Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Lincoln Center
... •• COLLEGESTATION (..... ‘,...,1 P. 0. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council I FROM: George K. Noe, City Manager DATE: January 12, 1998 RE: Acquisition of Property in the Lincoln Center Area During the last Council meeting and at various times in the past, I have heard concerns expressed about the acquisition of property in the Lincoln Center area. The concerns question the need for the project and involvement of the area in the project; other concerns relate to the way in which Mr. James Thompson, a property owner on Wellborn Road was treated by the City. I would like to take this opportunity to provide Council with some background information and facts related to these two concerns. (kir 1. The plan for the development of the Lincoln Center area was prepared by Municipal Development Group in 1990 after an extensive data collection and community involvement process including public hearings, interviews and a complete neighborhood survey. The plan that resulted from that process was adopted by the Lincoln Center Advisory Committee, the Parks Board and the City Council, That plan was the basis for the proposed little league complex that was approved by the voters in the 1995 Bond Issue which funded the current construction project. Attachment 1 provides additional 4 information on the planning and citizen input process for this project. 2. It has been alleged that the City has mistreated Mr. James Thompson during the course of the acquisition of his property at 903 Wellborn. I do not believe that the facts support that conclusion. Attachment 2 provides a chronology of events and financial information related to the acquisition of this property. I believe that a great deal of effort was given to work with Mr. Thompson on his relocation. In addition, I believe you will find that amount paid to him as compensation for the property and for relocation were adequate. The memo also includes information on payments made to Mr. Thompson by the City of Bryan for your information. The CD offices of the two communities regularly cooperate on this and other cases. I hope this information is useful to you. If you have any questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact me. (11.9 o:thompson2.doc i Home of Texas A&M University C/CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PARKS & RECREATION � POST OFFICE BOX 9960 Q' F0 COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS 77842 -9960 (409) 764 -7779 DEC 1 6 1997 1 n e • d 7a.:0 MEMORANDUM TO: Skip Noe, City Manager I FROM: Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director of Parks & Recreation 11 DATE: December 15, 1997 , : THROUGH: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks & Recreation SUBJECT: Lincoln Center - Wayne Smith Park Corridor On February 8, 1990, the Municipal Development Group of College Station was approved by Council to complete the Lincoln Center - Wayne Smith Master ,._ Plan. The completed plan was approved by City Council on November 8, 1990. A great deal of effort was put into obtaining input from the community for the formulation of the Master Plan. Surveys, interviews, public hearings, meetings with the Parks Board and Lincoln Center Advisory Committee were some of the methods of obtaining input and information. The completed Master Plan detailed the data and public information gathering effort. I have attached a copy of the data collection section of the Master Plan along with the summary of the survey. If there is any further information I can provide, please call at ext. 3415. We provide good things in life! 1 DATA COLLECTION GE/ t Q �O 41me Many different sources were used in data collection. Opin NV and information were solicited from both the private and Rublic sectors; city staff, public officials, community grou.c and individual citizens were all involved in the process.4,,,., addition, extensive technical information sources, such drainage and flood maps, deed records and land survey data were consulted. Listed below are the major information sources used. Site Visits - Project planners conducted over 30 site visits to acquire specific information, as well as to become familiar with general conditions, topography, vegetation, current improvements and park user attitudes. The site and its surroundings were extensively photographed for historical purposes, to stimulate the design process, and to assist in explanation to public bodies of current on -site conditions. Deed Records - Over 50 separate deeds, plats and ownership maps were located, researched, and subjected to standard land survey coordinate calculations in order to develop a (111, project base map which accurately located the size and ( shape of the corridor and its constituent parcels. 1 Parks Board /Lincoln Center Advisory Board - These two bodies were consulted for input at six separate meetings throughout the process- -from the initial gathering of information regarding attitudes and needs, through survey evaluation to the preliminary and final concept stages of the Plan. Lincoln Center Staff - Interviews with the staff, which also included some of the maintenance staff housed on the property, gave us insight from the inside. Area Churches - MDG met with the Boards of Deacons of St. Matthews Baptist Church and Pleasant Grove Baptist Church to gain insight into neighborhood concerns and attitudes prior to conduct of the neighborhood opinion survey. City Staff - City Staff was involved at the concept stage to allow each department to note any special needs or concerns they had regarding the project area. This was accomplished through the normal site review process, with a questionaire being provid (Iirge departments and local utility companies. Outside the 14 Ff. normal site review process, we met with individual senior staff members such as the Planning Director, the City Engineer, and the Community Development Administrator, as i C well as the Police Chief and senior police officers for input on dealing with their particular professional concerns. We conducted numerous informal meetings with Parks and Recreation Staff and Community Development Staff. Civic Organizations - Consultants met with individual members of C.H.O.I.C.E. and the Lincoln School Alumni Association for input as seen from their unique social, cultural, and historical perspectives. I Other Public Agencies - The State Department of Highways and Public Transportation was consulted at various stages to determine the effects on the park of the various proposed Lo -Trak designs, such as the possibility of highway infrastructure intruding into the park corridor. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department was consulted to determine needs as they relate to the Parks and Wildlife Department approval and fund matching processes. Public Documents - "Projections of Student Membership and Facility Needs for College Station Independent School AV District 1986 -87 to 2000 -01 ", prepared by Population and Survey. Analysts, May 1987, was used to determine expected change in the student population for this neighborhood, along with the effect of such a change on future park - recreation needs. PLAN 2000 - This important source was consulted for several reasons. It is the official growth blueprint for the City for the next ten years, and specifically addresses future park and recreational needs. Any concept developed for Lincoln Center /Wayne Smith Park Corridor must be in congruence with PLAN 2000. Neighborhood Survey - (See Figure 2 ) The neighborhood survey was undertaken because MDG did not believe that the classic consulting approach to citizen input, ie., one or two public hearings, would foster the necessary participation and desires and needs identification that this unique project demands. Surveys of this type are time and labor intensive, and therefore, costly; but it was imperative that this project produce a set of specific solutions to real needs, so the survey was performed. ( 15 FIGURE 2 1 C nr ,.._ j... ,,, . b . .-1 41 tilt ii .1 di I - - t iii .- 31- i 1 '1 ' ' ' • NE si. ,, , . . . ,0 L. . .- _ .....L ...... . L. ils a _,‘`°•, .� • ( . $ 4 m I� := fit■ . � • - .� WI � �.It1a +� 1 _ 4 ` i - , 11211 11111131 gaistf4 Em MCI • 0 ► L 0111W16113 ECU T " �'�It11 i • LIIT,4E T W :: SWIM ya:== SSS�� -��� "` =:E'2E59.� S :' I y m nu•v t.itil= ilunitiii • U ' .run .n.ul . �. y . 1" ` ::1fai� { :1.M..' = � - : -w ar L ""I. L�3 iIN4a" I 111111%. 7 i t v 41* V . - $. Bll I � { �p' } I �tl liii O �il�l » 1 — •�" Ili gn ltl Ili a: ° -L I MfiwnMl �' .f i� , w� II ... 1 :�: _aac SIIFF E :::i:ffi:7" ^•7:: 1 • '' as — le � � °1�1t�';; 4711E% •tom �:.fia.: _ r : = • _ � � �H :i1 RII ." t .1 -1"-I:: ail" t:R::ir iRTE.1� I �w =+ �7E� 3511 cs" Ia1ii� I Ses:r.�;f: _ :.�.�, } til�uam / -__ - — as ._.. fire* i,4116 4 4._ / , / �1:Um/i i E:....:.i = c : ;, i. tom :• -• • reLIN . r- '� ' F EZ! u . vJ / / ,ri f i . :' J �,.. � o pal . � hr ' yam �1 *'t i . /.114-611 4 r n'•.� 4.' i \I aN��y i o . Tli1� � 1 . v.,. Am,- / ; �� 7 ' � �LIQ'r_ II f Iii "I:fE3t� 1 5.,�� �, �� Gil• art �-1 �' �� x° � ' I : lie] 1'�tlt m i — a ► rd r uuinirni yi■I��� � _�: � �� EII;7� ar "'V, ��� ° AI " x'11 i � �! all !i7 �- fi7t'>E1 l 7�j E$ o.., , _ -, lir i WI qiiiPINV MIX rt.,:te. CV email Hoar , W gli , • • GP§ (...• . „ r, - n \ \ / , NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY LEGEND • I [ 1 - CDMMERCIAL NOT AT HOME - TELEPHONE • , -DOOR TO DOOR V - UNOCCUPIED - DROP BOX 0 A concerted effort was made to reach every household in the target area, and several methods were employed, including telephone calls, door -to -door interviews and 1 questionaire drop boxes located at Lincoln Center and Southgate Village Apartments. Actual interviewing was conducted by MDG staff, neighborhood volunteers and the Texas A & M chapter of the National Association of Black Journalists. The overall response rate was better than 30%, an excellent level of feedback for this type of investigation, and indicative of the high level of public interest in the Project. Information generated by the survey was a major force in development of the Plan. The survey also identified certain social needs and concerns outside the scope of the Park plan. This information was turned over to the Community Development Office for action by that agency. 411 16 • DATA ANALYSIS 4:, PARK AND RECREATION NEEDS Survey responses were tabulated. Needs, not only for park - related facilities, but also for social service programs, were identified and prioritized at this time. The needs for Park and Recreation facilities ranked by survey response in order of importance, greatest to least, were: 1. Outdoor Lighting 2. Outdoor Restrooms 3. Children's Play Areas 4. Barbecue Pit 5. Jogging /Fitness Track Outdoor Covered Meeting Area (Pavilion) 6. Tennis Courts 7. Softball Fields 8. Little League Baseball Fields 410 9. Outdoor Basketball Courts 10. Soccer /Football Fields 11. Multi -Use Auditorium Pool /Swimming Facilities (This was not an option on the survey, and these responses were written in.) 12. Regulation Track and Field Track 13. Indoor Basketball Courts 14. Boxing Ring /Training Area After examining survey- identified Parks and Recreation needs, and combining these with additional direction from the Parks Board and Lincoln Center Advisory Board, the concept development process was commenced. Identified needs were addressed in the Plan. 17 � CEI1# F Q a - COMPLETED SURVEY DATA SUMMARY - DEC 1 6 1997 i pe Z Total Responses To Survey: 213 4eng e6 What Age Group Do You Fall In? [211] TOTAL RESPONSES [113] 18 -40 [ 62] Over 40 [ 34] 11 -17 [ 2] 10 & Under 1. How many persons at your address fall into each of the following age groups? [700] TOTAL POPULATION [146] 21 - 30 Years [112] 0 - 5 Years (5 year span) [ 85] 11 - 15 Years (4 year span) [ 82] 31 - 40 Years [ 77] 16 - 20 Years (4 -year span) [ 77] 41 - 50 Years [ 67] Over 50 Years [ 54] 6 - 10 Years (4 year span) 2. How often do you or your family visit the Lincoln Center /Wayne Smith Park Complex? [225] TOTAL RESPONSES [ 481 A Few Times a Month [ 47] A Few Times a Year [ 43] A Few Times a Week [ 40] Never [ 29] *Every Day [ 18] *4 - 5 Times a Week * If the totals of these two categories are added together making a 4 -7 times a week category, then he usage is approximately the same among all categories. 000508- M.20 -38 (1788) 3. If you or your family never visits the Complex, or only a few times a year, what changes would cause you to visit more? 111/ [395] TOTAL RESPONSES [ 59] Playground Improvement: (30) Build More (29) Enlarge Playgrounds [ 50] Different Programs [ 38] Lower Fees [ 38] Open More Hours [ 33] Improve Area Safety [ 23] Feel More Welcome [ 20] More Gym Space [ 18] Improve Access [ 17] More Ball Fields [ 161 More Basketball Courts [ 6] Reduce Crowding [ 17] Don't Know [ 60] Other: 32 Safety Responses: 10 Adult Supervision /Stronger Rules/ Remove Rowdy Kids 4 More Lights Around Center /Park 2 Improve Safety 2 Improve Parental Involvement/ Parental Support Group 2 Southgate People Problems 2 Stop Fights (Likes Ctr /Won't Go) • 2 Would Participate at Different Park 2 Spend Money Elsewhere /Waste of $$ 1 Stop Fights (Likes Ctr /Does Go) 1 Kids Run Around All Night 1 Guns /Knives (Seen Personally) 1 Boys Hassle Girls /Not Safe 1 Needs Police Patrol or On- Premise Guards 1 Manager Does Not Fairly Control 1 Blacks Need To Feel More Welcome 15 Playground Responses: 5 More /Larger Playgrounds 3 Glass /Needles in Rocks 3 More Slides /(Fix) Swings 2 Kids Throw Rocks 1 Different Surface - - Not Dirt /Cement 1 Build So 2 -Year Olds Don't Get Hurt 12 Gym Responses: 4 Boys Take Over Gym /Bully Others 2 Need New Equipment 2 Girls Excluded 1 Need Girls Basketball Time 1 Does Not Want To Go 1 Will Not Go Because of Manager /RT 1 Nothing There of Interest 000508- M.20 -38 (1788) 4. When do you most like to use Lincoln Center /Wayne Smith Park Complex? [211] TOTAL RESPONSES [ 84] In The Afternoon (After Work /School) [. 67] In The Evening (After Dinner) [ 601 On the Weekend [ 171 Other 5. Should the Lincoln Center be open more hours? [172] TOTAL RESPONSES [ 951 Yes [ 771 No Open These Hours: [17] Until 10:00 PM [ 8] Evening Hours [ 61 Saturday /Saturday Evening [ 5] Until 12:00 PM [ 4] Sunday [ 41 Open 24 Hours /7 Days [ 2] Weekends [ 21 Until 11:00 PM 1111 Also: After School Summertime Until 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM Mix Age Groups 6. Do you or someone in your family participate in any of the following College Station sports activities? Check as many as apply. [222] TOTAL RESPONSES [ 361 Youth Basketball [ 191 Girl's Softball [ 17] Summer Track [ 121 Little League [ 12] Youth Flag Football [ 7] Boxing [ 7] Swim Team [ 6] Soccer Club [ 21 Youth Tennis [104] None of the Above 000508- M.20 - 38 (1788) 7. If you or you family do not participate in any of the above activities, why not? [ 71] TOTAL RESPONSES (Includes Other) [ 22] Not Interested [ 151 Too Busy ( 121 Not Informed [ 111 Too Old [ 41 Fees /Equipment Too Expensive [ 7] Other: 2 Bad Health 1 Has Newborn Baby 1 Not Enough Kids Participate /Programs Flop 1 Open Wrong Hours 1 No Facilities Close To Area 1 Too Many People Drinking /Smoking Causes Problems 8. Please check your three favorite sports activities. [560] TOTAL RESPONSES [115] Basketball [ 89] Volleyball [ 821 Softball [ 621 Track & Field [ 61] Baseball [ 50] Football [ 50] Swimming [ 27] Tennis [ 15] Soccer [ 9] Other: 4 Karate 1 Bowling 1 Golf 1 Kickball 1 Racquetball 1 Skating 9. Do you feel the park complex needs any new facilities? [135] TOTAL RESPONSES [121] Yes [ 141 No 000508- M.20 -38 (1788) 10. If you think the park complex needs additional facilities, what additional facilities should be provided? Please check no more than eight items. ( [918] TOTAL RESPONSES (Includes Other) [ 851 Outd000r Lighting [ 83] Outdoor Restrooms [ 78] Children's Play Areas [ 69] Barbecue Pit [ 67] Outdoor Pavilion (Outdoor Meeting Area) [ 66] Jogging & Fitness Track [ 56] Adult Softball Fields [ 51] Tennis Courts [ 49] Little League Baseball Fields [ 44] Outside Basketball Courts [ 43] Multi -Use Auditorium [ 37] Soccer Fields [ 34] Regulation Track & Field [ 28] Indoor Basketball [ 24] Boxing Ring /Training Area [105] Other: 39 Pool 9 Weights /Weight Room (For Female Use Also) 8 Volleyball (Requested Solely By Females) 6 Little League 6 Foosball /Table Games /Table Tennis /New Pool Table 4 Aerobic /Exercise Classes (Requested SBF) 4 Softball (Requested SBF) 1111 4 Park Benches 4 Picnic Tables 3 Water Fountains 3 Shade Trees 3 Snack Shop /Vending Machines /Like Shenanigan's 2 Bike /Walk Trails 2 Larger Dance /Pool Rooms 2 Fence Around Park Separating Southgate Village 1 Female Prone Weights 1 Air Conditioning (Comment by Elderly Person) 1 Racquetball 1 Pay Phone 1 Football Fields 1 Hot Tub 000508- M.20 -38 (1788) 1 1 • 11. What other recreational activities would you like to see offered? [Some of the following are duplicates of offerings in the survey, but since IL they were specifically requested in addition to being checked off in other areas of the survey, they seem to merit special attention here. These figures represent the number of times the activity /program was specifically requested only, and does not include any previous figures.] [93] TOTAL RESPONSES Activities: [11] Dances /Parties [10] Weight Room /Weights (Including Female) [ 8] Volleyball (Requested Totally by Females) [ 6] Organized Sports /Tournaments /Basketball Teams /(Kite) Contests [ 6] Little League Baseball [ 51 Foosball /Table Games [ 4] Exercise /Aerobics Classes (Requested Totally by Females) [ 4] Softball (Requested Totally by Females) [ 4] Karate [ 3] Boxing Programs: ] 7] Creative /Educational Classes [ 7] Programs for Children • [ 4] Additional Senior Citizens Programs /Outings (Really Enjoyed) [ 2] Drug Prevention Programs [ 1] Day Care /Nursery /After School Care for School Kids [ 1] Back -to- School Picnic to Encourage Kids About School Also specifically requested: Bowling Bible Study Golf Big Brother /Big Sister Program Kickball G -Rated Movies Racquetball Sewing (on Machine) Lessons Skating Table Tennis 000508- rl.20 -38 (1788) 12. What other programs would you like to see? Please select no more than six. [848] TOTAL RESPONSES [105] Day Care Center [ 91] Tutoring for Grades 1 - 12 [ 791 Big Brother /Big Sister Programs [ 72] Public Health Clinic [ 70] Head Start Program [ 60] Cultural Programs [ 55] Community Education Classes [ 51] Boy Scouts /Girl Scouts [ 50] Branch /Mobile Library [ 50] Meals -on Wheels ( 48] Immunization /Vaccination Program [ 45] Senior Citizen's Programs [ 41] Boys Club [ 31] Interurban Trolley Bus Stop 13. If necessary, may we or the Lincoln Center Advisory Board contact you for follow -up questions? [121] TOTAL RESPONSES [107] Yes [ 14] No c 000508- M.20 -38 (1788) FAIRVIEW AVE- — 1 rI I'm' , I�� I i s o¢ L ' 1 1: \ kcj i� ti' A 1NTCLAIR .. J �i 6 cc — 1 I I ■ ~ o I > rs±...„0,--„,.._ Li L ..„ � � : . � l S ' � x. = %, SERVI o j ` L NOR STREET P IINSI NEIGHBORHOOD tl .J L_.. J W HIGHLANDS 1 ii MIX= MEM MK 4 o NEIGHBORHOOD = � ♦ 11 COMMUNIT ♦ it � �k�2o� t. �♦ to (� .-1 • � � s 1 L , : bAARYE6A , 1 -- : ____. . ♦♦ ♦ ■ -`EY l I 1 COMMUNIT .: e '- - - _,I I -----_______ . i / i ' Imix . WEELBORH \1 if i RpA � PROPOSED FUNCTION PLAN FOR ELOGICUIRLD MaQUC:I3 ° unaarz MG101T11 PAK1K MGEMIUUD®Q JULY 1990 MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP 0 203 HOLLEMAM DRIVE EAST COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 FAIRVIEW AVE- —I ` r -- _r— PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CROSSWAUCS - - ] � o •� TYPICAL SYMBOL) I 11' 1 SOCIAL SERVICES., 0 _ M -. -- -- Nt NTCLAIR _ .• J — - (n - I l/ PROPOSED '__ 0 P I f • STREET - _ EIN� EXTE N ►'' I > :,_ ,- r -- 0 ; -- , PROPOSED ' ' W „.' a �� i 4 �/ ;t v° PR _• • SED ' ° ' GAZEBO x = G; P � - .:. Jv L`___t t .../ • ■ -- - � — _ LEANE f -_. PHOEN\ r- a' zz ____] G HLANO - �` L E I '/ 4- • e - PROPOSED HI \ / ; � 1 i; `-- _ a r../..___ D 1 VOLLEYBALL PIT PD I 1 I. I WYS •• -PROPOSED *1; ;•� FU TURE a��� NEIGHBORHOOD ' PAVI LION �-- "- I - -SOFTBALL • ' ( NON RE 7 1 PURPOSE) , : IAARYEM 1 GAZEBO � _, 0N E_Y_� y TORM SEW S. PROPOSED SEWER , ` ``• H y - S y PROPOSED , - - -- - --' TENNIS COURT , ' . % FUTURE i �� i L ITTLE LEAGUE • ill 1 COMPLEX L • AND MAINTENANCE; --. , I FACILITY ; -- 1 /r WEI ` BORN - \` ' I -_i i A CONCEPT PLAN FOR dOa¢oa© MI:04111,1 o UnWIE 830171 PCNIX GOL3O U O R JULY 1990 ® MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP 203 HOLLEMAN DRIVE EAST COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77[340 • II FAIRVIEW AVE. _____ 1 J' �" - ,-- - -- - -___ __ -- __ _ .. 1 1 EXISTING CITY OF _46105. 1 PHASE TWO Z COLLEGE STATION PROPER TY -' � NTCLAIR - -_ _ / - .5 R te — ' / p • I r OC! q •iy .r I g ' ., N.;t:tl a. ._ � . 4 • t4 -r .. IO I .. .. 1 : : i :•:LrZ ' i : per • O EMi� I L______] as ,„, II HIGHLAND ! L r 6 ; Ili' : j';� 4$41 _ I i__ 1 PHASE ONE ; . y. � ' = . . _ `'.: r u l e, :' '...;,: ':.': r .i. \. ifi,.yt ftl. - 5- #''S. e '_;' "." 