64
SUMMARY APPRAISAL REPORT ZENEDA PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP East side of Shady Hills Road North of State Road 52 Pasco County, Florida For McGee & Mason, P.A.
SUMMARY APPRAISAL REPORT
ZENEDA PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP East side of Shady Hills Road
North of State Road 52 Pasco County, Florida
For
McGee & Mason, P.A.
SUMMARY APPRAISAL REPORT
ZENEDA PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP East side of Shady Hills Road
North of State Road 52 Pasco County, Florida
For
McGee & Mason, P.A. 10 1 South Main Street
Brooksville, Florida 34605
Attention
Mr. Joseph M. Mason, Jr. Attorney at Law
Effective Date of Appraisal: January 26,2007
(Date of Inspection): January 24,2008
Date of Report: January 24,2008
Copyright O 2008 by Oxtal Real Estate Advisors, Inc. All rights reserved.
OXTAL REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC. 1 102 W. Cass Street
Tampa, Florida 33606 (8 13) 209-96 16
www.oxtalrea.com
Ronald A. Oxtal, MAI, President State-Certified General Appraiser #RZ265
1 102 W. Cass Street Tampa, Florida 33606 (8 13) 209-96 16 (8 13) 209-95 1 5 (Fax) [email protected] www.oxtalrea.com
January 24,2008
McGee & Mason, P.A. 101 South Main Street Brooksville, Florida 34605
Attention: Mr. Joseph M. Mason, Jr.
Re: ZENEDA PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP East side of Shady Hills Road North of State Road 52 Pasco County, Florida File No.: 2007-1 22
Dear Mr. Mason:
We have performed an appraisal of the above-captioned property, presented in a summary report, for the purpose of developing market value opinions of the fee simple interest under two scenarios. The property is vacant land, located on the east side of Shady Hills Road, north of State Road 52 in Pasco County, Florida.
On January 26, 2007, Pasco County implemented the Critical Linkage Corridor, which impacted the subject property and effectively limited development potential on 42.1 3 acres of land currently owned by Zeneda Partners Limited Partnership.
Prior to the Critical Linkage Corridor instituted by Pasco County with an effective date of January 26, 2007, the property had 96.55 net acres. The Critical Linkage Corridor essentially took 42.13 acres of land to be used as a wildlife corridor leaving 54.42 acres after implementation of this program.
We have been asked to provide a valuation under the before and after conditions for the subject property to assist in negotiations and potential litigation for a claim under the Bert J. Harris Private Property Rights Protection Act. We have first estimated the value of the parcel prior to the implementation of the Critical Linkage. Secondly, we
have estimated the value of the parcel after the Critical Linkage was implemented. These values are retrospective as the effective date of our analysis (date of value), January 26,2007.
A complete legal description, further identification of the subject property, and a discussion of pertinent valuation influences may be found in the body of the following report. This is a summary report and additional information may be found in our file, which is incorporated herein by reference.
It should be noted that essential land planning elements were provided by King Helie Planning Group, Inc. (dated August 16, 2007) to assist in determining the physical and economic impact of the Critical Linkage Corridor.
After considering the various factors and forces that influence the property under appraisement, we have concluded to the following market value opinions. The effective date of appraisal is January 26, 2007.
Retrospective Market Value Prior to Implementation of Critical Linkage
This is a retrospective value of the subject site as of January 2007 and represents the fee simple interest. This value opinion is prior to implementation of the Critical Linkage Corridor. The market data indicates an exposure time of 12 months. Based on current conditions, we have estimated a marketing time of 12 months.
ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
Retrospective Market Value After Implementation of Critical Linkage
This is a retrospective value of the subject site as of January 26, 2007 and represents the fee simple interest. This value opinion assumes the Critical Linkage Corridor is in place. The market data indicates an exposure time of 12 months. Based on current conditions, we have estimated a marketing time of 12 months.
EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
The impact of the Critical Linkage produces a significant value reduction due to the loss of density and quality conservation-oriented views. Our analysis is a retrospective analysis as of January 26, 2007 and considers market conditions' as of that time. The resultant damage or change in value resulting from the Critical Linkage determination is estimated as follows as of January 26,2007.
Prior Critical Linkage $1,460,000 After Critical Linkage $ 830,000 Estimated damages $ 630,000
The attached appraisal is subject to and contingent upon certain extraordinary assumption(s)/hypothetical condition(s) that are outlined in the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions section of the following report.
The attached appraisal was prepared in conformance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and the Code of Professional Ethics as promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation and the Appraisal Institute. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.
The following report sets forth our reasoning, methodology, assumptions and limiting conditions, and conclusions. Should you have any questions regarding the following document, please contact Mr. Oxtal.
Respectfully submitted,
OXTAL REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC.
Ronald A. Oxtal, MA1 President State-Certified General Appraiser #RZ265
CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISAL
We (1) certify that, to the best of our (my) knowledge and belief:
The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are (is) our (my) personal, impartial, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.
We (I) have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and we (I) have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment.
Our (my) engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results.
Our (my) compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.
Our (my) analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in conformity with (and the use of this report is subject to) the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics of the Appraisal Institute and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) as promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.
Except as noted herein, no one has provided significant professional assistance to the person(s) signing this report. No individuals other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions, and opinions concerning real estate that are set forth in this appraisal report. King Helie Planning Group, Inc. provided site plans and planning analysis for consideration in our report. This input was integral to our conclusion.
The value opinion(s) in this report were not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or for the approval of any loan.
Adasom, Ii.
Ronald A. Oxtal, MAI, has made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report and has considered all known or discoverable factors considered to affect the value thereof.
Lance F. Ponton has made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report and has considered all known or discoverable factors considered to affect the value thereof.
Based on the effective date of appraisal, January 26,2007, we have concluded to the following market value opinions.
Retrospective Market Value Prior to Implementation of Critical Linkage
This is a retrospective value of the subject site as of January 2007 and represents the fee simple interest. This value opinion is prior to implementation of the Critical Linkage Corridor. The market data indicates an exposure time of 12 months. Based on current conditions, we have estimated a marketing time of 12 months.
ONE MILLION POUR HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
Retrospective Market Value After Implementation of Critical Linkage
This is a retrospective value of the subject site as of January 26, 2007 and represents the fee simple interest. This value opinion assumes the Critical Linkage Corridor is in place. The market data indicates an exposure time of 12 months. Based on current conditions, we have estimated a marketing time of 12 months.
EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
The impact of the Critical Linkage produces a significant value reduction due to the loss of density and quality conservation-oriented views. Our analysis is a retrospective analysis as of January 26, 2007 and considers market conditions as of that time. The resultant damage or change in value resulting from the Critical Linkage determination is estimated as follows as of January 26,2007.
Prior Critical Linkage $1,460,000 After Critical Linkage $ 830,000 Estimated damages $ 630,000
As of the date of this report, Ronald A. Oxtal, MAI, has completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. Mr. Oxtal is also currently certified under the Florida State Certification Program for appraisers. Mr. Oxtal is also certified under the Georgia State Certification Program.
Certified by,
OXTAL REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC.
Ronald A. Oxtal, MAI, President Certificate No. 72 12 State-Certified General Appraiser #RZ265
1
Lance F. Ponton Associate Appraiser State-Certified General Appraiser #RZ306 1
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
Advrsom, I i .
