Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Property -------- -------- by gabyion

VIEWS: 198 PAGES: 27

									Property        ----
                -- ----
                -- -- ----
                   -- ----
                       $


                             Valuation Advisors
     Real Estate Appraisal Review
                             PROPERTY:
           Student Housing in Durham, NH

                             LOCATED IN:
                              Durham, NH

                   PREPARED FOR:
                Todd Selig
        Durham NH Town Administrator


       APPRAISALS PERFORMED BY:

                       Robert Dix, CNHA


        APPRAISALS REVIEWED BY:

            Stephen Traub, ASA, CNHA
            Property Valuation Advisors
                     63 Hill St.
              Newburyport, MA 01950
               Phone (978) 462-4347
                 straub@shore.net


                             Valuation Date
                                 4/1/08




                                   1
                                              ----
                                              -- ----




                        Property                           Valuation Advisors
                                              -- -- ----
                                                 -- ----
                                                     $




                                          63 Hill St.
                                     Newburyport, MA 01950
                                          Tel. (978) 462-4347
                                           straub@shore.net



                                                                                                 11/10/08

Todd Selig
Town Administrator
Town Hall, 15 Newmarket Road
Durham, NH 03824
Sent via email PDF attachment to: tselig@ci.durham.nh.us

Re: Review of the mass appraisal (new assessments) of student housing in Durham, NH
(4/1/08 valuation date) performed by Robert Dix, Durham Assessor



Dear Mr. Selig:

I transmit this review appraisal of the appraisals/assessments referred to above.
A review appraisal is the act or process of critically studying a report prepared by another author. It is
different from the original appraisal and appraisal report in both the process and report. The purpose is to
advise the client about the appropriateness of the appraisal methods and techniques used as well as about
the completeness, the adequacy, and relevance of the data, and the proprietary of the adjustments. I have
formed an opinion as to whether the analyses, opinions, and conclusions in the report were appropriate and
reasonable. With those with which I disagree, I have developed and reported reasons for that disagreement.
Some of the review appraisal report may contain pertinent additional information that was not in the
original appraisal report.

In summary, with student housing assessments increasing 70% to 71% (on average), is
this increase justified and are the new assessments accurate within acceptable tolerances?
Based on 16 sales, the average sale price was about 74% higher than the average old
assessed value. This alone would indicate that one would expect the average assessment
to increase by about 74%. So at first glance the answer is yes.

Looking at this in more depth, the review appraiser analyzed properties by sale price per
apartment, sale price per capita occupancy, and sale price per SF of building. Overall, the
average sale price was about $125,000 per apartment, while the average new assessment
was about $122,000 per apartment. The average sale price was about $45,000 per capita
occupancy, while the average new assessment was about $44,000 per capita occupancy.
The average sale price was about $173 per SF of building, while the average new
assessment was $168 per SF. Therefore, the new assessments compare favorably.




                                                             2
The International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO), recommends performing
ratio studies to use in the evaluation of mass appraisal performance. One can use the ratio
study to determine where appraisal performance meets acceptable standards and where it
does not. The studies can evaluate whether a given class of property is appraised at
market value.

The old average/median level of assessment of student housing was 59% of market value.
As a result of the recent revaluation, the new average/median level of assessment of
student housing is now 99% to 100% of market value, right on target.

Regarding the quality of the assessments, the Coefficient of Dispersion (COD) is the
most common measure of uniformity (quality). Low CODs tend to be associated with
good appraisal uniformity. A low COD represents a tight level of dispersion. A high
COD represents a loose or wide distribution of individual assessment ratios. According to
professional standards, a COD of 10 or less is good, a COD of 15 is fair, and a COD
above 15 is poor.

The old quality rating or COD (based on the old assessments) was 15.19, indicating poor
assessment quality. The new quality rating or COD (based on the new assessments) is
7.01 indicating the new assessments are A) significantly improved in quality, and B) are
considered very good quality.

The first of two caveats is that although overall the values appear appropriate and are
within allowable tolerances, there still may be some individual properties that may need
adjustment. If these do exist, however, these can be handled by the normal abatement
process individually.

The second caveat is that the documentation regarding the revaluation was below
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices (USPAP) standards with respect
to mass appraisal. So I’d recommend that the assessor in the near future compile the
necessary documentation as indicated by USPAP Standard 6. In the State of NH, USPAP
2005 is the legislated criteria to follow. A checklist for such documentation is available
from the NH DORA.

Nevertheless, as is, the new assessments of student housing overall are at approximately
100% of market value, right on target, and overall the quality is considered good.


Sincerely,




Stephen Traub, ASA, CNHA




                                            3
  The Scope, Extent, Intended Use, and Intended Users of This
                   Review Appraisal Report


The scope of this review and report is limited to the review of the new assessments of
property considered to be student housing in the Town of Durham, NH. The increase in
the assessments of student housing ranged from 40% to as much as 118% with an
average increase of 70% to 71%. Most of the rest of the properties in Town received less
substantial changes in their assessments. The question is, was the extent of the
increases in the assessments of student housing justified and accurate?

The new assessments as required by the State reflect the market value as of 4/1/08. To
establish these market values three approaches to value are available to the appraiser:
Comparables Sales, Income, and Cost.

Typically sales are utilized up to three years prior to the valuation date and depending on
the completion date of the project up to three to six months subsequent to the valuation
date.

In meeting with the assessor for approximately four hours, he submitted to the review
appraiser a set of commercial industrial and apartment property assessment cards most of
which represented student housing. Although the review appraiser casually looked over
some of the non-student housing property, the review appraiser’s focus was on the review
and analysis of student housing.

The review appraiser did a field review of such housing viewing the exteriors and
locations of such property in the Town.




                                            4
                                 Review and Analysis


From early 2007 through mid-2008, approximately 16 student housing properties
changed hands in a manner that was considered arms-length and whereby no major
additions or substantial changes to the properties took place subsequent to the sale.

Fourteen of these qualified sale properties represented two separate bulk sales of 16
properties. Nevertheless, the new owner (the buyer) provided an allocation of sale prices
associated with fourteen qualified sales. When combined with the two other unqualified
sale properties in the package, these sale prices totaled to the overall sale price paid.

These fourteen allocated sale properties plus two independent singular sales were used as
the basis of establishing most of the updated value parameters for the new assessments
and are at the heart of this review analysis.




Old Assessment Ratio Analysis


To understand the analysis, it is important to understand the concept of assessment ratio.

Ex. 1: If a property sells for $100,000 and the assessment is $90,000, its assessment ratio
is 90% (of market value), 90,000/100,000 = 90%. Therefore, it is assessed below its
indication of market value.

Ex. 2: On the other hand, if a property sells for $100,000 and the assessment is $110,000,
its assessment ratio is 110% (of market value), 110,000/100,000 = 110%. Therefore, it is
assessed above its indication of market value.

