Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Definition of Opinion of Market Value - Appraisal Resources

VIEWS: 1 PAGES: 88

									                       __



        A SUMMARY LEVEL APPRAISAL OF THE
             POULTRY FARM PROPERTY
        FOR STEPHEN A. AND S. BLAKE HULSEY
                    KNOWN AS
                       __
             LOAN/PROJECT - 1124431


               2013 THOMAS ROAD
              CLEVELAND, GA 30528
                     AS OF
                 APRIL 13, 2011



                       FOR
COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG
                        SIR
                448 N. MAIN STREET
             CORNELIA, GEORGIA 30531


                   PREPARED BY


            APPRAISAL RESOURCES, INC.
              POST OFFICE BOX 3100
           GAINESVILLE, GEORGIA 30503
                                                       __

Community Bank and Trust Special Assets Mgmt/VMG
 Sir
448 N. Main Street
Cornelia, Georgia 30531

February 25, 2012

Re:
1124431
Stephen A. and S. Blake Hulsey
__
2013 Thomas Road
Cleveland, GA 30528


Dear Sir,
          As you requested we have appraised the poultry farm property at the above location. The three
major approaches to value were considered for use in this assignment as per regulations. In this case,
however, only the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches were used since they were seen as more
applicable to this type of property (likely to indicate a credible result).
          The analysis and report are also held to comply with User Intent and Assignment Conditions. The
report type requested was a “Summary” level document. In our opinion, the Market Value of this property,
based on Fee Simple ownership and the approaches utilized, as of April 13, 2011, was...

                              EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.

           Following in this report is a description of the subject property, comparable sales, sales maps, and
other pertinent data used in arriving at the above value opinion. The subject is seen as having an estimated
sales exposure time of 12 to 24 months and projected marketing time of approximately 12 to 24 months for
absorption. Due to current condition of the markets (lending, financial and real estate) these estimates and
projections may fall well short of reality should the subject be a forced sale and if sold at duress the resulting
price will likely show a significant loss in value. We feel the real estate market is strengthening but the
recession is prolonged.

          The opinions of value are subject to the limiting conditions provided in this report. Further, the
valuation is not based on extraordinary conditions.
          This letter is to certify that we have no interest, contingent or otherwise, in the property appraised
and that the fee for making this appraisal is not contingent upon the results of this analysis. Further, the
Appraisal Standards Board states that the lender is to directly engage the appraiser for an assignment... and
that the resulting report is not to be readdressed or assigned by the appraiser to another client without
permission. This appraisal was made in conformity with Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice (USPAP).



Respectfully submitted,




____________________________________                     _________________________________
Douglas F. McAfee                                        Matt L. Turner, SRA
Georgia Certified General Appraiser 94                   Georgia Certified General 94 - Did Not Inspect the
                                                         Subject
                                                         Supervisory Review Appraiser
                                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION TO VALUATION
SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT CONCLUSIONS __________________________________________________________________ 6
APPRAISER CERTIFICATION _____________________________________________________________________________ 8
LIMITING CONDITIONS __________________________________________________________________________________ 9
DEFINITION OF OPINION OF MARKET VALUE ________________________________________________________________ 10
COMPETENCY _______________________________________________________________________________________ 11
INTENT AND INTENDED USER ___________________________________________________________________________ 12
SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT _______________________________________________________________________________ 12
CHAPTER 2 - IDENTIFICATION OF SUBJECT ENVIRONMENT
COUNTY INFORMATION ________________________________________________________________________________ 18
CHAPTER 3 - IDENTIFICATION OF SUBJECT
OWNER OF RECORD __________________________________________________________________________________ 22
ZONING MAP ________________________________________________________________________________________ 28
SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS ______________________________________________________________________ 32
CHAPTER 4 - VALUATION ANALYSIS
HIGHEST & BEST USE _________________________________________________________________________________ 43
COST APPROACH
IMPROVEMENT DEPRECIATION __________________________________________________________________________ 53
COST CALCULATION SUMMARY TABLE____________________________________________________________________ 55
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ________________________________________________________________________ 56
INCOME APPROACH __________________________________________________________________________________ 64
CHAPTER 5 - CORRELATION AND CONCLUSIONS
RECONCILIATION _____________________________________________________________________________________ 91
ADDENDA/MAPS/ATTACHMENTS _________________________________________________________________________ 95
FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT _______________________________________________________________________________ 97
ENGAGEMENT DOCUMENT _____________________________________________________________________________ 99
FLOOD HAZARD MAP - - 13311C0200C, ZONED AS X AND A(SOME AREAS, AWAY FROM THE IMPROVEMENTS, NEAR THE
SOUTH PROPERTY LINE APPEAR TO BE IN THE HAZARD AREA) AND REVISED ON 9/26/2006 __________________________ 100

PARKING & DRIVEWAY _______________________________________________________________________________ 101
USPAP COMPLIANCE INDEX TABLE _____________________________________________________________________ 106
                                                                                  REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                            COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


                                             CHAPTER 1
                                     INTRODUCTION TO VALUATION

                                 SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT CONCLUSIONS
ADDRESS:     2013, Thomas Road Cleveland, GA 30528

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:      29.6± Acre, Land Lot 29 & 30, Land District 1, White County, Georgia

ASSIGNMENT SCOPE:              All Approaches                    REPORT TYPE:                Summary

                               Considered
NAME OF PROJECT:               __                                HYPOTHETICALS:              As Is
CURRENT OWNER:                 Stephen A. and S. Blake           APPLICANT:                  Stephen A. and S. Blake

                               Hulsey                                                        Hulsey
EFFECTIVE DATE:                April 13, 2011                    INSPECTION DATE:            April 13, 2011
ZONING JURISDICTION:                                             ZONING:                     No Zoning
OWNERSHIP INTEREST:            fee simple                        TAX ID:                     021 023
VACANT HIGHEST & BEST          agricultural                      IMPROVED HIGHEST & BEST     agricultural
USE:                                                             USE:



LOCATION AND IMPROVEMENTS:          The subject is located in a rural and agricultural area of the county, on a county

maintained road with fair exposure and visibility. It is a poultry farm property with 5 detached buildings or

structures with wood frame sub framing and 42,400 total square feet. It has a metal panel exterior and rests on a

poured concrete foundation. We treated the subject as having 2 internal poultry houses for valuation purposes. It

is 12 years old, is on 29.6 acres and it exhibits a land to building ratio of 30.4.

SCOPE:     All approaches to value were considered in light of assignment conditions and appropriateness related

to the property type. In this case, the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches were used.

ASSUMPTIONS/CONDITIONS TO ANALYSIS:           The analysis on the subject is based on “existing” conditions.   No

Extraordinary Conditions Used.

                                                 OPINIONS OF VALUE
UNDEVELOPED SITE VALUE OPINION:                                                        $250,000



COST APPROACH:                                                                        $628,000
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH:                                                            $850,000
INCOME APPROACH:                                                                       Omitted
                                         FINAL MARKET VALUE OPINION:
                                                  $850,000




                                                        PAGE 4
                                                                               REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                         COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


APPRAISER CERTIFICATION
Effective 01/05/2005

To the best of my knowledge and belief:


    v    the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.

    v    the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and
         limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions,
         conclusions, and recommendations.

    v    I have no (or the specified) present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this
         report, and I have no (or the specified) personal interest with respect to the parties involved.

    v    I have no bias with respect to any property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved
         with this assignment.

    v    my engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined
         results.

    v    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.

    v    my analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in
         conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

    v    I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. (If more than one
         person signs this certification, the certification must clearly specify which individuals did and which
         individuals did not make a personal inspection of the property).

    v    no one provided significant real property appraisal or appraisal consulting assistance to the person
         signing this certification. (If there are exceptions, the name of each individual providing significant
         real property appraisal or appraisal consulting assistance must be stated.)

    v    Continuing education requirements have been met per State of Georgia requirements. Further, as of the date
         of this report, Matt L. Turner, SRA, has completed the requirements under the continuing education program
         of the Appraisal Institute.

    v    No timber valuation was considered in this assignment.

    v    No prior work was performed on the subject property in the past 5 year period. The client of this report is an
         AMC and is Registry Number 28 with the State of Georgia. The fee for this assignment was $2,800.

     Supervisory Appraiser’s Certification:
     v I directly supervised the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report, have reviewed the appraisal
         report, agree with the statements and conclusions of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the
         appraiser’s certification and am taking joint responsibility for the appraisal and the appraisal report.




_______________________________                          ____________________________
Douglas F. McAfee                                        Matt L. Turner, SRAGeorgia Certified General 94 -
Georgia Certified General Appraiser 94                   Did Not Inspect the Subject
                                                         Supervisory Review Appraiser




                                                     PAGE 5
                                                                                                REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                                          COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


LIMITING CONDITIONS The appraiser's certification that appears in the appraisal report is subject to the following conditions:
1. The appraiser will not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect either the property being appraised or th e title to it. The appraiser
    presumes that the title is good and marketable and, therefore, will not render any opinions about the title. The property is appraised presuming
    responsible ownership.

2. The appraiser has made only an appraisal inspection (for economic and valuation purposes) to gather data for an appraisa l report. No survey (plat),
    building inspection (engineering, environmental, condition, electrical, plumbing or other physical or systems study of the pr operty was made in this
    process. If no specific and legible site survey (plat) was available or provided for this assignment, certain assumptions are made. Any obvious
    easement or encroachment observed at the time of inspection would have been listed in the report. Possible easements, encroachments, or county
    set back violations (or variances) which are usually identified and disclosed by a surveyor are presumed not to be present. Sometimes, the size
    estimate is derived by discussions between the appropriate parties, taken from tax office records or, if no other option is available, it is
    approximated. Even so, the appraiser and this appraisal firm disclaim responsibility or liability of potential damages that might arise fro m any
    subsequent event, such as title searches, surveys, etc. Also, the appraiser has examined the available flood maps provided by the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency (or other data sources) and has noted in the appraisal report whether the subject site is located in an identified
    Special Flood Hazard Area. No warranties express or implied, are made regarding flood zone location or other such site element determination.
    Any sketch in the appraisal report shows approximate dimensions and is included only to assist the reader of the report in vi sualizing the property.

3. The appraiser will not give testimony or appear in court because he or she made an appraisal of the property in question, unless specific
    arrangements to do so have been made beforehand.

4. The appraiser has distributed the value of the property between the land and the improvements based on the existing use of the property. These
    separate valuations must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if they are so used.

5. The appraiser is not an expert in the field of environmental hazards; therefore, the appraisal report is not an environmental assessment of the
    property. The appraiser will, however, be responsible for noting in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, bu t not limited to,
    hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property that he or she became aware of during the normal
    research involved in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise stated in the appraisal report, the appraiser has no knowled ge of any hidden or
    unapparent conditions of the property or adverse environmental conditions (including the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) that
    would affect the property, and has presumed that there are no such conditions. The appraiser will not be responsible for any such conditions that do
    exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist.

6. The appraiser obtained the information, estimates, and opinions that were expressed in the appraisal report from sources that he or she considers to
    be reliable and believes them to be true and correct. The appraiser does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such items that were
    furnished by other parties.

7. The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the appraisal report except as provided for in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

8. If the appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusion for an appraisal that is subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or
      alterations on the assumption that completion of the improvements will be performed in a workmanlike manner.

9. The appraiser must provide his or her prior written consent before all (or any part) of the content of the appraisal report (including conclusions about
    the property value, the appraiser's identity and professional designations, and references to any professional appraisal organizations or the firm with
    which the appraiser is associated) can be used for any purposes by anyone except: the client specified in the report; the borrower if he or she paid
    the appraisal fee; the mortgagee or its successors and assigns; the mortgage insurer; consultants; professional appraisal organizations; any state or
    federally approved financial institution; or any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia.
    The appraiser's written consent and approval is required before the appraisal (or any part of it) can be conveyed by anyone t o the public through
    advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media.

10. Opinions of value contained herein are estimates and there are no guarantees, either written or implied, that the proper ty would sell for the
    expressed estimates of value. The conclusions of the report are predicated on the professional marketing and/or management abilities of agents
    and brokers specializing in this type of property.

11. Information regarding the location or existence of public utilities has been obtained through a verbal and/or electronic inquiry to the approximate
     utility, or has been ascertained from visual evidence. No warranty has been made regarding the exact location or capabilities of public utility
     systems. It is presumed that the site has access, unless specified, to all normally available services.

