HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-03-20 Resolutionthat the Resolution as read.be adopted, and ,upon roll call there were:
Passed this 20 day of March 19 73
Cedar Ra ids Roofing, Inc.
of Cedar RapidsIowa
dated February 27
for the construction of
repairs to the Recreation ranter Roof
within the City of Iowa City, Iowa, `as described in ,the plans and specifications
and which have been signed by the Mayor and City Clerk on behalf of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, be and the same are hereby approved,
It was moved by Connell
and seconded by A7hi+ ^
that the resolution as read be adopted, and upon roll call there
were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Brandt x
Connell x
Czarnecki x
Hickerson
White x
Passed and approved this 20 day of _ Marnh
/ �/�_ , I/
ATTEST:_
City Clerk
Connell
Czarnecki
Hickerson
White
Passed and approved this 20 day ofMarch 1973.
ATTEST: Mayor
Ci ty, C le 'k ,
Parcel. 84,-13 =-*
323,-129Si`: Clinton
Georgia_ Marlas
March 14, 1973
' . To: File
From: Real Estate Coordinator`
Subject: Appraisal review setting Fair Market Value.
The two appraisals are less than 1% apart. They.areso close
in their final determination that wecanonly reflect upon
their relative approaches to the appraisal and not particularly
find fault with their estimated Fair Market Value.
The .differences in theirappraisals cent' on the,'income.ap-
proach and the way, the vacant land is treated.
IAR Co.. estimates the Market Value of the vacant land and
does'not 'include the income from the'vacant.:land in his income
approach'. He also'subtracts -the taxes attributable to the
vacant land from his expenses:
Waters takes a different approach. He estimates the economic
rent of the vacant land and includes the rent'and.taxes of the
vacant land-in the body.of his `'income approach.
Since the appraisals are procedurally and methodologically,
acceptable', I see little use 'in'second guessing the appraisers`.
by,reworking their figures 'using the+:other;,appraisers procedure.
I would like to point out that-Waters income approach might be
less-if the taxes.;were put on a current basis,, however, since
''he figures he market value to be above the income approach it'
would serve 'little use.
I also note that IAR Co. in his final estimate of value gives
most;weight.to the Market Value approach, however, on his
recap sheet he has the Cost Approach and Market Data Approach'
figures reversed and it is conceivable that his appraisal
might have been $2,000.00 higher.
It should also be noted that in the time lapse between the
two; appraisals that R.G. Dickinson,&,Co.'moved:from,,the premises
and it is presumed that all items listed in'the `Dix Appraisal.
of immovable. fixtures totaling $2,546.00 were either removed or
were considered part of the real estate in the second' appraisal.
Recommended Market Value $242,000.00
Plus Immovable Fixtures to Little
Caesars' Pizza Treat 17 400.00
TOTAL 259,400.00
• Rodney R. Parsons
Rea`i/ Estate Coordinator
Lot` Size:< ame_X. i
Iowa R-"14'
se 5ame X i ..
' Size::,8120
•
Appraiser: A
g�
'Date of Appraisal
3-1-71
5-17-72
Total Value
$ 257,400.00
$ 259,400.00
Land
$16.00PSF $ 129,920:00
$21.00PSP $170,500.00 :-
Improvements
$ 110,080.00
$ 71,500.00
Total R.E.'Appraisal
$ 240,000:00
$242,000.00
Leasehold.Interest-0'-
$
$
Fixtures' L' $17,400.00
2 $
Total` Leased'` Fee$240y000.00
$ 242;000.00
Total' Leasehold Interest'
$
$ {
INCOME
Actual,. Rent
$
"Estimated Rent
$ 35,328.00
$ 32,490.00
Expenses$
14,508.00
$ 12,869.00
Net Income
$ 20,820.00
$ 16,621.00
Cap. ,Rate
g a
110
Value Today
$231,000.00 —
$178,373.00
Excessland ,„Xtin—rrrr
I4ARKET DATA
A G.A.I.M. B
Comps. 1.1131 @9.3 PSF 1. #54
$242,193,00
@ PSF
2. X33 @ 4.53 PSF 2. 1170 @ — PSP
3. 1145 @ 6`. 55 PSF 3. 1171 @ — PSF
•
$P
SF $SF 7b $180,000.00
Exc r? 18.?63,800.00
Value $247,300.00 - �—�
Roviewer"{� �11Xif �cG-LDa'te 3-14-73
Lot Size• ame-X i
Iowa R=14
se ame 1
•
Appraisers A
g
'Date of Appraisal
'
11-28-78
-
2 15-71
Total Value:
$ .146,000.00-
$ 148,000.00
Land
$40.00PSF $ 64,000.00
$30.00 PSF"$ 48,000.00''
Improvements
S 82,000.00
;
100,000.00:
Total'R.E. Appraisal
$146,000.00
$ 1481000.00'`
Leasehold.Interest
$ 4.3,000.00
$ 31,006.'00'.
