HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-06420
..
.....
,
Q oi
~I~
"
"i ~
~ .
~ ~
-.
... '"
" \of
~ "
~ ':
:l "t
CJ
......
()
>
..,
~
,~
..
\J
<I
'"
.,
~
-
o
13'-.
t
u
c
~:
~i
~I
,
,
-- :
. i
;1
':i J
~ ul
~l
~j
~j!-
.,~ :
~:
~'",i .
IN TIlE COURT OF COM\ION PI.EAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE OCTACiON ASSClC'lATES.
Appell;lIl1.
No ?S'
it (12 ()
If' '/~
l' l. II (. L.
.. agilinsl ..
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT API'I:ALS.
A) cllccs
()lmI:l~
AND NOW, THIS....t.:: '_ day or _1-'"'--,-"-.. 1998, upon consideration or the within
I'ctition, it is hcrcby Ordcred allll Directed that a hearing orthe attachcd I'ctition on Appeal be held
on '31 A..A day or .~..'l:~'clock. ..A-M, in Courtroom numbcr ...1......., or thc
Cumberland COUJ1l~' Courthuuse. Carlisle. I' A
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that all partics to Ihis aClion are required to
cxchangc cxpcrt reports no laler than _-,-~l_ days prior to thc datc orthe hcaring.
BY THE COURT:
,
I,'
L.,L L
1.
I .'...
-'---:,"~'--_.--
~t1
/~~rL
I" .,
....; .
mIO-(IX7
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE OCTAGON ASSOCIATES.
Appcllant.
'; I { " .,),
,
(', /'( I /. 1,':'- '
No
- against -
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
A lcllccs.
l'ETlTlON ON API'I;ALEI~OM
Itlli_ClJ!""1JillRJ.AND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSJ,SSMliliJ APPEALS
TO THE HONORABLE, TIlE JUDGES OF SAID COURT
NOW COMES, The Appellant, OCTAGON ASSOCIATES, a partncrship authorizcd to do
business in Pennsylvania, whosc address is Oencva Drivc, Mcchanicsburg, Pcnnsylvania 17055, by
thcir attorncy of record, David 1. Kaplan, executes this appeallrom the decision of the Board of
Assessment Appcals of Cumberland County, allcging as follows:
L Thc Appcllant, OCTAGON ASSOCIATES, is the owner oftwcnty threc (23) parcels of real
property located in Uppcr Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pcnnsylvania, having the street
addresses of 1055, 1057, 1059. 1061, 1063, 1065, 1067,1069,1071,1073,1075,1077,1079,1081,
1083, 1085, 1087, 1089, 1091, 1093, 1095, 1097 and 1099 Nanroc Drive, Mechanicsburg,
Pennsylvania, and dcscribed if: the records of the Cumberland County Assessor as Property Numbers
42-24-0792-044, 045, 046,047,048,049, 050, 051, 052, 053, 054, 055, 056, 057,058,059,060,
061, 062, 062, 063, 064, 065, and 066 (hereinaftcr, thc "Property"), with a total assessed value of
$112,880 (Exhibit "A").
2. In accordance with thc provisions relating to appeals to a County Board of Assessment of a
Fourth Class County, thc Appellant filcd twenty three (23) timcly appeals with the Board of
Assessmcnt Appeals of Cumberland County (hercinafter, the "Board"), a statement of intention to
appeal its annual assessments f'Jr the Property for the ycars beginning on and after January I, 1999,
claiming that the asscssed valuations placed on the same by Cumberland County Assessor were
excessivc and non-uniform At the hcaring before the Cumbcrland County Board of Assessment
Appeals, both the Appellant's appraiser and the County Assessor evaluated these twenty three
apartments as onc economic unit. Thercfore, all twenty three parccls have been joined in one petition.
11110.(187
Cumborland County Board of Assessment
Office of Assessment & Finance
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
November 05, 1998
DAVID J. KAPLAN, ESQ,
655 THIRD AVENUE, 22ND FL.
NEW YORK, NY 10017
Re: Tax Parcel 42-24-0792-044
Dear Taxpayer:
As a result of the recently concluded appeal hearings, the Board of
Assessment has issued the following order:
Established Market Value at
$75,000
Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal
to the Court of Common Pleas by filing a petition in the Prothonotary's
office on or before December 05, 1998,
Sincerely,
~ (). )'y\U~
Gay O. McGeary
Director of Finance
~1!
'"
Cumberland County Board of Asaessment
Office of Assessment & Finance
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
November OS, 1998
DAVID J. KAPLAN, ESQ.
655 THIRD AVENUE, 22ND FL.
NEW YORK, NY 10017
Re: Tax Parcel 42-24-0792-046
Dear Taxpayer:
As a result of the recently concluded appeal hearings, the Board of
Assessment has issued the following order:
Established Market Value at
$75,000
Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal
to t~e Court of Common Pleas by filing a petition in the prothonotary's
office on or before December 05, 1998,
Sincerely,
~ (). 'm tJ...t)II'1-
Gay 0, McGeary
Director of Finance
Cumberland County Board of Assessment
Office ot Assessment & Finance
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
November 05, 1998
DAVID J. KAPLAN, ESQ.
655 THIRD AVENUE, 22ND FL,
NEW YORK, NY 10017
Re: Tax Parcel 42-24-0792-047
Dear Taxpayer:
As a result of the recently concluded appeal hearings, the Board of
Assessment has issued the following order:
Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal
to the Court of Common Pleas by filing a petition in the Prothonotary's
office on or before December 05, 1998.
Established Market Value at
$75,000
Sincerely,
.tJiq (). 'YY\ u"t)J &.-1
Gay O. MCGeary
Director of Finance
Cumberland County Board of Assessment
Office of Assessment & Finance
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
November OS, 1998
DAVID J. KAPLAN, ESQ
655 THIRD AVENUE, 22ND FL.
NEW YORK, NY 10017
Re: Tax Parcel 42-24-0792-048
Dear Taxpayer:
As a result of the recently concluded appeal hearings, the Board of
Assessment has issued the following order:
Established Market Value at
$75,000
Any person .~g9rieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal
to the Court of Common Pleas by filing a petition in the Prothonotary's
office on or before December 05, 1998.
Sincerely,
./Jtq (). Yl1 u~
Gay 0, MCGeary
Director of Finance
Cumberland County Board of Assessment
Office of Assessment & Finance
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
November 05, 1998
DAVID J. KAPLAN, ESQ,
655 THIRD AVENUE, 22ND FL,
NEW YORK, NY 10017
Re: Tax Parcel 42-24-0792-049
Dear Taxpayer:
As a result of the recently concluded appeal hearings, the Board of
Assessment has issued the following order:
Established Market Value at
$75,000
Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal
to the Court of Common Pleas by filing a petition in the Prothonotary's
office on or before December 05, 1998,
Sincerely,
.IJtO (). YY\ u,)JJ ,.~
Gay 0, McGeary
Director of Finance
f'"
,r'
F
"
,
~"
~,,:
!'
t
'1
;L
,
I
!
!
,
i
f~
Cumberland County Board of Assessment
Office of Assessment & Finance
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
November 05, 1998
DAVID J. KAPLAN, ESQ,
655 THIRD AVENUE, 22ND FL.
NEW YORK, NY 10017
Re: Tax Parcel 42-24-0792-050
Dear Taxpayer:
As a result of the recently concluded appeal hearings, the Board of
Assessment has issued the following order:
Established Market Value at
$75,000
Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal
to the Court of Common Pleas by filing a petition in the Prothonotary's
office on or before December 05, 1998.
Sincerely,
.JJiQ (). W\ u..tJ.II'1
Gay 0, MCGeary
Director of Finance
Cumberland County Board of Assossment
Office of Assessment & Finance
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
November 05, 1998
DAVID J, KAPLAN, ESQ.
655 THIRD AVENUE, 22ND FL,
NEW YORK, NY 10017
Re: Tax Parcel 42-24-0792-052
Dear Taxpayer:
As a result of the recently concluded appeal hearings, the Board of
Assessment has issued the following order:
Established Market Value at
$75,000
Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal
to the Court of Common Pleas by filing a petition in the Prothonotary's
office on or before December 05, 1998,
Sincerely,
.tJiQ (). 'YY\ U,.,bJ . .~
Gay 0, MCGeary
Director of Finance
Cumberland County Board of Assessment
Office of Assessment & Finance
One Courthouse Square
.Carlisle, PA 17013
November 05, 1998
DAVID J, KAPLAN, ESQ.
655 THIRD AVENUE, 22ND FL,
NEW YORK, NY 10017
Re: Tax Parcel 42-24-0792-054
Dear Taxpayer:
As a result of the recently concluded appeal hearings, the Board of
Assessment has issued the following order:
Established Market Value at
$70,000
Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal
to the Court of Common Pleas by filing a petition in the prothonotary's
office on or before December 05, 1998,
Sincerely,
.JJiq O. 'in CJ~
Gay 0, MCGeary
Director of Finance
Cumberland County Board of Assessment
Office of AssQssment & Finance
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
November 05, 1998
DAVID J. KAPLAN, ESQ.
655 THIRD AVENUE, 22ND FL.
NEW YORK, NY 10017
Re: Tax Parcel 42-24-0792-056
Dear Taxpayer:
As a result of the recently concluded appeal hearings, the Board of
Assessment has issued the following order:
Established Market Value at
$70,000
Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal
to the Court of Common Pleas by filing a petition in the Prothonotary's
office on or before December 05, 1998.
Sincerely,
.JJtg c. VY\ u~
Gay 0, MCGeary
Director of Finance
Cumberland County Board of Assessment
Office of Assessment & Finance
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
November 05, 1998
DAVID J. KAPLAN, ESQ.
655 THIRD AVENUE, 22ND FL.
NEW YORK, NY 10017
Re: Tax Parcel 42-24-0792-058
Dear Taxpayer:
As a result of the recently concluded appeal hearings, the Board of
Assessment has issued the fOllowing order:
Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal
to the Court of Common Pleas by filing a petition in the Prothonotary's
office on or before December 05, 1998,
Established Market Value at
$70,000
Sincerely,
./Jiq C. 'm CI~, I'~
Gay o. MCGeary
Director of Finance
Cumberland County Board of Assessment
Office of Assessment & Finance
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
November 05, 1998
DAVID J. KAPLAN, ESQ,
655 THIRD AVENUE, 22ND FL.
NEW YORK, NY 10017
Re: Tax Parcel 42-24-0792-059
Dear Taxpayer:
As a result of the recently concluded appeal hearings, the Board of
Assessment has issued the following order:
Established Market Value at
$70,000
Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal
to the Court of Common Pleas by filing a petition in the Prothonotary's
office on or before December OS, 1998.
Sincerely,
-.IJ1 (), yy\U~
Gay 0, McGeary
Director of Finance
Cumberland County Board of Assessment
Office of Assessment & Finance
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
November 05, 1998
DAVID J. KAPLAN, ESQ.
655 THIRD AVENUE, 22ND FL.
NEW YORK, NY 10017
Re: Tax Parcel 42-24-0792-066
Dear Taxpayer:
As a result of the recently concluded appeal hearings, the Board of
Assessment has issued the following order:
Established Market Value at
$70,000
Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal
to the Court of Common Pleas by filing a petition in the Prothonotary's
office on or before December 05, 1998.
Sincerely,
~ (). 'IYI~~
Gay O. MCGeary
Director of Finance
.
Property Asscssmcnt DOlI a
&m:J..t! Addrcss Tlltal Asscssmcnt
42-24-0792-44 1055 Nanrllc Drivc $5100
42-24-0792-45 1057 Nal1r<1C Drivc $5100
42-24-0792-46 1059 Nal1r<1C Drive $5100
42-24-0792-47 1061 Nanroe Drivc $5100
42-24-0792-48 1063 Nanroe Drivc $51 00
42-24-0792-49 1065 Nal1roe Drivc $5100
42-24-0792-50 1067 Nanroe Drive $5100
42-24-0792-51 1069 Nanroe Drive $5100
42-24-0792-52 1071 Nanroe Drive $5100
42-24-0792-53 1073 Nanroe Drive $5100
42-24-0792-54 1075 Nanroe Drive $4760
42-24-0792-55 1077 Nanroe Drive $4760
42-24-0792-56 ] 079 Nanroe Drive $4760
42-24-0792-57 1081 Nanroe Drive $4760
42-24-0792-58 1083 Nanroe Drive $4760
42-24-0792-59 1085 Nanroe Drive $4760
42-24-0792-60 1087 Nanroe Drive $4760
42-24-0792-61 1089 Nanroc Drive $4760
42-24-0792-62 1091 Nanroe Drive $4760
42-24-0792-63 1093 Nanroe Drive $4760
42-24-0792-64 1095 Nanroc Drive $4760
42-24-0792-65 ] 097 Nanroc Drive $4760
42-24-0792-66 I 099 N anroc Dri ve $4760
TOTAL ASSESSMENT: $112,880
F:\WPFILES\KAPLAN\Wp\octagon_Bd.wpd
. . '" ""
,
IN RE: OCTAGON ASSOCIATES,: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Petitioner OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD
OF ASSESSMENT,
Respondent
NO. 98-6420 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR APPEAL FROM ORDER OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
AND NOW, comes the Respondent, Cumberland County Board of Assessment
Appeals, by Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire, Assistant Cumberland County Solicitor, and
files this Answer to the Petition on Appeal From the Cumberland County Board of
Assessment Appeals of which the following is a statement:
1. Admitted except the reference should be to "Exhibit B".
2. Admitted in part Denied in part. It is admitted that at the hearing before the
Board the Cumberland County Chief Assessor valued the properties considering their
aggregate income and expenses, along with other methods, however, it is denied that
the assessor or board considered the 23 apartments as one economic unit as each of
the 23 parcels can be sold separately and therefore has a separate value as a distinct
parcel of real estate and apartment or owner occupied unit. Specifically the Board
and Chief Assessor, also addressed the value of the 23 townhouses as if they were
sold as owner occupied townhouses on the open market. Nevertheless, the
Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals has no objection to the joining of
the appeal of the 23 parcels into one Petition and case.
3. Admitted however the reference should be to "Exhibit A".
4. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to
ANSWER TO PETITION
Page 1 of 3
VERIFICATION
I, Gay O. McGeary. hereby verify that I am the Cumberland County Director of
Finance and as such I am authorized to execute this Verification on behalf of the
Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals; and that the facts set forth in the
foregoing Answer to Petition on Appeal From the Cumberland County Board of
Assessment Appeals are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information
and belief. I further understand that this statement is made subject to the penalties of
18 pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
.t
DATED:
December :?/1998
~o. Y)l<~,-,-
Gay O. M Geary 7
Director of Finance
;,;
I,
!~
ANSWER TO PETITION
Page 3 of 3
RICIIARD C. STliMPP.I_
JAMBS R. DENNEIT
RICIIARD L. CLAMAN
STEVEN R. 1I0CllnERCl
JOELLI! n. TAUn
IImDII.. ROSENFARD
STEMPEL BENNETI CLAM AN & HOCHBERG. P.c.
655 TIIIRO AVENUE
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10017-5617
OF COUNSEL
DAVID J. KAPLAN
"UU4lIloCl'n'UllffN,.,A.DC"
Till. 12121 6KI.6~()O
PAX (212, fdn-4041
I!.MAII. \hchClf'lIlllil ilJl.nel
February 25. 1999
Honorablc J. Wesley Olcr. Jr.
Cumberland County Court House
I Courthousc Squarc
Carlisle. PA 17013
Re:
OClagDn Assoeiales v. Cumbcrlal1d CounlyJlQnLd of ~!,~GS'ilJlel]lApp_'~n!s
No. 98-6420 CIVIL
Dear Judge Olcr:
In compliancc with Ihe Order dated Novcmbcr 18. 1998. enclosed hercin please tind Appellanl's
appraisal rcport ill regard to Ihe above-refercnced mailer scheduled lor trial on March 31. 1999 al
9:30 A.M..
Vcry Indy yours,
CVp.~?,I~r
David 1. Kap~
encl.
cc: Slephen D. Tiley. E~q. (w/encl.)
William E Milller. Esq. (w/encl.)
Richard Snelbaker. Esq. (w/encl.)
Mr. Krishnan Rama,.wamy
-;'
""II
'/
~.?
'~
~
~
n
n
n
n
D
~
~
m
m
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPRAISAL OF REAL ESTATE
The Nanroe Townhouse Apartments
Nanroc Drivc
Uppcr A lien T,,"nship
Cumberland County. Pennsylvania
PREPARED FOR
:it
Octagon Associales
613 A Geneva Drive
Meehanicsburg. Pennsylvania 17055
May 4,1998
98-6523
Barone, Murtha, Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
Real Estate Appraisers. Consultants
'\h'ph"1I J. lI.llOII"" ~I;\I
\\ 1111.111I t\. \1UIII1.I. \1,\1
\r,lI~ l~ Shullh,',/!. .'tAI
May 4. 1998
Mr. Krishaman Ramaswamy
Octagon Associates
613 A Geneva Drive
Mechanicsburg, P A 17055
Dear Mr. Ramaswamy:
C
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In response to your request and for the pUrpose of eSlimaling Ihe market value, we have compleled an
appraisal of the propcrty localed and known as:
The Nanroc Townhouse Apartments
Nanroc Drive
Upper Allen Township
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
This report, which constitutes a complete appraisal presenled in a self-contained formal, has been prepared
in accordance with the Code of Ethics of Ihe Appraisal Institute, the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and Title XI of the Federal Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and
Enforcement Act (FIRREA). As a result of our invesligations, we eslimate the market value of the fee
simple interest in the subject property, in cash or financial terms equivalent to eash, as of May 4, 1998, to
be:
One Million One Hundred Ten Thousand ($1,110,000) Dollars
Respectfully Submitted,
~.c.~
Kristi C. Smith ;~
~~a~~G~Z~-L L ~
Mark R. Shonberg:;~- ~
PA Certification GA-67-L
Review Appraiser
MRS:LF
4701 Baptist Road' Pittsburgh, PA ]5227. 412/88]-6080' Fax 412/88]-8040
53 North Duke Street. York. PA 17401 . 717/843-1132 . Fax 7 I 7/843-1142
1102 Liberty Street. Erie, PA 16502. 814/451-0]72' Fax 8]4/451-0176
....
-
INTRODUCTION
....
i
,
j
-
I, ExecullveSummary
Property Identification:
Nanroe Apartments
Nanroc Drive
Upper Allen Township
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
..,
I
t
Owner of Record:
OClagon Associates
Property Rights Appraised:
Fee Simple
land Area:
124,146 square feet, 2.85 acres
Zoning:
UR, Urban Residential
j
~,\'4
Improvement:
Nanroc Townhouse Apartments contains 23 single-stoIY patio
units; 10 units have a basement. Construction quality and
condition are average.
Flood Zone:
Zone C.
Highest & Best Use - Vacant:
Highest & Best Use - Improved:
Multi-Family Development
Existing Use
Yalue Indleations
Cost Approach:
Not Applicable
o
o
D
U
~
I
I
Income Approach:
$1,120,000
$1,085,000
Sales Comparison Approach:
Final Value Estimate:
$1,110,000
Effective Date of Value:
May 4, 1998
May 4, 1998
Final Inspection Date:
Barone. tvlurtha. Shonberg & Associates. Inc.
INTRODUCTION
-
-
II. PropertyJdeotiflcatioo aod Historical Perspective
The Nanroc Townhouse Apanmcnls is located along Nanroc Drive in Upper Allen Township, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania: this propeny is referenced in county records as Ihe land and improvements associated
with parcels 42-24-0792-044, 045, 046, 047, 048, 049, 050, 05 1.052,053,054,055.056,057,058,059.060,
061,062,063,064,065 and 066. Title is vested in thc name of Octagon Associates by virtue deed dated
December 30,1985. as recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book 31-R, Page 8, for a consideration of
$1,000,000. To our knowledge Ihe propeny has not changed ownership wilhin the last three years, nor is
it presently listed, optioned or under agreemenl of sale.
-
../
",;
III. &operty...RightlLAppr.alsed:.EJ:e.SlmpJe'
Fee simple estate is defined as absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only
to the limitations imposed by Ihe governmental powers of laxation, eminent domain, poliee power, and
escheat.
,
oil'
,,,,,j
-
IV. ~CJlQse..or.the...Appraisal
The purpose of the appraisal is 10 estimate the current market value of the Fee Simple interest in the subjeet
propcny. It is our understanding that this appraisal is to be used to assisl in selling a fair assessment based
on market value.
j
V. SClIpe of the Appraisal
The scope of work completed in developing the value estimate included the following:
. A personal inspection of Ihe subject propeny.
. An examination of economic and demographic factors on both local and regional bases.
. A survey and analysis of market factors impacting the subject.
. A highest and best use analysis considering the subject propeny both vaeant and as presently
improved.
. Development of valuation analyses considering the Cost, Income and Sales Comparison Approaches.
'Thc.Appraisalof..RealEslall:. Tenth Edition; Appraisal Instilule. 875 Nonh Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1980;
1992.
2
Baronc. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
...,
j
VI. MarketYalue Defined'
The most probable price which a propcrty should bring in Ihc compelilive and open market under all
conditions requisite to a fair sale. the buycr and seller. caeh acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming
the price is not affected by unduc stimulus. Implicit in this definition is Ihe consummation of a sale as of
a specified dalc and the passing of titlc from scllcr to buycr under conditions whereby:
...
I
,j
J
J
J
J
o
D
D
~
I
I
I
I
I
a. Buycr and scllcr are typically motivaled.
b. Both parties are well informed or well adviscd and cach acting in what they consider their own best
interest.
c. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.
d. Payment is made in tcrms of eash in U. S. dollars or in tcrms of financial arrangements comparable
thcreto; and
e. The price rcpresents a normal eonsideration for the propcrty sold unaffccted by special or crcative
financing or salcs conccssions granted by anyonc associatcd with thc salc.
VII. MarkeLll:endunllExposw:e..1!eriod
The primary factors which effect apartmcnt valucs are oceupancy and rcntal ratcs. In terms of occupancy,
the grcalcr Harrisburg region has maintaincd its strength, due in part to thc strong employment base which
has resulted in the lowest unemploymcnt rate in the state. Managers atlhe properties most competitive to
the subject report current occupancy rates approaching 100%. With regard to rental rates, increases have
typically been in the vicinity of2% to 4% per annum for the last several years. At present, the demand for
modem apartment units in the area is good, OCcupancy rates remain high and rents are moderately increasing.
We antieipate no signifieant deviation from these trcnds in the ncar future.
With rcgard to exposure period, we note Ihat apartments are presently the investment property of choice.
The grcatest dcmand is for complexes with grealer than 150 units and less !ban lO-years old, yet this product
is beeoming incrcasingly searce. As a result, some larger invcstors have bcgun to consider older apartment
propertics as well. This notwithstanding, the most likely purchaser for the subject property is a regional
investment group. Givcn the regional nature of a potcntial marketing effort, the desirability of the property
'Tille XI, Fedeml Financial Institutions Reform. Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), AugUSl23, 1990, Section
564.4. Approisal Standards.
3
Baronc. Murtha. Shonbcfg & Associates, Inc.
..,
INTRODUCTION
...,
...,
type, lhe strength of lhe local market and Ihe avallabllily of financing, We eslimate an exposure period of six
months.
VIII. GeneraLUmitingConditlons
This appraisal report has becn made subjecl to Ihe following general limiting conditions:
.
The opinion of value expressed in the letter of transmittal is the result of and subject to the data and
conditions described in detail in the accompanying report.
..,
",j
. No fractional part of this appraisal is to be used in conjunction with another appraisal. Such use
renders it invalid.
. This report, or a copy thereof, may be transmitted to a third person or legal entity only in its entirety.
. Disclosure of the contents of this report is governed by the By-Laws and Regulations of The
Appraisal Institute. Neither all nor any part of the contents oflhis report (espeeially any conclusions
as to value, the identity of the appraisers or the finn with which they are connected) shall be
disseminaled to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media without
the prior written consent and approval of the appraisers.
. Unless otherwise staled in this report, the existence of hazardous material, which mayor may not
be present on the property, was not observed by the appraiser. The appraiser has no knowledge of
the existence of such materials on or in the property. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to
detect sueh substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea-fonnaldehyde foam
insulation, or other potenlially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The value
estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that
would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such condition, or for any
expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an
expert in this field, if desired.
. The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") became effective January 26, 1992. I (we) have not
made a specific compliance survey and analysis of this property to detennine whether or not it is in
confonnity with the various detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance
survey of the property, together with a detailed analysis of the requirements of the ADA, could
reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the aet. If so,
this fact could have a negative effect upon the value of the property. Since I (we) have no direct
evidence relating to this issue. I (we) did not consider possible noneompliance with the requirements
of ADA in estimating the value of the property.
4
Barone. Murtha. Shonbcrg & Associates, Inc.
...,
...,
..,
INTRODUCTION
IX, General Assumptions
This approisal report has been made subject 10 Ihe following generol assumpllons:
]
o
D
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. No responsibility has been assumed for the legal description or legal matters. Title to the property
was assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise staled.
. The property has been approiscd free and clear of any and all liens or encumbrances unlcss otherwise
stated.
. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed.
. Information fumished by others is believed to be reliable; however, no warranty is given for its
accuracy.
.
All engineering dala were assumed to be correct. Plot plans and exhibits in this report have been
included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property.
.
It was assumed that Ihere are not hidden or unapparent eonditions of the property, subsoil or
structures which would render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such
conditions or for engineering which maybe required to discover them.
.
It was assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state and local environmental
regulations and laws unless a noncompliance is stated, defined and considered in the appraisal
report.
.
It was assumed that all licenses, certificales of occupancy, consents or other legislative or
administrative authority required by any local, state or national government or private utility or
organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate
contained in this report is based.