1 9~ G O PHASE TWO t r . © O PHASE ® PHASE • - THREE _IN _ , _ ©���P THREE • 1 ` ! • -----_______ i ‘ ,e I : . r ---- 1 -__________________ 1 ©. N� V f • ___ : w,.. cC 80 R"' © ° : l RO AD • A PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND PROJECT PHASING MAP FOR JULY 1990 0 MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP 203 HOLLEMAN DRIVE EAST COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 Le MEMORANDUM TO: Skip Noe, City Manager FROM: Jo Carroll, Community Development Administrator 4 RE: Purchase of 903 Wellborn from James Thompson DATE: December 11, 1997 The appraised value for 903 Wellborn was $37,500. The City acquired the property for the usage of the lot, which appraised for $7,000 (improvements appraised at $28,920 for the house and $1,500 for other improvements). The City acquired the property for a negotiated price of $52,000, which is 38% higher than total appraised value of the lot and improvements. The square footage cost for acquisition is $3.78, including improvements. Mr. Thompson, age 59, lived at 903 Wellborn with his wife and daughter, age 32. Total reported annual family income is $14,387. On Oct. 25, 1995, he was sent a General Information Notice about the pending Lincoln Center park project. On Oct. 31, 1996, he was given an update of the pending project and his rights under URA. On Nov. 15, he was given an offer to acquire his property for $37,500, the appraised value determined by John Hamilton. He was given a 90 days notice to vacate on Nov. 21, 1996, giving him until Feb. 24, 1997 to vacate. The Oct. 31, 1996 letter was approved by HUD and included a list of three comparable dwelling units. The most comparable dwelling unit was 703 Highland and was priced at $49,500, meaning that he was eligible to receive $49,500 for the acquisition cost of his property and his URA Replacement Housing Payment. He was not happy with this and Mark Youngjohn here in CD met with him on several occasions in an attempt to come to a satisfactory resolution. At various times through the next several months, Mr. Thompson indicated his desire to move his house to property that he owns in Wellborn. We indicated to him that the house, in our opinion, would probably not survive the move and strongly recommended against it. (If we had agreed and the house was destroyed in the move, then it would have been at our expense, not his). Because Mr. Thompson still remained unsatisfied with the $49,500 offer (note this was $12,000 higher than his existing property appraised for), we negotiated a sales price of $52,000 ($14,500 higher than appraised value). This amount would have more than covered the costs of his moving and other relocation expenses, and in exchange, he signed a waiver of his URA benefits on Feb. 28, 1997. We purchased his property and it closed as a voluntary sale on 2- 28 -97. Mr. Thompson had made little, if any, attempt to find alternative housing to move into within his 90 days notice, which had expired on 2- 24 -97. Mark worked very hard to find and make him aware of properties L for sale or rent that he might would like. We also offered that CD could assist him in building a new home in CS if he desired. Darrell Parker, CD Project Manager, met with Mr. Thompson on numerous occasions to obtain information on his housing desires and actually drafted a set of floor plans for the house that he desired to build (approximated value of $750). We also offered technical assistance to him during the construction phase and a list of contractors/bidders. After the City's purchase, Mr. Thompson continued to remain in his home at 903 Wellborn rent -free. On May 15, 1997, Mr. Thompson moved into a rental unit at 3180 Cain, #150 near Wellborn at CD's expense. Per your request, we pay his monthly rent ($425.00 for a total to date of $3,400), and are certainly under no obligation per URA or HUD to do so. At some point in this process unknown to us, Mr. Thompson decided to move to Bryan and build on a family lot that he owned an interest in. He contacted their CD office and applied for Downpayment Assistance. Bryan Community Development demolished the old house that was located on his lot (demolition value approximately $2,000). This lot was subsequently unusable because the City of Bryan then preceded to condemn it for expansion of the City Cemetery. The City paid him $5,000 for his interest in the lot, and then provided Mr. Thompson with another larger lot. They are also now assisting him with around $15K CDBG Downpayment Assistance for the construction of a new home in Bryan. The reported contract price for his house was $53,175. The expected completion date is mid - December. He has submitted a vacate notice to the owners of his rental unit for December 31, 1997. So, to sum this up, the way I understand this, when you add this all up, he received: $52, 000 from CS CD for Acquisition of 903 Wellborn $15, 000 from Bryan CD in Downpayment Assistance $67,000 total cash (an amount almost double the appraised value of 903 (6, Wellborn) Bryan offinal build a house that cost him $53K (maybe a little b it more, but B ry CD is unsure o ff nal costs). Additionally, he received other assistance totaling: $ 3,400 in rental payments from CS CD $ 750 in drafting expenses and floor plans from CS CD $ 8,900 Appraisal District's value of lot donated by City of Bryan $13,050 Total other assistance provided by CS and Bryan $80,050 Total Benefit associated with CS's acquisition of 903 Wellborn CS Total: $56,150 (in exchange for property valued at $37,500) Bryan Total: $23,900 (plus items listed below) Additionally, he received: $2,000 estimated amount of demolition assistance from Bryan CD for the cemetery lot $5, 000 from City of Bryan for acquisition of his share of the cemetery lot If Mr. Thompson still believes that he has been treated unfairly, I would be glad to contact him to review these amounts with him. T �..1 _ C I T Y 0 • B A N i TEXAS P.O. BOX 1 000 • BPYAN, TEXAS 7780E • (4C9) 361-3600 April 10, 1997 James and Edna Thompson 903 Old Wellborn Road College Station, Texas 77840 Subject: Approval for Assistance with Home Construction at 602 Dean Street Dear Mr. and Mrs. Thompson, I'm pleased to inform you that you've been approved for $14,999 in assistance for the construction of your new home at 602 Dean St. in Bryan. The city will also, with your approval, demolish the existing dilapidated home at that address at no cost to you. Prior to the commencement of construction you will need to execute an agreement with the city promising to occupy the new home as your primary residence for a period of not less than five years. You'll also be required to maintain hazard insurance on the property and maintain the property to city requirements for that same period. Finally, you'll be required to provide the driveway per city codes and as outlined in your contract with the builder. Our $14,999 in assistance (minus the survey cost) will be available upon completion of the dwelling. Completion will be established by the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the city's Inspection Department. Consequently, you should negotiate with the builder so that our assistance is used as the final construction draw. Your $40,000 should be used for all prior draws. The builder may contact our office if they have questions or need additional information. I've also coordinated with Larry Haskins, a local real estate attorney that is willing to represent you with regard to you contract execution and other project dealings as necessary. He is providing the assistance at no cost to you through an agreement with the City of Bryan to provide legal assistance to Community Development opine s t i ap p lic K yle f yeuSoutld like his assistance you may call him at 696 -1444. His I'll contact you as soon as the city's documents are ready to be executed. Community • • Development staff will also be contacting you in the near future regarding the demolition agreement I mentioned previously. Please contact me at 361 -3610 if you have any questions or require additional information. • Sincerely, (4,g/i/A Randy J. rumley Affordable Housing Coordinator xc: Gail Macmillan; Rachel Ponder; Eric Barton; Larry Haskins 12 -i2 -7j L J. Mikeska & Co. Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants 1543 Green Oak Place, Suite 100 (281) 359 -5200 Kingwood, Texas 77339 -2013 Fax (281) 359 -2466 September 22, 1997 Mr. Todd McDaniel Senior Economic and Community Development Analyst City of College Station P. 0. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 RE: Review of 308 Second Street, College Station, Brazos County, Texas Dear Mr. McDaniel: At your request, a review of the summary appraisal report completed by John M. Hamilton, Inc., on the above referenced property was conducted. The scope of this assignment consisted of a review of the summary appraisal report and not an inspection of the subject or any comparables. The rights being appraised in this assignment were reported as fee simple. The effective date of the appraisal was June 5, 1997 with a date for the review of September 19, 1997. I concur with the market value estimate and suggest the appraisal be accepted as written. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, C4 ) / 7.-4 / &' Jo Ann Mikeska, MAI G el) ®91 APPRAISAL DESK REVIEW SUMMARY ADDRESS /LOCATION: 308 Second Street CITY /COUNTY /STATE: College Station /Brazos/Texas APPRAISAL FIRM: John M. Hamilton, Inc. APPRAISER(S): John M. Hamilton, MAI, and Michael J. Fleming, SRA ADDRESS: 2131 Briarcrest Drive, Suite 111 CITY /STATE/ZIP: Bryan, Texas 77802 -3052 TELEPHONE #: 409 - 268 -0200 DESCRIPTION(S): LAND: 6,562 Square Feet IMPROVEMENTS: None INTEREST APPRAISED: Fee Simple HIGHEST AND BEST USE: AS VACANT: Speculative with most probable future mid - density residential use. AS IMPROVED: N/A MARKET VALUE AS IS ON APPRAISAL DATE: $15,000 CAPITAL COSTS ASSUMED IN THE VALUATION: None DESK REVIEW FINDINGS: YES NO - MEETS USPAP MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: X - VALUATION METHODS & ANALYSES ARE ADEQUATE: X - VALUE CONCLUSION APPEARS REASONABLE: X REVIEWER'S RECOMMENDATION: - ACCEPT REPORT AS WRITTEN REVIEWER: Jo Ann Mikeska, MAI OFFICE/FIRM: J. Mikeska & Company TELEPHONE NUMBER: 281- 359 -5200 DATE OF REVIEW: September 22, 1997 0 1 Y N N/A REGULATORY ISSUES: INTRODUCTION 1. Purpose, function, and scope of report identified? [ X ] [ ] [ ] 2. Definition of Market Value? [ X ] [ ] [ ] 3. Special limiting conditions or extraordinary assumptions [ ] [ ] [ X provided? Impact on value discussed? 4. Real property interests correctly identified? [ X ] [ ] [ ] 5. If a fractional interest, was the pro rata contribution to the whole [ ] [ ] [ X approximately estimated? 6. Legal description included? [ X ] [ ] [ 7. Three -year subject sales history included? Prior sales analyzed [ X ] [ ] [ ] and discussed? 8. Current listing, option, or pending contract on subject revealed [ 1 [ 1 [ X ] and analyzed? t r. AREA DESCRIPTIONS 9. Relevance and adequacy of regional /city and neighborhood [ X ] [ ] [ ] economic data? 10. Conclusion of neighborhood trends adequately supported? [ X ] [ ] [ External obsolescence discussed? PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 11. Adequacy of site analysis? [ X ] [ ] [ ] 12. Adequacy of improvements description? [ X 1 [ ] [ j 13. Adequacy of zoning analysis? [ X ] [ ] [ 14. Adequacy of property tax analysis? [ X ] [ ] [ ] 15. Personal property identified and evaluated? [ 1 [ ] [ X 16. Easements, environmental hazards, or other encumbrances [ X ] [ ] [ ] identified and analyzed? 17. Photographs of subject property included? [ X ] [ ] [ ] 2 C Y N N/A MARKET AND HIGHEST & BEST USE ANALYSES 18. Adequacy of market analysis to support highest and best use? [ X 1 [ ] [ ] 19. Highest and best use of the site as though vacant? Probable [ X ] [ ] [ ] development horizon discussed? 20. Highest and best use of the site as improved? [ ] [ 1 [ X 21. Probable physical, legal, or external changes impacting property [ ] [ ] [ X value revealed? 22. For proposed construction or changes in existing improvements, [ ] [ ] [ X was economic feasibility adequately analyzed? VALUATION 23. Exclusion of the usual approaches to value adequately [ X 1 [ ] [ 1 explained? LAND ANALYSIS 24. Current and comparable land sales? [ X 1 [ ] [ ] 25. Photographs of comparable land sales included? [ ] [ X 1 [ ] 26. Comparable land sales adjusted for cash equivalency? [ X 1 [ 1 [ ] 27. Were market conditions (time) adjustments reasonable, [ X ] [ 1 [ ] separated from physical adjustments? 28. Comparable land sales include market supported or logical [ X ] [ 1 [ l adjustments? 29. Reasoning for land value conclusion logical? [ X ] [ ] [ 1 COST APPROACH [ 1 [ l [ X INCOME APPROACH [ 1 [ ] [ X IMPROVED SALES COMPARISON APPROACH [ l [ l [ X RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE 30. Final value appropriately split between realty and non - realty [ 1 [ ] [ X ] items? 31. Final value estimate consistent with the data presented? [ X ] [ ] [ 1 3 Y N N/A 32. All relevant deductions and discounts (remaining finish [ ] [ ] [ X ] allowance, commissions, capital improvements /deferred maintenance, rent loss, etc.) accounted for in deriving the "as is" value? 33. Report details /depth commensurate with the complexity of the [ X ] [ ] [ ] property type and market conditions? OTHER REPORT REQUIREMENTS 34. Appraisal summary sheet included? [ ] [ ] [ X ] 35. Certification completed and acceptable? [ X ] [ ] E 1 36. Assumptions /Limiting Conditions reasonable? [ X ] [ ] [ ] 37. Estimated marketing period disclosed? Is it reasonable based [ X ] [ ] [ ] on the data presented? 38. Appraiser's qualifications included? [ X ] [ ] [ ] 0 0 4 4 14P. REVIEW APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION In accordance with the terms of my engagement, the purpose of my review of the referenced appraisal report was to verify compliance with accepted professional appraisal standards and the reporting guidelines of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice from The APPRAISAL FOUNDATION. The analyses, opinions, and conclusions presented are based solely on the data contained in the referenced appraisal report(s) and the data are presumed to be accurate. I am not responsible for errors in the data or for undisclosed conditions of the property, or the marketplace which would only be apparent from a personal inspection and research. To comply with requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice for appraisal reviews, I have read and reviewed the contents of the referenced appraisal report, have formed an opinion, and have developed the reasons for any disagreement as to the: 1. adequacy and relevance of the data and the propriety of any adjustments to the data; 2. appropriateness of the appraisal methods and techniques used; 3. correctness and appropriateness of the analyses, opinions, and /or conclusions in the report being reviewed. Deficiencies found and /or disagreements, if any, are set forth in the attached letter with attachments. Jo Ann Mikeska is licensed by the Texas Real Estate Commission and certified by the State of Texas as a real estate appraiser. I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct; - the analyses, opinions, and conclusions expressed in this report are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions; - I have no (or the specified) present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no (or the specified) personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; - my compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in, or the use of, this report; - my analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this review report have been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice; - I have not made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report, the comparable sales and rentals, nor have I verified any factual data contained in the report; and - no one provided significant professional assistance to the persons signing this review. �-- ;Sir A mmo' /1 1O " - September 22, 1997 Jo Ann Mikeska, Al Date State Certification Number: TX- 1322511 -G 5 4 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS The legal description used in this report is assumed to be correct, but it may not necessarily have been confirmed by survey. No responsibility is assumed in connection with a survey or for encroachments or overlapping or other discrepancies that might be revealed thereby. Any sketches included in the report are only for the purpose of aiding the reader in visualizing the property and are not necessarily a result of a survey. No responsibility is assumed for an opinion of legal nature such as to ownership of the property or condition of title. The appraiser assumes the title to the property to be marketable; that, unless stated to the contrary, the property is appraised as an unencumbered fee which is not used in violation of acceptable ordinances, statutes, or other govemmental regulations. Information, estimates, and opinions fumished to the appraiser, and contained in this report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such items fumished the appraiser can be assumed by the appraiser. All mortgages, liens, encumbrances, leases, and servitudes have been disregarded unless so specified within the appraisal report. The property is appraised as though under responsible ownership and competent management. The physical condition of improvements, if any, described herein is based on visual inspection only. No liability is assumed for the soundness of structural members including roof (wear and leakage), foundation (settling or leakage), footings, exterior and interior walls, partitions, floors, or any other part of the structure since no engineering tests were made of same and no termite inspection was conducted. Furthermore, we accept no legal responsibility for the efficiency of the plumbing and electrical systems, the heating and air conditioning equipment, or any major appliances. The appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures which would render it more or less valuable than an otherwise comparable property. The appraiser is not an expert in determining the presence or absence of hazardous substance, defined as all hazardous or toxic materials, waste, pollutants, or contaminants (including, but not limited to, asbestos, PCB, UFFI, or other raw materials or chemicals) used in construction or otherwise present on the property. The appraiser assumes no responsibility for the studies or analyses which would be required to conclude the presence or absence of such substances or for loss as a result of the presence of such substances. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired. The value estimate is based on the assumption that the subject property is not so affected. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws, unless non - compliance is stated, defined, and considered in the valuation. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless a non - conformity has been stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report. It is assumed that the information relating to the location of or existence of public utilities that has been obtained through a verbal inquiry from the appropriate utility authority or ascertained from visual evidence is correct. No warranty has been made regarding the exact location or capacities of public utility systems. It is assumed that all required licenses, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any 4111P■ local, state, or national govemment 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. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines described and that there is no encroachments or trespasses unless noted within the report. SPECIAL ASSUMPTIONS I assume that no environmental hazards exist on subject property; thus, this valuation has been estimated by "excluding the consideration of hazardous substances ". It is further assumed that the subject property is in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act ( "ADA ") of 1992 or can achieve compliance with minimal capital expenditure. A specific compliance survey and analysis was not performed by or provided to this office. Should this assumption prove incorrect, we reserve the right to alter the value conclusion contained herein. The subject property is not considered to be impacted by wetlands areas nor were any endangered species noted during my inspection. LIMITING CONDITIONS The opinion of value and every other element of this appraisal report are qualified and limited by all of the following conditions: 1. THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED FOR THE INTERNAL USE OF THE CLIENT NAMED WITHIN THIS REPORT. NO PERSON OR ENTITY OTHER THAN THE CLIENT HAS ANY RIGHT OR AUTHORITY TO RELY ON THIS REPORT OR ANYTHING CONTAINED IN IT OR IMPLIED FROM IT. 2. The appraiser will not be required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made this appraisal, with reference to the property in question, unless arrangements have been previously made thereof. 3. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. The written report is the property of the appraiser and 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. 