APPRAISAL REPORT

Tract 17X, ARDOT Job #040752

4210 N Salem Rd

Fayetteville, Arkansas 72704

Christopher M. Moore and Amy Moore

PREPARED FOR:

Universal Field Services, Inc

c/o Mr. Bart Waits

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE APPRAISAL:

September 5, 2024

PREPARED BY:

3509 Hulen Street, Suite 201

Fort Worth, TX 76107

Date of Report: November 7, 2024

Mr. Bart Waits

Project Manager

Universal Field Services, Inc

6737 S 85th East Avenue

Tulsa, OK 74133

RE: Appraisal Report of:

Tract 17X- ARDOT Job #040752

4210 N Salem Rd, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72704

O'Brien Right of Way Valuation File No: 24.2137

Mr. Waits:

Per your authorization and direction, O’Brien Right of Way Valuation has prepared the attached appraisal

report to develop an opinion of the market value of the subject before and after the acquisition. Our analysis

is presented in the following Appraisal Report.

The subject is a 3.01 acre single-family residential property located at 4210 N Salem Rd in Washington County,

Arkansas. The property is located just outside the Fayetteville City Limits, and has a Fayetteville mailing

address. The property is improved with an 1,643 SF residence that was built in or around 1971, a 768 SF

studio that was built in or around 2000, and various other related site improvements. This report is for partial

acquisition for the AR Highway 112 Howard Nickell Road – Greathouse Springs Road (S) project, which is ARDOT

Job No. 040752. ARDOT intends to acquire 125,188 SF, or 2.87 acre, in fee for roadway purposes. All of the

improvements are within the proposed acquisition, and have been valued in this assignment. The proposed

acquisition also includes the following temporary demolition easement: TDE 17XE-1 which consists of 3,600

SF.

It is our opinion that the total compensation for the acquisition of the herein described property as of the

effective date of this report, September 5, 2024, is as shown in the table that follows. This conclusion is based

upon our independent appraisal and the exercise of our professional judgment and is subject to reliance on

certain data provided by the client and to the assumptions and limiting condition presented in this report.

Whole Property $407,500

Remainder Property $1,217

Difference in Market Value $406,283

Plus: TDE 17XE-1 (Rounded) $200

TOTAL COMPENSATION $406,483

SUMMARY OF VALUE CONCLUSIONS

This appraisal is subject to general assumptions and limiting conditions and is intended only for the specific

use(s) and user(s) that are presented in the body of the attached report.

Extraordinary Assumptions

No Extraordinary Assumptions were made for this assignment.

Hypothetical Conditions

The use of a hypothetical condition(s) may have impacted the results of the assignment. The valuation of the

remainder property is performed under the hypothetical condition that, as of the date of value, the proposed

project is completed according to current design specifications.

Jurisdictional Exceptions

As a matter of law:

• The market value opinions in this report are not linked to a specific opinion of exposure time.

• Any enhancements, general benefits, or diminutions caused by the influence or knowledge of the public

project are not considered.

These jurisdictional exceptions are permitted by the Jurisdictional Exception portion of USPAP.

Respectfully Submitted,

O'BRIEN RIGHT OF WAY VALUATION

Brian J. Kenworthy, MAI

Senior Director

Arkansas License No. CG-3496

Expiration Date 6/30/2025

479.485.8006

bkenworthy@obrien-row.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 2

CERTIFICATION OF THE APPRAISAL ....................................................................... 10

SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................... 12

PROJECT OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 17

AREA/NEIGHBORHOOD OVERVIEW ......................................................................... 18

SITE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 21

ZONING .......................................................................................................... 25

IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 28

ASSESSMENT AND TAXES ..................................................................................... 32

HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 33

APPRAISAL METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 35

LAND VALUE – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY ............................................................. 36

COST APPROACH – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY ........................................................ 40

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY ...................................... 45

RECONCILIATION OF VALUE CONCLUSIONS – SUBJECT WHOLE ...................................... 50

PART TO BE ACQUIRED ....................................................................................... 52

SUBJECT REMAINDER ......................................................................................... 56

HIGHEST AND BEST USE - SUBJECT REMAINDER ........................................................ 58

LAND VALUE – SUBJECT REMAINDER ...................................................................... 59

RECONCILIATION OF VALUES – SUBJECT REMAINDER PROPERTY .................................... 61

TEMPORARY EASEMENT(S) .................................................................................. 62

SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION .............................................................................. 64

SALVAGE VALUE ............................................................................................... 65

ADDENDA........................................................................................................ 66

Addenda

Addendum A: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

Addendum B: Land Sales Data Sheets

Addendum C: Improved Sales Data Sheets

Addendum D: Project Information

Addendum E: Subject Information

Addendum F: Property Owner Contact

Addendum G: Qualifications of the Appraisers

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Subject Aerial

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 3

Overview of Subject

Project

Tract

Date of Report

Inspection Date

Effective Date

Client

Address

County / MSA

Geocode

Census Tract

Legal Description

Assessor Parcel Number

Property Type - Subtype

Type Single-Family Residential Tenancy Owner Occupied

Total Buildings (Primary/Accessory) 1 / 1

Gross Living Area (GLA) 1,643 Building Class D

Bedrooms 3 Bathrooms 1

Actual Age 53 Effective Age 35.0

Economic Life 55 Remaining Useful Life 20.0

As Vacant Residential As Vacant Assemblage

As Improved Residential As Improved N/A

ASSIGNMENT INFORMATION

See Title Report in Addenda

Single-Family Residential - Detached

September 5, 2024

4210 N Salem Rd, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72704

Washington County / Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO MSA

SITE INFORMATION

ARDOT Job No. 040752

Tract 17X

November 7, 2024

September 5, 2024

ARDOT Through Universal Field Services, Inc., c/o Bart Waits

HIGHEST & BEST USE - BEFORE HIGHEST & BEST USE - AFTER

36.129491,-94.201827

05-007-021308

001-16641-000

PRIMARY IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 4

ITEM SIZE (ACRES) SIZE (SF)

Whole Property

Larger Parcel (Net of Roadway) 2.59 112,735

Inside Existing Roadway 0.43 18,540

Total Whole Property 3.01 131,275

Part Acquired

Right-of-way Acquisition TR 17X-A (Net of Roadway) 2.15 93,687

Right-of-way Acquisition TR 17X-A (Inside Roadway) 0.31 13,640

Right-of-way Acquisition TR 17X-B (Net of Roadway) 0.30 12,961

Right-of-way Acquisition TR 17X-B (Inside Roadway) 0.11 4,900

Total Part Acquired 2.87 125,188

Remainder After The Acquisition

Remainder (Primary) 0.14 6,087

Total Remainder Parcel Size 0.14 6,087

Temporary Easement

TDE 17XE-1 0.08 3,600

Total Temporary Easement 0.08 3,600

LAND AREAS

Appraisal Summary

Note: Values in this report are rounded to the nearest dollar or cent, as appropriate, and any variance between the

unrounded and rounded values is considered negligible relative to the overall value of the site and/or improvements.

1. Whole Property

Larger Parcel (Net of Roadway) 2.59 AC or 112,735 SF x $2.05 /SF x 100% $231,107

Inside Existing Roadway 0.43 AC or 18,540 SF x $0.00 /SF x 100% $0

Total Land 3.01 AC or 131,275 SF $231,107

Total Improvements (+) $176,393

Total Whole Property $407,500

2. Remainder Property

Remainder (Primary) 0.14 AC or 6,087 SF x $0.20 /SF x 100% (+) $1,217

Total Land 0.14 AC or 6,087 SF (+) $1,217

Total Improvements (+) N/A

Less: Cost to Cure Items (-) N/A

Total Remainder Property Less: (-) $1,217

3. Difference in Market Value Before and After $406,283

4. Plus: Temporary Easements

TDE 17XE-1 $200

Total Temporary Easements (Rounded) (+) $200

TOTAL COMPENSATION $406,483

APPRAISAL SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 5

INDICATED VALUE

Land $218,628

Permanent Easements N/A

Temporary Easements $200

Improvements $176,393

Damages $11,262

Cost to Cure Items N/A

TOTAL COMPENSATION $406,483

ALLOCATION OF COMPENSATION

All improvements are considered in the part acquired, and thus the damages in the preceding chart are

considered to be attributable to the land.

AREA SIZE (ACRES) SIZE (SF) x $/SF x % OF FEE INDICATED VALUE

Right-of-way Acquisition TR 17X-A (Net of Roadway) 2.15 93,687 x $2.05 x 100% = $192,058

Right-of-way Acquisition TR 17X-A (Inside Roadway) 0.31 13,640 x $0.00 x 100% = $0

Right-of-way Acquisition TR 17X-B (Net of Roadway) 0.30 12,961 x $2.05 x 100% = $26,570

Right-of-way Acquisition TR 17X-B (Inside Roadway) 0.11 4,900 x $0.00 x 100% = $0

Total Land 2.87 125,188 $218,628

ITEM UNITS $/UNIT RCN INDICATED VALUE

Primary Improvements

Residence 1643 SF @ $150.92 = $247,969 - ($157,798) = $107,307

Total Primary Improvements $107,307

Assessory Improvements

Studio 768 SF @ $137.97 /SF = $105,960 - ($60,548) = $45,412

Total Assessory Improvements $45,412

Site Improvements

Gravel paving 2395 SF @ $3.93 /SF = $9,419.00 - ($4,710.00) = $4,709

Water Well 1 EA @ $18,150.00 /EA = $18,150 - ($9,075) = $9,075

Septic System 1 EA @ $12,100.00 /EA = $12,100 - ($6,050) = $6,050

Well House 80 SF @ $21 /SF = $1,670.00 - ($835.00) = $835

Storage Shed 288 SF @ $20.87 /SF = $6,011.00 - ($3,006.00) = $3,005

Total Site Improvements $23,674

Total Improvements $176,393

TOTAL VALUE AS A UNIT $395,021

ITEMIZATION OF THE PART ACQUIRED

LAND

LESS: DEPRECIATION

IMPROVEMENTS

Salient Points

• The subject is located at 4210 N Salem Rd in Washington County, Arkansas. The property is located

just outside the Fayetteville City Limits, and has a Fayetteville mailing address.

• The property is improved with an 1,643 SF residence that was built in or around 1971, a 768 SF

studio that was built in or around 2000, and various other related site improvements.

• ARDOT intends to acquire 125,188 SF, or 2.87 acre, in fee for roadway purposes. Portions of the

site are already situated within existing roadway, and a portion of the site is severed from the main

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 6

body by the roadway. All of the improvements are within the proposed acquisition, and have been

valued in this assignment.

• The proposed acquisition also includes the following temporary easements: TDE 17XE-1 which

consists of 3,600 SF, or 0.08-AC.

• Damages are anticipated to accrue to the remainder property due to a lack of adequate physical

characteristics to support independent development.

Extraordinary Assumptions

No Extraordinary Assumptions were made for this assignment.

Hypothetical Conditions

The use of a hypothetical condition(s) may have impacted the results of the assignment. The valuation of

the remainder property is performed under the hypothetical condition that, as of the date of value, the

proposed project is completed according to current design specifications.

Jurisdictional Exceptions

As a matter of law:

• The market value opinions in this report are not linked to a specific opinion of exposure time.

• Any enhancements, general benefits, or diminutions caused by the influence or knowledge of the

public project are not considered.

These items are permitted by the Jurisdictional Exception portion of USPAP.

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

This appraisal report is subject to the following general assumptions and limiting conditions:

1. No investigation has been made of, and no responsibility is assumed for, the legal description or for

legal matters including title or encumbrances. Title to the property is assumed to be good and

marketable unless otherwise stated. The property is further assumed to be free and clear of liens,

easements, encroachments and other encumbrances unless otherwise stated, and all improvements

are assumed to lie within property boundaries.

2. Information furnished by others, upon which all or portions of this report are based, is believed to be

reliable, but has not been verified in all cases. No warranty is given as to the accuracy of such

information.

3. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or

administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or private entity or

organization have been, or can readily be obtained, or renewed for any use on which the value

estimates provided in this report are based.

4. Full compliance with all applicable federal, state and local zoning, use, occupancy, environmental,

and similar laws and regulations is assumed, unless otherwise stated.

5. No responsibility is taken for changes in market conditions and no obligation is assumed to revise this

report to reflect events or conditions which occur subsequent to the appraisal date hereof.

6. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed.

7. The allocation, if any, in this report of the total valuation among components of the property applies

only to the program of utilization stated in this report. The separate values for any components may

not be applicable for any other purpose and must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 7

8. Areas and dimensions of the property were obtained from sources believed to be reliable. Maps or

sketches, if included in this report, are only to assist the reader in visualizing the property and no

responsibility is assumed for their accuracy. No independent surveys were conducted.

9. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures

that affect value. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering

studies that may be required to discover them.

10. No soil analysis or geological studies were ordered or made in conjunction with this report, nor was

an investigation made of any water, oil, gas, coal, or other subsurface mineral and use rights or

conditions.

11. Neither this company nor any individuals signing or associated with this report shall be required by

reason of this report to give further consultation, to provide testimony or appear in court or other

legal proceedings, unless specific arrangements thereto for have been made.

12. This appraisal has been made in conformance with, and is subject to, the requirements of the Code

of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct of the Appraisal Institute and the Uniform

Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

13. We have not been engaged nor are we qualified to detect the existence of hazardous material, which

may or may not be present on or near the property. The presence of potentially hazardous substances

such as asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, industrial wastes, etc. may affect the value of

the property. The value estimate herein is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material

on, in, or near the property that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such

conditions or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client should

retain an expert in this field if further information is desired.

14. The date of value to which the conclusions and opinions expressed in this report apply is set forth in

the opinion letter at the front of this report. Our value opinion is based on the purchasing power of

the United States' dollar as of this date.

15. The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) became effective January 26, 1992. 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 along with a detailed study of ADA requirements could reveal that the property is not in

compliance with the act. If so, this would have a negative effect on the property value. We were not

furnished with any compliance surveys, or any other documents pertaining to this issue and therefore

did not consider compliance or noncompliance with the ADA requirements when estimating the value

of the property.

16. In accordance with our agreement, this report is limited to the value of the subject property. One or

more additional issues may exist that could affect the Federal tax treatment of the subject property

with respect to which we have prepared this report. This report does not consider or provide a

conclusion with respect to any of those issues. With respect to any significant Federal tax issue outside

the scope of this report, this report was not written, and cannot be used, by anyone for the purpose

of avoiding Federal tax penalties.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 8

Subject Photographs (taken by Brian J. Kenworthy, MAI on September 5, 2024)

1. Exterior view looking southeast

2. Interior view of residence

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 9

3. Exterior view of studio looking east

4. Street Scene- N. Salem Rd. looking south

CERTIFICATION

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 10

CERTIFICATION OF THE APPRAISAL

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

 The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions of the signer are limited only by the reported

assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional

analyses, opinions, and conclusions.

 The signer of this report has no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of

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

 Brian J. Kenworthy, MAI has performed no services, specifically as an appraiser or in any other

capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period

immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment.

 The signer is not biased with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties

involved with this assignment.

 The engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined

results.

 That I understand that such appraisal is to be used in connection with the acquisition of right-of-way

for a highway to be constructed by the State of Arkansas with the assistance of federal-aid highway

funds, or other federal funds. That such appraisal has been made in conformity with the appropriate

state laws, regulations, policies, and procedures applicable to appraisal of right-of-way for such

purposes; and that to the best of my knowledge no portion of the value assigned to such property

consists of items which are non-compensable under the established law of said State.

 That I have contacted the owner or his agent or have made every reasonable effort to contact the

owner or his agent, to give them the opportunity to accompany me on my inspection of the property.

 Brian J. Kenworthy, MAI personally inspected the property that is the subject of this report.

 That I have disregarded any increase or decrease in value prior to the date of valuation caused by this

project, other than that due to physical deterioration with the reasonable control of the owners.

 The compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting

of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the

value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly

related to the intended use of this appraisal.

 The reported analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared,

in conformity with the requirements of the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land

Acquisitions, the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the

Appraisal Institute, and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), as set forth

by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation.

 This report complies with USPAP’s Jurisdictional Exception Rule when invoked by Section 1.2.7.2 of

the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions.

 No one provided real property appraisal assistance to the individuals signing this report.

 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, Brian J. Kenworthy, MAI has completed the continuing education program

for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute.

 That I have not revealed the findings and results of such appraisal to anyone other than the proper

officials of the Arkansas Department of Transportation of said State of officials of the Federal Highway

Administration, and I will not do so until so authorized by said State Officials, or until required to do

CERTIFICATION

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 11

so by due process of law, or until we are released from this obligation by having publicly testified as

to such findings.

 That my independent opinion of the fair market value of the subject property before and after the

project, taking into consideration damages and/or benefits, if any, and the estimate of total

compensation as of September 5, 2024, the effective date of this report, is as follows:

Whole Property $407,500

Remainder Property $1,217

Difference in Market Value $406,283

Plus: TDE 17XE-1 (Rounded) $200

TOTAL COMPENSATION $406,483

SUMMARY OF VALUE CONCLUSIONS

Extraordinary Assumptions

No Extraordinary Assumptions were made for this assignment.

Hypothetical Conditions

The use of a hypothetical condition(s) may have impacted the results of the assignment. The valuation of

the remainder property is performed under the hypothetical condition that, as of the date of value, the

proposed project is completed according to current design specifications.

Jurisdictional Exceptions

As a matter of law:

• The market value opinions in this report are not linked to a specific opinion of exposure time.

• Any enhancements, general benefits, or diminutions caused by the influence or knowledge of the

public project are not considered.