This appraisal report has been made with the following general assumptions:
No responsibility is assumed for the legal description or for matters including legal or title considerations. Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated.
The property is appraised free and clear of any or all liens or encumbrances unless otherwise stated.
Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed.
The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable. However, no warranty is given for its accuracy.
All engineering is assumed to be correct. The plot plans and illustrative materials in this report are included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property.
It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable, No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover them.
It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless noncompliance is stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report.
The date of value to which the opinions in this report apply is set forth in the letter of transmittal. The appraiser assumes no responsibility for economic or physical factors occumng at some later date, which may affect the opinions stated herein.
It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report.
It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or reviewed for any use on which the value opinion contained in this report is based. .
11. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted in the report.
12. Subsurface rights (minerals and oil) were not considered in making this report unless otherwise stated.
13. The tracts according to survey, map or plat, indicate riparian rights andlor littoral rights are assumed to go with the property unless easements or deeds of record were found by the appraiser to the contrary.
14. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material, which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the appraiser. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The value opinion is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired.
This appraisal report has been made with the following general limiting conditions:
1. The distribution, if any, of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate allocations for land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used.
2. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person or party, other than the party or client to whom it is addressed and prepared for, without the written consent of the appraiser; and in any such event only with proper written
' qualificationts) and only in its entirety. The appraisal is not intended to influence any third party's investment decisions.
3. It should be noted that the appraiser has no ability to predict future events. Our estimates of market value as of future dates are based upon known supply and demand conditions existing in the current market. The appraisers have researched market conditions and know of no conditions, which would contribute to a lower market value of the subject over a typical loan term or holding period. However,
Advrsom, I i . it is the nature of risk in the real estate industry that such highly volatile and unpredictable factors as supply (new construction) and demand (absorption rates) can fluctuate, exerting measurable upward/downward pressure on market value over the course of time. Other influences on value include changes in national economic conditions, tax or interest rates.
4. The appraiser herein by reason of this appraisal is not required to give further consultation, testimony, or be in attendance in court with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been previously made.
5 . Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the prior written consent and approval of the appraiser.
6. Information regarding the subject property was furnished by the following individual(s):
NamelPhone Rela tion Information Supplied
Beverly Helie / 727-863-7006 Land planner Proposed site plans
Data furnished by the above source(s) is deemed reliable. Any inaccuracies in this information will void our market value opinion.
Extraordinary Assumption(s)
w e have been asked to provide a valuation under two scenarios for the subject property to assist in negotiations and potential litigation for a claim under the Bert J. Harris Private Property Rights Protection Act. We have first estimated the value prior to the implementation of the Critical Linkage. Secondly, we have estimated the value after the implementation of the Critical Linkage. These values are retrospective as the effective date of our analysis (date of value), January 26,2007.
2. We have relied on site plans and other data provided by King Helie Planning Group, Inc. King Helie Planning Group has experience in designing single family residential projects and this planning and analysis was integral to our appraisal.
3. A Legal Description was not provided. The Legal Description used was from public record and no legal description was furnished for the Critical Linkage impact area. All acreages were provided by King Helie Planning Group, Inc. and are assumed to be correct.
APPRAISAL REPORT
Name of Property: ZENEDA PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Location: East side of Shady Hills Road North of State Road 52 Pasco County, Florida
Folio/Parcel No.: 30-24-1 8-0000-00 100-0000
Client: McGee & Mason, P.A.
Intended Use of Appraisal: Our appraisal analysis and the following report are intended for use in negotiations and possible litigation for a claim under the Bert J. Harris Private Property Rights Protection Act regarding the impact of the Pasco County Critical Linkage Plan implemented with an effective date of January 26, 2007 o the subject site. Our appraisal analysis and the report are not intended for any other use.
Intended User of Appraisal: Intended user is defined as the client, and any other party as identified, by name or type, as users of the appraisal, consulting, or review report, by the appraiser based on communication with the client at the time of the assignment.
Purpose and Date of Appraisal: The purpose of this appraisal is first to estimate the market value prior to the implementation of the Critical Linkage and then estimate the value after the implementation of the Critical Linkage. The difference in the valuations is the resultant damage to the property. The effective date of the appraisal was January 26, 2007. Our final date of inspection was January 24,2008.
Interest Appraised: The fee simple interest in the subject property has been appraised. Other liens and encumbrances, if any, have been disregarded and the subject property has been analyzed as if fiee and clear.
Scope of Appraisal: The subject property is located on the east side of Shady Hills Road, north of State Road 52 in Pasco County, Florida. Prior to the Critical Linkage, the property had 96.55 net acres. The proposed site plans were provided by King Helie Planning Group, Inc. The site plans are an important component of this analysis and have been relied upon in our value conclusion. Zoning, land use, utilities, tax data and other public information was obtained from various governmental authorities.
A final inspection of the property occurred on January 24, 2008, and included examining the land and topography of the property, as well as the roads providing access to the site. The subject was inspected by Lance F. Ponton and Ronald A. Oxtal.
Adwon, I i .
We have gathered both state and local government information that was analyzed and presented in various sections of this report. A study of the subject neighborhood was also conducted regarding access, land uses and trends, concurrency, demographics, and competition.
Once all the data was gathered, we analyzed the subject property with regard to its highest and best use "as vacant". This involved considering what is legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible and maximally productive for the subject property.
This appraisal is presented in a summary report and the Sales Comparison Approach was used to develop value opinions for the subject. Additional data may be found in our report file which is incorporated by reference. This approach is explained in the Valuation section of this report. We have been asked to provide a valuation under two scenarios for the subject property to assist in negotiations and potential litigation for a claim under the Bert J. Harris Private Property Rights Protection Act. We have first estimated the value of the parcel based on the parcel's net acreage prior to the impact of the Critical Linkage. Secondly, we have estimated the value of the parcel's net acreage after implementation of the Critical Linkage Corridor. These values are retrospective as the effective date of our analysis (date of value), January 26, 2007.
Data researched included listings and potential sales from the inspection of the immediate neighborhood, brokers, public records, and our own database. Each site used was inspected by Mr. Oxtal.
Competency Statement: The appraisers have significant experience in appraising the type of property noted and meet the competency requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).
Definition of Market Value: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition are the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
1. buyer and seller are typically motivated;
2. both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what they consider their own best interest;
3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
A h o m , I i . 4. payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and
5. the price repiesents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.
Source: OCC, FDIC, USPAP
Important factors affecting market value include the time element, neighborhood and economic changes as well as anticipation thereof. Market prices do not necessarily follow all of these concepts and are often affected by salesmanship and the urgency and need of the buyer andlor the seller. At a given moment in time, market value is the most probable selling price subject to the aforementioned conditions while market price is the amount for which the property actually sells.
The market value opinion of the property appraised in this report was developed based on investigations as of the date shown in the Certificate of Appraisal. Constantly changing economic conditi.ons have varying effects upon real property values. Even after the passage of a relatively short period of time, property values may change substantially and require a review of the appraisal and recertification.
Definition of Fee Simple Estate (Interest): Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat.
Source: Dictionary of Real Estate ADpraisal, Fourth Edition (Chicago, 2002) p. 1 13.
Definition of Reasonable Exposure Time: The estimated length of time the property interest being appraised would have been offered on the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale at market value on the effective date of the appraisal; a retrospective estimate based upon an analysis of past events assuming a competitive and open market.
