INTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES

ADDENDUMB

BUT FOR ANALYSIS

IRR lntegra Realty Resources

INTEGRA Realty""'°""" KANSA5 r1n

November 21, 2001

Mr. William M Quitmeier Mayor CITY OF PARKVILLE 1201 East Street Patkville, Missouri64152

SUBJECT: Consulting Service: Tax Increment Financing Plan Parkville Commons 8875 NW Highway 45 Platte County Parlcville, Missouri 64152 Integra Realty Resources Kansas City File No. 19010808

Dear Mr. Quitmeier:

Pursuant to your authorization, I have completed a consulting service relating to the above­captioned redevelopment project. This consulting service has been completed in confonnity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USP AP) and the Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. The effective date of my consulting service is November 1, 2001. My qualifications are included in Addendum A of the preceding Market Study. The purpose of this report is to assist in your analysis of the Applicant's request for Tax Increment Financing.

In completing this consulting service, I have reviewed the Applicant's submission to the City of Parkville, in which the proposed redevelopment project is described. The Applicant's submission asserts the redevelopment project is not feasible without Tax Increment Financing. The proposed plan is a Non-Pilot TIF. That is, the payments in lieu of taxes generated accrue to the taxing district(s), not the Applicant The benefit accruing to the Applicant is one-half of the Economic Activity Taxes, in this case sales taxes, for the 23-year period or until the reimbursement costs are met. The scope of the consulting assignment is to advise you of the reasonableness of the Applicant's methodology and underlying assumptions.

LOCAL EXPERTISE ... NATIONALLY

1901 WEST 47TH PLACE, SUITE 300 •WESTWOOD, KANSAS 66205-1834 • 913-236-4700 •FAX 913-236-4307 •E-MAIL: KANSASCITV@/RR.OOM

Mr. William Quitmeier November21, 2001 Page2

The test of reasonableness assumes that the Applicant, as developer, should be expected to take a level of risk (inclusive of the accruing benefits) that is no less than competitive standards in the current marke1p1ace. To that end, I have reviewed the Applicant's submission and have tested the underlying assumptions and parameters against current market standards for reasonableness.

After completing my analysis of the proposed redevelopment it is my opinion:

1. Without the proposed Tax Increment Financing, or some equivalent form of public assistance, the proposed redevelopment of will not provide a competitive yield on the investment.

2. Even with the Tax Increment Financing, the project does not deliver an acceptable yield to a market investor.

3. I have relied on several market sources including the Korpacz Real Estate Investor Survey published by PriceWaterhouseCoopers and Viewpoint 2001 published by Integra Realty Resources. A market-oriented intemal rate of return (IRR) for institutional grade neighborhood or community shopping center averages approximately 11.5% on an all cash basis. This according to recent investor surveys with a range of 10% to 14%. With the proper pre-leasing and with no significant change in the project's competitive position prior to construction, I am of the opinion that it would be considered institutional quality.

4. The Applicant requests Tax Increment Financing that is for a period of 23 years. I have developed a cash flow model and the yield demonstrations are on a 23-year holding period. My IRR conclusions are shown below with supporting detail in the body of this report.

Applicant's Yield Market Derived Yield With TIF

All Cash 11.05% 12.0%-13.0%

Leveraged 19.00% 22.0%

WithoutTIF

All Cash 7.39% 12.0%-13.0%

Mr. William Quitmeier November 21, 2001 Page3

It is from tre market-reconstructed analysis showing the IRR with Tax Increment Financing that I conclude that the Tax Increment Financing does not create a yield with le~ than competitive risk. Even with Tax Increment Financing, the yield remains slightly below the threshold a marlcet-oriented investor would accept

If you have any questions or comments regarding my analysis or this report, please contact the undei:signed. Thanking you for the opportunity to be of service, I remain,

Very truly yours,

4,,u •l un11

INTE-~CITY

F ·"'-;£' .··.·-:·~.:_ fl,,,-~ ! \ ~

' =~: : -::; I ~~/~ : ..... = -•...e • rr-, . .."'11'• ·~~ \,<"} \ . ...-~ 2'

" () -9;• .· R' . .:-Kennclh11,lf~~ ~,,, .. ~

• A..:!11.n .,\,.~ Semor .n...uruy~'"1

State of Missouri Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (RA 003190) Expiration Date: June 30, 2002

INTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES YIELD ANALYSIS

YIELD ANALYSIS

CASH FLOW PROJECTION

I have reviewed the Applicant's cash flow and reconstructed it based on the market conditions that I have identified in the preceding Market Analysis.