12. This appraisal report and its contents are for limited private use only. No reproduction, reprinting, updating or other consideration will be made for
    parties other than our client without written permission from the client. Other fees will be assessed for other services beyond the production of this
    report.

13. The subject was not inspected to ascertain conformance with he Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)., OSHA or other governmental regulations.
    Noncompliance could lessen the value of the property. It is recommended that the owner, investor or lender contract with a firm specializing in such
    analysis, as deemed appropriate. The appraisal presumes compliance.

14. Appraisal liability extends only to the stated client, not subsequent parties or users, and is limited to the amount of the fee received by the appraiser.
    Use of or acceptance of this appraisal by any third party constitutes acceptance of these limiting conditions.

15. Unless otherwise stated, repairs or deferred maintenance are presumed to be repaired and corrected. Significant repair items could affect
    marketability and the value conclusions in this report. This report assumes no such severe items are present. It is recommended that the
    prospective owner and/or lender involved in this transaction consult with a building inspector to determine if repairs are needed.

16. Hypothetical Conditions are when the value of the property is based on completion of significant items or processes...which otherwise, would
    severely lessen or alter the value. An example is proposed construction, remodeling, or developing a subdivision from a raw tract of land. These
    conditions are known as ”subject to” or “Prospective “ issues....the value is predicated on the items being done in accordance with details provided
    (i.e., plans and specifications). Significant deviations from provided (or understood) information will cause the appraisal to be void and a new
    analysis will be needed on what was actually completed. In the case of this appraisal, the subject value is not based on Hypothetical Conditions.

17. Extraordinary Conditions are used to allow for anticipated events that are considered likely or probable. Thus, a value is seen as reasonable only if
    the condition is also reasonable. Such a condition (or presumption) is rezoning on a property. The subject’s marketability, value, sales pricing and
    tax assessment are affected by a change in allowed use. In the case of the subject, the value conclusion of this report was not affected by the use
    of such a condition.

18. The sales dates listed for all comparables are the closing or settlement dates as presented to us.

19. This assignment does not encompass any known intangible business assets involved with of the property being appraised.

20. The Scope of the subject appraisal was ordered as using the Cost, Sales Comparison,

Further, the client requested a SUMMARY report. Appraisal reporting (the written expression of the analysis) can be one of three modes:

Self-Contained reports present all pertinent data and information found in the process of appraising the subject. This meets USPAP Standards Rule 2-
     2(a).



                                                                     PAGE 6
                                                                                                         REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                                                   COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


        Summary reports provide the reader with all the information found, in summary form, in the process of appraising the subject. This meets USPAP
           Standards Rule 2-2(b).

        Restricted reports provide a simple summary of the pertinent information used in the development of the appraisal. This meets USPAP Standards Rule
            2-2(c).

        Further, revised Appraisal Foundation notes suggest the report reader be notified that a Cost Approach only analysis (without an accompanying Sales
             Comparison or Income Approaches) is seen as more of a cost study rather than a formal opinion of value... and, therefore, may not qualify under this
             new definition as an appraisal.

        21. No soil boring, compaction or composition analyzes were supplied to determine the developmental potential or the soil ca pacity of the subject
            property. No soil or subsoil problems were readily apparent during the on-site inspection of the subject. It is presumed that the soil is adequate for
            the subject development. A subsoil analysis is beyond the area of appraisal expertise; therefore, no responsibility is taken for detection of hidden or
            unapparent subsoil conditions on the subject property. A qualified engineer or soil surveyor should be consulted to determin e the soil composition,
            subsistence and load capacity. The value estimated in this report specifically presumes and is contingent upon the soil being suitable for
            development purposes. Specialized materials, of either toxic or non-toxic, noxious or non-noxious and hazardous or non-hazardous classifications,
            may be stored on commercial sites within industry guidelines and governmental zoning and handling laws. However, we were not informed of any
            hazardous materials on the subject site (presently or in the recent past) or near the subject site nor did our inspection indicate the presence of such.
            Similarly, we are unaware of underground storage tanks (besides any normal septic system, grease traps or a buried LP gas tank), abandoned
            wells, filled areas (dumps) or contaminated soil being present on the subject site, any archeological, grave or cemetery use, etc. Only normal land
            features were observed on the site. And among these oil drippings are possible. Such drippings and small spills are common of automotive and
            truck shops and facilities. This is not adverse. Moreover, no guide or database was consulted for past reported contamination of the subject or
            neighboring tracts. The neighboring properties were observed for potential adverse uses or influences. Only typical land us es were seen. Please
            note that an environmental study is beyond the scope of this appraisal analysis. No responsibility is taken for the detection or abatement of hidden,
            unobserved or undetected hazardous conditions on the subject property. As a precautionary step, it is always recommend that an Environmental
            Summary Study or a Phase I Environmental Audit be undertaken to verify if hazardous materials or underground storage tanks exist on, near or had
             been reported on the property. 1 The value, as estimated in this report, presumes and is contingent upon there being no potentially hazardous
             elements on or influencing the site.



        DEFINITION OF OPINION 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 affect by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale
            as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller are typically motivated; (2) both
            parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure
            in the open market; (4) payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and (5) the price
            represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone
            associated with the sale.

        *Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions. No adjustments are necessary for those costs
             which are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area; these costs are readily identifiable since the sell er pays these
             costs in virtually all sales transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparisons to
             financing terms offered by a third party institutional lender that is not already involved in the property or transaction. Adjustments should not be
             calculated on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the
             market's reaction to the financing or concessions based on the appraiser's judgment.




1The Summary Report is a brief reporting of research as to the history of use of the property. The Audit report is more detailed. Should either
find past use of a hazardous material or element, a Phase II Audit (testing for current contamination) is usually required. Our company
provides the Summary and Phase I Audits... and we can assist with further testing.


                                                                             PAGE 7
                                                                         REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                   COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




COMPETENCY & PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE



         Douglas McAfee personally inspected the subject site and performed the field work. He
has been a registered appraiser for six years and a registered forester for 16 years and holds
Bachelors and Masters Degrees from The University of Georgia.
        The reviewer and supervisor of this assignment, Matt L. Turner, SRA, has been in the
appraisal industry since 1987 (qualifications are attached) and holds the General Certified license
number 94 from the State of Georgia and is an SRA member in The Appraisal Institute. He has
acted as a full adviser and supervisory reviewer in this assignment. In our regimen, internal
reviews are built in at specific stages in the process. He has not inspected the subject. Most of the
expressions, text, spreadsheets and calculations in the report are his responsibility as he has
written and developed our software... however, specific details will vary from property to property.
        Our appraisals are collaborative efforts. Together we identified the problem, assisted in
determining the solution (with the client), gathered the data, performed the analysis, drew these
conclusions and wrote this report with reviews built in at specific stages. External data sources, in
the normal course of business, along with data developed from past appraisals were utilized and
relied upon in this report. The relied upon information, to varying degrees, were considered in the
development of this assignment. The appraisal analyses are ours and we take responsibility for
the unaltered contents of this report and conclusions.
         Our firm subscribes to several major data sources (and are partners in others) including
Marshall Valuation, six multiple listing services, an assortment of deed record reports, CoStar,
REDI Data, First American (Realist), Smith Report , etc. So, external data sources, in the normal
course of business, along with data developed from past appraisals were utilized and relied upon in
this report. We also gather real estate information by way of contacts in commercial construction
and sales, other appraisers, management agencies and individual and corporate investors.
Additionally, the company has maintained our commercial data files and comparables from past
reports and research.




                                                PAGE 8
                                                                          REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                    COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




INTENT AND INTENDED USER


Intent: The intent and function of this appraisal report is to develop an opinion of market value of the
Fee Simple Estate of the subject and communicate this opinion to the client.      No Extraordinary
Conditions were employed in this analysis. According to our client, the intent of this assignment is to
assist in arranging estimate market value for the subject property.
Intended User: Community Bank and Trust Special Assets Mgmt/VMG (and any successors and
assignees). The Intended User of this appraisal report is the Lender/Client. The Intended Use is to
evaluate the property that is the subject of this appraisal for a mortgage finance transaction, subject to
the stated Scope of Work, intent of the appraisal, reporting requirements of this appraisal report form,
and Definition of Market Value. No additional Intended Users are identified by the appraiser.




SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT
        The valuation process will be used to develop a supportable and reasonable opinion of the
Market Value of the subject property appraised. This involves analysis of the property by using one
or more specific appraisal procedures... namely the Cost, Sales Comparison, and Income
Capitalization Approaches. The client typically determines which approaches to value best suit the
property type. This, along with the function of the appraisal, and the quality and quantity of data
available for analysis and the amount of documentation needed are usually the basis for this
determination.
        The Cost Approach is based on the premise that the value of a property can be indicated
by estimating the current cost to acquire the land, develop the site, construct a similar replacement
structure and then deduct for depreciation evident in the improvements. This approach to value is
particularly useful when applied to newer improvements where there is little measurable
depreciation. It can also be useful as a test of the feasibility of constructing proposed
improvements. Current costs for constructing improvements are derived from cost estimators, cost
estimating publications, entrepreneurs, builders, and contractors. Depreciation is the lessening of
value due to age, wear and tear and internal or external factors. The basis of this process is
market observation and analysis; industry accepted total building life estimates and general
approximations based on experience. A separate Sales Comparison method was used to develop
the unimproved comparables, adjustments and opinion of value of the site as if vacant. This is
done by comparing similar vacant land sales to the subject. The opinion of value resulting from
this process is then used in the Cost Approach.



                                                PAGE 9
                                                                                           REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                                     COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


        The Sales Comparison Approach is properly used where an adequate number of similar
properties have sold recently in the subject market. The opinion of value by this approach is
derived from comparisons to recent sales of similar properties. Adjustments are considered for
various dissimilar elements or features that, in our opinion, influence the value of the property... as
an estimate of contributory response from the market.
        The Income Approach is used to estimate the present value of the future benefits of
property ownership (cash flows and reversion, when appropriate). The value estimate by this
approach is derived from an analysis of the historical operating data of the subject (when available)
and for similar comparable properties. So after consideration, this approach was not completed as
it was not necessary to produce a reasonable and credible conclusion.
        Scope has an impact on perceived Highest and Best Use as well. Considering
Hypotheticals Conditions or Extraordinary Assumptions can, of course, alter the current use to a
varying use. These are premises... such as remodeling, construction, rezoning or redevelopment.
Such a new use may itself be an interim use with a future other use that would better achieve the
highest residual to the subject site. Location, proximity to traffic flow, traffic patterns and traffic
control, zoning, zoning overlays, local market conditions and immediate neighborhood competition
all have great bearing on whether a use could be successful... and produce the necessary
economic “rent” in either terms of being successful or maximally productive. As stated elsewhere
in this report, not all uses will compete with all tracts or parcels.
        The nature of real estate, in cases of declining, stagnate or stable or even in a growing
population market is change... even if it is a long term process. An opinion or determination of Best
Use is likely to alter with time... as the market changes. Valuations are seen as a “snapshot in
time.” Feasibility studies deal more with future changes and potentials. This is seen as also being
reflected in the Scope of the analysis. With this assignment, the client has not stipulated a
Extraordinary Assumption that would result in and of itself is a change of use.
         The utilized approaches are then correlated into a final value opinion for the subject
property. The scope of the appraisal encompasses the necessary research and analysis to
prepare a report according to the intended use, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice of the Appraisal Foundation. This involved the following steps:

        1. The property was inspected on April 13, 2011. The photographs of the subject that are included in this report were taken on this
            date.
        2. Governmental, economic and population statistics were based on information available from the U.S. Census Bureau, Chamber
            of Commerce’s, Planning Department and zoning maps, the White County Tax Assessors Office and other sources. The
            neighborhood, subject site and improvement sections were based upon a physical inspection of the area, as well as data
            obtained from various conversations with real estate broker and developers active in the area.
        3. In estimating the Highest and Best Use of the subject property, an analysis will be made of data compiled in the steps noted
            above.
        4. In developing the approaches to value, market data will be used and collected from the public records, public record reports, the
            multiple listing service, and interviews with and examination of files of active real estate agents, brokers, other appraisers and
            management agents. We have experience in appraising properties in the Northeast Georgia area, access to other appraiser
            files and data... and information from our files will also be used.
        5. After assembling and analyzing the data defined in this scope, a final opinion of Market Value will be made based on the
            assumptions outlined in this report.