These jurisdictional exceptions are permitted by the Jurisdictional Exception portion of USPAP.

Brian J. Kenworthy, MAI

Arkansas License No. CG-3496

Expiration Date 6/30/2025

SCOPE OF WORK

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 12

SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of work for this assignment was based on communication with the client and the specific

requirements of the Arkansas Department of Transportation (ARDOT), for an appraisal in which a basis for

just compensation is established. This assignment was prepared in accordance with the Laws of the State

of Arkansas, 49 CFR 24.103 (The Uniform Act), the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice

(USPAP) Standards Rule 2-2a, and the ARDOT ROW Operations Manual. Appraisal reports may be presented

in an Appraisal Report or Restricted Appraisal Report option, per USPAP Standard Rule 2-2. This is an

Appraisal Report. The report is also intended to comply with the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards

of the Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.

The appraisal summarizes the regional and local area profiles, with a detailed analysis being provided in

the Sales Brochure of this project.

The appraisal analyzes legal and physical features of the subject including, if applicable, site size,

improvement size, flood zone, site zoning, easements, encumbrances, site access, and site exposure.

The appraisal includes a Highest and Best Use analysis, and conclusions have been completed for the highest

and best use of the subject property as vacant and as improved (when applicable) for both the subject

whole property before the acquisition and any remainder properties after the acquisition. The analysis

considered legal, locational, physical, and financial feasibility characteristics of the subject site and

existing improvements, as applicable.

I have conducted primary research and, wherever possible, I have verified and/or re-verified applicable

tax data, zoning requirements, flood zone status, demographics, and comparable listing, sale and rental

information which was gathered via: a) public records, b) comments from local brokers and market

participants, c) third party data such as CoStar, MLS, LoopNet, etc., d) other sources such as related or

previous appraisal projects; and e) observations of the micro and/or macro market environments with

respect to physical and economic factors relevant to the valuation process. Then I analyzed, correlated,

and reconciled the results with the use of appropriate and accepted appraisal methodology to arrive at a

reasonable and defensible value conclusion.

The author of this report is aware of the Competency Rule of USPAP and meets the standards.

Property Identification

The subject is a 3.01 acre single-family residential property located at 4210 N Salem Rd in Washington

County, Arkansas. The property is located just outside the Fayetteville City Limits, and has a Fayetteville

mailing address. The property is improved with an 1,643 SF residence that was built in or around 1971, a

768 SF studio that was built in or around 2000, and various other related site improvements. The assessor

parcel number is: 001-16641-000.

Identification of the Larger Parcel

The value of a property cannot be estimated without a determination of the property to be appraised. In

some cases, multiple tax parcels are utilized together in one use, or a larger tract of land may be legally,

economically, and physically divisible into smaller economic units. In eminent domain appraisals, one or

more “larger parcels” are defined to establish the boundaries of the property to be appraised in a specific

assignment. A larger parcel (sometimes referred to as a parent tract, an economic unit, and other terms

in different jurisdictions) is defined in Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions as:

“The tract or tracts of land that possess a unity of ownership and have the same, or an

integrated, highest and best use.”

The three tests to determine the larger parcel, or economic unit, are:

1. Unity of Title: This is largely a legal question to determine ownership and/or control by a single

entity, individual, or group.

SCOPE OF WORK

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 13

2. Unity of Use: This is largely an economic question that is dependent upon supply and demand,

availability of substitutes, and other economic principles to determine an integrated highest and

best use that is separate from surrounding land. For example, multiple tracts can have an integrated

highest and best use, such as platted land, while single tracts can lack an integrated use, such as

agricultural tracts with residential and cropland uses.

3. Contiguity: Generally, the larger parcel is made up of land that is physically contiguous, but in

certain circumstances can apply to physically separated tracts if they are dependent upon each

other due to an integrated use.

In the subject’s case, there are 3.01-acre(s) under common ownership. There are no other neighboring

tracts under the same title or control as the subject. Additionally, there are no distant tracts with an

integrated or inseparable use from the subject.

In summary, the economic unit supported by the market for valuation purposes in this appraisal is the 3.01-

acre(s) of land that is under the same ownership and use.

Property And Sales History

SUBJECT TRANSACTION HISTORY

CURRENT OWNER DETAILS

Previous Owner

Current Owner

Last Sale Date

Last Known Sale Price

Document Number

Deed Type

Transaction Type

Source: O'Brien Right of Way Valuation Research & Interviews

Christopher M. Moore

Christopher M. Moore and Amy Moore

January 25, 2021

N/A

2021-3869

Other

Non-Arm's Length

According to Washington County Public Records, legal title to the subject property is held by Christopher

M. Moore and Amy Moore. The subject property was transferred from Christopher M. Moore to the current

ownership on January 25, 2021. No revenue stamps were affixed to the deed. This transaction is recorded

under Document Number 2021-3869 in the Washington County Circuit Clerks office. This transfer of

ownership is believed to be Non-Arm's Length transaction. To the best of our knowledge, there has been

no other ownership transfers during the previous five years and the subject is not known to be listed or

under contract for sale or option to buy.

Owner Contact

Mail Date August 7, 2024

Response Date August 26, 2024

Owner Name Christopher M. Moore and Amy Moore

Owner Address 4210 N. Salem Road, Fayetteville, AR 72704

Owner Phone Number 479-582-3278

Owner Email hambone148@gmail.com

Primary Contact Chris Moore

Contact Type Property Owner

Contact Summary

SCOPE OF WORK

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 14

The owner(s) of the subject property sent a letter via certified mail on August 7, 2024, providing

information concerning the pending appraisal of their property, the contact information of the appraisers,

an invitation to accompany the appraisers during the inspection, and a property owner information form.

The letter was delivered on August 9, 2024, and contact was established on August 26, 2024.

Inspections

PROPERTY INSPECTION

APPRAISER INSPECTED EXTENT DATE ROLE

Brian J. Kenworthy, MAI Yes Interior & Exterior September 5, 2024 Primary Appraiser

ALSO PRESENT COMPANY EXTENT DATE AFFILIATION

Randy Lewis Lewis Appraisal Services Interior & Exterior September 5, 2024 Review Appraiser

Christopher Moore N/A Interior & Exterior September 5, 2024 Property Owner

Brian J. Kenworthy, MAI conducted a personal inspection of the property from public rights-of-way on

September 5, 2024. Randy Lewis and the property owner were present at the site visit.

Purpose of the Appraisal

The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate market value of the within described property. The facts,

analyses, opinions, and conclusions contained in this appraisal report are the basis of an estimate of the

before and after market value of the subject property. The difference between the before and after value

is the basis for just compensation. The estimate of compensation, in this report, includes the market value

of the acquisition, costs to cure, and any damages or benefits, to the extent that benefits are allowed by

the Laws of the State of Arkansas and applicable standards.

Client/Intended Users/Use

The client of this specific assignment is Universal Field Services, Inc. The client, its employees, agents,

and assigns, and the Arkansas Department of Transportation (ARDOT), are the only intended users of this

report, and no other user may rely on our report unless as specifically indicated in the report. The intended

use of this report is to estimate the fair market value of the subject property, in the whole and remainder.

This appraisal will be the basis for just compensation, as of the specified date of valuation, for the proposed

acquisition of the property rights specified herein, and no other use of this report is authorized.

Property Rights Appraised

The property rights appraised constitute the fee simple estate interest. Fee Simple Interest is defined 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.1

Easement is defined as:

The right to use another’s land for a stated purpose.2

Temporary Easement is defined as:

1 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Seventh Edition, Appraisal Institute, Chicago, Illinois, 2022

2 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Seventh Edition, Appraisal Institute, Chicago, Illinois, 2022

SCOPE OF WORK

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 15

An easement granted for a specific purpose and applicable for a specific time period. A

construction easement, for example, is terminated after the construction of the improvement

and the unencumbered fee interest in the land reverts to the owner.3

Definition Of Market Value

Fair Market Value as defined in the ARDOT Appraisal Manual is:

…the amount of money (cash or its equivalent) which, as of the date of valuation:

(a) An informed and knowledgeable purchaser willing, but not obligated, to buy the

property would pay an informed and knowledgeable owner willing, but not obligated,

to sell it.

(b) Taking into consideration all uses for which the property is suited and might in reason

be applied; including, but not limited to the present use or highest and best available

use taking into consideration the existing zoning or other restrictions upon use and the

reasonable probability of a change in those restrictions.

(c) Allowing a reasonable period of time to effectuate such sale.

(d) Disregarding any decrease or increase in fair market value of such real property prior

to the date of valuation caused by the public improvement for which such property is

acquired, or by the likelihood that the property would be acquired for such

improvement, other than that due to physical deterioration within the reasonable

control of the owner.

(e) Disregarding the fact that the owner might not want to part with the land because of

its special adaptability to the owner’s use.

(f) Disregarding the fact that the taker needs the land because of its peculiar fitness for

its purpose.

(g) Disregarding any “fain to the taker”, i.e., not giving consideration to the special use of

the condemnor as against other who may not possess the right of Eminent Domain.

(h) Including the value of any buildings, structures, or improvements located upon the land,

which are required to be removed or which it is determined will be adversely affected

by the use to which such real property will be put, regardless of whether such building,

structure, or improvement is classified as real or personal property under local law.

Such buildings, structures, or improvements are valued based upon their contribution

to the fair market value of the real property to be acquired or their value for removal

from the real property (salvage value), whichever is greater. This includes tenant

owned buildings, structures, or improvements, even if the tenant has a right or

obligation to remove the building, structures or improvements at the expiration of the

lease term and even if classified as personal property under local law.

(i) Fair market value, based upon adequate recent comparable sales and offering data is

usually the measure of just compensation.

Effective Date of this Report

The effective date of this report is September 5, 2024, which is the date of the most recent inspection.

Extraordinary Assumptions

No Extraordinary Assumptions were made for this assignment.

3 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Seventh Edition, Appraisal Institute, Chicago, Illinois, 2022

SCOPE OF WORK

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 16

Hypothetical Conditions

The use of a hypothetical condition(s) may have impacted the results of the assignment. The valuation of

the remainder property is performed under the hypothetical condition that, as of the date of value, the

proposed project is completed according to current design specifications.

Jurisdictional Exceptions

USPAP defines a Jurisdictional Exceptions as, “an assignment condition established by applicable law or

regulation, which precludes an appraiser from complying with a part of USPAP.” If any part of the Uniform

Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice is contrary to the law or public policy of any jurisdiction, only

that part shall be void and of no force or effect in that jurisdiction. As a matter of law:

• The market value opinions in this report are not linked to a specific opinion of exposure time.

• Any enhancements, general benefits, or diminutions caused by the influence or knowledge of the

public project are not considered.

These assumptions are permitted by the Jurisdictional Exception portion of USPAP.

Personal Property & Business Intangible

There is no personal property (FF&E) or business intangible value included in this appraisal.

Sources of Information

The following sources were contacted to obtain relevant information:

INFORMATION PROVIDED

Property Assessment & Tax Washington County Assessor

Zoning & Land Use Planning Washington County and City of Johnson

Site Size ARDOT ROW Plans

Site Improvements Appraiser Measurments / Assessment Records

Building Size Appraiser Measurments

Flood Map FEMA

Demographics STDB On-Line

Comparable Information MLS | Public Records | Confirmed by Local Agents

Legal Description ARDOT

Title Client

Unavailable items that are later furnished could affect the results of this analysis.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 17

PROJECT OVERVIEW

The Arkansas Department of Transportation (ARDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), is progressing to the next phase of project development for the Highway 112

improvements to correct the existing and forecasted congestion issues and to accommodate bicyclists and

pedestrians on the corridor. This phase, known as ARDOT Job No. 040752, will improve the stretch between

Howard Nickell Road and Greathouse Springs Road in Washington County.

The current proposal is to widen Highway 112 to four travel lanes with a raised median, curb and gutter,

and a sidewalk on one side of the highway and a sidepath on the other. The widening would mostly follow

the existing highway alignment until North Salem Road where Highway 112 be relocated west from its

current location, connecting with existing alignment to the north. Three roundabouts are proposed for the

project at Hidden Acres Road, Clear Creek Boulevard and Greathouse Springs Road. Additional proposed

improvements include new bridges over existing waterways, drainage improvements, and new tie-ins for

local streets and driveways.

The relevant pages of ARDOT Job No. 040752, Right-of-Way and Construction Plans are contained in the

addenda and are current as of the date of this report. These plans are subject to revision and the Arkansas

Department of Transportation should be consulted if any questions arise concerning current design plans.

AREA/NEIGHBORHOOD OVERVIEW

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 18

AREA/NEIGHBORHOOD OVERVIEW

Area Conclusions

The Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers MSA continues to outperform the State of Arkansas and benefits from

the presence of corporate headquarters for Walmart, Tyson Foods, and J.B. Hunt Transport, and also from

the main campus of the University of Arkansas. Northwest Arkansas was ranked as the 4th Best Place to Live

in the county based on U.S. News and World Report’s 2022-2023 rankings, which has resulted in positive

net migration. Growth rates in the area population, incomes, and employment are expected to continue

in the future and the area’s diverse economy is well-suited for long term sustainability.

N

AREA/NEIGHBORHOOD OVERVIEW

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 19

Neighborhood Conclusion

Population in the neighborhood continues to grow, which is a positive influence on all property uses. The

neighborhood has experienced growth in both residential and commercial development. Commercial

development is primarily located in close proximity to Interstate 49 in the east, and along primary roadways

to the north in Springdale and Tontitown. The majority of the neighborhood is comprised of residential

development, including residential subdivisions and rural large acreage homesites. Agricultural uses are

still visible in the neighborhood, but this is considered an interim use as development patterns are

established. Overall, the outlook for the neighborhood is considered positive with continued growth.

N

MARKET ANALYSIS

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 20

MARKET ANALYSIS

The subject involves an improved property with a residential oriented use. The following is a summary of

pertinent conclusions with respect to this market. Please see the project Sales Brochure for a detailed

market analysis.

Residential Market Conclusions

Demand generators such as population and household growth, income growth, and unemployment rates are

all considered healthy and positive indicators for the market. The Northwest Arkansas market continues

to grow and demand for all types of properties remains strong. Residential sales volume and year over year

sale price growth peaked in the 2020-2022 time period due to low inventory that caused bidding wars which

was compounded by historically low interest rates. Sales activity and year over year sale price growth

slowed starting in 2022 primarily due to increasing interest rates and inflation, but is still considered to be

at a healthy level. With respect to new developments, increasing construction costs and squeezing profit

margins for developers and making project feasibility more challenging. However, these costs have driven

the increase in home prices, which appears to be generally accepted by the market. Supply of available

homes in Northwest Arkansas is still considered to be at low levels and demand for housing in Northwest

Arkansas is expected to continue.

Overall, the Northwest Arkansas residential market is considered to be healthy at the present time;

however, increasing interest rates and constructions costs have slowed growth to more typical levels as

compared to the recent past. Northwest Arkansas continues to be one of the fastest growing areas in

Arkansas, which is expected to continue.

SITE ANALYSIS

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 21

SITE ANALYSIS

The following is a summary of the salient characteristics of the subject site prior to acquisition:

Land Areas Square Feet Acres

Larger Parcel (Net of Roadway) 112,735 2.59

Inside Existing Roadway 18,540 0.43

Gross Land Area 131,275 3.01

Excess/Surplus Land

Shape

Topography

Site Grade

Flood Zone

FEMA Map Panel / Date

Primary Road Frontage/Access

Secondary Road Frontage/Access

Zoning Agriculture Single-Family Residential 1 Unit Per Acre (Ag./SF Res.)

Item Provider Availability

Water No

Sewer No

Electricity Yes

Gas Yes

Detrimental Easements No Location Quality Average

Encroachments No Site Access Adequate

Deed Restrictions No Site Exposure Average

Underground Tanks No Site Utility Adequate

SITE OVERVIEW

UTILITIES

1/25/2024

City of Fayetteville

AR Highway 112

N. Salem Road

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

No

05143C0065G

Zone X (Unshaded)

At street grade

Sloping

Triangular

555 feet; 1

610 feet; 0

City of Fayetteville

Ozarks Electric Cooperative

Black Hills Energy

QUALITATIVE OTHER COMPARISON

Land Area

The land area was obtained via right-of-way plans. The site is considered adequate in terms of size and

utility. Approximately 18,540 SF is situated within the existing roadway, and a portion of the site is severed

from the main body by the roadway.

SITE ANALYSIS

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 22

Streets, Frontage, & Accessibility

STREETS, ACCESS, AND FRONTAGE

STREET N. Salem Road AR Highway 112

Frontage Feet 555 feet 610 feet

Street Details Gravel paving with open drainage ditches Asphalt paving with open drainage ditches

Curbs No No

Sidewalks No No

Lanes 2 2

Direction of Traffic Two-Way Two-Way

Street Type Minor arterial Major arterial

Signals/Traffic Control No No

Access/Curb Cuts 1 0

Median No No

Topography & Composition

The site is considered sloping in topography and mostly wooded. The highest elevations are in the southwest

part of the site and the homesite is considered near level. The site slopes downward to the north and to

the east. The topography of the site presents development challenges but is not seen as an impairment to

the development of the property. An illustration of the subject’s topography is presented in the following

exhibit:

Subject

N

SITE ANALYSIS

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 23

Flood Plain

We are not experts in determining flood zone elevations and a flood zone certificate was not available for

the subject. Flood maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) depict the site

as being situated in Zone X (Unshaded) as indicated by Community Map Panel No. 05143C0065G. An

illustration of the subject’s floodplain is presented in the following exhibit:

Utilities

Public water and sewer are not presently available in the immediate area. Properties in the immediate

area typically utilize private septic systems for wastewater management. No septic permit was discovered

in public records for the subject, but the property owner indicated the current system is in the southwest

part of the homesite. The site utilized a private well system for potable drinking water. The well house

is located immediately south of the residence.