In keeping with my current method of "but for" analysis, I have completed a 23-year cash flow analysis to determine the all cash yield to the Applicant measured as the internal rate of return. I have retained the aspects of the Applicant's assumptions that are mark.et-supported. As nee~, I have amended or supplemented umeasonable assumptions with reasonable, market-oriented assumptions. I have analyzed rents, expenses, and occupancy rates for neighborhood and community retail centers from throughout the metropolitan area. I have reflected current market conditions in the 23-year cash flow that is presented on the follow page.

YIELD MEASUREMENT (METHODOWGY)

The best measure of yield in my opinion is the "intema1 rate of return", which takes into account both the annual income derived as cash flow, as well as the potential return from a hypothetical sale of the land and building improvements at the end of the forecast period. Internal rate of return is defined on page 188 of the third edition of The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal:

Internal Rate of Return. The annualized yield rate or rate of return on capital that is generated or capable of being generated within an investment or portfolio over a period of ownership. The IRR. discounts all returns from the investment, including returns from its tennination, to equal the original capital outlay.

PROJECTED REVENUES & EXPENSES

IRR

I have relied on the market and the methodologies of owners and developers in forecasting the market rent for the subject property. First I have surveyed actual lease rates and asking rates for grocery anchors and in-line stores from retail centers throughout the metropolitan area, concentrating on new and upscale centers. I have searched our database for expenses of comparable properties and reflected those in the cash flow. A reserve is also considered because it allows for the timely replacement of short-lived items and also the routine expenditures of tenant improvements and leasing commissions. The marlcet suggests an overall vacancy rate including collection loss of 5% to 100/o and I have used 8% in this analysis.

PAGE4 lotegra Realty Resources

PARKVU E COMMONS Foracas1 ab$Clpti0n and <aot> ftow

Year Ending

Cash Row Analysis October 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Rental lnoome $1 , 165,810 $2,082, 180 $2,618,394 $2,618,394 $2,618,394 $2,804,077 $2,950,031 $3,073,293 $3,073,293 $3,073,293 $3,288,551 $3,457,751

Expense Recovery $504,192 $831 ,883 $856,840 $882,545 $909,021 $936,292 $964,381 $993,312 $1 ,023,112 $1,053,805 $1,085,419 $1 , 117,982

Vacancy/Credit Loss -$133,600 -$233,125 :llliJ21R -$280,075 ~ -$299.230 ~ ~ -$327,712 -$330,168 -$349.918 ~

Effective Gross Income $1,803,602 $3,147,188 $3,753,253 $3,781 ,014 $3,809,609 $4,039,599 $4,227,565 $4,391,934 $4,424,117 $4,457,266 $4,723,887 $4,941 ,792

Common Area Maintenance $302,109 $311,172 $320,507 $330,123 $340,026 $350,227 $360,734 $371 ,556 $382,703 $394,184 $406,009 $418,190 Insurance $50,352 $51,862 $53,418 $55,020 $56,671 $58,371 $60,122 $61 ,926 $63,784 $65,697 $67,668 $69,698

Taxes $151,731 $468,849 $482,915 $497,402 $512,324 $527,694 $543,525 $559,830 $576,625 $593,924 $611,742 $630,094 Management Fee $72,144 $125,888 $150,130 $151,241 $152,384 $161,584 $169,103 $175,677 $176,965 $178,291 $188,955 $197,672