                                                               PAGE 10
                                                                            REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                      COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


                                               CHAPTER 2
                            IDENTIFICATION OF SUBJECT ENVIRONMENT


REGION & STATE INFORMATION
        The southeastern United States has seen massive growth in the past twenty years. The
warmer climate, lesser cost of living, affordable real estate and excellent business potential are
major “draws” to this area. This region is known as the “Sunbelt.”
        With a burgeoning population, increasing demand for all cultural, educational and social
services, major employers have mushroomed in size and production services. Agribusiness, in the
more rural areas of the southeastern states, is a multi-billion, multi-national industry. Major
metropolitan areas in the southern United States are experiencing “growing pains.” Traffic
problems, sometimes haphazard development and crime accompany such growth and lessen the
quality of life for residents and travelers alike. Attaining a quality, controlled level of growth is what
leaders hope to achieve.
        __ INSERT GRAPHIC In very general terms, Georgia is the 10th largest state in
population, and is the fastest growing of the ten. Roughly 60% of this growth is from relocation
from other states into the Metro Atlanta area. Much of this growth (at least on the northern side of
Metro Atlanta) stems from good proximity to Interstates 85, 985, 575 and Highway s 316 and 400.
Also, the northeast quadrant of the state (the mountain counties) is highly recognized in national
retirement and quality of life rankings. The metro area is the driving engine behind the growth of
the whole state and nearby parts of surrounding ones.
        Other regional cities are also growing but with 2.5 to 3 million in population, Atlanta is the
largest and its growth the prime factor of the state’s population change. The financial strength and
viability of the Atlanta area tends to diffuse to nearby counties and surrounding area. This
promotes continued development and economic enrichment and expansion in the suburban areas.
Per Capita income, education completed and infant mortality all indicate an improved quality of life,
despite the problems related to growth. Georgia exhibits a wide diversity of people, products,
recreation and the arts. The ocean front areas, the mountainous north (much of it National Forest)
many lakes and rivers are sources of attraction, vacation and tourism. This all creates a positive
environment of a continuation of Georgia’s blossoming.


CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE
        The subject property is located in the northeastern portion of metropolitan Atlanta. This
area is impacted favorably by both the metropolitan area in addition to the current pockets of
growth with the region. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the subject's surrounding area will
continue to grow relative to metropolitan Atlanta.

                                                 PAGE 11
                                                                          REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                    COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


        Currently, approximately 450 of the Fortune 500 companies have offices in metropolitan
Atlanta. This coupled with Atlanta's strong convention trade (third only to Chicago and New York
City in attendance), excellent climate, communications, transportation and educational facilities,
should continue to make the Atlanta region one of the most economically sound regions in the
United States in the foreseeable future. With such a broadly diversified economic base, Atlanta
dominates the economy of the state of Georgia and is a major influence with the southeastern
United States. The area's quality of life contributes to demand for residential space and overall
economic growth. Therefore, prospects for continued economic expansion in the subject area are
considered good. The Atlanta region is expected to fare very well relative to other major
metropolitan areas well into the next millennium.
        Half of the nation’s 10 fastest-growing counties between April 1, 2000, and July 1, 2003,
were located in Georgia. According to the estimates, the fastest growing counties in Georgia were
Chattahoochee, Forsyth, Henry, Newton and Paulding — all with growth rates above 20 percent. In
all, the Peach State was home to 20 of the nation’s 100 fastest-growing counties.


__ INSERT REGION AREA POP & Census DATA if needed




                                               PAGE 12
                                        REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                  COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




REGIONAL MAP




               PAGE 13
                                            REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                      COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




NEIGHBORHOOD MAP




                   PAGE 14
                                                                        REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                  COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




WHITE COUNTY INFORMATION
__




NEIGHBORHOOD .C.NEIGHBORHOOD;
Miles from Cleveland: 4.5 miles southwest
Miles from: around 16 miles northwest of Interstate 985, about 37 miles northeast of Interstate 85,
about miles off Highway 400 (area expressways into Atlanta) and 52 miles northeast of I-285 (the
Perimeter of Atlanta)
Adjoining Uses: agricultural, residential, ,
Noxious or Environmental Items: No elements of contamination or noxious use observed.
Summary: The subject conforms to the surrounding market and neighborhood.




                           Estimated Neighborhood Composition
                  Highway Bus & Retail                        __%
                  Industrial                                     7%
                  Office & General Business                      8%
                  Other Improved Commercial                     10%
                  High Density & MF Residential                  5%
                  Single Family Homes                         __ 0%
                  Vacant Parcels/Raw Land/Agric                __0%
                  Total of Items                               100%




                                               PAGE 15
                                                                       REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                 COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


                                          CHAPTER 3

                                IDENTIFICATION OF SUBJECT



FRONT SCENE




.I.LEGAL DESCRIPTION; .C.LEGAL DESCRIPTION;
29.6± Acre, Land Lot 29 & 30, Land District 1, White County, Georgia Please refer to the attached
deed.




                                             PAGE 16
                                                                           REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                     COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




OWNER OF RECORD & OWNERSHIP INTEREST
Current Owner: Stephen A. and S. Blake Hulsey
Current Occupant: Stephen A. and S. Blake Hulsey
Property-Ownership Rights: fee simple
Condominium Ownership: no
DATE OF INSPECTION & EFFECTIVE DATE
Inspection Date: April 13, 2011                         Effective Report Date: April 13, 2011
HISTORY - MARKETING AND TRANSACTIONS
Marketing & Listings: The subject was not found to be listed for sale or lease in our local listing services
in the previous 36 months.
Prior Sales: The last transfer appears to have been on August 30, 2007 for $625,000 (or about $14.74
per square foot) as improved. This was recorded in Deed Book 1211, Page 345. Otherwise, the subject
has not sold in the past three years.
Subsequent Work: There have been no apparent remodel or renovation steps by the current owners or
tenants.
.I.EXPOSURE & MARKETING PERIOD ESTIMATES;
Exposure Estimate: 12 to 24 months (Prior Time)         Marketing Estimate: 12 to 24 months (Forward
                                                        Time)




WHITE TAX ASSESSMENT AND .I.TAXES ;.C.TAX ASSESSMENT AND TAXES;
  TAX NUMBER          LAND          IMPROVEMENT       TOTAL ASSESSM      WHITE TAX         CITY TAX

   021 023          $234,430            $33,920             $268,350       $896                 n/a

                                                                                                n/a

                                                                                                n/a

    TOTALS          $234,430            $33,920             $268,350       $896

                                          TOTAL TAX - $896
Assessment Comment: White county has the property assessed at $268,350 total for the entire
property for the current reporting year. Taxes are based on 40% of this amount, namely $107,340. No
special assessments or classifications were found regarding the subject (conservation status, etc.).




                                                  PAGE 17
                                                                             REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                       COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




ASSESSMENT REASONABLENESS
        The subject is seen as having a lower tax assessment level. This is based on the following
data from some of the sales comparables used or considered in the Sales Comparison Approach.
The subject is seen as having a $6.33 rate of assessment per square foot. This is not seen as
adversely affecting marketability of the subject.


                     Address                           Assessment              GBA          Assess. PSF

                 Subject Property                        $268,350         42,400 sf             $6.33

                 1029 GA Hwy 63                          $268,030         20,000 sf            $13.40

                432 Ed Reed Road                         $149,354         19,200 sf             $7.78

             1058 Bray's Lake Road                       $276,520         42,200 sf             $6.55

                Claude Ford Road                         $204,585         32,300 sf             $6.33

             2521 Pleasant Hill Road                     $376,525         34,560 sf            $10.89

          179 Bethlehem Church Road                      $493,050         38,080 sf            $12.95




TRAFFIC, VISIBILITY & ACCESS
Address: 2013 Thomas Road
Site Exposure/Location: Rural                             Access Type: county - road
Traffic Rating: light to moderate                         Traffic Count: 5,050 (from Highway 115)
Road Maintenance: county                                  Site Access: Direct from road
Overall Visibility & Access Rating: fair                  Decel Lane, Turn Lane or Median: None
Summary: The subject site is located in a more remote and removed area. We would refer this type of
location as effectively rural and agricultural in nature area of the county.    The subject has a single curb
cut (driveway) to permit access. In overall terms, the site is viewed as having fair rating concerning
location, visibility and access to the subject site.




                                                  PAGE 18
                                                                          REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                    COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




SITE DESCRIPTION & SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Survey Provided: yes                                    Site Size: 29.6 acres
Site Shape: irregular                                   Approx. Frontage Feet: 41.96± feet
Approx. Average Depth: 2121.06± feet                    Approx. Average Width: 385.67± feet
Formal Parking Spaces: None                             Corner/Double Road Frontage: no
Parking & Drive Type: gravel drive and parking          Landscaping: Landscaping is seen as basic.
area
Location: about a quarter of a mile from the intersection of Thomas Road and Asbury Mill Road
Terrain from Thomas Road: slopes generally from north to south and has no storm water system
Easements: No easements or unusual encroachments or other related factors were observed or noted
affecting the property.
Overall Appeal: aveage
The tract is rolling and is mostly in pasture.
 A new survey is recommended to identify boundaries and potentially adverse aspects. Forms of
governmentally controlled elements and variances (signage restrictions and requirements, set backs,
drainage controls, unknown leases, etc.), are also presumed in compliance or negligible.
The property has a gravel drive and parking area. It also has pasture fencing. No erosion was observed.
Also, the sewage disposal system appears to function adequately as no sewage seepage was observed.
It has an average view of surrounding properties. It is generally typical of similar poultry farm sites in the
area.




                                                 PAGE 19
                                                                 REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                           COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




SITE SURVEY PLAT .C.SITE SURVEY PLAT;




                                        PAGE 20
                                                            REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                      COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




TAX PARCEL MAP.C.TAX PARCEL MAP;




                                   PAGE 21
                                          REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                    COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




TAX MAP AERIAL




                 PAGE 22
                                                                           REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                     COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




.I.ZONING ;AND LAND USE .C. ZONING AND LAND USE;
Zoning: No County Zoning
Current Use: poultry farm                               Conforming:
Allowable Uses:     From all appearances, the subject seems to be within normal expectations of zoning
requirements.



SITE UTILITIES .C.SITE UTILITIES;
Water: Private Well on Site                           Gas Service: Liquid Propane as desired
Sewer & Septic System: Private Septic System          Waste Disposal: Private Carrier
on Site
Electricity: Habersham EMC                            Telephone: Windstream Communications
Summary: The utilities available to the site are normal for this market. Typically, the lack of public sewer
is not felt to be a significant disadvantage to the subject.




FLOOD HAZARD ZONE
Flood Map: 13311C0200C, zoned as X and A(some areas, away from the improvements, near the
south property line appear to be in the hazard area) and revised on 9/26/2006
The subject does not appear to be in a flood hazard area.




STRUCTURAL DESCRIPTION
          The subject property has 5 detached buildings or structures.




                                                 PAGE 23
                                                                            REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                      COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




                                                    House 1
Construction: wood frame                Estimated GBA: 21,200 sf
Exterior Wall: metal panel              Est Perimeter Feet: 1,140
Roofing: metal panel                    Est Wall Height: 8 feet
Foundation: poured concrete             Year Built: 1999
Guttering: None                         Age: 12 years
Condition: average                      Effective Age: 8 years
Quality: average                        Rooms: 2, Baths : 1
Appeal: average

Windows: curtain
Interior Surfaces/Trim: House dimensions are 40 ft by 530 ft. which includes a 20.5 ft X 13 ft egg room,
metal roofs, metal sided exterior sided, tri-ply ceiling and dirt floors.
Comments/Features: The poultry house is equipped with automatic curtains, Lubing cup drinkers, chain
feeders, Choretime rooster feeders, Shenandoah double line egg collectors, eight 48" ACME slant wall
tunnel fans, six inch re-circulating cool cells and Brock feed bins. The building was not seen as having a
functional obsolesce. The subject was not noted as having visible repair items.




