appraisal review & analysis 11-11-21334.03...213.612.8000 213.612.8014 fax september 30, 2005...

Clark County Audit Department

Appraisal Review & Analysis

Phase II

September 1, 2005

11-11-21334.03

355 South Grand Avenue Suite 1750 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1568 213.612.8000 213.612.8014 FAX www.marshall-t

September 30, 2005 File Reference: 11-11-21334.03doc Clark County Audit Department 500 South Grand Central Parkway, 4th Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89106-1825 Attention: George Stevens Chief Financial Officer At your request, we have reviewed ninety-one (91) vacant land parcels and their associated appraisals and/or review appraisals as provided to us by the client. It is our understanding that the parcels were involved in Land Trades known as GK Trade 2, GK Trade 9, GK Trade 17, GK Trade 18, LVPPA, Rico Williams and Tiberti I. We have also reviewed one appraisal of the market value of the leased fee interest in the land and building improvements known as Majestic I, II, III and IV/V. The purpose of the assignment is to assist the Clark County Audit Department in their audit of the subject land trades for internal planning. The scope of the assignment includes the following:

1. Review and analyze the appraiser’s instructions, appraisal and land exchange-policy documents, the scope of the appraisal assignments, and any hypothetical conditions imposed on the appraisers or assumed by them. Determine whether any of the above may have caused or encouraged the appraisers to deviate from generally accepted appraisal procedures, reach erroneous or flawed highest and best use conclusions, or aggregate the appraised parcels to be exchanged in a manner that could have had a material effect on value conclusions.

2. Thoroughly review each real estate appraisal with regard to

application of appropriate valuation methodologies and support for value conclusions. At a minimum, each review shall assess the legitimacy of the highest and best use conclusion, appropriateness f the comparable sales relied upon by the appraiser, and whether the adjustments made to the comparable sales were sufficient to

Clark County Audit Department September 30, 2005 Page 2

11-11-21334.03

account for all of the necessary elements of comparison. Furthermore, each review will include an analysis of appraisal errors such as mathematical or arithmetic errors, incomplete or erroneous legal descriptions, and accuracy of site descriptions for the appraised property and/or comparable sales (i.e. land area, shape, frontage, land use zoning, utility services, and topography).

3. Physically inspect appraised properties, and comparable sales as

deemed necessary by the review appraiser.

4. Determine whether any appraisal inconsistencies were evident in property values that systematically favored one party over another in circumstances where a single appraiser appraised the properties included on both sides of a land exchange.

5. Analyze market conditions, economic and demographic trends,

freeway development plans, and land use patterns as of the valuation dates and assess whether the impacts thereof were appropriately accounted for in the appraisals.

6. Compare industry trends, financial market conditions and investment

criteria to those employed, assumed, or relied upon in the appraisals.


11-11-21334.03

Identification of Assignment The vacant land parcels included in the review are listed below. The list includes the Trade Name, whether the parcel is Outgoing from the County to the Developer or Incoming from the Developer to the County, Parcel Number per the Clark County Assessor’s Office, Document/Appraisal (Book) Number, and Date Appraised. The list indicates more than one appraisal, appraisal review and/or document for some parcels.

NameOutgoing/ Incoming Parcel Numbers LTA Acres Book Date Appraised

GK Trade 17 Incoming 176-01-801-009 2.5 3244 8/25/2001GK Trade 17 Incoming 176-03-601-008 5 3310 9/25/2001GK Trade 17 Incoming 177-18-601-007 1.25 3243 9/2/2001GK Trade 17 Incoming 177-18-601-007 1.25 3311 9/2/2001GK Trade 17 Incoming 177-18-601-007 1.25 3835 7/7/2004GK Trade 17 Outgoing 176-04-101-005 20.55 2883 12/15/2000GK Trade 17 Outgoing 176-04-101-005 20.55 2939 12/15/2001GK Trade 17 Outgoing 176-04-101-005 20.55 3312 7/8/2001GK Trade 18 Incoming 163-34-201-009 2.5 3561 7/26/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-01-301-003 2.5 3562 6/1/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-01-301-008 2.5 3562 6/1/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-01-301-009 2.5 3562 6/1/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-01-301-015 2.5 3562 6/1/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-01-401-010 2.5 3563 7/26/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-01-601-008 2.5 3562 6/1/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-01-601-011 2.5 3562 6/1/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-01-701-013 2.5 2930 1/6/2001GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-01-701-013 2.5 2968 4/21/2001GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-01-701-013 2.5 3563 7/26/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-03-101-002 5 3564 7/26/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-03-201-007 5 3564 7/26/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-03-202-002 2.5 3564 7/26/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-03-202-003 2.5 3564 7/26/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-03-203-001 5 3564 7/26/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-03-302-004 5 3564 7/26/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-03-302-006 5 3564 7/26/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-03-302-009 5 3564 7/26/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 176-09-501-001 5 3565 7/1/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 177-08-401-002 5 2847 1/11/2001


11-11-21334.03


GK Trade 18 Incoming 177-08-401-002 5 3101 6/29/2001GK Trade 18 Incoming 177-08-401-002 5 3566 7/1/2002GK Trade 18 Incoming 177-18-501-001 1.25 3243 9/2/2001GK Trade 18 Incoming 177-18-501-001 1.25 3311 9/2/2001GK Trade 18 Incoming 177-18-501-001 1.25 3567 7/26/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 162-31-401-002 2.6 2668 3/3/2000GK Trade 18 Outgoing 162-31-401-002 2.6 3558 7/10/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 162-31-401-011 2.5 2820 12/5/2000GK Trade 18 Outgoing 162-31-401-011 2.5 3558 7/10/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 162-31-401-019 2.59 2818 10/21/2000GK Trade 18 Outgoing 162-31-401-019 2.59 3558 7/10/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 162-31-401-020 2.5 2818 10/21/2000GK Trade 18 Outgoing 162-31-401-020 2.5 3558 7/10/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 162-31-401-021 2.5 2818 10/21/2000GK Trade 18 Outgoing 162-31-401-021 2.5 3558 7/10/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 162-31-401-028 23 3558 7/10/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-29-301-001 5 2741 6/24/2000GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-29-301-001 5 3557 5/1/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-29-301-002 5 2741 6/24/2000GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-29-301-002 5 3557 5/1/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-29-301-003 10 3557 5/1/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-29-301-004 5.22 2771 7/3/2000GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-29-301-004 5.22 3557 5/1/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-29-301-005 5.22 2771 7/3/2000GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-29-301-005 5.22 3557 5/1/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-29-301-010 5.22 2749 8/7/2000GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-29-301-010 5.22 3557 5/1/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-29-301-011 5.22 2749 8/7/2000GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-29-301-011 5.22 3557 5/1/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-29-301-012 5.22 2771 7/3/2000GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-29-301-012 5.22 3557 5/1/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-29-301-021 5.22 3557 5/1/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-32-301-005 2.66 2772 8/19/2000GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-32-301-005 2.66 3559 7/10/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-32-301-005 2.66 3752 2/9/2003GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-32-301-012 4.74 2773 8/24/2000GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-32-301-012 4.74 3560 5/18/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-32-301-025 1.13 2998 12/20/2000GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-32-301-025 1.13 3029 12/20/2000