4. The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the reported highest and best use of the property. The allocations of value for land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. ® 5. Disclosure of the contents of this report is governed by the By -Laws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraisers or the firm with which they are connected, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or to the appraisal designations, shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media, public relations media, news media, sales media, or any other public means of communication without the prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. 6. The Americans with Disabilities Act ( "ADA ") became effective January 26, 1992. The appraiser has 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 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 the appraiser has no direct evidence relating to this issue, possible noncompliance with the requirements of ADA in estimating the value of the property has not been considered. 7. No environmental or concurrency impact studies were either requested or made in conjunction with this appraisal report. The appraiser, thereby, reserves the right to alter, amend, revise, or rescind any of the value opinions based upon any subsequent environmental or concurrency impact studies, research, or investigation. 8. An appraisal related to an estate in land that is less than the whole fee simple estate applies only to the fractional interest involved. The value of this fractional interest plus the value of all other fractional interests may or may not equal the value of the entire fee simple estate considered as a whole. 9. The appraisal report related to a geographical portion of a larger parcel is applied only to such geographical portion and should not be considered as applying with equal validity to other portions of the larger parcel or tract. The value for such geographical portions plus the value of all geographical portions may or may not equal the value of the entire parcel or tract considered as an entity. 10. If the appraisal is used for mortgage loan purposes, the appraiser invites attention to the fact that (1) the equity cash requirements of the sponsor have not been analyzed, (2) the loan ratio has not been suggested, and (3) the amortization method and term have not been suggested. 11. The function of this report is not for use in conjunction with a syndication of real property. This report cannot be used for said purposes and, therefore, any use of this report relating to syndication activities is strictly prohibited and unauthorized. If such an unauthorized use of this report takes place, it is understood and agreed that J. Mikeska & Company has no liability to the client and /or third parties. 12. Acceptance of and /or use of this appraisal report constitutes acceptance of the foregoing General Underlying Assumptions and General Limiting Conditions. The appraiser's duties, pursuant to the employment to make the appraisal, are complete upon delivery and acceptance of the appraisal report. However, any corrections or errors should be called to the attention of the appraiser within 60 days of the delivery of the report. 13. Any cause of action resulting between J. Mikeska & Company and the client in conjunction with this appraisal, either directly or indirectly, will be limited to damages ® in the amount of the appraisal fee received for the assignment. Furthermore, it is agreed that you will indemnify J. Mikeska & Company for any damages, costs, expenses, and attomey fees resulting from any cause of action by any interested party, other than the client, conceming the appraisal or report. >AZO- -/ Jo Ann Mikeska, MAI Texas State Certificate No. TX- 1322511 -G ZARVit ■ mm ■■ /2 - A 2 \/ MI ■■ M 1 COMPLETE APPRAISAL IN A SUMMARY REPORT 6,562 SQUARE FOOT VACANT TRACT OF LAND BEING LOT 18, BLOCKS 6 -7, BOYETT ADDITION, COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 308 SECOND STREET 1 111 1 1 1 1 NIA . 1 ■ 11iS ■■ IP COMPLETE APPRAISAL IN A SUMMARY REPORT OF 1 6 -7 6,562 SQUARE FOOT VACANT TRACT OF LAND BEING LOT 18, BOYETT ADDITION, COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 308 SECOND STREET 1 FOR 1 MR. TODD MCDANIEL, SENIOR ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANALYST CITY OF COLLEGE STATION P.O. BOX 9960 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842 1 BY JOHN M. HAMILTON INCORPORATED 3131 BRIARCREST DRIVE, SUITE 111 BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 -3052 1 AS 1 OF JUNE 5, 1997 ■ ,1 -IMAM NM MIMI NM 1 JOHN M. HAMILTON, MAI JOHN M. HAMILTON INCORPORATED 1 MICHAEL J. FLEMING, SRA REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS III June 10, 1997 ill Mr. Todd McDaniel, Senior Economic & Community Development Analyst U City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Reference: 6,562 square foot vacant tract of land being Lot 18, Blocks 6 -7, Boyett Addition, College Station, Brazos County, Texas, more commonly known as 308 Second Street, the current owner being Richard B. Bening. Dear Mr. McDaniel: As requested, we have inspected and appraised the above referenced property as of June 5, 1997. The owner of the subject property did not respond to our request to inspection the subject property. However, the subject is readily visible from the adjoining public right -of -way and adjoining properties whose owners did give us permission to go on their properties. U Based upon our analysis of the market data available to our office and the current market trends within the subject's immediate area, it is our opinion that as of June 5, 1997, the subject property's indicated market value is as follows: al FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ll ($15,000.00) IIII SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL _ To arrive at an estimate of market value for a property, the appraiser must al determine the typical purchaser who would be interested in that particular type of property. Market value is loosely defined as the most probable price in terms of money which a property should bring in a competitive and open market for a MI reasonable time, and this price depends upon the typical purchaser's reaction to the various supply and demand factors which affect the property being appraised. Of significant importance are properties which are in competition with the subject. All of this information must be derived from the market. The scope of the evaluation and valuation of the subject includes: a personal inspection of the subject property and its environs; review of surveys as available; research into market activity; review of market operating standards; research into investor motivations and activities; and analysis of the above. 3131 BRIARCREST DRIVE. SUITE 111 (409) 268 -0200 • FAX (409) 731 -8809 BRYAN, TX 77802 , -11/111111111 1 MP IIIIIII ■■ II City of College Station June 10, 1997 Page 2 At the request of the client, this report has been prepared in a summary format. This report is prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional I Appraisal Practice under the Departure provision and Standard 2 as revised and accepted on March 22, 1994. Based on the revised standards, this report falls into the category of a Complete Appraisal in a Summary Report. I This report as defined in Standard Rule 2 -2 of the USPAP is a Complete Appraisal in a Summary Report. Reliance on this report is limited to the client. As a restricted report, vital information for forming a valid and accurate opinion of value I has not been presented herein, but, retained in the files of John M. Hamilton Inc. As such, this report may not be fully understood by third parties without a review of the file material. 1 PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL 1 The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the current market value of the fee simple interest of the surface estate of the legally described property. 4 16, INTENDED USE OF THE REPORT 1 This appraisal report was requested by Mr. Todd McDaniel to assist the City of College Station in acquisition of the subject property. 1 DATE OF THE VALUE ESTIMATE I The effective date of this appraisal is June 5, 1996, and the date of the report is June 10, 1997. SALES HISTORY 1 According to the information available to our office, the subject property has not sold within the past three years. The last recorded sale was on April 16, 1991, when I Mr. Richard Benning purchased the tract from Ms. Anna Reed for $12,750.00 or $1.94 per square foot. I MARKET VALUE DEFINED Market value, as used herein, is defined by the Appraisal Institute as, "The most probable price, as of a specified date, in cash, or in terms equivalent to cash, or in I other precisely revealed terms, for which the specified property rights should sell after reasonable exposure in a competitive market under all conditions requisite to fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and for 1 self- interest, and assuming that neither is under undue duress." 1 1 - _ - -III AS ■■ MIMI MN City of College Station Page 3 June 10, 1997 Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: a) buyer and seller are typically motivated; b) both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what they consider their own best interest; c) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; d) payment is made in cash or its equivalent; e) financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the community at the specified ` date and typical for the property type in its locale; and f) the price represents a normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special financing amounts and /or terms, services, fees, costs, or credits incurred in the transaction. ESTIMATED MARKETING TIME Based upon our analysis of the current market trends within the subject's immediate area, it appears that it would require a marketing time of ±12 months. DISCUSSION OF THE APPRAISAL PROCESS To arrive at an estimate of current market value for a property, the appraiser must determine the typical purchaser who would be interested in that particular type of property. Market value, as defined earlier, is the most probable price in terms of money which a property should bring in a competitive and open market for a reasonable time, and this price depends upon the typical purchaser's reaction to the various supply and demand factors which affect the property being appraised. Of significant importance are properties which are in competition with the subject. All of this information must be derived from the market. The appraisal process is basically an economic analysis and consists of an orderly program by which the problem is defined. Data is acquired, classified, analyzed, and interpreted into an estimate of fair market value for the subject being appraised. This process is accomplished in three approaches of the Appraisal Process. These approaches include the Cost, Income, and Sales Comparison Approach. Regardless of the approach utilized, the data under consideration is taken from the market in one form or another. One or more of these approaches may not be applicable in all assignments or may have reduced significance because of the nature of the property, the decision, or the available data. In the event that more than one approach is utilized, the value estimates arrived at from the different approaches are correlated into a single value estimate considered most appropriate for the subject property. The following is a brief discussion of each approach and its application. The Sales Comparison Approach is a method of estimating market value in which a subject property is compared with comparable properties that have recently sold. This process relies heavily upon the principle of substitution. Preferably, all properties utilized as comparable are in the same geographic area. One premise of the Market Data Approach is that the market will determine a price for the subject property in the same manner that it determines the prices of comparable, competitive properties. The sales are compared to the subject and adjustments for differences in location, time, terms of sale, or physical characteristics can be made using the subject as the standard of comparison. Most types of properties which are bought and sold can be analyzed using "common denominators" such as sale price per unit of size_ — -- _■ MA E■ gr NM MI City of College Station June 10, 1997 Page 4 Estimating the degree of comparability between two properties involves judgment about their similarity. Elements of comparison utilized in this judgment are (1) financing terms, (2) conditions of sale, (3) market conditions or time, (4) location, (5) physical characteristics, and (6) income characteristics, if any. Adjustments are made to the price of each comparable, as appropriate. The major strengths of this approach include the reflection of actual market transactions and the fact that the normal "common denominators" tend to be fairly easily determined. The potential weaknesses of this approach arise from the fact that the data is historical and "ideal" comparables are usually very difficult to find. The Cost Approach yields a value indication for a property by adding the land value to an estimate of the depreciated reproduction cost of the improvements. This approach recognizes that physical, functional, and external disadvantages will be recognized by the market and which may result in lower selling prices. The Cost Approach provides specific measures for these disadvantages, and anything that diminishes value is termed accrued depreciation. The land value is based upon a vacant site being utilized to its highest and best use. Generally speaking, the site value is estimated via the Sales Comparison Approach. Replacement cost or reproduction cost new, is derived from reliable cost manuals and /or from interviews with reputable local contractors. Depreciation can be observed from rent loss or based upon an estimated cost -to -cure. In all cases, information concerning depreciation is developed from the market by observing comparable properties. The Income Approach to value is applicable to income producing property and is practical in the appraisal of properties for which a rental market or a rental value can be identified. The Income Approach is an appraisal technique in which an appraiser derives a value indication for income producing property by converting anticipated benefits into property value. This process is accomplished by either capitalizing a single year's income expectancy or an annual average of several years' income expectancies at a market - derived capitalization rate or by discounting the annual cash flows for the holding period and the reversion at a specified yield rate. Capitalization is the conversion of earnings into an indication of value and involves multiplying the annual net income by a factor or dividing it by a rate which weighs such considerations as risk, time, return on investment, and return of investment. The appropriateness of this rate or factor is critical, and there are a number of techniques by which it may be developed. The net income attributable to the subject property is estimated by subtracting vacancy and collection loss, and expenses from the property's annual potential gross income. These figures are derived from the market comparison of properties similar to the subject. The reliability of the Income Approach is based upon a number of considerations which include the reliability of the estimate of income and expenses, the duration of the net annual income, the capitalization rate or factor used, and the method of capitalization used. II NM ■■ Cit of College Station Page 5 June 10, 1997 The weakness of this approach lies in the estimation of income and expenses and the fact that not all properties are suitable for this approach. The strength of this approach is that it reflects typical investor considerations in purchasing and analyzing income producing properties . The Sales Comparison Approach to value is considered to be the most appropriate valuation method for a evaluating the subject property. The subject property is a vacant tract of land which is located within a residentially oriented neighborhood. Therefore, the Income and Cost Approaches to value were not considered to be applicable. As such, only the Sales Comparison Approach to value was utilized in this analysis . CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This appraisal is subject to the following limiting conditions. The legal description furnished is assumed to be correct . I assume no responsibility for matters legal in character, nor do I render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be good. Any existing liens and encumbrances have been disregarded and the property appraised as though free and clear under responsible ownership 1 and competent management. I have made no survey and assume no responsibility in connection with such matters . I believe to be reliable the information identified in this report as being furnished by others, but I assume no responsibility for its accuracy. The construction and condition of the improvements mentioned in the body of this report are based on observation, and no engineering study has been made which would discover any latent defects. No certification as to any of the physical aspects could be given unless a proper engineering study were made. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous substances, including without limitation asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum leakage, or agricultural chemicals, which may or may not be present on the property, or other environmental conditions, were not called to the attention of nor did the appraiser become aware of such during the appraiser's inspection. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property unless otherwise stated. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to test such substances or conditions. If the present of such substances, such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, or other hazardous substances or environmental conditions, may affect the value of the property, the value estimated is predicated on the assumption that there is no such condition on or in the property or in such proximity thereto that it would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, nor for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. _Mall ■■ I/ 1111 City of College Station June 10, 1997 Page 6 The distribution of the total valuation between land and improvements in this report applies only under the existing program of utilization. The separate valuations for land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal, and are invalid if so used. I am not required to give testimony or attendance in court by reason of this appraisal with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been made previously therefore. 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 anyone other than the addressee without the previous written consent of the appraiser. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the written consent and approval of the author, particularly as to valuation conclusions, the identity of the appraiser or firm with which he is connected, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or the MAI designation. NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS BOUNDARIES North: Old College Road and West Brookside Drive South: University Drive East: South College Avenue West: Wellborn Road or F.M. 2154 LOCATION: The northwestern portion of the City of College Station. MAJOR THOROUGHFARES: University Drive, South College Avenue, Wellborn Road or F.M. 2154 , Old College Road, College Main and West Brookside Drive. ACCESSIBILITY: The subject neighborhood is provided with good accessibility via the various roadways which either traverse or form the boundaries of the area. -II AA IP NM ION City of College Station June 10, 1997 Page 7 DISTANCE FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT: The City of College Station does not have a centralized business district, however, the majority of the commercial developments within the neighborhood are situated along the major thoroughfares. PREDOMINANT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT: Single and multi - family residential with supportive retail /commercial developments along the major thoroughfares. SCHOOLS: The subject neighborhood is primarily situated within the College Station Independent School District which provides educational facilities for kindergarten through twelfth grade. Additionally, the main campus for the Texas A &M University is situated adjacent to the subject neighborhood along the south line of University Drive. This influence is considered to enhance the overall marketability of the properties within the surrounding areas. ZONING: The subject neighborhood is primarily situated within the City of College Station which enforces zoning regulations upon properties within its boundaries. RESTRICTIONS: Per applicable building codes, deed restrictions, right -of -way and easements of record. RELATIONSHIP TO GROWTH PATTERN OF CITY: The City of College Station is currently growing in a south to southeasterly direction. While, the subject neighborhood is not considered to be located within the current growth pattern for the area, its location within the "Northgate" area is considered to enhance its marketability. Based upon this consideration, the subject could be expected to receive adequate market acceptance into the foreseeable future. • Cit of College Station June 10, 1997 Page 8 P NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN AREA: Over the past three to four years, the Bryan / Colle g e Station area has experienced increased ma r ket activity within the current growth pattern for the area. As stated PI previously, the subject is not situated within the cu g ro wth pattern for the area, but i s considered to be equally enhanced by its location within the "Northgate" area. This area provides direct access to the northern portion of the main campus of Texas A &M University, and as such, is improved with II numerous restaurants, bars and retail/ commercial stores which provides virtually a any product and /or service to the student in population. Within the recent past, the majority of the new development within the ill neighborhood has been in the form of illliv renovation to existing structures. These renovations are as follows: the former Wyatt's Sporting Goods was converted into Cycle Spectrum, the former service station at the corner of University and Nagle is now occupied by Notes 'N Quotes. It should also be noted that the James Coney Island I Restaurant building constructed in 1991 is now a Taco Bell restaurant. Additionally, the former Pizza Hut building located on the northeast corner of University Drive and 11 Tauber is now a walk in Aggie Credit Union facility. I Furthermore, the City of College Station recently completed its College Main Street project, which improved College Main from its intersection with University Drive to the I College Station City Limit with 5 foot bike lanes on both the east and west sides, new sidewalks, as well as some additional landscaping. This project was intended to improve the pedestrian thoroughfares in an area which is heavily trafficked by the Texas I A &M student population. Therefore, with these recent developments occurring, it is our opinion that the subject neighborhood I should be considered to continue to receive favorable market acceptance into the foreseeable future. 