Replacement Reserves $114.801 $118.245 ll2.1.m ~ $129,210 $133,086 lliLill. $141,191 ~ $149.790 $154,284 ~ Total Operating Expenses -$691,137 -$1,076,016 -$1 ,128,763 -$1,159,232 -$1 ,190,616 -$1,230,962 -$1 ,270,562 -$1 ,310,181 -$1 ,345,503 -$1 ,381 ,885 -$1 ,428,658 -$1,474,565

Onaratlna cash Flow $1,112,465 $2,071 ,172 $2,624,490 $2,621 ,782 $2,618,993 $2,808,637 $2,957,003 $3,081 ,753 $3,078,614 $3 075,380 $3,295,229 $3,467,226

Year Ending

Cash Flow Analysts October 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Rental lnoome $3,562,789 $3,562,789 $3,562,789 $3,812,332 $4,008,482 $4,130,249 $4,130,249 $4,130,249 $4,419,537 $4,646,929 $4,788,090 $4,788,090

Common Area Maintenance $430,735 $443,657 $456,967 $470,676 $484,796 $499,340 $514,320 $529,750 $545,642 $562,012 $578,872 $596,238 Insurance $71,789 $73,943 $76,161 $78,446 $80,799 $83,223 $85,720 $88,292 $90,940 $93,669 $96,479 $99,373

Taxes $648.997 $668.467 $688,521 $709,176 $730,452 $752,365 $774,936 lliUM $822. 130 $846,794 $872,197 ~ Expense Recovery $1,151,521 $1,186,067 $1,221 ,649 $1 ,258,298 $1,296,047 $1,334,929 $1,374,977 $1,416,226 $1,458,713 $1,502,474 $1,547,548 $1,593,975

Vacancy/Credit Loss -$377.145 -$379,908 ~ :14QM@ ~ -$437.214 -$440,418 ~ ~ -$491,952 -$506,851 -$510,565

Effective Gross Income $5,091 ,455 $5,128,764 $5, 167,193 $5,476,280 $5,728,891 $5,902,391 $5,945,643 $5,990,192 $6,348,510 $6,641,355 $6,842,489 $6,892,630

Common Area Maintenance $430,735 $443,657 $456,967 $470,676 $484,796 $499,340 $514,320 $529,750 $545,642 $562,012 $578,872 $596,238 Insurance $71,789 $73 ,943 $76,161 $78,446 $80,799 $83,223 $85,720 $88.292 $90,940 $93,669 $96,479 $99,373

Taxes $648,997 $668,467 $688,521 $709,176 $730,452 $752,365 Sn4,936 $798,1 84 $822,130 $846,794 $872,197 $898,363 Management Fee $203,658 $205,151 $206,688 $219,051 $229,156 $236,096 $237,826 $239,608 $253,940 $265,654 $273,700 $275,705

Replacement Reserves $163,679 $168,590 llliSI ~ i1Mm $189,749 ~ ~ ~ $213.564 $219,971 $226.571 Total Operating Expenses -$1,518,859 -$1 ,559,807 -$1 ,601 ,984 -$1,656,206 -$1,709,425 -$1 ,7E!Q,774 -$1 ,808,244 -$1,857,138 -$1,919,997 -$1 ,981,693 -$2,041,219 -$2,096,250

Reversion atter selling costs, @ 10.00% $47 ,004,520 Debt Is shov.rn In Yield Worksheets

Operating Cash Flow $3,572,596 $3,568,957 $3,565,209 $3,820,074 $4,019,466 $4, 141,618 $4,137,399 $4, 133,054 $4 428,513 $4,659,662 $51 ,805,790 $4,796,380

kjaggers Page 1 ,,,.;m~oo1

INTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES YIELD ANALYSIS

PROPERTY REVERSION

The most comprehensive methodology is to utilize a reversion in the 23rd year. The net operating income (NOI), without any TIF benefits, in forecast Year 24 has been divided by an overall capitalization rate of 10%, which is considered reasonable for neighborhood retail property at this location, 23 years hence. This rate accounts for the risk over the holding period. The sales price has been reduced by 2% to accommodate sales costs.