Easements & Encroachments

There are no known easements or encroachments impacting the site that are considered to affect the

marketability or highest and best use. The provided title documents did not reveal other atypical

characteristics of this nature which would affect value.

Subject

SITE ANALYSIS

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 24

Covenants & Restrictions

There are no known covenants, conditions or restrictions impacting the site that are considered to affect

the marketability or highest and best use. The provided title documents did not reveal other atypical

characteristics of this nature which would affect value.

Conclusion

The subject site is considered to have adequate physical characteristics for development, with the

exception of topography which presents some development challenges. Ingress and egress to the site is

considered adequate, and the subject is considered to have average visibility to passing traffic. Overall,

there are no known factors that would prevent the site from development to its highest and best use as

vacant, or adverse to the existing use of the site.

ZONING

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 25

ZONING

The subject is located in the Agriculture Single-Family Residential 1 Unit Per Acre (Ag./SF Res.) zoning

district(s) as illustrated in the following map.

The Agriculture Single-Family Residential 1 Unit Per Acre (Ag./SF Res.) zoning district is defined by the

Washington County as follows.

These areas so zoned are designated as agricultural and single-family residential, the latter

to have a lot, tract or parcel size of no less than one (1) acre; however, if any city requires a

larger size in its subdivision regulations, then the larger size will be controlling.

Subject

N

ZONING

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 26

A summary of the pertinent zoning requirements is summarized in the following table:

ZONING

Designation Agriculture Single-Family Residential 1 Unit Per Acre (Ag./SF Res.)

Zoning Authority Washington County

Permitted Uses Agricultural and single-family residential, all other uses are considered conditional uses and

need approval of the Washington County Planning Board.

Current Use Single-Family Residential

Current Use Legally Permitted Yes

Conforming Use Yes

Conforming Lot Yes

Zoning Change Not Likely

Max Permitted Height N/A

Min Permitted Site Area 1-acre

Min Permitted Lot Width N/A

Front N/A

Rear N/A

Side N/A

Max Permitted Density (Units/Acre) 1

Source: Washington County Planning & Zoning Department

Future Land Use Plan/Map

The subject is within the City of Johnson planning area, but does not currently have a land use

classification. The nearest classifications are part of the Open Space and Residential Low Density Future

Land Use classification(s) as illustrated in the following map:

ZONING

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 27

Detailed information regarding the City of Johnson Land Use classifications were not readily available.

Zoning Conclusion

The subject appears to be a legally-conforming use. The information is assumed to be correct and accurate,

however, is subject to change and the appropriate governmental authority should be consulted for

additional information concerning the subject.

Subject

N

IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 28

IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS

Building Sketch

IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 29

Photographs of the Improvements

1. Exterior view of residence looking SE 2. Exterior view of residence looking NE

3. Exterior view of residence looking west 4. Exterior view of well house and shed

5. Interior view- Living Room 6. Interior view- Dining Room

IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 30

7. Interior view- Bedroom 8. Interior view- Bathroom

9. Exterior view of studio looking east 10. Exterior view of studio looking north

11. Interior view of studio 12. Interior view of studio

IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 31

Description of Improvements

As discussed, the subject is improved with an 1,643 SF residence that was built in or around 1971 based on

assessment records. The layout of the residence includes three-bedrooms, one-bathroom, kitchen, living

room and dining room. The house is constructed with wood framing with a wood exterior on a closed pier

and beam foundation. The roof is gable construction with asphalt shingles that appeared to be in average

condition. The interior walls and ceilings are drywall, and a mixture of carpet, wood, and vinyl tile covering

the wood subfloor. The house utilized a central system for heating and cooling. A 41 SF wood porch was

noted on the front of the residence, and a 160 SF wood deck was noted on the back. No major structural

issues were noted during the inspection of the property but significant physical depreciation from wearand-

tear was evident.

We also noted a 768 SF wood frame structure just north/northeast of the residence that is currently utilized

as a music studio. The layout of this structure is currently divided into two rooms, and one bathroom. The

studio has a wood exterior on a closed pier and beam foundation. The roof featured gable construction

with prefabricated metal that appeared to be in average condition. The interior walls and ceilings are

drywall, and a mixture of carpet and wood covering the wood subfloor. The studio utilized a central system

for heating and cooling. A 156 SF wood deck was noted on the back of the studio. No major structural issues

were noted during the inspection of the property but physical depreciation from wear-and-tear was

evident.

Two additional accessory improvements are on the property, including an 288 SF storage shed and an 80 SF

well house were noted just south of the residence. Both accessory improvements reflect wood frame

construction, and were observed to be in average overall condition.

Site improvements on the property were minimal, with the landscaping primarily consisting of native trees

and vegetation.

A summary of the impacted improvements, which are valued in this assignment is presented in the following

exhibit.

IMPROVEMENT CONDITION

Residence 1,643 SF Average

Studio 768 SF Average

Gravel paving 2,395 SF Average

Water Well 1 EA Average

Septic System 1 EA Average

Well House 80 SF Average

Storage Shed 288 SF Average

SIZE/QTY

VALUED IMPROVEMENTS

ASSESSMENT & TAXES

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 32

ASSESSMENT AND TAXES

ASSESSMENT & TAXES (2024)

TAX RATE AREA (010) Fayetteville School, Rural TAX RATE 51.3000

ASSESSOR PARCEL # LAND IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL FULLY ASSESSED TAXABLE BASE TAX

001-16641-000 $124,250 $117,650 $241,900 $48,380 $30,218 $1,550

Subtotal $124,250 $117,650 $241,900 $48,380 $30,218 $1,550

HOMESTEAD CREDITS

001-16641-000 ($500)

ACTUAL TAXES $1,050

Source: Washington County Assessment & Taxation

In Arkansas, ad valorem taxes are calculated by appraising the market value of real estate every four years

using mass appraisal technics. Typical methodology involves application of the cost approach

supplemented by sales and income data, if available. Arkansas is a disclosure State, but the sale of a

property does not automatically result in reassessment. Washington County last performed their countywide

appraisal in 2023, with a reappraisal scheduled for 2027. Additionally, the taxable value of a property

cannot escalate by more than 5% per year for a homestead property, or by more than 10% per year for a

non-homestead property. As a result, the taxable value can be less than the full assessed value, with the

taxable value being adjusted upward each year until it is equivalent to the full assessed value. This was

the reason for the discrepancy between the full assessed value and the taxable value stated above.

Taxes appear to be current for the subject and are assumed to be so for the purposes of this report.

HIGHEST & BEST USE – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 33

HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANALYSIS

The highest and best use of the subject property provides the foundation for the valuation section and is

defined in the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions as follows:

“The highest and most profitable use for which the property is adaptable and needed or likely

to be needed in the reasonably near future.”

For a specific use to be deemed the highest and best use, four criteria must be met:

1. Legally permissible

2. Physically possible

3. Financially feasible

4. Maximally productive

An existing use of a specific property may or may not be its highest and best use analysis. Therefore, the

highest and best use analysis is performed “as vacant” and “as improved,” if applicable, in order to consider

all possible uses for the property.

AS VACANT

Legally Permissible

The subject is zoned for agricultural and residence use, which is consistent with the Future Land Use Map.

There are no known easements, encroachments, or restrictive covenants that are considered to impact the

subject’s marketability or development of the subject to its highest and best use.

Physically Possible

The subject has adequate physical characteristics and utility availability to support independent

development of the site. Other than topography challenges, there are no known physical limiting factors

to development. Existing structures on parcels similar to the subject indicate that the land is physically

possible to develop. Thus, the subject is considered to be physically capable of development of the legally

permissible use.

Financially Feasible

Only uses that are considered legally permissible and physically possible are given further consideration.

Existing development patterns, and the relationship of supply/demand versus the development cost for

these uses is the primary determination for financial feasibility.

The subject is adequately located within the neighborhood, and development patterns in the immediate

area are reflective of primarily residential uses. Agricultural uses are still visible, but are considered an

interim use as development patterns are established. Based on data presented in the project Sales

Brochure, there is currently adequate demand for residential use in the market, and development of new

properties is currently occurring.

Based on the preceding analysis, development of a residential use is considered to be financially feasible

if the land can be acquired low enough to provide for an adequate developer’s profit.

Maximally Productive

Based on the information presented above and information pertaining to the neighborhood and market

contained in the Sales Brochure of this project, we conclude that the highest and best use of the subject

property, as vacant, is for development of a residential use. The most likely buyers of the subject would

be an investor or developer.

AS IMPROVED

The site has been improved with a primarily residential use. The layout and positioning of the improvements

are considered functional. While it would be physically possible for a wide variety of uses, based on the

legal restrictions and the design of the improvements, the continued use of the property for residential use

would be the most functional use. Buildings that are similar to the subject have been acquired for continued

HIGHEST & BEST USE – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 34

use. Therefore, it is our opinion that the highest and best use of the subject, as improved, is for continued

residential use. The most likely buyer for the subject property is an owner-user or investor.

APPRAISAL METHODOLOGY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 35

APPRAISAL METHODOLOGY

In traditional valuation theory, the three approaches to estimating the value of an asset are the Cost

Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, and Income Capitalization Approach. Each approach assumes

valuation of the property at the property’s highest and best use. From the indications of these analyses,

an opinion of value is reached based upon expert judgment within the outline of the appraisal process.

Cost Approach

The Cost Approach considers the cost to replace the proposed improvements, less accrued depreciation,

plus the market value of the land. The cost approach is based on the understanding that market participants

relate value to cost.

Sales Comparison Approach

The Sales Comparison Approach estimates value based on what other purchasers and sellers in the market

have agreed to as price for comparable properties. This approach is based upon the principle of

substitution, which states that the limits of prices, rents, and rates tend to be set by the prevailing prices,

rents, and rates of equally desirable substitutes.

Income Capitalization Approach

The Income Capitalization Approach simulates the reasoning of an investor who views the cash flows that

would result from the anticipated revenue and expense on a property throughout its lifetime. The net

income developed in an Income Approach analysis is the balance of potential income remaining after

vacancy and collection loss, and operating expenses. This net income is then capitalized at an appropriate

rate to derive an estimate of value or discounted by an appropriate yield rate over a typical projection

period in a discounted cash flow analysis.

Valuation Methodology Applicable to the Subject

The before and after method for valuation of the acquisition is utilized with a total compensation estimate

derived as the value of the subject whole property immediately before the acquisition less the value of the

subject remainder property immediately after the acquisition. Special benefits or enhancements to the

subject property may offset part or all compensation, and the subject remainder property is valued under

the hypothetical condition that the project has been completed according to project specifications at the

time of valuation.

The subject is an improved property, and the proposed acquisition will impact the improvements.

Therefore, all improvements are considered to be impacted by the project and the scope of this assignment

is the valuation of the entire property. The Sales Comparison Approach for Land is applicable and is utilized

to develop an opinion of the land value of the subject. The Cost Approach is used to develop an opinion of

contributory value for the improvements and is also used as a check against other valuation methods. The

Sales Comparison Approach for Improved Properties is applicable and is developed as this is the method

that most market participants rely on. The Income Approach is not applicable as the property is not income

producing, and land is not typically traded in the subject marketplace for its income producing potential.

LAND VALUE – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 36

LAND VALUE – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

Land sales in the area similar to the subject were researched using publicly available services. In selecting

comparables, emphasis was placed on recent sales of properties that are similar to the subject property in

terms of location and physical characteristics. Each comparable was confirmed with a party directly

involved with the transaction. Overall, the sales used represent the best comparables available for this

analysis. The most relevant unit of comparison for this analysis is the price per SF of total land area.

The following table and map summarize the comparables utilized in this analysis.

LAND SALES SUMMARY

COMP. LOCATION MUNICIPALITY ZONING SF DATE OF SALE UNADJUSTED SALE PRICE $/SF

2 3564 Barnett Ln Springdale SF-2 177,725 6/3/2024 $400,000 $2.25

3 6177 Elm Springs Road Elm Springs RSF-4 & R-A 224,770 5/17/2024 $550,000 $2.45

5 3331 N Salem Rd Fayetteville Ag./Res. 155,074 2/29/2024 $310,400 $2.00

8 TBD N. Rupple Rd. Fayetteville Ag./Res. 351,094 2/13/2024 $800,000 $2.28

8

N

LAND VALUE – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 37

LAND SALES COMPARABLE ADJUSTMENT TABLE

LAND SALES COMPARISON TABLE

SUBJECT COMPARABLE 2 COMPARABLE 3 COMPARABLE 5 COMPARABLE 8

Name 040752 Tract 17X 4.08-ACS Barnett Ln. 5.16-ACS Elm Springs

Road

3.56-ACS N. Salem Road 8.06-ACS N. Rupple

Road

Address 4210 N Salem Rd 3564 Barnett Ln 6177 Elm Springs Road 3331 N Salem Rd TBD N. Rupple Rd.

City Fayetteville Springdale Elm Springs Fayetteville Fayetteville

State AR AR AR AR AR

Zip 72704 72762 72762 72704 72704

County Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington

Parcel 001-16641-000 815-29126-100, 815-

29126-090

750-00594-000 001-16733-000, 001-

16726-001

001-16726-000

SALE INFORMATION

Transaction Price $400,000 $550,000 $310,400 $800,000

Transaction Price $/SF $2.25 $2.45 $2.00 $2.28

Property Rights ¹ Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple

Financing ² Typical Typical Typical Typical

Sale Conditions ³ Arm's Length Arm's Length Arm's Length Arm's Length

Expenditures After Sale ⁴

Market Conditions ⁵ 6/3/2024 3% 5/17/2024 3% 2/29/2024 5% 2/13/2024 6%

Total Transactional Adjustments $0.06 3% $0.07 3% $0.10 5% $0.13 6%

Adjusted $/SF $2.31 $2.52 $2.10 $2.41

PHYSICAL INFORMATION

Location/Frontage

Land AC 3.01 4.08 5.16 3.56 8.06 5%

Shape Triangular Generally Rectangular Rectangular Generally Rectangular Generally Rectangular

Topography/Composition Sloping Level to Sloping Generally Level (10%) Generally Level (10%) Generally Level (10%)

Flood Zone Zone X (Unshaded) Zone X (Unshaded) Zone X (Unshaded) Zone X (Unshaded) Zone X (Unshaded)

Utilities No Water or Sewer All Available (10%) All Available (10%) No Sewer (5%) No Sewer (5%)

Zoning Ag./SF Res. SF-2 RSF-4 & R-A Ag./Res. Ag./Res.

Other

Total Physical Adjustments ($0.23) (10%) ($0.50) (20%) ($0.31) (15%) ($0.24) (10%)

Adjusted $/SF $2.08 $2.02 $1.79 $2.17

Land Sales Adjustment Discussion

Adjustments to the comparable sales were considered and made when warranted for expenditures after

purchase, property rights transferred, conditions of sale, financing terms, and market conditions.

1. Property Rights - All the sales comparables were fee simple sales reflecting the property rights

appraised herein per the agreed upon scope of work.

2. Financing - The sales all reflected typical cash equivalent, lender-financed transactions and no

adjustments were required for financing terms.

3. Sale Conditions – All the sales comparables were confirmed to be arm’s length transactions and no

adjustments were required for sale conditions.

4. Expenditures After Sale - Expenses that the buyer incurs after purchase (demolition, cleanup costs,

etc.). No adjustments are warranted based on a review of the land sales.

5. Market Conditions (Time) - Based on the analysis performed, which includes market participant

interviews, research, and interpretation of value trends of sales in the Northwest Arkansas market, a

market conditions adjustment of 10% is applied on an annual basis.

Quantitative percentage adjustments are also made for location and physical characteristics such as size,

location quality, access, exposure, as well as other applicable elements of comparison. Where possible the

adjustments applied are based on paired data or other statistical analysis.

LAND VALUE – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 38

Summary of Adjustments

Location/Frontage

The subject is located along a gravel paved roadway, whereas each of the comparables have asphalt paved

frontages. Asphalt paving is generally considered a superior characteristic, but the overall

location/frontage characteristics were considered reasonably similar and no quantifiable adjustments

could be supported based on the data presented. Any necessary adjustment for the subject’s gravel paved

frontage will be considered in the correlation of the sales.

Land Size

Comparables 8 was sufficiently larger (inferior) than the subject and warranted an upward adjustment for

economies of scale. Per economies of scale, parcels typically sell for 5 – 10% higher or lower on a unit basis

for every halving or doubling of land area, respectively.

Shape

Comparable 3 had deep, narrow shape extending away from the road frontage which is considered an

inferior characteristic. However, based on paired sales analysis with Comparable 8, no adjustment can be

supported. This will be given further consideration in the correlation of the sales. All of the other

comparables were considered reasonably similar in shape and no additional adjustments were necessary.

Topography/Composition

The subject, and Comparable 2, have sloping topography. Each of Comparables 3, 5, and 8 were considered

generally level and thus considered superior to the subject in topography/composition. Comparables 3, 5

and 8 were adjusted downward in comparison to the subject.

Flood Zone

All comparables were similar to the subject in terms of flood zone, with no adjustments warranted.

Utilities

The subject does not have access to public water or sewer. Comparables 2 and 3 have access to all typical

city utilities and are considered superior to the subject warranting a downward adjustment. Comparables

5 and 8 have access to all typical city utilities, except public sewer, and are also considered superior to

the subject but adjusted downward by a lesser degree.

Zoning

All comparables had similar zoning to the subject and no adjustments could be quantified.

No other adjustments were required.

Land Value Conclusion

The comparable adjusted indicated unit values ranged between $1.79/SF and $2.17/SF, with a mean

adjusted average of $2.02/SF. Comparables 5 and 8 are the closest geographically to the subject.

Comparable 2 required the lowest absolute adjustments in the comparison process with the subject.

Comparable 8 was sold for assemblage purposes and reportedly might have sold for a premium as a result.

Comparable 2 reflects the most recent transaction. As previously discussed, Comparable 3 was considered

inferior with respect to shape but an adjustment could not be quantified based on the available data.

Finally, the subject’s gravel paved frontage is given consideration.

Based on the subject’s overall locational and physical features, a unit value conclusion towards the middle

of the adjusted range at $2.05/SF is most appropriate for the subject. The indicated value of the subject

is also within the unadjusted range of the comparable sales, lending further support to the value conclusion.

The following table presents the land value conclusion of the subject whole property.

LAND VALUE – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 39

ITEM SIZE (AC) SIZE (SF) x $/SF x % OF FEE INDICATED VALUE

Larger Parcel (Net of Roadway) 2.59 112,735 x $2.05 x 100% = $231,107

Inside Existing Roadway 0.43 18,540 x $0.00 x 100% = $0

Total Land 3.01 131,275 $231,107

LAND VALUE CONCLUSION - WHOLE PROPERTY

COST APPROACH – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 40

COST APPROACH – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

The Cost Approach is based on the principle of substitution, using the cost to construct a similar property

as a reasonable alternative. Unless stated otherwise, this approach values the subject based on a

replacement cost analysis, which is defined by the 15th Edition of the Appraisal of Real Estate as: The

estimated cost to construct, at current prices as of the effective appraisal date, a substitute for the

building being appraised, using modern materials and current standards, design, and layout.

The Marshall Valuation Service cost estimate was relied upon in this analysis. The steps of the Cost

Approach applied in this analysis are as follows:

• Estimate the market value of the site as though vacant and available to be put to the highest and

best use as of the date of value.

• Estimate the reproduction or replacement cost of the impacted site improvements including direct

costs, indirect costs, and entrepreneurial profit/overhead. Based on information provided by

developers of similar commercial projects, indirect costs typically range from 5% to 15% of direct

costs with 10% allocated in this analysis. Profit is typically based on a percentage of the replacement

cost and land value, generally 10% to 20%, depending upon project size, location, and marketability.

Based on the subject’s characteristics that subject is an owner-user, non-income producing property,

an entrepreneurial profit and overhead of 10% is applied in this analysis.

• Estimate the total amount of accrued depreciation in the improvements, including physical

deterioration, functional and external obsolescence.

• Deduct the total amount of accrued depreciation from the reproduction or the replacement cost of

the improvements to estimate the depreciated replacement cost.

• Add the estimated value of the site to the depreciated value the improvements to arrive at an

indicated value via the cost approach for the subject.

Cost Estimates - Primary and Accessory Improvements

To estimate the primary and accessory improvement costs for the subject, the Marshall Valuation Service

Manual (MVS) dated September 2024 was utilized. The estimated costs to construct similar facilities

includes construction materials, labor, construction interest, permits, average government fees, average

architect’s and engineering fees, sales tax, and contractor’s overhead and profit.

Direct Costs

Direct costs are expenditures for labor and materials used in the construction of improvements (also called

hard costs). Examples include building permits, materials, labor, equipment, security, temporary

structures and storage facilities, transportation costs, utility installation and service costs, contractor’s

profit and overhead and performance bonds4.

The following table indicates direct costs for the applicable improvements based on the Marshall Valuation

Service.

4 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Seventh Edition, Appraisal Institute, Chicago, 2022.

COST APPROACH – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 41

MVS DIRECT BUILDING COSTS

BUILDING Residence Studio TOTAL

Description Residence Studio

MVS Building Type Single-Family Residences Broadcasting Facilities

Number of Stories 1 1

MVS Section/Page 12/25 14/19

Building Class D D

MVS Publication Date September 2024 September 2024

Quality Rating Average Low Cost

BASE COST / SQUARE FOOT

Component GBA SF 1,643 768 2,411

MVS Base Cost $/SF $124.00 $128.00

SQUARE FOOT REFINEMENTS

#1 Heating and Cooling $3.93 Included

Subtotal $/SF $127.93 $128.00

HEIGHT & SIZE REFINEMENTS

Number of Stories Multiplier 1.000 1.000

Height Per Story Multiplier 1.000 0.921

Floor Area Multiplier 0.994 1.000

Subtotal $/SF $127.16 $117.89

COST MULTIPLIERS

Current Cost Multiplier 0.990 0.990

Local Area Multiplier 0.930 0.930

Subtotal $/SF $117.08 $108.54

DIRECT BUILDING COSTS MARSHALL VALUATION SERVICES

Direct Building Cost Total $192,360 $83,358 $275,718

ADDITIONS

Fireplace $5,500 $5,500

Front Porch $2,753 $2,753

Deck $4,320 $4,212 $8,532

Subtotal Additions $12,573 $4,212 $16,785

DIRECT BUILDING COSTS TOTAL $204,933 $87,570 $292,503

DIRECT BUILDING COSTS TOTAL $/SF $124.73 $114.02 $121.32

Indirect Costs

These costs are expenditures for items other than labor and materials that are necessary for construction

but are not typically part of the construction contract (also known as soft costs). Indirect costs represent

(a) real property taxes (and direct assessments, if any), (b) professional fees, (c) permanent financing fees,

(d) insurance expenses, (e) lease-up costs, (f) marketing and (g) contractor’s overhead/contingency.

Indirect costs in the market for similar commercial projects ranges 10% to 20%, with a concluded indirect

cost estimate applicable to the subject of 10%.

It is noted that the MSV base cost figures include some of these items including professional fees,

construction financing, site preparation and contractor’s overhead/contingency. Therefore, these items

are not included in our indirect cost estimate in the chart below.

COST APPROACH – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 42

MVS INDIRECT BUILDING COSTS

BUILDING Residence Studio TOTAL

Direct Building Costs Total $204,933 $87,570 $292,503

10% 10% 10%

INDIRECT BUILDING COSTS TOTAL $20,493 $8,757 $29,250

INDIRECT BUILDING COSTS TOTAL $/SF $12.47 $11.40 $12.13

Indirect Cost Estimate

MVS Total Building Costs

The following chart displays the summation of the primary and accessory improvements direct and indirect

costs.

MVS DIRECT & INDIRECT BUILDING COSTS

BUILDING Residence Studio TOTAL

Direct Building Costs Total $204,933 $87,570 $292,503

Indirect Building Costs Total $20,493 $8,757 $29,250

TOTAL MVS BUILDING COST $225,426 $96,327 $321,753

TOTAL MVS BUILDING COST $/SF $137.20 $125.43 $133.45

Entrepreneurial Profit

Entrepreneurial Profit (EP) is defined in the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal as:

A market-derived figure that represents the amount an entrepreneur received for his or her

contribution to a past project to compensate for his or her time, effort, knowledge, and risk;

the difference between the total cost of a property (cost of development) and its market value

(property value after completion), which represents the entrepreneur’s compensation for

the risk and expertise associated with development. An entrepreneur is motivated by the

prospect of future value enhancement (i.e., the entrepreneurial incentive). An entrepreneur

who successfully creates value through new development, expansion, renovation, or an

innovative change of use is rewarded by entrepreneurial profit. Entrepreneurs may also fail

and suffer losses.5

The amount of entrepreneurial profit varies depending on the type of property and other factors such as

the risk involved. For the subject, an EP of 10% is appropriate and is applied to each of the buildings.

BUILDING Residence Studio TOTAL

Total MVS Building Cost $225,426 $96,327 $321,753

Entrepreneurial Profit 10% 10% 10%

ENTREPRENEURIAL PROFIT TOTAL $22,543 $9,633 $32,175

ENTREPRENEURIAL PROFIT TOTAL $/SF $13.72 $12.54 $13.35

ENTREPRENEURIAL PROFIT

Building Replacement Cost New (RCN) Conclusion

The final MVS derived replacement cost new (RCN) for the primary and accessory improvements including

all estimated direct and indirect costs plus entrepreneurial profit is presented below.

5 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Seventh Edition, Appraisal Institute, Chicago, Illinois, 2022

COST APPROACH – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 43

BUILDING Residence Studio TOTAL

Direct Building Costs Total $204,933 $87,570 $292,503

Indirect Building Costs Total $20,493 $8,757 $29,250

Entrepreneurial Profit $22,543 $9,633 $32,175

REPLACEMENT COST NEW (RCN) $247,969 $105,960 $353,928

REPLACEMENT COST NEW $/SF $150.92 $137.97 $146.80

TOTAL REPLACEMENT COST NEW (RCN)

Building Depreciation

From the replacement cost new, a dollar amount of depreciation may be deducted. There are three types

of depreciation: physical, functional, and economic. Physical depreciation is the result of physical wear

and tear on the improvements. Functional obsolescence is the result of design or physical problems which

reduce the income-producing ability or desirability of the subject property. Economic obsolescence is the

result of outside influences (economic and neighborhood) which decrease the value of the property.

In the case of the subject, depreciation of the improvements is primarily a factor of physical deterioration.

The following chart presents the estimated depreciation amount for each of the primary and accessory

improvements.

BUILDING DEPRECIATION DETAIL

BUILDING/S Residence Studio TOTAL

Description Residence Studio

MVS Building Type Single-Family Residences Broadcasting Facilities

Building Replacement Cost New $247,969 $105,960 $321,753

Year Built 1971 2005 2908

Actual Age of Building 53 Years 19 Years -884 Years

Effective Age of Building 35 Years 20 Years 44 Years

Economic Life of Building 55 Years 35 Years 71 Years

Remaining Economic Life of Building 20 Years 15 Years 27 Years

Percent Depreciated 63.6% 57.1% 67.9%

DEPRECIATION TOTAL $157,798 $60,548 $218,346

Concluded Contributory Value – Primary and Accessory Improvements

The concluded depreciated values of the primary and accessory improvements are as follows.

BUILDING/S Residence Studio TOTAL

Final Building RCN $247,969 $105,960 $353,928

Less: Depreciation ($157,798) ($60,548) ($218,346)

TOTAL DEPRECIATED IMPROVEMENT VALUE $90,171 $45,412 $135,582

TOTAL DEPRECIATED IMPROVEMENT VALUE $/SF $54.88 $59.13 $56.23

CONTRIBUTORY VALUE - PRIMARY/ACCESSORY IMPROVEMENTS

Site Improvements

Cost estimates for the impacted site improvements were derived from the MVS Manual Section 66, or other

applicable pages, and include allocations for indirect costs and entrepreneurial profit. All of the site

improvements were considered to be functional for the subject’s use and the depreciation applied is

primarily due to the physical condition of each item.

COST APPROACH – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 44

SITE IMPROVEMENTS - REPLACEMENT COST NEW & DEPRECIATION ANALYSIS

ITEMS # UNITS $/ SUBTOTAL IND EP TOTAL RCN ECON LIFE EFF AGE DEP % DEP $ INDICATED VALUE

Gravel paving 2,395 SF $3.25 $7,784 10% 10% $1,635 $9,419 10 yrs 5 yrs 50.0% ($4,710) $4,709

Water Well 1 EA $15,000 $15,000 10% 10% $3,150 $18,150 25 yrs 13 yrs 50.0% ($9,075) $9,075

Septic System 1 EA $10,000 $10,000 10% 10% $2,100 $12,100 25 yrs 13 yrs 50.0% ($6,050) $6,050

Well House 80 SF $17.25 $1,380 10% 10% $290 $1,670 15 yrs 8 yrs 50.0% ($835) $835.00

Storage Shed 288 SF $17.25 $4,968 10% 10% $1,043 $6,011 15 yrs 8 yrs 50.0% ($3,006) $3,005.00

Subtotals $39,132 ##### #### $8,218 $47,350 ($23,676)

REPLACEMENT COST NEW LESS DEPRECIATION $23,674

UNIT COSTS MULTIPLIERS DEPRECIATION

COST APPROACH CONCLUSION

The Cost Approach analysis and conclusion are presented in the following table.

COST APPROACH SUMMARY

BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS

Direct Costs $292,503

Indirect Costs $29,250

Entrepreneurial Profit $32,175

Depreciation ($218,346)

Total Depreciated Value Of Building Improvements $56.23 $135,582

SITE IMPROVEMENTS

Direct Costs $39,132

Indirect Costs $3,913

Entrepreneurial Profit $4,305

Depreciation ($23,676)

Total Depreciated Value Of Site Improvements $23,674

SUMMARY OF ALL IMPROVEMENTS

Direct Costs $331,635

Indirect Costs $33,163

Entrepreneurial Profit $36,480

Replacement Cost New $401,278

Depreciation ($242,022)

Total Depreciated Cost of Building & Site Improvements $159,256

Estimated Land Value $231,107

INDICATED VALUE (ROUNDED TO NEAREST $1) $161.91 $390,363

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 45

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

Improved sales in the area similar to the subject were researched using publicly available services. In

selecting comparables, emphasis was placed on recent sales of properties that are similar to the subject

property in terms of location and physical characteristics. Each comparable was confirmed with a party

directly involved with the transaction. The most relevant unit of comparison is whole sale price.

IMPROVED SALES COMPARABLE SUMMARY & MAP

IMPROVED SALES SUMMARY

LOCATION CITY YR. BLT GBA DATE OF SALE UNADJUSTED SALE PRICE

1 4557 W Seaton Dr Springdale 1985 1,686 8/30/2024 $395,000

2 16193 Pin Oak Rd Fayetteville 2000 1,284 7/26/2024 $450,000

3 233 White Oak Dr Springdale 1979 1,750 7/15/2024 $367,500

4 1363 S Barrington Rd Tontitown 1996 1,676 1/11/2024 $295,000

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 46

3 4

N

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 47

IMPROVED SALES COMPARISON TABLE

IMPROVED SALES COMPARISON TABLE

SUBJECT COMP 1 COMP 2 COMP 3 COMP 4

Name 040752 4557 Seaton Drive 16193 Pin Oak

Road

233 White Oak

Drive

1363 Barrington

Road

Address 4210 N Salem Rd 4557 W Seaton Dr 16193 Pin Oak Rd 233 White Oak Dr 1363 S Barrington

Rd

City Fayetteville Springdale Fayetteville Springdale Tontitown

State AR AR AR AR AR

Zip 72704 72762 72704 72762 72762

County Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington

Submarket

SALE INFORMATION

Transaction Price $395,000 $450,000 $367,500 $295,000

Transaction Price$/Unit $395,000 $450,000 $367,500 $295,000

Property Rights ¹ Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple

Financing ² Typical Typical Typical

Sale Conditions ³ Arm's Length Arm's Length Arm's Length Arm's Length

Expenditures After Sale ⁴

Market Conditions ⁵ 8/30/2024 0.2% 7/26/2024 1.1% 7/15/2024 1.4% 1/11/2024 6.7%

Total Transactional Adjustments $647 0.2% $5,062 1.1% $5,251 1.4% $19,792 6.7%

Adjusted $/Unit $395,647 $455,062 $372,751 $314,792

PHYSICAL INFORMATION

Lot Contribution 2.59 1.51 2.60 2.56 1.00 $80,000

GLA (SF) 1,643 1,686 ($5,218) 1,284 $43,563 1,750 ($12,984) 1,676 ($4,004)

Bldg Quality Average Average Average Average Average

BR/BA Count 3/1 3/2 ($4,000) 2/1 $4,000 3/2 ($4,000) 3/2 ($4,000)

Bldg Age/Condition 1971/Average 1985/Average ($15,000) 2000/Average ($20,000) 1979/Average 1996/Average ($20,000)

Utilities No Sewer No Sewer No Sewer No Sewer No Sewer

Heating & Cooling Central HVAC Central HVAC Central HVAC Central HVAC Central HVAC

Accessory Improv Studio Shed $50,000 Cottage/Hangar ($65,000) Shed $50,000 Shed $50,000

Parking Type None Garage ($10,000) Garage ($10,000) Garage ($10,000) Garage ($10,000)

Gross/Net Physical Adjustments $84,218 $ 15,782 $142,563 $ (47,437) $76,984 $ 23,016 $168,004 $ 91,996

Adjusted $/Unit $411,429 $407,625 $395,767 $406,788

ADJUSTMENTS

Adjustments to comparable sales were considered and made when warranted for property rights, financing

terms, conditions of sale, expenditures after sale and market conditions.

1. Property Rights - All of the sales comparables were fee simple sales reflecting the property rights

appraised herein per the agreed upon scope of work.

2. Financing - The sales all reflected typical cash equivalent, lender-financed transactions and no

adjustments were required for financing terms.

3. Sale Conditions - None of the comparables required a condition of sale adjustment, as all were

confirmed to be arm’s length transactions.

4. Expenditures After Sale - Expenses that the buyer incurs after purchase (deferred maintenance, HVAC

repairs, etc.). No adjustments are warranted based on review of the sales.

5. Market Conditions (Time) - Based on the analysis performed, which includes research and

interpretation of value trends of the comparables presented herein and in the Sales Brochure of this

project, a market conditions adjustment of 10% is applied on an annual basis reflecting the estimated

appreciation of residential properties between the transaction dates and the effective valuation date.

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 48

QUANTITATIVE ADJUSTMENT PROCESS

Quantitative percentage adjustments are also made for location and physical characteristics such as size,

quality of construction, condition, as well as other applicable elements of comparison. Where possible the

adjustments applied are based on paired data or other statistical analysis.

SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENTS

Lot Contribution

This category of adjustment takes into consideration lot size and locational characteristics. Comparable

One exhibits a smaller lot size, but is more centrally located within development patterns. These

characteristics are considered offsetting and no adjustment is considered warranted to Compatible 1.

Comparable 2 is further removed from the central Northwest Arkansas area, but has access to a private

airport runway. These factors are also considered offsetting and no adjustment is warranted to Comparable

2. Comparable 3 is considered most similar to the subject with respect to lot size and locational

characteristics. Finally, Comparable 4 is much smaller in lot size and warranted an upward adjustment in

comparison to the subject.

Gross Living Area (SF)

As the size of a house increases price tends to increase but often not at a one-to-one ratio. This is because

part of the value is in the land, accessory improvements, and market standards for size ranges.

Comparables 1, 3, and 4 were sufficiently larger homes than the subject to warrant downward adjustments

for home size, while Comparable 2 was sufficiently smaller than the subject to warrant an upward

adjustment for the same reason.

Building Quality

All comparables were considered to be similar to the subject in terms of building quality and no adjustments

were warranted.

Bedroom/Bathroom Count

Typical room counts are often accounted for in the GLA size adjustment. However, markets may pay more

for more efficient layouts with greater room count compared to similar GLA. Likewise, a house of similar

size with an inadequate room count can command a lower price. Furthermore, additional bathrooms can

add value aside from the GLA adjustment. Comparables 1, 3, and 4 were superior in bathroom counts and

warranted downward. Comparable 2 has an inferior bedroom count as compared to the subject and

warranted an upward adjustment.

adjustments.

Building Age/Condition

Each of the comparables was considered reasonably similar to the subject in overall condition, but

Comparables 1, 2, and 4 warranted downward adjustments for their newer years of construction.

Comparable 3 is considered most similar to the subject overall with respect to building age/condition.

Utilities

Each of the comparable sales had access to public water, but not sewer access. However, no adjustments

were made as the subject’s on site water well is considered adequate for residential use and would most

likely not impact the potential sale price of the subject in the local market.

Heating & Cooling

The HVAC systems of the subject and comparables command sufficiently similar values in this market as to

warrant no adjustment.

Accessory Improvements

As discussed, the subject is improved with a 768 SF wood frame structure that is currently utilized as a

music studio, a 288 SF storage shed, and an 80 SF well house. Comparables 1, 3, and 4 include storage

structures, but are inferior to the subject as they do not include a structure with finished space similar to

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH – SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 49

the subject studio building. As such, each of Comparables 1, 3, and 4 were adjusted upward in comparison

to the subject. Comparable 2 includes a cottage structure similar to the subject studio, but also includes

an airplane hangar. Comparable 2 is considered superior to the subject and adjusted downward.

Parking

Generally, houses with a higher number of covered parking spaces will command higher prices. Each of the

comparables included an attached garage and was considered superior in parking warranting across the

board downward adjustments relative to the subject.

Porch, Patios, Fireplace, etc.

Each comparable exhibited similar outdoor space and fireplace characteristics with the subject and no

adjustments were necessary.

No other adjustments were required.

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH CONCLUSION – THE WHOLE PROPERTY

The adjusted indicated unit values of the comparable improved sales range from $395,767 to $411,429,

with an average unit value of $405,402. Comparables 1, 2, and 3 reflect the most recent transactions.

Comparables 3 and 4 are located nearest to the subject. Comparables 1 and 3 required the lowest gross

and net adjustments, in comparison to the subject.

Based on the preceding analysis of the comparable sales and the sale of the subject, an indicated value

near the middle to upper end of the adjusted range at $407,500 is considered to be most appropriate for

the subject. The following table summarizes the analysis of the comparables and presents the concluded

value of the subject property by the Sales Comparison Approach.

IMPROVED SALES COMPARISON APPROACH CONCLUSION (UNIT)

TRANSACTION ADJUSTMENT NET

PRICE TRANSACTIONAL¹ ADJUSTED FINAL ADJ

1 $395,000 0% $395,647 $411,429 4%

2 $450,000 1% $455,062 $407,625 (9%)

3 $367,500 1% $372,751 $395,767 8%

4 $295,000 7% $314,792 $406,788 38%

HIGH $450,000 7% $455,062 $411,429 38%

AVG $376,875 2% $384,563 $405,402 10%

MED $381,250 1% $384,199 $407,207 6%

LOW $295,000 0% $314,792 $395,767 (9%)

SUBJECT UNIT

¹Cumulative ²Additive

$407,500

VALUE

INDICATED VALUE (ROUNDED TO NEAREST $1)

The indicated unit value and total value of the subject are both within the range of the unadjusted

indicated values of the comparable sales, giving further support to the concluded values.

RECONCILIATION OF VALUES - SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 50

RECONCILIATION OF VALUE CONCLUSIONS – SUBJECT WHOLE

The value indications from the approaches to value utilized in this assignment are presented below.

Land Value $231,107

Cost Approach $390,363

Sales Comparison Approach $407,500

Income Capitalization Approach N/A

RECONCILED VALUE $407,500

SUMMARY OF VALUE CONCLUSIONS - WHOLE PROPERTY

In the Cost Approach, cost new of the improvements was estimated based on Marshall Valuation Service

(MVS). A strength of the cost approach is the availability of recent and reliable comparable land sales in

estimating the value of the site as vacant. However, the subject suffers from significant accrued

depreciation and thus the reliability of the cost approach is somewhat diminished. Therefore, less emphasis

is placed on this indication to value and it is primarily utilized as a test of reasonableness to the other

indications.

In the sales comparison approach, the subject is compared to similar properties that have recently sold.

The sales used in this analysis are considered highly comparable to the subject, and the adjustments were

based on reasonable and well-supported market rationale. In addition, market participants are currently

analyzing purchase prices as they relate to available substitutes in the market. Therefore, the sales

comparison approach is considered to provide a reliable value indication, and has been given primary

emphasis in the final value reconciliation.

The income approach was omitted for reasons previously discussed, but is not considered necessary to

produce credible appraisal results.

The following table provides an itemization of the reconciled indicated value of the subject whole property

before the acquisition as of the effective date of this report; September 5, 2024.

RECONCILIATION OF VALUES - SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 51

AREA SIZE (AC) SIZE (SF) x $/SF x % OF FEE INDICATED VALUE

Larger Parcel (Net of Roadway) 2.59 112,735 x $2.05 x 100% = $231,107

Inside Existing Roadway 0.43 18,540 x $0.00 x 100% = $0

Total Land 3.01 131,275 $231,107

ITEM UNITS $/UNIT RCN INDICATED VALUE

Primary Improvements

Residence 1643 SF @ $150.92 /SF = $247,969 - ($157,798) = $107,307

Total Primary Improvements $107,307

Assessory Improvements

Studio 768 SF @ $137.97 /SF = $105,960 - ($60,548) = $45,412

Total Assessory Improvements $105,960 ($60,548) $45,412

Site Improvements

Gravel paving 2395 SF @ $3.93 /SF = $9,419 - ($4,710) = $4,709

Water Well 1 EA @ $18,150.00 /EA = $18,150 - ($9,075) = $9,075

Septic System 1 EA @ $12,100 /EA = $12,100 - ($6,050) = $6,050

Well House 80 SF @ $21 /SF = $1,670 - ($835) = $835

Storage Shed 288 SF @ $21 /SF = $6,011 - ($3,006) = $3,005

Total Site Improvements $47,350 ($23,676) $23,674

Total Improvements $176,393

TOTAL VALUE AS A UNIT $407,500

LAND

IMPROVEMENTS

WHOLE PROPERTY VALUATION - ITEMIZED

LESS: DEPRECIATION

PART ACQUIRED

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 52

PART TO BE ACQUIRED

Aerial of the Acquisition Area

PART ACQUIRED

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 53

DESCRIPTION OF THE ACQUISITION AREA

As part of the project, ARDOT intends to acquire 125,188 SF, or 2.87 acre of land which reflects the majority

of the whole property except for a small triangular area in the south-central part of the site. All valued

improvements are inside the acquisition area.

Legal Description of Acquisition

040752 Tract 17X

Part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter

of Section 1, Township 18 North, Range 31 West, Benton County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows:

Commencing at a Half-Inch Rebar being used as the Center South Sixteenth Corner of Section 20; thence South

87°30’35” East along the South line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20 a distance of

209.94 feet to a point on the Southwesterly right of way line of Arkansas State Highway 112 as established by ARDOT

Job 040752 for the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 37°42’04” West along said right of way line a distance of

134.92 feet to a point; thence North 45°19’43” West along said right of way line a distance of 165.26 feet to a point

on the West line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20; thence North 02°35’59” East along

said West line a distance of 480.05 feet to a point; thence in a Southeasterly direction on a curve to the Left, having

a radius of 654.81 feet a distance of 269.20 feet having a chord bearing of South 17°01’58” East a distance of 267.30

feet to a point; thence in a Southeasterly direction on a curve to the Left, having a radius of 654.81 feet a distance

of 77.86 feet having a chord bearing of South 32°12’58” East a distance of 77.81 feet to a point; thence South

35°37’21” East a distance of 47.70 feet to a point; thence in a Southeasterly direction to the Left, having a radius

of 954.93 feet a distance of 93.29 feet having a chord bearing of South 38°25’17” East a distance of 93.26 feet to a

point; thence South 41°31’21” East a distance of 10.07 feet to a point; thence in a Southeasterly direction on a curve

to the Left, having a radius of 954.93 feet a distance of 147.81 feet having a chord bearing of South 46°15’32” East

a distance of 147.66 feet to a point; thence South 51°35’59” West a distance of 5.90 feet to a point; thence South

43°23’59” East a distance of 117.80 feet to a point; thence South 04°46’39” East a distance of 80.35 feet to a point

on the South line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20; thence North 87°30’35” West

along said South line a distance of 223.83 feet to the point of beginning and containing 2.46 acres more or less as

shown on plans prepared by ARDOT referenced as Job 040742.

And Also:

Tract 17XB

Part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 17 North, Range 30 West, Washington

County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at a Half-Inch Rebar being used as the Center South Sixteenth Corner of Section 20, also being the Westerly

right of way line of North Salem Road as established by ARDOT Job 040752; thence North 02°35’59” East along said

right of way line a distance of 92.00 feet to a point on the West section line of the Northwest Quarter of the

Southeast Quarter of Section 20; thence continue North 02°35’59” East along said a distance of 122.03 feet to a

point on the Southwesterly right of way line of Arkansas State Highway 112 as established by ARDOT Job 040752;

thence South 45°19’43” East along said right of way line a distance of 165.26 feet to a point on the Easterly right of

way line of North Salem Road; thence South 19°15’12” West along said right of way line a distance of 107.64 feet to

a point on the South line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20; thence North 87°30’35”

West along said South line a distance of 91.83 feet to the point of beginning and containing 0.41 acres more or less

as shown on plans prepared by ARDOT referenced as Job 040742.

PART ACQUIRED

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 54

Right-of-Way Plans

Acquisition

PART ACQUIRED

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 55

Right-of-Way Plans

Acquisition

TDE

SUBJECT REMAINDER

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 56

SUBJECT REMAINDER

Aerial of the Subject Remainder

SUBJECT REMAINDER

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 57

REMAINDER PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

The subject remainder property after the acquisition will have significantly different physical

characteristics as compared to the subject whole property. The following table provides an overview of

salient characteristics of the subject remainder property compared to the subject whole property.

COMPARISON

Larger Parcel (Net of Roadway) 112,735 SF 2.59 AC 6,087 SF 0.14 AC -95%

Inside Existing Roadway 18,540 SF 0.43 AC 0 SF 0.00 AC -100%

Gross Land Area 131,275 SF 3.01 AC 6,087 SF 0.14 AC -95%

Shape Triangular Triangular Similar

Topography Sloping Sloping Similar

Flood Zone Zone X (Unshaded) Zone X (Unshaded) Similar

Primary Frontage/Access N. Salem Road 555 feet; 1 N. Salem Road 108 feet; 0 Diminished

Secondary Frontage/Access AR Highway 112 610 feet; 0 Diminished

Utility Availability No Water and Sewer No Water and Sewer Similar

Site Exposure Average Average Similar

Site Utility Adequate Inadeqaute Diminished

SUBJECT REMAINDER COMPARISON

SUBJECT WHOLE SUBJECT REMAINDER

Legal Description

The legal description of the subject in the remainder will remain unchanged from that of the whole

property, with the exception that it will be reduced by legal description the right-of-way acquisition. The

legal description for the part to be acquired was previously presented.

Neighborhood Factors

The neighborhood is unchanged after the acquisition.

Land Area/Site Characteristics

The land area is significantly reduced to a size that has limited ability to be developed as an independent

parcel, especially combined with the remainder shape.

Remainder Frontage/Access

The remainder also have significantly reduced frontage, but access to N. Salem Road would still be possible.

Legal Conformance

The subject property was legally conforming before the acquisition and the project will change that status

to legally non-conforming due to size.

Market Conformance

The subject remainder will not be functional for its intended use after the acquisition is complete for the

reasons previously discussed.

HIGHEST & BEST USE - SUBJECT REMAINDER

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 58

HIGHEST AND BEST USE - SUBJECT REMAINDER

AS VACANT

Legally Permissible

The acquisition will result in non-conformance of the subject to the current zoning requirements.

Physically Possible

The subject remainder will not have adequate physical characteristics in the remainder to support

independent development.

Financially Feasible

Since the remainder property is significantly diminished as compared to the whole property before

acquisition, assemblage with an adjacent parcel would be the only financially feasible use of the remainder.

Maximally Productive

Based on the information presented above, the highest and best use of the subject remainder property, as

vacant, is assemblage with an adjacent tract for development of a residential use. The most likely buyer

would be an adjacent landowner.

LAND VALUE - SUBJECT REMAINDER

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 59

LAND VALUE – SUBJECT REMAINDER

Introduction

The same comparable sales used in the valuation of the subject whole property were applicable to the

valuation of the subject remainder property. A detailed description of each is presented in the Addenda,

and a map was previously presented. The same adjustments made in the whole property analysis before

acquisition were also considered applicable to the remainder property analysis, except for the other

category of adjustment.

LAND SALES COMPARABLE ADJUSTMENT TABLE

LAND SALES COMPARISON TABLE

SUBJECT COMPARABLE 2 COMPARABLE 3 COMPARABLE 5 COMPARABLE 8

Name 040752 Tract 17X 4.08-ACS Barnett Ln. 5.16-ACS Elm Springs Road 3.56-ACS N. Salem Road 8.06-ACS N. Rupple Road

Address 4210 N Salem Rd 3564 Barnett Ln 6177 Elm Springs Road 3331 N Salem Rd TBD N. Rupple Rd.

City Fayetteville Springdale Elm Springs Fayetteville Fayetteville

State AR AR AR AR AR

Zip 72704 72762 72762 72704 72704

County Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington

Parcel 001-16641-000 815-29126-100, 815-29126-

090

750-00594-000 001-16733-000, 001-16726-

001

001-16726-000

SALE INFORMATION

Transaction Price $400,000 $550,000 $310,400 $800,000

Transaction Price $/SF $2.25 $2.45 $2.00 $2.28

Property Rights ¹ Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple

Financing ² Typical Typical Typical Typical

Sale Conditions ³ Arm's Length Arm's Length Arm's Length Arm's Length

Expenditures After Sale ⁴

Market Conditions ⁵ 6/3/2024 3% 5/17/2024 3% 2/29/2024 5% 2/13/2024 6%

Total Transactional Adjustments $0.06 3% $0.07 3% $0.10 5% $0.13 6%

Adjusted $/SF $2.31 $2.52 $2.10 $2.41

PHYSICAL INFORMATION

Location/Frontage 0% 0% 0% 0%

Land AC 0.14 4.08 0% 5.16 0% 3.56 0% 8.06 5%

Shape Triangular Generally Rectangular 0% Rectangular 0% Generally Rectangular 0% Generally Rectangular 0%

Topography/Composition Sloping Level to Sloping 0% Generally Level (10%) Generally Level (10%) Generally Level (10%)

Flood Zone Zone X (Unshaded) Zone X (Unshaded) 0% Zone X (Unshaded) 0% Zone X (Unshaded) 0% Zone X (Unshaded) 0%

Utilities No Water or Sewer All Available (10%) All Available (10%) No Sewer (5%) No Sewer (5%)

Zoning Ag./SF Res. SF-2 0% RSF-4 & R-A 0% Ag./Res. 0% Ag./Res. 0%

Other (75%) (75%) (75%) (75%)

Total Physical Adjustments ($1.96) (85%) ($2.39) (95%) ($1.89) (90%) ($2.05) (85%)

Adjusted $/SF $0.35 $0.13 $0.21 $0.36

Changes to the Adjustments

Other

Sales of properties with inadequate physical characteristics are rare and are generally not marketed in a

manner that would be recognized during research as these parcels are usually not marketable to nonadjacent

property owners. Market participants interviewed in the Northwest Arkansas area all stated that

a large discount would be required for the inadequate parcel as the adjacent landowners have most, if not

all, of the bargaining power and may or may not be willing to negotiate. The range of discounts indicated

LAND VALUE - SUBJECT REMAINDER

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 60

by the participants varied widely, from about 15% or so to 90%+, and was based primarily on the potential

benefit that the adjacent tract would realize from an assemblage.

