board -2014 -Present, Chairman 2017, 2018 Springdale Planning Commissioner PROFESSIONAL COURSES COMPLETED Real Estate Principles — UA — 1993 Real Estate Investment & Appraisal — UA — 1994 Real Estate Finance — UA — 1993 4RELEVANT COLLEGE COURSES Accounting Principles I & Ii, Business Law, Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, Financial Theory & Practice, Information Systems Mgt., Organizational Behavioral Theory, Strategic Management, Principles of Marketing, Business Statistics, Principles of Real Estate, Real Estate Investment, Real Estate Finance, Commercial Banking, Principles Of Banking & Finance ;CI'�IEvTELE Arkansas Department of Tourism Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department Arkansas Game and Fish Commission O.R. Colan Associates Universal Field Services Cities of. Springdale, Fayetteville, Rogers, Lowell, Bentonville, Prairie Grove, Siloam Springs Southwestern Electric Power Company Carroll Electric Cooperative Corporation Tyson Foods, Inc. Various Water Authorities, Attorneys, Corporations, and Individuals Financial Institutions — Arvest Bank, Legacy National Bank, First Security Bank, Centennial Bank, Bear State Bank, United Bank, First Western Bank, IberiaBank, Bancorp South, Signature Bank, Cornerstone Bank, and others. PROFESSIONAL COURSES & SEMINARS COMPLETED Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, (USPAP) — Russellville, AR -2003 Fundamentals of Real Property Appraisal — Russellville, AR -2004 Land/Site Valuation & Sales Comparison Approach — Russellville, AR -2004 Evaluating Residential Construction — Ozark Chapter of The Appraisal Institute, Bentonville, AR -2005 General Report Writing—Appraisal Institute, Chicago, IL -2005 National Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, (USPAP Update) -Chicago, 1L-2005 Eminent Domain and Condemnation — Appraisal Institute Seminar -2005 Basic Income Capitalization — Ozark Mountain Chapter of The Appraisal Institute, Rogers, AR -2006 Business Practices and Ethics — Ozark Mountain Chapter of The Appraisal Institute, Joplin, MO -2007 National Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, (USPAP Update) -Joplin, MO -2007 General Market Analysis and Highest and Best Use — Green Country Chapter of The Appraisal Institute, Tulsa, OK -2008 National Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, (USPAP Update) -Fayetteville, AR -2010 Appraising Distressed Commercial Real Estate — Ozark Mountain Chapter of The Appraisal Institute -Rogers, AR -2010 Forecasting Revenue — Ozark Mountain Chapter of The Appraisal Institute -Rogers, AR -2010 Analyzing Rural Residential Outbuildings- Northwest Arkansas Appraisal Section -Fayetteville, AR -2010 Business Practices and Ethics — Ozark Mountain Chapter of The Appraisal Institute, Cassville, MO -2011 National Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, (USPAP Update) -Rogers, AR -2012 Advance Income Capitalization -Little Rock, AR -2012 National Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, (USPAP Update) -Fayetteville, AR -2014 Advanced Applications & Case Studies -Tulsa, OK -2014 Business Practice & Ethics -Bentonville, AR -2014 16 -Hour Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions — Arkansas Chapter of the Appraisal Institute; Little Rock, Arkansas National Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, (USPAP Update) -Fayetteville, AR -2016 National Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. (USPAP Update) -Fayetteville. AR -2018 REFERENCES Patsy Christie, Director of Planning and Community Development; Springdale, Arkansas 479-750-8550 Brian Bahr, Economic Development Manager, City of Bentonville; Bentonville, Arkansas 479-271-5997 Charles Harwell, Attorney, Cypert, Crouch, Clark & Harwell; Springdale, Arkansas 479-756-5222 Lance Jobe, City Engineer, City of Rogers 479-621-1116 Rick Pulvirenti, P.E., Director of Engineering, Springdale Water Utilities 479-927-4183 Chris Brown, City Engineer, City of Fayetteville; Fayetteville, Arkansas 479-575-8207