To determine the overall assessment ratio of an entire town, one can perform this exercise
on each sale that occurred in a town and derive an individual ratio for each property that
sold in a given period. The overall assessment ratio or level of assessment is the central
tendency (average or midpoint) of the individual ratios.

Additionally, one can perform this same ratio exercise for classes of property in a town
rather than the entire town to determine the assessment ratio of a subgroup or class of
property.




                                             5
The review appraiser compared the old assessments to the new sale prices as follows:



            Map     Block Lot           Location       Sale Price    Old Assmnt      Old Ratio

                2       8    9   37 MADBURY ROAD         $836,594    $     569,400        68%
                2       8   14   2 STRAFFORD AVENUE     $1,151,065   $     786,800        68%
                2       8   70   14 STRAFFORD AVENUE    $3,649,144   $   1,894,500        52%
                2       8   71   10 STRAFFORD AVENUE    $2,341,180   $     908,300        39%
                2      10    3   32 MADBURY ROAD        $1,260,000   $     937,900        74%
                2      11    1   42 GARRISON AVENUE     $1,919,531   $   1,023,600        53%
                2      11    5   5 DENNISON ROAD        $4,200,000   $   2,300,000        55%
                2      11    6   24 MADBURY ROAD        $3,166,066   $   2,210,200        70%
                2      11    7   9 WOODMAN ROAD         $2,362,500   $   1,118,500        47%
                2      11    8   22 MADBURY ROAD        $2,105,218   $   1,430,200        68%
                2      12    1   22 GARRISON AVENUE     $2,546,988   $   1,264,400        50%
                4      54    3   10 MAIN STREET         $2,718,781   $   1,891,700        70%
                4      54    4   8 MAIN STREET          $2,460,938   $   1,413,300        57%
                5       1    7   29 MAIN STREET         $1,127,941   $     527,200        47%
                5       1    8   25-27 MAIN STREET      $1,022,449   $     657,600        64%
                5       2    6   2 MILL POND ROAD        $976,982    $     578,500        59%

            Total                                      $33,845,377

            Average                                    $ 2,115,336   $   1,219,506     59%
            Median                                     $ 2,223,199   $   1,071,050     58%

            Low                                        $ 836,594     $     527,200     39%
            High                                       $ 4,200,000   $   2,300,000     74%




Above one can see that the average sale price was $2,115,336, yet the average old
assessed value was only $1,219,506. This means that the average sale price was about
74% higher than the average old assessed value. This alone would indicate that one
would expect the average assessment to increase by about 74%. The average assessment
increase was 70% to 71%.

Looking at this another way one can also see above that individually the old assessments
were on average at 59% of the new sale prices as indicted by the “Old Ratio”.




                                                   6
For student housing to get to 100% of market value from 59% as reflected by the sales
and the old assessments, one would need to increase the old assessments by 100%/59%
or by a factor of 1.70 (rounded). This represents a required average 70% increase to the
old assessments. The assessments were increased on average 70% to 71% as shown in the
chart (below) under the Old to New (OTN) Column.



           Map    Block Lot           Location       Old Assmnt      New Assmnt       OTN

              2       8    9   37 MADBURY ROAD       $     569,400        $868,600     53%
              2       8   14   2 STRAFFORD AVENUE    $     786,800       $1,180,300    50%
              2       8   70   14 STRAFFORD AVENUE   $   1,894,500       $3,817,200   101%
              2       8   71   10 STRAFFORD AVENUE   $     908,300       $1,978,200   118%
              2      10    3   32 MADBURY ROAD       $     937,900       $1,317,300    40%
              2      11    1   42 GARRISON AVENUE    $   1,023,600       $1,766,400    73%
              2      11    5   5 DENNISON ROAD       $   2,300,000       $3,985,800    73%
              2      11    6   24 MADBURY ROAD       $   2,210,200       $4,019,600    82%
              2      11    7   9 WOODMAN ROAD        $   1,118,500       $2,325,000   108%
              2      11    8   22 MADBURY ROAD       $   1,430,200       $2,120,200    48%
              2      12    1   22 GARRISON AVENUE    $   1,264,400       $2,446,100    93%
              4      54    3   10 MAIN STREET        $   1,891,700       $2,778,800    47%
              4      54    4   8 MAIN STREET         $   1,413,300       $2,382,700    69%
              5       1    7   29 MAIN STREET        $     527,200        $901,400     71%
              5       1    8   25-27 MAIN STREET     $     657,600       $1,030,300    57%
              5       2    6   2 MILL POND ROAD      $     578,500        $898,500     55%

          Total

          Average                                    $   1,219,506   $   2,113,525    71%
          Median                                     $   1,071,050   $   2,049,200    70%

          Low                                        $     527,200   $     868,600     40%
          High                                       $   2,300,000   $   4,019,600    118%




So it is clear something needed to be done. Additionally, although the average assessment
in this category would need to increase by about 70%, individually, the necessary
increases are potentially as wide as 40% to 118%.




                                                 7
Unit Analysis


Looking at this in more depth, the appraiser analyzed properties by sale price per
apartment, sale price per capita occupancy as indicated by sale price per bed, and sale
price per SF based on Gross Leasable Finished Area (GLA). These were then compared
to the new assessments on the same basis.


     Map     Block Lot           Location       Sale Price    Apt Units   Price/Apt       Assmnt/ Apt

         2       8    9   37 MADBURY ROAD          $836,594      8         $104,574            $108,575
         2       8   14   2 STRAFFORD AVENUE     $1,151,065      14         $82,219             $84,307
         2       8   70   14 STRAFFORD AVENUE    $3,649,144      55         $66,348             $69,404
         2       8   71   10 STRAFFORD AVENUE    $2,341,180      12        $195,098            $164,850
         2      10    3   32 MADBURY ROAD        $1,260,000      10        $126,000            $131,730
         2      11    1   42 GARRISON AVENUE     $1,919,531      17        $112,914            $103,906
         2      11    5   5 DENNISON ROAD        $4,200,000      25        $168,000            $159,432
         2      11    6   24 MADBURY ROAD        $3,166,066      29        $109,175            $138,607
         2      11    7   9 WOODMAN ROAD         $2,362,500      41         $57,622             $56,707
         2      11    8   22 MADBURY ROAD        $2,105,218      19        $110,801            $111,589
         2      12    1   22 GARRISON AVENUE     $2,546,988      14        $181,928            $174,721
         4      54    3   10 MAIN STREET         $2,718,781      23        $118,208            $120,817
         4      54    4   8 MAIN STREET          $2,460,938      17        $144,761            $140,159
         5       1    7   29 MAIN STREET         $1,127,941      7         $161,134            $128,771
         5       1    8   25-27 MAIN STREET      $1,022,449      8         $127,806            $128,788
         5       2    6   2 MILL POND ROAD         $976,982      7         $139,569            $128,357

    Total                                       $33,845,377

    Average                                     $ 2,115,336     19.1      $ 125,385   $        121,920
    Median                                      $ 2,223,199     15.5      $ 122,104   $        128,564

    Low                                         $ 836,594        7.0      $ 57,622    $         56,707
    High                                        $ 4,200,000     55.0      $ 195,098   $        174,721




Above one can see the average sale price was about $125,000 per apartment, while the
average new assessment was about $122,000 per apartment.