Exposure Time is always presumed to precede the effective date of the appraisal. However, exposure time is not intended to be a prediction of a date of sale or a one-line statement. Instead, it is an integral part of the analysis conducted during the appraisal assignment. The opinion may be expressed as a range and can be based on one or more of the following:
A h o m , I i . * statistical information about days on the market and the appraisal
assignment * information gathered through sales verification; and interviews of market
participants
The Reasonable Exposure Time is a function of price, time, and use, not an isolated estimate of time alone. Exposure Time is different for various types of real estate and under various market conditions.
Exposure Time differs from Marketing Period, which is the period of time estimated to sell a property interest in real estate at the estimated market value during the period immediately after the effective date of the appraisal.
Source: Statement on Appraisal Standard No. 6, Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation, Adopted September 16, 1992, and Revised September 16, 1998.
Definition of Reasonable Marketing: Period: Reasonable Marketing Period is an opinion of the amount of time it might take to sell a property interest in real estate at the concluded market value level during the period immediately after the effective date of an appraisal.
Source: Advisory Odnion AO-7 of the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation
Legal Description: Please see the Addenda for a complete legal description of the parent parcel. The legal description for the Critical Linkage impact area was not provided. Sizes were provided by King Helie Planning Group, Inc. and are assumed to be correct.
History of the Subiect Propertv: The current owner of record is Zeneda Partners Limited Partnership. There were no sales within the last three years. The property is not reported to be listed for sale.
Neighborhood Description: The defined subject neighborhood is delineated by the following boundaries: PascoIHernando county line to the north, State Road 52 to the south, U.S. Highway 41 to the east, and Little Road to the west.
The subject site is located on the east side of Shady Hills Road, north of State Road 52. Shady Hills Road is a two lane undivided roadway that serves traffic operating in the north and south directions. The average daily traffic (AADT) count was 9,945 vehicles along Shady Hills Road, north of State Road 52. State Road 52 is a four lane divided road that serves traffic operating in east and west directions. The average daily traffic (AADT) count was 19,900 vehicles along State Road 52, east of the Suncoast Parkway. The Suncoast Parkway is the closest major roadway to the subject and provides easy access south to the Tampa area. State Road 52 was widened to the west of
the Suncoast Parkway from a two lane undivided road to a four to six lane divided road. This road improvement should improve access within the neighborhood and help provide for efficient traffic flow as the area continues to experience significant levels of new development. Some of the nearby subdivisions include Quail Ridge, Deerfield, Lone Star, Serengeti and Suncoast Lakes.
The subject is located in an area with significant amounts of available land for development. The Pasco area has experienced growth as the areas to the south, Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties, are becoming heavily built-out. Residential development has slowed significantly, but growth is anticipated to continue once the market stabilizes.
In the early to mid 2000s Pasco County experienced a surge in development and housing prices. From late 2005 to the date of appraisal the residential market experienced a significant decline in absorption and pricing as well as an increase in house and lot inventories. As a consequence, land prices along with other residential real estate have declined.
In summary, the neighborhood is an emerging area that has good access to Tampa, to the south, via the Suncoast Parkway. We expect the market will continue to struggle for up to two years and improve in late 2009 to 201 0.
Site Description: The property is located on the east side of Shady Hills Road, north of State Road 52 in Pasco County, Florida. Prior to the Critical Linkage Corridor being instituted by Pasco County with an effective date of January 26, 2007, the property consisted of 96.55 net acres. The Critical Linkage Corridor essentially took 43.12 acres of land to be used as a wildlife corridor leaving 54.42 acres after implementation. The eastern most portion of the property is mainly wetlands and Critical Linkage.
Zoninaand Use:
Flood Hazard:
AC, "Agricultural Commercial"1RES- 1 and Employment Center (small portion), by Pasco County. The RES-1 land use category allows 1 unit per acre density. A development concept designed by King Helie Planning Group, Inc. illustrated 104 single family units could be developed. Due to the Critical Linkage Impact, the property will allow only 59 single family lots in the after condition. The two site plans are preliminary and have not yet been approved by the county.
Zone A & X, Map No. 120230 0225 D Dated September 30, 1992
Utilities: Water Sewer Electric Telephone Police Fire
Pasco County Pasco County Florida Power Verizon Pasco County Pasco County
Highest and Best Use: Highest and best use is the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and results in the highest value.
The estimation of highest and best use results from the appraiser's judgment and analytical skill. The ultimate determination of highest and best use is shaped by market forces and may change over time.
The first step is to analyze the vacant site and determine the highest and best use. Sometimes that use will differ from the existing use, if the property is improved. Next, the property is analyzed, as improved, to see if the improvements measure up to the ultimate or most probable concept of highest and best use. If land value, as vacant, exceeds the property value, as improved, the improvements are no longer the highest and best use and may be an interim use until it is prudent to redevelop the property.
In the analysis of the subject, consideration has been given to the physical characteristics of the site including size, shape, location, access to transportation arteries, and the availability of utilities. Furthermore, consideration was given to existing zoning, possible zoning changes, surrounding land uses, and demand for various types of uses.
The following sections discuss the elements of highest and best use as vacant and improved. Included in these aspects are the legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, and maximally productive considerations of developing real estate.
"As Vacant" Analysis - Prior Critical Linkage
Legally Permissible
The subject property is zoned AC, "Agricultural Commercial" with a RES-I, "Residential" land use by Pasco County. The zoning allows for only 1 unit per ten acres but the land use plan allows 1 unit per acre. The property was conceptually planned for up to 104 single family units in the before condition by King Helie Planning Group, Inc. Due to the Critical Linkage Impact, the property will only allow for 59 similar, single family lots in the after condition.
Physically Possible
In the before condition, the property includes a 96.55 net acre property (1 30.69 gross acres) located on the east side of Shady Hills Road, north of State Road 52 in Pasco County, Florida. In the after condition and subject to the Critical Linkage, the property is reduced to 54.42 net acres. The shape of the parcel and the location proximate to the wetland/conservation area promotes low density residential development with excellent view opportunities.
Financially Feasible
The financial feasibility of any given project is inherently related to supplyldemand characteristics, costs, financing, and overall market conditions. The above criteria suggest that residential development of the site is the most likely option.
According to Claritas, Inc., Pasco County has a 2007 estimated population of 439,5 10 residents. The projected 2012 population is 498,583 people indicating a 2.69% average annual growth. The average household size within the county is 2.32 persons per household and approximately 83.35% of households are owner-occupied.
Based on population projections for Pasco County for the next five years, there will be approximately 59,073 new residents, or 11,814 per year, on average. Given an average household size of 2.32 persons, there will be a need for approximately 5,093 new housing units per year on average. Assuming that 83.35% of the population will own (versus rent), the projected need for owner occupied housing units is 4,245 units per year on average within Pasco County. This data generally supports residential development within the county. There is presently a surplus of lots and housing and a projected slow down in 'growth over the next two years. This will have an adverse impact on development sites countywide, until the backlog is absorbed. New construction is down and although recent population statistics show a slowdown in growth compared to past years, there is still positive growth that will work towards shrinking this inventory.
The subject neighborhood has good linkages and access to employment centers and services and substantial new development is occurring in the neighborhood. The wetland/conservation orientation is a favorable characteristic for this property.
