Ecorse Ck Gross Appraisal Format.pdf

GROSS APPRAISAL REPORT

FEASIBILITY STUDY

FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT FOR THE

NORTH BRANCH OF ECORSE CREEK,

Section 101, 102, & 206 Project

CITY OF DEARBORN HEIGHTS,

WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN

AS OF

PREPARED BY

PREPARED FOR

U.S. ARMY CORPS of ENGINEERS

DETROIT DISTRICT

SPONSOR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS (insert page) 1,etc.

SCOPE OF THE PROJECT 2

PURPOSE & FUNCTION OF APPRAISAL 3

TYPE OF APPRAISAL 3

SCOPE OF APPRAISAL 3-4

EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPRAISAL / REPORT 4

DEFINITIONS 4

ESTATES OR PROPERTY RIGHTS 4-5

EXISTING EASEMENTS OR INTERESTS 5

AREA AND NEIGHBORHOOD DATA 5

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 5

PROPERTY DATA 5-6

ZONING 6

HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANALYSIS 6-7

APPROACH TO VALUE 6-10

DISCUSSION OF SALES / ADJUSTMENT PROCESS 6-10

ESTIMATE OF MARKET VALUE 11

SEVERANCE DAMAGES / CONTINGENCIES 11

CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL AND GENERAL BENEFITS 11

CORRELATION AND CONCLUSION OF VALUE 12

CERTIFICATION 13

ADDENDA 14

SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS

SCOPE OF PROJECT: FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT FOR THE

NORTH BRANCH OF ECORSE CREEK,

Section 101, 102, & 206 Project

TYPE OF APPRAISAL: GROSS APPRAISAL

TYPE OF REPORT: SUMMARY

LOCATION: CITY OF DEARBORN HEIGHTS, MI.

OWNERSHIP: Approximately 410 parcels MUNICIPAL and NUMEROUS

PRIVATE OWNERS

SPONSOR: WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN

PROPERTY OR INTEREST APPRAISED: Fee Simple Absolute, Permanent Flood Protection Levee Easement, and Permanent Flowage Easement

Estimated Market Value Fee Simple (Total Acquisitions) $ Permanent Levee Easement $ Permanent Flowage Easement $ Severance Damages $ Other Damages $ Contingencies (To be added by USACE) $ Total Estimated Market Value $ Rounded to $

INSPECTION DATE:

EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPRAISAL:

EFFECTIVE DATE OF REPORT:

SCOPE OF THE PROJECT (include verbiage below in gross appraisal) (Excerpt from General Reevaluation Report dated November 2009)

OVERVIEW: The purpose of this project is to re-evaluate the feasibility of providing flood damage reduction measures along Ecorse Creek, Wayne County, Michigan, under the River and Harbors Act of 1966. A Feasibility Report for Flood Protection in the Ecorse Creek Drainage Basin, Wayne County, Michigan, dated July 1987 and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) were completed and approved in August 1988.

The Feasibility Report recommended constructing a retention basin along the North Branch Ecorse Creek, but at that time, the sponsor was not able to provide construction funds. Several major flood events have occurred along Ecorse Creek since 1988 and as a result, Wayne County requested the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to reevaluate the Feasibility Study. A significant amount of urban growth has occurred along the Ecorse Creek since the Feasibility Report and EIS were approved, and as such they are outdated. This Scope of Work (SOW) is intended to describe the tasks and schedule required to assist the USACE and Wayne County to collaboratively develop an updated Feasibility Study (General Reevaluation Report (GRR) for the North Branch of Ecorse Creek. The GRR will address current conditions and review recommendations for potential new solutions. In this specific case a GRR is equivalent to a feasibility level effort and may be referred to as such through out this document.

Wayne County prepared a feasibility-style flood control study of the North Branch of the Ecorse Creek Drain (NBECD) entitled North Branch of the Ecorse Creek Drain (NBECD) Flood Control Study” dated February 2008. A team of five private consultant groups, facilitated by Wayne County, developed this study to develop flood reduction measures for Ecorse Creek. The final study consists of 7 volumes, an Executive Summary and an Implementation Plan. It identified several alternative solutions to the flood damage problems.

During the development of the GRR, the original alternative plans from the July 1987 USACE study will be reevaluated, as well as any new alternatives to reduce flood damage developed for the Wayne County February 2008 NBECD study.

AUTHORITY

The 1987 Feasibility Report was conducted as an interim study of the Great Lakes, particularly Lake Ontario and Lake Erie (GLPLOLE) study, which was authorized by Section 102 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-789), enacted November 7, 1966. This act authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Army to cause surveys to be made in connection with water supply, pollution abatement, navigation, flood control, hydroelectric power, and related water resources development and control.