11-11-21334.03


GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-32-301-026 2.97 2998 12/20/2000GK Trade 18 Outgoing 163-32-301-026 2.97 3029 12/20/2000GK Trade 18 Outgoing 176-01-501-005 8.34 3557 5/1/2002GK Trade 18 Outgoing 176-04-801-013 5 3557 5/1/2002GK Trade 9 Incoming 163-33-701-003 2.5 2994 2/2/2001GK Trade 9 Incoming 163-33-701-003 2.5 3841 7/30/2004GK Trade 9 Incoming 176-01-301-002 2.5 2889 1/30/2001GK Trade 9 Incoming 176-01-301-002 2.5 2926 4/26/2001GK Trade 9 Incoming 176-01-301-002 2.5 3000 3/26/2001GK Trade 9 Incoming 176-01-301-004 2.5 2889 1/30/2001GK Trade 9 Incoming 176-01-301-004 2.5 2926 4/26/2001GK Trade 9 Incoming 176-01-301-004 2.5 3000 3/26/2001GK Trade 9 Incoming 176-01-301-010 2.5 2889 1/30/2001GK Trade 9 Incoming 176-01-301-010 2.5 2926 4/26/2001GK Trade 9 Incoming 176-01-301-010 2.5 3000 3/26/2001GK Trade 9 Incoming 176-01-301-013 2.5 2889 1/30/2001GK Trade 9 Incoming 176-01-301-013 2.5 2926 4/26/2001GK Trade 9 Incoming 176-01-301-013 2.5 3000 3/26/2001GK Trade 9 Incoming 176-01-402-003 2.5 2889 1/30/2001GK Trade 9 Incoming 176-01-402-003 2.5 2926 4/26/2001GK Trade 9 Incoming 176-01-402-003 2.5 3000 3/26/2001GK Trade 9 Incoming 176-03-201-005 5 2996 4/24/2001GK Trade 9 Incoming 163-29-401-016 15.72 3750 12/14/2002GK Trade 9 Incoming 163-29-401-016 15.72 3005 1/6/2001GK Trade 9 Incoming 163-29-401-016 15.72 2940 1/6/2001GK Trade 9 Outgoing 163-32-201-010 49.74 2960 12/15/2000GK Trade 9 Outgoing 163-32-201-010 49.74 2998 12/20/2000GK Trade 9 Outgoing 163-32-201-010 49.74 3029 12/20/2000GK Trade 9 Outgoing 163-32-701-007a 42.5 2837 2/29/2000GK Trade 9 Outgoing 163-32-701-007a 42.5 2960 12/15/2000GK Trade 9 Outgoing 163-32-701-007a 42.5 2998 12/20/2000GK Trade 9 Outgoing 163-32-701-007a 42.5 3029 12/20/2000LVPPA Incoming 177-05-401-007 5 2850 12/28/2000LVPPA Incoming 177-05-401-008 5 2850 12/28/2000LVPPA Outgoing 163-36-701-024 9.32 2849 12/28/2000Rico Williams Incoming 177-19-306-002 1.25 3672 11/14/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-106-004 1.25 3464 5/3/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-106-004 1.25 3495 6/24/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-106-004 1.25 3518 11/27/2001


11-11-21334.03


Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-106-004 1.25 3673 11/12/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-203-001 1.25 3672 11/14/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-203-005 1.25 3495 6/24/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-203-005 1.25 3519 11/27/2001Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-203-005 1.25 3673 11/12/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-203-011 1.25 3464 5/3/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-203-011 1.25 3495 6/24/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-203-011 1.25 3518 11/27/2001Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-203-011 1.25 3673 11/12/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-204-001 1.25 3464 5/3/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-204-001 1.25 3495 6/24/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-204-001 1.25 3518 11/27/2001Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-204-001 1.25 3673 11/12/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-301-005 2.5 3464 5/3/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-301-005 2.5 3495 6/24/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-301-005 2.5 3518 11/27/2001Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-301-005 2.5 3673 11/12/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-301-010 2.5 3464 5/3/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-301-010 2.5 3495 6/24/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-301-010 2.5 3518 11/27/2001Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-301-010 2.5 3673 11/12/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-401-001 2.5 3526 7/16/2002Rico Williams Incoming 177-30-401-001 2.5 3672 11/14/2002Rico Williams Outgoing 176-16-301-019 7.5 3674 10/16/2002Rico Williams Outgoing 176-16-301-019 7.5 3674 10/16/2002Rico Williams Outgoing 176-16-301-019 7.5 3674 10/16/2002Rico Williams Outgoing 176-16-301-019 7.5 3772 11/15/2002Rico Williams Outgoing 176-16-301-019 7.5 3772 11/15/2002Rico Williams Outgoing 177-30-301-017 2.5 3464 5/3/2002Rico Williams Outgoing 177-30-301-017 2.5 3495 6/24/2002Rico Williams Outgoing 177-30-301-017 2.5 3518 11/27/2001Rico Williams Outgoing 177-30-301-017 2.5 3673 11/12/2002Tiberti I Incoming 176-09-201-004 5 2806 5/11/2000Tiberti I Incoming 176-09-701-003 2.5 2807 5/11/2000Tiberti I Incoming 176-09-701-004 2.5 2807 5/11/2000Tiberti I Incoming 176-09-701-009 5 2808 5/11/2000Tiberti I Incoming 176-09-801-003 5 2809 5/11/2000Tiberti I Incoming 177-04-301-009 2.5 2805 7/8/2000Tiberti I Incoming 177-04-301-010 2.5 2805 7/8/2000Tiberti I Incoming 177-04-301-017 6.91 2805 7/8/2000