1 II NM City of College Station Page 9 June 10, 1997 I Si CONCLUSIONS: This area is considered to be enhanced by its adjacent location to the main campus for Texas A &M University. Therefore, based on these considerations, as well as the increased market activity which has occurred within the growth pattern for the Bryan /College Station area, the subject neighborhood is expected to continue to receive favorable market acceptance. SITE DATA LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 6,562 square foot vacant tract of land being Lot 18, Blocks 6 -7, Boyett Addition, College Station, Brazos County, Texas, more commonly known as 308 Second Street LOCATION: The subject property is located on the easterly line of Second Street, north of Church Street. LAND AREA: 6,562 square feet SHAPE: Rectangular TOPOGRAPHY: Basically level DRAINAGE: Based upon a physical inspection of the subject property, drainage appears to be adequate. STREET TYPE: Second Street is a two -lane, asphalt paved, city maintained street with partial concrete curbs and gutters and streetlights. EASEMENTS: The subject property is not encumbered by any known easements, which would be considered to reduce its overall marketability. CURRENT USE: Vacant land ZONING: C -NG1, Commercial Northgate RESTRICTIONS: No adverse restrictions noted. ....• MA INN Mr IIIIM MI City of College Station page 10 June 10, 1997 FLOOD PLAIN: According to the National Flood Insurance Program's Flood Insurance Rate Maps which were provided to our office, the subject property is not situated within an identified flood plain area. SOIL & SUBSOIL CONDITIONS: Appear to be typical of the area and provide an adequate foundation for construction. However, we have not been furnished with any soil or subsoil maps /studies, nor is the responsibility for such accepted. IMPROVEMENTS: None TAXES: The subject property is located within the taxing jurisdiction of Brazos County, the City of College Station and the College Station Independent School District. These taxing entities had a total 1996 tax rate of 1 $2.5507 per $100.00 in assessed value. The Brazos County Appraisal District currently has the subject property valued at $7,090.00, for indicated annual taxes of $180.85. According to the information provided to our office by the Brazos County Appraisal District, there are currently no property taxes owed on the subject property. ADJACENT LOTS /IMPROVEMENTS North: Fourplex . South: Duplex East: Vacant lot West: Presbyterian Church across Second Street ANALYSIS /CONCLUSIONS: The subject property is considered to be basically typical of the neighborhood, in that it is a rectangular lot which adjoins multi- family improvements. Properties within the subject area have historically received stable market acceptance, with this trend anticipated to continue for the foreseeable future. It should be noted at this point that r our appraisal of the subject property is of the fee simple interest of the surface estate, therefore, no mineral estate value has been considered in this analysis. III II NM IM■ III City of College Station page 11 June 10, 1997 • HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANALYSIS , pi According to the Appraisal Institute in The Appraisal of Real Estate (11th Edition), highest and best use may be defined as, "The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value." The crucial elements of this definition suggest that the highest and best use must be, "(1) physically possible, (2) legally permissible, (3) financially feasible, and (4) maximally productive." The four criteria are applied in sequential order. Potential uses are narrowed through the consideration of each criteria, so that by the time the last criteria is applied, only a single use is indicated. A property often will have numerous uses which are physically possible; a lesser number which are both physically possible and legally permissible; fewer still which are physically possible, I legally permissible and financially feasible; and only a single use which meets all four criteria. After considering the physical and economical characteristics of the subject property, along with the predominant land uses within the area, it is our opinion that the current highest and best use of the subject property is speculative in nature with a most probable future use for mid density residential development. VALUATION In reaching the value estimate for the subject property, the Sales Comparison Approach to Value was utilized. We have obtained sales of similar type tracts with comparable physical characteristics and highest and best uses . These sales were then compared to the subject and adjustments were made, where necessary, for such items as location, size and physical characteristics . The following is a brief synopsis of the sales which were utilized in this analysis . (The detailed information for these sales is located in the Addenda of this report.) Market Date of Price Size Location Data Sale Per Sq. Ft. (Sq. Ft) One February 1995 $1.41 42,689 Balcones Drive T wo March 1995 $1.88' 9,600 Vinyard Court 1 Three August 1996 $1.22 102,647 Holleman Drive Four October 1996 $1.85 6,770 Boyett Street Five May 1997 $2.36 6,770 Boyett Street L_ _IMAM NMI V/ MIN ■■ City of College Station June 10, 1997 Page 12 In order to assure our market comparisons, the market data was examined for property rights conveyed, financing, conditions of sale and overall market conditions or time. In deriving the appropriate adjustments for differences in location and physical characteristics, the concept of matched pairs was employed. Due to the uniqueness of every property, some adjustments were required, and each adjustment was tempered by the judgement of the appraiser taking into account any and all stratification within the market. Overall, the primary adjustments made to the market data in comparison with the subject property were for size, location, and physical characteristics. Therefore, considering the size and location of the subject parcel, as well as the economic and physical characteristics of the neighborhood, it is our opinion that the current market value of the subject property is $2.25 per square foot or as follows: 5,562 square feet @ $2.25 per square foot = $14,765.00 SAY: _ $15,000.00 CERTIFICATION The undersigned does hereby certify that, except as otherwise noted in this appraisal report: We have no present or contemplated future interest in the real estate that is the subject of this appraisal report. 1 We have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this appraisal report or the parties involved. To the best of our knowledge and belief, the statements of fact contained in this appraisal report upon which the analysis, opinions, and conclusions expressed herein are based, are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. Our compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in, or the use of, this report. Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. -11111111 NMI ILO WI MN PRINCIPALS OF JOHN M. HAMILTON INCORPORATED John M. Hamilton is an independent real estate appraiser and consultant with offices located at 3131 Briarcrest Drive, Suite 111, Bryan, Texas 77802. He has been actively engaged in the real estate profession since 1974, and a partial resume of his qualifications is outlined as follows: 1. MAI - The Appraisal Institute 2. State Certified - General Real Estate Appraiser (TX- 1322674 -G) 3. Real Estate Broker - State of Texas 4. B . S . degree - Texas A &M University 5. Qualified in Federal District Court, Federal Bankruptcy Court - Southern (Houston) , Northern (Ft. Worth) , and Western (Austin/ San Antonio) Districts, County and District Court as an expert witness in valuation of real property. 6. Past Board Director - Appraisal Institute Chapter - Houston, Texas 7. Current member of the Review and Counseling Panel - Appraisal Institute The Appraisal Institute conducts a voluntary program of continuing education for its designated members . M. A . I .'s who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic educational certification. He is currently certified under this program. Michael J. Fleming is an independent real estate appraiser and consultant with offices located at 3131 Briarcrest Drive, Suite 111, Bryan, Texas 77802. He has been actively engaged in the real estate profession since 1977, and a partial resume of his qualifications is outlined as follows: 1. SRA - The Appraisal Institute 2. State Certified - General Real Estate Appraiser (TX- 1321752 -G) 3. FHA Approved Appraiser (CHUMS #6122) 4. Real Estate Broker - State of Texas 5. B . S . degree - Texas Tech University 6. Qualified in Federal Bankruptcy Court (Southern District) , County and District Civil Court of Law as an expert witness in valuation of real property. The Appraisal Institute conducts a voluntary program of continuing education for its designated members. S .R . A. 's who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic educational certification. He is currently certified under this program. s • —...1111 -. ■■ PARTIAL LIST OF CLIENTS CORPORATE The Adam Corporation Bryan, Texas Young Brothers Bryan, Texas Area Progress Corporation College Station, Texas Allright Parking Houston, Texas Centeq Financial Group Houston, Texas Exxon Company USA Houston, Texas Pool Company Houston, Texas Westinghouse Houston, Texas Waco Financial Corporation Waco, Texas Rossco Holdings Los Angeles, California Dial Reit Omaha, Nebraska ATTORNEYS Womack and McClish, Attorneys Austin, Texas Barron and Adler, Attorneys Austin, Texas Rodgers, Miller, Ellison and Holt, Attorneys Bryan, Texas Davis and Davis, Attorneys Bryan, Texas Youngkin, Catlin, Bryan, Stacy and Dillard, Attorneys Bryan, Texas Payne, Watson, Kling, Miller & Malechek, Attorneys Bryan, Texas Bruchez, Goss, Thornton, Meronoff, Michel & Hawthorne, Attorneys Bryan, Texas Sheinfeld, Maley and Kay, Attorneys Houston, Texas _II MA■■ PARTIAL LIST OF CLIENTS FINANCIAL Liberty National Bank Austin, Texas Banc One Brenham, Texas First American Bank Bryan, Texas First State Bank Bryan, Texas First Federal Savings Bank Bryan, Texas First National Bank Bryan, Texas Commerce National Bank College Station, Texas First Federal Savings Dallas, Texas Hibernia National Bank Dallas, Texas Pacific Southwest Bank, F. S . B . Dallas, Texas First National Bank Franklin, Texas First State Bank Granger, Texas First Republic Mortgage Houston, Texas Nations Bank Houston, Texas Texas Capital Bank Houston, Texas Texas Commerce Bank Houston, Texas Citizens State Bank Marlin, Texas First Bank of Snook Snook, Texas Merchants National Bank Cedar Rapids, Iowa Carteret Savings Bank Morristown, New Jersey Metropolitan Federal Bank Fargo, North Dakota Old Stone Bank Providence, Rhode Island First Tennessee Bank Memphis, Tennessee • -MI AM MI Mr MEM IMO PARTIAL LIST OF CLIENTS GOVERNMENTAL City of Austin Austin, Texas Texas Democratic Party Austin, Texas Texas Housing Authority Austin, Texas Brazos County Appraisal District Bryan, Texas Brazos Valley Community Action Agency Bryan, Texas Bryan Independent School District Bryan, Texas City of Bryan Bryan, Texas City of College Station College Station, Texas College Station Independent School District College Station, Texas Texas A &M University System College Station, Texas City of Houston Houston, Texas Federal National Mortgage Association Houston, Texas Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation San Antonio, Houston, Dallas Washington County Appraisal District Brenham, Texas S ill Oil .. 0 0 S illir Sill ADDENDA �1`7 �•� TAUBER ST ■ 0 4it.En 10 �`) \ J . 0 1 Iti . e a co (,) Ix r __, (I, \ % I ,.� 1 1 L I _ 111[11111111111111111= 1111111111111 11116■i COLLEGE MAIN l tri /\ % °) 1 -- (-„ /I ral-1-7177.17"-= I 1 , 4 IN -c. k \ c \\) \L 'MUT ( 41' , 1 1 ( !) 1 1j i /\ , Eilli //) . 1 J \ \�' J ,\• 1\ l, [/ [),- 1 (ii2,:„. (f) ' � I l 1 i („,_ .........,... ) SECOND T _ ___11 dil ��A ;7 12 73 7 7� _ ,, w ii \ 1 , 21 l I ', i I I U' i : • YETI S , .... ..... ,_ I IN.,..1311$ gip> , „,. i lim e, , , 1 ,. in r 1 !LI ii [In iilti r • Ti II .. , , . ,...„........, . i lir il - it 1 1 . r.,.....im■reire.,..... 6 ftimanalem nsm all i I I ilin III II I I t ------.....___ F1RST '..1... � NB 'II lora_ ��� f i of a n�a w9 - -. 2,;i Dev. Serv.5 i -1 & « § @ 2 a 0 01 E \ 2 N- > $ IS CO \ CC W a \ a. > a , CO W co z LL w - 0. CC ■ /, o W § 0 � z u _.._ . i- 0 < 0 0 w W .... - - -- & @ z Z � 2 § W .. . .. . _ . r w u ,0 0 - `0 ; re cc D . - - -- N 0 - _. . ■ 0 Z cc 1- - \ & § C CC , a / ƒ O f 0 § z CC z § w p z W \ Z > \ te a z . � • I � � kjk K §$ O W za \ \G • »$ D L � � - - - > _ -J � � 12 0 \ - .J0 m c �� - - / Z k\ 1 - atz W c00 I- . 4 4 a . 0 2 I- w 2 t / ) 2 a E \ \ 2 8 0 4 • CI G. ® © N \ .. S r | E Z Z .. C 4 3 � e% 2 MI 8 % § . E( » b IL a Y .. Z cc z - E 0 02 4 ■ •� O 0 UT W 2 N � ^ o m o _ - -1 L° §u- - O / ■y § ° # © 22 § CO § eo W /k § � § e @ 0 G 0 / �� ® z §k § § ¢ 6 g � E �� a U § ■ W. \ @ \§ �B ~ 2 - E - Z IX • ix \ \a K k/ .. \ G .l ! o - �C& w w E Q ƒ / § E \ l �2 G ? ) �% / / .. » - � 7 O 0 * >- 2 \\ L. Cr 2 / w [ / * ) / / ce Z _ , * o L. # uE E- CO ) ' .. .. �� /\ ®® C m § MARKET DATA NUMBER ONE - VACANT LAND CONSIDERATION: $60,000.00; $1.41 per square foot CASH EQUIVALENT: N/A FINANCING: Cash to Seller DATE OF SALE: February 28, 1995 RECORDING DATA: Volume 2305, Page 94, Brazos County Deed Records GRANTOR: James H. Woods GRANTEE: Charles R. and Cathy C. Anderson LEGAL DESCRIPTION Size: 0.98 acres (42,689 square feet) Lot: B3 Addition: Southwood Valley #30 City: College Station County: Brazos State: Texas LOCATION: Northerly line of Balcones Drive, west of Welsh Avenue FRONTAGE: ±127 feet on Balcones Drive SHAPE: Rectangular ZONING: R -5; Apartments CURRENT USE: Vacant UTILITIES: All public utilities available at the site FLOOD PLAIN: None i MARKET DATA NUMBER TWO - VACANT LAND CONSIDERATION: $18,000.00; $1.88 per square foot CASH EQUIVALENT: N/A FINANCING: Cash to Seller DATE OF SALE: March 2, 1995 RECORDING DATA: Volume 2308, Page 49, Brazos County Deed Records GRANTOR: Joe Courtney Homes GRANTEE: Stephen T. Silkwood LEGAL DESCRIPTION Size: 9,600 square feet Lot: 5 Block: M Addition: University Park #2 City: College Station County: Brazos State: Texas LOCATION: South line of Vinyard Court, east of Autumn Circle FRONTAGE: ±50 feet on Vinyard Court SHAPE: Irregular ZONING: R -4; Apartments CURRENT USE: Vacant UTILITIES: All public utilities available at the site FLOOD PLAIN: None MARKET DATA NUMBER THREE - VACANT LAND CONSIDERATION: $125,000.00; $1.22 per square foot CASH EQUIVALENT: N/A FINANCING: Cash to Seller DATE OF SALE: August 14, 1996 RECORDING DATA: Volume 2667, Page 171, Brazos County Deed Records GRANTOR: Mary Lake Realty Co. GRANTEE: Mance Michael Park LEGAL DESCRIPTION Size: 2.3565 acres (102,647 square feet) Survey Name: Crawford Burnett Abstract No.: 7 City: College Station County: Brazos State: Texas LOCATION: Southerly line of Holleman Drive, west of Texas Avenue FRONTAGE: ±80 feet on Holleman Drive SHAPE: Irregular ZONING: R -5, Multi- Family CURRENT USE: Eight duplex, Holleman Place, multi - family project under construction UTILITIES: All public utilities available at the site FLOOD PLAIN: None REMARKS: This tract's very irregular shape and limited road frontage were considered to reduce its overall marketability. p MARKET DATA NUMBER FOUR - VACANT LAND CONSIDERATION: $12,500.00; $1.85 per square foot CASH EQUIVALENT: N/A FINANCING: Cash to Seller DATE OF SALE: October 23, 1996 Volume 2760, Page 57, Brazos County Deed RECORDING DATA: Records GRANTOR: William C. Boyett, Trustee GRANTEE: D.W.S. Development, Inc. 11 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Size: Lot: 0.155 acres (6,700 square feet) 17 Block: 12 Addition: W.C. Boyett Estate Partition City: College Station County: Brazos State: Texas LOCATION: Westerly line of Boyett Street, north of 1 i Church Street FRONTAGE: ±50 feet on Boyett Street SHAPE Rectangular II ZONING: C -NG1, Commercial Northgate CURRENT USE: Vacant UTILITIES: All public utilities available at the site. FLOOD PLAIN: None MARKET DATA NUMBER FIVE - VACANT LAND CONSIDERATION: $16,000.00; $2.36 per square foot CASH EQUIVALENT: N/A FINANCING: Cash to Seller DATE OF SALE: May 29, 1997 RECORDING DATA: Not recorded yet GRANTOR: Mrs. Anna Bess Reed GRANTEE: David Scarmardo LEGAL DESCRIPTION Size: 0.155 acres (6,770 square feet) Lot: 16 Block: 12 Addition: Boyett City: College Station County: Brazos State: Texas LOCATION: Westerly line of Boyett Street, north of Church Street FRONTAGE: ±50 feet on Boyett Street SHAPE: Rectangular ZONING: C -NG1, Commercial Northgate . CURRENT USE: Vacant UTILITIES: All public utilities available at the site. FLOOD PLAIN: None REMARKS: This tract was purchased by an adjoining land owner. t ... • IS ° • y °lit . i l9 ........, A-. 1■411L■ ' . - # ' el'“ s, 1 . . -11 '. - ;34 - . " . _ ,.....,. �'��'` ' : ° , / ��it�� Co . m arable Land Sales / it ' -* * 44 ' ,/ IV $ Y' : 044 rl► ` / :'. za ;`'' . 4� ` , c.LEN ' , � � L. :' .' Y o • " G * ii ACADEMY " ''Cl 11 OW ' I VASAg • ' 4 0.t v 1 7 4 '' , : uw j • ✓ y� \to ' 4. 7 itt DAi •` Q • _91 • Qv 1 ` ® i • ��� OS , o b , -,.... ". . t '7 ,s0.0 .! ® r' " a a ,.. i • ,r • ,. Q' �; ��� ° ? p � {3� �� y s - � .' ,� yeti � � � t` � � -'� \ \ � Ia '., • r • .O `- F es'. . � , it_ T.r St t ea .. ; •� 0/ ® '.0 ��t • 0. A g • ' � ft d SIV .0, ?∎•; � M ' , 0 ill..., 0, 1' i� � a i . nv..� : 1 7 g Y °yam' t� ,i.rU; �,,f`, 0 dp : Ator. _,41. 4,.... i .. , • �� °� °' / ::&\ OTT \ ���/ 74\...:;Vi 114 Do � - . Q WH ITE i .741°" i i; : 17);: . . 115 ,;:si ,• • . ' N A \ ,. fp it • ■ "' ' "'" ...""''' de" Iti Av:4 \ . \- t ffi • ,....- ... WO f k 00 . . . ,,A,,, .... . 0,, . 417476,01r e Vp �. m om , ® ,i., s ,.�,, „,, -. ,e,40 ., . # 8 10 • t f., A gi i i ii ,.._ , t ■ V ,,., tat si AMU ! I cr Y;,i _ Olt, riff, . \ • -„,. . RES ARC •A• � ® � � � • , - • .0 ' \ ': - Vir >IP-AA \ t A Nifp , „,,....„,„ ��+� � "°” � , ,,,, ,,,, t. 4gil.t.Vt,,W 447 • ' Ti,. ''''' ..,,, ..- ) A4i , .0,... .. ,ro.ry4AfroisN .,,,o, ,,..; , . ,.), • 1 N ? ''rir .` ,..„. t .. :. s � e ,.���p1• 4.„ i I I r,..,, •' 4• �. w ,• F IREMA S 4 M r, N+ r `. I/ �. -� � '�� n .'., ? R A A1'iO �`� °thy. - - "° 4 ..T' - r `` FIELD \ m ;�; ` ` t tilt 0 \ °^r`iT 1 � � � • � ® �Q1'��� l .. 1= ai '% + p+''..� , � \ ` �0 wn^ j YA' L .} d ry ' 400 Ai.001 ' arall - ..,1 ., ,,,,4 0 0 ie.,. . . ,,,. ir -- ■\,.....0-- \ s. . . . 