Highest and Best use Valuation *Review Reasonableness Test

Appraisal Institute | Marketability Studies: Advanced Considerations and Applications Slide 1Slide 1

Quick HitsMarket/Marketability Analysis Applications For Support of :

*Highest and Best use*Valuation

*Review Reasonableness TestPresented by : Stephen Fanning, MAI, AI-GRS, AICPBen Sellers, MAI

Step #1

Step #2-5

Step #6Step #7

Step #8Three Part ConclusionSource: Fanning , Market Analysis for Real Estate (Appraisal Institute 2015) page 515

Slide 3

Three Part ConclusionHighest and Best Use Conclusions

“Traditionally, appraisers have emphasized the physical use in the conclusion of highest and best use, but all three considerations are necessary to identify the highest and best use fully.” TAR 14th Edition pg. 356

1. Use2. Time (probable use date or occupancy

forecast)3. Market participants–User of space–Most probable buyer

“A crucial element in highest and best use analysis is the timing for a specific use”.TAR 14th pg. 341

Slide 4

Quick Hit #1

Retail Market /Marketability Analysis

Test of Reasonableness


Quick Hit #1 -Community Retail • Review of an Appraisal on a 40 acre vacant land

zoned commercial and on major thoroughfare

• All physical features of size, utilities , curb cuts etc. good for commercial

• Located in the outer Edge in direction of growth of Fast Growing Major Metro Area

• Appraisal Under Review - Highest and Best Use-Development of a Big Box Multi Tenant Retail Center

• Since this is a review, the major question is whether the HBU is reasonable? Thus, alternative uses normally evaluated in Step #1 are omitted at this time for reasonableness test.

Example of Proposed Retail Center TypeCExampShopping Center


Slide 8

Major HBU/Valuation Question -Timing• Construction start ,• Absorption time,• Long term outlook for occupancy

“The level of analysis may vary with assignments, but economic demand for the subject property is a prerequisite to the financial testing of alternatives”.(TAR, 14th pg. 341)

Step #2- Trade Area Analysis by Ring Studies

Marketability Study (Foundation)

A

Type of RetailDistance People are willing to drive

• Neighborhood convenience store

1 to 1.5 Miles

• Community (Shopper and Convenience Goods)

3 to 5 Miles

• Regional (Shopper Goods)

5 to 15 Miles

Identify Demand Sources and Competition

Quick Hit 1A-Inferred Demand by Ring Analysis

Slide 10

Step 3-5 Calculated Demand by Per Capita Model

Per Capital ModelActual Sales per Capita X Population = Demand

Actual sales from Vendor Retail Gap Study is the data needed for per capita model

Detail Description of Method in Market Analysis for Real Estate Book of AI page 311-325

Retail MarketPlace Profile Example2016 Population 54,424

2016 Households 17,288

2016 Median Income $71,895

2016 Per Capita Income $38,367 Retail Sales in 3 MilesIndustry Group

NAICS

(1) Demand(Retail

Potential)

(2) Supply

(Retail Sales)

(3)Retail Gap

Auto Parts, 4413 $15,385,126 $11,237,088 $4,148,038

Electronics & Appliance Stores 443 $57,010,306 $7,857,009 $49,153,297

Bldg Material & Supplies Dealers 4441 $53,343,899 $25,377,370 $27,966,529

Lawn & Garden Equip & Supply Stores 4442 $3,657,415 $2,922,353 $735,062

Grocery Stores 4451 $160,980,682 $76,919,343 $84,061,339

Calculating Sales Per Capita2016 Population 54,424

2016 Households 17,288

2016 Median Income $71,895 2016 Per Capita Income $38,367 Retail Sales in 3 MilesIndustry Group

NAICS

(1) Demand(Retail

Potential)

(2) Supply

(Retail Sales)

(3)Retail Gap

3 Mile Per

Capita Sales

MSA Per

Capita Sales

Auto Parts, 4413 $15,385,126 $11,237,088 $4,148,038 $206 $241

Electronics & Appliance Stores 443 $57,010,306 $7,857,009 $49,153,297 $144 $827

Bldg Material & Supplies Dealers 4441 $53,343,899 $25,377,370 $27,966,529 $466 $685