11-11-21334.03


Tiberti I Incoming 177-04-301-020 1.55 2805 7/8/2000Tiberti I Incoming 177-04-301-021 3.26 2805 7/8/2000Tiberti I Outgoing 163-20-801-015 5 2804 5/16/2000Tiberti I Outgoing 163-29-401-004 5 2797 5/16/2000Tiberti I Outgoing 163-29-401-008 5 2798 5/16/2000Tiberti I Outgoing 163-32-401-009 5 2799 5/16/2000Tiberti I Outgoing 176-01-101-008 7 2800 5/16/2000Tiberti I Outgoing 176-01-401-008 5 2801 5/16/2000Tiberti I Outgoing 176-01-401-008 5 3443 4/30/2002Tiberti I Outgoing 176-02-101-001 5 2676 3/3/2000Tiberti I Outgoing 176-02-201-010 5 2705 5/20/2000Tiberti I Outgoing 176-02-701-008 15 2676 3/3/2000Tiberti I Outgoing 176-04-201-009 15 2707 5/17/2000Tiberti I Outgoing 176-04-201-009 15 2802 8/30/2000Tiberti I Outgoing 176-04-401-001 10 2803 8/30/2000

Parcel with Open-Space ZoningGK Trade 2 Outgoing 163-35-801-005 5 2714 6/7/2000GK Trade 2 Outgoing 163-35-801-005 5 2763 8/12/2000GK Trade 2 Outgoing 163-35-801-005 5 2764 7/8/2000


11-11-21334.03

Review Methodology Our review methodology was essentially a USPAP Technical Review per Standard 3 which addresses Appraisal Review, Development and Reporting. As the review appraiser, it is our responsibility to follow guidelines as set forth in the 2005 Edition of USPAP, effective January 1, 2005. However, our review holds the appraisal reviewed to the USPAP Edition in effect at the time of the appraisal date, as opposed to effective date of the subject appraisals. USPAP (Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice) is based on the original standards developed in 1986-87 by the Ad Hoc Committee on Uniform Standards copyrighted in 1987 by the Appraisal Foundation which was unanimously adopted and approved in 1989. These Standards may be amended, supplemented, or repealed by the Appraisal Standards Board (ASB). USPAP is not a law. It is a professional standard that has been adopted by major appraisal organizations in North America including most, if not all, State Boards of Appraisers in the United States. In the next section of this presentation we will present issues that were noted in the review of the 91 Parcels and their respective appraisals (Documents) that were submitted to us. Subsequently we will discuss the Review Procedures as they relate to USPAP Standards Rule 3-1. Effective Date of Review The effective date of this review is September 1, 2005. Scope of the Assignment #1 Per the engagement letter the first item to be addressed under the Scope of the Assignment was to “Review and analyze the appraiser’s instructions, appraisal and land exchange-policy documents, the scope of the appraisal assignments, and any hypothetical conditions imposed on the appraisers or assumed by them. Determine whether any of the above may have caused or encouraged the appraisers to deviate from generally accepted appraisal procedures, reach erroneous or flawed highest and best use conclusions, or aggregate the appraised parcels to be exchanged in a manner that could have had a material effect on value conclusions.”


11-11-21334.03

Appraiser instructions were not included in the Addenda of the Documents that were provided to use for review. Therefore, we can not comment on the effect they may have had on the appraisal process. We have reviewed the appraisals and/or review appraisals for each of the parcels within this assignment. The results of our review relative to this first item with respect to the individual parcels are found within the associated discussion found in the Addenda. Scope of the Assignment #2 The second item under the Scope of the Assignment was to “Thoroughly review each real estate appraisal with regard to application of appropriate valuation methodologies and support for value conclusions. At a minimum, each review shall assess the legitimacy of the highest and best use conclusion, appropriateness of the comparable sales relied upon by the appraiser, and whether the adjustment made to the comparable sales were sufficient.” We have reviewed the appraisals and/or review appraisals for each of the parcels within this assignment relative to the specific items mentioned within Scope #2. The results of our review relative to this first item are found within the discussion of the individual parcels and appraisals found in the Addenda. Scope of the Assignment #3 The third item under the Scope of the Assignment was to “Physically inspect appraised properties, and comparable sales as deemed necessary by the review appraiser.” Each appraiser responsible for the review of the individual parcels has inspected the subject property of the appraisal and the comparable sales as was deemed necessary upon the review.


11-11-21334.03

Scope of the Assignment #4 Determine whether any appraisal inconsistencies were evident in property values that systematically favored one party over another in circumstances where a single appraiser appraised the properties included on both sides of a land exchange. The following discussion relative to each Trade addresses Scope #4. Comments Relative to Individual Trades Multiple Documents have been provided for several parcels. While the parcels are listed as incoming or outgoing, some Documents are related to parcels that have been both incoming and outgoing. The following comments follow the lists generated by our excel documentation. GK Trade 2 Our review of this trade involves three Documents. The first Document (Lamb) appraises the subject parcel only as 5 acres with Office Professional zoning. The second Document (Morse) hypothetically assembles the parcel with another to equal 25 acres and indicates the zoning is RNP-CMA. The third Document (Morse) hypothetically assembles the parcel with another to equal 35 acres with Office Professional zoning. There are questions as to why the second parcel which is reportedly zoned RNP involves the subject as in the other two Documents the parcel is zoned Office Professional. This assessment of the zoning by the appraiser causes the value to be considerably less in the second Document. GK Trade 9 Our review of this trade involves eleven Parcels and twenty-eight Documents. Timothy R. Morse & Associates is the appraiser for all but one of the Documents. Integra-Nevada is the appraiser for one Document that is an addendum to another appraisal which is not included in our assignment. The Addendum does not have enough information to enable us to comment except to say the appraisal is hypothetical in that it assumes a portion of a larger parcel. There are two outgoing parcels in this trade that we have been asked to review. The first Document appraises the first Parcel assembled with another Parcel. The second Document appraises the Parcel alone. The second valuation is retrospective. The retrospective value results in a lower value than would be estimated otherwise.


11-11-21334.03

The first of the remaining three outgoing Documents assembles an assumed Parcel with other Parcels for a total of 75 acres. The comparables are much too small (2.5 to 5.0 acres) and (10.0 to 12.5 acres). The Parcel is a combination of zoning; one zoning is 15 acres, another is a total of 45 acres. The adjustment for a larger parcel can not be accurately estimated when the differential is so large and there are no larger parcels. The lack of adjustment grid or quantification of adjustments results in the inability to comment further. There are twenty-one Documents involving eight Parcels that are incoming. All of the Documents were prepared by Morse. They do not have adjustment grids, nor do they quantify adjustments. Despite this, a few Documents contain comparables that appear reasonable and are within a relatively narrow range of price per unit. We have determined seven Documents that we believe report reasonable values. They represent three Parcels. Issues related to the remaining Documents include, (1) there were comparables available that were not used, this skewed the value to the higher end of the range, and (2) several comparable sales are used at sales prices that are higher than the tax assessor’s recorded price stating that there was an assignment fee. There is no supporting documentation and the client is often the source for the knowledge of the fee. GK Trade 17 Our review of this trade involves seven Documents relative to one outgoing and two incoming Parcels. Timothy R. Morse & Associates is the only appraiser involved in this trade. One of the appraisals for the outgoing parcel is retrospective with no explanation as to why. One of the appraisals uses inappropriate comparables relative to size. The appraisals for the incoming Parcels appear to skew the values to the high end of the range by using additional fees over public recorded sale price, conclusion to the higher end of the range, no adjustment grid or quantification of adjustments and no mention or adjustment for minimal frontage on one Parcel. GK Trade 18 Our review of this trade involves fifty-eight Documents and thirty-eight Parcels. Integra-Nevada was the appraiser for six Documents, Clark Companies Ltd performed two appraisals. Timothy R. Morse & Associates was the appraiser for the remaining Documents. The Document list is organized by Parcel; therefore, the incoming and outgoing Parcels are not as clearly delineated.


11-11-21334.03

The first of two Clark appraisals does not discuss the Master Plan and uses the “highest price” market value definition instead of the “most probable price” definition that all of the other appraisers use. In the second Clark appraisal which appears to be an update, the adjustment for frontage seems too steep and there are no adjustments for size or improving market conditions. The Integra-Nevada appraisals do not adjust for market conditions even though the area analysis discusses increasing economic indicators. The appraisals discuss the fact that the availability of water is doubtful for future development. The Integra appraisal did not use the subject sale as a comparable in one appraisal, did not use an adjustment grid in some appraisals and did not address railroad right of way and RR bisecting issues in another appraisal. Overall the Integra values were considered to be understated by all three review appraisers. The following issues were found within our review of the Timothy R. Morse & Associates appraisals.

• Parcels were valued above recent listing and sale prices. Listing prices are usually above the actual sales price. Recent sales are generally a good indicator of value.

• The appraiser used amounts over and above the recorded sales price and stated

that they were “additional commissions” and “assignment fees”. There was no documentation to support this claim. The source of the information generally came from the client. The appraiser only used one other comparable that did not involve the above referenced fees.

• The appraiser did not use adjustment grids, nor did he quantify adjustments. • A downward adjustment was taken to County owned land due to the fact that a

Deed Restriction prohibited residential and public facility development. Our research indicates that over the last five years the average residential sales price per unit has lagged behind commercial and industrial land sales per unit. Furthermore, the other appraisers involved in our review did not make negative adjustments for the Deed Restriction.

• The appraiser’s selection of comparables failed to include several comparables

in many instances with higher sales prices per unit.


11-11-21334.03

• The appraiser valued the parcels as an assemblage. This tends to lower the

value of the individual Parcel. • The appraiser failed to use the recent sale of the subject as a comparable. • The appraiser seemed to use sales with low prices per square foot when higher

sales were available when valuing County land. • A retrospective value was determined without explanation. This would tend to

lower the conclusion of value, especially in a rapidly growing market such as the subject’s.

• Several appraisals listed sales but did not use them stating they were too old or

not suitable. These appraisals also listed several escrows. The escrows were used as comparables, not the sales. The escrows also included additional commissions and assignment fees. The Addenda included comprehensive information about the sales, but no information about the escrows. In addition, several of the escrows involved participation by the client.

• The appraiser stated that an alternate Highest and Best Use for some properties

would be to “trade to the county”, in fact they were purchased by the private owner just for that purpose. It is understandable that a developer might acquire property that the County needs in order to facilitate a trade. However, to state that the Highest and Best Use, even if alternate, is to trade with the county implies that the trade is one of the best ways to maximize profit.

• The continuous use of sales that are appraised for more than recent sales or

listings and the continuous use of sales that are in excess of recorded sales results in artificially increasing the value of the Parcels. The continuous practice of including negative adjustments on County land that is outgoing and positive increases of sales through additional fees may cause a detriment to the County’s position.


11-11-21334.03

LVPPA Our review of this trade involved two Documents and four Parcels. Integra-Nevada performed both appraisals. One parcel (10 acres) was outgoing and two parcels (two 5 acre) were combined as incoming. The reports are confusing regarding consideration of area and neighborhood analysis. Despite the presence of an adjustment grid, the lack of quantification of adjustments makes the analysis difficult to follow. The value of the incoming parcel seems to be on the low end of the range. Market condition adjustments were made in both appraisals. Rico Williams Our review of this trade involved thirty-one Appraisals and twelve Parcels. Integra-Nevada performed three appraisals. Clark Companies Ltd. was responsible for fifteen appraisals, Kent & Kent performed eight appraisals and Timothy R. Morse & Associates was responsible for five appraisals. Integra-Nevada’s three Documents were review appraisals. Overall the value conclusions within the Kent & Kent appraisals were reasonable. Comments include the following, (1) market condition adjustments seem low, (2) there were inconsistencies in the format such as the table of contents not matching the report, (3) the Highest and Best Use discussion is unclear, (4) no support for conditions of sale adjustment, and (5) there is no mention of the size of the parcel at the beginning of one report. Three of the Timothy R. Morse & Associates appraisal values were considered to be reasonable. The following comments are pertinent to the remaining two appraisals: (1) the subject being appraised is part of a larger 35 acre parcel, (2) No explanation is given for the hypothetical condition of assuming this parcel, (3) there is no adjustment grid or quantification of adjustments, (4) no location adjustment, (4) adjustment for Deed Restriction and (5) “Why is a retrospective value required?” Overall the Clark Companies Ltd. value conclusions were considered to be reasonable. However, we note the following comments: (1) in several instances the Highest and Best Use is not clearly identified, (2) in several instances there is no adjustment for market conditions, (3) did not use recent sale of the subject as a comparable, (4) values seem skewed too high due to comparable selection, and (5) report is called a Limited, when it is actually a Restricted format.