                                                    House 2
Structural Materials: House             Building Area: 21,200 sf
dimensions are 40 ft by 530 ft.         Perimeter Feet: 1,140
which includes a 20.5 ft X 13 ft        Wall Height: 8 feet
egg room, metal roofs, metal            Year Built: 1999
sided exterior sided, tri-ply ceiling   Age: 12 years
and dirt floors.                        Effective Age: 8 years
Condition: average                      Rooms: 2, Baths : 0
Quality: average
Appeal: average
Functional Obsol: None
Comments: The poultry is equipped with automatic curtains, Lubing cup drinkers, chain feeders,
Choretime rooster feeders, Shenandoah double line egg collectors, eight 48" ACME slant wall tunnel
fans, six inch re-circulating cool cells and Brock feed bins.




                                                  PAGE 24
                                                                          REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                    COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




OTHER COMMENTS




Trade Fixtures/Contributory Elements: 1999 doublewide manufactured home 27 ft X 76 ft, old poultry
house 30 ft X 500 ft, shed
Contribution to Cost - Sales: $40,000
Number of Buildings: 5                                 Total Rooms - 4, Bathrooms - 1
Functional Obsolescence: None
Repairs: None. The surfaces and materials show moderate wear and tear but no repair items were
observed.
Remaining Economic Life: Without significant modification, the building is estimated to have an overall
(average) remaining life of about 22 or so years (based on an average 30 total anticipated life span).
Overall, the subject is in average condition and is of average quality.
Environmental Hazardous: No conditions were observed or were disclosed that might indicate the
presence of hazardous materials or gases. The improvements were built after 1978, except for the older
obsolete poultry house which if any portions were painted could have used lead based paint but it is not
common for chicken houses to have been painted. Otherwise there should not be the presence or the
past use of lead-based paint in the subject. Further, no water related damage was observed (from any
source, piping, drainage or a leaking roof). Thus, it is presumed that the subject is not contaminated
with mold, mildew or other substances that could endanger the health of occupants.
External Obsolescence: None




                                                PAGE 25
                                                            REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                      COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




BUILDING SECTION BREAKDOWN
  poultry houses       SF      %                                   FEATURES
   House 1            21,200   50%        Automatic curtains, Lubing cup drinkers, chain feeders, Choretime

                                       rooster feeders, Shenandoah double line egg collectors, eight 48" ACME

                                        slant wall tunnel fans, six inch re-circulating cool cells and Brock feed

                                                                         bins.

   House 2            21,200   50%        Automatic curtains, Lubing cup drinkers, chain feeders, Choretime

                                       rooster feeders, Shenandoah double line egg collectors, eight 48" ACME

                                        slant wall tunnel fans, six inch re-circulating cool cells and Brock feed

                                                                         bins.

   TOTALS             42,400   100%




                                PAGE 26
                                               REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                         COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




IMPROVEMENT DIAGRAM




                      PAGE 27
                                                       REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                 COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS




                              PAGE 28
                                                               REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                         COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




SUBJECT PHOTOS .C.SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS;




         House 1 Front East Side                     House 1 Front West Side




           House 1 Rear East                           House 1 Rear West




         House 1 Front Cool Cell                         House 1 Interior




                                   PAGE 29
                                                             REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                       COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




SUBJECT PHOTOS - CONTINUED




        House 1 Interior Egg Room                       House 1 Bath




         House 2 Front East Side                   House 2 Front West Side




           House 2 Rear East                         House 2 Rear West




                                    PAGE 30
                                                              REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                        COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




SUBJECT PHOTOS - CONTINUED




         House 2 Front Cool Cell                        House 2 Interior




      House 2 Egg Room and Cooler                   House 1 Feed Bins West




       House 2 Feed Bins East Side                  Choretronics Controllers




                                     PAGE 31
                                                           REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                     COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




SUBJECT PHOTOS - CONTINUED




               Generator                           House 1 and 2 Front




           Rental Trailer North                    Rental Trailer South




           Old Chicken House                     Old Chicken House Front




                                  PAGE 32
                                                       REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                 COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




SUBJECT PHOTOS - CONTINUED




                 Shop                                 Shed


                                               Thomas Road East




            Southwest View


           Thomas Road West




                              PAGE 33
                                                                                               REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                                         COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




                                                          CHAPTER 4
                                                      VALUATION ANALYSIS

HIGHEST & BEST USE - OVERVIEW
            The definition for "Highest and Best Use" is going through a refinement in the appraisal
industry. Traditionally, Highest and Best Use is the legal usage that would result in the highest
overall rate of return to the land as a residual. But now, since this analysis is involved both with the
scope of the assignment and is open to wide interpretation regarding “probable” or allowable
changes in zoning and use, new connotes are being found. In many national cases, Highest and
Best Use issues have been interpreted differently and the result has been very different
conclusions on the same property. Thus, the real meaning of the term is being more concisely and
narrowly defined to strip possible misinterpretation and misuse from its perception. The term is
now to mean:
                      “The probable use of land or improved property - specific with respect to user and
                      timing of the use - that is adequately supported and results in the highest present
                      value.”1
            Highest and Best Use also is a product of and a contribution to a community in as much
as the community creates an environment in which the market is attracted or repelled. This is also
borne out by the constraints of governmental zoning and use controls. For example, the local
planning and zoning authorities will, due to standards and expectations by the residents, restrict
use to those more acceptable and non-noxious uses closer to residential and professional
business areas. Heavy industrial uses will be confined to less populated and less affluent
areas...by the same token.
            Highest and Best Use is analyzed and understood with the stipulation that such analysis
and conclusions are the products of the analyst’s skill and judgment. Such are opinion only and
are not to be construed as being a “fact to be found.” Highest and Best Use, as a topic, is not
highly arbitrary and subjective but rather it is a study fraught with changing opinions, standards and
definitions in both a local and federal regulatory venue. Highest and Best Use is still loosely
qualified by the four historic tests: permissibility (allowed use), physical feasibility, economic
feasibility and maximum productivity (highest possible net return attributable to the land as a
residual...which would result in a corresponding highest value of the site of possible uses). But
many of the old meanings are changing due to the results of litigation.
            It also should be understood that all uses do not compete for all properties. There is an
obvious divide between all uses and probable uses. Even if legal, some uses would not be
appropriate, probable or feasible for a given site. This can be due to distances from desirable

1Article, “A Higher and Better Definition,” by David Lennhoff, et al, The Appraisal Journal, Winter 2004.


                                                                   PAGE 34
                                                                            REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                      COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


amenities such as transportation routes, suppliers, exposure concerns and the like. Thus, many
uses can be easily eliminated from consideration due to the permissibility and physical feasibility
tests. Further refinement of possible uses is the economic feasibility test. As a last step, the final
test to refine the list down to a single uppermost residual producing use is analyzed. This has
lately been clarified as meaning that the Highest and Best Use is that use that would outbid
competitive or alternative uses yielding the greatest surplus land productivity. This translates to the
highest residual price for the land (either as land rent or price or value of the land).
        The first qualifier for this study is legal land use restrictions... namely zoning. However,
White County has no zoning ordinance. As previously discussed, this allows virtually any land use
that remains physically and financially feasible and produces the highest residual.
        Surrounding the subject tract are uses such as other agricultural and residential types of
land usage. The subject appears to fit into the neighborhood and exhibits conformity. The
subject’s total site is reported at 29.6 acres in size. It slopes generally from north to south and has
no storm water system. The subject is not known to suffer from past storage of potentially
hazardous materials. Utilities to the site appear typical, allowing for all normally expected, publicly
available services. The subject site is seen as being only affected by normal market influences.
        The analysis of Highest and Best Use is to determine the legal, feasible, and financially
beneficial use, as it results in the highest value of the land. As the governmentally permissible and
physically possible uses have been discussed, the investment potential on the subject must be
examined. The subject is currently being operated under a poultry farm use, however, this type of
analysis considers both the property as improved and as if no improvements were on the site. In
theory, improvements which no longer contribute appreciably to the value of the site should be
significantly renovated or razed.


AS VACANT
        Should the building site be vacant and ready for improvement, the tract would seem to be
most appealing to a prospective buyer with the intention of assemblage, hold as investment or
improvement with a similar use structure to what exists . As the county has no zoning, the
permissible use test has been rendered mute.
        It is our opinion that sales with similar use and zoning to the subject would be found to
have a lesser price per acre than better exposure and more visible tracts in the same general area.
Again, the subject is not a prime site (or high profile, high visibility to traffic and demand site) for the
Cleveland area…is located in a more remote and removed area... having more of an agricultural
use in this area as a normal parcel location so it would be seen as best being marketed as an
agricultural or poultry farm use with a lesser demand than high exposure sites. __



                                                  PAGE 35
                                                                              REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                        COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


        The remaining considerations are feasibility and maximally productive potential uses. The
site (due to location and shape) is not appropriate for high exposure highway business, retail or
other high traffic and visibility uses (as on a busy, signaled corner) such as convenience store,
small multi-tenant retail or even normal highway business, either as vacant or improved. It is
located on a rural county road with little visibility from the street. It is an accepted tenant of
commercial real estate (outside major urban areas) that the highest per acre priced tracts are
those perceived as potential convenience store or shopping center sites. These, of course, require
high exposure and direct access to major traffic corridors.
        Other potential uses may be considered but only after consideration is paid to possible
rezoning (if probable as an extraordinary condition) and what would be physically feasible. Thus,
land sales of similar use and appeal are considered both in this Highest and Best Use analysis and
in developing an unimproved land value.
        Such a use, if marketed properly and professionally, is believed to generate the highest
possible sales price for the site (as a residual)... as opposed to other potential or interim uses.
Based on these points, the probable and permitted use that would result in the highest sales price
of the tract, as if vacant, is held to be as agricultural use. Based on an Inferred Market Analysis,
this physical use is held to be the maximally profitable... with the present time in mind. The most
likely user and purchaser is an end/user or investor.


AS IMPROVED
        Any improved use is likewise seen as needing to produce the highest return back to the
site. Preclusion of many uses is the normal zoning restrictions and physically feasible issues (as
discussed above) as they apply to both improved and unimproved highest and best use analysis.
The site could hold a larger structure... Soil appears adequate for load bearing purposes, access to
the site is adequate, potential flooding seems unlikely, however, these in themselves do not
produce a maximally productive situation.
        The existing floor plan of the building improvements would be best suited, it is felt, to
remain in the current configuration as a change in improvements would not likely result in an
increase in the residual attributed back to the site.
                 Our subject’s poultry farm use seems supported by surrounding and nearby
properties. Additionally, prior to the slowdown in the real estate market, transitional properties with
acreage that were changing use were going from agricultural to residential. Currently there is little
change of use in acreage tracts since the highest and best use is no longer residential
subdivisions. It is perceived that a potential user would pay a higher amount (either as rent or price
to purchase) to use the site with this use in mind than others with alternative uses.



                                                  PAGE 36
                                                                           REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                     COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


        So, it is felt that the viable improved highest and best use of the subject is as agricultural.
Within current market conditions, this use is seen as generating the highest possible present value
to the land. As this falls within the points made in the analysis as vacant it is held that the
agricultural use best meets the criteria of being permissible, feasible and maximally productive as
improved.




                                                 PAGE 37
                                                                          REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                    COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




UNDERLYING SITE VALUE ESTIMATE; .C.SITE VALUE ESTIMATE;
        This process is a Sales Comparison method seeking a market indicated land or site value.
We attempt to identify land transactions of similar location, nature, utility as the subject. Of course,
adjustments will be made to the comparables for significant differences. The subject value should
fall within the range of indicated values. At times, very few recent comparable transactions are
found and our search parameters will be widened both in location and distance but also in regards
to further back in time.
        The process is necessary to form an opinion with the subject site and is used later in the
report as a basis for further adjustments. The following is a summary table of selected land sales
used in this analysis to help with forming a reasonable opinion.


                                     LAND TRANSACTION SUMMARY
            Address                    Size         Property Use       Sales Price           Price/Acre

       455 Thomas Road                6.97 ac          Acreage           $50,000             $7,174 pa

1154 Brady Edge Road (Dewdrop         11.7 ac          Acreage           $98,714             $8,437 pa

               Dr)

      Off Albert Reid Road            9.04 ac          Acreage           $120,000            $13,274 pa

         Caldwell Drive                21 ac           Acreage           $100,002            $4,762 pa




                                                PAGE 38
                                                                               REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                         COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




LAND COMPARABLE SALES


                                        Land Transaction Comparable 1
Property Type:                  Acreage                      Comparable ID:                5861

Address: 455 Thomas Road, Cleveland 30528 Location: 4 parcels off NW corner with Hwy 115
Property Name:              None
Sales Price:                $50,000
Sales Date:                 6/11/2010
Tax ID Number:              035 033
Grantor:                    United Community Bank
Grantee:                    Robert L. Johnson




Zoning:                         No Zoning                    Deed Book/Page:               1360-287

Financing:                      Cash                         Plat Book/Page:               57-135

Data Source:                    CTI/Deed/Tax/Field           Condition of Sale:            Below Market/REO Resale

Location/Visibility:            Rural                        Legal Descip:                 LL 6, LD 1, White County,

                                                                                           GA



Site Size:                      6.97 ac                      Excess PA Estim:
Alloc. Excess Site:                                          Estim. Contribution:
Approx Front Ft:                                             Price per Front Ft:           ?