Lawn & Garden Equip & Supply Stores 4442 $3,657,415 $2,922,353 $735,062 $54 $47

Grocery Stores 4451 $160,980,682 $76,919,343 $84,061,339 $1,413 $2,109

CapitaTypical Neighborhood – Community Retail Sales Categories

Industry Group NAICS3 Mile Radius of

Subject Sales Per Capita

Auto Parts, Accessories & Tire Stores 4413 $206 Electronics & Appliance Stores 443 $144 Bldg Material & Supplies Dealers 4441 $466 Lawn & Garden Equip & Supply Stores 4442 $54 Grocery Stores 4451 $1,413 Specialty Food Stores 4452 $75 Beer, Wine & Liquor Stores 4453 $97 Health & Personal Care Stores 446,4461 $278 Gasoline Stations 447,4471 $398 Sporting Goods/Hobby/Musical Instr

Stores4511

$79 Department Stores Excluding Leased

Depts.4521

$285 Other General Merchandise Stores 4529 $149 Office Supplies, Stationery & Gift Stores 4532 $17 Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers 4539 $175 Food Services & Drinking Places 722 $932

Totals $4,768

Retail Demand by Per Capita Method

Slide 15

New Acreage Demand # Year-> 2016 2021 2026 Source/Comment

13Total Supportable Demand for Retail/Service/Local Office Sq. Ft. In Primary Trade Area

867,147 1,002,786 1,138,425

14Current Square Feet Of Competitive Space In Primary Trade Area

850,000 850,000 850,000 Survey by Google Aerials

15 Planned New Space in Market Area 0 0 0 Assumed none for best case reasonableness test

16 Residual Demand in Primary Trade Area 17,147 152,786 288,425 Line 13 Minus Line 14

17 Total Market Acreage Shortage (oversupplied) 1.6 13.9 26.2

At 11,000 Sq. Ft. Bldg. Per Acre

Slide 16

New Acreage Demand Per Year# Year-> 2016 2021 2026 Source/Comment

13Total Supportable Demand for Retail/Service/Local Office Sq. Ft. In Primary Trade Area

867,147 1,002,786 1,138,425

14Current Square Feet Of Competitive Space In Primary Trade Area

850,000 850,000 850,000 Survey by Google Aerials

15 Planned New Space in Market Area 0 0 0 Assumed none for best case reasonableness test

16 Residual Demand in Primary Trade Area 17,147 152,786 288,425 Line 13 Minus Line 14

17 Total Market Acreage Shortage (oversupplied) 1.6 13.9 26.2

At 11,000 Sq. Ft. Bldg. Per Acre

18 New Acreage Demand Per Year 2.5 2.5

Avg. Per Year New Demand for Subject Primary Market Area Based on 11,000 sq. ft. bldg. size per acre

Step 6-Marketability Analysis (Capture)

Evaluated The Marketability or Capture Potential For Subject

• Applied ranking factors to specific properties within the primary trade area

Ranking Factors

Proximity to Current Retail (Cumulative Attraction)

Proximity / Linkages to Current Residential

Proximity to Higher Income Household

Proximity to New / Renovated Development (Any Type)

Ease of Access to and from Major Roads (corner location, on/off ramps, etc.)

Major Road Frontages

Size of Tract or Building

Slide 18

RANKING OF COMPETITIVE TRACTSRanking of Retail Potential Vacant Land

Tract ID # Acres Rating Score16 15 3021 13 3020 9 274 12 245 8 223 7 21

24 13 1923 15 18

Subtotal top 1/3 929 16 176 13 177 6 178 15 17

12 9 1614 11 1615 16 1513 19 14

Subtotal Middle 1/3 10517 20 1318 13 13

1-Subject 40 1110 14 1119 30 102 15 10

22 20 10

Slide 19

RANKING OF COMPETITIVE TRACTSRanking of Retail Potential Vacant Land

Tract ID # Acres Rating Score16 15 3021 13 3020 9 274 12 245 8 223 7 21

24 13 1923 15 18

Subtotal top 1/3 929 16 176 13 177 6 178 15 17

12 9 1614 11 1615 16 1513 19 14

Subtotal Middle 1/3 10517 20 1318 13 13

1-Subject 40 1110 14 1119 30 102 15 10

22 20 10

Quick Hit 1B- Rank competitive tracts by observation

Slide 20

Competition the Missing Piece “An appraiser should also consider the competition among various uses for a specific site. ….Market demand is not infinite. Even though the subject may be physically and locationally suited for a use, better-located sites may satisfy the market demand for that use completely before the subject can realize its development potential.”