The TOTAL project site includes: approximately 17 miles of open channel and easement, including approximately 80 drain crossings; several proposed detention basins;

and disposal site(s) for placement of dredged and / or excavated material. The number and location of detention basins and disposal sites are to be studied as part of this project.

The authorization reads as follows:

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-789, enacted 7 November 1966), Section 102.

The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized and directed to cause surveys to be made at the following named localities and subject to all applicable provisions of Section 110 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1950: Great Lakes, particularly Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, in connection with water supply, pollution abatement, navigation, flood control, hydroelectric power, and related water resources development and control.”

Also, the Flood Control Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-298, approved 27 October, 1965), Section 206 (Southeast Michigan) reads as follows:

The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized and directed to prepare under the direction of the Chief of Engineers, a comprehensive plan for the development and efficient utilization of the and related resources of the region drained by streams which discharge, within the State of Michigan, into the St, Clair River, Lake St. Clair , the Detroit River and Lake Erie. Such plan may provide for importation of water from points not located within the region as defined above.

Said comprehensive plan shall be designed to meet the long-range needs of the region for protection against flood-plain lands, improvement of navigation facilities, water supplies for industrial and municipal purposes, outdoor recreational facilities, the enhancement and control of water quality and related purposes; all with a view to encouraging and supporting the optimum long-range economic development of the region and enhancing the welfare of its people.

Section 101(a)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized the Corps to construct the Ecorse Creek Flood Control Project:

LOCATION (Describe general and/or specific description of project/location)

NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR IDENTIFICATION

The local non-federal sponsor for the project is Wayne County, Michigan. The County has requested that federal assistance be provided to evaluate the current flood protection and to provide additional protection in areas that have become vulnerable to flooding. The County is capable of providing, and will provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocation determinations (LERRD’s) necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the new project. The County has the full power, authority and capability to provide the items of local cooperation. It has the legal status to obtain additional property if required for the construction and/or operation of the project. It also has the legal capability to provide its share of total project costs.

The County is a legally constituted public body with the full power, authority, and capability to perform of the terms of the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA). It has the power of eminent domain. Its legal department is fully capable of handling acquisitions and condemnations. Requirements of PL 91-646, acquisition policies and procedures, LERRDs crediting procedures, and the requirements for land acquisition have been discussed with the sponsor.

PURPOSE AND FUNCTION OF APPRAISAL

The purpose of the gross appraisal is to estimate an opinion of fair market value of required lands and estates for the feasibility study for a project to provide new and/or replenished flood protection for the municipalities of Romulus, Westland, Dearborn Heights, Allen Park, Melvindale, Lincoln Park, and Ecorse, in Wayne County, Michigan.

The TOTAL project contains approximately 750 parcels. The scope of this assignment for the gross appraisal will focus on the municipality of Dearborn Heights only, involving approximately 410 parcels. The function of the appraisal is to assist in the project planning process involving the estimation of potential costs of real estate acquisition and/or crediting for lands, easements, or rights of way necessary to this project. The report shall be included in a Real Estate Planning Report for the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). USACE is considered the sole user of this report.

TYPE OF APPRAISAL (example) This appraisal is a Gross Appraisal in a Summary Report format. In most instances, this report is prepared in accordance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and USPAP Requirements. However, jurisdictional exception to USPAP applies. This gross appraisal is for planning/feasibility purposes only and not to be utilized for acquisition purposes. For acquisition purposes, the Sponsor has been informed of their responsibility to retain independent fee appraisers to perform a Before/After analysis for each parcel.

SCOPE OF APPRAISAL

EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPRAISAL

EFFECTIVE DATE OF REPORT

DEFINITIONS

MARKET VALUE is “the amount in cash, or on terms reasonably equivalent to cash, for which in all probability the property would have sold on the effective date of the appraisal, after a reasonable exposure time on the open competitive market, from a willing and reasonably knowledgeable seller to a willing and reasonably knowledgeable buyer, with neither acting under any compulsion to buy or sell, giving due consideration to all available economic uses of the property at the time of the appraisal” From: Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions 2000’

ESTATES OR PROPERTY RIGHTS

The appraisal problem is to estimate an opinion of fair market value, including possible severance damages and contingencies of the Fee Simple estate as described herein utilizing the following language for the estates:

FEE SIMPLE

The fee simple title to (the and described in Schedule A) (Tracts Nos. , and ), Subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines.

FLOOD PROTECTION LEVEE EASEMENT.