11-11-21334.03

Tiberti I Our review of this trade involved twenty-three Documents and eighteen Parcels. Kent & Kent were responsible for twelve appraisals, Clark Companies Ltd. performed three appraisals and Integra-Nevada was responsible for seven appraisals. One of the Clark Companies Ltd. appraisals was the valuation of easements. The methodology appeared to be reasonable. Overall the reports were well written. However, adjustments for access/utilities and frontage seemed very steep and the market value seemed too high. In the third appraisal there was no discussion of adjustments. The value conclusions for all seven of the Integra-Nevada appraisals were considered to be reasonable. The following comments are noted: (1) the reports are confusing regarding consideration of area & neighborhood data, (2) despite the presence of an adjustment grid, the lack of quantification of adjustments makes the analysis difficult to follow, and (3) one property was in escrow but this was not mentioned in the property history section. Upon review of the Kent & Kent appraisals we found that (1) adjustments were not explained, (2) land comparables do not show zoning, (3) there is no discussion of planned land use, (4) there is no adjustment grid or support for adjustments, (5) adjustments are not explained, (6) value conclusion appears to be low based on discussion, (7) possible USPAP violation for insufficient support for value conclusion, (8) an additional listing found in our research located across the street is support for a conclusion of value higher than the conclusion in the report, (9) inappropriate choice of comparables, and (10) we do not find any of the value conclusions to be reasonable based on the above discussion. Scope of the Assignment #5 Analyze market conditions, economic and demographic trends, freeway development plans, and land use patterns as of the valuation dates and assess whether the impacts thereof were appropriately accounted for in the appraisals. We have reviewed the appraisals and/or review appraisals for each of the parcels within this assignment relative to the specific items mentioned within Scope #5. The results of our review relative to this item are found within the discussion of the individual parcels and appraisals found in the Addenda.


11-11-21334.03

Scope of the Assignment #6 Compare industry trends, financial market conditions and investment criteria to those employed, assumed, or relied upon in the appraisals. We have reviewed the appraisals and/or review appraisals for each of the parcels within this assignment relative to the specific items mentioned within Scope #6. The results of our review relative to this item are found within the discussion of the individual parcels and appraisals found in the Addenda.


11-11-21334.03

Compliance with Standard 3 – USPAP 2005 Edition The following portion of this report addresses specifically the individual requirements made by Standard 3 of USPAP 2005 relative to our review.

Standards Rule 3-1(a) Identify the reviewer’s client and intended users, the intended use of the reviewer’s opinions and conclusions, and the purpose of the assignment

– Reviewer’s Client is the Clark County Audit Department – Intended user is the Clark County Audit Department. – The intended use is as part of an audit of the subject land trades. – The purpose of the assignment is to assist the Clark County Audit

Department in their audit of the subject land trades for internal planning.

Standards Rule 3-1(b)

Identify the: – (i) subject of the appraisal review assignment, – (ii) effective date of the review, – (iii) property and ownership interest appraised (if any) in the work

under review, – (iv) date of the work under review and the effective date of the

opinion or conclusions in the work under review, and – (v) appraiser (s) who completed the work under review, unless the

identity was withheld

We have prepared an excel document that provides the above information for the subject parcels by Trade. (See addenda)

Standards Rule 3-1(c)

Identify the scope of work to be performed – This assignment included a technical review of the subject parcels

and associated appraisals. It did not include a separate determination of value per agreement with the client.

– The scope of the assignment included review of the subject parcels and related appraisals and/or review appraisals relative to conformance with USPAP Standards Rule 3-1


11-11-21334.03

− Review of the appraisal documents − Verification of information within the documents

− Inspection of subject and comparable properties when

necessary − Research relative to market conditions as of the effective

date of the opinion in the work being reviewed

Standards Rule 3-1(d) Develop an opinion as to the completeness of the material under review, given the scope of work applicable in the assignment

– Within our excel presentation and discussion of the individual subject appraisals we have indicated our opinions relative to the completeness of the material under review with consideration of the scope of work applicable in the assignment (See Addenda).

Standards Rule 3-1(e)

Develop an opinion as to the apparent adequacy and relevance of the data and the propriety of any adjustments to the data, given the scope of work applicable to the assignment

– Within our excel presentation and discussion of the individual subject parcels and related appraisals and/or review appraisals we have indicated our opinions relative to the propriety of any adjustments to the data, given the scope of work applicable to the assignment. (See Addenda)

Standards Rule 3-1(f)

Develop an opinion as to the appropriateness of the appraisal methods and techniques used, given the scope of work applicable in the assignment, and develop the reasons for any disagreement

– With respect to some parcels, due to the absence of work papers and supporting information, we have been unable to comment on the above beyond that which is within the attached discussion of the individual appraisals. (See Addenda)


11-11-21334.03

– With respect to the remaining parcels we have commented on the appropriateness of the appraisal methods and techniques used, given the scope of work applicable in the assignment, and developed the reasons for any disagreement within the paragraphs found in the attached discussion of the individual parcels and appraisals and/or review appraisals. (See Addenda)

Standards Rule 3-1(g)

Develop an opinion as to whether the analysis, opinions, and conclusions are appropriate and reasonable, given the scope of work applicable in the assignment, and develop the reasons for any disagreement

– Within our excel presentation and discussion of the individual

subject parcels and related appraisals and/or review appraisals we have indicated our opinions as to the appropriateness of the appraisal methods and techniques used, given the scope of work applicable in the assignment, we have developed reasons for any disagreement; however, relative to some parcels we determined that without supporting work papers we were unable to determine whether the analysis, opinions and conclusions are appropriate and reasonable. (See Addenda)


11-11-21334.03

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

Title to Real Estate No investigation of legal title was made, and we render no opinion as to ownership of the properties or condition of the titles. We assume the following:

• The titles to the properties are marketable. • Unless otherwise indicated in this report, the properties are free and clear of

all liens, encumbrances, easements and restrictions. • The properties do not exist in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances,

statutes or other government regulations. • The properties are under responsible ownership and competent management

and are available for their highest and best use.

