Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout114-23 RESOLUTION113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Resolution: 114-23 File Number: 2023-716 KENT B. DETMER CONDEMNATION: A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SEEK CONDEMNATION AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN LANDS OWNED BY KENT B. DETMER NEEDED FOR THE WEST WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville and Kent B. Detmer have been unable to agree upon a fair price for approximately 1.48 acres of permanent easement and the removal of a pole barn and four trees needed to complete the West Water Transmission Main Project; and WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville needs to gain possession of this needed property promptly to begin work on this public improvement and to not delay construction of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of 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 West Water Transmission Main Project and owned by Kent B. Detmer, that is needed as permanent easements for the Project, and to pay into the registry of the Circuit Court just compensation in the amount of $97,750.00. PASSED and APPROVED on May 16, 2023 Page 1 Attest: �eJA�A U' � C �'� •'9`'rG F •�' Kara Paxton, City Clerk reasurer sir r ..4 Pr • �+• CITY OF W41iFAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS MEETING OF MAY 16, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MEMO 2023-716 TO: Mayor Jordan and City Council THRU: Susan Norton, Chief of Staff FROM: Tim Nyander, Utilities Director DATE: SUBJECT: Kent B. Detmer Condemnation of Easement for West Water Transmission Main Project RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approval of a Resolution authorizing the City Attorney to seek condemnation and an order of possession of certain land owned by Kent B. Detmer necessary for the West Transmission Water Main project. BACKGROUND: The City's wholesale water supplier, Beaver Water District, intends to build a western water distribution point near HWY-112 and the newly constructed Springdale Northern Bypass, HWY-612. This facility will supply a western water transmission feed to all four customer cities, helping with hydraulics, critical redundancy, and overall utility resiliency. Fayetteville's 11-mile connection to the proposed BWD facility has been identified in water master plans for many years. The project is currently being designed, with construction planned to begin in late 2024. For this 48-inch diameter waterline, a 50-foot width easement is necessary along the entire route to construct and maintain the line throughout its lifetime. The route chosen is specifically designed to be as unobtrusive as possible to impacted properties, staying close to property lines whenever possible. DISCUSSION: The necessary easement consists of approximately 1.48-acres of easement area. Since 2019, staff has sent many letters, spoken with realtors, and appraised the property over the course of several years without any meaningful negotiations with the ownership. For this reason, Staff recommends that the City Attorney file for order of possession of this easement, paying the value of the property as documented in the appraisal, recently updated. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: The payment for land acquisition will be made from the W/S Improvements Defined by Study account within the Water & Sewer fund. The agenda item staff review form indicates $97,750.00 as the cost of this request. It should be noted that this is an estimate, based on the appraised value of the property, and that 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 for the property. ATTACHMENTS: SRF Detmer Condemnation for West Water Transmission Line Easement, Appraisals, Offer Letters, Easement Documents, Case History, Condemnation Brochure 2022 (revised 10-25-22) Mailing address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 Mailing address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 - Legislation Text File #: 2023-716 Kent B. Detmer Condemnation of Easement for West Water Transmission Main Project A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SEEK CONDEMNATION AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN LANDS OWNED BY KENT B. DETMER NEEDED FOR THE WEST WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville and Kent B. Detmer have been unable to agree upon a fair price for approximately 1.48 acres of permanent easement and the removal of a pole barn and four trees needed to complete the West Water Transmission Main Project; and WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville needs to gain possession of this needed property promptly to begin work on this public improvement and to not delay construction of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of 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 West Water Transmission Main Project and owned by Kent B. Detmer, that is needed as permanent easements for the Project, and to pay into the registry of the Circuit Court just compensation in the amount of $97,750.00. Page 1 Tim Nyander Submitted By City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2023-716 Item ID 5/16/2023 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item 4/27/2023 WATER SEWER (720) Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: Staff recommends City Council approval of a Resolution authorizing the City Attorney to seek condemnation and an order of possession of certain land owned by Kent B. Detmer necessary for the West Water Transmission Main project. 5400.720.5600-5810.00 Account Number 10007.1 Project Number Budgeted Item? Yes Does item have a direct cost? Yes Is a Budget Adjustment attached? No Purchase Order Number: Change Order Number: Original Contract Number: Comments: Budget Impact: Water and Sewer Fund W/S Improvements Defined by Study Total Amended Budget Expenses (Actual+Encum) Available Budget Item Cost Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget Project Title $ 1,333,022.00 $ 110,605.87 1,222,416.13 $ 97,750.00 1,124,666.13 Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Approval Date: V20221130 APPRAISAL REPORT THE KENT BIRD DETMER PROPERTY; 11.85± ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ELM SPRINGS ROAD AND GRIGG LANE, ELM SPRINGS, ARKANSAS; WASHINGTON COUNTY WEST TRANSMISSION MAIN ROUTE PROJECT TRACT: 64 MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 REED & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3739 N. STEELE BLVD., SUITE 322 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 FILE NO. 5590-64 AS OF JANUARY 23, 2023 Real Estate Appraisers — Consultants 3739 N. Steele Blvd., Suite 322, Fayetteville, AR 72703 * 479-521-6313 * Fax: 479-521-6315 * www.reedappraisal.biz Tom Reed, MAI • Katie Hampton • Shannon Mueller January 30, 2023 Nick Batker McClelland Consulting Engineers 1580 E. Stearns Street Fayetteville, AR 72703 RE: The Kent Bird Detmer Property; 11.85± acres located at the northeast corner of Elm Springs Road and Grigg Lane, Elm Springs, AR; Washington County Dear Mr. Batker: In compliance with your request and for the purpose of estimating the market value of the above captioned property, I hereby certify that we have examined the subject property and made a survey of the matters pertinent to the estimation of its value. I further certify that I have no interest, present or contemplated, in the property appraised, and that my fee was not contingent upon the value estimate reported. The following real property appraisal report contains data gathered in my investigation, information from my 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/affected improvements) prior to the City of Fayetteville acquiring 1.48± acres in permanent easement (PE) as of January 23, 2023, and, the market value of the Remainder Property (land only) after the acquisition of 1.48± acres in PE is in place, also as of January 23, 2023. 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 my opinion the market value of the subject property, as of January 23, 2023, was as follows: Whole Property (Land/Affected Improvements) _ $582,800 Remainder Property (Land Only) _ $485,050 Damage To Market Value = $ 97,750 The preceding values reflect terms equivalent to cash to the owners and represent those for real property only. The following Extraordinary Assumptions are utilized in this report: 1. Subject land sizes, Whole Property and Remainder Property, are approximately as indicated; 2. The area of acquisition is approximately as indicated; 3. The City of Fayetteville, at their expense, will put the land area and fencing located within the permanent easement acquisition area back to as near original condition as possible; If any, or all, 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 Assumption and Limiting Conditions presented in the Addenda Section of this report. A Hypothetical Condition of this appraisal is that the West Transmission Main Route Project is complete and in place as of the effective date of this report in estimating the market value of the Remainder Property. In reality, the project was not complete and in place as of January 23, 2023. If this Hypothetical Condition is not considered, the estimated market value of the Remainder Property could be influenced. USPAP states the following under Sections 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, 'srAx OMFIED T� Katie Reed Hampton, CG3642 oases REED & ASSOCIATES, INC. ��"'�%.,',�f-.; i '�� TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page - - - - - - - - - - 1 Letter Of Transmittal - - - - - - - - - 2-3 Table Of Contents - - - - - - - - - 4 Certificate - - - - - - - - - - 5-6 Summary Of Salient Facts And Conclusions - - - - - 7 Scope Of Work - - - - - - - - - 8 General Data - - - - - - - - - - 8-9 Summary Of The Appraisal Problem - - - - - - - 10-11 Neighborhood - - - - - - - - - - 11 Zoning - - - - - - - - - - - 11 Legal Description - - - - - - - - - 12 Narrative Description - - - - - - - - - 13-15 Highest And Best Use- - - - - - - - - 15-19 Appraisal Process - - - - - - - - - 20-21 Sales Comparison Approach — Land Whole & Remainder Property - - - 22-26 Reconciliation Of Approaches - - - - - - - 27 Exposure Time - - - - - - - - - 28 ADDENDA Definitions Area Map Area Data Aerial Photograph Subject Photographs Flood Zone Map Assessment Records Deed Records Permanent Easement Legal Description/Exhibit Comparable Land Sales Map Comparable Land Sales Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Qualifications of the Appraiser 4 W I 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 appraiser. • The appraiser has 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 appraiser 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. • I, Katie Hampton, have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. • A representative of the property owner was given the opportunity to accompany the appraiser on a previous inspection of the property. The property owner did not accompany the appraiser on the most recent inspection. • No one provided significant professional assistance to the appraisers. • I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. • 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 Candidates of the Appraisal Institute. • I have performed services, as an appraiser, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. The effective date of the previous report was February 14, 2022. Based upon analysis of relevant data and contingent upon the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions which follow and appear in the Addenda Section of this report, it is my opinion the market value of the fee simple interest in the subject property, as of January 23, 2023, was: Whole Property (Land/Affected Improvements) _ $582,800 Remainder Property (Land Only) _ $485,050 Damage To Market Value = $ 97,750 The preceding values reflect terms equivalent to cash to the owner and represent those for real property only. The following Extraordinary Assumptions are utilized in this report: 1. Subject land sizes, Whole Property and Remainder Property, are approximately as indicated; 2. The area of acquisition is approximately as indicated; 3. The City of Fayetteville, at their expense, will put the land area and fencing located within the permanent easement acquisition area back to as near original condition as possible. If any, or all, 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 Assumption and Limiting Conditions presented in the Addenda Section of this report. A Hypothetical Condition of this appraisal is that the West Transmission Main Route Project is complete and in place as of the effective date of this report in estimating the market value of the Remainder Property. In reality, the project was not complete and in place as of January 23, 2023. If this Hypothetical Condition is not considered, the estimated market value of the Remainder Property could be influenced. USPAP states the following under Sections 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, „M-11,,,, "A ems'"�: yp' s�n��E Katie Reed Hampton, CG3642 OM �p' REED & ASSOCIATES, INC. SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS Location: 618 Elm Springs Road Client: McClelland Consulting Engineers Fee Owner: Kent Bird Detmer Mailing Address: 1713 W. Huntsville Avenue, Springdale, AR 72762 Area Of The Whole: 11.85f ACS Permanent Easement 1.48f ACS Area Of Remainder: 11.85f ACS Temporary Construction Easement NA Area Of Acquisition: NA HIGHEST AND BEST USE: Whole Property Interim Residential/Agricultural until demand dictates development of the site Remainder Property Interim Residential/Agricultural until demand dictates development of the site ACQUISITION COMPENSATION: Before Land: 11.85± ACS $ 568,800 Improvements: Pole Shed/Barn & 4 Trees $ 14,000 Total: $ 582,800 After Land: 11.85� ACS $ 485,050 Improvements: Not Appraised $ Total $ 485,050 Total Compensation as of: January 23, 2023 $ 97,750 ALLOCATION OF COMPENSATION Land: N/A $ 0 Permanent Easement: 1.48f ACS $ 60,250 Temporary Construction Easement: N/A $ 0 Improvements: Pole Shed/Barn & 4 Trees $ 14,000 Damages: Land $ 23,500 Cost to Cure Items: Not Applicable $ 0 Total Compensation: $ 97,750 { Ts. " f+- STAGE b CBMIM Katie Reed Hampton, CG3642 REED & ASSOCIATES, INC. • HA1AT �,.•``• Date of Report: January 30, 2023 rN SCOPE OF WORK The "Valuation Process" was utilized in estimating the market value of the subject property. This report is submitted under the Appraisal Report Option. The subject property was inspected by Katie Hampton on January 23, 2023. Photographs of the subject property were taken on the January 30th inspection by Katie Hampton. Pertinent locational and physical data were obtained on the property inspection. The whole property legal description was obtained from deed records. The land size is based on Assessment Records. The acquisition land size was based on the permanent easement exhibit provided by the client (a copy of which appears in the Addenda Section of this report). The history and property tax data were obtained through Assessment Records. The highest and best use of the property was projected based upon zoning, location, physical characteristics, past, current, and potential usage, etc. Each of three accepted valuation methods has been addressed in this report. In arriving at the market value of subject Whole Property Land Only and Remainder Property Land Only, the Sales Comparison Approach was utilized. Subject is improved with residential/agricultural improvements; however, the improvements are not considered to be adversely affected by the acquisition, with the exception of a barn and four trees. The Cost Approach is only utilized to estimate the contributory value of the barn and trees. Considering land rentals aren't typically the basis on which properties of the subject nature are being purchased/sold in the market area, the Income Capitalization Approach is not utilized. Application of the Income Capitalization Approach is not considered necessary to produce credible appraisal results. In the Sales Comparison Approach, comparable land sales were presented and analyzed for comparison purposes to the subject site. The unit of comparison is price per acre of land area. The sales were compared to the subject site, and adjustments made for differences. The per acre value of subject was estimated from within the adjusted range of the comparables, and was multiplied by the subject size to arrive at the indicated market value of the subject property by the Sales Comparison Approach. The value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach was relied upon in determining the final value conclusion for subject. The estimated Total Compensation (Damage To Market Value) as a result of the acquisition was determined by subtracting the market value of the Remainder Property from the market value of the Whole Property. 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."' ]Interagency Land Acquisition Conference, Uniform Appraisal Standards For Federal Land Acquisitions (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2016) P. 11. PURPOSE OF APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the Market Value of the 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 as a basis for determining total damage to the market value of the subject property as a result of the acquisition of 1.48± acres in PE. INTENDED USERS OF APPRAISAL REPORT The intended users of this Appraisal Report are the McClelland Consulting Engineers, City of Fayetteville, and Mr. Kent Detmer. PREMISE AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This appraisal is predicated on the premise that: 1. The acquisition exhibits and/or tract descriptions furnished the appraisers by the client are correct. 2. Information, data, 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 Addendum Section of this report. Also, please see the Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Condition. SUMMARY OF APPRAISAL PROBLEM The appraisal problem in this valuation assignment is to: estimate the market value of the Whole Property (land/affected improvements) prior to the acquisition of 1.48± acre in PE by the City of Fayetteville, and, to estimate the market value of the Remainder Property (land only) after the acquisition of 1.48± acre in PE. The effective date of value in both scenarios is January 23, 2023. This represents the date of the site inspection. The permanent easement exhibit is located in the Addenda Section of this report. The reason for the easement is 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 a portion of the subject property. This is in connection with the West Transmission Main Route project. The PE acquisition is located in the east part of the site. The PE acquisition encompasses land area, fencing, barn, and four trees. Please see the exhibits located in the Addenda. Comparable sales are presented in the Addenda Section of this report. The following Extraordinary Assumptions are utilized in this report: 1. Subject land sizes, Whole Property and Remainder Property, are approximately as indicated; 2. The area of acquisition is approximately as indicated; 3. The City of Fayetteville, at their expense, will put the land area and fencing located within the permanent easement acquisition area back to as near original condition as possible. If any, or all, 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 Assumption and Limiting Conditions presented in the Addenda Section of this report. A Hypothetical Condition of this appraisal is that the West Transmission Main Route Project is complete and in place as of the effective date of this report in estimating the market value of the Remainder Property. In reality, the project was not complete and in place as of January 23, 2023. If this Hypothetical Condition is not considered, the estimated market value of the Remainder Property could be influenced. USPAP states the following under Sections 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 10 the Remainder Property based on 49 CFR Part 24. Considering USPAP Standards Rule 1-4 (f), this is also considered a Jurisdictional Exception. NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS The neighborhood is located in southern Benton County and northern Washington County. This location is primarily in parts of Springdale, Elm Springs, Cave Springs, and Lowell. The area appears to lie near State Highway 112 on the west, State Highway 264 on the north, I-49 on the east, and Elm Springs Road on the south. The project area consists of primarily residential uses; however, there are some commercial and special-purpose uses scattered throughout the neighborhood. Utilities available in the neighborhood include electricity, telephone service, natural gas, cable T.V., public water and sewer. The area appears to be in the growth stage of its life cycle. The overall outlook for the Market Area is considered to be positive. ZONING REGULATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS The subject site is located within the city limits of Elm Springs. Based on the City of Elm Springs Zoning Map, the subject property is zoned RSF-1, Residential Single -Family 1 Unit Per Acre. The purpose of the RSF-1 District is "a district having single-family detached residences on lots with a minimum size of one unit per acre. The district is designed to permit and encourage the development of very low density detached dwellings in suitable environments, as well as to protect existing development of these types." Permitted uses within the RSF-1 District include city-wide uses and single-family dwellings. The setback requirements in the RSF-1 District are: 50' front, 25' rear, and 10' side. 11 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The legal description for subject Whole Property is below. The fractional NW 1/4 of the fractional NW '/ of Section 30 in Township 18 Borth of Rangc 30 West, and a park of the NE'/ of the NE 14 of Section 25 in Township 18 Forth of Range 31 West, described as beginning at the Nufthuast corner of said fractional NW 'A of the fractional NW 'J. of said Section 30, and running thence South along the East quarter section line to the center of the Elm Springs — Springdale Road; thence West with thin center of said Road 753 feet; thence North 87' 07' West with the center of said Road 210.2 feet; thence North to and continuing along the East line of a lane or road running from the Elm Springs —Springdale Road North to the Howard Grigg Lands, a distance of 698.5 feet; more or less, to a point due Wost of the Southwest corner of Lot 1 in Black 1, Peter Gharst Addition to tho Town of Elm Springs, Arkansas; thence East to and continuing along the South line of Lots 1, 2 and 3 in Block 1 of said Addition to the center of the abandoned right-of-way of the Kansas City & Memphis Railway Company; thence Northeasterly with the center of said right-of-way to a point which is 12 feet due South of the North line of said fractional quarter section; thence in a direct line Easterly to a point where the East line of said right-of-way intersects the North line of said fractional quarter section; thence East to the point of beginning, subject to an easement along the Southerly park thereof for the: Elm Springs Springdale Road The legal description of the PE acquisition area is located in the Addenda of this report. `A NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION Whole Property Subject property is located along the north side of Elm Springs Road, the west side of King Arthur Drive, and the east side of Grigg Lane, in Elm Springs, Arkansas; Washington County. The physical address of the subject property is 618 Elm Springs Road. The subject is a residentially developed, irregular shaped, 11.85± acre tract positioned along the north side of Elm Springs Road. The site has an estimated 530'± of frontage along the north side of Elm Springs Road, approximately 710'± along the east side of Grigg Lane, and approximately 515'± along the west side of King Arthur Drive. The topography of the subject site is gently rolling. The site, overall, is near to slightly above grade to Elm Springs Road and King Arthur Drive. Elm Springs Road is two-lane, asphalt paved. King Arthur Drive is a paved public street providing access through a residential subdivision. Grigg Lane frontage is near grade to slightly below grade. Grigg Lane is a gravel road. The site is mainly cleared with a few scattered trees. The site is not indicated to be located within Flood Zone area. Please see the Flood Zone Map presented in the Addenda of this report. Overall soil conditions are assumed to be adequate. One pond is located on the subject site. Approximately 25% of the site (north part of site) is considered very irregular in shape with somewhat limited utility. Access is developed to the subject from Elm Springs Road, along the south boundary of the site. Utilities and services available include telephone, electricity, public water, gas, cable T.V., and trash pickup, as well as police and fire protection. Based on Assessment Records, the site is improved with a one -level, Class "D" 1,696± SF single- family dwelling constructed in 1985. There is also a 576± SF attached garage. The exterior of the dwelling is brick veneer. The foundation is closed piers; roof cover is fiberglass shingles; and, floor structure is wood with subfloor. An interior inspection of the dwelling was not made; however, the exterior of the dwelling appeared to be in average condition. The dwelling is considered to have remaining life. Additional improvements include gravel driveway, landscaping, pipe fencing, agricultural fencing, 1,152± SF pole shed/barn, 1,296± SF barn, outbuilding, 1,271± SF pole shed, well house, etc. Acquisition The permanent easement is indicated to contain 1.48± acres. The easement is located along the east boundary of the site and runs from the south boundary to the north boundary of the site. The easement is 50' in width. The acquisition encompasses land area, fencing, a 1,152± SF pole shed/barn, and four trees. An extraordinary assumption of this report is that the City of Fayetteville, at their expense, will put the land and fencing located within the permanent easement acquisition back to as near original condition as possible. 13 Remainder Property Subject property is located along the north side of Elm Springs Road, the west side of King Arthur Drive, and the east side of Grigg Lane, in Elm Springs, Arkansas; Washington County. The physical address of the subject property is 618 Elm Springs Road. The subject is a residentially developed, irregular shaped, 11.85± acre tract positioned along the north side of Elm Springs Road. The site has an estimated 530'± of frontage along the north side of Elm Springs Road, approximately 710'f along the east side of Grigg Lane, and approximately 515'± along the west side of King Arthur Drive. The topography of the subject site is gently rolling. The site, overall, is near to slightly above grade to Elm Springs Road and King Arthur Drive. Elm Springs Road is two-lane, asphalt paved. King Arthur Drive is a paved public street providing access through a residential subdivision. Grigg Lane frontage is near grade to slightly below grade. Grigg Lane is a gravel road. The site is mainly cleared with a few scattered trees. The site is not indicated to be located within Flood Zone area. Please see the Flood Zone Map presented in the Addenda of this report. Overall soil conditions are assumed to be adequate. One pond is located on the subject site. Approximately 25% of the site (north part of site) is considered very irregular in shape with somewhat limited utility. Access is developed to the subject from Elm Springs Road, along the south boundary of the site. Utilities and services available include telephone, electricity, public water, gas, cable T.V., and trash pickup, as well as police and fire protection. A 1.48± acre PE is located along the east boundary of the site. The PE is 50'± in width and is estimated to comprise approximately 12% of the overall site. The side setback in the RSF-1 district is 10'. Forty feet of the easement is located outside setback requirement. Again, approximately 25% of the site (north part) is very irregular in shape. The north boundary of the site is 112'f wide. The shape of the north part of the site does create limited utility in this area; however, the location of the easement in the north part of the site, in my opinion, does create additional limited utility in this area. Based on Assessment Records, the site is improved with a one -level, Class "D" 1,696± SF single- family dwelling constructed in 1985. There is also a 576± SF attached garage. The exterior of the dwelling is brick veneer. The foundation is closed piers; roof cover is fiberglass shingles; and, floor structure is wood with subfloor. An interior inspection of the dwelling was not made; however, the exterior of the dwelling appeared to be in average condition. The dwelling is considered to have remaining life. Additional improvements include gravel driveway, landscaping, pipe fencing, agricultural fencing, 1,296± SF barn, outbuilding, 1,271f SF pole shed, well house, etc. 14 ASSESSMENT AND TAX DATA A copy of the Tax Assessment Records pertaining to the subject property is presented in the Addenda Section of this report. The taxes, due by October 15, 2023, are estimated to be $990.91. This does not include the $375 Homestead Tax Credit. The property was appraised for tax purposes at $195,450. The preceding appraised value is for land and improvements. It should be noted that taxable value is lower than assessed value on Parcel 750-00579-000. Subject is located in the Springdale School District. 