Approx. Site Sf:                303,613 sf                   Price per Sf:                 $0.16

Corner Location:                no                           Price per Acre:               $7,174



Comments:         Sold with camper, shed and some wood fencing estimated at $5,000. This 6.97 acre site was

not affected by zoning and was an acreage tract. It had an overall Rural location regarding traffic and visibility. It

sold for $7,174 per acre.




                                                     PAGE 39
                                                                                 REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                           COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




                                       Land Transaction Comparable 2
Property Type:                 Acreage                         Comparable ID:          6693

Address: 1154 Brady Edge Road (Dewdrop Dr), Dahlonega, GA 30533 Location: South of Cavender
Creek, off Homer Edge

Property Name:            None
Sales Price:              $98,714
Sales Date:               12/16/2009
Tax ID Number:            108 138
Grantor:                  Eric Loske
Grantee:                  Jill R. Lopez




Zoning:                        No Zoning                       Deed Book/Page:         1149-24

Financing:                     Cash                            Plat Book/Page:         43-4

Data Source:                   CTI/Deed/Tax/Field              Condition of Sale:      Arms Length/Market Level

Location/Visibility:           Rural                           Legal Descip:           LL 481, etc, LD 15,

                                                                                       Lumpkin County, GA



Site Size:                     11.7 ac                         Excess PA Estim:
Alloc. Excess Site:                                            Estim. Contribution:
Approx Front Ft:               714.0                           Price per Front Ft:     $138

Approx. Site Sf:               509,652 sf                      Price per Sf:           $0.19

Corner Location:                                               Price per Acre:         $8,437



Comments:          This tract had a knoll-top but was wooded. It also is presumed to have legal shared driveway

easement. This 11.7 acre site was not affected by zoning and was an acreage tract. It had an overall Rural

location regarding traffic and visibility. It sold for $8,437 per acre.




                                                       PAGE 40
                                                                               REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                         COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




                                      Land Transaction Comparable 3
Property Type:                Acreage                        Comparable ID:                6699

Address: Off Albert Reid Road, Cleveland, GA 30528 Location: 1 parcel off Albert Reid & off Howard Road
(south of Howard)

Property Name:           None
Sales Price:             $120,000
Sales Date:              7/16/2009
Tax ID Number:           031B 080
Grantor:                 Karen L. Allison
Grantee:                 Gerald & Rebecca A. Sims




Zoning:                       No Zoning                      Deed Book/Page:               1321-219

Financing:                    Cash                           Plat Book/Page:               64-18

Data Source:                  Realist/Deed/Tax/Field         Condition of Sale:            Arms Length/Market Level

Location/Visibility:          Rural                          Legal Descip:                 LL 128, 129, LD 3, White

                                                                                           County, GA



Site Size:                    9.04 ac                        Excess PA Estim:
Alloc. Excess Site:                                          Estim. Contribution:
Approx Front Ft:                                             Price per Front Ft:           ?

Approx. Site Sf:              393,782 sf                     Price per Sf:                 $0.30

Corner Location:                                             Price per Acre:               $13,274



Comments: Access is by deeded easement from Howard Rd. This 9.04 acre site was not affected by zoning
and was an acreage tract. It had an overall Rural location regarding traffic and visibility. It sold for $13,274 per

acre.




                                                     PAGE 41
                                                                               REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                         COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




                                      Land Transaction Comparable 4
Property Type:                Acreage                       Comparable ID:                 7139

Address: Caldwell Drive, Cleveland, GA 30528 Location: end of Caldwell Drive
Property Name:           None
Sales Price:             $100,002
Sales Date:              9/24/2010
Tax ID Number:           049 084
Grantor:                 United Community Bank
Grantee:                 Paul M. & Mary Catherine Montpas




Zoning:                       No Zoning                     Deed Book/Page:                1373-515

Financing:                    Pinnacle Credit Union $       Plat Book/Page:                31/52

Data Source:                  CTI                           Condition of Sale:             Below Market/REO Resale

                              Navigator/Deed/Tax/Field

Location/Visibility:          average                       Legal Descip:                  LL 54, LD 2, White

                                                                                           County, GA



Site Size:                    21 ac                         Excess PA Estim:
Alloc. Excess Site:                                         Estim. Contribution:
Approx Front Ft:              166.7                         Price per Front Ft:            $600

Approx. Site Sf:              914,760 sf                    Price per Sf:                  $0.11

Corner Location:                                            Price per Acre:                $4,762



Comments:         Mostly wooded tract located on private gravel road. This 21 acre site was not affected by zoning

and was an acreage tract. It had an overall average location regarding traffic and visibility. It sold for $4,762 per
acre.



                                                    PAGE 42
                                                        REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                  COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




LAND COMPARABLE LOCATION MAP




                               PAGE 43
                                                                          REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                    COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




COMPARABLE ADJUSTMENTS
        This site valuation is best served by an adjustment process that compensates for
significant differences in market factors. The following tables depict the process of listing general
information relevant to the marketability of the subject and allows for dollar changes to the per acre
sales prices of the comparables. This effort is aimed at rendering the comparables to an equal
level to the subject in these categories.
        The first area that needs to be examined is financing type and its influence. The type of
financing on the property has clear bearing on the terms and pricing of a property. This is done to
adjust for favorable financing that may have overly influenced or inflated a price. None of the
Comparables were seen as needing an adjustment in this area.
        Next, Motivation is considered. This is to consider the Comparable transactions for
favorable or unfavorable influences that inflated or lowered the pricing of the sale as an undue
stimulus or impetus. In this case, the Comparables 1 and Comparable 4 were seen as warranting
an adjustment as both were bank REO sales and is apparently well below the level of most other
sales. Thus, an adjustment was made for this to attempt to bring it closer to market level.
        Market Change is the next area of influence on the local real estate market to be
considered for adjustment. The market seems to be in a recovery as far as the dropping of values
after a two-year period of moderate to severe changes. It has not recovered in volume of sales or
in arms length transactions as the sale of bank owned properties continue to dominate. It is felt that
the current market has stabilized and is no longer showing a drop in value or pricing levels and that
the selected comparables reflect the market change and no further adjustment would be justified.
        General location is the next category in which the subject is contrasted to the
Comparables. This is to account, as best as can be reasonably done, for things such as the
property neighborhood, the property position and placement in that neighborhood, the traffic and
positioning that exposes a property or property improvements (if improved) to the traffic such as a
corner or one lot off a corner, etc. This is an appeal issue as it relates to physical aspects of the
property but also to the public choice of roads. In this case, it is felt that the comparables did not
require an adjustment for location.
        Following the overall location as an aspect of unimproved land ownership we next consider
adjustment related to the potential or allowed use of the property (as applicable). This is to account
for (adjust) the Comparables for a variety of differences and distinctions that are perceived by the
market. This can involve two properties that have the same overall use yet one can be seen as
having overtones of another potential co-use (such as in an industrial park lot being on the park
entrance and exposed to the highway... reflecting a greater potential for visibility and customer



                                                PAGE 44
                                                                           REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                     COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


traffic). In the case of the potential or allowed use, it is felt that the comparables did not require an
adjustment.
        Next we considered the differential sizes of the tracts. This is not a mechanical or
technical adjustment such as the above Market Change adjustment but rather is only made is the
difference is severe or rather large. This adjustment is based on the Law of Diminishing Returns.
This idea conveys that the quantity one has of something, the value incrementally would rise or fall
converse to the volume. This is held to be the case as one considering buying an acreage tract of
a small size would likely pay more per acre than a large or very large similar tract incrementally.
Thus, adjustments are not always warranted but are applied in instances of major size
differences.... to account only for the impact of the difference. Here only Comparable four did not
require an adjustment.
        The last two categories in our process are for unusual features or factors not already
address in the above steps. The first one is for odd shape or topographical difference between the
subject and Comparables. A ravine tract might be purchased for some reason but its utility and
potential cost of rendering it to be of average usefulness is likely of concern to the buyer. Thus,
such factors are seen as impacting the prices of land and lots. In regards to the subject, none of
the Comparables were felt needing adjustments as they were seen as requiring adjustments.
        The final point of consideration was an ‘Other’ category which would be a final step to
make allowances for any other point not seen in the process above but no other items were noted
concerning the comparables.
                 The indicated range of values run from about a $6,000 per acre amount on the low
end to around a $13,000 figure on the upper end. It seems reasonable to select a price more in
the center of the range due to the predominance of the sales. Therefore, $8,600 per acre is
selected as being the more realistic.




                                                 PAGE 45
                                                        REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                  COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




ADJUSTMENT GRID - LAND VALUE




                               PAGE 46
                                                                         REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                   COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


Thus, the subject's total land value is held to be approximately $254,560. This amount is then
called $250,000. This opinion is utilized in other approaches to value.




                                       SITE VALUE SUMMARY
  Section of Subject            Section Size              Per Acre Est                Total

          Site                    29.6 ac                  $8,600 pa                $254,560

       Subtotal                   29.6 ac                                           $254,560

        Called                                                                      $250,000




                                               PAGE 47
                                                                            REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                      COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




                                               COST APPROACH


COST COMMENTS
        The cost approach is a method of estimating the projected cost to reproduce the subject in
a similar fashion to its current quality, appeal and utility, less depreciation. It is a generalization of
the major components of construction. Also, the premise of the cost approach (as well as the
Sales Comparison Approach) is the Principal of Substitution. This principal is basically the idea
that an investor would not spend more than the cost to obtain a similarly located and advantageous
site, construct similar improvement with like features and functionality, without undue delay.


House 1
Marshall Valuation Classification: Poultry Floor Operation - Breeder Houses, D-Pole, Average, Section
17, Page 46. The base cost figure here is $10.48 which is then modified up $0.70 for the addition of
tunnel ventilation and $0.60 psf for cool cell systems. The resulting net figure is then used.
Quality: average                      Condition: average                     Appeal: average
Refinements
None


House 2
Marshall Valuation Classification: Poultry Floor Operation - Breeder Houses, D-Pole, Average, Section
17, Page 46. The base cost figure here is $10.48 which is then modified up $0.70 for the addition of
tunnel ventilation and $0.60 psf for cool cell systems. The resulting net figure is then used.
Quality: average                      Condition: average                     Appeal: average
Refinements
None
Marshall Valuation Classification: The Current Multiplier is from the update issued for April, 2011 and an
Athens, Georgia Local Multiplier was used.




FIXTURES/FEATURES
1999 doublewide manufactured home 27 ft X 76 ft,         Contribution: $40,000
old poultry house 30 ft X 500 ft, shed



                                                  PAGE 48
                                                                          REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                    COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




IMPROVEMENT DEPRECIATION
Depreciation is normally deducted to adjust the cost analysis for the reality of aging (wear and tear) and
deductions as caused by other internal and external factors influencing the subject. Physical
depreciation is determined by the conventional Economic Age/Life method whereas the process of
selecting an effective age is paramount.




                                      DEPRECIATION SUMMARY
      Improvement            Actual     Effect       Percent      Physical      Functional      External

         Section              Age          Age      Deduction

    House 1                    12          8           27%        $66,596

    House 2                    12          8           27%        $66,596

                                                       0%

                                                       0%

         TOTALS                                                   133,193



        Following are the calculations used to project the cost of replacement with similar type, use
and utility. Several items in the cost approach are rounded.