.
It was assumed that Ihe utilization of the land and/or improvements is within the boundaries or
property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted
in this report.
5
Barone. l\'1ul'lha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
Regi onal Map "..U"," , C.,,~,,~./
"s)"'~'d'''''.I'~f'''''I'' 211 . \, ......, __"
. / ,/ 1"","(',.../ . ~."
. -~''I.\,..~.,.\. Newport Halllax Enl.."no ),,~
,-",Co;". M""""""\ T .t')
,.. III I volle A. w Bulfalo w.YnolY'''~o
.,."" I.. .wohn;fll "~1" . \>thRlJn :fatamoras
~ ;1', Powell' Valley ~
.' WII.. Plug '.
1 -.. 'i " ./'
I'l' r,rt Monlltbe tJ 'I fly HilJ " _l Jl:"l
Mckee 1:J.41, Ilk)"''''' .,.-
/, f ,I 10 lenookJ I. ;,-'
. .../"ew IIloomlleld .IT " j,,,> / WI I Sp""Y _....~_, ~....
..- "-\' ~ '.." '}". .-E"ol'd.'. FUfYo. ,'. "0 . ,,,,,,r" \.~.-_
,-" 0;"., ...,\./ nno!J,.l, / /ff.u,OV'''"YO]
.-'2"'" "...........~. nca r" \ .Slo"oGlon "-.""'" MII.''''''I',,\ I" :1-
,t.I'-;;;;.COInor r"...11~ ) "'" ~
/ Sh.....'.. \Ki Ho'ghls Dauphln./ "It, _
'E' \'" ,,, .. ".-/ ,.- :,," O"nd "..J. N':':'h<r.. . ,
C 00"""0 '-- Co I~~IY/'''''' , ~jngleifO~""-~Sk .lj lOW ,,;
/ J Ma!'Ysvllle ....
FII"ng,sp"ng E ".. \~ ._../!. ]2
-~"--"""'" · r/ '.' -,"~ I '"~'1
'\ ...J.',ot \, l i(]oooa \ s,"",
Shermans Dale /.........--...-..-. . 1 I ..' ,v,
· 010'-". ,'. ).
')w-S"" II,,,,, I Ind. Nu",""rl7l1, i'"(' 2~ 2 '.. i" ,- '~D
. , t:l=t. . . Hoe,,,o,.... ,.
. nol~ '11.1 n Park )' r. t
}~" 0 ..-^ u. ~9 ,~
2: Oonnollylown --'--G'I -. ., , lIr.r.IS urg n "........~
"'"',-.-,...,.... . We ~'IVlF.W *~/'fJ<<:"""'" '!'\ Hummelstow. J.'''--
A ~Goodtlope "-. '(,' ~"PI nl"'Jew~)l1~ ~
.. nalli.1 p"ng. ~B=-v-.. Wo,ooley.burg .J ,/ '\_ .. 5 ..._.!~ 8" ..' , , ~
~944~...V... .1 . It. "..... . 't ~ C I' _
... .-- I ,Willtl\\' i' I II Sh:hlllll'ulk N,~h". ,I,.. . j"';:)walara res l Walh;
...- .., "'Ilu.,on, I~' " .'1'" ',1(-.... I
I I. . , lit I" .,.,..... I
I . . J ego.""n 'l""-.....:..:~:' Camp ~'...."..> :,'11 "'~Steello\\ '........"'..., . f ,].
Cap"v, ~ =="'" ~'" ~J......~ -l"" "",... \ f=I =0.,. , ,
rj1;; MiddleselC 1'~ . "{ INa"rtlc^l'arIOllC"'S'. 1~.." ero.sl~r . 9 1\. \ ~,\, ",,"..\ ""
to ,., _"t;." New Kingst,Qwn I . t:(~1:~ ...- // AJlendale.) '........~..r _.. _.;
I}! II O,IIS~urg ,~~"!o If" II " 30) ". __...'"
... "40 .: fi'.MeChBnI5-J urg ''1Marsh Run. 1. ""_ ""..rr'~'~'... '.,= T
' ..~.' '5arli~e S"'d"rAndsar''':'.Jo;''I!~inl \''''. ~e. oyne 1 '~,:. Mlddleto.w "\RoyaJlon ~"'''~2"u.l
1041- ,~), J~"""'0'Jl",w"""'''.2 W,nd,ng H'!'..J' ? vs;,,j 16 \.
. . '"," /'I;t '; , r ,"~" ""0. "'~,~.,." \ <""
'r' ; 1';B'~nnY e~\>-,......... . )1 \..- tlant'lIy._~."... t'i~u'm (,~ Jeca;;;,;;J,\) :i
..' " . ,c urchlown . Grantham ,. \ _' "'---"1 14411
.\':JiG.t,,,,,,,,",P,,\,,. ',15,. "r' 1'1.~ ." \ .
'}~' C yl.~"""l! W,lnarn~Grove . RosegardonMt Pleasant '" . ,r~ '13. .", Falmoulh rl
~.)i9. . . Hallon Boiling Sprlngs.". · ~,e.l!ds.b.er 1\'!l_'3~'Sloasa~t.~rovo .J
/....-.. ,)" "P,,,elow1 ,I~lYoi'k{lave
"" ."~ .. """ .,ri,,, , ',m..,,, . \ ~., '(" ~; 'f
.' Homewoo, 'Uno "U'.. ~ . ~
Upper Mill J. \ertown .SIHI~(itllncJ.llIIJsNll ~~r242 12 H'
. , .. ''fl I Conowago .
' II 10.."".", <<,0,,",'_,"""" .J ".;:r ",w,",
(f Ld \ . '" , , ~i~'ViewAV1\ Slal\l'o U
{>,~~.JOI nd 1Jl:41 .;...' '151, I \',MI Top W~lsville ).... ~ I
....#.. / Che lnut HIll ",.........(_.,,,.,.,, h _
'" B'g Dam '" '\. MI Royal CI'" \~,f
........ .,... ~ I ..., ,,'" ..' "",,,.,,. ~
Ii" · "'Uriah ,\ Benedocl. \ ., t1oundtown. ..' ~
-I Deardorll, M"'I , Kralllown . Dellers M,II \, . j/ ",1; , ~';40
Peach GI~n B,\mudian . II" "" Harmony Gt~ve J.."" / \, rn
· ,."". """" "" ",,,", _... If'~,,, "".." ~
1 d C"'k '. " Poplars" .. ." 3O,}'
I Gardners ,,,,,,, "'" "., '" "'I ". h ''l ... ,;,
"" (;'4..". ,pa.'d.burg ..........._--4Shllo ~tll( ~,..,(
\ w" (' Weigel,'own "':0. !--.. rl1
/ \ ">~ I./ltjjl II Pn,k , emo" W
· j .Aspers I, Adm,. d ",,'. IIlll<l>1'1'''~ !
r II \ e'g M~'~~~~ille Taxvlile we~~~~ w 1,; .H,i1c ill.
1.I,oradare 'I-1St j _ '2:1.....101;10, r; Benroy
'.1' I. "'''. '.-;
.'!",')971',t!,,,,,,,_S,!,,,"\~.,,.lJS,\..&,'n'''''f.iV. polnts ">
"
..,
I
"""']
~
(,~f
-:,,'I"'~
1
..\0
AREA I)'\'I'A
""'!
i
j
.,
Other aspects of the transportation system, such as air, rail, and, to a lesser dL'grcc bus alternatives. are also
important.
TnRlptJlUdon P"noW,."
Tram rt Mod,.
Prmld"r
Airport."
Carlilllc. CIlpd.1 City, and lI.nillhurg
Rairwa)'!'
,\nt,.1.
J
llu..linn
(irC\hotlnd
J
The area is served by major rail lines and numerous motor carriers. The extensive freight yards at Enola have
a CUrrcnl daily traffic ofncarly 4,000 cars and is reportedly the second largest freight yard in the nation. The
transportation infrastructure is well developed and significantly enhances the region's desirability.
With regard to utility systems, these too are well developed with all public utilities available to most parts of
the county. Further, there are no significant capacity issues at time. Overall. the transportation and utility
infrastructure is adequate to support additional development.
."
,,J
IV. Land Use Distribution and Physical Characteristics
Proportionate land uses within the county are as follows:
Proportionate Land Use-"-C,umberland County
; 39.2%:
o Indualrl.r
. Roardonllal
. Commerolal
. Undeveloped
8
Barone. Murtha, Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
...
...
...
.,
...
..
'I
..,
I
'1
:1
J
.1
I
AREA DATA
The regIonal terrall11S predomll1anlly Icvello gently roiling, ahhough small portions of the area do have
$teep terrain. Overall. topography has nol prescnlcd slgnilicant diflieuhies to development.
V. l'opulation.Trends
The following table presents comparative populallon ligures from the 1980 and 1990 Census for the county.
state and nation, as well as the most reccnt estimatcs available.
1980
1990
Cbanlf
1995 EltJmata
Couney
179.625
11.866,728
226.546.805
195.257
11.881.6013
8.70%
205.959
12.071.1142
268.765000
Sill<
0.13%
NIlion
24R. 718.29 I
9.79'%
Cumberland County exhibited significant growth through the 1980's and, based on the 1995 estimate,
continues to post strong gains.
VI. Inc.ome.Leyels
Comparative income levels for the county and state are presented as follows:
fnrome Category Cumbuland County Pennsylvania COUDt)':Stlte ComparlloD
<s 1 9.999 23.6% 33.95% -13.86%
520.000.529.999 17.9% 17.50% 2.23%
530.000-539.999 17.3% 15.20% 12.14%
540.000.549.999 14.3% 11.40% 20.28%
550.000.S74.999 17.8% 14.10% 20.79%
>S75.000 9.2% 7.90% 14.13%
Median Household Income 534.493 529.069 24042%
The data presented above suggests a county afnuence level above Ihat of the state as a whole.
9
Barone. Murtha. Shunberg & Associates. Inc.
.,
....
AREA IlATA
-
,
J
'""
VII. Employml'nt
Historical unemploymcntlevels aro presented as follows:
.. 00
700
............ A,.."u.. Av...... ,<Mot
, ~:::::' - r~^:~-=~:::-~=F-~-~T-
i
.--J
Hj
18g0 1DQ1
19D2 ., 8Q3 ., 'Ui'4
I:::J Cum b.rl.nd
_ United .'.t..
1DD~ 1DgG
_ P-nneylv.nl.
These strong employment figures are attributed to a diverse job distribution and the stabilizing influence of both
state and federal jobs. Tho following charts present a comparison between county and state employment
distribution:
'rDPorUonal'lmplorm.nt~_~~~""nd County
, 78'" : u'2" ~_
[219;j-- - ;:s-S...~
-~~I
['2"1_~~
[30">-" I
Proportlonlf. Employment.. .,... 01 'Innlylnnl.
-
:20%'
. :8~
~
8
o A~tUltl'IIIUlnlng
. ConllNdon
. .."""'......
. Trln.portlllcnJC'ommLnc''1<<1/UIII~'1
. AtllnlndWhcltlallTrlde
. FInlnU,ftllllnu.ndR..tE&I.I.
. SlIVIell
o A~eulln/lUINP!g
. CllnlItucllan
. ".MICUln,
. rranIPllftlllonlCommlrJlullenlUlIIll..
. A.'IUandWhcl.Trld.
. Fln.nc.. hUlnu Ind Allt EIII'.
. a.Me..
Harrisburg is the state capital and, as such, government jobs on the state level are a major economic factor.
In addition to the thousands of jobs which are related directly to the state government, the area also benefits
as a center for state conventions, exhibitions, and headquarters for numerous state associations and private
10
Barone. Murtha, Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
/' N~ighborhood M
~\ ' /r? ap J
'" / / I
, I /\<5","~ ./~I~~~ll
I I ~' "",. .' / .-:r;~l~,
II ~:~............~. .... ..<";~,,,~~II
I ~...... // .->,,,.-,,,,/ .-~;:'
Il --=' --/,;/- I CA,../I" I
I \ "^,,,,,,,Ar,""""" ,r.....,..,..'.\".,<;, .,..;t'\ M.~ Ii ',...<t.
I. ,.........., "A '. ., ,.,,~.. ". ..' \ ""iI"',-....v"- ~~
jfl(,w#l ,~~\.- 0" ('" ~ '" ...-,,'e ., ,\' ... ,"'/" , ·
~.~,/"",., ;<r " \ ',"'~ \.,'\" rl' ~# ~4' \y ill
L. .",.t~/'.~''''t~- ..m:,:\>I .......' "'Pi:,, ~.~'- 7.....,., ". ",:\" ok ~ ",/ """ ~ J.:.,~fi I i~/'~~ ~ I
, ,..->'" ,...... .,. .. >, ,r~' ....",,, 'i' j~ ~~r III
, ............' ",--.."""""",V /' ." ,'./' /' 1._0' ,..J ,~,il, ~ \I
~,~.,.".,.-, "/\ \, ",l A' . t1P' . dO ..- . ,#
, " #'. f'~ '
, ,/ ' 'vI' ',.7" ... I
, . ''''''''',' "'" ,"",' l" '... ,
-14>0"-' .... l f! i" ~.,..... .......... '; ,
_',. , "'i, '" \ "
","""1'Q """'. '\ ".,i' .'l!. .fi , ""#',:"'" /' '
. ' ,,, ' I',.. ' , I':...
, " ,....
"'" tif/tI' . "'.) , \/-" - ,/
! ,,)' , "" "", /' ......~- I
i'. I' ,;v 'J.jl J'" ~ '"
,"" ,,' ~,,;,i t..,f " d'
,.$ ;j,.. ,Jl""'~ ",./ .4' \. '1r. (, ' "
y' ,... ,_ 4 .' ~
,.,; F ",' .: "- , ,,, '
1 \,#,/'0" ,.,/ ,,' ~-I' ",,..', n
~ 'i _"'''/ ' > U
V,/ /', .~
. ' .
," /' '
\ f / >'10
\ ../ ./:.
% .,.~' 15~1 A
~\l .".~.;~~l~'" f. ~;
"'V'~4:.,,,;"'l \ ,./;~ v 'd'/. ",../~.' n
, ,p#"" ;t". ~'" "r/! 'l. ''''<'' ' II
#"" ' """ ~......'
flJ "
~" .
-' R
B"~-"':'''''''''". .......0:1" . .;..,..pi'; \,0 PIL
II ~.df' ,.,,,'' IlU
."",..w""......."".","',ll",.","",jT'W""""''''''".--\ ~(" "''''f
1 . iJ ~~t>f'" \
~~0 m
_ '<<if" ,I' .....
___ l _"u_u,~, J I
,--,
I:;
<:i
\
~WJ
~
,~,<~ij 1~"4f""1_""" ;' " "f"
',J2"1.I" J ,. . """'''''''''il'''.'W(e''''''.'''''''"'''''''''/'
u, ,'~'i!!".I'l!I~"'1J..~"i ,"\~ II .t
-, ..--- --- g ;j
~.__ n_;J;
AREA DATA
....
Population within Ihc municipality has bccn growing at a ratc grcalcr than thc counly avcragc. incrcasing
from 10.533 10 13,347 dUring Ihc lasl ccnsus period. an mcrease of 26. 72%.
]
]
J
J
J
J
"1
...
Ncighboring uses consisl of a significant number of condominium propertics including Sunguild II. Brighton
Place, and Village of Libcrty Squarc. Commcrcial uscs include a I/ealthsouth facilily along Lancaster
Boulevard and an officc building Wilson Road. EXlensive relail and commercial areas are within close
driving distance. These facilities offer significant support services and employment opportunities, thus
enhancing the desirability oflhe area. The neighborhood enhances the desirabilily of the subject property.
VIII. Summary and Conclusions
The subject neighborhood is characterized by a blcnd of residential, office and commercial land uses.
Adjoining and nearby properties include single family areas, wilh relail and commercial areas located in
close proximity. These uses are complimenlary to the subjccl usc. Thc transportation system is well-
integrated with state and inlerstatc highways, passcngcr and freighl rail service, air transportation. and public
transportation. The population has bcen incrcasing at a significantly faster rate than the state as a whole.
Home valucs are predominantly abovc $100,000 and have been gaining value in tcrms of real dollars. The
population has grown and income has kept pace with inflation. Income levels are middle to upper middle
with over 40% of the population having incomcs over $40,000 and ncarly 25% of the population with
incomes ovcr $50,000. Employmcnt has consistcntly been higher than the state. Overall trends indieate a
growing population and increasing rea] estate values strongly influenced by a diverse economic base.
12
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates. Inc.
i ~IJ
o~ .
. If' {i I . l '
. , H} " I j I ~) f ~
. I 'II. l ~ l: ):
i '!ill ~ 11~ ~~i. I!: I
J !:~ :~.".; ,: I
.1;. I ,i, ! I ~ i: ;\
.. ,. . I l"'.'
'il i ~, ! ,~ t' i1
il" i I.: f~l\t.:\ I [: ~ !1
I . . !. f I tf l I~ . J
lJJ!. I ,:. ,'\ .' :.,\ .;.j
PI .. i · ~ : :" ..
~.. @. .; (I ' "~ ,1
L . s. "1
J Ii!t"., !::
. '. ,.
~....~....._..tt..
_ _ -;_____.__1._______ ...
__ 4----!:'~- ___'''''. ,-;:;.~.::,-_-L..
j')~ !. -_..: :.:.:;: - - --
rM
j ~ l
j' ~
, ~
~ I S
~Ii
. 11'
1 i ~,.
~ I ,1.:.:
... .. I I
;, ..;:.:;p ~
" . 11-"':
j, a ~
t J t
~,'
;1
,,~,...."" il~'
I' . \ '.\ ~.
lj\ .~
yj. !
Ii
. 4
o'
j
,'.
I
.
'. ~ ~
, \ i ;,
. '.
" ,'"
fl' '
f\. . "...
'II. .)
;.~\
...
"u
a.
".
19
...-...)
r
.-.,
-::;\
\\\~J
. . .
:
;1
"
.
.
.$
"I
,...1_O<.........~lm
( Site Plan )
-
.
: . -
t J. t
I ~ il. ~
d :iH:
'Js..:tl'
.... ... 'i t
Ii ..~ t ;.
. II I. ,
.. o.to:
. .....
t :U::
r I ..-
..
~
1
-
i
, I
~
~
i
,j'
II',
'I!
iH'
"
j
...,
PROPERTY DATA
J
D
D
~
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I. Site DescrJpllon
PhysicllLCharacteristics
Aecording to Counly records.lhe subject parcel contains a gross land area of 124.146 square feel, or 2.85
acres, of which nearly all is usable. The overall sile (which is comprised of multiple pareels) is irregular in
shape and the lopography is generally level.
Accesund_Vlsibility
The subjeet property is subdivided inlo 23 parcels which have a combined 1,145 linear feet of frontage along
Nanroc Drive and additional frontage along inlemal slreels. The property has two entrances, neither of
whieh is signalized. Visibility is limiled.
Ulilitics
Public utility services available to the site are .IS rullows:
PubllcUlillty Provider ConnfC1rd to Site
NaturalGI5 Columbia Gas No
Electricity Pennsylvania Power &: Ughl Yes
Sewerage: Municipal Yes
Water Pennsylvania American Water Yes
Site.lmpm'lemcnts
Sile improvements include privale two-car driveways, concrete walks, curbing, and good quality mature trees
and landscaping.
E100d H.73rn
According to the Upper Allen Township Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 420372-0005C
(dated February 15, 1980), the subject is within a Zone C, an area of minimal flood hazard.
Zoning
The subject site is situated wilhin (UR) Urban Residential district Multiple family dwellings are a pennitted
use within this district
]3
B,lronc. I'vlurtha, Shonbcrg & Associates. Inc.
...,
PROPERTY DATA
.,....
....
I
.J
EnvironmcntaVSubsurfacc Conditions
An evaluation of Ihe subsurface conditions is beyond the scope of this report. Similarly, we make no
detennination as to the absence or presence of any environmental hazard. It should be noted that the value
conclusions reported herein assume that no adverse conditions exis!.
....
I
,j
EasementsLEncroachmcnts
The sile is subject to Slreet and utility easements of record. Other than those specifieally listed, we are not
aware of any easements, restrictions, encumbrances, leases, reservations, covenants, contracts, special
assessments. ordinances or partial inlerests that would adversely affect value. We did not complete a title
search or survey of Ihe property and assume no responsibility for malters pertaining to title or ownership.
We recommend that the client have such studies completed.
J
II. Impr:oxementne~cription
The subject improvements were built in the early 1980's. The Nanroc Townhouse Apartments is comprised
of four buildings containing 10 patio units with basements and 13 similar units without basements.
According 10 a measurement of each unit type, the buildings contain a rentable area of 80,335 square feet;
these measurements exclude the basement space which contains storage and washer-dryer hook-ups. The
specific unit types are detailed as follows:
Unit Type
Two Bedroom-I.S BathIBsml
Number or Unlls
Unit Size
10
1.247
1.277
Re.table Are. (SF)
12.470
16.601
29071
Two Bedroom-I.S Bath
13
23
2 24
Total/Avera e
The following table presents the unit mix wilhin each individual building:
Building Number lOR-PaUo 85mt 10R-Pltlo
No Bsrnt
1055.1073 (odd) 10 0
1075-1099 (odd) 0 13
Toeal 10 13
TotalU.llJ
10
13
23
The individual unit layouts are characterized as follows:
14
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
-
PROPERTY DATA
j
a relatively undesirable feature. and thcy possess design qualities whieh are dated and unsightly when
compared to surrounding eondominium properties. The noor plan ineludes no master bathroom, and the
basements (of the 10 units whieh have them) are damp. No faelors were noted that would signifieantly
detract from the marketability of this property as renlal units.
....
i
'"I
i
..I
]6
Baronc. Murtha. Shonbcrg & Associates. Inc.
-
\t
'111- ~ 11
1',/
. ~
0<) ~
-So ~
0.) ~
'ell I" ""
ell .. J
.
'; '\' 'oJ
,,,) ~ I!"
\ L
?
....
t I
I,
~
~
j
,
. ~,.
....,... .
.~.' '.', .~~.,
:'~~':~'" ':
~. ....1
. ~;l',::~,.i~\
\..~ ..
. 'I."'" .
..... "','
.~
.,
,
. ,'" ~.,' i~ "
.",., ,
-.-'. ,
.'>>,<,.::, .:~.
, ..fl', .
. ,.~t \"/, "'!~.I>
.' p... .\\1;
"P- "\ '\
c:' " .....
.
. . \ .' ~';'.' .
. ..~, '
. ,
';". . ..:.,.~
'4:.~ 'I".'
,', .j
"
.,
~\
. . '.:.:..:
",
.'
A
"..--::: '!'
...:'.f$! $>
.. ...-'j-\-{"" ~
~11t)O~.':?J'?>
, '0<;'\
p'l1<:\
.'
.
,.
,)"
"
.,.
..' .-4
~ ~\
~'
-:' .
"""\
'j
"...'_0..,.........0..0...._"...
(
Tax Map Location
)
~
~
~
~
~
rn
I1J
m
~
-
PROPERTY DATA
..,
I
J
III. Ta~and.Asses5mentData
CwrentAssessment
Plrc~1 Lind Autlsmrn' Buildlnl Autum,n, Tolll Auftsmrnl Marker Value (il 6.IY. eLK
44 1740 15.9l0 16.610 S98.088
45 Il90 S5.9l0 16.l20 192.941
46 Il90 15.'130 16.l20 192.941
47 1530 15.930 16.460 S95,000
48 5730 15.930 16.660 S97.94 I
49 S380 15.930 16.310 592.794
50 S380 S5.930 16.310 S92.794
51 1520 55,930 16.450 S94,853
52 1520 55.930 16.450 S94.853
53 S520 15.930 16.450 594.853
54 1920 55.930 16.850 S100.735
55 1380 S5.930 S6,310 S92,794
56 1380 15.930 16,310 192.794
57 1380 S5,9J0 16JI0 192.794
58 S510 15.930 16,440 194.706
59 1510 15.930 16.440 194.706
60 S590 S5.930 16,520 195.882
61 1810 15,930 16.740 199.118
62 5460 S5,930 16J90 193.971
63 5460 S5.930 16,390 S93.971
64 1340 S5.930 16.270 192,206
65 S340 S5.930 16.270 192,206
66 S590 S5,930 16.520 195,882
Total 111.770 S136.390 1148.160 5%.178.824
17
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
PROPERTY DATA
~1II1.1C' Rail' CUrrrnl Asuumenl
Tnlnl Authorlly "and Uulldlna Land Building Rul Esllle "fun
Upper Allen Twp. 0001100 0001100 511.770 S136.39O S518.56
School Distncl 0.138000 0.138000 SII.770 S 1 36.390 S20.446.08
Cumberland County 0027500 0.021500 S11.770 S 1 36,390 54.074.40
Tol.1 0.169000 0.169000 SII.770 SIJ6.390 S25.039.04
Real estate taxes are impacted by millage rates and property assessment; the figures presented above reflect
those in effect for the currenl tax year. No significant change is anticipated in the near teoo.
The assessment for The Nanroc Townhouse Apartments are $148,160 with an implied market value of
$2,178,824, a value which is well above the value conclusion of this report. Further, the existing assessment
represents 13.47% of market value, which is substantially at odds with olher facilities in the area.
IlILComparables
Sale Markel V.lue AueurncnE Au,ssmenl: Price Ratio Units AssnsmenVUalt
Subject SI.I00.000 SJ48.160 13.47% 2J S6,442
Sale 4 55.000,000 5J45,600 6.91% 96 S3,6OO
Sale 8 53.800,000 5259,000 6.82% 90 S2.878
Sale 9 S4.000.000 S346.570 8.66% 108 SJ,209
This dala suggests that the assessment is inconsistent wilh county policy.