Maximally Productive
Based upon the three previous criteria inherent in the Highest and Best Use, we are of the opinion that the maximally productive development of the subject property is ultimately for development of a single family residential community, but as the residential real estate market has slowed tremendously, the site should be inventoried until market conditions improve.
"As Vacant" Analvsis - Considering Critical Linkapre
After the Critical Linkage the project site declines to 59 units and other highest and best use characteristics are similar.
Summary and Conclusions
In essence, it is our opinion, based on the planning analysis by King Helie Planning Group, Inc., that a significant reduction in utility and value has occurred to the property by comparison to the original site plan.
Valuation Procedure: The valuation of income producing real estate lends itself to application of the three traditional approaches to value; i.e., the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Capitalization Approach. All of these techniques are market oriented, being premised upon actions and attitudes of typical market participants.
The Cost Approach analyzes the relationship between value and cost as perceived by the investor. By applying this technique, the appraiser estimates the difference in worth to a buyer between the property under appraisement and a property with similar utility. The application of this approach involves estimating a number of individual components such as land value, reproduction or replacement cost, entrepreneurial profit, and the amount of accrued depreciation. This technique is most applicable when appraising relatively new or proposed construction with a limited amount of accrued depreciation. However, it is also useful (but less effective) when appraising older structures.
The Sales Comparison Approach involves a detailed analysis and comparison of like properties, which were recently sold, contracted, or listed in the same or competitive market. When reduced to an appropriate unit of comparison, these transactions can be adjusted for pertinent differences such as, market conditions, financing, location and/or physical characteristics. If a sufficient number of sales are available, the resultant value indication is a reflection of the price the subject could command, recognizing the principle of substitution. The interpretation of a number of indications of market price should lead to a logical opinion of market value.
The Income Capitalization Approach is typically the most reliable technique in valuing income-producing property because income considerations are the primary decision making parameter of market participants. In formulating a value opinion via this technique, consideration is given to potential income, expenses and the rate of return required by an investor in the prevailing market. Once the net income is established, it is
then converted to value via the capitalization process. This technique analyzes the future benefits of ownership.
The remaining step in the valuation process is to analyze the results of each approach by re-evaluating all pertinent data to arrive at a final conclusion of value. Although each of the techniques produces an independent indication of value, they are interrelated and integrated techniques, which are dependent upon the operation of market forces.
Valuation Methodology
The subject is vacant land which is valued via the Sales Comparison Approach by analyzing the sale of comparable sites. The Income Capitalization and Cost Approaches are not applicable in the valuation of vacant land and have been excluded from our analysis.
We have been asked to provide a valuation under two scenarios for the subject property to assist in negotiations and potential litigation for a claim under the Bert J. Harris Private Property Rights Protection Act. We have first estimated the value of the parcel prior to the implementation of the Critical Linkage. Secondly, we have estimated the value of the parcel subsequent to the implementation of the Critical Linkage.
RETROSPECTIVE MARKET VALUE (PRIOR TO THE CRITICAL LINKAGE)
Ahikon, I i . SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
The Sales Comparison Approach involves a detailed comparison of the subject property to similar properties, which have recently sold in the same or competitive market. This approach is based primarily on the Principle of Substitution, which states that when several commodities or services with substantially the same utility are available, the lower price attracts the greatest demand and widest distribution. In other words, a prudent investor/purchaser would not pay more to acquire a given property in the market, considering that an alternative property may be purchased for less.
The procedure used in the Sales Comparison Approach is as follows:
1. Research the market to obtain information relative to transactions (listings, sales, etc.) of properties similar to the subject.
2. Qualify the data as to terms, motivating forces, or bona fide nature.
3. Determine the relevant units of comparison, price per square foot, per unit, etc.
4. Compare the comparables to the subject and make adjustments to the comparable prices (or per unit prices) to account for differences such as location, physical characteristics, etc.
5 . Reconcile between the value indications from the various comparables and analysis techniques to conclude a value indication for the subject.
We have gathered comparable vacant land sales from throughout the subject's market area. The sales considered most pertinent to the valuation of the subject property are included on the following pages. Consistent with our highest and best use analysis and based on the proposed site plan, there are 96.55 net acres that will accommodate 104 units according to the site plan formulated by King Helie Planning Group, Inc. A summary and adjustment grid for the comparables follows the sales.
LAND COMPARABLE NO. 1
Location:
Date:
Recording Data:
Grantor:
Grantee:
Legal Descri~tion:
Sale Price:
Unit of Comparison:
Financing:
NWIs of Old Pasco Rd, N of Country Club Dr. Wesley Chapel, Pasco County, FL
O.R. Book 7281; Page 0581
Quail Hollow Golf and Country Club, Inc.
Landshore of Quail Hollow, LLC
Section 1, Township 26, Range 19, Pasco County. Exact legal to lengthy for reproduction herewith. Folio/Parcel #: 01 -26- 19-0000-00400-0000
$43,389/Net acre; $l.OO/Net S.F.; $25,267/Unit
Cash to seller
Exposure Time:
Size:
Dimensions:
ZonindLand Use:
Density:
Topography:
Utilities:
Comments:
AdL-om, I i .
7,611,239 S.F; 174.73 Acres
Irregular
1.72 UPNA
Naturally level at or above road grade
Available
This site is currently operating as Quail Hollow Golf and Country Club. It was purchased by a developer for the development of single family homes. Due to the current condition of the single family home market, the developer intends to continue to operate the golf course as is until the market for single family homes warrants the development of.the property. The property is entitled to almost 300 homes without rezoning and the developer says the county land use plan would allow them to argue for 660 homes on the site but in the end they expect to build about 600 homes. The property was under contract for approximately 14 months prior to closing.
LAND COMPARABLE NO. 2 20587
Location:
Date:
Recording Data:
Grantor:
Grantee:
Legal Description:
Sale Price:
Unit of Comparison:
East and west sides of Curley Road south of Elam Road
O.R. Book 6838, Page 1888
Haydon-Rubin Development, Inc.
Centex Homes
Sections 26 and 35, Township 25 South, Range 20 Pasco County. Exact legal too lengthy for reproduction herewith. Folio/Parcel #'s: 26-25-20-0000-00400-0000 & 35-25- 20-0000-00200-00 1 0
$24'65 11Gross Acre; $0.57/Gross S.F.; $39,312/Net Acre; $0.90/Net S.F.; $17,11Srnnit
Financing:
Exposure Time:
Size:
Dimensions:
ZonindLand - Use:
Density:
Tovomaphy:
Utilities:
Comments:
Cash
9,452,520 S.F; 2 17 Acres
Irregular
MPUD, "Master Planned Unit Development"/ RES-3, by Pasco County
1.45 UPA
Level, at road grade
All available
This property is located on the east and west sides of Curley Road south of Elam Road in Wesley Chapel, Pasco County, Florida. The site comprises two parcels (157 acres and 60 acres) that total 217 gross acres. Due to wetlands there are 136.7 usable acres. The buyer, Centex Homes, is planning to build a 314-lot single family residential subdivision. The property was rezoned prior to closing to allow for a single family residential subdivision.
