VIEWS: 1 PAGES: 88 POSTED ON: 2/26/2012
__ 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.
Pages to are hidden for
"Definition of Opinion of Market Value - Appraisal Resources"Please download to view full document