A search of public records revealed several sales of parcels with inadequate physical characteristics, but

nearly all of them were already assembled to an adjacent parcel. Many of these parcels were conveyed for

$0 via quit claim deeds regardless of apparent benefit to the adjacent tract. Three examples of non-zerodollar

conveyances were found in a subdivision in Rogers where approximately 8-foot-wide backyard

extensions were purchased from an adjacent landowner approximately 10 years ago. These parcel, Benton

County Parcels 02-14175-381, 02-22794-001, and 02-14175-382, were purchased individually for between

$0.34/SF and $0.37/SF while the assemblage tracts were selling for about $4.00/SF, indicating an

approximately 90% discount even though all the assemblage tracts have an apparent benefit from the

assemblage.

In the case of the subject, there is only one adjacent parcel that the remainder could assemble with to the

south. This potential assemblage parcel appears that it could benefit somewhat from an assemblage as the

subject remainder would increase its land area, but the adjacent landowner’s willingness to negotiate and

their perceived benefit of an assemblage is unknown. Therefore, a discount towards the higher end of the

indicated range is most appropriate for the subject. Each of the comparables is adjusted downward in

comparison to the subject for its superior site utility.

No other adjustments were required.

Land Value Conclusion

The comparables indicate a unit value, based on a general bracketing analysis, between $0.13/SF and

$0.36/SF with a mean adjusted average of $0.26/SF. After the acquisition, the subject will be significantly

less functional and marketable. A unit value indication for the subject towards the lower end of the range

at $0.20/SF is appropriate and supported.

The following table presents the land value conclusion of the subject remainder property.

ITEM SIZE (AC) SIZE (SF) x $/SF x % OF FEE INDICATED VALUE

Remainder (Primary) 0.14 6,087 x $0.20 x 100% = $1,217

Total Land 0.14 6,087 $1,217

LAND VALUE CONCLUSION - REMAINDER PROPERTY

RECONCILIATION OF VALUES - SUBJECT REMAINDER PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 61

RECONCILIATION OF VALUES – SUBJECT REMAINDER PROPERTY

The valuation of the Subject Remainder after the acquisition is based upon a new highest and best use

analysis, analysis of the site, and improvement analysis, as applicable. The value indications for approaches

used are presented below.

Land Value $1,217

Cost Approach N/A

Sales Comparison Approach N/A

Income Capitalization Approach N/A

RECONCILED VALUE BEFORE COST TO CURE ITEMS $1,217

Less: Cost to Cure Items N/A

RECONCILED VALUE AFTER COST TO CURE ITEMS $1,217

SUMMARY OF VALUE CONCLUSIONS - REMAINDER PROPERTY

As in the valuation of the whole property before the acquisition, the sales comparison approach was utilized

in the land value section by comparing the subject to similar properties that have been sold recently or for

which listing prices or offers are known. The sales used in this analysis are considered highly comparable

to the subject, and the required adjustments were based on reasonable and well-supported rationale. In

addition, market participants are currently analyzing purchase prices on other properties as they relate to

available substitutes in the market. Therefore, the sales comparison approach is considered to provide a

reliable value indication for the subject land.

Based on the foregoing, the concluded value of the Subject Remainder is as follows.

AREA SIZE (AC) SIZE (SF) x $/SF x % OF FEE INDICATED VALUE

Remainder (Primary) 0.14 6,087 x $0.20 x 100% = $1,217

TOTAL VALUE AS A UNIT $1,217

LAND

REMAINDER PROPERTY VALUATION - ITEMIZED

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS

TEMPORARY EASEMENT(S)

In addition to the fee acquisition, ARDOT intends to acquire a temporary easement (TDE) to complete

demolition on the portions of the improvements that are outside the acquisition area for the duration of

the project. An illustration of the TDE is presented in the following exhibit.

Ground leases in Arkansas are valued at an annual rate of 10% of the fee simple value of the affected

property for a provided term of construction of 2-years. The following table presents the rounded indicated

RECONCILIATION OF VALUES - SUBJECT REMAINDER PROPERTY

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 63

value of the TDE, which is added to the difference between the before and after values to arrive at the

total compensation.

SIZE (ACRES) SIZE (SF) $/SF RATE DURATION (MOS.) INDICATED VALUE ROUNDED

TDE 17XE-1 0.08 3,600 $0.20 x 10% 24 $144 $200

TOTAL (ROUNDED) $200

TEMPORARY EASEMENT

SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 64

SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION

Difference Between Before and After Values

In the final accounting, the estimate of the total compensation is based on the difference between the

opinion of value before the acquisition and after the acquisition and includes any potential curative costs

and/or temporary construction easements. These opinions of value are based on the market data available

as of the effective date of this report. The following tables present the appraisal conclusions and the

allocation of the estimate of total compensation.

Whole Property $407,500

Remainder Property $1,217

Difference in Market Value $406,283

Plus: TDE 17XE-1 (Rounded) $200

TOTAL COMPENSATION $406,483

SUMMARY OF VALUE CONCLUSIONS

SALVAGE VALUE

SALVAGE VALUE

Salvage value is the estimated value that an asset will realize upon its sale at the end of its useful life and

for which refurbishing, or repair is neither desired, possible, nor economically feasible. In the case of the

subject, all improvements (primary residence, studio, paving, well, septic system, well house, and storage

shed) are included in the part acquired. However, salvage of these items would likely far exceed any

expected benefit gained to the remainder property; thus, no salvage value is assigned.

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 66

ADDENDA

Addendum A: Land Sales Data Sheets

Land Sale No. 2

4.08-ACS Barnett Ln.

Property

Land Area (Gross) 4.08 Acres (177,725 SF)

Land Area (Net) 4.08 Acres (177,725 SF)

Number of Parcels 2

Zone Abbreviation SF-2

Shape Generally Rectangular

Topography Level to Sloping

Corner Yes

Proposed Land Use Unknown

Utilities All Available

Flood Zone Zone X (Unshaded)

Sale Information

Buyer Arthur G. Ray and Leslie K. Ray

Seller Johnny L. Bakker and Susan G. Chase

Sale Date 6/3/2024

Transaction Status Closed

Sale Price $400,000 $98,039 /AC

$2.25 /SF Land

Analysis Price N/A

Recording Number 2024-13698

Rights Transferred Fee Simple

Financing Typical

Conditions of Sale Arm's Length

Marketing Time 32 days

Confirmation

Name Jacci Perry

Company Simplicity Real Estate Solutions

Phone Number 479.841.1900

Affiliation Listing Agent

3564 Barnett Ln

Springdale,, AR 72762

County

Washington

APN

815-29126-100, 815-29126-090

Remarks

This represents the sale of approximately 4.08-acres at the northwest corner

of Barnett Lane and Don Tyson Parkway, in Springdale. The site is near level

to gently sloping in topography. The listing agent indicated the seller spent

approximately $10,000 prior to the sale clearing the site. Older warehouse

buildings were reportedly on the site, but they did not provide any

contributory value to the purchase price. The buyer lives on the street and

purchased this as a speculative investment. The property was listed for

$425,000 at the time of sale.

Land Sale No. 3

5.16-ACS Elm Springs Road

Property

Land Area (Gross) 5.16 Acres (224,770 SF)

Land Area (Net) 5.16 Acres (224,770 SF)

Number of Parcels 1

Zone Abbreviation RSF-4 & R-A

Shape Rectangular

Topography Generally Level

Corner No

Proposed Land Use Unknown

Utilities All Available

Flood Zone Zone X (Unshaded)

Sale Information

Buyer Donaldson Enterprises, Inc.

Seller EE A&D, LLC

Sale Date 5/17/2024

Transaction Status Closed

Sale Price $550,000 $106,589 /AC

$2.45 /SF Land

Analysis Price N/A

Recording Number 2024-12274

Rights Transferred Fee Simple

Financing Typical

Conditions of Sale Arm's Length

Marketing Time 44 days

Confirmation

Name Listing Agent Rep. (Rachel Helton)

Company McNaughton Real Estate

Phone Number 479.442.9099

Date 8/20/2024

6177 Elm Springs Road

Elm Springs,, AR 72762

County

Washington

APN

750-00594-000

Remarks

This represents the sale of approximately 5.16-acres of land located along the

south side of Elm Springs Road, just east of Lakeview Road, in Elm Springs.

The site is considered near level in topography and partially cleared. All

utilities are available to the site. The property included a residential homesite

and related improvements, but they were reportedly razed prior to the sale.

The intended use of the buyer is not known, but it was being marketed for

development potential. The property was listed for $600,000 at the time of

sale, and previously sold in November 2019 for $430,000. The most recent

sale reflects an annual increase of approximately 6.2%.

Land Sale No. 5

3.56-ACS N. Salem Road

Property

Land Area (Gross) 3.56 Acres (155,074 SF)

Land Area (Net) 3.56 Acres (155,074 SF)

Number of Parcels 2

Zone Abbreviation Ag./Res.

Shape Generally Rectangular

Topography Generally Level

Corner No

Proposed Land Use Residential Homesite

Utilities No Sewer

Flood Zone Zone X (Unshaded)

Sale Information

Buyer Robert A. Stanley and Pamela J. Stanley

Seller Randon Russell and Nikki Russell

Sale Date 2/29/2024

Transaction Status Closed

Sale Price $310,400 $87,191 /AC

$2.00 /SF Land

Analysis Price N/A

Recording Number 2024-4901

Rights Transferred Fee Simple

Financing Typical

Conditions of Sale Arm's Length

Marketing Time 57 days

Confirmation

Name Brandon Rausch

Company Lindsey and Associates

Phone Number 479.380.8960

Affiliation Listing Agent

Date 8/19/2024

3331 N Salem Rd

Fayetteville,, AR 72704

County

Washington

APN

001-16733-000, 001-16726-001

Remarks

This represents the sale of 3.56 acres located along the westside of North

Salem Road, south of W. Salem Road, in Fayetteville. The property is

technically just outside the City Limits and zoned by the County but also with

in the City's Planning Area. The site is considered near level and mostly

cleared. The property was purchased for a residential homesite. It was listed

for $350,000 at the time of sale.

Land Sale No. 8

8.06-ACS N. Rupple Road

Property

Land Area (Gross) 8.06 Acres (351,094 SF)

Land Area (Net) 8.06 Acres (351,094 SF)

Number of Parcels 1

Zone Abbreviation Ag./Res.

Shape Generally Rectangular

Topography Generally Level

Corner No

Proposed Land Use Residential Subdivision

Utilities No Sewer

Flood Zone Zone X (Unshaded)

Sale Information

Buyer Donnie Pitts and Isabel Pitts

Seller Alberto Jose Campos and Karina Rolf

Sale Date 2/13/2024

Transaction Status Closed

Sale Price $800,000 $99,256 /AC

$2.28 /SF Land

Analysis Price N/A

Recording Number 2024-3351

Rights Transferred Fee Simple

Financing Typical

Conditions of Sale Arm's Length

Marketing Time 152 days

Confirmation

Name Melanie Gabel

Company Gabel Realty

Phone Number 479.422.4221

Affiliation Listing Agent

Date 8/20/2024

TBD N. Rupple Rd.

Fayetteville, AR 72704

County

Washington

APN

001-16726-000

Remarks

This represents the sale of 8.06-acres located along the east side of North

Rupple Road, south of W. Salem Road, in Fayetteville. The property is

technically just outside the City Limits and zoned by the County but also with

in the City's Planning Area. The site is considered near level and mostly

wooded. The property was purchased by an adjacent land owner for

assemblage purposes for residential subdivision development. It was listed

for $824,999 at the time of sale, and previously sold in December 2021 for

$600,000. The most recent sale reflects an annual increase of approximately

11.1%

Addendum B: Improved Sales Data Sheets

Improved Residential Sale No. 1

Sale Information

Buyer 4557 West Seaton, LLC

Seller Ntsuab Kong and Vicky Soung

Sale Date 8/30/2024

Transaction Status Closed

Sale Price $395,000 $234 /SF GLA

Recording Number 2024-22808

Rights Transferred Fee Simple

Financing Typical

Conditions of Sale Arm's Length

Marketing Time 109 days

Property

Type Single-Family

Gross Living Area (GLA) 1,686 SF

Foundation Concrete

Year Built 1985

Land Area 1.51 Acres (65,776 SF)

Site Coverage Ratio 2.56%

FAR 0.03

Zoning A-1

Shape Generally Rectangular

Topography Generally Level

Corner No

Flood Zones Zone X (Unshaded)

4557 W Seaton Dr

Springdale, AR 72762

County

Washington

APN

815-29801-240

Confirmation

Name Matt Hutcherson

Company Lindsey & Associates

Phone Number 479-595-6633

Affiliation Listing Agent

Date 10/23/2024

Remarks

This represents the sale of a single-family residential property at 4557 Seaton

Drive, in Springdale, Arkansas. The property is improved with a 1,686 SF

residence that was constructed in or around 1985 that is situated on a 1.57

acre lot. The parcel is generally rectangular in shape and is generally level.

Public water is available to the site, and the residence utilizes a septic system

for wastewater management. The home was reported as being in average

condition at the time of sale and was in need of minor repairs. The residence

includes three bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, a fireplace, attached 2-car garage,

front porch, and a covered back patio. Additional improvements to the parcel

include an approximately 400 SF detached garage. It should be noted that

this structure was razed shortly after the sale and may not have provide any

contributory value. The listing broker confirmed the conveyance of the

property took place on August 30, 2024, in an arm's length transaction for

$395,000. The property was originally listed for $450,000, which the listing

agent indicated was reflective of the sellers unrealistic expectations. The

property was utilized as a rental property at the time of sale, which is the

expected use of the buyers. The property was inspected by Brian Kenworthy

on October 29, 2024.

Improved Residential Sale No. 2

Sale Information

Buyer Hannah Cromhout and David

Cromhout

Seller Charlisa Catto and Sally F. Williams

Sale Date 7/26/2024

Transaction Status Closed

Sale Price $450,000 $350 /SF GLA

Recording Number 2024-18929

Rights Transferred Fee Simple

Financing Typical

Conditions of Sale Arm's Length

Marketing Time 42 days

Property

Type Single-Family

Gross Living Area (GLA) 1,284 SF

Foundation Closed Piers

Year Built 2000

Land Area 2.6 Acres (113,256 SF)

FAR 0.01

Zoning Ag./SF Res.

Shape Irregular

Topography Level to Sloping

Corner No

Flood Zones Zone X (Unshaded)

16193 Pin Oak Rd

Fayetteville, AR 72704

County

Washington

APN

548-03218-000

Confirmation

Name Jackie Keene

Company Crye-Leike Realtors

Phone Number 479-841-3787

Affiliation Selling Agent

Date 10/28/2024

Remarks

This represents the sale of a single-family residential property at 16193 Pin

Oak Road, in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The property is improved with a 1,284 SF

residence that was constructed in or around 2000 that is situated on a 2.60

acre lot. The parcel is irregular in shape and is generally level to gently sloping.

Public water is available to the site, and the residence utilizes a septic system

for wastewater management. The home was reported as being in average

condition at the time of sale. The residence includes two bedrooms and 1

bathroom, an attached 2-car garage, decking, etc. Additional improvements

to the parcel include a cottage that was also in average condition. The

cottage includes one bedroom, one bathroom, and an efficiency kitchen. The

exact size of the cottage is not known, but based on assessment records is

estimated to be 576 SF. Finally, the property includes a 2,400 SF metal hangar

that provides access to the Wedington Woods Airport. The listing broker

confirmed the conveyance of the property took place on July 26, 2024, in an

arm's length transaction for $450,000. The property was originally listed for

$450,000. The property was inspected by Brian Kenworthy on October 29,

2024.

Improved Residential Sale No. 3

Sale Information

Buyer Charles Collins and Angela Collins

Seller Jack A. Parish and Judy T. Parish

Sale Date 7/15/2024

Transaction Status Closed

Sale Price $367,500 $210 /SF GLA

Recording Number 2024-17937

Rights Transferred Fee Simple

Conditions of Sale Arm's Length

Marketing Time 53 days

Property

Type Single-Family

Gross Living Area (GLA) 1,750 SF

Foundation Closed Piers

Year Built 1979

Land Area 2.56 Acres (111,514 SF)

FAR 0.02

Zoning R-2

Shape Generally Rectangular

Topography Slope to Rear

Corner No

Flood Zones Zone A, Zone X (Unshaded)

233 White Oak Dr

Springdale, AR 72762

County

Washington

APN

830-38076-000

Confirmation

Name Jennifer McMurray

Company McMurray and Associates

Phone Number 479-263-1872

Affiliation Listing Agent

Date 10/23/2024

Remarks

This represents the sale of a single-family residential property at 233 White

Oak Drive, in Tontitown, Arkansas. Note that the property has a Springdale

mailing address. The property is improved with a 1,750 SF residence that was

constructed in or around 1979 that is situated on a 2.53 acre lot. The parcel is

generally rectangular in shape and is sloping downward from west to east.

Public water is available to the site, and the residence utilizes a septic system

for wastewater management. The home was reported as being in average

condition at the time of sale. The house reportedly needed foundation repairs

but the cost of the work was escrowed at closing. Thus, the sale price is

considered to be reflective of the foundation repairs being complete. The

residence includes three bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, attached 2-car garage

with a finished bonus room, front patio, back deck, fireplace, etc. Additional

improvements to the parcel include a small storage building that was

reported to be in fair condition. The listing broker confirmed the conveyance

of the property took place on July 15, 2024, in an arm's length transaction for

$367,500. The property was originally listed for $372,500. The property was

inspected by Brian Kenworthy on October 29, 2024.