LAND COMPARABLE NO. 3
Adikoys, I i . 19079 -
Location:
Date:
Recording; Data:
Grantor:
Grantee:
Legal Description:
Sale Price:
Unit of Comparison:
NWIq of State Road 52 and Suncoast Parkway
O.R. Book 6284, Page 0149
Serengeti LLC
Serengeti Development LLC
Section 1, Township 25 South, Range 17 East, Pasco County. Exact legal too lengthy for reproduction herewith. Folio/Parcel #'s: 01 -25- 17-0000-001 00-0000; #6-25-18- 0000-00300-00 10
$29,286/Unit; $0.39/Gross S.F.; $16,966/Gross Acre; $0.78/Net S.F.; $33,93l/Net Acre; $29,286Nnit
Financing:
2007- 122
Cash
Exposure Time:
Size:
Dimensions:
ZonindLand Use:
Densitv:
Tovomaphy:
Utilities:
Comments:
6,316,200 S.F.; 145 Acres
Irregular
MPUD, Planned Development, by Pasco County
1.16 UPA
Level, at road grade
All available
This site is located in the northwest quadrant of State Road 52 and Suncoast Parkway in Pasco County, Florida. The property was zoned prior to contract by Lexington Homes (Serengeti LLC). Lexington Homes sold the property to Serengeti Development LLC to be developed with the agreement that the developer would sell the lots back to Lexington Homes. The property is planned for 168 single family residential lots.
A h o m , Im. LAND COMPARABLE NO. 4 18546
Location:
Date:
Recording Data:
Grantor:
Grantee:
Lena1 Description:
Sale Price:
Unit of Comvarison:
Wls U.S. Highway 41, north of S.R. 52 (Pasco County)
O.R. Book 61 97, Page 41
James Pitzer Gills, Jr.
S.R. 52 Development, LLC
A parcel of land located in Section 04, Township 25, Range 18, Pasco County, Florida. The complete legal description is too lengthy for reproduction herein. FolioIParcel #'s: 04-25-1 8-0000-00800-0000 & 03-25- 1 8-0000-00700-0000
$25,594lGross Acre; $0.59/Gross S.F.; $37,234/Net Acre; $0.85/Net S.F.; $16,667/Unit
Financing:
2007- 122
Cash
Exposure Time:
Size:
Dimensions:
Zoninaand Use:
Density:
Topowaphy:
Utilities:
Comments:
16,378,560 S.F; 376 Acres
Irregular
MPUD, "Master Planned Unit Development", by Pasco County
2.23 UPNA
Level, at road grade
All available
This property is located on the west side of U.S. Highway 41, north of State Road 52 in Pasco County. The seller has rezoned the property to allow for an 840 lot single family residential subdivision. The buyer is planning an 840 lot subdivision. The site contains 547 gross acres and 376 are usable.
LAND COMPARABLE NO. 5 - 20610
Location:
Date:
Recording Data:
Grantor:
Grantee:
Legal Description:
Sale Price:
Unit of Comparison:
Financing:
East side of Hays Road, north of State Road 52
1 /2005
O.R. Book 6196 Page 0132,0136,0134
Various Sellers
Chesterfield Park Associates
A tract of land being a part of Section 36, Township 24 South, Range 17 West of the Pasco County Folio/Parcel #'s: 36-24-1 7-0000-00700-0050; 36-24-1 7- 0000-00700-0040 & 36-24-1 7-0000-00700-001 0
$12,40l/Net Acre; $1 2,401lUnit
Cash to seller
4 Exposure Time: N/ A
- Size: 2,3 18,5 16 S.F; 53.22 Acres
Dimensions: Irregular
ZonindLand Use: AG, "Agricultural" and RMF, "Residential Multi- Family"
- Density:
3
- To~onraphv: Generally level, at road grade
II Utilities: All available
!I Comments: This site is located on the east side of Hays Road, north
of State Road 52 in Pasco County. The buyer purchased the properties based on the potential development of 1 .OO units per acre.
North of State Road 52 and Country Club Drive South of EIam and Suncoast Parkway North of State Road 52 North of State Road 52
Pasco County
AC R- 1 MPUD MPUD MPUD AG and RMF
All available All available All available All available All available
Net Area (Acres):
Density (UPNA): r 2.30
Conditions of Sale
Market Conditions NIA Similar Similar Somewhat Superior Somewhat Superior Somewhat Superior
Good Superior Somewhat Superior
96.55 Similar Similar Similar Inferior Somewhat Superior
AC Somewhat Superior Somewhat Superior Somewhat Superior Somewhat Superior
1.08 Slightly Inferior Somewhat Inferior Similar Somewhat Inferior
All available
Adtzsom, I i .
LAND COMPARABLES MAP
Analysis of the Land Comparables
The foregoing sales were utilized to estimate the market value of the subject property. The unadjusted prices range from $12,401 to $29,286 per unit. We have used a qualitative comparison of the comparables and the subject property to determine a likely range of value for the subject. These qualitative comparisons were presented in the preceding grid and are explained in the following text.
We have considered sales from the subject's neighborhood and comparable areas as being relevant to this analysis. Sales used were analyzed on a price per unit basis, because that is the index most widely used by market participants. A variety of characteristics were analyzed including: financing, conditions of sale, market conditions, location, size, zoning, utilities, access, and physical characteristic.
Comparable No. 20473
This property is located in a similar area of Pasco. The sale occurred in November 2006. This property is considered similar to the subject in regard to financing, conditions of sale, market conditions, size, utilities, access and physical characteristics. The location is considered superior to the subject. The zoning is considered somewhat superior to the subject. The density is considered slightly inferior to the subject. Overall, this comparable is substantially superior to the subject property, at $25,267 per unit, and we believe the subject's pricing should be well lower than this indication.
Comparable No. 20587
This property is located in a similar area of Pasco. The sale occurred in February 2006. This property is considered similar to the subject in regard to financing, conditions of sale, market conditions, size, utilities, access and physical characteristics. The location is considered somewhat superior to the subject. The zoning is considered somewhat superior to the subject. The density is considered somewhat inferior to the subject. Overall, this comparable is somewhat superior to the subject property, at -$17,115 per unit, and we believe the subject's pricing should be lower than this indication.
Comparable No. 19079
This property is located in Pasco County. The sale occurred in March 2005. This property is considered similar to the subject in regard to financing, location, size, density, utilities, access and physical characteristics. The conditions of sale are considered superior to the subject as the seller was buying the lots back from the buyer in a prearranged deal. The market conditions are considered somewhat superior to the subject. The zoning is considered somewhat superior to the subject. Overall, this comparable is substantially superior to the subject property, at $29,286 per unit, and we believe the subject's pricing should be well lower than this indication.
Comparable No. 18546
This property is located in a similar area of Pasco. The sale occurred in January 2005. This property is considered similar to the subject in regard to financing, conditions of sale, location, utilities, access and physical characteristics. The market conditions are considered somewhat superior to the subject. The size is considered inferior to the subject. The zoning is considered somewhat superior to the subject. The density is considered somewhat inferior to the subject. Overall, this comparable is somewhat superior to the subject property, at $16,667 per unit, and we believe the subject's pricing should be lower than this indication.
Comparable No. 20610
This property is located in a similar area of Pasco. The sale occurred in January 2005. This property is considered similar to the subject in regard to financing, conditions of sale, zoning, density, utilities, access and physical characteristics. The market conditions are considered somewhat superior to the subject. The location is considered inferior to the subject. The size is considered somewhat superior to the subject. Overall, this comparable is slightly inferior to the subject property, at $12,401 per unit, and we believe the subject's pricing should be higher than this indication.
Summary
The following table summarizes the above comparables.