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.112 The theoretical focus of highest and best use analysis is on the potential uses of the land as though vacant. In practice, however, the contributory value of the existing improvements and any possible alteration of those improvements are also important in determining highest and best use and, by extension, in developing an opinion of the market value of the property. In the analysis of highest and best use of land as though 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 improvement 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 valuable, 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? 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 21nteragency Land Acquisition Conference, Uniform Appraisal Standards For Federal Land Acquisitions —(Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2016) P.22 15 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. The Four Tests As market/marketability analysis progresses to highest and best use analysis, appraisers first consider the reasonably probable uses of a site that can be legally undertaken. In the analysis of pertinent data, four steps are implicit and are applied in the following order to develop adequate support for the appraiser's highest and best use opinion: 1. Legally permissible 2. Physically possible 3. Financially feasible 4. Maximally productive These criteria are generally considered sequentially. The tests of physical possible and legal permissibility can be applied in either order, but they both must be applied before the tests of financial feasibility and maximum productivity. A use may be financially feasible, but this is irrelevant if it is legally prohibited or physically impossible. (The Appraisal Institute)3 Whole Property As Vacant — Subject property is located along the north side of Elm Springs Road, the west side of King Arthur Drive, and the east side of Grigg Lane, in Elm Springs, Arkansas; Washington County. The physical address of the subject property is 618 Elm Springs Road. The subject is a residentially developed, irregular shaped, 11.85± acre tract positioned along the north side of Elm Springs Road. The site has an estimated 530'± of frontage along the north side of Elm Springs Road, approximately 710'± along the east side of Grigg Lane, and approximately 515'± along the west side of King Arthur Drive. The topography of the subject site is gently rolling. The site, overall, is near to slightly above grade to Elm Springs Road and King Arthur Drive. Elm Springs Road is two-lane, asphalt paved. King Arthur Drive is a paved public street providing access through a residential subdivision. Grigg Lane frontage is near grade to slightly below grade. Grigg Lane is a gravel road. The site is mainly cleared with a few scattered trees. The site is not indicated to be located within Flood Zone area. Please see the Flood Zone Map presented in the Addenda of this report. Overall soil conditions are assumed to be adequate. One pond is located on the subject site. Approximately 25% of the site (north part of site) is considered very irregular in shape with somewhat limited utility. Access is developed to the subject from Elm Springs Road, along the south boundary of the site. 3 The Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 131 Edition 2008, pages 277/279. 16 Utilities and services available include telephone, electricity, public water, gas, cable T.V., and trash pickup, as well as police and fire protection. Physically possible uses of the subject site include those within size/shape limitations. Based on the City of Elm Springs Zoning Map, the subject property is zoned RSF-1, Residential Single -Family 1 Unit Per Acre. Permitted uses within the RSF-1 District include city-wide uses and single-family dwellings. The setback requirements in the RSF-1 District are: 50' front, 25' rear, and 10' side. No private Deed Restrictions were found. The physically possible and legally permissible uses of the subject site are those within size/shape limitations, and that comply with Zoning Regulations. Properties in close proximity to subject are residential 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. In my opinion, the highest and best use of the subject as vacant is residential development, within size/shape limitations, and in conformity to Zoning Regulations. The north part of the site is very irregular in shape. Consideration could be given to plotting this land with adjacent lands to the east or west. As Improved — Based on Assessment Records, the site is improved with a one -level, Class "D" 1,696± SF single-family dwelling constructed in 1985. There is also a 576± SF attached garage. The exterior of the dwelling is brick veneer. The foundation is closed piers; roof cover is fiberglass shingles; and, floor structure is wood with subfloor. An interior inspection of the dwelling was not made; however, the exterior of the dwelling appeared to be in average condition. The dwelling is considered to have remaining life. Additional improvements include gravel driveway, landscaping, pipe fencing, agricultural fencing, 1,152± SF pole shed/barn, 1,296± SF barn, outbuilding, 1,271± SF pole shed, well house, etc. In my opinion, the highest and best use of the subject as improved is continued residential/agricultural use in the interim until demand dictates removal of the improvements and redevelopment of the site for residential use (multiple lots/tracts). Remainder Property Subject property is located along the north side of Elm Springs Road, the west side of King Arthur Drive, and the east side of Grigg Lane, in Elm Springs, Arkansas; Washington County. The physical address of the subject property is 618 Elm Springs Road. 17 The subject is a residentially developed, irregular shaped, 11.85± acre tract positioned along the north side of Elm Springs Road. The site has an estimated 530'± of frontage along the north side of Elm Springs Road, approximately 710'± along the east side of Grigg Lane, and approximately 515'± along the west side of King Arthur Drive. The topography of the subject site is gently rolling. The site, overall, is near to slightly above grade to Elm Springs Road and King Arthur Drive. Elm Springs Road is two-lane, asphalt paved. King Arthur Drive is a paved public street providing access through a residential subdivision. Grigg Lane frontage is near grade to slightly below grade. Grigg Lane is a gravel road. The site is mainly cleared with a few scattered trees. The site is not indicated to be located within Flood Zone area. Please see the Flood Zone Map presented in the Addenda of this report. Overall soil conditions are assumed to be adequate. One pond is located on the subject site. Approximately 25% of the site (north part of site) is considered very irregular in shape with somewhat limited utility. Access is developed to the subject from Elm Springs Road, along the south boundary of the site. Utilities and services available include telephone, electricity, public water, gas, cable T.V., and trash pickup, as well as police and fire protection. Physically possible uses of the subject site include those within size/shape limitations. Based on the City of Elm Springs Zoning Map, the subject property is zoned RSF-I, Residential Single -Family 1 Unit Per Acre. Permitted uses within the RSF-1 District include city-wide uses and single-family dwellings. The setback requirements in the RSF-1 District are: 50' front, 25' rear, and 10' side. A 1.48± acre PE is located along the east boundary of the site. The PE is 50'± in width and is estimated to comprise approximately 12% of the overall site. The side setback in the RSF-1 district is 10'. Forty feet of the easement is located outside setback requirement. Again, approximately 25% of the site (north part) is very irregular in shape. The north boundary of the site is 112'± wide. The shape of the north part of the site does create limited utility in this area; however, the location of the easement in the north part of the site, in my opinion, does create additional limited utility in this area. No private Deed Restrictions were found. The physically possible and legally permissible uses of the subject site are those within size/shape/easement limitations, and that comply with Zoning Regulations. Properties in close proximity to subject are residential 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. 18 In my opinion, the highest and best use of the subject as vacant is residential development, within size/shape/easement limitations, and in conformity to Zoning Regulations. The north part of the site is very irregular in shape. Consideration could be given to plotting this land with adjacent lands to the east or west. As Improved — Based on Assessment Records, the site is improved with a one -level, Class "D" 1,696± SF single-family dwelling constructed in 1985. There is also a 576± SF attached garage. The exterior of the dwelling is brick veneer. The foundation is closed piers; roof cover is fiberglass shingles; and, floor structure is wood with subfloor. An interior inspection of the dwelling was not made; however, the exterior of the dwelling appeared to be in average condition. The dwelling is considered to have remaining life. Additional improvements include gravel driveway, landscaping, pipe fencing, agricultural fencing, 1,296± SF barn, outbuilding, 1,271f SF pole shed, well house, etc. In my opinion, the highest and best use of the subject as improved is continued residential/agricultural use in the interim until demand dictates removal of the improvements and redevelopment of the site for residential use (multiple lots/tracts). 19 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 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: In arriving at the market value of the Whole Property Land/Affected Improvements and the market value of the Remainder Property Land Only, the Sales Comparison Approach to value has been applied. The subject improvements are not considered to be adversely affected by the acquisitions, with the exception of a barn and four trees. 20 The Cost Approach was only utilized to estimate the contributory value of the affected site improvements. Land rentals are not typically the basis on which properties of the subject nature are sold in the market area; therefore, the Income Capitalization Approach is not utilized. Application of the Income Capitalization Approach to Value is not considered necessary to produce credible appraisal results for the subject property. ESTATE APPRAISED: Fee Simple Estate; Permanent Easement. HISTORY: The subject property has not sold or transferred within the five-year period preceding the effective date of this report. The subject is not listed for sale, or under contract to sell, as of the effective date, to my knowledge. CHANGES IN PROPERTY SINCE DATE OF PURCHASE: Not available to the appraiser. PERSONAL PROPERTY: None considered. REAL ESTATE: Subject land, barn, and trees are valued in this report. COMMENTS: The subject property was inspected by the appraiser on January 23, 2023. The property owner was not present at the time of inspection. 21 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (Whole Property - Land Only) COMPARISON WITH SUBJECT PROPERTY Sale narratives appear in the Addenda Section of this report. SALE 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date of Sale 07/12/2018 02/26/2019 01/19/2021 07/16/2021 03/26/2021 01/27/2023 Sales Price $875,000 $630,000 $350,000 $526,250 $750,000 $845,535 Size ± ACS 20.13 15 10 14.27 20 18.48 Unit Price/AC $43,467 $42,000 $35,000 $36,878 $37,500 $45,754 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Property Rights -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Financing -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Conditions of Sale -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Expenditures Made After Sale -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Improvements -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Market Conditions 13,040 12,600 4,200 2,213 3,375 -0- ADJUSTED SALES PRICE $56,507 $54,600 $39,200 $39,091 $40,875 $45,754 Location/Appeal 0 0 0 5,864 6,131 0 Physical Characteristics Size Shape Legal Characteristics Zoning 2,825 -5,651 -0- -0- -5,460 -0- -0- -3,920 392 -0- -1,955 391 2,044 -4,088 -0- 2,288 -0- -0- INDICATED UNIT VALUE $53,681 $49,140 $35,280 $43,391 $44,962 $48,042 EXPLANATION OF ADJUSTMENTS: The unit of comparison is price per acre of land area. The necessary categories of adjustment are for market conditions, location/appeal, physical characteristics (size, shape), and legal characteristics (zoning). Each of the sales is considered reasonably similar to subject with respect to property rights, financing, conditions of sale, and utilities. Each of Sales One, Two, and Six included residential/agricultural improvements at the time of sale that were razed subsequent to the sale. The estimated cost to demolish the improvements was not known. An adjustment is not made for Expenditures Made After the Sale; however, this will be considered in the reconciliation. Market Conditions: The respective sale dates of the comparable sales appear in the table above; the sales occurred between July 2018 and January 2023. Sale Six is considered similar to subject with respect to market conditions. Each of Sales One and Two is considered much inferior to `0: subject, while each of Sales Three, Four, and Five is considered inferior in market conditions. Sales Analysis supports 5% annual appreciation for 2019 and 2020. A 12% increase is indicated for 2020 and 2021. No adjustments can be supported for 2022 to the effective date of this report. Therefore, each of Sales One and Two is adjusted upward 30%, while Sale Three is adjusted upward 12%, Sale Four 6%, and Sale Five 9%. No adjustment is warranted to Sale Six. Location/Appeal: Subject is located along the north side of Elm Springs Road, east of State Highway 112 in Elm Springs. Sale One is located along the west side of Ball Road, just north of Elm Springs Road in Springdale. Sale One is located across from Shaw Park. Sale Two is located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Elm Springs Road in Elm Springs. Sale Two is located in close proximity to Shaw Park. Sale Three is located at the northwest corner of County Line Road and Pinkley Road in Springdale. This location is in close proximity to Shaw Park. Sale Four is located along the east side of 56th Street, south of County Line Road in Springdale. Sale Five is located along the west side of 56ffi Street, south of County Line Road in Springdale. Sale Six is located just southeast of subject, along the south side of Elm Springs Road. Overall, each of Sales One, Two, Three, and Six is considered reasonably similar to subject. These sales are located along or near Elm Springs Road and within very close proximity to Shaw Park. Each of Sales Four and Five is considered inferior to subject with respect to location/appeal. Paired Sales Analysis utilizing Sale Two with Sale Five indicates, after adjusting for other differences, that Sale Five is approximately 15% inferior to Sale Two. Again, Sale Two is considered reasonably similar to subject in location/appeal; therefore, in comparison to subject, Sale Five is adjusted upward 15% for inferior location. Sale Four is also adjusted upward 15% for inferior location. No adjustment is necessary to Sales One, Two, Three, or Six. Physical Characteristics: With respect to physical characteristics, the necessary categories of adjustment is for land size and shape. • Land Size: The subject is smaller than each of Sales One, Five, and Six. Overall, subject is relatively similar to Sales Two, Three, and Four. The tendency in the market is that as land area increases, price per unit decreases, and vice versa; this is for otherwise - similar properties. Sales Analysis supports that as a property's land area approximates doubling, its price/unit decreases about 10%±. Based on this premise, each of Sales One, Five and Six is adjusted upward 5%. • Shape: Subject has an irregular shape in the north part of the site. This area comprises approximately 25% of the overall site. The width of the north boundary of the site is approximately 112'. Due to the shape of the north part of the site, development in the north part is limited. Sale Six has an irregular shape. Sale Six is considered reasonably similar to subject with respect to shape. Overall, each of Sales One, Two, Three, and Five has an adequate shape for development. Sale Four is "L" shaped with approximately 270' of width at the narrowest part. Sale Four is considered approximately 5% superior to subject with respect to shape. Paired Sales Analysis, utilizing Sale Five with Sale Four indicates, after adjusting for other differences, that Sale Four is approximately 5% inferior to Sale Five. Therefore, Sale Five is considered approximately 10% superior to subject with respect to shape. Each of Sales One, Two, Three, and Five is adjusted downward 10% for superior shape. 23 Legal Characteristics: With respect to legal characteristics, the necessary category of adjustment is for zoning. • Zoning: Subject is zoned RSF-I. Sale One was zoned SF-2 at the time of Sale, Sale Two a mixture of RSF-1/A-1, Sale Five SF-2, and Sale Six a mixture of RSF-1/A-1. Each of Sales Three and Four was zoned A-1 at the time of sale. Overall, each of Sales One, Two, Five, and Six is considered reasonably similar to subject, while each of Sales Three and Four is considered inferior. It is likely that Sales Three and Four could obtain a residential zoning; however, there would be costs involved to rezone. The property owner would have to petition the respective Planning Commission/ City Council for rezoning of the site to a single-family residential zoning district. Each of Sales Three and Four is adjusted upward 1% for inferior zoning. CORRELATION OF INDICATED VALUES: The range of adjusted per acre values is $35,280 to $53,681; the mean of the sales is indicated to be $45,749/AC, while the median is $46,502/AC. Each of the sales is given consideration; however, Sale Six is located very close to subject and is a 2023 sale. Sale Six is given the most weight. ESTIMATED LAND VALUE: Based on the preceding analysis, the indicated per acre value of subject Whole Property, in my opinion, is $48,000. Therefore: WHOLE PROPERTY LAND ONLY: 11.85f ACS @ $48,000 = $568,800 PLUS: Contributory Value of Pole Shed/Barn* _ $ 10,000 Contributory Value of Trees* _ $ 4,000 WHOLE PROPERTY LAND ONLY/ AFFECTED IMPROVEMENTS = $582,800 *The contributory value of the pole shed/barn and four trees affected by the acquisition was based on Marshall Valuation Service. Please see the Extraordinary Assumptions previously presented. SUMMARY OF ACQUISITION: PE 1.18f Acres (Outside Side Setback) PE 0.30f Acre (Inside Side Setback) Pole Shed/Barn 4 Trees Total @ $48,000 = $ 56,650 @ $12,000 = $ 3,600 _ $ 10,000 _ $ 4,000 $ 74,250 24 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (Remainder Property - Land Only) COMPARISON WITH SUBJECT PROPERTY Sale narratives appear in the Addenda Section of this report. SALE 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date of Sale 07/12/2018 02/26/2019 01/19/2021 07/16/2021 03/26/2021 01/27/2023 Sales Price $875,000 $630,000 $350,000 $526,250 $750,000 $845,535 Size ± ACS 20.13 15 10 14.27 20 18.48 Unit Price/AC $43,467 $42,000 $35,000 $36,878 $37,500 $45,754 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Property Rights -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Financing -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Conditions of Sale -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Expenditures Made After -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Sale Improvements -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Market Conditions 13,040 12,600 4,200 2,213 3,375 -0- ADJUSTED SALES PRICE $56,507 $54,600 $39,200 $39,091 $40,875 $45,754 Location/Appeal 0 0 0 5,864 6,131 0 Physical Characteristics Size 2,825 -0- -0- -0- 2,044 2,288 Shape -5,651 -5,460 -3,920 -1,955 -4,088 -0- Legal Characteristics Zoning -0- -0- 392 391 -0- -0- Easement -5,084 -5,084 -5,084 -5,084 -5,084 -5,084 Damages -1,983 -1,983 -1,983 -1,983 -1,983 -1,983 INDICATED UNIT VALUE $46,614 $42,073 $28,605 $36,324 $37,895 $40,975 EXPLANATION OF ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustments for Market Conditions, Location/Appeal, Size, Shape, and Zoning have previously been explained in the Whole Property analysis. The only additional necessary categories of adjustment is for Easement and Damages. Easement: The subject property is encumbered with a 1.48± acre permanent easement located along the east boundary of the site. The easement is 50' in width. 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 25 accessory rights to be acquired; and, 4) the obligations of the parties. The side setback requirement for the subject property is 10'. Approximately 20% of the PE is located within side setback requirement, while approximately 80% of the PE is located outside side setback requirement. Structures cannot be built on the land within the permanent easement area. In my opinion, the property owner's bundle of rights of ownership will be lost with respect to the land within the permanent easement area that is located outside side setback requirement. This area is valued at 100% of full fee value. In my opinion, a portion of the property owner's bundle of rights of ownership will be lost with respect to the land within the permanent easement rea that is located inside side setback requirement. This area is valued at 75% of full fee value. Therefore, 1.18± acres @ $48,000/acre x 100% = $56,640 and 0.30± acre @ $48,000/acre x 25% = $3,600; total acquisition = $56,640 + $3,600 = $60,240, say $60,250 or $5,084/acre ($60,250/11.85 acres). Each sale is adjusted downward $5,084. • Damages: Again, subject's northern portion of the site (approximately 25% of the entire site) is irregular in shape. The northern boundary of the site is approximately 112'f in width. The shape of the northern portion makes development limited in this area. An adjustment for subject's shape has already been discussed in this analysis; however, the location and size of the permanent easement creates additional issues with the utility of the northern portion of the site. Overall, it is my opinion, that the northwestern portion located outside the permanent easement, or approximately 2.45± acres is damaged approximately 20% by the PE acquisition. Therefore: 2.45± acres @ $48,000 x 20% = $23,520, say $23,500. Each sale is adjusted downward $1,983 ($23,500/11.85 acres). CORRELATION OF INDICATED VALUES: The range of adjusted per acre values is $28,605 to $46,614; the mean of the sales is indicated to be $38,748/AC, while the median is $39,435/AC. Each of the sales is given consideration; however, Sale Six is located very close to subject and is a 2023 sale. Sale Six is given the most weight. ESTIMATED LAND VALUE: Based on the preceding analysis, the indicated per acre value of subject Remainder Property, in my opinion, is $40,933. Therefore: REMAINDER PROPERTY LAND ONLY: 11.85f ACS @ $40,933 = $485,056 Say $485,050 Please see the Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Condition previously presented. 26 RECONCILIATION OF APPROACHES Estimated Value of Whole Tract Before Taking: Cost Approach...................................................... Not Utilized Sales Comparison Approach...............................$582,800 (Land/Affected Improvements) Income Capitalization Approach ......................... Not Utilized Estimated Value..............$582,800 EXPLANATION: The Sales Comparison Approach was relied upon in arriving at the final value conclusion for the Whole Property. The quantity and quality of data available is considered good. Estimated Value of Remainder Tract After Taking: Cost Approach.............................................................Not Utilized Sales Comparison Approach................................$485,050 Income Capitalization Approach...............................Not Utilized Estimated Value..............$485,050 EXPLANATION: The value of the Remainder Property is based on the Sales Comparison Approach. The quantity and quality of data available or use in the Sales Comparison Approach was considered good. ESTIMATED VALUE OF PART SOUGHT INCLUDING ALL DAMAGES OR BENEFITS: Whole Property (Land/Affected Improvements) _ $582,800 Remainder Property (Land Only) _ $485,050 Total Compensation = $ 97,750 Less: Contributory Value of Affected Improvements & PE Acquisition = $ 74,250 Damages = $ 23,500 Please see the Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Condition previously presented. 27 EXPOSURE TIME Exposure time is the length of time the subject property would have been exposed for sale in the market had it sold at the market value concluded in this analysis as of the date of this valuation. The exposure time of Sales Two, Five, and Six utilized in the Sales Comparison Approach was not known. The exposure time of Sales One, Three, and Four was indicated to be 129± days, 110± days, and 0± days, respectively. Based on Multiple Listing Service Data, the average days on market for development potential land sales 2-20 acres in size located in Benton and Washington Counties occurring within the twelve months immediately preceding the effective date of this report was indicated to be 279 days, while the median was indicated to be 119 days. This was based on 127 transactions. The land and residential sectors are considered strong at the present time with good activity levels and significant new construction. The outlook for subject's market area is considered good. The near term outlook for the Northwest Arkansas real estate market is considered positive; however, the country and area are experiencing severe pressure on the economy as a result of the virus, and the overall impact on real estate values is yet to be determined. Overall, in my opinion, an exposure time of one year or less is considered realistic for the subject property. 28 ADDENDA 1. Definitions 2. Area Map 3. Area Data 4. Aerial Photograph 5. Subject Photographs 6. Flood Zone Map 7. Assessment Records 8. Deed Records 9. Permanent Easement Legal Description/Exhibits 10. Comparable Land Sales Map 11. Comparable Land Sales 12. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 13. Qualifications of the Appraiser 29 DEFINITIONS RETROSPECTIVE VALUE OPINION: `A value opinion effective as of a specified historical date. The term retrospective 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 property 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. "I 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 LEASED FEE ESTATE: "The ownership interest held by the lessor, which includes the right to receive the contract rent specified in the lease plus the revisionary right when the lease expires. "3 LEASEHOLD ESTATE: "The right held by the lessee to use and occupy real estate for a stated term and under the conditions specified in the lease. "4 EASEMENT: "The right to use another's land for a stated purpose. "5 PERPETUAL EASEMENT: `An easement that lasts forever. "6 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. "7 1 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 201. 2 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary ofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 90. 3 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 128. 4 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary ofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 128. 5 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary ofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 71 6 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary ofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 170. 7 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary ofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago; Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 231. 30 MARKET AREA: "The geographic region from which a majority of demand comes and in which the majority of competition is located. Depending on the market, a market area may be further subdivided into components such as primary, secondary, and tertiary market areas, or the competitive market area may be distinguished from the general market area. "8 NEIGHBORHOOD: " 1. A group of complementary land uses; a business enterprises. 2. A developed residential super pad within distinguished name and entrance. "9 HIGHEST AND BEST USE: congruous grouping of inhabitants, buildings, or a master planned community usually having a "The highest and most profitable use for which the property is adaptable and needed or likely to be needed in the reasonably near future. "10 SEVERANCE DAMAGES: `In condemnation, the loss in value to the remainder in a partial taking ofproperty. 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. "11 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. "12 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. "13 8 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 139. 9 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 156. 