CONCLUSION OF YIELD

IRR

The exlnbit below shows my calculation of investor yield for Parkville Commons based on the 23-year cash flow described previously.

All Cash Analysis without TIF

Pad Site Total Dev. Operating Total Year Sales Costs Cash Flow Cash Flow

2002 $1,980,000 -$44,307,826 $0 -$42,327 ,826 2003 $520,000 $1,112,465 $1,632,465 2004 $2,071,172 $2,071,172 2005 $2,624,490 $2,624,490 2006 $2,621,782 $2,621,782 2007 $2,618,993 $2,618,993 2008 $2,808,637 $2,808,637 2009 $2,957,003 $2,957,003 2010 $3,081,753 $3,081,753 2011 $3,078,614 $3,078,614 2012 $3,075,380 $3,075,380 2013 $3,295,229 $3,295,229 2014 $3,467,226 $3,467,226 2015 $3,572,596 $3,572,596 2016 $3,568,957 $3,568,957 2017 $3,565,209 $3,565,209 2018 $3,820,074 $3,820,074 2019 $4,019,466 $4,019,466 2020 $4,141,618 $4,141 ,618 2021 $4,137,399 $4,137,399 2022 $4,133,054 $4,133,054 2023 $4,428,513 $4,428,513 2024 $4,659,662 $4,659,662 2025 $51,805,790 $51,805,790

All Cash Investor Yield without TIF 7.39o/o

PAGE6 lnteara Realty Resources

INTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES YIELD ANALYSIS

IRR

This shows the all cash yield to the Applicant without any of the TIF benefits accruing to the ownership. Comparatively, the investor surveys indicate an average of 11.5% and a range from 10% to 14%.

The exhibit below shows the yield to he applicant on an all cash basis, with the TIF benefits as described in the cost benefit analysis.

All Cash Analysis with TIF

Pad Site TDD TIF Total Dev. Operating Total Year Sales Revenues Revenues Cost Cash Flow Cash Flow

2002 $1,980,000 $0 $0 -$44,307,826 $0 -$42,327,826 2003 $520,000 $369,156 $401,939 $1,112,465 $2,403,560 2004 $402,716 $443,888 $2,071,172 $2,917,776 2005 $740,155 $867,620 $2,624,490 $4,232,265 2006 $762,360 $893,649 $2,621,782 $4,277,790 2007 $785,230 $920,458 $2,618,993 $4,324,681 2008 $808,787 $948,072 $2,808,637 $4,565,496 2009 $833,051 $976,514 $2,957,003 $4,766,568 2010 $858,043 $1 ,005,809 $3,081,753 $4,945,605 2011 $883,784 $1 ,035,984 $3,078,614 $4,998,381 2012 $910,297 $1 ,067,063 $3,075,380 $5,052,741 2013 $937,606 $1,099,075 $3,295,229 $5,331 ,911 2014 $965,734 $1,132,047 $3,467,226 $5,565,00S 2015 $994,706 $1,166,009 $3,572,596 $5,733,311 2016 $1,024,548 $1,200,989 $3,568,957 $5,794,49~

2017 $1,055,284 $1,237,019 $3,565,209 $5,857,511 2018 $1,086,943 $1,274,129 $3,820,074 $6,181,14€ 2019 $1,119,551 $1,312,353 $4,019,466 $6,451,37( 2020 $1,153,137 $1,351,724 $4,141,618 $6,646,47~

2021 $1,187,731 $1,392,275 $4,137,399 $6,717,40€ 2022 $1,223,363 $1,434,044 $4,133,054 $6,790,461 2023 $1,260,064 $1 ,477,065 $4,428,513 $7,165,642 2024 $1,297,866 $1,521,377 $4,659,662 $7,478,905 2025 $1 336802 $1567018 $51805790 $54 709611

All Cash Yield with TIF 11.05%

This exhibit is the basis for comparison from which the primary conclusion of my analysis is derived The project generates an all cash yield of 11.05%, which includes the Transportation District and TIF benefits accruing to the owner. By comparison institutional grade investments yield between 10% and 14% with an average of 11.5%. It is my opinion that market participants would require a return higher than the average given nature of Parkville CODDllon's expected tenancy and the uniqueness of its design. Return in the 12% to 13% range would be expected.