SUMMARY OF SALES
Price Per Unit Comparability
Comparable No. 19079 $29,286 Substantially Superior
Comparable No. 20473 $25,267 Substantially Superior
Comparable No. 20587 $17,115 Somewhat Superior
Comparable No. 18546 $16,667 Somewhat Superior
Subject 814,000 NIA
Comparable No. 20610 $12,401 Slightly Inferior
The comparables analyzed range from $12,401 to $29,286 per unit. We believe that the subject's pricing should be in between Comparable Nos. 2061 0 and 18546. Based on the above analysis, we have estimated the value of the subject site at $14,000 per unit. The market value of the subject via the Sales Comparison Approach can be calculated as follows:
$14,00O/Unit x 104 Units - - $1,456,000
RETROSPECTIVE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE CRITICAL LINKAGE (Rounded) $1,460,000
3 1
RETROSPECTIVE MARKET VALUE {AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CRITICAL LINKAGE)
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
The Sales Comparison Approach involves a detailed comparison of the subject property to similar properties, which have recently sold in the same or competitive market. This approach is based primarily on the Principle of Substitution, which states that when several commodities or services with substantially the same utility are available, the lower price attracts the greatest demand and widest distribution. In other words, a prudent investor/purchaser would not pay more to acquire a given property in the market, considering that an alternative property may be purchased for less.
The procedure used in the Sales Comparison Approach is as follows:
1. Research the market to obtain information relative to transactions (listings, sales, etc.) of properties similar to the subject.
2. Qualify the data as to terms, motivatingforces, or bona fide nature.
3. Determine the relevant units of comparison, price per square foot, per unit, etc.
4. Compare the comparables to the subject and make adjustments to the comparable prices (or per unit prices) to account for differences such as location, physical characteristics, etc.
5 . Reconcile between the value indications from the various comparables and analysis techniques to conclude a value indication for the subject.
We have gathered comparable vacant land sales fiom throughout the subject's market area. The sales considered most pertinent to the valuation of the subject property are included on the following pages. Consistent with our highest and best use analysis and based on the proposed site plan, there are 54.42 net acres that will accommodate 59 units according to a site plan provided by King Helie Planning Group, Inc. A summary and adjustment grid for the comparables follows the sales.
Advlsom, Im. LAND COMPARABLE NO. 1 20473
Location:
Date:
Recording Data:
Grantor:
Grantee:
Legal Description:
Sale Price:
Unit of Comparison:
Financing:
NWIs of Old Pasco Rd, N of Country Club Dr. Wesley Chapel, Pasco County, FL
O.R. Book 728 1 ; Page 058 1
Quail Hollow Golf and Country Club, Inc.
Landshore of Quail Hollow, LLC
Section 1, Township 26, Range 19, Pasco County. Exact legal to lengthy for reproduction herewith. FolioIParcel #: 0 1-26- 19-0000-00400-0000
$43,389/Net acre; $l.OO/Net S.F.; $25,2671Unit
Cash to seller
Exvosure Time:
Size:
Dimensions:
ZonindLand Use:
Density:
Topogsaphy:
Utilities:
Comments:
7,611,239 S.F; 174.73 Acres
Irregular
1.72 UPNA
Naturally level at or above road grade
Available
This site is currently operating as Quail Hollow Golf and Country Club. It was purchased by a developer for the development of single family homes. Due to the current condition of the single family home market, the developer intends to continue to operate the golf course as is until the market for single family homes warrants the development of the property. The property is entitled to almost 300 homes without rezoning and the developer says the county land use plan would allow them to argue for 660 homes on the site but in the end they expect to build about 600 homes. The property was under contract for approximately 14 months prior to closing.
LAND COMPARABLE NO. 2
Location:
Date:
Recording Data:
Grantor:
Grantee:
Legal Description:
Sale Price:
Unit of Comparison:
East and west sides of Curley Road south of Elam Road
O.R..Book 6838, Page 1888
Haydon-Rubin Development, Inc.
Centex Homes
Sections 26 and 35, Township 25 South, Range 20 Pasco County. Exact legal too lengthy for reproduction herewith. FolioIParcel #'s: 26-25-20-0000-00400-0000 & 35-25- 20-0000-00200-00 10
$24,65 11Gross Acre; $0.57/Gross S.F.; $39,3 12/Net Acre; $0.90/Net S.F.; $17,11 S/Unit
Financing:
Exposure Time:
Size:
Dimensions:
Zonindand Use:
Density:
Tovornavhv:
Utilities:
Comments:
Advrsom, Im. Cash
NIA
9,452,520 S.F; 217 Acres
Irregular
MPUD, "Master Planned Unit Development7'/ RES-3, by Pasco County
1.45 UPA
Level, at road grade
All available
This property is located an the east and west sides of Curley Road south of Elam Road in Wesley Chapel, Pasco County, Florida. The site comprises two parcels (157 acres and 60 acres) that total 217 gross acres. Due to wetlands there are 136.7 usable acres. The buyer, Centex Homes, is planning to build a 314-lot single family residential subdivision. The property was rezoned prior to closing to allow for a single family residential subdivision.
LAND COMPARABLE NO. 3
Advrsom, I i . 19079
Location:
Date:
Recording Data:
Grantor:
Grantee:
Legal Descrivtion:
Sale Price:
Unit of Comvarison:
NWIq of State Road 52 and Suncoast Parkway
O.R. Book 6284, Page 0149
Serengeti LLC
Serengeti Development LLC
Section 1, Township 25 South, Range 17 East, Pasco County. Exact legal too lengthy for reproduction herewith. FolioIParcel #'s: 01 -25-1 7-0000-001 00-0000; #6-25-18- 0000-00300-00 10
$29,286/Unit; $0.39/Gross S.F.; $16,966lGross Acre; $0.78/Net S.F.; $33,93l/Net Acre; $29,286/Unit
Financing:
2007- 122
Cash
Exposure Time:
Size:
Dimensions:
Zoninaand Use:
Density
Topography:
Utilities:
Comments:
6,3 16,200 S.F.; 145 Acres
Irregular
MPUD, Planned Development, by Pasco County
1.16 UPA
Level, at road grade
All available
This site is located in the northwest quadrant of State Road 52 and Suncoast Parkway in Pasco County, Florida. The property was zoned prior to contract by Lexington Homes (Serengeti LLC). Lexington Homes sold the property to Serengeti Development LLC to be developed with the agreement that the developer would sell the lots back to Lexington Homes. The property is planned for 168 single family residential lots.
LAND COMPARABLE NO. 4
Location:
Date:
Recording Data:
Grantor:
Grantee:
Legal Description:
Wls U.S. Highway 41, north of S.R. 52 (Pasco County)
O.R. Book 6197, Page 41
James Pitzer Gills, Jr.
S.R. 52 Development, LLC
A parcel of land located in Section 04, Township 25, Range 18, Pasco County, Florida. The complete legal description is too lengthy for reproduction herein. Folio/Parcel #'s: 04-25-1 8-0000-00800-0000 & 03-25- 18-0000-00700-0000
Sale Price:
Unit of Comparison: $25,594/Gross Acre; $0.59lGross S.F.; $37,234/Net Acre; $0.85/Net S.F.; $16,667/Unit
Cash
Exposure Time:
Size:
Dimensions:
ZonindLand Use:
Density:
Topomaphv:
Utilities:
Comments:
NIA
16,378,560 S.F; 376 Acres
Irregular
MPUD, "Master Planned Unit Development", by Pasco County
2.23 UPNA
Level, at road grade
All available
This property is located on the west side of U.S. Highway 41, north of State Road 52 in Pasco County. The seller has rezoned the property to allow for an 840 lot single family residential subdivision. The buyer is planning an 840 lot subdivision. The site contains 547 gross acres and 376 are usable.