The Appraisal of Real Estate, 14th Edition (Appraisal Institute, 2013) page 336

Slide 21

Quick Hit #2

Rent Analysis by Sales Potential

Slide 22

Occupancy Cost & Required Rent“Occupancy cost is directly tied to required rent necessary to support this cost” ( Raymond T. Cirz “Retail Sales Set Rent Levels” Real Estate Issues, 2012)

Occupancy Cost Ratio =

Annual Occupancy Expenses ÷ Annual Sales

Occupancy cost includes base rent, percentage rents, and expense recoveries but excluding tenant-specific cost such as utilities.

Slide 23

Test Subject Gross Market Rent Estimate

Weighted Average Gross Rent $25.00

*This could be used ,coupled with rent comps, to support rent estimate in appraisal , or in review, a reasonableness test of the appraisal under review estimate .


Occupancy Cost Ratios

Tenant ClassificationMedian Total Charges

Percentage of Sales Regional Shopping Centers

Median Total Charges

Percentage of Sales Super Community

Centers

Median Total Charges Percentage

of Sales Neighborhood

Centers

General Merchandise 3.01% 6.86% 7.57%Food 16.5% 3.48% 2.76%Food Service 15.1% 10.26% 10.59%Clothing and Accessories 13.0% 9.70% 7.43%Shoes 15.4% 9.42% 9.33%Home Furnishings 14.2% 11.62% NAHome appliances/music 9.6% 8.17% NABuilding Material /Hardware NA 6.48% NAAutomobile NA 6.39% 6.54%Hobby/special interest 11.5% 9.56% 7.50%Gifts/specialty 12.8% 14.00% 14.37%Jewelry 12.2% 6.31% 8.21%Liquor NA 6.81% NADrugs NA 3.32% 3.50%Other Retail 15.1% 10.65% 10.69%Personal Services 16.3% 15.69% 17.89%Offices (other than financial) NA 9.38% 11.81%Straight Averages 12.9% 8.7% 9.1%Weighted*Averages 5.0% 6.5% 5.7%

Source: Market Analysis for Real Estate Appraisal Institute 2015– page 303 adapted from ULI- 2008

ULI

Slide 25

Required Sales by Affordable Occupancy Cost

Weighted Average Gross Market Rent* $25.00

Divided by Occupancy Cost Ratio 6.5%

Required Sales per Square Foot $385

*For rent to be reasonable it must be used with a HBU of space user that is expected to have annual sales of about $385/sq. ft.

Slide 26

Quick Hit #3

Office –Reasonableness Test of

Absorption Forecast

Slide 27

• 12 Acres Vacant Land in CBD- Proposed Mixed Use Project –Retail, Condo and Office

• Land was Valued by Land Residual

• 1,160,000 sq. ft. was allocated for Office

• Appraisal Absorption of Office part was 2 years in DCF

• No Market/Marketability Study Just Descriptive of Region, City and CBD

Proposed Office Building

Slide 28

Test of Absorption ConclusionsFuture Office Space Demand In CBD

Line # Comment /Source

1 2030 CBD Employment Forecast 155,000 Pg. 28 of Appraisal2 2010 CBD Employment 113,421 Pg. 28 of Appraisal 3 Employment Increase CBD 20 Years 41,579 Total Employees

4 2010 Office Space in CBD 10,511,240 Pg. 205 - XYZ Co. 4th Qrt Survey 2010

5 2010 Vacant Space 1,352,830 12.9% XYZ Co. Survey6 2010 Occupied Office Space 9,158,410 Line 4 plus Line 5

7 Occupied Space per Total Employment in 2010 80.7 Sq.Ft. per employee

8 Total Sq. Ft. New Occupied Demand 2010 to 2030 3,357,381 Line 3 multiplied by

Line 79 Current Planned Office In CBD ( not

counting the subject) 7,226,000 Appraisal page 48

10 Market Conditions if All Current Planned Completed (3,868,619) Line 8 minus line 9 -

Oversupplied

Slide 29

Quick Hit #4

Rate of Urban Growth

Analysis

Slide 30

Rate of Urban Growth AnalysisSubject: 250 vacant acres fronting interstate

highway south of major city.