                                                 PAGE 49
                                                                                   REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                             COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




                                         COST CALCULATION SUMMARY
    Description                Detail                     Factor              Subtotal          Item Total

    Site Value Estim        Size of Tract              Value Per Acre
Site                           29.6 ac                   $8,600 pa            $254,560
                                  ac                         pa
                                0 ac                         pa                     $0
                                  ac                         pa
Total Site Value                                                              $254,560
Rounded to                                                                    $250,000            $250,000

Site Development                  Feet                     Item                Subtotal
Grading/Landscp                                                                $14,000
Other Site Imprv                                                                $3,000
Paving                              sf                      psf
Miscell/Contingency                                         5%                    $850
Total Site Dev                                                                 $17,850             $17,850
Section Costs                   S/F                      Cost PSF              Subtotal
House 1                        21,200                     $11.78              $249,736
House 2                        21,200                     $11.78              $249,736


Multipliers             House 1              House 2
Subtotal               $249,736             $249,736
Height                        1.000               1.000
Perimeter                     0.928               0.928
Local                         0.860               0.860
Current                       1.010               1.010
Totals                 $201,302             $201,302                                              $402,605
Fixture Contrib.                                                                                   $40,000
Entrepren. Profit                                                 $402,605       X 15%             $60,391

Depreciation             Physical         Functional               External       Totals
House 1                 $66,596
House 2                 $66,596


Totals                 $133,193                                                 $133,193         -$133,193

      Reconciliation
Total Cost Est                                                                                    $637,653
ROUNDED TO:                                                                                       $638,000




                                         VALUE BY COST ANALYSIS CALLED
                                                           $628,000




                                                         PAGE 50
                                                                                               REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                                         COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




                                                    SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
            The Sales Comparison Approach is also based on the idea of substitution1...that a
prospective buyer will consider several properties within desired parameters when looking to
acquire an investment. Thus, considering other properties offered for sale is part of this process.
Likewise, considering similar or substitutable closed purchases is seen as a proven method of
providing an equivalent value indicator for the subject. Again, the idea is to find similar,
substitutable properties.
            As the subject is a poultry farm, properties were sought not only in Cleveland but in
surrounding areas of White County. Comparables were not readily found nearby for this type of
property due to the subject’s type of use being rarely seen with sales. It is perceived that only a
few such transactions occur in this market over a several county region during a multi-year period.
Like poultry farm comparables properties were sought, of course, but by default the search was
expanded to wider parameters (dates and geography) and other agricultural related properties
were considered as well. Therefore, we searched a several county region around the subject
within our data source services. As should be anticipated, some transactions considered were
seen as being too extreme, others too distant or sold too far back in time to be reasonable
substitutes or adequate market indicators. But in our area, distances to similar use comparables
are not always of great concern and are substitutable. An adequate pool of sales were then found
and then narrowed down to the ones selected for use.
            The following are the selected sales transactions that have been analyzed and used in
determining the value of the subject property. The sales are closed sales and are seen as being
substitutable with the subject if on the market at same time. These sales indicate a range of
values that can be applied to the subject to arrive at an opinion of improved value.


                                                     IMPROVED SALES SUMMARY
               Address                               Property Use                     Sales Price           Approx. GBA                  Price PSF

          1029 GA Hwy 63                                  1 Story                     $390,490                 20,000 sf                 $19.52 psf

         432 Ed Reed Road                                 1 Story                     $280,000                 19,200 sf                 $14.58 psf

      1058 Bray's Lake Road                               1 Story                     $800,000                 42,200 sf                 $18.96 psf

         Claude Ford Road                                 1 Story                     $610,000                 32,300 sf                 $18.89 psf

     2521 Pleasant Hill Road                              1 Story                     $675,000                 34,560 sf                 $19.53 psf

  179 Bethlehem Church Road                               1 Story                     $740,000                 38,080 sf                 $19.43 psf


1“The appraisal principal that states that when several similar or commensurate commodities, goods, or services are available, the one with
the lowest price will attract the greatest demand and widest distribution. This is the primary principal upon which the cost and sales
comparison approaches are based.” - The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 3rd Edition, 1993.


                                                                   PAGE 51
                                                                              REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                        COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




IMPROVED COMPARABLE SALES


                                               Improved Sale 1
Property Type:           1 Story                                                 Comparable ID:           5911



Address: 1029 GA Hwy 63, Commerce, 30529 Location: Corner of Amy Circle and Hwy 63
Sales Price:             $390,490
Closing Date:            1/19/10
Tax ID Number:           B76-013
Name:                    None
Grantor:                 Dan Alexander
Grantee:                 Marc S. & Michele A. Kures and Hugh
Legal Descript:          E. & Margie P. Usry

                         GMD 208, Banks County, GA



Zoning:                      ARR Rural Residential         Deed Book/Page:               349/169
                                                           Plat Book/Page:               15/14 & 24/134

Financing:                   AgGeorgia Farm Credit         Reported Ownership:           Fee Simple

                             $397,050

Location Rating:             Average                       Condition of Sale:            Arms Length/Market Level

Verification:                Deed/Tax/Field                Site Size:                    29.41 ac



Year Built/Cond:             2000/Avg                      Land/Bldg Ratio:              64.05

Uses:                        Heavy Breeder Poultry         GBA Size:                     20,000 sf
                             Farm

Quality:                     Frame/Avg                     Price PSF:                    $19.52



Comments:         Tract improved with breeder house built in 2000, with up to date equipment, 40 ft X 500 ft.

Older, circa 1930, 1,480 sf residence estimated at $50,000 and shed, lean-to and storage building at $2,000. Also

has frontage on Amy Circle. It was built in 2000, was on a 29.41 acre site, had an overall Average visibility and

location and was zoned ARR Rural Residential. It had 20,000 sf GBA and it sold for $19.52 psf.




                                                   PAGE 52
                                                                              REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                        COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




                                               Improved Sale 2
Property Type:           1 Story                                                 Comparable ID:           5909



Address: 432 Ed Reed Road, Lula GA 30554 Location: 3 parcels north of intersection of Ed Reed Rd and
Yonah Homer Rd

Sales Price:             $280,000
Closing Date:            9/25/09
Tax ID Number:           B27-038
Name:                    None
Grantor:                 Vernon & Joyce Turner
Grantee:                 Bobby H. & Susan Tara Reid
Legal Descript:          GMD 265, Banks County, GA




Zoning:                      ARR - Agricultural Rural      Deed Book/Page:               345/751

                             Residential                   Plat Book/Page:               B/53

Financing:                   AgGeorgia Farm Credit         Reported Ownership:           Fee Simple

                             $247,686.50

Location Rating:             Average                       Condition of Sale:            Arms Length/Market Level

Verification:                GAMLS//Deed/Tax/Field         Site Size:                    8.38 ac



Year Built/Cond:             1994/Avg                      Land/Bldg Ratio:              19.01

Uses:                        Heavy Breeder Poultry         GBA Size:                     19,200 sf

                             Farm

Quality:                     Frame/Avg                     Price PSF:                    $14.58



Comments:         The property is an 8.38 acre agricultural tract located on Ed Reed Road in Banks County. The

property is improved with one 40' x 480' layer house, a 2002 Horton doublewide manufactured home and an older

frame dwelling. The Horton manufactured home is estimated at $20,000; the older frame dwelling is estimated at

$30,000. The poultry houses were equipped with Choretronics environmental Controllers chain, tunnel ventilation,

chain feeders, automatic nests and curtains. It was built in 1994, was on an 8.38 acre site, had an overall Average

visibility and location and was zoned ARR - Agricultural Rural Residential. It had 19,200 sf GBA and it sold for
$14.58 psf.




                                                   PAGE 53
                                                                               REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                         COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




                                               Improved Sale 3
Property Type:           1 Story                                                 Comparable ID:           5905



Address: 1058 Bray's Lake Road, Royston GA 30662 Location: Thirteen parcels north of intersection of
Bray's Lake Road and Hwy 51

Sales Price:             $800,000
Closing Date:            6/16/08
Tax ID Number:           038-057A
Name:                    None
Grantor:                 Tu T. Do
Grantee:                 Thiep Chanh Nguyen
Legal Descript:          1420 GMD, Franklin County, GA




Zoning:                      AI-Agricultural Intensive      Deed Book/Page:              939/189
                                                            Plat Book/Page:              28/570

Financing:                   Pinnacle Bank,                 Reported Ownership:          Fee Simple

                             $562,857.10

Location Rating:             Average                        Condition of Sale:           Arms Length/Market Level

Verification:                Deed/Tax/Field                 Site Size:                   25 ac



Year Built/Cond:             2004/Avg                       Land/Bldg Ratio:             25.81

Uses:                        Heavy Breeder Poultry          GBA Size:                    42,200 sf

                             Farm

Quality:                     Frame/Avg                      Price PSF:                   $18.96



Comments:         This property is a layer farm located in Franklin County. The property consists of two 40' x 530'

layer houses that were built to CWT specs. The property was also improved with one 16' x 76' single wide home

estimated at $5,000, a 40' x 60' shed estimated at $500 and one older single wide home in poor condition that was

not seen as contributing. This property previously sold for $850,000 on 7/9/2007. It was built in 2004, was on a

25 acre site, had an overall Average visibility and location and was zoned AI-Agricultural Intensive. It had 42,200

sf GBA and it sold for $18.96 psf.




                                                   PAGE 54
                                                                              REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                        COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




                                               Improved Sale 4
Property Type:           1 Story                                                 Comparable ID:           5903



Address: Claude Ford Road, Royston, GA 30662 Location: Two parcels west of intersection of Claude
Ford Road and Baker's Bridge Road.

Sales Price:             $610,000
Closing Date:            8/4/08
Tax ID Number:           C22-006-001
Name:                    None
Grantor:                 Rusty Kyle Bell
Grantee:                 Patricia L. Martin
Legal Descript:          GMD 1113, Hart County, GA




Zoning:                      No Zoning                     Deed Book/Page:               618/605
                                                           Plat Book/Page:               2I/149

Financing:                   AgGeorgia Farm Credit,        Reported Ownership:           Fee Simple

                             $514,949.50

Location Rating:             Average                       Condition of Sale:            Arms Length/Market Level

Verification:                Deed/Tax/Field                Site Size:                    12.186 ac



Year Built/Cond:             2001/Avg                      Land/Bldg Ratio:              16.43

Uses:                        Heavy Breeder Poultry         GBA Size:                     32,300 sf

                             Farm

Quality:                     Frame/Avg                     Price PSF:                    $18.89



Comments:         This sale is a 12.186 acre tract located on Claude Ford Road in Hart County. The property is

improved with two 34' x 475' layer houses. The layer houses were in average condition at the time of sale and

buyer was required to contribute $80,000 towards repairs and upgrades after the sale. The property was also

improved with one 40' x 100' shed estimated at $10,000. It was built in 2001, was on a 12.186 acre site, had an

overall Average visibility and location and had no zoning on the site. It had 32,300 sf GBA and it sold for $18.89

psf.




                                                   PAGE 55
                                                                               REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                         COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




                                                Improved Sale 5
Property Type:           1 Story                                                  Comparable ID:            5913



Address: 2521 Pleasant Hill Road, Talking Rock, GA 30175 Location: One parcel off the corner of
Pleasant Hill Rd and Antioch Church Rd

Sales Price:             $675,000
Closing Date:            4/4/08
Tax ID Number:           019-000-082-004
Name:                    None
Grantor:                 James A. Jones
Grantee:                 Xuong Vinh Chau and Loan Thi Kim
Legal Descript:          Huyhn

                         LL 95, LD 12, Pickens County, GA



Zoning:                       AG-Agricultural               Deed Book/Page:               818/421
                                                            Plat Book/Page:               V V 196

Financing:                    First Financial Bank,         Reported Ownership:           Fee Simple

                              $557,000

Location Rating:              Average                       Condition of Sale:            Arms Length/Market Level

Verification:                 Realist/Deed/Tax/Field        Site Size:                    15.271 ac



Year Built/Cond:              2002/Avg                      Land/Bldg Ratio:              19.25

Uses:                         Heavy Breeder Poultry         GBA Size:                     34,560 sf

                              Farm

Quality:                      Frame/Avg                     Price PSF:                    $19.53



Comments:         This sale is a 15.271 acre agricultural tract located on Pleasant Hill Road in Pickens County. The

property was a fully operating layer farm at the time of sale. The property is improved with two 40' x 432' layer

houses constructed in 2002, two small barns estimated at $2,000 and a generator building estimated at $20,000.

It was built in 2002, was on a 15.271 acre site, had an overall Average visibility and location and was zoned AG-

Agricultural. It had 34,560 sf GBA and it sold for $19.53 psf.