A perpetual and assignable right and easement in (the land described in Schedule A) (Tracts Nos, ____, ____ and ____) to construct, maintain, repair, operate, patrol and replace a flood protection (levee) (floodwall)(gate closure) (sandbag closure), including all appurtenances thereto; reserving, however, to the owners, their heirs and assigns, all such rights and privileges in the land as may be used without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired; subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines.

FLOWAGE EASEMENT (Occasional Flooding).

The perpetual right, power, privilege and easement occasionally to overflow, flood and submerge (the land described in Schedule A) (Tracts Nos. ____, ____ and ____). (and to maintain mosquito control)in connection with the operation and maintenance of the project as authorized by the Act of Congress approved _____________________________, together with all right, title and interest in and to the structure; and improvements now situate on the land, except fencing 1(and also excepting _________________ (here identify those structures not designed for human habitation which the District Engineer determines may remain on the land )) 2; provided that no structures for human habitation shall be constructed or maintained on the land, that no other structures shall be constructed or maintained on the land except as may be approved in writing by the representative of the United States in charge of the project, and that no excavation shall be conducted and no landfill placed on the land without such approval as to the location and method of excavation and/or placement of landfill; 3 the above estate is taken subject to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines; reserving, however, to the landowners, their heirs and assigns, all such rights and privileges as may be used and enjoyed without interfering with the use of the project for the purposes authorized by Congress or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired; provided further that any use of the land shall be subject to Federal and State laws with respect to pollution.

EXISTING EASEMENTS OR INTERESTS

Title Commitment Policies have not been provided. It is assumed the properties involved in the project are typically encumbered with mortgages, liens, utility easements, etc.

1 See footnote 3.

2 Where substantial residential structures exist in areas subject to very infrequent flooding, and will not interfere with project operations, the following clause may be substituted, however, leaving these structures in place must be evaluated using the same criteria that would be used to grant permission for a new residential structure to be placed in the easement. See EC 405-1-80: "(and also excepting the structure(s) now existing on the land, described as _________, which may be maintained on the land provided that portion of the structure(s) located below elevation __________ feet, mean sea level, shall be utilized for human habitation to the extent that sleeping accommodations will be maintained therein)".The next clause would then be modified to read "provided that no other structures for . . . . . . . . . " 3 See footnote 4

AREA AND NEIGHBORHOOD DATA

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (example) Based upon inspection of the subject and comparables, I did not observe any conditions to indicate that the properties were contaminated. I did not observe the existence of hazardous material that may or may not be present on the property. I am not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of potentially hazardous substances may affect the value of the property or pose a health hazard. This value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value.

PROPERTY DATA

ZONING

HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANALYSIS

APPROACH TO VALUE (example) The Cost and Income approaches were considered but not utilized as valuation methods due to their lack of applicability in estimating subject’s land value. The Market Sales Comparison approach is considered most applicable in reflecting the Market’s perception of land value. Market transactions of similar vacant land are used to compare to the subject. This approach is most often utilized by knowledgeable market participants and provides tangible evidence to support an estimation of subject market value.

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (Example)

DISCUSSION OF SALES / OTHER DATA SOURCES

Explanation of Adjustments: (discuss applicable elements of adjustment)

Summation of Land Value: (example) Based upon analysis of the data and consideration of the elements of adjustment, a unit range of roughly $ - $ per square foot emerges. As Sales 1 and 2 are in the subject/project area, a tighter range between $.00-$.00 s/f (as rounded) is evident. As Sale 1 is the most recent, I believe an estimated value of $.00 per square foot for lakefront sites is credible and adequately supported. For purposes of this gross appraisal, the estimated Fee Simple unit rate of $.00 per square foot is the basis for the valuation of . A fractional value of the fee simple value shall be applied to estimate the value of the permanent and temporary easements.

Summation of Land Value as applied to Project Estates / Easements (example) As the proposed permanent easement allows the government the right to enter, occupy, remove, construct, maintain, or flood fight etc., the easement is considered a shared-use situation between property owner and government. At maximum, the value of the permanent easement is considered to be worth % of Fee Simple unit land value, or $3.00 s/f unit rate x easement area) as applied to waterfront lands and $1.50 s/f as applied to the site.

ESTIMATE OF MARKET VALUE (example) Preparation of a formal Before/After appraisal for each parcel may indicate a variation of total estimated value. The estimated value of the lands and easements are listed herein:

SEVERANCE DAMAGES (discuss if applicable)

CONTINGENCIES

A contingency of % has been included in the estimated real estate costs to address potential risk of land appreciation, sale price/settlement negotiations, or condemnation.