18
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
,..,
; !
IIIGIIEST AND BEST USE
I
,,1
VI. IIIgbeJt and BeJt. UJC (Maximal ProducUvlty):AJ Improved
Thc subjcct propcrty has becn opcrated as a rcnlal communily for roughly 15 years. According to thc
managcr, modcratc rcnt incrcascs havc bccn achicvcd and occupancy, on the day of inspection, was 100%
with a lcngthy waiting list. Nanroc Apartmcnls is compriscd of 23 patio units on individual parccls,
Potcntial uscs includc continucd opcration as rcntal units, a sell.out to individual owncrs and dcmolition.
With regard to potential scll-out. the following obscrvations arc noled:
-
I
I
"',
· Thc units fcalurc T-III cxtcrior siding, a rclatively undesirablc fcaturc, and they posscss design
qualitics which are datcd and unsightly whcn compared to surrounding condominium propertics.
· Thc floor plan includcs no maslcrbathroom. and thc basemcnts (ofthc 10 units which havc thcm)
arc damp.
o
o
u
u
u
u
~
~
Thcsc obscrvations suggcst that markcling these unils for salc would be quite difficult. Knowing of no
altcrnativc usc that would warrant dcmolition of thc improvements, we conc]udc that the maximally
productivc use is for continucd opcration as rcntal units.
1
..
-'!
';:0.
,~
fi
H
"."
i\
-R
~
I
I
2]
Barone. l'vlurtha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
~
!
~
-
!
,J
J
j
J
o
o
u
~
I
I
I
I
APPRAISAL METHODOLOGY
I. Introduction
There are three classIcal approaches 10 real eslale valuation, ollen referred 10 as Income Capitalization,
Direet Sales Comparison and ('ost Approachcs. Properly characteristics, as well as data availability.
generally dictates which approaches are most germane to a particular valuation assignment; income
produeing properties lend themselves most readily to the Income Capitalization Approach, while for owner
occupied properties the Direct Sales Comparison Approach is ollen a better indicator. The Cost Approach
may be used effectively in either situation, however as the various aspects of accrued depreciation become
more pronounced, the value indication offered by this technique becomes more subjective. Each of these
valuation methods depends on the availability of an adequale amount of market data.
In the Cost Approaeh the depreeiated value of the improvements is added to the estimated land value.
Considering the subjectivity involved with estimating depreciation, this approaeh is most useful when
applied to newly constructed or newly renovated properties.
In the Income Approach the potential revenues, vacancy (and credit loss) and operating expenses are all
estimated in order 10 anive at a net income projeetion. This income projection is then translated to a value
indication through eilher direct or yield capilalization melhods. This is most appropriate for income
producing properties, however it can also be used for owner-occupied properties based on an occupancy cost
scenario.
In the Sales Comparison Approach recently sold properties are examined on the basis of either physical or
financial characlerislics and then compared to the subject property. This can be used effectively for most
property types, so long as Ihere is an adequate amount of data.
II. Meth.ndo1o~CoD.c1usion
Given the characteristics of the subject property, it is appropriate to develop the Ineome and Sales
Comparison Approaches to Value. Based on the age of the property and the manner in which the market
views income producing properties, the Cost Approach, while considered, has not been developed.
22
Bm'onc. Murtha. Shonbcrg & Associatcs. fnc.
~
;j
INCOME APPROACH TO Y ALUE
.,
J
I. Introduction
The underlying premise of the Income Approach is Ihat value is the present worth of future benefits arising
from ownership. While these benefits can be tangiblc or intangible. they arc typically limiled to a forecast
of net income polential. Net income is then translated into an indication of value by employing an applicable
capitalization technique. Assuming Ihat one accurately forecasts net income pOlential and employs a proper
capitalization technique (one that rellecls investors' mOlivations), the resulting value indication represents
the price a knowledgeable purchaser would pay for Ihe ownership rights.
J
J
J
o
o
o
o
~
~
~
2BR/1.5 SA wlbasement
2BR/l.5 SA no basement
RentRolLRange
$630
$575-$600
Weighted.A\!eragc
$630
$598
"<king Rent
$630
$600
II. GrosslncomeJ!otentlal
The initial ster in the income Approach is the estimation of pOlential gross income. The following is a
summary of the existing rent levels from the rent roll dated February 21, 1998. A eomplete rent roll is
included in the Exhibits section of the report.
On the anniversary of each lease the rental rale is increased to current market levels. With the exception of
one unit, every apartment is at current asking rents. To ascertain the market orientation of the subject rents
we surveyed four comparable properties located within Ihe subjeet neighborhood. The results and
comparative analysis are presented in the following tables:
!;
I
k
23
Barol1c. Murtha. Shonbcrg & Associatcs. 111c.
n
LJ
o
o
o
D
INCOME APPROACH TO VALUE
I'a 110 U oils
CompUIIIYf'lem I SubJt't1 I I.lndham Court I Odord ~1anQr Wulf)' Park Drlbrook M.nor
Grnrnl Chararl,rbllcs
localion Good Similar Similar Similar Similar
Architecture Garden Similar Similar Similar Similar
YcarOuil1 1981 1987 11)73 1967/9 1969
Condition Pair Superior 20 Superior lO Superior 20 Superior 20
Unit Size (SF) 1.262 850 80 78) 95 9J5 65 890 "
No. of Bedrooms Two Two Two Two Two
No. of Baths 1.1 On. I On. I 1.5 On. 5
Stonlge Cage Similar Similar Similar Similar
Equlpmrnt
Air Conditioning V.. Similnr Similar Similar Similar
Rang. V.. Similar Similar SimilOlr Similar
Refrigerator V.. Similar Similar Similar Similar
o;shwashcr V.. Similar Similar Similar Similar
Microwave No Similar Similar Similar Similar
Disposal Ves Similar Similar Similar Similar
Washcr/Drycr Hook-ups In Unit S In Unit S In Unit I In Unit S
Window Blinds Similar Similar Similar Similar
- Services .nd Amenllles
Heat Tenant Tenant Tenant Tenant Tenant
Electric Tenanl Tenant Tenant Tenanl Tenant
Water Tenant Temmt Owner 10 Owner 10 Owner 10
Sewerage Tenant Owner S Owner I Owner S Owner S
Amenilies Various Inferior 10 Inferior S Inferior I Inferior S
Rent Per Month NA S62S 56S SS70 S6S S640 lJO 5SgS S41
Adlusted Rent 5656 5690 56J! 5670 56JO
;'1
:
}
':"
~1
~.
24
.},
i"L
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates. Inc.
-
INCOME API'ROACII TO VALUE
"I
Within thc Gcncral Charnctcrislics calcgory adJlIslmcnts arc rcqulrcd for condition, unit size, and the number
of baths. A condllion adjustmcnt was warrantcd duc 10 thc superior eondltion of the comparable properties.
A size adjuslment is applicd only whcn Ihe variation exceeds 50 square fcct, and then reflects a rate of$0.20
per squarc foot; this estimale is bascd on rent variations betwcen similar units of varying size at individual
complexes within the market, however it should be noled that this analysis was not possible for those
comparable properties specifically used in this report. The subject units have 1-1/2 baths; the adjustment
for those comparable units wilh only a singlc bath is e~timalcd at a nominal $5.
...,
-
-
""'~
J
Equipment complemcnts within the comparable facilities wcre fairly unifonn, with the primary variation
being washcr-dryer units within Ihe units, as opposed to coin-opcrnted machines in a common selling. This
adjustment is estimated at $5 per month in the palio unils which have washer-dryer hook-ups in a large
laundry area.
With regard to services and amenilies, Ihe adjuslment for tenant-paid water and sewer is based on a typical
quarterly water and sewer bill of$45. Varialions in amcnities are limiled to pools and tennis courts, which
bas only a minimal impact on achievable rents; this was estimated at $5 per month. The subject units are
particularly superior compared to Ihe typical two bedroom garden units represented within the surveyed
properties, having private courtyards, fireplaces, private driveway and some basements, We estimate that
an adjustment of $1 0 per month should compensate for these features.
The following table presenls a synopsis of the comparative rent indicators:
Comparable Range
SUKgtstfd Rent
Subject
Market Reat
UnllTve
Uoad asled
Ad usltd
b Com arables
Askin Rent
ConclusJon
Patio Unit
557Q.S640
S630'5690
5656
5615
S6J5
The rent comparables suggest that the property has below market rents which may be responsible for the
extensive waiting list and full occupancy. Applying an average market rent of$635 to the patio units, the
potential rental income can be calculated as follows:
Unit Type
Markel Rent
Revenue Units
Rent POlentlallMonlh
Rent ratead.War
Patio Unit
5635
23
514.605
5175,260
5175,260
Total/Avera e
5635
13
514.605
25
Baronc. Murtha. Shonbcrg & Associates. Inc.
i
INCOME APPROACH TO Y ALUE
-
Othcr Incomc
Each tenanl pays as additional rcnt rcimbursemcnt of Ihc water chargc of S I 5.84 per unit, thc aClual amount
charged 10 thc landlord. This pOlential additional incomc equals S364.32 (23 units x SI5.84).
III. Yacancy_aud_Credlt Loss
On the day of inspection, the subject property was 100%occupied. The comparable properties exhibited
vacancies ranging from 1% to 8%. A stabilized vacancy of5% is adcquate to account for both vacancy and
any pOlential credit loss. The effeclivc gross income projection is summarized as follows:
Potential Gross Incomc
S175,260
S4.112
$179,632
Other Income
Total:
Less Vaeancy:
Effective Gross Income:
5.0%
($8.282)
$170,650
IV. Expenses
A stabilized expense projection was made after review of the following data.
I. Actual operating statements for the year 1995, 1996, and 1997. It should be emphasized that the
subject property has a joint operating statement with Belle TerreApartments. The expenses
presentedfor The Nanroc Townhouse Apartments reflect a pro-ration based on the number afunits.
2. Expense data as reported by the Institute of Real Estate Management (!REM) in their 1997 report,
lneomeLExpensc.Anal)'sis:..Com:entional A partmenls.
3. Actual expense experiences (1997) of three similar apartment complexes.
The stabilized expense eslimates are discussed in the following narrative. Expense categories include
adminislration/management, opera ling, repairs and maintenance, insurance, real estate taxes, and other
payroll.
26
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
i
!
".1
o
o
D
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INCO~IE APPROACH TO VALUE
AJministration and Management
.:.pfnH t"omp KIII.t <,'omp~lfln 1.R.E.M. SubjK' 1996 SubjKI.997
%EGI nla nla I02()1'!. 6.7J'Y. 867%
PerUnil 5l?l-SH17 5730 5716 Sll? S45?
Per SF nI, nI, SO.7l 50.28 SO.36
Administralion charges include management fees, salaries of oflice personnel paid direelly by the owner,
oflice expenses, advertising and legal and audit charges. Management fees in the market range from 4% to
6% of effective gross income. It should be noted that in 1996 and 1997, the subject managementfee was
3.72% and 1.79%. skewillg the totals for this expense category. Stabilizing the management fee at 5% of
effective llfOSS income,lhis portion of the adminislralive expense is projected to be $8,533.
In 1997, other administrative COSls were an addilionaI6.65% of effective gross income. This included oflice
expenses, advertising, payroll for a manager, professional fees. Slabilized administrative costs of 5% is
reasonable with a total administralive expense including management fees of 10%. This is consistent with
the data reported to IREM and results in a lotal management and administrative expense of $17,065 or $0.59
per square foot and $742 per unit.
Operating
Expfnn Comp Ringe Comp Mfan I.R.E.M. SUbJKII996 SubJoct 1997
%EGJ nI. nI. 10.20010 NA 5.25%
Per Unit S334-Sl2l $431 5607 NA 5278
Per SF nI. nI, SO.67 NA $0.6\
The owner is responsible for sewer eharges and trash removal. The subject expense is atypically low due
to the utility eosts which are passed along to the lenanl, such as the water expense. Considering that the
applicable utility providers are generally not requesting rate increases for the coming period, we project a
general stability in this expense category. This suggesls a operations cost for the coming 12-month period
of $6,400, which equales to $278 per unit, $0.22 per square foot and 3.75% of effective gross income.
27
:i~t
:,,~~:
p7~,
'I
~.~.' ,
"
;:
Baronc. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
INCOME AI'I'IWACII TO VALUE
.,
I
.
Repairs and Mamlcnancc
I:. ,""Com Itan . ('om Mfan I.R.r.\I. Sub td 1996 Sub f'C1 1m
% [(11 nI. nia 115~'. 8,80'/. 7.ll%
rerUml 1117-S4ll Sll9 S502 $469 Sl87
Ptf'S..- nI. nI. so 56 SO.17 SO.ll
This expense catcgory includes landscaping, snow removal, cleaning, general maintenance and repairs of
the improvements, mechanical contracts, painting, supplies, vchicle expenses and contract cleaning services;
it excludes maintenance payroll. According to Ihe hislorical expenses, repair and maintenance has been
generally consistent, avcraging 5428 per unit over the past two years. The average is below the (REM
indication and abovc the rate indicated by Ihe expense comparables. Giving greater weight to Ihe per unit
historical indication, and allowing for inllationary factors, the repair and maintenance cost is projected to
be $10,350, which cquates to $450 per unit, $0.36 per square foot and 6.1 % of effective gross income.
Insurance
Expense Comp Range Comp Mean
%EGI nI. nI.
Per Unit Sl9.S68 S5)
PerSF ni. ni.
l.o.[.M.
2.10%
SubJec'I996
3.25%
S137
$173
SubJect 1997
1.71%
S90
SO.07
SO.14
SO.14
The expense comparables, all properties within larger portfolios of properties, exhibit a narrow range of
indications for insurance costs which are below both !REM and the subject's historical expenses. The 1996
.. expense is more consistent with the (REM indication, and the rate rellectthe presence of fireplaces within
the units. We project an insurance cost for the coming year of$4.361; this equates to SO.15 per square foot
and 2.6% of effective gross income.
ReaLEstatuaxes
.Since an appropriale assessment and subsequentlaxes are the purpose of this appraisal, the current tax
expense will not be considered. In lieu of a tax expense, a tax rate will be factored into the capitalization
rate. That factor, which is a function of the millage rale and the common level ratio, is calculated as follows:
Currenl MlllaRc Rate
Common Level Ratio
Tn LOld Factor
0.169000
6.8()'1/o
0.011492
28
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
1'j
INCOME APPROACH TO VALUE
....,
..,
The impact of the lax load faclor Will be discussed 111 the capitalization seclion of this report
OtherPayrolJ
...
i ElpC'nSf Comp Ranle ('omp Mun I.R.E.M. SubJ"' 1996 SlbJ", I'"
.1
%EGI nI. nI. 780% J.40% ".00%
PerUnil S272-SoIb9 SJ'lO SJ5I SI81 S212
PetSF nI. nI. SOJJ 50.14 50.17
J
J
J
o
o
D
D
D
~
U
U
U
The Other Payroll category includes maintenance payroll, and taxes, insurance and benefits for all payroll
ealegories. with the exception of contract labor which is wilhin the repair and maintenance category. The
other payroll category for the subject property has been low compared to bolh the comparable properties and
IREM indication. This may be because the property shares staff with an adjoining property. Considering
the small size of the subject property (23 units would warrant a very limited staff) , the Olber Payroll
category has been stabilized at $200 per unit, well below the comparable properties; Ibis results in an annual
expense of $4,600, equating to $0.16 per square fOOl, or 2.7% of effective gross income.
ReservesJ'or.Rep1a=ent
This eategory reserves funds for the replacement of capital items such as roofs, appliances. and asphalt
replacement. Based on the age of the subject property and discussions with investors of similar properties,
we estimate that an annual allocalion equivalent to $250 per unit should be adequate. This equates to $5,750,
or 3.4% of effective gross income.
Summ:1ry
-The discussion presented above suggests total operating costs of $48,526, or $21,110 per unit prior to
consideration of real estate taxes; this equates to an expense ratio of28.44%. The following table presents
a synopsis of the income and expense projection.
29
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
...,
-
-
1
',,4
J
o
o
D
D
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INCOME APPROACII TO Y ALVE
Revenue and Expense Projection
Rcnlal (ncom~: S175,26O
Waler/Sewer $4,372
Potential Gross Income: S179,632
Vacancy and Credit Loss: 5.00% S8.282
Effecllve Gross Income: 5170,650
%.EGI Pec-SE PecUnit Gross
Management/Admin, 10.0% SO.59 S742 S17,065
Operating 3.8% SO.22 $278 S6,400
Repairs & Maintcnance 6.1% $0.36 S450 S I 0.350
Insurance 2.6% $0.15 S190 $4,361
Real Estate Taxes NA NA NA NA
Other Payroll 2.7% SO.16 S200 S4,600
Reserves 3.4% $0.20 $250 $5.15ll
Total Expenses 28.4% $1.67 $2,110 S4ll.i26
Net Operating Income 71.6% $4.20 $5,310 $122,124
Y. Capitalization..
Capitalization is defined as the translation of net income benefits into an indication of value. Primary
capitalization methods include Direct and Yield Capitalization. Direct Capitalization considers the
application of a single rate to the anticipated net income in the first operating year while yield capitalization
. considers revenue generation over a holding period and potential reversionary benefits as separate
eomponenls. For properties such as the subject, Direct Capitalization is most appropriate.
Having concluded that direct capitalization is the most suitable lechnique, an overall capitalization rate (R.)
must be estimaled. Three of Ihe more common techniques for rate derivation are briefly described as
follows:
R" can be developed through a MortgagelEquity technique which compares the proportionate rel'.un
requirements of both the equity and debt positions.
R, can be derived from Debt Coverage (OCR) and Loan to Value (L TV) ratios.
30
::;)],
",l!;
>y~
.;e!i.
.,;'i!
~f;(j.
i~
Barone. Murtha. Shonbel'g & Associates. Inc.
~
INCOME AI'J'ROACJI TO VALUE
R. can be cxtraclcd directly from Ihe market based on the sale price and anliclpated income
generallon of comparable properties, or based on 1I11ervlews wllh markel partiCipants.
,
.,
MongagelEqUlly Technique
The Mortgage/Equity technique IS essenlially an average of the equity and debt components, weighted on
the basis of the individual rallos to Iota I value. First addressing the debt side of the equation. a variety of
avenues arc available for debt financing, including banks, S & L's, insurance companies, governmental
agencies, conduits, mutual funds, REITS and olher fonns of securilized debt Mid-size to larger properties
can generally avail themselves of the broad range of finaneing options, while smaller deals would likely be
limited to banks, S & L's, or in some instances, conduits.
-
-
I
I
1<."
.,
,.J
According to the Wall Street Journal daled May 5, 1998, Ihe following market rales were published:
C.JltROI}' CUrrtlll.Rate
Prime R:lle 8.50%
london Interbank OtTered Rales (lIBOR) I month 5.6563%
London Interbank Offered Rales (L1DOR) 12 months 6.9023%
Treasury Bill. 5 Year 5.66".
"'1 Treasury Bill- 10 Year 5.14%
I
...
Fcdenll Home Loan Mongage CofJt. Yields on 30 )T 7.09%
mortgage commitments. JO.-day delivery
Fcdcr:al National Mot1gagc AssOC'. . Yields on 30 yr. 7.03%
mortgage commitments. JO-day delivery
Interviews with mortgage bankers active in the mid-Atlantic region suggest that financing is presently
available at rales 135 to 200 basis points over the lO-year treasury. We estimate that finaneing could be
obtained at a rate of7.5% with a 25-year amortization period, to-year tenn, 75% loan-to-valueratio and 1.25
debt coverage ratio.
'"
J
In the past it has been conventional for equity returns to be similar to or only slightly higher than the
mortgage conslant if property value was expected to be stable. The spread between debt and equity
requirements has increased in recent years however, due to lhe advent of securitization. Previously, the
difference between the debt and equity positions was largely a mailer of which got paid firs\, so long as the
loan tenn was not significantly shorter than a typical holding period. Now, however, risk to the debt side
of the equation is mitigated. The initial debt holder has only a short exposure period (typically 30 to 60 days)
31
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
INCOME APPROACJI TO VALUE
and garners re\'Cnucs primanly from ongmallon fces and servlcmg. Once the loan is packaged and sold as
a sccurity, rISk to Ihe purchascr is agam mlltgated hy lhversilicallon and mcreased Iiquidily. The end result
of this is an increased spread between the debt and equity return requirements.
J
J
o
o
o
u
u
u
~
I
I
I
I
This is bourne out by recent investor inlerviews which indicate an overall range of9% to 15%, depending
on property type and tenant qualily. The low end of the range is defined by single-tenant, net-leased
properties wilh minimum lease tenns of 10 years and an investment grade tenant; the equily expectation here
is generally 9% to 10%. Apartment investors arc the next interval, with equily requirements ranging from
10% to 14%. Olher property types (office, induslrial, etc.) define the high end of the range between 12%
and 15%. Considering that apartment properties are yet the real estate investment of choice, we estimate an
equily requirement of 12%.
Debt
0.7500
0.2500
0.0887
0.1200
0.0665
0.0300
Assumptions
Mortgage Conslan!:
Equily Requirement:
Loan-to-Value Ratio:
Debt Coverage Ratio:
0.0887
0.1200
0.7500
1.2500
Application
Component
Rallo
Rite
Contribution
Equity
l
Overall R.le
0.0965
Rounding to the nearest quarter point, the Mortgage/Equily Technique suggests a rale of9.75%.
Dcht.CQ'lerageLLoanJu.Ya1ue.Method
This method is based entirely on underwriting criteria. The tenns of the likely debt financing discussed
earlier results in an overall rate indication by this method as follows:
'i
.'
32
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates. Inc.
...,
...,
I
INCOME APPROACH TO VALUE
D.bt Con,.., 14.1110
Marl"11 ('on.t.nt
"oan-eDov.lut R.Uo
0",,.11 R.lt
I :!,SOO
olJlun
01S00
00112
Again rounding to the nearest quarter poinl. this melhod suggests an overall rale of 8,25%.
SalcJ)erivation Method
This method considers the overall rates exhibiled by the transactions included in the Sales Comparison
Approaeh. These sales, which occurred between 1994 and the present, exhibit financial characteristics as
follows:
...,
I
,j
j
J
~1
....
Sal,
Loutlon E.G.I. plr Unit NOI per Unit Elpfnlt Ratio ()yenll Rite
Colonial Glen Apartments S6..l11 S3.464 46.90% 10.00%
Lower P:lxlOn Township
Quail Run Apartment S5,625 S3.050 45.77% 12..22%
lanc3slc:rTownship
Paxton P3rk Apartments S5.9JS S2.571 56.68% 11.25%
Lower Paxton Township
Country Walk Apartments S7.809 S5,041 35.44% 9.68%
Lower Allen Township
Shanendoah Apartments S6.196 $4.164 32.80% 10.41%
Mcch:l.Oicsburg
School Uouse Apartments S6.860 S2,884 57.96% 10.18%
Mcchanicsburg Borough
The Pines S5.370 S2,458 54.23% 10.18%
Susquehanna Township
Lindham Court 55.947 S3.842 35.39% 9.10%
Upper Allen Township
Society Uill Apartments S6.746 $4.185 31.96% 11.30%
Lower Allen TOWRShi
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
These sales, which occurred between January, 1993 and November, 1996, exhibit a range of capitalization
rates between 9.1% and 12.22%, with a mean of 10.48% and a median of 10.18%. Recognizing that debt
rates have declined significantly since these transactions occurred (rendering them trailing indicators), we
conclude an indication near the mid-point of the range, or 10.0%.
33
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
.
..,
INCOME APPROACH TO VALUE
Sing]e.UnitValuation
The fOllowing al/a(vsis is preSl'nletl for illjorll/olill/wl p"rpOSt'S only. USlIlg the same parameters prescnted
previously in Ihe income approach to \'aluc 10 a slIlglc unit. the following table summarizes the value
caleulations applied 10 a single unit.
~
I
Rn,nUf .ad [.ptn" ProJffllon
Rmtallncome:
W.terlSewer Reimbursement
Potential Gross Income;
Vacancy and Cndilloss: 5.00%
EIT<<llvf Grou 'ncoml':
%.EGJ PuSE PuUnit
Management/Admin. 10.0";' SO.S' S742
Operaling 3.7% SO.22 1278
Repairs & Mninlcnance 6.1% SO.36 $olIO
Insurance 2.6% SO. IS SI90
Real Estale Taxes NA NA NA
Other P'yroll 2.7% SO.16 S200
Reserves 3..4% 50.20 Sl50
Total Expenses 28.4% 51.67 S2./I0
Net OPttltlng Income 71.6%
Tax~Loaded CapitollizlIlion Rate:
Value
Rounded To:
35
Barone. Murtha. Shol1berg & Associates, Inc.
S7.620
SI90
57,110
SJ2l
$7....20
Gnw
S742
S6.400
$450
$4,361
NA
S200
S2.IO
S2J.1O
$5,3la
10.90%
$48.711
S4B, 700
~
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
I. Introduction
In the Sales Companson Approach propcrtlcs gcncr:llly similar 10 th~ SUbJ~CI arc analyzcu un thc basis of
IIn appropnate unit of comparison IInd then compared to the subject. "hysical comparisons as well as income
and expcnse characteristics arc useful in amving at a value estimate Ihrough the Salcs Comparison
Approach. In this analysis, we compared each of the comparable propcrties 10 the subject. laking into
consideration the expcnse ratio, the effective gross Income multiplier and other related faclors.
II. ComparatiYe.AoaIysls
Limiting our research to the Harrisburg MSA, Ihe following transactions were discovered:
s." location S,'tD.lt PrlnA1nll E.ptnlf RatIo E.C.I.M.