10 Interagency Land Acquisition Conference, Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions —(Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2016) P. 22. 11 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal —Sixth Edition, (Chicago; Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 59 12 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 123. 13 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 54. 31 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH: "The process of deriving a value indication for the subject property by comparing sales of similarproperties 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, market -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. " 14 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 ofproperty income. "'s 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 `6 MARKET VALUE: 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. EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTION: `An assumption, directly related to a specific assignment, as of the effective date of the assignment results, which, iffound to be false, could alter the appraiser's opinion or conclusions. `8 HYPOTHETICAL CONDITION: "1. A condition that is presumed to be true when it is known to be false. (SVP) 2. A condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results, but is used for the purpose of analysis. "t9 14 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal —Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 207. 15 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal —Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 115. 16 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 190. 17 Interagency Land Acquisition Conference, Uniform Appraisal Standards For Federal Land Acquisitions (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2016) P. 93. 18 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionaa of Real Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 83-84. 19 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 113. 32 W: UW.16 5Duthoesr City Seligman N 1 sulphur Springs ............... Bells Vista E F'ea Rldge Garfield � Hiwasse' j Gravette v i a May .v I I Ic rr Bentonville 'G '4�43 l Decatur �+�� Rogers Larue l 3 i Che cee City SUBJECT PROPERTY Hobbs Sate Park-Corlservatiol-i Ord T� Gentry -- H ghfill Lower _ Area i Sil m Springy 1�9----- Springdalc- Tontitown Spring V }+Icy shady Gii-eve r� I ;ndsYllle I l Wa"'L naeri� Savoy ® " � Goshen I �I I — Fayetteville Watts FisrminWcin, Communi (+i} !1wJc�lo R;ct`lar,d 4tfestwill �(�rr Elkins #3i ° Y Prairie GrQwe Ja k Q 1 L ncalr Durham' Asher I Hogeye L^�£st F�t3rk Canehill Fa t� ` Crosses rf 11 Morrow DN BF@ntWwd r Fairfield y si i Strickler Combsi Stilwell 33 .. EVOL:,. i z [ I.L4gyr G�1 1, 9EE-) ------------ ELM. TREE-A&RL.S - r?:JER: RD ■ 4 CiE[(}IiGE[ SONS C'r.(iI'.C)R(il'.& SUNS .. ..-M. 5ti1.7117 7,(-1:M1:1Fatlf."., C1-\i13r.1:I Gl hll: A .[lH:'.:5•� ��IC 1_I.i 1,,4l HUR1 ft[-:1. - SI'Rl1Ci5` •.} � i - v2!; `J- Ate � � � . �•. I ._..:I � - �• 11:i k I: V 1. X- - HIEiSF LN 6id:113A h1. ]GAY'S. PE{I1-1.[1' :. CRVER:'' J:�hlROI ti ['"tsl_, .I;[ i Tlht(}I E{yG [I _ -- SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY KATIE HAMPTON ON JANUARY 23, 2023 FRONTAGE ALONG ELM SPRINGS ROAD - LOOKING WESTERLY FRONTAGE ALONG KING ARTHUR DRIVE - LOOKING SOUTHERLY & SHOWING PROPOSED PERMANENT EASEMENT ACQUISITION AREA 35 SUBJECT PROPERTY - LOOKING NORTHERLY SUBJECT PROPERTY - LOOKING WESTERLY 36 SUBJECT PROPERTY - LOOKING NORTHWESTERLY & SHOWING PROPOSED PERMANENT EASEMENT ACQUISITION AREA SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY KATIE HAMPTON ON FEBRUARY 14, 2022 FRONTAGE ALONG ELM SPRINGS ROAD - LOOKING EASTERLY 37 SUBJECT PROPERTY - LOOKING NORTHEASTERLY SUBJECT PROPERTY - LOOKING EASTERLY 38 SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING NORTHWESTERLY - ~ r i- SUBJECT PROPERTY - LOOKING SOUTHERLY & SHOWING PORTION OF PROPOSED PERMANENT EASEMENT ACQUISITION AREA 39 '. PROPERTY - LOOKING t. NORTHERLY SUBJECTO NO & SHOWING PROPOSED PERMANENT EASEMENT ACQUISTION AREA SUBJECT PROPERTY - LOOKING SOUTHERLY & SHOWING PROPOSED PERMANENT EASEMENT ACQUISITION AREA 40 SUBJECT PROPERTY - LOOKING SOUTHERLY & j SHOWING PROPOSED PERMANENT EASEMENT ACQUISITION AREA SUBJECT PROPERTY - LOOKING NORTHERLY & SHOWING PROPOSED PERMANENT EASEMENT ACQUISITION AREA 41 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 94o13'51V 36o12'48"N -w-_T18N R31VV§2= I-Zvrru" 4F 4 4b a9tot r � � I I 0 Li- B T18N i 4L FEMA Feet 1 :6'000 42 94o13'13V 36o12'19"N 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed October, 2020 Legend SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile zone x ®`Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard zone x Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes. zone x Area with Flood Risk due to Leveezone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zonex Q Effective LOMRs OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone D GENERAL -- - - Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer STRUCTURES IIIIIII Levee, Dike, or Floodwall V Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation a - - - Coastal Transect ^-^^-5n— Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary — --- Coastal Transect Baseline OTHER _ Profile Baseline FEATURES Hydrographic Feature Digital Data Available N No Digital Data Available MAP PANELS Unmapped YThe pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 3/21/2022 at 2:37 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Parcel: 750-00579-000 Washington County Report ID: 33557 Prev. Parcel: 121240-000-00 As of: 1 /31 /2023 Property Owner Property Information Name: DETMER, KENT BIRD Physical Address: 618 ELM SPRINGS RD Mailing Address: 1713 W HUNTSVILLE AVE SPRINGDALE, AR 72762 Subdivision: 30-18-30 ELM SPRINGS OUTLOTS Block / Lot: N/A / N/A Type: (AI) Agri Improved S-T-R: 30-18-30 Tax Dist: (502) SPRINGDALE SCH, ELM SP Size (Acres): 11.370 Millage Rate: 52.00 Extended Legal: PT FRL NW NW 11.37 A, ALSO ADJ RR/RW FURTHER DESCRIBED FROM 2014-8411 AS: Part of the Fractional Northwest Quarter (Fri. NW 1/4) of the Fractional Northwest Quarter (Fri. NW 1/4) of Section Thirty (30), Township Eighteen (18) North, Range Thirty (30) West, and part of the Northeasi Quarier (NE 1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section Twenty -Five (25), Township Eighteen (18) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, more particularly described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Fractional Northwest Quarter (Fri. NW 1/4) of the Fractional Northwest Quarter (Fri. NW 1/4) of Section Thirty (30), thence South 89°57'50" West 405.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, thence South 89°57'50" West 111.62 feet, thence South 20014'14" West 651.09 feet, thence South 89°50'08" West 216.32 feet, thence South 00002'37" East 703.95 feet to the centerline of Elm Springs Road, thence along said centerline South 87058'54" East 250.26 feet, thence North 88°53'04" East 306.27 feet, thence leaving centerline of Elm Springs Road North 00°09'36" West 1,318.40 feet to the point of beginning. Market and Assessed Values Taxes Estimated Full Assessed Taxable Estimated $616 Market Value (20% Mkt Value) Value Taxes: Land: $46,850 $9,370 $4,570 Homestead $375 Note: Tax amounts are estimates only. Contact Credit: the county/parish tax collector for exact amounts. Building: 148550 29710 14486 Total: $195,400 $39,080 $19,056 Land Land Use Size Units HL 1.15 AC Homesite 1.000 Acres Pasture(06) 6.830 Acres Pasture(13) 1.490 Acres Pasture(12) 1.300 Acres Pasture(11) 0.750 Acres Total 11.370 Not a Legal Document. Subject to termillind conditions. www.actDataScout.com Page 1 Parcel: 750-00579-000 Washington County Report ID: 33557 Prev. Parcel: 121240-000-00 As of: 1 /31 /2023 Deed Transfers Deed Date File Date Book Page Deed Type Stamps Est. Sale Grantee Code Type 5/19/2011 2011 14181 Trust Deed DETMER, Unval. N/A KENT BIRD 2/16/1995 95 12449 Warr. Deed 0.00 $0 DETMER, Inc. N/A VIRGINIA V Additiona REVOCABLE I Prop. TRUST 2/18/1993 DeathCer 0.00 $0 DETMER, N/A N/A VIRGINIA VON BORA 1/17/1978 957 28 Warr. Deed 0.00 $0 DETMER, N/A Improve HERBERT F & d VIRGINIA VON BORA 5/9/1977 ODR1 225 Survey DETMER, N/A Improve HERBERT F & d VIRGINIA VON BORA 1/25/1973 843 136 Quit Claim DETMER,VIR N/A Improve GINIA VON d BORA; JACKSON, BARBARA JEAN 11/17/1962 12/3/1962 584 260 Warr. Deed 11.55 $10,500 BIRD, Unval. Improve WALTER d 7/8/1943 335 513 Warr. Deed DELOZIER, N/A Improve HAROLD & d LENA 5/21/1934 291 358 Warr. Deed DELOZIER, W N/A Improve S & AUDRA d 11/9/1914 5 11 Survey DELOZIER, W N/A Improve S & AUDRA d 11/9/1914 4 83 Survey DELOZIER, W N/A Improve S & AUDRA d Reappraisal Value History Tax Year Total Value Total Assessed 2015 $142,350.00 $18,556.00 2016 $142,350.00 $18,615.00 2017 $142,350.00 $18,674.00 2018 $142,350.00 $18,733.00 2019 $142,350.00 $18,792.00 2020 $195,400.00 $18,880.00 2021 $195,400.00 $18,968.00 2022 $195,400.00 $19,056.00 Details for Residential Card 1 Occupancy Story Construction Total Liv Grade Year Built Age Condition Beds Not a Legal Document. Subject to termi4and conditions. www.actDataScout.com Page 2 Parcel: 750-00579-000 Washington County Report Prev. Parcel: 121240-000-00 As of: 1 /31 /2023 Single Family ONE Masonry Veneer Exterior Wall: BV Foundation: Closed Piers Floor Struct: Wood with subfloor Floor Cover: Carpet & Tile Insulation: Ceilings Walls Roof Cover: Fiberglass Shingle Roof Type: Gable Base Structure 1,696 4 1985 Plumbing: Full: 1 Half: 1 Fireplace: N/A Heat / Cool: Central Basement: N/A Basement Area: Year Remodeled: Style: Datacout, LL Item Label Description Area A MN Main Living Area 1696 B MFA Garage - masonry 576 finished, att C WD Wood deck 192 D OP Porch, open 120 E OP Porch, open 200 Outbuildings and Yard Improvements Item Type Pole Shed General Purpose Barn Driveway, concrete Outbuilding,frame Pole Shed Well House Size/Dim Unit Multi. 48x24 1 36x36 1 23x23 1 6x10 1 41x31 1 10x12 ID: 33557 35 Average Quality L Age Not a Legal Document. Subject to termiend conditions. www.actDataScout.com Page 3 Parcel: 750-00579-000 Washington County Report ID: 33557 Prev. Parcel: 121240-000-00 As of: 1 /31 /2023 Other Adjustments Code Type Quantity FRPL 1SA Map Not a Legal Document. Subject to termiband conditions. www.actDataScout.com Page 4 Miliil44llll4ll lli�l I41�� L41li�iifl IIIl�4�1111N1'I Ififl llffl I1III1111111114i�1 Doc ID: 014030EE0002 Type: REL RecorKinddedEES : 05/23/2011 at 01:57:32 PM Fee Amt: $20.00 Pace 1 of 2 uashinaton Countv. AR Bette Stamos Circuit Clerk F1102011-00014181 EXEMPT TRUSTEE'S DEED KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That 1, VIRGINIA V. DETMER, Trustee of THE VIRGINIA V. DETMER REVOCABLE TRUST, ultld February 16, 1995, hereinafter called Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration to me in hand paid by KENT BIRD DETMER, a single man, hereinafter called Grantee, do hereby grant, bargain and sell unto the said Grantee and Grantee's successors and assigns, the following described land situate in Washington County, State of Arkansas, to -wit: The fractional NW '/ of the fractional NW % of Section 30 in Township 18 North of Range 30 West, and a part of the NE'/ of the NE '/ of Section 25 in Township 18 North of Range 31 West, described as beginning at the Northeast corner of said fractional NW '/A of the fractional NW 1/ of said Section 30, and running thence South along the East quarter section line to the center of the Elm Springs — Springdale Road; thence West with the center of said Road 753 feet; thence North 87° 07' West with the center of said Road 210.2 feet; thence North to and continuing along the East line of a lane or road running from the Elm Springs —Springdale Road North to the Howard Grigg Lands, a distance of 698.5 feet, more or less, to a point due West of the Southwest corner of Lot 1 in Block 1, Peter Gharst Addition to the Town of Elm Springs, Arkansas; thence East to and continuing along the South line of Lots 1, 2 and 3 in Block 1 of said Addition to the center of the abandoned right-of-way of the Kansas City & Memphis Railway Company; thence Northeasterly with the center of said right-of-way to a point which is 12 feet due South of the North line of said fractional quarter section; thence in a direct line Easterly to a point where the East line of said right-of-way intersects the North line of said fractional quarter section; thence East to the point of beginning, subject to an easement along the Southerly part thereof for the Elm Springs — Springdale Road Page 1 44# 2 Pages File Number: 201100014181 Page 1 of 2 r TO HAVE AND TO HOED the said lands and appurtenances thereunto belonging unto the said Grantee and Grantee's heirs, successors and assigns, forever. And I, the said Grantor, hereby covenant that I am lawfully seized of said land and premises, that the same is unencumbered, and that I will forever warrant and defend the title to the said lands against all claims whatever. WITNESS my hand and seal on this /' day of May, 2011. VIRGI IA V. DETMER, Trustee of the VIRGINIA V. DETMER REVOCABLE TRUST, ultld February 16, 1995 ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS ) ) SS. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) On this the K day of May, 2011, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared VIRGINIA V. DETMER, Trustee of the VIRGINIA V. DETMER REVOCABLE TRUST, ultld February 16, 1995, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that she had executed the same for the purposes therein set forth. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires: E D. MAESTRI Notary Public ARY PUBLIC N COUNTY ARKANSAS SION EXPIRE6 06-16-2012 ce i under penalty of false swearing that at least the le ally correct amount of documentary stamps have been placed on this instrument. 44�_ /j/ ,/� Kent Bird Detmer Mail Tax Statement to: KENT BIRD DETMER 1713 West Huntsville Street Springdale, AR 72762 Prepared by: HARRINGTON, MILLER ,KIEKLAK, EICHMANN & BROWN, P.A., P.O. Box 687, Springdale, Arkansas 72765-0687. Page 249 2 Pages File Number: 201100014181 Page 2 of 2 West Transmission Main Parcel No. 750-00579-000 Tract No. 64 WATER/SEWER EASEMENT BE IT KNOWN BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT Kent Bird Detmer, a single person, 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 and a temporary construction and grading 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: (Deed Ref: 2011-14181) The fractional NW'/4 of the fractional NW'/4 of Section 30 in Township 18 North of Range 30 West, and a part of the NE'/4 of the NE'/ of Section 25 in Township 18 North of Range 31 West, described as beginning at the Northeast corner of said fractional NW'/4 of the fractional NW'/4 of said Section 30, and running thence South along the East quarter section line to the center of the Elm Springs — Springdale Road; thence West with the center of said Road 753 feet; thence North 87°07' West with the center of said Road 210.2 feet; thence North to and continuing along the East line of a lane or road running from the Elm Springs — Springdale Road North to the Howard Grigg Lands, a distance of 698.5 feet, more or less to a point due West of the Southwest corner of Lot 1 in Block 1, Peter Gharst Addition to the Town of Elm Springs, Arkansas; thence East to and continuing along the South line of Lots 1, 2 and 3 in Block 1 of said Addition to the center of the abandoned right of way of the Kansas City & Memphis Railway Company; thence Northeasterly with the center of said right of way to a point which is 12 feet due South of the North line of said fractional quarter section; thence in a direct line Easterly to a point where the East line of said right of way intersects the North line of said fractional quarter section; thence East to the point of beginning, subject to an easement along the Southerly part thereof for the Elm Springs — Springdale Road. PERMANENT EASEMENT DESCRIPTION: Part of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of Section 30, Township 18 North, Range 30 West, Washington County, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of said Section 30; thence along the North line of said NW 1/4 of the NW '/4 North 87°50'26" West, 402.39 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING (P.O.B.); thence leaving said North line and along the West line of Camelot Subdivision, as shown in Plat Book 23, Page 00183 of the Washington County records South 02°46'29" West, 1287.84 feet to the North right-of-way line of Elm Springs Road (60' R/W); thence leaving the West line of Camelot Subdivision and along the North line of Elm Springs Road North 88°09'05" West, 50.01 feet; thence leaving said North right-of-way line of Elm Springs Road North 02046'29" East, 1288.11 feet to the North line of said NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4; thence along said North line South 87050'26" East, 50.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING (P.O.B.), containing 64,398 square feet, 1.48 acres. 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 easement. Driveways and parking lots will not be considered permanent structures. The Grantee shall have the right to construct pipe lines and/or make repairs to lines within the above described easement at any time in the future and agrees to pay for or repair any damages as a result of such future construction and/or repairs as set out in this easement. 49 Water/Sewer Easement Page 2 It is further understood that Grantee's easement shall be exclusive and that Grantor and/or Grantor's successors shall convey no parallel rights to any person, utility or corporation on, across or under said easement without the express written permission of Grantee. 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. WITNESS the execution hereof on this the day of 12023. Kent Bird Detmer STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF [spouse] ACKNOWLEDGMENT ss. 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 Kent Bird Detmer and , spouse, if any to me well known as the person(s) who executed the foregoing document, and who stated and acknowledged that he/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 2023. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Notary Public 50 UTILITY EASEMENT MAP TRACT MAP NO. 64 Scale: 1 "=250' EXHIBIT we I \ NE CORNER \70, LOT 41 / \ SW -SW NW1 4, 70, 19-18-30 / NW1/4 W Lor 40 130-18-30 / [rj 587r50'26*E 50' PE 50.00' 4lCG POB W a o F PETER HARST 0 Q`�z� SUBDI ISION o a Y a 50' PE W a_ w I 0 M NW -NW 014 a 30-18- 30 N2'46'29"E 1288.11'� �w 750-00579-000 KENT BIRD DETMER 2011-14181 SW CORNER 50' PE N W1 /4, N W1 /4 SECTION 30 W T-18-N, r " a N88'09 05 W R-30-W 50.01 A ol Land liT(;)S SPRING,' 10' U ( 867 7NW W 8-30 50' PE — r LOT 61 LOT 63 II II LOT 62 LOT 64 II II 10' U.E. I O T// LOT 67 A' LOT 66 I �S2.46'29"W 1287.84' 10' U.E. II LOT 67 1q 50' U.E. — W— ROAD (s0f /w 10, U.888-720PRINGDALE L E G E N D PE - 64,398 SQ. FT. (1.48 AC.) TCE - 0 SQ. FT. (0 AC.) J SE -SW 87'50'26" W - 402.39' 19-18-30 SECTION 19 BENTON COUNTY SECTION 30 WASHINGTON COUNTY NE CORNER NW1/4, NW1/4 SECTION 30 T-18-N, R-30-W NE -NW 30-18-30 TRACT S �750-00579-000 2011-14181 KENT BIRD DETMER CAMELOT SUBDIVISION P.B. 23-183 (WASHINGTON CO.) DOCUMENT NO. 2005-1194 (BENTON CO.) SE CORNER NW1/4, NW1/4 Basis of Bearings: SECTION 30 Arkansas State Plane T-18-N, Coordinate System R-30-W (North Zone) Land line SE -NW 30-18-30 0 Permanent Easement 0 Temporary Construction Easement Q Property Line — Corner of Permanent Easement Street Right -of -Way Existing Utility Easement Line 750-00579-000 — Tax Parcel Number PE — Permanent Easement 2011-14181 — Deed Record TICE — Temporary Construction Easement Property Owner : KENT BIRD DETMER CITYOF Drawn by : McClelland Consulting Engineers Project Name FAYETTEVILLE Date: DEC 2022 Scale : 1" = 250' West Transmission Project No. 112184 Tract No. 64 Main Route COMPARABLE LAND SALES MAP N Willis p Shaw ile Key • 9 Elcmeritary School W E Orp„a Life Springs + 9 BaPlrst Church 5 ��G�•f1 An4 .. .� . � Q 4 Attention 7n Detail c. .:<.rr chv Lxt� nr, + 5� Shaw Family Park ,} a NtI entrance 9 "} Dag Park Shaw Arkansas Law • aQ i Family Park Enforcement training . SALE 3 Show Family Park 9 i SALE 1 Wyss" Muth Media � Ce d Epic Cal"it 9 9 In, SUBJECT PROPERTY- Foxtlre Finl04 Longip, ,,* LEi' � air \111MISprings SALE 2 * �hi� rn r 098rr EleCtTlCsl Sei'VICeS9 €Im Springs C11y � Police Depanmern Rd ©m rrrlgs y ted•^di" { Elm spnngs 99ALE 6 SALE 4 &4 & SALO 5 Dnited Methodist Miller Glass d Mirror ! ; Elm S i Rf Service „ } tmw, S Ork9 ' �+�sn4xe {m�,aArr p 51131 poslalServipe � a 5 F " Ehm Sphriys Rd faith Rular � z s I Baptist Chhurch -- -- - u iV FA,"Od rn 52 LAND SALE 1 GENERAL INFORMATION General/Specific Type: Residential Record #: 2348 Location: Along the west side of Ball Road, 1,300'f north of Elm Book/Page: L2018/36207 Springs Road. City: Springdale County: Benton State: AR Parcel(s): 21-00167-480 S-T-R: 19-18-30 Lot/Block: See Legal Subdivision: None Legal: THE SOUTH HALF (S 1/2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF SECTION NINETEEN (19), TOWNSHIP EIGHTEEN (18) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY 30) WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF SPRINGDALE, BENTON COUNTY,ARKANSAS SALE INFORMATION Sale Date: July 12, 2018 Financing: Believed Market Terms Sale Price: $875,000 Conditions of Sale: Arm's-Length Adjusted Sale Price: $875,000 Exposure Time: 129 DOM Grantor: Billy Fields Rights Conveyed: Fee Simple Grantee: Ball Street Real Estate LLC Verification: MLS & Public Records .......................................................................................................................................................... _.......................................................................................................................................................... PROPERTY INFORMATION Gross Land Size: 20.130± Acres, or 876,863± SF Indicators Total Frontage: 650'f, Ball Road Sale Price/Gross Acre: $43,467± Zoning: SF-2, Medium Density Single Family Sale Price/Gross SF: $1.00± Residential Topography: Gently rolling, clear, small ponds Adjusted Sale Price/Gross Acre: $43,467f Utilities: Typical city Adjusted Sale Price/Gross SF: $1.00± Highest & Best Use: Residential Remarks: This represents the sale of 20.13f acres located along the west side of Ball Road, north of Elm Springs Road in Springdale. The property was improvement with some improvements at the time of sale; however, the improvements did not provide contributory value to the site. Shaw Park is located across Ball Road to the east. Reported consideration was $875,000 or $43,467/acre. Subsequent to the sale, the site was developed in to a single-family residential subdivision. 53 LAND SALE 2 GENERAL INFORMATION General/Specific Type: Agricultural/Residential Record #: 2699 Location: At the northwest corner of Elm Springs Road & Ball Street Book/Page: 2019-22510 City: Elm Springs County: Washington State: AR Parcel(s): 750-005 53 -000 S-T-R: 30-18-30 Lot/Block: See Legal Subdivision: N/A Legal: Extended Legal Description - see public records ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SALE INFORMATION Sale Date: February 26, 2019 Financing: Believed Market Terms Sale Price: $630,000 Conditions of Sale: Believed Arm's-Length Adjusted Sale Price: $630,000 Exposure Time: Unknown Grantor: Jessie Leroy Stacy & Mona Estelle Stacy Rights Conveyed: Market Terms Joint Trust Grantee: Douglas L. Sperber, DB/A Sperber Verification: Public Records Holdings, and Anderson Investments, LLC ................................................._.......................................................................................................................................................... PROPERTY INFORMATION Gross Land Size: 15.00Of Acres, or 653,400f SF Indicators Total Frontage: 1,780'f, Elm Springs Road & Ball Sale Price/Gross Acre: $42,OOOf Street Zoning: RSF-1 & A-1 Sale Price/Gross SF: $0.96± Topography: Near Level/Mostly Cleared Adjusted Sale Price/Gross Acre: $42,OOOf Utilities: Water, No Sewer Adjusted Sale Price/Gross SF: $0.96f Highest & Best Use: Residential ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Remarks: This represents the sale of 15± acres located at the northwest corner of Elm Springs Road and Ball Road in Elm Springs. The property has access to public water at the street, however, public sewer is not available. Agricultural improvements were located on the site at the time of sale; however, were not considered to provide contributory value to the site. Subsequent to the sale, the site was developed in to a single-family residential subdivision. 54 LAND SALE 3 GENERAL INFORMATION General/Specific Type: Agricultural/Residential Record #: 2909 Location: At the northwest corner of W. County Line Road & Book/Page: L2021-4335 Pinkley Road City: Springdale County: Benton State: AR Parcel(s): 21-00167-568 S-T-R: 20-18-30 Lot/Block: N/A Subdivision: N/A Legal: Extended Legal Description - see ,public records ............................... ...................................................................................... SALE INFORMATION Sale Date: January 19, 2021 Financing: Market Terms Sale Price: $350,000 Conditions of Sale: Arm's-Length Adjusted Sale Price: $350,000 Exposure Time: 110 Days On Market Grantor: Pinkley Farms, Inc. Rights Conveyed: Fee Simple Grantee: Steven & Linda Geels .........................................................................................................................................................._.......................................................................................................................................................... Verification: MLS & Public Records PROPERTY INFORMATION Gross Land Size: 10.000f Acres, or 435,600f SF Indicators Total Frontage: W. County Line Road & Pinkley Sale Price/Gross Acre: $35,000± Road Zoning: A-1, Agricultural Sale Price/Gross SF: $0.80f Topography: Gently Sloping Adjusted Sale Price/Gross Acre: $35,000± Utilities: Water, No Sewer Adjusted Sale Price/Gross SF: $0.80f Highest & Best Use: Residential Remarks: This represents the sale of 10± acres located at the northwest corner of W. County Line Road and Pinkley Road in Springdale. 55 LAND SALE 4 GENERAL INFORMATION General/Specific Type: Residential Book/Page: 2021/27591 Location: 561 Street See Remarks State: AR City: Springdale County: Washington Asking/Listing Price: $525,000 Parcel(s): 815-29789-292 NWAMLS: #1192010 Subdivision: N/A S-T-R: 28-18-30 Lot/Block: N/A Legal:.... Extended legal — to follow ................. .. ............. ..................................................................................... SALE INFORMATION Sale Date: July 16, 2021 Financing: Market Terms Sale Price: $526,250 Conditions of Sale: Arm's-Length Adjusted Sale Price: $526,250 Exposure Time/DOM: 0 days Grantor: Loy E. and Alma L. Boyd, Trusties of the Loy Rights Conveyed: Fee Simple & Alma Boyd Revocable Trust, u/t/a, October 21, 2016 Grantee: Noah's Landing, LLC Verification: EPSIII W/listing agent Larry Marion/Bassett Mix and Associates. PROPERTY INFORMATION Gross Land Size: 14.27f Acres, or 621,601f SF Indicators Frontage: 561 Street Sale Price/Gross Acre: $36,878f Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Sale Price/Gross SF: $0.85f Topography: Near Level — Open/Wooded Adjusted Sale Price/Gross Acre: $36,878f Utilities: Natural Gas, Electric, Public Water & Sewer Adjusted Sale Price/Gross SF: $0.85f Highest & Best Use: Residential Development .............................................................................................................................................. Remarks: This represents the sale of 14.27f acres located along the east side of 56th Street, south of County Line Road in Springdale. The site is being developed in to Noah's Landing subdivision. 56 LAND SALE 5 GENERAL INFORMATION General/Specific Type: Single -Family Residential Record #: 3174 Location: West side of 56th Street, south of County Line Road Book/Page: 2021-11791 City: Springdale County: Washington State: AR Parcel(s): 750-00807-000 and 815-30919-000 S-T-R: 29-18-30 Lot/Block: NA Subdivision: NA Legal: The S/2 of the NE/4 of the NE/4 of Section 29, Township 18 North, Range 30 West, Washington County, Arkansas ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SALE INFORMATION Sale Date: March 26, 2021 Financing: Believed to be Market Terms Sale Price: $750,000 Conditions of Sale: Arm's-Length Adjusted Sale Price: $750,000 Exposure Time: Unknown Grantor: Legend Builders, Inc. and Kent Burnett Rights Conveyed: Fee Simple Properties, Inc. Grantee: Hylton Road Real Estate, LLC Verification: Washington County Circuit Clerk/Assessor's Office PROPERTY INFORMATION Gross Land Size: 20.000± Acres, or 871,200f SF Indicators Total Frontage: 56th Street Sale Price/Gross Acre: $37,500f Zoning: SF-1, Low Density Single Family Sale Price/Gross SF: $0.86f Topography: Gently Sloping Adjusted Sale Price/Gross Acre: $37,500f Utilities: Typical City; no sewer Adjusted Sale Price/Gross SF: $0.86f Highest & Best Use: Residential Development ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Remarks: This represents the sale of 20± acres located along the west side of 56th Street, south of County Line Road in Springdale and Elm Springs. Approximately 5± acres of the site is located within Elm Springs. The site is being developed in to a 57 lot subdivision. Reported consideration $750,000 or $37,500/acre. The site is located in the Springdale School District. 