Purpose of Analysis: As part of support in forecasting development timing for subject vacant land appraisal.

Analysis Technique : Scale Historical Urbanized Growth Towards the Subject ( urbanized = 50% of the area developed)

Slide 32

Rate of Urban Growth Analysis, cont. Historical growth toward the subject over the last 24

years was found to average .162 miles per year .

Distance to the subject from current urbanized area is 1.63 miles.

Based on historical growth it will be approximate 10 years before the subject area is urbanized.

1.63 miles ÷ .162 miles per year = 10.062 years

Slide 33

Quick Hit #5

Economic Demand for

Industrial Building In Small

Town

Slide 34

Subject - Industrial Building in Small Town

Slide 35

• Location Quotient Inferred Demand LQ is a method to that shows the land uses most

concentrated in this market

The measure is the percentage of employment by each category locally compared to the percentage of employment categories of some large area like metro, state or nation

The math is local % ÷ region% = concentration if local percentage is larger

Math Example of Location QuotientCook County State of Texas Cook

County

EMPLOYEES EMPLOYEES Location Quotation

NAICS #

Number Percent Number Percent% of

Cnt.Emplyto State %

11Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

104 0.7% 61,749 0.6% 1.15

21 Mining 1,869 12.3% 214,298 2.1% 5.94 22 Utilities 125 0.8% 80,077 0.8% 1.06 23 Construction 946 6.2% 595,184 5.8% 1.08

31-33 Manufacturing 2,690 17.7% 821,658 8.0% 2.23 42 Wholesale Trade 547 3.6% 503,522 4.9% 0.74

Current Subject Market Land Uses Most Concentrated by Employment Analysis

Cook County State of Texas Cook County

EMPLOYEES EMPLOYEES Location Quotation

• NAICS # NumberPercent Number Perce

nt% of Cnt.Emply to State %

11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 104 0.7% 61,749 0.6% 1.15 21 Mining 1,869 12.3% 214,298 2.1% 5.94 22 Utilities 125 0.8% 80,077 0.8% 1.06 23 Construction 946 6.2% 595,184 5.8% 1.08

31-33 Manufacturing 2,690 17.7% 821,658 8.0% 2.23 42 Wholesale Trade 547 3.6% 503,522 4.9% 0.74

44-45 Retail Trade 1,791 11.8% 1,177,215 11.4% 1.04 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 633 4.2% 426,380 4.1% 1.01

51 Information 113 0.7% 201,791 2.0% 0.38 52 Finance and Insurance 368 2.4% 451,595 4.4% 0.55 53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 134 0.9% 175,090 1.7% 0.52

54Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 276 1.8% 578,725 5.6% 0.32

55Management of Companies and Enterprises 11 0.1% 80,078 0.8% 0.09

56 Administration and Waste Services 281 1.9% 656,070 6.4% 0.29 61 Educational Services 1,561 10.3% 1,155,925 11.2% 0.92 62 Health Care and Social Assistance 1,180 7.8% 1,366,868 13.2% 0.59 71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 67 0.4% 125,011 1.2% 0.36 72 Accommodation and Food Services 1,242 8.2% 903,651 8.8% 0.94

Other Services (except Public

Subject Forecasted Market Land Use Most Concentrated by Employment Current Forecasted 10 Years

Cook County State of Texas Cook County Cook County State of Texas Cook

County

EMPLOYEES EMPLOYEES L.Q EMPLOYEES EMPLOYEES L.Q.

#Number % Number % Number % Number %

11

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 104 0.7% 61,749 0.6% 1.15 220 0.9% 120,200 0.8% 1.17

21Mining 1,869 12.3% 214,298 2.1% 5.94 3,710 15.2% 409,150 2.6% 5.7822Utilities 125 0.8% 80,077 0.8% 1.06 136 0.6% 60,200 0.4% 1.44

23Construction 946 6.2% 595,184 5.8% 1.08 2,710 11.1% 1,070,810 6.9% 1.61

31-33Manufacturing 2,690 17.7% 821,658 8.0% 2.23 3,490 14.3% 941,760 6.1% 2.36 42Wholesale Trade 547 3.6% 503,522 4.9% 0.74 830 3.4% 600,200 3.9% 0.88