4 4 \):4 ' ' ' ' ' ' t ' .., lifi S. . � rte,,. iii •,, limi _II alb UM \I MN W■ JOHN M. HAMILTON INCORPORATED JOHN M. HAMILTON, MAI 1 MICHAEL J. FLEMING, SRA REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS Ill j. i May 28, 1997 so Mr. Richard B. Benning II/I 1802 Lawyer Street College Station, Texas 77840 -4837 110 RE: 0.1506 acres being Lot 18, Blocks 6 & 7, out of the Boyett Addition, College Station, Brazos County, Texas, more commonly known as 308 Second. I I I Dear Mr. Benning: The City of College Station has requested that we performed an appraisal of your above referenced property to determine its current market value. We wish to extend an offer for you to accompany us on our inspection of your property, and if you contact me at our Bryan office (268- 0200), I will set up a mutually agreeable time for the inspection of your property. Sincerely, P P, 71 2 6 3 9 8 5 Receipt for JOHN M. HAMILTON INCORPORATED Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provi O PO STATES . UNITED Se to Do not use for International STAL (See Reverse) A l t 44 / �, / 1 / Michael J. lemin : , S R • Street c,L �' P.O., State and ZIP C.pd¢ . rri1 -, 7 CI Postage $ ill Certified Fee g1, r c Spedal Delivery Fee ill I Restricted Delivery Fee i Qt Return Receipt Showing -/ 1 tT to Whom & Date Delivered d a ll ,— I w Return Receipt Showing to Whom. Z Date, and Addressee's Address TOTAL Postage $ .) ( f : 3 13 BRIARCRE ST DRIVE. SURE 11 t & Fees (409) 260 -0200 •FAX (4091 731-81309 0 BRYAN. TX 77802 G Postmark or Date CO E .5) 4,9 q o LL o SENDER: 'Also to receive th v 'AIso wish the ■Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. l w hervices (for an `a • Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. following o tom Print your name and address on the reverse of this to so twat we can return this extra fee): a i e card to you. • c� •Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not 1. ❑ Addressee's Address Z tf permit. d ■ Write Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery tr) t o . •Th Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date Consutt postmaster for fee. n o • delivered. u ° 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number a) Q o ID' P 871 263 9 E a Mr. Richard B. Benn 4b. Service Type Return Receipt o 0 1802 Lawyer Street ❑Registere Requested IN Certified c N College Station, Texas 7 7840 -4837 ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured 5 n to ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandse ❑ COD CC ct 7 Date of Delivery 0 Q C o 5. Receiv :. =y n Na, •:) 8. Addressee's Address (• ly if requested W L and lee is paid) 5 6. Signature: (Addressee or Agent) >' X In — PS Form 3811, Decernber 1994 Domestic Retum Receipt 1 308 SECOND STREET J. ,',. .. , 4 . ' i 1 , : .. ' • w . '� I AN.• / . - ii !I . F•J y + _ .- t •5 •, pi.. _ • Oil 1 •• /C. : "Li..1 1 ; efri-7.-A.-4-... . Y F.. ./ ` tilt .t•i..r ,1 31 . S 54~ : .- 1 1E11 . a 4 * t It, a 0. », F 'r, • ' . 'a .. r /. y am .,:+ I r " x • VIEW OF SUBJECT PROPERTY .fi S. 111 . 1 1 : . -: ' -4■410X rt. ' ,, , ri - x r. - fY r'': 1,t, . VIEW LOOKING NORTH ON SECOND STREET I :: 308 SECOND STREET Iv , • s•-;, ' ..-,—.. • , i.:,..,.. - :.:4',.......• ,.. • • . . . -. t;•0G- • ,'%*... ••• . .', ..- -• •.. • -• - 1 : - • • .' ,v • . • ..... .. • • • • - - , . • ....• -#-• "....---Y- . -. "•.• • --- '. . • . • - - - . . - - - ... - . . ,.. . -,-, - -.--. -... • • •''' • . , : . . : . . • ...•• ..,4.,:. . ,, . • -* 4 ...',.7.4,.. . .. ,.. .. , . ' • i i • • ' • .. , . - „ . . ' . . e. • . ' ' • • .. A ti: • , •,.. • r , • . : 1 77.111111 '.. - . : ■ , : • . I ilMat4 l ' IrP :I:: -. .- fj • ,... . .. • ' —4* --- _-....._'•■• - ; .,4 I ; .. •-• ---- -1, : , o, •. 0.. s er'-. s - . "-='-- • 51. :t-•••• ' . • . ' • •-• • - -cater , -v1...s... .. - - ' tve ifiri, 1 . • ',.....--.. ' . .. _ ,.... .....„..._ .._ .,---,.. .. . ..,.., 4 ._ , __ ...... ._ -- , • : ''.•; , ' • .-..,, .....- ... . ' , ....- - • ' $ ,.. — — - •4' .. . 1 VIEW LOOKING SOUTH ON SECOND STREET . . ._, . ... -.::. -,. .., . ,... _. '• i . .: ...' . -", • , $ 7 J. Mikeska & Co. �•- Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants 1543 Green Oak Place, Suite 100 (281) 359 -5200 Kingwood, Texas 77339 -2013 Fax (281) 359 -2466 September 22, 1997 Mr. Todd McDaniel Senior Economic and Community Development Analyst City of College Station P. 0. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 RE: Review of 313 College Main, College Station, Brazos County, Texas Dear Mr. McDaniel: At your request, a review of the summary appraisal report completed by John M. Hamilton, Inc., on the above referenced property was conducted. The scope of this assignment consisted of a review of the summary appraisal report and not an inspection of the subject or any comparables. The rights being appraised in this assignment were reported as fee simple. The effective date of the appraisal was June 6, 1997 with a date for the review of September 19, 1997. I concur with the market value estimate and suggest the appraisal be accepted as written. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, J /e//z,927 Jo Ann Mikeska, MAI APPRAISAL DESK REVIEW SUMMARY ADDRESS /LOCATION: 313 College Main CITY /COUNTY /STATE: College Station /Brazos/Texas APPRAISAL FIRM: John M. Hamilton, Inc. APPRAISER(S): John M. Hamilton, MAI, and Michael J. Fleming, SRA ADDRESS: 2131 Briarcrest Drive, Suite 111 CITY /STATE/ZIP: Bryan, Texas 77802 -3052 TELEPHONE #: 409 - 268 -0200 DESCRIPTION(S): LAND: 0.3074 Acres IMPROVEMENTS: 2,295 SF Commercial Building INTEREST APPRAISED: Fee Simple HIGHEST AND BEST USE: AS VACANT: Commercial AS IMPROVED: Commercial MARKET VALUE AS IS ON APPRAISAL DATE: $85,000 CAPITAL COSTS ASSUMED IN THE VALUATION: None DESK REVIEW FINDINGS: YES NO - MEETS USPAP MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: X - VALUATION METHODS & ANALYSES ARE ADEQUATE: X - VALUE CONCLUSION APPEARS REASONABLE: X REVIEWER'S RECOMMENDATION: - ACCEPT REPORT AS WRITTEN REVIEWER: Jo Ann Mikeska, MAI OFFICE/FIRM: J. Mikeska & Company TELEPHONE NUMBER: 281 - 359 -5200 DATE OF REVIEW: September 22, 1997 1 Y N N/A REGULATORY ISSUES: INTRODUCTION 1. Purpose, function, and scope of report identified? [ X ] [ ] [ 2. Definition of Market Value? 1 X 1 [ ] [ 3. Special limiting conditions or extraordinary assumptions [ ] [ ] 1 X provided? Impact on value discussed? 4. Real property interests correctly identified? [ X ] 1 ] [ ] 5. If a fractional interest, was the pro rata contribution to the whole [ ] [ ] 1 X approximately estimated? 6. Legal description included? [ X ] [ ] [ 7. Three -year subject sales history included? Prior sales analyzed [ X ] [ ] [ and discussed? 8. Current listing, option, or pending contract on subject revealed [ ] [ ] [ X and analyzed? AREA DESCRIPTIONS 9. Relevance and adequacy of regional /city and neighborhood [ X ] [ ] [ ] economic data? 10. Conclusion of neighborhood trends adequately supported? [ X ] [ ] [ External obsolescence discussed? PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 11. Adequacy of site analysis? [ X ] [ ] [ ] 12. Adequacy of improvements description? [ X ] [ ] [ ] 13. Adequacy of zoning analysis? [ X 1 1 1 [ ] 14. Adequacy of property tax analysis? [ X ] [ ] [ 15. Personal property identified and evaluated? [ ] [ ] [ X 16. Easements, environmental hazards, or other encumbrances [ X ] [ ] [ ] identified and analyzed? 17. Photographs of subject property included? [ X ] [ ] [ 2 Y N N/A MARKET AND HIGHEST & BEST USE ANALYSES 18. Adequacy of market analysis to support highest and best use? [ X ] [ ] [ ] 19. Highest and best use of the site as though vacant? Probable [ X ] [ ] [ ] development horizon discussed? 20. Highest and best use of the site as improved? [ X ] [ ] [ ] 21. Probable physical, legal, or external changes impacting property [ ] [ ] [ X value revealed? 22. For proposed construction or changes in existing improvements, [ ] [ ] [ X ] was economic feasibility adequately analyzed? VALUATION 23. Exclusion of the usual approaches to value adequately [ X ] [ ] [ explained? LAND ANALYSIS 24. Current and comparable land sales? [ ] [ ] [ X 25. Photographs of comparable land sales included? [ ] [ ] [ X ] 26. Comparable land sales adjusted for cash equivalency? [ ] [ ] [ X 27. Were market conditions (time) adjustments reasonable, [ ] [ ] [ X separated from physical adjustments? 28. Comparable land sales include market supported or logical [ ] [ ] [ X adjustments? 29. Reasoning for land value conclusion logical? [ ] [ ] [ X COST APPROACH [ ] [ ] [ X INCOME APPROACH [ X ] [ ] [ IMPROVED SALES COMPARISON APPROACH [ X ] [ ] [ ] RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE 30. Final value appropriately split between realty and non - realty [ ] [ ] [ X items? 31. Final value estimate consistent with the data presented? [ X ] [ ] [ ] 3 Y N N/A 32. All relevant deductions and discounts (remaining finish [ ] [ ] [ X ] allowance, commissions, capital improvements /deferred maintenance, rent Toss, etc.) accounted for in deriving the "as is value? 33. Report details /depth commensurate with the complexity of the [ X ] [ ] [ property type and market conditions? OTHER REPORT REQUIREMENTS 34. Appraisal summary sheet included? [ ] [ ] [ X ] 35. Certification completed and acceptable? [ X ] [ ] [ 36. Assumptions /Limiting Conditions reasonable? [ X ] [ ] [ 37. Estimated marketing period disclosed? Is it reasonable based [ ] [ X ] [ on the data presented? 38. Appraiser's qualifications included? [ X ] [ ] [ 4 REVIEW APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION In accordance with the terms of my engagement, the purpose of my review of the referenced appraisal report was to verify compliance with accepted professional appraisal standards and the reporting guidelines of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice from The APPRAISAL FOUNDATION. The analyses, opinions, and conclusions presented are based solely on the data contained in the referenced appraisal report(s) and the data are presumed to be accurate. I am not responsible for errors in the data or for undisclosed conditions of the property, or the marketplace which would only be apparent from a personal inspection and research. To comply with requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice for appraisal reviews, I have read and reviewed the contents of the referenced appraisal report, have formed an opinion, and have developed the reasons for any disagreement as to the: 1. adequacy and relevance of the data and the propriety of any adjustments to the data; 2. appropriateness of the appraisal methods and techniques used; 3. correctness and appropriateness of the analyses, opinions, and /or conclusions in the report being reviewed. Deficiencies found and /or disagreements, if any, are set forth in the attached letter with attachments. Jo Ann Mikeska is licensed by the Texas Real Estate Commission and certified by the State of Texas as a real estate appraiser. I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct; the analyses, opinions, and conclusions expressed in this report are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions; - I have no (or the specified) present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no (or the specified) personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; - my compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in, or the use of, this report; - my analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this review report have been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice; - I have not made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report, the comparable sales and rentals, nor have I verified any factual data contained in the report; and - no one provided significant professional assistance to the persons signing this review. 14 2 / A- September 22, 1997 Jo Ann Mikeska, MAI Date State Certification Number: TX- 1322511 -G 5 QUALIFICATIONS OF JO ANN MIKESKA, MAI Professional Affiliations: Member of the Appraisal Institute (No. 7846) Texas State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (No. TX- 1322511 -G) Real Estate Broker, State of Texas (No. 205226) Employment: Jo Ann Mikeska has been actively appraising since 1977 and has been Sole Proprietor of J. Mikeska & Company since November, 1986. Previously, Ms. Mikeska was employed as Office Manager with Hamilton - Bolton, Inc., in Bryan and Houston, Texas. Property Types Appraised: Ms. Mikeska has appraised a wide variety of property types including: apartments, general office buildings, restaurants, bowling alleys, industrial manufacturing, retail, movie theaters, farms and ranches, raw land, and subdivisions. She is experienced using cash flow analysis programs including Argus. Other appraisal services provided include independent reviews and real estate consulting. Educational Background: Bachelor of Science - Texas A &M University, 1975 Appraisal Related Education: Continuinq Education Americans With Disabilities Act - 1/2 Day Seminar - November, 1992 Current Issues & Misconceptions in Appraising - 1 Day Seminar - March, 1993 Appraisal Reporting of Complex Residential Properties - 1 Day Seminar - August, 1993 Feasibility Analysis and Highest and Best Use - Non - Residential Properties - 1 Day Seminar - September, 1993 Understanding Limited Appraisals & Appraisal Reporting Options: General - 1 Day Seminar - June, 1994 Appraisal Practices for Litigation - May, 1995 Institute on Eminent Domain, Southwestem Legal Foundation - November, 1995 Affordable Housing Valuation - June, 1997 Appraisal Institute Standards of Professional Practice, Part B - December, 1996 Standards of Professional Practice, Part A - August, 1995 Real Estate Appraisal Principles and Basic Valuation Procedures Capitalization Theory and Techniques, Parts A & B Case Studies Report Writing Litigation Valuation GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS The legal description used in this report is assumed to be correct, but it may not necessarily have been confirmed by survey. No responsibility is assumed in connection with a survey or for encroachments or overlapping or other discrepancies that might be revealed thereby. Any sketches included in the report are only for the purpose of aiding the reader in visualizing the property and are not necessarily a result of a survey. No responsibility is assumed for an opinion of legal nature such as to ownership of the property or condition of title. The appraiser assumes the title to the property to be marketable; that, unless stated to the contrary, the property is appraised as an unencumbered fee which is not used in violation of acceptable ordinances, statutes, or other govemmental regulations. Information, estimates, and opinions fumished to the appraiser, and contained in this report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such items fumished the appraiser can be assumed by the appraiser. All mortgages, liens, encumbrances, leases, and servitudes have been disregarded unless so specified within the appraisal report. The property is appraised as though under responsible ownership and competent management. The physical condition of improvements, if any, described herein is based on visual inspection only. No liability is assumed for the soundness of structural members including roof (wear and leakage), foundation (settling or leakage), footings, exterior and interior walls, partitions, floors, or any other part of the structure since no engineering tests were made of same and no termite inspection was conducted. Furthermore, we accept no legal responsibility for the efficiency of the plumbing and electrical systems, the heating and air conditioning equipment, or any major appliances. The appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures which would render it more or Tess valuable than an otherwise comparable property. The appraiser is not an expert in determining the presence or absence of hazardous substance, defined as all hazardous or toxic materials, waste, pollutants, or contaminants (including, but not limited to, asbestos, PCB, UFFI, or other raw materials or chemicals) used in construction or otherwise present on the property. The appraiser assumes no responsibility for the studies or analyses which would be required to conclude the presence or absence of such substances or for Toss as a result of the presence of such substances. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired. The value estimate is based on the assumption that the subject property is not so affected. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws, unless non - compliance is stated, defined, and considered in the valuation. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless a non - conformity has been stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report. It is assumed that the information relating to the location of or existence of public utilities that has been obtained through a verbal inquiry from the appropriate utility authority or ascertained from visual evidence is correct. No warranty has been made regarding the exact location or capacities of public utility systems. It is assumed that all required licenses, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national govemment 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. 9. The appraisal report related to a geographical portion of a larger parcel is applied only to such geographical portion and should not be considered as applying with equal validity to other portions of the larger parcel or tract. The value for such geographical portions plus the value of all geographical portions may or may not equal the value of the entire parcel or tract considered as an entity. 10. If the appraisal is used for mortgage loan purposes, the appraiser invites attention to the fact that (1) the equity cash requirements of the sponsor have not been analyzed, (2) the loan ratio has not been suggested, and (3) the amortization method and term have not been suggested. 11. The function of this report is not for use in conjunction with a syndication of real property. This report cannot be used for said purposes and, therefore, any use of this report relating to syndication activities is strictly prohibited and unauthorized. If such an unauthorized use of this report takes place, it is understood and agreed that J. Mikeska & Company has no liability to the client and /or third parties. 12. Acceptance of and /or use of this appraisal report constitutes acceptance of the foregoing General Underlying Assumptions and General Limiting Conditions. The appraiser's duties, pursuant to the employment to make the appraisal, are complete upon delivery and acceptance of the appraisal report. However, any corrections or errors should be called to the attention of the appraiser within 60 days of the delivery of the report. 13. Any cause of action resulting between J. Mikeska & Company and the client in conjunction with this appraisal, either directly or indirectly, will be limited to damages in the amount of the appraisal fee received for the assignment. Furthermore, it is agreed that you will indemnify J. Mikeska & Company for any damages, costs, expenses, and attomey fees resulting from any cause of action by any interested party, other than the client, conceming the appraisal or report. Jo Ann Mikeska, MAI Texas State Certificate No. TX- 1322511 -G NI LIMITING CONDITIONS The opinion of value and every other element of this appraisal report are qualified and limited by all of the following conditions: 1. THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED FOR THE INTERNAL USE OF THE CLIENT NAMED WITHIN THIS REPORT. NO PERSON OR ENTITY OTHER THAN THE CLIENT HAS ANY RIGHT OR AUTHORITY TO RELY ON THIS REPORT OR ANYTHING CONTAINED IN IT OR IMPLIED FROM IT. 2. The appraiser will not be required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made this appraisal, with reference to the property in question, unless arrangements have been previously made thereof. 3. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. The written report is the property of the appraiser and 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. 4. The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the reported highest and best use of the property. The allocations of value for land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 5. Disclosure of the contents of this report is govemed by the By -Laws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraisers or the firm with which they are connected, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or to the appraisal designations, shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media, public relations media, news media, sales media, or any other public means of communication without the prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. 6. The Americans with Disabilities Act (°ADA°) became effective January 26, 1992. The appraiser has 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 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 the appraiser has no direct evidence relating to this issue, possible noncompliance with the requirements of ADA in estimating the value of the property has not been considered. 7. No environmental or concurrency impact studies were either requested or made in conjunction with this appraisal report. The appraiser, thereby, reserves the right to alter, amend, revise, or rescind any of the value opinions based upon any subsequent environmental or concurrency impact studies, research, or investigation. 8. An appraisal related to an estate in land that is less than the whole fee simple estate applies only to the fractional interest involved. The value of this fractional interest plus the value of all other fractional interests may or may not equal the value of the entire fee simple estate considered as a whole. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines described and that there is no encroachments or trespasses unless noted within the report. SPECIAL ASSUMPTIONS I assume that no environmental hazards exist on subject property; thus, this valuation has been estimated by "excluding the consideration of hazardous substances ". It is further assumed that the subject property is in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act ( "ADA ") of 1992 or can achieve compliance with minimal capital expenditure. A specific compliance survey and analysis was not performed by or provided to this office. Should this assumption prove incorrect, we reserve the right to alter the value conclusion contained herein. The subject property is not considered to be impacted by wetlands areas nor were any endangered species noted during my inspection. /°)/ x.11■11111111 /Z - re-y7 COMPLETE APPRAISAL IN A SUMMARY REPORT 0.3074 ACRES OR 13,390 SQUARE FEET BEING LOTS 21 & 22, BLOCKS 6-7, BOYETT ADDITION, CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 313 COLLEGE MAIN, IMPROVED WITH A 12,295 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING -111 1111 1111111 COMPLETE APPRAISAL IN A SUMMARY REPORT OF 0.3074 ACRES OR 13,390 SQUARE FEET BEING LOTS 21 & 22, BLOCKS 6 -7, BOYETT ADDITION, CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 313 COLLEGE MAIN, IMPROVED WITH A ±2,295 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR MR. TODD MCDANIEL, SENIOR ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANALYST CITY OF COLLEGE STATION P.O. BOX 9960 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842 BY JOHN M. HAMILTON INCORPORATED 3131 BRIARCREST DRIVE, SUITE 111 BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 -3052 AS OF JUNE 6, 1997 i f 1 mill Oa IIIIII MI MN all M. HAMILTON, MAI JOHN M. HAMILTON INCORPORATED M J. FLEMING, SRA REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS 1 June 10, 1997 1 I Mr. Todd McDaniel, Senior Economic & Community Development Analyst City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 1 College Station, Texas 77842 , Blocks 6- 0.3074 acres or 13,390 square feet being Lots 21 & 22, Reference: 7, Boyett Addition, City of College Station, Brazos County, Texas, more commonly known as 313 College Main, i p proved with '1 a ±2,295 square foot commercial building, the being Abbas Ali & Laila Hassan. I Dear Mr. McDaniel: As requested, we have inspected the above referenced property to provide a market simple interest as of June 6, 1997, and are reporting our value estimate in fee s�P conclusions in this brief summary form. II 0, Based upon our analysis of the market data e available is to our office and the current ur opinion that as of June market trends within the subjects immediate 6, 1997, the subject property's indicated market value is as follows: EIGHTY -FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($85,000.00) SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL To arrive at an estimate of market value for a property, the appraiser must ill determine the typical purchaser who would be interested in that probable price l terms of property. Market value is loosely defined a competitive and open market for a money which a property should bring ur op 's ma e to the 0 reasonable time, and this price depends upon the typical ur various supply and demand factors which affect the propertY being appraised. raised. Of significant importance are properties which are in competition with the subject. All of his information must be derived from the market. The scope of the e evaluation and valuation of the subject includes: a personal as available; ) inspection of the subject property and its environs; operating standards;sresearch into ill research into market activity; review of m investor motivations and activities; and analysis of the above. 3131 BRIARCREST DRIVE. SUITE 1 1 1 iii (409) 268 -0200 • FAX (409) 731 -8809 BRYAN, TX 77802 -II adll MI MI MIN MI City of College Station Page 2 June 10, 1997 At the request of the client, this report has been prepared in a summary format. This report is prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional 0 Appraisal Practice under the Departure provision and Standard 2 as revised into accepted on March 22, 1994. Based on the revised standards, this report the category of a Complete Appraisal in a Summary Report. This report as defined in Standard Rule 2 -2 of the USPAP is a Summary Appraisal Report. Reliance on this report is limited to the client. As a Complete Appraisal in a Summary Report, vital information but forming retained in the files of John M. John of value has not been presented herein, Inc. As such, this report may not be fully understood by third parties without a review of the file material. PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market val3e0 of the ee feet simple interest of the property legally d Add o as City of College Station, 13, square Brazos County, Lots 21 & 22, Blocks 6-7, Boyett Texas. INTENDED USE OF THE REPORT This appraisal is intended to assist the client in the acquisition of the subject property. DATE OF THE VALUE ESTIMATE The effective date of this appraisal is June 6, 1997, and the date of the report is June 10, 1997. SALES HISTORY According to the information available to our office, the subject property has not sold within the past three years. 01 MARKET VALUE DEFINED Market value, as used herein, is defined by the Appraisal Institute as, "The most probable price, as of a specified date, in cash, or in terms equivalent to cash, or in other precisely revealed terms, for which the specified property rights should sell after reasonable exposure in a competitive market under all conditions requisite to fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and for IP self- interest, and assuming that neither is under undue duress." II _II di EN NM INN City of College Station Page 3 June 10, 1997 and the Implicit in this definition is the consummation underconditions whereby specified a) buyer and seller passing of title from seller to buyer a nd each are typically motivated; b) both parties are well informed or well advised, acting in what they consider their own cement is made in cash or lowed for exposure in the open market; d) payment financing, if any, is on terms generalyin its the f) community price represents a date and typical for the property typ e normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special financing amounts and /or terms, services, fees, costs, or credits incurred in the transaction. DISCUSSION OF THE APPRAISAL PROCESS its value The appraisal process is a systematic value of a reflects and s d by in the specified time period. Th the interaction of forces that motivate human activity. These forces are commonly divided into four major categories: ions and environmental aconditionsialThus , lin governmental controls and regula , et order to estimate the value of a property, of the interprets how the forces acting upon khe views a property and the relating magnitude property. The process begins by defining the appraisal problem. This includes identification of the real estate and the property rights to be appraised, specification of the use of the appraisal, definition of the value sought, specification of the date of the value estimate, description of the scope of the appraisal, and identification of limiting conditions. The second step consists of gathering data on value influences and trends. This consists of gathering data related to the region, city, which the subject is located. Specific data related to the property and its specific market segment, such as income and expense information, locational and phys demand characteristics, etc. , is collected. Information relating to the supply and levels for the market as a whole and he Highest property type sel analysis, as well the This data forms the basis for g valuation. Th hest The third step is to estimate the Highest and Best r use s that of he the property. sh i and and Best use analysis interprets the market forces estimates from among all possible uses, the use to which the subject property will most likely be put . This is key to the appraisal process since the value of a property is dependent on its current and potential future uses. The Highest and Best use of the property as if it were vacant is assessed first; this is done to identify comparable properties and estimate the value of the land. Then, the Highest and Best use of the property as improved the existing assessed; improvementsoshould be retained, properties and determine wh renovated or demolished. _■ AS ■■ NV City of College Station June 10, 1997 Page 4 Typically, the next step is to estimate the value of the land. There are six procedures for estimating land values: sales comparison, allocation, extraction, subdivision development, land residual technique, and ground rent capitalization. The most commonly used of these is the sales comparison approach. After the land value is estimated, the value of the property as improved is estimated using the three approaches to value. These approaches are the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach, and the Income Approach. Regardless of the approach utilized, the data under consideration is taken from the market in one form or another. One or more of these approaches may not be applicable in all assignments or may have reduced significance because of the nature of the property, the decision, or the available data. In the event that more than one approach is utilized, the value estimates arrived at from the different approaches are correlated into a single value estimate considered most appropriate for the subject property. The following is a brief discussion of each approach and its application. The Sales Comparison Approach is a method of estimating market value in which a subject property is compared with comparable properties that have recently sold. This process relies heavily upon the principle of substitution. Preferably, all properties utilized as comparable are in the same geographic area. One premise of the Sales Comparison Approach is that the market will determine a price for the subject property in the same manner that it determines the prices of comparable, competitive properties. The sales are compared to the subject and adjustments for differences in location, time, terms of sale, or physical characteristics can be made using the subject as the standard of comparison. Most types of properties which are bought and sold can be analyzed using "common denominators" such as sales price per unit of size. Estimating the degree of comparability between two properties involves judgment about their similarity. Elements of comparison utilized in this judgment are (1) financing terms, (2) conditions of sale, (3) market conditions or time, (4) location, (5) physical characteristics, and (6) income characteristics, if any. Adjustments are made to the price of each comparable, as appropriate. The major strengths of this approach include the reflection of actual market transactions and the fact that the normal "common denominators" tend to be fairly easily determined. The potential weaknesses of this approach arise from the fact that the data is historical and "ideal" comparables are usually very difficult to find. .t _IN MA IIII -to- II NM INN i City of College Station Page 5 June 10, 1997 The Cost Approach yields a value indication for a property by adding the land value to an estimate of the depreciated reproduction cost of the improvements . This approach recognizes that physical, functional, and external disadvantages will be recognized by the market and which may result in lower selling prices . The Cost Approach provides specific measures for these disadvantages, and anything that diminishes value is termed accrued depreciation. The land value is based upon a vacant site being utilized to its highest and best use . Generally speaking, the site value is estimated via the Sales Comparison Approach. Replacement cost, or reproduction cost new, is derived from reliable cost manuals and /or from interviews with reputable local contractors . Depreciation can be observed from rent loss or based upon an estimated cost -to -cure. In all cases, information concerning depreciation is developed from the market by observing comparable properties . The Income Approach to value is applicable to income producing property and is practical in the appraisal of properties for which a rental market or a rental value can be identified. The Income Approach is an appraisal technique in which an appraiser derives a value indication for income producing property by converting a nticipated benefits into property value. This process is accomplished by either capitalizing a single year's income expectancy or an annual average of several years' income expectancies at a market - derived capitalization rate or by discounting the annual cash flows for the holding period and the reversion at a specified yield rate . II ' Capitalization is the conversion of earnings into an indication of value and involves ti: multiplying the annual net income by a factor or dividing it by a rate which weighs such considerations as risk, time, return on investment, and return of investment. The appropriateness of this rate or factor is critical, and there are a number of techniques by which it may be developed. The net income attributable to the subject property is estimated by subtracting vacancy and collection loss, and expenses from the property's annual potential gross income. These figures are derived from the market comparison of properties similar to the subject . The reliability of the Income Approach is based upon a number of considerations which include the reliability of the estimate of income and expenses, the duration of the net annual income, the capitalization rate or factor used, and the method of capitalization used. The weakness of this approach lies in the estimation of income and expenses and the fact that not all properties are suitable for this approach. The strength of this approach is that it reflects typical investor considerations in purchasing and analyzing income producing properties . As the subject is presently improved with a ±2,295 square foot commercial building, we have considered all three approaches to value in our analysis . III lb .• AA MN Mr NM NM II City of College Station June 10, 1997 Page 6 I ll CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1111 I This appraisal is subject to the following limiting conditions . The legal description furnished is assumed to be correct . I assume no responsibility for matters legal in character, nor do I render any opinion as to the title, which is N assumed to be good. Any existing liens and encumbrances have been disregarded and the property appraised as though free and clear under responsible ownership and competent management. I have made no survey and assume no responsibility in connection with such matters . I believe to be reliable the information identified in this report as being furnished by others, but I assume no responsibility for its accuracy. The construction and condition of the improvements mentioned in the body of this report are based on observation, and no engineering study has been made which would discover any latent defects . No certification as to any of the physical aspects could NI be given unless a proper engineering study were made. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous substances, thr including without limitation asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum leakage, or agricultural chemicals, which may or may not be present on the property, or other environmental conditions, were not called to the attention of nor did the appraiser become aware of such during the appraiser's inspection. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property unless otherwise stated. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to test such substances or conditions . III If the presence of such substances, such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, or other hazardous substances or environmental conditions, may affect the value of the property, the value estimated is predicated on the assumption that there is no such condition on or in the property or in such proximity thereto that it would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, nor for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. I The distribution of the total valuation between land and improvements in this report applies only under the existing program of utilization. The separate valuations for II land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal, and are invalid if so used. II I am not required to give testimony or attendance in court by reason of this appraisal with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been made previously therefore. Ili 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 anyone other than the addressee without the previous written consent of the appraiser. r 1 1 _ .... ... .. ,PF EINII II• II City of College Station June 10, 1997 Page 7 Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the U written consent and approval of the author, particularly as to valuation conclusions, the identity of the appraiser or firm with which he is connected, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or the MAI designation. ' Ill NEIGHBORHOOD DATA i II BOUNDARIES North: Old College Road and West Brookside Drive South: University Drive East: South College Avenue 11111 West: Wellborn Road or F.M. 2154 L OCATION: The northwestern portion of the City of t College Station. MAJOR THOROUGHFARES: University Drive, South College Avenue, Wellborn Road or F.M. 2154, Old College il Road, College Main and West Brookside Drive. al ACCESSIBILITY: The subject neighborhood is provided with good accessibility via the various roadways which either traverse or form the boundaries of the area. II DISTANCE FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT : The City of College Station does not have a U centralized business district, however, the majority of the commercial developments within the neighborhood are situated along the major thoroughfares. PREDOMINANT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT : Single and multi - family residential with U supportive retail/ commercial developments along the major thoroughfares. ! _ - . 1 NI _m.o.. IP MI Ell I City of College Station Page 8 June 10, 1997 I II SCHOOLS: The subject neighborhood is primarily situated within the College Station III Independent School District which provides educational facilities for kindergarten through twelfth grade . Additionally, the III main campus for the Texas A &M University is situated adjacent to the subject neighborhood along the south line of University Drive. This influence is considered to enhance the overall marketability of the properties within the surrounding areas. ZONING: The subject neighborhood is primarily situated within the City of College Station which enforces zoning regulations upon properties within its boundaries. RESTRICTIONS: Per applicable building codes, deed restrictions, right -of -way and easements of t record . i 211. RELATIONSHIP TO GROWTH II PATTERN OF CITY: The City of College Station is currently growing in a south to southeasterly direction. While, the subject neighborhood is not considered to be located within the current growth pattern for the area, its location within the " Northgate" area is considered to enhance its marketability. Based upon this m consideration, the subject could be expected to receive adequate market acceptance into the foreseeable future. II NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN AREA: Over the past three to four years, the II Bryan/ College Station area has experienced increased market activity within the current growth pattern for the area. As stated previously, the subject is not situated within III the current growth pattern for the area, but is considered to be equally enhanced by its location within the "Northgate" area. 1 . .... • r _ IP NM ■■ 7 of College Station page 9 ii, June City 10 1997 NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN AREA: (Cont'd) This area provides direct access to the I northern portion of the main campus of Texas A &M University, and as such, is improved with numerous restaurants, bars and retail/ I commercial stores which provides virtually any product and /or service to the student population. Within the recent past, the majority of the new development within the I neighborhood has been in the form of renovation to existing structures. These renovations are as follows: the former Wyatt's III Sporting Goods was converted into Cycle Spectrum, the former service station at the corner of University and Nagle is now III occupied by Notes 'N Quotes. It should also be noted that the James Coney Island Restaurant building constructed in 1991 is now a Taco Bell restaurant. Additionally, the former Pizza Hut building located on the northeast corner of University Drive and Tauber is now a walk in Aggie Credit Union facility. Furthermore, the City of College Station N recently completed its College Main Street project, which improved College Main from its intersection with University Drive to the College Station City Limit with 5 foot bike lanes on both the east and west sides, new sidewalks, as well as some additional landscaping. This project was intended to improve the pedestrian thoroughfares in an area which is heavily trafficked by the Texas A &M student population. Therefore, with these recent developments occurring, it is our opinion that the subject neighborhood should be considered to continue to receive favorable market acceptance into the foreseeable future. _• Ell City of College Station page 10 June 10, 1997 CONCLUSIONS: This area is considered to be enhanced by its adjacent location to the main campus for Texas A &M University. Therefore, based on these considerations, as well as the increased market activity which has occurred within the growth pattern for the Bryan/ College Station area, the subject neighborhood is expected to continue to receive favorable market acceptance. SITE DATA LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 0.3074 acres or 13,390 square feet being Lots 21 & 22, Blocks 6 -7, Boyett Addition, City of College Station, Brazos County, Texas LOCATION: The subject site is located on the west line of College Main, north of Church Street . TOTAL SITE AREA: 0.3074 acres or 13,390 square feet TOPOGRAPHY: Basically level SHAPE: Rectangular FRONTAGE: ±100 feet on College Main f UTILITIES: All public utilities available at the site. ZONING: C -NG1, Commercial Northgate FLOOD HAZARD: According to area flood plain maps provided by the Federal Insurance Administration of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the subject property does not appear to be located within a special flood hazard area. CURRENT USE: The subject property is currently improved with a ±2,295 square foot commercial building. 