(Contingencies to be estimated by USACE)

CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL AND GENERAL BENEFITS &

CONSIDERATION OF FEDERAL & STATE RULE CONCEPTS FOR COST SHARED

PROJECTS (include verbiage below in report) The rules for acquisition of private lands differ for the State of Michigan from the United States Federal Government. Michigan has adopted Rule No. 2, which states: “Special benefits can only be offset against damages to the residue, but not against the value of the land taken”. The United States Government adheres to Rule No. 4, which states:

“Special benefits can be offset against both the damages to the residue and the value of the land taken”. There are no special benefits to be offset resulting from the project.

CORRELATION AND CONCLUSION OF VALUE (example) Based upon the appraisal analysis, a fee simple unit rate of $6.00 per s/f is considered applicable for waterfront land and a fee simple unit rate of $3.00 per s/f considered applicable for the larger aggregate tracts. A fractional value of the fee simple unit rate is applied to estimate the value of the permanent levee and temporary work area easements ($3.00 and $1.50 s/f respectively) over these lands. The value of temporary work area easements is based upon the rental of the fee simple value ($6.00 s/f) x 10% rental rate. Severance damages are not evident but proximity damages are applied.

Contingencies have been considered and applied.

(EXAMPLE)

Land / All Estates $524,963 Improvements / None $-0- Severance Damages / None $-0- Proximity Damages $1,278,405 Contingencies / 20% $360,670

Total Estimated Real Estate Costs $2,164,038 rounded to $2,164,000

Two Million One Hundred Sixty Four Thousand Dollars ($2,164,000)

CERTIFICATION (insert this and your own if necessary) 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 analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.

• I have 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.

• I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved in this assignment.

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

• My 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.

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

• I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report.

• No one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this report.

• As of the date of this report, I have completed the mandatory continuing education requirements for the State of Michigan.

DATE: 24 February 2009 Appraiser

ADDENDA

SUBJECT / PROJECT LOCATION MAPS / AERIALS

Exhibit A

REAL ESTATE PLAN DRAWING

Exhibit B

SUBJECT PHOTO LOCATION MAP / SUBJECT PHOTOS

Exhibit C

COMPARABLE DATA LOCATION MAP & COMPARABLE DATA INFORMATION

Exhibit D

NEIGHBORHOOD BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Exhibit F

STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

Exhibit G

JURISDICTIONAL EXCEPTION STATEMENT

Exhibit H

QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER

Exhibit I

Exhibit G

STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS (insert this and your own if necessary) The data and information contained in this gross appraisal is considered to be true and correct, but accuracy is not guaranteed.

This gross appraisal is based on current economic conditions of the local, state, and national economies.

The maps and other drawings included in this report are to assist the reader in visualizing the property. Although prepared from the best available information, no responsibility is assumed for their accuracy.

The Detroit District Civil Design Section has provided the Project Real Estate Sketch and acreage calculation for the proposed real estate to be acquired. Estates to be acquired have been provided by the District’s Real Estate Division. This information is assumed to be accurate.

The Civil Engineering Design Project maps, drawings, and areas contained in this report may not be finalized or may be subject to change upon determination of the Civil Design Section. This gross appraisal pertains only to the plan design, land areas, and estates contained within. Any subsequent changes to the above may require another gross appraisal. Additional labor & travel funding may be required to complete another appraisal analysis.

The level of mapping provided by the Detroit District contained adequate detail to properly identify the proposed real estate for valuation purposes.

No responsibility is taken for matters legal in character.

No considerations are made for public utilities or facilities that are more than nominally affected.

No part of this appraisal shall be altered, removed, taken out of context, or otherwise used in conjunction with another report, memo, or document without permission of the appraiser. This appraisal is for the sole use of the USACE for planning purposes and shall not be released to anyone outside the USACE without written notification to and permission obtained from the appraiser.

Exhibit H

JURISDICTIONAL EXCEPTION STATEMENT (insert this) Under the heading of Jurisdictional Exception the 2006 edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) state: “If any part of these standards is contrary to the law or public policy or of any jurisdiction, only that part shall be void and of no force or effect in that jurisdiction.”

As designed for the internal use of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Brief Appraisal and Project Cost Estimate depart from the Uniform Standards Rule 2-2.

This (Payment Estimate, Project Cost Estimate, Brief Appraisal, Informal Value Estimate, etc.) was prepared for the internal use of my employer, the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers. Though not complying with all provisions of USPAP, the document does conform to USACE regulations.

For purposes of this estimate, I have been advised that USACE operates under the Jurisdictional Exception Rule of USPAP.

Appraiser Date: 24 February 2009

Exhibit I

QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER