NVI Technical College Information

S ALES C OMPARISON A PPROACH 55

factors, rental rates, vacancy rates and/or capitalization rates. Due to rising interest rates and the resulting increase in capital costs, sales occurring prior to 2023 were adjusted downward for market conditions. Comparable No. 3 was regarded superior to the subject and received a downward adjustment of 5%. Comparable No. 4 was regarded superior to the subject and received a downward adjustment of 5%. S UMMARY OF T RANSACTIONAL A DJUSTMENTS Comparable No. 3 was regarded superior to the subject and received a downward adjustment of 5%. Comparable No. 4 was regarded superior to the subject and received a downward adjustment of 5%. P ROPERTY A DJUSTMENTS L OCATION The appeal of a property’s location to users of and/or investors in a particular property type can influence value significantly. This factor broadly considers the impact of demographics, geographical attributes, access to transportation networks and local land use trends on pricing. Comparisons of location can often be derived, or even quantified, by examining rent, vacancy, capitalization rate, and land value trends in the subject and directly competitive areas. Sales 1, 2, 4 and 5 are located in more densely populated and developed areas and were adjusted downward accordingly. Comparable No. 1 was regarded superior to the subject and received a downward adjustment of 15%. Comparable No. 2 was regarded superior to the subject and received a downward adjustment of 15%. Comparable No. 4 was regarded superior to the subject and received a downward adjustment of 5%. Comparable No. 5 was regarded superior to the subject and received a downward adjustment of 10%. P ROPERTY S IZE SF (N ET ) Normally, all other characteristics being equal, the unit value of a property is affected by its size. Building size and price per square foot typically have an inverse relationship. Larger buildings tend to achieve lower pricing on a per unit basis due to their economies of scale, and smaller pool of prospective buyers. Comparable No. 1 was regarded superior to the subject and received a downward adjustment of 30%. Comparable No. 2 was judged inferior to the subject and received an upward adjustment of 15%. Comparable No. 3 was regarded superior to the subject and received a downward adjustment of 25%. Comparable No. 4 was judged inferior to the subject and received an upward adjustment of 5%. Comparable No. 5 was regarded superior to the subject and received a downward adjustment of 30%. E FFECTIVE A GE Unlike chronological age differences, this adjustment category reflects differences in the amount of observed deterioration and obsolescence sustained, which may be different than physical age. Comparable No. 1 was judged inferior to the subject and received an upward adjustment of 20%. Comparable No. 2 was judged inferior to the subject and received an upward adjustment of 10%. Comparable No. 3 was judged inferior to the subject and received an upward adjustment of 20%. Comparable No. 4 was judged inferior to the subject and received an upward adjustment of 10%. Comparable No. 5 was judged inferior to the subject and received an upward adjustment of 30%.

F OUR B UILDING I NDUSTRIAL C OMPLEX A PPRAISAL

C OPYRIGHT © 2023 BBG, I NC . A LL RIGHTS RESERVED .