PAGE7 lritegra Really Resources

INTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES YIELD ANALYSIS

IRR

Finally, the project will be developed with financing from Neighborhood Improvement District bonds and a bank loan. The availability and cost of financing does affect an investor's yield requirement. As such, I have included an analysis that shows a comparative leveraged yield for the project This analysis is referred to as the mortgage equity technique, which shows the equity yield when the financing is considered. The first is a sample of a marlret driven development with market tetmS of financing and market investor expectations. Accordingly I used 12.0% all cash yield given prior discussion of the range. This indicates an equity yield, the yield to the investor's equity contribution to the development, of22%.

MORTGAGE/EQUITY FORMULA ASSUMPTIONS - BASED ON MARKET DERIVED INVESTOR REQUIREMENTS

Loan-to-Value Ratio Interest Rate Amortization Period Mortgage Constant E ui Ratio

Mortgage Components Equity Components All Cash Market Yield - Given

The analysis with TIF is shown below.

75.00% 7.25%

25 years

8.67%

75.00% 25.00% 12.00%

Market terms for financing

8.67% 21.98%

rounded to

6.51 o/i 5.49o/i

12.00o/i

MORTGAGE/EQUITY FORMULA ASSUMPTIONS - SHOWS ALL CASH EQUIVALENT

Loan-to-Value Ratio Interest Rate Amortization Period

Mortgage Components Equity Components All Cash Yield with TIF

78.00% 7.09%

78.00% 22.00% 11.05%

Applicant's terms for financlne: - Blended

8.83% 18.93%

rounded to

6.88o/i 4.l 7o/i

1 l.05o/i

PAGE8 I ntegra Realtv Resources

INTEGRAREALTY RESOURCES YIELD ANALYSIS

IRR

The preceding exhibit uses the previously concluded all cash yield to Parkville Commons including the TIF and Transportation District Benefits accruing to the developer. That all cash yield was 11.05%. From that I demonstrate the equity yield (return to the investor's equity contribution) to be 19%.

From these exhibits, it is demonstrated that, but for the TIF and Transportation District benefits accruing to the Applicant, this development does not meet market yield requirements. Furthennore, even with these benefits, the return to the applicant is slightly below that which would be expected in a market driven project.

PAGE9 lntegra Reattv Resources

lNTEGRA REALTY REsOURCES CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATION

The analyst certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief

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

2. The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and is the analyst's personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions and conclusions.

3. The analyst has no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. The services performed herein are intended to result in an analysis, opinion or conclusion of a disinterested third party. This analysis has been conducted on an arms-length basis subject to the Standards of Professional Practice (USP AP} and the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.

4. The analyst's compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the came of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result or the occurrence of a subsequent event.

5. Receipt of the assignment was not based upon a requested minimum value, a specific value or approval of a loan.

6. The analyst's analyses, opinions and conclusions Ire developed and this report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USP AP). The analyst has not relied upon any departure provision of USP AP.

7. The analyst's analyses, opinions and conclusions Ire developed and this report has been prepared in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.

8. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.

9. The context of the consulting service and the scope of the assignment does not require an inspection of the improvements currently existing on the subject site. Kenneth Jaggers, Senior Analyst, made a personal inspection of the redevelopment area most recently on November 1, 2001.

IRR PAGE10 lnleqra Realty Resources

INTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES CERTIFICATION

10. No one provided significant professional assistance to the persons signing this report.

/~ / ,....-;,,.,. j I f ~·~--l7/~7;-- --~

/ Kenneth ."&i~ Senior Analyst

IRR

State of Missouri Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (RA 003190) Expiration Date: June 30, 2002

I ntegra Realty Resources PAGEll

INTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

This consulting report is subject to the following general asswnptions and limiting conditions:

1. Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable and the legal description correct.