Colonial Olen Apartments tOl96 5)4.6l6 46,1)00/. 5.31
Lower PUlon Township
2 Quail Run Ap.rtments 11I96 5l4.963 45.77""0 4.44
Lancuter Township
3 Paxton Park Apartments 051'lS 5ll.S57 56.68% 3.85
Lower Paxton Township
4 Countrl Walk Apartments 031'lS 55l.0S) 35.44% 6.67
Lower Allen Township
5 Shanendoah Apartments 12194 S40,ooo 32.80'10 6.46
Mechanicsburg
6 School House Apartments 06194 5l8J)) 57.96% 4.13
Mechanicsburg Borough
7 The Pines 01194 5l4.1SJ 54.23% 4.50
Susquehanna Township
8 Lindham Court 02/93 S4l.22l 35.390/0 7.10
Upper Allen Township
9 Society Hill Apartments 01/93 5)7,0)7 37.96% 5.49
Lower Allen Townshi
o
o
o
D
U
U
Detailed write-ups of all the sales are presented in the addenda. The subject is projected to exhibitlln
expense ratio of 28.4% prior to consideration of real estate taxes; adding the taxes implied by the value
eonclusion reached in the Income Approach, the expense ratio becomes 35.96%, IInd a net operating income
per unit of $4,752. Rather than presenting an adjustment grid to more subjectively contrast aspects of the
sale properties in comparison to the subject property. a process known as regression analysis has become
an increasingly useful tool applicable to real estale analysis. Regression identifies the possible relationships
between or among variables to provide a better underslanding of the underlying data. Simple regression
analysis measures the relationship between an independent variable and a dependant variable with the
equation Y, =a+bX, where Y, is Ihe forecast value. a is a constant, b is a multiplier or coefficient, and X is
36
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
RECONCILIATION
o
The purpose of this report is 10 cstimalc Ihe market value of the Fcc Simplc inlerest in Ihe property located
and known as:
D
o
D
D
D
~
~
~
~
~
I
I
~
~
~
The Nanroc Townhouse Apanments
Nanroc Drive
Upper Allen Township
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
The scope of the analysis has been limited to full development of the Income and Sales Comparison
Approaches. The value indications are as follows:
Cost Approach:
Income Approach:
Sales Comparison Approach:
Not Developed
51,120,000
51,085.000
The value indications vary by 2.7%. Giving greater weight to the Income Approach, we estimate the market
value of the fee simple interest in the subject property, in cash or terms equivalent to cash, as of May 4, 1998,
lobe:
One Million One Hundred Ten Thousand ($1,110,000) Dollars
38
Barone, Murtha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
I
~Wr-,'
I I CO
I N
-.
.-
~~r,;. ~
~~\~ ~
:: L(; :
f;/I'l: 11.11
~. ~
.z .
'. i/
:~ It
~ ..:;
.of :,
~; ::::
'" ....-
WIll'
:,.
/.
.u
I
..:
""
'i~r:
u. ;:::~~.:
#::~....
N ~...~.:
,- ',n...
'" ".....'
w ~f:,.~
rll&8Ilrrl.& IJf;F.I'~I~!m.'
. -CUll;
... ~
...
I
WI11n 3Jubrnturr,
31!it- doyoJ Ja..... f'\r
TA,.,u.d HI.. lIu.J"d ..d SeventY.RIQh~ (1978)
elrtluttn R. A. ORTENZIO and NANCY H. OIlTENZIO,
Hechanicsburq, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,
ot 3428 Lisburn Road,
mUbl\
, 11/ C
III tA, ~ta' oJ Clwr IAJrJ 0",.
I
A
N
o
I
J
BELLE TERRE, a Penn9ylvania limited partnership, 301 South
Street, State College, Contro County, Pennsylvania, Grantee,
Allen
I
../Ilte ,('rUl/el/Ja,." lUUnruurllJ 1'1.." IIrt'"'id/'II''' iCB .,/ '1.' JI..,t/KIl'f, fIJI' 1111I' jlll'm,.iJrrallll/t
"J'AI 'u.. oJ One ($1. 00) -----__..______________________________________
IJOnllr'l lilli''''' lIIum'v uJ l1u' VI/ilt." SII/IN uf .~IHt'''ic:u, u'dluml 'ruIN fHJld Ly flit IcJid party ollht
ucolld pal" lu lilt ,.,Id "u,.l!cs II/lilt: Ii", /'Ilft. n' nil II IIr/llrt 'he .ralllltJ ani' tlrllr,,.!! 1,/11.,,,
prtUn/,. rite rted/'/lrllrl''''/ iJ IIC""I'II,y IIl'1wuu'tt'lttJr,/. havQ
'J"",trl', Lurgulll(t!, '0"'. nli,"rd, '''/(Of/rlll n:trol(", t"II/I'r!Jl',ICIIlCll:lm/lrmccl ancl bV ''''It' p,.C'un" Ill.
9flHl/. I",r!ll';". ....,/. "lic'll. ,."/,,,1/. "dralt', C'"nrf,. II/II/ (VI"/Ir,,, ItIt'f) lilt' ,,.M Iklr,y ot
IAt Ir(ollll parI, ita SUcce'3soro MXt:f 11/,,/ ,,,,,!/",,
I
.~1I THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground situate in Upper Allen Town-
Ship, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, bounded and described in accor-
dance with a Final Resubdivision Plan for R. A. Ortenzio by Charles W.
Junkins, Registered Surveyor, dAted October 11, 1976, last revised on
November 16, 1976, as follows:
I
I
BEGINNING at a point on the southerly right of way line of Geneva Drive
(SO feet wide) at the intersection of Lot 3-A on the aforesaid Plan
and lands of KOG, which point is on the dividing line between Upper
Allen Township and Lower Allan Township and is North forty-four (44)
degrees two (2) minutos nino teen (19) seconds West from a concrete
ronwnent at the intersection of lands of KOG and Winterset Onp Asso-
ciates; thence SOllth fifty-two (52) degrees thirty-six (36) minutes
thirty (30) seconds Wcst along the southerly riqht of way line of
Cancva Drive a distance of 5. OJ feet to a point; thence along same! by
a curve to the left having a radius of one hundred seventy-five (175)
feet an arc distance of 94.31 feet to a point; thence along same by
a curve to the right having a radius of two hundred twenty-five (225) .
feet an arc distance of 121. 25 fact to a point; thence South fifty-two
(52) degrees thirty-six (36) minutes thirty (30) seconds West along
s~me a distance of 565.41 foat to a concrete monument; thence along
same 14.31 feet to a pin; thenca North twenty-two (22) degrees twenty-
rive (25) minutes thlrty (30) seconds 11est alonq Lot 4-D a distance
eooiW27 I.ICE 3G7.
I
I
I
I
~ .. I' .. r " .
.. ..' ,. ','" -II'. ,
. ,.....oo,"',....
ell,.b. c... ,..
~, 1"1,."1. '"..&" '..
"J.I. .,,~.J.~.~J' A"I~~pt 'o!
;:;..~ .. '- '.~ " ~$-~"
'IH'II~. ~.. DIu. e.1. At'. ~
f'!',.~_&-'" ,
',h.., Ohl. C...b. Ce.. ..
'....ltr 'If
-t ~ a..l lo""~ - ~(J(J _ rl!
"", . tJ ~~/""""
O .....,....
,,, 'j' .. 1,/ v""'''-
tfa....- ,
o..c.-c;ol..... ~
I
I
.: '
. ".:'~I;::' ..:r ;,:('
. . " :' :~.:' ...
'8~ DEe 3/
:'11 8 01
DEE D
HADE THIS ~"'day ot ;Dto"'\'~ r
BY AND BETWEEN.
, ninetee" eight-tive,
I
CEDAR RIDGE ASSOCIATES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, having
its principal place of business loacted at 301 South Allen Str~et,
Stste College, Pennsylvania, and JOHN E. SROKA and HARION L. SROKA,
husband and wite, City at Johnstown, Csmbris County, Pennsylvania,
Grantors,
~
OCTAGON ASSOCIATES, a Pennsylvania Limited Partnerehip,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Grantee,
WITNESSETH, that in consideration of ONE MILLION AND 00/100 - - - - -
($1,000,000,00) - - - - - - - - DOLLARS the receipt of which is hereby
acknOWledged, the said grantors do hereby grant and convey to the
said grantee, its successors and aosign9'
ALL that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying a"d being in
Upper Allen Townehip, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, bounded and
described as follows.
BEGINNING at a point on the westerly side of Nonroc Drive, said point
being located as follows. beginning at a point at the center line of
Geneva Drive, (50 feet wide) at its intersection with the western line
of Nanroc Drive, (50 feet wide), thence along the said western line of
Nanroc Drive South 37" 23' 30. East, a distance of 240.11 feet to a
800K R 31 fACE 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
. '''I I, 0.01 '.11.'. j' ,.' IJl41h\.lU4I,\
: Ei~:~~,~ il' on-'-oJ~
'. flllln; _. I ~J:.:.:
point, thence continuing along the eamo by a curve to the left having
a radiue of 175.00 feet, an ara diatance of 107.23 feet to a concrete
monument, the point of beginning, thence from said point of beginning
along the westerly aide of Nanroc Drive by a curve to the left with a
radius of 175.00 feet an arc distance of 44.64 feet to a point, thence
along the same South 870 6' 500 East, a distance of 143.17 feet to a
concrete monument, thence continuing Along the 88me by A curve to the
right having a radius of 110 feet, an arc distance of 95.46 feet to a
concrete monument, thence continUing along the same, South 370 23' 30.
East, a distance of 205.40 feet to a point, thence along land now or
formerly of Liberty Square, South 520 36' 30" West, a distance of
315.09 feet to a point on the enstern Un., of lands now or formerly of
George B. M. Wilson, thence along lands (.f Wilson, North 400 19' 57.
Wcst, a distanc~ of 122.53 fcet to a concrcte monument, thonce
continuing Along the same, So~th 520 36' 30" West, a distance of 46.3
feet to a point, thence through land of which this was 'formerly a
part, Nortt. 370 23' 30. Ilest 292,38 feet to a point, thence through
land of Which this was formerly a part North 520 36' 30. East 25.60
feet to a point, thence by Same North 370 23' 30. West 22.38 feet to A
point, thence by same North 520 36' 30' East, a distance of 189.54 to
the westerly side of Nanroc Drive, the place of beginning.
Being part of the same piece or parcel of land which vested in CedAr
Ridge Associates, Inc. by the deeds of R,A. Ortenzio dated and
April 15, 1980 which are recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book
Volume "X., Volume 28, page 837. Being the same piece or parcel of
land which vested in John E, Sroka and Marion L. Sroka, husband and
wife, by the deed of Cedar Ridge Associates, Inc., dated December 19,
1985 and recorded in Cumberland County on December 20, 1985 in Deed
Book Vol ume 3/ G/ , page 739 . .
UNDER AND SUBJECT to the same conditions, exceptions, reservations and
restrictions as appear in prior deeds of record.
The Grantors do hereby covenant and agree that they will
warrant GENERALLY the premises hereby conveyed.
IN WITNESS WIIEREOF, the said grantors have hereunto set their
hands and seals the day and lear first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of:
CEDAR RIDGE ASSOCIATES, INC
Attest.
~\~,~01J...t~H~",(l ~
o.
-
B
dent
BeOK R 31 f/,~, 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ZONING
TABLE OF USE REGULATIONS
SCHEDULE E
URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRlCf (UK)
1n areas which can be feasibly &upplied with public facilitic'!, a higher den&ity of residential
use can be accommodaled. Abo, such arcu can be U&ed for a variety of hou&ing typC.!to
include multifamily dwelling&. Commercial U&C.! arc pcnnit1cd only for the convenience of the
residents. Such commercial uses mwt be subordinate to the residential use, must be an incegraJ
plllt of a residential subdivision or land development or must be designed to serve one (I) or
more existing residential subdivi&ions or land developments located in the inuncdiale vicinity
and not served by incegnJ conuncrcial U&C.!. JS
Number
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
g.
9.
10.
II.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Use
Additional detached
dwelling
Apartment (maximum
density: 12 dwelling
uniwacrc)
Boardinghouse
Church
Cluster development
Communication facility
(publicly regulated)
Conversion apartment
Crop farming
Cultural facility
Day nur&Cl)' center
Day nurseI}' home
Drive-in stand
Fire &lAlion
Golf course
Greenhouse
Group home
P = Perm111ed
SE = SpecJaJ Excepllon
p
P
SE
p
SE
P
SE
P
p
p
P
SE
P
P
P
SE
35 EdItor', Note: Ameaded at tim, ot Idoptlu of Cod'; 1M Cb.Iptu 1, GuenJ ProYidoDl, Art. L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UPPER ALLEN CODE
P = Permitted
Number Use SE = Special Exception
17. Home occupation SE
18. HospiIal P
19. Personal service SE
cSlUblislunent
20. Planned residcntial SE
developmcnt
21. Private club p
22. Private recreational p
facility
23. Professional officcs SE
24. Public building p
25. Public cntcrlllinment SE
facility
26. Public recreational p
facility
27. RcslUurant p
28. Sanitary facility SE
29. School p
30. Signs p
31. Single-family dwelling P
32. Supply utilities SE
33. Townhouse (maximum p
density: 12 dwelling
units/acre)
~
N
I
ft
...
11
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
I
U
a
m
Octagon Associates
ReI.c .Roll (u ou February 2C, 1998)
Dtllt Terr'e ApartmrulI aad Nan Roc Pacio Uoma
Nau Roc !'Irio Doma
Unit N8~ Unil T~ CurTent R~nr S~ Dennsit
0()1055 Miller Ron 8lJld Carol B 000 00.00
001057 HeMtSsey Shav.n and Kim D 645.84 200.00
001059 Bundt Bradloey and Kay 8 645.84 600.00
001061 Johnson Brian and Debra B 645.84 600.00
001063 Snyder Maryi&M 11 645.84 200.00
001065 Stiffer Todd n 645,84 000.00
001067 Trimble Peter n 645.84 600.00
001069 Asia Tedd B 645.84 600.00
001071 10hnson Mitchel and Ann B 645.84 200.00
001073 Rosers WIlliam and Betsy B 645.84 400.00
001075 Gregg Desie .and Holly 0 615.84 200.00
001077 &dger& Aly Ken and Denise 0 615.84 600 00
001079 Lafferty Karen 0 615.84 400.00
00108] Pratt Kevin 0 615.84 200.00
001083 Scott David 0 615.84 200.00
001085 Polesky Nicole 0 590.84 200.00
001087 Vacant 0 000.00
001089 Martin William and Helen 0 615.84 600.00
001091 HalVMcManucl. Karen and Barry 0 615.84 600.00
001093 Rogers Rawleigh and Barb 0 615.84 300.00
001095 Brown Mathe"" aud Carole 0 615.84 600.00
001097 Vacant 0 615.84 300.00
001099 Felker WilIillllll and Diana 0 615.84 200.00
.~-~--------..__...~--.----
13,798. ~8 i, 190. 08
/3 f77.t./f- '1~
~ ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NAHIl/LOCATION.
TAX IO NO.,
OIlANToR I
GIlAH'nII
CONBrOIlRATrONI
YU.R 8tJILT I
8tJILIlINQ AIUA.
NllX8n o' llNITS I
COIllmNT.
OISClUPTION.
~l'SIS O' !!AU
8ALK PRICK/lq"t..
(G.B.A.)
llNIT PRICK.
BALlI PRICK/lq"t..
(IlDlTUU AUA)
COIlPAllAlILa BALI - APAlITMZIn'
Colonial Gl.n Apart.ant.
4900 Lanc.r Str..t
Lovlr Paxton Towu.hip
Dauphin County, PA
35-054-001
SUlUal Zal1 to Robert Luri.
J(GI( IlDtlrp..i...
$6,025,000
1976
. COllDITrOl(.
Good
194.279 Sq,'t.
LAND AUA.
14.7300 Ac....
174
RKNTABr.s ARBA.
153.564 Sq..t
CUd... agrlamaat of .a1. dat.d Octob.r 2, 1996.
Co1oDia1 01111 Ap...tment. cOD.i.t. of: 174 two-b.drooa
g...dlll II1d tOWDhou.. uni t. hou"d wi thin 2 0 two ...d
t:Iu:....tory building.. CUit IIlix i. 131 two-b.dro_
unit. (860 .qu.... f:.lt) II1d 36 tloo-b.dro.... uzUt. (969
.qu.... hIt). Th. townhou.. W1it. contain a
"..hl"/clryer hookup_ Amaniti.. iDClud. a 8Wimming
pool ...d laundry .f:.ciliti...
$31.01
$34.626
$39.23
UCOIlll %D.
PRO,an %D.
P%L11 %D.
15210
15....
965'"
.
ft
I
I
I
I
I
NAXB/LOCATION I
TAX IO NO. I
GRANTOR.
GRANTBBI
CONS IOBRATIONI
DATI: or SALI: I
COMPARA.DLB SALB - APARTMBNT
Shanandoah Apartment.
105-107 Allan Straat
Mechanic.burg
CUmbarland County, PA
18-23 -0565 -83
Shanandoah LP
rrank R. rrai.tak
$2,400,000
YBAR BI1ILT I 1991
29-0BC-94
IlllHBBR or ONITS I 60
OBSCRIPTION,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AJlALYsIS or 8ALIl
ONIT PRICK,
OVDALL RATI::
Shanandoab Apartment. con.i.t. o! two wood !ram.
building.. The gard.n unit. war. built in 1991. Th.
towubouaa unit. wera convartad to apartment. !rom a
praviou. indu.trial U.a. Th. apartmants vary widaly
in aiza a8 a result. Unit !.atura. include wa.h.r
and dryars, .ecurity, .l.ctric !orc. hot air and
cantral air-conditioning and balconi... The
con.id.ration on tha d..d read. $2,340,000 which i.
nat o! buyar'. brokar !.. o! $60,000.
$40,000
B.G.I.II:
6.456
N.I.1I1
9.608
10.41 \
BDBIISK RATIO.
32.80 ,
RBCOJU) III.
PROPBIlTY III:
11621
12493
COMPAIWILB SALB - APARTKIOlT
Il.UIll/LOCATIOH.
School Kou.a Apartmant.
133 He.t Locu.t Street
Mechanlc.burg
Cumberland County, PA
TAX 10 NO. I
23-567-027
GRANTOR.
B..tOil
GRANTllB I
Ravagoo propartla.
CONSIOIlllATION.
$1,700,000
DATIl or SALB I
Ol-JlllI-94
YBAR BUl:LTI
1892
LAND ARBA.
1.8600 Acra.
NtlXIlBR 01' om:TS I
60
DBSCRIPTION,
ThLa La a formar two-.tory .chool building originally
huilt in 1892 and ranovatad into apartment. in the
1980'.. Tha building ha. an interior co=tyard.
ANALYSIS or SALB
UN:tT PRJ:ca.
$28,333
B.G.I.M:
".130
N.I.MI
9.823
OVDALL RATIl.
57.96 _
10.18 'II
BDIDlSB RATIO.
RliCORD :m I 11615
PROPBRn:m, 12488
u
u
u
u
I
I
I NAMB/LOCATION:
I
TAX 10 NO.:
I GRANTOR:
GRANTBB:
I CONSIOBRATION:
OATB OF SALB:
YBAR BUILT:
COMPARAI!LI!: S~LB ~~!!TMI!.!!:I:
Lindham Court
1101 Lindham Court
Upper Allen Townehip
Cumberland County. PA
42-24-792-006
F.T. Realty Company
K.L.P. Bnterprises
$3.800.000
01-FEB-93
08V/PAGE:
36C I 904
1987
CONDITION:
Good/Fair
NUMBER OF UNITS: 90
a
DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS OF SALB
UNIT PRICE:
OVERALL RATE:
I
I
I
I
I
I
Two-story brick and siding apartmsnt complex
containing 90 one and two-bedroom apartments.
$42,222
E.G.I.M: 7.100
N.I.M: 10.989
EXPENSE RATIO: 35.39 'Ii
RBCORD 10: 8881
PROPERTY 10: 9773
PHOTO 10: 2813
9.10 'Ii
I
.
COMP ~RA.!I~K GALK - -"!~A_Il_TII.BN'!:
I
NAMK/LOCATION.
Society Hill Apertment.
~900 Li.burn Road
Lower Allen Town.hip
Cumberlend County, PA
I
I
TAX 10 NO..
13-10-~58-005
I
GRANTOR:
N.L.A. 4~~. Ino.
GRANTEK.
National Properties, Inc.
I
CONSIDKRATION.
$4.000,000
OATK 01' SALE.
01-JAN-93
DSV/PAGE,
36B / 1196
YJlAR BUILT.
1988
CONDITION.
Good
BU:tLD:tNG AREA:
129.438 Sq.yt.
NUMBKR OF UN:tTS:
108
DKSCR:tPT:tON.
Three-story garden apartment complex with
108 units. One-bedroom units contain
feet; two-bedroom units contain two baths
square feet. Units aro all-electric.
a total of
871 square
and 1.113
ANALYS:tS OF SALE
SALK PR:tCE/Sq,Ft.. $30.90
(G.B.A.)
OVERALL RATE: 11.30 %
E.G.:t.H: 5.490
N.LM, 8.S50
EXPENSE RAT:tO: 37.96 %
RECORD 10. 8880
PROPERTY :tD: 977~
PHOTO :to: ~81~
UN:tT PR:tCE. $37.037
, .
..,
",
'. I
..~l!li')~- J....; .!i":",,j_-7'~~"lt
J", .., '- ' ~ ,~,,\...'!-f."':"~ 1;.
:,;l~;~;~ ~!;.> r ~;. :'-"':';:'~~'I','::' 1
. -,-f., "
~-,~
> "l
r
t,
'.
: . . ,-', . t '/" ... ! ,,,: l'~,'~'IJ;.~"'~'C:
Commonwcalth llf Pennsy.lv3I11a;: .'):: :11
Deparlrnenl ofStalc' .;....!:,".'".. I /
Bur.au ul' Pmf.....~i,IJl.1 And OccupaliullllI Affairs
P.O. BOX )~~:~~~~g'}~~'!?,105-2G49'..
~..:. -,' ~ ,","
I"~;/:) :;..C1assilicaliun .'\ '-:'l ~ .
~" ..~ .. ':.:. .~.
4., . . .' \ ...
(?1EN~~~~.~P.I'~~SBf1
',- : :t~. ,", /.... ~ i
CCrlilicat\U'D, \ut: '. ~. . . ~ls.sl1e II 'j
- \ . ..\
.... \ ~ '.. I
JUL 01 9'~1',. Jl!.L~0.g-/'l997
,~. "---..- -~~/
..... .. .~. I ;;. .,-
........ '. -" .'
--..---"'
Expires
Ceniticale NUlllher
GA-000067-L
JUN 30 1999
,.
-
--.---- ---.-. .- - ......, -- ..,-
':'~'~:" .',,:.;..
I
!
,
I
V
i
.~*"
'~'"
P,.
"'...Ji"
:-./
hsuedTo;
.,.-- ....
MARK ROBERT SHONBERG
4701 BAPTIST ROAD
SUITE 304
PITISBURGH PA t5227
. '~''':I;'' ..,~.:".
:.. .\
Ii ^,
l:f
.r '.
'/"'"
i .i>.
Ii
il
.,
:,
11.;,
" ,
!-!
, ,
i.;~
. ,
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
Y
I
,
APPRAISER'S QI,;,\L1HCATlO:-;S
Mark R. Shonherg, MAl
POSITlO:';
. Vicc Prcsidcl1l: Barunc, ).(urlha, Shonhcrg & ""oc,ates. Inc.
EDlLCATlO~
. Gr:lduate ofUniversily of Pittsburgh; Bachelor of Science, School of Arts and Sciences
. Appraisal Institute Courses:
Appraisal Principles
Valuation Procedurcs
Capilalization Theory & Tcchniques (A and B)
Computer Aided Invcstment Analysis
Casc Studics in Real ESlate Valualion
Standards of Professional Practice
Report Writing and Valuation Analysis
Highest and Best Use
STATE-CERTIElCAIlONS
. Pennsylvania:
Appraisal:
Brokeragc:
. Delaware:
. )'Iaryland:
~ ~rkhigan:
. New York:
. Ohio:
" \Vest Virginia:
. Kentucl.:y:
Regional Review Committee Chair, 1995
National Publications Committee, 1994. Present
Certificate No. GA-000067-L
Certificale No, AB-051396-L
Certificate No. XI0000191
Certificate No. 04-010230
Ccrtificate No. 12-01-004238
Certificate No. 17076
Certificate No. 394700
Certificate No. 135
Pcnding
fROF.ESSIOX.-\.LA.EFlLllTlON5-.A~RSERYlCE
. Appraisal Institute:
1993
Admission and Review Committee Chair, 1991-
.
Urban Land Institute:
Steering Committee. 1994 - Present
EXF.ERIEXCE
Over the last ten years Mr. Shonberg has performed a wide variety of appraisals addressing a diverse
spectrum of property types and for varying purposes. The majority of work has been for finance and asset
management purposes. although a significant portion has been oriented toward tax appeal, eminent domain,
divorce and bankruptcy proceedings. Mr. Shonberg has qualified as an expert witness before a variety of
tax assessment boards and before the Court of Common Pleas. Areas of specific expertise include health
care, multi-family and retail properties. Prior to association with Barone. Murtha, Shonberg & Associates,
~lr. Shonbcrg was engaged in commercial real estate sales.