Information and Data Information supplied by others, which was considered in this valuation review, came from sources believed to be reliable, and we assume no further responsibility for its accuracy. We reserve the right to adjust the opinions and conclusions herein reported as required by consideration of additional or more reliable data that may become available. It is assumed that the information supplied by the source outlined within this report, if any, is accurate. The review appraiser assumes no responsibility for independently verifying this information. If the client has any questions regarding this information, it is the client's responsibility to seek whatever independent verification is deemed necessary.

Unexpected Conditions

We assume that no hidden or unexpected conditions of the properties exist that would adversely affect value.

We assume no responsibility for economic or physical factors occurring after the date of review, which may affect the opinions reported.

Inspection

The properties that are the subject of this appraisal review were inspected by Marshall & Stevens Incorporated's personnel, and the appraisals were reviewed based on information provided to us.


11-11-21334.03

Legal or Specialized Expertise No opinion is intended to be expressed for matters that require legal or specialized expertise, investigation, or knowledge beyond that customarily employed by appraisers. This report addresses no issues of law, engineering, code conformance, insect or rodent infestation, or toxic contamination or discharge, inter alia, unless specifically identified in the body of the report.

Sale or Purchase

Our comments presented herein reflect Marshall & Stevens Incorporated's considered opinion based on the facts and data in the reports reviewed and our independent research. We assume no responsibility for changes in market conditions or for the inability of the owner to locate a purchaser at the appraised value within the reports that are the subject of this review.

Court Testimony

Testimony or attendance in court by reason of this appraisal review shall not be required unless arrangements for such services have previously been made.

Compensation

The professional fee paid to Marshall & Stevens Incorporated in connection with the rendering of this report was not contingent upon the conclusions reached or the substance of the report presented. Any subsequent services related to this appraisal review assignment (e.g., testimony, updates, conferences, and reprint or copy services) would require special arrangements in advance.

Mineral Rights

We found no obvious evidence of structural deficiencies unless otherwise stated. However, no responsibility for structural soundness or conformity to city, county, or state building and safety codes can be assumed without an independent structural engineering report.

Soil Conditions

Detailed soil studies of the subject properties were unavailable to us. Therefore, statements herein on soil qualities shall not be considered conclusive, although they were considered consistent with information available to us.


11-11-21334.03

We presume that there are no hidden or unexpected conditions of the properties that would adversely affect the value -- specifically, an investigation of the properties that are the subject of the appraisals under review.

Hazardous Substances

The determination of Hazardous Substances or Environmental Conditions that may or may not be found relative to the properties relative the appraisals that are the subject of this review is beyond the scope of this assignment.


11-11-21334.03

CERTIFICATIONS OF REVIEW APPRAISERS We have indicated the appraisals and parcels that were the subject of each of the three review appraisers within the attached excel documentation. I certify that to my knowledge and belief:

• the facts and data reported by the reviewer and used in the review process are true and correct.

• the analyses, opinions, and conclusions in this review report are limited only

by the assumptions and limiting conditions stated in this review report and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions,

• I have no present or prospective interest in the properties that are the

subjects of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.

• I have no bias with respect to the properties that are the subjects of this report

or to the parties involved with this assignment. • My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or

reporting predetermined results. • My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the

analyses, opinions, or conclusions in this review or from its use. • My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this review

report was prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

• The American Society of Appraisers has a mandatory recertification program for all of its senior members. I am in compliance with the requirements of that program.

• As of the date of this report, I have completed the requirements under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute.


11-11-21334.03

• Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any

conclusions of value, the identity of the appraiser or the firm with which I am connected, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute, American Society of Appraisers, or to the MAI, ASA designation) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or any other public medium without the prior written consent and approval of the undersigned.

• The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute,

American Society of Appraisers and state regulatory requirements relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.

• To the best of my knowledge and belief, the reported analyses, opinions, and

conclusions were developed and this report was prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Foundation, the Code of Professional Ethics, and the Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute and the American Society of Appraisers.

• I have made a personal inspection of the subject properties of the work under

review. • No one provided significant appraisal, appraisal review, or appraisal

consulting assistance to the person signing this certification.

__________________________________ Bradley J. Wood, CMI, MAI


11-11-21334.03

I certify that to my knowledge and belief:

• the facts and data reported by the reviewer and used in the review process are true and correct.

• the analyses, opinions, and conclusions in this review report are limited only

by the assumptions and limiting conditions stated in this review report and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions,

• I have no present or prospective interest in the properties that are the

subjects of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.

• I have no bias with respect to the properties that are the subjects of this report

or to the parties involved with this assignment. • My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or

reporting predetermined results. • My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the

analyses, opinions, or conclusions in this review or from its use. • My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this review

report was prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

• The American Society of Appraisers has a mandatory recertification program for all of its senior members. I am in compliance with the requirements of that program.

• As of the date of this report, I have completed the requirements under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute.


11-11-21334.03

• Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any

conclusions of value, the identity of the appraiser or the firm with which I am connected, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute, American Society of Appraisers, or to the MAI, ASA designation) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or any other public medium without the prior written consent and approval of the undersigned.

• The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal

Institute, American Society of Appraisers and state regulatory requirements relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.

• To the best of my knowledge and belief, the reported analyses, opinions,

and conclusions were developed and this report was prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Foundation, the Code of Professional Ethics, and the Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute and the American Society of Appraisers.

• I have made a personal inspection of the subject properties of the work

under review. • No one provided significant appraisal, appraisal review, or appraisal

consulting assistance to the person signing this certification.

__________________________________ Cherin L. Mooradian, MAI, ASA


11-11-21334.03

I certify that to my knowledge and belief: • the facts and data reported by the reviewer and used in the review process

are true and correct.

• the analyses, opinions, and conclusions in this review report are limited only by the assumptions and limiting conditions stated in this review report and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions,

• I have no present or prospective interest in the properties that are the subjects of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.