2. No responsibility for legal matters is assumed. All existing liens, mortgages or other encumbrances have been disregarded and the property is analyz.ed as though under responsible ownership and competent management

3. Any sketches in this report are intended to be visual aids and should not be construed as surveys or engineering reports.

4. All infonnation in this report has been obtained from reliable sources. I cannot, however, guarantee or be responsible for the accuracy of infonnation furnished by others.

5. My opinions presented in this consulting report apply to Jand and improvements and intangible benefits accruing to the property only. The value of trade fixtures, furnishings and other equipment has not been included with the value of the real estate.

6. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply the right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the addressee without my written consent

7. I am not required to give testimony or attendance in court by reason of this appraisal, unless prior agreements have been made in writing.

8. The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only to the existing utilization. The separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used

9. The land, and particularly the soil, of the area under appraisement appears firm and solid. Subsidence in the area is unknown or uncommon, but I do not warrant against this condition or occurrence.

10. Subsurface rights (minerals and oil) were not considered in preparing this consulting assignment

11. The scope of this report does not an inspection of the improvements currently existing on the site. As such, my opinions presented in this analysis do not consider the presence, or lack there of, of termite damage, dry rot, or other infestation.

Ill h~U lntegra ReaHv Resources

INTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

12. The comparable data relied upon in this assignment is believed to be from reliable solll'Ces, and it was necessacy to rely on infonnation furnished by others as to said data. Therefore, the value conclusions are subject to the correctness and verification of said data.

13. I have inspected by observation, to the extent required by the scope of this assignment, the land and the improvements thereon; however it was not possible to personally observe conditions beneath the soil or hidden structural components within the improvements, therefore, no representations are made herein as to these matters and unless specifically considered in the report, the value estimate is subject to any such conditions that could cause a loss in value. Condition of heating, cooling, ventilating, electrical and plumbing equipment is considered to be commensurate with the condition of the balance of the improvements unless otherwise stated.

14. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the written consent and approval of the authors, particularly as to valuation conclusions, 1he identity of me or finn wi1h which they are connected or any reference to the Appraisal Institute.

15. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous substances, inchlding without limitation, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum leakage, or agricultural chemicals, which may or may not be present on the property, or other environmental conditions, were not called to my attention nor did I become aware of such during ilspection. I have no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property unless otherwise stated. I, however, are not qualified to test such substances or conditions. If the presence of such substances, such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde, fuam insulation or other hazardous substances or environmental conditions, may affect the value of the property, the value estimated is predicated on the assumption that there is no such condition on or in the property or in such proximity thereto that it would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is asswned for any such conditions, nor for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in the field of environmental impacts upon real estate if so desired.

16. I am not considered an expert with regard to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1991. Unless otherwise stated, no responsibility is assumed for any non-compliance with the provision of the ADA. The client is urged to retain an expert in the field of ADA assessment impacts upon real estate if so desired.

Ill h~n I ntegra Realty Resources

INTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES SPECIAL ASSUMP'TIONS AND LIMITING CONDI'TIONS

SPECIAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

The following asswnptions and limiting conditions have been specifically established for this consulting report:

1. It is assumed that any reader of this consulting report is familiar with the Applicant's Tax Increment Financing submission and the redevelopment project

2. I have relied solely on the development costs and sources and uses of funds provided by the Applicant. An analysis of the construction costs is beyond the scope of this assignment

3. This assignment with an effective date of November 1, 2001 has been based upon local and national economic conditions existing prior to the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001. Furthermore, the Applicant's submission to the City of Parkville was developed in large part, before the events of September 11, 2001. What impact these occurrences will have on economic conditions and the availability of mortgage funds are unknown at the present time and I recommend the client and other users of this report take this into consideration in their decisions regarding the property appraised.

IRR PAGE14 lntegra Realty Resources