                                                  8
      Map    Block Lot           Location       Sale Price       Beds    Price/Bed     Assmnt/ Bed

         2       8    9   37 MADBURY ROAD             $836,594    19         $44,031        $45,716
         2       8   14   2 STRAFFORD AVENUE        $1,151,065    32         $35,971        $36,884
         2       8   70   14 STRAFFORD AVENUE       $3,649,144    95         $38,412        $40,181
         2       8   71   10 STRAFFORD AVENUE       $2,341,180    48         $48,775        $41,213
         2      10    3   32 MADBURY ROAD           $1,260,000    26         $48,462        $50,665
         2      11    1   42 GARRISON AVENUE        $1,919,531    39         $49,219        $45,292
         2      11    5   5 DENNISON ROAD           $4,200,000    90         $46,667        $49,823
         2      11    6   24 MADBURY ROAD           $3,166,066   102         $31,040        $39,408
         2      11    7   9 WOODMAN ROAD            $2,362,500    49         $48,214        $47,449
         2      11    8   22 MADBURY ROAD           $2,105,218    56         $37,593        $37,861
         2      12    1   22 GARRISON AVENUE        $2,546,988    60         $42,450        $40,768
         4      54    3   10 MAIN STREET            $2,718,781    55         $49,432        $50,524
         4      54    4   8 MAIN STREET             $2,460,938    45         $54,688        $52,949
         5       1    7   29 MAIN STREET            $1,127,941    22         $51,270        $40,973
         5       1    8   25-27 MAIN STREET         $1,022,449    26         $39,325        $39,627
         5       2    6   2 MILL POND ROAD            $976,982    19         $51,420        $47,289

     Total                                      $33,845,377

     Average                                    $ 2,115,336      48.9    $   44,810    $    44,164
     Median                                     $ 2,223,199      46.5    $   47,440    $    43,252

     Low                                        $ 836,594         19.0   $   31,040    $    36,884
     High                                       $ 4,200,000      102.0   $   54,688    $    52,949




Above one can see the average sale price was about $45,000 per bed, while the average
new assessment was about $44,000 per bed.




                                                9
    Map     Block Lot           Location       Sale Price    GLA      SF/Apt   S.P/SF    Assmt/SF

        2       8    9   37 MADBURY ROAD          $836,594    5,868      734   $   143       $148
        2       8   14   2 STRAFFORD AVENUE     $1,151,065    6,027      431   $   191       $196
        2       8   70   14 STRAFFORD AVENUE    $3,649,144   23,516      428   $   155       $162
        2       8   71   10 STRAFFORD AVENUE    $2,341,180   10,800      900   $   217       $183
        2      10    3   32 MADBURY ROAD        $1,260,000   10,907    1,091   $   116       $121
        2      11    1   42 GARRISON AVENUE     $1,919,531   11,456      674   $   168       $154
        2      11    5   5 DENNISON ROAD        $4,200,000   21,600      864   $   194       $185
        2      11    6   24 MADBURY ROAD        $3,166,066   24,897      859   $   127       $161
        2      11    7   9 WOODMAN ROAD         $2,362,500   13,734      335   $   172       $169
        2      11    8   22 MADBURY ROAD        $2,105,218   12,031      633   $   175       $176
        2      12    1   22 GARRISON AVENUE     $2,546,988   12,670      905   $   201       $193
        4      54    3   10 MAIN STREET         $2,718,781   18,299      796   $   149       $152
        4      54    4   8 MAIN STREET          $2,460,938   15,368      904   $   160       $155
        5       1    7   29 MAIN STREET         $1,127,941    4,699      671   $   240       $192
        5       1    8   25-27 MAIN STREET      $1,022,449    6,046      756   $   169       $170
        5       2    6   2 MILL POND ROAD         $976,982    5,120      731   $   191       $175

    Total                                      $33,845,377

    Average                                    $ 2,115,336   12690     732     $ 173     $    168
    Median                                     $ 2,223,199   11744     745     $ 171     $    170

    Low                                        $ 836,594      4699     335     $ 116     $    121
    High                                       $ 4,200,000   24897    1091     $ 240     $    196




Above one can see the average sale price was about $173 per SF of GLA, while the
average new assessment was $168 per SF of GLA.




The three unit comparisons (per Apartment; per Capita/Bed, and per SF) indicate
the new assessments are well aligned with the sales.




                                               10
Land Extraction Analysis


Another way of analyzing the assessments is by checking the land valuation methodology
applied to this category of property.

One way to check this is via land extractions. The method begins with the sale prices of
the improved properties. An estimated building value is deducted from the sale price. The
building value should consider building quality, size, amenities, extra features and
condition. The assessor developed building cost estimates for each of the sales using the
Vision Appraisal Technology Assessment system.

After deducting the building cost estimate one is left with an indication of value for the
site. The formula is essentially Sale Price – Bldg Value = Site Value.

This is shown as follows:

  Map     Block Lot           Location       Sale Price    Bldg Value       Indic Land Value    BEDS   Land Value/Bed

      2       8    9   37 MADBURY ROAD          $836,594         $488,600           $347,994     19           $18,315
      2       8   14   2 STRAFFORD AVENUE     $1,151,065         $540,300           $610,765     32           $19,086
      2       8   70   14 STRAFFORD AVENUE    $3,649,144       $1,917,200          $1,731,944    95           $18,231
      2       8   71   10 STRAFFORD AVENUE    $2,341,180       $1,018,200          $1,322,980    48           $27,562
      2      10    3   32 MADBURY ROAD        $1,260,000         $796,800           $463,200     26           $17,815
      2      11    1   42 GARRISON AVENUE     $1,919,531         $986,400           $933,131     39           $23,926
      2      11    5   5 DENNISON ROAD        $4,200,000       $2,185,800          $2,014,200    80           $25,178
      2      11    6   24 MADBURY ROAD        $3,166,066       $1,923,100          $1,242,966   102           $12,186
      2      11    7   9 WOODMAN ROAD         $2,362,500       $1,345,000          $1,017,500    49           $20,765
      2      11    8   22 MADBURY ROAD        $2,105,218       $1,000,200          $1,105,018    56           $19,732
      2      12    1   22 GARRISON AVENUE     $2,546,988       $1,246,100          $1,300,888    60           $21,681
      4      54    3   10 MAIN STREET         $2,718,781       $1,678,800          $1,039,981    55           $18,909
      4      54    4   8 MAIN STREET          $2,460,938       $1,482,700           $978,238     45           $21,739
      5       1    7   29 MAIN STREET         $1,127,941         $461,400           $666,541     22           $30,297
      5       1    8   25-27 MAIN STREET      $1,022,449         $510,300           $512,149     26           $19,698
      5       2    6   2 MILL POND ROAD         $976,982         $518,100           $458,882     19           $24,152

  Total                                      $33,845,377

  Average                                    $ 2,115,336                                               $       21,205
  Median                                     $ 2,223,199                                               $       20,249

  Low                                        $ 836,594                                                 $       12,186
  High                                       $ 4,200,000                                               $       30,297




Above one can see the extracted land values are then analyzed based on a per bed basis.
From the sales, the allocated price paid for the land/site was about $21,000 per
bed/capita. The assessor for the most part used $20,000 per bed/capita as the basis for
land/site value assessments on student housing.

Again this site/land unit comparison indicates the new land/site assessments are well
aligned with the sales/market.




                                                          11
Assessment Ratio Study Analysis




The State of NH Dept. of Revenue Administration each year performs a ratio study to
determine the level of assessment as determined by the middle and average assessment
ratios. Each individual ratio is determined by comparing the assessed value to recent
qualified sale prices. Each qualified sale produces an indicated ratio and then the average
and mid-points of these ratios determines the municipality’s overall assessment ratio or
level of assessment.

The International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) has also developed similar
statistical analysis to determine levels of assessment as well as the quality of the
assessments.

To understand the analysis, it is important to understand the concept of assessment ratio.

Ex. 1: If a property sells for $100,000 and the assessment is $90,000, its assessment ratio
is 90% (of market value), 90,000/100,000 = 90%. Therefore, it is assessed below its
indication of market value.

Ex. 2: On the other hand, if a property sells for $100,000 and the assessment is $110,000,
its assessment ratio is 110% (of market value), 110,000/100,000 = 110%. Therefore, it is
assessed above its indication of market value.

To determine the overall assessment ratio of an entire town, one can perform this exercise
on each sale that occurred in a town and derive an individual ratio for each property that
sold in a given period. The overall assessment ratio or level of assessment is the central
tendency (average or midpoint) of the individual ratios.

Additionally, one can perform this same ratio exercise for classes of property in a town
rather than the entire town to determine the assessment ratio of a subgroup or class of
property.

Analyzing subgroups or classes is useful in determining if one area of town and/or
property type is assessed in proportion to others. If the proportion of market value were
egregiously higher for one class or group versus another, this would indicate that an
inequity or discrimination in the assessments exists.




                                            12
Professional Standards


The International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO), the premier organization of
the assessing profession, in their textbook Property Appraisal and Assessment
Administration (PAAA) recommends performing ratio studies to “use in the evaluation of
mass appraisal performance” One can “use the study to determine where the appraisal
performance meets acceptable standards and where it does not. One of the uses of these
studies is by appeal boards to aid in determining the acceptability of a mass appraisal
project.” (p. 517-518)

        The studies can compare appraisal levels between groups of properties and to
        evaluate whether a given class of properties is appraised at market value (p. 519).

The Coefficient of Dispersion (COD) is the most common measure of uniformity in ratio
studies (p. 534). Low CODs (15.0 or less) tend to be associated with good appraisal
uniformity (p. 534).

According to IAAO Standard on Ratio Studies –1999 definitions:

        Dispersion – The degree to which data are distributed either tightly or loosely
        around a central tendency.

Tight is better, meaning most individual ratios are close to the middle or central tendency
ratio. A low COD represents a tight level of dispersion. A high COD represents a loose or
wide distribution of individual ratios (many are scattered or distant from the central
ratio).

The IAAO Standard on Ratio Studies – 1999, 7.4.1 describes the COD as “the most
generally useful measure of variability. The COD measures the average percentage
deviation of the ratios from the median ratio and is calculated by (1) subtracting the
median ratio from each ratio, 2) taking the absolute value of the calculated differences, 3)
summing the absolute differences, 3) dividing by the number of ratios to obtain the
average absolute deviation, 5) dividing by the median, and 6) multiplying by 100.




                                            13
Old Assessment Quality


Again, as shown below, the average level of assessment before the revaluation took place
was 58% to 59% of market value.

        Map    Block Lot             Location        Sale Price           Old Assmnt       Old Ratio

           2       8      9   37 MADBURY ROAD              $836,594   $          569,400    68.1%
           2       8     14   2 STRAFFORD AVENUE         $1,151,065   $          786,800    68.4%
           2       8     70   14 STRAFFORD AVENUE        $3,649,144   $        1,894,500    51.9%
           2       8     71   10 STRAFFORD AVENUE        $2,341,180   $          908,300    38.8%
           2      10      3   32 MADBURY ROAD            $1,260,000   $          937,900    74.4%
           2      11      1   42 GARRISON AVENUE         $1,919,531   $        1,023,600    53.3%
           2      11      5   5 DENNISON ROAD            $4,200,000   $        2,300,000    54.8%
           2      11      6   24 MADBURY ROAD            $3,166,066   $        2,210,200    69.8%
           2      11      7   9 WOODMAN ROAD             $2,362,500   $        1,118,500    47.3%
           2      11      8   22 MADBURY ROAD            $2,105,218   $        1,430,200    67.9%
           2      12      1   22 GARRISON AVENUE         $2,546,988   $        1,264,400    49.6%
           4      54      3   10 MAIN STREET             $2,718,781   $        1,891,700    69.6%
           4      54      4   8 MAIN STREET              $2,460,938   $        1,413,300    57.4%
           5       1      7   29 MAIN STREET             $1,127,941   $          527,200    46.7%
           5       1      8   25-27 MAIN STREET          $1,022,449   $          657,600    64.3%
           5       2      6   2 MILL POND ROAD             $976,982   $          578,500    59.2%

       Total                                         $33,845,377

       Average                                       $ 2,115,336 Aerage                      59%
       Median                                        $ 2,223,199 Median (Middle)             58%

       Low                                           $ 836,594 Avg Abs Deviation             8.9%
       High                                          $ 4,200,000
                                                                 COD (Quality)                 15.19




According to professional standards, a COD of 10 or less is good, a COD of 15 is fair,
and a COD above 15 is poor. As shown above, the old quality rating (based on the old
assessments) was 15.19, indicating a poor assessment quality. So it is clear something
needed to be done. And based on the old COD, factoring the old assessed values by one
uniform percentage would only serve to continue the poor accuracy of the assessments.
So although the average assessment in this category would need to increase by about
70%, individually, the range is as wide as 40% to 118% (see Old to New Analysis page
7). One of the keys to accomplishing this improved quality was the new land pricing
methodology as described in the land extraction analysis on page 11 at $20,000 per capita
occupancy.




                                                    14
New Assessment Quality


The subsequent analysis tests the overall reasonableness and the accuracy of the new
student housing property assessments.


        Map     Block Lot            Location            Sale Price    Assessment         A/S Ratio

            2       8     9   37 MADBURY ROAD               $836,594           $868,600       104%
            2       8    14   2 STRAFFORD AVENUE          $1,151,065         $1,180,300       103%
            2       8    70   14 STRAFFORD AVENUE         $3,649,144         $3,817,200       105%
            2       8    71   10 STRAFFORD AVENUE         $2,341,180         $1,978,200        84%
            2      10     3   32 MADBURY ROAD             $1,260,000         $1,317,300       105%
            2      11     1   42 GARRISON AVENUE          $1,919,531         $1,766,400        92%
            2      11     5   5 DENNISON ROAD             $4,200,000         $3,985,800        95%
            2      11     6   24 MADBURY ROAD             $3,166,066         $4,019,600       127%
            2      11     7   9 WOODMAN ROAD              $2,362,500         $2,325,000        98%
            2      11     8   22 MADBURY ROAD             $2,105,218         $2,120,200       101%
            2      12     1   22 GARRISON AVENUE          $2,546,988         $2,446,100        96%
            4      54     3   10 MAIN STREET              $2,718,781         $2,778,800       102%
            4      54     4   8 MAIN STREET               $2,460,938         $2,382,700        97%
            5       1     7   29 MAIN STREET              $1,127,941           $901,400        80%
            5       1     8   25-27 MAIN STREET           $1,022,449         $1,030,300       101%
            5       2     6   2 MILL POND ROAD              $976,982           $898,500        92%

        Total                                            $33,845,377        $33,816,400

        Average                                      $ 2,115,336 Average                   99%
        Median                                       $ 2,223,199 Median (Middle)           100%
                                                                 Weighted Mean             100%
        Low                                          $ 836,594 Avg Abs Deviation           7.0%
        High                                         $ 4,200,000
                                                                 COD (Quality)                7.01
                                                                 Price R Differential         0.99



As shown above, based on the new assessments, the new average level of assessment
after the revaluation is now 99% to 100% of market value.

In addition, the new Price Related Differential (PRD) at 0.99 is considered good. This
indicates the new assessments are neither regressive nor progressive (relative to the prices
of the property). A PRD from 0.99 to 1.01 indicates that more expensive properties are
not assessed at unacceptably higher levels of assessment or unacceptably lower levels of
assessment compared with lower priced properties.
Last (but not least), again according to professional assessment standards, a COD above
15 is poor, a COD of 15 is fair, and a COD of 10 or less is good. As shown above, the
new quality rating or COD (based on the new assessments) is 7.01 (the old pre-
revaluation COD was much higher at 15.19 indicating previous poor assessment quality)
indicating the new assessments are significantly improved in quality. By assessment
standards, the new student housing assessments are now considered to be very good
quality.



                                                    15
Reconciled Conclusion


The old average/median level of assessment of student housing was 59% of market value.
As a result of the recent revaluation, the new average/median level of assessment of
student housing is now 99% to 100% of market value.

The old quality rating (based on the old assessments) was 15.19, indicating poor
assessment quality. The new quality rating or COD (based on the new assessments) is
7.01 indicating the new assessments are A) significantly improved in quality, and B) are
now good to very good quality.

On the other hand, the documentation regarding the revaluation was below Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices (USPAP) standards with respect to mass
appraisal. So I’d recommend that the assessor in the near future compile the necessary
documentation as indicated by USPAP Standard 6. In the State of NH, USPAP 2005 is
the legislated criteria to follow. A checklist for such documentation is available from the
NH DORA.

Nevertheless, as is, the new assessments of student housing overall are at approximately
100% of market value (right on target), and the overall quality is considered good.




                                            16
                                             Certification
I hereby certify:

1. I personally have inspected the exteriors of the subject properties.

2. I have prepared all analysis, opinions and conclusions. No one provided significant professional
assistance to the person signing this review report unless stated otherwise. I believe all statements and
information in this review report, upon which analyses, opinions, and conclusions are based, are true and
correct. Moreover, I have not withheld any significant information knowingly.

3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property, nor do I have personal interest or bias
regarding the subject matter of this review report or the parties involved.

4. My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined minimum, maximum or
specific value, or a direction in value that favors the cause of the client; the attainment of a stipulated
result; the approval or disapproval of a loan; or the occurrence of a later event.

5. All contingent and limiting conditions affecting the analyses, opinions, and conclusions in the review
report are imposed by the terms of the assignment or by the appraiser.

6. This review report conforms to and is subject to the requirements of the Code of Ethics and the
Standards of Professional Practice and Conduct of the Appraisal Institute and the American Society of
Appraisers. It also conforms to the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice.

7. The value reported if any assumes that real estate and other taxes are paid, and that the property is free
and clear of Federal, State, County, Municipal and other governing body liens unless otherwise noted.

8. The use of this review report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute, the American
Society of Appraisers and the State licensing board relating to review by its duly authorized
representatives.

9. As of the date of this report, I have completed the requirements of the continuing education programs of
the American Society of Appraisers and the State Appraisal Board in which this subject property exists.

10. The facts and data reported by the review appraiser and used in the review process to the best of my
knowledge are true and correct.


In conclusion, although the current level of documentation was below Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practices (USPAP) Standard 6, the new assessments of student housing overall are at
approximately 100% of market value, right on target, and the assessment quality overall is considered
good.




Stephen Traub, ASA, CNHA                                                  Date   11/10/08




                                                      17
                             The Appraisal Review Process
A review appraisal is the act or process of critically studying a report prepared by another author. It is
different from the original appraisal and appraisal report in both the process and report. According to
USPAP Standard 3: “In reviewing an appraisal and reporting the results of that review, an appraiser must
form an opinion as to the adequacy and appropriateness of the report being reviewed and must clearly
disclose the nature of the review process undertaken.”

The purpose is to advise the client as to the completeness of the original appraisal report, the adequacy and
relevance of the data, and the proprietary of any adjustments to the data. The Review Appraiser also will
form an opinion as to the appropriateness of the appraisal methods and techniques used, and develop
reasons for any disagreement. The review will also include an opinion as to whether the analyses, opinions,
and conclusions in the report are appropriate and reasonable, and we will develop the reason for any
disagreement.

If additional pertinent information is available, the review appraiser will use and report this information.


         The review appraisal report is a supplementary critique intended for use in conjunction with the
         report under review. If a review appraiser forms an opinion of value different from that in the
         report being reviewed, it is not necessary that the opinion be set forth in a separate appraisal
         report. [It] may be set forth in the review appraisal report provided that the report identifies and
         discloses all assumptions and limitations affecting the development of the [differing] opinion of
         value.

Some of the common deficiencies in a review appraisal that will be looked for in the report will include:

    •    Non-compliance with Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP)
    •    Missing reference to the type of appraisal and report type
    •    Interest appraised incorrect
    •    Omitted data or property inventory
    •    Under- or over-grading of the quality of items
    •    Publications referred to within report reference outdated materials
    •    Ambiguous or misleading statements
    •    Mathematical errors
    •    Terminology misused or non-standard nomenclature invented.
    •    Highest and best use of land sales dissimilar to the subject
    •    Lack of support for adjustments
    •    Under- or over-stated physical or economic property life
    •    Under or over-stated remaining life
    •    Outdated or unsupported physical depreciation methods not truly representative of market
         participant reactions.
    •    Inaccurate or unsupported estimates of functional obsolescence
    •    Inaccurate or unsupported estimates of external obsolescence
    •    Non-market based or market-tested capitalization or discount rates employed in any
         income/enterprise value approach estimates.
    •    Best evidence, or more direct or relevant approaches to value omitted or incorrectly deemed
         irrelevant or inappropriate




                                                      18
                        Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
The certification of this appraisal is subject to the following assumptions and conditions as well any other conditions
stated in the report.

         1.   The legal description furnished is assumed correct. Responsibility is neither assumed for legal matters
              affecting this property, nor is an opinion given regarding the title, which is assumed good.
              Encumbrances if any have been disregarded and the property is appraised as though free and clear in fee
              simple ownership unless stated otherwise. Easements, however, when apparent are considered and the
              property is reviewed as though under responsible and competent management and ownership.

         2.   Land dimensions and sketches are included to aid the reader picture the property. The review appraiser
              neither conducted a property survey, nor is he qualified to do so.

         3.   The review appraiser is not required to give testimony or participate in court actions as a result of having
              made this appraisal, unless previous arrangements have been made.

         4.   The review appraiser assumes there are no inapparent soil or subsoil conditions, structures, gravesites, or
              scientific or historic artifacts that would make the property more or less valuable. Responsibility is not
              assumed for engineering that might be required to discover such factors. It is further assumed that no
              significant portions of the property are located in designated wetland areas unless otherwise stated.

         5.   The presence of hazardous material was not seen. Such material may or may not be on, in, under, or near
              the property. The water supply was not specifically tested, but was assumed adequate for use, unless
              specified otherwise. Responsibility is neither assumed for such conditions nor for such expertise relating
              thereto. Responsibility also is not assumed for engineering required to discover such factors. It is further
              assumed improvements conform to air, noise, and water pollution standards as well as Americans with
              Disability Acts, however, a compliance survey by an expert (of which the appraiser is not) could reveal
              otherwise. If so, non-conformance could then have a negative impact upon the value of the property.
              The review appraiser is not responsible for such studies required to discover such factors.

         6.   Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the review appraiser in this report were obtained from
              sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct. The review appraiser does not assume
              responsibility for the accuracy of such items furnished to the review appraiser.

         7.   Improvements were visually inspected and are considered structurally sound, unless otherwise noted.
              The review appraiser does not assume legal responsibility for structural or mechanical failures.

         8.   The bylaws and regulations of the professional appraisal organizations with which the review appraiser
              is affiliated govern disclosure of the contents of the report. Neither all, nor part of this report or copies of
              this report shall be used without the prior written consent of the review appraiser except by the client.
              Neither all nor part of this appraisal report nor the identity of the review appraiser shall be sent out to the
              general public via advertising, public relations, private or public offering statements or prospectus, or for
              the raising of funds for purchase of an equity interest in the property such as real estate limited
              partnerships or syndication. Moreover, reference shall not be made to the professional appraisal
              associations with which the review appraiser has affiliation.

         9.   It is acknowledged that any action or suit is limited to the fee charged.

         10. Unless stated otherwise, any value estimate excludes business value or other non-taxable items. The
             value reported is in U.S. dollars based on the national and local economies on the valuation date of the
             appraisal. The distribution of value between land and improvements applies only to the present property
             utilization.




                                                            19
                                    Market Value Defined


Market Value is the focus of most real property appraisal assignments. The current definition agreed upon
by agencies that regulate federal financial institutions in the United States is:

             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 and
             knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected 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 acting in what they consider their best
                  interests;

             3.   a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;

             4.   payment is made in terms of cash in United States 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.

             Substitution of another currency for United States dollars in the fourth condition is
             appropriate in other countries or in reports addressed to clients from other countries. (USPAP
             2008)




                                                     20
                                          Addenda
Addendum A


Works Cited by Review Appraiser

Appraisal Foundation. Uniform Standards of Professional Practice (USPAP). Washington, DC: Appraisal
Foundation, 2005-2008

IAAO (Eckart, Joseph; Editor), Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration (PAAA), Chicago,
IAAO P, 1990

Sorenson, Richard. Appraising the Appraisal: The Art of Appraisal Review Chicago: Appraisal Institute P,
1998.




                                                  21
Addendum B – Resumé Traub

                                    Stephen G. Traub, ASA
                                          63 Hill St.
                                    Newburyport, MA 01950
                                         978-462-4347

Specific Appraisal Experience

             List of Property Types Appraised

                  • Special Use Industrial Complexes         • Regional Shopping Malls
                  • Trash-to-Energy Plants                   • Marinas/Yacht Clubs
                  • Truck Terminals                          • Restaurants
                  • Natural Gas Transmission Lines           • Franchise Fast Food Restaurants
                  • Tank Farms                               • Bank Facilities
                  • Cable TV Real Estate and Equipment       • Motels
                  • Public Utility Property                  • College Facilities
                  • Industrial Mills                         • Gas/Service Stations
                  • Telephone Company Property               • Auto Dealership
                  • Industrial Warehouses                    • Theaters
                  • Sand, Mineral, and Gravel Pits           • Commercial Condominiums
                  • Bottling Plants                          • Office Buildings
                  • Skating Arenas                           • Municipal Stadiums
                  • Industrial Condominiums                  • Nursing Homes
                  • Industrial Land                          • Hospitals
                  • Country Clubs                            • Hotels
                  • Commercial Land                          • Waterfront Residences
                  • Residential Condominiums                 • Apartment Complexes
                  • Mixed-Use Properties                     • Residential Subdivisions
                  • Assisted Living/Elderly Housing          • Dams/Hydroelectric Facilities
                  • Communication Tower Sites

General Appraisal Experience

Present-     Property Valuation Advisors, Newburyport, MA
1993            Principal & Chief Commercial and Industrial Appraiser

             M.M.C. Inc., Chelmsford, MA
1993-87         Vice-President, Chief Commercial Industrial Appraiser
                and Director of Appraisal Services
                         • Responsible for all production of appraisal services of a 100 member
                         appraisal department covering New England.
1987-86         Chief Commercial Industrial Appraiser
                         • Supervised a twenty member Com. /Ind. appraisal division.
1986-84         NH and ME Regional Appraisal Manager and Appraiser
                         • Performed Com./Ind. appraisals as well as review and supervision of a regional
                         appraisal staff.
1983-82         C&I Real Estate and Personal Property Appraiser

1982-80      PRC Jacobs Inc., Maclean, VA
                C&I and Residential Appraiser
                        • R.E. Appraiser in Eastern Mass.