Barol1c. Murtha. Shol1bcrg & Associates. Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
QUALIFICATIONS OF KRISTI C. SMITI/
158 lliglllal/d Road
York, PA 17-103
(717) 8./8-2065
EXPERIENCE:
1995 BellI/ell Williams, lI/c.lCampisi Appraisal Group, York, P,t
Appraiser - Commercial Appraisal Depanment
Specializing in cornrnercial appraisal work throughout Pennsylvania and
Maryland,
1989 to 1994 Weinstein Appraisal Group, York, PA
Associate Appraiser
Associate Appraiser with regional cornrnercia1(mdustrial appraisal company
with broad regional experience. Specialization in income producing
propenies, panicularly distressed (REO) propenies, shopping centers,
mobile home parks, office buildings, and larger apartment cornrnunities with
values ranging from $3 to $22 million. Responsible for appraisals of existing
and proposed outlet shopping centers with over 520,000 square feet of
leasable area.
1986 to 1989 Consolidated Capital, Atlanta, GA
Asset Manager and Staff Appraiser
Asset manager, responsible for assisting the portfolio manager by
representing the owner's interests in two public funds controlling 4,590
apanment units and 354,082 square feet of office space with a total value in
excess of $200 million, Responsible for preliminary budget approval,
allocation of capital improvement dollars, assisting in negotiations regarding
propeny financing, and resolving ownership problems. Monitored
management performance,
As appraiser/analyst, studied and analyzed proposed investments of
syndication subsidiary, Consolidated Capital, and appraised new and existing
loan collateral. lnvesttnent expertise included multifamily and office.
Traveled extensively, with broad national exposure.
EDUCATION: Bachelor of Ans Degree
University of Delaware, Newark, DE
CERTIFICATION: PA State Gen'l Certification #GA.OOO731-L
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates. Inc.
~
PARTIAL CLl~NT LIST
"
l'oqJOralL'
Uantu
ALCOA
Allegheny Generall/lIspil,",
Arncril:>l11 C:.lpil;l) Resource
Ilell Allanlle
Carey, Bnlll1baugh. SlarnMI1. 1'11I1!Jp~ & As'w\.'.
Chrysler Corporafion
Consolidaled Coal Company
Crossgah:s. Inc.
Dellwood Corpor:ltion
Elias Drothers
Exxon Corpor:ltion
Greyhonnd
J. J. Gnmberg Company
Gusline Cnmpany
H. J. Heinz Corr.pany
Heller Financial
Hoss's Steak & Sea Honse
King's Conntry Shop pes
Legg Mason Real Estate Sl.:cviccs
^,Iay Comp;1I1Y
Ao-Iarriott Corporation
McDonald's Corporation
Mobil Oil Corporation
Nation;]1 Dc.:velopmcm Corporation
PNS Realty Associates
Regionallndnstrial Development Corp.
Sun Oil Company
V.S.X.
\Vendy's ofGrcJtcr Pittsburgh. Inc.
\Vcsringhousl' Corporation
Z."mias Services. Inc.
BJnk of Amcrica
Bank of New York
Bank One
Dank Uniled of Te.,"s
Chenlleal Dank
CorcSt.1leS
Dollar Savings Dank
Fidelity Savings & Loan
First flome Savings & Loan
First Maryland MOllgage Corp.
Firsl National Dank & Trusl of Washington
Firsl South Savings & Loan
First Western Dank, N.A.
Johnstown Savings Bank
Mellon Bank. N.A.
Meridian Dank
National City Dank of Pennsylvania
Northside Deposil Bank
PNC Dank, N.A.
PNC Financial Corporation
Reeves Bank
S&TDank
Sun bell Savings
Three Rivers Bank
Washington Federal Savings & Loan Assoc.
Government
DaldwinlWhitehall School Districl
Departmenl of H.V.D.
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Home Loan Bank Board of Atlanta
Mnnicipality of Bethel Park
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Pittsburgh Parking Authotity
Resolution Trust Corporation
United States Department of the Jnlerior
United States Postal Service
Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh
Life_Compnnies/l!ensiOltFunds
Aid Association of Lutherans
AI/stale Insllrance Company
Amresco
American Express
Central Park Capital
Connecticut ~futmd Insurance Company
Equitable of Iowa
~lanulifc Finuncial
rvrctlit~ C:JpitaI FinJncial Corporation
Mutual of Omaha
Patrician Company
Pennsylv.ll1ia Sl~lte Employee Retirement Systems
Shenandoah Life
State Farm
I
I
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
r
; (,_.("~':",r:
-'7I.r'\y
~.
1:!
;{,
t'
r' .
", ,r,
~: , ~
'i.
.
:,'
f
'I
.Li
:
c,'.
c ..
L ;.
- ,
i...:...'.'
IN RE: OCTAGON ASSOCIATES,:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
Petitioner
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD
OF ASSESSMENT,
Respondent
NO. 98-6420 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ORDER
AND NOW, this "'l~ IL day of M.:! L\ ,1999. upon consideration of
the within Stipulation and Joint Motion for Agreed Order, it is Decreed and Ordered
that the total market value of the subject property as of the date applicable to this
proceeding is $1,110,000, and that the common level ratio applicable hereto is 6.8%.
The total assessment of the property for tax years beginning on and after January 1,
1999. and thereafter until changed as provided by law, shall be $75,480. The
Cumberland County Assessment Office shall allocate said total assessment between
land and improvements as provided by law, and by the procedures of the Cumberland
County Assessment Office. The Cumberland County Assessment Office shall promptly
notify the appropriate taxing bodies of the change in assessment.
,.
,~)
. .
.
'I'
,
By:
r..,:
" ~
I'
e:;
'"
C'-I ;.:
'.J
IN RE: OCTAGON ASSOCIATES,:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
Petitioner
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD
OF ASSESSMENT,
Respondent
NO. 98-6420 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STIPULATION AND JOINT MOTION FOR AGREED ORDER
'j
AND NOW, this ; r -, day of It!, 7 ' 1999, it is hereby agreed and
stipulated between Petitioner, (Appellant) Octagon Associates, by its attorney, David J.
Kaplan, Esquire; and Respondents, (Appellee), Cumberland County Board of
Assessment Appeals and Cumberland County, by its attorney, Stephen D. Tiley,
Esquire; as follows:
1. Petitioner filed a Petition for Assessment Appeal from the assessment
fixed by the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals by Assessment Appeal
dated November 18,1998. Thereafter, by Order of Court dated March 21,1999, the
case was continued generally. The parties informally agreed to continue that hearing
and have now settled this case.
2. The applicable year for which the above captioned assessment appeal
was filed is the calender year 1999.
3. The property which is the subject of this appeal is 23 parcels having
erected thereon 23 townhouses having Cumberland County Assessment Parcel
Numbers 42-24-0792-044 through and including 066 at the addresses on Nanroc
Drive set forth in paragraph one of Petitioner's Petition. The properties are situate in
Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
4. The parties stipulate that the total market value of the subject property as
Stipulation and Joint Motion lor Agreed Order
Page t 013
of the date the original petition to the Cumberland County Board of Assessment
Appeals was filed shall be fixed at $1,110,000.
5. The common level ratio applicable to this appeal for the 1999 tax year, as
certified by the State Tax Equalization Board on or before July 1, 1998, is 6.8%.
Applying the common level ratio to the total market value of the subject property results
in its lawful total assessment being $75,480. The common level ratio varies by more
than 15% from the Cumberland County predetermined ratio, which is 25% and
therefore the common level ratio is applicable to this appeal and the assessment shall
be fixed at the said $75,480.
6. The Cumberland County Assessor's Office shall allocate the total
assessment between land and improvements and the individual parcels as provided
by law and the procedures of the Cumberland County Assessment Office.
7. The new assessment shall be effective as of January 1, 1999, and will be
implemented for 1999 county and municipal real estate taxes and implemented for
1999-2000 school real estate taxes.
8. The Cumberland County Assessment Office shall promptly notify the
county and municipal taxin9 bodies of the change in assessment, and instruct the
taxing bodies to make any appropriate refunds.
9. Each party to this appeal shall bear its own costs.
10. The Court is requested to enter the proposed Order attached hereto.
11. The undersigned Attorneys each hereby warrants to the other and to the
parties and to the Court that he has reviewed this Settlement Stipulation with his client
or clients and that he has specifically been authorized to enter into this Settlement
Stipulation by his client or clients.
Stipulation and Joint Motion for Agreed Order
Page 2 of 3
Respectfully Submitted.
Date: k11l, I n 1
PETITIONER. Octagon Associates
/" ~- "")
By: I . _ ______
David J. a Ian. squire
Attorney for Peti loner
655 Third Avenue. 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10017
212681-6500
PA Supreme Court ID No. 69313
RESPONDENT, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
Date: /7:'1" <) //79
By:
h~ ;?~
--::2 .. /v 't' Cl ~. - ('" "
St8phe . Tiley, Esquire
Assistant Cumberland County Solicitor
Attorney for Respondent
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717 243-5838
j
~..
Stipulation and Joint Motion for Agreed Order
Page3of3
1
H
f:\~:
ft......
e~'"
r
!\
...,
IN TIlE COURT OF COM1\WN PLEAS OF.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE OCTAGON ASSO-. 'IATES.
No ')S-h.12o (,1\'11.
Appellal1t.
- against -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEAI.S,
A lellces.
Thc undcrsigncd hcrcby ceJ1ifics thaI a IIlIC and corrccl copy or Appellanl's AppmisaJ Rcport
in Ihc cl1lillcd aClion. QCJ"gQn .Associalcs v. Cljm!~c1i~!llt(j)l!'JtYJl(lard(lL~!;,~~mcnt.AI2lli@!J;.
No.98-6420 CIVIL, has bccn ,c,-,'cd upol1lhe following by way or ccnilicd mail. mailed on February
25. 1999:
Slephen D. Tiley. Esq.
Cumberlal1d County Board of Assessmcnl Appeals Solicilor
Asst. Cumberlal1d Counly Solicilor
5 Soulh Hal10ver Slreel
Carlisle. P A 17013
William E. Miller. Esq.
Miller & May
Solicilor, Upper Allen Towl1ship
600 North l2lh Slrecl
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Richard Snelbaker, Esq.
Solicitor. Mechanicsburg Area School Dislricl
44 Wesl Main Slreet
Mechanicsburg. P A 17055
1', (':'. ~~
By OvC-:::: /_ l: .
DA VID J. KAPLAN, . q.
Coul1sellor Appellants
OCTAGON ASSOCIATES
655 Third Avenue. 2211d 1'1001'
New York. New York 10017
(212) 681-6500
Pa. Supreme Court ID No. 69313
Dated: February 25. 1999
1l1JO-OX7
.
~
N
~
,
~
,
j
...
APPRAISAL OF REAL ESTATE
The Nanroc Townhouse Apartments
Nanroc Drive
Upper Allen Township
Cumberland County. PeMsylvania
~~
,4
PREPARED FOR
I;,~
1,4
-<:
.-
"
"
I
(_.~,
~ ,',
,C>
...,.';
'1
,,I
Octagon Associales
613 A Geneva Drive
Mechanicsburg, PeMsylvania 17055
J
I
"
.I:,l
,
:,J
:.')
'.-
',',.-'
'.~i
..'::)
"l,'
-'
.;:!
::.l
"I)
-.(
.r:-
May 4, 1998
98-6523
.,
,
~
,
,
~
j
d
'.~.
Ii"
:J
'J
~
J
:.J
1
OIl
Barone, Murtha, Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
Real Estate Appraisers. Consultants
Sll'phcn 1. Itlrune. ~1r\1
W.IIo.m K. MUrlha. MAl
Mark R. Shunbcrg. MAl
May 4, 1998
Mr. Krishaman Ramaswamy
Octagon Associates
613 A Geneva Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Dear Mr. Ramaswamy:
In response to your request and for the purpose of estimaling the market value, we have completed an
appraisal of the property located and known as:
The Nanroc Townhouse Apartments
Nanroc Drive
Upper Allen Township
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
This report, which constitutes a complete appraisal presented in a self-contained format, has been prepared
in accordance with the Code of Ethics of the Appraisal Institute, the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Praetice (USP AP) and Title XI of the Federal Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and
Enforcement Act (FIRREA). As a result of our investigations, we estimate the market value of the fee
simple interest in the subject property, in cash or financial terms equivalent to cash, as of May 4, 1998, to
be:
One Million One Hundred Ten Thousand ($1,110,000) Dollars
Respectfully SUbmil1edj _ /1
~C.~.
Kristi C. Smith /'f'J1!3
PA Certification GA-731-L
~1Z.14&
Mark R. Shonberg, MAl
PA Certification GA-67-L
Review Appraiser
l\IIRS:LF
4701 Baptist Road. Pittsburgh, PA 15227.412/881-6080. Fax 412/881-8040
53 North Duke Street. York, PA 17401 .717/843-1132 . Fax 717/843-1142
1102 Liberty Street. Erie, PA 16502.814/451-0172. Fax 814/451-0176
INTRODUCTION
=
=
~
a
a
m
I
I
I
I
I
II. &:op.erty.1dentifIcatioD-JID.dlIJstoricall!enp.ecliv.e
The Nanroc Townhouse Apartments is located along Nanroc Drive in Upper Allen Township, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania; this property is referenced in county records as the land and improvements associated
with parcels 42-24-0792-044, 045, 046, 047, 048, 049, 050, 051, 052, 053, 054, 055, 056, 057, 058, 059, 060,
061, 062, 063, 064, 065 and 066. Title is vested in the name of Octagon Associates by virtue deed dated
December 30, 1985, as recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book 31-R, Page 8, for a consideration of
SI,OOO,OOO. To our knowledge the property has not changed ownership within the last three years, nor is
it presently listed, optioned or under agreement of sale.
III. &:operty Righls Appraised' Fee Simple'
Fee simple estate is defmed as absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only
to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and
escheat.
IV. Purpose of the Appraisal
The purpose of the appraisal is 10 estimate the current market value of the Fee Simple interest in the subject
properly. It is our understanding that this appraisal is to be used to assist in setting a fair assessment based
on market value.
V. SJ:Ope of the Appraisal
The scope of work completed in developing the value estimate included the following:
. A personal inspection of the subject property.
. An examination of economic and demographic factors on both local and regional bases.
. A survey and analysis of market factors impacting the subject.
. A highest and best use analysis considering the subject property both vacant and as presently
improved.
. Development of valuation analyses considering the Cost, Income and Sales Comparison Approaches.
lIhc...AppmiC:::11 nfR~l Fctale, Tenth Edition; Appraisal Institute, 875 Nonh Michigan Avenue, Chicago,lIIinois 60611.1980;
1992.
2
Barone. Murtha, Shonberg & Associates. Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
a
u
u
u
~
u
U
J
ill
L.'ITRODUCTlON
VI. Marke~a1ueJ)efined'
The most probable price which a property should bring in the competitive and open market under all
conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming
the price is not 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:
a. Buyer and seller are typically motivated.
b. Both parties are well informed or well advised and each acting in what they consider their own best
interest.
c. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.
d. Payment is made in terms of cash in U. S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable
thereto; and
e. The price represents a normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative
financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.
VII. Market Trends and RxpMllre Period
The primary factors which effect apartment values are occupancy and rental rates. In terms of occupancy,
the greater Harrisburg region has maintained its strength, due in part to the strong employment base which
has resulted in the lowest unemployment rate in the state. Managers at the properties most competitive to
the subject report current occupancy rates approaching 100%. With regard to rental rates, increases have
typically been in the vicinity of 2% to 4% per annum for the last several years. At present, the demand for
- modern apartment units in the area is good, occupancy rates remain high and rents are moderately increasing.
We anticipate no significant deviation from these trends in the near future.
With regard to exposure period, we note that apartments are presently the investment property of choice.
The greatest demand is for complexes with greater than 150 units and less than 10-years old, yet this product
is becoming increasingly scarce. As a result, some larger investors have begun to consider older apartment
properties as well. This notwithstanding, the most likely purchaser for the subject properly is a regional
investment group. Given the regional nature of a potential marketing effort, the desirability of the property
2.ritle Xl, Fedml Financiallnstiturions Reform. Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), August 23, 1990, Section
564.4, Appraisal Standards.
3
Barone, Murtha. Shan berg & Associates. Inc.
~.
~
~
~
=
=
~
=
~
~.
~
~
u
u
o
INTRODUCTION
type, the strength of the local market and the availability of financing, we estimate an exposure period of six
months.
VIII. GeIlerall.lmltlng..Conditions
This appraisal report has been made subject to the following general limiting conditions:
. The opinion of value expressed in the leller of transmittal is the result of and subject to the data and
conditions described in detail in the accompanying report.
. No fractional part of this appraisal is to be used in conjunction with another appraisal. Such use
renders it invalid.
. This report, or a copy thereof, may be transmitted to a third person or legal entity only in its entirety.
. Disclosure of the contents of this report is governed by the By-Laws and Regulations of The
Appraisal Institute. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions
as to value, the identity of the appraisers or the firm with which they are connected) shall be .
disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media without
the prior written consent and approval of the appraisers.
.
Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material, which mayor may not
be present on the property, was not observed by the appraiser. The appraiser has no knowledge of
the existence of such materials on or in the property. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to
detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam
insulation, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the properly. The value
estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that
would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such condition, or for any
expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an
expert in this field, if desired.
.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (0 ADA") became effective January 26, 1992. I (we) have not
made a specific compliance survey and analysis of this property to determine whether or not it is in
conformity with the various detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance
survey of the property, together with a detailed analysis of the requirements of the ADA, could
reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the act. If so,
this fact could have a negative effect upon the value ofthe property. Since I (we) have no direct
evidence relating to this issue, I (we) did not consider possible noncompliance with the requirements
of ADA in estimating the value of the property.
4
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates. Inc.
.
I
.
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTRODUCTION
IX. General Assumptions
This appraisal report has been made subject to the following general assumptions:
. No responsibility has been assumed for the legal description or legal mailers. Title to the property
was assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated.
. The property has been appraised free and clear of any and all liens or encumbrances unless otherwise
stated.
. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed.
. Information furnished by others is believed to be reliable; however, no warranty is given for its
accuracy.
. All engineering data were assumed to be correct. Plot plans and exhibits in this report have been
included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property.
. It was assumed that there are not hidden or unapparent conditions of the property. subsoil or
structures which would render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such
conditions or for engineering which maybe required to discover them.
. II was assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, slale and local environmental
regulations and laws unless a noncompliance is stated, defmed and considered in the appraisal
report.
. It was assumed that all licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents or other legislative or
administrative authority required by any local, state or national government or private utility or
organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate
contained in this report is based.
. It was assumed that the utilization of the land and/or improvements is within the boundaries or
property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted
in this report.
5
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates. Inc.
"
~
"
n
ft
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTRODUCTION
X. CertlficatloD
We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief...
. the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
. the reported analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and
limiting conditions, and are my 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 respect to 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.
. our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in
conformity with the standards and reporting requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and
Standards of Professional Practice of The Appraisal Institute and with the Uniform Standards of
Professional Practice, including the competency provision
. the use of this report is subject to the requirements of The Appraisal Institute relating to review by
its duly authorized representatives.
. as of the date of this report, Mark R. Shonberg has completed the requirements of the continuing
education program of The Appraisal Instilule.
. Kristi C. Smith has made a personal inspection of the properly that is the subject of this report.
· no one other than the undersigned provided significant professional assistance to the persons signing
this report.
. this appraisal assignment was not based on a requested value, a minimum value, or approval of a
loan.
~4-c~J~
Kristi C. Smith 411<35
PA Certification GA-731-L' H
~:fbe/i~
PA Certification GA-07-L l/
Review Appraiser
6
Barone, Murtha, Shan berg & Associates, Inc.
/
..
C.rtonvdht ,/'
....... #,,'
,~ ,./
r:
~
0'"
,;;\<I-'Y
~
.t.
I
I
~
~
~.....
"
"
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
a
I
I
I
AREA DATA
I. Introduction
Real estale values are impacted by local and regional economics. The following discussion presents the
germane features under the headings of Geographic Location, Inf(.lstructure, Physical and Land Use
Characteristics, Population Trends, Income Levels, and Employment and Govemmenlal Influences.
II. Geographil:..Localion
The subject property is located in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Cumberland County is part of the
Harrisburg MSA, which is comprised of Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, and Perry counties. This region
is situated between Philadelphia to the east and PillSburgh to the west. Distances to the nearest metropolitan
areas are as follows:
Dln.nets to Major Metropolitan Arn.J
MttroArel
DistInct to Sub ed
Baltimore. MD
7Smiles
Philadelphia, PA
101 miles
Washington, D. C.
106 mites
New York. NY
Pittsbu h. PA
169 miles
202milcs
As a result of the central location and well developed transportation infrastructure, Harrisburg is a major
distribution center for the northeast.
-III. Infrastnlctllre
Infrastructure considerations primarily relate to transportation and utility systems. First addressing
transportation, roadways are perhaps the most important aspect. Primary routes within the area are
identified as follows:
Major Rud".y.
North..soUlh
E....W...
fnctTSlate83
Pennsylvania Turnpike
U.S. Raule 322
fnterstalc 81
U.S. Route IS
U.S. Route II
7
Barone. Murtha, Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
I
I
"
"
N
n
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
y
I
I
I
I
AREA DATA
Other aspects of the transportation system, such as air. rail, and, to a lesser degree bus alternatives, are also
important.
Tnmporbtlon PruvW,n
TrMI rt :\Iod~
Pro\'ldfr
AiIJlOlU
Carli,le. Capilli City, and Uarrisburg
Railways
-
Buslincs
ound
The area is served by major rail lines and numerous motor carriers. The extensive freight yards at Enola have
a cum:nt daily traffic ofnearly 4,000 cars and is reportedly the second largest freight yard in the nation. The
transportation infrastructure is well developed and significantly enhances the region's desirability.
With regard to utility systems, these too are well developed with all public utilities available to most parts of
the county. Further, there are no significant capacity issues at time. Overall, the transportation and utility
infrastructure is adequate to support additional development.
IV. Land Use Distribution and Pllysical Characteristics
Proportionate land uses within the county are as follows:
Proportionate Land U~umberland County
i 39.2" I
o Induetrlal
. Reeldentlal
. Commercial
. Undeveloped
8
Barone. Munha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
AREA DATA
The regional terraio IS predominantly level to genlly rolling, although small portions of the area do have
steep terrain. Overall, topography has not presented significant difficulties to development.
V. fopllJatiolL..T.l:ends
The following table presents comparative population figures from the 1980 and 1990 Census for the county,
state and nation, as well as the most recent estimates available.
1910
1990
195.257
11.881.643
248.718.291
Chanlf
199$ ElUmaln
County
Stale
179.625
11.866.728
226.546.805
8.71>-/.
205.9l9
12.071,842
268.765000
0.13%
Nation
9.79'1.
Cumberland County exhibited significant growth through the 1980's and, based on the 1995 estimate,
continues to post strong gains.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VI. Income I.enls
Comparative income levels for the county and state are presented as follows:
Income C.teaory Cumbul.nd County Pennsylnnla Couaty:Slate Comparboa
<519.999 23.6% 33.95% -43.86%
520.000-$29.999 17.9% 17.50% 2.23%
530.000-$39.999 17.3% 15.20% 12.14%
$40.000-149.999 14.3% 11.40% 20.28%
$50.000-$74.999 17.8% 14.10% 20.79%
>$75.000 9.2% 7.90% 14.13%
Median Household Income 534.493 529.069 24.42%
The data presented above suggests a county affluence level above that of the state as a whole.
9
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates. Inc.
I
I
AREA DATA
N
VII. EmplQyment
Historical unemployment levels are presented as follows:
I
Proportlonat. Employment. Cumb.rland County
i 7.a, ; 114.2t. ~
~.~
I.al 1'02" I
30.2"
1..0_1... ",,"ual Av....... (%)
I
8.00
.., 00 -
e DO
e DO
4,00
3,00
" DO
1 DO
ODD
180800 1eD1
1S1D2 1993 1994 ,gDe "Ioae
I
I
I
D Cumberland _ PennaVlva"l.
_ United aUal..
I
These strong employment figures are attributed to a diverse job distributioo and the stabilizing influence ofboth
state and federal jobs. The following charts present a comparison between county and state employmeot
distributioo:
.,
I
-
DA__
. CCWlIl'UcJcn
. .............
. ~1I~ommr.ncallcn/UlIIllI..
. RltIIIlndWhdhlllTrlde
. flnlncl."IUIIICI&nclRtlIEIlIII
. ......ClI
o AeJlCUlnl'Alr*tg
. CCInI&o\lcllan
. MIM.ctmg
. Ttanap~oNComlllftca.CIIIIU"n
. R.tIIIlndWlloll ThldI
. Fln8nc', Mlhncl tnd A.. EItrofl
. 8iMus
;';
.~~,
I
',;
::r
I
I
I
I
Harrisburg is the state capital and, as such, government jobs 00 the state level are a major economic factor.
In additioo to the thousands of jobs which are related directly to the state government, the area also benefits
as a center for state conventions, exhibitions, and headquarters for numerous state associations and private
:~.;
,~
;-~,
1';:
f~
I
,
10
I
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
Neighborhood Map
.._h i ~
. .,~
If...
. .
.' '
.' .
. .
- .
.
ft
"
"
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
W
y
g
u
u
AREA DATA
businesses with government affiliations. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry.
approximately 67,700 residents of the Harrisburg.Carlisle-Lebanon MSA are employed by some level of
government; Pennsylvania state employees make-up the largest group with 32,100.