57 LAND SALE 6 GENERAL INFORMATION General/Specific Type: Single -Family Residential Location: South side of Elm Springs Road, west of Ball Road Book/Page: Unknown City: Elm Springs County: Washington State: AR Parcel(s): 750-00581-000 and 750-00583-000 S-T-R: 30-18-30 Lot/Block: NA Subdivision: NA Legal: Part of the S/2 of the Fractional NW/4 of Section 30, Township 18 North, Range 30 West ...... ......... .................. SALE INFORMATION Sale Date: January 27, 2023 Financing: Market Terms Sale Price: $845,535 Conditions of Sale: Arm's-Length Adjusted Sale Price: $845,535 Exposure Time: Unknown Grantor: Robert & Mary Hukill and Kent Detmer Rights Conveyed: Fee Simple Grantee: Unknown Verification: Listing/Selling Representative ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PROPERTY INFORMATION Gross Land Size: 18.48f Acres, or 804,989f SF Indicators Total Frontage: Elm Springs Road Sale Price/Gross Acre: $45,754± Zoning: RSF-1/A-1 Sale Price/Gross SF: $1.05± Topography: Gently Sloping Adjusted Sale Price/Gross Acre: $45,754f Utilities: Typical City; no sewer Adjusted Sale Price/Gross SF: $1.05± Highest & Best Use: Residential Development ......................................................................................................................................................... Remarks: This represents the sale of 18.48f acres located along the south side of Elm Springs Road, west of Ball Road in Elm Springs. The site was assembled in two transactions. Approximately 12.15f acres sold from Robert & Mary Hukill and approximately 6.33f acres sold from Kent Detmer. Residential development is planned for the site. The site is located in the Springdale School District. 58 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This Appraisal Report has been made with the following general assumptions: 1. No responsibility is assumed for the legal description or for matters including legal or title 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. 5. All engineering is assumed to be correct. The plot plans and illustrative material in this report are included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property. 6. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover them. 7. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state and local environmental regulations and laws unless noncompliance is stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report. 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." 59 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. 3. The appraiser herein by reason of this appraisal is not required to give further consultation, testimony, or be in attendance in court with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been previously made. 4. Neither all nor 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. 60 QUALIFICATIONS OF KATIE REED HAMPTON EDUCATION B.S.B.A. in Finance/Real Estate, Minor in Marketing -University of Arkansas, December 2006 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE — May 2008-May 2011 — Research Assistant for REED & ASSOCIATES, INC., Fayetteville, Arkansas May 2011—Present — Certified General Appraiser 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 Certified General Appraiser — Arkansas — CG3642 Arkansas Chapter of the Appraisal Institute Member of the Northwest Arkansas Appraisal Section International Right Of Way Association — Secretary Arkansas Appraisal Board Member 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 II — 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 National Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) — 7 Hour Update — 2018 The Cost Approach: Unnecessary of Vital to a Healthy Practice — 2020 - Appraisal Institute — Arkansas Chapter National Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) — 7 Hour Update — 2020 - Appraisal Institute — Arkansas Chapter Case Studies in Complex Valuation — 2020 — Appraisal Institute — Arkansas Chapter Examining Property Rights & Implications in Valuation — 2020- Appraisal Institute — Arkansas Chapter 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. 61 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 62 APPRAISAL REPORT THE KENT BIRD DETMER PROPERTY; 11.85± ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ELM SPRINGS ROAD AND GRIGG LANE, ELM SPRINGS, ARKANSAS; WASHINGTON COUNTY WEST TRANSMISSION MAIN ROUTE PROJECT TRACT: 64 MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 REED & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3739 N. STEELE BLVD., SUITE 322 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 FILE NO. 5590-64 AS OF FEBRUARY 14, 2022 Real Estate Appraisers — Consultants 3739 N. Steele Blvd., Suite 322, Fayetteville, AR 72703 * 479-521-6313 * Fax: 479-521-6315 * www.reedappraisal.biz Tom Reed, MAI • Katie Hampton • Shannon Mueller March 18, 2022 Nick Batker McClelland Consulting Engineers 1580 E. Stearns Street Fayetteville, AR 72703 RE: The Kent Bird Detmer Property; 11.85± acres located at the northeast corner of Elm Springs Road and Grigg Lane, Elm Springs, AR; Washington County Dear Mr. Batker: In compliance with your request and for the purpose of estimating the market value of the above captioned property, I hereby certify that we have examined the subject property and made a survey of the matters pertinent to the estimation of its value. I further certify that I have no interest, present or contemplated, in the property appraised, and that my fee was not contingent upon the value estimate reported. The following real property appraisal report contains data gathered in my investigation, information from my 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/affected improvements) prior to the City of Fayetteville acquiring 1.48± acres in permanent utility easement (PUE) as of February 14, 2022, and, the market value of the Remainder Property (land only) after the acquisition of 1.48± acres in PUE is in place, also as of February 14, 2022. 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 my opinion the market value of the subject property, as of February 14, 2022, was as follows: Whole Property (Land/Affected Improvements) _ $498,900 Remainder Property (Land Only) _ $414,300 Damage To Market Value = $ 84,600 The preceding values reflect terms equivalent to cash to the owners and represent those for real property only. The following Extraordinary Assumptions are utilized in this report: 1. Subject land sizes, Whole Property and Remainder Property, are approximately as indicated; 2. The area of acquisition is approximately as indicated; 3. The City of Fayetteville, at their expense, will put the land area and fencing located within the permanent utility easement acquisition area back to as near original condition as possible; If any, or all, 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 Assumption and Limiting Conditions presented in the Addenda Section of this report. A Hypothetical Condition of this appraisal is that the West Transmission Main Route Project is complete and in place as of the effective date of this report in estimating the market value of the Remainder Property. In reality, the project was not complete and in place as of February 14, 2022. If this Hypothetical Condition is not considered, the estimated market value of the Remainder Property could be influenced. USPAP states the following under Sections 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, 'srAx OMFIED T� Katie Reed Hampton, CG3642 oases REED & ASSOCIATES, INC. ��"'�%.,',�f-.; i '�� TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page - - - - - - - - - - 1 Letter Of Transmittal - - - - - - - - - 2-3 Table Of Contents - - - - - - - - - 4 Certificate - - - - - - - - - - 5-6 Summary Of Salient Facts And Conclusions - - - - - 7 Scope Of Work - - - - - - - - - 8 General Data - - - - - - - - - - 8-9 Summary Of The Appraisal Problem - - - - - - - 10-11 Neighborhood - - - - - - - - - - 11 Zoning - - - - - - - - - - - 11 Legal Description - - - - - - - - - 12 Narrative Description - - - - - - - - - 13-15 Highest And Best Use- - - - - - - - - 15-19 Appraisal Process - - - - - - - - - 20-21 Sales Comparison Approach — Land Whole & Remainder Property - - - 22-28 Reconciliation Of Approaches - - - - - - - 29 Exposure Time - - - - - - - - - 30 ADDENDA Definitions Area Map Area Data Aerial Photograph Subject Photographs Flood Zone Map Assessment Records Deed Records Permanent Easement Legal Description/Exhibit Comparable Land Sales Map Comparable Land Sales Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Qualifications of the Appraiser 4 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 appraiser. • The appraiser has 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 appraiser 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. • I, Katie Hampton, have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. • A representative of the property owner was given the opportunity to accompany the appraiser on the property inspection. • No one provided significant professional assistance to the appraisers. • I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. • 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 Candidates of the Appraisal Institute. • I have performed no services, as an appraiser, 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 in the Addenda Section of this report, it is my opinion the market value of the fee simple interest in the subject property, as of February 14, 2022, was: Whole Property (Land/Affected Improvements) _ $498,900 Remainder Property (Land Only) _ $414,300 Damage To Market Value = $ 84,600 The preceding values reflect terms equivalent to cash to the owner and represent those for real property only. The following Extraordinary Assumptions are utilized in this report: 1. Subject land sizes, Whole Property and Remainder Property, are approximately as indicated; 2. The area of acquisition is approximately as indicated; 3. The City of Fayetteville, at their expense, will put the land area and fencing located within the permanent utility easement acquisition area back to as near original condition as possible. If any, or all, 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 Assumption and Limiting Conditions presented in the Addenda Section of this report. A Hypothetical Condition of this appraisal is that the West Transmission Main Route Project is complete and in place as of the effective date of this report in estimating the market value of the Remainder Property. In reality, the project was not complete and in place as of February 14, 2022. If this Hypothetical Condition is not considered, the estimated market value of the Remainder Property could be influenced. USPAP states the following under Sections 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, ,,,, „M-11STAX CMRED 3 GENOM Katie Reed Hampton, CG3642 OW �p' REED & ASSOCIATES, INC. SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS Location: 618 Elm Springs Road Client: McClelland Consulting Engineers Fee Owner: Kent Bird Detmer Mailing Address: 1713 W. Huntsville Avenue, Springdale, AR 72762 Area Of The Whole: 11.85f ACS Permanent Utility Easement 1.48f ACS Area Of Remainder: 11.85f ACS Temporary Construction Easement NA Area Of Acquisition: NA HIGHEST AND BEST USE: Whole Property Interim Residential/Agricultural until demand dictates development of the site Remainder Property Interim Residential/Agricultural until demand dictates development of the site ACQUISITION COMPENSATION: Before Land: 11.85± ACS $ 485,900 Improvements: Pole Shed/Barn & 4 Trees $ 13,000 Total: $ 498,900 After Land: 11.85� ACS $ 414,300 Improvements: Not Appraised $ Total $ 414,300 Total Compensation as of. February 14, 2022 $ 84,600 ALLOCATION OF COMPENSATION Land: N/A $ 0 Permanent Easement: 1.48f ACS $ 51,500 Temporary Construction Easement: N/A $ 0 Improvements: Pole Shed/Barn & 4 Trees $ 13,000 Damages: Land $ 20,100 Cost to Cure Items: Not Applicable $ 0 Total Compensation: $ 84,600 { Ts. " f+- STAGE b CBMIM Katie Reed Hampton, CG3642 REED & ASSOCIATES, INC. • HA1AT �,.•``• Date of Report: March 18, 2022 rA SCOPE OF WORK The "Valuation Process" was utilized in estimating the market value of the subject property. This report is submitted under the Appraisal Report Option. The subject property was inspected by Katie Hampton on February 14, 2022. Photographs of the subject property were taken on the February 14th inspection by Katie Hampton. Pertinent locational and physical data were obtained on the property inspection. The whole property legal description was obtained from deed records. The land size is based on Assessment Records. The acquisition land size was based on the permanent utility easement exhibit provided by the client (a copy of which appears in the Addenda Section of this report). The history and property tax data were obtained through Assessment Records. The highest and best use of the property was projected based upon zoning, location, physical characteristics, past, current, and potential usage, etc. Each of three accepted valuation methods has been addressed in this report. In arriving at the market value of subject Whole Property Land Only and Remainder Property Land Only, the Sales Comparison Approach was utilized. Subject is improved with residential/agricultural improvements; however, the improvements are not considered to be adversely affected by the acquisition, with the exception of a barn and four trees. The Cost Approach is only utilized to estimate the contributory value of the barn and trees. Considering land rentals aren't typically the basis on which properties of the subject nature are being purchased/sold in the market area, the Income Capitalization Approach is not utilized. Application of the Income Capitalization Approach is not considered necessary to produce credible appraisal results. In the Sales Comparison Approach, comparable land sales were presented and analyzed for comparison purposes to the subject site. The unit of comparison is price per acre of land area. The sales were compared to the subject site, and adjustments made for differences. The per acre value of subject was estimated from within the adjusted range of the comparables, and was multiplied by the subject size to arrive at the indicated market value of the subject property by the Sales Comparison Approach. The value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach was relied upon in determining the final value conclusion for subject. The estimated Total Compensation (Damage To Market Value) as a result of the acquisition was determined by subtracting the market value of the Remainder Property from the market value of the Whole Property. 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."' ]Interagency Land Acquisition Conference, Uniform Appraisal Standards For Federal Land Acquisitions (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2016) P. 11. 8 PURPOSE OF APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the Market Value of the 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 as a basis for determining total damage to the market value of the subject property as a result of the acquisition of 1.48± acres in PUE. INTENDED USERS OF APPRAISAL REPORT The intended users of this Appraisal Report are the McClelland Consulting Engineers, City of Fayetteville, and Mr. Kent Detmer. PREMISE AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This appraisal is predicated on the premise that: 1. The acquisition exhibits and/or tract descriptions furnished the appraisers by the client are correct. 2. 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 Addendum Section of this report. Also, please see the Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Condition. SUMMARY OF APPRAISAL PROBLEM The appraisal problem in this valuation assignment is to: estimate the market value of the Whole Property (land/affected improvements) prior to the acquisition of 1.48± acre in PUE by the City of Fayetteville, and, to estimate the market value of the Remainder Property (land only) after the acquisition of 1.48± acre in PUE. The effective date of value in both scenarios is February 14, 2022. This represents the date of the site inspection. The permanent utility easement exhibit is located in the Addenda Section of this report. The reason for the easement is 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 a portion of the subject property. This is in connection with the West Transmission Main Route project. The PUE acquisition is located in the east part of the site. The PUE acquisition encompasses land area, fencing, barn, and four trees. Please see the exhibits located in the Addenda. Comparable sales are presented in the Addenda Section of this report. The following Extraordinary Assumptions are utilized in this report: 1. Subject land sizes, Whole Property and Remainder Property, are approximately as indicated; 2. The area of acquisition is approximately as indicated; 3. The City of Fayetteville, at their expense, will put the land area and fencing located within the permanent utility easement acquisition area back to as near original condition as possible. If any, or all, 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 Assumption and Limiting Conditions presented in the Addenda Section of this report. A Hypothetical Condition of this appraisal is that the West Transmission Main Route Project is complete and in place as of the effective date of this report in estimating the market value of the Remainder Property. In reality, the project was not complete and in place as of February 14, 2022. If this Hypothetical Condition is not considered, the estimated market value of the Remainder Property could be influenced. USPAP states the following under Sections 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 10 the Remainder Property based on 49 CFR Part 24. Considering USPAP Standards Rule 1-4 (f), this is also considered a Jurisdictional Exception. NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS The neighborhood is located in southern Benton County and northern Washington County. This location is primarily in parts of Springdale, Elm Springs, Cave Springs, and Lowell. The area appears to lie near State Highway 112 on the west, State Highway 264 on the north, I-49 on the east, and Elm Springs Road on the south. The project area consists of primarily residential uses; however, there are some commercial and special-purpose uses scattered throughout the neighborhood. Utilities available in the neighborhood include electricity, telephone service, natural gas, cable T.V., public water and sewer. The area appears to be in the growth stage of its life cycle. The overall outlook for the Market Area is considered to be positive. ZONING REGULATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS The subject site is located within the city limits of Elm Springs. Based on the City of Elm Springs Zoning Map, the subject property is zoned RSF-1, Residential Single -Family 1 Unit Per Acre. The purpose of the RSF-1 District is "a district having single-family detached residences on lots with a minimum size of one unit per acre. The district is designed to permit and encourage the development of very low density detached dwellings in suitable environments, as well as to protect existing development of these types." Permitted uses within the RSF-1 District include city-wide uses and single-family dwellings. The setback requirements in the RSF-1 District are: 50' front, 25' rear, and 10' side. 11 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The legal description for subject Whole Property is below. The fractional NW 1/4 of the fractional NW '/ of Section 30 in Township 18 Borth of Rangc 30 West, and a park of the NE'/ of the NE 14 of Section 25 in Township 18 Forth of Range 31 West, described as beginning at the Nufthuast corner of said fractional NW 'A of the fractional NW 'J. of said Section 30, and running thence South along the East quarter section line to the center of the Elm Springs — Springdale Road; thence West with thin center of said Road 753 feet; thence North 87' 07' West with the center of said Road 210.2 feet; thence North to and continuing along the East line of a lane or road running from the Elm Springs —Springdale Road North to the Howard Grigg Lands, a distance of 698.5 feet; more or less, to a point due Wost of the Southwest corner of Lot 1 in Black 1, Peter Gharst Addition to tho Town of Elm Springs, Arkansas; thence East to and continuing along the South line of Lots 1, 2 and 3 in Block 1 of said Addition to the center of the abandoned right-of-way of the Kansas City & Memphis Railway Company; thence Northeasterly with the center of said right-of-way to a point which is 12 feet due South of the North line of said fractional quarter section; thence in a direct line Easterly to a point where the East line of said right-of-way intersects the North line of said fractional quarter section; thence East to the point of beginning, subject to an easement along the Southerly park thereof for the: Elm Springs Springdale Road The legal description of the PUE acquisition area is located in the Addenda of this report. 12 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION Whole Property Subject property is located along the north side of Elm Springs Road, the west side of King Arthur Drive, and the east side of Grigg Lane, in Elm Springs, Arkansas; Washington County. The physical address of the subject property is 618 Elm Springs Road. The subject is a residentially developed, irregular shaped, 11.85± acre tract positioned along the north side of Elm Springs Road. The site has an estimated 530'± of frontage along the north side of Elm Springs Road, approximately 710'± along the east side of Grigg Lane, and approximately 515'± along the west side of King Arthur Drive. The topography of the subject site is gently rolling. The site, overall, is near to slightly above grade to Elm Springs Road and King Arthur Drive. Elm Springs Road is two-lane, asphalt paved. King Arthur Drive is a paved public street providing access through a residential subdivision. Grigg Lane frontage is near grade to slightly below grade. Grigg Lane is a gravel road. The site is mainly cleared with a few scattered trees. The site is not indicated to be located within Flood Zone area. Please see the Flood Zone Map presented in the Addenda of this report. Overall soil conditions are assumed to be adequate. One pond is located on the subject site. Approximately 25% of the site (north part of site) is considered very irregular in shape with somewhat limited utility. Access is developed to the subject from Elm Springs Road, along the south boundary of the site. Utilities and services available include telephone, electricity, public water, gas, cable T.V., and trash pickup, as well as police and fire protection. Based on Assessment Records, the site is improved with a one -level, Class "D" 1,696± SF single- family dwelling constructed in 1985. There is also a 576± SF attached garage. The exterior of the dwelling is brick veneer. The foundation is closed piers; roof cover is fiberglass shingles; and, floor structure is wood with subfloor. An interior inspection of the dwelling was not made; however, the exterior of the dwelling appeared to be in average condition. The dwelling is considered to have remaining life. Additional improvements include gravel driveway, landscaping, pipe fencing, agricultural fencing, 1,152± SF pole shed/barn, 1,296± SF barn, outbuilding, 1,271± SF pole shed, well house, etc. Acquisition The permanent utility easement is indicated to contain 1.48± acres. The easement is located along the east boundary of the site and runs from the south boundary to the north boundary of the site. The easement is 50' in width. The acquisition encompasses land area, fencing, a 1,152± SF pole shed/barn, and four trees. An extraordinary assumption of this report is that the City of Fayetteville, at their expense, will put the land and fencing located within the permanent utility easement acquisition back to as near original condition as possible. 13 Remainder Property Subject property is located along the north side of Elm Springs Road, the west side of King Arthur Drive, and the east side of Grigg Lane, in Elm Springs, Arkansas; Washington County. The physical address of the subject property is 618 Elm Springs Road. The subject is a residentially developed, irregular shaped, 11.85± acre tract positioned along the north side of Elm Springs Road. The site has an estimated 530'± of frontage along the north side of Elm Springs Road, approximately 710'f along the east side of Grigg Lane, and approximately 515'± along the west side of King Arthur Drive. The topography of the subject site is gently rolling. The site, overall, is near to slightly above grade to Elm Springs Road and King Arthur Drive. Elm Springs Road is two-lane, asphalt paved. King Arthur Drive is a paved public street providing access through a residential subdivision. Grigg Lane frontage is near grade to slightly below grade. Grigg Lane is a gravel road. The site is mainly cleared with a few scattered trees. The site is not indicated to be located within Flood Zone area. Please see the Flood Zone Map presented in the Addenda of this report. Overall soil conditions are assumed to be adequate. One pond is located on the subject site. Approximately 25% of the site (north part of site) is considered very irregular in shape with somewhat limited utility. Access is developed to the subject from Elm Springs Road, along the south boundary of the site. Utilities and services available include telephone, electricity, public water, gas, cable T.V., and trash pickup, as well as police and fire protection. A 1.48± acre PUE is located along the east boundary of the site. The PUE is 50'± in width and is estimated to comprise approximately 12% of the overall site. The side setback in the RSF-1 district is 10'. Forty feet of the easement is located outside setback requirement. Again, approximately 25% of the site (north part) is very irregular in shape. The north boundary of the site is 112'± wide. The shape of the north part of the site does create limited utility in this area; however, the location of the easement in the north part of the site, in my opinion, does create additional limited utility in this area. Based on Assessment Records, the site is improved with a one -level, Class "D" 1,696± SF single- family dwelling constructed in 1985. There is also a 576± SF attached garage. The exterior of the dwelling is brick veneer. The foundation is closed piers; roof cover is fiberglass shingles; and, floor structure is wood with subfloor. An interior inspection of the dwelling was not made; however, the exterior of the dwelling appeared to be in average condition. The dwelling is considered to have remaining life. Additional improvements include gravel driveway, landscaping, pipe fencing, agricultural fencing, 1,152± SF pole shed/barn, 1,296± SF barn, outbuilding, 1,271± SF pole shed, well house, etc. 14 ASSESSMENT AND TAX DATA A copy of the Tax Assessment Records pertaining to the subject property is presented in the Addenda Section of this report. The taxes, due by October 15, 2022, are estimated to be $983.06. This does not include the $375 Homestead Tax Credit. The property was appraised for tax purposes at $195,450. The preceding appraised value is for land and improvements. It should be noted that taxable value is lower than assessed value on Parcel 750-00579-000. Subject is located in the Springdale School District. 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.112 The theoretical focus of highest and best use analysis is on the potential uses of the land as though vacant. In practice, however, the contributory value of the existing improvements and any possible alteration of those improvements are also important in determining highest and best use and, by extension, in developing an opinion of the market value of the property. In the analysis of highest and best use of land as though 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 improvement 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 valuable, 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? 