                                                      PAGE 56
                                                                              REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                        COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




                                               Improved Sale 6
Property Type:          1 Story                                                 Comparable ID:           5907



Address: 179 Bethlehem Church Road, Calhoun, GA 30701 Location: Located
Sales Price:            $740,000
Closing Date:           6/12/09
Tax ID Number:          088-097 & 116
Name:                   None
Grantor:                Jeffrey and Cindy Wilson
Grantee:                Phuc Pham
Legal Descript:         Ll 315, 7th LD, Gordon County, GA



Zoning:                      A1                            Deed Book/Page:              1598/237
                                                           Plat Book/Page:
Financing:                   First Financial Bank,         Reported Ownership:          Fee Simple

                             $619,500

Location Rating:             Average                       Condition of Sale:           Arms Length/Market Level

Verification:                Deed/Tax/Field                Site Size:                   17 ac



Year Built/Cond:             1999/Avg                      Land/Bldg Ratio:             19.45

Uses:                        Heavy Breeder Poultry         GBA Size:                    38,080 sf

                             Farm

Quality:                     Frame/Avg                     Price PSF:                   $19.43



Comments:         The property is a 17 acre agricultural tract located on Bethlehem Church Road in Gordon

County. The property is improved with two 40' x 476' layer houses constructed in 1999, one 2,271 SF dwelling

constructed in 2002 and one manufactured home. The dwelling has three bedrooms, 2.5 baths, a finished

basement and a detached garage. 2,271 SF dwelling constructed in 2002 and one manufactured home. The

dwelling has three bedrooms, 2.5 baths, a finished basement and a detached garage. The dwelling is estimated at

$200,000 and the manufactured home is estimated at $10,000. It was built in 1999, was on a 17 acre site, had an

overall Average visibility and location and was zoned A1. It had 38,080 sf GBA and it sold for $19.43 psf.




                                                     PAGE 57
                                                            REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                      COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




IMPROVED COMPARABLE LOCATION MAP




                                   PAGE 58
                                                                            REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                      COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




COMPARABLE ADJUSTMENTS
        The subject valuation is best served by an adjustment process that compensates for
significant differences in market factors. Adjustment categories are seen as being established as
elements or factors regarding the sale of a property. We use these defined categories as points of
comparison and contrast.
        Financing type and its influence is the first element to be considered. This is also known
as “condition of sale” adjustments. Cash Equivalency issues are included in this adjustment. As
stated earlier, the type of financing on the property has clear bearing on the terms and pricing of a
property. When necessary, adjustments are made for favorable financing that may have overly
influenced or inflated/deflated the price. None of the sales were seen as needing cash equivalency
adjustments for unusual or advantageous financing.
        Motivation as an influence on the transaction is considered next. This is to consider the
Comparable transactions for favorable (below market) or unfavorable influences that inflated or
lowered the pricing of the sale as an undue stimulus or impetus. In this case, the Comparables
were not seen as warranting an adjustment for this.
        Market Condition (also known as time adjustment) is the next area of influence. It is to
account for the passage of time by adjusting for appreciation or depreciation, as necessary. The
subject area and region are seen as having been impacted by the 2008-2009 recession. Two of the
comparables which sold in 2008 were adjusted downward to reflect the higher prices for real estate
existing at the time.
        It is felt that the local real estate market has now bottomed out and is no longer dropping in
value. This is from the increased activity in the general economy, of course, but also can be
measured in contrasting sales prices from several months ago to current levels. Regarding the
Market Change adjustment to the remaining comparables being they sold during the downtown
those prices should reflect the current market and is felt that the local real estate market has now
bottomed out and is no longer dropping in value. Prior to the recession, we were applying
appreciation to the comparables. During the two--year period of the recession and the market
crash, we applied negative or depreciation figures to the comparables. However, it is held that the
market has likely reached a plateau. Generally, adjustments to the comparables would now be
inappropriate at this time with the exception of Comparables 3, 4 and 5. These were sold prior to
the market drop and with the relative infrequent sales of breeder farms necessitated the use of
these sales.
         Any site - location adjustment is based on the subject and all comps as if vacant (and
includes considerations for location, visibility, traffic count, slope, etc.). The subject site is
estimated at $250,000 as if vacant. This is done to provide a point of comparison to the


                                                  PAGE 59
                                                                           REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                     COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


comparable sales. If a significant difference is perceived between the respective sites, an
adjustment is made in estimate of market response. If no adjustment is made, then we hold that
the values between the sites are too close to draw a conclusion and are, therefore, roughly
equivalent. Some Comparable respective underlying site values were seen as rather different in
contrast to the subject level of value and, therefore, have varied and large adjustments.
        Next, property ‘Use’ was considered for necessary adjustments. Of course such use is
tied or linked to the location as it must be an approved or permissible (or likely approved) function
for this site. But within variability in this aspect of property ownership there are large appeal issues
that should be considered. Nuisances are important regarding some points of property use and
again are considered here. If significant, an adjustment is taken. For instance, comparables that
had an unusually large finished office area within a building is seen as having a higher build-out
percentage would demand a premium than an average configured building. The Comparables
were of the same use so adjustments were not necessary.
        Following this is the Quality of Construction issue. The subject is a wood frame structure
and this may not be as good, or may be better, than the Comparable improvements. The quality of
the building is also a far ranging topic and this alone is the basis of entire sub-industries in the
construction and real estate fields. Our point here is to contrast the subject improvements... as a
building or improvement type, with the comparables. This is a comparison of the appeal of the
materials and styling of the buildings which is essentially the same for the subject and the
comparables and required no adjustments.
        Age, effective age and related condition are the next points considered in this process and
are also an improvement-connected issue but must be segregated in our discussion. A newer
building appeals more to the market but also conveys the expectation that the building has a better
potential functionality and would be in a better physical state. This better condition means, of
course, that in the immediate future less work will need to be done to the equipment, surfaces and
other elements for replacement or maintenance. These elements also play into the consideration of
a savvy market participant. Most comparable properties will warrant some level of adjustment for
these types of factors (age and condition) of improvements. Four sales transactions were seen as
being superior as being younger one being inferior being older and one was of the same age.
        The size of the building is the next items to be considered for adjustment. Since the basis
point of comparison is a per square foot price, this is typically not much of a concern. It becomes a
matter of adjustment, however, when the differences between the subject and comparison property
is considerable. At this point, our theory teaches us that the Law of Diminishing Returns will apply.
This idea basically conveys the more one has of something, the incremental value of that item
drops or reduces. So, the comparable will not be adjusted unless it is much larger or smaller than
the subject. In those instances, the market is perceived as varying a potential offering price for the


                                                 PAGE 60
                                                                          REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                    COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


property in accord with the extremes. A smaller building will typically sell for more (sometimes far
more) than an average sized building and on the other end of the spectrum the larger or very large
warehouse or retail center will likely sell for less per square foot (following the market increment).
This is typical of most uses. Adjustments for this, again, are only taken when it is perceived that
the buyer is likely to receive a discount or pay a premium, incrementally, due to the size of the
building (in both situations the difference is enough to trigger an anticipated market response). If
the subject and the comparable are close to the same size, an adjustment will not be normally
taken as this is the ideal situation. Two comparables were adjusted which had approximately half
of the area of the subject.
        The final two factors in our analysis for adjustments are for Fixtures and a category we
label ‘Other.’ In an ideal situation the subject and comparables will have similar enough levels of
equipment, fixtures and features to convey that no adjustment would be necessary (commonly
seen as part of the real property bundle of rights for that type of property). Occasionally a feature is
observed or appears that is not typical for the market. If this item is seen as being appealing and
attractive enough to be contributory, then an adjustment should be considered. Our Other category
is simply a ‘catch-all’ for items not previously addressed in the adjustment process. In this case the
subject has a 2,052sf doublewide trailer which rents for $500 per month including water, an
obsolete 18,000sf poultry house currently used as a shop and storage and a 20ft X 12ft shed.
These items are estimated to contribute $40,000 and the comparables are adjusted for the net
difference for similar accessory improvements present on the comparable farms. Comparable 1
had an older, circa 1930, 1,480 sf residence estimated at $50,000, shed, lean-to and storage
building at $2,000 which required a -3% adjustment. Comparable 2 had a 2002 Horton doublewide
manufactured home and an older frame dwelling. The Horton manufactured home is estimated at
$20,000; the older frame dwelling is estimated at $30,000. This was adjusted for at -4%.
Comparable 3 had a 16' x 76' single wide home estimated at $5,000, a 40' x 60' shed estimated at
$500 and one older single wide home in poor condition that was not seen as contributing. This
resulted in a 4% adjustment. Comparable 4 had a 40' x 100' shed estimated at $10,000 and was
adjusted 5%. Comparable 5 had two small barns estimated at $2,000 and a generator building
estimated at $20,000 and was adjusted 3%. Comparable 6 had a 2,271 SF dwelling constructed in
2002 and one manufactured home. The dwelling has three bedrooms, 2.5 baths, a finished
basement and a detached garage. The dwelling is estimated at $200,000 and the manufactured
home is estimated at $10,000. This was adjusted at -23%.
        Items that are seen as being superior to the subject are negatively adjusted, while inferior
elements are adjusted in a positive direction. For example, a property that has larger finished
office area will likely demand a higher sale price or rent amount. Factors such as this, as well as
other features, contribute to property value. So, the purpose in this process is to render the


                                                PAGE 61
                                                                       REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                 COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


comparables reasonably equal to the subject in most respects. The following table depicts the
adjustment process on the presented sales.




                                             PAGE 62
                                                       REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                 COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




COMPARABLE ADJUSTMENT TABLE




                              PAGE 63
                                                                            REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                      COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




COMPARABLE RECONCILIATION
        The comparables all share poultry farm use or improvement type. Some items are not
adjusted in this process. The rationale behind this is twofold; first, the comparables themselves are
seen as being quite similar in most major regards to the subject (location-site, appeal, etc.) and,
secondly, at some points of difference are nominal and offsetting.
        The subject is held as having an average quality rating with average appeal. The location
is rated, in our opinion, as being fair. In our opinion, the subject would be seen neither as justifying
a more lenient and generous nor lesser and more conservative place within the range of
comparable indicated values as it appears. Based on this, market observations and personal
experience, a final figure is selected from more of the middle of the range to allow for these points.
This is especially true now with the market being very inconsistent and difficult to measure. The
impact of the real estate crash on some market segments and on Comparables exhibits itself as an
additional dimension of difficulty (both in quantity and quality of sales) and related risk.
        The above sales, allowing for differing elements and factors, indicate a middle range from
between $18 and $22. The indicated mean (average) is a fair figure. None of the comparables
seem exceptionally superior as all have strengths and weaknesses. Within the range, the subject
is seen as best positioned at $20.00 as this is closer to the center of the range. Therefore, this
amount is selected for subjects per square foot projected value. This figure, factored by the size of
the structure’s gross aggregate building area of 42,400 square feet equals $848,000.
        After applying the selected figures to the Gross Building Area poultry houses, the
contribution of the fixtures, equipment or features (such as excess or surplus land) must be
considered. In this case, the contributory elements are typically found in the comparables. Thus,
there is no need for an adjustment and no further allowance would be appropriate. The total figure
by this approach to value is finally rounded to $850,000.       The following table summarizes the
conclusions of this analysis.




                             SALES COMPARISON ESTIMATES TABLE
    poultry houses              Building Area Size           Estimated PSF              Contribution

    House 1                            21,200 sf                  $20.00 psf              $424,000

    House 2                            21,200 sf                  $20.00 psf              $424,000

          Total                                                                           $848,000

        CALLED                                                                            $850,000




                                                   PAGE 64
                                     REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
               COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




VALUE BY SALES COMPARISON ANALYSIS
             $850,000




            PAGE 65
                                                                          REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                    COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


                                        CHAPTER 5
                               CORRELATION AND CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS OF VALUE:




LAND/PAD OPINION:                                                           $250,000
COST APPROACH:                                                              $628,000
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH:                                                  $850,000
INCOME APPROACH:                                                              Omitted




RECONCILIATION
        The Cost Approach is an estimate of reproduction cost. This is most applicable in cases of
special-use properties... such as houses of worship and specialized farming structures and new or
newer construction. Otherwise, it is seen as a weak sibling to the stronger Capitalization Approach.
Like the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach does not reflect the income producing
abilities and appreciation in the property yet it is seen as supporting the other two approaches. It is
especially less able to indicate a reliable opinion of value due to the massive depreciation (wear
and tear, needed repairs, and age of some sections).
        The Sales Comparison Approach is indicative of the market forces that drive pricing on
local commercial property. This valuation method is not seen as reflecting the complete, total
worth of the property... due to the cash flow, debt reduction and equity gain factors. It is seen as
only pointing to the equity gain only. In many cases, renovation costs to render the property in to a
more functional or usable state, are necessary. This approach is seen as being most applicable.