44-45Retail Trade 1,791 11.8% 1,177,215 11.4% 1.04 2,940 12.1% 1,663,220 10.7% 1.13

48-49

Transportation & Warehousing 633 4.2% 426,380 4.1% 1.01 1,050 4.3% 602,960 3.9% 1.11

51Information 113 0.7% 201,791 2.0% 0.38 250 1.0% 284,210 1.8% 0.56

52Finance and Insurance 368 2.4% 451,595 4.4% 0.55 758 3.1% 898,900 5.8% 0.54

53

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 134 0.9% 175,090 1.7% 0.52 340 1.4% 651,440 4.2% 0.33

Slide 39

Quick Hit #6

Identify Sources of Demand

Ring Studies of Same Store Sales

Slide 40

Introduction

• Case Study

• Big Box (Lowe’s) Appraisal1. Establishing Subject Trade Area for use in

Analyzing Demand2. Establishing Viability of Comparable Sales

• NOTE: This was a review but also works for an appraisal analysis of possible comparable sales.

Slide 41

Trade Area Delineation

• Quick Hit #6:

• How to Identify Trade Area

• Ring Study of Same Store Sales

• Determine distance between stores• Use judgement

• Calculate per capita sales for subject retail type (NAICS 4441)

Slide 42

Subject Location Map

Slide 43

Same Store Location Map

Slide 44


12 miles

Quick Hit #6A – Ring studies of same store sales

Slide 45


12 miles20 miles

Slide 46


Quick Hit #6B – Adjust ring studies of same store sales to half way between stores

Trade Area

Slide 47

Economic Demand

• Inferred Method – (use later in sales)

• Per Capita Retail Sales for Subject Type Retail

Per Capita Retail Sales for Subject Type Retail Calculation Source

Industry Group NAICS Metro Area Subject Trade Area STDB Community Profile

Building Materials and Supplies 4441 $582,392,843 $292,804,732 Retail Marketplace Profile NAICS 4441

Population 810,792 224,713 STDB Community Profile

Per Capita Retail Sales for Subject Type Retail $718 $1,303 Calculation

Slide 48

Quick Hit #7

Economic Demand for the Subject

Slide 49

Big Box Example

• Let’s take that format and apply it to our Lowe’s Big Box Example…

Slide 50

Subject Sales

Slide 51

Home Improvement Sales

Ideal Improvement?

• Modern design• 100,000+ SF

Economic Demand?

• Stronger than national average

Home Improvement Sales/SF SF/Store Avg. Store Sales No. of Stores Total Sales (000) Total SF

Home Depot $371 104,000 $38,926,561 2,274 $88,519,000 212,500,000

Lowes $292 109,000 $33,243,669 1,777 $59,074,000 202,000,000Source: Bizminer 2016

Subject $856 135,000 $115,598,000 - - -

Source: STDB Business Locator Report

Quick Hit #7 – Compare Store Sales to National Average

Slide 52

Quick Hit #8

Case Study Combining 3 Part Conclusion and

Economic Demand

Slide 53

Comparable Sales Selection

“Market analysis and highest and best use analysis set the stage for the selection of

appropriate comparable sales.”

Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, Fourteenth Edition, Page 381

Slide 54

Sales Comparison

• Physical ComparisonSubject Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Sale 4 Sale 5

Original UseHome

Improvement Retail

Circuit City Lowe’s Wal-Mart Lowe’s Lowe’s

Year Built 1999 1997 1992/2007 1990 1991 1998

Size (SF) 135,000 18,910 88,330 119,430 72,514 90,000

Comparison -Similar Age, Significantly

Smaller

Similar Age, Slightly Smaller

Slightly Older, Similar Size

Slightly Older, Smaller Size

Similar Age, Slightly Smaller

Slide 55

Current Use (Time of Sale)Subject Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Sale 4 Sale 5

Original UseHome

Improvement Retail


Year Built 1999 1997 1992/2007 1990 1991 1998

Size (SF) 135,000 18,910 88,330 119,430 72,514 90,000

Current UseHome

Improvement Retail

Vacant Vacant Auto Dealership Vacant Vacant Vacant

“The performance of the property is likely to be the most reliable indicator of current

demand for ex isting properties in the market.”Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, Fourteenth Edition, Page 310

Slide 56

Home Improvement SalesSubject Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Sale 4 Sale 5