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 21nteragency Land Acquisition Conference, Uniform Appraisal Standards For Federal Land Acquisitions —(Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2016) P.22 15 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. The Four Tests As market/marketability analysis progresses to highest and best use analysis, appraisers first consider the reasonably probable uses of a site that can be legally undertaken. In the analysis of pertinent data, four steps are implicit and are applied in the following order to develop adequate support for the appraiser's highest and best use opinion: 1. Legally permissible 2. Physically possible 3. Financially feasible 4. Maximally productive These criteria are generally considered sequentially. The tests of physical possible and legal permissibility can be applied in either order, but they both must be applied before the tests of financial feasibility and maximum productivity. A use may be financially feasible, but this is irrelevant if it is legally prohibited or physically impossible. (The Appraisal Institute)3 Whole Property As Vacant — Subject property is located along the north side of Elm Springs Road, the west side of King Arthur Drive, and the east side of Grigg Lane, in Elm Springs, Arkansas; Washington County. The physical address of the subject property is 618 Elm Springs Road. The subject is a residentially developed, irregular shaped, 11.85± acre tract positioned along the north side of Elm Springs Road. The site has an estimated 530'± of frontage along the north side of Elm Springs Road, approximately 710'± along the east side of Grigg Lane, and approximately 515'± along the west side of King Arthur Drive. The topography of the subject site is gently rolling. The site, overall, is near to slightly above grade to Elm Springs Road and King Arthur Drive. Elm Springs Road is two-lane, asphalt paved. King Arthur Drive is a paved public street providing access through a residential subdivision. Grigg Lane frontage is near grade to slightly below grade. Grigg Lane is a gravel road. The site is mainly cleared with a few scattered trees. The site is not indicated to be located within Flood Zone area. Please see the Flood Zone Map presented in the Addenda of this report. Overall soil conditions are assumed to be adequate. One pond is located on the subject site. Approximately 25% of the site (north part of site) is considered very irregular in shape with somewhat limited utility. Access is developed to the subject from Elm Springs Road, along the south boundary of the site. 3 The Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 131 Edition 2008, pages 277/279. 16 Utilities and services available include telephone, electricity, public water, gas, cable T.V., and trash pickup, as well as police and fire protection. Physically possible uses of the subject site include those within size/shape limitations. Based on the City of Elm Springs Zoning Map, the subject property is zoned RSF-1, Residential Single -Family 1 Unit Per Acre. Permitted uses within the RSF-1 District include city-wide uses and single-family dwellings. The setback requirements in the RSF-1 District are: 50' front, 25' rear, and 10' side. No private Deed Restrictions were found. The physically possible and legally permissible uses of the subject site are those within size/shape limitations, and that comply with Zoning Regulations. Properties in close proximity to subject are residential 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. In my opinion, the highest and best use of the subject as vacant is residential development, within size/shape limitations, and in conformity to Zoning Regulations. The north part of the site is very irregular in shape. Consideration could be given to plotting this land with adjacent lands to the east or west. As Improved — Based on Assessment Records, the site is improved with a one -level, Class "D" 1,696± SF single-family dwelling constructed in 1985. There is also a 576± SF attached garage. The exterior of the dwelling is brick veneer. The foundation is closed piers; roof cover is fiberglass shingles; and, floor structure is wood with subfloor. An interior inspection of the dwelling was not made; however, the exterior of the dwelling appeared to be in average condition. The dwelling is considered to have remaining life. Additional improvements include gravel driveway, landscaping, pipe fencing, agricultural fencing, 1,152± SF pole shed/barn, 1,296± SF barn, outbuilding, 1,271± SF pole shed, well house, etc. In my opinion, the highest and best use of the subject as improved is continued residential/agricultural use in the interim until demand dictates removal of the improvements and redevelopment of the site for residential use (multiple lots/tracts). Remainder Property Subject property is located along the north side of Elm Springs Road, the west side of King Arthur Drive, and the east side of Grigg Lane, in Elm Springs, Arkansas; Washington County. The physical address of the subject property is 618 Elm Springs Road. 17 The subject is a residentially developed, irregular shaped, 11.85± acre tract positioned along the north side of Elm Springs Road. The site has an estimated 530'± of frontage along the north side of Elm Springs Road, approximately 710'± along the east side of Grigg Lane, and approximately 515'± along the west side of King Arthur Drive. The topography of the subject site is gently rolling. The site, overall, is near to slightly above grade to Elm Springs Road and King Arthur Drive. Elm Springs Road is two-lane, asphalt paved. King Arthur Drive is a paved public street providing access through a residential subdivision. Grigg Lane frontage is near grade to slightly below grade. Grigg Lane is a gravel road. The site is mainly cleared with a few scattered trees. The site is not indicated to be located within Flood Zone area. Please see the Flood Zone Map presented in the Addenda of this report. Overall soil conditions are assumed to be adequate. One pond is located on the subject site. Approximately 25% of the site (north part of site) is considered very irregular in shape with somewhat limited utility. Access is developed to the subject from Elm Springs Road, along the south boundary of the site. Utilities and services available include telephone, electricity, public water, gas, cable T.V., and trash pickup, as well as police and fire protection. Physically possible uses of the subject site include those within size/shape limitations. Based on the City of Elm Springs Zoning Map, the subject property is zoned RSF-I, Residential Single -Family 1 Unit Per Acre. Permitted uses within the RSF-1 District include city-wide uses and single-family dwellings. The setback requirements in the RSF-1 District are: 50' front, 25' rear, and 10' side. A 1.48± acre PUE is located along the east boundary of the site. The PUE is 50'f in width and is estimated to comprise approximately 12% of the overall site. The side setback in the RSF-1 district is 10'. Forty feet of the easement is located outside setback requirement. Again, approximately 25% of the site (north part) is very irregular in shape. The north boundary of the site is 112'± wide. The shape of the north part of the site does create limited utility in this area; however, the location of the easement in the north part of the site, in my opinion, does create additional limited utility in this area. No private Deed Restrictions were found. The physically possible and legally permissible uses of the subject site are those within size/shape/easement limitations, and that comply with Zoning Regulations. Properties in close proximity to subject are residential 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. 18 In my opinion, the highest and best use of the subject as vacant is residential development, within size/shape/easement limitations, and in conformity to Zoning Regulations. The north part of the site is very irregular in shape. Consideration could be given to plotting this land with adjacent lands to the east or west. As Improved — Based on Assessment Records, the site is improved with a one -level, Class "D" 1,696± SF single-family dwelling constructed in 1985. There is also a 576± SF attached garage. The exterior of the dwelling is brick veneer. The foundation is closed piers; roof cover is fiberglass shingles; and, floor structure is wood with subfloor. An interior inspection of the dwelling was not made; however, the exterior of the dwelling appeared to be in average condition. The dwelling is considered to have remaining life. Additional improvements include gravel driveway, landscaping, pipe fencing, agricultural fencing, 1,152± SF pole shed/barn, 1,296± SF barn, outbuilding, 1,271± SF pole shed, well house, etc. In my opinion, the highest and best use of the subject as improved is continued residential/agricultural use in the interim until demand dictates removal of the improvements and redevelopment of the site for residential use (multiple lots/tracts). 19 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 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: In arriving at the market value of the Whole Property Land/Affected Improvements and the market value of the Remainder Property Land Only, the Sales Comparison Approach to value has been applied. The subject improvements are not considered to be adversely affected by the acquisitions, with the exception of a barn and four trees. 20 The Cost Approach was only utilized to estimate the contributory value of the affected site improvements. Land rentals are not typically the basis on which properties of the subject nature are sold in the market area; therefore, the Income Capitalization Approach is not utilized. Application of the Income Capitalization Approach to Value is not considered necessary to produce credible appraisal results for the subject property. ESTATE APPRAISED: Fee Simple Estate; Permanent Utility Easement. HISTORY: The subject property has not sold or transferred within the five-year period preceding the effective date of this report. The subject is not listed for sale, or under contract to sell, as of the effective date, to my knowledge. CHANGES IN PROPERTY SINCE DATE OF PURCHASE: Not available to the appraiser. PERSONAL PROPERTY: None considered. REAL ESTATE: Subject land, barn, and trees are valued in this report. COMMENTS: The subject property was inspected by the appraiser on February 14, 2022. The property owner was present at the time of inspection. 21 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (Whole Property - Land Only) COMPARISON WITH SUBJECT PROPERTY Sale narratives appear in the Addenda Section of this report. SALE 1 2 3 4 5 Date of Sale 07/12/2018 02/26/2019 01/19/2021 07/16/2021 03/26/2021 Sales Price $875,000 $630,000 $350,000 $526,250 $750,000 Size ± ACS 20.13 15 10 14.27 20 Unit Price/AC $43,467 $42,000 $35,000 $36,878 $37,500 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Property Rights -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Financing -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Conditions of Sale -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Expenditures Made After Sale -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Improvements -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Market Conditions $5,433 $4,200 -0- -0- -0- ADJUSTED SALES PRICE $48,900 $46,200 $35,000 $36,878 $37,500 Location/Appeal 0 0 5,250 5,532 5,625 Physical Characteristics Size Shape Legal Characteristics Zoning 2,445 -4,890 -0- -0- -4,620 -0- -0- -3,500 350 -0- -1,844 369 1,875 -3,750 -0- INDICATED UNIT VALUE $46,455 $41,580 $37,100 $40,935 $35,625 EXPLANATION OF ADJUSTMENTS: The unit of comparison is price per acre of land area. The necessary categories of adjustment are for market conditions, location/appeal, physical characteristics (size, shape), and legal characteristics (zoning). Each of the sales is considered reasonably similar to subject with respect to property rights, financing, conditions of sale, and utilities. Each of Sales One and Two included residential/agricultural improvements at the time of sale that were razed subsequent to the sale. The estimated cost to demolish the improvements was not known. An adjustment is not made for Expenditures Made After the Sale; however, this will be considered in the reconciliation. Market Conditions: The respective sale dates of the comparable sales appear in the table above; the sales occurred between July 2018 and July 2021. Each of Sales Three, Four, and Five is considered similar in market conditions compared to those as of the effective date of this report. 22 Sale One occurred in 2018 and Sale Two in 2019. Overall, each of these sales is considered inferior to subject with respect to market conditions. Sales Analysis supports 5% annual appreciation from 2018 through 2020; therefore, Sale One is adjusted upward 12.5% and Sale Two upward 10%. No adjustment is necessary to Sales Three, Four, or Five. Location/Appeal: Subject is located along the north side of Elm Springs Road, east of State Highway 112 in Elm Springs. Sale One is located along the west side of Ball Road, just north of Elm Springs Road in Springdale. Sale One is located across from Shaw Park. Sale Two is located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Elm Springs Road in Elm Springs. Sale Two is located in close proximity to Shaw Park. Sale Three is located at the northwest corner of County Line Road and Pinkley Road in Springdale. This location is in close proximity to Shaw Park. Sale Four is located along the east side of 56th Street, south of County Line Road in Springdale. Sale Five is located along the west side of 56th Street, south of County Line Road in Springdale. Overall, each of Sales One and Two is considered reasonably similar to subject. These sales are located along or near Elm Springs Road and within very close proximity to Shaw Park. Each of Sales Three, Four, and Five is considered inferior to subject with respect to location/appeal. Paired Sales Analysis utilizing Sale Two with Sale Five indicates, after adjusting for other differences, that Sale Five is approximately 15% inferior to Sale Two. Again, Sale Two is considered reasonably similar to subject in location/appeal; therefore, in comparison to subject, Sale Five is adjusted upward 15% for inferior location. Each of Sales Three and Four is also adjusted upward 15% for inferior location. No adjustment is necessary to Sales One or Two. Physical Characteristics: With respect to physical characteristics, the necessary categories of adjustment is for land size and shape. • Land Size: The subject is smaller than each of Sales One and Five. Overall, subject is relatively similar to Sales Two, Three, and Four. The tendency in the market is that as land area increases, price per unit decreases, and vice versa; this is for otherwise -similar properties. Sales Analysis supports that as a property's land area approximates doubling, its price/unit decreases about 10%±. Based on this premise, each of Sales One and Five is adjusted upward 5%. • Shape: Subject has an irregular shape in the north part of the site. This area comprises approximately 25% of the overall site. The width of the north boundary of the site is approximately 112'. Due to the shape of the north part of the site, development in the north part is limited. Overall, each of the sales has an adequate shape for development. Sale Four is "L" shaped with approximately 270' of width at the narrowest part. Sale Four is considered approximately 5% superior to subject with respect to shape. Paired Sales Analysis, utilizing Sale Five with Sale Four indicates, after adjusting for other differences, that Sale Four is approximately 5% inferior to Sale Five. Therefore, Sale Five is considered approximately 10% superior to subject with respect to shape. Each of Sales One, Two, Three, and Five is adjusted downward 10% for superior shape. 23 Legal Characteristics: With respect to legal characteristics, the necessary category of adjustment is for zoning. • Zoning: Subject is zoned RSF-1. Sale One was zoned SF-2 at the time of Sale, Sale Two a mixture of RSF-1/A-1, and Sale Five SF-2. Each of Sales Three and Four was zoned A-1 at the time of sale. Overall, each of Sales One, Two, and Five is considered reasonably similar to subject, while each of Sales Three and Four is considered inferior. It is likely that Sales Three and Four could obtain a residential zoning; however, there would be costs involved to rezone. The property owner would have to petition the respective Planning Commission/ City Council for rezoning of the site to a single-family residential zoning district. Each of Sales Three and Four is adjusted upward 1% for inferior zoning. CORRELATION OF INDICATED VALUES: The range of adjusted per acre values is $35,625 to $46,455; the mean of the sales is indicated to be $40,339/AC, while the median is $40,935/AC. Each of the sales is given consideration. Also given consideration is the listing of 27.08± acres located just west of subject along Elm Springs Road. This 27.08± acre tract is listed for $1,250,000 or $46,160/acre. The property has been listed since May 18, 2021. ESTIMATED LAND VALUE: Based on the preceding analysis, the indicated per acre value of subject Whole Property, in our opinion, is $41,000. Therefore: WHOLE PROPERTY LAND ONLY: 11.85f ACS @ $41,000 = $485,850 Say $485,900 PLUS: Contributory Value of Pole Shed/Barn* _ $ 9,000 Contributory Value of Trees* _ $ 4,000 WHOLE PROPERTY LAND ONLY/ AFFECTED IMPROVEMENTS = $498,900 *The contributory value of the pole shed/barn and four trees affected by the acquisition was based on Marshall Valuation Service. Please see the Extraordinary Assumptions previously presented. 24 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (Remainder Property - Land Only) COMPARISON WITH SUBJECT PROPERTY Sale narratives appear in the Addenda Section of this report. SALE 1 2 3 4 5 Date of Sale 07/12/2018 02/26/2019 01/19/2021 07/16/2021 03/26/2021 Sales Price $875,000 $630,000 $350,000 $526,250 $750,000 Size ± ACS 20.13 15 10 14.27 20 Unit Price/AC $43,467 $42,000 $35,000 $36,878 $37,500 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Property Rights -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Financing -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Conditions of Sale -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Expenditures Made After -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Sale Improvements -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Market Conditions $5,433 $4,200 -0- -0- -0- ADJUSTED SALES PRICE $48,900 $46,200 $35,000 $36,878 $37,500 Location/Appeal 0 0 5,250 5,532 5,625 Physical Characteristics Size 2,445 -0- -0- -0- 1,875 Shape -4,890 -4,620 -3,500 -1,844 -3,750 Legal Characteristics Zoning -0- -0- 350 369 -0- Easement -4,346 -4,346 -4,346 -4,346 -4,346 Damages -1,696 -1,696 -1,696 -1,696 -1,696 INDICATED UNIT VALUE $40,413 $35,538 $31,058 $34,893 $35,208 EXPLANATION OF ADJUSTMENTS: The unit of comparison is price per acre of land area. The necessary categories of adjustment are for market conditions, location/appeal, physical characteristics (size, shape), and legal characteristics (zoning, easement, and damages). Each of the sales is considered reasonably similar to subject with respect to property rights, financing, conditions of sale, and utilities. Each of Sales One and Two included residential/agricultural improvements at the time of sale that were razed subsequent to the sale. The estimated cost to demolish the improvements was not known. An adjustment is not made for Expenditures Made After the Sale; however, this will be considered in the reconciliation. 25 Market Conditions: The respective sale dates of the comparable sales appear in the table above; the sales occurred between July 2018 and July 2021. Each of Sales Three, Four, and Five is considered similar in market conditions compared to those as of the effective date of this report. Sale One occurred in 2018 and Sale Two in 2019. Overall, each of these sales is considered inferior to subject with respect to market conditions. Sales Analysis supports 5% annual appreciation from 2018 through 2020; therefore, Sale One is adjusted upward 12.5% and Sale Two upward 10%. No adjustment is necessary to Sales Three, Four, or Five. Location/Appeal: Subject is located along the north side of Elm Springs Road, east of State Highway 112 in Elm Springs. Sale One is located along the west side of Ball Road, just north of Elm Springs Road in Springdale. Sale One is located across from Shaw Park. Sale Two is located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Elm Springs Road in Elm Springs. Sale Two is located in close proximity to Shaw Park. Sale Three is located at the northwest corner of County Line Road and Pinkley Road in Springdale. This location is in close proximity to Shaw Park. Sale Four is located along the east side of 56th Street, south of County Line Road in Springdale. Sale Five is located along the west side of 56th Street, south of County Line Road in Springdale. Overall, each of Sales One and Two is considered reasonably similar to subject. These sales are located along or near Elm Springs Road and within very close proximity to Shaw Park. Each of Sales Three, Four, and Five is considered inferior to subject with respect to location/appeal. Paired Sales Analysis utilizing Sale Two with Sale Five indicates, after adjusting for other differences, that Sale Five is approximately 15% inferior to Sale Two. Again, Sale Two is considered reasonably similar to subject in location/appeal; therefore, in comparison to subject, Sale Five is adjusted upward 15% for inferior location. Each of Sales Three and Four is also adjusted upward 15% for inferior location. No adjustment is necessary to Sales One or Two. Physical Characteristics: With respect to physical characteristics, the necessary categories of adjustment is for land size and shape. • Land Size: The subject is smaller than each of Sales One and Five. Overall, subject is relatively similar to Sales Two, Three, and Four. The tendency in the market is that as land area increases, price per unit decreases, and vice versa; this is for otherwise -similar properties. Sales Analysis supports that as a property's land area approximates doubling, its price/unit decreases about 10%f. Based on this premise, each of Sales One and Five is adjusted upward 5%. • Shape: Subject has an irregular shape in the north part of the site. This area comprises approximately 25% of the overall site. The width of the north boundary of the site is approximately 112'. Due to the shape of the north part of the site, development in the north part is limited. Overall, each of the sales has an adequate shape for development. Sale Four is "L" shaped with approximately 270' of width at the narrowest part. Sale Four is considered approximately 5% superior to subject with respect to shape. Paired Sales Analysis, utilizing Sale Five with Sale Four indicates, after adjusting for other differences, that Sale Four is approximately 5% inferior to Sale Five. Therefore, Sale Five is considered approximately 10% superior to subject with respect to shape. Each of Sales One, Two, Three, and Five is adjusted downward 10% for superior shape. 26 Legal Characteristics: With respect to legal characteristics, the necessary category of adjustment is for zoning, easement, and damages. • Zoning: Subject is zoned RSF-1. Sale One was zoned SF-2 at the time of Sale, Sale Two a mixture of RSF-1/A-1, and Sale Five SF-2. Each of Sales Three and Four was zoned A-1 at the time of sale. Overall, each of Sales One, Two, and Five is considered reasonably similar to subject, while each of Sales Three and Four is considered inferior. It is likely that Sales Three and Four could obtain a residential zoning; however, there would be costs involved to rezone. The property owner would have to petition the respective Planning Commission/ City Council for rezoning of the site to a single-family residential zoning district. Each of Sales Three and Four is adjusted upward 1% for inferior zoning. • Easement: The subject property is encumbered with a 1.48± acre permanent utility easement located along the east boundary of the site. The easement is 50' in width. 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 side setback requirement for the subject property is 10'. Approximately 20% of the PUE is located within side setback requirement, while approximately 80% of the PUE is located outside side setback requirement. Structures cannot be built on the land within the permanent utility easement area. In my opinion, the property owner's bundle of rights of ownership will be lost with respect to the land within the permanent utility easement area that is located outside side setback requirement. This area is valued at 100% of full fee value. In my opinion, a portion of the property owner's bundle of rights of ownership will be lost with respect to the land within the permanent utility easement rea that is located inside side setback requirement. This area is valued at 75% of full fee value. Therefore, 1.18± acres @ $41,000/acre x 100% = $48,380 and 0.30± acre @ $41,000/acre x 25% = $3,075; total acquisition = $48,380 + $3,075 = $51,455, say $51,500 or $4,346/acre ($51,500/11.85 acres). Each sale is adjusted downward $4,346. • Damages: Again, subject's northern portion of the site (approximately 25% of the entire site) is irregular in shape. The northern boundary of the site is approximately 112'f in width. The shape of the northern portion makes development limited in this area. An adjustment for subject's shape has already been discussed in this analysis; however, the location and size of the permanent utility easement creates additional issues with the utility of the northern portion of the site. Overall, it is my opinion, that the northwestern portion located outside the permanent utility easement, or approximately 2.45± acres is damaged approximately 20% by the PUE acquisition. Therefore: 2.45± acres @ $41,000 x 20% _ $20,090, say $20,100. Each sale is adjusted downward $1,696 ($20,100/11.85 acres). CORRELATION OF INDICATED VALUES: The range of adjusted per acre values is $31,058 to $40,413; the mean of the sales is indicated to be $35,422/AC, while the median is $35,208/AC. Each of the sales is given consideration. Also given consideration is the listing of 27.08± acres located just west of subject along Elm Springs Road. This 27.08± acre tract is listed for $1,250,000 or $46,160/acre. The property has been listed since May 18, 2021. 27 ESTIMATED LAND VALUE: Based on the preceding analysis, the indicated per acre value of subject Remainder Property, in our opinion, is $34,958. Therefore: REMAINDER PROPERTY LAND ONLY: 11.85f ACS @ $34,958 = $4141252 Say $414,300 Please see the Extraordinary Assumptions previously presented. SUMMARY OF ACQUISITION: PUE 1.18f Acres (Outside Side Setback) @ $41,000 = $ 48,400 PUE 0.30± Acre (Inside Side Setback) @ $10,250 = $ 3,100 Pole Shed/Barn = $ 9,000 4 Trees = $ 4,000 Total $ 64,500 Please see the Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Condition previously presented. 28 RECONCILIATION OF APPROACHES Estimated Value of Whole Tract Before Taking: Cost Approach...................................................... Not Utilized Sales Comparison Approach...............................$498,900 (Land/Affected Improvements) Income Capitalization Approach ......................... Not Utilized Estimated Value..............$498,900 EXPLANATION: The Sales Comparison Approach was relied upon in arriving at the final value conclusion for the Whole Property. The quantity and quality of data available is considered good. Estimated Value of Remainder Tract After Taking: Cost Approach.............................................................Not Utilized Sales Comparison Approach................................$414,300 Income Capitalization Approach...............................Not Utilized Estimated Value..............$414,300 EXPLANATION: The value of the Remainder Property is based on the Sales Comparison Approach. The quantity and quality of data available or use in the Sales Comparison Approach was considered good. ESTIMATED VALUE OF PART SOUGHT INCLUDING ALL DAMAGES OR BENEFITS: Whole Property (Land/Affected Improvements) _ $498,900 Remainder Property (Land Only) _ $414,300 Total Compensation = $ 84,600 Less: Contributory Value of Affected Improvements & PUE Acquisition = $ 64,500 Damages = $ 20,100 Please see the Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Condition previously presented. 29 EXPOSURE TIME Exposure time is the length of time the subject property would have been exposed for sale in the market had it sold at the market value concluded in this analysis as of the date of this valuation. The exposure time of Sales Two and Five utilized in the Sales Comparison Approach was not known. The exposure time of Sales One, Three, and Four was indicated to be 129± days, 110± days, and 0± days, respectively. Based on Multiple Listing Service Data, the average days on market for development potential land sales 2-20 acres in size located in Benton and Washington Counties occurring within the twelve months immediately preceding the effective date of this report was indicated to be 342 days, while the median was indicated to be 221 days. This was based on 162 transactions. The land and residential sectors are considered strong at the present time with good activity levels and significant new construction. The outlook for subject's market area is considered good. The near term outlook for the Northwest Arkansas real estate market is considered positive; however, the country and area are experiencing severe pressure on the economy as a result of the virus, and the overall impact on real estate values is yet to be determined. Overall, in my opinion, an exposure time of one year or less is considered realistic for the subject property. 30 ADDENDA 1. Definitions 2. Area Map 3. Area Data 4. Aerial Photograph 5. Subject Photographs 6. Flood Zone Map 7. Assessment Records 8. Deed Records 9. Permanent Easement Legal Description/Exhibits 10. Comparable Land Sales Map 11. Comparable Land Sales 12. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 13. Qualifications of the Appraiser 31 DEFINITIONS RETROSPECTIVE VALUE OPINION: `A value opinion effective as of a specified historical date. The term retrospective 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 property 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. "I 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 LEASED FEE ESTATE: "The ownership interest held by the lessor, which includes the right to receive the contract rent specified in the lease plus the revisionary right when the lease expires. "3 LEASEHOLD ESTATE: "The right held by the lessee to use and occupy real estate for a stated term and under the conditions specified in the lease. "4 EASEMENT: "The right to use another's land for a stated purpose. "5 PERPETUAL EASEMENT: `An easement that lasts forever. "6 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. "7 1 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 201. 2 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 90. 3 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 128. 4 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 128. 5 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 71 6 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 170. 7 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago; Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 231. MARKET AREA: "The geographic region from which a majority of demand comes and in which the majority of competition is located. Depending on the market, a market area may be further subdivided into components such as primary, secondary, and tertiary market areas, or the competitive market area may be distinguished from the general market area. "8 NEIGHBORHOOD: " 1. A group of complementary land uses; a business enterprises. 2. A developed residential super pad within distinguished name and entrance. "9 HIGHEST AND BEST USE: congruous grouping of inhabitants, buildings, or a master planned community usually having a "The highest and most profitable use for which the property is adaptable and needed or likely to be needed in the reasonably near future. "10 SEVERANCE DAMAGES: `In condemnation, the loss in value to the remainder in a partial taking ofproperty. 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. "11 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. "12 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. "13 8 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 139. 9 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 156. 10 Interagency Land Acquisition Conference, Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions —(Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2016) P. 22. 11 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal —Sixth Edition, (Chicago; Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 59 12 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 123. 13 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 54. 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, market -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. " 14 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 ofproperty income. "'s 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 `6 MARKET VALUE: 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. EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTION: `An assumption, directly related to a specific assignment, as of the effective date of the assignment results, which, iffound to be false, could alter the appraiser's opinion or conclusions. `8 HYPOTHETICAL CONDITION: " L A condition that is presumed to be true when it is known to be false. (SVP) 2. A condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results, but is used for the purpose of analysis. "t9 14 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal —Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 207. 15 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal —Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 115. 16 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 190. 17 Interagency Land Acquisition Conference, Uniform Appraisal Standards For Federal Land Acquisitions (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2016) P. 93. 18 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 83-84. 19 Appraisal Institute, The DictionaryofReal Estate Appraisal — Sixth Edition, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), P. 113. W: UW.16 5Duthoesr City Seligman N 1 sulphur Springs ............... Bells Vista E F'ea Rldge Garfield � Hiwasse' j Gravette v i a May .v I I Ic rr Bentonville 'G '4�43 l Decatur �+�� Rogers Larue l 3 i Che cee City SUBJECT PROPERTY Hobbs Sate Park-Corlservatiol-i Ord T� Gentry -- H ghfill Lower _ Area i Sil m Springy 1�9----- Springdalc- Tontitown Spring V }+Icy shady Gii-eve r� I ;ndsYllle I l Wa"'L naeri� Savoy ® " � Goshen I �I I — Fayetteville Watts FisrminWcin, Communi (+i} !1wJc�lo R;ct`lar,d 4tfestwill �(�rr Elkins #3i ° Y Prairie GrQwe Ja k Q 1 L ncalr Durham' Asher I Hogeye L^�£st F�t3rk Canehill Fa t� ` Crosses rf 11 Morrow DN BF@ntWwd r Fairfield y si i Strickler Combs Stilwell i AREA DATA Id The Trade Area includes Washington, Benton, and Madison Counties in Arkansas. The three counties are located in the extreme northwestern part of Arkansas, and make up the Fayetteville - Springdale -Rogers, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). This area is bordered by the Oklahoma State line on the west, the Missouri State line to the north, Carroll and Newton Counties in Arkansas to the east, and Crawford, Franklin and Johnson Counties on the south. The total land area of Benton County is indicated to be 1,088.56± square miles, Washington County 1,140.77± square miles, and Madison County 878.77± square miles. It should be noted that 97%± 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 forces are exerted primarily through population characteristics. The demographic composition of the population reveals the potential, basic demand for real estate services. Based on data released by the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2010 Census indicated populations for Benton and Washington Counties of 221,339 and 203,065, respectively; the total for the two counties was 424,404. The population of the two -county area as of 2020 was 530,204, with Benton County reflecting a total of 284,333 and Washington County a total of 245,871. The growth between 2010 and 2020 is indicated to be 24.9%±, or 2.49%± per year. The U.S. Census Bureau data reflected the population of the MSA as of 2010 to be 442,301. The indicated 2020 population of the MSA, based on State & County QuickFacts, was 546,725±; this reflects an estimated growth of 23.6%f, or 2.36%f per year, for the MSA between 2010 and 2020. The estimated 2019 population of the MSA was reported to be 534,904; this reflects a 2.21% growth in population between 2019 and 2020. According to the U.S. Census Bureau data, the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA represented the 13th fastest growing metropolitan area in the United States between 2010 and 2020. 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: FREGk�—ResldentRopulatlonlnFayeu,-AllrSprlrngdaleFZogers,AR-MO(MSA] 560 520 480 4400 4a0 360 320 290 240 200 160 120 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 201C 2015 2020 Shaded areas Indiare US recessions. Source: U.S. C—r Bureau Fred stlou Isfed org Source: U.S. Census 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 35,301 in 2010, a 196%f increase since 1990. The 2020 population was indicated to be 54,164, a 53.4%f increase, or 5.34% per year from 2010. Rogers is the largest city in Benton County, and is located to the south and east of Bentonville. Its 2010 population of 55,964 reflects a 44.1%± increase since 1990. The 2020 population was indicated to be 69,908, a 24.9%f increase from 2010. 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 15,039 in 2010 to 17,287 in 2020, a 14.95%f increase. 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 2010, and 2020 indicated populations of Centerton were reported to be 9,515, and 17,792, respectively. This would indicate population growth of 86.99%± between 2010 and 2020. The City of Lowell is located in the southern part of Benton County, just south of Rogers. The 2010, and 2020 populations of Lowell were reported to be 7,327, and 9,839, respectively. This would indicate population growth of 34.3%± between 2010 and 2020. 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 73,580 in 2010. This represented a 72.10%f increase since 1990. The 2020 population was indicated to be 93,949, an increase of 27.7%±, or 2.77% per year from 2010. 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 69,797 in 2010. This represented a 133.1%± increase since 1990. The 2020 population was indicated to be 84,161, an increase of 20.6%±, or 2.06%f per year from 2010. 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 population concentrations in the Fayetteville - Sulphur �prings {.airway •$94 Bella Vista 73.410 Pea Ridge Garfield eryeY Gravene ,�g.gq� 7B.79a ��'+' 52.69, 75%4. IW% Avoca 50%W n% L�ttleFlock 162% 25% b 58% C enterkKOentonvill e iqX a �i'4 deeah.r 97-0% d.4% RogwL 014b i4X ZA.5% L-1h. 0% Gf, l" Springta,rn 55+}pprrll ,l Luwt4l 24-0% -44b 34.?r% r , B.Ihrl Mridhts Elm Springs 271% Siloam SpFirbgs 53.0% Springdale 14.9% Tontitown 20.6% 74-6% Hindsville John#on 47.S% �� �i6i1M�7 Hl.rltsr+k: FayelbeviFe 27-74i Fa rmrn�t4A 27 oa. Ellurl7 Prairie Grove G'r nsi 3G.494 6U.M% U-cvh xQ% Wem Fork o St. Paul yvr�}lew -1 #R4 Source: Northwest Arkansas Council The following table reflects population changes for the major cities in the Fayetteville - Springdale -Rogers MSA since 2010: M 2000 2010 I 2000-2010 % [ Increase 2020 2010-2020 % Increase Fayetteville 58,047 73,580 26.8% 93,949 27.7% Springdale 45,798 69,797 52.4% 84,161 20.6% Rogers 38,829 55,964 44.1% 69,908 1 24.9% Bentonville 19,730 35,301 78.9% 54,164 53.4% Lowell 5,013 7,327 46.2% 9,839 34.3% Centerton 2,146 9,515 343.4% 17,792 87.0% Siloam Springs 10,843 15,039 38.7% 17,287 14.9% Source: U.S. Census As previously indicated, the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA was reported to be the 13th fastest growing MSA in the county between 2010 and 2020. 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 followed 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 fundamental relationships between current and anticipated supply and demand and the economic ability of the population to satisfy its wants, needs, and demands through its purchasing power. The following chart represents Non -Farm Employment Growth (seasonally adjusted) for the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA since 1990: FREQ ,/-�/ — All Employees: Total Nonfarm In Fayette llleSpNngdale-Rogers, Al (MSA) 300 280 260 240 220 200 180 r 160 140 20 00 1 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 21110 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 II � II Shaded amen and w US recessions. Sour— 11.5. Bureau of Labor Statistic fred.stloulsfed.org Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 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 impact of COVID is also depicted in the chart above. 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 remained positive until April 2020 when the unemployment rate in the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA reached 7.6% due to the economic impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Non -farm employment numbers in November 2021 were approximately 43%f greater than in February 2008. Non -farm employment increased nearly 16% between April 2020 and November 2021. This is primarily due to economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. The civilian labor force in Benton County averaged 140,015 for the year 2020. Washington County averaged 126,141 for the same time period. In 2020, Benton County's unemployment rate averaged 4.5%, while Washington County's rate averaged 4.6%. The 2020 unemployment rates for the United States, State of Arkansas, and the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA were 6.7%, 4.9%, and 4.5%, respectively. All of the preceding rates represent non -seasonally adjusted rates. It should be noted that the Northwest Arkansas unemployment rate over the last twenty years peaked at 8.1 % in April 2020. This is primarily due to the recent outbreak of Covid-19. Prior to March 2020, NWA unemployment rates stabilized under 3%. The November 2021 unemployment rate was indicated to be 2.2%. The following illustration displays the unemployment rates in the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA, State of Arkansas, and United States between 2000 and 2020: NWA Unemployment Rate vs. State and U.S. — 2000 to November 2021 MEQ ,,-' — Unemployment Rate In Fayeffini le -Springdale -Rogers, Ali -MO (MSA); Seasonally Adjusted — Unemployment Rate In Arkansas — Unemployment Rate 150 12.5 100 75 50 Z5 00 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 1950 1960 Shaded areas Mdk w U5. reressians 1970 1980 1l �mrL II Source: U.S. Bureau of La 6or Statistic freddsJ.0 fed.atg 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 4th nationally on its 2020 ranking of the "Best Places to Live" list (ranked 5th in 2017); • The Milken Institute, which published a new report in 2020, put the Fayetteville - Springdale -Rogers Metropolitan Statistical Area's economy at No. 37 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 4th nationally in 2020 in its ranking of the "Cheapest Places to Live"; • Forbes ranked Northwest Arkansas at No. 2 on its list of Best Midsize Cities for Jobs in May 2018; midsize cities were classified by having 150,000 to 450,000 nonfarm jobs in their metropolitan area; • PlacesForBikes put three Northwest Arkansas cities among its Top 20 city ratings in its 2020 report: No. 6 Rogers, No. 10 Fayetteville, and No. 14 Bella Vista. Bentonville also made the list at No. 38; • In 2020, U.S. News and World Report ranked Northwest Arkansas 12th in Best Places to Live for Quality of Life, 15th in Fastest Growing Places, and 20th in Safest Places to Live; • Money Magazine named both Springdale and Bentonville as "2019 Best Places to Live"; • Forbes ranked Northwest Arkansas at No. 40 on its list of "Best Places for Business and Careers" in 2019; criteria included labor supply, quality of life, college attainment, crime statistics, local college quality, and cultural and recreational opportunities; • New Geography placed Northwest Arkansas loth on its list of "Best Cities for Job Growth" in 2018; 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. U.S. Census data reflect the following income figures for the Benton -Washington County area: Washington Co 2010 2019 Change Median Household Income $45,544 $50,451 10.8% Per Ca ita Income $21,840 $27,790 27.2% The single-family residential sector of the Northwest Arkansas real estate market appears to have fully 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 Half of 2020 there were 23,799 lots in 42 active subdivisions. This includes Benton, Washington, and Madison Counties. Using the absorption rate from 2020 indicates that there was a 17.6 month supply of remaining lots in active subdivisions according to The Skyline Report, by Researchers at the Center for Business and Economic Research in the Sam M. Walton College of Business at the University of Arkansas. This is down from the First Half of 2021, which indicated a 21.3 month supply. 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. In Benton County, The Skyline Report data reflects the median home price for the Second Half of 2020 to be $293,403, as compared to $244,478 for the Second Half of 2018. This indicates a 20% increase. In Washington County, the median home price for the Second Half of 2020 was indicated by The Skyline Report data to be $268,987. This compares to $228,681 for the Second Half of 2018. The increase calculates to 17.6%. 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 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,C00 500 1111 I I 2010 2611 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 ■ Benton County ■ Washington County Source: Streetsmart Residential Market Insight Report 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 5% in the Second Half of 2020. The Fayetteville multi -family market has a good history of strength, due to the University of Arkansas, and reflected a Second Half 2020 vacancy rate of 4.8%. The Rogers/Lowell, Bentonville, Siloam Springs, and Springdale multi -family markets also appear to be healthy with vacancy rates of 6.4%, 7.4%, .6%, and 2.10%, 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, and Rogers. The Bentonville and Lowell markets have also experienced substantial construction of new units, while Springdale has also experienced some new construction since the 2009-2010± time period. It should be noted that the Second Half of 2020 Skyline Report indicates that approximately 13,977± units in the Northwest Arkansas market were 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 Northwest Arkansas, the overall vacancy rate for professional office space for the 2nd Half of 2020 was indicated to be 10.8%. 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 11.4% in the 2nd Half of 2020. 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: NWA Commercial Permit Values (in 1,000's) 500,000 450,000 432,887 400,000 384,982 343,733 359,9C)$63,916 350.000 300,000 250.000 2 11.664 1 200,000 88,004 MUM 96,68079,41898,239 100,000 62.006 50,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Source: The Skyline Report — 2nd Half 2020 Commercial Real Estate Market Summary With respect to hotels/motels/restaurants, the following increases/decreases in tax receipts collected between Quarter One 2019 and Quarter One 2020 were indicated: Bentonville -7.2%+ Fayetteville +1.5%f Rogers +16.8%f Springdale* +2.6%f Springdale and Rogers do not collect restaurant tax receipts. *The City of Springdale data reflects tax receipts between 2016 and 2017 (latest available financial report). 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 2017 of $593,371,000 and 509,256,000, respectively. Second, influence from the University of Arkansas located in Fayetteville. Total enrollment for Fall 2021 at the University was 29,068±. A second public academic institution, the Northwest Arkansas Community College (NWACC), is located in Bentonville. Fall 2021 enrollment for the school was indicated to be 7,081±. In addition to the main campus, the NWACC also has branch campuses located in Springdale, Rogers, and Farmington. A Washington County Campus was recently completed in the southwest part of Springdale. Construction of the facility was completed in January 2020. 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 50h 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 $62,713,000. 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: m to er I&f Em to ees Sector/Product Main Location Wal-Mart Stores (Home Office, DC's & Stores 52,000+ Retail Bentonville Tyson Foods 24,000+ Protein Processing/Marketing Springdale University of Arkansas 28,000+ Education Fayetteville Simmons Foods, Inc. 7,000+ Poultry Processing Siloam Springs J.B. Hunt Transport Services 29,000+ Transportation Lowell Washington Regional 1,000+ Health Fayetteville Geor e's Inc. 8,300+ Poultry Springdale Northwest Health Systems 2,200+ Health Bentonville/Springdale Mercy Health Systems 2,000+ Health Multiple Arvest Bank 6,300+ 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 museum 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 funds 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. However, credit conditions have improved significantly over the past several years. 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 2.75% - 3.75% range. Interest rates on commercial mortgages are typically in the 4.00% to 5.75% 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 against inflation; however, remain in an affordable range. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) data indicate there are a total of 56 financial institutions in the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA. Deposits as of Q4 2021 totaled $15,416,851± 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, overall, are continuing to provide a benefit to 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 I-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 the improvement in market conditions. Counties in Arkansas are under re -appraisal schedules to reflect changing market conditions. 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 was completed in early 2018. The building includes 233,613± square feet of inpatient beds, emergency care, diagnostic service, and clinical space. The building also includes a helipad. The hospital employs over 250 employees. The following table reflects area schools' enrollments for the previous years: Area School Enrollmen Fall 2013 Fall 2014ff015 all all 0 Fall 2017 Fall 2018 Fall 2020 Fayetteville Public Schools 9,421 9,503 9,652 9,321 9,525 10,017 10,151 Springdale Public Schools 20,547 21,120 21,260 21,527 21,958 21,891 21,882 Rogers Public Schools 14,757 15,027 15,077 15,486 15,857 15,604 15,355 Bentonville Public Schools 15,114 15,497 16,060 16,896 1 17,217 17,225 17,970 University of Arkansas - Fayetteville 24,537 26,237 26,754 27,194 27,558 27,778 27,562 Northwest Arkansas Community College Rogers/Bentonville 8,020 8,098 7,744 7,761 7,715 7,995 7,715 John Brown University - Siloam Springs 2,183 2,850 2,126 2,126 2,613 2,474 2,316 Source: Schools' Administration Offices 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 2020 enrollment at the area charter schools was reported at 3,610. 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: Both natural and man-made environmental forces influence real property values. Environmental forces include climatic conditions, topography and soil, natural barriers to future development, primary transportation systems, and the nature and desirability of the immediate area surrounding a property. _ The two -county area has relatively warm summers and mild winters. High temperatures in summer are often accompanied 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: TA6 kw a • YYYin aly . Indio Kansas* • KZ-11 M Is sou rY Tennesse ,9klahnrna Arkonims Mississippi- j!YAh 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,OOOf 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 71B 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, and the phase between I-49 and State Highway 112 opened in 2018. The next phase of the west segment proposed to be completed is between State Highway 112 and U.S. Highway 412 West. The Bella Vista Bypass opened October 1, 2021 and has significantly improved accessibility to/from the north. It should be noted that construction of additional lanes to I-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 I-49 in Springdale. The location is at I-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 I-49 has been completed in Bentonville. The location is at I-49/SE 8th Street in the east part of Bentonville. This allows good access from I- 49, via 8th Street, to the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. campus, which is in the process of being relocated along 8th Street. 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,OOOf 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 2020, the airport served some 360,133± passengers, while in 2019, the airport served a reported 922,533± passengers. The decline was due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Construction of a four -level parking deck began in January of 2017. The new garage provides for an additional 1,400± parking spaces, and was completed in August 2018. A 20-Year Master Plan for the airport includes the addition of another runway. A new transportation route to the airport is also proposed to be constructed in the near future. A possible location for this new route is to run northwesterly from the west segment of the Northern Springdale Bypass, intersecting 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 2f 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 2019 and July 2020, the estimated population growth in Benton and Washington Counties combined was 12,888± people. This calculates to near 35± persons per day (12,888 365 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 was recently developed in the southwest part of Springdale. This should create demand for residential and commercial development in that area. In summary, businesses continue to be concerned about the COVID-19 Pandemic. Global labor and supply chain issues have intensified the concern. Unemployment has returned to pre - pandemic levels, but labor shortages remain an issue. Several critics blame unemployment benefits, however little evidence exists suggesting this is the case. A more likely scenario is a growing number of people retiring and fewer mothers with children re-entering the workforce. There is still progress to be made before the labor issue is resolved. The long-term outlook for the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA remains positive. The COVID-19 Pandemic continues to be a major concern; however, there is insufficient data at the present time supporting a negative influence on real estate values in the area. .. EVOL:,. i z [ I.L4gyr G�1 1, 9EE-) ------------ ELM. TREE-A&RL.S - r?:JER: RD ■ 4 CiE[(}IiGE[ SONS C'r.(iI'.C)R(il'.& SUNS .. ..-M. 5ti1.7117 7,(-1:M1:1Fatlf."., C1-\i13r.1:I Gl hll: A .[lH:'.:5•� ��IC 1_I.i 1,,4l HUR1 ft[-:1. - SI'Rl1Ci5` •.} � i - v2!; `J- Ate � � � . �•. I ._..:I � - �• 11:i k I: V 1. X- - HIEiSF LN 6id:113A h1. ]GAY'S. PE{I1-1.[1' :. CRVER:'' J:�hlROI ti ['"tsl_, .I;[ i Tlht(}I E{yG [I _ -- SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS FRONTAGE ALONG ELM SPRINGS ROAD - LOOKING EASTERLY SUBJECT PROPERTY - LOOKING NORTHEASTERLY SUBJECT PROPERTY - LOOKING EASTERLY SUBJECT PROPERTY - LOOKING NORTHWESTERLY op '. riF 'r� ice. +• ':.4 ., �. SUBJECT PROPERTY - LOOKING SOUTHERLY & SHOWING PORTION OF PROPOSED ACQUISITION _f :i - .,. SUBJECT PROPERTY - LOOKING NORTHERLY & SHOWING PROPOSED ACQUISTION SUBJECT PROPERTY - LOOKING SOUTHERLY & SHOWING PROPOSED ACQUISITION rye: SUBJECT PROPERTY - LOOKING SOUTHERLY & SHOWING PROPOSED ACQUISITION SUBJECT PROPERTY - LOOKING NORTHERLY & SHOWING PROPOSED ACQUISITION National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 94o13'51"W 36o12'48"N -T18N R31VV+5� �OfT2 ,4 y 3r ' L t r ,o t VA k [IWR4E A OF MINIMAJLF _ . 02 B T18N i � it * 1W • s � • 496 FEMA a t i Feet 1 :6,000 94o13'13"W 36o12'19"N 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed October, 2020 Legend SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile zone x _Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard zone x Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes. zone x Area with Flood Risk due to Leveezone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zonex Q Effective LOMRs OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone GENERAL -- - - Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer STRUCTURES IIIIIII Levee, Dike, or Floodwall cl Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation a - - - Coastal Transect ^-^^-5n— Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary — --- Coastal Transect Baseline OTHER _ Profile Baseline FEATURES Hydrographic Feature Digital Data Available N No Digital Data Available MAP PANELS Unmapped YThe pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 3/21/2022 at 2:37 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Parcel: 750-00507-000 Washington County Report ID: 33437 Prev. Parcel: 121169-000-00 As of: 3/18/2022 Property Owner Property Information Name: DETMER, KENT BIRD Physical Address: Mailing Address: 1713 W HUNTSVILLE AVE Subdivision: GHARST ADD SPRINGDALE, AR 72762 Block / Lot: 001 / 004 Type: (AV) Agri Use/Vacant S-T-R: 30-18-30 Tax Dist: (502) SPRINGDALE SCH, ELM SP Size (Acres): 0.480 Millage Rate: 51.80 Extended Legal: LTS 4-5-6 BLOCK 1 ALSO PT NE NE 25-18-31 .48 AC (OUTLOTS) Market and Assessed Values Taxes Estimated Full Assessed Taxable Estimated $1 Market Value (20% Mkt Value) Value Taxes: Land: $50 $10 $10 Homestead $0 Note: Tax amounts are estimates only. Contact the county/parish tax collector for exact amounts. Credit: Building: 0 0 0 Total: $50 $10 $10 Land Land Use Size Units Pasture(06) 0.480 Acres Total 0.480 Deed Transfers Deed Date File Date Book Page Deed Type Stamps Est. Sale Grantee Code Type 10/10/2019 2019 35685 Survey DETMER, N/A Land KENT BIRD Only 5/19/2011 2011 14181 Trust Deed DETMER, Additiona N/A KENT BIRD I 3/15/1995 95 12449 Warr. Deed 0.00 $0 1/17/1978 2/2/1978 957 28 Quit Claim 0.00 $0 Propertie s DETMER, Inc. Land VIRGINIA V Additiona Only TRUST I Prop. DETMER, N/A Land HERBERT F & Only VIRGINIA VON BORA Not a Legal Document. Subject to terms and conditions. www.actDataScout.com Page 1 Parcel: 750-00507-000 Washington County Report ID: 33437 Prev. Parcel: 121169-000-00 As of: 3/18/2022 Reappraisal Value History Tax Year Total Value Total Assessed 2015 $50.00 $10.00 2016 $50.00 $10.00 2017 $50.00 $10.00 2018 $50.00 $10.00 2019 $50.00 $10.00 2020 $50.00 $10.00 2021 $50.00 $10.00 Map i Not a Legal Document. Subject to terms and conditions. www.actDataScout.com Page 2 Parcel: 750-00579-000 Washington County Report ID: 33557 Prev. Parcel: 121240-000-00 As of: 3/18/2022 Property Owner Property Information Name: DETMER, KENT BIRD Physical Address: 618 ELM SPRINGS RD Mailing Address: 1713 W HUNTSVILLE AVE SPRINGDALE, AR 72762 Subdivision: 30-18-30 ELM SPRINGS OUTLOTS Block / Lot: N/A / N/A Type: (AI) Agri Improved S-T-R: 30-18-30 Tax Dist: (502) SPRINGDALE SCH, ELM SP Size (Acres): 11.370 Millage Rate: 51.80 Extended Legal: PT FRL NW NW 11.37 A, ALSO ADJ RR/RW FURTHER DESCRIBED FROM 2014-8411 AS: Part of the Fractional Northwest Quarter (Fri. NW 1/4) of the Fractional Northwest Quarter (Fri. NW 1/4) of Section Thirty (30), Township Eighteen (18) North, Range Thirty (30) West, and part of the Northeasi Quarier (NE 1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section Twenty -Five (25), Township Eighteen (18) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, more particularly described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Fractional Northwest Quarter (Fri. NW 1/4) of the Fractional Northwest Quarter (Fri. NW 1/4) of Section Thirty (30), thence South 89°57'50" West 405.