; 7136 Wolff Bros Office Bldg
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

7136 Wolff Bros Office Bldg

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 57

  • pg 1
									       APPRAISAL REPORT




                   On




WOLFF BROTHERS OFFICE BUILDING
         1930 MONROE DRIVE
      ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY
               GEORGIA




                   For


    SUNTRUST BANK, ATLANTA




               As Of


         FEBRUARY 15, 1999




              By


     KIRKLAND & COMPANY
QUENTIN BALL,   MAI          KIRKLAND & COMPANY
NASH BALL
LINDA BRENNER          Commercial Real Estate Appraisers Since 1965
JOSEPH F . FOLEY              1249 APPLE VALLEY ROAD
STEPHEN HOMANS
                                                                               404 / 892-1011
DEAN NORRIS , MAI
                                ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30319                       404 / 892-8650 FAX
MARK R. NOYD, CPA                                                            www.kirklnd.com
J. MICHAEL O’SHEA                                                           qball@kirklnd.com
KAYLA SCHLEMMER
PASHIA SHORTER                       February 13, 1999
JASON STOUTAMIRE
PHILIP R. THOMAS



Mr. Dave Johnston
Vice President
SunTrust Bank, Atlanta
6499 North Point Parkway
Alpharetta, GA 30022

Dear Mr. Johnston:

At your request, we estimated the Market Value of the Wolff Brothers office building at 1930
Monroe Drive in Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia. The Leasehold Estate constitutes the
ownership interest appraised. The date of inspection and the effective date of appraisal is
February 15, 1999.

The Market Value is:


                       SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
                                      ($750,000)


This report complies with guidelines established by Sun Trust Bank as well as the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the
Appraisal Foundation and Supplemental Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the
Appraisal Institute and Title XI of the Federal Financial Institution Reform Act of 1989 (FIRREA).
This appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation or
the approval of a loan.
Mr. Dave Johnston
SunTrust
February 13, 1999
Page Two


We recognize J. Michael O’Shea, Senior Appraiser with Kirkland and Company, for assistance in
gathering and analyzing data and preparation of this report.

The report constitutes a complete appraisal in a self-contained format.

Thank you for this assignment.

                                     Sincerely,



                                     Quentin Ball, MAI
                                     President
                                     Certified Real Estate Appraiser No. 1041



QB/JMO/hj
                                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                                                                                          Page No.


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 1

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS............................................................................ 2

PURPOSE, DATE, AND INTENDED USE OF APPRAISAL ......................................................... 4

EXTENT OF THE APPRAI SAL PROCESS ....................................................................................... 5

LEGAL DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................................... 5

PROPERTY HISTORY ........................................................................................................................... 5

CITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD ............................................................................................................. 6

   ATLANTA METROPOLITAN AREA............................................................................................ 6

   NEIGHBORHOOD ............................................................................................................................. 17

MARKET OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................... 18

   NATIONAL OFFICE MARKET..................................................................................................... 18

   ATLANTA OFFICE MARKET – KORPACZ 4 TH QUARTER 1998 ......................................... 19

   SUBJECT AREA ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 21

REASONABLE EXPOSURE AND MARKETING TIME ............................................................. 22

SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................ 23

IMPROVEMENT DESCRIP TION .................................................................................................... 24

ZONING .................................................................................................................................................... 26

HIGHEST AND BEST USE .................................................................................................................. 27

   HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS IF VACANT............................................................................... 27

   HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS IMPROVED ............................................................................... 28

VALUATION METHODOLOG Y ....................................................................................................... 30
LAND VALUATION .............................................................................................................................. 31

LEASEHOLD ESTATE ......................................................................................................................... 34

INCOME APPROACH .......................................................................................................................... 37

   INCOME ............................................................................................................................................... 37

   EXPENSES ........................................................................................................................................... 39

   CAPITALIZATION RATE............................................................................................................... 41

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ................................................................................................ 45

COST APPROACH................................................................................................................................. 48

COST APPROACH................................................................................................................................. 48

   LAND VALUE ..................................................................................................................................... 48

   REPLACEMENT COST OF IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................ 48

RECONCILIATION ............................................................................................................................... 50

CERTIFICATION................................................................................................................................... 51

QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER ............................................................................................. 52



ADDENDA:

Engagement Letter
Legal Description
Survey/Site Plan
Flood Plain Map
Operating Statements
Comparable Retail Building Rentals
Comparable Shopping Center Sales
Comparable Land Sales
                                                                                   1


                     SUMMARY AND CONCLUS IONS


PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION       : Wolff Brothers office building
                                1930 Monroe Drive
                                Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia

DATE OF APPRAISAL             : February 15, 1999

DATE OF INSPECTION            : February 15, 1999

PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED     : Leasehold Estate

LAND AREA                                        ƒ
                              : .62 acre (27,007+o )

IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION                                       ƒ
                              : One-story, brick veneer, 8,738o -office building
                                constructed in 1958.

ZONING                        : I-1, Light Industrial District

HIGHEST & BEST USE            : Office Development

REASONABLE EXPOSURE PERIOD    : 12 months

REASONABLE MARKETING PERIOD   : 12 months

FEE SIMPLE LAND VALUE         : $110,000
LEASEHOLD LAND VALUE          : $100,000

INCOME APPROACH               : $750,000

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH     : $750,000

COST APPROACH                 : $750,000

VALUE CONCLUSION              : $750,000




                                                                 Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                        2


                   ASSUMPTIONS AND L IMITING CONDITIONS


§   This appraisal is subject to the following conditions:

§   The legal description furnished is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for
    matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the title, which is assumed to be
    good and marketable.

§   All existing liens and encumbrances have been disregarded unless otherwise stated, and the
    property is appraised as though free and clear under responsible ownership and competent
    management.

§   We assume any proposed or incomplete improvements included in this report completed in
    accordance with approved plans and specifications and in a workmanlike manner.

§   Information furnished by others is believed to be reliable, but no responsibility is assumed for
    its accuracy.

§   The Bylaws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute govern disclosure of the contents of this
    appraisal report.

§   One (or more) of the signatories of this appraisal report is a Member (or Candidate) of the
    Appraisal Institute. The Bylaws and Regulations of the Institute require each Member and
    Candidate to control the use and distribution of each appraisal report signed by such Member or
    Candidate. Therefore, except as hereinafter provided, the party for whom this appraisal report
    was prepared may distribute copies of this appraisal report, in its entirety, to such third parties as
    may be selected by the party for whom this appraisal report was prepared; however, selected
    portions of this appraisal report shall not be given to third parties without the prior written
    consent of the signatories of this appraisal report. Further, neither all nor any part of this
    appraisal report shall be disseminated to the general public by the use of advertising media,
    public relations media, news media, sales media, or other media for public communication
    without the prior written consent of the signatories of this appraisal report.

§   Qualified experts proficient in conducting environmental audits must determine the presence of
    hazardous or toxic materials. As appraisers, we cannot endorse or sanction an environmental
    audit. However, the presence of hazardous or toxic materials may require a deduction from
    value. Unless stated in the report, we have not been notified of and were unable to discern any
    hazardous or toxic materials that might be a detriment to Market Value. We have not made a
    deduction from value due to the presence of hazardous or toxic materials.




                                                                              Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                       3


§   It is our recommendation that the client obtain a qualified engineer, architect, or other
    Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) expert to inspect the subject, determine the level of
    ADA compliance/non-compliance, and estimate the cost to bring the property into compliance.
    Any non-conformity could have an effect on the Market Value conclusion. Unless otherwise
    stated, the value conclusion of this appraisal is based on the assumption the property is in ADA
    compliance.




                                                                           Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                        4


             PURPOSE, DATE, AND INTE NDED USE O F APPRAIS AL


       We estimated the Market Value of the Wolff Brothers office building at 1930 Monroe Drive
in Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia. The Leasehold Estate constitutes the ownership interest
appraised. The date of inspection and the effective date of appraisal is February 15, 1999.
       The intended use of this appraisal is to provide data for financing.
       "Market Value" is defined as 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 each 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 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.



       Leasehold Estate is defined as the right to use and occupy real estate for a stated term and
under certain conditions; conveyed by a lease.




                                                                              Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                       5


                       E XTENT O F THE APPRAISAL PROCESS


       The appraisal process included an inspection of the subject property, inspection of similar
properties in metro Atlanta, analysis of income and expenses of the subject and similar properties,
analysis of sales of similar properties, and analysis of land sales in the area. We confirmed office
building rents and sales, and land sales with principals, brokers, knowledgeable third parties, and
public records. We analyzed market forces in the area, city, and neighborhood.




                                   LEGAL DESCRIP TION


       We included a copy of the legal description and survey/site plan in the Addenda.




                                    PROPERT Y HISTORY


       Burton P. Wolff and Joseph E. Wolff purchased the subject building from J & R Properties
on March 26, 1998 for $675,000. A Deed to Secure Dept was taken out then for $607,500 between
both parties. Wachovia Bank of Georgia, N.A. as successor Trustee under the Last Will and
Testament of William Lott Monroe, Sr., leases the subject property. The new terms of the lease
commenced February 12, 1993 through December 31, 2058. These same terms continued for the
new Grantees. The land was originally leased from William L. Monroe, Sr., to Ashley
Development Corporation in February 1958. No other transactions involving the subject property
have transpired over the past three years that we are aware of.
       Individuals involved with the chain of title provided the property history. We have not
performed a title search and cannot guarantee accuracy.




                                                                            Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                       6


                                 CIT Y AND NE IGHBORHOOD

ATLANTA METROPOLITA N AREA

        Figure 1 summarizes the trend of population growth for the 20 county Atlanta MSA.
Atlanta ranks as the ninth largest and third fastest growing area in the country.


                          ATLANTA'S POPULATION TREND

             2001                                                                      4,231,350

             1998                                                          3,549,600

             1996                                                          3,501,080

             1993                                                  3,164,100

             1992                                                3,070,400

             1991                                                3,011,600

             1990                                              2,914,800




Source: Georgia Trend Magazine & Forecast of Georgia & Atlanta 1997-1998


        The Selig Center for Economic Growth estimates Atlanta’s population for 1997 at 3.7
million. The center projects Atlanta’s population at 4.8 million by the year 2002. A growth of
600,000 people within the 20 county area in five years equates to an 18% increase in population.




                                                                                       Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                  7


       The twenty counties listed below comprise the Atlanta Metropolitan area. Fulton and
DeKalb counties form the urban core along with the city of Atlanta and Decatur. Paulding, Henry
and Forsyth counties remain the fastest growing counties in the metro area. The following table
illustrates population growth rates for the Atlanta Metro counties.


               METRO ATLANTA                        POPULATION       ESTIMATIONS
              COUNTIES   1997                           (E) 2002       GROWTH \YEAR
          Barrow                           39,318         51,763            5.7
          Butts                            16,382         17,890            1.8
          Carroll                          82,367         98,080            3.6
          Cherokee                     132,822           197,873            8.3
          Clayton                      208,875           245,659            3.3
          Cobb                         580,327           772,057            5.9
          Coweta                           80,881        111,806            6.7
          DeKalb                       605,543           687,047            2.6
          Douglas                          88,093        109,693            4.5
          Fayette                          93,290        148,410            9.7
          Forsyth                          72,403        109,402            8.6
          Fulton                       724,512           811,758            2.3
          Gwinnett                     545,844           877,946            10.0
          Henry                            99,310        153,791            9.1
          Newton                           53,870         65,739            4.1
          Paulding                         69,773        106,558            8.8
          Pickens                          17,952         22,040            4.2
          Rockdale                         71,486         96,147            6.1
          Spalding                         58,902         65,880            2.3
          Walton                           50,898         64,637            4.9
          Total                       3,692,849          4,814,175          5.4
         So urce: Georgia Trend magazine




       Atlanta’s projected population growth from 1997 to 2002 shows a total increase of 18% or
5.4% compounded annually for five years. Paulding, Henry and Forsyth counties experienced

                                                                          Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                     8


tremendous growth from 1992 to 1997, with 8.1%, 8.0% and 7.8% increases respectively.
Gwinnett, Fayette and Coweta counties demonstrate impressive growth over the past years. The
following table provides a visual explanation:


                               ATLANTA’S                 POPULATION        TRENDS
                   Counties              Pop. In 1992       Pop. In 1997    % increase
               Paulding                         47,286        69,773          8.1%
               Henry                            67,572        99,310          8.0 %
               Forsyth                          49,822        72,403          7.8 %
               Gwinnett                     390,931           545,844         6.9 %
               Fayette                          69,522        93,290          6.1 %
               Coweta                           60,358        80,881          6.0 %

               Source: Georgia Trend magazine




       Atlanta’s population growth contributes to Georgia’s prosperity. The present population
growth rate stands at 2.4 % for all of Georgia. Many factors contribute to Atlanta’s excellent
growth. Superior transportation infrastructure for air, rail, and highway travel makes Atlanta the
hub of the South. Numerous companies move to Atlanta because of the low cost of living and
business-friendly local governments entice relocation with incentives. Although Atlanta’s growth
creates congestion in many areas, most commutes remain shorter than other major cities. With no
natural barriers and favorable topography, Atlanta provides an abundance of land for development.


Housing and Construction
       The Atlanta metro housing area (more than 1.3 million) documents recent growth in the
suburban fringe, with Gwinnett and Fayette Counties exhibiting the greatest increase from 1980 to
1990. The median housing age stands at 13 years. Owner occupancy varies sharply from county to
county. Fulton and DeKalb Counties, which form the central city core, have the lowest owner-
occupancy at 49% and 58%, respectively. Fayette and Henry Counties, which are representative of
the rural fringe, boast the highest owner-occupancies of 86% and 83%, respectively.




                                                                              Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                      9


Atlanta’s Economy

         Atlanta’s well-diversified economy helps insulate the city from national recessions and
cyclical economic conditions. The Labor Department states the total employment in the Atlanta
metro area reached 2.01 million as of March 1998. By the year 2001, Georgia Trend estimates
Atlanta’s total employment will exceed 2.2 million, which translates into a growth rate for Atlanta
at 12.8% between 1997 to 2001. The Georgia Trend also forecasts that Metro Atlanta will
comprise nearly 60% of the state’s jobs by the year 2001, reinforcing the significance of Atlanta
role in the state’s economy.
         Figure 2 illustrates the percentage of employed individuals in each job sector on the
following illustration.




             EMPLOYMENT BREAKDOWN OF ATLANTA
                           F.I.R.E.                                Mining
                             8%             Construction            0%
            Trans.,                             6%                       Services
          Comm., Utlty
                                                                          38%
             11%

             Manufacturing                                            Retail Trade
                14%                                                      23%


   Source: Forecast of Georgia & Atlanta


         The Georgia Department of Labor statistics indicates an unemployment rate of 4.0% for
Georgia as of March 1998. The Metro area counties show an average unemployment rate of only
3.2%, further proof of Atlanta’s strong economic position. Dr. Donald Ratajczak, Director of the
Georgia State University’s Economic Forecasting Center, forecasts the following unemployment
rates.


                                   EMPLOYMENT           OUTLOOK
                            Year           New Jobs        Unemployment Rate



                                                                            Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                              10

                                  1996             88,400               3.5 %
                                  1997             59,800               3.5 %
                                 1998(F)           79,800               4.0%
                                 1999(F)           35,000               5.3 %
                             Source: Forecast of Georgia and Atlanta


         The overall economic picture for Atlanta evinces continued strength and steady growth. The
following chart summarizes Atlanta’s top ten employers.


                ATLANTA’S                TEN   LARGEST           PRIVATE        COMPANIES

               Company                      Revenue         Employees             Line of Business
   United Parcel Service                    22 billion        326,000   Small package distribution
   Cox Enterprises, Inc.                   .6.8 billion        27,000   Broadcasting & communication
   Gold Kist, Inc.                           2 billion         18,500   Diversified farm co-op
   Southwire Company                        1.7 billion        5,000    Cable & wire manufacturers
   Oglethorpe Power Corp.                   1.1 billion         300     Electric utility
   Avondale Mills Inc.                      1.1 billion        7,400    Textile products
   Racetrack Petroleum, Inc.                 1 billion         3,000    Retail gasoline & convenience store
   Beers Construction Co.                  993 million         1,200    General contractor
   W.B. Johnson Properties,Inc             910 million         1,130    Hotels & restaurants

   National Distributing Co.               900 million          250     Wholesale alcoholic & non
                                                                        alcoholic beverages.
Source: Georgia Trend Magazine




                                                                                    Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                       11


       Atlanta’s business environment attracts global as well as national entities for many reasons:
       v    Excellent transportation for air, rail, & highway
       v    Affordable housing
       v    Moderate living costs compared to other major states
       v    A moderate climate
       v    User-friendly local governments
       v    No geographic boundaries
       v    Abundance of developable land
       v    Recreational and cultural resources

       Atlanta’s capacity to match demand with supply for all types of real estate (retail, office,
residential, industrial and agricultural) helps insulate Atlanta from recessions typical of other major
cities. Business entities in the Atlanta area represent a diverse group, covering a wide range of
service and production industries, a key to creating equilibrium in the marketplace.


Transportation
       Transportation underpins the growth of the metropolitan area and makes Atlanta the major
distribution center for the entire Southeast. Expanding services supplement an already productive
system of road, rail, air, and public transportation.
       Atlanta boasts an excellent interstate and state road system that adequately supports visitor,
business, and everyday travel. Five major interstates (I-75, I-85, I-285, I-20, and
I-675) serve the metro area. Interstates I-75, I-85, and I-20 strategically converge downtown, and I-
20 provides access to major cities along the East Coast and the central United States. I-75 and I-85
provide access to major cities to the north and south of Atlanta. I-285, a 63-mile long beltway that
circles Atlanta, eases traffic flow around the city and provides convenient access to business and
residential centers throughout the metro area. The most recent addition, Hwy. 400, provides access
to north central Atlanta. Much of the population growth discussed earlier flanks Atlanta’s many
roadways leading out of the city.
       The Georgia Department of Transportation plans to develop a 200-mile outer perimeter loop
that will encircle Atlanta at distances of 26 to 39 miles. This additional perimeter route will ease
congestion on Atlanta’s roadways and allow a more convenient delivery system for goods and
services around the Atlanta area. Construction on this road system will begin in eight to ten years.



                                                                             Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                       12


       Approximately 360 motor carriers provide road transportation service. Rail trans-portation
comes from seven railroad companies using two railway systems. Thirty-four other railroads that
maintain off-line offices in Atlanta rely on the two main railway systems. The two largest Atlanta
railroad companies, CSX and Norfolk Southern, plan expansions into Fairburn (Fulton County) and
Austell (Cobb County) in the next five years.
       The largest, Hartsfield International, rose in passenger traffic 7.7% to 68.2 million
passengers in 1997, up from 63.3 million the previous year, according to figures released by the
airport. Hartsfield will handle over 70 million passengers in 1998 with a projected growth of
another 5 million passengers. This growth could push it to the number 1 spot ahead of Chicago
O'Hare Airport. Hartsfield's long-term projections show traffic doubling by 2015. The airport
handled 794,621 aircraft operations last year, pushing the 800,000 threshold at which stage
significant added delays could occur. Hartsfield's planned fifth runway is set to open in 2002.
       Hartsfield International has 32 airlines with six concourses and Delta Air Lines is the largest
airliner. Delta Air Lines' continuing expansion of its Hartsfield hub was the primary factor in last
year's passenger increase. Together with its commuter partner, Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Delta
handled 82.3% of passengers, up from 80.6% in 1996 and 75% the year before. Swissair was the
busiest foreign carrier, followed by Lufthansa, Air Jamaica, British Airways and Air Canada.
       Hartsfield generates some $3 billion a year in salaries, pumping about $9 billion into the
Atlanta economy and generating $230 million in state and local taxes. By the year 2015, estimates
are that there will be 121 million passengers using the airport.
       DeKalb Peachtree Airport also serves Atlanta by offering the business traveler a less
crowded and more easily accessible alternative to Hartsfield International. Many corporations use
DeKalb Peachtree Airport, including MCI, BellSouth, Post Properties, and Coca-Cola.
Public transportation comes from MARTA, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. The rail
system contains 46 miles of rail, 36 rail stations, and 240 rail cars that serve an average of 219,000
passengers per day. In addition to the rail system, 678 MARTA buses serve the Atlanta area with
more than 150 routes covering 1,500 miles. Expansion plans include the addition and extension of
rail service to Sandy Springs and Dunwoody by the Year 2000.




                                                                            Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                        13



Recreational and Cultural Resources

        Atlanta’s recreational and cultural fabric gives character to the city. Professional athletic
franchises such as the Atlanta Falcons, Atlanta Hawks, and the world champion Atlanta Braves,
make Atlanta an exciting place to live. In 1997, the Braves moved to their new home, the Olympic
Stadium, newly renovated for baseball. In 1998, the Hawks plan to move into their new sports
arena, the Georgia Dome, adjacent to the Falcons’ playing field.
        Atlanta’s cultural environment caters to many with a variety of activities.

            v Atlanta Community Orchestra
            v Atlanta Pops Orchestra
            v Atlanta Symphony Orchestra
            v Atlanta Opera
            v Atlanta Ballet Company

        Various cultural facilities pique interest from the local population as well as a multitude of
visitors.


            v Woodruff Art Center
            v High Museum
            v Atlanta Historical Society
            v Fox Theater
            v Chastain Park Amphitheater

        Popular recreational attractions entertain people locally, nationally, and internationally.

            v Six Flags Over Georgia
            v Center For Puppetry Arts
            v Fernbank Science Center & Science Museum
            v Stone Mountain Park
            v Piedmont Park
            v Grant Park
            v Lake Lanier & Lake Allatoona

        Piedmont Park, located in Atlanta’s prestigious midtown area, plays host to the Atlanta Jazz
Festival and remains the termination point for the famous Peachtree Road Race. Grant Park, home
of the Atlanta Zoo and Cyclorama, hosts various other functions as well.

                                                                              Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                   14


       Downtown Atlanta houses one of the largest sports, entertainment, and convention
complexes in the world, the Georgia World Congress Center, Georgia Dome, and Turner Field.
Atlanta’s June, 1997, approval for a new NHL hockey team in 1999, offers further evidence that
Atlanta rivals major convention cities across the nation. The stock car races at Atlanta Motor
Speedway in Hampton also draw large crowds to the Atlanta area.


Education

       Educational resources continue as one of the city’s most important assets. Atlanta has 34
colleges and universities, including Georgia State University, Georgia Institute of Technology, and
the Atlanta University Center, Inc. Additionally, 31 vocational-technical schools in the
metropolitan area help students increase their earning capabilities.




                                                                 •     Employment By Industry
                                                                 •     Net New Job Growth 1997
                                                                 •     Labor Force and Population
                                                                 •     Metro Area Job Growth
                                                                 •     Employment Projections




Employment by Industry
       Metro Atlanta's labor force has proven to be dependable, meeting the needs of the area's
100,824 employers. Creating 586,100 net new jobs during the past decade, Atlanta's companies
have found a reliable employment base in the Southeast's leading metro area.




                                                                            Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                        15


                             Employment by Industry 1997

                              5%                                Services               604,500
                                            0%
                   7%                                           Retail Trade           358,500
                                                 30%
              8%                                                Government              259,500
                                                                Manufacturing           220,700
                                                                T.C.U.                 169,200
          8%
                                                                Wholesale Trade 168,500
                                                                F.I.R.E               131,400
           11%                                                  Construction             99,800
                                             18%
                                                                Mining                    1,700
                           13%
    Source: Georgia Bureau of Labor


Net New Job Growth
        1997 was an exceptional year of job growth for Atlanta. Over the past five years, more jobs
have been created in metro Atlanta than any other area in the nation.



                                     Net Job Growth 1997

                      7%                                               Services            49,700
                                            0%
                                                                       Retail Trade          2,800
                 9%
                                                                       Government            9,100
                                                                       Manufacturing         5,000
             12%                                          46%
                                                                       T.C.U.              11,200
                                                                       Wholesale Trade 12,500
               10%
                                                                       F.I.R.E              9,900
                                                                       Construction          7,900
                       5%
                                       8%         3%                   Mining                  100

   Source: Georgia Bureau of Labor*
  *Note: T.C.U. --Transportation, Communication, Utilities, F.I.R.E.--Finance, Insurance, Real Estate




                                                                                       Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                          16


Labor and Population
       The metro area's labor force has grown by 36.6% during the past decade. Contributing to
this growth is the significant number of young people who continue their lives in Atlanta, and the
growing number of newcomers who find Atlanta an attractive abode.




                                  Total                                Population         Unemployment
                                Population         Work Force           Percent              Percent
        Barrow                    38,846               18,126              49.2                   3.9
        Bartow                    65,838               34,457              52.3                   5.3
        Carroll                   80,013               41,098              51.4                   5.0
        Cherokee                  121,886              65,941              54.1                   2.7
        Clayton                   200,992              111,661             55.6                   4.5
        Cobb                      547,215              320,148             58.5                   3.0
        Coweta                    74,230               37,297              50.2                   3.9
        DeKalb                    594,590              349,320             58.8                   4.4
        Douglas                   84,304               46,766              55.5                   3.2
        Fayette                   86,535               43,087              49.8                   2.3
        Forsyth                   63,432               35,185              55.5                   2.2
        Fulton                    707,740              380,214             53.7                   4.9
        Gwinnett                  493,889              283,359             57.4                   2.8
        Henry                     89,325               46,795              52.4                   3.0
        Newton                    51,126               25,415              49.7                   4.5
        Paulding                  62,954               32,091              51.0                   2.7
        Pickens                   17,107                8,908              52.1                   3.9
        Rockdale                  66,959               36,536              54.6                   3.0
        Spalding                  59,513               28,952              49.7                   4.9
        Walton                    47,526               23,892              50.2                   4.2
        Metro Atlanta            3,431,983           1,973,246              --                    3.8
                   Source: Georgia Department of Labor, 1997, Selig Center for Economic Growth, 1997.




                                                                                          Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                     17


Employment Projections

       Metro Atlanta leads the Southeast and ranks 9th in the nation for projected employment
growth, confirming the area's reputation as a major job center in the U.S. During the past few years,
Metro Atlanta's industry base has increased significantly, employing nearly 100,000 additional
people annually.


Conclusion

       Atlanta and the surrounding metropolitan area enjoy a well-diversified, stable economy.
Growth in population, employment, and business relocation to the area will allow Atlanta to
flourish into the next century. Atlanta’s job growth ranks number one in the country over the past
five years and economists project over 75,000 new jobs in 1998. The long-term economic outlook
for the metropolitan area remains excellent.


NEIGHBORHOOD

       The subject property resides just east of Midtown Atlanta in an area developed with a mix of
office, industrial, and single-family residential. Ansley Mall shopping center and Piedmont and
Cheshire Bridge Road rests less than one-mile from the subject. The property is in a four-building
office complex across from the Red Cross Regional Center on Monroe Drive, and faces I-85 and the
I-85 Access Road.
       Access to the subject neighborhood is provided from the Monroe Drive exit off the I-85
Access Road, and from Piedmont Road near Cheshire Bridge Road or near Ansley Mall along
Monroe Drive. Visibility is excellent from Monroe Drive, I-85, and the I-85 Access Road. The
subject’s location is ideal for travel to any point within the main business corridors of Midtown,
Buckhead, or Downtown Atlanta. Although the subject habitats an older neighborhood, no lands are
available for development, and the immediate neighborhood exhibits a state of stability.
       In summary, the subject property is well located in an established area of northeast metro
Atlanta. Access to and from, and within, the subject area is good. The compatibility of land usage
in the subject area is also good, and the neighborhood is best characterized as stable. The economic
prospects for the subject neighborhood are good.




                                                                            Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                       18


                                    MARKET OVERVIEW


       This discussion analyzes the national and local office markets, as well as the ability of the
subject property to compete in the future.


NATIONAL OFFICE MARKET
       Although the subject is located within two miles of Midtown Atlanta, it is classified as a
suburban area. According to Korpacz Real Estate Investor Survey 4th Quarter 1998, with the early
Fall price correction transaction activity slowed and the national suburban office market is turning
from a seller’s market to a buyer’s market. The immediate effect of the REIT pullout and the
capital crunch was two -fold. Prices of some suburban office product dropped an estimated 10% to
20%, and sources of capital for new development disappeared. Both are perceived to be a good
thing for a market that could have been overbuilt. The following chart illustrates financial trends
within the past year.


           KEY INDICATOR           CURRENT              LAST           YEAR AGO
                                   QUARTER            QUARTER
             Discount Rate
                Range            9.00% - 12.50%     10.00% - 12.50%   10.00% - 13.50%
               Average               11.06%             11.14%            11.42%
           Overall Cap Rate
                Range            7.50% - 10.50%     7.50% - 10.50%    7.50% - 11.00%
               Average               9.03%              9.05%             9.20%
          Market Rent Change
                 Rate
                Range             0.00% - 8.00%     0.00% - 10.00%     0.00% - 8.00%
               Average               4.02%              4.50%             4.08%
         Expense Change Rate
                Range             2.00% - 4.00%      2.00% - 4.00%     3.00% - 5.00%
               Average               3.25%              3.42%             3.59%
           Residual Cap Rate
             Change Rate
                Range            8.00% - 11.00%     8.00% - 11.00%    8.25% - 11.50%
               Average               9.47%              9.43%             9.61%




                                                                              Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                       19


       As shown in the above chart, improvements were shown in almost all categories with the
exception of rent change and residual cap rates. The greatest difference was found in a 48-point
drop in market rent. For the most part, rent spikes are a thing of the past, and investors use lower
rent increases in their analysis. In markets where employment projections are good and not too
much addition to supply is underway or proposed, new construction is feasible. A few suburban
markets will see sizable spikes in vacancy over the next year.
       Despite the current curtailment of financing for construction, there is wide belief that it will
rebound during 1999. Forecast respondents project a 6.8% increase in new development next year.
As a result, prices will increase only moderately. The average forecast rate of change in
prices/value is only 2.2%.




ATLANTA OFFICE MARKET – KORPACZ 4TH QUARTER 1998

       Atlanta is one office market that could benefit from a sustained credit crunch that would
deter new building. Although it was a leader in the recovery from the gross ove rbuilding in the last
real estate boom, it has led the nation in office construction. Beginning this year with nearly 5
million square feet of office space under construction, development has continued even in the face
of slowed absorption.
       Recently, the FDIC put Atlanta on a list of markets that are at risk of overbuilding. The
agency is investigating whether a significant easing of underwriting is associated with rapid growth.
A letter to FDIC-insured institutions cautions, “Bankers should closely monitor economic and real
estate conditions in metropolitan Atlanta because of the sizable construction and development
lending concentrations…and the volatility of this lending.” Bankers in the area and bank analyst
say there are no signs of trouble thus far.
       The local economy remains strong. Both population and job growth are expected to
continue to outpace the nation, but the rates of increase are slowing. At its peak, job growth was
twice the national average. For 1998, approximately 45,500 new jobs, a 2.3% increase, are
projected.
       Such numbers have attracted investors throughout Atlanta’s long growth period, which
began two years before the 1996 Olympics. Enough respondents to our 1999 forecast cited the
Atlanta metropolitan area with the best ove rall conditions for real estate investment next year to

                                                                             Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                   20


keep it on the top 10 list. However, since more than 40% of the dollar volume of purchases last
year were made by REITs, the shortage of REITs in the marketplace is likely to slow transaction
activity in the months ahead.
                                                                  ƒ
       Class A buildings generally are sold at approximately $140/o. Some buildings in the
Atlanta office market are still priced below replacement cost, but most are fully priced. The range
of prices is from 80% to 110% of replacement cost. The average price is 100% of cost.
       Key value indicators are shown below. The greatest change in cash flow forecast
assumptions this quarter is a 43-basis point drop in the average discount rate. There have been wide
swings in the average discount rate over the past few quarters, and this quarter’s average of 11.17%
is only 10 basis points lower than one year ago. The average overall cap rate increased 4 basis
points. It is 24 points less than one year ago.
       Only small changes in value indicators are forecast during 1999. The greatest change is a
2.2% increase in the development change rate. Since more additions to office supply are expected
and average rent rates are not projected to rise more than inflation, the forecast of change in
prices/values is negligible.
       The table below provides key statistics generated from the Korpacz Survey relating to the
Atlanta Office Market.


                      KEY INDICATORS                            STATISTICS
                      Discount Rate Range                        9.50% - 13.50%
                      Discount Rate Average                          11.17%
                      Overall Capitalization Rate Range          8.00% - 10.50%
                      Overall Capitalization Rate Average             9.21%
                      Residual Capitalization Rate Range         9.00% - 11.00%
                      Residual Capitalization Rate Average            9.44%
                      Market Rent Change Range                    0.00% - 3.50%
                      Market Rent Change Average                      2.29%
                      Expenses Rate Change Range                  3.00% - 4.00%
                      Expense Rate Change Average                     3.35%




                                                                              Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                   21


SUBJECT AREA ANALYSIS
       Dorey’s Atlanta Office Guide, 1 st Quarter 1999, places the subject within the Sector “L”
Midtown/Pershing Point/Brookwood submarket. This area primarily focuses along Peachtree
Street, West Peachtree Street, and Spring Street, and extends from North Avenue to the south to 28 th
                                                              ƒ
Street to the north. After a long development drought, 165,000o of new space is now underway in
Midtown. Vacancy rates for Class A space improved from 7.70% in the 3 rd quarter 1998 to 6.90%
                                                                              ƒ           ƒ
in the 4 th quarter, with rents only climbing moderately to a range of $20.10/o to $22.68/o. Class B
and Class C space was not as fortunate. Vacancy in Class B for this period increased from 21.20%
to 21.30%. Class C fared worse with 21.20% growing to 24.50%. However, the Class C space
                                                                                            ƒ
showed the greatest numerical and percentage growth in rents growing from a range of $9.37/ o and
       ƒ                       ƒ           ƒ
$10.40/o, to a range of $10.37/o to $11.48/o.
       In 1999, new development will be the big story in this market. Demand for new Midtown
office space is coming from young high-tech companies, large law firms, service companies, and
banks. The first of the many announced buildings to come out of the ground in Midtown will be the
winner. There is enough demand to take care of the first two or three buildings of the numerous
buildings scheduled to be built, but a pure guessing game after that.
       According to The Jamison Advisory Group, Year End 1998 Overview, the subject property
is located within the Midtown Office Submarket. The Midtown market is comprised of 65 projects
totaling over 9.5 million square feet. This accounts for 9.1% of the total Atlanta office market. The
primary discussion on this market entails activity within both the Class A and Class B office
properties. When looking at the Class A market and the combined Class A and B, strength in
occupancy is strong. The following charts depict the Midtown Atlanta Office market through
Jamison.




                                                                           Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                         22


               REASONABL E E XPOSURE AND MARKET ING TIME


       Exposure time represents the estimated length of time the property would have been offered
on the market before the hypothetical consummation of a sale at market value on the effective date
of the appraisal.
       We estimate the Market Value of an office building just outside the Midtown area in Atlanta,
Georgia. The area is stable and strong with little area left for further development.
       Typically, 30 to 60 days is considered a reasonable amount of time for the property to be
made known to potential purchasers through the news media, advertising, multiple listing service,
etc. After a contract is entered into, due diligence by the buyer, loan application, etc., can take an
additional 30 to 90 days. Historically this type of property, properties has been on the market for
six months to one year, if reasonably priced. A reasonable exposure time for the subject property is
12 months.




                                                                             Kirkland & Company
                                                                                       23


                        SITE DESCRIPT ION


LOCATION            :   The subject site resides on the northwest side of Monroe Drive
                        and the southeast side of the I-85 Access Road in Atlanta,
                        Fulton County, Georgia.

SIZE                :                    ƒ
                        .62 acre (27,007+o )

FRONTAGE            :   143’ of frontage along the I-85 Access Road, and a 20.0’ wide
                        access easement on Monroe Drive to the subject site.

UTILITIES           :   All Available.

TOPOGRAPHY          :   Rolling and below grade of Monroe Drive, and situated well
                        above grade of the I-85 Access Road.

FLOOD ZONE          :   Community Panel 135157-0019-C, dated March 4, 1987,
                        denotes the subject property is not in a flood hazard area. (See
                        Addenda).

ACCESS AND EXPOSURE :   Via one curb cut for access to the subject site from Monroe
                        Drive. The subject is situated in the rear of its office park and
                        visibility is somewhat restricted, however, the site has good
                        visibility from I-85 and the I-85 Access Road.

SUMMARY             :   The site is adequate in size and shape for a single-tenant office
                        building, having good access from Monroe Drive. We
                        included copies of the legal description, survey/site plan, and
                        flood plain map in the Addenda.




                                                              Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                    24


                           IMPROVE MENT DES CRIPT ION


                                                                                             ƒ
       The subject improvements are a one-story brick veneer office building containing 8,738o
built in 1958. Actual age is 41 years. A considerable amount of improvements have been made to
the property including completely redoing the interior. We estimate an effective age of 15 years.


General construction details follow:
FOOTINGS & FOUNDATION                :      Reinforced concrete.

FRAME                                :      Concrete block supporting steel bar joists.

EXTERIOR WALLS                       :      Brick veneer walls around exterior with glass
                                            Storefront at entrance to reception area .

ROOF                                 :      Built-up tar and gravel roof with pre-
                                            engineered steel panels over metal truss
                                            system.

FLOORS                               :      Concrete slab on grade, steel reinforced.

FLOOR COVERING                       :      Carpeting in offices and hallways. Vinyl tile in
                                            Rest rooms and break room

INTERIOR WALLS                       :      Wallboard, plaster, and wood paneling. Some
                                            Concrete walls are painted.

CEILING TYPES                        :      Acoustical tile.

LIGHTING                             :      Recessed fluorescent fixtures

ELECTRIC                             :      Individual metered.

DOORS AND WINDOWS                    :      Glass in aluminum doors at main entrance, steel
                                            Doors at rear exits. Hollow core wood doors
                                            For interior doors. Windows are glass in
                                            Aluminum frames.

REST ROOMS                           :      Two 5-fixture rest rooms.

HVAC                                 :      Individual, roof-mounted electric units.




                                                                            Kirkland & Company
                                                             25


PAVING        :                         ƒ
                  Approximately 15,000o of asphalt parking
                  Containing 28 parking spaces.

LANDSCAPING   :   Adequate around property and building
                  perimeters.




                                             Kirkland & Company
                                                                                       26


                                ZONING


CLASSIFICATION   :       I-1, Light Industrial District by the city of Atlanta

INTENT           :       To provide locations for wholesaling, warehousing,
                         storage, light manufacturing, processing of merchandise,
                         retail, and service establishments. The intent is to create,
                         expand or extend such districts only where there is adequate
                         and direct access to major transportation facilities and where
                         there is minimal conflict with residential districts.

PERMITTED USES       :   Numerous including business service establishments and
                         offices to name a few.

RESTRICTIONS         :   Bulk limitations are that floor area shall not exceed an amount
                         equal to 2.0 times net land area, with a minimum front yard of
                         40 feet adjacent to public streets, and 20 feet for side yards.
                         There are no maximum structure height limitations. Off-street
                                                              ƒ
                         parking requires one space per 300o of office building area.
                                                ƒ
                         The subject has 8,738o which requires 29.13 parking spaces.
                         The subject has 30 spaces.

SUMMARY              :   The subject offers sufficient size to construct an office
                         building and any other uses permitted within the I-1 zoning
                         district.




                                                                Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                       27


                                  HIGHEST AND BEST US E


       Highest and Best Use as defined in The Appraisal of Real Estate, Eleventh Edition,
published by the Appraisal Institute, is as follows:

       "the reasonable probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which
       is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and results in the
       highest value."

       The specific items to be addressed in determining the highest and best use are the
physically possible, legally permissible, financially feasible, and maximally productive uses.

               Physically Possible - This deals with the suitability of the site for development
       (size, topography, soil, etc.), available utilities and community services, site
       modifications necessary, and any limitations caused by the foregoing; and the suitability
       of the physical characteristics of any existing improvements.

               Legally Permissible - The legally permissible considerations are those that are
       not precluded by law, zoning ordinances, or private deed restrictions.

               Financially Feasible - The financially feasible considerations are those that show
       a potential for generating a positive net present value.

               Maximally Productive - The maximally productive use of those financially
       feasible uses that are physically possible and legally permissible is the highest and best
       use of a site.

HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS IF VACANT

       Physically Possible - The Site Description indicates that there are no apparent physical
defects that would preclude the development of most physically possible uses. The subject
property is large enough for a variety of uses, and good site utility. All public utilities are available.
No restrictions are apparent under the physically possible uses.
       Legally Permissible - Atlanta zoned the subject site Light Industrial District. A wide variety
of commercial uses are legally permissible.




                                                                               Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                      28


       Financially Feasible - The financially feasible uses are derived through an analysis of the
data and conclusions presented in the Area and Neighborhood and the Market Overview sections.
The existing road network is such that access and exposure to the site are good. The area is stable
with minimal land area available for other developments. The property is located within a small
office park, and the office market within the subject market and Atlanta is strong.
       Maximally Productive - The maximally productive use of the financially feasible uses is
determined through an analysis of the above conclusions. The site is in an established mixed-use area
near Midtown and Piedmont Road. Commercial support developments are readily available to
support most uses. All indications in the area reflect strong stability for several years to come. Based
on the size and surrounding uses, an office building is the maximally productive use for the subject
property.
       Conclusion - From the preceding analysis of the physically possible, legally permissible,
financially feasible, and maxi mally productive uses for the subject site, a small office building is the
highest and best use as vacant.


HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS IMPROVED
       The highest and best use under this scenario considers the subject site as improved. The site
                           ƒ
is developed with an 8,738 o office building constructed in 1958.
       Physically Possible – Although the improvements are over 40 years old, the improvements
exhibit good condition. We estimated the effective age at 30 years. As improve d, the physically
possible use is for an office building.
       Legally Permissible - The permitted uses include office buildings.
       Financially Feasible - The financially feasible uses are derived through an anal ysis of the data
and conclusions presented in the Area and Neighborhood and Market Overview sections. With the
strength of the local and Atlanta office markets, the financially feasible use is the continued use as an
office building.




                                                                             Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                       29


       Maximally Productive - The maximally productive use of the financially feasible uses is
determined through an analysis of the above conclusions. From the preceding analysis of the
maximally productive use for the subject site, an office building remains the highest and best use as
improved.
       Conclusion - From the preceding analysis of the physically possible, legally permissible,
financially feasible, and maxi mally productive uses for the subject site, an office building is the
highest and best use as improved.




                                                                              Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                     30


                              VAL UATION MET HODOLOGY


       The property contains a single-tenant office building on leased land. First we estimated the
Fee Simple value of the land (via Sales Comparison Approach). We subtracted the Leased Fee
Estate (See spreadsheet) to ascertain the Leasehold Value of the land. The Leased Fee Estate is
deducted from the Sales Comparison Approach, the Leasehold Estate is included in the Cost
Approach, and the annual rent for the land lease is deducted from the cash flow in the Income
Approach.
       Since this is a single-tenant office building, owner-occupied, we rely on the Income
Approach in place of the Discounted Cash Flow. This involves estimating a market rent for the
subject property. We analyzed expenses by comparables and from published data to ascertain the
reasonableness of the subject expenses. The land lease payments are deducted with the resulting net
income capitalized at a market capitalization rate found in comparable sales. The capitalization rate
reflects investors' yield expectations.
       The Sales Comparison Approach involves comparing comparable sales to the subject on a
price by square foot basis. We adjust each sale for the various differences between the sales and the
subject. The resulting value indications are considered in order to estimate a price per square foot
of the subject. We then deduct the Leased Fee Estate in the land to arrive at a value by the Sales
Comparison Approach.
       The Cost Approach involves estimating the cost to replace the subject with a new property
of equal utility. We estimate the replacement cost new of the subject improvements, add an
entrepreneurial profit necessary to induce development, subtract depreciation from all causes, and
add the Leasehold Value of the land. The resulting estimate reflects the Market Value of the subject
based on the theory of substitution.
       Finally, the three estimates of value are correlated to estimate the Market Value of the
subject property as of the date of appraisal.




                                                                           Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                    31


                                     LAND VALUAT ION


       We examined sales of similar office sites throughout the metro Atlanta area. Our analysis
uses price per square foot as the unit of comparison. The Addenda contains the comparable land
sales and a location map. The sales summarize below:




       The comparable sale prices per square foot range from $4.11 to $5.79. All sales represent
vacant land intended to use for office or low-density commercial development.
       Financing and Conditions of Sale - We first adjust to equate the sales to market terms on a
cash-equivalent basis. An analysis of the comparable sales indicated that no special financing terms
were involved. Each sale appeared to be a "cash-to-seller" transaction or financed at or near market
terms. Therefore, no adjustment is required due to financing terms. Neither is an adjustment
necessary due to conditions of sale. Each of the comparable sales appears as an arm's-length
transaction between willing buyers and sellers under no undue influence.
       Date of Sale - We make this adjustment to analyze the sales based on current market
conditions. Our research did not reveal actual resales or matched-pair sales that indicate a precise
adjustment for time. Conversations with brokers and investors active in the metro Atlanta area
reveal land values for undeveloped sites have increased during the past couple of years from 0% to
5%. We make an upward adjustment of 3% for time.
       Comparative Adjustments - Adjustments for the differences of other value factors
are discernible from a matched-pair sales analysis. We determined the following adjustments based
on analysis of the comparable land sales and our experience with similar properties. All analyzed
comparable sales possess similar location, topography, and utility as the subject property. Large
adjustments were needed due to the substantial different sizes of the land sales. We analyzed these
sales below.




                                                                            Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                     32


       The subject property resides on an older commercial strip with a mix of industrial, office,
and residential. All of the sales have superior locations requiring downward adjustments for
location.
       All of the sales are larger requiring upward adjustments for size.
       Sales 1 through 4 have superior topography requiring downward adjustments. Sale 5 has a
similar topography requiring no adjustment for topography.
       With the subject set-back from Monroe Drive with limited visibility, all the sales have
superior access and exposure, and all require a downward adjustment for this attribute.
       The adjustment grid is provided on the following page.




                                                                            Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                           33



                                     LAND VALUE
                                SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENTS
                                     Sale 1    Sale 2           Sale 3              Sale 4        Sale 5
Sale Price Per Unit                   $5.13     $4.52            $4.11               $5.21         $5.79
Date of Sale                        Aug-97     Jul-97          May-96              Feb-96        Dec-95
Date of Appraisal                   Feb-99    Feb-99           Feb-99              Feb-99        Feb-99
Number of Months                        18        19               34                  37            39
Time Adjustment Per Year                3%        3%               3%                  3%            3%
Time Adjustment Per Month            0.25%    0.25%             0.25%               0.25%         0.25%
Total Time Adjustment                4.50%    4.75%             8.50%               9.25%         9.75%
Time-Adjusted Sale Price              $5.36     $4.73            $4.46               $5.69         $6.36

Adjustments:
   Location                           -15%        -20%             -20%             -15%          -25%
   Size                                10%         10%              15%              10%           10%
   Shape                                0%          0%               0%               0%            0%
   Topography                         -10%        -10%             -10%             -10%            0%
   Access/Visibility                  -10%        -10%             -10%             -10%          -10%
   Other                                0%          0%               0%               0%            0%
Total Adjustments                     -25%        -30%             -25%             -25%          -25%

Adjusted Sale Price Per Unit          $4.02       $3.31            $3.35            $4.27         $4.77

Mean (Average)                  $3.94                     Median           $4.02
Unit Value Used                 $4.00


                                LAND VALUE INDICATION
                       27,007   Sq. Ft.       X              $4.00             =             $108,028
                                                                            Rounded          $110,000




                                                                                   Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                      34


                                    LEASEHOLD ESTATE


       The subject property is on a lease scheduled to end on December 31, 2058. Annual
payments are $1,075. We previously estimated the land value, before rounding, at $108,028.
       The income stream has the characteristics of an ordinary annuity. The low rent indicates
little likelihood of default. Discussions with brokers and lending institutions indicate a safe rate of
5% to 7%, reasonable for the subject property under market conditions for a reasonable holding
period of seven to ten years. The discount (risk) rate becomes safer if the rents are below market.
At rents of $1,075 per year, the owner (lessor) will have to wait 60 more years to reacquire the land.
We selected a 10% discount rate, which is reasonable for the risk associated with the duration and
term of the lease. We estimated the value of the Leased Fee Estate on the following page.




                                                                             Kirkland & Company
                                                                    35




             ANNUAL                      PRESENT
NO.   YEAR   REVENUE        PWF           VALUE
 1    1999    $1,075   x   0.90909   =     $977
 2    2000    $1,075   x   0.82645   =     $888
 3    2001    $1,075   x   0.75132   =     $808
 4    2002    $1,075   x   0.68301   =     $734
 5    2003    $1,075   x   0.62092   =     $667
 6    2004    $1,075   x   0.56447   =     $607
 7    2005    $1,075   x   0.51316   =     $552
 8    2006    $1,075   x   0.46651   =     $501
 9    2007    $1,075   x   0.42410   =     $456
 10   2008    $1,075   x   0.38554   =     $414
 11   2009    $1,075   x   0.35049   =     $377
 12   2010    $1,075   x   0.31863   =     $343
 13   2011    $1,075   x   0.28966   =     $311
 14   2012    $1,075   x   0.26333   =     $283
 15   2013    $1,075   x   0.23939   =     $257
 16   2014    $1,075   x   0.21763   =     $234
 17   2015    $1,075   x   0.19785   =     $213
 18   2016    $1,075   x   0.17986   =     $193
 19   2017    $1,075   x   0.16351   =     $176
 20   2018    $1,075   x   0.14864   =     $160
 21   2019    $1,075   x   0.13513   =     $145
 22   2020    $1,075   x   0.12285   =     $132
 23   2021    $1,075   x   0.11168   =     $120
 24   2022    $1,075   x   0.10153   =     $109
 25   2023    $1,075   x   0.09230   =     $99
 26   2024    $1,075   x   0.08391   =     $90
 27   2025    $1,075   x   0.07628   =     $82
 28   2026    $1,075   x   0.06934   =     $75
 29   2027    $1,075   x   0.06304   =     $68
 30   2028    $1,075   x   0.05731   =     $62
 31   2029    $1,075   x   0.05210   =     $56
 32   2030    $1,075   x   0.04736   =     $51
 33   2031    $1,075   x   0.04306   =     $46
 34   2032    $1,075   x   0.03914   =     $42
 35   2033    $1,075   x   0.03558   =     $38
 36   2034    $1,075   x   0.03235   =     $35
 37   2035    $1,075   x   0.02941   =     $32
 38   2036    $1,075   x   0.02674   =     $29
 39   2037    $1,075   x   0.02430   =     $26
 40   2038    $1,075   x   0.02210   =     $24
 41   2039    $1,075   x   0.02009   =     $22
 42   2040    $1,075   x   0.01826   =     $20
 43   2041    $1,075   x   0.01660   =     $18
 44   2042    $1,075   x   0.01509   =     $16
 45   2043    $1,075   x   0.01372   =     $15
 46   2044    $1,075   x   0.01247   =     $13
 47   2045    $1,075   x   0.01134   =     $12
 48   2046    $1,075   x   0.01031   =     $11
 49   2047    $1,075   x   0.00937   =     $10
 50   2048    $1,075   x   0.00852   =      $9
 51   2049    $1,075   x   0.00774   =      $8
 52   2050    $1,075   x   0.00704   =      $8
 53   2051    $1,075   x   0.00640   =      $7
 54   2052    $1,075   x   0.00582   =      $6
 55   2053    $1,075   x   0.00529   =      $6
 56   2054    $1,075   x   0.00481   =      $5
 57   2055    $1,075   x   0.00437   =      $5
 58   2056    $1,075   x   0.00397   =      $4
 59   2057    $1,075   x   0.00361   =      $4
 60   2058     $940    x   0.00328   =      $3

                       PRESENT WORTH      $10,714
                          ROUNDED         $10,700




                                                    Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                  36


       The present value of the Leased Fee Estate (land) is then deducted from the Fee Simple
value of the land to derive the Leasehold Estate (land). We estimate the value by the Leasehold
Estate as follows:


                      Market Value (before rounding)                      $108,028
                      Leased Fee Estate (before rounding)                   10,714

                      Leasehold Estate (land)                             $ 97,314
                                                            Rounded       $100,000




                                                                          Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                  37


                                   INCOME APPROACH


        A value estimate by the Income Approach reflects income and expense data from
comparable buildings in this market.


INCOME

        Market Rent – Based on our research, some office buildings lease on a gross basis (lessor
pays real estate taxes and insurance, and the lessee pays all common area expenses). Some lease on
a net basis (tenants pay taxes, insurance, operating expenses and even building maintenance). We
set our model on a gross basis. A summary of the comparable properties follows.




                                     ƒ           ƒ
        Lease rates range from $9.00/o to $13.50/o. The rental adjustments are on the following
page.




                                                                         Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                       38



                                SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENTS

                                           Rental 1       Rental 2   Rental 3    Rental 4   Rental 5
     Rent per square foot                   $13.00         $13.50     $10.50       $9.75      $9.00

     Adjustments:
     Location                                   0%           -10%          -5%        0%        0%
     Quality of Construction                    0%            -5%           0%       10%       10%
     Office Build                               0%             0%           0%        0%        0%
     Age & Condition                            0%           -10%           0%        0%        0%
     Size                                     -10%            10%          10%        0%        0%
     Total Adjustments                        -10%           -15%           5%       10%       10%

     Adjusted Rent Price per square foot     $11.70         $11.48    $11.03       $10.73     $9.90


     Mean (Average)                        $10.97          Median     $11.03
     Rent Selected                         $11.00

                               8,738       Sq. Ft.    X   $11.00       =         $96,118


                                                                                 ƒ
       Based on the foregoing, we estimate market rent for the subject at $11.00/o .


Vacancy And Credit Loss
       As stated in the Market Overview section, office vacancies for Class C properties are around
20% in the Midtown market; however, not all markets are the same. Rents for Class C spaces in the
immediate Midtown area are much higher for these older properties than what is expected
elsewhere. The subject is in an older commercial area without the surrounding commercial support
amenities located elsewhere; also the immediate area is 100% occupied with no properties showing
vacancy. We estimate vacancy at 5%.


Collection Loss
       A typical purchaser would anticipate a small collection loss over the holding period.
Typically a credit loss ranging from 0% - 3% is forecast on good grade office properties depending
on the quality of tenants and turnover expected.
       Based on the foregoing, we estimate a credit loss of 1% of rental income.




                                                                                     Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                      39


  EXPENSES
         The subject is currently is owner occupied and the financial statements given to us were
  analyzed. We used printed material on operating expenses, comparable buildings and our
  experience with similar properties to estimate the operating expenses.


  Operating Expenses
         Real Estate Taxes – The subject property is taxed jointly by Fulton County and the city of
  Atlanta. The 1998 total assessed value of the subject was $151,000 (40% of the appraised value of
                                                   ƒ
  $377,500). The 1998 taxes are $7,362.76 or $0.84/o . The following table arrays some tax
  comparables in the area.


            1998 TAX SUMMARY SUBJECT AND COMPARABLES
            Address                 Appraised Value        Taxes            Area      Tax/Area
Subject : 1930 Monroe Drive             $377,500          $7,362.76             ƒ
                                                                           8,738o            ƒ
                                                                                       $.84/ o
Comp 1 – 1920 Monroe Drive              $580,900         $11,753.96              ƒ
                                                                           11,408o          ƒ
                                                                                      $1.03/o
Comp 2 – 1940 Monroe Drive              $487,800          $8,370.07              ƒ
                                                                           10,704o           ƒ
                                                                                       $.78/ o
Comp 3 – 1904 Monroe Drive              $775,000         $15,115.60              ƒ
                                                                           21,472o           ƒ
                                                                                       $.70/ o



                                              ƒ          ƒ
         The comparables show taxes from $.70/o to $1.03/o . These office building were
  constructed around the time of the subject and are located within the same subject office park. The
  tax burden appears appropriate supported by the above tax comparables. We use the current tax
                 ƒ
  burden of $.85/o for our analysis.
        Insurance - Leases of comparable properties provide for the lessor to be responsible for the
  insurance expense up to a base year with tenant responsible for increases over the base year. Office
                            ƒ          ƒ                          ƒ
  buildings range from $.09/o to $.16/ o with an average of $.12/ o according to IREM. The subject
  is a masonry building completely renovated over the past two to three year. We estimate an
                            ƒ
  insurance expense of $.10/o for our analysis.
        Management - Real estate brokers who specialize in office buildings were consulted
  concerning management fees. Typically, management fees are minimal for single-tenant buildings
  on a gross basis lease. The management fee charged is generally 3% to 6% of effective gross


                                                                              Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                   40


income. We combine General and Administrative expense in this category. Typically, General and
Administrative expenses range from 1% to 3% depending on the size of the building. We use 4%
of gross income .
        Repairs and Maintenance - Included in this expense are HVAC repairs, electrical
maintenance, interior/exterior repairs, costs of plumbing, trash removal, parking deck maintenance,
snow removal, and landscaping. The tenant is responsible for these expenses, with the landlord
                                                                                          ƒ
responsible for structural repairs to the walls and roof. IREM indicates a range of $0.04/o to
      ƒ                           ƒ
$0.18/o with an average of $0.06/ o. The improvements are old and require expenditures at or
                                                                            ƒ
above the midpoint. With the above analysis we estimate an expense of $0.10/o for the subject.
        Cleaning and Janitorial - The tenant is responsible for this expense item.
        Miscellaneous - This item covers expenses not included in the other categories. We estimate
                                              ƒ
an appropriate miscellaneous expense of $0.05/o.


Capital Expenses
        Leasing Commissions – Investors must pay leasing expenses to secure tenants. Leasing
expenses include leasing commissions, advertising, promotion, professional fees, and one-time
leasing expenses. The building is a single tenant building, owner-occupied, requiring no expense
for this item.
        Replacement Allowance - No figures are available for replacement allowance because
building owners rarely establish regular accounts for replacements. This reserve allows for
replacement of short-life items such as roofs and HVAC systems. Based on the condition of the
                                                                                           ƒ
subject property and the quality of materials, we estimate a replacement allowance of $.10/o .




                                                                            Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                       41


CAPITALIZATION RATE
       Typically, we employ three methods of estimating an overall capitalization rate: the
comparable sales extraction method, national survey data from Korpacz and the mortgage-equity
technique. We analyzed several sales over the past few years that indicate capitalization rates from
7.41% to 11.65%, with a mean and median of 9.91% and 9.92%, respectively. We illustrate those
sales in the following chart.




       As stated in the Market Overview section, cap rates for institutional office buildings in the
U.S. during the 4 th Quarter 1998 ranged from 7.50% to 10.50% with an average of 9.03%. In
Atlanta the rates were 8.00% to 10.50% with an average of 9.21%. These are for institutional grade
properties.


Mortgage Equity Technique
       The theory underlying the mortgage-equity technique suggests that investors will demand an
acceptable annual return on the two components of the investment debt and equity. The mortgage
return is either the interest rate or the annual constant for the loan, depending on amortization of the
loan. A typical loan meeting lenders' risk requirements would amortize at 9.50% for 20 years with a
75% loan-to-value ratio. These terms and ratios are consistent with industry averages and are in
line with rates required by lending institutions.
       The return on the 25% equity investment for a property of the subject's type is not as readily
discernible for this type of property from the marketplace. The return on equity should be higher
than the mortgage return, since the equity investor assumes a greater degree of risk. An examina-
tion of returns on competing investments with similar risk levels leads the appraisers to estimate a
13% return on equity.




                                                                             Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                    42


       Since the loan amortizes, a portion of each payment is a repayment of principal. This equity
accumulates at a rate that coincides with a sinking fund factor. To reflect the equity build up in the
capitalization rate, we used a sinking fund factor for a typical projection period of 10 years.
       We estimate depreciation of the improvements will offset appreciation of land value and
increased construction costs. The chart on the following page recapitulates the rates and terms used
for the mortgage-equity analysis.




                                                                             Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                                        43




                                           Mortgage Equity Technique
                                   Assumptions
     Loan To Value (Loan Ratio)                    75%
     Equity (Equity Ratio)                         25%
     Interest Rate                                9.50%
     Amortization Period                            20
     Holding Period                                 10
     Return on Equity Rate (Yield)                13.00%
     Adjust for Change in Property Value
     (-) Appreciation (+) Depreciation             -10%
     Less credit for Equity Build-Up
     Sinking Fund Factor                          0.05429
     Percent Paid Off                              27.96%

                                                                  Mortgage/Equity
                                                                    Component             Rate          Weighted Rate

     Mortgage Loan                                                     75%      X        0.11186   =       0.08389
     Down Payment (Equity)                                             25%      X        0.13000   =       0.03250
     Weighted Average                                                  100%                                0.11639

                                                 Loan Ratio             SFF             % Paid Off
     Less Credit for Equity Build Up                75%       X       0.05429       =    0.27962 =         0.01139

     Basic Rate                                                                                            0.10501
     Adj. for Change in Property Value
           (+) Depreciation
           (-) Appreciation                        -10%       X       0.05429       =                     -0.00543

     CAPITALIZATION RATE                                                                                   0.09958
                                                                                        Rounded            10.00%




Conclusion - Based on the foregoing analysis, we estimate a capitalization rate of 10.00%.




                                                                                                       Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                            44



                                  Value By Income Approach


Income:
           Gross Income
           Total Gross Income          8,738          X        $11.00                         $    96,118

            Less Vacancy & Credit Loss @              6%                                            5,767
            Plus Recoveries
Effective Gross Income                                                                        $    90,351

Expenses:
           Fixed Expenses
            Real Estate Taxes              $   0.85        $      7,427
            Insurance                      $   0.10                  874
           Total Fixed Expenses                                               $     8,301

           Operating Expenses
            Management Fee                       4%        $      3,614
            Repairs & Maintenance          $   0.10                 874
            Land Lease                                            1,075
            Miscellaneous                  $   0.05                 437
           Total Operating Expenses                                           $     6,000

           Capital Expenses
            Replacement Allowance          $   0.10                     874
           Total Capital                                                      $         874

Total Expenses and Replacement Allowance                                                      $    15,175
Net Income Before Recapture                    78%                                            $    75,176

Capitalization:

         $   75,176 Capitalized @          10.00%          =                                  $   751,763
VALUE BY INCOME APPROACH                                                      Rounded         $   750,000




                                                                                    Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                 45


                           SALES COMPARISON APP ROACH


       Valuation of the subject property by the Sales Comparison Approach uses the sale price per
ƒ
o of building. We searched for sales of similar office buildings in the Atlanta metro area. We
arrayed the sales below:




                                                                         ƒ             ƒ
       The comparable sale prices for office buildings range from $57.89/o to $124.43/ o.




                                                                         Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                      46


Financing and Conditions of Sale
       Adjustments must first be made to equate the sales to market terms on a cash-equivalent
basis. An analysis of each comparable sale indicated that no special financing terms were involved.
Each sale appeared to be a "cash-to-seller" transaction or financed at or near market terms. There-
fore, no adjustment is required due to financing terms. Neither is an adjustment necessary due to
conditions of sale. Each of the comparable sales appear to be an arm's-length transaction between
willing buyers and sellers under no undue influence.


Date of Sale
       This adjustment is made to the sales to analyze them based on current market conditions.
Our research did not reveal any resales that indi cate adjustment for time. Brokers and investors in
the market corroborate the rate generally in the 2%-5% range during the past few years. The
subject property is in an older and stable market. We make a 3% adjustment for time.


Comparative Adjustments
       Adjustments for the differences of other value factors are not readily discernible from a
matched-pair sales analysis. Any adjustments for location and physical characteristics are based on
an analysis of the comparable sales, discussions with brokers and investors active in the area, and
our experience with similar properties.
       Sale 1 is a newer property located north of Roswell in an area of small to medium sized
office buildings. Sale 1 requires downward adjustments due to the sale’s newer age and superior
condition and the sale’s smaller size.
       Sale 2 is located in a less dense commercial and residential market not far from Peachtree
Industrial Boulevard and Jimmy Carter Boulevard. Sale 2 requires upward adjustments due to the
sale’s inferior location and inferior construction characteristics, and a downward adjustment due to
the sale’s newer age and superior condition. The overall adjustment is upward.
       Sale 3 is located in a heavily commercialized area of Sandy Springs just north of I-285. Sale
3 requires a substantial downward adjustment due to the sale’s much superior location, and an
upward adjustment due to the sale’s larger size. The overall adjustment is downward.