LAND COMPARABLE NO. 5
Location: East side of Hays Road, north of State Road 52
Date: 112005
Recording Data: O.R. Book 6196 Page 0132,0136,0134
Grantor: Various Sellers
Grantee: Chesterfield Park Associates
Lena1 Description: A tract of land being a part of Section 36, Township 24 South, Range 17 West of the Pasco County Folio/Parcel #'s: 36-24-1 7-0000-00700-0050; 36-24-1 7- 0000-00700-0040 & 36-24-1 7-0000-00700-00 10
Sale Price: $660,000
Unit of Comparison: $12,40 1 /Net Acre; $12,40 1 /Unit
Financing: Cash to seller
Exposure Time:
Size:
Dimensions:
ZoningILand Use:
Density:
Tovograph y:
Utilities:
Comments:
2,318,516 S.F; 53.22 Acres
Irregular
AG, "Agricultural" and RMF, "Residential Multi- Family"
Generally level, at road grade
All available
This site is located on the east side of Hays Road, north of State Road 52 in Pasco County. The buyer purchased the properties based on the potential development of 1 .OO units per acre.
LAND COMPARABLES SUMMARY AND ADJUSTMENT GRID - POST CRITICAL LINKAGE ANALYSIS
Comparable Subject 20473 20587 19079 18546 20610
Location: East Side of Shady Hills Road NW/s of Old Pasco Road E and W/s of Curley Road NWlq of State Road 52 Wls of U.S. Highway 41 East Side of Hays Road
North of State Road 52 and Country Club Drive South of Elam and Suncoast Parkway North of State Road 52 North of State Road 52
City: Pasco County Pasco County Pasco County Pasco County Pasco County Pasco County
Sale Date: Jan47 Nov-06 Feb-06 Mar-05 Jan-05 Jan-05
Zoning: AC R- l MPUD MPUD MPUD AG and RMF
Utilities: All available All available All available All available All available All available
Topography: Level Level Level Level Level Level
Net Area (Acres): 54.42 174.73 136.70 145.00 376.00 53.22
Net Area (S.F.): 2,370,535 7,6 1 1,239 5,954,652 6,3 16,200 16,378,560 2,318,516
# of Units: 59 300 3 14 168 840 53
Density (UPNA): 1.08 1.72 2.30 1.16 2.23 1 .OO
Sale Price: N/A $7,580,000 $5,374,000 $4,920,000 $14,000,000 $660,000
$/Acre: N/A $43,389 $39,312 $33,93 1 $37,234 $12,401
$/Unit: NIA $25,267 $17,115 $29,286 $16,667 $12,401
Adjustments:
Financing Market Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar
Conditions of Sale Normal Similar Similar Superior Similar Similar
Market Conditions NIA Similar Similar Somewhat Superior Somewhat Superior Somewhat Superior
Location: Good Superior Somewhat Superior Similar Similar Inferior
Size (Acres): 54.42 Similar - Similar Similar Inferior Somewhat Superior
Zoning: AC Somewhat Superior Somewhat Superior Somewhat Superior Somewhat Superior Similar
Density: 1.08 Slightly Inferior Somewhat Inferior Similar Somewhat Inferior Similar
Utilities: All available Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar
Access: Average Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar
Physical Characteristics: Good Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar
Overall Comparability Substantially Superior Somewhat Superior Substantially Superior Somewhat Superior Slightly Inferior
O 2005 DeLorrne. Street M a s USA3 2006.
Advlsom, Im.
LAND COMPARABLES MAP
2007- 122
Analysis of the Land Comparables
The foregoing sales were utilized to estimate the market value of the subject property. The unadjusted prices range from $12,401 to $29,286 per unit. We have used a qualitative comparison of the comparables and the subject property to determine a likely range of value for the subject. These qualitative comparisons were presented in the preceding grid and are explained in the following text.
We have considered sales from the subject's neighborhood and comparable areas as being relevant to this analysis. Sales used were analyzed on a price per unit basis, because that is the index most widely used by market participants. A variety of characteristics were analyzed including: financing, conditions of sale, market conditions, location, size, zoning, utilities, access, and physical characteristic.
Comparable No. 20473
This property is located in a similar area of Pasco. The sale occurred in November 2006. This property is considered similar to the subject in regard to financing, conditions of sale, market conditions, size, utilities, access and physical characteristics. The location is considered superior to the subject. The zoning is considered somewhat superior to the subject. The density is considered slightly inferior to the subject. Overall, this comparable is substantially superior to the subject property, at $25,267 per unit, and we believe the subject's pricing should be well lower than this indication.
Comparable No. 20587
This property is located in a similar area of Pasco. The sale occurred in February 2006. This property is considered similar to the subject in regard to financing, conditions of sale, market conditions, size, utilities, access and physical characteristics. The location is considered somewhat superior to the subject. The zoning is considered somewhat superior to the subject. The density is considered somewhat inferior to the subject. Overall, this comparable is somewhat superior to the subject property, at $17,115 per unit, and we believe the subject's pricing should be lower than this indication.
Comparable No. 19079
This property is located in Pasco County. The sale occurred in March 2005. This property is considered similar to the subject in regard to financing, location, size, density, utilities, access and physical characteristics. The conditions of sale are considered superior to the subject as the seller was buying the lots back from the buyer in a prearranged deal. The market conditions are considered somewhat superior to the subject. The zoning is considered somewhat superior to the subject. Overall, this comparable is substantially superior to the subject property, at $29,286 per unit, and we believe the subject's pricing should be well lower than this indication.
Comparable No. 18546
This property is located in a similar area of Pasco. The sale occurred in January 2005. This property is considered similar to the subject in regard to financing, conditions of sale, location, utilities, access and physical characteristics. The market conditions are considered somewhat superior to the subject. The size is considered inferior to the subject. The zoning is considered somewhat superior to the subject. The density is considered somewhat inferior to the subject. Overall, this comparable is somewhat superior to the subject property, at $16,667 per unit, and we believe the subject's pricing should be lower than this indication.
Comparable No. 20610
This property is located in a similar area of Pasco. The sale occurred in January 2005. This property is considered similar to the subject in regard to financing, conditions of sale, zoning, density, utilities, access and physical characteristics. The market conditions are considered somewhat superior to the subject. The location is considered inferior to the subject. The size is considered somewhat superior to the subject. Overall, this comparable is slightly inferior to the subject property, at $12,401 per unit, and we believe the subject's pricing should be higher than this indication.
Summary
The following table summarizes the above comparables.