                                                PAGE 66
                                                                         REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                   COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


        Therefore, in consideration of the relevant points regarding the subject property, I am of
the opinion that the subject’s estimated market value is




                        EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.




                            ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE IS $850,000




                                               PAGE 67
                                                                          REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                    COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG



CERTIFICATION OF VALUE


        I certify that the subject property was inspected and I have no present or contemplated
future interest in the property, and that I have no personal interest or bias regarding the information
contained in this report or to the various parties concerned and involved. No personal property was
included in or has influenced this valuation or conclusions. We reserve the right to alter our report
and conclusions regarding updated or better information.
        In view of the factors surrounding this property, it is my opinion that its market value as of
April 13, 2011 was...




                         EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.




_______________________________                    _________________________________
Douglas F. McAfee                                  Matt L. Turner, SRA
Georgia Certified General Appraiser 94             Georgia Certified General 94 - Did Not Inspect the
                                                   Subject
                                                   Supervisory Review Appraiser




                                                PAGE 68
                                                      REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


                    ADDENDA/MAPS/ATTACHMENTS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION




                             PAGE 69
                                             REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                       COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




LEGAL DESCRIPTION




                    PAGE 70
                                                       REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                 COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




CONSERVATION USE ASSESSMENT




                              PAGE 71
                                               REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                         COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


ENGAGEMENT DOCUMENT




                      PAGE 72
                                                    REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                              COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


ENGAGEMENT DOCUMENT - II




                           PAGE 73
                                                     REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                               COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


ENGAGEMENT DOCUMENT - III




                            PAGE 74
                                                    REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                              COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


ENGAGEMENT DOCUMENT - IV




                           PAGE 75
                                     REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
               COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


FLOOD MAP




            PAGE 76
                                              REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                        COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


TRAFFIC DATA PANEL




                     PAGE 77
                                          REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                    COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


AERIAL IMAGERY




                 PAGE 78
                                                         REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                   COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


AERIAL IMAGERY - GOOGLE EARTH




                                PAGE 79
                                                     REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                               COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


ERRORS AND OMISSIONS INFO




                            PAGE 80
                                                                             REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                       COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




QUALIFICATIONS OF MATT L. TURNER


   Formal Education:
   Gainesville College, Georgia: 1976 to 1978: transferred to...
   Oral Roberts University, Oklahoma: 1978 to 1980: Graduated in 1980 with a Bachelor of Arts Degree.

   Professional Affiliations:
   SRA Designation, "Senior Residential Appraiser," Member of the Appraisal Institute, 1/1/91
           Served on the Admissions - Experience Review Committee for the Atlanta Chapter.
           Served on the Regional Ethics and Counseling Panel for the National organization.
   RM designation, "Residential Member" 2562 of American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers
           (AIREA). Designation awarded 2/90. Relinquished the RM for SRA designation when the
           AIREA & Society merged.
   CREA designation from National Association of Real Estate Appraisers, 6/87 to 6/88.
   Current Affiliate Member of five Realtor boards.
   Employee Relocation Council - Affiliate Member.
   FHA (CR94) & USDA Rural Development Program approved.

   State Certification Information:
   Commercial Certification by the State of Georgia Real Estate Appraisers Board. Certified General #94,
          awarded 7/2002.
   Residential Certification by the State of Georgia Real Estate Appraisers Board. Certified Residential
          #94, awarded 5/1991. Able to perform any one to four unit residential assignment without regard
          to complexity or value.

   Appraisal Education/Projects:
   Several real estate investment seminars given by American Congress of Real Estate, 1985.
   "Professional Real Estate Appraisal Course," National College of Appraisal, 5/87.
   "Principles of Appraising," #8-1, AIREA, 9/87.
   "Cash Equivalency" and "Employee Relocation Appraising" AIREA Atlanta Chapter , 1/88.
   "Residential Valuation," #8-2, AIREA, 2/88.
   "Standards of Professional Practice," #2-3/8-3, AIREA, 9/88.
   Demonstration Appraisal Report, AIREA, 7/88 to 1/89.
   "Techniques of Appraisal Review" seminar, by National Association of Review Appraisers and Mortgage
            Underwriters, 9/89.
   "Standards of Professional Practice, “SPP-A, 9/92, & SPP-B, 12/92. Appraisal Institute
   Appraisal Review-Admissions Committee Seminar, Appraisal Institute, 2/91.
   FNMA Quality Control Seminar put on by Fannie Mae. 3/92.
   FNMA Appraisal Seminar for Underwriters put on by Fannie Mae. 4/92.
   "Aspects of Appraising Historic Property," Appraisal Institute Atlanta Chapter/GA Institute of Real Estate,
            7/93.
   Revised URAR Report Form, Appraisal Institute, 10/93.
   "The Appraiser as Expert Witness", Appraisal Institute, 10/93.
   "Environmental Hazards" & "Eminent Domain," Lee & Grant Co, 11/94.
   "How to Appraise FHA Insured Property," Appraisal Institute, 1/95.
   "Historical Properties," Lee & Grant Co, Fall 1995.
   "Appraising for Foreclosures & Court Litigation," L.D. Thomas & Associates, 10/96.
   "Advanced Income Property Valuation," DeKalb Tech, Jim Hunter, 5/99-6/99.
   "FHA Appraisal Changes," Lincoln Graduate Center, 10/99.
   “Elementary Income Property Capitalization Methods & Techniques,” Atlantic School of Real Estate,
            Charles Wood, 6/02
   “Evaluating Commercial Construction,” Appraisal Institute, James C. Canestaro, AIA, AICP, 11/04.

   Appraisal Experience:
   Residential Real Estate Investor: rudimentary appraising, purchasing, renovating, and marketing
          distressed properties. 3/85 to 5/86 with small firm and 5/86 to 6/87 as independent contractor.
   Appraiser with local fee appraisal company, 4/87 to 2/89. 328 reports written - residential & commercial
          Property.
   Founder, CEO of "Appraisal Resources, Inc." an independent fee appraisal company, 2/89.




                                                  PAGE 81
                                                                       REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                 COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


Types of Properties Experienced with Include:
Single Family Residences - existing, proposed, under construction and relocations (ERC form) & FHA
Lake, River, Rural, Golf Course, PUD's, cluster homes, and mountain top homes.
Log, Post & Beam, Lam-Beam, Steel, Pedestal, Panelized Homes, Manufactured.
Historic Properties - Renovations, Rehabilitation, Modernization and Remodeling.
Condominiums, Fee Simple Attached, Townhouses, Earth Shelters.
Small Income Residential Properties - duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes.
Undeveloped Acreage, Vacant Lots & Farms.
REO's, Foreclosures, Divorce, Estate Settlement, Distressed and Market Resistant Properties.
Transitional Highest and Best Use properties.
Commercial Properties: Retail, Light Industrial, Manufacturing, Office, Farms, Apartments, Churches,
         Subdivisions, Automotive, Highway Business and Multitenant properties.




                                             PAGE 82
                                                                         REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                                   COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG




QUALIFICATIONS OF Douglas F. McAfee




   . Formal Education:
   Young Harris, Georgia, Young Harris, GA: 1975 Associates Degree
   University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia: 1981 Bachelor of Science Degree
   University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia: 1984 Masters in Forestry Degree

   Appraisal Experience:
   Registered Appraiser 9/2004
   Certified General 12/2007
   Timber, Timberland, Single Family Residences, Undeveloped Acreage, Vacant Lots & Farms, REO's,
            Foreclosures, Estate Settlement, Retail and Office Commercial Properties, Subdivisions




                                               PAGE 83
                                                                    REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                              COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG



                                USPAP COMPLIANCE INDEX TABLE




• Check for __, (double underline Flags)
• Remove ?
• Remove - “was zoned none “
• Replace A Average with An Average... and A 8 with An 8.
• If Proposed or Prospective, change tense of has to will have.
• Spell Check
• Load Photos
• Review Pages at 10% under Page Preview for accidental pages
•Insert Digital Signatures, if needed
•Check for Accidental Section Breaks
• READ Comparable narrative descriptions for grammar and reasonableness
•Redo Index - Fix Font
•F9 to redo Table of Contents - Fix Font
•Fix Footer Logo, check Header Info




                                           PAGE 84
                                                                     REPORT ON 2013 THOMAS ROAD
                                               COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST SPECIAL ASSETS MGMT/VMG


 Income Approach, 72
Addenda/Maps/Attachments, 103
Alternative Values, Components & Configurations, 13
Appraiser Certification, 6
Assessment, 24
Certification of Value, 101
Comparable Adjustment Table, 68
Competency, 9
CORRELATION AND CONCLUSIONS, 99
Cost Approach, 60
Cost Approach only analysis, 8
Definition of Opinion of Market Value, 8
Direct Capitalization, 72
discount factor, 95
Discounted Cash Flow, 72
Effective Date, 21
Engagement Document, 120
Fixtures, __ Features __ Furnishings, Equipment Schedule, 119
Flood Map, 124
Highest & Best Use, 47
History, 22
Hypothetical Conditions, 13
IDENTIFICATION OF SUBJECT, 21
Improvement Diagram, 36
Income Definitions, 89
Intent and intended User, 10
Limiting Conditions, 7
Ownership Interest, 21
Prior to Stabilization, 102
Reconciliation, 99
reversion, 11, 72, 94, 95
Sales Comparison, 63
Scope, 10
Site Description, 24
Site Development Calculations, 126
Site Improvements, 24
Structural Description, 33
Subject Lease, 22
Subject Photos, 40
Tax Map - Additional, 127




                     __                                           PAGE 85
                                                    __


                     INVOICE FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES
Community Bank and Trust Special Assets Mgmt/VMG
 Sir
448 N. Main Street
Cornelia, Georgia 30531

Re:
Appraisal File: 2011050
1124431
__
Stephen A. and S. Blake Hulsey
2013 Thomas Road
Cleveland, GA 30528


Inspection Date:
April 13, 2011


   Due to collection expenses and costs, we charge a Per Diem over our 20 day billing cycle on
          unpaid amounts. Please add $1.38 Per Day to the below amount over 21 days.




       Assignment Type - Report Type                                         Amount
                     Summary                                                  $2,800
       Add Per Day (over 21 days) - $1.38                                 +_________
                       Total

Net, 20 days. Our Tax Identification Number is 58-2392449. Please remit to the above address and note our
  file number and the owner. We are entitled to interest, collection fees and penalties on invoices over 20
                              days. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
PDF Format of
Appraisal Report:




__
Attn: Stephen A. and S. Blake Hulsey
2013 Thomas Road
Cleveland, GA 30528




______________________________________________
Bank Courier Only

Do not Mail




From:

Appraisal Resources, Inc.
PO Box 3100
Gainesville, Georgia 30503
770-287-7500




Documents to:



Community Bank and Trust Special Assets Mgmt/VMG
448 N. Main Street
Cornelia, Georgia 30531




______________________________________________
                                                       __

Community Bank and Trust Special Assets Mgmt/VMG
 Sir
448 N. Main Street
Cornelia, Georgia 30531



Re:
Stephen A. and S. Blake Hulsey,
2013 Thomas Road
Cleveland, GA 30528




Dear Sir,
I wanted to express our appreciation for this assignment. Appraising these types of properties is
demanding, especially in light of increasing agency directives on federally related transactions such as
disclosure, confidentiality and engagement. We find this challenge to be rewarding. Should you need any
other item dealing with this report, please do not hesitate to ask.


We are proud of our past achievements… specifically in regards to the degree of proficiency in our analysis
and reports.


We are hopeful of a long-lasting, professional relationship between our firms. Please keep us in mind in
upcoming appraisal requests. Again, thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this assignment and
we sincerely appreciate your business and referrals.




Yours Truly,



Matt L. Turner
Georgia Certified General Appraiser
Appraisal Resources, Inc.

								
To top