                                                                           Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                   47


       Sale 4 is located further north of Sale 3 on the fringe of heavy commercial developments.
Sale 4 requires upward adjustments due to the sale’s older age and inferior condition and larger size,
and a downward adjustment due to the sale’s superior condition. The overall adjustment is upward.
       Sale 5 is located near downtown Marietta in an area of older houses converted to office use.
Sale 5 requires downward adjustments due to the sale’s superior location and smaller size.
       To arrive at the Market Value for the Leasehold Estate, we must then deduct the Leased Fee
difference from the final adjusted value by the Sales Comparison Approach. We previously
estimated this difference at $10,714. We summarized the sale adjustments in the chart on the
following page.




                                                                           Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                        48


                                       COST APPROACH


LAND VALUE
       We previously estimated the Leasehold Estate (land) value at $100,000.


REPLACEMENT COST OF IMPROVEMENTS

       The Marshall Valuation Service Cost Manual provides unit costs. The costs include average
architectural and engineering fees, plans, building permits, surveys, normal interest on building
funds, processing fees, service charges, sales taxes on materials, normal site preparation, utilities
from lot line to building, contractor's overhead and profit, job supervision, and all necessary
insurance.
       The subject property classifies as a blend of “Class C – Average to Good” Office Building
                                                                                      ƒ
(Sec 15, Page 17). Based on the foregoing, we estimate the replacement cost at $75.00/o before
                                                                                       ƒ
multipliers are applied. Sprinklers are not included. We estimate sprinklers at $2.50/ o.


Entrepreneurial Profit
       Based on discussions with developers in the Atlanta area, developers expect an entre-
preneurial profit of between 10% and 15% for this type of property. We estimate an entrepreneurial
of 15%.


Observed Depreciation From All Causes
       Physical Deterioration - Curable - As discussed in the Improvement Description section,
the subject improvements are in average condition showing no signs of physical deterioration
curable.
       Physical Deterioration, Incurable – We estimate the effective age at years.
       Functional Obsolescence –We noted no areas of functional obsolescence.
       External Obsolescence – we noted no areas of external obsolescence.




                                                                             Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                     49




                                   VALUE BY THE COST APPROACH

Cost New:

Base Cost of Shell                                                                        $      72.50
Sprinklers                                                                                $       2.50
                                                                           Subtotal       $      75.00
# Stories Adjustment                                                                               1.00
Story Height Adjustment                                                                            1.00
Current Multiplier                                                                                 1.01
Local Multiplier                                                                                   0.96
                                                                              Total       $      72.72

Building Sq. Ft.                                                                                8,738
Total Building Costs                                                                      $   635,427

Asphalt Paving                                 1,667 Sq. Yds. @   $10.00              =        16,670
Concrete Paving                                  -   Sq. Ft. @    $2.00               =           -
Landscaping & Other Site Improvements                                                         120,000
Other                                                                                             -

Total Cost New                                                                            $   772,097
Entrepreneur's Profit                          15.00%                                     $   115,815

Total Improvement Cost New                                                                $   887,912

Less Depreciation:
  Physical Curable                                                $               -
  Physical Incurable (straight-line method)
      Effective Age of Building                    15
      Economic Life of Building                    55
                                                 27%              $        239,736
  Functional Obsolescence                                         $              -
  External Obsolescence                                           $              -
                                                                                              (239,735)

Depreciated Replacement Cost of Improvements                                              $   648,177
Land Value                                                                                $   100,000

VALUE BY COST APPROACH                                                                    $   748,177
                                                                      ROUNDED             $   750,000




                                                                            Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                                50


                                                RECONCIL IATION


INCOME APPROACH .............................................................................   $750,000
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ...................................................                   $750,000
COST APPROACH … ............................................................................    $750,000


Income Approach
         The Income Approach provides a reliable indication of value. This approach contemplates
reasonably predictable income probabilities based upon historical and current market trends. The
reasoning and methodology employed reflects those factors which investors rely upon in arriving at
a sale or purchase decision.


Sales Comparison Approach
         A number of sales of office building properties occurred recently with adjustments reflecting
differences in property characteristics. The Sales Comparison Approach offers a solid indication of
value.


Cost Approach
         The Cost Approach proves reliable when appraising new buildings. The subject property
has been completely renovated and evidences a lesser degree of depreciation. This approach
supports the other approaches.
         The Market Value, as of February 15, 1999, is:


                            SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
                                           ($750,000)




                                                                                                Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                                 51


                                           CERT IFICAT ION


The undersigned certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:

§   The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.

§   This report sets forth all the limiting conditions affecting our personal, unbiased professional analyses,
    opinions, and conclusions.

§   We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and we have
    no personal interest or bias with the parties involved.

§   Our compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that
    favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or
    the occurrence of a subsequent event.

§   This appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the
    approval of a loan.

§   The undersigned inspected the subject property.

§   Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in
    conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) of The Appraisal
    Foundation. The individual appraisers are in compliance with the Competency Provision of USPAP.

§   The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in
    conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional
    Practice of the Appraisal Institute. The use of this report is sub ject to the requirements of the Appraisal
    Institute relating to review by its duly autho rized representatives.

§   As of the date of this report, Quentin Ball has completed the requirements of the continuing education
    program of the Appraisal Institute.




                                                Quentin Ball, MAI
                                                President
                                                Certified Real Estate Appraiser No. 1041




                                                                                    Kirkland & Company
                                                                                                           52


                            QUALIFICAT IONS OF APPRAISE R

                                         Quentin Ball, MAI
                                               President
                                         Kirkland & Company
                                      1475 Peachtree Street, N.E.
                                               Suite 200
                                        Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Joined Kirkland & Company in 1970 as a staff appraiser, made partner in the firm in 1986, and purchased the
company in 1996. Certified in Georgia (No. 001041), Michigan (No. 1201002781), Mississippi (No. GA-315),
New York (No. 46000010594), Tennessee (No. CG-1032), and Virginia (No. 4001001574). Temporary
certification in Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky, and Texas. Specific areas of
expertise include:
Hospitality Industry - Appraised over 420 hotel and/or restaurant properties and understands the complexities to
be addressed in the valuation of beachfront/resort properties, downtown landmark hotels, and hotel/motel
properties experiencing difficulty. Oversees numerous assignments involving multiple hotel/motel properties in
widely scattered locations, ensuring consistent methodology and providing coordination needed among staff
appraisers for timely delivery of appraisal reports.
Health Care/Retirement Industry - Particular interest taken in this segment of real estate. Nursing homes,
hospitals, personal care centers, substance abuse centers, and retirement communities appraised. Methodology
devised for fee simple condominium projects, endowment/ rental facilities, and adult congregate living facilities
comprising the entire spectrum of health care and personal services. Provided seminar at NASLI national
convention on "How to Appraise Senior Living Facilities."
Retail - Experience includes freestanding retail facilities to regional shopping malls. Regional malls analyzed
include specialty malls. Discounted cash flows involve ARGUS, PRO-JECT, CENTER, and DEALS software.
Featured speaker at PRO-JECT user seminar in Phoenix.
Apartments – Appraised apartments nationally for past 20 years. Clients include Metric Realty, CIGNA,
Prudential, Heitman, Endowment Realty, and LaSalle Partners.
                                                                                             ƒ
Office - Appraised the following office buildings: NationsBank Plaza, Atlanta, GA - 1,429,254o , 500
                                                ƒ
Northpark Town Center, Atlanta, GA - 564,491o , 1818 Market Street Building, Philadelphia, PA -
          ƒ                                          ƒ
1,192,531o , Tower Place, Atlanta, GA - 1,000,000o , 37 West 57th Street Building, Manhattan, New York
                  ƒ                                           ƒ
City, NY - 70,767o , ARA Tower, Philadelphia, PA - 782,740o , The Goodwin Square Complex, Hartford, CT
          ƒ                                            ƒ
- 348,809o , Parkway Center, Marietta, GA - 520,000o , NationsBank Plaza, Charlotte, NC - 802,638o . ƒ
Industrial - For many years, annual appraisals performed on major industrial properties in southern California,
San Francisco Bay area, Northwest, Midwest, South, and other regions. Qualified in analysis of market trends,
overall capitalization rates, and discount rate trends due to this diversity of experience. Also experienced in
analyzing deep-water ports, industrial wasteland, and obsolete heavy industrial plants.
Expert Witness - Qualified as an expert witness in court proceedings for 24 years. Retained by condemnors and
condemners in proceedings involving highways and air rights, in state and federal bankruptcy cases, estate and
divorce disputes, tax arbitrations, and corporate contractual matters. Represented the State of Georgia in
assembling the site for the World Congress Center expansion and the Georgia Dome.
Education and Professional Affiliations - Georgia State University, Bachelor of Business Administration with a
major in Real Estate (1971). Member of Appraisal Institute (MAI No. 7286), serving on the Admissions
Committee of the Georgia Chapter. Certified Toastmaster (CTM) and frequent speaker. Guest lecturer at
Georgia State University and Southern College of Technology. Conducted several seminars for banks on how
to review appraisals. Member, National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries (NCREIF). Served as
panelist at recent NCREIF Valuation Symposium (March 1998).




                                                                                  Kirkland & Company

								
To top