SUMMARY OF SALES
Price Per Unit Comparability
Comparable No. 19079 $29,286 Substantially Superior
Comparable No. 20473 $25,267 Substantially Superior
Comparable No. 20587 $17,115 Somewhat Superior
Comparable No. 18546 $ 16,667 Somewhat Superior
Subject $14,000 NIA
Comparable No. 20610 $12,40 1 Slightly Inferior
The comparables analyzed range from $12,401 to $29,286 per unit. We believe that the subject's pricing should be in between Comparable Nos. 20610 and 18546. Based on the above analysis, we have estimated the value of the subject site at $14,000 per unit. The market value of the subject via the Sales Comparison Approach can be calculated as follows:
$14,0OO/Unit x 59 Units - - $826,000
RETROSPECTIVE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CRITICAL LINKAGE (Rounded) $830,000
47
1
-. Advisors, I i .
i.. 1
A D D E N D A
SUBJECT PROPERTY EXHIBITS
Advrsom, Im.
Advrsom, Im.
AEFUAL
2007- 122
- -..Critical Linkage Site Impact
. .- - % . .. ". Zeneda--Property - .. .::... :..:.:-.Zeneda property. .-- ~ . ~ , : ; ~ - - ~ : i , - ~ e d a , ~ ~ p e r t y ,. . .. .
. . . ;.: :.s - .. . Existing Site . _ ..= -I .. . .,. Crif ieal Linkage Take -. ~emliinder~ite . ' ,&f* , . " . - . ... 130.69Ae . ::-:: : . ..67.60 A c . . .. .: _.. . .' . . ... 63;09 A c
. Upland 96.55 A r 74V. .*. . . ..y.,-
- U p h d 4 2 . I 3 A ~ 6 2 X . , ' " .'-.: U-d 54-42 A=' 86% .::.. u . WctlandW.IJAc 26% .: .er : ~ W e t h d 25.47 A e 38% *, . . . o- Wetland 8.67 Ac .M%
Advrsom, Ii.
View of Subject Property
2007-1 22
Advrsom, I i .
View South on Shady Hills Road
i:. r
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Legal Description 30-24-1 8-0000-00 100-0000
Assessed in Section 30, Township 24 South, Range 18 East of Pasco County, Florida
SOUTH 1/2 OF SEC EAST OF SHADY HILLS RD OR 6528 PG 1534 OR 6528 PG 1538 OR 6585 PG 1863 OR 6627 PGS 1319,1323,1327 & 1331
QUALIFICATIONS OF RONALD A. OXTAL, MA1
EDUCATION:
Northeast High School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Bachelor of Business Administration (Real Estate)
REAL ESTATE EDUCATION:
Appraisal Institute - Business Practices and Ethics - Online Appraising From Blueprints and Specifications - Online Appraisal of Nursing Facilities - Online Analyzing Operating Expenses - Residential Market Analysis and Highest & Best Use - National USPAP Update Course - FREAB Course: ACE # 0007293-Florida State Law for Real Estate Appraisers - FREAB Course: ACE #007559-What Clients Would Like Their Appraisers to Know - National USPAP Update Course 1400 - Analyzing Distressed Real Estate - Evaluating Commercial Construction - The Emerging (Mark To) Market: Valuation for Financial Reporting Purposes - Florida Law Update For Real Estate Appraisers - The Appraiser as an Expert Witness: Preparation and Testimony - Appraisal Consulting - Regression Analysis in Appraisal Practice - Appraisals and Real Estate Lending - USPAP/Florida Law - Attacking and Defending an Appraisal in Litigation - Evolution of Capital Markets - Partial Interest Valuation - Divided - USPAPILaw for Appraisers - Appraising from Blueprints and Specifications - Eminent Domain Conference - Florida Condemnation Valuation & Appraiser Liability - Litigation Skills for the Appraiser: An Overview - The Internet and Appraising - Standards of Professional Practice - USPAP Core Law Update - Continuing Education Seminars - Continuing Education Seminars - Continuing Education Seminars - Understanding Limited Appraisals - USPAP Core Law Update - Appraisal Review Income Properties
YEAR
1975
- Standards of Professional Practice Part A - Standards of Professional Practice Part B - The Appraiser's Legal Liabilities - Capitalization Theory & Techniques Part B - Appraisal Regulation of Federal Banking Agencies - Litigation Valuation - Appraising for Pension Fund Portfolios Seminar - Standards of Professional Practice (update) - R-41 c Seminar - Continuing Education Classes and Seminars - Comprehensive Examination - Real Estate Investment Analysis - Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation - Valuation Analysis & Report Writing - Capitalization Theory & Techniques Part 1 - Capitalization Theory & Techniques Part 2 - Capitalization Theory & Techniques Part 3 - Standards of Professional Practice - Residential Valuation - Basic Valuation Procedures
Society of Real Estate Appraisers - Applied Income Property Valuation - Income Property Valuation - R-2 Examination - Principals of Real Estate - Narrative Report Writing Seminar - Income Approach Seminar
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:
Oxtal Real Estate Advisors, Inc. (Tampa, Florida) President From January 1,200 1, to Present
R+E Marketing Consultants, Inc. (Tampa, Florida) Principal FromJuly 1, 1986, to Present
R+E Marketing Consultants, Inc. (Tampa, Florida) Senior Associate From March, 1982, to June 30, 1986
Williams Appraisal Service (Tampa, Florida) Associate From September, 1980, to March, 1982
Edward G. Ireland, RM, SRA (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) Associate From May, 1978, to September, 1980
COURT TESTlMONYlJZXPERT WITNESS:
U.S. Bankruptcy Court (Various Jurisdictions) Hillsborough County Circuit Court Pasco County Circuit Court Hernando County Circuit Court Pinellas County Circuit Court U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Virginia U.S. District Court - Southern District of Florida
DESIGNATIONS:
MA1 - Member, Appraisal Institute. Currently Certified. Member No. 7212
Florida - Certified General Appraiser #RZ265
Georgia - Certified General Appraiser CG004203
LICENSES:
Real Estate Broker State of Florida
MEMBERSHIPS:
Appraisal Institute, Tampa Bay Chapter No. 89 Real Estate Investment Council (REIC) Regional Ethics and Counseling Panel National Association of Convenience Stores Mortgage Bankers Association of America International Council of Shopping Centers Association of Eminent Domain Professionals
EXPERIENCE:
Mr. Oxtal has the experience in the following property types to meet the competency provision requirements of USPAP. Analysis and appraisal of residential, commercial, industrial and special purpose properties, including subdivisions, PUDs, business parks, condominiums and condominium conversions, apartments, shopping centers, office buildings, golf courses, tennis clubs, mobile home parks, restaurants, hotels and warehouses. Experience also includes highest and best use studies, market studies, partial interest valuations, and trial testimony in eminent domain and bankruptcy matters. Mr. Oxtal also has experience in development, brokerage, leasing and financing matters.
Adhorn, Im.
QUALIFICATIONS OF LANCE F. PONTON
EDUCATION:
Gaither High School, Tampa, Florida
University of South Florida Bachelor of Business Administration (Marketing)
REAL ESTATE EDUCATION:
Appraisal Institute
Residential Market Analysis and Highest and Best Use Course 540 - Report Writing and Valuation Analysis Course 3 10 - Basic Income Capitalization Course 1 10 - Appraisal Principles Course 120 - Appraisal Procedures Course 41 0 - Standards
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:
Oxtal Real Estate Advisors, Inc., Tampa, Florida Associate Appraiser June 2007 to present
Oxtal Real Estate Advisors, Inc., Tampa, Florida Registered Trainee Appraiser October 2002 to June 2007
Bohannan & Cuervo, Tampa, Florida Assistant Appraiser August 2001 to October 2002
LICENSES:
Certified General Appraiser #RZ306 1