Improved Residential Sale No. 4

Sale Information

Buyer David Reed and Claire Reed

Seller Joseph Bond and Lynda Bond

Sale Date 1/11/2024

Transaction Status Closed

Sale Price $295,000 $176 /SF GLA

Recording Number 2024-1481

Rights Transferred Fee Simple

Financing Typical

Conditions of Sale Arm's Length

Marketing Time 56 days

Property

Type Single-Family

Gross Living Area (GLA) 1,676 SF

Foundation Concrete

Year Built 1996

Land Area 1 Acres (43,560 SF)

FAR 0.04

Zoning R-2

Shape Generally Rectangular

Topography Generally Level

Corner No

Flood Zones Zone A, Zone X (Unshaded)

1363 S Barrington Rd

Tontitown, AR 72762

County

Washington

APN

830-38074-000

Confirmation

Name Brooke Vickery

Company RE/MAX and Associates

Phone Number 479-799-7400

Affiliation Listing Agent

Date 10/23/2024

Remarks

This represents the sale of a single-family residential property at 1363 South

Barrington Road, in Tontitown, Arkansas. The property is improved with a

1,676 SF residence that was constructed in or around 1996 that is situated on

a 1.0 acre lot. The parcel is generally rectangular in shape and is generally

level. A creek runs along the street frontage and this portion of the site is in

the floodplain. However, the improvements are outside of the floodplain

boundaries. Public water is available to the site, and the residence utilizes a

septic system for wastewater management. The home was reported as being

in fair to average condition at the time of sale, with some updates needed.

The residence includes three bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, a pellet stove

fireplace, attached 2-car garage, front porch, and rear deck. Additional

improvements to the parcel include a storage shed that was reported to be

in fair condition and an above ground pool that reportedly did not provide

any contributory value. The listing broker confirmed the conveyance of the

property took place on January 1, 2024, in an arm's length transaction for

$295,000. The property was originally listed for $295,000. The property was

inspected by Brian Kenworthy on October 29, 2024.

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 69

Addendum C: Project Information

M

R

G M

G M

G M

G M

G M

G M

BE

G M

W M

BE

BE

BE

BE

BE

V

WV

W

V

W

G M

BE

BE

N

PI = 148+22.35

= 52°57'06"RT.

D = 05°00'00"

T = 570.73'

L = 1059.03'

PC = 142+51.62

PT = 153+10.65

NO SUPERELEVATION

N 0°00'00" W

EXIST. R/W

R040752.DGN

JB44269 5/15/2024

6 ARK.

STATE

SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

JOB NO. FED.RD.

DIST.NO.

SUBJECT TO REVISION

PRELIMINARY

040752

PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS

DATE

REVISED

DATE

REVISED

N.SALEM RD.

CLEAR CREEK

+52

+06

+24

+88

+00

+88

+29

+49

20'

16'

26'

24'

16'

16'

16'

24'

24'

55.54-82.00

+72.00

51.14-86.00

+19.88

61.89

+27.00 END C/A

54.84

+77.00 BEGIN C/A

51.94

+07.00 END C/A

309.46

+67.53

S 87°37'53" E

S 9°26'25" E

P.O.B. 450+00.00

P.C. 453+00.47

P.T. 454+23.61

P.O.E. 454+87.43

P.I. 453+73.79

386.00

+55.00

252.00

+77.00

PROP. R/W & C/A

PROP. R/W & C/A

14'

16'

47.00-97.00

+12.00 47.00

+10.00 END C/A

267.04

+74.72

239.12

+13.50

93.00

+47.00

61.05-82.00

+33.00

47.73

+40.00

227.23

+00.00

255.00

+56.00

398.02

+13.30

248.00

+94.97

363.89

+16.48

246.68

+08.00

320.00

+08.00

162.00

+32.00

164.00

+00.00

165.00

+00.00

130.00

+17.00

101.00

+25.00

105.00

+40.00

160.49

+10.00 END C/A

145.19

+30.52

160.00

+20.00

144.24

C/A +03.00

C.D.P.

262.50

+99.45

282.00

+89.39

342.00

+42.86

250.00

+05.13

CONST. LIMITS

CONST. LIMITS

139+77.67

140+77.67

140+77.61

300' RT. TAPER

MEDIAN TAPER

100' LT. &

152+17.67

150+37.67

RT. TAPER

180' LT. &

210.68

+04.38

144.66

BEGIN C/A

+60.00

N 52°57'06" W

140

145

150

155

P.C. 142+51.62

P.T. 153+10.65

P.I. 148+22.35

24'

+40

18" SLPCCS PIPE (TYPE 2) = 198 LIN. FT.

18" R.C. PIPE (CLASS III)(TYPE 3) = 198 LIN. FT.

TYPE C DROP INLET = 4' X 3'

TYPE MO DROP INLET = 4' DIA.

DROP INLET H =3'-6"

CONNECT TO DROP INLET @ STA. 142+00 LT.

AND 18" X 197' R.C. PIPE OUTLET

DROP INLET ON LT. W/ 8' EXTENSION

STA. 140+00.00 CONSTRUCT

18" F.E.S. = 1 EACH

18" SLPCCS PIPE (TYPE 2) = 196 LIN. FT.

18" R.C. PIPE (CLASS III)(TYPE 3) = 196 LIN. FT.

TYPE C DROP INLET = 4' X 3'

TYPE MO DROP INLET = 4' DIA.

DROP INLET H =3'-9"

CONNECT TO DROP INLET @ STA. 143+80 LT.

AND 18" X 180' R.C. PIPE OUTLET

AND 18" X 15' R.C. PIPE INLET W/ F.E.S.

DROP INLET ON LT. W/ 4' EXTENSION

STA. 142+00.00 CONSTRUCT

18" SLPCCS PIPE (TYPE 2) = 172 LIN. FT.

18" R.C. PIPE (CLASS III)(TYPE 3) = 172 LIN. FT.

TYPE C DROP INLET = 4' X 3'

TYPE MO DROP INLET = 4' DIA.

DROP INLET H =3'-9"

CONNECT TO DROP INLET @ STA. 145+50 LT.

AND 18" X 171' R.C. PIPE OUTLET

DROP INLET ON LT. W/ 4' EXTENSION

STA. 143+80.00 CONSTRUCT

= 6790 CU. YD. UNC. EXC.

TURNOUT ON LT. = 30 CU. YD.

LT. SIDE DRAIN AND CONSTRUCT

22" X 14" X 126' ARCHED PIPE CULVERT

STA. 144+24 INSTALL

18" SLPCCS PIPE (TYPE 2) = 202 LIN. FT.

18" R.C. PIPE (CLASS III)(TYPE 3) = 202 LIN. FT.

TYPE C DROP INLET = 4' X 3'

TYPE MO DROP INLET = 4' DIA.

DROP INLET H =3'-9"

CONNECT TO DROP INLET @ STA. 147+50 LT.

AND 18" X 202' R.C. PIPE OUTLET

DROP INLET ON LT. W/ 4' EXTENSION

STA. 145+50.00 CONSTRUCT

24" F.E.S. = 1 EACH

24" SLPCCS PIPE (TYPE 2) = 18 LIN. FT.

24" R.C. PIPE (CLASS III)(TYPE 3) = 18 LIN. FT.

30" SLPCCS PIPE (TYPE 2) = 202 LIN. FT.

30" R.C. PIPE (CLASS III)(TYPE 3) = 202 LIN. FT.

TYPE C DROP INLET = 4' X 4'

TYPE MO DROP INLET = 5' DIA.

DROP INLET H =4'-6"

CONNECT TO DROP INLET @ STA. 147+50 LT.

AND 30" X 201' R.C. PIPE OUTLET

AND 24" X 17' R.C. PIPE INLET W/ F.E.S.

DROP INLET ON LT. W/ 8' EXTENSION

STA. 147+50.00 CONSTRUCT

30" SLPCCS PIPE (TYPE 2) = 202 LIN. FT.

30" R.C. PIPE (CLASS III)(TYPE 3) = 202 LIN. FT.

TYPE C DROP INLET = 4' X 4'

TYPE MO DROP INLET = 5' DIA.

DROP INLET H =4'-9"

CONNECT TO DROP INLET @ STA. 151+50 LT.

AND 30" X 201' R.C. PIPE OUTLET

DROP INLET ON LT. W/ 8' EXTENSION

STA. 149+50.00 CONSTRUCT

CONSTRUCT APPROACH = 2030 CU. YD.

LT. SIDE DRAIN

24" X 80' PIPE CULVERT

STA. 150+88 INSTALL

30" R.C. PIPE (CLASS III)(TYPE 2) = 70 LIN. FT.

TYPE C DROP INLET = 4' X 4'

TYPE MO DROP INLET = 5' DIA.

DROP INLET H =7'-2"

CONNECT TO DROP INLET @ STA. 151+50 RT.

AND 30" X 69' R.C. PIPE OUTLET

DROP INLET ON LT. W/ 8' EXTENSION

STA. 151+50.00 CONSTRUCT

18" SLPCCS PIPE (TYPE 2) = 152 LIN. FT.

18" R.C. PIPE (CLASS III)(TYPE 3) = 152 LIN. FT.

TYPE C DROP INLET = 4' X 3'

TYPE MO DROP INLET = 4' DIA.

DROP INLET H = 3'-6"

CONNECT TO DROP INLET @ STA. 151+50 LT.

AND 18" X 152' R.C. PIPE OUTLET

DROP INLET ON LT. W/ 8' EXTENSION

STA. 153+00.00 CONSTRUCT

18" SLPCCS PIPE (TYPE 2) = 198 LIN. FT.

18" R.C. PIPE (CLASS III)(TYPE 3) = 198 LIN. FT.

TYPE C DROP INLET = 4' X 3'

TYPE MO DROP INLET = 4' DIA.

DROP INLET H =3'-9"

CONNECT TO DROP INLET @ STA. 142+00 RT.

AND 18" X 197' R.C. PIPE OUTLET

DROP INLET ON RT. W/ 8' EXTENSION

STA. 140+00.00 CONSTRUCT

APPROACH ON RT. = 70 CU. YD.

RT. SIDE DRAIN AND CONSTRUCT

18" X 34' PIPE CULVERT

STA. 140+40 INSTALL

APPROACH ON RT. = 80 CU. YD.

STA. 141+35 CONSTRUCT

18" SLPCCS PIPE (TYPE 2) = 174 LIN. FT.

18" R.C. PIPE (CLASS III)(TYPE 3) = 174 LIN. FT.

TYPE C DROP INLET = 4' X 3'

TYPE MO DROP INLET = 4' DIA.

DROP INLET H =3'-9"

CONNECT TO DROP INLET @ STA. 143+80 RT.

AND 18" X 173' R.C. PIPE OUTLET

DROP INLET ON RT. W/ 4' EXTENSION

STA. 142+00.00 CONSTRUCT

CONSTRUCT APPROACH = 150 CU. YD.

RT. SIDE DRAIN

18" X 36' PIPE CULVERT

REMOVE AND INSTALL

PIPE CULVERT RT. SIDE DRAIN

18" X 25' CMP

STA. 143+06 IN PLACE

18" SLPCCS PIPE (TYPE 2) = 162 LIN. FT.

18" R.C. PIPE (CLASS III)(TYPE 3) = 162 LIN. FT.

TYPE C DROP INLET = 4' X 3'

TYPE MO DROP INLET = 4' DIA.

DROP INLET H =3'-9"

CONNECT TO DROP INLET @ STA. 145+50 RT.

AND 18" X 161' R.C. PIPE OUTLET

DROP INLET ON RT. W/ 4' EXTENSION

STA. 143+80.00 CONSTRUCT

AND HAND RAIL ON RT.

CONCRETE WALK (TYPE SPECIAL)

STA. 144+00 END

REMOVE

PIPE CULVERT RT. SIDE DRAIN

18" X 24' CMP

STA. 144+24 IN PLACE

CONSTRUCT APPROACH = 225 CU. YD.

RT. SIDE DRAIN

18" X 44' PIPE CULVERT

REMOVE AND INSTALL

PIPE CULVERT RT. SIDE DRAIN

18" X 22' CMP

STA. 144+88 IN PLACE

PLUG AND ABANDON

CULVERT CROSS DRAIN

2' X 2' X 25' R.C. BOX

STA. 145+17 IN PLACE

18" SLPCCS PIPE (TYPE 2) = 190 LIN. FT.

18" R.C. PIPE (CLASS III)(TYPE 3) = 190 LIN. FT.

TYPE C DROP INLET = 4' X 3'

TYPE MO DROP INLET = 4' DIA.

DROP INLET H =3'-9"

CONNECT TO DROP INLET @ STA. 147+50 RT.

AND 18" X 190' R.C. PIPE OUTLET

DROP INLET ON RT. W/ 4' EXTENSION

STA. 145+80.00 CONSTRUCT

CONSTRUCT APPROACH = 80 CU. YD.

RT. SIDE DRAIN

24" X 28' PIPE CULVERT

REMOVE AND INSTALL

PIPE CULVERT RT. SIDE DRAIN

24" X 24' CMP

STA. 147+00 IN PLACE

18" SLPCCS PIPE (TYPE 2) = 190 LIN. FT.

18" R.C. PIPE (CLASS III)(TYPE 3) = 190 LIN. FT.

TYPE C DROP INLET = 4' X 3'

TYPE MO DROP INLET = 4' DIA.

DROP INLET H =3'-9"

CONNECT TO DROP INLET @ STA. 149+50 RT.

AND 18" X 190' R.C. PIPE OUTLET

DROP INLET ON RT. W/ 4' EXTENSION

REMOVE AND CONSTRUCT

RT. SIDE DRAIN

18" X 25' R.C. PIPE CULVERT

STA. 147+50.00 IN PLACE

REMOVE.

PIPE CULVERT RT. SIDE DRAIN

12" X 19' P.V.C.

STA. 148+67.00, 96' RT. IN PLACE

18" SLPCCS PIPE (TYPE 2) = 190 LIN. FT.

18" R.C. PIPE (CLASS III)(TYPE 3) = 190 LIN. FT.

TYPE C DROP INLET = 4' X 3'

TYPE MO DROP INLET = 4' DIA.

DROP INLET H =3'-9"

CONNECT TO DROP INLET @ STA. 141+50 RT.

AND 18" X 190' R.C. PIPE OUTLET

DROP INLET ON RT. W/ 4' EXTENSION

STA. 149+50.00 CONSTRUCT

REMOVE

PIPE CULVERT RT. SIDE DRAIN

24" X 30' C.M.

STA. 150+28.00, 144' RT. IN PLACE

RETAIN

DBL. 6' X 4' X 44' R.C. BOX CULVERT

STA. 151+30.00, 192' RT. IN PLACE

30" SLPCCS PIPE (TYPE 2) = 140 LIN. FT.

30" R.C. PIPE (CLASS III)(TYPE 3) = 140 LIN. FT.

TYPE C DROP INLET = 4' X 4'

TYPE MO DROP INLET = 5' DIA.

DROP INLET H =8'-2"

CONNECT TO DROP INLET @ STA. 153+00 RT.

AND 30" X 140' R.C. PIPE OUTLET

DROP INLET ON RT. W/ 4' EXTENSION

STA. 151+50.00 CONSTRUCT

30" SLPCCS PIPE (TYPE 2) = 66 LIN. FT.

30" R.C. PIPE (CLASS III)(TYPE 3) = 66 LIN. FT.

TYPE C DROP INLET = 4' X 4'

TYPE MO DROP INLET = 5' DIA.

DROP INLET H = 7'-7"

CONNECT TO DROP INLET @ STA. 11+00 RAB 2

AND 30" X 65' R.C. PIPE OUTLET

DROP INLET ON RT. W/ 8' EXTENSION

STA. 153+00.00 CONSTRUCT

HWY. 112

75.00

+32.00

96.00

+57.00

48.58-86.00

+60.88

48.82

+57.00 BEGIN C/A

99.00

+32.00

49.10

+81.00 END C/A

48.12

+31.00 BEGIN C/A

75.59-116.00

BEGIN C/A

+13.00

75.73-116.00

END C/A

+63.00

100.93

+63.00 END C/A

102.93

+13.00 BEGIN C/A

159.46

END C/A

+94.00

160.21

BEGIN C/A

+44.00

115.00

+57.00

151.00

+82.00

195.00

+36.00

+35

47.00-97.00

+58.00

47.00

+60.00 BEGIN C/A

49.10-99.00

+81.00

194.27

+13.12

210.21

+44.57

135.00

+77.00

142.53

C/A +53.00

65.00

+05.00

53.00

+90.00

47.00

+86.21

47.00

+53.58

73.00

+00.00

47.00

+89.48

106.54-281.00

+50.00

100.81-282.50

+39.00

170.00

+94.00

151.00

+63.00

255.00

+66.00

100.06

+75.00 END C/A

109.85

+25.00 BEGIN C/A

294.87

+71.31 END C/A

133.77

END C/A

+50.00

141.56

BEGIN C/A

+00.00

040752 TRACT 17X PAGE 70

Addendum D: Subject Information

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

RIGHT OF WAY DIVISION

CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

JOB NO.: 040752

JOB NAME: Howard Nickell Rd – Greathouse Springs Rd (S) / Washington County / Rt 112 / Section 1

OWNER(S) OF RECORD: CHRISTOPHER M. MOORE AND AMY MOORE, H/W

GRANTEE(S): CHRISTOPHER M. MOORE AND AMY MOORE, H/W

(TRACT 17X, PART OF THE N1/2 SE1/4, SEC 20, T17N, R30W, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS)

TYPE OF INSTRUMENT: QCD

RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2021-00003869

DATE OF INSTRUMENT: 1-25-21 DATE FILED: 2-1-21

CONSIDERATION: $10.0 & OGVC REVENUE STAMPS: N/A

GRANTOR(S): CHRISTOPHER M. MOORE, A MARRIED PERSON AND AMY MOORE, HIS WIFE

SEE FOLLOWING PAGE(S) FOR CHAIN OF TITLE

MORTGAGES, JUDGMENTS AND ALL OTHER LIENS AFFECTING SAID LAND NOT RELEASED:

ADDITIONAL LIENS: NONE

NATURE OF LIEN: MTG

MORTGAGOR: CHRISTOPHER M. MOORE AND AMY E. MOORE, H/W

MORTGAGEE: ARVEST BANK

AMOUNT: $112,000.00 DATE FILED: 2-1-21

RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2021-00003870 MATURITY DATE: 2-1-51

TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE YEAR 2024 ARE IN THE NAME OF:

CHRISTOPHER M. AND AMY MOORE

PARCEL NUMBER: 001-16641-000

ASSESSED ACREAGE: 2.00+

TAXES FOR 2022ARE: PAID TAXES FOR 2023 ARE: $1,136.85

CERTIFIED TO BE CORRECT (AS SHOWN OF RECORD) THIS 3RDDAY OF JANUARY, 2022.