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, thence South 89°57'50" West 111.62 feet, thence South 20014'14" West 651.09 feet, thence South 89°50'08" West 216.32 feet, thence South 00002'37" East 703.95 feet to the centerline of Elm Springs Road, thence along said centerline South 87058'54" East 250.26 feet, thence North 88°53'04" East 306.27 feet, thence leaving centerline of Elm Springs Road North 00°09'36" West 1,318.40 feet to the point of beginning. Market and Assessed Values Taxes Estimated Full Assessed Taxable Estimated $612 Market Value (20% Mkt Value) Value Taxes: Land: $46,850 $9,370 $4,570 Homestead $375 Note: Tax amounts are estimates only. Contact Credit: the county/parish tax collector for exact amounts. Building: 148550 29710 14486 Total: $195,400 $39,080 $19,056 Land Land Use Size Units HL 1.15 AC Homesite 1.000 Acres Pasture(06) 6.830 Acres Pasture(13) 1.490 Acres Pasture(12) 1.300 Acres Pasture(11) 0.750 Acres Total 11.370 Not a Legal Document. Subject to terms and conditions. www.actDataScout.com Page 1 Parcel: 750-00579-000 Washington County Report ID: 33557 Prev. Parcel: 121240-000-00 As of: 3/18/2022 Deed Transfers Deed Date File Date Book Page Deed Type Stamps Est. Sale Grantee Code Type 5/19/2011 2011 14181 Trust Deed DETMER, Unval. N/A KENT BIRD 2/16/1995 95 12449 Warr. Deed 0.00 $0 DETMER, Inc. N/A VIRGINIA V Additiona REVOCABLE I Prop. TRUST 2/18/1993 DeathCer 0.00 $0 DETMER, N/A N/A VIRGINIA VON BORA 1/17/1978 957 28 Warr. Deed 0.00 $0 DETMER, N/A Improve HERBERT F & d VIRGINIA VON BORA 5/9/1977 ODR1 225 Survey DETMER, N/A Improve HERBERT F & d VIRGINIA VON BORA 1/25/1973 843 136 Quit Claim DETMER,VIR N/A Improve GINIA VON d BORA; JACKSON, BARBARA JEAN 11/17/1962 12/3/1962 584 260 Warr. Deed 11.55 $10,500 BIRD, Unval. Improve WALTER d 7/8/1943 335 513 Warr. Deed DELOZIER, N/A Improve HAROLD & d LENA 5/21/1934 291 358 Warr. Deed DELOZIER, W N/A Improve S & AUDRA d 11/9/1914 5 11 Survey DELOZIER, W N/A Improve S & AUDRA d 11/9/1914 4 83 Survey DELOZIER, W N/A Improve S & AUDRA d Reappraisal Value History Tax Year Total Value Total Assessed 2015 $142,350.00 $18,556.00 2016 $142,350.00 $18,615.00 2017 $142,350.00 $18,674.00 2018 $142,350.00 $18,733.00 2019 $142,350.00 $18,792.00 2020 $195,400.00 $18,880.00 2021 $195,400.00 $18,968.00 Details for Residential Card 1 Occupancy Story Construction Total Liv Grade Year Built Age Condition Beds Single Family ONE Masonry Veneer 1,696 4 1985 35 Average Not a Legal Document. Subject to terms and conditions. www.actDataScout.com Page 2 Parcel: 750-00579-000 Washington County Report ID: 33557 Prev. Parcel: 121240-000-00 As of: 3/18/2022 Exterior Wall: BV Foundation: Closed Piers Floor Struct: Wood with subfloor Floor Cover: Carpet & Tile Insulation: Ceilings Walls Roof Cover: Fiberglass Shingle Roof Type: Gable Base Structure Plumbing: Full: 1 Half: 1 Fireplace: N/A Heat / Cool: Central Basement: N/A Basement Area: Year Remodeled: Style: Datacout, LL Item Label Description Area A MN Main Living Area 1696 B MFA Garage - masonry 576 finished, att C WD Wood deck 192 D OP Porch, open 120 E OP Porch, open 200 Outbuildings and Yard Improvements Item Pole Shed General Purpose Barn Driveway, concrete Outbuilding,frame Pole Shed Well House Type Size/Dim Unit Multi. 48x24 1 36x36 1 23x23 1 6x10 1 41x31 1 10x12 Quality L Age Not a Legal Document. Subject to terms and conditions. www.actDataScout.com Page 3 Parcel: 750-00579-000 Washington County Report ID: 33557 Prev. Parcel: 121240-000-00 As of: 3/18/2022 Other Adjustments Code Type Quantity FRPL 1SA Map Not a Legal Document. Subject to terms and conditions. www.actDataScout.com Page 4 Miliil44llll4ll lli�l I41�� L41li�iifl IIIl�4�1111N1'I Ififl llffl I1III1111111114i�1 Doc ID: 014030EE0002 Type: REL RecorKinddedEES : 05/23/2011 at 01:57:32 PM Fee Amt: $20.00 Pace 1 of 2 uashinaton Countv. AR Bette Stamos Circuit Clerk F1102011-00014181 EXEMPT TRUSTEE'S DEED KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That 1, VIRGINIA V. DETMER, Trustee of THE VIRGINIA V. DETMER REVOCABLE TRUST, ultld February 16, 1995, hereinafter called Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration to me in hand paid by KENT BIRD DETMER, a single man, hereinafter called Grantee, do hereby grant, bargain and sell unto the said Grantee and Grantee's successors and assigns, the following described land situate in Washington County, State of Arkansas, to -wit: The fractional NW '/ of the fractional NW % of Section 30 in Township 18 North of Range 30 West, and a part of the NE'/ of the NE '/ of Section 25 in Township 18 North of Range 31 West, described as beginning at the Northeast corner of said fractional NW '/A of the fractional NW 1/ of said Section 30, and running thence South along the East quarter section line to the center of the Elm Springs — Springdale Road; thence West with the center of said Road 753 feet; thence North 87° 07' West with the center of said Road 210.2 feet; thence North to and continuing along the East line of a lane or road running from the Elm Springs —Springdale Road North to the Howard Grigg Lands, a distance of 698.5 feet, more or less, to a point due West of the Southwest corner of Lot 1 in Block 1, Peter Gharst Addition to the Town of Elm Springs, Arkansas; thence East to and continuing along the South line of Lots 1, 2 and 3 in Block 1 of said Addition to the center of the abandoned right-of-way of the Kansas City & Memphis Railway Company; thence Northeasterly with the center of said right-of-way to a point which is 12 feet due South of the North line of said fractional quarter section; thence in a direct line Easterly to a point where the East line of said right-of-way intersects the North line of said fractional quarter section; thence East to the point of beginning, subject to an easement along the Southerly part thereof for the Elm Springs — Springdale Road Page 1 of 2 Pages File Number: 201100014181 Page 1 of 2 r TO HAVE AND TO HOED the said lands and appurtenances thereunto belonging unto the said Grantee and Grantee's heirs, successors and assigns, forever. And I, the said Grantor, hereby covenant that I am lawfully seized of said land and premises, that the same is unencumbered, and that I will forever warrant and defend the title to the said lands against all claims whatever. WITNESS my hand and seal on this /' day of May, 2011. VIRGI IA V. DETMER, Trustee of the VIRGINIA V. DETMER REVOCABLE TRUST, ultld February 16, 1995 ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS ) ) SS. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) On this the K day of May, 2011, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared VIRGINIA V. DETMER, Trustee of the VIRGINIA V. DETMER REVOCABLE TRUST, ultld February 16, 1995, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that she had executed the same for the purposes therein set forth. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires: E D. MAESTRI Notary Public ARY PUBLIC N COUNTY ARKANSAS SION EXPIRE6 06-16-2012 ce i under penalty of false swearing that at least the le ally correct amount of documentary stamps have been placed on this instrument. 44�_ /j/ ,/� Kent Bird Detmer Mail Tax Statement to: KENT BIRD DETMER 1713 West Huntsville Street Springdale, AR 72762 Prepared by: HARRINGTON, MILLER ,KIEKLAK, EICHMANN & BROWN, P.A., P.O. Box 687, Springdale, Arkansas 72765-0687. Page 2 of 2 Pages File Number: 201100014181 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE WEST TRANSMISSION MAIN ROUTE EASEMENT DESCRIPTION TRACT NO. 64 (Washington County Parcel # 750-00579-000) Part of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of Section 30, Township 18 North, Range 30 West, Washington County, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of said Section 30; thence along the North line of said NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 North 87050'26" West, a distance of 402.39 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING (P.O.B.); thence leaving said North line and along the West line of Camelot Subdivision, as shown in Plat Book 23, Page 00183 of the Washington County records South 02146'29" West, a distance of 1287.84 feet to the North right-of-way line of Elm Springs Road (60' R/W); thence leaving the West line of Camelot Subdivision and along the North line of Elm Springs Road North 88109'05" West, a distance of 50.01 feet; thence leaving said North right-of-way line of Elm Springs Road North 02046'29" East, a distance of 1288.11 feet to the North line of said NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4; thence along said North line South 87150'26" East, a distance of 50.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING (P.O.B.), containing 64,398 square feet, 1.48 acres. UTILITY EASEMENT MAP TRACT MAP NO. 64 ffTCE -64,398 SQ. FT. (1.48 AC.) Scale: 1"=250' EXHIBIT "A" - 0 SQ. FT. (0 AC.) II 70, LOT 41 NE CORNER �e sw-sw NW1/4, NW1/4 6. 10 19-18-30 30-18-30 j LOT 40 'F q SE -SW S87'50'26"E N 87°50'26" W - 402.39' 19-18-30 50PUE J 50.00' N 25 u.E. SECTION 19 BENTON COUNTY POB o' u.E.�v SECTION 30 WASHINGTON COUNTY LOT 61 NE CORNER N LOT 63 NW1/4, NW1/4 SECTION 30 PETER HARST T-18-N, SUBDI ISION one a 10• U.E. R-30-W 10• U.E. LOT 62 I I LOT 64 NE -NW 30-18-30 50' PUE TRACT LOT 68 64 DET. LOT 67 - J N 750-00579-000 lik lit I 2011-14181 M M NW -NW LOT ss 9 KENT BIRD DETMER x x 30-18-30 N2'46'29"E CAMELOT 128811' SUBDIVISION 3-' P.B. 23-183 (WASHINGTON CO.) S2'46'29"W DOCUMENT NO. 2005-1194 (BENTON CO.) 750-00579-000 =' 1287.84' KENT BIRD DETMER 2011-14181 LOT 67 E a SW CORNER 50' PU NW1/4, NW1/4 SE CORNER SECTION 30;- NW1/4, NW1/4 Basis of Bearings: T-111-N, N88'09'05'W - F SECTION 30 Arkansas State Plane R-30-W 50 01� T-18-N, Coordinate System R-30-W 50' U.E. (North Zone) Land line ELM SPRINGS ROAD ( 60' R/W) Land line d AWG 10' U.E. ( 888-720) SE -NW 10' U ( 867 735) SW -NW j SPRINGDALE 30-18-30 30-18-30 D_ 50' P U E— [- L E G E N D 0 Permanent Utility Easement 0 Temporary Construction Easement E Property Line • Corner of Permanent Utility Easement 2R7/-W Street Right -of -Way Existing Utility Easement Line 750-00579-000 — Tax Parcel Number PUE — Permanent Utility Easement 2011-14181 — Deed Record TCE — Temporary Construction Easement Property Owner : KENT BIRD DETMER CITYOF Drawn by : McClelland Consulting Engineers Project Name TEYILLE Date: May 2019 Scale : 1" = 250' West Transmission FAYET Project No. 112184 Tract No. 64 Main Route COMPARABLE LAND SALES MAP N ile Key • 9 Willis D Shaw Elcmeritary School W E Orp„a + Life Springs 9 5 BaPlrst Church ��G�•f1 An4 .. .� . � Q 4 Attention 7n Detail c. .�.rr chv Lxt� ilr, + 5� Shaw Family Park ,} a Ntl entrance 9 } Dog Park Shaw Arkansas Law • aQ i Family Park Enforcement training . SALE 3 Show Family Park 9 i SALE 1 Wyss" Muth Media � Ce d Epic Cal"it 9 9 In, SUBJECT PROPERTY- Foxtlre Finl04 Longip, ,,* LEi' � air \111MISPtings SALE 2 * �hi� rn r 098rr EleCtTlCsl Sei'VICeS9 €Im Springs City Police Departmern Rd y ted•^di" Elm spe mr - Q SALE 4 &4 & SA 5 United Method: ! Miller Glass d Mirror ! ; Elm Springs United Slaws+ 4 rma�lru Salon pvslalService i +�sa4xe a is s F " Elm Sphriys Rd faith Rular Baptist Chhurch � � z a - 4' I x ■ __ ' a a nugM Nd rn LAND SALE 1 GENERAL INFORMATION General/Specific Type: Residential Record #: 2348 Location: Along the west side of Ball Road, 1,300'f north of Elm Book/Page: L2018/36207 Springs Road. City: Springdale County: Benton State: AR Parcel(s): 21-00167-480 S-T-R: 19-18-30 Lot/Block: See Legal Subdivision: None Legal: THE SOUTH HALF (S 1/2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF SECTION NINETEEN (19), TOWNSHIP EIGHTEEN (18) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY 30) WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF SPRINGDALE, BENTON COUNTY,ARKANSAS SALE INFORMATION Sale Date: July 12, 2018 Financing: Believed Market Terms Sale Price: $875,000 Conditions of Sale: Arm's-Length Adjusted Sale Price: $875,000 Exposure Time: 129 DOM Grantor: Billy Fields Rights Conveyed: Fee Simple Grantee: Ball Street Real Estate LLC Verification: MLS & Public Records .......................................................................................................................................................... _.......................................................................................................................................................... PROPERTY INFORMATION Gross Land Size: 20.130± Acres, or 876,863± SF Indicators Total Frontage: 650'f, Ball Road Sale Price/Gross Acre: $43,467± Zoning: SF-2, Medium Density Single Family Sale Price/Gross SF: $1.00± Residential Topography: Gently rolling, clear, small ponds Adjusted Sale Price/Gross Acre: $43,467f Utilities: Typical city Adjusted Sale Price/Gross SF: $1.00± Highest & Best Use: Residential Remarks: This represents the sale of 20.13f acres located along the west side of Ball Road, north of Elm Springs Road in Springdale. The property was improvement with some improvements at the time of sale; however, the improvements did not provide contributory value to the site. Shaw Park is located across Ball Road to the east. Reported consideration was $875,000 or $43,467/acre. Subsequent to the sale, the site was developed in to a single-family residential subdivision. LAND SALE 2 GENERAL INFORMATION General/Specific Type: Agricultural/Residential Record #: 2699 Location: At the northwest corner of Elm Springs Road & Ball Street Book/Page: 2019-22510 City: Elm Springs County: Washington State: AR Parcel(s): 750-005 53 -000 S-T-R: 30-18-30 Lot/Block: See Legal Subdivision: N/A Legal: Extended Legal Description - see public records ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SALE INFORMATION Sale Date: February 26, 2019 Financing: Believed Market Terms Sale Price: $630,000 Conditions of Sale: Believed Arm's-Length Adjusted Sale Price: $630,000 Exposure Time: Unknown Grantor: Jessie Leroy Stacy & Mona Estelle Stacy Rights Conveyed: Market Terms Joint Trust Grantee: Douglas L. Sperber, DB/A Sperber Verification: Public Records Holdings, and Anderson Investments, LLC ................................................._.......................................................................................................................................................... PROPERTY INFORMATION Gross Land Size: 15.00Of Acres, or 653,400f SF Indicators Total Frontage: 1,780'f, Elm Springs Road & Ball Sale Price/Gross Acre: $42,OOOf Street Zoning: RSF-1 & A-1 Sale Price/Gross SF: $0.96± Topography: Near Level/Mostly Cleared Adjusted Sale Price/Gross Acre: $42,OOOf Utilities: Water, No Sewer Adjusted Sale Price/Gross SF: $0.96f Highest & Best Use: Residential ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Remarks: This represents the sale of 15± acres located at the northwest corner of Elm Springs Road and Ball Road in Elm Springs. The property has access to public water at the street, however, public sewer is not available. Agricultural improvements were located on the site at the time of sale; however, were not considered to provide contributory value to the site. Subsequent to the sale, the site was developed in to a single-family residential subdivision. LAND SALE 3 GENERAL INFORMATION General/Specific Type: Agricultural/Residential Record #: 2909 Location: At the northwest corner of W. County Line Road & Book/Page: L2021-4335 Pinkley Road City: Springdale County: Benton State: AR Parcel(s): 21-00167-568 S-T-R: 20-18-30 Lot/Block: N/A Subdivision: N/A Legal: Extended Legal Description - see ,public records ............................... ...................................................................................... SALE INFORMATION Sale Date: January 19, 2021 Financing: Market Terms Sale Price: $350,000 Conditions of Sale: Arm's-Length Adjusted Sale Price: $350,000 Exposure Time: 110 Days On Market Grantor: Pinkley Farms, Inc. Rights Conveyed: Fee Simple Grantee: Steven & Linda Geels .........................................................................................................................................................._.......................................................................................................................................................... Verification: PROPERTY INFORMATION Gross Land Size: 10.000f Acres, or 435,600f SF Indicators Total Frontage: W. County Line Road & Pinkley Sale Price/Gross Acre: $35,000± Road Zoning: A-1, Agricultural Sale Price/Gross SF: $0.80f Topography: Gently Sloping Adjusted Sale Price/Gross Acre: $35,000± Utilities: Water, No Sewer Adjusted Sale Price/Gross SF: $0.80f Highest & Best Use: Residential Remarks: This represents the sale of 10± acres located at the northwest corner of W. County Line Road and Pinkley Road in Springdale. LAND SALE 4 GENERAL INFORMATION General/Specific Type: Residential Book/Page: 2021/27591 Location: 561 Street See Remarks State: AR City: Springdale County: Washington Asking/Listing Price: $525,000 Parcel(s): 815-29789-292 NWAMLS: #1192010 Subdivision: N/A S-T-R: 28-18-30 Lot/Block: N/A Legal:.... Extended legal — to follow ................. .. ............. ..................................................................................... SALE INFORMATION Sale Date: July 16, 2021 Financing: Market Terms Sale Price: $526,250 Conditions of Sale: Arm's-Length Adjusted Sale Price: $526,250 Exposure Time/DOM: 0 days Grantor: Loy E. and Alma L. Boyd, Trusties of the Loy Rights Conveyed: Fee Simple & Alma Boyd Revocable Trust, u/t/a, October 21, 2016 Grantee: Noah's Landing, LLC Verification: EPSIII W/listing agent Larry Marion/Bassett Mix and Associates. PROPERTY INFORMATION Gross Land Size: 14.27f Acres, or 621,601f SF Indicators Frontage: 561 Street Sale Price/Gross Acre: $36,878f Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Sale Price/Gross SF: $0.85f Topography: Near Level — Open/Wooded Adjusted Sale Price/Gross Acre: $36,878f Utilities: Natural Gas, Electric, Public Water & Sewer Adjusted Sale Price/Gross SF: $0.85f Highest & Best Use: Residential Development .............................................................................................................................................. Remarks: This represents the sale of 14.27f acres located along the east side of 56th Street, south of County Line Road in Springdale. The site is being developed in to Noah's Landing subdivision. LAND SALE 5 GENERAL INFORMATION General/Specific Type: Single -Family Residential Record #: 3174 Location: West side of 56th Street, south of County Line Road Book/Page: 2021-11791 City: Springdale County: Washington State: AR Parcel(s): 750-00807-000 and 815-30919-000 S-T-R: 29-18-30 Lot/Block: NA Subdivision: NA Legal: The S/2 of the NE/4 of the NE/4 of Section 29, Township 18 North, Range 30 West, Washington County, Arkansas ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SALE INFORMATION Sale Date: March 26, 2021 Financing: Believed to be Market Terms Sale Price: $750,000 Conditions of Sale: Arm's-Length Adjusted Sale Price: $750,000 Exposure Time: Unknown Grantor: Legend Builders, Inc. and Kent Burnett Rights Conveyed: Fee Simple Properties, Inc. Grantee: Hylton Road Real Estate, LLC Verification: Washington County Circuit Clerk/Assessor's Office PROPERTY INFORMATION Gross Land Size: 20.000± Acres, or 871,200f SF Indicators Total Frontage: 56th Street Sale Price/Gross Acre: $37,500f Zoning: SF-1, Low Density Single Family Sale Price/Gross SF: $0.86f Topography: Gently Sloping Adjusted Sale Price/Gross Acre: $37,500f Utilities: Typical City; no sewer Adjusted Sale Price/Gross SF: $0.86f Highest & Best Use: Residential Development ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Remarks: This represents the sale of 20± acres located along the west side of 56th Street, south of County Line Road in Springdale and Elm Springs. Approximately 5± acres of the site is located within Elm Springs. The site is being developed in to a 57 lot subdivision. Reported consideration $750,000 or $37,500/acre. The site is located in the Springdale School District. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This Appraisal Report has been made with the following general assumptions: 1. No responsibility is assumed for the legal description or for matters including legal or title 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. 5. All engineering is assumed to be correct. The plot plans and illustrative material in this report are included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property. 6. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover them. 7. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state and local environmental regulations and laws unless noncompliance is stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report. 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. 3. The appraiser herein by reason of this appraisal is not required to give further consultation, testimony, or be in attendance in court with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been previously made. 4. Neither all nor 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 — May 2008-May 2011 — Research Assistant for REED & ASSOCIATES, INC., Fayetteville, Arkansas May 2011—Present — Certified General Appraiser 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 Certified General Appraiser — Arkansas — CG3642 Arkansas Chapter of the Appraisal Institute Member of the Northwest Arkansas Appraisal Section International Right Of Way Association — Secretary Arkansas Appraisal Board Member 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 II — 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 National Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) — 7 Hour Update — 2018 The Cost Approach: Unnecessary of Vital to a Healthy Practice — 2020 - Appraisal Institute — Arkansas Chapter National Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) — 7 Hour Update — 2020 - Appraisal Institute — Arkansas Chapter Case Studies in Complex Valuation — 2020 — Appraisal Institute — Arkansas Chapter Examining Property Rights & Implications in Valuation — 2020- Appraisal Institute — Arkansas Chapter 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 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS March 29, 2022 Kent B. Detmer 1713 W Huntsville Ave Springdale, AR 72762 RE. West Transmission Main Line Parcel No. 750-00579-000 (618 Elm Springs Rd) Tract 64 Offer Letter Dear Mr. Detmer: As you are aware, the City of Fayetteville, in conjunction with Beaver Water District, is planning the construction of a 48- inch water main extension from Van Asche (Hwy 112) and Garland Avenue in Fayetteville to Elm Springs west of US Interstate 49. It is our intent to obtain 50-foot wide easements for this future 48-inch water line. The route we have chosen is specifically designed to be as unobtrusive as possible to the property, staying close to the property lines whenever possible. Unfortunately, the best route across your property after all our reviews will be through the pole shed/barn and we have allowed for that in the offer below. The City of Fayetteville hereby offers $48,400.00 for rights associated with the permanent easement (1.18 acres) within the outside side setback and $3,100.00 for rights associated with the permanent easement (0,30 acres) within inside side setback and $9,000.00 as damages for removal of the pole shed/barn within the easement area and $4,000.00 as damages for 4 trees within the easement area on your tract as well as $20,100.00 in additional damages for a total offer of $84,600.00. This offer is based an an appraisal of your property by Reed & Associates, Inc. and 1 have included the summary sheet for you. Additionally, the City will repair or replace any damage done to the existing fence(s) during construction. Should you elect to accept this offer, the Water/Sewer Easement contained herein should be executed by all parties with current ownership interest in the particular property. The document should be notarized and returned to the City of Fayetteville. A City Land Agent will be pleased to witness and notarize the execution of the documents if you will advise our office accordingly. Payment will be requested upon receipt of all documents by the City and normally take about three weeks to process. Please provide us with a Social Security Number so that a check can be written. A W-9 is enclosed for this purpose A City Land Agent will be glad to meet with you at your convenience and discuss all phases of this project and the associated easements and acquisitions. Please contact Holly Jones at (479) 444-3414 (h onesA-fayetteville-ar aov) or Brandi Samuels (479) 444-3421 (bsamuels fa etteville-ar. ov). For questions or concerns, please contact Corey Granderson, Utilities Engineer at cgranderson5—fayetteviIIe-ar gov or Tim Nyander, Utilities Director at Lay ander[ fayetteville-ar.gov. Sincerely, Tim *Nyande Utilities Director TN/hj Enclosures City of Fayetteville Water & Sewer/Utilities Department: 479-575-8386 Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 wom CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS July 28, 2022 Kent B. Detmer 1713 W Huntsville Ave Springdale, AR 72762 RE: West Transmission Main Line Parcel No. 750-00579-000 (618 Elm Springs Rd) Tract 64 Reminder Letter Dear Mr. Detmer: As you are aware, the City of Fayetteville, in conjunction with Beaver Water District, is planning the construction of a 48- inch water main extension from Van Asche (Hwy 112) and Garland Avenue in Fayetteville to Elm Springs west of US Interstate 49. It is our intent to obtain 50-foot wide easements for this future 48-inch water line. The route we have chosen is specifically designed to be as unobtrusive as possible to the property, staying close to the property lines whenever possible. Unfortunately, the best route across your property after all our reviews will be through the pole shed/barn and we have allowed for that in the offer below. We have not heard from you and it is important that we do so to move forward with this section of waterline acquisitions. The City of Fayetteville has offered $48,400.00 for rights associated with the permanent easement (1.18 acres) within the outside side setback and $3,100.00 for rights associated with the permanent easement (0.30 acres) within inside side setback and $9,000.00 as damages for removal of the pole shed/barn within the easement area and $4,000.00 as damages for 4 trees within the easement area on your tract as well as $20,100.00 in additional damages for a total offer of $84,600.00. This offer is based on an appraisal of your property by Reed & Associates, Inc. and I have included the summary sheet for you. Additionally, the City will repair or replace any damage done to the existing fence(s) during construction. Should you elect to accept this offer, the Water/Sewer Easement previously sent should be executed by all parties with current ownership interest in the particular property. The document should be notarized and returned to the City of Fayetteville. A City Land Agent will be pleased to witness and notarize the execution of the documents if you will advise our office accordingly. Payment will be requested upon receipt of all documents by the City and normally take about three weeks to process. Please provide us with a Social Security Number so that a check can be written. A W-9 was enclosed for this purpose. A City Land Agent will be glad to meet with you at your convenience and discuss all phases of this project and the associated easements and acquisitions. Please contact Holly Jones at (479) 444-3414 (Hones(@fayetteville-ar.gov) or Brandi Samuels (479) 444-3421 (bsamuelsnafayetteville-ar.gov). For questions or concerns, please contact Corey Granderson, Utilities Engineer at cgranderson(a�fayetteville-ar.gov or Tim Nyander, Utilities Director at tnyander fayetteville-ar.gov. Sincerely, Hat�j j Holly Jones Land Agent /hj City of Fayetteville Water & Sewer/Utilities Department: 479-575-8386 Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 wom CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS August 31, 2022 Kent B. Detmer 1713 W Huntsville Ave Springdale, AR 72762 RE: West Transmission Main Line Parcel No. 750-00579-000 (618 Tract 64 Reminder Letter Dear Mr. Detmer: Elm Springs Rd) In March, you were sent an offer to acquire an easement for a water main the City of Fayetteville is planning in conjunction with Beaver Water District, is planning. The construction of a 48-inch water main extension from Van Asche (Hwy 112) and Garland Avenue in Fayetteville to Elm Springs west of US Interstate 49 is expected to begin within the next 5-10 years. It is our intent to obtain 50-foot wide easements for this 48-inch water main line presently to avoid future development