• I have no bias with respect to the properties that are the subjects of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment.

• My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results.

• My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in this review or from its use.

• The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute, American Society of Appraisers and state regulatory requirements relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.

• To the best of my knowledge and belief, the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report was prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Foundation, the Code of Professional Ethics, and the Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute and the American Society of Appraisers.

• My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this review report was prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.


11-11-21334.03

• I have made a personal inspection of the subject properties of the work under review.

• No one provided significant appraisal, appraisal review, or appraisal

consulting assistance to the person signing this certification. __________________________________ Jordan Yuter, Associate Appraiser


11-11-21334.03

Very truly yours,

MARSHALL & STEVENS INCORPORATED CLM/mjm PR 11-11-21334.03

11-11-21334.03

ADDENDA

11-11-21334.03

DISCUSSION OF APPRAISAL REVIEW

BY PARCEL NUMBER AND APPRAISAL

11-11-21334.03

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

11-11-21334.03

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS HISTORY The Marshall & Stevens organization was established

in 1932. Founded by innovators, we have remained a firm of innovators. The firm has pioneered new concepts to provide realistic solutions to every type of valuation problem. Since inception, we have grown in size, stature, and reputation.

A national leader in the field of professional appraisal

and valuation consultation, the firm’s practice encompasses all types of tangible and intangible property, serving a variety of business, tax, and financial requirements.

Members of the firm have been expert witnesses in a

significant number of landmark court decisions regarding valuation issues.

We are an employee owned and managed firm, with offices in major cities.

WE SERVE Our clients include many of the nation’s most distinguished corporations, institutions, and governmental agencies.

The firm also serves the appraisal and valuation

consulting needs of individual entrepreneurs, commerce and industry, health and educational institutions, land developers, taxing authorities, and local, state, and federal governments, as well as foreign industries and governments throughout the world.

11-11-21334.03

WE COUNSEL Marshall & Stevens’ consultants work closely with diversified groups.

ACCOUNTANTS AND FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS:

Pre-acquisition or merger valuation counseling, allocation of purchase price, property records and control, original cost accounting, return on investments, and values for financing.

ATTORNEYS: Estate planning, eminent domain and

condemnation proceedings, ad valorem and IRC Sections 482, 861, and 6038A tax problems, as well as other tax-related services.

BANKERS AND TRUST OFFICERS: Financing areas,

inheritance and estate cases, gift tax deductions, and problems evolving from stewardship of property via trust and estate services.

CORPORATE OFFICERS: Pre-acquisition or merger

valuation counseling, allocation of purchase price, tax purposes (federal and ad valorem), sale or purchase, financing, ESOPs, property accounting, original cost and current value accounting, fixed asset accounting software, valuation of closely held stock, insurance, condemnation, property economics, planning for asset replacement, useful life determination, and cash flow studies involving segregation of IRC Section 1245 property from the capitalized costs of new or acquired buildings, as well as inbound and outbound transfer pricing analyses under IRC Section 482.

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES: Fixed asset accounting

systems for publicly owned property; valuation of property administered by agencies of the government; real estate to be acquired by eminent domain; public highways, urban renewal, public parks, and easements; guidance in disposition of major facilities; and valuation consulting to state and local property assessment and appraisal offices.

INSURANCE AGENTS, BROKERS, ADVISORS, AND

COMPANIES: Correct amount of insurance for placement purposes, proper valuation of varying assets for rate-making purposes, and assistance at the time of casualty to prove the amount of loss.

11-11-21334.03

MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS: Feasibility studies, plant site selection, underwriters’ surveys, analyses in acquisition studies, and other areas where property economics become a part of the management consultant’s contracted services.

WE VALUE Marshall & Stevens appraises and provides valuation

consulting relative to tangible and intangible property. LAND AND LAND IMPROVEMENTS: Industrial,

commercial, and residential sites; potential industrial, commercial, and residential acreage; farmland and ranch lands; large government tracts; and land improvements such as paving, railroad sidings, and water, sewerage, and drainage systems.

LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS: Items of a structural

nature and electrical, mechanical, and processing systems installed by a lessee.

PROPERTY RIGHTS: Rights-of-way, easements,

nonconforming use, water, air access, and partial interests.

BUILDINGS: Industrial complexes, commercial

buildings, multifamily residential property, housing developments, hotels, hospitals, schools, and institutional and public property.

OTHER ASSETS: Capital stock of closely held

corporations, business enterprises (whole or fractional), ESOPs, natural resources, records, and films.

INTANGIBLES: Patents, licenses, franchises, secret

formulas, trademarks, goodwill, agreements, processes, rights, and subscription lists.

MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT: Machinery, general

plant equipment, office machines and equipment, plant piping and wiring, cranes and hoists, conveyors, signs, mobile equipment, patterns, drawings, dies, jigs, and fixtures.

Founded in 1932, Marshall & Stevens is one of the largest and most respected valuation and financial consulting firms in the United States.

FOR A CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSION, ASK FOR A VALUATION CONSULTANT AT ANY Marshall & Stevens OFFICE

Corporate Marketing Department

800.797.0065

ATLANTA 1050 Crown Pointe Parkway Suite 360 Atlanta, GA 30338 678.441.9393 678.441.9425 fax

LOS ANGELES 355 South Grand Avenue Suite 1750 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213.612.8000 213.612.8010 fax

SAN FRANCISCO 333 Bush Street 16th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415.788.4970 415.788.3014 fax

CHICAGO 1011 East Touhy Avenue Suite 400 Des Plaines, IL 60018 847.827.9650 847.827.1796 fax

NEW YORK 60 Broad Street Suite 3502 New York, NY 10004 212.425.4300 212.344.9731 fax

ST. LOUIS 701 Market Street Suite 370 St. Louis, MO 63101 314.621.7025 314.436.2710 fax

HOUSTON 1110 NASA Road One Suite 620 Houston, TX 77058 281.333.3755 281.333.3326 fax

PHILADELPHIA 1700 Market Street Suite 1510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215.561.5600 215.557.7280 fax