                                                   22
Education
              Appraisal Institute
                  • Industrial Valuation                        • Principals of RE Valuation
                  • Case Studies of Real Estate                 • Residential Valuation
                  • Cap. Theory & Techniques B                  • Standards of Professional Practice B
                  • Cap. Theory & Techniques A                  • Standards of Professional Practice A
                  • Basic Valuation                             • Com. & Indust. Property Market Analysis
                  • Commercial Review Appraisal                 • Senior/Assisted Living Industry Appraisals
                  • Eminent Domain Appraising                   • Appraisal of Local Retail Properties
                  • Data Verification and Confirmation          • Partial (Divided) RE Interest Valuation
                  • Partial (Undivided) RE Interest Valuation • C/I Highest and Best Use Analysis
                  • Appraisal of Non-Conforming Properties • Defending Appraisals/ Litigation
                  • Separating Real Property/ Business Assets • Evaluating Commercial Construction
                  • Feasibility Analysis                        • Real Estate Finance, Value & Investment
              Harvard University/MIT
                  • Real Estate Finance                         • Modern Architecture
                  • Real Estate Portfolio Management            • New England Architecture
                  • Money, Banking and Finance                  • Macroeconomic Theory
                  • Quantitative Economic Methods               • Microeconomic Theory
                  • Quantitative Reasoning                      • International Economics
                  • Financial Accounting                        • Economic Principles
                  • Urban Economics                             • Computers and Programming
              International Assoc. of Assessing Officers (IAAO)
                  • Appraisal Instructor Training Course II (Income Valuation)
                  • Appraisal Instructor Training Course I (Real Property Appraisal)
                  • Mass Appraisal Techniques of Commercial Property
                  • Mass Appraisal Techniques of Residential Property
                  • Income Valuation II               • Land and Site Valuation
              Mass. Board of R. E. Appraisers
                  • FNMA Residential Seminar                    • FNMA Income Valuation Seminar
Professional and Educational Affiliations
              Harvard University
                  • BA, Social Science
              American Society of Appraisers
                  • Designated ASA, Certified Senior Real Property Appraiser
              States of ME, NH and MA Boards of Registration of RE Appraisers
                  • Maine Certified General Real Estate Appraiser – # CG00001032
                  • NH Certified General Real Estate Appraiser – # NHCG – 350
                  • MA Certified General Real Estate Appraiser – # 2729
              Appraisal Institute
                  • General Associate Member
              IAAO
                  • State Certified Appraisal Instructor
              MA, NH, ME and CT Appellate RE Tax Boards
                  • Qualified and Testified as Expert Appraisal Witness
              MA Board of Registration
                  • Licensed Real Estate Broker
Public Speaking Engagements and Appraisal Teaching Assignments
              NH Assessors Association
                 • Spoke on “Checking the Quality of Your Commercial Property Assessments”
                 Manchester NH – November 19, 1997
              Middlesex County, MA Assessors Association
                 • Spoke on “Checking the Quality of Your Commercial Property Assessments”
                 Radisson, Chelmsford, MA -- July 24, 1997




                                                    23
(Traub Cont’d)



               Central Maine Assessors Association
                   • Spoke on: “Assessing/Appraising Special Use Properties”
                   Waterville, ME -- April 1997
               Maine Association of Assessing Officers
                   • Spoke on: “Checking the Quality of Your Commercial Property Assessments”
                    SMVT -- November 1996
               State of Connecticut Association of Assessors
                   • Spoke on: “Quality Assurance Methods in Municipal R.E. Appraisal”
               IAAO (Assessment/Appraisal Organization) Chicago, IL
                   • Taught Appraisal Course I -- Springfield and Auburn, MA
               Property Valuation Monitor, Newburyport, MA
                   • Publish Newsletter on Com/Ind R.E. News (ongoing)




Publications


“Rev. of Appraising Partial Interests” Gimmy, Real Estate Valuation Magazine Spring 2000: 40

“Rev. of Senior Housing: Looking to the Third Millennium” Gimmy, Real Estate Valuation
Magazine Spring 1999: 37

“Rev. of Valuation of Marinas” Simpson, New England Real Estate Journal 8 January 1999: 23B

“Rev. of Appraisal of Religious Facilities” Aaron, New England Real Estate Journal 13
November 1998 and 11 December 1998: 24B

“Rev. of The Appraisal Writing Handbook” Blankenship, Real Estate Valuation Magazine Spring
1998: 25

“Rev. of Property Inspection: An Appraiser's Guide” Simpson, New England Real Estate Journal
8 August 1997: 18B

“Rev. of Analysis and Valuation of Health Care Enterprises” Gimmy, New England Real Estate
Journal 11 June 1997

“Create an Appraisal Company Newsletter? … It Couldn’t Hurt” Valuation Insights &
Perspectives. Vol. 2, No. 1, First Quarter 1997: 12

“Rev. of Rates and Ratios Used in the Income Capitalization Approach.” Clifford Fisher. New
England Real Estate Journal 11 April 1997: 12C.

“Rev. of MATHEMATICS for Real Estate Appraisers.” Clifford Fisher. Real Estate Valuation
Magazine Summer 1996: 36




                                                   24
“Rev. of Real Estate Valuation in Litigation,” J.D. Eaton. New England Real Estate Journal 21
       June 1996: 11B

Rev. of The Story of Land, John Powelson. New England Real Estate Journal 17 February 1995:
       39B

“Revaluations: Like Pulling Teeth.” NH City and Town February 1989: 10

“RE Valuation Trends.” Banker & Tradesman 17 March 1988: 32 (Co-author Comer)




Expert Testimony & Depositions (Past 5+ Years)


8/13-8/14, 2008 – GGP Steeplegate v. City of Concord, NH

Provided Testimony to the Merrimack County Superior Court on a $70,000,000+- Mall, Steeplegate Mall, Concord,
NH for Tax Year 2004. Hired by the City of Concord

5/19/08 -- Demoulas v. City of Concord, NH

Deposition on appraisal of Ft Eddy Rd Shopping Center and 12 Loudon Rd. Shopping Center for Tax Years 2004 and
2005 Hired by the City of Concord

3/24/08 - Lakeshore Estates Associates, v. City of Laconia, NH (Belknap County Superior Court)

Provided testimony to the Belknap County Superior Court on appraisal of Lakeshore Estates Apartments (120 Units),
68-114 Blueberry Lane, Laconia, NH Hired by the City of Laconia

3/18/08 Sears Department Store v. City of Nashua, NH (Hillsborough County Superior Court)

Provided testimony to the Hillsborough County Superior Court on a 150,000 SF Mall Department Store (Sears). Hired
by the City of Nashua, NH -- Valuation Date 4/1/05

2/6/08 – May’s Dept Stores aka Filene’s v. City of Nashua, NH (NH Board of Land and Tax Appeals)

Provided testimony to the NH Board of Land and Tax Appeals on a 150,000+- SF Mall Department Store (Filene’s)
Tax Year 2004. Hired by the City of Nashua,

2/5/08 – Federated Dept Stores aka Macy’s v. City of Nashua, NH (NH Board of Land and Tax Appeals)