Fixtures' 1. $ 26,339.00
Total Leased Fee
$ 103.000. 0
$ 117t000.00ii
Total Leasehold Interest'
$ 43,000.'00
S-11,00010 `
INCOME
Actual Rent
$
Estimated Rent
$22.328.00
Expenses
$ 6.296.00
$ 7.133.00
Net Income
$16:032.00
$-13,322.00
Cap. Rate
11%
9 5
Value Today.$145,745.00
$148,000.00
A
Comps.', l.:#70
2, 954
- 3. #56.
MARKET DATA
GAIM B
@ 4.6 PSF' 1. #39 @9.84 PSP
@ 7.1 PSF 2, #33 @ 4. 53 PSP
@ 6.7 PSF 3. 1130 @ S. 99 PSP
Block- .
Parcel
y;
APPRAISAL REVIEW suIMMARY
Property Identification
f
101 South Clinton, Iowa City, Iowa
Major tenant: Hamburger Inc. ;
Aar
Owner on Braverman
;i
Appr— a� s
A. $ ,: 146000.00 > )' Used in staff `recom-
B• $
_148,000.00 ), mendation of FMV
C• $:, 66,000.00
Limits of Offer
Minimum Price $ 147,000:'00
Maximum Price $_148.000.06 --
148.000:00Recommendation
Re . commendation (3-5-73 )
Staff recommends fair market value of
$ 148,000.00
}
" Plus Immovable Fixtures of $26,339.00.
`
Parce1 '84-1
101`South.Clinton
Aaron Braverman
j
"• To: Local Public Agency
From: -:Real EstateCoordinator
Subject: Appraisal review .setting F.M.V.
Although the appraisals are very ,close together, being
$146,000.00 vs. $148,000.00 or a difference of 1.3%, for
the sake of this review.T am going to discount appraisal "B"
because it is two years old. Rent escalator clauses have
caused a,sliift in income and .the value factors will be off -
simply because'of.the passage of time. These factors have a
definite' effect on how the total funds should be allocated .
to the ''tenant 'and owners.`-
Using a slightly different technique than appraiser"A" I come
up with the following on the leasehold interest:
Current annual contract rent $6,760.80 .
Tenant, paid tax increase 268.06
Tenant paid insurance increase 380.16
TOTAL P,409.02
;.
Economic rent, 1568 square"feet @"8.50 $13,328.00
Less actual rent, 7,409.02
Lessee rent advantage 4 5,918.9 8
e
$5;918.98 divided by 12 months $ 493.24
r'
13$" Cap rate x,173 months 77.996
'S`'
-Present worth of $1.0O`permonth ' 77.996
x 493.24
Leasehold interest 3 8,470.00
Usingthe hi h
g.a ppraisal of; $148,000.00' the recommended
division ``of'interestits as follows:
Fee interest $109,500.00
Rounded leasehold interest 38 500.00
TOTAL . 148,000.00
In 1966 Marshall -Stevens appraised this property at,
$66,000.00. A year later the lessee paid $77,649.64 for
remodeling costs and $31,928.77 for fixtures. This is the
total cost for both parcels 84-1 and 84-2. In effect the
lessee has paid for his leasehold interest, his improvements
definitely raised the value of the building and he is most
certainly entitled to the large leaseliold interest.
Recommended Fair Market Value $148,000.00
�1;;�,,'�1 t Imo/` • �-/' ��uJ-z'%LIi
Rodney R. Parsons
Reah Estate Coordinator
I
Parcel 84-2'
4'
27 East Whington
-• Kent Braverman
March 601973
To: Local Public Agency.
From: ;Real'Estate Coordinator
Subject: Appraisal review setting F.M.V.
Parcel 84-1 and parcel 84-2 are identical in that the biggest
problem is the division
ofinterest between the landlord and the.
tenant.' The immovable fixture inventory
has been allocated en-
tirely to parcel 84-1 and'.will`not be'a-partiof
this review.
Since the appraisals are acceptable in regard to matter and form
and are only 3.8% apart,.I.am going to recommend the high appraisal.
In regard to the division interests,
of I must disregard the low
appraisal because it is two years old rent
,and ;escalator clauses-'
have ,.caused a shift in income and other value'factors:will be
off simply because_of
the'passage'of time.
Using a different techniqute than appraiser A used in determining
the leasehold
and a technique, that appraiser -:A has used on most
of hi s appraisals, I
come up.with',thz following:
Current Annual `Contract Rent' $3000100
Tenant Paid Tax Increase 150.00
a Tenant Paid Insurance'Increase 213:84
TOTAL 3364.7
In figuring the economic rent of the building,'the appraiser
used $8:50
pzr'square foot which is.the same.,figure he used on
parcel 84-1 I don't feel 'that `this is reasonable
in that he
values. thelandon parcel '84-1 at'$4.0.00'per `square'foot and
the
land on parcel ;84-2 at. $30.00 per square, ,foot. Parcel
i.: 8.4-6 (Flenry's),land
value°i's $20:00 per square:foot and contract
rent is $8.00 per square foot. To keep in line with these
apprais-
als the economic rent on parcel 84;2,should be no more than
$8.25:per
square foot.
Economic rent 800 square foot @ $8.25 $6600.00
Less actual rent 3364:76
Lessee rent advantage J3235.
- $3235.24 divided by, 12 months $ 277.00
13 Cap rate X 173 months remaining
in lease 77.996
Present worth of $1.00 per month in the
future 77:996
X $277.00
Leaseliold interest rounded to $21,500;00 $215
• My total recommended leaseliold on parcels 84-1 and 84-2 is
460,000.00
compared to $63,000.00 recommended by appraiser A.
This is extremely close considering I 25�
used p.s.f. less
Lot
Size: ame X i H.
—_
. se ame X 1
lowa:'R 14
—
Appraiser: A
8, ;
•
Date of A ppraisal
11-28-72:2-15-71
—
`
Total Value.
$ 68,000.00
$ G5, 500. 00
Land
$30'.00PSF $.24,000..00
$25.00PSF $ 20,000.00`.
Improvements
$ 44,000.00
$ 45,500.00-.
Total R.E. Appraisal
$ 68,000.00
$ 65,500.`00
Leasehold:Interest
$'20,000.00
$ 15, ZOO.Ob?
$
$
Fixtures`' 1°. $ Incl.
in 84-1'
2. $
3. S.
--.
Total Leased Fee:
$48,000.00
$50,300.00
,.
Total Leasehold.Interest
$20,000:00
$15`;200.00,'i+
INCOME -
Actual Rent
S
Estimated Rent
$10,040.00
$ 8,400.00"'
Expenses
$ 2;518.00 r
S 2,507.00
Net Income
$ 7,522.00
$ -5,893.00•
Cap. Rate
11%
9
Value Today
$68,381.00
$ 65,500:00t:
A
Comps. 1. 854
2. 856
3, #70
MARKET DATA
GAIy
@7.1 PSF 1. 430
@6.7 PSF 2. 1133
@4.6 "PSF 3. #39
$PSF 6.5
Value 65,000.00 59.220.00
Reviewer_ c &".��e?,bate 3-5-73