TAMPA 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 3425 Tampa, FL 33602 813.962.7888 813.963.2251 fax

www.marshall-stevens.com

01/04


BRADLEY J. WOOD, CMI, MAI PRESENT POSITION Bradley J. Wood, CMI, MAI, is an Appraisal Director of Marshall & Stevens Incorporated. He specializes in land, buildings, and real property valuations with additional emphasis on personal property valuations for property tax purposes. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Mr. Wood is a certified property tax member of the Institute of Professionals in Taxation with the CMI designation and is a member of the Appraisal Institute with the MAI designation. He is a Certified General Real Estate Appraiser in Texas (TX1322617G), and a Certified General Real Estate Appraiser in Louisiana (G0869). Mr. Wood is on the Education Committee of the Institute for Professionals in Taxation, and Vice Chairman and instructor at the institute's annual intermediate Personal Property Tax School. Mr. Wood is also a former member of the Appraisal Institute's Regional Ethical and Counseling Panel for the enforcement of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice. EXPERIENCE Active in the appraisal profession since 1977, he has prepared appraisals in the major categories of land and buildings in commercial, industrial, governmental, special purposes, and residential uses, including lodging facilities, condominium conversions, and apartment complexes. He has prepared appraisals for the purposes of ad valorem taxation, inheritance tax, income tax, allocation of purchase price, condemnation, financing, insurance, and sale/lease/purchase, in addition to highest and best use studies, feasibility analysis, and valuation of leasehold interests. He has appeared as an expert witness before the United States District Courts, District Courts in Illinois, Superior Court in Connecticut, State Boards of Tax Appeal in Arizona, State Boards of Assessment Appeals in Colorado, State Boards of Tax Appeal in Kansas, Michigan Tax Tribunal, State Boards of Equalization in Nevada, State Boards of Equalization in Tennessee, State Boards of Equalization in Washington, County Boards of Equalization in California, County Boards of Review in Illinois, County Boards of Review in Indiana, County Boards of Equalization in Kansas, Appraisal Review Boards in Texas, and County Boards of Equalization in Washington. EMPLOYMENT Mr. Wood joined Marshall & Stevens in 1981. From 1977 to 1981, he was an appraiser with Gundelach, Renzi and Liss in Chicago. Additionally, he was a partner in the firm of Equitable Realty Services Inc., specializing in new construction. EDUCATION He holds a B.S. from Southern Illinois University. He has completed the following Appraisal Institute courses: 1A "Basic Appraisal Principles, Methods and Techniques," 1B "Capitalization Theory and Techniques," II "Urban Properties," VI "Litigation Valuation," VII "Industrial Valuation," VIII "Residential Valuation," #410 "Standards of Professional Practice, Part A," #420 "Standards of Professional Practice, Part B," #530 "Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches," Seminar "Appraisal Practices in Litigation."

11/05


CHERIN L. MOORADIAN, MAI, ASA

PRESENT POSITION As senior vice president and appraisal manager for Marshall & Stevens Incorporated, Ms. Mooradian specializes in real estate consulting services and directs all the real estate valuation services for Marshall & Stevens' within the Western Region of the United States. She serves as project manager on major consulting and valuation assignments for our clients as well as participates as project manager and/or appraiser in nationwide valuations. EXPERIENCE Ms. Mooradian has comprehensive experience as a full time real estate professional since 1988, involving primarily appraising, consulting and some brokerage for commercial and industrial properties. Projects have included but are not limited to feasibility and market studies, real estate counseling, highest and best use analysis, absorption studies, fee appraisals, appraisal analysis, insurance valuations, lease and investment analysis, sale-leaseback analysis, asset allocation and assisting in risk analysis for residual value insurance. EMPLOYMENT Prior to her association with Marshall & Stevens Incorporated, Mooradian was an independent fee appraiser and owner of Appraisal & Environmental Associates from 1992 to October 1997. During this time period she was also a contributing appraiser with Marshall & Stevens in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Ludwig Corporation and The Appraisal Network in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania and Independent Appraisal Corporation in Wayne, Pennsylvania. She was an associate broker and appraiser with The Rohrer Corporation, Haddon Township, New Jersey from 1988 to 1992. EDUCATION Ms. Mooradian received a B.S. degree from Drexel University. She has completed numerous courses sponsored by the Appraisal Institute, including advance level courses such as Highest and Best Use & Market Analysis, Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches, Advanced Income Capitalization, Advanced Applications and Report Writing and Valuation Analysis. She has also taken courses with CCIM, the Environmental Assessment Association and ASTM, American Standards of Testing and Materials. She has completed MAP Third Party Technical Training pertinent to HUD financing. COURT TESTIMONY She has testified in Camden County, New Jersey; Montgomery County, Pennsylvania; Burlington County, New Jersey; Washington Township, New Jersey, and Gloucester County, New Jersey. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS A Certified General Appraiser in California (AG036293), Colorado (CG40040215), New Jersey (42RG00176600), New York (46000039082), and the District of Columbia (GA 10396). Ms. Mooradian is a Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI) and a designated senior member, ASA, of the American Society of Appraisers. She was formerly a Certified Environmental Inspector and a licensed real estate broker in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. She has served as Treasurer, Secretary and Vice President for the local Chapter of the Appraisal Institute.

01/03


JORDAN J. YUTER

PRESENT POSITION Jordan J. Yuter is a consultant for Marshall & Stevens Incorporated specializing in real estate valuation, consulting, and real estate related studies. EXPERIENCE Active in the appraisal profession since 1992, Mr. Yuter has prepared appraisals for land and improved properties in industrial, governmental, residential, institutional, recreational, and educational uses. In a consulting capacity, he has also performed studies of highest and best use, feasibility analysis, and solvency opinions. Additionally, he has experience in Ad Valorem tax valuation and consultation. Purposes of the appraisals have been for sale/purchase, tax reporting, corporate planning, financing, and leasing. EMPLOYMENT Mr. Yuter began his association with Marshall & Stevens in 1992. Prior experience includes one year as a senior appraiser with Arthur Andersen and two years as a leasing agent with a commercial brokerage firm, specializing in tenant representation and office leasing. EDUCATION He holds a B.B.A. from George Washington University with a major in finance. He has taken the appraisal institute's courses in real estate appraisal principles, basic valuation procedures, standards A and B, and capitalization theory A and B. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Mr. Yuter is an MAI candidate with the Appraisal Institute and is active within the Philadelphia chapter of the Appraisal Institute. Additionally, he is state certified general appraiser in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia and Maine. He is also a licensed real estate salesperson in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.