Provided testimony to the NH Board of Land and Tax Appeals on a 150,000+- SF Mall Department Store (Macy’s).
Tax Year 2004. Hired by the City of Nashua,

11/5/07 – 11/7/07 – NH-VT Solid Waste Project v. City of Claremont, NH (Merrimack County Superior Court)

Provided testimony to the Merrimack County Superior Court on a 200 ton/4.50 MW trash-to-energy facility, Hired by
the NH-VT Solid Waste Project

10/10/07 – May’s Department Stores v. City of Nashua, NH (Hillsborough County Superior Court)

Provided testimony to the Hillsborough County Superior Court on a 150,000 SF Mall Department Store (Filene’s).
Hired by the City of Nashua, NH




                                                        25
1/27/07 – Woodland Apartments v. Town of Kittery, ME (State of Maine Board of Tax Review)

Provided testimony to the State of Maine Board of Tax Review on on a low-income apartment complex in Kittery, ME.
Hired by the Town of Kittery, ME

12/7//06 – Weathervane Restaurant v. Town of Kittery, ME (Kittery Board of Tax Review)

Provided testimony to the Kittery Maine Board of Tax Review on a Weathervane restaurant in the factory outlet district
in Kittery, ME. Hired by the Town of Kittery, ME

10/25//06 – Biddeford-Saco Water Company v. Town of Saco, ME (Saco Board of Tax Review)

Provided testimony to the Saco Maine Board of Tax Review on a Biddeford-Saco Water Company Property located
within Saco, ME. Hired by the City of Saco, ME

7/20//06 – Woodland Apartments v. Town of Kittery, ME (Kittery Board of Tax Review)

Provided testimony to the Kittery Maine Board of Tax Review on a low-income apartment complex in Kittery, ME.
Hired by the Town of Kittery, ME

7/12//06 – Pine Brook Apartments v. Town of Old Orchard Beach, ME (OOB Board of Tax Review)

Provided testimony to the Old Orchard Beach Maine Board of Tax Review on a low-income apartment complex in Old
Orchard Beach, ME. Hired by the Town of Old Orchard Beach, ME

11/9/05 – Fairway Villas v. Town of Falmouth, ME (Falmouth Board of Tax Review)

Provided testimony to the Falmouth Maine Board of Tax Review on a portion of a residential subdivision (23 lots
remaining) known as “Fairway Villas”, Falmouth, ME. Hired by the Town of Falmouth, ME

3/1/05 – Arundel Beach Club v. Town of Kennebunk, ME (Kennebunk Board of Tax Review)

Provided testimony to the Kennebunk Maine Board of Tax Review on an oceanfront beach club known as “Arundel
Beach Club” at 3 Seagrass Lane, Kennebunk, ME. Hired by the Town of Kennebunk, ME

2/18/05 – Autumn Health v. Town of Kennebunk, ME (Kennebunk Board of Tax Review)

Provided testimony to the Kennebunk Maine Board of Tax Review on a 154 unit continuing care/assisted living
community known as “Huntington Commons/Bradford Court” at 1 Huntington Commons Drive, Kennebunk, ME.
Hired by the Town of Kennebunk, ME

1/04/05 – The Seaside House v. Town of Kennebunk, ME (Kennebunk Board of Tax Review)

Provided testimony to the Kennebunk Maine Board of Tax Review on a 15-acre oceanfront parcel at 1 Seagrass Lane,
Kennebunk, ME. Hired by the Town of Kennebunk, ME

10/14/04 – Woodland Apartments v. Town of Kittery, ME (Kittery Board of Tax Review)

Provided testimony to the Kittery Maine Board of Tax Review on a low-income apartment complex in Kittery, ME.
Hired by the Town of Kittery, ME

5/19/04 – Portsmouth Country Club v. Town of Greenland, NH (Rockingham County Superior Court)

Provided testimony to the Rockingham County Superior Court on a discretionary easement on an 18 hole Golf Course
and Country Club at 80 Country Club Lane, Greenland, NH. Hired by the Town of Greenland, NH

4/16/04 – L&H Realty LLC v. Town of Kennebunk, ME (Kennebunk Board of Tax Review)

Provided testimony to the Kennebunk Maine Board of Tax Review on a 5,000 SF restaurant facility known as “On the
Marsh” at 46 Western Ave., Kennebunk, ME. Hired by the Town of Kennebunk, ME




                                                         26
12/7/03, 12/8/03 - International Woolen Co. v. City of Sanford, ME (State of Maine Board of Tax Review)

Provided testimony to the State of Maine Board of Tax Review in Augusta on a 335,000 SF Industrial Mill Building at
10 International Drive and 100 Dale St., Sanford, ME. Hired by the City of Sanford, ME

9/29/03, 10/1/03 - Vickerry Realty Company Trust v. City of Nashua, NH (Hillsborough County Superior Court)

Provided testimony to the Hillsborough County Superior Court on a 275,00 SF Retail Mall on 25 acres at 10 Coliseum
Ave., Nashua, NH 03063. Hired by the City of Nashua

11/27/02, 12/10/02, 12/11/02 - Laconia Blue Realty Trust, Ronald Dupont Trustee v. City of Laconia, NH (Belknap
County Superior Court)

Provided testimony to the Belknap County Superior Court on The Timberlake Apartment complex of 40 units at 150-
154 Blueberry Lane, Laconia, NH. Hired by the City of Laconia

10/28/02 - Lockheed Sanders v. City of Nashua, NH (Hillsborough County Superior Court)

Provided testimony to the Hillsborough County Superior Court on an industrial/office complex of 600,000+ SF on 80
acres at 65 Spit Brook Rd. Nashua, NH. Hired by the City of Nashua

6/2/02 - Rick Green v. Town of Newcastle, NH (NH Board of Tax and Land Appeals)

Provided testimony to the NH Board of Tax and Land Appeals on an oceanfront residential property at
(Map 2-22) 69 Little Harbor Road, Newcastle NH 03854 – Hired by property owner

3/5/02 - Lakeshore Estates Associates, v. City of Laconia, NH (Belknap County Superior Court)

Gave deposition to Atty Howland on appraisal of Lakeshore Estates Apartments (120 Units), 68-114
Blueberry Lane, Laconia, NH 03246. Scheduled for Belknap County Superior Court. Hired by the City of
Laconia



Computer Skills


Formal classroom training at Harvard includes: Computers and Programming (including Pascal
and C programming in VAX, Macintosh, PC DOS, and Windows environments); Quantitative
Reasoning (included computerized spreadsheet analysis); R.E. Investment and Finance (including
rigorous computerized spreadsheet development for real property investment analysis focusing on
Discounted Cash Flow analysis).

         • Spreadsheet use includes Excel. Lotus, and Quattro Pro.
         • Real Estate software package use includes Vision (MMC), CLT, ProJect, Argus,
         Absolute Leasehold, Marshall Valuation Service and others.
         • GIS mapping software use includes MapInfo, DeLorme Street Atlas, and Atlas GIS




                                                        27

								
To top