1 -III MANM II En IIIII N City of College Station page 11 June 10, 1997 III ADJACENT LOTS /IMPROVEMENTS IIII North: Lutheran Church Student Center South: Vacant land East: Lutheran Church across College Main III West: Fourplex and two duplexes FACTORS AFFECTING VALUE: Access, visibility and proximity to the main campus for Texas A &M University. III HIGHEST AND BEST USE PI According to the Appraisal Institute in The Appraisal of Real Estate (11th Edition) , highest and best use may be defined as, "The use, from among reasonably probable p and legal alternative uses, found to be physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest present land value." The crucial elements of this definition suggest that the highest and best use must be, "(1) O I physically possible, (2) legally permissible, (3) financially feasible, and (4) maximally productive." In conclusion, to be a highest and best use it must meet all four criteria. If the proposed highest and best use cannot meet all the criteria, i.e., it is financially feasible but not physically possible, then it must be disregarded. As has previously been noted, the subject property is improved with a 2,295 square foot commercial building which was in average to good overall condition on the date of inspection. As such, in determining the highest and best use, as improved, there are only three practical alternatives for the subject: razing of the improvements, continued operation as improved, alteration of the existing improvements. Razing of the structures is not considered a viable alternative, since the land value is less than the value of the property as currently improved. The improvements have the potential to generate cash flow, therefore, conversion of the use of the building is not considered feasible at the current time. We foresee no legally permissible or physically possible alterations which might enhance the value or profitability of the facility. Thus, the highest and best use of the property, as improved, is for continued use as a commercial building. IMPROVEMENT DATA TYPE: Commercial building ADDRESS: 313 College Main CURRENT USE: Ismailia Religious and Cultural Center 4 MP MEI •1 ' City of College Station June 10, 1997 Page 12 III NUMBER OF BUILDINGS: One U EFFECTIVE AGE: ±15 years QUALITY AND TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Average, masonry and wood frame II construction with a combination of concrete block and wood siding exterior walls and a built -up roof II GROSS BUILDING AREA: ±2,295 square feet I TAXES: The subject property is within the taxing jurisdiction of the City of College Station, the College Station Independent School District • and Brazos County. These entities had a 1996 total tax rate of $2.5507 per $100.00 of valuation. The Brazos County Appraisal 10 District currently has the subject property on the rolls with an assessed value of $74,130.00 which indicates a tax expense of $1,890.83. ii REMARKS: The subject property is considered to be of an average quality of construction and was in II average to good overall condition on the date of inspection. According to the owner's representative who provided access to the III property, the subject's roof covering is approximately two months old and the exterior of the building was painted within the last week. However, some wood rot was I observed in portions of the exterior of the building and portions of the interior were in need of painting. Therefore, it was U considered to be in effectively average overall condition. The subject is currently occupied by the Ismailia Religious and Cultural Center. A portion of the building III had previously been occupied by a travel agency, but upon their vacating of the space, the Ismailia Religious and Cultural Center expanded into this area. They are 11 • 1 . 1 .... ■ ■ 11111 MN ■. II City of College Station J une 10 1997 Page 13 1 REMARKS: (Cont'd) currently in the process of refurbishing this portion of the subject and intend to use it as I a classroom area. With the continuation of the current market trends in the subject area, the subject property could be 1 anticipated to receive adequate market acceptance. 1 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND VALUATION Sales Comparison Approach 1 In reaching the value estimate of the improved property, as was done in estimating the value of the vacant land, the Brazos County Deed Records were searched for recent comparable improved properties within the area. Also, real estate brokers active in the area were consulted as to their knowledge of properties currently offered on the market for sale which would be in competition with the subject ihr property if it were offered for sale on the open market. The available market data was investigated, analyzed and compared to the similar and dissimilar characteristics. Then adjustments were made accordingly in reaching the value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach. II A summary of the comparable improved sales utilized is illustrated below. (The detailed information for these sales is located in the Addenda of this report.) 1 Market Date Size/ Price/ Data Address of Sale NRA SF OAR One 109 W. Villa Maria 1 -93 1,620 SF $37.04 N/A u Two 1803 Greenfield Plaza 10 -93 3,144 SF $44.53 N/A Three 303 College Main 1 -94 2,985 SF $26.47 N/A 1 1 Four 301 College Main 7 -94 5,500 SF $16.36 N/A Five 624 Mary Lake 9 -94 2,564 SF $24.18 N/A 1 The improved sales summarized above constitute a cross section of the similar I properties which have sold in the recent past. The large range of indicated sales prices per square foot is indicative of the diversity of the available data. However, the data utilized in this analysis is considered to be the best available and to be indicative of current market trends for properties of the subject's type. 1 .1 _■ MA ■■ WV NM MI i City of College Station J une 10 1997 Page 14 0 From the improved sales, several units of comparison may be utilized among which is the price per square foot. The price per square foot comparison is useful when ill making comparisons between properties such as the subject since it indicates relationship between building size and the sales price of that property. Consequently, the analysis of the improved sales focused on the size of the building III and emphasis placed by the buyers on the price per square foot of rentable area. Furthermore, consideration was given to other factors that affect the sales price of commercial buildings such as date of sale, location, age /condition, quality of construction and special features . After comparing the subject property to the available sales making adjustments where necessary for the various physical and locational differences, the available in IPI data was considered to indicate a value for the subject property of $38.00 per square foot, or as follows: 2,295 square feet @ $38.00 per square foot = $87,210.00 SAY: $87,000.00 O r Cost Approach SI The estimated reproduction cost of the improvements minus accrued depreciation added to the land value obtained from the Sales Comparison Approach produces an estimate of value for the subject property by the Cost Approach. III After giving consideration to the subject property's age, physical condition and construction type, it is our opinion that the Cost Approach would not provide a supportable value indication for the subject due to the unreliability in estimating the various types of depreciation. As such, this approach was not utilized in our analysis. III Income Approach The Income Approach to value is predicated on the assumption that there is a I III definite relationship between the amount of income a property will earn and its value . The gross income estimate is obtained by estimating market rental for the property. Then gross annual expenses incurred in producing this annual gross income are deducted. The expense estimate has taken into consideration provisions for N anticipated expense items, and when these expenses are deducted from the gross annual income, an indication of the net annual income is produced. Following is a discussion of market rents, comparable rental data, and the computations used in estimating the net annual income of the subject property. i ii lki... _. .mi.. ,/ MN Ell IIII City of College Station page 15 June 10, 1997 III Discussion of Market Rent ill Market rent is defined as, "The rental income that a property would most probably command on the open market as indicated by current rentals being paid for comparable space as of the effective date of the appraisal." In more precise terms, however, it refers to the amount of money a property should produce based on the ell actual rentals being received from similar properties with like amenities in the same and /or similar location, as of the effective date of this appraisal. A rental survey of the comparable properties within the Bryan/ College Station area was conducted, and the six most comparable rentals were summarized in the following chart. (The detailed information for these rentals is located in the Addenda of this report.) Comparable Annual Rental Address Size /SF Rent /SF Expenses One 301 College Main 5,500 SF $2.73 Net Two 505 Church 3,942 SF $4.99 Net, plus tenant ll'F pays taxes Three 329 University Dr. 3,552 SF $9.46 Net Four 707 University Dr. 4,607 SF $10.20 Gross Five 4301 -4365 Wellborn Rd. 29,000 SF $7.00 Triple Net Six 110 College Main 1,924 SF $8.40 Triple Net Seven 307 University Dr. 6,000 SF $6.00 Triple Net ill Eight 108 College Main 1,650 SF $8.40 Triple Net The available rental information has been analyzed, compared and adjusted for similar and dissimilar characteristics. The large range of indicated comparable Ill rental prices per square foot is indicative of the diversity of the available data. However, the data utilized in this analysis is considered to be the best available and to be indicative of current market trends for properties of the subject's type. As ill in the Sales Comparison Approach to value, adjustments were made to the per square foot rental rates according to the amenities, location, leasing terms and condition of the available comparable rentals. According to the information which the owner's representative provided to our office, the subject property is currently leased by PI Isamilia Religious and Cultural Center. However, he was not able to provide us with the current lease amount nor any expense information. Therefore, after considering the available market data, the rental rate utilized for the purposes of this analysis III is $6.00 per square foot with this estimate indicating an annual gross potential income of $13,770.00. I al_ ma.. II Ilri,.. _Rim.. yrs... _ ____ III City of College Station June 10, 1997 Page 16 II Expenses which are typically paid by the lessee include utilities, real estate taxes, insurance and general maintenance and repairs with the lessor being responsible for III all exterior and structural maintenance. In the following net income schedule, the expenses annually incurred by the lessor include reserves for replacement and management. The management expense was estimated at 5% of effective gross income, N and due to the age and overall condition of the subject property, reserves for replacement were estimated at $1,500.00 annually. These estimates provide a net operating income estimate as follows: Ill NET INCOME SCHEDULE 11 Gross Rental Income 2,295 SF @ $6.00 psf $13, 770.00 Less Vacancy & Collection Loss - 10% <$1,377.00> Effective Gross Income $12,393.00 Less Operating Expenses Management 5% $620.00 Reserves for Replacement $1,500.00 Total Expenses <$2,120.00> 11 Net Operating Income $10,273.00 TECHNIQUE OF CAPITALIZATION II Capitalization is a process which translates net annual income into an indication of value. The connecting link is a rate which reflects the return necessary to attract investment capital; therefore, the selection of an appropriate rate represents a critical factor in the capitalization process. For the purpose of this report, we have derived rates from the cash flow to equity technique or the band of investment. Since adequate income /expense information was not available from the sales utilized herein to derive overall capitalization rates, we have utilized the process of IIII estimating an overall rate utilizing the cash flow to equity technique. This technique is based upon the assumption that most properties are purchased with debt and op equity capital. The return on the investment component of the overall capitalization rate must satisfy the market return requirements for each investment position. Lenders anticipate a certain return on their mortgage investment and equity 11■1.. investors expect a certain return on the equity position or they will channel their IIII investment monies elsewhere. Of course, the return on each component is _..0 City of College Station p 17 June 10, 1997 commensurate with the perceived risk of each. into the The resulting rate is weighted by the portions of debt and equity invested Current lending terms, as re o o 7b$ d loan to value ratio r wi Appraisal institute, are a 65% with a term of 15 to 30 years and interest rates ranging from 9.5% to 10.5 %. For the purpose of this report, we have assumed a twenty year note at 10.0% interest 1 at a 70% loan to value ratio. The mortgage constant for such a loan is 0.115803. The mortgage constant is the total annual payments of principal and interest expressed as a percentage of the initial principal amount of the loan. A level payment amortization schedule is assumed in this constant. The equity ratio for the subject IN property is 30 %. Equity investors expect a different rate of return than that expected by the mortgage investor. This is due to the risk of the equity investor. According to investors and bankers, the equity investor is expecting a return in the I IN range of 9% to 15% for properties similar to the subject. Thirteen percent was selected as an appropriate rate for the subject. The mortgage /equity capitalization rate is computed below: Loan to value ratio - 70% Loan term in years - 20 Interest rate - 10.0% Equity yield rate - 10.0% Mortgage 70% x 0.115803 = 0.081062 Equity 305 x 0.13 - 0.039000 Basic Blended Overall Rate 0.120062 Say: 12% IIII National Surveys done by Korpacz and Associates, Real Estate Research Corporation, and by the Appraisal Institute indicated nationwide required rates in the 7.25% to 12.0% range with an average around 9.5% to 10 %. A capitalization rate from the upper end of the indicated range is deemed appropriate. Therefore, , Su based on this information, an overall capitalization rate of 0.1200 or 12.00% was considered most appropriate for the subject property, and provides a value as follows: I : __ _ .t."------- - -III AM MI II MN ■■ City of College Station 18 June 10, 1997 Pag Income = Value Rate pi Income = $10,273.00 Rate = 0.1200 $10,273.00 = $85,608.00 0.1200 SAY: $85,000.00 Reconciliation and Value Conclusion: The conclusions indicated by the various approaches utilized provided a value range from a low of $85,000.00 to a high of $87,000.00. In that the subject is an income producing property, emphasis was given to the value provided by the Income Approach. This method indicated a i current market value for the subject property of $85,000.00. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the current market value of the subject property as of June 6, 1997 is $85,000.00. CERTIFICATION The undersigned does hereby certify that, except as otherwise noted in this appraisal report: We have no present or contemplated future interest in the real estate that is the to- subject of this appraisal report. We have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this appraisal report or the parties involved. To the best of our knowledge and belief, the statements of fact contained in this appraisal report upon which the analysis, opinions, and conclusions expressed herein are based, are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, unbiased professional 0 analyses, opinions, and conclusions. Our compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in, or the use of, this report. e g . _. City of College Station VI MN MN June 10, 1997 19 The appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan. Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 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 Practice of the Appraisal Institute. We certify that the use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. No one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions, and opinions concerning real estate that are set forth in this appraisal report. As of the date of this report, John M. Hamilton and Michael J. Fleming have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. It is the intent of this appraisal report to be in compliance with the guidelines as specified by the client. Michael J. Fleming made a personal inspection of the property which is the subject of this appraisal report on June 6, 1997. The value estimate contained herein is effective as of June 6, 1997. $85,000.00 JOHN M. AMILTON INCORPORATED �, ' ' / g J . M. Hamilton, MAI' • - 1322674 -G 1 I ` iiiI4 / • / ✓ //..i Mi hael J. e ng, ' 'A TX- 1321751 -G J ■• Oa .. VI NM ■■ PRINCIPALS OF JOHN M. HAMILTON INCORPORATED John M. Hamilton is an independent real estate appraiser and consultant with offices located at 3131 Briarcrest Drive, Suite 111, Bryan, Texas 77802. He has been actively engaged in the real estate profession since 1974, and a partial resume of his qualifications is outlined as follows: 1. MAI - The Appraisal Institute 2. State Certified - General Real Estate Appraiser (TX- 1322674 -G) 3. Real Estate Broker - State of Texas 4. B . S . degree - Texas A &M University 5. Qualified in Federal District Court, Federal Bankruptcy Court - Southern (Houston) , Northern (Ft. Worth) , and Western (Austin/ San Antonio) Districts, County and District Court as an expert witness in valuation of real property. I 6. Past Board Director - Appraisal Institute Chapter - Houston, Texas 7. Current member of the Review and Counseling Panel - Appraisal Institute The Appraisal Institute conducts a voluntary program of continuing education for its designated members. M.A. I .'s who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic educational certification. He is currently certified under this program. Michael J. Fleming is an independent real estate appraiser and consultant with offices located at 3131 Briarcrest Drive, Suite 111, Bryan, Texas 77802. He has been actively engaged in the real estate profession since 1977, and a partial resume of his qualifications is outlined as follows: 1. SRA - The Appraisal Institute 2. State Certified - General Real Estate Appraiser (TX- 1321752 -G) ill 3. FHA Approved Appraiser (CHUMS #6122) 4. Real Estate Broker - State of Texas 5. B.S. degree - Texas Tech University Ill 6. Qualified in Federal Bankruptcy Court (Southern District), County and District Civil Court of Law as an expert witness in valuation of real property. The Appraisal Institute conducts a voluntary program of continuing education for M its designated members. S . R. A .'s who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic educational certification. He is currently certified under this program. r . Ni.,„ 1 IIII MM MN i ll PARTIAL LIST OF CLIENTS CORPORATE il ER The Adam Corporation Bryan, Texas Young Brothers Bryan, Texas Area Progress Corporation College Station, Texas Allright Parking Houston, Texas Centeq Financial Group Houston, Texas Exxon Company USA Houston, Texas Pool Company Houston, Texas Westinghouse Houston, Texas Waco Financial Corporation Waco, Texas Rossco Holdings Los Angeles, California Dial Reit Omaha, Nebraska ATTORNEYS Womack and McClish, Attorneys Austin, Texas Barron and Adler, Attorneys Austin, Texas Rodgers, Miller, Ellison and Holt, Attorneys Bryan, Texas Davis and Davis, Attorneys Bryan, Texas Youngkin, Catlin, Bryan, Stacy and Dillard, Attorneys Bryan, Texas Payne, Watson, Kling, Miller & Malechek, Attorneys Bryan, Texas Bruchez, Goss, Thornton, Meronoff, Michel & Hawthorne, Attorneys Bryan, Texas Sheinfeld, Maley and Kay, Attorneys Houston, Texas ill III { ill IN _EISA MI PARTIAL LIST OF CLIENTS FINANCIAL Liberty National Bank Austin, Texas Banc One Brenham, Texas First American Bank Bryan, Texas First State Bank Bryan, Texas First Federal Savings Bank Bryan, Texas First National Bank Bryan, Texas Commerce National Bank College Station, Texas First Federal Savings Dallas, Texas Hibernia National Bank Dallas, Texas Pacific Southwest Bank, F.S.B. Dallas, Texas I First National Bank Franklin, Texas First State Bank Granger, Texas First Republic Mortgage Houston, Texas Nations Bank Houston, Texas Texas Capital Bank Houston, Texas Texas Commerce Bank Houston, Texas Citizens State Bank Marlin, Texas I First Bank of Snook Snook, Texas Merchants National Bank Cedar Rapids, Iowa Carteret Savings Bank Morristown, New Jersey Metropolitan Federal Bank Fargo, North Dakota Old Stone Bank Providence, Rhode Island First Tennessee Bank Memphis, Tennessee -II AA NM MN 111111 PARTIAL LIST OF CLIENTS GOVERNMENTAL City of Austin Austin, Texas Texas Democratic Party Austin, Texas Texas Housing Authority Austin, Texas Brazos County Appraisal District Bryan, Texas Brazos Valley Community Action Agency Bryan, Texas Bryan Independent School District Bryan, Texas City of Bryan Bryan, Texas City of College Station College Station, Texas College Station Independent School District College Station, Texas Texas A &M University System College Station, Texas City of Houston Houston, Texas Federal National Mortgage Association Houston, Texas Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation San Antonio, Houston, Dallas Washington County Appraisal District Brenham, Texas M M w 1 ADDENDA 1 1 1 r 1 r 4 ._ . ---T-C------r n ) TAUBER ST , ,, IN ,„ r 21 i S ce C ) I T3 t t\ .ED AD 15 /11 0 9 � 1 111 -1 r , ,,,, N r --, I \ ;ill F?'1'‘) ( T- 1 \ H --- 1 1 Irr I . 