With three major military installations in the area the federal government also provides thousands of jobs
to residents of Central Pennsylvania. The installations are Carlisle Barracks in Hamden Township, Ships
Parts Control Center in Hamden Township and Defense Distribution Depot Susquehanna Pennsylvania
(DDSP) near New Cumberland. A breakdown of the military installations and their civilian work force is
as follows:
Defense Distribution Depot Susquehanna, PA:
Ship Parts Control Center:
Carlisle Barracks:
3,600
6,800
601 Full Time
359 Part Time
While local, state and federal employees play an important role in the area's economy, combined they make
up less than 20% of the area work force. A number of largc corporations also have a presence in the area.
Principal employers in the region are listed as follows:
Employer
Employer
AMP Corporation
Gianc Food Stores
Pennsylvania State Government
United States Government
Hershey Foods Corporation
Harrisburz Polyclinic
HarriJbura Hospital
Pennsylvania Blue Shield
Com. or PA. Penn State Univmi
Hm:o Inttmational
Overall, the strong employment profile is a significant benefit to the regional economy.
VIII. Neighhorhood Analysis
The subject property is located within a strong residential neighborhood in Upper Allen Township, just
southeast of Mechanicsburg and west of Shiremanstown. The transportation networks serving the
neighborhood are extensive, including the Pennsylvania Turnpike (I mile south), U.S. Route 15 (lI, mile
south), Wesley Drive (y, mile east), and Simpson Ferry and Trindlc Roads (I mile north).
II
Barone. Murtha, Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
"
~
,
AREA DATA
~
, I
I~
I!
Population within the municipality has been growing at a rate grcater than the county average, increasing
from 10,533 to 13,347 during the last ccnsus period, an increase of 26.72%.
M
~
i j
Neighboring uses consist of a signific3llt number of condominium properties including Sunguild U. Brighton
Place, and Village of Liberty Square. Commercial uses include a Healthsouth facility along Lancaster
Boulevard and an office building Wilson Road. Extensive retail and commercial areas are within close
driving distance. These facilities offer significant support services and employment opportunities, thus
enhancing the desirability of the area. The neighborhood enhances the desirability of the subject property.
I~
II
VIII. Summa'1' and Conclusions
The subject neighborhood is characterized by a blend of residential, office and commercial land uses.
Adjoining and nearby properties include single family areas, with retail and cornmercial areas located in
close proximity. These uses are complimentary to the subject use. The transportation system is well.
integrated with state and interstate highways, passenger and freight rail service, air lrdllSpOrtation, and public
transportation. The population has been increasing at a significantly faster rate than the state as a whole.
Home values are predominantly above S 100,000 and have been gaining value in terms of real dollars. The
population has grown and income has kept pace with inflation. Income levels are middle to upper middle
with over 40% of the population having incomes over $40,000 and nearly 25% of the population with
incomes over S50,OOO. Employment has consistently been higher than the state. Overall trends indicate a
growing population and increasing real estate values strongly influenced by a diverse economic base.
I,.
!l
,~
H
~~
II
t....~
pi
h~
~
W
[<1
~
~
~
:j
IIll
12
;1
IlI1
Barone. Murtha, Shan berg & Associates. Inc.
N
M
PROPERTY DATA
..
d
I.
SltltDescdptlOD
Phy~ieal rhnrnct~ri~tie~
Aceording to County records, the subject parcel contains a gross land area of 124,146 square feet, or 2.85
aeres, of which nearly all is usable. The overall site (which is comprised of multiple parcels) is irregular in
shape and the topography is generally level.
III
11
Acee.. and Vi.ibili.t)!
The subject property is subdivided into 23 parcels which have a combined 1,145 linear feet of frontage along
Nanroc Drive and additional frontage along intemal streets. The property has two entrances, neither of
which is signalized. Visibility is limited.
Ulilitie.
Public utility services available to the site are as follows:
Public UllIIly Provider Connected to SUe
Natural Gas Columbia Gas No
Electricity Pennsylvania Power &. Light Ves
Sewerage Municipal Ves
W.'" Pennsylvania American Water Yes
Sit~ Tmprnvement.s
Site improvements include private two-car driveways, concrete walks, curbing, and good quality mature trees
and landscaping.
Flood R'~7~rci
According to the Upper Allen Township Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 420372-0005C
(dated February 15, 1980), the subject is within a Zone C, an area of minimal flood hazard.
Zoning
The subject site is situated within (UR) Urban Residential district. Multiple family dwellings are a permitted
use within this district.
13
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates. Inc.
~
~
q
PROPERTY DATA
~
III
I
EnYironmcntaUSubsurfacc-Conditions
An evaluation of thc subsurface conditions is bcyond the SCope of this report. Similarly, we make no
determination as to the absence or presence of any cnvironmental hazard. It should be noted that the value
conclusions reported herein assume that no adverse conditions exist.
~
Easement.tFncroachmcnts
The site is subject to street and utility easements of record. Other than those specifically listcd, we are not
aware of any easements, restrictions, encumbrances, leases, reservations, covenants, contracts, special
assessments, ordinances or partial interests that would adversely affect value. We did not complete a title
search or survey of the property and assume no responsibility for matters pertaining to title or ownership.
We recommcnd thaI the client have such studies completed.
.,
i 4
c
=
=
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II. ImproyemeatD.emipt1on
The subject improvements were built in the early 1980's. The Nanroc Townhouse Apartments is comprised
of four buildings containing 10 patio units with basements and 13 similar units without basements.
According to a measurement of each unit type, the buildings contain a rentable area of 80,335 square feet;
these measurements exclude the basement space which contains storage and washer-dryer hook-ups. The
specific unit types are detailed as follows:
UnllType
Two Bedroom-l.oS BathIBsmt
Number of Units
Vnl.S/u
R.n..bl. Ana (SF)
12,470
16.601
29071
10
1.247
1.277
14
Two Bedroom-1.5 B.lh
13
2J
TotJIllAvera e
The following table presents the unit mix within each individual building:
Bulldlnc Number
20R-PaUo Dsmt
lBR-PIU.
NDB.mt
Total VI'"
/055-/073 (odd)
/075-1099 (odd)
10
o
10
o
13
10
13
2J
Total
13
The individual unit layouts are characterized as follows:
14
Barone. Murtha, Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
PROPERTY DATA
2 DR P.t1o...11J1lts~ascmenllNolI-BasemclIl The units are all single story with a private entrance to a
foyer and kitchen area. The kitchen has a pass. through bar to a dining area. The living room is equipped
with a fireplace and triple glass doors leading to a garden area. The bathroom is "HollYWood-style" with a
central bathtub and two private commode and sink areas located at either end. One end is accessed from the
hall and the other end is accessed from the master bedroom. The units which have a full basement saerlfice
some first floor living area for the basement stairs. The lmits with basements have washer-dryer connections
in the basement. The other units have washer.dryer cOMections on the main level. The basement of the
unit inspected was damp and showed evidence of water seepage from the foundation.
Klt~h.n. Kitchens have included wood/Formica bases and wall cabinets and a Formiea counter with
a stainless steel sink. Appliances include a refrigerator, electric range/oven, a range hood/exhaust fan, a
dishwasher, and a garbage disposal. The complement of appliances is the same in every unit.
I1l!
14
.Baths
bath.
A single bowl vanity, a fiberglass tub unit and a porcelain commode can be found in each
Based on a personal inspection of the subject property and review of all available architectural data, general
construction features are noted as follows:
Foundation: The structure has a concrete block foundation.
Exterior Walls: The subject property has T-lll wood siding. Some deferred maintenance was observed
in the exterior walls, some of which required painting and replacement shutters.
Floor Structure: The floor is a concrete slab.
Roof System: The roofs are flat rubber Carlisle roofs. Condition is unknown.
Windows:
The patio units have multi-pane glass doors leading to a courtyard area.
H.V.A.C.:
The patio units each have an electric heat pump.
Interior Finish: Flooring is a combination of wall-to-wall carpeting or vinyl floor covering. Walls and
ceilings are painted drywall. Light fixtures include primarily incandescent lights with and
some fluorescent lighting.
The design and layout of the improvements are functionally adequate, the construction quality is fair to
average and the condition is average with the following notations. The units feature T-III exterior siding,
15
Barone. Murtha, Shonberg & Associates. Inc.
.1.
....... :\0: .-
. . ,,,,.~.,..
'~":":~;" ":
'\." . '. . ',1
. ,..~,,:...~;s; ,;~~' ~
. \ ,Jo'~' ..
. '\.....
.. I
.,
0<)
'So
~
t"
~
~
I-
~
1
.
...
, ....~ '~'.
'. .
. .~. ~'. I ':~'.'~ '. ~ .
~ ... -'. \ ',."
" N" \;. ....
..~.:....\~
~ ,..
. ,',' .
.' \ .' ~~'.' .
, . -,'
'. ,
'. . ,,':\",
..
~
.~
~
1':
~
.
.' .
.....i~ f.~
...
. ,
~.~ '\1
,..) ~
\
?
1
. "
.,
~.
"
. ......:
...
.J
n
.'
...
.'.
'1
....
]
1
~
fr....
J:
.'
...-::/(<!'
/..IS> p
.. ",;'\"'-r ~
~e;\)~. <:?,~
IJ'.
ll'
, 'Q"-\'
... '<7~
.'
[1
~
..' ...4
~ <r\
ot'.
,.~
. t
a
.~
f:~
(',"1
~
[
.. ..
.r"":t:""
",
_'_~"'O"or'f_'''1
( Tax Map Location ]
:-:"'l
f"
. .
~
II!
iii
IilI
""
I
IiI1I
II
""
,I
'"
!i
ill
hi
1"'1
r,
PROPERTY DATA
III. Tu.-AJ1d.AueumentDlIta
CWIcntAsscssmcnl
PUtt' Lind "'"mmrnr Bulldlnl AUfSlm,nr TOI.' AUHlm,nl Mlrk.. V'lu.1il 6.1% CLR
44 S740 55.9l0 S6.670 S98,088
4S Sl90 SS.9l0 S6.320 S92.941
46 Sl90 SS.9l0 S6.320 S92.941
47 SSlO SS.9l0 S6.46O S9S.ooo
48 S7JO SS,9l0 S6.6ro S97.941
49 Sl80 $$,9l0 S6.310 S92.794
SO Sl80 SS.9l0 56.310 S92.794
$I SS20 SS.9l0 56.4S0 S94.SSl
S2 S520 5S.9l0 S6,450 S94,SSl
Sl $520 5S,9l0 S6.450 S94,853
S4 5920 $5.9l0 56,8S0 5100.7lS
$5 Sl80 $5.9l0 56.310 S92.794
56 $l80 $$,930 $6.310 $92,794
S7 $380 $5,9l0 S6.310 $92.794
58 S510 $5,9l0 S6.440 S94.706
59 5510 55.930 S6.440 $94,706
60 SS90 $5.9l0 $6.520 S95.882
61 S810 SS.930 S6.740 S99,1I8
62 $460 SS.930 S6J90 $93,971
6l $460 SS,930 S6.390 S93.971
64 $340 $5.930 S6.270 S92.206
6S S340 SS.9l0 56.270 S92.206
66 S590 $5.930 S6.520 $95.882
Toral $11.770 SIJ6J90 $148.160 S2.I7U14
17
Barone. Munha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
PROPERTY DATA
III
I Mlllllf R.flr Curnnl Aurumtal
.,
Tulnl Authorlly land Bulldlns L..d B,lIdlll Rtal E.lIf. Tun
II! Uppc1' All"" Twp. O.oolloo O.oolloo SII,770 S1l60390 SSII.'6
d
School District 0.1l8ooo 0.1l8ooo SII,770 SIl60390 S20,446.08
Cumberland County 0.027500 0.021500 SII,770 SIl60390 $4,074.40
Tolll 0.169000 0.169000 SII,770 SI36039O S2!1.039.04
Real estate taxes are impacted by millage rates and property assessment; the figures presented above reflect
those in effect for the current tax year. No significant change is anticipated in the near term.
The assessment for The Nanroc Townhouse Apartments are S148,160 with an implied market value of
S2,l78,824, a value which is well above the value conclusion of this report. Further, the existing assessment
represents 13.47% of market value, which is substantially at odds with other facilities in the area.
Ta.'I: ("nmpD.rD.hh~c
Sale Market Value Asussmfnt AssaImeat: Price Ratio Valli AmuIl...UUalt
'1 Subject Sl,loo,ooo 5148,160 13.47% 23 $6,442
tc~ Sale 4 $$,000.000 S34',600 6.9IY. 96 53,600
Sale 8 $3.800,000 S2'9.OOO 6.82% 90 52,878
Sale 9 $4.000.000 S346,$70 8.66% 108 53.209
_ This data suggests that the assessment is inconsistent with county policy.
18
Barone, Murtha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
WGlIEST.AND_BES'LUSE
I. Introducl1on
The Appraisal Institute defines Highest and Best Use as follows:
~
~
~
~
~
Tbe reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an Improved property, wbleh Is
physically possible, appropriately supported, Onanclally feasible, and that results In the highest
value.
Implied in these definitions is that the determination of highest and best use takes into account the
contribution of a specific use to the community and community development goals as well as the benefits
of that use to individual property owners. Hence, in certain situations the highest and best use of land may
be for parks, greenbelts, preservation, conservation, wildlife habitats, and the like.
In estimating Highest and Best Use, there are four primary stages of analysis:
Legallty:
Legality addresses the permitted uses under zoning, title or other land use restrictions.
Adaptability: Adaptability considers appropriate uses from the standpoint of physical constraints and the
influence of adjacent and nearby land uses.
Feasibility: Feasibility tests the economic viability of potential uses.
Producllvity: Productivity address the question of which legal, adaptable and feasible use results in the
greatest benefit.
The highest and best use of the land, ifvacant and available for use, may be different from the highest and
_ best use of the improved properly. To render a sound estimate of highest and best 1L'lC, the appraiser, in all
cases, must consider the location and physical characteristics of the subject site, condition, and probable
economic life of any existing improvements, character of the neighborhood, and zoning, in light of the
basic economic principles of real property valuation.
II. Legality of Use
The subject site is within a UR Urban Residential district; as excerpted from the municipal zoning code, the
primary permitted uses within this district are as follows:
19
Barone. Murtha, Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
.
IIICllESTANDBESTUSE
.
jl
, '
Prima 'trmlrttd and Condl.lonll Viti
ill
~i
Addulonl.l detached d"",C'lhnIJ Apanmcnl (max, densiry 12 d.uJacre)
Churth Community (aciliay
Crop farmen. Cultural tK'iliry
Day nurIn)' (lCilitylhome Fire stalion
Golt course Greenhouse
HOIpiral
Private reae.lion.1 (Jciliry
Priv.teclub
Public rmnlion.11 (Iciliry
Public buiJdinl
Rcstauranl
School
Townhouse (12 d.uJacre
Sinale ramily dwelling
Si s
III, Adaptahlllty ofll.e
The site characteristics do not present unusual challenges to development and the surrounding land uses are
complementary to residential purposes. We do note, however, that the size of the site (2.85 acres) suggests
multiple family dwellings. This conclusion results from the observation that most of the legal uses would
result in under-utilization of the site, while the at least one use, golf course could not be undertaken due to
inadequate land. We conclude that the subject site is most adaptable to the development of multiple family
residences, either garden or townhouse units.
Q
C
a
g
I
I
I
IV, Feadhillty oflTse
Feasibility is a function of demand, which in turn may be measured through achievable sale, rent and
occupancy levels. Ultimately, the question is whether or not demand is adequate to assure sale or rent levels
that warrant anticipated construction costs. A review of the market suggests that rent levels are just now
reaching the point where new development is again feasible for apartment development, however we also
note that there have been a number of successful townhouse developments in the area. Either of these uses
would be feasible.
V. Highest and Best Hse (l\1arlmlll Produ.tivitr), As Va.ant
Reviewing the discussion presented above, we conclude that multiple family residential development is
consistent with the highest and best use of the subject site. This would most likely take the form of
townhouses or condominiums that would be offered for sale.
20
Barone, Murtha, Shan berg & Associates, Inc.
'n
,
~
~
WGllESI.M/D-BEST-USE
.,
H
VI. Wghc.sUnd.Bc.sUlse..(Mnlm81 ProductiYlty)LA,,-Imprond
The subject property has been opera led as a rental communily for roughly 15 years. According to the
manager, moderate rent increases have been achieved and occupancy, on the day of inspection, was 100010
with a lengthy waiting list. Nanroc Apartments is comprised of 23 patio units on individual parcels.
Potential uses include continued operation as rental units, a sell-out to individual owners and demolition.
With regard to potential sell-out, the following observations are noted:
. The units feature T-II! exterior siding, a relatively undesirable feature, and they possess design
qualities which are dated and unsightly when compared to surrounding condominium properties.
· The floor plan includes no master bathroom, and the basements (oflbe 10 units which have thern)
are damp.
These observations suggest that marketing these units for sale would be quite difficult. Knowing of no
alternative use that would warrant demolition of the improvements, we conclude that the maximally
productive use is for continued operation as rental units. .
o
c
C
D
'g
I
-
I
II
21
Barone. Murtha, Shan berg & Associates, Inc.
~
:J
o
o
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
, ,
~
..
APPRAlSALAIETHODOLOGY
I. Introduction
There are three classical approaches to real estate valuation, ollen referred to as Income Capitalization,
Direct Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches. Property characteristics, as well as data availability,
generally dictates which approaches are most germane to a particular valuation assignment; income
producing properties lend themselves most readily to the Income Capitalization Approach, while for owner
occupied properties the Direct Sales Comparison Approach is ollen a better indicator. The Cost Approach
may be used effectively in either situation, however as the various aspects of accrued depreciation become
more pronounced, the value indication offered by this technique becomes more subjective. Each of these
valuation methods depends on the availability of an adequate amount of market data.
In the Cost Approach the depreciated value of the improvements is added to the estimated land value.
Considering the subjectivity involved with estimating depreciation, this approach is most useful when
applied to newly ~',"slructed or newly renovated properties.
In the Income Approach the potential revenues, vacancy (and credit loss) and operating expenses are all
estimated in order to anive at a net income projection. This income projection is then translated to a value
indication through either direct or yield capitalization methods. This is most appropriate for income
Producing properties, however it can also be used for owner-occupied properties based on an OCCupancy cost
scenario.
In the Sales Comparison Approach recently sold properties are examined on the basis of either physical or
financial characteristics and then compared to the subject properly. This can be used effectively for most
property types, so long as there is an adequate amount of data.
II. Methodology Cnnrlll.lon
Given the characteristics of the subject property, it is appropriate to develop the Income and Sales
Comparison Approaches to Value. Based on the age of the property and the manner in which the market
views income prOducing properties, the Cost Approach, while considered, has not been developed.
22
Barone. Murtha, Shan berg & Associates, Inc.
c
n
n
~
lNCOMEAPllOACHTO_YALUE
I, IotrodlldioJl
The underlying premise of the Income Approach is that value is the present worth of future benefits arising
from ownership. While these benefits can be tangible or intangible, they are typically limited to a forecast
of net income potential. Net income is then translated into an indication of value by employing an applicable
capitalization technique. Assuming that one accurately forecasts net income potential and employs a proper
capitalization technique (one that reflects investors' motivations), the resulting value indication represents
the price a knowledgeable purchaser would pay for the ownership rights.
D. Gro..lneome Pntentlal
The initial step in the Income Approach is the estimation of potential gross income. The following is a
summary of the existing rent levels from the rent roll dated February 21, 1998. A complete rent roll is
included in the Exhibits section of the report.
2BRll.S BA wlbasement
2BRlI.S BA no basement
Rent Roll Range
S630
S575-S600
Weighted AVeJ"Ige
S630
S598
A.Iei,,!: Ret1t
S630
$600
On the armiversary of each lease the rental rate is increased to current market levels. With the exception of
one unit, every apartment is at current asking rents. To ascertain the market orientation of the subject rents
we surveyed four comparable properties located within the subject neighborhood. The results and
comparative analysis are presented in the following tables:
c
~
~
U
10
IU
IU
23
Barone, Murtha, Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
n
~
"
Ij
=
~
u
u
u
u
INCOME.A1'PROACH.'IO_YALUE
Pallo_Uniu
ComparlUnll,m I SubJ.c1 Undhlm Court I Olrard Manor I Willey Park I Dtlbroolc Manor
Grnenl Chlfact,rbllcs
Location Good Simel.r Similar Similar Sirmlar
Architc<:ture Garden Similar Similar Similar Similar
Year Built 1981 1987 197J 1967/9 1969
Condition Fair Superior 20 Superior 20 Supmor 20 Superior 20
Unit Siu (SF) 1,262 850 80 78J 95 935 65 890 75
No. of Bedrooms Two Two Two Two Two
No. of Sa"" 1.5 One S One 5 I.S One 5
Stor2lc Cagc Similar Similar Similar Similar
Equipment
Air Conditioning Yes Similar Similar Similar Similar
Ran8e Ve. Similar Similar Similar Similar
Rl:fri8eralor Ve. Similar Similar Similar Similar
Dishwasher Yes Similar Similar Similar Similar
Microwave No Similar Similar Similar Similar
Di.posal Ve. Similar Similar Similar Similar
WUhcrlDrycr Hook.ups InUnic 5 In Unit 5 InUnic 5 In Unit 5
Window Blinds Similar Similar Similar Similar
- Services aad Amenlda
Hea, Tenant Tenlnt Tenant TenanE Tenant
Electric: Tenant Tenant Tenant Tenant Tenant
Waler Tenanf Tenant Owner 10 Owner 10 Owner 10
Sewer.lBc Tenant Owner 5 Owner 5 Owner 5 Owner 5
Amenities Various Inferior 10 Inferior 5 Inferior 5 Inferior S
Rent Per Month NA 5625 565 5570 565 5640 530 5585 $45
Adlusted Rent 5656 5690 5635 5670 S630
24
,
,
r-~{
Barone. Murtha, Shonberg & Associates. Inc.
H~
~
\
"'I
, I
"'\
II
..,
Id
tllll,
I'.
~
,j
I
""r:;..,;r........
iNCOME Al'l'ROACnXO-YA!.UE
Qthl'1' Income
Each tenant pays as additional rent reimbursement of the water charge of S I 5.114 per unit, the actual amount
eharged to the landlord. This potential addition~1 income equals S364.32 (23 units x SI5.84).
111. YacantYJlld credltLoss
"" '" "" .r _,"", '" "j~' _"' - 1""""""" "" ,~,.- _6 ""Oi"
_'" "'...... 1%" B%. A _"" """" .,,%.......... -"'" rm""" -,'"
any potential credit loss. The effective gross income projection is summarized as followS:
potential Gross Income
S175,260
$4.312
S179,632
Other Income
iotal:
5.0%
(5[\ (82)
$\70,650
LesS Vacancy:
Effective Gross Income:
IV, Exp.ense5
A stabilized expense projection was made after review of the following data.
,-,," ','.'-
1. "'''',.,...''''..__ rm "',.. ,"'. ,....... ,,,,.1"""'" ............ ..;,',Iiii\~~
'''joa """" "" . j"" _'" "'- .." Sol_ r_ '" ~ . '. .
presentedfor The Nanroc Townhouse Apartments rej/ect a pro-ration based on the number ofll1ll'f.
': .:<::~,:',':,-(.:L/
~ """'" ""u......!" '" """"" .r""- -' (1REMl;' "'1"'(~'
InenmplP~.,,'n.p. b.nAty"<' Clw,,""hnnA1 b.r''''''''''ts. :......-:.'.:
3. Actual expense ellperiences (1997) of three similar apartment complexes.
"" ..bi'"",- ,-'" '" ,- .. '" ,,,,,,.,,,, ....,,.. """" ..........".
....."~;m;-' -' -"' ... "".-. _. ""' -..... """
.-q;':,,';;t
"..n. ...
26
Barone, Murtha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
-:'-!'~
',,";c'
n
n
~
m
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
INCOME APPROACH TO.VALUE
Administratiananll.\1anagcmcnt
Elptn.. Camp Rani' Camp Me.. I.R.I:.M. SUbl".I996 SubJ... '997
"EOI nil nil 10.20% 6.73% 8.67%
Per Unit S595.S857 S730 S716 S359 S459 t.
Per SF nil nil SO.75 SO.28 SO.l6 ',.
l
.
Administration charges include management fees, salaries of office persoMel paid directly by the owner,
office expenses, advertising and legal and audit charges. Management fees in the market range from 4% to
6% of effective gross income. It should be noted that in 1996 and 1997. the subject managementfee was
3.72% and 1.79%. skewing the totals for this expense category. Stabilizing the management fee at 5% of
effective gross income, this portion of the administrative expense is projected to be S8,533.
In 1997, other administrative costs were an additional 6.65% of effective gross income. This included office
expenses, advertising, payroll for a manager, professional fees. Stabilized administrative costs of 5% is
reasonable with a total administrative expense including management fees of 10%. This is consistent with
the data reported to IREM and results in a total management and administrative expense ofSI7,065 or SO.59
per square foot ~nd $742 per unit.
Qpernt;ng
Expenst Camp Rlnae Camp Mean I.R.E.M.
%EOI nil nil 10.20%
Per Unit S334-SS25 5431 $607
Fer SF nil nil SO.67
SubJ""996
NA
S.bJ"'l997
5.25%
$278
50.6'
NA
NA
The owner is responsible for sewer charges and trash removal. The subject expense is atypically low due
to the utility costs which are passed along to the tenant, such as the water expense. Considering that the
applicable utility providers are generally not requesting rate increases for the coming period, we project a
general stability in this expense category. This suggests a operations cost for the coming 12-month period
of S6,400, which equates to S278 per unit, $0.22 per square foot and 3.75% of effective gross income.