Home Improvement Sales

$292,804,732 $98,208,800 $74,437,411 $25,824,575 $29,906,703 $23,247,722

No. of Stores(NAICS 4441) 106 45 33 17 8 6

Retail Sales Per Store $2,762,309 $2,182,418 $2,255,679 $1,519,093 $3,738,338 $3,874,620

Population 224,713 123,902 84,727 140,603 27,323 40,728

Home Improvement Retail Sales Per Capita

$1,303.02 $792.63 $878.56 $183.67 $1,094.56 $570.80

Source: STDB Retail MarketPlace Profile Report

÷

÷

=

=

Economic Demand is Inferior

Slide 57

HBU ConclusionsSubject Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Sale 4 Sale 5

Original UseHome

Improvement Retail


Current UseHome

Improvement Retail


Year Built 1999 1997 1992/2007 1990 1991 1998

Size (SF) 135,000 18,910 88,330 119,430 72,514 90,000

Home Improvement Retail Sales Per Capita $1,303.02 $792.63 $878.56 $183.67 $1,094.56 $570.80

Proposed UseHome

Improvement Retail

Craft Store Medical Office (Multi-tenant)

Grocery Anchored

Center

Tractor Supply Anchored

Center

Heavy Machinery

Retail

Timing Now Now 2-3 years 2-3 years 2-3 years Now

User Owner Occupant

Owner Occupant Investor Investor Investor Owner

Occupant

Quick Hit #8 – Compare Retail Sales Per Capita and HBU Three Part Conclusion of Comparable Sales

Slide 58

What does all this really mean? • Conclusion: The proposed comparable sales do

not have the same highest and best use as the subject property. Therefore, they are not comparable for comparison to the subject.

• Why?...

“Market analysis and highest and best use analysis set the stage for the selection of

appropriate comparable sales.” Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, Fourteenth Edition, Page 381

Slide 59

HBU ConclusionsSubject Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Sale 4 Sale 5

Original UseHome

Improvement Retail


Current UseHome

Improvement Retail


Year Built 1999 1997 1992/2007 1990 1991 1998

Size (SF) 135,000 18,910 88,330 119,430 72,514 90,000

Home Improvement Retail Sales Per Capita $1,303.02 $792.63 $878.56 $183.67 $1,094.56 $570.80

Proposed UseHome

Improvement Retail

Craft Store Medical Office (Multi-tenant)

Grocery Anchored

Center

Tractor Supply Anchored

Center

Heavy Machinery

Retail

Timing Now Now 2-3 years 2-3 years 2-3 years Now

User Owner Occupant

Owner Occupant Investor Investor Investor Owner

Occupant

Comparable?(Same HBU?) - No No No No No

Slide 60

Quick Hit #9

Compare Land Sales by HBU Three Part

Conclusion

Slide 61

Market Analysis and HBU

“Since highest and best use analysis establishes what is being valued, it is the

foundation of all market value appraisals.” Appraisal Institute, General Market Analysis and Highest & Best Use Course, Part 1-4

“The conclusions of market analysis and highest and best use analysis are fundamental

to the sales comparison approach.”The Appraisal of Real Estate, Fourteenth Edition, Page 379

Slide 62

Land Sales Three Part Conclusion AnalysisSubject Sale #1

Size (Acres) 40 1.4

Location/Access Corner on Major Highway 1 in semi rural area

Major Highway on edge of central city

Sale Date 1/1/2018 2/2/2016Sale Price Per Sq. Ft. $6.00 Flood Plain none noneUtilities none All at sitePopulation in 3 Miles 3,096 11,310Forecasted New Pop Growth in 3 miles in next five years

495 1,927

Avg. HH Income in 3 Miles $80,481 $89,133

Employment in 3 Miles 2,123 4,277

Adjacent Land Use

Some industrial, service commercial and one smallsubdivision, but most of

adjacent land is vacant land on all other sides.

Strip Retail, and Two fast food north, vacant south and Subdivision adjacent

Use of Property Vacant Built Convenience StoreTiming for Use Long term future Immediate

Most Probable Buyer Investor owner /developer

Quick Hit #9 – Compare Sales by HBU 3 Part Conclusion

Documents

*Highest and Best use *Valuation *Review Reasonableness Test

Highest and Best use Valuation *Review Reasonableness Test