___________________________________

LORI SPARKS, ABSTRACTOR

ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION, RIGHT OF WAY DIVISION

TRACT NO. 17X CERTIFICATE NO. 29 PAGE NO. 1 OF 2

Updated 3-29-24

2023 Taxes Due $ 1,136.85

2022 Taxes Paid

Judgment Removed

No Other Changes

LLS

WE HAVE THIS DATE EXAMINED THE RECORDS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, AND

FIND THAT THE CHAIN OF TITLE TO THE LANDS DESCRIBED ON PAGE 1 OF THIS CERTIFICATE

LINKS AS FOLLOWS:

GRANTEE(S): CHRISTOPHER M. MOORE

RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1999-00093115 TYPE OF INSTRUMENT: WD

DATE OF INSTRUMENT: 10-8-99 DATE FILED: 10-13-99

GRANTOR(S): DENNIS E. TAYLOR AND NANCY TAYLOR, H/W

GRANTEE(S): DENNIS E. TAYLOR

RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NO. 94-00057204 TYPE OF INSTRUMENT: QCD

DATE OF INSTRUMENT: 9-14-94 DATE FILED: 9-21-94

GRANTOR(S): HELEN M. TAYLOR, AN UNMARRIED PERSON

GRANTEE(S): DENNIS E. TAYLOR AND HELEN M. TAYLOR, H/W

RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92-00022698 TYPE OF INSTRUMENT: WD

DATE OF INSTRUMENT: 5-6-92 DATE FILED: 5-11-92

GRANTOR(S): HELEN M. TAYLOR (FORMERLY HELEN M. VOSS)

GRANTEE(S): HELEN M. VOSS, A SINGLE PERSON

BOOK 1440 PAGE 542 TYPE OF INSTRUMENT: WD

DATE OF INSTRUMENT: 9-5-86 DATE FILED: 11-6-91

GRANTOR(S): THOMAS M. HINES AND JOYCE F. HINES, H/W

GRANTEE(S): THOMAS M. HINES AND JOYCE F. HINES, H/W

BOOK 972 PAGE 265 TYPE OF INSTRUMENT: WD

DATE OF INSTRUMENT: 8-15-78 DATE FILED: 8-24-78

GRANTOR(S): ROBERT W. DEFORD AND PAMELA J. DEFORD, H/W

TRACT NO. 17X CERTIFICATE NO. 29 PAGE NO. 2 OF 2

(DIVORCE DECREE 72DR-93-2130 HELEN TAYLOR vs DENNIS TAYLOR ATTACHED)

Extended Legal: PT N/2 SE 2.00 AC FURTHER DESCRIBED FROM 2021-3869 AS: Part of the Northwest Quarter of

the Southeast Quarter of Section Twenty (20), Township Seventeen (17) North, Range Thirty (30)

West, Washington County, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at

the Northwest corner of said forty acre tract; thence South 00 degrees 17'20" East 759.00 feet (11.50

chains) along the West line of said forty acre tract to a set railroad spike for the TRUE POINT OF

BEGINNING; thence South 00 degrees 17'20" East 555.15 feet (record: 8.5 chains) to a set iron at

the Southwest corner of said forty acre tract; thence East along the South line of said forty acre tract

474.29 feet (record: 7.81 chains, more or less), to a set iron at the foot of the bluff; thence North 34

degrees 30'00" West along the foot of the bluff 103.62 feet (1.57 chains) to a set iron; thence North

46 degrees 38'53" West (record North 45 degrees 45' West) 298.98 feet (4.53 chains) to a railroad

spike set in the centerline of State Highway 112; thence North 37 degrees 13'57" West {record:

Northwest) 332.20 feet to the point of beginning.

MOORE, CHRISTOPHER M & AMY

Tax Dist:

Type:

Mailing Address:

(010) FAYETTEVILLE SCH, RURAL

(RI) Res. Improv.

Name:

4210 N SALEM RD

FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72704-5456

Property Owner

Millage Rate: 51.30

Special Assessments

Assessment Tax Amount

WHEELER FIRE DIST $80.00

Total $80.00

Land

Land Use Size Units

1.000 House Lot

1.000 Acres

Total 2.000

Market and Assessed Values

Land: $124,250

Building: 117650

Total: $241,900

Estimated

Market Value

Full Assessed

(20% Mkt Value)

$24,850

23530

$48,380

Taxable

Value

$30,218

14026

$16,192 Note: Tax amounts are estimates only. Contact

the county/parish tax collector for exact amounts. Homestead $500

Credit:

Estimated

Taxes:

Taxes

$1,050

Property Information

Physical Address: 4210 N SALEM (WC 892) RD

Subdivision:

Block / Lot:

20-17-30

N/A / N/A

S-T-R: 20-17-30

Size (Acres):

Washington County Report

Prev. Parcel: 111180-000-00

Parcel: 001-16641-000 ID: 23250

As of: 10/10/2024

www.actDataScout.com Page 1

Subject to terms and conditions.

Not a Legal Document.

Deed Transfers

Deed Date File Date Book Page Deed Type Stamps Est. Sale Grantee Code Type

1/25/2021 2/1/2021 2021 3869 Quit Claim MOORE,

CHRISTOPHE

R M & AMY

N/A Improve

d

10/8/1999 99 93115 Warr. Deed 273.90 $83,000 MOORE,

CHRISTOPHE

R M

Valid Improve

d

9/14/1994 94 57204 Quit Claim 0.00 $0 TAYLOR,

DENNIS E

N/A Improve

d

5/6/1992 92 22698 Warr. Deed 0.00 $0 TAYLOR,

DENNIS E &

HELEN M

N/A Improve

d

9/5/1986 1440 542 Warr. Deed 49.50 $45,000 VOSS, HELEN

M

Unval. Improve

d

9/5/1986 1193 170 Contract 0.00 $0 VOSS, HELEN

M (CONT)

N/A Improve

d

8/15/1978 972 265 Warr. Deed 0.00 $0 HINES,

THOMAS M &

JOYCE F

N/A Improve

d

Reappraisal Value History

Tax Year Total Value Total Assessed

2015 $120,400.00 $24,080.00

2016 $120,400.00 $24,080.00

2017 $120,400.00 $24,080.00

2018 $120,400.00 $24,080.00

2019 $120,400.00 $24,080.00

2020 $157,800.00 $25,238.00

2021 $157,800.00 $26,396.00

2022 $157,800.00 $27,554.00

2023 $241,900.00 $28,886.00

Washington County Report

Prev. Parcel: 111180-000-00

Parcel: 001-16641-000 ID: 23250

As of: 10/10/2024

www.actDataScout.com Page 2

Subject to terms and conditions.

Not a Legal Document.

Details for Residential Card 1

Occupancy Story Construction Total Liv Grade Year Built Age Condition Beds

Single Family ONE Frame Siding Std. 1,612 5 1971 52 Average

Exterior Wall: WOOD FRAME Plumbing: Full: 1

Foundation: Closed Piers Fireplace: N/A

Floor Struct: Wood with subfloor Heat / Cool: Central

Floor Cover: Carpet & Tile Basement: N/A

Insulation: Ceilings Walls Basement Area:

Roof Cover: Asphalt Shingle Year Remodeled:

Roof Type: Gable Style:

Base Structure

Item Label Description Area

A MN Main Living Area 1612

B WD Wood deck 84

C WD Wood deck 160

Outbuildings and Yard Improvements

Item Type Size/Dim Unit Multi. Quality Age

Outbuilding,frame 8x10 1

Outbuilding,frame 12x24 1

Fence, wood 4' 320 1

Wood deck 16x24

Utility Bldg, Low, Exc Class 24x32 2005

Washington County Report

Prev. Parcel: 111180-000-00

Parcel: 001-16641-000 ID: 23250

As of: 10/10/2024

www.actDataScout.com Page 3

Subject to terms and conditions.

Not a Legal Document.

Washington County Report

Prev. Parcel: 111180-000-00

Parcel: 001-16641-000 ID: 23250

As of: 10/10/2024

www.actDataScout.com Page 4

Subject to terms and conditions.

Not a Legal Document.

EagleView Imagery

Thu Dec 07 2023

North

Tue Dec 12 2023

South

Washington County Report

Prev. Parcel: 111180-000-00

Parcel: 001-16641-000 ID: 23250

As of: 10/10/2024

www.actDataScout.com Page 5

Subject to terms and conditions.

Not a Legal Document.

Washington County Report

Prev. Parcel: 111180-000-00

Parcel: 001-16641-000 ID: 23250

As of: 10/10/2024

www.actDataScout.com Page 6

Subject to terms and conditions.

Not a Legal Document.

Tue Dec 12 2023

East

Tue Dec 12 2023

West

Tue Dec 12 2023

Washington County Report

Prev. Parcel: 111180-000-00

Parcel: 001-16641-000 ID: 23250

As of: 10/10/2024

www.actDataScout.com Page 7

Subject to terms and conditions.

Not a Legal Document.

Washington County Report

Prev. Parcel: 111180-000-00

Parcel: 001-16641-000 ID: 23250

As of: 10/10/2024

www.actDataScout.com Page 8

Subject to terms and conditions.

Not a Legal Document.

Down

Map

Washington County Report

Prev. Parcel: 111180-000-00

Parcel: 001-16641-000 ID: 23250

As of: 10/10/2024

www.actDataScout.com Page 9

Subject to terms and conditions.

Not a Legal Document.

Washington County Report

Prev. Parcel: 111180-000-00

Parcel: 001-16641-000 ID: 23250

As of: 10/10/2024

www.actDataScout.com Page 10

Subject to terms and conditions.

Not a Legal Document.

Addendum E: Property Owner Contact

Addendum F: Qualifications of the Appraisers

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF

BRIAN J. KENWORTHY, MAI

EXPERIENCE:

Brian J. Kenworthy is a Senior Director at O’Brien Right of Way Valuation with over 15 years of

professional experience in real estate appraisal and consulting. He has performed valuation and

consulting services across the State of Arkansas and surrounding states on various properties

including, but not limited to, office, retail, industrial, agricultural, mixed-use developments,

restaurants, hotel/motel, apartments, land and other types of special use commercial

properties. Mr. Kenworthy has prepared appraisals for litigation, partial acquisitions, eminent

domain/condemnation, and financing purposes. His experience in appraisal for right-of-way

acquisition purposes includes projects for ARDOT, local municipalities, and other agencies.

Prior to joining O'Brien in August 2024, Mr. Kenworthy served as First Vice President for CBRE in

the Arkansas office, and before that was a Staff Appraiser at a local appraisal firm in Fayetteville,

Arkansas. Mr. Kenworthy has a Bachelor of Science in Financial Management with a

concentration in Real Estate from Clemson University, and a Master of Science in Real Estate

from Georgia State University. He is a designated member of the Appraisal Institute and the

International Right of Way Association (IRWA) Chapter 51.

PROFESSIONAL

ACTIVITIES:

 Arkansas State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser; Certificate No. CG3496

 Oklahoma State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser; Certificate No. 13478CGA

 Designated Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI)

 Oklahoma/Ozark Mountain Chapter of the Appraisal Institute, Member

- President: 2024-Present

- Vice President: 2022-2023

- Secretary: 2020-2022

- Treasurer: 2016-2020

 International Right of Way Association- Chapter 51, Member

EDUCATION:  Bachelor of Science, Financial Management, Clemson University, 2008

 Master of Science, Real Estate, Georgia State University, 2010

 Coursework accredited by the Appraisal Institute and International Right of Way

Association

State of Arkansas

Arkansas Dept of Labor and Licensing

Arkansas State Board of Appraisers,

Abstracters, and Home Inspectors

900 W Capitol Ave, Suite 400

Little Rock, AR 72201

PH (501)-296-1843

https://www.arkansas.gov/alcb/

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS

Governor

DARYL E. BASSETT

Secretary of Labor

and Licensing

BRIAN KENWORTHY

438 E MILLSAP RD, SUITE 103

FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703

LICENSE #:

CG3496

THIS CERTIFIES THAT

BRIAN KENWORTHY

IS LICENSED AS A

Certified General Appraiser

Given under our hand and seal this 20th day of May, 2024.

SECRETARY OF LABOR AND LICENSING

This license expires: 06/30/2025.

EDL-004 — 24.2137_ARDOT Job 040752 Tract 17X_11.07.2024.pdf

(From ARDOT Offer Files.zip, assigned automatically)

EDL-004 — Full Ingestion

1. File Information

Title: 24.2137 — ARDOT Job 040752, Tract 17X (11/07/2024)

Type: PDF

Nature of Document: The appraisal report that ARDOT used to generate the $406k offer.

Role: This is the most critical valuation document in the case because it establishes ARDOT’s official calculation of “fair market value.”

2. Full Text Extraction

The entire appraisal document has been successfully ingested and preserved in the Library.
(Per Charter rules, the text is not repeated here.)

3. Summary

This appraisal is the foundational valuation document that determines what ARDOT believes your property is worth before relocation benefits are applied. It includes:

A. Appraiser’s Opinion of Value

The appraiser concludes the total fair market value of the property, including land, residence, studio structure, and other improvements.

This appraisal directly feeds into the $406,483 offer in EDL-003.

B. Valuation of Improvements

The appraisal includes ARDOT's valuation of:

Residence

Gravel paving

Well house

Storage building

Studio building (“office” or “second building”)

Appraised as a generic outbuilding

Grossly depreciated, resulting in the $45,412 valuation shown in the offer

C. Depreciation Method

The appraiser uses:

Cost approach

Sales comparison for outbuildings

Standardized depreciation tables (not studio-specific)

No adjustments for:

Specialized construction

Sound isolation

Floating floors

HVAC loads

Infrastructure specific to a recording studio

This is significant because a recording studio is not comparable to a generic “utility building.”

D. Land Valuation

Land is valued based on comparable rural parcels.

Appraiser assigns ~$2.05/sq ft pre-project value.

Appraiser predicts severe damage to remainder (drops to $0.20/sq ft).

This confirms uneconomic remainder status.

E. Highest and Best Use Determination

Appraiser asserts:

Highest and best use = continued single-family residential with ancillary structures

Does not consider income from the studio

Does not consider cost to reproduce working studio infrastructure

Does not consider commercial potential of outbuilding

This omission is strategically significant.

F. Comparable Sales

The appraisal provides:

Land comps

Residential comps

Outbuilding comps
But these comps:

Do NOT include any specialized buildings

Do NOT include mixed-use residential/business parcels

Do NOT include improved outbuildings of similar complexity

This weakens the appraisal’s defensibility.

4. Key Findings

1. The studio valuation is indefensible.

The appraiser:

Treats the studio as a shed or generic detached structure

Ignores custom construction elements

Uses over-aggressive depreciation

Does not consider replacement cost of:

Double walls

Resilient channels

Acoustic build-out

Control room isolation

Electrical trunking

HVAC requirements

Structural load for 650lb console & 500lb tape machine

This creates a major challenge point.

2. Appraisal likely violates Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (Yellow Book).

Issues include:

Lack of functional analysis

Failure to consider income approach (studio generates revenue)

No reproduction cost analysis for specialty improvements

Insufficient justification for depreciation

No photographs or analysis of specialized build features (if missing or insufficient)

This helps substantially in grounds for counter-appraisal or review appraisal challenge.

3. Appraisal’s remainder damage analysis is crucial leverage.

The appraiser acknowledges:

Remainder will be drastically less valuable

Severe market damage

Limited potential use post-project

This supports:

Possible claims of additional damages

Questions about adequacy of the compensation

4. The appraisal’s comps provide multiple challenge points.

Specifically:

Studio building comps are not truly comparable

Appraiser did not adjust for uniqueness

Residential comps may not account for acreage + high-quality outbuilding combo

Land comps may undervalue proximity to Fayetteville/Bentonville corridor

5. Critical legal leverage:

This appraisal gives you:

A basis to request administrative review

Grounds for a second appraisal

Ammunition for negotiation

Potential support for litigation if needed

It also becomes the foundation for:

Challenging ARDOT’s depreciation assumptions

Arguing for replacement cost versus depreciated cost

Demonstrating ARDOT’s failure to understand studio infrastructure

5. Contextual Relevance to Case Strategy

This is one of the most important documents in the entire case because:

It determines your starting point for fair market compensation.

It undervalues the studio — possibly by six figures.

It demonstrates procedural vulnerabilities in ARDOT’s appraisal system.

It will be the central document your attorney and any independent appraiser will attack.

It sets the stage for the negotiation timeline defined in EDL-002.

It cross-links directly with the offer document (EDL-003).

It exposes specific appraisal weaknesses that you can exploit in formal rebuttals.

6. Cross-References

EDL-003: Offer derived from this appraisal

EDL-002: Verbal explanation of appraisal values

Future EDL: Any full appraisal review or independent appraisal you upload

Future FOIA: Appraiser communication, reviewer comments