27
Barone, Murtha, Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
n
o
c
C
D
t
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INCOME Al'1>ROACHTO.Y ALVE
RcpairundMaintenancc
EI enl~ Com Rln e Com Mean I.R.E.M. Sub ftl 1996 Sub fd 1997
%EGI nI, nI, 9.50% 8.80% 7.31%
Per Unit 52370$435 5359 5102 5469 5387
PerSF nI, nl, SO.16 50.37 SO.31
:"
This expense category includes landscaping, snow removal. cleaning, general maintenance and repairs of
the improvements, mechanical contracts, painting, supplies, vehicle expenses and contract cleaning services;
it excludes maintenance payroll. According to the historical expenses, repair and maintenance has been
generally consistent, averaging 5428 per unit over the past two years. The average is below the !REM
indication and above the rate indicated by the expense comparables. Giving greater weight to the per unit
historical indication, and allowing for inflationary factors, the repair and maintenance cost is projected to
be SIO,350, which equates to $450 per unit, $0.36 per square foot and 6.1% of effective gross income.
In~1lrnnce
Expense Camp RanKe Comp Mean I.R.E.M. SubJ<<tI!l96 SabJ<<tI997
%EGI nI, nJ, 2.llJGlo 3.25% 1.71%
Per Unit 539.568 5S3 S\J7 5m 590
Per SF nI, nl, SO.14 SO.14 SO.07
The expense comparables, all properties within larger portfolios of properties, exhibit a narrow range of
indications for insurance costs which are below both !REM and the subject's historical expenses. The 1996
- expense is more consistent with the !REM indication, and the rate reflect the presence of fireplaces within
the units. We project an insurance cost for the coming year of$4,361; this equates to SO.15 per square foot
and 2.6% of effective gross income.
Real F..tate T'IXeS
.Since an appropriate assessment and subsequent taxes are the purpose of this appraisal, the current tax
expense will not be considered. In lieu of a tax expense, a tax rate will be factored into the capitalization
rate. That factor, which is a function of the millage rate and the common level ratio, is calculated as follows:
Curnnt ~llllaKe Rite
Common LevellUtlo
Tn LOld Factor
0.169000
6.80%
0.011492
28
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates. Inc.
M
...
i
INCOMEAPl!ROACIUO_Y..ALUE
II!
d
The impact of the tax load factor will be discussed in the capitalization section of this report.
Olh~ Pa)'1llll
Expens. Comp Rlnl' Comp Me.n I.R.E.M. Sub)... 1996 SobJOClI'"
"EGI nla nla 7.80% 3.40% 4.00%
PerUnic S272.$469 S390 S3S1 SI81 S212
Per SF nla nla SO.33 SO.14 SO.17
t1
(..J
The Other Payroll category includes maintenance payroll, and taxes, insurance and benefits for all payroll
categories, with the exception of contract labor which is within the repair and maintenance category. The
other payroll category for the subject property has been low compared to both the comparable properties and
!REM indication. This may be because the property shares staff with an adjoining properly. Considering
the small size of the subject property (23 units would warrant a very limited start) , the Other Payroll
category has been stabilized at S200 per unit, well below the comparable properties; this results in an annual
expense of$4,600, equating to SO.16 per square foot, or 2.7% of effective gross income.
Rl!!I:;~l!S for Rf'!ptacemp.nt
This category reserves funds for the replacement of capital items such as roofs, appliances, and asphalt
replacement. Based on the age of the subject property and discussions with investors of similar properties,
we estimate that an annual allocation equivalent to S250 per unit should be adequate. This equates to S5,750,
or 3.4% of effective gross income.
Sllmm~1:Jl
-The discussion presented above suggests total operating costs ofS48,526, or S21,110 per unit prior to
consideration of real estate taxes; this equates to an expense ratio of 28.44%. The following table presents
a synopsis of the income and expense projection.
29
Barone, Murtha. Shonberg & Associates. Inc.
M
n
~
~
j
....
INC01\'IEMffiOACH.-T.O_YALUE
Revenue and Expense Projection
Rental Income: S175,26O
Water/Sewer $4,372
Potential Gross Income: SI79,632
Vacancy and Credit Loss: 5.00% S8.282
Effective Gross Income: S170,650
%..EGl feLSE Per 1 Jrtit Gross
Management/Admin. 10.0% SO.59 S742 SI7,065
Operating 3.8% SO.22 $278 S6,4OO
Repairs & Maintenance 6.1% $0.36 $450 $10,350
Insurance 2.6% $0.15 $190 $4.361
Real Estate Taxes NA NA NA NA
Other Payroll 2.7% $0.16 $200 $4,600
Reserves 3A% $O.2Q $2iQ s.us.o
Total Expenses 28.4% $1.67 $2,llO $48 ~26
Net Operating Income 71.6% $4.20 S5,310 $122,124
V. Capitulizatinn
Capitalization is defined as the translation of net income benefits into an indication of value. Primary
capitalization methods include Direct and Yield Capitalization. Direct Capitalization considers the
application of a single rate to the anticipated net income in the first operating year while yield capitalization
_ considers revenue generation over a holding period and potential reversionary benefits as separate
components. For properties such as the subject, Direct Capitalization is most appropriate.
Having concluded that direct capitalization is the most suitable technique, an overall capitalization rate (RJ
must be estimated. Three of the more common techniques for rate derivation are briefly described as
follows:
R" can be developed through a MortgagelEquity technique which compares the proportionate return
requirements of both the equity and debt positions.
R"can be derived from Debt Coverage (OCR) and Loan to Value (LTV) ratios.
30
Barone, Murtha. Shonberg & Associates. Inc.
n
~
j
1
J
j
j
J
j
:J
j
J
~
lNCO~IE.APl!ROACILTO.YALUE
R. can be extracted directly from the market based on the sale price and anticipated income
generation of comparable properties, or based on interviews with market participants.
MnrtgagelEquir)dcchniquc
The MortgagelEquity technique is essentially an average of the equity and debt components, weighted on
the basis of the individual ratios to total value. First addressing the debt side of the equation, a variety of
avenues are available for debt financing, including banks, S & L's, insurance companies, governmental
agencies, conduits, mutual funds, REITS and other forms of securitized debt. Mid-size to larger properties
can generally avail themselves ofthc broad range of financing options, while smaller deals would likely be
limited to banks, S & L's, or in some instances, conduits.
According to the Wall Street Journal dated May 5, 1998, the following market rates were published:
Catcgol')!
Curr.nt R.t.
Prime Race
8.'0%
London Interbank Offered Rates (L1S0R) I month
London (neeTbank Offered Rates (lISOR) 12 months
Treasury BiII- S Year
5.6563%
6.9023%
5.66%
Treasury Bill-tO Year
5.74%
Federal Home loan Mortgage Corp. Yields on 30 yr
mortgage commitments - 3O-day delivery
7.09%
Federal National Mortgage Assoc. - Yields on 30 yr.
mortgage commitments - 3o.day delivery
7.03%
Interviews with mortgage bankers active in the mid-Atlantic region suggest that financing is presently
available at rates 135 to 200 basis points over the 10-year treasury. We estimate that fmancing could be
obtained at a rate of7.5% with a 25-year amortization period, 10-year term, 75% loan-to-valuc ratio and 1.25
debt coverage ratio.
In the past it has been conventional for equity returns to be similar to or only slightly higher than the
mortgage constant if property value was expected to be stable. The spread between debt and equity
requirements has increased in recent years hcwever, due to the advent of securitization. Previously, the
difference between the debt and equity positions was largely a mailer of which got paid first, so long as the
loan term was not significantly shorter than a typical holding period. Now, however, risk to the debt side
of the equation is mitigated. The initial debt holder has only a short exposure period (typically 30 to 60 days)
31
Barone. Murtha. Shonberg & Associates. Inc.
INCOMEAl'l'ROACHIQ\!ALUE
..
, I
"'1
'I
Debt Connlt Rallo
Mort...f Con.ltal
LOln-Co-V,lu. Rlllo
Onrall Ibl.
12loo
00887
07loo
0.08)2
..,
il
Again rounding to the nearest quarter point, this method suggests an overall rate of g.25%.
11M
,
,j
Sa1c..OcmalioItMethad
This method considers the overall rates exhibited by the transactions included in the Sales Comparison
Approach. These sales, which occurred berween 1994 and the present, exhibit financial characteristics as
follows:
..
I
",I
tl
SII. Lot,tJon E.G.r. per Unl. NOI ptr Vnll EJ:p,ue Hado Overall Ral.
Colonial Glen Apartments 56..123 53,464 46.90% 10.00%
lower Pall Ion Township
2 Quail Run Apartment 5l,62l 5J.OlO 4l.77% 12..22%
unc:uter Township
3 Paxton Park Apartments 5l,93l 52..171 56.68% 11.2l%
lower Paxton Township
4 Counby Walk Apartments 57.809 5l.041 3l.44% 9.68%
lower Allen Township
5 Shanendoah Apartments 56,196 $4.164 32.80% 10.41%
Mcchanicsburg
6 School House Apartments 56,860 52.884 57.96% 10.18%
Mechnnicsburg Borough
7 The Pines S5.J70 52,4l8 54.23% 10.18%
Susquehanna Township
8 Lindham Court 55.947 53,842 35.39% 9.10%
Upper Allen Township
9 Society Hill Apartments S6,746 $4,185 37.96% 11.30%
Lower Allen Townshi
c
o
u
u
u
u
These sales, which occurred berween January, 1993 and November, 1996, exhibit a range of capitalization
rates berween 9.1% and 12.22%, with a mean of 10.48% and a median of 10.18%. Recognizing that debt
rates have declined significantly since these transactions occurred (rendering them trailing indicators), we
conclude an indication near the mid-point of the range, or 10.0%.
33
Barone. Murtha, Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
INCOME Al'fROACHIO_VALUE
..
Rare Suml11al)'
At this point it is worthwhile to discuss the relative merits of each approach to rate estimation. The Debt
Coverage Method (8.25%) has an inherent weakness in that it does not specifically address the equity side
of the equation. The MortgagclEquity Technique (9.75%) improves on this as the equity requirement is an
integral part of the calculation. Typically, the Sale Derivation Method (10.0%) is perhap~ the best reflection
of the market, as it represents actual transactions within the market, however as discussed above, rapidly
changing markets render these transactions to be trailing indicators. Overall, each method should be
carefully reviewed in order to gain adequate insight into the investment. Based on the discussion presented
above, and giving primary weight to the MortgagclEquity and Sale Derivation Methods, we conclude an
overall rate of 9.75%.
....
,
UI
....
j
...
I
i"'t
It remains to adjust the capitalization rate for the tax load factor which was previously calculated to be
1.149%. Summing the overall rate with the tax load factor results in a tax loaded capitalization rate of
10.9%. Applying this to the pre-real estate tax NO! developed earlier results in a value indication as follows:
NeLOperntlng Income
OVflrall Rate
Value Indlratlnn
SI22,I24
10.9%
Rounded To:
SI,120,407
SI,I20,Ooo
",
fJ
The implication here is that a correct assessment would result in real estate taxes of$12,873 (SI,120,407 x
1.149%), or S560 per unit.
34
Barone, Murtha. Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
INCOME Al'l'ROACH.TO.YALVE
Singl. UIliLY.alualion
171~ following analysis Is pres~nt~dfor Informational purposes only. Using the same parameters presented
previously in the income approach to value to a single unit, the following table summarizes the value
calculations applied to a single unit.
...
...1
..
j
..,
I,j
Rnenue .nd Eaptalf Projection
Rcntallncome:
WalCf/ScwcT Reimbursemenl
Potcndal Orou Income:
Vacancy and C~dic Lou: S.OO%
lft'tcdYl Groll.acome:
\UQ1 I'a.SE l'al1nil
Manaaemcnt/AdnUn. 10.0% SO,S9 $742
Opera"n. 3.1% $0.22 $278
Rcpain a: Maintenance 6.1% SO.36 $4S0
InsW'InCc 2,6% SO,IS Sl90
Real Estate Taxes N^ N^ N^
01her l'2yroll 2.7% SO,16 $200
lWerves JA% $D.2O lliO
To..1 Expemes 28.4% $1.67 $2.110
Net OpentJnalacome 71.'-/.
Tu-Loaded Capitalization Rate:
Value
Rounded To:
35
Barone, Murtha, Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
$7.620
$190
$7,810
WI.
57,420
Omss
$742
$6.400
$4S0
$4,361
N^
$100
$2.SJI
S2JlQ
S5,J I 0
10.90%
$48,711
S4&, 700
.
c I
..
/-
I
j( .
,
I
f~
f ';
r~
Ie
,..
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
I. Introduction
In the Sales Comparison Approach properties generally similar to the subject are analyzed on the basis of
an appropriate unit of comparison lUld then compared to the subject. Physical comparisons as well as income
and expense characteristics are useful in arriving at a value estimate through the Sales Comparison
Approach. In this analysis. we compared each of the comparable properties to the subject, taking into
consideration the expense ratio, the effective gross income multiplier and other related factors.
II. Comparative Analysis
Limiting our research to the Harrisburg MSA, the following transactions were discovered:
'';,f
Slle Loc.Uon 8.J. >>.t. Price/ualt EJ:pfn.f Ratio E.G.LM.
Colonial Olen AplJ1JnenlJ 10196 534,626 46.90% '.31
lower Paxton Township
2 Quail Run Apartments 11/96 '24,963 45.770/0 4.44
Lancaster Township
3 Paxton Park Apartments 0$19' 522.8'7 56.68% 3.85
lower Paxton Township
4 Counlly W,lk AplltmenlS 03/9' 5'2.083 3'.44% 6.67
lower Allen TOWlUhip
, Shanendoah Apartment! 12194 540,000 32.80% 6.46
Mechanicsburg
6 School Howe Apartmc11ts 06194 S28J33 '7.96% 4.1J
Mechanicsburg Borough
7 The Pines 01/94 524,1'3 54.23% 4.$0
Susquehanna Township
8 Lindham Coun 02/93 S42.222 3'.39% 7.10
Upper Allen Township
9 Society Hill Apl1llnenlS 01193 537.037 37.96% '.49
Lower Allen Townshi
." ~
II
.1'Ii
i"!
tJ
Detailed write-ups of all the sales are presented in the addenda. The subject is projected to exhibit an
expense ratio of 2~.4% prior to consideration of real estate taxes; adding the taxes implied by the value
conclusion reached in the Income Approach, the expense ratio becomes 35.96%, and a net operating income
per unit of $4,752. Rather than presenting an adjustment grid to more subjectively contrast aspects of the
sale properties in comparison to the subject property, a process known as regression analysis has become
an increasingly useful tool applicable to real estate analysis. Regression identifies the possible relationships
between or among variables to provide a better understanding of the underlying data. Simple regression
analysis measures the relationship between an independent variable and a dependant variable with the
equation Y.,=a+bX, where Y., is the forecast value, a is a constant, b is a multiplier or coefficient, and Xis
36
Barone. Murtha, Shonberg & Associates. Inc.
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
..,
d
the value of the independent vanable. The equation stales that for the independent variable, X, the expected
value of the Y variable to which it is being related IS Y,. Regression does not necessarily imply or allempt
to quantify causative relationships. Rolthcr, it reveals the apparent relationships between the values of
different variables and their tendency to vary regularly with one another. When strong relationships are
found, measuring these relationships can help explain one or more of the variables and forecast their values.'
Applying a linear regression analysis to the comparable sales using the expense ratio as the x-value and the
EGIM as the y-value, the suggested EGIM applicable to the subject is 6.31. Multiplying the effective gross
income by the EGIM results in a value indication as follows:
~
IJ
EfTp.dfvp. Grnn 'nr.omp.
S170,650
E.G.LM.
6.31
Value Indication
S 1,076,804
Applying a similar methodology to Ihe Nor per unit and the price per unit results in the following value
indication:
Unit Vallie
No. of Hlllts
Va"." Jndleatfnn
$47,533
23
S I ,093,259
The correlation coefficient is -0.9165 for the E.G.I.M. analysis and 0.9569 for the net income per unit
calculation. The linear relationships between the expense ratio and effective gross income and between net
income per unit and price per unit are strong. Giving both equal weight, this analysis suggests a value
indication ofS I ,085,000.
c
c
c
U
I
I
I
,
- lh.A.ppca.i.saLnrRfOlIl J:U.!II.. (Chicago. Illinois: Appraisallnstitule. 1992), p,60J
37
Barone. Murtha, Shan berg & Associates. Inc.
~
,..
RECONCILIATION
..
..
The purpose of Ihis report is to estimate the market value of the Fee Simple interest in the property located
and known as:
j
The Nanroc Townhouse Apartments
Nanroc Drive
Upper Allen Township
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
The scope of the analysis has been limited to full development of the Income and Sales Comparison
Approaches. The value indication~ are as follows:
,
"~I
Cost Approach:
Income Approach:
Sales Comparison Approach:
Not Developed
SI,120,000
S 1,085,000
j
:J
,~
f~
I~
Ie
Ie
a
:.
I
The value indications vary by 2.7%. Giving greater weight to the Income Approach, we estimate the market
value of the fee simple interest in the subject property, in cash or terms equivalent to cash, as of May 4, 1998,
to be:
One MillIon ODe Hundred Ten ThousaDd (SI,110,OOO) DoUars
38
Barone, Murtha, Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
~
~
~
P"OTOGRAPH~ OF TH~ ~IIR IIU~ PROPF.RTY
,.,
tl
"r,i~4f,'
~,fI~~!F-
,', \'f ',~~:;.;
:J
:J
j
~
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
~
U
ELEVATIONS OF THE SUBJECf.
Baron~. Nlurtha. Shonb~rg & Associates. Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
}
l"
.':"
'.
:~.
~
'~
*:
:'~
~L
~i\
'jj
"i:.+;
HI
::j
~%t
h"
':~i
I~l
"/J.
Jj
.
I ~l
TYPICAL INTERIOR VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
~l
1'1;
f~
~~',
.,
Baron~. Murtha. Shollberg & r\,;sociates. Inc.
:w'"
, I CI:I
i N
:t
~ '.,,. ':
tIo' .
. ./'
-. ,:( .
h .
i31i~'~ Ill.
t- !'
.r 1
!j :
~ ....
!. -,
!. : 'w
~ ;;:~
" I I C
.
~
"'."
'j~,:
f.& ;::~~~
.:!~":'
;;:; ~~--:
'" ~"..~",:,
W ~:1l'~
rl::&81l1rJ.C OI-:r.II~l~rii..
..:; ....,,~
co ..
WI11S 3Jt1benture.
J1:'f" dOf'l pr..... fj.lr
r......d HI., U".~"d ..d Seventy-B1\1h~ (1978)
!ltflUttll R. A. ORTENZlO and NANCY H, OnTENZIO,
~cchanLeabur9. Cumberland County, Pennay1vanLa,
ithtlll'
fibI'
.
,.. IA. ~t" of 0.,,. umJ 0,.,
at 3428 LLaburn Road,
A
N
o
Allen
I
BELLE TERRE. a PennaylvanLa lLmLtad partnerah~p, 301 South
Street. State College, Centre County, Pennay1vanLa, Grantee,
..} ,,,, 1rC'lllld "0"', mUnr.1Jlll'tlJ 'I'll/I' '''1: ,aid/IlII"' iea II/'h"'",'/"II'I, '''''1111I1 ill f:uuiJrrtlliuu
"1 lA, I.'. 01 One ($1. 00)-----------____________________________________
1I01lll"l turr"" IIIUIIC"!J u/,II( U";",,, '')'/llr, ul .-('lIIerit'lI, 1(t'1I II/Ill 'rut, paid IJy tilt IlIid porty o/'A,
ItCOHJ par' tu lilt ,.,(,1 {,urties ,,/ "'e' Ji'" I"If'. ", an" b,/"rt tilt 'tot(nQ Onl' dtlh'rrv "1 ,II,,,
,rutn'" tlte ,.err/pl ,dr,'rlll II /11'1'1'1/1 ,U'kllulrlt,10r,/, have
''''t/rd, Lurgaflltd, .old, aU"",/, tlt/tuilr.', rella't." ""'"II"r!JrJ litH' c:cm/'rllltcJ and "1 IAru prrlr"" till
,reml, I",ro"i", .,.", ItU,',., rlll,.'II/, t'draft, trmrr!J, am' t't'ItlJfrttl ,,"I,., "It 'n'" 1"""'1 of
lA, trrollJ parI, i tB succellsors Mx.>I '''"I nulf/'II,
I
All THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground sLtuate in Upper Allen Town-
ship, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, bounded and described in accor-
danco with a Final Resubdivision Plan for R. A. Ortenzio by Charles W.
Junkins, Registered Surveyor, dated October 11, 1976. last revised on
November 16, 1976, as follows:
BEGINNING at a pOint on the southerly right of way line of Geneva DrLve
(50 feet wide) at the intersection of Lot 3-A on the aforesaid Plan
and lands of ROG, which pOint Ls on the dividing line between Upper
Allen Township and Lower Allen Township and is North forty-four (44)
degrees two (2) minutes nLneteen (19) seconds West from a concrete
monument at the intersection of lands of KOG and Winterset One Asso-
ciates: thence South fifty-two (52) degrees thirty-six (36) minutes
thirty (30) seconds West along the southerly right of way line of
Goneva Drive a distance of 5.83 feet to a point: thence along same by
a curve to the left. having a radius of one hundred seventy-five (175)
feet an arc distance of 94.31 feet to a point: thence along same by
a curve to the right having a radius of two hundred twenty-fLve (225)
feet an arc distance of 121.25 feet to a point: thence South fifty-two
(52) degrees thirty-six (36) minutes thirty (30) seconds West along
same a distance of 565.41 feet to a concrete monument: thence along
same 14.31 feet to a pin: thence North twenty-two (22) degrees twenty-
five (25) minutes thirty (30) seconds West along Lot 4-B a distance
BOOrv("?27 P.ICE 3G7.
I
I
I
".
'85 GEe 3/
:'11 0 C7
. J' ... ./11. ,
. .. " , r...............
C""b. c." ,..
~, a... IlItl. f,...S., Tu
.",t, .\.~.".!;~~. "",~qgf I!
d ../ .". It ,;~..
,J..
..,..~. c.. Ollt. e.1. A.I. ~
III '" #II'~ .., .---'.....
Soh..' Ohl. C...b. c.., ,..
-1:' l..' 1.1"t 1...~ '0'00 . t;e
, >:). .,r. A~/''''''''
0.1':1: ::':"'JI ~.-~
'!fa ·
g,.... c:.. _c..l<M'o 1
~
-0.,
'".
I: '
. ".;I"':~' ;:r iJ:C
. . to ~ ::: .~
I I. ~ ,. .
DEE D
,.,
IJ
HADE THIS &....day ot \\to",,\-..r
BY AND BETWEEN.
CEDAR RIDGE ASSOCIATES, INC., a pennsylvania eorporation, having
ita principal place ot buainewa loacted at 301 South Allen Street,
State College, pennaylvania, and JOHN E, SROKA and HARION L. SROKA,
huaband and wite, City ot Johnatown, Cambria County, Pennaylvania,
, nineteen eight-live,
Grantora ,
~
OCTAGON ASSOCIATES, a Pennsylvania Limited partnership,
Grantee,
~
~
o
C
Q
~
~
U
~
WITNESSETH, that in consideration of ONE MILLION AND 00/100 - - - - -
($1,000,000.00) - - - - - - - - DOLLARS the receipt o! which is hereby
aeknowledged, the said grantors do hereby grant and convey to the
aaid grantee, its successors and assigns.
ALL that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in
Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, pennsylvania, bounded and
described as follows.
BEGINNING at a point on the westerly side of ~anroc Drive, said point
being located as followsl beginning at a point at the eenter line of
Geneva Drive, (50 feet widel at its intersection with the western line
of Nanroc Drive, (50 feet wide), thenee along the aaid western lin_ of
Nanroc Drive South 37' 23' 30' East, a distance of 240,11 feet to a
eCCK R 31 ,A,t 8
"
. , ..., '<, , .. , I'II'~ .1 1."'1 IIH
~ m~:~~~ii90.: Oo]!
..
i j
poiot, thence continuing along the eame by e eurve to the 1ett having
a radiue ot 175,00 teet, an arc di.tance of 107.23 feet to a concrete
monument, the point of beginning, thence from eaid point of beginning
along the westerly .ide of Nanroe Drive by a curve to ths left with a
radius of 175,00 teet an arc di.tanee ot 44.64 feet to a pointl thence
along the eeme South 87' 6' 50' Eaet, a di.tance of 143,17 feet to a
eonerete monument, thencs continuing along the aams by s curve to the
right having 2 radiua of 110 feet, en are dl.tance of 95.46 feet to a
eoncrete monument, thence continuing along the .ame, South 37' 23' 30.
East, a dist~nce of 205.40 feet to a poiot, thence along land now or
formerly of Liberty Square, South 52' 36' 30. West, a di.tance of
315.09 feet to a point on the eastern Un', of lands now or formerly of
George B. H. Wilson, thenee along lands ,.f Wilson, North 40' 19' 57.
West, a distance of 122,53 feet to a concrete monument, thnnce
c~ntinuing along the same, So~th 52' 36' 30. West, a distance of 46.3
teet to a point, thence through land of which this was .formerly a
part, North 37' 23' 30. West 292..38 feet to a point, thence through
land of whieh this was formerly a part North 52' 36' 30. Eaat 25.60
feet to a point, thence by same North 37' 23' 30. West 22.38 teet to a
point, thence by same North 52. 36' 30' East, a distance of 189.54 to
the westerly side of Nanroc Drive, the place of beginning.
Being part of the same piece or parcel of land which vested in Cedar
Ridge Associates, Inc. by the deeds of R.A. Ortenzio dated and
April 15, 1980 which are recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book
Volume .X., Volume 28, page 837. Being the same piece or parcel of
land whieh vested in John E, Sroka and Harion L. Sroka, husband and
wife, by the deed of Cedar Ridge Associates, Inc., dated December 19,
1985 and recorded in Cumberland County on December 20, 1985 in Deed
Book Volume 3/ Q , page n9 . .