1 1 1 i _ am...,,,,„,- mil lin---71 COLLEGE MAIN �� U1111 > A@ \Is vi - SUBJECT > C `� (�� , t 1 Wes' [1--7 _______ . . 5 - , ' - u . I ___: - - 1 1 1 1- I i r ' \ \\ \ ) A j \ () ) ■\ A \'\<( } � � SECOND ST • - ,_ ON cr) D i■jL%-' .. 7 V,< 1 / 1 12 1 ir' 2Q c c) '') (1, .\ 3 SI 1 — -"— --4 . . \ ii , _, ai l e i ,` o `I U -�� Ii i i .'' , c .,, Z . gla rdIP > I / MIN - -- : • YETI S EMU I i\c') I - MU id ta al ,L 1 N Ell ;Olt , - ■-1-___I _ _I _N_Nims umai i_l__ I. mil mil 14151111, um H _._- [I] 1111 ill r r ir‘52 • �� FAT ST '� ill ri...... - _ / 1 �� ■� Dev. Serv.S 313 COLLEGE MAIN N 4.5' of Bo ofl AN 7 .fr </„. Equipment 7 5, ED 5' I ` 4.5' r+ 515 +5 W r� F W y � `L W IP • -J L7 Q • 4 J cr. � J °' > r r•7 r•7 a > a , u N 1.4 r•7 r•7 1 r' a r ¢ W \ a D --IWa _J 5Q > U W (6 0 +' z u.. F 0 o p i,j a CC U U M W u 0.1 x 0 z IS 4 I w S O° N T-1 w 0 w } r S @ Y >- & W N- N (� I o ,..4 J 4-1 ri Z Z 1 a X > 5i 5 al cc W o @ S 5 4 4 Si S a cc D 0 Zo o 01 z o p r. +i r W Q J 1f r CC ¢ W >- m 1 - J • CC ' �-w 5i& J W z - h i h i w ° z a r� r•7 x H N 0 o J r Z a►- z ¢ D co4 I-x Q ag o a U1 U1— ca c wQ FQa 3Z Eli z > > ¢OZ dap ° Lu . ¢ Q w O U & ¢ oaa m N QA� a u h7 5 in W ¢ 'S a r1 r•1 W ri Q = w 9 < s 2'OJ U! I— a cu U J z 1 6 ¢ N r1 ' F— '?- 51 8 § a w (n h7 w R J \ +-1 ,_ J O 1 0 ISI CU I.1� W D P. Z r ■ .• III W % Z 1 Q —_- gN0 m ' , 0 ko 15 I 1 ig w e a_ w 1 � a Li_ _ Y •• Z cc z W w '•'i ¢ U O-�N o T J Um w N 03 g C N 4 (L � a m LL V J G S 0 Y 0 1- lA E a] V H o Z • J W u) m rn O Ul W Q � C9x x N N � U ui ¢ J ¢ H ° .GW S � LL C'''9,-1, Q a Ua a in N �¢ tu �5 0n Z m W U U- , -11-1 \� H Cn CC � E Z '-'i a ¢ z U1 w Si E 1-4 o 1 r & '\ E 2 0 C7 w W E IS O¢ 51 Z U J 0 11 W ° 2 S a D U E '-� & 5 (9 D 3 * - U ¢ ¢ J W 0 a * w z .. IS 1-4 .1.) * • > 9U C Cr GIN W 0 Li. (3 ¢ * • a W 5 i1J F— U .-� W E LLii7 Z w * w \E E CD O4 '-1 h7 F k a ° r+ 2E O _11/11111111111 JOHN M. HAMILTON, MAI JOHN M. HAMILTON INCORPORATED MICHAEL J. FLEMING, SRA REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS May 28, 1997 Mr. Abbas Ali Hassan 2 Wedgewood Court Sugarland, Texas 77478 RE: 0.3074 acres being Lots 21 & 22, Blocks 6 -7, out of the Boyett Addition, College Station, Brazos County, Texas, more commonly known as 313 College Main. Dear Mr. Hassan: The City of College Station has requested that we performed an appraisal of your above referenced property to determine its current market value. We wish to extend an offer for you to accompany us on our inspection of your property, and if you contact me at our Bryan office (268- 0200), I will set up a mutually agreeable time for the inspection of your property. Sincerely, JOHN M. HAMILTON INCORPORATED A ,4 e. • A...e/1.11 I 1 ' ' is ael J. F eming, SR 3131 BRIARCREST DRIVE, SUITE 111 1409) 2680200 • FAX (409) 731 -8809 BRYAN, TX 77802 al le III 1 ,1 NI . , N I o SENDER: v • Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the • •Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. following services (for an E card to Print your name and address on the reverse of this form ka that wa can retum this eta fee): o You •Attach this form to the f apiece, or on the back If space does not III E o tit `'f the mll h b 1. p Addressee's Address ■ pe ( mit Refum R 7' ed' on the mail o o ecetP� piece below the amide number. 2. ❑ R es t ricted Delivery N f •The Return Receipt �`. to whom the article was delivered and the date c delivered. :4n_' Consult postmaster for fee. o I v 3. Article Addressed tat 4a. Article Number I iii. o Mr. Abbas Ali Hassan P 871 263 984 o pt cc Re turn Re E 2 Wedgewood Court 4b. Service Type Receipt Sugarland, Texas 77478 ❑ Registered Req uested ® Certified cc ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured c a ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandse ❑ COD ti 7. Date of Delive _� 0 a. 5. Received By: (Print Name) 8. Addressee's Address (O y N requested c and lee is paid) a II g 7 eeeen o zft PS Fop 3811, December 1994 Domestic Retum Receipt II 1 1. 1 IIIII 1 1 MARKET DATA NUMBER ONE - IMPROVED PROPERTY PROJECT NAME: State Farm Insurance Building STREET ADDRESS: 109 W. Villa Maria LOCATION: South line of Villa Maria Road, just west of South College Avenue DATE OF SALE: January 28, 1993 RECORDING DATA: Volume 1706, Page 238, Brazos County Deed Records GRANTOR: James Goolsby GRANTEE: Steven A. and Rayellen Milburn LEGAL DESCRIPTION Size: 9,375 square feet Lot: 18 and part of 19 Block: A Addition: Country Club Estates #1 City: Bryan County: Brazos State: Texas CONSIDERATION: $60,000.00 FINANCING: Cash to Seller CASH EQUIVALENT: $60,000.00 YEAR BUILT: 1960's NET RENTABLE AREA: 1,620 square feet PRICE PER SQ . FT .: $37.04 INCOME & EXPENSE INFORMATION Net operating income: N /A, property was 100% owner occupied at time of sale REMARKS: According to the broker, the interior of the building was in above average condition and the exterior was considered to be in average overall condition. MARKET DATA NUMBER TWO - IMPROVED PROPERTY BUILDING NAME: Old Scooter Computer Building STREET ADDRESS: 1803 Greenfield Plaza LOCATION: On the north line of Greenfield Plaza, east of East 29th Street DATE OF SALE: October 14, 1993 RECORDING DATA: Volume 1937, Page 061, Brazos County Deed Records GRANTOR: Tyra Pruett GRANTEE: Brewer, Eyeington and Company LEGAL DESCRIPTION Size: 0.61 acres or 26,571 sq. ft. Lot: 2.5 Block: 1 Addition: Greenfield Plaza City: Bryan County: Brazos State: Texas CONSIDERATION: $140,000.00 FINANCING: Cash to Seller CASH EQUIVALENT: $140,000.00 YEAR BUILT: 1974 NET RENTABLE AREA: 3,144 square feet PRICE PER SQ . FT .: $44.53 INCOME & EXPENSE INFORMATION Net operating income: N /A, this property was vacant at time of sale REMARKS: This building was previously utilized as a retail personal computer center, and was previously purchased for owner occupancy. ' L 1 MARKET DATA NUMBER TWO - IMPROVED PROPERTY ( Cont'd) REMARKS: (Cont'd) Therefore, no income information was available. It was considered to be in average to good overall condition as of the ' date of sale, and furthermore, this building was reported to have average to good overall finish features. 1 1 I S 1 1 1 1 1 1 110 1 1 II I t MARKET DATA NUMBER THREE - IMPROVED PROPERTY STREET ADDRESS: 303 College Main LOCATION: Westerly line of College Main, north of 1 Church Avenue. DATE OF SALE: January 1994 III RECORDING DATA: N /A; contract for deed GRANTOR: Philip M. Gibson and Jesse N. Burditt, Jr. GRANTEE: John Szabuniewicz I LEGAL DESCRIPTION Size: 0.1445 acres (6,294 square feet) Lot: 26 1 Block: 6 & 7 Addition: Boyett City: College Station County: Brazos State: Texas I CONSIDERATION: $79,000.00 FINANCING: Owner financed, reported to be at market I terms CASH EQUIVALENT: $79, 000.00 1 YEAR BUILT: ±1960 EFFECTIVE AGE: ±30 years 1 GROSS BUILDING AREA: 2,985 square feet I NET RENTABLE AREA: 2,985 square feet PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT: $26.47 1 INCOME & EXPENSE INFORMATION Effective gross income: N/A I Expenses: N/A Net operating income: N/A 1 1 1 IL MARKET DATA NUMBER THREE - IMPROVED PROPERTY (Cont'd) INDICATED GIM: N/A INDICATED OAR: N/A REMARKS: The grantee was leasing this property at the time of sale, however, known of the parties involved in this transaction would reveal any income nor expense information. The grantor did indicate that prior to this lease, the property had been vacant for an extended period of time. The property was reported to be in average to fair overall condition. 1 III IL. III MARKET DATA NUMBER FOUR - IMPROVED PROPERTY 01 BUILDING NAME: Second Chance (Twin City Mission Inc.) STREET ADDRESS: 301 College Main LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of College Main and Church Street DATE OF SALE: July 1, 1994 RECORDING DATA: Volume 2155, Page 5, Brazos County Deed Records GRANTOR: Deborah Cowan Breeden GRANTEE: Brazos Land Trust LEGAL DESCRIPTION Size: 0.187 acres (8,125 square feet) Lot: 27 Block: 6 Addition: Boyett City: College Station County: Brazos State: Texas CONSIDERATION: $90,000.00 FINANCING: Undisclosed terms CASH EQUIVALENT: N/A YEAR BUILT: Unknown EFFECTIVE AGE: ±40 years GROSS BUILDING AREA: 5,500 square feet NET RENTABLE AREA: 5,500 square feet I PRICE PER SQ . FT . OF RENTABLE AREA: $16.36 0 INCOME & EXPENSE INFORMATION Gross rental income: N/A I I Occupancy: 100% I 1 MARKET DATA NUMBER FOUR - IMPROVED PROPERTY - (Cont'd) Effective gross income: $15,000.00 Expenses: Unknown Net operating income: N/A INDICATED EGRM: N/A INDICATED OAR: N/A I REMARKS: This property was reported to be in fair to poor overall condition at the time of sale. None of the building was air conditioned and only a portion was heated. The grantor reacquired this property through foreclosure proceedings and is reported to currently be asking $140,000.00 for it. 1 1 1 1 IL MARKET DATA NUMBER FIVE - IMPROVED PROPERTY BUILDING NAME: N/A STREET ADDRESS: 624 Mary Lake LOCATION: Southerly line of Mary Lake, west of Texas Avenue DATE OF SALE: September 27, 1994 RECORDING DATA: Volume 2207, Page 339, Brazos County Deed Records. GRANTOR: Dr. Nina Harris Ashcraft GRANTEE: Charles T. Shaw, Jr. 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Size: acres 0.1405 acres (6,120 square feet) I L Lot: Part of 4 Block: 1 Addition: Ramsey Place #2 City: Bryan County: Brazos State: Texas CONSIDERATION: $62,000.00 FINANCING: Cash to Seller CASH EQUIVALENT: N/A YEAR BUILT: ±1960 1 EFFECTIVE AGE: ±30 years NET RENTABLE AREA: 2,564 square feet PRICE PER SQ . FT . OF RENTABLE AREA: $24.18 INCOME & EXPENSE INFORMATION 1(..„ Occupancy: Vacant when sold Effective gross income: N/A 1 1 11 IL MARKET DATA NUMBER FIVE - IMPROVED PROPERTY - (Cont'd) Expenses: N/A Net operating income: N/A INDICATED EGRM: N/A INDICATED OAR: N/A REMARKS: This property was reported to be in fair to poor overall condition. The built -up roof needed replacing and it had been mostly vacant the last ±10 years. YOAIALALSI \ .'4 l '/U1 S t S4 ' �• O� < ' 1/49 40$ .z• ! 4o V , Y 1 ,zio ,.,„,,. . n3•Ikelbly,.... ‘ ' '' 0 ...,,,,.. , P vo _ , 0%1 � Z .. EE l .. . � alik c •EEt �� ��► �. r . + �E �� 0:1"" a :::::4- C • t.±. E'P Ett jam �a •- �7 `t dry "1 a 0• 4 �� '� i 7.. 1� • E , A . �•.,,. . • t \ -- - ,�•• % '�y' •.� �' �' � • ' � • ; ; . ts ,:. ' � Y►d 0 'EC v V ^'.� � :t® • �� o• 't 0 s. . - � r f , mod"" � 3L r '� ,�z>Y. � � ` /(1 � •D°� r ` ��!! �: , ` l+r t AG s ��pp� �''"' �� " e o V • ' o .90 �.T,p � rN OP O .. '' EK ! •^ t 1, wur YIIyA NAND L .�'`w �. �� �r.►G •r � \Nt ' ` NE � �/ \ • r. . .4 L4, 'A — 4 0_ , ,.- . . . " - - . , • . \ s ' , ...,... - 1 \. -....r .: '''''. ke kI kfr.,-;Ev Fi-. ,x,e.:c.0 '`., 1 i I-1 . %, - , 4-0, 9c,,, . , - ...„,.- • 30 = . ..,_. , ',. . 1 -...., , ft:1w..- .. - ye .;;‘ .-.‘ c ..,.. :. 44osISA DR . g ' ' ' S I tI U1NF0.5lttOR E (, . ` S t,E %.:'.'-.... a . S .,„- �� �� '`, a �, Rp.E S �.�: -EMS • \ vv oo • • 40 >g _ 0 4 4 O ' E • P ; • `ZI K , P\P 4 0 !.'. sty ' � • L. � nit ' I a 0 vP Q O �� $ - S • i ? , !e _ ° � ,• • 00. •• e ' 4r yf — • L . 0,.. e ' 4 \ • �° o 4•>\-'t 1 •-, �G : 1 b9 '.• w t� V• P V �� 7E�(AE IIN tVEMir e i 4 t v�Of. j � - � c''''' . .• r / :_,...,,,, Ay , lir i • f. � �` � ;� ^ � . - TEXAS AL,W {.C1Ef coURE �� f . (6 .:.. ‘..*. „. 4�: > ; :' tic. y E n '4■ t 00 , e , , , o ,. ., . a. E OR 0 II ,, .0. • „,,, , 4 „..,„. 1 A "4 ‘‘.' .. RC e itomt,174;.' w.ce` . :A „ - ,,. A FIELD I mprove T c j eM ap 0.,,, 60) I t • I, 0 ° • • 4,10 . 4 0 • M f IP Irk , E I000 Al RI°RT G N�t,� t • I O2 . • • • 40. , YP'� "Ili, t� t • , Alai% - 1 4 -" --,, 1 J °pow `, JN0 ,•, 'EY N 1. • rf r 0 is 1 � ° 4 i J, y' .•t TAMU 4 0 p sD' :::1 0 l' Etp• `�. ;f + C It. 4tt o - [1Eq I:**. J�' w. FIREMAN1 S ; ® 01/ a TRAININ3 _ t il l `` �� 0 OP 1 > ,1 _... rt 00-114$1 1 1 COMPARABLE RENTAL NUMBER ONE PROJECT NAME: Second Chance (Twin City Mission Inc.) STREET ADDRESS: 301 College Main LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of College Main and Church Street YEAR BUILT: Unknown EFFECTIVE AGE: ±40 years MANAGEMENT FIRM: Owner, Deborah Cowan Charisse NUMBER OF STORIES: One NET RENTABLE AREA: 5,500 square feet OCCUPANCY RATE: 100$ ANNUAL RENT PER SQ . FT .: $2.73 EXPENSES (LESSOR /TENANT PAYS) T Electricity T Water /Sewer L Real Estate Taxes L Insurance T Common Area Maintenance L Structural & Exterior Maintenance NORMAL LEASE TERM IN YEARS: Currently on month to month, tenant has been in property for ±5 years. • REMARKS: This property was reported to be in fair to poor overall condition. It is not air conditioned and only a portion of the building is heated. COMPARABLE RENTAL NUMBER TWO PROJECT NAME: None STREET ADDRESS: 505 Church Street LOCATION: North line of Church Street, east of Tauber YEAR BUILT: 1970's NUMBER OF STORIES: One MANAGEMENT FIRM: Owner NET RENTABLE AREA: 3,942 square feet OCCUPANCY RATE: 100% ANNUAL RENT PER SQ. FT.: $4.99 per square foot EXPENSES (Lessor/Tenant pays) T Electricity T Water/Sewer T Real Estate Taxes *included in rental rate L Insurance T Common Area Maintenance L Structural & Exterior Maintenance PERCENTAGE INCOME: None NORMAL LEASE TERM IN YEARS: Month to month REMARKS: Tenants include Professional Computing and Engitech. 1 1 j PI COMPARABLE RENTAL NUMBER THREE PROJECT NAME: Crooked Path Ale House STREET ADDRESS: 329 University Drive West LOCATION: North line of University Drive, west of College Main YEAR BUILT: ±1935 EFFECTIVE AGE: Two MANAGEMENT FIRM: Owner - Boyett Properties NUMBER OF STORIES: Two NET RENTABLE AREA: 3,552 square feet OCCUPANCY RATE: 51% ANNUAL RENT PER SQ . FT .: $9.46 EXPENSES (LESSOR /TENANT PAYS) T Electricity T Water /Sewer L Real Estate Taxes L Insurance T Common Area Maintenance L Structural & Exterior Maintenance PERCENTAGE INCOME: None quoted NORMAL LEASE TERM IN YEARS: Three years REMARKS: This property is considered to be in good to average overall condition. The current lease is for the first floor of the building. It began in June of 1996. 1 OIL COMPARABLE RENTAL NUMBER FOUR PROJECT NAME: Micro Age Building STREET ADDRESS: 707 University Drive West LOCATION: Northerly line of University Drive, just east of Nagle Street YEAR BUILT: ±1965 EFFECTIVE AGE: ±25 years MANAGEMENT FIRM: Owner - TAC Realty (409- 260 -4300) NUMBER OF STORIES: Two NET RENTABLE AREA: 4,607 square feet OCCUPANCY RATE: 100% i lhow ANNUAL RENT PER SQ . FT .: $10.20 EXPENSES (LESSOR /TENANT PAYS) L Electricity L Water/ Sewer L Real Estate Taxes L Insurance L Common Area Maintenance L Structural & Exterior Maintenance PERCENTAGE INCOME: None quoted NORMAL LEASE TERM IN YEARS: Three to five years REMARKS: This property is reported to be in good overall condition. 1 1, 1 1 COMPARABLE RENTAL NUMBER FIVE PROJECT NAME: Westgate Center STREET ADDRESS: 4301 -4365 Wellborn Road LOCATION: Northeasterly corner of Wellborn Road and Natalie YEAR BUILT: 1981 MANAGEMENT FIRM: Owner NUMBER OF STORIES: One NET RENTABLE AREA: 29,000 square feet OCCUPANCY RATE: 87% ANNUAL RENT PER SQ . FT .: $7.00 EXPENSES (LESSOR /TENANT PAYS) T Electricity T Water /Sewer T Real Estate Taxes T Insurance T Common Area Maintenance L Structural & Exterior Maintenance PERCENTAGE INCOME: None NORMAL LEASE TERM IN YEARS: One to three years REMARKS: This center previously stayed approximately 50% vacant, however, since being purchased by the current owner, the occupancy level has maintained basically stable at approximately 85% to 90 %. • COMPARABLE RENTAL NUMBER SIX PROJECT NAME: Marooned STREET ADDRESS: 110 College Main LOCATION: East line of College Main, just north of University Drive YEAR BUILT: ±1950, renovated 1980 and 1990 EFFECTIVE AGE: 25 years MANAGEMENT FIRM: Owner - Jim Hughes (696 -3095) NUMBER OF STORIES: One NET RENTABLE AREA: 1,924 square feet OCCUPANCY RATE: 100% ANNUAL RENT PER SQ . FT .: $8.40 EXPENSES (LESSOR /TENANT PAYS) T Electricity T Water /Sewer T Real Estate Taxes T Insurance T Common Area Maintenance L Structural & Exterior Maintenance PERCENTAGE INCOME: None quoted NORMAL LEASE TERM IN YEARS: Two years REMARKS: This property was reported to be in average overall condition. 1 COMPARABLE RENTAL NUMBER SEVEN PROJECT NAME: Fitzwillys STREET ADDRESS: 307 University Drive West LOCATION: North line of University Drive, east of Boyett Street MAP REFERENCE: N/A YEAR BUILT: N/A MAN A G EMENT FIRM: Boyett Properties NUMBER OF STORIES: Two NET RENTABLE AREA: 6,000 square feet OCCUPANCY RATE: 100% ANNUAL RENT PER SQ . FT .: $6.00 per square foot EXPENSES (LESSOR /TENANT PAYS) T Electricity T Water/ Sewer T Real Estate Taxes T Insurance T Common Area Maintenance L Structural & Exterior Maintenance PERCENTAGE INCOME: 50% of gross over fixed rental rate NORMAL LEASE TERM IN YEARS: Two years REMARKS: This property is reported to be in good overall condition. However, the tenant performed all of the interior finish -out and refurbished the exterior. 1 1 t 1 COMPARABLE RENTAL NUMBER EIGHT PROJECT NAME: Dead Lazlo's STREET ADDRESS: 108 College Main LOCATION: East line of College Main, just north of University Drive YEAR BUILT: ±1950, renovated 1980 and 1990 EFFECTIVE AGE: ±25 years MANAGEMENT FIRM: Owner - Jim Hughes (696 -3095) NUMBER OF STORIES: One NET RENTABLE AREA: 1,650 square feet OCCUPANCY RATE: 100% ANNUAL RENT PER SQ . FT .: $8.40 EXPENSES (LESSOR /TENANT PAYS) T Electricity T Water /Sewer T Real Estate Taxes T Insurance T Common Area Maintenance L Structural & Exterior Maintenance PERCENTAGE INCOME: None quoted NORMAL LEASE TERM IN YEARS: Two years REMARKS: This property was reported to be in average overall condition. mow •Go :. • A pp al • N y° G AG S . ';� <iT ��- I t�9 rnvo . 00 9� • Comparable Rentals J ' 1, r _ v \� ° Q. of �^ �` aoll • re ..\„,..,,, . , ••• G \ ^ \ ' � � � � �\ NAVIDA `. Z G • f 034 11 111% co ��'� \�`' RIO • 6R 0 L . ° '4) 4)14 1 • • ' \\-\0 \, \\ FRl • ° s P� • O G y c G � �' v o P y211 lo 1111111 A --$. 4, . . • ' . 1.* 1 %.s. . ''' :z . °7 t; N ■0111ta 0 r .. a o G � y ti eo tr,7 � a 9 $ • • EgeA " � 0:0-6,1010t. — .., _ ___ _ ._.. 0 _ Ili , 1, oP Ve . • tk.% i t* . \('-- s -„,..., , :A/07,q. ..\ ... . : ..-u . . /*/:' 1 \ V' • -I tt ..*:.4.....) if:2" 0°Z$ °It ,. X 00 `� ; � s • s��° ; • • • z • (r, ° • a o P O � Refit . ,. • ■ ,, OP S. .. .. 4- 0 i i• p.ti 8 ii\ St . - t l c� � �� . ,. ,ek � ,l. 0 i o 140y itroalpisPri js. r • 111/ . 4 114/41 S: iv :. 0 el se.:41 . . iir \ . :.•:::: :••• ..•::::::::::.:.: ‘ :i .•.... : A. o 101 ..h.. . . N.- _A s .........--- • . -...-"........--.::::....,-.,....:...::::.::......:.........:. . ..::..:.:..:.....". 9 t ____--- r RPRISE o Z � r Q Z cIN �s� 117 .1 •1�,w St•.E 313 COLLEGE MAIN y r. 1 t: • [ �• FRONT VIEW OF SUBJECT PROPERTY • ,cam' )1 r � - 'sue- REAR VIEW OF SUBJECT PROPERTY II I P 313 COLLEGE MAIN 1 ,,,,,,,,, .• ",: • ,4 • 1 1111 .. • A� ..„ • \` . f' ..., . , . v .;,,.., . • -,..... .•• 4: v ..- .. .......,..• ...._ 1 _ , ...„_„,... ,,. .. , . . , ....,,. SIDE VIEW OF SUBJECT PROPERTY N, • 1 ,...... ...., • . , .... ...... ....__, . ___--- ., ,. -______ -....,...... _ _____ , ..., . ,_.. .. ;a _ . _____ ____ __ . : .. •..• _ _ • _ _ _, SIDE VIEW OF SUJBECT PROPERTY 313 COLLEGE MAIN .•t J . , j �F 1 a 2 . . Q r ! .' : :fi • g ,:',...,•-• VIEW OF SUBJECT'S PARKING AREA - - - -- - -.. tx }_ • - �I T 4 ji S a \` W _ _ . \ - .. ' • i' a 4 : 1 1. . — . , 's : ill \ a• . cs + 1 a N .. W,. : ; ",fir " �t�Fa roy r ; '� 1 VIEW LOOKING NORTH ON COLLEGE MAIN 6 313 COLLEGE MAIN • wi z � I r M di j. L � ! � ' i 7r,2_141_.... . - -_ _. -- fi r' i r� _ '1.1 'fE1 \ - r".1 ,POOMINIME 1.1 VIEW LOOKING SOUTH ON COLLEGE MAIN