at the time of construction. The route we have chosen is specifically designed to be as unobtrusive as possible to the property, staying close to the property lines whenever possible. Unfortunately, the best route across your property after all our reviews will be through the pole shed/barn and we have allowed for that in the offer below. We have not heard from you since our meeting in April and it is important that we do so to move forward with this section of waterline acquisitions. The City of Fayetteville has offered $48,400.00 for rights associated with the permanent easement (1.18 acres) within the outside side setback and $3,100.00 for rights associated with the permanent easement (0.30 acres) within inside side setback and $9,000.00 as damages for removal of the pole shed/barn within the easement area and $4,000.00 as damages for 4 trees within the easement area on your tract as well as $20,100.00 in additional damages for a total offer of $84,600.00. This offer is based on an appraisal of your property by Reed & Associates, Inc. and I have included the summary sheet for you. Additionally, the City will repair or replace any damage done to the existing fence(s) during construction. Should you elect to accept this offer, the Water/Sewer Easement previously sent should be executed by all parties with current ownership interest in the particular property. The document should be notarized and returned to the City of Fayetteville. A City Land Agent will be pleased to witness and notarize the execution of the documents if you will advise our office accordingly. Payment will be requested upon receipt of all documents by the City and normally take about three weeks to process. Please provide us with a Social Security Number so that a check can be written. A W-9 was enclosed for this purpose. If you need another copy of the documents, please let me know and one will be forwarded immediately. A City Land Agent will be glad to meet with you at your convenience and discuss all phases of this project and the associated easements and acquisitions. Please contact Holly Jones at (479) 444-3414 (h'ones(afayetteviIIe-ar.gov) or Brandi Samuels (479) 444-3421 (bsamuels(c)fayetteville-ar.gov). For questions or concerns, please contact Corey Granderson, Utilities Engineer at cgranderson(a�fayetteville-ar.gov or Tim Nyander, Utilities Director at tnyander(@fayetteville-ar.gov. Sincerely, H� Holly Jones Land Agent /hj City of Fayetteville Water & Sewer/Utilities Department: 479-575-8386 Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 CITY' OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS February 14, 2023 Kent B. Detmer 1713 W Huntsville Ave Springdale, AR 72762 RE: West Transmission Main Line Parcel No. 750-00579-000 (618 Elm Springs Rd) Tract 64 Final Offer Letter Dear Mr. Detmer: As you are aware, the City of Fayetteville, in conjunction with Beaver Water District, is planning the construction of a 48- inch water main extension from Van Asche (Hwy 112) and Garland Avenue in Fayetteville to Elm Springs west of US Interstate 49. It is our intent to obtain 50-foot wide easements for this future 48-inch water line. The route we have chosen is specifically designed to be as unobtrusive as possible to the property, staying close to the property lines whenever possible. Unfortunately, the best route across your property after all our reviews will be through the pole shed/barn and we have allowed for that in the offer below. After not hearing from you, we have chosen to acquire a final updated appraisal from Reed & Associates, Inc. and that offer is stated below. The City of Fayetteville hereby offers $56,650.00 for rights associated with the permanent easement (1.18 acres) outside side setback and $3,600.00 for rights associated with the permanent easement (0,30 acres) within the side setback and $10,000.00 as damages for removal of the pole shed/barn within the easement area and $4,000.00 as damages for 4 trees within the easement area on your tract as well as $23,500.00 in additional damages for a total offer of $97,750.00. This offer is based on an appraisal of your property by Reed & Associates, Inc. and I have included the summary sheet for you. Additionally, the City will repair or replace any damage done to the existing fence(s) during construction. We must hear from you by March 1, 2023. This project is moving forward. Should you elect to accept this offer, the Water/Sewer Easement previously provided should be executed by all parties with current ownership interest in the particular property, The document should be notarized and returned to the City of Fayetteville. A City Land Agent will be pleased to witness and notarize the execution of the documents if you will advise our office accordingly. Payment will be requested upon receipt of all documents by the City and normally take about three weeks to process. Please provide us with a Social Security Number so that a check can be written. A W-9 was provided for this purpose. If you need additional copies of these documents, please reach out to the Land Agents and they will make sure you get them immediately. A City Land Agent will be glad to meet with you at your convenience and discuss all phases of this project and the associated easements and acquisitions, Please contact Holly Jones at (479) 444-3414 (hiones(c�fayetteville-ar., cov) or Brandi Samuels (479) 444-3421 (bsamuels anfayetteville-ar,gov). For questions or concerns, please contact Corey Granderson, Utilities Engineer at cgranderson(cDfayetteville-ar.gov or Tim Nyander, Utilities Director at tnyander fayetteviile-ar.gov. 4Sirel , Tim Nyander Utilities Director TN/h j City of Fayetteville Water & Sewer/Utilities Department: 479-575-8386 Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 wom CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS March 30, 2023 Kent B. Detmer 1713 W Huntsville Ave Springdale, AR 72762 RE: West Transmission Main Line Parcel No. 750-00579-000 (618 Elm Springs Rd) Tract 64 Notification Letter Dear Mr. Detmer: As you are aware, the City of Fayetteville, in conjunction with Beaver Water District, is planning the construction of a 48- inch water main extension from Van Asche (Hwy 112) and Garland Avenue in Fayetteville to Elm Springs west of US Interstate 49. It is our intent to obtain 50-foot wide easements for this future 48-inch water line. The route we have chosen is specifically designed to be as unobtrusive as possible to the property, staying close to the property lines whenever possible. Unfortunately, the best route across your property after all our reviews will be through the pole shed/barn and we have allowed for that in the offer below. The City of Fayetteville has offered $56,650.00 for rights associated with the permanent easement (1.18 acres) outside side setback and $3,600.00 for rights associated with the permanent easement (0.30 acres) within the side setback and $10,000.00 as damages for removal of the pole shed/barn within the easement area and $4,000.00 as damages for 4 trees within the easement area on your tract as well as $23,500.00 in additional damages for a total offer of $97,750.00. This offer is based on an appraisal of your property by Reed & Associates, Inc. and you were provided the summary sheet. Additionally, the City will repair or replace any damage done to the existing fence(s) during construction. We have not heard from you since the end of February and the information you were going to provide was not forthcoming. We are happy to review that information once it is provided and discuss any concerns you may have regarding this project. We will be handing this project over to our City Attorney's office to take to City Council to request approval for Resolution to move forward with condemnation on this easement on the 2"d day of May 2023. They meet at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, AR in Room 219 at 5:30 p.m. A document is enclosed explaining the condemnation process and how negotiations may continue through that process. Should you elect to accept this offer, the Water/Sewer Easement previously provided should be executed by all parties with current ownership interest in the particular property. The document should be notarized and returned to the City of Fayetteville. A City Land Agent will be pleased to witness and notarize the execution of the documents if you will advise our office accordingly. Payment will be requested upon receipt of all documents by the City and normally take about three weeks to process. Please provide us with a Social Security Number so that a check can be written. A W-9 was provided for this purpose. If you need additional copies of these documents, please reach out to the Land Agents and they will make sure you get them immediately. I will be glad to meet with you at your convenience and discuss all phases of this project and the associated easements and acquisitions. Please contact Holly Jones at (479) 444-3414 (hiones(a�fayetteville-ar.qov) or Brandi Samuels (479) 444-3421 (bsamuels(a)favetteville-ar.gov). For questions or concerns, please contact Corey Granderson, Utilities Engineer at cgrand erson(cDfayetteviIIe-ar.gov or Tim Nyander, Utilities Director at tnyander fayetteville-ar.gov. Sincerely, Hot�f j Holly Jones Land Agent /hj City of Fayetteville Water & Sewer/Utilities Department: 479-575-8386 Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 wom CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS April 25, 2023 Kent B. Detmer 1713 W Huntsville Ave Springdale, AR 72762 RE: West Transmission Main Line Parcel No. 750-00579-000 (618 Elm Springs Rd) Tract 64 Correction Notification Letter Dear Mr. Detmer: As you are aware, the City of Fayetteville, in conjunction with Beaver Water District, is planning the construction of a 48- inch water main extension from Van Asche (Hwy 112) and Garland Avenue in Fayetteville to Elm Springs west of US Interstate 49. It is our intent to obtain 50-foot wide easements for this future 48-inch water line. The route we have chosen is specifically designed to be as unobtrusive as possible to the property, staying close to the property lines whenever possible. Unfortunately, the best route across your property after all our reviews will be through the pole shed/barn and we have allowed for that in the offer below. The City of Fayetteville has offered $56,650.00 for rights associated with the permanent easement (1.18 acres) outside side setback and $3,600.00 for rights associated with the permanent easement (0.30 acres) within the side setback and $10,000.00 as damages for removal of the pole shed/barn within the easement area and $4,000.00 as damages for 4 trees within the easement area on your tract as well as $23,500.00 in additional damages for a total offer of $97,750.00. This offer is based on an appraisal of your property by Reed & Associates, Inc. and you were provided the summary sheet. Additionally, the City will repair or replace any damage done to the existing fence(s) during construction. We have not heard from you since the end of February and the information you were going to provide was not forthcoming. We are happy to review that information once it is provided and discuss any concerns you may have regarding this project. We will be handing this project over to our City Attorney's office to take to City Council to request approval for Resolution to move forward with condemnation on this easement on the 16th day of May 2023. They meet at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, AR in Room 219 at 5:30 p.m. A document is enclosed explaining the condemnation process and how negotiations may continue through that process. Should you elect to accept this offer, the Water/Sewer Easement previously provided should be executed by all parties with current ownership interest in the particular property. The document should be notarized and returned to the City of Fayetteville. A City Land Agent will be pleased to witness and notarize the execution of the documents if you will advise our office accordingly. Payment will be requested upon receipt of all documents by the City and normally take about three weeks to process. Please provide us with a Social Security Number so that a check can be written. A W-9 was provided for this purpose. If you need additional copies of these documents, please reach out to the Land Agents and they will make sure you get them immediately. I will be glad to meet with you at your convenience and discuss all phases of this project and the associated easements and acquisitions. Please contact Holly Jones at (479) 444-3414 (hiones(a�fayetteville-ar.qov) or Brandi Samuels (479) 444-3421 (bsamuels(a-)favetteville-ar.gov). For questions or concerns, please contact Corey Granderson, Utilities Engineer at cgrand erson(cDfayetteviIIe-ar.gov or Tim Nyander, Utilities Director at tnyander fayetteville-ar.gov. Sincerely, tcat�j j Holly Jones Land Agent /hj City of Fayetteville Water & Sewer/Utilities Department: 479-575-8386 Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 West Transmission Main Parcel No. 750-00579-000 Tract No. 64 WATER/SEWER EASEMENT BE IT KNOWN BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT Kent Bird Detmer, a single person, 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 and a temporary construction and grading 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: (Deed Ref: 2011-14181) The fractional NW'/4 of the fractional NW'/4 of Section 30 in Township 18 North of Range 30 West, and a part of the NE'/4 of the NE'/4 of Section 25 in Township 18 North of Range 31 West, described as beginning at the Northeast corner of said fractional NW'/4 of the fractional NW'/4 of said Section 30, and running thence South along the East quarter section line to the center of the Elm Springs — Springdale Road; thence West with the center of said Road 753 feet; thence North 87°07' West with the center of said Road 210.2 feet; thence North to and continuing along the East line of a lane or road running from the Elm Springs — Springdale Road North to the Howard Grigg Lands, a distance of 698.5 feet, more or less to a point due West of the Southwest corner of Lot 1 in Block 1, Peter Gharst Addition to the Town of Elm Springs, Arkansas; thence East to and continuing along the South line of Lots 1, 2 and 3 in Block 1 of said Addition to the center of the abandoned right of way of the Kansas City & Memphis Railway Company; thence Northeasterly with the center of said right of way to a point which is 12 feet due South of the North line of said fractional quarter section; thence in a direct line Easterly to a point where the East line of said right of way intersects the North line of said fractional quarter section; thence East to the point of beginning, subject to an easement along the Southerly part thereof for the Elm Springs — Springdale Road. PERMANENT EASEMENT DESCRIPTION: Part of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of Section 30, Township 18 North, Range 30 West, Washington County, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of said Section 30; thence along the North line of said NW 1/4 of the NW '/4 North 87°50'26" West, 402.39 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING (P.O.B.); thence leaving said North line and along the West line of Camelot Subdivision, as shown in Plat Book 23, Page 00183 of the Washington County records South 02°46'29" West, 1287.84 feet to the North right-of-way line of Elm Springs Road (60' R/W); thence leaving the West line of Camelot Subdivision and along the North line of Elm Springs Road North 88°09'05" West, 50.01 feet; thence leaving said North right-of-way line of Elm Springs Road North 02°46'29" East, 1288.11 feet to the North line of said NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4; thence along said North line South 87°50'26" East, 50.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING (P.O.B.), containing 64,398 square feet, 1.48 acres. 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 easement. Driveways and parking lots will not be considered permanent structures. The Grantee shall have the right to construct pipe lines and/or make repairs to lines within the above described easement at any time in the future and agrees to pay for or repair any damages as a result of such future construction and/or repairs as set out in this easement. Water/Sewer Easement Page 2 It is further understood that Grantee's easement shall be exclusive and that Grantor and/or Grantor's successors shall convey no parallel rights to any person, utility or corporation on, across or under said easement without the express written permission of Grantee. 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. WITNESS the execution hereof on this the Kent Bird Detmer STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF day of 12023. spouse ACKNOWLEDGMENT ss. 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 Kent Bird Detmer and , spouse, if any to me well known as the person(s) who executed the foregoing document, and who stated and acknowledged that he/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 2023. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Notary Public Scale: 1 "=250' UTILITY EASEMENT MAP TRACT MAP NO. 64 EXHIBIT "A" �70, L LOT 41 / NE CORNER Sw-S 30 N W1 4, N W1 / 4 70, 1 30-18-30 Lv LOT 40 S87'50'26"E 50' PE J 5 ).00' POB J 10' U.E w LOT 61 iiN of PETER HARST mom SUBDI ISION 2 ' I LOT 62 Lri 50' PE ;- ,o U.E. LOT 68 / DET. / �' ( I LOT 63 LOT 64 LOT 67 NW -NW LOT ss 30-18-30 / N2'46'29"E 1288.11' L0 S2.46'29"W 750-00579-000 =' 1287.84' KENT BIRD DETMER i-,t10' U.E. 2011-14181 II LOT 67 50' PE q SW CORNER NW1/4, NW1/4 a SECTION 30 R-30-W N88'09'05"W 50.01 L� 50' U.E. — — B71iY- Land line LM SPRING ROAD ( 60' R/W 11 AWG 10' U.E. ( 888-720 )D 10' U ( 867 735) SW -NW w SPRINGDALE 30-18-30 50' PE —� L E G E N D PE - 64,398 SQ. FT. (1.48 AC.) TCE - 0 SO. FT. (0 AC.) SE -SW 87°50'26" W - 402.39' 19-18-30 SECTION 19 BENTON COUNTY SECTION 30 WASHINGTON COUNTY NE CORNER NW1/4, NW1/4 SECTION 30 T-18-N, R-30-W NE -NW 30-18-30 TRACT 64 �750-00579-000 2011-14181 KENT BIRD DETMER CAMELOT SUBDIVISION P.B. 23-183 (WASHINGTON CO.) DOCUMENT NO. 2005-1194 (BENTON CO.) SE CORNER NW1/4, NW1/4 BASIS of Bearings: SECTION 30 Arkansas State Plane T-18-N, Coordinate System R-30-W (North Zone) Land line SE -NW 30-18-30 0 Permanent Easement 0 Temporary Construction Easement Q Property Line • Corner of Permanent Easement R7/W Street Right -of -Way Existing Utility Easement Line 750-00579-000 — Tax Parcel Number PE — Permanent Easement 2011-14181 — Deed Record TCE — Temporary Construction Easement Property Owner : KENT BIRD DETMER CITYOF Drawn by : McClelland Consulting Engineers Project Name FAYETTEVILLE Date: DEC 2022 Scale : 1" = 250' West Transmission Project No. 112184 Tract No. 64 Main Route CASE HISTORY WEST TRANSMISSION MAIN Tract 64 Kent Detmer 7/23/2019 HJ, CG, BS and rep from McClelland met with Mr. Detmer to discuss the alignment of the easement and get his input. He gave us direction and input on his preferred route and MCE will look into it. 2/18/2022 Appraisal of property received from MCE done by Reed & Assoc. 3/29/2022 Offer to Mr. Detmer of $51,500.00 for the permanent easement area of 1.48 acres, $9,000.00 for removal of the pole shed/barn within the easements, $4,000.00 in landscaping damages and $20,100.00 in severance damages to the remainder of the property due to the size of the easement for a total offer of $84,600.00. 4/22/2022 NB at MCE and HJ met with Mr. Detmer and he indicated that he wasn't sure that the offer was high enough and that he would be presenting a counteroffer. 7/28/2022 Reminder letter sent to Mr. Detmer 8/31/2022 Reminder letter sent to Mr. Detmer 2/7/2023 Appraisal updated with new market 2/14/2023 Final Offer letter sent based on updated appraisal: $60,250 for PE, $10,000 for pole barn/shed, $4,000.00, landscaping and $23,500 damages for new total offer of $97,750. This letter gave him until March 1 to respond. 2/23/2023 Mr. Detmer called after he had received his revised offer. He is getting a bid from somewhere to remove and replace the shed. He thinks our offer of $10K is too low. He will have them email HJ. He was very concerned about meeting the March 1 deadline. HJ let him know that if he kept an open line of communication, the deadline was not as serious. But he needed to send the bid soon. The bid has not come. 3/30/2023 Mr. Detmer was mailed a Notification letter letting him know that his tract would be sent to Council on May 2. We have missed that agenda. 4/26/2023 Mr. Detmer was mailed a Correction Notification letter regarding the date of council changing to May 16, 2023. Mr. Detmer and Ms. Jones have spoken by phone on several occasions over the years. He's always eager to please and ready to cooperate, but there is always an excuse why we can't do it this week or he's just not ready to close. 479-841-5456 IMPORTANT TERMS USED IN THIS BROCHURE Complaint The initial pleading of a of the City to the court, that identifies the court's jurisdiction, describes in detail the property sought to be condemned, states the City's right to condemn, and identifies the interest or claim of each property owner. Condemnation Condemnation is the legal process of acquiring private property for public use or purpose through the agency's power of eminent domain. Easement In general, an easement is the right of one person to use all or part of the property of another person for some specific purpose. Easements can be permanent or temporary (i.e., limited to a stated period of time). Examples are: permanent easement for utilities, permanent easement for perpetual maintenance of drainage structures, and temporary easement to allow reconstruction of a driveway during construction. Ownership of the land affected by an easement is retained by the legal property owner(s) of record. Eminent Domain Eminent domain is the right of government to take private property for public use. In the U.S., just compensation must be paid for private property acquired for federally -funded programs or projects. Just Compensation Just compensation is the price an agency must pay to acquire real property. An agency official must make the estimate of just compensation to be offered to you for the property needed. That amount may not be less than the amount established in the approved appraisal report as the fair market value for your property. If you and the agency cannot agree on the amount of just compensation to be paid for the property needed, and it becomes necessary for the agency to use the condemnation process, the amount determined by the court will be the just compensation for your property. Order of Possession Order of possession refers to a court order in a condemnation allowing the government to enter and use lands. ADMIONAL INFORMATION If you have any questions after reading this booklet, you may contact the City and discuss your concerns with the City's representative during regular offices hours; M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. City of Fayetteville / Engineering Division 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Engineering Main Line: (479) 575-8206 Land Agents Office: (479) 444-3407 (479)444-3414 Brochure adapted from "When a Public Agency Acquires Your Property", as published by: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development www.hud.gov/relocation PROPERTY ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN Questions and Answers about the Eminent Domain Process W00 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS INTRODUCTION The City of Fayetteville often has to acquire land and easements for use on public works projects, whether that be water and sewer utilities, street or drainage improvements, City buildings, Parks, Trails, or other public purposes. The City makes every attempt to acquire this property by negotiating an acceptable settlement with the property owner, based on appraisals or other methods of property valuation. Unfortunately, in some cases the City must acquire property by the use of the City's power of Eminent Domain, which is authorized by Arkansas State Law. Eminent Domain, also known as condemnation, is a process by which the City can acquire property through the court system, so that the project for which property is needed is not delayed. This brochure is intended to provide you with answers to questions that you may have about the eminent domain process. It is not intended to be all inclusive or to provide legal advice. FREOUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS I received a letter that says the City is preparing to take eminent domain action. Does that mean I can no longer negotiate with the City? No. The eminent domain process is relatively long, with several steps involved. You may continue to negotiate with the City's land agents or other representatives all the way up to the date that the eminent domain action is filed. In fact, you may negotiate even after that, although you will probably then be speaking with the City Attorney's Office as they take over the negotiations at that point. Negotiations may continue to occur for months, even years, after the initial filing. Will my condemnation suit stop the proposed project from being constructed? No. Condemnation proceedings can frequently take many months before they actually go to court and are resolved. In order not to delay the project, an Order of Possession will be requested from the court (after fair market value has been deposited into the escrow account). This allows the City to proceed with project construction while waiting for just compensation to be determined by the court. Can the City really just "take" my property without compensation? No. The City does have the power to acquire private property for a public purpose, but it must fairly compensate the property owner for the taking. The amount of compensation is called just compensation, and is usually determined initially by a property appraisal. What is the eminent domain process the City uses, and how long does it take for the City to acquire property by eminent domain? There are several steps that the City has to take in order to receive an Order of Possession: 1) First, the Fayetteville City Council must authorize the City Attorney to file an eminent domain action. City Council review and approval normally takes about 3 weeks. 2) Second, the City Attorney must process paperwork and prepare the Complaint, and a check in the amount of the City's determination of just compensation must be prepared. It usually takes about 2 weeks for this step. 3) Then, the City Attorney files the complaint with the court, and deposits the just compensation with the Court. 4) After the case is filed, the City must serve notice to the property owner that an eminent domain action has been filed. 5) After the filing, the Judge issues an Order of Possession, which provides the City the rights to the property so that the planned public works project can proceed. All together, the process from City Council review to issuance of the Order of Possession normally takes approximately 5 to 8 weeks. What rights and responsibilities do I have during the condemnation process, prior to the City filing the eminent domain action? You have the right to: 1) Continue to negotiate with the City's representatives. 2) Have your own appraisal prepared, at your expense. 3) Hire an attorney to represent you in negotiations. 4) Attend City Council Meetings and address the Council during their consideration of the request for authorization to proceed to condemnation. You do not have to take any action prior to the filing of the case or the issuance of the order of possession, nor should you have to spend any money during the process, unless you choose to hire an appraiser, attorney, or other consultant to assist you. What rights and responsibilities do I have after the Order of Possession is granted to the City? You have the right to: 1) Continue to negotiate with the City to try and negotiate a settlement prior to a jury trial. 2) Withdraw the funds deposited by the City into the court for your use, less any amounts necessary to pay off any mortgage or other liens on the property and to resolve any special ownership problems. Withdrawal of your share of the money will not affect your right to seek additional compensation for your property. 3) Hire legal counsel, appraisers, or other consultants to assist you with your case. Your responsibilities are: 1) You must respond to the suit in a timely manner, and follow all rules and procedures as set forth by the legal system. In most cases, this is handled by an attorney, but you may represent yourself if you wish. 2) You must allow the City, its contractors, private utility companies, and any others to exercise their rights granted by the order of possession. For example, if the City acquires an easement to construct a sewer line, you must allow them to do so within the easement area. If I am not able to negotiate a settlement, and the case proceeds to trial, then what happens? During the condemnation trial, you will be provided an opportunity to introduce your evidence as to the value of your property. Of course, the City will have the same right. After hearing the evidence of all parties, a jury will determine the amount of just compensation. If that amount exceeds the amount deposited by the City, you will be paid the difference, plus any interest that may be provided by law.