UNDER AND SUBJECT to the same conditions, exceptions, reservations and
restrictions as appear in prior deeds of record.
The Grantors do hereby covenant and agree that they will
warrant GENERALLY the premises hereby eonveyed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said grantors have hereunto set their
hands and seals the day and Jear first above written,
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of.
.
; I
Ill!
1'1
.
H
""
'j
~
CEDAR RIDGE ASSOCIATES, INC
Attest.
~\t\J.~J..""~U~""~ ..~
B
o.
-
dent
8eOK R 31 fl,~i 9
ZONINO
TABLE OF USE REGtJLAnONS
SCHEDULE E
URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (tIR)
In areas which can be leasibly supplied with public facilities, a hlllhcr density 01 residential
use ean be accommodated. Auo, such areas can be used lor a variety 01 housIng type.! to
include multifamily dwellinlls, Commercial use.! are permitted only lor the convenlence of the
l'C.lidenu. Such commcrcial usu mwl be subordlulo to tho I'C.lldential use, mUll be anlntesral
part o( a resldendal subd/vlJloD or land developlIIClIt or mWl be desisned to serve one (I) or
more exlsrlng re.!identialsubd/vuioll.l or land developmeDts located In the Immediate vieln/ty
and not served by IntearaI commercial uSe.!,31
M
..
Ii
~
'I
'"
, I
..,
1/
Number
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
7,
8.
9.
10.
11:
12,
13.
14.
15.
16.
Use
Additional detached
dwe1liog
APIl1me.oI (maximum
dell.llty: 12 dwelling
unilslacre)
Boardinshouse
Church
Cluster developmeDt
COIIllIllU1/c:atiOD facility
(publicly regulated)
ConvcrsioD apll1me.ot
Crop fanning
CulturallaciUty
Day DurSety center
Day DlUSety home
Drive-In stand
Fire statiOD
Golf course
Greenhouse
Group home
p", Permllled
SE '" Spec:1a.l ExeeptlOD
P
p
sa
p
SE
P
sa
p
P
P
P
SE
P
p
p
sa
31 EcIlIor'. Nolll Amllldod alllm. or lIdopUOII or CGdtI_ c..plu J, GtMnIl\rariof..... Art. L
UPPER ALLEN CODE
P.. Permllled
Number Use SE .. Special Exception
17. Home occupation SE
18. Hospital P
19. Personal service SE
establishment
20. Planned residential SE
development
21. Private club P
22. Private recreational P
facility
23. Professional offices SE
24. Public building P
25, Public entertainmcnl SE
facility
26. Public recreational P
facility
27. Restaurant P
28. Sanitary facility SE
29. School P
30. Signs P
31. Single-family dwelling P
32. Supply utilities SE
33. Townhouse (maximum P
density: 12 dwelling
units/acre)
Octagon Associates
Rent Roll (u 00 February 21,1998)
Belle TerrlC AplI'toIeDt. aDd Nao Roc Patio Uoma
., Nail Roc Patio 80ma
, I
Unit Na_ UnirT:.~ Current ~t S~ D~.it
01)1055 Miner Ron IUJd Carol B 000 00.00
001057 Henneuey Shawn aod Kim a 645.84 200.00
001059 Barndt Bradl.eyand Kay 8 645.84 600.00
001061 Johnson Brian aod Debra B 645.84 600.00
001063 Snyder MUYl&nn B 645.84 200.00
001065 Stiff'er Todd B 645.84 000,00
001067 Trimble Peter B 645.84 600.00
ool069 Asin Tedd B 645.84 600.00
001071 Johnson Mitchel and Ann B 645.84 200.00
001073 Rogers William and Betsy B 645.84 400.00
001075 Gregg Detic .aod Holly 0 615.84 200.00
001077 Badger&: Aly Ken and Denise 0 615.84 600.00
001079 LafFerty Karen 0 615,84 400.00
001081 Prall Kevin 0 615.84 200.00
001083 SCOll Da.id 0 615.84 200.00
001085 Polesky Nicole 0 590.84 200.00
001087 VlIWlt 0 000.00
001089 Martin William and Helen 0 615.84 600.00
001091 HalVMcManue1s Karen and Barry 0 615.84 600.00
001093 Rosers Rawleigb and Barb 0 615.84 300.00
001095 Brown Mathew aDd Carole 0 615.84 600.00
001097 Vacant 0 615.84 300.00
001099 Felker William and Diana 0 615.84 200.00
---------
11,798. t8 i,:m. 00
13) /77.t.tr '1~
"'1
II
HAICII/tOCATIOH,
TAX ID 11'0..
OIIAH'1'OR.
0IlAN'1'II1.
COHI%DIlIlATI01l'.
~ BlIILT.
b
b
b
b
m
.,
I
II
II
II
II
II
BlIILDDlQ AIID.
HllJIBa or llH:tTI.
COIGImI'r .
DISClUP'n01l' .
AXaLYIII or ~
~ I'Jl%CIl/I'I,lJt..
(CiI,B,JL,)
1lm;T l'UCIl.
lIAU l'UCIl/I'I,rt,.
(~ UD)
COICPAIlAIItl SAU - UUTIIIDIT
Coloni.l al.n Ap.rta.nt.
4'00 Lancer Str..t
Lower 'axton Town.bip
D.upbin County, 'A
35-054-001
Samuel Zell . Rob.rt Lurie
MClII bC.rpd....
$6.025.000
1976
.COIIDI'1'J:OJl',
Qood
, j
',I
1'4.279 Iq.rc. .LARD UD.
1~,7300 Ae....
174 IIllIlTAIlu ARD,
153.564 Iq.rc
ll'tld.r alll'._c of .al. e1ac.d Oetob... 2, 1996,
Coloni.l Cil1an Apartaanc. conai.c. oe 174 two-b.droaa
gard... ...d towaboua. unJ.c. hound withiD 20 two ADd
t:Iu:..-.co:y building., l7tlJ.c.we ia 13. t_-bedroaa
Wlic. (860 .quar. e.eC) and 36 two-b.drooa UDic. (969
.quar. e..C) , Th. tOWDhoua. UDic. conCa1A a
...har/dry... hookup, -.uti.. ine1ud. a ~lJ
pool and l.undry .e.eilitie.,
$31,01
$34,626
$39,23
..coal) ID.
l'ROl'Drr ID.
nLIl %D.
15210
15418
965859
NAIOl/r.ocA 'UON,
TAX %D 110,.
GllAIITOR.
~.
COIIS%JlDATXOII.
DAft or ~.
DAR 1I1l1L'l'.
~
~,J
b
h
I'"
h
w
b
I
~
b
I~
I~
IU
I~
HUIGID or 1lJl1TS.
D.SCRIPTJ:OIl.
uar,"tIU or lIAU
tlIl%'l' PIl%ClIa
COIlPAlIAIIl.. SAL. . APAlIT1UNT
Quall Run Apartmant.
4001 Rawlalgb 8treet
Lower Puton Towneblp
Daupbln County, PA
35-058-71-73, 151. 155. 156. 157
rederel RQae Loan MOrtgage Corp.
lIenjamin D, aeller
$1.425.000
lS-ROV-93
DSV/PAGJIa
no", / 102
1971
CORDITXOJl'.
rair/poor
.LARD AIlU..
5,7930 Acre.
88
Wood fr.... two-.to~ eoloDiaJ. bui1dinll. with
interior ball.. llIUt. ue all alectric, 88 total
\\Dit.. llIUt aix i. 20 ona-be.sroc.t=a-bath \mit.. 56
two-beclrOGll/ona-bath IlI1it.. and 12
three.bedroaa/l,S-bath \\Dit.. There... daferred
maint4lllanea at time of ..la, Plazmad capital
illlprov_t. of approxiaata1y $100.000 ucluda
replae_t of hall earpat.. roofulI, rapaviAlI and
eClllplate renovation of pool which baa bean alo.ad for
quJ. ta a whila,
$16.193
aJICOID m. ..77
PROPKRZT m. ""
lIJlOfO m. 2110
lit
l'i
COll1'lUWIU SALI - UAAtxIIrr
HAa/r.oCATIOlf'
'AXton 'ark Aparba.nt.
UO '001 Driv.
Low... 'axton To_.JUp
DaupbJ.n County, PA
It
TU ID NO,.
35-057-02.
QIlAIfTOR.
'axton Aa.ooiat.. LP
~.
XQM Inv..taaat R.alty Qroup
COIfSIDDA'l'%OIf.
$3,200,000
DAn or lALIIa
Ol-Dr-J5
DAR sun.'l'a
1966
,LAIIJ) ARIA.
10,8700 "e....
IfOIIBD or t1III'l'S. 140
DISCR%P'l'%O..
ri..., thra.-.tory b..ick w:l.th
multi-..ction building. coataiaiat
ap...-..t wUt:., a...uti.. include
c.du panel.
· total of 140
· ~g pool.
I~
I
Ie
Ie
Ie
I~
II
II
II
II
AHALrSIS or su..
1lR1'l' PlUa.
$22,157
..Q.%..,
3.151
.,%,..
.-
..81t
ClVDU.L RAn.
11,25 '"
~"S. JlAnOa
56,18 '"
IWCIOIlIl ID.
PJtO'D'n' IDa
PBO'l'O m.
1UU
12175
3419
.'
COMPARABLS SALS . APAllTM8ll'l'
/lAKII/LOCATION I
Count~ Halk Apartmanta
1400 H1ller.at Court . Slat. Hill Q Liaburn Roada
Lowar All.n Townah1p
CUmb.rland County. PA
TAX IO NO"
25-0020-059
""
tJ
aRAJI'rOR,
rr.d Shaf.r Q Larry Salkin
ClllAH'1'D ,
IUcha.l S.rluco
CON8%1lDA'l'IOR,
$5.000.000
DAD OJ' 8AL8,
01-1Wl-95
!DR BtI%r.1.',
1987
LAND ARBA,
8,0000 Aer.a
RtJX81Dl OJ' tlKIT8,
96
O.SCRIJil'l'IOR,
Cont&lllpOr&ry wood fr&lllll gard.n apar_t building..
ll'nit featur.. includ. lII1ni-blinda, '....h.r-dry.r..
d.ek!paUo and ..cur:l.ty lI)'.t_. Th. pr"lj.rty ba. .
awUa:l.ng pool.
c
C
b
~
m
I
I
I
I
ARlUoYSIS or IIALIl
tIJl%1.' JilRJ:CII,
$52,083
.,G.I.II,
6,670
R.%.XI
10,331
ClVIDlAI.r. JtA'rII.
9.68 ,
IIXPIllIlllB 1lA'l'I0.
35,"'" ,
aCORD Ill. 11620
JilItOJilIDl'rr Ill. 12492
n
M
h
h
~
'"J
COMPAIlAIILI SALI . APARTHBNT
IIAlCII/LOCArtON, Shanandoah Apa~tmenta
105-107 Allan St~aat
Machanicaburg
CUmba~land County, PA
TAX tD NO. . 18-23-0565-83
QRANTOR. Shanandoah LP
GRANTBJl. r~ank R. r~datalc
CONStDmu.nON, $2,400,000
DATa or /IALIi. 2'-DBC-94
YKAR Bon.T. 1991
NtJJCIIBR or llNtTS, 60
UNtT IIl%CIl.
$40,000
..Q.%.M:
6.456
DBSCRU'1'tOH,
Shanandoah Aparbunta eonaiat. ot! two woo<! t!r....
buildinga, Tha gardlUl UDit. wara built ill 1991, Tha
townbou.a UDit. wara eonvartad to aparcm.nta t!rom a
p~avioua ilIdu.tdal Wla, Tha apartmanta vary widely
in .ha .a a raault, 'lJl1it t!aaturaa ilIeluda w.ahar
...d cl:ya~a, aecurity, alactric t!orca hot air and
clUltr.l .i~-eonditioning and balconiaa. The
con.idaration on the da.d ra.da $2,340,000 whieh ia
nat ot! buyar'. b~olcar faa of $60,000.
o
b
o
C
~,~
ill
Ie
b
I~
AlGLY8t8 0' BALlI
H.t.11I
9.60B
ClVDlA%.L RA'l'lI.
10.41 '"
alias. IlA%to.
32,10 '"
IUlCORD tD. 11621
IROPBRTr tD. 12493
~
..
COKPARAIIU SALI . APAIITXIHT
!III
HAlCB/LOCATION,
School Kou.. Apartaant.
133 W..t Locu.t Str..t
Kaeh&llic.burg
Cwah.d&lld COWlty, PI.
...
TAX ID RO..
23-567-021
...
QllANTOR,
lut D11
...
GRA!ITIlB .
Ravesuo Proper tie.
CONIIDDATIOR.
$1,100,000
....
DAU or &ALa.
01-JllIf-94
:.1,
YBAR BUILT.
1892
i
~
, .
qJ
LAIlIl lUUIA.
1.8600 Ac.....
...
N1lIlBBR or tJH:ITS. 50
r ,~..
DIISCRUTION.
Thi. ia . to"",ar two-.tory .ehool builcUng odginally
built in 1892 and r&llov.ted into .p...._nt. in the
1980'.. The builcUng h.. &II intedo... co.....ty....d.
ADLYSIS or IALlI
tlH:I'r PRIClh
$28,333
JI.Q.%.lh
",130
X.I,II.
9.123
OVDALL QU.
10,18 ,
IIDlIRlIII RATIO.
57,96 ,
IlIICORD %D. 11615
PROPIIRTr ID. 12..1111
.
, j
~
!l
COKP.utAllr.s SALS . APAllt1lllll'1'
..
., I
N.Um/LOCATIONI
The Pine.
J01 N. progr... Avenue
Su.quehanna Town.hip
Dauphin County, PI.
,
F-
'I
,~
t:t
TAlC ID NO. I
62-47-60
GRAN'1'ORI
ITL-HP. Inc.
'...
GRAllTSSI
New Pin.. A..oclat.., L.P.
,\:(
CORSIDBRATION.
$5,700,000
:~
'~d
DBV/PAGB.
2154 / 331
DATS or SALSI
14-JAH-94
~~
Id
h
",j
11'1\
I
111
1970
CONDITION,
rair
Y1lAR BlJILT.
LARD ARKAI
12.4300 Aere.
HtlHBIlR or mnTS I
236
DBSCRIPTION,
lIood fr..... two-.tory colonial bldlding., all with
exterior entrance.. unit. are total electric. Total
236 unite. unit mix iel 124 one-bedroom/one-batb, 84
two-bedroom/one-bath, 16 two-bedroom/l,5-bath and 12
three-bedroom unite. There waa minor deferred
maintenanc. at time of eal..
I."
1'1
J;'t1
,
:l'''-t
1.,/
ARALYSIS or SALK
mnT PRICKI
$24,153
B.G.I.III
4.498
H.I.III
9.828
ip!
:~
OVllRALL RATS.
10.18 ...
BXPIlIlSS RATIO.
54.23 ...
i
ili
'iIlll
RBCORD ID.
PROPIlRTr ID.
PROTO ID.
8876
9768
2809
~
,
~
~
~
D
~
I
D
I
D
I
D
D
C
D
D
C
~
C
U
u
m
COMPARABLB SALB - APARTKBNT
NAIIB/LOCATION.
Lindh... Court
1101 Lindh... Court
Opper Allen Townehip
Cumberland County. PA
TAX ID NO..
42-24-792-006
GRANTOR,
r.T, Realty Compeny
GRANTBB.
~.L.P. Bnterpriees
.;;.
DBSCR:IPT:ION:
Two-story brick end siding apartment
containing 90 one and two.bedroom apartments.
complex
CONS:IDBRATION:
$3,800,000
DATB or SALB.
01-rBB-93
DBV/PAGB.
36C / 904
YEAR BOILT:
1987
COND:IT:ION:
Good/rair
Il1lMIIBR or tlN:ITS:
90
ANALYSIS or SALB
OVERALL RATE:
9.10 \
B.G.:I.H: 7.100
N.:I...H: 10.989
BXPBNSB RAT:IO: 35.39 \ ';.,
RBCORD :ID: 8881
PROPBRTY :ID: 9773
PHOTO :ID: 2813
tlNIT PRICB:
$42,222
..
11
...
t t
~
i I
NAJIIl!LOCATIOH,
,
...
TAX ID HO. I
GRAIlTOR,
I.~
I
lei
GRANTBB,
COHSIDBRATIOH,
DATB or SALB.
YBAR BUILT,
BUILDING ARIU"
NOHBBR or UNITS.
I""
I,,)
h
il1J
11.'1
l!!oi
I~
;~
:c
'u
Ie
IU
I~
DBSCRIPTIOH,
ANALYSIS or SALB
SALB PRICB!Sq.Pt..
IG.B,A.)
UNIT PRICB.
OVBRALL RATB.
COMPARABLB SALB - APARTMENT
Society Hill Apartmente
2900 Liaburn Road
Lower Allen Township
CUmberland County, PA
13-10-258-005
N_L.A. 422, Inc.
National Properti.., Inc.
$4,000.000
01-JAN-93
DBV!PAGB:
36B ! 1196
1988
CONDITION.
Good
129,438 Sq.Ft.
10S
Three-story garden apartment complex with
108 units. One-bedroom units contain
feet, two-bedroom units contain two baths
square feet. Units are all-electric.
a total of
871 square
and 1,113
$30.90
$37,037
B.G.I.M: 5.490
H.I.M: 8.850
BXPBNSB RATIO: 37.96 '"
RBCORD ID. 8880
PROPBRTY 10: 9772
PHOTO 10. 2812
11.30 'Is
-. "" ~ . .--' -
n
n
n
n
,.. ,~' . ','., '., " .:.. . . '. ',. " ,. .....:."..:'-.', ..,...., ~.(iT,,".~.',. .,.';........;r;:::.~;- ~.,.
,.l,:{':I '....'"'). ~~II~ 5 :f (/.~',"'.:'1o;/I,'IJl:....'~'. L..""'" ~C' I, :. .~ .,:. .,,~':.'l, t"h".... ~f'P<~.''':. ~:'.. t.r,'~.~,~W.:...~~~.':;.fA~ ~" ~ j'< ;p.' .~~(;,......~.\.. ~ ;'" ~ft>..~...
. \', .,~'..:,......;.,., J..' rl-' .... '/..' om. monwcat "ll' eI}IlSyJVlI1l1aJ..'...';..rn......"~~-;.".'.!'!i'," ~.; """'1',,<.. 'C"
b '. t~i.'~/ '>11 t", ", i'~' ',:' .~. "- L\ j,""'" :'(f ." ."11 Jli~.;'" 'II' ;'. ....~.,: ',' I
'~,,"'';' '.(.,,.:'':'.: : " '!\'lr-:.,~,' ","... _ -: ~~'.: .'. " Dep' ".' tm' ent of State':.:.., .-, ~,.":I'".,. b...~",( .::. . ~ ~.' ::~ ~~,-!;.:: '\ .l,./;. .' . 'I
.. r'''''' "I ,...... "'".", " . .' W'" ; :',... ....1. .... ....?' '." ..,. '... ,l ...... .
I.. ";'1::', ": . I ~ ; '. ':' ~,.".,~. ., >: Bureau'~ prorcssi~i.aNiOccupati~Afiair;..)!;~:I,.,)::: /'i: ,.~j': -' ,'>'t f":':;;;'l'.':" ;
" }" . i , ". ,> ,". . :_ .. 0'" .......... ," '. .. ~ . .,'.'" ','. 'Ii .' , .' .).,. -':." ,.,', . 'I
I,' "q; ~, >j) i;";,P.O. BOX '\,;Jlan'islllitgcYA...17105-2lJ4!J',iU/,!',,".f{ .',", ':.:,'; U> !
I. ~\!,jr' : ~;...' \" i;' \::.,.",:: :. . ,o't.~~:I~".:::Ct~.y :~':'.,\>/.n ;}....,.l ~y:;..~,.. .:!,.':,,}l;:.; .~~::;
'",>,' ". ;'::~"~J ':Cla.o;silication .'. '-~ "",',""".':".';..'. . '.; . "'" ,'; '",
" ,'--'''' .~<J ~ 1,...\~. ":"",> ',~~~"'~_:...,' ;.;":~,.l"~"':"'" ..,""
" i:" ~~r)~:.p~~F~".. :/,'\ i C> ", ~I
'J.. \f ;.-:-; : :=. . <'rl~ '>) '.
Cenificate Number CeRilic"l ;'-D'l~ '. . (":<' '., . " .Iss~e.i' Expir.s :,
-...... \ ,~. .' .. " ;,' . ;
9~.;:>...____~~~;?~fi997 JUN 30 1999 '.
'.</ '* ."y
GA-000067-L
Issued To:
)
i
:i
'I
MARK ROBERT SHONBERG
4701 BAPTIST ROAD
SUITE 304
PITISBURGH PA 15227
.",.
..~.
~t
.w.;'
~ .,'
~
=
u
u
.' . . '. . . ~ . :~. ~:. '.,,, _;u;.;
, ' '
,
M
-
, i
..,
} j
""
c
11
~
fll..
III
u
II
n
n
n
n
n
o
n
o
c
c
c
c
c
c
~
~
~
u
m
Al'PR.\ISER'S QL'AL1HCATlO:-iS
Mark R. Shonbcrll. :\1.\1
P_OSITlO:-i
. Viee President; Barone, Murtha, Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
ED.UCATlO~
. Graduate of University of Pittsburgh; Bachelor of Science, School of Arts and Sciences
. Appraisnllnstitute Courses:
Appraisal Principles
Valuation Procedures
Capitalization Theory & Techniques (A and B)
Computer Aided Investment Analysis
Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation
Standards of Professional Practice
Report Writing and Valuation Analysis
Highest and Best Use
STATF. CERIIEICATIONS
. Pennsylvania:
Appraisal:
Brokerage:
. Delaware:
. Maryland:
~ ~li~hig3n:
. New York:
. Ohio:
. West Virginia:
. Kentucky:
Certificate No. GA-000067-L
Certificate No. AB-05l396-L
Certificate No. X10000191
Certificate No. 04-010230
Certificate No. 12-01-004238
Certificate No. 17076
Certificate No. 394700
Certificate No. 135
Pending
lRO.EESSI~.\I. AFFII.I.\TIONS AND SF.RYlCE
. Appraisal Institute: Admission and Review Committee Chair, 1991-
1993
Regional Review Committee Chair, 1995
National Publications Committee, 1994 - Present
.
Urban Land Institute:
Steering Committee, 1994 - Present
F.XPF.RIF~
Over the last ten years Mr. Shonberg has performed a wide variety of appraisals addressing a diverse
spectrum of property types and for varying purposes. The majoril'J of work has been for finance and asset
management purposes, although a significant portion has been oriented toward tax appeal, eminent domain,
divorce and bankruptcy proceedings. Mr. Shonberg has qualified as an expert witness before a variety of
tax assessment boards and before the Court of Common Pleas. Areas of specific expertise include health
care, multi-family and retail properties. Prior to association with Barone, Murtha, Shonberg & Associates,
Mr. Shonberg was engaged in commercial real estate sales.
Barone. Murtha, Shonberg & Associates, Inc.
QUtlLIFICATIONS OF KRISTI C, SMITH
/58 Highland Ruad
York, PA 17.103
(7/7) 8-18.206j
..,
1/
P,\RTIAL CLIE:-iT LIST
Corponl.
...
,,)
ALCOA
Allegheny General Hospital
American Capilal Resource
Bell Allanllc
Carey, Brumbaugh, Slarman, Phillips & Assoc.
Chrysler Corporation
Consolidated Coal Company
Crossgales. Inc.
Oellwood Corporation
Elias Brothers
Exxon Corporation
Greyhound
1.1. Gumberg Company
Gustine Company
H. 1. Heinz Comp.ny
Heller Financial
Hoss's Steak & Sea House
King's Country Shoppes
Legg Mason Real Estate Services
May Company
Marrion Corporalion
McOonald's Corporation
Mobil Oil Corporation
National Development Corporation
PNS Realty Associales
Region.1 Industrial Development Corp.
Sun Oil Company
U.S.X.
Wendy's of Gre.ter Pittsburgh, Inc.
Westinghouse Corporation
Zamias Services, Inc.
Life....C.ampaJlit:~(lPendnn Fllnrf~
Aid Association of Lutherans
Allstate Insurance Company
Amresco
American Express
Central Park Capital
Connecticut Mutual Insurance Comp.ny
Equitable of Iowa
M.nulife Financial
Metlife Capital Financial Corporation
Mutual of Omaha
Patrician Company
Pennsylv.nia Sl:1te Employee Retirement Systems
Shenandoah Life
State F.rm
DankJ
Dank of America
Bank of New York
Bank One
Bank Uniled of Texas
Chemical Bank
CoreSlates
Dollar Savings Bank
Fidelity Savings & Loan
First Home Savings & Loan
First Maryland Mongage Corp.
First National Bank & Trust of Washington
First South Savings & Loan
First Western Bank, N.A.
10hnstown Savings Bank
Mellon Bank, N.A.
Meridian Bank
National City Bank of Pennsylvania
Nonhside Deposit Bank
PNC Bank, N.A.
PNC Financial Corporation
Reeves Bank
S&TBank
Sunbe!t Savings
Three Rivers Bank
Washington Federal Savings & Loan Assoc.
Government
BaldwinlWhitehall School District
Department ofH.U.D.
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Home Loan Bank Board of Atlanta
Municipality of Bethel Park
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Pittsburgh Parking Authority
Resolution Trust Corporation
United Slates Department of the Interior
United Sl:1tes Poslal Service
Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh
Barone, Murtha, Shan berg & Associates, Inc.